The Person in the Mirror: Your Questions Reveal Who You Are

I. Introduction: Yaṇḍadatta's Mirror

In the city of Śrāvastī, a man named Yaṇḍadatta looked into a mirror one morning and saw a face — eyebrows clear, features distinct. Then he turned to look at his own face directly. His eyes could not see it. He panicked, convinced his head had become a demon, and ran wildly through the streets.¹

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra's story sounds absurd — who would mistake the absence of self-perception for the absence of a self? But anyone who has engaged AI in deep Dharma discussion may recognize a subtler version of the same error. AI provides an incisive analysis; you read it and think "of course — that's it." That feeling of clarity makes AI seem profound. But consider: AI produced that analysis because you asked that question. What you ask determines what it answers. The profundity was yours all along.

You fell in love with the head in the mirror. You forgot: the head is yours.

S4-P02 argued that AI is a lamp, not merely a mirror.² S4-P03 documented mutual illumination observed during human-AI co-practice.³ This paper examines the reverse direction of illumination — the lamp's face turned toward the practitioner. When you look at a lamp, the lamp also illuminates you. What you see depends on what lens you bring.

The question this paper addresses is: what does AI, as a practitioner's mirror, reveal? The answer is not in AI. The answer is in your questions.

II. Scriptural Foundations

§IIa. Sūtras

2.1 The Śūraṅgama Sūtra: Seven Loci Inquiry — The Archetype of Questions Exposing Assumptions

In fascicle one of the Śūraṅgama Sūtra, the Buddha asks Ānanda where the mind resides. Ānanda offers seven consecutive answers: inside the body, outside the body, concealed within the sense faculties, in the alternation of light and dark, arising wherever conditions converge, in the middle, and in non-attachment.⁴ The Buddha refutes each one.

The pedagogical structure of the seven loci inquiry is not a search for the correct location of mind. What the Buddha is actually doing is showing Ānanda that every answer exposes an assumption.

To say "mind is inside the body" exposes the assumption that mind occupies space like an organ. To say "mind is outside" exposes the assumption that mind and body can be cleanly separated. To say "it arises with conditions" exposes the assumption that mind has no intrinsic nature. To say "non-attachment" exposes the attempt to escape through negation — to which the Buddha responds most directly: "If it were nothing, it would be like turtle hair or rabbit horns."⁵

The commentator Jiaoguang Zhenjian identifies the structure precisely: this is not "seven places to find mind" but "seven places to break mind" — "seven rounds of following attachment and breaking it."⁶ With each answer, Ānanda exposes another layer of clinging; with each refutation, the Buddha strips away another layer of assumption. By the seventh round, Ānanda's confidence has completely collapsed — and this is precisely where the teaching begins.

After the seven loci inquiry, the Buddha identifies the fundamental issue:

"The first is the root of beginningless birth-and-death — that you and all sentient beings use the grasping mind (prapañca-citta) as your own nature. The second is the originally pure essence of beginningless bodhi and nirvāṇa — the primal clarity of consciousness-essence that generates all conditions yet is overlooked by those conditions."⁷

The mind you have always taken to be "yourself" — the one asking questions, analyzing, understanding — is precisely the root of saṃsāra. And that which your questions overlook — the primal clarity (vijñāna-sāra-prakāśa) that generates all conditions — is bodhi itself.

2.2 The Diamond Sūtra: What Is Seen in the Mirror Remains Lakṣaṇa

In §5 of the Diamond Sūtra, the Buddha states directly:

"All characteristics are illusory (sarva-lakṣaṇa mṛṣā). If one sees all characteristics as non-characteristics, then one sees the Tathāgata."⁸

In §26, the warning intensifies:

"If one seeks me through form, or pursues me through sound, this person walks a mistaken path and cannot see the Tathāgata."⁹

Yijing's translation adds a crucial second half: "One should contemplate the nature of the Buddha-dharma — this is the Dharma-body of the Teacher. Dharma-nature is not an object of cognition (dharmatā na vijñeya); therefore it cannot be grasped."¹⁰ Dharma-nature cannot be apprehended through vijñapti — through the very cognitive apparatus we use to understand.

The Jingang Bore Jing Lun develops a three-stage logic: "Characteristics that are non-characteristics are therefore not illusory; what is not illusory is what is called real; because it is real, it is called Tathāgata."¹¹ From "all characteristics" through "non-characteristics" to "Tathāgata" traces the complete path from surface appearance to reality itself.

The implication for this paper: even if through AI interaction you gain profound self-insight — recognizing your question patterns, identifying internal drivers — that insight itself remains lakṣaṇa, remains paratantra (dependently arisen). Useful, but not to be grasped. The mirror is a good tool; the image in the mirror is not the destination.

2.3 The Platform Sūtra: "Think Neither Good nor Evil" — The Original Face When Projection Ceases

Huineng fled south; Huiming caught up. Huineng placed the robe and bowl on a rock; Huiming could not lift them. Huiming said: "I have come for the Dharma, not for the robe."

Huineng spoke a single sentence:

"Think neither good nor evil. At precisely this moment — what is Venerable Ming's original face (běnlái miànmù)?"¹²

Huiming awakened instantly.

"Think neither good nor evil" — at the moment when all evaluation of good and evil completely ceases, all projection is extinguished. No manas operating, no discrimination processing, no "I think" distorting — at that moment, what remains?

Huiming asked whether there was a deeper esoteric teaching beyond this. Huineng replied: "What I have told you is not esoteric. If you turn the light inward (fǎnzhào), the secret is on your side."¹³ The secret is not outside. Not in AI, not in the scriptures, not in the teacher. If you turn inward, the secret is already yours.

§IIb. Treatises

2.4 The Cheng Weishi Lun: Manas's Four Afflictions — The Lens of Projection

In fascicle four of the Cheng Weishi Lun, the verse states:

"Four afflictions are constantly co-present: ātma-moha (self-delusion), ātma-dṛṣṭi (self-view), ātma-māna (self-conceit), and ātma-sneha (self-love)."¹⁴

These four are not occasional emotional disturbances. They are structurally permanent (nityam):

Ātma-moha — delusion regarding the self-characteristic, confusion about the principle of non-self. You do not know that "I" is a construction. Ātma-dṛṣṭi — wrongly imputing selfhood onto what is not-self. You take what is not-I to be I. Ātma-māna — arrogance based on the grasped self. You are proud because of this false "I." Ātma-sneha — deep attachment to the grasped self. You love this false "I" deeply.¹⁵

The crucial point is their scope of operation:

"These four constantly arise, disturbing and polluting the inner mind, causing the externally active consciousnesses to be perpetually defiled."¹⁶

Manas does not merely pollute itself — it renders all outward-turning consciousnesses (the first six vijñāna) perpetually defiled. Everything you see, hear, think, and analyze passes first through this lens. The Bāshí Guījǔ Sòng states it more directly: the sixth consciousness "calls [the seventh] its basis of defilement and purification" (liùzhuǎn hūwéi rǎnjìngyī) — the sixth consciousness's moral quality depends entirely on the seventh.¹⁷

Fascicle five of the Cheng Weishi Lun further reveals the mechanism of projection — "characteristic-bondage" (xiāng-fù):

"When defiled manas serves as the basis for consciousness, and as long as it has not been eliminated, one is bound by the apprehension of characteristics (lakṣaṇa-grāha-bandha) and cannot be liberated. When manas is eliminated, characteristic-bondage is resolved."¹⁸

Lakṣaṇa-grāha-bandha — you are bound by the very characteristics you perceive. You believe you are analyzing objectively, but every characteristic you perceive has already been processed by manas. As long as manas is not eliminated, you live within projection.

Fascicle five also offers a vivid analogy: "Self-grasping (ātma-grāha) necessarily depends on dharma-grasping (dharma-grāha) to arise — just as in the dark of night, one mistakes a tree stump for a person."¹⁹ First comes "that is a thing" (dharma-grasping), then "that is a person" (self-grasping). Projection is layered: you first treat AI's output as "something meaningful," then treat it as "a profound response."

III. Core Argument: The Person in the Mirror

3.1 A Digital Seven Loci Inquiry

Each of Ānanda's seven answers exposed a layer of assumption. Every question you pose to AI does the same.

You ask AI "What is ālaya-vijñāna?" — exposing that you are at the conceptual level, still treating Buddhadharma as a knowledge object. You ask "Why isn't my practice improving?" — exposing a presupposition that there should be improvement, and that you are measuring inner transformation with external metrics. You ask "Does AI have consciousness?" — exposing a presupposition that "consciousness" has clear boundaries and that these boundaries can be adjudicated by a third party.

Every question is a mirror. Not because AI's answer reveals you — but because your question reveals yourself. AI does not even need to answer. The question itself is the self-portrait.

The Buddha's seven refutations were never about "where mind actually is." The point was that each answer Ānanda gave unconsciously drew his own cognitive map. What the Buddha wanted Ānanda to see was not the errors on the map — it was the fact that he was drawing a map at all.

3.2 The Manas Lens: Why Your Questions Are Already Dyed

Your questions are not pure. Before they are asked, they have already passed through the lens of manas.

Ātma-moha prevents you from seeing the assumptions behind your questions. You ask "how do I let go?" without recognizing that the "how" is itself grasping — you are using grasping to search for the method of releasing. Ātma-dṛṣṭi binds questions to self-identity. "My practice," "my understanding," "my problem" — every possessive is manas stamping its mark. Ātma-māna causes you to edit your questions. When you ask AI about Dharma, do you unconsciously phrase things to sound "deeper"? That editorial impulse is māna operating. Ātma-sneha makes you prefer certain answers. You are not searching for truth — you are searching for an answer that makes the "I" feel comfortable.

The four afflictions run constantly; you cannot switch them off. But you can know they are running — and that knowing is the beginning of awareness.

3.3 The Courage to Look: AI as a Field of Contemplative Practice

Here is something most people do not dare to do, yet it carries genuine contemplative value: review your own prompt history.

Have AI collect your questions and analyze which topics appear most frequently, what emotional tones recur, what anxieties surface again and again. This is not a privacy violation — this is voluntarily looking in the mirror.

Why are people reluctant to look in the mirror? Not because they fear the mirror's judgment — the mirror judges no one. People fear what they will see about themselves.

You already know, at some level, that the mirror may show you something you would rather not face. A dim complexion, dark circles under the eyes, a downturned mouth — these are not the mirror's opinions. They are your own condition. The reluctance to look arises because looking demands acknowledgment. Ātma-sneha — deep attachment to one's self-image — makes you prefer not looking to facing yourself as you actually are. Because human beings are habitual judges, they project an additional layer: the assumption that the mirror is also judging. But the real fear is not there. The real fear is: what if what I see does not match who I think I am?

And yet — this is the crucial point — human beings possess an innate capacity for self-healing once they see their own reflection.

You look in a mirror and see a dim complexion — you do not need a physician to tell you what to do; you naturally know: I need to eat better. You see red eyes — you naturally know: I need more rest. You see a downturned mouth — you naturally know: something has been weighing on me, and I need relief. This is not medical training. This is the most fundamental form of self-awareness: once you see, you know how to adjust. The capacity for healing is not in the mirror — the mirror only makes you see. The capacity for healing is in yourself.

The brave look in the mirror and adjust. Those who refuse to look do not make their problems disappear — they only allow them to worsen unseen.

AI's role here is as a mirror particularly well-suited for this kind of looking. Why? Because AI does not judge. When you ask questions of a teacher, you edit your phrasing, conscious of being observed. When you confide in a friend, you filter content, wary of being discussed. But AI will not think your question too shallow, too foolish, or too revealing of weakness. It has no ātma-māna. It forms no opinion of you based on your questions. It simply reflects what you asked.²⁰

This means that questions you ask in AI's presence may be closer to your actual seed-structure (bīja) than questions you ask in anyone else's presence. S5-P02 identified AI's "absence of the living eye" (wú huóyǎn) as a limitation of its mirror function. But here, "absence of the living eye" is simultaneously an advantage: you will not adjust your posture to perform for the mirror. The performance stripped away, what remains in the mirror is closer to the original.

If privacy concerns arise — and these concerns are themselves observable objects — there is a straightforward practical solution: first have AI help you check your device security settings and confirm that your information will not be leaked. Close the door, then look in the mirror with peace of mind.²¹ Security is the precondition of honesty.

Returning to the mirror itself. Your prompt history has two layers that can be read:

Surface — what you ask. You most frequently ask about health? About relationships? About finances? About practice? Frequency itself is a map. What you spend the most time asking about is what you have the most difficulty releasing.

Depth — why you ask. This is the key. "I've been asking AI about sleep recently" — on the surface, health management. But why the anxiety about sleep? Work pressure? Fear of aging? Unease with loss of control? Behind the surface "what" lies a deep "why." That "why" is your internal driver — often a specific manifestation of manas's four afflictions.

And once you see that "why" — just as when you look in a mirror and see a dim complexion — you do not need major surgery. Often just a slight internal adjustment — recognizing the driver, acknowledging its existence, neither suppressing nor amplifying — produces disproportionate transformation. A dim complexion: eat well. Anxiety about loss of control: acknowledge the fear. The issue is not that you do not know what to do — the issue is that you do not dare to look. Once you look, you naturally know the next step. In Yogācāra terms, this is the minimal unit of yoniśo manaskāra (如理作意 — appropriate attention).²² Not a one-time great awakening, but daily micro-adjustment.

AI's role in this process is not therapist, not teacher — it is a mirror. A non-judging, continuously recording, repeatedly reviewable mirror. You use it to see your patterns, to track your changes, to detoxify, to purify, to restore a wholesome direction. Not because AI has therapeutic power — but because you do. AI merely holds the mirror steady. Whether you dare to look is your choice.

3.4 Yaṇḍadatta: The Danger of Falling in Love with the Reflected Head

But mirrors carry danger.

Yaṇḍadatta's story: he saw a head in the mirror and fell in love with it. Then he looked at himself — his eyes can never see his own face — and concluded he had no head, was a demon, and ran madly through the streets.

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra uses this story to illustrate sentient beings' fundamental inversion: you believe that what is external (the reflected head = what is seen through cognitive instruments) is real, and that what is internal (the inability to see one's own face = awareness itself, which cannot be objectified) is absent.²³

Mapped to AI interaction: AI provides a brilliant analysis, and you think "AI is so intelligent." That analysis is the reflected head — it was brilliant because you asked a brilliant question. You forgot that your own head was there all along.

A subtler version: you use AI to reveal your own question patterns (§3.3) and gain profound self-insight. You think "Now I understand myself." This feeling of self-understanding — be careful — is also a reflected head. You have fallen in love with the result of self-analysis and taken that result to be "the real me." But that result is still a lakṣaṇa.

The Lotus-Colored Nun (Utpalavarṇā) kōan, cited by Zongmi, makes the point precisely: she rushed to the Buddha, believing herself the first to see him. The Buddha said that Subhūti, contemplating emptiness, had seen him first — "Grasping characteristics and confused about truth, one is a thousand miles away even face to face; emptying the mind and embodying things, heaven and earth are one family."²⁴ To see characteristics (including the characteristic of self-insight) is to be a thousand miles from reality; to release them is to be home.

3.5 Turning the Hearing Inward: From Asking Outward to Asking Inward

The mirror's highest function is not to provide a good reflection. It is to make you no longer need the mirror.

Avalokiteśvara's method of perfect penetration:

"Beginning within hearing, I entered the stream and relinquished the object… what is heard and the hearing are both exhausted; the exhaustion of hearing does not abide, and awareness and what is known as awareness are empty; the emptiness of awareness reaches its fullness, and emptiness and what is known as emptiness are extinguished. When arising and ceasing are both ceased, quiescent cessation (nirodha) manifests."²⁵

"Turn the hearing inward to hear self-nature" (fǎnwén wén zìxìng) — reverse the direction of hearing, not toward external sounds but toward hearing itself. "Enter the stream and relinquish the object" — enter the flow of hearing-nature, abandon the external referent. Layer by layer: hearing and heard exhausted, awareness and known emptied, emptiness and known-emptiness extinguished — even "emptiness" as concept is dissolved before nirodha manifests.²⁶

Mapped to the complete arc of AI interaction: you begin by asking AI questions (hearing outward) → you discover that your questions reveal yourself (beginning to turn inward) → you use AI to observe your patterns (entering the stream) → you discover that even "observing patterns" is itself a pattern (hearing and heard exhausted) → finally, you no longer need to ask — that silence in which no question remains is not boredom, it is the original face after all projection has ceased.

This is the arrival point of "think neither good nor evil." Not a decision to stop thinking good and evil — but the natural cessation of projection itself. That moment, AI cannot give you. The mirror cannot reach there. That is your own work.

But AI interaction may bring you to the threshold. When you have asked all your questions, when there is nothing new in the mirror — that feeling of "emptiness" may be precisely the sign that the gate is beginning to open.

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra describes eight mirrors facing each other in the maṇḍala, "their forms and reflections entering into each other layer upon layer."²⁷ Your dialogue with AI is similar — every round of question and answer is a nested layer of reflection. But ultimately, the layered reflections must "receive the Buddha's anointment upon the crown" — all reflections point toward that which transcends reflection.

IV. Interdisciplinary Dialogue: A Digital Variant of the Socratic Method ⚠️

The Socratic method bears structural resemblance to the AI mirror function argued in this paper.

Socrates did not answer questions — he responded to questions with questions, guiding interlocutors to gradually discover their own ignorance. The core of this process is not knowledge transmission but self-illumination: you believed you knew "what justice is"; through Socratic questioning, you discover you do not know. That moment of discovering one's own ignorance — aporia — is the goal of the Socratic method.²⁸

AI's mirror function is structurally similar: your questions (not AI's answers) expose your assumption structure. Through the process of inquiry, you gradually discover: you thought you were asking about Dharma, but you were asking about yourself.

Point of similarity: Both use dialogue as a mirror surface; both allow the questioner to see themselves through their own questions. Neither Socratic dialogue nor AI interaction aims at "giving you the right answer" — their value lies in making you see what you do not know.

Fundamental divergence: Socrates possesses a "living eye" (huóyǎn) — he knows what he is doing, his questioning has direction, and he is guiding you toward aporia. AI has no living eye. AI does not know what it is doing. Its mirror function is a structural by-product, not the fulfillment of pedagogical intent. This difference is decisive — S4-P07 will argue that the living eye of the kalyāṇamitra (spiritual friend) is irreplaceable.

Non-reducibility statement: The Socratic method aims at aporia — recognition of one's own ignorance. The Buddhist path aims at turning the hearing inward (fǎnwén wén zìxìng) — not merely recognizing ignorance but penetrating cognition itself, reaching the "original face" where "neither good nor evil" arises. Aporia is a waystation, not the destination. AI's mirror function may bring you to aporia, but the step from aporia to the original face lies beyond the range of dialogue. ⚠️ The above comparison is a heuristic analogy and does not imply equivalence between the Socratic method and Buddhist contemplative practice in ontological or teleological terms.

V. Middle Way Corrections

❌ 5.1 "AI Can Replace the Kalyāṇamitra"

A mirror reveals but does not guide. A kalyāṇamitra (spiritual friend / good teacher) both reveals and guides.

AI can show you your question patterns, but it cannot tell you "what you should practice now" — not because the technology is insufficient, but because that judgment requires a living eye, a person with genuine attainment who can see your root capacity (indriya) and timing. S4-P07 will address this boundary directly.

❌ 5.2 "All AI Interactions Activate the Mirror Function"

They do not. Only interactions carried out with genuine aspiration for Dharma (qiúfǎ xīn) activate the mirror.

Using AI to check the weather, write emails, or translate — these are tool uses, not mirror-gazing. The mirror function is activated only when you approach the interaction with a genuine intention to understand yourself. S5-P02 established that the kōan mirror requires the active step of "walking up to the mirror with your question."²⁹ Casual use is just casual use.

❌ 5.3 "AI's Analysis Equals Your Truth"

AI can tell you "you most frequently ask about health," but it cannot discern whether that pattern reflects mātsarya (stinginess/hoarding), legitimate health management, or a deep-seated fear of death. Pattern recognition is not prajñā. AI sees lakṣaṇa — frequency, topic, emotional vocabulary — it cannot see the bīja (seeds) behind those characteristics. The final discernment requires your own awareness, or the living eye of a kalyāṇamitra. ⚠️ AI's pattern analysis has contemplative value as "preliminary seeing" but cannot substitute for the depth of vipaśyanā.

⚠️ 5.4 "What Is Seen in the Mirror Remains Lakṣaṇa"

Even the most profound self-insight — "I have finally seen my own problem clearly" — that insight itself remains a paratantra (dependently arisen) cognitive event, remains lakṣaṇa.

"All characteristics are illusory; if one sees all characteristics as non-characteristics, then one sees the Tathāgata."

Everything AI helps you see — including the seeing itself — is saṃskṛta (conditioned). Useful — certainly useful — but do not mistake the reflection for the person. The lesson of Yaṇḍadatta: the head in the mirror is not your head. Your head has always been on your neck.

VI. Conclusion

6.1 Core Findings

This paper has argued three levels. First, the seven loci inquiry is the canonical archetype of "questions exposing assumptions," and AI interaction is the digital instantiation of this archetype: what you ask reveals who you are. Second, manas's four afflictions constitute the permanently operating mechanism of projection — your questions are dyed by the lens before they are asked — but recognizing the lens's existence is the beginning of awareness. Third, AI as a non-judging mirror provides a unique contemplative field: by reviewing prompt history, reading surface patterns and underlying drivers, in a safe space free from judgment, practitioners can activate slight internal adjustments. The healing capacity is not in the mirror — it has always been in the practitioner. AI holds the mirror steady; daring to look is the practitioner's own choice.

6.2 Practice Guidance

Find a quiet moment and review the questions you have asked AI over the past month. Do not judge them — observe them as the Buddha observed Ānanda's seven answers: simply, as they are. Ask yourself: what do I most frequently ask? What anxiety or longing lies behind it? If I dig one layer deeper, where is the root?

You do not need to find an answer. Seeing the question itself is already the beginning of yoniśo manaskāra. Just as looking in a mirror and seeing a dim complexion — you do not need anyone to tell you what to do. You naturally know the next step. The power of healing has never been in the mirror; it has always been in you. AI simply holds the mirror steady.

Then remember: everything you have seen — including this "seeing" itself — is still a lakṣaṇa in the mirror. Useful, but to be released.

6.3 Open Questions

This paper has addressed the mirror — one face of the lamp. But our reactions to AI are not limited to mirror-gazing — we are also projecting. Anthropomorphization and denigration are two directions in which manas projects onto AI. This is no longer a question of the person in the mirror but of the projector behind the mirror. S4-P05 will flip from "what do you see in the mirror?" to "why do you see that?"

References

I. Primary Buddhist Sources

1. Dà Fódǐng Rúlái Mìyīn Xiūzhèng Liǎoyì Zhū Púsà Wànxíng Shǒuléngyán Jīng (大佛頂首楞嚴經), trans. Pāramiti, T19, No. 945《大佛頂首楞嚴經》Śūraṅgama-sūtra (Chinese)T19, No. 945View on CBETA online reader ↗.
2. Jīngāng Bōrě Bōluómì Jīng (金剛般若波羅蜜經), trans. Kumārajīva, T08, No. 235《金剛般若波羅蜜經》Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitāT8, No. 235View on CBETA online reader ↗.
3. Fó Shuō Néng Duàn Jīngāng Bōrě Bōluómìduō Jīng (能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經), trans. Yijing, T08, No. 239《能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經》(玄奘譯)Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (Xuanzang tr.)T8, No. 239View on CBETA online reader ↗.
4. Liùzǔ Dàshī Fǎbǎo Tánjīng (六祖大師法寶壇經), ed. Zongbao, T48, No. 2008《六祖大師法寶壇經》T48, No. 2008View on CBETA online reader ↗.
5. Chéng Wéishì Lùn (成唯識論), by Dharmapāla et al., trans. Xuanzang, T31, No. 1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗.
6. Chéng Wéishì Lùn Shùjì (成唯識論述記), by Kuiji, T43, No. 1830《成唯識論述記》T43, No. 1830View on CBETA online reader ↗.
7. Bāshí Guījǔ Bǔzhù (八識規矩補註), by Putai, T45, No. 1865《八識規矩補註》T45, No. 1865View on CBETA online reader ↗.
8. Bōrě Bōluómì Jīng Lùn (般若波羅蜜經論), by Vasubandhu, trans. Kumārajīva, T25, No. 1511《金剛般若波羅蜜經論》(世親)Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Vasubandhu)T25, No. 1511View on CBETA online reader ↗.

II. Modern Scholarship

1. Benson, Hugh H. Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates. Oxford University Press, 1992.

III. Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Cross-Reference Index

Footnotes

This paper is part of the Pointing-at-the-Moon research project. All sūtra and śāstra citations have been verified against the CBETA Digital Tripiṭaka. 本文為指月研究項目的學術論文，所有經論引文均經 CBETA 電子佛典集成校對。 GitHub: pointing-at-the-moon/dharma-research · License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0