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.¹

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.’”’²

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.’³

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.⁴ 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.⁵

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 Aulūkyas⁶ , 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.⁷

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 Renunciates⁸ 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.’⁹

‘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,¹⁰ 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,¹¹ 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.’¹²

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. …¹³

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 …,¹⁴

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.¹⁵

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.