In Sanskrit, हस्ताभववृत्ति (hastābhavavṛtti).
In Tibetan, ལག་པའི་ཚད་ཀྱི་འགྲེལ་པ་ (lag pa’i tshad kyi ’grel pa).
[In English, Commentary on The Measure of What Is at Hand.]
Homage to the wisdom-being, the Noble Mañjuśrī.
I compose this [work] so that beings, who have understood the fact of suchness, might authentically achieve the incontrovertible mind by way of thoroughly differentiating the nature of things in order to know the true meaning of the three realms that are merely conventional.
One apprehends a rope thinking it is a snake.
When one sees the rope, there is no actuality [to it].
As for this, when there is a place that is not very bright but a little light appears, [23a] what is observed is the mere phenomenon of the general form of the rope. Thus, by mistake one generates a consciousness of this rope that definitively apprehends its nature to be “only a snake”, because one comprehends [only] a specific own-nature. When there is a definite apprehension of its attribute [as a snake], one conceives of it not as it really is. Therefore, due to the spread [of this concept], that consciousness becomes a mistaken consciousness with no [foundation in] fact.
Even when one looks at a part of it, about that
The understanding is mistaken, as with the snake.
If you analyze that rope by differentiating it into parts, one does not observe the own-entity of that rope. When that is not observed, even the observation of a rope is nothing more than a mere mistake, just like the awareness thinking it is a snake. Also, just as the consciousness of a rope is mistaken, similarly if its parts—a section, strand, and so forth—are analyzed, their own-entity is definitely not grasped. Since that is definitely not grasped, the awareness that has the aspect of observing that [part] is simply mistaken like the awareness of the rope.
When one investigates the self-entity
In all things where it is imputed,
[One sees] the objective scope of conventional consciousness:
Namely, everything that exists is imputed from elsewhere.
Just as, when one analyzes a rope and so forth by differentiating it into parts, etc., one does not observe its own-entity and therefore the awareness of a rope, etc., is nothing more than a mere mistake like the awareness thinking it is a snake. Similarly, all existing things that are analyzed—clay pots, bowls, etc.—depend on [their] sides and so forth. Therefore, objects of conventional consciousness, such as pot and so forth, have their final end in being thoroughly divided. These varieties are merely conventionally imputed from elsewhere, but are not ultimate, because there is nothing that cannot be analyzed into parts.
Because what does not have parts is not something that can be analyzed,
The final [constituent atoms] are the same as non-existent things.
[Some say] the end [result of dividing] anything that can be analyzed is a unitary, part-less substance, or very subtle atoms. Because these cannot be observed, they are the same as those own-entities which cannot be analyzed, such as a garland of flowers in the sky or the horns of a rabbit and so forth. Therefore, they are thus proven to be non-existent things. [23b] One might ask, “How can one know that ‘The very subtle atoms that are the substance of existence do not exist unitarily,’ [in other words] the reasoning that [if atoms were unitary] they would have the characteristic of being unanalyzable?” Because that by which [something] exists is [its] different directional parts. Take for example, the existents, such as pots, clothes, chariots, and so forth. Because those substances have different directional parts, such as the east [side], west [side], north [side], top, and so forth, all the parts appear. The substance of extremely subtle atoms would undoubtedly be like that, because it would have different parts. One would have to assert it has the different parts: east, west, top, and so forth. If it has different parts, then the unitary substance of very subtle atoms is not established. If—because many divisions of substance appear—it does not exist as a unitary thing, then an extremely subtle atom [that is unitary] is not observed. Therefore, abandon this proposition of extremely subtle [unitary] atoms.
Therefore, the wise investigate what is mere illusion
As not being in fact real.
Since the three realms are thus merely mistaken, the wise who wish to attain what is good should not analyze this [world] as an authentic object. Should they think of this world, [they think that] those external things—pot and so forth—are [things] imputed from nothing because one cannot realize their entity [since it does not exist]. That is the truth. Some might assert the following: “The mistaken consciousness that has the aspect of observing those [things] exists. Take for instance, an illusory being or a city of Gandharvas and so forth. Those things do not exist, but there is a consciousness that has the aspect of observing them. It is like that.” If someone says that …
If something is mistaken, it is not pure.
Therefore, it does not exist the way it appears.
For something whose appearance is not what in fact exists,
How could it have an identity?
Even with regard to that mistake, it is not the case that, when there is a consciousness of [the mistake’s] own substantial entity, the substance exists in just that way as its own entity. This has already been explained. If something does not in fact exist, it cannot exist by way of its own entity. Therefore, it is not pure. “Because it is not pure, it has the very nature of a mistake.” That is how one should understand it. It is like this, in the world one does not see anything which can be called “produced” such as a sprout and so forth if there is not also a producer such as a seed and so forth. For that very reason, it is explained that the self also is not established but is similar to an illusory being. [24a]
A person with a subtle awareness
Knows all [things] to be only imputed.
One with that awareness easily abandons
Attachment and so forth, just like fear of the snake.
According to this explanation, in these three realms which are merely designated by way of aspects, what the coarse mind distinguishes as pots and so forth are definitively apprehended by the subtle awareness as non-existent in retrospect, being merely conventionalities. That apprehension is just like when someone thinks a snake is a rope, but due to the fear that arises, they analyze it in detail and determine it is a rope. Just as [for such a person] there is no fear of it being a snake, [in the same way for a practitioner of this path] by means of thoroughly analyzing those very things that generate desire and the like, the webs of afflictive emotions, such as desire and so forth, will be abandoned easily, without difficulty, in no time at all.
One who realizes objects of the world,
Will establish them according to the world.
Those who desire to abandon all afflictions
Should strive with the excellent object.
Just as, because [people] think of worldly objects such as pot and so forth as existential entities, they designate them with conventions—“This is a pot”, “This is a cloth”, “This is a chariot”—in the same way, they act conventionally due to that previous establishment. After that, those who wish to abandon afflictive emotions such as desire and so forth should thoroughly strive after those facts which characterize the ultimate [truth] as explained. When one thoroughly strives after things in that way, the stains of afflictive emotions such as desire and so forth will not subsequently be produced.
This completes the Commentary on the Verses on The Measure of What Is at Hand
composed by the Master Āryadeva
This was translated by the Indian Master Dānaśīla and the translator, monk Peljor Nyingbo, and after questioning [Dānaśīla], it was revised by the editor-translator, the monk Peltsek Rakṣita.
Translated into English by Than Grove, Staunton, VA, July 2020.
