The mind within the senses does not dwell,
It has no place in outer things like form.
And in between, the mind does not abide:
Not out, not in, not elsewhere, can the mind be found.
If not in the body, yet is nowhere else.
It does not merge with it nor stand apart
Something such as this does not exist, not even slightly
Beings by their nature are beyond the reach of suffering.
If consciousness comes later than its object,
Once again, from what does it arise?
Thus the origine of all phenomena
Exeeds the reach of understanding.
"If this is so" you say,"there is no relative,
And then the two truths-what becomes of them?
Moreover, if the relative derives from beings' minds,
How can they pass beyond their sorrows?"
But that is just the thought of others;
It is not what I mean by the relative.
If subsequently there are thoughts, the relative's still there;
If not, the relative has ceased indeed.
The analyzing mind and what is analyzed
Are linked together, mutually dependent.
It is on the basis of conventional consesus
That all investigation is expressed.
"But when," you say,"the process of analysis
Is made in turn, the object of our scrutinity,
This investigation likewise may be analyzed,
And thus we find an infinite regress.
If phenomena are truly analyzes,
No basis for analysis remains. (!)
And when the object is removed, the subject too subsides.
That indeed is said to be nirvana.
Those who say that both are true,
Are hard-pressed to maintain their case.
If consciousness reveals the truth of things,
On what grounds in its turn, does consciousness exist? (!)
If knowledge objects show that consciousness exists,
What is it that shows that they exists?
If both subsist through mutual depende,
Both will thereby lose their true existence. (!) Shantideva.