In The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display, the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī answers a series of questions posed by the god Great Light concerning the appropriate conduct for bodhisattvas and the potential pitfalls and obstacles presented to bodhisattvas by Māra. Midway through the sūtra, the demon Māra himself appears and, after being captured and converted by Mañjuśrī, he begins to teach the Buddha’s Dharma to the audience. After revealing that Māra was never truly bound by anything other than his own perception, Mañjuśrī resumes his teaching for the remainder of the sūtra.
Translated by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee under the supervision of Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche. The translation was produced by Benjamin Ewing, who also wrote the introduction. Andreas Doctor and James Gentry compared the translation with the original Tibetan and edited the text.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The generous sponsorship of May and George Gu and family, which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.
The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display1 provides a teaching on the subject of the appropriate conduct for bodhisattvas. Set in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, on the outskirts of Śrāvastī, the sūtra is framed primarily as a conversation between the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī and the god Great Light, while the Buddha listens to their dialog and occasionally comments. The god Great Light poses a series of questions to Mañjuśrī as to how bodhisattvas should conduct themselves properly and avoid the negative influence of Māra. While these questions generally deal with basic tenets of Buddhism and monastic conduct, Mañjuśrī’s answers prioritize intention and proper view over actions themselves.
Midway through the text, the evil demon Māra makes an appearance in the form of a dark cloud (1.51). He is caught and bound by Mañjuśrī, who transforms him into a propagator of the Buddha’s teaching. In the section that follows, Māra unwillingly responds to questions from elder members of the sangha concerning proper conduct as well as the bodhisattva path. At the end of this section, the god Susīma requests Mañjuśrī to free Māra (1.75). Mañjuśrī responds by saying that Māra was never physically bound, just as beings are not truly bound by suffering either. In fact, both can be liberated by understanding the empty nature of their perceived bonds. Following this section, Mañjuśrī resumes his answers to questions about the bodhisattva path.
Throughout the sūtra, conventional aspects of the Buddhist path, from generosity and discipline to insight and wisdom, are framed within an understanding of the empty nature of phenomena. In response to questions about the most appropriate conduct, Mañjuśrī teaches that the primary concern must be the proper view, rather than physical actions. Likewise, while Māra is bound by Mañjuśrī’s power, he explains to the elder Upāli that upholding monastic discipline, too, is dependent upon understanding the empty nature of phenomena. Although the sūtra teaches that the view of ultimate truth is paramount, it also makes clear that bodhisattvas must engage with beings on the conventional level for the sake of helping others. In this way, skillful means and insight, which are so central to the path of the Mahāyāna, are united.
The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display is prominently placed in the Degé Kangyur as the fourth scripture in the General Sūtra section.2 It appears to have been an influential scripture in both India and Tibet, as it is quoted by scholars as prominent as Vasubandhu (fourth–fifth century
While there is no extant Sanskrit or other Indic version of this text, we can trace its textual history back to at least 289
This translation was prepared primarily based on the Degé Kangyur version of The Magical Display of Mañjuśrī. The Stok Palace manuscript and the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) were also consulted for variant readings.
[F.242.a]Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great monastic assembly of 1,250 monks. Also in attendance was a great assembly of bodhisattvas, as well as gods of the desire realm, gods of the form realm, and various gods of the pure abodes. There, surrounded and revered by his retinue of many hundreds of thousands, the Blessed One was teaching the Dharma.
Present in the assembly at that time was a divine being known as Great Light. Also present in the assembly was youthful Mañjuśrī. The god Great Light asked youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, when Māra creates obstacles to the bodhisattvas’ unexcelled and perfect awakening, then, Mañjuśrī, what are the workings of Māra with respect to bodhisattvas?”
Youthful Mañjuśrī replied to the god Great Light, “Divine being, as long as there are actions, there are the workings of Māra. As long as there are aspirations, misapprehensions, or valuations, there are the workings of Māra. As long as there are desires, conceptions, assumptions, or superimpositions, there are the workings of Māra. Also, divine being, clinging to the mind of awakening is the working of Māra. Clinging to an attitude of generosity is the working of Māra. Clinging to thoughts of discipline, patience, diligence, concentration, and insight is also the working of Māra.[F.242.b] Being arrogant about generosity, esteeming discipline, grasping at patience, adopting diligence, practicing concentration with marks, and having discursive insight are also the workings of Māra. Liking and wishing for the wilderness and falling into indifference are also the workings of Māra. Entertaining assumptions about having few desires, being content, engaging in ascetic practices, and reducing one’s possessions is also the working of Māra. To have assumptions and presumptions, such as ‘I abide in emptiness,’ ‘I rest free from marks,’ ‘I rest without wishes,’ ‘I rest without conceptual elaborations,’ and ‘I have obtained and adhere to the instructions of the Thus-Gone One,’ is also the working of Māra. Divine being, as long as there are objects of thought, imagination, superimposition, sight, hearing, discrimination, or cognition, there are the workings of Māra.”
“Mañjuśrī, from where do the workings of Māra arise?” asked the god.
“Divine being, the workings of Māra arise from exertion,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, in exertion, there is an opportunity for Māra. On the other hand, what could Māra accomplish with nonexertion? So exertion itself is the working of Māra.”
“Mañjuśrī, how do bodhisattvas exert themselves, and how do they not exert themselves?” asked the god.
“Divine being, even while they are engaged with duality, they are not exerting themselves,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? To abide in the world is to have engagement with duality. Divine being, exertion is a synonym for proper engagement. Proper engagement is a synonym for nonengagement. Nonengagement is a synonym for the absence of conceptual elaboration. Absence of conceptual elaboration is a synonym for proper engagement.
“Divine being, not engaging with the eyes or form is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas. Not engaging with the ear or sound,[F.243.a] the nose or smell, the tongue or taste, the body or texture, or the mind or mental phenomena is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas. Divine being, moreover, bodhisattvas do not engage with any affliction, yet they exert themselves for the sake of eliminating the afflictions of beings. This is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas. Divine being, moreover, bodhisattvas do not engage with the three realms, yet they engage with the beings who appear within the three realms. This is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, bodhisattvas engage in generosity free from arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting miserly beings. They engage in discipline without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting immoral beings. They engage in patience without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting vindictive beings. They engage in diligence without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting lazy beings. They engage in concentration without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting distracted beings. They engage in insight without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting ignorant beings. These, too, are known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, bodhisattvas engage in emptiness without arrogance. The absence of any view, while also not being free from views, is to engage in emptiness. Emptiness is empty of emptiness. Due to that emptiness, views are empty. Likewise, due to the emptiness by which views are empty, all phenomena are empty. To understand this—without having special pride in that understanding—is the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, divine being, bodhisattvas engage in the absence of marks without arrogance. The absence of any thought,[F.243.b] while also not being free from thoughts, is engagement in the absence of marks. The thought through which the absence of marks is conceived is the same as the absence of marks. Bodhisattvas understand the sameness of conceptual thinking and the absence of marks by means of conceptual thinking that is devoid of marks. To understand this—without having special pride in that understanding—is the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, bodhisattvas engage in the absence of wishes without arrogance, yet they also engage in willfully taking birth. Although they make aspirations, they do not form habitual thought patterns. Although they make aspirations, they are not involved in discursive thoughts due to those aspirations. Birth after birth, they are free of the views of the two extremes. They are free of the views of clinging to me and mine. Birth after birth, they are free of tumbling from death to rebirth. To understand this—without having special pride in that understanding—is the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, divine being, the most excellent proper engagement of bodhisattvas is as follows:
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas do not exert themselves; yet they engage in gathering all virtuous qualities, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the lack of a self, the lack of a being, the lack of a life principle, the lack of a soul, and the lack of a person; yet they also engage in the ripening of all beings, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in neither accepting nor rejecting anything; yet they also engage in embracing all phenomena, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the indivisibility of all buddhas and the realm of phenomena; yet they also engage in venerating, honoring, worshiping, and serving all buddhas, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with all buddhafields as being the field of space; yet they also fully engage with the ornamental array of qualities in the buddhafields,[F.244.a] through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with all noble ones as being manifestations of the unconditioned nature; yet they also engage with all the noble ones by venerating, respecting, and serving them, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the buddha’s body by considering it to be undefiled; yet they also engage with its major marks, minor marks, and adornments, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with all conditioned things by considering them to be unborn and unarisen; yet they also engage with them by intentionally taking rebirth in existence, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes; yet they also engage in teaching the abandonment of views, thoughts, and aspirations, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the superknowledges by considering them to be unborn; yet they also engage with miraculous displays by means of all the superknowledges, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the aggregates, elements, and sense sources as being unborn and uncompounded; yet they also engage in rejecting the aggregates, elements, and sense sources, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the understanding that existence has the nature of nirvāṇa; yet they also engage in ripening beings in saṃsāra, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the eye of insight; yet they also engage in accomplishing the divine eye, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the understanding that the Dharma is inexpressible; yet they also engage in teaching the Dharma by means of words and expressions, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the discernment of meaning and doctrine; yet they also engage in the discernment of expression and eloquence, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in knowing the capacities—both high and low—of all beings;[F.244.b] yet they also engage in teaching the Dharma appropriate to each being, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in comprehending the 84,000 activities of beings; yet they also teach the 84,000 collections of the Dharma, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“This, divine being, is the most excellent proper engagement of bodhisattvas.”
As youthful Mañjuśrī gave this teaching on proper engagement, the intention to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening arose within eight thousand gods from that assembly, and five thousand bodhisattvas developed acceptance that phenomena are unborn.
The Blessed One gave his approval to youthful Mañjuśrī, saying, “Excellent, Mañjuśrī! You have explained the proper engagement of bodhisattvas well.”
The god Great Light then asked youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, were you pleased when the Thus-Gone One gave you his approval?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Divine being, tell me, when one emanation gives approval to another emanation, does that emanation become pleased?”
“Mañjuśrī, if the emanation has no attachment or aversion, how could it become pleased?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “all phenomena have the inherent characteristic of being emanations, and so the Thus-Gone One and Mañjuśrī also have that characteristic. Therefore, why would I become pleased by being praised? By way of analogy, divine being, an echo does not become attached to pleasant or unpleasant sounds. Nor does it become averse to them. Divine being, in that way all phenomena have the inherent nature of an echo. The Thus-Gone One and Mañjuśrī both have that nature.[F.245.a] So how could I become pleased by being praised?”
“Mañjuśrī, to whom did the Thus-Gone One give his approval?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “to one who teaches that consciousness is nonabiding; to one whose mind is unobstructed concerning all the teachings; to one who does not perceive any being as a being; to one who does not perceive any phenomenon as a phenomenon; to one whose intention is set on nirvāṇa, while their activity is rooted in saṃsāra; to one who has understood the actions of Māra and knows the actions of Māra to be buddha activity; and, moreover, to one who understands that if one becomes attached to buddha activity, it too becomes the activity of Māra. It is to a bodhisattva who is righteous in that way, divine being, that the Thus-Gone One gives his approval.”
“Mañjuśrī, why is it that because you are righteous in that way, the Thus-Gone One gives you his approval?” asked the god.
Mañjuśrī replied, “Divine being, tell me, is there any difference within sameness?”
The god responded, “No, Mañjuśrī, there is no difference whatsoever within sameness.”
Mañjuśrī then said, “Divine being, whatever is the same as sameness is the same as the acts with immediate retribution. Whatever is the same as the acts with immediate retribution is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as views. Whatever is the same as views is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as the misunderstandings. Whatever is the same as the misunderstandings is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as keeping reference points. Whatever is the same as keeping reference points is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as the limit of saṃsāra. Whatever is the same as the limit of saṃsāra is the same as the limit of nirvāṇa. Whatever is the same as the limit of nirvāṇa is the same as the limit of the self.[F.245.b] Whatever is the same as the limit of the self is the same as the limit of reality. Whatever is the same as the limit of reality is the same as the limit of ignorance, existence, and craving. Whatever is the same as the limit of ignorance, existence, and craving is the same as the limit of knowledge and liberation. Whatever is the same as the limit of knowledge and liberation is the same as the limit of desire, aggression, and delusion. Whatever is the same as the limit of desire, aggression, and delusion is the same as the limit of emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes. Whatever is the same as the limit of emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes is the same as the limit of conditioned phenomena. Whatever is the same as the limit of conditioned phenomena is the same as the limit of unconditioned phenomena. Whatever is the same as the limit of unconditioned phenomena is the same as youthful Mañjuśrī.
“Divine being, this sameness means that all phenomena are the same. Therefore, all aspects of giving approval—such as who speaks, what they say, where they say it, and to whom they say it—are all the same, just like the sameness of the sky. Since the sky is unconditioned, it is beyond any sameness or difference. Whoever conforms, without conforming, to these types of sameness is the one who receives the Thus-Gone One’s approval.”
“Mañjuśrī, please clarify this with a Dharma teaching on the topic of what is commendable and not commendable,” requested the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “setting out for awakening with altruistic intent is commendable, while practicing trickery and deceit is not commendable. Not abandoning any being because of great compassion is commendable, while harming beings is not commendable. Not having any aggression toward beings is commendable, while a malicious attitude is not commendable. Confessing one’s transgressions openly[F.246.a] and declaring them without any lapse of time is commendable, while concealing one’s transgressions is not commendable. Acknowledging one’s own mistakes is commendable, while seeking out the faults of others is not commendable. Being grateful, being appreciative, being thankful, and repaying others’ kindness is commendable, while not being grateful, not being appreciative, not being thankful, and not repaying others’ kindness is not commendable.
“Becoming erudite is commendable, while mistaken learning is not commendable. Receiving the precepts without transgressing them is commendable, while receiving the precepts and then forsaking them is not commendable. Seeking out solitude and enjoying it is commendable, while enjoying socializing is not commendable. Sacrificing life and limb to stay in the wilderness is commendable, while being concerned for one’s life and limb is not commendable. Delighting in the noble tradition and knowing moderation are commendable, while being insatiable and greedy and yearning for what is unwholesome are not commendable. Being patient and caring toward the weak is commendable, while denigrating others is not commendable. A pure livelihood is commendable, while being lazy is not commendable. Not forsaking those who have gone for refuge is commendable, while being hostile to those who have gone for refuge is not commendable. Not breaking one’s promises and being true to one’s word is commendable, while deceiving anyone is not commendable.
“Upholding the holy Dharma is commendable, while abandoning the holy Dharma is not commendable. The teacher who is not stingy with his learning, who does not withhold the Dharma, and who teaches the Dharma without concern for material possessions is commendable. The teacher who is stingy with the Dharma, who withholds the Dharma, and who teaches the Dharma with concern for worldly things is not commendable.[F.246.b] Attracting beings with the goal of fully ripening them is commendable, while the teacher who attracts beings without concern for them and without the goal of ripening them is not commendable. Pursuing the six perfections is commendable, while discordance with the six perfections is not commendable. Actions undertaken with knowledge are commendable, while actions undertaken with pride are not commendable. Associating11 with close friends is commendable, while befriending evil people is not commendable. Following the path of the ten virtuous actions is commendable, while embarking on the path of the ten nonvirtuous actions is not commendable. Avoiding all unwholesome deeds is commendable, while engaging in any unwholesome deed is not commendable.
“Divine being, the going forth of those who hold reference points is not commendable, while the renunciation of those who espouse emptiness is commendable. Teaching the views of the lokāyatas from a lion throne is not commendable, while teaching the true Dharma of the Bodhisattva Collection from a lion throne is commendable. Partaking of gifts given out of faith while having flawed ethical discipline is not commendable, while any gain, praise, or laud for someone who observes ethical discipline is commendable. Knowledge endowed with special pride is not commendable, while communicating knowledge without special pride is commendable. Having malice toward bodhisattvas is not commendable, while having fondness for bodhisattvas as the only teachers is commendable. Pretending to be a bodhisattva in order to make a living is not commendable, while the profit of a bodhisattva committed to the authentic preaching of the Dharma is commendable. Divine being, in those ways, anything that contradicts the words of the Thus-Gone One is not commendable. Likewise, anything that accords with the words of the Thus-Gone One is commendable.”[F.247.a]
“Mañjuśrī, do you exert yourself in what is commendable, or in what is not commendable?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I do not exert myself in what is commendable, nor do I exert myself in what is not commendable,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, I do not exert myself in any phenomenon.”
“Mañjuśrī, do you not strive for commendable qualities?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I do not exert myself in virtuous phenomena, nor do I exert myself in nonvirtuous phenomena,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, virtue is conditioned. Nonvirtue is conditioned. Immovability12 is conditioned as well.”
“Mañjuśrī, are you unconditioned?” asked the god.
“Divine being, if seen from the perspective of being afraid of the conditioned, I am unconditioned,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, are you not afraid of the conditioned?” asked the god.
“Divine being, if I saw a conditioned thing that truly existed, then I would be afraid of the conditioned,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, have you not seen a conditioned thing that truly existed?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I have not seen a conditioned thing that truly existed, nor have I seen such an unconditioned thing that truly existed,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, are you conditioned or unconditioned?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I am neither conditioned nor unconditioned,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? If I were conditioned, I would be like all the childish, ordinary beings. If I were unconditioned, I would be like all the hearers and solitary buddhas.”
“Mañjuśrī, if you cannot be classified as either conditioned[F.247.b] or unconditioned, how should you be understood?” asked the god.
Mañjuśrī replied, “Divine being, what do you think? Is an emanation of the Thus-Gone One to be considered as conditioned or unconditioned?”
“Mañjuśrī,” said the god, “an emanation of the Thus-Gone One is not considered as conditioned, nor is it considered as unconditioned.”
Mañjuśrī then said, “Divine being, just as you understand the nature of the Thus-Gone One’s emanations, so should you understand me. Divine being, tell me, where does the consciousness of the Thus-Gone One abide? Is it in form?”
“No.”
“Does it abide in feeling, perception, or formations?”
“No.”
“Does it abide in the conditioned?”
“No.”
“Does it abide in the unconditioned?”
“No.”
“Where does the Thus-Gone One’s consciousness abide?”
“Mañjuśrī, the Thus-Gone One’s consciousness does not abide anywhere at all.”
“Divine being,” said Mañjuśrī, “you should understand that wherever the consciousness of the Thus-Gone One abides, there I abide.”
The god then asked, “Mañjuśrī, are you a thus-gone one?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Suchness has neither coming nor going. That is the way I go and the way a thus-gone one goes. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. I also come in the same way as suchness. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. I also abide in the same way as suchness. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. Divine being, Mañjuśrī is just like suchness. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. Since suchness is beyond concepts and peaceful, Mañjuśrī is also beyond concepts and peaceful. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one.”
“Mañjuśrī, where should I search for suchness?” asked the god.[F.248.a]
“Divine being, look for suchness in the sixty-two wrong views,”13 replied Mañjuśrī.
“Where should I look for the sixty-two wrong views?” asked the god.
“Divine being, you should look for the sixty-two wrong views in the Thus-Gone One’s liberation, which has the character of imperturbability,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, where should I look for the Thus-Gone One’s liberation?” asked the god.
“Divine being, you should look for the Thus-Gone One’s liberation in the mental states and thoughts of all beings,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, where should I look for all beings’ mental states and thoughts?” asked the god.
“Divine being, in the experience of the buddhas,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, where should I look for the experience of the buddhas?” asked the god.
“Divine being, you must search for this within the knowledge of the greater and lesser faculties of beings,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, how would you explain this in terms of lesser knowledge?” asked the god.
“Divine being, no one is able to understand or cognize the wisdom of a buddha,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, the wisdom of a buddha is unobstructed, beyond thinking, inexpressible, inexplicable, without engagement, and beyond words. It is separate from mind, mental faculty, and cognition. Therefore, no one could possibly understand or cognize it.”
“Mañjuśrī, if the wisdom of a buddha cannot be understood, how can hearers gain knowledge? How can bodhisattvas achieve the state of nonregression?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “the teaching of wisdom in words is the skillful means of the thus-gone ones. This wisdom is without words.[F.248.b] Divine being, fire does not arise from rubbing fire. Rather, fire arises from rubbing kindling sticks together. Divine being, just as in that analogy, if the thus-gone ones were to teach the vast wisdom of a buddha in full from the very beginning, then no one at all would comprehend the thus-gone ones’ wisdom. Therefore, the thus-gone ones make use of verbal teachings that are like kindling sticks to teach wisdom. Yet the wisdom itself is without words.”
“Mañjuśrī, what are these verbal teachings that are like kindling sticks like?” asked the god.
“Divine being, anything that is appropriate,” replied Mañjuśrī. “They can be teachings on vows and having few belongings, teachings on practicing the perfections, or teachings pertaining to the factors of awakening. These are known as teachings that are like kindling sticks.”
“Mañjuśrī, what teachings are not teachings that are like kindling sticks?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “teachings that are not about birth, destruction, or remaining; teachings that do not induce or exclude; teachings that do not explain affliction; teachings that do not cover the benefits of purification; teachings that do not inspire revulsion for saṃsāra; teachings that do not cause delight in nirvāṇa; teachings that are not for the sake of knowledge, abandonment, cultivation, or actualization; and teachings that are not for the sake of attainment or realization. Divine being, those are pure,14 meaningful teachings.”
The god then said, “Mañjuśrī, when you give advice like this, Māra will surely not come to create confusion. How wonderful!”
No sooner had he spoken than the Evil One, Māra, manifested as a giant storm cloud in the sky above that thundered with a loud roar. The entire assembly became frightened and thought, “Who roared like that?”
Then the Blessed One said[F.249.a] to youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, do you see the manifestation of the Evil One, Māra?”
“Blessed One, I see it,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Well-Gone One, I see it.”
Just then youthful Mañjuśrī ensnared the evil Māra with tight bonds. Māra, worried that he was going to fall down to earth, cried out, “I have been tied too tightly! I have been tied too tightly!”
“Evil One, there are other bonds that are far tighter than these,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Although you have always been bound by them, you have not realized it. What are they? They are the bond of the prideful thought ‘I am,’ the bond of misconception, and the bonds of craving and views. Evil Māra, those are far tighter bonds than the ones in which I have now ensnared you. Although they have always bound you, you have not realized it.”
Māra responded, “Mañjuśrī, let me go! I will return to my abode. I will not commit any demonic acts.”
“Evil One,” replied Mañjuśrī, “if you are meant to do the work of the Buddha, why would I let you go?”
Māra responded, “Mañjuśrī, I am here to cause obstacles to the teachings of the Buddha, so how could I do the work of the Buddha?”
Mañjuśrī then said, “Evil One, to cause a māra to engage in the work of a buddha is a manifestation of the bodhisattvas’ skills and knowledge. A buddha who performs buddha activity is not remarkable. A māra who performs buddha activity is truly amazing.” Having said this, youthful Mañjuśrī transformed the evil Māra so that he obtained the appearance of a buddha, sat on the lion throne of a buddha, and had the eloquence of a buddha.
Then the evil Māra said, “Venerable ones, ask me anything you wish.[F.249.b] I will then answer and put your minds at ease.”
The elder Mahākāśyapa inquired of the evil Māra, “Evil One, what are the bonds of a monk practitioner?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Mahākāśyapa, relishing the experience of concentration is a bond of a monk practitioner. Also, attachment to tranquility, practicing attainment in the sense source of neither perception nor nonperception, perceiving an essence in emptiness, perceiving wrong views as something to eradicate, perceiving an essence in the absence of marks, perceiving marks as something to eradicate, perceiving an essence in the absence of wishes, perceiving wishes as something to eradicate, perceiving an essence in nirvāṇa, and perceiving saṃsāra as something to eradicate—these are the bonds of a monk practitioner, Venerable Mahākāśyapa.
“Why is that? Venerable Mahākāśyapa, emptiness is not something that must be cultivated once views have been eradicated—rather, wrong views are themselves emptiness. The absence of marks is not something that must be cultivated once marks have been eradicated—rather, the very essence of marks is the absence of marks. The absence of wishes is not something to be cultivated once wishes have been eradicated—rather, the very essence of wishes is the absence of wishes. Nirvāṇa is not something that must be cultivated once saṃsāra has been eradicated—rather, the very apprehension of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa. Venerable Mahākāśyapa, nirvāṇa does not partake of any notions, assumptions, or apprehension of marks. Nirvāṇa is nothing other than birth, destruction, and exhaustion—and yet, nonorigination is itself, by nature, nirvāṇa.”
When this teaching was given, five hundred monks had their minds liberated from defilements, with no further appropriation.
The elder Subhūti addressed those monks,[F.250.a] saying, “Noble ones, who has trained you?”
The monks responded, “One who has no attainment and no complete awakening.”
“What is that training like?” asked Subhūti.
The monks replied, “There is no guidance aimed at the abiding nature, yet there is also no absence of such guidance; it is known, just as it is. There is neither producing nor obstructing it; things are known to be sameness.”
When those monks gave that teaching, twelve hundred gods purified the Dharma eye regarding phenomena, so that it became clear and immaculate.
Elder Subhūti then inquired of evil Māra, “Evil One, what monks are worthy of generosity?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Subhūti, those monks who do not receive or accept anything, but sustain themselves exclusively on faith and devotion. Venerable Subhūti, monks are worthy of generosity when they regard themselves, the recipient monks, as illusions, and the offering as a hallucination, and they partake of it with neither grasping nor the absence of grasping.”
Śāradvatīputra then inquired, “Evil One, what is the Blessed One’s teaching on the imperturbable absorption?”
Māra replied, “It is the absorption by which bodhisattvas do not bring even exhaustion to exhaustion, since it is entirely exhausted. Likewise, they do not produce even the unborn, since it is naturally unborn; nor do they invoke an experience of even the absence of experience, for they know all phenomena to be naturally attained. Knowing this, they reach the attainment in which all feelings are the attainment of cessation and are seen to be sameness. In this there is nothing whatsoever to be seen, nor is there anything that is not seen. This is the Blessed One’s teaching on the imperturbable absorption.”
Maudgalyāyana then inquired, “Evil One, how do monks attain power over all mind states?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana,[F.250.b] this occurs when monks understand all phenomena to have the characteristics of the liberated mind, without being attached to the characteristics of liberation. It occurs when they know that the mind is primordially liberated and beyond bondage and liberation. It occurs when they know that all phenomena are without form, because the mind is without form. It occurs when they see that all phenomena do not abide, because the mind does not abide. It occurs when they know that all phenomena cannot be grasped, because the mind cannot be grasped. And yet, even as there is no knowing the mind by means of the mind, it occurs when they know the essential nature of the realm of phenomena by means of the essential nature of the mind. It occurs when they attain the power of independence by means of the essential nature of the realm of phenomena. This is also the attainment of the miraculous powers of intention. Reverend Mahāmaudgalyāyana, monks like this have power over all mind states.”
Pūrṇa then inquired, “Evil One, how do monks teach the Dharma purely?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Pūrṇa, monks do so by not being attached to any notions of other or not other, even though they know all phenomena from each other. They do so by teaching that all phenomena are projections, and by understanding that all forms of syllables, speech, voices, and words are like echoes. They do so by seeing all those who listen to the Dharma as illusory beings, and by seeing the manifestations of their bodies to be like the moon reflected in water. They do so by knowing that all afflictions arise from superimpositions. They do so by not teaching the Dharma for the sake of possessing, discarding, avoiding, or obtaining anything. They do so without any hope of attaining mastery of the four types of correct understanding, and without any hope for approval. They do so by teaching the Dharma without asking for material possessions, and by knowing that, since their own minds are intrinsically pure, the minds of all beings are also intrinsically pure. Knowing that the mind is intrinsically pure, they see the māra of the aggregates as void.[F.251.a] They perceive the māra of the afflictions to be fabricated. They know that the māra of the Lord of Death is unborn and beyond birth. With regard to the māra of the gods, these monks are unshakable and free of all assumptions. Monks like this are pure teachers of the Dharma.”
Upāli then inquired, “Evil One, how do monks uphold the Vinaya?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Upāli, when monks know all phenomena to be fully tamed, they understand that the limit of the beginning of transgression is identical with the limit of disengagement. They clear away their remorse over the arising of faults and are no longer so strict. Since they can overcome even the acts with immediate retribution, there is no need to mention minor wrongdoing related to behavior and discipline. As such, they accomplish proper Dharma conduct. They are experts at taming the afflictions. They perceive that temporary afflictions are not defiled, and that they arise. They do not teach afflictions as being inside, outside, or neither. They know that such an understanding of the afflictions is to know their nonexistence, so they do not try to eliminate them or make them disappear. Rather, they know all afflictions to be like clouds, in that they use the wind of wisdom and special insight to scatter them in a way that they do not go anywhere or to any place, nor do they remain. They know that afflictions are like the moon in water, in that they show their faces through the reflections of superimpositions. They know that afflictions are like a dark realm, such that they use the lantern of wisdom to illuminate the darkness. They know that afflictions are like thieves, ḍākinīs, yakṣas, and rākṣasas, in that if one investigates properly, they do not remain. They know that afflictions always exploit our vulnerabilities, in that they proliferate with improper mental engagement.[F.251.b] They know that, through the knowledge of emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes, one prevents afflictions from entering the mind. Thus, whoever knows afflictions to be as such has compassion for beings tormented by afflictions, and they clearly perceive that there is no self and no being. When this has occurred, they are known as true upholders of the Vinaya.”
In this way, all the great hearers asked evil Māra the questions they wished, and evil Māra answered all of them conclusively, setting their minds at ease.
Present in the assembly at that time was the god Susīma, who asked the evil Māra, “Evil One, youthful Mañjuśrī spoke about the workings of Māra in relation to the bodhisattvas, but would you please also clarify? Evil One, what are the workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas?”
The Evil One replied to the god Susīma, “Divine being, there are twenty particularly severe workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas. What are those twenty? (1) Pleasing, serving, and venerating those practitioners who seek liberation and fear saṃsāra are the workings of Māra. (2) Contemplating emptiness, yet forsaking beings, is the working of Māra. (3) Contemplating the unconditioned, yet being weary of conditioned roots of virtue, is the working of Māra. (4) Generating concentration, yet attempting to turn away from concentration, is the working of Māra. (5) Teaching the Dharma, yet not having great compassion for the audience, is also the working of Māra. (6) Searching for those who have qualities and who are worthy of generosity, while harboring anger toward those who are immoral, is the working of Māra. (7) Teaching the discourses of the hearers and solitary buddhas, while concealing the teachings of the Great Vehicle, is the working of Māra. (8) Hiding the profound discourses, while teaching various other topics, is the working of Māra. (9) Knowing the path of the bodhisattvas,[F.252.a] yet not striving on the path of the perfections, is also the working of Māra. (10) Praising those who are particularly diligent, while not coaxing beings who are not diligent, is also the working of Māra. (11) Not actualizing the mind of awakening, despite having accumulated roots of virtue, is also the working of Māra. (12) Preventing others from grasping special insight, despite practicing special insight oneself, is also the working of Māra. (13) Seeking to terminate afflictions entirely, while aspiring for the afflictions in the continuation of saṃsāra, is also the working of Māra. (14) Using insight for analysis, while not maintaining one’s focus on great compassion, is also the working of Māra. (15) Any virtuous act that is performed unskillfully is also the working of Māra. (16) Not seeking the bodhisattva teachings, but rather, receiving the secret words of the lokāyatas, is also the working of Māra. (17) Being learned, yet being unwilling to share the Dharma out of anxiety that others will become learned, is also the working of Māra. (18) Working on worldly affairs without seeking erudition is also the working of Māra. (19) Failing to follow, serve, and venerate fellow bodhisattva Dharma teachers who practice the Great Vehicle, while delighting in dissimilar teachers who practice the vehicles of the hearers and solitary buddhas, is also the working of Māra. (20) When one has attained the greatness of resources, wealth, jewels, and power of Śakra, Brahmā, a world protector, a king, a merchant,15 or a householder, it is also the working of Māra if one abstains from following, serving, and venerating those endowed with the greatness of the Dharma. Divine being, these are the twenty particularly severe workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas.”
Then the Blessed One praised the evil Māra: “Evil One, you have explained the workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas very well—excellent! Bodhisattvas who hear about these workings of Māra and subsequently abandon them[F.252.b] will attain twenty qualities that ripen awakening. What are those twenty? They are (1) great kindness, (2) great compassion, (3) not being weary of saṃsāra, (4) being accepted by a spiritual friend, (5) encountering buddhas, (6) hearing about the perfections, (7) taking part in the assembly of bodhisattvas, (8) attaining dhāraṇī, (9) attaining perfect eloquence, (10) realizing the superknowledges, (11) receiving teachings one has not heard, (12) manifesting the mind of awakening in life after life, (13) always taking ordination without interruption, (14) having all the freedoms, (15) accomplishing teachings exactly as they were heard, (16) using the knowledge of skillful means and wisdom to attract beings and accept them, (17) upholding the true Dharma, (18) being honest and nondeceptive, (19) abandoning all beloved things, and (20) not having anger toward any being. They will attain these twenty qualities that ripen awakening.”
The god Susīma then said to the evil Māra, “Evil One, the Blessed One gave his approval to you. Evil One, you have obtained a great boon.”
Māra said, “Divine being, I did not obtain any boon! Why do I say this? Divine being, by way of analogy, the display of a person possessed by a spirit is regarded as the expression of the spirit, not of the person. Divine being, in that same way, I am teaching due to the blessings of Mañjuśrī; this should not be seen as my own doing.”
The god replied, “Evil One, you have the marks of a buddha’s body, you sit on a buddha’s lion throne, and you teach the Dharma with a buddha’s eloquence. So are you not happy?”
Māra responded, “Although you see me as being ornamented, I know that I am tied with tight bonds.”
“Evil One,” said the god,[F.253.a] “ask youthful Mañjuśrī for forgiveness, and he will release you.”
Then, by Mañjuśrī’s blessings, Māra replied to the god Susīma, “Divine being, one does not need to ask the bodhisattva great beings who have entered the Great Vehicle for forgiveness. Why is that? Because they are undisturbed and without anger. One needs to ask for forgiveness from individuals who are disturbed and angry.”
The god inquired, “Evil One, what is the patience of the bodhisattvas like?”
“Divine being,” replied Māra, “the patience of the bodhisattvas has twelve aspects. What are those twelve? It is intentional patience, because it is not artificial. It is altruistic patience, because it is without anger. It is honest patience, because it deceives no one. It is kind and compassionate patience, because it protects the poor and needy. It is patience in which actions are consistent with words, because it does not regress. It is a patience of emptiness, because it is free of views. It is a patience of confidence in the Dharma, because it is grounded in reality. It is profound patience, because it is selfless. It is appropriate patience, because it emulates the noble ones. It is true patience, because it is in harmony with dependent origination. It is a patience that is free from conformity and antagonism, because it safeguards all beings. It is an unborn and nonarising patience, because bodhisattvas have achieved acceptance that phenomena are unborn. Divine being, these are the twelve aspects of the bodhisattvas’ patience.”
The god then asked, “Evil One, if you were released, would you be happy?”
“Divine being, I would be happy—exhilarated!” replied Māra.
So the god Susīma said to youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, please release the evil Māra, so that he can return to his home.”
Youthful Mañjuśrī[F.253.b] then asked the evil Māra, “Evil One, who bound you? From what will you be released?”
“Mañjuśrī, I do not know who bound me,” replied Māra.
Mañjuśrī then said, “Evil One, just as you think you are bound when you are not, so all childish beings perceive the impermanent to be permanent, the painful to be pleasant, the selfless to be a self, the repulsive to be beautiful, the absence of form to be form, and the absence of feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness to be feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness. Evil One, if I free you, from what would you be freed?”
“I would not be freed from anything,” replied Māra.
“Evil One, in the same way, aside from understanding their mistaken perception, those who are liberated are not liberated from anything whatsoever. Thus, it is said they are liberated through understanding.”
At this point, youthful Mañjuśrī withdrew his blessing, so that the Evil One reassumed his own appearance.
The elder Mahākāśyapa then said to the evil Māra, “Excellent, Evil One—excellent! You have performed the deeds of a buddha!”
Māra replied, “Venerable Mahākāśyapa, this is not my doing. It is the work of youthful Mañjuśrī.”
The god Susīma then inquired of youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, where should one seek the deeds of a buddha?”
“Divine being, one should seek the deeds of a buddha in the afflictions of all beings,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Because if beings were not stricken with afflictions, the buddhas would have nothing to do. Divine being,[F.254.a] by way of analogy, if beings did not fall sick, there would be nothing left for doctors to do. Divine being, likewise, if beings were not stricken with afflictions, there would be nothing for the buddhas to do.”
“Mañjuśrī, what must happen for a buddha to appear?” asked the god.
“Divine being, if there is birth, old age, sickness, and death, a buddha will appear,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Because the blessed buddhas appear for the sake of eliminating them.”
“Mañjuśrī, once a thus-gone one has found awakening, what does he create? What does he prevent?” asked the god.
“Divine being, once a thus-gone one has found awakening, he does not create anything, nor does he prevent anything,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Because, divine being, all phenomena are unborn and unceasing. Divine being, the appearance of a buddha is just an epithet for the unborn inherent nature of things.”
“Mañjuśrī, how are bodhisattvas perfect in their intentions?” asked the god.
“By not engaging with any phenomenon by means of a view of observation,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are they perfect in their altruistic intent?” asked the god.
“They are not attached to any inner or outer phenomenon whatsoever,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their generosity?” asked the god.
“They have cast off all afflictions, but do not abandon any being,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their discipline?” asked the god.
“They practice just as the teacher taught. They establish beings in discipline and, because of their altruistic intentions,[F.254.b] they do not abandon the mind of awakening,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their patience?” asked the god.
“Understanding that all phenomena have the characteristic of destruction, they do not relinquish their omniscient dispositions in order to eliminate beings’ malice, anger, and aggression,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their diligence?” asked the god.
“Bodhisattvas do not give special regard only to achieving the object of their efforts, namely, unexcelled and perfect awakening, but also persist with diligence in order to rid all beings of laziness,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their concentration?” asked the god.
“Despite knowing that all phenomena are intrinsically in a state of equanimity, they still practice concentration in order to tame the afflictions of all beings,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their insight?” asked the god.
“When, having attained stillness, they are free of all conceptual elaboration, yet they still engage in analytical insight for the sake of ridding all beings of their views. At that time, bodhisattvas are perfect in their insight,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas abide in loving kindness?” asked the god.
“When they see all phenomena as being nirvāṇa by nature,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas abide in compassion?” asked the god.
“When they understand that the results of actions do not exist with regard to any phenomenon,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas remain in joy?” asked the god.[F.255.a]
“When they do not feel any joy or sorrow about any phenomenon,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas remain in equanimity?” asked the god.
“When they have become free of duality with regard to all phenomena,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas known as authentic bodhisattvas?” asked the god.
“When they know that all phenomena are unarisen, like illusions,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas great beings?” asked the god.
“When bodhisattvas see that all phenomena are selfless,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas supreme beings?” asked the god.
“When they know that all phenomena are ungraspable and groundless,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How have bodhisattvas donned the great armor?” asked the god.
“When they hear that all phenomena are as vast as the sky without trembling or being scared or terrified, and without abandoning the great armor,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas gentle?” asked the god.
“When, out of great compassion, they do not distance themselves from beings, but are not overly close through habitual attachment,” replied Mañjuśrī.
In The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display, the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī answers a series of questions posed by the god Great Light concerning the appropriate conduct for bodhisattvas and the potential pitfalls and obstacles presented to bodhisattvas by Māra. Midway through the sūtra, the demon Māra himself appears and, after being captured and converted by Mañjuśrī, he begins to teach the Buddha’s Dharma to the audience. After revealing that Māra was never truly bound by anything other than his own perception, Mañjuśrī resumes his teaching for the remainder of the sūtra.
Translated by the Dharmachakra Translation Committee under the supervision of Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche. The translation was produced by Benjamin Ewing, who also wrote the introduction. Andreas Doctor and James Gentry compared the translation with the original Tibetan and edited the text.
The translation was completed under the patronage and supervision of 84000: Translating the Words of the Buddha.
The generous sponsorship of May and George Gu and family, which helped make the work on this translation possible, is most gratefully acknowledged.
The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display1 provides a teaching on the subject of the appropriate conduct for bodhisattvas. Set in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, on the outskirts of Śrāvastī, the sūtra is framed primarily as a conversation between the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī and the god Great Light, while the Buddha listens to their dialog and occasionally comments. The god Great Light poses a series of questions to Mañjuśrī as to how bodhisattvas should conduct themselves properly and avoid the negative influence of Māra. While these questions generally deal with basic tenets of Buddhism and monastic conduct, Mañjuśrī’s answers prioritize intention and proper view over actions themselves.
Midway through the text, the evil demon Māra makes an appearance in the form of a dark cloud (1.51). He is caught and bound by Mañjuśrī, who transforms him into a propagator of the Buddha’s teaching. In the section that follows, Māra unwillingly responds to questions from elder members of the sangha concerning proper conduct as well as the bodhisattva path. At the end of this section, the god Susīma requests Mañjuśrī to free Māra (1.75). Mañjuśrī responds by saying that Māra was never physically bound, just as beings are not truly bound by suffering either. In fact, both can be liberated by understanding the empty nature of their perceived bonds. Following this section, Mañjuśrī resumes his answers to questions about the bodhisattva path.
Throughout the sūtra, conventional aspects of the Buddhist path, from generosity and discipline to insight and wisdom, are framed within an understanding of the empty nature of phenomena. In response to questions about the most appropriate conduct, Mañjuśrī teaches that the primary concern must be the proper view, rather than physical actions. Likewise, while Māra is bound by Mañjuśrī’s power, he explains to the elder Upāli that upholding monastic discipline, too, is dependent upon understanding the empty nature of phenomena. Although the sūtra teaches that the view of ultimate truth is paramount, it also makes clear that bodhisattvas must engage with beings on the conventional level for the sake of helping others. In this way, skillful means and insight, which are so central to the path of the Mahāyāna, are united.
The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display is prominently placed in the Degé Kangyur as the fourth scripture in the General Sūtra section.2 It appears to have been an influential scripture in both India and Tibet, as it is quoted by scholars as prominent as Vasubandhu (fourth–fifth century
While there is no extant Sanskrit or other Indic version of this text, we can trace its textual history back to at least 289
This translation was prepared primarily based on the Degé Kangyur version of The Magical Display of Mañjuśrī. The Stok Palace manuscript and the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) were also consulted for variant readings.
[F.242.a]Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!
Thus did I hear at one time. The Blessed One was residing in Śrāvastī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, together with a great monastic assembly of 1,250 monks. Also in attendance was a great assembly of bodhisattvas, as well as gods of the desire realm, gods of the form realm, and various gods of the pure abodes. There, surrounded and revered by his retinue of many hundreds of thousands, the Blessed One was teaching the Dharma.
Present in the assembly at that time was a divine being known as Great Light. Also present in the assembly was youthful Mañjuśrī. The god Great Light asked youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, when Māra creates obstacles to the bodhisattvas’ unexcelled and perfect awakening, then, Mañjuśrī, what are the workings of Māra with respect to bodhisattvas?”
Youthful Mañjuśrī replied to the god Great Light, “Divine being, as long as there are actions, there are the workings of Māra. As long as there are aspirations, misapprehensions, or valuations, there are the workings of Māra. As long as there are desires, conceptions, assumptions, or superimpositions, there are the workings of Māra. Also, divine being, clinging to the mind of awakening is the working of Māra. Clinging to an attitude of generosity is the working of Māra. Clinging to thoughts of discipline, patience, diligence, concentration, and insight is also the working of Māra.[F.242.b] Being arrogant about generosity, esteeming discipline, grasping at patience, adopting diligence, practicing concentration with marks, and having discursive insight are also the workings of Māra. Liking and wishing for the wilderness and falling into indifference are also the workings of Māra. Entertaining assumptions about having few desires, being content, engaging in ascetic practices, and reducing one’s possessions is also the working of Māra. To have assumptions and presumptions, such as ‘I abide in emptiness,’ ‘I rest free from marks,’ ‘I rest without wishes,’ ‘I rest without conceptual elaborations,’ and ‘I have obtained and adhere to the instructions of the Thus-Gone One,’ is also the working of Māra. Divine being, as long as there are objects of thought, imagination, superimposition, sight, hearing, discrimination, or cognition, there are the workings of Māra.”
“Mañjuśrī, from where do the workings of Māra arise?” asked the god.
“Divine being, the workings of Māra arise from exertion,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, in exertion, there is an opportunity for Māra. On the other hand, what could Māra accomplish with nonexertion? So exertion itself is the working of Māra.”
“Mañjuśrī, how do bodhisattvas exert themselves, and how do they not exert themselves?” asked the god.
“Divine being, even while they are engaged with duality, they are not exerting themselves,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? To abide in the world is to have engagement with duality. Divine being, exertion is a synonym for proper engagement. Proper engagement is a synonym for nonengagement. Nonengagement is a synonym for the absence of conceptual elaboration. Absence of conceptual elaboration is a synonym for proper engagement.
“Divine being, not engaging with the eyes or form is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas. Not engaging with the ear or sound,[F.243.a] the nose or smell, the tongue or taste, the body or texture, or the mind or mental phenomena is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas. Divine being, moreover, bodhisattvas do not engage with any affliction, yet they exert themselves for the sake of eliminating the afflictions of beings. This is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas. Divine being, moreover, bodhisattvas do not engage with the three realms, yet they engage with the beings who appear within the three realms. This is known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, bodhisattvas engage in generosity free from arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting miserly beings. They engage in discipline without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting immoral beings. They engage in patience without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting vindictive beings. They engage in diligence without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting lazy beings. They engage in concentration without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting distracted beings. They engage in insight without arrogance, yet they also engage in attracting ignorant beings. These, too, are known as the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, bodhisattvas engage in emptiness without arrogance. The absence of any view, while also not being free from views, is to engage in emptiness. Emptiness is empty of emptiness. Due to that emptiness, views are empty. Likewise, due to the emptiness by which views are empty, all phenomena are empty. To understand this—without having special pride in that understanding—is the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, divine being, bodhisattvas engage in the absence of marks without arrogance. The absence of any thought,[F.243.b] while also not being free from thoughts, is engagement in the absence of marks. The thought through which the absence of marks is conceived is the same as the absence of marks. Bodhisattvas understand the sameness of conceptual thinking and the absence of marks by means of conceptual thinking that is devoid of marks. To understand this—without having special pride in that understanding—is the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, bodhisattvas engage in the absence of wishes without arrogance, yet they also engage in willfully taking birth. Although they make aspirations, they do not form habitual thought patterns. Although they make aspirations, they are not involved in discursive thoughts due to those aspirations. Birth after birth, they are free of the views of the two extremes. They are free of the views of clinging to me and mine. Birth after birth, they are free of tumbling from death to rebirth. To understand this—without having special pride in that understanding—is the proper engagement of bodhisattvas.
“Moreover, divine being, the most excellent proper engagement of bodhisattvas is as follows:
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas do not exert themselves; yet they engage in gathering all virtuous qualities, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the lack of a self, the lack of a being, the lack of a life principle, the lack of a soul, and the lack of a person; yet they also engage in the ripening of all beings, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in neither accepting nor rejecting anything; yet they also engage in embracing all phenomena, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the indivisibility of all buddhas and the realm of phenomena; yet they also engage in venerating, honoring, worshiping, and serving all buddhas, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with all buddhafields as being the field of space; yet they also fully engage with the ornamental array of qualities in the buddhafields,[F.244.a] through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with all noble ones as being manifestations of the unconditioned nature; yet they also engage with all the noble ones by venerating, respecting, and serving them, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the buddha’s body by considering it to be undefiled; yet they also engage with its major marks, minor marks, and adornments, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with all conditioned things by considering them to be unborn and unarisen; yet they also engage with them by intentionally taking rebirth in existence, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes; yet they also engage in teaching the abandonment of views, thoughts, and aspirations, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the superknowledges by considering them to be unborn; yet they also engage with miraculous displays by means of all the superknowledges, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the aggregates, elements, and sense sources as being unborn and uncompounded; yet they also engage in rejecting the aggregates, elements, and sense sources, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the understanding that existence has the nature of nirvāṇa; yet they also engage in ripening beings in saṃsāra, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage with the eye of insight; yet they also engage in accomplishing the divine eye, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the understanding that the Dharma is inexpressible; yet they also engage in teaching the Dharma by means of words and expressions, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in the discernment of meaning and doctrine; yet they also engage in the discernment of expression and eloquence, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in knowing the capacities—both high and low—of all beings;[F.244.b] yet they also engage in teaching the Dharma appropriate to each being, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“With their knowledge of insight, bodhisattvas engage in comprehending the 84,000 activities of beings; yet they also teach the 84,000 collections of the Dharma, through their knowledge of skillful means.
“This, divine being, is the most excellent proper engagement of bodhisattvas.”
As youthful Mañjuśrī gave this teaching on proper engagement, the intention to reach unexcelled and perfect awakening arose within eight thousand gods from that assembly, and five thousand bodhisattvas developed acceptance that phenomena are unborn.
The Blessed One gave his approval to youthful Mañjuśrī, saying, “Excellent, Mañjuśrī! You have explained the proper engagement of bodhisattvas well.”
The god Great Light then asked youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, were you pleased when the Thus-Gone One gave you his approval?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Divine being, tell me, when one emanation gives approval to another emanation, does that emanation become pleased?”
“Mañjuśrī, if the emanation has no attachment or aversion, how could it become pleased?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “all phenomena have the inherent characteristic of being emanations, and so the Thus-Gone One and Mañjuśrī also have that characteristic. Therefore, why would I become pleased by being praised? By way of analogy, divine being, an echo does not become attached to pleasant or unpleasant sounds. Nor does it become averse to them. Divine being, in that way all phenomena have the inherent nature of an echo. The Thus-Gone One and Mañjuśrī both have that nature.[F.245.a] So how could I become pleased by being praised?”
“Mañjuśrī, to whom did the Thus-Gone One give his approval?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “to one who teaches that consciousness is nonabiding; to one whose mind is unobstructed concerning all the teachings; to one who does not perceive any being as a being; to one who does not perceive any phenomenon as a phenomenon; to one whose intention is set on nirvāṇa, while their activity is rooted in saṃsāra; to one who has understood the actions of Māra and knows the actions of Māra to be buddha activity; and, moreover, to one who understands that if one becomes attached to buddha activity, it too becomes the activity of Māra. It is to a bodhisattva who is righteous in that way, divine being, that the Thus-Gone One gives his approval.”
“Mañjuśrī, why is it that because you are righteous in that way, the Thus-Gone One gives you his approval?” asked the god.
Mañjuśrī replied, “Divine being, tell me, is there any difference within sameness?”
The god responded, “No, Mañjuśrī, there is no difference whatsoever within sameness.”
Mañjuśrī then said, “Divine being, whatever is the same as sameness is the same as the acts with immediate retribution. Whatever is the same as the acts with immediate retribution is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as views. Whatever is the same as views is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as the misunderstandings. Whatever is the same as the misunderstandings is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as keeping reference points. Whatever is the same as keeping reference points is the same as me. Whatever is the same as sameness is the same as the limit of saṃsāra. Whatever is the same as the limit of saṃsāra is the same as the limit of nirvāṇa. Whatever is the same as the limit of nirvāṇa is the same as the limit of the self.[F.245.b] Whatever is the same as the limit of the self is the same as the limit of reality. Whatever is the same as the limit of reality is the same as the limit of ignorance, existence, and craving. Whatever is the same as the limit of ignorance, existence, and craving is the same as the limit of knowledge and liberation. Whatever is the same as the limit of knowledge and liberation is the same as the limit of desire, aggression, and delusion. Whatever is the same as the limit of desire, aggression, and delusion is the same as the limit of emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes. Whatever is the same as the limit of emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes is the same as the limit of conditioned phenomena. Whatever is the same as the limit of conditioned phenomena is the same as the limit of unconditioned phenomena. Whatever is the same as the limit of unconditioned phenomena is the same as youthful Mañjuśrī.
“Divine being, this sameness means that all phenomena are the same. Therefore, all aspects of giving approval—such as who speaks, what they say, where they say it, and to whom they say it—are all the same, just like the sameness of the sky. Since the sky is unconditioned, it is beyond any sameness or difference. Whoever conforms, without conforming, to these types of sameness is the one who receives the Thus-Gone One’s approval.”
“Mañjuśrī, please clarify this with a Dharma teaching on the topic of what is commendable and not commendable,” requested the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “setting out for awakening with altruistic intent is commendable, while practicing trickery and deceit is not commendable. Not abandoning any being because of great compassion is commendable, while harming beings is not commendable. Not having any aggression toward beings is commendable, while a malicious attitude is not commendable. Confessing one’s transgressions openly[F.246.a] and declaring them without any lapse of time is commendable, while concealing one’s transgressions is not commendable. Acknowledging one’s own mistakes is commendable, while seeking out the faults of others is not commendable. Being grateful, being appreciative, being thankful, and repaying others’ kindness is commendable, while not being grateful, not being appreciative, not being thankful, and not repaying others’ kindness is not commendable.
“Becoming erudite is commendable, while mistaken learning is not commendable. Receiving the precepts without transgressing them is commendable, while receiving the precepts and then forsaking them is not commendable. Seeking out solitude and enjoying it is commendable, while enjoying socializing is not commendable. Sacrificing life and limb to stay in the wilderness is commendable, while being concerned for one’s life and limb is not commendable. Delighting in the noble tradition and knowing moderation are commendable, while being insatiable and greedy and yearning for what is unwholesome are not commendable. Being patient and caring toward the weak is commendable, while denigrating others is not commendable. A pure livelihood is commendable, while being lazy is not commendable. Not forsaking those who have gone for refuge is commendable, while being hostile to those who have gone for refuge is not commendable. Not breaking one’s promises and being true to one’s word is commendable, while deceiving anyone is not commendable.
“Upholding the holy Dharma is commendable, while abandoning the holy Dharma is not commendable. The teacher who is not stingy with his learning, who does not withhold the Dharma, and who teaches the Dharma without concern for material possessions is commendable. The teacher who is stingy with the Dharma, who withholds the Dharma, and who teaches the Dharma with concern for worldly things is not commendable.[F.246.b] Attracting beings with the goal of fully ripening them is commendable, while the teacher who attracts beings without concern for them and without the goal of ripening them is not commendable. Pursuing the six perfections is commendable, while discordance with the six perfections is not commendable. Actions undertaken with knowledge are commendable, while actions undertaken with pride are not commendable. Associating11 with close friends is commendable, while befriending evil people is not commendable. Following the path of the ten virtuous actions is commendable, while embarking on the path of the ten nonvirtuous actions is not commendable. Avoiding all unwholesome deeds is commendable, while engaging in any unwholesome deed is not commendable.
“Divine being, the going forth of those who hold reference points is not commendable, while the renunciation of those who espouse emptiness is commendable. Teaching the views of the lokāyatas from a lion throne is not commendable, while teaching the true Dharma of the Bodhisattva Collection from a lion throne is commendable. Partaking of gifts given out of faith while having flawed ethical discipline is not commendable, while any gain, praise, or laud for someone who observes ethical discipline is commendable. Knowledge endowed with special pride is not commendable, while communicating knowledge without special pride is commendable. Having malice toward bodhisattvas is not commendable, while having fondness for bodhisattvas as the only teachers is commendable. Pretending to be a bodhisattva in order to make a living is not commendable, while the profit of a bodhisattva committed to the authentic preaching of the Dharma is commendable. Divine being, in those ways, anything that contradicts the words of the Thus-Gone One is not commendable. Likewise, anything that accords with the words of the Thus-Gone One is commendable.”[F.247.a]
“Mañjuśrī, do you exert yourself in what is commendable, or in what is not commendable?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I do not exert myself in what is commendable, nor do I exert myself in what is not commendable,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, I do not exert myself in any phenomenon.”
“Mañjuśrī, do you not strive for commendable qualities?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I do not exert myself in virtuous phenomena, nor do I exert myself in nonvirtuous phenomena,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, virtue is conditioned. Nonvirtue is conditioned. Immovability12 is conditioned as well.”
“Mañjuśrī, are you unconditioned?” asked the god.
“Divine being, if seen from the perspective of being afraid of the conditioned, I am unconditioned,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, are you not afraid of the conditioned?” asked the god.
“Divine being, if I saw a conditioned thing that truly existed, then I would be afraid of the conditioned,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, have you not seen a conditioned thing that truly existed?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I have not seen a conditioned thing that truly existed, nor have I seen such an unconditioned thing that truly existed,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, are you conditioned or unconditioned?” asked the god.
“Divine being, I am neither conditioned nor unconditioned,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? If I were conditioned, I would be like all the childish, ordinary beings. If I were unconditioned, I would be like all the hearers and solitary buddhas.”
“Mañjuśrī, if you cannot be classified as either conditioned[F.247.b] or unconditioned, how should you be understood?” asked the god.
Mañjuśrī replied, “Divine being, what do you think? Is an emanation of the Thus-Gone One to be considered as conditioned or unconditioned?”
“Mañjuśrī,” said the god, “an emanation of the Thus-Gone One is not considered as conditioned, nor is it considered as unconditioned.”
Mañjuśrī then said, “Divine being, just as you understand the nature of the Thus-Gone One’s emanations, so should you understand me. Divine being, tell me, where does the consciousness of the Thus-Gone One abide? Is it in form?”
“No.”
“Does it abide in feeling, perception, or formations?”
“No.”
“Does it abide in the conditioned?”
“No.”
“Does it abide in the unconditioned?”
“No.”
“Where does the Thus-Gone One’s consciousness abide?”
“Mañjuśrī, the Thus-Gone One’s consciousness does not abide anywhere at all.”
“Divine being,” said Mañjuśrī, “you should understand that wherever the consciousness of the Thus-Gone One abides, there I abide.”
The god then asked, “Mañjuśrī, are you a thus-gone one?”
Mañjuśrī replied, “Suchness has neither coming nor going. That is the way I go and the way a thus-gone one goes. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. I also come in the same way as suchness. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. I also abide in the same way as suchness. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. Divine being, Mañjuśrī is just like suchness. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one. Since suchness is beyond concepts and peaceful, Mañjuśrī is also beyond concepts and peaceful. Therefore, I am a thus-gone one.”
“Mañjuśrī, where should I search for suchness?” asked the god.[F.248.a]
“Divine being, look for suchness in the sixty-two wrong views,”13 replied Mañjuśrī.
“Where should I look for the sixty-two wrong views?” asked the god.
“Divine being, you should look for the sixty-two wrong views in the Thus-Gone One’s liberation, which has the character of imperturbability,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, where should I look for the Thus-Gone One’s liberation?” asked the god.
“Divine being, you should look for the Thus-Gone One’s liberation in the mental states and thoughts of all beings,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, where should I look for all beings’ mental states and thoughts?” asked the god.
“Divine being, in the experience of the buddhas,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, where should I look for the experience of the buddhas?” asked the god.
“Divine being, you must search for this within the knowledge of the greater and lesser faculties of beings,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“Mañjuśrī, how would you explain this in terms of lesser knowledge?” asked the god.
“Divine being, no one is able to understand or cognize the wisdom of a buddha,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Divine being, the wisdom of a buddha is unobstructed, beyond thinking, inexpressible, inexplicable, without engagement, and beyond words. It is separate from mind, mental faculty, and cognition. Therefore, no one could possibly understand or cognize it.”
“Mañjuśrī, if the wisdom of a buddha cannot be understood, how can hearers gain knowledge? How can bodhisattvas achieve the state of nonregression?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “the teaching of wisdom in words is the skillful means of the thus-gone ones. This wisdom is without words.[F.248.b] Divine being, fire does not arise from rubbing fire. Rather, fire arises from rubbing kindling sticks together. Divine being, just as in that analogy, if the thus-gone ones were to teach the vast wisdom of a buddha in full from the very beginning, then no one at all would comprehend the thus-gone ones’ wisdom. Therefore, the thus-gone ones make use of verbal teachings that are like kindling sticks to teach wisdom. Yet the wisdom itself is without words.”
“Mañjuśrī, what are these verbal teachings that are like kindling sticks like?” asked the god.
“Divine being, anything that is appropriate,” replied Mañjuśrī. “They can be teachings on vows and having few belongings, teachings on practicing the perfections, or teachings pertaining to the factors of awakening. These are known as teachings that are like kindling sticks.”
“Mañjuśrī, what teachings are not teachings that are like kindling sticks?” asked the god.
“Divine being,” replied Mañjuśrī, “teachings that are not about birth, destruction, or remaining; teachings that do not induce or exclude; teachings that do not explain affliction; teachings that do not cover the benefits of purification; teachings that do not inspire revulsion for saṃsāra; teachings that do not cause delight in nirvāṇa; teachings that are not for the sake of knowledge, abandonment, cultivation, or actualization; and teachings that are not for the sake of attainment or realization. Divine being, those are pure,14 meaningful teachings.”
The god then said, “Mañjuśrī, when you give advice like this, Māra will surely not come to create confusion. How wonderful!”
No sooner had he spoken than the Evil One, Māra, manifested as a giant storm cloud in the sky above that thundered with a loud roar. The entire assembly became frightened and thought, “Who roared like that?”
Then the Blessed One said[F.249.a] to youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, do you see the manifestation of the Evil One, Māra?”
“Blessed One, I see it,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Well-Gone One, I see it.”
Just then youthful Mañjuśrī ensnared the evil Māra with tight bonds. Māra, worried that he was going to fall down to earth, cried out, “I have been tied too tightly! I have been tied too tightly!”
“Evil One, there are other bonds that are far tighter than these,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Although you have always been bound by them, you have not realized it. What are they? They are the bond of the prideful thought ‘I am,’ the bond of misconception, and the bonds of craving and views. Evil Māra, those are far tighter bonds than the ones in which I have now ensnared you. Although they have always bound you, you have not realized it.”
Māra responded, “Mañjuśrī, let me go! I will return to my abode. I will not commit any demonic acts.”
“Evil One,” replied Mañjuśrī, “if you are meant to do the work of the Buddha, why would I let you go?”
Māra responded, “Mañjuśrī, I am here to cause obstacles to the teachings of the Buddha, so how could I do the work of the Buddha?”
Mañjuśrī then said, “Evil One, to cause a māra to engage in the work of a buddha is a manifestation of the bodhisattvas’ skills and knowledge. A buddha who performs buddha activity is not remarkable. A māra who performs buddha activity is truly amazing.” Having said this, youthful Mañjuśrī transformed the evil Māra so that he obtained the appearance of a buddha, sat on the lion throne of a buddha, and had the eloquence of a buddha.
Then the evil Māra said, “Venerable ones, ask me anything you wish.[F.249.b] I will then answer and put your minds at ease.”
The elder Mahākāśyapa inquired of the evil Māra, “Evil One, what are the bonds of a monk practitioner?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Mahākāśyapa, relishing the experience of concentration is a bond of a monk practitioner. Also, attachment to tranquility, practicing attainment in the sense source of neither perception nor nonperception, perceiving an essence in emptiness, perceiving wrong views as something to eradicate, perceiving an essence in the absence of marks, perceiving marks as something to eradicate, perceiving an essence in the absence of wishes, perceiving wishes as something to eradicate, perceiving an essence in nirvāṇa, and perceiving saṃsāra as something to eradicate—these are the bonds of a monk practitioner, Venerable Mahākāśyapa.
“Why is that? Venerable Mahākāśyapa, emptiness is not something that must be cultivated once views have been eradicated—rather, wrong views are themselves emptiness. The absence of marks is not something that must be cultivated once marks have been eradicated—rather, the very essence of marks is the absence of marks. The absence of wishes is not something to be cultivated once wishes have been eradicated—rather, the very essence of wishes is the absence of wishes. Nirvāṇa is not something that must be cultivated once saṃsāra has been eradicated—rather, the very apprehension of saṃsāra is nirvāṇa. Venerable Mahākāśyapa, nirvāṇa does not partake of any notions, assumptions, or apprehension of marks. Nirvāṇa is nothing other than birth, destruction, and exhaustion—and yet, nonorigination is itself, by nature, nirvāṇa.”
When this teaching was given, five hundred monks had their minds liberated from defilements, with no further appropriation.
The elder Subhūti addressed those monks,[F.250.a] saying, “Noble ones, who has trained you?”
The monks responded, “One who has no attainment and no complete awakening.”
“What is that training like?” asked Subhūti.
The monks replied, “There is no guidance aimed at the abiding nature, yet there is also no absence of such guidance; it is known, just as it is. There is neither producing nor obstructing it; things are known to be sameness.”
When those monks gave that teaching, twelve hundred gods purified the Dharma eye regarding phenomena, so that it became clear and immaculate.
Elder Subhūti then inquired of evil Māra, “Evil One, what monks are worthy of generosity?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Subhūti, those monks who do not receive or accept anything, but sustain themselves exclusively on faith and devotion. Venerable Subhūti, monks are worthy of generosity when they regard themselves, the recipient monks, as illusions, and the offering as a hallucination, and they partake of it with neither grasping nor the absence of grasping.”
Śāradvatīputra then inquired, “Evil One, what is the Blessed One’s teaching on the imperturbable absorption?”
Māra replied, “It is the absorption by which bodhisattvas do not bring even exhaustion to exhaustion, since it is entirely exhausted. Likewise, they do not produce even the unborn, since it is naturally unborn; nor do they invoke an experience of even the absence of experience, for they know all phenomena to be naturally attained. Knowing this, they reach the attainment in which all feelings are the attainment of cessation and are seen to be sameness. In this there is nothing whatsoever to be seen, nor is there anything that is not seen. This is the Blessed One’s teaching on the imperturbable absorption.”
Maudgalyāyana then inquired, “Evil One, how do monks attain power over all mind states?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana,[F.250.b] this occurs when monks understand all phenomena to have the characteristics of the liberated mind, without being attached to the characteristics of liberation. It occurs when they know that the mind is primordially liberated and beyond bondage and liberation. It occurs when they know that all phenomena are without form, because the mind is without form. It occurs when they see that all phenomena do not abide, because the mind does not abide. It occurs when they know that all phenomena cannot be grasped, because the mind cannot be grasped. And yet, even as there is no knowing the mind by means of the mind, it occurs when they know the essential nature of the realm of phenomena by means of the essential nature of the mind. It occurs when they attain the power of independence by means of the essential nature of the realm of phenomena. This is also the attainment of the miraculous powers of intention. Reverend Mahāmaudgalyāyana, monks like this have power over all mind states.”
Pūrṇa then inquired, “Evil One, how do monks teach the Dharma purely?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Pūrṇa, monks do so by not being attached to any notions of other or not other, even though they know all phenomena from each other. They do so by teaching that all phenomena are projections, and by understanding that all forms of syllables, speech, voices, and words are like echoes. They do so by seeing all those who listen to the Dharma as illusory beings, and by seeing the manifestations of their bodies to be like the moon reflected in water. They do so by knowing that all afflictions arise from superimpositions. They do so by not teaching the Dharma for the sake of possessing, discarding, avoiding, or obtaining anything. They do so without any hope of attaining mastery of the four types of correct understanding, and without any hope for approval. They do so by teaching the Dharma without asking for material possessions, and by knowing that, since their own minds are intrinsically pure, the minds of all beings are also intrinsically pure. Knowing that the mind is intrinsically pure, they see the māra of the aggregates as void.[F.251.a] They perceive the māra of the afflictions to be fabricated. They know that the māra of the Lord of Death is unborn and beyond birth. With regard to the māra of the gods, these monks are unshakable and free of all assumptions. Monks like this are pure teachers of the Dharma.”
Upāli then inquired, “Evil One, how do monks uphold the Vinaya?”
Māra replied, “Venerable Upāli, when monks know all phenomena to be fully tamed, they understand that the limit of the beginning of transgression is identical with the limit of disengagement. They clear away their remorse over the arising of faults and are no longer so strict. Since they can overcome even the acts with immediate retribution, there is no need to mention minor wrongdoing related to behavior and discipline. As such, they accomplish proper Dharma conduct. They are experts at taming the afflictions. They perceive that temporary afflictions are not defiled, and that they arise. They do not teach afflictions as being inside, outside, or neither. They know that such an understanding of the afflictions is to know their nonexistence, so they do not try to eliminate them or make them disappear. Rather, they know all afflictions to be like clouds, in that they use the wind of wisdom and special insight to scatter them in a way that they do not go anywhere or to any place, nor do they remain. They know that afflictions are like the moon in water, in that they show their faces through the reflections of superimpositions. They know that afflictions are like a dark realm, such that they use the lantern of wisdom to illuminate the darkness. They know that afflictions are like thieves, ḍākinīs, yakṣas, and rākṣasas, in that if one investigates properly, they do not remain. They know that afflictions always exploit our vulnerabilities, in that they proliferate with improper mental engagement.[F.251.b] They know that, through the knowledge of emptiness, the absence of marks, and the absence of wishes, one prevents afflictions from entering the mind. Thus, whoever knows afflictions to be as such has compassion for beings tormented by afflictions, and they clearly perceive that there is no self and no being. When this has occurred, they are known as true upholders of the Vinaya.”
In this way, all the great hearers asked evil Māra the questions they wished, and evil Māra answered all of them conclusively, setting their minds at ease.
Present in the assembly at that time was the god Susīma, who asked the evil Māra, “Evil One, youthful Mañjuśrī spoke about the workings of Māra in relation to the bodhisattvas, but would you please also clarify? Evil One, what are the workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas?”
The Evil One replied to the god Susīma, “Divine being, there are twenty particularly severe workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas. What are those twenty? (1) Pleasing, serving, and venerating those practitioners who seek liberation and fear saṃsāra are the workings of Māra. (2) Contemplating emptiness, yet forsaking beings, is the working of Māra. (3) Contemplating the unconditioned, yet being weary of conditioned roots of virtue, is the working of Māra. (4) Generating concentration, yet attempting to turn away from concentration, is the working of Māra. (5) Teaching the Dharma, yet not having great compassion for the audience, is also the working of Māra. (6) Searching for those who have qualities and who are worthy of generosity, while harboring anger toward those who are immoral, is the working of Māra. (7) Teaching the discourses of the hearers and solitary buddhas, while concealing the teachings of the Great Vehicle, is the working of Māra. (8) Hiding the profound discourses, while teaching various other topics, is the working of Māra. (9) Knowing the path of the bodhisattvas,[F.252.a] yet not striving on the path of the perfections, is also the working of Māra. (10) Praising those who are particularly diligent, while not coaxing beings who are not diligent, is also the working of Māra. (11) Not actualizing the mind of awakening, despite having accumulated roots of virtue, is also the working of Māra. (12) Preventing others from grasping special insight, despite practicing special insight oneself, is also the working of Māra. (13) Seeking to terminate afflictions entirely, while aspiring for the afflictions in the continuation of saṃsāra, is also the working of Māra. (14) Using insight for analysis, while not maintaining one’s focus on great compassion, is also the working of Māra. (15) Any virtuous act that is performed unskillfully is also the working of Māra. (16) Not seeking the bodhisattva teachings, but rather, receiving the secret words of the lokāyatas, is also the working of Māra. (17) Being learned, yet being unwilling to share the Dharma out of anxiety that others will become learned, is also the working of Māra. (18) Working on worldly affairs without seeking erudition is also the working of Māra. (19) Failing to follow, serve, and venerate fellow bodhisattva Dharma teachers who practice the Great Vehicle, while delighting in dissimilar teachers who practice the vehicles of the hearers and solitary buddhas, is also the working of Māra. (20) When one has attained the greatness of resources, wealth, jewels, and power of Śakra, Brahmā, a world protector, a king, a merchant,15 or a householder, it is also the working of Māra if one abstains from following, serving, and venerating those endowed with the greatness of the Dharma. Divine being, these are the twenty particularly severe workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas.”
Then the Blessed One praised the evil Māra: “Evil One, you have explained the workings of Māra for the bodhisattvas very well—excellent! Bodhisattvas who hear about these workings of Māra and subsequently abandon them[F.252.b] will attain twenty qualities that ripen awakening. What are those twenty? They are (1) great kindness, (2) great compassion, (3) not being weary of saṃsāra, (4) being accepted by a spiritual friend, (5) encountering buddhas, (6) hearing about the perfections, (7) taking part in the assembly of bodhisattvas, (8) attaining dhāraṇī, (9) attaining perfect eloquence, (10) realizing the superknowledges, (11) receiving teachings one has not heard, (12) manifesting the mind of awakening in life after life, (13) always taking ordination without interruption, (14) having all the freedoms, (15) accomplishing teachings exactly as they were heard, (16) using the knowledge of skillful means and wisdom to attract beings and accept them, (17) upholding the true Dharma, (18) being honest and nondeceptive, (19) abandoning all beloved things, and (20) not having anger toward any being. They will attain these twenty qualities that ripen awakening.”
The god Susīma then said to the evil Māra, “Evil One, the Blessed One gave his approval to you. Evil One, you have obtained a great boon.”
Māra said, “Divine being, I did not obtain any boon! Why do I say this? Divine being, by way of analogy, the display of a person possessed by a spirit is regarded as the expression of the spirit, not of the person. Divine being, in that same way, I am teaching due to the blessings of Mañjuśrī; this should not be seen as my own doing.”
The god replied, “Evil One, you have the marks of a buddha’s body, you sit on a buddha’s lion throne, and you teach the Dharma with a buddha’s eloquence. So are you not happy?”
Māra responded, “Although you see me as being ornamented, I know that I am tied with tight bonds.”
“Evil One,” said the god,[F.253.a] “ask youthful Mañjuśrī for forgiveness, and he will release you.”
Then, by Mañjuśrī’s blessings, Māra replied to the god Susīma, “Divine being, one does not need to ask the bodhisattva great beings who have entered the Great Vehicle for forgiveness. Why is that? Because they are undisturbed and without anger. One needs to ask for forgiveness from individuals who are disturbed and angry.”
The god inquired, “Evil One, what is the patience of the bodhisattvas like?”
“Divine being,” replied Māra, “the patience of the bodhisattvas has twelve aspects. What are those twelve? It is intentional patience, because it is not artificial. It is altruistic patience, because it is without anger. It is honest patience, because it deceives no one. It is kind and compassionate patience, because it protects the poor and needy. It is patience in which actions are consistent with words, because it does not regress. It is a patience of emptiness, because it is free of views. It is a patience of confidence in the Dharma, because it is grounded in reality. It is profound patience, because it is selfless. It is appropriate patience, because it emulates the noble ones. It is true patience, because it is in harmony with dependent origination. It is a patience that is free from conformity and antagonism, because it safeguards all beings. It is an unborn and nonarising patience, because bodhisattvas have achieved acceptance that phenomena are unborn. Divine being, these are the twelve aspects of the bodhisattvas’ patience.”
The god then asked, “Evil One, if you were released, would you be happy?”
“Divine being, I would be happy—exhilarated!” replied Māra.
So the god Susīma said to youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, please release the evil Māra, so that he can return to his home.”
Youthful Mañjuśrī[F.253.b] then asked the evil Māra, “Evil One, who bound you? From what will you be released?”
“Mañjuśrī, I do not know who bound me,” replied Māra.
Mañjuśrī then said, “Evil One, just as you think you are bound when you are not, so all childish beings perceive the impermanent to be permanent, the painful to be pleasant, the selfless to be a self, the repulsive to be beautiful, the absence of form to be form, and the absence of feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness to be feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness. Evil One, if I free you, from what would you be freed?”
“I would not be freed from anything,” replied Māra.
“Evil One, in the same way, aside from understanding their mistaken perception, those who are liberated are not liberated from anything whatsoever. Thus, it is said they are liberated through understanding.”
At this point, youthful Mañjuśrī withdrew his blessing, so that the Evil One reassumed his own appearance.
The elder Mahākāśyapa then said to the evil Māra, “Excellent, Evil One—excellent! You have performed the deeds of a buddha!”
Māra replied, “Venerable Mahākāśyapa, this is not my doing. It is the work of youthful Mañjuśrī.”
The god Susīma then inquired of youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, where should one seek the deeds of a buddha?”
“Divine being, one should seek the deeds of a buddha in the afflictions of all beings,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Because if beings were not stricken with afflictions, the buddhas would have nothing to do. Divine being,[F.254.a] by way of analogy, if beings did not fall sick, there would be nothing left for doctors to do. Divine being, likewise, if beings were not stricken with afflictions, there would be nothing for the buddhas to do.”
“Mañjuśrī, what must happen for a buddha to appear?” asked the god.
“Divine being, if there is birth, old age, sickness, and death, a buddha will appear,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Because the blessed buddhas appear for the sake of eliminating them.”
“Mañjuśrī, once a thus-gone one has found awakening, what does he create? What does he prevent?” asked the god.
“Divine being, once a thus-gone one has found awakening, he does not create anything, nor does he prevent anything,” replied Mañjuśrī. “Why is that? Because, divine being, all phenomena are unborn and unceasing. Divine being, the appearance of a buddha is just an epithet for the unborn inherent nature of things.”
“Mañjuśrī, how are bodhisattvas perfect in their intentions?” asked the god.
“By not engaging with any phenomenon by means of a view of observation,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are they perfect in their altruistic intent?” asked the god.
“They are not attached to any inner or outer phenomenon whatsoever,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their generosity?” asked the god.
“They have cast off all afflictions, but do not abandon any being,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their discipline?” asked the god.
“They practice just as the teacher taught. They establish beings in discipline and, because of their altruistic intentions,[F.254.b] they do not abandon the mind of awakening,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their patience?” asked the god.
“Understanding that all phenomena have the characteristic of destruction, they do not relinquish their omniscient dispositions in order to eliminate beings’ malice, anger, and aggression,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their diligence?” asked the god.
“Bodhisattvas do not give special regard only to achieving the object of their efforts, namely, unexcelled and perfect awakening, but also persist with diligence in order to rid all beings of laziness,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their concentration?” asked the god.
“Despite knowing that all phenomena are intrinsically in a state of equanimity, they still practice concentration in order to tame the afflictions of all beings,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas perfect in their insight?” asked the god.
“When, having attained stillness, they are free of all conceptual elaboration, yet they still engage in analytical insight for the sake of ridding all beings of their views. At that time, bodhisattvas are perfect in their insight,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas abide in loving kindness?” asked the god.
“When they see all phenomena as being nirvāṇa by nature,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas abide in compassion?” asked the god.
“When they understand that the results of actions do not exist with regard to any phenomenon,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas remain in joy?” asked the god.[F.255.a]
“When they do not feel any joy or sorrow about any phenomenon,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How do bodhisattvas remain in equanimity?” asked the god.
“When they have become free of duality with regard to all phenomena,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas known as authentic bodhisattvas?” asked the god.
“When they know that all phenomena are unarisen, like illusions,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas great beings?” asked the god.
“When bodhisattvas see that all phenomena are selfless,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas supreme beings?” asked the god.
“When they know that all phenomena are ungraspable and groundless,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How have bodhisattvas donned the great armor?” asked the god.
“When they hear that all phenomena are as vast as the sky without trembling or being scared or terrified, and without abandoning the great armor,” replied Mañjuśrī.
“How are bodhisattvas gentle?” asked the god.
“When, out of great compassion, they do not distance themselves from beings, but are not overly close through habitual attachment,” replied Mañjuśrī.
The Sanskrit title of this text varies between two alternatives across the Tibetan versions. Most attest to Mañjuśrīvikurvāṇaparivarta while some give Mañjuśrīvikurvitaparivarta. The latter title appears in the Stok, Ulaanbaatar, Shey, Hemis, Phukdrak, Namgyal, Chizhi, Dongkarla, Gangteng, and Neyphug Kangyurs and the Basgo fragments, while the former title appears in the rest.
The order of the sūtras varies across the different Kangyurs. The Magical Display of Mañjuśrī is placed among the first texts of the General Sūtra section in Kangyurs related to the Degé, while it appears later in some other Kangyurs.
The sūtra is quoted in the text yid bzhin rin po che’i mdzod kyi dka’ gnad. (Drimé Özer 1999, folio 16.a).
For an English translation of Toh 96, see Braarvig, Jens (tr.) The Play of Mañjuśrī (2020). For one example of the confusion of the two texts, see Jñānavajra’s commentary on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra in the Tengyur (Toh 4019), folio 121.a, where a passage cited as being from this text, The Chapter on Mañjuśrī’s Magical Display, is in fact from The Play of Mañjuśrī (1.195).
This is a standard set of three terms characterizing actions and their karmic consequences: virtuous, nonvirtuous, and unmoving. This third term refers to acts that lead to rebirth in the formless realm and are so called because their result is unchangeable. See Edgerton’s entry on aniñjya (p. 24) for further information.
These are typically organized into two general groups: 18 views that are based on the assertion of the past and 44 views based on the assertion of the future. The first group includes assertions such as the permanence of the self and the world, impermanence, nihilism, or eternalism, and the second group includes assertions of perception, nonperception, both, or neither, as well as assertions of nihilism or that this is nirvāṇa. See also Nordrang Orgyen 2008, 3578.
The text reads cho ga shes pa, “know the procedure/behavior.” Since this makes little sense in the given context, and because of the easily confused orthography, we are emending it to chog shes pa, “content.”
An attainment characteristic of the effortless and spontaneous wakefulness of the eighth ground of the bodhisattvas.
The mistaken view that identifies the self with the ultimately transient collection of mind and body.
A high-ranking deity presiding over a divine world; he is also considered to be the lord of the Sahā world (our universe). Though not considered a creator god in Buddhism, Brahmā occupies an important place as one of two gods (the other being Indra/Śakra) said to have first exhorted the Buddha Śākyamuni to teach the Dharma. The particular heavens found in the form realm over which Brahmā rules are often some of the most sought-after realms of higher rebirth in Buddhist literature. Since there are many universes or world systems, there are also multiple Brahmās presiding over them. His most frequent epithets are “Lord of the Sahā World” (sahāṃpati) and Great Brahmā (mahābrahman).
A class of female deities.
This term is used in various ways. In this case it appears to refer to the mental capacity of not forgetting. It is also very commonly used as a term for mystical verses similar to mantras, the usage of which will grant a particular power.
The set of practices that lead to awakening, traditionally listed as thirty-seven.
These are killing one’s mother, father, or an arhat; drawing blood from a thus-gone one; or causing a schism in the saṅgha.
Genuine discrimination with respect to phenomena, meaning, language, and eloquence.
A divine being.
Someone who practices according to the Vehicle of the Hearers (“those who hear” the Buddha's teaching, i.e., his disciples). In a Mahāyāna context it refers to those disciples of the Buddha who aspire to attain the state of an arhat.
See “five acts with immediate retribution.”
One of the first Buddhist monasteries, located in a park outside Śrāvastī, the capital of the ancient kingdom of Kośala in northern India. This park was originally owned by Prince Jeta, hence the name Jetavana, meaning Jeta’s grove. The wealthy merchant Anāthapiṇḍada, wishing to offer it to the Buddha, sought to buy it from him, but the prince, not wishing to sell, said he would only do so if Anāthapiṇḍada covered the entire property with gold coins. Anāthapiṇḍada agreed, and managed to cover all of the park except the entrance, hence the name Anāthapiṇḍadasyārāmaḥ, meaning Anāthapiṇḍada’s park. The place is usually referred to in the sūtras as “Jetavana, Anāthapiṇḍada’s park,” and according to the Saṃghabhedavastu the Buddha used Prince Jeta’s name in first place because that was Prince Jeta’s own unspoken wish while Anāthapiṇḍada was offering the park. Inspired by the occasion and the Buddha’s use of his name, Prince Jeta then offered the rest of the property and had an entrance gate built. The Buddha specifically instructed those who recite the sūtras to use Prince Jeta’s name in first place to commemorate the mutual effort of both benefactors.
Anāthapiṇḍada built residences for the monks, to house them during the monsoon season, thus creating the first Buddhist monastery. It was one of the Buddha’s main residences, where he spent around nineteen rainy season retreats, and it was therefore the setting for many of the Buddha’s discourses and events. According to the travel accounts of Chinese monks, it was still in use as a Buddhist monastery in the early fifth century ᴄᴇ, but by the sixth century it had been reduced to ruins.
An Indian paṇḍita resident in Tibet during the late eighth and early ninth centuries.
This term has three meanings: (1) the ultimate nature, (2) the experience of the ultimate nature, and (3) the quiescent state of a worthy one (arhat) to be avoided by bodhisattvas.
While this term is used a name for the ancient Indian school of materialist philosophy, it can also refer to non-Buddhists in general.
One of the principal students of the Buddha, known for his ascetic practice.
Mañjuśrī is one of the “eight close sons of the Buddha” and a bodhisattva who embodies wisdom. He is a major figure in the Mahāyāna sūtras, appearing often as an interlocutor of the Buddha. In his most well-known iconographic form, he is portrayed bearing the sword of wisdom in his right hand and a volume of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra in his left. To his name, Mañjuśrī, meaning “Gentle and Glorious One,” is often added the epithet Kumārabhūta, “having a youthful form.” He is also called Mañjughoṣa, Mañjusvara, and Pañcaśikha.
Māra, literally “death” or “maker of death,” is the name of the deva who tried to prevent the Buddha from achieving awakening, the name given to the class of beings he leads, and also an impersonal term for the destructive forces that keep beings imprisoned in saṃsāra:
(1) As a deva, Māra is said to be the principal deity in the Heaven of Making Use of Others’ Emanations (paranirmitavaśavartin), the highest paradise in the desire realm. He famously attempted to prevent the Buddha’s awakening under the Bodhi tree—see The Play in Full (Toh 95), 21.1—and later sought many times to thwart the Buddha’s activity. In the sūtras, he often also creates obstacles to the progress of śrāvakas and bodhisattvas. (2) The devas ruled over by Māra are collectively called mārakāyika or mārakāyikadevatā, the “deities of Māra’s family or class.” In general, these māras too do not wish any being to escape from saṃsāra, but can also change their ways and even end up developing faith in the Buddha, as exemplified by Sārthavāha; see The Play in Full (Toh 95), 21.14 and 21.43. (3) The term māra can also be understood as personifying four defects that prevent awakening, called (i) the divine māra (devaputramāra), which is the distraction of pleasures; (ii) the māra of Death (mṛtyumāra), which is having one’s life interrupted; (iii) the māra of the aggregates (skandhamāra), which is identifying with the five aggregates; and (iv) the māra of the afflictions (kleśamāra), which is being under the sway of the negative emotions of desire, hatred, and ignorance.
This is the figurative or embodied demon of emotional disturbances.
This is the figurative or embodied demon of the constituents in a being.
This is the figurative or embodied demon of pleasure.
This is the figurative or embodied demon of death.
An elder monk in the Buddha’s retinue, famous for his mastery of supranormal powers.
Being content with one’s garments, food, and lodging and observing ethical behavior.
A stage on the bodhisattva path where the practitioner will never turn back, or be turned back, from progress toward the full awakening of a buddha.
One of the closest disciples of the Buddha, famous for his ability to teach.
A class of nonhuman beings that are often, but certainly not always, considered demonic in the Buddhist tradition. They are often depicted as flesh-eating monsters who haunt frightening places and are ugly and evil-natured with a yearning for human flesh, and who additionally have miraculous powers, such as being able to change their appearance.
The element, or nature, of ultimate reality.
The lord of the gods in the Heaven of the Thirty-Three (trāyastriṃśa). Alternatively known as Indra, the deity that is called “lord of the gods” dwells on the summit of Mount Sumeru and wields the thunderbolt. The Tibetan translation brgya byin (meaning “one hundred sacrifices”) is based on an etymology that śakra is an abbreviation of śata-kratu, one who has performed a hundred sacrifices. Each world with a central Sumeru has a Śakra. Also known by other names such as Kauśika, Devendra, and Śacipati.
One of the principal śrāvaka disciples of the Buddha, he was renowned for his discipline and for having been praised by the Buddha as foremost of the wise (often paired with Maudgalyāyana, who was praised as foremost in the capacity for miraculous powers). His father, Tiṣya, to honor Śāriputra’s mother, Śārikā, named him Śāradvatīputra, or, in its contracted form, Śāriputra, meaning “Śārikā’s Son.”
These can be listed as twelve or as six sense sources (sometimes also called sense fields, bases of cognition, or simply āyatanas).
In the context of epistemology, it is one way of describing experience and the world in terms of twelve sense sources, which can be divided into inner and outer sense sources, namely: (1–2) eye and form, (3–4) ear and sound, (5–6) nose and odor, (7–8) tongue and taste, (9–10) body and touch, (11–12) mind and mental phenomena.
In the context of the twelve links of dependent origination, only six sense sources are mentioned, and they are the inner sense sources (identical to the six faculties) of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
The highest of the four divine concentration realms in the formless realm, and the fourth of the four formless absorptions. The other three are infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothingness.
An Indian paṇḍita resident in Tibet during the late eighth and early ninth centuries.
Literally, “buddha for oneself” or “solitary realizer.” Someone who, in his or her last life, attains awakening entirely through their own contemplation, without relying on a teacher. Unlike the awakening of a fully realized buddha (samyaksambuddha), the accomplishment of a pratyekabuddha is not regarded as final or ultimate. They attain realization of the nature of dependent origination, the selflessness of the person, and a partial realization of the selflessness of phenomena, by observing the suchness of all that arises through interdependence. This is the result of progress in previous lives but, unlike a buddha, they do not have the necessary merit, compassion or motivation to teach others. They are named as “rhinoceros-like” (khaḍgaviṣāṇakalpa) for their preference for staying in solitude or as “congregators” (vargacārin) when their preference is to stay among peers.
During the life of the Buddha, Śrāvastī was the capital city of the powerful kingdom of Kośala, ruled by King Prasenajit, who became a follower and patron of the Buddha. It was also the hometown of Anāthapiṇḍada, the wealthy patron who first invited the Buddha there, and then offered him a park known as Jetavana, Prince Jeta’s Grove, which became one of the first Buddhist monasteries. The Buddha is said to have spent about twenty-five rainy seasons with his disciples in Śrāvastī, thus it is named as the setting of numerous events and teachings. It is located in present-day Uttar Pradesh in northern India.
One of the closest disciples of the Buddha, known for his profound understanding of emptiness.
Supernormal cognitive powers possessed to different degrees by bodhisattvas and buddhas. The five superknowledges are clairvoyance, clairaudience, knowledge of others’ minds, miraculous abilities, and knowledge of past lives; a sixth, mentioned in some lists and possessed only by fully awakened buddhas, is knowlege of the exhaustion of outflows.
The name of a god.
Killing, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, lying, uttering divisive talk, speaking harsh words, gossiping, covetousness, ill will, and wrong views.
Abstaining from the ten nonvirtuous actions. Namely, abstaining from killing, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, lying, uttering divisive talk, speaking harsh words, gossiping, covetousness, ill will, and wrong views.
An elder monk in the Buddha’s retinue, famous for his knowledge of monastic discipline (vinaya).
Lay male devotees who uphold the five precepts.
Lay female devotees who uphold the five precepts.
A group of four nonhuman beings who stand guard over the four directions.
A class of nonhuman beings who inhabit forests, mountainous areas, and other natural spaces, or serve as guardians of villages and towns, and may be propitiated for health, wealth, protection, and other boons, or controlled through magic. According to tradition, their homeland is in the north, where they live under the rule of the Great King Vaiśravaṇa.
Several members of this class have been deified as gods of wealth (these include the just-mentioned Vaiśravaṇa) or as bodhisattva generals of yakṣa armies, and have entered the Buddhist pantheon in a variety of forms, including, in tantric Buddhism, those of wrathful deities.
Yeshé Dé (late eighth to early ninth century) was the most prolific translator of sūtras into Tibetan. Altogether he is credited with the translation of more than one hundred sixty sūtra translations and more than one hundred additional translations, mostly on tantric topics. In spite of Yeshé Dé’s great importance for the propagation of Buddhism in Tibet during the imperial era, only a few biographical details about this figure are known. Later sources describe him as a student of the Indian teacher Padmasambhava, and he is also credited with teaching both sūtra and tantra widely to students of his own. He was also known as Nanam Yeshé Dé, from the Nanam (sna nam) clan.
’phags pa ’jam dpal rnam par ’phrul pa’i le’u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Mañjuśrīvikurvāṇaparivarta). Toh 97, Degé Kangyur vol. 46 (mdo sde, kha), folios 242.a–257.b.
’phags pa ’jam dpal rnam par ’phrul pa’i le’u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo. bka’ ’gyur (dpe bsdur ma) [Comparative Edition of the Kangyur], krung go’i bod rig pa zhib ’jug ste gnas kyi bka’ bstan dpe sdur khang (The Tibetan Tripitaka Collation Bureau of the China Tibetology Research Center). 108 volumes. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2006–9, vol. 46, pp. 655–97.
’phags pa ’jam dpal rnam par ’phrul pa’i le’u zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo (Mañjuśrīvikurvitaparivarta). Stok Palace Kangyur vol. 60 (mdo sde, ta), folios 370.b–394.a.
’phags pa blo gros mi zad pas bstan pa rgya cher ’grel pa. Toh 3994, Degé Tengyur vol. 114, folios 1.a–269.b.
Jñānavajra. ’phags pa lang dkar gshegs pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen po’i mdo’i ’grel pa de bzhin gshegs pa’i snying po’i rgyan (Laṅkāvatāranāmamahāyānasūtravṛttitathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra). Toh 4019, Degé Tengyur vol. 122, folios 1.a–310.a.
Boucher, Daniel. “Dharmarakṣa and the Transmission of Buddhism to China.” Asia Major Third Series 19.1 (2006): 13–37.
Buswell, Robert E., and Donald S. Lopez Jr. The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
Denkarma (pho brang stod thang ldan [/ lhan] dkar gyi chos ’gyur ro cog gi dkar chag). Degé Tengyur, vol. 206 (sna tshogs, jo), folios 294.b–310.a.
Drimé Özer (dri med ’od zer) [Longchen Rabjam]. mdzod bdun. TBRC W22920. 7 vols. Chengdu: [bum skyabs?], 1999.
Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Herrmann-Pfandt, Adelheid. Die lHan kar ma: ein früher Katalog der ins Tibetische übersetzten buddhistischen Texte. Vienne: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.
Nordrang Orgyen (nor brang o rgyan). Compendium of Buddhist Numeric Terms (chos rnam kun btus). 3 vols. Beijing: krung go’i bod rig pa dpe skrun khang (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2008.
Sönam Rinchen (bsod nams rin chen) [Gampopa]. gsung ’bum/ sgam po pa. TBRC W22393. 2 vols. Degé: sde dge par khang chen mo, 1998.
C Choné
H Lhasa (Zhol)
K Peking edition of 1684/92 (Kangxi)
L London (Shelkar)
N Narthang
S Stok Palace manuscript
Y Yongle
