Introduction

i.1The Indivisible Nature of the Realm of Phenomena has survived in Chinese and Tibetan translations but, like all except five of the forty-nine texts belonging to the Heap of Jewels , is no longer extant in Sanskrit. The Chinese translation was produced in 503 by the itinerant monk Mandrasena, who became an influential translator in China, having been invited there from his native Cambodia to assist with the translation of Buddhist scriptures into Chinese. The Tibetan translation appeared approximately three centuries later during the early ninth century and was made, according to the colophon, by the great translator-editor Yeshé Dé in collaboration with the Indian paṇḍiṭas Jinamitra and Surendrabodhi. This English translation was made based primarily on the Tibetan Degé edition, with consultation of the Comparative Edition and the Stok Palace manuscript edition.

i.2It is hard to estimate the influence of The Indivisible Nature of the Realm of Phenomena in India and Tibet, because the sūtra does not appear to be frequently cited or referred to. An important exception is the Precious Lamp of the Middle Way, which is in fact delivered in explicit response to this sūtra’s critique of the principle of relative versus ultimate truth. As an example of reliance on the sūtra in the works of influential Tibetan authors, we may note that Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (dol po pa shes rab rgyal mtshan, 1292–1361) presents the arguments of a proponent of intrinsic emptiness (Tib. rang stong) based on its teaching. To our knowledge no academic research has been specifically concerned with The Indivisible Nature of the Realm of Phenomena.

i.3The setting of the sūtra is the renowned Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍada’s Park, in Śrāvastī, a site donated to the Buddha and his Saṅgha by the wealthy benefactor Anāthapiṇḍada, where the Buddha subsequently spent many annual monsoon retreats. As the sūtra opens, we learn that eight thousand monks, twelve thousand bodhisattvas, and thirty-two thousand gods who practice the mind of awakening have assembled around the Blessed One. The god Ratnavara is also present in the assembly, and we witness him forming the wish that the Buddha may inspire Mañjuśrī to teach the Dharma. Knowing Ratnavara’s thoughts, the Buddha turns to Mañjuśrī and encourages him to explain the “realm of phenomena.” Mañjuśrī’s playful and profound response is to wonder whether the very idea of such a teaching is at all intelligible. How could that which is present everywhere possibly be singled out and set apart from anything? How could it be identified in any meaningful way?

i.4The “realm of phenomena,” the dharmadhātu (chos kyi dbyings), about which the Buddha asks Mañjuśrī to teach, is thus one of the key principles in this text. The treatise Distinguishing the Middle from Extremes (Skt. Madhyāntavibhāga)‍—attributed to Maitreya and transmitted by Asaṅga‍—enumerates this term among five synonyms for emptiness, and goes on to explain that this particular term is constructed in consideration of the way the perception of emptiness serves as the basis for attaining the qualities of the āryas or “noble beings.” In the sūtras and śāstras the bodhisattva’s liberation upon the first of the ten stages is moreover typically described as the result of perceiving‍—directly and for the first time‍—the omnipresent nature of the realm of phenomena. Thus, in responding to the Buddha’s request, Mañjuśrī takes up the implications of this notion of omnipresence. He argues that given its constant and pervasive presence, ultimate reality turns out to be indivisibly one with everything from which we may otherwise want to set it apart: the flawed, the seeming, and the unreal. How could the true nature of things then be distinguished or known in any way? This paradox is also discernible in the sūtra’s title: in declaring that its objective is to show the indivisible nature of reality and ordinary experience, the sūtra ventures to treat a theme that arguably, by definition, cannot even be identified as a topic.

i.5This short-circuiting of the dichotomy between relative and ultimate truths‍—or of the distinction between appearance and reality‍—recurs throughout the sūtra in a number of variations. Thus, as an upshot of its radically nondual approach, the sūtra identifies the very notion of spiritual attainment as an obstacle. The sense of having gained a superior result is hence classified as an affliction and associated with saṃsāra. Yet the sūtra also teaches that exact knowledge of affliction and saṃsāra is itself the purification of the latter two. The idea of a path from ignorance to awakening is further undermined when Mañjuśrī, in reply to Ratnavara’s questions, for example, identifies the “beginner bodhisattva” in terms of a realization that transcends both time and space. “Long-term experience,” on the other hand, Mañjuśrī sees as descriptive only of beings who suffer in saṃsāra, and thus not of bodhisattvas.

i.6The sūtra acknowledges the potentially intimidating and alienating effects of its teaching of nonduality, yet its response can be seen as both unrelenting and genuinely concerned. As the Buddha warns Mañjuśrī that his teaching is likely to cause fear in the audience, Mañjuśrī replies, “Those who become afraid are themselves of the nature of the realm of phenomena, and the nature of the realm of phenomena does not become frightened.” Yet as a group of monks ends up leaving in distress, Mañjuśrī dispatches an emanation of himself who, appearing to sympathize with the dejected monks in their dismissal of the teaching, finally succeeds in showing them its deeper truth. It should also be noted that despite the repeated rejection of the principles of liberation and spiritual accomplishment, we are repeatedly informed about the liberating effects of the sūtra’s teaching when each section of discourse concludes, as in many sūtras, with a statement of the resulting attainments of the attending monks, bodhisattvas, or gods.

i.7The sūtra’s story line is dramatic and culminates in the transformation of both Pāpīyān‍—the ruler of the māras, who create obstacles for those following the Dharma‍—and Śāradvatīputra (also known as Śāriputra), who is the very image of spotless piety and adherence to the word of the Buddha. Starkly against their wishes, both Pāpīyān and Śāradvatīputra are transformed and appear instead as awakened buddhas. Once present as such, they engage in an astonishing Dharma dialogue, explaining to each other and the audience the profound intent of Mañjuśrī’s teaching. Subsequent to this very graphic illustration of the omnipresent nature of the realm of phenomena, the sūtra concludes with the Buddha asking Mañjuśrī to bless the sūtra so that in future times it will be widely practiced. In a manner reminiscent of his initial response to the Buddha’s call at the opening of the sūtra, Mañjuśrī wonders how he should understand such a request, given the unborn and unceasing nature of all phenomena. Might the Blessed One, Mañjuśrī wonders, perhaps also ask him to bless the unborn and unceasing element of space so that it may remain unaffected by fire? Mañjuśrī instead chooses to entreat the Blessed One himself to bless the sūtra. The Buddha complies and, having granted his blessing for the sūtra to be widely taught and practiced, he asks Ānanda to recollect the sūtra, and also provides it with three alternative names. While for the most part its teaching has been delivered by bodhisattvas, monks, and even by the king of māras, the sūtra ends as is traditional with everyone rejoicing in the words of the Blessed One.