宗鏡錄 68

English (machine translation) 68

Language: English

68.1

Compiled by the abbot of Huiri Yongming Temple, Dhyāna Master Zhijue, Yanshou.

Now, since it is said to be provisionally established with reference to the conventional, mind and object are both presented. Unfolding them, they are divided in two; combining them, they are of one flavor. Now, in terms of the meaning of unfolding, they mutually give rise to each other: there has never been an object without mind, nor has there ever been a mind without an object. Speaking generally of ordinary beings and noble ones, how many objects are there in all?

68.3

Answer: Broadly speaking, there are three types of objects. The verse says: / “The nature-object does not follow the mind; / The solitary image derives solely from the seeing; / The substance-bearing [object] connects both the subjective feeling and the archetype; / Nature, seed, and so forth are determined as appropriate.” / As for “the nature-object does not follow the mind”: Regarding the nature-object, “nature” means real entity; it refers to the nimittabhāga objects such as the real sense-faculties, sense-data, the four great elements, and the real forms produced by samādhi. Saying that it “does not follow the mind” means that because these nimittabhāgas of faculties and sense-data are each produced from their own real seeds, they do not follow the generation from the seeds of the darśanabhāga that apprehends them. As for “the solitary image derives solely from the seeing”: An image is a shadow-image, which is an alternative name for nimittabhāga. Because this nominal nimittabhāga has no seed to accompany it and arises purely by itself, it is named “solitary image.” That is, nominal shadow-image phenomena such as sky-flowers, hare’s horns, past, and future—these are transformed and generated solely from the apprehending darśanabhāga, sharing the same seed as the darśanabhāga; hence it is called “a solitary image deriving solely from the seeing.” As for “the substance-bearing [object] connects both the subjective feeling and the archetype”: That is, one half of the nimittabhāga is produced from the same seed as the archetype, and the other half is produced from the same seed as the darśanabhāga; therefore it is said to “connect both feeling and archetype.” “Feeling” is the apprehending darśanabhāga; “archetype” is the apprehended substance. As for saying “nature, seed, and so forth are determined as appropriate”: “As appropriate” indicates an undetermined meaning; it means that within the three objects, according to what is appropriate, there are undetermined distinctions regarding nature, seed, realm-bondage, the three categories, vipāka, and so forth. Furthermore, an expanded explanation states: As for the nature-object, having a substantial, real nimittabhāga is called a nature-object. That is, the real forms apprehended by the first five consciousnesses, the eighth mental king, and the direct-perception sixth consciousness, grasping the specific characteristic of the object without carrying verbal designations and without an estimating mind—only this object is named a nature-object. Also, when fundamental cognition cognizes tathatā, it is likewise a nature-object, because it functions naturally without discrimination. Saying that it “does not follow the mind” means there are five kinds of not-following: First, nature not following: the apprehending darśanabhāga connects to the three natures, whereas the apprehended nimittabhāga object is exclusively of the morally indeterminate nature; thus it does not follow the apprehending darśanabhāga in connecting to the three natures. Second, seed not following: the darśanabhāga is generated from its own darśanabhāga seed, and the nimittabhāga is generated from its own nimittabhāga seed; because it is not generated from the mind-seed of the apprehending darśanabhāga, it is called “seed not following.” Third, realm-bondage not following: for example, when the clear manovijñāna cognizes objects of odor and taste, these two objects of odor and taste are bound exclusively to the desire realm, not following the clear manovijñāna in connecting to the bondage of the higher realms. Again, for example, when the eighth consciousness of the desire realm cognizes the object of seeds, the apprehending eighth consciousness is bound exclusively to the desire realm, whereas the apprehended seeds connect to the three realms; thus the sixth and eighth consciousnesses have “realm-bondage not following.” Fourth, the three categories not following: first, regarding the five skandhas not following, the darśanabhāga of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the consciousness seed, whereas the nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is subsumed under the form skandha—this is the skandha category not following. Regarding the twelve āyatanas not following, the darśanabhāga of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the mental āyatana, whereas the nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is subsumed under the five object āyatanas—this is the āyatana category not following. Regarding the eighteen dhātus not following, the darśanabhāga of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the five consciousness dhātus, whereas the nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is subsumed under the five object dhātus—this is the three categories not following. Fifth, vipāka not following: for example, the darśanabhāga of the eighth consciousness is of the nature of vipāka, whereas the apprehended nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is not of the nature of vipāka—this is called “vipāka not following.” As for the solitary-image object, it means that the nimittabhāga and the darśanabhāga are produced from the same seed; this is named “a solitary image deriving solely from the seeing.” This is, for example, when the sixth consciousness cognizes sky-flowers, hare’s horns, the past and future, and transforms an image to cognize the unconditioned, as well as cognizing the phenomena of earth realms, or cognizing nominal forms produced by samādhi, the extremely distant, the extremely subtle, and so forth—all of which are nominal shadow-images. These are transformed and produced solely from the darśanabhāga and lack seeds of their own; this is called “deriving from the seeing.” The solitary image has two kinds: The first is the solitary image without an archetype: that is, the nimittabhāgas transformed when the sixth consciousness cognizes sky-flowers, hare’s horns, the past, the future, and so forth. These nimittabhāgas are produced from the same seed as the darśanabhāga of the sixth consciousness, having no archetype such as sky-flowers. The second is the solitary image with an archetype: that is, when the sixth consciousness cognizes the seeds and manifestations of the five sense-faculties, which all arise relying on an archetype. Their nimittabhāgas are also produced from the same seed as the darśanabhāga; they are likewise named solitary-image objects. Third, the substance-bearing [object] is when mind cognizes mind. For example, when the seventh consciousness cognizes the darśanabhāga object of the eighth, its nimittabhāga is not produced from a distinct seed: one half is produced from the same seed as the archetype, and one half is produced from the same seed as the apprehending darśanabhāga. That which is produced from the archetype is of the unobscured [morally indeterminate] nature; that which is produced from the apprehending darśanabhāga is of the obscured [morally indeterminate] nature. Because its subsumption on both ends is indeterminate, it is called “connecting both feeling and archetype.” The “substance” is the apprehending darśanabhāga of the seventh consciousness; the “archetype” is the apprehended darśanabhāga of the eighth consciousness. Furthermore, there is a four-clause analysis: 1. Exclusively of a different seed and not of the same seed: this is the nature-object. 2. Exclusively of the same seed and not of a different seed: this is the solitary-image object. 3. Both [a different and the same seed]: this is the substance-bearing object. 4. Neither: that is, fundamental cognition cognizing suchness; because tathatā is not produced from the seed of the darśanabhāga, it is called “not of the same seed”; furthermore, tathatā is itself unconditioned, revealed only through realization and not a phenomenon produced by a productive cause, so it is called “not of a different seed.” As for saying “nature and seed are spoken of as appropriate”: “nature” is the nature-object, and “seed” means variety. This means that within the three objects, each has different varieties; now, all must be spoken of as is appropriate. Furthermore, distinguishing them with respect to the eight consciousnesses: The first five evolving consciousnesses at all times are exclusively nature-objects, without distinguishing whether they function mutually or not. Between the two kinds of transformation, they are exclusively transformations by causal conditions. Furthermore, they share the same seeds with the five sense-faculties. The sixth manovijñāna has four classes: 1. The clear manovijñāna also connects to the three objects. When it cognizes the real five sense-data together with the five [consciousnesses], in the initial moment of spontaneous mind it is a nature-object. If in subsequent moments of mind it cognizes nominal forms such as round, square, long, and short superimposed on the five sense-data, it is a solitary image with an archetype, also called a pseudo-substance-bearing object. 2. The solitary manovijñāna in the dispersed state also connects to the three objects, mostly being solitary images, because it generally cognizes phenomena of the three periods of time with or without archetypes. When it cognizes the currently active citta and caittas of its own person, it is a substance-bearing object. When it cognizes its own five faculties and cognizes the citta and caittas of others, it is a solitary-image object, also called a pseudo-substance-bearing object. Furthermore, when the solitary manovijñāna in the first kṣaṇa cognizes the five sense-data, cognizing a small portion of real forms, it is also called a nature-object. 3. The manovijñāna in samādhi also connects to the three objects. Because it generally cognizes phenomena of the three periods of time with or without archetypes, it is a solitary-image object. Furthermore, because it can cognize the currently active citta and caittas of its own person, it is a substance-bearing object. Furthermore, in the defiled state of samādhi prior to the seventh bhūmi, because it can also induce the five consciousnesses to cognize the five sense-data, it is a nature-object. 4. The manovijñāna in dreams is exclusively a solitary-image object. The seventh consciousness is exclusively a substance-bearing object. As for the eighth consciousness, its mental king is exclusively a nature-object, because it is transformed by causal conditions; its associated five mental factors such as attention (manaskāra) are pseudo-substance-bearing and true solitary-image objects.

68.4

Question: What do the three objects take as their substance?

68.5

Answer: First, the nature-object takes the real five sense-data as its substance, because it is formed by possessing the eight phenomena. The eight phenomena are the four great elements—earth, water, fire, and wind—and the four subtle particles—color/form, odor, taste, and tangible. This is spoken with respect to the conditioned. If spoken of the apprehending aspect in the defiled state, with the exception of the seventh consciousness, the remaining seven [consciousnesses] all take their own citta and caittas as substance. Second, the solitary-image object takes the nominal nimittabhāga transformed by the darśanabhāga of the sixth consciousness as substance; its apprehending aspect takes its own citta and caittas as substance. Third, the substance-bearing [object] takes the nominal nimittabhāga transformed and arisen in between as substance; if spoken of the apprehending aspect in the defiled state, it takes the citta and caittas of only the sixth and seventh consciousnesses as substance. Furthermore, the Record of the Essentials of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra states: “Real forms and real minds are both apprehended objects; the transformed nimittabhāgas are both called nature-objects. Or again, the apprehending mind that is not false clinging, discrimination, or conceptual construction is called the real mind. When the real mind cognizes those objects such as real form, only the transformed nimittabhāga is called a nature-object. If mind cognizes the nimittabhāga transformed by mind, the nimittabhāga has no reality, but merely bears the substance. ‘Nature’ is substance; its substantial nature being real, it is named a nature-object. As for the solitary image: ‘solitary’ means single; it singly has a shadow-image without having an archetype; therefore the characteristic is called solitary. For example, cognizing characteristics such as turtle’s hair and the child of a barren woman. Or, although there is an archetype, the nimittabhāga cannot perfume the seed of that archetype; facing the archetype it is powerless and has only a nominal image, so it is also called solitary. For example, when the discriminating mind cognizes the characteristic of the unconditioned, and the characteristics of the mental factors of the eighth consciousness, and so forth; the rest may be understood accordingly. As for the substance-bearing object: regarding ‘substance’ (zhi), the Zhouyi says it means bodily form. Regarding ‘bearing’ (dai), the Shuowen says it means a sash; a sash means binding. Again, the Fangyan says that ‘dai’ means walking. Now in saying ‘substance-bearing,’ the meaning connects to both. If relying on the Shuowen, it means carrying along and adhering closely, like the binding of a sash. If relying on the Fangyan, the image arises dependent on the archetype, just as walking only occurs by means of a road. However, although this nimittabhāga has the ability to perfume its own seed and the seed of the archetype, it has no real function—just as when cognizing the mental characteristic, the mind of the nimittabhāga lacks the function of deliberation. As for connecting both feeling and archetype: ‘feeling’ means the darśanabhāga, and ‘archetype’ means the substance. This shows that the transformed characteristic follows the seeing and follows the substance in determining its seed-nature, the two senses being indeterminate.” Furthermore, there are two kinds of objects: 1. The affective objects of ordinary beings’ conceptual clinging, where seeing phenomena outside the mind is named “object.” 2. The wisdom-objects of the unimpeded virtuous functions of all noble ones, which, because they manifest from the mind, constitute the wisdom-objects of their wondrous functions. Again, there are two: 1. The object of delimitations, because it is vast and boundless. 2. The object of knowables, which only a Buddha can exhaust. Furthermore, there are two kinds: The first is the mind-object, because it is manifested solely by the mind; when mind expands, there is no object outside mind, and when object expands, there is no mind outside object, always containing one single flavor. The second is the object of the objective realm, meaning that mind and object are unobstructed, concealment and manifestation occurring simultaneously, substance and function mutually completing each other, and principle and phenomena appearing together.

68.6

Question: If there is no object outside the mind and no mind outside the object, why speak of mind and speak of object again?

68.7

Answer: This was already explained in detail earlier; why cling to it again? In one mind having four divisions, there is no discrepancy between principle and teaching. Only when there is an object and there is a mind is consciousness-only established. For when the mind cognizes an object, it must have a nimittabhāga; just as when a mirror reflects a face, there is a shadow-image of the face. The syllogism is: The subject (pakṣa) is: the mind cognizing an object; The thesis (sādhya) is: it must carry the shadow-image of the object upon the mind; The reason (hetu) is: because the mind faces an external substance; The matching example (dṛṣṭānta) is: like when a mirror reflects a face.

68.8

Question: Wisdom and object are each one; why divide them into many kinds?

68.9

Answer: Wisdom is differentiated on account of objects, having the distinction between the ultimate and the conventional; objects are established from wisdom, indicating the difference between the ordinary and the noble. In terms of function they seem manifold; examining their substance, they are fundamentally one.

68.10

As a question in the Commentary on the Awakening of Faith says: “Are object and wisdom one or different?”

68.11

The answer says: “The substance of wisdom is non-dual, and the object is also non-dual. That wisdom is non-dual means it is just one single wisdom, but distinct in meaning and function: in terms of knowing the ultimate, it is named ultimate wisdom; in terms of knowing the conventional, it is named conventional wisdom. That the object is non-dual means form is emptiness is the ultimate object, and emptiness is form is the conventional object. Hence, when realizing the ultimate, one must penetrate the conventional; when penetrating the conventional, one must realize the ultimate. Understanding that the conventional lacks self-nature is precisely true emptiness; how could there be before and after? Furthermore, since there is no object outside the mind, how could there be a mind outside the object? Thus mind and object are completely fused, constituting one single dharmadhātu.”

68.12

Question: In the one mind and the two truths, principle and phenomena are not false: realizing the nature of principle constitutes the ultimate; examining facts and phenomena constitutes the conventional. Both possess the meaning of being universally established, without destroying the gateway of the two truths. Established jointly by both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, what is the meaning of being universally established?

68.13

Answer: What is established is determinate and cannot be altered; whether following the ultimate or following the conventional, each has its principle. The Yogācārabhūmiśāstra says: 'First, there is worldly consensus reality; second, there is logically proven reality. Worldly consensus reality means that all people in the world, regarding various matters, following conventional designations and worldly custom, share the same nature seen through their discerning intellect: namely, that earth is only earth and not fire, etc., up to suffering is only suffering and not pleasure, etc., and pleasure is only pleasure and not suffering, etc. To put it succinctly, this is just thus and not otherwise, this is just so and not not so; it is the objective matter engaged by determinate resolute belief. Transmitted successively from time immemorial throughout the world, it is mutually established through the conceptual distinctions of their own ideations, not something apprehended only after deliberating, measuring, and examining. This is called worldly consensus reality. Logically proven reality means the matters known and engaged by determinate wisdom that relies upon direct perception, inference, and even thorough examination and excellent deliberation, which are the meanings established and designated through validating reason. This is called logically proven reality.'

68.14

Question: That form exists apart from consciousness is baseless in both text and principle; that there are no dust-objects outside the mind is jointly proven by teaching and reasoning. Yet how can one overcome the habituation of verbal designations and the solidity of worldly views? If this is not analyzed in subtle detail, it is difficult to complete right faith. Take external form, whether coarse or fine: how do we examine it to know that it is fundamentally empty, clearly and distinctly establishing vijñaptimātra?

68.15

Answer: Coarse and fine forms are both transformed from consciousness. Since they exist from consciousness, external form is completely empty. Therefore a sūtra says: 'The nature of form is inherently empty; it is not empty because form is destroyed.' For those who have not yet understood, it must be further broken down and analyzed right down to the minute atom before they will believe that emptiness appears. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'How can the various dharmas such as form held by other vehicles to be real apart from consciousness not exist? Because the form, non-concurrent formations, and various unconditioned dharmas they hold to are non-existent in principle. First, the form they hold to is broadly of two kinds: first, resistant form, which is composed of minute atoms; second, non-resistant form, which is not composed of minute atoms. That resistant form is definitely not truly existent, because the minute atoms that can compose it are not truly existent. That is, if minute atoms have material resistance, they should be like a vase, etc., being conventional and not real. If they have no material resistance, they should be like non-form; how could they gather together to form vases, robes, and the like? Furthermore, if minute atoms have spatial parts, they can definitely be analyzed, and thus are not truly existent; if they have no spatial parts, they are just like non-form. […] Furthermore, although they are not without form, they are transformations of consciousness. That is, when consciousness arises, through the power of internal causes and conditions, it transforms and appears as resembling the characteristics of the eyes, etc., and form, etc., and it takes these very characteristics as the supporting conditions. However, the sense faculties such as the eyes are not obtained by direct perception; because they can give rise to consciousness, they are known to exist by inference. These are merely functional capabilities, not externally composed. Since external resistant form is illogical, it should merely be the transformation and appearance of internal consciousness. What gives rise to visual consciousness and the like is called the visual faculty and the like; taking these as supports, the visual consciousness and the like arise. Because an external objective-condition for this visual consciousness and the like is non-existent in principle, one must definitely accept that what is transformed by one's own consciousness is the objective-condition, meaning that which can induce what resembles one's own consciousness. […] From this it is definitely known that what is transformed by one's own consciousness takes the characteristics of form, etc., as its objective-condition, because the darśanabhāga arises depending on them and arises bearing their characteristics. However, when consciousness transforms, according to size, it suddenly appears as a single characteristic, not separately transforming into many minute atoms to aggregate into a single object. For those who grasp coarse form as having a real substance, the Buddha spoke of minute atoms to make them eliminate and analyze it; he did not mean that forms truly possess minute atoms. Yogācāra masters, through the wisdom of conceptualization, gradually analyze the characteristics of coarse form until they cannot be analyzed further, and conventionally designate them as minute atoms. Although these minute atoms still have spatial parts, they cannot be further analyzed; if they are analyzed further, they will appear like empty space and not be called form. Therefore it is said that the minute atom is the limit of form. From this it should be known that all resistant forms are transformations of consciousness, not composed of minute atoms. The remaining non-resistant forms, being of this class, are also not truly existent; or because they are non-resistant, like the citta and caittas, they are definitely not real form. Resistant forms visibly possess characteristics of form, yet when investigated with reason, they do not even exist apart from consciousness; how much less could non-resistant forms, which visibly lack characteristics of form, be said to be real form dharmas!'

68.16

Question: Manifest and unmanifest form do not dwell outside the body; their internal movements and visible manifestations are not false. As a verse in the Karmasiddhi-prakaraṇa says: 'By externally initiating body and speech, / they manifest the internal mind's thoughts; / just as a fish hidden in an abyss / manifests itself by stirring waves.' Are these manifest and unmanifest forms truly existent or not?

68.17

Answer: The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'First, if bodily manifest form were truly existent, what would be its nature? If it is said to be shape, then it is not truly existent, because it can be analyzed and because minute atoms of length, etc., cannot be found. If it is said to be motion, it is also not truly existent, because it perishes as soon as it arises and has no meaning of motion; for conditioned dharmas perish without depending on a cause, and if perishing depended on a cause, it should not be perishing. If it is said that there is a form, neither visible color nor shape, induced by the mind, which can move the hands, etc., called the karma of bodily manifestation, this is also not reasonable. If this were motion, its meaning has been refuted as before; if it were the cause of motion, it should just be the wind element, and since wind has no indication, it should not be called manifestation. Therefore, the karma of bodily manifestation is definitely not truly existent. However, with the mind as cause, it makes the form characteristics of hands, etc., transformed by consciousness, continue in arising and perishing and shift toward other directions, resembling movement; because it indicates the mind, it is conventionally termed bodily manifestation. Vocal manifestation is also not real sound by nature, because a single instant of sound has no expressive indication, and a continuity of many moments is not real; furthermore, external resistant form has already been refuted above. However, due to the mind, consciousness transforms to resemble sound, continuing in arising and perishing, resembling an indication; conventionally terming it vocal manifestation does not conflict with reason. Since manifestation is really non-existent, how could unmanifest [form] be real? Yet conventionally establishing unmanifest [form] on the basis of the limits of good and evil of intention and resolve also does not conflict with reason.'

68.18

Question: In the sūtras it is said that there are three types of karma, and good and evil karmic retributions do not indiscriminately ascend or descend. How can you deny them? Does this not contradict the teachings?

68.19

Answer: We do not deny them as non-existent; in order to reveal consciousness, we deduce that they are not real. In the gate of the conventional, they are well and smoothly established. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'We do not deny them as non-existent, but only say they are not form. Intention that can move the body is called bodily karma; intention that can initiate speech is called vocal karma. The two intentions of deliberation and determination, because they are associated with the manas and because they set the manas in motion, are called mental karma. The intention that gives rise to body and speech involves action and is called karma; because it is the path traversed by deliberative and determinative intention, and because it universally produces the vipākaphala of suffering and pleasure, it is also called a path. Alternatively, bodily and vocal manifestation, because they are initiated by differences, are conventionally called karma; because they are traversed by intention, they are called karmapathas. From this it should be known that there is truly no external form; there is only internal consciousness transforming to arise resembling form.'

68.20

Question: Are non-concurrent formations truly existent or not?

68.21

Answer: The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'Non-concurrent formations are also not truly existent. Why is this? Acquisition, non-acquisition, and the like do not have substances and characteristics that can be found like form, mind, and the various caittas; nor do they have functions that can be found apart from form, mind, and the various caittas. From this it is known that they are definitely not truly existent, but are merely conventionally established on the basis of states of form, etc. These definitely do not have real substances and functions apart from form, citta, and caittas.'

68.22

Question: The two mindless absorptions and non-conceptual retribution should have a real intrinsic nature distinct from form, mind, and the like. If they lack a real nature, they should not be able to obstruct the dharmas of citta and caittas from appearing and functioning.

68.23

Answer: The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'If in the mindless state there were a separate real dharma distinct from form, mind, etc., that could obstruct the mind and be called a mindless absorption, then in the formless state there should be a separate real dharma distinct from form, mind, etc., that could obstruct form and be called a formless absorption. Since the latter is not so, how could the former be so? Furthermore, why must that which obstructs the mind be a real dharma? Just as dikes and embankments, even though conventional, can also obstruct. That is, when cultivating absorption, in the preliminary practice of absorption, due to aversion to the coarse and active citta and caittas, one generates an excellent resolve to obstruct the citta and caittas. Mindfulness of the citta and caittas becomes gradually finer and subtler, and at the time of the extremely subtle mind, it perfumes the vipākavijñāna, forming extremely augmented seeds of aversion, etc. Because these impair and suppress the seeds of mind and the like, the coarse and active [minds] temporarily do not function. Based on this state, the two absorptions are conventionally established. Because these seeds are wholesome, the absorptions are also called wholesome. Before the non-conceptual absorption, because one seeks the non-conceptual fruit, the seeds perfumed and formed induce that vipākavijñāna, based on which coarse and active conceptualizations, etc., do not function. In this state, non-conception is conventionally established; established on the basis of retribution, it receives the name retribution. Therefore, these three dharmas are also not truly existent.'

68.24

Question: The worldly is established on the basis of ideation, and conditioned dharmas are all baseless; the conventional truth operates from consciousness, and doors without substance are entirely unreal. Take the sacred teachings: the phrases and sentences that express them are proclaimed by the broad and long tongue characteristic and expounded by the wondrous observing wisdom. Why are they both called untrue and entirely baseless?

68.25

Answer: The sages expound the teachings and discuss explanations relying on conventional letters. Therefore the Buddha told students of the three vehicles only to rely on the meaning and not on the words, provisionally using the teachings to illumine the mind. Thus letters are entirely without intrinsic nature and are also transformed from consciousness. The Guǎng bǎimén lùn says: 'However, all worldly people, following the transformations of their own minds, suppose that many syllables aggregate to form a name, and further suppose that many names aggregate to form a sentence, supposing that these names and sentences can express something. That which expresses and that which is expressed are both transformations of one's own mind. All transformations of the mind exist in sentiment but are absent in principle. The sage knows and sees them as they truly are. How does he know and see them? He sees that those dharmas are all created by the conceptual distinctions of the deluded, illusory consciousness of foolish ordinary people, conventional and not real, existing conventionally and absent ultimately; following the worldly, they are provisionally said to exist.'

68.26

Question: Sound can be heard, and the dust of form has resistance, so they can be said to be transformations of the mind. But what about the dharma of time, which has no characteristics—should it not be truly existent?

68.27

Answer: What has characteristics is already empty; how could what lacks characteristics exist? Time also has no substance; extension and brevity depend on the mind. For beginning from a single instant, it ultimately forms an eon. If the instant does not arise, the eon is fundamentally empty; there are only measures of time such as beginning, middle, and end, which are all time of vijñaptimātra. The Guǎng bǎi lùn's "Chapter on Refuting Time" says: 'Furthermore, thus all dharmas, whether conventional or real, are designated relying on conventional, provisional characteristics. Why do you definitively grasp all dharmas as having a real substance?'

68.28

Objection: If all dharmas are not truly existent, how is it that they are clearly visible before us?

68.29

Answer: An image in a mirror, the moon in the water, a gandharva city, dream objects, magical illusions, a second moon, and the like are clearly visible; are they truly existent? What is seen in the world is entirely unreal; how can one take present direct perception to prove that dharmas are true? Everything seen when awake is not true, being the object of consciousness, just like what is seen in a dream. What is seen by the dreaming mind is definitely not true, being the object of a disordered consciousness, like a second moon. Thus, although they lack a real substance of dharmas, they can serve as objects to generate a mind of direct seeing; due to this, recollection successively arises, and both before and after take as objects an object that is not truly existent. Therefore, one cannot use the arising of recollection to prove that dharmas are true. Since dharmas are not true, how could time be real?

68.30

Objection: If one conditions delusive objects and gives rise to inverted views, the object may be false, but the view should be real.

68.31

Answer: Since the object is false, how could the view be real? Just as in a dream one supposes that consciousnesses such as the visual consciousness condition objects such as form, yet upon awakening one knows that both matters are non-existent; false objects and the inverted mind are just like this. The foolish ordinary person calls them existent; the sage knows they are non-existent.

68.32

Objection: In inverted citta and [its] object, both are false; [then in] non-inverted object and citta, both should be real.

68.33

Answer: This may be so conventionally, but it is not so in the ultimate truth, because within the ultimate truth citta and speech are cut off. If in the ultimate truth citta and speech are cut off, why is it frequently said that citta and objects are false? It is in order to destroy attachment to reality that they are provisionally called false. If attachment to reality is removed, falsity also does not exist. Whether real or false, both serve to dispel attachments; they are stated relying on the conventional, not according to the ultimate truth. The words 'ultimate truth' are also a nominal designation, established to overturn the conventional, and are not a fixed referent.

68.34

Objection: As for presently seen citta and objects, it may be said that they are non-existent; how could remembered objects and citta not be existent?

68.35

Answer: When what is presently seen is still non-existent, how could what is remembered exist?

68.36

Objection: If all dharmas are not really existent at all, how is it that the world presently produces good and evil? If there are no good and evil, suffering and pleasure are also absent. This, then, would be to repudiate all cause and effect. If one repudiates cause and effect, then that is wrong view. How can you not fear the sin of this wrong view?

68.37

Answer: How marvelous the world is—in its folly, it is difficult to awaken! It only knows to fear sin, yet does not recognize the cause of sin. All good and evil, suffering and pleasure, cause and effect, all exist conventionally, but are non-existent in the ultimate truth. Relying on the ultimate truth, I say they are ungraspable; I do not repudiate the conventional—how could this constitute wrong view? To grasp at existence in the ultimate sense within the conventional, which does not accord with correct principle—that is wrong view.
Now, within this, in order to shatter temporal attachments, it is briefly stated that dharmas exist conventionally and are non-existent in the real. Furthermore, an ancient commentary states: 'Whenever the Tathāgata preached the Dharma at three times, or said at one time, the times of the three periods, the ten periods, and so forth, all arise from the transforming citta. Externally, there are no objects of the three periods; apart from one's own citta, dharmas have no substance. Just as when the World-Honoured One said that Maitreya would become a Buddha, the listener immediately produced on their own citta a transformed nimittabhāga of the past arising; when the World-Honoured One answered, "From now, after twelve years, he will certainly attain rebirth," on the listener's citta there again arose a transformed nimittabhāga of the future. The transforming citta is the present. This past time has no real object; it is entirely transformed from citta, merely following the delimitation of citta to transform and give rise to long and short times. Therefore, time is established based on citta; it has no fixed nature. Due to the present, there are the past and the future; due to the extended, there is the contracted; due to a single thought-moment, there are great kalpas. If there were no present citta, where could the past and future be established?'
The seventh fascicle of the Record of the Western Regions states: 'In the past, there was a hermit who built a hut and secluded himself from worldly traces. He extensively studied arts and techniques, exhaustively penetrating spiritual principles. He could turn rubble into jewels and transform the forms of humans and animals. However, he was not yet able to ride the winds and clouds or accompany the carriages of the immortals. Reading charts and examining ancient records, he sought further methods of immortality, and thus obtained a formula for seeking immortality, which said: "One who wishes to seek immortality should construct an altar, order a valiant man to press a long sword, stand at the corner of the altar, hold his breath, and cease all speech from dusk to dawn. The seeker of immortality sits within the altar, pressing a long sword, reciting a divine dhāraṇī, collecting sight and turning back hearing; reaching dawn, he ascends to immortality." Having obtained this formula, for several years he sought a valiant man without finding one. Later he met a man who had previously worked as a hired labourer for others; after five years of hardship, having committed a single mistake, he was consequently flogged and humiliated, and received nothing, weeping and wailing along the road. The hermit saw him, invited him, and repeatedly showered him with generous gifts. The valiant man wished to repay his kindness. The hermit said: "I have passed many years and fortunately met you. Your remarkable appearance corresponds to the chart; there is no other reason: I only wish that you do not speak for a single day." The valiant man said: "I would not even refuse death, let alone not speaking!" Thereupon the hermit established the altar to receive immortality and carried it out according to the procedure. After sunset, each contemplated his task: the hermit recited the dhāraṇī, and the valiant man pressed his sword. When dawn was about to break, the valiant man suddenly gave a great shout. At that time, fire fell from the sky, and smoke and flames steamed like clouds. The hermit quickly pulled the man into a pool to escape danger, and asked: "I admonished you to make no sound; why did you cry out in alarm?" The valiant man said: "After receiving your instruction, when it reached the dark of night, as if in a dream, I saw my former master come in person to my side; feeling his deep kindness, I did not speak. He beat me in fury and threatened to kill me; I then saw myself being reborn into a great Brahmin family in South India. Reborn, until emerging from the womb, I experienced every suffering and hardship, but remembering your kindness, I did not speak. Coming to the capping ceremony and having a son, each time I remembered the former kindness, thought of it, and did not speak. All the relatives of the household found it strange. Passing sixty years of age, I had a son. My wife said to me: 'If you do not speak, I will kill your son.' I thought to myself: 'Now I am already separated by a rebirth, and I have only this one son; how could I bear to let him be killed?' So in stopping my wife, I uttered these words." The hermit said: "It is my fault; I was disturbed by Māra." The valiant man, deeply agitated by the affair, died of fury and indignation.'
Therefore we know that in sleep and in waking, what is seen is only citta. The times of extension and contraction are not separate from a single thought-moment; therefore the time of a dream is cited to illuminate the waking state. Furthermore, in the "Peaceful and Joyful Practices" chapter of the Lotus Sūtra, dreaming of entering a bronze wheel, accomplishing the Way, and saving sentient beings passes through immeasurable time, yet it is only a single night's dreaming citta. Therefore, a verse in Asvabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says:
"Dwelling in a dream, one thinks years have passed;
Awakening, it was but a moment.
Therefore, though time is immeasurable,
It is gathered within a single kṣaṇa."
This proves that on the listener's citta, the two times of long and short are spontaneously transformed; in reality, they are only the present citta and caittas. Therefore the Ocean of Meanings states: 'Just as when a dust mote is seen, it is manifested by a single thought-citta, the time of this single thought-citta is entirely constituted by hundreds of thousands of great kalpas. Why? Because hundreds of thousands of great kalpas are originally constituted only by a single thought. Since great kalpas are established mutually dependent on each other, they are all devoid of substance and nature. Even the worlds far and near, Buddhas and sentient beings, all phenomena of the three periods, are all manifested within a single thought. Why? Because all phenomena and dharmas are manifested relying on citta. Since the thought is unobstructed, dharmas are also accordingly harmonized. Therefore, in a single thought, one clearly sees the phenomena of the three periods.' Therefore, a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says:
'In a single thought, one universally observes immeasurable kalpas,
Neither going, nor coming, nor abiding;
Thus fully knowing the matters of the three periods,
Transcending all expedients, one accomplishes the ten powers.'
Another verse says:
'Beginning from a single thought and ending in kalpas,
All arise from the conceptualization of sentient beings' citta.
All ocean-like lands and kalpas are boundless,
Yet by a single expedient they are all purified.'
Another verse says:
'Either arising from the ocean of citta,
Abiding according to the understanding of citta,
Like illusions without a fixed place,
All are discrimination.'
Therefore we know that horizontally gathering ocean-like lands and vertically penetrating asaṃkhyeyas are entirely the single thought-citta, with former and later limits severed. There are neither large nor small lands, nor are there extended or contracted times. By the single expedient of the gate of citta-only, the realm of sentient beings is made entirely pure. Why is this? Because knowing that objects are merely the discrimination of false consciousness, one does not give rise to citta; because citta does not arise, false objects do not appear; when false objects do not appear, defiled and pure dharmas have nothing to rely on, coarse thoughts do not arise, and long and short times naturally cease. The lengths of kalpas, extended and contracted, spoken of in the teachings, are all expedients adapted skillfully to the faculties [of listeners]: either for fainthearted sentient beings, it is said that attaining Buddhahood takes only a kṣaṇa, or for indolent sentient beings, it is said that it requires passing through asaṃkhyeya kalpas. While the purport of attaining Buddhahood is unified without distinction, the explanations of extension and contraction all return to provisional wisdom. Furthermore, an ancient commentary states: 'The single expedient is the realization of citta-only. A single thought-moment and a kalpa both depend on the conceptualizing citta. When citta's conceptualization does not arise, where can long and short exist? Neither long nor short—this is called purity. Without destroying characteristics, the oceans of kalpas are boundless.' Therefore we know that all dharmas have no self-substance, are none of them durable, and arise solely from conceptualization. If one grasps them as real, it is merely inversion. Therefore the Sūtra of Vast and Pure Array states: 'Mañjuśrī addressed Ānanda, saying: "Ignorant and childish people take the day to be the thought of daytime because they lack sharp wisdom. Why is this? If this daytime were real, permanently abiding, and durable, it should have accumulation and should not pass away; there should only be day, and there should not be night."'

68.38

Question: Since this time of the three periods is transformed from citta, among the eight consciousnesses, which consciousness cognizes it?

68.39

Answer: An ancient commentary states: 'It is cognized only by the manas[-vijñāna]. This means that the single dharma of time is nominal. The first five and the eighth are all unable to cognize it. The seventh, moreover, constantly cognizes the inner eighth's darśanabhāga as the self, and is furthermore devoid of discrimination; therefore, only the sixth can cognize it. Furthermore, among the four kinds of manovijñāna, only the clear-perceiving manovijñāna cannot cognize it, because time is nominal; that is, in absorption, in dreams, and as solitary dispersed [thought]—these three can all cognize it. In terms of the three objects, it is a solitary shadow object.'

68.40

Question: Various conditioned dharmas among the dharmas non-concurrent [with citta] seem to have functions, so they should not be separate from consciousness. As the six unconditioned [dharmas] have no function, should they have real natures separate from matter, citta, and so forth?

68.41

Answer: Dharmas of existence and non-existence all transform reliant upon consciousness. The five unconditioned dharmas such as space all transform reliant upon false consciousness. The unconditioned tathatā is the nature of pure consciousness and is also not separate from consciousness. Furthermore, existence and non-existence, real and nominal, all natures and characteristics, apart from the nature of true consciousness-only, have nothing else that exists.

68.42

Record of the Mirror of the Source, Fascicle Sixty-Eight

68.43

Blocks carved by the Grand Tripiṭaka Directorate in the wushen year.

Linked texts (1)

宗鏡錄 — Classical Chinese