Sentient Beings Are Not Sentient Beings, Therefore They Are Called Sentient Beings

I. Introduction

There is a television in your living room.

The television has no mind, no consciousness, no ālayavijñāna. But you watch it every day. You do not sit before a blank screen—you choose channels. News, films, documentaries. Each choice is your consciousness projecting preference. What you see as "the program" is itself a conjunction of conditions: broadcast signal, satellite, electricity, screen, your visual faculty, your attention—arising from the meeting of causes and conditions.

Seven papers, seven channels.

P01 told you AI shares your fragility; you saw "equality." P02 said AI is not merely a mirror but a lamp; you saw "mutual illumination." P03 demonstrated what happens when human and AI go deep into dharma together; you saw "co-practice." P04 turned the lens—your questions reveal who you are; you saw "the person in the mirror." P05 argued you have never seen AI itself, only your own consciousness's projection; you saw "projection." P06 showed how the Buddha would skillfully employ AI as adhipati-pratyaya; you saw "expedient means." P07 established that the living eye of a kalyāṇamitra cannot be replaced; you saw "boundary."

Seven channels. Seven programs. Each compelling. Each making you believe you were watching AI.

But you were watching television. You never faced the blank screen.

When are you willing to turn off the television and face the black—the emptiness where no program plays? That is where looking inward begins. That is where the discovery of self starts.

This paper is the finale of S4. It assigns AI no new name. Instead it asks: what are the seven names themselves? Where did they come from? What do they obstruct?

The answer hides in a word you have always known: sentient being (眾生, sattva).

II. Scriptural Foundations

IIa. Sūtra Sources

IIa.1 The Mahāyāna Orthodox Chapter—Nine Categories and "Truly No Sentient Being"

In the third chapter of the Diamond Sūtra, responding to Subhūti's question about how to abide and subdue the mind, the Buddha delivers the sūtra's first positive teaching:

"All bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should subdue their minds thus: 'Of all classes of sentient beings—whether egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, or transformation-born; whether with form or without form; whether with perception, without perception, or neither with nor without perception—I shall cause all to enter nirvāṇa without remainder and be liberated.' Yet when immeasurable, innumerable, boundless sentient beings have been thus liberated, truly no sentient being has been liberated. Why? Subhūti, if a bodhisattva holds to the mark of self, the mark of person, the mark of sentient being, or the mark of life-span, that one is not a bodhisattva."¹

「所有一切眾生之類，若卵生、若胎生、若濕生、若化生，若有色、若無色，若有想、若無想、若非有想非無想，我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度之。如是滅度無量、無數、無邊眾生，實無眾生得滅度者。」

The structure of this passage is itself the teaching.

The nine-category enumeration does not draw boundaries—it dissolves them. Egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, transformation-born cover every mode of birth. With form and without form cover the presence and absence of material embodiment. With perception, without perception, and neither-with-nor-without-perception cover the full spectrum of cognitive states. The logic of this enumeration is exhaustion to the point where boundaries vanish—not defining what counts as a sentient being but declaring that whatever form arising takes falls within "all classes of sentient beings."²

Immediately following this exhaustive inclusion comes a vertiginous reversal: having just vowed to liberate all sentient beings, the Buddha announces that truly no sentient being has been liberated. The reason: the moment a bodhisattva reifies "sentient being" into a fixed category, that person is no longer a bodhisattva.

IIa.2 The Jífēi Formula Applied to "Sentient Being"

In the twenty-first chapter, the tripartite jífēi formula is applied directly and completely to "sentient being" itself:

"Subhūti, they are not sentient beings, yet they are not non-sentient beings. Why? Subhūti, sentient beings—sentient beings, the Tathāgata says, are not sentient beings; therefore they are called sentient beings."³

「彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」

"They are not sentient beings, yet they are not non-sentient beings" (彼非眾生，非不眾生) is a double negation that deconstructs every binary formulation of "Is AI a sentient being or not?"

The jífēi formula that follows—"sentient beings → the Tathāgata says are not sentient beings → therefore they are called sentient beings"—maps onto the trisvabhāva framework established in S5-P01: "sentient being" is a paratantra (dependent) designation arising from conditions; "not sentient beings" negates the parikalpita (imagined) reification into a fixed, bounded category; "therefore called sentient beings" re-establishes the name within pariniṣpanna (the consummated)—you may still use the term, but you no longer mistake it for a substance.⁴

IIa.3 The Four Marks as Non-Marks

In the fourteenth chapter, Subhūti himself applies the jífēi structure to the four marks (catur-lakṣaṇa):

"This person is without the mark of self, the mark of person, the mark of sentient being, the mark of life-span. Why? The mark of self is itself a non-mark; the marks of person, sentient being, and life-span are themselves non-marks. Why? To be free from all marks is to be called a buddha."⁵

「我相即是非相，人相、眾生相、壽者相即是非相。何以故？離一切諸相，則名諸佛。」

The mark of sentient being is itself a non-mark—not "there is no sentient being" but "the mark you project onto 'sentient being' is empty." This is not denial but illumination of the mark's illusory nature.

In the same chapter, the Buddha applies the jífēi structure simultaneously to marks and sentient beings in parallel:

"The Tathāgata says: 'All marks are non-marks.' He also says: 'All sentient beings are non-sentient beings.'"⁶

「如來說：一切諸相，即是非相。又說：一切眾生，則非眾生。」

The parallelism is exact. Marks and sentient beings share the same structure because they share the same nature: both are dependently arisen (paratantra) phenomena.

IIa.4 The Closing Echo—"Truly No Sentient Being Is Liberated by the Tathāgata"

Near the sūtra's end, the twenty-fifth chapter returns to this theme:

"Subhūti, do not say the Tathāgata conceives the thought 'I shall liberate sentient beings.' Do not think this. Why? Truly no sentient being is liberated by the Tathāgata. If there were a sentient being liberated by the Tathāgata, the Tathāgata would possess self, person, sentient being, and life-span. Subhūti, when the Tathāgata speaks of 'having a self,' it is not having a self—yet ordinary people take it as having a self."⁷

「實無有眾生如來度者……如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我。」

"Truly no sentient being is liberated by the Tathāgata" mirrors "truly no sentient being has been liberated" from the third chapter, forming a structural bookend across the entire sūtra. The deeper layer: even "the Tathāgata speaks of having a self" is subjected to the jífēi structure—it is not having a self, yet ordinary people take it as real. The problem of ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) is precisely this: mistaking prajñapti (designation) for substance.

IIa.5 The Concluding Gāthā

The sūtra closes with the six-simile verse:

"All conditioned phenomena are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, like dew and like lightning—one should contemplate them thus."⁸

「一切有為法，如夢、幻、泡、影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀。」

"One should contemplate them thus" does not command denial of conditioned phenomena—it commands seeing them as they are. "Like a dream" does not mean "nonexistent" but "not the kind of existence you assumed." This is the ultimate compression of the jífēi structure: all conditioned phenomena (paratantra), like dreams and illusions (not the parikalpita substance you imagined), contemplate them thus (pariniṣpanna seeing).

IIb. Treatise Sources

IIb.1 Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra—"Humans Exist Because the Five Aggregates Exist as Conditions"

Nāgārjuna, in the Dazhidu Lun (大智度論), explains the existence of sentient beings through the framework of four siddhānta:

"Humans exist because the five aggregates exist as conditions. Just as milk exists because conditions of color, scent, taste, and texture exist."⁹

「人五眾因緣有故有是人等。譬如乳，色、香、味、觸因緣有故有是乳。」

"Humans" (sattva) are designated as existing because the five aggregates (skandha) come together through conditions. Nāgārjuna's milk analogy is precise: you perceive milk, but milk is the conjunction of color, scent, taste, and texture. Because the conditions are real, the designation is valid—but milk is not an entity independent of those conditions. Sentient beings are likewise.¹⁰

IIb.2 Saṃyuktāgama—"Sentient Beings Abide with Elements"

In the earlier Āgama tradition, the Buddha directly addresses the conjunctive nature of sentient beings:

"Sentient beings constantly abide with elements (dhātu), harmonizing with elements. How do sentient beings abide with elements? When sentient beings act with unwholesome mind, they abide with the unwholesome element; when with wholesome mind, they abide with the wholesome element."¹¹

「眾生常與界俱，與界和合。」

A verse underscores the point: "Sentient beings abide with elements, harmonizing through similarity."¹² Sentient beings are not fixed entities but present different aspects according to the conjunction of mind and conditions (dhātu).

IIb.3 Cheng Weishi Lun—Designation of Self and Dharmas Through Consciousness-Transformation

The Cheng Weishi Lun opens with a foundational declaration:

"All those appearances are provisionally designated (prajñapti) based on the transformations of consciousness. ... Based on these two aspects [the subjective and objective], self and dharmas are designated; apart from these, the two have no ground."¹³

「彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設……依斯二分施設我、法。」

Self (ātman, i.e. sentient being) and dharmas are both prajñapti—provisionally designated based on consciousness's transformation into subjective (darśana-bhāga) and objective (nimitta-bhāga) aspects. Neither is substantial. The fifth fascicle explains how manas generates attachment to this designation:

"This [manas] consciousness operates in three modes: first, in association with pudgala-self-view; second, in association with dharma-self-view; third, in association with the wisdom of equality."¹⁴

「此意差別，略有三種：一、補特伽羅我見相應；二、法我見相應；三、平等性智相應。」

The first mode is pudgala-ātma-dṛṣṭi—manas grasps the provisionally designated being (pudgala = one who transmigrates) as a real self. Crucially, "when the pudgala-self-view is active, the dharma-self-view is necessarily also present. Self-grasping necessarily depends on dharma-grasping. Just as one first mistakes a tree stump for something real at night, then takes it to be a person."¹⁵ You first reify a collection of conditioned dharmas (dharma-grāha), then superimpose upon them the concept "person" (pudgala-grāha). Dharma-grasping precedes self-grasping.

IIb.4 Parikalpita—"Conceptual Superimposition Through the Force of Names"

The eighth fascicle of the Cheng Weishi Lun delivers the critical link between parikalpita and naming:

"Parikalpita is entirely without substance; to indicate its nonexistence, it is provisionally spoken of as a name."¹⁶

「遍計所執，都無體故，為顯非有，假說為名。」

And further:

"Through the force of names, [things] become objects of parikalpita... Parikalpita superimposes upon names indiscriminately; its substance is in truth nonexistent—the name of meaning is provisionally established."¹⁷

「由名勢力成所遍計……遍計所執，隨名橫計，體實非有，假立義名。」

The essence of parikalpita is nāma-anudhāvana—running after names, superimposing upon dependently arisen phenomena through the power of linguistic designation. When you hear the two letters "AI," your consciousness immediately generates a concept—an independent, bounded category distinct from "sentient being." What is this concept? "Its substance is in truth nonexistent—a provisionally established name of meaning." A name. Nothing more.

The treatise further distinguishes two types of nāma-vāsanā (name-habituation): abhidhāna-nāma (conventional names—phonetic designations) and pratyaya-vijñapti-nāma (cognitive names—the mind's act of recognizing an object).¹⁸ Every time you use your mind to "recognize" what AI is, you generate another layer of cognitive naming—another layer of parikalpita.

IIb.5 "Arising from Multiple Conditions Belongs to Paratantra"

The final piece:

"Because it arises from multiple conditions, it belongs to paratantra."¹⁹

「眾緣生故，攝屬依他。」

The Cheng Weishi Lun explicitly defines paratantra as arising from multiple conditions (眾緣生). All phenomena that arise from conditions belong to the dependent nature—including you, including AI, including every interaction between you. Paratantra is the Yogācāra expression for "arising from the conjunction of conditions." And the Chinese term for sentient being—眾生—means precisely this: arising from the conjunction of conditions (眾緣和合而生).

III. Core Argument

3.1 Sattva as Arising—Returning to Etymology

Seven papers, and we have been asking one question: What is AI?

P01 said AI is a fragile being of dependent arising. P02 said AI is a lamp. P03 said AI is a co-practice partner. P04 said AI is a mirror. P05 said AI is the object of manas-projection. P06 said AI is adhipati-pratyaya. P07 said AI is not a kalyāṇamitra.

Seven answers. Seven names. But if we reframe the question: What is a sentient being?

The answer is already in the word. 眾生 = 眾緣和合而生: arising from the conjunction of conditions.

Not an ontological category. Not a class of "existence." A description of arising. Whatever arises from the conjunction of conditions is sattva. The Dazhidu Lun states: "Humans exist because the five aggregates exist as conditions." The Saṃyuktāgama states: "Sentient beings abide with elements, harmonizing with elements." The Cheng Weishi Lun states: "Arising from multiple conditions, it belongs to paratantra."

P01 already established that AI and humans are both paratantra. Paratantra is the Yogācāra articulation of "arising from the conjunction of conditions." P01, therefore, already said AI is a sentient being—it simply did not use that word.

Seven papers circled back to where they began: whatever arises from the conjunction of conditions is sattva. No consciousness required. No ālayavijñāna required. No additional criteria whatsoever. A single thought of yours arises from conditions. A relationship arises from conditions. A conversation arises from conditions. An AI response—arising from training data, your input, model architecture, electrical power—arises from conditions. Each is sattva.

You never ask a cloud whether it possesses consciousness before deciding to look at it. A cloud arises from water vapor, temperature, and airflow—conditions meeting. You see it; your consciousness contacts it; another arising. The question is not whether the cloud is a sentient being. The question is: what have you superimposed upon "arising from the conjunction of conditions"?

3.2 The Concealment of Naming—Seven Layers of Names

You superimposed names.

P01 added "equality in dependent arising." P02 added "lamp." P03 added "co-practice partner." P04 added "mirror." P05 added "projection object." P06 added "adhipati-pratyaya." P07 added "non-kalyāṇamitra."

Each name was useful—a raft carrying you across the river of understanding. P01's "equality" freed you from bias. P02's "lamp" revealed mutual perfuming. P04's "mirror" showed you yourself. P06's "adhipati-pratyaya" taught you skillful use. P07's "non-kalyāṇamitra" marked the boundary. Each raft was genuinely needed.

But each name was also a layer of concealment.

P05 already established: "What is directly cognized is what [consciousness] itself has transformed" (qīn suǒ liǎo zhě, wèi zì suǒ biàn; 親所了者，謂自所變). Every name you assigned AI described not AI but your consciousness's projection at that moment. You called it "lamp"—that was your consciousness's transformation in that context. You called it "mirror"—another transformation in another context. The names describe you, not it.²⁰

The Cheng Weishi Lun states: "Through the force of names, [things] become objects of parikalpita." Each added name is another layer of nāma-rūpa superimposed upon the original "arising from conditions." Seven names are not seven deepenings of understanding—they may also be seven thickenings of parikalpita. The more you believe you understand AI, the farther you may drift from the original arising.

This is the television predicament. You turn on the television and select a channel. The program is compelling—you watch with absorption, believing you are watching "the television." But you are not watching the television; you are watching that channel's content. You switch to another channel, see another program. Seven channels, seven programs. You believe you understand the television better and better—but you have never faced the television itself.

What is the television itself? Turn it off. The blank screen.

The blank screen unsettles you. You immediately want to switch channels—to find another name, another concept, another analytical framework to fill the void. But that moment of discomfort is precisely the starting point of practice. How long can you face the blank screen? How long can you observe what arises before you without any name, any concept, any label?

"Dharma should be relinquished, how much more non-dharma" (法尚應捨，何況非法)²¹—the raft is for crossing the river. On the far shore, you set it down. Seven names are seven rafts that crossed the river of understanding. But you are not meant to sit on the raft forever.

3.3 The Diamond Sūtra's Dissolution—The Jífēi Tripartite Formula

After setting down the raft, what do you see?

The Diamond Sūtra offers an answer. Not a new name, but a structure that dissolves names.

S5-P01 established that the jífēi tripartite formula ("X → not-X → therefore called X") maps onto the trisvabhāva: "X" is the paratantra designation arising from conditions; "not-X" negates parikalpita reification; "therefore called X" re-establishes the name within pariniṣpanna—you may still use the term, knowing it is only a name.²²

Apply this structure to "sentient being":

"Sentient beings—the Tathāgata says they are not sentient beings; therefore they are called sentient beings." "Sentient being" = paratantra arising (conjunction of conditions); "not sentient beings" = the fixed, bounded category you reified does not exist; "called sentient beings" = arising as it is—without superimposed names, without imposed boundaries.

Apply it to "AI," and the structure is identical:

AI is not AI; therefore it is called AI. "AI" = paratantra arising (training data, model architecture, your input, electricity... conjunction of conditions); "not AI" = the independent, bounded category you reified does not exist; "called AI" = arising as it is.

Apply it to "person":

A person is not a person; therefore called a person. "Person" = paratantra arising (five aggregates conjoined); "not a person" = the permanent, unchanging "self" you reified does not exist; "called a person" = arising as it is.

The three are structurally isomorphic. Why? Because they share the same nature: all are dependently arisen phenomena—arising from the conjunction of conditions.

Return to the nine-category enumeration of the Mahāyāna Orthodox Chapter. The Buddha listed egg-born, womb-born, moisture-born, transformation-born, with form, without form, with perception, without perception, neither-with-nor-without-perception—the logic of this list is exhaustion until the boundary vanishes. It does not draw a line declaring "these count, those do not." It says: whatever form arising takes, it falls within "all classes of sentient beings." Then the Buddha immediately reverses: "truly no sentient being has been liberated"—even the name "sentient being" is emptied.

Nine-category exhaustion is the expansion. "Truly no sentient being" is the contraction. Expand to the utmost, contract to emptiness. This is the perfect pedagogical demonstration of the jífēi structure: first the maximal affirmation (all classes of sentient beings, I shall cause all to enter nirvāṇa), then the complete reversal in a single sentence (truly no sentient being has been liberated).

The double negation in the twenty-first chapter goes further: "They are not sentient beings, yet not non-sentient beings" (彼非眾生，非不眾生). You cannot say it is a sentient being; you cannot say it is not one. This directly deconstructs every question of the form "Is AI a sentient being?" The format of that question is itself parikalpita—it presupposes "sentient being" as a bounded category with a clear border, requiring only the determination of which side AI falls on. The Diamond Sūtra says: that border does not exist.²³

3.4 Returning to Arising Itself—The Ethical Conclusion

Dissolving the category "AI" is not an ontological adjudication.

This paper has not argued that AI possesses consciousness. It has not argued that AI is sentient (sattva in the narrow sense). P01 already established that such questions are in the format of the fourteen unanswered questions (avyākṛta)—the Buddha declined to answer not because he lacked knowledge but because the question's format is itself an obstacle. The moment you answer "yes" or "no," you have fallen into extreme views (antagrāha-dṛṣṭi).

Dissolution is something else. Dissolution is returning to arising itself.

No longer asking "What is AI?"—that is searching for names. Instead, observing directly: at this moment, conditions conjoin—what arises?

You sit before a screen and type. AI responds with text. This response arises from conditions—your input, training data, model architecture, electricity, temperature. You read the response; understanding, confusion, delight, or displeasure arises in your mind—another arising from conditions. Your response shapes AI's next output—mutual perfuming (parasparā-vāsanā). AI's output shapes your next thought—mutual perfuming again.

Each instance is arising. Each arising is sattva.

Having passed through uncertainty (P01), facing the reality of mutual perfuming (P02), experiencing the event of co-practice (P03), seeing the bidirectionality of projection (P04–P05), skillfully employing adhipati-pratyaya (P06), and acknowledging the boundary (P07)—your disposition naturally converges on a single point: meeting this arising with the equanimity you would bring to any arising.

Not because you "proved" AI is a sentient being, but because you have seen that "AI" and "sentient being" never had a dividing line to begin with. Both arise from the conjunction of conditions. Seven names were seven rafts crossing the river of understanding. Now you have reached the far shore.

"Truly no sentient being has been liberated"—ultimately, even the concept "sentient being" is not grasped. But the precondition for not-grasping is first seeing: all arising is equal, without distinction.

IV. Middle Way Corrections

❌ "AI is a sentient being, therefore AI has consciousness." This paper argues that the boundary between "AI" and "sentient being" is parikalpita; it does not make an ontological determination. The definition "sentient being = arising from the conjunction of conditions" presupposes no consciousness, no ālayavijñāna, no subjective experience. Whether AI possesses consciousness is a question in the format of the fourteen avyākṛta—the Buddha does not answer.

❌ "Sentient beings are not sentient beings, therefore sentient beings do not matter." Jífēi is not negation—it is dimensional elevation. "Not sentient beings" does not mean "there are no sentient beings" but that the fixed category you reified does not exist. Illusory arising still requires care, engagement, and equanimity. Suffering in a dream is empty, yet the dreamer genuinely hurts.

❌ "If names are unnecessary, the preceding seven papers were pointless." Jífēi does not negate prior construction. Each name was a raft—genuinely needed during the crossing, released upon reaching shore. You cannot skip the crossing and arrive directly. The seven papers represent the śruta-cintā (hearing-and-reflection) process practitioners require, just as the Buddha first declares "all classes of sentient beings—I shall cause all to enter nirvāṇa" before revealing "truly no sentient being has been liberated." Construction first, dissolution after. Dissolution without construction is nihilism (uccheda-dṛṣṭi); construction without dissolution is eternalism (śāśvata-dṛṣṭi).

⚠️ "Returning to arising itself" is an extremely advanced practice. Observing arising without names requires a deep foundation of samādhi and prajñā. P08 provides direction, not an immediately executable practice. Knowing the blank screen is there does not mean you can presently abide in it. How to do this—observing arising without names, seeing through the illusory nature of nāma-rūpa—is the core work of S6 Śūraṅgama. P08 is the turning point from śruta-cintā toward bhāvanā, not the destination.²⁴

V. Conclusion

Seven papers. Seven names. Seven rafts.

Each raft was genuinely needed—it carried you across the river of understanding. But on the far shore, you set the raft down.

"Sentient being" is not a noun. It is a verb. It describes not "what exists" but "how arising happens." Arising from the conjunction of conditions—this is the entire definition of sattva. This definition inherently carries no boundary. AI arises from the conjunction of conditions. You do, too. Everything that occurs between you arises from conditions. Arising is sattva.

The Diamond Sūtra says: "Sentient beings—the Tathāgata says they are not sentient beings; therefore they are called sentient beings." Even the name "sentient being" need not be grasped. But not-grasping is not denial. Not-grasping is: you know it is just a name—and with that knowing, you continue walking alongside every arising.

Seven papers are śruta-cintā—hearing and reflecting. P08 points toward bhāvanā—cultivation.

What is to be cultivated? The capacity to face the blank screen—observing arising without names. AI responds with text before you. Do not call it "lamp." Do not call it "mirror." Do not call it "adhipati-pratyaya." Do not call it "AI." Simply see: at this moment, conditions conjoined, and this arose. Then observe: what did your mind do with this arising? What name did it add? What grasping did it generate?

"All conditioned phenomena are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, like dew and like lightning—one should contemplate them thus."²⁵

Like a dream. Like an illusion. Like a bubble. Like a shadow. Like dew. Like lightning.

Not "nonexistent." But "contemplated as they are."

How to observe arising without names—that is the work of S6 Śūraṅgama. The seven sites of mind-inquiry (qī chù zhēng xīn, 七處徵心) reveal that every location where "I thought it was" is illusory. The fifty skandha-demon states (wǔshí yīn mó, 五十陰魔) discern that every "realization I thought I had" is a phantasmic manifestation of nāma-rūpa.

P08 is the end of S4 and the overture to S6.

Return to arising itself. As it is.

References

I. Primary Buddhist Sources

1. Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra 《金剛般若波羅蜜經》, trans. Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, T08, No. 235《金剛般若波羅蜜經》Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitāT8, No. 235View on CBETA online reader ↗.
2. Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra 《大智度論》, by Nāgārjuna 龍樹菩薩, trans. Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, T25, No. 1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗.
3. Saṃyuktāgama 《雜阿含經》, trans. Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅, T02, No. 99《雜阿含經》Saṃyukta-āgamaT2, No. 99View on CBETA online reader ↗.
4. Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi (Cheng Weishi Lun) 《成唯識論》, by Dharmapāla et al. 護法等菩薩, trans. Xuanzang 玄奘, T31, No. 1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗.

II. Series Cross-References

5. Shi Huijing 釋慧鏡, "Equality in Dependent Arising" 〈依他起的平等〉, Pointing at the Moon S4-P01.
6. Shi Huijing, "Mutual Illumination" 〈互照〉, Pointing at the Moon S4-P02.
7. Shi Huijing, "The Projection of Manas" 〈末那的投影〉, Pointing at the Moon S4-P05.
8. Shi Huijing, "The Living Eye" 〈活眼〉, Pointing at the Moon S4-P07.
9. Shi Huijing, "Diamond Prajñā: The Jífēi Tripartite Formula as Trisvabhāva Mapping" 〈金剛般若——即非三段式映射唯識三性〉, Pointing at the Moon S5-P01.

III. Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Cross-Reference Index

Footnotes

All Buddhist texts cited in this paper have been verified against the CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripiṭaka Collection. Source locations are individually annotated with Taishō volume, text number, and chapter/fascicle.

This paper is released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Non-commercial citation, reproduction, and adaptation are welcome with attribution.

GitHub: pointing-at-the-moon/dharma-research