成唯識論 釋違理·因果(二)·釋生死相續難

The second objection: with no outer condition, how does a being's birth-and-death continue? When one life ends, on what does the next take hold?

The answer is verse 19: "By the habit-energies of deeds, together with the habit-energies of the twofold grasping — the former maturation exhausted, a further maturation is produced." Everything turns on the two habit-energies.

The habit-energy of deeds — seeds perfumed by meritorious, non-meritorious and imperturbable action. It is the attracting cause, drawing forth the whole retributive body of the next life.

The habit-energy of the twofold grasping — of grasper and grasped, the seeing-part and image-part. It is the fulfilling cause, filling out the particulars of that body and mind.

The maturation of the former life spent, these two call forth a new one. At no point in the process is anything from outside required. No maker, no medium beyond the being itself, no outer object to supply the impetus — deeds and the twofold grasping are both habit-energies within the eighth consciousness.

The treatise then fits the twelve links onto this frame — ignorance, formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six entrances, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, becoming, birth, old-age-and-death — and distinguishes two kinds of birth-and-death: sectioned (of ordinary beings and the two vehicles, life after bounded life) and transformational (of noble ones past the sectioned kind, taken on by the power of compassion and vow, with no fixed term).

There is a warmth in this chapter that is easy to miss. The treatise is not doing metaphysics. It is saying: the situation of this life of yours was called forth by your own habit-energies; no one arranged it. And since habit-energy called it forth, habit-energy can be turned — so that the very continuity of birth-and-death carries within it the possibility of release.

If birth-and-death ran on outer conditions, you could only wait. Running on habit-energy, you can practise.

2 Resolving the objection on the continuity of birth-and-death

〔Q〕 Someone asks: granting that there is only inner consciousness and no outer condition, then by what is the "continuity of birth-and-death" of sentient beings — one life after another, dying and being reborn again — kept going? 〔A〕 The verse below is precisely what answers this question.

〔The verse expounded〕

This verse says: by the "various karma-habit-energies" and the "two-grasping habit-energy" — these two habit-energies (that is, the two classes of seeds perfumed into consciousness) being there all along — when the "maturation-fruit" of the present span of life (the bodily-and-mental retribution of this span, drawn forth by karma) is used up, there at once arises the maturation-fruit of the next span — and so, span after span, the continuity of birth-and-death goes on forever, never broken. (v19)

First, which karmas are the verse's "various karmas"? They are the three kinds of karma: meritorious karma (the good karma that draws forth a pleasant fruit), non-meritorious karma (the evil karma that draws forth a painful fruit), and imperturbable karma (the karma that draws forth the meditative-fruit of the upper realms, not to be shaken by objects of the desire-realm); put another way, these three are just the contaminated "volitional" karma — that is, the karma, good and unwholesome, made by "volition," the mental factor (the function that drives the inner mind to act). Besides "volition," the principal one, the attendant mental factors (its retinue) that arise along with it are also, one and all, given the name "karma"; why are they too called karma? Because they, just like the "volition"-karma, can draw forth the "projecting fruit" (the fruit that roughly sketches the broad frame of a life) and the "completing fruit" (the fruit that fills in this life's details) — these maturation-retributions.

Here there is a point to settle: karma, the moment it arises, perishes right away, with no interval between. Since it arises and at once perishes, gone in that very instant, by rights this already-perished karma itself has no way to draw forth the maturation-fruit-to-come (how could a thing long since vanished still draw forth a fruit?). Then how does it draw forth a fruit? The answer: before it perishes, it "perfumes" the root consciousness (that is, imprints its function upon the eighth, the ālaya consciousness), and thereby gives rise to a "capacity" of its own (a latent fruit-drawing force lying in store). It is just this capacity that is called the "habit-energy." So the "habit-energy" is the one portion of energy that karma leaves behind, imprinted by perfuming — it is not the karma itself. The treatise pointedly raises the name "habit-energy" precisely to tell it apart from "that karma which once manifested" — the karma that once manifested has long since perished and is not the habit-energy; the capacity left behind, able to draw forth the fruit, is the habit-energy — and so a separate name, "habit-energy," is set up.

This habit-energy (the karma-seed) goes on like this, thought-moment after thought-moment in succession, and when it reaches the time of maturing, it draws forth the maturation-retribution. The "karma-habit-energy" the verse speaks of is just this — it is one "especially powerful dominant condition" of "that span of maturation-fruit to come" (a dominant condition is a helping condition that assists from the side, giving it a push; here it is said to be "especially powerful").

Next, the verse's "two-grasping habit-energy." "The two graspings" are the pair "grasper and grasped" — the grasper is the apprehending side, the grasped is the apprehended side. The treatise lists in a row four pairs to illustrate this opposition of "grasper / grasped": image-part and perceiving-part (the image consciousness manifests, and the apprehending function of consciousness), name and form (the mental side and the material side), mind and mental factors (the mind-king and the mental factors that arise along with it), root and branch (the fundamental and the derivative) — in each of these pairs, the two sides both fall under "grasper and grasped," and so are all reckoned as comprised by "the two graspings." The capacity perfumed forth by these "two graspings," imprinted upon the root consciousness, able directly to give rise to that span of maturation, is called the "two-grasping habit-energy." The "two-grasping habit-energy" the verse speaks of is just this — it is "the maturation-fruit-mind of the next life," together with the "causal-condition seeds" of the dharmas concomitant with that mind (the causal-condition seed is the seed that produces the fruit in person, closer and more direct in measure than the "dominant condition" of the foregoing karma-habit-energy).

The word "together" in the verse says that the "karma-seed" and the "two-grasping seed," these two kinds of seed, are present at the same time. These two are one remote, one near: the karma-habit-energy is the "remote condition" (the helping condition somewhat farther off — that is, the dominant condition spoken of above), the two-grasping habit-energy is the "near condition" (the close-by causal condition, the kind that directly produces the fruit); the two, one remote and one near, mutually assist, and together accomplish a span of retribution. Then why does the verse-text speak first of the "karma-habit-energy" and only afterward of the "two-grasping habit-energy"? Because the sense "karma can evoke and draw forth a span of life" is the more conspicuous, the easier to see, and so the verse states it first.

The "prior maturation" the verse speaks of means the maturation-fruit drawn forth by the karma of the prior life (the life still further back); the "further maturation" (the latter span of maturation) means the maturation-fruit drawn forth by the karma of the latter life. Here one thing must be told apart: the "two-grasping seed" produces its fruit without end, whereas the "karma-habit-energy" produces its fruit with an end — one share of karma-seed, once it has drawn forth one span of retribution, is used up. Why this difference? The crux lies in "whether the nature-kind is the same or not." The karma-seed draws forth a maturation-fruit; but karma itself is good or evil, while the fruit it draws forth is "indeterminate" (neither good nor evil) — the nature-kind shifts between cause and fruit, they do not match — and so the karma-seed has a harder time drawing forth its fruit. Look, by contrast, at the outflow fruit and the dominant fruit: their cause and fruit are of the same nature-kind (a good cause gets a good [fruit], an evil cause an evil [fruit], the nature-kind running straight through), and so the two-grasping seed has an easier time drawing forth its fruit. Precisely because the karma-seed's drawing-forth has an end, what is needed is this: by the force of the karma-seeds and the rest of "the latter life" coming to maturity, when the prior span of maturation-fruit has been used up and enjoyed to the full, there arises separately yet another span of maturation-fruit. And so, span pushing span, the wheel of birth-and-death turns forever, unbroken — and since by inner consciousness and seeds alone it can continue on like this, what need is there to borrow some outer condition for it to connect up?

The sense of this verse, summed up, is just this: by these two things, "karma" and "the two graspings," the whole process of the wheel of birth-and-death never departs from "consciousness." Why does it never depart from consciousness? Because karma and the two graspings, and birth-and-death itself, have for their very substance these dharmas, mind and the mental factors (apart from mind and the mental factors, no karma or birth-and-death standing independently outside can be found at all).

Looked at from another angle (this is to set up a further gate to explain it): the continuity of birth-and-death is brought about by the "various habit-energies." These habit-energies fall, all told, into three great classes. The first is called the "verbalizing habit-energy" — the "intimate causal-condition seed" (the seed that directly produces it) belonging severally to each conditioned dharma (a dharma that arises and perishes, made by activity).

Here "verbalizing" is itself of two kinds. One is called "the meaning-expressing verbalizing" — the kind of "sound," with its differences of high and low, that can voice meaning forth; in plain terms, the language and words we speak. The other is called "the object-disclosing verbalizing" — the "mind and mental factors" that can discern an object. (Mind and the mental factors are plainly not language; why are they too called verbalizing? Because, just like language, they too can manifest and apprehend an object, and so the term "verbalizing" is borrowed to name them.) Following these two verbalizings, perfuming goes on, and perfumes seeds; and these seeds become the causal condition (the cause that directly produces it) belonging severally to each conditioned dharma.

The second class is called the "self-grasping habit-energy" — the seeds perfumed by falsely grasping "self and what-belongs-to-self" (grasping that there is a self, and that there is something belonging to that self). "Self-grasping" is also of two kinds: one is "innate self-grasping," born with one, naturally present of itself, which can be severed only at the stage of "cultivation"; the other is "discriminated self-grasping," perfumed in later by wrong views and wrong teaching, severed already at the stage of "seeing." Following these two kinds of self-grasping, perfumed into seeds, sentient beings come to draw apart, one from another, into "you and me" (self and other).

The third class is called the "link-of-existence habit-energy" — "existence" means the existence of the three realms, the continuity of birth-and-death, and a "link" is a member-part; this means the "karma-seed" that can draw forth the maturation-retribution of the three realms. "The links of existence" are of two kinds: one is "contaminated good" karma, which can draw forth a likeable (good) retribution; the other is the various "unwholesome" karmas, which can draw forth an unlikeable (bad) retribution. Following these two kinds of links of existence, perfumed into seeds, the maturation-retribution comes to draw apart into "the good destinies (the fine places to go — human, divine, and so on) and the evil destinies (the wretched places — the hells, and so on)."

Know this: the "self-grasping habit-energy" and the "link-of-existence habit-energy," these two classes, are only a "dominant condition" (a helping condition that pushes from the side) with respect to the differentiated retributions they bring about (that is, the dividing of self from other, the parting of good destiny from bad) — not the causal condition that produces the fruit directly.

Now match these three classes of habit-energy back to the verse-text. What the verse calls the "karma-habit-energy," know to be just the "link-of-existence habit-energy" spoken of above; what the verse calls the "two-grasping habit-energy," know to be just the "self-grasping habit-energy" and the "verbalizing habit-energy" — these two combined. Why can these two be jointly called "the two graspings" (grasper and grasped)? Because one is perfumed by "grasping self and what-belongs-to-self" (laying hold of self and what belongs to it), and the other by "grasping verbalizing" (laying hold of language and names) — both being a kind of "grasping" (laying hold), both are called "grasping." As for the word "together" in the verse and the rest of the wording, the sense is the same as explained before.

Looked at from yet another angle (this again sets up a further gate to explain it): the continuity of birth-and-death is brought about by these three things, "defilement, karma, suffering." Which count as "defilement"? The afflictions that can "arouse karma" (stir a person to make karma) and can "moisten birth" (water the seeds, urging them on to take rebirth) — these are called "defilement." Which count as "karma"? The karmas that can evoke the "subsequent existence" (the next span of life) — these are called "karma." Which count as "suffering"? The various fruits of suffering drawn forth and produced by karma — these are called "suffering." The seeds, severally, of defilement, karma, and suffering are, one and all, also called "habit-energy."

These three kinds of habit-energy stand differently toward "the suffering of birth-and-death": the first two kinds of habit-energy (defilement and karma) are, toward the suffering of birth-and-death, only a "dominant condition" (helping from the side to produce the suffering); the third kind of habit-energy (suffering) can be, toward the suffering of birth-and-death, a "causal condition" (producing the suffering directly, in person — since suffering itself is the seed of the fruit of suffering).

The verse-text speaks of only the two habit-energies, "karma" and "the two graspings" — how are these to be matched with the "three habit-energies" here? It must be understood thus: defilement and suffering, these two, are matched in the verse with "the two graspings" (since defilement is the grasper side, suffering the grasped side); as for "karma," it cannot bear the name "grasping." Why? Because "grasping" means "clinging, laying hold," and defilement and suffering carry this flavor of clinging, while karma does not — and so karma does not match the word "grasping." As for the word "together" in the verse and the rest of the wording, the sense is the same as explained before.

These three, "defilement, karma, suffering," know to be able to gather in the whole of the "twelve links of existence" (the twelve links of existence are the twelvefold dependent arising: ignorance, formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, existence, birth, old-age-and-death — this chain of interlocking members), that is, ranged all the way from "ignorance" down to "old-age-and-death," as the Śāstras (the Yogācārabhūmi, the Samuccaya, and so on) explain in detail. But these twelve links can be simplified further, gathered into "four great classes":

The first class is called the "projecting links" — that is, the two links "ignorance and formations," because they can project forth the five seeds of retribution, "consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling" (in short, "the five fruit-seeds of consciousness and the rest"), and so are called projecting. The "ignorance" here is not ignorance taken loosely; it is specifically the ignorance "that can stir a person to make just that karma which directly evokes the good and evil karma of a future life"; the karma stirred up by this kind of ignorance is what is meant here by "formations." Just because of this limit, all "karma to be felt in the present life" (karma made this life and felt this very life), and karma that only assists from the side toward future karma, do not count as the "formations" link (since they are not the directly-causing karma that draws forth the retribution of a future life).

The second class is called the "projected links" — that is, those seeds within the root consciousness (the eighth, the ālaya) that "can directly give rise to the maturation-fruit-to-come," namely the five kinds "consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling," which, being projected forth by the foregoing two links (ignorance, formations), are called projected. Now to sort these five finely. Among them the "consciousness-seed" means the cause of the root consciousness itself (that is, the seed of the maturation-consciousness). Set this "consciousness-seed" and the causes of the latter three links (the seeds of the six bases, contact, feeling) aside, and the remaining cause is all gathered into the "name-and-form seed." As for the latter three causes (the six bases, contact, feeling), ranged in the order of their names, they are just the latter three of these five, one to one. Another reckoning works too: one can take the "name-and-form seed" as a general name covering all five causes, and then, picking out within it the more conspicuous ones, set them up separately as the other four links (consciousness, the six bases, contact, feeling). By the same reasoning, the two, "the six bases" and "consciousness," can be reckoned as "general" or as "particular" either way (they may be combined or split, depending on how one gathers them).

Here the several treatises differ a little in their accounts. The Samuccaya says "consciousness" too can count as a "projecting link" — this is because the share of "karma-seed" lodged within consciousness the Samuccaya calls the "consciousness link" (the karma-seed, lodged on consciousness, is named along with it as consciousness); while the share that is the "maturation-consciousness seed" it gathers into "name-and-form." And scripture again says the "consciousness link" runs both ways, projecting and projected — because the "karma-seed" and the "consciousness-seed" can both be called "consciousness" (the two are alike named consciousness, so the one link belongs on both sides); moreover, "consciousness" is the root that name-and-form rests upon, and it is not itself gathered into name-and-form, so consciousness can run both ways (being now projecting, now projected).

Here a misunderstanding must be cleared up. These five kinds of seed, "consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling," are in fact all perfumed forth by karma together, and originally stand at the same time, with no before or after. Then why do scripture and teaching speak of them as having a before and after? It is because among them there are these differing relations, "principal and attendant, general and particular, strong and weak, cause and fruit," and so scripture and teaching expediently posit them as having a certain sequence; or else, following the sequence of the two stages "the retribution to come" and "the present arising," they are said to have a before and after. And just because they can be spoken of by following this side of "present arising," these five links can also be spoken of as "present activity" (the state of having already arisen) — for know that, in the "causal position" (the stage of being only seed), there is no "present activity" to speak of at all (the seed not yet arisen, present activity is out of the question). Likewise, just for this reason it is said that the "generating links" and the "projecting links" are at the same time (this is said as a matter of principle, not that there is really a before and after); because the two states of a seed, "already moistened by craving-and-grasping (moistened)" and "not yet moistened (unmoistened)," are bound never to occur at the same time — and it is just by this that the projecting links and the generating links are told apart.

The third class is called the "generating links" — that is, the three links "craving, grasping, existence," because they can nearly generate the "birth and old-age-and-death" to come, and so are called generating. Their sequence runs thus: first, taking for condition the delusion "deluded within, unable to see clearly the maturation-retribution of this span (the inner fruit)" (a kind of ignorance), it stirs up the various karmas that directly evoke the retribution of a future life, [these serving] as condition, and thereby projects forth, and gives rise to, "the five fruit-seeds of the birth-and-old-age-and-death stage to come"; next, taking for support the delusion "deluded without, unable to see clearly the dominant retribution (the outer fruit)," and taking for object the "feeling" arising toward objects (the receiving), it arouses "greedy craving"; and taking that craving for object, it again gives rise to the four "graspings," "desire-grasping" and the rest (laying hold). When "craving" and "grasping" join to moisten and water the seeds (the moistening of birth), then the originally projecting "karma-seed," together with the projected causes (the five fruit-seeds), are given a changed name, "existence" — why the changed name "existence"? Because at this step, joined together, they can already nearly generate the retribution of the latter span ("existence" being the sense of "the subsequent existence about to come to be").

The name "existence" is also used a little differently in different places. In some places only the "karma-seed" is called "existence," because the karma-seed can directly evoke the maturation-retribution; in others only the "five fruit-seeds" (the five kinds, consciousness and the rest) are called existence, because these five can directly give rise to the consciousness and the rest of the retribution to come. (Both accounts get through; only the emphasis differs.)

The fourth class is called the "generated links" — that is, the two links "birth, old-age-and-death," because they are nearly generated by craving, grasping, and existence, and so are called generated. In detail: from the "intermediate existence" (the transitional body after one span of life has ended and before taking conception) all the way to the "base existence" (the present span of life after formally taking rebirth), whatever stretch has "not yet aged and altered" all belongs to the "birth link"; once the stage of "aging and altering" begins, the whole is named "old-age"; and only when "the body breaks down and life ends" is it called "death." Here note: "old-age" is not necessarily always present (some die very young, never passing through aging), and so it is not set up as a link on its own but appended to "death," the two together reckoned as the one link "old-age-and-death."

〔Q〕 Someone asks: since "old-age" can be set up as a link, why is "sickness" not set up as a link? 〔A〕 Because "sickness" is both "not pervasive" — not every sentient being who takes birth falls sick — and "not fixed" (whether one falls sick, and when, is not fixed), both conditions falling short, and so it is not set up as a link. And "old-age"? "Old-age," though it too is "not fixed" (not everyone lives to old age), is yet "pervasive" — all sentient beings of every realm, every destiny, every kind (save those who die untimely partway) undergo bodily decay before their end — and resting on this "pervasiveness," "old-age" can still be set up as a link. 〔Q〕 It is asked further: since "name-and-form" is "not pervasive" (a being of apparitional birth, for instance, is born with all five faculties complete and passes through no name-and-form stage at all), how can it be set up as a link? 〔A〕 It rests on "the fixed" — beings of womb-birth, egg-birth, and moisture-birth, during the stretch when the six faculties are not yet complete, are bound all to have this "name-and-form" stage, and resting on this "fixedness" it can be set up as a link. Moreover, the "name-and-form link" is in fact pervasively present too (the text below will show that even apparitional beings have a name-and-form position).

Next, an explanation of why name-and-form too counts as pervasively present. A being of apparitional birth in a form realm (the desire-realm, the form-realm), at the moment it first takes birth, though all five faculties are already complete, those five faculties cannot yet function, and so that instant cannot yet be called the "six-bases link" (the six faculties not yet on duty) — and since it does not yet count as the six bases, that instant still counts as "name-and-form," which shows name-and-form is present even for the apparitionally-born. As for a being just born into a formless realm: though it surely has the "mind-faculty," that mind-faculty is not yet clear and distinct, and so that instant cannot yet be called the "mind-base" either — likewise it still counts as name-and-form. Just for this, the Śāstra says: the twelve links of existence are present in the upper two realms (the form-realm, the formless-realm) too, only "whether in full or in part."

〔Q〕 Someone asks: "craving" is not present everywhere (one who is to be born into an evil destiny, for instance, does not crave that evil destiny); since it is not pervasive, why is it still set up as a link on its own? 〔A〕 It rests on "the fixed" — those who do not crave "annihilation (non-existence)" but are to be born into a good destiny surely all have craving, and resting on this "fixedness" it can be set up as a link. Someone may then ask: but when a "non-returner" sage moistens his birth (taking rebirth into an upper realm), the craving that arises plainly does not arise — how then is craving "surely present"? The answer: just as with "grasping," though its present activity does not arise, it surely still retains its "seed" — so, spoken of from the side of the seed, craving still counts as "surely present." Moreover, in fact "craving" is pervasive too — even one who is to be born into an evil destiny still has craving for "this present body of mine" (it is not that he is wholly without craving). Then why does scripture say "because he does not crave the evil destiny, the craving for an evil-destiny body is absent"? That is said "absent" only with regard to "craving (longing for a future evil destiny)," not that one born into an evil destiny is utterly without any craving at all.

〔Q〕 Someone asks: both being on the side of retribution, why does the "generated" set up only the two links "birth, old-age-and-death," while the "projected" must be split finely into "the five links of consciousness and the rest"? 〔A〕 Because at the "causal position" (the stage of being only seed) the differing marks among the links are very hard to make out, and so one can only shift to "the stage when the future retribution arises" and, by their differences as they arise, split it finely into five links: at the instant of taking birth (linking conception), the mark of the "cause-consciousness" (the maturation-consciousness) is most conspicuous, and so the "consciousness link" is set up; next, while the faculties are not yet complete, the mark of "name-and-form" turns full, and so the "name-and-form link" is set up; next, when the faculties are complete, "the six bases" (the six faculties) become conspicuously active, and so the "six-bases link" is set up; resting on the six bases, "contact" arises (faculty, object, and consciousness, the three, meeting), and so the "contact link" is set up; and from contact "feeling" arises (the receiving of pain and pleasure), and so the "feeling link" is set up; at this step, it is named "the retribution's receiving brought to completion." And so, resting on these several stages as the retribution arises, their causes (the seeds) are conversely split finely into five links.

Then why does the "generated" side set up only two links? Because the differing marks of the "generated-fruit stage" are of themselves easy to make out and need no fine splitting, and so only the two links "birth, old-age-and-death" are set up in all, using these two to show the "three sufferings" (the suffering of conditioning — the suffering of restless flow; the suffering of decay — the suffering of a pleasant state breaking up; the suffering of suffering — suffering piled on suffering). One word more: this same generated-fruit, if spoken of as set in "the future," is, in order to make people feel revulsion toward future birth-and-death, spoken of as "birth, old-age-and-death"; if drawn into "the present," is, in order to let people see clearly how one stage arises after another (stage-by-stage arising), spoken of as "the five of consciousness and the rest."

〔Q〕 Someone asks: at the "karma-arousing" stage (stirring a person to make karma), only the single link "ignorance" is set up; yet at the "karma-moistening" stage (watering the seeds), one insists on splitting off the two links "craving, grasping" — both being afflictions at work, why is one set up as a single link, the other as two? 〔A〕 Though every kind of affliction can in fact both arouse karma and moisten karma, yet at the "karma-arousing" stage, the force of ignorance is especially outstanding (because ignorance has eleven especially powerful functions — for instance, its advantage as to the object and the rest, as scripture says in detail), and so at this karma-arousing side ignorance is taken as the general stand-in, and one link suffices; whereas at the "karma-moistening" stage, the force of craving is especially outstanding (and so it is said that "craving is like water," able to water and moisten the seeds), and moreover the seeds must be watered again and again, irrigated over and over, before the sprout of "existence" can grow — one watering not enough — and just because of this repeated watering, at this karma-moistening side the two links "craving, grasping" are split off.

To put it more finely: karma-moistening is split into two links by the difference of "the first watering (the first moistening)" and "the later watering (the later moistening)," dividing it into the two links "craving, grasping." And on the karma-arousing side, there is no such thing as "a second arousing" (one stirring is enough), and so only the single link "ignorance" is set up. One word more to add: the "grasping link" in fact also includes the various afflictions (not only craving); only, since in the matter of moistening birth "craving's" moistening function is the strongest, it is named specifically for "craving" and said to be "craving's increasing."

〔Q〕 Someone asks: are the several links of dependent arising all to be matched up only within "the same realm-stage" (the same layer of realm, the same stage)? 〔A〕 Not necessarily — there are also "formations that are aroused" aroused by "the ignorance of another stage": for instance, "the ignorance of a lower stage" can arouse "the formations of an upper stage" (karma that draws forth the meditative-retribution of an upper realm). Why must this be allowed? Because, if it were not, then the upper-realm meditation (the upper concentration) aroused by one who has just suppressed the defilement of a lower stage would turn out not to count as a "formations link" — for at that time the ignorance of the upper stage itself has not yet arisen, there being no same-stage ignorance to match it; so one must allow "the ignorance of one stage arousing the formations of another stage," and then this upper concentration can hook onto the formations link. 〔Q〕 It is asked further: as for a being who takes birth from an upper stage down to a lower, or from a lower up to an upper — by which stage's "feeling" does he take object so as to arouse the "craving link"? 〔A〕 His craving is aroused by taking for object "the feeling of the very stage he is about to be born into" (whether that feeling is already arisen or is still only seed), and put this way it gets through in principle too.

Of these twelve links, "the ten causes, the two fruits" are bound not to be in the same lifetime (the cause in the prior life, the fruit in the latter — this is fixed). Look again within the cause-side: the first seven links (ignorance, formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling) and the latter craving, grasping, existence may be in different lifetimes or in the same (not fixed). But there are three groups each bound to be in the same lifetime: the two links "ignorance, formations" are in the same lifetime; the three links "craving, grasping, existence" are in the same lifetime; and "the five of consciousness and the rest" (consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling), these five links, are in the same lifetime too. Ranged out like this, the whole of the twelve links needs only to set up "one round of cause-and-fruit" (the cause spanning two lifetimes, the fruit in one) to suffice to make plain the turning of birth-and-death, and to suffice to show its principle of "falling neither into annihilationism nor into eternalism." Were one to set up further "two rounds of cause-and-fruit," that would be wasted effort, of no use; and were one to go beyond two rounds (setting up three or more), it would run on without end, falling into the fault of infinite regress.

Below, the twelve links are looked at from several differing angles (the gates of sense).

First, look at which are "real" and which are "conventional": nine links are real, three links are conventional. Which three links are conventional? First, the "existence" link is conventional — because it is the foregoing six links already moistened by craving-and-grasping (the moistened stretch among ignorance, formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling) merged together and given another name, "existence," there being no separate independent dharma, so it is conventionally set up. Second and third, "birth" and "old-age-and-death" are conventional too — because they are merely the differing aspects, at three stages (just arisen, aged and altered, life ended), of "the five of consciousness and the rest" (the retribution arising in the five links from consciousness down to feeling), given the separate names "birth, old-age, death," there being no separate dharma-substance, so they too are conventionally set up. Reckoned out this way, the conventional ones are the three links "existence, birth, old-age-and-death," and the remaining nine links are all real.

Next, look at which are "a single thing" and which are not: five links are each a single thing. The five links "ignorance, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving" are each only a single dharma (a single thing); the remaining seven links (formations, name-and-form, the six bases, existence, birth, old-age-and-death) are then not a single thing — each wraps up several dharmas.

Next, from the angle of "defiled / undefiled": three links are purely defiled, seven links are purely undefiled. The three links "ignorance, craving, grasping" are purely defiling (they are in themselves afflictions); the seven links "consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling, birth, old-age-and-death" are purely undefiled (they are of the nature of maturation-retribution, in themselves indeterminate). But these seven links, in "certain stages (positions) of their arising," may also admit some defiled dharmas mingling in, and so they may expediently be said to run both ways, defiled and undefiled; and as for the remaining two links (formations, existence), they too run both ways, defiled and undefiled.

Next, from the angle of "solitary / mixed": the three links "ignorance, craving, grasping" are called "the solitary mark" — they do not mingle in with the rest of the links (each stands by itself); the rest of the links are "the mixed mark" (mingled together with other links).

Next, from the angle of "form or not": six links are purely non-form. The six links "ignorance, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, grasping" are purely non-form dharmas (they are all mind and mental factors, not matter); the remaining six links (formations, name-and-form, the six bases, existence, birth, old-age-and-death) run both ways, form and non-form (containing both the material side and the mental side).

Next, from the angle of "contaminated, conditioned": all twelve links are contaminated, and belong solely to conditioned dharmas (the uncontaminated and the unconditioned do not count as links of existence).

Next, from the angle of "the three natures (good, evil, indeterminate)": the three links "ignorance, craving, grasping" run only to "the unwholesome" and "the obscuring indeterminate" (the obscuring indeterminate being the kind of indeterminate that, while not reckoned evil, yet veils the holy path); "formations" runs only to "good, evil"; "existence" runs to all three, "good, evil, the non-obscuring indeterminate"; the remaining seven links are only "the non-obscuring indeterminate" (though these seven links, at certain stages, also raise good dharmas or defiled dharmas).

Next, from the angle of "realm-binding (which realm one belongs to)": the twelve links, though they run to all three realms, in the upper two realms (the form-realm, the formless-realm) have "only a part," and in the desire-realm "have them all."

The "formations link" of an upper stage (the karma that draws forth the retribution of an upper realm) can suppress a lower stage — relying on the "six kinds of contemplative practice," "coarse, painful," and the rest (a set of contemplations for suppressing the afflictions, viewing the lower stage); and the reason this set of contemplations arises is that one wishes to be born into an upper stage. Again, all the contaminated good karma made by "sages in training, sages beyond training" does not count as a "link of existence" — because, when they make these karmas, they do so with "clarity" (uncontaminated wisdom) for assisting condition, and this runs exactly counter to the links of existence (the links of existence are made of delusion-darkness, whereas the sage is accompanied by clear wisdom), and so it does not count as a link of existence. From this it is known: a sage surely does not make the kind of karma that "evokes the subsequent existence (the birth-and-death of a future life)," because toward the suffering-fruit of a future life he is neither deluded nor craving (being neither deluded nor craving, he naturally makes no karma drawing forth birth-and-death). One word more must be added: that a sage, by "mingled cultivation of the meditations" (using uncontaminated concentration mingled with the cultivation of worldly concentration) to assist his own old karma of a lower stage, is thereby born into the Pure Abodes heaven and such places, gets through in principle too — because that is only borrowing uncontaminated concentration to prop up old karma already there, not newly making a karma that draws forth birth-and-death.

Next, from the angle of "severed by seeing, or by cultivation." Here there are two differing accounts.

〔One account: ignorance is severed by seeing alone〕 One side holds: "ignorance" can be severed only by seeing — because ignorance must be deluded about the truth of the four [noble] truths before it can stir up the karma of formations, and a sage, once past the path of seeing (after seeing the truths), surely no longer makes the karma that evokes the subsequent existence (which shows that, once the path of seeing severs ignorance, karma can no longer be aroused, so ignorance is severed by seeing); "craving, grasping," these two links, can be severed only by cultivation — because they crave the existence to come and thereby moisten the seeds toward birth, and the "nine kinds of death-mind" (the nine minds at the moment of death) are all bound up with the innate craving (this craving being severed by cultivation); and the remaining nine links can be severed both by seeing and by cultivation.

〔Another account: all twelve links are severed by both seeing and cultivation〕 Another side holds: the twelve links are, all of them, such as can be severed both by seeing and by cultivation.

Below are the grounds of the latter side (all severed by both seeing and cultivation). The Śāstra says "the stream-enterer fruit (the first-fruit sage) has already severed 'one part' of every link, with not one link severed entire." Consider: if "ignorance link" were severed only by seeing, then since the stream-enterer has by the path of seeing already exhausted the view-defilements, how could it still be said of him that "not one link is severed entire" (ignorance ought to be severed entire)? Which shows ignorance too is severed by cultivation. Consider again: if "craving, grasping," these two links, were severed only by cultivation, then since the stream-enterer has not yet even walked the path of cultivation, how could it be said of him that "he has already severed one part of every link" (so craving and grasping too are severed by a stretch)? Which shows craving and grasping too are severed by seeing. And again, scripture says "all the afflictions of the whole realm can link [up] birth"; and "the karma that goes off to an evil destiny" can be aroused only by "discriminated afflictions," yet scripture does not say "the moistening of birth is severed by cultivation alone," nor does it say "every karma that evokes the subsequent existence is aroused by afflictions severed by seeing." Putting these several points together, it is known: the three links ignorance, craving, grasping are all such as can be severed both by seeing and by cultivation.

Still, the two accounts can here be reconciled: within the ignorance link, the portion that "is presently arousing the karma of formations" is severed only by seeing, while the portion that "assists from the side in arousing" is not fixed (it might be severed by either seeing or cultivation); within the two links craving and grasping, the portion that "is presently moistening birth" is severed only by cultivation, while the portion that "assists from the side in moistening" is not fixed (it might be severed by either). Further to tell apart: a defiled dharma is "by its very nature something that ought to be severed" (its own self-nature is in itself the kind of thing that ought to be severed), because the moment the antidote arises it is severed forever; whereas a dharma that is contaminated but not defiled is "by its nature not necessarily something that must be severed" (its own self-nature is not the kind of thing that ought to be severed), because it does not run counter to the holy path.

Further, the word "sever" must be told apart into two senses. The first is "severing-by-release-from-bondage" — that is, severing the afflictions that "take it for object, that mingle with it" (the dharma-substance itself remains, only the ropes bound about it are untied). The second is "severing-by-non-arising" — that is, severing the root it rests upon, so that from then on it never arises again. By "severing-by-release-from-bondage," the contaminated good and the non-obscuring indeterminate are severed by cultivation alone; by "severing-by-non-arising," the various evil destinies, the concentration of non-perception, and such are severed by seeing alone. When it was said above that "the twelve links are severed by both seeing and cultivation," matched onto these two senses of severance, each link is to be understood as it accordingly fits.

Next, from the angle of "concomitant with which feeling." Of the twelve links, "ten links can be together with pleasant feeling and neutral feeling" (these ten do not include the feeling link or the old-age-and-death link, so these two cannot take pleasure) — why does the feeling link not count? Because the "feeling link" is itself feeling, and will not be concomitant with a further feeling; and the old-age-and-death link — at the "old-age-and-death stage" pleasant feeling is for the most part already gone, though neutral feeling is still admitted. Again, "eleven links can be together with painful feeling" (these eleven do not include the feeling link) — likewise because the feeling link is itself feeling, not concomitant with a feeling.

Next, from the angle of "the three sufferings." "A part of eleven links is gathered under 'the suffering of decay'" (these eleven do not include the old-age-and-death link) — why is old-age-and-death left out? Because at the old-age-and-death stage pleasant feeling is for the most part gone, and "the suffering of decay" is set up resting on "the breaking-up of pleasant feeling" (pleasure decaying, suffering arises); since old-age-and-death has little pleasant feeling to decay, it naturally does not enter the suffering of decay.

As for "the suffering of suffering": "a part of the twelve links is gathered under 'the suffering of suffering'" — because within each link there may be painful feeling (suffering piled on suffering). As for "the suffering of conditioning": "the whole of the twelve links is gathered under 'the suffering of conditioning'" — because every contaminated dharma is in itself the restless-flowing suffering of conditioning. If one reckons the suffering of conditioning instead from the side of "neutral feeling," then only a part of eleven links (not including the old-age-and-death link) is gathered under the suffering of conditioning, the reckoning the same as for the suffering of decay above. The real principle is just this; only, the several scriptures and teachings, following whichever mark they would stress, take it partially, and so the accounts are not fixed (each with its own emphasis).

Last, from the angle of "the four [noble] truths." All twelve links are gathered under "the truth-of-suffering" (because they are all of the nature of "the grasping aggregates" — the five aggregates that come of grasping); and among them five links (ignorance, formations, craving, grasping, existence) are at the same time also gathered under "the truth-of-origination" (because they are karma and afflictions, the very cause that evokes suffering).

Next, from the angle of "the four conditions (the causal condition, the immediately-antecedent condition, the object condition, the dominant condition)," looking at which conditions link the several links to one another. Looking at the links over against one another, the "dominant condition" is surely present; whether the remaining three conditions (causal condition, immediately-antecedent condition, object condition) are present is not fixed. Scripture speaks with regard to "what is surely [present]," and so says only that there is "one" condition between the links (that is, the dominant condition). Look more finely at which links have a "causal condition" between them (the kind of condition that produces the other directly): the two groups "craving over against grasping" and "existence over against birth" have the sense of a causal condition between them (the former producing the latter directly); and if one adopts the account "the consciousness link is the karma-seed," then "formations over against consciousness" too counts as a causal condition. Apart from these few groups, the rest of the links have no causal condition to speak of between them.

Here the several treatises differ again, and must be reconciled. The Samuccaya says "ignorance over against formations has a causal condition" — how is that? It is said with regard to "the karma-habit-energy carried within the ignorance stage" — because this share of karma-habit-energy stands together with ignorance at the same time, it is expediently called "ignorance" too, though it is in fact the seed of "formations" (so the Samuccaya's "ignorance over against formations is a causal condition" is, at bottom, "the seed of formations over against formations" being a causal condition, no contradiction). As for the Yogācārabhūmi's saying "the several links have no causal condition between them," that is said with regard to "the already-arisen craving and grasping" and "the existence taken only as karma" (these three being present-activity or karma, not seed, so among them there is naturally no causal condition to speak of).

Next, look at how the middle two conditions (the immediately-antecedent condition, the object condition) are distributed among the several links. The three groups "ignorance over against formations," "craving over against grasping," "birth over against old-age-and-death" have both these conditions (both the immediately-antecedent condition and the object condition); the two groups "existence over against birth," "feeling over against craving" then "have no immediately-antecedent condition, but do have the object condition"; and among the rest of the links, these middle two conditions are both absent. To make it clear: this is all said with regard to "the regular dependent arising," "close-by, following the sequence, neither inverted nor mingled"; were one to match them up the other way (against the sequence, skipping links, mingled together), then which condition it is would not be fixed. Let the clever reader think this through for himself according to the principle.

Last, look at how the three, "defilement, karma, suffering," gather in the twelve links. "Ignorance, craving, grasping" are gathered under "defilement"; "formations," plus a part of "existence" (that is, the stretch of "existence" belonging to karma, called "karma-existence"), are gathered under "karma"; the remaining seven links (consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling, birth, old-age-and-death), plus the other part of "existence" (the stretch belonging to retribution, called "retribution-existence"), are gathered under "suffering." Where some place says "karma gathers the whole of 'existence,'" know that this is said only with regard to "karma-existence" (it is not that the whole link really goes under karma); where some place says "consciousness is gathered under karma," that is because it reckons "the karma-seed within consciousness" as the consciousness link. As for "that which defilement-and-karma evoke" being singled out and given the one name "suffering" — it goes only under "the truth-of-suffering," and the reason for picking suffering out separately to speak of is to make people feel revulsion toward it. In sum, because "defilement, karma, suffering" are just these twelve links, it is precisely defilement, karma, and suffering that drive birth-and-death on, span after span, in continuity.

To wind up at last (this is the gate that closes the matter): the continuity of birth-and-death is driven by "inner causes and conditions," and needs no outer condition, so that, when all is traced back, it is only inner consciousness at work. Here the "cause" means the two karmas, contaminated and uncontaminated; these directly evoke birth-and-death, and so are called "cause"; the "condition" means the two hindrances, the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive-hindrance; these assist from the side in evoking birth-and-death, and so are called "condition." Why this division? Because birth-and-death is, after all, of two kinds:

The first is called "discrete-segment death" — that is, the various contaminated good karmas and unwholesome karmas, which, by the force of the "affliction-hindrance" assisting from the side, evoke the coarse maturation-retribution within the three realms. In this retribution, the size of the body and the length of the lifespan both follow the force of causes and conditions and have "a fixed measure" (how big, how long-lived, are all a settled number) — and just because it is segment by segment, each with its own fixed measure, it is called "discrete-segment."

The second is called "inconceivable transformational death" — that is, the various "uncontaminated, discriminating karmas," which, by the force of the "cognitive-hindrance" assisting from the side, evoke a maturation-retribution that is excellent and subtle. This retribution has its body and lifespan altered and exchanged by the force of compassion and great vow, with no fixed measure (the bodhisattva stays as long as he wills, alters it as he wills), and so it is called "transformational"; and because it is directly furnished and evoked by uncontaminated concentration and uncontaminated vow, its marvelous functioning being beyond fathoming, it is called "inconceivable." It is also called "the mind-made body" (the will-born body), because this body is accomplished according to one's mind, according to the force of vow.

Just as scripture says: as the ordinary man, with "grasping" for condition and "contaminated karma" for cause, continues the next life, that is being born into the three existences (this is the discrete-segment death); by the same principle, with "the ground of ignorance-habit" (also called the ignorance-dwelling-ground, the subtlest single portion of ignorance) for condition and "uncontaminated karma" for cause, there are arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas who have gained sovereignty, who arise into "the three kinds of mind-made body" (this is the transformational death). It is also called "the transmutation body" — because, by the power of uncontaminated concentration, it turns the body into something other than its original, as though transmuted.

Just as a certain treatise raises this question-and-answer. 〔Q〕 Someone asks: the śrāvaka beyond training (the arhat) has already exhausted the subsequent existence (the next life) clean — then with what body does he go on to accomplish supreme bodhi (the man being reborn no more)? 〔A〕 He accomplishes the supreme awakening by means of "the transmutation body" (that is, the transformational body), not by the original karma-retribution body (the discrete-segment body), and so there is no contradiction. 〔Q〕 Someone challenges further: if one concedes that "the cognitive-hindrance, assisting uncontaminated karma, can evoke birth-and-death," then those "fixed-nature two-vehicle [followers]" (those settled on the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha road, who do not turn from the lesser toward the great) also still have the cognitive-hindrance — by this reckoning, ought they not then to be forever shut out of the remainderless nirvāṇa, exactly like ordinary beings bound by the afflictions and shut out of nirvāṇa?

〔Q〕 Someone presses on: "the truth-of-the-path" is uncontaminated, the very thing that ought to sever suffering — how could it, on the contrary, really evoke "suffering" (birth-and-death)? 〔A〕 Who says it "really evokes" it? 〔Q〕 Then if it is not really evoking, what is it? 〔A〕 In fact it is "uncontaminated concentration and uncontaminated vow" furnishing the already-existing "contaminated karma," making the retribution that contaminated karma gets able to stretch out in time, to connect on segment by segment, and grow ever more excellent — and this is only expediently called "evoking"; it is not that uncontaminated karma itself really goes and evokes birth-and-death. And moreover, when it "evokes" thus, it is by the cognitive-hindrance assisting from the side as condition, lending its force; the cognitive-hindrance does not by itself alone do the evoking. Know this: "the cognitive-hindrance does not obstruct liberation (does not block nirvāṇa)," because it has no function of "arousing karma, moistening birth" that drives one to revolve in birth-and-death — and just for this, the fixed-nature two-vehicle [followers] enter the remainderless nirvāṇa all the same, and the earlier challenge does not stand.

〔Q〕 Someone asks again: then why must these sages go and furnish, and evoke, "the suffering of birth-and-death" (the transformational body) at all (being already liberated, why suffer a kind of birth-and-death over again)? 〔A〕 In order to accomplish their own bodhi, and to benefit and gladden others. The point is about those "non-fixed-nature" pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas (who may yet turn from the lesser toward the great), and the great-vow bodhisattvas who have gained sovereignty: their affliction-hindrance being already severed and suppressed forever, by rights they would no longer receive a future "discrete-segment body"; but then, with the discrete-segment body ended and the lifespan limited, it is feared that the great matter of "cultivating the bodhisattva practice over a long time" would be cut short. And so they use the force of uncontaminated, excellent concentration and vow, much as one uses a "lifespan-extending method" to furnish the cause of the present body, making this body keep connecting unbroken to its fruit over a long time; and just so, again and again, they furnish it with concentration and vow, right up until they accomplish supreme bodhi — and that is why they must go and furnish, and evoke, the transformational body.

〔Q〕 Someone asks again: in furnishing and evoking the transformational body, why must they get the help of "the cognitive-hindrance" of all things? 〔A〕 There are three reasons. First, they have not yet fully realized "the markless great compassion"; at this stage, unless they (very slightly, with a trace of dharma-grasping) take bodhi and sentient beings to be really, truly there, they cannot arouse that fierce and sharp compassion-vow — and so they must still keep a portion of the cognitive-hindrance, that the compassion-vow may be aroused. Second, the cognitive-hindrance is precisely the thing that obstructs the great bodhi; and in order to "sever it utterly," they must on the contrary keep the body and remain long in the world (staying on is what lets them go on severing it). Third, the cognitive-hindrance is the "support of the contaminated"; were this hindrance gone, that contaminated body too would surely be gone along with it — and so the cognitive-hindrance is a great help toward "the body's being able to remain long."

Next, to tell apart which class the body kept belongs to: if this kept body is furnished by "contaminated concentration and vow," then it goes under the "discrete-segment body" (because it is still a thing within the range of what the two-vehicle [followers] and ordinary beings can know); if it is furnished by "uncontaminated concentration and vow," then it goes under the "transformational body" (because it is no longer a domain the two-vehicle [followers] and ordinary beings can know). From this it is known: the transformational death is, "in its very nature, still contaminated," and goes under "the maturation-fruit"; with respect to "uncontaminated karma" it is only a "dominant fruit" (that is, a fruit pushed out from the side by uncontaminated karma, not the outflow fruit that flows out of uncontaminated karma as something of the same nature). Where teaching says the transformational body is "uncontaminated, transcending the three realms," that is said following its "assisting cause" (the uncontaminated concentration and vow), not that it is in its very nature uncontaminated.

Match this gate, too, back to the verse-text. What the verse calls "the various karma-habit-energies" is just "the two kinds of karma-seed" spoken of above (contaminated karma and uncontaminated karma); what the verse calls "the two-grasping habit-energy" is just "the two kinds of hindrance-seed" spoken of above (the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive-hindrance) — they are called "grasping" because these two hindrances both carry grasping. As for the word "together" in the verse and the rest of the wording, the sense is the same as explained before.

Here it must be explained that the transformational death, though it does not, like the discrete-segment body, have "the prior span of maturation used up entire and the latter span newly born entire" (the transformational body is one and the same body, going on, being altered, throughout), yet, by the furnishing again and again, being altered and turned over without break, it too has the sense of "one earlier stage used up, a later stage arising again" — and this likewise matches what the verse says, "the prior maturation once exhausted, there arises a further maturation." Further: though the continuity of birth-and-death can also be said to be accomplished by "present activity" (the arisen functioning), yet the "seed" is surely there, and is the direct, intimate cause, and so the verse-text speaks pointedly from this side, "the seed (the habit-energy)."

Or else, the verse-text's speaking pointedly of the seed has yet another intent: it is in order to show that "the true maturation" (that is, the eighth consciousness, the true substance of the maturation-fruit) has both its cause and its fruit never departing from the root consciousness, and so it does not speak of "present activity." Why not speak of present activity? For one thing, "the present-arising maturation-cause" does not give its fruit on the spot (cause and fruit are parted by an interval of time); for another, the front seven "evolving consciousnesses" break off intermittently and are not the true maturation (only the eighth is the ever-continuous, unbroken true maturation) — and so here it does not speak from the side of present activity.

A final gathering-up: the wheel of birth-and-death of the prior limit, the present limit, and the future limit relies on no outer condition at all; since it is, every bit of it, accomplished by "inner consciousness," then conversely, "the continuity of the pure dharmas" (the continuity on the side of practicing and becoming a buddha) follows the very same principle. How so? From beginningless time, the "contaminated and uncontaminated seeds" lodged upon the root consciousness are, by the front seven evolving consciousnesses and the rest, perfumed forth again and again, and gradually grow stronger and fuller, right up to the utmost, the time of becoming a buddha, when one "casts off" the originally defiled consciousness-seeds and "wins in exchange" the freshly-arisen pure seed-consciousness, by which one holds the seeds of all merits; and then, by the force of the original vow, throughout the boundless ages of the future, one raises all manner of marvelous functions, continuing on without end. From this whole [course] — defiled or pure, it is all completed within consciousness, none of it relying on an outer condition — it is known: in the end there is only inner consciousness, and no outer condition at all.

This doctrine of the "continuity of birth-and-death" has its roots in scripture and treatise alike. The passage of scripture the author cites in answering the matter of "transformational birth-and-death" — drawn from the Mahāyāna-abhidharma scripture, which has no transmitted Chinese witness and survives only as preserved within the treatise's text — says: just as, taking "grasping" (the affliction-hindrance) as condition and "contaminated deed" as cause, one continues a future existence and so is born into the "three existences" (this is sectional birth-and-death); so too, taking "the ground of ignorance" (the cognitive-hindrance) as condition and "uncontaminated deed" as cause, there are the arhat, the solitary-buddha, and the bodhisattva who has attained mastery, who are born with the "three kinds of mind-made body" (this is transformational birth-and-death) — and this passage is precisely the scriptural basis for the "two deaths" expounded in this section. As for the parsing of the twelve existence-links, it is grounded in the Yogācārabhūmi and the Abhidharma-samuccaya. The Yogācārabhūmi fixes the "substance of dependent arising" as built upon the three marks "the prior, the intermediate, and the later," and this is just the treatise-basis for "the continuity of birth-and-death"; it further judges the twelve links by "three being the affliction-path, two the deed-path, and the rest the suffering-path," and this is just the treatise-basis for this section's gate of "affliction, deed, and suffering"; it further parses the twelve links by "nine links really existent, five links being one entity," and this is just the treatise-basis for this section's gate of "nine real and three provisional, five being one entity." The Abhidharma-samuccaya, for its part, fixes the four classes of links "the drawing-forth, the drawn-forth, the producing, the produced," and this is just the treatise-basis for "gathered in brief into four." (Only, the Abhidharma-samuccaya places "consciousness" within the drawing-forth, whereas this treatise places "consciousness" within the drawn-forth — and on just this point this treatise works out its own harmonization.) What this section expounds has its scriptural root in that passage of scripture, and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi and the Abhidharma-samuccaya — and in what follows we follow the verse and open the exposition.

Opening: What This Objection Must Answer

The preceding argument established that there is only inner consciousness and no outer object — no external condition. At once someone presses a challenge: even granting that there is inner consciousness, if there is no outer condition, then how does the "continuity of birth-and-death" — one lifetime succeeding the next for a sentient being — get established at all? This section answers that challenge. The author of the treatise first states the answer outright in a single verse (the nineteenth), and then unfolds it layer by layer.

The Verse States the Answer First: Both Latent Energies Are Present; When the Earlier Fruit Is Exhausted, the Later Fruit Takes Over

The verse says: because the "latent energies of the various deeds" and the "latent energies of the twofold grasping" are both present together, the moment the maturation-fruit (vipāka) of one lifetime is used up, the maturation-fruit of the next lifetime arises immediately after it — and in just this way birth-and-death continues without ever coming to an end. The skeleton of the whole verse is this: birth-and-death carries on because two streams of seeds — two latent energies — are operating within consciousness; there is no need whatsoever to look outside for some agent that pushes it along. In what follows the author opens several "gates" — several angles of approach — and explains, repeatedly and thoroughly, what these two streams of latent energy are and how they work.

The First Gate: The Latent Energy of Deeds and the Latent Energy of Twofold Grasping — One Remote, One Intimate

What "the various deeds" Means, and What "the latent energy of deeds" Means

First, "deeds." By "the various deeds" is meant the three kinds — meritorious deeds, non-meritorious deeds, and unmoving (i.e. immovable, the deeds of the meditative spheres) — that is, the contaminated wholesome and unwholesome deeds of "volition" (cetanā). Volition is one of the mental factors, and a deed is what it brings about by its activity. Besides volitional deeds themselves, whatever associated factors accompany volition are likewise given the name "deed," because they too, just like volition, can call forth the two kinds of maturation-fruit: the "drawing-forth fruit" and the "completing fruit." (The drawing-forth fruit is the total recompense that summons a whole lifetime; the completing fruit is the various particular recompenses within that one life.)

But here lies a difficulty. A deed has barely arisen when, in the very next instant, it perishes. A deed that has already perished cannot, by any rights, directly call forth a future maturation-fruit. How then can it still take effect? The key is this: at the very moment a deed perishes, it perfumes the "root consciousness" (the eighth consciousness), giving rise within the root consciousness to a "capacity" — and this capacity is precisely what is called "latent energy." So latent energy is the residual energy a deed leaves behind, formed by perfuming. The reason it is given the special name "latent energy" is to keep it clearly distinct from "the deed in present activity": the deed in present activity is not itself the latent energy; the latent energy is the dormant force that the deed has perfumed into being. This latent energy continues on, transforming from moment to moment, and when it ripens it calls forth the maturation-fruit. This is what the verse's phrase "the latent energy of deeds" refers to — it serves as the "outstanding contributory condition" (a powerful supporting condition) for that future maturation-fruit.

What "the twofold grasping" Means

Next, "the twofold grasping." By "twofold grasping" several pairs of opposites are gathered in: the image-portion and the seeing-portion; name and form; mind and mental factors; root and branch. In all of these, the grasping side and the grasped side together count as the "twofold grasping." Whatever is perfumed into being by these graspers and grasped, and is able to give rise directly to that capacity within the maturation root consciousness, is called "the latent energy of twofold grasping." It is what the verse's phrase "the latent energy of twofold grasping" displays — that is, "the mind of the next life's maturation-fruit" together with the "causal seeds" of the various factors associated with it.

The Force of the Word "Both": One a Remote Condition, One an Intimate Condition

The word "both" in the verse says that the "deed-seeds" and the "twofold-grasping-seeds" are present together. Their roles differ: the latent energy of deeds is a "remote condition" (a contributory condition, lending help from the side); the latent energy of twofold grasping is an "intimate condition" (the causal condition, itself giving rise to the fruit). The two assist each other. Because the sense in which "a deed calls forth a life" is the more conspicuous, the verse states "the latent energy of deeds" first and "the latent energy of twofold grasping" afterward.

"The Prior Maturation" and "The Remaining Maturation": Why the Earlier Fruit Spent, the Later Takes Over

The verse says, "the prior maturation being exhausted, there arises a remaining maturation." "The prior maturation" means the maturation-fruit called forth by the deeds of the foregoing life; "the remaining maturation" means the maturation-fruit called forth by the deeds of the following life. There is a subtle point here: the twofold-grasping-seeds' bearing of fruit is inexhaustible, but the latent energy of deeds bears fruit only finitely. Why? Because the maturation-fruit is "of a different moral nature": deeds are either wholesome or unwholesome, but the fruit is morally indeterminate — cause and fruit are of unlike nature, and so it is hard to call forth. Whereas the outflow fruit and the dominant fruit are "cause and fruit of the same nature," and so are easily summoned. For just this reason the twofold-grasping-seeds bear fruit easily while the deed-seeds bear it with more difficulty. Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) here fastens on two terms from the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha to make the point firm: the twofold-grasping-seeds' "inexhaustible bearing of fruit" is just the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha's "the mark of inexhaustible felt-result," and the latent energy of deeds' "finite bearing of fruit" is just that treatise's "the mark of exhaustible felt-result" — and he gives an image, that just as aloeswood or musk, once touched with foul grass, has its fragrance gradually fade and wear away to nothing (so too the latent energy of deeds bears fruit until it is spent). But by the force of the deed-and-other seeds of later lives successively ripening, when the maturation-fruit of one lifetime has been used up, another maturation-fruit of the following lifetime can be made to arise. Birth-and-death turns on in just this way, never spent — so where is there any need to borrow an outer condition to carry it on?

The intent of this verse, gathered into a single statement, is this: through "deeds" and "twofold grasping," the whole cycle of birth-and-death never departs from consciousness, because mind and mental factors are precisely the very substance of deeds, of twofold grasping, and of birth-and-death.

The Second Gate: Another Angle — Birth-and-Death Continues Through "Three Kinds of Latent Energy"

The author then says "furthermore," and from another gate speaks of the same matter: the continuity of birth-and-death is constituted by "the various latent energies," and these latent energies may be divided into three kinds in all.

The first is the latent energy of designation (the latent energy of names-and-words). This means the "intimate causal seeds" proper to each conditioned factor. Here "designation" is itself of two kinds. One is "expressive designation" — language that can express and signify meaning (the differentiations of sound). The other is "object-displaying designation" — the mind and mental factors that can discern objects; because mind and mental factors, like designation, can bring an object to display, they too borrow the name "designation." Following these two kinds of designation, the seeds perfumed into being become the causal condition proper to each conditioned factor.

The second is the latent energy of self-grasping. This means the seeds of the deluded clinging to "self" and "what belongs to self." "Self-grasping" is of two kinds. One is "innate self-grasping" — the grasping of self and what belongs to self that is inborn, arising spontaneously, and can be cut off only by cultivating the path. The other is "deliberated self-grasping" — the grasping of self and what belongs to self that arises through acquired discrimination and calculation, and is cut off at the path of seeing. Following these two kinds of self-grasping, the seeds perfumed into being are what give rise, among sentient beings, to the distinction of "self and other."

The third is the latent energy of the existence-links. This means the "deed-seeds" able to call forth maturation in the three realms. The "existence-links" are also of two kinds. One is "contaminated wholesome" — the deeds able to call forth a desirable fruit. The other is "the various unwholesome" — the deeds able to call forth an undesirable fruit. Following these two kinds of existence-link, the seeds perfumed into being are what give rise, among maturation-fruits, to the distinction of "good destinies and evil destinies."

It must be understood that the latent energy of self-grasping and the latent energy of the existence-links, with respect to such distinguishing fruits as "self-and-other, good-and-evil destinies," play the role of "contributory condition" (assisting from the side), not of causal condition.

How then do these three latent energies match up with the two latent energies of the verse? What the verse calls "the latent energy of deeds" is here "the latent energy of the existence-links." What the verse calls "the latent energy of twofold grasping" is here "the latent energy of self-grasping" plus "the latent energy of designation," the two together. Why are these latter two jointly named "grasping"? Because they are perfumed into being by "grasping-at-self, grasping-at-what-belongs-to-self," and "grasping-at-designation," and so all are given the name "grasping." As for the word "both" and the remaining wording in the verse, the meaning is the same as in the first gate.

The Third Gate: Yet Another Angle — Birth-and-Death Continues Through "Affliction, Deed, and Suffering"

The author again says "furthermore," opening yet another gate: the continuity of birth-and-death is constituted by the three — "affliction, deed, and suffering." The defilements able to "set deeds in motion and to moisten birth" are called "affliction"; the various deeds able to call forth a future existence are called "deed"; the manifold sufferings drawn forth by deeds are called "suffering." The seeds of affliction, deed, and suffering are all called "latent energy."

Their roles within birth-and-death: the first two — affliction and deed — serve as contributory condition for "the suffering of birth-and-death," assisting from the side to produce suffering; the third — suffering — can serve as causal condition for "the suffering of birth-and-death," itself directly producing suffering.

The match with the verse: the verse spoke of only the two latent energies, deed and twofold grasping; to bring these into alignment with the present "three latent energies," it should be understood thus — affliction and suffering are called "grasping" (because they are graspers and the grasped), "grasping" meaning clinging; whereas "deed" cannot be called "grasping" (a deed is not a grasping). As for the word "both" and the remaining wording in the verse, the meaning is the same as before.

How Affliction, Deed, and Suffering Comprehend the Twelve Existence-Links

These three — affliction, deed, suffering — it must be understood, can collect within them the "twelve existence-links" (the twelve links of dependent arising), that is, the whole sequence from ignorance through to old-age-and-death, which the treatise explains in detail. And these twelve links may, in brief, be gathered into "four classes of links":

First, the drawing-forth links. These are the two links "ignorance and formations," because they can draw forth the seeds of the "five fruits, consciousness and the rest." Note: the "ignorance" taken here is only that ignorance which "can set in motion, properly calling forth, the wholesome and unwholesome deeds of the next life" — not ignorance in the broad, general sense; only the deed set in motion by this kind of ignorance is called "formations." Therefore those deeds that "are felt in the present" (deeds recompensed in this very life), and those that merely assist a future deed from the side, do not count as the "formations link."

Second, the drawn-forth links. These are the batch of seeds within the root consciousness that "intimately give rise to the future maturation-fruit," comprising the five — "consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling" — because they are drawn forth by the foregoing two links, ignorance and formations. Here the "consciousness-seed" means the cause of the root consciousness (the maturation-consciousness seed); apart from the latter three causes (the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling), the remaining causes are comprehended under "name-and-form seed." The latter three causes, taken in the order of their names, are just the latter three kinds. Or it may be said that "name-and-form seed" comprehends all five causes, and among them, following whichever is most outstanding, the remaining four (consciousness, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling) are separately established; between "the six sense-spheres" and "consciousness," the relation of stating-as-a-whole and stating-separately is likewise so (one may state it as a whole, or one may list it separately).

There is a divergent account here. The Abhidharma-samuccaya says "consciousness" too is a drawing-forth link — because the "deed-seed within consciousness" is called the "consciousness link" (the deed-seed being lodged within consciousness), while its "maturation-consciousness seed" is comprehended under name-and-form. And there is a scripture which says the "consciousness link" runs through both sides, both drawing-forth and drawn-forth — because both "the deed-seed and the consciousness-seed" are called "consciousness," and because "consciousness" is the support of name-and-form and is not comprehended by name-and-form (so consciousness can straddle both sides).

The author offers a fine analysis of the simultaneity and the provisional sequence of the five links: although the five — consciousness and the rest — are in fact perfumed into being by deeds and are actually simultaneous, nonetheless, in dependence on differences of "principal-and-companion, whole-and-part, superior-and-inferior, cause-and-effect," the sagely teaching provisionally posits them as having a before and after; or, in dependence on the phases of "future-arising and present-arising," there is a sequence, and so a before and after is spoken of. For this reason too, the five links, consciousness and the rest, can also be spoken of as "present activity" (with reference to the phase of present arising); for in the "causal phase" (the seed-phase), there is no such thing as "present activity" at all. For this reason too it is said that "the producing link and the drawing-forth link are simultaneous" (in terms of doctrinal meaning), because the times of "already-moistened and not-yet-moistened" can never coexist (which is just why drawing-forth and producing are distinguished).

Third, the producing links. These are the three links "craving, grasping, becoming," because they can produce, in close proximity, the future birth and old-age-and-death. The flow is this: first, conditioned by that confusion which is "deluded about the inner maturation-fruit" (ignorance), one sets in motion the various deeds that properly call forth a future existence, as the condition that draws forth the "five-fruit seeds" which intimately give rise to the future phase of birth and old-age-and-death; then, in dependence on the confusion which is "deluded about the outer dominant fruit," conditioned by the feeling toward objects, one sets in motion "greed-craving"; conditioned by craving there further arise the four graspings such as "grasping-at-desire"; "craving and grasping" together moisten the seeds, and thereupon the drawing-forth "deed-seed" and the drawn-forth cause change their name and are called "becoming" — because, taken together, they can produce in close proximity the fruit of a future existence. There are also places that call only the "deed-seed" "becoming," because the deed-seed properly calls forth the maturation-fruit; and other places that call only the "five seeds" (the five-fruit seeds) "becoming," because they intimately give rise to the seeds of the future consciousness and the rest.

Fourth, the produced links. These are the two links "birth, old-age-and-death," because they are produced in close proximity by craving, grasping, and becoming. From the "intermediate existence" all the way through the "essential existence," so long as no decay has yet set in, all is comprehended under the "birth link"; the various phases of decay are jointly named "old age"; only when the body breaks up and the life-faculty ends is it called "death." "Old age" is not necessarily present (there are those who die young without passing through old age), and so it is attached to "death," the two being jointly established as a single link.

Why Just These Links and Not Others — The Rationale for Positing the Links

Here the author, through a chain of questions and answers, makes clear "why this link is posited and that one not."

Someone asks: why is "sickness" not posited as a link? Answer: because sickness is both "not universal" (not every being who takes birth falls sick) and "not fixed." But then, "old age" too is not fixed — why is it posited as a link? Because it is "universal": in all realms, all destinies, all kinds of birth (excepting those cut off midway), at life's end there is the activity of decay. Again it is asked: "name-and-form" is not universal (the spontaneously-born and the like need not pass through a name-and-form phase) — why is it posited as a link? Answer: because it is "fixed" — for the womb-born, egg-born, and moisture-born, while the six sense-spheres are not yet fully grown there is invariably a name-and-form phase. What is more, the "name-and-form link" is in fact universal too. How so? Among the spontaneously-born in the form realm, at the initial moment of taking birth the five faculties are already complete, yet the five faculties do not yet have function; at that moment it is not yet called the "six-sense-spheres link" (so at that moment it is still name-and-form — showing name-and-form too is universal). For one first born in the formless realm, although the "mind-faculty" is invariably present it is not yet clear, and so at that moment it is not called the "mind-sphere" either (still name-and-form). Hence the treatise says: the twelve existence-links, "in whole or in part," obtain in the upper two realms as well.

Again it is asked: "craving" is not universally present (one born in an evil destiny does not crave the evil destiny) — why establish it as a separate link? Answer: because it is "fixed" — one who is not seeking "non-existence" (not seeking annihilation) but is born into a good destiny invariably has craving. As for the moistening-of-birth in the case of a non-returner sage, although the present activity of craving does not arise, yet, just like "grasping," the seed of it is invariably present (so craving too counts as fixed). And "craving" is in fact universal: even one born in an evil destiny has craving for the object that is "the present self." Where a scripture says, "in dependence on not yearning for the evil destiny, craving for the evil-destiny body is non-existent," that says it is non-existent only with respect to the dimension of "yearning"; it does not say there is no craving at all in the evil destinies.

Again it is asked: for the "produced," only two links — birth and old-age-and-death — are posited, whereas for the "drawn-forth," the five, consciousness and the rest, are separately posited. Why? Answer: because the distinguishing marks of the "causal phase" (the seed-phase) are hard to make out, the links are separated into five in dependence on the distinctions of the "future fruit-phase." At the moment of rebirth-linking, the mark of the "causal consciousness" (the maturation-consciousness) is most conspicuous, and so the consciousness link is posited; next, the faculties not yet complete, the mark of "name-and-form" grows abundant, and the name-and-form link is posited; next, the faculties complete, "the six sense-spheres" are bright and abundant, and the six-sense-spheres link is posited; in dependence on this there arises "contact," and the contact link is posited; from contact there arises "feeling," and the feeling link is posited — and only here is it called "the fruit-feeling brought to completion" (the recompense fully felt). It is in dependence on this fruit-phase that its cause (the seed) is separately posited as five links. As for the "produced fruit-phase," its distinguishing marks are easily known, and so only the two links "birth, old-age-and-death" are posited as a whole, to display the "three sufferings" (the suffering of conditioning, the suffering of change, and the suffering of pain). Moreover: if the produced fruit lies in the future, then in order to make people give rise to weariness-and-detachment, one speaks of "birth, old-age-and-death"; if it has come into the present, then in order to make people understand "each phase arising one after another in sequence," one speaks of "consciousness and the five."

Again it is asked: at the "deed-setting" phase only one "ignorance" is posited as a whole, whereas at the "deed-moistening" phase the two links "craving, grasping" are posited separately. Why? Answer: although all manner of defilements can set deeds in motion and moisten deeds, at the "deed-setting phase" the force of ignorance is preponderant (because it possesses eleven outstanding features, such as its object and so on, which the scripture explains in detail), and so for deed-setting only ignorance is posited as a whole; at the "deed-moistening phase" the force of craving is preponderant (which is why it is said "craving is like water," able to soak the seeds), and it must irrigate again and again before the "sprout of becoming" can grow, and so for deed-moistening, craving and grasping are posited separately. Furthermore, in dependence on the distinction of "first-moistening and later-moistening," deed-moistening is divided into the two links "craving, grasping"; whereas deed-setting has no principle of "setting in motion repeatedly" (one setting is enough), and so only one "ignorance" is posited. Although the "grasping link" too gathers in all manner of defilements, because "craving's moistening" is the most forceful, it is stated with reference to craving and called "the increase of craving."

Again it is asked: are the several links of dependent arising all in dependence on the "own ground" (the same realm-ground)? Answer: there are cases too where the "formations set in motion" are in dependence on the "ignorance of another ground" — for instance, the "ignorance of a lower ground" can set in motion the "formations of an upper ground" (the meditative deed of an upper ground). If this were not permitted, then the upper meditative state arisen upon first suppressing the defilement of a lower ground could not count as the "formations link," because at that time the ignorance of the upper ground has not yet arisen (so one must permit that another ground can set deeds in motion). Again it is asked: when one is born from an upper ground into a lower, or from a lower ground into an upper, conditioned by which "feeling" does the "craving link" arise? Answer: its craving too is conditioned by the "feeling of the ground in which one will be born" (whether the present-activity feeling or the seed of the feeling); this is doctrinally without obstruction.

The "Doctrinal-Gate" Distinctions of the Twelve Links — Distinguished One by One from a Dozen Angles

The author then, from many angles, judges the nature of the twelve links one by one.

The cause-fruit-different-life gate, and the fault of a twofold round: among these twelve links, the "ten causes and two fruits" are definitely of different lives (the causes in the prior life, the fruits in the later life). Among the causes, between the first seven links (ignorance through feeling) and craving-grasping-becoming, they may be of different lives or of the same life; but "ignorance and formations" as a pair, "craving-grasping-becoming" as a triad, and "consciousness and the five" as a set, are each, internally, definitely of the same life. In this way, the twelve links, by a "single round of cause and fruit" (the cause spanning two lives, the fruit in one life), suffice to display the turning of the round, and also to display the freedom from annihilation and from permanence; if one insisted on positing a "twofold round of cause and fruit," that would be useless, and if one went further still (three rounds or more) one would fall into the fault of an infinite regress.

The nine-real-three-provisional gate: among the twelve links, nine links are real and three are provisional. Which three are provisional? The "six already-moistened links" (that portion of ignorance, formations, consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling which has been moistened by craving and grasping) are together made into the one link "becoming" — and this is provisional; the "three phase-mark distinctions" (initial arising, decay, the ending of life) of "consciousness and the five" (consciousness through feeling) are separately posited as "birth, old age, death" — and this too is provisional. So the three provisional are becoming, birth, and old-age-and-death; the remaining nine links are real.

The single-entity gate: five links are each "a single entity" — namely ignorance, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving — each being but one factor; whereas the remaining seven links (formations, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, becoming, birth, old-age-and-death) are not single factors (each comprehends many factors).

The defiled-or-undefiled gate: three links are exclusively defiled (ignorance, craving, grasping — all of the nature of defilement); seven links are exclusively undefiled (consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling, birth, old-age-and-death — all of the nature of maturation-fruit); though in certain phases these seven links also admit the arising of defiled factors, and so are provisionally said to run through both the defiled and the undefiled; the remaining two (formations, becoming) likewise run through both kinds.

The exclusive-mark and mixed-mark gate: ignorance, craving, grasping are called "exclusive-mark" (not intermixed with the remaining links); the rest are "mixed-mark."

The form-or-non-form gate: six links are exclusively non-form — namely ignorance, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, grasping, these six being exclusively non-form factors; the rest (formations, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, becoming, birth, old-age-and-death) run through both form and non-form.

The contaminated-and-conditioned gate: all twelve links are contaminated and are comprehended exclusively by the conditioned (the uncontaminated and the unconditioned are not existence-links).

The three-natures gate: "ignorance, craving, grasping" are exclusively of "the unwholesome and the obscured-indeterminate"; "formations" exclusively of "the wholesome and the unwholesome"; "becoming" runs through "the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the unobscured-indeterminate"; the remaining seven links are exclusively "unobscured-indeterminate" (though these seven, in their phases, also give rise to wholesome and defiled factors).

The realm-binding gate: although all twelve links run through the three realms, in the upper two realms they are "partly present" (only a part), while in the desire realm they are "wholly present" (the whole part is there). Here the author adds a passage: the "formations link" of an upper ground can suppress a lower ground — that is, the suppressing-of-defilement contemplative practice that contemplates the "coarse, painful," and the like, the "six contemplative aspects" of a lower ground; for there are those who, seeking birth in an upper ground, set this contemplation in motion. But note: all the contaminated wholesome deeds set in motion by sages who are "neither-trainees-nor-non-trainees" (i.e. all the noble ones) are not comprehended by the existence-links — because they take "clarity" (uncontaminated wisdom) as their condition and run counter to the existence-links. From this it should be known: a sage definitely does not perform deeds that "call forth a future existence," because he is not deluded about, and does not yearn for, the suffering-fruit of a future life. As for a sage's "interspersed cultivation of the meditative absorptions" assisting an old deed of a lower ground, whereby he is born into such places as the Pure Abodes — this is doctrinally not in conflict, for it is the assisting of an old deed, not the performing of a new deed.

The cut-off-by-seeing-or-by-cultivation gate: there is a divergent account here. One view (ignorance is cut off only by seeing): "ignorance" is cut off only by seeing — because it must be deluded about the truth-principle before it can set formations in motion, and because a sage, after the path of seeing, definitely does not perform future-existence deeds; the two links "craving, grasping" are cut off only by cultivation — because they covet a future existence and moisten birth, and because all "nine deaths-end minds" coexist with innate craving; the remaining nine links all run through being cut off by seeing and by cultivation. Another view (all run through both modes of cutting-off): all twelve links run through being cut off by both "seeing and cultivation." The ground for this latter view is: the treatise says that "the stream-enterer fruit has already cut off a part of every link, with no link wholly cut off." If the "ignorance link" were cut off only by seeing, how could it be said of the stream-enterer (who at the path of seeing has cut off the view-defilements) that "no link is wholly cut off"? This shows that ignorance too runs through being cut off by cultivation. If "craving, grasping" were cut off only by cultivation, how could it be said of the stream-enterer that "a part of every link has been cut off"? This shows that craving and grasping too run through being cut off by seeing. Again a scripture says, "all the defilements of the whole realm can effect rebirth-linking"; and "the formations leading toward an evil destiny" can be set in motion only by "the deliberation-arisen defilements," yet it is not said that "the moistening of birth is cut off only by cultivation," nor that "every formation that calls forth a future existence is set in motion by what is cut off by seeing." From this it should be known: the three links — ignorance, craving, grasping — also run through being cut off by both seeing and cultivation. The author then harmonizes with a further word: in the ignorance link, that which "properly sets formations in motion" is cut off only by seeing, while that which "assists in setting them in motion" is undetermined (running through both); in craving and grasping, that which "properly moistens birth" is cut off only by cultivation, while that which "assists in moistening" is undetermined (running through both). Further: a defiled factor is "to be cut off by its own nature" (its own nature being inherently what should be removed), because the moment its antidote arises it is forever cut off; whereas every factor that is contaminated but not defiled is "not to be cut off by its own nature" (its nature not being inherently what should be removed), because it does not run counter to the noble path. The author then sets up two senses of "cutting-off": the first is "cutting-off-as-release-from-bondage" — cutting off the defilement that "takes it as object, that is intermixed with it" (the factor's own substance remaining, only its bondage loosened); the second is "cutting-off-as-non-arising" — cutting off its support so that it forever does not arise. By "cutting-off-as-release-from-bondage," contaminated wholesome and unobscured-indeterminate factors are cut off only by cultivation; by "cutting-off-as-non-arising," the various evil destinies, the absorption-of-no-thought, and the like, are cut off only by seeing. The earlier statement that "the twelve links run through both modes of cutting-off" is to be set within these several senses of cutting-off, and understood as each accords.

The feeling-association gate: among the twelve links, "ten links coexist with pleasant feeling and with neutral feeling" (excepting the feeling link and the old-age-and-death link, which do not take pleasant feeling) — because the "feeling link" itself does not associate with feeling, and the "old-age-and-death phase" is for the most part without pleasure but admits neutrality. "Eleven links coexist with painful feeling" (excepting the feeling link) — because the feeling link does not coexist with feeling.

The three-sufferings gate: "eleven links in part are comprehended by the suffering of change" (excepting old-age-and-death) — for the old-age-and-death phase is for the most part without pleasant feeling, and the suffering of change is posited in dependence on the destruction of pleasant feeling, so old-age-and-death does not enter the suffering of change. "Twelve links in part are comprehended by the suffering of pain" — because within every link there is painful feeling. "Twelve links wholly are comprehended by the suffering of conditioning" — because every contaminated factor is the suffering of conditioning. If one speaks in terms of "neutral feeling," then eleven links in part (excepting the old-age-and-death link) are comprehended by the suffering of conditioning, the same as the account of the suffering of change above. Such is the real meaning; but in the various sagely teachings, following the heightening of some particular mark, what is stated is undetermined (each taking a partial emphasis).

The four-truths gate: all twelve links are comprehended by the "truth of suffering" (because they are of the nature of the grasping-aggregates); among them five links (ignorance, formations, craving, grasping, becoming) are also comprehended by the "truth of origin" (because they are of the nature of deed and defilement).

The four-conditions gate: as the links stand mutually related, the "contributory condition" is definitely present; the other three conditions (causal condition, immediately-antecedent-and-uninterrupted condition, object condition) are present or absent without fixity. The scripture, in dependence on what is "definitely present," states only that there is "one" condition (the contributory). Among them, "craving as related to grasping" and "becoming as related to birth" have the sense of "causal condition" (intimately giving rise); and if one takes the account that "the consciousness link is the deed-seed," then "formations as related to consciousness" also serves as causal condition. As the remaining links stand mutually related, there is no sense of causal condition. Here the author harmonizes a divergence between two treatises: the Abhidharma-samuccaya says "ignorance as related to formations has causal condition," and that is stated in dependence on "the deed-latent-energy at the time of the ignorance phase" — because that deed-latent-energy coexists with ignorance, it is provisionally called "ignorance," though in fact it is the seed of "formations" (so "ignorance as related to formations has causal condition," at bottom being the formations-seed as related to formations). The Yogācārabhūmi says "as the various links stand related there is no causal condition," and that is stated in dependence on "the present-activity craving and grasping" and "becoming, which is deed alone" (these three being present-activity or deed, and so among them there is no causal condition). Now for the two intermediate conditions: "ignorance as related to formations," "craving as related to grasping," and "birth as related to old-age-and-death," these three all have the remaining two conditions (the immediately-antecedent and the object); "becoming as related to birth" and "feeling as related to craving," these two then "have no immediately-antecedent condition but have the object condition"; as the remaining links stand mutually related, neither of these two intermediate conditions is present. The above is stated with reference to the "real dependent arising" that is "proximate, in proper succession, and unmixed"; were one to relate the links in reverse succession, across intervals, or in a mixed way, then their serving as conditions would be undetermined. The discerning should reflect on this according to reason.

The affliction-deed-suffering comprehension gate: how do the three — "affliction, deed, suffering" — comprehend these twelve links? "Ignorance, craving, grasping" are comprehended under affliction; "formations" together with one part of "becoming" (the deed-portion of becoming) are comprehended under deed; the "seven links" (consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense-spheres, contact, feeling, birth, old-age-and-death) together with one part of "becoming" (the recompense-portion of becoming) are comprehended under suffering. Where some place says "deed wholly comprehends becoming," it must be known that this is stated in dependence on "the deed-becoming" (the deed-portion of the becoming link); where some place says "consciousness is comprehended by deed," that says "the deed-seed within consciousness" is the consciousness link. And "what is called forth by affliction and deed" is specially named "suffering" alone — comprehended exclusively by the truth of suffering, in order to make people give rise to weariness-and-detachment (which is why suffering is separately stated). Since "affliction, deed, suffering" are precisely the twelve links, these affliction-deed-suffering can make birth-and-death continue.

The Fourth Gate: The Summation — Birth-and-Death Continues Through "Inner Causes and Conditions," Not Awaiting Any Outer Condition

The author at last says "furthermore," opening the summing-up gate: the continuity of birth-and-death is through "inner causes and conditions," not awaiting any outer condition, and therefore there is only inner consciousness. Here "cause" means the two kinds of deed, contaminated deed and uncontaminated deed, which properly call forth birth-and-death, and so are called cause; "condition" means the two hindrances, the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive-hindrance, which assist from the side in calling forth birth-and-death, and so are called condition. Why is this said? Because birth-and-death is of two kinds.

First, sectional birth-and-death. This means the coarse and manifest maturation-fruit of the three realms, called forth by the various contaminated wholesome and unwholesome deeds, by the assisting force of the condition that is the "affliction-hindrance"; its body and life-span, long or short, have a "fixed limit" (a fixed measure) according to the force of causes and conditions, and so it is called "sectional."

Second, the inconceivable transformational birth-and-death. This means the outstanding and subtle maturation-fruit called forth by the various "uncontaminated deeds that have discrimination," by the assisting force of the condition that is the "cognitive-hindrance." It transforms its body and life by the force of compassion-and-vow, having no fixed limit, and so is called "transformational"; because it is assisted and called forth precisely by uncontaminated absorption and vow, its marvelous functioning is hard to fathom, and so it is called "inconceivable." It is also called the "mind-made body" (mind-born body), because it is made according to thought, according to vow.

The author cites scripture and treatise to establish this transformational body. As a scripture says: just as, conditioned by "grasping" and caused by "contaminated deed," one continues a future existence and is born into the three existences (this is the sectional kind); so too, conditioned by the "ground of ignorance" and caused by "uncontaminated deed," there are the arhat, the solitary-buddha, and the bodhisattva who has attained mastery, who are born with the "three kinds of mind-made body" (this is the transformational kind). It is also called the "transformation body" — because by the force of uncontaminated absorption the body is transformed to differ from the original body, just as in a magical transformation.

Then comes a chain of questions and resolutions of difficulties. A treatise says: someone asks — the śrāvaka non-trainee has already forever exhausted future existence; how can he still realize unsurpassed awakening? Answer: he realizes unsurpassed awakening in dependence on a "transformation body" (a transformational body), not in dependence on the deed-recompense body (the sectional body), and so it is not against reason. Again someone asks — if "the cognitive-hindrance assisting an uncontaminated deed can call forth birth-and-death," then those of fixed two-vehicle disposition (who also have the cognitive-hindrance) ought to be unable to enter forever into nirvāṇa-without-remainder, just as the various ordinary beings, bound by defilement, cannot get out of birth-and-death — how is this to be answered? Again it is asked — how could the truth of the path (the uncontaminated) actually call forth "suffering" (birth-and-death)? Answer: who says it has actually called it forth? Again it is asked — if not actually called forth, then how? Answer: it is that "uncontaminated absorption and vow" assist a "contaminated deed," making the fruit obtained continue for a long time and increasingly intensify by turns, and this is only provisionally named "calling forth" (it is not that an uncontaminated deed truly calls forth birth-and-death). And when it thus "calls forth," it is likewise by the assisting force of the cognitive-hindrance as condition — it is not that the cognitive-hindrance alone can call it forth. Whereas "the cognitive-hindrance does not obstruct liberation" (does not obstruct nirvāṇa), because it has no function of "setting deeds in motion or moistening birth" — and so those of fixed two-vehicle disposition can still enter the without-remainder, and that earlier challenge is dissolved.

Again it is asked: why then bother to assist-and-call-forth the suffering of birth-and-death at all? Answer: in order to realize awakening for oneself and to benefit and gladden sentient beings. Those solitary-buddhas and śrāvakas of indefinite disposition, together with the great-vow bodhisattvas who have attained mastery, having already forever cut off and forever suppressed the affliction-hindrance, will no longer receive a future "sectional body"; yet, fearing they might forfeit "the long cultivation of the bodhisattva conduct" (the sectional body being exhausted, the life-span limited), they use the force of uncontaminated outstanding absorption and vow, like a "life-prolonging method," to assist the cause of the present body, making it endure long with its fruit unbroken; assisting in this way again and again by absorption and vow until they realize unsurpassed awakening — and so they must assist-and-call-forth the transformational kind.

Again it is asked: in their assisting-and-calling-forth of the transformational, why too must the "cognitive-hindrance" lend help? Answer: there are three reasons. First, since they have not yet perfectly realized the "marklessness of great compassion," if they did not (with a faint trace of dharma-clinging) hold awakening and sentient beings as truly existent, they would have no way to set in motion a fierce and keen compassion-vow (so they require a remnant of the cognitive-hindrance to raise the compassion-vow). Second, the cognitive-hindrance is precisely what obstructs great awakening; in order to "forever cut it off," they must keep the body abiding long (the better to cut off this hindrance). Third, the cognitive-hindrance is the support of "the contaminated"; if this hindrance were gone, that contaminated body would certainly be gone too, and so the cognitive-hindrance greatly assists "the long abiding of the body."

Then the author distinguishes the assignment of the body: if the body that is kept is assisted by "contaminated absorption and vow," it is comprehended under the "sectional body" (because it is the cognized object of the two vehicles and ordinary beings); if it is assisted by "uncontaminated absorption and vow," it is comprehended under the "transformational body" (not the object of the two vehicles and ordinary beings). From this it should be known: transformational birth-and-death — "its nature is contaminated" and it is comprehended under the "maturation-fruit," and with respect to "uncontaminated deed" it is merely a "dominant fruit" (not the outflow of an uncontaminated deed). Where the sagely teaching says it is "uncontaminated, beyond the three realms," that is stated in dependence on its "assisting cause" (uncontaminated absorption and vow), and does not say that its nature is uncontaminated.

Returning to the verse: what the verse calls "the latent energies of the various deeds" is precisely the "seeds of the two deeds" spoken of above (contaminated and uncontaminated deed); "the latent energy of twofold grasping" is precisely the "seeds of the two hindrances" spoken of above (the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive-hindrance) — because both hindrances involve clinging, they are called "grasping." As for the word "both" and the remaining wording in the verse, the meaning is the same as before.

The author adds a further word to fold the transformational kind too into the verse: although transformational birth-and-death does not have, as the sectional body does, "each maturation severally exhausted and severally arising," yet because of being assisted again and again and transformed by turns, before and after, it too has the sense of "an earlier phase exhausted, a later phase arising again" (this too accords with the verse's "the prior maturation being exhausted, there arises a remaining maturation"). Again: although the continuity of birth-and-death is also constituted by "present activity," the "seed" is definitely present (being the intimate cause), and so the verse speaks with an emphasis on the "seed (latent energy)." Or, the verse's emphasis on the seed carries a further intent: in order to display that the cause and fruit of "true maturation" both do not depart from the root consciousness, it does not speak of "present activity." For the present-activity maturation-cause does not give the fruit at the very same time (cause and fruit being separated), and the transforming-consciousnesses have interruptions and are not true maturation (so the verse does not speak with reference to present activity).

Closing: Even the Continuity of Pure Factors Follows This Same Principle

The cycle of birth-and-death in the prior, intermediate, and later phases all awaits no outer condition, being constituted by "inner consciousness"; this being so, "the continuity of pure factors" should likewise be understood to follow the same principle. How so? The "contaminated and uncontaminated seeds" lodged within the root consciousness from beginningless time, by the transforming-consciousnesses and the rest perfuming them again and again, gradually grow more intense, until at last, when buddhahood is attained, one "turns away" the original defiled consciousness-seeds and "turns to attain" the newly-arisen pure consciousness-seeds, which then hold and sustain all the seeds of merit; and then, by the force of the original vow, throughout the limit of the future one gives rise to all manner of marvelous functioning, in continuity without end. From this it should be known: there is only inner consciousness, awaiting no outer condition whatsoever — so it is with birth-and-death, and so it is with the pure as well.

Onward Transmission

This section establishes the continuity of birth-and-death upon "the latent energy of deeds and the latent energy of twofold grasping," and sets out at length the twelve existence-links together with the two deaths, sectional and transformational; and this doctrine is taken up book by book throughout the consciousness-only system. The Hundred Dharmas treatise, among the mind-dharmas, posits the "ālaya" (the root consciousness perfumed and stored by the latent energies of deeds and of twofold grasping); among the mental factors, posits "volition" (the very substance of deeds, that is, "the contaminated wholesome and unwholesome deeds of volition"); and among the root afflictions, posits "delusion, greed, view, conceit" (the substance of the latent energy of self-grasping, which is "affliction") — so the deeds, the twofold grasping, and the affliction of this section all have their place within the Hundred Dharmas. The Thirty Verses — verse nineteen ("the latent energies of the various deeds, the latent energies of twofold grasping; the prior maturation being exhausted, there arises a remaining maturation") — is the very root-verse this section expounds, verse answering to verse; and it in turn rests on the "holding of seeds" established by verse two ("all-seeds, maturation"). The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on the characteristics, gathers deeds and twofold grasping under "false discrimination" (deeds and twofold grasping alike not departing from consciousness, consciousness being the support of defilement), and in its chapter on the obstructions posits "the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive-hindrance" (precisely the conditions that assist the two deaths of this section) — and what it carries forward is just this section's doctrine. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the basis of the knowable, expounds "perfuming" and posits "the mark of exhaustible felt-result and the mark of inexhaustible felt-result" (the basis for the latent energy of deeds being exhaustible and the twofold-grasping-seeds inexhaustible, already noted above in citing Kuiji's Notes), and this is the treatise-basis for this section's "the earlier exhausted, the later arising." As for the Twenty Verses, its main concern is to establish consciousness-only and no-object and to refute the outsiders' clinging to real objects, and it has no direct counterpart to the "continuity of birth-and-death and the twelve existence-links"; here it is left aside.