唯識論

Consciousness-only, without external objects,

For, though objects are absent, they are falsely perceived.

Like a person afflicted with an eye disease,

Who sees hairs or a double moon.

If there is only mind and no objects,

And apart from external objects there is false perception,

How are place and time, determinacy and indeterminacy,

Persons and their various actions explained?

As for place, time, and the other matters,

Form and so forth are not external objects.

Dreamers and hungry ghosts,

Through karma, falsely perceive them.

As when one dreams of a woman,

The body is aroused and emits impurity.

The wardens in the hells

Subject beings to every kind of torment.

Animals are born in the heavenly realms,

But it is not so in the hells.

For those dwelling in the heavenly realms

Do not undergo the sufferings of animals.

If, through the karma of sentient beings,

The four great elements are transformed in this way,

Why could it not be through karma

That the mind is transformed in this way?

If karma perfumes some other dharma,

How could its fruit arise elsewhere?

Good and evil perfume the mind;

Why speak of them apart from mind?

The teaching of form and the various ayatanas

Is given to guide sentient beings.

Because people formerly accepted this teaching,

It is said that there is spontaneous birth.

Through the wisdom of that fundamental mind,

Consciousness falsely grasps external objects.

Therefore, the Tathagata taught

That there are internal and external ayatanas.

Contemplating the false as unreal,

One thereby enters the emptiness of self.

Contemplating the other dharmas,

One enters the selflessness of all dharmas.

A single particle cannot be perceived,

Nor can many particles be perceived.

Their aggregation cannot be perceived;

Therefore, no objective dharma exists.

If six particles join simultaneously,

Each particle would have six aspects.

If the six occupy a single place,

The great elements would constitute a single particle.

If minute particles do not combine,

What could their multitude form?

If minute particles are said to have no characteristics,

How could what they form possess characteristics?

Anything having different spatial directions

Cannot be said to be one.

Shadow and obstruction are not great elements;

Those two do not belong to their aggregate.

If there were one without succession,

Grasping and relinquishing would likewise not differ.

Though distinctions exist in very many places,

Even the minute should be perceptible.

Direct perception is like a dream;

The seer and the seen are not simultaneous.

If there is no discrimination at the moment of seeing,

How can it be called direct perception?

What was earlier called false perception

Arises from false recollection.

One sees that a dream is false,

But before awakening, one does not know it.

Always accompanied by dominant conditions,

The minds of this one and that one converge upon their objects.

Ignorance obscures the mind;

Therefore, dreams and waking yield different results.

Death depends upon another's mind,

Yet it also depends upon one's own mind.

Depending upon many kinds of causes and conditions,

One's own mental consciousness is destroyed.

The sutra speaks of Dandaka,

Kalinga, and Matanga.

Because a sage became angry, they were emptied;

Thus, the karma of mind is weighty.

Mind is the root of all dharmas;

Mind is foremost among all dharmas.

Apart from mind, no dharmas exist;

Body and speech are merely names within mind.

Knowledge of another's mind and its objects

Is not the same as true understanding.

Because objects are not mingled with consciousness,

Only a Buddha knows them as they truly are.

In composing this Treatise on Consciousness-Only,

I have not relied upon my own conjecture.

The Buddha's domain is subtle and wondrous;

May its merit and virtue be bestowed upon all beings.

Question: What is the meaning expressed by this opening verse?

Answer: Every treatise generally contains three elements. What are these three? First, the proposition; second, supporting evidence; and third, analogy.

The proposition is expressed in the verse: “Consciousness-only, without external objects.” The supporting evidence is expressed in the verse: “For, though objects are absent, they are falsely perceived.” The analogy is expressed in the verse: “Like a person afflicted with an eye disease, who sees hairs or a double moon,” and so forth. There is also the meaning taught in the Mahayana sutras that the three realms are mind-only.

“Only mind” means that there is only the inner mind and no external objects such as form, fragrance, and so forth. How is this known? As the Ten Stages Sutra states, the three realms are false and are created by mind alone.

Mind, mentation, consciousness, and cognition are four terms with a single meaning but different names. This is spoken in reliance upon associated mind, not in terms of unassociated mind. Mind is of two kinds.

What are these two? First, associated mind. Second, unassociated mind.

Associated mind means all afflictions, fetters, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, and so forth, which are associated with the various mental states. Therefore, it is said that mind, mentation, consciousness, and cognition have one meaning but different names. Unassociated mind means the ultimate truth: the intrinsically pure mind, permanently abiding and unchanging.

Therefore, it is said that the three realms are false and are created by mind alone. Thus, the verse says: “Consciousness-only, without external objects.” Having clarified the proposition, the supporting evidence will next be explained.

Question: By what can it be verified and known that external objects such as form and so forth do not exist, and that only the inner mind perceives the objects appearing before it?

Answer: The verse says: “For, though objects are absent, they are falsely perceived.” Although no objective objects exist, they are perceived solely through falsity. This clarifies that ultimately there are no objects such as form and so forth; there is only the inner mind, which falsely gives rise to discrimination and perceives external objects such as form and so forth. The supporting evidence has now been clarified. Next, the analogy will be explained.

Question: Is the assertion that external objects do not exist merely an empty claim, or is there an analogy for it?

Answer: The verse says: “Like a person afflicted with an eye disease, who sees hairs or a double moon.” What does this mean? It is like a person whose eyes become diseased because of internal heat and who then sees sparkling filaments in empty space, sees one moon as two, or experiences an illusion such as a city of the Gandharvas. Such phenomena do not truly exist; they are present only through false perception, yet form, fragrance, taste, and so forth are experienced and used. All external objects are likewise. Since beginningless time, the inner mind has been inverted, deluded, and confused, falsely perceiving that they possess functions, although external objects such as form and so forth do not truly exist.

Question: The verse says:

If there is only mind and no objects,

And apart from external objects there is false perception,

How are place and time, determinacy and indeterminacy,

Persons and their various actions explained?

What does this verse mean? If one is apart from external objects such as form and so forth, how can one falsely perceive them? Where form exists, the eye sees form; elsewhere, where form does not exist, it does not see form.

Again, the question is asked: If there are no external objects such as form and so forth, how can there be false perception? That is, one sees in that place: when form is present, the eye sees form; when form is absent, it does not see form. Again, the question is asked: If there are no external objects such as form and so forth, yet they are falsely perceived, then one should see them at all times; and if this is not so, then one should never see them.

Therefore, the verse says, “If there is only mind and no objects, and false perception occurs apart from external objects, how can place and time, certainty and uncertainty, be established?” Again, the question is asked: If there are no external objects such as form and so forth, how can there be false perception? When many people assemble at the same time in one place, if form is present there, they all see it; if form is absent there, none of them sees it.

Again, the question is asked: If there are no external objects such as form and so forth, how can there be false perception? A person with diseased eyes sees floating specks and two suns or two moons, whereas a person with healthy eyes does not see such things. Again, the question is asked: If external objects such as form, fragrance, and flavor equally do not exist, how can they be falsely perceived?

The floating specks, two suns, two moons, and so forth seen by a person with diseased eyes are all useless. What a person with healthy eyes sees is useful. Again, the question is asked: If external objects such as form, fragrance, and flavor equally do not exist, how can they be falsely perceived?

Things seen in dreams, such as food and drink, hunger and satiety, knives and staffs, and poison, are all useless. When awake, food and drink, hunger and satiety, knives and staffs, and poison are all useful. Again, the question is asked: If external objects such as form, fragrance, and flavor equally do not exist, how can they be falsely perceived?

A gandharva city is not truly a city and does not perform the function of a city. Other cities, however, truly exist and perform the function of a city. For this reason, external objects such as form, fragrance, and flavor truly exist and are unlike the phenomena of diseased eyes, dreams, gandharva cities, and so forth.

Thus, place, time, people, and the actions performed by people all truly exist and are unlike dreams. Therefore, the verse says, “Place and time, certainty and uncertainty, people and their various actions.”

Answer: The verse says:

All matters of place and time,

Forms and so forth have no external objects.

Dreamers and hungry ghosts,

Through karma, falsely perceive them.

What does this verse mean? You ask on what grounds it is said that where form exists, the eye sees form, while elsewhere, where form does not exist, it does not see form. This is not so.

Why? Because in a dream, where no form exists one sees form, while where form exists one does not see it. You also ask on what grounds it is said that, in the place where something is seen, when form exists the eye sees form, but when form does not exist it does not see form.

What meaning do you intend by saying this? In a dream, in one place one sees villages, towns, men, and women; elsewhere one does not see villages, towns, men, or women. Sometimes one sees them and sometimes one does not; one does not see them at all times.

Furthermore, you say that if external objects such as form and so forth do not exist but are falsely perceived, then one should see them at all times; and if this is not so, then one should never see them. This argument is not valid. Why?

Because in some places and at some times, though there are no external objects such as form, fragrance, and so forth, there can still be shared perception in the same place and at the same time, and there can also be an absence of perception in the same place and at the same time. Therefore, the verse says:

Dreamers and hungry ghosts,

Through karma, falsely perceive them.

What does this mean? You have said that if there are no external objects such as form and so forth, then the fact that things are seen or not seen at particular times and places cannot be established. This assertion is false.

Why? Because apart from external objects such as form and so forth, time, place, and events can all be established. Furthermore, you ask on what grounds many people assembled at the same time and in the same place all see form where form exists, while none sees it where it does not exist.

You also say that a person with diseased eyes falsely sees floating specks, the sun, the moon, and so forth, whereas a person with healthy eyes does not falsely see them. This is not so. Why?

Hungry ghosts and others, apart from external objects such as form, fragrance, and so forth, can establish place, time, people, and so forth. How is this so? A hundred hungry ghosts with the same karma, or a thousand with the same karma, may all see a river as filled with blood and pus; or they may see urine and excrement; or they may see molten iron or flowing water, while on both banks many people holding knives and staffs stand guard and prevent them from drinking.

Thus, apart from external objects such as form, sound, fragrance, and so forth, they falsely perceive these things. Therefore, the verse says:

Dreamers and hungry ghosts,

Through karma, falsely perceive them.

Furthermore, what do you mean when you say that the suns, moons, floating specks, and so forth seen by a person with diseased eyes are all useless, whereas everything seen by a person with healthy eyes is useful; that food and drink, hunger and satiety, knives and staffs, and poison seen in dreams are all useless, whereas food and drink, hunger and satiety, knives and staffs, and poison seen while awake are all useful? Again, what do you mean when you say that a gandharva city is not truly a city and has no function, whereas other cities truly exist and do have functions? This is not so. Why? The verse says:

As in a dream one sees a woman,

The body is stirred and emits impurity.

The wardens within the hells

Inflict all kinds of torments upon beings.

What does this verse mean? A person may dream of having intercourse with a woman and then emit impurity. In the same way, since beginningless time, sentient beings have falsely experienced external objects such as form, fragrance, flavor, and so forth; although these do not truly exist, their effects are nevertheless produced. Through various examples such as these, it is shown that apart from external objects such as form, fragrance, and so forth, the four things—place, time, people, and actions—can be established. One further example is given to show that, apart from external objects such as form, fragrance, and so forth, these four things are established, though all are false and unreal. Therefore, the verse says:

The wardens within the hells

Inflict all kinds of torments upon beings.

What does this mean? Those four matters are all established apart from external objects such as form, fragrance, and so forth. How are they all established?

Just as in the hells there are no wardens of hell, yet beings in the hells, through their own sinful karma, see wardens of hell. The wardens of hell and those painful punishments arise from the mind’s perception: this is hell; this is the place of hell; this is the time of being in hell; this is night; this is day; this is earlier; this is later; that is a warden of hell; I am a sinner. Because of evil karma, they see dogs, crows, iron dogs, two rams, or two mountains coming from either side to crush the bodies of sinners.

Or they see trees of swords: when sinners are above, the sword-points turn downward from above; when sinners are below, the sword-points thrust upward from beneath, on all four sides. Why is this? Because their karma is the same, they dwell together in one place, see the same things, and undergo the same retribution.

If their karma is not the same, they do not dwell together in one place, see the same things, or undergo the same suffering. Therefore, your claim that place, time, what is determinate or indeterminate, persons, and actions require external objects such as form and fragrance—and that place, time, persons, and actions are all real—is also false. For this reason, the four matters—place, time, persons, actions, and so forth—are all shown to be false by using the single example of hell.

This should be understood accordingly.

Answer: They are not sentient beings.

Question: On what grounds do you say that they are not sentient beings?

Answer: Because this is inconsistent. What does this mean? There are five reasons why those wardens of hell, crows, and dogs are not sentient beings.

What are the five? 1. Just as sinful beings undergo various sufferings in hell, if the wardens of hell and so forth were sentient beings, they too would have to undergo such sufferings. Yet those wardens of hell do not undergo any of those painful punishments whatsoever.

Therefore, they are not sentient beings. 2. If the wardens of hell and so forth were sentient beings, they would kill one another and would be unable to distinguish sinners from wardens of hell. Yet in fact they do not kill one another and are able to distinguish sinners from wardens of hell.

Therefore, they are not sentient beings. 3. If the wardens of hell and so forth were sentient beings, their physical forms and strength would cause them to kill one another, and the sinners alone would not be afraid. Yet in fact the sinners are afraid, while the wardens of hell and so forth are not.

Therefore, they are not sentient beings. 4. The ground in those hells is constantly made of burning iron. If the wardens of hell and so forth were sentient beings, they too would be unable to endure it; how then could they harm the sinners?

Yet in fact they can harm the sinners. Therefore, they are not sentient beings. 5. If the wardens of hell and so forth were sentient beings, then, since they are not sinners, they should not be born in hell; yet in fact they appear in hell.

Therefore, they are not sentient beings. What does this mean? Those beings who suffer in the hells are born there because they have committed evil karma, including the five heinous offenses.

The wardens of hell and so forth have committed no evil karma, so why would they be born there? Because of these five reasons, this is called inconsistency.

Question: If those wardens of hell are not sentient beings and have committed no sinful karma, and therefore are not born there, why are there animals in the heavenly realms? What does this mean? If birds and other animals can be born in the heavenly realms, why could it not likewise be so in hell? Various animals and hungry ghosts might be born there intermingled and made to serve as wardens.

Answer: The verse says:

Animals are born in heavenly realms;

In the hells it is not so.

For in the heavenly realms,

They do not undergo animals’ suffering.

What is the meaning of this verse? The kinds of animals born in the heavenly realms possess a small portion of karma connected with the receptacle-world of those heavenly realms. Therefore, they experience pleasant retribution within that receptacle-world. But the wardens of hell, together with the crows and dogs, do not undergo those sufferings. This is the meaning. In those hells, apart from the sinful beings, there are in reality no wardens of hell, crows, or dogs.

Question: If that is so, then because of the sinful karma of beings in hell, the external four great elements undergo many transformations. In form, appearance, strength, and so forth, the superior ones become wardens, crows, dogs, and so forth. How do the four great elements transform?

In that place, the four great elements undergo many kinds of transformations. They move their hands and feet and speak with their mouths, causing the sinners to become terrified. It is as though two rams come from either side and together kill the beings in hell; they see mountains coming or going and killing beings; they see forests of iron trees, forests of thorns, and so forth—when sinners climb upward, the trees’ spikes point downward, and when sinners climb downward, the trees’ spikes point upward.

For this reason, one cannot say that there is only the inner mind and no external objects.

Answer: The verse says:

If, through the karma of beings,

The four great elements transform thus,

Why should not, through that karma,

The mind transform in the same way?

What meaning does this verse express? You have said that, through the karma of sinners, the external four great elements and so forth transform in this way. Why not say that the falsely discriminating mind itself transforms in this way, yet falsely discriminates and says that the external four great elements and so forth have transformed in this way?

Another verse says:

If karma perfumes some other dharma,

How could its fruit arise elsewhere?

Good and evil perfume the mind;

Why speak of their fruit apart from mind?

Question: As you have said, why should one not say that, through the power of those beings’ sinful karma, their own mind-consciousness transforms in this way, yet the falsely discriminating mind says that the external four great elements and so forth transform in this way? What does this mean? We know because the Agamas provide testimony.

“Agamas” refers to the verbal teachings spoken by the Tathagata. What does this mean? If there is only mind-consciousness falsely discriminating and perceiving external objects, and if visual consciousness and so forth do not arise from external objects such as form and so forth, then why did the Tathagata teach in the sutras the twelve ayatanas, such as the eye and form?

Because the Tathagata taught the twelve ayatanas, it is clearly known that external objects such as form, fragrance, taste, and so forth must exist.

Answer: The verse says:

The teaching that speaks of form and the other ayatanas

Is given to instruct sentient beings.

In accordance with those who formerly received the Dharma,

It was said that spontaneously born beings exist.

What is the meaning of this verse? You have said that, because there is testimony from the Agamas, it is known that external objects such as form, fragrance, and taste, and all twelve ayatanas, truly exist. If that were so, the meaning of other sutras would not be as it is.

Why? Because in other sutras the Tathagata, on account of the uninterrupted continuity of mental karma, said that spontaneously born beings exist. Yet in still other sutras, it is said that there is no self, no sentient being, no living being, and that dharmas arise solely through the conjunction of causes and conditions.

Therefore, the verse says, “In accordance with those who formerly received the Dharma, it was said that spontaneously born beings exist.” Likewise, the Tathagata taught form and the other ayatanas so that those earlier persons could receive the Dharma. This was because those persons had not yet understood that the nature of dependently arisen dharmas is empty, not because external objects such as form, fragrance, taste, and so forth truly exist.

Therefore, the verse says, “The teaching that speaks of form and the other ayatanas is given to instruct sentient beings.”

Question: If form and the other ayatanas do not truly exist, why did the Tathagata teach this in the sutras?

Answer: The verse says:

Because, through their fundamental mind and cognition,

Consciousness falsely grasps external objects,

The Tathagata therefore taught

That there are internal and external ayatanas.

What is the meaning of this verse? It is merely the deluded discrimination of the inner mind that perceives form and other external objects as existing. This arises from the transformations, since beginningless time, of the seeds of mind, manas, consciousness, and so forth, through which external objects such as form, scent, and taste are falsely perceived.

Therefore, on the basis of those two delusive dharmas, the Tathagata spoke in this way. What are the two dharmas? The first is the seeds of the fundamental consciousness.

The second is delusively perceived external objects. Based upon these two dharmas, the Tathagata taught the ayatanas, such as the eye and form. Thus, in succession, down to the body and tangible objects, the deluded mind, relying upon the transformations of the seeds of mind, manas, and consciousness from beginningless time until now, falsely perceives external objects such as form, scent, taste, and so forth.

Therefore, on the basis of these two delusive dharmas, the Tathagata spoke in this way. What are the two dharmas? The first is the seeds of the fundamental consciousness.

The second is delusively perceived external objects. Based upon these two dharmas, the Tathagata taught the ayatanas, such as the body and tangible objects, in their successive order. Therefore, the verse says that because the discriminating cognition of that fundamental mind falsely grasps external objects, the Tathagata taught the inner and outer ayatanas.

Question: If this meaning is taught, what benefits and merits does it bring?

Answer: The verse says:

Contemplate the delusive as unreal;

Thus one enters the emptiness of self.

Contemplate all other dharmas;

One enters the selflessness of dharmas.

What is the meaning of this verse? It is intended to make the sravakas understand that the six consciousnesses arise through the six faculties and the six objects. Eye-consciousness sees form, and so forth, down to body-consciousness experiencing tangible objects, yet not a single dharma is real.

It is taught that not even a single dharma is real so that those sentient beings who can be guided may contemplate in this manner and enter the emptiness of the person and the absence of self. Therefore, the verse says, “Contemplate the delusive as unreal; thus one enters the emptiness of self. Contemplate all other dharmas; one enters the selflessness of dharmas.” What is the meaning of the latter half of the verse?

To “contemplate all other dharmas” means that a bodhisattva contemplates that there is only inner consciousness. How does one contemplate this? The bodhisattva contemplates that there is only inner consciousness and that the six outer objects do not exist.

Because of delusion, inner faculties and outer objects are perceived as existing, but in truth there is not a single external object, such as form, that can be seen, down to there being in truth not a single tangible object that can be experienced. By contemplating in this manner, one can enter the emptiness that is the nature of dependently originated dharmas.

Question: If all dharmas are ultimately empty, why has it previously been said that there is only consciousness? If so, that consciousness must also be empty; why, then, is it said that there is only inner consciousness?

Answer: I do not say that all dharmas are ultimately empty. In this way, one enters the selflessness of dharmas.

Question: If so, why is it said that one enters the selflessness of dharmas?

Answer: It is in order to refute delusive dharmas. Delusive dharmas are refuted because followers of non-Buddhist paths and all ordinary beings falsely discriminate that form and so forth, the essential entities of all dharmas, truly exist. In order to refute their delusive discriminations, it is said that form and so forth—all dharmas—are ultimately empty and nonexistent.

Yet this does not mean that everything in the realm beyond words is empty and nonexistent. The realm beyond words is the sphere of practice of the Buddhas, the Tathagatas. Thus, there is only true consciousness and no other consciousness; it cannot be discriminatively contemplated as entering such an emptiness of consciousness.

Thus, it is on the basis of consciousness that entry into the selflessness of all dharmas is taught; it is not a categorical repudiation of the true consciousness-self, claiming that the true consciousness of Buddha-nature does not exist.

Question: As you often say, there is only inner consciousness and no external objects. If so, can inner consciousness be apprehended, or can it not be apprehended? If it can be apprehended, it is the same as external objects such as form and scent. If it cannot be apprehended, then it is no dharma at all. Why, then, is it said that there is only inner consciousness and no external objects?

Answer: Through skillful means, the Tathagata enables sentient beings gradually to enter the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas; therefore, he teaches that inner consciousness exists, although in truth there is no inner consciousness that can be apprehended. Were it otherwise, the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas could not be taught. For this reason, this delusively discriminating mind knows that mind, and that mind knows this mind.

Question: There is yet another question. How do we know that the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, taught, on the basis of this meaning, that all the ayatanas, such as form, exist, although the ayatanas, such as form, do not truly exist? Furthermore, since consciousness and so forth can apprehend external objects, for this reason it cannot be said that the form ayatana does not exist.

Answer: The verse says:

A single particle cannot be seen;

Many particles also cannot be seen.

Their aggregation cannot be seen;

Therefore, no object-dharma exists.

What is the meaning of this verse? You often say that the ayatanas, such as form, all truly exist. Why?

Because consciousness can apprehend external objects. This meaning is incorrect. Why?

For three reasons, the ayatanas, such as form, do not exist. What are the three? First, does a single atom truly exist, as the non-Buddhist Vaisesikas and others falsely discriminate?

They hold that apart from the head, eyes, and other bodily parts, there truly exists a spiritual self. Is an atom likewise something that truly exists apart from form, scent, and so forth? Second, can many truly existing, distinct atoms be seen?

Third, can an aggregation of many atoms be seen? What does this mean? If that single atom truly existed, it could not be seen.

Just as the non-Buddhist Vaisesikas falsely discriminate that apart from the head, eyes, and other bodily parts, there is a spiritual self that cannot be seen, so too an atom apart from form, scent, and so forth cannot be seen. Therefore, there is no single particle that can be seen. Hence the verse says, “A single particle cannot be seen.” If many distinct atoms truly existed, each individual atom would have to be clearly seen, yet none can be seen.

For this reason, many distinct atoms also cannot be seen. Hence the verse says, “Many particles also cannot be seen.” If it is claimed that an aggregation of many atoms can be seen, this too is incorrect. Why?

Since a single atom is not a real entity, how could atoms aggregate? Therefore, this proposition cannot be established. Hence the verse says, “Their aggregation cannot be seen.”

Question: Why can it not be established?

Answer: The verse says:

If six particles join simultaneously,

The particle must have six aspects.

If the six occupy a single place,

The great elements are but one particle.

What is the meaning of this verse? Suppose atoms come from the six directions and six particles aggregate. If so, the particle has six directions.

If it has six directions, it has six aspects. Moreover, if an atom has six spatial positions, it cannot accommodate other particles. Hence the verse says, “If six particles join simultaneously, the particle must have six aspects.” If the six particles occupy a single place, then the place of one atom contains six atoms.

If so, the six atoms occupy one place. When they occupy one place, the six atoms cannot be seen. Why?

Because this atom and that atom are not distinct from one another. If so, all gross and manifest things, such as mountains, rivers, and the like, could not be seen either. Hence the verse says, “If the six occupy a single place, the great elements are but one particle.” A single particle is not an entity, as was repeatedly answered above.

Since neither one, nor many, nor an aggregation can be seen, a Vaibhasika master from Kashmir asks: “Our position is not subject to such a fault. Why? Because the self and atoms have no aspects corresponding to the six directions.

Apart from form, scent, taste, and tangible objects, they aggregate with gross things to form the four great elements and all other gross things.”

Answer: The verse says:

If atoms do not aggregate,

What is it that aggregates to form things?

You say atoms have no aspects;

Yet what is formed from them has aspects.

What is the meaning expressed by this verse? Do atoms combine to form the four great elements, or do the four great elements exist separately, apart from atoms? What does this mean?

If it is held that atoms form the four great elements, then it cannot be said that atoms have no characteristics and cannot combine with one another. If it is said that the four great elements are formed apart from atoms, then whose four great elements are they? If this were so, one could not say that atoms do not possess six aspects.

Therefore, the verse says, “If atoms do not combine, what do they combine to form?” What does this mean? If those atoms do not combine with one another to form the four great elements, then it cannot be said that atoms lack six aspects and yet combine with gross objects to form the four great elements. Your assertion that they combine with gross objects to form the four great elements consists merely of words and has no basis in reality; therefore, atoms do not form a single object.

If those atoms do not form a single object, then the assertion that they form the four great elements and the various objects is entirely false. Thus, the verse says, “Though atoms are said to have no characteristics, what they form possesses characteristics.” The verse further says:

When entities occupy different locations,

They cannot be said to be one.

If shadow and obstruction do not belong to the great elements,

Those two do not belong to an aggregate.

What is the meaning expressed by this verse? You often say that atoms combine, but this doctrine is not so. Why?

The verse says, “When entities occupy different locations, they cannot be said to be one.” That entities occupy different locations means that the place occupied by an atom in the east differs from the place occupied by an atom in the west. The place occupied by an atom in the west differs from the place occupied by an atom in the east. The same applies to atoms located above, below, and in all other directions.

If the substances of the atoms are distinct from one another in this way, how can they be said to be one? Therefore, the verse says, “When entities occupy different locations, they cannot be said to be one.” What does it mean to say, “If shadow and obstruction do not belong to the great elements”? If each atom has no spatial orientation, why, when the sun rises in the east, is there a shadow in the west, and when it is in the west, is there a shadow in the east?

If atoms have no eastern or western aspect, why does the sun illuminate only one aspect and not the many other aspects? Thus, atoms do not constitute the great elements. Therefore, the verse says, “If shadow and obstruction do not belong to the great elements, those two do not belong to an aggregate.” What does “those” refer to, and why are there two?

The first is the place illuminated by light. The second is the place that blocks the light. What meaning does this express?

If that atom does not obstruct this atom, it cannot be said that an atom has a spatial location. Why? Because an atom would have no spatial orientation divided into the distinctions of the ten directions.

An atom coming from the east could not obstruct an atom in the west. An atom in the west likewise could not obstruct an atom in the east. If those atoms and these atoms do not obstruct one another, all atoms would be gathered in a single place.

If they were gathered in a single place, they would occupy no place at all. For this reason, all four great elements would be nothing but atoms. If they were nothing but atoms, they could not be seen, as has repeatedly been explained above.

Question: Why do you not say that the four great elements cast shadows and cause obstruction, but instead say that atoms cast shadows and cause obstruction?

Answer: I ask you in return: Are there four great elements existing separately from atoms, or do you merely say that the four great elements cast shadows and cause obstruction?

Question: The questioner explains that shadow and obstruction exist without being separate from atoms.

Answer: If the four great elements exist without being separate from atoms, then it is not the four great elements that cast shadows and cause obstruction. Why, then, do you not say that atoms themselves cast shadows and cause obstruction, rather than that the four great elements do so?

Question: Is it atoms that cast shadows and cause obstruction, or is it the four great elements? Since the matter has provisionally been stated in this way, there is no need to distinguish between them; yet the characteristics of the sense-field of form and so forth cannot thereby be rendered nonexistent.

Answer: I ask you again: What dharmas do you take to be the characteristics of the sense-fields?

Question: The questioner explains that the objects of the eye are blue, yellow, red, and white; dharmas such as these are the characteristics of the sense-fields.

Answer: It is precisely through examining this matter that I wish to benefit sentient beings. Why? Regarding the internal eye sense-field and its objects, such as blue and yellow, are they one object or many objects? If they are many objects, then, as already explained, they cannot be seen. But if they are one object, they likewise cannot be apprehended. The verse says:

If it were one, there would be no sequence;

Taking and relinquishing would also not differ.

There would be distinctions in very many places;

Even the minute would have to be seen.

What is the meaning of this verse? Suppose there were a single, uniform blue object unmixed with yellow and the other colors. If a person who discriminates the objects of the eye walked upon the ground, it could not be said that the walking occurred in sequence.

Therefore, the verse says, “If it were one, there would be no sequence.” What does this line mean? If there were only a uniform blue color, it would be one object. Upon lifting one foot, one would thereby traverse every place occupied by the blue color.

Because one does not traverse it all, it is not one. “Taking and relinquishing would also not differ”—what does this line mean? If there were a single, uniform blue object, when the foot takes a step, why would only the place where the foot has stepped and is stepping be occupied, while the place not yet reached by the foot remains empty?

Why, if one takes a single step at one time, are some places reached and others not reached? Furthermore, if it were one object, one could not say that the foot steps in this place but not in that place. Therefore, the verse says, “Taking and relinquishing would also not differ.” “There would be distinctions in very many places”—what does this line mean?

If one uniform expanse of blue were a single object, why would there be so many distinctions? Elephants, horses, and carts do not occupy the same place. If all were one, the place occupied by a white elephant would also be the place occupied by a horse.

If so, elephants and horses should not have different places. Furthermore, if all were one, why, when an elephant reaches a place, do horses and so forth not also reach it? Moreover, why is there empty space between elephants and horses?

Therefore, the verse says, “There would be distinctions in very many places.” “Even the minute would have to be seen”—what does this line mean? If blue and the other colors were each a single object, then in water, among blue-colored things, there are blue creatures both large and small; why are only the large creatures seen and not the small ones? Therefore, the verse says, “Both large and small would have to be seen.”

Question: For what reason does mental consciousness contemplate that blue and yellow?

Answer: As you often maintain, through false discrimination the characteristics of the sense-fields, such as objects that are blue and so forth, are believed to truly exist. Therefore, I examine the distinctions among atoms, yet those atoms do not form a single object. Because they do not form a single object, visible form and the other objects of the eye cannot be apprehended. Thus, it is established that there is only internal consciousness and no external object.

Question: Existence is affirmed on the basis of valid testimony. There are four kinds of valid testimony: 1. direct perception, 2. knowledge through comparison, 3. analogy, and 4. the Agamas. Among these kinds of valid testimony, direct perception is foremost. If no external object possessing color exists, why do people in the world say, “I directly see this blue object”?

Answer: The verse says:

Direct perception is like a dream;

The seer and the seen do not occur together.

At the time of seeing, there is no discrimination;

How, then, can it be called direct perception?

What is the meaning of this verse? Previously, I said that what is seen in dreams is false. What ordinary beings afflicted by defilements see in dreams is likewise.

Therefore, the verse says, “What is presently seen is like a dream.” What is the meaning of the line, “The seeing and the seen do not occur together”? When form is presently seen, the meaning of that form is not known. What does this mean?

When a person presently sees blue and so forth, he thinks, “Although I presently see blue, yellow, and other colors, at that moment I do not apprehend the meaning of blue and so forth.” Why is this? Because only afterward does the discriminating mind-consciousness know it. When the discriminating mind-consciousness is present, eye-consciousness and so forth are absent, because eye-consciousness and so forth have already ceased.

How, then, can one say, “I presently see that blue, yellow, and so forth”? In the Buddha-Dharma, there is no such principle. Why is this?

Because all dharmas do not remain from moment to moment. Thus, when form is seen, that mind-consciousness and that object are absent; and when mind-consciousness arises, that eye-consciousness and that object are absent. For this reason, it cannot be said that, among the four kinds of confidence, confidence in what is presently seen is supreme.

Therefore, the verse says, “The seeing and the seen do not occur together.” Since there is no discrimination at the moment of seeing, how can it be said that something is presently seen?

Question: This principle is not so. Why? External objects that are seen are first seen by eye-consciousness and afterward considered and understood by mind-consciousness. Therefore, external objects such as forms, fragrances, and flavors must exist. For this reason, it cannot be said that those external objects do not exist. Why? Because external objects such as blue are seen, it is said that objects such as blue are presently seen.

Answer: This principle is not so. Why? You said that eye-consciousness first sees and mind-consciousness afterward recollects and knows.

This proposition cannot be established. Why? I previously said that the internal mind-consciousness falsely discriminates external objects, but external objects such as forms do not exist.

It has already been said that eye-consciousness falsely discriminates, just as with all things seen in dreams. Based upon the earlier false discrimination of external objects such as forms, mind-consciousness subsequently considers and recollects them. What is the reason for this?

Based upon the earlier false discrimination of external objects such as forms, false eye-consciousness gives rise to an associated mental state, and false mind-consciousness falsely discriminates and thinks in this way: “I discriminate and know external objects such as blue.” It cannot be said that the eye sees the object and mind-consciousness discriminates it. For this reason, the proposition that eye-consciousness sees form and subsequently recollects it cannot be established.

Question: In a dream, the seeing and recollection of forms are false. If the same is true while awake, and there is likewise false discrimination, then why do worldly people all know that what is seen in dreams is false, whereas what is seen while awake is not false? Thus, forms and other things seen while awake are not the same as the false things seen in dreams.

Answer: The verse says:

What was formerly called false seeing

Occurs because of false recollection.

That dream visions are false

Is not known before awakening.

What is the meaning of this verse? You said that forms seen in dreams are all false, whereas things seen while awake are not so. The meaning of this comparison is inconsistent.

Why? Whatever is seen in a dream is regarded as real until one awakens. Only upon awakening does one know it to be false.

Therefore, the verse says, “That dream visions are false is not known before awakening.” In the same way, since beginningless time, ordinary beings in the world have slept in the dream of ignorance, perfumed by false, inverted discrimination. Regarding what is unreal, they falsely discriminate and see external objects, taking them to be real. Only upon awakening from the dream do they know that all those objects are false.

What is the reason for this? It is because they attain true, supramundane, nondiscriminating wisdom, which serves as an antidote, and know in accordance with reality that all external worldly dharmas, such as forms, are false. Relying upon that pure supramundane true wisdom, supreme mundane and supramundane wisdom will become manifest.

Knowing and seeing in accordance with reality that all objects are false is no different in meaning from seeing a dream.

Question: If there is only this transformation of one’s own mind, which falsely discriminates and sees those unreal external objects, then what does it mean to encounter a good spiritual friend and hear wholesome Dharma, or to encounter a bad spiritual friend and hear unwholesome teachings? If no external objects whatsoever exist, how can they speak? If they do not speak, how can one hear? If there is no hearing, what can come to be?

Answer: The verse says:

Always together with a predominant cause,

The mental conditions of self and other converge.

Ignorance conceals the mind;

Thus, dream and waking yield different fruits.

What is the meaning of this verse? All sentient beings falsely discriminate, consider, and recollect that another person speaks and that they themselves hear. What is relied upon as the other person’s speech is mind-consciousness. What occurs as this listener’s hearing is also mind-consciousness. When such a thought arises, one believes that the other person speaks and one hears, but in truth no such object is present. Therefore, the verse says, “Always together with a predominant cause, the mental conditions of self and other converge.”

Question: If in a dream there is only false mind-consciousness and no real object, what does it mean to say that the same is true while awake? Why are the pleasant and unpleasant karmic results of wholesome and unwholesome actions performed in dreams different from those performed while awake?

Answer: The verse says, “Ignorance conceals the mind; thus, dream and waking yield different fruits.” What does this line mean? I have already explained that there is only the internal mind and no external object. Because the mind during dreams differs from the mind while awake, the accomplishment of wholesome or unwholesome karma does not depend upon external objects.

Question: If the three realms are only the internal mind and there are no body, speech, or external objects, then why do butchers and hunters kill pigs, sheep, cattle, horses, and so forth? If it is not the case that butchers and hunters kill pigs, sheep, cattle, horses, and so forth, why do butchers, hunters, and others incur the offense of taking life? Therefore, external objects such as forms, fragrances, body, and speech must exist.

Answer: The verse says:

Death depends upon another’s mind,

Yet it also depends upon one’s own mind.

Depending upon many kinds of causes and conditions,

One’s own mind-consciousness is destroyed.

What is the meaning of this verse? A person may lose his original mind because of a Pisaca spirit; he may lose his own mind because of his own mind; he may lose his own mind by thinking about and recollecting pleasant or unpleasant matters; he may lose his own mind by dreaming that he is possessed by a spirit; or a noble being may use supernatural powers and transformations to cause him to lose his own mind. As stated in the sutra, the bhiksu Mahakatyayana caused the king of Varanasi to experience evil dreams and so forth.

Again, as stated in the Vinaya, a bhiksu stepped on a melon rind at night, said that he had killed a frog, and after death was reborn in an evil realm. Therefore, this is the meaning of the verse’s statement, “Depending upon many kinds of causes and conditions, one’s own mind-consciousness is destroyed.” How is it known that “Death depends upon another’s mind, yet it also depends upon one’s own mind”? Through the angry mind of a rishi who became enraged with an asura king named Vemacitrin, sentient beings were killed.

Because of another’s mind—the mind of another sentient being—their life faculties ceased through false discrimination. Their bodily lives and continua were severed; thus, this principle is known. Another verse says:

The sutra speaks of Dandaka,

Kalinga, and Matanga.

Through a rishi’s anger, they became empty;

Therefore, mental karma is grave.

What is the meaning of this verse? If someone dies neither because of another person’s mind nor because of their own mind, what does this mean? The Tathagata wished to establish that mental karma is weightier; therefore, in the sutra he asked the householder Upali: “Householder! Have you ever heard why, in the lands of Dandaka, Kalinga, and Matanga, the wildernesses are devoid of sentient beings, plants, and trees?”

The householder Upali said to the Buddha: “Gautama! I once heard that, because of the wrathful minds of seers, countless sentient beings were slain in this way.” From this it is known that there is only mental karma. If this were not so, why would the Tathagata speak thus in the sutras? Therefore, the verse says:

Question: Because of the seers’ wrathful minds, the spirits serving those seers killed the sentient beings of the three lands; they did not die directly because of the seers’ wrathful minds.

Answer: The Tathagata asked one who had long studied under the Nirgranthas: “In the scriptures of your non-Buddhist teaching, which of the three kinds of karma is the weightiest?” The longtime student of the Nirgranthas replied to the Tathagata that bodily karma was the weightiest. The Buddha said to the Nirgrantha: “Were the sentient beings in those cities many or few?” The longtime student of the non-Buddhist teaching replied: “They were immeasurably and boundlessly numerous, beyond all calculation.”

The Buddha said: “Nirgrantha! If an evil person wished to kill all those sentient beings, how many days would it take to kill them?”

The Nirgrantha said: “They could not all be killed even in one or two years.”

The Buddha said to the longtime student of the Nirgranthas: “Have you ever heard how the sentient beings in the three lands, Matanga and the others, died? Were they killed by bodily karma or by mental karma?”

The Nirgrantha said: “Gautama! I once heard that the wrathful minds of seers killed those sentient beings through mental karma.”

The Buddha said: “Nirgrantha! If so, how can you say that bodily karma is the weightiest?”

The Nirgrantha said: “Indeed! Indeed! I did not understand the principle, and spoke after hearing it incorrectly.”

This meaning proves that my doctrine is correct. What does it mean to say that the three realms are mind-only and that there is no bodily or verbal karma? It is like people in the world saying that bandits burned mountains, forests, villages, and houses, rather than saying that fire burned them. This meaning is the same. Good and evil karma are formed solely by the mind. For this reason, the verse in the sutra says:

“Body and speech are merely names of mind” means that there is only mind-consciousness and no bodily or verbal karma. “Bodily and verbal karma” are only names; in reality, they are mental karma, while body and speech are merely their designations.

Question: If there is only mind and no external object, this doctrine cannot be correct. Why? The knowledge of another’s mind is said to observe the minds of other persons and other sentient beings. Those minds would therefore be external objects, so how can it be said that there are no external objects? Here is another challenge: Does the knowledge of another’s mind truly know, or does it not truly know? If it does not know, how can it be said to know another person’s mind? If it truly knows, how can it be said that there are no external objects?

Answer: The verse says:

The knowledge of another’s mind regarding its object
Does not accord with true understanding;
For its object is not apart from confused consciousness.
Only a Buddha knows it as it truly is.

What is the meaning of this verse? The knowledge of another’s mind does not know in accordance with reality. Why? Because, through the false discrimination of the inner mind, one conceives what is called another’s mind and cannot understand it. Why? Because one’s own mind, manas, and consciousness are confused. Therefore, the verse says:

“The knowledge of another’s mind regarding its object
Does not accord with true understanding;
For its object is not apart from confused consciousness.
Only a Buddha knows it as it truly is.”

Question: Are all noble ones unable to know the minds of other sentient beings, or do they know them?

Answer: The verse says:

In composing this Treatise on Consciousness-Only,
I have not relied upon my own conjecture.
It is the subtle realm of the Buddhas,
Whose merit and virtue are bestowed upon all beings.

What is the meaning of this verse? This is the exceedingly profound realm of the Buddhas; it is not something that we can know through thought. Why? Because it is not an object within the sphere of thought of mind, manas, or consciousness. If so, whose realm is it? The verse says: “It is the subtle realm of the Buddhas.” What does this mean? Only the Buddhas, the Tathagatas, through omniscient wisdom in all its modes, can know as they truly are all objects of knowledge.

TREATISE ON CONSCIOUSNESS-ONLY

(The End)