Nonarising Tilaka Scripture

22. Investigation of the Tathagata

(Buddhanature)

[For Ts. 370, this and the following chapter on error both serve to “demonstate that the flow of becoming is empty of inherent existence.”]

1. /phung min phung po las gzhan min/ /de la phung med de der med/ /de bzhin gshegs pa phung ldan min/ /de bzhin gshegs pa gang zhig yin /

1. Not the aggregates, not other than the aggregates; the aggregates are not in him; he is not in them: the Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. What is the Tathagata?

2. /gal te sangs rgyas phung po la/ /brten nas rang bzhin las yod min/ /rang bzhin las ni gang med pa/ /de gzhan dngos las ga la yod /

[Here and below the sanskrit for brten pa is upadaya (upadana). Only from v. 5 does the Tibetan start using forms of nyer len]

2. If the buddha depends on the aggregates, he does not exist from an own-nature. How can that which does not exist from an own-nature exist from an other-nature?

3. /gang zhig gzhan gyi dngos brten nas/ /de bdag nyid du mi 'thad do/ /gang zhig bdag nyid med pa de/ /ji ltar de bzhin gshegs par 'gyur /

3. It is not tenable for something dependent on other-nature to be self-existent. How can that which has no self-existence be tathagata?

4. /gal te rang bzhin yod min na/ /gzhan dngos yod par ji ltar 'gyur/ /rang bzhin dang ni gzhan dngos dag/ /ma gtogs de bzhin gshegs de gang /

[l. a-b cf. 2.c-d: /rang bzhin las ni gang med pa/ /de gzhan dngos las ga la yod]

4. If self-nature does not exist, how can there be the existence of other-nature? What is a Tathagata apart from own-nature and other-nature?

5. /gal te phung po ma brten par/ /de bzhin gshegs pa 'ga' yod na/ /de ni da gdong* rten** 'gyur zhing/ /brten nas de nas 'gyur la rag /

[Lha. *gdod **brten Ts. *gzod **brten]

5. If there exists a tathagata [who is] not depending on the aggregates, he exists in depending [on them] now and will henceforth depend.

6. /phung po rnams la ma brten par/ /de bzhin gshegs pa 'ga' yang med/ /gang zhig ma brten yod min na/ /des ni ji ltar nyer len 'gyur /

6. If there does not exist a tathagata [who is]not depending on the aggregates, how does he grasp [depend on? them]?

[v. 5 & 6 mirror each other grammatically - (cf. Skt.) l.c of v. 6 is effectively redundant; it serves as metric padding for the conditional na]

7. /nye bar blangs pa ma yin pa*/ /nye bar len par** cis mi 'gyur/ /nye bar len pa med pa yi/ /de bzhin gshegs pa ci yang med /

[Ts. *pas; Lha. **pa]

7. [Since] there is nothing to be grasped/dependent on, there can be no grasping/depending. There is no tathagata at all who is without grasping/depending.

8. /rnam pa lngas ni btsal byas na/ /gang zhig de nyid gzhan nyid du/ /med pa'i de bzhin gshegs pa de/ /nye bar len pas ji ltar gdags /

8. If having examined in five ways, how can that tathagata who does not exist as that one or the other be [conventionally] understood by grasping/depending?

9. /gang zhig nye bar blang ba* de/ /de ni rang bzhin las yod min/ /bdag gi dngos las gang med pa/ /de gzhan dngos las yod re skan /

[Lha. *pa]

9. That which is grasped/depended on does not exist from its own nature. It is impossible for that which does not exist from its own nature to exist from another nature.

10. /de ltar nyer blang nyer len po/ /rnam pa kun gyis stong pa yin/ /stong pas de bzhin gshegs stong pa/ /ji lta bur na 'dogs par 'gyur /

[cf. v. 8; ‘dogs = prajnapyate]

10. In that way, what is grasped/depended on and what grasps/depends are empty in every aspect. How can an empty tathagata be [conventionally] understood by what is empty?

11. /stong ngo zhes kyang mi brjod de/ /mi stong zhes kyang mi bya zhing/ /gnyis dang gnyis min mi bya ste/ /gdags pa'i don du brjod par bya/

11. Do not say “empty,” or “not empty,” or “both,” or “neither:” these are mentioned for the sake of [conventional] understanding.

12. /rtag dang mi rtag la sogs bzhi/ /zhi ba 'di la ga la yod/ /mtha' dang mtha' med la sogs bzhi/ /zhi ba 'di la ga la yod /

12. Where can the four such as permanence and impermanence exist in this peaceful one? Where can the four such as end and no-end [of the world] exist in this peaceful one?

13. /gang gis de bzhin gshegs yod ces/ /'dzin pa stug po* bzung gyur pa/ /de ni mya ngan 'das pa la/ /med ces rnam rtog rtog par byed /

[Lha. *pos Ts. *po]

13. Those who hold the dense apprehension, “the tathagata exists” conceive the thought, “he does not exist in nirvana.”

[Ts. 378-9 says that while this version is found in Chandrakirti’s Prasannapada, he prefers the version quoted by Buddhapalita: /gang gis ‘dzin stug bzung gyur pa//de ni mya ngan ‘das pa la//de bzhin gshegs pa yod ce’am//med ces rnam tog rtog par byed/. Those who hold dense apprehensions conceive thoughts of the tathagata’s “existence” or “non-existence” in nirvana.]

14. /rang bzhin gyis ni stong de la/ /sangs rgyas mya ngan 'das nas ni/ /yod do zhe'am med do zhes/ /bsam pa* 'thad pa nyid mi 'gyur /

[Lha. *pa’ang]

14. For that one empty of own-nature, it is entirely inappropriate to think that once the buddha has nirvana-ed he either “exists” or “does not exist.”

15. /gang dag sangs rgyas spros 'das shing/ /zad pa med la spros byed pa/ /spros pas nyams pa de kun gyis/ /de bzhin gshegs pa mthong mi 'gyur /

[K. 310. zad pa med pa = avyaya = non-variable/steadfast]

15. Those who make fixations about Buddha who is beyond fixations and without deterioration -- all those who are damaged by fixations do not see the tathagata.

16. /de bzhin gshegs pa'i rang bzhin gang/ /de ni 'gro 'di'i rang bzhin yin/ /de bzhin gshegs pa rang bzhin med/ /'gro ba 'di yi rang bzhin med /

16. Whatever is the own-nature of the tathagata, that is the own-nature of this world. The tathagata has no own-nature. This world has no own-nature.

de bzhin gshegs pa brtag pa zhes bya ba ste rab tu byed pa nyi shu gnyis pa'o // //