The Character of the Knowable: The Three Natures

Having spoken of the basis of the knowable, how should the character of the knowable now be observed? Briefly stated, it is of three kinds: first, the dependent character; second, the discriminated, attached-to character; third, the perfectly accomplished character.

Here, what is the dependent character? It is the consciousnesses, having the ālayavijñāna as their seed, that are included within false discrimination. What, further, are these? They are: the body-consciousness, the body-owner-consciousness, the experiencer-consciousness, the experienced-consciousness, the experiencing-consciousness, the world-consciousness, the number-consciousness, the place-consciousness, the language-consciousness, the self-and-other-distinguishing consciousness, and the consciousness of the fortunate and unfortunate destinies, of death and rebirth.

Here, the body-consciousness, the body-owner-consciousness, the experiencer-consciousness, the experienced-consciousness, the experiencing-consciousness, the world-consciousness, the number-consciousness, the place-consciousness, and the language-consciousness — these arise from the seed of name-habituation. The self-and-other-distinguishing consciousness arises from the seed of self-view-habituation. The consciousness of the fortunate and unfortunate destinies, of death and rebirth, arises from the seed of existence-link-habituation. It is through these consciousnesses that the dependent character — false discrimination, included within the defilement of every realm and destiny — is able to appear at all. As these consciousnesses are all included within false discrimination, having consciousness alone as their nature, they are without any real substance, and are the very basis on which the appearance of what is not truly real depends; this is what is named the dependent character.

Here, what is the discriminated, attached-to character? It is the appearance of what seems to be an object within what is, in truth, nothing but consciousness, devoid of any real object. Here, what is the perfectly accomplished character? It is simply this: within that very dependent character, the seeming-object aspect is permanently absent, without any nature of its own at all.

Here, the body-consciousness, the body-owner-consciousness, and the experiencer-consciousness should be understood as precisely the six inner elements — the eye and the rest. The experienced-consciousness should be understood as precisely the six outer elements — form and the rest. The experiencing-consciousness should be understood as precisely the six consciousness-elements — the eye-consciousness and the rest. The remaining consciousnesses should be understood as further distinctions among these.

Moreover, all these consciousnesses are nothing but consciousness itself, entirely without any real object. By what analogy may this be illustrated? It should be illustrated by the analogy of a dream, among others. Just as, in a dream, there is no real object at all, yet consciousness alone exists — although the various forms of color, sound, smell, taste, and touch, houses, forests, land, and mountains, appear as if they were real objects, there is, in fact, no real object present in any of this. By this analogy it should be understood that, at every time and in every place, there is nothing but consciousness alone. In this same vein, it should be understood that there are also the analogies of illusion, of delusion, of the mirage a thirsty deer takes for water, and of the floating spots seen by one whose eyes are clouded.

If, even in the waking state, at every time and place, experience is just like a dream, being consciousness alone, then — just as, upon waking from a dream, one comes to realize that everything within it was consciousness alone — why does the same realization not occur in the waking state? The answer is that it does occur, in just the same way, at the moment of awakening to true wisdom: just as, while still within the dream, this realization does not occur, and occurs only upon waking from the dream, so too, before attaining the awakening of true wisdom, this realization does not occur, and occurs only once the awakening of true wisdom is attained.

For one who has not yet attained the awakening of true wisdom, how can Consciousness-Only be known by inference? It can be known by inference through both scripture and reasoning. As for scripture: the Bhagavat says, in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra, "These three realms are nothing but mind." The Bhagavat also says the same in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, where Maitreya Bodhisattva asks the World-Honored One: "The images that appear as the objects of meditative absorption — should they be said to differ from this mind, or should they be said not to differ from it?" The Buddha tells Maitreya: "They should be said not to differ from it. Why is this? Because those images are nothing but consciousness itself; I have taught that the object a consciousness takes is nothing but what consciousness itself manifests." "World-Honored One, if the images that appear as the objects of meditative absorption do not differ at all from this mind, then how does this mind come to grasp itself?" "Maitreya, no dharma whatsoever is able to grasp any other dharma. Rather, it is simply that, at the very moment this mind arises in such a manner, precisely such an image appears — just as, taking a physical object as condition, one sees that very object, and yet says, 'I now see an image,' and imagines that, apart from the object itself, there is some separate image being seen. This mind is just the same: at the moment it arises in this manner, what appears to be seen is something seemingly other, though it is not."

This is also shown by reasoning as well as scripture. Why is this? Because, within a meditatively concentrated mind, whatever image is contemplated and seen — a corpse turning livid-blue, for instance — there is, in fact, no separate livid-blue object present at all; one sees only one's own mind. By this reasoning, a bodhisattva should be able to infer, with regard to every consciousness, that there is nothing but consciousness, with no external object whatsoever. Moreover, with regard to such livid-blue meditation-images, it is not the memory-retaining consciousness that sees an object actually present before it, since the object is by definition not physically present; and the two memory-retaining consciousnesses produced by hearing and by reflection likewise take only something past as their object — so the image that in fact appears is thereby established as consciousness-only. By this inference, even a bodhisattva who has not yet attained the awakening of true wisdom should be able to infer Consciousness-Only.

Thus far, various consciousnesses have been shown, by analogies such as the dream, to be consciousness-only. Within this, the eye-consciousness and the rest can likewise be established as consciousness-only — but since the eye and the other sense-consciousnesses appear to possess form, how can it be seen that they, too, are nothing but consciousness? This, too, is shown, as before, by both scripture and reasoning. If these consciousnesses, too, are in substance nothing but consciousness, why do they appear as if having the nature of physical form, remaining uniform and stable, continuing on in an unbroken stream? Because they serve as the basis for delusion and the other defiled dharmas. Were this not so, the delusion of taking what is not a real object to be a real object could not occur; and were this delusion not to occur, the defilements of the two obstructions — afflictive and cognitive — could not occur either; and were these not to occur, the pure dharmas that counteract them could not exist either. For this reason, these consciousnesses must function in just this way.

Why is it that the body-consciousness, the body-owner-consciousness, the experiencer-consciousness, the experienced-consciousness, and the experiencing-consciousness all operate together, united within every single body? Because it is only in this way that a complete life of arising and experienced enjoyment can be manifested.

Why is it that the world-consciousness and the other consciousnesses just spoken of operate with such differentiation? Because saṃsāra's flow, since beginningless time, has never once been interrupted; because sentient beings' own realms are innumerable; because the physical worlds they inhabit are innumerable; because the deeds each performs, and the language used to describe them, are innumerable; because what each individually appropriates and enjoys differs innumerably; because the desirable and undesirable karmic results each ripens into, and enjoys, differ innumerably; and because the manifold circumstances of the death and rebirth each undergoes are innumerable.

Furthermore, by what means is it established that these consciousnesses have the nature of consciousness-only? Briefly, by three marks: first, by being consciousness-only, since there is no real object; second, by having a twofold nature, since a distinction can be found between the consciousness that appears as an image and the consciousness that perceives it; third, by manifold-ness, since consciousness arises with manifold appearances. Why is this? Because all these consciousnesses have no real object, consciousness-only is established. Because they have an image-aspect and a perceiving-aspect, a twofold nature is established: in the case of the eye-consciousness and the rest, the consciousness that appears as form and the rest serves as the image, while the eye-consciousness that perceives it serves as the perceiver — and so on, up to the body-consciousness serving as the perceiver. In the case of the mental consciousness, the consciousnesses ranging from all that pertains to the eye at the beginning through to dharmas at the end serve as the image, while the mental consciousness itself serves as the perceiver. It is because this mental consciousness discriminates that it arises appearing as every other consciousness.

Moreover, on this point, there is a group of teachers who hold that there is only a single mental consciousness, which, depending on whichever faculty it operates through, takes on that faculty's corresponding name — just as a single volitional mental action, operating through the body or through speech, is called bodily action or verbal action. Moreover, whenever it operates through any of its supports, it takes on two kinds of image at once: the image that seems to be an object, and the image that discriminates it. And in every case, it also operates as if taking on the image of what is physically touched — for, in the realm of form, this same mental consciousness depends on the body, just as the other, physical sense-faculties depend on the body.

Wherever the ālayavijñāna is posited as the object-consciousness, it should be understood that, in this scheme, every other consciousness is its image-consciousness, while the mental consciousness together with its support is its perceiving-consciousness — since that image-consciousness serves as the condition giving rise to this perceiving-consciousness, and, at the very moment it appears as an object, it thereby serves as the support for the perceiving-consciousness's own arising. This is what is meant by establishing that these consciousnesses have the nature of consciousness-only.

How can it be known that objects, though they appear vividly and distinctly present, are not in fact real? As the World-Honored One has said: "If bodhisattvas accomplish four things, they are able to enter into the understanding that all is consciousness-only, entirely without any real object. First, accomplishing the wisdom of contradictory perceived appearances — as when hungry ghosts, animals, gods, and humans, encountering one and the same thing, each perceive it differently. Second, accomplishing the wisdom that a consciousness without any object can still actually be found to occur — as when something is vividly found within the objects of a dream, or of memory concerning the past or future. Third, accomplishing the undistorted wisdom that should be free of effort — for if a real object were what a cognizing consciousness actually took hold of, that consciousness ought to be undistorted without any need for effort, since its being true would not then depend on effort at all.

Fourth, accomplishing the sublime wisdom that follows three kinds of superior wisdom. What are these three? First, all bodhisattvas who have mastered mind and attained meditative absorption find that objects appear according to the power of their own resolve. Second, those who have attained calm-abiding and cultivate the contemplation of dharmas find that objects appear the very instant attention is directed toward them. Third, those who have already attained non-discriminating wisdom find that, when non-discriminating wisdom is actually present, no object whatsoever appears at all." By these three kinds of superior wisdom and their sublime consequence, together with the three causal reasons stated previously, the principle that objects are without any real existence is established.

As for the dependent nature — truly nothing but consciousness, and the very basis for the appearance of a seeming object — how does it come to be "dependent"? For what reason is it so named? Because it arises from its own habituated seeds, and arises in dependence on other conditions, it is named "dependent"; and because, the instant after it arises, it has no capacity to remain of its own accord, it is, for this reason too, named "dependent."

As for the discriminated, attached-to nature — depending on the dependent nature, though truly nonexistent, yet appearing as a seeming object — how does it come to be "discriminated, attached-to"? For what reason is it so named? Because it is the characteristic, born of distortion, universally discriminated by the mental consciousness across boundless modes of activity, it is named "discriminated, attached-to"; and since its own specific nature is truly nonexistent, with only the act of being discriminated and attached to actually to be found, it is for this reason named "discriminated, attached-to."

As for the perfectly accomplished nature — the permanent absence of any characteristic of the discriminated, attached-to nature — how does it come to be "perfectly accomplished"? For what reason is it so named? Because it has the nature of being without change, it is named "perfectly accomplished"; and because it has the nature of being a pure object, and the nature of being the most excellent of all wholesome dharmas, by this most excellent meaning it is named "perfectly accomplished."

Furthermore, there is a universally-imagining subject, and a universally-imagined object, and it is through these that the discriminated, attached-to nature comes about. Here, what is the universally-imagining subject? What is the universally-imagined object? What is the discriminated, attached-to nature itself? It should be understood that the mental consciousness is the universally-imagining subject, since it possesses discrimination. Why is this? Because this mental consciousness uses its own name-habituation as seed, and also uses the name-habituation of every consciousness as seed, the mental consciousness therefore discriminates in boundless modes of activity, universally imagining and calculating with regard to everything — for this reason it is named "universal imagining." The dependent nature, in turn, is named "the universally imagined." And wherever this very process causes the dependent nature to become what is universally imagined, this is what is named the discriminated, attached-to nature.

Furthermore, how does the universally-imagining subject actually imagine and calculate? What sphere does it take as its object? What appearance does it grasp? Through what does it become attached? Through what does it give rise to speech? Through what does it come to use language? What does it superimpose? The answer: it takes names as its sphere; within the dependent nature it grasps a corresponding appearance; through seeing, it becomes attached; through inquiry, it gives rise to speech; through the four kinds of language — seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing — it comes to use language; and, upon what is without any real object, it superimposes existence. It is by this process that the universally-imagining subject actually imagines and calculates.

Furthermore, are these three natures the same, or are they different? It should be said that they are neither the same nor different. That is: the dependent nature, viewed under one aspect, is the dependent nature; this very same nature, viewed under another aspect, is the discriminated, attached-to nature; and this very same nature, viewed under yet another aspect, is the perfectly accomplished nature. Under what aspect does this dependent nature become the dependent nature? Because it arises from habituated seeds, in dependence on other conditions. Under what aspect does this very same nature become the discriminated, attached-to nature? Because it serves as the object universally imagined, and because it is what universal imagining actually imagines. Under what aspect does this very same nature become the perfectly accomplished nature? Because what is universally imagined ultimately does not exist in the way it is imagined to.

How many kinds does each of these three natures have? The dependent nature, briefly, has two kinds: first, because it arises from habituated seeds, in dependence on other conditions; second, because, in dependence on other conditions, its nature as defiled or pure is not yet fixed. Because of these two aspects, it is distinctly named "dependent." The discriminated, attached-to nature likewise has two kinds: first, the imagining and attachment to something's own specific nature; second, the imagining and attachment to its differentiating qualities — and it is for this reason that it is named "discriminated, attached-to." The perfectly accomplished nature likewise has two kinds: first, the perfectly accomplished nature in its own essential aspect; second, the perfectly accomplished nature in its purified aspect — and it is for this reason that it is established as the perfectly accomplished nature.

Furthermore, universal imagining is of four kinds: first, imagining a thing's own specific nature; second, imagining its differentiating qualities; third, imagining accompanied by awareness; fourth, imagining without awareness. "Accompanied by awareness" means one skilled in language; "without awareness" means one unskilled in language. Universal imagining, again, has five further kinds: first, imagining an object's own nature in dependence on a name — thinking that such-and-such a name has such-and-such a meaning; second, imagining a name's own nature in dependence on an object — thinking that such-and-such an object has such-and-such a name; third, imagining a name's own nature in dependence on a name — imagining a name whose meaning is not yet understood; fourth, imagining an object's own nature in dependence on an object — imagining an object whose name is not yet understood; fifth, imagining both natures in dependence on both — imagining that this very name and this very object have just such an essential nature.

Furthermore, all discrimination, gathered together, is briefly of ten kinds: first, root discrimination — the ālayavijñāna. Second, discrimination of the perceived-object aspect — the consciousness of form and the rest. Third, discrimination of the manifesting aspect — the eye-consciousness and the rest, together with their supporting consciousness. Fourth, discrimination of change within the perceived-object aspect — such changes as aging, changes of pleasant feeling and the rest, changes of craving and the rest, changes brought by harm and by the passage of the seasons, changes among the hell-beings and the other destinies, and changes among the desire realm and the other realms. Fifth, discrimination of change within the manifesting aspect — namely, the changes just described, as they occur within the manifesting aspect itself.

Sixth, discrimination induced by another — discrimination arising from hearing a category that is not the true Dharma, or from hearing a category that is the true Dharma. Seventh, unwise discrimination — the discrimination of non-Buddhist teachers, arising from hearing what is not the true Dharma. Eighth, wise discrimination — discrimination, within the true Dharma, arising from hearing what is the true Dharma. Ninth, discrimination through attachment — discrimination associated with the sixty-two mistaken views rooted in the view of a substantial self, belonging to the category of unwise attention. Tenth, discrimination through distraction — the ten kinds of distraction found among bodhisattvas: first, distraction toward the characteristic-less; second, distraction toward the characteristic-bearing; third, distraction through superimposition; fourth, distraction through denial; fifth, distraction toward identity; sixth, distraction toward difference; seventh, distraction toward own-nature; eighth, distraction toward differentiating qualities; ninth, distraction that grasps the meaning as the name would suggest; tenth, distraction that grasps the name as the meaning would suggest.

It is in order to counteract these ten kinds of distraction that non-discriminating wisdom is taught throughout the Perfection of Wisdom scriptures. This being what is counteracted and what counteracts it, it should be understood that the entire meaning of the Perfection of Wisdom is thereby encompassed.

Furthermore, how may it be known that, just as with the dependent nature, the discriminated, attached-to nature merely appears, without actually matching any real substance? Because, prior to the assignment of a name, there is no corresponding cognition — which contradicts its matching a real substance; because a single thing can have many names — which contradicts its matching a single, real substance; and because a name's meaning is not fixed — which contradicts its matching some single, mixed-together real substance.

Furthermore, why is it that, although what appears has no real existence at all, the dependent nature is not therefore utterly nonexistent in every respect? Because, were this not so, the perfectly accomplished nature, too, would be nonexistent; and were this not so, then everything whatsoever would be nonexistent. If the dependent nature and the perfectly accomplished nature did not exist, this would entail the fault that there could be no defilement and no purification at all. But since defilement and purification are, in fact, actually found to occur, it must therefore not be the case that everything whatsoever is nonexistent.

The buddhas, the world-honored ones, in the Great Vehicle's own extended scriptures, have said: "How should the discriminated, attached-to nature be understood? It should be understood, under a different designation, as utterly nonexistent. How should the dependent nature be understood? It should be understood as being like an illusion, a mirage, a dream, a reflected image, light and shadow, an echo in a valley, the moon's reflection in water, and a magical transformation. How should the perfectly accomplished nature be understood? It should be understood through the teaching of the four pure dharmas. What are these four pure dharmas? First, intrinsic purity — that is, suchness, emptiness, the ultimate limit, the signless, the ultimate truth, and the dharma-realm. Second, purity gained by leaving defilement — that is, this very intrinsic purity, once free of every obstructing stain.

Third, purity of the path by which this is attained — that is, all the factors of enlightenment, the perfections, and the like. Fourth, purity of the object that gives rise to this — that is, the wondrous, true teaching of the Great Vehicle. Because this teaching serves as a pure condition, it is not the discriminated, attached-to nature; and because it has the nature of what flows forth from the purest dharma-realm, it is not the dependent nature either. These four dharmas, together, entirely encompass every pure dharma there is."

Furthermore, for what reason does the sūtra, as quoted, speak of illusion and the other similes with regard to the dependent nature? It is in order to remove others' mistaken doubts concerning the dependent nature. What mistaken doubts, then, do others hold? They hold doubts of this kind: How can there be an object actually experienced, when in truth there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of an illusory object is spoken. How can mind and mental factors operate, when there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of a mirage is spoken. How can there be experienced differences of the desirable and undesirable, when there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of a dream is spoken. How can the differentiated results — desirable and undesirable — of pure and impure karma arise, when there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of a reflected image is spoken.

How can the manifold consciousnesses operate, when there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of light and shadow is spoken. How can manifold discursive speech operate, when there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of an echo in a valley is spoken. How can there be an object genuinely grasped as the sphere of various meditative absorptions, when there is no object at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of the moon in water is spoken. How can bodhisattvas, whose minds are free of distortion, deliberately choose to take rebirth for the sake of accomplishing benefit and happiness for sentient beings, when there is no object — no being — at all? To remove this doubt, the simile of a magical transformation is spoken.

With what hidden intent did the World-Honored One say, in the Brahma-Questions Sūtra, that "the Tathāgata neither attains birth-and-death nor attains nirvāṇa"? The answer: within the dependent nature, in dependence on the discriminated, attached-to nature and the perfectly accomplished nature, there is a hidden intent that birth-and-death and nirvāṇa are without difference. Why is this? Because this very dependent nature, through its discriminated, attached-to portion, constitutes birth-and-death, and, through its perfectly accomplished portion, constitutes nirvāṇa.

In the Abhidharma-mahāyāna-sūtra, the Bhagavat says: "Dharma is of three kinds: first, the defiled portion; second, the pure portion; third, that which is both." With what hidden intent was this said? Within the dependent nature, the discriminated, attached-to nature is the defiled portion, the perfectly accomplished nature is the pure portion, and the dependent nature itself is that which is both; it is with this hidden intent that this was said. By what analogy may this meaning be illustrated? It is illustrated by the analogy of a gold-bearing ore-vein. Just as, in the ordinary world, three things can be found within such a vein — the earth-element, the soil, and the gold — within that earth-element, the soil, though not truly real, actually appears, while the gold, though truly real, does not yet appear; but once it has been smelted by fire, the appearance of soil no longer shows, and the appearance of gold shows instead.

Moreover, this earth-element, when soil appears, appears falsely; when gold appears, appears truly — and it is for this reason that the earth-element is that which is both. Consciousness is just the same: before the fire of non-discriminating wisdom has smelted it, the false, discriminated, attached-to nature present within this consciousness appears, while the true, perfectly accomplished nature present within it does not appear. Once this consciousness has been smelted by the fire of non-discriminating wisdom, the true, perfectly accomplished nature present within it appears, while the false, discriminated, attached-to nature present within it no longer appears. It is for this reason that this consciousness of false discrimination — the dependent nature — is that which is both, just as the earth-element is, within a gold-bearing ore-vein.

In some places the World-Honored One has said that all dharmas are permanent; in other places, that all dharmas are impermanent; in still other places, that all dharmas are neither permanent nor impermanent. With what hidden intent was this said? The dependent nature, through its perfectly accomplished portion, is permanent; through its discriminated, attached-to portion, is impermanent; and through both portions together, is neither permanent nor impermanent. It is with this hidden intent that this was said. Just as there is this apparent non-duality of permanent and impermanent, so too is there non-duality of suffering and pleasure; of pure and impure; of empty and not empty; of self and non-self; of quiescent and non-quiescent; of having own-nature and being without own-nature; of arising and not arising; of ceasing and not ceasing; of being originally quiescent and not being originally quiescent; of being intrinsically in nirvāṇa and not being intrinsically in nirvāṇa; and, likewise, of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa. All such differentiated sayings, spoken with hidden intent by all the buddhas, should be resolved and understood through the three natures, following the same pattern just shown for "permanent" and "impermanent."

There are, further, four kinds of intention and four kinds of hidden meaning, by which all the Buddha's sayings should be resolved and understood. The four intentions are: first, the intention of equality — as when it is said, "I myself, long ago, at that time and in that portion of the eon, was already the Fully Awakened One Vipaśyin." Second, the intention of a different time — as when it is said, "Whoever recites the name of the Tathāgata Many Jewels thereby attains certainty of unsurpassed, perfect awakening"; or as when it is said, "By merely making the vow, one attains rebirth in the Land of Bliss."

Third, the intention of a different meaning — as when it is said, "Only one who has already served as many buddhas as there are grains of sand in the Ganges is able to understand the meaning of the Great Vehicle." Fourth, the intention accommodating an individual's own disposition — as when, for a single individual, generosity is first praised and then afterward criticized; and it should be understood that the same applies to moral discipline and to a portion of meditative cultivation as well. These are what are named the four kinds of intention.

The four hidden meanings are: first, the hidden meaning that leads one to enter the teaching — as when, in either the Śrāvaka Vehicle or the Great Vehicle, it is said, according to conventional truth, that there is a person, and that dharmas have their own differentiated natures. Second, the hidden meaning of characteristics — as when, in a given passage, the characteristics of dharmas are spoken of in a way that actually discloses the three natures. Third, the hidden meaning of counteraction — as when, in a given passage, the eighty-four thousand practices that serve as antidotes to the afflictions are spoken of.

If one wishes to compose a commentary on Mahāyāna scripture, one should, briefly, compose it by means of three approaches: first, by explaining dependent origination; second, by explaining the character of the dharmas arising from those conditions; third, by explaining the meaning of the words. As for explaining dependent origination, it is as this verse says:

Furthermore, the characteristic-bearing dharmas of those actively-evolving consciousnesses have both an image-aspect and a perceiving-aspect, consciousness alone being their nature. And they have, as their characteristic, the basis they depend on, what is discriminated and attached to, and the dharma-nature itself — and it is through this that the characteristics of the three natures are disclosed. As it is said:

Furthermore, how should these characteristics be explained? The discriminated, attached-to characteristic is, in truth, entirely absent within the dependent characteristic; the perfectly accomplished characteristic is, in truth, genuinely present within it. Because of this twofold absence and presence, this twofold not-attaining and attaining, the one who has not yet seen the truth and the one who has already seen it occur, in a sense, together at once. That is: within the dependent nature, the discriminated, attached-to is absent, while the perfectly accomplished is present. When this shift actually occurs, attaining the one means not attaining the other, and attaining the other means not attaining the one. As it is said:

As for explaining the meaning of words: one first states an opening phrase, and then uses the remaining phrases to differentiate and disclose its meaning — whether by way of qualities, or by way of practices. By way of qualities: this means speaking of the Buddha's own qualities, as in this passage: "the utterly pure awakening; manifesting without duality; proceeding toward the signless dharma; abiding in the abode of a buddha; having attained the equality of all buddhas; having reached the place beyond all obstruction; the dharma that cannot be turned back; operating without any impediment; establishing what is inconceivable; roaming through the equal dharma-nature of the three times; a body pervading every world-system; without any doubt regarding the wisdom of all dharmas; having accomplished great awakening with regard to every activity; without any uncertainty regarding the wisdom of all dharmas; manifesting bodies that cannot be differentiated one from another; the wisdom sought by all bodhisattvas alike; having attained the non-dual abiding of a buddha, reaching the further shore; the ultimate, unmingled, wondrous wisdom of the Tathāgata's liberation; realizing the equality of the buddha-ground, without center or edge; extending to the very limit of the dharma-realm, to the utter extent of space, to the farthest reach of future time." "The utterly pure awakening" — it should be understood that this opening phrase is differentiated and disclosed by all the remaining phrases; it is in just this way that the dharma-nature comes to be well explained.

"The utterly pure awakening" refers to the Buddha, the World-Honored One's own utterly pure awakening, and it should be understood as encompassed by the Buddha's twenty-one kinds of qualities: the quality of operating, with regard to the knowable, unfailingly without obstruction; the quality of entering the utterly excellent purity of suchness — the characteristic of neither existence nor nonexistence; the quality of abiding, without effort, unceasingly in buddha-activity; the quality of there being, within the dharma-body, no difference among its basis, its resolve, and its activity; the quality of having cultivated the antidote to every obstruction; the quality of subduing every non-Buddhist teacher; the quality of being born into the world yet not being hindered by worldly things; the quality of establishing the true Dharma; the quality of bestowing predictions of future buddhahood; the quality of manifesting the enjoyment body and the transformation body throughout every world; the quality of severing doubt; the quality of causing beings to enter manifold practices; the quality of the sublime wisdom that will arise regarding future dharmas; the quality of manifesting in accordance with each being's own resolve; the quality of taming sentient beings through countless supports; the quality of having brought the equal dharma-body's perfections to full completion; the quality of manifesting differentiated buddha-lands in accordance with each being's own resolve; the quality of the three buddha-bodies being without any limit of place; the quality of constantly manifesting benefit and happiness for all sentient beings to the very end of saṃsāra; and the quality of being inexhaustible, and so on.

Furthermore, as for explaining by way of practices: this is as it is said — "If bodhisattvas accomplish thirty-two dharmas, they are then named bodhisattvas." These are: arousing superior resolve for the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings; causing beings to enter the wisdom that knows all things in every mode; knowing oneself — "what wisdom, then, do I now truly possess?"; subduing conceit; steadfast, superior resolve; compassion that is never feigned; an even mind toward the intimate and the unintimate alike; remaining a true friend permanently, even to the very limit of nirvāṇa; speaking only what is fitting; always speaking first, with a smile; boundless great compassion; never faltering in what one has undertaken; never feeling weariness or fatigue; never tiring of hearing the meaning of the teaching; seeing deeply into one's own faults when one has done wrong; instructing, without anger, one who has done wrong; constantly cultivating and refining the mind of awakening in every posture and activity; practicing generosity without hoping for a ripened reward; upholding moral discipline without relying on rebirth in any particular destiny; practicing patience toward all sentient beings without any obstruction of resentment; practicing diligence solely in order to gather in every wholesome dharma; relinquishing attachment to the formless realm in order to cultivate meditative concentration; cultivating wisdom joined together with skillful means; gathering in beings through skillful means by way of the four means of attraction; holding no duality between friends who keep the precepts and friends who have broken them; listening to the true Dharma with a reverent mind; dwelling in the forest with a reverent mind; taking no delight in worldly, mixed affairs; never once delighting in the lesser vehicle; seeing deeply into the qualities present within the Great Vehicle; keeping far from bad friends; drawing near to good friends; constantly cultivating the four sublime abidings; habitually delighting in the exercise of the five supernormal powers; relying on wisdom itself as one's guide; never abandoning any sentient being, whether abiding in right conduct or not; speaking with resolve; holding truthfulness in high regard; and constantly placing the great mind of awakening first. All these phrases, it should be understood, are differentiations of the opening phrase — arousing superior resolve for the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings.

This phrase, "superior resolve for benefit and happiness," has, it should be understood, sixteen distinct kinds of activity: first, the activity of gradually advancing effort; second, the activity free of distortion; third, the activity of spontaneous effort, not waiting to be asked by another; fourth, the activity that is never shaken or destroyed; fifth, the activity free of desire and defilement, with three further distinctions — being free of the bondage of attachment, being without love or hatred toward those who have shown kindness or unkindness, and continuing on, unwaveringly, through birth after birth; sixth, the activity of speech and body that fit the occasion, with two further distinctions; seventh, the activity of equanimity toward pleasure, toward pain, and toward what is neither; eighth, the activity free of anything base; ninth, the activity free of any retreat or reversal; tenth, the activity of gathering in through skillful means; eleventh, the activity of being wearied by what is to be counteracted, with two further distinctions; twelfth, the activity of uninterrupted attention; thirteenth, the activity of superior, advancing practice, with seven further distinctions — the actual practice of the six perfections and of the four means of attraction; fourteenth, the activity of effort brought to full completion, with six further distinctions — drawing near to good teachers, listening to the true Dharma, dwelling in the forest, abandoning unwholesome thoughts, attending to good qualities (itself further twofold), and the good qualities of one's companions (itself further twofold); fifteenth, the activity of accomplishment brought to completion, with three further distinctions — immeasurable purity, the attainment of great power, and the realization of buddha-qualities; sixteenth, the activity of establishing that accomplishment in others, with four further distinctions — skillfully guiding an assembly, instructing and admonishing with unwavering certainty, unifying the gathering-in of wealth and of Dharma, and a mind free of any defiled admixture. All these phrases, it should be understood, are differentiations of the opening phrase.