攝大乘論本

Part One: The General Outline

In the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra, it is said that bodhisattvas who have skillfully entered the Mahayana, wishing to elucidate the greatness of the Mahayana, relied upon the Mahayana and, in the presence of the Buddha, declared that the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, possess ten distinguished modes of discourse. First is the distinction of the support of the knowable. Second is the distinction of the characteristics of the knowable.

Third is the distinction of entry into the characteristics of the knowable. Fourth is the distinction of entry into cause and effect. Fifth is the distinction of the various cultivations of cause and effect.

Sixth is the distinction of the higher discipline within such varied cultivation. Seventh is the distinction of the higher mind. Eighth is the distinction of the higher wisdom.

Ninth is the distinction of the fruit of abandonment. Tenth is the distinction of the fruit of knowledge. Through these statements spoken by the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, in the sutras, it is evident that the Mahayana was indeed taught by the Buddha.

How is this evident? It is because these ten distinctions are never taught in the Sravaka Vehicle, whereas they are taught in many places only within the Mahayana. The alaya-consciousness describes the essence of the support of the knowable.

The three natures—first, the other-dependent nature; second, the imagined nature; and third, the perfectly accomplished nature—describe the essence of the characteristics of the knowable. The nature of consciousness-only describes entry into the essence of the characteristics of the knowable. The six paramitas describe the essence of entry into cause and effect.

The ten bodhisattva bhumis describe the essence of the varied cultivation of causes and effects. The bodhisattva discipline describes the essence of the higher discipline. The Surangama, Akasagarbha, and other samadhis describe the essence of the higher mind.

Nonconceptual knowledge describes the essence of the higher wisdom. Nonabiding nirvana describes the essence of the fruit of abandonment. The three Buddha-bodies—first, the essential body; second, the enjoyment body; and third, the transformation body—describe the essence of the fruit of knowledge.

Through these ten distinctions, it is evident that the Mahayana differs from the Sravaka Vehicle. It is also evident that the Blessed One explained them only to bodhisattvas. Therefore, one should know that it is only in reliance upon the Mahayana that the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, taught these ten distinctions.

Furthermore, why did the Tathagata, through these ten distinctions, employ distinguished discourse, thereby further demonstrating that the Mahayana is truly the word of the Buddha?

It was to prevent the notion that the Sravaka Vehicle constitutes the nature of the Mahayana. These ten characteristics are never found taught in the Sravaka Vehicle, but are frequently taught in the Mahayana. These ten distinguished modes of discourse possess great power to bring forth great bodhi, establish excellent accord, remain free from contradiction, and enable attainment of omniscient knowledge. Two verses state:

The support and characteristics of the knowable,

Entry into cause and effect and cultivating cause and effect,

The three trainings, the fruit of abandonment, and the fruit of knowledge—

Being the supreme vehicle, these are distinguished.

These teachings are not found elsewhere;

They are the supreme causes of bodhi.

Therefore, the Mahayana was taught by the Buddha,

For it teaches these ten distinguished meanings.

Furthermore, why are these ten meanings taught in this sequence?

Bodhisattvas must first understand the causes and conditions of phenomena before they can understand the principle of dependent arising. Next, regarding phenomena arisen through conditions, they must correctly discern their characteristics and skillfully avoid the two extremes of superimposition and denial. Next, having cultivated skillfully in this way, bodhisattvas must correctly penetrate the characteristics of the apprehended, thereby freeing the mind from obstructions.

Next, after penetrating the characteristics of the knowable, through attaining the six paramitas at the stage of preparatory practice, they must fully accomplish and purify their higher aspiration. Next, after purifying their aspiration through the six paramitas, they must cultivate the distinctions of the ten bhumis, stage by stage. This must be done over three incalculable great kalpas.

Next, they must perfect the bodhisattva’s three trainings. Having perfected them, they must directly realize the fruits of nirvana and unsurpassed, complete, perfect enlightenment. The ten meanings are taught in this sequence, and through them the Mahayana is presented in full.

Part Two: The Support of the Knowable

Of the ten distinguished meanings, the support of the knowable—the basis upon which all knowable phenomena depend—is taught first; it is the alaya-consciousness.

Where did the Blessed One call the alaya-consciousness by the name “alaya-consciousness”?

In a verse of the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra, the Blessed One said:

The realm beginningless in time

Is the common support of all phenomena.

Because it exists, there are the various destinies

And also the attainment of nirvana.

Another verse says:

Because it gathers and contains all phenomena

And constitutes the seed-consciousness,

It is called the alaya;

This I teach to the excellent ones.

Thus it has been substantiated from the Agama.

For what reason is this consciousness named alaya?

All defiled phenomena produced are contained within it as effects, and this same consciousness contains those phenomena as causes; therefore, it is called alaya. Alternatively, sentient beings appropriate and retain this consciousness as their self; therefore, it is called alaya.

Furthermore, this consciousness is also called the adana-consciousness. As the Samdhinirmocana Sutra says in the Agama:

The adana-consciousness is exceedingly subtle;

Its seeds are like a rushing stream.

I do not teach it to ordinary beings,

Fearing they would grasp it as a self.

For what reason is it also named the adana-consciousness?

Because it takes hold of all the material faculties and makes its own continuum their support. Why is this so? Because the material faculties that it holds are carried along throughout life without being lost. It also maintains continuity until rebirth-linking, when it appropriates the new body as its own. Therefore, this consciousness is also called the adana-consciousness.

This consciousness is also called mind. Thus the Blessed One spoke of mind, mentation, and consciousness. Here, mentation is of two kinds. The first serves as the immediately preceding condition and possesses the nature of a support: the consciousness that has ceased immediately before can provide a support for mental consciousness. The second is defiled mentation, which is always associated with four afflictions: the view of a real person, self-conceit, self-love, and ignorance. This consciousness is the support of defilements. Consciousness also arises in dependence upon it—according to the first meaning—and cognizes defiled objects—according to the second. Thus, because of the meanings of immediate succession and reflective consideration, mentation is said to be of these two kinds.

Furthermore, how is the existence of defiled mentation known?

If this defiled mentation did not exist, there would be the fault that exclusive ignorance could not exist. There would also be the fault that no analogue of the five consciousnesses could exist. Why?

The five groups of consciousness necessarily possess the eye and so forth as simultaneous supports. There would also be the fault that the etymological explanation of “mentation” could not be established. Furthermore, there would be the fault that no distinction could be made between the absorption of nonperception and the absorption of cessation.

In the absorption of nonperception, defiled mentation is clearly present, whereas this is not so in the absorption of cessation. Otherwise, the two absorptions would not differ. There would also be the fault that throughout birth among the nonpercipient gods there would be no defilement.

Yet if self-grasping and self-conceit were absent, self-grasping could not operate at all times—that is, within wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral states of mind. Otherwise it would be associated only with unwholesome minds, since the operation of the afflictions concerning self and what belongs to self would be neither wholesome nor neutral. Therefore, if its operation is established as simultaneous but not directly associated, this fault does not arise.

A verse states:

If exclusive ignorance,

The analogue of the five, etymology,

And the distinction between the two absorptions

Were absent, faults would follow in every case.

To say that among the nonpercipient gods

There is no self-grasping is a fault.

Self-grasping constantly accompanies

Every kind of state; if it did not,

Undefiled mentation could not exist,

And two or three positions would conflict.

Without this, self-grasping

Would be absent everywhere.

The mind that takes the ultimate meaning as its object constantly arises

And constantly creates obstruction.

Present within every consciousness,

It is exclusive ignorance.

Because mentation is defiled, its nature is obscured-neutral, and it is always associated with the four afflictions. This resembles the afflictions of the Form and Formless Realms, which are obscured-neutral. Since the afflictions of the Form and Formless Realms are contained by samatha, this mentation is always subtly present.

The third is mind, which cannot exist apart from the alaya-consciousness. Therefore, the alaya-consciousness is established as the essence of mind, and this mind serves as the seed from which mentation and the active consciousnesses arise.

For what reason is the alaya-consciousness also called mind?

Because it is the place in which the seeds produced by perfuming are accumulated.

Furthermore, why is this mind not called the alaya-consciousness or adana-consciousness in the Sravaka Vehicle?

Because this is an exceedingly subtle domain. Why? Because the insight of sravakas does not operate with regard to every object. Therefore, even though the alaya-consciousness was not separately taught to them, they could still attain insight and accomplish liberation; hence the Buddha did not teach it. The insight of bodhisattvas, however, necessarily operates with regard to every object; therefore, the Buddha taught it to bodhisattvas. Apart from this insight, omniscient knowledge cannot easily be realized.

Furthermore, the alaya-consciousness is also taught in the Sravaka Vehicle under other expressions or through hidden intention. Thus the Ekottarika Agama says: “Beings in the world love alaya, delight in alaya, rejoice in alaya, and take pleasure in alaya. To eliminate such alayas, when the Tathagata teaches the true Dharma, they listen respectfully, establish their minds in seeking the Dharma, and practice in accordance with it.

So wondrous is the Tathagata’s appearance in the world, and so rare is the true Dharma’s appearance in the world.” The Sutra of Four Virtues likewise reveals the alaya-consciousness through another expression and hidden intention. The Agama of the Mahasamghika school also uses another expression and hidden intention, calling this consciousness the root-consciousness, like the root of a tree. The Mahisasaka school likewise uses another expression and hidden intention, calling it the aggregate that continues throughout samsara.

Although at certain places and times matter and mind are seen to disappear, their seeds within the alaya-consciousness do not disappear.

Because the alaya is thus the support of all knowable phenomena, the alaya-consciousness is described as its nature, the adana-consciousness as its nature, mind as its nature, alaya as its nature, root-consciousness as its nature, and the aggregate continuing throughout samsara as its nature, and so forth. Through differing presentations and hidden intentions, the alaya-consciousness became a distinctive mode of exposition employed by the great King of Dharma.

There is also an explanation asserting that mind, mentation, and consciousness differ in name but have a single meaning. This is incorrect. Since mentation and consciousness already possess two different meanings, it should be known that mind also has a different meaning.

Another group says that when the Blessed One stated that beings love alaya, and so forth in the fuller passage, the five appropriated skandhas themselves were called alaya.

Others say that craving together with pleasant feeling is alaya, while still others say that the view of a real person is alaya. Because these teachers did not clearly understand the doctrine or directly realize the storehouse consciousness, they established such views. The name alaya as established in the Sravaka Vehicle is likewise not treated reasonably in those explanations. The best establishment, free from confusion, is to designate the storehouse consciousness itself by the name alaya.

Why is this the best explanation?

If the five skandhas were alaya, beings born in evil destinies, where they experience exclusively painful and intensely repugnant suffering, would never give rise to love for them; it would therefore be unreasonable to call them what is grasped as a store. If craving together with pleasant feeling were alaya, neither would exist from the fourth dhyana upward, and beings in those realms are constantly disenchanted with them; it would therefore be unreasonable to call them what is grasped as a store.

If the view of a real person were alaya, those within the true Dharma who understand and accept selflessness would constantly be disenchanted with it; it would therefore be unreasonable to call it what is grasped as a store. The alaya-consciousness bears the character of self. Thus, although beings born in evil destinies experience only suffering and wish to escape the skandhas of suffering, self-love constantly binds them to the storehouse consciousness, and they never form the wish to abandon it.

Although beings born from the fourth dhyana upward are constantly disenchanted with craving and pleasant feeling, self-love still constantly binds them to the storehouse consciousness. Although those within this true Dharma who understand and accept selflessness are disenchanted with the view of self, self-love still constantly binds them to the storehouse consciousness. Therefore, establishing the alaya-consciousness and naming it alaya is the best explanation.

The establishment of the alaya-consciousness has thus been explained. How, then, are its characteristics established?

Briefly, its characteristics are established in three ways: first, the establishment of its intrinsic characteristic; second, the establishment of its causal characteristic; and third, the establishment of its resultant characteristic.

The intrinsic characteristic of the alaya-consciousness is established in that all defiled phenomena perfume it as causes from which phenomena arise, because it has the capacity to retain their corresponding seeds.

The causal characteristic of the alaya-consciousness means that at all times the alaya-consciousness, possessing all seeds, serves as the cause of the various defiled phenomena that arise in the present.

The resultant characteristic of the alaya-consciousness means that, based upon the perfuming of defiled phenomena since beginningless time, the alaya-consciousness arises in an uninterrupted continuum.

Furthermore, what is perfuming? “Perfuming” is the expression; what does it designate?

It means that one phenomenon exists in dependence upon another and arises and ceases together with it. When the former has the capacity to produce the latter and serve as its cause, this is what the term designates. It is like sesame seeds perfumed by flowers: the sesame and flowers arise and cease together, and the sesame consequently bears the flowers’ fragrance.

It is also like speaking of a person who cultivates greed: greed perfumes the mind, existing in dependence upon it and arising and ceasing together with it, so that this mind arises bearing the cause capable of producing greed. Or, in the case of a learned person, learning perfumes the mind: in dependence upon attentive hearing, the mind arises and ceases together with it and subsequently arises bearing that cause. Because such perfuming has the capacity to preserve what has been heard, the person is called a preserver of the true Dharma.

The meaning of perfuming in the alaya-consciousness should be understood in the same way.

Furthermore, are the seeds of defiled phenomena in the alaya different and separately existent, or are they not different?

Those seeds are not real entities existing separately, yet neither are they wholly undifferentiated within the alaya. Because the alaya-consciousness possesses the distinct capacities to produce them, it is called the consciousness possessing all seeds.

Furthermore, how is it known that the alaya-consciousness and those defiled phenomena are simultaneously causes of one another?

It is like the light of a lamp: the flame burns the wick and produces light simultaneously. It is also like a bundle of reeds that stand by simultaneously supporting one another. The principle of mutual causation here should be contemplated in the same way. Just as the alaya-consciousness is the cause of defiled phenomena, defiled phenomena are also the cause of the alaya-consciousness. Only in this way is the meaning of causation established; no other meaning of causation exists here.

Why can perfumings, though neither different nor intermingled, act as causes for phenomena that are differentiated and intermingled?

It is like a dyed cloth. When it is first dyed, diverse distinctions are not yet manifest, but after the dyeing is completed, colors, lines, and patterns appear. The alaya-consciousness is the same. The phenomena that perfume it are diverse. Although their various forms are not visible during the perfuming, when their results arise, they manifest as innumerable diverse categories.

The dependent arising of phenomena revealed in this way is extremely profound and subtle within the Mahayana. Briefly, dependent arising is of two kinds: first, dependent arising that differentiates intrinsic natures; and second, dependent arising that differentiates pleasant and unpleasant results.

Here, the arising of phenomena in dependence upon the alaya-consciousness is the dependent arising that differentiates intrinsic natures, because the various intrinsic natures are distinguished through the nature of their conditions.

Dependent arising is also analyzed into twelve links. This is called dependent arising that differentiates pleasant and unpleasant results, because within good and evil destinies it distinguishes the various pleasant or unpleasant forms of existence through the nature of their conditions.

Regarding the alaya-consciousness, those deluded about the first kind of dependent arising may imagine an intrinsic nature to be the cause, grasp former actions as the cause, grasp transformations by a sovereign creator as the cause, grasp a real self as the cause, or hold that things arise without cause or condition. Those deluded about the second kind grasp the self as the agent and the self as the experiencer. It is like a group of people blind from birth who have never seen an elephant.

Someone brings them an elephant so they may know it. One blind person touches its trunk, another its tusk, another its ear, another its leg, another its tail, and another its back. When asked what the elephant is like, one replies that it is like a plow handle; another, like a pestle; another, like a winnowing basket; another, like a mortar; another, like a broom; and another, like a mountain rock.

Those who do not understand these two kinds of dependent arising resemble those blind with ignorance. They may grasp an intrinsic nature as the cause, grasp a real self as the cause, grasp that things arise without cause or condition, or grasp the self as the agent and the self as the experiencer. The causal and resultant natures of the alaya-consciousness are like the elephant’s true nature, which the blind do not know.

Briefly stated, the alaya-consciousness is the maturation consciousness. Possession of all seeds is its intrinsic nature, and it encompasses every form of existence and every destiny within the three realms. Five verses state:

The inner and outer are not understood;

There are the conventional and the ultimate.

Seeds possess six characteristics:

They cease from moment to moment, coexist with their effects,

And should be known to continue constantly in conformity.

They are determinate, await supporting conditions,

And can produce only their own results.

Stable, neutral, and capable of being perfumed,

They correspond to that which perfumes.

What is perfumed is not something different:

These are the characteristics of perfuming.

The six consciousnesses do not correspond,

For they differ in three respects.

Earlier and later do not coexist;

To posit the same kind entails error.

The outer and inner seeds

Have the capacities to produce and to project.

Like a withered tree or a dead person,

They cease only after some time.

To clarify that inner seeds are unlike outer seeds, two verses state:

Outer seeds may lack perfuming,

But this is not so for inner seeds.

If the perfuming of learning were absent

Yet produced a result, that would be unreasonable.

Actions would be lost and what was not done would be obtained;

These contradictions would constitute faults.

Outer seeds have inner conditions,

For they are perfumed by those conditions.

Furthermore, the other active consciousnesses, which pervade every form of existence in the various destinies, are called the enjoyment consciousnesses. As a verse in the Madhyantavibhaga says:

The first is the causal-condition consciousness;

The second is the enjoyment consciousness.

Within the latter are the experiencer,

Conceptualization, and mental factors.

These two consciousnesses likewise serve as conditions for each other. As a verse in the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra says:

Phenomena in relation to the storehouse consciousness,

And the storehouse consciousness in relation to phenomena,

Always serve as one another’s results

And also as one another’s causes.

If, within the first kind of dependent arising, these two consciousnesses serve as causal conditions for one another, then within the second kind of dependent arising, what condition serves as the dominant condition? Through how many conditions, then, do the six consciousnesses arise?

They arise through the dominant condition, the object condition, and the immediately preceding condition. Thus the three modes of dependent arising—continuity throughout samsara, pleasant and unpleasant destinies, and the capacity for enjoyment—together possess all four conditions.

The characteristics and distinctive intrinsic characteristics of the alaya-consciousness have thus been established. But how is it known that these distinctive intrinsic characteristics belong exclusively and definitively to the alaya-consciousness and not to the active consciousnesses?

If the alaya-consciousness established above were absent, neither defilement nor purification could be established. That is, if the defilements of affliction, karma, and birth could not be established, neither mundane nor supramundane purification could be established.

Why could the defilement of affliction not be established?

It would be unreasonable to say that the seeds created by the perfuming of the afflictions and secondary afflictions reside within the six groups of consciousness. Why? Suppose visual consciousness arose and ceased together with greed and other afflictions and secondary afflictions.

Then the seeds would be perfumed by that visual consciousness and those afflictions and secondary afflictions, and by nothing else. But once this visual consciousness had ceased and other consciousnesses intervened, no support for the perfuming could be found. During the intervention of other consciousnesses, the preceding consciousness no longer exists as a real entity.

It is therefore unreasonable to say that visual consciousness arises together with greed and so forth as the basis of enduring perfuming, because that visual consciousness belongs to the past and no longer exists as a real entity. It is just as unreasonable as saying that karma from the past, which no longer exists as a real entity, directly produces a maturation result. Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that perfuming occurs merely because visual consciousness arises together with greed and so forth.

This perfuming cannot reside in greed, because greed is dependent, unstable, and incapable of retention. Nor can it be said to reside in other consciousnesses, because those consciousnesses have distinct supports and do not necessarily arise and cease together with it. Nor can it reside within its own essence, because a thing’s own essence certainly cannot arise and cease together with itself.

Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that visual consciousness is perfumed by greed and the other afflictions and secondary afflictions, nor is this consciousness perfumed by another consciousness. What is true of visual consciousness should be known to be true of the other active consciousnesses as well.

Furthermore, when beings die in higher realms, such as among the nonpercipient gods, and are born in this realm, the initial consciousness defiled by afflictions and secondary afflictions should arise without seeds, because its former support and that which had been perfumed have become past and no longer exist as real entities.

Furthermore, when a consciousness that counteracts the afflictions arises, all mundane consciousnesses cease. At that time, apart from the alaya-consciousness, it would be unreasonable to say that the seeds of the afflictions and secondary afflictions reside within the counteractive consciousness, because the counteractive consciousness is liberated by nature and does not arise and cease together with the afflictions and secondary afflictions.

Later, mundane consciousness arises again. At that time, apart from the alaya-consciousness, the consciousness previously perfumed and its support have long since become past and no longer exist as real entities; therefore, the mundane consciousness arising again would have no seeds. Consequently, apart from the alaya-consciousness, the defilement of affliction cannot be established.

Why could the defilement of karma not be established?

Because formations are conditions corresponding to consciousness; without this alaya-consciousness, the relation in which grasping conditions existence would likewise be untenable.

Why could the defilement of birth not be established?

Because the continuity of rebirth-linking would be unreasonable. Consider a person who is not in meditative absorption and, upon dying, is to be born in this realm. In the intermediate existence, defiled mental consciousness arises and performs rebirth-linking.

When that defiled mental consciousness in the intermediate existence ceases, it becomes the consciousness united with the kalala in the mother’s womb. If this mental consciousness were united with the kalala, and after that union another mental consciousness arose in the mother’s womb in dependence upon it, there would have to be two mental consciousnesses arising simultaneously in the mother’s womb. Furthermore, it is unreasonable that the consciousness united with the kalala should be mental consciousness, because it depends upon defilement, because the interval is uninterrupted, and because no object of mental consciousness is present.

Suppose nevertheless that the united consciousness were mental consciousness. Is that united mental consciousness itself the support of the consciousness possessing all seeds, or is it called the consciousness possessing all seeds because it produces other mental consciousnesses? If this united consciousness is the consciousness possessing all seeds, then it is precisely the alaya-consciousness, which you have merely called mental consciousness by another name.

If a consciousness dependent upon it were the consciousness possessing all seeds, then the supporting causal consciousness, rather than the dependent resultant consciousness, would be the consciousness possessing all seeds. The opposite claim is unreasonable. Therefore, this established united consciousness is not mental consciousness; it is the maturation consciousness, the consciousness possessing all seeds.

Furthermore, after the continuity of rebirth-linking has occurred, if there were no maturation consciousness, the appropriation of the material faculties could not occur. All the other consciousnesses possess distinct supports and are unstable, while the material faculties cannot be separated from consciousness.

If there were no maturation consciousness, the mutual dependence of consciousness and name-and-form, which operate like bundles of reeds standing by supporting one another, could not be established.

Apart from the maturation consciousness, sentient beings, once born, could not be sustained by the nutriment of consciousness. Why? None of the six consciousnesses can serve as the nutriment of consciousness for beings already born within the three realms.

When beings die in this realm and are born in higher realms, rebirth-linking is not performed by a defiled mental consciousness belonging to the higher realm, for that consciousness is not a defiled mind of the higher realm. Since it is not such a mind, apart from the maturation consciousness no other entity possessing the requisite seed can be found.

Furthermore, for beings born in the Formless Realm, apart from the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds, there would be no seeds for defiled and wholesome minds, and such minds would have no support by which they could be maintained.

Furthermore, when a supramundane mind becomes present in the Formless Realm, all mundane minds cease. At that time the being should die and depart from that Formless Realm.

If one is born in the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception or in the sphere of nothingness, when a supramundane mind becomes present, one should die and depart from both those realms. This supramundane consciousness does not take the sphere of neither perception nor nonperception as its supporting realm, nor the sphere of nothingness as its supporting realm, nor is nirvana its supporting realm in the sense required for continued existence there.

Furthermore, when a person is about to die, because of wholesome or unwholesome deeds, the body gradually grows cold either from below upward or from above downward. If the alaya-consciousness were not accepted, this occurrence could not take place. Therefore, without the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds, the defilement of birth could not be established.

Why could mundane purification not be established?

A person who has not yet abandoned the craving binding one to the Desire Realm and has not yet attained a mind connected with the Form Realm uses a wholesome mind connected with the Desire Realm to aspire toward detachment from desire and diligently applies himself to cultivation. Because the cultivating mind connected with the Desire Realm and the mind connected with the Form Realm do not arise and cease together, the former cannot be perfumed by the latter, and it is unreasonable to call it the latter’s seed.

Furthermore, a mind connected with the Form Realm from many past lives, having been separated by the intervention of other minds and now no longer existing, cannot serve as the seed for the present meditative mind. Therefore, for a meditative mind connected with the Form Realm to arise, the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds, transmitted continuously in succession, must serve as its present causal condition, while the wholesome mind engaged in preparatory cultivation serves as its dominant condition.

Detachment from desire at every level should be understood in the same way. Such is mundane purification. Apart from the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds, it could not be established.

Why could supramundane purification not be established?

As the Blessed One said, right view arises as a result of teachings received from another and proper attention within one’s own mind, which serve as its causes.

Does the proper attention prompted by another’s teaching perfume auditory consciousness, mental consciousness, or both?

When one properly contemplates that Dharma, auditory consciousness does not arise, while mental consciousness is also interrupted by the various distractions of other consciousnesses. When mental consciousness associated with proper attention arises, the mental consciousness that had been perfumed by hearing and that perfuming itself have already ceased and become past, certainly no longer existing as real entities. How, then, could they remain as seeds capable of producing a later mind associated with proper attention?

Furthermore, the mind associated with proper attention is mundane, while the mind associated with right view is supramundane; these two have never once arisen and ceased together. Therefore, the latter mind cannot have been perfumed by the former. Since it has not been perfumed, it is unreasonable to call the former the seed of the latter. Consequently, supramundane purification also cannot be established apart from the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds, because the perfuming produced by hearing cannot otherwise be retained in association with its seeds.

Furthermore, if the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds is the cause of defilement, how can it also support a supramundane counteragent? The seed of that purified mind is supramundane, and since it has never been perfumed from beginningless time, it certainly cannot be a prior perfuming. If it has not been perfumed, from what seed does it arise?

The answer is that it arises from the seed of the perfuming produced by correct hearing, which proceeds as an outflow from the utterly pure dharma-dhatu.

Is this perfuming produced by hearing the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness, or is it not the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness? If it is the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness, how can it be a seed counteracting the alaya? If it is not the intrinsic nature of the alaya, where can the support of the seed produced by the perfuming of hearing be found until the bodhi of the Buddhas is attained?

This perfuming produced by hearing continues upon the same support, abiding within the maturation consciousness and operating in union with it, like water mixed with milk. Yet it is not the alaya-consciousness, because it is a seed whose nature counteracts the alaya. Here, inferior perfuming develops into middling perfuming, and middling perfuming into superior perfuming, because through hearing, reflection, and cultivation, accomplishment comes predominantly through cultivation.

Furthermore, it should be known that the seeds of inferior, middling, and superior perfuming produced by correct hearing are all seeds of the Dharma-body. They oppose the alaya-consciousness and are not included within it, because their nature is an outflow from the utterly pure supramundane dharma-dhatu. Although mundane, they possess the nature of seeds of supramundane mind.

Furthermore, although this supramundane mind has not yet arisen, it already has the capacity to counteract the bonds of the afflictions, to counteract dangerous evil destinies, to spoil and render ineffective evil karma, and to accord with and serve all Buddhas and bodhisattvas. It should be known that although it is mundane, it is also the Dharma-body attained by beginning bodhisattvas, while for sravakas and pratyekabuddhas it is only the liberation body.

Furthermore, this perfuming is not the alaya-consciousness but belongs to the Dharma-body and liberation body. As this perfuming gradually increases from inferior to middling and from middling to superior, the maturation consciousness correspondingly and gradually decreases; this is the transformation of the support. When the support of its seeds has been completely transformed, the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds is transformed until no seeds remain—that is, all its seeds are permanently exhausted.

Furthermore, what is meant by saying it is like milk mixed with water?

It means that it is not the alaya-consciousness, yet it operates together with the alaya-consciousness upon the same support. As all the seeds belonging to the alaya-consciousness are exhausted, all the seeds not belonging to the alaya-consciousness increase. It is like a goose drinking the milk from a mixture of milk and water. It is also like mundane detachment from desire, in which perfumings not belonging to a concentrated level gradually decrease and perfumings belonging to a concentrated level gradually increase, thereby bringing about transformation of the support.

Furthermore, upon entering the absorption of cessation, consciousness does not leave the body, as the Buddha taught. Here it must be the maturation consciousness that does not leave the body, rather than a consciousness newly produced as the counteragent constituting the absorption of cessation.

Nor does this consciousness arise anew upon emergence from the absorption. If the maturation consciousness had been interrupted and had lost continuity apart from rebirth-linking, it could not arise again.

If someone maintains that the absorption of cessation is said to possess mind because mental consciousness is present, that mind cannot be established: because its existence cannot be demonstrated; because it has no object or mode of apprehension; because the fault would follow that it is associated with wholesome roots; because it cannot reasonably be unwholesome or neutral; because the operation of perception and feeling would follow; because contact would be present; because it would exercise a function within samadhi; because the fault would follow that only perception was brought to cessation; because wholesome factors such as volition and faith would operate; because it is unreasonable for the dependent consciousness to be expelled and separated from its support;

because an analogy establishes the contrary; and because no non-universal mental factor of the required kind exists here.

Furthermore, if, because mental consciousness is said to exist in this absorption, one grasps that mind is present, it cannot reasonably be established as wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral.

If it is further maintained that matter and mind arising in uninterrupted succession are the seeds of phenomena, this cannot be established, as explained above.

Furthermore, death from the Formless heavens and the heavens of nonperception, and emergence from the absorption of cessation and the absorption of nonperception, would be unreasonable. Moreover, the final mind of an arhat could not be established except as an immediately preceding condition.

Thus, apart from the maturation consciousness possessing all seeds, neither defilement nor purification can be established. Therefore, the alaya-consciousness, possessing the characteristics described above, definitely exists. Three verses state:

When a bodhisattva possesses a purified mind

And is separated from the five consciousnesses,

If there were no mind serving as the transformed support,

What could perform that function?

If the counteragent transforms the support,

Unless it is abandoned, this cannot be established.

If cause and effect were not distinct,

Permanent abandonment would entail error.

If one says that what has neither seed nor essence

Is the transformed support,

Since neither of those two exists,

Transformation of the support becomes unreasonable.

Furthermore, what are the distinctions of the alaya-consciousness?

Generally, there are either three or four. The three are three distinctions of perfuming: first, the distinction of perfuming by names and expressions; second, the distinction of perfuming by the view of self; and third, the distinction of perfuming by the factors of existence. The four are: first, the distinction of projection; second, the distinction of maturation; third, the distinction of the objective characteristic; and fourth, the distinction of appearance.

Here, the distinction of projection is newly arisen perfuming. Without it, formation conditioning consciousness and grasping conditioning existence could not be established. The distinction of maturation is the differentiation of maturation consciousness among the various destinies of samsara due to formations and existence serving as conditions.

Without it, there would be no seeds, and later phenomena could not arise. The distinction of the objective characteristic is the object of self-grasping by mentation. Without it, defiled mentation would have no object for self-grasping.

The distinction of appearance means that this consciousness possesses common characteristics, uncommon characteristics, characteristics of seeds that do not undergo individual rebirth, and characteristics of seeds that do undergo individual rebirth. The common characteristic is the seed of the shared world as a receptacle. The uncommon characteristic is the collection of distinct seeds within individual continua.

The common characteristic is the seed that does not undergo individual rebirth; the uncommon characteristic is the seed that does undergo individual rebirth. When a counteragent arises, only the uncommon characteristic is eliminated. Because the common characteristic is maintained by others, it is merely seen as purified.

This resembles yogacara masters who see and know the same object in many different ways. Two verses state:

Because it is difficult to eliminate and difficult to know completely,

It is called the common bondage.

Yogacara masters differ

Because the vast external appearance differs for them.

Although the purified person has not eliminated it,

He nevertheless sees it as pure.

And the Buddha-land is pure

Because the Buddha sees it as pure.

Another verse speaks of the differing perceptions mentioned above:

Regarding a single object, yogacara masters

Hold many different understandings.

Since every kind of understanding is accomplished,

Know that the apprehended is consciousness-only.

Without this distinction, the differing arising of the receptacle world and the world of sentient beings could not be established.

There are also the characteristic of heaviness and the characteristic of lightness. The characteristic of heaviness consists of the seeds of the afflictions and secondary afflictions. The characteristic of lightness consists of the seeds of wholesome, contaminated phenomena. Without these, the distinction between the incapacity produced by maturation and the capable support could not be established.

There are also the characteristic whose experience is exhaustible and the characteristic whose experience is inexhaustible. The characteristic whose experience is exhaustible consists of wholesome and unwholesome seeds that have produced maturation results. The characteristic whose experience is inexhaustible consists of seeds perfumed by names and expressions—the various seeds of conceptual proliferation that have flowed on since beginningless time. Without these characteristics, the exhaustion of the results of previously performed wholesome and unwholesome karma could not be established. Furthermore, the arising of new perfumings by names and expressions could not be established.

There are also characteristics expressed through analogies. The alaya-consciousness is illustrated by such analogies as an illusion, a mirage, a dream, and diseased vision. Without these characteristics, the seeds corresponding to inverted conditions involving unreal imagined objects could not be established.

Furthermore, there are the complete characteristic and the incomplete characteristic. Possession of all bonds is called the complete characteristic. Mundane detachment from desire is called the diminished characteristic. Sravakas who are still in training and bodhisattvas have permanently cast out a portion of these characteristics. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas have completely and permanently cast out the characteristics of the afflictive obstructions, while the Tathagatas have completely and permanently cast out the characteristics of both the afflictive and cognitive obstructions. Each should be understood accordingly. Without this distinction, the gradual process of defilement and complete purification described above could not be established.

For what reason can wholesome and unwholesome phenomena produce maturation while the maturation result is unobscured-neutral?

Because a maturation result is unobscured-neutral, it does not conflict with either wholesome or unwholesome phenomena and therefore does not oppose either. If the maturation result were wholesome or unwholesome by nature, the functions of defilement and complete purification could not be established. Therefore, the maturation consciousness is exclusively unobscured-neutral.

THE BASIC TREATISE ON THE SUMMARY OF THE GREAT VEHICLE

Upper Fascicle

(End)