釋覺意三昧入觀門第五
Entering the Samadhi of Enlightened Mind: Chapter 5
問曰。已知四運心相。攝一切心。行者云何觀察此心。通達實相圓照。分明諸三昧具七覺意。答曰。行者先以大誓莊嚴。善修如上六度法門。以調其心。信知諸法畢竟空寂。而我為無明所覆未能覺了。必須勤修正觀。行到乃知。豈可虛心妄解而自毀傷。既能善自調和。然後隨心所起。以無所住著之心。反照觀察未念欲念念念已之相。爾時諦觀未念心為滅。欲念心生。未念心為不滅。欲念心生。未念心為亦滅亦不滅。欲念心生未念心為非滅非不滅。欲念心生。如此於未念四句中。觀欲念心生皆不可得。若不得欲念心生亦不得不生。即於心性而得解脫。云何名於未念四句中。觀欲念心生不可得。一先約未念初句。觀欲念心生不可得。若謂未念心滅有欲念心生者。未念心已滅欲念何處生。為即未念滅生。為離未念滅生。若即未念滅生欲念者。滅法不應生。以生滅性相違故。若謂即滅中有生。生滅不相違者。是事不然。若爾應如熟果皮中有核。皮爛核出。皮非是核核非是皮。何得皮即是核。心法亦如是。即滅不得有生。是故即未念滅欲念心生不可得。若謂離未念滅有欲念心生者。則為無因而有生。是事不然。以生無所從生是則不名為生。如虛空無所從生。故虛空不名為生。當知離未念滅欲念心生不可得。行者如是。若即若離中。觀未念心滅欲念心生。畢竟不可得。二明約未念第二句。觀欲念心生不可得。若謂未念心不滅欲念心生者。為即不滅生。為離不滅生。若即不滅生不滅已是生。是生何得生。若是生能生此生。復應有生。生則有無窮生。若此生生生是事不然。若是一體生。一中不應有多生。如一指中則無多指。若是異體生。則不應名生。生以生體別。不能相生故。如桃柰體別。桃不生柰。柰不生桃。是故即未念不滅。欲念心生不可得。若謂離未念不滅。有欲念心生者。欲念何處生。若生無處生。即是無因生。若是無因生是則為非生非生而說生者是事不然。以墮無因果過。如說石女之子黃門之兒。當知離未念不滅。有欲念心生不可得。行者如是。若即若離中。觀未念不滅。欲念心生。畢竟不可得。三明約未念第三句。觀欲念心生不可得。若謂未念心亦滅亦不滅。有欲念心生者。若是亦滅生何須亦不滅。若是亦不滅生何須亦滅。以不定因不能有定果故。如不定根人。不能生定根之子。若謂亦滅亦不滅。體一無異故。有欲念心生者是事不然。而今亦滅非亦不滅。亦不滅非亦滅。性相違故不應體一。不異能生於欲念。如不定根人二根體非一故。不能生一子。若謂亦滅亦不滅體異。二各能生欲念者。體異即還是定滅。定不滅何名亦滅亦不滅。若是定滅定不滅。各能生欲念者。即應二欲念生。今實不爾。若二各不生則無欲念生。行者如是觀時。未念亦滅亦不滅。欲念心生畢竟不可得。次明約未念第四句。觀欲念心生不可得。若謂未念心非滅非不滅。有欲念心生者。若因非滅生。不須非不滅。若因非不滅生。則不須非滅。以非滅非不滅所非各異。不應俱以為因。亦是相違之因。不能共有一果故。如水火互非。終不於中而生果實。若謂俱因二非而有生者。是事不然。若二非之處各是有者。二有還應生二生。今實不爾。若二非之處各是無。則無能生。何能生所生。若無能生所生者。即所生不名為所生。以所生無所從生故。行者如是觀非滅非不滅。欲念心生畢竟不可得。復次行者既能如是約初運未念四句中。觀欲念心生不可得。已即當還約欲念心生四句轉觀。觀未念心滅不可得。云何為觀。若謂未念心是滅者。為欲念心生未念心滅。為欲念心不生未念心滅。為欲念心亦生亦不生未念心滅。為欲念心非生非不生未念心滅。如是還反約欲念中四句推求未念心滅。畢竟不可得(推檢之相還轉用上約未念中四句。觀欲念意言句一類。細比作自得具作云云)若行者不得未念欲念心生滅。則不得不生滅。亦生滅亦不生滅。非生滅非不生滅。但以凡夫顛倒妄。於未念欲念及一切法中。計有生滅乃至非生滅。非不生滅。虛誑無實。皆不可得但有名字。名字之法不在內外兩中間亦不常自有。即是無名字。若不得生滅等四句名字。亦不得無名字。不得名字故非假。不得無名字故非空。不得假故非俗。不得空故非真。不得俗故非世間。不得真故非出世間。不得世間故非有漏。不得出世間故非無漏。不得有漏故非生死。不得無漏故非涅槃。行者如是觀未念欲念時。若不得二邊則不取二邊。若不取二邊則不執二邊起諸結業。若無二邊結業障覆。正觀之心猶如虛空湛然清淨。因是中道正慧。朗然開發雙照二諦。心心寂滅自然流入大涅槃海。若觀未念欲念。如是餘念念已及一切心法類亦可知。是則略說正觀相。復次夫修正觀則有二種。一者總觀。二者歷別觀。第一所言總觀者。若行人未有大方便力。不能一切處中觀察實相。故當先於坐中照了心意。是則名為總觀心意。第二所以名為別觀者。若行人方便善巧能一切處中常得用心。是歷別觀於心意。復次行者欲入三昧。要先於坐中而觀心意。然後亦當一切處中悉觀心意。所以者何。四威儀中唯獨坐時。身心安隱不沈不浮。不異緣生故則心審諦事有觀法。故經云。端坐念實相。是名第一懺。是故行者。當先於閑房靜室而修三昧。云何為修。行者應當善自調和身心等。事事如禪法中說。此中應廣明。行者既能善自調和。是時當於坐中。正念觀察心意識等。四運之義。悉不可得。觀行破析悉如上說。是時名於坐禪中修行三昧。行者如是知心意識不見不得。復當隨有所作。一一諦觀內外心。外心名作者。內心名受者。大集經中。說作者受者。行人觀於作者凡有六事。觀於受者亦有六種。內外俱觀有十二種。是三昧境能生三昧。行者應當隨所起處而觀察之。外作六者。所謂。一行。二住。三坐。四臥。五作作。六言談。內受六者。所謂。一眼受色。二耳受聲。三鼻受香。四舌受味。五身受觸。六意緣法。是為十二觀境。是三昧門。第一若於行時。即應觀行中。未行。欲行。行。行已。心相通達皆不可得。雙照分明如前所說。復作是念。如是行動由心運役故有去來。反觀行心不見住處。無有生滅一切相貌。當知行者畢竟空寂。第二若於住時。即應諦觀。未住。欲住。住。住已。心相皆不可得。雙照分明具如前說。復作是念。如此住者。由心制御竪身安立故名為住。反觀住心不見處所。況復生滅一切相貌。當知住者畢竟空寂。第三若於坐時即應諦觀。未坐。欲坐。坐。坐已。心相皆不可得。雙照分明亦如前說。復作是念。如此坐者。由心迴轉屈脚安身故名為坐。反觀坐心不見生滅亦非內外。當知坐者畢竟空寂。第四於眠寢時。即應諦觀。未眠。欲眠。眠。眠已。心相皆不可得。雙照分明亦如上說。復作是念。如是眠者。由心勞乏。即便放任六分。委臥故名為眠。反觀眠心不見相貌。當知眠者畢竟空寂。第五若於作時即應諦觀。未作。欲作。作。作已。心相皆不可得。雙照分明亦如上說。復作是念。今運身手作諸事業。舉手下手由心迴轉。得成眾事故名為作。反觀作心不見動轉。當知作者畢竟空寂。第六行者若於言語讀誦之時。即應諦觀。未語。欲語。語。語已。心相皆不可得。雙照分明亦如上說。復作是念。如是音聲。有所談吐由心覺觀。鼓動氣息衝於六處。咽喉脣舌齒齶等故有此言談。反觀語心不見蹤跡音聲住空。當知語者畢竟空寂。是為行者觀於外心六種事業。悉知空寂不見作者。有定實相。是故菩薩於一切事中。修行三昧。故般若經中。佛告須菩提。若菩薩摩訶薩行時知行。乃至坐時知坐。臥時言語身服僧伽梨時。悉知已不可得。故是為菩薩摩訶衍。復次行者。觀於內心有六種。受知無受者。所以者何。諸受雖空若不觀察。能作無量煩惱生死因緣。是故行者。應當隨是諸根所受塵時。一一觀察。云何觀察。第一行者眼見色時。即應諦觀。未見色。欲見色。見色。見色已。四運之相皆不可得。雙照分明廣說如上。復作是念。如是見者。即無見相。所以者何。於彼根塵空明之中。各各無見亦無分別。和合因緣出生眼識。眼識因緣出生意識。意識出時。即能分別種種諸色。亦依於意識則有眼識。眼識因緣能見於色。而生貪著。是故即當反觀念色之心。如是觀時不見此心從外來入。而生領納。亦復不見心從內出而生分別。所以者何。外來於我無事。若自有不待因緣。當知受者畢竟空寂。故淨名菩薩云。所見色與盲等。第二行者耳聞聲時即應諦觀。未聞聲。欲聞聲。聞聲。聞聲已。四運之相皆不可得。雙照分明廣說如上。復作是念。如是聞聲。無有自性。但從根塵和合而生。是意識想分別故。於所聞。生諸煩惱及於惡業。即當反觀緣聲心識。不見體性。當知聞者畢竟空寂。故淨名菩薩言。所聞聲與響等。第三行者鼻嗅香時。即應諦觀。未嗅香。欲嗅香。嗅香。嗅香已。四運之心皆不可得。雙照分明廣說如上。復作是念。如是香者是無知法。所有鼻根。本亦無知。和合生識。假名說知。虛妄意識。得所領納。而生分別。起諸煩惱生死業行。即當反觀意識。不見根源及與相貌。當知領受者畢竟空寂。故淨名菩薩言。所嗅香與風等。第四行者舌受味時。即應諦觀。未受味。欲受味。受味。受味已。四運之相皆不可得。雙照分明廣說如上。復作是念。如是受味實無自性。所以者何。外六味六味無分別。內舌根本無知故。但從和合因緣而生舌識。此識亦不定在內外兩中間。故是中心意強取味相。生著分別。故有一切諸使煩惱。是時即當反觀。著味心意識等不見住處。況有生滅一切相貌。當知分別味者。畢竟清淨故。淨名菩薩言。所食味不分別。第五行者身覺觸時。即應諦觀。未覺觸。欲覺觸。覺觸。覺觸已。四運之相皆不可得。雙照分明廣說如上。復作是念。如是覺者。不從內生。亦不從外來。所以者何。冷暖軟滑等。悉非外來故。離冷暖等。無別來法故身頭等六分非是生法。故離身六分亦無生法故。二和合身識生時。即名為覺。而此識性不在內外。無所依倚但以心意。強作分別。謂證諸觸。生苦樂想。故有愛恚一切煩惱。是時即當反觀。緣觸心識不見住處。況有生滅一切相貌。當知能覺觸者。畢竟空寂。故淨名菩薩言。受諸觸如智證。第六行者意緣法時。即應諦觀。未念法。欲念法。念法。念法已。四運之心相皆不可得。雙照分明廣說如上。復作是念。如是意識。攀緣諸法悉是虛誑。無有實事。所以者何。法如幻化性無實故。心如陽炎無暫停故。法無定性不可緣故。心無住處誰是能緣。若離能緣所緣更無別緣。當知但以虛妄憶想。強起分別是法而生諸見。一切煩惱生死業行相續不斷。是故行者。為破虛妄顛倒想。及隨緣境時。即當反觀。反觀心意識根源。諦觀心時不見住止及與生滅一切法相。若心無住處生滅諸相。當知此心則不可得。尚不得心況心數法。若無心數一切諸法竟何所依。是故經言。我心自空罪福無主。一切法亦如是。無住無壞。行者如是觀心意時不得一切法。當知所攀緣法。畢竟空寂。故淨名言。知諸法如幻相無自性無他性。本自不然今則無滅。如是之言當何謂也。前破未念欲念心正觀相應以十二事中。應當一一分別說。行者如是觀察時。亦當應識有三種心。一者觀亂心。二者觀定心。三者觀於觀心。云何名為觀於亂心。如上所說種種事中。行者初學未了諸法。於是境界悉有亂起。一心諦觀不見心相。則無有亂。其心安隱行住坐臥。身心寂泊澹然不動。即是定心。於是定心若不觀察。多生染著。如淨名菩薩言。貪著禪味是菩薩縛。是故當觀定心不可得。尚無有心定在何處。當知此定從顛倒生。如是觀時不見於定及與非定。不生貪著得脫定縛。故淨名經言。以方便生是菩薩解。是名觀相觀。於定心觀定心已。行者既未悟於理。或計我能觀心。是故不見有定亂相。當知如是妙慧最為殊勝。著是觀慧即便自高。謂他不能解。如是念時是名智障。同彼外道。故釋論說。是諸外道愛著觀空智慧。不得解脫。行者既知計有觀者。是大障礙不會泥洹。即當反觀能觀之心。不見住處亦復無起滅。當知畢竟無有觀者。及非觀者。既無觀者誰觀諸法。不得觀心即離觀想。故釋論云。念想觀已除。戲論心皆滅。無量眾罪除。清淨心常一。如是尊妙人則能見般若。是名為觀於心性。故大集經亦言觀於心心。是三觀者。即三三昧也。所以者何。於初觀中能破一切種種有相。不見內外。即空三昧也。第二觀中能壞空相。是則名為無相三昧。第三觀中不見作者。此即名曰無作三昧。菩薩行是三昧時。則能破壞三倒三毒心意識相及三有流。亦能降伏四種魔怨。所以者何。夫煩惱者。悉是亂惑。如是觀空。能了煩惱。性無動轉。即是菩提。故諸法無行經云。貪欲即是道。恚癡亦如是。如是三法中。具一切佛法。若煩惱是菩提。何得復以菩提而惱菩提。若知煩惱相空即是菩提。度煩惱魔。餘三魔亦如是。所以然者。如思益經云。愚於陰界入。而欲求菩提。陰界入即是。離是無菩提。當知觀空即度陰魔。如思益經又云。生死是涅槃無退沒生故。當知觀空即度死魔。首楞嚴經云。魔界如即是佛界如。魔界如佛界如。一如無二。如是故不出魔界而得佛界。當知觀空即度他化天子魔。菩薩行三空正觀。即時不復恐怖四魔。亦不得四魔而能度四魔。故釋論云。除諸法實相。其餘一切皆名魔事。若能善修實相即無魔事。是故行者善觀此意修行三昧。終無魔事。若離此觀分別憶想必定墮魔網中。故釋論云。若分別憶想即是魔羅網。不動不分別是則名法印。復次行者能善修如上三觀。破一切法心無所著。雖知眾生空相而常念大悲。不捨一切眾生。學諸波羅蜜起十力。觀察法界種種法門。長養一切諸善功德。
Question: We have already understood that the mind’s workings through the four phases encompass all mental states. How should a practitioner observe this mind, penetrate the true nature of reality with perfect clarity, and clearly realize all meditative concentrations complete with the seven factors of enlightenment?
Answer: The practitioner should first be fortified by the great vow, and well cultivate the six perfections as described above to harmonize the mind. With faith, one understands that all phenomena are ultimately empty and still, yet because we are covered by ignorance, we cannot awaken to this. One must diligently cultivate true contemplation—only by reaching it through practice can one truly know. How could one merely empty the mind with deluded interpretations and harm oneself? Once able to skillfully harmonize the mind, one then follows whatever the mind gives rise to, and with a mind that clings to nothing, turns the light of observation back upon the phases of not-yet-thinking, wanting-to-think, thinking, and having-thought.
At that time, one carefully observes: Is the not-yet-thinking mind ceased, such that the wanting-to-think mind arises? Is the not-yet-thinking mind not ceased, such that the wanting-to-think mind arises? Is the not-yet-thinking mind both ceased and not ceased, such that the wanting-to-think mind arises? Is the not-yet-thinking mind neither ceased nor not ceased, such that the wanting-to-think mind arises? In this way, within the four propositions regarding the not-yet-thinking mind, one observes that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. If the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found, neither can its non-arising be found. Thus one attains liberation within the very nature of mind.
How is it that within the four propositions regarding the not-yet-thinking mind, one observes that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found?
First, take the first proposition regarding the not-yet-thinking mind: one observes that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. If one claims that when the not-yet-thinking mind has ceased, the wanting-to-think mind arises—where could the wanting-to-think mind arise if the not-yet-thinking mind has already ceased? Does it arise in dependence on the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, or apart from the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind? If the wanting-to-think mind arises in dependence on the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, then a ceased phenomenon should not give rise to anything, because the natures of arising and ceasing are contradictory. If one claims that within cessation there is arising, and that arising and ceasing are not contradictory—this is not so. If it were, it would be like a ripe fruit whose skin contains a pit: the skin rots and the pit emerges; the skin is not the pit, the pit is not the skin. How could the skin be the pit? The same applies to mental phenomena: within cessation there can be no arising. Therefore, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind in dependence on the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind cannot be found.
If one claims that apart from the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the wanting-to-think mind arises—then it would arise without a cause. This is not so. That which arises from nowhere is not called arising. Just as space arises from nowhere, space is not called arising. Know that apart from the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. In this way, whether in identity or in separation, the practitioner observes that with the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind is ultimately unfindable.
Second, regarding the second proposition of the not-yet-thinking mind: one observes that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. If one claims that when the not-yet-thinking mind is not ceased, the wanting-to-think mind arises—does it arise in dependence on non-cessation, or apart from non-cessation? If it arises in dependence on non-cessation, then non-cessation itself would be arising. How could that arising arise? If that arising could produce this arising, there would be yet another arising, leading to infinite regress. If this arising produces arising after arising, this is not so. If it is a single-entity arising, there should not be multiple arisings within one. Just as within one finger there are no multiple fingers. If it is a different-entity arising, it should not be called arising, because arising, having a distinct arising-entity, cannot produce one another. Just as a peach and a pear have distinct entities—a peach does not produce a pear, a pear does not produce a peach. Therefore, in dependence on the non-cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found.
If one claims that apart from the non-cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the wanting-to-think mind arises—where could the wanting-to-think mind arise? If it arises from no place, that is arising without a cause. If it is arising without a cause, then it is not arising; to call non-arising "arising" is not so. This falls into the fault of denying cause and effect, like speaking of the child of a barren woman or the son of a eunuch. Know that apart from the non-cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. In this way, whether in identity or in separation, the practitioner observes that with the non-cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind is ultimately unfindable.
Third, regarding the third proposition of the not-yet-thinking mind: one observes that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. If one claims that when the not-yet-thinking mind is both ceased and not ceased, the wanting-to-think mind arises—if it arises from cessation, what need is there for non-cessation? If it arises from non-cessation, what need is there for cessation? Because an indeterminate cause cannot produce a determinate effect. Just as a person of indeterminate faculties cannot produce a child of determinate faculties. If one claims that because both cessation and non-cessation are one undifferentiated entity, the wanting-to-think mind arises—this is not so. Now, cessation is not non-cessation, and non-cessation is not cessation; their natures are contradictory, so they should not be one entity. If they are not different and can produce the wanting-to-think mind—but like a person of indeterminate faculties whose two faculties are not one entity, they cannot produce one child. If one claims that both cessation and non-cessation, being different entities, can each produce the wanting-to-think mind—then being different entities, they revert to being definite cessation and definite non-cessation. How then call them both ceased and not ceased? If definite cessation and definite non-cessation each could produce the wanting-to-think mind, then two wanting-to-think minds should arise. But in reality this is not the case. If neither produces it, then no wanting-to-think mind arises. In this way, when the practitioner observes, the both-ceased-and-not-ceased not-yet-thinking mind and the arising of the wanting-to-think mind are ultimately unfindable.
Next, regarding the fourth proposition of the not-yet-thinking mind: one observes that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found. If one claims that when the not-yet-thinking mind is neither ceased nor not ceased, the wanting-to-think mind arises—if it arises from neither-ceased, there is no need for neither-not-ceased. If it arises from neither-not-ceased, there is no need for neither-ceased. Because the negations of neither-ceased and neither-not-ceased are each different, they should not both serve as cause. They are also contradictory causes and cannot share one effect. Like water and fire mutually negating each other, ultimately no fruit can grow therein. If one claims that both negations together as cause produce arising—this is not so. If in the place of the two negations each is existent, then the two existents should produce two arisings. But in reality this is not the case. If in the place of the two negations each is nonexistent, then there is no producer. How could there be a produced? If there is no producer or produced, then the produced is not called produced, because the produced arises from nowhere. In this way, the practitioner observes that with neither-ceased-nor-not-ceased, the arising of the wanting-to-think mind is ultimately unfindable.
Furthermore, having thus observed within the four propositions of the first phase—the not-yet-thinking mind—that the arising of the wanting-to-think mind cannot be found, the practitioner should then reverse the observation and, within the four propositions of the wanting-to-think mind, observe that the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind cannot be found. How is this observed? If one claims that the not-yet-thinking mind is ceased—does the not-yet-thinking mind cease when the wanting-to-think mind arises? Does the not-yet-thinking mind cease when the wanting-to-think mind does not arise? Does the not-yet-thinking mind cease when the wanting-to-think mind both arises and does not arise? Does the not-yet-thinking mind cease when the wanting-to-think mind neither arises nor does not arise? In this way, reversing and applying the four propositions to the wanting-to-think mind, one seeks the cessation of the not-yet-thinking mind and finds it ultimately unfindable.
(The method of inquiry here reverses and applies the above four propositions from the not-yet-thinking mind. The verbal formulations for observing the wanting-to-think mind are of the same type. By carefully comparing and practicing, one will understand fully.)
If the practitioner cannot find the arising and ceasing of the not-yet-thinking and wanting-to-think minds, then neither can non-arising and non-ceasing be found, nor both arising-ceasing and non-arising-non-ceasing, nor neither-arising-ceasing nor non-arising-non-ceasing. It is only because ordinary beings, through delusion and inversion, falsely conceive within the not-yet-thinking and wanting-to-think minds and all phenomena, positing arising and ceasing, up to neither-arising-ceasing nor non-arising-non-ceasing—all deceptively unreal and entirely unfindable, existing in name only. The Dharma of names is not inside, outside, or in between, nor does it permanently exist on its own. This is namelessness. If the four propositions of names—arising, ceasing, and so on—cannot be found, then namelessness also cannot be found. Because names cannot be found, it is not conventional. Because namelessness cannot be found, it is not empty. Because conventionality cannot be found, it is not the worldly. Because emptiness cannot be found, it is not the transcendent. Because the worldly cannot be found, it is not with outflows. Because the transcendent cannot be found, it is not without outflows. Because with-outflows cannot be found, it is not saṃsāra. Because without-outflows cannot be found, it is not nirvana.
When the practitioner thus observes the not-yet-thinking and wanting-to-think minds, if the two extremes cannot be found, one does not grasp the two extremes. If one does not grasp the two extremes, one does not cling to the two extremes and generate karmic bonds. If there are no karmic bonds of the two extremes to obstruct, the mind of true contemplation is like space—vast, calm, and pure. From this, the middle-way true wisdom brightly unfolds, illuminating both truths. Mind after mind is quiescent, naturally flowing into the great ocean of nirvana. If one observes the not-yet-thinking and wanting-to-think minds thus, the remaining phases—having-thought and thought-already—and all mental phenomena can be understood by analogy. This is a brief explanation of the marks of true contemplation.
Furthermore, the cultivation of true contemplation has two types: first, comprehensive observation; second, detailed observation. First, what is comprehensive observation? If a practitioner does not yet have great skillful means and cannot observe true reality in all situations, one should first illuminate the mind and mental states while sitting. This is called comprehensive observation of mind and mental states. Second, why is it called detailed observation? If a practitioner is skillful and able to apply the mind at all times and in all places, this is detailed observation of mind and mental states.
Furthermore, if a practitioner wishes to enter meditative concentration, one should first observe the mind and mental states while sitting, and then also observe the mind and mental states in all situations. Why? Among the four postures, only when sitting are body and mind calm and stable—neither sunk nor浮. Because one does not follow conditions, the mind can carefully examine matters and there is a method of observation. Therefore the sutra says: "Sitting upright, contemplate true reality; this is called the foremost confession." Thus the practitioner should first cultivate meditative concentration in a quiet room. How is it cultivated? The practitioner should skillfully harmonize body and mind, in every detail as described in the method of meditation. This should be explained at length here. Once the practitioner has skillfully harmonized body and mind, then while sitting, one should with right mindfulness observe the mind, intellect, and consciousness, and the meaning of the four phases—all unfindable. The analysis through contemplation is as described above. This is called cultivating meditative concentration in seated meditation.
When the practitioner thus knows that mind, intellect, and consciousness cannot be seen or found, one should then, in whatever activity one engages, carefully observe the inner and outer mind. The outer mind is called the doer; the inner mind is called the receiver. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sutra speaks of the doer and receiver. The practitioner observes the doer in six activities, and observes the receiver in six types. Observing both inner and outer together makes twelve. These are the objects of meditative concentration, capable of producing meditative concentration. The practitioner should observe according to whatever arises.
The six outer doings are: one, walking; two, standing; three, sitting; four, lying down; five, working; six, speaking. The six inner receptions are: one, the eye receiving forms; two, the ear receiving sounds; three, the nose receiving odors; four, the tongue receiving tastes; five, the body receiving touches; six, the mind cognizing phenomena. These are the twelve objects of observation. These are the gates of meditative concentration.
First, when walking, one should observe: within walking—not-yet-walking, wanting-to-walk, walking, having-walked—the mind’s workings cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such walking and movement occur because the mind directs them, hence there is going and coming. Turning back to observe the walking mind, no dwelling place is found, no arising or ceasing, no marks whatsoever. Know that the walker is ultimately empty and still.
Second, when standing, one should carefully observe: not-yet-standing, wanting-to-stand, standing, having-stood—the mind’s workings cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: this standing occurs because the mind controls and holds the body upright, hence it is called standing. Turning back to observe the standing mind, no location is found, much less arising, ceasing, or any marks. Know that the stander is ultimately empty and still.
Third, when sitting, one should carefully observe: not-yet-sitting, wanting-to-sit, sitting, having-sat—the mind’s workings cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: this sitting occurs because the mind turns and bends the legs to settle the body, hence it is called sitting. Turning back to observe the sitting mind, no arising or ceasing is found, nor inside nor outside. Know that the sitter is ultimately empty and still.
Fourth, when sleeping, one should carefully observe: not-yet-sleeping, wanting-to-sleep, sleeping, having-slept—the mind’s workings cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: this sleeping occurs because the mind is weary, and one lets go into the six parts, lying down, hence it is called sleeping. Turning back to observe the sleeping mind, no marks are found. Know that the sleeper is ultimately empty and still.
Fifth, when working, one should carefully observe: not-yet-working, wanting-to-work, working, having-worked—the mind’s workings cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: now one moves hands and body to do various tasks—raising and lowering the hands is directed by the mind—accomplishing various things, hence it is called working. Turning back to observe the working mind, no movement is found. Know that the worker is ultimately empty and still.
Sixth, when speaking, reciting, or reading, one should carefully observe: not-yet-speaking, wanting-to-speak, speaking, having-spoken—the mind’s workings cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such sounds and utterances occur because the mind’s cognition and conceptualization stir the breath, which strikes the six places—throat, lips, tongue, teeth, palate, and so on—thus there is speech. Turning back to observe the speaking mind, no traces are found; sounds dwell in emptiness. Know that the speaker is ultimately empty and still.
This is how the practitioner observes the six outer activities of the mind, knowing all as empty and still, without seeing a doer with any fixed true reality. Therefore bodhisattvas cultivate meditative concentration in all activities. Thus in the Prajñāpāramitā Sutra, the Buddha told Subhuti: "When a bodhisattva mahāsattva walks, he knows he walks; up to when sitting, he knows he sits; when lying down, speaking, or wearing the saṅghāṭī robe, he knows all as unfindable." This is the bodhisattva’s great vehicle.
Furthermore, the practitioner observes six types of inner reception and knows there is no receiver. Why? Although feelings are empty, if not observed, they can become causes and conditions for immeasurable afflictions and saṃsāra. Therefore the practitioner should, whenever the faculties receive their objects, observe each one. How? First, when the eye sees forms, one should carefully observe: not-yet-seeing, wanting-to-see, seeing, having-seen—the four phases cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such seeing has no mark of seeing. Why? Within the emptiness and clarity of faculty and object, each has no seeing and no discrimination. When causes and conditions combine, eye-consciousness arises. From eye-consciousness as cause, mind-consciousness arises. When mind-consciousness arises, it can discriminate various forms. Also relying on mind-consciousness, there is eye-consciousness. From eye-consciousness as cause, one can see forms and give rise to greed and attachment. Therefore one should turn back to observe the mind that discriminates forms. When thus observing, one does not see this mind coming in from outside to receive, nor does one see the mind going out from inside to discriminate. Why? What comes from outside has no business with me; if it were self-existing, it would not depend on causes and conditions. Know that the receiver is ultimately empty and still. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "What is seen with the eye is equal to blindness."
Second, when the ear hears sounds, one should carefully observe: not-yet-hearing, wanting-to-hear, hearing, having-heard—the four phases cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such hearing of sounds has no self-nature; it arises only from the combination of faculty and object, and from the discriminations of mind-consciousness. Regarding what is heard, one gives rise to afflictions and evil karma. Then one should turn back to observe the mind-consciousness that conditions sounds. No essence is found. Know that the hearer is ultimately empty and still. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "What is heard by the ear is equal to an echo."
Third, when the nose smells odors, one should carefully observe: not-yet-smelling, wanting-to-smell, smelling, having-smelled—the four phases of mind cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such odor is a non-knowing phenomenon; the nose faculty itself is also non-knowing. When they combine, consciousness arises, and by convention it is called knowing. Deluded mind-consciousness receives and discriminates, giving rise to afflictions and saṃsāra karma. Then one should turn back to observe mind-consciousness. No root or mark is found. Know that the receiver is ultimately empty and still. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "What is smelled by the nose is equal to wind."
Fourth, when the tongue receives tastes, one should carefully observe: not-yet-receiving taste, wanting-to-receive taste, receiving taste, having-received taste—the four phases cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such reception of taste truly has no self-nature. Why? The outer six tastes have no discrimination; the inner tongue faculty is also non-knowing. Only from the combination of causes and conditions does tongue-consciousness arise. This consciousness is also not fixed inside, outside, or in between. Therefore the mind’s intellect forcibly grasps the mark of taste, giving rise to attachment and discrimination, and thus all afflictions arise. At that time one should turn back to observe the mind, intellect, and consciousness that cling to taste—no dwelling place is found, much less arising, ceasing, or any marks. Know that the discriminator of taste is ultimately pure. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "What is eaten does not involve discrimination."
Fifth, when the body feels touch, one should carefully observe: not-yet-feeling touch, wanting-to-feel touch, feeling touch, having-felt touch—the four phases cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such feeling does not arise from inside, nor come from outside. Why? Cold, warmth, softness, smoothness, and so forth are not from outside. Apart from cold, warmth, and so forth, there is no other coming phenomenon. The body’s six parts—head, and so on—are not arising phenomena. Apart from the body’s six parts, there is also no arising phenomenon. When the two combine and body-consciousness arises, it is called feeling. Yet this consciousness’s nature is not inside or outside, has nothing to rely on; only mind’s intellect forcibly discriminates, claiming to experience various touches, giving rise to pleasant and unpleasant feelings, and thus craving, aversion, and all afflictions. At that time one should turn back to observe the mind-consciousness that conditions touch. No dwelling place is found, much less arising, ceasing, or any marks. Know that the one who feels touch is ultimately empty and still. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "Receiving touches is like wisdom’s realization."
Sixth, when the mind cognizes phenomena, one should carefully observe: not-yet-thinking phenomena, wanting-to-think phenomena, thinking phenomena, having-thought phenomena—the four phases of mind cannot be found. Dual illumination is clear as described above. Then one reflects: such mind-consciousness grasping various phenomena is entirely deceptive, without any reality. Why? Phenomena are like illusions, their nature unreal. The mind is like a mirage, never pausing. Phenomena have no fixed nature and cannot be grasped. The mind has no dwelling place—who is the grasper? If apart from grasper and grasped there is no other grasping, know that it is only deluded recollection and false conception that forcibly discriminate phenomena and give rise to all views, afflictions, saṃsāra, and karma continuing without cease. Therefore the practitioner, to break deluded and inverted thoughts, whenever conditions arise, should turn back to observe. Turning back to observe the root of mind, intellect, and consciousness, carefully observing the mind, no dwelling or abiding is found, nor arising, ceasing, or any marks of phenomena. If the mind has no dwelling place or marks of arising and ceasing, know that this mind is unfindable. Since even mind is unfindable, how much more so mental factors? If there are no mental factors, on what do all phenomena depend? Therefore the sutra says: "My mind is inherently empty; sin and merit have no master. All phenomena are likewise—no dwelling, no destruction." When the practitioner thus observes mind and mental states and finds no phenomena, know that the phenomena grasped are ultimately empty and still. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "Know that all phenomena are like illusions, without self-nature or other-nature. Originally not so, now also not ceased." What does this mean? Above, in breaking the not-yet-thinking and wanting-to-think minds, in accordance with true contemplation, within the twelve activities one should distinguish each one.
When the practitioner thus observes, one should also recognize three types of mind: first, observing the scattered mind; second, observing the concentrated mind; third, observing the observing mind. What is observing the scattered mind? In the various activities described above, when a practitioner first begins and has not yet understood all phenomena, scattered thoughts arise in these states. With single-minded careful observation, no mind-mark is found, and thus there is no scattering. The mind becomes calm and stable in walking, standing, sitting, and lying down; body and mind are quiescent, tranquil, and unmoving. This is the concentrated mind. If one does not observe this concentrated mind, much attachment arises. Thus Vimalakīrti says: "Attachment to the flavor of meditation is a bond for bodhisattvas." Therefore one should observe that the concentrated mind is unfindable. Since even mind is not found, where is concentration? Know that this concentration arises from inversion. When thus observing, one does not see concentration or non-concentration, does not give rise to attachment, and is freed from the bond of concentration. Thus the Vimalakīrti Sutra says: "Being born through skillful means is the bodhisattva’s liberation." This is called observing the marks of observation.
Having observed the concentrated mind, if the practitioner has not yet awakened to the principle, one may think, "I can observe the mind," and thus not see the marks of concentration or scattering. Know that such subtle wisdom is most excellent. Clinging to this observing wisdom, one becomes arrogant, thinking others cannot understand. Such a thought is called an obstacle of wisdom, like the non-Buddhists. Thus the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom says: "These non-Buddhists, attached to the wisdom of observing emptiness, do not attain liberation." When the practitioner knows that positing an observer is a great obstacle preventing nirvana, one should turn back to observe the observing mind. No dwelling place is found, nor arising or ceasing. Know that ultimately there is no observer and no non-observer. Since there is no observer, who observes phenomena? If the observing mind cannot be found, one is free from the notion of observation. Thus the Treatise says: "When the notion of observation is removed, all conceptual fabrications cease. Immeasurable sins are eradicated. The pure mind is constantly one. Such a venerable and wondrous person can see prajñā." This is called observing the nature of mind. Thus the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sutra also says: "Observe the mind within the mind." These three observations are the three meditative concentrations. Why? In the first observation, one can break all kinds of marks and not see inside or outside—this is the concentration of emptiness. In the second observation, one can destroy the mark of emptiness—this is called the concentration of signlessness. In the third observation, one does not see a doer—this is called the concentration of wishlessness. When a bodhisattva practices these three concentrations, one can destroy the three inversions, the three poisons, the marks of mind, intellect, and consciousness, and the three streams of existence. One can also subdue the four kinds of demons. Why? Afflictions are all scattered delusion. Thus observing emptiness can understand that afflictions, by nature, are unmoving—this is enlightenment. Therefore the Sutra of the Practice of All Phenomena says: "Greed itself is the path; hatred and delusion are likewise. Within these three phenomena are all Buddhadharmas." If afflictions are enlightenment, how could one use enlightenment to afflict enlightenment? If one knows the mark of affliction is empty, that is enlightenment. Thus one transcends the demon of afflictions. The other three demons are likewise. Why? As the Vimalakīrti Sutra says: "The fool, within aggregates, elements, and sense-fields, seeks enlightenment. The aggregates, elements, and sense-fields themselves are it; apart from them there is no enlightenment." Know that observing emptiness transcends the demon of aggregates. As the Vimalakīrti Sutra also says: "Saṃsāra is nirvana, without retreat or birth." Know that observing emptiness transcends the demon of death. The Śūraṅgama Sutra says: "The suchness of the demon realm is the suchness of the Buddha realm. The suchness of the demon realm and the suchness of the Buddha realm are one suchness, without two." Thus without leaving the demon realm one attains the Buddha realm. Know that observing emptiness transcends the demon of the god Māra of the Paranirmitavaśavartin heaven. When a bodhisattva practices the true contemplation of the three emptinesses, one is immediately unafraid of the four demons, and without finding the four demons, can transcend the four demons. Thus the Treatise says: "Apart from the true reality of all phenomena, everything else is called demonic activity. If one skillfully cultivates true reality, there is no demonic activity." Therefore the practitioner should skillfully observe this meaning and cultivate meditative concentration—ultimately there will be no demonic activity. If one separates from this observation and engages in discriminations and recollections, one will surely fall into Māra’s net. Thus the Treatise says: "If one discriminates and recollects, that is Māra’s net. Not moving, not discriminating—this is called the Dharma seal."
Furthermore, having skillfully cultivated the above three observations, the practitioner breaks all phenomena and the mind clings to nothing. Though knowing beings are empty and still, one constantly remembers great compassion, does not abandon any being, studies the pāramitās, gives rise to the ten powers, observes the various Dharma gates of the Dharma realm, and nurtures all wholesome merits.