a) Changing with the wisdom of the one who is free and at ease. This means that he who has realized the freedom and the ease of mind can change and transform earth [into gold] and so forth without fail according to his desires. If there was really an external sphere, how can these transformations be possible?
b) Changing with the wisdom of the one who meditates and sees clearly. This means that when one who has achieved supreme calmness and has practiced the meditation on the Law meditates on one sphere of objects, its various characters appear in front of him. If the sphere is real, why does it change according to his mind?
c) Changing with the wisdom of no discrimination. This means that as the non-discriminating wisdom which realizes truth arises, all spheres of objects and their characters will cease to appear. If there are real spheres of objects, why should they do so? The bodhisattva who achieves the Four Wisdoms will definitely understand and penetrate the principle of consciousness-only.
Furthermore, the hymn says:
The objects of mind, thought-center consciousness, and [the other six] consciousnesses
Are not distinct from their own nature.
Therefore I declare that all things
Are consciousness only and there is nothing else [which is external to the mind]. . . .63
(2) Objection: If what seem to be external spheres are simply the products of the inner consciousness, why is it that what we see in the world, whether sentient beings or non-sentient objects, are definite with respect to space [for example, a certain mountain is always seen in a certain place] and time but indefinite with respect to people [for example, when many people see the same mountain at the same time, their consciousness of it is not determined by any one of them] and function [for example, food has real function in waking life but not in a dream]?
Answer: Your doubt may be dispelled with reference to the world of dreams.
(3)--Objection: Why did the World-Honored One (Bhagavat, the Buddha) teach the Twelve Bases (the five senses, the mind, and their organs)?
Answer: These are transformations based on consciousness. They are not real things separated from consciousness. In order to introduce [his disciples] to the truth of the emptiness of the self, He spoke to the six internal bases and six external bases, just as He spoke of the continuity of sentient beings in order to deny the [false] view that things come to an end. And in order to introduce them to the truth of the emptiness of dharmas, He also spoke of consciousness-only, so they know that external dharmas are also nonexistent.
(4)--Objection: Is the nature of consciousness-only not also empty?
Answer: No. Why? Because it is not a matter of clinging? We say dharmas are empty because the [so-called] real dharmas erroneously conceived on the basis of transformations of consciousness are contrary to reason. We do not say dharmas are empty because there is no nature of consciousness-only realized by correct and indescribable wisdom. If there were no such consciousness, there would be no worldly (relative) truth, and if there were no worldly truth, there would be no absolute truth, for the Two Levels of Truth are established on the basis of each other. To reject the Two Levels of Truth is to have evil ideas of Emptiness, a disease the Buddhas consider to be incurable. We should realize that some dharmas [which are imagined] are empty and some [which depend on something else, i.e., cause, to be complete]64 are not, and that is why Maitreya65 recited the two verses above [to the effect that some dharmas are empty and some are not].
Comment. It is interesting to note that the position of this school with reference to the Two Levels of Truth is somewhere between that of the Three-Treatise School, which subordinates worldly truth to absolute truth, and the Hua-yen School, which identifies them. Although this school represents the doctrine of being, actually it aims at a synthesis of both being and non-being. Consequently both character and nature of dharmas are emphasized and both inner and external spheres are stressed.
(5)--Objection: If the bases of the various forms of matter are consciousness in substance, why do the various consciousnesses of matter appear and manifest themselves in the semblance of characters of matter—homogeneous, unchangeable—and transform continuously?
Answer: Because [these manifestations] arise through the force of the influence of names and words [residing in the body from time immemorial], and are based on pure and impure dharmas. If there were none [of these characters], there would be no perversion of truth, and thus there would be neither dharmas of defilement nor pure dharmas. This is why the various consciousnesses appear in the semblance of matter. . . .
Comment. Like any idealistic philosophy, Consciousness-Only faces the most difficult task of explaining the regularity, consistency, and continuity of ideas. Instead of resorting to a belief in God, as Berkeley did, who assumes that God is the giver of them, this school treats regularity and so forth as simply characters of dharmas and as such, to be explained in terms of cause and effect. In this process of mutual cause and effect, certain seeds regularly perfume in a certain way, and therefore people with similar seeds in them are perfumed in the same way. The answer to the second objection above is no evasion, for dreams, like ideas in waking life, are governed by the law of cause and effect. By the use of this law, idealistic Buddhism has avoided the necessity of a belief in God as it has avoided the necessity of a belief in an ego.66
(6)--Objection: The external spheres of color and so forth are clearly and immediately realized. How can what is perceived through immediate apprehension be rejected as nonexistent?
Answer: At the time the external spheres are realized through immediate apprehension, they are not taken as external. It is later that the sense-center consciousness discriminates and erroneously creates the notion of externality. Thus the objective spheres immediately apprehended are the perceived portion of the consciousnesses themselves. Since they are transformations of consciousness, we say they exist. But since color and so forth, which the sense-center consciousness conceives as external and real, are erroneously imagined to be existent, we say they are nonexistent. Furthermore, objective spheres of color and so forth are not colors but appear to be color, and are not external but appear to be external. They are like objects in a dream, and should not be taken as real, external color.
(7)--Objection: If color and so forth perceived when we are awake are all like objects in a dream and inseparable from consciousness, then as we awake from a dream, we know that they are only mental. Why is it that when we are awake we do not know that the objective sphere of color perceived by ourselves is not consciousness only?
Answer: We do not realize ourselves [that objects in a dream are unreal] as long as we have not awakened from the dream. It is only after we have awakened that we, in retrospect, come to realize it. We should know that the same is true of our knowledge of the objective sphere of color in our waking life. Before we reach the state of true awakening, we do not ourselves know it, but when we reach the state of true awakening, we can also, in retrospect, come to realize it. Before we achieve true awakening, we are perpetually in the midst of a dream. This is why the Buddha spoke of the long night of transmigration, because of our failure to understand that the objective spheres of color [and so forth] are consciousness only.
(8)--Objection: If external matter is really nonexistent, it may be granted that it is not a sphere of objects for one’s inner consciousness. But the mind of another person really exists. Why is it not an object of one’s own consciousness?
Answer: Who says that another person’s mind is not a sphere of objects for one’s own consciousness? We only say that it is not its immediate and direct object. This means that when the consciousness [of another person’s mind] arises, it has no real function. The case is different from that of the hands and so forth which grasp an external thing immediately and directly, or that of the sun and so forth, which spread their light and by direct contact shine on external spheres immediately and directly. The consciousness is merely like a mirror, in which what seems to be an external
sphere appears. It is in this sense that it is called the mind that discriminates another. But it cannot discriminate [another mind] immediately and directly. What it discriminates immediately and directly are its own transformations. Therefore the true scripture67 says that not the least dharma [one’s own mind] can grasp other dharmas [other minds].68 It is only when consciousness is produced that it manifests a character similar to that of another thing. This is called grasping another thing. It seems like taking another person’s mind as an object. The same is true of matter and so forth.
(9)--Objection: Since there is [another mind] distinct from [one’s own] sphere of objects,69 how can you say there is consciousness only?
Answer: How extraordinarily obstinate! You raise doubts at every point. Does the doctrine of Consciousness-Only assert that there is only one individual consciousness? No, it does not. Why? Please listen carefully.
If there were only one individual consciousness, how is it that there is a variety of ordinary people, saints, the honored ones and lowly ones, and causes and effects in the ten cardinal directions? Who would then expound teachings to whom? What dharmas would there be? And what goal is there to seek? Therefore there is a deep purpose in saying there is consciousness only.
The word “consciousness” generally expresses the idea that all human beings each possess eight consciousnesses, six categories of mental qualities,70 the perceiving portion and perceived portion which are products of transformation, the different categories of [dharmas of consciousness, dharmas of matter and mind, and dharmas not associated with the mind], and True Thusness (True Reality)71 revealed by the principle of the emptiness [of the self and dharmas].
Because consciousnesses are their own characters, because consciousnesses are associated with mental qualities, because of the transformations of the perceiving portion and perceived portion, because of the three categories of dharmas, and because of these four true realities, all dharmas are inseparable from consciousness and the general term “consciousness” has been set up. The word “only” is employed merely to deny what ordinary people take to be real matter definitely separated from the various consciousnesses. . . .
If there is consciousness only and no external causes, how did the various discriminations arise? The verse says:
18. Because consciousness involves all kinds of seeds,
Different transformations take place.
Because of their power to turn on and on,
All sorts of discriminations are produced.
The Treatise says:
By consciousness evolving all kinds of seeds is meant that functions and differentiations in the root consciousness spontaneously produce their own fruition. . . . (ch. 7, tsd, 31:38-40)
Comment. The Consciousness-Only philosophy is permeated with the concepts of change and transformation like the Book of Changes. However, certain fundamental differences should not be overlooked. The change in this philosophy takes place in consciousness, whereas that of Change operates in the objective world. In both philosophies change operates in the pattern of opposition—in perfuming by pure or impure seeds in the one and in the alteration of yin and yang (passive and active cosmic forces) in the other. But while the direction of perfuming is circular, that of yin yang is progressive—from yin yang to the Four Forms (major and minor yin and yang) and the myriad things. Most important, change in Buddhism leads finally to quietness and silence in Nirvāṇa, but transformation in Confucianism is an eternal process of “production and reproduction.”
8. The Three Natures of Being, Three Natures of Non-being, and Thusness
19. Due to the force of habit of various pervious deeds
The force of habit of the six sense organs and that of their objects72 working on each other both ways [by being influenced and also by producing their own functions within the eighth consciousness].73
As the previous ripening-at-later-times is completed,
Succeeding ripenings-at-later-times are produced.
20. Because of a variety of vast imagination,
Various things [like the hair of a tortoise]74 are vastly imagined.
What is conceived by this vast imagination
Has no nature of its own whatsoever.
21. The self-nature which results from dependence on others
Consists of discriminations produced by various causes.
The difference between Perfect Reality and the nature of being dependent on others,
Is that the former is eternally free from being conceived by vast imagination [whereas the latter is merely defiled by imagination],
22. Thus Perfect Reality and the dependent
Are neither the same nor different.
As in the cases of impermanence and so forth,
It is not that when one is not understood, the other can.
If there is the Threefold Nature of Being (Being Conceived by Vast Imagination, Being Dependent on Others for Production, and Being of Perfect Reality), why did the World-Honored One say that all dharmas are without nature of their own? The verse says:
23. On the basis of the Threefold Nature of Being
Threefold Nature of Non-being is established.
Therefore the Buddha said earnestly
That all dharmas have no nature [of their own],
24. The first is the Non-being of Characters [since they are but products of imagination].
The second is the Non-being of Self-existence [since it is the result of discrimination].
The last is [Non-being in the Highest Sense],
They are forever separated from the self and dharmas previously conceived.
25. In the highest sense all these dharmas
Are nothing other than True Thusness (True Reality).
They are forever true to their nature,
Which is the true nature of consciousness-only.
26. As long as the consciousness (of wisdom) has not arisen
To seek to remain75 in the state of consciousness-only
The six sense organs and their objects and the seeds of evil desires
Cannot be overcome and annihilated.
27. To hold something before oneself,
And to say that it is the nature of consciousness-only,
Is really not to remain in the state of consciousness-only,
Because it is the result of grasping.
28. When in the [sphere of] objects
There is nothing for the wisdom [which no longer discriminates] to grasp,
The state of consciousness-only is realized,
Since the six sense organs and their objects are no longer present.
29. Without grasping, mysterious, and indescribable,
This is supramundane wisdom.
Because of the abandonment of the force of habits of various previous deeds and the six sense organs as well as their objects,
The transformation [of the seeds of defilement] into the abiding with [perfect wisdom] will be realized.
30. This is the realm of the absence of afflictions (end of transmigration),
Which is beyond description, is good, and is eternal,
Where one is in the state of emancipation, peace, and joy.
This is the Law of “Great Silence.”76
(chs. 8-10, tsd, 31:43-57)
Comment. In the final analysis, Buddhism is mysticism and a religion. All speculation is but a way to Nirvāna.
▪ ▪ ▪--24--▪ ▪ ▪
THE T’IEN-T’AI PHILOSOPHY OF PERFECT HARMONY
All Buddhist schools claim to teach the Middle Path of the Buddha but they differ radically in their interpretations. For the Three-Treatise School, it connotes absolute Emptiness without specific characters. For the Consciousness-Only School, it is identified with Thusness,1 which also transcends all specific characters.2 The Middle Path of both these schools is transcendent although the latter attempts to arrive at a middle ground between realism and nihilism. In the T’ien-t’ai School, however, the Middle Path means a synthesis of phe
nomenon and noumenon, in which transcendence and immanence are harmonized so that “every color or fragrance is none other than the Middle Path.” This tendency toward synthesis had been characteristic of Chinese thought, especially in the Book of Changes and in Neo-Taoism. Its further development in Buddhism is only natural.
The central doctrines of the T’ien-t’ai School may be summed up in its three common sayings, namely, “the true nature of all dharmas (elements of existence)”;3 “the perfect harmony of the Three Levels of Truth;” and “the three thousand worlds immanent in an instance of thought.” By the perfect harmony of the Three Levels of Truth is meant that all dharmas are empty because they have no nature of their own but depend on causes for their production. This is the Truth of Emptiness. But dharmas are produced and do possess temporary and dependent existence. This is Temporary Truth. Being both empty and temporary is the very nature of dharmas. This is the Truth of the Mean. The three involve each other, for Emptiness renders dharmas really empty, dependent existence makes them relatively real, and the Mean embraces both. Consequently the three are one and one is three. This mutual identity is the true state of all dharmas.
In the realm of Temporary Truth, that is, the phenomenal world, there are ten realms: Buddhas, bodhisattvas,4 buddhas-for-themselves,5 direct disciples of the Buddha,6 heavenly beings, spirits, human beings, departed beings, beasts, and depraved men. Since each of these involves the others, there are thus one hundred realms. Each of these in turn possesses the Ten Characters of Thusness: character, nature, substance, energy, activity, cause, condition, effect, retribution, and being ultimate from beginning to end, that is, each is “thus-caused,” “thus-natured,” and so forth. Each of these consists of living beings, of space, and of aggregates (matter, sensation, thought, disposition, and consciousness). The result is three thousand worlds, which is the totality of manifested reality.
This does not mean a pluralistic universe but one in which one is all and all is one. The worlds are so interpenetrated that they are said to be “immanent in a single instant of thought.” This is not to say that they are produced by any mind, for production implies a sequence in time. Nor are they to be thought of as being included in an instant of thought, for inclusion implies space. Rather, it means that all the possible worlds are so much identified that they are involved in every moment of thought. In other words, all phenomena are manifestations of the Mind of Pure Nature and each manifestation is the Mind in its totality.
A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Page 48
