成唯識論 三相·種子

In the first chapter on the ālaya the treatise gives it three faces — its own aspect, its fruit aspect, its cause aspect.

Its own aspect is ālaya, storing: it stores (holding all seeds), is stored into (perfumed by the first seven), and is grasped as a store (taken by the seventh for a self). Of the three, the grasping matters most — what is relinquished at the arhat stage is precisely that title.

Its fruit aspect is maturation: it is the whole retributive body called forth by wholesome and unwholesome deeds, maturing at another time, in another class, through alteration. Your body and mind in this life are it.

Its cause aspect is all-seeds: it holds the seeds of every dharma and is the direct cause of their arising.

The treatise then spends its length on the seeds. Six senses of a seed — momentary cessation, co-presence with its fruit, constant continuity, determinacy of nature, dependence on conditions, producing its own fruit — six, and a seed fails without any one. They read like definitions but work as safeguards: against imagining a seed as a thing lying still somewhere. A seed is a differentiated capacity, arising and ceasing moment upon moment in continuity.

Here too the famous dispute: innate or newly perfumed? Candrapāla held all seeds innate; Nanda, all newly perfumed; Dharmapāla, both — innate seeds and newly perfumed ones coexisting, the new increasing the innate. The treatise takes the third.

Last, perfuming: four senses of what is perfumed (stability, moral neutrality, receptivity, conjunction with the perfumer) and four of the perfumer (arising and ceasing, potent function, increase and decrease, conjunction with what it perfumes). Four against four, and perfuming fails without one.

The most practical line here is that what is perfumed must be neutral — the storehouse itself has to be neither good nor bad in order to hold both. A mind that took sides could not keep what opposed it. That is why the eighth consciousness must be unobstructed-and-neutral.

Glossing the first transformer

Up to now only the three names of "the transformer" have been touched on in brief — the first transformer, the second transformer, the third transformer; but how each of these three transformers "looks" (its mark) has not yet been set out in full. Let us ask first about the foremost: what does the first transformer (which is just the eighth, the ālaya-consciousness) look like? The verse below answers:

〔所釋頌〕

In a single breath this verse points to all that the eighth consciousness looks like; taking it line by line, it comes to this — the first transformer, this consciousness, is named the "ālaya-consciousness," and is also named "maturation" and "all-seeds." The way it operates (its mode of activity) is so fine that we cannot detect it (unknowable); the objects it refers to are "appropriation" (the embodied body and the seeds it appropriates-and-holds) and "place" (the outer receptacle-world); it is always together with the mental factor "contact," and is also concomitant with attention, feeling, conception, and volition (these together called "the five omnipresent," the five mental factors that accompany any mind that arises); and the "feeling" concomitant with it is forever only "neutral feeling" (the kind of feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant). The nature of this consciousness is "unobscured-indeterminate" (neutral — neither defiled, nor to be told off as wholesome or unwholesome), and the "contact" and the rest of the factors that go with it are likewise all unobscured-indeterminate. This consciousness continues on without a moment's pause, transforming moment by moment, unbroken like the water of a torrent; and it is only on reaching "the arhat stage" that it casts off this name "ālaya."

A. The three marks of the ālaya-consciousness

1. The self-mark — the ālaya (the storing · the stored · the appropriated-as-store)

The treatise says: the first transformer, this consciousness, is in the teachings of both the Great and the Lesser Vehicle called "ālaya" (which means just "store," a storehouse). Why is it called "store"? Because this consciousness has three layers of meaning: "the storing, the stored, the appropriated-as-store." Take the first two layers first: this consciousness is a mutual condition with the "defiled dharmas" (the manifold defiling dharmas) — it stores the defiled dharmas away (the storing), and it is itself perfumed by the defiled dharmas, as if it were stored (the stored); the storer and the stored prop each other up, and so it bears both senses, the storing and the stored. The third layer, "the appropriated-as-store," is this: "sentient beings" (living beings, and the seventh consciousness in particular) constantly take this consciousness to be that "self" inside themselves, and clutch at it, not letting go. These three layers display the "self-mark" of the first transformer (that most fundamental side of it) — namely, "embracing-and-holding cause and effect": with one hand it holds the cause, "seeds," and with the other it produces the effect, "manifest-activity," gathering both cause and effect into itself; this is precisely its self-mark.

The self-mark of this consciousness has to be sorted into several "phase-positions" (different stages) — the stage of the ordinary being, the stage of the sage, the stage of the Buddha, and so on; the names are in fact not few. Yet of all these stages, the one called "the store-consciousness" (that is, the stage in which it is grasped as a "self") carries the heaviest fault, the gravest defect. Just because this stage is the most crucial, the name "ālaya" is singled out from among these many names to stand for its self-mark.

2. The fruit-mark — maturation

This consciousness is able to draw forth the "maturation-fruit" (the fruit of karmic retribution) summoned by wholesome and unwholesome karma; whatever place you are reborn into — among the three realms (the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm), the five destinies (gods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, hell-beings), or the four births (womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, transformation-born) — all of it is drawn forth by this consciousness. And so it is given the name "maturation" — a name that has three layers of meaning: "maturing by transformation" (changing from cause to effect, maturing only after it has altered its form), "maturing at a different time" (the karma is made earlier, the retribution received later, the times being different), and "maturing into a different class" (the karma made is wholesome or unwholesome, yet the retribution it matures into is the neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome indeterminate — the nature-class differing). Why must it be this consciousness that serves as this fruit? Because apart from it, things like "the life-faculty" (the continuance of one span of life) and "the homogeneity of the multitude" (the likeness that beings of one kind share) — these "superior maturation-fruits" that continue on without a moment's pause — could never again find anything to bear them: only the eighth consciousness can shoulder this constantly-continuing, superior fruit of karmic retribution. This displays the "fruit-mark" of the first transformer (that side of it which is the fruit of karmic retribution).

The fruit-mark of this consciousness also runs through several stages and several kinds of fruit (the outflow-fruit, the dominant-effect, and so on all count as fruit). But the single sense "maturation" has two distinguishing traits: first, it is "broad" — reaching across the realms and destinies, holding sway everywhere; second, it is "uncommon" — only the eighth consciousness, alone, shoulders this "general retribution" (the total retribution-fruit of one span of life), and the other consciousnesses have no part in it. Just because it is both broad and exclusive, "maturation" is singled out from among these many fruits to stand for its fruit-mark.

3. The cause-mark — all-seeds

This consciousness is able to appropriate-and-hold the "seeds" of all dharmas (the latent power by which the various dharmas can arise), keeping them from being scattered and lost, and so it is named "all-seeds." Why must it be this one? Because apart from this consciousness, among the rest of the dharmas (such as the first seven transforming consciousnesses) there is none that can thus universally appropriate-and-hold all the seeds — only the eighth consciousness can stand as this substance that "holds the seeds." This displays the "cause-mark" of the first transformer (that side of it which is the cause of all the seeds). The cause-mark of this consciousness in fact also has several kinds (it can produce manifest-activity, and so on); but the single sense "holding seeds" is its alone — no other dharma can do it — and so this is singled out to stand for its cause-mark.

The first transformer, this consciousness, has, when spoken of, many names of substance and mark; but boiled down to its essentials, it has only the above three marks: the self-mark (the ālaya), the fruit-mark (maturation), and the cause-mark (all-seeds).

B. The all-seeds mark — the sense of seed broadly examined

This side, the "all-seeds," must be further sorted out. Ask first: herein, what thing is it that is called a "seed"? The answer is: within the "root consciousness" (that is, the eighth, the ālaya-consciousness), that "differentiated capacity" which can directly produce its own particular "manifest-activity fruit" — put plainly, the powers, each lying latent, each different from the rest, each able to grow into its own result.

1. The conventionality-or-reality of seeds — neither identical nor different, yet really existent

This seed, with respect to "the root consciousness" and to "the fruit it produces," stands in a relation of "neither identical nor different" — it can be called neither one and the same nor two separate things. Why? Because this is a relation of "substance" to "function," and of "cause" to "effect," and such by rights ought to be so (substance-and-function, cause-and-effect, are inherently neither identical nor different). But note: though the seed is "neither identical nor different," it is nonetheless "really, truly there" (really existent). For a conventional thing (like "fur on a tortoise, horns on a hare," which has no being at all) is as good as "nothing," and "nothing" cannot serve as a "causal condition"; the seed, since it must itself serve as the very "causal condition" that produces manifest-activity, cannot but be really existent.

〔Q〕 Someone counters: since the seed is "neither identical nor different" from all dharmas, then it ought, like a "pot," to be conventional and not really existent — for a pot too is neither identical nor different from the four great [elements] (earth, water, fire, wind) that compose it, yet a pot is plainly conventional (take it apart and there is no pot). 〔A〕 The reply is this: if your principle were carried through (that whatever is "neither identical nor different" is uniformly conventional), then "suchness" would be dragged down with it too — for suchness too is, in the very same way, "neither identical nor different" from all dharmas; would suchness then not also have to be conventional? Yet if you concede that suchness is conventional, then even "the true ultimate truth" (the most ultimate reality) is gone, turned into empty words with no substance behind them — how can that be? So it is clear: being "neither identical nor different" does not necessarily make a thing conventional. That said, the "real existence" of the seed must also be told apart precisely: it is "really existent only on the conventional level," unlike the "real existence" of "suchness" — suchness is real in the "ultimate sense" (the ultimate dimension), while the seed is real only in the "conventional sense" (the dependently-arising dimension).

2. The seed is the eighth consciousness's image-part (not the seeing-part · not anything else)

Though the seed rests upon the very substance of the eighth consciousness, which part of the eighth consciousness does it after all count as? The answer is: it is this consciousness's "image-part" (that side of it which is referred to, the object referred to), not any other part. Why is it not the "seeing-part" (that side which refers, which cognizes)? Because the seeing-part is forever "taking the seed as its object and referring to it"; since the seed is "that which is referred to," it of course falls on the side of "what is referred to," the image-part, and not on the side of "what does the referring," the seeing-part (the referrer and the referred-to are two distinct matters, and the seed is on the referred-to side).

3. The three natures of seeds — contaminated seeds · uncontaminated seeds

Take first the "contaminated seeds" (the kind of seed that still carries defilement and will leak away). They are no different in substance from the "maturation-consciousness" (the eighth consciousness), and so they go along with the nature of the eighth consciousness and fall into the class of "indeterminate nature" (the neither-wholesome-nor-unwholesome neutral). But viewed from another angle: as "cause," and as the "fruit" they produce, they can indeed carry a wholesome or unwholesome nature (a wholesome seed, for instance, produces a wholesome manifest-activity); on just this point, they may also be called "wholesome" seeds and the like (whatever they produce, that is what they are named).

Take next the "uncontaminated seeds" (the kind of pure seed that carries no defilement and will not leak away). They no longer fall under that "indeterminate" nature of the maturation-consciousness; because, as "cause" and as "fruit," they are wholly of the "wholesome nature," they can only be named "wholesome," and do not, like the contaminated seeds, carry indeterminate [nature] alongside.

〔Q〕 Someone challenges: if the uncontaminated seeds count only as wholesome and not as indeterminate, then why does the Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī (a part of the Yogācārabhūmi) say that "the twenty-two faculties all alike have maturation-seeds, all are maturation-born"? These twenty-two faculties include the uncontaminated faculties (such as the uncontaminated wholesome faculties of faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) — so by this saying, even the uncontaminated faculties would belong to "maturation," belong to "indeterminate"; does this not clash with what was just said?

〔A〕 The reply can take two roads. The first: those uncontaminated seeds, though named "maturation," are in fact not of the indeterminate nature. They are called "maturation-seeds" because they "rest upon" the maturation-consciousness and dwell there — it is only that they borrow the name "maturation" by this; this is called "different-natures resting on each other" (things of different nature resting upon one another): the uncontaminated wholesome seeds rest and dwell upon the indeterminate maturation-consciousness, and the two, though different in nature, can rest together. This is just like "the eye-consciousness and the rest" — the eye-consciousness itself may be wholesome or unwholesome, yet it all the same arises in dependence on the indeterminate maturation-consciousness (different in nature, they can still rest in one place). The second road: or one may say that the uncontaminated seeds, by the force of "perfuming," gradually transform and ripen, and so also borrow the name "maturation (maturing by transformation-and-ripening)"; but this is only a borrowed name, and does not say that they really are "that kind of maturation which is of the indeterminate nature."

C. The dispute of innate-and-newly-perfumed — three positions on seeds

Where, after all, do seeds come from? On this the treatise-masters of old held differing accounts; the three schools are laid open below. 〔The innate position〕 The first school maintains: all seeds are "innately there" (from beginningless time, so by [their very] nature, possessed from birth), and are not produced from perfuming; the force of perfuming can at most make these innate seeds "grow and strengthen," but cannot perfume new seeds out of nothing. They have seven grounds —

First ground: scripture (the Buddha's word) has said that "all sentient beings have, from beginningless time, sundry 'elements,' which, like a 'cluster of akṣa-fruit,' are there by [their very] nature." (The "cluster of akṣa-fruit" is a kind of fruit that grows three to a single stem, used here to liken the seeds of the three natures — wholesome, unwholesome, indeterminate — likewise clustering together in just such a bunch.) Here "element" is just another name for "seed"; since scripture says it is "there by nature" (existent by [its very] nature), does this not prove seeds are innate?

Second ground: scripture again says, "the 'element' that has been from beginningless time is the equal support of all dharmas." Here "element" means "cause" (the seed is the cause); since it has been, from beginningless time, that on which all dharmas rest, evidently it is innately there.

Third ground: the Yogācārabhūmi also says, "the substance of the various seeds, from beginningless time — though its nature is innately there, yet it is, by the defiled and the pure, newly perfumed-and-aroused." Evidently "innate" says that its substance is inherently present, and "perfumed-and-aroused" only draws out its function.

Fourth ground: sentient beings, from beginningless time — if one is "of the nirvāṇa-attaining type" (the type with the capacity to realize nirvāṇa), then all his seeds are complete; if one is "not of the nirvāṇa-attaining type" (the type without the capacity for liberation), then he lacks the seeds of the three [kinds of] enlightenment (the śrāvaka's, the pratyekabuddha's, and the unsurpassed Buddha-fruit's). Look — that some have their seeds complete and others lack them: this difference of "having / not having" precisely shows that seeds are innately there (for else how could there be, from the very start, some complete and some wanting?). Texts of this sort are no single proof but many.

Fifth ground: again, since the teaching speaks of sentient beings as innately having the distinction of "five natures" (the śrāvaka-nature, the pratyekabuddha-nature, the bodhisattva-nature, the indeterminate-nature, the no-nature), there must definitely be "by-nature seeds" (that is, innate seeds) to uphold these five distinctions, rather than their being produced by later perfuming (for else where would these five distinctions come from?).

Sixth ground: again, the Yogācārabhūmi says, "the beings in hell, too, accomplish the three uncontaminated faculties." This statement is spoken of in terms of "seeds," not of "manifest-activity" (the activity that actually arises) — for the beings in hell cannot possibly give rise here and now to uncontaminated wholesome dharmas, and so what they "accomplish" can only be the innately-there uncontaminated seeds (the seeds present, the manifest-activity not yet arisen).

Seventh ground: again, there is what is called "the nature abiding by [its own] nature" (that is, the lineage abiding by [its own] nature) — this is "handed down through transmissions from beginningless time, obtained by [its very] nature," and is itself innately there. Taking these several points together: "the uncontaminated seeds" are innate by nature, not produced by perfuming; and "the contaminated seeds" ought by rights to be likewise innate by nature, only later grown by perfuming, rather than perfuming separately producing new seeds out of nothing. Established in this way, "cause and effect" do not fall into disorder (the innate seed serving as cause, perfuming-and-growing being but an assisting condition, the two sides told cleanly apart and not mixed up).

〔The newly-perfumed position〕 The second school maintains the very opposite: seeds are all produced by "perfuming." Someone might worry: would the seeds then come to be only later? No. Because "the side that is perfumed" (the perfumed, namely the eighth consciousness) and "the side that does the perfuming" (the perfumer, namely the first seven transforming consciousnesses) are both there from beginningless time, the seeds too are "perfumed-into-being from beginningless time" — for though they are said to be perfumed-out, it is not that they must await some later point in time to be, but that, from beginningless time, the perfuming has always gone on and they have always been there. They have five grounds —

First ground: a seed is also called "habit-energy," and "habit-energy" is a thing that must come to be by perfuming — to draw a comparison: sesame has of itself no fragrance, and "the fragrance on the sesame" is perfumed out by taking "flowers" and perfuming the sesame; plainly the fragrance is not innate to the sesame. Since a seed is also called habit-energy, it too ought likewise to be perfumed out.

Second ground: scripture says that "the minds of sentient beings, being perfumed by the sundry defiled and pure dharmas, have heaped up immeasurable, countless seeds." Since the seeds are "heaped up by perfuming," they are perfumed-into-being.

Third ground: the treatise says, "the inner seeds (the seeds within consciousness) definitely have perfuming; the outer seeds (such as the outer grain and wheat) — as for perfuming, sometimes there is, sometimes there is not." It says further that the three perfumings — "the name-and-word perfuming, the self-grasping perfuming, the existence-member perfuming" — embrace all the seeds of the contaminated dharmas; and since these three all come to be by perfuming, the contaminated seeds must arise by perfuming.

Fourth ground: even the arising of the uncontaminated seeds is by perfuming — this is the so-called "hearing-perfuming": when one hears the right Dharma that flows forth from "the pure dharma-realm" (that is, suchness), the very hearing perfumes up a seed, and this seed is precisely the seed of the "supramundane mind." Evidently the uncontaminated seeds too are perfumed out.

Fifth ground (this ground rebuts the fourth and fifth grounds of the innate school, the account that "the distinction of natures is fixed by whether the seeds are present or not"): the distinction of sentient beings' innate natures is not fixed by "whether the uncontaminated seeds are present or not," but by whether "the obstructions (the affliction-obstruction, the cognition-obstruction) can or cannot be severed."

They cite the Yogācārabhūmi to prove it; the Yogācārabhūmi divides it thus: facing the object suchness, (1) if a person's "seeds of both obstructions, the affliction-obstruction and the cognition-obstruction, can never be severed" (ultimate = utterly unseverable), then he is fixed as "of the not-nirvāṇa-attaining nature" (a being without the capacity for liberation); (2) if "only his seeds of the cognition-obstruction can never be severed, while his affliction-obstruction can still be severed," then he is divided in two — one fixed as "of the śrāvaka-nature," one fixed as "of the pratyekabuddha-nature"; (3) if "his seeds of both obstructions are not unseverable" (both can be severed to exhaustion), then he is fixed as "of the Tathāgata-nature" (one who can attain Buddhahood).

So (the newly-perfumed school concludes) it can be known that the distinction of innate natures is fixed "by whether the obstructions can be severed," not by "whether the uncontaminated seeds are present." As for the line spoken by the innate school earlier, "[the hell-beings, etc.] accomplish the uncontaminated seeds," the newly-perfumed school glosses it thus: that is spoken only in the sense of "the future possibility that uncontaminated seeds may arise" (resting on "they can arise in the future"), and does not say that there is, here and now, the substance of an uncontaminated seed already present.

〔The joint establishment of both kinds, innate and newly-perfumed (the correct sense)〕 It should be put this way (this is the correct account): seeds in fact "have both kinds," and one need not lean to either side. The first kind is called "innate": that is, from beginningless time, the differentiated capacity within the maturation-consciousness (the eighth consciousness) that is "innately there" and able to produce the aggregates, bases, and elements (the dharmas that make up the world of body-and-mind). It was in dependence on these innate seeds that the World-Honored One said, "sentient beings have, from beginningless time, sundry elements, which, like a cluster of akṣa-fruit, are there by nature"; the remaining proofs are those listed at the head of 〔the innate position〕 above and are not copied out again here. This kind is named "the seeds abiding by [their own] nature" (the seeds that dwell within the [original] nature).

The second kind is called "newly-arisen": that is, from beginningless time, the seeds that have arisen by manifest-activity (the sundry activities) perfuming them over and over. It was in dependence on these newly-arisen seeds that the World-Honored One said, "the minds of sentient beings, being perfumed by the defiled and pure dharmas, have heaped up immeasurable seeds"; the various treatises too say, "the defiled and pure seeds arise by being perfumed by the defiled and pure dharmas." This kind is named "the seeds completed by practice" (the seeds nurtured into being by perfuming).

〔Refuting the only-innate〕— if only innate, the transforming consciousnesses could not be a causal condition with the ālaya

〔Refuting the side of "only innate"〕 First, refute the account "seeds are only innate, with no newly-arisen": if all seeds were innate (none later perfumed up), then "the transforming consciousnesses" (the manifest-activity of the first seven consciousnesses) would have no "causal condition" relation with "the ālaya" (the eighth) at all. Why? Because only with this back-and-forth — "the transforming consciousnesses perfume the seeds into being, and the seeds in turn produce the transforming consciousnesses" — can there be talk of being mutual causal conditions; but if you say all seeds are innate and take in no perfuming at all, this "mutual causal condition" relation cannot be set up. Yet scripture plainly says: "The sundry dharmas [the seven transforming consciousnesses] [perfume] into the consciousness-store [the eighth], and the consciousness[-store] toward the dharmas is likewise [producing them]; mutually they are each other's 'effect,' and constantly too they are each other's 'cause.'" (This proves that the transforming consciousnesses and the eighth are mutual causal conditions.)

The sense of this verse is to say: the ālaya-consciousness and those transforming consciousnesses, at all times, "produce each other, you give rise to me and I to you, mutually being each other's cause and effect" — the consciousness producing the dharmas, the dharmas in turn perfuming the consciousness, this cycle without cease.

The Mahāyānasaṃgraha also says: the ālaya-consciousness and the defiled dharmas are "mutual causal conditions" — drawing two comparisons: one like a "wick and flame," you give rise to me and I burn you, turn upon turn producing-and-burning (the wick produces the flame, the flame in turn burns the wick); the other like a "bundle of reeds," two sheaves of reeds leaning on each other, neither able to leave the other, and only so does it stand. The true "causal condition" can be set up only between these two, "the ālaya and the defiled dharmas," and apart from this no other thing can be found that would count as a causal condition.

(Returning to the straight principle:) if seeds did not arise by perfuming, how could the transforming consciousnesses and the ālaya have any "causal condition" relation? Moreover, the kind of thing the innate school speaks of — that "perfuming only nurtures the innate seeds a little larger" — does not amount to a "causal condition" either; for if "a bit of perfuming, a bit of nurturing-larger" could be called a causal condition, then would not wholesome karma and unwholesome karma (which are only "dominant conditions") have to count as a "causal condition" with the maturation-fruit they summon? Yet between wholesome-and-unwholesome karma and the maturation-fruit the relation is plainly not a causal condition but only a dominant condition. Evidently "perfuming-and-nurturing-larger" is not a true causal condition; only "perfuming a new seed out" counts as a true causal condition.

Again, the various holy teachings all plainly and clearly say that "there are seeds that arise by perfuming," and these all run dead against the account that "seeds are only innate." So the account "seeds are only innate" does not get through, whether reckoned by principle or by the teachings.

〔Refuting the only-newly-arisen〕— if only newly-arisen, the conditioned uncontaminated would arise without a cause

〔Refuting the side of "only newly-arisen"〕 Turning about, refute next the account "seeds are only newly-arisen, with no innate": if all seeds were later perfumed up (with no innate ones), then "the conditioned uncontaminated" (that is, the uncontaminated holy path cultivated into being) would find no causal condition and could by rights not arise — for "the contaminated" (the defilement-bearing dharmas) ought not to be taken as the seed of "the uncontaminated" (the contaminated and the uncontaminated, being of opposite nature, how could the uncontaminated be perfumed out from the contaminated?). Why not? Think it through: if you permitted "the contaminated to produce the uncontaminated," then conversely "the uncontaminated seed too ought to be able to produce the contaminated"; and then even the Buddhas would have to produce contaminated [dharmas] again out of some residual contaminated (yet a Buddha has long severed the contaminated to exhaustion — how could this be?); and even "the wholesome" would have to serve as the seed of "the unwholesome" — and so wholesome, unwholesome, and uncontaminated would breed each other in a tangle, with faults without end. So the conclusion is: the uncontaminated holy path must have a share of "innate uncontaminated seed" as its cause, and cannot rely wholly on being later perfumed up.

〔Refuting the Vibhajyavādins' "the nature of mind is originally pure"〕

Here there is an outside school called "the Vibhajyavādins," who rescue the newly-perfumed account thus (seeking some way out for "the uncontaminated needs no innate seed"): they say, "the nature of the mind is originally pure; it is only that it has been defiled by 'adventitious-dust afflictions' (like a guest, like dust — not innate to the mind), and so is called defiled; and when it leaves the afflictions, the mind turns into the uncontaminated. Evidently the uncontaminated dharma does not arise from nowhere without a cause — its cause is just that originally pure mind." 〔A challenge〕 But one must ask: this term you speak, "the nature of the mind" — what exactly does it refer to? (Below it is refuted under two possibilities.)

〔Refuting the first possibility · if "the nature of the mind" means the principle of emptiness〕 If the "nature of the mind" you speak of means "the principle of emptiness" (the emptiness-nature of suchness), this road does not get through: the principle of emptiness cannot serve as the "cause" of the mind (the emptiness-nature is an unarising, unperishing permanent dharma, and a permanent dharma produces nothing); and moreover a permanent dharma absolutely cannot serve as the seed of any dharma — for its substance does not budge from first to last, and since it does not budge, it cannot be said to have the function of "producing anything else" (whatever produces things must first itself undergo change).

〔Refuting the second possibility · if "the nature of the mind" means the substance of the mind〕 If the "nature of the mind" you speak of means "the substance of the mind" (meaning that the substance of this mind is originally pure, and moreover permanently one-and-the-same), then the fault is greater still. First, a general fault: this comes out the same as the heterodox "Sāṃkhya" — the Sāṃkhya maintain that "though the surface appearance changes, the substance inside is forever one-and-the-same, unchanging," and your "the substance of the mind is permanently one" falls into just this trap. Then, pressing your point that "the substance of the mind is originally wholesome (pure)" in detail: (1) if the substance of the mind is originally wholesome, then even an unwholesome mind and an indeterminate mind would have to be wholesome (since they are all the same one mind-substance); (2) if you concede they are wholesome, then the unwholesome mind and the indeterminate mind ought to be concomitant with the wholesome mental factors such as "faith" — yet in fact they are not concomitant with the wholesome mental factors at all; (3) if you do not concede them concomitant, then that amounts to saying they "are not the substance of a wholesome mind" — and if the substance of the mind cannot even be called "wholesome," how could it ever be spoken of as "uncontaminated"? (The uncontaminated is one tier higher still than the wholesome.)

Again, "a contaminated wholesome mind," since it carries contamination, also falls into the class of "the defiled," and is of a piece with an unwholesome mind and the like; its nature is not uncontaminated; so it ought not to be taken as the "cause" of the uncontaminated — for if it could be the cause of the uncontaminated, would not wholesome and unwholesome then have to be able to serve as each other's cause too? (Things of opposite nature ought not to serve as each other's direct cause.)

If you stubbornly insist that "the nature of the contaminated mind is just uncontaminated," then conversely "the nature of the uncontaminated mind too ought to be just contaminated" — for you can produce no ground for "on what basis one is judged uncontaminated and the other contaminated" (since there is no other ground by which to keep the two apart, the two could just as well be said in reverse, and this becomes a grave fault).

Again, if "the mind of the ordinary being (that is, the worldling)" were uncontaminated, then at the worldling stage there would be "uncontaminated manifest-activity" already at work; and in that case would not the worldling have to be called a "sage"? (For a worldling to turn into a sage in a stroke is far too great a fault.)

The Vibhajyavādins might rescue it with a line like this: "the worldling's mind, though its 'nature' is uncontaminated, has a 'mark' (its outward showing) that still carries defilement, and so it is not called uncontaminated" — they want to use this to dodge the fault above of "the worldling turning into a sage." But this very rescue strikes back at them: by their own logic (nature uncontaminated, mark defiled, therefore not counting as uncontaminated), "the seed of the mind" too ought (being likewise nature-uncontaminated, mark-defiled) not to count as uncontaminated — then why do you (the Vibhajyavādins) yourselves say in your own treatise that "there are worldlings who alone accomplish uncontaminated seeds" (conceding those seeds to be uncontaminated)? Mark that "a seed and its manifest-activity" are of one piece in nature and mark: since you say the manifest-activity, because its mark is defiled, is not called uncontaminated, the seed, being equally mark-defiled, ought likewise not to be called uncontaminated — yet you all the same own that seed to be uncontaminated; is this not slapping your own face, contradicting yourself front and back?

Then how should the scripture's "the nature of the mind is originally pure" be rightly understood? There are two correct readings: first, "the nature of the mind is pure" refers to "the suchness disclosed by the mind's principle of emptiness" — for suchness is the mind's true nature (so "the nature is pure" speaks of suchness, and does not say the contaminated mind itself is uncontaminated). Second, it says that "the substance of the mind (its self-mark) is not just the same as the afflictions," and so is called "originally pure of nature" (meaning the mind does not take the afflictions as its own nature); this too does not say that "the nature of the contaminated mind is uncontaminated" and so call it originally pure.

By this one ought to believe: sentient beings have, from beginningless time, "uncontaminated seeds," and these seeds are not by perfuming but innately accomplished by [their very] nature (this is the "innate"); later, at the stage of advancing progress, they are by perfuming nurtured larger, and the uncontaminated holy path arises, with just this innate uncontaminated seed as its cause. And the moment the uncontaminated holy path arises, it in turn perfumes a new seed into being (this is the "newly-arisen"). As for the seeds of the contaminated dharmas, the principle is the same — they too are jointly established as the two kinds, innate and newly-arisen; reason by analogy from the uncontaminated side and you will understand.

〔Reconciling "the inner seeds definitely have perfuming"〕

〔Reconciling · resolving the proofs the newly-perfumed school cited〕 (Since the correct sense maintains the joint establishment of the two kinds, it must turn back and settle properly with the teachings the newly-perfumed school cited, not clashing with them.) The newly-perfumed school cited the line "the inner seeds definitely have perfuming" to prove all seeds are perfumed-into-being. But see clearly: though the holy teaching says "the inner seeds definitely have perfuming," it does not at all flatly assert that "all seeds are perfumed out" — how can you, on the strength of this one line, wipe out "the innate seeds" altogether? Moreover, the innate seeds too must be nurtured-flourishing by perfuming before they can bear fruit; so when the holy teaching says "the inner seeds definitely have perfuming," it means that even the innate seeds are perfumed and nurtured-flourishing, not that the seeds are all newly produced out of nothing. (Glossed thus, this teaching-line matches up with "the joint establishment of the two kinds.")

(The newly-perfumed school further cited "hearing-perfuming" to prove the uncontaminated seeds too are perfumed-into-being; this too must be reconciled.) In fact, "hearing-perfuming" does not perfume out only the contaminated: when one hears the right Dharma, it is at the same time perfuming "the innate uncontaminated seeds," making them flourish bit by bit, and so on turn by turn, on up to giving rise to "the supramundane mind"; and so this work of "perfuming-flourishing the uncontaminated seed" is likewise named "hearing-perfuming." (Evidently hearing-perfuming on one hand perfumes new contaminated seeds and on the other nurtures-flourishing the innate uncontaminated seeds, and cannot be taken to prove that the uncontaminated seeds are all perfumed out of nothing.)

Within hearing-perfuming there are in fact two kinds: one is "of the contaminated nature," which is severed only at "the path of cultivation," which can summon a superior maturation-fruit, and which serves the supramundane dharma as a "superior dominant condition" (a powerful assisting condition); the other is "of the uncontaminated nature," which does not fall among "what is to be severed," and which is precisely what serves the supramundane dharma as its "causal condition" (that is, its true direct cause).

The trouble is: that which truly serves as the direct causal condition (the innate uncontaminated seed nurtured-flourishing by the uncontaminated hearing-perfuming) is very subtle, very hidden, not easy to make out; and so the teaching lodges it upon that "coarser, more conspicuous superior dominant condition (that is, the contaminated hearing-perfuming)," and conveniently speaks of that dominant condition as "the seed of the supramundane mind." In fact the true direct causal condition is the innate uncontaminated seed nurtured-flourishing by the uncontaminated hearing-perfuming — to say "the dominant condition is the seed" is only an expedient way of speaking.

〔Reconciling "natures established in dependence on obstruction"〕

〔Reconciling the newly-perfumed school's "natures established in dependence on obstruction"〕 (The newly-perfumed school's fifth ground maintained that "the distinction of natures is fixed by the obstructions, not by the uncontaminated seeds"; this too must be reconciled.) In fact the so-called "dividing natures by the obstructions" is meant precisely to "disclose whether the uncontaminated seeds are present or not"; it is not a separate scheme of fixing that sets the uncontaminated seeds aside. How so? (1) If a person "has no uncontaminated seed whatever," then his seeds of the two obstructions can never be severed, and so he is fixed as "of the not-nirvāṇa dharma" (a being without the capacity for liberation);

(2) if a person "has only the uncontaminated seed of the two vehicles (the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha)," then his seeds of the cognition-obstruction can never be severed (he can sever only the affliction-obstruction), and so he is divided in two — one fixed as "of the śrāvaka-nature," one fixed as "of the pratyekabuddha-nature"; (3) if a person "has the uncontaminated seed of the Buddha (the bodhisattva) as well," then his seeds of both obstructions can both be severed to exhaustion, and so he is fixed as "of the Tathāgata-nature" (one who can attain Buddhahood).

Evidently: it is precisely because of "whether the uncontaminated seeds are present" that the obstructions come to have the distinction of "severable / not severable" (the seed is the root, the obstruction the surface). It is only that the uncontaminated seeds are too subtle, too hidden, not easy to make out, and so one borrows "whether the obstruction can be severed," which is more visible, to disclose the distinction of natures. Think about it — were it not so, by what other cause would the obstruction come to have this distinction of "severable / not severable" at all? (Apart from the uncontaminated seeds there is no way to judge whether the obstruction can be severed; evidently the obstruction's severability or not has its root, after all, in whether the uncontaminated seeds are present.)

The newly-perfumed school might rescue it again with a line like this: "this distinction of whether the obstruction can be severed is 'innately there by nature,' and has nothing to do with whether the uncontaminated seeds are present." But this saying will not do: (1) since you grant "the distinction of obstructions is innately there by nature," then on what ground do you, conversely, refuse to grant that "the uncontaminated dharma-seeds" too are innately there by nature? Both being "innately there by nature," how can you own only the obstruction and not the seed? (2) Again, if there were originally no uncontaminated dharma-seed whatever, then the holy path could never arise; and the holy path not arising, who then would sever those seeds of the two obstructions? — since there is not even the holy path that could sever the obstructions, what do you mean by "dividing natures according to whether the obstruction can be severed" (with no path that could sever, the obstruction's "severability" is sheer empty words)? (3) And since that holy path of which you (the newly-perfumed school) speak must definitely not arise, then the line you spoke earlier, "(the uncontaminated seed) is spoken of in the sense of the future possibility of arising," must definitely fail to stand too (with no holy path that could arise in the future, "can arise in the future" becomes empty talk as well).

Again, the various holy teachings everywhere speak of "there being innate seeds," and these all run dead against the account that "seeds are only newly-arisen." So the account "seeds are only newly-arisen" does not get through, whether reckoned by principle or by the teachings. By this it ought to be understood (this is the correct sense): the seeds of all dharmas have both kinds, "innate" and "newly-arisen" — jointly established as the two kinds, leaning to neither side.

D. The six senses of seed

What, after all, counts as a true seed? It must meet six conditions, and lacking even one it fails to be a seed. Below, one condition at a time —

First, momentary perishing — this says that the moment the seed's substance is produced, immediately, without interval, it perishes (moment by moment arising, moment by moment perishing); and it is right at this "about-to-perish" instant that it has a superior force (the force able to produce a fruit), and only this counts as a seed. This condition is to rule out "permanent dharmas" (things forever unchanging): a permanent dharma, never budging, cannot be said to have the function of "producing anything" (so a permanent dharma cannot serve as a seed).

Second, coexisting with the fruit — this says that the seed must arise at the same time as the "manifest-activity fruit" it produces, joined and conjoined with it, and only this counts as a seed. This condition is to rule out two mistaken notions: first, "before-and-after" (supposing the seed is earlier and the fruit later, the two parted in time); second, "definitely apart" (supposing the seed and the fruit each sit in their own place, the two definitely separated). In fact, though the seed and the manifest-activity are two things of different kind, the two do not clash with each other, and can, on the same body and at the same time, one be the seed and one give rise to the manifest-activity then and there (seed-producing-manifest-activity is simultaneous). Note: this "coexisting with the fruit" speaks of the one kind, "seed producing manifest-activity," not the kind "seed producing seed" — for a seed producing a seed of its own class (an earlier seed producing a later seed) is a before-and-after continuance, and definitely not at the same time.

Here a further word is added: though the relation of "cause and effect" divides into two kinds — one "simultaneous" (seed producing manifest-activity), one "non-simultaneous" (seed producing seed) — yet in neither kind can there be talk of "the cause's function" except in "the present" instant alone; for "what is not yet arisen" (the future) and "what has already perished" (the past) both have no substance (past and future are both empty, with no real substance that could exert a function). And the name "seed" is precisely established in dependence on the sense "producing the simultaneous manifest-activity fruit," not in dependence on "drawing forth a non-simultaneous seed of its own class"; and so this second condition speaks only of "being present-together with the (manifest-activity) fruit."

Third, constantly accompanying [the consciousness] as it turns — this says that the seed must "continue on of one kind for a long time" (turning along together with the eighth consciousness all the way), continuing right up to "the ultimate stage" (that is, just before the vajra-like concentration), and only this counts as a seed. This condition is to rule out "the transforming consciousnesses": the transforming consciousnesses both transform and break off, not continuing on of one kind, and so they do not match this dharma of "being able to appropriate-and-hold seeds" (that is, the transforming consciousnesses cannot serve as the support of seeds). This condition also displays, at the same time, the seed's "producing seeds of its own class" (an earlier seed drawing forth a later seed, continuing on of one kind).

Fourth, fixity of nature — this says that the seed, following the force of "the cause's own [nature]," produces a wholesome fruit, an unwholesome fruit, and the like, and this nature-class in which it produces fruit is "locked" (a wholesome seed produces only the wholesome, an unwholesome seed only the unwholesome, never crossing over), and only this counts as a seed. This condition is to rule out the account of "the remaining schools" (other sects) — they hold that "a cause of one nature can also produce a fruit of a different nature, and that this still counts as a causal condition"; in fact, where the nature differs there is no causal condition, and a seed produces its fruit always of the same nature-class.

Fifth, awaiting the various conditions — this says that the seed must further await its own "various conditions" (the sundry assisting conditions) to gather and conjoin before its capacity flourishes and it can produce a fruit, and only this counts as a seed. This condition rules out two mistaken notions: first, that of "the heterodox" — they suppose there is a "spontaneous cause" that needs to await no condition at all and at any time, in a flash, produces all its fruit; second, that of "the remaining schools" — they suppose the "conditions are forever present, never lacking." In fact this condition displays precisely that the conditions the seed awaits are "not forever present," and so the seed too "will not, at any time, in a flash, produce its fruit" (the conditions not being gathered, it does not produce).

Sixth, drawing forth its own fruit — this says that the seed, with respect to its own several fruits, the form-fruit, the mind-fruit, and the like, severally draws forth only "its own share" of fruit (a form-seed draws forth only form, a mind-seed only mind, each minding its own), and only this counts as a seed. This condition too rules out two errors: first, that of "the heterodox" — they suppose "a single cause alone can produce all fruits" (one cause producing the myriad fruits); second, that of "the remaining schools" — they suppose "form and mind can serve as each other's causal condition." In fact form and mind each draw forth their own fruit, and do not serve as each other's causal condition.

Taking these six conditions together: only the differentiated capacity within "the root consciousness" (the eighth consciousness) is, at one and the same time, complete in these six conditions, and counts as a true seed; no other dharma can do it. As for the outer grain, the wheat, and the like — these "outer seeds" — they are in fact things that consciousness has transformed-and-manifested, given the name "seed" only by borrowing, and are not true seeds (for they are not complete in these six conditions).

〔The producing-cause · the drawing-cause〕

The force of a seed divides into two uses: one can produce "the near fruit, the principal fruit" (the fruit that follows immediately and serves squarely in its place), and this is called "the producing-cause"; the other can draw forth "the far fruit, the residual fruit," keeping it from being cut off all at once, and this is called "the drawing-cause" — for instance, after a person dies the corpse still lingers there a while ("the person," the principal fruit, is already gone, yet the leftover corpse is still drawn along, not vanishing at once); this is the drawing-cause at work.

"The inner seeds" (the seeds within consciousness) are definitely produced-and-nurtured by perfuming, and they can directly produce a fruit, and so they are of the "causal condition" nature. "The outer seeds" (the grain, the wheat) — as for their perfuming, sometimes there is, sometimes there is not; they can only serve as a "dominant condition," merely helping bring about the fruit produced. And the fruit that the outer seeds produce must, at root, still take "the inner seeds" as its causal condition — for the outer things are in fact fruits transformed-and-manifested by the "common-mark seeds" (those seeds that, in common, transform-and-manifest the outer world); the outer realm being produced by the common-mark seeds, in the last reckoning it is still the inner seeds that are at work.

E. The sense of perfuming — the four senses of the perfumed · the four senses of the perfumer

On what principle is the name "perfuming" established? It is thus: "the side that is perfumed" (the perfumed, namely the eighth consciousness) and "the side that does the perfuming" (the perfumer, namely the first seven transforming consciousnesses) must each possess four conditions, and only so can the seeds be made to "arise" (perfume new seeds out) and to "grow" (nurture the innate seeds larger), and so it is named "perfuming."

1. The four senses of the perfumed

Speak first of which four conditions "the side that is perfumed" (the perfumed) must possess —

First, the quality of firm abiding — a dharma that continues on of one kind from first to last and can hold the habit-energy (the seeds) firmly is one that can serve as the side perfumed. This condition rules out "the transforming consciousnesses" and "sound, wind," and the like: their nature does not stand firm, and is besides broken and intermittent, and scattering and unsettled (a gust of wind, a sounding tone, and it is past), and so they cannot serve as the side perfumed.

Second, the quality of indeterminacy — a dharma whose nature is even and unopposing (leaning neither toward the wholesome nor toward the unwholesome) and can make room for the habit-energy is one that can serve as the side perfumed. This condition rules out "the wholesome dharmas and the defiled dharmas": their force is too strong, too overbearing, and makes no room for anything else (just as one strong, heavy fragrance can have no other fragrance perfumed into it), and so they cannot serve as the side perfumed. Just for this reason, "the Tathāgata's eighth pure consciousness" (the uncontaminated wholesome eighth consciousness at the Buddha-fruit stage) only carries the old seeds and no longer takes in fresh perfuming — for the Buddha's pure consciousness is of the "wholesome" nature, not of the "indeterminate" nature, and so it cannot take perfuming.

Third, the quality of being perfumable — a dharma whose own substance is its own master (not depending on anything else), whose nature is not tightly sealed shut (it must be loose-and-open, that perfuming may get in), and which can receive the habit-energy is one that can serve as the side perfumed. This condition rules out "the mental factors" and "the unconditioned dharmas": the mental factors arise only in dependence on something else (the mind-king), and are not their own master; the unconditioned dharmas are both tight-sealed and unchanging, and perfuming cannot get in; and so neither can serve as the side perfumed.

Fourth, the quality of conjoining together with the perfumer — a dharma that is at the same time and in the same place as the perfumer, and "neither identical nor apart" (not melded into one, nor parted into two places) from it, is one that can serve as the side perfumed. This condition rules out "another's body" (not the same body) and "the preceding moment, the succeeding moment" (not at the same time): they cannot come together with the perfumer, cannot conjoin, and so cannot serve as the side perfumed.

Taking these four conditions together: only "the maturation-consciousness" (the eighth consciousness) is, at one and the same time, complete in these four conditions and able to serve as the side perfumed; the mental factors and the rest all cannot.

2. The four senses of the perfumer

Speak next of which four conditions "the side that does the perfuming" (the perfumer) must possess —

First, having arising-and-perishing — a dharma that is not permanent (that arises and perishes), that can exert function, and that can produce-and-grow the habit-energy is one that can serve as the perfumer. This condition rules out the "unconditioned" dharmas: an unconditioned dharma does not change before or after, and has no function of "producing-and-growing," and so it cannot serve as the perfumer.

Second, having superior function — a dharma that arises and perishes, whose force is moreover flourishing, and which can draw forth the habit-energy is one that can serve as the perfumer. This condition rules out "the maturation mind and mental factors" (that is, the eighth consciousness and the mental factors concomitant with it): their force is too feeble (being of the indeterminate nature, and turning of themselves spontaneously, their strength is very soft), and so they cannot serve as the perfumer.

Third, having increase-and-decrease — a dharma that has superior function, that can moreover increase and decrease (waxing and waning), and that can gather-and-plant the habit-energy is one that can serve as the perfumer. This condition rules out "the perfect wholesome dharmas of the Buddha-fruit": the wholesome dharmas of the Buddha-fruit neither increase nor decrease (already perfect to the utmost, nothing can be added, nothing taken away), and so they cannot serve as the perfumer. Moreover, if that Buddha-fruit could still perfume (that is, could still increase and decrease), then it would not deserve to be called perfect, and would not the Buddha-fruit of one Buddha after another have to have higher and lower, better and worse? — yet the Buddha-fruit is equal and perfect, with no division of higher or lower, better or worse.

Fourth, conjoining with the perfumed and so turning — a dharma that is at the same time and in the same place as the side perfumed, and "neither identical nor apart" (not melded into one, nor parted into two places) from it, is one that can serve as the perfumer. This condition rules out "another's body" and "the preceding moment, the succeeding moment": they cannot come together with the perfumed, cannot conjoin, and so cannot serve as the perfumer.

Taking these four conditions together: only "the seven transforming consciousnesses" and the mental factors concomitant with them — having a superior force-and-function and moreover increasing and decreasing — are, at one and the same time, complete in these four conditions and able to serve as the perfumer.

3. The three dharmas turn upon each other, cause and effect at the same time

In just this way, "the perfumer" and "the perfumed consciousness" arise together and perish together (arising at the same time, perishing at the same time), and only then does this matter of perfuming hold. It can make the seeds within the perfumed consciousness both "arise" (perfume new seeds out) and "grow" (the innate seeds nurtured larger), just as one takes flowers and perfumes "sesame" (that is, hemp-seed) — the sesame, perfumed by the flowers, takes on the fragrance; and so it is named "perfuming."

The perfuming consciousnesses, from the very instant they are produced from a seed (becoming manifest-activity), can right then turn about and serve as a cause, perfuming a new seed into being once more — "the seed produces manifest-activity, and the manifest-activity in turn perfumes a seed," these three things (the original seed, the manifest-activity, the newly-perfumed seed) linking one into the next, and "cause and effect at one and the same time." It is just like "the wick produces the flame, and the flame in turn burns the wick black" (at the same time you give rise to me and I burn you), and like "two sheaves of reeds leaning each on the other" (the two sheaves leaning together, and only so standing up); cause and effect being at the same time — this principle does not budge.

Here there are in fact two kinds of cause-and-effect. The first: "the perfumer perfuming a seed out (the manifest-activity perfuming into a seed)" and "the seed giving rise to manifest-activity (the seed producing manifest-activity)" — these two acts are "a simultaneous cause-and-effect," just like "the coexisting cause" attaining "the manly-deed fruit" (the kind where cause and effect stand together at the same time). The second: "the seed producing on, of one kind, before-and-after (seed producing seed)" is "a non-simultaneous cause-and-effect," just like "the homogeneous cause" drawing forth "the outflow-fruit" (the kind of before-and-after continuance). These two (seed-and-manifest-activity simultaneous, seed-and-seed before-and-after), with respect to their fruit, are both of the "causal condition" nature; apart from these two, no other dharma counts as a causal condition — and even if one now and then calls it a causal condition, one knows it to be only an expedient conventional saying, not a true causal condition.

The above is to have spoken in brief, in full, of this side, "the all-seeds" (the six conditions of a seed, the dispute of innate and newly-perfumed, plus the principle of perfuming — all have, by here, been gone through).

In the last section we came to recognize that dark undercurrent at the bottom of the mind — the ālaya-vijñāna, the storehouse consciousness. In this section we look further into two things. Why is it that, although it is a single consciousness, this undercurrent carries several names at once (its "three aspects")? And by exactly what mechanism does it store the past away as the present, and plant the present back into the future (its "seeds")?

The establishing of this one consciousness has its roots in scripture and treatise alike. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on the characteristics of mind, mentation, and consciousness, speaks of an "appropriating consciousness" (ādāna-vijñāna) — "ādāna" meaning "that which follows along the body and appropriates": it sustains the body and the life-faculty and gathers in the seeds, and the World-Honored One pictured it as "the seeds of everything, like a rushing torrent," moment after moment continuous, yet "did not expound it to the foolish," precisely for fear that someone would falsely grasp this appropriating, seed-holding consciousness as a "self." That one line, "the seeds of everything, like a rushing torrent," is the scriptural source of the later phrase "ever turning like a rushing torrent." The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra gives the image of "the store-consciousness as an ocean," abiding, that is stirred by the wind of objects into surging "waves of the various consciousnesses," showing that the ālaya is the root upon which all the transforming consciousnesses depend and from which they arise. The treatise further cites two verses from the Mahāyāna-abhidharma Sūtra as proof of the self-aspect and the cause-aspect — one verse says, "From beginningless time there is the element, the equal support of all phenomena," making clear that the "element (the seeds)" is the equal support of all phenomena (the cause-aspect); the other says, "Because it stores and holds all phenomena, it is the consciousness of all seeds, and so it is named ālaya," making clear that it stores and holds all phenomena and is the consciousness of all seeds (the self-aspect, the sense of "storing"); this sūtra has no transmitted witness in the Chinese lands, and the two verses survive only as cited in this treatise. By the time of the Yogācārabhūmi, the ālaya is fixed as the consciousness that is "all-seeds, the support of appropriation, and that which is encompassed by maturation" — all-seeds being the cause-aspect, appropriation being its object, and maturation being the effect-aspect; the whole treatise-basis for the three aspects lies in this one statement; its "Section on Ascertaining the Meaning" further proves, by "eight characteristics" (appropriation, first arising, clarity, seeds, karmic function, bodily sensation, the location in the mindless absorptions, and the consciousness at the time of death), that the ālaya certainly exists, and makes clear that it has two objects: "discerning the inner appropriated, and the outer undiscriminated semblance of the container world." What this section expounds has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Laṅkāvatāra, and the Mahāyāna-abhidharma, and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi — and with that we follow the verse and open the exposition.

One Consciousness, Three Faces

Although the storehouse consciousness is a single consciousness, it can be viewed from three angles, and so it bears three names — the ancients called these its "three aspects."

The first face says what it is in itself: "ālaya," the storehouse. Why call it a "storehouse"? Because it and all the defiled phenomena mutually support one another — it stores the seeds of defiled phenomena (it is the that which can store), and it is in turn relied upon by those seeds (it is the that which is stored); and, most pointedly of all, sentient beings, from the very bottom of the mind, grasp this consciousness as "an inner self" (it is the that which is grasped as self). Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) lines up each of these three senses of "storing" against its correlate: "that which can store" is said with respect to the defiled seeds it holds (the consciousness can hold the defiled seeds, so the seeds are named "that which is stored" and the consciousness is "that which can store"); "that which is stored" is said with respect to the defiled phenomena that perfume it (the consciousness is perfumed by the defiled phenomena, so the perfuming defiled phenomena are named "that which can store" and the consciousness is "that which is stored"); and "that which is grasped as self" is said with respect to the defiled seventh consciousness (the seventh constantly grasps it as an "inner self," and so it is named "that which is grasped as self"). This word "storehouse" gathers up cause (the seeds) and effect (the active manifestations) in a single grip, and this is precisely the most fundamental self-nature of this consciousness. Across a lifetime it passes through every kind of stage, but the flaw of "being grasped as a self" is the gravest of all, which is why this name "ālaya" is singled out to mark it.

The second face views it as effect: "maturation" (vipāka). Our present span of life — which realm we are born into, which destiny, what kind of body we come to have — is the total retribution called forth by past wholesome and unwholesome deeds. What is able to bear this total retributive effect, which "matures at a different time and matures through transformation," is precisely this consciousness; apart from it, distinctive retributive results that continue through a single life — such as the life-faculty and the homogeneity of a kind of being — would have nowhere to be established. So, viewed from this side, as the bearer of the fruit of karma, it is called "maturation."

The third face views it as cause: "all-seeds" (the seed of everything). It is able to hold fast the seeds of all phenomena so that they are not scattered and lost; apart from it, no other consciousness can hold seeds in so universal a way. So, viewed from this side, as the storehouse of the cause from which the myriad phenomena arise, it is called "all-seeds."

One and the same consciousness — storehouse (its self-aspect), maturation (its effect-aspect), all-seeds (its cause-aspect) — three faces, all speaking of the very same thing.

So What, Exactly, Is a "Seed"?

The name "all-seeds" forces a finer question: what is meant by a "seed" in the first place?

The definition in the Yogācāra teaching is exact: a seed is each particular functional capacity within the storehouse consciousness that "directly gives rise to its own corresponding effect" — a latent, individually distinct power to produce a result. Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) points out that in this short definition every word is "marking off" some mistaken reading: saying "within the root consciousness (the ālaya)" pinpoints the place where seeds reside, marking off the Sautrāntika master's claim that "material and mental phenomena are made to hold seeds" (seeds are only in the eighth, not in matter or mind); saying "directly gives rise to its own effect" marks off, on the one hand, the "maturation cause" (the maturation cause stands to the maturation effect it calls forth across a lifetime and does not directly produce it, so it is no seed) and, on the other, the active front seven transforming consciousnesses (only what "directly gives rise to its own effect within its own kind" qualifies, and an active state does not). One sentence of definition, drawing the line on three sides.

Here is a difficulty that is always pressed: are the seed, the consciousness it dwells in, and the effect it produces "one and the same thing," or "two separate matters"? The answer is neither identical nor different. Substance and function, cause and effect, are by their very nature like this; to force them into being either strictly one or strictly different is wrong in both directions. But what matters is this: although seeds are neither one nor different, they are really existent. Why must they be really existent? Because what is unreal (like the hairs of a tortoise or the horns of a hare) amounts to nothing at all, and what does not exist cannot serve as a "causal condition." Since a seed must directly give birth to an active manifestation, it must be really existent in order to qualify as that cause. We must distinguish, however: the "real existence" of a seed is a real existence spoken of "in dependence on the conventional," and is different from the supreme-truth real existence of suchness — this is a line the Yogācāra teaching guards firmly, never elevating seeds to the status of suchness. (We may also fix their place in passing: although seeds rest upon the very substance of the eighth consciousness, they are the "image-portion" that this consciousness takes as object, not the "seeing-portion" that does the apprehending — because the seeing-portion always takes seeds as the object it looks upon, and the side that looks and the side that is looked upon cannot be the same side.)

Seeds, too, are wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate. As for contaminated (with-outflow) seeds: in their essential nature they are no different from the eighth consciousness itself, so they are reckoned, along with it, as "indeterminate"; yet insofar as they can produce wholesome or unwholesome results, they may also be called wholesome or unwholesome in accord with their effect. Uncontaminated (outflow-free) seeds are another matter: they do not belong to the indeterminate nature of the eighth consciousness, because both their cause and their effect are wholesome, and so they are called, exclusively, "wholesome."

An Ancient Debate: Are Seeds "Innate," or Are They "Perfumed In"?

Where do seeds come from? This is one of the famous debates within the Yogācāra teaching, and the author of the treatise lays the several positions out one by one. Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) marks out the layers of this passage: there are three positions here in all — the first, "innate only," is the old reading held by many masters from high antiquity; the second, "newly perfumed only," is a more recent reading; and the third is the author Dharmapāla's own "establishing both classes together," which is judged to be the correct meaning. We now take these three positions in turn.

First position: seeds are entirely innate. This view holds that all seeds are "naturally so from beginningless time," innately possessed, and not perfumed in after the fact; perfuming can at most make innate seeds "grow," but it generates no new seeds. It cites a string of scriptures and treatises in support: scripture says that sentient beings have, from beginningless time, "manifold elements," present of themselves, like the akṣa-cluster (three fruits sharing a single stem), and "element" is precisely another name for "seed"; scripture also says, "From beginningless time there is the element, the equal support of all phenomena," and "element" here means cause; the Yogācārabhūmi likewise says that the essential nature of seeds is innate, and is then brought forth anew by defiled-and-pure perfuming; and further, sentient beings divide into "five lineages," some fully possessing the seeds for becoming a Buddha and some congenitally lacking them — and this very difference of "possessing versus lacking" shows that seeds are innate.

Second position: seeds are entirely perfumed in. This view holds the reverse — that seeds are all produced by perfuming. The perfumer (the front seven consciousnesses) and the perfumed (the eighth consciousness) both exist from beginningless time, so seeds, too, have been perfumed into being all along, from beginningless time, and do not suddenly spring up at some particular point. Its analogy is vivid: a seed is just another name for a "habit-energy," and fragrance is something perfumed in — sesame is not fragrant in itself; it is the flower that perfumes it, and only then does it carry the scent. It further holds that the differences of lineage among sentient beings should not be drawn by "whether or not one has uncontaminated seeds," but by "whether or not the obstructions can be severed."

The author's verdict: only by establishing both classes together do we have the correct reading. The true answer is that seeds are of two classes each — one "innate" (called the "seeds that abide in their nature," present naturally and from beginningless time), and one "newly arisen" (called the "seeds formed through perfuming," perfumed into being by active manifestation, instance after instance). Why can we not lean to one side only?

To lean to "entirely innate" runs into trouble: if seeds were all innate and not produced through perfuming, then the active manifestations of the front seven consciousnesses could no longer be "mutual causal conditions" with the storehouse consciousness. Yet scripture plainly says that phenomena perfume the consciousness and the consciousness holds the phenomena, the two being "reciprocally cause and effect"; and the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha goes further, using "the wick and the flame burning and generating one another" and "two bundles of reeds leaning together and standing up" to picture the mutual causal conditioning of the storehouse and the defiled phenomena. Merely "nourishing innate seeds to grow" does not yet rise to a true "causal condition" — for if it did, then wholesome and unwholesome deeds calling forth a maturation-effect (which is only a contributory condition) would also have to count as a causal condition. So we must grant "perfuming that produces new seeds," or the very meaning of "causal condition" cannot stand.

To lean to "entirely perfumed in" runs into trouble as well: if there were no innate seeds at all, then from which seed would the "uncontaminated noble path" arise? A contaminated mind cannot serve as the seed of the uncontaminated (their natures are opposed); and if one insisted that the contaminated could produce the uncontaminated, then conversely the uncontaminated ought also to be able to produce the contaminated — even a Buddha would have to fall back into producing the contaminated, and a wholesome mind could serve as the seed of the unwholesome — sheer chaos. So the uncontaminated path must have "innate uncontaminated seeds" as its cause.

Here the author also takes the occasion to refute the doctrine that "the nature of the mind is originally pure." Some hold that the mind is originally pure and is only called defiled when stained by adventitious afflictions; remove the afflictions and it turns into the uncontaminated, so the uncontaminated does not arise without a cause. The author asks: what, precisely, do you mean by "the nature of the mind"? If you mean "the principle of emptiness (suchness)" — the principle of emptiness is a permanent phenomenon, and cannot serve as a producing cause, still less as a seed. If you mean "the substance of the mind itself" — then you have fallen into the non-Buddhist view of a "permanent and unitary substance"; and besides, if the mind's substance were originally wholesome, then the unwholesome mind and the indeterminate mind would all have to be wholesome too, which makes no sense. In truth, when scripture says "the nature of the mind is pure," it means "the suchness revealed by the principle of emptiness of the mind" (suchness being the true nature of the mind), or it means "the substance of the mind is not, in itself, the same as affliction" — it does not mean that "the nature of the contaminated mind is itself the uncontaminated."

As for the scriptural proofs each side adduces, the author reconciles them all. Scripture says "inner seeds certainly have perfuming," but it does not say "seeds are wholly produced by perfuming," so it cannot be used to deny innate seeds — all the more so since even innate seeds must be nourished and made vigorous by perfuming before they can bear fruit, which is exactly the meaning of "inner seeds certainly have perfuming." Again, "perfuming through hearing" is not confined to the contaminated: when one hears the true Dharma, this also perfumes the innate uncontaminated seeds, making them gradually flourish and, in turn, give rise to a supramundane mind. And the new-perfuming side's claim that lineage is "established by reference to the obstructions" in fact cannot do without uncontaminated seeds either — for in the end, whether the obstructions can be severed turns precisely on whether one has uncontaminated seeds; it is only because uncontaminated seeds are too subtle and hard to see that one borrows "whether the obstructions can be severed" to display the differences of lineage.

Clinging to either extreme contradicts the scriptural teaching. So the conclusion is: seeds are of two classes each, innate and newly arisen, established together and not leaning to one side.

What Does It Take to Count as a "Seed"? — Six Conditions

Not just anything qualifies to be called a seed. The author lays down six conditions; lacking even one, a thing is no seed:

One: momentary cessation. A seed perishes the instant it arises (arising and ceasing thought-moment by thought-moment), and it is precisely within this arising-and-ceasing that the power to produce a result resides. This condition excludes what is "permanent and unchanging": the permanent undergoes no transformation, and so cannot be said to produce anything.

Two: co-presence with the effect. A seed must arise simultaneously with, and be combined together with, the active-manifestation effect it produces, in order to count as a seed. The seed's producing of the manifestation is simultaneous.

Three: continuous following-and-turning. A seed must, over a long time, "continue as one kind" (turning along with the eighth consciousness uninterruptedly, the whole way through) right up to the ultimate stage, in order to count as a seed. This condition excludes the front seven consciousnesses: they turn at times and break off at times, and cannot shoulder the responsibility of holding seeds. It also brings out how seeds "produce their own kind," the earlier seed drawing forth the later in an unbroken continuity.

Four: determinacy of nature. A wholesome seed produces the wholesome and an unwholesome seed produces the unwholesome — the nature-class of the result produced is fixed and settled — in order to count as a seed.

Five: awaiting the assembly of conditions. A seed must wait until its own conditions are gathered complete before its power becomes distinguished and it produces a result. This condition refutes the non-Buddhist doctrine that "a self-existent cause, without awaiting conditions, produces its result all at once": if the conditions are not complete, the seed does not produce.

Six: drawing forth its own effect. The seed of a material phenomenon draws forth a material phenomenon, and the seed of a mental phenomenon draws forth a mental phenomenon — each draws forth its own effect — in order to count as a seed. This condition refutes the mistaken reckonings that "one cause produces all effects" and that "matter and mind serve as causes for one another."

Only the functional capacities within the eighth consciousness, complete in all six meanings, are true seeds. The "outer seeds" out there — grains and wheat and the like — are in fact transformations manifested by consciousness, and merely borrow the name "seed" for convenient use; they are not truly seeds. (We may also distinguish their uses in passing: a seed that produces the result presently arising before us is called a "generating cause"; one that holds fast a residual result on the verge of exhaustion, keeping it from breaking off at once, is called a "drawing-out cause." An inner seed is certainly produced and grown through perfuming, and can directly give birth to a result — it is a "causal condition." An outer seed does or does not have perfuming indifferently, and serves only as a "contributory condition" to assist; the result it bears, traced to the root, still has an inner seed as its causal condition.)

What, Exactly, Is "Perfuming"?

Last, we speak of "perfuming" — how is a seed perfumed into being and perfumed into growth? The key lies in this: the side that is perfumed and the side that does the perfuming must each fulfill four conditions.

That which can be perfumed (the perfumed) requires four conditions: First, it must be "stable and abiding" — continuing as one kind from beginning to end, holding fast the habit-energy (this excludes the front seven consciousnesses, which break off at times, and excludes scattered and shifting things like sound and wind). Second, it must be "indeterminate" — even-natured, leaning to neither wholesome nor unwholesome, with room to hold habit-energy (a too-intense wholesome phenomenon or defiled phenomenon, on the contrary, has no room to hold anything else; this is why even the pure eighth consciousness at the stage of Buddhahood only carries its old seeds and is no longer perfumed). Third, it must be "able to be perfumed" — loose and porous in essence, able to take things in (this excludes the mental factors that arise dependent on others, and the unconditioned phenomena that are firm and unchanging). Fourth, it must be "combined with the perfumer" — simultaneous, in the same place, neither identical with nor apart from it (this excludes another's body, and the differing thought-moments before and after). Counting it all up, only the eighth, the maturation consciousness, is complete in all four meanings, and qualifies as "the perfumed."

That which can perfume (the perfumer) likewise requires four conditions: First, it must "have arising and ceasing" — be impermanent, possessed of activity, able to generate and grow habit-energy (the unconditioned does not change and cannot perfume). Second, it must "have distinguished activity" — its force strong enough to set habit-energy in motion (the eighth consciousness and its mental factors are too weak in force, and cannot perfume). Third, it must "have increase and decrease" — its power able to grow or to wane (the consummate wholesome phenomena at the stage of Buddhahood neither increase nor decrease, and so likewise cannot perfume — for otherwise the fruit of Buddhahood would itself become unconsummate, with higher and lower across earlier and later). Fourth, it must be "combined with the perfumed" — simultaneous, in the same place, neither identical with nor apart from it. Counting it all up, only the front seven consciousnesses and their mental factors are complete in all four meanings, and qualify as "the perfumer."

How does perfuming come about? The perfumer and the perfumed "arise together and cease together," and within this very simultaneity the seeds in the perfumed consciousness are perfumed into being and perfumed into growth — just as taking a flower to perfume sesame leaves the sesame carrying the scent. And this is a single, simultaneously turning cycle: at the very moment an active manifestation arises from a seed, it instantly turns back and perfumes a new seed — "the seed produces the manifestation, the manifestation perfumes the seed" — the original seed, the active manifestation, and the new seed being three things in "simultaneous cause and effect." The ancients pictured it with two analogies: like the wick generating the flame and the flame in turn scorching the wick (simultaneously generating and burning one another), and like two bundles of reeds that stand up only by leaning against each other.

Last, we distinguish the two patterns of cause and effect: the pair "active manifestation perfumes a seed into being, the seed produces an active manifestation" is simultaneous cause and effect (as a "co-existent cause" obtains a "result of human effort"); "seeds producing their own kind across earlier and later" (the earlier seed drawing forth the later) is non-simultaneous cause and effect (as a "homogeneous cause" draws forth an "outflow result"). These two alone are truly "causal conditions"; whatever lies outside them is not a causal condition — and even where such things are sometimes called causal conditions, that too is only borrowing the name as a manner of speaking.

With this, the doctrine of the storehouse consciousness's "three aspects" and of "all-seeds" has been, in broad outline, expounded in full.

Onward Transmission

What this section establishes — the storehouse consciousness's "three aspects and all-seeds" — is the cornerstone on which the whole consciousness-only system founds "the root of mind and consciousness, the support of the myriad phenomena," and the later treatises take it up one by one. The Hundred Dharmas treatise lists the ālaya as the eighth of the eight consciousness-dharmas, and places the five ever-present factors — contact, attention, sensation, perception, and volition — at the head of the mental factors, which is precisely the point made in this section that "the eighth is constantly conjoined with contact and the other five ever-present factors." The Thirty Verses — verse two (ālaya, maturation, all-seeds), verse three (the unknowable appropriation and location, and the five ever-present factors), and the first half of verse four (unobscured-indeterminate, ever turning like a rushing torrent) — is the very root-text this section expounds, verse answering to verse. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on characteristics, clarifies "false discrimination" — that consciousness arises in dependence on others and is the support of defilement — which bears directly on this section's point that "the ālaya holds the seeds and is a mutual causal condition with the defiled." The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the support of the knowable, then makes the broadest possible analysis of the storehouse consciousness's sense of "storing," its three aspects, its seeds, and its perfuming; this section's image of "the ālaya and the defiled as mutual causal conditions, like the wick and the flame, like two bundles of reeds" is itself drawn from the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha. As for the Twenty Verses, its concern is to establish consciousness-only and refute the outsiders' clinging to real objects, and it has no direct counterpart to the ālaya's three aspects and seeds; here it is left aside.