Thus, having shown how there cannot be consciousness without external objects, in order to reject the position that it simply must exist, it is said:

And if detached from subject-object there could be
Dependent nature, empty of duality,
Then who would know of its existence? Just to say,
‘It’s there but not perceived,’ is quite unreasonable. (6.72)

If a dependent nature empty of so-called apprehended and apprehender exists, through what cognition do you apprehend its existence? It is untenable that it apprehends itself, since it is contradictory for something to direct its act upon itself: the blade of a sword cannot cut itself; the tip of a finger cannot touch itself; even the strongest and most dextrous athlete isn’t able to climb onto his own shoulders; fire cannot burn itself; and an eye cannot look at itself. Another cognition cannot be apprehending it since that would conflict with your own tenets; if cognition was the object of another cognition, one could then say that this undermines the sense of cognition only. Hence there is no way whatsoever that there can be an apprehender of it; and that which cannot be apprehended cannot exist.

Now they reply, ‘It isn’t actually a case of another apprehending something else, but it has reflexive awareness. And since reflexive awareness apprehends itself, that shows it to be existent.’ To show how this can’t be, we explain:

It isn’t proven to experience itself.

It is unproven that it can so-called ‘apprehend itself.’

There are those who cite the Sautrāntika position in order to prove reflexive awareness: ‘When a fire is kindled it will simultaneously illumine itself together with vases and other things without distinction. And words signify both themselves and a referent. Similarly, when consciousness occurs it can fully discern itself and objects without distinction. Hence, reflexive awareness most certainly exists.

‘Though unwilling, one must by necessity accept reflexive awareness. Otherwise, when remembering the experience, “I saw …,” one wouldn’t then remember both the object as well as the experience, “I saw it.” Why? The memory would be of the experienced object, while the knowing of it would not have been experienced and could not then be remembered.

‘As long as awareness is not reflexive it cannot be experienced. And that there is another cognition experiencing it is unreasonable. Why? If the cognition experiencing it is other, the consequence will be that of infinite regress. If you accept that immediately following one cognition distinguishing the colour blue, there is a consciousness distinguishing that, one would need yet another experiencer of the cognition of the cognition of blue; and then yet another again; leading to the fault of infinite regress.

‘And it can’t be that cognition discerns something separate from it, since then all strings of awareness would be objects of distinct consciousnesses, and sentient beings only have a single stream of consciousness. It is like a stack of a hundred blue lotus-petals being pierced; consciousness engages with things in succession, but so rapidly that it appears to be happening simultaneously.¹ Hence, to avoid the fault of infinite regress one must necessarily accept reflexive awareness.

‘With that, both objects involved when subsequently remembering the thought “I saw …” will be accounted for. But if the nature of cognition isn’t known by reflexive awareness, it’s illogical that its object can be remembered. And so, as the subsequent memory “I saw…” appears to one’s cognition, it may be inferred that the trigger for the cognitive experience of a subsequent memory containing both these objects must have been an experience of its own nature and the nature of the object. The subsequent memory proves the experience of oneself; and when experience of oneself exists, the dependent nature exists. You asked, “What would then know of its existence?”² This is the answer.’

To show that this is illogical, it was said:

It isn’t proven to experience itself.
And if you say a later memory is proof,
You’re giving something that is unproven as proof;
And what’s not proven cannot function as a proof. (6.73)

If this is the proof they now present to substantiate it, since memory is impossible in that it’s produced neither from self nor from other, how could the unproven memory prove the unproven reflexive awareness? Even in terms of worldly conventions it would be impossible for memory to be the result of reflexive awareness. How so? If, as in the case of fire, cognition is used to prove reflexive awareness – and because of its presence, like fire is deduced from smoke, one is to be convinced of its existence via the subsequent occurrence of memory – since this reflexive awareness remains something unproven, how could memory, the result of reflexive awareness and something that doesn’t occur if reflexive awareness doesn’t exist, exist? One can’t be certain of the presence of a water-crystal gem just from seeing water, or a fire-crystal gem just from seeing fire, because even without these water may be the result of such phenomena as rain, and fire may be produced for instance by rubbing sticks together. In the same way, this shows that memory may arise in the absence of reflexive awareness. And therefore, since memory as a result of reflexive awareness is non-existent without it, you’re giving something unproven as proof. In proving reflexive awareness, this unproven term ‘memory’ has no relevance as evidence – just like thinking of sound’s impermanence as something perceived by the eyes.

But say we dispense with such analysis:

But let’s assume that self-awareness is affirmed.
That memory remembers it is still unsound,
Because it’s other, like an unknown in one’s mind.
This argument will conquer any counterclaim. (6.74)

If we do say that cognition is aware of itself and the object, it is still illogical for a remembering cognition to remember them, because the remembering cognition is accepted as other in relation to the cognition that experienced the object. The reflexive awareness and experience of the object that happened in Maitreya’s mind will not be remembered by Upagupta, because he didn’t experience them. Similarly, seeing as they are other, it would be just like an unknown mind appearing to oneself, and a subsequent consciousness taking place within a stream of mind cannot therefore have that memory, because it didn’t experience that cognition and object.

Now, one may think that such a memory can exist, since this is a case of a single continuum where things have a causal relationship. But this too is not the case because we have an argument which defeats any objection. The argument of stating, ‘Since they are other …,’ will utterly defeat any counterclaims such as, ‘They are part of the same continuum,’ or, ‘They are in a causal relationship,’ and so on. Since a moment of recollecting cognition would come about subsequent to the experience, it is something other; and being in that way just the same as having a cognition of another stream of mind, we may say that it isn’t of a single continuum as the cognition that experienced, or in a causal relationship, and so forth. So this argument of stating that they are other is a sweeping refutation.

They might then ask, ‘How do you explain it?’ To clarify:

For us, the one who has the memory is not
Distinct from he who had experience of something.
To think, ‘I saw,’ is therefore memory to us,
As is the way conventional worldly people think. (6.75)

I have already explained in relation to the experience of an object, how between the cognition that experienced the object and the cognition that remembers there cannot be otherness. And since, when there has been an experience, the rememberer is not another, it isn’t the case that the cognition which remembers that experience is not the experiencer, and the memory can therefore appear with the object. Since it isn’t the case that the discernment of the experiencing cognition isn’t the discernment of the rememberer, one can have the thought, ‘I saw….’ This is also the worldly viewpoint, which shouldn’t be subjected to rigorous analysis, since the conventions of the world operate on false premises.

This being the case:

And so, as self-awareness cannot be the case,
What is perceiving your dependent nature then?
The actor, act and object cannot be the same,
And thus to apprehend itself makes little sense. (6.76)

An awareness thinking, ‘I cognise myself,’ implies that it itself is the thing acted upon, while the cognition, the actor, is also itself. And as its act is also not then separate, it follows that the actor, the acted upon and the act would be the same. These are however not seen to be the same, just like the wood-cutter, the wood and the act of cutting are not the same. Since reflexive awareness cannot therefore exist, it doesn’t apprehend itself. As stated in the Descent Onto Langka:

Just as a sword does not cut
Its own blade; and a fingertip
Cannot touch itself; the same applies
To the mind perceiving itself.³

Therefore, as reflexive awareness does not exist:

If, even though it is by nature unproduced
And isn’t known, dependent nature can exist,
How has the barren woman’s son offended them
That he should suffer this denial of being real? (6.77)

As was demonstrated above, a dependent nature can be neither self- nor other-produced, and is likewise shown to be something that can’t be known. And if you do accept the existence of a dependent nature that is by nature unproduced and unknowable, why should you then not also accept the existence of things that have the same status as this dependent nature? Has the barren woman’s son harmed you in any way? A barren woman’s son too may be described as utterly unfathomable, an ineffable object of the noble ones’ wisdom⁴ , so you have to accept his existence!

If it is indeed an existent dependent nature which is, as they posit, ’… the cause for things that are but imputations…,’⁵ then logically:

When this dependent nature can’t exist at all,
Then how can it be causing relative events?

The thinking being that a cause for the relative does not then exist in the slightest. And so, for them there is nothing that can actually cause worldly conventional reality. How terrible!

When so obsessed with substance, our opponents will
Just gainsay every normal worldly principle. (6.78)

Foolishly clinging to one part of substantial reality is like pouring water into the unfired earthenware pot of the dependent nature. Due to their ignorant ways they find that they destroy everything: i.e. worldly principles that are only sound from the worldly perspective – commands such as sit!, go!, do!, cook! and so forth – as well as anything encompassed by material form, sensation and so forth. With that, nothing but failure lies ahead, and no good result will transpire.

And so, in their folly, these teachers insist on a path they themselves conceptually fabricate. But,

There is no other method that will lead to peace
Apart from noble master Nāgārjuna’s way.

How so? Since,

But they stray from the truths, the real and relative –
One gains not liberation when ignoring these. (6.79)

And why will disregarding these two hinder liberation? To explain:

Conventional truth works as a means to reach an end.
The ultimate is like the end one tries to reach.
But those who do not see how these should be discerned
Are led by faulty fancies down mistaken paths. (6.80)

As stated in the noble Absorption Revealing Reality:

The knowers of the world themselves declared,
And not by hearsay, that there are two truths:
The relative and the ultimate.
There is no such thing as a third truth.

That beings may benefit from developing
Faith in the bliss-gone ones,
For beings’ sake the Victor taught
The relative to aid the world.

Relatively the Lion of Men would
Identify six classes of beings:
Hell-beings, animals and spirits,
Demigods, humans and gods.

You, so incomparable, taught about beings
Of the world in all their distinctions:
In terms of social rank, the high and low,
As citizens, the rich and the poor,

As slaves and servants,
Men, women and neuters.
The wise who have understood relative truth
Teach in this way to aid the world.

Cyclic beings drawn to these states
Are driven by the eight concerns of beings:
Gain and loss, fame and disrepute,
Praise and blame, pleasure and pain.

When success is gained attachment grows,
While encountering loss upsets their minds;
The rest may be similarly represented.
These eight sicknesses cause constant harm.

Do understand that their judgement is mistaken
Who profess the relative to be the ultimate.
Those who say the repulsive is appealing,
Suffering is pleasure, who claim an inherent self

Where there is no self, who say the impermanent
Is permanent; they hold to signs who are thus inclined,
And when learning of the doctrine of the Sugata
They will fear it, and lacking understanding reject it.

And those who reject the teachings of the Sugata
Will suffer unbearably in the realms of hell.
Immature children who unwisely pursue pleasure
Will endure abundant sufferings.

Only those who do not err, but understand
The teachings that benefit the world,
Can shed them like a worn-out serpent skin,
Pass beyond existence and find peace.

‘All phenomena lack inherent existence,
Are empty and signless – that is the ultimate.’
Those who hear this and rejoice,
Will find the unsurpassed awakening.⁶

Victorious One, you who see the lack of skandhas,
The absence of all elements and sense fields,
That this house of faculties lacks all identity,
O Sage, you see all things to be like this.⁷

So how can there ever be liberation for those separated from the relative and ultimate truths? Hence, these proponents of consciousness certainly stray, following mistaken pathways due to their erroneous ideas.
To teach the conventional truth is a method. As stated:

What is heard and what is taught
Is the inexpressible dharma –
Nothing expressed apart from superimpositions,
But heard and taught nonetheless.⁸

Only by basing oneself on the conventional truth can the ultimate be taught. And by understanding the teachings on the ultimate, the ultimate state can be attained. As stated in the Treatise:

Without relying on the conventional
The ultimate cannot be indicated.
Without relying on the ultimate
Transcendence cannot be reached.⁹

To teach the ultimate is what the method aims to do, what it should result in; meaning that it is what is aimed for, the result, that to be attained, or what should be understood.

Here they might interject: ‘I won’t stand for any more of your discourteous talk! You display some skill in criticising others and have refuted the dependent nature through logical reasoning. But, in doing so you refute the very relative that you accept, as the arguments presented render it illogical.’

You’re like someone who feigns friendship and serves poisoned food to the person who has stolen all your wealth accumulated since beginningless time so that you can get it back. If this is how you prefer to avenge yourself we will relish it. That is excellent! As,

The claims concerning the dependent you have made,
I wouldn’t venture even for the relative.
Although they don’t exist, pragmatically I say
They do, in order to comply with worldly view. (6.81)

For us the relative is not how you independently propose in your philosophical system that the dependent nature is something realised by the noble ones’ wisdom. How is it then? Although without existence, since the worldly consensus is that things exists, we will say so merely to express the viewpoint of the world, since agreeing with them becomes a remedial method. As stated:

The Illustrious One said: The world may quarrel with me, but I have no quarrel with the world. I accept as existent whatever the world claims exists. I accept as without existence whatever the world claims does not exist.¹⁰

Concerning the relative:

For arhats, who have left behind the aggregates
And dwell in peace, these things do not indeed exist.
If that was true for those who dwell within the world,
I wouldn’t say that from the worldly view they do. (6.82)

For the arhats who have entered the realm of transcendence with no remainder of aggregates, the relative does not essentially exist in any way whatsoever. If it was equally non-existent for worldly beings too, then just as with the aggregates of an arhat, I wouldn’t say that it exists from the worldly perspective. Therefore, it is in relation to others that I accept the relative, and not from my own side.

This is only what the worldly claim. And if what they hold must be refuted, then go ahead and refute them; direct it not at another. To express this:

But if you think that they will be no match for you,
Then go ahead and contradict the worldly view.
So let the battle of the world and you commence,
And after I shall follow who’s more powerful. (6.83)

We would find it immensely difficult to refute the relative reality of the world. Still, you go ahead and refute the worldly relative! And if you are not defeated by the world I would have to support you. But the world will prevail, so I will remain neutral. Let the fight between you and the world commence; and if you are victorious we shall agree and follow your lead. But if the world defeats you, that will mean the world is the stronger and we shall follow them.

To this they object: ‘So, although unfounded, you accept the relative out of fear of the world’s disapproval. You should then also accept the position of mind-only so as not to be disproven by scripture and statements such as, “They think, ‘The three realms are mind only.’”’¹¹

Let me explain. Failing to recognise the unique nature of the floor mosaic that is the collected sutras formed by the blue sapphire of the Sugata’s teachings, and thus mistaking it for water, you profess consciousness to be a real entity. Then, wishing to scoop up some of this water by asserting consciousness as a real entity, you attempt to rinse and fill the unfired earthen jar of your intellect causing it to shatter into a hundred pieces, and become the laughing stock of those who understand its nature. The intent of this sutra is not as you think.

If you then wonder what it is, it was explained:

In Present’s presence bodhisattvas realise
The three realms to be nothing more than consciousness,
And seeing that eternal makers are disproved,
They understand the maker to be mind alone. (6.84)

That same sutra elaborates on this point:

… [they] consider in due order the steps of dependent origination. … ‘In this way this mass of suffering, this tree of suffering, manifests with neither creator nor experiencer.’ They think, ‘Because of clinging to a creator, acts are distinguished. Where there is no creator, no acts are ultimately perceived.’ They think, ‘The three realms are mind only. The twelve links of existence distinguished in the teachings of the Tathāgata are all based on a single mind.’¹²

As such, having refuted a permanent creator, they see that relatively it is simply the mind alone that is the creator, and realise the three realms to be merely consciousness.

As for the meaning of the constituent words: Bodhi (awakening/enlightenment) refers to the wisdom of omniscience; and to be intent (sattva) on that, to have a wish for or consideration of it, is what is meant by bodhisattva. Alternatively, bodhisattva is to be guaranteed awakening (bodhi), to possess it, to be there. Or, bodhisattva may refer to an individual sentient being certain to awaken (bodhi). It is an abbreviation with the intermediate word omitted.¹³ Realise (paraiti) means to come to understand. Presence (abhimukha) implies that one is in the presence of the basic space of phenomena (dharmadhātu). Present (abhimukhī) is the name of the sixth ground.

Then, having clarified the meaning of this sutra, it is explained how this sense is also presented a futher sutra:

And hence to fuel the insight of the clever ones,
Make clear the meaning, the Omniscient One expressed
These vajra-words in the Descent Onto Langka
That shatter lofty mountains of misguided views. (6.85)

The verse here indicated by the word these is the following:

The person, continuum, aggregates,
As well as conditions and particles,
Primary principle and a creator god,
These, I say, are mind alone.¹⁴

Such is the verse as extracted from the noble Descent Onto Langka.

To explain the meaning of this it is said:

A maker, such as those we find described within
The scriptures of the various misguided schools,
A person or the like, he could not find – and so,
The Victor said that mind alone creates the world. (6.86)

The word misguided (tīrthya) is used generically, including also Buddhists who entertain concepts about a person and so forth. From one side these are not actually Buddhist, but are just like the misguided because they lack an unmistaken understanding of the teaching. This reference is therefore all-inclusive.

As stated:

Come! Ask the world, those who claim
A person, aggregates – the Sāṃkhyas,
The Aulūkyas¹⁵ , the Jains – if any profess
Transcendence of being and nonbeing.

See thus how the immortal teachings
Of the buddhas, stating the profound,
Beyond being and nonbeing,
Is a dharma that is truly unique.¹⁶

Those who believe in aggregates and so forth may be identified as non-Buddhists. Respective systems (yathāsvam) refers to each of their different philosophies. Hence, this is describing how the misguided believe that such things as the aggregates are creators; and seeing as cyclic existence is beginningless, all sorts of conceptual ideas have already been or will be thought of. At present there are those such as the White Renunciates¹⁷ who do appear to be teaching about the aggregates and so forth.

So, the meaning the sutra conveys is that the Tathāgata did not observe that a person or the like is the creator of things, and taught that mind alone creates the world.

We have now seen how the refutation of a separate creator is implicit, and explained how the word only cannot be used to refute knowable objects. To state in different words how this does not deny external things, it is said:

Awakened indicates awakened to the truth.
And likewise when the sutras speak of only mind
It means that mind alone is foremost for the world.
Denying matter never was the sutra’s goal. (6.87)

Just as we use the term awakened (buddha) as an abbreviation of the expression awakened to reality (buddhatattva), one should understand that the same is the case when saying that the three realms are mind-only (cittamātra), implying that mind alone is primary (cittamātrapradhāna), and negating that anything else is of prime importance. This therefore demotes physical form from the primary role, but is not a refutation of its existence, saying that mind alone exists and that matter is nonexistent.

Thus one must necessarily accept the intent of the sutra to be is as we have explained it. But, considering your tradition:

If mind alone in fact was meant to indicate
Denial of the physical reality,
Then why indeed was mind too by the Mighty One
Described to be from karma and confusion born? (6.88)

The noble Ten Grounds Sutra states that consciousness is caused by confusion and formations, and not that it is intrinsically existent. A consciousness established in and of itself wouldn’t be subject to ignorance or formations; however, it does in fact rely on them. There is therefore no such thing as an inherently existent consciousness. Just as the perception of hairs for one with cataracts, it exists when a distorting condition is present, and not when such a distorting condition is absent. As stated:

Thus the bodhisattvas consider in due order the steps of dependent origination. They think, ‘Not knowing the truths there is ignorance of the ultimate truth. The karma of ignorance ripens as mental formations. The initial mind based on these mental formations is consciousness. The four aggregates subject to grasping arising together with consciousness are name and form. The development of name and form leads to the six sense fields. The defilement that results from the meeting of faculty, object and consciousness is contact. With contact there is feeling. Attachment to feeling is craving. As craving proliferates there is grasping. The defiled karma resulting from grasping is becoming. The result of becoming is birth, and the emergence of the aggregates. As the aggregates develop there is ageing. With ageing the aggregates deteriorate and there is death. The intense agony of shock and longing that accompanies death is grief. The wailing that accompanies grief is lament. Its effect on the five faculties is suffering. Its effect on one’s mental outlook is despair. Great suffering and despair ends in torment. In this way this mass of suffering, this tree of suffering, manifests without a creator, without an experiencer.’¹⁸

‘Ignorance produces two effects: it distorts what sentient beings observe, and provides a cause for mental formations to manifest. Mental formations likewise produce two effects: they make future ripening results manifest, and provide a cause for consciousness to manifest. Consciousness produces two effects: it creates a link to the continuity of existence, and provides a cause for name and form to manifest. Name and form produce two effects: they mutually support each other, and provide a cause for the six sense fields to manifest. The six sense fields produce two effects: they display their respective spheres of activity, and provide a cause for contact to manifest. Contact produces two effects: it provides contact with the object, and provides a cause for feeling to manifest. Feeling produces two effects: it creates experiences that are pleasant, unpleasant and neither of these, and provides a cause for craving to manifest. Craving produces two effects: it makes one desire desirable things, and provides a cause for grasping to manifest. Grasping produces two effects: as above,¹⁹ and it provides a cause for becoming to manifest. Becoming produces two effects: it creates a basis for further types of existence, and provides a cause for birth to manifest. Birth produces two effects: as above,²⁰ and it provides a cause for ageing to manifest. Ageing produces two effects: it causes the decline of the faculties, and provides a cause for one’s encounter with death to manifest. And death produces two effects: it causes the destruction of the compounded, and provides and cause for misapprehension to continue without interruption.’²¹

As these and similar statements make clear, consciousness is taught to be caused by ignorance and mental formations.

Thus, when corrupting conditions are present, consciousness comes into being. In what manner is it then absent when they are absent? This is elaborated upon:

‘As ignorance ceases mental formations cease,’ means that when the condition of ignorance is absent mental formations are stilled and do not persist. ‘As mental formations cease consciousness ceases,’ means that when the condition of mental formations is absent consciousness is stilled and does not persist. …²²

This continues up until:

… They think, ‘When things combine formations increase. When things are separate formations do not increase. When things amass formations increase. When things do not amass they do not increase. We have in this way seen the many adversities that accompany conditioned phenomena, and shall sever this process of combining, this amassing; but shall forsake attaining the ultimate pacification of all that is conditioned in order that we may bring sentient beings to maturity.’

O royal sons. As they, in this way, consider how this conditioning is riddled with adversity, lacks intrinsic essence, is unarisen and unceasing …,²³

This being the case, who in their right mind would, on seeing the scriptural statements presented here, conclude that consciousness has substantial existence? Making that assumption is based purely on belief.

Therefore, when saying mind-only, what is emphasised is that mind alone is primary, and this scripture is not at all implying that there is no physical form. And to indicate how it is mind that is primary, it is said:

It truly is the mind that makes the spectacle
That is the worlds of beings and environments.
It’s stated that all beings’ states are karma-born –
Dispense with mind and there will be karma no more. (6.89)

Here, the world of beings refers to the individual states of existence sentient beings meet with due to their karma and afflictions. The world of the vessel refers to everything from the wind-maṇḍala up to the celestial realm of Akaniṣṭha produced by their shared karma. The variegated facets of such things as the patterns on a peacock’s feathers are produced from the particular karma of that peacock. The varieties of such things as lotus flowers are produced from the shared karma of all sentient beings. Take this to apply to all things in general. As stated:

Just as when one is born on Mount Black,
It is their karma that decides whether
A being is in hell or realms divine,
If trees will be of weapons or of gems.²⁴

Since this is the case, all states of existence arise from karma and karma again is dependent on mind, the reason for this being that it is only sentient life that can accumulate karma, and without mind there is no karma.

It is therefore the mind that is the primary cause for entering the states of existence, not anything else. This is why the sutras posit that mind alone is primary and not physical form. Why?

Though matter is a fact, it can’t claim to possess
The same creative power that the mind displays.

The thinking being that physical form is an inanimate substance.

A maker other than the mind is thus denied,
But that is not to say that matter is disproved. (6.90)

Some claim that such things as the primary principle (pradhāna) is the creator. Some claim that it is the mind. But there is no disagreement about the fact that material form cannot be the creator. Therefore, in order to disprove their belief in such identities as the primary principle as creator, the creative ability that mind alone exhibits is said to be the creator. The justification for saying this is that, as one has then disproved that such things as the primary principle can be the creator, one annihilates the topic of the debate. It is like eliminating one of two opposing kings both vying for control of a country, thus leading one of them to gain domination of the country and leaving the populace unharmed, which is important to both. Here too, for the benefit of both, material form is never denied, so that one may still retain the idea that there is material form.

Since that is what these words communicate:

It is the worldly fact that aggregates are five
While one is placed within the world’s reality.
But when the wisdom of reality they seek
Has dawned, for yogis these will no longer appear. (6.91)

And since this is the case:

If form is absent don’t assume the mind is real.
And don’t insist that form is there without the mind.

When reasoning shows that form does not exist, since the existence of either of them is then untenable one must concede that mind too can’t exist. And, when mind is understood to exist, form should be likewise accepted since both are confirmed by worldly consensus.This may also be seen from the scriptures:

The Buddha would reject them equally within
The wisdom texts – in abhidharma both were taught. (6.92)

The aggregates of form and so forth were all five equally taught in the Abhidharma, through distinctions such as their unique as well as shared defining characteristics. And in the Perfection of Intelligence all five of them were equally refuted in statements such as, ‘Subhūti. Form is inherently empty…,’ until, ‘Consciousness ….’ 

With this it has been proven by scripture and reasoning that:

Dismiss the tiered system of the dual truth,
Your substance is then barred and cannot be maintained.

To claim that, ‘form does not exist, there is only consciousness,’ is to disregard the tiered levels of the relative and ultimate as has been explained. And while disregarding the levels of these truths, your substantial existence still remains unproven. What does this mean? Since substantial existence has previously been refuted, you exert yourself to no avail.

Acknowledge thus that there are levels to the truth:
Birth in the world but never in reality. (6.93)

Here they reply: ‘One may well explain the intent of this sutra in that particular way, but there are certainly other sutras where we also find that only mind exists. As stated:

‘Without external appearances
The mind appears in various ways,
Like bodies, possessions and abodes –
I teach that these are only mind.²⁵

‘Here, bodies refer to the sense fields of the eye and so forth. Possessions refer to objects, such as forms and so forth. Abodes refer to the world of the vessel. Since nothing exists externally separate from mind, it is only consciousness that appears in the form of bodies, possessions and abodes, and these are taken to be external objectively existent things separate from consciousness. Hence, the three realms are mind only.’

The statements of this sutra are also given with intentional ambiguity. To explain:

The sutras where it states that what we see is not
External, but the mind perceived in various ways,

There was an intention behind this, in that

That was provisional, taught to invalidate
The physical for those who are attached to form. (6.94)

This provisional meaning teaching is aimed at those with great yearning for material things, who due to that lose their free will through being overcome by desire, anger, pride and so forth. Their obsession with these things leads to much negativity which in turn destroys the merit and wisdom they have developed. To overcome afflictions caused by material things, the Illustrious One would thus teach such ones that things are only mind, in the same way that he would teach about the skeletons that are not in fact there to desirous individuals in order to overcome desire for external objects.

‘How can one be certain that this is a provisional meaning and not the definitive meaning?’

Based on scripture and reasoning. And in order to show this it was said:

The Teacher did express it as provisional.
Provisionality is shown by reasoning.

It is not only this sutra that is provisional in meaning, but others as well:

This scripture makes it clear that other sutras too
Of similar sort will likewise be the leading truth. (6.95)

And which sutras are of a similar kind? When presenting the three natures – the imputed, the dependent and the thoroughly established – the Unraveling the Intent Sutra²⁶ states that the imputed is nonexistent, the dependent is existent […], and likewise presents statements such as:

Deep and subtle is the carrying consciousness,
Like a river’s current, a flow of every seed.
Since it would be wrong to think of it as the self,
I do not teach it to the immature.²⁷

As stated:

Like a doctor will prescribe medicine
According to various needs of patients,
In the same way the Buddha taught
To beings that there is only mind.²⁸

These scriptural quotes make it clear that this is provisional in meaning. Similarly,

[…]: In the sutras mention is made by the Illustrious One of the tathāgata nature. The Illustrious One describes it as present within the bodies of all sentient beings, a natural pure perfection, primordially unsullied and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence. The Illustrious One says that it is like a precious jewel that is wrapped in filthy garments, wrapped in the garments of aggregates, elements and sense fields, held back by attachment, aversion and confusion, sullied by the taints of misconceptions, something permanent, lasting and unchangeable. How is this tathāgata nature the Illustrious Tathāgata speaks of not the same as the ātman taught by the misguided? Illustrious One, the misguided also describe the ātman as permanent, uncreative, without properties, pervasive and indestructible.

The Illustrious One replied: No, Mahāmati. When I teach the tathāgata nature, it is not the same as the ātman propounded by the misguided. Mahāmati, the tathāgatas, arhats, truly complete buddhas teach emptiness, the ultimate end, transcendence, the unborn, featureless, wishless and so forth as the tathāgata nature. The tathāgata nature is used to indicate the unapparent state of non-conceptuality so that immature beings may lay aside their fear of selflessness. O Mahāmati, the future and present bodhisattvas, great beings, would not maintain belief in a self.

Take as example, Mahāmati, the potter who by using his hands, craftsmanship, tools, water, cord and perseverance can make pots of various shapes from a single lump of clay. In the same manner, Mahāmati, the tathāgatas may teach the lack of self of phenomena, the reversal of all conceptual characteristics, in various modes using intelligence and skilful means such as tathāgata nature or selflessness when suitable. In a way similar to the potter, they teach using all manners of terms and expressions.

This is why, Mahāmati, the teaching on the tathāgata nature is not like the ātman taught by the misguided. Through teaching the tathāgata nature, Mahāmati, the tathāgatas may provisionally lead the misguided who cling to their teachings on the ātman. Thus they teach the tathāgata nature. It is how those who have ended up with ways of thinking that conceptualise a real self may gain the perspective that can accommodate the three liberations, and thus swiftly realise unsurpassable true and complete awakening.²⁹

As it also teaches:

Mahāmati. The features of emptiness, non-arising, non-duality and lack of inherent nature are found in the sutras of all buddhas.³⁰

It has thus been made abundantly clear through this citation that sutras of this type that the proponents of consciousness take as definitive in meaning are in fact all provisional in meaning. To explain how reasoning will also show them to be provisional in meaning:

The buddhas taught that when there is no object known
The knowing of it will be easy to refute.
The known is therefore what’s initially denied,
Because without the known the knowing is disproved. (6.96)

The illustrious buddhas introduce students in stages to the lack of inherence. Meritorious activity makes it easier for one to access the true state of things (dharmatā), and the teachings on generosity and so forth are therefore given first, as a skilful method for accessing the true state. Refuting the known is similarly a skilful way of coming to understand selflessness, and the illustrious ones therefore present the refutation of knowable objects initially, since those who understand the selflessness of the known object will find it easy to relate to the selflessness of the knower. In some cases, those who have understood how knowable objects have no inherent nature, will gain the realisation of the knower’s lack of an inherent nature by themselves. In some cases they will need some guidance. The refutation of knowable objects is therefore taught first.

To encourage intelligent individuals to identify other texts in a similar fashion, it is said:

And thus you should discern the level of the text:
When what is being explained is not reality
But leads one, then the sutra is provisional;
It is definitive if voidness is the theme. (6.97)

Sutras which do not explicitly express interdependent origination through such particular attributes as non-arising and so forth, may be described as aids that help one approach the lack of inherent nature, as when it states:

To counteract attachment to form
You taught about form, saying
‘If the eyes do not apprehend the elements,
How can they apprehend what they give rise to?’³¹

And from a sutra:

Impermanence means non-existence.³²

While they are definitive if the topic matter is emptiness, as found in statements such as the following:

Know that sutras where the Sugata explains
Emptiness are classed as definitive in meaning,
While dharmas where he teaches beings, individuals
And persons are all provisional in meaning.³³

And,

All the sutras that I have taught
In the many thousands of realms
Are identical in meaning though the words differ,
But cannot be fully reiterated.

Through contemplating a single item
One will be practicing all.
Of all the many dharmas
Expressed by the myriad buddhas,

Every dharma relates selflessness.
And if anyone skilled in the meaning
Of things studies this point,
The qualities of Buddha will not be hard to find.³⁴

Similar and more extensive presentations on this matter may be found in various sutras such as the noble Akṣayamati.³⁵

To present one stance on this: The snake is an imputation upon the interdependence of a coiled rope, because it isn’t actually there. A real snake is thoroughly established because it is not an imputation. As in this example, inherent nature is an imputation on what is dependently created. And as we find stated:

Inherent natures cannot be fabricated
And do not depend on anything else.³⁶

Hence, inherent essences cannot be created. The apprehended and reflection-like interdependence which is imputed on is the actual fact from the perspective of the buddhas, since it is then no longer an imputation. Directly perceiving the nature itself, without reference to created entities, they realise the actual reality, and are therefore called buddhas.³⁷

Such an understanding of the three natures – the imputed, the dependent and the thoroughly established – as presented here, helps explain the intention of the sutras. When the duality of apprehended and apprehender does not have a reality beyond the dependent nature, it should be considered whether these two can in fact be imputed on the dependent nature. But this digression shall end here, and we now return to the main subject matter.