Property:SanskritTranslation
From Bodhicitta
This is a property of type Text.
T
The teeth, hair, or nails are not I, nor is the bone, nor am I the blood, neither the mucus nor the phlegm, not the pus nor the synovial fluid. +
I am neither the marrow nor the sweat. I am neither the lymph nor the intestines. I am not the rectum, nor am I the excrement or the urine. +
I am neither the flesh nor the sinews. I am neither heat nor wind. I am neither the orifices nor, in any way, the six consciousnesses. +
If I were consciousness of sound, then sound would be perceived at all times. But without something to be conscious of, what does it perceive on account of which there is said to be consciousness? +
It is well established that perception—of visual objects, etc.—is not a reliable means of knowledge. For instance, the common perception of purity in objects that are impure is clearly false. +
If not being conscious of anything is consciousness, it follows that a block of wood is consciousness. This proves that there is no consciousness in the absence of something to be cognized. +
Why does what is conscious of a colour not also hear it at the same time? [If you argue that] When it has no connection with sound there is also no consciousness of such from
that, +
[we respond:] How can something whose nature is to perceive sound perceive colour?
[Sāṅkhya] One person is regarded both as a father and a son.
[Mādhyamika] But they do not really exist, +
Since neither 'goodness', nor 'passion', nor 'darkness' are either the son or the father. Moreover, its essential nature is not observed in connection with the perception of sound. +
If you argue: It is the same thing taking on a different
guise, like an actor. He too does not remain constant. The
one thing has different natures.
[We respond that] It has an unprecedented kind of uniformity. +
If the different nature is not the true nature, then please describe what its own form is. If it is the nature of consciousness, then it follows that all people are one and the same. +
What is conscious and what is unconscious would also be one and the same thing because both are equally existent.
After all, if difference is false, then on what basis is there similarity? +
That which is not conscious is not 'I' because it lacks consciousness like an object such as a cloth. If it is a conscious thing because it possesses consciousness it follows that when it stops being conscious of something it perishes. +
If the Self is in fact unchanged, what is achieved by its having consciousness? It is agreed that the nature of something which is unconscious and does not partake in any activity in this way is the same as space. +
If you argue that the connection of action and consequence is not possible without a Self, for 'If the agent of the action has perished who experiences the consequence?', +
The Protector spoke of entities in the process of becoming only as an introduction for the common human into ultimate truth. In reality these entities are not even impermanent. An Objector Interjects: But if this is true only from the point of view of conventional reality, then there is a contradiction in presenting impermanence as contradicting the idea of a self-existing entity. +
[our response is:] For both of us it is established that the action and the consequence of the action have a different location. Moreover, since the self does not have any function in this, surely arguing this point is irrelevant here. +
The one who provides the cause is connected with the con-
sequence? Such an occurrence is never seen. It is taught that
there is an agent and an experiencer of the consequence in
terms of a unity of the continuum of consciousnesses. +
The past or future mind is not 'I' since that does not exist.
If the present mind is 'I' then, when i.t has ceased, the 'I'
does not exist any more. +
Just as the trunk of a banana tree is nothing when split into
pieces, in the same way too, the 'I' is not a real entity when
hunted out analytically. +
