成唯識論 義疏通講 · 冊4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Causal Condition

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

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

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

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

2. The Immediately-Antecedent Condition

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Object-as-Condition

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

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

4. The Dominant Condition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Ten Causes Gathered into Two Causes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Causal Condition the Five Fruits Are Obtained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onward Transmission

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

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

Opening: What This Objection Must Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What "the twofold grasping" Means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Onward Transmission

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

We have been saying all along that "there is only consciousness," and right here a natural objection presents itself. If the ten thousand things are only consciousness, then why did the World-honored One, in sūtra after sūtra, repeatedly teach the three natures — the wholly-imagined nature (what is grasped through pervasive imagining), the other-dependent nature (what arises in dependence on conditions), and the perfectly-accomplished nature (the real character of things)? This section answers that "objection from scripture." Let the answer be stated first: the three natures do not set up some separate set of things outside of consciousness. The three natures are precisely established with reference to consciousness itself — which is why we say "the three natures, too, are not apart from consciousness." In what follows we will track the verses: first work each of the three natures through clearly (who does the imagining, what is wholly-imagined, what the wholly-imagined looks like, and what the perfectly-accomplished is), then match the three natures one by one against the various sets of doctrinal categories (the three unconditioned, the seven suchnesses, the six dharmas, the five items, the five characteristics, the four realities, the four truths, the three gateways to liberation, the two truths, and so on), and finally distinguish among the three natures whether each is nominal or real, and whether they are different or not different.

The establishing of the three natures has its roots in scripture and treatise alike. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on the characteristics of all dharmas, says plainly that "the characteristics of dharmas are in brief of three kinds": the wholly-imagined mark is "the self-nature and the distinctions of all dharmas, nominally established through names" (merely a self-nature and distinctions nominally set up in reliance on conventional designation); the other-dependent mark is "the condition-born nature of all dharmas" (this being, that is — this arising, that arises — born from conditions); and the perfectly-accomplished mark is "the equal suchness of all dharmas." The same sūtra gives the image of a "pure crystal gem": the crystal is in itself clear, yet once it takes on a tint of color it seems to bear all manner of hues; the other-dependent mark is itself like the crystal, while the "wholly-imagined mark" is like the tint laid over it — not something the other-dependent has of itself, but only the perfuming of verbal habit, falsely grasped and laid on top. The sūtra further divides the order in which the three characteristics are understood by way of "characteristic-and-name in correspondence" and "grasping versus non-grasping"; and in its chapter on the characteristic of non-self-nature it goes on, in reliance on the three characteristics, to teach the three kinds of non-self-nature — "the non-self-nature of characteristic, the non-self-nature of arising, and the non-self-nature in the ultimate sense" — which is precisely the scriptural basis for the later section, "in reliance on just these three natures, those three non-natures are established." The Yogācārabhūmi, in its chapter on the ascertaining of the meaning, likewise fixes the three self-natures: the wholly-imagined is "established by conventional designation, set up through repeated all-pervading reckoning"; the other-dependent is "born of the host of conditions, arisen by the power of others, not existing of itself, and so said to be without nature"; and the perfectly-accomplished is just the suchness of all dharmas. It further judges that "falsely giving rise to wholly-imagined grasping upon the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished" is called "the extreme of superimposition" — which is exactly what the verse "the perfectly-accomplished is, upon that, forever apart from the previous nature" means to set apart (what is set apart is only this superimposed wholly-imagined; the other-dependent itself is not emptied). What this section expounds has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi (with the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Madhyānta-vibhāga alongside) — and with that we follow the verses and open the exposition.

A. First, work each of the three natures through clearly (v20–22)

1. The imagining agent — which consciousnesses do the "pervasive imagining"?

First the question: which kind of consciousness is the one that does the "pervasive imagining"?

"Pervasive imagining" means measuring and reckoning all-pervasively — the mind discriminating and conjecturing about its objects across the board; this is why it is called pervasive imagining. And because this discriminating mind comes in many kinds, the verse uses the words "this one and that one" to speak of it. Put plainly, the imagining agent is just that mind of "false discrimination." It is by this "this-and-that" variety of false discrimination that one pervasively imagines all manner of "wholly-imagined things" — that is, the falsely-grasped aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, grasped whether as "dharmas" or as "self." The natures and distinctions that are grasped out in this way are together called the "wholly-imagined nature." And a nature grasped out in this way is in fact "entirely without any existence at all": probe it by correct reasoning, test it against the holy teaching, and no substantial reality can be found.

The verse can also be read matched up this way: the first line, "by this and that imagining," shows the consciousness that does the imagining; the second line, "imagining all manner of things," indicates the object that is wholly-imagined; and the latter half, "this wholly-imagined nature has no existence of its own," is the formal statement — that the wholly-imagined, whether it grasps self or grasps dharma, has no nature of its own, because the foregoing has already shown at length that it cannot be found.

So then, which consciousnesses are actually the imagining agent? Here there are two views.

One view (all eight consciousnesses can imagine): the eight consciousnesses together with their mental factors — whatever among them is defiled (with-outflow) — all count as imagining agents. The reasoning is threefold. First, defiled mind and mental factors all have "false discrimination" as their very substance. Second, they all arise displaying the semblance of two characteristics, the "grasped and the grasper." Third, the treatise also says that the store-consciousness, the ālaya-vijñāna, takes as its object the seeds of the wholly-imagined nature's false grasping — which shows that even the store-consciousness should be included among the imagining agents.

Another view (the settled, correct reading: only the sixth and seventh imagine): only those parts within the two mind-kinds — the sixth, the mental consciousness, and the seventh, the manas — that "grasp self and grasp dharma" are truly the imagining agent. The reasons must be taken point by point. (1) The holy teaching says only that "the mental consciousness can imagine." (2) Both "manas" (the seventh) and "mental consciousness" (the sixth) can be named "mental consciousness," so this term "mental consciousness" gathers the sixth and seventh together. (3) An imagining agent must be capable of "reckoning discrimination," and the first five consciousnesses have no faculty of reckoning. (4) What can grasp self and grasp dharma must be "discernment" (prajñā), and in the first five consciousnesses discernment is not strong. (5) The two graspings, of self and of dharma, must arise together with "ignorance." (6) The holy teaching does not say that ignorance has a wholesome nature, so a wholesome mind is not an imagining agent. (7) "Delusion" and "non-delusion" cannot accompany one another, so an undefiled mind of non-delusion is not an imagining agent. (8) No "grasping" has ever been seen to lead forth the "wisdom of emptiness," which shows that grasping and the realization of emptiness do not coexist. (9) "Grasping as existent" and "penetrating non-existence" never arise at once, so the undefiled wisdom that penetrates non-existence will not give rise to grasping. (10) No "grasping" has ever been one that "cannot perfume"; and the consciousness of karmic maturation and the like do not perfume, so they too are not imagining agents.

Now let us go back and dissolve, one at a time, the reasons given for the first view. Take first the point that "all defiled mind is false discrimination." It is true that defiled mind cannot realize suchness, so it may indeed all be named "false discrimination"; but "even though it arises displaying the semblance of grasped and grasper" does not amount to "therefore it is all an imagining agent." Otherwise, undefiled mind also arises displaying the semblance of these two characteristics — would undefiled mind then also have grasping? Would the subsequently-attained wisdom of a Tathāgata then also have grasping? Plainly this will not do. So one cannot take "displaying the semblance of the two graspings" as proof of "being an imagining agent." Scripture says even more explicitly: a Buddha's wisdom can give rise to all manner of images — bodies, lands, and the rest — just as a clear mirror reflects things; and if one said that undefiled wisdom had no "function of cognizing-its-object" (that is, did not display the semblance of an object-aspect), then it would no longer be "wisdom" at all — which shows that "displaying the semblance of the two characteristics" is by no means the same as "grasping." Take next the point that "the store-consciousness takes the wholly-imagined seeds as object." Although the holy teaching does say that the store-consciousness takes as object the seeds of the wholly-imagined nature, it does not say that the store-consciousness takes only this as object (the store-consciousness in fact also takes real objects), so this does not establish for certain that "the store-consciousness is an imagining agent." From all the foregoing it is known: only these two mind-kinds, the sixth and the seventh, have the capacity for pervasive imagining.

Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) sets up here a "four-alternative analysis," disentangling the two senses of "pervasive" (universally able to take an object) and "imagining" (reckoning and grasping), the better to mark off how wide or narrow the imagining agent is. First, "pervasive but not imagining" — this covers the undefiled consciousnesses, and the defiled wholesome consciousnesses and the like, which can take all objects widely and all-pervasively yet give rise to no reckoning-grasping. Second, "imagining but not pervasive" — this is the defiled seventh consciousness (it constantly grasps a self, but takes only the single inner object of the store-consciousness, and is not all-pervading). Third, "both pervasive and imagining" — this is the defiled, self-and-dharma-grasping sixth consciousness and the like (which both reckons all-pervasively and gives rise to grasping). Fourth, "neither pervasive nor imagining" — this covers the defiled first five consciousnesses and the eighth consciousness (which neither reckon all-pervasively nor give rise to grasping). Once the four alternatives are laid out, "the true imagining agent is only the sixth and seventh, those that grasp self and dharma" stands out clearly. Kuiji further glosses the word "things" in "imagining all manner of things": "'things' means substances" — and this "thing" is spoken with reference to the imagining mind, for since the imagining mind comes in many kinds it is said to be "all manner," and it is not that the "substances" themselves come in many kinds (the manifoldness lies only on the side of the imagining mind).

A note in passing: although there are only two kinds of imagining consciousness (the sixth and seventh), its "imagining" admits of various ways of counting — two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and so on (reckoned according to how the discrimination is grouped or split out). This is why the verse says "this one and that one."

2. The wholly-imagined object — what is the object that is wholly-imagined?

Next the question: as for the imagined (the object of imagining), what is its own nature?

The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha says: the imagined is just the dependent nature — because the other-dependent nature is precisely the "object-condition" of the imagining mind (false grasping must always lean upon an other-dependent event to arise; it never grasps out of thin air).

Here someone presses further: is the perfectly-accomplished nature not also an object of the imagining mind? The answer: suchness (the perfectly-accomplished) is not an object that false grasping can "directly take" (false grasping cannot reach all the way to suchness); yet, speaking by way of "succession" (it is by deluding oneself about the real that one then gives rise to the false), one may, with some stretching, call it wholly-imagined too. As for the "wholly-imagined" itself — although it is the "object" that the imagining mind faces, it has no substance whatever and cannot serve as an "object-condition," so it too does not count as the wholly-imagined in the strict sense. Strictly speaking, then, the imagined is just the dependent nature.

3. The character of the wholly-imagined — exactly how does it differ from the other-dependent?

Next the distinction: what does the wholly-imagined look like, and how does it differ from the other-dependent? This passage is the pivot of the whole section, and here too there are two views.

One view (the two aspects just are the wholly-imagined): the mind and mental factors of the three realms, through beginningless false perfuming, although each has but a single "substance," arise displaying the semblance of "two aspects" — namely the "seeing-aspect and the object-aspect" (that is, the grasper and the grasped). These "two aspects" are "present to feeling but absent in reason" (seemingly there to deluded feeling, in fact not there in reason), and this appearance is what is called the "wholly-imagined." But the "substance" on which the two aspects depend (the self-substance of the mind and mental factors) is genuinely born in reliance on the host of conditions, and its nature is not nothing — and this is called the "other-dependent," because it is "born from the conditions of false discrimination." How do we know it is divided this way? Because the holy teachings put it just so: "false discrimination" (the substance of mind and mental factors) is the other-dependent, and "the two graspings" (the seeing- and object-aspects, the grasper and grasped) are what is called the wholly-imagined.

Another view (the settled, correct reading: the two aspects too are other-dependent; it is the false fixed grasping that is the wholly-imagined): the "two aspects" (seeing and object) that all mind and mental factors transform out through the power of perfuming, since they too are born from conditions, ought also to be "other-dependent" — the two aspects are not in themselves the wholly-imagined. It is only when the imagining agent, leaning on these two aspects, falsely grasps that they are "definitely really existent, definitely really nonexistent, one, different, both, or not-both," and so on, that this "false grasping" is what is called the wholly-imagined. The reasons are these. First, the holy teachings say that "the cognizing-measure alone (self-awareness), the two alone (seeing- and object-aspects), and the many alone (the manifold object-aspects)" are all named other-dependent — which shows that the two aspects belong to the other-dependent. Second, the four — object-aspect, seeing-aspect, self-awareness, and the awareness of self-awareness — together with the "eleven cognitions" of which the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha speaks, are all judged in the treatise to be included under the other-dependent.

Then the settled reading uses several layers of counter-argument to pin down the first view. (i) If the two aspects just were the wholly-imagined, then the two aspects in the undefiled "subsequently-attained wisdom" would also have to be called wholly-imagined; and if this is granted, then holy wisdom ought not to arise taking the wholly-imagined as object, and the wisdom-kind that takes it as object ought not to count as the "truth of the path" (which will not do); and if this is not granted (that is, if one grants that the two aspects of subsequently-attained wisdom are not wholly-imagined), then one should recognize that the defiled two aspects are likewise not wholly-imagined. (ii) If the two aspects were wholly-imagined, then they should be unable, like a "hare's horn," to serve as an object-condition (since the wholly-imagined has no substance and cannot serve as a condition); moreover, the two aspects, having no substance, ought not to be perfumed into seeds; and seeds not being perfumed, then when later consciousness arises there ought to be no two aspects at all — all of which run contrary to the facts. (iii) The various "perfumings" (seeds) are included under the "object-aspect" — does this not precisely show that the object-aspect is "an existent dharma" and can serve as a "causal condition"? (Which shows the object-aspect has substance and belongs to the other-dependent.) Furthermore, if one insisted that the condition-born "inner object-aspect and seeing-aspect" are not other-dependent, then by the very same reasoning their "underlying substance" (self-awareness) ought also not to be other-dependent (there being no other ground to divide them), and on this reasoning the whole structure collapses. From these reasons it is known: every condition-born "self-substance of mind and mental factors," together with its "object-aspect and seeing-aspect," whether defiled or undefiled, is wholly other-dependent — because they all arise in reliance on the host of conditions.

As for the verse line "born from the conditions of discrimination," this is spoken "with reference, for the moment, to the defiled portion of the other-dependent" (taking, in particular, the defiled portion) — because the "pure portion of the other-dependent" is in fact already gathered into the perfectly-accomplished (the pure portion of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished are mutually identical). Or one may also say: both defiled and pure mind and mental factors may be named "discrimination" (since both cognize objects), and on this reading the whole of the other-dependent, defiled and pure alike, is gathered under this verse's "other-dependent," not limited to the defiled portion.

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

The "full, accomplished" real nature of all dharmas, displayed by the two emptinesses — the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas — is called the "perfectly-accomplished." The three words "full, accomplished, real" display that this real nature is "all-pervading, abiding, and not false in substance" — used to set it off from "self-character and common-character" (which are not all-pervading), from "empty space" (which has no substance and is not real), from "self" (which is false), and the like. Furthermore, an undefiled "conditioned" dharma (such as undefiled wisdom), because it is free of inversion, ultimate, and all-pervading in its superior function, may also be called "perfectly-accomplished"; but the perfectly-accomplished of this verse takes the "first sense" (the full, accomplished real nature of all dharmas, that is, suchness), not the "later sense" (undefiled conditioned dharmas).

This perfectly-accomplished is just "that which, upon the other-dependent, is forever apart from the previously-stated wholly-imagined," with the "suchness displayed by the two emptinesses" as its very nature — and this is exactly the verse's "the perfectly-accomplished is, upon that, forever apart from the previous nature." Reading this line word by word: to say "upon that" (upon the other-dependent) displays that the perfectly-accomplished is "neither identical with nor apart from" the other-dependent; to say "forever apart" displays that the falsely-grasped grasper-nature and grasped-nature are "in reason eternally absent" (not merely absent at one moment, but absent from the very beginning and always); to say "previous" (apart from the previous nature, that is, apart only from the wholly-imagined) has as its point to display that "the other-dependent is not emptied" (what is to be emptied is only the wholly-imagined; the other-dependent itself is not emptied); to say "nature" (apart from the previous nature) displays that what is set apart is only the "two emptinesses" (that is, the self-nature and the dharma-nature that are wholly-imagined), and that "the two emptinesses" are not themselves the perfectly-accomplished — because suchness is a nature "apart from existence and apart from nonexistence" (one does not make it the perfectly-accomplished merely by calling it "nonexistent").

By the foregoing principle of being "neither identical with nor apart from," the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are therefore "not different, not non-different" (this is exactly the verse's "therefore this and the other-dependent are neither different nor non-different"). Why can one not say "wholly different"? Because if wholly different, then suchness would not be the "real nature" of the other-dependent (the real nature just is the nature of the other-dependent, so they cannot be wholly different). Why can one not say "wholly the same"? Because if wholly the same, then this perfectly-accomplished nature would, like the other-dependent, be "impermanent" (suchness is abiding, so they cannot be wholly the same). Furthermore, if wholly different or wholly the same, then the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent would both alike be "pure objects" or both alike be "non-pure objects," and on this reading the functions of "fundamental wisdom" (which takes the pure as object) and "subsequently-attained wisdom" (which takes both defiled and pure as object) would have no distinction — which will not do. Then how can the two natures be "not different and not one"? It is just like the relation between properties such as "impermanence and non-self" and the conditioned dharmas they characterize: properties such as "impermanence" and dharmas such as the "conditioned" — if you say "different," then the conditioned dharmas ought not to be impermanent (yet conditioned dharmas in their very substance are impermanent, so they cannot be wholly different); if you say "not different," then this impermanence ought not to be the "common-character" of all conditioned things (a common-character pervades all dharmas, so they cannot be wholly the same). By this analogy it is displayed: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "not one, not different" — this is the relation of "dharma" to "dharma-nature," which in reason must necessarily be so (the perfectly-accomplished is precisely the dharma-nature of the other-dependent); for "ultimate truth" (the perfectly-accomplished) and "conventional truth" (the other-dependent) are established only in mutual dependence.

Now look at the verse line "it is not that, without seeing this, one sees that." Its meaning is: it is not the case that "without realizing the perfectly-accomplished one could yet see the other-dependent nature" (one must first see the perfectly-accomplished before one can see the other-dependent as it truly is) — because a person who has not yet penetrated "the emptiness of the wholly-imagined nature" cannot know as it truly is "the existence of the other-dependent" (not knowing that the two graspings are empty, one will mistake the other-dependent for the wholly-imagined). Only after "non-discriminating wisdom" has realized suchness can one, in subsequently-attained wisdom, penetrate the other-dependent nature as "like a conjured event" (illusory, not really existent yet seemingly existent). One should know that, from beginningless time, although mind and mental factors have long been able to take their own object-aspect, seeing-aspect, and so on as object, yet because the grasping of self and the grasping of dharma run on perpetually along with them, they can never know as it truly is (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished). One's own mind and mental factors, drawn along by the host of conditions, falsely manifest, just like a magician's conjuring, a heat-shimmer mirage, a dream, an image in a mirror, a shadow or reflection, an echo in an empty valley, the moon in water, or a thing produced by transformation — "not existent yet seemingly existent" (these eight similes display the other-dependent as illusory). On this principle there is a verse that says: "It is not that, without yet seeing suchness, one can know all conditioned things to be like conjured events and the rest; those conditioned things, though existent, are not real." The meaning of this verse is just this: the three self-natures (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished) are all not apart from mind and mental factors.

5. The three natures all gathered into the dharmas of mind — the three natures are all not apart from consciousness

Drawing the above together: what we call mind, mental factors, and the characteristics they manifest are all born from the host of conditions, and like conjured events are "not existent yet seemingly existent," deceiving the foolish — and all of this is named the "other-dependent nature." The foolish, upon these other-dependent events, forcibly impose grasping at "self, dharma, existence, nonexistence, one, different, both, not-both," and so on, which like a flower in the sky has "neither nature nor character" — and all of this is named the "wholly-imagined." And upon the other-dependent, the self and the dharmas that are falsely grasped are all empty; the "real nature of consciousness and the rest" displayed by this "emptiness" is named the "perfectly-accomplished." Thus these three natures are all not apart from mind and the rest — which is exactly the conclusion, "the three natures, too, are not apart from consciousness."

B. Matching the three natures against the various sets of doctrinal categories

6. The three natures gather the three unconditioned

Someone asks: empty space, cessation-through-analysis, and cessation-not-through-analysis — these three unconditioned — into which of the three natures do they fall? The answer: all three natures can gather them (each gathering from a different angle). First, mind and the rest manifesting the semblance of "empty space" and so on, these arise in train with mind, and so belong to the other-dependent. Second, the foolish, upon these, falsely grasp that empty space and so on are really existent, and this belongs to the wholly-imagined. Third, if, with reference to suchness, one nominally establishes the meanings of "empty space" and so on (as cessation-through-analysis is used to display suchness), then this belongs to the perfectly-accomplished. Furthermore, defiled mind and the rest definitely belong to the other-dependent; undefiled mind and the rest, however, may be gathered by both natures, other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished — because, being born from the host of conditions, they are gathered under the other-dependent, and because, being free of inversion, they are gathered under the perfectly-accomplished.

7. The three natures and the seven suchnesses

How do the three natures gather the "seven suchnesses"? First, list the seven suchnesses: (1) the suchness of flowing-on (the real nature of conditioned dharmas as they flow on); (2) the suchness of the real character (the real nature displayed by the two selflessnesses, of self and of dharma); (3) the suchness of consciousness-only (the real nature of defiled and pure dharmas as consciousness-only); (4) the suchness of the established (the real nature of the truth of suffering); (5) the suchness of wrong conduct (the real nature of the truth of origination); (6) the suchness of purity (the real nature of the truth of cessation); (7) the suchness of right conduct (the real nature of the truth of the path). Since these seven are all "real nature," they all belong to the perfectly-accomplished (because they are the objects of the two wisdoms, fundamental and subsequently-attained). However, if gathered "by way of their characteristics," then "flowing-on, the established (suffering), and wrong conduct (origination)" — these three — belong to the "first two natures" (wholly-imagined and other-dependent), because they carry false grasping and defilement; the remaining four (real character, consciousness-only, purity, and right conduct) all belong to the perfectly-accomplished.

8. The three natures and the six dharmas

How do the three natures gather the "six dharmas" (form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, and the unconditioned)? Among these six dharmas, every single one is fully endowed with the three natures — because each of these six dharmas at once carries the three layers of meaning: "false grasping" (wholly-imagined), "condition-born" (other-dependent), and "principle" (perfectly-accomplished).

9. The three natures and the five items

How do the three natures gather the "five items" (characteristic, name, discrimination, right wisdom, and suchness)? Here the holy teaching says the "gathering is not fixed," and there are several different ways of dividing it among the schools, listed in order.

Account one: the other-dependent gathers the four items "characteristic, name, discrimination, and right wisdom"; the perfectly-accomplished gathers "suchness"; and the wholly-imagined "does not gather any of the five items." The explanation of this account: defiled mind and mental factors transforming out the semblance of "the signified (the meaning that is expressed)" is called "characteristic"; transforming out the semblance of "the signifier (the words that express)" is established as "name"; the transforming mind and the rest are established as "discrimination"; and undefiled mind and the rest, because they are free of conceptual elaboration, are together named "right wisdom" (no longer dividing signifier from signified) — and these four, being all born from conditions, all belong to the other-dependent.

Account two: the other-dependent gathers "characteristic and discrimination"; the wholly-imagined gathers only "name"; and right wisdom and suchness both belong to the perfectly-accomplished. The explanation of this account: the object-aspect of defiled mind and mental factors is called "characteristic," and the rest is called "discrimination"; the wholly-imagined in itself has no substance at all, so, in order to display its "non-existence," it is tentatively spoken of as "name"; "right wisdom and suchness," being free of inversion, belong to the perfectly-accomplished.

Account three: the other-dependent gathers only "discrimination"; the wholly-imagined gathers "characteristic and name"; and right wisdom and suchness both belong to the perfectly-accomplished. The explanation of this account: the object-aspect, seeing-aspect, and the rest of defiled mind and mental factors are together named "discrimination" (because their very substance is false discrimination); the signifier and signified of the wholly-imagined are the two items "name and characteristic" established in accord with deluded feeling.

Account four: "name" belongs to the other-dependent, and "meaning" belongs to the wholly-imagined. The explanation of this account: the object-aspect, seeing-aspect, and the rest of defiled mind and mental factors become "the imagined" by the force of "name," and so are spoken of as "name"; the wholly-imagined, following the name, is forcibly reckoned and in substance is truly nothing, so a designation of "meaning" is tentatively set up for it.

These several schools' accounts of the five items, though differing in wording, do not conflict in meaning. But one should know that the "first account" (account one) is "without confusion or jumbling" and the most correct and well-formed — this is set out in detail in the Yogācārabhūmi, and one should rely on it for understanding.

10. The three natures and the five characteristics

The holy teaching also speaks of "five characteristics" — how do they gather with the three natures? "The signified and the signifier" each is fully endowed with the three natures: "what is falsely reckoned" belongs to the first nature (wholly-imagined); "characteristic, name, and discrimination," according to what they correspond to, whether functioning as signified or as signifier, all belong to the other-dependent; "suchness and right wisdom," according to what they correspond to, functioning as signified or signifier, all belong to the perfectly-accomplished (because subsequently-attained wisdom can transform out the semblance of a "signifier"). Furthermore, "the characteristic of the two characteristics' mutual belonging" (the characteristic by which signifier and signified are subordinate to one another) belongs only to the first nature (wholly-imagined) — because the falsely-grasped meaning and name are necessarily subordinate to each other. And "the characteristic of grasping" belongs only to the other-dependent (since its substance is false discrimination); "the characteristic of non-grasping" belongs only to the perfectly-accomplished (since its substance is undefiled wisdom and the like).

11. The three natures and the four realities

The holy teaching also speaks of "four realities" (what is established by common consent in the world, what is established by reasoning, the object of the wisdom purified of the affliction-hindrance, and the object of the wisdom purified of the cognitive-hindrance) — how do they gather with the three natures? "What is established by common consent in the world" and "what is established by reasoning," these two realities, belong to the other-dependent (because they are gathered by the three items: characteristic, name, and discrimination); "the objects of the two wisdoms purified of the hindrances," this reality, belongs to the perfectly-accomplished (because it is gathered by the two items: right wisdom and suchness). The Madhyānta-vibhāga, however, has a different account: the first reality (what is established by common consent in the world) belongs only to the first nature — because it is what is commonly grasped in the world; the second reality (what is established by reasoning) belongs to all three natures — because its principle runs through "grasping" and "non-grasping," through defilement and purity; the latter two realities (the objects of the two wisdoms purified of the hindrances) belong only to the third nature (the perfectly-accomplished).

12. The three natures and the four truths

How do the three natures gather the "four truths"? Within the four truths, every single truth is fully endowed with the three natures.

Take the "truth of suffering": its four aspects of "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self" each has the three natures. First, the three natures of "impermanence": (1) the impermanence of no-nature (the wholly-imagined nature is forever nonexistent, hence "impermanent"); (2) the impermanence of arising-and-ceasing (the other-dependent has arising and ceasing, hence "impermanent"); (3) the impermanence of defilement-and-purity (the perfectly-accomplished turns and is displayed across the defiled and pure positions, hence "impermanent"). Next, the three natures of "suffering": (1) the suffering of what is grasped (the wholly-imagined — what the two graspings of self and dharma lean upon and take); (2) the suffering of the character of events (the other-dependent — fully endowed with the characteristics of the three sufferings); (3) the suffering of conjunction (the perfectly-accomplished — conjoined with the character of suffering and not apart from it). Next, the three natures of "emptiness": (1) the emptiness of no-nature (the wholly-imagined — its nature is non-existent, hence empty); (2) the emptiness of difference-of-nature (the other-dependent — it differs from the falsely-grasped nature, hence said to be empty, that is, empty of the wholly-imagined); (3) the emptiness of own-nature (the perfectly-accomplished — its own-nature is what the two emptinesses display). Next, the three natures of "non-self": (1) the non-self of no-characteristic (the wholly-imagined — the self-characteristic is originally nonexistent); (2) the non-self of difference-of-characteristic (the other-dependent — it differs from the falsely-grasped self-characteristic); (3) the non-self of own-characteristic (the perfectly-accomplished — its own-characteristic is what "non-self displays").

Next, the three natures of the "truth of origination": (1) the origination of perfuming (the wholly-imagined — that is, the perfumings of the wholly-imagined nature's grasping; with reference to "grasping those perfumings," a "origination" is nominally established); (2) the origination of co-arising (the other-dependent — that is, what karma and afflictions co-arise); (3) the origination of the not-yet-unbound (the perfectly-accomplished — that is, the suchness not yet free of the hindrances). Next, the three natures of the "truth of cessation": (1) the cessation of own-nature (the wholly-imagined — its own-nature is originally unborn, hence originally ceased); (2) the cessation of the two graspings (the other-dependent — that is, cessation-through-analysis causing the two graspings not to arise); (3) the cessation of fundamental nature (the perfectly-accomplished — that is, suchness, fundamentally still and ceased). Finally, the three natures of the "truth of the path": (1) the path of full knowing (toward the wholly-imagined — able to fully know the wholly-imagined); (2) the path of forever-severing (toward the other-dependent — able to sever the defiled portion of the other-dependent); (3) the path of bearing-witness (toward the perfectly-accomplished — able to realize the perfectly-accomplished); but the "path of full knowing" also runs through the latter two (it also knows the other-dependent and realizes the perfectly-accomplished).

In this way, the four gateways of "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self" under the truth of suffering, together with the three truths of origination, cessation, and path, in total these "seven sets of three" natures are all matched and explained in order as above. One should know that the three natures matched here are some of them "nominal" and some "real," and one should understand this as it accords with principle.

13. The three natures and the three gateways to liberation, the three forbearances of non-arising, and the two truths

The realms accessed by the "three gateways to liberation" (emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness) — how do they gather with the three natures? In point of principle, these three gateways all run through the three natures; if matched "by way of characteristic," then each matches one nature: the gateway of "emptiness" matches the wholly-imagined, the gateway of "wishlessness" matches the other-dependent, the gateway of "signlessness" matches the perfectly-accomplished — to be understood in order. Taking these three natures as object, there arise, further, the "three forbearances of non-arising": (1) the forbearance of non-arising of fundamental nature; (2) the forbearance of non-arising of the spontaneous; (3) the forbearance of non-arising of affliction-and-suffering — and these three forbearances take the three natures as their objects in order (the forbearance of fundamental nature takes the wholly-imagined as object, the forbearance of the spontaneous takes the other-dependent as object, the forbearance of affliction-and-suffering takes the perfectly-accomplished as object).

Then how do these three natures gather the "two truths"? One should know that "conventional truth" is fully endowed with these three kinds (it contains the conventional portion of the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished); "ultimate truth" is only the perfectly-accomplished nature. The conventional is of three kinds: (1) the nominal conventional (that is, the wholly-imagined); (2) the active conventional (that is, the other-dependent); (3) the made-manifest conventional (that is, the perfectly-accomplished, made manifest at the conventional position) — in order, just these three natures. The ultimate too is of three kinds: (1) the ultimate as meaning (that is, suchness — the "meaning" of the "ultimate," the meaning of the supreme dharma); (2) the ultimate as attainment (that is, nirvāṇa — the "ultimate" itself being the "meaning," the supreme that is attained just being the meaning); (3) the ultimate as practice (that is, the holy path — the "ultimate" "made into" meaning, the practice that proceeds toward the supreme). These three, because they are "unchanging and non-inverted," according to what they correspond to, are all gathered into the perfectly-accomplished nature.

14. The three natures and the wisdoms that access them, the nominal and the real, the different and the non-different

Finally, distinguish several properties of the three natures. First the question: which kind of wisdom accesses each of the three natures? The "wholly-imagined" is not at all what "wisdom" accesses (because it has no self-substance and cannot serve as an object-condition); yet the foolish grasp it as existent, and the noble penetrate it as nonexistent, so with some stretching one may say it is the "object" of both ordinary wisdom and noble wisdom. The "other-dependent nature" is accessed by both wisdoms, fundamental and subsequently-attained; the "perfectly-accomplished nature," however, is the object of noble wisdom alone (only non-discriminating wisdom and subsequently-attained wisdom can take it as object).

Next the question: among these three natures, how much is nominal and how much real? The "wholly-imagined," because it is falsely established, may be said to be "nominal"; yet it has no substance or characteristic at all, so in fact it is "neither nominal nor real" (because the "nominal" must be established in reliance on the "real," and the wholly-imagined has no real on which to rely). The "other-dependent nature," on the other hand, has both real and nominal: with reference to natures such as "aggregation, continuity, and positional phase," it is said to be "nominally existent" (nominal dharmas like a jar, like a stream, like a span of time); with reference to "mind, mental factors, and form" being born from conditions, it is said to be "really existent." One should know that if there were no real dharmas, then nominal dharmas too would be gone — because a nominal dharma must be set up in reliance on a real cause. The "perfectly-accomplished nature," however, is purely real — because it is not set up in reliance on other conditions (suchness is established without awaiting conditions).

Finally the question: are these three natures different, or not different? One should say "both not" (neither different nor non-different): because the three natures have no separate substances, one cannot say "different"; and because the three layers of meaning — "false grasping, dependent arising, and the real meaning" — each has its distinction, one cannot say "not different." The kinds of meaning of the three natures are in fact boundless and inexhaustible; here, fearing that too much wording would weary the reader, only the essentials are sketched as above.

Onward Transmission

The three natures — the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — are the master rubric by which the consciousness-only system sorts out all dharmas, and the meaning of the three natures established in this section is taken up in order by the later treatises. The Hundred Dharmas treatise sets up the eight mind-kings and the various mental factors: the imagining agent is just the defiled sixth and seventh mind and mental factors; the wholly-imagined does not enter into the hundred dharmas at all (present to feeling but absent in reason, it has no substance whatever); and the suchness on which the perfectly-accomplished rests is gathered under the "unconditioned dharmas" — so the three natures exactly draw the hundred dharmas together into one. The Thirty Verses — verse twenty (the wholly-imagined, its own-nature having no existence), verse twenty-one (the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished as forever apart from the previous nature), and verse twenty-two (it and the other-dependent as neither different nor non-different; not that, without seeing this, one sees that) — are the very root-verses this section expounds, verse answering to verse. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on characteristics, sets up the three natures by way of the "object, nature, and twofold emptiness" of "false discrimination" — in reliance on the "object" of false discrimination it speaks of the wholly-imagined, in reliance on the "nature" of false discrimination it speaks of the other-dependent, and in reliance on "the emptiness of grasped and grasper" it speaks of the perfectly-accomplished — which is one and the same road as this section's "the three natures, too, are not apart from consciousness"; the alternative account this section cites when distinguishing the "four realities" likewise comes from the Madhyānta-vibhāga. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the characteristic of the knowable, is the place where the three natures are expounded at length: it says the other-dependent mark is "the various consciousnesses gathered under false discrimination, with the ālaya-vijñāna as their seed," the wholly-imagined mark is "the semblance of meaning appearing where there is no meaning," and the perfectly-accomplished mark is "the perpetual absence, upon that other-dependent mark, of the semblance of meaning" — and this section's line "the imagined is just the other-dependent nature" is set up precisely by citing the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha. As for the Twenty Verses, its concern is to establish consciousness-only and the absence of external objects, and to refute the outsiders' grasping at real external objects; it has no direct counterpart to the matching and judging of the three natures, and here it is left aside.

Once the three natures have been set up — the wholly-imagined nature (parikalpita), the dependent-on-others nature (paratantra), and the perfectly-accomplished nature (pariniṣpanna) — a sharp problem immediately arises. If you have just established three "natures," then why does the World-Honored One elsewhere declare that "all dharmas have no self-nature"? This section follows directly on the three natures and turns back to teach the "three non-natures," reconciling these two statements that look, on their face, to contradict one another. The thread it follows is the pair of verses (v23–v24).

"Establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures" is no invention of this treatise; scripture and treatise alike provide its basis. In the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on the absence of self-nature in characteristics, the World-Honored One tells the bodhisattva Paramārtha-samudgata in person that it is "with a hidden intent directed at three kinds of non-self-nature" that he declares "all dharmas are without self-nature" — these three being the non-nature of characteristics, the non-nature of arising, and the non-nature of ultimate truth. The sūtra then defines each in turn: the non-nature of characteristics is spoken of with respect to the wholly-imagined mark, since it is only "provisionally established as a name" and not established by its own characteristic; the non-nature of arising is spoken of with respect to the dependent-on-others characteristic, since it "exists through the force of conditions and is not naturally existent"; and the non-nature of ultimate truth is spoken of with respect to the perfectly-accomplished, that portion of reality "made manifest by the selflessness of dharmas." The sūtra further pairs the three non-natures with three images — "a flower in the empty air, a conjured reflection, and all-pervading empty space" — and this section's three similes below ("like a sky-flower," "like a conjured thing arising in reliance on the gathering of conditions," and "like vast empty space which, though it pervades the host of forms, is made manifest from the formlessness of those very forms") are each grounded in this sūtra. The Yogācārabhūmi, in its section settling the points to be understood, likewise fixes these three non-natures as "spoken with respect to the capacity and disposition of those to be guided," and pairs the "three kinds of self-nature" one-to-one with the "three kinds of non-self-nature" — which is exactly the treatise-basis for "establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures." Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) goes further, citing the seventy-sixth fascicle of the Saṃdhinirmocana to bring out the reason behind this hidden intent: it is not that the Buddha "separately contemplates three kinds of self-nature and then sets up three non-natures." Rather, because sentient beings, upon the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished — the two natures that "genuinely have substance" — falsely add on a layer of the wholly-imagined, the Buddha sets up the three non-natures in order to negate that false addition. So "the three non-natures do not declare the latter two natures to be nonexistent as well; they only declare that the wholly-imagined is without nature." What this section expounds has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi — and with that we follow the verse and open the exposition.

B. Explaining the Three Non-Natures — First Untying the Difficulty of "Having Three Natures Yet Saying There Is No Nature"

Someone raises an objection: if the three natures really and truly exist, how could the World-Honored One go on to say that "all dharmas are without self-nature"? Is this not the teaching at war with itself?

The answer is this. The "non-nature" the Buddha speaks of is established precisely with reference to these very three natures set out above — it is not some separate "nothingness" conjured up apart from the three natures. Concretely, it is on the basis of these three natures that the three non-natures spoken of afterward are established: namely, the non-nature of characteristics (lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā), the non-nature of arising (utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā), and the non-nature of ultimate truth (paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā). So when the Buddha says "all dharmas have no self-nature," this is spoken with a hidden intent — there is an implicit, further meaning carried inside the words — and it is not a claim that the nature of dharmas is utterly absent. This is exactly what the verse states: in dependence on these three natures, those three non-natures are established, and therefore the Buddha, with hidden intent, says that all dharmas have no nature.

Everything turns on those two words, "hidden intent." To call it a teaching of hidden intent is precisely to point out that the statement "all dharmas have no nature" is not the definitive teaching (not the ultimate, direct, fully explicit statement; it conceals a meaning that still needs to be distinguished out). Why say so? Because the latter two natures — the dependent-on-others and the perfectly-accomplished — are not such that their substance is absent. It is only that certain deluded ordinary beings, upon these things that are not in fact absent, "superimpose" something — they add on a layer that was never there — and falsely cling to there being a real "self" and real "dharmas," a genuinely existent self-nature. That falsely added-on portion is exactly what is called the wholly-imagined nature. In order to remove this false clinging, the Buddha makes a single sweeping statement of "no nature" that covers both what is (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, the two that genuinely have substance) and what is not (the wholly-imagined, which never had any) — with one phrase he negates everything that needs negating. So this "non-nature" is corrective language, language of hidden intent; it cannot be read literally, clamped onto the words, and taken to mean "there is nothing at all."

1. Establishing the Three Non-Natures One by One — One Nature Paired with One Non-Nature

So then, exactly how are those three kinds of non-nature each established in dependence on these three natures? They must be looked at one at a time.

First, in dependence on the wholly-imagined as the initial nature, the non-nature of characteristics is established. Why is it called the non-nature of characteristics? Because the wholly-imagined thing has, in its very "substance and characteristic," no existence whatsoever — just like the sky-flower, where there is in fact no flower in the empty air and the diseased eye merely sees one falsely: it is all misrecognition, and not even a shadow of it can stand. This is what the verse means by "the first is the non-nature of characteristics": the first one (the wholly-imagined) corresponds precisely to the non-nature of characteristics.

Second, in dependence on the dependent-on-others as the next nature, the non-nature of arising is established. A dependent-on-others dharma is like a thing produced by conjuring — it arises only in reliance on the gathering of various causes and conditions. It does not possess "the kind of nature that ordinary beings falsely cling to, that of being naturally existent, self-existent, just so of itself" — it is not self-arisen, but condition-arisen. Precisely because it "is not naturally existent," it is "given a borrowed name" and called "without nature"; this is not to say that its nature is utterly absent (it still retains this layer of existence, that of condition-arising). This is what the verse means by "the next is the non-nature of the natural": the second one (the other-dependent) lacks that "natural nature."

Third, in dependence on the perfectly-accomplished as the later nature, the non-nature of ultimate truth is established. This one requires careful distinguishing. The so-called "non-nature of ultimate truth" of the perfectly-accomplished means that this ultimate (which is the perfectly-accomplished itself), because it is "far removed from the self-and-dharma nature of the wholly-imagined spoken of before," is for that reason given a borrowed name and called "without nature" — likewise not a claim that its nature is utterly absent. It is precisely on the side of "being parted from the wholly-imagined false clinging" that it earns the name "non-nature." This is what the verse means by "the last, through being far removed from the self-and-dharma nature clung to before": the non-nature of the final one (the perfectly-accomplished) is established with reference to its "being far removed from the self-and-dharma nature clung to before."

Here a comparison can help one feel out the ultimate-truth non-nature of the perfectly-accomplished. It is like vast empty space: although it pervades and contains within it every shaped and material thing, empty space itself is made manifest precisely from this point — that "upon the host of forms there is no real self-nature." It is exactly at the place where "form is not really existent" that you come to see that space which pervades all places. The ultimate-truth non-nature of the perfectly-accomplished is just so: it is at the place where one "is far removed from the wholly-imagined false clinging" that the true nature is made manifest.

Finally, one further distinction must be added, lest the reader misunderstand the scope. In fact the dependent-on-others, since it "is not the ultimate" (it is merely the condition-arisen conventional existent), could — with reference to the point that "upon it there is no imagined-clinging nature" — even be said, with some stretching, to be "ultimate-truth non-nature" as well. But if one really spoke this way, it would become confused and conflated with "the second one" — that is, with the non-nature of arising that the other-dependent itself already corresponds to. So this manner of speaking is not adopted here: the non-nature of ultimate truth is established with reference to the perfectly-accomplished alone, and does not reach over to the other-dependent. Only in this way do the three natures match the three non-natures with clear order, each returning to its own proper place.

Onward Transmission

What this section establishes — that the three non-natures are set up in dependence on the three natures, and that "no nature" is spoken with hidden intent and is not a claim that nature is utterly absent — is the keystone by which the consciousness-only system reconciles "establishing the three natures" with "teaching emptiness and non-nature," and the later treatises take it up each in their own way. The Hundred Dharmas treatise is left aside here: what it lists is the "phenomenal characteristics" of the hundred dharmas across the five categories, whereas the three non-natures belong to the "doctrinal gate of principle" under the three natures, and there is no head-on corresponding entry. The Thirty Verses — verse twenty-three (establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures, and teaching non-nature with hidden intent) and verse twenty-four (the one-by-one setting-up of the non-natures of characteristics, of arising, and of ultimate truth) — is the very root-text this section expounds, verse answering to verse. The Twenty Verses, whose concern is to establish consciousness-only-without-objects and to refute the outsiders' clinging to real objects, has no head-on counterpart for the three non-natures, and so is left aside here. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on discerning the real, sets up the three self-natures and holds that "the wholly-imagined is ever nonexistent, the other-dependent exists yet is not real, and the perfectly-accomplished is the real that is both existent and nonexistent" — converging with this section's one-to-one pairing, where the non-nature of characteristics is referred to the wholly-imagined, the non-nature of arising to the other-dependent, and the non-nature of ultimate truth to the perfectly-accomplished. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the characteristics of the knowable, sets up the three self-natures — the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — and the three non-natures are established precisely in dependence on these three natures; that portion on the characteristics of the knowable is exactly what this section's "establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures" takes as its source.

Up to this point the treatise has been laying out, step by step, what it calls the "appearance" of consciousness-only — how everything we experience is nothing but a presentation of consciousness. With the twenty-fifth verse the subject changes. Now the question is the "nature" of consciousness-only: of all these things that consciousness presents, what is their most ultimate, most real ground? The first three lines of this verse say, "The supreme sense of all these things — this is precisely Suchness, because it is constant, always just as its own nature is." The fourth line says, "And this is exactly the true reality of consciousness-only." Following the verse, we will explain it in three parts: first the first three lines (the supreme sense, and Suchness), then the fourth line (the true reality of consciousness-only), and finally we will draw together the combined intent of the three verses, the twenty-third through the twenty-fifth.

The "supreme sense" and "Suchness" spoken of in this verse have their roots in scripture and treatise alike. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on the character of the supreme-sense truth, says that "the supreme sense is what the noble ones realize inwardly for themselves" and that it "surpasses every domain of investigative thought" — for what investigation and discrimination range over is only the realm handed down in turn among ordinary beings, whereas the supreme sense is apart from words and apart from discrimination, realized in person by the noble ones alone; and this is the scriptural source of the verse's phrase "the supreme sense of all things." The same chapter says the supreme-sense truth "is of a single flavor, pervading all things" — Suchness is without difference and without alteration in all the aggregates, the sense-fields, and even the limbs of the path; and this is the scriptural source of the verse's phrase "constant, always just as its own nature is." The Yogācārabhūmi, in its chapter on the meaning of reality, goes further and sets up "four kinds of reality" (that established by the world, that established by reasoning, that ranged over by the wisdom purified of the afflictive obstruction, and that ranged over by the wisdom purified of the cognitive obstruction); and it gathers the most ultimate under the last of these, "the reality ranged over by the wisdom purified of the cognitive obstruction" — namely the "inexpressible own-nature of all things" that is the object of the buddhas' and bodhisattvas' non-discriminating wisdom upon entering the selflessness of phenomena, which is "the supreme, the unsurpassed Suchness, the very limit of the knowable," beyond which all right investigation turns back and cannot cross. What this verse expounds has its scriptural root in the chapter on the character of the supreme-sense truth in the Saṃdhinirmocana, and its treatise-basis in the chapter on the meaning of reality in the Yogācārabhūmi — and with that we follow the verse and open the exposition.

C. Clarifying the Nature of Consciousness-Only (commentary on the twenty-fifth verse, "the true nature of consciousness-only")

This section as a whole is titled "Clarifying the Nature of consciousness-only," and its very point is to bring out one thing: the nature spoken of earlier as the perfectly-accomplished nature is exactly the "true nature of consciousness-only" to be explained here. Below it is taken up in detail, point by point.

1. Commentary on the First Three Lines — "The supreme sense of all these things is precisely Suchness, because it is constant, always just as its own nature is"

(i) This nature is "the supreme sense of all things" — and "the supreme sense" in fact has four levels

Begin with the verse's first line, "the supreme sense of all these things." The "this nature" spoken of here is the perfectly-accomplished nature discussed earlier, which is the same as Suchness; and it is "the supreme sense of all things," because it is the supreme-sense truth of everything that exists.

But the point must be stated precisely: "the supreme-sense truth" does not carry only a single meaning. Broadly divided, it has four levels. The first is the worldly supreme sense — this refers to such things as the aggregates, the sense-fields, and the elements. Although these still belong to the world, compared with ordinary worldly appearances they already count as "supreme" — they go one layer deeper than the coarse, surface phenomena that ordinary beings grasp at — and so they are called the worldly supreme sense. The second is the reasoned supreme sense — this refers to the four noble truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. This is the meaning disclosed when one investigates by correct reasoning. The third is the realized supreme sense — this refers to the Suchness disclosed through the two emptinesses, the emptiness of self and the emptiness of phenomena. This is what the noble ones obtain by direct realization. The fourth is the supreme of the supreme sense — this refers to the one truly real dharma-realm, the single true dharma-realm. This is, among all the supreme senses, the most supreme supreme sense.

(ii) The "supreme sense" of this verse points specifically to that last level

So when this verse says "the supreme sense of all these things," which of the four above does it intend? The answer is that it intends specifically the last one — the supreme of the supreme sense, that is, the one true dharma-realm. Why is this one alone selected? Because it is the domain ranged over by the most excellent path, the path of non-discrimination. Precisely in order to set apart the first three kinds of supreme sense, and to keep anyone from mistaking the meaning as one of those shallower three layers, the verse deliberately marks it out this way as "the supreme sense of all these things" — pointing to that most ultimate level.

(iii) This supreme sense is "Suchness" — how to read the two words "true" and "so"

The verse goes on, "this is precisely Suchness": this supreme sense of all things is the same as "Suchness." The two words that make up the term must be read separately. "True" means real, and is used to show that it is not false — not inverted, not a mere semblance. "So" means constantly so, and is used to express that it has no alteration — it does not shift about, becoming this way and that. Put together, the meaning is: this real nature, in every state — whether the ordinary state or the noble state, the time of delusion or the time of awakening — is "constant, always just as its own nature is." This corresponds exactly to the verse's last line, "because it is constant, always just as its own nature is." Because it is in this way constant and unchanging, real and not false, it is named "Suchness," meaning "abiding clear and serene, not false."

Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) divides these two words "true" and "so" into two further pairs of distinctions, so that what each sets apart stands out the more plainly. The first pair works in terms of the contaminated and the uncontaminated: "true" sets aside the contaminated dharmas (the contaminated being false), and "so" sets aside the uncontaminated conditioned dharmas (these, though true in their essence, still undergo arising and ceasing and so are not constantly so) — with the two words clamping in from either side, only that which is uncontaminated and unconditioned, both true and so, answers to the name. The second pair works in terms of the three natures: "true" sets aside the wholly-imagined (which is grasped by false imagining), and "so" sets aside the other-dependent (which is subject to arising and ceasing) — and the reason the first three lines add the word "also" ("this is also precisely Suchness") is just that the prior three natures (or the prior three kinds of supreme sense) are all still "not so," and only this fourth level is both true and so. Kuiji further notes in passing that this verse raises only the two names "Suchness" and "the true reality of consciousness-only," and that, counting in the commentary of the treatise-author, there are in all but four titles; hence the word "and the rest" is meant to gather in the remaining many other names (such as the various titles listed elsewhere, in the Mahā-prajñāpāramitā and the Abhidharma texts), each of which "receives its fuller explanation according to its own particular doctrinal point."

(iv) The single word "also" in the verse — pointing to its many other names

The verse says "this is also precisely Suchness," and that word "also" is no idle word. It is hinting that this one and the same nature, besides being called Suchness, has many other names as well. For instance it is also called the "dharma-realm," also called the "true limit," and so on. In other treatises these names receive detailed explanation, each according to the particular doctrinal point it is meant to emphasize; here it is only touched upon in passing, so that one knows "Suchness" is not some single, isolated designation, but one among the many titles of one and the same real nature.

2. Commentary on the Fourth Line — "And this is exactly the true reality of consciousness-only"

(i) Why it must say "true reality" — because within "the nature of consciousness-only" there is the false and the real

The fourth line of the verse says "and this is exactly the true reality of consciousness-only": this nature is exactly the true reality of consciousness-only. Here one distinction must be watched carefully: the very term "the nature of consciousness-only" in fact contains two kinds, one false and one real. The first kind is the false nature of consciousness-only — that is, the wholly-imagined nature. Even the very doctrine of "consciousness-only," if a person grasps at it by way of inverted false imagining, becomes itself false (to cling to "consciousness-only" itself is still a form of delusion). The second kind is the real nature of consciousness-only — that is, the perfectly-accomplished nature. The verse deliberately adds the word "true" and says "true reality" precisely in order to set apart that "false" side, and to take only the real side.

(ii) There is yet a second layer of false-and-real — the worldly other-dependent, and the supreme perfectly-accomplished

"The nature of consciousness-only" can also be divided into two kinds from another angle. The first kind is the worldly nature of consciousness-only — that is, the other-dependent nature; it is a conditioned thing that exists in dependence on conditions, and it belongs to the level of conventional truth. The second kind is the supreme nature of consciousness-only — that is, the perfectly-accomplished nature; it belongs to the level of supreme-sense truth. When the verse says "true reality," on this angle the purpose is to set apart that "worldly" side (the other-dependent) as well, showing that the "true reality of consciousness-only" taken here is solely that supreme-sense perfectly-accomplished nature, and not the other-dependent. In other words, the two words "true reality" first set aside the "falseness" of the wholly-imagined, and here again set aside the "worldliness" of the other-dependent, finally coming to rest on the perfectly-accomplished nature as the one and only reality.

3. The Combined Commentary — what the three verses, the twenty-third through the twenty-fifth, are saying when taken together

Finally, taking the three preceding verses (the twenty-third, twenty-fourth, and twenty-fifth) together, they share one central point they mean to convey: in some places the Buddha's scriptures say "all things are without self-nature," but this kind of "without-nature" speech is not the most ultimate, most fully explicit teaching — it is an expedient utterance carrying a hidden intent. Therefore a person of genuine wisdom should not seize on these few lines about "without-nature" and, on that basis, sweepingly deny all things, concluding that they are utterly without any self-nature. One must understand: the two natures, the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, are in fact not nonexistent.

Onward Transmission

The supreme-sense ground established in this section — the perfectly-accomplished, Suchness, the true reality of consciousness-only — is the resting-point at which the whole consciousness-only system gathers up its account of "true reality," and the later treatises take it up one by one. The Hundred Dharmas treatise places Suchness among the "six unconditioned dharmas," as the real ground that the perfectly-accomplished comprehends and that all things rest upon. The Thirty Verses — verse twenty-five (clarifying the nature of consciousness-only: Suchness, the true reality of consciousness-only) — is the very root-text this section expounds, verse answering to verse; coming after verses twenty through twenty-four (the three natures and the three non-natures), it sets the perfectly-accomplished, argued out earlier, firmly down as the supreme sense of all things. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on reality, when it argues the "perfectly-accomplished," says that "the supreme-sense truth is likewise of three kinds — the first being the supreme sense as meaning, namely Suchness, which is named supreme sense because it is the object of supreme wisdom," and again that "these three supreme senses are to be known as established solely upon the perfectly-accomplished among the three roots," and that "the unconditioned comprises in all Suchness and nirvāṇa, and because it is without alteration it is named the perfectly-accomplished" — which precisely illumines this section's four supreme senses and the changelessness of Suchness. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapters on the cause-and-fruit of that entry and on the distinctions of that cultivation, argues the perfectly-accomplished at length (the pure-portion other-dependent, the reality disclosed in the transformation of the basis) — which is just the unfolding of the supreme-sense ground of this section. As for the Twenty Verses, its concern is to establish that consciousness is without external objects and to refute the outsiders' clinging to real objects, and it has no direct counterpart to the perfectly-accomplished, Suchness, and the supreme-sense non-nature; here it is left aside.