成唯識論 證有別體·五教·前五理

Two chapters on the ālaya, and one question cannot be dodged: you say this consciousness is there, yet it is imperceptible and never felt — on what ground do you say so?

The treatise answers plainly: on two grounds, scripture and reason. Not on experience, since an ordinary being has no experience of it to begin with.

Five scriptural testimonies are given. The two verses of the Mahāyāna Abhidharma Sūtra are the most direct: "the realm beginningless in time, the equal support of all dharmas"; "because it stores all dharmas, the consciousness of all seeds is called the ālaya." The Saṃdhinirmocana says the ādāna consciousness is deep and subtle. The Laṅkāvatāra says the store-consciousness ocean abides constant. The fourth establishes that the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word — for if that were not granted, the foregoing citations would carry no weight, and so it must be settled first. The fifth is the most striking: the four Āgamas too taught it, covertly, only under other names — the Mahāsāṃghikas called it the root consciousness, the Sthaviras the factor of existence, the Mahīśāsakas the aggregate lasting through birth-and-death. The point is unmistakable: this is not a Mahāyāna invention. Every school had felt for it; none had said it outright.

Ten reasons follow, of which this chapter gives five. The first weighs most: the proof from holding seeds. Wholesome and unwholesome deeds are done, and their fruit often ripens a lifetime later; where do the seeds reside in the interval? The first six consciousnesses break off — in deep sleep, in fainting, in the mindless attainment they stop; the seventh grasps a self unceasingly and holds no seeds. There must therefore be a consciousness unbroken, morally neutral, and able to hold.

The weight of that argument is this: it is not speculation; it is forced by the law of act and fruit. Grant that deeds are not lost, and you must grant somewhere for them to be kept.

〔Verses commented〕Continuing: unfolding verses 2–4 · proving the eighth

〔The verse expounded〕

"First, the ālaya-consciousness, the maturation [consciousness], the all-seeds [consciousness]…" (v2) … "ever turning like a torrent, at the arhat stage it is relinquished." (v4)

A. General statement: scriptural teaching and right principle are the deciding measures

How do we know that the eighth consciousness (the ālaya-consciousness) has a substance of its own apart from the eye-consciousness and the rest of the consciousnesses? We go by two things as our standard: one is "scriptural teaching" (the sūtras the Buddha himself spoke), the other is "right principle" (sound reasoning). Look first at the scriptural side: the Mahāyāna-abhidharma, a sūtra, sets down a verse — "the element from beginningless time, the equal basis of all dharmas; because of this there are the destinies, and the attaining of nirvāṇa." This verse means: from beginningless time there has been this "element" (that is, the eighth consciousness), on which all dharmas alike rest; precisely because there is this consciousness, there is the turning of beings round through the six destinies, and there is also a nirvāṇa to be attained.

The substance of the eighth consciousness is truly too subtle to point out to anyone directly, so one can only display it by means of its "function." The first half of this verse ("the element from beginningless time, the equal basis of all dharmas") displays this consciousness's "cause-and-condition function" (its working as the cause of all dharmas, and as the condition of all dharmas); the second half ("because of this there are the destinies, and the attaining of nirvāṇa") displays the "basing-and-upholding function" (the function of bearing up, of providing a basis) that it performs along the two roads of "flowing-and-turning" (the turning of birth-and-death) and "returning-and-ceasing" (returning, through cultivation, to quiescence).

The word "element" in the verse means "cause," and refers to the "seed-consciousness" (the eighth consciousness, which holds all the seeds) — from beginningless time it continues on without break, directly giving birth to all dharmas, and so is called the "cause." The word "basis" in the verse means "condition," and refers to the "appropriating consciousness" (the eighth consciousness, which appropriates all dharmas) — from beginningless time it serves equally as the support for all dharmas, and so is called the "condition."

This is to say: this consciousness, on the one hand, can appropriate all the seeds (this is its being the "cause"), and on the other hand serves as the support for the dharmas already arisen and active (this is its being the "condition"); so this consciousness both "transforms into them" (manifests the dharmas) and "serves as their basis" (provides the dharmas with support). What is meant by "transforms into them" is that it manifests the receptacle-world (the outer mountains, rivers, and great earth) and the body-with-faculties (this body of ours that has the six faculties); what is meant by "serves as their basis" is that it gives support to the several turning consciousnesses (the first seven).

Because this consciousness can appropriate the five form-faculties (the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body — the five subtle pure-form faculties, that invisible layer of subtle form), the five consciousnesses (eye-consciousness and the rest) turn in dependence on it; and because this consciousness gives support to the manas (the seventh consciousness), the sixth, mind-consciousness, turns in dependence on it — the manas and the mind-consciousness both belonging to the class of "turning consciousnesses." Moreover: just as the eye-consciousness and the rest each rest on their own "concurrent faculty" (the supporting faculty that co-exists with them), the eighth consciousness too, being by principle a "consciousness," likewise takes the seventh consciousness as its "concurrent basis" (the co-existing, mutually-supporting support). The foregoing displays this consciousness's "cause function" and "condition function."

The three words "because of this there are" in the verse say "precisely because there is this consciousness"; the three words "the destinies" say "there come to be good destinies and evil destinies" (beings come to have their good and bad goings-forth). The sense is: precisely because there is this eighth consciousness, it appropriates all the dharmas that go along with flowing-and-turning, and so drives beings to flow and turn endlessly in birth-and-death.

As for flowing-and-turning, in fact all three — affliction (the defilements), karma (deeds), and birth (the fruit of taking birth) — count [as it]; but among these three, "destiny" (the goal of taking birth) is the final fruit, and the fruit is the most weighty, so the verse one-sidedly names just the single word "destiny." Or else one may say: this term "the destinies" can take in both "the one who goes" (the side that heads toward the goal) and "that toward which one goes" (the goal itself headed for), and even the various supports-of-life within those destinies count under the word "destiny." In sum, affliction, karma, and birth all stand up only in dependence on this consciousness — this is the "basing-and-upholding function" this consciousness performs along the road of flowing-and-turning.

The line "and the attaining of nirvāṇa" in the verse says: precisely because there is this consciousness, there is a nirvāṇa to be attained. The sense is: precisely because there is this eighth consciousness, it appropriates all the dharmas that go along with returning-and-ceasing (returning to quiescence), and so enables the practitioner to attain nirvāṇa.

These four words "the attaining of nirvāṇa" admit of three readings: (1) speaking only of the "attaining" path — because nirvāṇa (the quiescence attained) does not itself exist in dependence on this consciousness. (2) Speaking only of the "attained" nirvāṇa — because nirvāṇa is precisely the fruit the practitioner single-mindedly seeks. (3) Speaking of both sides together, nirvāṇa (the attained) and the path (the attaining) — because both these belong to the class of "returning-and-ceasing."

This goes by the third reading: the word "nirvāṇa" displays the "cessation" that gets attained; the word "attaining" below displays the "path" that can attain it — by the path that can sever, one severs the affliction to be severed, and reaching the "stage of ultimate exhaustion" (where the defilements are utterly severed), one attains nirvāṇa. Here the whole set — the path that severs, the affliction severed, and the attaining-and-attained — all stand up only in dependence on this consciousness; this is the "basing-and-upholding function" this consciousness performs along the road of returning-and-ceasing.

To put it from yet another angle: the first line of this verse ("the element from beginningless time") displays that this consciousness's substance has existed constantly from beginningless time; the latter three lines display that this consciousness serves as the support for the two classes of "defiled" and "pure" dharmas — serving both as their "whole" (taken together) support and as their "particular" (taken one by one) support.

What are called the "defiled dharmas" are the truth of suffering and the truth of origination — that is, the "birth" headed toward (the fruit of taking birth) and the "karma and affliction" that head toward it (deeds and defilements). What are called the "pure dharmas" are the truth of cessation and the truth of the path — that is, the "nirvāṇa" attained, and the "path" that can attain it. These two classes of dharmas both exist only in dependence on this consciousness; if someone says they exist in dependence on the turning consciousnesses (the first seven), this will not stand to reason — because the turning consciousnesses intermit, and cannot bear up the load of being this support.

Or yet another reading: the first line displays that this consciousness's substance continues on without break from beginningless time; the latter three lines display that this consciousness serves as the support for the "three natures" — that is, the other-dependent nature (what arises in dependence on the conjunction of conditions), the wholly-imagined nature (what is falsely discriminated and reckoned out), and the perfectly-accomplished nature (the perfectly-accomplished reality), to be understood in just that order. In a word: the several senses set forth in this verse, every one of them, cannot stand apart from the eighth consciousness.

B. The five teachings: the sūtras clearly witness the existence of the eighth consciousness

1. The Mahāyāna-abhidharma sūtra (the gathering-and-storing ālaya verse)

In this very Mahāyāna-abhidharma sūtra, there is also set forth a verse — "because it gathers and stores all dharmas, [it is] the all-seeds consciousness; hence it is named the ālaya, which I disclose to the superior ones." This verse means: because it can gather-and-store all dharmas, and is also that consciousness which holds all the seeds, it is named the "ālaya" (the store); and I (the Buddha) disclose it only to the "superior ones" (those of high capacity).

Because this root-consciousness (the eighth) is replete with all the seeds, it can gather-and-store the various defiled dharmas; and just on this score it is given the name "ālaya." But note: this "gathering-and-storing" of its is a different matter from the way the Sāṃkhya heretics' "root-nature" (the self-nature they posit) transforms into "the great one" and the rest — what the Sāṃkhya teach is one single substance turning all the way through (always one and the same thing changing), whereas here it is not so, because the seed is not one and the same as the fruit it grows into, and because both sides — the dependent (the seed) and the depended-on (the consciousness) — arise and perish. Again, this consciousness "mutually gathers-and-stores" with the defiled dharmas (you store me, I store you), and is also "grasped-and-stored" by beings as a "self" (clung to as one's very self and not let go), and so this consciousness is named the "ālaya" (the store).

The word "superior ones" in the verse admits of two readings: (1) Those bodhisattvas who have already entered the "path of seeing" (the first direct seeing of the truth) and gained "true direct realization" (the truly immediate insight) — these are called "the superior ones"; they can directly realize and understand the ālaya-consciousness, and it is just to them that the World-Honored One discloses it. (2) Or one may say that every bodhisattva is called a "superior one" — for even though, prior to the path of seeing, they cannot yet directly realize the ālaya-consciousness, still they can trust and understand it, and single-mindedly seek "the transformation of the basis" (the turning of the defiled into the pure), and so the Buddha teaches it to them too. In all events, this sense — gathering-and-storing, seeds, being grasped-and-stored — belongs only to the eighth consciousness; the rest, the turning consciousnesses (the first seven), do not have it.

2. The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra (the ādāna verse)

The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra also sets forth a verse — "the ādāna-consciousness is most deep and subtle, all its seeds [flowing] like a torrent; I do not expound it to the foolish and ordinary, lest they discriminate and grasp it as a self." This verse means: the ādāna-consciousness is deep and subtle, holding all the seeds, continuing on unbroken like the water of a torrent; and I (the Buddha) do not expound it openly to ordinary folk and to those of shallow capacity, for fear that they should raise discriminations and instead grasp it as a "self."

Because this consciousness can appropriate the seeds of all dharmas, can appropriate the form-faculties and their basis (that is, can bear up the body's faculties), and can take up the "linking-of-birth and continuance" (at the moment of taking birth, joining one life onto the next without a break), this consciousness is named the "ādāna" (the appropriating).

The "natureless beings" (those without the Mahāyāna lineage, with no bond to the Buddha-path) cannot touch the bottom of this consciousness, and so it is called "most deep"; the "quiescence-bound lineage" (the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, the two vehicles who seek only their own attaining of quiescence) too cannot penetrate it, and so it is called "most subtle." This consciousness is the true seed of all dharmas; the moment a condition strikes and rouses it, it raises the waves of the turning consciousnesses one after another, while it itself is forever unbroken, just like the water of a torrent.

The word "foolish" [literally "ordinary"] in the verse refers to the natureless beings; the word "ordinary" [literally "foolish"] refers to the quiescence-bound lineage. The Buddha, fearing that they should raise a discrimination toward this consciousness and grasp it as a "self," and thereby fall into the evil destinies and also block the arising of the noble path, accordingly does not expound it openly. Such a mark as this — deep and subtle, with seeds as many as a torrent, and liable to be grasped by people as a self — belongs only to the eighth consciousness.

3. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (the store-consciousness-ocean verse)

The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra also sets forth a verse — "as the ocean, meeting the condition of the wind, raises manifold waves, their workings turning right before one, with no time of interruption; so too the store-consciousness ocean, struck by the wind of objects and the rest, ever raises the waves of the consciousnesses, their workings turning right before one." This verse draws a comparison: the great ocean, the moment it meets the wind, heaves up manifold waves and at once churns up, not pausing for an instant; the ocean of the store-consciousness is just so — struck by the wind of "objects" and the rest, it ceaselessly heaves up the waves of the consciousnesses one by one, churning up right then and there.

The eye-consciousness and the rest (the first seven) cannot, like the great ocean, raise the waves of the consciousnesses continuously and unbroken — they intermit. Plainly, then, there is separately an eighth consciousness, which is the substance of this "store-consciousness ocean." In this manner, countless Mahāyāna sūtras all speak separately of there being this eighth consciousness.

4. Establishing that the Mahāyāna as a whole is Buddha-spoken (the seven reasons + the Sūtrālaṃkāra verse)

〔This passage first sets out to prove that the Mahāyāna sūtras really are Buddha-spoken, so that the Mahāyāna sūtras cited above may stand firm and may serve as warrant.〕 These Mahāyāna sūtras have several traits in common: they all conform to "no-self" and run counter to the "number-taker-of-destinies" (that is, the personal self, the "self" that takes birth and retribution again and again); they all bid one turn one's back on the flowing-and-turning of birth-and-death and head toward returning to quiescence; they all praise the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha — the Three Jewels — and rebuke the various heretics; they all display the dharmas such as the five aggregates as they truly are, and ward off the heretics' false reckonings such as the "root-nature" (the self-nature the Sāṃkhya teach). Whoever delights in the Mahāyāna admits that the Mahāyāna sūtras can display the principle that is without inversion; and since they too belong under "sūtra" (the Buddha-spoken scripture-basket), they are, just like the Ekottara-āgama and the rest, subsumed under "the measure of authoritative teaching" (that is, the measure of the sacred word, that reliable warrant which is the sacred word of the Buddha).

Further, the holy Maitreya (that is, Maitreya Bodhisattva) uses seven kinds of reason to prove that the Mahāyāna sūtras truly are Buddha-spoken:

(1) The Buddha did not foretell it beforehand (not foretold beforehand): Suppose the Mahāyāna sūtras were something that, after the Buddha's passing, others had composed in order to wreck the true Dharma. Then why did the World-Honored One not foretell this beforehand, just as he foretold the other "fearful things that would arise in time to come"? — Since the Buddha gave no advance warning at all that such counterfeit sūtras would crop up, plainly the Mahāyāna sūtras are not a later forgery.

(2) Both ran together from the start (proceeding together from the start): The teachings of the Mahāyāna and of the Hīnayāna circulated together in the world from the very start. That being so, on what ground does one single out the Mahāyāna alone and judge it not Buddha-spoken?

(3) Not a field others could reach (not the field of others' practice): What the Mahāyāna teaches is vast and most deep, plainly not a field those heretics could conceive of; in the heretics' own sūtras and treatises such a doctrine was never set forth, and even were you to teach it to them, they could not accept it. Since this doctrine is not one the heretics could have produced, one cannot say the Mahāyāna sūtras "are not Buddha-spoken."

(4) It is, if anything, thoroughly proved (thoroughly established): Even if someone says the Mahāyāna was spoken by "some other Buddha" and is not the word of "the present Buddha (Śākyamuni)" — that is no objection, for it is, after all, still spoken by a "Buddha"; and thus the doctrine "the Mahāyāna is Buddha-spoken" is, if anything, firmly proved and can never be overturned.

(5) Pressing from both "there is a Mahāyāna" and "there is none" (existent-or-non-existent): This reason presses from two sides. First the side "there is a Mahāyāna": if one grants that there really is this Mahāyāna path to buddhahood, then one ought to believe these Mahāyāna teachings are Buddha-spoken — because apart from the Mahāyāna teaching this Mahāyāna path is simply nowhere to be found. Next the side "there is no Mahāyāna": if one says there is no Mahāyāna at all, then even the śrāvaka-vehicle teaching ought to fail to exist along with it — for apart from the Mahāyāna there is absolutely no such thing as "becoming a Buddha," and if no Buddha came forth, then who appeared in the world to teach the śrāvaka-vehicle? Yet the śrāvaka-vehicle was plainly spoken by a Buddha (come forth into the world), which proves conversely that to say "the Mahāyāna teaching is not Buddha-spoken" simply does not fit reason.

(6) It really counteracts the defilements (counteracting): Those who diligently cultivate in dependence on the Mahāyāna sūtras can all draw forth "non-discriminating wisdom" (the wisdom apart from all discrimination) and truly counteract all the defilements; and since it has so real and tested an effect, one ought to believe the Mahāyāna is Buddha-spoken.

(7) The meaning lies beyond the literal (differing from the literal): What the Mahāyāna teaches has a most deep intent; its real meaning is not to be grasped just by following the letter (beneath the letter there is a further depth); one must not, just because one cannot understand it oneself, turn round and slander it, saying it is not Buddha-spoken. By the seven reasons above, plainly the Mahāyāna truly is Buddha-spoken.

The Sūtrālaṃkāra sums up these seven in a single verse — "because: not foretold beforehand · proceeding together · not the field of others' practice · thoroughly established · existent-or-non-existent · counteracting · differing from the literal." This verse simply lays out, item by item in verse, the seven reasons given above.

5. The hidden intent of the other schools: the four āgamas covertly teach the ālaya

Not the Mahāyāna alone — even the sūtras of the [Hīnayāna] schools (the various other schools) speak, by way of "hidden intent," of the ālaya-consciousness as having a substance of its own. "Hidden intent" means: not naming it openly, but speaking of it covertly under some other name. First the Mahāsāṃghika: in their āgama they covertly name this consciousness the "root-consciousness," because it is the support of the eye-consciousness and the rest — just as a tree-root is the root of the trunk and branches; whereas the eye-consciousness and the rest do not themselves have the capacity of "being the root that is depended on." Plainly, then, they pointed separately to a consciousness that is the root — namely the eighth consciousness.

Next the Sthavira: their sūtras, and the Vibhajyavādin masters too, both covertly name this consciousness the "existence-factor consciousness." Unpacking the name — "existence" refers to the three existences (the desire, form, and formless realms, the three tiers of the world of birth-and-death), and "factor" means "cause"; it is so named because this consciousness alone is both constant and pervading, and can be the cause of the three existences. Plainly, then, the "existence-factor consciousness" they set up is likewise the eighth consciousness.

Next the Mahīśāsaka: they name this consciousness the "aggregate that runs to the end of birth-and-death" (the aggregate that holds out all the way to the very end of birth-and-death) — for apart from the eighth consciousness one can find no other aggregate that can "hold out all the way to the very end of birth-and-death, never breaking in between." Going through them one by one makes it plain: in the formless realm, the various form-dharmas are cut off (there is no form); in places like the no-conception heaven, the rest of mind and the mental factors too are extinguished (there is no mind); as for the non-concurrent formations, apart from form and mind they have no substance of their own (this much has long been commonly conceded). Form, mind, and the non-concurrent formations all fail to hold up; so this consciousness alone deserves to be called the "aggregate that runs to the end of birth-and-death" — which is just the eighth consciousness.

Next the Sarvāstivāda: in their Ekottara-āgama they too covertly name this consciousness the "ālaya," in the four phrases "loving the ālaya, delighting in the ālaya, taking pleasure in the ālaya, rejoicing in the ālaya." Why set up these four names? Because the ālaya-consciousness is precisely the object that "craving" refers to — it is referred to both by "whole-reference" (referring to it as a whole) and by "particular-reference" (referring to it segment by segment), the reference being to the three times, past, present, and future; and so, going by this, the four names — loving, delighting, taking pleasure, rejoicing — were set up.

Beings grasp this consciousness as a real "inner self" (the self within), and so long as this attachment is not severed, they ceaselessly give rise to loving-attachment toward it; hence the ālaya-consciousness is the "true place of loving attachment" (the place beings truly love and cling to with their lives). One ought not to take "the rest, the five appropriating aggregates," and the like, as the true place of loving attachment — the reasons follow, one by one:

(1) Beings born in a "place of unrelieved painful feeling" (such as the hells, those places with only pain and no pleasure) give rise to no loving-attachment toward the rest of the five appropriating aggregates at all; on the contrary, they constantly loathe and recoil from these five appropriating aggregates, thinking moment by moment, "When shall I be rid of this life, rid of this lot-and-station, rid of this suffering body-and-mind, so that I may enjoy pleasure freely?" — Plainly, then, toward the rest of the aggregates they have only loathing; so those aggregates are not the true place of loving attachment.

(2) "The five desires" (the five sensual pleasures — sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) too are not the true place of loving attachment — one who has already left desire (that is, one who has severed desire-realm craving), though he no longer craves and clings to those five fine pleasures, still loves the "self." Plainly, then, this loving-of-self does not rest on the five desires. (3) "Pleasant feeling" (the feeling of pleasure) too is not the true place of loving attachment — one who has already severed the craving of the third meditative absorption (pleasant feeling reaches only as far as the third absorption, and above that there is none of it), though he has left even pleasant feeling behind, still loves the "self."

(4) "The view of the body" (the view that grasps body-and-mind as a self) too is not the true place of loving attachment — take, say, the person who has not yet reached the no-more-learning stage but can already trust-and-understand no-self: he no longer craves and clings to "the view of the body" (that is, the view of the perishable composite, which grasps the five aggregates as a self), yet he still gives rise to love toward "the self within." (5) "The turning consciousnesses" (the first seven) and the like too are not the true place of loving attachment — take, say, the person who has not yet reached the no-more-learning stage but single-mindedly wishes to extinguish the mind (such as one cultivating the cessation-attainment): he has left even the turning consciousnesses behind, yet he still loves the "self."

(6) "The form-body" (this body of form) too is not the true place of loving attachment — one who has already severed form-realm craving, though he has left even the form-body behind, still loves the "self." (7) "The non-concurrent formations" (that class of dharma which belongs neither to form nor to mind), since apart from form and mind they have no substance of their own, are likewise not the true place of loving attachment.

To sum up: when the ordinary being and the one in the stage of learning arouse "self-love," toward the rest of those aggregates they sometimes love, sometimes do not — it is not fixed; but toward this eighth consciousness, "self-love" definitely arises. So this consciousness alone is the true place of loving attachment. By this it is plain that the "ālaya" the Sarvāstivāda speak of refers, for certain, to just this ālaya-consciousness (the eighth). — With this the scriptural side has been cited in full (the five teachings end here); below, the side of right principle (that is, the ten reasons) is to be displayed.

C. The ten principles: right principle displays the existence of the eighth consciousness

Reason 1. The proof from upholding the seeds (a mind able to uphold the seeds must exist separately)

A sūtra says: "That which gathers up and from which arise the seeds of all defiled and pure dharmas — this is named the 'mind.'" — But if there were no this eighth consciousness, that "mind able to appropriate the seeds" would not stand to exist.

Why can the turning consciousnesses (the first seven) not bear the load of appropriating the seeds? For several reasons: first, these turning consciousnesses intermit in the cessation-attainment and the like (once cut off, they cannot be joined back on); second, they arise and cease now this way, now that, varying without fixity according to differences of faculty, object, attention, good-or-evil, and so on; third, they are like a lightning-flash that cannot be held, cannot stand firm. Just on this account, the turning consciousnesses can neither receive perfuming nor uphold the seeds, and are simply not the "mind that gathers up and from which arise the defiled and pure seeds" spoken of in the sūtra.

Only this eighth consciousness is "of one kind, continuing on, forever unbroken" — like sesame (jùshèng, which can be used to take in fragrance), it stands firm and so can receive perfuming. This precisely answers to the sūtra's sense of "the mind that gathers up the seeds and from which they arise, and is therefore named the mind." Plainly, then, the mind that gathers them up is the eighth consciousness.

If one refuses to grant that there is such a "mind able to appropriate the seeds," then one runs counter not only to the sūtras but also to reason. How so? The defiled and pure dharmas we arouse, if they had no place to be perfumed, could not be perfumed into seeds; and being unperfumed into seeds, those once-arisen dharmas would be "spent for nothing" (they arose for a moment, left behind no seed, and nothing can carry on from them). Again, since at the time the defiled and pure dharmas arise there would be no cause (no seed serving as cause), it would come to the same thing as the heretics' "arising spontaneously without a cause" (with no cause, things popping up out of nowhere).

Perhaps someone says: then could one not take "form-dharmas" or "the non-concurrent formations" to appropriate the seeds? That too fails. Form-dharmas and the non-concurrent formations are not of mind-nature; like sound or light, they cannot, by reason, be perfumed by the "defiled and pure inner dharmas," so how could they uphold the seeds? Again, the non-concurrent formations, apart from consciousness, have no real substance of their own — how could one forcibly take them to be the support of the "inner seeds" (the inner seeds)?

As for the various mental factors associated with the turning consciousnesses, their faults are just like those of the turning consciousnesses — they intermit, easily arise-and-cease, are not masters of themselves, and are not that constant, uniform mind-nature — and so they can neither uphold the seeds nor receive perfuming. Following the chain of reasoning all the way through, plainly that "mind able to appropriate the seeds" must, by reason, exist separately — namely the eighth consciousness.

〔Refuting: the view that the six consciousnesses' "kind" receives perfuming〕

〔One view · the "kind" of the six consciousnesses can receive perfuming〕 One faction holds: the six consciousnesses, from beginningless time, in dependence on faculty, object, and so on, pass through many phases one after another; the "event" (that is, each particular present activity) keeps changing, yet the "kind" (that uninterrupted strand of one and the same class) does not change. They say that it is just this "kind" that receives perfuming and appropriates the seeds; with it, defiled-and-pure cause-and-effect all stand up, so why must one separately insist that there is an eighth consciousness?

〔A〕 This will not stand. Why? This "kind" is either really existent or conventionally existent, and both roads are blocked off: if one says this "kind" is really and truly existent, then one is on the same footing as the heretics (who too set up a permanent, single "kind"); and if one says this "kind" is merely conventional, then it has no real "preponderant function," and so it cannot uphold "the real seeds of the inner dharmas" — for a conventional thing cannot bear up real seeds.

Again, to press further: this "consciousness-kind" you speak of — under which nature does it fall? Here too there are two roads, neither of them passable. (a) If it is of good nature or evil nature, then it ought not to receive perfuming — because whatever is "determinate" (marked as good or evil) cannot receive perfuming, just like cessation-through-discrimination (an unconditioned dharma). (b) If it is of indeterminate nature, then there is trouble: when a good mind or an evil mind is actually arising, there is no indeterminate mind present — so would not this "kind" then be cut off? And you cannot say "the event is good or evil, but the kind is indeterminate" — for each particular "kind" must be of one nature with its own particular "event": if the event is good, its kind must be good too; if the event is evil, its kind must be evil too.

Again, in the no-mind stage (such as the cessation-attainment), this "kind" is certainly absent; since it intermits and cannot stand firm, how could one hold that it upholds the seeds and receives perfuming? And one further point: the mind of an arhat and the mind of an ordinary being have the same "consciousness-kind"; carry through your account that "same kind means they can perfume each other," and then the ordinary being's defiled dharmas ought to be able to perfume the arhat, and the arhat's uncontaminated dharmas ought to be able to perfume the ordinary being — and to grant this would be a great fault (the defiled and the pure all jumbled into confusion).

And another point: the eye-faculty and the rest, or the rest of the various dharmas, are also of the same "kind" as the eye-consciousness and the rest, whether in "faculty" or in "dharma"; carry through your principle that "same kind means they can perfume each other," and they too ought to perfume each other — yet this very point you yourself refuse to grant. Plainly, then, the view that "the consciousness-kind receives perfuming" cannot stand, and one ought not to cling to it.

And another point: the six consciousnesses, taken either as their "event" or as their "kind," do not have their prior moment and their later moment co-existing (the prior moment ceases, only then does the later moment arise); this is like two things "separated by a moment," which cannot perfume each other — for the perfumer and the perfumed must both be on hand at the same time. Granting even, for argument's sake, that someone holds "only the six consciousnesses, and that the six consciousnesses can turn all at the same time," still, by the reasons given above, since the six consciousnesses are not something able to receive perfuming, they likewise have no power of appropriating the seeds.

〔Refuting: the view that form and mind, succeeding one another without a gap, serve as each other's seeds〕

〔Another position · form and mind serve as their own seeds, one moment onto the next〕 Again, some maintain: form, within its own class of form, [proceeds] "one moment onto the next without a gap," and mind, within its own class of mind, is likewise; the prior moment serves as the seed of the later moment, and so cause-and-effect too stands up — so the foregoing (the proof from upholding the seeds), brought forward as warrant, does not establish anything. 〔A〕 This position is unreasonable, for it has no "perfuming" at all: since within its own class there is no perfuming (no such thing as receiving perfuming), how could one hold that "the prior moment is the seed of the later moment"?

Again, if "the prior moment serves as the seed of the later moment," then whatever is cut off in between ought never to arise again — but this lands you in trouble: the two-vehicle no-more-learner (before he enters nirvāṇa-without-remainder), if his form-and-mind at the instant of death is, as you say, to serve as the seed of the aggregates of the next life, then after his death he ought to have no later aggregates (the body-and-mind of a next life); yet the two-vehicle one, before he has entered nirvāṇa-without-remainder, plainly still has later aggregates — which clashes with your account. Nor should one maintain that form and mind, turning about, serve as each other's seeds to give birth — for the turning consciousnesses, form, and the rest are not able to receive perfuming, as has been said above.

〔Refuting: the view that the three times are really existent, so no seed-upholding consciousness is needed〕

〔Another faction · the three times are all really existent〕 Again, one faction (this is the Sarvāstivāda position) says: the various dharmas of the three times — past, present, and future — are all really and truly existent, so cause-and-effect joins up and is established of itself, and why trouble to insist that there is a "consciousness able to appropriate the seeds"? As for the sūtra's saying "the mind is the seed," that is merely because, when the mind arouses the defiled and pure dharmas, its force is preponderant (so the mind is one-sidedly named, and it is not that there is some separate seed-upholding consciousness).

〔A〕 This will not stand: the past and the future are neither permanent nor present, just like a flower [seen] in empty space (a sky-flower) — they are simply not really existent; moreover they can exert no function, so one cannot forcibly take them to be "cause-and-condition." Therefore, if there were no "consciousness able to appropriate the defiled and pure seeds," then all cause-and-effect would fail to stand up.

〔Refuting: the view that the emptiness-principle of dispelling-marks denies this consciousness〕

〔Another position · taking the "emptiness-principle of dispelling-marks" as the ultimate〕 Again, some maintain: the Mahāyāna's "dispelling-marks" (sweeping away all marks) emptiness-principle is the most ultimate; relying on a "specious inference" (one that looks correct but is in fact fallacious), they wipe out this consciousness, indeed wipe out all dharmas — and by this wiping-out they especially run afoul of the sūtras cited above. They grasp the practice-fruits — knowledge, severance, realization, cultivation — as well as defiled and pure cause-and-effect, all as "not really existent," and this becomes a great wrong view.

〔A〕 This position is even worse than the heretics'. The heretics, in slandering defiled and pure cause-and-effect, still did not say it was "wholly nothing"; they only said it was "not really existent" — and this position is on a par with the heretics, and goes further still. Just think: if no dharma were really existent, then the bodhisattva ought not, for the sake of leaving birth-and-death, to toil and labor at gathering the provisions of awakening — for what wise person, to drive off "an illusory foe," would go seeking "a barren woman's son" (a thing that simply does not exist) to make up his troops?

Therefore one ought to believe that there really is a "mind able to appropriate the seeds," in dependence on which defiled and pure cause-and-effect are established — and this mind is precisely this eighth consciousness. (Here the reason from upholding the seeds is concluded.)

Reason 2. The proof from maturation (a true maturation-mind must exist separately)

A sūtra says further that there is a "maturation-mind" (the retribution-mind called forth by the ripening of past karma), which is called forth by good karma and evil karma — but if there were no this eighth consciousness, that maturation-mind would not stand to exist.

Why can the turning consciousnesses not be the maturation-mind? The eye-consciousness and the rest intermit, and moreover are not at all times the fruit of karma (sometimes when they arise it is not karma that has called them forth); like a lightning-flash, they are unstable and break off, so they are not the true maturation-mind. Note that a true maturation ought not to "break off and then join back on" — look at the maturation-fruit of the sort that is the life-faculty: there is never any such thing as "breaking off and then continuing." Plainly, then, maturation must continue on without break, and the turning consciousnesses cannot bear this.

Among the six consciousnesses, eye-consciousness and the rest, those called forth by karma are like sound (arising only when a condition meets them), not continuing on constantly, and so they are at most "maturation-born" (born from maturation), and do not count as "true maturation." So one must grant that there is a "true maturation-mind" — which requites the "impelling karma" (that is, the karma that calls forth the total retribution and settles the broad direction of a whole lifetime), pervading all and never intermitting, able to manifest the body (the body-with-faculties) and the receptacle (the receptacle-world) to serve as the basis for beings; for if the body and the receptacle were apart from a mind, by reason they could not arise — plainly, then, there must be a mind able to manifest them.

The non-concurrent formations have no real substance and cannot manifest the body and the receptacle; and the turning consciousnesses are not always present, and cannot constantly manifest the body and the receptacle. That being so, if there were no this true maturation-mind, then who, pray, would manifest the body and the receptacle? And in dependence on what dharma could the continuity of beings' lives be "constantly" borne up?

Again, whether in concentration or out of concentration, whether at times of particular cogitation or of no cogitation, by reason there arise many "bodily feelings" (the various sensations in the body). If these bodily feelings did not arise, then afterward one ought not to feel any ease or weariness in the body (ease and weariness are precisely the fruit borne out by bodily feeling). But if there were no constantly-present true maturation-mind, then at those times (of no cogitation, and so on) how could there be such bodily feeling?

Here a word must be added to forestall misunderstanding: it is not that the Buddha too has a true maturation present when he arouses other good minds and the like — note that wherever it is said above that "bodily feeling arises, maturation arises," the reference is to "beings other than the Buddha" (the Buddha already has no maturation, and so is not in this example). By this it is known that there really is, constantly, a true maturation-mind, and this mind is precisely this eighth consciousness.

Reason 3. The proof from the substance of destiny-and-birth (the truly real destiny-and-birth is only the maturation-mind)

A sūtra says further: beings flow and turn through the five destinies (the five goings-forth: the gods, humans, animals, hungry ghosts, and hells) and the four births (the four modes of birth: womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, transformation-born). But if there were no this eighth consciousness, that "substance of destiny-and-birth" would not stand to exist.

How is this to be judged? Only a dharma that is "really existent, constant, pervading, and unmixed" deserves to be the substance of the "truly real destiny-and-birth." If it is not a maturation-dharma, then its destiny-and-birth will be mixed and confused — for while one abides in this destiny, this birth, one can still arouse the dharmas of another destiny, another birth (just as, while in the human destiny, one can arouse the kind of good mind that belongs to the heavens); this is impure, and so does not count as truly real destiny-and-birth.

Checking against this standard one by one: (1) the various maturation form-dharmas, and those among the five consciousnesses that are called forth by karma, are not "pervading" of destiny-and-birth — because in the formless realm form and the five consciousnesses are wholly absent. (2) The various inborn goods, and those among the mind-consciousness that are called forth by karma, though they are "pervading" of destiny-and-birth and arise unmixed, are nonetheless "not always present" (they intermit). (3) And the non-concurrent formations have no real substance. — None of these can serve as the truly real destiny-and-birth.

Only the maturation-mind, together with the mental factors associated with it, is "really existent, constant, pervading, and unmixed," and so can serve as the truly real destiny-and-birth. If there were no this mind, then when someone born in the formless realm arouses a good mind (at that time there is no form, no five consciousnesses, and the inborn good is moreover not always present), would he not then turn out to be "neither destiny nor birth"? — and this lands one in trouble.

Even if you take a step back and broaden "destiny-and-birth" to take in all the contaminated dharmas (hoping by this to patch up the previous hole), that still cannot save you: for when someone born in the formless realm arouses an uncontaminated mind, he still turns out to be "neither destiny nor birth" (the uncontaminated is not subsumed under the contaminated), and this again clashes with reason. So as both to avoid the previous fault and to avoid this fault, only the "maturation-dharma" is the truly real destiny-and-birth.

By this one matter becomes plain: the Tathāgata is not subsumed under "destiny-and-birth" — because the Buddha already has no maturation-indeterminate dharma; the Tathāgata is also not subsumed under "the realm" (the three realms) — because the Buddha is no longer contaminated, the World-Honored One having long since cast off both the truth of suffering and the truth of origination, and the seeds of all conceptual proliferation having all been forever severed.

Since the truly real destiny-and-birth can only be the maturation-mind and its mental factors, and this mind and these mental factors cannot, by reason, stand apart from the eighth consciousness, it is therefore known that there is separately this eighth consciousness.

Reason 4. The proof from appropriation (appropriating the form-faculties is only the maturation-mind)

A sūtra says further: a body with form-faculties (that is, this body equipped with the five form-faculties) is "appropriated" — meaning it is appropriated and received by a mind, and so has sensation, can feel pain and itch. But if there were no this eighth consciousness, that "[mind] able to appropriate" would not stand to exist.

This is to say: the five form-faculties and their basis are appropriated only in the "present world" (in the past and future they are not appropriated), and this can come about only if "there is a mind able to appropriate." This mind able to appropriate can only be the maturation-mind — it is drawn forth by past karma, is itself neither good nor defiled, and appropriates this body-with-form-faculties in a manner that is "of one kind, able to pervade, and continuous"; the eye-consciousness and the rest of the turning consciousnesses have no such capacity.

Here a fine point must be made clear: the sense of this passage is only to display that the eye-consciousness and the rest of the turning consciousnesses all lack the capacity to appropriate one's own body-with-form-faculties in a manner "of one kind, able to pervade, and continuous"; it is not to say that "whatever can appropriate must be only the maturation-mind." — Why draw this distinction? Because if one said so across the board, then the Buddha's form-body, having no maturation, would turn out to be appropriated by no one — and that will not do. So one should understand that what is meant here is in fact that "what can appropriate a 'contaminated' form-body is only the maturation-mind"; this is its real intent.

Below, the turning consciousnesses are refuted one by one: (1) the turning consciousnesses all "arise upon a present condition" (they arise only when an object is present before them), like sound or wind, and so cannot appropriate continuously. (2) Among the turning consciousnesses, those that are good or defiled are "not drawn forth by karma," like cessation-not-through-discrimination (an unconditioned dharma, which has no link to karma), and so they too do not appropriate. (3) Among the turning consciousnesses, those that are "maturation-born" are moreover "not true maturation, cannot pervade as a basis, and are not continuous," like a lightning-flash — and these several kinds all cannot appropriate the contaminated form-body.

One further word to add: whenever one speaks of "mind" or "consciousness," one in fact also takes in the "mental factors" associated with it (for a mind-king must have mental factors associated with it — just as the term "consciousness-only" in fact takes in the mental factors). Again, the form-faculties and the non-concurrent formations cannot appropriate the body-with-form-faculties — because they "have no object-support" (no object referred to), like empty space. Therefore there must be separately a "mind able to appropriate," and this mind is precisely this eighth consciousness.

Reason 5. The proof from life-warmth and consciousness (the consciousness that upholds life and warmth is only the maturation-consciousness)

A sūtra says further: the three — life (the lifespan), warmth (body-heat), and consciousness — mutually rest on and uphold one another, and so get to abide on in succession (a person stays alive). But if there were no this eighth consciousness to uphold life and warmth, that "consciousness able to make life and warmth long-abide" would not stand to exist.

This is to say: the turning consciousnesses "intermit and vary," like sound or wind, and have no constant upholding function, and so cannot be set up as the "consciousness that upholds life and warmth." Only the maturation-consciousness "neither intermits nor varies," just like life and warmth (which too continue on constant and uniform), and has a constant upholding function, and so can be set up as the consciousness that upholds life and warmth.

〔Q〕 Someone asks: the sūtra says these three "mutually uphold one another," yet life and warmth both continue on of one kind without break, while only "consciousness" is not so (if "consciousness" here means the turning consciousness, then it intermits) — would this not then fail to fit reason (with one of the three breaking off, how can they uphold one another)? 〔A · turning the question back〕 Do you not yourself grant that "only warmth does not pervade the three realms" (in the formless realm there is no warmth)? That point does not in the least hinder the account of the three dharmas upholding one another; on what ground, then, do you forbid me to say "consciousness too may, all on its own, intermit and vary"? 〔Further answer〕 Be that as it may, this counter-question in fact poses no real refutation of the foregoing reason —

How so? In any place where "all three — life, warmth, and consciousness — are present and all turn without intermission," there these three can be said to uphold one another constantly; lacking the condition "without intermission," there is no constant mutual upholding. The foregoing passage, on just this principle, points out that the "consciousness" spoken of among the three dharmas is not the turning consciousness (for the turning consciousness intermits, and so has no constant upholding power). As for your refutation by "warmth does not pervade the three realms," that in fact cannot wreck this principle — for "whether warmth pervades the three realms" is one matter, and "consciousness must uphold constantly" is another; the two matters are not to be confounded. So what was said above stands firm in reason.

Again, among the three dharmas, since life and warmth are both only contaminated, plainly the "consciousness" that upholds-and-rests-on them along with them must, like life and warmth, certainly be not uncontaminated (an uncontaminated consciousness cannot uphold contaminated life and warmth). The question then arises: when someone born in the formless realm arouses an uncontaminated mind, which consciousness is upholding his life? (At that time, were the turning consciousness to become uncontaminated, it could not uphold life and warmth, and so there must be separately some other consciousness.) By this it is known that there really is a "maturation-consciousness," of one kind, constant, and pervading, able to uphold life and warmth — and this consciousness is precisely this eighth consciousness.

〔Verses commented〕Continuing: unfolding verses 2–4 · proving the eighth

The two previous chapters have set out the ālaya's three aspects, its seeds, and its gates. But one may ask: for all that has been said, does this consciousness really have a substance of its own, apart from the consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind? This chapter answers that. The treatise raises two standards — scripture and reason. Here are the five scriptures and the first five of the ten reasons; the latter five form the next chapter.

The proof that an eighth consciousness exists has its roots in scripture and treatise alike. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on mind, mentation, and consciousness, displays this one consciousness under three names: "ādāna" is "following along and appropriating" (it appropriates the body and the life-faculty); "ālaya" is "receiving, harboring, and sharing one safety and danger" (sharing one safety and danger with the body); and "mind" is "accumulating and increasing." It also has a verse — "The ādāna consciousness is profound and subtle; all the seeds are like a rushing torrent" — and the warning, "I do not expound it to the foolish and immature, lest they discriminate it and grasp it as a self." This is precisely the scriptural basis for an eighth consciousness: it displays that it appropriates the body and the life-faculty, that its seeds flow on like a torrent in perpetual succession, and that, being hard to fathom and hard to know, it is easily grasped wrongly as a self. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra gives the image, "The ocean of the store-consciousness perpetually abides, stirred by the wind of its objects into the various waves of the consciousnesses, surging up and arising by turns" — for the eye-consciousness and the rest cannot, like the great ocean, raise the waves of consciousness perpetually and continuously, which by contrast reveals that there is another, eighth consciousness serving as the substance of the "store-consciousness ocean." The Mahāyāna Abhidharma Sūtra has, moreover, two verses: one — "The realm that has existed from beginningless time is the equal support of all dharmas; because of it there are the destinies of rebirth, and the realization of nirvāṇa as well" (the realm-support) — and one — "Because it stores and harbors all dharmas, it is the all-seed consciousness; therefore it is named ālaya, which I reveal to the superior ones" (the storing-harboring) — and this sūtra has no separately circulating version in the Chinese lands, its text surviving only as quoted in the present treatise. As for the treatise-basis, it lies in the Yogācārabhūmi, in its section settling the points to be known: it first cites the verse "the ādāna consciousness is profound and subtle," then establishes "eight characters that prove the ālaya-vijñāna definitely exists" — appropriation, the first arising, the quality of clarity, the quality of seeds, the differentiation of karmic function, the differentiation of bodily sensation, the place of the mindless absorptions, and the consciousness at the time of death — none of which would be coherent apart from the ālaya-vijñāna. The ten reasons of this section unfold precisely from those eight characters of the Yogācārabhūmi (appropriation, seeds, karmic function, bodily sensation, the place of the mindless absorptions, and the consciousness at the time of death each entering into the ten reasons); its scriptural root is in the Saṃdhinirmocana and the Laṅkāvatāra, and its treatise-root in the eight-character proof of the Yogācārabhūmi. What follows expounds it in order, following the present treatise.

A. General Statement: Scripture and Reason as the Two Standards of Measure

How do we know that the eighth consciousness stands apart from the eye-consciousness and the rest, possessing a substance of its own? We must rely on two "standards of measure" — two reliable criteria. The first is scripture, the discourses spoken by the Buddha; the second is reason, demonstration that accords with how things actually are. Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) here unpacks the two words "standard of measure": the eighth consciousness is not an object that worldly "direct perception" (immediate first-hand witnessing) can take, but can be proven only through the two means of "the standard of noble speech" (trusting what the Buddha said) and "inference" (knowing as it accords with reason); these two means are decisively reliable, and so are called "standards of measure" — which is just the backbone of the whole section: the proof of an eighth consciousness does not go by direct perception, but by scripture and reason alone. Kuiji further marks where this section falls within the prose treatment of the root consciousness: the prose first expounds the verse by "eight passages and ten meanings" (the three aspects, the seeds, and the various gates), and this section is the passage that "afterward proves this consciousness exists by ten reasons and five scriptures." The whole passage divides into three parts — first, the posing of the question (asking why, apart from the eye-consciousness and the rest, there should be a separate eighth); second, the direct answer (answering with the five scriptures and ten reasons); and third, down to the line "that there is a separate such consciousness is plainly evident in scripture and reason," the concluding exhortation to belief. Take scripture first. The Mahāyāna Abhidharma Sūtra has a verse: "The realm that has existed from beginningless time is the equal support of all dharmas; because of it there are the destinies of rebirth, and the realization of nirvāṇa as well." From beginningless time there has been this "realm," and all dharmas rest equally upon it; because it exists, there is the turning of beings through the destinies of rebirth, and there is also the realization of nirvāṇa.

The intrinsic nature of the eighth consciousness is exceedingly subtle and hard to display directly, so we display it by way of its functions. The first half of the verse — the "realm," the "equal support of all dharmas" — displays its function as cause-condition; the second half — the destinies and nirvāṇa — displays its function of supporting-and-sustaining within the two gates of forward flow (saṃsāra) and reverse return (nirvāṇa). "Realm" carries the sense of "cause": it is the seed-consciousness, which from beginningless time, in unbroken succession, directly gives rise to all dharmas. "Support" carries the sense of "condition": it is the appropriating consciousness, which from beginningless time serves as the equal basis for all dharmas. Because it can both hold all the seeds (acting as cause) and provide a basis for the active dharmas (acting as condition), it both "becomes those things" (transforming into the receptacle-world and the sense-endowed body) and "is the basis for those things" (the support of all the evolving consciousnesses). It is able to appropriate the five material faculties, so the eye and the other four consciousnesses turn in dependence upon it; and it provides a basis for the manas, so the sixth, mental consciousness turns in dependence upon it (both the manas and the mental consciousness being evolving consciousnesses). Just as the eye-consciousness and the rest each depend on their own concomitant faculty, the eighth, being likewise a consciousness, ought in reason also to take the seventh as its concomitant support. This is its function as cause and its function as condition. "Because of it there are the destinies of rebirth" — because this consciousness exists, holding all the dharmas that conduce to forward flow, it causes sentient beings to flow on through birth-and-death. (Affliction, action, and the resultant birth all belong to forward flow, but "destiny" is the fruit and the most conspicuous, so the verse singles out "destiny"; or "the destinies" may cover both the act of going and the place gone to, and even the equipment of going may be called a destiny.) Affliction, action, and birth all depend on this consciousness — this is its supporting-and-sustaining function within the gate of forward flow. "And the realization of nirvāṇa" — because this consciousness exists, holding all the dharmas that conduce to reverse return, it causes the practitioner to realize nirvāṇa. This line admits three readings: it may refer to the "path that realizes" alone (the cessation that is nirvāṇa does not exist in dependence on this consciousness); or to the "nirvāṇa that is realized" alone (what the practitioner truly seeks); or to both nirvāṇa and the path together (both belonging to reverse return). In any case, the path that severs, the affliction that is severed, and both subject and object of realization all depend on this consciousness — this is its supporting-and-sustaining function within the gate of reverse return. Further: the first line of the verse displays that the intrinsic nature of this consciousness exists eternally from beginningless time, while the latter three lines display that it serves as the general and particular support for the two sets of dharmas — defilement (suffering and its origin) and purity (cessation and the path). (If one said the evolving consciousnesses were the support, they break off and cannot stand as such.) Or the latter three lines may display that it serves as the support for the three natures — the other-dependent, the wholly-imagined, and the perfectly-accomplished. In short, nothing said in this verse can hold together once the eighth consciousness is removed.

B. The Five Scriptures — Explicit Discourse Testimony for the Eighth Consciousness

1. The Mahāyāna Abhidharma Sūtra (the "Storing the Ālaya" verse)

That sūtra has another verse: "Because it stores and harbors all dharmas, it is the all-seed consciousness; therefore it is named ālaya, which I reveal to the superior ones." Because this root consciousness possesses all seeds and can store and harbor all the defiled dharmas, the name "ālaya" (store) is established for it. This "storing-and-harboring" is not like the Sāṃkhya's "primordial nature" transforming into "the great" and so on (where it is one substance unfolding by stages), because the seeds and the substance of their fruits are not one and the same, and both the supported and the supporting arise and perish. This consciousness and the defiled dharmas mutually store and harbor one another, and it is moreover grasped and harbored by sentient beings as a self — therefore it is called "ālaya." The verse's "superior ones" admits two readings: first, the bodhisattvas who have entered the path of seeing and attained true direct insight (they can realize and understand the ālaya, so the Buddha discloses it precisely to them); second, all bodhisattvas (though before the path of seeing they have not yet realized it, they can have confident understanding and can seek the transformation of its basis, so the Buddha speaks of it for them too). This sense of storing-harboring, of seeds, and of being grasped-and-harbored is something only the eighth consciousness can sustain — it is not anything the evolving consciousnesses could possess.

2. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (the "ādāna" verse)

The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra also has a verse: "The ādāna consciousness is profound and subtle; all the seeds are like a rushing torrent. I do not expound it to the foolish and immature, lest they discriminate it and grasp it as a self." This consciousness can hold the seeds of all dharmas, appropriate the material faculties and their bases, and grasp the "linking of rebirth, continued in succession" (the unbroken continuity from before to after at the moment of taking birth) — therefore it is called "ādāna" (appropriator). "Beings without the requisite nature" (those lacking the Mahāyāna lineage) cannot fathom its depths, so it is called "profound"; the "lineage inclined to mere quiescence" (the two vehicles, who seek only their own peace) cannot penetrate it, so it is called "subtle." It is the true seed of all dharmas, and the moment a condition strikes, the waves of the evolving consciousnesses arise from it, ceaselessly and without interruption, so it is likened to a rushing torrent. In the verse, "the foolish" are those without the nature, and "the immature" are those inclined to quiescence — the Buddha does not expound it to them for fear that they would discriminate it and grasp it as a self, and so fall into evil destinies and obstruct the noble path. This character — "profound and subtle, seeds like a torrent, liable to be grasped as a self" — belongs to the eighth consciousness alone.

3. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (the "store-consciousness ocean" verse)

The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra also has a verse: "Just as the ocean, meeting the condition of wind, raises waves of every kind, their present operation turning on without any interval; so too the ocean of the store-consciousness, struck by the winds of its objects and the rest, perpetually raises the waves of the consciousnesses, their present operation turning on." The eye-consciousness and the rest cannot, like the great ocean, perpetually and continuously raise the waves of the consciousnesses (they break off) — which shows that there is another, eighth consciousness that serves as the substance of this "store-consciousness ocean." Mahāyāna sūtras of this kind are beyond measure and number, and all of them separately affirm the existence of this eighth consciousness.

4. Establishing That "the Mahāyāna Is the Buddha's Word" (Seven Reasons + the Verse from the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra)

Having adduced Mahāyāna sūtras as testimony, we must first establish that "the Mahāyāna sūtras are indeed the Buddha's word." All the Mahāyāna sūtras accord with non-self and oppose self, discard forward flow and incline toward reverse return, praise the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha and disparage the non-Buddhist schools, display the aggregates and the rest while refuting "primordial nature" and the like. Everyone who delights in the Mahāyāna acknowledges that it can display the principle that is without distortion; being included among the discourses, it belongs, just as the Ekottarikāgama and the like do, to "the standard of authoritative teaching" (the standard of noble speech). Furthermore, Maitreya proves by seven reasons that the Mahāyāna truly is the Buddha's word: first, no prior prediction — if the Mahāyāna had been composed after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa by someone bent on destroying the true Dharma, why did the Buddha not predict it in advance, as he did with the other "fearful things to come"? (Since there was no such prediction, it is evidently not a forgery.) Second, original co-currency — the Mahāyāna and the lesser-vehicle teachings ran together in the world from the start, so how can one conclude that the Mahāyāna alone is not the Buddha's word? Third, beyond others' range — what the Mahāyāna teaches is vast and profound, not within the range that the non-Buddhists can contemplate; their scriptures and treatises have never spoken of it, and even if it were explained to them they would not accept it. Fourth, it must be granted either way — if one says the Mahāyāna was spoken by "another Buddha" and not by the present Buddha, then the Mahāyāna is still the Buddha's word, so "the Mahāyāna is the Buddha's word" is established beyond doubt. Fifth, its being or non-being — if one grants that there is a Mahāyāna (a path), then one ought to believe its teaching is the Buddha's word (apart from this, the Mahāyāna path cannot be obtained); and if one says there is no Mahāyāna, then there ought to be no śrāvaka-vehicle teaching either, because apart from the Mahāyāna there is definitely no meaning to "becoming a Buddha" — and if no one becomes a Buddha, who appears in the world to teach the śrāvaka vehicle? So since the śrāvaka vehicle is the Buddha's word, "the Mahāyāna is not the Buddha's word" is incoherent. Sixth, it counteracts — those who diligently cultivate by the Mahāyāna sūtras can all give rise to non-discriminating wisdom that genuinely counteracts every affliction, which shows it is the Buddha's word (it has real efficacy). Seventh, the meaning differs from the letter — what the Mahāyāna teaches is exceedingly profound in intent; one must not take its meaning at the surface of the letter alone and then slander it as not the Buddha's speech. A verse from the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra gathers these seven reasons together: "Because of no prior prediction, co-currency, being beyond others' range, being granted either way, its being or non-being, its counteracting power, and its meaning differing from the letter."

5. The Hidden Intent of the Other Schools — the Four Āgamas Too Secretly Teach the Ālaya

Not only the Mahāyāna: in the sūtras of the Nikāya schools too, the eighth consciousness is taught "by hidden intent," only under a changed name. The Mahāsāṃghikas, in the hidden intent of their Āgama, call it the "root consciousness," the basis of the eye-consciousness and the rest — just as the root of a tree is the source of trunk and branches, while the eye-consciousness and the rest carry no sense of "serving as a root basis." The Sthaviras and the Vibhajyavādins, by hidden intent, call it the "consciousness of existence-factors": "existence" refers to the three modes of existence, and "factor" carries the sense of "cause" — it alone is perpetual and all-pervading, able to serve as the cause of the three modes of existence. The Mahīśāsakas call it the "aggregate that lasts to the end of birth-and-death" — apart from the eighth consciousness, there is no other aggregate that can "exhaust the very limit of birth-and-death without interval" (in the formless realm the material dharmas break off; in the heaven of no-conception and the like the remaining mind and mental factors also cease; the non-concomitant formations, again, have no substance apart from matter and mind — so it alone is fit for the role). The Sarvāstivādins, in the hidden intent of their Ekottarikāgama, call it the "ālaya," in the four phrases "delighting in the ālaya, taking pleasure in the ālaya, rejoicing in the ālaya, being glad in the ālaya" — because the ālaya-vijñāna is the general and particular object of craving across the three times, these four names are established for it.

Here the Sarvāstivādins also use a line of argument about the "true locus of attachment": sentient beings grasp this consciousness as the real "self within," and so long as this has not been severed they perpetually give rise to attachment toward it — therefore this consciousness alone is the "true locus of attachment," and one should not take the "remaining five appropriating aggregates" and the like as the true locus of attachment. How is this proven? By eliminating the candidates one by one. First, one born in a "place of wholly painful sensation" (such as the hells) not only fails to love the remaining five appropriating aggregates but perpetually loathes them, longing moment after moment, "When shall I cast off this life, this body-and-mind, and go to receive pleasure?" (which shows the remaining aggregates are not the true locus of attachment). Second, the "five sense-pleasures" are not the true locus of attachment — one who is free of desire, though he does not crave the five fine sense-pleasures, still loves a self. Third, "pleasant sensation" is not the true locus of attachment — one who is free of the defilement of the third dhyāna, though he loathes pleasant sensation, still loves a self. Fourth, the "view of the body" is not the true locus of attachment — one not yet at the stage beyond training, who yet has confident understanding of non-self, though he does not crave the view of the body, still loves an inner self. Fifth, the "evolving consciousnesses" and the like are not the true locus of attachment — one not yet beyond training, who yet cultivates the cessation of mind, though he loathes the evolving consciousnesses, still loves a self. Sixth, the "material body" is not the true locus of attachment — one free of the defilement of matter, though he loathes the material body, still loves a self. Seventh, the "non-concomitant formations," having no substance apart from matter and mind, are still less the true locus of attachment. When ordinary beings and those still in training give rise to self-love, their love toward the remaining aggregates is sometimes present and sometimes absent (indeterminate), but their "self-love" toward this eighth consciousness invariably arises — so it alone is the true locus of attachment. This shows that the "ālaya" the Sarvāstivādins speak of refers, beyond doubt, to this eighth consciousness. The scriptural testimony (the five scriptures) is now complete; what follows are the reasoned proofs (the ten reasons).

C. The Ten Reasons — Reasoned Proofs Displaying the Existence of the Eighth Consciousness

Reason 1, the Proof from Holding Seeds — There Must Be Some Other Mind That Holds the Seeds

Scripture says that "what gathers and gives rise to the seeds of all the defiled and pure dharmas is called mind"; without the eighth consciousness, this "mind that holds the seeds" ought not to exist. Why are the evolving consciousnesses unfit to hold the seeds? Because they break off in such states as the absorption of cessation; and because they arise and depart easily, varying by faculty, object, attention, wholesome-or-unwholesome category and the like, and cannot hold firm — flickering like lightning. So they cannot receive perfuming, cannot hold seeds, and are not the "mind that gathers and gives rise to defiled and pure seeds." Only the eighth consciousness continues as one homogeneous stream, perpetual and without interval, holding firm and capable of being perfumed like sesame (which can absorb fragrance) — this precisely fits the scripture's "the gathering-and-giving-rise is called mind." If one will not grant a mind that holds the seeds, this contravenes both scripture and reason: the defiled and pure dharmas that arise would have nowhere to deposit their perfuming, so the perfuming could not form into seeds, and they would have arisen for nothing (no cause for them to be continued); and when defiled and pure dharmas arise without any causal seed, they become the non-Buddhists' "uncaused, spontaneous arising." Nor will it do to have matter or the non-concomitant formations hold the seeds — they are not of the nature of mind, and like sound or light they cannot receive the perfuming of the inner defiled and pure dharmas, so how could they hold seeds? Still more, the non-concomitant formations have no real substance apart from consciousness, so how could they serve as the basis for "inner seeds"? As for the mental factors concomitant with the evolving consciousnesses, they too, like the evolving consciousnesses, break off, depart easily, are not self-determining, and are not a perpetual single mental nature — so they neither hold seeds nor receive perfuming. Therefore the "mind that holds the seeds" must be some other mind, namely the eighth consciousness.

Here several divergent views are refuted. Some say that "the 'category' of the six consciousnesses can receive perfuming and hold seeds" (although each particular instance of the six consciousnesses changes, the character of the homogeneous succession of the same kind does not differ, so they take this "category" to hold the seeds). Rebuttal: if this "category" is held to be really existent, it is the same as the non-Buddhists' position; if it is granted to be merely nominal, it has no real efficacy and cannot hold the real seeds of the inner dharmas. And ask further: what nature is this "consciousness-category"? If it is wholesome or unwholesome in nature, it ought not to receive perfuming (what is morally determinate does not receive perfuming, like analytical cessation); if it is morally neutral in nature, then when a wholesome or unwholesome mind is active there is no neutral mind present, so this "category" would have to break off. (Nor can one say "the instances are wholesome and unwholesome while the category is neutral," for each particular category must share the nature of its particular instance.) Again, in mindless states this "category" is definitely absent — being thus broken off, it does not hold firm, so how could it hold seeds and receive perfuming? Again, the "consciousness-category" of an arhat's mind and of an ordinary being's mind is the same, so an ordinary being's defiled dharmas ought to be able to perfume an arhat, and undefiled dharmas ought to perfume an ordinary being (sameness of category implying mutual perfuming) — which is a ruinous consequence. Again, the eye-faculty and the eye-consciousness are of the same category in respect of "faculty and dharma," so they ought to perfume each other, yet you do not allow this. Again, the six consciousnesses, whether in respect of instance or of category, are never simultaneous in their prior and later moments — as though separated by a moment, they cannot perfume each other (perfumer and perfumed must be simultaneous). Even granting someone who holds that "the six consciousnesses can arise together simultaneously," the six consciousnesses are still not what is perfumed, so they have no sense of holding seeds. Others hold that "matter and mind each, in their prior moment, serve as the seed for their later moment" (homogeneous, uninterrupted succession). Rebuttal: since the homogeneous succession involves no perfuming, how can one hold the prior to be the seed of the later? Moreover, if "the prior is the seed of the later," then whatever breaks off ought never to arise again (if the matter and mind at the moment of death of a two-vehicle adept beyond training were the seed of a later set of aggregates, there ought to be no later aggregates — yet there really are). Nor does it work for matter and mind to serve reciprocally as each other's seeds (the evolving consciousnesses and matter are not what is perfumed, as said above). Others hold that "the three times are really existent, so there is no need to posit a separate seed-holding consciousness" (the scripture's "mind is the seed" is said only because the force of mind is strong when it gives rise to defiled and pure dharmas). Rebuttal: the past and future are neither permanent nor present; like sky-flowers, they are not really existent and have no function, so they cannot serve as the cause-condition. Without a consciousness that can hold the defiled and pure seeds, no cause and effect whatsoever can be established. Others hold that "the Mahāyāna principle of emptiness, which dispels characteristics, is the ultimate, denying this consciousness and indeed all dharmas." Rebuttal: this especially violates and damages the sūtras adduced above, holding wisdom, severance, realization, cultivation, and the cause-and-effect of defilement and purity all to be unreal, and so becomes a great wrong view — even the non-Buddhists who slander cause and effect do not say it is wholly nonexistent, only that it is unreal, so this grasping is worse than the non-Buddhists'. If all dharmas were unreal, the bodhisattva need not cultivate the equipment of awakening in order to cast off birth-and-death — what wise person would, in order to fight "an illusory enemy," go and seek "the son of a barren woman" to serve as his army? Therefore one should believe there is a mind that holds the seeds, and on it establish the cause-and-effect of defilement and purity; that mind is the eighth consciousness.

Reason 2, the Proof from Maturation — There Must Be Some Other Mind That Is the True Maturation

Scripture says there is a "maturation mind," felt as the result of wholesome and unwholesome action; without the eighth consciousness, this maturation mind ought not to exist. The eye-consciousness and the rest break off, and are not at all times the fruit of action — like lightning — so they are not the true maturation mind (the true maturation ought not to "break off and then resume"; look at the life-faculty and other maturation-results, where there is no case of resuming after having been cut off). Among the six consciousnesses, those felt as the result of action are, like sound, not perpetually continuous; they are merely "maturation-produced," not "true maturation." So one must grant a "true maturation mind" — one that requites the directive (general-result) action, that is all-pervading and without interval, that transforms into the body and the receptacle as the support of sentient beings (the body and the receptacle cannot stand apart from a mind that transforms into them). The non-concomitant formations have no real substance, and the evolving consciousnesses are not perpetually present; so without this true maturation mind, who is to transform into the body and the receptacle? And in dependence on what could "a sentient being" be perpetually established? Furthermore, whether in absorption or not, whether deliberating or not, there ought always to be many "bodily sensations" arising — otherwise how, afterwards, would one feel the body refreshed or fatigued? If there were not perpetually a true maturation mind, where would these bodily sensations come from in those states? (Note: speaking of "bodily sensations and maturation arising" refers throughout to "sentient beings who are not Buddhas" — the Buddha has no maturation and is not in question here.) From this we know there is perpetually a true maturation mind, and that is the eighth consciousness.

Reason 3, the Proof from the Substance of Destiny and Birth-Mode — The True Substance of "Destiny and Birth-Mode" Is Solely the Maturation Mind

Scripture says that sentient beings flow on through the five destinies and the four modes of birth; without the eighth consciousness, this substance of "destiny and birth-mode" ought not to exist. To serve as the "truly real substance of destiny and birth-mode," a dharma must be "really existent, perpetual, all-pervading, and unmixed" (a dharma that is not maturation makes destiny and birth-mode chaotic — while abiding in this destiny and this birth-mode one could still give rise to dharmas of another destiny and another birth-mode). Test the candidates one by one: maturation matter, and those among the five consciousnesses felt as the result of action, are not "all-pervading" (entirely absent in the formless realm); innately wholesome dharmas, and those within the mental consciousness felt as the result of action, though "all-pervading" and unmixed, are "not perpetual" (they break off); the non-concomitant formations, again, have no real substance — none of these can be established as the substance. Only the maturation mind and its mental factors are the truly real destiny and birth-mode that is real, perpetual, all-pervading, and unmixed. If this mind did not exist, then at the time of being born in the formless realm and giving rise to a wholesome mind (no matter, no five consciousnesses, wholesome arising and not perpetual) one would not count as having a destiny and birth-mode. Even granting, for argument's sake, that destiny and birth-mode comprehend all contaminated dharmas, then when one is born in the formless realm and gives rise to an uncontaminated mind, that too would not count as destiny and birth-mode (the uncontaminated not belonging to the contaminated) — still contravening reason. To avoid both these faults, only a "maturation dharma" is the truly real destiny and birth-mode. And precisely for this reason the Tathāgata is not comprehended by destiny and birth-mode (the Buddha has no neutral maturation), nor comprehended by the three realms (not contaminated, having cast off suffering and its origin, the seeds of conceptual proliferation already severed). Since the truly real destiny and birth-mode is solely the maturation mind and its factors, and these cannot stand apart from the eighth consciousness, we know there is a separate eighth consciousness.

Reason 4, the Proof from Appropriation — That Which Can Appropriate the Material Faculties and Body Is Solely the Maturation Mind

Scripture says the material faculties and body are "appropriated" (held and received by mind, so as to become felt and sensate); without the eighth consciousness, this "mind that appropriates" ought not to exist. The five material faculties and their bases are appropriated only in the present world, and this must come about through "a mind that can appropriate"; and this appropriating is solely the maturation mind — drawn forth by prior action, neither wholesome nor defiled, appropriating the material faculties and body "homogeneously, all-pervadingly, and continuously," a capacity the eye-consciousness and the other evolving consciousnesses do not have. (This statement displays that the evolving consciousnesses lack the capacity to appropriate homogeneously, all-pervadingly, and continuously; it does not say that "whatever can appropriate is invariably the maturation mind" — otherwise the Buddha's material body, having no maturation, would become unappropriated. One should understand it as saying that "what can appropriate a contaminated material body is solely the maturation mind.") Refute the evolving consciousnesses one by one: the evolving consciousnesses "arise only when a present object is at hand," and like sound or wind they cannot appropriate perpetually; among them, the wholesome and defiled, being "not drawn forth by action," like non-analytical cessation, do not appropriate; among them, the maturation-produced, being "not true maturation, not all-pervading in their support, and not continuous," like lightning — none of them can appropriate a contaminated material body. Whenever one says "mind" or "consciousness," it comprehends its mental factors as well (which are determinately concomitant — just as the single phrase "consciousness-only" comprehends the mental factors). Matter and the non-concomitant formations, again, cannot appropriate the material faculties and body — because they "have no object," like empty space. So there must be a separate mind that can appropriate, and that is the eighth consciousness.

Reason 5, the Proof from Lifespan, Warmth, and Consciousness — The Consciousness That Can Hold Lifespan and Warmth Is Solely the Maturation Consciousness

Scripture says that the three — lifespan, warmth, and consciousness — mutually depend on and hold one another, and only thus do they get to abide in succession; without the eighth consciousness able to hold lifespan and warmth, this "consciousness that makes lifespan and warmth abide long" ought not to exist. The evolving consciousnesses have intervals and turnings — like sound and wind — and have no function of perpetual holding, so they cannot be established as the consciousness that holds lifespan and warmth; only the maturation consciousness, without interval and without turning, just like lifespan and warmth (also perpetual and homogeneously continuous), has the function of perpetual holding, so it can be established as the consciousness that holds lifespan and warmth. Someone objects: scripture says the three dharmas "mutually depend on and hold one another," yet lifespan and warmth are homogeneously continuous while "consciousness" alone is not (if it means the evolving consciousness, it breaks off) — how is this coherent? Counter-question to him: since you grant that "warmth alone does not pervade the three realms" (no warmth in the formless realm) and this still does not damage the doctrine of mutual dependence, then why will you not grant that "consciousness alone has intervals and turnings"? Then answer it clearly: wherever the three dharmas are "complete and turn without interval," there the three can perpetually depend on and hold one another; where they are not complete and not without interval, there is no function of perpetual mutual holding — the foregoing precisely uses this principle to display that "the consciousness among the three dharmas does not mean the evolving consciousness"; and the objection that "warmth, when adduced, does not pervade" cannot damage this principle. Furthermore: since lifespan and warmth among the three dharmas are solely contaminated, the "consciousness" that holds them in mutual support is likewise definitely not uncontaminated; so when one is born in the formless realm and gives rise to an uncontaminated mind, who holds that lifespan? (When the evolving consciousness becomes uncontaminated it no longer holds, so there must be some other.) From this we know there is a "homogeneous, perpetual, all-pervading" maturation consciousness that can hold lifespan and warmth, and that is the eighth consciousness.

Onward Transmission

This proof by five scriptures and five reasons is carried forward under the same headings. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha, in its chapter on the knowable ground, treats the ālaya under ten aspects, and the two verses of the Abhidharma Sūtra and the ādāna verse of the Saṃdhinirmocana cited in its section of scriptural attestation are exactly those cited here — one source. The Yogācārabhūmi, in its Section of Ascertainment, establishes eight aspects proving the ālaya, and its aspects of seed-holding, maturation and appropriation are the ground of the first five reasons here. The Hundred Dharmas lists the ālaya as the eighth of the mind-dharmas, and its right to be separately listed rests on just what is proved here — that it has a substance of its own. Without this proof the eighth consciousness would have no title to stand.