Kambala's Alokamala

From Dharmaweb

Kambala's Alokamala

By Kambala

Homage to the Buddha who has declared that the entire universe is only mind consisting in the development of the three natures in order to abandon the three kinds of ignorance!

The Buddha, the Destroyer of the triple world has declared that the expanded world is, in brief, merely a construction of mind. If this construction of mind is cast out of the heart the fetter of rebirth will also be cast off.

By thorough cognition of existence and liberation the result of respectively abandoning and obtaining these two occurs. Therefore, all Bodhisattvas of sound understanding should toil with spiritual studies.

In brief, Samsara is said to be a mind sullies by passions such as desire, etc. The Buddhas who have abandoned the two kinds of obstruction have also said that liberation consists in being isolated from these passions.

The desire, delusion and hatred living beings have is a representation of their own mind and so are all other concepts imaged by vain natured simpletons.

A wise man, a Bodhisattva, should not even be devoted to the notion of an ultimate meaning, for what difference is there between the notion of pleasant and that of unpleasant both being mere conceptual construction!

To afford an example: With regard to burning a different fuel does not result in a different fire. The fire blazing in cold sandalwood nevertheless burns when touched! The same applies to conceptual constructions.

All conceptual constructions, no matter how feeble, must be abandoned for a notion having the form of error only leads to confusion in one’s heart.

Because of its impurity error is also an apparition of magic. But magic must also be understood to be a mere confusion of mind.

So in this way one sees that mind and the error it manifests are not two. This is exactly the middle path; this is exactly the selflessness of phenomena…

It is also the limit of the real, it is thus-ness, it is emptiness, it is sameness, it is liberation, it is a state of mere mind.

Since thus-ness is a reality present in al phenomena it is neither distant nor near. Since thus-ness is very hard to understand fully its nature cannot be represented.

It can, however, due to its subtlety be personally experienced by the subtle seeing Buddhas. Though thus-ness rests in one’s own body it cannot be seen by blockheads like me.

A yogin should in no way think that liberation is far away. When he is seen in himself as devoid of imagined nature or duality, this cognition is extinction.

Even errors such as water in the sun, mirages, cataract, dreams; cities of Gandharvas, etc. may be useful, for they dispel other errors.

For those whose souls are disturbed by day by various notions of sense objects the terrible poison of Vasana (Habitual Tendencies) due to their influence is at least as vehement in a dream.

Alas! Exceedingly vehement is the flux of false notions. It is like a boil upon a boil or like another dream in a dream.

As soon as ignorance occurs it shows an unreal thing and keeps on concealing the real: its symptoms are like those of the disease jaundice.

Sullies by the object aspect of mind appears in many ways: though undivided it appears to be divided and without being external it appears as if external.

The sun, the moon, the sky, the host of stars, the earth, the rivers, the oceans, the quarters and the mountains – they are all only manifestations of mind!

All things that appear from this entire triple world up to the summit of existence are poison drops of mind.

Opponent: if it appears why do you claim it does not exist, for how can an appearance have an unreal nature? Reply: Reality cannot appear as an appearance: is something unreal not seen in a dream for instance?

When their certainty of themselves is covered by blemishes born from individual limitations minds appear with another nature than their true one, just like crystals.

Though a conceptual construction cannot be regarded as something real in itself, it becomes visible as soon as it, in the course of time, attains growth tainted with the impressions of formative forces.

Though mind is really one it appears twofold by an exceedingly skillful diffusion of the two aspects.

Since it is immovable the objective aspect appears externally whereas the subjective aspect seems to throb inside because it is taken to be alive.

But here in reality there is nothing outside or inside, because both are mutually established there is nothing outside or inside, because both are mutually established as mere mind.

Since desire is not in the multitude of senses, not in the objects and not in mind, it does not rest in something else, it does not rest in itself, it is not existent and it is not non-existent.

Nevertheless desire arises from an error of mind due to a relation to an unrealized object, just like a thunderbolt suddenly descending from a fissure in a receptacle of clouds.

Thus hatred, delusion and other kinds of passions spreading in the triple world arise from the poison of conceptual constructions.

Like passions a conceptual construction also has no objective foundation. It certainly ford not exist in an ultimate sense. Sure someone has seen a flash of lightning blazing like fire in the sky!

Opponent: But the Buddha has recommended meditation on something unpleasant as an antidote to desire? Reply: Certainly, but only in order to get rid of the poison of fear, just like a false incantation uttered by clever sorcerers!

As there us no excrement, etc. in the unsubstantial body if women in the state of sleep, there is no jasmine, i.e., teeth, water lily, i.e., face, etc. when one is awake.

Being thus convinced that the two of them, i.e., passion as well as dispassion, are false, a yogin neither desires or detests anything, because both of them are empty like an opened fist.

One who is dispassioned will no doubt also become passionate again. Therefore, in order to get rid of passion, one should not even come in contact with dispassion.

Oh! The exclusiveness of this way, which transcends the world! That which is a word of truth elsewhere is simply a fake word here!

Even if a statement is "true" but leads to energy, it is in fact false. What is the real meaning of true and untrue? That which is useful to others is true!

Sages state that the real truth is the cognition of truth as truth. But if one regards something true as untrue such as a Sravaka does not abide by truth.

For the world of simpletons the untruth of words is better than the truth, for, since the verbally based idea of an extreme object to be arrived at is false, all words ultimately have the nature of being false.

Thus everything is false in so far as it is conceptually conceived. It is truth; it is the true reality, which is not conceptually conceived.

It is therefore only due to their being puffed up that their self conceit does not stop: a thing though really unreal, is even established by them by means of proofs and refutations as they please!

For those who are not conversant with Mahayana it is naturally better to remain dull, just as it is better for those who have lost their way to be lame rather than to hurry on because, otherwise they will soon be lost altogether.

Those who are devoted to Mahayana are true Buddhists. The others, even if they are from our own sect – have gone to the lower region, since they wander about in the hell of the wrong way.

Wise men do not undertake a critique of the procedures of mind, since all of us have the same intention about overcoming Samsara.

Wise men inquire thus: "What is the nature of this Samsara which continually proceeds without beginning and end?"

"From what does the entire world arise? And where is it dissolved?" -- It arises from its own Vasana Seed stocked in the store consciousness!

The existence of the store-consciousness containing the seed of everything is fully established from the fact that consciousness, though previously extinct, arises again also from drowsiness, faint, inattentiveness, and Samapatti.

The entire appearance as senses and objects is known as the manifestation consciousness. Though really not different from the store consciousness it is absorbed in it again. Consciousness is like water, which having displayed a form divided by various tremulous waves, immediately enters the sleep of immobility again.

Surely the fact that it appears twofold is a case beyond the range of rationality, just as in the case of the echo of a suddenly uttered sound.

It is like if a magician suddenly shows various figures to a colleague knowing the trick and already having seen some of it: then it remains in its original, non-dual nature.

Consciousness shows one thing to fools, another to sages, just as chameleon shows variously its blue and red appearance.

The nature of this consciousness is maintained to be transparent, formless and un-manifest, and it can in fact never be cognized by one who is not a Buddha.

A Buddha does not understand things thus by way of subject-object, as other people do, for he is in fact the only one who knows this state of dependence of this consciousness as such.

We, however, only speak about it having consulted with commentaries and canonical texts, just as people blind from birth speak about the world of form only visible to one who has eyes to see.

By applying a particular "collyrium of cognition" that state will of course come, so that, like the Buddha, we ourselves shall see the whole truth.

Anything, which fools imagine here in this world un-interruptedly, appears before them created by the power of Bhávaná.

Even if it is enveloped in coverings the body is harassed by severe falls of frost because it is not used to it, but the eyes being used to it are not. That is astonishing!

Again, on account of the application of Bhávaná the stench of a hide rubbed with both hands not too distressing to a tanner.

Poison which is eaten in the beginning leads to the death of living beings, but thanks to practice it in the end becomes the elixir of life.

Now, from what do the elements arise? From Karma? No, that is not reasonable, because the elements are not connected with the good and bad kinds of karma, since the Vasana of karma only rests in mind.

Exactly for this reason the consciousness of an image is pleasant to those who perform good karma, but to those who are mischievous that of tigers, lions, bears and snakes is exceedingly terrifying.

Or how could one, when being active, toss hands and head, etc, about if the elements are not assumed to have the nature of cognition?

If the action of the elements is supposed to come from wind, where does wind come from? If you say that it comes from desire, then you have arrived at the same procedure, have you not?

Or how could the blood and the semen of a mother and a father develop into a head, a hand, etc., or how could seed born beings develop in the form of trees or branches?

Why does sound arise from the mouth and also from a drum? Because its presence and absence is seen to be dependent on the individual causes.

Birds move in the sky and see things in the dark; mice can see and hear in a house, and fish can do so in the ocean…

Snakes both hear and see with the eye; thus, in various ways, one thing is seen to be opposed to others in Samsara.

Or how could one explain that enemy piercing archers by training have arrows not failing the target, though its position and form is not visible, without having recourse to the assumption that everything is mere consciousness?

Again, if the flow of consciousness was in fact not continuous like a torrent then one’s lesson – though it had been prepared – would certainly also vanish again – unprepared!

Or how could Isvara create the diverseness of the mountain born and the immensity of the ocean by transmutation of subtle atoms, since he cannot create simultaneously or gradually!

Or if the Lord is said to have created the universe because he is in possession of power, he must also be like a maniac, for why, indeed, should he, at the time of destruction, destroy the outcome of his own labor?

If the doctrine of mind only is not accepted what has created the power of magnets to attract metal and the power of spells and medicine to cure? It is not Isvara.

Therefore everything appearing with the diffuseness of the cheeping of a lapwing due to the variety of ignorance is simply an emanation of pure mind.

If there existed external elements having a solid nature how could the tantalization – Bhávaná of a yogin or various other kinds of Bhávaná be generally established.

But since this is so it is logical that mind flickers variously like crystal. This mind pervades everything like oil on the water of Vasana.

A yogin is never puzzled by those things that puzzle common people for he has understood that everything actually exists in the Alayavijnana which contains the seed of everything.

Let it be granted that these empirical things exist insofar as they appear outside; but how can you ascertain their real existence…

By mind? O! But is aversion against our doctrine then appropriate for you without reason? For is it not accepted by you that the form (mind) has is the result of Vasana.

Alternatively, how could cognition when it already has arisen grasp objects outside? Does consciousness exist before the cognized object or not? If it does, what is the use of objects for cognition?

If you maintain that the existence of objects is ascertained by scriptural tradition what is the use of scriptures in case of manifest objects? One should only follow the statement of competent authorities regarding invisible things such as the future world, etc.!

Nor is the existence of external objects established by the tradition of competent authorities because their words only have a provisional meaning: the doctrine about form, bases, etc., is in fact only within the sphere of mind and does not refer to external objects.

A sense organ is simply mind being born from its own seed. But when it is born with the form of an object it is traditionally called sense object.

Wise men (Bodhisattvas) conceive the partition of this mind though really part-less with the intellect of the standpoint of the convention of the world.

Here in the ultimate sense there is no I, nor form, no light, and no thinking. Everything exists in one sense and does not exist in another. Due to the confusion of mind as if in a dream.

And the difference, which results from, the contact with a good or bad friend is due to the dominant influence of another mind. This is also like the seizure of a demon, etc.

Death, due to the attack of an enemy is not compatible to your doctrine of momentariness. How much less in this way of Mahayana where there is no object to be killed and no subject who kills!

It is simply due to the power of bad karma that the manifestation of a terrible attack here in this world results in fear, just as in the hells.

If things were really such as they appear. Why is the entire world not liberated simply by seeing real things?

Consequently, if it was safe and sound (IE liberated) the Buddha would in vain have compassion for this diluted world in order to dispel its delusion!

It is only due to mere mind that lightning, thunder, rain, clouds, wind and thunderbolts occur on the surface of the sky.

If the production of the existence of external things was established in itself one could not variously see a difference between them from a mere change of viewpoint.

To one man a young woman is charming, to another a middle-aged woman is. One prefers a fat, another a slender young woman.

When mind takes the form of a woman, which bashful lover will by himself deliberately love himself?

A wise man should never turn to the enjoyment of objects as if they had any independent nature of their own. When one having grasped his hand with his other hand due to the delusion of dreams exclaims: "I have caught a thief" he is mocked by others.

Beasts think there is food in dry thickets, but men do not. O! The activity of conceptual constructions is incomprehensible even to Yogis!

"Fire-pure" antelopes devour fire. Mice eat poison – still they are not killed even these kinds of poison are deadly to other living beings.

Other beings, such as fish, birds, dogs and snakes, respectively subsist on their mother’s continuance of memory, on her touch in the nest, on sleep, and on wind.

Due to the variety of karma a tree-spirit sees an image of its dwelling full of serpents in a deserted fig tree, but others do not!

When the Pretas see a river full of urine and over flowing with puss, human beings see pure floods of water and drink it.

Devoid of an external object, consciousness pervaded by various kinds of karma appears in the form of good and bad results. O! The variety of sense objects at the same time in various ways follows a conceptual scheme just like the symphony of an orchestra.

If an external object did exist its efficiency would of course not occur without that thing. But one person may actually eat a substance such as wood sorrel whereas the mouth of another person becomes wet. Hence, ideas, not objects, are efficient.

At night someone eating a cucumber may, in order to chaff another, say: "I am eating wood sorrel." Would this not cause perturbation to the one who hears him say so? Surely even without an external object, an emissio seminis (emission of the seed) may occur due to the attainment of the pleasure of clinging to a woman cherished by desire in a dream!

If someone has the belief that something exists though it is only experienced in his dream due to the power of Bhávaná based on a relatively real object, this is not logical because a virgin may also be seen to get a child in a dream.

Since long spans of time, roads, mountains and regions, which are variously situated, may be "seen" inside a house while dreaming, such an experience in a dream has no real external object.

Unless one accepts that the manifestation of consciousness is not an external object but a mere image than the mental assumption of it surely assumes a state of grossness!

Even the cognition of yogis having as its "object" the mind of others is of course simply a kind of ignorance. Just like the make-beliefs of ones own mind.

All conventional knowledge belonging to a sage or a common man in regard to understanding or instruction turns out to be quite the same. (IE ignorance.)

In the beginning a great result is certainly experienced by seeing emptiness because such a yogin who has attained fearlessness does not fear Samsara anymore like other common people.

This yogin is convinced that death and life belong to a self, which is simply fictitious. How can he actually be afraid?

If one who has understood that the triple world is simply a creation of karma still is afraid alas than people like me are lost!

Who is afraid of having his second head cut off? Or of having his third eye torn out? Both of them being non-existent!

When a sage has thus ascertained the sense objects he never becomes soiled again even if he is passed over by the variegated impurities of individual limitations as the pure sky is passed over by the impure cloudbanks. But what is the point of wasting many a word? The point is that if someone practices Bhávaná he may even see horns growing on the head of a dog, a rabbit, or a horse!

And an ash-gray frog maybe seen shining with its mass of coiled hair invested with a white sacred thread and carrying a water-jar placed on its shoulder.

Surely a timid child imagining this and that inside a dark house "sees" a monster which is merely a reflected image of the child’s own mind.

And a painter alone in a deserted place surely becomes afraid by looking at the image of a very terrible ghost though he made it himself. Surely most people become afraid without due cause when they imagine that a post is a thief, or a rope is a snake. Thus it is his own fault that a fool is always afflicted by totally unreal sense objects created by the craft of his own conceptual constructions.

Though an invisible object is originally the same night and day to a blind person it becomes light, as it were when he perceives the word daybreak.

Things such as place and time are in a dream delusions of consciousness: similarly a road though short is long to an energetic traveler who is tired. Likewise, it is of course also due to the occurrence of separation from their mistress that a day, which to other seems 24 minutes lasts a hundred years to men in love.

By those bodhisattvas who have experienced reality and personify it accordingly, vyavahara (unreal) is performed the way it is but not thought of as anything real.

The intelligent Bodhisattvas look upon this entire universe as a picture decorated with the colors of conceptual constructions but they do not regard it as real in itself.

Oh, what as surprising phenomena: In the beginning samsara with its even, uneven, low and high levels [a yogin] with his intellect placers this triple world – an illusion, but recognized in its real sense as false notions painted in portions – as a totality in the sky of his heart.

If a thing were a real entity, how could it become a non-entity again? Since the nature of things as they are is fixed, change is not possible.

One who, suffering from errors, regards phenomena falsely as having qualities, names, genus, etc., is like one making a picture in the soundless sky.

Therefore the nature of things actually having mind as their nature is simply lack of independent nature. One who understands things otherwise misses the absolute sense!

Opponent: If a conceptual construction is unreal and emptiness is real, as you seem to claim, then the latter will appear and the former will disappear automatically by itself.

Reply: A conceptual construction does not vanish as long as it is not recognized as such. Without the disappearance of conceptual constructions emptiness cannot be realized no matter how fixed and constant it actually is.

Opponent: Surely there is no real difference between these two: emptiness has an unreal nature just as a conceptual construction has.

Reply: emptiness can only be correctly experienced through the dependant nature.

Opponent: But how does one penetrate into this emptiness?

Reply: By seeing the three natures or characters of things. By seeing them in all phenomena the belief in material unity ceases.

By seeing many as not separate all three aspects are seen distinctly. However, due to the actual power of Vasana the imagined aspect appears more clearly than the two other aspects.

The dependant nature shines clearly when the constructed object is in a state of cessation. It is only due to the fact that it is not clearly perceived that it initially springs up as it were.

When it has gradually cast off the appearance emptiness shines anew in ones mind.

But this emptiness being fickle, like lightning, comes for a moment and goes again. This is because these two natures always flow together from time without beginning.

As long as this emptiness has not been rendered immobile in them all that while the state of non-duality goes to rest and betakes itself again to duality.
But once emptiness has been rendered immutable it does not leave any scope for the darkness of duality. Just as the arising of the sun leaves no room for the presence of darkness because it is obstructed. People like me cannot understand what this state called emptiness really is. On the other hand, the concept of emptiness does not imply any notion of nihilism because negation is only based on worldly convention.

The definition of this emptiness as non-existence is only valid in a conventional sense and not in an absolute sense for how can there be existence and non-existence when all concepts for phenomena lack own-being.

As when one says: "You should not be concerned about it" the person addressed thinks of the prohibition instead. Exactly in this way a negative term suggests something else without referring to an external object. Consciousness of meaning is due to conceptual construction. On the other hand, conceptual construction is due to the idea of objective meaning. Since both of them possess the nature of Vikaalpa (conceptualization) how can existence and non-existence express the real?

Non-existence must be changed into existence if developed on a certain sub-stratum. If this is endorsed by you existence is of course established similarly.

Thus it is in the sense of dependant establishment that everything is generally accepted as existence, non-existence, pleasure, pain, etc. Just as in the case of the distinction between long and short, etc.

A human being’s notion of pleasure is a subjected concept based on the allayment of pain. Again pain is due to the cessation of pleasure. They are interdependent. Everything must be understood to have taken form in mutual relation. How can opponents be so foolish as to consider independence to be a unit.

Where consciousness has a field of reference not directly observed it becomes erroneous on some basis through the exclusion of another meaning by means of teaching etc.

Vowels, words, statements, gender, number, and action-agent relationships do not refer to any external object because they are not true to any external reality.

Could one not accept verse in five or perhaps three words? It would be purely according to ones own desire like the ordinance of a fairy since the form of statement merely depends on the meaning to be expressed not on an external object.

If things can be grasped directly without words, why have ancient grammarians passing for intelligent cast this world into the difficulties of Sanskrit grammar.

If one, when asked, can simply answer "this is my nose" who would take the trouble to point towards his head, turn towards the right, and with his hand having a bent arm?

By the use of words having a multitude of intonations oneself and people following one are on one’s own accord brought into an insignificance comparable to a casket of stones.

Moreover it is not possible to understand something else (I.E. an external object) by something else (I.E. a word) because they have no causal relationship. A word only determines the meaning. Surely a sword struck at one thing does not cause havoc elsewhere.

Which entity can be manifested by a word-entity the structure of which remains unaltered. Or alternatively, which entity can be created by a word entity, which by being changed becomes non-existent.

An entity does not really have the nature of an entity because at the time of becoming, (I.E. change) it does not retain its original nature. Exactly because of this change a thing, which is passed, is said to "have been" and be no more.

For this very reason the Buddhas who are experts in derived words have also spoken of the "big have-beens" (I.E. the elements) because they are the foremost of all the elements, or "have-beens."

The idea of "a hundred" does not refer to one object. Nor does "a hundred" refer to that amount of separate individuals. And yet when it is said that there are "a hundred" the error arises in ones mind.

What then is the use of teaching in words about something invisible such as heaven or about something visible such as a jar if the nature of these is already understood directly.

An elephant as a concept includes Indra’s elephant: women in general also include female divinities: in such cases no new idea arises. It is simply derived from previous experience.

One experiences one thing, expresses another, learns one thing indirectly, understands another directly. Thus, like a mad man people do not understand themselves.

How can a certain person be mad if he knows "I am mad"? Error is certainly not called madness when one recognizes ones madness.

Since the triple world appears under the form of the necessity of space and time therefore it cannot of course be erroneous in that sense: It is of course an orderly manifestation of consciousness.

Philosophers must understand the three natures. The imagined by turns: the object, "elephant" its appearance and its absence based on one single elephant created by a magician and respectively being empty of objective status, having objective appearance, and being the basis of belief in an external thing which is false.

To a Yogin, considering the three natures, thus together, the belief in an external object is the first to cease while mind appears before him having that image of the dependant nature.

Later on, on the eighth level, the impurity of the dependant image, being without residues, disappears by seeing the non-existence of that thing.

But when the wheel of mind has stopped the Bodhisattva migrates no more. Still his birth revolves because he has the nature of being perfect.

He is un-manifest, desire-less, and motionless like a portrait. Having the absolute as his abode he neither abandons nor assumes anything. Due to the power of his previous vows in the triple world without beginning and end he destroys the darkness of the world without conceptual constructions like the disc of the sun.

And this is why the Buddhas have stated that even the good and the bad Karmic result of people who act as the nature of conceptual construction.

Right and wrong, penance, renunciation, restraint, observance, self-control, animals, inhabitants of hell, spirits, human beings and heaven dwellers; the gross elements, the material derivations, the five aggregates, the eighteen elements, the Buddhas teaching, the teacher and the disciples, all belong to the conventional teaching.

However, this device has been made by the perfect Buddhas as a staircase in order to guide the world of novices to the absolute.

To say that, in the end, it all vanishes, is a pedagogical device. Something else that cannot be expressed or analyzed appears instead.

Dwelling in the unconditioned abode, resembling space, the Bodhisattva illumines the emptiness of himself and of emptiness.

Without, as pointed out, seeing anything on this way the Bodhisattva laughs, as it were, at the entire world, which is tormented by passions and deprived of tranquility.

But if he also considers his own previous state of being totally imbued by that belief in Samsara he instantly becomes ashamed.

Opponent: if everything is empty, exertion in the Law is futile!

Reply: No, it is only true that exertion in the Law is futile to the Bodhisattva to whom it is empty because he has achieved his purpose.

When a yogin abides in emptiness then he can certainly still less be engaged in evil. O! A Yogin who sees emptiness does not clench his fist in vain!

But to those who have lapsed into conceptual constructions all this remains unchanged because they obtain the result in Samsara in accordance with the Law of cause and effect.

How can any of the actions performed in a dream really have a good or bad result? When he wakes up nobody enjoys the fruit experienced only in a dream.

When one is awake and understands that it is unreal the fruit, due to activity in a dream proves to be unreal. Therefore the fruit of every action is false once understanding has finally arisen.

It makes no difference whether dreams, firebrands, or illusions arise or cease. Surely everything looked upon as cause or effect is likewise illusory.

Now tell me, what is the difference between objects enjoyed on a certain day and those based on them in a dream as far as the experience of their nature is concerned?

Everything, which arises in dependence, is calm by nature. Just like an elephant shown by a magician having collecting the magic requisites.

Once things though variously different like clothes have been consumed by the fire of emptiness there is no difference as far as their ashes are concerned.

Once it has consumed the two worlds, the personal and the inanimate emptiness burns there by itself like a flaming torch.

When the Yogin thus sees the triple world consumed by the fire of emptiness he does not desire anything even if he traverses Samsara.

When he abides in emptiness he is not subject to the slightest application, behavior, discrimination, or sphere of action.

Later, being absorbed in emptiness and devoid of all fuel, he becomes indescribable, like fire in extinction.

Being thus without clinging, indescribable and un-manifest the yogin does not smoke or blaze any more.

When he is not aflame a yogin becomes extinct, when he is extinct he becomes peaceful, when he is peaceful, he becomes tranquil, when he is tranquil he becomes cool.

When he has become cool he becomes free from heat, being free from heat he is said to be free from fever. Being free from fever he is passionless, he is clean, free from duality and free from distress.

Being free from possessiveness and free from egotism he has crossed the ocean of existence. He is not touched by rebirth any more. Not being born any more he does not die any more.

Having got rid of birth and death he obtains the immortal stage. Having attained this principle he does not encounter anything more worth attaining.

Living totally indifferent he does not conceive repugnance or affection created respectively by the sufferings born in samsára and the pleasures causing suffering.

If he is dependent upon them they all ruin him. If his dependence upon them has come to an end he is uninjured forever. Being uninjured he becomes immovable. Being uninjured and immovable he does not perish.

When he has taken his position in the immovable he is not posited anywhere in nirvana or samsara because he is in a position to control power.

He who has thus a manifestation of dominion of intuition is a controller, an ascetic, a teacher, an expert, a Tathágata and a Sugata.

When a simpleton too strongly attached to sense objects has listened to the instruction in emptiness with an undisciplined mind, his heart bursts in two.

But by listening to the noble Dharma, by serving a good friend, his teacher, those bodhisattvas who act zealously will penetrate this instruction by virtue of their Gotra.

Again, a yogin who is ever-strenuous following this method will soon understand that all phenomena are devoid of self.

Unless it is penetrated a dharma cannot lead to the attainment of the nature of Dharmas. Surely, water not imbibed cannot quench one’s thirst merely by one’s listening to or looking at it!

A virtuous, learned and intelligent Bodhisattva who had amassed the collection of merit does not cherish his body or life if he considers the sense objects to be poison.

Whether he is at home or in the forest of a Bodhisattva is concentrated. If he wants to ascend to Buddhahood the compassionate Bodhisattva should, by way of meditating upon selflessness first make the world’s happiness a part of his own, and then make his own happiness a part of the worlds. Even if he lives as a householder the Bodhisattvas should cultivate meditation on the three natures of phenomena once he finds even a moment’s leisure after having doubled his legs in squatting and fixed his mind immovably on the tip of his nose. Having placed close, false and delusive enjoyments as an object in front of him as images of his own mind he does not make anything the object of delusion so as to become perplexed.

He becomes impassioned by creating an object of passion; being hostile he is harassed by hatred. Being perplexed through the rise of the afflictions he is destroyed by delusion.

By not practicing concentration one is impaired by a conceptual construction when one imagines something else [i.e. unreal] through various "doors of destruction".

A fool who, due to a deluded notion, thinks of something confused, falls still more into darkness erring like a blind person.

A clever Bodhisattvas should make his mind hostile towards the object of fixation. A little occupation with the defilements increases them, as an oblation increases the flames.

But afterwards, when he has joined in combat like a hero in battle he should assail the foes of enlightenment, which are the sense bases of desire, etc.

The Buddhas who see reality have said that the defilements are an obstruction to the truth. Therefore this obstruction should of course be destroyed with all one’s might.

Thereupon three kinds of images must be made by a yogin with an understanding having the nature of conceptual construction etc. The first image grasps an "object," the second reflects it, but the third kind of image is empty of an external object.

He should also consider them mixed by means of an analytical understanding only. The pure principle of perfect wisdom however, one can only think of as unthinkable.

That which appears is not really like that. That which I do not see, that is really thus. I am blinded by conceptual constructions about those very things, just like the disturbance, etc. of cataract.

Whatever I see is an unreal object, conceptually constructed, merely an objective illusion, an appearance without real appearance. This is because I have been afflicted by appearances for a long time.

O! the eye of the world has been deluded by a false demoniacal frenzy. It sees a hair on the top of a mountain, but it does not see the huge mountain!

As far as one perforating a hair and a pearl may have the world championship it is only due to one’s arrows hitting the mark that one is considered exceedingly skilful with one’s craft.

For those who observe "objects" everything only conceptually constructed quite clearly seems real, just as water in a mirage to an antelope seems to be a multitude of waves caused to dance tossed by the wind. But when water occurs close at hand in ponds, etc. it is not true in the same way: Mostly reality is automatically conceived occurring as an unreal construction.

Now the yogin should consider in his mind that the appearance does not exist but is just like the occurrence of a dream. Thereupon mind obtained the dependant nature free from conceptual constructions.

Being close to the perfect spiritual level the third nature appears undefiled. Having attained this perfect nature, the yogin remains in the non-discursive.

And when a philosopher has also seen this he does not enter the other nature. This nature has not really been developed, because the conceptually constructed nature does not exist.

If it, though seen there, swiftly shows an image of its false nature one should imagine it to be like a dream.

But once imagination has been recognized to be like a dream at the same moment it does not occur with its false nature anymore even slowly as it has been stopped by its antidote.

If non existence should touch the extreme, when one has this imbibed the essence, the truth should be seized continually. But if existence becomes a support for him, then in order to abandon him, he should continually seize emptiness. It is in order to avoid all the different dogmas that emptiness has been shown as a means of abandonment.

A yogin enters the state of pure mind without touching the two "flanks" just as a demon enters his abode through a door besmeared with magic plaster.

If someone else carelessly standing between those two touches them then gripped by the magic plaster his body is consumed.

Here, however, a yogin having gained insight, must know the marks inevitably following perfection as smoke follows fire: By such a rejection of the conceptually constructed nature like a picture a little wiped off, he arises from meditation and regards the entire world as impure… as rotten, as decrepit, and as broken all over; as ruined, a joyless, and as shelter less as a desolate town. He sees that it creates fear on earth, raising as it were the cry of a cricket it is ownerless without its own and only a name.

But when the so-called dependant nature has been seen by him, he then sees the world having mounted the chariot of his mind entering himself as it were.

This world is merely an objective illusion, like a magical apparition. It has entirely entered darkness as it were: He sees the world thus without seeing any conceptually constructed nature in the dependant nature.

He sees it licked as it were on all sides by the lines of the residues, overwhelmed like passions alone and revolving like a wheel.

He also somehow sees the world as it were having the awareness of having arisen from deep sleep and having a mark and not having a mark the same moment and as visible and then disappeared.

But when he has cognized the perfect nature everything has a homogenous nature: it is without parts, without beginning and end, without appearance and without apprehension; it is without agitation, without labor, neither long nor round; it is spotless like space, the darkness of which has been pierced by the sun. When he has understood the law of sameness, everything is again seen exactly alike. The visible world is only accepted in a conventional sense, not in the absolute sense.

When a conceptual construction is the cause of other conceptual constructions, it is called convention. But when the very same conceptual construction is the ultimate sense it makes conceptual constructions come to an end.

As surely as the ultimate sense as object of this conceptual construction in the manner stated also only remains at the level of convention, so truly the ultimate sense in itself is not the ground of words.

Consequently the Buddha was afraid lest one should remain fixed in convention and sow his doctrine repeatedly said to consist in emptiness modifies the dharma he propounds to various converts.

Even today, fools pleased with long-nourished conceptual constructions take delight in them, having their minds attached to the expanded world.

For such a mind clever at coursing in signs there will never come or remain any rest in the activity of conceptual constructions.

When mind has recourse to selflessness it becomes apathetic as it were, it sleeps as it were without desire and when it has become peaceful it feels at ease, as it were.

For those who behold emptiness, emptiness renders the eyes stiff, it causes their heads to bow and it makes their minds and mental faculties numb.

Just because the sight of these marks has been experienced in the words "I have fulfilled my task" a bodhisattva-hero should not on the other hand abandon the way of Bhávaná because there is still something better than the supreme. The absolute truth cannot be indicated by anyone as "this is it." It can only be personally experienced by application to this spiritual discipline.

When the state of mere consciousness has thus been experienced as standing between the pair of extremes, it displays the fulfillment of the absolute truth to this entire world.

Once the compassionate Bodhisattva stands in the fulfillment of the absolute truth he does not neglect the interest of living beings even at the risk of his life.

He neither cares about the sense objects having their occurrence overcome by sleep, nor about other enjoyments such as a son, wife, etc.

Inattentive or exalted people cannot disturb the mind of a Bodhisattva always equanimous in fortune and misfortune.

Moreover, like an unseasonable cloud having arisen from somewhere in the sky, the Bodhisattva by himself displays various marvelous manifestations: the time knowing bodhisattvas displays flaming and raining simultaneously, and he seems to be plunging into and emerging out of the earth as if it were water.

He also shakes, cleaves, and removes mountains, and he moves by himself in the sky like a flamingo in play.

He also sees and hears things from afar by means of magic. This is all quite reasonable according to the principles of Mahayana but not according to other schools.

Therefore, everything which is manifested among other Buddhists and outsiders is in this very way a result of their own inclination without seeing one single thing the omniscient Buddha sees everything. It is therefore because it has one and the same nature that he sees everything as conceptually constructed, though separated.

When one thing has been seen in the ultimate sense the entire world is also seen as one thing. Surely, when water has been imbibed at one spot on the bank the taste of the rest of the ocean will be known.

Without at once seeing the emptiness in different things, and in different places, the cognition of the Protectors does not arise.

To them the triple world painted by the constructions of one’s own mind is externalized clear in its structure. It is clearly manifested, saturated through many births, and it resembles various pictures.

But the Protector knowing that this extension is a conceptual construction has seen that the entire universe is without own-being, without marks, immutable, and void. It is a mere conceptual construction.

Bodhisattvas, who by thus practicing Bhávaná have curbed their desires, gradually lose interest in enjoying pleasures. Without giving up their desire for becoming Buddhas they go up to the highest stage intent on the interests of others.

The three divisions of the Buddhas teaching are well known. The great meaning (Mahayana) is formulated in clear words. I have composed the "Alokamala" to dispel the darkness of ignorance for those who are going on the wrong way.

It abolished the belief in the reality of object and subject. It destroys the desire for sense objects. It engenders the light of cognition in the mind of a Bodhisattva as clearly as a big lamp. By creating the light of cognition, the absolute truth even rests in one’s hand as it were. Placed in one’s mental stream the perfection of wisdom incorporated in this treatise always fulfills every wish like a magical thought-gem.

The relative truth is said to be an unreal super imposition, an outsider (I.E., a voice hearer) clinging to the existence of form in a definitive sense is also a Buddhist. But to those who believe in the existence of external objects, the Buddhas have not opened the teachers fist.

When you (the Buddha) cannot express your cognition in words, even though you have obtained the perishable full enlightenment, why then do those unfettered voice hearers who are altogether lost exert themselves in vain?

When the entire doctrine of a Buddhist is carefully analyzed by one who’s intelligence is strong at beholding subtleties, it would not differ from that of a heretic if only there was a single word about emptiness here in the doctrine of the latter.

The state of omniscience, supposed to belong to the Master with regard to any manifold and momentary specific entity would be supposed by you without ascertainable cause, if emptiness was not permanent and always the very same.

The conceitful cognition of the mind of others that yogins get due to a specific siddhi maybe regarded as an even worse impurity of ignorance on their part. They are in fact just as bound to Samsara as common ignorant people!

One who is totally blind and one who has clouded eyesight, of those two the former is by far to be preferred because knowing "I am blind" he has no conceit. The one who is conceited is not to be preferred because suffering from cataract, he only sees something insignificant.

One who recognizes neither his own faults as being faults, nor the endless genuine virtues of a virtuous person and also despises a "good friend" how can he ever imbibe the essence of the absolute?

O! Mankind is deluded by other people already deluded, skilled in contriving pictures in the vault of heaven, prepared to produce various things, the authors of various stories!

Why does the world not become ashamed when it sees traces of serpents occurring in the water when it arranges garlands of flowers in the air or when it even produces woven stuff without a thread!

How can one who approaches this word of the Buddha out of a desire to abuse not out of devotion follow the council imparted by others, bitter stuff as it were, once he has enjoyed the very sweet word of the Buddha!

If one longs for a gorgeous woman and aspires after a distinguished family and a royal house, who would abandon the chief of a herd of elephants and then ride on an ass? An inferior means of transport!