成唯識論 白話全本 · 冊4

〔Verses expounded〕

A. The modes of arising of the five consciousnesses (resting on the root consciousness · appearing as conditions allow · like waves resting on water)

First, the gloss on a few words in the verse. "The root consciousness" is the ādāna consciousness (that is, the eighth consciousness) — why is it called "root"? Because whether it be the defiled consciousnesses or the pure consciousnesses, every one of them grows up out of it; it is everyone's old root. "Resting on" means: the first six evolving consciousnesses (the six — eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) all take this root consciousness as their "common intimate support" (the support closest to them of all). "The five consciousnesses" means the first five evolving consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body); because these five are close in nature, they are spoken of all together. The three words "appear as conditions allow" in the verse are meant to point this out: the five consciousnesses are not arising at every single moment; the "conditions" here mean attention, faculty, and object — these several requisites. The meaning is: this band of five consciousnesses leans inwardly on the eighth consciousness, while outwardly it must wait until attention, the five faculties, and the object supported upon — these conditions — are all assembled, and only then can it appear. Just because they must wait for the conditions to assemble, the five consciousnesses, when they arise, are "now together, now not together" — "together" being several arising at once, "not together" being not arising all at once; and since the gathering of outer conditions is in some cases quick and in some slow, that is why they are sometimes all together and sometimes not. It is just like the waves on the surface of water: a big wind raises many, a small wind raises few — they go by how much or little the conditions allow. As for this sort of comparison drawn with water and waves, the sūtras have already set it out in full.

This passage compares how often the eight consciousnesses arise or do not. The first five evolving consciousnesses — their way of working (their mode of activity) is coarse and restless, and the conditions they must lean on are often not all assembled, so they arise but little of the time and stay still, not arising, most of the time. The sixth, the mental consciousness, though its way of working is also reckoned coarse and restless, has conditions to lean on that are not lacking at any moment; only when it runs into a condition adverse to it (that is, the "five mindless states" to be discussed below) does it now and then fail to arise. The seventh and eighth consciousnesses — their way of working is very subtle, and the conditions they lean on are ready at any time, so there is no sort of obstruction that could make them stop turning altogether.

Now to put it from another angle. This band of five consciousnesses cannot of itself raise deliberation (it cannot examine and infer); it turns only toward the "outer door" (that is, it reaches only outward to take in form, sound, and the other five objects); and besides, the conditions it must lean on are many — so it breaks off most of the time and is truly working only a little of the time. The sixth, the mental consciousness, is different: it can of itself raise deliberation, it runs through both the "inner door and the outer door" (inwardly it can take in the dharma-object, outwardly it can take in all manner of objects), and it need not lean on so many conditions. Save for the "five states" to be discussed below, the mental consciousness is always able to arise, so it breaks off but little of the time and is arising most of the time — and just because the mental consciousness is so ready to arise and so little choosy about conditions, the verse did not fasten the phrase "appear as conditions allow" onto the mental consciousness ("appear as conditions allow" being said with reference to the five consciousnesses alone).

B. The five mindless states (the mental consciousness arises constantly, save the five states)

The verse says that the mental consciousness arises constantly save for the "five states"; so what five are these "five states"? They are "[one] born in the heaven of no-conception" and so on — these five: the heaven of no-conception, the concentration of no-conception, the concentration of cessation, sleep, and fainting. In these five situations the mental consciousness does break off.

1. The heaven of no-conception (born in [the heaven of] no-conception)

First, the first of them, "the heaven of no-conception." This says: someone cultivates the "concentration of no-conception," and by the force of "loathing coarse conception" (finding these thoughts a hindrance), is born after death up into this heaven. Within this heaven, the "non-ever-active" mind and mental factors (that is, the first six consciousnesses and their mental factors — these arise now and break off now, not being there all the time, and so are called "non-ever-active") are all stilled; and the one that ceases first, leading the rest, is the mental factor "conception," and so this heaven is called the "heaven of no-conception." For this reason, the first six evolving consciousnesses in this heaven are all severed and no longer work.

〔One view · in this heaven there are never the six consciousnesses〕 The first view says: in the heaven of no-conception there are at all times no six consciousnesses working. Their grounds are three: first, the holy teaching says this heaven "has no evolving consciousnesses"; second, the holy teaching says this heaven "has only the limb that belongs to form" (that is, only the limb of the form-body, with no limb of mind); third, the holy teaching calls this heaven the "mindless ground" (a ground without mind).

〔Another view · at the point of dying it does arise〕 The second view says: the beings of this heaven, when they reach the point of "about to die," must first arise the evolving consciousnesses, and only then die. Why? Because at the end they must arise a kind of craving — the craving for rebirth in the lower realm (called "moistening-life craving," that craving which sticks a person back into the three realms to take birth); and the Yogācārabhūmi too says "once conception arises again later, these beings sink down (die) from this [heaven]," which can be cited as proof. As for the earlier words that this heaven "has no evolving consciousnesses" and so on, those were said "with reference to the long stretch of time" (for most of the time there are indeed none); it is not that from beginning to end there are absolutely none.

〔A third view · at the very moment of birth too there are [consciousnesses]〕 The third view says: the beings of this heaven, even at "the very moment of being born" (the instant of first taking on this life), have evolving consciousnesses. The grounds are two: first, during its "intermediate existence" (the transitional body in the span between death and rebirth) it must arise the moistening-life affliction (without arising this affliction it cannot take birth at all); second, just as with beings of all the other destinies, at the very start of their "basic existence" (the life-span of formal birth, the body lived in over one lifetime) there must also be evolving consciousnesses. And it cites the Yogācārabhūmi again, saying "if one is born there, it is only 'entering,' not 'arising'; when its conception arises again, it sinks down from there" — since it used the word "entering," then if at the start of this heaven's "basic existence" there were no evolving consciousnesses, how could one speak of "entering" (with not even consciousness present, what would there be to enter with)? There must first be (evolving consciousnesses) and then they cease and are gone — only that is called "entering [the state of] no-conception."

The third view then cites a further support. The Yogācārabhūmi's Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī ("the Resolving division") says "whatever 'innate' mind and mental factors cease, that is called no-conception" ("innate" meaning the kind one is born already carrying, that one has of itself naturally). The intent of this sentence is precisely to point out: at the start of this heaven's "basic existence" there is a kind of "maturation-born" evolving consciousness, which, by the force of causes-and-conditions sown in a former life, arises briefly for a moment and afterward arises no more. It is just because this evolving consciousness arises once and then arises no more that the stretch of "maturation karmically-neutral [state]" that follows comes to differ from elsewhere, and so this stretch of state is called "no-conception" — this is like taking a wholesome dharma (the conception of leaving-behind, and so on) to draw out the "concentration of no-conception and the concentration of cessation," these two concentrations, so that those two concentrations get called "wholesome" too (the name is taken in keeping with what drew it out). Were it not so (were this heaven's evolving consciousness never to arise for even a moment from beginning to end), then how could the Yogācārabhūmi's sentence "only the 'innate' ones cease" make sense (if all of them never arose, why pick out the "innate" ones to speak of)? So one can know: at this heaven's start, the evolving consciousness did briefly arise for a moment.

The heaven of no-conception is set only within the fourth dhyāna (that is, the fourth meditative absorption), this one level, and nowhere else. Why? Looking downward (the levels of the first, second, and third dhyāna), the "conception" there is still coarse and restless and hard to sever; looking upward (the formless realm), there is no place at all for the "no-conception" maturation-fruit. Only here, within the fourth dhyāna, can the kind of "thought [governing] the concentration of no-conception" (the applied mind in cultivating the concentration) be drawn out, and only here can the fruit-recompense of this heaven be summoned.

2. The concentration of no-conception (one of the two mindless concentrations)

The phrase "and the two mindless concentrations" in the verse points to the "concentration of no-conception" and the "concentration of cessation," these two concentrations. In both of these concentrations the six consciousnesses do not work, and so they are called "mindless" (no mind-consciousness astir).

First, the "concentration of no-conception." This says: there is an ordinary worldling (a "common being") who has already pressed down the craving of "the heaven of universal purity" (that is, the level of the third dhyāna), but has not yet pressed down the defilement of the level above it (the fourth dhyāna); leaning on the "conception of leaving-behind" (that mode of mind that single-mindedly wishes to throw off thoughts, finding thoughts a hindrance) as forerunner, he sets to work, and stills the "non-ever-active" mind and mental factors (the first six consciousnesses and their mental factors) altogether; and again, the one that ceases first, leading the rest, is the mental factor "conception" — so this concentration is set up under the name "no-conception." And because it can make the body steady and harmonious, it is also called "concentration."

In cultivating this concentration, it falls into three grades by the high or low of one's effort. The lower grade: such a person in this present life must lose [the concentration], and having lost it cannot quickly draw it forth again into the present; and when later born up into the heaven of no-conception, his light is not very pure, his form-and-color is great and large, and he will surely die before his term. The middle grade: such a person in this present life need not lose it, and even if he loses it can quickly draw it forth again into the present; and when later born into that heaven, though his light is quite pure and his form-and-color great and large, it has not yet reached the very top; a death-before-term is possible, but not certain. The upper grade: such a person in this present life surely does not lose it; and when later born into that heaven, his light is the very purest, his form-and-color great and large, and there will surely be no death-before-term — only when his life-span is fully exhausted does he then pass away.

This concentration of no-conception belongs only to the fourth dhyāna, this one level. Its nature, again, can only be "wholesome" — because it is drawn out by a wholesome dharma (the conception of leaving-behind and the rest). In the levels below (the first, second, third dhyāna) and above (the formless realm) there is no such concentration, on the same reasoning as was given above when speaking of the heaven of no-conception. As for its relation to the "four kinds of karma": of the four, it runs through "three kinds of karma" — only excluding "karma to be experienced in this present life" (that is, it does not summon a fruit experienced in this very life); the remaining three (karma summoning a fruit experienced in the next life, karma summoning a fruit experienced some lives further on, and karma whose time of recompense is unfixed) it all runs through.

〔One view · it is cultivated only in the desire-realm〕 The first view says: this concentration of no-conception can be cultivated and roused only in the desire-realm (that is, among humans). The grounds are two: first, one must rely on the speaking-force of those heterodox masters (that is, the teaching of heterodox teachers) to draw this concentration forth (this concentration being originally what the heterodox cultivate); second, the human destiny has the sharpest, keenest understanding (only among humans can it be cultivated).

〔Another view · the form-realm can rouse it too〕 The second view says: having first cultivated it in the desire-realm, one can later, on being born into the form-realm, still draw this concentration forth into the present — only one who has already been born into the heaven of no-conception is the exception (he has already obtained that final fruit-recompense and need not rouse it again). One should know that this concentration is entered by "loathing conception" and "delighting in that heaven's fruit," and so it is purely "contaminated" (carrying affliction, not getting clear of the three realms); it is not what a noble one would rouse.

3. The concentration of cessation (the second of the two mindless concentrations)

First, the "concentration of cessation." This says: there is a noble one who is "beyond training" (who has cultivated to the summit, with nothing more to train), or a noble one "still in training" (still on the way), who has already pressed down or forever severed the craving of "the base of nothing-whatever" (the third level of the formless realm); as for the craving of the level above it (the base of neither-conception-nor-non-conception), that is unfixed (some have pressed it down, some not yet). Leaning on the "conception of stilling" (that mode of mind that single-mindedly would still conception down to extinction) as forerunner, he stills altogether both these bands of mind and mental factors — the "non-ever-active" (the first six consciousnesses) and the "ever-active defiled" (the seventh, the manas, which is there all the time and carries defilement) — and so this concentration is set up under the name "cessation" (even the defiled manas is stilled, the stilling being thorough). And because it can make the body steady and harmonious, it is also called "concentration." Again, because it especially loathes and stills these two mental factors, "feeling and conception," it is also called the "concentration of cessation-of-those [feeling and conception]."

In cultivating this concentration, it too falls into three grades by high and low. The lower grade: such a person in this present life must lose it, and having lost it cannot quickly draw it forth again into the present. The middle grade: such a person in this present life need not lose it, and even if he loses it can quickly draw it forth again. The upper grade: such a person in the end does not lose it at all.

This concentration, when cultivated for the first time, must be entered in dependence on "the summit of existence" (that is, the base of neither-conception-nor-non-conception, the highest level of the three realms) — and the way to enter is to take "ranging contemplation [in the] uncontaminated" (contemplating back and forth in the uncontaminated wisdom) as the preparatory effort, and only then to enter. The reason it is entered in dependence on the summit of existence is that, among the "nine successive concentrations" (the nine concentrations from shallow to deep, one ranked after the next), it stands at the very last level. Though the level it rests on is the summit of existence, its essential nature is reckoned among the "uncontaminated" (it rests on a contaminated level, but its substance is uncontaminated — these two facts do not clash). And if this concentration has been cultivated to the point of mastery, then it can also be drawn forth into the present after a mind on any of the other levels has arisen (one is not bound to enter it only from the summit of existence). Though this concentration is reckoned within the "truth of the path," it is again reckoned within the "neither-training-nor-beyond-training" (bound neither to the in-training stage nor to the beyond-training stage) — because its appearance is much like nirvāṇa (so still that it is hard to assign it to either the training or the beyond-training side).

This concentration, when first roused, is only among humans — the grounds being two: first, one must rely on the speaking-force of the Buddha and the Buddha's disciples (their teaching) to draw it forth; second, the human realm has the sharpest, keenest understanding. But once it has been roused a single time, then later, in the upper two realms (form and formless), it too can be drawn forth into the present, and the Udāyin Sūtra is the sure proof of this matter; what is more, the formless realm is also called the "heaven of mind-made [bodies]" (the beings there, though without form-bodies, still have a "mind-made" body), so this concentration can be roused there all the same.

For one who does not yet trust the teaching of the "store-consciousness" (the ālaya-vijñāna), if he is born into the formless realm, he dares not rouse this concentration of cessation — he fears: the formless realm has no form-body to begin with, and now if the mind-consciousness too be stilled to cessation, would not the whole person be cut off into extinction, with nothing left at all? So he dares not rouse it. But one who already trusts the store-consciousness teaching, born into the formless realm, can draw this concentration forth all the same — because he knows that down beneath there is a store-consciousness carrying on without break, and so he does not fear falling into extinction.

One must have severed entirely the "delusions severable by the path of seeing" of the three realms (that is, the kind of delusion that is severed the moment one sees the path) — in other words, one must have entered the path of seeing and become a noble one — before one can rouse this concentration of cessation. Why is the worldling unable? Because the worldling (the common being) cannot press down, nor cease, the mind and mental factors of "the summit of existence" (the base of neither-conception-nor-non-conception). Furthermore, this concentration is very subtle: one must first realize "the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas," these two emptinesses, and then, as the case requires, have it drawn forth by the "subsequently-attained wisdom" (that wisdom which arises after one has realized the truth), before one can rouse it.

〔One view · only when the desire-realm delusions are entirely severed can it be roused〕 The first view says: among the "delusions severable by the path of cultivation" of the lower eight grounds (that is, the eight levels among the three realms' nine grounds, excepting the topmost, the summit of existence) — the delusions severed step by step on the path of cultivation — one must entirely sever those of the desire-realm, and either press down or sever those of the remaining grounds, and only then can one rouse this concentration for the first time. Why single out the desire-realm delusions for entire severance? Because the desire-realm's delusion-seeds, wholesome and unwholesome both, are mixed in together and especially tangled, and obstruct entry into concentration with the greatest force. The teaching, moreover, says only the "non-returner fruit" (the third-fruit noble one), the "beyond-training" of the three vehicles (the fourth-fruit arhat, the pratyekabuddha, the buddha), and the various bodhisattvas obtain this concentration; and these, each as his case requires, on being born into the upper eight grounds, can all rouse it again thereafter.

〔Another view · only when the lower four grounds are severed entirely can it be roused〕 The second view says: one must sever entirely the delusions-severable-by-the-path-of-cultivation of the lower four grounds (the desire-realm, plus the first, second, and third dhyānas), and either press down or sever those of the remaining grounds, and only then can one rouse this concentration for the first time. This view picks out the lower four grounds, the ground being this: the affliction-seeds bound up with "fluctuating feeling" (the feelings of pain and pleasure that rise and fall) obstruct entry into concentration with the greatest force (and this sort of feeling reaches only up to the third dhyāna, there being none above the fourth dhyāna, so one must sever down to the fourth ground). These, each as his case requires, on being born into the upper five grounds (the fourth dhyāna, plus the four grounds of the formless realm), can all rouse it again thereafter.

〔Q〕 (against the second view): On your account, that merely "pressing down" the lower grounds' delusions suffices to rouse this concentration, then someone who later neither severed the delusions nor [stayed un-]regressed, but regressed and yet was born into an upper ground — would he not then, after being born into the upper ground, have to turn back and sever the lower ground's delusions [only then]? Is this order not topsy-turvy (for whoever heard of being born upward first and severing the lower afterward)? 〔A〕: Even granting it truly is that one severs the lower only after being born upward, there is no fault in it — for look, one born into an upper ground can perfectly well sever the "innate delusions" (delusions born together with one) of his lower-ground manas; which shows that "born above, severing below" has precedent all along and is no inversion.

But here a word must be added: the "non-returner" noble one has strong counteracting power; in the very moment of taking birth he does not arise active afflictions; he is moistened up to the upper ground by the "seeds" of his delusions (using seeds to moisten his birth, with no need to stir up active afflictions). The delusions he has pressed down may regress or not regress, but he simply does not have the case of "the lower ground's delusions being merely pressed down, and carrying them into birth on an upper ground" (the non-returner noble one always severs the lower ground's delusions entirely before being born upward); and so, on his side, the inverted ill of "born above, yet turning back to sever below" does not arise (the inversion spoken of earlier was put with reference to the case of merely pressing down without severing, and the non-returner noble one is not in that case).

As for the bodhisattva's roer of this concentration, two kinds of person must be told apart. The first: a bodhisattva who in his earlier position in the two vehicles (the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha) had already obtained the concentration of cessation, and only afterward turned his mind from the lesser toward the greater (turning from the lesser vehicle back to the greater) — such a one can rouse this concentration in every position (his groundwork being laid long since). The second: a bodhisattva who is not like this (not one come over from the two vehicles) — then some such, only on cultivating all the way to the "perfected mind of the seventh ground," can press down all afflictions forever; at this point, though he has not yet thoroughly severed the desire-realm's cultivation-delusions, he is already "as if severed [of them]" (he presses them down so dead that it is as good as severing), and so can rouse this concentration; and the [Yogācāra] treatise's saying "only on entering the Far-going ground (the seventh ground) can a bodhisattva manifestly rouse the concentration of cessation" can be cited as proof.

But there are also bodhisattvas who from the first ground onward can press down all afflictions forever (pressing them down as thoroughly as an arhat); and such bodhisattvas can rouse this concentration in each and every one of the ten grounds — for the sūtra says "in the first six grounds too a bodhisattva can manifestly rouse the concentration of cessation," which can be cited as proof (one need not wait until the seventh ground at all).

4. Sleep (the deepest sleep) · 5. Fainting (the deepest fainting)

The "sleep and fainting" reckoned as "mindless" in the verse point to "the deepest sleep" and "the deepest fainting" — heavy enough to make the first six consciousnesses all stop and not work (only such count as falling within the five mindless states). One must mark this: it is not that just any sleep or fainting whatever counts as mindless; only the kind heavy enough to stop all six consciousnesses counts.

The sort of bodily state brought on by such conditions as utter exhaustion obstructs the first six consciousnesses and makes them stop, and so is called "the deepest sleep." Here there is a fine point to make: in this kind of sleep, even the very substance of the mental factor "sleep" is in fact absent (for at this time the six consciousnesses are already stilled, and the mental factor called "sleep" is gone along with them); yet since this state "much resembles sleep," the name "sleep" is borrowed to call it (it is named by borrowing, not that there is truly a mental factor of sleep astir).

The sort of bodily state brought on by such conditions as wind and heat also obstructs the six consciousnesses, and so is called "the deepest fainting" (that is, heavy enough to swoon away as if dead). Or else one may sort it this way: these two, sleep and fainting, are both only a small portion of "the tangible-base" (that patch of object that the body-faculty meets) — both belonging to changes in the bodily state.

Save for these (the heaven of no-conception, the concentration of no-conception, the concentration of cessation, sleep, fainting) five situations, the mental consciousness arises constantly, without break.

6. Sorting out the five states (the moments of dying and of birth · the six occasions · the three classes of beings)

〔Q〕: At the very moment of dying and the very moment of birth, the mental consciousness is in fact also absent (at the instant a person's breath is cut off, and at the instant of taking birth, the mental consciousness does not work); then why does the verse say only that the mental consciousness fails to arise in "the five states," and not reckon "death and birth" in as well?

〔A view · death and birth are drawn out by [the particles] "and" / "with"〕 The first view says: the state of death and the state of birth are in fact already tucked into the two particles "and" / "with" in the verse and drawn out together along with them (covertly subsumed within the five states). 〔Refutation〕: This account does not hold. Why? Because the holy teaching calls only "six occasions" mindless — namely, the earlier five states (the heaven of no-conception, the concentration of no-conception, the concentration of cessation, sleep, fainting), plus the "remainderless [nirvāṇa]" (this being the sixth); the holy teaching does not separately set up death and birth as mindless occasions. So forcing death and birth in by means of "and" / "with" has no scriptural warrant.

〔The correct sense〕: It should be put this way: the state of death and the state of birth are in fact subsumed within "fainting," for they are by nature states of fainting to the very extreme (swooning away as if dead); and the two words "and" / "with" in the verse merely serve to keep the five states one apart from another, marking that each is its own and unmingled (not to tuck in death and birth). And there is a further layer of meaning here: these five states are only meant to show that — once the six consciousnesses have broken off, they can later arise again in dependence on their own seeds within the root consciousness (the eighth) (the six consciousnesses, having broken off, can come back to life). It is just because [the verse] would stress this "broken off, yet able to arise again" that the verse does not reckon in "entering the remainderless nirvāṇa" (in that one the six consciousnesses arise no more forever, which does not fit the sense of "able to arise again" here, and so is not taken in).

Of these five states, how many fall to each kind of being: the worldling (the common being) has four of them — lacking only the "concentration of cessation" (the concentration of cessation being attained only by a noble one). The noble one has only the latter three (the concentration of cessation, sleep, fainting; lacking the first two, the heaven of no-conception and the concentration of no-conception, since those two are cultivated by worldlings and heterodox). Among the noble ones, the Tathāgata and the "self-mastered bodhisattva" (a bodhisattva of the higher ranks who has attained mastery) have only one (that is, the concentration of cessation) — because for them there is no such thing any longer as "sleep and fainting."

A. The eight consciousnesses turning together · same-or-different (the general sorting-out of the eight consciousnesses)

1. Showing the turning-together

The principle of how each of the eight consciousnesses arises or does not having now been made clear, here it comes to reckoning how many of them can turn at once. In any sentient being, the "[store-]mind" (that is, the eighth, the ālaya) and the "manas" (the seventh), these two consciousnesses, are always turning together at once and do not break off; if there arises also a sixth, the mental consciousness, then there are three turning together at once; the remaining first five consciousnesses turn or not according to whether their conditions are assembled — for each one assembled, one more arises, up to all five arising — so that, adding them up, there are four turning together at once, on up to eight turning together at once. This is the gist, in brief, of the sense in which "several consciousnesses can turn together at once."

2. Sorting it out by challenge and answer

〔Q〕: If in one sentient being several consciousnesses turn together at once, then how can he still be called "one" sentient being (the consciousnesses being several now, how is the person still counted as one)? 〔A〕: If you hold that "whether a sentient being is counted one or several goes by how many consciousnesses there are," then a great trouble arises — for on this account, in the "mindless state" (when no consciousness arises) would you not become "no sentient being at all" (the consciousness-count dropping to zero, the person gone too — is this not absurd)? Furthermore, when "another's portion of mind" (another person's mind, or a mind of a different kind) is present, could you then say that this is "one's own [single] sentient being" (if all that mattered were that the kind and number of consciousnesses matched up, would that not blend you and me into one)? So one can know: how many sentient beings there are should be counted by the number of "life-faculties," or by the number of "maturation consciousnesses" (the eighth) — both of these counts run into no trouble, for the life-faculty and the maturation consciousness are, at any moment, but one (one body has but one maturation consciousness, and so it is one sentient being, no matter how many consciousnesses arise atop it).

〔Q〕: One body has only one "immediately-antecedent-and-contiguous condition" (the support whereby the preceding thought-moment gives way and draws forth the succeeding one); then how can there be several consciousnesses turning together at one and the same time (surely several consciousnesses cannot share one path-opening condition)? 〔A〕: Since you already concede that this one immediately-antecedent-and-contiguous condition can draw forth several mental factors (the mental factors being, of course, a string of several), on what ground do you refuse to let it draw forth several mind-kings (consciousnesses) too? Furthermore, who laid it down that this condition can be only "one"? Those who hold that several consciousnesses arise together concede from the outset that the "immediately-antecedent-and-contiguous condition" too can be several (in the preceding moment several consciousnesses give way, and in the succeeding moment several consciousnesses take up).

Furthermore: if one would grasp several objects at one and the same time, then when several objects are present together, why can they not be grasped all at once (why must it be one after another)? Because the conjoining-force of the several faculties and the several objects is even and equal (all are ready at the same time); and since the conditions are all ready at once, while you would insist that the consciousnesses must arise one before and one after (refusing to let them arise together), that does not hold.

Furthermore: though the "nature" of the mental factors is no different one from another (all of them having this nature of attending-to and reaching-out-to an object), their "kinds" are distinct (the likes of feeling, conception, and volition are mental factors of different kinds); and since these mental factors of different kinds are all allowed to arise together, then why not allow the mind-kings of different kinds (the eight consciousnesses) to arise together too? Again, just as the waves on the water and the images in a mirror, all of them arise as "many" in dependence on "one" (one sheet of water, one face of mirror) — so it can be seen: in dependence on "one mind" (one cluster of faculty and object), there can likewise be several consciousnesses turning together at once.

Furthermore: if one does not allow the sixth, the mental consciousness, to arise together with the first five consciousnesses, then the objects the five consciousnesses grasp ought to be "unclear" — they would be like "the diffuse, solitary-acting mental consciousness" (the mental consciousness that does not pair up with the five consciousnesses but arises diffusely on its own) recalling an object long since vanished, all hazy and blurred. But in fact the five consciousnesses grasp their objects clearly; which shows that the mental consciousness is indeed arising together with the five and helping them see.

〔Q〕: The one arising together with the five consciousnesses is plainly only "one" mental consciousness; how can it, facing several objects like form, sound, and the rest, grasp now one, now several (how can a single mental consciousness handle so many)? 〔A〕: Look how each of the eye and the other consciousnesses, each facing its own object, can likewise grasp now one, now several (not bound to grasp only one); then what is amiss with this mental consciousness [doing the same]? Because the "image-part" and "seeing-part" of a single consciousness can of themselves manifest all manner of different shapes (a single consciousness can transform out several object-supporting images and several apprehending functions) — so it is no marvel that one mental consciousness handles many objects.

〔Q〕: Then why do consciousnesses of the same kind (say, two eye-consciousnesses) not arise together? 〔A〕: As to its own object to be apprehended, so long as it can be apprehended, one consciousness already apprehends it fully, and the rest of the same kind, coming on too, have nothing left to do (and so those of the same kind need not arise together).

〔Q〕: On this account (one consciousness having apprehended fully, the rest are useless), then since the five consciousnesses have already apprehended their objects fully, what need is there of a mental consciousness arising together to apprehend them as well (would this not also be redundant)? 〔A〕: The mental consciousness that arises together with the five consciousnesses has the function of "helping the five to arise the more keenly and clearly," and is not there merely to apprehend the five's object; what is more, with respect to that object it can go a step further and "see it clearly, tell it apart distinctly" (adding discrimination and examination), which the eye and the other five consciousnesses cannot do — so it is not redundant at all. It is just because it can thus discriminate and examine that the holy teaching calls this mental consciousness "having discrimination," and the five consciousnesses are not so (the five consciousnesses have no discrimination).

〔Q〕: Since several consciousnesses turn together, then why are they "not concomitant" with one another (not counted as mutually-fitting concomitant dharmas)? 〔A〕: Because the object each refers to is not the same one (each refers to its own, so naturally they do not match up); and even granting, a step back, that they refer to the same object, still the faculties each rests on differ — the very substance of the faculty and the very number of faculties being each its own (as with the five faculties, five consciousnesses, each resting on its own faculty) — and so these consciousnesses are not concomitant with one another, just as the consciousnesses of the five faculties are not concomitant with one another.

3. Sorting out one-or-different

First, whether the eight consciousnesses can be counted as "one." The answer: one cannot fix them as one. Why not? The grounds are several; take them one by one. First, their way of working (their mode of activity), the faculty each rests on (its support), the object each refers to, and the mental factors concomitant with each — all of these are each different; and since every item differs, how could they be counted one and the same? Second, when one consciousness ceases, the rest do not cease along with it (you cease while I arise, each going its own way) — and since they do not arise and cease together, neither can they be counted one. Third, the role of "the perfuming" and "the perfumed" is told cleanly apart (the eighth consciousness is the one perfumed, the remaining seven are the ones that go and perfume it) — and the roles being different, they are surely not one.

But to put it the other way round, one cannot fix them as "several, each distinct from the rest" either. Why not this either? Because the sūtra says the eight consciousnesses are "like water and waves" — water and waves, in the end, are one matter, with no real difference at all. And again: were one to fix them as distinct, each unrelated to the rest, then "cause and effect" could not be made out; for cause and effect ought to be of one kind and continuous (the preceding moment being the cause of the succeeding) — and if you fix them dead as unrelated separate things, this thread of cause and effect cannot be joined up. So one should know: the eight consciousnesses are like things conjured by magic — they look as though each were its own, yet there is no such solid, real "distinct-from-the-rest" own-nature about them (they can be fixed neither dead as one nor dead as several).

As was said before, the saying that "the eight consciousnesses have differences" is put with reference to the "conventional truth of principle" (the principle on the conventional level), and not with reference to the "ultimate truth, the truly-supreme meaning" (that final, real level). In the truly-supreme meaning, both "mind" and "speech" alike are of no use (it being apart both from the mark of mind reaching out to an object and from the mark of words expressing). As the verse (gāthā) says: "Mind, manas, and consciousness, these eight kinds — by the conventional, their marks have difference; by the truth, their marks have no difference — for the describing-mark and the described-mark are alike not to be found."

B. Correctly resolving consciousness-transformation (consciousness-transformation · the establishing of consciousness-only)

1. Closing the foregoing and posing what follows

The marks of the "three transformers" (the eighth's maturation-transformer, the seventh's cogitation-transformer, the first six's object-discerning-transformer) having now been treated in detail, these three transformers being just the support of the "seeing-part and image-part," the two parts each transforms into. Then it comes to the question: by what do we know that "the so-called 'self' and 'dharmas' are only conventionally posited in keeping with what consciousness transforms, and not some substance really existing apart from consciousness," and that therefore "all is consciousness alone"? (Below the verse is brought forward to answer this question.)

2. Bringing forward the verse to answer

The verse says: "The 'transformation' of these 'several consciousnesses' is just 'the discriminating' (that is, the apprehending seeing-part) and 'the discriminated' (that is, the apprehended image-part), these two sides; and just because, apart from consciousness, there is no real self and no real dharmas, those grasped-at 'real self, real dharmas' are all of them non-existent; whence it can be known that all is consciousness alone."

3. The prose exposition (correctly explaining the verse)

The treatise explains and says: the verse's "these several consciousnesses" means just the "three transforming consciousnesses" spoken of before and the mental factors concomitant with them; these all can transform into the semblance of the two parts, "seeing-part and image-part," and so are given the name "transformation." Of these, the seeing-part transformed-into is called "discrimination" (the discriminating side) — because it can grasp the mark (reach out to the object); the image-part transformed-into is named "the discriminated" (the discriminated side) — because it is what is grasped by the seeing-part.

Push on by this right principle: those grasped-at "real self, real dharmas," once apart from the seeing-part and image-part that consciousness transforms into, are decidedly all non-existent — for apart from "the grasping (seeing-part)" and "the grasped (image-part)" no further thing can be found; nor will there be any real thing that could stand on its own apart from these two parts, seeing and image. Therefore all conditioned dharmas and unconditioned dharmas, whether you call them real or call them conventional, are none of them apart from consciousness. That word "only" in the verse is to fend off "a thing really existing apart from consciousness"; it is not to fend off "the mental-factor dharmas that are not apart from consciousness" and the like (those mental factors and the rest still are; they are not fended off).

"Transformation" has yet another way of being explained: it means that the several inner consciousnesses turn so as to manifest the marks of "outer objects" that look like "self and dharmas." This "transforming side" is just what is called "discrimination" — because it is in itself "unreal imagining" (it imagines unreally), and this points to just the mind and mental factors within the three realms. The object it grasps at is just what is called "the discriminated," that is, the "real self, real dharmas" nature that gets wrongly grasped. It is by this discrimination that the marks of "conventional self, conventional dharmas" that look like outer objects are manifested; while that "real self, real dharmas" nature it discriminates out is decidedly non-existent — for the teaching and the principle cited before have already broken it down at length. Therefore all is consciousness alone; because the proposition "unreal imagining is there" is one that both sides allow all along (no one denies that he is imagining wildly), and this point already stands firm.

Since that word "only" in the verse does not fend off "the dharmas not apart from consciousness," then "true emptiness (that is, suchness)" and the like are all of them "existent" too (not nothing in the way of annihilation). With this: the self and dharmas grasped to be real, those outer objects, are decidedly non-existent; while suchness and the other dharmas not apart from consciousness are decidedly existent — one side not over-affirmed, one side not under-affirmed, and so one steers clear of the two leaning extremes, "addition" (conjuring something out of nothing, asserting it really existent) and "subtraction" (calling existent things non-existent, wiping them away at a stroke), and the principle of consciousness-only stands firm, fitting squarely onto the middle way.

4. The broad sorting-out by challenge and answer (establishing consciousness-only by teaching and principle)

〔Q〕: By just which "teaching" (the scriptural teaching) and "principle" (the reasoning) does the sense of consciousness-only count as established? 〔A〕: Was it not already said above? 〔Further pressed〕: It was said, but not yet thoroughly; what is more, "breaking down another's thesis" does not amount to "one's own thesis standing firm" (break down another and you are not yet right yourself); so one should state it more exactly, the better to set firm this teaching and principle of consciousness-only.

First bring forward the evidence on the side of "teaching" (that is, cite scripture for proof). Thus the sūtras say "the three realms are mind alone"; and say "the object referred to is only what consciousness manifests"; and say "all dharmas are not apart from mind"; and say "sentient beings follow the mind in defilement and purity (defiled as the mind is defiled, pure as the mind is pure)."

The sūtra further says "the bodhisattva who perfects the four wisdoms can accordingly awaken into the truth of 'there is only consciousness, no [real] object.'" Then it explains these four wisdoms one by one: First, the wisdom of mutually-contradicting consciousness-marks (seeing consciousness-transformation from "in one place, contradicting marks are seen") — this says: in one and the same place, hungry ghosts, humans, gods, and the rest, each according to the difference in their karma, see different things (for instance, looking at one and the same pool of water, the hungry ghost sees a river of pus and blood, the human sees clear water, the god sees a ground of lapis lazuli). If this object were really and solidly set there, then how could the case of "one and the same object, yet several things seen" be made out (which shows the object is transformed by each one's own consciousness)?

Second, the wisdom of objectless consciousness (seeing consciousness-transformation from "no real object, yet consciousness arises all the same") — this says: when a person refers to the images of the past, the future, or a dream, these objects are not at all really existent, yet consciousness arises and reaches them all the same. Since those (past, future, dream) objects are not really existent and yet consciousness arises just the same, then the rest of the objects (those that now look as if really existent) ought to be just so too (the object is in fact not there; it is consciousness itself that manifests it).

Third, the wisdom of "[the fool] ought of himself to be undeluded" (deducing in reverse, from "if the object were real, the fool would of himself be undeluded," that the object is not real) — this says: suppose the little cognition the fool has really got hold of a "real object" (an object as it truly is), then merely by setting eyes on a real object he ought to become "undeluded" of himself, and ought to win liberation without putting in any effort at all. But in fact the fool is, on the contrary, deluded, and has not won liberation; which shows that what he refers to is no real object at all (were it truly a real object, he would long since have woken up).

Fourth, the wisdom [showing] that [the object] turns along with three [kinds of] wisdom (the object turns along with three kinds of wisdom, which shows it is no real object) — this one further divides into three sub-points: (1) the wisdom [showing the object] turning along with the master-of-self's wisdom — this says: one who has realized "mastery of mind" (such as a bodhisattva of the eighth ground and above) can turn earth into water, or water into something else, just as he wishes. If the object were really existent and fixed dead in its place, how could it turn at the bidding of one's mind, changing at a word? (2) the wisdom [showing the object] turning along with the observer's wisdom — this says: one who has got fine concentration and is moreover cultivating contemplation, fixing his gaze on one and the same object to contemplate it, finds all manner of marks appearing together before him (for instance, cultivating the contemplation of foulness, he sees a heap of white bones everywhere). If the object were real, how could it turn so at the bidding of his mind? (3) the wisdom [showing the object] turning along with the non-discriminating wisdom — this says: when a person rouses "the truth-realizing, non-discriminating wisdom" (that wisdom which directly realizes suchness and raises no discrimination), all object-marks fail to appear at all. If the object were real, how could it be permitted to go unmanifest at a word (which shows there is no real object at all)?

When a bodhisattva has perfected these four wisdoms, he is bound to awaken into the principle of consciousness-only. Again a verse (gāthā) says: "The objects that mind, manas, and consciousness refer to — not one of them is apart from 'consciousness's own self' and existing besides; therefore I declare that all is consciousness alone, with nothing else (there is no object apart from consciousness)." Sure proofs of this sort from the holy teaching are more than one.

The citing of scripture done, next is brought forward the evidence on the side of "principle" (that is, to prove it by inference of logic, set out in the pattern of "thesis — reason — example"). First, an inference set up for the five consciousnesses: take "the eye and the other five consciousnesses both sides concede" as the thesis, the reason being "they are each one among the five consciousnesses," the example being "the rest of those (consciousnesses already conceded not to refer directly to an outer object)" — by this it can be inferred: the five consciousnesses too do not directly refer to form and the rest apart from consciousness. Next, an inference for the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses: take "the rest of those consciousnesses (the sixth, seventh, eighth)" as the thesis, the reason being "they are equally consciousnesses," the example being "the eye-consciousness and the rest" — by this it can be inferred: they too do not directly refer to the manifold dharmas apart from consciousness. Set up a further inference: "the object these consciousnesses directly refer to" is decidedly not apart from this consciousness itself — the reason being "it is nothing but one of the two, 'the referring' and 'the referred-to,'" the example being, on one side, "the referring (the seeing-part not apart from consciousness)" and, on the other, "the concomitant mental factors (the dharmas they refer to also not apart from mind)" — by this it can be inferred: the referred-to is decidedly not apart from mind and the mental factors. Sure proofs of this sort of right principle, too, are more than one; and so one should deeply trust and accept this principle of consciousness-only.

Here both sides are gathered up at once: the "self and dharmas" grasped to be real are non-existent; yet the "emptiness (suchness) and consciousness" that arise in dependence-on-others are, in turn, not non-existent. One side does not fall into "being," one side does not fall into "non-being," and so it fits squarely onto the middle way. The venerable Maitreya (the bodhisattva Maitreya), in keeping with this sense, spoke two verses: "'Unreal imagining' is there; within this imagining, the two — 'grasper, grasped' — are both not there; within this imagining there is only 'emptiness (suchness)'; and within that emptiness, in turn, there is this (the unreal imagining); therefore it is said that all dharmas are 'neither empty nor not-empty' — because there is (the unreal imagining), and there is not (grasper and grasped), and there is (within the emptiness there is imagining, within the imagining there is emptiness), this fits squarely onto the middle way." This verse is put, for the moment, with reference to "the defiled portion of the other-dependent" (the defiled side of the other-dependent nature); but as a matter of principle there is in truth also "the pure portion of the other-dependent" (the pure side of the other-dependent being subsumed in along with it).

〔Q〕: If all is only the inner consciousness arising so as to look like an outer object, then how is it that one sees the world's sentient and insentient things — some, in "place and time," "fixed" (confined to a certain place, a certain time, as a thing seen only at a given spot at a given moment), and some, in "body-mark and function," in turn "unfixed" (unconfined, as a thing seen everywhere, usable by all)? Do not these fixed-and-unfixed marks show that there truly are things out there? 〔A〕: Look how a dream-realm likewise has the fixed and unfixed of place, time, body, and function (in a dream too one dreams of a confined place, a confined moment, and also of unconfined things); one should take this to clear up the doubt — in a dream there is plainly no outer object, and yet it manifests the fixed-and-unfixed marks all the same; which shows that having the fixed-and-unfixed does not prove the outer object really existent.

〔Q〕: Since all is only consciousness, then why did the World-Honored One go on to speak of the "twelve bases" (the six faculties plus the six objects, which sounds as though there really were outer objects)? 〔A〕: These twelve bases are spoken in keeping with what consciousness transforms; it is not that there is some substance besides, apart from consciousness. The Buddha, in order to let people awaken into "the emptiness of self" (seeing through that there is no real self), spoke the "six faculties, six objects," these two sets of six dharmas — breaking a person up into these dharmas, the better to show that the so-called "self" is no more than a heap of dharmas pieced together, with no real self in it; just as, in order to break the "annihilation view" (lest people suppose that at death the lamp goes out and all is done), the Buddha expediently spoke of "a continuing sentient being" (setting up a sentient being for the moment, to draw a person out of the annihilation view). Going one step further, the Buddha, in order to let people awaken into "the emptiness of dharmas" (seeing through even these dharmas), spoke again of "only consciousness," the better to let people know that even those outer dharmas are not really existent.

〔Q〕: Then is this "consciousness-only nature" (consciousness's real nature) not also empty, and to be wiped away at a stroke? 〔A〕: It is not so. 〔Further pressed〕: Why not? 〔A〕: Because it "is not something wrongly grasped at." The meaning is: the "real dharma" that, in keeping with what consciousness transforms, gets "wildly grasped at" by a person, cannot in principle be found, and so it is said to be "the emptiness of dharmas" (the emptying of this grasped-at dharma); but it is not that "the consciousness-only nature, apart from words, to be realized only by right wisdom," is also non-existent — so this "emptiness of dharmas" empties the grasped-at dharma, and does not empty the consciousness-only nature itself.

Were this consciousness to be non-existent, then there would be no "conventional truth" (the truth on the conventional level); and the conventional truth being gone, the "ultimate truth" (the truth on the final level) would go along with it too — for these two truths, the ultimate and the conventional, are set up only in dependence on each other (pull out the one prop and both fall). To wipe away both truths at a stroke is "ill-grasped emptiness" (that bad emptiness-view which misconstrues the emptiness-principle and grasps it to mean there is nothing at all), and the Buddhas say such a one is "beyond cure." So one should know: all dharmas have an "empty" side (the grasper and grasped grasped at being empty) and a "not-empty" side (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, these two, being not empty); and it is just for this that the venerable Maitreya spoke the foregoing two verses.

〔Q〕: If the various "form-bases" too take consciousness as their substance, then why do they manifest precisely as "form-marks" (a shape, a solid look), and turn on, of one kind, firmly abiding, in unbroken succession (looking as though there were truly real things there)? 〔A〕: That is roused by the force of "name-and-word perfuming" (the perfuming of speech and concept laid down from beginningless time); and besides, this form-mark serves as the resting-place for the dharmas of both sides, "defilement and purity" — meaning that, were this form-mark non-existent, then there would be no delusion, and so no defilement, and the pure dharmas would be gone too (defilement and purity both must lean on the form-mark in order to turn); and so the several consciousnesses likewise manifest as if they had form. As a verse says: "The 'deluded mark' (the image-part that has turned to look like form) and the 'deluded substance' (the seeing-part that can raise this delusion) — these should be conceded as the 'form-resembling consciousness' and the 'non-form-resembling consciousness (the remaining consciousnesses)'; were these (the deluded mark, the deluded substance) non-existent, the rest (defilement, purity) would go along with them too."

〔Q〕: Form and the other outer objects can plainly be realized at first hand, right before one, gotten by "direct perception" (taking-in on the spot, not by inference or reckoning) — how can one say in one breath that they are not there? 〔A〕: At the very moment you realize it by direct perception, at first hand, you do not in fact grasp it as "the outer thing"; it is the next thought-moment, the mental consciousness, that rouses discrimination and only then wildly gives rise to the notion "outer." So one should know: the object referred to by direct perception is the consciousness's own image-part, transformed by consciousness, and so it too is said to be "existent"; while the "outer, real form and the rest" that the mental consciousness grasps at is had only by wild reckoning, and so it (the outer real form) is said to be non-existent.

Furthermore: form and the other objects are in fact "not form, yet resembling form; not outer, yet resembling outer," just like what is referred to in a dream (which looks like form, looks like outer, yet is neither) — they cannot be grasped as solidly real outer form.

〔Q〕: If the form one sees while awake is, like a dream-realm, not apart from consciousness, then it is as when we wake from a dream and only then know that the dream "was only what the mind transformed"; why is it that, while awake, as to the form-objects of one's own seeing, one does not know it "is only consciousness" (while awake one does not know it oneself)? 〔A〕: It is just as when a dream is not yet over: a person cannot of himself know (that it is only what the mind transformed), and must wait until he wakes before he can look back and become aware of it; the object-form while awake is on this same principle — at the stage where one has not yet gotten "true awakening" (that thorough waking which realizes suchness), a person cannot of himself know that it is only consciousness, and must wait for the time of "true awakening" to look back and become aware of it. One who has not gotten true awakening dwells ever within the dream (of ignorance), and so the Buddha calls this "the long night of birth-and-death" (a long dark dream-night within birth-and-death); and it is just for this that a person has all along failed to grasp thoroughly that the form-object is only consciousness.

〔Q〕: Granted that outer form is not really existent, so that one may say it is not an object of the inner consciousness; but "another's mind" is really existent, is it not? — then would it not become an object referred to by this consciousness of mine (would this not be consciousness reaching an object really outside consciousness)? 〔A〕: Who said that "another's mind is not" an object referred to by one's own consciousness? It is only that one does not call another's mind "the object one's own consciousness directly and immediately reaches." The meaning is: when this consciousness of mine arises, there is no real function that reaches across to lay hold of another's mind directly — it is not like a hand laying hold of an outer thing directly, nor like the sun stretching out its rays to shine on an outer object directly; it only manifests, like a mirror, an image resembling the outer object, and so it is called "apprehending another's mind," but is not "directly able to apprehend [it]." What is truly directly apprehended is only what oneself (the consciousness) transforms into (that image-part).

And so the sūtra says: "There is no slightest dharma that can truly reach across and lay hold of another dharma." It is only that, when consciousness arises, it manifests a mark resembling that (referred-to thing), and this is what is called "grasping that thing" (it in fact manifests an image, and does not truly reach out a hand to lay hold). Referring to another's mind is so, and referring to form and the rest is just so too (in every case it manifests an image resembling it, and does not truly go and lay hold of outer things).

〔Q〕: Since there is "a different object" (another's mind and the like, an object different from one's own), then why is it still called "consciousness-only" (only consciousness)? 〔A〕: How strange! You cling so doggedly, raising doubts at every turn! Does this teaching of "consciousness-only" say "there is but a single, sole consciousness" (with no such manifold consciousnesses, self's and another's)? 〔Further pressed〕: Not so; then how? 〔A〕: Listen closely: if there truly were but one consciousness, how could there be the differences of the worldlings and the noble ones of the ten directions, of high and low, of cause and effect? And who would teach the Dharma to whom? What dharma would there be to teach, what dharma to seek (all being one, none of these could be made out)? So one can know that the words "consciousness-only" have a deep import of their own (it is not that there is but a single, sole consciousness).

The single word "consciousness" altogether displays several things at once: the eight consciousnesses each sentient being has of its own, the six great classes of mental factors, plus the image-part and seeing-part these transform into, plus the differences of all manner of states, plus that suchness disclosed by the emptiness-principle. Why can all these be gathered under the one word "consciousness"? On five grounds: the first item is "consciousness itself" (the eight consciousness-mind-kings); the second is "what is concomitant with consciousness" (the mental factors); the third is "what the first two (mind-king, mental factors) transform into" (the two parts, image and seeing); the fourth is "the various states of the first three" (the non-concurrent formation dharmas, which are states conventionally set up in dependence on the foregoing); the fifth is "the real nature of the first four" (suchness) — every one of these five being not apart from consciousness, they are all gathered up and set up under the one name "consciousness." As for that word "only," it merely fends off the "form and the rest that the fool grasps as definitely existing really apart from the consciousnesses"; it is not to fend off those dharmas that are not apart from consciousness.

If a person can thus understand the true intent of the teaching of consciousness-only, then he can, undeludedly, well lay in the provisions and swiftly enter into "the emptiness of dharmas," realize the supreme awakening, and rescue the sentient (the beings that bear consciousness) out of the round of birth-and-death; this is by no means something that the "ill-grasped emptiness" man — the one who wipes everything away at a stroke — could ever bring off, for he has gone against both the teaching and the principle, and so cannot bring this matter to pass. And so one must be settled in faith that "all is consciousness alone."

A. Resolving [Objections] Contrary to Principle

1. Resolving the objection about how discriminations arise

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

〔所釋頌〕

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

〔Verses expounded〕

A. Expounding the Three Natures (v20–22)

〔Q〕 If everything is only consciousness, why then does the World-Honored One still speak of "the three natures" (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — the substance-natures of these three sorts of dharma) all through so many scriptures? 〔A〕 You should realize: these three natures too are not apart from consciousness — they are set up precisely with respect to consciousness in the first place, and are not three separate things existing outside consciousness.

First the words of the verse are explained. The name "imagining" (遍計) comes from "imagining all-round" (周遍計度) — that is, whatever it be, this mind must go and measure and reckon it all-round (measuring here, reckoning there, grasping it all as real with nothing left out); and so it is called "imagining." And because the kinds of things it reckons are very many, the verse says "this and that" (彼彼 — such and such, this sort and that, manifold and not one). As for the "imaginer" (能遍計) that the verse speaks of, it means that mind which performs "unreal discrimination" (虛妄分別 — the mind that adds false discrimination and grasps things as real).

It is by just this "this-and-that" manifold of unreal discrimination that this mind goes and imagines all-round the manifold "things that get wholly-imagined by it" (所遍計物) — namely, the aggregates, bases, and elements, and the rest, that it grasps at random, whether it takes them as "dharma" or takes them as "self," together with their self-nature (what they are) and their differences (how they differ from one another). Whatever self-nature and differences get deludedly grasped in this way are, taken together, called "the wholly-imagined self-nature" (遍計所執自性 — that substance-nature which the imagining mind grasps and takes up).

A self-nature deludedly grasped in this way as wholly-imagined is in fact "nothing at all" (都無所有 — it does not exist at all) — because whether you go probing for it by right principle, or go checking for it by holy teaching, you simply cannot find it.

This verse can also be expounded clause by clause to match [the doctrine]: the first clause, "by this and that imagining," points to "the imagining consciousness" (the mind that does the reckoning); the second clause, "one imagines the manifold things," points to "the wholly-imagined object" (the thing reckoned by it); and the latter two clauses, "this wholly-imagined, its self-nature is nothing at all," then formally set out that the thing wholly-imagined, whether taken as "self" or as "dharma," has no self-nature at all — for the foregoing has already shown at length that it "cannot be found."

1. The imaginer (which consciousness is the imaginer)

First, the first question is raised: what is that "imaginer" (the mind that does the reckoning) itself? Put otherwise: which consciousnesses, in the end, count as the imaginer?

〔One view · all eight consciousnesses are imaginers〕 One view holds: the eight consciousnesses and their associated various mental factors, every one of them that is "contaminated" (有漏 — not yet purified, still bearing defilements), are all "imaginers." Their reasons are three: first, contaminated mind and mental factors are themselves, in their very substance-nature, "unreal discrimination" (each of them adds false discrimination); second, when they arise they all show forth as if having the "two, grasped and grasper" (they look as though they had both an object cognized and a cognizing function); third, the treatise also says that the object the ālaya-consciousness (the eighth) refers to is precisely the deludedly-grasped seeds of "the wholly-imagined self-nature" (since even what the store-consciousness refers to is deludedly-grasped seeds, it follows that the store-consciousness too is to be counted among the imaginers).

〔To be known · only the sixth and seventh are imaginers〕 And another view holds (this is the correct meaning): only the "sixth mental consciousness" and the "seventh manas" (the consciousness of constant deliberation that grasps a self) — in those parts of them that are grasping self and grasping dharmas — are the "imaginer." The reasons, taken one by one, come to ten in all:

One. Holy teaching says only "the mental consciousness is the imaginer" (it does not say the other consciousnesses are imaginers).

Two. The word "mental consciousness" (意識) here is to be taken broadly: both "the mind-faculty" (意 — meaning the seventh manas) and "the mental consciousness" (意識 — meaning the sixth) may be called "mental consciousness" — so the sentence "the mental consciousness is the imaginer" takes in both the sixth and the seventh.

Three. The imaginer must be that which performs "reckoning-discrimination" (which weighs and infers); whereas the first five consciousnesses (eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness) only directly perceive and do no reckoning, so the first five are not counted.

Four. Whatever grasps self and grasps dharmas must have "discernment" (慧 — a mental factor of examination) at work; and in the first five consciousnesses discernment is weak and unmanifest, so the first five are not counted.

Five. The two graspings, self-grasping and dharma-grasping, must arise together with "ignorance" (無明 — befuddlement, not understanding the principle).

Six. But holy teaching never says ignorance can have a "wholesome" nature; and since ignorance does not extend to the wholesome, the wholesome mind is not the imaginer (the wholesome mind does not carry ignorance and will not raise this kind of delusion-grasping).

Seven. The two mental factors "delusion" (癡 — ignorance) and "non-delusion" (無癡 — clarity, not befuddled) do not go together, are not concurrent; so the uncontaminated mind that bears non-delusion is not the imaginer.

Eight. No one has ever seen a "grasping" that could lead forth "the wisdom that realizes emptiness" (grasping and realizing-emptiness cannot stand together); so the grasping mind is not the emptiness-realizing wisdom.

Nine. "Grasping the existent" (grasping things as really existent) and "penetrating the non-existent" (penetrating that they are originally non-existent) do not arise at once; so that uncontaminated wisdom which penetrates the originally-non-existent cannot be the grasping mind.

Ten. There has never been a "grasping" that "cannot perfume" (whatever grasps perfumes seeds); yet a consciousness such as the maturation-consciousness (the eighth) cannot perfume, so it is not the imaginer.

Below it turns back to refute the reasons of 〔the first view〕. Take first its reasons one and two (that all contaminated mind is unreal discrimination, all shows forth as if having the two graspings). It is indeed so that the contaminated mind cannot realize the real (it cannot reach suchness as object), so all these minds may be called "unreal discrimination" — that much is right; but "though when they arise they look as if having the two, grasped and grasper" does not amount to "every one of them being an imaginer." Why? Because the uncontaminated mind, when it arises, likewise looks as if having these two — and by 〔the first view's〕 way of putting it, would not even the uncontaminated mind then turn out to have grasping? Press it further, and even the Tathāgata's "subsequently-attained wisdom" (the pure wisdom that, after the Buddha's attainment, refers to conventional objects) would have to have grasping too — which plainly cannot be. So one cannot take "looking, when it arises, as if having grasper and grasped" as proof that "every one is an imaginer."

Moreover, scripture says: the Buddha's wisdom manifests the manifold images of a body, a land, and the rest, just as a bright mirror throws back reflections. Were one to insist that the uncontaminated wisdom has no "referring function" (that is, that it raises no image-part resembling a referred-to object), then it ought not to be called "wisdom" at all — which shows that "looking, when it arises, as if having grasper and grasped" is not itself "grasping."

Take next its reason three (that the store-consciousness refers to the seeds of the wholly-imagined). Holy teaching did say that the store-consciousness refers to the wholly-imagined seeds, but it never said the store-consciousness refers "only" to these — what the store-consciousness refers to also includes solidly real objects (not merely the deludedly-grasped seeds). So this reason too cannot conclusively prove that "the store-consciousness is an imaginer." From this whole stretch of reasoning it is plain: only in the sixth and seventh sorts of mind is there an "imaginer."

The imaginer-consciousnesses, though only two in kind (the sixth and the seventh), differ when they go imagining in how they are tallied — by two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and so on, all manner of different countings (depending on how finely you split or lump their discriminating). And just because the ways of dividing are so various, the verse says "this and that" (manifold and not one).

2. The wholly-imagined (what is the wholly-imagined object)

Next the second question is raised: what is that "wholly-imagined" (the object reckoned) itself? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: what gets wholly-imagined is the "other-dependent" (依他起 — those dharmas that arise only in dependence on the many conditions). Why say so? Because these other-dependent dharmas are precisely the "object-support condition" (所緣緣 — the object the imaginer reaches out to, which also moves it) for the imagining mind when it reaches out — that is, the deluded grasping must lean upon some other-dependent thing before it can arise at all.

〔Q〕 Then is not the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實 — that real substance-nature, suchness) also an object that the imaginer refers to? 〔A〕 The "real" (i.e. the perfectly-accomplished) is not an object the deluded grasping can directly refer to — the deluded-grasping mind cannot reach suchness; only, taken "by mediation" (展轉 — at one remove, around a bend), it may just barely be counted as "wholly-imagined" too (because it is by being deluded about the real that the delusion arises, and so the two are linked at one remove). On the other side, the "wholly-imagined" (遍計所執 — that self, that dharma deludedly grasped) is indeed an "object" the imagining mind faces, yet it has no substance at all and cannot serve as an "object-support condition" (it is no real thing that can move the mind), so it does not count as "the imagined." Strictly, the true "wholly-imagined" is only the other-dependent.

3. The mark of the wholly-imagined (how it differs from the other-dependent)

This dharma "the wholly-imagined" — what is its mark like? And how does it differ from "the other-dependent"?

〔One view · the two graspings just are the wholly-imagined〕 One view holds: the mind and mental factors within the three realms, owing to the unreal perfuming undergone since beginningless time, though each one in its own substance is but a single thing, yet when they arise they come forth as if split into "two parts" — that is, the "seeing-part" (見分 — the cognizing side) and the "image-part" (相分 — the side that is the cognized reflection), and these two sides just are "grasper and grasped." These "two parts" are "existent to deluded feeling but non-existent to principle," and so this mark is called "the wholly-imagined." As for the "substance" underlying these two parts (that is, the mind and mental factors themselves), it does indeed arise in dependence on the many conditions and cannot be said to be non-existent, and this is called "the other-dependent" — because it is "born of the many conditions, unreal discrimination and the rest, coming together."

How is this known to be so? Because the various holy teachings say: "unreal discrimination" (that is, the very substance of mind and mental factors) is "the other-dependent"; while "the two graspings" (the seeing- and image-parts, that is, grasper and grasped) are what is called "the wholly-imagined."

〔To be known · the two parts too are other-dependent · only when definitely grasped is it the wholly-imagined〕 And another view holds (this is the correct meaning): in all mind and mental factors, those "two parts" (the seeing-part and the image-part) transformed by the force of perfuming, since they too are born in dependence on the many conditions, are equally "other-dependent" (the two parts in themselves are not the wholly-imagined). The real wholly-imagined is when the imaginer-mind leans upon these two parts and then goes and stiffly grasps them as definitely so — "definitely really existent, definitely really non-existent, one, different, combined, not combined," and so on — and it is this layer of "deluded grasping" that is named "the wholly-imagined."

This view has two grounds. First, the various holy teachings all say that "consciousness-measure-only" (唯量 — meaning the self-witnessing part, the side by which consciousness witnesses itself), "the two-only" (唯二 — meaning the seeing- and image-parts), and "the manifold-only" (唯種種 — meaning the manifold and various image-parts) are all named "other-dependent" — which shows the two parts belong from the start within the other-dependent. Second, the "four parts" — image-part, seeing-part, self-witnessing part, and witness-of-the-self-witnessing part — and the "eleven consciousnesses" the Mahāyānasaṃgraha speaks of, and the rest, are all said by the treatises to be subsumed under "the other-dependent."

Below, several untenable consequences are used to prove, conversely, that "the two parts are not the wholly-imagined." Take one: suppose the two parts just were the wholly-imagined; then even the two parts manifested by the uncontaminated "subsequently-attained wisdom" (a kind of the Buddha's pure wisdom) would have to be called wholly-imagined. Pressed this way, one is caught both ways: if you concede [that the subsequently-attained wisdom's two parts too are wholly-imagined], then the holy ones' wisdom ought not to arise leaning upon the wholly-imagined, and the wisdom that refers to it ought not to count as "the path-truth" (道諦 — the real dharma of cultivating the path), which plainly cannot be; and if you do not concede it (that is, you allow that the subsequently-attained wisdom's two parts are not wholly-imagined), then equally you must realize: the contaminated two parts are by the same reasoning likewise not the wholly-imagined.

Take another: suppose the two parts were the wholly-imagined; then they ought, like "a hare's horn" (a hare has no horn; there is no such thing at all), to be unable to serve as an "object-support condition" — because the wholly-imagined has no substance from the start, and a thing without substance cannot move the mind. And take another: since the two parts (by your account) have no substance, they ought not to be able to perfume seeds; and the seeds being unable to be perfumed, when the later consciousness and the rest arise there ought to be no two parts at all — yet in fact the later consciousness plainly does carry both seeing- and image-parts, which does not square with the facts.

Take another: the various "habit-energies" (that is, the seeds) are subsumed under "the image-part" — and are these not, then, "dharmas that have substance" and that can act as "causal condition"? (The seeds plainly have substance and can act as cause, which shows the image-part too has substance and belongs to the other-dependent.) And take another: if you say the "inner image-part and seeing-part" born in dependence on the many conditions are not other-dependent, then by the very same reasoning the "substance" (the self-witnessing part) underlying them ought not to be other-dependent either — for there is no other reason that could set them apart; yet pressed this way the whole apparatus of the other-dependent collapses entirely.

From these several stretches of reasoning it is plain: whatever is born in dependence on the many conditions — "the mind and mental factors themselves," together with their "image-part and seeing-part" — whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are all "other-dependent" — because they all arise in dependence on the many conditions.

When the verse says "born of the conditions of discrimination" (the other-dependent self-nature is born of the conditions of discrimination), you should realize that this is only "speaking, for the moment, of the defiled portion of the other-dependent" — because "the pure portion of the other-dependent" actually belongs over with the perfectly-accomplished (the pure portion's other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished cling together and cannot be told apart), and so the verse here leaves it out of account for now.

Or, putting it another way: whether defiled or pure, mind and mental factors may all be called "discrimination" (分別 — because they all refer and cognize, all exert function); and on this reading, all the defiled and pure other-dependent are subsumed under the "other-dependent" of this verse (not limited just to the defiled portion).

4. The mark of the perfectly-accomplished (the latter half of v21, and v22)

That "perfectly-accomplished" real substance-nature of dharmas, disclosed by the two emptinesses — "the emptiness of self" (我空 — there is no real self) and "the emptiness of dharmas" (法空 — there is no real dharma) — is called "the perfectly-accomplished" (圓成實). The three senses within this name — "perfect, accomplished, real" — point to just three features of this true nature: "perfect" says it is all-pervading (everywhere without exception); "accomplished" says it is constant-abiding (everlasting, unchanging); "real" says its substance is not false. By these three points, in passing, several easily-confused things are marked off: marked off are "the particular and general characteristics" (these two do not pervade, so they are not "perfect"); marked off is "space" (the unconditioned space, being substanceless, is unreal, so it is not "accomplished," not "real"); and marked off is "a self" (the deludedly-grasped self is false, so it is not "real").

Actually the uncontaminated "conditioned" dharmas (such as the uncontaminated wisdom) — because they are apart from inversion, have reached the ultimate, and their excellent function is all-pervading — may also bear the name "perfectly-accomplished." But a distinction must be kept: the perfectly-accomplished spoken of in this present verse takes "the first sense" (that is, the perfectly-accomplished real nature of dharmas, namely suchness), not "the latter sense" (the uncontaminated conditioned dharmas).

This perfectly-accomplished is precisely "upon that other-dependent, the everlasting being-apart from the former wholly-imagined just spoken of," and it has as its nature "the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses" — which is just what the verse says, "the perfectly-accomplished, upon that, is ever apart from the former nature."

Below, these few words of the verse are picked out and explained one by one. The verse says "upon that" (upon that other-dependent), which means: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are the "two that are neither-identical-nor-apart" (不即不離 — neither one and the same, nor two things set apart). The verse says "ever apart," which means: the deludedly-grasped nature of grasper and grasped "has, in principle, never once existed" — note that it is "ever" apart, not absent only for a time, but never-having-been from the very start. The verse says "former" (apart from the "former" nature — that is, only the wholly-imagined is driven off), which means "the other-dependent is not emptied" — what is emptied is only the wholly-imagined, while the other-dependent itself is not emptied. The verse says "nature" (apart from that "nature" before it), which means: what is parted from is only those "two emptinesses" (that is, the self- and dharma-natures of the wholly-imagined), and these "two emptinesses" are not themselves the perfectly-accomplished — because suchness is "neither falling into existence nor falling into non-existence," and it is not that the "non-existence" left when the wholly-imagined is emptied counts as the perfectly-accomplished.

By the foregoing principle of "neither-identical-nor-apart," the perfectly-accomplished and that other-dependent are therefore "neither-different, nor-not-different" (this is just what the verse says, "hence this, with respect to the other-dependent, is neither-different-nor-not-different"). Take each side in turn: suppose one said they are "different" (wholly two separate matters); then suchness would not be the "real nature" of the other-dependent — yet the real nature is precisely that nature of the other-dependent itself, so one cannot say they are wholly two separate matters. Suppose one said they are "not-different" (wholly one and the same matter); then this perfectly-accomplished nature would have to be "impermanent" just like the other-dependent — yet suchness is constant-abiding and unchanging, so neither can one say they are wholly one and the same matter.

Further: suppose those two were either wholly two matters or wholly one matter; then the two (the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent) would have to be together both "the pure object" or together both "the impure object" — and on that footing, "the root wisdom" (根本智 — the wisdom that directly refers to the pure suchness) and "the subsequently-attained wisdom" (後得智 — the wisdom that refers to both defiled and pure) would have to face no different function at all, which plainly cannot be. How, then, can these two natures be "not-different and yet not-one"? The answer: just as with the relation between such natures as "impermanence and no-self" and "the conditioned dharmas" (neither wholly different nor wholly one).

Take the relation between such natures as "impermanence" and such dharmas as "the conditioned" (the formations): suppose one said they are "different" (wholly two separate matters); then the conditioned dharmas ought not to be impermanent — yet the conditioned are plainly impermanent, so one cannot say they are wholly two separate matters. Suppose one said they are "not-different" (wholly one and the same matter); then this "impermanence" ought not to be the "shared characteristic" running through the conditioned — yet a shared characteristic runs through many dharmas, so neither can one say they are wholly one and the same matter. Compare it by this figure and it becomes clear: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are likewise "not-one-and-not-different" — this is just the relation between "the dharma" (the other-dependent) and "the dharma-nature" (the perfectly-accomplished), and in principle it must be so (the perfectly-accomplished just is the dharma-nature of the other-dependent); because "the ultimate" (the perfectly-accomplished) and "the conventional" (the other-dependent), these two, are from the start set up only by mutually awaiting one another (there is this only because there is that, and they cannot be parted).

Next the verse's "not without seeing this, [one sees] that" (非不見此彼) is explained. Its meaning is: it never happens that one "without first having realizing-vision of this perfectly-accomplished, can yet really see that other-dependent nature" — that is, one must first see the perfectly-accomplished, and only then can one really see the other-dependent. Why? Because so long as a person has "not yet penetrated that the wholly-imagined is in fact empty," he cannot really know that "the other-dependent is existent" — not knowing that grasper and grasped are originally empty, he mistakes the other-dependent for the wholly-imagined, and so sees awry.

Only when "non-discriminating wisdom" (無分別智 — that wisdom which raises no discrimination and directly meets suchness) has realized suchness can one, going on into the "subsequently-attained wisdom," truly penetrate that the other-dependent nature is "like things conjured by illusion" and the like — that is, like an illusion, not really existent yet looking as though existent.

Although mind and mental factors, those dharmas, have from beginningless time already been able to refer to their own image-part, seeing-part, and the rest, yet because self-grasping and dharma-grasping have all along run together with them, they have never been able to know really (that is, they cannot see clearly the true face of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished).

Those self-mind and mental factors drawn up in dependence on the many conditions are all unreally transformed and manifested; they are just like a thing conjured by illusion, the shimmering mirage of a clear day, the scenes in a dream, the reflection in a mirror, the shadow cast under light, the echo in a valley, the moon in the water, the things made by transformation — these eight are all "not existent yet looking as though existent" (the author strings together eight figures in a row, to say that the other-dependent is just like this, illusion-like and unreal).

In dependence on this meaning, there is a verse that says: "It is not that, without seeing suchness, one can yet understand that all the formations are alike things conjured by illusion; [the formations,] though existent, are not real."

The verse's meaning is to say: the three self-natures (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished) are none of them apart from mind and mental factors, those dharmas — and this gathers up the whole foregoing stretch of "the three natures too are not apart from consciousness."

5. The three natures subsume mind-dharmas (the three natures all not apart from consciousness)

First, the other-dependent. Mind and mental factors, together with the manifold marks they transform and manifest, are all born in dependence on the many conditions, and so, just like things conjured by illusion, are "not existent yet looking as though existent," fooling those who do not understand the principle (the foolish) — all of this is named "the other-dependent nature."

Next, the wholly-imagined. Those who do not understand the principle go, upon these other-dependent things, and crosswise grasp them as being "self, dharma, existent, non-existent, one, different, combined, not combined," and the like — these graspings are in fact just like "a flower in the sky" (something seen only by dazzled eyes, with nothing there at all), their "nature and mark altogether nothing" — all of this is named "the wholly-imagined."

Last, the perfectly-accomplished. Upon the very other-dependent, those deludedly-grasped self and dharmas are altogether empty; and this "emptiness"-disclosed "true substance-nature of consciousness and the rest" is called "the perfectly-accomplished." And so these three natures are, every one, not apart from mind and the rest — which loops right back to the conclusion stated at the opening, "the three natures too are not apart from consciousness."

6. The three natures subsume the three unconditioned

〔Q〕 Space, cessation-through-discrimination, and cessation-not-through-discrimination — these three unconditioned dharmas (dharmas that neither arise nor perish, made by no activity) — under which of the three natures do they fall? 〔A〕 All three natures can take them in — depending on which side you view them from, they fall under that nature.

Viewed from one side: mind and the rest transform and manifest a mark resembling space, and since this is born following the mind, it is taken in by "the other-dependent." Viewed from a second side: those who do not understand the principle, within this, deludedly grasp this space and the rest as solidly really existent, and this deluded grasping is taken in by "the wholly-imagined." Viewed from a third side: if, with respect to suchness, one conventionally sets up the sense of "space" and the like (for instance, taking cessation-through-discrimination to disclose suchness), then that is taken in by "the perfectly-accomplished."

Contaminated mind and the rest definitely belong only under "the other-dependent"; uncontaminated mind and the rest can belong at once under the two natures "the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished" — on the one hand, said to be born of the many conditions, it belongs under the other-dependent; on the other hand, said to be without inversion, it is taken in by the perfectly-accomplished.

7. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the seven suchnesses

How do these three natures and "the seven suchnesses" (suchness spoken of from seven angles) mutually subsume one another? First the seven suchnesses are listed: one, the suchness-of-flux — that is, the true substance-nature of conditioned dharmas amid their flowing-and-turning; two, the suchness-of-the-real-mark — that is, the true substance-nature disclosed by the two no-selves, the no-self-of-person and the no-self-of-dharmas; three, the suchness-of-consciousness-only — that is, the true substance-nature of the defiled and pure dharmas on the side of their "being only consciousness"; four, the suchness-of-establishment — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of suffering"; five, the suchness-of-wrong-conduct — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of origination"; six, the suchness-of-purity — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of cessation"; seven, the suchness-of-right-conduct — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of the path."

Since these seven are all "true substance-nature," they all fall under "the perfectly-accomplished" (because they are all objects of those two wisdoms, the root wisdom and the subsequently-attained wisdom). But viewed from another angle, "following the mark," the case differs: among them, the three — "the suchness-of-flux, the suchness-of-establishment (that is, suffering), and the suchness-of-wrong-conduct (that is, origination)" — fall under "the former two natures" (the wholly-imagined and the other-dependent), because these three carry deluded grasping and defilement; while the remaining four suchnesses (the real-mark, consciousness-only, purity, and right-conduct) all fall under the perfectly-accomplished.

8. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the six dharmas

How do the three natures and "the six dharmas" mutually subsume one another? In the six dharmas (that is, form, feeling, conception, formation, consciousness, plus the unconditioned), each one of the six fully possesses the three natures — because upon each of these six dharmas there are three layers of sense to be spoken of: someone raises a "deluded grasping" upon it (this is the wholly-imagined); it is itself "born of the many conditions" (this is the other-dependent); and it has, each, its own "true principle" (this is the perfectly-accomplished).

9. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the five matters

How do the three natures and "the five matters" (mark, name, discrimination, right-wisdom, and suchness — these five) mutually subsume one another? The various holy teachings, on this point, do not speak uniformly (that is, there are several differing accounts, listed one by one below):

〔Five-matters subsumption · first account〕 In some places it is said thus: the other-dependent subsumes "mark, name, discrimination, right-wisdom" (these four), the perfectly-accomplished subsumes "suchness" (this one), and the wholly-imagined "subsumes not one of the five matters." Its account runs: when contaminated mind and mental factors transform and manifest something resembling "the expressed" (the content pointed at), this is called "mark"; when they manifest something resembling "the expresser" (the words that point), this is set up as "name"; the transforming mind and the rest are set up as "discrimination"; and as for uncontaminated mind and the rest, since they are apart from conceptual proliferation, they are simply named, all together, "right-wisdom" (no further dividing into expresser and expressed) — these four are all born of conditions, and so are all subsumed under the other-dependent.

〔Five-matters subsumption · second account〕 In other places it is said thus: the other-dependent subsumes "mark, discrimination" (these two), the wholly-imagined subsumes only "name" (this one), and "right-wisdom, suchness" both fall under the perfectly-accomplished. Its account runs: the image-part of contaminated mind and mental factors is called "mark," and the rest (that is, the seeing-part and so on) is called "discrimination"; the wholly-imagined, having no substance at all, is — in order to point up that it "is not there" — conventionally given a "name" (using a name to point at this thing that in fact is not there); while "right-wisdom and suchness," these two, being without inversion, fall under the perfectly-accomplished.

〔Five-matters subsumption · third account〕 In yet other places it is said thus: the other-dependent subsumes only "discrimination" (this one), the wholly-imagined subsumes "mark, name" (these two), and "right-wisdom, suchness" both fall under the perfectly-accomplished. Its account runs: the image-part, seeing-part, and the rest of contaminated mind and mental factors are, all together, named "discrimination" (because their very substance-nature is unreal discrimination); while on the side of the wholly-imagined, its "expresser and expressed," set up following deluded feeling, are set up as the two matters "name and mark."

〔Five-matters subsumption · fourth account〕 And in still other places it is said thus: "name" belongs to the other-dependent, "meaning" belongs to the wholly-imagined. Its account runs: the image-part, seeing-part, and the rest of contaminated mind and mental factors become "the imagined object" by the moving-force of "name," and so are spoken of as "name"; while the wholly-imagined, crosswise reckoned-up following the name and in fact without any substance, is conventionally set up under the heading "meaning."

The five matters spoken of in the various holy teachings, though their wording differs from account to account and does not match up, are in sense not in conflict with one another. But it should be known: among these accounts, it is still "the first account" that divides them most cleanly, with the least chance of muddling — for the details, see the broad treatment in the Yogācārabhūmi.

10. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the five marks

Holy teaching also speaks of there being "five marks" — how do these and the three natures mutually subsume one another? Within them, "the expressed" (what is pointed at) and "the expresser" (what does the pointing) each fully possess the three natures. How divided? "What is reckoned-up by deluded feeling" falls under the first nature (the wholly-imagined); the three — "mark, name, discrimination" — according to which role they take on (whether as the expressed or as the expresser), fall under the other-dependent; and the two — "suchness, right-wisdom" — likewise according to which role they take on (whether as the expressed or as the expresser), fall under the perfectly-accomplished (because the subsequently-attained wisdom can transform and manifest a mark resembling the expresser).

Among the five marks, "the two-marks-belonging-to-each-other-mark" (that is, the mark by which the expresser and the expressed are bound to and belong to one another) falls only under the first nature (the wholly-imagined) — because the deludedly-grasped meaning and name are tied fast to one another, belonging to each other inseparably. The "grasping mark" falls only under the other-dependent (because its substance-nature is unreal discrimination); the "non-grasping mark" falls only under the perfectly-accomplished (because its substance-nature is the uncontaminated wisdom and the rest).

11. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the four realities

Holy teaching also speaks of "four realities" (namely: the reality the world commonly grants, the reality reasoning works out, the reality that is the object of the pure wisdom that has cut off the affliction-obstruction, and the reality that is the object of the pure wisdom that has cut off the knowable-obstruction) — how do these and the three natures mutually subsume one another? The two realities, "what the world commonly grants" and "what reasoning works out," fall under the other-dependent (because they are subsumed by the three matters among the foregoing five matters — mark, name, discrimination); the reality "that is the object of the pure wisdom that has cut off the two obstructions" falls under the perfectly-accomplished (because it is subsumed by the two among the five matters — right-wisdom and suchness).

The Madhyāntavibhāga has another way of dividing them: the first reality (what the world commonly grants) falls only under the first nature — because it is what people of the world together grasp and jointly settle on; the second reality (what reasoning works out) extends, then, to all three natures — because this "reasoning" of it reaches both to "grasping" and to "non-grasping," to both the defiled and the pure, so all three natures touch upon it; and the latter two realities (the objects of the wisdom that has cut off the two obstructions) fall only under the third nature (the perfectly-accomplished).

12. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the four truths

How do the three natures and "the four truths" (suffering, origination, cessation, the path — these four realities) mutually subsume one another? In the four truths, each single truth fully possesses the three natures.

Take first the "truth of suffering." Beneath the truth of suffering there are the four aspects "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, no-self" (the four facets by which suffering is contemplated), and each of these four again has, each, the three natures.

"Impermanence," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, no-nature-impermanence (matched to the wholly-imagined — the nature of the wholly-imagined is forever nothing, and "ever nothing" counts too as a kind of "impermanence"); two, arising-and-perishing-impermanence (matched to the other-dependent — the other-dependent dharmas have arising and perishing, and so are called "impermanent"); three, defiled-and-pure-impermanence (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — the perfectly-accomplished turns-and-shifts and shows forth accordingly in the defiled and pure states, and so it too is called "impermanent").

"Suffering," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, the grasped-suffering (matched to the wholly-imagined — it is what the two graspings, self-grasping and dharma-grasping, lean upon and lay hold of); two, the thing-mark-suffering (matched to the other-dependent — upon the thing-marks of the other-dependent the three marks of suffering are fully present); three, the conjoined-suffering (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — the perfectly-accomplished is conjoined together with the mark of suffering, inseparable from it).

"Emptiness," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, no-nature-emptiness (matched to the wholly-imagined — its nature is from the start nothing, and so it is called empty); two, other-nature-emptiness (matched to the other-dependent — the other-dependent is a separate matter from the deludedly-grasped self-nature, unlike it, and so it too is called empty, in the sense of emptying away that layer of the wholly-imagined); three, own-nature-emptiness (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it takes as its own substance-nature just what is disclosed by the two emptinesses).

"No-self," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, no-mark-no-self (matched to the wholly-imagined — that "self"-mark is from the start nothing); two, other-mark-no-self (matched to the other-dependent — the other-dependent is unlike the deludedly-grasped self-mark); three, own-mark-no-self (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it takes as its own mark just "what is disclosed by no-self").

Having finished the truth of suffering, look next at the "truth of origination" (the root that summons up the fruit of suffering) matched to the three natures: one, the habit-energy-origination (matched to the wholly-imagined — it is the habit-energy left by "grasping the wholly-imagined self-nature"; with respect to this layer of grasping's habit-energy, the name "origination" is conventionally set up); two, the equal-rising-origination (matched to the other-dependent — it is what is summoned up by "karma" and "the afflictions" rising together); three, the not-yet-released-from-bondage-origination (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it is the suchness "not yet released from the bondage of the affliction-obstruction").

Look next at the "truth of cessation" (the stilling of suffering) matched to the three natures: one, own-nature-cessation (matched to the wholly-imagined — its own nature is from the start unarisen, and so it is said to be from the start ceased); two, the two-graspings-cessation (matched to the other-dependent — it is the use of the work of cessation-through-discrimination to make the two sides, grasper and grasped, no longer arise); three, root-nature-cessation (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it is suchness, whose root-nature is from the start quiescent-cessation).

Look next at the "truth of the path" (the road of cultivation leading to cessation) matched to the three natures: one, the path-of-full-knowing (aimed at the wholly-imagined — this path can know through and through the wholly-imagined 〔knowing it to be originally empty〕); two, the path-of-everlasting-cutting-off (aimed at the other-dependent — this path can cut off the 〔defiled portion of the〕 other-dependent); three, the path-of-effecting-realization (aimed at the perfectly-accomplished — this path can realize the perfectly-accomplished). But one phrase must be added: this "path-of-full-knowing" is aimed not only at the wholly-imagined; it extends also to the latter two (it can both know the other-dependent and realize the perfectly-accomplished).

Count up the foregoing: beneath the truth of suffering, the four gates "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, no-self," plus the three truths of origination, cessation, and the path — seven groups in all, "each matched to the three natures"; and the three natures of these seven groups have all been matched off one by one in the order above. It should be known: the three natures matched here are, some of them, of the "conventional" kind and some of the "real" kind — this can be told apart by reasoning.

13. The mutual subsumption of the three natures with the three doors of liberation, the three forbearances of non-arising, and the two truths

The object-field that the "three doors of liberation" (emptiness, wishlessness, and marklessness — these three doors leading through to liberation) refer to — how does it and the three natures mutually subsume one another? Strictly by principle, these three doors actually all extend to all three natures; but if one matches them "following the mark," then each faces one: the "emptiness" door of liberation 〔matched to the wholly-imagined〕, the "wishlessness" door of liberation 〔matched to the other-dependent〕, the "marklessness" door of liberation 〔matched to the perfectly-accomplished〕 — understand it in this order, and that is enough.

Referring to these three natures, one can again give rise to "the three forbearances of non-arising" (three kinds of settled forbearing realization that "dharmas do not arise"): one, the root-nature forbearance-of-non-arising; two, the of-itself forbearance-of-non-arising; three, the delusion-and-suffering forbearance-of-non-arising. These three forbearances too take, in order, the three natures as the object they refer to — the root-nature forbearance-of-non-arising refers to the wholly-imagined (realizing that its root nature is from the start nothing), the of-itself forbearance-of-non-arising refers to the other-dependent (realizing that it has no self-nature arising of itself, but rests wholly on the many conditions), and the delusion-and-suffering forbearance-of-non-arising refers to the perfectly-accomplished (realizing that delusion and suffering are from the start non-arising).

How again do these three natures subsume "the two truths" (the conventional truth and the ultimate truth)? It should be known: on the side of "the conventional truth," all three natures have a share (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished each take a portion at this conventional level); on the side of "the ultimate truth," it is only the perfectly-accomplished nature.

The side of "the conventional" again divides into three layers: one, the conventional-of-the-merely-set-up (that is, the wholly-imagined, which is purely set up by convention); two, the conventional-of-the-formations (that is, the other-dependent, the layer of the formations' arising-and-perishing); three, the conventional-of-the-disclosed (that is, the perfectly-accomplished, the layer that, at the conventional level, lays the real bare) — these three layers, in order, are just those three natures.

The side of "the ultimate" too divides into three layers, the difference lying in how the two words "ultimate" (勝) and "meaning" (義) pair up: one, the meaning-ultimate (that is, suchness — the "meaning" of the "ultimate," that is, the very meaning-principle of that supreme dharma); two, the attainment-ultimate (that is, nirvāṇa — here the "ultimate" just is the "meaning," the supreme fruit attained being itself the meaning); three, the conduct-ultimate (that is, the holy path — here the "ultimate" is the meaning toward which the "conduct" heads, that is, the conduct that can lead through to the supreme). Because these three layers are all "unchanging and uninverted," they all, according to their several cases, fall within the perfectly-accomplished nature.

14. The three natures with the wisdom-fields they belong to, the conventional and the real, the different and the not-different

These three natures are each referred to by which kind of wisdom? "The wholly-imagined" is not at all an object referred to by "wisdom" (because it has no substance of its own and cannot serve as an object-support condition); only, the foolish grasp it as existent and the holy ones penetrate it to be in fact non-existent, and on just this much it may, just barely, be said to be a "object" of the ordinary person's cognition and of the holy one's cognition.

"The other-dependent nature" is referred to by those two wisdoms, "the root wisdom and the subsequently-attained wisdom"; "the perfectly-accomplished nature" is only the object of the holy one's cognition (only the non-discriminating wisdom, 〔together with the subsequently-attained wisdom,〕 can reach it as object).

Among these three natures, how many are conventional, how many real? "The wholly-imagined," being purely set up by deluded fancy, may be called "conventional"; yet, thought through one layer deeper, it has neither substance nor mark, and so, strictly, it is in fact "neither conventional nor real" — because "the conventional" must lean upon "the real" in order to be set up at all, and the wholly-imagined has not even a real basis to lean upon (it does not even amount to the conventional).

"The other-dependent nature" has both a real and a conventional side: on the one side, by reason of such natures as "aggregation" (many things gathered into one, like a pot), "continuity" (one following the next without break, like a stream of water), and "stage" (the setting-up of some state, like time), it is said to be "conventionally existent" (these are all conventionally set-up dharmas); on the other side, by reason of "mind, mental factors, and form" all being born of the many conditions, it is said to be "really existent." It should be known: were there no really-existent dharma, the conventional dharma would vanish along with it — because the conventional dharma must lean upon a really-existent cause in order to be set up at all.

"The perfectly-accomplished nature" is only really existent — because it is not set up by leaning upon other conditions (suchness is just so of itself, not something waited on the many conditions to be conjured out).

Are these three natures, one to another, different, or not-different? It should be said "neither" (neither different, nor not-different): on the one hand, the three natures have no substances separate one from another (on this point they are "not-different"); on the other hand, the three layers of sense — "deluded grasping" (the wholly-imagined), "dependent arising" (the other-dependent), and "the real meaning" (the perfectly-accomplished) — are each distinct (on this point they are "not not-different").

The kinds and classes of meaning within these three natures are more than can be told; only for fear the wording grow too verbose, and the reader weary of it, the foregoing has merely pointed up, in brief, the main heads and the gist.

B. Reconciling the Three Non-Self-Natures (v23–24)

〔Q〕 Someone raises a doubt: just above, you spoke of three "natures" really being there (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — these three kinds of nature that dharmas have); so why does the World-Honored One then say "all dharmas are altogether without self-nature"? Do not these two statements slap each other in the face, contradicting one another front and back?

〔A〕 In fact the two statements do not contradict. It is precisely "in dependence on" those three natures spoken of before that the World-Honored One turned back and set up these "three non-self-natures" spoken of after — that is, "the mark-less-ness, the arising-less-ness, and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness," these three kinds of "being without self-nature." Put another way: this talk of "non-self-nature" is spoken hugging close to the "three natures"; it is not some separate system raised up to work against them. So when the Buddha says "all dharmas are altogether without self-nature," it is a "hidden-intent" way of speaking (there is an intent hidden within the words, and it is not as plain as the letter says); he is not saying that the natures of dharmas are one and all empty, that there is simply nothing at all. This is the sense of the verse "just in dependence on these three natures, those three non-self-natures are set up; hence the Buddha, with hidden intent, says all dharmas are without nature."

Here the word "hidden intent" is used precisely to point out: when the Buddha says "all dharmas are without nature," this saying is not "the definitive meaning" — that is, it is not a final, ultimate statement that takes the words to the bottom and counts them straight at face value; rather, there is a further layer of intent hidden inside. Why say so? Because the latter two natures (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished) are not in themselves without substance, are not empty; yet, just so, there are certain muddled people (the foolish) who, upon these two naturally-existent dharmas, must needs "pile something on" (superimpose), fancying that inside there really and truly is a "self," really and truly is an independent "dharma"-self-nature — and this clinging, fitted on out of thin air, is called "the wholly-imagined." It is to break this clinging that the Buddha simply takes "the existent" (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, these two that have substance) and "the non-existent" (the wholly-imagined, which is empty to begin with) together, and says, in one phrase, all of it "without nature" — using the single phrase "all dharmas are without nature" to ward off all that needs warding off. (In truth these three "non-self-natures" each say their own thing; it is not that the substance of dharmas has really been negated away entirely.)

1. The three non-self-natures set up one by one (v24)

So how, exactly, "in dependence on" these three natures, are those three non-self-natures set up? Let us take them one by one.

(a) In dependence on the first nature, namely "the wholly-imagined," the "mark-less-ness" is set up (this dharma's "mark" is not there). Why? Because this thing, the wholly-imagined, is from the root only a deluded fancy added on out of thin air; its substance, its mark, when all is said, simply does not exist at all — just like a flower seen in the sky (it is only because the eyes are dazzled that the flower is seen; in fact there is no flower up in the sky). This is the sense of the verse "the first is the mark-less-ness."

(b) In dependence on the second nature, namely "the other-dependent," the "arising-less-ness" is set up (this dharma's "arising" has no real self-nature). "The other-dependent," as the name itself says, is a dharma that "arises only by leaning on other conditions (a host of conditions)" — just like something conjured up by a magic trick: it must gather a whole set of conditions before it can show forth, and is not something that was just so of itself from the start, standing on its own without leaning on anything. It does not have that nature "such as the ordinary man deludedly imagines — born of itself, inborn, awaiting no conditions"; and so the Buddha "borrows a way of speaking" and says it is "without self-nature" — this is only said following the one point that "it cannot give birth to itself," and is not to say that the substance of this other-dependent dharma is one and all empty. This is the sense of the verse "the next, the absence of a spontaneous nature" ("spontaneous" meaning "born of itself, inborn, leaning on no conditions").

(c) In dependence on the third nature, namely "the perfectly-accomplished," the "ultimate-meaning-less-ness" is set up (at the level of the highest truth it is said to be without self-nature). You must realize: this "ultimate meaning" refers precisely to the perfectly-accomplished — the reason it gets spoken of as "without nature" is that it itself is precisely "apart from that 'self' and 'dharma'-self-nature which the former wholly-imagined forcibly added on" (the perfectly-accomplished is just that reality which shows forth once the wholly-imagined self and dharmas have all been scrubbed clean away). So this "without nature" too is only a borrowed way of speaking, said hugging close to the one point that "it has come apart from the wholly-imagined's deluded clinging," and is not to say that the substance of this perfectly-accomplished dharma is empty, that there is nothing at all. This is the sense of the verse "the last, by being apart from the former — the self- and dharma-nature [the foolish] grasp" ("the last" referring to the perfectly-accomplished; "apart from the self- and dharma-nature the former grasps" meaning the coming-apart from the self- and dharma-self-nature of the former wholly-imagined).

Take a comparison to feel into this principle. It is just like that boundless stretch of empty space: although it pervades everywhere — every color and shape (the host of forms) of thing it can hold, and everywhere it is present — yet what is empty space itself? Empty space is precisely that vacant openness which "the absence of all these colors and shapes" (the non-nature of the host of forms) discloses — you must first see that "here there is no real thing" before you can make out empty space. The perfectly-accomplished's "ultimate-meaning-less-ness" is just so: it is precisely that reality which shows forth once "the self and dharmas of the wholly-imagined's deluded clinging have all been come apart from, scrubbed clean away" — you must first empty out the deluded clinging before the reality can show forth.

Here one more sentence must be added, to settle clearly a place that is easy to confuse. In truth the "other-dependent" itself, although it "does not count as the ultimate meaning" (it is only a condition-arisen dharma, not the highest truth), can yet, looked at from another angle, be said — because upon the other-dependent too "there is no such self-nature as the wholly-imagined deludedly clings to" — to be, by a stretch, a kind of "ultimate-meaning-less-ness." Only, to speak this way would tangle it up with the second one before, "the arising-less-ness" (which also speaks of the other-dependent), so that the two could not be told apart. To avoid this confusion, this way of speaking is here not adopted — the name "ultimate-meaning-less-ness" is set up pointing only to "the perfectly-accomplished," and is not carried over to speak of the other-dependent.

C. Showing the true nature of consciousness-only (expounding the twenty-fifth verse, the true nature of consciousness-only)

1. Expounding the first three lines (this supreme meaning of all dharmas is precisely suchness, since it is always just as its own nature is)

The "nature" spoken of here is just the perfectly-accomplished nature spoken of before — that is, suchness. Why is it called "the supreme meaning of all dharmas"? Because it is the most ultimate, most excellent principle of all dharmas (the ultimate truth = the most excellent truth). But the term "ultimate truth," looked at closely, has four levels, each higher than the last. The first level is called "the worldly supreme meaning," and means the aggregates, the bases, the elements, and the like — these, though they still fall within the world, already count, beside the trivial worldly affairs of ordinary people, as a principle one level higher. The second level is called "the supreme meaning of principle," and means the four truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation, the path. The third level is called "the realized supreme meaning," and means the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses, "the emptiness of persons and the emptiness of dharmas" (which one sees only by realizing it for oneself in practice). The fourth level is called "the supreme of the supreme," and means "the one true dharma-realm" — this is the highest level, the very supreme even among the supreme meanings.

Now, when the verse says "the supreme meaning of all dharmas," which of the four levels above does it mean? It means that very last one (the supreme of the supreme, that is, the one true dharma-realm). Why take only the last level? Because this level alone is the realm that "the most excellent path" (meaning the path of non-discriminating wisdom, into which no concept or discrimination is mixed) reaches for itself, sees for itself. The author of the treatise puts it this way on purpose, precisely in order to set aside the former three levels, lest the reader mistake the verse's "supreme meaning" for a loose reference to those three ordinary levels; and so he marks it out: "this is the supreme meaning of all dharmas (meaning that highest level)."

This "supreme meaning of all dharmas," put under another name, is just "suchness." The two characters "suchness" can be unpacked one by one: "true" carries the sense of really-real, telling us that it is not in the least false, not something falsely taken to be there; "so" carries the sense of "always one and the same," telling us that it never changes, never one way today and another tomorrow. Put together: this really-real thing, in whatever stage, whatever situation, forever keeps its own original look (and this is exactly what the verse means by "since it is always just as its own nature is"), and so it is given the name "suchness." In a word, "suchness" means "clear and limpid, solidly real, not false in the least."

The character "also" in the verse's "is precisely suchness" — that "also" (also, again) — is put there with a purpose: it hints that this same one "nature," besides "suchness," has several other names. For instance, it can also be called "the dharma-realm," called "the reality-limit," and so on. These names each call the one same thing from one angle; as for just which sense each name takes, the other treatises explain it in full, distinguishing one from another, and we need not spread it all out here.

2. Expounding the fourth line (it is precisely the true reality of consciousness-only)

This "nature" is also what the verse's last line calls "the true reality of consciousness-only" (the real nature of consciousness-only). Here something must be noticed: "the nature of consciousness-only" is in fact of two kinds, and these must be told apart. The first is the "delusive" nature of consciousness-only, meaning the wholly-imagined nature — this is that whole apparatus the ordinary being heaps up by random discrimination and forcibly fastens on; one must realize that even the thought "everything is only consciousness," if it is grasped with delusive discrimination, still belongs to the delusive side. The second is the truly "real" nature of consciousness-only, meaning the perfectly-accomplished nature. The reason the verse deliberately adds the character "true," saying "consciousness-only's 'true' reality," is precisely to set aside that former, "delusive" kind, and to mark out that what is spoken of here is the real one.

From another angle, the nature of consciousness-only can be divided into two kinds again. The first is the "conventional" nature of consciousness-only, meaning the other-dependent nature — this is that layer which comes to arise only when a host of causes and conditions are gathered together; though it is not false, it is still a worldly dharma that has arising and ceasing. The second is the "supreme-meaning" nature of consciousness-only, meaning, again, the perfectly-accomplished nature. So the character "true" the verse adds, this time, is meant to set aside the "conventional" kind too (the other-dependent), and to mark out: what truly counts as "the true reality of consciousness-only" takes only this supreme-meaning kind — that is, the perfectly-accomplished nature. (Before, the character "true" set aside the delusive wholly-imagined; here the character "true" sets aside the conventional other-dependent; with both sides set aside, all that remains is this one, the perfectly-accomplished.)

3. The general intent of verses twenty-three to twenty-five

Finally, taking these three verses (the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth) together, what they mean to say is one overall point: in quite a few scriptures the Buddha says "all dharmas have no self-nature," but this saying is not a teaching that pushes the principle through to the bottom, all the way, a "definitive" teaching; it is spoken this way because "there is a further intent" behind it (the Buddha, aiming at the ordinary being's grasping, deliberately speaks thus to break that grasping, and does not mean the words at face value). So one who really has discernment should not seize on the four words "no self-nature" and thereupon insist flatly that all dharmas are one and all empty, with no self-nature whatsoever. One must realize: of the three natures, two — the other-dependent nature and the perfectly-accomplished nature — are in fact not non-existent; the one that is truly "non-existent" is only the wholly-imagined that the ordinary being forcibly fastens on, and that alone.