Explanation of the Maitreya Chapter: Chapter 83

6.1Having thus finished explaining Her Ladyship the One Hundred Thousand, I will now explain what is in the Twenty-Five Thousand.

6.2Then, for the sake of future living beings and for the sake of those gathered in the retinue at that time, the noble

Maitreya asked… “Lord, how do bodhisattva great beings practicing the perfection of wisdom who want to train in a bodhisattva’s training train in form?”

6.3A bodhisattva’s training is in the correct comprehension of all dharmas, so he asks, “how do bodhisattvas who want to train in a bodhisattva’s training train in form,” and so on, up to, finally,

“the buddhadharmas.”

6.4Then the Lord, to teach that the training in emptiness is a bodhisattva’s training, says

“[they] should train in ‘form is a mere name,’… up to ‘buddhadharmas are a mere name’ ”‍—

all dharmas are simply mere names.

“Lord, when this‍—namely, the designation form‍—is apprehended together with a basis,”

and so on, teaches the following. He asks: How could form and so on be just a name? The designation of “ form ,” “feeling,” and so on does not indicate simply a mere name, it indicates a basis, because the name is first given and then the aspect of the basis presents itself to the mind. He means: Were that name to be without a basis, [F.282.a] either it would be illogical to say “a mere name,” or else, if it is taken to exist as form and so on that is not a basis, as a name, based on what and on account of what basis would that name be referring to something? That word would not exist either. Therefore, it is illogical to say “mere name.”

“This‍—namely, form‍—is a name plucked out of thin air… for this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon.”

The Lord is saying that form and so on is not a nominal entity. If it were a nominal entity, then it would be feasible that by merely saying it even those who do not know what it is connected to would know what those bases are, as entities with their various specific attributes. But they do not know those, so words are one thing and the bases, form and so on, are something else. He means it is simply conventionally suitable that later on there are those words “for this or that basis.” Therefore, form and so on is not in its intrinsic nature a name. “Plucked out of thin air” means comes about later, in the sense of “fabricated.” As for a “basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon,” it is “compounded” because it has arisen from cause and conditions; a “causal sign” because it appears to consciousness; and a “basis” because it is in the form of a basis. A place for an appearance as a compounded dharma is called a “basis.”

6.7Having said that, the noble Maitreya, unable to bear the thought of a word plucked out of thin air, asks,

“Lord, is it not the case that in the absence of the name form, there is no being aware of, realizing, or knowing the name form through a basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon?”

and so on. Without the name, from seeing simply the mere basis, you do not become aware “this is form”; and without seeing the basis, just from the word being said you do not become aware of the basis. He means: There, logically, if the name for form were to come about later and is not its entity, [F.282.b] even without the name being said those who do not know what the name is connected to will comprehend “it is form.” And even after the name has been said, since the word would be plucked out of thin air the awareness that arises would not be of the actual reality of the basis. Either way it is one of these two, so form and so on is not in its intrinsic nature a name.

6.8In regard to “in the absence of the name… through that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon:” construe “in the absence” as when the word is set aside; “through that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon” it is not tenable that there is awareness that that basis “is form.”

6.9With,

“So then, Maitreya, I will ask you a question,”

and so on, the Lord teaches in three parts that names are plucked out of thin air and that bases are not in their intrinsic nature names.

6.10He makes it known that names are plucked out of thin air in three parts: because you do not know what something is from just the basis without the name being said; because there are many names for a single basis; and because there is one name for many bases.

6.11There, in reference to the first part, it says

“Maitreya, what do you think‍—without resorting to, without standing on, without having to stand on the designation form for this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, do you think this‍—namely, ‘this is form’‍—about this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon?”

and so on. If that form is taken to be a nominal entity, why do those who are ignorant of the term, who do not know that the word form stands for the form that is the basis, not have the realization in words that “this is form” by seeing just that basis? If that name is taken to be that entity that is a basis, just as a consciousness that grasps the specific defining marks of the basis arises from properly seeing the basis, similarly it would make sense that a consciousness that knows the name would arise as well. But it does not arise, so form and so on is not the nominal entity.

6.12In reference to the second part it says,

“Maitreya, what do you think, do a variety of kinds of words, conventional terms, conventional labels, and designations [F.283.a] designate, or conventionally refer to, or label, or apply to this basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon?”

and so on. Let a basis be taken to be a nominal entity. There are many names for a single basis; for example, just the one feeling is called feeling , experience, state of awareness, pleasure, suffering, and equanimity . There, if that basis is taken to be a nominal entity, whereas it would make sense that when the single basis, feeling, is spoken about with many names it would become many entities, that is not the case. Therefore, you should know that form and so on is not a name entity.

6.13In reference to the third part it says,

“Maitreya, what do you think‍—here, does someone designate… to just that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon a name for a basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon different from it?”

and so on. Were that basis taken to be the nominal entity, then when a name for many bases has been said, like, for example, “aggregates, sense fields, and constituents,” then all the dharmas would become a single entity. But that is not the case. Therefore, you should know that form and so on is not a nominal entity.

6.14What is being taught with,

Having said that, the noble Maitreya asked him, “In that case, Lord, would it not then be just that basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon that is apprehended as the form entity?”

This is teaching: The Lord has taught that the word labeled onto a basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is together with a basis and together with a foundation; he has not taught that it is without a basis and without a foundation. Therefore, because it is grounded in the basis that is causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, it seems that the entity that is the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is the word.

6.15Then the Lord, with

“Maitreya, what do you think, … the form entity, or is it simply merely designated?” [F.283.b]

sorts out Maitreya’s statement, teaching: Are you saying that those who use the word form for that basis are giving voice to the entity that is its defining mark, or are they just saying a word? He thus says that they are saying a word. Therefore, it is apparent that those words are giving voice to the name of that basis, not the entity, like, for example, in common parlance the child’s name Devadatta (“God-given”) and so on. Therefore, it is teaching that form and so on is not the name entity.

Having said that, the noble Maitreya asked him, “Lord, … if form is simply just a designation, name, conventional term, label, and conventional designation,”

and so on, is saying that it is the entities of form and so on that are bases that are apprehended. It is saying: given that the Lord has said “form is a mere name,” and “feeling is a mere name” too, in that case the name form becomes the form entity and the name feeling becomes the feeling entity.

6.17In order to sort that out as well,

Having asked that, the Lord asked him in return, “Maitreya, what do you think, is that form that is simply just a designation, name, conventional term, label, and conventional designation produced or stopped, or defiled or purified?”

and so on. It is understood in the world that form and so on are subject to production and stopping and are subject to defilement and purification. If the dharmas, form and so on, were taken to be name entities, there would then be no production or stopping, or defilement or purification over and above that of the name, but such does occur. Therefore, you should know that a name is not the intrinsic nature of the dharmas.

“Lord, does form just not exist at all? Is it without any mark at all?” [F.284.a]

and so on. The bodhisattva is asking: What about what you have said before, Lord, that “ form is a mere name,” and “feeling is a mere name?” By saying that, do you intend that a mark of form and so on does not exist in any way at all, or that form just does not exist at all?

6.19Having said that, the Lord, concerned about it being taken nihilistically, refutes it with,

“Maitreya, I do not say ‘form just does not exist at all without any mark at all.’ ”

6.20Then the bodhisattva asks about its mode of existence with,

“How then, Lord, does form exist?”

and so on.

6.21With,

“Maitreya, form exists as an ordinary term and convention,”

and so on, the Lord differentiates and teaches that it exists from the perspective of the conventional truth but does not exist from the perspective of the ultimate truth.

6.22Then the noble Maitreya says,

“Lord, the way I understand what you have said,”

and so on. He is saying: If you are saying that ultimately form and so on do not exist at all, in that case, you have gone to the extreme of the nihilists and so on. There the Lord’s intention in saying “ultimately it does not exist” is this: a basis that can be designated by a name form and so on ultimately does not exist; a basis that cannot be named, that is

“inexpressible,”

has an ultimate existence. Having said that he asks,

“Lord, if that inexpressible element ultimately exists, then how can it be a basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon designated by the name form plucked out of thin air?”

and so on. If the ultimate element is inexpressible by the entity that is the name and word for form and so on, [F.284.b] how could that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon designated by the name ever have any sort of existence or nonexistence? Having asked that, Maitreya also asks,

“And if ultimately it does not exist, then how could it be an inexpressible element?”

6.24What does this teach? It is teaching that he has asserted that very basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is its base because there is nothing else serving as a base of the inexpressible ultimate element. If that basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon ultimately does not exist, it does not make sense to say that “the inexpressible element is based on the basis that is the causal sign of a compounded phenomenon.” He is saying that you cannot call the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon the “inexpressible element.”

6.25Then the Lord, wanting to teach the way in which the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon does not exist, and how, even though it does not exist, it serves as the foundation, with,

“So then, Maitreya, I will ask you a question,”

and so on, asks him about just that. With,

“Maitreya, what do you think‍—when abiding in the correct practice of wisdom connected with the inexpressible element,”

and so on, he goes on to say: “Maitreya, when you take up the thoroughly purified wisdom, the inexpressible element, at that point does the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon appear or does it not appear?” And the bodhisattva says,

“Lord, I do not apprehend it.”

He means it does not appear.

Then the Lord said, “From this one of many explanations, Maitreya”‍—

what does this teach? It says: “Understand that since the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon does not appear when you are cultivating attention to the ultimate, it does not exist ultimately, but it exists as a convention.” That conventional reality, furthermore, cannot ultimately be expressed as just that or as other. Therefore, it says,

“You should know that [F.285.a] this basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is not the inexpressible element, and the inexpressible element is not other than this basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon.”

6.28Then, to teach the flaws in the position that it is just that, it says,

“Maitreya, this basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon… if they are taken to be the inexpressible element, well then, all foolish ordinary people would be in nirvāṇa.”

If the conventional reality itself is the ultimate, well then, the very basis of a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon would be the inexpressible element. In that case, by having directly witnessed the basis of a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon they would have directly witnessed the inexpressible element.

6.29Then, to teach the flaws in the position that it is other, it says

“Maitreya, if the inexpressible element is taken to be other than this basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, well then, given that even the causal sign would not be apprehended,”

and so on. If the ultimate is something other than conventional reality, then the inexpressible element would be “other than,” that is, broken off from the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, and if that were the case the true nature of a phenomenon would be other than the phenomenon.

6.30And what would be wrong with that?

“A realization of the inexpressible,”

the ultimate

“element,”

would not be accomplished. How so? Given that the ultimate element is without a causal sign, in what form would that absence of a causal sign come to appear to consciousness? When that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon and the dharma-constituent are not different, it is correct that the compounded thing and the dharma-constituent then become awakening’s cause. The intention is this: they first take the element with a causal sign as the basis they apprehend, then later, when they are carrying out an analysis with wisdom, apprehend it as the ultimate constituted as a nonexistent basis. That is correct.

6.31Thus, the Lord teaches that a compounded basis ultimately does not exist [F.285.b] and also that the ultimate is released from being just that or another. Then the noble Maitreya, worried there is a mistake again, asks,

“Lord, if, when bodhisattvas are abiding in the correct practice of wisdom connected with the inexpressible element,”

and so on. When bodhisattvas cultivating attention to the inexpressible element do not apprehend a compounded basis, is that basis

“not apprehended”

because it does not exist, or is it

“not apprehended”

because the practice of wisdom connected with the inexpressible element does not engage with the basis?

Then the Lord said, “Maitreya, that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon has no independence or existence at all.”

This teaches the following: Even though the basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon is unreal, still foolish, ordinary people lack the strength to take hold of the ultimate because, governed by the error of ignorance and the maturation of karma and so on as cause and conditions, bases that are dependent phenomena and are not independent still appear to consciousness as the opposite of how they actually are. When bodhisattvas are working hard at cultivating paying attention to that, the ignorance and so on that are the cause and conditions are not there, so the earlier appearance constituted as a phenomenon dependent on them thus does not appear. In the absence of ignorance and so on as cause, that compounded basis does not still have the strength to arise independently. Therefore, it says “that basis… has no independent existence at all.” And therefore it also says “nonexistence” is “not apprehended.”

“Maitreya, when you conceive of that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon,”

and so on, teaches when a dependent phenomenon occurs constituted by error, and true reality when the error does not occur. This means that when there is conceptualization the apprehending is in error dependent on the power of something else, the conceptualization, [F.286.a] and when there is no conceptualization the apprehending is without error as just the ultimate, because the dependent phenomenon does not exist. Having been asked that by the Lord, with

“it is, Lord,”

noble Maitreya accepts it.

6.34Then the Lord posits it as just conceptualization, with,

“If that is so, Maitreya, … [it] is simply just conceptualization,”

and then, in order to eliminate that it is something that really exists, asks,

“When they are thus abiding in the nonconceptual element free from conceptualizations, what existence does it… have?”

There, “they” are the bodhisattvas; “thus” when they ultimately do not exist; “abiding in the nonconceptual element”‍—in the ultimate element; and “what existence does it have” is what existence does that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon have? This means it is just nonexistent.

“What existence can be apprehended?”

Were it to exist, it would be apprehended.

6.37Noble Maitreya, in order to again differentiate and teach all phenomena, form and so on, from the perspective of the conventional and ultimate, then asks,

“Lord, how many designations for the separate aspects of form should a bodhisattva practicing the perfection of wisdom, involved in skillfully making a differentiation of a dharma, know?”

6.38Then the Lord, with

“Maitreya, … should know three… modes of form,”

and so on, gives an exposition of their divisions. From

“imaginary form, … conceptualized form, and … the true dharmic nature of form,”

up to

“imaginary buddhadharmas, … conceptualized buddhadharmas, and… the true dharmic nature of buddhadharmas,”

it teaches that all ordinary and extraordinary phenomena [F.286.b] are included within the three aspects.

6.39Then, when noble Maitreya again asks,

“What is imaginary form?”

and so on,

the Lord said, “Maitreya, based on the designation, name, label, and conventional designation form for this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, this imagining that it is the intrinsic nature of form is imaginary form,”

and so on. This means: based on a conventional designation, relative to the compounded basis that is the reason for the conventional designation, that name and term form, when designated as the intrinsic nature of form, is falsely imagined form.

6.40As for the nature of phenomena there are three: a falsely imagined nature, a dependent nature, and a thoroughly established nature.

6.41There, for the phenomena, form and so on: the expression mode of appearance as “form” and so on is the falsely imagined nature; the mode of erroneous appearance as the dharmas to consciousness because of the power of ignorance and so on is the dependent nature; and the inexpressible, signless mode of appearance separated from those names and that mode of erroneous appearance is the ultimate, thoroughly established nature. You should grasp this in detail from the text.

6.42Those three natures‍—here “falsely imagined form, conceptualized form, and the true dharmic nature of form”‍—are explained sequentially.

6.43There it talks about “falsely imagined form , falsely imagined feeling, falsely imagined perception,” and so on, that are the names “ form , feeling, perception” and so on. It teaches them with

“based on the designation, name, label, and conventional designation form for this or that basis that is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon,”

and so on.

6.44After that [F.287.a] it teaches two aspects, with

“that basis which is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon, an expression dependent on conceptualization established in the true dharmic nature of mere conceptualization,”

and so on. A mind arising and appearing in the mode of an appearance of an existent thing for foolish, ordinary persons whose minds have become distorted, governed by afflictive emotions and the maturation of karma, and so on, as cause and conditions, is “conceptualized form.” “That basis which is a causal sign of a compounded phenomenon” and so on teaches that.

6.45“Established in the true dharmic nature of mere conceptualization”‍—there is no other nature except the mode of appearance when something has been conceptualized by an intellectually active state of mind, so that basis is established as a merely conceptualized nature. Just that which is established as that is called “conceptualization.”

6.46Thus “dependent on,” taking as its point of departure just that “conceptualization” established as the mere mode of appearance when something has been conceptualized by an intellectually active state of mind, the thoroughly distracted mode of appearance constituted as a basis connected with an expression is called “an expression.” Thus, dependent on that mode of appearance “established as the mode of appearance when something has been conceptualized by an intellectually active state of mind,” the appearance in the form of a basis to the intellectually active state of mind is called “conceptualized form.”

6.47You should connect this in the same way with

“feeling”

and so on as well.

6.48Then, in regard to the true dharmic nature of form, it says

“whether the tathāgatas arise or whether the tathāgatas do not arise,”

and so on. This “whether the tathāgatas arise” teaches that the true dharmic nature, not impermanence, is its intrinsic nature. In regard to “the true dharmic nature of form,” where it says

“this eternally eternal, constantly constant absence of imaginary form as the intrinsic nature of conceptualized form,”

when just that mode of appearance in a nonconceptual intellectually active state of mind has become separated from a falsely imagined phenomenon described before‍—a mode of appearance suited, as the expressed and expression mode of appearance, to name and designation‍—[F.287.b] then, that mode of appearance established, in itself, in an inexpressible form as an absence of conceptualization is “the true dharmic nature of form.”

“The nonexistence of an intrinsic nature,”

because the falsely imagined nature does not exist;

“the nonexistence of a self in dharmas”‍—

the nonexistence of a mode of appearance that is the essential nature of a dharma;

“suchness”‍—

a mode of appearance without distortion; and

“the very limit of reality”‍—

the culmination of such a mode of appearance. You should connect this in the same way with

“feeling”

and so on as well.

“Maitreya, view the form that is imaginary as not a material reality,”

because it is absolutely nonexistent.

“View conceptualized form as a material reality based on the material reality of a conceptualization.”

This means it does exist because it exists conventionally. It is a material reality because as a compounded phenomenon it is destroyed and exists as form. So this is an explanation that it is existent as a conceptualized nature and is a material reality.

“But not because it is there under its own power”‍—

it says that because it has a dependent nature.

“The true dharmic nature of form… as neither a nonmaterial reality nor a material reality and in the category of the ultimate”‍—

this is the true dharmic nature of form. It is not suitable to say “it does not exist” because it exists as an inexpressible entity, so it is not “a nonmaterial reality.” It is not suitable to say “it exists” because it exists in the form of a conceptualized basis, so “nor” is it “a material reality.” This therefore teaches a middle way avoiding two extremes. “The category of the ultimate” means the nature of the ultimate. The word “category” means nature. Finally, you should connect this in the same way with them all, up to

“buddhadharmas”

as well.

6.57Having discussed the three marks from the perspective of the three natures, to set the scene for teaching the mark of nonduality, noble Maitreya says,

“this that the Lord has said”

earlier, in the discussion of the brief exposition of the perfection of wisdom section, the twenty-eighth question, [F.288.a]

“namely, ‘anything called form is counted as not two,’ ”

and so on. What does

“Maitreya, what do you think, is the absence of material reality in imaginary form, or is it not”

teach?

6.58Just that nonexistence of “form or not form” in each of these three‍—falsely imagined form, conceptualized form, and the true dharmic nature of form‍—individually is the nondual, is suchness, is the absence of a self in dharmas. Thus, the words form , feeling , and so on, when enumerated as suchness, are counted as not two. That is the meaning, and wanting to teach just that, to teach the mark of each of those three aspects of form as free from form and not form, first, based on falsely imagined form, it says, “Is the absence of material reality in imaginary form, form, or is it not?”

6.59It is not suitable to say falsely imagined form is the intrinsic nature of form because it does not exist as what constitutes form; but it is not suitable to say that it does not constitute form either, because it does exist relative to form’s name and what has been designated form. Therefore, it says,

“Is then form”

that‍—

“just the mere designation, name, label, and conventional designation form for it?”

6.60This means form is not nonexistent based on what has been designated, but, because the intrinsic nature of form does not exist, it is not form either, so “it is not two.”

“Maitreya, what do you think, is conceptualized form, the material reality… not form?”

The conceptualized form that is that appears as constituting form, so the intrinsic nature of form is not nonexistent; but [F.288.b] it is also ultimately not the intrinsic nature of form because it is an intrinsic nature separated from the perception of form. Therefore, it says

“is that imaginary form of just that conceptualized form‍—that which is not its intrinsic nature, not its defining mark‍—form?”

6.62Thus, this means that form is not nonexistent because that conceptualized form appears as the intrinsic nature of form suitable to be named form, but it is also not form because ultimately it does not have the defining mark of form, so “it is not two.”

“Is that true dharmic nature of form, form in the category of selflessness, form?”

Form that is the thoroughly established true nature of dharmas is not the intrinsic nature of form because it is an intrinsic nature separated from all causal signs; but it is not not the intrinsic nature of form either because it is the intrinsic nature of form‍—the true nature of dharmas. Therefore, it says,

“Is that true dharmic nature of form that is just that true dharmic nature of form, not form?”

6.64It is not form because the true nature of dharmas is the nonexistence of an intrinsic nature, but it is not not form because it is the true dharmic nature of form. That is the meaning of nondual. Therefore, it is

“counted as nondual”

in the sense of “counted as suchness.”

6.65Similarly, connect this with them all, up to the buddhadharmas

“are nondual.”

Having taught in this way that form is‍—up to, finally, the buddhadharmas are‍—nondual, then to teach in another way that the four truths are marked by nonduality, it says

“[they] neither comprehend nor do not comprehend form, and just that is their comprehension.”

6.66Bodhisattvas paying attention to the mark of all dharmas in meditative equipoise do not comprehend. While not in meditative equipoise like śrāvakas, [F.289.a] with the knowledge of mastery they comprehend, just as it has been explained before. Therefore just that not comprehending absolutely like that is their comprehension. Similarly, also connect this with

“abandon… actualize… and cultivate.”

6.67Then, to teach what they become skilled in when such skill in the mark of nonduality arises, it teaches nirvāṇa with,

“Maitreya, the nirvāṇa of bodhisattvas is deep, extremely deep.”

6.68Having asked

“why is [it]… deep?”

it explains,

“It is because the nirvāṇa of bodhisattvas is neither nirvāṇa nor not nirvāṇa; that is why it is called ‘deep, extremely deep.’ ”

6.70Take “the nirvāṇa of bodhisattvas” as the extremely pure transformation of the basis. That transformation of the basis, furthermore, is in the intrinsic nature of a complete nirvāṇa beyond all afflictive obscuration and obscuration to knowledge, the intrinsic nature of a complete nirvāṇa beyond the maturation of karma. Therefore, it is nirvāṇa. Thus, unlike śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas they work for the welfare of beings for as long as saṃsāra exists. Therefore, it is not nirvāṇa.

6.71Then Maitreya says,

“Lord, if, taking the welfare of others as the point of departure, bodhisattvas do not totally reject saṃsāra… how do they not totally reject nirvāṇa?”

He is asking: if for as long as saṃsāra exists bodhisattvas working for welfare of others do not constantly and always reject saṃsāra, how in that case will [a bodhisattva’s nirvāṇa] be nirvāṇa?

6.72Then,

The Lord said, “Maitreya, taking the welfare of others as the point of departure, it is not nirvāṇa because they do not totally reject saṃsāra; taking their own welfare as the point of departure, it is not not nirvāṇa because they do not totally reject nirvāṇa.” [F.289.b]

6.73“Taking the welfare of others as the point of departure, there is not a total rejection of saṃsāra and appropriation of a nirvāṇa without aggregates, therefore it is not a nirvāṇa; but taking their own welfare as the point of departure, because the work has been done, there is not a total rejection of nirvāṇa and there is no appropriation of a life in saṃsāra, therefore it is a nirvāṇa. What is the Lord teaching with this? He is explaining that it is nirvāṇa when they take the dharma body as the point of departure, but from the perspective of the complete enjoyment body and magically created body it is not nirvāṇa.

“Lord, if, taking the welfare of others as the point of departure, bodhisattvas do not totally reject saṃsāra, by not totally rejecting saṃsāra how do they not totally reject nirvāṇa?”

With this teaching it is asking: If for the sake of others they do not totally reject saṃsāra, they will have totally rejected nirvāṇa. If for their own sake they do not totally reject nirvāṇa, they will have totally rejected saṃsāra. Therefore, given that these “not totally rejecting and rejecting saṃsāra,” and “passing into nirvāṇa and not passing into nirvāṇa,” are contradictory, how is it not a contradiction?

6.75Then the Lord, with

“[they] do not even conceive of saṃsāra as actually saṃsāra,”

and so on, teaches that they are not contradictory. This means bodhisattvas do not conceive of all dharmas. Seeing them all as just the same, they do not entertain in their mind in regard to saṃsāra the construct “it is saṃsāra,” nor in regard to nirvāṇa the construct “it is nirvāṇa.” Thus, they stay in the same state, and while remaining in that same state do not, for instance, recoil mentally from anything because of seeing a defect or get attracted to anything because of seeing an advantage. [F.290.a]

6.76Then the noble Maitreya, still unhappy with that, asked,

“Well then, Lord, will it not be the case that just as bodhisattvas standing in the realm without thought construction… have not totally rejected a life in saṃsāra they will similarly not have appropriated it, and just as they have not totally rejected nirvāṇa they will similarly not have appropriated that, either? And Lord, if there is no appropriation, how can there be no rejection?”

6.77“Bodhisattvas do not conceive of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa, apprehending them as being the same. There is therefore no rejection of saṃsāra or nirvāṇa and there is no appropriation of them either.” So he asks about that: if there is no appropriating there, how is there no rejection?

“Maitreya, I do not say they ‘appropriate’ or ‘do not appropriate’ a life in saṃsāra.”

This says: I do not say they appropriate or forsake based on abandoning or not abandoning a life in saṃsāra; I say it, contingent on the need for it, based on the work being done, because, through the force of the clairvoyances, they do not make an absolute break in the stream of work for the welfare of the mass of beings at all times in infinite world systems. Therefore, I say “they do not totally reject saṃsāra,” but not because they do not abandon saṃsāra.

6.79Thus, taking the realm of

“emptiness, the realm that gives no basis for apprehending anything”

as the point of departure, he has taught that they remain in that, and therefore says, “They appropriate nirvāṇa.”

“Lord, how in the absence of conceptualization should the collection of marks be viewed?”

is asking how is the absence of conceptualization completed and finalized.

“The nonduality… of an existent thing and a nonexistent thing”

is the absence of the duality of “existing” and “not existing.”

“Nonelaboration”

is not conceptualizing those dharmas as anything at all in any way at all.

“Lord, are all śrāvakas absolutely with certainty located in nirvāṇa?” [F.290.b]

He asks this intending: since bodhisattvas have been found not to appropriate a life in saṃsāra, are śrāvakas, who are without appropriation, absolutely in a state of nirvāṇa?

“Many families and dispositions of beings can be found.”

There are “many families and dispositions of beings,” which is to say, there are three “families.” Also “dispositions” differ on account of particular aspirations, proclivities, beliefs, faculties, and so on.

“Strive for a superior qualification, who gain just the superior qualification”‍—

because of their disposition, from the start, they want perfect, complete awakening and, in accord with what they want, “gain” it.

“Inferior”‍—

śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha awakening.

“Understand that it is lacking, are not satisfied just by that”

means that they become noble beings and, having gained the state of a śrāvaka, later become buddhas.

“…does not take rebirth, so how do they reach it?”

This intends that when there is rebirth in saṃsāra the accumulations for awakening can be completed.

“The Lord has not said… is their rebirth.”

stream enterers do not arise in an eighth existence here; once-returners appropriate a single existence here; non-returners do not appropriate even a single existence here; and worthy ones do not appropriate any existence at all, so rebirth has ceased.

“Maitreya, I do not say that their rebirth is dictated by karma and afflictive emotion; I say that theirs is an inconceivable rebirth, magically created and dedicated.”

In this, take the “rebirth dictated by karma and afflictive emotion” with the stream enterers and so on.

6.91Those who have the three births have nothing to do with that. They have a threefold birth‍—“an inconceivable birth, magically created birth, and birth through a prayer that is a vow.”

6.92There, if those not necessarily destined to be in the śrāvaka family have come into the presence of a tathāgata, at that time the tathāgata, [F.291.a] seeing the particular features of their family, will explain to them the doctrine in the sort of way that produces a desire for unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. Having connected them with that sort of path, if they do not forsake that desire, having actualized the very limit of reality they gain the result of stream enterer and so on. Thus, the buddhas with skillful means and with the system of the perfection of wisdom establish them on the path to all-knowledge. Whether they have become those in training or not in training, because they have not given up wanting unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, even though they actualize nirvāṇa they do not generate an absolutely intense admiration for it as do those who are certain to be śrāvakas. To illustrate, some, when viewing a town or village, think “I am going to live right there.” Then, their admiration for it turns into an admiration for something else when they have seen it, and they think, “I am going to go elsewhere.” They have a change of mind when they have seen it. Similarly, here too when there is a desire for unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening, the desire for nirvāṇa turns into something else and they become different from those who are certain to be śrāvakas. Therefore some, even though they have abandoned the afflictions, become special because of the power of residual impressions and so on, and because of the power of a compassionate aspiration and so on they do not get extremely repulsed by saṃsāra. They want to work for the benefit of beings like someone who sees their young son fallen into a filthy cesspool, sees that the cesspool is filthy, but still does not get repulsed because of wanting to get him out. Those like that, in training or not in training, under the guidance of a tathāgata dedicate the wholesome roots of the extraordinary noble path without outflows and so on like this‍—they dedicate them with the thought: “In order to be of benefit to beings may all of my extraordinary wholesome roots without outflows be directed toward birth in saṃsāra.” through the power of such a dedication the uncontaminated good of the path and so on causes them to be born in saṃsāra. They have [F.291.b] wholesome dharmas similar to afflictions that function as a cooperative condition. Thus, as the other sūtras say:

“Sāgaramati, what are these afflictions accompanying the wholesome roots that keep saṃsāra going? They are dissatisfaction with their accumulation of merit, taking up birth in existence having the intention to do so, fixation on meeting with buddhas, not getting depressed when bringing beings to maturity, trying to grasp the good Dharma, making an effort at whatever work beings do, nonseparation from thoughts of attachment to the Dharma, and not giving up the practice of the perfections. Sāgaramati, those are the afflictions accompanying the wholesome roots that keep saṃsāra going. Bodhisattvas are in close contact with them, but they are not stained by the faults of the afflictions.”

6.94[Sāgaramati] asked, “Lord, if they are wholesome roots why are they called ‘afflictions’?”

The Lord said: “Sāgaramati, it is because through these sorts of afflictions bodhisattvas are in close contact with the three realms and the three realms come about from afflictions. Bodhisattvas are in close contact with the three realms at will through the power of their skillful means and their production of wholesome roots. That is why they are called ‘afflictions accompanying wholesome roots.’ They are afflictions to the extent that they connect them to the three realms, but not because they afflict their minds.”

6.95Therefore, it is said that “through the force of such a dedication, because of the wholesome roots without outflows they are born in saṃsāra.”

6.96Certain non-returners or worthy ones endowed with a special clairvoyance generated through the force of meditative stabilization demonstrate birth in various magical creations, work for the infinite welfare of beings, and complete the equipment for awakening. That is called magically created birth.

6.97For others, through the force of relying on spiritual friends, [F.292.a] the special features of such prayers that are vows have come together from the start and they accomplish dedicated births that have the fruition of those prayers of theirs as their nature. That is called dedicated birth.

6.98Why, though, without reaching the result of stream enterer and so on, do they not complete the equipment for awakening? It is because they are powerless to do so because their afflictions are more intense and their faculties duller. Without the necessary purification of faculties and abandonment of afflictions they are incapable of completing the equipment for awakening. Therefore, with skillful means a tathāgata causes them to become endowed with that sort of supreme force. As the other sūtras say:

“Lord, how should we view the Tathāgata’s prophesy of śrāvakas to unsurpassed, perfect awakening?”

The Lord: “The prophesy of śrāvakas to unsurpassed, perfect awakening is a prophesy that has in view their lineage.”

6.100“Lord, if even śrāvakas without outflows who have cut the fetters to suffering existence are in the lineage, how will they awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening?”

6.101The Lord: “I will teach an analogy for that. Listen! Child of good family, a king who receives the royal consecration on the crown of his head has a son. He studies all the sciences but has dull faculties, not sharp faculties, so he studies what you study later earlier, and studies later what you study earlier. So, child of good family, what do you think, is that boy, on account of that, not the son of the king?”

“Not so, Lord, not so, Sugata. You still say of him that he is the king’s son.”

6.102The Lord: “In the same way, child of good family, bodhisattvas [F.292.b] with dull faculties who are in the lineage, earlier will put an end to afflictions on the path of meditation, and later will fully awaken to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening. What do you think, child of good family, on account of that will they not have fully awakened to unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening?”

“Not so, Lord; not so, Sugata.”

6.103Therefore, reborn through the power of these three sorts of birth they complete the equipment for awakening.

6.104“The Long Explanation of the Noble Perfection of Wisdom in One Hundred Thousand, Twenty-Five Thousand, and Eighteen Thousand Lines” is completed.