Vasubandhus Instruction on the Three Natures agrees: Through the observation of [objects] being merely mind, A referent to be known

is not observed.
Is There Such a Thing as Shentong-Madhyamaka? 473

Through not observing a referent to be known, Mind cannot be observed [either]. Through not observing both, The expanse of dharmas is observed.1133 His Thirty Verses says: When consciousness itself Does not observe any observed object, It rests in the actuality of mere consciousness,1134 Since there is no apprehender without something apprehended. Being no-mind and nonreferential, It is supramundane wisdom. This is the complete change of state And the relinquishment of the twofold impregnations of negativity. It is the undefiled expanse That is inconceivable, positive, and constant. It is the blissful Body of Release And the Dharma Body of the Great Sage.1135 In the gradual process of realizing true reality, the expedient purpose of the step of describing objects as being merely mind or merely cognition is to prevent the total denial of seeming reality in which subject and object appear. To start by presenting just the unqualified nonexistence of mind (the perceiving subject) courts the danger of falling into a nihilistic extreme by failing to account for the mere appearance of the interaction between mind and its objects. Such is stated in Sthiramatis Subcommentary on The Distinction between the Middle and Extr

Thus, the teachings on Buddha Nature do not mean that there is some nucleus of Buddhhood enclosed in sentient beings behind the temporary obscuring stains. Rather, our whole existence as sentient beings is in itself the sum of temporary stains that float like clouds in the infinite, bright sky of Buddha Nature, the luminous, open expanse of our mind that has no limits or boundaries. Once these clouds dissolve from the warm rays of the sun of wisdom shining in this space, nothing within sentient beings has been freed or developed, but there is just this radiant expanse without any reference points of cloud-like sentient beings or cloud-free Buddhas. From Karl Brunnholzl, The Center of the Sunlit Sky that here we are, left with a "rope" on the floor. But then it asked, "What is this "rope"? Isn't the "rope" actually just an experience of colors, sensations, tastes, smells and sounds? Didn't the mind simply impose a purely conceptual idea "rope" upon a collection of colors, sensations, tastes, smells and sounds? I thought this was brilliant! Because we can use the same approach with the ideas of "self", "others", "body", "mind", "objects", "persons", the "universe" etc. Is our actual experience ever anything beyond "colors", "sensations", "tastes", "smells", and "sounds"? Isn't it amazing how the mind dreams up all these imaginary names and labels for just collections of colors, sensations, tastes, smells and sounds?

Our suffering and confusion never lies within our primal experience of reality as colors, sensations, tastes, smells and sounds, but onI read an interesting Buddhist text from around 400 a.d. on the topic of how we project our beliefs upon our perceptions and then the mind believes what was merely a concept to be true. The example used was the classic one where a person comes into a darkened room and mistakes a rope on the floor for a snake. The mind and body react as though there was really a live snake in the room. But when the room is illumined, the "snake" is seen to just be a piece of rope. The mind imposed the idea of "snake" upon the rope. But there was no reality called "snake" there. Now most teachings just end there so one can savor the implications. But in this text it went further. It now mentionedly with our "labels" and imaginary thoughts about them.