Introduction

i.1Teaching How All Phenomena Are without Origin presents the Buddha Śākyamuni’s elucidation of the nature of phenomena and the way to conduct oneself. His discourse is oriented around a series of paradoxes between conduct and wisdom, and specifically highlights the interplay of monastic discipline and the activities that best serve beings. To illustrate these paradoxes the Buddha draws on scenes from his own past lives and those of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī, scenes that are also meant to illustrate the negative karmic consequences of criticizing the conduct of bodhisattvas.

i.2The sūtra is set on Vulture Peak Mountain, where the Buddha is asked a series of questions about emptiness and the nondual view by the bodhisattva Siṃha­vikrānta­gāmin. The Buddha responds with a discourse in verse identifying the single principle of emptiness as the nature of phenomena, but he cautions that immature bodhisattvas will not properly understand that teaching. Later, he tells the story of the two bodhisattvas Cāritramati and Viśuddha­cāritra to illustrate the dangers of judging the behavior of bodhisattvas because of misunderstanding the nature of their skillful means. He then explains, with great psychological insight, how such value judgements are generally based on ill-founded and preconceived notions that need to be abandoned by those who seek awakening. Next follows a discussion with Mañjuśrī in which the Buddha explains that many standard Buddhist concepts and categories used to describe the path to awakening are mere imputations, and that their true import will be realized once all phenomena are known to be unborn and without intrinsic nature. In their ensuing dialogue, various standard Buddhist expressions are relativized in terms of this ultimate, nonobjectifying view. This discussion demonstrates that the Buddhist path is only fully realized once the habitual tendency to accept, reject, or otherwise objectify phenomena, including phenomena of the path itself, has been left behind.

i.3In the last part of the sūtra, the Buddha, followed by Mañjuśrī, instructs a god named Playful Clairvoyant Lotus in the knowledge that penetrates sound and language and enables one to see through the duality of various opposites. Mañjuśrī is then induced to tell his story as a neophyte bodhisattva, to further illustrate the problem of negatively judging the conduct of other spiritual practitioners and underestimating the potential of a student. The sūtra refers repeatedly to the theme of the single principle , the realization of emptiness. When this is known, all proscribed activity‍—indulgence in sense pleasures and disturbing emotions‍—need no longer be avoided. However, since no one except the Buddha can be the final judge of another being’s conduct or realization, bodhisattvas are strongly encouraged to avoid judging one another and to teach according to the student’s capacity.

i.4Fragments of a Sanskrit version of this sūtra have survived, as have two translations into Chinese by Kumārajīva (fourth century, Zhu fa wu xing jing 諸法無行經, Taishō 650) and Jñānagupta (fifth century, Fu shuo zhu fa ben wu jing 佛說諸法本無經, Taishō 651). The extant Sanskrit sections of the sūtra have been translated into English by Jens Braarvig, who also published a Sanskrit edition that includes parallel passages of the Tibetan and Chinese translations. In his introduction to the text, Braarvig tentatively dates the sole surviving Sanskrit manuscript to the fifth century ᴄᴇ, a considerably later date than that of Kumārajīva’s Chinese translation. According to the colophon to the Tibetan translation, the sūtra was translated into Tibetan by the monk Rinchen Tso, a translator active sometime during the late eighth and early ninth centuries ᴄᴇ. However, the Tibetan translation is not included in the early ninth-century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) inventory of Tibetan translations, so this dating and the attribution to Rinchen Tso cannot be verified by this source. The title of the text is, however, included in the Mahāvyutpatti (as entry no. 1362), so the dating of the Tibetan translation to the early ninth century does seem reasonable in spite of its absence from the Denkarma inventory.

i.5The primary Tibetan text used for the present translation was the Degé (sde dge) edition, but the other editions considered in the Comparative Kangyur (dpe bsdur ma) were also consulted. In passages where the Sanskrit was available, it was consulted for our translation. However, as the Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts are often radically different, we have primarily based our translation on the Tibetan, except in those cases where the Sanskrit sheds light on, or clarifies, the Tibetan.