Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Vimalakirti Sutra Part III - 203

.

203 - Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra
- PART III : chapter 9 –

translated by Robert A. F. Thurman

(Two translations from Thurman (almost identical);
+ Thomas Cleary’s translation of this chapter:
chapter 8. Entry into Non-dual Truth
From: https://terebess.hu/english/vim1.pdf )


[See chapters 1-4 in Part I]
[See chapters 5-8 in Part II]
[See chapters 9 in part III]
[See chapters 10-12 & Epilogue in Part IV]
[See Global Résumé of the Sutra in Part I, after the Table of Content]

TABLE OF CONTENT OF PART III (chapter 9 only)

9. The Dharma-Door of Non-duality [Union of opposites] ***

  • RÉSUMÉS

    • i. Transcending Opposites

    • ii. Sub-Sections of Chap. 9

    • iii. The Meaning of Union

    • iv. The Doors to Non-Duality

  • TEXTS

    • 1. Non-duality / Union of the 3 stages of becoming

    • 2. Non-duality / Union of the 3 spheres of ownership

    • 3. Non-duality / Union of impurity / defilement <==> purity / purification

    • 4. Non-duality / Union of distraction / mentation / movement <==> attention / fixation / rest

    • 5. Non-duality / Union of the various buddhist vehicles

    • 6. Non-duality / Union of accepting / grasping / seeking <==> rejecting / not-grasping / abandoning

    • 7. Non-duality / Union of difference / separation / manyness / duality <==> identity / unification / oneness / non-duality

    • 8. Non-duality / Union of good / significant <==> bad / evil / meaningless

    • 9. Non-duality / Union of sinfulness / being bound / samsara <==> sinlessness / being liberated / nirvana

    • 10. Non-duality / Union of conceptualisation / discrimination / manyness / appearances / functionalities <==> non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / oneness / emptiness

    • 11. Non-duality / Union of happiness <==> misery / suffering

    • 12. Non-duality / Union of mundane / ordinary / samsara / appearances <==> transcendental  / beyond / nirvana / emptiness

    • 13. Non-duality / Union of being bound / samsara <==> being liberated / nirvana

    • 14. Non-duality / Union of permanence / continuity / eternity / indestructibility <==> impermanence / discontinuity / annihilation / destructibility

    • 15. Non-duality / Union of existence / self / appearances <==> non-existence / no-self / emptiness

    • 16. Non-duality / Union of ignorance <==> wisdom / knowledge

    • 17. Non-duality / Union of the Two Truths: appearances <==> emptiness

    • 18. Non-duality / Union of the basic elements of reality

    • 19. Non-duality / Union of the 3 spheres of perception / cognition

    • 20. Non-duality / Union of the 3 spheres of causality

    • 21. Non-duality / Union of the 3 doors of liberation

    • 22. Non-duality / Union of the 3 Jewels

    • 23. Non-duality / Union of the 3 stages of becoming of the five aggregates

    • 24. Non-duality / Union of the 3 types of actions / karma – actions of the body, speech & mind

    • 25. Non-duality / Union of the 3 types of actions / karma – wholesome, unwholesome, neutral actions

    • 26. Non-duality / Union of conceptualisation <==> non-conceptualisation

    • 27. Non-duality / Union of acceptating / grasping / seeking <==> rejecting / non-grasping / abandoning

    • 28. Non-duality / Union of darkness <==> light

    • 29. Non-duality / Union of disliking samsara / appearances <==> liking nirvana / emptiness

    • 30. Non-duality / Union of right <==> wrong

    • 31. Non-duality / Union of truth <==> falsehood

    • 32. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic

    • 33. Silence




9. THE DHARMA-DOOR OF NON-DUALITY
(Union of opposites [Uopp / U2T-opp])

[RÉSUMÉS:]

[i. TRANSCENDING OPPOSITES:]

(i.e. This chapter is about using various Madhyamaka Reasonings to demonstrate that
the true nature of Reality as it is here & now is inconceivable, the Non-duality / Union of opposites [Uopp], the Union of the Three spheres [U3S], the Union of the Two Truths [U2T] – free all extremes & middle, free from all dualistic conceptual proliferations, free from all defining limitations, free from all conditioning / karma; (‘free from’, or ‘beyond’, of ‘transcending’)
-
BEYOND the existence and non-existence of the three stages of becoming or three times [U3T / U2T-3T / Uopp-3T / U3S-3T]: BEYOND origination / beginning / birth / coming / past & duration / middle / existing / changing / lasting / present & cessation / ending / death / going / future / extinction;
BEYOND dependent origination / production / birth & productionlessness / birthlessness, duration / occurrence / existence & occurrencelessness / non-existence, change & changelessness, rebirth & rebirthlessness, cessation / death / extinction & deathlessness / extinctionlessness;
-
BEYOND the existence and non-existence of apparent opposites [Uopp / U2T-opp / U3S-opp] like:
ex. BEYOND movement & rest, noise & silence, action & non-action, thinking & non-thinking, mentation & non-mentation, ideation & non-ideation, description / conceptualisation & non-description / non-conceptualisation, discrimination / differentiation / duality & non-discrimination / non-differentiation / non-duality, causality / production & acausality / non-production / spontaneity, matter-energy & anti-matter / anti-energy, space & spacelessness, time & timelessness, describability & indescribability, conception & non-conception, conceivability & inconceivability, acceptation & rejection,
ex. BEYOND right & left, up & down, top & bottom, front & back, good & evil, before & after, happiness & suffering / misery, purity & impurity, significant & meaningless, acceptation & rejection, grasping & non-grasping, being bounded / samsara & being liberated / nirvana,
ex. BEYOND difference & identity / sameness, separation & unification, manyness & oneness, duality & non-duality, characterlessness & uniqueness, permanence & impermanence, continuity & discontinuity, destructibility & indestructibility, coming & going,
ex. BEYOND Buddha & Dharma & Sangha, body & speech & mind, wholesome, & unwholesome & neutral, voidness & signlessness & wishlessness, darkness & light, path & no-path, gradual & sudden, merit & wisdom, truth & falsehood, sight & non-sight, wisdom & ignorance,
-
BEYOND the existence and non-existence of the Two Truths [U2T / Uopp-2T / U3S-2T & U2T-2T]: BEYOND dependent origination / causality [T1] & independent origination / spontaneity, conventionality & universality, relativity & absoluteness, functionality & non-functionality, emptiness [T2] & non-emptiness, self & selflessness, dependent origination / relativity / appearance / functionality [T1] & emptiness [T2], mundane & transcendental, real & non-real / illusory, truth & falsehood, existence & non-existence,

BEYOND the existence and non-existence of the three spheres [U3S / U2T-3S / Uopp-3S]: ex. BEYOND subject & relation / action & object, cause & causality & effect, goer & going & destination, perceiver & perceived & perception, knower & cognition & known, owner / ‘I’ & ownership & possession / mine / 5-aggregates, wholes & composition & parts, acquirer & acquiring & acquisition / karma,
BEYOND causality & acausality, action & non-action, speech & non-speech, thinking & non-thinking, going & non-going, perception & non-perception, knowing & non-knowing, owning & non-owning, self & non-self, mine & non-mine, opposition and non-opposition, relation & non-relation, object & non-object, karma & non-karma,

But still we can point to this inconceivable Reality as it is using without using concepts like:
– the inconceivable Non-duality / the Union of apparent opposites [Uopp];
– the inconceivable Union of the Two Truths [U2T]: Union of conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances, merely labeled / imputed by the mind <==> and emptiness of inherent existence;
– the inconceivable Union of the three spheres [U3S] – subject, relation / action, object –;
– the inconceivable Middle Way free from all extremes & middle, with nothing to accept or reject in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively;
– the tetralemma;
– the illusory-like, magic-like, miracle-like nature of everything: ‘there but not there’;
– the inconceivable primordially spontaneity, timelessness, limitlessness, equality, purity, perfection, divinity, completeness, freedom, beauty, enlightenment / trikaya – in the non-dual sense of those terms.)

[Go to TOC]

[ii. SUB-SECTIONS OF CHAP. 9:]

(i.e. It is always the same treatment for different groups of apparent opposites / dualities / triads / quads / etc.. It is always about the Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas [U2T], the Union of the three spheres of any type of relations / actions [U3S / U2T-3S], the Union of apparent opposites in any duality / triad / quad / etc. [Uopp / U2T-opp], the Middle Way free from all extremes & middle, free from all dualistic conceptual proliferations, free from all defining limitations, free from all conditioning / karma.
See the meaning of the term ‘Union’ below.

  1. Union of opposites like the 3 stages of becoming – origination / production, duration / occurrence, cessation / extinction;

  2. Union of opposites like the 3 spheres of ownership – subject / actor / owner / ‘I’, relation / action / ownership / possessiveness, object / result / possession / mine;

  3. Union of opposites like impurity / defilement <==> purity / purification;

  4. Union of opposites like distraction / perception / mentation / ideation / thinking / conceptualisation / action / movement <==> attention / non-perception / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-thinking / non-conceptualisation / non-action / rest;

  5. Union of opposites like the various buddhist vehicles / spirits;

  6. Union of opposites like accepting / affirming / seeking / adding / doing / grasping <==> rejecting / negating / abandoning / subtracting / not-doing / not-grasping;

  7. Union of opposites like difference / separation / manyness / duality / uniqueness <==> identity / unification / oneness / non-duality / characterlessness;

  8. Union of opposites like good / significant <==> bad / evil / meaningless;

  9. Union of opposites like sinfulness / being bound / samsara <==> sinlessness / being liberated / nirvana;

  10. Union of opposites like conception / perception / mentation / ideation / thinking / conceptualisation / action / movement <==> non-conception / non-perception / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-thinking / non-conceptualisation / non-action / rest;

  11. Union of opposites like happiness <==> misery / suffering;

  12. Union of opposites like mundane / ordinary <==> transcendental  / beyond;

  13. Union of opposites like being bound / samsara <==> being liberated / nirvana;

  14. Union of opposites like indestructibility / permanence / continuity / eternity<==> destructibility / impermanence / discontinuity / annihilation;

  15. Union of opposites like existence / self <==> non-existence / selflessness;

  16. Union of opposites like ignorance <==> wisdom / knowledge;

  17. Union of opposites like the Two Truths – appearances <==> emptiness;

  18. Union of opposites like the basic elements of reality – Laws, matter-energy, space, time;

  19. Union of opposites like the 3 spheres of perception / cognition – subject actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition / sense organs, object / result / perceived / known;
    Union of opposites like accepting / affirming / seeking / adding / doing / being attached <==> rejecting / negating / abandoning / subtracting / not-doing / being averse to phenomena;

  20. Union of opposites like the 3 spheres of causality – subject / actor / producer / cause / accumulating merit & wisdom, relation / action / production / causality, object / result / product / effect / omniscience;

  21. Union of opposites like the three doors of liberation – emptiness / selflessness, signlessness / formlessness, aimlessness / no goal,
    Union of opposites like the three marks of existence – non-self / selflessness, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness / suffering;

  22. Union of opposites like the three jewels – Buddha, Dharma, Sangha;

  23. Union of opposites like the 3 stages of becoming – origination / production, duration / occurrence, cessation / extinction;

  24. Union of opposites like the three types of actions / karma – actions of the body, speech & mind;

  25. Union of opposites like the three types of actions / karma  – wholesome, unwholesome, neutral actions;

  26. Union of opposites like conception / perception / mentation / ideation / thinking / conceptualisation / action / movement <==> non-conception / non-perception / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-thinking / non-conceptualisation / non-action / rest;

  27. Union of opposites like accepting / affirming / seeking / adding / doing / grasping <==> rejecting / negating / abandoning / subtracting / not-doing / not-grasping;

  28. Union of opposites like darkness <==> light;

  29. Union of opposites like accepting / affirming / seeking / adding / doing / grasping / rejoicing in liberation or nirvana <==> rejecting / negating / abandoning / subtracting / not-doing / not-grasping / detesting the world or samsara;

  30. Union of opposites like good <==> bad paths;
    Union of opposites like path <==> non-path;

  31. Union of opposites like truth / sight / perception <==> falsehood / non-sight / non-perception, or
    Union of opposites like the 3 spheres of perception / cognition – subject actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition, object / result / perceived / known;

  32. Union of opposites like duality <==> non-duality;

  33. Reality as it is is indescribable / inconceivable - beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma, … beyond movement & rest, beyond noise & silence.)

[Go to TOC]

[iii. THE MEANING OF UNION:]

(i.e. In each case, ‘Union of opposites’ or ‘<==>’ means that the apparent opposites, or three spheres, or two truths, are not really existent and in real opposition, but are more like inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-cessing / co-transcended / in harmony / non-dual – in the non-dual sese of those terms <==> thus all empty of independent / absolute / inherent existence.

[Union of the Two Truths about the apparent opposites:] It means that the apparent opposites are more like a Union of being conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S], not completely non-existent<==> and being empty of inherent existence [T2], not really existent. One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>) [U2T]. They are empty because interdependent / relative, and interdependent / relative because empty. Emptiness means limitlessly relative, infinitely open / free, ungraspable, indescribable / inconceivable – where everything is possible –. It also means that there are no real dependent origination / birth, duration / life / change / rebirth, cessation / death / extinction of anything; no real continuity or discontinuity; no solid basis for any discrimination / differentiation; no solid basis for any preference, acceptation or rejection in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively. No real interdependence / relativity and emptiness.

[Like illusions:] Meaning they are all apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'They are there but not there'.

[Tetralemma:] It means that the apparent opposites are

not existent, not completely non-existent, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not permanent / continuous / eternal / indestructible, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated / destructible, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not good / pure / desirable / to accept / to seek, not completely bad / evil / impure / undesirable / to reject / to abandon, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not purely objective / physical / body, not purely subjective / mental / mind, not purely relational / process / conceptual / speech, not two or three of them together, not none of them, and there is no other possibility;

not merely labeled / imputed / conceptualised by the mind, not not-merely labeled / imputed / conceptualised by the mind, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not dependent / caused / produced / functional, not independent / uncaused/spontaneous / unproduced / non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not composite / contextual / conditioned, not non-composite / non-contextual / unconditioned, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not empty, not non-empty, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not dependently originated / lasting for a while and changing / and ultimately ceasing or extinguished, not completely non-dependently-originated / non-lasting / non-ceasing, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not dependently arisen (first truth alone [T1]), not empty of inherent existence (second truth alone [T2]), not both together (both truths together as different and in opposition [2T]), not neither (none of the two truths or taking the two truths as identical / one [1T], not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not unequal / impure / imperfect / ordinary / incomplete / conditioned / ugly / unenlightened, not equal / pure / perfect / divine / complete / free / beautiful / enlightened, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not unreal / identical to illusions / dreams / mirage / magic tricks, not real / different from illusions / dreams / mirage / magic tricks, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not describable / conceivable / meaningful, not indescribable / inconceivable / meaningless, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth;

not this, not non-this, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth -- for whatever ‘this’ could be -- (this could be generalised for groups of more than two apparent opposites; ex. the three spheres, the three kayas, the three gems, the three times, the four cardinal directions, the five …, the six ...).

[Inconceivability:] Meaning their true nature & dynamic (Ground / Suchness / U2T) is indescribable / inconceivable (in absolute terms) for our flawed conditioned dualistic conceptual mind(s); it is beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all limits, beyond all conditioning / karma; beyond all description / conceptualisation, discrimination / differentiation, causality / production, matter-energy, space & time.

[No absolute basis:] So there is no independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing basis for any discrimination / differentiation in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively.

[Middle Way:] And there is nothing to accept / affirm / seek / add / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / negate / abandon / eliminate / subtract / not-do in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively if it helps someone get closer to the inconceivable liberating Truth: the Union of the Two Truths about all dharmas [U2T], the Union of the three spheres [U3S / U2T-3S], the Union of apparent opposites [Uopp / U2T-opp], the Middle Way in everything, the tetralemma, the primordial spontaneity / equality / purity / perfection / divinity / completeness / freedom / beauty / enlightenment / trikaya of all dharmas.

In that sense everything is primordially spontaneous, timeless, limitless, equal, pure, perfect, divine, complete, free, beautiful, enlightened / trikaya – in the non-dual sense of those terms.
Everything is like the pristine display of the Ground / Suchness / Union of the Two Truths [U2T].)

[Go to TOC]

[iv. THE DOORS TO NON-DUALITY:]

(i.e. In each section, the author concludes by pointing out the entrance / door into non-duality (i.e. into the inconceivable true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is here & now / Suchness / Buddha-nature / Genuine-emptiness: the inconceivable Union of the Two Truths [U2T], the Union of the three spheres [U3S / U2T-3S], the Union of opposites [Uopp], the Union of the Two Truths about those opposites [U2T-opp], the Middle Way free from all extremes & middle.)

  1. the attainment of the tolerance of the birthlessness of things
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three stages of becoming – origination / production, duration / occurrence, cessation / extinction –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  2. the absence of presumption about me (subject) & mine (object)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three spheres of ownership – subject / actor / owner / ‘I’, relation / action / ownership / possessiveness, object / result / possession / mine –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  3. the complete conquest of all conceit (pride) about one’s purification
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like defilement and purification of our body, speech and mind)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  4. the absence of mental intensity (movement or rest)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / distraction and rest / attention)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  5. the sameness of natures of spirits (of all paths)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the various Buddhist paths – absolutist dualistic and non-absolutist non-dualistic paths –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  6. the inaction and non-involvement of all things (not accepting not rejecting)  – the middle Way in everything –
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / grasping / accepting and rest / non-grasping / rejecting)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  7. to penetrate the equality of these two – uniqueness (difference) and characterlessness (identity)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like difference / uniqueness and identity / characterlessness)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  8. the understanding of the non-duality of the significant (good) and the meaningless (evil)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like good / significant and bad / evil / meaningless)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  9. not to be bound or liberated
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like being bounded / samsara and being liberated / nirvana)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  10. to enter the absence of conceptual knots (conception of non-conception)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / conception / impurity and rest / non-conception / purity)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  11. to being free of all calculations (acceptation and rejection), through the extreme purity of gnosis (direct wisdom)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like happiness and misery / suffering)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  12. neither to transcend (reject / abandon) nor to be involved (acceptation), neither to go nor to stop
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like mundane / getting involved and transcendental)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  13. neither belonging to life (samsara) nor being one utterly liberated from (nirvana)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like being bounded / samsara and being liberated / nirvana)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  14. transcending both destructibility (impermanence / discontinuity / annihilation) & indestructibility (permanence / continuity / eternity)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like destructibility / impermanence and destructibility / permanence)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  15. the non-dualism of the vision of the nature of self (appearance) & non-self (emptiness)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like existence / self / appearances and non-existence / selflessness / emptiness)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  16. realisation of the sameness of ignorance & knowledge (wisdom)
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like ignorance and wisdom / knowledge)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  17. understanding of the Union of the Two Truths about the five aggregates
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the two truths – appearances and emptiness –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  18. understanding of the Union of the irreducible elements
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the basic elements of reality / irreducible elements)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  19. to know the mind, and to be neither attached (accepting), averse (rejecting), nor confused (ignorance) with regard to phenomena - that is called 'peace.'
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three spheres of perception / cognition – subject actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition / sense organs, object / result / perceived / known –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  20. the entrance into this principle of uniqueness of cause & effect
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three spheres of causality / production – subject / actor / producer / cause / accumulating merit & wisdom, relation / action / production / causality, object / result / product / effect / omniscience –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  21. to see the doors of all liberations in the door of one liberation
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three doors of liberation – emptiness / selflessness, signlessness / formlessness, aimlessness / no goal –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  22. realising the same nature of the three jewels
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three jewels – Buddha, Dharma, Sangha –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  23. non-occurrence and non-destruction of the five aggregates
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three stages of becoming – origination / production, duration / occurrence, cessation / extinction –)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  24. to know and to understand this fact of the ultimate inactivity of all things, this knowledge
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three types of actions / karma – actions of the body, speech & mind)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  25. the non-accomplishment of such actions –  meritorious, sinful, and neutral –
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three types of actions / karma  – wholesome, unwholesome, neutral actions)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  26. the absence (transcendence) of ideation
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / ideation and rest / non-ideation)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  27. not grasping and not rejecting
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / accepting / grasping and rest / rejecting / non-grasping)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  28. the entrance into this equanimity toward darkness & light
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like darkness and light)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  29. the mendicant who is neither bound nor liberated does not experience any like or any dislike
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / accepting / rejoicing in liberation or nirvana and rest / rejecting / detesting the world or samsara)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  30. Understanding the true nature & dynamic of dualistic concepts / appearances, not engaging (accepting) in duality in absolute terms [U2T-opp], not rejecting it all completely either [the Middle Way]
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like right and wrong paths, path and no-path)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  31. Perceiving without perceiving the two truths [U2T-2T] – false appearances & true emptiness –: union of the 3 spheres of perception / cognition [U3S / U2T-3S]:
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like the three spheres of perception / cognition – subject actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition, object / result / perceived / known –, or truth and falsehood)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  32. All descriptions / explanations / representations of anything are necessarily limited conditioned conceptual dualistic fabrications, thus flawed – even more so when trying to present the inconceivable true nature of Reality as it is here & now which is beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma – physical / body, conceptual / speech, mental / mind –. Which is even beyond movement / activity / noise / speech / representation / conception & rest / non-activity / SILENCE / non-speech / non-representation / non-conception. The solution is not to do it or not-do it, to accept it or reject it, but to be fully aware of their true nature & dynamic while using them, thus benefiting from them [T1] without being fooled by them [T2] [U2T], without being slave to them.
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like duality and non-duality)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is);

  33. Inconceivable: no words / images / language … can elucidate the true meaning of non-duality / the union of opposites / the union of the two truths / the union of the three spheres / enlightenment / reality as it is here & now – it has to be directly realised – but, still, we have tons of relatively useful books about it, including this excellent sutra. so it is not about accepting nor rejecting our body speech & mind; our physical, conceptual and mental fabrications; our individual, collective and cosmic / universal fabrications; samsara and nirvana.
    (i.e. Non-duality / Uopp / U2T-opp: understanding / perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of
    apparent opposites like movement / communicating and rest / silence)
    is the entrance into non-duality (i.e. a door to the inconceivable liberating Truth about Reality as it is.)

[Go to TOC]

—------------------------

[TEXTS:]

(From the Introduction: … and in the eighth (ninth) chapter Vimalakīrti individually questions the bodhisattvas present about how each of them practices non-duality, receiving thirty-one different replies all of which Mañjuśrī finds laudable, but nevertheless still tinged with dualism. He requests Vimalakīrti to add his own point of view, to which Vimalakīrti’s responds with his famous silence.)

(Résumé: Inconceivability of ‘genuine non-duality’ beyond all extremes & middle: beyond duality & non-duality, existence & non-existence, movement & rest, acceptation & rejection, subject & object, action & non-action, causality & acausality, purity & impurity, difference & identity, manyness & oneness, truth & falsehood, samsara & nirvana, appearance & emptiness, etc. Reality as it is is indescribable / inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma; beyond all description / conceptualisation, discrimination / differentiation, causality / production, matter-energy, space & time. In Reality as it is [U2T], everything is like dreams / magical illusions / tricks of the sight / mirages / reflections / echos / Cities of Gandharvas / emanated apparitions. Everything is more like empty of inherent existence [T2], not really existent <==> because dependently co-arisen / interdependent [T1] (and vice versa (<==>) [U2T]), like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind [U3S], not completely non-existent. There are no real three stages of becoming –  i. dependent origination / beginning / birth / coming / before / past, ii. duration / middle / life / change / during / present, iii. cessation / ending / death / going / after / future - or the nirvana extinction of the five aggregates – . There is no real opposition between apparent conceptual opposites in dualities / triads / quads / etc.; they are more like inseparable, interdependent … in harmony. There is no basis for any discrimination / differentiation / partiality in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively. There is there is nothing to accept / affirm / seek / add / do in absolute terms, nothing to reject / negate / abandon / eliminate / subtract / not-do in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively if it helps someone get closer to the inconceivable liberating Truth [U2T]. Everything is more like primordially spontaneous, timeless, limitless, equal, pure, perfect, divine, complete, free, beautiful, enlightened / trikaya – in the non-dual sense of those terms. Everything is like the pristine display of the Ground / Suchness / Union of the Two Truths [U2T].)

[Go to TOC]

Comments: Robert Thurman: Vimalakirti Video #8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP4LIm9vC2E

Then, the Licchavi Vimalakirti asked those bodhisattvas,

"Good sirs, please explain how the bodhisattvas enter the Dharma-door of non-duality [Union of opposites]!"

(Thurman's recent edition: Then, the Licchavi Vimalakīrti asked those bodhisattvas,
“Good sirs, please explain how the bodhisattvas enter the Dharma-door of non-duality!”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: Then the Licchavi Vimalakirti said to those bodhisattvas,
“Good people, what is bodhisattvas’ entry into undivided truth?”)

[1. UNION OF THE 3 STAGES OF BECOMING / THREE TIMES [U3T / U2T-3T]: ex. i. dependent origination / beginning / birth / coming / before / past, ii. duration / middle / life / change / during / present, iii. cessation / ending / death / going / after / future - or the nirvana extinction of the five aggregates.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Dharmavikurvana declared,

"Noble sir, production (origination) and destruction (cessation / extinction) are two,
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
but what is not produced (origination / birth) and does not occur (duration) cannot be destroyed (cessation / death / extinction).
Thus the attainment of the tolerance of the birthlessness of things is the entrance into non-duality."

(i.e. Tolerance of non reality (emptiness, not existence), and non complete irreality (not complete non-existence, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances), of the three stages of becoming; tolerance of the beginninglessness / birthlessness / productionlessness, occurencelessness / lifelessness, changelessness / rebirthlessness, and endinglessness / deathlessness / destructionlessness / extinctionlessness – of all things (subjects / beings, relations / actions, objects / phenomena / things) x (physical, conceptual, mental) x (individual, collective, universal) x (past, present, future) x (pure, impure) –. So we should not accept those three stages of becoming of any thing as they appear to be, nor reject them as if completely non-existent / meaningless / useless. ‘They are there but not there’: they are conventional / interdependent / limitlessly relative <==> but still ultimately empty of inherent existence; and vice versa.)

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Dharmavikurvaṇa declared,
“Noble sir, production (dependent origination) and destruction (cessation) are (apparently / conventionally) two,
but (ultimately) what is not produced (dependent origination) and does not occur (duration / existence) cannot be destroyed (cessation / extinction).
Thus the attainment of the tolerance of the birthlessness of things is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: A bodhisattva there named Dharmavikurvana said,
“Sir, production and destruction are distinguished;
what is not produced and is not born has no destruction.
Attainment of acceptance of the truth of no origin is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The attainment of the tolerance of the birthlessness, occurrencelessness, rebirthlessness, and destructionlessness / extinctionlessness of all things – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing origination, duration, cessation / death / destruction / nirvana extinction of the five aggregate –: Those apparent opposites – the three stages of becoming of any thing / being / relation / action – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[2. UNION OF THE 3 SPHERES OF OWNERSHIP [U3S / U2T-3S]: ex. subject / actor / owner / self, relation / action / ownership, object / result / possession / mine / 5 aggregates.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Srigandha declared,

"'I' and 'mine' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
If there is no presumption of a self, there will be no possessiveness.
Thus, the absence of presumption is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Śrīgupta declared,
“ ‘I’ and ‘mine’ (subject & object) are (conventionally / apparently) two.
(But, ultimately,) If there is no presumption of a (of an inherently existing) self (subject),
there will be no (presumption of an inherently existing) possessiveness (object, and relation / action)).
Thus, the absence of presumption (of inherently existing three spheres) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Srigupta said,
“‘I’ and ‘my’ are a pair;
where there is no assertion of self, there is no sense of possession.
The absence of assertion is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The absence of presumption about me / subject & mine / object & relation / action – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing subject / owner / self, relation / action / ownership, object / possession / mine / 5 aggregates –: Those apparent opposites – the three spheres of ownership – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[3. UNION OF IMPURITY / DEFILEMENT <==> PURITY / PURIFICATION [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Srikuta declared,

'Defilement' and 'purification' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
When there is thorough knowledge of defilement, there will be no conceit about purification.
The path leading to the complete conquest of all conceit is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Śrīkūṭa declared,
“ ‘Defilement’ and ‘purification’ are (apparently / conventionally) two.
When there is thorough knowledge of defilement (of the karmic cycle / U3S / U2T), there will be no conceit about purification.
The path leading to the complete conquest of all conceit (pride) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Srikuta said,
“Affliction and purification are distinguished.
In understanding of affliction there is no thought of purification.
The path to uprooting all thought is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Absence of any basis for pride – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing defilement / impurity, purification / purity of the body, speech & mind –: Those apparent opposites – being pure or impure – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[4. UNION OF DISTRACTION / MENTATION / MOVEMENT <==> ATTENTION / FIXATION / REST [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]
[or UNION OF CONCEPTUALISATION <==> NON-CONCEPTUALISATION, UNION OF THINKING <==> NON-THINKING, UNION OF IDEATION <==> NON-IDEATION, UNION OF ACTION <==> NON-ACTION, UNION OF MOVEMENT <==> REST … [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Bhadrajyotis declared,

"'Distraction' and 'attention' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
When there is no distraction (movement), there will be no attention (rest), no mentation, and no mental intensity.
Thus, the absence (transcendence) of mental intensity (movement) is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Sunakṣatra declared,
“ ‘Distraction’ and ‘attention’ (movement and rest) are (apparently / conventionally) two.
(Ultimately,) When there is no distraction (movement), there will be no attention (rest), no mentation, and no mental intensity.
Thus, the absence (transcendence) of mental intensity (movement & rest in absolute terms) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Bhadrajyoti said,
“Excitation and thought are a pair.
What is inert is not a cause of thought; without thought, there is no relation.
Detachment from relations is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Absence of overwhelming mental intensity / movement or utter fixation / rest – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing distraction / mentation / movement and attention / fixation / rest –: Those apparent opposites – being distracted or attentive / concentrated – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

(i.e. The Middle Way between conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and ‘good’ non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest –: Those apparent opposites – conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[5. UNION OF THE VARIOUS BUDDHIST VEHICLES [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Subahu declared,

"'Bodhisattva-spirit' and 'disciple-spirit' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
When both are seen to resemble an illusory spirit, there is no bodhisattva-spirit, nor any disciple-spirit.
Thus, the sameness of natures of spirits is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Subāhu declared,
“ ‘Bodhisattva spirit (thought)’ and ‘disciple spirit (thought)’ are (apparently / conventionally) two.
(But, ultimately,) When both are seen to resemble an illusory spirit (U2T),
there is no bodhisattva spirit, nor any disciple spirit (in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively).
Thus, the sameness (Union) of natures of spirits is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Subahu said,
“The thought of enlightenment and the thought of disciples are distinct.
Seeing illusion and thought as equal is neither the thought of enlightenment nor the thought of disciples.
Impartiality of thought is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Sameness of natures of spirit – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing difference between the various vehicles / paths –: Those apparent opposites – the ‘good / right’ vs ‘bad / wrong’ vehicles / paths – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[6. UNION OF ACCEPTING / GRASPING / SEEKING <==> REJECTING / NOT-GRASPING / ABANDONING [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Animisa declared,

"'Grasping' and 'non-grasping' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
What is not grasped is not perceived,
(or vice versa: what is not perceived as inherently existent, is not grasped)
and what is not perceived is neither presumed (accepted) nor repudiated (rejected).
Thus, the inaction and non-involvement of all things (not accepting, not rejecting) is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Animiṣa declared,
“ ‘Grasping’ and ‘non-grasping’ are (apparently / conventionally) two.
[But, ultimately,) What is not grasped is not perceived,
(or vice versa: what is not perceived as inherently existent, is not grasped – accepted or rejected –)
and what is not perceived is neither presumed (accepted) nor repudiated (rejected).
Thus, the inaction and non-involvement of all things (not accepting, not rejecting) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Animisa said,
“Perception and no perception are distinct.
What has no perception cannot be apprehended;
in what cannot be apprehended there is no causation of formation or removal.
The absence of causation or action in all things is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The Middle Way free from all extremes & middle: not accepting / affirming / grasping / seeking / doing anything in absolute terms, not rejecting / negating / not-grasping / abandoning / not-doing anything in absolute terms – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing acceptation and rejection –: Those apparent opposites – grasping / accepting and non-grasping / rejecting – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[7. UNION OF DIFFERENCE / SEPARATION / MANYNESS / DUALITY <==> IDENTITY / UNIFICATION / ONENESS / NON-DUALITY [Uopp]: Everything is not different / separate / many / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither. Meaning inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Sunetra declared,

"'Uniqueness' and 'characterlessness' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Not to presume or construct something is neither to establish its uniqueness (difference) nor to establish its characterlessness (identity).
To penetrate the equality of these two is to enter non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Sunetra declared,
“ ‘Uniqueness’ and ‘characterlessness’ are (apparently / conventionally) two.
(But, ultimately,) Not to presume or construct something (thinking it is inherently existing or produced) is neither to establish its uniqueness (manyness / appearances) nor to establish its characterlessness (oneness / emptiness).
To penetrate the equality (Union) of these two (uniqueness & characterlessness) is to enter non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Sunetra said,
“Oneness and indeinability are distinct.
With no cause of thought and no cause of imagination, there is no cause of oneness or undeniability.
Entry into equality of description and having no description is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Equality of uniqueness / difference & characterlessness / identity – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing difference / separation / multiplicity / duality and identity / unification / oneness / non-duality –: Those apparent opposites – difference & identity – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[8. UNION OF GOOD / SIGNIFICANT <==> BAD / EVIL / MEANINGLESS [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Tisya declared,

 "'Good' and 'evil' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Seeking neither good nor evil,
the understanding of the non-duality of the significant and the meaningless is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Puṣya declared,
“ ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are (apparently / conventionally) two.
(But, ultimately,) Seeking neither good nor evil,
the understanding of the non-duality (Union) of the significant (good) and the meaningless (bad) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Tisya said,
“Good and evil are distinct.
Not bringing about good or evil,
realizing the non-duality of signs and no signs, is entry into non-duality.)

(i.e. Seeking neither good / significant nor evil / meaningless – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing good / significant and evil / meaningless –: Those apparent opposites – good & bad / evil – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[9. UNION OF SINFULNESS / BEING BOUND / SAMSARA <==> SINLESSNESS / BEING LIBERATED / NIRVANA [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Simha declared,

"'Sinfulness' and 'sinlessness' are two.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
By means of the diamond-like wisdom that pierces to the quick,
not to be bound or liberated is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Siṃha declared,
“ ‘Sinfulness’ and ‘sinlessness’ are (apparently / conventionally) two.
(But, ultimately,) By means of the diamond-like wisdom that pierces to the quick,
not to be bound or liberated is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Simha said,
“The objectionable and the blameless are distinct.
Not being bound yet not departing,
by means of the thunderbolt of analytic knowledge; that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Not to be bound or liberated – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ samsara and ‘good’ nirvana –: Those apparent opposites – sinfulness / being bound / conditioned / samsara and sinlessness / being liberated / unconditioned / nirvana – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[10. UNION OF CONCEPTUALISATION / DISCRIMINATION / MANYNESS / APPEARANCES / FUNCTIONALITIES <==> NON-CONCEPTUALISATION / NON-DISCRIMINATION / ONENESS / EMPTINESS, UNION OF THINKING <==> NON-THINKING, UNION OF IDEATION <==> NON-IDEATION, UNION OF ACTION <==> NON-ACTION, UNION OF MOVEMENT <==> REST … [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Simhamati declared,

 "To say, 'This is impure' and 'This is immaculate' makes for duality.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
One who, attaining equanimity (Non-duality / Union of opposites),
forms no conception of impurity or immaculateness (purity) [T2], yet is not utterly without conception  [T1] [U2T],
has equanimity [T1] without any attainment of equanimity [T2] [U2T]
- he enters the absence of [dualistic] conceptual knots (in absolute terms).
Thus, he enters into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Siṃhamati declared,
“To say, ‘this is impure (or painful)’ and ‘that is immaculate (pure or painless)’ makes for (an apparent / conventional) duality.
(But, ultimately,) One who, attaining equanimity (Non-duality / Union of opposites)
(i.e. even equanimity about conception & non-conception, conceptualisation & non-conceptualisation, discrimination & non-discrimination, action & non-action, thinking & non-thinking, duality & non-duality, appearances & emptiness, purity & impurity, samsara & nirvana),
forms no conception of impurity (or pain) or immaculateness (purity or happiness) (in absolute terms) [T2],
yet is not utterly without conception (just conventional / relative / inter-subjective conception) [T1] [U2T],
has (conventional / relative / inter-subjective) equanimity [T1]
without any attainment of (any absolute / inherently existing) equanimity [T2] [U2T]‍—
he enters the absence of (dualistic) conceptual knots (in absolute terms).
Thus, he enters into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Simhamati said,
“‘This is painful, this is painless’— these are distinct.
Having no conception of reason for the concepts of painful and painless,
due to attainment of equanimity, with no acquisition of equanimity in equanimity,
and no conceptual knot—
embodying this is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Freedom from all extremes & middle, freedom from all dualistic conceptual proliferations … – The Middle Way between conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and ‘good’ non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest –: Those apparent opposites – conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[11. UNION OF HAPPINESS <==> MISERY / SUFFERING [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Suddhadhimukti declared,

"To say, 'This is happiness' and 'That is misery' is dualism.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
One who is free of all calculations, through the extreme purity of gnosis - his mind is aloof, like empty space;
and thus he enters into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Sukhādhimukta declared,
“To say, ‘this is happiness’ and ‘that is misery’ is (conventional / relative / inter-subjective) dualism.
(But, ultimately,) One who is free of all calculations (not accepting this while rejecting that in absolute terms),
through the extreme purity of gnosis (having directly realised the true nature & dynamic of Reality as it is: U2T / U3S / Uopp / Non-duality …) ‍—
his mind is aloof (cool), like empty space (unimpeded); and thus he enters into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Sukha-adhimukta said,
“‘This is pleasant, this is not pleasant’—these are distinct.
Intellect freed of all calculation by purified knowledge, unstained like space—
that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Being free of all calculations – accepting this while rejecting that – in order to escape suffering and seek happiness – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ suffering and ‘good’ happiness –: Those apparent opposites – happiness and misery – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[12. UNION OF MUNDANE / ORDINARY / SAMSARA / APPEARANCES <==> TRANSCENDENTAL  / BEYOND / NIRVANA / EMPTINESS [U2T]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Narayana declared,

"To say, 'This is mundane' and 'That is transcendental' is dualism.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
This world has the nature of voidness, so there is neither transcendence nor involvement, neither progress nor standstill.
Thus, neither to transcend nor to be involved, neither to go nor to stop - this is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Nārāyaṇa declared,
“To say, ‘this is mundane’ and ‘that is transcendental’ is (conventional / relative / inter-subjective) dualism.
(But, ultimately,) This world (appearances [T1]) has the nature of voidness (emptiness [T2], and vice versa [U2T]),
so there is neither transcendence nor involvement, neither progress nor standstill (in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively).
Thus, neither to transcend nor to be involved, neither to go nor to stop‍ (neither to accept nirvana / emptiness, nor to reject samsara / appearances / functionalities / causality)— this is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Narayana said,
“‘This is mundane, this is transmundane’—these are distinct.
The inherent emptiness of the world has no getting out, no entering in, no attainment, and no nonattainment—
that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Neither to reject / negate / abandon appearances / samsara, nor to accept / affirm / seek emptiness / nirvana i absolute terms, neither to go nor to stop / stay – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing mundane / involvement and transcendence, no real progress and standstill –: Those apparent opposites – mundane & transcendental – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[13. UNION OF BEING BOUND / SAMSARA <==> BEING LIBERATED / NIRVANA [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Dantamati declared,

"'Life' and 'liberation' are dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Having seen the nature of life, one neither belongs to it nor is one utterly liberated from it.
Such understanding is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Dāntamati declared,
“ ‘Life’ and ‘liberation’ are (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) Having seen the nature of life,
one neither belongs to it nor is one utterly liberated from it. Such understanding is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Vinayamati said,
“‘The common low’ and ‘nirvana’— these are distinguished.
With insight into the essence of the common low, neither the common low nor complete nirvana is actually there.
Knowledge of this is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Not to be bound or liberated in absolute terms – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ samsara and ‘good’ nirvana –: Those apparent opposites – being bound / conditioned / samsara and being liberated / unconditioned / nirvana – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[14. UNION OF PERMANENCE / CONTINUITY / ETERNITY / INDESTRUCTIBILITY <==> IMPERMANENCE / DISCONTINUITY / ANNIHILATION / DESTRUCTIBILITY [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Pratyaksadarsana declared,

"'Destructible' and 'indestructible' are dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
(But, ultimately,) What is destroyed is ultimately destroyed.
What is ultimately destroyed does not become destroyed; hence, it is called 'indestructible.'
What is indestructible is instantaneous, and what is instantaneous is indestructible.
The experience of such is called 'the entrance into the principle of non-duality.'"

(i.e. Tolerance of non reality (emptiness, not existence), and non complete irreality (not complete non-existence, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances), of the three stages of becoming; tolerance of the beginninglessness / birthlessness / productionlessness, occurencelessness / lifelessness, changelessness / rebirthlessness, and endinglessness / deathlessness / destructionlessness / extinctionlessness – of all things (subjects / beings, relations / actions, objects / phenomena / things) x (physical, conceptual, mental) x (individual, collective, universal) x (past, present, future) x (pure, impure) –. So we should not accept those three stages of becoming of any thing as they appear to be, nor reject them as if completely non-existent / meaningless / useless. ‘They are there but not there’: they are conventional / interdependent / limitlessly relative <==> but still ultimately empty of inherent existence; and vice versa.)

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Pratyakṣadarśa declared,
“ ‘Destructible / impermanent / annihilation’ and ‘indestructible / permanence / eternity’ are (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) What is destroyed is ultimately destroyed.
What is ultimately destroyed does not become destroyed; hence, it is called ‘indestructible.’
What is indestructible is instantaneous, and what is instantaneous is indestructible.
The experience of such is called ‘the entrance into the principle of non-duality.’ ”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Pratyaksadarsana said,
“Termination and having no termination are distinguished.
Termination means having ended entirely.
In what has entirely ended there is nothing to terminate, so it is said to have no termination.
What has no termination is momentary too; there is no termination in the momentary.
This way of entry is going all the way through the door to non-duality.”)

(i.e. Equality / Union of destructibility / impermanence & indestructibility / permanence – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing permanence / continuity / eternity / indestructibility / instantaneity and impermanence / discontinuity / annihilation / destructibility / non-instantaneity –: Those apparent opposites –  destructibility & indestructibility – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[15. UNION OF EXISTENCE / SELF / APPEARANCES / FUNCTIONALITIES / CAUSALITY <==> NON-EXISTENCE / NO-SELF / EMPTINESS [U2T]:] ***

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Parigudha declared,

"'Self / appearances' and 'selflessness / emptiness' are dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Since the existence of self / appearances cannot be perceived, what is there to be made 'selfless / emptiness'?
Thus, the non-dualism of the vision of their nature is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Samantagupta declared,
“ ‘Self / appearances / functionalities / causality [T1]’ and ‘selflessness / emptiness [T2]’ are (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) Since the existence of self cannot be perceived, what is there to be made ‘selfless / empty’?
Thus, the non-dual vision of their nature [U2T] is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Samantagupta said,
“‘Self’ and ‘selflessness’—these are distinguished.
Since the reality of self cannot be apprehended, what is to be construed as selflessness?
So their non-duality through insight into inherent nature is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Beyond existence / self / appearances & non-existence / no-self / emptiness – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing existence / self / appearance and non-existence / no-self / emptiness –: Those apparent opposites – self / existence & no-self / non-existence – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[16. UNION OF IGNORANCE <==> WISDOM / KNOWLEDGE [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Vidyuddeva declared,

"'Knowledge' and 'ignorance' are dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
The natures of ignorance and knowledge are the same, for ignorance is undefined, incalculable, and beyond the sphere of thought.
The realization of this is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Vidyuddeva declared,
“ ‘Knowledge’ and ‘ignorance’ are (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) The natures of ignorance and knowledge are the same,
for ignorance is undefined, incalculable, and beyond the sphere of thought.
The realization of this is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Vidyuddeva said,
“‘Knowledge’ and ‘unknowing’— these are distinguished.
As is the inherent nature of unknowing, so too knowledge.
Unknowing is not analyzed, incalculable, beyond the path of conception.
Comprehending this is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Sameness / Union of ignorance and wisdom  – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ignorance and wisdom / knowledge –: Those apparent opposites – ignorance & wisdom – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[17. UNION OF THE TWO TRUTHS [U2T]: APPEARANCES <==> EMPTINESS:] ***

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Priyadarsana declared,

"Matter itself is void. Voidness does not result from the destruction of matter, but the nature of matter is itself voidness.
Therefore, to speak of voidness on the one hand, and of matter, or of sensation, or of intellect, or of motivation, or of consciousness on the other - is entirely dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Consciousness itself is voidness. Voidness does not result from the destruction of consciousness, but the nature of consciousness is itself voidness.
Such understanding of the five compulsive aggregates and the knowledge of them as such by means of gnosis is the entrance into non-duality."

(i.e. Tolerance of non reality (emptiness, not existence), and non complete irreality (not complete non-existence, dependently co-arisen relatively functional appearances), of the three stages of becoming; tolerance of the beginninglessness / birthlessness / productionlessness, occurencelessness / lifelessness, changelessness / rebirthlessness, and endinglessness / deathlessness / destructionlessness / extinctionlessness – of all things (subjects / beings, relations / actions, objects / phenomena / things) x (physical, conceptual, mental) x (individual, collective, universal) x (past, present, future) x (pure, impure) –. So we should not accept those three stages of becoming of any thing as they appear to be, nor reject them as if completely non-existent / meaningless / useless. ‘They are there but not there’: they are conventional / interdependent / limitlessly relative <==> but still ultimately empty of inherent existence; and vice versa.)

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Priyadarśana declared,
“Matter (form) itself is void (emptiness, and vice versa) [U2T].
Voidness does not result from the destruction of matter, but the nature of matter is itself voidness.
Therefore, to speak of voidness on the one hand, and of matter, or of sensation, or of intellect, or of motivation, or of consciousness on the other, is entirely dualistic.
Consciousness itself is voidness.
Voidness does not result from the destruction of consciousness, but the nature of consciousness is itself voidness.
Such understanding of the five compulsive aggregates and the knowledge of them as such by means of gnosis is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Priyadarsana said,
“Form is certainly empty. It is not empty by annihilation of form; rather, form is empty by nature.
So too the emptiness of sensation, perception, mental constructions, and consciousness.
These are distinguished.
Consciousness is certainly empty, not by annihilation of consciousness, but consciousness is empty by nature.
One who knows this of the ive appropriating clusters and is wise by this knowledge enters non-duality.”)

(i.e. Union of the Two Truths about the two truths [U2T-2T]  – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘dependently co-arisen relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1]’ and ‘emptiness of inherent existence [T2]’ –: Those apparent opposites – the two truths – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[18. UNION OF THE BASIC ELEMENTS OF REALITY: Modern example: definitions, causality / laws, matter-energy, space & time …:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Prabhaketu declared,

"To say that the four main elements are one thing and the etheric space-element another is dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
The four main elements (earth, water, fire and air) are themselves the nature of space (void / emptiness).
The past itself is also the nature of space.
The future itself is also the nature of space.
Likewise, the present itself is also the nature of space.

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Prabhāketu declared,
“To say that the four main elements are one thing and the etheric space-element another is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) The four main elements are themselves the nature of space.
The past itself is also the nature of space.
The future itself is also the nature of space.
Likewise, the present itself is also the nature of space.
The gnosis that penetrates the elements in such a way is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Prabhaketu said,
“‘Apart from the four elements, the element of space is distinct’—these are a dualism.
The four elements, though, are of the nature of space.
The past is of the nature of space, the future is of the nature of space, and so is the present.
Knowledge entering into the elements thus is entry into non-duality.”)

The gnosis that penetrates the elements in such a way is the entrance into non-duality."

(i.e. No real basis for everything: Inseparability / interdependence / co-definition / co-relativity / co-dependence / co-emergence / co-evolution / co-cessation / co-transcendence / Union of causality / laws, matter-energy, space & time … and emptiness – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing causality / laws, matter-energy, space & time –: Those apparent opposites – causality / laws, matter-energy, space & timeemptiness – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[19. UNION OF THE 3 SPHERES OF PERCEPTION / COGNITION [U3S / U2T-3S]: ex. subject / actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition / sense organs, object / result / perceived / known;
Union of opposites like accepting / affirming / seeking / adding / doing / being attached <==> rejecting / negating / abandoning / subtracting / not-doing / being averse with regard to phenomena:]

[i.e. RIGHT VIEW: HOW TO PERCEIVE EVERYTHING, all dharmas, the three spheres – all subjects / beings, relations / actions, objects / phenomena / things –, all apparent opposites in any duality / triad / quads / etc., even the two truths themselves, even the three Jewels? Answer: Like illusions – ‘there but not there’ –; like the inconceivable Union of the Two Truths [U2T] free from all extremes & middle, free from all dualistic conceptual proliferations, free from all defining limitations, free from all conditioning / karma: Union of being conventionally dependently co-arisen relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S] <==> and emptiness of inherent existence [T2]; with no real three stages of becoming – origination / birth, duration / life / rebirth, cessation / death / extincting / liberation; with nothing to accept, nothing to reject in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively; like primordially spontaneous, timeless, limitless, equal, pure, perfect, divine, complete, free, beautiful, enlightened / trikaya.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Pramati declared,

"'Eye' and 'form' are dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
To understand the eye (subject & relation / action) correctly, and not to have attachment, aversion, or confusion with regard to form (objects) - that is called 'peace.' Similarly, 'ear' and 'sound,' 'nose' and 'smell,' 'tongue' and taste,' 'body' and touch,' and 'mind' and 'phenomena' - all are dualistic.
But to know the mind, and to be neither attached, averse, nor confused with regard to phenomena - that is called 'peace.'
To live in such peace is to enter into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Sumati declared,
“ ‘Eye’ and ‘form’ are (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) To understand the eye correctly, and not to have attachment, aversion, or confusion with regard to form‍—that is called ‘peace.’
Similarly, ‘ear’ and ‘sound,’ ‘nose’ and ‘smell,’ ‘tongue’ and ‘taste,’ ‘body’ and ‘touch,’ and ‘mind’ and ‘phenomena’‍—all are dualistic.
But to know the mind, and to be neither attached (accepting), averse (rejecting),
nor confused with regard to phenomena‍—that is called ‘peace.’
To live in such peace is to enter into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Agramati said,
“Eye and form—these are a pair.
By comprehension of vision, having no greed, aversion, or confusion in respect to form—that is peace.
So also of ear and sound, nose and scent, tongue and taste, body and feeling, mind and phenomena—these are two-fold.
By comprehension of mind, to have no greed, aversion or confusion in respect to phenomena—that is peace.
Abiding in peace this way is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Gaining peace through the wisdom of directly understanding and then perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of the three inseparable spheres of any type of relation / action – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing subject / actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition, object / result / perceived / known –: Those apparent opposites – the three spheres of perception / cognition – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[20. UNION OF THE 3 SPHERES OF CAUSALITY [U3S / U2T-3S]: ex. subject / cause / dedication, relation / action / causality, object / effect / omniscience:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Aksayamati declared,

"The dedication of generosity (cause) for the sake of attaining omniscience (effect) is dualistic.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
The nature of generosity is itself omniscience, and the nature of omniscience itself is total dedication.
Likewise, it is dualistic to dedicate morality, tolerance, effort, meditation, and wisdom (cause) for the sake of omniscience (effect).
Omniscience is the nature of wisdom, and total dedication is the nature of omniscience.
Thus, the entrance into this principle of uniqueness is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Akṣayamati declared,
“The dedication of generosity for the sake of attaining omniscience is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic.
(But, ultimately,) The nature of generosity (cause) is itself omniscience (effect),
and the nature of omniscience (effect) itself is total dedication (cause).
Likewise, it is dualistic to dedicate morality, tolerance, effort, meditation, and wisdom (causes)
for the sake of omniscience (effect).
Omniscience is the nature of wisdom, and total dedication is the nature of omniscience.
Thus, the entrance into this principle of uniqueness (Union of cause & effect) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Aksayamati said,
“Giving and development of all-knowledge—those are distinguished.
The essence of giving is allk-nowledge; the essence of all-knowledge is development.
In the same way, discipline, patience, diligence, meditation, insight, and development of all-knowledge are distinguished.
All-knowledge is the essence of discipline, patience, diligence, meditation, and insight;
and development is the essence of all-knowledge.
Embodiment of oneness therein is entry into non-duality)

(i.e. Union of the three spheres of causality – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing subject / cause / dedication, relation / action / causality, object / effect / omniscience –: Those apparent opposites – the three spheres of causality – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[21. UNION OF THE 3 DOORS OF LIBERATION, UNION OF THE 3 MARKS OF EXISTENCE [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Gambhiramati declared,

"It is dualistic to say that voidness is one thing, signlessness another, and wishlessness still another.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
What is void has no sign. What has no sign has no wish.
Where there is no wish there is no process of thought, mind, or consciousness.
To see the doors of all liberations in the door of one liberation is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Gambhīrabuddhi declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to say that voidness is one thing, signlessness another, and wishlessness still another.
(But, ultimately,) What is void has no sign. What has no sign has no wish.
Where there is no wish there is no process of thought, mind, or consciousness.
To see the doors of all liberations in the door of one liberation is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Gambhiramati said,
“‘Emptiness is other than signlessness and purposelessness’—these are a dualism.
In what is empty, there are no signs at all; where there is no sign, there is no meaning.
Where there is no meaning, thought, intellect, and consciousness are not operative.
The one door of liberation to be seen in all the doors of liberation—that is entry into the door of non-duality.”)

(i.e. The three doors of liberation / three marks of existence are more like ‘one’ – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing no-self, signlessness, aimlessness, or impermanence, suffering, and no-self –: Those apparent opposites – the three doors of liberation / three marks of existence – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[22. UNION OF THE 3 JEWELS [U3J] – Buddha, Dharma, Sangha [Uopp / U2T-opp]]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Santendriya declared,

"It is dualistic to say 'Buddha,' 'Dharma,' and 'Sangha'.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
The Dharma is itself the nature of the Buddha, the Sangha is itself the nature of the Dharma, and all of them are uncompounded.
The uncompounded is infinite space, and the processes of all things are equivalent to infinite space.
Adjustment to this is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Sāntendriya declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to say ‘Buddha,’ ‘Dharma,’ and ‘Saṅgha.’
(But, ultimately,) The Dharma is itself the nature of the Buddha, the Saṅgha is itself the nature of the Dharma,
and all of them are uncompounded.
The uncompounded is infinite space, and the processes of all things are equivalent to infinite space.
Adjustment to this (Union of the three Jewels) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Santendriya said,
“‘Buddha, Dharma, Sangha’—those are distinguished.
The essence of Buddha is Dharma, and the essence of Dharma is Sangha; and all those, moreover, are unconstructed.
The unconstructed is same as space; the principle of all things is same as space.
Such an understanding is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The inseparable three Jewels – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing Buddha, Dharma, Sangha –: Those apparent opposites – the three Jewels – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[23. UNION OF THE 3 STAGES OF BECOMING / THREE TIMES OF THE FIVE AGGREGATES [Uopp / U2T-opp]: ex. i. dependent origination / beginning / birth / coming / before / past, ii. duration / middle / life / change / during / present, iii. cessation / ending / death / going / after / future - or the nirvana extinction of the five aggregates.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Apratihatanetra declared,

"It is dualistic to refer to 'aggregates' and to the 'cessation of aggregates (or nirvana extinction)'.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Aggregates themselves are cessation. Why? The egoistic views of aggregates, being unproduced themselves, do not exist ultimately. Hence such views do not really conceptualize 'These are aggregates' or 'These aggregates cease.' Ultimately, they have no such discriminative constructions and no such conceptualizations. Therefore, such views have themselves the nature of cessation.
Non-occurrence and non-destruction are the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Apratihatacakṣu declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to refer to ‘aggregates’ and to the ‘cessation / extinction of aggregates.’
(But, ultimately,) Aggregates themselves are cessation. Why?
The egoistic views of aggregates, being unproduced themselves, do not exist ultimately.
Hence such views do not really conceptualize ‘these are aggregates’ or ‘these aggregates cease.’
Ultimately, they have no such discriminative constructions and no such conceptualizations.
Therefore, such views have themselves the nature of cessation.
Non-occurrence and non-destruction are the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Apratihateksana said,
“A real body and the extinction of a real body—those are distinguished.
The real body itself is extinction. Why?
When the notion of a lasting real body does not occur,
what in that view is ‘the real body’ or ‘extinction of the real body’ cannot be conceived.
What cannot be conceived has no imagination.
The essence of extinction consists in utter absence of mental creation.
No becoming or annihilation—that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The attainment of the tolerance of the birthlessness, occurrencelessness, rebirthlessness, and destructionlessness / extinctionlessness of all things – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing origination, duration, cessation / death / destruction / nirvana extinction of the five aggregate –: Those apparent opposites – the three stages of becoming of the five aggregates – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[24. UNION OF THE 3 TYPES OF ACTIONS / KARMA – actions of the body, speech & mind [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Suvinita declared,

"Physical, verbal, and mental vows do not exist dualistically.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
Why? These things have the nature of inactivity.
The nature of inactivity of the body is the same as the nature of inactivity of speech,
whose nature of inactivity is the same as the nature of inactivity of the mind.
It is necessary to know and to understand this fact of the ultimate inactivity of all things, for this knowledge is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Suvinīta declared,
(Ultimately,) “Physical, verbal, and mental vows do not exist dualistically. Why?
These things have the nature of inactivity (emptiness of the three spheres [U3S]).
The nature of inactivity of the body is the same as the nature of inactivity of speech,
whose nature of inactivity is the same as the nature of inactivity of the mind.
It is necessary to know and to understand this fact of the ultimate inactivity of all things,
for this knowledge is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Suvinita said,
“It is restraint of body, speech, and mind that is non-dual. Why? These things are uncultivated.
The manifestation of absence of training of the body is lack of cultivation in speech too, and thought.
The absence of formulation in all things should be known and recognized for what it is.
That knowledge of nonformation is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The ultimate inactivity of all things – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing actions of the body, speech & mind / karma –: Those apparent opposites – the three Vajras, or the three types of actions / karma – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

(i.e. Acting without acting – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing activity and non-activity –: Those apparent opposites – activity & non-activity – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[25. UNION OF THE 3 TYPES OF ACTIONS / KARMA – wholesome, unwholesome, neutral actions [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Punyaksetra declared,

"It is dualistic to consider actions meritorious, sinful, or neutral.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
The non-undertaking of meritorious, sinful, and neutral actions is not dualistic.
The intrinsic nature of all such actions is voidness,
wherein ultimately there is neither merit, nor sin, nor neutrality, nor action itself.
The non-accomplishment of such actions is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Puṇyakṣetra declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to consider actions meritorious, sinful, or unmoving.
(But, ultimately,) The non-undertaking of meritorious, sinful, and unmoving actions is not dualistic.
The intrinsic nature of all such actions is voidness (emptiness of the three spheres [U3S]),
wherein ultimately there is neither merit, nor sin, nor non-movement, nor action itself.
The non-accomplishment of such actions is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Punyaksetra said,
“‘The performance of meritorious, blameworthy or indifferent actions’—these are distinguished.
Not performing meritorious, blameworthy, or indifferent practices is non-dual.
The inherent characteristic of meritorious, blameworthy, and indifferent performances is emptiness—that has no merit, demerit, or indifference.
What does not come about through performance and so has no accomplishment—that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The non-accomplishment of the three types of actions / karma – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing subject / actor, relation / action, object / result –: Those apparent opposites – the three spheres of actions / karma – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

(i.e. The non-accomplishment of the three types of action / karma – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing meritorious, sinful, and neutral actions –: Those apparent opposites – the three types of action / karma – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[26. UNION OF CONCEPTUALISATION <==> NON-CONCEPTUALISATION, UNION OF THINKING <==> NON-THINKING, UNION OF IDEATION <==> NON-IDEATION, UNION OF ACTION <==> NON-ACTION, UNION OF MOVEMENT <==> REST … [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Padmavyuha declared,

"Dualism is produced from obsession with self,
but true understanding of self / appearances does not result in dualism.
Who thus abides in non-duality is without ideation,
and that absence of ideation is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Padmavyūha declared,
“(Apparent / conventional) Dualism is produced from obsession with self / appearances,
(But, ultimately,) but true understanding of self / appearances / relativity [U2T] does not result in dualism.
Who thus abides in non-duality is without ideation (in absolute terms), and
that absence of ideation (in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Padmavyuha said,
“Occurrence from self-obsession is what is dualistic.
Comprehension of self does not bring about duality.
Thus, in the state of non-duality, what has no representation because there is no making it known—
that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The Middle Way between conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and ‘good’ non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest –: Those apparent opposites – conceptualisation / discrimination / thinking / mentation / ideation / action / movement and non-conceptualisation / non-discrimination / non-thinking / non-mentation / non-ideation / non-action / rest – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[27. UNION OF ACCEPTATING / GRASPING / SEEKING <==> REJECTING / NON-GRASPING / ABANDONING [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Srigarbha declared,

"Duality is constituted by perceptual manifestation.
Non-duality is objectlessness.
Therefore, not grasping and not rejecting is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Śrīgarbha declared,
“(Apparent / conventional) Duality is constituted by (apparent / conventional) perceptual manifestation.
(But, ultimately,) Non-duality is objectlessness (no inherently existing objects, just conventional / infinitely-relative / inter-subjective appearances).
Therefore, non grasping and non rejection (not accepting not rejecting anything in absolute terms) is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Srigarbha said,
“Distinction by apprehension is dualistic.
What has no apprehension is non-dual.
Hence, neither grasping nor rejection is the entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. The Middle Way, not accepting / grasping / seeking / doing anything in absolute terms, not rejecting / not-grasping / abandoning / not-doing anything in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing acceptation and rejection –: Those apparent opposites – grasping / accepting and non-grasping / rejecting – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[28. UNION OF DARKNESS <==> LIGHT [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Candrottara declared,

"'Darkness' and 'light' are dualistic,
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
but the absence of both darkness and light is non-duality. Why?
At the time of absorption in cessation, there is neither darkness nor light, and likewise with the natures of all things.
The entrance into this equanimity is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Candrottara declared,
“ ‘Darkness’ and ‘light’ are (apparently / conventionally) dualistic,
but (ultimately) the absence (transcendence) of both darkness and light is non-duality. Why?
At the time of absorption in cessation (transcendence), there is neither darkness nor light (emptiness of both [U2T-opp]),
and likewise with the natures of all things (emptiness of everything [U2T of all dharmas]).
The entrance into this equanimity [Uopp / U2T-opp] is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Candrottara said,
“‘Darkness and light’—these are a dualism.
Non-being of darkness and light is non-dual. Why?
In attainment of extinction there is no darkness and no light.
All things are also thus, by definition.
Embodiment of this impartiality is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Equanimity about darkness and light – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing darkness and light –: Those apparent opposites – true / sight & false / non-sight – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[29. UNION OF REJECTING / DISLIKING SAMSARA / APPEARANCES <==> SEEKING / LIKING NIRVANA / EMPTINESS [Uopp / U2T-opp]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Ratnamudrahasta declared,

"It is dualistic to detest the world and to rejoice in liberation,
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
and neither detesting the world (rejecting samsara) nor rejoicing in liberation (accepting nirvana) is non-duality.
Why? Liberation can be found where there is bondage,
but (ultimately) where there is ultimately no bondage where is there need for liberation?
The mendicant who is neither bound nor liberated does not experience any like or any dislike and thus he enters non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Ratna­mudrā­hasta declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to detest (reject) the world (samsara) and to rejoice (accept) in liberation (nirvana),
and neither detesting the world (rejecting samsara) nor rejoicing in liberation (accepting nirvana) is non-duality. Why?
Liberation can be found where there is bondage,
but (ultimately) where there is ultimately no bondage where is there need for liberation?
The mendicant who is neither bound nor liberated does not experience any like or any dislike and thus he enters non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Ratnamudrahasta said,
“The pleasure of nirvana and the pleasure of the common low of existence—those are distinct.
Neither taking pleasure in nirvana nor taking pleasure in the common low is non-dual. Why?
What is called leaving bondage, yet is ultimately without bondage—how can one seek that liberation?
The pleasure or lack of pleasure of neither bondage nor liberation cannot be found by a mendicant—
that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Neither detesting the world (samsara) nor rejoicing in liberation (nirvana) – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing ‘bad’ samsara and ‘good’ nirvana –: Those apparent opposites – being bound / conditioned / samsara and being liberated / unconditioned / nirvana – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[30. UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE & DYNAMIC OF DUALISTIC CONCEPTS / APPEARANCES, NOT ENGAGING (ACCEPTING) IN DUALITY IN ABSOLUTE TERMS [U2T-opp], NOT REJECTING IT ALL COMPLETELY EITHER [the Middle Way]:]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Manikutaraja declared,

"It is dualistic to speak of good paths and bad paths.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
One who is on the path is not concerned with good or bad paths.
Living in such unconcern, he entertains no concepts of 'path' or 'non-path.'
Understanding the nature of [dualistic] concepts [U2T-opp],
his mind does not engage in (accept) duality (in absolute terms).
(nor reject it completely = the Middle Way free from all extremes & middle: not accepting not rejecting anything in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively)
Such is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Maṇikūṭarāja declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to speak of ‘good paths’ and ‘bad paths’.
(But, ultimately,) One who is on the path is not concerned with good or bad paths.
Living in such unconcern, he entertains no concepts of ‘path’ or ‘non-path.’
Understanding the nature of concepts (conditioned physical, conceptual and mental fabrications) [U2T-opp],
his mind does not engage in duality (in absolute terms).
(nor reject it completely = the Middle Way free from all extremes & middle: not accepting not rejecting anything in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively)
Such is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Ratnakuta Raja said,
“The path and the wrong path are distinguished.
In deep entry into the path, a wrong path has no usage.
Where there is no usage, there is no concept of a path or of a false path.
Comprehension of concepts does not enter into duality of thought—
that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Absence of real opposition – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing good paths and bad paths, or path and non-path –: Those apparent opposites – good & bad paths, or path & non-path – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[31. PERCEIVING WITHOUT PERCEIVING THE TWO TRUTHS [U2T-2T] – FALSE APPEARANCES & TRUE EMPTINESS –: UNION OF THE 3 SPHERES OF PERCEPTION / COGNITION [U3S / U2T-3S]: ex. subject / actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition, object / result / perceived / known:]

[i.e. RIGHT VIEW: HOW TO PERCEIVE EVERYTHING, all dharmas, the three spheres – all subjects / beings, relations / actions, objects / phenomena / things –, all apparent opposites in any duality / triad / quads / etc., even the two truths themselves, even the three Jewels? Answer: Like illusions – ‘there but not there’ –; like the inconceivable Union of the Two Truths [U2T] free from all extremes & middle, free from all dualistic conceptual proliferations, free from all defining limitations, free from all conditioning / karma: Union of being conventionally dependently co-arisen relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S] <==> and emptiness of inherent existence [T2]; with no real three stages of becoming – origination / birth, duration / life / rebirth, cessation / death / extincting / liberation; with nothing to accept, nothing to reject in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively; like primordially spontaneous, timeless, limitless, equal, pure, perfect, divine, complete, free, beautiful, enlightened / trikaya.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
The bodhisattva Satyarata declared,

"It is dualistic to speak of 'true' and 'false'.
(i.e. They are apparently inherently existing and apparently inherently different / separate / multiple / dual / in opposition; but that is just like a dream / magical illusion / trick of the sight / mirage / reflection / echo / City of Gandharvas / emanated apparition. 'There but not there'.)
When one sees truly, one does not ever see any truth (emptiness), so how could one see falsehood (appearances)?
Why? One does not see with the physical eye, one sees with the eye of wisdom.
And with the wisdom-eye one sees only insofar as there is neither sight nor non-sight (perceiving without perceiving).
There, where there is neither sight nor non-sight, is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: The bodhisattva Satyananda declared,
“It is (apparently / conventionally) dualistic to speak of ‘true / emptiness’ and ‘false / appearances.’
(But, ultimately,) When one sees truly (the inconceivable true nature & dynamic of Reality as its is [U2T / U3S / Uopp]),
one does not ever see any truth [U2T-2T, emptiness of emptiness],
so how could one see falsehood [U2T-2T, emptiness of all appearances]? Why?
One does not see with the physical eye, one sees with the eye of wisdom
And with the wisdom-eye one sees only insofar as there is neither sight nor non-sight.
(i.e. Perceiving without perceiving: It is an inconceivable personal spontaneous non-dualistic non-conceptual direct perception / realisation / experience of the inconceivable true nature of Reality as it is here & now. Perceiving without any di-vision between the subject / perceiver & relation / action / perception & object / perceived. Perceiving with full awareness of the inconceivable true nature & dynamic of the three spheres of perception [U3S / U2T-3S].)
There, where there is neither sight nor non-sight, is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: The bodhisattva Satyarata said,
“Truth and falsehood are distinguished.
If even truthfulness is not perceived by a view of truth, how can a false notion be perceived? Why?
It is not perceived by the physical eye; it is seen by the eye of insight without views.
It is seen as is without display.
When there is no view and no display, that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Perceiving / knowing without perceiving / knowing – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing truth / sight / perception / cognition and false / non-sight / non-perception / non-cognition –: Those apparent opposites – truth / sight & falsehood / non-sight – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

From 9.19 - (i.e. Directly understanding and then perceiving / realising / experiencing the true nature & dynamic of the three inseparable spheres of perception / cognition – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing subject / actor / perceiver / knower, relation / action / perception / cognition, object / result / perceived / known –: Those apparent opposites – the three spheres of perception / cognition – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

[Go to Topics]

—------------------------

[32. All descriptions / explanations / representations of anything are necessarily limited conditioned conceptual dualistic fabrications, thus flawed – even more so when trying to present the inconceivable true nature of Reality as it is here & now which is beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma – physical / body, conceptual / speech, mental / mind –. Which is even beyond movement / activity / noise / speech / representation / conception & rest / non-activity / SILENCE / non-speech / non-representation / non-conception. The solution is not to do it or not-do it, to accept it or reject it, but to be fully aware of their true nature & dynamic while using them, thus benefiting from them [T1] without being fooled by them [T2] [U2T], without being slave to them.]

[Thurman's first edition:]
When the bodhisattvas had given their explanations, they all addressed the crown prince Manjusri:

"Manjusri, what is the bodhisattva's entrance into non-duality?"

Manjusri replied,

"Good sirs, you have all spoken well.
Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic.
(i.e. All description / conceptualisation is dualistic. Duality vs. non-duality is a duality; accepting this while rejecting that is dualism: ex. opting for silence / passivity / indifference, non-conceptualisation, non-discrimination / non-duality / oneness / equality, non-mentation, non-ideation, non-thinking, non-action, non-path, purity … is still dualistic.)
To know no one teaching, to express nothing,
to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing,
to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - (i.e. and to not grasp at this ‘doing nothing’ because it is still dualistic)
that is the entrance into non-duality."

(Thurman's recent edition: When the bodhisattvas had given their explanations, they all addressed the crown prince Mañjuśrī:
“Mañjuśrī, what is the bodhisattva’s entrance into non-duality?”

Mañjuśrī replied,
“Good sirs, you have all spoken well.
Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic (conventional / relative conditioned dualistic conceptual proliferations).
(But, ultimately,) To know (that, ultimately, there is) no one teaching (in absolute terms),
to express nothing (in absolute terms),
to say nothing (in absolute terms),
to explain nothing (in absolute terms),
to announce nothing (in absolute terms),
to indicate nothing (in absolute terms),
and to designate nothing (in absolute terms, just conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively)‍—
that is the entrance into non-duality.”)

(Thomas Cleary translation: Having had those bodhisattvas each indicate their own ascertainment,
Vimalakirti said to Manjusri the perpetual youth, “Manjusri, what is a bodhisattva’s entry into non-duality?”

Manjusri said, “Good people, though well-spoken by all of you, everything you’ve said is dualistic,
leaving out one prescription—
what is impossible to talk about, impossible to say, is unspoken and impossible to state,
beyond representation—that is entry into non-duality.”)

(i.e. Beyond duality vs. non-duality – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing difference / separation / multiplicity / duality and identity / unification / oneness / non-duality –: Those apparent opposites – duality & non-duality – are apparently inherently existent and apparently inherently independent / different / separate / independent / multiple / dual / in opposition; but in reality they are more like in harmony; they are more like empty of inherent existence [T2] <==> because inseparable / interdependent / co-defined / co-relative / co-dependent / co-emergent / co-evolving / co-ceasing / co-transcended [T1] [T2], like objects merely co-labeled / co-imputed / co-imagined / co-created / co-evolving by/with the subject / mind in co-dependence of its conditioning / karma [U3S]. And vice versa; One aspect / truth implies / proves the other (<==>). They are not existent, not completely non-existent or non-functional, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not different / separate / multiple / dual, not identical / united / one / non-dual, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; not permanent / continuous / eternal, not impermanent / discontinuous / annihilated, not both together, not neither, and there is no fifth; etc. Meaning their true nature is inconceivable, beyond all extremes & middle, beyond all dualistic conceptual proliferations, beyond all defining limitations, beyond all conditioning / karma. So there is no solid basis to describe and discriminate / differentiate / oppose / classify them in absolute terms, or to not-describe and not-discriminate / not-differentiate / not-oppose / not classify them completely; they are still valid meaningful useful conventionally dependently co-arisen (interdependent) relatively functional ever-changing impermanent appearances [T1], not completely non-existent or non-functional <==> even if empty of inherent existence [T2] [U2T], not really existent or deterministic. So it is ok to use them, to describe / conceptualise / differentiate / classify them conventionally / relatively / inter-subjectively, but never in absolute terms. Reality as it is is beyond all dualistic concepts / dualism.)

(i.e. Seeking neither good nor bad – There are no real / independent / universal / absolute / inherently existing good and bad –: