Form Dharmas: The World Projected by Mind

I. The Problem

You step outside your front door.

Sunlight lands warm on your face — a tactile object. Somewhere distant, a bird calls — a sound object for the ear-consciousness. Flowers line the path, red and yellow — form objects for the eye-consciousness, with shape, color, height. You lean in to smell one — a fragrance object. You pluck a mint leaf and place it on your tongue — a taste object unfolds across the tongue-faculty.

Five faculties meet five objects; consciousness arises and discerns. This is the least questioned part of daily experience: "I see the flower," "I hear the bird," "I feel the sun." If someone told you "the flower is not out there — the flower is inside your consciousness," you would probably suggest they get some rest.

But this is precisely what Yogācāra has to say.

The Hundred Dharmas are arranged in five categories: mind (eight consciousnesses) → mental factors (fifty-one) → form (eleven) → factors dissociated from mind (twenty-four) → unconditioned dharmas (six). The first two categories have been fully unpacked in S3-P01 through P10: P01–P06 disassembled the structure of the eight consciousnesses, P07–P10 analyzed all fifty-one mental factors. We now arrive at the third category — form.

That form occupies the third position is not an accident of cataloguing. The five-category arrangement of the Hundred Dharmas follows a logic running from agent to product, from cause to effect: first consciousness (mind), then the psychological qualities accompanying consciousness in activity (mental factors), then the objects manifested by that activity (form), then the conceptual constructs abstracted from that activity (factors dissociated from mind), and finally the true nature of consciousness itself (unconditioned dharmas). Form ranks third precisely because it is the product of consciousness, not its external cause.¹

If P01–P06 unfolded "who is driving" (the structure of the eight consciousnesses) and P07–P10 unfolded "what mindset the driver brings" (the fifty-one mental factors), then P11 unfolds "the road and the scenery." But the core thesis of Yogācāra is: the road and the scenery are also projected by consciousness.

This thesis requires precise argumentation. "Projected by consciousness" is not the nihilist claim that "nothing exists out there," nor is it the magical-thinking claim that "you can create anything by wishing." The Cheng Weishi Lun's argument is epistemological: every form dharma you experience — color and shape before your eyes, sounds in your ears, the feeling of your body — is the aspect-portion (nimitta-bhāga) of consciousness, a "semblance of externality" (sì wài jìng xiàn 似外境現) projected when consciousness transforms itself. Since beginningless time, you have taken this aspect-portion to be an independently existing external reality, like a dreamer who takes the dream landscape for the real world.²

This paper's task is to systematically deconstruct the eleven form dharmas — five sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), five sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch), and form subsumed under the mental realm — within the Yogācāra framework. Three questions guide the inquiry:

First, what is form? From the Āgamas' "four great elements and their derivatives" to Yogācāra's "aspect-portion projected by consciousness," what doctrinal trajectory did the definition of form undergo?

Second, where does form come from? How does the eighth consciousness transform shared seeds into the vessel-world and unshared seeds into the body-with-faculties? What positions do the five faculties and five objects occupy within the Yogācāra mechanism?

Third, what does form mean for practice? What concrete difference does it make for a practitioner to know that form is projected by consciousness? "Objects do not exist apart from consciousness" is not a philosophical game — it is the dismantling of your fundamental misrecognition of an "external world."

Let us begin with the scriptural foundations.

II. Scriptural Foundations

A. Sūtra Sources

2.1 The Āgamas: The Foundational Definition of the Four Elements and the Form Aggregate

The doctrinal starting point for form is the Buddha's foundational teaching on the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha) in the Āgamas. In Saṃyukta Āgama Sūtra 41, the Buddha instructs the monks on knowing form as it truly is:

"How does one know form as it truly is? All that is form is the four great elements and form derived from the four great elements. This is called form. Thus does one know form as it truly is."³

This is the most concise definition of the form aggregate: all form is nothing other than the four great elements (mahābhūta: earth, water, fire, wind) and their derivatives. The four elements are the basic constituents of form — earth-element as solidity, water-element as fluidity, fire-element as warmth, wind-element as motility. Every experienceable material phenomenon is a different combination of these four and their derivatives.⁴

The Madhyama Āgama's Elephant Footprint Simile Sūtra expands on the four elements concretely. The internal earth-element: "hair, body-hair, nails, teeth, coarse and fine skin, flesh, sinew, bone, heart, kidney, liver, lung, spleen, intestine, stomach, undigested food, feces, urine." The internal water-element: "brain, brain-membrane, tears, sweat, mucus, saliva, pus, blood, fat, marrow, bile, urine."⁵ The four elements are not an abstract elemental classification but a direct, unflinching observation of the body — the nearest portion of form.

The Buddha further employs the simile of foam to reveal the nature of the form aggregate:

"Observe form as a lump of foam, feeling as a water-bubble, perception as a mirage, formations as a plantain trunk, consciousness as a magic show."⁶

Form as foam — a mass of bubbles churned up by a river, appearing to have shape and substance, yet each bubble arising and perishing in the same instant. Every phenomenon of the form aggregate — your body, the mountains and rivers you see — shares this character of "temporary aggregation without real substance."

An important doctrinal trajectory must be noted here: the Āgama definition of the form aggregate as "four great elements and their derivatives" does not yet explicitly deny the external, independent existence of form. The Āgama practice emphasis is to observe form as impermanent, suffering, and not-self, thereby generating disenchantment and progressing toward liberation. Yogācāra later pushes further — not only observing form as impermanent and not-self, but interrogating the ontological status of form: are these four elements and their derivatives independently existing external matter, or aspect-portions projected by consciousness?

2.2 The Āgamas: The Six Sense-Bases — The Triadic Structure of Faculty, Object, and Consciousness

Form in the Āgamas has another crucial dimension: the teaching on the six sense-bases (ṣaḍ-āyatana). In the "Six-by-Six" discourse, the Buddha teaches the triadic structure of faculty, object, and consciousness:

"What is the six-by-six teaching? The six internal sense-bases, the six external sense-bases, the six consciousness-bodies, the six contact-bodies, the six feeling-bodies, the six craving-bodies.… Dependent on the eye and form, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; together with contact arise feeling, perception, and volition."⁷

The six internal bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind faculties) and the six external bases (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, mental-objects) — faculty and object meet, and consciousness arises from this. The convergence of three — faculty, object, consciousness — is the complete structure of cognition. In this framework, form (the five faculties and five objects) is never discussed in isolation; it is always embedded in the causal network of faculty-object-consciousness.

Saṃyukta Āgama Sūtra 322 provides the most explicit Āgama definition of the five material faculties:

"The eye is an internal sense-base, a refined materiality (jìng sè 淨色) derived from the four great elements, invisible, yet offering resistance. The ear, nose, tongue, and body internal sense-bases are likewise. The mind is an internal sense-base, non-material, invisible, offering no resistance."⁸

Three layers of critical doctrine are embedded here. First, the five material faculties are "refined materiality derived from the four elements" — the term "refined" (jìng 淨) already distinguishes the subtle materiality that can produce consciousness (the dominant faculty, vijñapti-indriya) from the visible, gross organ (the supporting faculty). Second, the five material faculties are "invisible yet offering resistance" — "offering resistance" (yǒu duì 有對) means they have obstructive quality and can generate consciousness through contact with objects; "invisible" means this consciousness-producing refined materiality is not the gross organ visible to the naked eye. Third, the mind-faculty is "non-material, invisible, offering no resistance" — the fundamental difference between the mind-faculty and the five material faculties is that it is not form.⁹

Additionally, Sūtra 652 points out that the five faculties each have their own domain, but all ultimately converge in the mind-faculty:

"There are five faculties, each with distinct activities and distinct domains, each receiving its own domain. The eye-faculty, ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-faculty — each with distinct activities and distinct domains, each receiving its own domain. What is their refuge and their culmination? The mind-faculty."¹⁰

The eye-faculty takes only form-objects, the ear-faculty takes only sound-objects — each faculty stays in its own lane. But all sensory experience ultimately converges in the mind-faculty, where the sixth consciousness performs integrated discernment. This Āgama teaching of "the five faculties converging in mind" is later deepened in Yogācāra as the theory of the five-accompanying mental consciousness (wǔ jù yì shí 五俱意識).

2.3 The Āgamas: Form as Impermanent and Not-Self — The Contemplative Foundation for Liberation

The Āgama's most essential practice teaching regarding form is the three-marks contemplation of the form aggregate. Saṃyukta Āgama Sūtra 9:

"Form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is not-self. What is not-self is also not mine. Contemplating thus is called true and correct contemplation."¹¹

Form is impermanent → the impermanent is suffering → suffering is not-self → not-self means not-mine — a four-link syllogism. Every phenomenon of form — your body, the material world you experience — is in moment-to-moment arising and ceasing. Since it arises and ceases moment to moment, it cannot provide lasting security (suffering); since it cannot be governed or made permanent, it is not "you" (not-self); since it is not you, how can you claim it "belongs to you" (not-mine)?

Sūtra 11 argues from another angle:

"Form is not-self. If form were self, there should not arise sickness and suffering in form. Nor should one be able to wish regarding form 'let it be thus' or 'let it not be thus.' Because form is not-self, therefore sickness and suffering arise in form."¹²

If form were "self," you should be able to control it — to prevent it from falling ill, aging, dying. But you cannot. Your body gets sick, your appearance ages, every form-phenomenon before you shifts and changes, none under your control. Precisely because form is not-self, sickness and suffering arise within it.

Sūtra 289 offers a thought-provoking observation:

"Foolish, unlearned worldlings generate disenchantment toward the four-element body and seek liberation from it. Why? They observe the four-element body increasing and decreasing, being taken up and put down. But toward mind, mentation, and consciousness, they cannot generate disenchantment or seek liberation. Why? Because mind, mentation, and consciousness shift and change moment to moment, day and night, arising as one thing and perishing as another."¹³

This is the monkey simile: mind, mentation, and consciousness swing from branch to branch like monkeys, shifting moment to moment, arising and perishing differently — even less stable than the four-element body. Ordinary beings find it easier to become disenchanted with the body but fail to notice the moment-to-moment arising and ceasing of mind. From the Āgama perspective, this observation creates a productive tension: the material body appears more stable than the mind, and thus worldlings more easily practice "disenchantment with form" while ignoring the very thing that needs contemplation — the mind's ceaseless flux. Yogācāra's later response: the body appears stable precisely because the ālaya-vijñāna continuously projects the body-with-faculties through unbroken seed-manifestation, creating a false sense of permanence.

2.4 The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra: Consciousness-Only, No External Objects — The Ontological Reversal of Form

From the Āgamas to Mahāyāna, the doctrinal status of form undergoes a fundamental reversal. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra declares without equivocation:

"If one understands that all dharmas are seen only by mind, that there are no external objects, all being equally without characteristics."¹⁴

All dharmas are seen only by mind; the external material world has no independently existing substance. The Laṅkāvatāra further expands in verse:

"Not understanding that all is mere mind-manifestation, twofold discrimination arises. If one knows that all is only mind, discrimination does not arise. Mind itself is the manifold; it is far removed from the characteristics of conceptualization."¹⁵

"Not understanding that all is mere mind-manifestation" — because beings do not understand that everything is the manifestation of mind, they generate the twofold discrimination of grasper and grasped. If one knows that everything is only mind, twofold discrimination ceases. This verse provides the most essential scriptural warrant for the entire paper on form: form dharmas are taken to be an independently existing external material world precisely because beings "do not understand that all is mere mind-manifestation."

From another angle, the Laṅkāvatāra proclaims "consciousness-only" from seven perspectives:

"Seeing all dharmas as consciousness-only, therefore I teach consciousness-only." "Suchness, emptiness, the real limit, nirvāṇa, and the dharma-realm … therefore I teach consciousness-only." "Because beings see external objects, therefore I teach consciousness-only." "Body, livelihood, and dwelling-place — therefore I teach consciousness-only."¹⁶

The Buddha repeatedly says "therefore I teach consciousness-only" from different angles. The "body, livelihood, and dwelling-place" corresponds precisely to the form-dharma content of body-with-faculties and vessel-world.

The Mahāyāna-Laṅkāvatāra volume five puts it even more directly:

"Grasper and grasped — all is only mind. Both manifest from mind; there is no self or what belongs to self. Brahmā and all dharmas — I declare them to be only mind. Apart from mind, nothing whatsoever can be obtained."¹⁷

Grasper (the seeing-portion of consciousness) and grasped (the aspect-portion that is form) — all is only mind. Both manifest from mind; among them there is no real self or real dharma. Apart from mind, nothing can be obtained — including everything you took to be "out there."

2.5 The Avataṃsaka Sūtra: Mind as Master Painter — The Parabolic Teaching on Form as Consciousness-Projected

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra provides the most magnificent parabolic teaching on form as consciousness-projected, through the Juelin Bodhisattva's Verses:

"Mind is like a master painter, able to paint all the worlds. The five aggregates all arise from it; there is no dharma it does not create.… If a person wishes to understand all the Buddhas of the three times, they should contemplate the nature of the dharma-realm: all is created by mind alone."¹⁸

Mind is like a master painter — the mind paints every phenomenon of the entire world. The five aggregates (including the form aggregate) all arise from mind; there is no dharma that mind does not create. "All is created by mind alone" — this is the Avataṃsaka's most direct verdict on the status of form.

Within the verses, one passage of dialectical subtlety deserves close attention:

"Within the great elements there is no color; within color there are no great elements. Yet not apart from the great elements can color be obtained. Within mind there is no painting; within the painting there is no mind. Yet not apart from mind can any painting be obtained."¹⁹

The four elements contain no color (visible form), and color contains no four elements; yet not apart from the four elements can color be obtained. Mind contains no painting, and the painting contains no mind; yet not apart from mind can any painting be obtained. This is not a simple "exists" or "does not exist," but the dialectic of "neither identical with nor separate from" — form and consciousness are not the same thing, but form cannot exist apart from consciousness. This is precisely the Yogācāra formulation: the aspect-portion is neither identical with the seeing-portion nor separate from it.

The Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra further encapsulates the Avataṃsaka's consciousness-only teaching: "The three realms are false; they are made by one mind alone.… All three realms turn through consciousness alone."²⁰

2.6 The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra: The Three Natures and Form — What Consciousness Apprehends Is Solely What Consciousness Projects

The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra is the scriptural authority for the entire S3 series (see S3-P01), and on the topic of form it provides the definitive adjudication. Volume three:

"Blessed One, should one say they are not different? Indeed, they are not different. Why? Because those images are nothing but consciousness. I teach that what consciousness apprehends is solely what consciousness projects."²¹

The objects that consciousness apprehends (including all form dharmas) — those "images" appearing in the mind — are not different from mind, because those images simply are consciousness. The Buddha's conclusion: "What consciousness apprehends is solely what consciousness projects." Everything your consciousness takes as its object is projected by consciousness. Form is the object of consciousness; therefore form is the aspect-portion projected by consciousness.

The sūtra further identifies the error of ordinary beings:

"Yet foolish beings, due to inverted apprehension, cannot know those images as they truly are — as nothing but consciousness — and form inverted understanding."²²

Foolish beings (unawakened sentient beings) cannot know that those images (the experience of form) are nothing but consciousness, and thus form an inverted understanding — taking the aspect-portions projected by consciousness to be an independently existing external material world.

The Saṃdhinirmocana simultaneously adjudicates the form aggregate through the three natures (trisvabhāva):

"When, within the dependent aspect that is the basis of the imagined character operating in discrimination, one posits by conventional designation a 'form aggregate'… this is the imagined character. That very dependent aspect which is the basis of the imagined character operating in discrimination — this is the other-dependent character. When, within this same dependent aspect, the imagined character is known to be unreal, and one thereby apprehends the suchness of the selflessness of dharmas as a pure object of cognition — this is the consummate character."²³

The form aggregate within the three natures: designating the form aggregate as a substantially existing entity is the imagined character (parikalpita-svabhāva); the dependent arising and flow of the form aggregate itself is the other-dependent character (paratantra-svabhāva); within the other-dependent form aggregate, when the imagined character is known to be unreal and the suchness of dharma-selflessness is revealed, this is the consummate character (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva). Applying the three-nature contemplation to form means: not that "form does not exist," but that "form does not exist in the way you grasp it as existing."

2.7 The Śūraṅgama Sūtra: The Six Sense-Entries as Illusory — The Tathāgatagarbha View of Faculty and Object

The Śūraṅgama Sūtra deconstructs the six sense-entries from the tathāgatagarbha perspective. Volume two states in summary:

"The five aggregates, the six sense-entries, from the twelve sense-bases through the eighteen sense-realms — through the conjunction of conditions they falsely arise, through the separation of conditions they are falsely called 'perishing.' Yet one entirely fails to know that arising and perishing, coming and going, are fundamentally the tathāgatagarbha, permanently abiding, marvelously luminous, unmoving, perfectly complete, the marvelous true suchness-nature."²⁴

The five aggregates, six entries, twelve bases, eighteen realms — every classificatory framework for form — arise falsely through the conjunction of conditions, are falsely called "perishing" through their separation. Yet beneath this false arising and ceasing, their fundamental nature is the tathāgatagarbha's marvelous true suchness-nature.

Volume three dismantles each of the six entries individually. Taking the eye-entry as representative:

"That very eye-essence that stares until fatigue arises — together the eye and its fatigue are both the staring-fatigue-aspect of bodhi. Due to the two kinds of false dust, brightness and darkness, seeing arises between them.… Therefore know that the eye-entry is illusory, fundamentally neither caused by conditions nor arising from its own nature."²⁵

The eye-entry is illusory; the ear-entry is illusory; the nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-entries are all illusory. Not one of the six entries is substantially real; each is the display of the tathāgatagarbha's marvelous true suchness-nature, "fundamentally neither caused by conditions nor arising from its own nature."

Volume four further identifies the practice entry-point: among the six faculties of engagement, one selects a gate of perfect penetration (yuántōng 圓通) — "entering deeply through one gate, entering the one that is without falsity, the six knowing-faculties are simultaneously purified."²⁶ Volume five unfolds the specific practices of the five-object perfect penetrations: form-object penetration (Upaniṣad contemplates the nature of form and attains arhatship), fragrance penetration, taste penetration, touch penetration — every sense-object domain can serve as a gateway to the path.²⁷ Volume six, in Mañjuśrī's selection of the supreme penetration, identifies the limitations of each of the five sense-objects — form binds through conceptual image, sound mixes with language, fragrance requires contact and vanishes when separated, taste depends on the moment of tasting, touch requires contact and its nature is not fixed — ultimately selecting the ear-faculty penetration as supreme.²⁸

The Śūraṅgama's view of form shares common ground with Yogācāra in affirming that form is not substantially real, but diverges in taking the tathāgatagarbha (rather than the ālaya-vijñāna) as the fundamental ground, and in pursuing a "nonduality of true and false" contemplative path — form is both illusory and the display of marvelous true suchness. This tension will be explored in depth in S6 (the Śūraṅgama series).

2.8 The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra: Form and Emptiness — The Prajñā System's View of Form-Emptiness

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (Dà Zhìdù Lùn) provides the most thoroughgoing emptiness-contemplation of form from within the Prajñā system. Nāgārjuna comments on the Prajñā sūtra:

"Form is not different from emptiness; emptiness is not different from form. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form."²⁹

Form is not different from emptiness, emptiness is not different from form — it is not that form is over here and emptiness is over there, connected by some mysterious relation. Form itself is emptiness; emptiness itself is form — the very body of form is emptiness, the very body of emptiness is form.

Volume 44 offers an extraordinarily precise formulation:

"It is not that the eighteen emptinesses force form to be empty. Why? Not by imposing the characteristic of emptiness does one force form to be empty — form itself is emptiness. This form has been empty from the very beginning. Because the characteristic of form is empty, emptiness itself is form."³⁰

Emptiness does not analyze form into emptiness; emptiness does not coerce form into becoming empty. Form has been empty from the very beginning — "form has been empty since the very beginning" (sè cóng běn yǐlái cháng zì kōng). Form is not "first existent, then emptied"; it is "originally and always empty." This differs from the Āgama's "form is impermanent": the Āgamas say form changes in time (impermanence), so one should not cling; Prajñā says the very nature of form is emptiness — not "first present then empty" but "empty from the very beginning."

Volume 36 further demonstrates form's emptiness through the method of micro-analysis:

"Analyzing form by division all the way down to atoms, and analyzing the atoms further — they too cannot be found. Ultimately all is empty.… Observed with the wisdom-eye, nothing is seen. Why? Because their nature is truly nonexistent."³¹

Form, analyzed repeatedly from gross matter to atoms, and atoms analyzed further — they cannot be found. With the wisdom-eye, nothing is seen, because form's intrinsic nature has never existed. This converges with Yogācāra's "all resistant forms are consciousness-manifestations, not constituted by atoms" — Yogācāra denies the substantial reality of atoms; Prajñā directly observes that atoms cannot be found. Two systems reach the same conclusion by different paths: form has no basis that is independent of consciousness and substantially real.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra also clearly delineates the methodology of the form-emptiness contemplation:

"One does not use the wisdom of emptiness to destroy form and make it empty, nor does emptiness exist because form has been destroyed. Emptiness itself is form; form itself is emptiness."³²

The Prajñā contemplation of form-emptiness is not "destroying form to arrive at emptiness," nor is it "emptiness appearing because form has been destroyed." Neither abiding in form nor abiding in the emptiness of form — the skillful Prajñā practitioner clings neither to the substantial reality of form nor to emptiness as "some other thing."

B. Treatise Sources

2.9 Cheng Weishi Lun, Volume One: Consciousness Transforms into the Semblance of Form — The Core Yogācāra Argument

The Cheng Weishi Lun establishes the Yogācāra status of form from its opening lines. Volume one, expounding Vasubandhu's Thirty Verses:

"By conventional designation we speak of self and dharmas, which manifest in various aspects. These depend on transformations of consciousness. The transforming consciousnesses are only three: namely, the ripening, the deliberating, and the object-discerning consciousnesses."³³

The "self" and "dharmas" (including all form) spoken of in the world and in sacred teachings are merely conventional designations, posited in dependence on transformations of consciousness. When the consciousness-body transforms, it "transforms into the semblance of self and dharmas" — consciousness produces aspects that resemble a self and resemble dharmas.

"Due to the habituating force of discrimination of self and dharmas, when the consciousnesses arise they transform into the semblance of self and dharmas. Though these self-and-dharma aspects are within internal consciousness, through discrimination they appear as if they were external objects. Since beginningless time, all sentient beings have taken these as real self and real dharmas — like a dreamer who, by the force of the dream, experiences the mind producing the appearance of various external objects and takes these to be truly existent external objects."³⁴

This is the most fundamental Yogācāra positioning of form: form, as part of "dharmas," is produced when consciousnesses arise and transform, driven by the habituating force of beginningless discrimination. These form aspects, though within internal consciousness, appear to be external objects due to discrimination. Like a dreamer — the force of the dream causes the mind to manifest the appearance of external objects, and the dreamer takes them as truly existent. Upon waking, one knows everything was mind's own display.

Volume one then asks: "How can we know that there are truly no external objects, that only internal consciousness arises in the semblance of external objects?" The answer: "Because real self and real dharmas cannot be found."³⁵ It then proceeds to dismantle the atom (paramāṇu):

"What each consciousness itself transforms becomes its objective condition.… Therefore we definitively know that what each consciousness itself transforms — aspects resembling form and so forth — serve as its objective condition, because the seeing [portion] arises depending on them and carries their characteristics. Moreover, when consciousness transforms, according to the size required, it instantly manifests a single unified aspect — it does not separately produce numerous atoms that then combine into one thing.… From this we should know: all resistant forms are manifestations of consciousness, not constituted by atoms."³⁶

This passage is the doctrinal core of the entire paper. When consciousness arises, it transforms its own substance to produce "aspects resembling form" (aspect-portions that look like form dharmas), and these aspect-portions serve as the objective conditions for consciousness. In transforming, consciousness instantly produces a single unified aspect, not first manufacturing atoms and then assembling them. The conclusion: all resistant forms are manifestations of consciousness, not constituted by atoms.

2.10 Cheng Weishi Lun, Volume Two: Shared and Unshared Seeds — The Mechanism for Manifesting Body-with-Faculties and Vessel-World

The mechanism for manifesting form is fully unpacked in volume two's analysis of the eighth consciousness's objective domain. The ālaya-vijñāna has three types of objects:

"'Place' refers to location, namely the vessel-world, because it is the dwelling-place of sentient beings. 'What is appropriated' is twofold: seeds and the body-with-sense-faculties.… Both are appropriated by consciousness, subsumed into its own substance, sharing its fortune and misfortune. Both the appropriated and the place are objects of [the eighth] consciousness. Through the force of its own conditions, when the ālaya-vijñāna's own substance arises, internally it transforms into seeds and the body-with-sense-faculties, externally it transforms into the vessel-world. It takes what it has transformed as its own object, for its cognitive activity depends on these to arise."³⁷

The eighth consciousness's objects fall into three types: seeds, body-with-sense-faculties (body-faculties), and vessel-world (vessel). Seeds and the body-with-faculties are "appropriated" — the eighth consciousness subsumes them into its own substance, sharing their fortune and misfortune. The vessel-world is "place" — where sentient beings dwell. All three are self-transformations of the eighth consciousness: internally it transforms into seeds and body-with-faculties, externally into the vessel-world.

The mechanism for vessel-world manifestation:

"The ripening consciousness, through the maturing power of shared-aspect seeds, transforms into the semblance of the vessel-world — form and so forth — namely the external great elements and their derivatives. Though each sentient being's transformation is individually distinct, they mutually resemble one another, their locations not differing — like the light of many lamps, each pervading yet appearing as one."³⁸

Shared seeds → vessel-world. Each sentient being's ālaya-vijñāna uses its own shared seeds to project its own vessel-world. But because the shared seeds are similar, each being's individually projected vessel-world "mutually resembles the others, their locations not differing" — like many lamps in a single room, each independently emitting light, yet the room appears to contain only a single field of illumination. The vessel-world you experience is projected by your own eighth consciousness; the vessel-world I experience is projected by my own eighth consciousness. But because our shared seeds are similar, our separately projected "worlds" overlap, appearing to be one and the same world.³⁹

The mechanism for body-with-faculties manifestation:

"The body-with-sense-faculties: through the maturing power of the ripening consciousness's unshared-aspect seeds, it transforms into the semblance of the sense-faculties and their supporting loci — the internal great elements and their derivatives. Through the maturing power of shared-aspect seeds, in the locus of others' bodies it also transforms into a semblance thereof. Otherwise there would be no way to engage with others' meanings."⁴⁰

Unshared seeds → body-with-faculties. Your body (five faculties and their supporting loci) is projected by your ālaya-vijñāna through unshared seeds — it belongs to you alone, not shared with others. But simultaneously, your eighth consciousness also uses shared seeds to project a semblance at the locus of others' bodies; otherwise, you could not see others' bodies or interact with them.⁴¹

The Cheng Weishi Lun further notes that the eighth consciousness's apprehension of body-faculties and vessel-world is "extremely subtle, difficult to discern":

"'Unknowable' means that this cognitive activity is extremely subtle, difficult to discern; or that the internally appropriated object-domain is also subtle; or that the external vessel-world is immeasurable in extent — hence called 'unknowable.'"⁴²

The eighth consciousness's process of projecting body-faculties and vessel-world is extremely subtle — you cannot directly observe how the eighth consciousness uses seeds to project your body and the world you experience. This is precisely one reason form is misrecognized as independently existing: the projection process is too subtle, so the result looks as though it was "always already there" as an external material world.

2.11 Cheng Weishi Lun Volume Seven and the Abhidharmasamuccaya: Five Types of Form Subsumed under the Mental Realm

Form subsumed under the mental realm (dharma-āyatana-paryāpanna-rūpa) is the most distinctive among the eleven form dharmas — it is not apprehended by the direct perception of the first five consciousnesses but is an independent construction of the sixth (mental) consciousness. The Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā volume one:

"Form subsumed under the mental realm is, in brief, of five types: (1) minimal form (jí lüè sè), (2) maximal spatial form (jí jiǒng sè), (3) form derived from undertaking (shòu suǒ yǐn sè), (4) form arising from conceptual construction (biàn jì suǒ qǐ sè), and (5) form arising from meditative mastery (dìng zì zài suǒ shēng sè). Minimal form is atomic form. Maximal spatial form is form divorced from the remaining resistant-contact forms. Form derived from undertaking is imperceptible form (wú biǎo sè). Form arising from conceptual construction is image-form. Form arising from meditative mastery is the objective form of the liberations and dhyānas."⁴³

The five types and their specific content:

Minimal form (jí lüè sè) — the product of analyzing form to its smallest theoretical unit (the atom). This "atom" is not a material particle perceivable by the first five consciousnesses, but the end-point of the mental consciousness's theoretical analysis of form. Yogācāra uses this classification to deny the substantial reality of atoms: if the atom is merely a product of mental analysis (form subsumed under the mental realm), then it is not a fundamental material unit existing independently of consciousness.⁴⁴

Maximal spatial form (jí jiǒng sè) — the visible form appearing in distant, open, unobstructed space (such as the vast color of the sky seen from a wilderness), or the pure spatial color-experience that remains when concrete material obstruction is removed.

Form derived from undertaking (shòu suǒ yǐn sè), also called imperceptible form (wú biǎo sè) — this is the type with the deepest practice implications among the five. When you receive precepts, the bodily-verbal act of taking the precepts initiates a persistent but externally invisible form — a latent force of moral restraint. You received the five precepts; in daily life you are not constantly "performing" the appearance of keeping precepts, but a force preventing wrongdoing operates beneath the surface. This is form derived from undertaking. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra classifies this under "form pertaining to discipline and non-discipline."⁴⁵

Form arising from conceptual construction (biàn jì suǒ qǐ sè) — dream-images, visualized scenes, remembered images. You close your eyes and recall a flower: the flower-image appearing in your mind — with color and shape — is form arising from conceptual construction. It does not derive from the direct perception of the five sense-consciousnesses but is constructed by the mental consciousness through the activation of seeds for memory or imagination.

Form arising from meditative mastery (dìng zì zài suǒ shēng sè) — form manifested through meditative concentration or supernatural powers. This belongs to the domain of advanced practice — the canonical accounts of practitioners manifesting fire, water, and emanation-bodies in the four dhyānas. Such form transcends ordinary sensory experience but still possesses form's characteristic of "offering resistance."⁴⁶

2.12 The Yogācāra Definition of the Five Faculties: Refined Faculty and Supporting Faculty

The Yogācāra definition of the five faculties centers on the "refined materiality faculty" (jìng sè gēn, the dominant faculty). Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra volume one:

"The eye is a refined materiality derived from the four great elements, the support of eye-consciousness, invisible, offering resistance."⁴⁷

The Pañcaskandhaka-prakaraṇa (Dàchéng Wǔyùn Lùn) provides an even more concise, uniform definition for all five:

"What is the eye-faculty? Form-as-object refined materiality. What is the ear-faculty? Sound-as-object refined materiality. What is the nose-faculty? Fragrance-as-object refined materiality. What is the tongue-faculty? Taste-as-object refined materiality. What is the body-faculty? Touch-as-object refined materiality."⁴⁸

Three shared elements define the five faculties: (1) derived from the four great elements — the basic constitution of form; (2) the support of the respective consciousness — the eye-faculty supports eye-consciousness, and so on; (3) refined materiality — not the visible gross organ (the supporting faculty) but the subtle materiality that can generate consciousness (the dominant faculty / refined faculty).

The Bāshí Guījǔ Bǔzhù (Eight Consciousnesses Verse Commentary) provides the critical clarification:

"'The five consciousnesses all depend on the refined-materiality faculty' — this designation 'refined materiality' points to the dominant [faculty], its substance not being a defiled dharma, being solely of the white-pure morally indeterminate nature."⁴⁹

"The deluded find it difficult to distinguish consciousness from faculty.… For the faculty is a form dharma — precisely the aspect-portion of the eighth [consciousness]. Consciousness is a mind dharma — precisely the seeing-portion of the eighth."⁵⁰

This statement is of critical importance: the faculty is a form dharma, the aspect-portion of the eighth consciousness; consciousness is a mind dharma, the seeing-portion of the eighth. The refined faculty is not a material organ existing independently of consciousness; it is the intimate aspect-portion of the eighth ālaya-vijñāna — subtle materiality self-projected by the eighth consciousness to serve as the support for the first five consciousnesses. The relationship between faculty and consciousness is the relationship between the eighth consciousness's aspect-portion and seeing-portion.⁵¹

The supporting faculty (the visible eyeball, ear, etc.) is the external locus supporting the refined faculty — a gross material aspect projected by shared seeds. It is like the casing of an antenna: the delicate internal components (the refined faculty) receive the signal, while the casing merely protects and supports them. Notably, the explicit contrast between "refined faculty" and "supporting faculty" appears primarily in later commentaries (such as Kuiji's Shùjì and the Bāshí Guījǔ Bǔzhù); the Cheng Weishi Lun itself does not use the term "supporting faculty," though its doctrinal content — that the five faculties are refined materiality, the intimate aspect-portions of the eighth consciousness, distinct from gross visible organs — is clearly present in the treatise text.⁵²

2.13 The Yogācāra Definition of the Five Objects: Visible Form, Shape, and Gesture

The five sense objects — form, sound, smell, taste, touch — are the objects apprehended by the five faculties. Taking form-objects as representative, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra volume one divides them into three types:

"Visible form includes: blue, yellow, red, white, light, shadow, brightness, darkness, cloud, smoke, dust, mist, and the one visible form of open space. Shape includes: long, short, square, round, coarse, fine, regular, irregular, high, and low. Gesture includes: grasping, releasing, bending, stretching, walking, standing, sitting, and lying."⁵³

Visible form (xiǎn sè) — colors: the four primary colors (blue, yellow, red, white) plus light, shadow, brightness, darkness, cloud, smoke, dust, mist, and the background hue of open space — thirteen types. Shape (xíng sè) — configurations: long, short, square, round, coarse, fine, regular, irregular, high, low — ten types. Gesture (biǎo sè) — bodily actions of sentient beings: grasping, releasing, bending, stretching, walking, standing, sitting, lying.

The Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā further expands form-objects to twenty-five types, classified into "agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral."⁵⁴

Sound, smell, taste, and touch each have their own subdivisions. Sound is classified into sounds caused by appropriated great elements (vocalizations of sentient beings) and sounds caused by unappropriated great elements (natural sounds). Smell is classified into pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral. Taste into bitter, sour, sweet, pungent, salty, and bland. Touch is the most complex — the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā lists twenty-two types including smooth, rough, light, heavy, soft, slow, rapid, cold, hunger, thirst, satiety, strength, weakness, oppression, itch, stickiness, sickness, aging, death, fatigue, relief, and energy.⁵⁵

Within the Yogācāra framework, all five objects are aspect-portions of consciousness. When the first five consciousnesses apprehend the five objects, the "form, sound, smell, taste, and touch" they apprehend are not independently existing external matter but aspect-portions self-projected by consciousness — "the semblance of an object of apprehension is called the aspect-portion."

2.14 The Position of Form in the Four-Part Structure

The four-part structure (sì fēn shuō) is the core Yogācāra theory for analyzing the internal structure of consciousness. Cheng Weishi Lun volume two:

"The semblance of an object of apprehension is called the aspect-portion; the semblance of a subject of apprehension is called the seeing-portion."⁵⁶

Every consciousness has an aspect-portion (the semblance of what is apprehended) and a seeing-portion (the semblance of what apprehends). The position of form within the four-part structure: all form dharmas are aspect-portions. The five faculties are aspect-portions of the eighth consciousness, the five objects are aspect-portions of their respective consciousnesses, and form subsumed under the mental realm is the aspect-portion of the sixth consciousness.

Volume two further establishes the complete four-part structure:

"If mind and mental factors are analyzed in detail, they should have four parts. The first three are as stated; there is additionally a fourth, the re-witnessing self-awareness portion.… Of these four, the first two are external, the latter two internal. The first is exclusively object; the latter three are both [subject and object]."⁵⁷

The aspect-portion is exclusively object (only apprehended, never apprehending); the seeing-portion, self-awareness portion, and re-witnessing portion function as both apprehender and apprehended. Form, as aspect-portion, occupies the "exclusively object" position within the four-part structure — form is an apprehended object, and it can never turn around and apprehend consciousness.

Volume seven provides a summary verse:

"All these are consciousness transforming — the discriminating and the discriminated. Since thereby both [real self and real dharma] are nonexistent, therefore all is consciousness-only." The transformed seeing-portion is called "the discriminating," because it apprehends characteristics; the transformed aspect-portion is called "the discriminated," because it is what the seeing apprehends.⁵⁸

The seeing-portion is "the discriminating" — the active cognitive face. The aspect-portion is "the discriminated" — the cognized object-face. "Since thereby both are nonexistent, therefore all is consciousness-only" — neither the real self (grasped through the seeing-portion) nor the real dharma (grasped through the aspect-portion) exists apart from consciousness; therefore all is consciousness-only.

Volume ten provides a crucial qualification:

"The aspect-portions and so forth depend on consciousness for their manifestation; they are not real within the other-dependent [nature] in the way that the consciousness-nature is."⁵⁹

Aspect-portions depend on consciousness for their manifestation, but they are not "real" within the other-dependent nature in the same way that the consciousness-substance (the seeing-portion, self-awareness) is. This means form, ontologically, is "thinner" than mind by one layer — consciousness (the consciousness-substance) has its own reality within the other-dependent nature (it is not merely an imagined construct), but form (as aspect-portion) is entirely dependent on consciousness's transforming activity and possesses no independent substantial reality, not even within the other-dependent nature.

2.15 Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra: The Category and Common Characteristic of Form

The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, as the upstream text of the Hundred Dharmas, provides the most comprehensive categorical definition of form. Volume 53:

"What is the intrinsic nature of form? In brief, there are eleven types: the ten form-bases such as the eye, and form subsumed under the mental realm. In summary there are two types: the four great elements and their derivatives. All of these share the common characteristic of offering resistance."⁶⁰

What is the intrinsic nature of form? The eleven form-bases (five faculties, five objects, and form subsumed under the mental realm), summarized as four great elements and their derivatives. The common characteristic of all form is "offering resistance" (biàn ài xiàng) — being obstructable, having resistant quality. This is the fundamental characteristic distinguishing form from mind and factors dissociated from mind.⁶¹

Volume three analyzes form-aggregates into fourteen components:

"Within form-aggregates, in brief there are fourteen kinds of component: earth, water, fire, wind, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and the five [sense] faculties. Excluding form that is the exclusive domain of mental cognition."⁶²

Within form-aggregates there are fourteen components — four great elements plus five objects plus five faculties. "Form that is the exclusive domain of mental cognition" (form subsumed under the mental realm) is excluded — because it is not a material phenomenon apprehended by the first five consciousnesses but an independent construction of the mental consciousness, and thus does not participate in the constitution of form-aggregates.

2.16 The Eight Consciousnesses Verse: Form-Related Verses for the First Five and the Eighth

Two groups of verses in the Bāshí Guījǔ Sòng are directly related to form.

Eighth consciousness, first verse: "Receiving impressions, maintaining seeds, body-faculties, and vessel" — the ālaya-vijñāna receives impressions, maintains seeds, and simultaneously projects the body-with-faculties and vessel-world. Body-faculties and vessel are all within the domain of form: faculties (the five refined faculties), body (supporting faculties and the entire material body), and vessel (all material phenomena of the vessel-world). The eighth consciousness is the fundamental projector of all form.⁶³

First five consciousnesses, first verse: "Real objects, direct perception, spanning all three moral natures" — the first five consciousnesses apprehend real objects (not mentally constructed or distorted objects) through direct perception (not inferential or erroneous cognition). The five objects apprehended by the first five consciousnesses are "real objects" — genuine aspect-portions, not images independently constructed by the mental consciousness.

First five consciousnesses, second verse: "The five consciousnesses all depend on the refined-materiality faculty" — all five consciousnesses depend on the refined faculty for their arising. The faculty is form; consciousness is mind. The faculty is the eighth consciousness's aspect-portion; consciousness arises in dependence on the faculty. "Three by contact, two from distance, they observe the dusty world" — nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses apprehend by contact, eye and ear consciousnesses apprehend from a distance.

First five consciousnesses, third verse: "Transforming aspects to contemplate emptiness, only by subsequently obtained [wisdom]" — after the transformation of the basis (āśraya-parāvṛtti), the first five consciousnesses contemplate emptiness (suchness) through transformed aspect-portions, but only with subsequently obtained wisdom, not fundamental wisdom. "Even in the fruition stage, they still do not directly apprehend suchness." "The faculties of the first five are the aspect-portions transformed by the eighth consciousness. When the transforming root-consciousness becomes undefiled, the five faculties it transforms likewise become undefiled" — the key to the transformation of basis: when the eighth consciousness becomes undefiled, the form (five faculties) it projects likewise becomes undefiled.⁶⁴

2.17 Pañcaskandhaka-prakaraṇa: The Summary Definition of the Form Aggregate

Vasubandhu's Pañcaskandhaka-prakaraṇa provides the most comprehensive summary definition of the form aggregate:

"What is the form aggregate? The four great elements and form derived from the four great elements. What are the four great elements? Earth-element, water-element, fire-element, and wind-element. What is earth-element? Solidity. What is water-element? Fluidity. What is fire-element? Warmth. What is wind-element? Motility and lightness."⁶⁵

The four elements defined concisely and completely — solidity, fluidity, warmth, motility. On this basis:

"What is form derived from the four great elements? Eye-faculty, ear-faculty, nose-faculty, tongue-faculty, body-faculty, form, sound, smell, taste, a portion of what is touched, and imperceptible form."⁶⁶

Derived form includes the five faculties, five objects (touch taking only "a portion" — the four elements themselves do not count as derived form), and imperceptible form. The Pañcaskandhaka's definition represents a transitional discourse between Abhidharma and Yogācāra — it retains the basic framework of "four elements and their derivatives" while incorporating Yogācāra-specific concepts such as "imperceptible form" and "refined materiality."

III. Core Argument

3.1 Projected by Consciousness, Not Independently Existing — The Ontological Repositioning of Form

The positioning of the eleven form dharmas within the Hundred Dharmas is, first of all, an ontological question: what kind of existence do these eleven dharmas possess?

From the Āgamas through the Abhidharma schools, form was understood as a conditioned dharma arising from causes and conditions — impermanent, suffering, and not-self — yet experientially "truly existing." The Sarvāstivāda school went so far as to assert that atoms (paramāṇu) are the fundamental units of form: though atoms arise and perish moment to moment, in each moment they "truly exist." The "true existence" of form was an almost unquestioned premise in Abhidharma Buddhism.

Yogācāra executed a fundamental reversal. The argument in Cheng Weishi Lun volume one proceeds:

Step one: pose the question. "How can we know that there are truly no external objects, that only internal consciousness arises in the semblance of external objects?"⁶⁷

Step two: deny the substantial reality of atoms. If form is constituted by atoms, then atoms either have spatial parts (divisible into east, west, south, north, above, below) or lack spatial parts. If they have spatial parts, they are not truly atoms (they can be further divided). If they lack spatial parts, they cannot combine to form extended matter. When consciousness transforms, it "instantly manifests a single unified aspect" — it does not first manufacture atoms and then assemble them. Therefore: "all resistant forms are manifestations of consciousness, not constituted by atoms."⁶⁸

Step three: establish that "what each consciousness itself transforms serves as its objective condition." When consciousness arises, it transforms by its own internal causal power, producing aspects resembling form. This aspect-portion serves as consciousness's objective condition — there is no need to posit an independently existing external form as the object of cognition.⁶⁹

Step four: confirm through the dream analogy. Everything a dreamer sees — mountains, rivers, human figures — is the mind's own display, though the dreamer does not know this and takes it all as real. The waking state is structurally identical: what you take to be "external" form is the aspect-portion of consciousness, but you do not know this, taking it to be an independently existing external world.⁷⁰

This argument does not claim "there is nothing before you" — that would be nihilism, not Yogācāra. What Yogācāra says is: there is something before you, but its ontological character is not what you assume. It is not "independently existing external matter" but "an aspect-portion self-projected by consciousness." The aspect-portion exists (as other-dependent), but taking it to be an independent external entity is erroneous (imagined character).

3.2 The Threefold Division of Body-Faculties, Vessel-World — The Eighth Consciousness's Three Types of Projection

The projection of form relies fundamentally on the eighth ālaya-vijñāna. Its three types of objects — seeds, body-with-faculties, and vessel-world — constitute the complete framework for form's existence.

Seeds are the cause of all projection. The eighth consciousness maintains the seeds (differential potencies) of all dharmas; when seeds mature, they manifest as consciousnesses and their aspect-portions. The seeds for form lie latent in the ālaya-vijñāna, manifesting as body-with-faculties and vessel-world when causal conditions mature.

Body-with-faculties is the projection of unshared seeds. Your five refined faculties — the eye-faculty that generates eye-consciousness, the ear-faculty that generates ear-consciousness — are projected by your own ālaya-vijñāna through unshared seeds, constituting the eighth consciousness's "intimate aspect-portions." Body-with-faculties and the eighth consciousness "share fortune and misfortune" — where the eighth consciousness exists, the body exists; when the eighth consciousness relinquishes the body at death, the body disintegrates.⁷¹

Vessel-world is the projection of shared seeds. Mountains, rivers, sun, moon, stars — the entire external environment you experience — is the vessel-world aspect projected by the ālaya-vijñāna through shared seeds. "Like the light of many lamps, each pervading yet appearing as one" — each sentient being projects its own vessel-world, but because shared seeds are similar, each being's projection "mutually resembles the others, their locations not differing," appearing to be one shared world.⁷²

The practice implication of the threefold division is: your body and your world are not a fixed "objective reality" but the continuous projection of eighth-consciousness seed-power. Seeds can be altered by habituation — wholesome dharma-habituation produces pure seeds, unwholesome habituation produces defiled seeds — therefore the quality of body-faculties and vessel-world can be transformed by practice. This is not the magical thinking of "manifest whatever you wish" (that would be imagined character), but the causal principle of "transform seeds at the causal level, transform results at the fruition level."⁷³

3.3 The Five Faculties: Refined and Supporting — The Most Subtle Domain of Form

The five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, body — hold a special position among the eleven form dharmas: they are form (aspect-portions) yet simultaneously the intimate support for the arising of consciousness (dominant condition), bridging form and mind.

The core Yogācāra distinction is between the refined faculty and the supporting faculty:

Refined faculty (jìng sè gēn, dominant faculty) — refined materiality derived from the four great elements, the true support for consciousness arising. It is "invisible yet offering resistance" — not a material organ visible to the naked eye, but possessing resistant quality that enables consciousness to arise through contact with objects. The "refined" in "refined faculty" is not moral purity but refers to its subtle nature — "its substance is not a defiled dharma, being solely of white-pure morally indeterminate nature" — as the intimate aspect-portion of the eighth consciousness.⁷⁴

Supporting faculty (fú chén gēn) — the visible physical organ (eyeball, outer ear, nose, etc.) serving as the external locus for the refined faculty. It cannot directly generate consciousness but serves only to protect and support.

This distinction has important practice implications. When you close your eyes, the eyeball (supporting faculty) has not changed, but your visual experience ceases — because form-objects no longer stimulate the refined faculty. When a person's eyeball is intact but their optic nerve is damaged and they are blind — the supporting faculty is present but the refined faculty is impaired, so eye-consciousness does not arise. Yogācāra's explanation does not depend on the language of modern neuroscience, but its point that "the refined faculty is not the gross visible organ" structurally parallels neuroscience's finding that "sensory receptors, not gross organs, are the true basis of perception."⁷⁵

Each of the five faculties has its specific object-domain and mode of apprehension. "Three by contact, two from distance, they observe the dusty world" — nose, tongue, and body faculties must contact their objects (apprehension by contact), while eye and ear faculties can apprehend without contact (apprehension from distance). This difference reflects deep-level distinctions in cognitive mechanism across different sense-gates and also influences how practitioners contemplate different sense-gates in practice.⁷⁶

3.4 The Five Objects: Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Touch — The Aspect-Portion World of Consciousness

The five objects are what the five faculties apprehend — form, sound, smell, taste, touch. In the Yogācāra framework, they are not an independently existing "objective material world" but aspect-portions self-projected by consciousness.

Take form-objects as example. They divide into visible form (thirteen types such as blue, yellow, red, white), shape (ten types such as long, short, square, round), and gesture (actions such as walking, standing, sitting, lying). When you see a red flower, the "red" (visible form) and "the flower's shape" (shape form) you experience are aspect-portions of your eye-consciousness — projected by the eye-consciousness's self-transformation at the moment of arising. It is not that "a red flower exists out there, and the red color travels from the flower into your eye," but rather "the eye-consciousness, by seed-power, self-projects an aspect-portion of a red flower, and this aspect-portion appears as if external."⁷⁷

But this does not mean "you see whatever you want to see." Consciousness's projection is not arbitrary — it is strictly constrained by seed-power (efficient condition), the faculty's function (dominant condition), the preceding consciousness-moment's continuity (immediately antecedent condition), and the objective condition. Your eye-consciousness can only project the visual aspects its seeds are capable of projecting; your ear-consciousness can only project the auditory aspects its seeds are capable of projecting — each faculty, each object, with no confusion.⁷⁸

Among the five objects, touch is the most complex. Touch-objects divide into two types: the touch of the four elements themselves (solidity, fluidity, warmth, motility) and derived touch (twenty-two types including smooth, rough, light, heavy, etc.). The body-faculty pervades the entire body, so touch-objects are the most extensive and varied of the five objects, and the most deeply connected to the sense of "I" — the feeling of "I am in this body" is primarily maintained through the touch-objects apprehended by the body-faculty.⁷⁹

When the first five consciousnesses apprehend the five objects, they operate in "real objects, direct perception" — apprehending genuine aspect-portions (real objects) through direct, unmediated perception (not inferential or distorted cognition), without the overlay of conceptual labels. Your eye-consciousness sees red; that experience of "red" is pure direct perception — no concept of "this is a flower," "red is beautiful," "I like it." These conceptual layers are added simultaneously by the sixth consciousness (the five-accompanying mental consciousness). The space between the first five consciousnesses' pure direct perception and the sixth consciousness's conceptual processing is the precise training-ground for mindfulness — as developed in detail in P05 and P06.⁸⁰

3.5 Form Subsumed under the Mental Realm: Five Types of Form Independently Constructed by the Mental Consciousness

Form subsumed under the mental realm is the only form dharma among the eleven not apprehended through direct perception by the first five consciousnesses; it is instead an independent construction of the sixth consciousness. Its existence reveals an important expansion of the concept of form: not only the objects of the first five consciousnesses count as form, but certain experiences independently constructed by mental consciousness also possess form's characteristic of "offering resistance."

Each of the five types carries practice implications:

Minimal form — the product of mental analysis pushing form to its theoretical limit. When you use wisdom to repeatedly analyze matter to its smallest possible unit, the resulting "atom" is not a perceivable particle but the terminus of the mental consciousness's analytical activity. Yogācāra uses this to deny the substantial reality of atoms: if the atom is only a product of mental analysis (form subsumed under the mental realm), then it is not an independent material unit existing outside consciousness.⁸¹

Maximal spatial form — the visible form in distant, open, unobstructed space. When you stand in the wilderness gazing at the horizon, that vast, boundless hue that belongs to no particular object — that is maximal spatial form, the pure spatial color-experience the mental consciousness abstracts from concrete form.

Form derived from undertaking (imperceptible form) — the form type with the most direct practice significance. After receiving the bodhisattva precepts, your body, speech, and mind are not constantly "performing" the appearance of keeping precepts, yet a force of moral restraint operates beneath the surface. It does not manifest externally (imperceptible), yet it possesses real power — rather like how you do not "consider" stealing, not because you are strenuously restraining yourself but because the imperceptible form planted at the time of precept-reception continuously exercises its protective function.⁸²

Form arising from conceptual construction — dream-images, imagined scenes, remembered images. Close your eyes and recall a flower: the flower-image appearing in your mind — with color and shape — is form arising from conceptual construction. It derives not from the direct perception of the five sense-consciousnesses but from the mental consciousness's memory or imaginative activity through seed-activation.

Form arising from meditative mastery — form manifested by meditative concentration. This belongs to the domain of advanced practice — canonical accounts describe practitioners manifesting material phenomena such as fire, water, and emanation-bodies in deep concentration. Such form transcends ordinary sensory experience but still possesses form's resistant characteristic.⁸³

The existence of form subsumed under the mental realm means: the boundaries of form are broader than you assumed. Not only "the mountains and rivers before your eyes" are form; the scenes in your dreams, the images in your imagination, the latent moral force from receiving precepts — these too are form. Yogācāra expands the definition of form from "the external material world" to "all phenomena projected by consciousness that possess the characteristic of offering resistance."

3.6 Shared and Unshared Seeds — The Deep Mechanism of Form-Projection

The core mechanism for projecting form lies in the division of labor between shared and unshared seeds.

Shared seeds project form that is "shared" — the vessel-world commonly experienced by sentient beings. The mountain you see is projected by your ālaya-vijñāna through shared seeds; the "same" mountain another person sees is projected by their ālaya-vijñāna through shared seeds. You each project your own "mountain," but because shared seeds are similar, your "mountains" overlap, appearing to be the same mountain.⁸⁴

Unshared seeds project form that is "unshared" — the body-with-faculties belonging only to you. Your five refined faculties and your body are projected by your ālaya-vijñāna through unshared seeds; no one else's eighth consciousness can project your body-with-faculties. However, others' eighth consciousnesses can, through shared seeds, "transform a semblance thereof at the locus of your body" — project an aspect-portion resembling your body, so that they can see your body and interact with you.⁸⁵

This shared/unshared mechanism resolves a philosophical puzzle: if all form is projected by consciousness alone, and each sentient being's consciousness is individually distinct, how can we experience "the same world"? Yogācāra's answer: we do not experience the same world; we each project similar worlds. The similarity of shared seeds ensures that our individually projected worlds overlap sufficiently that we can interact and communicate within them — like many lamps each emitting independent light, yet the room appears to contain only a single field of illumination.⁸⁶

Shared/unshared seeds carry a further practice implication: the quality of the vessel-world depends on the quality of beings' collective karma. Pure lands (such as Sukhāvatī and the Lotus-treasury World) are projections of purified shared seeds; impure lands are projections of defiled shared seeds. Practice transforms not only one's personal body (by transforming unshared seeds) but, through the dedication of merit to all beings, also transforms the quality of the vessel-world (by transforming shared seeds) — this is the Yogācāra basis for the Mahāyāna bodhisattva path of "adorning Buddha-fields."⁸⁷

3.7 The Position of Form within the Four-Part Structure — All Form Is Aspect-Portion

Within the four-part structure, form's position is determinate: all form is aspect-portion.

Aspect-portion (nimitta-bhāga) — the semblance of the apprehended, the cognized face displayed when consciousness transforms itself. Seeing-portion (darśana-bhāga) — the semblance of the apprehending, the active cognitive face of consciousness. Self-awareness portion (svasaṃvitti-bhāga) — awareness of the seeing-portion's activity. Re-witnessing portion (svasaṃvitti-saṃvitti-bhāga) — awareness of the self-awareness portion.⁸⁸

Form occupies the "exclusively object" position in the four-part structure — form is only ever the object of apprehension, never able to apprehend anything else. You see a flower (form is the aspect-portion, apprehended by the eye-consciousness's seeing-portion); the flower cannot "see" you back. This sounds like common sense, but within the Yogācāra framework it carries a precise ontological meaning: form, as aspect-portion, depends entirely on consciousness's transforming activity for its existence and possesses no capacity to exist independently of consciousness.⁸⁹

The summary verse of volume seven — "All these are consciousness transforming — the discriminating and the discriminated. Since thereby both are nonexistent, therefore all is consciousness-only" — finds its concrete application to form here: the seeing-portion is "the discriminating" (because it apprehends characteristics); the aspect-portion is "the discriminated" (because it is what the seeing apprehends). All form, as "the discriminated," is the object apprehended by the seeing-portion. Without the seeing-portion's apprehending activity, the aspect-portion has no independent existence; yet the seeing-portion's apprehending activity necessarily entails the display of an aspect-portion — seeing-portion and aspect-portion are two faces of a single consciousness-transformation.⁹⁰

But the qualification of volume ten must be noted: "The aspect-portions and so forth depend on consciousness for their manifestation; they are not real within the other-dependent [nature] in the way that the consciousness-nature is."⁹¹ Aspect-portions depend on consciousness for their manifestation, but they do not possess the same ontological weight within the other-dependent nature as consciousness-substance (seeing-portion, self-awareness). Form is ontologically "thinner" than mind by one layer: consciousness has its own reality within the other-dependent nature, but form, as aspect-portion, is entirely dependent on consciousness's transforming activity and possesses no independent substantial reality, not even within the other-dependent nature.

3.8 The Structural Significance of Form within the Five-Category Hundred Dharmas

Finally, let us step back and view form's position from the vantage of the entire Hundred Dharmas architecture.

The five-category sequence — mind → mental factors → form → factors dissociated from mind → unconditioned dharmas — is not a random catalogue but a path from "agent" to "product," from "consciousness" to "suchness":

Mind, the eight consciousnesses (P02–P06) — the fundamental structure of consciousness. "Who is driving."

Mental factors, the fifty-one (P07–P10) — the psychological qualities accompanying consciousness in activity. "What mindset the driver brings."

Form, the eleven (this paper) — the material aspect projected by consciousness. "The road and the scenery."

Factors dissociated from mind, the twenty-four (P12) — conceptual constructs abstracted from consciousness's activity. "The maps, timetables, and mileage figures you use to describe the journey."

Unconditioned dharmas, the six (P13) — the true nature of consciousness and the ultimate goal of practice. "The destination you are truly heading toward."

Form occupies the third position precisely because it is the "product" of the first (mind) and second (mental factors) categories. Without consciousness's transforming activity, form would have no existence; form's existence is the "externally displayed face" of consciousness's transformation. S3 begins with mind, proceeds through mental factors, and now arrives at form — step by step, we are deconstructing "what you take to be the external world" and repositioning it within "consciousness's transformation."

The transition from mind to form also marks an important shift in cognitive mode. P01 through P10 dealt with the "internal" — the structure of consciousness and psychological activity. P11 begins to deal with what "appears to be external" — sense faculties, sense objects, and the material world. But Yogācāra's core thesis is: there is no genuine internal-external binary. The so-called "external material world" (form) is projected by "internal consciousness." The internal-external divide is not a real divide but a discrimination of the imagined character.

From P11 through P12 and P13, the Hundred Dharmas will continue this path from "seemingly substantial" to "conceptual construct" to "suchness." Factors dissociated from mind are "thinner" even than form — purely conceptual constructs. Unconditioned dharmas transcend all conditioned dharmas as consciousness's true nature. The Hundred Dharmas begin from "all dharmas are without self" (P01's opening thesis) and must ultimately return to the direct realization of "the two selflessnesses" (P14's conclusion). The eleven form dharmas are the critical step in this path from "consciousness's worldview" to "the world that consciousness projects."⁹²

IV. Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue

4.1 Refined Faculty and Sensory Receptors ⚠️

The Yogācāra distinction between refined faculty and supporting faculty structurally parallels modern neuroscience's distinction between sensory receptors and sense organs. The refined faculty — invisible, offering resistance, able to generate consciousness — corresponds to sensory receptors (photoreceptors in the retina, hair cells in the cochlea, olfactory receptors in the nasal cavity); the supporting faculty — visible gross organ — corresponds to the eyeball, outer ear, nasal cavity, and so on. Sensory receptors are the actual site of neural signal generation; the gross organ is the material structure that houses and protects them. Both frameworks point to the same insight: "what perceives" is not "the visible organ."

⚠️ Heuristic analogy. The refined faculty in Yogācāra is the aspect-portion of the eighth consciousness; its ontological status is form projected by consciousness. Sensory receptors in natural science are objective biological structures. The two theoretical frameworks are fundamentally different — Yogācāra denies that form exists independently of consciousness; neuroscience presupposes the independent existence of the material world. This analogy holds only at the level of functional description.⁹³

4.2 Consciousness-Projected Form and Predictive Processing ⚠️

The Yogācāra description — "when consciousness arises, it transforms into the semblance of form, appearing as if external" — has a deep structural parallel with the contemporary cognitive science framework of Predictive Processing. Karl Friston's Free Energy Principle proposes that the brain is not a passive receiver of external information but actively generates a predictive model of the world, then uses sensory input to correct that model. What you "see" is substantially a construction your brain actively produces based on prior models — sensory input serves as a correction signal, not the sole source of your experiential world.⁹⁴

Yogācāra's "consciousness transforms into the semblance of form" parallels this closely: consciousness does not passively "receive" information from external objects but actively projects "aspects resembling form" through seed-power. Your experiential world is an active construction of consciousness, not a passive copy of an independently existing external world.

⚠️ Heuristic analogy. Predictive Processing still presupposes a genuinely existing external world (the brain's "representation" of it is what is actively constructed); Yogācāra fundamentally denies the independent existence of external objects. The direction is the same (the constructive nature of cognition), but the depth differs (Yogācāra is more thoroughgoing). This analogy holds only at the structural level of "the active constructiveness of cognition" and cannot be used to argue that Yogācāra equals Predictive Processing.⁹⁵

4.3 Form Subsumed under the Mental Realm and Mental Imagery Research ⚠️

"Form arising from conceptual construction" — the dream-images and imagined scenes within form subsumed under the mental realm — corresponds closely to cognitive science's research on mental imagery (Kosslyn 1994). Kosslyn's work demonstrates that the brain regions activated by mental imagery closely overlap with those activated by actual visual perception — imagining a flower and seeing a flower produce similar activation patterns in the primary visual cortex. This suggests that mental imagery is not "something entirely different from form" but a special modality of the form experience.⁹⁶

Yogācāra, fifteen hundred years ago, classified such phenomena as form by including them in "form subsumed under the mental realm" — recognizing them as possessing form's "resistant" characteristic while simultaneously classifying them as independent constructions of the mental consciousness (not dependent on the direct perception of the five sense-consciousnesses). This significantly overlaps with contemporary mental imagery research.

⚠️ Heuristic analogy. Mental imagery research focuses on neural mechanisms; Yogācāra focuses on the structure of consciousness-transformation. The theoretical frameworks differ, but the phenomena described overlap substantially.

4.4 Shared Seeds and Social Construction ⚠️

The Yogācāra mechanism of "shared seeds → vessel-world" — each sentient being projects its own world, but because shared seeds are similar the projections "mutually resemble, their locations not differing" — structurally parallels the Social Constructionism concept of "consensual reality." Social Constructionism (Berger & Luckmann 1966) holds that the "social reality" we experience is not objectively given but "constructed" through interpersonal interaction and shared meaning-systems. You and I live in "the same society" not because there is a social entity existing independently of us, but because our shared meaning-systems are similar enough that our individually constructed "social realities" overlap.⁹⁷

The Yogācāra mechanism of shared seeds is more fundamental than Social Constructionism — not only is social reality co-constructed, but the entire physical world (the vessel-world) is individually projected and mutually overlapping.

⚠️ Heuristic analogy. Social Constructionism admits the objective existence of the natural physical world (questioning only the objectivity of social reality); Yogācāra denies even the independent existence of the physical world from consciousness. This analogy holds only at the structural level of "consensuality."

4.5 Micro-Analysis and Particle Physics ⚠️

The Cheng Weishi Lun's denial of the substantial reality of atoms — "all resistant forms are manifestations of consciousness, not constituted by atoms" — can be compared in limited fashion with the findings of modern particle physics. Quantum field theory reveals that the fundamental constitution of matter is not solid "particles" but excited states of fields — "particles" are merely localized vibration-patterns of the field, possessing no fixed position or momentum. The more matter is analyzed to its "most fundamental" level, the less it resembles the "substance" of your intuition.

The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra's observation — "analyzing form by division all the way down to atoms, and analyzing atoms further — they cannot be found" — runs parallel in direction: repeatedly analyzing matter to its smallest, one ultimately fails to find an indivisible substance.

⚠️⚠️ This analogy requires the strictest Middle Way correction. Yogācāra's reason for denying atoms is epistemological (consciousness transforms into the semblance of form, not constituted by atoms); physics analyzes particles for the purpose of building more precise models of matter. The two theoretical objectives are entirely different: Yogācāra aims to establish "consciousness-only, no external objects"; physics aims to establish more accurate material models. One cannot use quantum mechanics to "prove" Yogācāra, nor use Yogācāra to "predict" quantum phenomena. This analogy holds only at the extremely limited descriptive level of "the fundamental constitution of matter does not match the substance of common intuition." Any extrapolation beyond this scope is a logical error.⁹⁸

V. Middle Way Corrections

❌ 5.1 Yogācāra = Idealism: "Think It and It Exists"

The most common and most dangerous misreading equates Yogācāra with subjective idealism — "consciousness-only means the mind can change matter," "you only need to think it to change reality."

Correction: Yogācāra is an epistemological position (the constructive nature of consciousness), not an ontological idealism (mind can arbitrarily create matter). "Projected by consciousness" is strictly constrained by causal laws — seed-manifestation, the conjunction of conditions — not arbitrary wish-fulfillment. You cannot "think" a mountain of gold into existence, because your ālaya-vijñāna lacks the seed-conditions for "a gold mountain appearing before you." Consciousness's projection of the semblance of form is constrained by the four conditions (efficient, dominant, immediately antecedent, and objective), not uncaused, arbitrary creation. "All is created by mind alone" means all dharmas turn in dependence on mind, not that mind can create from nothing.⁹⁹

❌ 5.2 Form Does Not Exist: "There Is Nothing Out There"

Another common misreading takes "consciousness-only, no external objects" as nihilism — "since all is consciousness-only, there is nothing out there; everything is false."

Correction: Yogācāra has never denied the existence of form; what it denies is form's independent existence apart from consciousness. Form as aspect-portion exists — as other-dependent existence, not imagined-character "substantial existence," nor annihilationist "nonexistence." The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra's correction is most precise: "One does not use the wisdom of emptiness to destroy form and make it empty, nor does emptiness exist because form has been destroyed." The mode of form's existence is "other-dependent" — arising from conditions, projected by consciousness, neither substantially real nor entirely nonexistent.¹⁰⁰

❌ 5.3 Refined Faculty = Neurons / Sensory Receptors

The cross-disciplinary dialogue already flagged the boundaries of this analogy, but it warrants re-emphasis in the Middle Way corrections.

Correction: The refined faculty is the intimate aspect-portion of the eighth consciousness; within the Yogācāra ontological framework, it is form (projected by consciousness), not a material structure existing independently of consciousness. Sensory receptors (retinal cells, cochlear hair cells, etc.) within the natural science framework are objectively existing biological structures. The two share a functional-description parallel, but their ontological statuses are fundamentally different. Using the refined faculty to "prove" that Buddhism anticipated neuroscience, or using neuroscience to "validate" the doctrine of the refined faculty, are both cross-framework logical errors.¹⁰¹

❌ 5.4 Shared Seeds = Collective Consciousness

Equating the shared-seeds mechanism for vessel-world projection with Jung's "collective unconscious" or New Age "collective consciousness" is a common misreading.

Correction: Shared seeds are seeds within each individual sentient being's own ālaya-vijñāna, not a supra-individual "collective consciousness." "Like the light of many lamps, each pervading yet appearing as one" — each lamp emits its own light independently; there is no "super-lamp" unifying them all. Beings' vessel-worlds "mutually resemble one another" not because there is a shared universal consciousness but because their respective shared seeds, habituated by collective karma, are similar. Yogācāra strictly denies any supra-individual ontological ground (that would amount to the Brahmanistic doctrine of ātman); it insists that each sentient being has its own eighth consciousness.¹⁰²

⚠️ 5.5 Boundary Statement for Cross-Disciplinary Analogies in This Paper

All five cross-disciplinary analogies in this paper (refined faculty ↔ sensory receptors, consciousness-projected form ↔ predictive processing, form subsumed under the mental realm ↔ mental imagery, shared seeds ↔ social construction, atoms ↔ particle physics) are heuristic analogies, not theoretical equivalences. Yogācāra takes "consciousness-only, no external objects" as its ultimate position. No cross-disciplinary dialogue should disturb this foundation — using modern science to "support" Yogācāra falls precisely into the trap of using imagined-character external knowledge to endorse other-dependent teaching. The Dharma does not need science's endorsement, and science does not need the Dharma's certification. The value of cross-disciplinary analogy lies solely in providing entry-points for readers from different knowledge backgrounds — using logic to understand, not physics to prove.¹⁰³

VI. Conclusion

The eleven form dharmas — five faculties, five objects, and form subsumed under the mental realm — constitute the entire content of the third category of the Hundred Dharmas. From the Āgamas' "four great elements and their derivatives" to Yogācāra's "aspect-portions projected by consciousness," form underwent a fundamental ontological repositioning.

The core of this repositioning is a single sentence: form is not out there; form is within consciousness.

But "within consciousness" does not mean "nonexistent." Form as other-dependent aspect-portion has its condition-born existence — your body hurts, the wall before you blocks your path, sunlight burns your skin — these experiences are real. What is not real is your understanding of these experiences: you assume they are an independently existing external material world, assume "I am inside the world," assume "the world is an objectively existing container and I am the person inside it." Yogācāra's correction: it is not "you inside the world" but "the world inside your consciousness" — more precisely, both "you" and "the world" are different facets of consciousness transforming itself.¹⁰⁴

The deconstruction of the eleven form dharmas plays a critical role in the S3 arc. P01–P06 unfolded the structure of the eight consciousnesses — you know "who is driving." P07–P10 unfolded the fifty-one mental factors — you know "what mindset the driver brings." P11 unfolds form — you know "the road and the scenery are also projected by consciousness." Step by step, you are retrieving "what you assumed was outside" back into the framework of consciousness.

But retrieving it is not for building a bigger cage. The constructions of S3 prepare for the cutting of S5 (the Diamond Sūtra). S5-P10, "From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond," will tell you: every one of these hundred dharmas — including the five faculties, five objects, and form subsumed under the mental realm you just studied — is an other-dependent conventional designation. "It is not form dharmas; it is called form dharmas." The Diamond Sūtra's tripartite negation formula will dissolve every dharma that S3 so carefully constructed, into the illusory. But before dissolution, you must first see clearly — see clearly the operating mechanism of each dharma, so that you can truly understand: "illusory" does not mean "nonexistent"; it means "not existing in the way you assumed."

Next, we enter the fourth category of the five — the twenty-four factors dissociated from mind (S3-P12). These are the dharmas in which consciousness's activity is conceptualized into nominally posited relationships: attainment, life-faculty, species-similarity, the nature of being an ordinary being, the attainment of cessation.… If form is the projected material aspect of consciousness, factors dissociated from mind are the conceptualized aspect of consciousness's activity. Form still has "resistant quality" as its existential characteristic; factors dissociated from mind lack even that — they are purely nominal constructs, dharmas "posited by positional designation." From form to factors dissociated from mind is a step from "visible projection" to "invisible construct" — the Hundred Dharmas is walking, step by step, from "existence" toward "emptiness."

References

I. Primary Buddhist Sources

1. Saṃyukta Āgama (雜阿含經), trans. Guṇabhadra, Taishō Tripiṭaka vol. 2, No. 0099.
2. Madhyama Āgama (中阿含經), trans. Gautama Saṅghadeva, Taishō vol. 1, No. 0026《中阿含經》MadhyamāgamaT1, No. 26View on CBETA online reader ↗.
3. Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (入楞伽經), trans. Bodhiruci, Taishō vol. 16, No. 0671《入楞伽經》(十卷楞伽)Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (10-fascicle)T16, No. 671View on CBETA online reader ↗.
4. Mahāyāna-Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (大乘入楞伽經), trans. Śikṣānanda, Taishō vol. 16, No. 0672《大乘入楞伽經》(七卷楞伽)Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (7-fascicle)T16, No. 672View on CBETA online reader ↗.
5. Avataṃsaka Sūtra (大方廣佛華嚴經, 80 fasc.), trans. Śikṣānanda, Taishō vol. 10, No. 0279《大方廣佛華嚴經》(八十華嚴)Avataṃsaka-sūtra (80-fascicle)T10, No. 279View on CBETA online reader ↗.
6. Avataṃsaka Sūtra (大方廣佛華嚴經, 60 fasc.), trans. Buddhabhadra, Taishō vol. 9, No. 0278《大方廣佛華嚴經》(六十華嚴)Avataṃsaka-sūtra (60-fascicle)T9, No. 278View on CBETA online reader ↗.
7. Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (解深密經), trans. Xuanzang, Taishō vol. 16, No. 0676《解深密經》Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtraT16, No. 676View on CBETA online reader ↗.
8. Śūraṅgama Sūtra (大佛頂首楞嚴經), trans. Pramiti, Taishō vol. 19, No. 0945《大佛頂首楞嚴經》Śūraṅgama-sūtra (Chinese)T19, No. 945View on CBETA online reader ↗.
9. Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra (大智度論), by Nāgārjuna, trans. Kumārajīva, Taishō vol. 25, No. 1509《大智度論》Mahāprajñāpāramitā-upadeśa-śāstraT25, No. 1509View on CBETA online reader ↗.
10. Cheng Weishi Lun (成唯識論), by Dharmapāla et al., trans. Xuanzang, Taishō vol. 31, No. 1585《成唯識論》Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi-śāstraT31, No. 1585View on CBETA online reader ↗.
11. Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論), by Maitreya, trans. Xuanzang, Taishō vol. 30, No. 1579《瑜伽師地論》Yogācārabhūmi-śāstraT30, No. 1579View on CBETA online reader ↗.
12. Pañcaskandhaka-prakaraṇa (大乘五蘊論), by Vasubandhu, trans. Xuanzang, Taishō vol. 31, No. 1612《大乘五蘊論》Pañcaskandha-prakaraṇaT31, No. 1612View on CBETA online reader ↗.
13. Abhidharmasamuccaya (大乘阿毘達磨集論), by Asaṅga, trans. Xuanzang, Taishō vol. 31, No. 1605《大乘阿毘達磨集論》AbhidharmasamuccayaT31, No. 1605View on CBETA online reader ↗.
14. Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā (大乘阿毘達磨雜集論), by Sthiramati, trans. Xuanzang, Taishō vol. 31, No. 1606《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyāT31, No. 1606View on CBETA online reader ↗.
15. Bāshí Guījǔ Bǔzhù (八識規矩補註), by Master Mingchang, Taishō vol. 45, No. 1865《八識規矩補註》T45, No. 1865View on CBETA online reader ↗.
16. Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra (十地經論), by Vasubandhu, trans. Bodhiruci, Taishō vol. 26, No. 1522《十地經論》Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstraT26, No. 1522View on CBETA online reader ↗.

II. Modern Scholarship

17. Friston, K. "The Free-Energy Principle: A Unified Brain Theory?" Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138, 2010.
18. Clark, A. "Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204, 2013.
19. Kosslyn, S. M. Image and Brain: The Resolution of the Imagery Debate. MIT Press, 1994.
20. Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books, 1966.

Sūtra & Śāstra Index

Cross-Reference Index

Footnotes

All sūtra and śāstra citations in this study have been verified against the CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripiṭaka Collection.

This research paper is released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

Source repository: https://github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/dharma-research