How to Check Whether It Is Understanding or Realization?

When Master Dongshan crossed a river, he saw his reflection in the water and suddenly awakened, composing the verse: "He now is precisely me, yet I now am not him." The question is: Who does "he" refer to? Who does "I" refer to? What is the relationship between the two? Master Dongshan pointed at his reflection in the river and said: You right now are me, yet I am not you. The reflection is the five aggregates manifested by the eighth consciousness; it comes from the eighth consciousness and is the shadow of the eighth consciousness. In terms of the ultimate meaning of Consciousness-Only, the five aggregates can be said to be the eighth consciousness, but the eighth consciousness is certainly not the five aggregates.

These dharmas can be understood by thinking them over and pondering them—nothing extraordinary. You may call it doctrinal awakening, or you may say there was no doctrinal awakening; but to call it realization-awakening requires a thorough examination from the inside out and from top to bottom. Examine what? Examine whether his mind has changed and whether wisdom has arisen. Because upon realizing that the five aggregates are merely a shadow, one would surely be greatly shocked, with waves surging in the mind—everything one previously believed and grasped was wrong. What state is the mind in at that moment? For someone who has not realized it many times over, someone without mind-telepathy, how could they know whether this person has realized awakening or merely doctrinal understanding? Ordinary people absolutely cannot detect it—one could say one hundred percent cannot detect it—they will only parrot what others say.

Realization-awakening is great wisdom; being able to accurately examine whether someone has realized awakening is even greater wisdom, far, far greater than the wisdom of realization itself. In realization-awakening, one can observe directly and presently the relatively simple and coarse functioning of the eighth consciousness, which doctrinal understanding cannot compare with. In doctrinal understanding, the mind holds only a hazy shadow, vague and indescribable, not knowing exactly how the eighth consciousness operates or how the five aggregates are born. No matter how much theory such a person expounds, there is not a single accurate, detailed element in it—like floating on the surface of the water, unable to enter the water, not knowing the situation beneath it.

Some people claim to be great bodhisattvas who have awakened and realized the eighth consciousness, the tathāgatagarbha, yet over many years this great bodhisattva has never expounded even slightly detailed workings of the eighth consciousness, the tathāgatagarbha—only broad, vague, sweeping theoretical frameworks. Those theories could roughly be figured out just by reading the sūtras and the treatises of the bodhisattvas—nothing remarkable. As for the Chan koans, by watching the masters gesturing and posturing when they ascended the hall to receive students, one can roughly glean something of it; imitating their example, quite a few people can do it too—nothing remarkable. Even the little disciple of the One-Finger Chan master could gesture with a raised finger, outwardly just like his master, yet it was not Chan. Modern people's capacity for fakery is unparalleled—true in the secular world and in Buddhism alike—driven by heavy karma, heavy afflictions, and a heavy sense of self.

Those who imitate the gestures and posturing of the Chan patriarchs may be said to have doctrinal understanding, or may be said not even to touch the edge of doctrinal understanding. Taking the function of the mind consciousness to be the function of the eighth consciousness—that is an outsider's path (tīrthika); taking the combined functions of the eight consciousnesses to be the function of the eighth consciousness alone—that is inference and speculation. Laypeople absolutely cannot see through it and are often left dumbfounded and intimidated. This trick can deceive even the heavens, because sentient beings' insight is too shallow—they are truly foolish and easily intimidated. So when you are deceived, you should turn back and examine yourself: why were you able to be deceived? Why do other people have bright eyes and clear minds and not get deceived? When you walk down the street and accidentally bump into someone, and that person glares at you and says: "I am a noble one who has realized the fruits—how dare you bump into me?" Upon hearing this, you just burst out laughing, say "sorry," and that is the end of it—no need to be surprised, no need to say anything more.