攝大乘論

Chapter One: The Names Within the Distinguishing Characteristic of the Supporting Basis

The Compendium of the Great Vehicle is a treatise on the teachings of the Abhidharma and the Mahayana sutras.

In the presence of the Buddha, the Blessed One, the bodhisattva-mahasattvas who had deeply penetrated the principles of the Mahayana and wished to elucidate its supreme merits spoke as follows, relying upon the Mahayana teachings: The Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, possess ten distinguishing characteristics whose exposition surpasses all other teachings and is beyond comparison.

The ten distinguishing characteristics are: 1. The distinguishing characteristic of knowing the supporting basis. 2. The distinguishing characteristic of what is to be known. 3.

The distinguishing characteristic of entering what is to be known. 4. The distinguishing characteristic of entering the causes and fruits. 5. The distinguishing characteristic of the differences in cultivating the causes and fruits of entry. 6.

The distinguishing characteristic of the various practices within the training in discipline. 7. Within this, the distinguishing characteristic of the training in mind. 8. Within this, the distinguishing characteristic of the training in wisdom. 9.

The distinguishing characteristic of the fruit of training, which is quiescent cessation. 10. The distinguishing characteristic of differentiated wisdom.

Through these ten distinguishing characteristics, what the Tathagata taught surpasses all other teachings. The explanation of the scriptural text in this manner clearly demonstrates that the Mahayana was truly spoken by the Buddha. Furthermore, how can this brief explanation show that the Mahayana surpasses all other teachings? This is now briefly explained: these ten principles are found only in the Mahayana and not in the Hinayana.

What are the ten?

The alaya-vijnana is to be understood as the distinguishing characteristic of the supporting basis. The alaya-vijnana has three natures: first, the dependent nature; second, the discriminated nature; and third, the true nature. The distinguishing characteristic of what is to be known refers to these.

The teaching of Consciousness-Only describes the distinguishing characteristic of entering what is to be known. The six paramitas describe the distinguishing characteristic of entering the causes and fruits. The ten bodhisattva bhumis describe the distinguishing characteristic of the differences in cultivating the causes and fruits of entry.

The bodhisattva's observance of the precepts describes the distinguishing characteristic of the various practices within the training in discipline. The Surangama samadhi, the Akasagarbha samadhi, and so forth describe the distinguishing characteristic of the training in mind. Nonconceptual wisdom describes the distinguishing characteristic of the training in wisdom.

Nirvana that abides nowhere describes the distinguishing characteristic of the fruit of training, which is quiescent cessation. The three bodies of a Buddha are the essential-nature body, the enjoyment body, and the transformation body. These three bodies describe the distinguishing characteristic of the fruit of nonconceptual wisdom.

These ten are found only in the Mahayana. Because it differs from the Hinayana, it is said to be foremost.

The Buddha, the Blessed One, taught these ten principles only to bodhisattvas. According to the Mahayana, the Buddhas, the Blessed Ones, possess ten distinguishing characteristics. To say that they are incomparable serves to reveal the Mahayana. This was precisely stated by the Tathagata to preclude the claim that the Hinayana could ever be the Mahayana. Not one of these ten principles has ever been explained in the Hinayana. They are explained only in the Mahayana. Furthermore, these ten principles can lead to unsurpassed bodhi; they accomplish concordance without contradiction, enabling bodhisattvas to attain the wisdom of omniscience. A verse says:

The supporting basis and what is to be known,

Entry, causes and fruits, and differences in cultivation,

The three trainings and the fruit of cessation,

And wisdom comprise the unsurpassed vehicle.

These ten principles are absent elsewhere;

They are the cause of bodhi.

Therefore, the Buddha taught the Mahayana

By teaching these ten supreme principles.

Why are the ten supreme principles taught in this order?

Bodhisattvas beginning their training must first contemplate the causes and conditions of all dharmas as they truly are. Through cultivating this contemplation, they attain penetrating wisdom regarding the twelve links of dependent origination. Next, they must clearly understand the essential characteristics of dependently arisen dharmas.

Through the power of wisdom, they abandon the two extreme errors of superimposition and denigration. By cultivating correctly in this manner, they thoroughly comprehend the true characteristics of their objects of cognition. They are thereby liberated from the obstructions.

Next, once their minds have thoroughly comprehended them, they know the true characteristic. Before practicing the six paramitas, they must first accomplish purity that neither regresses nor is lost. Because the paramitas are gathered within pure intention, they cultivate them according to the distinctions of the ten bhumis for a period of one to three asamkhya kalpas.

Thereafter, bodhisattvas must perfect the three trainings. Having perfected them, they attain the fruit of training—nirvana and unsurpassed bodhi. Thus, the ten principles are cultivated in this order.

All aspects of the Mahayana are fully encompassed within this sequence.

The meaning of the supporting basis, which is to be known first, is a designation for the alaya-vijnana.

Where did the Blessed One teach this consciousness, and why is it called the alaya-vijnana?

In a root verse of the Abhidharma, the Buddha said:

This dhatu, beginningless in time,

Is the supporting basis of all dharmas.

Because it exists, there are the realms of sentient beings,

And there is also the attainment of nirvana.

The Abhidharma also contains this verse:

All dharmas abide dependent upon the store,

The consciousness that contains all seeds.

Therefore, it is called alaya;

I teach it for the bodhisattvas.

These two verses in the Agamas establish the name and essence of this consciousness.

Why did the Buddha call this consciousness alaya?

Because, within the impure dharmas of all sentient beings, this consciousness lies concealed as their fruit and also lies concealed as their cause. Furthermore, sentient beings grasp this store consciousness as the characteristic of a self; therefore, it is called alaya. The Agamas state, as in a verse from the Sutra Explaining the Knots:

The appropriating consciousness is extremely profound;

The seeds of dharmas flow on continuously.

I do not teach it to ordinary beings,

Fearing they would grasp it as a self.

Why is this consciousness also called the adana-vijnana?

Because this consciousness has the function of sustaining the faculties of all sentient beings possessing material form, and every occurrence of rebirth depends upon it. Why is this so? Because all the faculties of sentient beings possessing material form are sustained within this consciousness; thus, they neither decay nor are lost, but continue onward. At the time of rebirth, this consciousness comes into being with the aggregates constituting the body; therefore, sentient beings throughout the six realms assume such bodies. Because this consciousness has the functions of appropriation, sustaining, and experiencing, it is called adana, or it is called mind. Thus did the Buddha, the Blessed One, speak of mind, mentation, and consciousness.

Mentation is of two kinds. The first arises together with that consciousness, and they subsequently take one another as conditions. A consciousness that has ceased in the preceding moment is called mentation, and because it also serves as the supporting basis for the arising of consciousness, it is called mentation.

The second is defiled mentation. This means that it is constantly associated with the four afflictions of self-view, self-conceit, self-love, and ignorance. This consciousness is the supporting basis of the other afflicted consciousnesses.

The afflicted consciousnesses are called mentation for two reasons: first, because they arise in dependence upon a supporting basis; and second, because they are defiled, discriminations arising from sensory objects as conditions and successively from one another.

How is the existence of a defiled mind known?

If this mind did not exist, independently active ignorance could not be established. This dharma would not be analogous to the five consciousnesses. Why? Because each of the five consciousnesses has its own simultaneous supporting basis, namely the eye faculty and so forth, but no such meaning could be established for mentation. Moreover, the concentration of non-perception and the concentration of cessation of mind would not differ. Why? Because the concentration of non-perception contains a defiled mind, whereas the concentration of cessation of mind does not.

If this were not so, these two concentrations would not differ in any respect. Furthermore, during an entire lifetime in the Heaven of Non-Perception, if self-view and self-conceit were absent, there would be no continued transmigration, no falling away, and no defilement. Furthermore, if self-grasping arises at all times, it must pervade wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate states of mind. If this were not so, and only unwholesome states of mind were associated with self-grasping and the like, then the notions of self and what belongs to the self would be active in them. But would they not be active in wholesome and indeterminate states?

If two minds are established as arising simultaneously, this fault does not occur. If it is established that defiled mentation operates in association with the sixth consciousness, this fault does occur.

Without independently active ignorance,

And without analogy to the five consciousnesses,

The two concentrations would have no distinction,

And the name “mentation” would be meaningless.

If there were no self-grasping in non-perception,

There would be no transmigration throughout that lifetime.

Within wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate states,

Self-grasping should not arise.

Apart from the defiled mind, it does not exist;

Two and three would contradict one another.

Without this, self-grasping could not arise

In any state whatsoever.

Insight into the true meaning

May obstruct and prevent it from arising.

What constantly operates in every state

Is independently active ignorance.

Because this mind is defiled, it is included within the morally indeterminate nature and is always associated with the four afflictions. For example, the afflictions in the Form Realm and Formless Realm are obscured and morally indeterminate, because the afflictions in these two realms are contained within samatha. This mind arises continuously, without being abandoned and without needing to be sought. The third entity cannot exist apart from the alaya-vijnana. Therefore, the established alaya-vijnana is precisely the mind-organ. Depending upon it, the seeds of the consciousnesses arise.

Why is this mind-organ also called mind?

Because the many kinds of seeds perfumed by habitual impressions gather within it.

Why, in the Sravaka Vehicle, are this characteristic of mind and the teaching of the alaya-vijnana not discussed?

Because the adana is subtle and is contained within the cognitive domain. Why is this so? Because those within the sphere of the Sravaka Vehicle do not possess the supreme status through which omniscient wisdom is attained. Therefore, this teaching was not given to the Sravakas for the purpose of enabling them to attain that wisdom, since their original aspiration could be fulfilled without it. Bodhisattvas possess a supreme status, so the Buddha taught it to enable them to attain omniscient wisdom. Why is this so? Because it is impossible to attain unsurpassed bodhi apart from this wisdom.

Furthermore, in the Sravaka Vehicle, this consciousness was taught by the Tathagata under many other names. As stated in the Ekottara Agama Sutra, beings in the world delight in the alaya, love the alaya, accumulate the alaya, and cling to the alaya; yet they can bring the alaya to complete cessation. When the Tathagata teaches the true Dharma, people in the world delight in hearing it; having heard it with their ears, they direct their attention toward understanding it and arouse right effort, and only then attain the complete cessation of the alaya.

They proceed as far as receiving and practicing the true Dharma and the Tathagata’s own teaching. The appearance of the Tathagata in the world is the foremost rare and inconceivable event, revealing the fundamental consciousness within the world. In the Sutra on the Four Virtues of the Tathagata’s Appearance in the World, this consciousness was revealed in the Sravaka Vehicle through a different meaning.

Furthermore, in the Agamas of the Mahasanghika school, this consciousness appears under the alternative name “fundamental consciousness,” just as a tree depends upon its roots. The Mahisasaka school also designates this consciousness by the alternative name “the aggregate that endures throughout birth and death.”

Why is this so? Although the continuity of form and mind is sometimes seen, their seeds within this mind are never cut off. One should therefore understand that the supporting adana, alaya-citta, fundamental consciousness, the aggregate that endures throughout birth and death, and so forth constitute three approaches by which the alaya-vijnana was presented in the Lesser Vehicle under these various names.

Other masters maintain that mind, mind-organ, and consciousness are three different names with the same meaning. This is not so. Since mind-organ and consciousness already have different meanings, the meaning of mind must also be distinct.

Other masters maintain that when the Tathagata said, as previously cited, that the world delights in the alaya, the five aggregates of clinging were there called the alaya.

Other masters maintain that pleasant feeling associated with desire is the alaya.

Other masters maintain that the view of a self in the body is the alaya.

These masters misunderstand the alaya and, because of what they have cultivated and attained from the Agamas, hold such views. Since they study and practice according to the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle, the doctrines they establish are contrary to reason. If someone does not misunderstand the alaya-vijnana and establishes this consciousness without relying upon the terminology of the Lesser Vehicle, that person will attain the most excellent meaning.

Why is it called the most excellent?

If one maintains that the aggregates of clinging are the alaya, then when beings are born into one of the unfortunate destinies where they experience suffering exclusively, those aggregates of clinging are extremely hostile and disagreeable. There is nothing desirable within them, so it would be unreasonable to say that beings delight in them. Why is this so?

Because beings there constantly wish for those aggregates of clinging to cease and never arise again. If the alaya were pleasant feeling, it would be associated with desire. From the fourth dhyana upward, the higher realms have no such feeling.

If those who have experienced this feeling still wish to ascend to the higher realms, they will become disenchanted with it. It is therefore unreasonable to say that beings there delight in it. If the alaya were the view of a self in the body, then those who have faith and delight in the true Dharma delight in non-self rather than cherishing that attachment to self; yet sentient beings’ minds grasp this alaya-vijnana as an inner self.

When born in a destiny where suffering alone is experienced, beings wish for the aggregates of suffering to disappear forever and never arise again. But because the alaya-vijnana is bound by self-love, they have never wished to eliminate their own self. Although sentient beings born from the fourth dhyana upward no longer delight in the experience of sensual pleasure, the love of self within the alaya-vijnana continually follows them and never departs.

Furthermore, although those within the true Dharma delight in non-self and reject the view of a self in the body, self-love still remains within their alaya-vijnana. Precisely on this basis the name alaya is established; this consciousness is the most excellent.

This is called establishing the alternative names of the alaya.

Chapter Two: The Characteristics

Furthermore, how may the establishment of these characteristics be understood?

In brief, there are three kinds of characteristics: first, the establishment of its intrinsic characteristic; second, the establishment of its causal characteristic; and third, the establishment of its resultant characteristic.

The establishment of its intrinsic characteristic means that this consciousness serves as the receptacle for the seeds of all the habitual impressions belonging to the defiled class of dharmas, preserving them and serving as the basis for their arising. This is called its intrinsic characteristic.

The establishment of its causal characteristic means that this consciousness containing all seeds is the cause that continually gives rise to defiled dharmas. This is called its causal characteristic.

The establishment of its resultant characteristic means that this consciousness is the result produced by the various habitual impressions belonging to the defiled class from beginningless time. This is called its resultant characteristic.

What dharma is called a habitual impression, and what meaning is intended by the term “habitual impression”?

It means that this dharma is associated with another, arising and ceasing together with it, and afterward becomes the generative cause of that other dharma. This is the meaning thereby revealed. It is like perfuming sesame seeds with flowers.

The sesame seeds and flowers arise and cease together, and afterward the flowers gradually become the cause that produces sesame seeds bearing their fragrance. If, for example, a person possesses craving, that craving produces a habitual impression, arising and ceasing together with the mind, and gradually becomes a cause that transforms and alters the mind. If a learned person possesses the habitual impressions of extensive learning and constantly reflects upon what has been heard and studied, these impressions arise and cease together with the mind and afterward become a cause that produces a clear and discerning mind.

Through this perfuming, the person becomes firmly established and is therefore called one capable of retaining the Dharma. The principle of the alaya-vijnana should be understood in the same way.

Are these defiled seeds the same as or different from the alaya-vijnana?

Because they do not have separate substances, they cannot be said to be different. Yet within this composite, although they are difficult to distinguish, they are not entirely identical. When the alaya-vijnana arises in this manner and the perfuming arises, it acquires a distinct and extraordinary capacity; therefore, it is called the consciousness containing all seeds.

How do the alaya-vijnana and the defilements simultaneously serve as causes for one another?

It is like a lamp’s flame and its wick. The emission of light and the burning of the wick are two events that simultaneously serve as causes for one another. It is also like a cluster of reeds that stand by leaning upon one another. One should understand that the fundamental consciousness and that which perfumes it serve as causes for one another in the same way. The consciousness is the cause of defiled dharmas, and defiled dharmas are the cause of the consciousness. Why is this so? Because apart from these two dharmas, no other cause can exist.

Why is it that perfuming is neither different nor manifold, yet can serve as the cause producing diverse and manifold dharmas?

It is like a garment woven from many threads. The garment does not have many colors, but when it is placed in a vat of dye, many different appearances become visible. Likewise, when the ālaya-consciousness is perfumed by dharmas, it has only one nature, not many kinds. Yet when it produces its fruits, countless kinds of characteristics and appearances manifest within the ālaya-consciousness, just as they do in a vat of dye; these are the dependently arisen conditions.

In the Mahayana, this dependent arising is subtle and extremely profound. Briefly stated, there are two kinds of dependent arising: the first is the discrimination of intrinsic nature, and the second is the discrimination of what is agreeable and disagreeable. Dharmas arise in dependence upon the ālaya-consciousness; this is called dependent arising through the discrimination of intrinsic nature, because it is through the discrimination of the intrinsic nature of causally conditioned dharmas.

There are also the twelve links of dependent arising, called the discrimination of what is agreeable and disagreeable, because, with regard to wholesome and unwholesome destinies, what is agreeable and disagreeable is discriminated, and different causes arise accordingly. Those who are deluded about the first kind of dependent arising in relation to the ālaya-consciousness may hold that intrinsic nature is the cause of birth and death, that actions performed in previous lives are the cause, that transformations wrought by a sovereign lord are the cause, that the eight kinds of sovereign self are the cause, or that there is no cause.

Those who are deluded about the second kind of dependent arising may hold either that the self is the agent or that the self is the experiencer. It is like a group of people blind from birth who have never known what an elephant is. Someone brings an elephant for them to touch.

Among those blind people, one touches the trunk, another the tusk, another the ear, another the leg, another the tail, another the back, and so forth. When someone asks what the elephant is shaped like, the blind people answer variously that it is like a plow handle, a pestle, a basket, a mortar, a broom, or a rocky mountain. Those who do not understand the two kinds of dependent arising, because of ignorance present from birth, may say that intrinsic nature is the cause, that actions performed in previous lives are the cause, that transformations wrought by a sovereign lord are the cause, that the eight kinds of sovereign self are the cause, that there is no cause, or that there is an agent and an experiencer.

This is because they do not understand the essential characteristics and the causal characteristics of the ālaya-consciousness. Like those people blind from birth, who do not know the essential characteristics of an elephant and therefore describe it differently, they do not understand. Briefly stated, the essential characteristics of the ālaya-consciousness are that it is the consciousness of karmic retribution and that it contains all seeds.

Because this consciousness encompasses all bodies throughout the three realms, all beings of the six destinies and four modes of birth—all of them reveal this meaning. A verse says:

Neither the inner nor the outer is clearly understood;

Both are merely provisional names.

And, in truth, all

Seeds possess six qualities:

They perish from moment to moment, coexist,

Continue in an unbroken succession,

Are determinate, attend to causes and conditions,

And draw forth and manifest their own fruits.

Stable, morally indeterminate, capable of being perfumed,

And corresponding with that which perfumes;

If otherwise, they cannot be perfumed—

These are the essential characteristics of perfuming.

The six consciousnesses do not correspond,

Being opposed in three distinct ways.

Two moments do not coexist;

The other kinds are likewise.

These inner and outer seeds

Are productive and sustaining causes.

A withered tree may still continue for a time,

And only afterward die completely.

Outer seeds are like this,

But inner seeds are not.

This meaning is clarified by the following two verses:

Outer seeds are not perfumed;

Inner seeds are not like this.

If what is heard did not perfume them,

The arising of the fruit would be unreasonable.

What has been done and what has not been done,

Gain and loss, would all be contradictory.

Because both inner and outer are established,

There is therefore perfuming within.

Apart from the ālaya-consciousness, the subjective and objective aspects of the other consciousnesses are the arisen consciousnesses. One should know that throughout all paths of birth and death they are called the experiencing consciousnesses. As a verse in the Treatise on the Middle and the Extremes says:

The first is called the conditioned consciousness;

The second is called the experiencing consciousness.

Cognition and experience are discrimination,

Together with the presently active mental factors.

These two kinds of consciousness also serve as causes for each other. As a verse in the Mahayana Abhidharma says:

Dharmas in relation to the storehouse consciousness,

And consciousness in relation to dharmas, are likewise so.

The two are causes of each other

And are also fruits of each other.

If, in the first kind of dependent arising, dharmas and consciousness serve as causes and conditions for each other, then in the second kind of dependent arising, what kind of conditions are the dharmas?

They are dominant conditions.

How many conditions, then, can give rise to the six consciousnesses?

There are three conditions: the dominant condition, the object-condition, and the immediately preceding condition. As for the three kinds of dependent arising—dependent arising that accompanies birth and death, dependent arising through the paths of craving and aversion, and dependent arising through experience—they possess all four conditions.

Chapter Three: Supporting Evidence

The ālaya-consciousness has already been established through its names and essential characteristics. But how is it known to be the ālaya-consciousness?

It is known through its various names. The Tathagata likewise taught its essential characteristics, but did not speak of them as the arisen consciousnesses. This is because, apart from the names and characteristics by which this ālaya-consciousness is established, neither the impure category nor the pure category can be established. The impure category of afflictions, the impure category of karma, the impure category of birth, the mundane pure category, and the supramundane pure category would all be untenable.

Why would the impure category of afflictions be untenable?

The perfuming by the fundamental afflictions and the subsidiary afflictions that forms seeds cannot be accomplished within the six consciousnesses. Why is this? Take, for example, the eye-consciousness in relation to desire: the major and minor afflictions arise and cease together with it.

This eye-consciousness is perfumed by the afflictions and thereby forms seeds. The same applies to the other consciousnesses. Once this eye-consciousness has ceased, if other consciousnesses arise between its occurrences, neither the perfuming nor the basis upon which the perfuming takes place can be found.

The eye-consciousness of the preceding moment has already perished and presently possesses no real existence. It is therefore incorrect to say that when other consciousnesses intervene, the perfuming subsequently ceases; nor can desire be established as arising together with it. It is like something that has already perished in the past: the karmic retribution cannot arise from it.

Nor can it be maintained that the eye-consciousness and desire, and so forth, arise simultaneously and perfume each other. Why is this? Because these seeds cannot abide within desire, for desire depends upon consciousness.

Furthermore, desire occurs in a succession but does not remain stable; therefore, this desire also cannot perfume the other consciousnesses. Because their bases differ, the other consciousnesses do not arise and cease together. Things of the same kind cannot perfume one another, because they do not arise and cease simultaneously.

Therefore, the eye-consciousness is not perfumed by desire, nor is it perfumed by the major or minor afflictions, for these are consciousnesses of the same kind. Having considered the eye-consciousness in this way, one should likewise consider the other consciousnesses.

Furthermore, when sentient beings who have dwelt in the Heaven of Non-Perception or above fall back and are born in a lower realm, the initial consciousness is defiled by the major and minor afflictions. When this consciousness arises, it would have to be without seeds. Why is this? Because both the perfuming by the afflictions and the basis upon which that perfuming depended have already ceased in the past without remainder.

Furthermore, when the consciousness that counteracts the afflictions has arisen and all mundane consciousnesses have ceased, if there were no ālaya-consciousness, it would be unreasonable for both the counteractive consciousness and the seeds of the major and minor afflictions to exist. Why is this? Because it is liberated by its own nature, an uncontaminated mind cannot arise and cease together with the afflictions. Furthermore, after emerging from correct contemplation, when a mundane mind arises, the long-standing perfuming by the afflictions has already entirely ceased; consequently, a contaminated mental consciousness could not arise from seeds. Therefore, apart from the ālaya-consciousness, the defilement of the afflictions cannot be established.

Furthermore, why can karmic defilement not be established?

Because the proposition that consciousness arises conditioned by formations cannot be established. If this proposition cannot be established, then the proposition that existence arises conditioned by grasping likewise cannot be established; therefore, karmic defilement cannot be established.

Furthermore, why can the defilement of birth not be established?

For rebirth-linking could not be established. If a person falls back from a higher meditative plane, it is only when, in the intermediate existence, a defiled mental consciousness arises that rebirth is taken. When that defiled consciousness in the intermediate existence ceases, it enters the kalala, transforms, unites with it, and takes birth in the mother’s womb.

If only mental consciousness transformed into the support of the kalala and so forth, then within the mother’s womb another mental consciousness would arise in addition to this mental consciousness.

There is no such principle.

Would two kinds of mental consciousness arise simultaneously within the mother’s womb?

That also cannot be so. The establishment of a separate transformed consciousness is impossible. Because the support of mental consciousness is impure, it engages its object over an extended period of time.

Its object of cognition cannot be known. Therefore, if this mental consciousness has undergone transformation, at that time it becomes the kalala. Because this consciousness is the locus of support for the seeds of all dharmas, and because it gives rise to the other consciousnesses, it is called the consciousness containing the seeds of all dharmas.

If you maintain that the separately transformed consciousness is the consciousness containing all seeds, then it is precisely the Alaya consciousness. You yourself merely establish it under another name, calling it mental consciousness. If you say that the consciousness which depends upon a support is the consciousness containing all seeds, and therefore that this consciousness, by depending upon its support, becomes another cause, then the meaning cannot be established.

For if the supporting consciousness is not the consciousness containing all seeds upon which the dependent consciousness relies, it cannot be called the consciousness containing all seeds. Therefore, the consciousness that undergoes rebirth and transforms into the kalala is not mental consciousness. It is solely the resultant consciousness, and it also contains all seeds.

This principle has thus been established.

Furthermore, after a sentient being has taken birth, the other material faculties could not be sustained apart from the resultant consciousness. Why is this? The other consciousnesses each have their own distinct supports and do not remain continuously stable. If these material faculties had no consciousness to sustain them, they too could not be established.

Furthermore, this consciousness and name-and-form depend upon one another, like bundles of reeds standing by supporting one another. Without this consciousness, that principle also could not be established.

Furthermore, apart from the resultant consciousness, consciousness as nutriment could not be established for any sentient being seeking birth or already born. Why is this? Apart from the resultant consciousness, none of the consciousnesses, such as eye-consciousness, could be taken as performing the function of nourishing sentient beings born within the three realms.

If a person relinquishes life in this realm and is born in a higher meditative plane, rebirth there is taken by a distracted, defiled mental consciousness. Yet it is untenable that, in that meditative plane, the seeds could remain apart from the resultant consciousness after that distracted and defiled consciousness has taken birth.

Furthermore, if sentient beings are born in the Formless Realm apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds, then when a defiled mind or a wholesome mind arises, it would have no seeds, nor would there be a consciousness serving as the support for either the defiled or the wholesome mind.

If an undefiled mind arises in the Formless Realm, all other mundane minds have already ceased; consequently, that realm would have to be abandoned. If a sentient being born in the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception gives rise to a mind of the Sphere of Nothingness and to an undefiled mind, the being would thereby abandon both spheres. Why is this? Because the undefiled mind is supramundane: it does not take the path of the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception as its support, nor does it take the path of the Sphere of Nothingness as its support, nor does it take the direct passage into nirvana as its support.

Furthermore, when a person who has created wholesome or unwholesome karma relinquishes the life span, apart from the Alaya consciousness there could be no gradual cooling of the body upon which it depends, whether from the upper part downward or from the lower part upward. Without the Alaya consciousness, this phenomenon would not occur. Therefore, defiled birth cannot be established apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds.

Why could the mundane aspect of purity not be established?

Suppose a sentient being who has not yet become free from desire in the Desire Realm and has not yet attained a mind of the Form Realm first gives rise to a wholesome mind of the Desire Realm, seeks to become free from desire for the Desire Realm, and cultivates contemplation. This preparatory mind of the Desire Realm does not arise and cease together with the mind of the Form Realm, and so it cannot perfume it. Therefore, the wholesome mind of the Desire Realm is not the seed of the wholesome mind of the Form Realm.

A past mind of the Form Realm, separated over many lives by other minds, cannot later be established as the seed of meditative consciousness, for it no longer exists. Therefore, this principle is established: the meditative mind of the Form Realm has, as its cause and condition, the resultant consciousness containing all seeds transmitted in an uninterrupted succession. This wholesome preparatory mind is established as the dominant condition.

One should understand that the same principle applies at every stage of freedom from desire. That is to say, the mundane aspect of purity cannot be established apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds.

Why could the supramundane aspect of purity not be established apart from the Alaya consciousness?

The Buddha, the Blessed One, said: “Through hearing the words of another and through one’s own correct reflection, right view arises from these two causes.” Hearing the words of another and correct reflection cannot perfume ear-consciousness or mental consciousness, nor can they perfume both.

Why is this? When a person listens, understands, and correctly reflects, ear-consciousness does not arise at that time, nor does the mental consciousness arise, because those were the distracted, discriminating consciousnesses involved in hearing. If a mental consciousness arises in association with correct reflection, the previous mental consciousness has already ceased long before. Since both that which is perfumed—hearing—and the perfuming no longer exist, how could the earlier consciousness subsequently serve as the seed that produces the later consciousness?

Furthermore, the mundane mind associated with correct reflection and the supramundane pure mind associated with right view never arise and cease together. Therefore, this mundane mind has no connection with the perfuming of the pure mind. Since it does not perfume it, it cannot become a supramundane seed. Therefore, apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds, the supramundane pure mind also cannot be established. Why is this? Here, it is untenable that the perfuming produced by hearing and reflection could contain the perfumed supramundane seeds.

Why does the resultant consciousness containing all seeds become the cause of the impure aspect? If it can produce defilement, it is counteracted by the supramundane pure mind. Yet this supramundane mind has never arisen since beginningless time, so there has certainly been no perfuming by it. If there has been no such perfuming, from what cause does this supramundane mind arise?

You should now answer that it is because correct hearing, flowing forth from the perfectly pure Dharma-dhatu, perfumes the consciousness and becomes a seed.

When the supramundane mind arises, is this perfuming by the wisdom of hearing of the same nature as the Alaya consciousness, or of a different nature? If it is of the nature of the Alaya consciousness, how could it become a seed that counteracts that consciousness? If it is of a different nature, upon what dharma does this seed of the wisdom of hearing depend as its support?

Until the unsurpassed bodhi of the Buddhas is attained, this perfuming by the wisdom of hearing arises and continues within a single locus of support. There it arises together with the resultant consciousness, like water mixed with milk. Yet this perfuming by the wisdom of hearing is not the fundamental consciousness. It has become a seed that counteracts that consciousness.

Therefore, here, depending upon a lower degree of perfuming, a middling degree of perfuming arises; and depending upon a middling degree of perfuming, a higher degree of perfuming arises.

Why is this? It is because the practices of hearing, reflection, and cultivation are diligently and repeatedly undertaken. One should know that these lower, middling, and higher degrees of perfuming by hearing are seeds of the Dharma-body and arise in opposition to the Alaya consciousness. Therefore, they are not included within the nature of the Alaya consciousness. Because they flow forth from the perfectly pure supramundane Dharma-dhatu, although they are still mundane dharmas, they have already become the supramundane mind.

Why is this so? Because, before this pure supramundane seed of mind has arisen, it already possesses the capacity to counteract all active defilements, to counteract every form of birth in the evil destinies, and to counteract the corruption of all evil conduct. It can continue without interruption, enabling beings to be born in circumstances conducive to encountering and serving the Buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Although this perfuming through hearing is a mundane dharma, it is attained by bodhisattvas who have newly begun the cultivation of contemplation. It should be understood that this dharma is included within the Dharma-body. If attained by shravakas or pratyekabuddhas, it is included within the liberation-body.

This perfuming through hearing is not the alaya-consciousness but belongs to the Dharma-body and the liberation-body. In this way, it gradually increases through the lower, middle, and higher levels, while the resultant consciousness gradually diminishes correspondingly. This is precisely the transformation of the basis. If the basis continues to be transformed, the resultant consciousness containing seeds will become devoid of seeds, and all of them will be exhausted.

If the root consciousness and the other consciousnesses that are not the root consciousness arise and cease together, blending like water and milk, then why, when the root consciousness ceases, do the other consciousnesses that are not the root consciousness not also cease?

This is like a goose drinking the milk from a mixture of water and milk. It is also like the mundane case in which, upon becoming free from desire, the perfumings belonging to the non-concentrated planes cease and the perfumings belonging to the concentrated planes increase, thereby accomplishing the mundane transformation of the basis. The supramundane transformation of the basis is likewise so.

When a person enters the concentration of the cessation of mind, because consciousness does not leave the body, the resultant consciousness also does not leave the body while that person remains in concentration.

Why is this?

Because the concentration of the cessation of mind does not counteract this consciousness.

How is this known?

If it counteracted this consciousness, then upon emerging from concentration, consciousness would not arise again.

Why?

Because the continuity of the resultant consciousness would have been severed. Once the connection with rebirth had been abandoned, it could not arise again.

Some say that mind still exists within the concentration of the cessation of mind.

What such persons call mind is untenable.

Why?

Because the definition of the concentration could not then be established, since neither its characteristic nor its object could be apprehended. There would be the fault of its being associated with wholesome roots. It could not be associated with either the unwholesome or the morally neutral.

There would be the fault that perception and feeling would arise. When these three are conjoined, contact must necessarily be present. In other concentrations, they all possess this function.

There would be the fault that only perception is extinguished. There would be the fault that wholesome roots such as attention, faith, and so forth would arise. One cannot eliminate that which depends while leaving apart its basis.

Moreover, there are analogies. This does not apply to every formation, because not every formation is like this.

If someone maintains that material form and mind successively produce the seeds of these dharmas, that position is untenable.

Why is this?

Because it already entails the preceding faults and also entails further faults. These further faults arise in the cases of a person falling from the Heaven of Non-Perception or emerging from the concentration of the cessation of mind; all the assertions made concerning these cases are untenable. Nor could the final mind of an arhat be established. If sequential conditionality were absent, this position could not be established. Thus, apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds, neither the pure nor the impure classes of dharmas could be established. Therefore, the existence of this mind is established. It should be accepted and understood according to the characteristics explained above. A verse now says:

When a bodhisattva abides in wholesome consciousness,

He is apart from those five consciousnesses.

If no minds transform the basis,

What could serve as the means?

If counteraction transforms the basis,

It is not cessation; thus it cannot be established.

Cause and effect would be indistinguishable;

To call this cessation therefore entails a fault.

Without seeds, there are no dharmas;

If this is held to be transformation of the basis,

Since neither of the two would exist,

The meaning of transformation of the basis could not be established.

Chapter Four: Distinctions

What distinctions does this alaya-consciousness possess?

Generally speaking, there are three or four kinds of distinction. The three arise as distinctions produced by three kinds of perfuming: the differentiation of names and expressions, the differentiation of the view of self, and the differentiation of the factors of existence. The four are the distinctions of projection into birth, maturation, the characteristic of the object, and mode of appearance.

The distinction of projection into birth refers to perfuming that brings forth something new. If this did not exist, consciousness could not arise conditioned by formations, nor could existence arise conditioned by grasping. The distinction of maturation means that, through formations, maturation occurs within the dharmas of the six destinies.

If this did not exist, no dharmas could arise later at the time of rebirth. The distinction of the characteristic of the object means that within the mind there is an appearance capable of producing attachment to a self. If this did not exist, the appearance of an object to which a self is attached would not be present within the various minds.

The distinction of mode of appearance means that this consciousness possesses a shared characteristic and an unshared characteristic, the characteristic of seeds that undergo no rebirth, and the characteristic of seeds that undergo rebirth. The shared characteristic consists of the seeds of the receptacle world. The unshared characteristic consists of the distinct internal seeds.

Furthermore, the shared characteristic consists of seeds that undergo no rebirth, while the unshared characteristic consists of seeds that undergo rebirth. When their counteraction arises, only the unshared characteristic is extinguished. As for the shared characteristic, it is sustained by numerous other sentient beings, while for that person it is seen with purified right vision.

This is like practitioners of contemplation who, with regard to a single kind of object, establish various modes of contemplation and various aspirations according to their own minds. A verse says:

Difficult to extinguish and difficult to comprehend,

It is called the common bond.

Because practitioners’ minds differ,

The characteristics of the world appear differently.

Those whose purity is not yet extinguished

Still perceive it as pure.

A pure Buddha-land is accomplished

Because the Buddha perceives it as pure.

Another verse says:

The various aspirations and perceptions

Of those who cultivate contemplative practice,

With regard to a single kind of object,

Are formed according to their minds.

Many different forms are perceived;

What is apprehended is consciousness alone.

The seeds through which sentient beings undergo rebirth constitute the unshared distinctive characteristic of the root consciousness. If these did not exist, there would be no condition for the arising of the world of sentient beings. The seeds that undergo no rebirth constitute the shared characteristic of the alaya-consciousness. If these did not exist, there would be no condition for the arising of the receptacle world.

Furthermore, consciousness has a characteristic of coarse heaviness and a characteristic of subtle lightness. The characteristic of coarse heaviness in consciousness consists of the seeds of the greater and lesser defilements. The characteristic of subtle lightness in consciousness consists of the seeds of all wholesome outflowing dharmas. If these did not exist, there would be no distinct basis for previous karmic results capable of prevailing and karmic results incapable of prevailing.

Furthermore, the root consciousness has two characteristics: the characteristic of experiencing and the characteristic of not experiencing. The characteristic of experiencing consists of the seeds of wholesome and unwholesome consciousness that have already matured into resultant retribution. The characteristic of not experiencing consists of the seeds of names and expressions perfumed throughout the immeasurable past. Because these are seeds that give rise to subsequent states, if this consciousness did not exist, the causes and resultant retributions of wholesome and unwholesome actions, whether performed or not performed, could not fully accomplish the meaning of experience, nor could the arising of the perfuming of names and expressions be established.

Furthermore, it has characteristics illustrated by analogies. Consciousness is likened to an illusion, to the shimmering heat waves seen by a thirsty deer, to dream imagery, and to visions caused by diseased eyes. The first consciousness resembles these phenomena. If these seeds of false discrimination did not exist, this consciousness could not serve as the cause and condition of delusion.

Furthermore, there are the complete characteristic and the incomplete characteristic. The complete characteristic means being fully bound by all the various fetters of sentient beings. When one attains freedom from worldly desire, there is the characteristic of diminishing these fetters.

In the case of the śrāvakas who are still in training and the bodhisattvas, there is the characteristic of partial freedom and cessation. In the case of arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and Tathagatas, there is the complete characteristic of total freedom and cessation. Why is this?

Arhats and pratyekabuddhas extinguish only the afflictive obstruction, whereas the Tathagata extinguishes both the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction. If this were not so, it would be impossible to extinguish all afflictions progressively.

For what reason is the resultant retribution of the two kinds of dharmas, wholesome and unwholesome, solely of the unobscured and morally indeterminate nature?

It is because this morally indeterminate nature arises together with both wholesome and unwholesome dharmas and does not conflict with them. Wholesome and unwholesome dharmas themselves conflict with one another. If resultant retribution were wholesome or unwholesome in nature, there would be no means of liberation from the afflictions, nor any means by which wholesome states or afflictions could arise. There would be neither liberation nor bondage. Since these two implications do not apply, the nature of resultant consciousness is unobscured and morally indeterminate.

Chapter Five: The Distinguishing Characteristics to Be Known

The support to be known has already been explained. How, then, should the distinguishing characteristics be known?

Generally speaking, there are three distinguishing characteristics to be known: first, the characteristic of the dependent nature; second, the characteristic of the discriminated nature; and third, the characteristic of the true nature.

The characteristic of the dependent nature means that the fundamental consciousness serves as the seeds, while false discrimination encompasses the various differentiated consciousnesses. What are these differentiated consciousnesses? They are consciousness of the body, consciousness of the embodied subject, consciousness of the experiencing subject, consciousness of what is to be experienced, consciousness of the act of experiencing, consciousness of time, consciousness of number, consciousness of place, consciousness of verbal expression, consciousness of the distinction between self and other, and consciousness of the two courses of wholesome and unwholesome rebirth in samsara.

Consciousness of the body, consciousness of the embodied subject, consciousness of the experiencing subject, consciousness of what is to be experienced, consciousness of the act of experiencing, consciousness of time, consciousness of number, consciousness of place, and consciousness of verbal expression arise from seeds perfumed by verbal expressions. Consciousness of the distinction between self and other arises from seeds perfumed by the view of self.

Consciousness of the two courses of wholesome and unwholesome rebirth in samsara arises from seeds perfumed by the links of existence. Because these consciousnesses take the characteristic of the dependent nature as their essence, they encompass all the afflictions within the three realms and six courses of rebirth. Whenever false discrimination is present, they immediately become manifest.

These falsely discriminating consciousnesses take consciousness alone as their essence; there is no falsely conceived object that appears as their support. Therefore, this is called the characteristic of the dependent nature.

The characteristic of the discriminated nature means that in reality there are no objects; there is only the essence of consciousness appearing as objects. Therefore, this is called the characteristic of the discriminated nature.

The characteristic of the true nature means that, within this dependent nature, because the characteristic of an object is eternally nonexistent, this reality is not nonexistent. Therefore, this is called the characteristic of the true nature. When consciousness of the body, consciousness of the embodied subject, and consciousness of the experiencing subject are spoken of, one should know that they encompass the six internal dhatus, such as the eye faculty and so forth.

When consciousness of what is to be experienced is spoken of, one should know that it encompasses the six external dhatus, such as form and so forth. When consciousness of the act of experiencing is spoken of, one should know that it encompasses the six consciousness dhatus, such as eye-consciousness and so forth. Because this consciousness is the basis of all the consciousnesses, the other consciousnesses are differentiations of it.

Thus, all these consciousnesses are consciousness-only, because no objects exist. It is like a dream. Within a dream there is consciousness alone, apart from external objects.

Various objects—forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, houses, mountains, forests, lands, and so forth—appear as though real, yet not a single object truly exists. From this analogy, one should know that everywhere and in every circumstance there is consciousness alone. From this, one should understand that the other analogies are likewise so, such as magical illusions, a mirage seen by a thirsty deer, flowers seen before diseased eyes, and so forth.

One who has awakened sees that all objective realms, everywhere and in every circumstance, are consciousness alone, just like the objects in a dream.

If, upon awakening from a dream, a person knows that the dream objects were consciousness alone, why does a person who is awake not know this?

No, the meaning is not so. Only one who has attained the wisdom that realizes suchness knows it. For example, a person who is still dreaming and has not yet awakened does not know; only after awakening does that person know. Likewise, one who has not attained the wisdom that realizes suchness does not know. One who has attained the wisdom that realizes suchness certainly possesses this understanding.

If a person has not yet attained the wisdom that realizes suchness, how can this knowledge of the principle of consciousness-only arise?

It can be ascertained through the sacred teachings and reasoning. As for the sacred teachings, in the Ten Stages Sutra, the Buddha, the Blessed One, said: “Children of the Buddha! The three realms are consciousness-only.”

Again, as stated in the Sutra Explaining the Profound Meaning:

At that time, the bodhisattva-mahasattva Maitreya asked the Buddha, the Blessed One:

“Blessed One! Are the characteristics of form that the mind takes as objects in meditative concentration different from the mind, or are they not different?”

The Buddha said: “Maitreya! They are not different. Why is this? I teach that there is consciousness alone. This objective realm of the characteristics of form is manifested through a transformation of consciousness.”

The bodhisattva Maitreya said: “Blessed One! If the characteristics of form within the objective realm of meditative concentration are not different from the mind in concentration, why does that consciousness take that very consciousness as its object?”

The Buddha said: “Maitreya! No dharma is capable of apprehending other dharmas. Although it cannot apprehend them, this consciousness transforms and manifests, arising as though it were an objective realm. It is like facing a mirror and seeing one’s own face. One thinks, ‘I see an image appearing like another face.’ The mind in meditative concentration is likewise: it appears as though it were an objective realm. This is spoken of as a different object of the concentrated mind.” Thus, the principle of the Agamas is established, and the meaning of consciousness-only is made clear.

Why is this so?

At that time, within the very mind of the practitioner of contemplation, if blue, yellow, and other colors are seen pervading the characteristics of form, then what is seen is one’s own mind; no separate blue, yellow, or other visible objects are seen. By this principle, regarding all consciousnesses, a bodhisattva should analogously understand the principle of consciousness-only in the same way. The cognition of blue, yellow, and so forth is not a cognition produced by retention and recollection, because this is a perception of an immediately present object.

In the two cases of hearing and reflection, the consciousness of retention and recollection takes past objects as its objects, and appearances resembling the past arise. Thus, the meaning of consciousness-only is established. By analogy with this, one knows that even if a bodhisattva has not yet realized the wisdom that realizes suchness, that bodhisattva can understand by inference through the meaning of consciousness-only.

As previously stated, the various consciousnesses are compared to magical illusions, dreams, and so forth. Among them, the establishment of consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness is possible by virtue of the meaning of consciousness-only.

Eye-consciousness and the other consciousnesses are consciousnesses that have visible forms as their objects. How, then, can the meaning of consciousness-only be accepted?

These consciousnesses should be understood through the Agamas and the lines of reasoning previously explained.

If form is consciousness, why does it appear in the likeness of form? How does it continue and remain stable, appearing similar before and after?

It is because it serves as the support for delusion and the other afflictions. If this were not so, delusion would have no meaning. If delusion had no meaning, the two kinds of affliction—the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction—would not exist. If the two obstructions did not exist, neither would the factors of purification. Therefore, one must believe that the arising of the consciousnesses in this manner is real. Here there is a verse:

The cause of confusion and the essence of confusion

Are form-consciousness and non-form consciousness.

If the preceding consciousness did not exist,

The succeeding consciousness could not arise.

Why do consciousness of the body, consciousness of the embodied subject, consciousness of the experiencing subject, consciousness of what is to be experienced, and consciousness of the act of experiencing arise in close conjunction everywhere and in every circumstance of rebirth?

Because only in this way is the experience of rebirth fully manifested.

Why do consciousness of time and the others, as previously described, arise in so many different forms?

Because the continuity of birth and death has remained unbroken since beginningless time, it encompasses immeasurable realms of sentient beings, immeasurable container-worlds, the manifestations of immeasurable actions, the distinctions of immeasurable forms of sustenance and immeasurable modes of enjoyment, the karmic retributions of immeasurable agreeable and disagreeable experiences, and the distinctions of immeasurable attainments within birth and death.

How can it be correctly said that these consciousnesses constitute the meaning of consciousness-only?

Briefly stated, there are three characteristics. First, these consciousnesses constitute consciousness-only. Second, there is only consciousness and no external object; therefore, there are only two aspects: the objective aspect and the perceiving aspect. Third, all arising appearances are encompassed within consciousness.

What does this mean?

Because all is consciousness and there are no external objects, there is only consciousness possessing an objective aspect and a perceiving aspect. The eye-consciousness and the other consciousnesses take forms and the other objects as their objective aspects. The eye-consciousness and the other consciousnesses take the respective consciousnesses as their perceiving aspects. Mental consciousness takes all things, from eye-consciousness through consciousness of dharmas, as its objective aspect. Mental consciousness takes mental consciousness as its perceiving aspect.

How can mental consciousness discriminate in this way?

It arises through discrimination in the likeness of all consciousnesses and their objects. Here there is a verse:

Entering mere measure, there are only two;

Those who speak of it posit many kinds.

When the meaning of consciousness-only is understood,

Even the status of consciousness is transcended.

Some masters say that this mental consciousness receives many names according to the bases upon which it arises. For example, the intentional production of karma is called bodily karma or verbal karma. At its bases, this consciousness gives rise to various appearances, manifesting as though they were two dharmas: first, it manifests as though it were an object; second, it manifests as though it were discrimination. Everywhere, in every place, it manifests as though it were contact. In realms possessing material form, mental consciousness arises in dependence upon the body, just as the material faculties arise in dependence upon the body. Here there is a verse:

It travels far and travels alone,

Without a dwelling, abiding in a cave.

By taming that which is difficult to tame,

One escapes the bonds of Mara.

As the sutra states, mental consciousness can apprehend and discriminate all the objective realms of the five faculties, such as the eye; mental consciousness is the cause from which they arise. There are also the distinct teaching and the teaching of discrimination. Among the twelve ayatanas, the aggregate of the six consciousnesses is called the mind ayatana.

There, the fundamental consciousness is established as the meaning of consciousness. In this context, all consciousnesses are called consciousnesses of appearance, while mental consciousness and the supporting consciousness are called consciousnesses of perception. Why is this?

Because this consciousness of appearance is the generative cause of the perceiving aspect. Manifesting as though it were an object, it serves as the support upon which the perceiving aspect arises. In this way, the consciousnesses establish consciousness-only.

How is it known that the objects which appear are not truly existent?

As the Buddha, the Blessed One, taught, if a bodhisattva is endowed with four discoverable qualities, that bodhisattva can realize and enter the understanding that all is consciousness and that there are no objects. What are the four qualities? First, knowing that the appearances of consciousness are mutually contradictory.

For example, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and devas may dwell within the same objective realm, yet their perceptions and understanding differ. Second, seeing that there is no objective realm corresponding to image-like objects of the past or future, or those appearing in dreams. Third, knowing that if objects truly existed, correct cognition would arise without effort.

For example, if objects truly existed, consciousness arising in dependence upon them would be free from error without any exertion, because it would know them as they truly are. Fourth, knowing that the meaning accords with the three kinds of wisdom.

How do all noble beings who enter contemplation in this way attain mastery of mind?

Through mastery of aspiration, they can cause objects to appear as they wish. If a practitioner of contemplation has attained shamatha and engages in the preparatory practices of contemplation in accordance with the Dharma, appearances manifest in conformity with that practitioner's thought. If one who has attained nonconceptual wisdom has not yet emerged from nonconceptual contemplation, no objects appear at all.

Because the meaning of objective realms and so forth accords with the three kinds of wisdom, and because it is established by the evidence presented above, the meaning of consciousness-only is accomplished. Therefore, it should be known that there is only consciousness and no objective realm. Here six verses further clarify the preceding meaning. Following these verses, an extensive discriminative explanation will be given on the basis of awakened knowledge.