成唯識論 餘門·受·性·界繫·三位無有

The four afflictions of the manas were settled in the previous chapter. This one asks finer questions: what other mental factors accompany it? Is it painful, is it pleasant? Is it wholesome or unwholesome? Into which realm does it follow a being? — and last the question that matters: when does it stop?

The answer: it pairs with equanimity alone — neither painful nor pleasant. That is worth pausing over. The mind that grasps at "I" without pause, day and night, is itself level, without emotion. Emotion is the sixth consciousness's business; the manas merely grasps, spontaneously and without a sound.

Its moral nature is obscured-indeterminate — not evil, yet a veil upon the noble path. That is an exact verdict: self-grasping does not show itself by doing wrong; it simply keeps you from seeing what is true.

As for when it stops: at the arhat stage, in the attainment of cessation, and while the supramundane path is present. The first is severance for good; the other two are suppression for a time. So practice is not finished by holding it down — holding it down is one thing, cutting it off is another.

In settling which mental factors accompany the manas the treatise records three positions: nine (the four afflictions plus the five omnipresent); fourteen (adding the five object-specific); nineteen or twenty-four (adding the secondary afflictions). All three are set down and the last taken as settled — the manas being obscured-indeterminate, it is concomitant with the eight greater secondary afflictions, and the count is then full.

That practice of recording divergent readings deserves attention. The author is not unaware which position is stronger; he takes one as settled. And still he sets the others down in full. This is not hesitation but manner: where the ancient masters read a sense differently, their positions are set down together, attributed by name, marked with their loci, so that the point of divergence is plain — and none is judged right and another wrong.

〔Verses commented〕Continuing the previous chapter, unfolding verses 5–7

〔Verses expounded〕

A. The remaining concomitant mental factors (contact and so on arising with the manas)

〔Q〕Are the mental factors concomitant with the manas (that is, "mentation") only the four afflictions spoken of before (self-delusion, self-view, self-conceit, self-love)? 〔A〕No. For the verse says "and concurrent with the rest, contact and so on" — meaning that, besides those four afflictions, the manas also arises together with "contact" and the remaining mental factors.

〔One view · the mental factors are only nine〕 One view: the manas has only nine mental factors — that is, the four afflictions before, plus the five "contact and so on" dharmas pointed to by the word "rest" in the verse (contact, attention, feeling, conception, and volition — these five together called the "five omnipresent factors," which follow along whenever any mind arises). Why must these five be present? Because the manas is "definitely concomitant" with the five omnipresent factors — that is, the moment the manas arises, these five are bound to follow.

When the eighth consciousness was discussed earlier, it was already said that the five omnipresent factors, contact and so on, arise together with the eighth maturation-consciousness (that is, the ālaya-consciousness). The worry here is that someone might mistakenly suppose the contact-and-so-on on the manas's side to be just like those on the eighth's side, and likewise "unobscured" (unobscured-indeterminate, the sort of indeterminate that does not obstruct the holy path). In fact it is not so: the contact and so on concomitant with the manas are "obscured" (they obstruct the holy path), differing from the set concomitant with the eighth. To point out this distinction, the verse deliberately places the word "rest."

The word "and" in the verse means "joined together": it joins the four afflictions before with the five omnipresent factors after, nine in all, all of them constantly concomitant with the manas — the word "and" gathers these nine in altogether.

〔Q〕Besides these nine, why does the manas have no other mental factors at all (the determinative-object factors, the good, the secondary-afflictions, and the indeterminate factors — how is it that none of these is in it)?

First, "desire" (the "desire" among the determinative-object factors, that is, wanting). "Desire" arises toward "a matter not yet attained, something one is just seeking"; but the manas turns spontaneously, and what it takes as object is the present, already-attained object at hand (it constantly takes the store-consciousness as object and grasps it as a "self" — a matter long since accomplished, with nothing to seek). Since there is nothing to hope for, there is no "desire" within the manas.

"Resolve" is that "settling-fast" upon what was formerly not yet certain but is later determined — toward a matter once undecided, finally affixing approval and holding it firm. But from beginningless time the manas takes as object what is already long determined (it has settled fast on the store-consciousness as "self," never wavering), and so there is no "first-wavering-then-determining" for it to settle fast upon; hence there is no "resolve" within the manas.

"Mindfulness" merely retains "matters formerly practiced over and over" (that is, recalling past matters). But the manas constantly takes as object "the present object presently received"; it does not take the past as object, with no past matters to retain; hence there is no "mindfulness" within the manas.

"Concentration" merely binds the mind and fixes it on a single object. But the manas turns spontaneously, taking now this, now that as object from moment to moment, switching back and forth, and is not fixed staring at one; hence there is no "concentration" within the manas.

As for "wisdom" (the "wisdom" among the determinative-object factors), it is in fact just the "self-view" spoken of before (self-view by nature takes wisdom as its essence, being a defiled wisdom); it is already counted within the four afflictions, and so here it is not mentioned again, no separate mental factor being set up for it.

The "good" class (the eleven good mental factors, faith, shame, abashment, and the rest) is by nature "pure"; but the manas is a defiled consciousness (obscured), and defiled and pure do not match, so the good dharmas do not arise together with the manas.

For the "secondary-afflictions" (the small afflictions that arise following the root afflictions) to be established, one must rely on the various partial-marks that the "root afflictions" display across their prior and posterior phases — that is, the root affliction is one way in this state, another way in that, and only from these differing partial-marks can the secondary-afflictions be set up. But the manas is constantly bound up with those four root afflictions, ever of "one kind" prior and posterior (continuing along the same single line, with no high-and-low difference of phase); and since there is no change of partial-marks, no secondary-afflictions can be set up; hence among the mental factors arising with the manas there are no "secondary-afflictions."

"Regret" (also called "remorse," one of the four indeterminate factors) is afterward repenting what one had done before. But the manas turns spontaneously, constantly taking the present object as object; it does not turn back to repent what was done before; hence there is no "regret" within the manas.

"Drowsiness" (one of the four indeterminate factors), to arise, must rely on body-and-mind becoming heavy and dull, and on the force of various outer conditions converging, only then arising for a moment now and then. But from beginningless time the manas is merely "of one kind grasping inwardly" (constantly grasping the store-consciousness inwardly as "self"); it needs no outer conditions; hence there is no "drowsiness" within the manas.

"Applied thought" and "sustained thought" (two among the four indeterminate factors) both turn in reliance on the "outer gate," that is, taking outer objects as object — "applied thought" deliberates shallowly, "sustained thought" deliberates deeply and finely, the one giving rise to coarse speech, the other to fine speech. But the manas turns only in reliance on the "inner gate," that is, constantly taking inwardly as object the "self" it grasps, of one kind grasping the self, never deliberating outward upon outer objects; hence it does not arise together with applied or sustained thought.

〔Another view · refuting the former〕 Another view: the former faction (which glosses the word "rest" as the five omnipresent factors and says the manas's mental factors are only nine) has glossed the word "rest" untenably. There are two reasons: first, the verse separately says plainly that the manas is comprised within the "obscured-indeterminate," yet if the manas had only nine dharmas (four afflictions plus five omnipresent factors), then among those nine there would be no defiled secondary-afflictions, and the "obscured" layer of defilement would have nothing to rest on, fitting nowhere; second, on such a count the "secondary-afflictions arising with the manas" would be left out.

When a root affliction arises, there must be secondary-afflictions arising with it. So this word "rest" in the verse aims to point out precisely the "secondary-afflictions," and not merely the five omnipresent factors.

〔Herein one view · five secondary-afflictions pervade defiled mind〕 Once the secondary-afflictions are to be counted, one must first settle "just how many secondary-afflictions accompany any defiled mind that arises." Here one view: there are "five secondary-afflictions" that universally are concomitant with all defiled mind (that is, the moment the mind is defiled, these five are present).

This is stated following the Abhidharmasamuccaya: sloth (the mind sunk, unable to rouse itself), restlessness (the mind floating, unable to settle), non-faith, indolence, and negligence — these five are constantly concomitant together within every kind of the defiled.

Why must these five be present? Because if one departs from "unworkability" (the sloth-like quality of being unable to rouse, unable to put forth strength) and the rest of these five qualities, and yet "defilement" could be established on the strength of something else alone — there is no such case. In other words, wherever there is defilement, these five are sure to be carried along.

The moment an affliction arises, the mind being thereby defiled, in every state of defiled mind there are sure to be those five (sloth and the rest).

Again, for an affliction to arise, it must rely on these five as its inner contributing causes: "unworkability" (that is, sloth, the mind unable to rouse), "clamorous stirring" (that is, restlessness, the mind in an uproar, unable to settle), non-faith, indolence, negligence — only with these five can the affliction arise.

Here a doubt is first resolved: although restlessness pervades all defiled mind, it is especially conspicuous and strong when "greed" arises, and so other treatises everywhere count it only as "a portion of greed" (a portion reckoned along with greed) — this does not mean it is present only with greed. Just so with drowsiness and regret (remorse): although these two extend across all three natures of mind (good, bad, indeterminate), they are especially strong when "delusion" arises, and so they too are counted only as "a portion of delusion." (This explains why the various treatises often hang a given secondary-affliction beneath some one root affliction in the telling — that is said with respect to where it is most conspicuous, and does not mean it does not pervade.)

Here a further discrepancy is reconciled: some other treatises say "the secondary-afflictions pervading defiled mind are six," some say "there are ten"; but one should understand that those are each said to "pervade" with respect to "another sense," and it is not that those six, those ten, each and every one truly pervade all defiled mind. Below, the particular sense on which each of these two positions rests is made clear.

First, the "six pervade" position: it takes, from within the twenty secondary-afflictions, those that at once meet three conditions — first, their mode reaches both coarse and fine; second, their nature reaches both indeterminate and unwholesome; third, they obstruct both concentration and wisdom; and just because the marks of those meeting these three conditions are most conspicuous, these six are picked out and said to pervade.

Next, the "ten pervade" position: it takes, from within the twenty-two secondary-afflictions (on another way of enumerating), those that meet two conditions — first, their mode reaches both coarse and fine; second, their nature reaches "two natures" (that is, the unwholesome and the indeterminate); and just on this sense, these ten are picked out and said to pervade.

So this position's "five pervade," and the others' saying of "six" and saying of "ten," do not contradict one another — because each rests on its own particular sense.

Reckoning it out this way, according to this faction (the five-secondary-afflictions-pervade position), the mental factors arising with the manas are fifteen in all: namely the nine before (four afflictions plus five omnipresent factors), the five secondary-afflictions, and the "wisdom" among the determinative-object factors.

Here someone may ask: is not self-view just the "wisdom" among the determinative-object factors? Then how can the count above include both self-view and the determinative-object wisdom — is that not a duplication? One should understand: although self-view is comprised under the "wisdom" of the determinative-object factors, within the classification of the fifty-one mental factors these two senses are not the same (self-view inclines toward that strand of defiled grasping, whereas wisdom itself reaches across the three natures, good, bad, indeterminate), and so they are split into two for the count — one counted as "self-view" (within the four afflictions), and one also counted as "determinative-object wisdom."

〔Q〕Then why does the manas have no other mental factors at all (for instance, the remaining secondary-afflictions)?

First, the ten such as wrath (that is, the ten "lesser secondary-afflictions"): their mode is coarse and violent, agitated; but the manas in its examining is fine, not coarse, and does not match that coarse violence, so it does not arise together with them.

Next, shamelessness and immodesty, these two: they reach only the "unwholesome" nature; but the manas is of "indeterminate" (obscured-indeterminate) nature, the natures not matching, so it is not concomitant with them.

Next, "distraction": it makes the mind race outward, scattering onto outer objects. But the manas constantly arises taking as object "the one-kind object within" (that is, grasping the self inwardly), and does not run scattering outward, so there is no "distraction" within the manas.

Next, "improper knowing": it is, when setting in motion the various activities of body, speech, and mind through the outer gate, doing them out of accord with the rules, gone wrong. But the manas merely grasps the self within, and does not set those activities in motion outward, so it does not arise together with it.

As for there being no other mental factors at all (desire, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, regret, drowsiness, applied thought, sustained thought — none of these arises with the manas), the reasoning is the same as stated before, not restated.

〔Another view · six secondary-afflictions pervade defiled mind〕 Another view: it should be said that there are "six" secondary-afflictions that pervade all defiled mind. The ground is that the Yogācārabhūmi says: non-faith, indolence, negligence, forgetting-mindfulness (failing to retain the true dharma, losing right mindfulness), distraction, and bad-wisdom (a confused discernment) — these six are accompanied by all defiled mind.

How is it known that these six pervade? Look first at the three, forgetting-mindfulness, distraction, and bad-wisdom: if these were absent, the mind simply could not arouse those afflictions at all — which shows that these three surely pervade defiled mind.

The reasoning is this: to arouse greed and the other afflictions, one must first take as object "that kind of object formerly received," and upon it arouse "forgetting-mindfulness" (failing to retain the true dharma) and "wrong discrimination" (that is, bad-wisdom, discerning amiss), and only thus can greed and the other afflictions be produced. (Since the arousing of every affliction cannot do without these two, it shows that they pervade.)

Next, look at distraction: the moment an affliction arises, the mind is sure to scatter and waver, unable to settle, and this is all because, taking an object as object, "distraction" has arisen. Which shows that distraction too pervades.

Then why are sloth and restlessness not counted among these six? Because the modes of these two are exactly opposite (the one sinks downward, the other moves upward), and it is impossible for every defiled mind to arouse these two at once together — and so this faction does not list them within the "pervading six."

Then what of the former faction's treatise saying "five dharmas pervade defiled mind"? That picked out another sense — their mode reaches both coarse and fine, they are opposed only to the good dharmas, they are pure secondary-afflictions, and their nature reaches "two natures" (the unwholesome and the indeterminate). So saying five before and six here, each rests on its own particular sense, and they do not conflict.

As for the line "saying ten pervade," the sense it rests on has already been stated before (namely, within the twenty-two secondary-afflictions, resting on the sense "the mode reaches both coarse and fine, the nature reaches the two natures").

Reckoning it out this way, according to this faction (the six-secondary-afflictions-pervade position), the mental factors arising with the manas are nineteen in all: namely the nine before, the six secondary-afflictions, plus mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom (the determinative-object factors), and the addition of one sloth.

Here, why is "mindfulness" set up separately (not folded into the secondary-afflictions but counted on its own)? The reasoning is the same as the earlier gloss of "wisdom": just as self-view (defiled wisdom) and the determinative-object wisdom are counted separately, so here that defiled mindfulness (forgetting-mindfulness) and the clean determinative-object mindfulness are to be counted separately, and so "mindfulness" is set up on its own.

Why does this faction also count one "concentration"? Because the manas is fixed upon "the one-kind self-object it grasps," never letting go — though it turns spontaneously, on this one object of grasping the self it is, after all, constantly fixed, and so it is counted as having "concentration." (This differs from the saying in section A that "the manas has no concentration"; that is the difference of the several factions' standpoints.)

Why is one "sloth" further added? Because the "ignorance" arising with the manas is especially deep and heavy, pressing the mind down into a dull, unrousable sinking, and so it is counted as having "sloth."

Then why is "restlessness" not added? Because restlessness is floating and clamorous, exactly opposite to the manas's manner of "grasping the self inwardly, of one kind, sunk and dull," not matching, and so restlessness is not added.

As for there being no other mental factors at all, it is to be understood from what was stated above.

〔Another view · ten secondary-afflictions pervade defiled mind〕 Another view: going a step further, the secondary-afflictions pervading all defiled mind should be said to be "ten."

The ground is that the Yogācārabhūmi says: negligence, restlessness, sloth, non-faith, indolence, wrong-desire, wrong-resolve, wrong-mindfulness, distraction, and improper knowing — these ten arise in all defiled mind, reach to all places (that is, to every stage and realm), and are bound throughout the three realms.

Among these ten, what the former faction left out are wrong-desire and wrong-resolve, and so these two are especially argued: if there were no "wrong-desire" and "wrong-resolve," the mind simply could not arouse those afflictions at all — which shows that these two pervade as well.

The reasoning is this: toward the object received, one must first have "a wishing-to-join, a wishing-to-shun" (this is wrong-desire) and "settle fast upon the mark of that matter" (this is wrong-resolve), and only thus can greed and the other afflictions arise. (Since the arousing of every affliction cannot do without these two, it shows that they pervade.)

Here an objection must be answered: someone will say, "'Doubt' is by its nature wavering — how can it coexist with 'resolve' (settling fast), something decisive, and how can resolve still be said to pervade defiled mind?" The reply: one must distinguish two layers, "principle" and "matter." A person who doubts on a "point of principle" need not, after all, waver toward the concrete "matter" of form and the like before him; and so even the mind concomitant with "doubt" still has, with respect to the concrete mark of the matter, its "resolve" (it can settle fast). Which shows that wrong-resolve still pervades defiled mind, and is not blocked out by "doubt."

And what of someone who wavers even toward the "matter" before him? That sort of wavering is no longer the affliction-natured "doubt." To draw a comparison: in the dark one sees a thing and cannot make out "whether it is a person or a tree-stump" — this is just an ordinary uncertainty about a matter, and is not that affliction-natured "doubt" deluded on a point of principle.

Then why do other treatise-passages not count these two (wrong-desire, wrong-resolve) among those pervading defiled mind? That is because, when "taking as object an unlovely matter," and in "the mind concomitant with doubt," these two wrong-desire and wrong-resolve are not coarse and not conspicuous, and so those passages pass over them in silence — it is not that they do not pervade.

As for the remaining secondary-afflictions, which is present and which absent and how they are arranged, the reasoning is the same as stated before.

Reckoning it out this way, according to this faction (the ten-secondary-afflictions-pervade position), the manas's mental factors are twenty-four in all: namely the nine before, the ten secondary-afflictions, plus the five determinative-object factors (desire, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom); the reasoning of this count is to be understood from the gloss before.

As for there being no other mental factors at all, it is to be understood from what was stated above.

〔It should be said · the correct view〕 Another view (this is the correct one): the foregoing factions (counting nine, fifteen, nineteen, twenty-four) all still fall short of the truth. Below, each one's bias is pointed out in turn.

First, refute the wrong-desire and wrong-resolve over-counted by the "ten pervade" faction. Take the matter of "doubting whether there is or is not a world to come": just when a person is wavering like this, undecided, where is there any "desire" (wishing-to-join, wishing-to-shun) to speak of, and where any "resolve" (settling fast)? Which shows that wrong-desire and wrong-resolve do not pervade all defiled mind — the "ten pervade" faction over-counted.

Next, refute the "six pervade" faction's kicking out sloth and restlessness. When an affliction arises, if there were no "sloth," then there would not definitely be "unworkability" (that strand of being unable to rouse); if there were no "restlessness," then there would be no "clamorous stirring" (the uproar) — but in that case that state would be just like a good state and would not amount to a defiled state at all. Which shows that sloth and restlessness ought, on the contrary, to pervade — the "six pervade" faction ought not to have struck these two out.

Next, on distraction: if in defiled mind there were no "distraction," then the mind would not waver and would not amount to a defiled mind. Which shows that distraction too pervades.

Next, on losing-mindfulness and improper knowing: if there were no these two, then how could afflictions be made to come to the fore? Which shows that these two pervade as well.

Settling it thus, point by point, yields the correct view: defiled mind definitely arises concomitant in every case with "eight secondary-afflictions," these eight being: sloth, restlessness, non-faith, indolence, negligence, forgetting-mindfulness, distraction, and improper knowing.

But here a key distinction must be added, else a contradiction arises — for forgetting-mindfulness and improper knowing seem to be just "mindfulness" and "wisdom," so how can they be counted among the eight that pervade defiled mind? One must distinguish what they take as their "self-nature" (essence). The first reading: if forgetting-mindfulness and improper knowing take "mindfulness and wisdom" as their self-nature, then they do not pervade defiled mind — for not every defiled mind "takes as object a formerly-received object" (mindfulness alone takes a past object as object), nor does every defiled mind "perform discernment" (wisdom alone presides over discernment); so on this layer, they do not pervade.

The second reading: if forgetting-mindfulness and improper knowing take "ignorance" as their self-nature (they may also be reckoned a portion of ignorance), then they arise pervading defiled mind, for the reason already given (every defiled mind cannot do without ignorance). The correct view takes this second layer, and so these two can be listed among the eight that pervade defiled mind.

Reckoning it out this way, according to this correct view, the mental factors arising with the manas are eighteen in all: namely the nine before, the eight secondary-afflictions, and the "wisdom" among the determinative-object factors.

As for there being no other mental factors at all, and how the three passages cited from the Yogācārabhūmi ("five, six, ten") are to be reconciled together, both are to be resolved as in the glosses before.

Put this way (the mental factors being eighteen), it neither contradicts right principle nor contradicts holy scripture.

B. The manas's concomitant feeling (with what feeling it is concomitant)

〔The following is fascicle five of the Cheng Weishi Lun.〕

〔Q〕This defiled manas — with which kind of "feeling" (sensation: pain, pleasure, displeasure, joy, equanimity) is it concomitant?

〔One view · only joy-feeling〕 One view: what arises with the manas is only "joy-feeling" — because the manas constantly grasps the self within, and out of this self-grasping there arises joy-and-love, so what it is matched with is joy-feeling.

〔Another view · refuting only-joy〕 Another view: not so. If the manas were matched only with joy-feeling, then since the manas is always present, one would have to admit joy-feeling all the way from the lower realms up to the "peak of existence" (the topmost stage of the three realms, that is, the station of neither-perception-nor-non-perception) — but this contradicts holy scripture (holy scripture says the upper realms have no joy-feeling at all).

It should be said: the manas is concomitant with "four kinds of feeling," and which feeling matches it differs according to which stage it is born in.

Born in an evil destiny (the hells, the hungry ghosts, the animals), the manas is matched with "displeasure-feeling" — because what it takes as object is the fruit drawn on by unwholesome karma (the maturation of the evil destinies), and so it is displeasure.

Born among humans, the desire-realm gods, the first meditation, or the second meditation, the manas is matched with "joy-feeling" — because what it takes as object is the fruit drawn on by the wholesome karma of "those stages that have joy," and so it is joy.

Born in the third meditation, the manas is matched with "pleasure-feeling" — because what it takes as object is the fruit drawn on by the wholesome karma of "that stage which has pleasure," and so it is pleasure.

Born from the fourth meditation all the way up to the peak of existence, the manas is matched with "equanimity-feeling" (the neither-painful-nor-pleasant, the even sort of feeling) — because what it takes as object is the fruit drawn on by the wholesome karma of "those stages that have only equanimity," and so it is equanimity.

〔It should be said · the correct view〕 Another view (this is the correct one): that "matched with four kinds of feeling" account is also untenable.

From beginningless time the manas turns spontaneously, constantly of "one kind" (one and the same mode), constantly taking as object the "self" it grasps within, never altering. But the four kinds of feeling spoken of above are feelings that "alter" according to the differing stages; the manas, being of one kind and unchanging, naturally cannot be matched with that altering kind of feeling, and so they are not concomitant.

Again, wherever the manas differs in meaning from the store-consciousness (the eighth) spoken of earlier, the treatise points it out separately, one by one. Were the manas really concomitant with "four kinds of feeling" (in which case it would differ from the eighth, which is matched only with equanimity-feeling), the treatise ought by rights to have pointed that out as well; yet the treatise has not said one word more. That it is not said separately is enough to determine that the manas is the same as that store-consciousness — likewise matched only with equanimity-feeling.

So what is concomitant with the manas is only the one "equanimity-feeling."

In the "not-yet-turned-around" stage, the manas is concomitant with the defiled mental factors spoken of before; in the "already-turned-around" stage (that is, the manas turned into the wisdom of equal-nature), there remain only twenty-one mental factors arising with it, namely the five omnipresent factors, the five determinative-object factors, and the eleven good.

This is like the eighth consciousness, which in the already-turned-around stage too arises only with equanimity-feeling — because it turns spontaneously and constantly turns evenly toward its object, so it is matched with equanimity-feeling. The manas, after turning around, is likewise so.

C. The manas comprised within the three natures (within what nature it is comprised)

〔Q〕The manas together with its mental factors — within which nature is it comprised? 〔A〕It is comprised within the "obscured-indeterminate" nature, not the other three (good, unwholesome, unobscured-indeterminate).

How so? The four afflictions and so on concomitant with the manas are all defiled dharmas; just because they obstruct the holy path and veil one's own mind, they are called "obscured" ("obscured" meaning to cover and obstruct). Yet it counts as neither good nor unwholesome, and so it is called "indeterminate" (it cannot be reckoned as good, nor reckoned as evil). The two sides together make "obscured-indeterminate."

Here a comparison explains why it is "indeterminate": the afflictions of the upper two realms (the form realm, the formless realm), because they are subdued and held down by the "power of concentration," are likewise comprised within the indeterminate (subdued by concentration, unable to put forth coarse evil, they cannot be reckoned as evil). The defiled dharmas arising on the manas's side, because what they depend on is very subtle and because they turn spontaneously (not coarsely committing evil), are likewise comprised within the indeterminate.

If it has already turned around (the manas turned into the wisdom of equal-nature), then it is purely of "good" nature (no longer obscured-indeterminate).

D. The manas's realm-binding (to what stage it is bound)

〔Q〕The manas together with its mental factors — to what stage is it bound? 〔A〕The verse answers "bound to the stage of wherever it is born" — meaning that whatever stage the manas is born in, it is bound to that stage.

That is to say: born in the desire realm, the present-activity manas together with its concomitant mental factors is "desire-realm-bound"; pushing on up this way, all the way to being born at the peak of existence, it is to be understood likewise (born at the peak of existence, it is peak-of-existence-bound).

Why is it bound according to the stage? Because the manas spontaneously and constantly takes as object the store-consciousness of "its own stage" and grasps it as the inner "self"; it does not take another stage as object, and so it is bound to its own stage.

To unpack the line "bound to the stage of wherever it is born": when the maturation store-consciousness of a given stage arises and is present before one, that is called "being born in that stage"; the defiled manas, taking that store-consciousness as object and grasping the self, is thereby bound to that stage, called "bound to that" (bound by that stage).

The phrase "bound to that" can also be taken on another sense: the manas is fettered by "the various afflictions of that stage," and so is called "bound to that" (both readings hold, and stand together).

If it has already turned around, then the manas is no longer bound to any stage (it has already passed beyond the bondage of the three realms).

E. Absent in the three states (in what state it is severed forever or severed for a time)

〔Q〕This defiled manas, continuing on without break from beginningless time — in what stage is it "severed forever"? Or again, in what stage is it "severed for a time"?

〔The verse answers〕 "In the arhat, in cessation-attainment, and in the supramundane path, it is not present" (in these three states the defiled manas is not present).

First, the word "arhat": it generally points to the no-more-learning fruit-state of the three vehicles (the disciples, the solitary buddhas, the bodhisattvas) — that is, the station where cultivation is complete and there is nothing more to learn. At this station both the "seeds" and the "present activity" of the defiled manas (the seeds being the latent power to give rise, the present activity being the activity issuing forth here and now) are severed and extinguished forever, and so it is said to be "not present."

As for one at the "learner's" stage (still on the way of cultivation), in the "cessation-attainment" and in the "supramundane path" the defiled manas is for a time suppressed, no longer arising, and so these two places too say "not present" — but this is temporary severance, not permanent severance.

Why must it be the holy path alone that can suppress-and-extinguish it? Because the defiled manas, from beginningless time, is subtle, of one kind, turning spontaneously, and those "contaminated paths" (cultivation still carrying afflictions) cannot hold it down; only the "holy path of the three vehicles" (the uncontaminated path that truly severs affliction) can suppress-and-extinguish it.

Why can the holy path subdue it? Because the "true insight into no-self" within the holy path (the wisdom of the uncontaminated true vision directly realizing no-self) is exactly opposite to "self-grasping" and stands against it, and so it can suppress-and-extinguish this manas of single-minded self-grasping.

Further, when the "subsequently-attained uncontaminated wisdom" (the wisdom that arises again after directly realizing no-self) is present before one, being of the same outflow stemming from the "true insight into no-self," it too is likewise opposite to the manas (self-grasping) and stands against it.

The "true insight into no-self" (that is, the fundamental uncontaminated wisdom) and the "subsequently-attained wisdom" — these two are both uncontaminated, and so together they are called the "supramundane path."

The "cessation-attainment," being of the same outflow stemming from the holy path and being utterly still, is such that within this concentration the defiled manas too is not present (held down for a time).

But one should understand: one at the learner's stage has only suppressed it for a time, and has not yet severed forever the "seeds" of the manas. So after he rises from the cessation-attainment or the supramundane holy path, this defiled manas will arise again — and right up until the seeds are truly severed, it will still come forth once more.

Next, how are the manas's seeds severed? The afflictions concomitant with the manas (the four afflictions) are "innate" (born together with one, not arisen later from hearing wrong views), and so it does not belong to "what is severed by [the path of] seeing" (not the sort that is severed the moment one sees the path).

Yet because it is "defiled," it also does not belong to "what is not to be severed" (the category of "what is not to be severed" refers to the undefiled dharmas that simply do not need severing at all). In other words, it lies neither within "what is severed by seeing" nor within "what is not to be severed."

Then when, after all, are its seeds severed? Precisely because it is utterly subtle, its seeds are cut all at once together with the very last "lowest-of-the-low grade" afflictions of the "peak-of-existence stage" (the subtlest, last-to-be-severed grade in the three realms) — because the two are equally subtle and matched in strength, they are finished off at the same time.

When the "vajra-like concentration" (the concentration firm and keen as a vajra, able to sever the very last fraction of affliction) is present before one, it cuts the manas's seeds all at once, and one becomes an arhat; and so at the no-more-learning stage, the defiled manas never comes forth again.

Here a word is added: if a no-more-learning [adept] of the two vehicles turns his mind and heads toward the Great Vehicle, then from his first arousing of the [bodhi-]mind right up until before he becomes a buddha, although he is in fact already a bodhisattva, he may also still be called "arhat" — because the sense of "worthy" (arhat: worthy of offerings, worthy [for having] severed the afflictions) is equally complete in him. Just because this name already takes him in, the verse here does not mention him separately, and the single name "arhat" subsumes him.

〔Verses commented〕Continuing the previous chapter, unfolding verses 5–7

The previous chapter set out the manas's support, its object, its own-nature and its four afflictions. This one carries on through five gates: what mental factors accompany it besides the four afflictions, with what feeling it pairs, what moral nature it has, to which stage it is bound, and at what point it comes to rest. The debate over whether the manas can ever be undefiled, together with its three distinctions and the proof that a seventh consciousness exists, form the next chapter.

The gates settled here have their root in scripture and their ground in treatise. The Saṃdhinirmocana, in its chapter on mind, thought and consciousness, establishes the ādāna consciousness as "pursuing and appropriating the body"; the self that the manas grasps arises in dependence on that consciousness — which is why the gate of "bound according to where one is born" binds as it does. The treatise ground is the Yogācārabhūmi: "the ālaya consciousness at one time turns together with a single evolving consciousness only, namely the manas" — the warrant for the gate of concomitance; and "further, the mind-consciousness takes the defiled manas as its support; while that is unextinguished, the bondage of characteristic-discernment is not released; once the manas has been extinguished …" — which is precisely what this chapter's gate of "absent in three states" declares: while the manas persists the mind-consciousness stays bound, and when it goes the bondage is loosed. The many topics broadened here still have their root in scripture and their basis in treatise. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on mind, mentation, and consciousness, speaks of an "appropriating consciousness" (ādāna-vijñāna) — one that "follows along and appropriates the body," sustaining the body and the life-faculty; and this section's "proof that the seventh truly exists" opens out from this sūtra when it adduces the scriptural passage on "the three distinct senses of mind, mentation, and consciousness" (accumulating-and-giving-rise is named mind, deliberating is named mentation, discerning is named consciousness), where "deliberating is named mentation" points precisely to this seventh. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra gives the image of "the store-consciousness as an ocean, stirred by the wind of objects into surging waves of the various consciousnesses," showing that manas is a consciousness that turns in dependence on the store-consciousness; the verse this section adduces in proving the seventh — "the store-consciousness is named mind; the nature of deliberating is named mentation; what discerns the features of objects is what is called consciousness" — comes from this sūtra. The Yogācārabhūmi, in turn, fixes manas as "perpetually associated with the four spontaneous afflictions (the view of the perishing aggregates, self-conceit, self-love, and the unshared ignorance), obscured-indeterminate, turning spontaneously" — which is the treatise-basis for this section's topic "obscured-indeterminate"; it further says that the store-consciousness "always turns together with one consciousness (manas), and when the mental consciousness arises two turn together, on up to seven turning together," which is the treatise-basis on which the topic "whether it can be undefiled" establishes that "the store-consciousness always turns together with one consciousness"; it further says that "the defiled manas serves as the support of the consciousnesses, and while it is unextinguished the feature-bondage is not freed, only when manas is extinguished is the feature-bondage liberated," which is the treatise-basis for the "feature-bondage" item among the six rational proofs; and it further posits a "supramundane manas," which is the treatise-basis for this section's "a supramundane manas is said to exist in scripture." What this section expounds has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana and the Laṅkāvatāra, and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi — and with that we follow the verse and open out each topic in turn.

A. What other mental factors accompany manas — settling the count

Are the only mental factors associated with manas those four afflictions? No. The verse says, "together with the rest — contact and so on." On the question of "how many more," the author of the treatise lists several positions and finally settles on one number.

First position: the mental factors are nine in all. That is, the four root afflictions plus "the rest" — meaning the five universals: contact, attention, feeling, perception, and volition. Manas is invariably associated with these five universals. (The word "the rest" carries a further purpose. Earlier it was said that contact and so on accompany the eighth consciousness and there belong to the unobscured-indeterminate category; here, lest someone mistakenly assume they are the same, the word "the rest" is added to mark the difference — the contact and so on that accompany manas are obscured. And the word "together" carries the sense of "gathering into a set," combining the prior four with these latter five into nine.) Why, then, does manas have no other mental factors? Take them one by one. "Aspiration" is hope set on something not yet accomplished; but manas spontaneously takes as its object what is already accomplished — perpetually grasping a self — so it hopes for nothing, and thus has no aspiration. "Resolve" is the firm holding of an object once doubted; but manas perpetually takes as its object something already settled, holding nothing under deliberation, and thus has no resolve. "Mindfulness" is the recollection of something formerly experienced; but manas perpetually takes the present as its object and does not turn to the past, and thus has no mindfulness. "Concentration" is single-pointed fixity on one object; but manas takes a distinct object moment by moment and is not single-pointed, and thus has no concentration. "Discernment" is its very "view of self" (the view of self has discernment as its substance), which is already counted among the four afflictions and is not posited again. The eleven wholesome factors have "purity" as their nature, but manas is a defiled consciousness, so the wholesome do not accompany it. The "secondary afflictions" are established only by reference to the before-and-after positional differences of the root afflictions; but manas is perpetually conjoined with the four afflictions as one continuous kind, with no positional variation, and thus has no secondary afflictions. "Regret" is remorse over a former deed, but manas perpetually takes the present as its object and does not regret former deeds, so there is none. "Drowsiness" needs bodily-mental torpor plus external conditions to arise even briefly, but manas is of one inward-grasping kind and depends on no external condition, so there is none. "Applied thought" and "sustained thought" both depend on an outward gate, calculating and giving rise to speech; but manas depends solely on an inward gate, grasping a self in one continuous kind, so neither accompanies it.

Someone refutes this first position. To read "the rest" as the five universals (making the factors nine) is wrong — because the verse elsewhere says manas is "subsumed under the obscured-indeterminate." If there were only nine factors, one could not establish any defiled secondary afflictions associated with that "obscured" quality, and so the "secondary afflictions that accompany manas" would be missing. Yet a root affliction must be accompanied by secondary afflictions. So this word "the rest" precisely points to "the secondary afflictions." The question then becomes: among the secondary afflictions, which ones pervade all defiled minds? Here again there are several positions.

Position: five secondary afflictions pervade all the defiled. The Abhidharma-samuccaya says that torpor, restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, and heedlessness — these five — are perpetually associated with every defiled state (for apart from the very natures of these five — unworkability and the rest — the quality of being defiled cannot be established; when an affliction arises, the mind being already defiled, these five must be present). As for the observation that "restlessness, though it pervades every defiled mind, is heightened in the position of craving, and so is elsewhere called a portion of craving" (just as drowsiness and regret, though they pervade the three moral qualities of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate, are heightened in the position of delusion, and so are called a portion of delusion) — and as for the statements elsewhere that "the secondary afflictions, whether six or ten, pervade all defiled minds," those speak of pervasion in a special sense and not of actual pervasion. The "six" is said by taking three considerations that show together — coarse-and-subtle range of activity, a nature spanning the indeterminate and the unwholesome, and the capacity to obstruct concentration and discernment. The "ten" is said by reference to the separately posited count of twenty-two secondary afflictions, on the considerations of coarse-and-subtle range of activity and a nature spanning the two qualities. So the various statements do not conflict. On this position, the mental factors accompanying manas total fifteen: the prior nine, the five secondary afflictions, plus the object-specific factor "discernment" (although the view of self is subsumed under object-specific discernment, in the classification of the fifty-one mental factors the senses differ, so it is opened into two — counted both as the view of self and as object-specific discernment). Why are there no further factors? Because anger and the rest of the ten lesser secondaries are coarse and fierce in their activity, while manas is examining and subtle, so they do not accompany it; shamelessness and shamelessness-before-others are exclusively unwholesome, while manas is indeterminate, so they do not accompany it; distraction makes the mind run outward, while manas perpetually grasps inward and does not run out, so it does not accompany it; non-discernment arises as outward-gate activities that violate the proper course, while manas grasps only inward, so it does not accompany it; the remainder are as already explained.

Another position: six secondary afflictions pervade all the defiled. The Yogācārabhūmi says that lack of faith, indolence, heedlessness, forgetfulness, distraction, and faulty discernment pervade every defiled mind (for if forgetfulness, distraction, and faulty discernment were absent, the mind could not give rise to affliction — one must take a formerly experienced object with forgetfulness, and discriminate wrongly, before craving and the rest can arise; and when an affliction arises, the mind must drift, which is by way of distraction. As for torpor and restlessness, their modes of activity are mutually contrary, so it is not that every defiled mind can give rise to both; therefore they are not entered into this six). The position of "five factors pervading the defiled" takes a different grouping; the "ten pervading" is as before. On this position, the mental factors accompanying manas total nineteen: the prior nine, the six secondary afflictions, plus the three object-specific factors of mindfulness, concentration, and discernment, plus the one factor of torpor (mindfulness is posited separately on the same principle by which discernment was posited separately before; concentration is present because manas fixes single-pointedly on the one self it grasps, never letting it go; torpor is added because the ignorance accompanying manas is especially heavy, making the mind torpid; there is no restlessness, because restlessness is contrary to manas).

Another position: ten secondary afflictions pervade all the defiled. The Yogācārabhūmi says that heedlessness, restlessness, torpor, lack of faith, indolence, wrong aspiration, wrong resolve, wrong mindfulness, distraction, and non-discernment — these ten — pervade every defiled mind, span every stage, and are bound to the three realms (for without wrong aspiration and wrong resolve the mind cannot give rise to affliction — toward an experienced object one must desire union with the pleasant or separation from it, and firmly hold the appearance of the matter, before craving and the rest arise. As for "doubt," it hesitates about a principle but does not hesitate about a matter, so a mind associated with doubt still has resolve; if there were hesitation even about the matter, that would not be the affliction of doubt — like doubting whether a thing is a person or a tree-stump. The reason these two are not said elsewhere to pervade is that, when the condition is a non-cherished matter, within a doubt-associated mind the wrong aspiration and wrong resolve are not coarse and evident). On this position, the mental factors accompanying manas total twenty-four: the prior nine, the ten secondary afflictions, plus the five object-specific factors.

Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) points out here that a single word "the rest" in the verse gives rise to the whole controversy, and that the foregoing positions in fact divide along two readings of that word: one reads it as "the rest beyond the four afflictions" (the position that the factors are nine), the other reads it as "the rest beyond contact and so on" (the positions that bring out the secondary afflictions). Among the several positions on the count of mental factors, the fourth alone is Dharmapāla's settled view, whose method is "first to reject all three prior positions in general, then to set forth the reasoning of his own school, then to conclude in summary," and the number it arrives at is eighteen.

Finally, the settled correct reading. None of the foregoing positions (nine, fifteen, nineteen, twenty-four) is fully reasoned. Take a hesitation such as "whether a future life exists or not" — where is there any feature of aspiration or resolve there? (So wrong aspiration and wrong resolve do not pervade — this refutes the ten-secondaries position.) When an affliction arises, if there were no torpor there would not necessarily be unworkability, and if there were no restlessness there would be no agitation — and then a defiled state would no more be established than a wholesome one (so torpor and restlessness ought to pervade — this refutes the six-secondaries position that expelled torpor and restlessness). If a defiled mind had no distraction it would not drift, and would not be established as defiled (so distraction pervades). And without lost-mindfulness and non-discernment, how could affliction be made present (so these two also pervade)? Therefore a defiled mind is always associated, in its arising, with eight secondary afflictions: torpor, restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, heedlessness, lost-mindfulness, distraction, and non-discernment. (If lost-mindfulness and non-discernment are taken to have "mindfulness" and "discernment" as their nature, they do not pervade the defiled mind — for it is not that every defiled mind takes a formerly experienced object or makes a discrimination; but if they are taken to have "ignorance" as their nature, then they do pervade the defiled mind in arising.) On this settled reading, the mental factors accompanying manas total eighteen: the prior nine, the eight secondary afflictions, plus the object-specific factor "discernment." Why the remaining factors do not accompany it, and how the three passages of the Yogācārabhūmi — "five," "six," "ten" — are to be reconciled, are as explained above. Stated this way, it neither violates reason nor violates scripture.

B. What kind of feeling manas pairs with

This defiled mind, manas, is associated with what feeling? One position holds it is associated only with "joy" (since it perpetually grasps a self inwardly, and from grasping the self there arises a delighted love). Someone refutes this: then joy would have to reach all the way up to the Peak of Existence, which contradicts the scriptural word (the upper realms have no joy). It should be said that manas pairs with "the four feelings," varying by stage — born into the evil destinies, with displeasure (taking as object the fruit of unwholesome deeds); born among humans, into the desire-heavens, and into the first two meditative absorptions, with joy (taking as object the fruit of wholesome deeds belonging to a joy-bearing stage); born into the third absorption, with pleasure (taking as object the fruit of wholesome deeds belonging to a pleasure-bearing stage); born into the fourth absorption and on up to the Peak of Existence, with equanimity (taking as object the fruit belonging to a purely equanimous stage). But the settled correct reading holds that "four feelings" is also wrong: manas is beginningless, spontaneous, of one continuous kind, perpetually taking as its object an inwardly grasped self without alteration, whereas those four feelings are feelings that vary by stage, and so are not associated with manas. Moreover, wherever manas differs in sense from the eighth consciousness, the treatise always states the difference separately; if it paired with the four feelings (unlike the eighth, which pairs only with equanimity), the treatise should have said so separately. Since it does not, one may settle that it is the same as the eighth — so the feeling associated with manas is equanimity alone. (After the transformation of the support, manas, like the eighth consciousness, pairs only with equanimity, turning spontaneously and evenly. Before the transformation it is associated with the defiled mental factors described above; once transformed, it arises together with only twenty-one mental factors — the five universals, the five object-specific, and the eleven wholesome.)

C. What moral quality manas has — obscured-indeterminate

What moral quality do manas and its mental factors have? They are "obscured-indeterminate," and nothing else. The four afflictions and the rest associated with it are defiled dharmas; they can obstruct the noble path and conceal one's own mind, so they are called "obscured." Yet they are neither wholesome nor unwholesome, so they are called "indeterminate." (Just as the afflictions of the upper two realms, being subdued under the force of concentration, also count as indeterminate, so too the defiled dharmas accompanying manas — because their support is subtle and they turn spontaneously — also count as indeterminate.) Once the support is transformed, manas is purely of wholesome quality.

D. In which stage manas is bound — bound according to where one is born

In which stage are manas and its mental factors bound? "It is bound to whichever stage it is born into." Born into the desire realm, the active manas and its factors are desire-realm-bound; and so on up to the Peak of Existence — because manas spontaneously and perpetually grasps as an inner self the store-consciousness of "its own stage" and does not take another stage as object, it is bound to its own stage. (Or one may explain it thus: manas is fettered by "the afflictions of that stage," and so is called "bound by that.") Once the support is transformed, it is bound to no stage at all (it has left the binding of the three realms).

E. At what point manas comes to rest — its absence in three states

This defiled manas continues beginninglessly; at what point is it "permanently cut off," and at what point "temporarily cut off"? The verse answers: "It is absent in the arhat, in the absorption of cessation, and on the supramundane path." "Arhat" comprehensively indicates the fruit of the adept stage across the three vehicles; in this state both the seeds and the active form of the defiled manas are permanently cut off, and so it is said to be "absent." In "the absorption of cessation of the learner stage and on the supramundane path," the defiled manas is temporarily subdued and quelled, and so it too is said to be "absent" (this is the temporary cutting-off). Why? The defiled manas is subtle, of one continuous kind, turning spontaneously; the contaminated path cannot subdue it. Only the noble path of the three vehicles (the uncontaminated) can subdue and quell it — because "true understanding of no-self" is contrary to self-grasping, and the "subsequently attained uncontaminated wisdom," which is its outflow, is likewise contrary to manas; both of these are uncontaminated and are together named "the supramundane path." The absorption of cessation is an outflow of the noble path and is utterly tranquil, so within that absorption the defiled manas also does not arise. But at the learner stage one has not yet permanently cut off its seeds, so after emerging from the absorption of cessation or from the noble path it becomes active again, until the seeds are exhausted. The afflictions associated with manas (the four afflictions) are "innate," and so are not "abandoned by the path of seeing"; and because they are defiled, neither are they "not to be abandoned." They are so subtle that their seeds must be cut off all at once together with "the very lowest grade of affliction of the Peak-of-Existence stage" (the two being of equal force) — when the "adamantine-like absorption" appears, it cuts off this seed all at once and one becomes an arhat; from then on, at the adept stage, it never arises again. (When an adept of the two vehicles turns his mind toward the Great Vehicle, then from the first generation of the aspiration until he has not yet become a buddha he is in truth a bodhisattva, yet is also called an arhat, because the sense of "worthy" is equally applicable; so the verse's word "arhat" already subsumes him, and he is not stated separately.)

Onward Transmission

The gates of the manas settled here — its accompanying secondary afflictions, its single equanimous feeling, its obscured-indeterminate nature, its binding to the stage of birth, its suppression in three states — are taken up in turn by the later treatises. The Hundred Dharmas lists the manas as the seventh of the mind-dharmas, and it is this consciousness's concomitance and phases that are settled here. Verses 5–7 of the Thirty Verses are the root verses this chapter expounds. The Madhyāntavibhāga, in its chapter on obstructions, makes the view of self the root of the obstruction to the knowable; this chapter's "obscured-indeterminate" states exactly how it veils the noble path while being neither wholesome nor unwholesome. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha, in its chapter on the knowable ground, shows the defiled thought as the support of defilement — the complement of this chapter's gate of the three states: there its role as support, here the stages at which it can be cut.