 Title
|
|
Preface
|
 Chapter 1: Pramuditā
|
|
Chapter 2: Vimalā
|
|
Chapter 3: Prabhākarī
|
|
Chapter 4: Arciṣmatī
|
|
Chapter 5: Sudurjayā
|
|
Chapter 6: Abhimukhī
|
|
Chapter 7: Dūraṃgamā
|
|
Chapter 8: Acalā
|
|
Chapter 9: Sādhumatī
|
|
Chapter 10: Dharmameghā
|
|
Chapter 11: buddhabhūmi
|
‘How can one be certain that this is a provisional meaning and not the definitive meaning?’
Based on scripture and reasoning. And in order to show this it was said:
The Teacher did express it as provisional.
Provisionality is shown by reasoning.
It is not only this sutra that is provisional in meaning, but others as well:
This scripture makes it clear that other sutras too
Of similar sort will likewise be the leading truth. (6.95)
And which sutras are of a similar kind? When presenting the three natures – the imputed, the dependent and the thoroughly established – the Unraveling the Intent Sutra1 states that the imputed is nonexistent, the dependent is existent […], and likewise presents statements such as:
Deep and subtle is the carrying consciousness,
Like a river’s current, a flow of every seed.
Since it would be wrong to think of it as the self,
I do not teach it to the immature.2
As stated:
Like a doctor will prescribe medicine
According to various needs of patients,
In the same way the Buddha taught
To beings that there is only mind.3
These scriptural quotes make it clear that this is provisional in meaning. Similarly,
[…]: In the sutras mention is made by the Illustrious One of the tathāgata nature. The Illustrious One describes it as present within the bodies of all sentient beings, a natural pure perfection, primordially unsullied and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. The Illustrious One says that it is like a precious jewel that is wrapped in filthy garments, wrapped in the garments of aggregates, elements and sense fields, held back by attachment, aversion and confusion, sullied by the taints of misconceptions, something permanent, lasting and unchangeable. How is this tathāgata nature the Illustrious Tathāgata speaks of not the same as the ātman taught by the misguided? Illustrious One, the misguided also describe the ātman as permanent, uncreative, without properties, pervasive and indestructible.
The Illustrious One replied: No, Mahāmati. When I teach the tathāgata nature, it is not the same as the ātman propounded by the misguided. Mahāmati, the tathāgatas, arhats, truly complete buddhas teach emptiness, the ultimate end, transcendence, the unborn, featureless, wishless and so forth as the tathāgata nature. The tathāgata nature is used to indicate the unapparent state of non-conceptuality so that immature beings may lay aside their fear of selflessness. O Mahāmati, the future and present bodhisattvas, great beings, would not maintain belief in a self.
Take as example, Mahāmati, the potter who by using his hands, craftsmanship, tools, water, cord and perseverance can make pots of various shapes from a single lump of clay. In the same manner, Mahāmati, the tathāgatas may teach the lack of self of phenomena, the reversal of all conceptual characteristics, in various modes using intelligence and skilful means such as tathāgata nature or selflessness when suitable. In a way similar to the potter, they teach using all manners of terms and expressions.
This is why, Mahāmati, the teaching on the tathāgata nature is not like the ātman taught by the misguided. Through teaching the tathāgata nature, Mahāmati, the tathāgatas may provisionally lead the misguided who cling to their teachings on the ātman. Thus they teach the tathāgata nature. It is how those who have ended up with ways of thinking that conceptualise a real self may gain the perspective that can accommodate the three liberations, and thus swiftly realise unsurpassable true and complete awakening.4
As it also teaches:
Mahāmati. The features of emptiness, non-arising, non-duality and lack of inherent nature are found in the sutras of all buddhas.5