觀心論疏 4.15

4.15

四明破法遍者，然上止觀研修而未入者，必由見著，苟執之心事須破也。文為二：一竪次第破，二非橫非竪圓破。就初為三：一從假入空破，二從空出假破，三得中道破。就初又二：一破見假惑，二破思假惑。然夫破惑取理必須依門而入，然門有種種非一，至如小乘五百羅漢各說身因，即是五百門也；《華嚴》云「無量空門汝猶未入」，又如五千菩薩各說入不二法門，即五千門也，經略出三十二菩薩耳。而最初法自在菩薩而說生滅為不二，「法本不生，今則無滅」是為入不二法門者，即是初明無生門也。淨名最後默然入不二法門，還是無生門也。欲表四十二字門，初阿後茶皆是不生。今論亦初辨四不可說，即初不生門，最後偈云「云何無文字？一切言語斷，寂然無言說」，即同淨名無言入不二法門也。今約無生門破法遍，同法自在菩薩體法無生觀門也。今且會通四不可說者：法本不生者，即是不生心中六道「生生」，即有門也；今則無滅者，即是無滅心中二乘「生不生」之滅，即空門也；是為入不二法門者，即是入心中佛界「不生不生」不二法門，即非空非有門也；雖入不二法門而復能雙照，即是心中菩薩界「不生生」，亦空亦有門也。今觀心六道即四聖界者，豈非一門即三門，生生一句即三句耶？觀心二乘界即八界者，豈非空門即三門，生不生一句即三句耶？觀心菩薩界即九界者，豈非亦空亦有一門即三門，不生生一句即三句耶？觀心佛界即九界者，即是非空非有一門即三門，不生不生一句即三句耶？是則四句、四門、十界融通無閡，即是圓人之所用也。今為圓破難見，先明三觀次第竪破。今約有門破見惑見者，即是見理時斷，故名見惑從解得名也。就中有二：一明見惑之過，二明體法觀門，即約三假四句撿責。今明見惑過者，由止觀心有百界千如即生苟執空，謂心有百界千如形相可存，因生八十八使苦集。何者？由此觀生死，不識見心苦集火宅所燒，為諸蟲獸所噉。今示相者，恃此觀解陵慢於他，如經「鵄梟鵰鷲」譬慢使也；讚其見解則喜、訶之則瞋，如經「蚖蛇蝮蝎」譬瞋使也；不識見心苦集即癡，如經「守宮百足」譬癡使；纏綿貪愛此見，如經「狐狼野干」譬貪使也；今雖無疑，後當大疑，或被人破即生疑心，如經「鬪諍䶥掣」譬疑使也；因此有見撥無因果即邪見，如經「夜叉惡鬼食噉人肉」譬邪見使也；計此為道望通至涅槃即戒取，如經「鳩槃茶鬼蹲踞土埵」譬戒取使也；計「我能解」即身見，如經「其身長大裸形黑瘦」譬身見也；謂「我所計即是涅槃」即是見取，如經「復有諸鬼其咽如針」譬見取也；計我斷常、不當中理即是邊見，如經「復有諸鬼首如牛頭」譬邊見也。此十使約欲界四諦：苦十；集七，除身、邊、戒；道八，除身、邊；滅七，除身、邊、戒，合三十二，是欲界被火燒也；上界通除瞋，色界四諦二十八，加經「惡獸毒蛇藏竄孔穴」，明色界被燒也；無色界四諦二十八，如經「蜈蚣蚰蜒毒蛇之類」，譬無色界被燒也。合三界有八十八使為集諦，是見依色起即苦諦，又《五十校計經》云「若眼見好色中有陰中有集，見惡色中有陰中有集，見平等色中有陰中有集，乃至意識好法有陰有集，餘根亦然」。是則集即集諦，陰即苦諦，斯則由計執此。又十二因緣愛、取、有、無明、行五是集諦，識、名色、六入、觸、受、生、老死七是苦諦，是見心苦集即是十二因緣。又無明、愛、取即是煩惱道，行、有即業道，識、名色、六入、觸、受、生、老死七即是苦道。又五因即是六弊。又生老病死即四苦，求悟理不得即求不得苦，今起倒惑、為惑所燒即怨憎會苦，識、名色、六入、觸、受即五盛陰苦，此即八苦也。是即由計定謂者執心有百界千如，因起八十八使，諸毒蟲等四倒八苦之火燒，五陰舍宅常遭猛火所燒，寧知其過？為是苦集煩惱煎迫，自障道門，寧得悟理也！二明體法觀者，經云「無明體相即約三假四句撿責」。何者？一念心起必藉法塵而起，即因成假；見心相續而起，即相續假；此有見之心待於無見，即相待假也。一假之中復作自他四句撿責。何者？今問觀一念自生之心謂有百界千如者，為從何生？若云從內心生觀解心者，即自生，若謂自生即應常生，不須待緣前境法塵而生耶？經云「有緣思生，無緣思不生」，云何得自生耶？經云「非內觀故得是智慧」，云何自生？《中論》云「諸法不自生」，云何自生耶？若謂由緣前境法塵而生者，即是他生，是即不可。經云「非外觀得是智慧」，云何從境生耶？論云「亦不從他生」，云何他生耶？若必謂他生，境應常生觀智，何待內心觀緣方生耶？若謂由內心對外境法塵而生觀智，即是共生，是亦不可。前責自他無生，合共云何得生？如一沙無油，合眾多沙亦無油也。若前自他各有生者，合則應有兩生；又若各有生者，云何復用合生？論云「諸法不共生」，經云「非內外觀故得是智慧」，云何計共生耶？若謂離心離境生者，即是無因生，是亦不可。論云「有因緣生尚不可，何況無因緣」，經云「不離內外觀得是智慧」，云何無因生耶？行者如是四句檢責求心雖不可得，意猶未已，終計見有心相續而生。今即約相續假破問：為前心滅後心生？為前心不滅後心生？為亦滅亦不滅生？為非滅非不滅生？若前心不滅生即自生，若前心滅生即他生，若亦滅亦不滅生即共生，若非滅非不滅生即無因生，四句俱不可得，故論云「諸法不自生，亦不從他生，不共、不無因」，云何四句計有生耶？即復度入相待假。今即約相待假破問：此心為待生心生？為待不生心生？為待亦生亦不生心生？為待非生非不生心生？若待生心生即自生，若待不生心生即他生，若待亦生亦不生心生即共生，若待非生非不生心生即無因生，四句檢皆不可得。如是三假四句求檢生不可得，即自知所計「定謂心有百界千如形相」是妄起顛倒。悔過、自責、愧懺先罪，是則八十八使、苦集、十二因緣被伏，不起六弊，名為滅諦；能伏苦集之道，名為道諦；知苦集之過即不更造，名行道人也。復次如上檢責求心不得，即發一重空解，定心湛湛，空見逾明。尚不見心，豈有百界千如者乎？尋經讀論有明空處與心相扶、計心轉盛，因而我慢自高、陵他不解，即慢使也；讚空則喜、訶空則瞋；貪愛空見即貪；無明不了即癡；疑惑諦理即疑；「我能解」即身見；由身見起邊見；因空見撥無因果即邪見；謂「空見能通涅槃」即戒取；謂「空見是道」即見取。如是十使約三界有八十八使為集諦，是見依色而起是苦諦，因此苦集流轉生死，為四倒八苦之火所燒，為鈍使諸蟲、利使諸鬼之所殘害，寧得悟解識第一義空者也！今破此見還約三假四句破。何者？如一念心起必因空境法塵生，即是因成假；空見相續而生，即相續假；空見待不空見生，即相待假。今問：空見之解心生，為從內心生？為從外空境法塵生？為內外合共生？為離內外生？若內心生即自生，若外法塵生即他生，若內外合生即共生，若離內心外法塵生即無因生，四句皆有過，事如前破。計心未已者，更約相續假。何者？若謂一念空心從前不滅心生即自生，前心滅生即他生，前心亦滅亦不滅生即共生，若前心非滅非不滅生即無因生，四句皆不可得，事如前破。若復執相待假者，今破：若待生心生即自生，若待不生心生即他生，若待亦生亦不生心生即共生，若待非生非不生心生即無因生，四句皆不可得。如是三假四句寂撿，空見不可得，而自知計「定心空無百界，無聖人、妙法」還是妄倒。經云「若云眾生定有佛性，即謗佛法僧；若云眾生定無佛生，亦是謗佛法僧」，故知我所計「心定有定無」即謗毀三寶。悔過、自責、愧懺先罪，是則八十八使、苦集、十二因緣、六弊不生，名為滅諦；能伏苦集之道，即是道諦也。次復思惟若心定有即是常見，若心定無即是斷見，即計心亦有亦無即發一品定心湛湛。亦有亦無見心明淨即謂為道因，此見心還起八十八使，苦集流轉自障其道，是則約三假四句撿責，例前可知。求撿既不可得，即識亦有亦無見心苦集道滅四諦也。次復計心非有非無心起苦集，還約三假四句求撿不可得，即識非有非無見心四諦。次復計心出四句外不可說，因不可說見心復起苦集，還約三假四句撿責不可得，即識不可說見心苦集道滅。如是單四句外、複四句外有不可說句，具足四句及具足四句外不可說，如是次第起過，次第撿破，乃至橫竪破皆求撿不可得，即知所計皆是顛倒。悔過、自責、愧懺先罪，見心苦集被伏，名為滅諦；能伏之智，名為道諦；能識見心四諦，名行道人也。是中應有五句料揀。何者？一舊病不除更起新病，如不得定外道；二舊病除新病起，如得禪外道；三舊病不除、新病被伏，即五方便人；四舊病不除而新病滅，即初果人；五舊新病俱除，即羅漢人也。次約位簡者，外道既起見惑新病，則無道諦之車，不能運出生死也；若三藏伏見惑行人乘似道諦，運至五方便也；若通教伏見行人，運至乾慧地、姓地；若別教人，運至十信；若圓教人，運至五品。今行者觀心從六道界出，運至二乘界。若斷見惑者，三藏即苦忍真明；通則見地；別則初住；圓則初信。

Fourth, explaining the universal refutation of dharmas: Now, if one cultivates and investigates the above śamatha and vipaśyanā but does not enter [the truth], it is necessarily due to views and attachments; a mind of stubborn clinging must be refuted. The text has two parts: first, vertical, sequential refutation; second, circular refutation that is neither horizontal nor vertical. In terms of the first, there are three parts: first, refutation by entering emptiness from the conventional; second, refutation by emerging from emptiness into the conventional; third, refutation by attaining the Middle Way. In terms of the first, there are again two parts: first, refutation of the conventional delusions of views; second, refutation of the conventional delusions of inclinations. Now, to refute delusions and grasp the truth, one must enter relying on a gateway. However, gateways are of various kinds and not one. Just as the five hundred arhats of the Hīnayāna each explained the cause of the body, these are five hundred gateways; the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: 'You have not yet entered the immeasurable gateways to emptiness'; furthermore, as the five thousand bodhisattvas each explained entering the non-dual dharma gateway, these are five thousand gateways, of which the sūtra briefly introduces thirty-two bodhisattvas. The very first, the Bodhisattva Dharmavāśitā, explained arising and ceasing as non-dual: 'Phenomena are originally non-arising and now without ceasing—this is entering the non-dual dharma gateway'—this is the initial explanation of the gateway of non-arising. Vimalakīrti at the end silently entered the non-dual dharma gateway, which is likewise the gateway of non-arising. Intending to represent the forty-two letter gateways, the first 'a' and the last 'kṣa' are both non-arising. The present treatise also initially distinguishes the four inexpressibles, which is the initial gateway of non-arising, and the final verse says: 'How is there absence of letters? All speech is cut off, silent and devoid of utterance'—this is identical to Vimalakīrti entering the non-dual dharma gateway through wordlessness. Now, based on the gateway of non-arising, the universal refutation of dharmas is identical to the contemplative gateway of embodying phenomena as non-arising of the Bodhisattva Dharmavāśitā. Now, to provisionally integrate the four inexpressibles: 'phenomena are originally non-arising' is the 'arising-arising' of the six destinies within the non-arising mind, which is the gateway of existence; 'now without ceasing' is the cessation of the 'arising and non-arising' of the two vehicles within the unceasing mind, which is the gateway of emptiness; 'this is entering the non-dual dharma gateway' is entering the 'non-arising and non-arising' non-dual dharma gateway of the Buddha realm within the mind, which is the gateway of neither emptiness nor existence; 'although entering the non-dual dharma gateway, yet able to illumine both' is the 'non-arising and arising' of the bodhisattva realm within the mind, which is the gateway of both emptiness and existence. Now, contemplating that the six destinies of the mind are identical to the four sage realms, is this not one gateway being identical to three gateways, and the single phrase 'arising-arising' being identical to three phrases? Contemplating that the two-vehicle realm of the mind is identical to eight realms, is this not the gateway of emptiness being identical to three gateways, and the single phrase 'arising and non-arising' being identical to three phrases? Contemplating that the bodhisattva realm of the mind is identical to nine realms, is this not the single gateway of both emptiness and existence being identical to three gateways, and the single phrase 'non-arising and arising' being identical to three phrases? Contemplating that the Buddha realm of the mind is identical to nine realms, is this not the single gateway of neither emptiness nor existence being identical to three gateways, and the single phrase 'non-arising and non-arising' being identical to three phrases? Thus, the four phrases, the four gateways, and the ten realms interpenetrate without obstruction, which is what the person of the perfect [teaching] employs. Now, because circular refutation is difficult to see, we first explain the vertical refutation through the sequence of the three contemplations. Now, regarding the refutation of the delusions of views based on the gateway of existence: 'views' are severed when seeing the truth; hence they are named delusions of view, deriving their name from understanding. Within this, there are two parts: first, explaining the faults of the delusions of views; second, explaining the contemplative gateway of embodying phenomena, which is to investigate and reprove based on the three provisionalities and the four propositions. Now, explaining the faults of the delusions of views: because of the śamatha and vipaśyanā mind having the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses, one then produces stubborn clinging to emptiness, saying that the forms and marks of the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses can exist in the mind, and consequently produces the suffering and origin [of the eighty-eight afflictions]. How so? Because of this, one contemplates saṃsāra without recognizing that the suffering and origin of the mind of views are burned by the fire of the burning house and devoured by various insects and beasts. Now to show their marks: relying on this contemplative understanding to be arrogant and condescending toward others is like the sūtra's 'kites, owls, eagles, and vultures' allegorizing the affliction of arrogance; to be pleased when one's view and understanding are praised and angry when reprimanded is like the sūtra's 'vipers, snakes, adders, and scorpions' allegorizing the affliction of anger; not recognizing that the suffering and origin of the mind of views is delusion is like the sūtra's 'geckos and centipedes' allegorizing the affliction of ignorance; lingering in greed and affection for this view is like the sūtra's 'foxes, wolves, and jackals' allegorizing the affliction of greed; although presently without doubt, in the future great doubt will arise, or when refuted by others a mind of doubt is generated, which is like the sūtra's 'quarrels and mutual tearing' allegorizing the affliction of doubt; based on this view of existence, denying cause and effect is wrong view, which is like the sūtra's 'yakṣas and evil ghosts devouring human flesh' allegorizing the affliction of wrong view; conceptualizing this as the Path expecting to reach nirvāṇa is clinging to precepts, which is like the sūtra's 'kumbhāṇḍa ghosts squatting on earthen mounds' allegorizing the affliction of clinging to precepts; conceptualizing 'I am able to understand' is the view of self, which is like the sūtra's 'their bodies are tall and large, naked, black, and emaciated' allegorizing the view of self; stating 'what I conceptualize is nirvāṇa' is clinging to views, which is like the sūtra's 'there are also ghosts whose throats are like needles' allegorizing clinging to views; conceptualizing the self as annihilated or eternal and not according with the principle of the Middle is extreme view, which is like the sūtra's 'there are also ghosts with heads like oxen' allegorizing extreme view. These ten afflictions, when applied to the four noble truths of the desire realm, are: ten for suffering; seven for origin, excluding self, extremes, and precepts; eight for the Path, excluding self and extremes; seven for cessation, excluding self, extremes, and precepts—totaling thirty-two, which is the desire realm being burned by fire. In the higher realms, anger is universally excluded: the four truths of the form realm have twenty-eight, and adding the sūtra's 'evil beasts and venomous snakes hiding and scurrying into holes' clarifies the form realm being burned; the four truths of the formless realm have twenty-eight, as the sūtra's 'centipedes, millipedes, and venomous snakes of such kinds' allegorizes the formless realm being burned. In total, the three realms have eighty-eight afflictions as the truth of origin; these views arising dependent on form is the truth of suffering. Furthermore, the Wushi jiaoji jing states: 'If the eye sees fine form, within it there is skandha and within it there is origin; seeing repulsive form, within it there is skandha and within it there is origin; seeing neutral form, within it there is skandha and within it there is origin; up to the mental consciousness seeing fine dharmas having skandha and having origin; the remaining sense-bases are also like this.' Thus, origin is the truth of origin, and skandha is the truth of suffering; this is due to conceptualizing and clinging to this. Furthermore, among the twelve links of dependent origination, the five of craving, grasping, existence, ignorance, and karmic formations are the truth of origin; the seven of consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-bases, contact, feeling, birth, and old age and death are the truth of suffering. This suffering and origin of the mind of views are just the twelve links of dependent origination. Furthermore, ignorance, craving, and grasping are the path of defilements; formations and existence are the path of karma; the seven of consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-bases, contact, feeling, birth, and old age and death are the path of suffering. Furthermore, the five causes are the six impairments. Furthermore, birth, old age, sickness, and death are the four sufferings; seeking realization of the principle and not obtaining it is the suffering of not getting what one seeks; now giving rise to inverted delusions and being burned by delusions is the suffering of association with what one hates; consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-bases, contact, and feeling are the suffering of the five clinging-skandhas—these are the eight sufferings. This is because, through definite conceptualization, one clings to the mind having the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses, consequently giving rise to the eighty-eight afflictions, burned by the fires of the four inversions and eight sufferings of various venomous vermin and so forth, the house of the five skandhas constantly suffering burning by fierce fires—how could one know its fault? Being pressed and tormented by these defilements of suffering and origin, one self-obstructs the gateway to the Path; how could one attain realization of the truth! Second, explaining the contemplation of embodying phenomena: the sūtra says: 'The essential mark of ignorance is investigated and reproved based on the three provisionalities and the four propositions.' What are they? The arising of a single thought-moment of mind must rely on dharma-dust to arise, which is provisionality based on causal combination; the mind of views arising in succession is provisionality based on continuity; this mind having views depends upon the absence of views, which is provisionality based on relativity. Within each provisionality, one further applies the investigation and reproof of the four propositions of self and other. What are they? Now I ask: regarding the contemplation of a single thought-moment of spontaneously arising mind conceptualized as possessing the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses, from what does it arise? If one says that the mind of contemplative understanding arises from the internal mind, that is arising from self; if it is said to arise from self, it should arise constantly without needing to depend on the conditions of the external object of dharma-dust to arise, should it not? The sūtra says: 'With conditions, thought arises; without conditions, thought does not arise'—how could it arise from self? The sūtra says: 'It is not because of internal contemplation that this wisdom is attained'—how could it be self-arising? The Madhyamakaśāstra states: 'Dharmas do not arise from self'—how could it arise from self? If one says it arises due to conditioning by the external object of dharma-dust, that is arising from other, which is inadmissible. The sūtra says: 'It is not through external contemplation that this wisdom is attained'—how could it arise from the object? The treatise says: 'Nor do they arise from other'—how could it arise from other? If one insists it arises from other, the object should constantly produce contemplative wisdom; why would it wait for the internal mind to contemplate conditions before arising? If one says contemplative wisdom arises from the internal mind confronting the external object of dharma-dust, that is arising from both, which is also inadmissible. Earlier, both self and other were reproved as non-arising; when combined together, how could there be arising? Just as a single grain of sand has no oil, a combination of many grains of sand also has no oil. If previously self and other each had arising, when combined there should be two arisings; furthermore, if each had arising, why would a combined arising be needed? The treatise states: 'Dharmas do not arise from both'; the sūtra states: 'It is not because of internal and external contemplation that this wisdom is attained'—how could one conceptualize arising from both? If one says it arises apart from mind and apart from objects, that is causeless arising, which is also inadmissible. The treatise states: 'Arising through causes and conditions is still inadmissible, how much more so without causes and conditions!'; the sūtra states: 'It is not apart from internal and external contemplation that this wisdom is attained'—how could it be causeless arising? Although the practitioner, seeking the mind through such four-proposition investigation and reproof, finds it unobtainable, their intention has not yet ceased, and in the end they conceptualize and see the mind as arising in continuity. Now, based on the provisionality of continuity, we refute by asking: Does the subsequent mind arise when the prior mind ceases? Does the subsequent mind arise when the prior mind does not cease? Does it arise when it both ceases and does not cease? Or does it arise when it neither ceases nor does not cease? If it arises when the prior mind does not cease, that is arising from self; if it arises when the prior mind ceases, that is arising from other; if it arises when it both ceases and does not cease, that is arising from both; if it arises when it neither ceases nor does not cease, that is causeless arising. None of the four propositions can be obtained. Therefore, the treatise states: 'Dharmas do not arise from self, nor do they arise from other, nor from both, nor without cause'—how could one conceptualize arising across the four propositions? Then, passing over, one enters the provisionality of relativity. Now, based on the provisionality of relativity, we refute by asking: Does this mind arise dependent on an arising mind? Does it arise dependent on a non-arising mind? Does it arise dependent on a mind that both arises and does not arise? Or does it arise dependent on a mind that neither arises nor does not arise? If it arises dependent on an arising mind, that is arising from self; if it arises dependent on a non-arising mind, that is arising from other; if it arises dependent on a mind that both arises and does not arise, that is arising from both; if it arises dependent on a mind that neither arises nor does not arise, that is causeless arising. When examined across the four propositions, none can be obtained. Seeking and examining arising across the three provisionalities and four propositions in this way, it cannot be obtained; thus one personally knows that one's conceptualization—definitely asserting that the mind has the forms and marks of the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses—is a falsely generated inversion. Repenting faults, reproving oneself, and feeling shame and remorse for prior offenses, the eighty-eight afflictions, suffering and origin, and the twelve links of dependent origination are subdued, and the six impairments do not arise—this is called the truth of cessation. The path that can subdue suffering and origin is called the truth of the Path. Knowing the faults of suffering and origin and not creating them again, one is called a practitioner of the Path. Furthermore, when the mind is sought and not found through the above investigation and reproof, a tier of empty understanding arises, the settled mind becomes limpid and serene, and the view of emptiness becomes increasingly bright. When even the mind is not seen, how could there be the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses? Searching sūtras and reading treatises, wherever they explain emptiness accords with one's mind, and conceptualizing the mind flourishes even more. Consequently, one is haughty with self-pride, condescending toward others' lack of understanding, which is the affliction of arrogance; to be pleased when emptiness is praised and angry when emptiness is reprimanded [are greed and anger]; greed and attachment to the view of emptiness is greed; ignorance and failure to comprehend is delusion; doubting the noble truths is doubt; 'I am able to understand' is the view of self; based on the view of self, extreme view arises; based on the view of emptiness, denying cause and effect is wrong view; stating that 'the view of emptiness can lead to nirvāṇa' is clinging to precepts; stating that 'the view of emptiness is the Path' is clinging to views. These ten afflictions applied across the three realms constitute eighty-eight afflictions as the truth of origin; this view arising dependent on form is the truth of suffering. Because of this suffering and origin, one transmigrates in saṃsāra, burned by the fires of the four inversions and eight sufferings, and ravaged by the various vermin of dull afflictions and the various ghosts of sharp afflictions—how could one attain awakening and understand the supreme emptiness of the ultimate truth? Now, refuting this view is also done based on the three provisionalities and four propositions. How so? Just as the arising of a single thought-moment of mind must arise conditioned by the dharma-dust of the object of emptiness, this is provisionality based on causal combination; the view of emptiness arising in continuity is provisionality based on continuity; the view of emptiness arising dependent on the view of non-emptiness is provisionality based on relativity. Now we ask: Does the understanding mind of the view of emptiness arise from the internal mind? Does it arise from the external dharma-dust of the object of emptiness? Does it arise from the combination of internal and external? Or does it arise apart from internal and external? If it arises from the internal mind, that is arising from self; if it arises from external dharma-dust, that is arising from other; if it arises from the combination of internal and external, that is arising from both; if it arises apart from the internal mind and external dharma-dust, that is causeless arising. All four propositions have faults, as refuted above. For those whose conceptualizing mind has not yet ceased, we further apply the provisionality of continuity. How so? If one says that a single thought-moment of empty mind arises from a prior unceasing mind, that is arising from self; arising from the prior mind's cessation is arising from other; arising when the prior mind both ceases and does not cease is arising from both; if arising when the prior mind neither ceases nor does not cease, that is causeless arising. None of the four propositions can be obtained, as refuted above. If one still clings to the provisionality of relativity, we now refute: If it arises dependent on an arising mind, that is arising from self; if it arises dependent on a non-arising mind, that is arising from other; if it arises dependent on a mind that both arises and does not arise, that is arising from both; if it arises dependent on a mind that neither arises nor does not arise, that is causeless arising. None of the four propositions can be obtained. Investigating serenely through the three provisionalities and four propositions in this way, the view of emptiness cannot be obtained, and one personally knows that conceptualizing 'the settled mind is empty and devoid of the hundred realms, devoid of sages and wondrous dharmas' is still a false inversion. The sūtra states: 'If one says that sentient beings definitely have Buddha-nature, that slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha; if one says that sentient beings definitely lack Buddha-nature, that also slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha.' Therefore, know that my conceptualization of 'the mind definitely existing or definitely non-existing' slanders the Three Jewels. Repenting faults, reproving oneself, and feeling shame and remorse for prior offenses, the eighty-eight afflictions, suffering and origin, the twelve links of dependent origination, and the six impairments do not arise—this is called the truth of cessation; the path that can subdue suffering and origin is the truth of the Path. Next, one further reflects: If the mind definitely exists, that is the view of eternalism; if the mind definitely does not exist, that is the view of annihilationism. Then one conceptualizes the mind as both existing and non-existing, and a grade of settled mind becomes limpid and serene. The mind of the view of both existence and non-existence becomes clear and pure, and one then regards it as the cause of the Path. Because this mind of views again gives rise to the eighty-eight afflictions, transmigrating in suffering and origin and self-obstructing one's path, we investigate and reprove based on the three provisionalities and four propositions, which can be known by analogy with the above. When, having sought and examined, it cannot be obtained, one recognizes the four truths of suffering, origin, the Path, and cessation of the mind of the view of both existence and non-existence. Next, conceptualizing the mind as neither existing nor non-existing gives rise to suffering and origin; again seeking and examining based on the three provisionalities and four propositions, it cannot be obtained, and one recognizes the four truths of the mind of the view of neither existence nor non-existence. Next, conceptualizing the mind as outside the four propositions and inexpressible, based on the mind of the view of the inexpressible, one again gives rise to suffering and origin; again investigating and reproving based on the three provisionalities and four propositions, it cannot be obtained, and one recognizes suffering, origin, the Path, and cessation of the mind of the view of the inexpressible. In this way, outside the simple four propositions and outside the complex four propositions, there is the inexpressible proposition; regarding the complete four propositions and the inexpressible outside the complete four propositions, as faults arise in sequence, they are investigated and refuted in sequence, up to horizontal and vertical refutations; in all, when sought and examined, nothing can be obtained, and one knows that all conceptualizations are inversions. Repenting faults, reproving oneself, and feeling shame and remorse for prior offenses, the suffering and origin of the mind of views are subdued—this is called the truth of cessation; the wisdom that can subdue them is called the truth of the Path; recognizing the four truths of the mind of views, one is called a practitioner of the Path. Herein there should be an analysis of five propositions. What are they? First, an old illness is not eliminated and a new illness further arises, like an outsider who does not attain concentration; second, an old illness is eliminated and a new illness arises, like an outsider who attains dhyāna; third, an old illness is not eliminated and a new illness is subdued, which is a person of the five expedient means; fourth, an old illness is not eliminated while a new illness is extinguished, which is a person of the first fruit; fifth, both old and new illnesses are eliminated, which is an arhat. Next, distinguishing according to stages: since outsiders give rise to the new illness of the delusions of views, they lack the carriage of the truth of the Path and cannot be transported out of saṃsāra; if a practitioner of the Tripiṭaka [teaching] subdues the delusions of views, riding the semblance of the truth of the Path, they are transported to the five expedient means; if a practitioner subduing views in the shared teaching, they are transported to the stage of dry wisdom and the stage of nature; if a person of the distinct teaching, they are transported to the ten faiths; if a person of the perfect teaching, they are transported to the five grades. Now, the practitioner contemplating the mind emerges from the realms of the six destinies and is transported to the realm of the two vehicles. If severing the delusions of views, in the Tripiṭaka [teaching] this is the true brightness of patience regarding suffering; in the shared [teaching], it is the stage of seeing; in the distinct [teaching], it is the first aboding; in the perfect [teaching], it is the first faith.