Toh 196 — The Dwelling Place of Mañjuśrī

F.266.b Homage to all buddhas and bodhisattvas!

Thus did I hear at one time. The Bhagavān was staying at Rājagṛha, on Gṛdhrakūṭa Mountain, together with a large community of a full five hundred monks and a great congregation of bodhisattvas. At that time, the Bhagavān, after emerging in the late afternoon from secluded meditation,^[1] surrounded and honored by a great assembly, taught the Dharma.

Subsequently, the youthful Mañjuśrī was walking about, going from residence to residence among all five hundred monks. When he went to the residence where the elder Śāriputra lived, Mañjuśrī saw him sitting alone in solitude, practicing concentration while in meditative seclusion.

When he saw him, he said the following words to the elder Śāriputra: “Honorable Śāriputra, are you practicing concentration?”

“Yes,” replied Śāriputra, “it is so, Mañjuśrī.”

“Honorable Śāriputra,” said Mañjuśrī, “are you concentrating in order to abandon afflictions that have already been abandoned? Or are you concentrating in order to abandon those that have not yet been abandoned?

“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the past? Are you concentrating while dwelling on the future? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the present?^[2] Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on bodily form? Are you concentrating while dwelling on feelings, perceptions, volitional formations, or consciousness? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the eye? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the nose, ear, tongue, body, or mind? Honorable Śāriputra, F.267.a are you concentrating while dwelling on visible form? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on sound, smell, taste, touch, or other phenomena?

“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the desire realm? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the form realm or the formless realm?

“Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the internal? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the external? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the internal and external? Honorable Śāriputra, are you concentrating while dwelling on the body? Or are you concentrating while dwelling on the mind?”

“Mañjuśrī,” replied Śāriputra, “I am practicing concentration in order to dwell in bliss for this life and to dwell in nonforgetfulness.”

Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, do you apprehend any dharmas that dwell in bliss in this life, or that dwell in bliss in what is not this life, or that are without forgetfulness?”

“Mañjuśrī,” Śāriputra replied, “I truly do not observe or apprehend any dharmas that dwell in bliss in this life or that dwell in bliss in what is not this life. However, Mañjuśrī, I rely and dwell on what the Tathāgata taught to śrāvakas as the doctrine of disengagement.”^[3]

Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, what is it that the Tathāgata taught to śrāvakas as the doctrine of disengagement and that you, honorable Śāriputra, rely and dwell on?”

Śāriputra replied, “In this regard, Mañjuśrī, a monk relies and dwells on the past, relies and dwells on the future, and relies and dwells on the present.^[4] In brief, as mentioned before, one should understand that he relies and dwells as mentioned before all the way up to the mind. Mañjuśrī, the Tathāgata taught these śrāvakas that these dharmas are disengaged, and I F.267.b rely and dwell on these dharmas.”

Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, why do you say, ‘I rely and dwell on the past, rely and dwell on the future, rely on the present, dwell in disengagement, and, in brief, rely on and dwell in disengagement as mentioned before all the way up to the mind’? It is like this, honorable Śāriputra: a true nature^[5] of the past does not exist. A true nature of the future does not exist. A true nature of the present does not exist. In this way, if these dharmas do not exist, then how can the elder Śāriputra say, ‘I rely and dwell on the past, rely and dwell on the future, and rely and dwell on the present’? Dharmas that do not exist have no basis.

“Further, honorable Śāriputra, there is nothing that is a true nature^[6] of the past and a true nature of the future and the present. Nor are phenomena caused by anything. Nor do they belong to anything. They are not based anywhere. There is nothing apprehended as a basis of what is not based anywhere.

“Further, honorable Śāriputra, those who speak of a ‘true nature^[7] of the past, the future, and the present’ and who thus propound stability deprecate the Tathāgata. Why is this? It is because a true nature is immovable and without vain imaginings. It is because a true nature is uncorrupted. It is because true nature is^[8] empty, without signs, and wishless.

“Further, honorable Śāriputra, a true nature of the past cannot be apprehended. A true nature of the future cannot be apprehended. A true nature of the present cannot be apprehended. And, in brief, the true nature of everything up to mind cannot be apprehended. However, honorable Śāriputra, besides the true nature, one does not apprehend any other dharma capable of being shown or explained.”

Śāriputra then asked, F.268.a “Mañjuśrī, does the Tathāgata teach the Dharma while residing in the true nature?”

“Honorable Śāriputra,” Mañjuśrī replied, “if a true nature does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? Honorable Śāriputra, if the Dharma also does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? If the Tathāgata also does not exist, then how can the Tathāgata reside in the true nature and teach the Dharma? All dharmas do not exist and cannot be apprehended. The Tathāgata also does not exist and cannot be apprehended. When his Dharma is taught, it is like this: it is without distinction between either apprehending or not apprehending. The Tathāgata himself is not distinguished by the expressible or the inexpressible. Why is this? Because, honorable Śāriputra, the Tathāgata is completely cut off from expression, involves no designation, and is not something that can be designated.”

Śāriputra then asked, “Mañjuśrī, who will become a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this?”

Mañjuśrī said, “Honorable Śāriputra, one who is not disturbed in the conditioned realm and who does not desire complete nirvāṇa will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching like this. One who does not apprehend dharmas of the past, does not comprehend dharmas of the past, does not apprehend dharmas of the past, present, or future, and does not comprehend dharmas of the past, present, or future will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. One who neither sees nor appropriates defilements and purifications will be a recipient for a Dharma teaching such as this. One who does not pursue either self or nonself and who does not pursue acquiring and relinquishing is a recipient for a F.268.b Dharma teaching such as this. That one will comprehend the meaning of this exposition.”

“Mañjuśrī, in this regard, what is comprehended?” asked Śāriputra.

Mañjuśrī then asked, “Honorable Śāriputra, if there were to be something that constitutes the meaning of this exposition, then ask, ‘In this regard, what is comprehended?’ ”

“Mañjuśrī, this profound Dharma teaching is rarely directly perceived,” said Śāriputra. “It is rarely fully apprehended. Mañjuśrī, if even arhats, those in training, and those beyond training^[9] grow discouraged regarding this location, how much more so are childish ordinary beings.”

“Honorable Śāriputra,” said Mañjuśrī, “arhats do not have a dwelling place. Why is this? Because if even arhats do not exist, in what place would an arhat dwell? Arhats are thus distinguished by being without dwelling place. Arhats are distinguished by being without apprehension. Arhats are distinguished by having fully cut off the expressible and inexpressible. Why is this? Because as arhats have fully cut off the expressible and inexpressible, they are free from designation. Arhats are free from distinctions concerning places.

“They are distinguished by the unconditioned. They are without engagement. They are distinguished by the unconditioned because if arhats are unconditioned and without dwelling place, what would be the dwelling place of arhats?

“Arhats are not distinguished by name and form. Childish ordinary beings conceptualize name and form. Name and form are understood by arhats to be without conceptions and without conceptualizing. Therefore, arhats are not distinguished by name and form. Even childish beings are not apprehended. The qualities of childish beings, arhats, and arhat qualities are also not apprehended. At the time they are not apprehended, they are not conceived. They are not dealt with. F.269.a Without being dealt with, they are unelaborated and peaceful.

“One does not accept their ‘existence,’ nor does one accept their ‘nonexistence.’ One also does not accept that they are both existent while existing and nonexistent while not existing. Nor does one accept that they are neither existent nor nonexistent. When one does not accept any of these, there is no apprehension. Being free from all apprehensions—without thought and free from thought—we speak of one who dwells in the quality of spiritual practice^[10] by way of being without dwelling place.”

Once^[11] this teaching had been explained by the youthful Mañjuśrī, the five hundred monks of the retinue got up from their seats saying, “We do not see the youthful Mañjuśrī. We do not hear the youthful Mañjuśrī. Any location where the youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Why is that? The youthful Mañjuśrī has shown in a blatant manner that the defilements and purifications have a single characteristic.” They thought that he had thereby said something that was not Dharma, and thinking, “How can we thus train in the doctrine that is well spoken by the Bhagavān and practice pure moral conduct?” they departed.

The elder Śāriputra then asked the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, do you not teach the Dharma so that sentient beings may comprehend the Dharma?”

Mañjuśrī replied, “Yes, Honorable Śāriputra.”

Śāriputra said, “Having arisen from their seats, those five hundred monks have spoken disparagingly and unpleasantly, and they have departed.”

“Honorable Śāriputra, it is good,” said Mañjuśrī, “it is good that those five hundred monks said, ‘We do not see the youthful Mañjuśrī. We do not hear the youthful Mañjuśrī. Any location where youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Śāriputra, F.269.b the words of these monks are well spoken. Why is that? Because the youthful Mañjuśrī does not exist and cannot be apprehended. That which does not exist and cannot be apprehended cannot be seen and cannot be heard. Any location where the youthful Mañjuśrī could dwell should be abandoned. Why is that? Because, since the youthful Mañjuśrī does not exist and cannot be apprehended, any place he could dwell also does not exist and cannot be apprehended. And one should not try to rely on what does not exist and cannot be apprehended.”

When those five hundred monks had heard this teaching by the youthful Mañjuśrī, they again returned to their places and said the following words to the youthful Mañjuśrī: “Mañjuśrī, why do we not understand what you just taught?”

Mañjuśrī replied, “This is good, monks, this is good. Such are the activities of the Teacher’s hearers.^[12] In this regard, monks, there is nothing to comprehend and there is nothing to cognize. Why is this?^[13] Because this realm of reality is the very state of dwelling in the manner of being without dwelling place. That which is the realm of reality is not a realm. That which does not exist and cannot be apprehended is also immovable and without death and rebirth. That which is immovable and without death and rebirth is not something comprehensible. It is not something cognizable. Those who are without the vain imaginings of comprehension and cognition are called hearers of the Teacher. They are called those who have attained the supreme, leaders, and those worthy of offerings.”

Upon explaining this teaching, among the five hundred monks the minds of four hundred monks were liberated from the pollutions without any further clinging. The minds of one hundred monks grew increasingly disturbed, and their bodily existences and mental states were plunged into the great hell of Howling.^[14]

Venerable Śāriputra then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, F.270.a I am shocked that one hundred monks have all gone to ruin^[15] because you did not teach a Dharma that protects sentient beings.”

Thereupon the Bhagavān replied to the elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, do not say such things. Why? Śāriputra, those one hundred monks will come into contact with the great hell of Howling for only a moment, and they will then take rebirth together among the gods of Tuṣita heaven.^[16] Śāriputra, if these monks had not heard this Dharma discourse, they would undoubtedly have gone to hell, and having exhausted their karma,^[17] some would have taken rebirth as humans. But since they have relied upon this Dharma discourse, even those deeds that would cause other beings to experience hell for an eon will, for them, cause that experience for only a short while. Therefore, Śāriputra, those one hundred monks will be included among the initial hearers of the tathāgata Maitreya and become arhats who have exhausted their pollutions. Since that is so, Śāriputra, for this Dharma discourse to be heard by those who have doubt is excellent indeed, in a way that is not the case for the attainment of the four meditative concentrations, in a way that is not the case for the four immeasurables, and in a way that is not the case for the cultivation of the four formless attainments. Why is that? Because without hearing such a Dharma discourse, one will not be liberated from cyclic existence, nor will one be liberated from birth, ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, suffering, sadness, and agitation.”

The venerable Śāriputra then said to the youthful Mañjuśrī, “Mañjuśrī, it is amazing how you have matured sentient beings through your eloquent explanation of this Dharma discourse.”

“Honorable Śāriputra,” replied Mañjuśrī, “the true nature does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of reality does not diminish F.270.b, nor does it increase. The realm of sentient beings does not diminish, nor does it increase. They are not defiled, nor are they purified.^[18] Why is this? Because these things do not exist and cannot be apprehended. They are nothing at all, as they amount to nothing but mere conventions. They are not caused by anything at all. They do not dwell anywhere at all and are without dwelling place. Honorable Śāriputra, that which is uncurtailed in this way is awakening. Awakening is liberation. Liberation is nonconceptual. The nonconceptual is unfabricated and immutable. The unfabricated and immutable is wholly beyond suffering.”

Thereupon, the Bhagavān said to the elder Śāriputra, “Śāriputra, it is just as the youthful Mañjuśrī has taught. True nature does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of reality also does not diminish, nor does it increase. The realm of sentient beings does not diminish, nor does it increase. It is not defiled, nor is it purified.^[19] Why is this? Because these things do not exist and cannot be apprehended. They are nothing at all, as they amount to nothing more than mere conventions. They are not caused by anything at all. They do not dwell anywhere at all and are without dwelling place.”

At that time, the Bhagavān uttered these verses:^[20]

When this Dharma discourse had been explained, one hundred thousand^[25] living beings purified the Dharma eye with regard to dharmas so that it was dustless and stainless. The minds of five hundred monks were liberated from the pollutions without any further clinging.^[26] Eighty thousand gods belonging to the form realm generated the mind set on unexcelled, perfectly complete awakening. The Bhagavān predicted that they would all realize unexcelled, perfectly complete awakening in the eon called Star-like and that all of them would then bear the same name: the tathāgata, arhat, perfectly complete buddha Flower.^[27] When the Bhagavān had said this, the youthful Mañjuśrī, the venerable Śāriputra, and the world with its gods, humans, asuras, and gandharvas F.271.b rejoiced and praised the proclamation of the Bhagavān.