False 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 identical. 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. The true and the deluded are, in principle, not different: the deluded is manifested from the true, so in principle it is the true; but in terms of characteristics there is still delusion, and this delusion cannot be ignored, for it has its corresponding functions. For example, the seventh consciousness is deluded; it is produced by the tathāgatagarbha and is not different from the tathāgatagarbha, but it is also not one with it. If one took the seventh consciousness to be the tathāgatagarbha, then no one would need to practice Chan investigation in order to realize the tathāgatagarbha—one could simply take the seven consciousnesses as the tathāgatagarbha and count that as awakening. 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 one's true mind and becoming enlightened. 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 explained where the five consciousnesses are and how they function, everyone would be a bodhisattva who has seen the true mind and realized one's 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 seventh consciousness would all be liberated, and there would be no need at all to study and cultivate Buddhism. In fact, this 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 identical or equivalent.

If the tathāgatagarbha and the seven consciousnesses were one, then when sentient beings are dying, in a coma, or asleep, the tathāgatagarbha could substitute for the seven consciousnesses in seeing, hearing, awareness, 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 into comas without worry, sleep without worry—no need to remember to wake up, no need to think about taking rebirth—for the tathāgatagarbha could completely live in their place. 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, awareness, and knowing. If there were seeing, hearing, awareness, and knowing in nirvāṇa without remainder, then nirvāṇa would not be tranquil, which would contradict the principle of the tranquility of nirvāṇa among the three Dharma seals taught by the Buddha.

For example, a golden basin and gold are neither one nor different: although in substance both are gold, there are still differences in characteristics and function. When a basin is needed, gold by itself is of no use; a golden basin must be used—gold cannot substitute for the golden 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 characteristics 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—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 identity but in a relationship of neither one nor different: they are the same, yet also different, each having its own functions, and cannot substitute for one another.