(1) Thine own consciousness, not formed into anything, in reality void, and the intellect, shining and blissful, — these two, — are inseparable. The union of them is the Dharma-Kaya state of Perfect Enlightenment.

(13) Some by meditation perceive the Self in themselves through the mind, some by devotion to knowledge, and some by devotion to work.

(16) Nor do material objects depend upon a single mind, for how could they remain objective to others, if that mind ceased to think of them?

(3) That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him (his body) as his own.

(16) Buddha speaks of the transient, the creator of consciousness, as being the fundamental truth of religion. And, in our Taoism, the expression " to produce emptiness " contains the whole work of completing life and essence. All three religions agree in the one proposition, the inding of the spiritual Elixir in order to pass from death to life. In what does this spiritual Elixir consist? It means forever tarrying in purposelessness. The deepest secret in our teaching, the secret of the bath, is confined to the work of making the heart empty. Therewith the heart is set at rest. What I have revealed here in a word is the fruit of decades of effort.

(35) The personal self seeks to feast on life, through a failure to perceive the distinction between the personal self and the spiritual man. All personal experience really exists for the sake of another: namely, the spiritual man. By perfectly concentrated Meditation on experience for the sake of the Self, comes a knowledge of the spiritual man.

(2) For where there is a duality (dvaita), as it were (iva\ there one sees another; there one smells another; there one hears another; there one speaks to another; there one thinks of another; there one understands another. Where, verily, everything has become just one's own self, then whereby and whom would one smell? then whereby and whom would one see? then whereby and whom would one hear? then whereby and to whom would one speak? then whereby and on whom would one think? then whereby and forth whom would one understand? Whereby would one under- stand him by whom one understands this All? Lo, whereby would one understand the understander? '

(1) There is a principle having intellection of the external and another having self-intellection and thus further removed from duality.

Even the first mentioned is not without an effort towards the pure unity of which it is not so capable: it does actually contain its object, though as something other than itself.

In the self-intellective, there is not even this distinction of being: self-conversing, the subject is its own object, and thus takes the double form while remaining essentially a unity. The intellection is the more profound for this internal possession of the object.

This principle is the primally intellective since there can be no intellection without duality in unity. If there is no unity, perceiving principle and perceived object will be different, and the intellection, therefore, not primal: a principle concerned with something external cannot be the primally intellective since it does not possess the object as integrally its own or as itself; if it does possess the object as itself- the condition of true intellection- the two are one. Thus there must be a unity in duality, while a pure unity with no counterbalancing duality can have no object for its intellection and ceases to be intellective: in other words the primally intellective must be at once simplex and something else.

But the surest way of realizing that its nature demands this combination of unity and duality is to proceed upwards from the Soul, where the distinction can be made more dearly since the duality is exhibited more obviously.

We can imagine the Soul as a double light, a lesser corresponding to the soul proper, a purer representing its intellective phase; if now we suppose this intellective light equal to the light which is to be its object, we no longer distinguish between them; the two are recognised as one: we know, indeed, that there are two, but as we see them they have become one: this gives us the relation between the intellective subject and the object of intellection : in our thought we have made the two into one; but on the other hand the one thing has become two, making itself into a duality at the moment of intellection, or, to be more exact, being dual by the fact of intellection and single by the fact that its intellectual object is itself.

(23) 'That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him (his body) as his own.'

(2) 'You eat food and see your desire, and whoever thus meditates on that Vaisvânara Self, eats food and sees his desire, and has Vedic glory in his house. 'That, however, is but the trunk of the Self, and your trunk would have perished, if you had not come to me.'

(18) O nobly-born, if one recognize not one's own thought-forms, however learned one may be in the Scriptures — both Sutras and Tantras — although practicing religion for a kalpa, one obtaineth not Buddhahood. If one recognize one's own thought-forms, by one important art and by one word, Buddhahood is obtained.

(2) The Lord Buddha replied, saying: “A good disciple, whether man or woman, ought thus to habituate his mind: ‘I must become oblivious to every idea of sentient life; and having become oblivious to every idea of sentient life, there is no one to whom the idea of sentient life has become oblivious.’ And why? Because, Subhuti, if an enlightened disciple retains within his mind such arbitrary ideas of sentient life as an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality, he has not attained to supreme spiritual wisdom. And why? Because, Subhuti, there is no Law by means of which a disciple may be defined as one having obtained supreme spiritual wisdom.”

(17) Meditation with an object follows these stages: first, exterior examining, then interior judicial action, then joy, then realization of individual being.

(1) The Lord Buddha addressed Subhuti, saying: “If a disciple affirmed that the Lord Buddha enunciated a belief that the mind can comprehend the idea of an entity, a being, a living being, or a personality; what think you, Subhuti, would that disciple be interpreting aright the meaning of my discourse?” Subhuti replied, saying: “Honoured of the Worlds! that disciple would not be interpreting aright the meaning of the Lord Buddha’s discourse. And why? Because, Honoured of the Worlds! discoursing upon comprehending such ideas as an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality, it was declared that these are entirely unreal and illusive, and therefore they are merely termed an entity, a being, a living being, and a personality.”

(18) This being so, (the five factors being the cause of all Karma) whoever, on account of untrained understanding, thinks the Self as the doer, he, the man of perverted intelligence, does not know the truth about the nature of Atma or the nature of Karma.

(1) Thine own consciousness, shining, void, and inseparable from the Great Body of Radiance, hath no birth, nor death, and is the Immutable Light — Buddha Amitabha.

(2) The Lord Buddha thereafter addressed Subhuti, saying: “Those who aspire to the attainment of supreme spiritual wisdom ought thus to know, believe in, and interpret phenomena. They ought to eliminate from their minds every tangible evidence of every visible object. Subhuti, concerning ‘visible objects,’ the Lord Buddha declared that these are not really ‘visible objects’ they are merely termed ‘visible objects.’”

(1) Likewise of that Mind the sky is the body. Its light- form is yon sun. As far as Mind extends, so far extends the sky, so far yon sun. These two [the fire and the sun] entered sexual union. Therefrom was born Breath. He is Indra. He is without a rival. Verily, a second person is a rival He who knows this has no rival.

(1) Let a man meditate on mind as Brahman (n.), this is said with reference to the body. Let a man meditate on the ether as Brahman (n.), this is said with reference to the Devas. Thus both the meditation which has reference to the body, and the meditation which has reference to the Devas, has been taught.

(5) "There is nothing which is not objective: there is nothing which is not subjective. But it is impossible to start from the objective. Only from subjective knowledge is it possible to proceed to objective knowledge. Hence it has been said, 'The objective emanates from the subjective; the subjective is consequent upon the objective. This is the Alternation Theory.' Nevertheless, when one is born, the other dies. When one is possible, the other is impossible. When one is affirmative the other is negative. Which being the case, the true sage rejects all distinctions of this and that. He takes his refuge in God, and places himself in subjective relation with all things. "And inasmuch as the subjective is also objective, and the objective also subjective, and as the contraries under each are indistinguishably blended, does it not become impossible for us to say whether subjective and objective really exist at all? "When subjective and objective are both without their correlates, that is the very axis of Tao. And when that axis passes through the centre at which all Infinities converge, positive and negative alike blend into an infinite One. Hence it has been said that there is nothing like the light of nature. "To take a finger in illustration of a finger not being a finger is not so good as to take something which is not a finger. To take a horse in illustration of a horse not being a horse is not so good as to take something which is not a horse.