Derge Kangyur/Tengyur e-text, Esukhia/Barom edition — public domain (mechanical reproduction)
This text provides a detailed exegetical analysis of a commentary on the nature of bodhicitta, centering on the tension between ultimate and relative perspectives. The author argues that the ultimate bodhicitta is established through the realization of the primordially unborn nature of the mind and the emptiness of intrinsic nature (svabhāva). By systematically negating the five aggregates, the concept of a permanent self, and even the intrinsic nature of self-knowing wisdom, the work commits the reader to a Madhyamaka framework where phenomena are dependently originated and devoid of essence. However, the text balances this negation with the necessity of the relative path, emphasizing that the realization of emptiness must be coupled with compassion and the conduct of cause and effect. The work guides the reader from the theoretical dismantling of the self toward the practical application of the bodhisattva vow, asserting that the non-dual realization of emptiness and compassion is the only means to accomplish the welfare of both self and others.
Provenance
About this text
An explanation of a commentary on bodhicitta, the Bodhicittavivaraṇaṭīkā is a work of the commentary genre written by the Indian author Smṛtijñānakīrti. The text was translated into Tibetan by Smṛtijñānakīrti and is preserved in the Tengyur, volume ཅི, where it spans 52 pages as part of the Guhyasamāja and Related Tantras collection. Writing within the classical Tibetan period, the author establishes the Madhyamaka view by asserting that the mind is primordially unborn and characterized by the nature of emptiness. The work delineates the distinction between the ultimate bodhicitta—realized through the abandonment of conceptual construction and the negation of the aggregates—and the conventional bodhicitta, which concerns the liberation of sentient beings. A scholar or serious reader consults this text for its detailed exegetical analysis of the tension between ultimate and relative perspectives. It provides a systematic framework for dismantling the concept of a permanent self and the intrinsic nature of self-knowing wisdom, while balancing these negations with the necessity of the relative path, emphasizing that the realization of emptiness must be coupled with compassion and the conduct of cause and effect.
Cite thisAnuvāda, “An Explanation of [Nāgārjuna’s] “Commentary on Bodhicitta”” (Toh 1829), machine draft, 2026.https://naxiai.com/tibetan/works/toh1829
Summary & commentary
Significance
The work is significant for its attempt to synthesize the voidness of the Madhyamaka view with the active compassion of the Mahāyāna path. It serves as a technical manual for avoiding the extremes of eternalism and nihilism while integrating elements of Mind-Only philosophy to explain the destruction of cognitive obscurations.
Structure
Passages
Section
Description
1-11
Foundations of Ultimate Bodhicitta
Establishment of the Madhyamaka view, the nature of the unborn mind, and definitions of the Buddha and bodhisattvas.
12-29
Compassion and the Bodhisattva Path
Discussion of the generation of the virtuous mind, the role of compassion for sentient beings, and the negation of the aggregates.
35-51
Epistemological Negation
Analysis of self-knowing wisdom, the non-duality of space and bodhicitta, and the rejection of the person (pudgala).
57-67
Integration of Emptiness and Conduct
Examination of the conduct of cause and effect, the role of compassion in saṃsāra, and the balance of equanimity and emptiness.
In the language of India: Bodhicittavivaraṇaṭīkā. In the language of Tibet: Byang chub sems kyi ’grel pa’i rnam par bshad pa (An Explanation of the Commentary on Bodhicitta).
Having bowed to the compassionate Teacher, the embodiment of wisdom, who, having realized that things are neither one nor many, has abandoned all conceptual construction, I have composed this explanation.
This was not composed out of pride, nor for the sake of fame or gain; rather, it was undertaken out of faith. Therefore, I pray that the learned will be patient even if they find it worthy of criticism.
Regarding this, the introductory context is as follows: From the Guhyasamāja, the King of Tantras, which is the method for meditating on the unsurpassed, perfectly complete bodhicitta for the sake of male and female yogis—bodhisattvas who practice the conduct praised by the Teacher, the Buddha Bhagavān, the Vajra of Bodhicitta—the root scriptural instructions are taught, beginning with the words, "Free from all entities," and so forth.
The summarized meaning of this consists of: ultimate bodhicitta, the commitment to meditate upon it, conventional bodhicitta, and the method for realizing both of these.
Regarding that, there are four stages in the meditation on ultimate bodhicitta: first, the refutation of the views of the non-Buddhists by showing that [the ultimate] is free from all entities; second, the refutation of the views of the Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas by stating that the aggregates, elements, sense bases, and the grasped and the grasper are abandoned; third, the refutation of the views of the Cittamātrins by stating the equality of the selflessness of phenomena; and [fourth, the refutation of the views of the Madhyamikas who hold to a subtle essence].
By stating, "One's own mind is primordially unborn, the nature of emptiness," the Madhyamaka view is established and presented. Then, with the words "Just as the Buddha, the Blessed One," and so forth, the commitment to meditate on the ultimate bodhicitta is shown. Regarding the generation of the conventional bodhicitta, the four phrases beginning with "for the sake of liberating those sentient beings not yet liberated" demonstrate the liberation, in successive order, of those in the three lower realms, gods, humans, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas. There are also two methods for realization: the aspiration, indicated by "In this way," and so forth, which is the conventional bodhicitta; and the meditation, indicated by "The ultimate," and so forth, which is the ultimate bodhicitta. Thus, there are eleven root topics.
Now, in order to realize the meaning of these in detail, the commentary begins with the words "Then," and so forth. If one asks: where, by whom, from what, what, and for what purpose was this composed? It was composed by the venerable Ārya Nāgārjuna on Śrīparvata, based on the Guhyasamāja, summarizing the Madhyamaka view into the two bodhicittas—ultimate and conventional. The purpose is to eliminate external views and, by prioritizing the wisdom of the lack of intrinsic nature and compassion, to provide a commentary that clarifies the meaning in a concise manner and establishes a systematic sequence. Thus, for the individual who engages in prior analysis, the teaching is presented through these five introductory headings. The topical outline consists of fifteen sections: the homage, the meaning of the beginning and the end, and so forth.
The commitment to explain, the meaning of establishing the ultimate bodhicitta, the meaning of explaining freedom from all entities, the explanation of abandoning the aggregates and so forth, the explanation of the equality of the selflessness of phenomena, the explanation of one’s own mind being unborn and so forth, the meaning of establishing the conventional bodhicitta, and the meaning of the four explanations such as liberating sentient beings who have not been liberated, as well as the qualities of the two types of bodhicitta and the dedication of virtue.
Regarding these, the meaning of the homage is taught from the words "bodhicitta." The meaning of the text from beginning to end is indicated by the words "meditating on bodhicitta destroys existence." The commitment to explain is indicated by the words "I shall explain." The establishment of the ultimate bodhicitta is indicated by the words "self and." The explanation of freedom from all entities is indicated by the words "non-Buddhists and." The explanation of the aggregates and so forth is indicated by the words "the world, self, and so forth." The explanation of the equality of the selflessness of phenomena is indicated by the words "this is mind-only." The explanation of one’s own mind and so forth is indicated by the words "without characteristics, unborn." The meaning of establishing the conventional bodhicitta is indicated by the words "when meditating in that way." The explanation of liberating those not liberated is indicated by the words "by whom the intention." The explanation of those not liberated is indicated by the words "liberating sentient beings." The explanation of providing relief is indicated by the words "the Mahāyāna."
The commentary on the passage leading to nirvāṇa begins with the words "the dhāraṇīs." The qualities of the two types of bodhicitta begin with the words "the mudrā." The dedication is taught starting from the words "the Victorious One." Now, I shall provide a word-by-word commentary on that root text and its commentary.
Regarding that, first, the phrase "free from all entities" is used to refute the non-Buddhists. In this context, "all entities" refers to the outer and the inner. The sixteen inner entities are explained as follows:
Self, sentient being, life-force,
Birth, nourishment, and person;
Individual, human, and man;
Agent, instigator, and feeler;
Knower, seer, arouser, and motivator.
As for outer entities, there are vases,
Blankets, and so forth—an infinite variety of substances.
Because they exist, they perform functions.
"Everything" should be understood as the twelve sense bases (āyatana) in their infinite nature, and not as a finite number. Since all those entities are of that very nature, they are called "all entities." Thus, it is said: "O Brahmin, 'everything' refers exclusively to the twelve sense bases." Because they do not exist when analyzed in their true nature, they are "free"; this is because entities are only pleasing when left unexamined.
To refute the Vaibhāṣikas and Sautrāntikas, the text says "the aggregates" and so forth. In that regard, "aggregates" (skandha) refers to form and so on, because they are heaped together. Furthermore, all forms of the three times—whether beautiful or ugly, large or small—are heaped together as one. Likewise, there are the experiences of pleasure and so forth, and colors such as white and so on.
The five aggregates are: the apprehension of signs such as shape (long and so forth) and quality (beautiful and so forth); the mental factors of the three times; the non-associated formations; and the consciousness that perceives the distinct objects of the three times, which is the consciousness that aggregates the seven collections of consciousness into one. The eighteen elements are the eye element and so forth; they are called "elements" because they hold their own general and specific characteristics, because they hold the meaning of a "type," and because they are the seeds of existence. The twelve sense bases are the eye base and so forth; they are called "bases" because they produce and increase consciousness. The "apprehended and apprehender" refers to the six external sense bases, such as form, and the six internal sense bases, such as the eye, according to the terminology imputed by the Cittamātra; they are so called because the sense faculties apprehend their objects and because the faculties are the apprehenders. Having abandoned these as being ultimately non-substantial, they are explained by the passage beginning, "Form is said to be like foam," which appears below. The refutation of the Cittamātra view is called the "equality of the selflessness of phenomena." In brief, "phenomena" refers to the five aggregates; because they hold their own general and specific characteristics, the scriptures state: "Because they hold characteristics, they are called phenomena." "Selflessness" refers to the basis for the imputed essence and the grasping at "I" and "mine" within the aggregates of the body, which discards the previous aggregates and takes up the subsequent ones, like a snake shedding its skin.
The term "self" is an imputation made by the non-Buddhists. Similarly, in both the Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings, once the self is eliminated, one establishes the state of mere cognition. Just as the aggregates and the self are non-existent, so too is cognition non-existent; therefore, this is called the "equality of the selflessness of phenomena." This is explained below by the passage beginning: "By this mind-only, in various ways..."
Having thus eliminated views such as [the existence of] entities and so forth, the great meaning of the Middle Way is established as follows: "One's own mind is primordially unborn." This means that in the ultimate sense, even mind-only is not produced, because it transcends the extremes of existence and non-existence. It is not like the Ishvara and other creators asserted by the non-Buddhists. If it were something primordially unborn that already existed from the very beginning, it would not need to be produced; if it were a non-entity, then how could that which is non-existent be produced? Thus, as soon as the extremes of existence and non-existence are absent, no production is observed in the Middle Way.
If one asks, "What is its essential nature?" it is the nature of emptiness, like the non-existence of space. For example, although the convention "space, space" exists, when analyzed, it is empty. Accordingly, the Prajñāpāramitā states: "The yoga of meditating on space is the meditation on the Prajñāpāramitā as it has been taught." To demonstrate the commitment to meditate on the ultimate bodhicitta:
Regarding the phrase "Just as the Buddha, the Blessed One," and so forth: the term "just as" introduces an analogy. The "Buddha, the Blessed One" refers to Vairocana and the others, as they are both buddhas and blessed ones. In this context, a "buddha" is so called because, like a person waking up, they have awakened from the sleep of ignorance and, like a blooming lotus, have fully realized all phenomena, thereby expanding their mind.
The term "Blessed One" (Bhagavān) refers to the conquest of the four māras as described in the Śrāvaka vehicle. Specifically, by exhausting the outflows of ignorance, the māra of the afflictions is conquered, because all afflictions arise from ignorance. By exhausting the outflows of existence, the māra of the Lord of Death is conquered, because by abandoning the suffering of conditioned formations, one becomes free from attachment. By exhausting the outflows of views, the māra of the aggregates is conquered, because the appropriated aggregates are the very basis of the view of the transitory collection. By exhausting the outflows of desire, the māra of the Son of the Gods is conquered, because the perverse attachment is abandoned. Having thus conquered the four māras, one possesses the wisdom of exhaustion and non-arising.
Alternatively, in the Bodhisattva vehicle, poverty, the lower realms, ugliness, lack of renown, lack of glory, and ignorance are respectively conquered by the six perfections. Consequently, one possesses the results of sovereignty, excellence, a beautiful form, renown, glory, and wisdom.
Alternatively, in the Mind-Only vehicle of the Tathāgatas, through the manifestation of suchness and the ten powers, the ālaya-vijñāna and the cognitive obscurations are destroyed, and one possesses the mirror-like wisdom (ādarśa-jñāna). Through the manifestation of the limit of reality and the four fearlessnesses, the afflicted mind (kliṣṭa-manas) and the afflictive obscurations are destroyed, and one possesses the wisdom of equality (samatā-jñāna). Through the manifestation of the analytical perfect knowledges (pratisaṃvid) without signs, the conceptualizing consciousness (vikalpa-vijñāna) and the karmic obscurations are destroyed, and one possesses the wisdom of individual discernment (pratyavekṣaṇā-jñāna). Through the direct realization of the ultimate truth and great compassion, the engaging consciousness (pravṛtti-vijñāna) and the obscurations of birth are destroyed, and one possesses the wisdom of accomplished activity (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna). These four are the wisdoms of exhaustion; for that very reason, the wisdom of the knowledge of non-arising is the wisdom of the expanse of phenomena (dharmadhātu-jñāna) in its essential nature. In the Middle Way vehicle of the Tathāgatas, through non-dual wisdom, all obscurations such as the cognitive obscurations are destroyed; because one possesses non-conceptual wisdom, one is the Blessed One (bhagavān). Furthermore, there are four logical possibilities: the first possibility, being a buddha but not a Blessed One, refers to śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, who do not possess the six excellences because they do not practice the six perfections such as generosity. The second possibility, being a Blessed One but not a buddha, refers to bodhisattvas on the ten grounds, because by the power of compassion they have not abandoned saṃsāra.
The third alternative, being both, refers to the tathāgata, because having perfected the pāramitās, they have entered the non-abiding nirvāṇa. The fourth alternative, being neither, refers to ordinary beings (pṛthagjana). Therefore, from the compound expression of the two terms "Buddha" and "Bhagavān," one should understand the tathāgata. Regarding the term "Great Bodhisattva" (mahāsattva): since they are both a "bodhisattva" and a "great being" (sattva), the single word "sattva" is elided, and the term "Great Bodhisattva" is thus intended. In this context, "enlightenment" (bodhi) is the wisdom of omniscience (sarvākārajñatā). One is a "being" (sattva) because of the stability of the mind that cultivates that [wisdom], and because they have accumulated the collection of wisdom, thereby distinguishing themselves from the non-Buddhists (tīrthika). "Great" (mahā) refers to performing the great benefit of infinite sentient beings, and because they have accumulated the collection of merit, thereby distinguishing themselves from the śrāvakas. Alternatively, they are "great" because they possess the seven greatnesses mentioned in the Mātṛkā: being supreme among great beings; cutting through the wrong views of the great realm of sentient beings; great generosity; great intelligence; great power; abiding in the Great Vehicle (mahāyāna); and having donned the great armor, they conquer the māras. Furthermore, there are four alternatives: those who are neither bodhisattvas nor great beings are the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, because they do not act for the benefit of sentient beings.
Those who are great but not bodhisattvas are the great teachers of the outsiders, for they have not abandoned the afflictions. Those who are both and those who are neither are as previously described. Thus, "great bodhisattvas" refers to those on the ten grounds. The phrase "by them" indicates the Buddha Bhagavāns and the great bodhisattvas. "Enlightenment" (bodhi) is the manifest, perfect enlightenment of the suchness of the great samaya vajra; because it is the nature of exhaustion and non-arising, it is the essence of the five wisdoms. Specifically, the four wisdoms—mirror-like wisdom and the others—characterized by exhaustion, and the wisdom of the expanse of phenomena (dharmadhātu) characterized by the wisdom of non-arising, bring about the perfection of enlightenment. Alternatively, enlightenment is the realization of all phenomena without error, which is the characteristic of all things. That itself is "great" because it is distinguished from the two lower [vehicles] and from the perfectly complete enlightenment. In that regard, "generating the mind" is the actualization of the non-dual mind through the power of meditation. The phrase "thus" introduces the subject matter. "By me" refers to the yogi who has entered the gateway of mantra. The word "also" (kyang) implies that it is not only the Buddha Bhagavāns and bodhisattvas [who are involved]. "Time" is the essence of the five aggregates, because it perishes in an instant and is impermanent. "This" indicates direct perception. "Having taken up" means to accept it.
In brief, the phrase "from this time forward" should be understood as the time of the vow made in the presence of the Tathāgata and the Master. "As many as" is a term that refers to an infinite duration of time. "Enlightenment" (bodhi) is as already explained. Its "essence" (garbha) is the "essence of enlightenment," because it accomplishes the desired natural goal. "In" (la) indicates the stable basis. "Abiding" means to be manifest. "Utterly" (rab tu) indicates the measure of reaching the end of time. The remainder has already been explained.
Now, regarding the conventional bodhicitta, the Blessed One taught in fragments throughout the tantras the thought, "I shall deliver those sentient beings who have not been delivered," and so forth. Here, these are unified into a single point. For the time being, the purpose of delivering those in the three lower realms is expressed by the phrase "sentient beings who have not been delivered." Because they are both "not delivered" and "sentient beings," they are "sentient beings who have not been delivered," namely, those in the three lower realms. In that context, "not delivered" means that, being tormented by suffering, their mindfulness of a virtuous mind has degenerated, and thus they cannot escape the three lower realms. The "suffering of suffering" is as follows: heat and cold, hunger and thirst, and so forth. They are "sentient beings" (sattva) because they possess the foundational consciousness (ālayavijñāna) and the mind accumulates virtuous and non-virtuous karma. As it is said in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra: "Karma is accumulated by the mind; the intellect also conceptualizes; karma is realized through perception." Because these [beings] are made to attain the states of gods and humans, they are "delivered."
Through the power of the great miracles, suffering is overcome and the virtuous mind is to be generated. For example, it is like when the Noble Lord Avalokiteśvara went to the hot hells and transformed the hellish ground into a lake, and so forth. Regarding this, it is said:
"Possessing great compassion, he intentionally went to the hells;
He transformed the ground into a lake, and lotuses even grew.
The inhabitants of the hot hells were freed from suffering itself,
And were made to generate a virtuous mind.
Likewise, to those with needle-like beaks and the like,
He brought down a stream of nectar with his hand upon their mouths;
Having overcome their hunger and thirst, he established them in a virtuous mind.
In the form of bees and so forth, he shared their lot,
Causing them to obtain virtue by reciting the names of the Three Jewels."
This is as taught in the Karaṇḍavyūha Sūtra. "The purpose" refers to the necessity of generating the mind of enlightenment (bodhicitta). "The purpose of gods and humans" refers to the phrase "those not liberated" and so forth, because they are bound by attachment and the like. To liberate them by generating non-attachment, loving-kindness, and right view, thereby freeing them from cyclic existence (saṃsāra), is "deliverance," which means establishing them in the factors of liberation. "The purpose of providing relief to the śrāvakas and others" refers to the phrase "those who have not found relief," because they abide in a state of extreme emptiness after having ceased the mind and mental factors. By teaching them the meaning of the Great Vehicle (Mahāyāna), the removal of the fear of cyclic existence is "providing relief," which means engaging them in the welfare of others. "The nirvāṇa of the bodhisattvas" refers to the phrase "completely" and so forth, because by the power of compassion, they remain in cyclic existence.
By teaching the great compassion that does not apprehend those [objects], one passes completely into nirvāṇa; that is, the state of non-abiding nirvāṇa without remainder. The method for generating the conventional bodhicitta is taught by the phrase "in that way," where the word "in that way" indicates what has just preceded. Since all conventional phenomena lack intrinsic nature, the aspect of engaging with all worldly conventions by means of teaching words and letters is called the "conventional aspect," which is distinguished [from the ultimate]. Regarding the phrase "having generated the essence of aspirational bodhicitta": therein, "aspiration" is the essence of seeking, because of the desire to become a buddha for the sake of others. The bodhicitta generated by that aspiration is the great compassion that does not apprehend. Its nature is its essence, which is great compassion; this is the meaning of the term "its own characteristic." "Generated" means produced through the four conditions by way of aspiration, which is to say, it is brought to mind. The method for generating the ultimate bodhicitta by way of meditation is taught starting from the words "the ultimate," and so forth. Therein, the "ultimate" is nirvāṇa—the absence of all suffering as apprehended by the supreme supramundane wisdom—and it is the sphere of activity of the wisdom of the noble ones. Therefore, it is connected to the statement, "one should generate the mind of enlightenment." If one asks, "How is that to be generated?" it is by the power of meditation.
In that regard, the quality of meditative equipoise upon the nature of phenomena (dharmatā) is that which causes attachment to the mind. Its specific capacity is "power," which is the power of wisdom (jñāna). If one asks by what those two types of bodhicitta are generated, the explanation is given by the phrase "by way of the mantra (mantra)" and so forth. In this context, "mantra" means "knowledge and protection," because it is recited after having taught the nature of non-conceptual wisdom and compassion. The mind that initially accepts and takes up that [practice] is "practicing by way of the mantra"; in this context, the "door" is the vehicle (yāna) through which one first enters. "Practice" refers to the stages of clear realization (abhisamaya) involving the maintenance of the samaya vows and the meditation on the moon maṇḍala, seed-syllables, and so forth. To meditate upon those with one-pointed concentration is "conduct." Since they are both "practicing by way of the mantra" and "bodhisattvas," they are called "bodhisattvas practicing by way of the mantra," which refers to male and female yogis. Because they also stabilize bodhicitta, the name of the result is applied to the cause. Alternatively, they should be understood as the bodhisattvas of the Fortunate Aeon (bhadrakalpa).
Now, regarding the composition of the commentary on this Dharma: the phrase "Then, its essential nature is explained" and so forth is used. "Then" is a word used to connect the root text with its commentary. Alternatively, it is an auspicious word, because the letter A is the supreme of all letters, as it is said: "The letter A is the supreme of all syllables." "Its" refers to what is indicated in the root text. "Essential nature" is the fundamental nature of the root.
"Explanation" refers to the commentary. In this regard, first, in order to inspire faith in the mind that realizes the conceptual [reality], to ensure that this own task is brought to completion by pacifying obstacles, and desiring to express the greatness of the qualities of his own teacher, the Blessed One, the noble Nāgārjuna spoke the homage beginning with "The bodhicitta..." and so forth.
In that context, "bodhicitta" is the vajra-like wisdom of great emptiness, because it is the unerring, superior realization of all phenomena. That which has become its nature is "the essence of bodhicitta." The word "self" (ātman) here should be understood as "nature" and not as a view of a self as a knowing subject. Its maturation is the essence of the non-abiding nirvāṇa, the support for all the Tathāgatas of the three times; this is "the form of the essence of bodhicitta," which is the Great Seal (mahāmudrā) of the body of Vajrasattva. This is a praise by way of the excellence of one's own welfare through the accumulation of wisdom.
Furthermore, he is "Glorious" (Śrīmān) because he possesses the excellence of the divine lineage. Alternatively, he is "Glorious" because he possesses the Great Seal of the body of Vajrasattva. This is a praise by way of the excellence of the welfare of others through the accumulation of merit.
"Vajra" is the nature of the five wisdoms and the five families, which is emptiness. Because it destroys the afflictions of perversion, it is a "weapon." Because he holds that as the sign of wisdom in his hand, he is called "the One Who Possesses It" (Vajrin). This is a praise by way of the hand-symbol (mudrā).
"Bowing" refers to prostrating with the body and so forth. In this context, it is a praise arising from the excellence of the welfare of oneself and others. It is performed by touching the five limbs to the ground, joining the palms, and maintaining a mental attitude of veneration. Now, the meaning of the text from beginning to end is stated: "The cultivation of bodhicitta destroys existence." The cultivation of bodhicitta has already been explained. If one asks what that is like, it is the destruction of existence. Here, "existence" refers to the nature of the five appropriated aggregates, as well as the existences of the desire, form, and formless realms, because they arise and undergo change. To destroy existence is to know it to be by nature like an illusion; it is the unerring realization of all phenomena. Regarding the promise to explain, it says, "I shall explain." I, the noble Nāgārjuna, shall provide a commentary endowed with the five points of linguistic analysis. What are these five? They are: etymology, its cause, the example, the application, and the conclusion. The purpose of establishing the ultimate bodhicitta is stated in the passage beginning with "self and aggregates." "Self and aggregates" are as previously described. The word "and so forth" indicates both categories: "self and so forth" refers to the fifteen [categories] such as sentient beings, and "aggregates and so forth" refers to the Buddhas and so on. These are the Tathāgatas of the three times who have attained manifest, perfect enlightenment through the Vajrayāna, equal in number to the atoms of the world, because they have awakened and expanded as previously described.
Furthermore, there are three possibilities. First, those who are perfectly enlightened buddhas (samyaksambuddha) but not unsurpassed are those who have attained buddhahood through the gateway of the Mahāyāna Sūtras, because the Vajrayāna is superior to them. Second, those who are both are the buddhas of the Secret Mantra Vajrayāna, because it is the ultimate. Third, those who are neither are the buddhas of the Lesser Vehicle (Hīnayāna), because the Mahāyāna is absent in them and they have not abandoned the cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa), and thus are not perfectly enlightened buddhas. Such buddhas "desire the bodhicitta"—this is the connection.
If one asks what its definition is: its definition is emptiness; the meaning of the term "general definition" is its lack of intrinsic nature (niḥsvabhāva). "Always" means uninterrupted, throughout the three times of arising and ceasing in each moment. "Desire" means to desire by way of the view of the definition of the Middle Way in the ultimate sense.
If one asks how to meditate on that bodhicitta, it is as stated from "moistened by compassion" and so forth. Compassion is the antidote to harmfulness; its essence is non-hatred, and its definition is that which brings about separation from suffering and its causes. Furthermore, it is the great compassion (mahākaruṇā) endowed with eight aspects: its nature, its aspect, its object, its level, its lineage, its attainment, its granting of refuge to the refuge-less, and its equality with the unequaled.
Regarding those, its nature is the nature that is devoid of the three times. Its aspect is the compassion for the three types of suffering.
The object of focus is compassion for sentient beings throughout the three realms. The levels are the "unprepared" (anāgamya), the "special dhyāna," and the fourth dhyāna, because compassion is directed toward them. The lineage is compassion for śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and ordinary beings. The attainment is obtained through freedom from the afflictions of the desire realm and the peak of existence. The granting of refuge is for those terrified by the great cycle of existence (saṃsāra). Being equal to the unequaled is because of compassion for all infinite sentient beings. Becoming gentle through that is being moistened by compassion, because of the absence of anger. Being moistened by compassion is the very mind itself; thus, it is a "mind moistened by compassion," which is the latent predisposition (vāsanā) of insight for the sake of separating sentient beings from suffering and its causes. The word "by" (kyis) indicates cultivation. The particle "ni" indicates the definitive meaning. Diligence is steadfastness in unerring cultivation. "Should be cultivated" means familiarizing the mind with the qualities of meditative equipoise in bodhicitta. It is said that this bodhicitta was cultivated by the Buddhas of the three times. The teaching begins with "The Buddha’s compassion," and so forth. As for the commentary on the statement "I am previously free from all entities," it begins with "of the non-Buddhists" (tīrthika); the non-Buddhists are the Vaiśeṣikas and others. Their superimposition of the erroneous notion of non-existence is "designation," as they claim, "the self exists." The word "which" (gang gi) is a general indication.
This is a term for whatever is called the "self," the "person," and so forth. That which is connected to it is [the self]. "Reasoning" refers to direct perception and the like. Furthermore, direct perception is that which is free from conceptual construction and non-erroneous, such as the sense faculties and so forth. Inference is the analysis based on the three modes and so forth, such as for one's own sake and the like. "Examination" means investigation. When analyzed through reasoning, it becomes as follows:
"Within the midst of all the aggregates,
No master whatsoever is found."
This teaches that there is no self that is either like a substance placed in a vessel, or one that is inseparable from it. That [self] is permanent, whereas the aggregates exist as impermanent, because they are subject to conditions. A self similar to that is not form; the essence of the self is not impermanent like the aggregates. The non-Buddhists assert that the self is permanent, an uninterrupted continuity that persists even as the aggregates of the body change, entering into one another. Therefore, it is not established that the aggregates themselves are the self in an inseparable manner.
If one asks, "Then is it established like a substance placed in a vessel?" [the text says]:
"Even in the manner of the support and the supported,
There is nothing permanent or impermanent whatsoever."
The support is like the vessel, which are the aggregates. The supported is like the substance, which is the self. Even in such a manner, there is nothing permanent or impermanent. Just as pleasure and suffering do not coexist, the permanent does not coexist with the impermanent; therefore, there is no such thing as a "self."
Thus, if the self is not established, the person and so forth are not established. Therefore, it says, "Because that which is called 'self' does not exist," and so forth.
In this context, "agents" refers to the agent, the instigator, and so forth. Why is this? It is because of the passage beginning with "If the subject exists," and so on. If a self—the subject—were established as the maker, then even if one were to grant the existence of properties such as the agent and the instigator, how could properties such as selflessness possibly exist? They could not. In this context, the "subject" is the self, because it possesses the characteristic of a master. "Properties" and so forth refers to those properties that are grasped as "mine." "The world" refers to saṃsāra, which is impermanent because it arises and perishes. It is definitively understood that if the subject that engages the intention exists, then the properties exist, and if the properties exist, then the subject exists.
Having thus refuted the self, the refutation of the imputed [world] follows. Regarding the phrase "gradually," "gradual" refers to a sequence of before and after. "Simultaneously" means at one and the same time. Why is it that a permanent object is not produced? "Permanent" refers to [entities] such as primordial nature (prakṛti) or Īśvara; for it is asserted that even if the state changes into various other properties, the substance remains exactly as it was. The "object" to be produced by that [permanent cause] is the external thing. Furthermore, when analyzed by reasoning, the object of analysis does not exist, because it depends upon causes and conditions. It is also not established simultaneously, because the world arises in a distinct sequence of before and after. Therefore, the passage beginning with "external and" and so forth is used: "external" refers to things grasped as "mine," such as vases and the like; "internal" refers to the self and so forth. If it is argued that [the world] depends upon causes and conditions, then the passage beginning with "If it has the capacity" and so forth is used; in this context, "if" means perhaps.
"Power" refers to a specific capacity. "If" is an inquiry. "Dependent" means relying. "That" refers to an investigation. "All things" refers to the world-system. "Produced at one time" means created simultaneously and inseparably. "If" is used to pursue an alternative sequence. "If it depends on another" refers to the designation of causes and conditions. Therefore: "It is not permanent and does not possess power," because it is not produced at one time and because it depends on causes. Consequently, if the imputed nature of things does not exist, then when analyzed by knowledge, all things become impermanent. This is because that impermanence involves the arising and ceasing of things moment by moment. In that context, "always" refers to the cause that functions as cause and effect throughout the three times; this is to be understood as the "permanence" of the non-Buddhists. "Thing" has already been explained. "Moment" is the limit of time, because sixty-five temporal divisions cease in the snap of a strong person's fingers. Therefore, because things are impermanent, by what agent could they not be deceived? In this regard, "impermanent" means arising and ceasing in each moment, because the essence passes away immediately after being grasped. "Agent" refers to Īśvara and so forth. "By what could they be deceived?" means that no view possessing truth can ever reverse this; such is the meaning. Having thus refuted the views of the non-Buddhists, the primary view of the Śrāvakas is established, as stated in the passage beginning with "Form and..."
In that regard, form is so called because it is obstructive and tangible. It is of eleven types: the five faculties, the five objects, and non-informative form. Feeling is pleasure, pain, and equanimity; it is also of eighteen types, such as the contact of the eye and so forth. Perception is the nature of grasping at signs. Formations are the characteristics other than the [other] four aggregates. This is because there are countless non-associated [formations], as well as form, mind, and mental factors. If one asks why, when all five aggregates are formations, only this one is designated as the "aggregate of formations," it is because there are fourteen non-associated [formations] that are neither form nor mind. Consciousness is the characteristic of individual cognition; it is the six, such as eye-consciousness, and the mental faculty. These are the five aggregates. There are no six aggregates, as Devadatta’s refutation of four and six [aggregates] shows. As for the teaching, it is because the Lesser Vehicle teaches that the three times, the four discourses, and the four [stages of] definite emergence are also the five aggregates. Why are they taught? It is to benefit the śrāvakas. A śrāvaka is one who hears and listens to the Buddha, the Arhat, and thereby realizes the four stages of definite emergence in a single lifetime. "Benefit" means excellence in the future. Now, regarding the commentary on the verse: "The aggregates, elements, and sense bases, / Completely free from subject and object," it says: "In the world, there is no self and so forth..."
Thus it is said, and so forth. By the word "and so forth," the fifteen [categories] such as the person and so on are included. That which is not established when analyzed is non-existent. Even such a mere aggregate is to be destroyed; in the Mahāyāna, the five aggregates are negated, and the nature of the three realms and so forth is established as mere cognition. Not only are the aggregates negated, but the elements and so forth are also [negated]. If one asks how they are established: "Form is like foam," and so forth. Because it is naturally fragile, it is like foam, for it cannot be touched. Form is also like that. That which perishes immediately after arising is a bubble, for feeling also turns into suffering immediately after a pleasant feeling arises. Because it does not truly appear, it is a mirage; likewise, perception is also like a pillar, for if one analyzes its top, middle, and base, the perception of it does not exist. Because it lacks a core, it is like a plantain tree; likewise, formations, though appearing externally as the phenomena of saṃsāra, lack a core because they are merely dependent origination. Because it deceives others, it is an illusion; likewise, consciousness also appears as if it were a cognition despite the absence of both the knower and the known. Thus, the teaching on the aggregates and so forth is the dharma to be trained in. "In all" means without exception in all their various aspects. "Bodhisattvas" refers to those on the ten grounds. "In" indicates the object. "Taught" means to train accordingly. Thus, it is shown that the five aggregates lack intrinsic nature. What are the foam and so forth?
It is said, "the great elements," and so forth. Earth and the others are the source of all forms, whether large or small, because they pervade all forms with their general characteristics. Therefore, space is not an element because it is all-pervasive. The phenomena arising from these are the actual four great elements. This is clearly explained as the aggregate of form; "clear" means manifest. "The others are formless" refers to the four aggregates of name. They are formless because they are other than form, being without obstruction and ungraspable. Thus, among the five aggregates, it is clear and without doubt that one is form and four are not form, because the four aggregates are phenomena of the mind and mental factors. Regarding the elements and so forth, they are not different from the characteristics of form and non-form, as indicated by the phrase "called the elements," and so forth.
Now, if one asks why form, which is like foam, is not asserted to be a substantial entity, and if one asks why the ultimate limit of form is asserted to be a substantial atom, it is said: "The atoms of form and the formless," and so forth. The final part of form is the atom, which is without obstruction and lacks parts such as front and back. Furthermore, there are two types: the accumulated atom and the substantial atom. The first is so called because it is an accumulation of eight, nine, or ten [substances]. Among these, the accumulation of eight consists of the four great elements, form, odor, taste, and [tangible object].
This is because the eight tangible objects arise through mutual aggregation. Sound is an aggregation of nine, because it is the aforementioned [eight] together with sound itself. The sense faculties, such as the body, are aggregations of ten, because they arise through the aggregation of the nine aforementioned [elements] and the body faculty itself. A substantial atom (dravya-paramāṇu) appears as a single unit. Since that substantial atom is incapable of producing the consciousnesses of the eye and so forth, it is said: "The subtle particle of form is not a sense consciousness," because that subtle particle cannot be apprehended by the sense faculties. In this context, a "sense faculty" is so called because it performs its function, beautifies its support, exercises sovereignty over its respective domain, and exercises sovereignty over the production of its respective consciousness. Its "consciousness" refers to the sixfold collection of consciousnesses. The word "not" means that it does not produce [them]. The reason for this is stated as: "Because it is not capable of producing a consciousness of an object that transcends the five sense faculties," and so forth; this is because it lacks the capacity to produce a consciousness of an object that transcends the five sense faculties. If one asks, "Then what produces them?" the answer is: "They arise from the aggregation of those [particles]." The meaning is that the aggregation of those eight or more subtle particles—such as the objects of a vase or a cloth—produces the consciousnesses of the eye and so forth, but nothing else does. Furthermore, "that aggregation is not asserted [to be real]." An object that is an aggregation of subtle particles, such as a vase or a cloth, is not asserted to be a substantial entity in the ultimate sense. Why is that?
This is because they have the characteristic of disintegration. Therefore, while individual atoms do not produce consciousness, a collection of them does; nevertheless, because such a substance is not ultimately real, there is no external substance that serves as an object of experience. The refutation of the existence of external atoms is stated in the passage beginning with "the directional parts" and so forth. In that context, "directional parts" refers to the six: the four cardinal directions and above and below. Thus, it is understood that such distinctness is analyzed. Consequently, even for an atom that is asserted to lack a front or back part, a division is evident; for a phenomenon existing as a substance, one must admit the four directions and above and below. The word "evident" (mngon) means that it is clear that the meaning of the preceding [passage] regarding vases and so forth applies here. Therefore:
"What conceptualization of corners and the cornered,
How could that be an atom?
In that regard, 'corners' are the six directional parts.
The 'cornered' is the atom, because it possesses corners.
Whatever conceptualization exists in those,
How could that be an atom?"
This means that an accumulation would necessarily possess parts. If one objects: "Does this not contradict the four types of valid cognition—the valid cognition of location, the valid cognition of type, the valid cognition of time, and the valid cognition of functional efficiency?"—the response is: "The external object is of a single type," and so forth. In that context, "external objects" refers to the six, such as form and so on, because of their essential nature. Furthermore, since the external object is of a single type, the phrase "even in a single external object" means "in a single substance of pleasure," for example.
The word "also" (yang) refers to following another enumeration. Regarding the phrase "consciousness enters into bliss," even that bliss is perceived as suffering by the Noble Ones because it is the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkha). That very point is expressed by the passage beginning with "pleasure and so forth," meaning that which produces those [states of] satisfaction and dissatisfaction is the form of the agent, namely the beautiful and the ugly. "That very pleasure and suffering change into something else and something else" means that pleasure turns into suffering. If one asks what the example for this is, it is the passage beginning with "for example, a woman," where "one" refers to the body of a single individual—the body endowed with youth—and it is to that single body. In this context, the "wanderer" (parivrājaka) is a non-Buddhist practitioner who meditates on the foul. The remainder is easy to understand. Therefore, the proofs [adduced] for [the existence of] caste and so forth are simply non-existent.
If it is argued that if external substances do not exist, it would be improper for them to be purposeful, [the text replies]: "The yakṣa in a dream performing a function," and so forth. That dream is seen when one is overwhelmed by the two secondary afflictions and comes under the power of latencies (vāsanā), the elements (dhātu), and non-human beings. Because of that, just as the harm of emitting semen occurs even without the union of a male and female, it performs a function; that is, even though external objects such as forms do not exist, it performs activities such as seeing. Therefore, it is said that they do not have an intrinsic nature (svabhāva), because they perform functions other than the appearance of the mind, and thus lack the nature of a substantial entity. If it is argued that the states of being asleep and awake are not the same:
Regarding the passage beginning with "Just as in a dream," and so forth: just as in a dream one experiences harm despite the absence of a substantial object, so too in the waking state, the performance of a function is established even though external substances are entirely non-existent, because upon analysis, they are merely the delusion of subject and object. If one asks, "What is the nature of this subject and object?" the text says "The apprehended," and so forth; the meaning is that, furthermore, by the power of conceptualization, the mind itself appears as the entities of the apprehended and the apprehender. In this context, the word "greatly" (che ru) means "specifically." That very point is expressed by the reasoning: "Without consciousness, there is no external object whatsoever." Having thus refuted external objects through logic, the establishment of the Great Cognition-Only (rnam par rig pa sems tsam che) is indicated by the phrase "the entity," and so forth. In that regard, "in all respects" refers to the nature of subject and object: the three realms, the three times, and all phenomena, whether moving or stationary. The phrase "therefore" connects to the aforementioned reason. The statement, "It is the appearance of the aspect of form within the manifestation of consciousness," means that although consciousness is ultimately unobstructed, intangible, and non-material, it appears as form which is obstructive and tangible. If one asks, "How can a non-material phenomenon appear as form?" the text says "Just as an illusion," and so forth. In this context, a "city of gandharvas" refers to horses and the like appearing in the sky through the power of delusion. The word "and so forth" includes the moon in water and other such examples.
"Ordinary beings" refers to pṛthagjana, for they are born under the power of afflictions and karma. "Deluded mind" refers to the diverse mind. The phrase "in that way" serves to introduce the subject matter. The word "and so forth" includes sound and the other [objects]. If one asks, "Why did the Blessed One teach the aggregates and so forth?" it is for the purpose of overturning the grasping at a self, and so on. Furthermore, "those" refers to the aggregates and so forth. "Greatly fortunate ones" refers to bodhisattvas, because they possess the fortune to act for the benefit of infinite beings, the fortune to abide in the Great Vehicle, and the fortune to be honored by the offerings of the three realms. "Is established as mind-only" means that the nature of the three realms and so forth is specifically established as mind-only; such is the meaning.
Now, to explain the equality of the selflessness of phenomena: "This mind-only is diverse," and so forth. "Diverse" refers to the moving and non-moving world systems. These are of two types: afflicted and purified. Among them, the afflicted is like the Sahā world system. "Is established" means that it arises from mind-only alone. If one asks, "Of whom?" it is of the proponents of consciousness, that is, the views of the Yogācāras. "Just as the nature of consciousness" means that the nature of mere cognition, exactly as it is, shall now be explained.
Now, the phrase "now" (da ni) marks the beginning of the subsequent section. Regarding that, the purpose of teaching "mind-only" (cittamātra) is indicated by the words "these" ('di dag) and so forth. "All these" refers to the previously mentioned moving and non-moving phenomena. The statement "now, the Sage’s teaching is mind-only" refers to the Buddha, the Blessed One, because his body, speech, and mind are of a nature that is eternally peaceful in every respect.
That which is taught as mind-only is for the purpose of removing the fear of the "fools" (byis pa). In this context, "fools" refers to ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) who have not heard the teachings. Alternatively, it refers to bodhisattvas who have not realized the meaning of the eighteen types of emptiness, as they are inferior to the Tathāgatas. "Removing fear" refers to the anxiety of falling into the view of nihilism, thinking: "If I do not accumulate the collections for three incalculable eons, I will not become a Buddha." Therefore, the meaning is that it is taught as mere cognition (vijñaptimātra).
The word "that" (de) connects to what precedes. "Suchness" (tathatā) is unchanging, as it is the sphere of activity of the Tathāgatas. "Is not" means that even mere cognition does not exist ultimately or as an intrinsic nature. If mere cognition does not exist in that way, one might ask: "How then are the imagined (parikalpita), the dependent (paratantra), and the thoroughly established (pariniṣpanna)?"
"Emptiness is the single essence of the self; thus one should conceptualize it in the mind."
The meaning is that, although the ultimate nature is non-existent, one conceptualizes the three natures based on mind-only alone. What are they? They are the "imagined" and so forth. In that context, the "imagined" refers to the subject-object duality; it is merely an external or internal imputation because it lacks intrinsic nature. The "dependent" is the nature of conceptualization, because it is governed by other causes and conditions. The "thoroughly established" is so called because it is devoid of the conceptualization of subject and object, and because it abides unchangingly. Thus, the teaching of the three natures is as it is said: "The selflessness of phenomena is not [the case for] all phenomena." What is this taught to? It is taught to those who "delight in the Great Vehicle," namely the bodhisattvas. "Great" refers to the great focal objects and so forth: it is the "great accomplishment" because it focuses on the profound and vast Dharma and accomplishes the welfare of oneself and others; it is the "great wisdom" because it possesses the two types of selflessness; it is the "great result" because it accomplishes the non-abiding nirvana through the means of attaining unsurpassed enlightenment and the diligence of three great eons; and it is "great" because its activity for the sake of others lasts as long as cyclic existence endures. Thus, it is explained as the Great Vehicle because it possesses these seven points. Alternatively, the Great Vehicle is the non-conceptualization of existence and peace, because it is the path of those belonging to the three times. In that regard, "delight" is the aspiration for it. Such a mind-only, together with its aspects, is summarized as: "One's own mind is primordially unborn; that, in brief, is it." This is because the arising of phenomena that are either existent or non-existent is untenable.
In brief, this is a concise presentation of the Buddha’s view. "Is" refers to emptiness and the lack of intrinsic nature. Having thus refuted the position of having aspects, the following demonstrates the untenability of the aspectless. First, regarding the nature of the Mind-Only system that is aspectless: "Because one has gained mastery over one's own mind," and so forth. This means that through the power of meditating on the dependent ālaya (storehouse consciousness), conceptualization is abandoned, and one becomes the very essence of the self. The "basis" is the ālaya, because it is the support for the latencies of virtue and so forth. Realizing that and becoming non-conceptual is what is meant by "the transformation of the other into purity," because the stains of conceptualization or the afflictions arising from it have not been removed. If one asks what that is: "The mind is the domain of individual self-cognition." Here, "individual" means it cannot be shown to others, because the dharmatā (nature of phenomena) is inexpressible, like a young girl’s experience of pleasure. To grasp and observe that is what is called "the mind is the domain of individual self-cognition." The Yogācāra are proponents of consciousness, because they cultivate the mere experience of self-cognition. "It is taught" means that the aspectless mind is the essence of nirvāṇa, and that such a thing exists. Having presented the entity, its refutation begins with "That which has passed," and so forth. Here, "that which has passed" is the ālaya which serves as the support. "Non-existent" means it has perished and ceased.
The future is the self-cognizing mind that has become otherwise; that too is not attained because it does not arise. Therefore, the "dependence that becomes otherwise" does not exist in an ultimate sense, because the present exists only in relation to the past and the future. Furthermore, regarding the other reason for the non-existence of the ālayavijñāna (all-basis consciousness), it is stated: "In that way, it does not appear; how could it be so?" If the ālayavijñāna existed, why would its aspects and the nature of its objects not appear in that way? It is not logical for it to be a consciousness if it lacks both objects and aspects. "As it appears, it is not so" means that the six collections of consciousness and the afflicted mind are not the ālayavijñāna in the same way that they appear with their aspects, objects, and manifestations, because they are unable to experience external objects. Therefore, it is a consciousness that is selfless in essence, because it lacks intrinsic nature in the ultimate sense. Such a consciousness, lacking intrinsic nature, is called the "supreme ālaya." In this context, the ālaya is the locus of the seeds of afflicted phenomena, appearing as a mere conventionality. That itself is the "supreme," because within the expanse, the realms, the abodes, and all classes, virtuous and non-virtuous karma appears as a mere conventionality. Thus, the example is shown for how there is movement even though the ālaya does not exist:
Regarding the phrase "Just as," and so forth: just as a magnet moves iron, so too, when the ālaya (all-basis) is absent, all iron-like [phenomena] are moved. Therefore, the phrase "because of that" and so forth refers to the absence of that, which is the absence of the ālaya. "Seeing" refers to seeing it as possessing mind and being in motion, thus becoming an object of the eye. That very point is expressed by the phrase "In the same way, the ālaya," and so forth; its absence therein is the absence of the ālaya, because it does not abide. "As if it were existent" means as if it possessed mind. "Coming and going" refers to their mutual production. The phrase "constantly, like coming and going" indicates that it is not only the contents [the beings] but also the vessel [the world]. Furthermore, the analogy for the long journey when the ālaya is absent is taught by the phrase "Just as the ocean," and so forth.
The application to the meaning is: "In that way, the ālaya-vijñāna / Moves in dependence upon the body." This means that the ālaya, which lacks intrinsic nature, moves for a long time in dependence upon and in connection with the body. In this context, "body" refers to the aggregate of form, because it is a collection of limbs. Therefore, the notion that "consciousness exists even without a body" is a complete conceptual construction. The meaning is that the statement "the ālaya-vijñāna which depends on the body exists eternally even though it is not in the body" is merely a conceptual construction. Consequently, how can one speak of "individual self-cognition"? In that regard, the phrase "by that" refers to the view of Mind-Only (cittamātra) which is without mental aspects (nirākāra).
Therefore, since self-knowing wisdom (svasaṃvedana-jñāna) is merely a conceptual imputation, how can one say that it has an intrinsic nature (svabhāva)? As for the statement, "If self-knowing wisdom exists, one must be able to point out what its intrinsic nature is," this refers to the phrase "self-knowing" and so forth. In that context, "the one who knows it individually" refers to the aspectless Mind-Only (cittamātra) school. "That" refers to self-knowing wisdom. "As a functional entity" means they assert it to exist ultimately. Thus, while they assert it to be a functional entity, they also say, "It is impossible to describe it as 'this'." This means it is not an object of cognition; in that regard, "this" refers to direct indication, and "impossible" means lacking the capacity [to be so indicated].
Therefore, it is said: "In order to produce certainty in others regarding one's own certainty." This means that once the Mind-Only view of self-knowing has been ascertained within oneself as "this is it," one should then produce certainty in others regarding self-knowing wisdom. It is not possible to produce certainty in others regarding something that one has not ascertained oneself; that is the intended meaning. Consequently, regarding the views of the Mind-Only school, it is said: "The excellent ones have thoroughly requested [this]," meaning that those who follow through faith remain certain. If one asks what that is like: "They are always without doubt," because, lacking [conceptual] cognition, they do not engage in analytical investigation.
Furthermore, the refutation of self-knowing is stated in the passage beginning with "by feeling" (vedanā) and so forth. In that context, "feeling" is that which experiences self-knowing.
Feeling is the meaning of self-awareness; "feeling" is the activity of cognizing. Since these three arise in mutual dependence, if there is no object to be felt, there is no feeling. The point is this: first, if the feeler does not feel, it is not suitable to be an object of feeling. Likewise, if the object of feeling and the activity are absent, the feeler does not arise, because one is a feeler only by virtue of feeling the object of feeling. Therefore, why not accept that both the object of feeling and the feeler are non-existent? This is because in the wisdom of individual self-awareness, the feeler and the feeler-as-agent do not occur simultaneously.
If that is so, one might ask: "If there is no such awareness, what is to be done with the mind?" This is addressed by the passage beginning with "this mind," and so forth. In that context, "these minds are mere names" means that the mind of representation is, in conventional terms, a mere name that grasps at signs, because in the ultimate sense it lacks inherent nature. Therefore, if one asks, "What is it that is indicated by the name?" the meaning is that all objects without exception are merely names in conventional terms; the essential nature of all things is "mind-only"—this is the intended meaning. In this context, "name" is that which indicates. Since those names are also seen to be negated in actual experience, it says: "That name also lacks inherent nature." The meaning is that while the consciousnesses of the eye and so forth actually perceive and engage with their respective objects, the names "form" and so forth do not exist as actual entities.
It is as follows: "The limit of a name is the syllable, and the syllable also lacks inherent nature." Regarding the name "vase," the vase is produced.
When born as a human, the vase has already passed away. Thus, how could that which is non-conceptual be said to have an intrinsic nature? Since it is not found to have an essence when analyzed by such knowledge, it is said: "The mind is neither inside nor outside." In this context, "neither inside" means it is not the essence of the wisdom of individual self-reflexive awareness, nor is it the essence of the eye-consciousness. It is also not the essence of the six objects, such as form and so forth. "In between" means it is not found as something other than those very things. Therefore:
"The nature of the mind is like an illusion;
This is the attainment of the Victors."
They are called "Victors" (Jina) because they have conquered the objects of non-virtuous negativity and the afflictions. "Attainment" is not [an attainment] in the ultimate sense, because the essence of the mind does not exist anywhere, such as externally and so forth.
Having thus refuted the essence, the statement that the mind is not any kind of functional entity is expressed by the words "color" and so forth; by "and so forth," the genders are included. The mind does not abide in the form of those [objects], because it is a phenomenon that is not form. In that regard, the mind is the essence of the cessation of the six consciousnesses, serving as the support for the six consciousnesses. That too should be understood as the mind, because mind, intellect (manas), and consciousness are explained to be synonymous.
Such a mind is not even the sphere of activity of the Buddhas in the ultimate sense; this is expressed from the words "the Buddhas" up to "in brief," which is a summary by way of its nature. The two instances of "is not" should be understood as referring to the present and the future. Why is that?
Regarding the phrase "the essence of the lack of intrinsic nature" and so forth: even if, in the ultimate sense, phenomena that lack intrinsic nature were to become the object of the eye, their essence is not established even as a mere conventionality. If it is argued that only form and so forth are the actual reality and nothing else, [the text replies with] "the so-called 'entity' and so forth." In that context, "the so-called entity is conceptualization" means that for the Cittamātrins, the suchness that is thoroughly established or the wisdom of individual self-reflexive awareness is the entity, because its existence possesses the characteristics of the ultimate. "Non-conceptuality itself" means that whatever phenomenon is non-conceptual, the Buddha has taught to be emptiness. Furthermore, non-conceptuality transcends existence, non-existence, and the middle. Emptiness is the lack of intrinsic nature. Therefore: "If conceptualization is seen in something, how can that be called emptiness?" This means: how could the phenomena of selflessness—whether as entities, aggregates, or mere mind, as asserted by the non-Buddhists, the Sautrāntikas, or the Vijñānavādins—ever become emptiness? If all phenomena are thus emptiness, one might ask how the fruit of enlightenment occurs. [The text replies with] "enlightenment and so forth." Even the Omniscient One does not perceive or realize a bodhisattva in the ultimate sense. Thus, regarding that mind and enlightenment, it is said that "enlightenment is not seen"; "in whatever" refers to any view characterized by conceptualization. "Enlightenment" refers to the pursuit of enlightenment.
The view that conceptualizes those two as dualistic is said to be "not seeing awakening," because it has become conceptual and has not become emptiness. Having thus refuted all views, the commentary on the meaning of the Middle Way view—the great awakening mind, which is the nature of one's own mind as primordially unborn emptiness—is as follows. First, to show the definition of the Middle Way awakening: "That which is without characteristics does not arise," and so forth. In this context, "without characteristics" refers to specific characteristics such as color and so on, or to the characteristics of conditioned phenomena such as arising and so on. For that very reason, "non-arising" is because it is neither existent nor non-existent. For example, it is not appropriate for all phenomena to arise as existent, because they have already arisen. That which is non-existent is like the egg of a tortoise. "Words are not expressed" means that because the letters of the names that express words do not occur simultaneously, in the ultimate sense there is no such thing as a "word," just as in the previous case. "Unconditioned" means that the characteristics of the conditioned are not produced simultaneously, nor are they established sequentially. For example, at the time of arising, if there is no abiding, what is it that will arise? Because it does not abide. Even if it were to arise at one time, there would be no abiding. If one asks, "How then is it?" it is said, "And like space." Regarding that, "and like space" is as follows. The awakening mind is non-conceptual wisdom.
Enlightenment is the unerring, manifest realization of all phenomena. The characteristic of non-duality is that space and the bodhicitta are not distinct and are inseparable. For example, just as space exists conventionally but does not exist ultimately, so too the bodhicitta exists as a correct conventionality but does not exist ultimately. That very point is expressed by: "Emptiness and wisdom are like space." This means that because it is both emptiness and wisdom, it is the wisdom of emptiness, lacking any intrinsic nature. Like space, it exists conventionally but is non-existent when analyzed. This point relates to the phrase "known by the Buddha." If one asks what kind of Buddha it is: it is the Buddha who has awakened within the three times, acting as the locus of the three times. Furthermore, if one asks what that is like: "All who realize the essence of enlightenment" because they possess the wisdom of omniscience. The "Great Self" is the great emptiness, because it is asserted to be the nature of the self. Regarding the Buddha endowed with such qualities, the meaning is: "He knows the wisdom of emptiness." Therefore, it is said: "That bodhisattva should be meditated upon." This begins with the words "all phenomena," because the locus of all phenomena is the intrinsic nature of the aggregates and so forth. "Peace" is because it is of an auspicious nature, such as being virtuous in the beginning and so on. "Non-abiding" is the realization that the remedies and their opposing factors lack intrinsic nature. The remainder has already been explained. However: "Non-arising is emptiness."
Regarding the phrase "and so forth": there are no other phenomena such as the aggregates, and emptiness is the realization of that perception. The phrase "it is without an object" means that it is not an object of the mind and mental factors. "Those of weak intellect" refers to those with little learning or beginners. "They do not meditate on that" means that while emptiness serves as the antidote for all [views], those meditators do not meditate upon it. As it is said in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā: "The Victor taught that emptiness cuts through all views; whoever holds emptiness as a view is said to be incurable."
If one asks what the nature of emptiness, characterized by the absence of mind, is: it is "virtue," and so forth. Virtue is the turning away from what is blameworthy, such as the abandonment of taking life. Alternatively, virtue is like the sharpness of the tip of a blade of kusha grass, and that which is the opposite of that is non-virtue. The cognition of these two in their own specific characteristics constitutes the conceptualizations of virtue and non-virtue. The succession of their causal and resultant dependent origination is what is meant by "continuity." Furthermore, because they arise and perish moment by moment, they are characterized by "cessation." The Buddha taught that emptiness is the non-differentiation of such virtue and non-virtue. Therefore, it is said that "nothing other than that emptiness is asserted"; this means that even by all views, in the conventional sense, nothing other than emptiness is asserted for virtue and non-virtue arising from dependent origination.
If one asks what the defining characteristic of the mind of emptiness—which is thus conventional and not otherwise—is, it is said: "The mind that has no object of characterization abides with the characteristic of space." This means that the mind, which cannot be characterized by words such as "existent" or "non-existent," abides in a manner consistent with the characteristic of space. For example, it is what the worldly refer to conventionally as "space." In the ultimate sense, it is like the characteristic of lacking intrinsic nature. Therefore, to comprehend the meditation on space is to be considered a meditation on emptiness. "Comprehension" means realizing the meaning. Thus, the Mother [Prajñāpāramitā] also says: "Subhūti, the meditation on space is the meditation on the perfection of wisdom." Since emptiness is inseparable from all conventional phenomena, it is taught that whatever phenomena are imputed by those who hold views are emptiness. This is expressed in the passage beginning with "emptiness." In that context, emptiness is a lion; just as it terrifies wild animals, it terrifies all proponents of substantial entities, such as the non-Buddhists and others. Thus, the non-Buddhists assert external and internal entities as substantial, the two types of Śrāvakas assert external substances, and the Cittamātra assert mere cognition. Whichever of those [views] one enters, they are all likewise [empty] because they lack intrinsic nature. Having thus generally taught that views are emptiness, the specific teaching that the mind alone is the characteristic of emptiness is expressed in the passage beginning with "whose consciousness..." and so forth.
For the Cittamātrins, that consciousness which has become momentary is not permanent, because all moments are impermanent. Therefore: "By means of an impermanent mind, emptiness is not contradictory," because impermanence and emptiness are inseparable and have the same meaning. Thus, even according to the Cittamātra view, mere cognition must be accepted as being exclusively empty. Furthermore, regarding the phrase "the other knowledge, the impermanence of the mind," and so forth, all four views likewise agree in asserting that the mind is momentary. In that regard, the four views are the Vaibhāṣikas and so on; they are similar in that they take refuge in the Three Jewels and assert selflessness and impermanence. Therefore, regarding the phrase "those [views]," and so forth, since those four types of proponents are [in agreement], it is logical to accept that the mind is emptiness. Furthermore, the Madhyamikas state the reasoning: "The mind is established as being without intrinsic nature at all times," which means that the mind, being primordially unarisen, abides throughout the three times as mere dependent origination. Therefore: "Because things lack intrinsic nature, the lack of intrinsic nature was taught," because when the aggregates and so forth, as well as cognition, are analyzed, they lack intrinsic nature and are therefore without essence. If one also considers the words: "Having abandoned abiding in a master," and so forth, this means that according to the Buddha's view, one abides in the view of selflessness.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to establish and assert the so-called "Mind Only" [doctrine]. Why is that? It is taught that the selflessness of phenomena—emptiness—is not other than the nature of the specific characteristics of phenomena, as in the passage beginning with "of phenomena." The example for this is molasses and so forth; just as sweetness does not discard its heat [or pungency] in any way. That meaning is expressed from the words "all" onwards: the meaning is that when any phenomena, such as the aggregates and so forth, are analyzed, they lack intrinsic nature.
If one asks, "If all phenomena thus become emptiness, would the Madhyamaka view not then become invalid?" [the text replies with] "intrinsic nature" and so forth. The nature of phenomena is merely emptiness, but the causal relationship of dependent origination is not asserted to be empty. If one then asks, "In that case, would it become eternal?" [the text] says "therefore." "Therefore" means that because it is emptiness, the phenomena of cause and effect are merely dependent origination. That very point is stated: "ignorance" and so forth are taught. The twelve links of dependent origination are also merely a connection of cause and effect; it is not that the connection of cause and effect does not exist. In that context, "ignorance" refers to the karma and afflictions of a previous life, which obscure the authentic reality. The word "first" should be understood through the word "and so forth," referring to formative factors and the rest. "Aging and death" refers to the branches from consciousness up to feeling, as these are suffering.
That [twelfth link] is called the "limit" because it merely completes the number twelve, but it is not the ultimate end, for it is the nature of the five links beginning with consciousness in the future life. If one asks what it would be like if it were not done in that way, it is as stated in the passage beginning with "illusion" and so forth. In that context, the "twelfth link" refers to the three segments and three lifetimes in order to dispel confusion: the two links of the previous life (ignorance and formations), the two links of the previous life (birth and aging-and-death), and its own eight [links]. Alternatively, there are the causal links and the resultant links: ignorance, formations, craving, grasping, and becoming are the causes; the remaining ones are the results. The phrase "they assert that" refers to the Madhyamikas' assertion that the twelve links lack intrinsic nature. Thus, by way of their lack of intrinsic nature, regarding the "links" and so forth: from the becoming and grasping of the previous life, ignorance arises in this [life]; from ignorance, formations arise; from those, the five links from consciousness up to feeling arise; then craving and grasping arise; from those, becoming arises; and from that, birth and aging-and-death of the previous life arise. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośa states: "From afflictions, afflictions and actions arise; from those, the bases; from those, the bases and afflictions arise. This is the system of the links of existence." If one asks where they revolve, it is on the path of existence—the cyclic existence of the six realms of becoming, such as the desire realm and so forth. Alternatively: "In the intermediate state, the pre-natal period, and the state of death, one revolves. Whatever conviction there is in the results of karma and feeling..."
"Other than that, there are no sentient beings; the mind arises from dependently originated phenomena." This means that there is no experiencer of the results of karma, such as the "person" (pudgala) imputed by the non-Buddhists. The phrase "other than that" refers to those [imputed entities] and so forth, because they are merely functional things. What is the sequence of that dependent origination? The example begins with "Just as," and so on: when the face and the mirror—the support and the related object—meet, a reflection arises; yet, no sequence is seen between the face and the mirror. Therefore, in that case, there is no production, for the face does not enter into the mirror. Nevertheless, it is not as if it does not exist [therein], for if those two were not present, how could the reflection arise? The meaning of the example is as follows: "produced" refers to arising through the power of afflictions and karma. "In the interval of existence" refers to the boundary between the state of death and the state of birth. "Connection" refers to the intermediate state (antarābhava). The point is this: without an intermediary in the interval, one is born in this and future lives through the power of dependent origination, which lacks intrinsic nature. This is the meaning. Regarding the phrase "even without production," and so forth: "the wise" refers to those skilled in the sixty-two elements, or alternatively, to the Tathāgatas who possess omniscient wisdom. By them, the meaning of birth without production has been established and determined. If one asks what kind of nature those [beings] are born with, it is "empty," and so forth; this is the determination.
Ultimately, it is said that from a phenomenon whose nature is empty, such as ignorance, a phenomenon whose nature is empty, such as formative action, arises. Therefore, regarding what is called "karma and its fruit" and so forth, the experiencer and the object of experience in the process of cause and effect are the characteristics of the conventional; ultimately, the Victorious One has not taught them. Thus, having explained the internal dependent origination, the external is now explained by the words "this also" and so forth. "This" refers to the vessel-like world. "Produced by connection" means produced from the dependent origination of that which is connected. This means that ultimately, in terms of nature, it is produced by the common karma of cause and effect. The example for this is "the sprout" and so forth; just as the sprout and so forth arise as distinct connections even though they do not exist in the seed and so forth, or in the skin and so forth, so too are internal and external phenomena. Therefore, if one asks what they are like ultimately, they are like illusions and so forth. In that context, the "external" refers to the conditioned phenomena of the aggregate of form, because it is the characteristic of dependent origination involving connections. If one asks, "In that case, the phenomenon of cause and effect arising from what does not exist is untenable," the text says "phenomena" and so forth; there is no contradiction in phenomena such as the aggregates arising conventionally from their own seeds or causes. Why is that?
The cause, too, is empty of causality itself. Since the essential nature of that which has become a cause for phenomena is not established, it lacks intrinsic nature. For example, ignorance, which is the cause of the formative factors (saṃskāra), is the result of craving and grasping from a previous life. Likewise, the formative factors, which are the cause of consciousness (vijñāna), are the result of ignorance. Thus, because they appear as the nature of cause and effect in relation to one another, they are merely dependent originations; there is no such thing as an essential nature that can be identified as "this is the cause." Therefore, one should understand that phenomena arising from causes that lack intrinsic nature are themselves non-arising. This is because if a cause exists, there is arising. Phenomena that are thus non-arising are renowned as "emptiness" (śūnyatā). Since their causal nature is non-existent, there is no arising; and phenomena that do not arise are renowned as emptiness—this is the meaning of what the Blessed One (Bhagavān) has taught.
What are these non-arising phenomena? In brief, they are the five aggregates (skandha), the elements (dhātu), and so forth, as taught therein. If phenomena are thus non-arising, from what do they arise conventionally? To this, the text says "just as," and so on. "That very thing" refers to the ultimate lack of intrinsic nature, because it is unchanging. Why is that? Because it is conventional; this is because the two truths are inseparable. Regarding the point that "that very thing is conventional," and why that is: because there is no fixed, unrelated [distinction]. Wherever there is a conventional phenomenon, there is the ultimate emptiness, just like fire and smoke.
The example for this is like the fact that what is produced is impermanent. "Produced" refers to conditioned things, such as a vase; "impermanent" means subject to destruction, because they are under the power of conditions. Thus, it is taught that just as conditioned things exist, they likewise perish.
If one wonders how liberation occurs once suchness and the conventional have become one: regarding the term "conventional" and so forth, the two types of convention are the afflictions. This is because the six root afflictions afflict the mind itself, prevent future virtue from arising, and obscure virtue that has already arisen. Furthermore, this should be understood as ignorance. Therefore, the conventional arises from the afflictions; by the power of the afflictions, the volition of karma, such as virtue and so forth, arises. From karma, the mind also arises; it is taught that the mind, which is the locus for the habitual tendencies of virtuous and other karmas, emerges.
The mind is the habitual tendency of suffering, because that mind is oppressed by the formative habitual tendencies of virtue and so forth. When one knows the nature of those habitual tendencies of suffering and abandons them, it is said: "Having cleared away the habitual tendencies, there is bliss." This should be understood as the mind becoming serviceable. The blissful mind is peace, because it is free from afflictions and views the mind as being in a state of solitude. Therefore:
"The peaceful mind is not deluded,"
because it does not obscure the realization of the authentic reality.
"Through non-delusion, one knows suchness,"
which means the ultimate truth, the nature of emptiness.
"By knowing suchness, one attains accomplishment."
One attains nirvāṇa because of being liberated from the three types of suffering. Therefore, that very supreme bodhicitta is proclaimed to be emptiness, because the emptiness of the lack of intrinsic nature is proclaimed within the context of bodhicitta. The specific qualities of that bodhicitta, which is the emptiness of the lack of intrinsic nature, are taught as follows: it is "suchness" because it is unchanging; it is the "limit of reality" because it is non-erroneous. Suffering refers to the five aggregates, because they are the suffering of conditioned formations. Accordingly, it is said: "The aggregates of saṃsāra are suffering." Thus, the bodhicitta that is suffering and selfless is "suffering and selfless." By the word "and so forth," the signless, the ultimate, and the dharmadhātu are included. Having thus shown the essence of the ultimate bodhicitta, the summary of that meaning begins with the words "Those who..." and so on. "Those who" refers to any yogi whatsoever. "Not knowing emptiness" means not realizing the lack of intrinsic nature of the Madhyamaka bodhicitta. "Lacking the fortune for liberation" means that perfect, complete enlightenment will not be manifested. If one asks what happens because of that, it is said: "Of craving..." and so on. "The deluded" are those who do not correctly understand the meaning of the lack of intrinsic nature of phenomena, because they are attached to all things. The "six classes of beings" are taught according to the worldly perspective, such as gods and so forth.
The meaning is as follows: because the conceptualization of things as having substantial existence arises immediately after failing to realize the meaning of the lack of intrinsic nature, one falls into cyclic existence. This concludes the explanation of the commentary on the ultimate bodhicitta. Now, to establish the correct conventional bodhicitta in detail, it begins with the words "emptiness." In that regard, since the yogi meditates on emptiness in such a manner, the yogi who meditates on that ultimate bodhicitta which lacks intrinsic nature must also meditate on compassion. The yoga consists in the union of compassion and emptiness. Regarding "suchness is for the sake of others" and so forth: the "sake of others" refers to aspiring for and liberating others into higher realms and definitive excellence. The "insight that is attached to the welfare of sentient beings" is the mind of joy. Because one does not harbor doubt in that regard, there is also no uncertainty. The logical reason for the necessity of meditating on compassion is "father and" and so forth. In that context, they are "father and mother" because they provide the seed and nourish the body. The "kindred of father and mother" refers to spiritual friends. They are "benefactors" because they act with excellence. If one asks at what time they were beneficial, it is "in former times," meaning from beginningless lifetimes. Therefore, it is taught that one ought to repay the kindness of sentient beings; one must return their benefit. If one asks why, it is "by the afflictions" and so forth, because they cause harm. If one asks where, it is "in cyclic existence" and so forth.
In this context, the meaning is that just as suffering is bestowed through the power of ignorance, bliss is bestowed at the time of knowledge. If one asks, "Why should one benefit sentient beings?" it is because of the so-called "higher realms" and so forth; this is because gods and humans are the fruits of virtue. The word "whatever" refers to generosity. "Arising" means that by acting for the benefit or harm of sentient beings, the higher realms or the lower states arise. Not only that, but it is called "unsurpassed," which should be connected with the word "attained." Therefore, it says "Brahmā" and so forth: one is a Brahmā because the afflictions of desire are pacified. Rudra is so called because he performs fierce deeds, such as shortening the lifespan, opening the mouth wide, and consuming flesh, blood, and fat. Śakra is so called because he endures existence and is victorious over enemies. The word "and so forth" includes Śakra and the others. "Relying" means to worship and depend upon them. If one asks, "Why is this not a marvel?" it is because one becomes a Buddha by depending upon sentient beings. That very point is expressed by the words "gods" and so forth: they are gods because they enjoy their own light. They are humans because they arise from a mind endowed with knowledge. Alternatively, if derived from a worldly etymology, it is because they are the progeny of Prajāpati. "Fruits of bliss" refers to enjoyments. "This is not non-existent" means that the enjoyments of gods and humans are not non-existent in this world; rather, one should understand that they certainly do exist.
Regarding the phrase "that wealth is for the benefit of sentient beings" and so forth: the word "only" (tsam) indicates that it serves nothing other than to benefit sentient beings. The "three realms of existence" ('gro gsum) refers to the desire realm and so forth, or the subterranean realms and so forth. The meaning is as follows: if one benefits sentient beings with all the wealth of gods and humans that exists within the three realms, one may attain a mere higher rebirth by abiding in the ascetic practices of the Hearers (śrāvaka) and so forth, but one will not possess such wealth. Having thus explained that benefiting others leads to a higher rebirth, the result of the opposite is now stated: hell is the direction to which humans are led by non-merit, because it destroys humans. Because they have passed away without returning, they are hungry ghosts (preta). Alternatively, they are hungry ghosts because they are preoccupied with food and drink. Because they go astray from the state of gods and humans, they are animals (tiryak). The suffering of these beings arises from having caused harm to sentient beings. If one asks what kind of suffering it is, it is said to be "suffering in many forms," meaning the diverse forms of all sentient beings due to the power of cold and so forth. From what does such suffering arise? It arises from "harming sentient beings," because of the fault of [one's own] lack of harmlessness. That very point is expressed by the words "hunger and so forth," where "mutually" refers to the characteristics of self and other. Such suffering is "constant," meaning it is uninterrupted in the lower realms. The specific nature of that suffering is stated to be difficult to avert.
It is not through ritual offerings or miraculous powers, because it is karma that must be experienced with certainty. That which is incurable is not like a disease of the elements, for it arises from sinful karma. Such suffering does not arise from others, as it is said: "The result of harming sentient beings." Regarding the entities of sentient beings, it says "Buddhas," which refers to the four: Śrāvakas, Pratyekabuddhas, and the Unsurpassed Perfect [Buddhas]. There are also those of the Bodhisattva lineage who have attained the stages; these are the sentient beings of purification. "Those in the realms of higher states and lower states" refers to the thoroughly afflicted. The word "those" is a general term. From Buddhas down to hell-beings, they should be understood as exclusively sentient beings. How so? Because they are the very form of ripening. Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are sentient beings who are the ripening of the karma of untainted roots of virtue. Higher states are tainted virtue. Lower states are the non-virtue of that very same [karma]. One should serve those sentient beings with every possible means. The means are body, speech, and mind. Alternatively, they are the practices of generosity and so forth by way of making offerings. Even if one protects them as one protects one's own body, just as one protects one's own body from harm, so too should one act toward sentient beings. Regarding "like poison" and so forth, it means that just as one discards poison, one should also avoid being separated from sentient beings. Therefore, to show that if one is separated from sentient beings, unsurpassed, perfectly complete enlightenment will not be attained, it says "free from attachment" and so forth.
Analytical cessation is "freedom from attachment" because it is separated from cyclic existence. The awakening of the remainderless aggregates, which is of one taste with that [cessation], is "one-taste awakening." Having ceased the mind and mental factors, the mind abides like a lamp without oil. If one asks by what that awakening is attained, it is attained by the Śrāvakas; therefore, it is said, "not abandoning sentient beings," for if one is not separated from cyclic existence, one does not abandon sentient beings. Thus, regarding the phrase "in that manner" and so forth, it is taught that one should not abide in the self-interest of the Lesser Vehicle by contemplating how happiness and suffering arise from benefiting or harming sentient beings. Therefore, regarding the phrase "the sprout of awakening" and so forth, the meaning is that the Sons of the Conquerors meditate without wavering from the essence of the fruit of the sprout of the mind of awakening that arises from the Śrāvakas, but it is not the meditation of others, such as the Śrāvakas. In that regard, the "Sons of the Conquerors" are so called because they have realized the non-conceptual nature of the mind of the Tathāgata. Now, to explain the meaning of "liberating those not yet liberated," it says "by whom" and so forth. "By whom" refers to the Tathāgatas or the Bodhisattvas. If one asks what they are like, it is the meditation on the intended teachings; for the sake of sentient beings in the form realm, they enter the meditative absorption of dhyāna because their minds are one-pointed. That itself is called "the bliss of dhyāna."
The first dhyāna consists of five branches: applied thought (vitarka), sustained thought (vicāra), joy (prīti), bliss (sukha), and one-pointedness of mind (citta-ekāgratā). The second dhyāna consists of four branches: internal clarity (adhyātma-saṃprasāda), joy, bliss, and one-pointedness of mind. The third dhyāna consists of five branches: equanimity (upekṣā), mindfulness (smṛti), correct awareness (saṃprajanya), bliss, and one-pointedness of mind. Having abandoned such bliss, one is "tormented by the suffering of others"; "tormented" is used because of being endowed with compassion (karuṇā). Thus:
"When the snow of compassion is piled up,
By the mass of others' suffering,
It is tormented and melts from the heart;
Tears flow from both eyes and mouth."
The remainder is easy to understand. Thus, to abandon one's own joy and bliss and to accept the suffering of others is marvelous (āścarya); it is seeing a meaning not previously seen, heard, or realized, and it is wondrous (adbhuta) because it is realized upon hearing. "Renown" (kīrti) is fame; "all goals accomplished" refers to those such as Avalokiteśvara. "Sublime ones" (sat) refers to the Buddhas, such as the Illuminator (Prabhāsa). Among their conducts, this is the most excellent, the supreme conduct of the sublime, because it brings about the attainment of the unsurpassed fruit. Therefore, regarding the phrase "seeking one's own body" and so forth: the seven types of giving for one's own sake are contaminated (sāsrava), such as giving to outshine others, to compete, out of attachment, in hope of a return, for the sake of lineage, for the sake of higher realms, or for the sake of fame. The specific distinction of the marvelous is stated in the passage beginning with "phenomena" (dharma) and so forth.
In this regard, having realized that phenomena are empty of intrinsic nature, the engagement in the conduct of cause and effect—such as generosity and so forth—for the sake of others is described as "even more wondrous." These two are analyzed by way of cause and effect: being wondrous by way of the cause is "greatly wondrous," and being wondrous by way of the result is "marvelous."
Now, to explain the meaning of the commentary on "liberating those not liberated," it says "sentient beings" and so forth. In that context, "liberating sentient beings" refers to liberating gods and humans. The contributing condition for that is compassion, as expressed in the phrase "for the sake of liberating sentient beings." Those born from the mud are the Buddhas; among the classes of gods, this is like Vairocana, and among the classes of humans, it is like Śākyamuni, who take birth through the power of compassion. In this context, cyclic existence itself is the mud, because it is a place of attachment and is difficult to cross. Although born within such cyclic existence, one is not stained by its defects because one has realized the meaning of the lack of intrinsic nature.
The analogy for this is "by water" and so forth. As the scriptures state: "Through knowledge, one does not abide in cyclic existence." That very point is expressed in the verse: "By the fire of knowing emptiness..." and so forth. The wisdom of emptiness is the knowledge of emptiness. It is called "fire" because it burns away the afflictions. The meaning is that just as fire consumes the fuel associated with it, so too the Tathāgata exhausts the afflictions associated with non-conceptual wisdom.
However, the phrase "nevertheless" indicates that although he is free from afflictions, he takes birth in saṃsāra through the power of compassion; thus, it says "moistened by compassion" and so forth. The manner of taking birth in the human race is shown by the passage beginning with "death and transition." "Death and transition" refers to the gathering of the continuum of the five sense faculties in order to be produced in another place, the celestial realm. "Taking up the existence of birth" refers to [taking birth] in a lineage such as that of Kapila. "Going to great enlightenment" refers to seeking enlightenment from Kapila. "Leaving the household" refers to going from the city of Kapila to the banks of a river. "Firm in asceticism" refers to subsisting on half a sesame seed for six years. "Conquering the Māras" refers to defeating the ninety-eight [afflictions] such as the mental afflictions, and the four divine Māras in various ways, at dusk and dawn at the foot of the Bodhi tree. The second [wheel] was at Vaiśālī, consisting of sixteen [aspects]. Turning the wheel of Dharma was at Vārāṇasī. In the brahmin land of Gayā, he acted as the chief of the classes of Brahmā, Śakra, Viṣṇu, and so forth, thereby entering the divine race. Such a mere grove is described by the passage beginning with "abiding under the power of compassion." He is the "Protector" because he is generated by migratory beings who desire to attain immeasurable wisdom. Regarding the statement that he causes birth in the divine realms, it begins with the word "Brahmā"; "Upendra" is Viṣṇu, or alternatively, the thirty-two [deities]. Because he appears in their forms, he "abides in their reflections." This is in accordance with the beings to be trained.
Having acted in accordance with the fortune of beings, one makes oneself free of fault. Furthermore, manifesting in the body of whoever is to be tamed, such as Brahmā and others, is what makes oneself free of fault. Therefore, the buddhas act according to their nature, having reflected on compassion; this is what is meant by "one performs all."
Now, to explain the meaning of "providing relief": the passage beginning with "arisen from the Mahāyāna" and so forth indicates that, in reality, there is no vehicle other than the single Mahāyāna, and thus those who teach with a lesser motivation have spoken [of others] as well. Why was it taught? The passage beginning with "by the path of existence" and so forth means that those tormented by the suffering of the cyclic path of existence, which has no beginning or end, are merely placed in a state of rest by being led to cessation, but this is not the ultimate truth. This is the meaning of the fact that the Lesser Vehicle is not the ultimate nirvāṇa because it is not the authentic vehicle. As it is said: "Subhūti, there is but one vehicle, the Mahāyāna."
Regarding how long one remains for that purpose, the passage beginning with "wisdom" and so forth is used. The essence of the single body is the wisdom of utter emptiness, because it stops the movement of the mind and mental factors. Thus, it is as in the phrase "with a mind that is not discouraged." That itself is the knowledge of meditative concentration, because the mind is one-pointedly attached to utter emptiness. To not see the authentic reality is "intoxication." In such a state, the activities of a buddha and so forth [are performed].
If not exhorted, one remains without the mind and mental factors, like those in the states of non-leisure. If one asks what happens when one is exhorted: "By the exhortation, the forms of the hosts of gods..." means that as soon as they are exhorted by the various forms of the Tathāgata’s emanations, which correspond to the fortune of those to be trained, those śrāvakas apply themselves to the welfare of sentient beings by entering the Mahāyāna. Then, nourished by merit and wisdom—from generosity up to patience—the latter two are wisdom. Diligence is the companion of both. Thus, it is taught in the Great Secret Supreme: "The wisdom that is free from ignorance is the emergence of the accumulations." To be nourished by those two is to be sustained. "As soon as that has occurred, the awakening of a Buddha will be attained." The meaning of "the reality of suchness" is because of the two types of habitual tendencies; it is the accumulation of the habitual tendencies of the two accumulations. "Habitual tendencies are taught to be the seeds"; these habitual tendencies become the seeds of existence. "From the concordant seeds and concordant companions": as soon as the seeds of habitual tendencies exist in that way, one possesses the aggregates or the mind and mental factors—phenomena—or their proximate causes, such as parents. "By that, the sprout of existence is produced"; this means that one will be born from within saṃsāra. Thus, although there is but a single vehicle, the Lesser Vehicle is taught. If one asks why, it is because of the teaching and so forth; it is differentiated by the types of dispositions, faculties, and intentions of sentient beings.
By virtue of that, the teaching of the Blessed One follows the inclinations of those to be trained. Therefore:
"The world is of many kinds,
And thus the methods are distinguished in many ways."
"Many kinds" refers to the differences in lineage and so forth. "Lineage" refers to those such as the non-Buddhists. "Faculties" refers to the lowest of the low and so forth. "Fortune" refers to those possessing the fortune of the two accumulations. "Methods" refers to the nine stages of clear realization characterized by meditation, ranging from the Śrāvaka vehicle up to the vehicle of the Tathāgata lineage.
Although all these are distinct, the teaching that in the ultimate sense they are non-dual is expressed by the words "profound and vast," and so forth. In that context, the non-dual insight is "profound" because it is devoid of intrinsic nature. "Vast" refers to the method characterized by meditation, because it is the very differentiation of intrinsic nature. Thus, the state of being dual is referred to as "differentiation."
Therefore, that which possesses both characteristics refers to the general and specific characteristics of the two truths. Although the teaching is thus differentiated by way of the two truths, it is said that in the ultimate sense there is no differentiation. Why is that?
"Because emptiness is the characteristic of non-duality."
"Emptiness" means the absence of intrinsic nature. If one asks what that is like: "Non-duality" refers to the absence of the two—coming and going, arising and ceasing, permanence and annihilation, and oneness and multiplicity. The absence of these is non-duality. Its essence is the characteristic of emptiness as non-duality.
Now, to explain the meaning of "complete nirvāṇa," it is said: "The dhāraṇī," and so forth.
In this context, dhāraṇī refers to the retention of words, meanings, eloquence, and etymologies. Alternatively, it is so called because one holds the three—words, meanings, and mantras—through body, speech, and mind. The grounds (bhūmi) are characterized by the predominance of the perfections (pāramitā), which, through the power of aspiration, expand greatly; they are the various stages or spheres of uncommon wisdom, distinguished by their impermanence. Because they serve as the cause for that, they are called the "perfections of the Buddha," namely the ten grounds. Furthermore, giving material things and so forth is generosity (dāna). Restraint is ethical discipline (śīla). Patience toward the profound Dharma is patience (kṣānti). Application, ritual, and being undaunted, irreversible, and without complacency is diligence (vīrya). Immovability, the welfare of sentient beings, and the actualization of great qualities is meditative concentration (dhyāna). Hearing and so forth is insight (prajñā). Eliminating one's own faults, engaging sentient beings, and the swift attainment of manifest enlightenment is skillful means (upāya). The power to turn back [adversaries], the power to turn back afflictions, and the power to turn back Māras and other speakers is power (bala). Aspiration is the path connected to one's own accumulation. It is the aspiration to accomplish the welfare of others and to completely purify the Buddha-field. Wisdom is non-conceptual, the knowledge of the equality of conceptualization, and the wisdom in which all means are not absent. Because these are completely pure in the three spheres, they are "perfections." These are the aspects of the mind of enlightenment (bodhicitta), such as form and so forth. The Omniscient One has taught that emptiness is a branch of the mind of enlightenment.
One might wonder: if form and the other aggregates are thus empty, does this not fall into the view of nihilism? To this, it says "always" and so forth: by abandoning the ten non-virtues through the three doors, one does not cause harm to sentient beings. Therefore, it says "emptiness" and so forth: although one realizes that, in the ultimate sense, phenomena lack intrinsic nature and are empty, by practicing the ten virtues, the dharma of cause and effect is not severed. In this context, "severance" refers to wrong view. Similarly, regarding the teaching that nirvāṇa exists, it says "nirvāṇa" and so forth: by the power of non-conceptual wisdom, the great beings, the Tathāgatas, do not remain in cyclic existence, and through compassion, they do not remain in peace. If one asks where they abide, it says "in non-abiding nirvāṇa" and so forth: the Buddhas abide in a state where they take birth in existence yet are unstained by the defects of existence. Therefore, it is said that a bodhisattva is like this: "of the single taste of compassion" and so forth. Compassion is the characteristic of feeling the suffering of others' suffering; because it is inseparable from that, it is of a single taste. This is the virtue obtained solely through compassion, for it nourishes and causes it to flourish. The accumulation of wisdom associated with that is the supreme nectar of emptiness; it is the nectar of emptiness because it is like medicine for the suffering of the conditioned formations of saṃsāra. Because it is superior to others, it is "supreme," acting like medicine for the suffering of suffering.
"In order to accomplish the welfare of both self and others" means that this is not like the Śrāvakas, who seek only their own welfare, nor like the Bodhisattvas, who seek only the welfare of others; rather, it means that those who drink this nectar of bodhicitta in order to accomplish the welfare of both are the Sons of the Victors, and in the ultimate sense, they are Bodhisattvas.
Now, the qualities of the two types of bodhicitta are described by the words "to be prostrated to" and so forth. It is worthy of being prostrated to by gods and others. Worthy of whom? Of "that," which refers to the meditation on emptiness and compassion. Why is it so? "By all things," meaning by body, speech, and mind. "Always worthy of offering" means the culmination of all accomplishments. Where is the offering made? "In the three realms," meaning by the goddesses of the realms of desire and so forth. The "speech of the Buddha" is its lineage. "Uninterrupted" refers to its transmission. "They abide in that" means by meditating on emptiness and great compassion. How do they abide? "As guides of the world," meaning they have become teachers who lead others to the higher realms and liberation. Therefore, this supreme Mahāyāna is asserted to abide as "bodhicitta." The meaning is that within the Mahāyāna, compassion and emptiness are the supreme bodhicitta; it is superior to analytical cessation, the thoroughly established nature, and the wisdom of individual self-cognition.
Since that is the case, the phrase "abiding in equanimity" and so forth means that one should apply oneself to the equal balance of compassion and emptiness without falling into extremes, and should cultivate the bodhicitta through the gate of aspiration. Why is this so? It is because of the passage beginning with "the welfare of self and others." The wisdom of emptiness, which is by nature the abandonment of afflictions, is the welfare of oneself. Liberating others from suffering through compassion is the welfare of others. "Ultimate" means fully accomplished. Therefore, there is no other means of accomplishment than meditating on these two in equal measure. That very point is expressed in the passage beginning with "that which is not the bodhicitta itself." The fact that the mere meditation on that very bodhicitta becomes the accumulation of merit is established by the statement: "If it were to take form..." Having thus shown that the merit is infinite, the statement that it is "incalculable" is expressed in the passage beginning with "Whatever person..." Furthermore, if one asks what that bodhicitta is like, it is described by the passage beginning with "afflictions." In that context, "without afflictions" means it is free from afflictions and their associated states, because it does not arise from them. Thus, the mind that is luminous by nature and free from afflictions is called a "jewel," because it is rare and supreme. This is stated as follows:
The meaning is that the Blessed One taught this emptiness of intrinsic nature as the sole bodhicitta, and did not teach the thoroughly established nature and so forth as such. If one asks what that jewel-like mind is like, it is "unrobbed" and so forth; it is "unrobbed" because it cannot be taken over by others. It is "ungraspable" because its essence is non-arising. By what [is it unrobbed]? By the "afflictions, Māras, and so forth"—the word "and so forth" includes the Māra of the aggregates. Because they rob [one] by means of skillful means, they are "thieves." Regarding the explanation of the means for teaching bodhicitta, it says "bodhicitta" and so forth. Because compassion and emptiness are taught, the example of what was taught is "just as" and so forth. Because one has practiced all the conducts such as the liberations and meditative concentrations well, one is "Samantabhadra" (All-Good). Seeking perfect enlightenment through that is the "excellent aspiration." Just as enlightenment is protected by the power of an excellent aspiration for the goal, the vows should also be protected by the power of aspiration and meditation; thus it is shown. That very point is expressed by "for the sake of others" and so forth; it means that one should make the mind unwavering in acting for the sake of others through the gateway of non-referential compassion. Since this is the bodhicitta endowed with such qualities, for the yogi who seeks enlightenment, it says "you all should also [regard it as] marvelous" and so forth; this means that if future sentient beings practice this, there is no other means for attaining buddhahood.
Regarding the attainment of its result, the passage beginning with "Samantabhadra" indicates that just as enlightenment was attained through the aspirations of Samantabhadra, the practitioner of this [text] likewise attains it through aspiration and compassion alone. Now, the author speaks the dedication, beginning with "The Victor," and so forth. Because he is superior to other victors, he is the "Supreme Victor." His nature, which is without intrinsic existence, is the "Supreme Bodhicitta," for it is the most excellent of all forms of enlightenment. To please him, the author offers praise through this commentary. By doing so, the passage beginning with "Exceedingly" indicates that the merit of praising the peerless Bodhicitta is itself peerless. "I" refers to the venerable Nāgārjuna. The "waves of the afflictions and secondary afflictions" in the ocean of the three realms of existence are the waves of the ocean of cyclic existence. Those sentient beings who are submerged in cyclic existence are characterized by sinking, which is connected to the body. With what is this connected? "Today" means until the sun sets, indicating the sense of urgency. The "Foremost of Bipeds" is the Victor. The state of pleasing him is non-abiding nirvāṇa. The meaning is: "By the merit of having done this, may [it] manifest for those sentient beings submerged in the ocean of existence." "Noble" refers to having attained the path of seeing of the noble Dharma. This is because it is a point of training after having heard the path of discernment from the Master.
"Śrī" is so called because he possesses the accumulations of merit and primordial wisdom. "Nāgārjuna" is so called because he was made an object of veneration by the nāgas; it is a name bestowed by the author. "Feet" is a term of respect, for one mentions only the feet, as it is impossible to fully describe the rest of the body. "By" indicates the author. "Composed" means that the commentary was written. "Complete" means that the meaning has reached its conclusion.
Through the translation of this commentary on bodhicitta by Smṛtijñānakīrti, may all wandering beings attain bodhicitta. Lho-brag Dharma-senge requested each dharma teaching after traveling a long distance. This concludes the explanation of the commentary on bodhicitta, translated, explained, and finalized by the Indian abbot Smṛtijñānakīrti.
Translation status: Not among 84000's published translations, and not in progress there. Translations published elsewhere have not been searched for, so one may exist. (source: 84000 catalogue + registry; checked 2026-11-10).
Set in Newsreader and EB Garamond; Tibetan in Noto Serif Tibetan; Chinese in Noto Serif SC.