[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) › 86 # 宗鏡錄 86 English (machine translation) 86 - **Language:** English ### [86.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.1) Compiled by Yanshou, Chan Master Zhijue, Abbot of Huiri Yongming Temple. ### [86.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.2) Now, the determination of the one mind, with no dharmas outside citta, is verified by the holy teachings, and principle and phenomena are completely integrated. For instance, the ‘Expedient Means’ chapter of the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the ten realms and ten suchnesses: characteristic, nature, cause, condition, effect, retribution, beginning and end. From beginning to end they are not confused, and the active characteristics are not false. Now you speak solely of the one mind: how does this accord with the teaching? ### [86.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.3) Answer: The one mind is the true characteristic of all phenomena; it is also the true nature of all phenomena. Yet all phenomena are themselves the true characteristic, and the true characteristic is itself all phenomena. Manifested from the mind, their nature and characteristics are completely identical. Traces are manifested based upon the fundamental, and principle and phenomena are not different. Just as when a multitude of waves surge, the water’s substance is ever exposed—subsuming waves into water, no wave is not exhausted—so too, though the manifold phenomena seemingly arise, the nature of mind is ever manifest; subsuming phenomena into mind, no phenomenon is not empty. The \*Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra\* says: "One does not see a single phenomenon that falls outside the dharmatā." It also says: "All phenomena converge in form; beyond this convergence they do not go." For instance, the Tiantai teaching, explaining the teaching of cause and effect of the ten dharmadhātus and ten suchnesses in the \*Lotus Sūtra\* as being all created solely by mind, states that the mind is endowed with all phenomena. All phenomena are simply the ten suchnesses. The ten suchnesses are: such characteristics, such nature, such substance, such power, such activity, such causes, such conditions, such effects, such retributions, and such ultimate equality of beginning and end. Regarding 'such characteristics': characteristics pertain to the exterior, which can be observed and distinguished. The \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\* says: "Because they are easily known, they are called characteristics." As with the difference between the characteristics of water and fire, they are easily known. Just as a person's facial complexion possesses all signs of fortune or misfortune, by observing the outer characteristics one knows the interior. In the past, the physiognomy of Sun \[Quan\] and Liu \[Bei\] was evident, while that of Lord Cao \[Cao\] was hidden; the physiognomist wept aloud \[knowing that\] the realm would be divided into three and the common people would suffer calamity. If one says there are characteristics, the ignorant do not know them; if one says there are no characteristics, the diviner understands them thoroughly. One should follow the skilled physiognomist and believe that the exterior of a human face is endowed with all characteristics. The mind is also like this, endowed with all characteristics: the characteristics of sentient beings are hidden, while the characteristics of Maitreya are manifest; the Tathāgata knows them well, and therefore prophesies for both the distant and near future. Those unskilled in contemplation do not believe that the mind is endowed with all characteristics; one should follow those who contemplate reality as it is and believe that the mind is endowed with all characteristics. Regarding 'such nature': nature pertains to the interior; what is immutable is called nature. Furthermore, nature means natural share, which has the sense of distinct categories; each part is different, and each is immutable. For instance, fire has heat as its nature, water has wetness as its nature, and so forth. Immutability concerns principle; categories concern phenomenal matters. Furthermore, nature is the true nature; the true nature is the principle-nature, which is supremely real without fault—merely another name for the buddha-nature of the one mind. Again, the \*Wuxing jing\* says: "Called the immovable nature"—which has the meaning of immutability. Now, explaining that the internal nature is immutable, it is like the nature of fire within bamboo: though invisible, one cannot say it does not exist; the drill-man and dry grass burn everything completely. The mind is also like this: endowed with the nature of all five aggregates, though invisible, one cannot say it does not exist; seen with the eye of wisdom, it is endowed with all natures. Regarding 'such substance': substance means the primary material entity; the aggregates and sense-fields of these ten dharmadhātus all take form and mind as their substance and entity. Regarding 'such power': it has the meaning of capability. Just as the king's champion possesses thousands of skills, yet because of sickness one says he has none, but when his sickness is cured his use appears, so too is the mind: it is endowed with the ten powers of the Tathāgata, but because of the sickness of kleśas it cannot operate; contemplating it as it is, it is endowed with all powers. Regarding 'such activity': it has the meaning of operation and establishment. If separated from the mind, nothing further can be done; therefore, we know that the mind is endowed with all activities. Regarding 'such causes': attracting an effect is cause, which is also called karma. The karma of the ten dharmadhātus arises from the mind; as long as there is mind, all karmas are complete; if there is no mind, there are no karmas, because all karmas—wholesome and unwholesome, ordinary and noble—are created solely by mind. Regarding 'such conditions': condition means circumstance and reason; that which aids karma has the meaning of a condition. Avidyā, craving, and so forth, are able to moisten karma—that is, the mind serves as the condition, because apart from the mind conditions do not arise. Regarding 'such effects': attainment is the effect. If one's own mind creates goodness, it attains a pleasant effect; if one's own mind creates evil, it attains a painful effect. Regarding 'such retributions': recompensing the cause is retribution. When a single thought of the mind is correct, a wondrous retribution is paid in return; when a single thought of the mind is errant, an inferior fruit imperceptibly manifests—just as when the wind is gentle the sound accords, and when the form is straight the shadow is upright. Thus errancy and correctness lie in the mind; gain and loss depend on oneself. Characteristics are the beginning, and retribution is the end. Beginning and end all enter into conditioned arising; because of conditioned arising, they are empty, and thus empty is equal. Characteristics are merely words, and retributions are also merely words; all are provisional designations, and thus provisional is equal. Furthermore, characteristics are non-characteristics; non-characteristics yet characteristics; neither characteristics nor non-characteristics. Retributions are also like this. Each and every one enters the boundary of reality as it is, and thus the middle is equal. If in the three bad paths \[they take\] the manifestation of suffering as their characteristic, the definite mass of evil as their nature, the destruction of form and mind as their substance, ascending blade-mountains and entering cauldrons as their power, generating the ten unwholesome deeds as their activity, outflowing unwholesome karma as their cause, craving, grasping, and so forth, as their conditions, the fruit of evil habits as their effect, the three bad destinies as their retribution, and ignorance from beginning to end as their equality; up to the category of bodhisattvas and buddhas, who take circumstantial causes as their characteristic, clarifying causes as their nature, direct causes as their substance, the four universal vows as their power, the six pāramitās and myriad practices as their activity, the adornment of wisdom as their cause, the adornment of merit as their condition, sambodhi as their effect, great nirvāṇa as their retribution, and wisdom as the guide from beginning to end as their equality: therefore we know that the ten realms and ten suchnesses, wholesome and unwholesome causes and conditions, ordinary and noble effects and retributions, are all the one mind, and ultimately there is no separate phenomenon. This is the compassionate father of those who generate the mind of ultimate bodhi, the guide of those crossing the wilderness of false birth and death, the bridge for transforming from an ordinary person into a sage, and the path for converging the conventional into the real. For example, it is like heavenly music that produces various sounds in accordance with the thoughts of sentient beings, and like a maṇi jewel that rains down various treasures according to what is wished. This mind is inexhaustible; how could its pregnancy of phenomena ever end? If even physical phenomena are like this, how could the true spirit be inferior? ### [86.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.4) Question: Since the ordinary person and the sage share the same one mind, why is it that the sage accomplishes sarvākārajñatā, while the ordinary person is ignorant when encountering phenomena? ### [86.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.5) Answer: It is simply because the ordinary person turns their back on awakening and joins with dust, separated by the dust, bewildered by truth and pursuing the false, obscured by falsehood. Therefore, in the teachings, they are ridiculed as 'born blind,' not opening the eye of wisdom, and rebuked as 'deaf commoners,' how could they attain true hearing? They understand neither their own mind nor the minds of others; how could they broadly comprehend the myriad kinds and accomplish sarvākārajñatā? As the \*Dhāraṇī-sūtra of Protecting the Sovereign of the Realm\* says: "The Buddha said: 'Good sons, if sons of the Buddha wish to accomplish anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, if they wish to skillfully know their own minds... up to, they should first generate the great mind of compassion, and on behalf of all sentient beings take refuge in the Three Jewels, receive the bodhisattva precepts, and so forth.'" Therefore, one's own mind is difficult to know, and none are able to examine it skillfully; without entering the mirror of the source, how could it be illumined? If one understands one's own mind, one is someone who has immediately generated the bodhi mind. Therefore, the subtlety of the mind cannot be known by the world. An ancient author in the "Essay on the Hidden Mind" wrote: "The vastness of the two poles (Heaven and Earth) can be calculated by standard models; the movement of the three celestial regulators can be measured by sundials; the sound of thunder can be transmitted by bells and drums; the changes of wind and rain can be known by pitch-pipes. Thus, where there is an image to behold, its measure cannot be concealed; where there is light to see, its trace cannot be hidden; where there is sound to hear, its resonance cannot be kept secret; where there is form to examine, its nature cannot be obliterated. Even with what is difficult to understand in Heaven, Earth, yin, and yang, one can still evaluate them through numbers and know them through ears and eyes. When it comes to the human mind, however, it is different from this. The mind dwells within; emotions lurk inside; it cannot be calculated by numbers. The ordinary person's mind is more perilous than mountains and rivers, and harder to know than Heaven. Heaven has the regular cycles of spring, autumn, winter, summer, morning, and evening; human beings have thick countenances and deep emotions, which cannot be known. Hence some are unyielding in mind yet gentle in expression, resolute in countenance yet weak in substance, strong in intention yet sluggish in action, impetuous in nature yet dilatory in execution. Feigning external adornment to conceal their emotions, their joy does not necessarily mean love, their anger does not necessarily mean hatred, their smile is not necessarily delight, and their weeping is not necessarily grief. Their concealed emotions and hidden actions are not easily fathomable." When the minds of others are already unfathomable, how could external objects be known? Therefore, the \*Treatise on the Awakening of Faith\* says: "Sentient beings, depending on the defiled mind, are able to perceive and able to manifest, falsely grasping objects and bewildered about the nature of equality. Because all phenomena are eternally quiescent without the characteristic of arising, avidyā does not awaken, falsely conflicting with phenomena; therefore, they cannot conform to all objects of the world and have manifold knowledge." Thus we know that outside the mind there is no phenomenon, and outside phenomena there is no mind. Simply understand the one mind, and all dusts will naturally harmonize. Arising thoughts that turn back on phenomena go against the substance of phenomena; having conflicted with phenomena, one does not penetrate them. If one can accord with the dharmadhātu-nature and conform to the tathatā-mind, then prajñā is without knowing, yet there is nothing it does not know. ### [86.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.6) Question: If one understands the one mind, what need is there to broadly know all phenomena? ### [86.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.7) Answer: The one mind is the general; all phenomena are the particular. Although the particular arises from the general, phenomenal events arise in a thousand variations. If one does not clearly and thoroughly illuminate them in detail, exercising both concealing and illuminating, then the principle will be isolated and phenomena impoverished, failing to enter perfect penetration. The \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra\* says: "Skillfully able to distinguish the characteristics of all phenomena, yet remaining unmoving in the ultimate truth." The Tiantai teaching says: "Regarding the ocean of teachings of the texts and meanings of the various dharma-gates, one must understand that it is neither words nor non-words; illumine both words and non-words; it is inexpressible, yet not inexpressible; invisible, yet not invisible. What is there to select? What is there not to select? What is there to subsume? What is there not to subsume? What is there to discard? What is there not to discard? If affirmed, all are affirmed; if negated, all are negated. Being able, in the black ink, to penetrate all negations, and in all negations to penetrate all affirmations; penetrating all negations, negation is not negation; all phenomena are errant, and all phenomena are correct. If one does not understand the black ink in this way, one does not know words and non-words—like an insect eating wood, unable to discern where it ends, or like a bird speaking of emptiness, how could it know the ultimate import?" ### [86.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.8) Question: A single color and a single fragrance are none other than the Middle Way. What is taken to be the Middle Way? ### [86.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.9) Answer: Let us tentatively distinguish it in terms of the four propositions of past masters. As the \*Zhonglun xuanshu\* says: ### [86.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.10) Question: You take non-arising and non-ceasing to be the Middle Way. Does this Middle Way exist or not? If this Middle Way exists, it is not named the Middle Way. If this Middle Way does not exist, non-existence is also not named the Middle. Both being unobtainable, what is named the Middle Way? ### [86.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.11) Answer: There are four meanings. First, this Middle Way exists. Why? Originally, the Middle Way is used to destroy one-sidedness; how could there be no Middle Way? Because there is the meaning of emptiness, all phenomena are able to be accomplished; if there were no meaning of emptiness, nothing would be accomplished. Emptiness is precisely the Middle Way. Second, this Middle Way does not exist. Why? In order to destroy the disease of one-sidedness, the Middle is therefore spoken of; once the disease of one-sidedness is gone, the medicine of the Middle must be dismissed. If there were a Middle Way, the Middle would still be a disease. Third, the Middle Way both exists and does not exist. Why? Because the ultimate principle provisionally exists, it is called 'also exists'; because it has no form and no characteristics, it is called 'also does not exist.' As the \*Nirvāṇa-sūtra\* says: 'Because interior and exterior unite, it is called the Middle Way.' Fourth, the Middle Way neither exists nor does not exist. Why? Since it is called the Middle Way, how could it be existent? Since it is called the Middle Way, how could it be non-existent? This is merely a preliminary statement. If we discuss it further, it is beyond the four propositions—the so-called 'path of words is cut off, and the place of mental activity ceases.' ### [86.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.12) Question: If so, how can one attain certainty? ### [86.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.13) Answer: If one has attachment, then there is nothing that is not an obstruction. If one has no attachment, then there is nothing that does not penetrate freely. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'If a person sees prajñā, this is called being bound; if they do not see prajñā, this is also called being bound. If a person sees prajñā, this is called liberation; if they do not see prajñā, this is also called liberation.' The Middle Way is true reality: this is existence. The Middle Way is the emptiness of nature: this is non-existence. It is also called provisional name: this is both existence and non-existence. It is also called the Middle Way: this is neither existence nor non-existence. Therefore, know that when there is no attachment, all four propositions are correct. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'One with suitable conditions drinks poison and lives; one without suitable conditions drinks poison and dies. There are those who drink amṛta, harm their life, and die young; there are also those who drink amṛta and attain long-lasting life.' This is what it means. ### [86.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.14) Question: Is the middle precisely the path? Or is there a separate path apart from the middle? Is the path precisely the middle? Or is there a separate middle apart from the path? ### [86.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.15) Answer: Like a person of medium capacity: this is the middle and not the path. Like the path of people of the triyāna: this is the path and not the middle. Like the bodhisattva path: this is both the middle and the path. Like the path of non-Buddhists: this is neither the middle nor the path. What is now called the 'Middle Way' is the bodhisattva path. Apart from the middle, there is no other path; apart from the path, there is no other middle. The path is taken as the middle; the middle is taken as the path. This meaning of 'middle' is precisely the one mind. The path is precisely the mind; the mind is precisely the path. Because the true mind pervades all places, it is said: 'A single color, a single scent—none is not the Middle Way.' The earlier distinctions concerned differences in perspective, hence discussing gain and loss. If one enters the mirror of the source, they are obliterated into equality: the triyāna and five natures, whether internal or external, are none other than the Middle Way of the one mind. Furthermore, regarding the 'Middle Way': because the one true mind does not abide in either side of existence or non-existence, it is called the Middle Way. If you say it exists, its characteristics cannot be sought; if you say it is non-existent, its nature cannot be altered. Therefore, the bodhisattva accords with the principle through practice, contemplating all dharmas: double negation and double illumination, double cessation and double flowing. The Tiantai teachings explain that by double cessation there is correct entry, always darkling-merged with the Middle Way; mind-free, cessation and illumination \[occur\], naturally quiescent and aware. Double cessation means ceasing both emptiness and the provisional, hence it is called 'quiescent.' Correct entry is simply entering the middle, hence it is called 'illumination.' Ceasing yet illuminating, it is called 'double flowing.' Negation and flowing pertain to the function of wisdom; cessation and illumination pertain to the substance of wisdom. Mind-free explains the substance of wisdom: when the substance of wisdom is accomplished, one does not need to exert intention moment by moment to forget and illuminate, but is always spontaneous, both quiescent and aware. Quiescence is cessation; awareness is illumination. Furthermore, both subject and object are quiescent, hence it is called 'double cessation.' The principles of the approach are distinct and clear, termed 'correct entry.' When there is correct entry, there is no principle not accorded with; when there is double cessation, there is no characteristic not tranquil. This is not abiding in emptiness or existence, with negation and illumination distinct; not stagnating in the two extremes, only then is correct entry accomplished. The Zhao lun says: 'Those with mind are the common multitudes; that which is without mind is great space. The common multitudes dwell in false discrimination; great space is devoid of numinous illumination. How could one speak of the sage's mind either by dwelling in false discrimination or by being devoid of numinous illumination?' Therefore, negation and illumination must be free from stagnation, and substance and function must be unimpeded; only then is the approach of principle and practice established. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'The bodhisattva abides in this inconceivable; within it, thoughts are inexhaustible. Abiding in this inconceivable stage, both thought and non-thought are entirely extinguished.' If one were merely to negate the domain of thought, then ordinary beings and sages would be completely sundered. Therefore, one does not merely negate the ordinary mind, but must also harmonize the ordinary mind; thus within it, thoughts are inexhaustible. Negation and harmonization are non-dual; then thought and non-thought are both extinguished in substance. Only then is it called truly inconceivable. Thus negation and illumination are free from stagnation, and principle and phenomena are not diminished. Because illumination is present right in negation, the double negation is precisely the double operation; because negation is present right in illumination, the double operation is precisely the double dismissal. Without destroying the fundamental, it is constantly the derivative: the ten thousand practices proliferate. Without destroying the derivative, it is constantly the fundamental: the one mind is ever quiescent. Therefore, the substance of the dust of form is quiescent; the nature of the realm of scent is empty. Grasping them creates the extreme evils of existence and non-existence; realizing them accomplishes the middle principle of mind-only. Every dharma completely fulfills the ocean of vows; every speck of dust fully possesses the approaches of practice. In response to a single thought, the six pāramitās are all fulfilled; before one's very eyes, the true mind is universally present. As the Akṣayamatinirdeśasūtra says: 'Samantabhadra, in the Tathāgata's land, when those bodhisattvas see the Buddha, they can immediately distinguish all profound and subtle meanings, fully accomplishing the six pāramitās. Why is this? If one does not grasp characteristics of form, this is the full accomplishment of the dāna-pāramitā. If one eliminates characteristics of form, this is the full accomplishment of the śīla-pāramitā. If one contemplates the exhaustion of form, this is the full accomplishment of the kṣānti-pāramitā. If one sees the quiescence of form, this is the full accomplishment of the vīrya-pāramitā. If one does not practice characteristics of form, this is the full accomplishment of the dhyāna-pāramitā. If one does not engage in conceptual proliferation regarding characteristics of form, this is the full accomplishment of the prajñā-pāramitā. When these bodhisattvas contemplate the Buddha, they immediately possess such six pāramitās and attain anutpattikadharmakṣānti.' ### [86.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.16) Question: Regarding this approach of consciousness-only, by what expedient means should those who have not yet understood it be guided and awakened? ### [86.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.17) Answer: Those newly awakening first use inference to know it, and afterwards they will believe and verify it. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'At all times and places, there is only consciousness.' For those who have not yet attained true wisdom and awakening, how do they know consciousness-only through inference? By sacred teachings and correct reasoning. As the teaching says: 'These three realms are all mind-only.' As for reasoning becoming manifest: just as in a meditative mind, whatever images known—such as the blue-bruised corpses and so forth that are contemplated—are completely non-different. Matters such as the blue-bruised are merely seeing one's own mind. It also says: 'External seeds take the internal as condition; the seeds of external dharmas are all seeds perfumed by the karma of sentient beings' experiences of enjoyment, manifested based on the power of the ālayavijñāna. Therefore, apart from the internal, external seeds do not exist separately.' As a verse says: 'Heaven, earth, wind, space, / ponds, moats, and the great ocean— / all are produced by the true internal; / external referents do not exist at all.' Another verse says: 'Sacred teachings and correct reasoning / each have their distinct functions; / to generate faith and wisdom, / not a single one fails to accomplish them.' Therefore, consciousness generating this consciousness is called the nimittabhāga; one knows that this characteristic is merely transformed by the internal mind, because external referents are not established. As a verse says: 'Toward the single body of a graceful courtesan, / the renunciant, the lustful, and the starving dog / \[view it as\] a stinking corpse, a captivating beauty, and delicious food; / their three kinds of discriminations are each different.' Since prior sensory data have no fixed characteristics, mind alone of itself distinguishes beauty and ugliness. If external dharmas were real, how could they differ according to each one's own perception? Therefore, by inference one knows: it is merely the self-manifestation of the mind, not another's sphere. An ancient master said: 'When a bodhisattva first arouses the mind from initial correct faith, they contemplate the substance of cause and effect in the dependent origination of the fundamental consciousness's own-nature, thereby accomplishing correct faith.' Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Attaining that fundamental consciousness is said to be the bodhisattva's initial arising; they should first contemplate the true causes and conditions of dharmas.' This is what it means. What is 'true' is none other than the one mind; the rest are all false. If there are those who vigorously take it up and enter directly, people of sudden awakening and perfect faith, then at the very moment of first arousing the mind, they immediately achieve perfect awakening; without moving from the station of defilements, they sit universally in all bodhimaṇḍas; without departing from the approaches they have practiced, they roam playfully in the lands of the ten directions. Therefore, a verse of the Lotus Sūtra says: 'Attaining such a vehicle / enables the children, / through days, nights, and kalpas, / always to sport freely, / riding together with bodhisattvas / and the śrāvaka assembly / upon this jeweled vehicle / straight to the bodhimaṇḍa.' For this reason, seeking truly in the ten directions, there is no other vehicle, except as the Buddha's expedients. If one can cultivate according to the real, the fulfillment of the fruit does not depart from a single thought. As the Contemplation of Returning to the Source says: 'Rolling up and unfolding are unobstructed; hiding and revealing are simultaneous. A single limit cuts off beginning and end; exiting and entering obliterates exterior and interior. The initial mind and perfect awakening subsume many lifetimes in a single kṣaṇa; the perfection of the path of the ten faiths encompasses the Buddha stage in a single thought. That is, non-arising becomes manifest and illusory existence is established; both characteristics are obliterated and both events are preserved. Subsuming the dharmadhātu yet subsuming a single speck of dust; holding up a single body yet ten bodies appear.' ### [86.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.18) Question: Since one has inferred through sacred teachings and correct reasoning, and superior resolution has already arisen, if one wishes to enter the stage of the noble ones, toward what realm does one cultivate by direct realization? ### [86.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.19) Answer: Merely comprehending the two emptinesses of person and phenomena allows one to enter this contemplation. Why are person and phenomena empty? Because they are only conceptual distinctions of mental speech. Therefore, the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* states: "From the stage of aspiration up to the ultimate stage, if one wishes to enter the contemplation of consciousness-only and cultivate the preparatory practices, what object does one take as a focal object? One takes the conceptual distinctions of mental speech as the object; apart from this, there is no separate external object. Why is that? These conceptual distinctions of mental speech appear resembling written words, speech, and referents; there are only conceptual distinctions of mental speech, and there are no separate names or words. When a bodhisattva can penetrate that names do not exist, they are free from erroneous attachments to external dust-objects. Furthermore, these referents rely on names and words, and are only conceptual distinctions of mental speech. Previously names were dispelled; below, based on names, referents are dispelled. 'Referent' means the objects cognised by the six consciousnesses; apart from names, there are no separate objects such as these. Since names and words are only mental distinctions, referents also have no separate substance. When a bodhisattva penetrates that referents do not exist, they are also free from erroneous attachments to external dust-objects. Furthermore, the intrinsic nature and particularities of these names and referents are merely conventional designations as standards. Previously, names and referents were already dispelled. Since names and referents lack both intrinsic nature and particularities, how could they be established? Apart from conventional designation, there is no separate intrinsic nature of names and referents, nor are there particularities of names and referents. Because of directly verifying and seeing that these two dharmas are ungraspable, this is called 'penetration'." In Chan Master Zhizheng's \*Six Practices of the Dharma\*, it states: "A bodhisattva of the Mahāyāna sudden awakening who is able to contemplate that consciousness-only is empty of the external refers to contemplating that marks are empty, which is merely a conceptualisation of emptiness. The mind creates the understanding of emptiness; there are no external marks that are empty. Therefore, those of great capacity who know consciousness-only eradicate the understanding of emptiness and transcend all contemplations of conditions. Thus the \*Dazhidulun\* says: 'When a bodhisattva practices the perfection of wisdom (prajñāpāramitā), they universally contemplate that all dharmas are empty, and that emptiness is also empty; eradicating all contemplations, they attain the unobstructed prajñāpāramitā.' Attested by this passage, there is no emptiness of external marks. The contemplative wisdom of those of great capacity directly verifies emptiness; 'emptiness' refers to the emptiness of dharmas. Both emptiness and existence are false views, entirely created by the mental distinctions of that moment. Just as when the mind of a human arises, one sees only a human; when the mind of subtle dust arises, one sees only subtle dust; and when the mind of emptiness arises, one sees only emptiness. Therefore, both emptiness and existence are created by the mind. Thus, ordinary people and sages seeing different objects is entirely due to variations in their mental speech at that moment. Hence, in conventional truth, there is only consciousness respectively; awakening to the absence of external bounds is called the ultimate truth. Because these two truths are not separate from each other, the absence of the external is termed the ultimate truth. Therefore, if one is able to contemplate and see consciousness-only, one immediately knows the absence of the external, and thereby also penetrates the ultimate. When one thus penetrates the ultimate, there is no conception of an external, and one dispels the mind of conventional false grasping. Therefore, the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says: 'Knowing that dust-objects do not exist, one penetrates the ultimate. Knowing that there is only consciousness, one penetrates the conventional. If one does not penetrate the conventional, there is no way one can see the ultimate, because apart from the conventional there is no ultimate. If one does not penetrate the ultimate, there is no way to dispel the conventional, because the conventional has no separate substance.' Thus, penetrating both the ultimate and the conventional is due to being able to understand the principle of consciousness-only. Attested by this passage, one who contemplates consciousness-only penetrates both truths and is able to dispel the false mind. Although in truth consciousness-only has no objects, according to subjective dispositions there are differences between ordinary beings and sages, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. That is, if one sees dust and the mind considers it a human, such mental speech is that of an ordinary person. If one contemplates this body and the mind considers it dust, such mental speech is that of the two vehicles. If one contemplates subtle dust and considers its substance to be empty, such mental speech is that of a lesser bodhisattva. If one contemplates emptiness and existence and knows they are both mental speech, that is a person who is a great bodhisattva of the Mahāyāna. Thus, although all sentient beings are nothing but consciousness, their mental speech differs and ordinary beings and sages are distinct. Therefore, those of great capacity who know consciousness-only constantly contemplate their own mind's mental speech as the object. When first contemplating this, although they have not yet become sages, partially knowing mental speech makes them bodhisattvas. Therefore, the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says: 'Those who first cultivate contemplation are ordinary-person bodhisattvas.' Those who are able to contemplate such profound emptiness of dharmas have also passed through the contemplations of the lesser vehicle; it is not that without understanding the selflessness of sentient beings they could all at once suddenly see the emptiness of dharmas. Therefore, the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says: 'If one attains the selflessness of dharmas, one must first attain the selflessness of persons.' Hence we know that to learn the Great, one must first proceed from the Small. Although one proceeds from the Small, gradual and sudden are still distinct: contemplating the emptiness of living beings and clinging to it as ultimate, and subsequently contemplating the emptiness of marks to advance one's learning, is called 'gradual'. If one has practiced for a long time and knows that the Small is not ultimate, directly understanding the emptiness of emptiness, this is called 'sudden awakening'. Although one knows there are no objects outside the mind, when entering contemplation one nonetheless begins from dust-objects, because as for material dust-objects, only the Buddha does not see them. Because the Buddha constantly verifies consciousness-only without objects, and his false conceptualisations are exhausted, he does not see external dust. Therefore, that treatise says: 'The Tathāgata never emerges from contemplation, hence he is quiescent.' When a great bodhisattva enters true contemplation, they know consciousness-only and likewise do not see dust. Therefore, that treatise says: 'If a bodhisattva enters non-conceptual contemplation, no dust-objects appear.' Attested by this passage, we know that when great sages enter true contemplation, none of them see matter. As for the rest, whether ordinary people or sages, Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna, prior to entering the contemplation of emptiness, they all see dust. When those of great capacity emerge from contemplation, although they falsely see dust, when entering contemplation they know consciousness-only. Because they themselves know that they falsely construct the conception of dust and there is no dust to be destroyed, they directly verify mind-only. If in contemplation one completely understands mind-only, then even though after emerging from contemplation one falsely sees self and other, upon reflecting again one immediately knows that it is one's own false seeing; unlike ordinary people and the lesser vehicle, one does not definitively cling to there being an external, nor does one go so far as still seeing subject and object when contemplating emptiness. Therefore, that treatise says: 'With the subsequent non-conceptual wisdom, the bodhisattva contemplates these marks of cause and effect, yet without inversion, neither clinging to external dust nor internal sense-bases as real entities; consciousness-only is a really existent dharma.' Thus we know that once those of great capacity verify mind-only, even though they later emerge from contemplation, they do not cling to the existence of an external. When contemplating their own mind falsely seeing objects, they know that sentient beings each have only consciousness. Therefore, great bodhisattvas and even the Buddhas constantly know that sentient beings have only mental false seeing. That is, they know that sentient beings either form a conception of names—and names are merely conceptual distinctions of mental speech of ordinary people, subjectively considered as appearing resembling external names, while in principle they are mind-made and are marks of their own mind—or they form a conception of the dharmas spoken of under those names; the dharmas and referents are merely conceptual distinctions of mental speech, subjectively considered as having external dharmas and referents appearing, while in reality dharmas and referents are also marks of the mind. Therefore, that treatise says: 'The twelve divisions of scripture are called the teaching; that which is explained by the twelve divisions of scripture is called the principle. The mind appears resembling this principle and teaching.' Attested by this passage, cognised objects are all mind-made, and are called marks of the mind. But these marks of the mind are also called reflections of the mind, and also called mark-consciousness and object-consciousness. All sorts of ordinary people and the lesser vehicle consider them distinct from the mind, yet in principle they have no separate substance and are truly only a single consciousness. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Consciousness-only does not go beyond two dharmas: the first is mark-consciousness, and the second is seeing-consciousness. Appearing resembling dust is called the mark, meaning the cognised object; appearing resembling consciousness is called seeing, meaning the cognising consciousness.' The mind in meditative concentration is also like this: appearing resembling dust, it is considered distinct from the concentrated mind; one part resembles consciousness, and one part resembles dust. These two are in truth only consciousness. Attested by this passage, the mark-consciousness of objects is identical to the mind without distinction, seen falsely only by subjective emotion, because it is created solely by false thoughts. This very thing is mark-consciousness, and is also called the mark-fetter (saṃyojana). Therefore, that treatise says: 'There are two kinds of fetters: first, mark-fetters; second, gross-heaviness fetters. Mark-fetters are difficult to untie; gross-heaviness fetters are difficult to extinguish. The mind conceptually distinguishing dust-objects is called the mark-fetter. Due to this conceptual distinction, afflictions such as desire and anger arise, which are called gross-heaviness fetters. If one attains non-conceptual wisdom, one immediately unties the mark-fetters. When mark-fetters do not arise, gross-heaviness fetters are immediately destroyed.' Attested by this passage, objects are mark-fetters, and ordinary people and the lesser vehicle are deluded and cling to them, hence they are called difficult to untie. Therefore, both the names and referents of all dharmas are mind-made. Ordinary people and the lesser vehicle do not know this; in principle and in reality, the names and referents cognised from beginningless time are constantly the conceptual distinctions of mental speech of ordinary people. Therefore, that treatise says: 'From the beginning, the conceptual distinctions of mental speech of ordinary people are of two kinds: first, resembling names; second, resembling referents. Names and referents subsume all dharmas exhaustively. These names and referents are merely created by conceptual distinctions of mental speech; apart from this, there are no other separate dharmas.' Attested by this passage, we know that the objects falsely seen by ordinary people, whether names or referents, are all the conceptual distinctions of mental speech of that moment. Just like someone who has eaten henbane falsely seeing needles and fire: based on their false subjective feelings, their mind considers them real, not knowing that it is false seeing and supposing there is an external fire; in reality, it is only the mind creating the conception of fire, and fire is merely a conceptual distinction of mental speech. Supposing there is the name 'fire', the name is mental speech; supposing there is the fact of 'fire', the fact is mental speech. Sentient beings falsely seeing their own bodies, other bodies, earth, water, fire, wind, and so forth are all like that. Although in real truth consciousness-only has no external, based on ordinary false feelings there is considered to be grasping and grasped. Therefore, that treatise says: 'The meaning of consciousness-only is not lost, nor is the meaning of grasper and grasped non-existent.' Although based on feelings there are considered to be internal and external, in principle there is only one mind and no separate substance of dust-objects. Therefore, that treatise says: 'As for the transformations of consciousness, although there are different aspects of internal and external phenomena, in truth there is only a single consciousness, and there are no separate substances such as dust.' Thus we know that the phenomena of self and other, internal and external, are only false conceptions transformed by the one mind. Therefore, all great sages know the false seeing of living beings, and themselves constantly do not see the objects seen by ordinary people. Just as a person who has not eaten henbane only sees another person falsely seeing needles and fire, while they themselves still do not see the phenomena of fire in the air. The Buddha's knowledge of consciousness-only is similar to this. Therefore, it is unlike the objects falsely seen by ordinary people, because the false seeing of living beings fundamentally lacks external dust. Hence, the Tathāgata constantly does not see matter. Only between ordinary beings and sages is there seeing and not seeing; it is simply that the true differs from the false, but none is not consciousness-only. For ordinary people, consciousness-only is straightforwardly the false mind. Therefore, a verse of the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra\* says: 'Consciousness-only has no objects; / devoid of dust, there is false seeing.' As for the Buddha's consciousness-only, there is only the true mind. Therefore, the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says: 'Only tathatā and true wisdom exist in isolation, which is called the dharmakāya.' Furthermore, the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra\* says: 'The realm of practice of the Buddhas, Tathāgatas, has only the true consciousness, and no other consciousness.' Attested by this passage, because the Buddha is free from \[defiled\] consciousness, he is not like ordinary people falsely seeing external objects, because in real consciousness-only there is fundamentally no external. As for karma being different, a single entity is seen differently: as humans see water, ghosts see it as fire, fish regard it as a dwelling place, and devas consider it earth. Furthermore, Śāriputra falsely saw an impure land, whereas the Bodhisattva Śikhin saw purity right there. If water, fire, defilement, and purity actually existed, occupying the same place they would obstruct each other and could not combine. Because their respective false seeings equally lack an external, multiple minds coexisting in the same place can form distinct conceptions. If sentient beings share the same karma, their false seeings are identical, and there are no distinct conceptions. Those sharing the same karma mutually act as causes for one another, and their falsely conceptualised seeing and hearing are merely the conjunction of mental conditions. Therefore, the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra\* says: 'All sentient beings falsely conceptualise, contemplate, and recall: "They speak, and I hear." Relying on the mental consciousness (manovijñāna) of the speaker in front, in the mental consciousness of this listener there arises such a thought: "They speak, and I hear." Yet in reality there is no such object in front of them.' This is what the verse means by: 'Mutually acting as predominant causes, / each other's mental conditions conjoin.' Attested by this passage, those whose karmas depend on one another mutually act as causes for one another, each falsely seeing and hearing; because the six destinies are all the conjunction of mental conditions, and the three realms are transformations created solely by the mind. Therefore, the \*Daśabhūmikasūtra\* says: 'The three realms are false; they are made solely by the one mind.' The commentary explains it itself: '"Made by the one mind" means that they are solely the transformations of the mind.' Thus we know that the shared seeings and distinct seeings of the three realms are all transformations of one's own mind and differences in conceptualisation. As for those who share seeing and hearing, although their mental conditions conjoin, the mind has no shape or characteristics, and is eternally neither internal nor external. If one claims that outside the mind there is another's mind, that is a false conception; in reality, there is no external consciousness. Therefore, the \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra\* says: 'Yet in reality there is no external consciousness that can be grasped.' Even the knowledge of other minds possessed by the two vehicles, which supposes that there is an external consciousness, is still false. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Falsely conceptualising, this mind knows that mind, and that mind knows this mind.' Attested by this passage, there is in reality no external consciousness; it is simply ordinary people and the lesser vehicle falsely constructing an external conception. Therefore, that treatise says: 'One with knowledge of other minds does not know as it truly is. Why is that? Because with their own internal mind they falsely conceptualise, taking it to be another's mind, and are unable to fully understand it.' ### [86.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.20) Question: If it is said that ordinary beings and Hinayāna practitioners form the understanding of another's mind, how can they correspond with that other mind? ### [86.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86.21) Explanation: Because they previously conceive through expedients the understanding of the other, appearing like the understanding of the other, they can correspond with it. Ordinary beings and Hinayāna practitioners do not know that they themselves are producing the understanding of the other, and thereupon say: 'I now know the minds of others.' Although they produce the understanding of the other and can correspond with it, because they deem that there are grāhaka and grāhya, it is still not true knowing. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Worldly knowers of others' minds do not know in accordance with reality with respect to those two phenomena, because of their false discrimination of the objective realms of grāhaka and grāhya.' By this textual evidence, there is no external consciousness; therefore, forming an external understanding is in all cases not true knowing. If one contemplates that the mental consciousness originally lacks shape or characteristic, is neither that nor this, has no coming and no going, and, not relying on external understanding, ceases discriminations, then this is true knowing of the minds of all living beings. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'If the mental and mental-concomitant phenomena of all sentient beings were substantially existent by nature and not deceitful, the Buddha could not know the mental and mental-concomitant phenomena of all sentient beings. Because the mental and mental-concomitant phenomena of all sentient beings are substantially deceitful by nature, having no coming and no going, the Buddha is able to know the mental and mental-concomitant phenomena of all sentient beings. For example, a bhikṣu who seeks with greed does not obtain offerings, but if he has no greed or seeking, he lacks nothing. External to the mind it is likewise: if one discriminates and grasps at characteristics, one does not attain the true Dharma; because one does not attain the true Dharma, one cannot penetrate and know the mental and mental-concomitant phenomena of all sentient beings. If one does not grasp at characteristics and has no discrimination, one attains the true Dharma; hence, one is able to penetrate and know the mental and mental-concomitant phenomena of all sentient beings without any obstruction.' By this textual evidence, mind has no coming or going; the Buddha knows that there is no exterior, and corresponds to reality in being able to know. He is not like the ordinary beings and Hinayāna practitioners with knowledge of others' minds, who direct their conditions outward toward mind, still mingled with delusional consciousness. Therefore, the verses of the Viṃśikāvijñaptimātratāsiddhi say: 'Knowing of others' minds with regard to their objects is not knowing in accordance with reality; because it is not an object apart from consciousness, only the Buddha knows in accordance with reality.' By this textual evidence, the Buddha knows vijñaptimātra, producing by himself the understanding of the other, with no exterior that can be grasped. Because he knows that his own citta produces all understandings of minds, he forever cuts off the mind of outward discrimination. The Laṅkāvatārasūtra says: 'Knowing in accordance with reality that all phenomena are only one's own citta, therefore a discriminating mind does not arise.' By this textual evidence, the Buddha knows that another's mind is just his own citta, free from external discrimination, conditioning only his own citta, with mental speech as its object. Because the mental consciousnesses of sentient beings are boundless, each having different understandings with distinctions difficult to measure, the Buddha is free from external thoughts and omniscient in one mind, like water that is unmoved while the myriad images appear within it. When this one mind of the Buddha knows all minds, the one produces the understanding of the many, and the many is just the one. Just as that single water reflects the myriad images, and though it is a single water, it corresponds to the myriad images outside the water, the Buddha's mind is also like this: it completely illuminates others' minds, and though it is one mind producing the understandings of all minds, it corresponds with all other minds. Because the contemplation of vijñaptimātra has been practiced for a long time and brought to completion, he is free from external thoughts and only then capable of all-knowing. Therefore, a verse in the Avataṃsakasūtra says: 'Maheśvara's wisdom is sovereign; / When the great dragon king of the ocean sends down rain, / He is able to distinguish and count every drop, / Completely clear within a single thought-moment. / Having diligently studied and practiced for immeasurable billions of kalpas, / He attained this unsurpassed bodhi wisdom: / How could he, in a single thought-moment, / Not know the minds of all sentient beings?' Thus we know that the Buddhas are omniscient in every thought-moment; this is precisely the Buddha's mental speech discrimination. Although when knowing that on the conventional level each is consciousness-only he separately knows all minds, this is the Buddha's discrimination; based on his constant self-awareness that it is only his own mental speech, free from the aspect of external thoughts, there is no further discrimination. Therefore, when the great wise ones who contemplate vijñaptimātra condition their own mental speech and know the conventional truth, they also penetrate the ultimate truth, free from external discrimination. Therefore, in the Mahāyāna, from ordinary being up to Buddha, all contemplate their own citta's mental speech as the object, and thereby know that outside of mind there is no other mind. Although the minds of ordinary beings and sages are neither internal nor external, there are still conditions by which they are transformed by others. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśasūtra says: 'At that time the devī, with supernatural power, transformed Śāriputra so that he resembled a devī, while she transformed her own body to resemble Śāriputra.' This transformation of Śāriputra caused his mind to see differently; it was not that there was another body whose shape was altered and substance switched. In the minds of sentient beings who cultivate superior practices, there is the karmic capacity to falsely see the Buddha where there is nothing. Because of superior karma evoking the Buddha's spiritual power, it causes their minds to transform, appearing to see the nirmāṇakāya. Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'In the stages of practice of others, due to the sovereign power of the Buddha's original vows, that consciousness appears transformed like sentient beings; therefore, it is called the transformation body.' By this textual evidence, the nirmāṇakāya of the Tathāgata, such as Śākyamuni and others, are all transformations produced by the minds of ordinary beings and Hinayāna practitioners themselves. Through delusion they see the Buddha attaining the Way and transforming sentient beings, and later they again falsely see the Tathāgata pass into extinction. This false seeing is transformed by the Buddha; therefore, that treatise says: 'Bodhi and nirvāṇa are taken as two, but this merely transforms the minds of others to make them see them as two; in substance they are not truly existent.' By this textual evidence, the Buddha transforms others' minds, causing them to falsely see the Buddha; outside of mind, there is no Buddha. In reality, ordinary beings and Hinayāna practitioners do not realize it is false seeing, and claim that there is an external Buddha coming to deliver sentient beings. Therefore, a sūtra verse says: 'The Buddha does not attain the Buddha-path, / Nor does he deliver sentient beings; / Sentient beings make rigid discriminations / That the Buddha delivers sentient beings.' Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Because the consciousness of the meditator acts as an adhipatipratyaya, the consciousness of other people transforms according to the meditator's vow-power and becomes manifest. Thus we know there is definitely no external dust; there is only the fundamental consciousness.' By this textual evidence, those who see the sage's transformations all have the Buddha's power as their adhipatipratyaya. Therefore, that treatise says: 'When a bodhisattva of shallow practice wishes to accomplish benefits for sentient beings, he first makes vows in the present, then enters the true contemplation, and after emerging from contemplation, according to his wishes and desires it is then accomplished. If it is a bodhisattva of deep practice who wishes to accomplish benefits for sentient beings, he does not need in the present to make vows or enter and emerge from contemplation; merely by the power of his original vows, whatever he wishes to do is all accomplished. If śrāvakas and the like attain sovereignty in the nine concentrations, through this sovereignty in concentration they attain sovereignty in the six supernatural knowledges: within a single object, according to the power of their wishes and desires, they can each transform it into immeasurable kinds. If dusts truly had an intrinsic nature, this could not be accomplished.' By this textual evidence, fundamentally there is no external object; the power of sages causes others to see transformations where there is nothing, because all is false seeing and there is no external object. If many sages transform an object in the same place, each accomplishes it according to their own intent, without obstructing one another. Therefore, that treatise says: 'With respect to a single object, if many meditators with different vows can together transform a single objective realm, this transformation succeeds. Why does it succeed? Because it is accomplished according to their intent; therefore, in reality there is no external object, because there is only consciousness. Hence, each is accomplished according to their intent.' By this textual evidence, when many sages perform transformations in a single place, each does so according to their distinct intent, causing sentient beings to perceive different objects—harmonious yet not identical, commingled yet not disordered. This meaning is extremely profound, known only to those of great capacity. Therefore, all the way to the Buddha, all contemplate vijñaptimātra. Therefore, that treatise says: 'From the stage of aspiration up to the ultimate stage, all are generally termed the contemplation of vijñaptimātra.' By this textual evidence, in the Mahāyāna, entry into the Way equally involves contemplating vijñaptimātra, becoming progressively clearer up to the Buddha. As for what is called the contemplation of vijñaptimātra at the stage of aspiration: hearing the explanation of vijñaptimātra from teachers and friends, one who can immediately understand produces aspiration in mind; because there is aspiration, when he engages in learning and deliberating, he is a person of the stage of aspiration in the Mahāyāna. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Bodhisattvas, merely through virtue, hear that all phenomena are consciousness-only; relying on this teaching, following what they have heard, they give rise to faith and aspiration, and within the principle of all phenomena being consciousness-only, mental speech discrimination arises. Because of this aspiration and mental speech discrimination, the bodhisattva is said to have already entered the contemplation of vijñaptimātra.' Having such knowing is called entering the stage of aspiration in vijñaptimātra. By this textual evidence, studying the contemplation of vijñaptimātra is precisely the entry into the Way for bodhisattvas of great capacity. The above has comprehensively clarified the entry into the Way for both the Mahāyāna and Hinayāna: although their shallowness and depth differ, all exclusively cultivate wisdom, because wisdom contemplation is the substance of the correct Path. If one does not cultivate contemplation, the other practices are all insufficient. This clarifies that wisdom contemplation is the substance of entering the Way. As stated above, if one understands that all objective realms are only mental speech discrimination, then the mind has nothing to deliberate and the mouth has nothing to say; with grasping conditions already ceased, names and characteristics are instantly empty, and the wondrous, luminous true mind is revealed from here. Thus one attains the severance of the path of defilements, the drying up of the river of birth and death, thought after thought merging with reality, mind after mind according with the Way. For this reason, the Vajrasamādhisūtra says: 'The Buddha said: Wholesome and unwholesome phenomena are produced through transformation from the citta; all objective realms are mental speech discriminations. Restrain them in one place, and the multitude of conditions will be severed and eliminated. Why is this? When the one root does not arise, the three functions have nothing to apply; abiding in accord with principle, the gates of the six destinies are shut.' _First 21 of 24 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86)_ ## Linked texts (1) - [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.86.1) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.86) · Pramāṇa