Post #753

We finish this exchange with an extract from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: "O good man! I, at that time, with mind-reading Wisdom, fathomed the mind of the Bramacarins and said to them: "What do you mean by saying that I talk of "not-is"? All the Brahmacarins said: "You, Gautama, have previously stated, here and there in the sutras, that all beings do not possess the Self. Now you say that there is no Self. How can you say that this is not the "not-is" theory? If “[there is]” no Self, who upholds the precepts and who violates “[them]”? I, the Buddha, said: "I have never said that all beings do not have the Self; I have always said that all beings have the Buddha-Nature. Is not the Buddha-Nature the Self? Thus, I have never spoken of "not-is". All beings do not see the Buddha-Nature. Hence, “[for them there is]” the non-Eternal, non-Self, non-Bliss, and non-Purity. Such are the views of "not-is". Then, all the Brahmacarins, on hearing that the Buddha-Nature is the Self, aspired to the unsurpassed Bodhi “[Enlightenment]” mind, and then, renouncing the world, practised the way of Bodhi. All flying birds and all those on water and land aspired to unsurpassed Bodhi, and having aspired, abandoned their bodies "O good man! This Buddha-Nature is, truth to say, no Self “[i.e. no defiled, circumscribed ego”]. For the benefit of beings, I say Self. "O good man! The Tathagata, when there is reason for “[so]” saying, says that non-Self is the Self. But, truth to say, there is no Self “[there]”. Though I speak thus, there is nothing “[here]” that is false. "O good man! On account of causal relations, I state Self to be non-Self, “and, yet, truth to tell, there is the Self. It constitutes the world. I state “[this]” as non-Self. But nothing is wrong. The Buddha-Nature is non-Self. The Tathagata says Self. Because there is the quality of the Eternal. The Tathagata is the Self. And yet he states “[this]” as non-Self. Because he has unmolestedness” [i.e. complete freedom, unrestrictedness, the ability to do what he wills].