Beyond Cause, Beyond Concept, Beyond Seeing

Sūtra: Ānanda said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, it is truly as the Dharma-king has said: this awareness and its conditions pervade the ten directions, calm and ever-abiding, its nature beyond birth and death. But how does this differ from what the ancient brahmacārin Kapila taught as the 'obscure principle,' or from the various non-Buddhist schools of ash-smeared ascetics who likewise speak of a true self pervading the ten directions? World-Honored One, you also once, on Mount Laṅkā, expounded this very point to Mahāmati and the others: that those non-Buddhist teachers constantly speak of spontaneity, while you yourself teach causes and conditions — a realm entirely different from theirs. As I now observe it, this nature of awareness seems spontaneous, neither arising nor ceasing, far removed from every falsehood and inversion — it seems to be neither a matter of causes and conditions, nor the 'spontaneity' those others speak of. How, then, can I be shown a way that avoids falling among these various false views, and attains the true mind, the wondrously enlightened, bright nature?"

Commentary: This whole major section shows that seeing surpasses every ordinary category. Because the nature of seeing, unchanging in itself, still follows every condition, it is not "spontaneous"; and because, following every condition, it still remains unchanging, it is not a matter of "cause and condition" either. Both "spontaneous" and "caused" are merely clinging concepts born of false thought — the nature of seeing belongs to neither, hence "surpassing every category." "It is truly as the Dharma-king has said" refers back to everything the Tathāgata has already taught in the previous displays about seeing's pervading, constant nature. "This awareness and its conditions" refers to the nature of seeing itself — since it directly depends on the very nature of awareness, and possesses the capacity to condition upon its objects, it is called "awareness and its conditions." "Pervading the ten directions" describes the nature's own all-pervading quality — established already in the displays showing seeing undivided from all it sees, sharing one substance without division, and seeing unmixed with objects, all-pervading, belonging to no one but oneself; both of these displays together establish this sense of pervasiveness. "Calm" is like a cold, still pool of water, motionless — taken up from the display of seeing unmoving, where body and surroundings stir while seeing itself never moves, and the display of seeing unobstructed, where body and mind, perfectly bright, never leave the place of practice. "Ever-abiding" is taken up from the display of seeing having nowhere to return, where, if this is truly your own mind, it has nowhere to go at all, and the display of seeing never truly lost, where, however much it is called upside-down, it was never actually forfeited from beginningless time. "Its nature beyond birth and death" is taken up from the display of seeing imperishable, where what does not change was, from the very start, beyond birth and death entirely. All these earlier displays together establish this sense of constancy. Ānanda, building on all of this, now gives rise to a new doubt — suspecting that this teaching resembles a non-Buddhist doctrine, and so concluding it must be "spontaneous."

The "ancient brahmacārin" refers to brahmacārins of ages past, who claimed descent from Brahmā himself, resolved to be reborn in the Brahmā heaven — that is, the brahmin caste. The "obscure principle" is the very first of the twenty-five principles taught by non-Buddhist schools, the primordial, self-existing basis of reality. The Sāṃkhya teachers held that this obscure nature is permanent, capable of giving rise to the twenty-three further categories beginning with "the great principle" — a doctrine that seems, on the surface, to resemble what has just been taught here: calm, ever-abiding, its nature beyond birth and death. "The various non-Buddhist schools of ash-smeared ascetics" refers to those who, at times, throw themselves into ashes, and at times smear ashes over their own bodies, practicing austerities that bring no real benefit at all; "and so on" includes other such schools as well — those who pull out their own hair, inhale smoke through the nose, sleep on thorns, starve themselves, or keep the vows of a rooster or an ox — all of them minds wandering outside the true path. As for "speak of a true self pervading the ten directions": non-Buddhist schools hold three kinds of self — the great self, the small self, and the indeterminate self. Since this teaching, "this awareness and its conditions pervade the ten directions," resembles their notion of the great self, Ānanda wonders how the Tathāgata's own teaching of pervasiveness and constancy differs from theirs at all.

This next passage cites the Buddha's own earlier teaching. "Mount Laṅkā" means "the place that cannot be reached" — no one lacking spiritual powers is able to arrive there at all. Mahāmati was the interlocutor at that assembly on Mount Laṅkā. The Buddha once, on that mountain, taught Mahāmati and the others at length the distinction between the Buddhist teaching and non-Buddhist doctrine. As for "those non-Buddhist teachers constantly speak of spontaneity," Master Qingliang observes: "Teachers of the 'no-cause' doctrine hold that all things arise and cease spontaneously, with no cause and no condition at all." This doctrine denies cause and effect altogether and rejects any path of cultivation and realization — which is exactly why the Buddha taught cause and condition, to refute it, hence: "I teach causes and conditions — a realm entirely different from theirs." "Cause" here means the intimate, direct cause, like a seed; "condition" means the supporting, contributing circumstance — inwardly, the nature shared by the three vehicles depends on wholesome seeds accumulated across past lives as its cause, and further depends on the Tathāgata's own teaching as an external, supporting condition, before the fruit realized by any of the vehicles can arise at all; outwardly, even a simple grain of rice depends on a seed as its cause and on water and soil as its condition before a sprout can arise. This is entirely different from what those non-Buddhist teachers claim — hence, "a realm entirely different from theirs."

The opening line here judges Ānanda's own view to match the non-Buddhist position. His thought: as I now observe it, this awareness and its conditions, this nature of seeing, likewise turns out to be spontaneous. The next three lines mistakenly appropriate the very qualities the Tathāgata has just revealed about the nature of seeing, using them as proof of this very claim: "not arising" — because it has always, inherently, existed; "not ceasing" — because it can never, in the end, be destroyed, exactly the meaning already established in the displays of seeing never lost and never perishing. Wherever there is motion, return, mixture, obstruction, or division, all of this belongs to falsehood and inversion; the earlier displays revealed seeing to be free of motion, free of return, unmixed, unobstructed, undivided — hence, "far removed" from all of this. This is, in truth, the correct principle of the Great Vehicle, far surpassing every ordinary, non-Buddhist speculation — yet Ānanda, failing to grasp this, instead seizes upon it as proof of spontaneity, hence, "it seems to be neither a matter of causes and conditions, nor the spontaneity those others speak of." Since spontaneity is exactly the non-Buddhist doctrine the Buddha himself had earlier refuted, and Ānanda now suspects the Buddha's own present teaching resembles that same spontaneity, this is precisely a doubt about whether the present teaching contradicts the Buddha's own earlier teaching. "How, then, can I be shown a way that avoids falling among these various false views" means: Ānanda does not yet know whether the Buddha's present teaching agrees with or differs from the non-Buddhist doctrine of spontaneity — how, then, can it be explained clearly enough for him to distinguish the two properly, avoid falling among these false views, and attain at once the true mind, free of empty argument, thereby realizing the full substance and function of this wondrously enlightened, bright nature?

Sūtra: The Buddha said to Ānanda: "I have now explained this to you through every skillful means at my disposal, telling you the truth as directly as I can, and yet you still have not awakened, but instead mistake it for spontaneity! Ānanda, if this truly were spontaneous, you ought to be able to identify clearly some definite substance that is spontaneous in itself. Consider now, within this wondrously bright seeing, what would count as this spontaneous self: is it brightness that is this seeing's own self? Is it darkness? Is it emptiness? Is it obstruction? Ānanda, if brightness were this self, then you ought not to be able to see darkness at all; and if emptiness were this very substance, you ought not to be able to see obstruction. And so on: if darkness or any of the rest were taken as this self, then, at the time of brightness, the nature of seeing ought to be entirely cut off — so how could you still see brightness at all?"

Commentary: This refutes spontaneity. The Buddha first addresses Ānanda by name and gently rebukes him: through eight displays now, I have explained this teaching at great length — sometimes directly, sometimes by indirection, sometimes plainly, sometimes obliquely, every kind of skillful means — all of it meant to convey to you a single, true reality; and yet you still have not awakened to seeing as the true root, and instead mistake it for spontaneity — does this not fail everything I have taught you? If you truly insist that this all-pervading, unmoving awareness, whose nature is beyond birth and death, is spontaneous, then you ought to be able to point out clearly some definite substance that is spontaneous in itself.

This next passage questions Ānanda directly on the point. The wondrously bright, true seeing perceives every condition equally — the Buddha asks him to observe: within this wondrously bright seeing, which of these conditions counts as its spontaneous substance? These two lines pose the question generally; what follows then questions him specifically, one by one, regarding brightness, darkness, emptiness, and obstruction. "Brightness as this self" means taking whatever sees brightness as the spontaneous substance — the following three cases follow the same pattern. This is then refuted: if seeing brightness were the spontaneous substance, it ought, by its very nature, to remain unchanging — since it is taken as brightness itself, it ought only ever to see brightness; yet when brightness departs and darkness arrives, it ought not to follow this change at all, and so ought to be unable to see darkness — only then could it truly count as spontaneous. The same logic applies to taking emptiness as this self, and so on; skipping ahead, the same applies to taking obstruction as this self — it ought then to be unable to see emptiness. "Darkness or any of the rest" refers to the black-moon depth of midnight, clouds and fog obscuring the sky, and every other such mark of darkness — if darkness were taken as the spontaneous substance, it ought by nature never to follow the condition of brightness at all, and so the challenge follows: at the time of brightness, darkness having ceased, the nature of seeing itself ought to be cut off entirely — so why, then, does it still see brightness perfectly well at the time of brightness? Since brightness arriving is met with seeing brightness, and darkness arriving is met with seeing darkness, this is exactly following conditions — where, then, is there any true spontaneity in this at all?

Sūtra: Ānanda said: "Since this wondrous seeing's own nature is surely not spontaneous, I now conclude that it must instead arise from causes and conditions. Yet my mind is still not clear on this — I ask the Tathāgata: how, exactly, does this fit the nature of cause and condition?" The Buddha said: "You speak of cause and condition — let me ask you further: right now, because of seeing, the nature of seeing appears before you — is this seeing present because of brightness? Because of darkness? Because of emptiness? Because of obstruction? Ānanda, if it were present because of brightness, you ought not to be able to see darkness; if it were present because of darkness, you ought not to be able to see brightness — and so it goes for emptiness and obstruction as well, exactly the same as with brightness and darkness. Further, Ānanda: does this seeing instead arise conditioned upon brightness? Conditioned upon darkness? Conditioned upon emptiness? Conditioned upon obstruction? Ānanda, if it arose conditioned upon emptiness, you ought not to be able to see obstruction; if it arose conditioned upon obstruction, you ought not to be able to see emptiness — and so it goes for brightness and darkness as well, exactly the same as with emptiness and obstruction."

Commentary: Having just heard spontaneity refuted, Ānanda now turns his doubt toward causation instead. His thought: since this wondrously bright nature of seeing is surely not spontaneous, I now conclude it must certainly arise from causes and conditions instead. Yet this "conclusion" is not genuine wisdom illuminating true principle — it is merely a conclusion reached by process of elimination — hence his mind is still not truly clear, and he must ask the Tathāgata how everything taught so far about seeing's pervading, constant nature actually fits the nature of cause and condition. He is, in truth, still unclear that the present teaching falls into neither spontaneity nor causation at all.

The previous passage refuted spontaneity by way of true suchness's own capacity to follow conditions; this passage refutes causation by way of true suchness's own unchanging nature. "Cause" is the intimate, direct cause, like a seed; "condition" is the supporting circumstance, like water and soil — hence the refutation proceeds in two separate stages, first by cause. The Buddha says to Ānanda: you claim my present conclusion is that seeing arises from cause and condition — let me ask you further: right now, because of the conditions of brightness, darkness, emptiness, and obstruction, the nature of seeing appears before you — but is this nature present because of brightness, or because of darkness? If it were present because of brightness, then brightness would be the very cause giving rise to seeing — and the same reasoning applies to the rest. If the nature of seeing were present because of brightness, with brightness as the cause giving rise to seeing, then, once darkness arose and brightness ceased, your nature of seeing ought to cease right along with brightness, and you ought no longer to be able to see darkness at all; if it were present because of darkness, then, brightness and darkness displacing one another, at the time of brightness there being no darkness, your nature of seeing ought to vanish right along with darkness, and you ought no longer to be able to see brightness. The same reasoning applies to emptiness and obstruction as cause.

This next passage refutes by way of condition. The Buddha again addresses Ānanda: as for this nature of seeing of yours, among these four — brightness, darkness, emptiness, and obstruction — which, exactly, serves as the condition that gives rise to seeing? If the nature of seeing arose conditioned upon emptiness, with emptiness as the condition giving rise to seeing, then, once obstruction arose and emptiness ceased, your nature of seeing ought to cease right along with emptiness, and you ought no longer to be able to see obstruction; if it arose conditioned upon obstruction, obstruction and emptiness displacing one another, at the time of obstruction there being no emptiness, your nature of seeing ought to vanish right along with obstruction, and you ought no longer to be able to see emptiness. The same reasoning applies to brightness and darkness as condition.

Sūtra: "You should know: this essential, wondrously bright awareness is neither caused nor conditioned, and yet it is not spontaneous either; it is not 'not spontaneous' either; there is no 'not-not,' and no 'is' or 'is not' to be found in it at all. Free of every characteristic, it is, at the very same time, every single phenomenon there is. Why, then, do you now try to fix your mind upon it, hoping to grasp it through the idle names and concepts of ordinary worldly debate? It is like trying to grasp a handful of empty space with your own palm — you only exhaust yourself for nothing. How could empty space ever be seized and held by your own hand?"

Commentary: "You should know" means: give rise to wisdom and observe directly, understanding that the nature of seeing stands apart from every one of the four possible positions [is, is not, both, neither], beyond every hundred variations of denial. "Essential awareness, wondrously bright" refers exactly to the nature of seeing: as an unchanging substance of awareness, wholly undivided, it is called "essential awareness"; as a wondrous function that follows every condition, luminously unobscured, it is called "wondrously bright" — this states the correct meaning directly. Since its substance never changes, it is not caused by conditions; since its function follows every condition, it is not spontaneous either — this is the first round of negation.

"Not spontaneous either; there is no 'not-not'": the first line, "not spontaneous either," implies a matching line, "not uncaused either," simply omitted here in the text. Since both "caused" and "spontaneous" are merely calculations of false thought, the passage above negates them with the word "not." But fearing this might simply shift to a new clinging — "not caused," "not spontaneous" — still failing to escape empty argument, the text negates even this with a further "not," negating negation itself, and so canceling both of the previous two lines — this is the second round of negation. "There is no 'not-not'" — the word "no" here governs both "not" and "not-not" together, canceling what came before with a further stroke; this single word "no" cancels all four preceding positions at once — this is the third round of negation.

"No 'is' or 'is not'" — the word "no" here likewise governs both "is" and "is not" together, canceling both directions at once, guarding against clinging to "is" once "is not" has been ruled out, or clinging to "is not" once "is" has been ruled out. Should one, hearing every prior negation exhausted, still cling to some remaining "is," this final "no" cancels that as well — this is the fourth round of negation. "Is" and "is not" together amount to the same negation once more — by this point, negation upon negation has been applied, and false clinging is exhausted entirely on its own.

This describes the exhaustion of clinging and the emergence of true reality. "Characteristic" here does not mean the inherent characteristic of any phenomenon itself, but the mental characteristic produced by false, clinging thought — exactly the mind that clings to "caused" or "spontaneous" and the like. Negating this again and again, every such clinging dissolves entirely, and every phenomenon is revealed, at root, as true. One should understand: phenomena themselves were never truly different from one another to begin with — clinging thought alone creates the appearance of fault; simply let go of the clinging, and there is no need to alter any phenomenon's own characteristic at all. As the Sixth Patriarch said: "The six sense-objects are not themselves evil — they are one and the same with true, correct enlightenment." Simply becoming free of every falsely clung-to characteristic is itself nothing other than every phenomenon there is, the whole substance of the Dharma-realm entire.

"Why, then" carries a tone of gentle rebuke. This teaching is not something ordinary thought and discrimination can ever reach — so why, then, do you fix your mind upon this essential, wondrously bright awareness, applying the idle names and concepts of ordinary worldly debate, hoping thereby to discriminate this wondrously bright, true nature? This nature stands apart from every name, free of every characteristic — how could the idle names and concepts of worldly debate ever succeed in discriminating it at all! "It is like trying to grasp a handful of empty space with your own palm" — what follows illustrates the futility of this: one only exhausts oneself for nothing — how could empty space ever be seized and held in one's own hand? Here, grasping with the palm illustrates idle debate; empty space illustrates the true nature. Just as empty space can never be taken hold of by the hand, how could the true nature ever be taken hold of by the mind either? This display, discussing the nature of seeing as surpassing every category, shows that it falls into none of these ordinary conceptions at all, standing far beyond every non-Buddhist speculation and every provisional teaching alike — among the four meanings, this belongs to the meaning of wondrous brightness.

Sūtra: Ānanda said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, if this wondrously awakened nature is truly neither caused nor conditioned, then why has the World-Honored One so often taught the monks that seeing requires four conditions — namely, depending on space, depending on light, depending on mind, and depending on the eye? What, then, is the meaning of this?"

Commentary: This display, "seeing moves beyond seeing," does not refer to the ordinary, everyday sense of "seeing" bound up with emotion and opinion, but specifically to the essence of seeing's own substance. This substance is a union of the true and the false — conceptually, it can be divided into a true seeing and a false seeing, though these are not, in fact, two separate substances. When the essence of seeing still carries a trace of falseness, it is called false seeing; once free of that falseness, it is called true seeing — exactly as a person dreaming is called "the dreamer," and, once free of the dream, "the one awake"; the dreamer and the one awake are not two different people, and true seeing and false seeing are not two different kinds of seeing. To speak here of "moving beyond seeing" means exactly this: true seeing becoming free of the single trace of false seeing carried within its own substance — hence the name, "seeing moves beyond seeing."

Having just had both spontaneity and causation refuted in turn, Ānanda now says to the Buddha: World-Honored One, I can accept that this wondrously awakened, bright nature does not belong to the non-Buddhist doctrine of spontaneity — but to say it is neither caused nor conditioned seems harder to accept, since cause and condition is our own school's own teaching — how could it possibly contradict our own school? If this nature of seeing is truly neither caused nor conditioned, then why did the World-Honored One, in the past, so often teach the monks that seeing requires four conditions — namely, depending on space, depending on light, depending on mind, and depending on the eye? Without emptiness or light in front of us, we cannot see at all; and without mind or eye, this goes without saying — so seeing must, by necessity, depend on all four of these conditions before it can occur at all, which clearly shows that the nature of seeing belongs to the category of cause and condition after all! "What, then, is the meaning of this" means: is what is taught now correct, and what was taught before mistaken? Or do the two teachings actually agree, and I simply fail to grasp how?

What Ānanda cites here is actually eye-consciousness, belonging to the eye-faculty; what the Tathāgata has been revealing is the very nature of seeing within the eye-faculty — this is exactly a failure to distinguish sense-faculty from consciousness. The verse on the pattern of the eight consciousnesses says: "The foolish find it hard to distinguish consciousness from the faculty." Ānanda is exactly such a person! In the Great Vehicle's own teaching, eye-consciousness arises only given nine conditions: space, light, the sense-faculty, its object, attentive intention, discrimination, purity or defilement, seed, and root-consciousness; the Lesser Vehicle's teaching gives an abbreviated four conditions, none of which may be lacking — space, light, mind, and eye — as the conditions by which eye-consciousness itself arises. Neither teaching ever claimed that these four conditions give rise to the wondrously awakened nature of seeing itself. This nature, in truth, is not something produced by any generative cause at all, but something realized through a cause of direct understanding alone — to claim now that it arises from cause and condition is a very serious error indeed.

Sūtra: The Buddha said: "Ānanda, when I speak of causes and conditions among worldly things, that is not the ultimate truth. Ānanda, let me ask you further: ordinary people in the world say, 'I am able to see' — what, exactly, do they mean by 'seeing,' and what do they mean by 'not seeing'?" Ānanda said: "Ordinary people, by means of the light of the sun, the moon, or a lamp, see all sorts of things, and call this 'seeing'; without any of these three kinds of light, they say they cannot see at all."

Commentary: This clarifies that what was taught in the past and what is taught now differ in being provisional versus ultimate. The Buddha tells Ānanda: my earlier teaching that consciousness arises from four conditions was a temporary, skillful expedient, teaching worldly cause-and-condition in order to draw students of the Lesser Vehicle away from the poison of non-Buddhist doctrine. Since those non-Buddhist teachers falsely held to spontaneity, I taught cause and condition specifically to refute that view — this is not at all the same as what is taught today, the ultimate truth, the complete meaning of cultivation and realization. How, then, could that earlier teaching be used to challenge this present one?

This passage distinguishes the present teaching from the earlier one on cause and condition. Hence the question: ordinary people in the world say, "I am able to see" — taking themselves as the one who sees and objects as what is seen, a belief shared by every sentient being. The question that follows — what, exactly, counts as "seeing," and what as "not seeing" — is meant to probe whether this depends on some condition or not. Ānanda's answer — that seeing occurs only by means of the light of sun, moon, or lamp, and that without light there is no seeing at all — states plainly his assumption that seeing necessarily depends on some condition. Though he mentions only the condition of light here, this stands for the conditions of space, mind, and eye as well — none of which, he assumes, can be lacking for seeing to occur. This was the provisional teaching of the past. What Ānanda states is, on its own terms, correct enough — but what is taught today is the ultimate truth: as the very first display of seeing already showed, a blind person perceiving darkness sees no differently from a sighted person sitting in a dark room — the nature of seeing, free of both sense-faculty and sense-object, shines with its own independent light — what need, then, could it possibly have of the condition of light at all? This is exactly the difference between the provisional and the ultimate teaching.

Sūtra: "Ānanda, if the absence of light is what you call 'not seeing,' then you ought not to be able to see darkness either! But if you can indeed see darkness, then this is merely the absence of light — how could you call this 'no seeing' at all? Ānanda, if, in the dark, not seeing brightness is called 'not seeing,' then, in the light, not seeing the mark of darkness ought equally to be called 'not seeing' — so that both conditions alike would have to be called 'not seeing.' But if these two marks, brightness and darkness, simply displace one another in turn, this seeing of yours is never, even for a moment, actually absent in either case. This being so, you should know that both conditions are, in truth, called 'seeing' — how, then, could either be called 'not seeing' at all?"

Commentary: This shows that the absence of light does not mean the absence of seeing. If, as you claim, the absence of light means the absence of seeing, then one ought equally to fail to see darkness itself, before this could truly be called "no seeing" — yet the common assumption is simply that the absence of light means the absence of seeing, and so the Buddha challenges this with "you ought not to be able to see darkness either," a claim that plainly cannot hold. From "but if you can indeed see darkness" onward, the correct principle is stated directly: if, in the absence of light, one can indeed see darkness, then this is merely the absence of light, while seeing itself is by no means absent — how, then, could you claim there is "no seeing" at all?

Applying the same logic to both brightness and darkness leads to the absurd conclusion that neither counts as seeing at all — a serious error indeed! This next passage concludes with the correct principle stated plainly. The previous point merely demonstrated the error by way of reversed reasoning — there is certainly no sense in which both conditions could be called "not seeing" at all — so the correct principle follows: if brightness and darkness, these two marks, simply displace one another in turn — brightness arriving as darkness departs, darkness arising as brightness ceases — these two marks being present at one moment and absent at the next, your own nature of seeing is never, even momentarily, absent in either case. This line deserves close attention: brightness and darkness have their own arising and ceasing, while the nature of seeing itself has neither presence nor absence — brightness arriving is met with seeing brightness, darkness arriving is met with seeing darkness. Never being momentarily absent means being constantly present — this directly reveals that the nature of seeing is ever-abiding, unborn, unceasing, dependent on no cause and reliant on no condition at all.

Ordinary worldly assumption allows only that seeing brightness counts as seeing, never that seeing darkness could count as seeing; even the provisional teaching still requires all four conditions — space, light, mind, and eye — before seeing can occur at all. This sūtra, being the complete and ultimate teaching, takes instead the fact that there is seeing even in darkness as its proof — hence: this being so, you should know that both seeing brightness and seeing darkness are, in truth, called "seeing" — how, then, could either be called "not seeing" at all? This means: seeing in the dark does not even require the eye at all — how much less could it require space, light, or the discriminating mind? Revealing this single instance of seeing in darkness is, by itself, enough to refute all four conditions at once.

Sūtra: "This is exactly why, Ānanda, you should now understand: at the moment of seeing brightness, the seeing itself is not brightness; at the moment of seeing darkness, the seeing itself is not darkness; at the moment of seeing emptiness, the seeing itself is not emptiness; at the moment of seeing obstruction, the seeing itself is not obstruction — these four points established. You should further understand: at the very moment of seeing seeing itself, that seeing is not itself an act of seeing either — seeing forever eludes being seen, seeing can never be reached this way. How, then, could one still speak of causes and conditions, of spontaneity, or of any state of 'combination' at all?"

Commentary: This shows that the present teaching is the ultimate truth, in two successive depths — first, the ultimate truth of being free of conditions. The meaning of seeing being free of any condition has already been established, from the very first demonstration that a blind person can still perceive darkness onward — through the displays of seeing unmoving, imperishable, never lost, having nowhere to return, unmixed with objects, and unobstructed — all of the first half of these displays reveal exactly this: seeing free of any condition; and this "seeing" is precisely the essence of seeing itself. As stated earlier: "though this seeing is not yet the wondrous, essential, luminous mind itself, it is like the second moon — not a mere watery reflection of the moon." It is likened to the second moon precisely because it still carries a trace of falseness — yet even carrying this falseness, its own substance already stands free of any condition, already surpassing the entire school of cause and condition! "This is exactly why" picks up directly from the point that both brightness and darkness alike are met with seeing. You should now understand: at the moment of seeing brightness, this very essence of seeing is not something brightness itself possesses as its cause; at the moment of seeing darkness, this same essence of seeing is likewise not something produced by darkness. The same reasoning applies to seeing emptiness and seeing obstruction — from which it follows clearly that this essence of seeing belongs to no cause or condition whatsoever.

This next passage extends the argument to reveal the ultimate truth of moving beyond seeing itself — revealing the wondrous, essential, bright nature of seeing, likened here to the true moon in the sky itself; this section goes a full level deeper than the one before. "These four points established" refers back to the point just made — that the essence of seeing belongs to none of the four conditions, brightness, darkness, emptiness, or obstruction — this establishes the ultimate truth of freedom from condition, a point now fully settled, beyond any possible refutation. Yet there remains a further ultimate truth still: moving beyond seeing itself. You should further understand this: if one has only awakened to the substance of seeing being free of condition, without yet truly seeing that very substance of seeing, this is not yet complete, perfect awakening — one must see that the substance of seeing itself moves beyond seeing, only then truly seeing that substance directly — hence freedom from condition is offered here only as a stepping stone toward this further point.

"At the very moment of seeing seeing itself, that seeing is not itself an act of seeing": the first and third occurrences of "seeing" here refer to the purely true, undefiled seeing, the very substance of the wondrous, essential, luminous mind — the first, true moon; the second and fourth occurrences refer to the seeing that still carries a portion of ignorance, the essence of seeing's own luminous root — the second moon. Since beginningless time, this true seeing has constantly sunk beneath this false seeing, unable to perceive that very falseness — exactly like a person who has fallen into water and cannot see the water itself. But should the strength of one's contemplative practice grow sufficient, freeing itself from clinging and settling inward, returning to its own original truth, its own inherent brightness shining forth once more — then true seeing appears directly before one, able to see through this false substance entirely; and exactly at the moment true seeing suddenly perceives false seeing, true seeing has already become free of this one portion of false seeing carried within its own substance, no longer sunk within that falseness at all — exactly like a person waking from a dream, the dream itself no longer present, already free of the dream entirely. This true seeing, then, is no longer the seeing that still carries falseness.

"Seeing forever eludes being seen, seeing can never be reached this way": the first occurrence of "seeing" here refers to true seeing; the second and third occurrences both refer to the essence of seeing that still carries falseness. This means: this true seeing forever eludes even the essence of seeing's own characteristic — the essence of seeing itself cannot reach it at all. This is because, at the time false seeing is present, true seeing remains entirely hidden; only once one abandons what arises and ceases, holds fast to what is truly constant, and the ever-present light appears — that is, at the very moment true seeing itself appears — does false seeing become entirely empty; hence, "the essence of seeing cannot reach it at all."

"How, then, could one still speak of causes and conditions, of spontaneity, or of any state of 'combination' at all?" This rebukes Ānanda for still clinging to his earlier school of thought, unwilling to let it go. Even this ultimate truth of moving beyond seeing itself already surpasses the ultimate truth of mere freedom from condition — how much more, then, does it surpass the idle worldly debates of cause and condition, or spontaneity? This display, discussing the nature of seeing as moving beyond seeing itself, shows that even seeing's own characteristic is left behind, entering entirely into pure, undefiled truth — this too belongs, among the four meanings, to the meaning of ever-abiding, wondrous brightness.

Sūtra: "You śrāvakas are narrow in view and limited in insight, unable to penetrate the pure, true reality of things. I now teach you: reflect on this well, and do not grow weary or slack on the wondrous path to bodhi."

Commentary: Here the Buddha rebukes Ānanda for remaining stuck at the lesser vehicle, and urges him instead toward the greater. "Śrāvakas" here includes both those still in training and those beyond it. The point: your own view is narrow, your resolve limited, lacking any vast, excellent insight — clinging to phenomena as though they truly existed, failing to understand that dependently-arisen things are illusory, giving rise instead to universal, clinging attachment, and so remaining deluded about the principle of pure, true reality — hence, "unable to penetrate" it. True reality has three aspects: the meaning of true emptiness, the true reality free of any characteristic; the meaning of true non-emptiness, the true reality with no characteristic it lacks; and the meaning of true emptiness-and-non-emptiness together, the true reality that is neither confined to any characteristic nor lacking any either.

From "I now teach you" onward: the Tathāgata, wishing Ānanda to awaken clearly to the principle of true reality, urges him toward the three kinds of wisdom. "I teach you" implies that, once taught, one must truly listen — this is the wisdom of learning; "reflect on this well" means correct, mindful examination, not mere conditioned, discursive thinking — this is the wisdom of reflection; "do not grow weary or slack" means one must not drift along carelessly, calling oneself tired and so growing lax, but must instead advance with diligent, sustained effort, never abandoning the task halfway — this is the wisdom of cultivation. "The wondrous path to bodhi" refers to the very path of unsurpassed bodhi realized by the Buddha himself — the true path to bodhi, traversing the fifty-five stages from ordinary being all the way to sagehood.

Sūtra: Ānanda said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, though the World-Honored One has taught us about cause and condition and about spontaneity, I have not yet heard anything about combination or non-combination, and my mind remains unopened on this point. And now, hearing further that 'seeing seeing itself is not seeing,' my confusion has only doubled! I beg only that you, in your vast compassion, grant us the eye of great wisdom, and open within us a mind that is awakened, bright, and pure." Having said this, he wept and bowed in reverence, receiving the sacred instruction.

Commentary: This describes Ānanda's own confusion. His point: the World-Honored One, in the display showing seeing surpassing every category, taught that both cause-and-condition and spontaneity are equally mistaken, and negated each repeatedly, layer upon layer — this much I have already heard; but of any teaching on "combination" or "non-combination," I have heard nothing at all, and my mind remains unopened on this particular point. "And now, hearing further that 'seeing seeing itself is not seeing,' my confusion has only doubled" means: not yet having heard the teaching on combination and non-combination was already a source of confusion, and now, hearing further that "seeing seeing itself is not seeing" without fully understanding it, this adds a second layer of confusion on top of the first — hence his urgent request for further instruction.

The passage above describes his confusion; this passage is his actual request. He begs the Tathāgata to bring forth great compassion and grant him great wisdom. This "eye of great wisdom" refers exactly to śamatha's own subtle, hidden contemplation — the wisdom of direct understanding arising from the very principle of correct causation itself — opening within Ānanda and the assembly an awakened mind, bright and pure. "Awakened mind" refers to the true mind of original awakening itself, exactly the nature of seeing within the sense-root. So long as the two kinds of false seeing remain unremoved and this confusion unresolved, clouds of delusion and fog of confusion continue to blanket the very sky and ground of awakened mind, layer upon layer, never allowed to become bright and pure — hence this urgent request for further instruction.

Sūtra: At that time the World-Honored One, taking pity on Ānanda and the whole assembly, was about to unfold the great dhāraṇī, the various samādhis, and the wondrous path of cultivation. He said to Ānanda: "Though you have great powers of memory, this has only added to your learning — you have still not fully grasped the subtle, hidden contemplation of śamatha itself. Listen closely now, and I will explain this for you in detail, distinguishing each point clearly — so that, in the future, all those still subject to outflows may likewise attain the fruit of bodhi."

Commentary: This is the compiler's own account of the Buddha now preparing to reveal wondrous awakening and wondrous cultivation, so that Ānanda might attain complete realization. Hearing that "seeing seeing itself is not seeing" only doubled Ānanda's confusion, the Buddha, at that very moment, gives rise to compassion — pitying his limited wisdom, taking pity on his lack of awakening; since he has not yet opened up a complete, perfect understanding, he cannot yet be shown wondrous cultivation directly. "The great dhāraṇī" means "the great, all-encompassing holding": encompassing every phenomenon, holding boundless meaning within it. In terms of cause, this is exactly the perfectly full, unborn, unceasing nature of seeing every sentient being already possesses; in terms of fruit, this is exactly the great Śūraṅgama samādhi, encompassing hundreds and thousands of samādhis within it; in terms of cause and fruit being simultaneous, this is exactly one's own nature's inherent, natural samādhi. "The various samādhis" refers to the self-benefiting practice that arises from this same understanding — exactly the twenty-five sagely methods of perfect penetration. "The wondrous path of cultivation" refers to the stages traversed through this practice — exactly the fifty-five stages of the true path to bodhi.

This gently reproaches Ānanda for relying on broad learning without yet opening genuine wisdom. The Buddha tells Ānanda: though you possess a powerful memory, this has only ever added to your learning — with regard to the true principle of śamatha, one's own naturally settled samādhi, and the subtle, hidden contemplation that arises from it, the genuine wisdom that directly illuminates its own substance, your mind has still not truly awakened to it. Since genuine wisdom has not yet opened within you, you cannot yet be shown wondrous cultivation directly — opening a complete, perfect understanding must come first, as the most urgent matter at hand. Ānanda knows only that the nature of seeing is true, without knowing why it is true; and, hearing further that this same seeing carries falseness, does not know why it is false either — no wonder, then, that confusion remains, and his mind has not yet fully grasped it. Hence the Buddha's warning: you must now listen with complete sincerity, observing your own mind by way of this teaching, reaching the underlying principle through these very words — I will now distinguish for you true seeing from false seeing, and reveal the meaning of śamatha's own subtle, hidden contemplation.

This next passage extends the benefit to future generations as well. Continuing from the point that the Buddha is about to distinguish "seeing seeing itself is not seeing" so that true and false become perfectly clear: relying on genuine wisdom to illuminate genuine principle, cultivating this subtle, hidden contemplation, benefits not only this present assembly, but also every ordinary being still subject to outflows, and every practitioner still in training within the two lesser vehicles, in ages yet to come — that they, too, relying on this same complete understanding of śamatha's subtle, hidden contemplation, may give rise to the complete cultivation that unties the very knot at its root, and thereby realize perfect, complete bodhi, the unsurpassed ultimate fruit. If this holds true even for those still subject to outflows, how much more so for those already free of them.

Sūtra: "Ānanda, all sentient beings revolve through the cycle of the world because of two kinds of inverted, discriminating false seeing, each arising in its own proper place, each turning according to its own karma. What are these two kinds of seeing? First, sentient beings' individual-karma false seeing. Second, sentient beings' shared-karma false seeing."

Commentary: This reveals that the essence of seeing described above, still carrying a trace of falseness, actually contains two distinct kinds of false seeing. "All sentient beings" includes not only ordinary beings of the six destinies, but the lesser vehicle and provisional-teaching practitioners as well. "Revolve through the cycle of the world" refers to both kinds of worldly existence — the being itself and its surrounding environment — corresponding to these same two kinds of false seeing: shared-karma false seeing is simply the being's own surrounding environment as manifested by delusion alone, without any karmic summons involved; individual-karma false seeing, by contrast, involves not only delusion but karmic summons as well. "Each arising in its own proper place" corresponds to shared-karma seeing; "each turning according to its own karma" corresponds to individual-karma seeing. One should understand that the great affliction of birth and death traces back, in every case, to these same two kinds of false seeing.

"Two kinds of inverted [seeing]" means exactly this: being deluded about the truth, one gives rise to falseness. One's own present body and immediate surroundings — the being and environment closest at hand — are originally nothing but the empty projection of one's own individual karma, manifested through delusion and karma together; deluded about this, without realizing it, one falsely gives rise to discrimination, taking it to be something genuinely existing outside the mind, a world shared and jointly witnessed together with others — this is individual-karma false seeing. Every world and every being more broadly — the being and environment further removed — is originally nothing but the empty projection of one's own delusion, shared in common with the whole community; equally deluded about this, without realizing it, one falsely gives rise to discrimination, taking it to be something genuinely existing outside the mind, a world entirely unrelated to one's own person — this is shared-karma false seeing.

"Each arising in its own proper place" means arising nowhere apart from its own true origin — that origin being the true mind itself; this false seeing has no other basis at all, arising directly from truth itself, so that every false appearance manifests from false seeing alone, falseness never actually apart from truth. "Each turning according to its own karma" means turning nowhere apart from karma itself — within this deluded state, failing to recognize that it is mind's own manifestation, one falsely clings to it as genuinely real, gives rise to karma in dependence on this delusion, and receives retribution in dependence on that karma, forming an endless cycle of turning.

"Individual karma" means karma that differs from person to person, producing correspondingly different seeing: each being witnesses the particular environment they themselves inhabit and make use of, both their own being and its immediate surroundings — not merely manifested by delusion, but further summoned by their own individual karma; manifested by their own karma, and then clung to by that same self, discriminated in an upside-down way, taken to be something genuinely existing outside the mind, a world shared and jointly witnessed together with others — hence, individual-karma false seeing. "Shared karma" means karma shared in common, producing correspondingly shared seeing: witnessing the environment inhabited by others, not one's own to make use of, the more distant reaches of the world — though not summoned by one's own individual karma, still manifested through delusion, shared in common with the delusion of the whole community, and so shared, too, in the community's own seeing, discriminated in an upside-down way, taken to be something genuinely existing outside the mind, a world entirely unrelated to one's own person — hence, shared-karma false seeing.

Sūtra: "What is meant by individual-karma false seeing? Ānanda, it is like a person in the world whose eye has a red inflammation, who at night, looking at a lamp's flame, sees a separate, layered halo of five colors around it. ... You should therefore know that the color truly belongs to the lamp; it is the eye disease that produces the halo. Both the halo and the seeing of it belong to the eye disease — the seeing of the disease is not itself the disease. ... It is the same here: it is produced by the eye's own affliction. Now, what should we call 'the lamp' and what should we call 'the seeing' in this? How much less could we go on to distinguish a 'not-lamp' and a 'not-seeing'!"

Commentary: "It is like" introduces this as an illustrative example; "a person in the world" refers to ordinary beings, non-Buddhists, and provisional or lesser-vehicle practitioners alike; "an eye with a red inflammation" illustrates the disease of ignorance-affected seeing; "at night" stands for the state of delusion; "the lamp" stands for the tathāgatagarbha nature itself; "the layered, five-colored halo" stands for a sentient being's own illusory body of five aggregates, and the world's own illusory realm of five sense-objects. Because sentient beings possess this false, seeing capacity, there comes to be a corresponding body, mind, and world that is seen — remove this false seeing, and neither body nor world can be found at all. This offers the more easily understood case within individual-karma seeing — one person's own case — as an illustration for the harder-to-grasp case of individual-karma seeing more broadly, making what is difficult to understand easy to grasp instead.

The nature of seeing is, from the very start, pure, never actually diseased at all; permeated by ignorance, it clings to what should remain still and gives rise to seeing instead, turning its own originally possessed light of wisdom into a false, seeing capacity — this belongs to the root disease of seeing. The essence of seeing then reflects onto form, congealing that form into the sense-faculty itself, giving rise to both the superior and the coarse sense-organs; the red inflammation, arising in dependence on this coarse sense-organ, belongs to the branch disease of seeing. This is exactly why one should know: the color truly belongs to the lamp, since without the lamp it would not appear at all; the halo is produced because of the eye's own disease, since without that disease there would be no halo at all. "Both the halo and the seeing of it belong to the eye disease" means: both the lamp's own halo and the disease of seeing itself trace back to this same eye affliction — not only is the halo seen produced by this red inflammation, but the very capacity to see it is likewise produced by that same inflammation, so that both the halo and the seeing of it share this same underlying fault. "The seeing of the disease is not itself the disease" means: this act of seeing the disease is itself the true seeing, which never sinks into the disease's own falseness — and it is precisely because it can see the disease that it has, in that very act, already become free of it, exactly as a person who has already awakened from a dream has, in that very waking, already become free of the dream — hence, "not itself the disease." It is precisely because this undiseased substance of seeing exists at all that the earlier teaching could say, "seeing seeing itself is not seeing."

Sūtra: "What is meant by shared-karma false seeing? Ānanda, in this continent of Jambudvīpa ... suppose there were, within it, a small island with only two countries on it, and the people of just one of those countries, together, had incurred some shared evil condition. Then the beings native to that small island alone would witness all manner of inauspicious signs: some seeing two suns, some seeing two moons ... All these various evil portents would be seen only by that one country; the beings of the other country would, from the start, neither see nor hear anything of the kind."

Commentary: This offers the more easily understood case within shared-karma seeing — a limited, particular instance — as an illustration for the harder-to-grasp case of shared-karma seeing more broadly, making what is difficult to understand easy to grasp instead. It specifically posits, within this continent of Jambudvīpa, a small island containing only two countries — since these two countries see differently from one another, this difference can serve as proof of shared-karma false seeing. "The people of just one of those countries, together, had incurred some shared evil condition": though sharing the same island, the two countries' own conduct and karma differ; only the people of one country, together, incur this shared evil condition. Note carefully the word "incur" — this describes a cause bringing about its corresponding effect, response never failing to match its cause: false delusion serves as the evil cause that incurs this condition, and the ominous portent itself is the evil condition thereby incurred. Hence, the beings native to that small island, manifesting these various inauspicious signs through their own false delusion, are seen in common by the people of their own country, while the neighboring country sees nothing at all — proving that this false delusion, manifesting this ominous portent falsely, applies only to this one country, and not to the other.

"Seen only by that one country; the beings of the other country would, from the start, neither see nor hear anything of the kind": within this same single island, the sky is, in reality, one and the same — yet it is seen by one country and not by the other, proof enough that it is not truly real at all. The reason two countries are specifically required here: a single country alone would not be enough to demonstrate falseness, and yet if both countries saw the same thing, this too would fail to demonstrate falseness — hence, "seen only by that one country; the beings of the other country would, from the start, [see] nothing of the kind." Though this one country shares this same delusion and sees it in common, it is, in the end, by no means truly real at all.

Sūtra: "Ānanda, just as with that individual's karmic false seeing ... so it is with you today: your eyes' observation of mountains, rivers, lands, and all sentient beings is likewise entirely produced by a beginningless disease of seeing. Seeing, together with what seeing takes as its condition, resembles a scene appearing before us — but it is originally only the affliction that my own bright awareness takes as its condition of seeing. Awareness-in-seeing is itself the affliction; the original, bright mind of awareness, aware of its condition, is not itself afflicted. That which is aware of the afflicted-seeing-as-object is, itself, not within the affliction — this is truly 'seeing the seeing' — so how could it still be called by names like awareness, hearing, knowing, or seeing? ... Ānanda, just as with that shared karmic false seeing ... so it is throughout Jambudvīpa's three thousand continents, together with the four great oceans of this Sahā world, and throughout every impure land of the ten directions and every being within them: all alike are the bright, undefiled, wondrous mind of awareness. Seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing arise falsely, in combination, from the false, afflicted condition, and perish falsely, in combination, as well. If one is able to remove oneself far from every condition of combination, and from non-combination too, then one thereby also eliminates every cause of birth and death, and fully realizes the unborn, unceasing nature of bodhi — the pure, original mind, original awareness, ever-abiding."

Commentary: This offers the case actually being illustrated. "Just as" signals a shared pattern: from the more easily understood individual-karma seeing of a diseased eye perceiving a halo, to the harder-to-grasp individual-karma seeing of a healthy eye perceiving body and world. "Today's own observation" refers to what stands directly before Ānanda's own eyes, intimately inhabited and directly perceived — mountains, rivers, lands, and every sentient being, that is, the body and world he sees — all of it produced by a root disease of seeing extending back to beginningless time, following exactly the same pattern as the halo produced by a branch disease of seeing.

"Seeing" here is the seeing-portion of consciousness, corresponding to "eyes' observation" above; "what seeing takes as its condition" is the perceived-portion conditioned upon by that seeing, corresponding to "lands" and "sentient beings" above. This seeing-portion and perceived-portion both arise in dependence on the self-verifying portion of consciousness, belonging to the dependently-arisen nature — not truly existing, yet appearing to exist — hence, "resembles a scene appearing before us." Tracing this back to its root: it is originally my own true awareness, having sunk into a state of falsely illuminated awareness, that becomes the very source of this fault. "The affliction that awareness takes as its condition of seeing" means: the seeing-portion, having turned from original awareness, together with the perceived-portion this seeing-portion then manifests, both arise entirely through the power of ignorance, turning true seeing into false seeing — this seeing is exactly the diseased seeing itself, giving rise, in turn, to the diseased halo-images it conditions upon, both the being and its surrounding world. "Awareness-in-seeing is itself the affliction" means: not only is what is conditioned upon afflicted, but the very capacity for seeing that this awareness gives rise to is itself afflicted as well, since both arise entirely in dependence on ignorance, their false substance originally nonexistent. "The original, bright mind of awareness, aware of its condition, is not itself afflicted" clarifies that the true substance itself is never diseased at all — meaning that the original, wondrously bright, true mind, aware that both the conditioning and the conditioned are equally false, never itself sinks into that falseness, truly incomparable to any diseased, false seeing at all — hence, "not itself the affliction."

"That which is aware of the afflicted-seeing-as-object is, itself, not within the affliction": the first and third occurrences of "awareness" here refer to the true substance itself; "aware of...as object" refers to both the conditioning and the conditioned together — permeated by ignorance, knowing and seeing falsely give rise to the seeing-portion, this falseness arising without rest, this strained seeing then giving rise to the dust-like perceived-portion — all of it exactly like the diseased halo; when true awareness has not yet awakened to this, it constantly sinks within this same disease — but the very moment it becomes aware that what it is aware of is itself diseased, this true awareness has, in that very instant, already become free of the disease, no longer sunk within it at all! "This is truly 'seeing the seeing'" refers back to the earlier point: at the very moment true seeing perceives the essence of seeing still carrying falseness, true seeing does not itself sink into that same falseness — the two points share exactly the same meaning. "How could it still be called by names like awareness, hearing, knowing, or seeing?" This very nature of seeing is exactly the still, ever-abiding nature of mind that ought to be taken up as the very cause and ground of one's own practice — why, then, should this wondrously awakened, bright nature still be called merely by the names "awareness," "hearing," "knowing," "seeing"? These four — awareness, hearing, knowing, seeing — are exactly the six essential faculties, one in substance though differing in function: "originally a single essential brightness, divided into six that function together."

This next passage applies the teaching directly to what stands before the assembly, resolving true seeing and false seeing at once. "This is exactly why, when you now see me, and see yourself, and see every one of the ten kinds of beings throughout the world, all of it is exactly seeing the disease itself, not the seeing capable of perceiving that disease": so long as one's own delusion remains unremoved, even beholding the Tathāgata's own excellent marks remains seeing still carrying this same disease, not yet the true seeing capable of perceiving the disease itself — this judges such seeing to be false, not true. "That seeing, essential and true, whose very nature is free of this disease, is for this reason not even properly called 'seeing' at all": this "that seeing" refers to the very seeing capable of perceiving the disease itself — free of falseness, it is called "true"; wholly undivided, it is called "essential"; its nature free of this disease means: its nature, unchanging while following every condition, following every condition while unchanging, never sinks into the disease's own falseness at all — hence, "free of this disease." Being free of the disease in this way, it ought no longer even to be called by the ordinary name "seeing" at all — this judges such seeing to be genuinely true, not false.

This next passage offers the corresponding case for shared-karma seeing, working backward from the previously established individual case. "If one is able to remove oneself far from every condition of combination, and from non-combination too, then one thereby also eliminates every cause of birth and death": "condition" here refers to what is conditioned upon in both individual-karma and shared-karma seeing; "combined condition" refers to the individual-karma environment, manifested not only through delusion but further compounded by karma as well; "non-combined condition" refers to the shared-karma environment, manifested through delusion alone, with no additional karma compounded within it. "Being able to remove oneself far" refers exactly to the power of subtle, hidden contemplation to free itself from falseness — once falseness is removed, truth naturally returns of its own accord. "The cause of birth and death" refers to these same two kinds of inverted, discriminating false seeing, the very root of the wheel of rebirth: individual-karma false seeing belongs to the ordinary discriminating consciousness, the cause of segment-by-segment birth and death; shared-karma false seeing belongs to karmic consciousness itself, the cause of transformational birth and death. But once these two conditioned environments, individual and shared, are both removed, the two conditioning falsenesses, root and branch, naturally cease as well — hence, "one thereby also eliminates every cause of birth and death."

"Fully realizes the unborn, unceasing nature of bodhi — the pure, original mind, original awareness, ever-abiding": this clarifies awakening itself, exactly what is meant by moving beyond falseness into truth. In the first two lines here, both "fully" and "nature" must be read twice over, applying to both terms at once — "unborn, unceasing nature" is itself nirvāṇa: the point is that, the moment false seeing is removed, true awareness appears in its entirety, and one is thereby able to fully realize both the nature of bodhi in its three aspects, and the nature of nirvāṇa in its three aspects as well. "The pure, original mind, original awareness, ever-abiding" means: having already fully realized both wisdom and severance as twin fruits, one returns to the very source of one's own mind, utterly pure — original awakening, having reached this point, is at last freed entirely from entanglement, ever-abiding and unchanging, the wheel of rebirth cast off forever from this point on!