Chapter 7 · The Three Natures, the Three Naturelessnesses, the Two Selflessnesses, and Suchness

Part Two · Doctrine

One and the same thing — why can all three ways of seeing it be right? And when the refutation is carried to its end, what is it that shows itself?

Chapter Five dismantled the "real realm outside the mind"; Chapter Six laid down a map of the mind — and now a question left hanging between the two chapters must be answered: since grasping is wrong, then what is right? This school's answer is a single three-faced instrument, named the three natures. It is the pivot of the whole book: every analysis of the first six chapters and every practice-and-realization of the last five converge upon this one instrument.

1 · False Discrimination Exists — the Footing of the Middle Way

First, find footing. Where does one stand so as to fall neither into "everything is real" nor into "everything is utterly nothing"? The opening verse of the Madhyāntavibhāga is this school's four-line declaration of where it stands:

「False discrimination exists; in this the two are wholly absent, 　within this there is only emptiness; in that too there is this.」

Slow down phrase by phrase. 「False discrimination exists」 — that cognitive activity which ceaselessly and wrongly divides the world in two does exist: deluded imagining is happening, and this fact itself is no fiction (the first blow against thoroughgoing nihilism). 「In this the two are wholly absent」 — yet within this activity, the two poles it divides out (the grasping self, the grasped object) have never truly been established (a blow against naïve realism). 「Within this there is only emptiness」 — within false discrimination, all there is is that emptiness of the two graspings. 「In that too there is this」 — and within emptiness, this false discrimination is still turning: emptiness is nowhere else, it is right at the scene of the deluded imagining. The prose passage names this standpoint:

「What is not present here, by that is observed as empty; and since what remains is not nonexistent, it is known as it truly is to exist. When it is thus, one can display the character of emptiness without distortion.」

What is absent is truly observed as empty; what remains (the activity itself) is truly known to exist — refuting not a bit too much, not a bit too little, so that 「one can display the character of emptiness without distortion」. The treatise then announces its own house: thus 「neither empty nor not empty」, and 「such a principle wondrously accords with the middle way, and rightly conforms to the Prajñā and other sūtras' teaching that all dharmas are neither empty nor existent」 — the swing of Chapter Three's emptiness-and-existence pendulum comes back to center, and the tool formally makes its entrance: not at odds with Prajñā, but stating Prajñā's "emptiness" to the point of being without distortion.

2 · The Three Natures — Three Levels of One Experience

The footing is set; now open the instrument. In the Saṃdhinirmocana's "Chapter on the Characteristics of All Dharmas," the Buddha tells the bodhisattva Guṇākara:

「The characteristics of dharmas are, in brief, of three kinds. What are the three? First, the characteristic of the wholly-imagined nature (parikalpita); second, the characteristic of the other-dependent nature (paratantra); third, the characteristic of the perfectly-accomplished nature (pariniṣpanna).」

The three natures are not three things; they are three levels of one and the same experience. The sūtra gives a definition for each, unfolding them one by one.

The wholly-imagined mark — the layer wrongly added on:

「It refers to the self-natures and distinctions of all dharmas as provisionally established through names, extending even to that which gives rise to verbal expression accordingly.」

「Provisionally established through names」 — the self-natures and distinctions set up in reliance on names. Chapter Ten's mental-speech and Chapter Five's provisional designations here receive their proper name: with names and words we fence off, upon experience, one 『thing possessed of self-nature』 after another (this is me, that is it, this thing is inherently thus) — this layer is added purely by conceptual reckoning. The Triṃśikā's verse says it plainly: 「Through this and that imputation, one imputes manifold things; this, the wholly-imagined nature, has no self-nature at all.」 Manifold reckonings reckon out manifold things, yet the reckoned thing 「has no self-nature at all」 — the layer wrongly seen into being does not, in the first place, exist.

The other-dependent mark — the layer that actually flows:

「It refers to the conditioned-arising nature of all dharmas — that is, this being, that is; this arising, that arises; namely, conditioned by ignorance there are formations, and so on, down to the amassing of this entire great mass of suffering.」

「Conditioned-arising」 — arising in dependence on the manifold conditions. This being, that is; this arising, that arises — the sūtra defines the other-dependent mark by Buddhism's own formula of dependent arising: within the framework of the three natures, it takes up precisely the aspect of all dharmas as arising through the manifold conditions. The eight consciousnesses, the torrent and its waves, spoken of in Chapter Six, may all be observed at this layer as phenomena that arise and cease according to conditions. The other-dependent nature is not nihilistic nonexistence, yet neither is it existence-by-self-nature after the manner of the wholly-imagined nature.

The perfectly-accomplished mark — the layer disclosed once error is removed:

「It refers to the universally-equal suchness of all dharmas. With regard to this suchness, because the bodhisattvas take valiant vigor as their cause and condition, and reasoned attention and undistorted contemplation as their cause and condition, they become able to penetrate it. Having penetrated it, they cultivate and accumulate step by step, up to unsurpassed perfect awakening — only then is it realized in full.」

The suchness in which all dharmas are equal. Note the astonishing thing about this definition: its latter half is a path — 「valiant vigor …… then able to penetrate …… cultivating and accumulating step by step …… only then realized in full」. The perfectly-accomplished nature is not a metaphysical object set out for people to debate; it is a real nature that must be cultivated before it is seen, and, once seen, must be cultivated to ripeness. The definition itself writes Chapters Eleven and Twelve of Part Three into its own body.

For the relations among the three natures, the sūtra and the treatise each provide a measuring instrument. The sūtra gives a simile — the cataract simile, a threefold comparison, cited in full:

「Good son! Just as, in the eye of a person afflicted with a cataract, there is the affliction of the cataract — the wholly-imagined mark should be understood in the same way. Just as the manifold appearances that arise for the cataract-afflicted person from the cataract — whether hairs, wheels, bees and flies, sesame grains, or again the differing appearances of blue, yellow, red, and white presenting themselves — the other-dependent mark should be understood in the same way. Just as, for a person of pure eyes free of the affliction of the cataract in the eye, the very undisturbed field ranged over by that pure eye's own nature — the perfectly-accomplished mark should be understood in the same way.」

If this simile is merely laid out at face value as three equations — 『cataract / hairs-and-wheels / pure field』 — it easily breeds confusion. The ancient commentaries divide the same disordered experience more finely: they do not judge the conditionally-produced cataract itself to be the wholly-imagined nature, but distinguish two sides — the 「semblance-appearance」 and the 「grasping-as-real」. The semblant hair-and-wheel appearance that arises upon consciousness in dependence on conditions — arising from conditions, having no fixed nature — belongs to the other-dependent nature; the wheel of hairs that, upon this semblant appearance, is superimposed and grasped as fixedly real — its grasped real object being from the outset absent — belongs to the wholly-imagined nature; and the undisturbed field ranged over by the pure eye's own nature, once the other-dependent nature is freed of this grasped-ness, illustrates the perfectly-accomplished nature. The cataract only accounts for the cause of the disordered appearance; it is not directly equated with any one of the three natures. The sūtra immediately gives a further simile — the pure sphaṭika gem (crystal): 「If it is joined with a blue dye, it comes to resemble the images of indranīla, mahānīla, and maṇi jewels; and because it is wrongly grasped as indranīla, mahānīla, and maṇi jewels, sentient beings are deluded and confounded.」 — a transparent crystal, the moment a dye is applied, is mistaken for gems of various colors; the crystal is the other-dependent, the misidentification is the wholly-imagined; and what the sūtra pairs with the perfectly-accomplished is precisely this layer — that those gem-appearances 「have no reality, are without self-nature」 — the gem-appearances were never real, and this 「absence」 is just the perfectly-accomplished upon the crystal. The treatise gives the definition — Triṃśikā, verse 22:

「Therefore this and the other-dependent are neither different nor not different, 　like impermanence and such natures — the one not seen apart from the other.」

The perfectly-accomplished nature and the other-dependent nature are 「neither different nor not different」 — not two things (not different), yet not to be conflated into one (not not-different) — like impermanence in relation to conditioned things: impermanence is not outside conditioned things, yet neither is it identical with any one of them. The Cheng Weishi Lun adds one crucial line of sequence:

「It is not that, not having realized and seen this perfectly-accomplished nature, one is yet able to see that other-dependent nature.」

One who has not realized and seen the perfectly-accomplished nature cannot see the original face of the other-dependent nature — without first seeing through what has been added (the wholly-imagined), one cannot even see the actually-flowing (the other-dependent) as it truly is. The order of seeing is the order of cultivation. (The Mahāyānasaṃgraha has, in addition, the rope-and-snake simile — in the dark a rope appears as a snake; when the snake-perception ceases the rope-perception still remains, and the rope in turn can be analyzed away — whose double turn is left for Chapter Ten to walk through in detail on the ground of practice.)

3 · The Three Naturelessnesses — the Negating Face of the Three Natures

Chapter One left a case pending: the second-period Prajñā said 「all dharmas are without self-nature」, and the third period claims to have 「made this explicit」 — explicit where? The Triṃśikā reveals it:

「In dependence on these three natures, those three naturelessnesses are set up, 　and so the Buddha, with hidden intent, declared all dharmas to be natureless. 　The first is naturelessness of characteristics; the next, no nature arising of itself; 　the last, through being freed from the former, the grasped natures of self and dharmas.」

The Triṃśikā first gives a compressed sequence: the wholly-imagined nature is said to be "without" by way of 「naturelessness of characteristics」; the other-dependent nature, by way of 「naturelessness of arising」; the perfectly-accomplished nature, by way of being freed from the self and dharmas grasped before. But the Saṃdhinirmocana's detailed account is not a strict pairing of one nature to one naturelessness. The naturelessness of characteristics definitely points to the wholly-imagined nature: the grasped characteristic is set up by mere provisional names. The naturelessness of arising definitely points to the other-dependent nature: conditionally-arisen dharmas exist by the power of other conditions, not of themselves. But when it comes to the naturelessness of ultimate meaning, the sūtra text explicitly opens two gates:

「These very conditionally-arisen dharmas are also called the naturelessness of ultimate meaning …… the other-dependent mark is not the pure object-field, and therefore it too is spoken of as the naturelessness of ultimate meaning. And further, the perfectly-accomplished mark of dharmas is likewise called the naturelessness of ultimate meaning.」

The first gate still speaks with respect to the other-dependent nature: although it is a conditionally-arisen existent, it is not the pure object of the ultimate, and so it is named a portion of the naturelessness of ultimate meaning — here it is upon the other-dependent nature that a 「self-nature of ultimate meaning」 is negated, and it must not be mistaken for the perfectly-accomplished nature. The second gate speaks with respect to the perfectly-accomplished nature: the suchness of the selflessness of dharmas is the ultimate truth of all dharmas, and is moreover disclosed by naturelessness, so it too is named a portion of the naturelessness of ultimate meaning. Hence there are 「three kinds of naturelessness」, yet four landing-points: one gate for the wholly-imagined, two gates for the other-dependent, one gate for the perfectly-accomplished; the very same 「naturelessness of ultimate meaning」, upon the other-dependent and upon the perfectly-accomplished, is taken in different senses.

This detailed account is exactly the 「explicit disclosure」 of the third period: the second period spoke summarily of 「all being without self-nature」; the third period explains layer by layer which is wholly absent, which is conditionally-arisen and not self-arising, which lacks a nature of ultimate meaning, and which is the ultimate disclosed by the selflessness of dharmas. And the hidden intent of 「all dharmas are unarisen, unceasing, originally quiescent, by their own nature nirvāṇa」 is again explained by the sūtra along two gates: one by way of the naturelessness of characteristics — the appearance of the wholly-imagined is fundamentally nonexistent, hence unarisen and unceasing; one by way of the naturelessness of ultimate meaning disclosed by the selflessness of dharmas — suchness abides ever, unconditioned, hence originally quiescent. One gate says the grasped is fundamentally absent; the other says suchness is fundamentally quiescent; the two must not be blended into one and the same layer.

4 · The Two Selflessnesses — the Positive Side of Refutation

Chapter Five refuted the grasping at self and the grasping at dharmas, attaining the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas. The positive formulation of the two emptinesses is precisely the two selflessnesses: the selflessness of person and the selflessness of dharmas. The Laṅkāvatāra, from its very opening, ranks them alongside the five categories and the three self-natures as a subject of the bodhisattva's 「ultimate penetration」 (「ultimately penetrating the five categories, the self-natures, the consciousnesses, and the two kinds of selflessness」). Their relation to the three natures can be made plain in one sentence: what the two selflessnesses empty out is exactly the compartment of the wholly-imagined nature (the grasped self, the grasped dharmas); and what is disclosed once it is emptied out is the perfectly-accomplished nature —

「What the two emptinesses reveal, perfectly-accomplished — the real nature of dharmas — is named the perfectly-accomplished nature.」

Refutation (Chapter Five) and disclosure (this chapter) are, from the first, two faces of one act. As for how the five categories (name, characteristic, discrimination, right knowledge, thusness) and the three natures subsume one another in detail, the treatises open and close the matter in various ways; the detailed account follows the Cheng Weishi Lun redaction's chapter on the three natures, and this book leaves it as a listed entry.

5 · The Nature of Consciousness-Only · Suchness — the Pivot within the Pivot

The Triṃśikā uses twenty-four verses to set forth the characteristics and five verses to set forth the stages; in the middle it reserves a single verse to itself for 「nature」 — on this book's redaction's outline-tree, it too is a node standing on its own (§21 The Nature of Consciousness-Only · Suchness). Verse 25:

「This, the ultimate meaning of all dharmas, is none other than suchness; 　since it is ever thus in its nature, it is the real nature of consciousness-only.」

The Cheng Weishi Lun, commenting on this verse, first divides 「ultimate meaning」 into four layers — the mundane ultimate (aggregates, bases, elements), the ultimate of principle (the four truths), the ultimate of realization (the suchness of the two emptinesses), and the ultimate of the ultimate (the one true dharma-realm) — and says that here it 「is stated in reliance on the last」. The four layers are a ladder leading from shallow to deep: the real reached by everyday analysis (aggregates, bases, and elements are indeed more real than 「self」), the real expounded by doctrine (the four truths), the real disclosed by practice-and-realization (the suchness of the two emptinesses), and the deepest layer of all, of which even 「disclosure」 cannot be said; the term 「ultimate meaning」, when it appears in the sūtras and treatises, varies in depth, and this verse takes it at its uttermost. Then it defines the two characters 「suchness」 character by character:

「'True' means real, showing that it is not false; 'thus' means ever-constant, indicating that it does not change. That is: this reality, in every state, remains ever thus in its nature — hence it is called suchness — which is just the sense of being limpid and unfalse.」

True — the real, marking off all that is false; thus — the ever-constant, marking off all change. Put together: that reality which, in every state (defiled or pure, deluded or awakened), remains ever thus in its nature. Chapter Twelve's phrase 「the basis of delusion and awakening」 here finds its root: it neither decreases in delusion nor increases in awakening; what changes is only ever delusion and awakening. And the final four characters of the verse must be read slowly — 「it is the real nature of consciousness-only」: even 「consciousness-only」, this school's very tenet, has its own real nature; the real nature does not lie in the spoken words 「consciousness-only」, but there where the words point. Chapter Five warned: to grasp consciousness-only as real is likewise grasping at dharmas; this verse is the positive version of the same warning — all of this school's names and characteristics (the eight consciousnesses, the three natures, the seeds) are, in the end, the finger pointing at the moon, and the moon is suchness. (The step in Chapter Ten where the practitioner 「removes …… the notion of consciousness-only」 has its whole rationale in this verse.)

6 · Drawing Together — Three Readings, One Pair of Eyes

Return to the question that opened the chapter. Why is one and the same thing right on all three ways of seeing? Because the three natures are not three answers in competition; they are three levels, each true in its own right: the layer wrongly added is really wrongly added (the wholly-imagined, hence to be refuted); the flowing layer is really flowing in dependence on conditions (the other-dependent, hence not annihilated); the layer disclosed once error is removed is really ever thus in its nature (the perfectly-accomplished, hence realizable). What shows itself when the refutation reaches its end is suchness — not a manufactured prize, but the undisturbed field ranged over by the pure eye's own nature, once the cataract-obstruction is stripped away.

This three-faced instrument is the pivot of the whole book: looking back, Chapter Five's refutation of grasping was dismantling the wholly-imagined, and Chapter Six's eight consciousnesses were describing the other-dependent; looking forward, Chapter Eight's seed-perfuming is the dynamics of the other-dependent nature, Chapter Ten's awakening into the three natures turns this instrument into actual practice, and Chapter Twelve's transformation of the basis, upon the other-dependent nature, turns away from the wholly-imagined and turns toward the perfectly-accomplished. The instrument is now in hand — in the next chapter, we watch how it turns.

To follow the primary sources: reading-path station five, the Saṃdhinirmocana's "Chapter on the Characteristics of All Dharmas" and "Chapter on the Characteristic of Naturelessness"; station three, the Triṃśikā, verses 20–25; with side reference to the Madhyāntavibhāga's "Chapter Discerning the Characteristics"; and station seven, the Cheng Weishi Lun's chapter on the three natures, await.

Author · Shi Huijing CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 · 二〇二六 · 夏