English (machine translation)

Translation of 釋摩訶般若波羅蜜經覺意三昧

Language: English
Extent: 29 passages, 11,725 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1922 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

1 — 29 parts

Text

1.1

Spoken by Master Zhizhe of Tiantai of the Sui dynasty.

1.3

Section 1: Discriminating the Characteristics of Dharmas

Now, practitioners who wish to cross the great ocean of birth and death and reach the other shore of nirvāṇa must thoroughly comprehend the root of delusion and confusion, and know well the essential path to transcendence. The root of delusion and confusion is precisely the true limit of mind; the essential path to transcendence is reflective contemplation of the source of the mind. Knowing the true limit [of mind] is the direct cause Buddha-nature; reflective contemplation of the source of the mind is the revealing cause. Furthermore, these two causes subsume all dharmas exhaustively and completely. For example, within the pure empty space, the perfectly rounded sunlight serenely illumines. Yet this space and the sun are neither identical nor separate, neither abiding nor non-abiding. And the sun skillfully acts as the favorable condition for destroying darkness and the essential means for revealing space; although it dispels darkness and reveals space, space neither diminishes nor increases. In principle there is truly no diminution, yet inferring from phenomena, darkness and obstruction are permanently eliminated; its nature is indeed without increase, and the myriad phenomena contained within the realm of space are all manifested. And although this empty space is pure by nature, if there were no sunlight, darkness would arise; it is not because space is empty that it can eliminate darkness of itself. If darkness is to be eliminated, it must rely on sunlight. If the sun had no space, it would have no light and no illumination; if space had no sun, darkness would not dispel itself. Yet the nature of this darkness has neither coming nor going, and the substance and characteristics of the sun also neither arise nor cease. Only when there is the sun illuminating space do heaven and earth become thoroughly bright. The illumination of the empty nature of the mind by the sun of wisdom is also like this. Just as the sun is neither identical with space nor separate from empty space—if the sun were identical with space, how could empty space illumine? If the sun were separate from space, it should not illumine in dependence upon space—the sun of wisdom is also like this: it is neither identical with the empty nature of the mind, nor separate from the empty nature of the mind. If it were identical with the empty nature of the mind, it would not illumine through cultivation; if it were separate from the empty nature of the mind, cultivation would also be incapable of illumining. Just as the sun neither abides in space nor does not abide in space—because it does not abide in space, it can illumine all of space; because it is not that it does not abide in space, it ultimately does not fall into voidness—the sun of wisdom is also like this: profoundly contemplating the empty nature of the mind, it does not abide in the empty nature of the mind and can illumine all of emptiness; because it is not that it does not abide in emptiness, although it illumines all of emptiness, the mind of wisdom neither wavers nor retrogresses. Just as the sun can dispel darkness and reveal the characteristics of empty space, the sun of wisdom is also like this: it can dispel the darkness of ignorance and reveal the true reality of the mind. Just as although the sun dispels darkness and reveals the characteristics of empty space, space neither diminishes nor increases, the sun of wisdom is also like this: it can eliminate the darkness of ignorance and reveal the true reality of the mind, yet in the empty nature of the mind it neither increases nor decreases. Just as the sun does not diminish space nor increase space, yet can eliminate the darkness in space and reveal the myriad phenomena in the realm of space, the sun of wisdom is also like this: although it neither diminishes nor increases the empty nature of the mind, it can sever all afflictions, accomplish the myriad practices, and manifest all dharmas. Just as although space is pure, darkness arises because there is no sun, the nature of the mind is also like this: although originally pure, because there is no light of wisdom, delusion and confusion arise. Just as although space is pure, it cannot eliminate darkness of itself, and for darkness to be eliminated it must rely on sunlight, the empty nature of the mind is also like this: although originally pure, it cannot eliminate confusion of itself, and for confusion to be extinguished it must rely on the illumination of wisdom. Just as if the sun had no space there would be no light and no illumination, and if space had no sun darkness would ultimately never be eliminated, the sun of wisdom is also like this: if there were no empty nature of the mind, how could there be anything to illumine? If the empty nature of the mind lacked wisdom, delusion and confusion would ultimately never be severed. Just as darkness has neither going nor coming, and the sun neither arises nor ceases, understanding and confusion are also like this: to speak of 'dispelling confusion' is a conventional designation; the nature of confusion is non-existent, neither coming nor going, and in reality there is nothing to dispel. Although wisdom illumines universally, its nature is constantly quiescent, neither arising nor ceasing, and ultimately illumines nothing. Just as when there is a sun illuminating space, heaven and earth are thoroughly bright, so when one reflectively contemplates the empty nature of the mind, all worldly dharmas and all supramundane dharmas are radiantly and perfectly manifested. For this reason, wisdom illuminating the nature of the mind is spoken of as being like the sun in space. If one can trace these ten metaphors of space and sun to comprehend the characteristics of dharmas, and thereby enter the ocean of the awareness of mind, this is called discriminating the characteristics of dharmas.

1.5

Section 2: Explaining the Name of the Samādhi of Awareness of Mind

1.6

Question: Why is it called the samādhi of awareness of mind? What is the 'mind'? Is it because the bodhisattva is aware of this mind that they fully attain samādhi? Furthermore, since dharmas are immeasurable, why is awareness applied solely to mind to elucidate samādhi?

1.7

Answer: 'Awareness' means illuminating and comprehending; 'mind' means the various cittas and caittas; 'samādhi' means attuned and straightened concentration. When a practitioner's various cittas and caittas arise, they reflectively contemplate and observe them without seeing any movement or turning. For this reason, it is called the samādhi of awareness of mind.

1.8

Regarding the question asked: 'Dharmas are limitless; why is it that one only takes up awareness with respect to manas to elucidate samādhi, and does not discuss the rest?'

Answer: Although all dharmas are limitless, if one investigates their original source, there are none that are not created from citta, manas, and vijñāna. Why is this so? Someone said: 'When one first encounters an object and becomes aware of it, differing from wood and stone, it is called citta; next, measuring and discriminating is called manas; clearly cognizing and comprehending is called vijñāna. This is the difference among citta, manas, and vijñāna.' If one grasps them in this way, one falls into inversion of mind, inversion of thought, and inversion of view.

If one is able to understand clearly that within citta there is neither the presence of manas nor the absence of manas, then within citta there is neither the presence of vijñāna nor the absence of vijñāna. If within manas there is neither the presence of citta nor the absence of citta, then within manas there is neither the presence of vijñāna nor the absence of vijñāna. If within vijñāna there is neither the presence of manas nor the absence of manas, then within vijñāna there is neither the presence of citta nor the absence of citta. Because citta, manas, and vijñāna are not one, three names are established; because they are not three, a single nature is spoken of. If the name is not a name, then the nature is also not a nature. Because it is not a name, it is not three; because it is not a nature, it is not one. Because it is not three, it is not joined; because it is not one, it is not dispersed. Because it is not joined, it does not exist; because it is not dispersed, it is not empty. Because it does not exist, it is not permanent; because it is not empty, it is not annihilated. Therefore, citta, manas, and vijñāna are neither annihilated nor permanent. If one does not see annihilation and permanence, one ultimately does not see unity and difference. Therefore, when manas is spoken of, it encompasses the meaning of citta and vijñāna.

All dharmas are also like this: if with a deep mind one is able to contemplate and shatter the ignorance of manas, then the remaining afflictions of delusion will likewise all be extinguished along with it. Thus, although dharmas are manifold, merely bringing forward awareness of manas to elucidate samādhi embraces its meaning such that there is nothing not included.

Furthermore, as the sūtra states: 'Why is it called the samādhi of awareness of mind? Because within all samādhis one attains the seven factors of awakening, it is called the samādhi of awareness of mind.' As for the expression 'all samādhis,' all dharmas are samādhi, because all dharmas from the beginning are constantly tranquil and unmoving.

Furthermore, briefly stated, there are three kinds of samādhi: first, worldly; second, world-transcending; third, supreme world-transcending. Worldly samādhis are, namely: within the distracted mind of the desire realm, the ten fundamental mental factors of concentration, the desire-realm concentration, the not-yet-arrived concentration, the four dhyānas, the four immeasurable minds, and the four formless concentrations. World-transcending samādhis are, namely: the eight liberations, the abhibhv-āyatanas, the ten kṛtsna-āyatanas, the nine successive cessations, the dhyānas cultivated through the progressive practices of contemplation, refining, perfuming, and cultivation such as the lion's sprint and transcendental leaping, up to the samādhis of the wisdom practices of the thirty-seven factors [of awakening], the three gates of liberation, the four truths, the twelve links of dependent origination, and so forth. Supreme world-transcending samādhis are, namely: the samādhis of the lineage of the ten powers, the hundred and eight samādhis such as the Śūraṅgama, up to samādhis as numerous as the dust motes in the realms of the ten directions. These are the three kinds of samādhi. Since they encompass all dharmas, they are just all dharmas; hence they are called 'all samādhis.'

How does one obtain the name 'seven factors of awakening'? The seven factors of awakening are: first, the factor of investigation of dharmas; second, the factor of vigor; third, the factor of joy; fourth, the factor of tranquilization; fifth, the factor of equanimity; sixth, the factor of concentration; seventh, the factor of mindfulness. These are the seven factors of awakening.

The meaning of the seven factors of awakening has many paths, but to bring forth the essential and explain it briefly, it does not exceed six kinds. What are the six? First, the seven factors of awakening derived from hearing; second, the seven factors of awakening through cultivation; third, the seven factors of awakening by accord with principle; fourth, the seven factors of awakening giving rise to skillful means; fifth, the seven factors of awakening entering the Dharma-gate; sixth, the ultimate and perfect seven factors of awakening.

First, the seven factors of awakening derived from hearing: the original nature of all dharmas is empty and tranquil, ultimately pure, yet sentient beings are unable to know this. If one encounters Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and spiritual friends who teach that all dharmas from the beginning are empty and tranquil, this person, having heard it, immediately has a great awakening of astonishment, and through this fully realizes that the mind and all dharmas—all samādhis—are ultimately pure and empty without anything existing, attaining the seven factors of awakening. Because this person arouses them through hearing, they are called the seven factors of awakening derived from hearing.

Second, the seven factors of awakening through cultivation: if a practitioner, although knowing that the mind and all dharmas—all samādhis—are empty and devoid of arising and ceasing, still has inverted thoughts arise, then following whatever thoughts arise, they always use the seven factors of awakening to harmonize and cultivate the mind, reflectively contemplating and observing. Because the meditative practice is harmonized, they immediately awaken clearly to the fact that the mind and all dharmas—all samādhis—from the beginning have never arisen and never ceased, like the great nirvāṇa. This is called the seven factors of awakening through cultivation.

Third, the seven factors of awakening by accord with principle: if a person, relying on the conditions of these two practices of faith and Dharma, realizes that the principle of the mind and all dharmas—all samādhis—is identical to one suchness, yet knows that suchness is also not suchness. If one awakens to suchness, one possesses the seven factors of awakening with respect to the principle of suchness, and therefore does not abide in the reality limit of suchness to realize the fruit. This is called the seven factors of awakening by accord with principle.

Fourth, the seven factors of awakening giving rise to skillful means: if a practitioner attains the principle without realization, and taking pity on sentient beings arouses the mind for myriad practices, then wherever there is practice, they know it all to be tranquil and ceased. Although knowing there is no abiding and no practicing, they use the seven factors of awakening to skillfully cultivate all samādhi practices of benefiting oneself and benefiting others, like planting trees in empty space. This is called the seven factors of awakening giving rise to skillful means.

Fifth, the seven factors of awakening entering the Dharma-gate: if a bodhisattva can in this way not rely on the mind and all dharmas—all samādhis—whether ultimate or conventional, this is fulfilling the contemplation of the two emptinesses, gaining entry to the middle way, illuminating both two truths equally. In accordance with whatever the mind thinks, all samādhis of the lineage of the ten powers and so forth naturally arise, yet one does not grasp any characteristics of the samādhis. Why is this? The dhāraṇīs are empty of the characteristics of dhāraṇīs; the samādhis are empty of the characteristics of samādhis. Therefore, regarding the merit and wisdom of all dhāraṇīs and samādhis, the mind has no abiding attachment. In this way, the bodhisattva's seven factors of awakening are fully and clearly revealed in every part; hence they are called the seven factors of awakening entering the Dharma-gate, and also called opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision. If one can open the Buddha's knowledge and vision, then thought after thought is tranquil and ceased, naturally flowing into the pure dhyānas of the ten abodes, ten practices, ten dedications, ten grounds, and equal awakening; therefore they are called the seven factors of awakening entering the Dharma-gate.

Sixth, the ultimate and perfect seven factors of awakening: if a bodhisattva-mahāsattva abides in the pure dhyāna of vajrasamādhi, has a luminous and great awakening, attains the wisdom conjoined in a single thought-moment, and tranquilly and completely illuminates everything with absolute clarity, this is called the ultimate and perfect seven factors of awakening, also called unsurpassable sublime awakening, and also called the seven factors of awakening of non-learning.

Because of such meanings of the seven factors of awakening, from a bodhisattva's first arousing of the mind, all Dharma-gates of meditative contemplation up to the ultimate fruition are generally called the seven factors of awakening, also called contemplating the characteristics of the mind, and also called reflectively contemplating consciousness. Such various names for the limitless samādhis are translated in the Qin language as 'attuning and straightening the mind,' and also called 'concentration of constant tranquility'—like a bright mirror unmoving or still water without waves: if confronted with various objects, the reflections all appear. The mind is also like this: although its nature is luminous and pure, because thoughts move, there is nothing it clearly illuminates. Based on the cultivation above, one attains thoughts that do not move, and the Dharma-gates are universally manifested. Having attained this concentration, the mind is devoid of crookedness and is called samādhi; hence it is called the samādhi of awareness of mind.

1.9

Explaining the Expedient Practices of the Samādhi of Awareness of Mind, Part Three

1.10

Question: Having learned that the name and meaning of the samādhi of awareness of mind are like this, by what skillful means does a practitioner attain this samādhi, attain the seven factors of awakening within all samādhis, enter the deep Dharma-nature, reach the great nirvāṇa, obtain permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and become an unsurpassable island of refuge for all sentient beings?

1.11

Answer: To accomplish great compassion and cross over sentient beings, the practitioner seeks the unsurpassable bodhi, the path of utmost truth. First, one should establish a great vow and arouse a mind of utmost sincerity to solemnly resolve: 'If what I study is not accomplished, I will never have regrets or arouse a mind of retreat midway.' At that time, the mind is like adamantine, definitively and faithfully knowing that all dharmas are ultimately empty and tranquil, yet without abandoning boundless sentient beings, one cultivates all practices.

What is cultivating? If a practitioner clearly understands that the mind and all dharmas are completely non-existent, neither arising nor ceasing, tranquil and pure, and is able to make skillful use of the expedients of the six perfections to subdue their own false mind, then once the false mind has ceased, samādhi will naturally arise.

What are the six? If a practitioner knows that the mind and external objects are like what is seen in a dream, all without reality, they are therefore able to relinquish everything possessed, constantly aware in their consciousness so as not to allow thoughts of stinginess and attachment to arise, and should also dedicate this pure mind of relinquishment universally giving to sentient beings—at that time, this is called cultivating the mind of pure giving. Due to this mind, one is able to proceed toward dānapāramitā.

If a practitioner knows that the mind is like an illusion and that external unwholesome dharmas are all unobtainable, although confronting various objects they are always self-aware, not allowing unwholesome thoughts to arise in the mind—at that time, this is called cultivating the mind of pure discipline. Due to this mind, one is able to proceed toward śīlapāramitā.

If a practitioner knows that the mind is like a flame, empty and without foundation, and that external eight dharmas are also completely unreal, therefore regarding gain and decline, disgrace and honor, praise and blame, suffering and pleasure, they are always self-aware and do not arouse love or hatred—this is called cultivating steadfast patience. Due to this mind, one is able to proceed toward kṣāntipāramitā.

If a practitioner knows that the mind is like a magical creation and is always self-aware, with meditative contemplation continuous and not allowing minds of laxity and heedlessness to arise—at that time, this is called cultivating the mind of vigor. Due to this mind, one is able to proceed toward vīryapāramitā.

If a practitioner knows that the mind is like a reflection in a mirror and that all objective dharmas are completely non-existent, so that during the four postures of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, distracted thoughts do not arise, and even if mindfulness is lost, one immediately becomes aware of it, so that waves of delusion do not arise and the mind is constantly tranquil—at that time, this is called cultivating the pure mind of concentration. Due to this mind, one is able to proceed toward dhyānapāramitā.

If a practitioner clearly understands that the mind is like empty space, that internal and external dharmas cognized by the six consciousnesses are completely non-existent and ultimately empty and tranquil, and skillfully uses the non-apprehending mind to shatter all inversions, not grasping any dharma, not attaching to any dharma, and completely comprehending all dharmas—at that time, this is called cultivating the mind of correct wisdom. Due to this mind, one is able to proceed toward prajñāpāramitā.

If a practitioner does not cultivate the above six kinds of pure minds directed toward the path, they will not be capable of cultivating profound samādhi. Therefore, one who wishes to cultivate the samādhi of awareness of mind must skillfully learn the expedients of the six perfections described above. These six expedients encompass all expedients. If one can skillfully use them to subdue the six hindrances and coarse minds, making the mind pliant, and then carefully and with a subtle mind contemplate to enter the gate of correct wisdom, this is called the beginner's expedient for practicing profound samādhi.

1.12

Explaining the Samādhi of Awareness of Mind: Clarifying the Characteristics of Mind, Part Four

1.13

Question: When a practitioner wishes to enter this samādhi, confronting how many characteristics of mind should they contemplate them?

1.14

Answer: In the sūtras and treatises, the discrimination of the characteristics of mind varies; they are not fully expounded here. In this context, four kinds of characteristics of mind are briefly explained as the objects of contemplation. What are the four? First, prior to thinking; second, intending to think; third, thinking; fourth, having thought. 'Prior to thinking' means the mind has not yet arisen to take an object. 'Intending to think' means the mind is about to arise to take an object. 'Thinking' means the mind taking an object is full and abides. 'Having thought' means after the mind taking an object has been fully satisfied, it wanes and ceases.

1.15

Question: The characteristics of mind are numerous; why do you only bring forward the characteristics of the four movements of mind?

1.16

Answer: These characteristics of the four movements of mind subsume all minds. For instance, when taking unwholesome phenomena as conditions, there are: prior to thinking of unwholesome phenomena, intending to think of unwholesome phenomena, thinking of unwholesome phenomena, and having thought of unwholesome phenomena. As when taking wholesome phenomena as conditions, there are: prior to thinking of the wholesome, intending to think of the wholesome, thinking of the wholesome, and having thought of the wholesome. When taking conditions such as the six sense-objects, all afflictions including the three poisons, down to walking, standing, sitting, lying down, speaking, eating and drinking, and all activities and deeds that are performed, each possesses the mind of the four characteristics as described above; and taking conditions of all mundane phenomena, each possesses the mind of these four characteristics. Therefore, we speak solely of the four kinds of characteristics as the objects of contemplation, leaving nothing unincluded.

1.17

Question: What is meant by "characteristic"?

1.18

Answer: That which can be grasped and distinguished is called a "characteristic." Since the phenomena of mental consciousness are devoid of physical shape and substance, if they are not distinguished with reference to the thoughts of these four movements, they will be difficult to understand. If they cannot be understood, they cannot be observed; hence one must first distinguish them by means of the four characteristics. If in contemplating them one clearly and thoroughly realizes that these characteristics are non-characteristics, one immediately enters the equality of the single characteristic.

1.19

Question: To contemplate the characteristics of mind in the two movements of "intending to think" and "thinking" may be acceptable. But before a thought has arisen, there is no mind; because there is no mind, there are no characteristics that can be distinguished. And once a thought has already ceased, it is no different from nothingness; with no phenomenon, there is no characteristic. How, then, can they be contemplated?

1.20

Answer: Although "prior to thinking" has not yet arisen, it is not an absolute absence of mind. Why is this? It is like a person who has not yet acted: later, when an occasion arises, he immediately performs an action. One cannot say that because he has not yet acted, there is immediately no person. If there were definitely no person, who would later perform the action? Because there is a person who has not yet acted, there is subsequently a person who acts. The characteristics of the mind should also be understood in this way: because of "prior to thinking," one is able to have "intending to think." If there were no mind prior to thinking, how could there be a mind intending to think? Therefore, although "prior to thinking" has not yet arisen, one cannot say it is an absolute absence. As for your statement that when a thought has ceased the mind is already extinguished and cannot be contemplated, this too is not so. Although a thought has ceased, it can also be observed. For instance, when a person has finished acting, one cannot say there is no person. If there were definitely no person, who previously performed the action? The extinction of mind when a thought has ceased is also just like this; one cannot say it is eternally extinguished and devoid of mind. If a mind, having ceased, were permanently extinguished, that would be the view of annihilationism, asserting that there is neither cause nor effect. Therefore, although a thought has ceased, it can indeed be contemplated.

1.21

Question: How do you contemplate the mind? If you contemplate the past mind, the past mind has already passed; if you contemplate the future mind, the future mind has not yet arrived; if you contemplate the present mind, the present mind does not abide. Apart from the three times, there is no other mind. What further mind would you contemplate?

1.22

Answer: Your question is incorrect. If the past were eternally extinguished and ultimately unknowable, how could the holy ones know all past minds? If the future mind, having not yet arrived, did not exist and were unknowable, how could the holy ones know all future minds? If the present mind, being non-abiding, were unknowable, how could the holy ones know all the present thoughts and affairs of sentient beings in the ten directions? Even worldly ghosts and spirits are themselves capable of knowing their own minds of the three times, and can also know others' minds of the three times. How could a practitioner of the Buddha-Dharma give rise to the view of annihilation and say that the minds of the three times are like a turtle's hair or a rabbit's horns, impossible to know! One should know that although the minds of the three times have no fixed substantiality, they can indeed be known. Therefore, a verse states: / "What the Buddhas teach / Is that though empty, it is not annihilated; / Though continuous, it is not eternal; / Transgression and merit are not lost." / Do not abide in unknowing through the view of annihilation, failing to cultivate contemplative practice like a blind person who, though facing various colors, sees nothing. You too would be like this: lacking the eye of correct contemplation in the Buddha-Dharma, you would gain nothing in vain.

1.23

Explanation of the Samādhi of Awareness of Mind: Entering the Gate of Contemplation, Chapter Five

1.24

Question: Having understood that the characteristics of the four movements of mind subsume all minds, how does the practitioner observe this mind, thoroughly penetrate true reality, illuminate it completely, clarify the various samādhis, and be fully endowed with the seven factors of awakening?

1.25

The answer states: The practitioner first adorns himself with the great vows and skillfully cultivates the Dharma-gates of the aforementioned six perfections to attune his mind. Knowing with faith that all dharmas are ultimately empty and tranquil, yet that I am covered by ignorance and not yet able to awaken and comprehend, one must diligently cultivate correct contemplation, only knowing it when practice is attained; how could one vainly make false interpretations with a hollow mind and harm oneself? Having skillfully attuned oneself, thereafter, following whatever arises in the mind, with a mind that has no abiding or attachment, one reflectively contemplates and observes the characteristics of prior to thinking, intending to think, thinking, and having thought. At that time, carefully contemplate: does the mind prior to thinking cease, so that the mind intending to think arises? Does the mind prior to thinking not cease, so that the mind intending to think arises? Does the mind prior to thinking both cease and not cease, so that the mind intending to think arises? Does the mind prior to thinking neither cease nor not cease, so that the mind intending to think arises? In this way, within the four propositions concerning prior to thinking, contemplating the arising of the mind intending to think, it is in all cases ungraspable. If one cannot grasp the arising of the mind intending to think, nor can one grasp its non-arising, then right in the nature of the mind one attains liberation. What is meant by contemplating, within the four propositions concerning prior to thinking, that the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable? First, one initially contemplates with reference to the first proposition of prior to thinking that the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. If one says that when the mind prior to thinking ceases, the mind intending to think arises: since the mind prior to thinking has already ceased, from where does the intention to think arise? Does it arise identical to the cessation of prior to thinking? Or does it arise apart from the cessation of prior to thinking? If the intention to think arises identical to the cessation of prior to thinking, a ceased dharma should not arise, because the natures of arising and ceasing are contradictory. If one says that right within cessation there is arising, and arising and ceasing are not contradictory, this is not so. If that were the case, it should be like a ripe fruit that has a pit within its skin; when the skin rots and the pit comes out, the skin is not the pit and the pit is not the skin—how could the skin be identical to the pit? Mental dharmas are also like this: identical to cessation there cannot be arising. Therefore, the mind intending to think arising identical to the cessation of prior to thinking is ungraspable. If one says that apart from the cessation of prior to thinking there is the arising of the mind intending to think, then this would be arising without a cause, which is not so. Since arising has nowhere from which it arises, it cannot be called arising. Just as space has nowhere from which it arises, so space is not called arising. One should know that apart from the cessation of prior to thinking, the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. The practitioner, in this way, in both identical and separate [alternatives], contemplates that the mind intending to think arising from the cessation of the mind prior to thinking is ultimately ungraspable. Second, explaining with reference to the second proposition of prior to thinking, contemplating that the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. If one says that when the mind prior to thinking does not cease, the mind intending to think arises: does it arise identical to non-cessation? Or does it arise apart from non-cessation? If it arises identical to non-cessation, non-cessation is already arising; how could this arising arise? If this arising can produce arising, then this arising must again have a production of arising, which would result in infinite arising. If this arising produces arising, this is not so. If it is of a single substance that arises, within one there should not be many arisings, just as within a single finger there are not multiple fingers. If it arises as a distinct substance, then it should not be called arising producing arising, because differing substances of arising cannot produce one another. Just as peaches and crabapples are of differing substances—a peach does not produce a crabapple, and a crabapple does not produce a peach. Therefore, identical to the non-cessation of prior to thinking, the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. If one says that apart from the non-cessation of prior to thinking there is the arising of the mind intending to think: where does the intention to think arise? If the arising has nowhere to arise, it is an uncaused arising. If it is an uncaused arising, then it is a non-arising. To speak of arising when there is no arising is not so, for it incurs the fault of having an uncaused effect, like speaking of the son of a barren woman or the child of a eunuch. One should know that apart from the non-cessation of prior to thinking, the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. The practitioner, in this way, in both identical and separate [alternatives], contemplates that the mind intending to think arising from the non-cessation of prior to thinking is ultimately ungraspable. Third, explaining with reference to the third proposition of prior to thinking, contemplating that the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. If one says that when the mind prior to thinking both ceases and does not cease, the mind intending to think arises: if it arises from both ceasing, why is both not-ceasing necessary? If it arises from both not-ceasing, why is both ceasing necessary? For an indeterminate cause cannot have a determinate effect, just as a person of indeterminate faculties cannot produce a child of determinate faculties. If one says that because both ceasing and both not-ceasing are of a single substance without difference, there is the arising of the mind intending to think, this is not so. Now, both ceasing is not both not-ceasing, and both not-ceasing is not both ceasing; because their natures are contradictory, they should not, being of a single substance without difference, be able to produce the intention to think, just as a person of indeterminate faculties having two faculties whose substances are not one cannot produce a single child. If one says that both ceasing and both not-ceasing are of different substances, and each of the two can produce the intention to think, then being of different substances, they are just determinate cessation and determinate non-cessation; how could they be called both ceasing and both not-ceasing? If determinate cessation and determinate non-cessation could each produce the intention to think, then two intentions to think should arise, but in reality this is now not so. If neither of the two produces, then no intention to think arises. When the practitioner contemplates in this way, the arising of the mind intending to think from the mind prior to thinking both ceasing and not ceasing is ultimately ungraspable. Next, explaining with reference to the fourth proposition of prior to thinking, contemplating that the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable. If one says that when the mind prior to thinking neither ceases nor does not cease, the mind intending to think arises: if it arises due to neither ceasing, there is no need for neither not-ceasing; if it arises due to neither not-ceasing, there is no need for neither ceasing. Because the negations in neither ceasing and neither not-ceasing are each distinct, they should not together serve as the cause, and also contradictory causes cannot share a single effect. Just as water and fire mutually negate each other and can never produce a fruit between them. If one says that caused jointly by the two negations there is arising, this is not so. If the locus of the two negations is each an existent, the two existents should again produce two arisings, but in reality this is now not so. If the locus of the two negations is each a non-existent, then there is no producer; how could it produce what is produced? If there is neither producer nor produced, then the produced is not called what is produced, because what is produced has nowhere from which it arises. The practitioner contemplating in this way, the arising of the mind intending to think from neither ceasing nor not ceasing is ultimately ungraspable. Furthermore, having in this way contemplated that within the four propositions of prior to thinking—the initial movement—the arising of the mind intending to think is ungraspable, the practitioner should then inversely turn the contemplation to the four propositions of the arising of the mind intending to think, contemplating that the cessation of the mind prior to thinking is ungraspable. What is this contemplation? If one says that the mind prior to thinking is ceased: does the mind prior to thinking cease when the mind intending to think arises? Does the mind prior to thinking cease when the mind intending to think does not arise? Does the mind prior to thinking cease when the mind intending to think both arises and does not arise? Does the mind prior to thinking cease when the mind intending to think neither arises nor does not arise? In this way, turning back to the four propositions regarding the intention to think and investigating them, the cessation of the mind prior to thinking is ultimately ungraspable. (The characteristics of the investigation are applied by turning back to the above; with reference to the four propositions of prior to thinking contemplating the mental verbal phrases of intending to think, they are of the same kind; by making fine comparisons one will naturally obtain the full formulation, etc.) If the practitioner cannot grasp the arising and ceasing of the minds prior to thinking and intending to think, then neither can one grasp non-arising and non-ceasing, both arising-and-ceasing and non-arising-and-non-ceasing, nor neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-non-ceasing. It is merely through ordinary beings' inverted delusions that in prior to thinking, intending to think, and all dharmas, they reckon there to be arising and ceasing, up to neither arising-and-ceasing nor non-arising-and-non-ceasing; these are false and without reality, all ungraspable, existing merely as names. The dharma of a name is not within, not without, nor in between the two, nor does it eternally exist of itself; that is, it is without a name. If one cannot grasp the names of the four propositions such as arising and ceasing, neither can one grasp the absence of names. Because one cannot grasp a name, it is not conventional; because one cannot grasp the absence of names, it is not empty. Because one cannot grasp the conventional, it is not mundane; because one cannot grasp the empty, it is not ultimate. Because one cannot grasp the mundane, it is not worldly; because one cannot grasp the ultimate, it is not transworldly. Because one cannot grasp the worldly, it is not with outflows; because one cannot grasp the transworldly, it is not without outflows. Because one cannot grasp what has outflows, it is not birth-and-death; because one cannot grasp what is without outflows, it is not nirvāṇa. When the practitioner contemplates prior to thinking and intending to think in this way, if one does not grasp the two extremes, one does not seize upon the two extremes; if one does not seize upon the two extremes, one does not cling to the two extremes and give rise to defilements and karmas; if one is free from the obstruction and covering of the defilements and karmas of the two extremes, the mind of correct contemplation is like empty space, limpid and pure. Due to this, the correct wisdom of the middle way shines forth brightly, illuminating both of the two truths; thought after thought is tranquil and ceased, naturally flowing into the great ocean of nirvāṇa. If one contemplates prior to thinking and intending to think in this way, the remaining thinking, having thought, and all categories of mental dharmas can also be known. This is a brief explanation of the characteristics of correct contemplation.

1.26

Furthermore, in cultivating correct contemplation there are two types: first, general contemplation; second, successive particular contemplation. First, as for what is called general contemplation: if the practitioner has not yet obtained the power of great skillful means and cannot contemplate true reality in all places, then they should first illuminate and understand the citta and manas while sitting. This is called the general contemplation of citta and manas. Second, as for the reason it is called particular contemplation: if the practitioner possesses skillful means and can always apply the mind in all places, this is successive particular contemplation of citta and manas. Furthermore, if a practitioner wishes to enter samādhi, they must first contemplate citta and manas while sitting, and thereafter they should also contemplate citta and manas in all places. Why is that? Among the four postures, only when sitting are body and mind tranquil, neither sinking nor floating. Because it does not arise from extraneous conditions, the mind investigates carefully, and the matter possesses the method of contemplation. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Sitting upright and contemplating true reality: this is called the foremost repentance.' For this reason, the practitioner should first cultivate samādhi in a quiet room and secluded chamber. How does one cultivate it? The practitioner should properly attune matters such as body and mind. These matters are as explained in the treatises on meditation (dhyāna), and should be broadly elucidated here. Once the practitioner is able to properly attune them, they should at that time, while sitting with correct mindfulness, contemplate that the meanings of the four movements—of citta, manas, and vijñāna, and so forth—are entirely unobtainable. The breaking down and analysis through contemplative practice are entirely as explained above. This time is called cultivating samādhi in seated meditation.

When the practitioner thus knows that citta, manas, and vijñāna are neither seen nor obtained, they should furthermore closely contemplate the outer and inner minds in each and every action undertaken. The outer mind is called the agent; the inner mind is called the recipient. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra speaks of 'agent' and 'recipient'. When the practitioner contemplates the agent, there are altogether six matters; when contemplating the recipient, there are also six kinds; contemplating both inner and outer comprises twelve kinds. These are the spheres of samādhi capable of generating samādhi, and the practitioner should contemplate them wherever they arise. The six outer activities are: first, walking; second, standing; third, sitting; fourth, lying down; fifth, performing tasks; sixth, speaking. The six inner receipts are: first, the eye receiving forms; second, the ear receiving sounds; third, the nose receiving scents; fourth, the tongue receiving flavors; fifth, the body receiving tangibles; sixth, the manas conditioning dharmas. These are the twelve spheres of contemplation, the gateways to samādhi.

First, when walking, one should contemplate the mental characteristics of prior to walking, intending to walk, walking, and having walked within walking, completely penetrating that they are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity as explained before. Further, one reflects: 'Such movement and action exist as going and coming because they are driven and employed by the mind.' Reflectively contemplating the walking mind, one does not see its dwelling place, and it is devoid of all characteristics of arising and ceasing. One should know that the walker is ultimately empty and tranquil.

Second, when standing, one should closely contemplate that the mental characteristics of prior to standing, intending to stand, standing, and having stood are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity fully as explained before. Further, one reflects: 'Such a standing person erects the body and stands firm because they are controlled by the mind; hence it is called standing.' Reflectively contemplating the standing mind, one does not see its location, still less all characteristics of arising and ceasing. One should know that the stander is ultimately empty and tranquil.

Third, when sitting, one should closely contemplate that the mental characteristics of prior to sitting, intending to sit, sitting, and having sat are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity also as explained before. Further, one reflects: 'Such a sitting person bends the legs and settles the body because they are turned by the mind; hence it is called sitting.' Reflectively contemplating the sitting mind, one sees neither arising nor ceasing, nor is it inner or outer. One should know that the sitter is ultimately empty and tranquil.

Fourth, when sleeping and resting, one should closely contemplate that the mental characteristics of prior to sleeping, intending to sleep, sleeping, and having slept are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity also as explained above. Further, one reflects: 'Such a sleeper gives way to fatigue of the mind and immediately lets go, abandoning the six limbs to lie down; hence it is called sleeping.' Reflectively contemplating the sleeping mind, one does not see its characteristics. One should know that the sleeper is ultimately empty and tranquil.

Fifth, when performing tasks, one should closely contemplate that the mental characteristics of prior to doing, intending to do, doing, and having done are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity also as explained above. Further, one reflects: 'Now moving the body and hands to perform various tasks, lifting the hands and lowering the hands, various affairs are accomplished because they are turned by the mind; hence it is called doing.' Reflectively contemplating the doing mind, one does not see movement or turning. One should know that the doer is ultimately empty and tranquil.

Sixth, when the practitioner is speaking, reciting, and chanting, they should closely contemplate that the mental characteristics of prior to speaking, intending to speak, speaking, and having spoken are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity also as explained above. Further, one reflects: 'Such sounds expressing speech arise because the citta's vitarka and vicāra stir the breath to strike against the six locations—throat, lips, tongue, teeth, palate, and so forth; hence there is this speaking.' Reflectively contemplating the speaking mind, one does not see its traces, and the sound abides in emptiness. One should know that the speaker is ultimately empty and tranquil.

These are the practitioner's contemplation of the six kinds of activities of the outer mind, knowing that all are empty and tranquil, not seeing the agent as possessing any fixed, true reality. Therefore, bodhisattvas cultivate samādhi in all activities. Thus in the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the Buddha addressed Subhūti: 'If a bodhisattva-mahāsattva, when walking, knows walking, up to when sitting, knows sitting, when lying down, speaking, or wearing the saṃghāṭī robe, having known all these, they are unobtainable; therefore this is the Mahāyāna of the bodhisattva.'

Furthermore, when the practitioner contemplates the six kinds of receipt of the inner mind, they know there is no recipient. Why is that? Although the various receipts are empty, if one does not contemplate them, they can serve as causes and conditions for immeasurable afflictions and saṃsāra. Therefore, the practitioner should contemplate each of them as the sense faculties receive the sense objects. How does one contemplate? First, when the practitioner's eye sees form, they should closely contemplate that the characteristics of the four movements—prior to seeing form, intending to see form, seeing form, and having seen form—are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity, extensively explained as above. Further, one reflects: 'Such seeing has no characteristic of seeing. Why is that? Within those faculties, objects, space, and light, each lacks seeing and lacks discrimination; when causes and conditions harmonize, eye-consciousness is born; with eye-consciousness as cause and condition, mind-consciousness (manovijñāna) is born. When mind-consciousness arises, it can discriminate various forms; also, dependent on mind-consciousness there is eye-consciousness, and by eye-consciousness as cause and condition one can see forms and produce craving and attachment.' Therefore, one should immediately reflectively contemplate the mind that is mindful of form. When contemplating in this way, one does not see this mind coming in from the outside to produce receipt, nor does one see the mind emerging from the inside to produce discrimination. Why is that? What comes from outside has nothing to do with oneself; if it exists of itself, it does not depend on causes and conditions. One should know that the recipient is ultimately empty and tranquil. Therefore Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said: 'The form that is seen is equal to blindness.'

Second, when the practitioner's ear hears sound, they should closely contemplate that the characteristics of the four movements—prior to hearing sound, intending to hear sound, hearing sound, and having heard sound—are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity, extensively explained as above. Further, one reflects: 'Such hearing of sound has no intrinsic nature, but arises only from the harmony of faculty and object. Because of the conceptual discrimination of mind-consciousness, one produces afflictions and unwholesome karma toward what is heard.' One should immediately reflectively contemplate the consciousness conditioning sound, not seeing its substantial nature. One should know that the hearer is ultimately empty and tranquil. Therefore Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said: 'The sound that is heard is equal to an echo.'

Third, when the practitioner's nose smells scent, they should closely contemplate that the mind of the four movements—prior to smelling scent, intending to smell scent, smelling scent, and having smelled scent—is all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity, extensively explained as above. Further, one reflects: 'Such scent is a non-conscious dharma; whatever nose-faculty there is was also originally non-conscious. In harmony they generate consciousness, and by nominal designation it is said to know. The false mind-consciousness obtains what is received and generates discrimination, giving rise to all afflictions and karmic activities of saṃsāra.' One should immediately reflectively contemplate mind-consciousness, not seeing its root source and characteristics. One should know that the receiver is ultimately empty and tranquil. Therefore Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said: 'The scent that is smelled is equal to the wind.'

Fourth, when the practitioner's tongue receives flavor, they should closely contemplate that the characteristics of the four movements—prior to receiving flavor, intending to receive flavor, receiving flavor, and having received flavor—are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity, extensively explained as above. Further, one reflects: 'Such receiving of flavor truly has no intrinsic nature. Why is that? Externally, the six flavors have no discrimination; internally, the tongue-faculty is fundamentally non-conscious; tongue-consciousness arises only from harmonized causes and conditions, and this consciousness is also not fixed internally, externally, or between the two. Within this, the citta and manas forcefully grasp the characteristics of flavor and generate attached discrimination; hence all latent afflictions arise.' At that time, one should immediately reflectively contemplate the citta, manas, and vijñāna attached to flavor, not seeing their dwelling place, let alone all characteristics of arising and ceasing. One should know that the discriminator of flavor is ultimately pure. Therefore Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said: 'The flavor that is eaten is not discriminated.'

Fifth, when the practitioner's body senses tangibles, they should closely contemplate that the characteristics of the four movements—prior to sensing tangibles, intending to sense tangibles, sensing tangibles, and having sensed tangibles—are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity, extensively explained as above. Further, one reflects: 'Such sensing does not arise from within, nor does it come from without. Why is that? Cold, warmth, softness, smoothness, and so forth do not come from outside; apart from cold, warmth, and so forth, there is no separate dharma that comes. The six parts such as body and head are not dharmas of arising; apart from the six parts of the body, neither is there a dharma of arising. When the two harmonize and body-consciousness arises, it is called sensing; yet the nature of this consciousness is neither inside nor outside, possessing nothing to rely upon. It is only that the citta and manas forcefully make discriminations, asserting the realization of various tangibles and producing notions of suffering and pleasure; hence there are all afflictions of craving and anger.' At that time, one should immediately reflectively contemplate the consciousness conditioning tangibles, not seeing its dwelling place, let alone all characteristics of arising and ceasing. One should know that the senser of tangibles is ultimately empty and tranquil. Therefore Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said: 'Receiving tangibles is like the realization of wisdom.'

Sixth, when the practitioner's manas conditions dharmas, they should closely contemplate that the mental characteristics of the four movements—prior to thinking of dharmas, intending to think of dharmas, thinking of dharmas, and having thought of dharmas—are all unobtainable, dual-illuminating with clarity, extensively explained as above. Further, one reflects: 'Such mind-consciousness grasping dharmas is entirely deceptive and false, lacking any real actuality. Why is that? Dharmas are like illusions, their nature devoid of reality; the mind is like a mirage, without a moment's pause. Dharmas lack fixed nature and cannot be conditioned; the mind has no dwelling place—who is the conditioner? Apart from the conditioner and the conditioned, there is no other conditioning. One should know that it is merely through false recollection that one forcefully discriminates that these are dharmas, generating views, with all afflictions and karmic activities of saṃsāra continuing uninterrupted.' Therefore, in order to shatter false, inverted notions and when following conditioned spheres, the practitioner should immediately reflectively contemplate, reflectively contemplating the root source of citta, manas, and vijñāna. When closely contemplating the mind, one does not see its dwelling or cessation, nor all dharmic characteristics of arising and ceasing. If the mind lacks a dwelling place and the various characteristics of arising and ceasing, one should know that this mind is unobtainable. Mind is not even obtainable, how much less the caittas! If there are no caittas, upon what can all dharmas ultimately depend? Therefore a sūtra says: 'My mind is intrinsically empty; sin and merit have no master. All dharmas are also like this: without dwelling and without destruction.' When the practitioner contemplates citta and manas in this way, they do not obtain any dharma, and should know that the conditioned dharmas are ultimately empty and tranquil. Therefore Vimalakīrti said: 'Know all dharmas as illusory characteristics, lacking self-nature and other-nature; fundamentally they are not thus, and now they have no cessation.' What do such words mean? The earlier refutation of prior to thinking and intending to think corresponds with correct contemplation, and should be explained distinctively in each of the twelve matters.

When the practitioner contemplates in this way, they should also recognize three kinds of mind: first, contemplating the scattered mind; second, contemplating the concentrated mind; third, contemplating the contemplating mind. What is called contemplating the scattered mind? In the various matters explained above, when the practitioner is a beginner and has not understood dharmas, scatteredness arises in all these spheres. Closely contemplating with single-mindedness, one does not see characteristics of mind; then there is no scatteredness. The mind is peaceful; in walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, body and mind are calm and quiet, tranquil and unmoved: this is the concentrated mind. If one does not contemplate this concentrated mind, much attachment will arise. As Bodhisattva Vimalakīrti said: 'Greedy attachment to the flavor of meditation is the bondage of a bodhisattva.' Therefore, one should contemplate the concentrated mind as unobtainable. There is not even any mind—where does concentration reside? One should know that this concentration arises from inversion. When contemplating in this way, one sees neither concentration nor non-concentration, does not produce greedy attachment, and is liberated from the bondage of concentration. Therefore the Vimalakīrti Sūtra says: 'Arising through skillful means is the bodhisattva's liberation.' This is called contemplating the concentrated mind through contemplating characteristics.

Having contemplated the concentrated mind, if the practitioner has not yet awakened to the principle, they may calculate: 'I can contemplate the mind, and therefore I see no characteristics of concentration or scatteredness. One should know that such wondrous wisdom is most supreme.' Attached to this contemplative wisdom, they immediately become arrogant, thinking: 'Others cannot understand.' When having such a thought, this is called the obstacle of knowledge (jñeyāvaraṇa), identical to that of non-Buddhists. Therefore the Treatise explains: 'These non-Buddhists fondly cling to the wisdom that contemplates emptiness and do not attain liberation.' The practitioner, knowing that calculating an observer is a great obstacle and does not accord with nirvāṇa, should immediately reflectively contemplate the mind that can contemplate, seeing no dwelling place, nor any arising and ceasing. One should know that ultimately there is neither an observer nor a non-observer. Since there is no observer, who contemplates dharmas? Not obtaining the contemplating mind, one is free from thoughts of contemplation. Therefore the Treatise says: 'When notions, thoughts, and contemplation are removed, / The mind of conceptual proliferation is extinguished. / Immeasurable sins are eliminated, / And the pure mind is always unified. / Such an exalted and wondrous person / Is able to see prajñā.' This is called contemplating the nature of the mind. Therefore the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra also says: 'Contemplating the mind's mind.'

These three contemplations are the three samādhis. Why is that? In the first contemplation, one can destroy all various existent characteristics, seeing neither inner nor outer: this is the emptiness samādhi. In the second contemplation, one can destroy the characteristics of emptiness: this is called the signless samādhi. In the third contemplation, one does not see an agent: this is called the wishless samādhi. When a bodhisattva practices these samādhis, they can destroy the three inversions, the three poisons' characteristics of citta, manas, and vijñāna, and the streams of the three existences, and can also subdue the four kinds of māra adversaries. Why is that? Afflictions are all scattered confusions. Contemplating emptiness in this way, one can understand afflictions. Their nature has no movement or change: this is bodhi. Therefore the Sarvadharmāpravṛtti Sūtra says: 'Greed is itself the Path; / Anger and delusion are also like this. / Within these three dharmas, / All Buddha-dharmas are complete.' If afflictions are bodhi, how could bodhi further afflict bodhi? If one knows that the characteristics of afflictions are empty, that is bodhi, crossing beyond the affliction māra. The other three māras are also like this. As to why this is so: as the Viśeṣacintā Sūtra says: 'Ignorant of the aggregates, realms, and bases, / Yet wishing to seek bodhi— / Aggregates, realms, and bases are themselves it; / Apart from these, there is no bodhi.' One should know that contemplating emptiness crosses beyond the skandha-māra. As the Viśeṣacintā Sūtra also says: 'Saṃsāra is nirvāṇa, / Because there is no falling away or arising.' One should know that contemplating emptiness crosses beyond the death māra (mṛtyu-māra). The Śūraṅgama Sūtra says: 'The suchness of the māra realm is the suchness of the Buddha realm; the suchness of the māra realm and the suchness of the Buddha realm are one suchness without duality.' Thus, without leaving the māra realm, one attains the Buddha realm. One should know that contemplating emptiness crosses beyond the devaputra-māra of Paranirmitavaśavartin. When a bodhisattva practices the correct contemplation of the three emptinesses, they immediately no longer fear the four māras, nor do they obtain the four māras, and are able to cross beyond the four māras. Therefore the Treatise says: 'Except for the true reality of dharmas, all else is called māra's deeds; if one can properly cultivate true reality, there are no māra's deeds.' Therefore, when the practitioner properly contemplates this meaning and cultivates samādhi, there will never be māra's deeds. If one departs from this contemplation to discriminate and conceptualize, one will definitely fall into māra's net. Therefore the Treatise says: 'If one discriminates and conceptualizes, / That is Māra's net; / Unmoving and without discrimination, / This is called the Dharma seal.' Furthermore, when the practitioner can properly cultivate the above three contemplations, shattering all dharmas with a mind free of attachment, although they know the empty characteristics of sentient beings, they constantly remember great compassion, do not abandon all sentient beings, train in the pāramitās, give rise to the ten powers, contemplate the various Dharma-gates of the Dharma realm, and nurture all wholesome merits.

First 26 of 30 passages. Read on