Heart Sutra (成唯識論觀心法要)

Chapter 2: Essential Contemplation of Consciousness-Only Theory

Master Zhi Xu of the Lotus School

5. Breaking Down the Characteristics of Conditioned Phenomena

Part One: Questioning and Refutation Part Two: Conclusion and Statement of Correct Principle This is Part One.

How do we know that the characteristics of conditioned things exist separately from form, mind, and other phenomena? Because the scriptures state so. For example, a sutra says: "There are three characteristics of conditioned things." And so on, the text elaborates further.

This is also a question from the Great Vehicle, answered by the Lesser Vehicle.

The "Three Types of Existing Things" refer to what is later described as "the definitely existing dharmas, briefly of three kinds." First, things known directly through experience—such as form and mind. Second, things known through everyday use—such as pots and clothes. These two types are commonly recognized as existing. Third, things that have function—such as eyes and ears. Because they each have their own specific uses, we can prove they exist. These three categories cover all conditioned dharmas.

As for the "marks of conditioned things"—these are the four characteristics: birth, abiding, change, and extinction. This means that form, mind, pots, clothes, eyes, ears, and so forth—all of them without exception possess these four characteristics.

This scripture does not speak of [birth, abiding, and other such characteristics]. It is not that there is a truly existing self-nature distinct from material form and mind. This cannot be proven. The sixth case, [the genitive case in the eight-case system], does not necessarily indicate a separate entity [from the substance of form and mind]. For [the characteristics of birth, abiding, change, and extinction] exist within form and mind themselves. The essence of active characteristics [such as birth and extinction] is not definitely distinct from the objects they characterize [form and mind]. Otherwise, qualities like solidity [would also exist independently], which is impossible, like earth being separate from the other elements. Furthermore, if the active characteristics [of conditioned phenomena] were separate from the essence of the phenomena they characterize, then [phenomena such as birth and extinction] would be unconditioned. The essence of unconditioned characteristics should also be distinct from the phenomena they characterize [such as true thusness or empty space]. Moreover, if the four characteristics [of birth, abiding, change, and extinction] all truly existed as separate entities, then at all times they would operate simultaneously [meaning something would be simultaneously born, abiding, changing, and ceasing]. If it is argued that because these characteristics oppose each other their functions do not arise at once, [then their] essences would also be mutually contradictory. How then could they all exist together?

This section critiques the Mahayana view. Regarding the eight cases: first, the nominative; second, the accusative; third, the instrumental; fourth, the dative; fifth, the ablative; sixth, the genitive; seventh, the locative; and eighth, the vocative. In the sutra's phrase "the characteristics of conditioned phenomena," the word "of" here indicates possession, which is precisely the sixth case, the genitive. This makes it clear that apart from conditioned phenomena, there are no separate characteristics. It shows that characteristics like arising, abiding, and ceasing are defined within the very substance of material and mental phenomena—not implying that the subject and its qualities have separate essences.

Suppose arising, abiding, and ceasing were entirely different from material and mental phenomena. Could we then also say that solidity, fluidity, heat, and motion are entirely different from earth, water, fire, and wind? Furthermore, if the characteristics of arising, abiding, and ceasing were truly separate from the essence of material and mental phenomena, would the characteristics of non-arising and non-ceasing also be separate from the essence of emptiness and suchness?

Moreover, if arising, abiding, and ceasing each had their own essence, they would have to function all at once at every moment. If their functions conflict, preventing them from arising together, then their essences would also conflict. How could they coexist?

Furthermore(, if the substance itself is not fully present, then) the functions of dwelling, changing, and ceasing(, these three,) should also not operate simultaneously( in the present reality. If one claims that coming into being, ceasing, and the others—)these active characteristics(—along with the entities they characterize (such as form and mind)) all have their essence inherently existing from the start,( then) their functions should also behave similarly,( since function and substance) are not distinct in nature.

If one claims that the essence of subject and object is originally present, but their functioning arises only when conditions are met, then the forms and mind—these conditioned appearances—would not be originally present. Moreover, if they depend on conditions, then the arising, abiding, and other characteristics you assert as defining features become useless.

First, we dismantle the existence of what is observed—forms and consciousness. Then, we reveal that the qualities which seem to define them—arising, abiding, and ceasing—are themselves without any real function.

This clarifies the concept of "shared within the unshared." The first interpretation is incorrect; the second is correct. Both can be understood accordingly.

"Thus arises in other realms, etc." – Because consciousness can transform the support [i.e., the environment] of others, the corpse is still seen as continuing. Because it does not transform the five sense faculties of others, the corpse neither sees nor hears any longer.

However, the continuation of this corpse has two causes: first, the force of one's own karmic seeds; second, the shared perception of others' collective karma. Therefore, it is still called "shared within the unshared."

Thus ends the explanation of how karmic forces produce determined effects.

Second, it clarifies that the transformations brought about by the power of meditative concentration are not fixed or permanent.

Why does this (eighth) consciousness not create mental images of mind and mental states as objects? (The answer is:) In the conditioned state, consciousness transformation is broadly of two kinds. The first (includes the eighth consciousness, the first five, and part of the sixth) transforms based on the power of causes and conditions (to create images that appear as objects). The second (covers the seventh consciousness and part of the sixth) transforms based on the power of conceptual discrimination (to create images that appear as objects). The first type (of transformation through causes and conditions) must have (real) function. The second type (of transformation through discrimination) only serves as (an image-object) without (real function).

Now, when the ripening consciousness (transforms to create an object), it does so solely through causes and conditions. The (resulting) forms and other phenomena it creates must have real function. If (it were to) transform into mind or mental states, these would lack real function, because (the) mind and mental states (in the image-object) cannot engage in (cognitive) awareness. They require (a) real functional (entity) to (arise separately from this) eighth consciousness's transformation. (If it were to) transform into unconditioned states, these would also lack real function (which is why it does not transform into the unconditioned). Therefore, the ripening consciousness does not take mind (, mental states, or the unconditioned) as objects (This refers to the conditioned state. When) reaching the (buddha fruit of) the unconditioned state (, in union with) the supreme wisdom (of the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom), although it is without (discrimination), its clarity and purity (as a mirror) allow it to reflect even (mind and mental states that) lack real function. Otherwise, all buddhas would not be all-knowing.

The *Record of the Mirror of the Teaching* says:

There are four types of mental transformations. First, transformations arising from causal conditions, not from conscious discrimination. This applies to the five sense consciousnesses and their associated mental factors, and also the eighth consciousness (the storehouse consciousness). These perceive objects that arise from their own seeds—their own fundamental causes.

Second, transformations arising solely from conscious discrimination, not from causal conditions. This applies to the afflicted seventh consciousness (the self-centered mind) and the five mental factors associated with the eighth consciousness. The objects they perceive are generated only by the activity of discrimination.

Third, transformations arising from both causal conditions and conscious discrimination. This applies to the sixth consciousness (the thinking mind) in its ordinary, defiled state, and all eight consciousnesses in their awakened, undefiled state. These can engage with both conceptual constructs (unreal) and actual phenomena (real).

Fourth, transformations arising from neither. This applies to abstract categories not directly connected to mental activity (disassociated formations), as they have no concrete reality and do not arise from the same seeds as the consciousnesses that perceive them.

This concludes the initial clarification of what is transformed by consciousness.