成唯識論 釋違理·因果(一)·釋分別生難

With "clarifying the character" this far advanced, the treatise begins to answer objections. The first is the most direct: if there is no outer object, whence arise the manifold discriminations? With nothing outside to strike the mind, on what does it produce so many different cognitions?

The answer is verse 18: "From the consciousness of all seeds, transforming thus and thus, and through the force of mutual influence, this and that discrimination arises." Two things, taken apart:

First, seeds. The eighth consciousness holds the seeds of all dharmas; the seeds differ one from another, and in manifesting they transform "thus and thus" — difference does not come from an outer object but from difference in the seeds themselves. That this thought arises in you and not that one is because it is this seed you carry.

Second, the force of mutual influence. Consciousness conditions consciousness and strengthens it. The manifest activity of the first six perfumes seeds; seeds produce activity again; this consciousness affects that, and that affects this in return. In that interplay, difference is continually magnified.

The treatise then lays out the whole account of causation, the most systematic stretch in the book: the four conditions (causal, immediately antecedent, objective support, dominant); the ten causes (of designation, of dependence, of attraction, of production, of maintenance, of eliciting, of determination, of joint action, of contrariety, of non-contrariety); the twenty-two faculties; the five fruits (maturation, outflow, disjunction, human effort, dominance).

The stretch is often taken for a heap of terms. It is doing one thing: taking the word "causation" apart until it can be taken apart no further, and showing that consciousness-only not only does not deny causation but establishes it better than any doctrine of outer objects. For that doctrine cannot explain why the same object meets with two different responses.

The answer here is short — the object is the same; the seeds are not.

A. Resolving [Objections] Contrary to Principle

1. Resolving the objection about how discriminations arise

〔Q〕 Someone asks: on the thesis you have set up above — since there is only the inner consciousness and no condition outside the mind at all (no outer object to lend a hand) — by what, then, do the manifold "discriminations" (that is, the manifold unreal, untrue cognizings-and-distinguishings of consciousness) come to arise? 〔A〕 The verse below is offered to answer just this question.

〔所釋頌〕

From that "all-seeds consciousness" which holds all the seeds (that is, the eighth root consciousness), in such-and-such a way, one after another, [the world] is manifested; and adding to this the "mutual-reinforcing force" (the force whereby each consciousness pushes the others on, mutually enhancing them — one carrying the next along), the manifold "discriminations" (that is, those one-by-one unreal, untrue cognizings-and-distinguishings of consciousness) all come to arise. (v18)

First, what "the all-seeds consciousness" is. It refers to that store of "functional differentiations capable of producing their own fruit" within the eighth root consciousness — in plain words, "all the seeds." These seeds can produce four kinds of fruit: "the outflow fruit, the maturation fruit, the deed-and-use fruit, the dominant fruit"; because they can produce every kind of fruit, they are called "all-seeds." Only one kind of fruit must be set aside — the "disjunction fruit" (the unconditioned dharma realized once one has severed the obstructions of the defilements) — because this disjunction fruit is not something produced by seeds. The disjunction dharma is, to be sure, something "realized," but it is not a fruit of seeds: to realize it one must first set the noble path actively going and sever the bonds of the defilements. There is here too, indeed, a layer of "mutual-reinforcing" sense (first relying on the noble path to sever the bonds, and only then attaining the fruit, step following step); but this "mutual-reinforcing" is not the "mutual-reinforcing" the present verse speaks of. The "seeds" the present verse speaks of refer solely to those seeds "capable of producing discrimination" (the disjunction fruit not being included).

Why is it called "the all-seeds consciousness" and not merely "all-seeds"? Because these seeds take the eighth consciousness as their substance, so the word "consciousness" must be added. Once the seeds leave the root consciousness, there is no separate substance of their own that can be spoken of (the seeds, from the first, exist only as borne upon the root consciousness).

Setting the two words "seed" and "consciousness" side by side and raising them together serves to tell two things apart, lest they be confused: first, to set aside "that consciousness which is not a seed"; second, to set aside "that seed which is not this consciousness itself." For some "consciousness" is not a seed (such as the active functioning of the first seven transforming consciousnesses, which are active functioning, not seeds); and again, some "seed" does not just equal this eighth consciousness itself (it too must be told apart). It is precisely because both ends must thus be told clean apart that these two words are raised in tandem.

Again, the expression "seed-consciousness" serves to point out "the seeds contained within this consciousness," and not "the consciousness that holds the seeds" (that is, the root consciousness's own substance). As for this sense, "the consciousness that holds the seeds," it is left for a later passage to treat separately.

The seeds within this root consciousness, aided by the various remaining conditions, then transform in such-and-such a way, one after another — that is, from the "position of arising" (the stage at which a seed has just been drawn forth and begun to stir) all the way to "the time of maturing" (the stage at which a seed, having grown to its full, is fit to call forth an active fruit).

Why does the verse repeat "in such-and-such a way" twice ("such-and-such")? It is to show that the kinds transformed forth are exceedingly many. The so-called "all-seeds" gathers in the "three perfumings" entire — that is, the seeds perfumed by the three: "the name-and-word habit-energy, the self-grasping habit-energy, the existence-member habit-energy"; and it gathers in the "shared-mark seeds and the unshared-mark seeds" as well — in sum, it includes all the seeds within the consciousness without remainder.

Again, what "the mutual-reinforcing force" is. It refers to the eight active consciousnesses, together with the mental factors concomitant with them, and further the "mark-part" (the image cognized) and "seeing-part" (the cognizing function) that each consciousness transforms forth — all of these have, one toward another, a mutually-aiding, mutually-impelling force (one carries the next along, and so they can produce discrimination in turn).

It is just these active consciousnesses and the rest that, taken together, are named "discrimination" — because their very nature is "unreal imagining" (not according with how things truly are, but reckoning and distinguishing them unreally). And "discrimination" is, in turn, a class of many names, so the verse says "this-and-that discrimination" (this one and that one, every sort of discrimination).

The sense of this verse is to say: even with no condition outside the mind, by virtue of the transforming differentiations of all the seeds within the root consciousness, and by virtue of the mutual-reinforcing force of the active eight consciousnesses and the rest, the manifold discriminations arise all the same — that being so, what need is there to borrow some outer condition before discrimination can start up? (There is, in fact, no need at all for an outer condition.)

The arising of the various "pure dharmas" should be known to work on just the same principle: they arise with pure seeds and pure active functioning as their condition (likewise needing no outer condition).

Above it was said that "discrimination arises with seeds and active functioning as condition"; how, then, should this mark of "arising-by-condition" be understood? Know this: "conditions" are, in all, of four kinds.

(1) The cause-condition — it refers to those among conditioned dharmas that "with their own hand accomplish their own fruit" (that is, the direct, intimate cause). Its substance is of two sorts: first "the seeds," second "the active functioning."

First, "the seeds." They refer to those functional differentiations within the root consciousness — sorted into the wholesome, the defiled (that is, the unwholesome), the indeterminate, and again sorted as belonging to the three realms, the nine grounds, and so on. These seeds can exert two functions: first, drawing forth "the same-kind function of the next moment" (that is, one seed drawing forth the next same-kind seed, called seed drawing seed); second, raising up "the same-time same-kind active fruit" (that is, a seed producing active functioning, called seed producing the active). Note well: only with respect to that "same-kind function, same-kind active fruit" is it reckoned a "cause-condition"; shift the relation, and it is not.

Next, "the active functioning." It refers to the seven transforming consciousnesses, together with the mark-part and seeing-part transformed forth by the mental factors concomitant with them, and further their nature, realm, ground, and so on. These active functionings, excepting "the Buddha-fruit wholesome" and "the most-inferior indeterminate" (these two do not perfume into seeds), all go on to perfume the root consciousness, perfuming forth same-kind seeds. Note well: only with respect to that "same-kind seed" is it reckoned a "cause-condition."

As for the eighth consciousness-class (together with its mind-king and mental factors), it does not perfume into seeds. The reasons are four: first, it has "nothing[-else] to perfume" — it is itself the very place that is perfumed (the perfumed locus), and does not go on to perfume something else; second, it "cannot set aside its support" — it cannot, putting aside what it depends on, perfume on its own; third and fourth, its substance is "most subtle" (very weak and faint) and "complete" (already full, neither increasing nor decreasing). By virtue of just these several [reasons], the eighth consciousness does not perfume into seeds.

Then, "active functioning toward same-kind active functioning," set one against another — is this reckoned a cause-condition? It is not — because each arises from its own respective seed, and it is not that this one produces that one. "All other-kind things," set one against another, are also not reckoned a cause-condition — because the one does not directly produce the other.

〔One view · other-kind and same-kind active functioning is cause-condition〕 Some say that "other-kind and same-kind active functioning, set one against another, may also be reckoned a cause-condition." To this it should be known: that is only "a conventional saying" (a convenient way of putting it for the moment), or else "the conforming gate" (saying it provisionally so as to fall in with the formulations of other schools); it is not the ultimate principle.

〔Another view · only the seed is cause-condition〕 And again, some "admit only the seed to be cause-condition" (excluding the active functioning). To this it should be known: that is "taking up the manifest and the strongest to speak of" (speaking only of the superior sense of the seed-side), and is not a formulation that has carried the principle through. For scripture plainly states that "the transforming consciousnesses and the ālaya consciousness, set one against another, are also cause-condition" — which shows the active functioning too may be reckoned a cause-condition, and one cannot admit the seed alone.

(2) The immediately-antecedent condition — it refers to the eight active consciousnesses together with their mental factors, where "the prior cluster," toward "the subsequent same-kind cluster," with nothing else intervening between, evenly "clears the way and leads on" (first making way, then drawing the latter up), so that the subsequent cluster necessarily arises.

Why are the many same-kind seeds not reckoned this condition? Because they "all turn at the same time," and have no sense of "the prior one making way, the subsequent one following on." By the same principle, the "non-concurrent formations" too are not subsumed under this condition. And just because this condition holds only between prior and subsequent of the same kind, the eight consciousnesses cannot mutually serve as immediately-antecedent condition for one another (since they are not same-kind, prior and subsequent in succession).

What, then, of mind-king and mental factor? Though these always turn together at the same time, yet because they are mutually "concomitant" and, joined together, resemble a single thing, they cannot be set up as two separately-distinct things; and so mind-king and mental factor may indeed mutually serve as immediately-antecedent condition (this does not violate the principle "[it] holds only between prior and subsequent of the same kind," because they have joined so as to be like one).

The last moment of mind as one enters "remainderless nirvāṇa" is the most weak and inferior: first, it has no function of "making way and leading on a subsequent moment"; second, there is afterward no "immediately-antecedent dharma about to arise" (for after this one moment no further mind ever arises). And so this last moment is not reckoned an immediately-antecedent condition.

How is it known to be so? The treatise has a sure statement: "If this cluster of consciousness and the rest (the prior cluster), with nothing intervening, [is present], then that cluster of consciousness and the rest (the subsequent cluster) definitely arises" — and this is to say that this prior cluster is precisely the immediately-antecedent condition of that subsequent cluster.

On just this principle, one should say: the ādāna-consciousness (that is, the eighth consciousness), throughout the three realms and nine grounds, may serve, prior and subsequent, as immediately-antecedent condition for itself — because across the lower and upper realms and grounds, and at the junctures of death and birth, the prior and subsequent can make way and lead on each for the other. Moreover, "the contaminated eighth, with nothing intervening, can produce the uncontaminated eighth"; but conversely, "after the uncontaminated eighth, the contaminated eighth definitely arises no more" — this because once the great-mirror wisdom has arisen, the contaminated eighth is forever gone, forever severed (never to return). Its "wholesome" set against its "indeterminate" works on this same principle (once the uncontaminated wholesome eighth has arisen, it will not turn back to produce the contaminated indeterminate eighth).

So after which realm, then, is the uncontaminated eighth first drawn forth? Either from "after the form realm," or "after the desire realm."

First, one kind of person: any "ordinary being" (that is, the unenlightened) who has set his heart on seeking the Buddha-fruit — his uncontaminated [eighth] is definitely drawn forth from "after the form realm" — because he is destined to be born above, in the "Great Sovereign Palace" atop the Pure Abodes of the form realm, and there to realize bodhi.

Next, another kind of person: the practitioner of the two vehicles (the disciple-hearer, the solitary-enlightened) who turns from the lesser and inclines to the greater, turning to seek the great bodhi — his uncontaminated [eighth] is definitely drawn forth from "after the desire realm" — because the body he retains when he turns his heart about lies only in the desire realm. Though he too in the end must likewise go to the Great Sovereign Palace before he can become a Buddha, yet the "birth-body" he retains by the force of his original vow is a desire-realm body (and so, on the side of "the body retained," he is drawn forth after the desire realm).

〔One view · in the form realm too there are those who turn and retain a body〕 Some say: in the form realm too there are those disciple-hearers who turn from the lesser toward the greater and, by the force of a vow, retain a body. Put this way, it conflicts neither with scripture nor with principle; and so the disciple-hearer's uncontaminated eighth may come forth after "form-realm mind" as well, and need not be only after the desire realm.

Yet one point must be added: in the "five Pure Abodes" there are none who turn from the lesser to the greater — because scripture does not say that the non-returner noble ones in those five Pure Abodes give rise to the Mahāyāna mind.

The seventh transforming consciousness (that is, the manas), throughout the three realms and nine grounds, may also serve, prior and subsequent, as immediately-antecedent condition for itself — because its realm and ground follow along with the place where the eighth consciousness is born (wherever the eighth is born, in whichever realm and ground, there it is bound).

The seventh's "contaminated" and "uncontaminated" may arise each from the other — because within the stages of the ten grounds, the contaminated manas and the equality-nature wisdom (the uncontaminated manas) can draw each other forth.

Its "wholesome" set against its "indeterminate" works the same way (they can arise from each other); and within the indeterminate class itself, the "defiled manas" and the "undefiled manas" can also make way and lead on each for the other — because in the positions before and after the "fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of beings" (the fruit of the wisdom realizing the emptiness of persons), these two can draw each other forth.

Yet this arising of the seventh's contaminated and uncontaminated each from the other occurs only in the "desire realm and form realm," not in the "formless realm" — because the bodhisattva who has ascended the [first] ground is not born into the formless realm (in the formless realm there is no occasion for the seventh uncontaminated to come forth).

The sixth transforming consciousness (that is, the mental consciousness), throughout the three realms and nine grounds — whether contaminated, uncontaminated, wholesome, unwholesome, and the like — may each serve, prior and subsequent, as immediately-antecedent condition for itself — because in such situations as the "moistening-birth position" (the stage at which, near death, [it] moistens and calls forth the next existence), these can draw each other forth. Its "first arising of the uncontaminated" is only after "the form realm" — because the wholesome of "the conforming-with-discernment portion" (the share of wholesome roots that tends toward the path of seeing) can arise only in the form realm.

The three — eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, body-consciousness — reach to "two realms and two grounds" (that is, the desire realm and the first dhyāna); the two — nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness — are only in "one realm and one ground" (that is, the desire realm). They all serve, among their own same kind, as immediately-antecedent condition for one another; and as for their "wholesome" and the rest set one against another, know that it is the same way too.

〔One view · the five consciousnesses' contaminated and uncontaminated mutually serve〕 Some say: the contaminated and the uncontaminated of the first five consciousnesses, among their own same kind, may serve as immediately-antecedent condition for one another — because "at the time before Buddhahood is attained," the contaminated and uncontaminated are allowed to arise alternately each from the other.

〔Another view · the uncontaminated five consciousnesses only after the Buddha-stage〕 And again, some say: the uncontaminated five consciousnesses may arise after the contaminated five consciousnesses, but conversely, after the "uncontaminated" no contaminated [five consciousnesses] are allowed to arise again. Their reasons are several; take them one by one: (i) the uncontaminated five consciousnesses simply do not exist apart from the Buddha-stage (before Buddhahood there are no uncontaminated five consciousnesses). (ii) those five form-faculties are definitely contaminated (because the form-faculties are subsumed under the mark-part of the maturation consciousness, and are themselves contaminated). (iii) on one side is "the contaminated, and unshared, form-faculty that the five consciousnesses exclusively rest on," on the other side is "[that which] faces the same object at the same time and can issue an uncontaminated consciousness" — set these two together, and in principle they simply do not match (a contaminated faculty cannot issue an uncontaminated consciousness). (iv) further, these two, the contaminated and the uncontaminated, toward their object, the one "sees clearly," the other "sees dimly," clear and dim differing (and so it is not allowed that, prior and subsequent, they turn each into the other, the uncontaminated turning back into the contaminated).

(3) The object-support condition — it refers to a dharma of this sort: it is the object that "the mind which carries its own image (or the mental factors concomitant with it) cogitates upon and rests upon" (that is, the object the mind reaches out to and relies upon). Its substance is of two sorts: first "the intimate object-support condition" (the close, inner object-support), second "the remote object-support condition" (the once-removed, outer object-support).

How are these two told apart? If this object's substance is inseparable from "the cognizing mind" (that is, the inner cogitated-and-rested-upon that the seeing-part and the rest rest on, which is from the first grown on the side of the cognizer), then it is the "intimate object-support condition." If this object's substance is separate from the cognizing substance, yet it can serve as "the substrate" (the outer underlying original) by which the inner cogitated-and-rested-upon image is raised, then it is the "remote object-support condition" (that is, the outer substrate).

The "intimate object-support condition" every cognizing mind has without exception — because once the inner cogitated-and-rested-upon image is left aside, the cognizing mind simply cannot arise. The "remote object-support condition" is not so certain — the cognizing mind sometimes has it, sometimes not — because even leaving aside the outer cogitated-and-rested-upon substrate, the cognizing mind can arise all the same.

Then how is the object-support condition reckoned for the eighth consciousness-class? Here there are three views. 〔One view · only the intimate〕 The first says: "there is only the intimate object-support condition" — because the eighth, following along with the force of the karmic cause, transforms forth spontaneously, with no need to rely on an outer substrate. 〔Another view · also definitely a remote〕 The second says: "there is also definitely a remote object-support condition" — because it must rely on the substrate transformed forth by others, and only then can its own side transform forth its mark-part. 〔Another view · both views unsound · the remote condition indeterminate〕 The third says: both the foregoing fail to carry the matter through. On the one hand, one's own body, another's body, one's own land, and another's land may be "mutually made use of," and what others have transformed forth may be taken as one's own substrate (so one cannot say there is no remote condition at all — the first view is too absolute); yet on the other hand, "one's own seeds have no principle of being made use of by another being," which is to say that the claim "[one] takes wholly what another transforms forth as one's own substrate" does not hold either, all the more since the seeds of the several beings are by no means all alike (so neither can one say there is definitely a remote condition — the second view is too absolute as well). So one should say: as for this eighth consciousness-class's "remote object-support condition," whether, throughout all the positions, it exists or not is itself indeterminate.

The seventh consciousness-class, in the "position before transmutation-of-the-basis," because it is an innate self-grasping, must rely on an outer substrate (that is, taking the eighth's seeing-part as its substrate to cognize), and so in this position too it definitely has a remote object-support condition. But come to the "position after transmutation-of-the-basis," the remote condition is no longer certain — because what it cognizes then is suchness and the like, with no outer substrate to rely on.

The sixth consciousness-class's mode of activity is fierce and sharp, and in every position it can turn freely and at will; the outer substrate it relies on is sometimes there, sometimes not, and so whether its remote object-support condition exists is likewise indeterminate.

The first five consciousness-classes, in the "position before transmutation-of-the-basis," because they are coarse, dull, and inferior, must rely on an outer substrate (that is, the substrate of the form-object), and so in this position too they definitely have a remote object-support condition. But come to the "position after transmutation-of-the-basis," it is no longer certain — because at that point (having transmuted into the duty-fulfilling wisdom) they can cognize the past, the future, and the like, and at such times there is no outer substrate to rely on.

(4) The dominant condition — it refers to a dharma of this sort: it has a superior force, able toward the remaining dharmas "either to favor and aid, or to oppose and hinder" (that is, a helping force or a hindering force). In truth the prior three conditions (the cause-condition, the immediately-antecedent, the object-support) themselves also carry a sense of dominance; but this fourth is taken by "setting aside the prior three and taking only the remainder" — and this is done in order to tell apart the distinct marks of the four conditions.

This "favoring, opposing" function turns at "four places" — "arising, abiding, completing, attaining" — because the four matters, arising, abiding, completing, and attaining, are each its own; and so the helping-and-hindering function is exerted distinctly at these four places.

The dominant function, though, following the diversity of matters, is more than can be numbered; yet of these the most forceful and conspicuous are but "twenty-two" — know that this refers to just the "twenty-two faculties."

The respective substance-nature of these twenty-two faculties, taken one by one: the first five form-faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) take as their substance-nature the "subtle form," eye and the rest, transformed forth by the root consciousness and the like; the male and female faculties, being subsumed under the body-faculty, take a small portion of the body-faculty as their substance-nature; the life-faculty is merely set up conventionally upon a position of "the root consciousness's own intimate seed," and has no separate substance of its own; the mental faculty takes, in sum, the "eight consciousnesses" as its substance-nature; the five feeling-faculties (suffering, pleasure, sorrow, joy, equanimity) each, accordingly, take their own respective feeling as their substance-nature; the five faculties such as trust (trust, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) take trust and the rest, together with wholesome mindfulness and the like, as their substance-nature.

As for the "will-come-to-know-the-unknown faculty" (the wholesome root, before and after the path of seeing, that is "not yet known and just about to be known"), its substance-position is of three kinds. The first is "the root position" — that is, just the position of "the path of seeing" (except for the very last instant; because by the last instant there is no longer anything "not yet known that could be known further," it is set aside).

The second is "the preparatory position" — that is, the four wholesome roots "heat, summit, forbearance, the supreme worldly dharma," because at close range they can draw forth the root position (that is, the path of seeing).

The third is "the provision position" — that is: from the moment a person, "in order to attain the direct realization of the truths" (the realization-as-it-is of the four truths), gives rise to a resolute, irreversible, superior wish-for-the-wholesome, all the way until he has "not yet attained the conforming-with-discernment portion," all the wholesome roots within this stretch are called the provision position. Why is it called the provision position? Because from afar it provides for and nurtures forth the root position (like laying up provisions, storing them up beforehand).

In these three positions, the several — "the five faculties such as trust, the mental faculty, joy, pleasure, equanimity" — are the faculty-nature of this "will-come-to-know-the-unknown faculty." Besides, in the preparatory and like positions, when a person seeks to realize that later superior dharma he gives rise to "grief" (anxious sorrow), and herein there is also mixed in a "sorrow-faculty"; but the sorrow-faculty is not a "proper wholesome root," and so it is for the most part not counted in (not reckoned within this faculty).

Why, then, is this faculty present in the first three formless [grounds] (the sphere of boundless space, the sphere of boundless consciousness, the sphere of nothing-whatever) as well? In two situations: first, it is got by "a superior path of seeing cultivated on the side"; second, the two-vehicle practitioner who turns from the lesser to the greater, turning to seek the Mahāyāna, in order to realize the emptiness of dharmas, even before he has ascended the [first] ground gives rise to "the being-emptiness uncontaminated subsumed under the nine grounds" — and these people all count as bodhisattvas, and so are gathered in by this faculty.

In truth the bodhisattva's path-of-seeing position has this faculty as well; yet the passage above singled out only "before the ground" (that is, the provision position and the preparatory position) — that is because the path of seeing is so very brief in time, and so it was passed over, not separately singled out.

Next, the substance-nature of the "already-known faculty" (the wholesome root that "has come to know"): from the very last instant of the path of seeing, all the way to the "vajra-like concentration" (the moment of concentration that severs the last delusion), all the uncontaminated nine faculties such as trust within this stretch belong to the "already-known faculty"-nature.

Within this stretch, the person who has not yet left desire behind, when he seeks to realize the liberation of the upper realms, also gives rise to "grief," and herein too there is mixed in a sorrow-faculty; but the sorrow-faculty is not a proper wholesome root, and so it too is for the most part not counted in (not reckoned within this faculty).

As for the several "no-more-learning positions" (the positions where learning has been brought to completion, with nothing further to learn), the uncontaminated nine faculties one and all belong to the "fully-knowing faculty"-nature (the wholesome root of completed and full knowing).

"The peak of existence" (that is, the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the highest ground of the three realms), though it too has "roving-contemplation uncontaminated" (the uncontaminated by which one roves up by means of the lower grounds' uncontaminated and contemplates), is not clear or sharp in its mode, and so is not gathered into the latter three faculties (the latter three faculties being just these three uncontaminated faculties: will-come-to-know-the-unknown, already-known, fully-knowing).

The respective substance-nature of the twenty-two faculties is just as set out above; as for the doctrines of the remaining gates, one should turn to the Treatise (that is, the Yogācārabhūmi and the like) to understand them.

〔附論〕The four conditions, in dependence on fifteen bases, set up the ten causes

These four conditions above can, in dependence on the "fifteen bases" (that is, fifteen kinds of base) and by differences of sense, further be set up as the "ten causes." How, then, are these ten causes set up in dependence on these fifteen bases? They are treated below one by one.

(1) The speech base — it refers to: the "speech-nature" (that is, verbal utterance) raised by "the name of a dharma" and "conception" (the mental factor that grasps an image). In dependence on just this base, the "cause of speaking-accordingly" is set up (meaning: in dependence on this speech, in accordance with what is seen, heard, and so on, the various senses are spoken forth). This is just "the speaker being the cause of the spoken." Another treatise puts this (the speech base) as the three "name, conception, view": for a person, following along names, grasps an image, gives rise to attachment, and thereupon speaks forth. If put according to that treatise, it just so brings out that this cause is the "speech base."

(2) The receiving base — it refers to the "receiver-and-received" nature that is observed-and-depended-upon (that is, the side of receiving-and-feeling). In dependence on just this base, the "cause of observing-dependence" is set up (meaning: only by first observing-and-depending-upon this one dharma do those matters come to arise, abide, complete, or be attained; this one dharma is the cause of observing-dependence for those matters).

(3) The habit-energy base — it refers to the "not-yet-matured stage" of the inner seeds and the outer seeds. In dependence on just this base, the "drawing-along cause" is set up (meaning: it can, from afar, draw its own fruit along toward it).

(4) The moistened-seed base — it refers to the "already-matured stage" of the inner seeds and the outer seeds (already having gained moistening). In dependence on just this base, the "giving-rise cause" is set up (meaning: it can, at close range, give rise to its own fruit).

(5) The immediately-ceased base — it refers to just the "immediately-antecedent condition" of the mind and mental factors (that is, the prior moment ceasing with no interval whatever, making way for and leading on the subsequent moment).

(6) The object base — it refers to just the "object-support condition" of the mind and mental factors (that is, the object reached out to and cognized).

(7) The faculty base — it refers to just the "six faculties" that the mind and mental factors rest on.

(8) The function base — among the several "the deed done, the instrument used (the implement), and its function," this base bears on the "instrument." It refers to: setting the seeds aside, the remaining active conditions that aid in getting a matter accomplished.

(9) The deed-and-use base — likewise among the several "the deed done, its doer, and its function," this base bears on the "doer." It refers to: setting the seeds aside, the remaining active conditions that can do the deed.

(10) The true-seeing base — it refers to "the uncontaminated view" (the uncontaminated wisdom-seeing that sees as-it-truly-is). Apart from the one matter of "drawing forth its own same-kind seeds," it can, with respect to uncontaminated dharmas, further help to draw them forth and help to bear them witness. Taking these six bases (from the fifth to the tenth) together, the "gathering-in cause" is set up (meaning: gathering in the [first] five bases, one can accomplish contaminated dharmas; gathering all six bases in entire, one can accomplish uncontaminated [dharmas]).

(11) The conforming base — it refers to the indeterminate, defiled, and wholesome formations, active and seed and the rest, which can conform to and foster "the more superior class within the same kind" of dharmas. In dependence on just this base, the "calling-forth cause" is set up (meaning: it can call up the same-kind superior formations, and can further draw forth the unconditioned dharma).

(12) The differentiated-capacity base — it refers to the several conditioned dharmas, each of which has, toward its own fruit, a "force capable of giving rise and bearing witness" that is mutually distinct. In dependence on just this base, the "fixing-and-distinguishing cause" is set up (meaning: each can produce its own realm's and the like fruit, each can attain its own vehicle's fruit; because they are told clean apart from one another, it is called "fixing-and-distinguishing").

(13) The conjunction base — it refers to: from "the receiving base" all the way to "the differentiated-capacity base," this whole stretch, toward the fruit to be arisen, abided, completed, and attained, joined together has a "conjoining" force. In dependence on just this base, the "same-undertaking cause" is set up (meaning: from the cause of observing-dependence all the way to the fixing-and-distinguishing cause, they all together accomplish the matters of arising and the rest, doing the very same undertaking, and so it is called "same-undertaking").

(14) The obstructing base — it refers to: among the matters of arising, abiding, completing, and attaining, that dharma which can come to obstruct and block. In dependence on just this base, the "contrary cause" is set up (meaning: it can go against and hinder the matters of arising and the rest, and so it is called "contrary").

(15) The non-obstructing base — it refers to: among the matters of arising, abiding, completing, and attaining, that dharma which does not come to obstruct or hinder. In dependence on just this base, the "non-contrary cause" is set up (meaning: it does not go against the matters of arising and the rest, and so it is called "non-contrary").

These "ten causes" can, in turn, be gathered into "two causes": first, the producing-cause; second, the facilitating-cause. The Bodhisattva-bhūmi says: "The drawing-along seeds and the giving-rise seeds are named the producing-cause; the remaining causes are all subsumed under the facilitating-cause."

This statement of the Bodhisattva-bhūmi means: among these "six causes" — the drawing-along, giving-rise, calling-forth, fixing-and-distinguishing, same-undertaking, and non-contrary — whatever "cause-condition seed" (the seed that can serve as cause-condition) is in its not-yet-matured stage is called a "drawing-along seed"; in its already-matured stage it is called a "giving-rise seed." Why can they be so divided? Because the cause-condition seeds within these six causes all fall within these two stages, "not-yet-matured, already-matured," and no other.

Here a word must be added: there is, in truth, also "active functioning" that is a producing-cause (such as, among the prior four conditions, the active functioning that can produce its own same-kind seeds); but the active is for the most part broken off, not continuous, and so here it is passed over and not mentioned — producing is set up only on the side of the seeds. Again, that active functioning which "with its own hand accomplishes a fruit" may at times be given the name "seed" too (just as the world calls ready-made grain and wheat "seeds").

Then the remaining causes — that is, the first (the cause of speaking-accordingly), the second (the cause of observing-dependence), the fifth (the gathering-in cause), the ninth (the contrary cause), these four causes, together with those "dharmas that are not cause-condition" within the foregoing "six causes" — all of these fall outside "the not-yet-matured and already-matured cause-condition seeds," and so are, in sum, all subsumed under the "facilitating-cause."

Here two sides must be made clear, lest the boundary be drawn too hard. On one side: the two kinds of seed, "not-yet-matured, already-matured" (the drawing-along seed, the giving-rise seed), do not belong solely to those two "producing" causes (the drawing-along cause, the giving-rise cause) — because among the remaining four causes (calling-forth, fixing-and-distinguishing, same-undertaking, non-contrary) there are cause-condition seeds too. On the other side: nor is it only "those eight causes" that are called "the remaining causes" (subsumed under facilitating) — because within "those two causes" (drawing-along, giving-rise) there is also mixed in "seed that is not cause-condition" (this portion too must count as facilitating). So neither side can be cut off cleanly.

The formulation of "the ground with examination and the rest" runs differently again: it says "the giving-rise cause alone is the producing-cause; the rest are all subsumed under facilitating." The sense of this passage is to say: among the six causes, whatever "is a cause-condition, whether active or seed," is all named "the giving-rise cause" (because it can, with its own hand, give rise to its own same-kind fruit); apart from this, the remaining causes are all subsumed under facilitating.

Here likewise the two sides cannot be drawn hard: on one side, "giving-rise" does not belong solely to that (giving-rise) cause — because among the remaining five causes there are cause-conditions too. On the other side, nor is it only "those nine causes" that are called the remaining causes — because within that "giving-rise cause" there is also mixed in what is not cause-condition (this portion too must count as remaining).

Viewed from another angle, it can also be reconciled this way: the "drawing-along, giving-rise seeds" of which the Bodhisattva-bhūmi speaks just refer to those "two causes" (the drawing-along cause, the giving-rise cause), and "the remaining causes" just refer to those "remaining eight causes." Though within these two causes there is also a component "that is not a producing-cause," yet the cause-condition seed therein is the strongest and most conspicuous, and so it is just this side that is spoken of, and they are called "producing"; likewise, though within the remaining eight causes there is also a component "that is not a facilitating-cause," yet the dominant predominates therein and is most conspicuous, and so it is just this side that is spoken of, and they are called "facilitating."

As for the "ground with examination and the rest" saying "the giving-rise cause is the producing-cause, the rest are facilitating": its "giving-rise" just refers to that "giving-rise cause," and its "remaining causes" should be known to refer to those "remaining nine causes" (counting the drawing-along cause in too). Though within the giving-rise cause there is also "seed that is not cause-condition," yet it is near to the fruit, and the sense of "directly producing" is conspicuous, and so it is just this side that is spoken of, and it is called "producing"; conversely, though within the drawing-along cause there is cause-condition seed too, yet it is far from the fruit, and the sense of "directly producing" is hidden, and so this side is not spoken of, and it is not called "producing." The rest being subsumed under facilitating, this is understood by comparison with the above.

Then the "four conditions" spoken of above — in dependence on which bases are they set up? And how, in turn, do they gather into the "ten causes, two causes"? The Treatise says: "the cause-condition" is set up in dependence on "the seeds" (that is, the habit-energy base, the moistened-seed base, and the like); in dependence on "the immediately-ceased base," "the immediately-antecedent condition" is set up; in dependence on "the object base," "the object-support condition" is set up; in dependence on "the remaining bases," "the dominant condition" is set up.

The "seeds" spoken of here are just the cause-condition seeds subsumed within these "six bases" — the third (habit-energy), the fourth (moistened-seed), the eleventh (conforming), the twelfth (differentiated-capacity), the thirteenth (conjunction), and the fifteenth (non-obstructing). Besides, though there are also the "four bases" whose active functioning carries cause-condition too, yet the active is for the most part broken off, and so here it is passed over and not mentioned. Again, those active functionings can also with their own hand accomplish their own fruit (like the wheat and the rest of the outer world), and so they may be given the name "seed" too. Or else the word "seed" may be reckoned to the fourth (moistened-seed) base alone — and how it is taken or set aside between intimate, remote, hidden, and conspicuous is as said before.

As for saying "the immediately-ceased base, the object base," know that this is but to "show in general" the bases of these two conditions (the immediately-antecedent, the object-support), and is not to say that only the fifth and sixth bases have them; for among the remaining bases too there is the sense of these "middle two conditions" (immediately-antecedent, object-support). Or else one may say: only the fifth and sixth bases are reckoned (to set up these two conditions), while the remaining bases, though they too bear this sense, bear it scantly and hiddenly, and so it is passed over and not mentioned.

The Treatise further says: "the cause-condition" is subsumed under "the producing-cause"; the nature of "the dominant condition" is just "the facilitating-cause"; "the middle two conditions" (the immediately-antecedent, the object-support) are subsumed under "the gathering-in cause." Though the facilitating-cause takes in all of the latter three conditions (the immediately-antecedent, the object-support, the dominant), yet the dominant predominates therein, and so it is just the dominant that is spoken of; while the remaining causes, though they too bear the middle two conditions, [bear] this sense most conspicuously within the "gathering-in cause," and so it is just gathering-in that is spoken of. As for the opening "the cause-condition is subsumed under producing," how it is to be taken broad or narrow, advancing or retreating, is likewise as said before.

The "cause and condition" spoken of above must of necessity have a "fruit." How many of these fruits are there? And in dependence on which bases are they attained? The fruits are in all of five kinds, taken one by one: (1) the maturation fruit — it refers to the "indeterminate" fruit, "born of variant maturing" within one's own continuum, that the contaminated wholesome and unwholesome dharmas call forth. (2) the outflow fruit — it refers to the "same-kind" fruit drawn forth by the perfuming of the wholesome and the rest (that is, the later fruit being of the same kind as the prior deed, the later fruit running on along with the prior deed). (3) the disjunction fruit — it refers to the wholesome "unconditioned dharma" realized by severing the obstructions with the uncontaminated path. (4) the deed-and-use fruit — it refers to the undertakings accomplished by the several doers by means of the several instruments. (5) the dominant fruit — it refers to, excepting the prior four kinds of fruit, the remaining fruits attained.

The Yogācārabhūmi and the like say: "the habit-energy base" attains the maturation fruit; "the conforming base" attains the outflow fruit; "the true-seeing base" attains the disjunction fruit; "the deed-and-use base" attains the deed-and-use fruit; "the remaining bases" attain the dominant fruit.

How is this to be reconciled? Saying "the habit-energy base" (attains the maturation fruit) is to bring out, among the several bases, all those functions that "can call forth the maturation fruit"; saying "the conforming base" (attains the outflow fruit) is to bring out, among the several bases, all those functions that "can draw forth the outflow fruit"; saying "the true-seeing base" (attains the disjunction fruit) is to bring out, among the several bases, all those functions that "can realize the disjunction fruit"; saying "the deed-and-use base" (attains the deed-and-use fruit) is to bring out, among the several bases, all those functions that "can call forth the deed-and-use fruit"; saying "the remaining bases" (attain the dominant fruit) is to bring out, among the several bases, all those functions that "can attain the dominant fruit." Were it not reconciled thus, then the definition would come out either too broad or too narrow, losing its measure.

Another formulation will also do: "habit-energy" is reckoned to the third base (the habit-energy base) alone. Though "the maturation cause" is found in the remaining bases too, and within this base there is also mixed in a component "that is not a maturation cause"; yet the maturation cause is far from the fruit, and habit-energy (that is, the not-yet-matured seed) is likewise far from the fruit — the two being much alike — and so it is just this base that is spoken of (matched to the maturation fruit).

"Conforming" is reckoned to the eleventh base (the conforming base) alone. Though the outflow fruit is attained in the remaining bases too, and within this base there is also attained "a fruit that is not outflow"; yet this cause's calling forth of "the superior formations" is the most conspicuous in mark, and the sense of "conforming" is just this (conforming to that more superior class), and so it is just this base that is spoken of (matched to the outflow fruit).

Saying "the true-seeing base" refers to the tenth base (the true-seeing base) alone. Though to realize disjunction the remaining bases can do so too, and this base can also attain "a fruit that is not disjunction"; yet this base's "realizing disjunction" is the most conspicuous in mark, and so it is just this base that is spoken of (matched to the disjunction fruit).

Saying "the deed-and-use base" refers to the ninth base (the deed-and-use base) alone. Though the deed-and-use fruit the remaining bases call forth too, and this base can also call forth the dominant and like fruits; yet its "name" and "mark" are the most conspicuous (the name and the reality matching just so), and so it is just this base that is spoken of (matched to the deed-and-use fruit).

"The remaining" is reckoned to the remaining eleven bases alone. Though these eleven bases attain the other four kinds of fruit too, and to call forth the dominant fruit the other bases can do so too; yet these eleven bases for the most part call forth the dominant fruit, while the other four kinds of fruit have already been shown by the foregoing four bases, and so it is just these (eleven bases) that are spoken of in treating the dominant fruit.

This then goes on to say, of these five kinds of fruit, by which causes and which conditions each is attained: the maturation fruit — attained by the five causes drawing-along, giving-rise, fixing-and-distinguishing, same-undertaking, and non-contrary, together with the dominant condition. the outflow fruit — attained by the seven causes drawing-along, giving-rise, gathering-in, calling-forth, fixing-and-distinguishing, same-undertaking, and non-contrary, together with "the first and the last" conditions (that is, the cause-condition and the dominant condition). the disjunction fruit — attained by the five causes gathering-in, calling-forth, fixing-and-distinguishing, same-undertaking, and non-contrary, together with the dominant condition. the deed-and-use fruit — here there are two views: 〔one view〕 attained by the four causes observing-dependence, gathering-in, same-undertaking, and non-contrary, together with the dominant condition; 〔another view〕 attained by the eight causes observing-dependence, drawing-along, giving-rise, gathering-in, calling-forth, fixing-and-distinguishing, same-undertaking, and non-contrary, together with the remaining three conditions "excepting the object-support condition." the dominant fruit — the ten causes and the four conditions may, one and all, attain it.

Having come to this point, this stretch of "digression" (that is, the great stretch branched off into the four conditions, the ten causes, the two causes, and the five fruits) is finished, and one should return to the main matter and clarify the correct sense of the verse.

〔結正論〕The seeds in the root consciousness may serve as three conditions

The seeds within the root consciousness may, in the matter of "giving rise to active discrimination," serve as three conditions (excepting only the immediately-antecedent condition). How so? First, each one's own intimate seed is, with respect to the active fruit it produces, the "cause-condition." Second, if this seed is cognized by a mind, then toward that cognizing mind it serves as the "object-support condition." Third, if this seed has, toward that active [fruit], an aiding force, or at the least does not obstruct it, then it serves as the "dominant condition." And as for its "giving rise to pure active functioning," know that the principle is just the same.

Next, "active discrimination" (that is, the active discrimination) set one against another may serve as three conditions (among them there is no cause-condition, because one active [dharma] does not with its own hand produce another active [dharma]). How so? Within the same class of sentient being, "one's own body and another's body" set one against another may serve as two conditions (excepting the cause-condition and the immediately-antecedent); while "the eight consciousness-clusters within one's own body" set one against another definitely have the dominant condition, yet definitely have no immediately-antecedent (because the eight consciousnesses do not mutually serve as immediately-antecedent for one another).

As for whether there is the "object-support condition" among these eight consciousnesses, this must be sorted out pair by pair, some having it, some not. The eighth toward the seventh: yes (the eighth's mark-part may serve as the seventh's substrate); the seventh toward the eighth, conversely: no (because the remaining seven consciousnesses are not the substrate the eighth relies on). The seventh toward the six among these six: five no, one yes (the seventh's seeing-part may serve as the sixth's substrate — this is the one that is "yes"); while the remaining six consciousnesses, conversely, toward the seventh: all no. The sixth toward the first five: no (the sixth does not serve as the substrate the five consciousnesses rest on); the remaining five consciousnesses, conversely, toward the sixth: yes (the sixth may cognize the mark-part transformed forth by the first five consciousnesses, taking it as substrate). Why is there none from the first five consciousnesses toward the sixth? Because the first five consciousnesses rely only on "the eighth's mark-part," and do not rely on the sixth.

Next, taking "the same kind, prior and subsequent" set one against another: the sixth consciousness (the prior moment toward the subsequent moment) may serve as three conditions (excepting the cause-condition); the remaining consciousnesses must in addition set aside "the object-support condition" (because the first five consciousnesses and the rest take only the present object at hand, and do not cognize the prior moment). But if one admits that "the seeing-part of the latter moment of the five consciousnesses can cognize the mark-part of the prior moment," then the prior and subsequent of the first five consciousnesses and the seventh consciousness have three conditions too. Moreover, the object-support condition of the first seven consciousnesses "toward the eighth" may exist — because the first seven consciousnesses can perfume forth the eighth's mark-part seeds and seeing-part seeds (so the eighth can cognize them).

"Those different-substance mind-kings and mental factors within the same cluster" set one against another have only the dominant condition. Why? Because the substrate these concomitant dharmas rely on is one and the same, and so they do not mutually cognize one another. Or it may be sorted thus: on the "seeing-part" side, they do not mutually cognize one another; but on the "mark-part" side, they do have a sense of "mutually cognizing" — that is to say, those mark-parts may mutually serve as one another's substrate and so arise (just as the seeds within the consciousness can serve as the substrate for the mark-part of contact and the rest of the mental factors). Why must it be put just so? Because were it not, then when cognizing "the formless" (that is, the object without a substrate), that formless [realm] and the like would be left with no object cognized; and even granting, a step back, that it transforms forth a mark-part that resembles having form, it must still cognize the seeds (taking the seeds as substrate), or else the object the seeing-part cognizes and the substrate would not match (and the sense of object-support condition would be lost).

"The mark-part on one and the same substance," toward "the seeing-part" on that same substance, serves as two conditions (the object-support condition, the dominant condition); conversely the seeing-part toward that mark-part has only the dominant condition. "The seeing-part and the self-witnessing-part" set one against another are the same way too (the self-witnessing-part toward the seeing-part serves as two conditions, the seeing-part toward the self-witnessing-part has only the dominant). The remaining two parts (the self-witnessing-part and the witnessing-of-self-witnessing-part) set one against another do, both ways, serve as two conditions. It must be made clear: what is treated here is not put in terms of "the seed mark-part," but is only put in terms of these "active" parts mutually serving as conditions for one another.

As for "the pure eight consciousness-cluster" (the eight consciousnesses that after transmutation-of-the-basis have become the wisdoms), when one's own body and another's body are set one against another, all have the object-support condition — because they can cognize all things universally. Only one point is excepted: "the seeing-part" cannot be the object that the mark-part cognizes (that is, the mark-part cannot in turn cognize the seeing-part) — because the mark-part, in principle, has no "cognizing" function at all.

Since "active discrimination" arises by cognizing seeds and so comes forth, then in principle "the seeds" too ought to arise by cognizing the active and cognizing seeds. How many conditions, then, can "the active toward the seed" and "the seed toward the seed" serve as? First, one point: a seed definitely does not arise by "the middle two conditions" (the immediately-antecedent, the object-support) — because these two conditions are set up only toward "the mind and mental factors," and a seed is not mind or mental factor. Sorting it out: "the active toward its own intimate seed" serves as two conditions (the cause-condition, the dominant), and toward "what is not its intimate seed" serves only as the dominant. "The seed toward its own intimate seed" likewise serves as two conditions (the cause-condition, the dominant), and toward "what is not its intimate seed" serves only as the dominant.

By virtue of just this principle, "the inner consciousnesses being conditions to one another in dependent arising," the cause and effect of "discrimination" stand firm whether by principle or by scripture. That being so, the "outer condition" that the outsiders wrongly grasp — even if it truly existed — would be of no use; how much more, since it further contradicts right principle and contradicts the sacred teaching: that being so, to what end the obstinate clinging to it?

Though the word "discrimination" in the verse refers, taken in sum, to the mind and mental factors of the three realms, yet according to whichever side is the more conspicuous, the several scriptural teachings display it by various gates — at times putting it as two kinds, three, four, five, and so on (every manner of classification). These have all been distinguished in full in the remaining several treatises.

Consciousness-only takes its stand on the claim that everything is nothing but inner consciousness, with no object outside the mind serving as a supporting condition. This at once invites a sharp counter-question: if there is no external condition, then how do the many kinds of "discrimination" (the consciousness of false discrimination) actually arise? This section first answers head-on with a single verse, then unfolds the matter layer by layer. It explains fully how the all-seeds consciousness transforms and how consciousnesses reinforce one another; then it turns into a long general treatment of the four conditions (causal condition, immediately-antecedent condition, object-as-condition, and dominant condition); along the way it also clarifies the entire causal architecture by which the four conditions, set upon fifteen bases, establish the ten causes, the ten causes are gathered into two causes, and from the causal condition the five fruits are obtained; and finally it returns to the proper sense of the verse — namely, exactly which conditions the seeds within the root consciousness can serve when discrimination arises.

This verse — "by the all-seeds consciousness transforming thus and thus" — has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra. Its chapter on mind, mentation, and consciousness speaks of the root consciousness that holds all phenomena within it, the ādāna ("that which follows along and appropriates"), in which "all the seeds, like a torrent," flow on and transform without cease moment after moment. When the present verse says "the all-seeds consciousness transforms and gives rise to discrimination," it is precisely carrying forward this sense of "all the seeds" — discrimination arises by the transformation of the seeds held within inner consciousness, with no need to borrow any condition outside the mind. As for the whole set of causal categories — the four conditions, the ten causes, the five fruits — their treatise-basis lies in the Yogācārabhūmi, in its Fundamental Section: there the names and numbers of "the ten causes, four conditions, and five fruits" are fixed (the ten causes being speaking-accordingly, observation-in-dependence, drawing-forth, giving-rise, embracing, inducing, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, contrary, and non-contrary; the four conditions being causal, immediately-antecedent, object-as-condition, and dominant; the five fruits being maturation, outflow, disjunction, agent-action, and dominant), and there too the rule of "establishing causes in dependence on bases" is laid out — establishing the cause of speaking-accordingly upon the basis of speech, the cause of observation-in-dependence upon the basis of receiving, the drawing-forth cause upon the basis of latent forces, the giving-rise cause upon the basis of moistened seeds, and so on; the present treatise's "the four conditions, set upon fifteen bases, establish the ten causes" is an expansion drawn from this. The names and numbers of the five fruits are likewise settled and established in the Mahāyāna-abhidharma-samuccaya, in its chapter on doctrinal discussion (maturation, outflow, dominant, agent-action, disjunction). The causal architecture of this section thus has its scripture in the Saṃdhinirmocana and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi and the Abhidharma-samuccaya — and below, following the verse, the exposition opens out.

I. Refuting the Objection from Doctrine · Resolving the Objection "From What Does Discrimination Arise?"

1. The Objection and the Answer — From What Does Discrimination Arise?

The opponent objects in this way: on what you have established as consciousness-only, there is only inner consciousness and no external condition whatsoever (no object outside the mind to lend a hand) — so on the strength of what, then, do the many kinds of "discrimination" arise, that is, these very consciousnesses of false discrimination? The author does not take a roundabout path; he answers directly with the words of the verse.

The verse says: by the "all-seeds consciousness" (the root consciousness that holds within it all the seeds) transforming thus and thus, and by the "mutually reinforcing power" through which the several consciousnesses augment one another, the many kinds of "discrimination" (those several consciousnesses of false discrimination) come to arise. The skeleton of this verse is just two powers: one is the power of seeds transforming, the other is the power by which the manifestly active consciousnesses drive one another along. When both powers are present, discrimination arises of itself, with no need to borrow an external condition.

2. Opening the Lines One by One — What Is the "All-Seeds Consciousness"?

The author first explains "all-seeds consciousness." This term refers to the manifold functional distinctions within the eighth, root consciousness that are "able to give rise to their own fruit" — that is, all the seeds. These seeds can give rise to four kinds of fruit: the outflow fruit, the maturation fruit, the agent-action fruit, and the dominant fruit; this is why they are called "all-seeds." The one exception that must be set aside is the disjunction fruit — the disjunction fruit (the unconditioned reality realized when obstructions are cut off) is not produced by seeds; though it can indeed be realized, it is not a fruit of seeds, for it is realized only by bringing forth the noble path and cutting off the fetters. There is, to be sure, a kind of "successive process" in this (cultivating the path first, then cutting the fetters and realizing the fruit), but that is not the "successive" power the verse intends; what the verse intends is the seed that is "able to give rise to discrimination."

Why is it called the "all-seeds consciousness" and not simply "all-seeds"? Because it takes the eighth consciousness for its substance, so the word "consciousness" is appended; once seeds are separated from the root consciousness they have no separate self-substance of their own, for they exist only in dependence upon the root consciousness. Further, naming "seed" and "consciousness" together is meant to distinguish two things: first, "a consciousness that is not a seed" (such as the manifestly active seven evolving consciousnesses, which are consciousness but not seed), and second, "a seed that is not this very consciousness" (the seed must be marked off and not confused with the substance of consciousness) — and so the two words must be set side by side. Again, this phrasing "seed-consciousness" is meant to point to "the seeds within this consciousness," not to "the consciousness that is able to retain seeds" (that is, the root consciousness itself); the consciousness that retains seeds is treated separately and will be discussed later.

Next he explains "transforming thus and thus" in the verse. These seeds within the root consciousness, assisted by the remaining various conditions, transform thus and thus — by "transform" is meant the passage from the "stage of arising" (the stage in which a seed is first drawn forth and produced) to the "moment of maturity" (the stage fit to summon a present fruit). Why does the verse repeat "thus and thus"? To show that the kinds of what is transformed are exceedingly many. The term "all-seeds" exhausts the "three kinds of perfuming" (the latent forces of designation, the latent forces of self-grasping, and the latent forces of the limbs of existence), all three classes, and likewise exhausts the "common-mark seeds, uncommon-mark seeds," and all the rest of the seeds within the root consciousness.

Next he explains "mutually reinforcing power." This "mutually reinforcing power" refers to the eight manifestly active consciousnesses, together with the mental factors associated with them, and the "image-portion and seeing-portion" of each consciousness — all of these have, among one another, a power of mutual assistance and support, and so they can in successive reinforcement give rise to discrimination. As for the phrase "those several discriminations": the manifestly active consciousnesses are collectively named "discrimination," because they all have "false discrimination" as their very nature; and since the kinds of discrimination are many, the verse says "those several discriminations."

Putting the whole verse together, the meaning is this: even with no condition outside the mind, by the distinctions in the transformation of all the seeds within the root consciousness, and by the mutually reinforcing power of the eight manifestly active consciousnesses and the rest, the many kinds of discrimination still come to arise — why must one borrow an external condition before discrimination can arise? And not only defiled phenomena are so; the arising of pure phenomena follows the very same principle: they arise by pure seeds and pure manifest activity serving as conditions, and likewise do not wait upon an external condition.

II. The Four Conditions — The Manner in Which Discrimination Arises Through Conditions

The foregoing has said "discrimination arises by seeds and manifest activity serving as conditions"; one must therefore press further and ask: how is this "arising through conditions" to be understood? Conditions are four in all. Each is clarified in turn below.

Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) marks out the levels of the whole chapter here: this clarifying of the "arising through conditions" — the broadening of the first three lines of the verse — divides into two passages: first, "the proper explanation of the four conditions," and afterward, "branching off to clarify the fifteen bases and the rest" (that is, the ten causes, the two causes, and the five fruits below are all a digression off to the side). He further matches verse-lines to conditions: the verse-line "all-seeds" is the broadening of the single "causal condition," and the verse-line "mutually reinforcing power" is the broadening of the remaining three conditions (immediately-antecedent, object-as-condition, and dominant) — so the clarifying of the four conditions is, at bottom, the unfolding of just these two lines.

1. The Causal Condition

The first is the "causal condition." By causal condition is meant that cause whereby a conditioned phenomenon "personally accomplishes its own fruit" (the intimate cause). Its substance is of two kinds: one is seeds, the other is manifest activity.

Take first the side of seeds. By seeds is meant the manifold functional distinctions within the root consciousness — wholesome, defiled (unwholesome), and indeterminate, and those bound to the three realms, the nine grounds, and so on. They have two operations: one is to draw forth "the next, later function of their own kind" (seed drawing seed, the prior seed drawing forth the later seed), and the other is to give rise to "the simultaneous present fruit of their own kind" (seed producing manifest activity); only with respect to this relation — toward the function of their own kind and the present fruit of their own kind — do they count as having the nature of a causal condition.

Now take the side of manifest activity. By manifest activity is meant the seven evolving consciousnesses, together with the image-portion and seeing-portion transformed by the mental factors associated with them, and their nature, realm, ground, and so on. Among these, two kinds must be set aside: "the wholesome of buddhahood's fruit" and "the extremely inferior indeterminate" — these two do not perfume seeds into being; apart from these, all the remaining manifest activity perfumes the root consciousness and gives rise to seeds of its own kind; and only with respect to this relation — toward seeds of its own kind — does it count as having the nature of a causal condition. As for the mind-king and mental factors of the eighth consciousness, they do not perfume seeds into being, for four reasons: it is itself the very "site that is perfumed," and does not in turn go perfuming others; it "does not stand apart from its support," and cannot, setting aside its support, perfume by itself; and its substance is both "exceedingly subtle" (weak) and "complete" (already perfect, neither increasing nor decreasing) — and so it does not perfume seeds into being. One must also keep clear: manifest activity and manifest activity of the same kind, regarded against each other, are not causal conditions, for each arises from its own seed and it is not the case that this one produces that one; and all heterogeneous kinds regarded against each other are likewise not causal conditions, for they do not intimately produce one another.

Here there are two divergent views. One view maintains that "heterogeneous and homogeneous manifest activity, regarded against each other, can serve as causal condition" — concerning this view, one should know that it is a "provisional statement," or a "teaching that goes along with the position of another school" (an expedient way of speaking that accommodates another tradition), and is not the ultimate sense. Another view then "admits only seeds to have the nature of causal condition" (manifest activity not counting) — this is spoken "in accordance with the more conspicuous," taking the higher sense of seeds for its thesis, and is not an exhaustive account of the principle; for the noble teaching plainly says that "the evolving consciousnesses and the ālaya-consciousness, regarded against each other, can serve as causal condition," which shows that manifest activity too can serve as a causal condition.

2. The Immediately-Antecedent Condition

The second is the "immediately-antecedent condition." By immediately-antecedent condition is meant that the eight manifestly active consciousnesses and their mental factors — the "prior aggregate" toward the "later aggregate of its own kind" — are, without interval, equally "yielding and ushering" (the prior moment giving way, opening the road for the later moment), so that the later aggregate is determined to arise. Note this: the many seeds of the same kind arise simultaneously, with no sense of a prior one opening the way for a later, and so the "dissociated-from-mind formations" are not embraced by this condition; and for just this reason the eight consciousnesses cannot serve as immediately-antecedent condition for one another (they are not without interval within a single kind). However, the mental factors and the mind-king, though they constantly evolve together at the same time, are by their "association" so blended as to seem one substance, and cannot be set up as separate and distinct; therefore the mind-king and the mental factors can, after all, serve as immediately-antecedent condition for one another (this does not violate the principle of being-without-interval-within-a-kind). Again, the final moment of mind upon entering "remainderless nirvāṇa" is the most extremely subtle and weak; it has no function of opening the way for a later moment, and there is, afterward, no further immediately-antecedent phenomenon "about to arise" (no mind arises beyond it), and so this moment does not serve as immediately-antecedent condition. How do we know it is so? The treatise has a definite statement: "if the consciousnesses and the rest of the prior aggregate are without interval, then the consciousnesses and the rest of the later aggregate are determined to arise," which says that the prior aggregate is the immediately-antecedent condition of the later aggregate.

On this principle one may examine the immediately-antecedent condition of the eight consciousnesses one by one. First, the eighth, the ādāna-consciousness: across the three realms and nine grounds it is allowed to serve as immediately-antecedent condition mutually, for in the upper and lower realms and grounds, and in the positions of death and birth, it can open the way for itself; moreover "the defiled eighth, without interval, can give rise to the undefiled eighth"; but conversely "after the undefiled there is determinedly no arising of the defiled" — for once the great-perfect-mirror wisdom appears, the defiled eighth is forever absent, forever cut off; and its "wholesome" and "indeterminate," regarded against each other, are the same in this way (after undefiled wholesomeness arises, defiled indeterminacy no longer arises). Then after which realm is this undefiled eighth drawn forth? Either after the form realm or after the desire realm. An ordinary being who seeks the fruit of buddhahood is certain to draw forth the undefiled after the form realm, for he must be born in the "palace of Maheśvara" in the Pure-Abodes heavens of the form realm and there realize awakening; while a person of the two vehicles who turns from the lesser toward the greater and aspires to the great awakening is certain to draw forth the undefiled after the desire realm, for the body he turns toward and retains is only in the desire realm — though he too must go to the palace of Maheśvara before becoming a buddha, the "born body" retained by the power of his fundamental vow is a desire-realm body, and so, with respect to the retained body, it is drawn forth after the desire realm. Here there is one divergent view: it says that in the form realm there are also voice-hearers who turn toward the great vehicle and retain a body by the power of vow — this contradicts neither teaching nor principle, and so a voice-hearer's undefiled eighth can also appear after a form-realm mind (not restricted to being after the desire realm); however, within the five Pure-Abodes heavens there are none who turn toward the great vehicle, for the scriptures do not say that the noble ones there bring forth the great-vehicle mind.

Next, the seventh, the manas: across the three realms and nine grounds it too is allowed to serve as immediately-antecedent condition mutually, for it is bound to the realm and ground in accordance with the place where the eighth consciousness arises. Its "defiled and undefiled" can give rise to each other, for in the ten grounds the defiled manas and the wisdom of equal-nature can draw each other forth; its "wholesome" and "indeterminate," regarded against each other, can likewise give rise to each other; and within the indeterminate, the "defiled manas" and the "undefiled manas" can also open the way for each other, for in the prior and later positions of "the fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of person" they can draw each other forth. However, the mutual giving-rise of the seventh's defiled and undefiled occurs only in the desire realm and form realm, not in the formless realm — for bodhisattvas on the grounds are not born in the formless realm.

Next, the sixth, the mind-consciousness: across the three realms and nine grounds, its defiled and undefiled, wholesome and unwholesome, and so on, are each allowed to serve as immediately-antecedent condition mutually, for in the "position of moistening rebirth" and the like they can draw one another forth; its "first arising of the undefiled" is only after the form realm, for the wholesomeness of the "factors conducive to penetration" exists only in the form realm.

Finally, the first five consciousnesses: the eye-, ear-, and body-consciousness extend to "two realms and two grounds" (the desire realm and the first dhyāna), while the nose- and tongue-consciousness extend only to "one realm and one ground" (the desire realm); all serve as immediately-antecedent condition mutually within their own kind, and their wholesomeness and the rest, regarded against each other, are the same. Here there are two divergent views. One view: the defiled and undefiled of the first five consciousnesses serve as immediately-antecedent condition mutually within their own kind, for "before buddhahood is attained" the defiled and undefiled are allowed to arise alternately. Another view: the undefiled five consciousnesses can arise after the defiled five consciousnesses, but after the undefiled, the defiled are not allowed to arise again; the reasons are — the undefiled five consciousnesses exist nowhere but at the buddha-stage; those five physical faculties are certainly defiled (the physical faculties are embraced by the image-portion of the maturation consciousness); the matter of a "defiled, uncommon supporting physical faculty" together with "simultaneously, on the same object, giving rise to an undefiled consciousness" does not accord in fact or in principle; and moreover the two — defiled and undefiled — differ as to "clarity and dimness" with respect to their object, and so it is not allowed that they revert in succession to the defiled.

3. The Object-as-Condition

The third is the "object-as-condition." By object-as-condition is meant that if there is a phenomenon that is "apprehended and relied upon by a mind (or an associated mental factor) bearing its own image" — that is, the object that the mind apprehends and leans upon — then it is an object-as-condition. Its substance is of two kinds: one is the "intimate object-as-condition," the other is the "remote object-as-condition." How are they distinguished? If this object is not separate from the substance of the "apprehender" (that is, the image-portion that the seeing-portion and the rest inwardly apprehend and lean upon), then it is the intimate object-as-condition; if it is separate from the substance of the apprehender, yet can serve as the "underlying basis" giving rise to the inward apprehending-and-leaning (that is, the external underlying basis), then it is the remote object-as-condition. Speaking again in terms of presence or absence: the intimate object-as-condition is had by every apprehending mind, for apart from the inward apprehended-and-leaned-upon, an apprehending mind certainly does not arise; the remote object-as-condition the apprehending mind may or may not have, for apart from the external apprehended-and-leaned-upon, an apprehending mind can still arise.

Below, the presence or absence of the remote condition is clarified consciousness by consciousness. First, the mind-class of the eighth consciousness — here there are three views. One view: the eighth "has only the intimate object-as-condition," for by the power of karmic causes it transforms spontaneously and does not rely on an external basis. Another view: the eighth "certainly also has a remote object-as-condition," for it must lean upon the underlying basis transformed by others before this side itself transforms. Another view (refuting the prior two and establishing the settled, correct reading): both prior views fail to accord with principle. On one hand, one's own body, another's body, one's own land, and another's land can "be mutually made use of," and what others transform can serve as one's own underlying basis (so it is not that there is no remote condition); on the other hand, "one's own seeds have no principle of being made use of by another sentient being," so to say that everything relies wholly on what others transform serving as one's own underlying basis also fails to accord with principle, all the more since the seeds of the several sentient beings are not entirely equal (so it is also not that there is certainly a remote condition); therefore one should say: the remote object-as-condition of the eighth mind-class is, in all positions, indeterminate as to being present or absent. Next, the mind-class of the seventh: in the "position before transformation of the basis" it is the innate self-grasping, which must lean upon an external basis (apprehending the seeing-portion of the eighth as its basis), and so it too certainly has a remote object-as-condition; reaching the "position after transformation of the basis," the remote condition is then no longer certainly present, for when it apprehends suchness and the like there is no external basis. Next, the mind-class of the sixth: its mode of activity is fierce and keen, and in all positions it can evolve freely; the external basis it leans upon may or may not be present, and so its remote object-as-condition is indeterminate as to presence or absence. Finally, the mind-class of the first five: in the "position before transformation of the basis," being coarse, dull, and inferior, it must lean upon an external basis (the underlying basis of form-objects), and so it too certainly has a remote object-as-condition; reaching the "position after transformation of the basis" it is then no longer certainly present, for the wisdom that accomplishes what is to be done can apprehend the past, the future, and the like, and at that time there is no external basis.

4. The Dominant Condition

The fourth is the "dominant condition." By dominant condition is meant that if there is a phenomenon possessing a surpassing potency, able toward the remaining phenomena to "either assist or obstruct" (help or hinder), then it is a dominant condition. In truth the prior three conditions all carry a dominant sense as well; but this fourth condition is established by "setting aside the prior three and taking only the remainder," for the purpose of bringing out the distinct character of the several conditions. This potency to "assist or obstruct" evolves in the four locations of "arising, abiding, accomplishing, and obtaining," because the four matters of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and obtaining are distinct. Though the dominant operations are many according to the matter, the most surpassing and most conspicuous are just twenty-two — these are the "twenty-two faculties."

What does each of the twenty-two faculties take for its own nature? The first five physical faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) take for their nature the "pure form" of the eye and the rest, transformed by the root consciousness and so on; the two faculties of maleness and femaleness are embraced by the body-faculty and so take a portion of the body-faculty for their nature; the life-faculty is merely provisionally established, upon a positional division of "the intimate seed of the root consciousness," and has no separate nature of its own; the mind-faculty takes the "eight consciousnesses" collectively for its nature; the five feeling-faculties (pain, pleasure, sorrow, joy, equanimity) each take their own feeling for their nature; and the five faculties beginning with faith (faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) take faith and the rest, and wholesome mindfulness and so on, for their own nature.

The last three faculties (the faculty of "I-shall-come-to-know-the-unknown," the faculty of "having-known," and the faculty of "complete-knowing") must be examined closely. First, the faculty of "I-shall-come-to-know-the-unknown" — its substance has three positions. The first is the "root position," referring to the position of the path of seeing (excepting, however, the final instant, for in that final instant there is no longer anything "unknown that can come to be known," and so it is excepted). The second is the "preparatory position," referring to the four wholesome roots of warmth, summit, forbearance, and the supreme-mundane-dharma, for they draw near to being able to induce the root position (the path of seeing). The third is the "provisioning position," referring to all the wholesome roots from the arising of the resolute and surpassing wholesome aspiration "to attain the direct realization of the truths" up to "not yet having attained the factors conducive to penetration," for it can from afar assist and induce the root position. In these three positions, the "five faculties beginning with faith, the mind-faculty, joy, pleasure, and equanimity" are the faculty-nature of this "I-shall-come-to-know-the-unknown"; in the preparatory and other positions, although in seeking to realize the later surpassing dharma there is also "grief and distress," carrying the "faculty of sorrow," yet the faculty of sorrow is not a proper wholesome root, and so for the most part it is not counted in. Again, the first three formless heavens (boundless-space, boundless-consciousness, nothing-whatever) also have this faculty, attained by "cultivating it as an adjunct to the surpassing path of seeing"; or persons of the two vehicles who turn toward the great vehicle, in seeking to realize the emptiness of phenomena, also bring forth, before the grounds, "the undefiled emptiness-of-person embraced by the nine grounds" — these are already bodhisattvas, and are embraced by this faculty. As for the bodhisattva's position on the path of seeing, it in fact also has this faculty; the text above spoke only of "before the grounds" because the path of seeing is exceedingly brief, and so it was passed over and not separately stated.

Next, the faculty of "having-known": from the final instant of the path of seeing all the way up to the "vajra-like concentration," all the undefiled nine faculties beginning with faith are the faculty-nature of "having-known." Among them, those who have not yet departed from desire, in seeking to realize liberation in the upper realms, also have "grief and distress," carrying the faculty of sorrow, but the faculty of sorrow is not a proper wholesome root, and so for the most part it is not counted in.

Next, the faculty of "complete-knowing": in the several "positions beyond training," all the undefiled nine faculties are entirely the faculty-nature of "complete-knowing." One word must be added: the "peak of existence" (the station of neither-perception-nor-non-perception), though it has "roving-contemplation undefiled" (undefiled contemplation roving through it from the lower grounds' undefiled), has a character that is not clear and keen, and so it is not embraced by the last three faculties. The own-nature of the twenty-two faculties is roughly thus; the doctrine of the several other approaches should be understood by relying on the Yogācārabhūmi and the like.

III. The Subsidiary Treatment — The Four Conditions, Set Upon the Fifteen Bases, Establish the Ten Causes

With the four conditions finished, the author here branches off into a long subsidiary discussion: these four conditions, further set upon "fifteen bases" (fifteen kinds of supporting basis), according to the distinctions of the sense of "cause," establish the "ten causes." How are they established upon these fifteen bases? Each is stated in turn.

Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) sets up a four-fold outline for this long subsidiary stretch, to make its course easy to follow: first, clarifying how the four conditions, set upon the fifteen bases, establish the ten causes (that is, the establishing of causes basis by basis below); second, distinguishing how the ten causes and the "two causes (the cause that gives rise, the expedient cause)" mutually embrace one another; third, clarifying the bases of the four conditions and their mutual embracing with the ten causes and the two causes; fourth, clarifying how many fruits each of the bases of the four conditions obtains. He cautions, moreover, that the mutual embracing of the ten causes and the two causes is "merely a making-clear of the sense of cause — a side-sense of the ten causes, and not the setting up of another category"; the reader need not take it as a separate division standing alongside the four conditions.

1. The basis of speech — this refers to the "nature of speech" (verbal expression) that arises from "the name of a phenomenon" and "the idea" of it; set upon this basis, the "cause of speaking-accordingly" is established, that is, the cause whereby, relying on speech and according to what is seen, heard, and so on, one declares the several meanings — this is "the cause that makes the speaker produce what is spoken." (Some treatise states this basis of speech to be the three of "name, idea, and view": by grasping the image as if it were a name, and by attachment, speech arises accordingly; on that treatise's account, this very cause is precisely shown to be the basis of speech.)

2. The basis of receiving — this refers to the nature of the "able-to-receive and the received" that is observed-in-dependence; set upon this basis, the "cause of observation-in-dependence" is established, that is, the cause whereby, observing this one phenomenon in dependence, it makes those several matters either arise, abide, accomplish, or be obtained — this is "that phenomenon's cause of observation-in-dependence."

3. The basis of latent forces — this refers to the "not-yet-matured position" of inner seeds and outer seeds; set upon this basis, the "drawing-forth cause" is established, because it can from afar draw forth its own fruit.

4. The basis of moistened seeds — this refers to the "already-matured position" (already moistened) of inner seeds and outer seeds; set upon this basis, the "giving-rise cause" is established, because it can from near at hand give rise to its own fruit.

5. The basis of immediate cessation — this refers to the "immediately-antecedent condition" of mind and mental factors (the prior moment ceases without interval and opens the way for the later moment).

6. The basis of the object-field — this refers to the "object-as-condition" of mind and mental factors (the object that is apprehended).

7. The basis of faculties — this refers to the "six faculties" upon which mind and mental factors depend.

8. The basis of activity — this refers to the present conditions, apart from seeds, that help bring about the deed performed and the "instrument" used and its "operation" (with attention to the instrument).

9. The basis of agent-action — this refers to the present conditions, apart from seeds, that can perform the deed performed, its "agent," and its "operation" (with attention to the agent).

10. The basis of true vision — this refers to "undefiled vision"; apart from the one matter of "drawing forth seeds of its own kind," it assists in inducing and assists in realizing among undefiled phenomena. Setting upon these six bases, the fifth through the tenth, collectively, the "embracing cause" is established, because embracing the prior five bases can accomplish defiled phenomena, and fully embracing these six bases can accomplish undefiled phenomena.

11. The basis of conformity — this refers to the indeterminate, defiled, and wholesome manifest activities, seeds, and the several formations, which can conform to "the superior grades of their own kind"; set upon this basis, the "inducing cause" is established, because it can induce the superior activities of its own kind, and can also induce the unconditioned.

12. The basis of distinct function — this refers to the distinct potency of "being able to give rise to, being able to realize" that each conditioned phenomenon has toward its own fruit; set upon this basis, the "determining-as-distinct cause" is established, because each can give rise to the fruit of its own realm and so on, and each can obtain the fruit of its own vehicle.

13. The basis of conjunction — this refers to the power of "conjunction" present, from the basis of receiving up to the basis of distinct function, within the fruits that are given rise to, abide, accomplished, and obtained; set upon this basis, the "shared-undertaking cause" is established, because from the cause of observation-in-dependence to the cause of determining-as-distinct, all jointly accomplish arising and the rest, and are a single undertaking.

14. The basis of obstruction — this refers to the phenomena that can obstruct in the matters of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and obtaining; set upon this basis, the "contrary cause" is established, because it can run counter to the matters of arising and the rest.

15. The basis of non-obstruction — this refers to the phenomena that do not obstruct in the matters of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and obtaining; set upon this basis, the "non-contrary cause" is established, because it does not run counter to the matters of arising and the rest.

The Ten Causes Gathered into Two Causes

These ten causes are, further, embraced by "two causes": the first is the cause that gives rise, the second is the expedient cause. The Bodhisattva-bhūmi says: "Drawing-forth seeds and giving-rise seeds are called the cause that gives rise; the remaining several causes are embraced by the expedient cause." The meaning of this statement is: among the six causes of drawing-forth, giving-rise, inducing, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, and non-contrary, whatever is the not-yet-matured position of "causal-condition seeds" is called the "drawing-forth seed" and the already-matured position is called the "giving-rise seed"; the several causal-condition seeds within these six causes are wholly embraced within these two positions, the not-yet-matured and the already-matured. Although there is also "manifest activity" that is a cause-that-gives-rise (such as the manifest activity within the prior four conditions that can give rise to seeds of its own kind), manifest activity is for the most part discontinuous, and so it is here passed over and not stated, and the cause-that-gives-rise is set up only on seeds; as for the manifest activity that "personally accomplishes the fruit," it may at times be given the name "seed" as well (as the world says that the manifestly active grain, wheat, and so on are also called "seed"). The remaining causes — namely the first, speaking-accordingly; the second, observation-in-dependence; the fifth, embracing; and the ninth, contrary; these four causes, together with the "non-causal-condition phenomena" within the prior six causes — are all outside the causal-condition seeds of the arising-position and matured-position, and so are collectively said to be embraced by the expedient cause. Note that neither end may be stated rigidly: it is not that "drawing-forth seeds and giving-rise seeds," these two seeds, belong only to those two causes-that-give-rise (for among the remaining four causes — inducing, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, non-contrary — there are also causal-condition seeds); nor is it that only "those eight causes" are called the remaining causes and gathered under the expedient (for within the two causes of drawing-forth and giving-rise there are also non-causal-condition seeds).

Here the author further cites a different account from another place, the Stage-With-Application-and-Sustained-Thought: there it says "the giving-rise cause is the cause that gives rise, the remainder being embraced by the expedient." The meaning of this is: among the six causes, whatever "manifest activity or seeds" are causal-condition is called the "giving-rise cause" (because it can intimately give rise to the fruit of its own kind), and apart from this the remaining causes are all embraced by the expedient. Here too neither end may be stated rigidly: it is not that "giving-rise" belongs only to that giving-rise cause (for within the remaining five causes there are also causal conditions); nor is it that only "those nine causes" are called the remaining causes (for within that giving-rise cause there are also non-causal conditions).

The author further reconciles these two accounts. One reconciliation is this: what the Bodhisattva-bhūmi calls "drawing-forth and giving-rise seeds" refers to those "two causes" (the drawing-forth cause, the giving-rise cause), and the "remaining several causes" refers to those "remaining eight causes." Although within these two causes there are also those that are "not causes-that-give-rise," yet within them the causal-condition seeds are most surpassing and most conspicuous, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly, with respect to this, as "giving rise"; and although within the remaining eight causes there are also those that are "not expedient causes," yet within them the dominant ones are in the majority and most conspicuous, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly, with respect to this, as "expedient." Another reconciliation is this: the Stage-With-Application-and-Sustained-Thought says "the giving-rise cause is the cause that gives rise, the remainder being expedient" — its "giving-rise" refers to that "giving-rise cause," and its "remaining causes" refers to those "remaining nine causes" (counting drawing-forth in as well). Although within the giving-rise cause there are also "non-causal-condition seeds," yet it is near to the fruit and its intimate sense is conspicuous, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly, with respect to this, as "giving rise"; and although within the drawing-forth cause there are also causal-condition seeds, yet it is far from the fruit and its intimate sense is hidden, and so it is not spoken of with respect to this. The remainder being embraced by the expedient is to be understood by extending the above analogously.

Upon Which Bases the Four Conditions Are Established · How They Are Embraced into the Ten Causes and the Two Causes

Then, upon which bases are the "four conditions" spoken of above established? And how are they gathered into the ten causes and the two causes? The treatise says: the "causal condition" is established upon "seeds"; the immediately-antecedent condition is established upon the "basis of immediate cessation"; the object-as-condition is established upon the "basis of the object-field"; and the dominant condition is established upon the "remaining" several bases.

Take first the "seeds" on the side of the causal condition: this refers to the causal-condition seeds within these "six bases" — the third, latent forces; the fourth, moistened; the eleventh, conformity; the twelfth, distinct function; the thirteenth, conjunction; and the fifteenth, non-obstruction; although there is also manifest activity in another four bases that is causal-condition, manifest activity is for the most part discontinuous, and so it is here passed over and not stated. (That manifest activity can at times also personally accomplish its own fruit, as the worldly outer wheat and so on, and may be given the name "seed"; or one may assign the term "seed" only to the fourth, the basis of moistened seeds — the choice of intimate, remote, hidden, and conspicuous being as before.) Next, the two bases of "immediate cessation and the object-field": one should know that this is a "collective showing" of the bases of the two conditions of immediate-antecedence and object, and is not only the fifth and sixth bases, for the sense of these "two intermediate conditions" is present in the remaining bases as well; or it is that these two conditions are established only upon the fifth and sixth bases, and although this sense is present in the remaining bases, it is slight and hidden, and so it is passed over and not stated.

As for the four conditions gathered into the two causes: the treatise says the "causal condition" is embraced by the cause that gives rise; the "dominant condition" is by nature the expedient cause; and the "two intermediate conditions" (immediate-antecedence and object) are embraced by the embracing cause. Although the expedient cause fully possesses the latter three conditions (immediate-antecedence, object, and dominant), among them the dominant is in the majority, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly with respect to the dominant; and the remaining several causes also have the two intermediate conditions, but within the embracing cause this sense is most conspicuous, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly with respect to the embracing. As for the first item, "the causal condition is embraced by the cause that gives rise," the choice of its breadth and narrowness is also as before.

From the Causal Condition the Five Fruits Are Obtained

The "causes and conditions" spoken of above must certainly have a "fruit." How many kinds is this fruit? Upon which bases is it obtained? Fruits are of five kinds. The first is the "maturation fruit": the "indeterminate"-natured fruit that is summoned by defiled wholesome phenomena and unwholesome phenomena and that arises through maturation within one's own continuum. The second is the "outflow fruit": the "same-kind" fruit drawn forth by the perfuming of the wholesome and so on (or that which, resembling the prior karma, has the later fruit evolve in accordance). The third is the "disjunction fruit": the wholesome "unconditioned phenomenon" realized by cutting off obstruction through the undefiled path. The fourth is the "agent-action fruit": the undertaking accomplished by agents through the borrowed aid of the several instruments. The fifth is the "dominant fruit": the fruits obtained apart from the prior four fruits.

Upon which basis is each of these five fruits obtained? The Yogācārabhūmi and the like say: the basis of latent forces obtains the maturation fruit; the basis of conformity obtains the outflow fruit; the basis of true vision obtains the disjunction fruit; the basis of agent-action obtains the agent-action fruit; and the remaining bases obtain the dominant fruit. The author cautions: to say "the basis of latent forces obtains the maturation fruit" is to show all the functions among the several bases that "summon the maturation fruit" (not that this basis alone can summon it); to say "the basis of conformity" is to show all the functions among the several bases that "draw forth the outflow fruit"; to say "the basis of true vision" is to show all the functions among the several bases that "realize the disjunction fruit"; to say "the basis of agent-action" is to show all the functions among the several bases that "summon the agent-action fruit"; and to say "the remaining bases" is to show all the functions among the several bases that "obtain the dominant fruit." Were the matter not reconciled in this way, the delimitation would be either too broad or too narrow. The author further gives another reading: or "latent forces" belongs only to the third basis — although the maturation cause is present in the remaining bases as well, and this basis has non-maturation causes too, yet the maturation cause is far from its fruit and the latent forces (the not-yet-matured seed) are likewise far from their fruit, the two being similar, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly with respect to this; "conformity" belongs only to the eleventh basis — although the outflow fruit is obtained in the remaining bases as well, and this basis obtains non-outflow fruit too, yet the character of this cause summoning "superior activities" is most conspicuous and the sense of conformity is also conformity to superior grades, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly with respect to this; "the basis of true vision" expounds only the tenth basis — although the realization of disjunction can occur in the remaining bases as well, and this basis can obtain non-disjunction too, yet the character of realizing disjunction at this basis is most conspicuous, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly; "the basis of agent-action" expounds only the ninth basis — although the agent-action fruit is summoned in the remaining bases as well, and this basis can summon the dominant and the like too, yet its name and reality correspond and its name-character is most conspicuous, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly; "the remaining" belongs only to the remaining eleven bases — although these eleven bases also obtain the remaining four fruits and the summoning of the dominant fruit can occur in the remaining bases as well, yet these eleven bases for the most part summon the dominant, while the remaining four fruits have already been shown by the prior four bases, and so it is spoken of one-sidedly with respect to these eleven bases as dominant.

Finally, by which causes and which conditions each of the five fruits is obtained — the whole ledger is summarized. The maturation fruit — obtained by the five causes of drawing-forth, giving-rise, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, and non-contrary, plus the dominant condition. The outflow fruit — obtained by the seven causes of drawing-forth, giving-rise, embracing, inducing, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, and non-contrary, plus the "first and last" two conditions (the causal condition and the dominant condition). The disjunction fruit — obtained by the five causes of embracing, inducing, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, and non-contrary, plus the dominant condition. The agent-action fruit — here there are two views: one view holds it obtained by the four causes of observation-in-dependence, embracing, shared-undertaking, and non-contrary, plus the dominant condition; another view holds it obtained by the eight causes of observation-in-dependence, drawing-forth, giving-rise, embracing, inducing, determining-as-distinct, shared-undertaking, and non-contrary, together with the three remaining conditions other than the object-as-condition. The dominant fruit — all ten causes and four conditions are allowed to obtain it.

The subsidiary treatment is finished here; we return to the proper sense of the verse.

IV. Concluding the Proper Doctrine — The Seeds Within the Root Consciousness May Serve as Three Conditions

Returning to the main doctrine. The seeds within the root consciousness, in the matter of "giving rise to manifestly active discrimination," are allowed to serve as three kinds of condition (excepting only the immediately-antecedent condition). How so? Each intimate seed is the "causal condition" toward its present fruit; if a seed is apprehended, it serves as the "object-as-condition" toward the apprehending mind; and if a seed has the power to assist that manifest activity, or does not obstruct it, it serves as the "dominant condition." The principle by which it gives rise to pure manifest activity is the same as this.

Look next at "manifestly active discriminations" regarded against one another in succession: they are allowed to serve as three kinds of condition (there being no causal condition, for manifest activity does not intimately produce manifest activity). Among these: the "own body and another's body" of sentient kinds, regarded against each other in succession, are allowed to serve as two conditions (excepting the causal condition and the immediately-antecedent condition); while "the aggregate of one's own eight consciousnesses," regarded against each other in succession, certainly has the dominant condition and certainly lacks the immediately-antecedent condition (the eight consciousnesses are not immediately-antecedent for one another).

As for the sense of the "object-as-condition" among these eight consciousnesses, it is either absent or present and must be looked at consciousness by consciousness: the eighth has it toward the seventh (the eighth's image-portion serves as the seventh's basis), the seventh does not have it toward the eighth (because the remaining seven consciousnesses are not the underlying basis upon which the eighth leans); of the seventh toward the sixth and the rest, five lack it and one has it (the seventh's seeing-portion serves as the sixth's basis), while the remaining six consciousnesses toward the seventh all lack it entirely; the sixth lacks it toward the first five (the sixth does not serve as the basis upon which the five consciousnesses lean), while the remaining five consciousnesses toward the sixth have it (the image-portion transformed by the first five consciousnesses the sixth can apprehend as its basis); the first five consciousnesses then lean solely upon "the image-portion of the eighth" (not leaning upon the sixth). Look next at "the prior and later within one's own kind," regarded against each other: the sixth consciousness (prior moment toward later moment) is allowed three conditions (excepting the causal condition); the remaining consciousnesses must further except the "object-as-condition" (because the first five and the like take only the present object and do not apprehend the prior moment). If one admits that "the seeing-portion of the later moment of the five consciousnesses can apprehend the image-portion of the prior moment," then the prior-and-later of the first five and of the seventh also have three conditions. The object-as-condition of the prior seven consciousnesses toward the eighth is allowed to be present, for the prior seven can perfume into being the image-portion seeds and seeing-portion seeds of the eighth.

Next, look at "the distinct-substance mind and mental factors within a single aggregate," regarded against each other in succession: there is only the dominant condition — because the underlying basis upon which the several associated phenomena lean is the same, and so they do not apprehend one another. But this must be looked at in two aspects: speaking in terms of the "seeing-portion," they do not apprehend one another; speaking in terms of the "image-portion," there is a sense of "mutual apprehension" — namely, the several image-portions arise mutually serving as underlying basis (as the seeds within consciousness can serve as the underlying basis for the image-portion of contact and the other mental factors). Were this not admitted, then when apprehending "the formless" (an object without basis), the formless realm and the like would have no apprehended object; even if one admits that it transforms into a semblance of having form, it must certainly apprehend a seed (taking the seed as basis), or else the object apprehended by the seeing-portion would differ from the underlying basis (losing the sense of object-as-condition). Look next at "the same-substance image-portion": it serves toward the same-substance "seeing-portion" as two conditions (object-as-condition and dominant condition); the seeing-portion toward it has only the dominant condition. "The seeing-portion and the self-witnessing portion," regarded against each other, are likewise so (the self-witnessing serves the seeing as two conditions, the seeing serves the self-witnessing as only dominant); the remaining two portions (the self-witnessing portion and the witness of self-witnessing) regarded against each other in succession both serve as two conditions. It should be clarified: this passage is not spoken in terms of "seed image-portions," but only in terms of the manifestly arisen several portions mutually serving as conditions. Finally, "the pure aggregate of eight consciousnesses": in one's own body and another's body, regarded against each other, it has the object-as-condition throughout, for it can pervasively apprehend all things; only the "seeing-portion" is excepted as not serving as the object of the image-portion (that is, the image-portion cannot in turn apprehend the seeing-portion), for the image-portion has in principle no apprehending function.

The author further adds a symmetrical question: since "manifestly active discrimination" arises in the present by apprehending seeds, then "seeds" should in principle also arise by apprehending manifest activity and apprehending seeds; so how many conditions can "manifest activity toward seeds" and "seeds toward seeds" serve? Seeds certainly do not arise by the "two intermediate conditions" (immediate-antecedence and object), for these two conditions are established in dependence upon "mind and mental factors," and seeds are not mind and mental factors. Therefore: "manifest activity toward its intimate seed" fully serves as two conditions (causal condition and dominant condition), and toward a "non-intimate seed" serves only as dominant; "seed toward its intimate seed" likewise fully serves as two conditions (causal condition and dominant condition), and toward a "non-intimate seed" also serves only as dominant.

On this line "the seeds within the root consciousness may serve as three conditions," Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) supplies two clarifications: first, what is meant by "discrimination" here embraces the mind-king together with the mental factors, the seeing-portion and image-portion reckoned in along with them, and not the substance of consciousness alone; second, the reason only the "immediately-antecedent condition" is set aside is that this one condition is established solely with respect to "mind and mental factors regarded as prior and later" (seeds are not mind and mental factors, and so this condition does not apply to them). And on the closing line "in dependence on these inner consciousnesses," he points out the object being refuted — precisely the "condition outside the mind" that the Hīnayāna grasps at: in dependence on the seeds and manifest activity of inner consciousness serving as conditions for one another's arising, every cause and fruit of discrimination, every giver-of-rise and given-rise-to, is established; the "condition outside the mind" the Hīnayāna grasps at, even if it existed, would be of no use, all the more since it contradicts principle and teaching — why then cling to it so doggedly?

In accordance with this principle of "inner consciousnesses serving as conditions for one another's dependent arising," the cause and fruit of "discrimination" are established both in principle and in the noble teaching. As for the "external condition" that is falsely grasped — even if it existed, it would be of no use, all the more since it contradicts correct principle and the noble teaching — so why cling to it so stubbornly? One last delimitation is added: although the word "discrimination" in the verse collectively shows the mind and mental factors of the three realms, yet according to what is surpassing within them, the several noble teachings show it by manifold approaches, speaking of it as two, three, four, five, and the like — these various classifications having already been extensively distinguished in the several other treatises. On this point Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) draws out one thing in particular: this "discrimination" at the verse's close refers only to the "defiled mind and mental factors," and he cites the Madhyānta-vibhāga's "false discrimination, that is, the mind and mental factors of the three realms" in support — "discrimination" being the defiled mind and mental factors of the three realms, consistent from first to last with the verse's "those several discriminations."

Onward Transmission

The causal architecture this section sets up — the transformations of the all-seeds consciousness, the mutually reinforcing power of manifest activity, and the whole ledger of the four conditions, ten causes, and five fruits — is the backbone on which the entire consciousness-only system founds its account of "the dependent arising of inner consciousness," and the later books take it up one by one. The Hundred Dharmas treatise assigns the several dharmas of this causal scheme each to its place: among the mind-dharmas, the eighth, the ālaya (the all-seeds consciousness itself); among the mental factors, the five omnipresent ones and the rest (manifestly active mind and mental factors serving as conditions for one another); and among the unconditioned, cessation-through-analysis (the wholesome unconditioned realized as the disjunction fruit). The Thirty Verses — its verse eighteen ("by the all-seeds consciousness, the mutually reinforcing power, discrimination arises") — is the very root-verse this section expounds, verse answering to verse; and upstream it links back to verse two, "all-seeds" (the ālaya as cause-aspect, the seeds). The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on characteristics, establishes "false discrimination" as the mind and mental factors of the three realms — precisely what this section carries forward at its close, where Kuiji cites the Madhyānta-vibhāga to gloss "discrimination." The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its section on the basis of the knowable, broadly clarifies how the ālaya-consciousness holds seeds and is perfumed, and how seeds and manifest activity serve as conditions for one another — which is the expanded version of this section's "inner consciousnesses serving as conditions for one another's dependent arising." As for the Twenty Verses, its concern is to establish consciousness-only and the absence of objects and to refute the outsiders' grasping at real objects; it has no direct counterpart to this whole causal architecture of the four conditions and ten causes, and here it is left aside.