The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says that that which is great is called “immeasurable” and “beyond conceptualization;” therefore it is called “great.”²⁸⁷ It is analogous to the fact that space is called “great” even though this is not due to [a greatness contrasted with] small spaces. Nirvāṇa is also like this. It is not due to [a contrast with] small characteristics that it is called “great” nirvāṇa.

The “subtle” is also like this. “Subtle” means “beyond conceptual thought”; it is not subtle due to [a contrast with] crudities. If it is determined that there is a dharmadhātu [the Dharma or Absolute Reality] which is vast, great, independent, and absolute. This kind of “great thing” must be described as existing [in contrast to nothingness], but how then can it be called absolute [in the absolute, non-relative sense?]²⁸⁸

Now, the dharmadhātu is pure and not something which can be seen, heard, realized, known, or verbalized. The text says, “Cease, cease, it is not necessary to explain. My dharma is subtle and difficult to conceptualize.”²⁸⁹ The “Cease, cease, it is not necessary to explain” refers to the absolute severance of words. The “My dharma is subtle and difficult to conceptualize” refers to the absolute severance of conceptualization.

It also says, “This dharma cannot be expressed; the marks of words are quiescent.”²⁹⁰ This also refers to the limits of praising [the Buddha, or the subtlety of reality] with language. [The Buddha-dharma] cannot be expressed with relative terms, and it cannot be expressed with absolute terms. It means the extinguishing of the relative and the absolute. Therefore it is said, “[words are] quiescent.”

It is also said that all dharmas have “the mark of eternal quiescent extinction which finally is reduced to emptiness.”²⁹¹ This emptiness is also empty, therefore neither the relative nor the absolute have substantial Being. The Mūlamadhyamakakārika says, “If dharmas arise in relation to [something else], that dharma in turn gives rise to relative dharmas.”²⁹²

287

A summary of a passage in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra which discusses the meaning of “great nirvāṇa” in contrast to a Hinayāna nirvāṇa. The terms “immeasurable” and ‘”beyond conceptualization” appear on T. 12, 746b21-26: “Good man! ‘Great’ means ‘beyond conceptualization.’ If something is beyond conceptualization, it is something that all sentient beings are not able to believe. Therefore it is called ‘great final nirvāṇa’ (mahāparinirvāṇa). It is something perceived only by Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Therefore it is called ‘great final nirvāṇa.’ It is also called ‘great’ because it is attained only after innumerable causes and conditions. Therefore it is called ‘great’.” return

288

In other words, as soon as words are used to describe the absolute, one is describing the absolute which is so in contrast to the relative. return

289

From the Lotus Sūtra; Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 28. return

290

Also from the Lotus Sūtra; Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 23. return

291

From the chapter on “Medicinal Herbs” in the Lotus Sūtra. Hurvitz, Lotus Sūtra, 103, translates: “Those grasses and trees, shrubs and forests, and medicinal herbs do not know themselves whether their nature is superior, intermediate, or inferior; but the Thus Come One knows this Dharma of a single mark and a single flavor, namely, the mark of deliverance, the mark of disenchantment, the mark of extinction, the mark of ultimate nirvāṇa, finally reducing itself to Emptiness. The Buddha, knowing this, observes the heart’s desire of each of the beings, and guides them accordingly.” return

292

I was unable to locate the source of this quote. return