by Longchenpa
EXCERPTS FROM
THE GREAT CHARIOT
Longchenpa’s Autocommentary to
Finding Rest in the Nature of the Mind
THE MIND IS THE ROOT OF ALL PHENOMENA
ALL PHENOMENA DEPEND upon the mind, and the mind depends in turn upon the present body endowed with [eight] freedoms and [ten] advantages. They all arise in dependence on each other. The mind is the cause of the entire phenomenal sphere of virtue, and the freedoms and advantages are its ancillaries or conditions. Therefore, now that we are in possession of them all, our sole concern should be to tame our minds. As it is said in the Suhṛllekha:
The vital point is tame your mind,
For mind is the root of Dharma, so the Buddha said.
The Question of Sagara Sūtra also says, “Lord of Nagas! The mind is the root of all phenomena. They derive from the mind; they manifest from the mind. Therefore you should perfectly understand the nature of your mind.” And the tantra called The All-Creating King says, “All phenomena, which thus appear are manifested by the mind, are made by the mind.” In the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra we also find,
Although within a looking glass a form is seen,
It is not there but merely seems to be.
Not knowing [that phenomena are but] the mind’s experience,
The two cognitions—apprehender, apprehended—both arise.
Because of these and through the links of ingrained habit,
Various things arisen from the mind
Appear to beings outwardly.
And yet this world is just the mind.
And,
There are no objects of the senses;
They are but the mind itself.
The mind stirred by habitual tendencies
Is what appears as outer things.
Moreover, outer and inner phenomena appear to the mind in the manner of dreams. While having no existence, they appear in all their variety in the perception of the deluded mind. They are appearances born from deluded habitual tendencies. They do not truly exist as things but seem to be truly existent to the mind. Therefore the mind is the root of all phenomena. Things like mountains and so on, which appear “impurely” to the deluded mind, are “contrived” by the mind—though they are not actually the mind itself, as will be explained presently. Furthermore, if the mind is not kept under control, it is impossible to keep the trainings. As it is said in the Bodhicaryāvatāra,
Without this guard upon the mind,
The trainings cannot be preserved.
And also,
What use to me are many disciplines,
If I can’t guard and discipline my mind?
And,
For all anxiety and fear,
And pain in boundless quantity,
Their source and wellspring is the mind itself,
As He who spoke the truth declared.
The hellish instruments to torture living beings—
Who invented them for such intent?
Who has forged this burning iron ground;
Whence have all these demon-women sprung?
All are but the offspring of the sinful mind,
This the mighty Sage has said.
Throughout the triple world therefore
There is no greater bane than mind itself.
And finally,
By simple taming of this mind alone
All these things are likewise tamed.149
So it is that all the happiness and suffering of saṃsāra originate from the mind, and therefore the effort to bring the mind under control is the root of all Dharma. As it is also said in the Ratnamegha-sūtra,
The world itself is governed by the mind,
And yet by mind, the mind cannot be seen.
All virtuous deeds and all nonvirtuous deeds
Are what the mind accumulates.
In the Kāśyapa Chapter it is also said, “Because the mind is the author of all these actions, it is like a painter. Since it is the source of all harm, it is like a hostile army. Since it is the creator of all suffering, it is like an enemy.” And in the Classification of Wandering Beings Sūtra it is said,
Upon the blazing iron ground
Suffused all round with burning tongues of fire,
Cut by sharpened saws of iron,
In eight parts is a single body torn.
All arises from the minds of those
Who sin in action, thought, and word.
Therefore, since the mind is the root of all happiness and sorrow, the taming of it should be our sole concern.
[Taken from the autocommentary, 144: 3–147: 1]
MIND, INTELLECT, AND CONSCIOUSNESS
THE BODY, BEING numbered among gross material things, is referred to in the root text as a “manifest city.” Speech, like an echo, is perceptible but not physically present and is therefore referred to as a “half-manifest city.” Finally the mind, in being devoid of the five sense doors, is utterly insubstantial and is therefore described as an “unmanifest city.” These three cities are respectively designated as “desire,” “form,” and “formless.” This is because in the scripture entitled Summarized Wisdom, the coarse body is associated with the desire realm; the speech, which is more subtle, is associated with the form realm; and the mind, which is most subtle, is associated with the formless realm. It also declares that the Acintyaprabhāsa,150 the Child of Sublime Light, dwells in these three cities, and explains that this refers to self-arisen primordial wisdom.
The three kinds of suffering, whereby the body, speech, and mind are all tormented, arise through the circumstance of thought and are experienced, one after the other, in a manner that is deluded. How do they arise? The six consciousnesses issue forth through their corresponding sense doors toward the objects of the six gatherings, and the apprehension of these same objects results in the experiences of happiness, sorrow, or indifference which are understood to exist truly.
The mental state arising in the distinct aspects of form, sound, and so on is consciousness (rnam par shes pa). The first vivid cognition of the general aspect of the object is mind (sems). Finally, the mental factor (sems byung) that discerns the features of this object, and is continuously involved with craving, aversion, and ignorance is, in this context, called intellect (yid). As it is said in the Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra, “The perceived appearance of an object is consciousness. The first detecting cognition of it is mind. The mental factor of the subsequent discernment of the particular features of this object is intellect. These three states interpenetrate and are concomitant with each other.”
Wherever there is mind, there is also the mental factor that is concomitant with it, constantly present in the mind in the manner of an ancillary. Conversely, the mental factor is itself pervaded by the mind with which it is related. The mind is thus concomitant with the mental factor and is ever present in the mental factor in the manner of an ancillary.
When an object is encountered in an act of knowing, the first moment of cognition, which focuses on the general aspect or identity of this object, is called mind. Then, when the individual features of the object are assessed, one speaks in terms of mental factor. Although these two are labeled differently, they are in fact none other than the very perception and discernment (intellection) of that object. As it is said in the Ratnāvalī,
If one says the mind is seen,
One does so only on the level of convention.
For without mental factors, there’s no mind.
There’s no object. They’re not said to be concomitant.
On the level of the Tathāgatas or when, free of conceptions, one rests in the fundamental nature, even though appearing sense objects are perceived distinctly, one does not speak of mind, intellect, and consciousness, for there is no apprehension of dual appearance: there is no apprehended object and no apprehending mind.
As it is said in Praises of the Mind Vajra,
Beings, growing used to dualistic clinging
Imagine that mind, intell
ect and consciousness exist.
They do not have that primal wisdom free from thought.
The mind that sees the truth is supreme primal wisdom.
It is also said in the Ratnakūṭa, “Although they are free of mind, intellect, and consciousness, the Tathāgatas do not discard the state of concentration. This is the inconceivable secret of their mind.”
Furthermore, when the mind perceives forms, sounds, and so on (appearing outwardly) in those very aspects, this is referred to as consciousness (literally, cognition of aspects). Again, one speaks of “cognition of aspects” because the mind is generated in exactly the same aspect as its object. The knower of the object, in the first moment of cognizing it as this or that, is called mind. When the particularities of that object are discerned (as they occur in a continuity of dependently arising instants of consciousness), one speaks of intellect.
Moreover, when the perceiving cognitions that vividly, and in an instant, issue from the different sense doors, examine the appearing object and take it to be something pleasant, attachment occurs. When they take it to be something unpleasant, aversion occurs. When they take the thing just in itself, as neither pleasant nor unpleasant, ignorance occurs. It is like seeing a beautiful woman with whom one is familiar, seeing an enemy by whom one has been defeated, or seeing things for which one feels neither attraction nor repulsion—walls, rivers, roads, trees, and people for whom one has no particular sentiments. As it is said in the Vinaya teachings, “Since attachment increases when you see people you like; since aversion increases when you see people who harmed you; and since ignorance increases with respect to all that falls between these extremes, take control of the doors of your senses.”
[Taken from the autocommentary, 205: 5–208: 5]
THE EIGHT CONSCIOUSNESSES AS THE BASIS OF DELUSION
AT THE VERY moment when cognitive experience (shes pa) occurs in relation to an individual object, the mind (sems) that perceives it without making any clear distinctions is called the consciousness of the universal ground (kun gzhi’i rnam shes). Subsequently, the cognitive event that apprehends the thing as this or that, discerning its features, whether in a rough or detailed way, is the intellect (yid). As it is said in the Ornament for the Wisdom of Mañjuśrī Sūtra, “The mind is the consciousness of the universal ground. That which clings to self is the intellect.”
Forms are seen in dependence on the eye, and that which perceives is the visual consciousness. Likewise sounds are heard in dependence on the ear; odors are detected in dependence on the nose; tastes are savored in dependence on the tongue; and contact is experienced in dependence on the body. The perceivers are the five sense consciousnesses.
Consciousnesses are called sources (āyatana, skye mched) because foregoing instants of consciousness give rise to subsequent ones. Since circumstances, namely, objects and their cognitions, are endless, and since the consciousnesses never separate from all these different aspects, extensive and manifold as they are, they are referred to as elements (dhātu, khams). Since the subject mind arises from the object as though supported by it; since the latter arises in dependence on the former; and since the mind and its object are related in the manner of a phenomenon and its characteristic property, consciousnesses are said to be dependent arisings. When the object and the subject come together, happiness and so on may be felt and known. Therefore, owing to their contact in the act of perception, in which the subject and object coincide, the consciousnesses are referred to as feelings.
In brief, all actions resulting from the gathering of an object, sense organ, and cognition are either nonvirtues, when they are motivated by the three poisons, or great virtues when—as in the case of patience—they are free of these three poisons. When the ten positive actions are not associated with the path of wisdom and compassion, they constitute an inferior kind of virtue. For since they fall within the ambit of ignorance, they produce only a single happy result in saṃsāra and are then exhausted. They are consequently referred to as “virtues leading to happiness” (bsod nams cha mthun gyi dge ba). If, on the other hand, they are associated with the path [of wisdom and compassion], they are the cause of enlightenment and for this reason are referred to as “virtues leading to liberation” (thar pa cha mthun gyi dge ba).
Negative actions motivated by the three poisons are the causes of the evil destinies and all the sufferings that exist. Virtue leading to happiness is the basis of the abundant happiness of the divine and human conditions of the upper realms, whereas virtue leading to liberation is the cause of the higher realms in the immediate term, and finally of the definitive excellence of enlightenment. As it is said in the Ratnāvalī,
Craving, hatred, ignorance—
The deeds that they engender are nonvirtue.
When there is no craving, hatred, ignorance,
The deeds performed are virtuous.
From nonvirtue every sorrow
And likewise every evil destiny derive.
From virtue come all happy destinies
And happiness in every life.
When all the dreamlike things that appear as if they were extramental are apprehended as being “other,” they turn, through habit, into sense objects and appear variously as pure and impure. They are the locus of delusion. Because the inner nature of the body engendered from the elements is not recognized, it turns, through habit, into an objective entity. Since it contains the aggregates, elements, consciousnesses, defilements, and sufferings (the result of the defilements), the body is the basis or foundation of delusion. The self-arisen primordial wisdom of luminosity is empty by its nature, luminous by its character, and unceasing in its variously arising radiance. Yet through its being fixated upon—in terms of a real apprehending subject and a real apprehended object—awareness (rig pa) turns, through habit, into the ordinary mind (sems), which arises in the form of the five or three poisons. Through its clinging thus to “I” and “mine,” which is the root of delusion, the hallucinatory appearances of saṃsāra appear, though nonexistent, in the manner of reflections or dreams, or as falling threads or hairs seen by people with impaired vision. They definitely seem to be real. The apprehending subject is “I” and the apprehended object is taken to be “mine.” It is just like considering a house as one’s own.
[Taken from the autocommentary, 209: 1–211: 6]
THE THREE NATURES
THE TEXTS OF the Yogācāra speak of three great realities or natures: the imputed nature, the dependent nature, and the actual nature.
THE IMPUTED NATURE
The imputed nature (parikalpita, kun brtags) is divided into two categories: the imputed nature that is free of all characteristics (mtshan nyid chad pa’i kun brtags) and the figurative imputed nature (rnam grangs pa’i kun brtags). The imputed nature free of characteristics refers to what does not exist at all but is merely imputed by thought—such as the horns of a rabbit and the so-called self. It refers, in addition, to mistaken tenet systems and indeed everything that is merely “mind-posited,” as in the case of names and their meanings. A person may be called Leo or Lion, but this name is not something that can be found anywhere in the person’s body. And even if one were to explain its meaning, this is simply an assertion of the mind and does not exist as an actual object to which speech refers (through the expression of its characteristics) or as an actual object of the thinking mind. [They are of a different order,] as different as the word “multitude” and that which is meant by it.
By contrast, the figurative imputed nature refers to all the manifold things that appear to the deluded mind: the world and the beings therein; [states] like happiness and suffering; the aggregates (skandha, phung po), the elements (dhātu, khams), sources (āyatana, skye mched), and so on. Since they do not exist in fact but nevertheless appear to deluded minds in the manner of dreams, they are referred to as the figurative imputed nature. And since they appear but are nevertheless nonexistent—their existence being an idea superimposed—they are referred to as the imputed
nature. As it is said in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra,
All that is imputed has no being.
It is created by deluded mind.
THE DEPENDENT NATURE
The dependent nature (paratantra, gzhan dbang) also has two aspects: the impure dependent nature and the pure dependent nature. The impure dependent nature refers to all the illusory appearances that manifest via the different sense doors: the impure aspects of the universe, such as earth, rocks, mountains, cliffs and the rest, together with the universe’s contents, namely, beings. All these things are but the full development of the habitual tendencies [of the mind].
The pure dependent nature, on the other hand, refers to the pure fields and all that appears within the sphere of the pure vision of the buddhas: the buddhafields; the seven precious things; luminous, unfathomable palaces; and so on.
On this matter, certain people object that the dependent nature mentioned in the Yogācāra literature is untenable because it accounts for all phenomena as being exclusively gathered within the subjective experience of individual minds. But I do not consider this to be a proper subject of dispute. Phenomena produced through the habitual tendencies of the mind are not established in themselves, in the same way that the reflection of a face in a mirror is not the real face, even though it is produced in dependence thereon.
Moreover, the statement that all phenomena are gathered within the subjective experience of one’s own mind calls for investigation. The question is: are they gathered within the mind as mere perceived appearances, or are they gathered therein as being the mind itself?
In the first case, if phenomena are no more than perceived appearances, there is no need to wonder whether they are contained within the mind or not. If, on the other hand, one were to say that they were contained therein, this is no more than a futile claim, for an object is by definition located extramentally.