THE JO-NAN-PASstatic and mobile, the Jo nan pas also quote the Tathiigatagarbhasiitra, the Kala-
cakra, the Dharmadhiitustotra, and numerous Siitra and Sastra texts [7b ]. It is
however absolutely necessary to interpret texts of indirect meaning (neyiirtha)
by means of the three Gates [i.e. criteria] of the intentional-basis (dgmis gZi, that
which is intended but expressed indirectly), the motive (dgos pa) and the incom-
patibility (gnod byed, between a literal interpretation and the real doctrine).
If it is declared (by the Teacher) that Forces (bala) and Intrepidities (vais-
iiradya) exist in the sentient-being, this refers only to the ground (gvi) for their
production through purification of the impurety of the sentient-being, who is by
nature perfectly pure (prakrtivisuddha).
If it is declared that the permanent and stable tathiigatagarbha exists, this is
an indirect meaning pronounced with reference to the tathatii in order to attract
the tlrthikas; but if it were of definitive meaning (nltiirtha), it would not differ
from the heterodox iitmaviida. This has been clearly declared by the Buddha
himself in the Lmikiivatiirasiitra:^62 'The Bodhisattva Mahamati addressed Bha-
gavat respectfully saying: Bhagavat has declared the tathiigatagarbha. Bhagavat
has declared that the primordially-pure through Purity which is luminous by
proper-nature since the outset and possessing the thirty-two Marks (la/cym:za)
exists within the body (Ius = deha) of sentient-beings; Bhagavat has declared
that, though enveloped-like a precious stone enveloped by a rag-by the rag of
the skandhas, dhiitus and iiyatanas, overwhelmed by concupiscence, hate and
confusion, and soiled by the impurity of umeal dichotomizing-thought,^63 it is
permanent, stable and eternal. 0 Bhagavat, if this is so, how does the tathiigata-
garbha doctrine differ from the iitmaviida of the tlrthikas? [8a] 0 Bhagavat, the
tlrthikas also formulate a doctrine of permanence, speaking as they do of the
permanent, stable, attributeless, omnipresent, and indestructible.
'Bhagavat replied: 0 Mahamati, my teaching of the tathiigatagarbha is not
like the iitmaviida of the tlrthikas. 0 Mahiimati, for the meanings (padiirtha)
siinyatii, bhiitakoti, nirvii1Ja, anutpiida, animitta, apra1Jihita, etc. the Tathagatas-
Arhats-Sarp.yaksambuddhas have given the teaching of the tathiigatagarbha. So
that the puerile may abandon their states of fear concerning Insubstantiality
(nairiitmyasal!ltriisapada), the state of the absence of conceptualization, the
domain of non-appearance (niriibhiisagocara) is taught by the teaching of the
Gate of the tathiigatagarbha. 0 Mahamati, the Bodhisattvas of the future and
the present must not attach themselves in their conceptions (abhinivis-) to a self.
0 Mahamati, a potter for example makes from a single lump of clay pots of dif-
ferent shapes by using his hands, skill, a tool, water, a cord, and effort. Sim-
ilarly, 0 Mahamati, by the varied use of transcending discriminative knowledge
and skill in means the Tathagatas teach [8b] that reversal of all the features of
conceptualization, the Insubstantiality of dharmas, either by the teaching of the
tathiigatagarbha or by the teaching of Insubstantiality-and this by different
turns of word and syllable in the manner of a potter.^64 0 Mahamati, the Tatha-
gatas thus teach the (tathiigata)garbha inasmuch as they teach the tathiigata-
garbha in order to attract (iikanja1Ja) those who are attached to the heterodox