解脫道論 識陰三門

The aggregate of consciousness is the last of the five aggregates. At this point, the treatise suddenly changes its approach.

In the preceding four aggregates, the farther the discussion proceeds, the more named items there are—the aggregate of form lists thirty forms, and the aggregate of formations lists thirty-two items. With the aggregate of consciousness, there are only seven names, listed once in full, and not one more is added afterward.

After those seven names, the treatise looks through three pairs of eyes at the same set three times: by locus and object, by object, and by quality. Names do not increase; viewpoints do.

The first five names use the same formula five times: dependent on the eye and conditioned by visible form, consciousness arises—this is called eye-consciousness; dependent on the ear and conditioned by sound; dependent on the nose and conditioned by odor; dependent on the tongue and conditioned by taste; dependent on the body and conditioned by touch. The mold remains intact. Yet as soon as the sixth and seventh are taken up, the closing wording changes—the first five consistently use one version of “this is called,” while the last two consistently use another. The treatise does not say why, but the grouping is already present in its choice of words.

The mind-consciousness element is defined in a single act of exclusion: remove those six, and the remaining mind is the mind-consciousness element. The preceding passage has just used the same move—the aggregate of formations is likewise defined by removing feeling and perception and taking everything else as formations. Across two consecutive passages, the same method draws the boundary.

Seven is not new here either. The aggregate of feeling already has “seven feelings by way of the doors,” and the aggregate of perception already has “seven perceptions by way of the doors.” In both places, mind has already been divided into the mind element and the mind-consciousness element, making seven. The aggregate of consciousness is merely the first to call this list the seven consciousnesses. Numbers are joints: when you encounter a number, look back for where it last appeared, and one passage joins to another. Following the same joint onward reveals an ascending sequence—three approaches for the aggregate of consciousness, four for the five aggregates, and five for the twelve sense bases.

Of the three approaches, the first is the hardest to read. Its continuous string is really a three-column table: each of three subjects is paired with quality, locus, and object. The key to reconstructing it lies in the preceding sentence—five objects for the mind element and six for the mind-consciousness element. Once the numbers line up, the columns line up. Running the words together is not an omission in copying; it is this treatise’s normal manner of writing, and this is already the fifth instance in this chapter.

The sentences of the second approach first say what cannot happen and then how it can: each of the six sentences begins with a “does not” and then supplies the resolution. The resolutions use only two terms. Among them, the two-character term for “rapidity” occurs only four times in the entire treatise, all four in these few lines. It is easy to misread this approach as describing the mind’s incapacity; in fact, all the weight lies in the latter half.

The backbone of the third approach is the conditional “may,” which occurs fourteen times within five lines. The treatment of the five sense consciousnesses is fixed, that of the mind element somewhat more flexible, and that of the mind-consciousness element most flexible—the farther the passage proceeds, the less it can state categorically, so this word grows denser. Here the differences among the seven consciousnesses emerge not through explanation but through the changing density of a single word.

There is one place worth pausing over for yourself. The phrase “six consciousnesses” occurs nine times in this passage, and only the first occurrence carries its own definition (remove these six consciousnesses, and the remaining mind is the mind-consciousness element; therefore, the six are the seven minus the mind-consciousness element). In the next eight occurrences, the treatise never again says which six they are. This is one of its habits: a term carries its definition when it first appears and is then used all the way onward without looking back. If you miss that first occurrence, all you can do afterward is guess.

The final sentence closes two things: it closes the aggregate of consciousness and the five aggregates. The answer concerning the five aggregates began with the aggregate of form and only reaches completion in this sentence.

(Keep two further details in mind: the closing formulas of the three approaches are not uniform. The first two read “can be known,” while the third reads “can be distinctly known,” adding one word. And the preceding passage gives one simile for each item, omitting none of its thirty-two items, while this passage establishes not a single simile—that is how sharp the difference in density is between two adjacent passages.)

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · Three Approaches to the Aggregate of Consciousness · Doorway · Summer 2026

The List of Consciousnesses

Question: What is the aggregate of consciousness?

Answer: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, the mind element, and the mind-consciousness element.

In the listing, the six Chinese characters rendered “mind element mind-consciousness element” are written continuously, with no break between them. Below, however, each is given its own entry and its own definition, and the whole list is called “seven consciousnesses”; they are therefore two, not one. The wording here follows the source characters as they stand and does not supply a comma.

Five Sense Consciousnesses: One Formula Five Times

Here—

Eye-consciousness is consciousness that arises dependent on the eye and conditioned by visible form; this is called eye-consciousness.

Ear-consciousness is consciousness that arises dependent on the ear and conditioned by sound; this is called ear-consciousness.

Nose-consciousness is consciousness that arises dependent on the nose and conditioned by odor; this is called nose-consciousness.

Tongue-consciousness is consciousness that arises dependent on the tongue and conditioned by taste; this is called tongue-consciousness.

Body-consciousness is consciousness that arises dependent on the body and conditioned by touch; this is called body-consciousness.

Mind Element and Mind-Consciousness Element

The mind element depends on a locus, five objects, and two objects; when consciousness arises before or after the five sense consciousnesses in sequence, this is called the mind element.

The clause “depends on a locus, five objects, and two objects” is not explained further by the treatise in this passage. Its only point of comparison is the statement below, “the mind element has five objects,” whose words “five objects” are the same as those here. As for “depends on two objects,” there is nowhere else in this passage against which to check it. The wording here follows the source characters as they stand.

The mind-consciousness element is the remaining mind after these six consciousnesses have been excluded; this is called the mind-consciousness element.

The relative distinctions among these seven consciousnesses can be known from three perspectives: from locus and object, from object, and from quality.

First Approach: Locus and Object

Question: How can they be known from locus and object?

Answer: the five sense consciousnesses have various loci and various objects; the mind element and the mind-consciousness element have one locus; the mind element has five objects, and the mind-consciousness element has six objects.

The five sense consciousnesses are internal qualities, have internal loci, and have external objects; the mind element is an internal quality, has an external locus, and has external objects; the mind-consciousness element is an internal quality, has an external locus, and has internal as well as external objects.

These three clauses run together in a single string in the base text, and each of the last two subjects is attached to the end of the preceding clause. Each of the three subjects must be matched with all three categories—quality, locus, and object. The symmetry in the “object” column can be checked against the immediately preceding sentence: it has just said that the mind element has five objects and the mind-consciousness element six, corresponding exactly to “external objects” here for the mind element—all five are external—and “internal as well as external objects” for the mind-consciousness element—five external plus one internal. The wording here follows the source characters as they stand and does not supply punctuation.

The six consciousnesses have an initial birth-locus and an initial birth-object—mind-consciousness element. At the moment of entering the body, the co-arising locus is first the birthplace; in formless existence there is no locus and all objects occur.

The three Chinese characters rendered “mind-consciousness element” here may belong to the preceding clause—as what “initial birth-object” refers to—or to the following clause—as the subject of the next sentence. The treatise itself does not divide the text. The wording here follows the source characters as they stand; both readings are recorded, and no punctuation is supplied.

Thus, from locus and object, they can be known.

Second Approach: Object

Question: How can they be known from object?

Answer: each of the five sense consciousnesses receives its own domain; they do not arise one by one in sequence, do not arise before or after one another, and do not arise scattered.

The five sense consciousnesses do not know all existing qualities, except at the first arising.

The mind element does not know all existing qualities, except the turning of mind.

The six consciousnesses do not establish bodily posture; it is rapidity that establishes it.

The six consciousnesses do not take up and sustain bodily action and verbal action; the six consciousnesses do not receive wholesome and unwholesome qualities; it is rapidity that takes them up and sustains them.

The six consciousnesses do not enter concentration and do not arise calmly; it is rapidity that enters concentration, while a later phase is calm.

The six consciousnesses do not end and are not born; ending occurs through either a later phase or that object, and birth occurs through the resultant mind-consciousness element.

The six consciousnesses do not sleep, do not wake, and do not see dreams; sleeping occurs through a later phase, waking through the turning of mind, and dreaming through rapidity.

Thus, from object, they can be known.

Third Approach: Quality

Question: How can they be known from quality?

Answer: the five sense consciousnesses have initial and sustained application, and the mind element has initial and sustained application; the mind-consciousness element may have initial and sustained application, may have no initial application and little sustained application, or may have neither initial nor sustained application.

The five sense consciousnesses are accompanied by equanimity; body-consciousness may be accompanied by pleasure or may be accompanied by pain; the mind-consciousness element may be accompanied by joy, may be accompanied by grief, or may be accompanied by equanimity.

The five sense consciousnesses are resultant; the mind element may be resultant or may be preparatory; the mind-consciousness element may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, may be resultant, or may be preparatory.

The six consciousnesses are without cause and without arising.

Worldly qualities have influxes and knots, bonds and currents, peril and hindrances, contact, grasping, and defilement; they are not abandoned through seeing and not abandoned through cultivation; they are neither aggregative nor nonaggregative; neither training nor not training; small and bound to the sense realm; uncertain and not a vehicle; the mind-consciousness element entirely breaks.

Thus, from quality, their relative distinctions can be known. This is called the aggregate of consciousness; this is called the five aggregates.

Two Irregularities in the Closures

Each of the three approaches closes with one sentence, but the three sentences are not uniform in form: the first closes, “Thus, from locus and object, they can be known”; the second closes, “Thus, from object, they can be known”; only the third reads, “Thus, from quality, their relative distinctions can be known,” with one additional source character, rendered here by “relative distinctions,” compared with the first two. The forms are transcribed as they stand and are not made uniform.

Again, the final sentence closes two matters at once: it closes both the aggregate of consciousness and the five aggregates. The answer on the five aggregates began with the aggregate of form and reaches its end here, so the treatise places two closing formulas in the same sentence. Both are transcribed as they stand.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · Three Approaches to the Aggregate of Consciousness · Vernacular · Summer 2026

With the aggregate of consciousness, the answer concerning the five aggregates is about to come to a close.

Let us state the observation at the outset: This passage adds no further names. Seven names are fixed all at once at the beginning; the three approaches that follow merely change eyes three times and look at the same set three times. Yet the way this “same set” is named is not uniform across the three approaches—sometimes it is divided into the five consciousnesses, the mind element, and the mind-consciousness element; sometimes it is gathered as the six consciousnesses. The treatise never pauses to say which six “the six consciousnesses” are.

One list of seven names, reviewed three times. Names do not increase, but ways of seeing do—this is the shape of the passage.

How the Seven Names Are Established

The question and answer list every name at once: “Answer: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind” 〔T32 448a19〕 “element mind-consciousness element” 〔T32 448a20〕.

The first five use the same formula five times: “As for eye-consciousness here, consciousness is born dependent on the eye and conditioned by visible form; this” 〔T32 448a20〕 “is called eye-consciousness” 〔T32 448a21〕—depending on a particular faculty, conditioned by a particular object, a particular consciousness arises, and then “is called” brings the name back. Ear, nose, tongue, and body repeat it without changing a single character. At the fifth item, “as for body-consciousness, dependent on the body and conditioned by touch, there arises” 〔T32 448a23〕 “consciousness; this is called body-consciousness” 〔T32 448a24〕, the mold is still intact.

But as soon as the sixth and seventh items begin, the closing phrase changes its wording. The mind element has “This is called the mind element” 〔T32 448a25〕, and the mind-consciousness element has “This is called the mind-consciousness element” 〔T32 448a26〕. The first five uniformly close with one version of “this is called”; the last two uniformly with the other version of “this is called.”

This is not a grouping imposed on the treatise here. The treatise’s own wording makes the division—five in one group and two in another, already separated by their closing phrases.

There is a reason for the grouping. Each of the first five has its own faculty and object and so receives the first version of “this is called”; the last two have no exclusive faculty, and the way their boundaries are established therefore differs. Of the mind element, the text says: “The mind element depends on a locus, five objects, and two objects. The five consciousnesses” 〔T32 448a24〕 “—if consciousness arises before or after them in sequence, this is called the mind element” 〔T32 448a25〕. It is explained by carrying forward the sequence of the five consciousnesses. The mind-consciousness element is more direct, established in a single exclusion: “Mind-consciousness element: apart from these” 〔T32 448a25〕 “six consciousnesses, the remaining mind; this is called the mind-consciousness element” 〔T32 448a26〕.

This move of establishing a boundary by exclusion was used in the previous unit. The boundary statement for the aggregate of formations is “all mental factors apart from feeling and perception” 〔T32 447c13〕—remove feeling and perception, and everything left is included. Here, remove those six, and all the remaining mind is included. The same way of drawing a boundary appears once in each of two consecutive passages.

Reading Practice: Use Numbers as Joints

The reading practice offered by this passage is simple but durable: when you encounter a number, first look back for where it last appeared.

“These seven consciousnesses are distinguished in three ways” 〔T32 448a26〕—this is the first place in the entire treatise that expressly labels the list as seven. But the number “seven” did not first appear here.

Turn back to the aggregate of feeling: “seven feelings by way of the doors” 〔T32 447b19〕. The list is eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, followed by “feeling born from contact of the mind element” 〔T32 447b20–21〕 and “feeling born from contact of the mind-consciousness element” 〔T32 447b21〕. Then turn to the aggregate of perception: “seven perceptions by way of the doors” 〔T32 447c06〕. Again, beyond the five come “perception born from contact of the mind element” 〔T32 447c07–08〕 and the mind-consciousness element.

Both passages were already using this seven, and the cut that produces it—the division of mind into mind element and mind-consciousness element—had already been made. With the aggregate of consciousness, the treatise merely calls this list “seven consciousnesses” for the first time.

So if “seven consciousnesses” seems new, the preceding two passages have been missed. Numbers are joints: seven in feeling, seven in perception, and seven in consciousness; the same structure runs through all three passages.

Use the same practice once more and the joint reaches farther. The general heading here is “These seven consciousnesses are distinguished in three ways” 〔T32 448a26〕; the next passage has “Further, these five aggregates are distinguished in four ways” 〔T32 448b25〕; the passage after that says of the twelve sense bases that “their distinctions can be known in five ways” 〔T32 449a07〕. Three ways, four ways, five ways: the number rises across three consecutive passages. Turn farther back and the aggregate-of-form section has two statements of the same shape that do not report the number of approaches: “Thus, their distinctions through what brings them forth can be known” 〔T32 446b14–15〕 and “Thus, their distinctions through unity can be known” 〔T32 447b11〕.

One joint is visible in five places. A number does more than count; it is the tenon by which the treatise fastens one passage to another.

First Approach: A Three-Column Table Hidden by Continuous Writing

The first of the three approaches asks, “How is it viewed by locus and object?” The answer first gives a general statement: “the five consciousnesses have various loci and various objects” 〔T32 448a28〕; the mind element and the mind-consciousness element share one locus; then comes “mind element, five objects” 〔T32 448a29〕, with six objects for the mind-consciousness element.

Next comes the hardest sentence in the passage: “The five consciousnesses: internal quality, internal locus” 〔T32 448a29〕 “external object mind element, internal quality, external locus, external object mind-consciousness element, internal quality, external locus” 〔T32 448b01〕 “internal object and also external object” 〔T32 448b02〕.

Written straight through, it looks like a string of garbled code. In fact, it is a three-column table—three subjects, each paired with three entries: quality, locus, and object.

The five consciousnesses: internal quality, internal locus, external object; the mind element: internal quality, external locus, external object; the mind-consciousness element: internal quality, external locus, internal and also external objects.

The warrant for reconstructing it is not my conjecture; it is the preceding sentence. That sentence has just said that the mind element has five objects and the mind-consciousness element six. The mind element’s five are visible form, sound, odor, taste, and touch, all external, so its column reads “external objects.” The mind-consciousness element’s six are the five external objects plus one quality, so its column reads “internal and also external objects.” Once the numbers line up, the columns line up. As for why the “locus” column makes the five consciousnesses internal but the mind element and mind-consciousness element external, the treatise does not explain, and this edition does not explain it on the treatise’s behalf.

The continuous writing itself deserves a clear look: each later subject is attached to the end of the preceding clause. “External object mind element”—the mind element is attached to the end of the five-consciousness column. “External object mind-consciousness element”—the mind-consciousness element is attached to the end of the mind-element column. The same thing happens again in this section: “The six consciousnesses: initial birth-locus, initial birth-object mind-consciousness” 〔T32 448b02〕 “element. At the moment of entering the body, the co-arising locus is first the place of birth; in the formless” 〔T32 448b03〕.

This third instance adds another difficulty: do those three Chinese characters—mind-consciousness element—belong above or below? If above, the initial birth-object of the six consciousnesses is the mind-consciousness element; if below, the mind-consciousness element is the subject of the next sentence. The treatise itself does not divide the wording. This edition records both readings and reproduces the received characters.

This is already the fifth occurrence of such continuous writing in this chapter. The previous four were “impermanence-morsel-food-domain form,” “arising-form-morsel-food-four-elements,” “water-element-morsel-food-domain form,” and the three strings “joy-mind,” “energy-mindfulness,” and “agitation-play.” Their structure was recovered either from numbers reported by the treatise or from the individual explanations that separated them. This time is different: the reconstruction rests on the symmetry by which each of three subjects must receive all three entries. The form of continuous writing is the same, but the warrant for reconstructing it differs. That is precisely why the form cannot be dismissed as a copyist’s occasional omission of a list mark; it is a normal feature of this treatise’s prose.

Second Approach: First State What Cannot Happen, Then Explain How It Can

The second approach asks, “How is it viewed by object?” Its sentence pattern is the most regular of the three, and also the easiest to misread as a heap of negations.

It begins with two statements: “The five consciousnesses do not know all qualities, except at initial arising” 〔T32 448b06–07〕 and “the mind element does not know all qualities, except the turning of mind” 〔T32 448b07〕—first a “does not,” then an opening in it.

Six sentences then run on in one breath, each in this form. “The six consciousnesses do not establish” 〔T32 448b07〕 “posture; rapidity establishes it” 〔T32 448b08〕. They do not sustain bodily or verbal action, and they do not receive wholesome or unwholesome qualities; “through rapidity they receive them” 〔T32 448b09〕. They do not enter concentration or arise calmly; “through rapidity concentration is entered” 〔T32 448b10〕. They do not die and are not born; resultant mind-consciousness element is born. They do not sleep, wake, or see dreams; “through rapidity a dream is seen” 〔T32 448b13〕.

All six sentences first state something the six consciousnesses cannot do, then explain how it nevertheless becomes possible. Negation comes first and explanation follows—this sentence pattern is distinctive to this passage and does not occur in the preceding passages.

In the explaining halves, only two terms recur: rapidity and later phase. The two-character term translated “rapidity” occurs only four times in the entire treatise, all four within these few lines 〔T32 448b08·448b09·448b10·448b13〕. A term used only in this passage is densely made to carry the explanations of six sentences. The treatise does not separately say what rapidity is; it only lets the term appear, one occurrence at a time, within those six sentences.

At this point it is easy to form the wrong impression that this approach teaches the mind’s incapacity. It does not. The weight of all six sentences lies in their second halves—not whether the six consciousnesses can do something, but what makes it possible. The initial negations merely force the question into view.

Pause: Which Six Are the “Six Consciousnesses”?

Pause now over a single word.

The phrase “six consciousnesses” appears nine times in this passage and only eleven times in the entire treatise. Of the nine occurrences, only the first carries its own boundary statement. That is the sentence establishing the mind-consciousness element: “Mind-consciousness element: apart from these” 〔T32 448a25〕 “six consciousnesses, the remaining mind; this is called the mind-consciousness element” 〔T32 448a26〕. From this, one can reason backward: here the six are seven minus the mind-consciousness element—that is, the five consciousnesses plus the mind element.

Yet in the remaining eight occurrences, the treatise never again identifies the six. Is “the six consciousnesses: initial birth-locus, initial birth-object mind-consciousness” 〔T32 448b02〕 in the first approach the same six? Are the “six consciousnesses” that run through the six sentences of the second approach the same? And what of “the six consciousnesses are without cause and without arising” 〔T32 448b20〕 at the end of the third?

The treatise gives no explanation at all.

This question deserves a pause, not because it is difficult, but because it demonstrates one of the treatise’s habits: a term carries its boundary statement at its first occurrence and is then used straight through without looking back. If the reader does not catch the boundary at the first occurrence, the next eight can only be guessed at.

And this passage pointedly rotates among three sets: “five consciousnesses,” “six consciousnesses,” and “seven consciousnesses.” All three forms of naming appear in the first approach; the second speaks almost entirely of the six consciousnesses; the third returns to the threefold division into the five consciousnesses, the mind element, and the mind-consciousness element, then suddenly produces six consciousnesses at the end. The same set of seven things receives three modes of naming across the three approaches.

This edition does not supply the boundary statement on the treatise’s behalf, nor does it infer from this a theory of consciousness. Only two facts are verifiable: of nine occurrences, only the first carries its own boundary statement; in the remaining eight, the treatise does not identify them again.

Third Approach: A Parallel Series Held Up by “May Be”

The third approach asks, “How is it viewed by quality?” The backbone of this approach is one expression—may be.

“The mind-consciousness element may have initial and sustained application, may have no initial and little sustained application,” 〔T32 448b15〕 “or may have neither initial nor sustained application” 〔T32 448b16〕. “The five consciousnesses are accompanied by equanimity” 〔T32 448b16〕, while body-consciousness may be accompanied by pleasure or pain, and the mind-consciousness element may be accompanied by joy, grief, or equanimity. “The five consciousnesses are resultant” 〔T32 448b18〕, while the mind element may be resultant or preparatory, and “the mind-consciousness element may be wholesome, may be unwholesome, may be resultant, or may be preparatory” 〔T32 448b19〕.

This expression occurs fourteen times within five lines, while the whole treatise has no more than fifty occurrences. More than one quarter are packed into these five lines.

Its use is clear: the five consciousnesses are fixed, the mind element somewhat flexible, and the mind-consciousness element most flexible. As the same question moves forward, the later items allow less categorical statements, so “may be” grows denser. Across all three approaches, this is the only point where the differences among the seven consciousnesses appear directly in the syntax—not through an explanation, but through the changing density of one expression.

The threefold division concerning initial and sustained application is not first established here. Earlier, the treatise says: “Further, concentration is of three kinds: concentration with initial and sustained application, concentration without initial but with little sustained application, and concentration with neither initial nor sustained application” 〔T32 407b16–17〕, and ties each to its corresponding meditation. Here those three are transferred to the mind-consciousness element—another joint.

Closing Lines: The Three Approaches Are Uneven, and the Last Line Closes Twice

Two final small matters.

Each approach closes with a sentence: “Thus it can be known by locus and object” 〔T32 448b04〕, “Thus by object” 〔T32 448b13〕 “it can be known” 〔T32 448b14〕, and “Thus, through quality, their distinctions can be known; this is called the aggregate of consciousness; this is called the five aggregates” 〔T32 448b24〕. The first two have “can be known”; the third has “their distinctions can be known,” adding one word. The difference is recorded as received and not made uniform.

The last line closes two matters in one sentence: it closes the aggregate of consciousness and it also closes the five aggregates. The answer concerning the five aggregates began with form, passed through feeling, perception, and formations, and reached consciousness; only with this sentence is the course complete. The treatise does not start a separate concluding passage, but places two closing formulas one after the other in the same sentence.

One further fact about the movement of the prose should be remembered. The preceding unit gives one simile for each item, without a single omission among thirty-two; this passage establishes not one simile. The character meaning “like” occurs four times in this passage 〔T32 448a27·448b04·448b13·448b24〕, and all four belong to the word translated “thus”; not one introduces a simile. Two adjacent passages—one filled with similes, one wholly without them. The verifiable point is the contrast itself; this edition does not infer a further rule of composition from it.

---

Carry away three things. One observation—seven names are fixed all at once at the beginning, no further name is added, and the three approaches merely change eyes three times to view the same set; yet the way that “same set” is named is not uniform, sometimes divided into the five consciousnesses, the mind element, and the mind-consciousness element, and sometimes gathered as the six consciousnesses. One reading practice—use numbers as joints: whenever a number appears, first look back for where it last occurred. Seven had already appeared in feeling as “seven feelings by way of the doors” 〔T32 447b19〕 and in perception as “seven perceptions by way of the doors” 〔T32 447c06〕; three ways, four ways, and five ways rise across three consecutive passages 〔T32 448a26·448b25·449a07〕. One place to pause—“six consciousnesses” occurs nine times, but only the first carries its own boundary statement 〔T32 448a25–26〕; in the other eight occurrences, the treatise does not again say which six they are. Is it the same six? This edition records the wording and does not add the missing gloss.

Remember three smaller points as well: the five consciousnesses close with one version of “this is called,” while the mind element and mind-consciousness element close with the other version of “this is called,” so the closing diction itself makes a group; the first approach’s three-column table is hidden by continuous writing, and the warrant for reconstructing it lies in the preceding “mind element, five objects” 〔T32 448a29〕; and the term translated “rapidity” occurs only four times in the entire treatise, all in the second approach here.

---

Shi Huijing · Waken · The Path of Freedom · Three Approaches to the Aggregate of Consciousness · Exposition · Summer 2026