Deluded Dharmas and True Dharmas Are Neither Identical nor Different

The deluded mind and the true mind are in a relationship of neither one nor different (not one, not different); they are not completely one. The two are not one, yet they are connected. It is like the relationship between the head and the body, like the relationship between clay and a clay figurine, like the relationship between gold and gold or silver jewelry. In principle, the true and the deluded are in a relationship of non-difference: the deluded is manifested from the true, and in principle it is the true; but in terms of marks there is still delusion, and this delusion must not be overlooked, for it has its corresponding functions. For example, the seven consciousnesses are deluded, born of the tathāgatagarbha, not different from the tathāgatagarbha, yet also not one with it. If one took the seven consciousnesses to be the tathāgatagarbha, then no one would need to practice Chan investigation to realize the tathāgatagarbha; one could simply regard the seven consciousnesses as the tathāgatagarbha and count that as enlightenment. In fact, this is not correct.

Because if the eye consciousness were the tathāgatagarbha, then realizing the eye consciousness would be extremely easy, and realizing the eye consciousness would equal realizing the tathāgatagarbha—seeing the mind and attaining enlightenment. Nor would one need to study the prajñā and Yogācāra scriptures, because the eye consciousness would be the tathāgatagarbha; understanding the eye consciousness would mean understanding the tathāgatagarbha. Then as long as one could understand human language, and someone told everyone where the five consciousnesses are and how they function, everyone would be a bodhisattva who has seen the mind and seen the nature, and sentient beings would no longer need to study Buddhism. Moreover, the tathāgatagarbha itself is liberated; if the tathāgatagarbha and the eye consciousness were one, and the eye consciousness were the tathāgatagarbha, then the eye consciousness and the seven consciousnesses would all be liberated, and there would be no need at all to study Buddhism and cultivate practice. In fact, it is not so. The true relationship is that the seven consciousnesses, such as the eye consciousness, and the tathāgatagarbha are neither one nor different—not completely one and identical.

If the tathāgatagarbha and the seven consciousnesses were one, then when sentient beings die, when they fall unconscious, or when they are asleep, the tathāgatagarbha could substitute for the seven consciousnesses in seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, and substitute for the seven consciousnesses in the activities of the five aggregates. If that were so, sentient beings could die without worry, fall unconscious without worry, sleep without worry, without needing to remember to wake up, without thinking about taking rebirth; the tathāgatagarbha could completely substitute for oneself in living. In nirvāṇa without remainder there is only the tathāgatagarbha. If the tathāgatagarbha and the seven consciousnesses were one, then in nirvāṇa without remainder the tathāgatagarbha could substitute for the seven consciousnesses in seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing. If there were seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing in nirvāṇa without remainder, then nirvāṇa would not be tranquil, which would violate the principle of the tranquility of nirvāṇa among the three Dharma seals spoken by the Buddha.

For example, a gold basin and gold are neither one nor different: in substance both are gold, but in marks and function there are still differences. When a basin is needed, gold is of no use and cannot serve; a gold basin must be used, and at that time gold cannot substitute for the gold basin. Another example: after clay is made into ceramics, the ceramics and the clay are in a relationship of neither one nor different—identical in substance, but different in marks and function. If they were one, then when one wanted to build a mud house again, ceramics would be of no use; clay must be used, and the two cannot substitute for each other. If people need handicrafts, they must buy and use ceramics, not buy and use clay. It can be seen that all deluded dharmas and true dharmas are not in a relationship of complete oneness but in a relationship of neither one nor different: they are the same, yet also different, each having its own functions and roles, and cannot substitute for one another.