成唯識論 白話全本 · 冊5

〔The verse expounded〕

---

A. Clarifying the stages of consciousness-only (the general statement)

By now the "marks" and the "nature" of consciousness-only have already been set up — "marks" pointing to that consciousness-mark of the other-dependent (all phenomena are in fact manifested by consciousness), and "nature" pointing to the true nature of the perfectly-accomplished (that real nature lying beneath these phenomena). What comes next, then, is to ask three things: who is it that can enter and awaken? how many stages must one pass through? and how does one enter and awaken? The answer is: it must be one who possesses the Great Vehicle's two kinds of lineage (the capacity for buddhahood) who is able, roughly through five stages, to enter and awaken step by step.

So which two are the Great Vehicle's two kinds of lineage? The first is called the "naturally-abiding lineage" — meaning: that uncontaminated dharma-cause which, from beginningless time, has clung within the root consciousness (that is, the ālaya-consciousness, the eighth consciousness), borne of itself, inborn (that is, the uncontaminated seeds one has innately, from the start — this is the capital of buddhahood). The second is called the "developed lineage" — meaning: that which, after one has heard the teaching of the "outflow of the dharma-realm" (the buddha-dharma flowing forth from the source of truth), is slowly nurtured by the perfuming of this hearing and reflecting (that is, the uncontaminated seeds perfumed in later by hearing the buddha-dharma). Only when one has made ready both of these Great Vehicle lineages can one enter and awaken to consciousness-only step by step.

And which five are the five stages of entering and awakening to consciousness-only? The first is the "stage of provisions" — that is, cultivating, within the Great Vehicle, the "share conducive to liberation" (the wholesome roots gathered step by step toward liberation, like laying in grain and fodder before setting out on a far journey). The second is the "stage of preparatory effort" — that is, cultivating the "share conducive to determination" (the wholesome roots of that stretch of added, applied effort right before, walking step by step toward true discernment, one is about to reach the path-of-seeing). The third is the "stage of penetration" — that is, the "path-of-seeing" in which the bodhisattvas abide (the stage of seeing the truth in person for the first time). The fourth is the "stage of cultivation" — that is, the "path-of-cultivation" in which the bodhisattvas abide (the stage where, after the path-of-seeing, one cultivates without cease, grinding away the habit-energy). The fifth is the "ultimate stage" — that is, abiding in "unsurpassed perfect bodhi" (that is, the perfected buddha-fruit).

So how does one enter and awaken to consciousness-only step by step? Toward the "marks" and "nature" of consciousness-only, the bodhisattva walks it stage by stage like this: at the stage of provisions, he is able to give rise to deep faith and understanding toward it (he can trust it, and can think it through); reaching the stage of preparatory effort, he is able slowly to press down and subdue both the "grasped" (the side taken as the object) and the "grasper" (the side that reaches out to it), and to draw forth the "true vision" (that path-of-seeing wisdom of genuinely seeing the truth in person); reaching the stage of penetration, he then penetrates it in accord with reality (this time he has truly realized it); reaching the stage of cultivation, he follows the very principle he saw at the path-of-seeing and cultivates it over and over, slowly subduing and severing the various remaining obstructions; and reaching the ultimate stage, he emerges utterly from all obstruction, perfect and luminous, able to the very end of future time to teach and transform all the kinds of sentient beings, again leading them to enter and awaken to the marks and nature of consciousness-only.

---

B. The stage of provisions

〔The question is raised〕

The first stage, the "stage of provisions" — what does it look like?

〔The verse is cited in answer〕

(Counting from the very moment one rouses the firm and deep great-bodhi mind) all the way until the "consciousness" of the determination-conducive has "not yet arisen" (that is, before that kind of wisdom in the stage of preparatory effort that can make a true discernment) — in this span, every person who single-mindedly "seeks to abide" in the "true ultimate-meaning nature of consciousness-only" (that real nature disclosed by consciousness-only) is, with regard to the "latent dispositions of the two graspings" (the seeds of the afflictive and cognitive obstructions drawn forth by the grasped and the grasper, that lurking force of defilement lying dormant), "still unable to subdue or extinguish them."

〔The prose exposition · the point-by-point exposition of the verse text〕

The treatise says: from "rousing the firm and deep great-bodhi mind" onward, all the way until the "consciousness conducive to determination" (that kind of wisdom in the stage of preparatory effort that can make a discernment) has not yet arisen — this whole stretch, every person who single-mindedly seeks to abide in the "true ultimate-meaning nature of consciousness-only," up to here (that is, within the bounds of this stretch), is all gathered under the "stage of provisions." Why is it called "provisions"? Because he is walking toward unsurpassed perfect bodhi (buddhahood), and along the way he cultivates and gathers all kinds of excellent capital (that is, the two provisions of "merit" and "wisdom," like laying in travel-money and dry rations before setting out). And again, because it is for the sake of benefiting sentient beings that he so strives to seek liberation, this stage is also named the "share conducive to liberation" (that share of wholesome root that, step by step, accords with and heads toward liberation).

The bodhisattva at this stage works by four kinds of excellent power: first, "cause" (that is, the lineage-power he was born with, the inborn capacity); second, "good friend" (that is, the good spiritual mentor, the teacher and companion who shows the way); third, "attention" (that is, reasoned reflection, applying the mind in accord with right principle); and fourth, "provisions" (that is, the twin store of merit and wisdom). By these four powers, though he can give deep faith and deep understanding to the principle of consciousness-only, he is still not able to truly see through the fact that "the grasper" and "the grasped" are both empty; for the most part he is still at the "outer gate" cultivating the bodhisattva practice (that is, still working outside the door, not yet truly entering the inner realization). So with regard to the latent disposition drawn forth by the two graspings (the dormant, lurking seed-defilement that follows one about), he as yet has no power to subdue and extinguish it, no way to keep the "active manifestation" of those two graspings (the present, arisen activity) from cropping up.

The word "two graspings" used here points to the "grasping of the two graspings" — that is, that very force of "reaching out to grasp," the clinging itself; because it clings hard to "the grasper" (the side that reaches out to its object) and "the grasped" (the side taken as object), taking both as really existent, it is called "the two graspings." And "the habit-energy left behind by the two graspings" (the dormant force perfumed by clinging again and again) is called "their latent disposition." Why "latent disposition"? Because it shows three faces: first, "following" — it always trails after the sentient being and cannot be shaken off; second, "dormant" — it lurks, asleep, within the storehouse-consciousness (that is, the ālaya-consciousness, the eighth consciousness); third, it goes on, with the drift, to nurse its fault to greater size. Put together, it is called "latent disposition." This latent disposition, said plainly, is just the seeds of the two obstructions, the "cognitive obstruction" and the "afflictive obstruction."

First, the "afflictive obstruction." What is it? It is clinging stubbornly to a "wholly-imagined real self" — that is, taking what is in truth conjured and fabricated out of empty reckoning, that "self," to be really there. At the head of this clinging stands the "view of the perishable composite" (that is, the body-view, the mistaken view that takes this body-and-mind to be a "self"); and along with it go the one hundred twenty-eight "root afflictions," together with the various "secondary afflictions" that flow on from these root afflictions (the lesser afflictions that arise in their train). All of this heap disturbs and torments the body and mind of sentient beings and blocks the road to nirvāṇa — so it is called the "afflictive obstruction."

Next, the "cognitive obstruction." It is clinging stubbornly to a "wholly-imagined real dharma" — that is, taking those "dharmas" (the various things and phenomena) that are in truth conjured out of empty reckoning to be really there. At the head of this clinging too stands the "view of the perishable composite," and along with it go view, doubt, ignorance, craving, hatred (anger), conceit, and the rest. Its harm is this: it covers over the "un-inverted," true face that the "knowable object" (that is, all the objects we are able to cognize) originally has (so that you cannot recognize things as they really are), and in this way it blocks the road to bodhi (awakening) — so it is called the "cognitive obstruction."

This "cognitive obstruction" definitely does not arise together with the "maturation-consciousness" (that is, the eighth consciousness). There are three reasons: first, the substance of this maturation-consciousness is too faint, too dull, and cannot uphold the cognitive obstruction; second, it is associated with neither ignorance nor [discriminating] wisdom (the cognitive obstruction needs these to arise, and the maturation-consciousness does not partner with them); third, what truly can arise together with the maturation-consciousness is the "class of dharma-emptiness wisdom" (that uncontaminated wisdom which contemplates that "dharmas too are empty"), and this wisdom is precisely the opposite of the cognitive obstruction — because the maturation-consciousness can carry through all the way to the uncontaminated stage, its very character runs counter to the cognitive obstruction, and so the two do not fit together.

So how is the cognitive obstruction distributed within the "seven evolving consciousnesses" (that is, the first six consciousnesses plus the seventh, the manas — these seven consciousnesses that give rise to activity)? Following the case of each consciousness, in some it is more and in some it is less; the way it is distributed is much like the way the afflictions were said [to be distributed] above. Concretely: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body — these first five consciousnesses — since they have no discriminating function (they only directly sense, and do not go on to think), the "view that clings to dharmas" and "doubt" and the like definitely cannot attach to these five consciousnesses; as for the remaining [parts of] the cognitive obstruction (those besides view and doubt), they can all be drawn up by the power of the "mind-consciousness" (the sixth consciousness).

This cognitive obstruction partners only with the two minds, the "non-wholesome" (the bad) and the "indeterminate" (the neither-good-nor-bad, the neutral), and does not partner with the "wholesome" mind. Why? There are two reasons: first, the treatise has said that ignorance runs only through the two natures, "non-wholesome" and "indeterminate," and does not run through the wholesome nature (the cognitive obstruction has ignorance as its mainstay, so it too reaches only these two natures); second, "delusion" (that is, ignorance) cannot fit together with the wholesome mental factors of the "non-delusion" sort — "non-delusion" is wholesome, so the cognitive obstruction will not fall over onto the wholesome side.

Wherever there is the afflictive obstruction, this cognitive obstruction is surely there too — because the afflictive obstruction must take the cognitive obstruction for its base, its support (the cognitive obstruction lies underneath, and only then can the afflictive obstruction stand up). Though the "substance" of these two obstructions (the thing itself) has no real difference, their "function" (the effect they exert, what they accomplish) does differ. Just because of this, these two latent dispositions (the afflictive obstruction's and the cognitive obstruction's), facing the holy path (the countering power of cultivation), are the one easy to counter and the other hard to counter, the one strong and the other weak; and when these defilements are severed, there is a before-and-after sequence to it (they are not severed all at once).

The "unobscured-indeterminate" nature divides below into four kinds, and this cognitive obstruction falls only within the one kind "maturation-born," not in the other three (that is, not in "deportment-path" — the postures of walking, standing, sitting, lying; not in "craft-skill" — the practice of arts and techniques; and not in "transformation-mind" — the conjurings of supernormal power). Why only in this one kind, maturation-born? Because the force of those three kinds, deportment, craft, and transformation, is all too weak — too weak to cover the knowable or to block bodhi, and so cannot uphold the cognitive obstruction; only this kind, maturation-born, has weight enough. Besides, the reason it is still here called "unobscured" is that this is said with respect to the "two vehicles" (the hearers and the privately-awakened) — for the two vehicles, the cognitive obstruction only blocks their wisdom, and does not block their realizing nirvāṇa, so with respect to the two vehicles it is called "unobscured" (not covering); yet shift to speaking of it with respect to the "bodhisattva," and it turns into "obscured" (covering) — because it does indeed block the bodhisattva's bodhi (the road to buddhahood).

〔Challenge〕 Someone asks: since the cognitive obstruction also has "view" and "doubt" and such things in it, why does the "scripture" call the seed of this cognitive obstruction the "dwelling-ground of ignorance," as if there were nothing in it but ignorance? 〔Answer〕 The reply is: it is because "ignorance" holds the largest, the most prominent, share within it, and so it is taken as the representative and summarily named "ignorance" — not that there are no view, doubt, and such within. A comparison makes it plain: scripture divides the seeds of the afflictions into the "four dwelling-grounds," "view-in-one-place," "craving for the desire[-realm]," "craving for the form[-realm]," and "craving for [continued] existence" (four strongholds of affliction) — does that mean these four strongholds have no more conceit, no ignorance, and such within them? Of course not — it is only that the one of largest share is picked out to give the name. The cognitive obstruction's being called "dwelling-ground of ignorance" works on this very same principle.

These two obstructions, the afflictive and the cognitive, each further divide into two halves: one half is "discriminatively-arisen" (that is, stirred up later by a wrong teacher, a wrong teaching, or by one's own turning-it-over and reckoning), and this half can be severed already at the "path-of-seeing," called "what is severed by seeing"; the other half is "spontaneously-arisen" (that is, inborn, needing no learning, cropping up of itself, naturally), and this half can be severed only at the "path-of-cultivation," called "what is severed by cultivation." Next, as to the capacity for severing the obstructions: the two vehicles (hearers and privately-awakened) can sever only the one obstruction, the "afflictive obstruction," whereas the bodhisattva severs both obstructions together. And one must keep apart two distinct matters, "severing forever" and "suppressing": to "sever these two obstructions root and branch, forever," only the "holy path" (that is, the uncontaminated path, the truly supramundane cultivation) can manage; but as for merely "pressing down" the "active manifestation" of these two obstructions (the activity cropping up here and now) for a time, even the "contaminated path" (the still-mundane, affliction-bearing cultivation, such as ordinary meditative absorption) can manage that.

The bodhisattva abiding in this stage of provisions, with regard to those of the two graspings that are "coarse, plainly-showing active manifestation" (the part of the activity that is easy to see, easy to catch hold of), is already able to press some down; but with regard to those that are "subtle," together with the "two latent dispositions" (the seeds lurking beneath), it is just because his powers of calming (concentration) and contemplation (wisdom) are still too weak that he is not yet able to subdue and extinguish them.

〔Distinguishing the stage, the practice〕

This stage of provisions has not yet truly realized the suchness of consciousness-only (has not yet seen that real nature in person); what he relies on is the power of "resolute faith" (a particularly strong, particularly firm faith-and-understanding) to cultivate the various excellent practices. So one must understand that this stage too is gathered under the "ground of resolute-faith-and-practice" (that is, the stage of acting on the strength of faith-and-understanding, still at understanding and practice, not yet at realization). And what do these excellent practices he cultivates look like? Roughly, they fall into two kinds: one kind is "merit," the other "wisdom." How to tell them apart? Whatever practices have "[discerning] wisdom" for their essence are all put under "wisdom"; the rest are all counted as "merit."

Take the "six perfections" (the six pāramitās — giving, moral discipline, forbearance, vigor, meditative absorption, and wisdom, the six practices that cross to the far shore). They can be looked at from two angles. Looked at by the "general aspect" (that is, the rough, overall angle), each of these six in fact runs through both merit and wisdom. But looked at by the "particular aspect" (taking them one by one), there are two ways to divide them: the first way is — the first five (giving, moral discipline, forbearance, vigor, meditative absorption) count as "merit," and the sixth (wisdom) counts as "wisdom"; the other way is — the first three (giving, moral discipline, forbearance) count only as "merit," the last one (wisdom) counts only as "wisdom," and the remaining two (vigor, meditative absorption) run through both merit and wisdom.

These excellent practices can also be divided, from yet another angle, into two more kinds: one kind is "self-benefit" (benefiting oneself), the other "other-benefit" (benefiting others). This too is to be looked at from two angles. Looked at by the force of "intent-and-aspiration" (that is, the resolve, the wish in the heart), every single one of these excellent practices is in fact both self-benefiting and other-benefiting (it turns on what intent you hold). But looked at by the "particular aspect" (taking them one by one), they fall into their places: things like the "six crossings-to-the-far-shore" (that is, the six perfections) and the "bodhi-shares" (that is, the thirty-seven aids to the path, the thirty-seven kinds of practice heading toward awakening) are put under "self-benefiting practice"; while things like the "four means of gathering" (giving, kind speech, beneficial conduct, working alongside — these four ways of drawing in sentient beings) and the "four immeasurables" (loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity, these four immeasurable minds) are all, without exception, put under "other-benefiting practice." The kinds of practice that divide out in this way are beyond all numbering — every one of them is among the excellent practices cultivated at this stage of provisions.

At this stage, though neither of the two obstructions has yet been subdued, the bodhisattva, while cultivating the excellent practices, will run into the "three discouragements" (three situations that make the heart sink and tempt one to beat a retreat); but he is able to use "three matters" to train and temper his mind, so that toward the fruit he is to realize and the practice he is to cultivate he stays valiant and does not flinch. Below they are taken one by one.

The first: hearing that "unsurpassed perfect bodhi" (buddhahood) is so vast, so deep and far, the heart sinks and he wants to retreat (feeling, "how could I ever cultivate to so lofty a thing"). The remedy is: to bring to mind "the examples of others who have already realized great bodhi" (others became buddhas — why can't I?), and with this train and temper his own mind to be valiant and not flinch.

The second: hearing that "the perfections of giving and so on" (those practices of the six perfections) are so hard to cultivate, the heart sinks and again he wants to retreat (feeling, "this is so hard, I'm not up to it"). The remedy is: to turn and examine his own resolve — in fact this aspiration of mine is quite able to cultivate giving and the rest (looking back, he finds he can do it after all) — and with this train and temper his own mind to be valiant and not flinch.

The third: hearing that "the buddhas' perfect transformation-of-the-basis" (that is, casting off the two obstructions root and branch and winning bodhi and nirvāṇa, that ultimate, thoroughgoing reversal-attainment) is exceedingly hard to realize, the heart sinks and still he wants to retreat (feeling, "so perfect a state has nothing to do with the likes of me"). The remedy is: to take "others' coarse, shallow good deeds" and measure them against his own "subtle, fine good cause" — if even others' coarse, shallow good deeds can call forth a good fruit, how much more this subtle, fine good cause of mine (the cause being planted is finer — how could it fail to bear fruit?) — and with this train and temper his own mind to be valiant and not flinch. By these three matters tempering his mind again and again, the mind grows firm and ardent, and he cultivates the various excellent practices.

---

C. The stage of applied practice

〔The question raised〕

Next, the second [stage], the "stage of applied practice," is taken up. What does it look like?

〔The verse given in answer〕

The verse means: the bodhisattva, "before his eyes," has set up a "little thing" (that is, he still bears a trace of a mark), and is convinced in his mind that "this, now, is the nature of consciousness-only" — yet because at this point he still "has something attained" (that is, in his mind there is still a self that does the attaining and an object that gets attained, neither emptied out), he in fact "does not really abide in consciousness-only."

〔The long-prose exposition · disclosing why the stage is so〕

The treatise says it this way: across that very first long stretch of incalculable time at the outset (that is, the first incalculable eon, the first great phase of the practice), the bodhisattva carefully prepared and laid in the two stores of capital, "merit" and "wisdom." Once the "partial conformable to liberation" (that is, the root of good cultivated earlier in the stage of provisioning, the share that conforms to the direction of liberation) had been brought to completion, then, in order to be able to enter the path of seeing and to abide in the nature of consciousness-only, he put in a further effort to cultivate "applied practice," pressing down and removing the "two graspings" (that is, the two attachments, "clinging to there being a grasping self and a grasped object"). This applied practice is precisely the four stations "heat, summit, forbearance, the supreme worldly dharma."

〔Explaining the stage's general name〕

These four stations (heat, summit, forbearance, the supreme worldly dharma) taken together have a general name, called "the partials conformable to penetrating discernment." Why are they so called? Because they are "the share that conforms to and tends toward the 'true penetrating discernment'" — the "true penetrating discernment" spoken of here refers to the judging and deciding made by that undefiled wisdom of the path of seeing; and these four stations conform precisely to it, heading toward it. Again, because these four stations are already very near the path of seeing, the name "applied practice" was specially fastened to them. This is not to say that the earlier stage of provisioning had no sense of applied practice — the stage of provisioning in fact also has applied practice; it is only that this stage is the nearest to the path of seeing, and so the name "applied practice" was given to it alone.

〔Setting out the dharmas cultivated in the stage〕

The four stations "heat" and the rest are set up by leaning on the earlier-and-later, shallower-and-deeper [degrees] of two sets of contemplation-method, "the four searchings" and "the four wisdoms of reality-as-it-is." First, what four are "the four searchings"? They are to seek out and consider the four things "name, meaning, self-nature, difference," and to see that they are all "conventionally existent but really non-existent" — that is, they are all merely set up at will by people, and there is in fact no real thing standing there. Next, "the four wisdoms of reality-as-it-is": when you "see clearly, as-it-is and thoroughly" that these four things, far from existing once consciousness is left aside (there being no substance standing on its own outside consciousness), even the seeing mind-consciousness itself is not really existent — the wisdom at this point is named "the four wisdoms of reality-as-it-is."

Here a word is needed on why they are called "four": "name" (the name of a thing) and "meaning" (the thing pointed at under the name) — these two are different in look, and so each must be sought out separately — that already makes two. As for "self-nature" (the essential nature of a thing) and "difference" (where it differs from other things) — these two are the same upon "name" and upon "meaning," and so they can be considered together as one: upon "name" one considers its self-nature and difference, and upon "meaning" too one considers its self-nature and difference; thus one name and one meaning, each carrying self-nature and difference, together make up exactly "the four searchings."

〔Explaining the names of the four grounds〕

The first station, the "station of heat," is set up like this: leaning on a concentration called "the attaining-illumination concentration," he rouses "the lower-grade searching" (that is, an initial, shallower seeking-out), and contemplates that "there is no truly graspable object" (that is, the grasped object is not really and solidly there) — and this is set up as the "station of heat." In this station, the bodhisattva for the very first time (this is the first occasion) sees clearly: the side of "the grasped" — that is, the four things, name, meaning, self-nature, difference — are all transformed out of his own mind, are conventionally set up, and in fact cannot be laid hold of or attained at all. Why is it called "attaining illumination"? Because at this point he gains, for the first time, that faint forerunning sign of the "sun of wisdom" (wisdom being likened to the sun) about to come out — just as, before the sun rises, there first appears a single thread of dawn-light — and so it is called "attaining illumination" (the light of wisdom is first attained). And why is it also called "heat"? Because what is gained at this point is the faint forerunning sign of the "path-fire" (the noble path being likened to fire) about to blaze up — just as, before a fire arises, there is first a touch of warmth — and so it is also called "heat."

The second station, the "station of summit," is set up like this: leaning on a concentration called "the increasing-illumination concentration," he rouses "the upper-grade searching" (that is, a deeper seeking-out), and likewise contemplates that "there is no truly graspable object" — and this is set up as the "station of summit." In this station, the bodhisattva once again (this time repeatedly and more deeply) contemplates: the side of "the grasped" — name, meaning, self-nature, difference, these four things — are all transformed out of his own mind, are conventionally set up, and in fact cannot be laid hold of. Why is it called "increasing illumination"? Because at this point the light of wisdom has grown more abundant than at the station of heat, and so it is called "increasing illumination" (the light grows). And why is it called "summit"? Because the contemplation-method "searching," cultivated to this point, has already reached its peak — go any higher and one must switch over to the wisdom of reality-as-it-is — and so it is also called "summit" (like climbing to a mountain-top: searching reaches its utmost here).

The third station, the "station of forbearance," is set up like this: leaning on a concentration called "the sealing-conforming concentration," he rouses "the lower-grade wisdom of reality-as-it-is" (that is, an initial wisdom of reality-as-it-is); at this point, as to the fact that "there is no truly graspable object," he can already, dead-set and certain, settle it and hold it fast; and at the same time, as to the side that "there is also no truly grasping consciousness," he too begins to conform and to be willing to accept it. How is he able to conform as far as the step "the grasper too is empty"? The reasoning runs: since there is no real object that, apart from the grasping consciousness, could stand alone, how then could there be a real consciousness that, apart from the grasped object, could stand alone? Because the two, "the grasped" and "the grasper," are set up only in mutual dependence to begin with (you lean on me, I lean on you — neither can stand alone); the grasped being already emptied, the grasper naturally goes empty along with it.

Why does this station have the general name "station of forbearance," and also the name "sealing-conforming"? This is to be seen in two halves: on the one hand he "seals" — that is, he firmly settles "the emptiness of the grasped spoken of before"; on the other hand he "conforms" — that is, he conforms to and accepts "the emptiness of the grasper to be spoken of after." Putting this "sealing" and "conforming" together, it is the "forbearance" at this point (the power to bear, the power to accept), and so it is set up generally as the "station of forbearance." And because he is "sealing fast the emptiness of the grasped in front, conforming to the emptiness of the grasper behind," the two words "sealing" and "conforming" are taken, and it is called "sealing-conforming." And because he can bear the principle "the object too is empty, the consciousness too is empty," it is also called "forbearance."

The fourth station, "the supreme worldly dharma," is set up like this: leaning on a concentration called "the uninterrupted concentration," he rouses "the upper-grade wisdom of reality-as-it-is" (that is, the deepest wisdom of reality-as-it-is), and settles down together that "both graspings are empty" (the grasped empty, and the grasper too empty, these two) — and this is set up as "the supreme worldly dharma." Here the before and after must be kept clear: at the earlier station, "the upper forbearance," he had settled only the one side "the grasper is empty" (the emptiness of the grasped having long been settled by then; he was just then settling the emptiness of the grasper); now at this station, "the supreme worldly dharma," he settles the two emptinesses "the grasped is empty" and "the grasper is empty" together, no longer one before the other. Why is it called "uninterrupted"? Because from this station on, nothing further intervenes and the very next thing is that he certainly enters the path of seeing, and so it is called "uninterrupted" (no gap). And why is it again called "the supreme worldly dharma"? Because among all the states belonging to an "ordinary [worldling]" (that is, the common person who has not yet seen the path), this station is the highest and most excellent, and so it is called "the supreme worldly dharma" (the first-class dharma within the world).

〔Gathering up the above sense to explain the root verse's wording〕

Joining these four stations together and looking at them, the walk goes step by step like this: the two stations "heat, summit" still stand on the side of "the grasping consciousness" and from there contemplate that "the grasped is empty" (first emptying out the side of the grasped). At the "station of forbearance," it again divides into three small phases, before, middle, and after: when "the lower forbearance" first arises, he settles the mark "the object is empty" (that is, he first nails down the emptiness of the grasped); when "the middle forbearance" goes a step further, he sees that "the grasping consciousness" too, just like "the object," is empty (grasper and grasped alike, both empty), and so conforms to and is willing to accept this step; when "the upper forbearance" arises, he then settles that "the grasper is empty." Last, "the supreme worldly dharma" settles together the mark "the grasped and grasper, both empty." But mind this: these four stations are all still "bearing a mark" — that is, when they contemplate, the mind still carries a mark of "emptiness" or "existence" standing there, not yet swept clean through. Precisely because they bear a mark, they have not yet been able to truly realize directly (that is, they have not yet personally realized suchness).

So it is said: the bodhisattva, in these four stations, still sets up before his eyes a "little thing" (that is, he still bears a trace of a mark), convinced in his mind that "this, now, is the true ultimate-meaning nature of consciousness-only" — yet because at this point neither of the two marks "emptiness" and "existence" has yet been cleaned away, that mind that contemplates while bearing a mark still "has something attained" (still has something that does the attaining and something attained), and so he in fact does not really abide in "the true principle of consciousness-only." Only when those two marks "emptiness, existence" have both been extinguished away does he count as really abiding. It is on the strength of just this principle that there is, besides, a passage of verse that says:

This passage of verse means: the bodhisattva, while in concentration, sees that the image he takes as object is in fact only "mind" (manifested by consciousness-only; outside there is no real object). Once "the meaning-mark" (that is, the mark of the grasped object) has already been removed, he then contemplates carefully and sees: it was, after all, "only a notion within his own mind." Abiding thus in "the inner mind" (that is, abiding in consciousness-only), he first knows that "the grasped" is not really there, then knows that "the grasper" too is absent, and at the very last personally realizes "nothing attained" (the two sides, grasper and grasped, effaced together, with no longer anything that attains or is attained).

〔The stage where the two bonds are severed〕

This stage of applied practice still cannot manage to dispel "the bond of marks" — "the bond of marks" being the kind of bondage in which one is tied up by "the perceived-part" (that is, the object-marks that surface in the mind). It also cannot yet sever "the bond of coarse-heaviness" (the bondage in which one is tied up by those coarse, heavy seeds). What it can manage is only to press down the "discriminated-arising" two graspings (that is, the grasping-and-grasped attachment that gets perfumed up later through receiving false teaching and false views) — and why press down this one first? Because this discriminated-arising kind of two-grasping runs exactly against the path of seeing, and so it is pressed down first. As for the "innate-arising" two graspings (the kind that is inborn, naturally there of itself), and the "two latent tendencies" (that is, the lurking seeds of the affliction-obstruction and the obstruction-to-the-knowable), these this stage still cannot deal with. The reason is: the mind that contemplates at this stage is still "contaminated" (still carries defilement), still "has something attained," and still "has discrimination," and so it cannot even subdue them through, let alone sever and extinguish them.

〔Clarifying the object contemplated〕

The bodhisattva at this stage must learn to contemplate both "the established truths" and "the non-established truth." First, these two terms: "the established truths" refers to the mark of the four truths that is set up under headings and parceled out by differences (that is, taking suffering, origin, cessation, and the path one by one, set up and distinguished, and looking at them so); "the non-established truth" refers to the suchness-principle that has no differences, one undivided flavor. The bodhisattva contemplates both, with two purposes in mind: one, in order to draw out the future "two seeings" (that is, the true seeing and the resembling seeing at the path of seeing); two, in order to subdue the "discriminated-arising two obstructions" (the discriminated-arising affliction-obstruction and obstruction-to-the-knowable). Yet of these two, "the non-established truth" (that is, suchness) is what he "chiefly contemplates"; in this he is unlike the people of the two vehicles — for the two vehicles contemplate only "the established truths" (the four-truth marks one by one), and stop there.

〔Determining the support relied on〕

For the bodhisattva to rouse the roots of good of these four stations, heat and the rest, at the outset, in the preparatory phase (that is, the earlier groundwork phase of applied practice), any one of the four concentrations (the four dhyānas) may be taken up and cultivated; but to bring it to true completion, he must rely on "the fourth dhyāna" (that is, the fourth meditative absorption), and on it alone. Why must it be the fourth dhyāna and no other? Because to enter the path of seeing, one needs "a most powerful support," and of the four dhyānas the fourth has the steadiest, most serviceable concentration-power, and so one must rely on it.

〔The distinction of realms and destinies〕

These four roots of good, heat and the rest, can be roused only by relying on a body of "the desire-realm's good destinies" — and what is meant by a body of "the desire-realm's good destinies" is precisely the bodies of humans and gods, the good paths. Why will the other paths not do? Because, for the rest of those paths (such as the three evil paths, or places not as good as those of humans and gods), their "wisdom" and their "mind of disgust" are neither strong enough nor outstanding enough, and they cannot rouse such an applied practice.

〔The distinction of the seven stages〕

This stage of applied practice too is gathered within "the ground of understanding-and-practice" (the "ground of understanding-and-practice" being that stretch of standing where one is still "cultivating on the strength of understanding the principle, not yet truly realizing-and-entering"). Why is it gathered here? Because this stage has not yet truly realized "the true ultimate-meaning" of consciousness-only — like the earlier stage of provisioning, it is still only understanding-and-practice, with no true realizing-and-entering, and so the two are both gathered within the ground of understanding-and-practice.

---

D. The Stage of Penetrating Comprehension

〔The question raised〕

The previous stage having been treated, next comes the "stage of penetrating comprehension." What does this stage look like?

〔The verse given in answer〕

At what time is it that the bodhisattva, facing the object he refers to, finds that his "non-discriminating cognition" (the wisdom that raises no discrimination) has yet grasped nothing at all, has taken hold of nothing — at that time, and only then, does he count as truly abiding within consciousness-only. Why is it only then that he counts as such? Because by that time he has already set down both of the two marks, "grasper and grasped" (the one the side that reaches out to grasp, the other the side that is grasped).

〔The prose exposition · brief explanation of the present verse〕

The treatise says: when the bodhisattva faces the object he refers to and uses his "non-discriminating cognition" to illumine it, yet grasps nothing at all — that is, does not grasp any mark whatever, because he no longer takes hold of those manifold "marks of conceptual proliferation" (conceptual proliferation, meaning the various accounts and various marks piled up by discriminating delusion, which in fact do not correspond to reality) — at that time, and only then, is he named "truly abiding in the true-ultimate-meaning nature of consciousness-only." The sense of this saying is: the cognition that does the realizing and the suchness that is realized are, the two of them, "equal-and-even" — that is, cognition and suchness are no longer two; the referring side and the referred-to side merge into one suchness. Why can it be so? Because by this time the cognition has set down both "the grasper-mark and the grasped-mark." And to say it one layer deeper: "the grasper-mark" (the side that reaches out to grasp) and "the grasped-mark" (the side that is grasped) are in fact both fashioned by "discrimination," both the conceptual proliferation manifested by that "mind that apprehends something" — and precisely for this reason, only raising no discrimination and apprehending nothing connects up with suchness.

〔The broad treatment〕

〔As to whether this non-discriminating cognition does or does not have a mark-part and a seeing-part, there follow below three different accounts.〕 One account: this non-discriminating cognition has neither the "mark-part" (the side that is the image of the referred-to object) nor the "seeing-part" (the side that is the referring function) — both are absent. The reason: the treatise plainly says it "has no grasped-mark, no grasper-mark" — and since both grasper and grasped are now absent, the mark-part and seeing-part naturally efface themselves along with them.

A second account: this cognition has both "mark-part and seeing-part" present. Its reasons are three. First, whenever one says "refers to such-and-such an object," one must "arise bearing the image of that object" for it to count — that is, the mind must mirror forth the mark of that object before there can be talk of referring to it; were it possible to call something "referring to that object" without bearing that mark, then "the cognition referring to blue" might just as well be called "the cognition referring to sound"! In that case, what it refers to being this and what is said being that, everything would fall into confusion. So it can be seen that referring to suchness must after all bear a mark-part of suchness; hence there is a mark-part. Second, were there no "seeing-part" (the referring function), then it simply could not refer to anything at all — so how could it still be called "the cognition referring to suchness"? Hence there must be a seeing-part. Third, neither can one turn it around and let "suchness" itself become the "referring" side — for to say there is no seeing-part and yet say this cognition refers to suchness would make suchness refer to itself, which makes no sense. So one should concede: this cognition definitely has a "seeing-part," and along with it a mark-part as well.

A third account (and this account is the correct sense, which one ought to follow): this cognition has the "seeing-part present, the mark-part absent." Its reasons are three. First, the treatise says it "has a markless grasping, does not grasp a mark" — and since it does not grasp a mark, there is no mark-part; though it has a seeing-part, it raises no discrimination, and so it is said to be "not a grasper," yet this does not amount to "the very root of grasping being wholly absent" either (that non-discriminating seeing-part is still there; only one may not call it "a discriminating grasper"). Second, though it has no mark-part, one may still say this cognition "arises bearing the 'suchness-mark'" and has never departed from suchness — that is, it uses "suchness" to illumine "suchness," and is not bearing the mark of an outer object. Third, to draw a comparison: when the "self-witnessing part" (the part by which a consciousness turns back and witnesses itself) refers to the "seeing-part," it does so "without transforming-and-then-referring" — it does not separately transform out a mark-part, but illumines the seeing-part directly; this non-discriminating cognition should be just so, illumining suchness directly, transforming out no separate mark-part. Were it instead "transforming-and-then-referring" (separately transforming out a mark-part and then referring to it), it would no longer count as "direct realization" (witnessing in person, directly), and would then be just like the "subsequently-attained cognition" — a cognition that does raise discrimination (but this is the non-discriminating cognition, so it is not so). Therefore one ought to concede: this cognition "has the seeing-part, lacks the mark-part."

At the very last thought of the "stage of intensified effort" (that is, the thought of the "worldly-supreme dharma"), immediately following upon it, the moment this non-discriminating cognition arises, then and there it "embodies-and-meets," accords with, suchness — and so this stage is named the "stage of penetrating comprehension"; and because this is the first time he "illumines the true principle," it is also named the "path of seeing." But this path of seeing, said briefly, divides into two — one the "true path of seeing," one the "path of seeing in marks."

1. The true path of seeing

First, the "true path of seeing": it is just the "non-discriminating cognition" spoken of before. It truly realizes the "true principle disclosed by the two emptinesses" — "the two emptinesses" being the emptiness of self (there is no real self) and the emptiness of dharmas (there is no real dharma); emptying out these two graspings, at self and at dharmas, what is then disclosed is the true principle; and it truly severs "the discriminated latent dispositions of the two obstructions" — "the two obstructions" being the affliction-obstruction and the obstruction-to-the-knowable, and "the discriminated latent dispositions" being that class of defilement-seeds which are perfumed up after birth and lie hidden, not showing forth. This matter, though it takes many instants to be reckoned thoroughly complete, yet because these one-by-one instants are "alike in look, even before and after," is gathered up and "spoken of altogether as a single mind" (a single stretch of continuous, unbroken path-of-seeing mind).

〔Here there are two different accounts: as to the realizing of the two emptinesses and the severing of the two obstructions within the true path of seeing — is it done all at once, or done gradually?〕 One account: here the "two emptinesses" and the "two obstructions" are "realized gradually, severed gradually" — because the two emptinesses have a shallow and a deep, the two obstructions have a coarse and a fine, and since shallow-deep and coarse-fine differ, it must be done in order, step by step. A second account: here the "two emptinesses" and the "two obstructions" are "realized all at once, severed all at once" — because at this time the bodhisattva's "resolve" (his aspiration, his will) is of sufficient strength, having the capacity to accomplish it all in a single stroke.

2. The path of seeing in marks

Second, the "path of seeing in marks," which again divides into two kinds: one kind refers to the "unestablished truth," one kind refers to the "established truth." ("The established truth" means the truth of the sort set up as the four truths, suffering-origin-cessation-the path, which can be sorted and laid out by category; "the unestablished truth" means that suchness which is not sorted by category, undivided and of one single taste.)

(1) Referring to the unestablished truth · the three-class mind

The first kind, contemplating the "unestablished truth" (that is, referring to that suchness which is undivided and of one single taste), has a "three-class mind" (three layers of mind), one layer mounting upon the next. The first layer is named "the cognition referring to the inward dispelling of the [wholly-imagined] sentient being" — it contemplates inwardly and dispels the conventional fiction of "the sentient-being self" (the self of living beings), and is able to remove "the discriminated latent dispositions of the soft class (that is, the lower class, the very lightest)." The second layer is named "the cognition referring to the inward dispelling of [all] dharmas" — it contemplates inwardly and dispels the conventional fiction of "dharmas," and is able to remove "the discriminated latent dispositions of the middle class." The third layer is named "the cognition referring to the universal dispelling of all sentient beings and dharmas" — it dispels universally, all at once, the two conventional fictions of the sentient-being self and of dharmas, and is able to remove "all (that is, the upper class) the discriminated latent dispositions." Among these three layers, the first two are named "the dharma-cognition," because they refer separately (one referring solely to the sentient being, one solely to dharmas); the third is named "the kind-cognition," because it gathers sentient beings and dharmas together and refers to them in one.

How do these three-class minds come about? They are set up in imitation of the "true path of seeing." Within the true path of seeing, the seeing-part that realizes the two emptinesses, in the severing of the obstructions it itself severs, has an "unobstructed path" (the stretch in which the defilement is actually being severed) and a "path of liberation" (the stretch in which the defilement now severed, liberation is realized); taking just this for its base, sometimes separately (referring to the sentient being, referring to dharmas each set up) and sometimes jointly (referring to the two combined), it sets up these three classes in imitation — and since they are set up in imitation of the true path of seeing, not the true path of seeing itself, they are named the "path of seeing in marks."

〔As to whether these three-class minds count as the true path of seeing or as the path of seeing in marks, there are two different accounts.〕 One account: these three classes are the "true path of seeing." The reason: the path of seeing in marks ought to refer to the "four truths" (that is, the established truth), but these three classes refer to the unestablished truth (that suchness undivided and of one single taste), not to the four truths — and since they do not refer to the four truths, they are judged to belong to the true path of seeing. A second account: these three classes are the "path of seeing in marks." The reason: the true path of seeing is "one that does not refer separately" (it refers to suchness only in a single sweep, drawing no sorting by category), yet these three classes do have a separate contemplation (now referring to the sentient being, now referring to dharmas) — and since they have this mark of separate referring, they are judged to belong to the path of seeing in marks.

(2) Referring to the established truth · the sixteen minds

The second kind, referring to the "established truth" (that is, referring to the four truths, suffering-origin-cessation-the path), has "sixteen minds." These sixteen minds again have two ways of being set up: one is "set up by reference to the grasped and the grasper," the other is "set up by reference to the truth-objects of the lower realm and the upper realm."

Take the first way first: by "contemplating the grasped and the grasper" (contemplating that the truth-principle which is contemplated is the grasped, and the cognition which does the contemplating is the grasper), the "dharma-cognition and kind-cognition" sixteen minds are sorted and set up. To begin with the "truth of suffering," there are four kinds of mind:

The first mind is named "the receptivity of the dharma-cognition of suffering" — that is, contemplating "the suchness of the truth of suffering of the three realms (the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm)," and in the act of severing "the twenty-eight discriminated latent dispositions of the three realms that ought to be severed by seeing the truth of suffering." This mind is the "unobstructed path" (the stretch in which the defilement is actually being severed); "receptivity" means to bear-and-accept, to settle upon — to settle upon the principle and bring the defilement down.

The second mind is named "the dharma-cognition of suffering" — that is, immediately following upon the preceding "receptivity" (with no interval between), again contemplating that suchness just now contemplated, and at this point realizing the "liberation" from those defilements that the prior mind severed. This mind is the "path of liberation" (the stretch in which the defilement now severed, liberation is realized).

The third mind is named "the receptivity of the kind-cognition of suffering" — that is, immediately following upon the preceding "dharma-cognition of suffering," there arises again an uncontaminated wisdom; this wisdom turns back and, upon the preceding two, the "dharma-receptivity of suffering and the dharma-cognition of suffering," makes a separate "inward realization" (an inward witnessing in person, one round over again). Why is it called "kind"? Because the sacred dharmas that arise hereafter are all of the kind of "the dharma-receptivity and the dharma-cognition," of one and the same kind with them, and so the word "kind" is added.

The fourth mind is named "the kind-cognition of suffering" — that is, immediately following upon "the receptivity of the kind-cognition of suffering," there arises again an uncontaminated cognition, which examines, settles, and approves the preceding "receptivity of the kind-cognition of suffering" (sets a seal on it, fixes it for certain). Since the truth of suffering has these four kinds of mind, the "truth of origin, the truth of cessation, the truth of the path," these three truths, likewise each have four kinds of mind — the four truths together making up the "sixteen minds."

Among these sixteen minds, "eight minds" (that is, the four "receptivities" of the four truths, plus the four "dharma-cognitions" of the four truths, these eight) are contemplating "suchness" (contemplating the truth-principle itself); the other "eight minds" (that is, the four "kind-receptivities" of the four truths, plus the four "kind-cognitions" of the four truths, these eight) are contemplating "the right cognition" (turning back and inwardly realizing the preceding receptivities and cognitions). How do these sixteen minds come about? They too are set up in imitation of the "true path of seeing" — taking for their base the "seeing-part and self-witnessing part" upon the "unobstructed path and path of liberation" within the true path of seeing, set up separately in imitation, and so they too are named the "path of seeing in marks."

Take next the second way: by "contemplating the truth-objects of the lower realm and the upper realm," the "dharma-cognition and kind-cognition" sixteen minds are sorted and set up. How are they sorted? By contemplating "the realm present" (meaning the desire realm, which is right here, at hand, presently contemplable) and "the realm not present" (meaning the form realm and formless realm, the two upper realms, which are not at hand); and the four truths, suffering-origin-cessation-the path, each have two minds matched to them: one the "receptivity of direct realization" (the unobstructed-path stretch), one the "cognition of direct realization" (the path-of-liberation stretch). Each according to what suits it takes the seeing-part upon the "unobstructed path and path of liberation" of the "true path of seeing" to contemplate the truth-principle, severing in all "the one hundred twelve discriminated latent dispositions that ought to be severed by the path of seeing" — and so it too is named the "path of seeing in marks."

There is yet another way of reckoning. If one goes by the principle of the "broadly-disseminated sacred teaching" (that set of teachings widely circulated), the path of seeing in marks is then said to be "nine kinds of mind." How does this come about? It is set up from the foregoing "twenty-six kinds of mind referring to the established truth" (the count of the minds referring to the established truth before, reckoned together), now resorted from the two sides of "calm and insight." How is it sorted? The "receptivities and cognitions" of the "dharma-class" and "kind-class," spoken together, have four "contemplations" apiece, which added up make "eight minds" (that is, eight contemplations); while the "eight calms" matched to these eight contemplations are reckoned together as just "one" (the eight calms merged into one). Why are the contemplations opened out into eight, but the calms merged into one? Because in the path of seeing it is indeed "calm and insight dual-running" (calm and insight turning together), yet so far as the sense of "seeing" goes — "seeing" being itself the sense of "contemplation" (insight) — the "contemplation" follows along with "seeing" and must be laid out one by one, whereas the "calm" does not follow "seeing" and need not be laid out one by one. The contemplations and the calms being thus opened and merged differently, "eight contemplations plus one calm" gathered together make the "nine minds," and this is named the path of seeing in marks.

These "paths of seeing in marks" — to say of them that "they arise immediately following upon the worldly-supreme dharma, and that it is they who sever the latent dispositions" — this is only "spoken conventionally, in imitation of the true path of seeing," and is not really so. Why is it not really so? The reasons are three. First, the path of seeing in marks is in fact something that can arise only "after the true path of seeing" (and not immediately following the worldly-supreme dharma). Second, it is only "after the contemplation of the unestablished truth (that is, what the true path of seeing contemplates)" that the contemplation of the "established truth" comes next to arise (so it is not the first to appear either). Third, those "discriminated latent dispositions" were already truly severed clean back at the time of the "true path of seeing" — so the path of seeing in marks has in fact no real latent dispositions to sever at this time, and to say of it that "it severs the latent dispositions" is likewise only following along with the imitative manner of speaking before, said conventionally, and no more.

The earlier "true path of seeing" realizes the "consciousness-only nature" (that is, the true real nature that is the perfectly-accomplished); the later "path of seeing in marks" realizes the "consciousness-only marks" (that is, the differentiated marks that are the other-dependent). Of these two, the "true path of seeing" is the more excellent, and so the present verse (v28) speaks of the true path of seeing alone — the line in the verse, "the cognition apprehends nothing at all," points precisely at the true path of seeing. Further, the "true path of seeing" belongs to the class of the "root cognition" (the most fundamental non-discriminating cognition); the "path of seeing in marks" belongs to the class of the "subsequently-attained cognition" (the cognition attained subsequent to the root cognition).

〔The dispute over whether the subsequently-attained cognition has the two parts〕

Does the "subsequently-attained cognition," then, have the two parts, "mark-part and seeing-part," or not? Here too there are three accounts. One account: "both parts are absent" — because it has departed from grasper and grasped. A second account: this subsequently-attained cognition "has the seeing-part present, the mark-part absent" — the reasons being: the treatise says this class of cognition "has discrimination," and since it has discrimination, it has a seeing-part; moreover the cognition of the sages can all "illumine the object in person" (illumine it directly, transforming out no separate image), and because it "does not cling," it is said to "depart from the two graspings" (this "departing from the two graspings" says that it does not cling, and is not saying that it lacks even a seeing-part).

A third account (and this account is the correct sense, which one ought to follow): this subsequently-attained cognition "has both mark-part and seeing-part present." The reasons are several. First, the treatise says this cognition "contemplates a 'suchness-resembling mark'" — what it refers to is a "mark resembling suchness, an image," and not a seeing-in-person of that true real suchness-nature; and since what it refers to is an image-mark, it can be seen that it has a mark-part. Second, the treatise further says this cognition can "discriminate the own-marks and shared-marks of the dharmas" and the like, and can contemplate the differences in the capacities of the several sentient beings so as to teach them according to their kind; and since it must discriminate, must watch capacities, it must transform out a mark-part — so it can be seen that it has a mark-part. Third, the treatise further says this cognition can "manifest a body, manifest a land," and the like, so as to expound the right dharma to sentient beings; and were it not to "transform-and-manifest marks resembling form, resembling sound," how could there be such a thing as "manifesting a body and teaching the dharma"? So it can be seen that it has a mark-part.

Fourth, suppose one says "having turned the 'form-aggregate' into its base, it yet does not manifest form" (the Buddha having turned the form-aggregate into cognition, yet it is said not to transform-and-manifest form): then by the same reasoning, "having turned the remaining four aggregates, feeling-conception-formation-consciousness, into its base" ought likewise to manifest no feeling, conception, and the rest — but one cannot single out and discard the form-mark while keeping the others; favoring one side makes no sense, so it can be seen that all should have a mark-part. Fifth, again: suppose this cognition did not "transform-and-manifest a mark resembling that object" — then three faults would follow. The first: all dharmas apart from the cognition's own substance would then have to be "not its object" (with no mark-part, the object cannot be established). The second: when it refers to form, it would then have to refer to sound as well (with no fixed mark-part, the object cannot be settled, and it would refer this way and that). The third: when it refers to "a non-existent dharma" (such as a hare's hair or a tortoise's horn, things that simply do not exist), it would then have to "have no object-condition" — because that "non-existent dharma" is not in itself real and can exert no power that lets you refer to it, so one must oneself transform out a mark resembling it before one can make up an "object-condition" (the object one refers to). Putting all these together, one knows that the subsequently-attained cognition is one that "has both mark-part and seeing-part present."

〔How the two paths of seeing are subsumed under the six direct realizations〕

How are these two paths of seeing, "the true path of seeing and the path of seeing in marks," mutually subsumed under, and matched to, the "six direct realizations" (the six kinds of present, face-to-face contemplative realizing of the object)? First, the "six direct realizations" are listed out one by one:

First, "the direct realization of thought" — that is, the "wisdom born of thought" that is associated with "the highest class of joyful feeling" (the joy-feeling of the topmost layer). This wisdom can contemplate the "shared marks" of the dharmas, and can draw forth the warmth and the rest of the intensified-effort stages (warmth, summit, receptivity, worldly-supreme — these intensified-effort stages). Why is just this one set up as a "direct realization"? Because in contemplating the dharmas within the intensified-effort path, it is this "thought-wisdom" that is the most vigorous, the most effective, and so it is singled out and named "direct realization" (whereas warmth and the rest can neither broadly discriminate the dharmas nor have they yet realized the true principle, and so are not reckoned direct realization).

Second, "the direct realization of faith" — that is, the "firmly-fixed pure faith," worldly and supramundane, that arises with reference to "the three jewels" (the Buddha, the dharma, the saṅgha). This faith can help bring direct realization to completion, and can make it not turn back; and so it too is given a name, "direct realization."

Third, "the direct realization of moral discipline" — that is, the "uncontaminated moral discipline" (the discipline that arises together with the path, also called the path-concomitant discipline). It can remove the stain left by transgressing the discipline and make the contemplative cognition grow more luminous, and so it too is named "direct realization."

Fourth, "the direct realization of the truth that is the direct-realization cognition" — that is, the "root cognition" and the "subsequently-attained non-discriminating cognition" that refer to the "unestablished truth" (that suchness undivided and of one single taste) in every kind of way (whether referring all-together or referring separately). This one is the genuine principal substance-cognition of the path of seeing.

Fifth, "the direct realization of the truth that is the cognition bordering on direct realization" — that is, those worldly and supramundane cognitions that, after "the fourth direct realization (the direct realization of the truth that is the direct-realization cognition)," refer to the "established truth" (the four truths, suffering-origin-cessation-the path). It is the cognition that arises on "the border-side" subsequent to that principal-substance direct realization, and so it is named "the cognition bordering on direct realization."

Sixth, "the ultimate direct realization" — that is, the "cognition of exhaustion" (the kind of cognition that arises when the defilements are severed to exhaustion) and the like, the cognitions at the "ultimate stage" (that is, at Buddhahood).

Now match these six direct realizations against the two paths of seeing: this "true path of seeing" subsumes a portion of "the fourth (the direct realization of the truth that is the direct-realization cognition)" among the six direct realizations; this "path of seeing in marks" subsumes a portion of "the fourth, and the fifth (the direct realization of the truth that is the cognition bordering on direct realization)." As for "the second (the direct realization of faith), the third (the direct realization of moral discipline)" — though they do arise together with these two paths of seeing, they are not the substance-nature of the path of seeing itself (they are only attendant helpers alongside), and so they are not reckoned as subsumed within the path of seeing.

〔The benefit of attaining the two paths of seeing〕

When the bodhisattva attains these two paths of seeing, "the true path of seeing and the path of seeing in marks," he comes to have these benefits: he is born within "the family of the Tathāgata" (becomes a dharma-prince of the Buddha), abides in "the ground of supreme joy" (that is, the first of the ten grounds), is able well to comprehend "the dharma-realm," realizes "the several equality-natures" (self and other equal, sentient beings and Buddha equal, and the like), is constantly born within the great assemblies of all the Buddhas, has already gained mastery over "many hundreds of gateways" of dharma, knows of himself that before long he will realize "the great enlightenment" (the unsurpassed awakening), and is able, to the exhaustion of all future time, endlessly to benefit and bring ease to all sentient beings.

---

〔Verses commented〕Verse 29 · the ten grounds and ten perfections

〔Verse expounded〕

Without attainment, inconceivable — this is the supramundane cognition; 　　because it discards the two coarse-and-heavies, it then witnesses and attains the transformation of the basis. (v29)

---

A. Brief gloss of the verse

The author says: the bodhisattva, having risen up from the earlier stage of "the path of seeing" (that is, the stage of penetrating comprehension, the first direct sight of suchness), in order to sever the obstructions that are still left over and to witness and attain the "transformation of the basis" (the turning-about of the basis — turning the underlying basis from defiled to pure), then cultivates again and again the "non-discriminating cognition" (that cognition which raises no discrimination and directly witnesses suchness face to face).

This non-discriminating cognition leaves far behind both "the grasped" (the object that is taken as an object) and "the grasper" (the mind that does the taking), these two ends; and so it is said to be "without attainment," and also said to be "inconceivable." There is another reading: because it is apart from all "conceptual elaboration" (apart from clinging to concepts and verbal talk), it is called "without attainment"; and because its marvelous functioning is hard to fathom, it is called "inconceivable."

This is the supramundane non-discriminating cognition — because it can sever the mundane, it is named "supramundane." The "latent tendencies" of "the grasped and the grasper" (the defiled seeds lying dormant down below) are precisely the root of the mundane; only this cognition can sever them, and so it alone deserves the name "supra-[mundane]."

There is another reading: the name "supramundane" is set up on two senses — first, that its substance is uncontaminated (free of defilement); second, that it can witness suchness face to face. This cognition has exactly both senses complete, and so it alone is named "supramundane," while the other cognitions are not so (the other cognitions do not have both senses). What is meant here is precisely the non-discriminating cognition within the ten stages.

Because one cultivates this cognition again and again, one is able to "discard the two coarse-and-heavies." The seeds of the two obstructions — the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction — are given a name, "coarse-and-heavy" (that base quality of being weighty, clumsy, and good for nothing). Why are they named coarse-and-heavy? Because their character is "unserviceable" (it cannot bear any load, cannot be put to use), the very opposite of "the fine" and of "[the calm of] pliancy" (that buoyant ease in which body and mind are tractable and well-tuned). Cultivating the cognition makes this coarse-and-heavy forever extinguished, and so it is said to be "discarded."

Since this cognition is able to discard those two coarse-and-heavies, it then is able to witness and attain the vast "transformation of the basis."

First, the word "basis" in "transformation of the basis." "Basis" means "that-on-which-[things]-rest" (the underlying ground that is leaned upon), and it refers to the "other-dependent (nature)" (that layer of dharmas that arise in dependence on the assembly of conditions). Why? Because both the defiled dharmas and the pure dharmas lean on it as their ground. Here the "defiled" refers to the false "wholly-imagined-grasped (nature)" (that layer in which one adds discrimination upon the other-dependent and grasps it as really existent); the "pure" refers to the true "perfectly-accomplished nature" (that layer of suchness disclosed upon the other-dependent).

Next, the word "transformation." "Transformation" has two faces: one is "discarding-by-transformation" (transforming-away, casting off), and one is "attaining-by-transformation" (transforming-out, obtaining).

Because one cultivates the non-discriminating cognition again and again, one severs the coarse-and-heavy of the two obstructions within the "root consciousness" (that is, the eighth, the ālaya-consciousness, the fundamental consciousness that stores all the seeds); and so one is able to "discard-by-transformation" — to cast off that layer of wholly-imagined-grasped upon the other-dependent; and able to "attain-by-transformation" — to disclose that layer of perfectly-accomplished nature within the other-dependent.

By transforming-away the afflictive obstruction, one attains the great nirvāṇa; by transforming-away the cognitive obstruction, one witnesses the unsurpassed awakening (that is, bodhi, the perfect and complete awakening).

The very reason the root treatise sets out to establish this doctrine of "consciousness-only" is, in its intent, to let sentient beings witness and attain just such "fruit of the two transformations of the basis" (that is, the two fruits of transformation, nirvāṇa and bodhi).

There is another reading: this word "basis" refers to the suchness of consciousness-only — because both birth-and-death and nirvāṇa lean on it as their ground.

The foolish ordinary being, with views upside-down, is deluded about this suchness (does not recognize it), and so from beginningless time has undergone the suffering of birth-and-death; the noble one, with views not upside-down, awakens to this suchness, and thereupon attains the utter ease of nirvāṇa.

Because one cultivates the non-discriminating cognition again and again, severing the coarse-and-heavy of the two obstructions within the root consciousness, one is able to "extinguish-by-transformation" — to extinguish the birth-and-death that rests upon suchness; and able to "witness-by-transformation" — to witness the nirvāṇa that rests upon suchness. This (extinguishing-by-transformation the birth-and-death, witnessing-by-transformation the nirvāṇa) is just what suchness looks like once it has left the defilements behind.

Suchness, though its substance is pure from the very start, is, on the side of its "marks" (its manifest appearances), stained with defilement; and so, when it leaves the defilement behind, one provisionally says it is "newly pure" (newly attained purity — in truth it was always pure, and only when the stain on the marks is removed does the purity show forth). This "new purity" is precisely what is called the "transformation of the basis" — and it is witnessed only within the stage of cultivation, after the obstructions are severed.

Within this stage of cultivation one does, in fact, also attain bodhi; but this is not what this verse is truly pointing out. What the verse truly points out is only "the transformation of the nature of consciousness-only" (turning the defiled other-dependent into the pure perfectly-accomplished — just this layer of turning-about). The fruit of the transformation of the basis here pointed out is named, when the two vehicles reach their stage of fullness (that is, the arhat fruit), the "liberation-body" (a body liberated from the afflictive obstruction alone); and in the Great Sage (that is, the Buddha) it is named the "dharma-body" (more complete, liberated from both obstructions).

---

B. Broad treatment of the preceding verse

〔General statement: the ten stages · the ten excellent practices · the ten weighty obstructions · the ten suchnesses〕

〔Q〕 How, then, are those two transformations of the basis (nirvāṇa and bodhi) witnessed and attained? 〔A〕 It is within the ten stages that one cultivates the "ten excellent practices" (ten kinds of supreme cultivation), severs the "ten weighty obstructions" (ten layers of deep, heavy obstruction), and witnesses the "ten suchnesses" (suchness witnessed in ten layers); and so, step by step, these two transformations of the basis are witnessed and attained.

1. The ten stages

The "ten stages" spoken of are these: first, the Stage of Utmost Joy — for at the outset one obtains the "noble nature" (the kind of the noble ones, mounting into the stages and entering sainthood), fully witnesses both kinds of emptiness, "the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas," and can benefit both oneself and others, and so gives rise to great and abounding joy.

Second, the Stage Free of Defilement — for one has perfected pure "śīla" (discipline), and has left far behind that "affliction-grime" (afflictions that stain like grime) which can give rise to subtle breaches of the precepts; and so it is named "free of defilement."

Third, the Stage that Sends Forth Light — for one has perfected excellent meditative concentration, and perfected the "great-dharma all-retention" (dhāraṇī, the capacity to hold together and retain unforgotten the whole of the teachings), and can send forth the boundless light of marvelous wisdom; and so it is named "sending forth light."

Fourth, the Stage of Blazing Wisdom — for one abides in the most excellent "factors of awakening" (that is, the thirty-seven aids to awakening and the like, the dharmas that help one to awaken), and, like a fire, burns up the afflictions as so much firewood, the flame of wisdom blazing ever higher; and so it is named "blazing wisdom."

Fifth, the Stage Extremely Hard to Conquer — for the "true cognition" (the cognition that takes suchness as its object) and the "conventional cognition" (the cognition that takes conventional matters as its object), these two, in the way they operate, are by nature at odds; and to bring these two together, making them accord without a seam, is extremely hard to bring off — and bringing it off, it is named "extremely hard to conquer."

Sixth, the Stage of Manifestation — for one abides in the "cognition of dependent arising" (the cognition that sees through the principle of dependent arising), and by it draws forth the non-discriminating, most excellent prajñā (wisdom), causing this prajñā to come forth before one's eyes; and so it is named "manifestation."

Seventh, the Far-Reaching Stage — for one reaches, within the "abode of the markless" (abiding in the contemplation of the markless), the very last edge of "still-requiring-effort" (where there is yet exertion — and past it lies the effortless, the without-effort); one has already gone beyond and surpassed the path of the mundane and of the two vehicles; and so it is named "far-reaching" (one has gone far indeed).

Eighth, the Immovable Stage — for the non-discriminating cognition continues on of itself, spontaneously, without effort, and neither "marks" (the clinging to marks) nor "function" (afflictions at work) can shake it; and so it is named "immovable."

Ninth, the Stage of Good Wisdom — for one has perfected the marvelous "four unobstructed understandings" (understanding clear and unimpeded in the four respects of meaning, dharma, expression, and eloquence), and can go everywhere through the ten directions and skillfully expound the dharma; and so it is named "good wisdom."

Tenth, the Stage of the Dharma-Cloud — like one great cloud of "great-dharma cognition," within which is held the water of every sort of virtue (as a cloud holds rain-water), it can cover over the coarse-and-heavy that is as vast as the void (screening it off, suppressing it), and fills the dharma-body full; and so it is named "dharma-cloud."

These ten stages — their very own [substance] (own-nature) is the total subsuming-together of both the "conditioned virtues" and the "unconditioned virtues"; and toward the practices that are cultivated, they serve as an excellent "basis" (a thing to be leaned on) and "support" (a thing that holds up, that props), causing the virtues to be born one by one and to grow up — just as the great earth can hold up the myriad things and nourish them; and so they are named "stages" [grounds].

2. The ten excellent practices (the ten perfections)

The "ten excellent practices" spoken of are the ten "perfections" (pāramitā — [a going] to the other shore, the cultivation that ferries one across from this shore of birth-and-death to the other shore of nirvāṇa).

Giving is of three kinds: the giving of goods, the giving of fearlessness, the giving of the dharma. Discipline is of three kinds: the discipline of restraint, the discipline of gathering wholesome dharmas, the discipline of benefiting sentient beings.

Patience is of three kinds: the patience that endures enmity and harm, the patience that calmly bears suffering, the patience that examines dharmas with care. Effort is of three kinds: the effort of donning armor, the effort of gathering the wholesome, the effort of benefiting and gladdening [beings].

Meditative concentration is of three kinds: the concentration of abiding, the concentration that draws forth, the concentration that accomplishes affairs. Prajñā is of three kinds: the non-discriminating wisdom of the emptiness of beings, the non-discriminating wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas, the non-discriminating wisdom of both emptinesses (the two emptinesses).

Skillful means is of two kinds: the skillful means of dedication, the skillful means of rescuing. Vow is of two kinds: the vow that seeks awakening, the vow to benefit and gladden others.

Power is of two kinds: the power of reflective discernment, the power of cultivation. Cognition is of two kinds: the cognition that enjoys the joy of dharma, the cognition that ripens sentient beings.

〔The own-nature of the ten perfections〕

What does each of these ten take for its substance (its own-nature)? Going through them one by one: "giving" takes for its substance "non-greed," together with the three karmas of body, speech, and mind that non-greed gives rise to; "discipline" takes for its substance those three karmas at the time of receiving and learning the bodhisattva precepts; "patience" takes for its substance "non-hatred, effort, examining wisdom" (the non-hating, the willingness to make effort, the wisdom able to examine), together with the three karmas they give rise to; "effort" takes for its substance "diligence," together with the three karmas it gives rise to; "meditative concentration" takes simply "one-pointedness" (that is, concentration, the mind held single and not scattered) for its substance; and the latter five (prajñā, skillful means, vow, power, cognition) all take "the discernment of dharmas" (that is, wisdom, which can pick out and tell apart the dharmas) for their substance — because the author says these five just are the "fundamental cognition" and the "subsequently-attained cognition" (the fundamental cognition that witnesses suchness face to face, the subsequently-attained cognition that afterward discriminates conventional matters), both belonging to wisdom.

〔The own-nature of vow · a divergent account〕 One view holds: the eighth (that is, the perfection of vow) takes for its substance these three — "aspiration" (the wish that wants something), "resolve" (the firm, settled understanding), and "faith" — because "vow" itself takes precisely these three for its own-nature.

What has been spoken of above is each one's most central, core substance; but if one counts in the "retinue" too (the virtues that accompany it and arise along with it), then each single one takes "all the virtues that operate together with it at the same time" for its substance (and so the scope is widened).

〔The marks of the ten perfections: the seven supremacies〕

What do these ten look like (their marks)? It hangs on whether they are gathered up and embraced by the "seven supremacies" (seven most excellent conditions) — only when these seven are complete is something fit to be set up as a "perfection" (otherwise it is just ordinary giving and the rest, and does not count as [a going] "to the other shore").

First, the supremacy of abiding — one must abide upon the "bodhisattva lineage" (one must have the underlying disposition, the makings, of a bodhisattva); second, the supremacy of basis — one must lean on the "great mind of awakening" (that mind set on becoming a buddha and ferrying beings across); third, the supremacy of resolve — in one's heart one must have compassion for all sentient beings; fourth, the supremacy of undertaking — one must be willing to go and do every sort of work that benefits beings;

fifth, the supremacy of skillful means — one must have "the markless cognition" (the cognition that grasps no marks) to embrace it (so that in the doing one clings to no mark); sixth, the supremacy of dedication — one must dedicate the virtue to "the unsurpassed awakening" (seeking no merit for oneself, but turning it all over toward becoming a buddha); seventh, the supremacy of purity — one must not let it be interspersed with the two obstructions, the afflictive and the cognitive (pure, unmixed).

If it is not embraced by these seven, then the giving and the rest that one performs do not count as [a going] "to the other shore" (it is just an ordinary good deed). For this reason, taking "giving and the ten items" and matching them against "the perfections," each item should be set out by a "fourfold distinction" (that is, looking at it under four cases — taking giving as the example: it may be giving that is not [a going] to the other shore; it may be [a going] to the other shore that is not (only) giving; it may be both giving and [a going] to the other shore; and it may be neither giving nor [a going] to the other shore — these four cases frame off cleanly just where the two do and do not overlap).

〔The fixedness of the number of the ten, neither increasing nor decreasing〕

Why are there exactly ten items, neither more nor fewer? Because within the ten stages one must counteract ten kinds of obstruction and must witness ten kinds of suchness; the number is just ten, and so the perfections too are matched to ten, neither increasing nor decreasing.

Further, why are the former six items (from giving through prajñā) likewise exactly six, neither increasing nor decreasing? There are three reasons: first, to remove six kinds of obstruction that run counter to them; second, to cultivate the dharmas of all the buddhas step by step; third, to ripen (to bring to maturity and guide) sentient beings step by step — these are set out in detail in another treatise, and need not be unfolded here; it is enough to know that the matter stands so.

Again, from another angle: the former three items (giving, discipline, patience) belong to the "path of higher rebirth" (the path that makes the merit of future lives grow higher), because they can call forth great wealth, a fine body, and a good retinue; and the latter three, effort and so on (effort, meditative concentration, prajñā), belong to the "path of definite excellence" (the path that definitely wins out over birth-and-death), because they can subdue the afflictions, ripen sentient beings, and accomplish the dharmas of the buddhas. The bodhisattva's path, in sum, comes to just these two (higher rebirth, definite excellence), and the former six split exactly into these two, and so they are six.

Again, from another angle: the former three items (giving, discipline, patience) are for "benefiting sentient beings" — giving is giving people goods and resources, discipline is not harming or troubling others, patience is bearing it when others trouble me and benefiting them all the same. The latter three, effort and so on (effort, meditative concentration, prajñā), are for "counteracting the afflictions" — though they do not subdue and extinguish the afflictions all at once, yet they can earnestly and diligently cultivate the various wholesome "preparatory practices" (the preliminary work) that counteract the afflictions, and in the end can forever subdue and forever extinguish all the afflictions. (The former six split exactly into these two uses — benefiting beings, curing the afflictions — and so they are six.)

Again, from another angle: the former three items (giving and the rest) keep the bodhisattva from "abiding in nirvāṇa" (from hiding away in nirvāṇa to enjoy quiet, willing instead to turn back and benefit beings); and the latter three (effort, meditative concentration, prajñā) keep the bodhisattva from "abiding in birth-and-death" (from being bound fast by birth-and-death). The two sides together serve exactly as the "provisions" (the capital for becoming a buddha) of the "nirvāṇa of no fixed abode" (that nirvāṇa which stops at neither side, neither birth-and-death nor nirvāṇa) — and on this account too the former six are neither increasing nor decreasing.

As for why the latter [items] are exactly four (skillful means, vow, power, cognition), it is because they come to assist the former six and bring the former six's cultivation to fullness, and so they too are four, neither increasing nor decreasing — pairing them off: skillful means assists the former three (giving, discipline, patience), vow assists effort, power assists meditative concentration, cognition assists prajñā; by such assisting the former six are brought to a full cultivation. This is set out in detail in the scripture it is grounded on, and it is enough to know that the matter stands so.

In what order are these ten arranged? Two reasons: first, "the earlier ones draw forth the later ones" (what one cultivates earlier draws out what comes later); second, "the later ones in turn hold up and purify the earlier ones" (the later ones turn back to firm up and cleanse the earlier ones); and further, the earlier ones are comparatively "coarse" and the later ones comparatively "fine," and so, following the order from easy to hard, they fall out just this way. As for how their "general name" (this overarching title "perfection") and their "particular names" (the name of each single item) are explained, that is told elsewhere and is not repeated here.

〔The cultivation · subsumption · fruit of the ten perfections〕

How are these ten cultivated? There are five modes of cultivation: first, cultivation in dependence on holding-and-supporting (cultivating by the force that holds up, that props); second, cultivation in dependence on attention (cultivating by attending, by rousing the mind's strength); third, cultivation in dependence on resolve (cultivating with a glad and willing heart); fourth, cultivation in dependence on skillful means (cultivating by skillful means); fifth, cultivation in dependence on mastery (cultivating from within the state where mastery is already attained). By these five modes of cultivation, all ten perfections can be cultivated to fullness. The detailed marks of these five are set out in the treatise it is grounded on, and the like.

How do these ten mutually subsume one another? The broad direction is: of the ten, each single one can subsume all the rest of the perfections within it, because they accord with one another and contain one another. Below this is looked at case by case —

If one speaks from the side of "cultivating the earlier and drawing forth the later": then it is "the earlier subsumes the later" (because the later definitely must wait for the earlier in order to be born), and conversely "the later cannot subsume the earlier" (because the earlier need not wait for the later).

If one speaks from the side of "cultivating the later and turning back to firm up and purify the earlier": then it is the reverse — "the later subsumes the earlier" (because the later can firm up and purify the earlier), while "the earlier cannot subsume the later" (because the earlier does not go and firm up the later).

If one cultivates by "pure or mixed" (cultivating one item alone, or several mixed together), then matching these two against each other one by one, one should set out a "fourfold distinction" (pure-not-mixed, mixed-not-pure, both-pure-and-mixed, neither-pure-nor-mixed — framing off cleanly all the combinations).

In fact there are really ten items, yet in some places only "six" are spoken of (the six perfections) — how is this? One should know: the latter four items (skillful means, vow, power, cognition) are really all subsumed under the sixth, "prajñā" (and so speaking of just six also holds). Then why open it out into ten again? Because the sixth (prajñā), as a name, can hold only "the non-discriminating cognition" (the side that witnesses suchness face to face), while the latter four all belong to "the subsequently-attained cognition" (the side that takes conventional matters as object) — and since this further side, the subsequently-attained cognition, juts out, one opens it out into another four items, making ten.

What fruit does each of these ten bear? In the "contaminated" phase, they bear four kinds of fruit (of the five fruits, leaving out the "fruit of separation [from bondage]" — for the fruit of separation is what is disclosed by severing the obstructions, and in the contaminated phase one has not yet severed, so there is none). In the "uncontaminated" phase, they too bear four kinds of fruit (of the five fruits, leaving out the "fruit of maturation" — for the fruit of maturation is called forth by contaminated karma, and in the uncontaminated phase there is no contaminated karma, so there is none). Yet some places say that they "have all five fruits complete" — that is another account: either it is reckoning the contaminated and uncontaminated as "mutually making up [each other's lack]" (what you lack, I have on my side), or it is "counting the two sides together as one set" (a combined statement); only so does the reckoning come out to a full five fruits.

〔The mutual subsumption of the ten and the three trainings〕

How do these ten and the "three trainings" (discipline, concentration, wisdom) mutually subsume one another? First, the "training in discipline," which falls into three kinds: first, the discipline of restraint — that is, duly leaving far behind the things that ought to be left (not doing the unwholesome); second, the discipline of gathering wholesome dharmas — that is, duly cultivating and witnessing the dharmas that ought to be cultivated and witnessed (doing the wholesome); third, the discipline of benefiting sentient beings — that is, duly benefiting and gladdening all sentient beings (benefiting beings). This bodhisattva discipline has "a part shared" with the two vehicles, and also "a part not shared" (the bodhisattva discipline being broader than the two-vehicle discipline); both very deep and very vast, as is told elsewhere.

Next, the "training in concentration," which falls into four kinds: first, the Mahāyāna-radiance concentration — for it can send forth a radiance of cognition that lights up the "principle, teaching, practice, and fruit" of the Mahāyāna (its doctrine, its teaching, its cultivation, its witnessed fruit), and so it is named the radiance concentration; second, the merit-gathering king concentration — for it can freely and at will gather merit without bound, with a momentum like a king's, beyond all peer, and so it is named the merit-king concentration; third, the worthy-guarding concentration — for it can guard the worthy and wholesome dharmas, both mundane and supramundane, and so it is named the worthy-guarding concentration; fourth, the heroic-striding concentration — for it is the concentration practiced by the buddhas and bodhisattvas, those "greatly mighty beings" (those of great strength in cultivation), and so it is named the heroic-striding concentration. What these four concentrations take as object, what they counteract, what they are capable of, what they draw forth, and what work they do — that is told elsewhere.

Next, the "training in wisdom," which falls into three kinds: first, the preparatory non-discriminating wisdom (that wisdom of the preliminary phase, before the formal face-to-face witnessing, which inclines toward the non-discriminating); second, the fundamental non-discriminating wisdom (that wisdom which witnesses suchness face to face in the formal sense); third, the subsequently-attained non-discriminating wisdom (that wisdom which, after the face-to-face witnessing, comes back to discriminate conventional matters, yet still does not leave the non-discriminating root). The own-nature, basis, causes-and-conditions, object, mode of operation (mark of operation), and the rest, of each of these three wisdoms — that is told elsewhere.

These three wisdoms (preparatory, fundamental, subsequently-attained), split into the two sides of "seeds" and "present-activity," stand differently across the five stages. Going stage by stage —

In the first two stages (the stage of equipment and the stage of intensified effort): the "seeds" of the three wisdoms are all there, all three; but the "present-activity" (what actually operates) is only "the preparatory wisdom," this one alone (the path of seeing not yet reached, the fundamental and the subsequently-attained cannot arise).

At the stage of penetrating comprehension (that is, the path of seeing, the first face-to-face sight of suchness): the "present-activity" arises in two kinds (fundamental, subsequently-attained), the "seeds" all present, all three (at this point there is "no present-activity of the preparatory wisdom," because, the path of seeing now formally reached, one has no need of the preparatory).

At the stage of cultivation, prior to the seventh stage: both "seeds" and "present-activity" are complete in all three (preparatory, fundamental, subsequently-attained, all present).

From the eighth stage on: the "present-activity" is left with two kinds (fundamental, subsequently-attained), the "seeds" all present, all three — why is the present-activity left with two? Because from the eighth stage up it is "the effortless path" (one proceeds spontaneously, without effort), and this is the very opposite of "the preparatory" (which requires effort), so the present-activity of the preparatory can no longer arise; all forward advance uses "the subsequently-attained cognition" entirely, arising of itself, spontaneously, within the uncontaminated contemplation.

At the ultimate stage (becoming a buddha): both "present-activity" and "seeds" are left with only two (fundamental, subsequently-attained) — because "the preparatory," present-activity and seeds alike, has already been discarded (after becoming a buddha, the preparatory is no longer needed).

〔The fourfold subsumption of the ten and the three trainings〕

When the three trainings subsume the ten items, there are reckonings of differing breadth and narrowness. First, by the strictest "subsumption-by-own-nature" (counting only each one's own substance): the training in discipline subsumes only "discipline" (the discipline among the ten items), the training in concentration subsumes "meditative concentration," the training in wisdom subsumes the latter five items (prajñā, skillful means, vow, power, cognition). But if one counts in the "helper-companions" (the virtues that accompany them) as well, then the three trainings can each mutually subsume one another (the scope being widened, there is you in me and me in you).

Next, by "subsumption-according-to-use" (reckoning by function): the training in discipline subsumes the former three items (giving, discipline, patience — because giving is discipline's "provision," discipline is discipline's own "substance," and patience is discipline's "retinue," all three turning about discipline), the training in concentration subsumes "meditative concentration," the training in wisdom subsumes the latter five items; as for "effort," it is subsumed by all three trainings together (because effort is what universally spurs on the three trainings; discipline, concentration, and wisdom all rely on it to put forth strength, and so it is found in every one of them).

Next, by "subsumption-according-to-the-conspicuous" (reckoning by the more conspicuous belonging): the training in discipline subsumes the former four items (the former three as just above, plus "effort" — because effort, here, leans toward discipline, guarding the discipline), the training in concentration subsumes "meditative concentration," the training in wisdom subsumes the latter five items.

〔The five stages of the ten · the three names of the causal stage · waxing with each stage〕

These ten items are also complete in all five stages, though within the stage of cultivation their marks are most conspicuous. Below this is split into contaminated and uncontaminated, looking at how "seeds" and "present-activity" stand in each stage —

In the first two stages (the stage of equipment and the stage of intensified effort): the "abruptly-awakened bodhisattva" (one who from the outset cultivates the Mahāyāna directly, not first walking the two-vehicle road) — his seeds run through both kinds, contaminated and uncontaminated, but his present-activity is contaminated only (the uncontaminated contemplation not yet attained); the "gradually-awakened bodhisattva" (one who first walked through the two vehicles and afterward turned from the lesser toward the great) — his seeds and his present-activity both run through both kinds, contaminated and uncontaminated, because he had earlier already attained "the uncontaminated contemplation of the emptiness of beings" (the uncontaminated contemplation that witnesses the emptiness of self).

At the stage of penetrating comprehension: the seeds run through both kinds, the present-activity is uncontaminated only (the path of seeing reached, the present-activity is purely uncontaminated).

At the stage of cultivation, prior to the seventh stage: seeds and present-activity both run through both contaminated and uncontaminated.

From the eighth stage on: the seeds run through both kinds, the present-activity is uncontaminated only (the purely uncontaminated now arising spontaneously).

At the ultimate stage (becoming a buddha): present-activity and seeds are both left with the uncontaminated alone (the contaminated all discarded to exhaustion).

These ten items, within the "causal stage" (the phase of cultivating the cause, before becoming a buddha), have, across the three great incalculable eons, three further names —

The first is called the "far perfections" (still far from becoming a buddha): this is the first incalculable eon (a span of eons beyond all measure). At that time the force of giving and the rest is still faint, and is on the contrary subdued by the afflictions, unable to subdue the afflictions, and so the afflictions still come forth (into present-activity) without one's even noticing.

The second is called the "near perfections" (drawn nearer to becoming a buddha): this is the second incalculable eon. At that time the force of giving and the rest grows little by little stronger, and is no longer subdued by the afflictions but on the contrary can subdue them, and so the afflictions come forth only when one "deliberately" (specially rousing an act of attention) [lets them] — they no longer come forth of themselves.

The third is called the "great perfections" (becoming a buddha now in sight): this is the third incalculable eon. At that time the force of giving and the rest grows mightier still, and can thoroughly subdue all the afflictions, and so the afflictions forever cease to come forth into present-activity; yet at this point there still remain the subtle present-activity and seeds of the "cognitive obstruction," and the seeds of the "afflictive obstruction" (those at the seed-level not yet severed to exhaustion), and so it is not yet ultimate (one has not yet become a buddha).

The meanings and classes into which these ten can be divided are boundless beyond reckoning; for fear the words grow tedious and weary the reader, only the main outline is pointed out here. The ten perfections are, in truth, cultivated on every one of the ten stages (all are cultivated everywhere); only, according to "which one stands out" (which is the conspicuous-and-increasing), each stage gives chief weight to cultivating one of them (the first stage giving chief weight to giving, the second stage to discipline, and so on down the line). Though the cultivation of the ten stages has countless gates, all of it is subsumed within these "ten [goings] to the other shore," and runs out of these ten not at all.

〔Verses commented〕Continuing verse 29 · the ten obstructions and ten suchnesses

3. The ten weighty obstructions

The "ten weighty obstructions" spoken of (the ten layers of deep, heavy obstruction that each of the ten stages must sever) are these:

(a) The obstruction of the common-being nature 〔first stage〕

First, the obstruction of the common-being nature — it refers to that kind, among the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction, that is "discrimination-arisen" (the kind that is perfumed in later, that arises only through discrimination, not the kind one is born with); and it is precisely upon the seeds of this discrimination-arisen [kind] that the name "common-being nature" is set up ("common being" being the ordinary being, not yet entered into sainthood, born among the various differing destinies). When the two vehicles' path of seeing is present before them, they sever only one kind (the discrimination-arisen seeds of the afflictive obstruction), and are said to have obtained the "noble nature"; when the bodhisattva's path of seeing is present before him, he severs both kinds (the discrimination-arisen seeds of the afflictive obstruction and of the cognitive obstruction together), and only then is said to have obtained the "noble nature."

〔Severing the obstruction, two kinds of nature do not coexist〕 When the true path of seeing is present before one, the discrimination-arisen seeds of those two obstructions definitely cannot then be established (they can no longer hold their ground) — this is just like light and dark, which definitely cannot coexist at the same time, like the two ends of a balance-scale, which rise and fall in the very same instant; whatever dharmas are mutually opposed must, in principle, be so. And so there is no fault of "both the noble nature and the common-being nature being established at once" (one does not, having already mounted into the noble position, still count as an ordinary being).

〔Q〕 Someone asks: at the time of "the uninterrupted path" (the very instant of formally severing the delusion, when the delusion is being severed) the seeds of the delusion are already gone — what use, then, is there in raising up a "path of liberation" again (the next instant immediately following)? 〔A〕 Because "severing the delusion" and "witnessing the cessation" are two matters in which the heart's aim is different (one is to sever the delusion, one is to witness that quiescent cessation — two distinct things). And further, in order to discard the "coarse-and-heavy nature" of that class of delusion — at the time of the uninterrupted path, though the seeds of the delusion are already gone, yet its "unserviceable nature" (the base quality of being weighty and good for nothing, that is, the coarse-and-heavy) has not yet been discarded; and it is in order to discard this coarse-and-heavy that one then goes on to raise the "path of liberation," and witnesses the "cessation-through-discrimination unconditioned" of this class (that unconditioned principle, neither arising nor perishing, disclosed when by the power of discriminating wisdom the delusion is extinguished).

〔The two follies the first stage severs〕 Although, when the path of seeing arises, one also severs in passing the various karmas and karmic fruits of the "evil destinies" (the bad places to be reborn — the hells, the hungry ghosts, the animals) and the rest, yet here only the side "that can give rise to the afflictions" is taken up to be spoken of, because it is the root (the evil-destiny karma-and-fruit being a branch, the afflictions being the root). And so the first stage is said to sever "two follies" and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of attachment to self and dharmas (the folly of grasping "self" and "dharmas" as really existent) — this is just the obstruction of the common-being nature spoken of here; second, the folly of the evil-destiny defilement (the folly of making evil-destiny karma and falling into the evil destinies) — this is just the various evil-destiny karmas and karmic fruits and the rest spoken of above.

One should know: the "folly" spoken of here is the whole class summed up and called "folly" (it is not pointing to one single mental factor); the later passages are all to be understood after this manner. There is another reading: that [scripture] speaks only of the two follies of "the sharp and the dull obstruction-classes arising together" (the sharp counting as one, the dull as one). As for the "coarse-and-heavy" spoken of here, it points out those two follies, or points out the "unserviceable nature" that those two follies give rise to — just as, when one enters the second meditative concentration and the rest, one is said to "sever the faculty of suffering": the faculty of suffering that is severed, although it is neither a present-activity nor a seed, is nonetheless named "coarse-and-heavy" (pointing to that leftover base quality); and it is the same here too. Where "coarse-and-heavy" appears again in later passages, it is all to be understood after this example.

Although what the first stage severs in truth includes both the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction, yet the name "obstruction of the common-being nature" intends, of all things, the side of "the cognitive obstruction" — because the root treatise says the "ten ignorances" (the ten kinds of ignorance answering to each of the ten stages) are "non-defiled" (not the sort of defiled ignorance that disturbs the mind and draws retribution); and this ignorance is just the "folly" of the ten obstruction-classes. The two vehicles too can sever the afflictive obstruction, but that afflictive obstruction is something the three vehicles in common must sever, and is not what is specially being spoken of here (what is to be spoken of here is the cognitive obstruction not shared [with the two vehicles], unique to the bodhisattva). And again, the saying that "the ten ignorances are non-defiled" is said only with reference to "what is to be severed in the path of cultivation across the ten stages" (it does not mean that this ignorance is wholly free of defilement).

Although in this first stage one does also subdue the afflictions in passing and sever their coarse-and-heavy, yet this is not where the principal intent lies, and one does not sever their "latent tendencies" (the dormant seeds); and so it is not mentioned here. In strict principle, the first stage's path of cultivation does also sever a portion of the "innate cognitive obstruction" (the cognitive obstruction one is born with); only here, for now, just "the portion severed at the very first" is spoken of (first speaking of what the first stage severs at the start); and as for what each of the latter nine stages severs, one will know it by extending this same principle.

Within each stage there are the three phases "the entering mind, the abiding mind, the fulfilling mind," and the abiding and fulfilling minds dwell there a very long while; by rights, then, one ought to go on severing the obstructions that ought to be severed — for otherwise, the paths walked in these three phases, "entering, abiding, fulfilling," would have no difference at all (dwelling so long yet not advancing the severing, the three phases would be all of a piece). And so it is said: the bodhisattva, having attained "direct realization" (the face-to-face witnessing of the path of seeing), then within the ten stages' path of cultivation cultivates only the path that "forever extinguishes the cognitive obstruction," and deliberately "retains the afflictive obstruction, so as to take rebirth by aid of his great vow" (retaining a little delusion to moisten his rebirth, the better to go on in the world ferrying beings across), unlike the two vehicles, who hasten toward "perfect quiescence" (rushing to enter nirvāṇa and have done); and so in the path of cultivation he does not sever the afflictive obstruction, but severs it all at once only when about to become a buddha.

(b) The obstruction of wrong conduct 〔second stage〕

Second, the obstruction of wrong conduct — it refers to one portion of the "innate" (born-with-one) part within the cognitive obstruction, together with the body-speech-and-mind three karmas of inadvertent transgression that it gives rise to. It obstructs the second stage's "utterly pure śīla" (discipline), and on entering the second stage one can forever sever it. And so the second stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of subtle inadvertent transgression (the folly by which one might subtly and inadvertently transgress the precepts) — this is just the innate portion spoken of here; second, the folly of the manifold karmic destinies (the folly of making the manifold karmas that tend toward the evil destinies) — this is just those inadvertent-transgression three karmas it gives rise to, which is also called the folly of "merely making karma, not understanding karma."

(c) The obstruction of dullness 〔third stage〕

Third, the obstruction of dullness (the obstruction of darkness and sluggishness) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which makes one forget and lose the dharmas heard, the dharmas thought over, and the dharmas cultivated. It obstructs the third stage's excellent concentration and "all-retention" (dhāraṇī), and the excellent three wisdoms (the wisdom-from-hearing, the wisdom-from-thinking, the wisdom-from-cultivating) that they send forth, and on entering the third stage one can forever sever it. And so the third stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of sensual greed — this is just the portion here that can obstruct "the excellent concentration" and "the wisdom-from-cultivating"; this portion of obstruction in former times mostly arose together with "sensual greed" (greed for the five sense-pleasures), and so it is named the folly of sensual greed; now that one has attained the excellent concentration and the wisdom-attained-from-cultivation, and this obstruction is forever severed, the sensual greed too is thereby subdued (because from beginningless time the sensual greed has turned only by leaning on this obstruction, and the obstruction once severed, it loses its support). Second, the folly of the perfect dhāraṇī of hearing-and-retaining — this is just the portion here that can obstruct "the all-retention" and "the wisdom-from-hearing and the wisdom-from-thinking."

(d) The obstruction of the present-activity of subtle afflictions 〔fourth stage〕

Fourth, the obstruction of the present-activity of subtle afflictions — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, subsumed under the "view of the body" (the view that grasps the body as a self) and the like that go together with the sixth consciousness. Why is it named "subtle"? Three reasons: first, it belongs to "the very lowest grade" (the very weakest sort); second, it "takes its object without any rousing of attention" (it grasps of itself, without attention, hidden deep); third, it "follows along with the present-activity at a far remove" (trailing dimly behind the present-activity, not conspicuous). It obstructs the fourth stage's factors of awakening, and on entering the fourth stage one can forever sever it.

This portion of cognitive obstruction, in former times, mostly arose spontaneously within the sixth consciousness, coming forth as one body together with that "self-grasping view of the body," and so the name "affliction" is borrowed for it (it is in itself the cognitive obstruction, but because it is of one body with the view of the body, it is spoken of by association as an affliction); now that within the fourth stage one has attained the uncontaminated factors of awakening, it is forever extinguished, and this view of the body and the rest also forever cease to come forth into activity. Why is it only at the fourth stage that it can be severed? Because the giving, discipline, and cultivation practiced on the first, second, and third stages still look much like the mundane (not yet thoroughly supramundane); only at the fourth stage, where one attains the factors of awakening, does it count as truly "supramundane," and so only there can it forever harm (cut down) this view of the body and the rest.

〔Q〕 Someone asks: how is it known that this obstruction is bound together with "the sixth consciousness," and not with the seventh? 〔A〕 Because the self-grasping view of the body and the like that go together with the seventh consciousness are by nature opposed to the uncontaminated path, and forever cease to come forth into activity only from the eighth stage on, while from the seventh stage back they still come forth (because they serve as the basis-and-support for the rest of the afflictions, propping them up); from which it is plain that the sixth's [view] is comparatively "coarse" and the seventh's comparatively "fine," and the subduing of them has an earlier and a later (the coarse subdued first, the fine subdued later). And so what is severed here at the fourth stage goes together with the sixth consciousness alone (the seventh's fine view of the body is left to the eighth stage to settle).

The word "etcetera" in "the view of the body and the like" also takes in the "concentration-love" and "dharma-love" that are subsumed under the beginningless cognitive obstruction (concentration-love being the clinging attachment to the bliss of meditative concentration, dharma-love being the clinging attachment to the dharma one cultivates). This concentration-love and dharma-love are still on the increase at the third stage; only on entering the fourth stage can they be forever severed — because the factors of awakening are especially opposed to them (their special bane). And so the fourth stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of the love of meditative attainment ("meditative attainment" being meditative concentration; the folly of clinging to meditative concentration) — this is just what here goes together with "concentration-love"; second, the folly of dharma-love — this is just what here goes together with "dharma-love." Since these two follies subsumed under the cognitive obstruction are severed, the two loves subsumed under the afflictive obstruction, concentration-love and dharma-love, also forever cease to come forth into activity.

(e) The obstruction of [taking] nirvāṇa by the lesser vehicle 〔fifth stage〕

Fifth, the obstruction of [taking] nirvāṇa by the lesser vehicle (the obstruction of inclining to walk the two-vehicle road into nirvāṇa) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which makes the bodhisattva weary of birth-and-death and bent on hastening toward nirvāṇa, just like the lowly two vehicles with their "weariness of suffering and longing for quiescence." It obstructs the fifth stage's "path of non-difference" (that path which sees through to the fact that birth-and-death and nirvāṇa have, in truth, no high-or-low difference), and on entering the fifth stage one can forever sever it. And so the fifth stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of pure-attention turning-the-back-on birth-and-death (the folly of single-mindedly rousing the thought of forsaking birth-and-death) — this is just the "weariness of birth-and-death" portion here; second, the folly of pure-attention turning-toward nirvāṇa (the folly of single-mindedly rousing the thought of hastening toward nirvāṇa) — this is just the "clinging love of nirvāṇa" portion here.

(f) The obstruction of the present-activity of the coarse mark 〔sixth stage〕

Sixth, the obstruction of the present-activity of the coarse mark (the obstruction of the coarse mark coming forth) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which grasps that there is a "coarse mark" of "the defiled and the pure" coming forth into activity (one can still tell apart "this is defiled, that is pure," landing on the coarse mark). It obstructs the sixth stage's "path of neither-defiled-nor-pure" (that path which grasps not even the mark of defiled-or-pure), and on entering the sixth stage one can forever sever it. And so the sixth stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of directly-observing the flowing-on of the formations (the folly of observing the flowing-on of the formations and grasping that there is "the defiled") — this is just the "grasping that there is the defiled" portion here (because the flowing-on of the formations falls on the defiled side); second, the folly of the present-activity of much marking (the folly of having too much of the mark-taking contemplation) — this is just the "grasping that there is the pure" portion here; because it keeps going to take the mark of "the pure," its "mark-taking contemplation" (the marking contemplation) arises much, and it cannot for long abide in "the markless contemplation."

(g) The obstruction of the present-activity of the subtle mark 〔seventh stage〕

Seventh, the obstruction of the present-activity of the subtle mark (the obstruction of the subtle mark coming forth) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which grasps that there is a "subtle mark" of "arising and perishing" coming forth into activity (finer than the sixth stage's, still grasping even the mark of arising-and-perishing). It obstructs the seventh stage's "marvelous markless path," and on entering the seventh stage one can forever sever it. And so the seventh stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of the present-activity of the subtle mark — this is just the "grasping that there is arising" portion here, because it still takes the subtle "arising"-mark on the "flowing-on" side; second, the folly of pure-attention seeking the markless (the folly of single-mindedly rousing the thought of seeking the markless) — this is just the "grasping that there is perishing" portion here, because it still takes the subtle "perishing"-mark on the "return-to-cessation" side; it gives itself over single-mindedly to rousing the thought and diligently seeking within "the markless," and cannot yet "within emptiness raise up the excellent practices of being" (that is, within the markless contemplation simultaneously raise the practices of marvelous being — emptiness and being advancing together).

(h) The obstruction of making effort within the markless 〔eighth stage〕

Eighth, the obstruction of making effort within the markless (the obstruction of still having to make effort within the markless contemplation) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which makes the "markless contemplation" unable to arise spontaneously (effortlessly, of itself). Lining up the preceding stages makes it plain: the first five stages have much "mark-bearing contemplation" and little "markless contemplation"; at the sixth stage there is little mark-bearing contemplation and much markless; at the seventh stage it is purely the markless contemplation, and though it can continue on without break, it still "requires effort" (there is yet exertion); and just because "within the markless contemplation one must still make effort," one cannot yet spontaneously bring forth "marks" (the bodily marks of a buddha) and "lands" (a buddha-land). This "effort" (the exertion) is what obstructs the eighth stage's "effortless path" (the path that proceeds without exertion); and so, on entering the eighth stage, one can forever sever it. This obstruction once severed to exhaustion, one attains the "two masteries" (mastery over the marks and over the land, freedom both in bringing forth bodily marks and in bringing forth a land).

And so the eighth stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of making effort within the markless (the folly of still having to exert oneself within the markless contemplation); second, the folly of [non-]mastery over marks — it makes one not have mastery within "the marks," and this folly also takes in a portion of "the land and the marks." From the eighth stage up it is purely the uncontaminated path arising spontaneously, and so the afflictions of the three realms forever cease to come forth into activity; yet within the seventh consciousness the "fine cognitive obstruction" can still come forth — because "the fruit of the cognition of the emptiness of beings" (the fruit that the witnessing of the emptiness of self accomplishes) is not opposed to it (the cognition of the emptiness of beings bears down on the afflictive obstruction, but cannot reach the cognitive obstruction, and so cannot subdue it).

(i) The obstruction of unwillingness to act for others' benefit 〔ninth stage〕

Ninth, the obstruction of unwillingness to act for others' benefit (the obstruction of being unable to muster zeal for the work of benefiting others) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which makes the bodhisattva unwilling to act earnestly and diligently in the work of "benefiting and gladdening sentient beings," fond only of cultivating his own benefit on his own side. It obstructs the ninth stage's "four unobstructed understandings," and on entering the ninth stage one can forever sever it. And so the ninth stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy:

First, a single great folly, which obstructs the dhāraṇī-mastery in these three respects: "the boundless dharmas expounded," "the boundless names, phrases, and syllables," and "the ever-successive wisdom-and-eloquence." Taking them one by one —

"Mastery of the dhāraṇī over the boundless dharmas expounded" speaks of "the unobstructed understanding of meaning," that is, mastery in totally retaining "the meaning that is expressed," for within one meaning one can bring forth all meanings (one mastered, a hundred mastered);

"Mastery of the dhāraṇī over the boundless names, phrases, and syllables" speaks of "the unobstructed understanding of dharma," that is, mastery in totally retaining "the names, phrases, and syllables that express" (the letters and language), for within one name-phrase-syllable one can bring forth all names-phrases-syllables;

"Mastery of the dhāraṇī over the ever-successive wisdom-and-eloquence" speaks of "the unobstructed understanding of expression," that is, mastery in totally retaining "the layer-upon-layer turning interpretation upon the spoken sound," for within one sound one can bring forth all sounds.

Second, the folly of [non-]mastery of eloquence — what is meant by "mastery of eloquence" is "the unobstructed understanding of eloquence," that is, the ability to take the measure of the listener's capacity and the fitting occasion, and skillfully to expound the dharma for him. This folly can obstruct the four masteries spoken of above (the four unobstructed understandings: meaning, dharma, expression, eloquence), all of which are reckoned within the obstruction that this ninth stage [severs].

(j) The obstruction of not yet having attained mastery over the dharmas 〔tenth stage〕

Tenth, the obstruction of not yet having attained mastery over the dharmas (the obstruction of not yet having freedom with respect to the various dharmas) — it refers to one portion of the innate part within the cognitive obstruction, which makes the bodhisattva unable to be free and at ease with respect to the various dharmas. It obstructs the tenth stage's "great-dharma cognition-cloud," together with the virtues that this cognition-cloud holds within it and the works it sets going. On entering the tenth stage one can forever sever it. And so the tenth stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of the great supernatural powers — this is just the portion here that obstructs "the works set going" (the wielding of supernatural powers in carrying out works); second, the folly of penetrating into the subtle and secret — this is just the portion here that obstructs "the great-dharma cognition-cloud and the virtues it holds within it."

〔The buddha-stage · the all-at-once severing by the adamantine-like samādhi〕

This tenth stage, though it has already attained mastery over the various dharmas, still has a remnant obstruction left over, and so cannot yet be called "the utterly ultimate." What remains? It is that there is still the innate "subtle cognitive obstruction," and still the spontaneous "seeds of the afflictive obstruction" (the afflictive-obstruction seeds lying down below); when the "adamantine-like samādhi" (that samādhi, hard and keen as a diamond, able to crush every obstruction) is present before one, these are all severed at once, and thereupon one enters the "tathāgata-stage" (becomes a buddha). And so the buddha-stage is said to sever two follies and their coarse-and-heavy: first, the folly of the extremely subtle clinging to all knowable objects (the folly of still having an extremely subtle clinging to all that is knowable) — this is just the subtle cognitive obstruction here; second, the folly of the extremely subtle obstruction (the folly of an extremely subtle hindering) — this is just all the spontaneous seeds of the afflictive obstruction here.

And so the treatise it is grounded on says: at the time of attaining bodhi, one severs the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction all at once, and thereupon both becomes an arhat (on the side of severing the afflictive obstruction to exhaustion) and becomes a tathāgata (the cognitive obstruction too severed to exhaustion), having witnessed the great nirvāṇa and the great bodhi.

---

〔Fascicle Ten〕 Severing the two obstructions in three positions · gradual and all-at-once

These eleven obstructions spoken of above (the ten stages' one-each, making ten, plus the buddha-stage's one), are every one of them gathered into the two obstructions, the afflictive and the cognitive.

First, the afflictive obstruction. It falls into two classes: "the seeds severed only by seeing" and "the seeds severed only by cultivation." The afflictive obstruction's "seeds severed by seeing" are first severed in the very first instant of the path of seeing on the Stage of Utmost Joy (the first stage); their present-activity has already been subdued before the stages. The afflictive obstruction's "seeds severed by cultivation" are severed all at once only when the adamantine-like samādhi is present before one; their present-activity is subdued gradually before the stages, and from the first stage up can be subdued to exhaustion all at once, made to cease forever from coming forth (just as with the arhat); only, by the "force of deliberation" (deliberately retaining a little delusion to moisten his rebirth, the better to go on ferrying beings across), the bodhisattva, within the first seven stages, still occasionally lets it come forth a little, yet this does not count as a fault (it is retained on purpose); and from the eighth stage up it utterly ceases to come forth.

Next, the cognitive obstruction, which likewise falls into the two classes, severed-by-seeing and severed-by-cultivation. The cognitive obstruction's "seeds severed by seeing" are first severed in the very first instant of the path of seeing on the Stage of Utmost Joy; their present-activity has already been subdued before the stages. The cognitive obstruction's "seeds severed by cultivation" are severed step by step within the ten stages, and only when the adamantine-like samādhi is present before one are they forever severed to exhaustion; their present-activity is subdued gradually before the stages, and only at the tenth stage is it forever subdued to exhaustion.

From the eighth stage up, look more closely: that portion of the cognitive obstruction bound together with the first six consciousnesses no longer comes forth into activity — because the uncontaminated contemplating mind and its fruit continue on unbroken, and can bear it down; but that portion bound together with the seventh consciousness can still come forth into activity, and is subdued only at the position where "the fruit of the cognition of the emptiness of dharmas" (the fruit that the witnessing of the emptiness of dharmas accomplishes) arises. As for the first five "evolving consciousnesses" (eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-consciousness), even though they themselves have not yet undergone the transformation of the basis, the obstruction does not come forth in them either, because they are subdued by the uncontaminated.

Although within the path of cultivation, the ten-stage positions, one does not formally go and sever-and-extinguish the seeds of the afflictive obstruction (the seeds are left to the adamantine-like samādhi to sever), yet the "coarse-and-heavy" of the afflictive obstruction is also severed step by step along the way; and just on this account it is said that the coarse-and-heavy of the two obstructions each has the explanation of "severing in three positions" (subduing first before the stages · severing gradually within the ten stages · severing all at once by the adamantine-like samādhi — set out in these three positions). Although in truth the coarse-and-heavy is being severed in every position, yet these three positions are the most conspicuous, and so just these three are singled out to be spoken of.

〔Severing the seeds of the two obstructions, which are gradual and which all-at-once〕 〔Q〕 In severing the seeds of these two obstructions, which are severed gradually (by degrees) and which all at once? First look at those bound together with the seventh consciousness — the "seeds of the afflictive obstruction" bound together with the seventh consciousness: when the three vehicles (the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha, the bodhisattva) are about to attain the "fruit beyond training" (the highest fruit), within a single instant those of the three realms are all severed at once. The "seeds of the cognitive obstruction" bound together with the seventh consciousness: when about to become a buddha, within a single instant all are severed at once (because they arise spontaneously within, with no distinction of coarse and fine, and so once severed they are all severed together).

Next look at the "seeds of the afflictive obstruction" bound together with the remaining six consciousnesses. Of these, the "severed-by-seeing" are, in the three vehicles' position of seeing, that is, in the true path of seeing, all severed at once. The "severed-by-cultivation" go according to which sort of person it is: one sort of two-vehicle [practitioner] severs the three realms and nine grounds (the one ground of the desire realm, the four grounds of the form realm, the four grounds of the formless realm) one ground at a time, step by step, by the nine grades (the nine ranks from the very highest to the very lowest), severing them separately; another sort of two-vehicle [practitioner] merges the three realms and nine grounds into one single heap, and then severs them separately by the nine grades; as for the bodhisattva, he must raise the adamantine-like samādhi, and within a single instant severs those of the three realms all at once.

Next look at the "seeds of the cognitive obstruction" bound together with the six consciousnesses. Their "severed-by-seeing" portion is, in the first instant of the first stage (that very first thought on entering the first stage), all severed at once. Their "severed-by-cultivation" portion is afterward severed step by step within the path of cultivation across the ten stages, on until the very moment the adamantine-like samādhi is formally raised, when within a single instant they are all severed to exhaustion — and why must they be severed thus step by step? Because the objects they take run through inner and outer, coarse and fine alike, and the differences of their classes are very many (and so they must be severed in many goes, gradually, unlike the seventh-consciousness ones that have no distinction of coarse-and-fine and are all severed at one stroke).

The two vehicles, being of dull faculties, must, when severing the obstructions gradually, raise the "uninterrupted path" (the instant of formally severing the delusion) and the "path of liberation" (the instant immediately following, witnessing the cessation) each one separately; and as for the "preparatory path" and the "path of further advance," these two they raise sometimes separately, sometimes together. The bodhisattva, being of sharp faculties, need not, when severing the obstructions gradually, specially raise the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation separately — because instant by instant, right then and there, he can sever and witness (he need not sever in one instant and witness in another, lined up in turn); and as for the four paths, the preparatory and the rest (preparatory, uninterrupted, liberation, further-advance), instant by instant, comparing one against another front and back, they can all be present at once.

4. The ten suchnesses

The "ten suchnesses" spoken of (there is only one suchness, but, according to what each stage witnesses, it is spoken of in ten layers) are these: first, the all-pervading suchness — this suchness is what the two emptinesses, the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas, disclose, and there is not one dharma in which it is not present (it pervades all things, and so is named all-pervading). Second, the supreme suchness — this suchness is complete with boundless virtues, and among all dharmas is the most excellent, and so is named the supreme.

Third, the supreme-outflow suchness — the teaching-dharma that flows out from this suchness is far more excellent than all the rest of the teaching-dharmas, and so is named supreme-outflow (the supreme outflowing). Fourth, the suchness of non-appropriation — this suchness is bound and belongs to nothing; "self-grasping" and the like cannot lay hold of it or take possession of it, and so it is named non-appropriation (it cannot be seized and held).

Fifth, the suchness of non-difference-of-kind — this suchness has no difference of kind, unlike the various dharmas, the eye, the ear, and the rest, which are each of a differing kind (suchness is of one single savor, with no distinction of kind), and so is named non-difference-of-kind. Sixth, the suchness of neither-defiled-nor-pure — this suchness, in its very nature, has no defilement, nor can it be said to be "something that became pure only afterward" (it was pure from the very start, not made pure by later cultivation), and so is named neither-defiled-nor-pure.

Seventh, the suchness of non-difference-of-dharmas — this suchness, though the teaching-dharmas set up upon it are many and the namings manifold, has in itself no difference (the teaching-dharmas being many, the suchness they rest on is one), and so is named non-difference-of-dharmas. Eighth, the suchness of neither-increase-nor-decrease — this suchness has left behind the grasping of "increase and decrease," and does not increase along with the pure or decrease along with the defiled, and so is named neither-increase-nor-decrease; this eighth suchness is also named "the suchness that is the basis of mastery over the marks and the land" — because, once one has witnessed and attained this suchness, one has mastery both in bringing forth bodily marks and in bringing forth a land (it is the basis on which mastery over bringing-forth-marks and bringing-forth-land rests).

Ninth, the suchness that is the basis of mastery over cognition — once one has witnessed and attained this suchness, one attains mastery in "the four unobstructed understandings" (it is the basis on which the attaining of mastery over cognition rests), and so it is so named. Tenth, the suchness that is the basis of mastery over action and the rest — once one has witnessed and attained this suchness, one attains mastery everywhere over all supernatural-power works, all-retention [dhāraṇī], and the concentration-gates (it is the basis on which the attaining of mastery over these various [kinds of] action rests), and so it is so named.

The nature of suchness is in truth without difference (it is, plainly, one); yet according to the excellent virtue each stage witnesses out, it is provisionally set up as ten kinds, to be spoken of. Though within the first stage one has in truth already penetrated the whole of suchness (penetrate one, penetrate all), yet the "practice that can witness it" (the cultivating labor that can go and witness it) is not yet complete; and in order to bring this labor to completion step by step, the other suchnesses are established one stage after another (so that the bodhisattva witnesses it layer upon layer, going ever deeper).

In just this way the bodhisattva, within the ten stages, valiantly and vigorously cultivates the ten excellent practices, severs the ten weighty obstructions, and witnesses the ten suchnesses; and thereupon he is able to witness and attain the two transformations of the basis (nirvāṇa and bodhi).

C. The Six Stages of the Transformation of the Basis

This thing called "the transformation of the basis," sorted by the stage it stands in, comes broadly to six kinds. Let us take them one by one:

1. The transformation that lessens the power and increases the capacity ("lessen" is to weaken, "increase" is to strengthen, and "capacity" means function). This is the transformation of the first two stages — the first, "the stage of provisions," and the second, "the stage of preparatory effort." In these two stages, leaning on the cultivation of "resolute conviction" (an understanding fixed and unshakeable) and of "shame-and-conscience" (self-examination, the fear of doing wrong), one "lessens" (weakens) the power of the defiled seeds within the root consciousness (the eighth consciousness) and "increases" (strengthens) the function of the pure seeds within it. The punctuation of the root sentence can mislead: "has not yet" governs both "severed the seeds of obstruction" and "actually realized the transformation of the basis." Thus, at these two stages one has not yet severed the seeds of obstruction and has not yet actually realized the transformation of the basis; what one has done is gradually subdue the active defilements. Kuiji explains that this is nevertheless called a "transformation" because it is the "cause of transformation" and a "transformation that can subdue." It is provisionally so named, not the realization of one portion of the real transformation; that begins with the stage of penetration.

2. The transformation of penetration ("penetration" is direct seeing, seeing all the way through). This is the transformation of the "stage of penetration" (that is, the "path of seeing," the very threshold where one first sees the truth at first hand). Leaning on the power of the path of seeing, one penetrates "suchness" in person (the true real form of all dharmas), and severs the "coarse-and-heavy" (the gross, heavy defiled habit-energy) of those two obstructions that are "discrimination-arising" (the kind perfumed in later by discrimination and grasping), and thereupon realizes one portion of the real transformation of the basis.

3. The transformation of cultivation (transforming by cultivating over and over again). This is the transformation of the "stage of cultivation." Leaning on cultivating, over and over, the manifold practices of the ten stages, one gradually severs the "coarse-and-heavy" of those two obstructions that are "innate" (the kind born with one, present without waiting for discrimination), and step by step realizes the real transformation of the basis. The treatise relied on goes on to split this "transformation of cultivation" out and explain it: the transformation of penetration falls in "the first six stages" — because within the first six stages there are both the "marked contemplation" (the contemplation still carrying images) and the "markless contemplation" (the contemplation apart from images), with "the real (the true principle)" and "the conventional (mundane facts-and-marks)" appearing face-to-face by turns, mixed together, and so it now lets "the real" show forth, now lets "the not-real" show forth too; whereas the transformation of cultivation falls in "the latter four stages" — because within the latter four stages it is the "pure markless contemplation" (the contemplation purely apart from images) appearing face-to-face for long stretches, cultivated valiantly, severing the remaining coarse-and-heavy, so that for the most part it can let "the not-real" no longer appear.

4. The transformation that is the fruit complete (the transformation that has reached the fruit and become complete). This is the transformation of the "ultimate stage" (the Buddha-stage). Having passed through "three great incalculable eons" (three exceedingly long stretches of time, beyond any counting) cultivating and gathering measureless, boundless excellent practices, the hard-to-perform performed, then, at the moment the "adamantine-like concentration" appears face-to-face (the concentration that, like a vajra, is keen and able to sever everything to the last), one severs all the original coarse-and-heavy forever at a single stroke, and on the spot completely realizes the transformation of the basis that is the Buddha-fruit, benefiting and gladdening sentient beings to the end of future time, never to be exhausted.

5. The inferior transformation (the kind of transformation that is rather low, rather narrow). This is the transformation of the "stage of the two vehicles" (the śrāvakas and the pratyekabuddhas). The people of the two vehicles seek single-mindedly only their own liberation (seeking solely their own benefit), loathing suffering and delighting in quiescence, and so they can penetrate only "the suchness that is the emptiness of birth" (the truth on the side of the no-self of the person — they know this "self" is empty, but have not yet seen through to "dharmas being empty too"), severing the seeds of the affliction[-obstruction] and realizing "the true cessation-through-discrimination" (the quiescence realized by the discriminating of true wisdom); but they do not have that superior, broad-and-great capability (they cannot sever the knowledge-obstruction to the last, cannot become Buddhas and deliver beings), and so this kind of transformation is called "the inferior transformation."

6. The broad-and-great transformation (the kind of transformation that is both broad and great). This is the transformation of the "stage of the Mahāyāna" (the bodhisattvas and the Buddha). The bodhisattva, for the sake of benefiting others, heads toward "the great enlightenment" (the unsurpassed awakening); he neither loathes "birth-and-death" nor craves "nirvāṇa" (leaning to neither side, abiding in neither), and so he can penetrate completely "the suchness that is the two emptinesses" (he has seen through both sides of the truth, the emptiness of the person and the emptiness of dharmas), severing both kinds of obstruction, "the knowledge-obstruction" and "the affliction-obstruction," seed and all, at a single stroke, and on the spot realizing the unsurpassed enlightenment and nirvāṇa. He has that superior, broad-and-great capability (delivering himself, and able to deliver beings to the end of future time), and so this kind of transformation is called "the broad-and-great transformation."

Among these six transformations, the one the verse (v29) really means to speak of is precisely this "broad-and-great transformation of the basis" — because the broad-and-great transformation of the basis is just what is realized and attained by "casting off the two coarse-and-heavy" (the affliction[-obstruction] and the knowledge-obstruction) (the transformation of the basis the verse speaks of refers to this, the most complete kind of all).

---

D. The Four Senses of the Transformation of the Basis

Above it was sorted by "stage" into six kinds; here, shifting the angle, it sorts by "the sense of this thing 'the transformation of the basis' itself" into broadly four kinds — that is, it takes "the transformation of the basis" apart into four links to look at: (1) "the path that transforms" (with what one does the transforming — that is, the path that is able to transform), (2) "the basis transformed" (the ground relied on in transforming), (3) "what is cast off in transforming" (what is cast off in transforming), (4) "what is attained in transforming" (what is attained in transforming). Let us take them one by one:

1. The path that transforms

1. The path that transforms (the "path" that can be brought to bear in transforming — that is, the work and the wisdom of practice). This is again of two kinds:

(i) "The path able to subdue" (the path that can press the obstructions down) — its work is to press down the power of "the latent dispositions of the two obstructions" (the seed-power of the affliction-obstruction and the knowledge-obstruction lying dormant, buried there as if asleep, and so called "latent dispositions"), making them no longer give rise to the "active forms" of the two obstructions (rising up and making trouble). The range of this "path able to subdue" is very wide: it runs through both "the contaminated path" (the work still carrying defilement) and "the uncontaminated path" (the pure work); and it runs through the three wisdoms too, "the preparatory wisdom, the fundamental wisdom, the subsequently-attained wisdom" (the preparatory wisdom = the work of preparation before seeing the truth in person; the fundamental wisdom = the wisdom at the very instant of realizing the truth in person; the subsequently-attained wisdom = the wisdom that, having come out of the fundamental wisdom, rises up again to discriminate facts-and-marks). According as the various cases differ, it sometimes subdues bit by bit (gradually), sometimes subdues all at once (suddenly).

(ii) "The path able to sever" (the path that can sever the obstructions out by the root) — its work is to sever "the latent dispositions of the two obstructions" forever. This "path able to sever" is definitely never "the contaminated path," and is definitely never "the preparatory path." Why? For two reasons: first, the "contaminated path" is itself something strung-and-practiced over and over in the past (what has been repeatedly practiced), and is moreover dragged along by "the grasping of marks" (the grasping at the marks of grasper-and-grasped), so that it has not itself even dissolved that opposition of grasper-and-grasped (it has not dissolved the mark), and so cannot sever to the root; second, the "preparatory path" is still in "heading-and-seeking" — still pressing toward "the truth to be realized" and "the fruit to be drawn forth," its work not yet truly accomplished (not yet brought to completion), and so it too cannot sever to the root.

〔On the path able to sever · variant account one · only the fundamental wisdom〕 One side says: the path able to sever can only be "the fundamental non-discriminating wisdom" (the wisdom at the very instant of realizing the truth in person, with no discrimination of any kind stirring in the mind). Why can only this one sever? Because it realizes in person that truth disclosed by "the two emptinesses" (the emptiness of the person and the emptiness of dharmas), with no "object-mark" (the image of the object faced) lying athwart the mind at the moment, and so it can sever the latent dispositions. As for "the subsequently-attained wisdom," it is not so (once it has come out, it again discriminates facts-and-marks, again carries an object-mark), and so the subsequently-attained wisdom does not count as a path able to sever.

〔Again it is said · the subsequently-attained too can sever delusion-as-to-facts〕 Again another side says: "the subsequently-attained non-discriminating wisdom," though it is not the realizing-in-person of the truth of the two emptinesses (not the direct entering that the fundamental wisdom is), and has no power to sever those latent dispositions that are "delusory-as-to-principle" (the dormant afflictions deluded as to "principle" — deluded about suchness itself), yet toward both these marks — "the established [truths]" (truths set up through speech and name-and-mark, like the four [noble] truths, laid out point by point with order) and "the non-established [truth]" (the truth not set up by speech, that is, suchness itself) — it can clearly bring them face-to-face and realize them without inversion, and so it too can forever sever those latent dispositions that are "delusory-as-to-facts" (the dormant afflictions deluded as to "facts-and-marks" — deluded about concrete facts-and-marks).

And so the treatise relied on (the Yogācārabhūmi) says: in the "stage of the path of cultivation" there is "a supramundane severing path" (a purely pure, supramundane severing path), and there is also "a severing path of both the mundane and the supramundane" (a severing path with mundane work mixed in); but there is no "purely mundane path" (work purely still in the mundane, carrying defilement) able forever to destroy (sever to the last) the latent dispositions. Why will the purely mundane path not do? The reasoning is the same as before — because it is what has been strung-and-practiced over and over in the past (what has been repeatedly practiced), and is dragged along by "the grasping of marks."

Following this line of principle one can reconcile the two foregoing accounts and draw the boundary between them: whatever is among the "latent dispositions delusory-as-to-principle" (the dormant afflictions deluded as to the truth), whether "severed by [the path of] seeing" (severed at the path of seeing) or "severed by [the path of] cultivation" (severed at the path of cultivation), only "the fundamental non-discriminating wisdom," realizing the truth in person, can sever it; whereas as for the rest, those "latent dispositions delusory-as-to-facts" (the dormant afflictions deluded as to facts-and-marks) among what is "severed by [the path of] cultivation," there "the fundamental wisdom and the subsequently-attained wisdom" can both rightly sever them. That is to say: what is deluded as to "principle" [is severed] only by the fundamental wisdom; what is deluded as to "facts" [is severed] by both the fundamental and the subsequently-attained — the first account above (only the fundamental wisdom) was speaking of severing the side of delusion-as-to-principle, the second account (the subsequently-attained too can sever) was speaking of severing the side of delusion-as-to-facts, the two accounts each answering to one half, and only when joined together complete.

2. The basis transformed

2. The basis transformed (the ground relied on in transforming — for turn it this way and that, there must after all be an object that gets transformed, a ground to rest on). This is again of two kinds:

(i) "The basis that holds the seeds" (the support that holds, that keeps, the seeds) — it refers to none other than "the root consciousness" (the ālaya-consciousness, the eighth consciousness). Why is it called the ground? Because it can hold all the seeds of the defiled dharmas and the pure dharmas, serving as the support for both the defiled dharmas and the pure dharmas; and when the holy path comes, it sets to work upon it, making it "cast off the defiled and attain the pure" (cast off the defiled, attain the pure). As for the rest of the "other-dependent nature" (those conditioned dharmas that arise only in dependence on the assembly of conditions), though they too count as a kind of support, they cannot keep hold of the seeds (cannot hold the seeds), and so in speaking of "the basis that holds the seeds" they are not counted.

(ii) "The basis of delusion-and-awakening" (the support on which both delusion and awakening rest) — it refers to none other than "suchness." Why is it called the ground? Because it can serve as the all-over root of "delusion" and "awakening" — be deluded about it and one becomes defiled, be awakened to it and one becomes pure, and all the defiled dharmas and pure dharmas come to arise only by resting on it; and when the holy path comes, it too sets to work upon this, making it "cast off the defiled and attain the pure." As for the rest of the dharmas, though they too can serve as a support for the dharmas of delusion and awakening, they are not that "all-over root," and so in speaking of "the basis of delusion-and-awakening" they are not counted.

3. What is cast off in transforming

3. What is cast off in transforming (the thing cast off in transforming). This is again of two kinds:

(i) "What is cast off by severing" (cast off in the manner of "severing") — it refers to "the seeds of the two obstructions." When "the true uninterrupted path" (that work which, truly and without a break, is severing obstruction) appears face-to-face, "obstruction" and "counteragent" (the wisdom that counters it) are squarely at odds, prowess against prowess, and that seed of obstruction is thereupon severed-and-extinguished, never again to stand — and this is called one "casting off." The seeds of obstruction being severed, one no longer rises up to grasp wildly at "self and dharmas" (a self of the person, a self of dharmas); and that "self and dharmas" once grasped, now that there is no more deluded feeling facing it (no one left to grasp it), this too counts as a "casting off." On the strength of these two sides, it is called "casting off the wholly-imagined" (casting off that empty, baseless grasping that reckons all around and sets up out of nothing).

(ii) "What is cast off by relinquishing" (cast off in the manner of "letting go, no longer keeping") — it refers to the remaining "contaminated seeds" and "inferior uncontaminated seeds" (the inferior, not-yet-ultimate pure seeds). When "the adamantine-like concentration" appears face-to-face, it draws forth an "utterly complete, utterly bright, purely pure" root consciousness (the eighth consciousness turned pure); this purely pure root consciousness no longer serves as a support for those inferior seeds (it is not their basis), and so those inferior seeds are all forever let go (relinquished). The inferior seeds being let go, the active contaminated dharmas and inferior uncontaminated dharmas can never again grow forth (in the end do not arise); and since they can forever never arise, this too counts as a "casting off." On the strength of this, it is called "casting off the inferior dharmas of birth-and-death" (casting off those inferior dharmas that draw on birth-and-death).

〔On the timing of what is cast off by relinquishing · variant account one · cast off together at the adamantine stage〕 When exactly are these inferior seeds cast off? One side says: those remaining contaminated dharma-seeds and inferior uncontaminated seeds are all cast off at the very moment "the adamantine-like concentration" appears face-to-face, all together — the reason being that they are cast off at the same time as "the seeds of the two obstructions" (since the seeds of the two obstructions are severed at the adamantine stage, these inferior seeds are cast off right along with them).

〔Again it is said (leaning to the right interpretation) · cast off only at the path of liberation〕 Again another side says (this account leans to the right interpretation): at that time (the "uninterrupted path" stage of the adamantine-like concentration) those inferior seeds are in fact not yet cast off — because these inferior seeds do not clash with the "uninterrupted path" at all (what the uninterrupted path severs is the seeds of the two obstructions, and the inferior seeds are no obstruction, so there is no call to sever them along with it). Suppose one insisted that the moment the uninterrupted path appears the inferior seeds were cast off; that would force out four conclusions that will not go through: (1) the bodhisattva at this stage ought then to have no more "dharmas of birth-and-death" at all (yet the bodhisattva at the uninterrupted-path stage is not yet a Buddha, still in the causal stage, and one ought not to say he has not a single dharma of birth-and-death left); (2) at this stage there ought then to be no more "consciousness that gets perfumed" (with no consciousness left to be perfumed, the perfuming that follows would have nothing to rest on); (3) the bodhisattva abiding on the uninterrupted path ought then, on the spot, to be called "a Buddha" (yet he is not yet a Buddha); (4) the "path of liberation" that follows the uninterrupted path (the path that, right after, realizes liberation) would then become superfluous, of no use at all. These four all turn into faults. From this one ought to realize: those remaining contaminated and like inferior seeds are let go only when "the path of liberation" arises — because it is only when the eighth "pure consciousness" (the purified eighth consciousness) truly comes to stand that it no longer serves as a support for those inferior seeds (and by then the inferior seeds, having lost their support, are of course cast off).

4. What is attained through transformation

The fourth kind is called "what is attained through transformation" (the thing one gains in exchange when the defilements are transformed and birth-and-death is transformed). This kind in turn divides into two. First, the first one — "the disclosed attainment" (not something newly fabricated, but the already-existent brought to light) — which refers to "great nirvāṇa." This nirvāṇa is from the first pure (its very nature has always been clean and clear); it is only that it has been covered over by the adventitious dust of the defilements, so that all along it could not be disclosed. Once the true holy path arises and severs away those affliction-obstructions, its mark is brought to light, and this is called "attaining nirvāṇa." Put another way, "attaining nirvāṇa" is a way of speaking set up with reference to this very event — "suchness leaving behind the affliction-obstruction" — and so its substance is in fact just "the pure dharma-realm" (pure suchness itself).

〔The four kinds of nirvāṇa〕

The word "nirvāṇa," in its sense, has distinctions; broadly it divides into four kinds.

The first is nirvāṇa originally and by nature pure (the kind that has always, from the first, been pure). It refers to that "suchness" principle within all dharma-marks: although it bears an adventitious defilement, its nature has always been pure; it is replete with measureless, countless subtle virtues; it neither arises nor perishes; it is limpid and clear like space; all sentient beings possess it equally and in common; and toward all dharmas it is neither the same as them nor different from them (neither-one-nor-different). It has left behind all marks and all discrimination; even the road of "thinking it through with the mind" is cut off, and the road of "saying it in words" is cut off too; only the true sage personally realizes it within his own [heart]; its nature has always been still, and so it is called "nirvāṇa."

The second is nirvāṇa with a remaining basis (the kind where a bit of "basis" still remains). It refers to suchness having emerged from the affliction-obstruction: although there still remains a little of the basis of suffering (that is, this body, not yet extinguished), the affliction-obstruction has been forever stilled, and so it is called "nirvāṇa."

The third is nirvāṇa without a remaining basis (the kind where not even that bit of basis remains). It refers to suchness having emerged from the suffering of birth-and-death: the defilements being already exhausted, even the remaining bit of basis (the body) is extinguished, and the manifold sufferings are forever stilled, and so it is called "nirvāṇa."

The fourth is nirvāṇa of no fixed abode (the kind that does not stop at either side). It refers to suchness having emerged from the cognitive obstruction: because great compassion and prajñā are always there at its side supporting it, it neither stops at the "birth-and-death" side (unlike the ordinary being, who sinks in birth-and-death) nor stops at the "nirvāṇa" side (unlike the two vehicles, who hide away in nirvāṇa); and just so, to the exhaustion of the future limit, it goes on benefitting and gladdening sentient beings — on one hand exerting its function, on the other always still ("functioning yet always still"), and so it is called "nirvāṇa."

Of these four kinds, who has which? All sentient beings have the very first (nirvāṇa originally and by nature pure, since this is what everyone possesses by nature); the trainee-completed ones of the two vehicles (the arhats) may have the first three; only the Buddha, the World-Honored One, can be said to have all four complete.

〔Q〕Someone asks: since the Buddha (the Well-Gone One) long ago had no basis of suffering, how can it still be said that he has "nirvāṇa with a remaining basis"? 〔A〕The answer goes like this: the Buddha in fact has no real basis of suffering; it is only that he appears as though he still had one (he displays a body-mark in the world); or, putting it another way — with respect to "the basis of suffering being already exhausted" he is said to be "without a remaining basis," and with respect to "the body that remains being not the basis of suffering but the basis of the rest of the virtues" he is said to be "with a remaining basis." This is why the World-Honored One can be said to have all four complete.

〔Q〕Then someone presses on: if the śrāvakas and the rest have "nirvāṇa without a remaining basis," then why do some places say they "do not have" it (the one without a remaining basis)? And there are even places that say they "have no nirvāṇa at all" — going by this, does that mean they do not even have "nirvāṇa with a remaining basis"?

〔A〕The answer must be given by taking it apart. As for the śrāvakas and the rest, while their body and their wisdom are still present, they still have the cognitive obstruction, and the basis of suffering is not yet exhausted, so that the sense of "perfect stillness" (perfect quiescence) cannot for the moment be disclosed, and hence they are said to "have no nirvāṇa" — yet this does not amount to saying that they really lack that "with-remainder nirvāṇa, the true principle disclosed when the affliction-obstruction is exhausted" (their with-remainder nirvāṇa is still there; it is only that the sense of perfect stillness lies hidden). Again, while their body and their wisdom are still present, they of course have not yet realized "the perfect stillness without remainder," and so they are also said to "have no [nirvāṇa] without a remaining basis" — yet this too does not amount to saying that, after they later extinguish body and wisdom, they have no such "nirvāṇa without remainder where the basis of suffering is exhausted" either (once body and wisdom are extinguished in the future, the without-remainder is still going to be there).

To add a line from yet another angle. Where some places say "the two vehicles have no nirvāṇa," that is said with reference to "nirvāṇa of no fixed abode" (the two vehicles indeed lack the no-fixed-abode nirvāṇa), and not with reference to the foregoing three. And where some places say "they have no [nirvāṇa] without a remaining basis," that is said with reference to "the two vehicles of indeterminate nature" (the sort whose disposition is not yet fixed, who can turn from the lesser toward the greater) — this sort, the moment they realize with-remainder nirvāṇa, at once make a firm resolve to turn around and seek unsurpassed enlightenment, and by the power of concentration and vow they keep the body and abide long in the world (the better to go on cultivating the bodhisattva path), and so they are not like the other sort (the two vehicles of determinate nature) who, severing [the defilements], straightway enter the without-remainder and reduce the body and extinguish the mind.

Here is told how the two vehicles of determinate nature proceed. There is a sort of two-vehicle person who deeply delights in "perfect stillness" as their road; they accomplish the "contemplation of person-emptiness" (the contemplation of the no-self of the person) and personally realize suchness, and forever extinguish those defilements that "summon the birth-and-death of the next life"; and the affliction-obstruction once exhausted, there is disclosed "the with-remainder nirvāṇa set up in dependence on the true principle." Next, since those defilements able to summon birth-and-death have been severed away, the karmically-matured fruit that follows (the body-mind of the next life) can no longer be produced at all; and at the moment when the present "basis of suffering" (the body of this one life) spontaneously perishes — the remaining conditioned dharmas, having lost what they relied on, are all at once cast off together with that basis of suffering, and there is disclosed "the without-remainder nirvāṇa set up in dependence on the true principle." At that time, although the two-vehicle person's body and wisdom are already gone, still, on the strength of what they once realized, one can say that they "have" it (the without-remainder nirvāṇa).

At this stage (the two-vehicle person's without-remainder nirvāṇa stage), there remains only pure suchness, apart from all marks, limpid and clear, still-and-extinguished and at ease — and on just this point alone, they are no different from a Buddha (the suchness is the same). On the other hand, though, they have no enlightenment (the wisdom of awakening), and have no activity of benefitting and gladdening sentient beings, and so it is also said that they are still different from a Buddha (the one liberates only himself, the other delivers all).

〔The cognitive obstruction and the nirvāṇa of no fixed abode〕

〔Q〕Someone asks: the cognitive obstruction plainly does not summon birth-and-death (it does not, like the defilements, tie a person down in the round); so how does severing it, on the contrary, win the "nirvāṇa of no fixed abode"? 〔A〕The answer: although the cognitive obstruction does not summon birth-and-death, it can cover over "the dharma-emptiness suchness" (the truth that all dharmas are empty), so that the great compassion and the prajñā wisdom cannot get issued and cannot go on to the exhaustion of the future limit benefitting and gladdening sentient beings; and so the moment one severs the cognitive obstruction, the principle of "dharma-emptiness" is disclosed, and this principle is precisely the "nirvāṇa of no fixed abode" — because it can make a person stop at neither "birth-and-death" nor "nirvāṇa," at neither side.

〔Q〕Someone asks again: if the cognitive obstruction can also obstruct nirvāṇa, then why does severing it nevertheless fail to win "cessation-through-discrimination" (the unconditioned disclosed when, by the power of discriminating wisdom, the defilements are extinguished)? 〔A〕Because "cessation-through-discrimination" is won from "loosing a binding," whereas the cognitive obstruction is not a "binding" (it does not tie a person down in birth-and-death), and so severing it does not count as "cessation-through-discrimination."

〔Q〕Someone asks again: this being so (the cognitive obstruction is not a binding, and severing it is not cessation-through-discrimination), then how can severing it still be called "attaining nirvāṇa"? 〔A〕Because not all nirvāṇas are gathered under "cessation-through-discrimination." Were it not so, then "nirvāṇa originally and by nature pure" (the first kind spoken of above) would likewise not count as nirvāṇa — for it too is not won by way of cessation-through-discrimination (yet it plainly is a nirvāṇa, which shows nirvāṇa is not confined to cessation-through-discrimination).

To set the principle out clearly: what can bind sentient beings and hold them in birth-and-death is the "defilements"; sever the defilements, and only then is one said to win "the unconditioned of cessation-through-discrimination." The cognitive obstruction does not summon birth-and-death, nor does it, like the defilements, bind sentient beings, and so when one severs it one does not win cessation-through-discrimination; nonetheless, because one has severed it, the principle of "dharma-emptiness" is disclosed, and the mark of this principle is still, and so it too is called "nirvāṇa" — it is only that this (no-fixed-abode) nirvāṇa does not have "cessation-through-discrimination" for its substance.

So, sorting the "four perfect stillnesses" (that is, these four kinds of nirvāṇa) among the various unconditioned dharmas: the first (originally and by nature pure) and the last (no-fixed-abode) just are suchness themselves; the middle two (with-remainder, without-remainder) are gathered under "cessation-through-discrimination."

〔Q〕Someone asks again: if it must be "severing a binding" to win cessation-through-discrimination, then the two of the "immovable" sort (the immovable unconditioned, and the unconditioned of the cessation of conception-and-feeling) — which of the four are they to be gathered under? 〔A〕These two are not gathered under "cessation-through-discrimination" — because scripture says they are but "a temporary leaving-behind" (the power of concentration temporarily suppresses [the feelings], not a forever-severing); whereas "the unconditioned of cessation-through-discrimination" refers only to that "ultimate cessation" (the forever-severed kind). One of this sort, being merely a temporary leaving-behind, is instead reckoned at times as "cessation-not-through-discrimination" (the unconditioned not won by discrimination), since it is not a forever-extinguished cessation.

Here is, besides, another way of construing it. One may also say: "nirvāṇa of no fixed abode" is gathered under cessation-through-discrimination too — because it too is won by the power of the true discriminating wisdom severing away the cognitive obstruction. How is this so? It turns out that "cessation-through-discrimination" in fact has two kinds: one is called "won by extinguishing a binding," referring to what is won by severing the defilements that summon birth-and-death; the other is called "won by extinguishing an obstruction," referring to what is realized by severing the remaining obstruction (that is, the cognitive obstruction). On this division, the four perfect stillnesses, sorted among the various unconditioned dharmas, become: the first one (originally and by nature pure) is suchness; the latter three (with-remainder, without-remainder, no-fixed-abode) are all cessation-through-discrimination. As for the two of the "immovable" sort, it depends on the case: if it is a "temporarily-suppressed cessation," then it is not gathered under cessation-through-discrimination; if it is an "ultimate cessation," then it is gathered under cessation-through-discrimination.

〔Q〕Someone asks again: since the cognitive obstruction can also obstruct nirvāṇa, then why does the holy teaching speak of it only as the "enlightenment-obstruction" (the obstructor of the wisdom of awakening)? Conversely, in saying that the affliction-obstruction obstructs only nirvāṇa, does that mean the affliction-obstruction cannot serve as an "enlightenment-obstruction"? 〔A〕One should realize that the holy teaching divides it this way "with reference to the more conspicuous function of each" — the cognitive obstruction's obstructing of "wisdom" is the stronger, so it is called the enlightenment-obstruction; the affliction-obstruction's obstructing of "stillness" is the stronger, so it is called the nirvāṇa-obstruction. But as to the actual principle, these two obstructions can in fact both obstruct, throughout, the two fruits of "nirvāṇa and enlightenment" (it is only that each has its emphasis).

To gather up the four kinds of nirvāṇa spoken of above: of these four kinds, only the latter three (with-remainder, without-remainder, no-fixed-abode) are named "the disclosed attainment." Why does the first not count? Because the first (nirvāṇa originally and by nature pure) is what everyone has from the first, not something newly disclosed by cultivation, and so it is not listed among "the disclosed attainment."

〔Great enlightenment · the four wisdoms〕

Now to the second one beneath "what is attained through transformation" — "the produced attainment" (the kind one gains only when it issues from a seed) — which refers to "great enlightenment" (the great awakening of a Buddha). This great enlightenment has from the first, in the field of consciousness, "a seed able to produce it," and it is only that the cognitive obstruction blocks it, so all along it cannot get produced; once the power of the holy path severs that obstruction, enlightenment issues from the seed, and this is called "attaining enlightenment." Once it arises, it continues straight on, to the exhaustion of the future limit, never breaking off. This great enlightenment, put plainly, is just the "mind-cluster associated with the four wisdoms" (the cluster of mind-kings and mental factors associated with the four kinds of wisdom).

So, what is the "mind-cluster associated with the four wisdoms"? Below they are treated one by one.

1. The great-mirror-wisdom-associated mind-cluster

1. The great-mirror-wisdom-associated mind-cluster (the wisdom that is like a great round mirror, formed by transforming the eighth consciousness). This cluster of mind has these several features: it is apart from all discrimination (it no longer gives rise to false discrimination); the object it takes and the way it operates (its mode-of-activity) are both so subtle as to be hard to know; toward all object-marks it neither forgets nor is deluded (neither forgetful, nor deluded); its nature and its marks are pure, apart from all defilement; it is a purely-pure and perfect virtue, able to serve as the support for both "present-activity" and "seeds" (the seeds are all stored within it); it can manifest and can produce the Buddha's body, the Buddha's land, and the images of wisdom; it goes on uninterrupted and unbroken, to the exhaustion of the future limit — just like a great round mirror, able to manifest the multitude of color-marks.

2. The equality-nature-wisdom-associated mind-cluster

2. The equality-nature-wisdom-associated mind-cluster (the wisdom that contemplates all as equal, formed by transforming the seventh, the manas consciousness). This cluster of mind contemplates all dharmas, and itself and other sentient beings, as all equal (it no longer, like the manas, constantly grasps at "self" and exalts itself); it is constantly associated with great loving-kindness, great compassion, and the like; following what each sentient being delights in, it can display the various distinct "other-enjoyment bodies" (the Buddha-bodies enjoyed by bodhisattvas) and pure-land images; it is the support belonging only to the "wondrous-observing wisdom" (the wondrous-observing wisdom must rely on it), and is also the ground on which "the nirvāṇa of no fixed abode" is established; of a single flavor it continues on, to the exhaustion of the future limit.

3. The wondrous-observing-wisdom-associated mind-cluster

3. The wondrous-observing-wisdom-associated mind-cluster (the wisdom skilled at observing, formed by transforming the sixth, the mental consciousness). This cluster of mind skillfully observes the "proper marks" (the marks particular to each) and the "common marks" (the marks shared in common) of all dharmas, turning without the slightest obstruction; it can gather and can contemplate measureless, countless "total-holdings" (dhāraṇīs), "concentration-gates" (the various samādhis), and the virtue-treasures these bring forth; within the great assembly of the dharma-gathering, it can manifest boundless, all-kinds-of functions, sovereign in every one; it can rain down the great dharma-rain (expound the wondrous dharma to the full), sever everyone's doubts, and cause all sentient beings to gain benefit and gladness.

4. The accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done-wisdom-associated mind-cluster

4. The accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done-wisdom-associated mind-cluster (the wisdom that accomplishes what should be done, formed by transforming the first five consciousnesses). This cluster of mind, in order to benefit and gladden sentient beings, can throughout the ten directions universally display the various transformation-deeds of the three karmas of body, speech, and mind (transforming forth body-marks, transforming forth speech, transforming forth mental thoughts), bringing the deeds that the power of the original vow is to do to full accomplishment.

〔The four wisdoms · the twenty-two dharmas · transforming the eight consciousnesses〕

Each of these four wisdom-associated mind-clusters in fact has, fixed within it, "twenty-two dharmas" (namely: one mind-king, five universal mental factors, five object-specific mental factors, and eleven wholesome mental factors, twenty-two added together). Within this one cluster, "the transformer" (the side of the mind-king and mental factors) and "the transformed" (the side of the mark-part transformed forth) — its seeds and its present-activity all arise together. Yet within this one cluster of dharmas, it is the function of "wisdom" that stands out in particular, and so it is signaled by the name "wisdom" (not that there is wisdom alone and nothing else, but that wisdom is taken as the representative). And just for this reason, these four clusters gather, all together, every conditioned virtue of the Buddha-ground (the state of Buddhahood) without remainder.

These four wisdoms are won by transforming, one by one in sequence, the clusters associated with the contaminated eighth, seventh, sixth, and first-five consciousnesses: the great-mirror wisdom comes of transforming the eighth consciousness, the equality-nature wisdom of transforming the seventh consciousness, the wondrous-observing wisdom of transforming the sixth consciousness, the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom of transforming the first five consciousnesses. Note this: "wisdom" is not, properly, the same as "consciousness" (wisdom and consciousness are two different things), yet wisdom is transformed by way of consciousness and takes consciousness for its principal one, and so it is said that "consciousness is transformed and wisdom thereby won" (transform consciousness and you win wisdom). And one layer more: at the contaminated stage it is "wisdom weak, consciousness strong" (consciousness rules and wisdom is faint); arriving at the untainted stage, it becomes "wisdom strong, consciousness weak" (now wisdom rules). The Buddha's purpose in speaking thus of "transforming the eight consciousnesses and winning these four wisdoms" is to urge sentient beings to "rely on wisdom and cast off consciousness" (no longer running after consciousness, but turning it into wisdom).

〔The great-mirror wisdom · the time it first arises〕

At just what point in time does the great-mirror wisdom first arise? Here there are two positions.

〔The great-mirror wisdom first arising · one view · it arises already at the adamantine stage〕 The first view: at the very moment the bodhisattva, in cultivation, has "the adamantine-like concentration" present before him, the great-mirror wisdom first arises. The reasoning: at that moment, the seeds of the karmically-matured consciousness (the contaminated eighth) and the seeds of that exceedingly subtle cognitive obstruction are cast off at the same time; and were the great-mirror wisdom not yet arisen at that moment, there would then be no consciousness "able to bear the pure seeds" (the pure seeds would have nowhere to be stored — so the mirror-wisdom must arise at that moment).

〔Yet another view (inclining to the correct sense) · it arises only on the path of liberation〕 The second view: this great-mirror-wisdom cluster first arises only at the time of "the path of liberation," the very moment of just becoming a Buddha (not arising already at the time of the foregoing path-of-no-interval of the adamantine-like concentration). As for the seeds of the karmically-matured consciousness, at the moment the adamantine-like concentration is present before one they are in fact not yet cast off all at once — why? Because the seeds of the karmically-matured consciousness do not conflict with "the path-of-no-interval" (the seeds of the karmically-matured consciousness are not themselves an obstruction; they obstruct neither contaminated dharmas nor the inferior untainted dharmas; they only definitely conflict with "the Buddha-fruit," and so are cast off only at the moment of becoming a Buddha). Here a counter-proof is added: if it really were as the first view has it, and the path-of-no-interval stage of the adamantine-like concentration already cast off the karmically-matured consciousness, then the adamantine-like-concentration stage would be left "with no consciousness that could be perfumed," and the untainted virtues could then no longer grow — and in that case would not Buddhahood have to be reached already at the "path-of-no-interval" moment? (This becomes a fault, which shows that the no-interval moment has not yet cast off the karmically-matured consciousness.) From this reasoning it can be seen: this great-mirror-wisdom cluster, from just becoming a Buddha and on to the exhaustion of the future limit, continues straight on unbroken, bearing the untainted seeds and never letting them be lost.

〔The equality-nature wisdom · the time it first arises〕

Now to the time the equality-nature-wisdom-associated mind-cluster first arises. It first arises at the stage where the bodhisattva's "path of seeing" first appears before him, because at this point it counters and suppresses the two graspings, "the grasping at person and dharma-attachment." But this is only its first arising; thereafter, in the course of the ten stages, because the innate sort of grasping is not yet wholly severed, whenever it meets a contaminated or like stage it still breaks off at times; only after the tenth, the "dharma-cloud stage," does it come to depend upon and continue together with the pure eighth consciousness, to the exhaustion of the future limit, never breaking off again.

〔The wondrous-observing wisdom · the time it first arises〕

Now to the time the wondrous-observing-wisdom-associated mind-cluster first arises, which must be told in two aspects.

First its "person-emptiness-contemplation aspect" (the side that contemplates the no-self of the person): on this side, a two-vehicle person can first arouse it already at the "path-of-seeing stage" (it is not confined to the bodhisattva); and from then on, turning ever forward, on up to the "trainee-completed stage," or up to the end of the bodhisattva's "understanding-and-practice ground," or up to the higher stages — except at times when one is in a "contaminated" stage, and at times of "no-mind" (no mind-consciousness activity, as in the no-conception concentration and the like), it may in all other circumstances become present.

Then its "dharma-emptiness-contemplation aspect" (the side that contemplates the no-self of dharmas): on this side, only the bodhisattva at the "path-of-seeing stage" can first arouse it (the two vehicles cannot arouse it); and from then on, turning ever forward, on up to the higher stages — except at times when one is in a "contaminated" stage, at times when the "person-emptiness-wisdom fruit" is present, and at times of "no-mind," it may in all other circumstances become present.

〔The accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom · the time it first arises〕

Now to the time the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done-wisdom-associated mind-cluster first arises; here too there are two positions.

〔The accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom first arising · one view · it arises already at the path-of-cultivation stage〕 The first view: the bodhisattva, in the course of the "path-of-cultivation stage," once the "subsequently-attained wisdom" draws it forth, can first arouse the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom too (without needing to wait for Buddhahood).

〔Yet another view (inclining to the correct sense) · it arises only upon becoming a Buddha〕 The second view: only upon becoming a Buddha can the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom first get aroused. The reasoning: in the course of the ten stages, the eye and the other five faculties on which the first five consciousnesses depend are transformed forth by the karmically-matured consciousness (the contaminated eighth), and such faculties are not untainted; now a contaminated faculty is "not-shared" (proper to each consciousness) and must, moreover, take the same object together with its consciousness, whereas "an untainted consciousness issued by an untainted faculty" simply will not fit together in principle — for a contaminated faculty and an untainted consciousness, when set against an object, are the one "dull" (murky) and the other "bright" (sharp and clear), and being dull and bright unalike, how could they be brought together into one? Hence it is said: this accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done-wisdom cluster cannot become present until one has become a Buddha and relies on an untainted faculty; and even then, the number of times it becomes present still breaks off from time to time, because it is the sort that must rely on "attention" (the rousing of the mind to set it in motion) to arise (it is not the sort that arises constantly of itself).

〔The four wisdoms' dispositions · originally existent, perfumed-to-issue〕

The dispositions of these four wisdoms, though each is originally existent (not produced later out of nothing), still need the later "perfuming-to-issue" (the perfuming-cultivation that draws them forth) before they can produce present-activity. At the "causal stage" (while one is still cultivating), they grow share by share; upon the perfecting of the "Buddha-fruit," they no longer grow and no longer diminish, to the exhaustion of the future limit always just so, only producing present-activity straight from the originally-existent seeds. After becoming a Buddha, they no longer perfume new seeds — why are they not let to perfume new seeds? Because if a later Buddha could still perfume forth new virtues, then would it not amount to "the earlier Buddha's virtues being on the contrary surpassed by the later Buddha's" (which would throw things into disorder, since the Buddhas' virtues ought to be equal), and so no new seeds are further perfumed.

〔The four wisdoms · their objects · the non-discriminating and the subsequently-attained〕

Next, what each of these four wisdoms takes as its object, and whether each belongs to the "non-discriminating wisdom" or to the "subsequently-attained wisdom." First the great-mirror wisdom; here there are two positions.

〔The mirror-wisdom's object · one view · it takes only suchness〕 The first view: the great-mirror wisdom takes only "suchness" for its single object, and it is the "non-discriminating wisdom," not the "subsequently-attained wisdom" — the reasoning being that the way it operates (its mode-of-activity) and the object it takes are both so subtle as to be uncognizable (and being uncognizable, it can be seen that it is not the sort of subsequently-attained wisdom that takes a distinct object and cognizes it).

〔Yet another view (the correct sense) · it takes all dharmas as object〕 The second view (this is the correct sense): the great-mirror wisdom takes "all dharmas" as object (not suchness alone). On what is this said? For one, the Sūtrālaṃkāra says "the great-mirror wisdom, toward all objects, is not deluded" (since it is not deluded toward any object, it can be seen that it takes all dharmas as object); for another, the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says "the Tathāgata's wisdom-mirror manifests in full the multitude of images of the various bases, objects, and consciousnesses" (since it can manifest the multitude of images, it can be seen that it takes all dharmas as object). Moreover, it definitely also takes as object the untainted seeds, and the Buddha's body, the Buddha's land, and the like — all the various images; and the reason it was said above to be "uncognizable" is only that the way it operates and the objects it takes are too subtle (just as the ālaya consciousness too takes worldly objects as object, while its mode-of-activity is all the same subtle and uncognizable).

So is it, in the end, to be reckoned a non-discriminating wisdom or a subsequently-attained wisdom? Look at it in two aspects: the aspect in which it takes "suchness" as object is the "non-discriminating wisdom"; the aspect in which it takes "the remaining various objects" as object is gathered under the "subsequently-attained wisdom." In fact its substance is only one; it is only that, following the difference of function, it is spoken of in two aspects (the non-discriminating and the subsequently-attained) — because "cognizing the conventional" is a thing that can only be managed by first "realizing suchness," and so the aspect of its taking the conventional as object is named "subsequently-attained" (won after the realizing of the true). The remaining wisdoms (equality-nature, wondrous-observing, accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done) are likewise divided this way into two; understood on the model here, they are clear.

Next, what the equality-nature wisdom takes as its object; here there are three positions.

〔The equality-nature wisdom's object · one view · it takes only the pure eighth〕 The first view: it takes only the eighth's pure consciousness as object — just as, before the transformation-of-the-basis, the contaminated seventh consciousness took the store-consciousness as its object (once it is transformed into the equality-nature wisdom, the object too is transformed accordingly into the pure eighth, the thing it takes as object carrying on in one line of descent).

〔A second view · it takes only suchness〕 The second view: it takes only "suchness" for its single object — because what it takes as object is that "equal nature of all dharmas" (the principle that all dharmas are equal and non-dual, which just is suchness).

〔Yet another view (the correct sense) · it takes both the true and the conventional as object〕 The third view (this is the correct sense): it takes both aspects, "the true and the conventional," as object. On what is this said? For one, the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says "the equality-nature wisdom realizes the ten kinds of equality-nature" (this is the aspect of taking suchness as object); for another, the Sūtrālaṃkāra says "it takes as object the self-and-other equality of all sentient beings, and, following the differing convictions of beings, displays boundless Buddha-images" (this is the aspect of taking the conventional as object). So it is said: this equality-nature-wisdom cluster takes object throughout in both aspects, the true and the conventional, and is therefore gathered under both kinds of wisdom (the non-discriminating and the subsequently-attained) at once — which is in no way at odds with principle.

Next, what the wondrous-observing-wisdom-associated mind-cluster takes as object: it takes as object the "proper marks" (the marks particular to each) and the "common marks" (the marks shared in common) of all dharmas, with no obstruction at all; and so it too is gathered under both kinds of wisdom (the non-discriminating and the subsequently-attained) at once.

Next, what the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom takes as object; here there are two positions.

〔The accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom's object · one view · it takes only the five present objects〕 The first view: it takes only "the five present objects" (form, sound, smell, taste, touch — the five dusts present here and now) — because the Sūtrālaṃkāra says "the Tathāgata's five faculties, each one, turn only upon their corresponding five objects" (the five faculties to the five objects, so the five wisdoms take only the five present objects as object).

〔Yet another view (the correct sense) · it can take the three times as object〕 The second view (this is the correct sense): the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom can also universally take as object all the dharmas of the "three times" (past, present, future), and this does not run against right principle. On what is this said? The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says "the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done wisdom can set going the various transformation-deeds of the three karmas, can discern the distinctions in sentient beings' mind-conduct, and can take in the senses of past, future, present, and the rest"; were it to take as object only the five objects before it and be unable to take the three times throughout as object, it would not have these capacities (which shows that it can take the three times throughout as object). Even so, this cluster of mind takes object following "the power of [its] inclination" (taking object of as much as it wishes), at times taking as object one dharma, at times two, at times many. As for the "five faculties turning upon the five objects" that the first view spoke of, that only says the one thing, "the five faculties turn upon the five objects," and does not say "this alone, and nothing else taken as object," and so the two views are not at odds. This accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done-wisdom cluster arises following "attention," takes as object the objects of phenomenal-marks, and sets going the various transformation-karmas, and so it is gathered under the "subsequently-attained wisdom" (it is not a non-discriminating wisdom taking suchness as object).

〔The four wisdom-clusters · the distinctions of their function〕

These four clusters of mind, though each can universally take all dharmas as object, yet have differing "functions"; setting them apart: the great-mirror-wisdom cluster manifests the "self-enjoyment body" (the body the Buddha himself enjoys) and its pure-land marks, and bears the untainted seeds; the equality-nature-wisdom cluster manifests the "other-enjoyment body" (the Buddha-body enjoyed by the bodhisattvas of the stages) and its pure-land marks; the accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done-wisdom cluster (also called the accomplishing-deeds wisdom) can manifest the "transformation body" (the transformation-body displayed to ordinary beings and the two vehicles) and its transformation-land marks; the wondrous-observing-wisdom cluster (also called the observing wisdom) contemplates the strengths and faults of self and other (the capacities, the faults), rains down the great dharma-rain, breaks the various nets of doubt, and benefits and gladdens sentient beings. Sorted out by such headings, the distinctions of their function are of many kinds besides.

To gather up this whole long passage: these four clusters of mind above are named "the produced attainment" (won only when it issues from a seed); this "produced attainment," taken all together, is given one name, namely "enlightenment"; and putting it together with the (four kinds of) nirvāṇa spoken of before, these two together — enlightenment and nirvāṇa — are jointly named "what is attained through transformation" (the thing gained in exchange when the defilements are transformed and birth-and-death is transformed).

〔Conclusion: the verse takes up only the two attainments-through-transformation · the causal stage〕

A last word to close. The word "transformation-of-the-basis," in its sense, has four kinds in all (the path that does the transforming, the basis that is transformed, what is cast off through transformation, what is attained through transformation), yet here this verse takes up only "(those two — nirvāṇa and enlightenment —) attainments-through-transformation" among them — why? Because the verse text says "then is the transformation-of-the-basis realized," and these two words "is realized" match precisely with "what is attained through transformation" (the things to be realized and attained being just those two attainments-through-transformation). And one further point to keep clear: this "stage of cultivation" speaks of "the capacity-to-realize," and not yet of "having-already-realized" — because the stage of cultivation still belongs to the "causal stage" (still cultivating on the ground of cause, the fruit not yet perfected), and so it is only said to "be able to" realize, leaving "having-already" realized to the later ultimate stage.

〔Verse expounded〕

This, then, is the uncontaminated realm — inconceivable, good, permanent, 　　blissful, the liberation-body, the Great Muni named the dharma[-body]. (v30)

---

A. Expounding the verse — the marks of the ultimate stage · the fruit of the twin transformation-of-the-basis

The treatise says: that transformation-of-the-basis attained at the foregoing "cultivation stage," you should know, just is the marks of the "ultimate stage" (that is, the stage of Buddhahood). The word "this" in the verse points to the two kinds of transformation-of-the-basis-fruit spoken of before (that is, the enlightenment and the nirvāṇa won by turning [the basis] around); and both of these are gathered into the ultimate "uncontaminated realm." Why is it called "uncontaminated"? Because all the "contaminants" (that is, the afflictions) are thoroughly exhausted, not a trace left, with no contaminated dharma any longer following along and increasing with it; its nature is pure and clean, perfect and full, bright and luminous — hence it is called "uncontaminated." The word "realm" has two layers of meaning: the first layer is the sense of "store" (holding within) — because herein are held the boundless, hard-to-come-by, rare great merits; the second layer is the sense of "cause" (able to give rise) — because it can give rise to the manifold affairs of benefit and bliss, worldly and supramundane, of the "five vehicles" (that is, the five sorts: humans, gods, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas).

〔Q〕To say the "pure dharma-realm" belongs only to the uncontaminated is easy enough to grasp; but the "four-wisdom mind-and-factors" (that is, the four kinds of wisdom formed by transforming the eight consciousnesses, the active functioning of wisdom that involves doing) — why do they too belong only to the uncontaminated? 〔A〕Because they are included within the "path-truth," and so belong only to the uncontaminated — that is to say, the Buddha's merits, the Buddha's form-body, the Buddha's pure land, and the like, are all born from the uncontaminated seed-nature, the seeds of contaminated dharmas having been thoroughly cast off long ago. Although the Buddha does also manifest the marks of a birth-and-death body, of karma, of afflictions, and the like — which look as if they were "the truth of suffering, the truth of arising" (the contaminated side) — yet at bottom these are uncontaminated, still gathered by the "path-truth"; for that is only a manifestation, not really contaminated.

〔Q〕The Abhidharma-samuccaya and the like say that "the fifteen elements and the rest are only contaminated" (among the eighteen elements, leaving aside the three — the mind-element, the dharma-element, and the mental-consciousness-element — the remaining fifteen elements are contaminated only); if it be so put, then would the Tathāgata not be without the five faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), without the five consciousnesses, without the five outer elements (form, sound, smell, taste, touch)? (For were the Buddha furnished with these fifteen elements, would he not then turn out to be contaminated too?)

〔One view · the Buddha's virtues surpass the aggregates-bases-elements〕 One party says: the Tathāgata's merits, form-body, and pure land are profound and subtle, neither to be called "existent" nor to be called "non-existent," far apart from every discrimination, with all elaboration cut clean off, and so are not gathered at all within the dharma-gates of "elements, bases," and the like. That being so, this does not, in principle, conflict with the Abhidharma-samuccaya's "the fifteen elements are contaminated only" — for the Buddha's merits simply are not on the roster of those fifteen elements.

〔Another view · the Buddha's faculties-and-objects belong to dharma-realm-form〕 Another party says: the Tathāgata's five faculties and five objects are born from the subtle "concentration," and so belong within "dharma-realm-form" (that is, the sort of form born within concentration, which is the object of the sixth mental consciousness, belonging to form-gathered-by-the-dharma-base); they are not transformed by the Buddha's five consciousnesses. Although the Buddha's five consciousnesses do also transform-and-manifest in dependence on this "dharma-realm-form," yet the form born within concentration is "fine" while the form the five consciousnesses transform is "coarse" — one fine, one coarse, not the same — so it is not gathered within the "five-object-elements" (that is, the five objects: form, sound, smell, taste, touch). The Tathāgata's five consciousnesses, too, are not gathered within the "five-consciousness-elements" (that is, the first-five-consciousness elements) — because scripture says "the Buddha's mind is forever within concentration," and the treatises say "the five consciousnesses' nature is scattered-and-disturbed" (since the Buddha's mind is ever in concentration and not scattered, the Buddha has no scattered five-consciousness-elements).

〔Q〕The "wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done" (Sanskrit kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna, the wisdom formed by transforming the first five consciousnesses) — with which consciousness is it associated? 〔A〕It is associated with the sixth consciousness, because it must put forth the function of "transformation." 〔Q〕If it is associated with the sixth consciousness, then in what does it differ in nature from the "wisdom of wondrous discernment" (this being the wisdom formed by transforming the sixth consciousness)? 〔A〕The wisdom of wondrous discernment's business is to contemplate the "self-mark, the shared-mark," and so on, of all dharmas (that is, it is used upon the understanding of wisdom), whereas the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done attends only to putting forth the function of "transformation" (that is, to transforming-and-guiding sentient beings) — so these two are distinct.

〔Q〕If the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done and the wisdom of wondrous discernment both rest on the sixth consciousness, then would these two wisdom-classes not be unable to arise together — since two consciousnesses of one and the same kind cannot, by their nature, arise together? 〔A〕There are two ways to resolve it. First: even granting that they do not arise together, in principle there is nothing wrong with that. Second: or, viewing it as "out of one and the same wisdom-substance two functions are divided off," then their arising together is no obstacle either (this is one substance dividing into two functions, not two consciousnesses arising side by side).

〔Another resolution · the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done belongs to the seventh〕 Or someone says: the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done is associated with the "seventh pure consciousness" (that is, the pure consciousness formed by transforming the defiled manas), resting on the eye-faculty and the rest, taking form and the rest as object — and this is really a difference within one of the functions of the "wisdom of equal-nature." What is meant is: when the pure seventh consciousness puts forth the marks of the "other-enjoyment body, the other-enjoyment land," it is gathered into the class of the "wisdom of equal-nature"; when it puts forth "transformation" (of body and land), it is gathered into the class of the "wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done."

〔Q〕Is not this wisdom-class of accomplishing what is to be done attained by "transforming the first five consciousnesses"? (You now say it rests on the seventh, and this does not square with the account "attained by transforming the five consciousnesses.") 〔A〕It is not that one "transforms those five consciousnesses and then attains a wisdom anew"; rather, "its very substance is that one (the pure seventh)" — the transformative function put forth by the pure seventh consciousness is just what is called the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done. This is like saying "one transforms birth-and-death and attains nirvāṇa": one cannot, on account of so speaking, then maintain that nirvāṇa too is gathered together with birth-and-death; just so, here too (the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done belonging to the seventh) one ought not to press that challenge.

〔The right meaning, to be known · the Buddha's virtues are gathered into the aggregates-bases-elements〕 Another party says (and this is the right meaning): the Tathāgata's merits, form-body, and pure land are, each according to where it properly belongs, all gathered into the three categories of "aggregates, bases, elements" — and these three categories of aggregates, bases, and elements run, by their very nature, through both sides, "contaminated and uncontaminated." As for the Abhidharma-samuccaya's and the like's "the fifteen elements and the rest are contaminated only," that was spoken with reference to the coarse and shallow realm that the "two vehicles" (śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas) know, and was not saying "everything" (it was not counting in even the Buddha's uncontaminated aggregates-bases-elements).

This means: among the eighteen elements accomplished by "the rest" (that is, by sentient beings other than the Buddha), only the last three elements (the mind-element, the dharma-element, the mental-consciousness-element) can run through to the uncontaminated; whereas the eighteen elements that the Buddha accomplishes, though every one of them is uncontaminated, are not within the range of the realm that the two vehicles' wisdom knows (and so the Abhidharma-samuccaya speaks of "contaminated only" with reference to that realm of the two vehicles, never reaching as far as the Buddha's realm).

As for where another place (that is, the foregoing "one view") says "the Buddha's merits and the rest are not gathered into elements, bases," the meaning is: the Buddha's merits are not like "the marks of elements and the rest that the two vehicles' inferior wisdom knows," and in principle it must be so (it is not that the Buddha simply has no aggregates, bases, elements at all). How, then, is it known that the Buddha's merits must be gathered into the aggregates-bases-elements? There are four pieces of proof: first, the holy teaching says "all conditioned dharmas are gathered by the aggregates"; second, the holy teaching says "all dharmas are gathered by the elements and bases"; third, "a nineteenth element" and its kind (that is, wishing to set up some further [category] outside the aggregates-bases-elements) is barred off by the holy teaching (no dharma is allowed outside the elements); fourth, were it said "cut off elaboration and then it does not count as elements and the rest," that principle too cannot stand — whatever can be spoken of does not run outside the aggregates-bases-elements.

(Were the Buddha's merits, taken whole, to depart from the aggregates-bases-elements,) then neither ought it to be said that [Buddhahood] "just is the uncontaminated realm," is "good," is "permanent," is "blissful," is "the liberation-body," and so on — for each of these virtues in the verse must have some dharma-substance that it points to and speaks of (there must after all be something for you to call good, to call permanent). Furthermore the holy teaching everywhere says: "casting off the impermanent aggregates, one attains the permanent aggregates," and so likewise for elements and bases (likewise casting off the impermanent elements and bases and attaining permanent elements and bases). Since it is by transforming the impermanent aggregates that one attains the permanent aggregates, how then could it still be said that the Tathāgata is without aggregates, bases, elements? Therefore where the foregoing "one view" says "the Buddha's merits are not elements, bases," it is really a "hidden-intent statement" (with a further concealed meaning, not to be taken literally).

Furthermore, where the foregoing "one view" says "the five consciousnesses' nature is scattered-and-disturbed," that was spoken with reference to the five consciousnesses accomplished by "the rest" (that is, by ordinary beings and the two vehicles), not with reference to the five consciousnesses the Buddha accomplishes (the Buddha's five consciousnesses are surely together with concentration, and are not scattered). And so it is said: within the Buddha's body the eighteen elements and the rest are all complete and entire, while in substance they are purely uncontaminated.

These two fruits of the transformation-of-the-basis the verse calls, again, "inconceivable" (meaning: it cannot be thought, it cannot be told). Why inconceivable? For three reasons: first, it surpasses every road of "reflection (that is, applying the mind to ponder)" and of "verbal discussion (that is, using the mouth to speak)"; second, it is subtle and profound, attained only by the Buddha himself realizing it within; third, not any single simile in the world can match up to it. In a word: apart from thinking, apart from discussion, and apart from simile too.

This fruit of the transformation-of-the-basis is, again, "good" (that is, the word "good" in the verse) — because its very nature is the pure-white good dharma. Why is it said that both kinds of transformation-of-the-basis are good? On several counts: first, the pure dharma-realm is far, far apart from arising-and-perishing, utterly at peace; second, the four-wisdom mind-and-factors have wondrous functioning with no fixed place (used as one will, bound to no single mode), utterly skilful; third, both of these have the mark of "according-with and benefiting" sentient beings; fourth, both of these are contrary to "the non-good" — on these several grounds, both kinds of transformation-of-the-basis are said to be good.

〔Q〕The treatises say that among the "twelve bases" eight bases (that is, the five faculties — eye, ear, nose, tongue, body — together with the three objects, form, smell, taste) are only "indeterminate" (neither good nor bad). If Buddhahood belongs only to the good, then would the Tathāgata not be without the five faculties, without the three objects (smell, taste, touch)? 〔A〕Here there are three explanations, already set out at length before (in the segment "the Buddha's virtues are gathered into the aggregates-bases-elements") — that is: either one says the Buddha's merits surpass and stand outside the elements-and-bases, or one says they are gathered by dharma-realm-form, or one says the Buddha's elements and bases are purely good and uncontaminated; so there is simply no such difficulty as "eight bases are only indeterminate."

All the dharmas of every Tathāgata's form-body, pure land, and the like are gathered into "the truth of cessation, the truth of the path," and so are only good — because the holy teaching says the two truths of cessation and path belong only to the good nature, and says the Buddha's lands and the like do not belong to "the truth of suffering, the truth of arising." As for those marks the Buddha's consciousness transforms-and-manifests that "look like the contaminated, like the non-good, like the indeterminate" — these too are all born from uncontaminated good seeds, and so are still gathered by the uncontaminated good (they look as if defiled, but at bottom are good).

This fruit of the transformation-of-the-basis is, again, "permanent" (that is, the word "permanent" in the verse) — because it has no day of exhaustion. Why is it said that both kinds of transformation-of-the-basis are permanent? On the pure-dharma-realm side: without arising, without perishing, its substance unchanging too — and so it is called permanent. On the four-wisdom-mind-and-factors side: it is because what they rest on (the pure dharma-realm) is permanently abiding, and because they themselves carry on thought after thought, continuing without severance or exhaustion — and so they too are called permanent.

But this must be told apart clearly: the "permanence" of the four-wisdom-classes is not the same as the "own-nature-permanence" of the pure dharma-realm. Why? Because the four wisdoms arise from a cause (that is, from seeds), and whatever arises must in the end perish — this being a principle the holy teaching judges and settles throughout; moreover, the world has never seen any form-dharma or any mind-dharma that was not impermanent (whatever dharma involves doing is impermanent). On what, then, can the four-wisdom-classes hold out to the very end of the future? On the power of the Buddha's original vow, together with the fact that the sentient beings to be transformed have no day of exhaustion — and so the four wisdoms can hold out all the way to the end of the future, without severance, without exhaustion. (This is "the permanence of unbroken continuity," "the permanence of no severance," not that "own-nature-permanence" of the dharma-realm.)

This fruit of the transformation-of-the-basis is, again, "blissful" (that is, the "blissful" in the verse) — because there is in it not the least oppression or torment. On the pure-dharma-realm side, every kind of mark is utterly still and quiet, and so it is called blissful; on the four-wisdom-mind-and-factors side, it forever departs torment and harm, and so it too is called blissful. The own-nature of these two is alike without oppression or torment, and is moreover able to give bliss to all sentient beings; and so both kinds of transformation-of-the-basis are called "blissful."

The two fruits of the transformation-of-the-basis attained by the two vehicles (that is, the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas) are nothing more than a forever departing from the bond of the "affliction-obstruction," and have nothing of (the surpassing merit-dharmas that the Buddha accomplishes); and so they can only be called the "liberation-body" (that is, the "liberation-body" in the verse) — this saying that the two vehicles have only a liberation-body, no dharma-body.

The Greatly Awakened World-Honored One (that is, the Buddha) accomplishes the unsurpassed dharma of "stillness-and-silence" (transliterated, just "muni"), and so is called the "Great Muni" (that is, the "Great Muni" in the verse). The two fruits attained by this Muni-Honored One, having now forever departed the two obstructions — the affliction-obstruction and the cognitive obstruction — are (not only called the liberation-body but) also called the "dharma-body" (that is, the "named the dharma" in the verse) — because it is adorned by the immeasurable, boundless great merit-dharmas of the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, and the rest. This word "body" carries three layers of meaning, "substance, basis, aggregation" (that is, the sense of its own substance, the sense of being a basis, the sense of being an aggregation); joined together, they are called "body." Therefore this "dharma-body" takes the "five dharmas" (that is, the pure dharma-realm, the great-mirror wisdom, the wisdom of equal-nature, the wisdom of wondrous discernment, the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done) for its nature, and it is not the pure dharma-realm alone that is called the dharma-body; for the two fruits of the transformation-of-the-basis (enlightenment, nirvāṇa) are all gathered into this (dharma-body).

---

B. The point-by-point distinctions — the three bodies

This "dharma-body" (that is, the dharma-body in the broad sense, the one composed of the five dharmas joined together) divides into three kinds of marks: First, the self-nature body — this means that true, pure dharma-realm of the Buddha-Tathāgatas; it is the equal resting-place for the enjoyment body and the transformation body; it is apart from every mark, utterly still and unmoving, with all elaboration cut clean off; it is furnished with boundless, truly-permanent merits, and is the equal, real nature of all dharmas. It is just this "self-nature" that is also called "the (narrow-sense) dharma-body," because it is the resting-place of the great merit-dharmas.

Second, the enjoyment body (Sanskrit sāṃbhogika-kāya), and this divides further into two kinds — (1) the self-enjoyment body: this means that, over "three incalculable eons" (that is, the three great eons, exceedingly long), the Buddha-Tathāgatas cultivated and gathered immeasurable provisions of merit and wisdom, and thereby gave rise to boundless real merits, and to that supremely perfect, supremely pure, permanent, all-pervading form-body; it carries on thought after thought, clear and unmoving, all the way to the end of the future, ever self-enjoying the vast dharma-bliss (that is, enjoying for itself the joy of the dharma).

(2) The other-enjoyment body: this means that the Buddha-Tathāgatas, by the "wisdom of equal-nature," manifest a subtle, pure merit-body, dwelling in a purely pure land, and for the sake of those bodhisattvas abiding upon the "ten stages," put forth great spiritual powers, turn the wheel of the true dharma, and cut through the net of the multitude's doubts, letting them (the bodhisattvas of the ten stages) enjoy the Mahāyāna dharma-bliss (that is, letting others enjoy the joy of the dharma). Joining these two kinds, self-enjoyment and other-enjoyment, the whole is named the "enjoyment body."

Third, the transformation body: this means that the Buddha-Tathāgatas, by the "wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done," transform-and-manifest immeasurable "according-to-kind" (that is, according to the kinds of sentient beings) transformation-bodies, dwelling in pure lands and impure lands, and for the sake of those bodhisattvas who have not yet ascended (the first) stage, and the two vehicles, and ordinary beings (that is, the unenlightened), suiting each one's faculties and what fits them, put forth spiritual powers and preach the dharma, letting each obtain the various affairs of benefit and bliss.

〔Gathering the three bodies by the five dharmas〕

Taking the "five dharmas" (that is, the pure dharma-realm together with the four wisdoms) and matching them to the "three bodies" — how is the match to be made? 〔One view · the first two gather the self-nature body〕 One party says: of the five dharmas, the "first two" (that is, the pure dharma-realm and the great-mirror wisdom) match the "self-nature body" — the grounds being: scripture says "suchness just is the dharma-body" (and the pure dharma-realm just is suchness); and the treatises say "transforming the ālaya-consciousness away, one attains the self-nature body," and the great-mirror-wisdom-class is precisely what is realized by "transforming the store-consciousness (that is, the ālaya) away" (so the great-mirror wisdom too belongs to the self-nature body). The "middle two" wisdom-classes (that is, the wisdom of equal-nature and the wisdom of wondrous discernment) match the "enjoyment body" — the grounds being: scripture says the wisdom of equal-nature manifests the Buddha-body for the bodhisattvas in the purely pure land (this is other-enjoyment), and says the wisdom of wondrous discernment, in the great assembly, preaches the dharma, cuts doubt, and manifests sovereignty, and also says "transforming away those turning-consciousnesses (that is, the first seven consciousnesses), one attains the enjoyment body." The "last one" wisdom-class (that is, the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done) matches the "transformation body" — the grounds being: scripture says the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done, in the lands of the ten directions, manifests immeasurable kinds of hard-to-conceive transformations. Furthermore, since "wisdom" is thus surpassing, it gathers all three bodies (the three bodies are all formed by wisdom); and so it is known that all three bodies have "real wisdom" (that is, true wisdom, not merely a semblance).

〔Another view, the right meaning · only the first one gathers the self-nature body〕 Another party says (and this is the right meaning): of the five dharmas, only the "first one" (that is, the pure dharma-realm) matches the "self-nature body." There are four grounds: first, scripture says the self-nature body is "fundamentally permanent" (only the dharma-realm is fundamentally permanent; the wisdoms arise from a cause and do not count as fundamentally permanent); second, scripture says the Buddha's dharma-body is "without arising, without perishing"; third, scripture says (the dharma-body) is attained by the "realization-cause" (that is, the revealing-cause, which brings out what was there all along), not produced by the "production-cause" (whereas the wisdoms are produced by the production-cause); fourth, scripture further says the dharma-body is common to all the Buddhas, pervading all dharmas, just like space, markless and unconditioned, neither form nor mind (whereas the wisdoms involve doing, having the marks of form and of mind).

As for where the foregoing "one view" says "transforming the store-consciousness away, one attains (the self-nature body)," this is to be understood thus: it is by transforming-and-extinguishing the "gross-and-heavy of the two obstructions" within the eighth consciousness (that is, the seeds and the habit-residues of the affliction-obstruction and the cognitive obstruction) that the dharma-body, there all along, is "revealed" — this is "revealing," not "producing," and so it still belongs only to the dharma-realm-gathered (not to the wisdoms). And the place where, in the "surpassingness of wisdom," "the dharma-body" too is spoken of — that is because wisdom is the resting-place of that dharma-body, and is one function of that dharma-body's real nature; so wisdom is mentioned along with it, but this is not to say that wisdom just is the self-nature body. The self-nature dharma-body, although it has real, boundless merits, is yet "unconditioned," and so cannot be spoken of as a form-and-mind sort of thing involving doing.

(On this right meaning, the four wisdoms then divide off to match the latter two bodies:) Of the real merits within the four-wisdom-classes — the permanent, all-pervading form-body that the "great-mirror wisdom" puts forth is gathered into the "self-enjoyment body"; the Buddha-body that the "wisdom-of-equal-nature class" manifests is gathered into the "other-enjoyment body"; the according-to-kind, manifold body-marks that the "wisdom-of-accomplishing-what-is-to-be-done class" manifests are gathered into the "transformation body."

〔Q · to which body does the mirror wisdom belong〕 (Since the foregoing right meaning says the great-mirror wisdom does not belong to the self-nature body, then to which body, in the end, does it belong?) The answer: it is said that "the great-mirror wisdom is enjoyment (-body)" — because it is by transforming "those turning-consciousnesses" (that is, the first seven consciousnesses) that the Buddha attains the enjoyment [body]. 〔Q〕But the great-mirror wisdom is plainly attained by transforming the eighth store-consciousness; how then does it too belong to enjoyment? 〔A〕Although "transforming the store-consciousness" too attains the enjoyment [body], yet when (scripture and treatise) speak of "transforming that store-consciousness away," the intent is "to reveal the dharma-body," and so on the side of "attaining enjoyment" it is passed over and not mentioned (and that is why elsewhere it speaks only of transforming the seven consciousnesses to attain enjoyment). Furthermore (to show it conversely): scripture says the dharma-body is "without arising, without perishing, attained only by the realization-cause, neither form nor mind," and the great-mirror-wisdom-class is exactly contrary to this (the great-mirror wisdom does arise, is attained by the production-cause, and is a mind-class); and since it is contrary to the marks of the dharma-body, then if it does not belong to the enjoyment body, to which body should it belong? (So the great-mirror wisdom must belong to the self-enjoyment.)

Furthermore, the "enjoyment body" gathers in the Buddha's "unshared" (that is, what the Buddha alone has) real merits that involve doing; and so the four-wisdom-classes (within self-enjoyment and other-enjoyment) really do have form-dharmas and mind-dharmas, all gathered into the enjoyment body (those real merits of the four wisdoms that involve doing belong to enjoyment, not to the self-nature).

Furthermore, the "other-enjoyment body" and the "transformation body" are both manifested as a skilful means for "transforming others," and so it cannot be said that they take "real wisdom" for their substance (those manifested marks are not real wisdom). Although the foregoing "one view" did say "the transformation-body is gathered by the surpassingness of wisdom," that is really "what is manifested as a semblance of wisdom," or "what wisdom puts forth" — only the name "wisdom" is borrowed to speak of it, while its substance is not true wisdom. Scripture and treatise say only that "the wisdom of equal-nature and the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done are able to manifest the (other-)enjoyment body and the three-karma (that is, of body, speech, mind) transformation-bodies"; they do not say that these two bodies just are these two wisdoms. And so these "wisdom of equal-nature and wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done" (in their real substance) still belong to the "self-enjoyment" (the substance of wisdom belongs to self-enjoyment; only the manifested marks belong to other-enjoyment and to transformation).

But the transformation body and the other-enjoyment body, although they have no "real" mind and mind-factors, do have "manifested" mind-and-mind-factor-dharmas (that is, things that look like mind and mind-factors). The supremely enlightened one's spiritual power is hard to conceive, and so he can manifest even dharmas without shape or substance (that is, mind-dharmas). Were it not so put (that is, were it not allowed to manifest mind and mind-factors), then two things would not work out: first, how could the Tathāgata manifest such marks as "greed, hatred"? (Greed, hatred) He severed long ago (so those must certainly be manifested); second, how could the śrāvakas, and the beasts (that is, the animals), and the like, come to know the Tathāgata's mind? (Were it his real mind,) the Tathāgata's real mind not even an "equal-enlightenment bodhisattva" can yet reach (so what they can know is the manifested mind).

It is just on account of this (that is, the principle of manifesting mind and mind-factors) that scripture says "(the Buddha) manifests immeasurable kinds (of beings) and lets (the transformation-bodies) all have mind"; and says "the Tathāgata, by the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done, performs the three karmas (of body, speech, mind)"; and says "the transformation body has a mind it depends on" — this being a manifesting of the perceived-part in dependence on "the (that is, the Buddha's) real mind" (the manifested mind is the perceived-part of the Buddha's real mind). Although another place says "the transformation body has no faculties, no mind, and the like," that was spoken with reference to "the rest" (that is, the sort of inferior transformation-body that is not a Buddha's, or with reference to that level which has no real faculties or mind), not with reference to the Tathāgata's (manifesting). Furthermore, "the manifested form-faculties and mind-and-mind-factor-dharmas" have no function such as the "faculties" really have (that is, no real function of receiving and of discerning), and so it is said that they "do not have (real faculties or mind)" — it is not saying that, taken whole, there is no manifesting at all.

〔The difference in merits among the three bodies〕

These three bodies, although all of them are furnished with boundless merits, yet each has its difference. First, "the self-nature body": it has only the real "permanence, bliss, self, purity" (that is, the four virtues of nirvāṇa); it is far apart from every defilement, the resting-place of all goods, an unconditioned merit, without the differentiated marks and functions of form, mind, and the like (which involve doing).

Next, "the self-enjoyment body": it is furnished with immeasurable kinds of subtle "real" merits of form, mind, and the like. As for "the other-enjoyment body" and "the transformation body," they are furnished only with the boundless sort that "looks like" form, looks like mind (not real, but manifested as a semblance) — the merits of manifested-marks, used to benefit and bless others.

Again, dividing from the angle of "self-benefit, benefiting-others": "the self-nature body" properly belongs to "self-benefit" (because it is still, blissful, without action), yet also takes in "benefiting-others" (because it serves as a "dominant condition," letting sentient beings gain benefit and bliss), and is moreover the resting-place of those two bodies, enjoyment and transformation — so (the self-nature body) runs through both sides, self-benefit and benefiting-others. "The self-enjoyment body" belongs only to self-benefit. "The other-enjoyment body" and "the transformation body" belong only to benefiting-others (because they are manifested for the sake of others).

〔The lands the three bodies rest on〕

Again, dividing from the angle of "which land each of the three bodies rests on": "the self-nature body" rests on the "dharma-nature land." Although the substance of this (self-nature) body and the (dharma-nature) land is fundamentally no different (both being one and the same suchness), yet the (body) belongs to "Buddha" and the (land) belongs to "dharma," their marks and natures being distinct (one is the resting body, one the rested-on land). This Buddha's (self-nature) body and (dharma-nature) land are neither of them gathered by "form." Although its shape and measure cannot be called small or great, yet spoken of as regards "the marks of affairs," its measure is boundless, just like space, pervading every place.

"The self-enjoyment body" rests on its own "self-(enjoyment) land": this is to say, that pure consciousness associated with the "great-mirror wisdom," because the causes and conditions of the "self-benefit" sort of uncontaminated, purely pure Buddha-land cultivated of old have now ripened, therefore from first attaining Buddhahood all the way to the end of the future, transforms-and-manifests, thought after thought, a purely pure Buddha-land — perfect all round and without bound, adorned with the manifold jewels — and the self-enjoyment body forever rests in it and abides. As great as the measure of the pure land is (boundless), so great is the measure of the body too; and (the Buddha's) faculties and the marks-and-marks are each and all boundless — because all of these are drawn forth and born from limitless roots of good.

(The self-enjoyment body's) merits and wisdom, being no form-dharma, cannot of course be called great or small in shape and measure; yet in dependence on its "what-is-realized" (that is, suchness) and its "rested-on body" (that is, the form-body), it can also be said to "pervade every place" (because the suchness that is realized is pervading, the body is by extension said to pervade too).

"The other-enjoyment body" also rests on its own "self-(enjoyment) land": this is to say, by the great compassionate power of the "wisdom of equal-nature," because the causes and conditions of the "benefiting-others" sort of uncontaminated, purely pure Buddha-land cultivated of old have now ripened, therefore, following what suits each of the bodhisattvas abiding upon the "ten stages," it transforms-and-manifests a pure land — now small, now great, now inferior, now surpassing, changing and shifting from before to after (transforming along with the differing levels) — and the other-enjoyment body rests in it and abides. The measure of the body that can rest [there] has, likewise, no fixed limit.

As for "the transformation body," it rests on the "transformation land": this is to say, by the great compassionate power of the "wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done," because the causes and conditions of the "benefiting-others" sort of uncontaminated pure-and-impure Buddha-land cultivated of old have now ripened, therefore, following what suits each of the sentient beings "not yet ascended to the (first) stage," it manifests as a Buddha-land — now pure, now impure, now small, now great, changing and shifting from before to after — and the Buddha's transformation body rests in it and abides. The measure of the body that can rest [there] has, likewise, no fixed limit.

〔The sameness and difference of body and land · shared and unshared〕

"The self-nature body and (dharma-nature) land" all the Tathāgatas alike realize as one and the same, and so its substance has no difference (all the Buddhas are one and the same). "The self-enjoyment body and the land it rests on," although every Buddha transforms its own and they are not the same from one to another, are yet all boundless and do not obstruct one another.

"The remaining two" (that is, other-enjoyment and transformation) bodies and lands, following the sentient beings whom the Buddha-Tathāgatas would transform, have the distinction of "shared, unshared." When the beings to be transformed are of the "shared" sort (that is, the sort of faculties that several Buddhas transform together): in one and the same place, at one and the same time, the several Buddhas each transform a body, transform a land, and their shapes are alike, not obstructing one another, mingling together as a "dominant condition," letting the beings to be transformed "manifest by each one's own consciousness" (that is, the being's own mind manifests the one Buddha it sees) — that is to say, upon one land there is one Buddha-body, manifesting for [the being] spiritual powers, preaching the dharma, benefiting [it]. When the beings to be transformed are of the "unshared" sort: then only one Buddha transforms (a single Buddha alone transforms for those faculties).

The several kinds of sentient beings, from beginningless time, have had their "spiritual lineage" (that is, with which Buddha they have the connection to be transformed) tied to one another of its own nature: in some cases "many (beings) tied to one (Buddha)," in some cases "one (being) tied to many (Buddhas)," and that is why the beings to be transformed have the distinction of "shared, unshared." Were it not so (that is, supposing there were no distinction of shared and unshared), then for many Buddhas to abide long in the world, each one toiling and laboring (that is, taking on toil and toil), would really be without point — since one Buddha could benefit all beings (so there must be the unshared sort of faculties, by which it shows that the many Buddhas each have their own beings to transform).

〔Whether body and land are contaminated or uncontaminated · the distinction of the aggregate-marks and consciousness-marks〕

These bodies and lands, whether pure or impure, so long as they are transformed-and-manifested upon the "uncontaminated consciousness," are all of one sort with that consciousness which transforms them — all of them good, uncontaminated, born from purely good, uncontaminated causes and conditions; they are gathered into the "path-truth," and not into the two truths of "suffering, arising." But their "aggregate" and other consciousness-marks need not all be the same — because they are drawn forth and born from the mingled causes and conditions of several dharmas (that is, seeds, present activity, the object, and the like) (even what one and the same consciousness transforms will have differences of aggregate-mark).

As for what is transformed-and-manifested upon the "contaminated consciousness," it is all of one sort with that consciousness which transforms it — all of it contaminated; born purely from contaminated causes and conditions, it is gathered into "suffering, arising," and not into the two truths of "cessation, path." Its good-and-other (that is, good, bad, indeterminate) consciousness-marks, too, need not all be the same — because they are drawn forth and born from the mingled causes and conditions of the three natures. The sameness and difference of the "aggregates" and the rest (and also bases and elements) are to be understood on this same model; were it not so (that is, supposing what is transformed had necessarily to be of one nature with the consciousness that transforms), then there could not even be "the five aggregates, the twelve bases" and so on (these differentiated establishments).

〔Resolving into consciousness-only · the inner object not non-existent〕

But the "perceived-part" and the rest are transformed-and-manifested only in dependence on consciousness; they are not real in the way that "the nature of consciousness" (that is, the consciousness-substance that is other-dependent) is real within the other-dependent (the perceived-part is inseparable from consciousness, and is not some real thing standing apart). Were it not so (that is, supposing the perceived-part stood apart from consciousness and existed really on its own), then the principle of "consciousness-only" could not stand — for that would amount to conceding that "consciousness (within) and the (inner) object are both really and truly existent" (that is, establishing an object existing apart from consciousness and really existent). Or one may put it thus: consciousness's "perceived-part, perceiving-part," and the rest are all born from conditions, and all belong to "the other-dependent"; their being unreal or real is of one sort with consciousness (all, like consciousness, are other-dependent); the word "only" means only to dismiss "the (mind-)outer (object)," not to bar off "the (consciousness-)inner object" (that is to say, the inner object is not non-existent). Were it not so (that is, supposing even the inner object were non-existent), then "suchness" too ought not to be real (for suchness too is the real nature of consciousness — how could it be said to be non-existent?).

〔Q〕Since the inner object and consciousness are alike not unreal, why is it said only "consciousness-only," while it is said "there is no (outer) object"? 〔A〕"Consciousness" is had only within (it does not run out to the outside), whereas "object" runs even to the outside as well (because some falsely reckon an object outside the mind); for fear of (the moment one says "object") running together with "the (mind-)outer (object)," it is therefore said only "consciousness-only" (that is, holding up "consciousness" and screening off "the outer" — not saying that there is no inner object).

〔Another intent〕 Or one may put it thus: those foolish ordinary beings, dazed and clinging to the (mind-outer) object, give rise to afflictions and to karma, and sink and drown in birth-and-death, understanding neither how to "contemplate their own mind" nor willing diligently to seek release; (the holy ones), pitying them, therefore speak this word "consciousness-only," so as to let them contemplate their own mind and win release from birth-and-death — it is not to say that "the inner object too, like that (falsely reckoned) outer object, is altogether non-existent" (that is to say, consciousness-only is spoken to break the outward-directed grasping, not to wipe out the inner object with a single stroke too).

〔Another intent〕 Or one may put it thus: the perceived-part and the rest all take "consciousness" for their nature; by the power of "perfuming" they look as if many parts (that is, the manifold marks) arose; and suchness too is "the real nature of consciousness" (that is, the perfectly-accomplished, precisely the real nature of the other-dependent). So apart from "the nature of consciousness" (whether the other-dependent or the perfectly-accomplished, neither is apart from consciousness), there is no separate dharma at all. And the "consciousness" spoken of here takes in "the mind-factors" as well — because the mind-king and the mind-factors are surely associated together (so to speak of "consciousness" is to gather in the mind-factors too).

---