[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt) › 67 # 宗鏡錄 67 English (machine translation) 67 - **Language:** English ### [67.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.1) Compiled by Yanshou, Dhyāna Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Monastery. ### [67.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.2) Although the roots and origins of the arising and exhausting of the characteristic of a self have been explained, these are all the coarse, heavy emotional attachments of non-Buddhists and ordinary persons. What are the subtle views of the self of dharmas held by practitioners of the inner teaching? ### [67.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.3) Answer: Attachment to dharmas is difficult to eliminate and is even more subtle. Attachment to dharmas is the root, and attachment to a person is the branch. Therefore, when love of dharmas is not exhausted, \[practitioners\] all become those who fall from the peak; even those who perfectly realize nirvāṇa are still those with a view of a self. As in the Sūtra of Perfect Awakening, Bodhisattva Purifier of All Karmic Hindrances addressed the Buddha, saying: "O World-Honoured One of Great Compassion, you have extensively expounded for us such inconceivable matters, the characteristics of the causal practices of all Tathāgatas, causing the great assembly to attain what they had never had before, beholding the Tamer, whose painstaking realms over kalpas numerous as the sands of the Ganges and whose total functions are like a single thought. We bodhisattvas deeply rejoice. World-Honoured One, if this mind of awakening is originally and eternally pure, by what defilement are sentient beings caused to be deluded, distraught, and unable to enter?" Down to where the Buddha said: "Good sons, all sentient beings, from beginningless time, have falsely conceptualized and grasped a self, a person, a sentient being, and a life span, taking the four inversions to be the real substance of the self. From this, they immediately give rise to the two states of hatred and love. Over a false and unreal substance, they repeatedly grasp at what is false and unreal. The two falsehoods rely on each other, producing the path of false karmic deeds. Because of false karma, they falsely perceive transmigration; those who loathe transmigration falsely perceive nirvāṇa. Because of this, they are unable to enter pure awakening. It is not that awakening rejects and opposes those capable of entering; rather, that there are those capable of entering means they have not entered by means of awakening. Therefore, both the stirring of thought and the cessation of thought return to delusion and distraction. Why is this? Because there is the beginningless, fundamentally arisen avidyā acting as their own master. All sentient beings are born without the eye of prajñā, and the nature of their bodies and minds is entirely avidyā. It is just as when a person does not take their own life. Therefore, you should know that towards what loves oneself, one complies; towards what does not comply, one gives rise to hatred and resentment. Because the mind of hatred and love nourishes avidyā, though one continually seeks the Way, none achieve success. Good sons, what is the characteristic of a self? It refers to what is realized in the minds of sentient beings. Good sons, it is like a person whose hundred joints are well-attuned, suddenly forgetting their own body; but when the four limbs are slack and sluggish, or regimen and care are mismanaged, the slight application of needle or moxibustion makes them know there is a self. Therefore, only when grasping what is realized does the substance of the self appear. Good sons, even if their mind realizes the Tathāgata and ultimately understands pure nirvāṇa, this is all the characteristic of a self. Good sons, what is the characteristic of a person? It refers to what sentient beings comprehend in their minds regarding realization. Good sons, having comprehended that there is a self, one no longer identifies with the self. That which is comprehended is not the self, and the comprehension is also like this. Comprehension having surpassed all that is realized, this is entirely the characteristic of a person. Good sons, even if their mind perfectly comprehends that nirvāṇa is entirely the self, as long as the mind retains a slight comprehension that fully exhausts the realized principle, this is all called the characteristic of a person. Good sons, what is the characteristic of a sentient being? It refers to what is not reached by the realization and comprehension of the minds of sentient beings. Good sons, it is like someone making this statement: 'I am a sentient being.' Then one knows that when that person speaks of a 'sentient being,' it is neither self nor other. Why is it not the self? 'I am a sentient being,' so it is not the self. Why is it not other? 'I am a sentient being,' so it is not another's self. Good sons, sentient beings' understanding realization and understanding comprehension are all \[the characteristics of\] a self and a person; that which is not reached by the characteristics of a self and a person, yet where there remains something understood, is called the characteristic of a sentient being. Good sons, what is the characteristic of a life span? It refers to what the mind of sentient beings illuminates as pure and what is understood by awakening, which cannot be seen by any karmic cognition, just like the life faculty. Good sons, if the mind illuminates and sees all that awakens, it is all dust and defilement; for that which awakens and that which is awakened do not depart from dust. Just as when hot water melts ice, there is no separate ice to know that the ice has melted; retaining a self that awakens to the self is also like this. Good sons, sentient beings of the final age do not understand the four characteristics. Though they cultivate the Way painstakingly for many kalpas, it is merely called conditioned \[action\], and in the end they cannot accomplish any noble fruit." These two attachments to self and dharmas are specially treated in the sūtras and śāstras: they assist karma and moisten rebirth, comply with feelings and generate love, falsely arise from the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, and forcefully act as a master among the dharmas of faculties and dusts. They solidify the boundaries of ordinary beings, serve as the guide of kleśas, establish the root source of birth-and-death, and make the foundation of all sufferings. They ruin the treasure store of the true Dharma, go against the wondrous source of achieving Buddhahood, block the essential crossing to nirvāṇa, blind the wisdom eye of prajñā, obstruct the great path of bodhi, and sever the correct cause of liberation. In turning one's back on awakening and aligning with dust, nothing comes before these. As widely cited above, the refutations are distinct and clear. May you sever the root of doubt and suddenly dissolve the icy attachments; then there will be a path for correct cultivation, your efforts will not be in vain, and realizing the real in a single thought, you will entirely accomplish the path of awakening. ### [67.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.4) Question: Those who do not understand Consciousness-Only falsely grasp at self and dharmas. Within the noble teaching, why is it also said that there are a self, dharmas, and so forth? ### [67.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.5) Answer: They are provisionally set up in response to specific faculties, unlike attachments born of sentiment. There are two kinds of provisional designations: First, provisional designations without substance following sentiment. These are mostly grasped by worldly people and non-Buddhists. Although the self and dharmas they grasp as such do not exist, in accordance with the grasping mind's cognitive objects, they are also named 'self' and 'dharmas'; therefore, they are spoken of as provisional. Second, provisional designations established with substance. As spoken of in the sacred teachings, although the substances of dharmas exist, they are not a self or dharmas \[in the grasped sense\]. The original substance being nameless, it is forcefully named 'self' and 'dharmas'. Not matching the substance of the dharmas, they are established following conditions; therefore, they are spoken of as provisional. Furthermore, speaking generally of ordinary beings and noble ones, there are six kinds of self: 1. The grasped self, which refers to the discriminative and innate \[grasping\], existing at the stage of ordinary beings. 2. The haughty self, which refers to only the innate, existing at the stage of those with training. 3. The self of habit energy, which refers to the remaining habit energy of the two selves, existing at the stage of those beyond training. 4. The self current in worldly convention, which refers to the provisional designation used by buddhas and others in accordance with the world. 5. The autonomous self, which refers to the eight masteries and so forth, having the subsequent wisdom of the Tathāgata as its nature. 6. The true self, which refers to the permanence, bliss, self, and purity of tathatā, having tathatā as its nature. Calling it 'self' in the perfect middle path encompasses the latter three kinds. ### [67.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.6) Question: What is the meaning of the absence of the two kinds of self? ### [67.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.7) Answer: The view of a personal self is like the six aggregates and seven sentiments—ultimately without substance. The view of a phenomenal self is like a gandharva city or mirage water—thoroughly empty alone. As the sūtras and treatises clarify the two kinds of selflessness: First, the selflessness of persons (pudgala-nairātmya). In Sanskrit it is \*pudgala\*, rendered in the Tang language as 'frequently taking rebirth in destinies' (shùqǔqù). This means that sentient beings arouse afflictions and generate karma, which serves as the taker; the future five destinies are called the destinies. Although they repeatedly arouse afflictions and generate karma, transmigrating through the five destinies, there is entirely no sovereign, actual, autonomous function; therefore it is called selflessness. Second, the selflessness of phenomena (dharma-nairātmya). This means that although the substances of all dharmas sustain themselves and give rise to understanding in sentient beings, they also lack any supreme nature of actual, autonomous function; therefore it is said to be selflessness. ### [67.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.8) Question: The view grasping an existent self, although it conforms to what is cognized, has an inverted substance. What supreme goodness is accomplished by the mind of selflessness? ### [67.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.9) Answer: Comprehending the principle of the two kinds of selflessness and realizing and converging with tathatā constitutes the correct source of becoming a buddha and the wondrous path for transcending the ordinary. If one discusses its dharma benefits, the merit is difficult to measure. An ancient worthy said: 'Although the mind of selflessness does not match the object, because it goes against conditioning, it is called non-inverted. If, when conditioning tathatā, one forms an understanding of existent tathatā, that is attachment to dharmas. If one forms an understanding of nonexistence, although it does not match tathatā, it still leads to becoming a noble one.' The explanation says: If forming an understanding of tathatā is attachment to dharmas, then if the mind that understands arises, the principle to be realized is immediately established. Once the objective sphere is established, one is confused about the mind of direct perception. As soon as intellectual understanding arises, it immediately becomes inferential cognition; all of this is attachment to dharmas and loses the source of consciousness-only. Therefore, the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Outside of wisdom there is no tathatā to be entered by wisdom; outside of tathatā there is no wisdom that can realize tathatā.' Then mind and objects are suchness itself, pure in a single track. The Guang baimen lun says: 'Consciousness can give rise to afflictions, and karma can draw forth future existences. Such conscious minds arise by conditioning form and the like; without an objective condition, consciousness definitely does not arise. If one can correctly observe that objects are selfless, then because what is conditioned is absent, that which conditions is also absent. Once both subject and object have vanished, all sufferings are accordingly extinguished, and one realizes the tranquil, shadowless, pure nirvāṇa. When one reaches this stage, it is named the fulfillment of self-benefit. Those who have fundamental vows to benefit others abide in this stage, their transformative functions inexhaustible, also causing those with consciousness to abide in this nirvāṇa. Therefore, those who wish to seek the true expedient means for the supreme benefit of self and others should correctly and diligently cultivate the principle of emptiness and selflessness.' ### [67.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.10) Question: In the Nirvāṇasūtra, the Buddha taught the principle of the true self and buddha-nature, and all the bodhisattvas offered repentance, saying: 'For immeasurable kalpas, we have constantly drifted about washed away by \[the thought of\] selflessness.' Now, in explaining selflessness at length, does this not contradict the teaching of the Nirvāṇasūtra? ### [67.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.11) Answer: What is now called selflessness is spoken to destroy the erroneous grasping by ordinary beings and non-Buddhists who, confused about the principle of consciousness-only, falsely grasp that there are actual selves and dharmas outside the mind. As for what non-Buddhists grasp, there are roughly three classes: First, the Sāṃkhyas and others, who grasp that the substance of the self is permanent, pervasive, and equal in measure to space, creating karma and experiencing suffering, pleasure, and so on anywhere. Second, the Nirgranthas, who grasp that although the substance of the self is permanent, its measure is indeterminate, contracting and expanding according to the size of the body. Third, the Vāśīputrīyas \[or wanderers\], who grasp that the substance of the self is permanent and extremely subtle, like a single subtle atom, covertly moving within the body to perform activities. Because the remaining ninety kinds of imagined selves are not different from these three, all such false graspings are devoid of principle; they merely constitute the perverse thoughts of the five views. How could they be the same as the true self of the four virtues? As the Nirvāṇasūtra says: 'A non-Buddhist said: "As Gautama says that there is no self and nothing belonging to a self, for what reason do you also speak of permanence, bliss, self, and purity?" The Buddha said: "Good man, I do not say that the internal and external six sense bases, the six consciousnesses, and the manas are permanent, blissful, self, and pure. Rather, I proclaim that the cessation of the six consciousnesses produced by the internal and external bases is named permanent. Because it is permanent, it is named self. Because there is a permanent self, it is named bliss. Because it is permanent, self, and blissful, it is named pure." Now, the true self is the meaning of buddha-nature: eternally constant and unchanging, not produced by producing causes, complete and perfectly fulfilled, revealed only by revealing causes. Furthermore, as the sūtra says: 'At that time, the World-Honoured One praised the bhikṣus: "Excellent, excellent! You are well able to cultivate the perception of selflessness." Then the bhikṣus said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, we do not only cultivate the perception of selflessness, but we also cultivate other perceptions—namely, the perception of suffering, impermanence, and the perception of selflessness. World-Honoured One, it is like an intoxicated person whose mind is dizzy and confused, seeing mountains, rivers, stone walls, vegetation, palaces, houses, the sun, moon, and stars all spinning around. World-Honoured One, if there is someone who does not cultivate the perception of suffering, impermanence, selflessness, and so on, such a person is not called a noble one; having much heedlessness, they transmigrate in birth and death. World-Honoured One, for this reason, we skillfully cultivate such perceptions." At that time, the Buddha told the bhikṣus: "Listen attentively, listen attentively! The analogy of the intoxicated person you just cited shows you only know the words, but have not grasped the meaning. What is the meaning? Just as that intoxicated person sees the sun and moon above as spinning when in fact they are not spinning, yet produces the perception of spinning, sentient beings are also like this: covered by afflictions and ignorance, they give rise to inverted minds, imagining self to be selfless, permanence to be impermanent, purity to be impure, and bliss to be suffering. Because they are covered by afflictions, although they give rise to these perceptions, they do not grasp their meaning, just as that intoxicated person generates the perception of spinning where there is no spinning. 'Self' is the meaning of the Buddha. 'Permanence' is the meaning of the dharmakāya. 'Bliss' is the meaning of nirvāṇa. 'Purity' is the meaning of the Dharma. You bhikṣus, why do you say that one who has the perception of a self is conceited and arrogant, transmigrating in birth and death? If you say, 'I also cultivate and accumulate perceptions such as impermanence, suffering, and selflessness,' these three kinds of cultivation have no actual meaning. I shall now explain the superior method of the three cultivations: Imagining bliss in suffering, or imagining suffering in bliss, is an inverted dharma. Imagining permanence in the impermanent, or imagining impermanence in the permanent, is an inverted dharma. Imagining self in the selfless, or imagining selflessness in the self, is an inverted dharma. Imagining purity in the impure, or imagining impurity in the pure, is an inverted dharma. When there are such four inverted dharmas, that person does not know the correct cultivation of dharmas. You bhikṣus, generate the perception of bliss within dharmas of suffering; generate the perception of permanence within the impermanent; generate the perception of self within the selfless; generate the perception of purity within the impure. The worldly also has permanence, bliss, self, and purity; the supramundane also has permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Worldly dharmas have the words but not the meaning; supramundane dharmas have the words and have the meaning. Why is this? Worldly dharmas have four inversions, and therefore do not know the meaning. Why is this? There is inversion of perception, inversion of mind, and inversion of view. Because of the three inversions, worldly people see suffering in bliss, see impermanence in permanence, see selflessness in self, and see impurity in purity; these are called inversions. Because of inversion, the world knows the words but does not know the meaning. What is the meaning? Selflessness is named birth and death; self is named the Tathāgata. Impermanence is the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; permanence is the Tathāgata's dharmakāya. Suffering is all non-Buddhists; bliss is nirvāṇa. Impurity is conditioned dharmas; purity is the correct Dharma possessed by all buddhas and bodhisattvas. These are called non-inversions. Because they are non-inverted, one knows the words and knows the meaning. If one wishes to stay far away from the four inversions, one should know such permanence, bliss, self, and purity." The explanation says: Now, being confused about the four realities and giving rise to the eight inversions is nothing other than the views of the two selves of persons and phenomena, which serve as the pivot of birth and death, act as the foundation of afflictions, form the cage of the nine entanglements, and open the karmic path of the ten proclivities. Although those of the two vehicles sever the personal self, they are constantly drifted about washed away by selflessness; non-Buddhists mistakenly recognize the conscious spirit and constantly transmigrate due to the false self. Therefore, the statement above that 'selflessness is named birth and death' is because they are ignorant of the gate of the one true self and lack the power of great mastery. 'Self is named the Tathāgata' because they have realized the wondrous principle of buddha-nature and arrived by following the path of suchness. 'Impermanence is the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas' because they cultivate the false causes of arising and ceasing and realize the lesser fruit of ashes and annihilation. 'Permanence is the Tathāgata's dharmakāya' because it enters the true source of immobility and accords with the wondrous substance of perfect permanence. 'Suffering is all non-Buddhists' because they employ useless austerities and fall into the perverse wheel of arising and ceasing. 'Bliss is nirvāṇa' because it severs the false source of the two kinds of death and enters the secret storehouse of the four virtues. 'Impurity is conditioned dharmas' because it accumulates the defiled dust of sentiment and forms the empty affairs of dreams and illusions. 'Purity is the correct Dharma possessed by all buddhas and bodhisattvas' because it is the ultimate, perfect explanation and treads the supreme path of the unconditioned. Therefore, non-Buddhists grasping the view of an existent self is like steaming sand to make rice, taking the false to be true. The two vehicles realizing the gate of selflessness is like grasping a stone as a pearl, taking permanence to be annihilation. Neither comprehends that within selflessness there is the true self. Furthermore, permanence, bliss, self, and purity are merely a single dharma: because the nature of mind is invariant, it is permanent; being permanent, it is blissful; being blissful, it is self; being self, it is pure. Because of not understanding that the nature of mind is permanently abiding, one falsely acts seeking separately outside the mind; because of acting, there is impermanence; because of impermanence, there is no bliss; because of no bliss, there is no self; because of no self, there is no purity. Why is this? Because with impermanence and flux, one purely experiences suffering—how could there be bliss? Since one does not attain bliss, one is constantly bound together and does not attain mastery—how could this constitute a self? Since one does not see the true self of buddha-nature and perpetually follows defiled conditions, how could one attain purity? The analysis above belongs entirely to a provisional phase of the teaching; one must not rigidly cling to existence or nonexistence here, becoming confused about expedient means. As the Guang baimen lun says: 'In order to halt perverse views that negate nirvāṇa, it is taught that there truly exist permanence, bliss, self, and purity. One should not rigidly grasp these expedient words. Neither grasping existence nor negating nonexistence—this alone is called liberation through correct wisdom.' ### [67.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.12) Question: External dust has no substance; the principle of consciousness-only is established. The correct teaching is luminous, and its wondrous purport is not erroneous. Now, what ordinary beings grasp mostly conforms to false sentiments; through the mind of seeing and hearing and the power of habituation, they mostly grasp the objects seen presently before them, making it difficult to sever the slightest doubt. Although it was explained extensively before, there is still concern that they may not believe. We hope you will demonstrate it once more to shatter their clinging sentiments. ### [67.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.13) Answer: The nature of phenomena is boundless, yet those who attain it make it bordered; the characteristic of tathatā is empty, yet those who cling to it give it shape and obstruction. As the Guan huanyuan says: 'When true emptiness is obstructed in the mind, it constantly serves as a realm of conceptual thought; when the limit of reality is right before one's eyes, it turns into a domain of names and characteristics.' The Qixin chao says: 'If it is mind-only, then there should not be any external objects, because the mind lacks characteristics and cannot be seen. Since there is something seen, how can it be mind-only? The meaning is: because all phenomena arise from the mind, what arises lacks substance and is none other than the one mind. What need is there to speak of seeing and not seeing? It is because the root is mind.' It also says: 'Objects are fundamentally neither good nor bad; it is merely that when they accord with one's feelings, they are called good, and when they conflict with one's feelings, they are called bad. Hence we know that beauty and ugliness follow feelings, and objects have no fixed substance. Since they lack inherent substance, how could there be objects? The gate of mind-only is thereby clarified.' Hence we know that the Buddha speaks for those who have faith, not for those who harbor doubt. When defilements are heavy and hindrances are deep, doubt and slander naturally arise; when obstacles are light and faculties are sharp, one suddenly enters the profound and subtle. The Guang bai lun says: 'All that is seen is made by consciousness. Apart from consciousness, not a single phenomenon is real. Due to the repeated habituation to various views from beginningless time, in accordance with the views one has habituated, the conditions one encounters, and the maturation of one's own seeds, they arise in differentiation, appearing similar to various characteristics of phenomena. Like things seen in a dream, they all appear falsely and none is real. Everything is produced by the conscious mind.' ### [67.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.14) Objection: If so, the Mahāyāna would be like a mute dreaming, rejecting all phenomena as completely empty, incapable of discerning and explaining the intrinsic natures and distinctions of all worldly and transmundane phenomena. What great suffering! We cannot rejoice in such fictional doctrines established by the Mahāyāna, because all phenomena can be directly seen, and one cannot repudiate phenomena that are directly seen. ### [67.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.15) Answer: How wonderful, and how pitiable! Foolish persons of meager merit cannot have faith in or understand the Dharma-principles of the Mahāyāna. If there were an agent of seeing, there could be an object seen. Since an agent of seeing does not exist, who sees the object seen? Because the agents of seeing cannot examine and know that they themselves have an inherent substance, nor can they examine others. At the time of examination, both the agent of seeing and the object seen are completely non-existent. Therefore, one should not cling to directly seen phenomena as definitely having substance, because when the mind reflects back, all perceived objects are fictional. Why is this? When memory arises, there are in truth no various objects of sight and so forth; it is merely that in accordance with causes and conditions, one's own mind transforms into what appears to be various object-characteristics of sight and so forth, and arises. Because what is remembered is not real, only a fictional name of memory arises. Like reflecting back to recall the substances and characteristics of phenomena previously experienced, it is therefore called mindfulness. When one remembers, the previously experienced objects are completely absent; the agent of remembering is also absent, yet it is called 'mindfulness' as a provisional designation in accordance with habitual inverted views. Due to this mindfulness, worldly sentient beings falsely give rise to various conceptual discriminations and disputes, competing to cling to the intrinsic natures and distinctions of phenomena, sinking into the mire of evil views, unable to get out themselves. If there is nothing seen and nothing heard, then all is completely non-existent. How could one nowadays weave stones into a raft? ### [67.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.16) The Vijñānamātra treatise asks: 'Based on faith, four kinds are spoken of: first, direct perception; second, inference; third, analogy; fourth, scripture (āgama). Among these forms of faith, direct faith is supreme. If there are no external objects, why do people in the world say, "I directly see these blue and other objects"?' ### [67.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.17) The verse answers: / Directly seeing is like within a dream; / The seeing and what is seen are not simultaneous. / When seeing, there is no conceptual discrimination; / How can one say there is direct seeing? / For all ordinary persons, things seen in the dream of defilements are all like things in a dream. Like directly seeing form without knowing the meaning of form; it is only through subsequent discrimination by the manovijñāna that one afterwards cognizes it. When the manovijñāna discriminates, the eye-consciousness and other \[sense-consciousnesses\] do not exist, because they have already ceased, for all phenomena do not abide for a single instant. This is because when seeing form, that manovijñāna does not exist; when the manovijñāna arises, that eye-consciousness does not exist. ### [67.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.18) The Ru dasheng lun asks: 'The substances and characteristics of phenomena are directly seen in the world. How can they not exist?' ### [67.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.19) Answer: This is the false perception of ordinary fools; it is not to be trusted. Phenomena of arising and ceasing are all empty. Arising and ceasing revolve in samsāra without pausing for an instant. Because of a resemblance in succession, they falsely see them as real, just as the flame of a lamp arises and ceases instant by instant, yet ordinary fools regard it as a single flame. ### [67.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.20) The Madhyamaka treatise asks: 'Although you refute going and the goer, staying and the stayer through various approaches, the eye sees going and staying.' ### [67.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.21) Answer: What is seen by the physical eye is not to be trusted. If going and the goer truly existed, would they be established by one phenomenon or established by two phenomena? Both have faults. The physical eye is formed from the causes of past inverted karma; like the eyes of cattle and sheep, which do not discern directions, it truly cannot be trusted. Only the Buddha-eye is real. One must only follow the real, and not rely on the false. ### [67.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.22) It also asks: 'We directly see sentient beings creating karma and receiving retribution. How is this matter explained?' ### [67.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.23) Answer: Just as an illusory person has no real actuality, yet can be seen by the eye; and furthermore, an illusory person's verbal karma of expounding the Dharma, bodily karma of practicing giving, and so forth—such karma, though unreal, can be seen by the eye. The cycle of birth and death, the agent, and karma should also be understood in this way. All karmas are empty and devoid of intrinsic nature, like an illusion, like a dream. ### [67.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.24) It also asks: 'Worldly people all see phenomena as either existing or non-existing. Why do you alone contradict the world and say that nothing is seen?' ### [67.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.25) Answer: If a person has not attained the path, they do not see the true characteristic of phenomena. Due to causes and conditions of craving and views, they produce various fabrications (prapañca). When seeing phenomena arise, they call it eternal, grasp characteristics, and say they exist; when seeing phenomena cease, they call it annihilation, grasp characteristics, and say they do not exist. The wise, seeing phenomena arise, immediately extinguish the view of non-existence; seeing phenomena cease, immediately extinguish the view of existence. Therefore, regarding all phenomena, although there is something seen, all is like an illusion, like a dream. Even the view of the undefiled path can still be eliminated, how much more so other views? Therefore, if one does not see peaceful phenomena, one sees existence and non-existence. ### [67.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.26) The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa asks: 'If all phenomena are empty like an illusion, why is it that phenomena can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, and cognized? If they do not exist and are falsely seen, why does one not see sound or hear form? If all are equally empty and non-existent, why are some visible and others invisible?' ### [67.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.27) Answer: Although the characteristics of phenomena are empty, there is still the discrimination between what can be seen and what cannot be seen. For example, illusory phantom elephants, horses, and various objects: although one knows they are unreal, still form can be seen and sound can be heard without mutual confusion, because they confront the six sense faculties. Phenomena are also like this: although empty, they can be seen and heard without mutual confusion. Examining the meaning of this treatise, it is based on what is seen by worldly, ordinary feelings: when the eye faculty confronts the form object, and the eye-consciousness in between—the harmony of these three—it can be called seeing. These faculties, objects, and consciousnesses are all empty in their intrinsic nature; individually, they cannot produce seeing, nor can their harmony produce seeing. It is merely that in the presence of false emotional consciousness, what confronts seeing and hearing is not absent. Hence a sūtra says: "Seen by ordinary persons, it is conventional truth; seen by noble ones, it is ultimate truth." What is called "truth" (satya) means thoroughly real and not false, hence it is called truth. Conventional truth is not non-existent; clinging to the provisional is its truth. Ultimate truth is not existent; realizing the real is its truth.' ### [67.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.28) Question: All internal and external phenomena belong to categories. Among these categories, about how many kinds of distinctions are there, as well as the meanings of general and specific according to category? ### [67.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.29) Answer: Ancient commentaries hold that there are five: First, the category of vipāka (maturation). (1) General: that is, all plants and trees are green at first and yellow later—how is this not maturation? (2) Specific: only good and evil karmas induce the fruit of maturation. Second, the category of upacaya (nourishment). (1) General: that is, all things have nourishment. (2) Specific: it is solely that which is benefited by food, drink, sleep, celibacy (brahmacarya), and samādhi. Third, the category of niṣyanda (outflow/concordance). (1) General: that is, all things resembling their own kind are outflows. (2) Specific: only what is produced from a cause of equal status (sabhāgahetu). Fourth, the category of dravyasat (real entities). (1) General: that is, all phenomena that possess substance. (2) Specific: only unconditioned phenomena, to exclude conditioned phenomena as not being real entities. Fifth, the category of kṣaṇa (momentariness). (1) General: that is, all phenomena with arising and ceasing. (2) Specific: only the very first moment of the path of seeing (darśanamārga). ### [67.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.30) Question: The abodes of sentient beings pervade the three realms. Why does the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra say that the seven stations of consciousness are the seed? ### [67.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.31) Answer: Sentient beings, encompassing ordinary persons up to noble ones, have sixty-two bodies of sentient beings, and in terms of supporting bases, there are forty-two dwelling places. According to the general approach, because they are bound by karma, both pleasant and unpleasant places are established as dwelling places. Below, in the example of the seven stations of consciousness, it is because the conscious mind only takes pleasure in dwelling in seven places. The forty-two dwelling places are: the eight hells, animals, hungry ghosts, the four continents, the six desire-realm heavens, eighteen in the form realm, and four in the formless realm, totally forty-two dwelling places. The seven stations of consciousness are: First, diverse in body and diverse in perception. 'Diverse in body' refers to humans and devas of the desire realm, who have high and low, superior and inferior. 'Diverse in perception' refers to having the three perceptions of painful, pleasant, and neutral sensations. Second, diverse in body and unified in perception. 'Diverse in body' refers to the first dhyāna, where the Brahmā King is superior and the Brahmā assembly is inferior; hence there are diverse bodies. 'Unified in perception' refers to having the single perception of grasping at precepts and vows (śīlavrataparāmarśa): the Brahmā King thinks himself capable of producing all the Brahmās, and all the Brahmās consider themselves to have arisen from the Brahmā King; mistaking what is not a cause for a cause is grasping at precepts and vows. Third, unified in body and diverse in perception. 'Unified in body' refers to the stage of the second dhyāna, where there is no superior and inferior, high and low. 'Diverse in perception' refers to having perceptions of joy and pleasure. Fourth, unified in body and unified in perception. 'Unified in body' refers to the third dhyāna having no superior and inferior, high and low. 'Unified in perception' refers to having only the perception of pleasure. Above the stations of space and consciousness, there is no body, only a single perception: Fifth, the station of space, with only the perception of space. Sixth, the station of consciousness, with only the perception of consciousness. Seventh, the station of nothingness, with only the perception of wisdom. These above seven stations of consciousness counteract sentient beings' conceiving consciousness as a self and taking pleasure in dwelling in the seven places; their substance is the five defiled aggregates. In the fourth dhyāna there is the absorption of non-perception (asaṃjñisamāpatti), and in the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception there is the absorption of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti). In the three bad destinies, one endures various sufferings, so consciousness does not take pleasure in dwelling there; hence they are not spoken of. Furthermore, although consciousness is extinguished in the fourth dhyāna and the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, they are not eliminated as dwelling places for nominal sentient beings, which is why they are not established \[among the stations of consciousness\]. In the three evil destinies, sentient beings are oppressed by suffering and do not take pleasure in dwelling there, which is why they are not established. ### [67.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.32) Question: If one refutes external objects as empty and establishes vijñaptimātra as existent, on what basis are objects empty, and on what basis is consciousness existent? ### [67.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.33) Answer: Objects arise in accordance with mental imputation; consciousness is generated following conditions. Imputation is merely the mind of parikalpita (conceptual construction); conditions are the nature of paratantra (other-dependence). Conditioned phenomena exist, belonging to the gate of ultimate truth (paramārtha). Imputed attachments are inherently empty, returning to the way of worldly convention (saṃvṛti). The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra states: 'Because external objects are posited according to mental imputation, they do not exist in the manner of consciousness; because internal consciousness necessarily arises depending on causes and conditions, it is not non-existent in the manner of objects. Thereby one refutes both the clinging to superimposition and to deprecation. Because objects are provisionally established depending on internal consciousness, they exist only conventionally; because consciousness is the substantial basis upon which provisional objects depend, it also exists ultimately.' The commentary explains: 'External objects are the parikalpita-svabhāva (conceptually constructed nature), real objects external to mind. Because they are posited as provisional following deluded imputation, their substance is entirely non-existent in reality, not similar to the other-dependent internal consciousness. As for internal consciousness, its substance is paratantra (other-dependence); therefore it necessarily arises depending on seeds as causes and conditions, and its substance is not entirely non-existent like the parikalpita object. Those real selves and dharmas are like the hair of a tortoise; consciousness exists as other-dependent, and thus is not of that category. Here, the two divisions of nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga, such as form and the rest, are transformed by internal consciousness, and because they are not separate from consciousness, they are collectively named internal consciousness. Because the nature of the substance of this internal consciousness is not non-existent, and the nature of the substance of a self and dharmas external to mind is not existent, one directly refutes the clinging to superimposition of external speculators who impute objects separate from the mind to be real, as well as refutes the clinging to deprecation of the deluded emptiness of those of mistaken view who perniciously seize upon emptiness and deny consciousness to be likewise non-existent. Being thus free from \[the extremes of\] emptiness and existence, the teaching of consciousness-only is expounded. If there are dharmas external to mind, one transmigrates in birth and death; when one awakens to the one mind, birth and death are forever abandoned. This may indeed be called the unsurpassable middle doctrine.' ### [67.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.34) Question: If objects exist only conventionally and consciousness penetrates the gate of ultimate truth, what is the conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya), and what is meant by the ultimate truth (paramārthasatya)? ### [67.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67.35) Answer: All truths and cognitions arise from the truthless. The 'truthless' is the absolute, true mind. It is not called 'truthless' in contrast to existence; hence it is called 'absolute' (non-relative)—just as space is not called 'great space' in contrast to 'small space'. From this truthless \[ground\], the single real truth is established. The name 'single real' is named in contrast to the three provisional \[vehicles\]; 'real' is named in dependence on the 'false'—this is a designation obtained through relativity. Furthermore, from this single real truth, in adapting to faculties and according to teachings, it is divided into two truths and the like. These two truths are deployed according to delusion and wisdom. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'That which is known by people of the supramundane world is called the ultimate truth; that which is known by people of the mundane world is the conventional truth.' The Benevolent Kings Sūtra says: 'In terms of understanding, it is always naturally one; in terms of truths, it is always naturally two.' Therefore, although the Benevolent Kings \[Sūtra\] divides them into two truths, the illumination of wisdom is always one; the Mahāparinirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] is fundamentally only one truth, yet understanding and delusion divide it into two. Thus they are two and yet not two, not two and yet two; being freely one or two constitutes the true two truths. Hence an ancient verse says: 'The two truths are by no means a pair; / though ever contrary, they were never separate.' This is precisely the meaning. Master \[Daosheng\] said: 'Because right and wrong are mutually relative, the names "ultimate" and "conventional" arise.' The She dasheng lun (Mahāyānasaṃgraha) of the Liang says: 'The hindrance of knowledge is utterly dark and blind, referring to separate attachment to the ultimate and conventional.' However, the characteristics of dharmas strive to analyze, while the nature of dharmas strives to merge and integrate. Each bases itself on one gate; do not give rise to biased clinging. Why? If there is only analysis without integration, dharmas become disparate; if there is no analysis, events and matters become confounded and chaotic, and there would be nothing to integrate. Thus nature and characteristics are distinct yet not different; matters and principle merge and identify yet are not identical. Neither different nor identical: this is the wondrous principle of the consummate middle. Moreover, the objective sphere does not obstruct the ultimate while remaining ever conventional; wisdom does not obstruct quiescence while remaining ever illuminating. The intent is that the mind's quiescence corresponds to the ultimate sphere, and the mind's illumination corresponds to the conventional sphere. In contrasting illumination to the conventional, mind and object are not one; in contrasting quiescence to the ultimate, mind and object are not different. Although the two spheres of emptiness and existence and the two minds of quiescence and illumination are mutually integrated, one can never say: the objective sphere does not obstruct the ultimate while remaining ever conventional, wisdom does not obstruct illumination while remaining ever quiescent; the objective sphere does not obstruct the conventional while remaining ever ultimate, and wisdom does not obstruct quiescence while remaining ever illuminating. A verse from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'If one cannot know / the distinction between the two truths, / then regarding the profound Buddha-Dharma / one does not know the real truth.' The Jin’gang bore buhuai jiaming lun says: 'The dharmas taught by the Buddha all resolve into two truths: first, the conventional truth; second, the ultimate truth. The conventional truth refers to ordinary persons, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and tathāgatas, up to names, meanings, wisdom, objects, and the mutual connection of karma and result. The ultimate truth refers to the fact that right within these, nothing whatsoever is apprehended. As it is said, the ultimate truth is not within the scope of wisdom, much less of words and letters—up to having no karma and no karmic result; this is the lineage of all the noble ones. For this reason, in this Prajñāpāramitā, it is taught not abiding in giving, that all dharmas are devoid of characteristics, cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken, that persons and dharmas are without self, that there is nothing to be attained, no one who realizes, no achievement, no coming, no going, and so forth. This explains the ultimate truth. Furthermore, it expounds all the characteristics of dharmas and all virtues, internal and external, mundane and supramundane. This establishes the conventional truth.' Furthermore, the Tiantai teaching establishes seven kinds of two truths and five kinds of three truths according to the four teachings, four realizations, and three transitions. As the Fahua xuanyi says: 'The disparate explanations in the sūtras and treatises are all the Tathāgata’s skillful expedients, knowing capacities and desires in their varied differences. Broadly there are three differences: first, according to feeling \[of beings\]; second, according to feeling and wisdom; third, according to wisdom. Teaching according to feeling means that because emotional natures differ, teachings differ according to feelings. As the Vibhāṣā clarifies, there are immeasurable kinds of the mundane supreme dharma. If even the limit of reality is like this, how much more so the rest? It is like presenting milk in various ways to suit the feelings of blind persons; the blind hear different explanations and dispute about the white color—how could that be the milk itself? The various masters, failing to grasp this intention, each cling to a single text, personally giving rise to disputes over views, mutually affirming and denying, believing one and disbelieving another, in a vast confusion, not knowing which is right. If mundane three-fold explanations and those that can refute them have scriptural evidence, they are all judged to be the intent of the two truths according to feeling. Those lacking textual proof are all erroneous views, deemed identical to those of non-Buddhists and not subsumed under the two truths. As for \[the two truths\] according to feeling and wisdom: feeling considers there to be two truths, both of which are conventional; if one awakens to the principle of truth, only then is it the ultimate. The ultimate is only one. Just as five hundred monks each stated the cause of the body—causes of the body were many, but the correct principle was only one. A sūtra says: "What is seen by the minds of mundane people is called the conventional truth; what is seen by the minds of supramundane people is called the ultimate truth." Such an explanation is the two truths according to feeling and wisdom. As for \[the two truths\] according to wisdom: when the noble ones awaken to the principle, they not only see the ultimate, but can also discern the conventional. It is like an eye having a film removed: it sees both form and space. It is also like one entering dhyāna: upon emerging from contemplation, the body is empty and the mind open, like light clouds floating in the sky, already unlike a distracted mind; how much less could one awaken to the ultimate without discerning the conventional? The Abhidharma says: "Small clouds generate obstruction; great clouds generate obstruction. The deeper the uncontaminated \[wisdom\], the purer the mundane wisdom becomes." Thus a sūtra verse says: "Ordinary persons walking in the world / do not know the characteristics of the world; / the Tathāgata walking in the world / clearly understands the characteristics of the world." These are the two truths according to wisdom. If one understands these three intentions, and uses them to investigate the sūtras and treatises, although diverse things are taught, in every single truth all three intentions are fully present. Second, properly clarifying the two truths: capturing the essential meaning and keeping it concise, merely pointing to dharma-nature as the ultimate truth and ignorance with the twelve links of dependent origination as the conventional truth would suffice for the doctrine. But people are crude and shallow, not aware of its profound wonder; it must be further expanded into an exposition of seven kinds of two truths. Each of the two truths is further opened into three kinds, combining to make twenty-one kinds of two truths. If one uses the initial set of two truths to refute all heterodoxies, attachments are entirely exhausted, as when the kalpa fire burns without leaving a single mustard seed behind. How much more so when the subsequent truths are set forth, transcendentally exceeding words, no longer measurable by mundane thoughts! The so-called seven kinds of two truths are: 1. Real existence is the conventional; the cessation of real existence is the ultimate. 2. Illusory existence is the conventional; the emptiness of illusory existence itself is the ultimate. 3. Illusory existence is the conventional; the emptiness and non-emptiness of illusory existence itself together are the ultimate. 4. Illusory existence is the conventional; illusory existence being identical to emptiness and non-emptiness, and all dharmas converging into emptiness and non-emptiness, is the ultimate. 5. Both illusory existence and illusory existence being identical to emptiness are called conventional; neither existence nor emptiness is the ultimate. 6. Both illusory existence and illusory existence being identical to emptiness are called conventional; neither existence nor emptiness, with all dharmas converging into neither existence nor emptiness, is the ultimate. 7. Both illusory existence and illusory existence being identical to emptiness are conventional; all dharmas converging into existence, converging into emptiness, and converging into neither existence nor emptiness, is the ultimate. Regarding the two truths of real existence: the aggregates, sense fields, and elements are all real dharmas. The myriad diversified categories formed by real dharmas are therefore called conventional. Having cultivated the path through expedients and extinguished this conventional, one only then accords with the ultimate. The Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "Empty of form, form is empty." Because form is extinguished, it is called empty form; because form is not extinguished, it is called form emptiness. There is no medicine within illness; there is no bodhi within words—these all convey this meaning. Such is the character of the two truths of real existence. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, wisdom, etc.; one may know by analogy. The two truths of illusory existence and emptiness refute the previous intent. Why? When there is real existence there is no ultimate; when existence is extinguished there is no conventional: the meaning of the two truths cannot be established. If one clarifies illusory existence: illusory existence is conventional; illusory existence is ungraspable, so the conventional itself is the ultimate. The Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "Form is empty; emptiness is form." Emptiness and form being mutually identical, the meaning of the two truths is established. This is called the two truths of illusory existence. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, and wisdom. According to wisdom, a slight distinction should be made. Why? Real existence according to wisdom illuminating the ultimate is not different from this; but according to wisdom illuminating the conventional, it differs. Why? When the practitioner of the Common \[Teaching\] enters contemplation skillfully, their returning phase to illuminate the conventional is also skillful. Just as the hundred rivers meet in the ocean and their taste is not different, but upon turning back and returning to their sources, the rivers and streams are distinct. The conventional is the dharma of matters: that illumination differs is not in doubt; the ultimate is the dharma of principle: it cannot be different. Just within the practitioner of the Common Teaching emerging to the provisional, each person also differs; one can grasp this conceptually. By analogy with the Piṭaka \[Teaching\], emerging to the provisional should also be like this. As for the two truths of illusory existence and emptiness/non-emptiness: the conventional does not differ from before, but the ultimate has three different kinds. One conventional following three ultimates constitutes three kinds of two truths. What are their characteristics? As the Pañcaviṃśati clarifies "neither contaminated nor uncontaminated": the first person considers "neither contaminated" to mean not conventional, and "nor uncontaminated" to dispel attachment. Why? The practitioner clings upon encountering the uncontaminated, as when defilements arise upon encountering cessation; by breaking their mind, they return to the uncontaminated. This is one set of two truths. The next person hears "neither contaminated nor uncontaminated" and considers it to mean neither of the two extremes, distinctly revealing the principle of the middle, with the principle of the middle being the ultimate. This is another set of two truths. Yet another person hears "neither contaminated nor uncontaminated" and immediately knows that the negation of both directly reveals the Middle Way; the dharmadhātu of the Middle Way has immense power and function, equal to empty space, and all dharmas converge into neither contaminated nor uncontaminated. This is yet another set of two truths. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Śrāvakas only see emptiness and do not see non-emptiness; the wise see emptiness as well as non-emptiness." This is precisely the meaning. The two vehicles are attached to this emptiness; to break the attachment to emptiness, it is said to be "non-empty." If attachment to emptiness is broken, it is only seeing emptiness, not seeing non-emptiness. A person of sharp faculties considers non-emptiness to be wondrous existence, hence it is said to be "non-empty." When a person of sharp faculties hears "non-empty," they consider it to be the tathāgatagarbha, and all dharmas converge into the tathāgatagarbha. Again, in terms of emptiness and non-emptiness, there are three kinds of two truths. Furthermore, regarding all dharmas converging into neither contaminated nor uncontaminated revealing three kinds of differences: the first person hears that all dharmas converge into neither contaminated nor uncontaminated, \[meaning\] all dharmas do not depart from emptiness, pervading the worlds of the ten directions, being nothing other than the suchness of the place of the jar. Another person hears "converging" and knows that this middle principle requires all practices to approach and activate it. Still another person hears "all converge" and \[realizes that\] neither contaminated nor uncontaminated possesses all dharmas. Therefore, it is said that this single conventional changes according to the three ultimates: either contrasted with a single ultimate, a dual ultimate, or an inconceivable ultimate. Immeasurable variations adapt subtly to capacities, appearing and disappearing to benefit beings; each and every one has the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, and wisdom. If realized according to wisdom, the conventional shifts according to wisdom. When wisdom realizes the biased ultimate, it becomes the Common two truths. When wisdom realizes the non-empty ultimate, it becomes the Distinct entering the Common two truths. When wisdom realizes the non-empty ultimate into which all converge, it becomes the Consummate entering the Common two truths. The three people's entry into wisdom differs, and their returning phases to illuminate the conventional also differ. Why do the three people, hearing the same two truths, take different understandings? This is the unshared prajñā shared in teaching with the two vehicles, thus having distinctions of depth and shallowness. The Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "There are bodhisattvas who, at initial aspiration, correspond with sarvākārajñatā; there are bodhisattvas who, at initial aspiration, sport with supernormal powers and purify Buddha-lands; there are bodhisattvas who, at initial aspiration, sit on the bodhimaṇḍa and become like Buddhas." This is precisely the meaning. Regarding illusory existence and non-existence being conventional, and neither existence nor non-existence being the ultimate: existence and non-existence being two constitutes the conventional; the non-duality of neither existence nor non-existence of the Middle Way is the ultimate. The two vehicles, hearing of this ultimate and conventional, understand neither, hence they are as if dumb and deaf. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "I discussed the conventional truth with Maitreya, and five hundred śrāvakas thought we were speaking of the ultimate truth." This is precisely the meaning. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, and wisdom. In the two truths of the Consummate entering the Distinct: the conventional is the same as in the Distinct \[Teaching\], while the ultimate truth differs. For the person of the Distinct \[Teaching\], non-emptiness is merely the principle and nothing more; to reveal this principle, one must rely on cultivating expedients, hence it is said that all dharmas converge into the non-empty. When the person of the Consummate \[Teaching\] hears the principle of non-emptiness, they immediately know that it inherently possesses all Buddha-dharmas without deficiency; hence it is said that all converge into the non-empty. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, etc. As for the two truths of the Consummate Teaching: it directly expounds the inconceivable two truths. The ultimate is the conventional; the conventional is the ultimate. It is like the cintāmaṇi jewel: using the jewel to illustrate the ultimate, and its function to illustrate the conventional. The jewel itself is the function; the function itself is the jewel. Not two yet two: this merely differentiates the ultimate and conventional. In terms of this, there are also the three meanings of according to feeling, feeling and wisdom, etc. Śāriputra's verse says: "The Buddha, through various causes, / metaphors, and skillful words, / has a mind as calm as the ocean; / hearing him, the net of my doubts was cut." This is precisely its meaning. _First 35 of 52 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67)_ ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.67.1) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.67) · Pramāṇa