English (machine translation)

Language: English
Extent: 199 passages, 25,995 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1845 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

1 — 199 parts

Text

In intending to explain this treatise, there are, briefly, two sections: first, presenting the general meaning of the treatise; second, interpreting the text according to the passages. Regarding the general meaning: Indeed, as for the Buddha's path as a path, it is desolate, empty, and tranquil; deep and unfathomable. It is profound, and yet more profound, going beyond the outward form of all phenomena; it is quiet, and yet more quiet, remaining within the discourses of the hundred schools. Not having outward forms, the five eyes cannot see its body; being within words, the four kinds of unobstructed eloquence cannot speak of its state. If one wishes to say it is great, entering into what has no interior, nothing is left out; if one wishes to say it is minute, enveloping what has no exterior, it has room to spare. Would one consider it to exist? The single thusness is empty on account of it. Would one consider it not to exist? The ten thousand things are born through its function. Not knowing what to call it, one arbitrarily names it the Path. As for its essence: vast, it is like the great void without partiality; boundless, it is like the great ocean with supreme impartiality. Because it has supreme impartiality, movement and stillness are accomplished accordingly; because it lacks partiality, defilement and purity are thereby fused. Because defilement and purity are fused, the ultimate and the conventional are equal; because movement and stillness are accomplished, rising and descending are varied. Because rising and descending are varied, the path of sympathetic resonance is open; because the ultimate and conventional are equal, the path of thinking and deliberation is cut off. Because thinking and deliberation are cut off, those who realize its essence ride shadows and echoes without fixed direction; because sympathetic resonance is open, those who pray to it transcend names and characteristics and have a refuge. What it casts as shadows and echoes is neither physical form nor spoken word. Having already transcended names and characteristics, what is transcended, and what is refuge? This is called the ultimate principle of no principle, the great so-ness of non-so-ness. Were it not for the silent bodhisattvas and the masters who understand at a glance, who could discuss the Mahāyāna where there is no vehicle, and give rise to deep faith where there is no faith? Therefore, Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa, with unconditioned great compassion, grieved that the deluded wind of avidyā stirs the ocean of the mind so that it easily drifts, and pitied that this true nature of innate enlightenment sleeps in a long dream and is difficult to awaken; with the power of cognition of identical essence, he was able to compose this treatise, praising and expounding the profound sūtras and esoteric meanings of the Tathāgata, wishing to cause students to open a single scroll for a moment and grasp the essentials of the Tripiṭaka everywhere, and to cause practitioners of the Path to eternally bring an end to the myriad objects and finally return to the source of the One Mind. As a treatise, there is nothing it does not establish, and nothing it does not refute. For example, such works as the Madhyamakaśāstra and the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra comprehensively refute all attachments, and also refute refutation, yet they do not in turn concede what can refute or what is refuted; this is called a treatise that goes forth but is not comprehensive. Such works as the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha broadly establish the profound and the shallow to differentiate dharma-gates, yet they do not harmonize and eliminate what they themselves have established; this is called a treatise that gives but does not take away. Now, this treatise is both wise and benevolent, both profound and widely transmitted; there is nothing it does not establish and yet eliminate of itself, and nothing it does not refute and yet concede in turn. As for conceding in turn, it reveals that those who go forth reach the utmost and establish comprehensively; as for eliminating of itself, it clarifies that those who give exhaust giving and take away. This is called the ancestral progenitor of all treatises, the supreme judge of the host of disputes. Although what it explains is broad, it can be stated briefly: opening two gates within the One Mind, it summarizes the broad proclamations of the hundred and eight [questions] of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra; showing that nature is pure amidst characteristics of defilement, it completely synthesizes the profound import of the fifteen [meanings] of the *Vajrasamādhi. As for the single-taste tenet of the Crane Forest, the non-dual purport of Vulture Peak, the ultimate fruit of the three bodies in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa and the Tongxing [jing], the profound causes of the four stages in the Avataṃsakasūtra and the Yingluo [jing], the vast supreme path of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Mahāsaṃnipāta, and the esoteric profound gates of the Sūryagarbha and Candragarbha—that which pierces through all these scriptures like a single thread into their very core is solely this treatise! Therefore the text below says: "Because [I] wish to encompass generally the Tathāgata's broad, great, and profound dharma and boundless meanings, this treatise should be spoken." However, because the words of this treatise are close at hand while its principle is far-reaching, its text concise while its meaning is abundant, among those who have explained it up to now, few have grasped its tenet. This is truly because each held to what they had practiced and forced the text, unable to empty their minds and seek its purpose. Consequently, they did not come close to the treatise master's intent: some looked at the source and described the stream, some grasped a leaf and called it the trunk, some cut the collar to patch the sleeve, or broke the staff while retaining the root. Now, strictly relying on the text of this treatise to correspond to the source sūtras it expounds, I briefly present the main points merely to record them for myself, not daring to hope for widespread dissemination in the world. The presentation of the general meaning is concluded.

1.3

Second, interpreting the text: The initial verse of homage and the section on causes and conditions are evident from the text. In the section on establishing the meaning, two headings are established, namely, dharma and meaning. "Dharma" is the dharma-essence of the Mahāyāna; "meaning" is the nominal meaning of the Mahāyāna. First, establishing dharma initiates the subsequent explanatory text that first explains the establishment of dharma; later, establishing meaning initiates the explanatory text from "Furthermore, the self-essence and characteristics of tathatā" onward that explains the establishment of meaning. In the initial establishing of dharma, there are also two establishments: first, establishing comprehensively in terms of essence, which initiates the initial general explanation in the explanation below; second, establishing individually with respect to the gates, which initiates the text below that explains individually from "As for tathatā" onward. In the first part:

1.4

As for the statement "As for 'dharma,' it refers to the minds of sentient beings": self-essence is called dharma. Now, in the Mahāyāna, all dharmas have no self-essence of their own, and all take the One Mind as their self-essence; therefore, it is said that "dharma" refers to the minds of sentient beings.

1.5

As for the statement "This mind encompasses all dharmas": this reveals that the Mahāyāna dharma is different from the Hīnayāna dharmas, precisely because this mind comprehensively encompasses all minds.

1.6

As for the statement "This mind encompasses all dharmas": this reveals that the self-essence of the great dharma is solely the One Mind, unlike the Hīnayāna where all dharmas each have their own self-essence and can all serve as dharmas; therefore, it speaks of the One Mind as the Mahāyāna dharma. For this reason, relying on this mind-dharma, the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed.

1.7

From "Why is this?" downward, it establishes [dharma] individually with respect to the gates. Looking back, this passage explains the general meaning; looking forward, it establishes the distinct gates. The mind-dharma is one, while the meanings of Mahāyāna are many; for what meaning is the meaning of Mahāyāna revealed strictly relying on this mind?

1.8

From "Why is this?" downward, it explains the intent. It states that although the mind-dharma is one, it has two gates: within the gate of tathatā, there is the essence of the Mahāyāna; within the gate of arising and ceasing, there are also characteristic and function. Although the meanings of Mahāyāna are many, they do not exceed essence, characteristic, and function; therefore, relying on the One Mind, the meaning of Mahāyāna is revealed.

1.9

As for "the tathatā of this mind": this generally introduces the gate of tathatā, which initiates the text below from "that is to say, the one dharmadhātu" onward.

1.10

As for "characteristic": this is the characteristic of tathatā, which initiates the text below from "Furthermore, as for tathatā, based on verbal explanation there are two kinds" onward.

1.11

As for "the arising and ceasing of this mind": this generally introduces the gate of arising and ceasing, which initiates the text below from "Relying on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing" onward.

1.12

As for "causes and conditions": these are the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing, which initiate the text below from "Furthermore, the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing" onward.

1.13

As for "characteristics": these are the characteristics of arising and ceasing, which initiate the text below from "Furthermore, as for the characteristics of arising and ceasing" onward.

1.14

As for "can show the self-essence of the Mahāyāna": this is the innate enlightenment within the gate of arising and ceasing. Innate enlightenment is precisely the cause of arising and ceasing; therefore, it is shown in the gate of arising and ceasing. In the gate of tathatā, it simply says "the essence of the Mahāyāna," whereas in the gate of arising and ceasing, it says "self-essence"; this is not without reason. In the explanation below, its meaning will become evident of itself.

1.15

As for "characteristic and function": this contains two meanings. First, because it can show the characteristics of the immeasurable nature qualities in the tathāgatagarbha, it is called characteristic, and because it also shows the inconceivable karmic functions of the tathāgatagarbha, it is called function; this is the meaning of greatness of characteristics and greatness of function. Second, the defiled characteristics produced by tathatā are called characteristics, and the pure functions arisen from tathatā are called functions. As the text below says: "The pure dharma of tathatā is truly without defilement, but only because it is perfumed by avidyā does it have defiled characteristics." The defiled dharma of avidyā originally lacks pure functions, "yet only because it is perfumed by tathatā does it have pure functions."

1.16

From "As for what is called 'meaning'" downward is the second heading on establishing meaning; herein there are also two parts: first, revealing the meaning of "great"; second, clarifying the meaning of "vehicle." These two initiate two passages in the explanation below, and should be coordinated when reaching them.

1.17

In "Revealing the Correct Meaning," there are, broadly, two divisions: first, properly explaining the above section on name and meaning; second, from "Furthermore, from the gate of arising and ceasing" downward, briefly clarifying the method of seeking and entering the principle. Within the proper explanation, according to the above, there are two parts: first, explaining the heading of dharma; second, from "Furthermore, the self-essence of tathatā" downward, explaining the heading of meaning. In the initial explanation of dharma, there are also two parts: first, a general explanation, explaining the general establishment above; second, an individual analysis, analyzing the individual establishment above.

1.18

As for "Relying on the dharma of the One Mind, there are two kinds of gates": as the root sūtra says, "Quiescent cessation is called the One Mind; the One Mind is called the tathāgatagarbha." Here, speaking of the gate of the mind as tathatā explains the root sūtra's statement that "quiescent cessation is called the One Mind." Speaking of the gate of the mind as arising and ceasing explains the root sūtra's statement that "the One Mind is called the tathāgatagarbha." What does this mean? Because all dharmas are unarisen and unceasing, originally quiet and quiescent, they are solely the One Mind. Such a One Mind is called the gate of the mind as tathatā; therefore, it says that quiescent cessation is called the One Mind. Moreover, the essence of this One Mind is innate enlightenment, yet following avidyā, it acts as arising and ceasing. Therefore, in this gate, the nature of the Tathāgata is hidden and not manifest, and is called the tathāgatagarbha. As the sūtra says: "The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good, capable of generating all rebirth destinies; like an actor, it counter-manifests all destinies." Such meanings as these are the gate of arising and ceasing. Therefore, the statement that the One Mind is called the tathāgatagarbha reveals the gate of arising and ceasing of the One Mind. As the text below says: "As for the mind as arising and ceasing, relying on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing ... up to, this consciousness has two kinds of meanings: first, innate enlightenment; second, non-enlightenment." Therefore, we know that not only is the mind of arising and ceasing taken as the gate of arising and ceasing, but universally taking the self-essence of arising and ceasing and the characteristics of arising and ceasing, they are all characteristics of arising and ceasing, all meanings within the gate of arising and ceasing. Because the causes of arising and ceasing, conditions of arising and ceasing, and characteristics of arising and ceasing constitute the gate of arising and ceasing, the meanings of the two gates are like this. As for what is called the One Mind: defiled and pure dharmas are non-dual in their nature, and the two gates of truth and delusion cannot be different; therefore, it is called "one." This non-dual locus is the reality within all dharmas; its essence is distinct from empty space, and its nature is intrinsically of spiritual comprehension; therefore, it is called "mind." However, since there is no duality, how can there be a oneness? When oneness does not exist at all, what shall be called mind? Such a principle is beyond words and cuts off thought; not knowing what to call it, it arbitrarily calls itself the One Mind.

1.19

Regarding the statement, "These two gates each completely subsume all dharmas," this explains [the statement] in the earlier thesis that "this mind then subsumes mundane and supramundane dharmas." Regarding the statement, "Because these two gates are not separate from each other," this explains the meaning of the two gates each completely subsuming [all dharmas]. Why is this? The gate of tathatā is the universal characteristic of all dharmas; outside the universal characteristic there are no separate dharmas, and all dharmas are subsumed by the universal characteristic. Just as subtle dust is the dharma [essence], and earthenware vessels encompass the various characteristics, and outside the various characteristics there are no separate earthenware vessels, so earthenware vessels are all subsumed by subtle dust. The gate of tathatā is also like this. As for the gate of arising and ceasing, it is this very tathatā which, as the cause of good and non-good, combines with conditions to turn into all dharmas; although it truly turns into all dharmas, it never destroys its true nature; therefore, this gate also subsumes tathatā. Just as the nature of subtle dust gathers to form earthenware vessels, yet constantly does not lose the nature and characteristics of subtle dust, so the gate of earthenware vessels immediately subsumes subtle dust; the gate of arising and ceasing is also like this. Supposing that although the two gates have no separate essence, their characteristics were mutually contradictory and did not interpenetrate, then in the gate of tathatā principle would be subsumed but not principle and phenomena; and in the gate of arising and ceasing, phenomena would be subsumed but not principle. But now the two gates are mutually interfused and unified, with no demarcation of limits; therefore, they each universally subsume all dharmas of principle and phenomena. Hence it is said: "Because the two gates are not separate from each other."

1.20

Question: If these two gates each subsume principle and phenomena, why is it that in the gate of tathatā only the essence of the Mahāyāna is shown, while in the gate of arising and ceasing the essence, characteristics, and function are all universally shown? Answer: The meaning of subsuming and the meaning of showing are different. Why is this? The gate of tathatā obliterates characteristics to reveal principle; because obliterating characteristics does not eliminate them, it can subsume characteristics; because obliterating characteristics does not preserve them, it does not show characteristics. The gate of arising and ceasing gathers principle to form phenomena; because gathering principle does not destroy it, it can subsume principle; because gathering principle does not obliterate it, it also shows essence. Based on this meaning, they are tentatively said to be different. Discussing them universally, the two meanings are also equal; therefore, in the gate of tathatā phenomenal characteristics should also be shown, but they are not mentioned merely for brevity.

1.21

Question: That the two gates are different—their meaning has already been seen. We do not yet know whether the principle and phenomena subsumed by the two gates also have differentiated meanings according with the gates or not? Answer: Differentiating them according to the gates, there are also differences. Why is this? The phenomenal dharmas subsumed within the gate of tathatā are the conceptualized nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), because it is said that all dharmas neither arise nor cease and are originally quiescent, and differences exist only based on false thoughts. The phenomenal dharmas explained in the gate of the arising and ceasing of the mind are the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), because it is said that through the combination of causes and conditions of all dharmas, there is arising and ceasing. Yet these two natures, although not one, are also not different. Why? Because the arising and ceasing dharmas produced by causes and conditions do not depart from false thoughts to have distinctions; therefore, the conceptualized nature is not different from the other-dependent, and is also present in the gate of arising and ceasing. Furthermore, because arising from causes and conditions cannot be found from self, from other, or from both together, the other-dependent nature is not different from the conceptualized, and is also present in the gate of tathatā. Although these two natures are thus not different, they are also not one. Why? Dharmas of the conceptualized nature are originally neither existent nor non-existent; dharmas of the other-dependent nature, although not existent, are also not non-existent. Therefore, the two natures are also not conflated. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "When the three natures are viewed against each other, they are not different and not non-different; so it should be stated. If one can understand this meaning of the three natures being neither one nor different, there is no dispute among the hundred schools that cannot be harmonized." As for the differences between the principles subsumed by the two gates: the principle explained in the gate of tathatā, although called tathatā, cannot be apprehended, yet is also not non-existent. Whether Buddhas exist or do not exist, its nature and characteristics are constantly abiding, without change or difference, and cannot be destroyed; in this gate, names such as tathatā and the reality-limit are provisionally established, as explained in the Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and other Prajñā sūtras. As for the principle subsumed within the gate of arising and ceasing, although the essence of the principle is free from the characteristics of arising and ceasing, it also does not maintain an eternally abiding nature, but follows the condition of avidyā to transmigrate in saṃsāra; although it is genuinely defiled, its self-nature is pure. In this gate, names such as Buddha-nature and innate enlightenment are provisionally established, as explained in the Nirvāṇasūtra, Avataṃsakasūtra, and so forth. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra and other texts expounded by the present treatise take both gates together as their central theme and essence. Yet these two meanings also have no difference: because although it is free from arising and ceasing and constantly abides, its nature also cannot be apprehended; although it is said to accord with conditions, it is constantly unmoving, because it is free from the nature of arising and ceasing. For this reason, in the gate of tathatā, it only speaks of expounding the true characteristic without destroying provisional names, and establishing all dharmas without moving from the reality-limit; in the gate of arising and ceasing, it then speaks of the naturally pure mind being moved by the wind of avidyā, being defiled without being defiled, and not defiled while being defiled.

1.22

Question: In the gate of tathatā only the meaning of emptiness is expounded, and within the gate of arising and ceasing the meaning of non-emptiness is expounded—is it not so? Answer: Correlating them superficially, this meaning is not absent; hence in the preceding section establishing the meaning, within the characteristics of tathatā, it only says that it can show the essence of the Mahāyāna, while in the gate of arising and ceasing, it also says that it shows the characteristics and function of the Mahāyāna. If speaking according to the real truth, however, it is not so. Therefore, in the subsequent text of the treatise, both gates expound the meaning of non-emptiness.

1.23

Question: If both meanings are present within the gate of arising and ceasing, its meaning of non-emptiness may possess the sense of according with conditions to produce arising and ceasing. But the meaning of emptiness is non-existence; how could it accord with conditions to produce existence? Answer: The two meanings are one and cannot be spoken of as different, yet with respect to the meaning of emptiness, it can also produce existence. Why is this? If emptiness were definitely empty, it would not be able to produce existence; but because this emptiness is also empty, it can produce existence. Yet this emptiness of emptiness also has two meanings: first, the nature of existent dharmas is empty, and this emptiness is also empty; both existence and emptiness cannot be apprehended; such emptiness of emptiness belongs to the gate of tathatā. As the Large Sūtra says: "All dharmas are empty, and this emptiness is also empty; this is called the emptiness of emptiness." Second, just as because existence has no nature of existence it can be empty, which is called emptiness, so because such emptiness has no nature of emptiness it can produce existence, which is called the emptiness of emptiness; such emptiness of emptiness belongs to the gate of arising and ceasing. As the Nirvāṇasūtra says: "This is existence and this is non-existence—this is called the emptiness of emptiness. This is right and this is wrong—this is called the emptiness of emptiness. Of such emptiness of emptiness, a bodhisattva of the ten abodes still attains only a tiny fraction like a fine hair, let alone other people." The distinction between the two gates should be understood in this way. The explanation of the above section establishing the thesis in general is completed.

1.24

From "the mind as tathatā" onward is the second part, elaborating on the specific formulations above. Elaborating on the two gates comprises two parts. In the first, it is divided into two: first, elaborating on tathatā; second, from "furthermore" onward, elaborating on the characteristics of tathatā. The reason the import of these two passages differs is that the first is a general explanation, and the second is a specific analysis. Furthermore, the first passage clarifies that it is ineffable, showing that principle transcends words; the second passage explains that characteristics can be spoken of, showing that it does not transcend words. Therefore, in the first passage:

1.25

The statement "it is free from the characteristics of speech, free from the characteristics of names... up to saying 'tathatā'" discards words by relying on words. In the second passage:

1.26

The statement "depending on verbal discrimination, there are two meanings" refers to "truly empty" and "truly not empty." Yet the second passage also states that "all discriminations do not correspond"; one should know that all verbal explanations also do not correspond. This then shows that principle transcends speech and cuts off thought. Furthermore, in the first passage, only by relying on the words that "discard words by relying on words" can it reveal that its principle transcends words; this also shows that principle is not separate from the characteristics of speech.

1.27

Question: In terms of the reality of principle, it is transcendent; if it does not transcend words, then it does not cut off thought. If it is said that one can explain that principle in reality transcends words, then there is the fault of contradicting one's own thesis, because previously the words that transcend words were not transcendent, while principle in reality transcends words. If it is maintained that the words that transcend words also transcend words, then one falls into the fault of self-contradiction, because previously the words that transcend words also transcended, yet one says words can be spoken. Furthermore, if it does not transcend words, then the fundamental [unconditioned] essence being free from words would exceed the principle. If it really transcends words, then the subsequent attainment entailing words would invert the principle. Furthermore, if it does not transcend words, then the treatise text of the first section would be false speech; if it really transcends words, then the treatise text of the latter section would be uselessly contrived, like calling space blue or yellow. Answer: Some say: Therefore, one should know that principle is neither transcendent of words nor not transcendent of words; by this meaning, principle is both transcendent of words and not transcendent of words. Such statements, because there is nothing they do not apply to, have nothing to which they specifically apply; because there is nothing to which they specifically apply, there is nothing they do not apply to. Since the meaning of transcendent and non-transcendent in the gate of tathatā is explained in this way, it is also explained in the same way in the gate of arising and ceasing.

1.28

From "arising and ceasing" onward is the second part, explaining the gate of arising and ceasing, which contains two parts: first, directly elaborating in full; second, from "furthermore, there are four kinds of perfuming" onward, reiterating it through words. The first contains three parts: first, elaborating on the earlier thesis section's "this mind's arising and ceasing"; second, from "furthermore, causes and conditions of arising and ceasing" onward, elaborating on the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing above; third, from "furthermore, the characteristics of arising and ceasing" onward, elaborating on the characteristics of arising and ceasing above. In the first, there are two parts: first, explaining generally with respect to essence; second, analyzing specifically based on meaning.

1.29

Regarding the statement, "Based on the tathāgatagarbha, there is the mind of arising and ceasing," this means that the non-arising and non-ceasing mind, moved by the wind of avidyā, produces arising and ceasing; hence it is said that the mind of arising and ceasing is based on the non-arising and non-ceasing mind. However, the non-arising and non-ceasing mind and the mind of arising and ceasing are not two in mental essence; it is only by taking the two meanings that the mind is taken as two, in order to speak of "based on." Just as still water, blown by wind, becomes moving water, and although moving and stillness differ, the water's essence is one, yet it can be said that based on still water there is its moving water. One should know that the principle here is also like this. As the treatise says below: "The naturally pure mind is moved by the wind of avidyā." Also, the Four-fascicle Sūtra says: "The tathāgatagarbha, perfumed by beginningless evil predispositions, is called the storehouse consciousness." It also says: "The momentary is called the storehouse consciousness." One should know that what is called here the "mind of arising and ceasing" refers precisely to the storehouse consciousness. Now, universally taking the based-upon tathāgatagarbha and the relying mind of arising and ceasing together constitutes the gate of the arising and ceasing of the mind. Therefore, regarding the statement "the gate of the arising and ceasing of the mind," it is that based on the tathāgatagarbha there is the mind of arising and ceasing; it does not set aside the tathāgatagarbha and take only the mind of arising and ceasing as the gate of arising and ceasing. As the text below says, "this consciousness has two meanings"; hence we know that both meanings are within the gate of arising and ceasing.

1.30

Regarding the statement, 'What is termed the non-arising and non-ceasing combining with arising and ceasing, being neither one nor different, is called the ālayavijñāna': this 'non-arising and non-ceasing' is precisely the aforesaid tathāgatagarbha; the words 'arising and ceasing' refer to the arising and ceasing of the aforesaid mind of non-arising and non-ceasing. As for the words 'combining with': the mind of non-arising and non-ceasing activates into arising and ceasing, which is termed 'with'. This mind that arises and ceases and the arising and ceasing of the mind are not separated or divorced from each other; this is called 'combining'. As the treatise states below: 'Just as the water of the great ocean is stirred into waves by the wind, and the characteristics of water and the characteristics of wind are not separated from each other.' In this, the movement of the water is the characteristic of wind, while the wetness of the movement is the characteristic of water; though there are two characteristics, they have no two essences, and therefore are not separated. The mind is also like this: the arising and ceasing of the mind is constituted depending on avidyā, while the mind that arises and ceases is constituted from innate enlightenment, yet they do not have two essences and are not separated from each other; therefore, they combine. It is precisely that the non-arising and non-ceasing combines with arising and ceasing, not that arising and ceasing combines with the non-arising and non-ceasing. Regarding 'neither one nor different': because this mind and arising and ceasing are not one, it constantly does not lose its nature of non-arising and non-ceasing; furthermore, because the mind and arising and ceasing are not different, its whole essence also assumes the characteristic of arising and ceasing. If they were one, when it undergoes arising and ceasing it would lose non-arising and non-ceasing; if they were different, this non-arising and non-ceasing would not undergo arising and ceasing; therefore it is said to be 'neither one nor different'. Although there are two meanings, the essence of the mind is not two; this non-dual mind combining the two meanings is called the ālayavijñāna. As the Four-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'For example, a lump of clay and fine dust particles are neither different nor not different; gold and ornaments made of it are also like this. If the lump of clay and the fine dust particles were different, the former would not be constituted of the latter; yet in reality it is constituted of them, therefore they are not different. If they were not different, there should be no distinction between a lump of clay and fine dust particles. In the same way, if the evolving consciousness, the storehouse consciousness, and the true characteristic were different, the storehouse consciousness would not be [their cause]; if they were not different, when the evolving consciousness ceases, the storehouse consciousness should also cease. But the inherent true characteristic in reality does not cease; therefore it is not that the true consciousness ceases, but only that the karmic characteristic ceases.' Now, this treatise directly interprets this sūtra passage; therefore it says 'neither one nor different'. What is called the 'evolving consciousness' here refers to the arising and ceasing perceiving aspect within the ālayavijñāna, which is called the evolving consciousness. Within it, the essence is called the storehouse consciousness. As the Ten-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'The tathāgatagarbha-ālayavijñāna arises together with the seven kinds of consciousness, which is termed the evolving characteristic.' Therefore we know that the evolving characteristic is also within the ālayavijñāna. Regarding the 'inherent true characteristic': in the Ten-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra, '"true" is called the inherent characteristic; the mind of innate enlightenment does not rely on delusive conditions, but by its nature is spontaneously spiritually aware—this is called the inherent true characteristic.' This is spoken with respect to the gate of the meaning of non-oneness. However, when it undergoes arising and ceasing in accordance with the wind of avidyā, the nature of spiritual awareness is not different from the original; therefore it can also be named the inherent true characteristic. This is spoken based on the gate of the meaning of non-difference. One should know that the name 'inherent true' is not exclusively in non-arising and non-ceasing.

1.31

Question: In works such as the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra, it is said that the ālayavijñāna is the vipākavijñāna and is exclusively arising and ceasing. Why does this treatise state that this consciousness completely contains both meanings? Answer: Each expounds a perspective, and they do not contradict each other. How so? This subtle mind broadly has two meanings: if viewed from the side of its meaning of being brought about by karma and afflictions, explaining how what was non-existent is brought into existence, it is exclusively arising and ceasing; if discussed from the side of its meaning of being stirred by fundamental avidyā, where the tranquil is perfumed into motion, motion and tranquility are of one essence. Those treatises and others, relying on the Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra, 'in order to eliminate the views of oneness and permanence, and with respect to the gate of the meaning of being brought about by karma and afflictions, speak of this consciousness as being exclusively arising and ceasing, evolving with distinctions between mind and mental factors.' The author of the present treatise, relying on the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, 'in order to cure the attachment to ultimate and conventional truths having separate essences, and with respect to the gate of the meaning of being stirred by avidyā, explains that non-arising and non-ceasing combines without difference with arising and ceasing. Yet this characteristic of being stirred by avidyā is also precisely that which is brought about by those karmas and afflictions; therefore, although the two intentions differ, the essence of consciousness is not two.'

1.32

Question: Should we say that the essence of the mind is permanently abiding while the characteristics of the mind arise and cease, and that essence and characteristics are inseparable, combining into one consciousness? Or should we say that the essence of the mind is permanently abiding, yet the essence of the mind itself arises and ceases? Answer: If one grasps the meaning, both meanings are acceptable. How so? If we speak of its permanent abiding without following other [conditions] as being called 'essence', and speak of its impermanence in following other [conditions] to arise and cease as being called 'characteristics', one may say that the essence is permanent while the characteristics are impermanent. However, when speaking of 'arising and ceasing', it is not the arising of arising, nor the ceasing of ceasing, which is why it is called 'arising and ceasing'. It is the arising of the mind and the ceasing of the mind, and therefore is called arising and ceasing; hence one may say that the essence of the mind arises and ceases. Just as the motion of water is called waves, one can never say that this motion is not the motion of the water. One should know that the principle here is also like this. If the essence of the mind did not move and only the characteristics of avidyā moved, there would be no principle of transforming the ordinary into the noble, because the characteristics of avidyā would exclusively cease, and the essence of the mind originally did not become ordinary. Objection: If the essence of the mind arises and ceases, then the true mind would come to an end, because when it arises and ceases it would not permanently abide. Furthermore, if the essence of the mind is originally tranquil and yet moves in accordance with conditions, then saṃsāra would have a beginning, which would be a great error, because when it was originally tranquil there would be no saṃsāra. Furthermore, if the mind transforms into arising and ceasing in accordance with conditions, then the One Mind could also turn into many minds in accordance with conditions. These three objections cannot be escaped; therefore we know this meaning cannot be established. Explanation: There is no obstacle to this meaning; I will now answer from the last one onward. Just as it is said that the permanent mind, in accordance with the conditions of avidyā, turns into an impermanent mind, while its permanent nature constantly does not itself invert; so too this One Mind, in accordance with the conditions of avidyā, turns into the minds of many sentient beings, while its One Mind is constantly of itself non-dual. As the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra states: 'The single-flavored medicine, depending on where it flows, has various flavors, yet its true flavor remains gathered on the mountain.' This is precisely what it means. Furthermore, 'Although it is said to be originally tranquil and moves in accordance with conditions, there is no error of saṃsāra having a beginning, because such mutual unfolding of motion and tranquility are both without beginning. Just as it is said that what is first a retribution later turns into a cause, and continually unfolds mutually; because both causes and effects are without beginning.' One should know that the principle here is also like this. Furthermore, although the essence of the mind arises and ceases, the essence of the mind constantly permanently abides, because they are neither one nor different. That is to say, because the essence of the mind is non-dual, it has no unitary nature; and because motion and tranquility are not one, they have no different nature. Just as water, according to the gate of continuity, has flow and motion, yet according to the gate of arising and ceasing, it is constantly motionless, because it is neither permanent nor annihilated—namely, because it neither passes over nor ceases. One should know that the principle here is also like this. Therefore, none of the three objections raised fails to be resolved. The general establishment with respect to the essence above is now complete.

1.33

From 'This consciousness has two meanings' onward is the second part: explaining distinctively according to the meanings. Here there are three parts: first, a general indication of the meanings of the gate, briefly clarifying its function; second, from 'What are the two?' onward, explaining distinctively according to the meanings, extensively revealing the essence and characteristics; third, from 'Furthermore, enlightenment and non-enlightenment' onward, generally addressing the two meanings, clarifying the characteristics of sameness and difference. In the first part:

1.34

Regarding the statement, 'This consciousness has two meanings, which can subsume all dharmas and produce all [dharmas]': the meaning of being able to subsume has already been explained above, where it was said that each of the two gates subsumes everything; here it clarifies that the one consciousness contains two meanings, and therefore the one consciousness can subsume everything. It does not say that the two meanings each subsume everything, because these two are meanings exclusively within the gate of arising and ceasing, and also because these two meanings cannot each subsume all dharmas. Furthermore, above, regarding the two gates, only the meaning of subsuming was spoken of, because in the gate of tathatā there is no meaning of being able to produce; here, regarding this consciousness, the meaning of producing is also spoken of, because it is only in the aforesaid gate of arising and ceasing that there is the meaning of being able to produce. What does this mean? Because non-enlightenment perfumes innate enlightenment, all defiled dharmas are produced; because innate enlightenment perfumes non-enlightenment, all pure dharmas are produced. It is only when these two meanings combine in this way that they can universally produce everything; therefore it is said that the consciousness having two meanings produces all dharmas. This statement directly initiates the text below, from 'there are four kinds of perfuming' onward.

1.35

Question: Above it was said that the One Mind has two gates; now it says that this consciousness has two meanings. What is the distinction between that mind and this consciousness? Explanation: Above, with respect to the ontological essence, it was named the One Mind; because its essence contains the two gates of the meaning of cutting off characteristics and the meaning of following conditions, it was said that the One Mind has two gates. As the sūtra text states: 'That which is quiescent and ceased is named the One Mind; the One Mind is named the tathāgatagarbha.' The meaning is as explained above. Here, this consciousness is spoken of solely within the One Mind's gate of following conditions: principle and phenomenon are non-dual, being exclusively a single spiritual cognition, which is named the one consciousness. Because its essence contains the two meanings of enlightenment and non-enlightenment, it is said that this consciousness has two meanings. Therefore, mind is broad and consciousness is narrow, because mind contains the consciousness of the two gates. Furthermore, gate is broad and meaning is narrow, because the gate of arising and ceasing contains the two meanings. As the Four-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'That which neither departs nor evolves is named the tathāgatagarbha-consciousness; the seven consciousnesses flow and turn without ceasing. Why is this? Because, with that as cause and conditions as support, all the consciousnesses arise; this is not the realm of practice of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' The Ten-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'The tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālayavijñāna; therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing, while the tathāgatagarbha does not arise and does not cease. Why is this? Those seven consciousnesses arise based on mental contemplation of all sense-objects. The realm of these seven consciousnesses cannot be perceived by any śrāvakas or non-Buddhist practitioners.' Both texts equally clarify the meaning of this consciousness being non-arising and non-ceasing. How so? They intend to clarify that because it is stirred by the wind of sense-objects, the waves of the seven consciousnesses evolve in the ocean of the storehouse consciousness, and therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing. The tathāgatagarbha is precisely the storehouse consciousness: although it does not depart from evolving, its essence does not evolve; therefore the tathāgatagarbha does not arise and does not cease. Hence it says that which neither departs nor evolves is named the tathāgatagarbha-consciousness, and so on. The intention of the ten-fascicle version is to clarify that the seven consciousnesses are waves, not that they are not the characteristics of the ocean; being within the ocean of the ālayavijñāna, they therefore have arising and ceasing. The tathāgatagarbha is the ocean and not the waves; it is not within the ocean of the ālayavijñāna [as a wave], and therefore has no arising and ceasing; hence it says that the tathāgatagarbha is not within the ālayavijñāna. As for 'therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing' and so on: because the tathāgatagarbha is precisely the ālayavijñāna, it therefore says 'is not within'. If the tathāgatagarbha were not within the arising-and-ceasing ālayavijñāna, it should say below, 'therefore the eight kinds of consciousness have arising and ceasing'; why does it only say 'therefore the seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing'? One should know that these two sūtra texts are originally one, and it is merely that the translators differed, which resulted in the phrasing not being the same. Furthermore, the Four-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'The ālayavijñāna is named the tathāgatagarbha, and it is accompanied together with avidyā and the seven consciousnesses, free from the fault of impermanence, and pure in its own nature. The remaining seven consciousnesses do not abide from thought-moment to thought-moment, and are dharmas of arising and ceasing.' Passages such as this equally clarify the meaning of the ālayavijñāna's innate enlightenment being non-arising and non-ceasing. Furthermore, the Four-fascicle Laṅkāvatārasūtra states: 'That which is momentary is called the storehouse consciousness'; the ten-fascicle version states: 'The tathāgatagarbha-ālayavijñāna arises together with the seven consciousnesses, which is termed the characteristic of evolving and ceasing.' Passages such as this reveal the meaning of the ālayavijñāna's arising and ceasing and non-enlightenment. The author of the present treatise now encompasses the overarching intention from beginning to end of that sūtra, and therefore says that this consciousness has two meanings.

1.36

From 'What are the two?' onward is the second part: explaining distinctively according to the meanings.

1.37

Regarding 'the meaning of enlightenment', there are two kinds: innate enlightenment and actualized enlightenment.

1.38

Regarding "innate enlightenment," it means that this nature of the mind is free from the characteristics of non-enlightenment; being of the nature of enlightened illumination, it is called innate enlightenment. As it says below: "Because its very essence has the meaning of the light of great wisdom." Regarding "actualized enlightenment," it means that this essence of the mind, following the condition of avidyā, stirs and produces deluded thoughts; yet, through the vāsanā-power of innate enlightenment, it gradually comes to have an enlightened function, until at the culmination it returns to being identical with innate enlightenment; this is called actualized enlightenment. The "meaning of non-enlightenment" also has two kinds: first, fundamental non-enlightenment; second, branch-and-leaf non-enlightenment. [Fundamental non-enlightenment] means the fundamental avidyā within the ālayavijñāna, which is called non-enlightenment. As it says below: "Relying on the ālayavijñāna, it is said that non-enlightenment arises." Regarding branch-and-leaf non-enlightenment, it means that all defiled dharmas produced by avidyā are called non-enlightenment. As it says below: "All defiled dharmas are characteristics of non-enlightenment." If one relies on the doctrinal approach of distinguishing the root from the branches according to the differences among consciousness-characteristics, then within the ālayavijñāna there are only innate enlightenment and fundamental non-enlightenment. If one takes the doctrinal approach of subsuming the branches into the root based on the non-duality of the essence of consciousness, then that actualized enlightenment and branch-and-leaf non-enlightenment are also meanings within the ālayavijñāna. Therefore, what was said above—that this consciousness has two meanings—comprehensively encompasses these two perspectives. Thus, in the explanation below, it comprehensively raises both the two enlightenments (innate and actualized) and the two non-enlightenments.

1.39

Question: Is it called innate enlightenment merely because the essence of the mind lacks non-enlightenment, or is it called innate enlightenment because the essence of the mind has the function of enlightened illumination? If one says it is called innate enlightenment merely because it lacks non-enlightenment, then since it would also lack enlightened illumination, it would be non-enlightenment. If one says it is called innate enlightenment because it possesses enlightened illumination, then is it known whether this enlightenment severs afflictions or not? If it does not sever afflictions, then it lacks illuminative function; if it does sever them, then there would be no ordinary beings. Answer: It is not only that it lacks darkness; it also possesses bright illumination. Because it possesses illumination, it also severs afflictions. What does this mean? If one defines enlightenment in terms of waking after having first slept, then actualized enlightenment has enlightenment, while in innate enlightenment there is none. If one speaks of not sleeping from the very beginning as enlightenment, then innate enlightenment is enlightenment, while actualized enlightenment is not enlightenment. The meaning of severing is also like this: if having previously existed and subsequently being absent is called severing, then actualized enlightenment has severing, while innate enlightenment has no severing; if being fundamentally free from afflictions from the very beginning is called severing, then innate enlightenment is severing, while actualized enlightenment is not severing. If one relies on this meaning, because it is severed from the very beginning, from the very beginning there are no ordinary beings. As it says below: "All sentient beings, from the beginningless past, have entered into the dharmas of nirvāṇa and bodhi." However, although it is said that because innate enlightenment exists there are fundamentally no ordinary beings, because actualized enlightenment has not yet occurred, fundamentally there are ordinary beings; therefore there is no fault. If you say that because innate enlightenment exists there are fundamentally no ordinary beings, so that there is ultimately no actualized enlightenment, and ask with respect to what ordinary beings exist, [the answer is that] otherwise, if there were ultimately no actualized enlightenment, then there would be no innate enlightenment; relying on what innate enlightenment could one speak of the absence of ordinary beings? One should know that because there is innate enlightenment, fundamentally there is no non-enlightenment; because there is no non-enlightenment, ultimately there is no actualized enlightenment; because there is no actualized enlightenment, fundamentally there is no innate enlightenment. As for the absence of innate enlightenment, its source is due to the presence of innate enlightenment; the presence of innate enlightenment is due to the presence of actualized enlightenment; the presence of actualized enlightenment is due to the presence of non-enlightenment; the presence of non-enlightenment is due to reliance on innate enlightenment. As it says below: "The meaning of innate enlightenment is spoken of in contrast to the meaning of actualized enlightenment, because actualized enlightenment is identical to innate enlightenment. As for actualized enlightenment, it is because of innate enlightenment that non-enlightenment exists; because of non-enlightenment, actualized enlightenment is said to exist." One should know that their mutually dependent condition in this way demonstrates that all dharmas are neither non-existent nor existent, neither existent nor non-existent.

First 39 of 200 passages. Read on

English (machine translation)

Contents

Text