成唯識論

– Furthermore, how do we know that “the characteristics of conditioned phenomena” exist as real intrinsic natures distinct from form and mind?

(The Hinayana adherent replies:) Because the sutras say so. As a sutra states: “There are the conditioned characteristics of the three kinds of conditioned phenomena” (phenomena directly cognized, such as form and mind; phenomena presently used and enjoyed, such as jars and robes; and phenomena that perform functions, such as the five faculties). And so forth, as explained in detail.

(The Treatise Master responds:) This sutra does not say that the conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, and so forth truly exist apart from form and mind. Therefore, the citation given above does not establish the claim. Nor does the use of the sixth case ending prove it. (In Sanskrit, nouns, pronouns, and adjectives undergo eight case inflections, called the eight case endings: nominative, accusative, instrumental, dative, ablative, genitive, locative, and vocative.

The sixth is the genitive case, expressed by “of” in the phrase “characteristics of conditioned phenomena,” and is alleged to indicate that conditioned phenomena and their characteristics are different entities.) For the substance of form and mind is precisely form and mind; it does not follow that the substance of the characteristics—that is, the four conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, change, and cessation—must be distinct from what they characterize, namely the conditioned phenomena of form and mind.

One cannot say that the characteristics of hardness and wetness are distinct from earth and water, which they characterize, and so forth. If the characteristics of conditioned phenomena were distinct from the substance of what they characterize, then the substance of the characteristics of the unconditioned would likewise have to be distinct from the unconditioned phenomena they characterize, such as suchness.

Furthermore, if the substances of the four characteristics—arising, abiding, change, and cessation—all truly existed, they would have to exercise their functions simultaneously at all times. If, because these four characteristics oppose one another, their functions cannot all be present together, then their four substances must likewise oppose one another; how, then, could they all be present together?

Furthermore, the functions of abiding, change, and cessation also do not arise together. Yet if the characterizers—abiding, change, and cessation—and what they characterize—form and mind—have substances that are all already present together, their functions should likewise be present together, since the functions have no separate nature. If it is said that the functions of arising, abiding, change, and cessation must await causes and conditions before arising, then, since they await causes and conditions, they cannot already exist. Moreover, positing characteristics of arising, abiding, change, and cessation is useless.

Furthermore, if form and mind, which are what is characterized, constantly exist yet still await arising and abiding to come into conjunction with them, then logically the unconditioned phenomena that already exist should also await arising and abiding to come into conjunction with them, for the grounds applicable to those unconditioned phenomena and these conditioned phenomena cannot differ.

Furthermore, the past and future do not presently exist and are not permanent; like flowers in the sky, they have no real existence or nature. To arise is called coming into existence; how, then, could arising belong to the future? To cease is called becoming nonexistent; logically, then, cessation should not belong to the present. If cessation is not nonexistence, arising should not be existence.

Furthermore, since “cessation” opposes “abiding,” how can they be held to occur simultaneously? Since “abiding” does not oppose “arising,” why should they occur at different times? Therefore, we know that, however one examines and questions the position that the four conditioned characteristics of arising, abiding, change, and cessation truly exist, it is unreasonable.

Nevertheless, through the power of causes and conditions, conditioned phenomena, originally nonexistent, now come into existence; after temporarily existing, they return to nonexistence. To indicate how they differ from unconditioned phenomena, four characteristics are provisionally established. Being originally nonexistent and now existent is called “arising” at the very moment of existence.

The temporary continuance of what has arisen is called “abiding.” Because earlier and later moments differ during this abiding, the term “change” is further established. Temporarily existing and then returning to nonexistence is called “cessation” at the very moment of nonexistence. The first three characteristics—arising, abiding, and change—pertain to existence and all belong to the present; the final characteristic, cessation, pertains to nonexistence and therefore belongs to the past.

Question: Since the characteristic of “cessation” is a nonexistent phenomenon, how can it be regarded as a characteristic of the conditioned?

Answer: Because it indicates the subsequent nonexistence of a phenomenon, it is regarded as a characteristic. What fault is there in this? The characteristic of “arising” indicates that an existent phenomenon previously did not exist; the characteristic of “cessation” indicates that an existent phenomenon will subsequently no longer exist.

The characteristic of “change” indicates that the phenomenon does not remain uninterruptedly in a single state; the characteristic of “abiding” indicates that the phenomenon temporarily performs its function. Therefore, although these four characteristics are all called indications in relation to conditioned phenomena, what they indicate differs. Based on such indications within a single moment, the four characteristics are provisionally established.

Alternatively, the four characteristics may also be provisionally established based on the different stages within a single period.

Its initial coming into existence is called arising; its subsequent nonexistence is called cessation. The continuity of similar moments after it has arisen is called abiding; its transformation during that very continuity is called change.

Therefore, all four characteristics are provisionally established.

– Furthermore, how do we know that “bodies of names, phrases, and syllables” truly exist apart from form and mind in order to express meanings?

(The Hinayana adherent replies:) Because the sutras say so. As a sutra states: “The Buddha attained rare bodies of names, phrases, and syllables.”

The Treatise Master responds: This sutra, however, does not say that bodies of names, phrases, and syllables truly exist apart from form and mind. Therefore, the citation given above does not establish the claim. If names, phrases, and syllables truly existed apart from sounds, then, like forms, sounds, and so forth, they would not actually possess the capacity to designate and express meanings.

That is to say, if sounds produce “names, phrases, and syllables,” then those sounds must already possess modulated vocal patterns sufficient to designate and express meanings; what further need would there be for “names”? If it is said that the modulated vocal patterns in sounds are themselves names, phrases, and syllables, yet truly exist apart from the sounds, then logically the contoured shapes perceived in visible forms should likewise exist as real entities separate from those forms.

If it is said that the modulated vocal patterns in sounds, like the sounds of stringed instruments, cannot designate and express meanings, then the speech sounds of sentient beings, just like the sounds of insentient stringed instruments, could not produce “names” and so forth.

Moreover, who says that the sounds of stringed instruments cannot designate and express meanings? If the sounds of stringed instruments can designate and express meanings, would the sounds of wind and bells likewise perform the function of designation and expression? Yet in these cases, just as in the former, no separate, real “bodies of names, phrases, and syllables” are produced.

If it is maintained that only speech sounds can produce “names, phrases,” and so forth, why not accept that speech alone possesses the capacity to designate and express meanings? On what grounds is it known with certainty that the capacity to designate and express is itself speech? How is it known that, apart from speech, there is a separate designator? That speech is not different from that which designates is something known to gods and humans alike; but only the gods would delight in the assertion that a designator exists apart from speech.

Nevertheless, “bodies of names, phrases, and syllables” are provisionally established based on the differentiated stages of speech sounds. Names express intrinsic natures; phrases express qualified meanings; and syllables are letters, the supports of names and phrases. Although these three—names, phrases, and syllables—have no real substance apart from sounds, the provisionally established names, phrases, and syllables differ from the real sounds.

Thus, names, phrases, and syllables are not themselves sounds. This is because names, phrases, and syllables are the objects of “unobstructed understanding of Dharma,” whereas sounds are the objects of “unobstructed understanding of expression”; their respective spheres differ. Sounds and names and phrases also differ in their inclusion within the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus. (Sounds are included in the form skandha, the sound ayatana, and the sound dhatu, whereas names and phrases are included in the formations skandha, the dharma ayatana, and the dharma dhatu.)

Moreover, the statement that names, phrases, and syllables are provisionally established in dependence upon sounds applies to this Saha world; it is not necessarily so in all other worlds. In some Buddha lands, names, phrases, and syllables are provisionally established in dependence upon light, wondrous fragrances, or wondrous flavors.

– Some maintain: “Latent tendencies exist apart from mind and mental factors and are included within the skandha of formations dissociated from mind.” This position is also unreasonable. The latent tendencies (seeds) of greed and hatred, like manifest greed and hatred, are not included within the skandha of formations dissociated from mind.

– As for those who maintain that still other formations dissociated from mind truly exist, all such assertions can be refuted by applying the reasoning given above.

– Or they maintain that unconditioned dharmas, apart from form and mind, certainly have real existence.

– This is untenable in principle. In brief, things whose existence is definitely established are of three kinds:

1. Things directly known, such as form and mind.

2. Things directly experienced and used, such as jars, robes, and so forth. People in the world all know that these two kinds of things exist, without awaiting inferential reasoning.

3. Things that have functions, such as the eyes, ears, and so forth. Because each of these—the eyes, ears, and so forth—has its own function, its existence is thereby known. Unconditioned dharmas, however, are not things whose existence people in the world definitely know. Furthermore, unconditioned dharmas have no functions like those of the eyes and ears. Even if it were admitted that the unconditioned has a function, it would then have to be impermanent. Therefore, one cannot maintain that the unconditioned definitely exists.

– Rather, the unconditioned dharmas are natures that are known and disclosed through form and mind. Just as with form and mind, one cannot maintain that a nature of the unconditioned exists apart from form and mind.

Furthermore, are space as the unconditioned, cessation through discernment as the unconditioned, and cessation not through discernment as the unconditioned one in substance or many? If their substance is one and pervades everywhere, and because the substance of space accommodates all material dharmas, then the substance of space would become many according to the dharmas with which it conjoins. (If the substance of space were one,) its conjunction here would necessarily preclude its conjunction elsewhere. If this were not so, all dharmas would have to interpenetrate and pervade one another. If it is said that space does not conjoin with dharmas, then space would not have the capacity to accommodate them, just like the other unconditioned dharmas.

Furthermore, is space present within form? If it is, there would be confusion; if it is not, space would not be all-pervasive.

If cessation through discernment as the unconditioned is held to be one, then when the fetters belonging to one division or one grade of the outflows are severed (the delusions of view arising from confusion regarding the Four Noble Truths constitute four divisions and eighty-eight delusive tendencies, while the delusions of thought constitute one division and eighty-one grades), cessation through discernment would necessarily also be attained with respect to the fetters belonging to all other divisions and grades. When one dharma fails to arise because of a missing condition, cessation not through discernment would necessarily be attained with respect to all dharmas. Since they maintain that all unconditioned dharmas share a single substance, this must logically be so.

If it is maintained that the three unconditioned dharmas are many in substance and therefore comprise many classes and kinds, they would necessarily resemble material dharmas and would not truly be unconditioned dharmas. Moreover, space would then not be all-pervasive and all-accommodating.

– Other schools maintain that unconditioned dharmas truly exist apart from mind and mental factors. This is refuted according to the reasoning above.

Furthermore, since unconditioned dharmas are admitted to have neither causes nor effects, they are like a hare’s horns and cannot truly exist as something distinct from mind.

– Yet the sutras speak of unconditioned dharmas, such as space as the unconditioned and so forth. In brief, this has two meanings:

1. Their existence is provisionally established on the basis of transformations of consciousness. That is, having once heard such names as “space,” one accordingly discriminates the characteristics of space and so forth. Then, through the power of repeated habituation, when the mind arises, it appears as though the characteristic of space as the unconditioned manifests. Because that manifested characteristic continues without alteration from one moment to the next, it is provisionally described as permanent.

2. Their existence is provisionally established on the basis of the Dharma-nature. That is, there is the nature of true suchness, disclosed through emptiness and non-self.

It is neither existent nor nonexistent and is beyond the paths of mental conception and verbal expression. It is neither identical with nor different from all dharmas. Because it is the true principle of all dharmas, it is called the Dharma-nature or true suchness as the unconditioned.

Because it is ultimately realized through the power of discerning wisdom that completely eradicates all defilements, it is called cessation through discernment. Because it is not brought about through the power of discerning wisdom, but is originally pure by nature, or is disclosed due to the absence of conditions, it is called cessation not through discernment. Because the experience of suffering and pleasure has entirely ceased, it is called immovable cessation as the unconditioned.

Because feeling and perception no longer operate, it is called the cessation of feeling and perception as the unconditioned. The latter five unconditioned dharmas are all provisionally established in dependence upon true suchness as the unconditioned. True suchness itself is also a provisionally designated term.

To prevent nihilistic denial, it is said to exist; to prevent attachment to existence, it is called empty. Because it cannot be said to be illusory, it is called real. Because its principle is neither false nor inverted, it is called true suchness.

It is not the same as what other schools maintain to be a truly permanent dharma called true suchness existing apart from form and mind. Thus it should be known that the unconditioned dharmas do not possess definite real existence.

– The dharmas maintained by non-Buddhists and the teachings of other vehicles to exist apart from mind and mental factors do not possess real nature (thesis), because they are objects apprehended (reason), like mind and mental factors (example). The cognition of mind and mental factors that apprehends those dharmas likewise does not directly take those dharmas as its objects (thesis), because it is the apprehending subject (reason), like the cognition of mind and mental factors that takes as its object the image-component of mind and mental factors (example).

– Yet mind and mental factors are dependently arisen dharmas and, like illusions, do not truly exist. It is solely to eliminate the deluded attachment to the real existence of objects external to mind and mental factors that it is said, “There is consciousness only.” If one in turn maintains that “consciousness-only” truly exists, this, just like attachment to external objects, is itself attachment to dharmas. (13)

– In brief, “attachment to dharmas” is of two kinds:

The first is innate attachment to dharmas.

The second is conceptually discriminated attachment to dharmas.

– Innate attachment to dharmas arises from the beginningless inner causal power produced by deluded perfuming. It is invariably born together with the body and does not depend upon false teachings or erroneous discrimination; it arises and operates of itself and is therefore called innate. This innate attachment is again of two kinds. The first is continuously present: the seventh consciousness takes the perceiving aspect of the eighth consciousness as its object, causes its image to arise within the seventh consciousness itself, and then grasps it as a real dharma. The second is intermittent: the sixth consciousness takes as its objects the characteristics of the five skandhas, the twelve ayatanas, and the eighteen dhatus manifested by consciousness. These characteristics, whether general or particular, arise within the sixth consciousness itself, which then grasps them as real dharmas. These two kinds of attachment to dharmas are subtle and difficult to eliminate. Only later, through repeatedly cultivating to perfection the contemplation of the “emptiness of dharmas” throughout the Ten Grounds, can they be eliminated.

– Conceptually discriminated attachment to dharmas further depends upon the power of present external conditions. It is not born together with the body, but arises only after encountering false teachings and erroneous discrimination; it is therefore called conceptually discriminated. This conceptually discriminated attachment to dharmas exists only in the sixth consciousness. It is also of two kinds. The first takes as its objects the characteristics of the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus taught by false doctrines, causes those characteristics to arise within one’s own mind, and then discriminates and calculates, grasping them as real dharmas. The second takes as its objects the characteristics of such things as inherent nature and the primordial principle taught by false doctrines, causes those characteristics to arise within one’s own mind, and then discriminates and calculates, grasping them as real dharmas. These two kinds of attachment to dharmas are coarse and easy to eliminate. Upon entering the First Ground, through contemplating the nature of “true suchness as the emptiness of dharmas” in all dharmas, they can be eliminated.

– Regarding the attachments to dharmas described above: if their objects are dharmas external to mind, those dharmas may either exist or not exist; if their objects are dharmas within mind, those dharmas all exist. (Dharmas external to mind are the remote objects of cognition, and thus may exist or not exist when grasped as real; dharmas within mind are the image-components transformed by consciousness and are the immediate objects of cognition, and thus always exist when they are grasped.)

Therefore, it should be known that all attachment to dharmas takes as its object an appearance resembling a dharma manifested within one’s own mind and grasps it as truly existent. Yet that appearance resembling a dharma arises from conditions and exists only in the manner of an illusion. The dharma grasped as real, being merely delusively imagined and constructed, definitely does not exist. Therefore, the Blessed One said: “Maitreya, you should know that the dharmas serving as objects of consciousness are manifested by consciousness alone. They are dependently arisen, like illusory phenomena.”

Thus, non-Buddhist schools and the teachings of the various vehicles maintain that self and dharmas exist apart from consciousness; yet such a self and such dharmas are not truly existent. Therefore, mind and mental factors certainly do not take external material dharmas as their objective conditions. The function of a condition must depend upon a dharma possessing real substance, whereas self and dharmas possess no real substance and therefore cannot be conditions of mind.

Even this present group of minds and mental factors is not the immediate objective condition of that other group of minds and mental factors (thesis), just as it is not their object (example), because it is included within a different group of minds (reason). Mental factors belonging to the same assemblage are likewise not one another’s immediate objects (thesis), because their essential natures differ (reason), just as with other things that are not apprehended as objects (example).

From this it should be known that external objects truly do not exist; there is only internal consciousness arising in a form resembling external objects. Therefore, a sutra contains this verse: “External objects, as foolish people discriminate them, are all truly nonexistent. It is only because habitual tendencies disturb and defile the mind that appearances resembling external objects arise.”

Question: Someone objects: If no real self or real dharmas exist apart from consciousness, then conventionally designated selves and dharmas cannot exist either. For a conventional designation must be established in dependence upon an actual thing, a resemblance, and a common attribute. For example, there is actual fire (the actual thing), a person who is hot like fire (the resemblance), and the shared attribute of blazing redness; only then can one conventionally say that this person is like fire.

It should be understood that conventionally calling a person an ox and so forth is likewise. If self and dharmas do not truly exist, upon what basis can they be conventionally designated? If no conventional designation is possible, neither can resemblance be established.

How, then, can it be said that mind transforms and produces objects resembling external objects?

The author of the treatise replies: This objection is unreasonable. The claim that self and dharmas exist apart from consciousness has already been refuted. Moreover, whether one conventionally designates fire on the basis of a class or on the basis of an actual entity, the designation cannot be established.

– If it is conventionally designated on the basis of a “class,” this is logically untenable, because blazing redness together with the power to burn is not a common class possessed by both fire and a person. If, without any common attribute shared by both, one could nevertheless conventionally call that person fire, then one could also conventionally call water fire. If it is said that blazing redness, though not itself the power to burn, is inseparable from it and therefore permits the conventional designation, that too is incorrect, because it is plainly seen that the person and fire’s attribute of blazing redness are separate. The class of blazing-red things does not possess fire’s attribute of burning; moreover, the class and the attribute are far removed from one another. Yet people still call a person fire. Therefore, it should be known that conventional designation is not established in dependence upon a class.

– If it is conventionally designated on the basis of an “actual entity,” this too is logically untenable, because the attributes of blazing redness and burning are not shared by fire and a person. That is, the blazing redness found in fire differs from that found in a person because their bases differ. If, despite not being shared, it can be conventionally designated, the same fault as before follows. If it is said that a person resembles fire’s attribute of blazing redness and therefore may be conventionally designated as fire, this too is unreasonable, because “fire” is predicated of the person, not of the attribute. Thus it should be known that conventional designation is not established in dependence upon an actual entity.

Furthermore, if it is said that a conventional designation must be established in dependence upon an actual thing, that too is unreasonable. An actual thing is precisely its particular characteristic, which is neither an object cognized by conventional cognition nor something expressed by conventional designation—words, phrases, and syllables—because conventional cognition and conventional designation cannot directly realize a particular characteristic.

Conventional cognition and conventional designation cognize only the common characteristics of dharmas. Nor, apart from these common characteristics, is there any other means by which a particular characteristic can be posited as the basis of conventional designation. Conventional cognition and conventional designation must arise in dependence upon sounds; where sounds cannot reach, conventional cognition and conventional designation cannot arise.

Thus, neither that which expresses nor its object is a particular characteristic. Therefore, it should be known that conventional designation does not depend upon an actual thing.

It should therefore be known that conventional designation is established solely in dependence upon resemblance. “Resemblance” means a superimposed common characteristic, not a truly existent characteristic. Verbal sounds arise in dependence upon that superimposed appearance of resemblance. Hence it cannot be said that conventional designation must depend upon an actual thing in order to exist. Therefore, that person’s objection is unreasonable.

– Nevertheless, in dependence upon the transformations of consciousness, what resemble a self and dharmas are conventionally designated in order to counteract those who mistakenly cling to a real self and real dharmas. As a sutra says in verse: “In order to counteract foolish ordinary beings who cling to a real self and real dharmas, the terms ‘self’ and ‘dharmas’ are conventionally designated upon the appearances manifested through the transformations of consciousness.” (14)

– Although the appearances manifested through the transformations of consciousness are of many kinds, the consciousnesses capable of transformation are classified into three:

First is the consciousness of maturation, namely the eighth consciousness, which possesses the many characteristics of maturation.

Second is the deliberative consciousness, namely the seventh consciousness, which constantly examines and deliberates.

Third is the consciousness that discriminates objects, namely the first six consciousnesses, which discriminate the coarse appearances of objects. In the opening verse, the word “and” indicates that the first six consciousnesses are grouped together as one class: the consciousness that discriminates objects.

These three are all called consciousnesses capable of transformation. Transformation is of two kinds:

– First is causal transformation, namely the two kinds of causal habitual tendencies—those of homogeneous continuity and those of maturation (that is, the perfuming by names and concepts, the perfuming by existence, or the habitual tendencies of karma discussed below)—within the eighth consciousness. The habitual tendencies of homogeneous continuity arise when the seeds of the three natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral—in the first seven evolving consciousnesses perfume the wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral seeds within the eighth consciousness, causing them to grow. The habitual tendencies of maturation arise when the two natures—wholesome and unwholesome, both contaminated—within the first six consciousnesses perfume the contaminated wholesome and unwholesome seeds within the eighth consciousness, causing them to grow.

– Second is resultant transformation. Through the power of the two kinds of habitual tendencies described above, the self-cognizing aspects of the eight consciousnesses arise and, from those self-cognizing aspects, manifest their various aspects—the objective aspect and the subjective aspect. Because the habitual tendencies of homogeneous continuity serve as causes and conditions, the distinct substances and appearances of mental consciousness arise. These are called fruits of homogeneous continuity because the fruits resemble their causes. The habitual tendencies of maturation serve as dominant conditions that induce the arising of the eighth consciousness in an uninterrupted continuum, requiting the power of projecting karma; this is called true maturation. They also induce the arising of the first six consciousnesses, requiting completing karma. Because these arise from true maturation, they are called products of maturation, but not true maturation, for they are interrupted. True maturation and the products of maturation are collectively called fruits of maturation because the fruits differ from their causes. However, the verse here speaks only of the foundational eighth consciousness, which is grasped as a self by the seventh consciousness, retains the seeds of defilement, and is also capable of transforming into the resultant consciousness of maturation; hence it is called “maturation.” It does not refer to every maturation occurring in the first six consciousnesses. (15)

VII. THE FIRST TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS

– Although the three names of the transforming consciousnesses have been stated briefly, their three characteristics have not yet been explained in detail. What, then, are the characteristics of the first transforming consciousness?

The verse replies:

First, the alaya-consciousness,

Maturation, containing all seeds.

Unknowable are its appropriation,

Its place, and its discernment. It is associated with contact,

Attention, feeling, perception, and volition,

And only with neutral feeling.

Its nature is unobscured and neutral;

Contact and the others are likewise.

It constantly flows like a torrent;

At arhatship, it is entirely relinquished.

The Treatise states: The first transforming consciousness is called ālaya in the teachings of both the Mahayana and the Hinayana. This consciousness possesses all three meanings: that which stores, that which is stored, and that which is appropriated as a store. This is because it and the defiled dharmas serve mutually as conditions for one another, and because sentient beings delight in appropriating it as an inner self.

The name ālaya precisely indicates the intrinsic characteristic possessed by the first transforming consciousness, for it encompasses and retains both cause and effect as its intrinsic characteristic. Although this eighth consciousness has many stages and positions, and therefore many meanings, the meaning of store consciousness is relinquished first, and because its fault is especially grave, the name ālaya is preferentially stated before the names vipāka and all-seed.

This eighth consciousness is the vipāka result within the various realms, destinies, and modes of birth, brought about by wholesome and unwholesome karma; it is called the true vipāka. Apart from this eighth consciousness, there could be no distinct and excellent vipāka result—such as the life faculty, commonality of species, and the skandhas accompanying birth and death—that continues uninterruptedly at all times. This name vipāka precisely indicates the “result-characteristic” possessed by the first transforming consciousness. Although the result-characteristic of this eighth consciousness has many stages and many kinds, because the meaning of vipāka has a special nature not shared with the first seven consciousnesses, it is preferentially called the vipāka consciousness.

Furthermore, because the eighth consciousness is capable of appropriating, receiving, maintaining, and preserving the seeds of all dharmas without allowing them to be lost, it is also called the all-seed consciousness. Apart from this consciousness, no other material or mental dharma possesses the capacity to appropriate, receive, maintain, and preserve universally the seeds of all dharmas. This name all-seed precisely indicates the “cause-characteristic” possessed by the first transforming consciousness. Although the cause-characteristic of this consciousness is of many kinds, because its nature of maintaining seeds is special and not shared with the first seven consciousnesses, it is preferentially called the all-seed consciousness.

Although the essential characteristics of the first transforming consciousness are many, in summary they consist solely of these three characteristics. (16)

VIII. DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ALL-SEED

– The characteristic of the all-seed should now be further distinguished and clarified.

What dharma is called a “seed” here? It is a distinct potency within the fundamental consciousness that directly produces its own result. This potency is neither identical with nor different from the fundamental consciousness and the result it produces. As regards essence and function, cause and effect, this accords with principle. Although it is neither identical nor different, a seed truly exists; if it were a merely provisional dharma, then, like a nonexistent dharma, it could not be a causal condition for other dharmas.

Question: Since this seed is neither identical with nor different from the dharmas, it must, like a jar, be provisional rather than real, for a jar is made from clay, yet the clay and the jar are neither identical nor different.

Answer: If this were so, suchness is likewise neither identical with nor different from the dharmas, and thus suchness would also have to be provisional. If suchness were admitted to be provisional, there would be no true ultimate truth! Nevertheless, seeds are said to truly exist only according to conventional principle; they are not the same as suchness, which exists according to ultimate truth.

Although seeds depend upon the substance of the eighth consciousness, they are the objective aspect of this consciousness, not its perceiving aspect or self-cognizing aspect. The self-cognizing aspect and the perceiving aspect constantly take seeds as their objects of cognition.

Because the substance of contaminated seeds is not different from that of the vipāka consciousness, they are included within the morally indeterminate nature. Yet because their causes and results may possess wholesome, unwholesome, or morally indeterminate natures, contaminated seeds are also designated as wholesome, unwholesome, or morally indeterminate. Uncontaminated seeds, however, are not included within the same nature as the vipāka consciousness. Because both the causes and results of the uncontaminated belong to the wholesome nature, uncontaminated seeds are designated solely as wholesome.

Question: If so, why does the second Viniścaya section of the Yogācārabhūmi Treatise state that all twenty-two faculties possess vipāka seeds and are born of vipāka? For among the twenty-two faculties, three are uncontaminated faculties.

Answer: Although the three uncontaminated faculties are described as vipāka, they are not morally indeterminate. Because they depend upon vipāka, they are called vipāka seeds. Uncontaminated seeds are wholesome, while vipāka is morally indeterminate. Although their natures differ, they must depend upon one another, just as consciousness possessing all three moral natures arises in dependence upon the morally indeterminate. Alternatively, uncontaminated seeds are transformed and brought to maturity through the power of perfuming, and are therefore called vipāka; nevertheless, they are not that kind of vipāka included within the morally indeterminate nature.

Innate seeds and newly produced seeds.

– One school here maintains: “All defiled and pure seeds exist innately by their very nature and are not newly produced through perfuming. The power of perfuming can only cause them to increase and grow.” As a sutra states: “From beginningless time, all sentient beings have possessed the seed-dhatu, like a cluster of akṣa fruits; naturally and necessarily, it has always existed.” Here, dhatu is another name for seeds.

Another sutra states: “From beginningless time, the dhatu has served as the support for all dharmas.” Here, dhatu means cause.

The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise also states: “Although the substance and nature of all seeds have existed innately from beginningless time, they are manifested through new perfuming by defiled and pure dharmas.” “Among sentient beings from beginningless time, those who innately possess the dharma conducive to parinirvana are fully endowed with all contaminated and uncontaminated seeds. Those who do not innately possess the dharma conducive to parinirvana lack the three kinds of seeds of bodhi: those of śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and unsurpassed bodhi.”

Passages such as these provide abundant evidence, by no means scant.

Furthermore, since it has been taught that sentient beings innately possess five distinct spiritual lineages, it should be known with certainty that there are naturally existing innate seeds, not seeds produced through perfuming.

The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise also states: “Sentient beings in the hells possess the three uncontaminated faculties; these are uncontaminated seeds, not presently active uncontaminated dharmas.”

Moreover, transmitted successively from beginningless time, their naturally existing seed-nature is innate and constantly abiding.

These passages sufficiently demonstrate that uncontaminated seeds exist naturally and innately and are not produced through perfuming. The same is true of contaminated dharmas: their seeds exist naturally and innately, and perfuming merely causes them to increase and grow; it does not perfume into existence any separate new seeds.

Only in this way can cause and effect be established without confusion.

– Another school maintains that all seeds are “produced through perfuming.” It is only because both that which is perfumed and that which perfumes have existed from beginningless time that seeds are also said to have been present from beginningless time. Since seed is another name for habitual impression, and habitual impressions must certainly arise through perfuming, it is like the fragrance in sesame seeds, which arises because they have been perfumed by flowers. As a sutra states: “Only after the minds of sentient beings have been perfumed by defiled and pure dharmas is there an accumulation of immeasurable seeds.”

The Treatise states: “Seeds within the mind are necessarily perfumed, whereas seeds external to the mind may or may not be perfumed.”

Furthermore, the three kinds of perfumed seeds—verbal convention, karma, and attachment to self—collectively encompass all seeds of contaminated dharmas. Since these three arise through perfuming, contaminated seeds must certainly be newly produced by perfuming.

Uncontaminated seeds likewise arise through perfuming. What is called the “perfuming by hearing” is brought about through hearing the true Dharma that flows forth equally from the pure dharmadhatu; through perfuming, this gives rise to uncontaminated seeds, which constitute the seed-nature of the uncontaminated supramundane mind.

– The differences among the innate dispositions of sentient beings from beginningless time are not established on the basis of whether undefiled seeds are present or absent, but solely on the basis of whether obstructions are present or absent. As the Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra says: “With regard to the realm of true suchness, if one fully possesses the seeds of the two obstructions—the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction—one is established as having the disposition of one without the Dharma of parinirvana. If one fully possesses only the seeds of the cognitive obstruction, some are established as having the disposition of a śrāvaka, and some as having the disposition of a pratyekabuddha. If one is entirely without the seeds of the two obstructions, one is established as having the disposition of a Tathagata.” Therefore, we know that the differences among innate dispositions from beginningless time are established according to the presence or absence of obstructions, rather than according to the presence of innate undefiled seeds.

The statement, “Those in hell possess undefiled seeds,” is made with reference to the sense that such seeds may arise in the future, not in the sense that the substantial entities of those seeds already exist.

– One theory holds that both defiled and undefiled seeds are of two kinds:

1. Innate seeds are the distinct potentialities, naturally present from beginningless time in the consciousness of maturation, for the four modes of birth, the five skandhas, the twelve ayatanas, and the eighteen dhatus. On this basis, the Blessed One taught that, from beginningless time, the various kinds of sentient beings have possessed manifold elements, clustered like a bunch of akṣa fruits, naturally existing as such. Other scriptural evidence has been explained extensively above. These are called seeds innately present by nature.

2. Newly produced seeds are those that have come into being from beginningless time through repeated activity and perfuming. On this basis, the Blessed One taught that the minds of sentient beings are perfumed by defiled and pure dharmas and become repositories in which immeasurable seeds are accumulated. The treatises also state that defiled and pure seeds arise through perfuming by defiled and pure dharmas. These are precisely what are called seeds produced through perfuming.

If there were only innate seeds, the active consciousnesses and the ālaya-consciousness could not mutually serve as causes and conditions for one another. As a sutra says: “Dharmas stand in relation to the storehouse consciousness, and the storehouse consciousness likewise stands in relation to dharmas: they mutually function as fruits and also perpetually function as causes for one another.”

This verse means that the ālaya-consciousness and the active consciousnesses at all times successively produce one another and mutually serve as causes and fruits.

The Mahāyānasaṃgraha Śāstra says: “The ālaya-consciousness and the various defiled dharmas mutually serve as causes and conditions for one another, just as a lampwick and its flame successively give rise to burning, and just as two bundles of reeds stand by leaning against each other. Causes and conditions are established only on the basis of these two—the seeds and their manifest activities. All other so-called causes and conditions are not true causes and conditions.”

If seeds were not produced through perfuming, how could the active consciousnesses and the ālaya-consciousness have the meaning of serving as causes and conditions for one another? One cannot say that causing seeds to increase through perfuming is what is meant by cause and condition, for causing increase is called only a dominant condition. Nor can one claim that wholesome and unwholesome karma serves as the cause and condition for the fruit of maturation, for it serves only as a dominant condition.

Furthermore, the sacred teachings state that there are seeds newly produced through perfuming, which contradicts the doctrine that seeds are exclusively innate. Therefore, to say that there are only innate seeds contradicts both reasoning and the teachings concerning newly produced seeds.

If there were only newly produced seeds, neither defiled nor undefiled dharmas could arise, because they would lack preexisting causes and conditions. Defiled dharmas cannot serve as seeds for undefiled dharmas, just as undefiled seeds cannot produce defiled dharmas. If one allowed undefiled seeds to produce defiled dharmas, then Buddhas would again produce defiled dharmas, and wholesome dharmas could serve as seeds for unwholesome dharmas.

Although the Vibhajyavādins cite a sutra that says, “The nature of mind is originally pure. Because it is defiled by adventitious afflictions, it is said to be defiled. When separated from the afflictions, it becomes undefiled; therefore, undefiled dharmas do not arise without a cause,” what is meant here by “the nature of mind”?

– If it is said that this nature of mind refers merely to the principle of emptiness, then the principle of emptiness is not the cause of mind. Moreover, the principle of emptiness is an unconditioned, permanent dharma and certainly cannot be the seed of conditioned dharmas, because the essence of the principle of emptiness does not change between earlier and later moments. If it is said that the nature of mind here is mind itself, originally pure, then this is identical to the doctrine maintained by the Sāṃkhyas: although its characteristics undergo transformation, its essence remains eternally one. It would also follow that unwholesome and morally indeterminate minds are both wholesome. If this were accepted, then logically unwholesome and morally indeterminate minds should also be associated with wholesome mental factors such as faith. If this is not accepted, then unwholesome and morally indeterminate minds still cannot be the essence of wholesome mind. Such minds cannot even be called wholesome, much less undefiled. Furthermore, although a defiled wholesome mind is not the same as an unwholesome or morally indeterminate mind, since it is said to be defiled, it is, like an unwholesome mind, not undefiled in nature. Therefore, a defiled wholesome mind cannot serve as the direct cause of what is undefiled. One must not claim that wholesome and unwholesome dharmas can serve as causes for one another.

Furthermore, if a defiled mind were undefiled in nature—this being what is meant by saying that the nature of mind is originally pure—then an undefiled mind could likewise be defiled in nature. In that case, no distinction between the causes and conditions of the defiled and the undefiled could be established.

Furthermore, if the minds of ordinary beings were undefiled, then while they remained in the state of ordinary beings, undefiled dharmas would be manifestly active, and they should therefore be called noble ones.

If it is said that although the nature of an ordinary being’s mind is undefiled, its characteristics are tainted, and so it is not called an actively manifest undefiled mind, this particular error—that of calling ordinary beings noble ones—would be avoided. Yet if its manifest activity is not undefiled, then the seeds of that mind are likewise not undefiled. Why, then, do you say that there are ordinary beings who possess only undefiled seeds? For seeds and their manifest activities are of the same nature.

However, when a sutra says, “The nature of mind is originally pure,” it refers to true suchness revealed through the principle that mind is empty. True suchness is the true nature of mind. Alternatively, it means that the essence of mind is not itself the afflictions and is therefore said to be originally pure; it does not mean that the nature of defiled mind is undefiled and is therefore called originally pure.

Consequently, one should believe that sentient beings have possessed undefiled seeds from beginningless time, naturally and fully established as such, rather than produced through perfuming. Later, at stages of advanced cultivation, perfuming causes these seeds to increase. Taking them as causes, undefiled dharmas arise and in turn perfume the consciousness, becoming seeds. The seeds of defiled dharmas should be understood in the same way.

Although the sacred teachings state that the seeds within the mind necessarily depend upon perfuming, they do not definitively state that all seeds are newly produced through perfuming. How, then, can the existence of innate seeds be entirely denied? Innate seeds, moreover, must be strengthened by perfuming before they can bear fruit. Therefore, it is said that the seeds within the mind necessarily require perfuming.

The perfuming of hearing does not perfume only defiled seeds. When one hears the true Dharma, it also perfumes the innate undefiled seeds, causing them gradually to increase until, through successive development, the supramundane undefiled mind arises. Therefore, this too is called the perfuming of hearing.

Within the perfuming of hearing, those factors that are defiled and wholesome in nature are eliminated through cultivation. They consequently bring about a superior undefiled maturation and serve as a superior dominant condition for supramundane dharmas. Those factors that are undefiled in nature and are not eliminated through cultivation serve as the direct condition for supramundane dharmas.

Because this direct cause and condition is hidden and difficult to discern, the sacred teachings sometimes provisionally state, on the basis of the coarse and evident dominant condition, that the defiled wholesome mind is the seed of the supramundane undefiled mind of the Path of Seeing.

– The differentiation of natures established on the basis of the two obstructions is intended to reveal whether undefiled seeds are present or absent. That is, if someone is entirely without undefiled seeds, the seeds of those two obstructions can never be eliminated; that person is therefore established as belonging to the class incapable of nirvana. If someone possesses only the undefiled seeds of the Two Vehicles, the seeds of the obstruction to knowledge can never be eliminated; one part of this class is therefore established as having the nature of a sravaka, and another part as having the nature of a pratyekabuddha. If someone possesses the undefiled seeds of a Buddha, the seeds of both obstructions can be eliminated forever; that person is therefore established as having the nature of a Tathagata. Thus it should be understood that whether the two obstructions can or cannot be severed depends upon whether undefiled seeds are present or absent.

However, because undefiled seeds are hidden and difficult to know, the differentiation of natures is revealed in terms of whether the two obstructions can or cannot be severed. If there were no such undefiled seeds, what other cause would make it possible or impossible for those two obstructions to be eliminated? If it is said that, by their inherent nature, the two obstructions have always been either capable or incapable of elimination, why not also accept that the seeds of undefiled dharmas have likewise always existed inherently?

If the seeds of undefiled dharmas had always been entirely absent, the Noble Paths could never arise. By what could the seeds of the two obstructions then be eliminated, so that it could be said that differentiated natures are established on the basis of the two obstructions? Since those Noble Paths could not arise in the present, it would likewise be decidedly unreasonable to say that the three undefiled faculties could arise in the future.

Moreover, the sacred teachings everywhere affirm the existence of originally inherent seeds. To say now that they do not exist would contradict their meaning. Therefore, it should be understood that the assertion that there are only newly produced seeds contradicts both reason and scripture.

Consequently, it should be understood that the seeds of all dharmas are of two kinds: those originally inherent and those newly produced.

In summary, seeds possess six characteristics:

1. Momentary cessation – Their substance perishes immediately after arising, yet possesses a distinctive power; only then can they constitute seeds. This characteristic excludes permanent dharmas, for since what is permanent does not change, it cannot be said to possess the function of producing anything.

2. Coexistence with the fruit – A seed must coexist and harmoniously concur at the same moment with the presently manifest dharma that is its fruit and that it produces; only then can it constitute a seed. This characteristic excludes things that occur before or after one another or are separated from one another.

Although a manifest activity and its seed are of different kinds, they do not conflict with each other; only when they are simultaneously present within a single continuum can there be the function of production. This differs from seeds of the same kind producing one another in succession, for things that stand in a prior-and-subsequent relation are mutually exclusive and cannot coexist. Although a causal seed and its fruit sometimes coexist and sometimes do not, this refers only to a present cause and fruit existing simultaneously and thus being able to exercise a causal function, for only then is it called a seed.

What has not yet arisen in the future and what has already ceased in the past have no intrinsic substance and therefore cannot act as causes.

Thus, the name “seed” is established on the basis of its capacity to produce a presently manifest fruit, not on the basis of its giving rise to a subsequent seed of its own kind. Therefore, only that which coexists with its fruit at the same moment can constitute a seed.

3. Continuous concomitant transformation – A seed must continue uninterruptedly as the same kind until the ultimate stage is attained; only then can it constitute a seed. This characteristic excludes the evolving consciousnesses, which continually change and are interrupted, and thus do not accord with the nature of seeds. This reveals how seeds of the same kind produce one another.

4. Determinate nature – In accordance with the power of a wholesome or unwholesome cause, a seed must have the capacity to produce, in a determinate and unmixed manner, a wholesome or unwholesome fruit respectively; only then can it constitute a seed. This characteristic excludes the assertion of other schools that a cause of one nature produces a fruit of a different nature and that this constitutes the meaning of a direct cause.

5. Awaiting supporting conditions – A seed must await the convergence of supporting conditions of the same kind before it can exercise its distinctive power; only then can it constitute a seed. This characteristic excludes the assertion of non-Buddhist schools that a spontaneous and eternal cause produces fruits suddenly without awaiting supporting conditions. It may also exclude the assertion of other schools that conditions are eternally present, revealing instead that the awaited conditions are not eternally present; therefore, seeds do not perpetually and suddenly produce fruits all at once.

6. Producing its own fruit – Each seed must produce its own distinct manifest fruit of matter or mind; only then can it constitute a seed. This characteristic excludes the assertion of non-Buddhist schools that a single cause produces all fruits; it also excludes the assertion of other schools that matter and mind serve as direct causes for one another.

In summary, only the differentiated capacities within the root consciousness fully possess these six characteristics and can therefore constitute seeds; nothing else can do so.

External rice, glutinous rice, and so forth, being manifested through the transformation of consciousness, are provisionally designated as seeds, but they are not real seeds.

A seed possessing the power to directly produce its nearest proper fruit is called a producing cause, while one that indirectly leads to a distant residual fruit and prevents the continuity from being severed is called a sustaining cause.

Seeds within the root consciousness necessarily arise and develop through perfuming and personally produce their fruits; these are direct causes. External seeds may or may not have undergone perfuming, but they are only predominant conditions. As for the fruits that are produced, the seeds within the mind must serve as their direct causes, while rice and glutinous rice are fruits produced by the seeds of shared perception.

– On the basis of what meaning is the term “perfuming” established?

– Both that which is perfumed and that which perfumes fully possess four characteristics. Because they cause the seeds within the root consciousness to arise and develop, this is called perfuming.

What are the four characteristics of that which is perfumed?

1. A stable and enduring nature – A dharma must continue firmly and uninterruptedly as the same kind from one moment to the next and be capable of preserving habitual tendencies; only then can it be that which is perfumed. This characteristic excludes the evolving consciousnesses, sounds, and wind, which lack a stable and enduring nature and therefore cannot be that which is perfumed.

2. A morally indeterminate nature – A dharma must possess an impartial nature that accommodates all habitual tendencies without opposing them; only then can it be that which is perfumed. This characteristic excludes wholesome and defiled natures, which possess powerful force and do not accommodate what is contrary to them; therefore, they cannot be that which is perfumed. Consequently, the Tathagata’s eighth, purified consciousness carries only previously existing undefiled seeds and is not perfumed with new seeds.

3. A nature capable of being perfumed – A dharma must possess an autonomous nature that is neither rigid nor impervious and must be capable of receiving habitual tendencies; only then can it be that which is perfumed. This characteristic excludes mental factors and unconditioned dharmas, which are either dependent upon something else or rigid and impervious; therefore, they cannot be that which is perfumed.

4. Concurrence and harmony with that which perfumes – A dharma must be simultaneous and in the same locus as that which perfumes, being neither identical with nor separate from it; only then can it be that which is perfumed. This characteristic excludes other persons’ bodies and prior or subsequent moments, which do not concur harmoniously; therefore, they cannot be that which is perfumed.

Consequently, only the resultant consciousness fully possesses these four characteristics and can therefore be that which is perfumed; mental factors and the like cannot.

What are the four characteristics of that which perfumes?

1. Arising and ceasing – A dharma must be impermanent and subject to transformation, possessing the function of producing and developing habitual tendencies; only then can it be that which perfumes. This characteristic excludes unconditioned dharmas, which remain unchanged from one moment to the next and lack the function of producing and developing anything; therefore, they cannot be that which perfumes.

2. A powerful function – A dharma must arise and cease while possessing strong and flourishing power, and must be capable of inducing habitual tendencies; only then can it be that which perfumes. This characteristic excludes the weak resultant mind and mental factors; therefore, they cannot be that which perfumes.

3. Capable of increase and decrease — A dharma that possesses a powerful and distinctive function, is capable of increasing and decreasing, and can accumulate habitual tendencies is a perfuming dharma. This criterion excludes the fruition of Buddhahood, wherein wholesome dharmas are perfect and complete, neither increasing nor decreasing, and therefore are not capable of perfuming. If those wholesome dharmas were capable of perfuming, they would not yet be perfect and complete; consequently, the fruition of Buddhahood would differ in excellence at different times.

4. Transforming in harmony with that which is perfumed — A dharma that exists simultaneously and in the same place as that which is perfumed, being neither identical with nor separate from it, is a perfuming dharma. This criterion excludes other bodies and preceding and succeeding moments, which are not in harmony and therefore are not capable of perfuming.

Therefore, only the seven transforming consciousnesses and their associated mental factors possess powerful and distinctive functions, are capable of increasing and decreasing, and fully satisfy these four criteria; thus, they alone can be perfuming dharmas.

In this way, the perfuming consciousnesses—the first seven consciousnesses—and the perfumed consciousness—the storehouse consciousness—arise and cease together, thereby establishing the meaning of perfuming. They cause the seeds within the perfumed consciousness to grow, just as flowers impart their fragrance to sesame seeds; hence this is called perfuming.

As soon as a presently active perfuming consciousness arises from a seed, it can in turn act as a cause that perfumes and produces a seed. The three dharmas—the perfumer, the perfumed, and the seed—simultaneously and successively serve as causes and effects for one another, like a lampwick producing a flame while the flame burns the lampwick. They are also like a bundle of reeds, simultaneously supporting one another as cause and effect; simultaneity is thus a certainty.

A present activity capable of perfuming produces a seed, and the seed gives rise to present activity; this resembles a conascent cause obtaining the result of personal agency. As for seeds in preceding and succeeding moments, those of the same kind generate one another, like a homogeneous cause producing a uniformly flowing result. Only these two kinds of cause are causal conditions in relation to their effects.

All other dharmas are not causal conditions; wherever they are nevertheless called causal conditions, this should be understood as a provisional designation.

This is a brief explanation of the characteristics of all seeds. (17)

What are the mode of activity and objects of this alaya-consciousness?

— Its appropriation, location, and discernment are unknowable.

“Discernment” means discriminative awareness, which is the mode of activity of consciousness. Consciousness takes discriminative awareness as its mode of activity.

“Location” means the place, namely the container world upon which sentient beings depend.

There are two kinds of appropriation: the contaminated seeds and the physical body endowed with faculties.

The seeds are the habitual tendencies of discrimination concerning characteristics and names.

The body endowed with faculties consists of the material faculties, such as the eyes and ears—the subtle, purified matter of the faculties—and that upon which these faculties depend, namely the gross physical body. Both the seeds and the body with its faculties are appropriated by consciousness, which gathers and maintains them as its own substance and shares their security and peril.

The appropriation and the location are both objects of this alaya-consciousness.

Through the power of causes and conditions, when the substance of the alaya-consciousness arises, it internally transforms into seeds and the body endowed with faculties, and externally transforms into the container world. It then takes the characteristics produced by its own transformation as its objects, in dependence upon which the subjective mode of apprehension arises.

In this passage, “discernment” means that the maturation consciousness exercises discriminative awareness regarding its own objects, and this function of discernment belongs to the seeing part.

When the substance of a contaminated consciousness arises, it manifests both a semblance of the apprehended object and a semblance of the apprehending subject. It should be understood that the mental factors associated with it are likewise when they arise. The semblance of the apprehended object is called the image part; the semblance of the apprehending subject is called the seeing part.

If minds and mental factors had no images of their objects, they could not apprehend their respective objects; alternatively, every mind could apprehend every object, since its own object would be just like the objects of other minds, and the objects of other minds would be just like its own. If the eye could still see without an image of form, then could it not also see without an image of sound? Likewise, if the ear could still hear without an image of sound, then could it not also see without an image of form?

If minds and mental factors had no aspect of an apprehending subject, they would be incapable of apprehension, like empty space; or else empty space would also possess the capacity to apprehend. Therefore, it should be understood that minds and mental factors must possess both parts, as the sutra says:

All is merely cognition—Consciousness-Only.

The objects cognized are entirely nonexistent—there are no external objects.

The cognizing and cognized parts—the seeing and image parts—

Both naturally manifest in transformation—both arise from seeds.

— Those who maintain that real objects exist apart from consciousness call external objects the “objects,” the image part the “mode of activity,” and the seeing part the “entity,” because it is the essential characteristic of minds and mental factors. Minds and mental factors have the same supporting faculty and object, and their modes of activity are similar. Although the respective entities of the primary mind and its mental factors are alike and equal, their characteristics differ, because the characteristic of the consciousness that is the primary mind differs from the characteristics of the mental factors of feeling and perception.

— Those who realize the principle that no object exists apart from consciousness call the image part the “object,” the seeing part the “mode of activity,” and the underlying part upon which both image and seeing depend the “entity,” namely the self-cognizing part. If this self-cognizing part did not exist, one could not recollect or know the dharmas of one’s own minds and mental factors, just as one cannot recollect or know an object never previously experienced.

Minds and mental factors depend upon the same faculty, while their objects are only similar to one another, because their modes of activity differ and their functions of discernment and reception differ. Although the entity—the self-cognizing part—of every mind and mental factor is equal and similar, its characteristics differ, because the essence of the consciousness that is the primary mind is discernment, whereas the essence of the mental factor of feeling is reception.

Nevertheless, when each mind and mental factor arises, logical analysis shows that each has three parts: the measured object, the measuring subject, and the result of measurement, because the seeing and image parts must have a real substance upon which to depend. As the verse in the Compendium on Valid Cognition says:

The semblance of an object is the measured object;

The aspect that apprehends and self-cognition

Are respectively the measuring subject and its result;

These three are not different in substance.

— Furthermore, when minds and mental factors are analyzed in detail, they should be understood to possess four parts. To the three parts described above is added a fourth, the cognition that cognizes self-cognition. If this fourth part did not exist, what would verify the third part? Because the self-cognizing part and the cognition that cognizes self-cognition are both mind, each can verify the other.

Moreover, the self-cognizing part would otherwise have no result, whereas every measuring subject must have a result. The seeing part should not be regarded as the result of the third part, because the seeing part is sometimes included under invalid cognition. Therefore, the seeing part cannot verify the third, self-cognizing part, since that which verifies the substance of the third part must be direct perception, not invalid cognition.

Of the four parts of consciousness described above, the first two are external and the latter two are internal. The first, the image part, is only an object of cognition; the latter three—the seeing part, self-cognizing part, and cognition that cognizes self-cognition—function both as objects and as apprehending subjects. That is, the second part apprehends only the first, image part, and its cognition may be valid or invalid, direct perception or inference.

The third, self-cognizing part can apprehend the second, seeing part, and the fourth, the cognition that cognizes self-cognition. The cognition that cognizes self-cognition apprehends only the third, self-cognizing part, and does not apprehend the second, seeing part, because doing so would serve no purpose. Both the third and fourth parts belong to direct perception.

Therefore, it should be understood that minds and mental factors are fully constituted by four parts, encompassing both the object and the apprehending subject without incurring the fault of infinite regress. They are neither identical nor separate, and thus the principle of Consciousness-Only is established. Therefore, the verse in the sutra says:

The minds of sentient beings have two natures,

All inner and outer parts,

Bound by the grasper and the grasped,

Are seen in many different forms.

The meaning of this verse is as follows: The nature of the minds of sentient beings is constituted by the union of the two parts, the seeing part and the appearance part. Whether inwardly or outwardly, the grasped and the grasper bind each other; therefore, all manner of distinctions are perceived—whether valid cognition or invalid cognition, direct perception or inference, with their many divisions. Here, “seeing” refers to the seeing part.

These four parts may be grouped into three, because the fourth part is included in the third, the self-cognizing part. Or they may be grouped into two, because the latter three parts, being that which apprehends an object, are all included in the seeing part. Here, “seeing” means that which apprehends an object. Or they may be grouped into one, because they share a single substance. As a verse in the Lankavatara Sutra says:

Because of attachment within one’s own mind,

The mind turns and appears as external objects;

What is seen there does not exist,

Therefore, it is said that all is Mind-Only.

Thus, when various passages speak of mind alone, this “one mind” also includes mental factors. Therefore, it should be known that the mode of activity of consciousness is precisely discernment, and this discernment is precisely the seeing part of consciousness.

The term “place” means that, through the power of the matured seeds of shared characteristics—common to many sentient beings—the store of karmic maturation manifests the appearance of the container world, resembling external matter. This consists precisely of the four external great elements—earth, water, fire, and wind—and the forms derived from them: sound, odor, taste, and tangible objects. Although the realms manifested by sentient beings differ, their appearances resemble one another; therefore, they share the same location without distinction, just as the light of many lamps shines everywhere yet appears as though it were a single illumination.

Question: Whose store of karmic maturation manifests the appearance of this container world?

Answer: One explanation holds that it is manifested by the stores of karmic maturation of all sentient beings. Why? Because a sutra says: “It arises through the predominant power of the karma shared by all sentient beings.”

Another explanation says: “If that were so, could the Buddhas and bodhisattvas actually manifest this defiled and impure world, and could ordinary beings actually manifest the wondrous pure lands here and in other directions? Moreover, when noble ones, weary of the realm of form, are born in the formless realm and will certainly no longer be born in the lower realms, for what purpose would they continue to manifest this lower realm?” Therefore, it should be known that only those beings who presently dwell in this realm or will be born here manifest this realm. The sutra, however, speaks of “all” with reference to a limited portion, because only beings possessing common karma manifest it jointly.

Another explanation says: “If that were so, when the container world is about to be destroyed and there are no sentient beings presently dwelling there or destined to be born there, which store of karmic maturation manifests that world approaching destruction? Moreover, when ordinary beings, weary of the realm of form, are born among the gods of the formless realm and presently have no material bodies, for what purpose would they still participate in manifesting this world? Even supposing that sentient beings possess material bodies, if their lands differ and are separated into coarse and subtle, without supporting or sustaining one another, what benefit would there be in manifesting one land while dwelling in another?”

The manifested land, however, is fundamentally intended to serve as a basis of support, maintenance, and enjoyment for material bodies. Therefore, if it can perform the functions of supporting, maintaining, and providing enjoyment for a body, it is manifested. Consequently, even if a being is born in another region, the consciousness associated with this world may still manifest this world. Thus, although no sentient beings are present when a world is about to be destroyed or has just been formed, it nevertheless continues to exist. This concerns what all sentient beings enjoy in common. Individual enjoyment should be understood by analogy with this, for hungry ghosts, humans, and gods perceive things differently.

The seeds discussed here refer only to all seeds of conditioned, defiled dharmas that are held and sustained by the store of karmic maturation. Because they share the same nature as that store, they serve as its objects. Although the seeds of undefiled dharmas depend upon and reside within the store of karmic maturation, they do not share its nature. Although they are not its objects, they are not separate from consciousness, just as suchness is the intrinsic nature of consciousness. Thus, this does not contradict the principle of Consciousness-Only.

The body endowed with faculties is manifested through the power of the seeds of individual characteristics that mature within the store of karmic maturation. It manifests the material faculties and the material basis upon which those faculties depend, namely, the four great elements within the body—earth, water, fire, and wind—and visible form, odor, taste, and tangible objects.

Through the power of these matured seeds of shared characteristics, one also manifests an image of another person’s body resembling that person. Were this not so, there would be no meaning to one person making use of another person’s body.

One explanation further maintains: “One also manifests what resembles the subtle material faculties of others.” As the Treatise on Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes says: “The five subtle material faculties of another person’s body appear as though they were one’s own five faculties.” Another explanation holds: “One can manifest only what resembles their supporting basis, because another person’s five subtle material faculties are of no use to oneself.” The statement that the five subtle material faculties on another person’s body appear like those on one’s own body is intended to indicate that both one’s own consciousness and the other person’s consciousness each manifest them for themselves.

Therefore, even after a person has been born in another realm or has entered parinirvana, that person’s corpse may still be seen to remain.

The foregoing explains how the power of karma manifests the external container world and the internal body with its faculties, together with the distinctions among the three realms and nine grounds. When the power of meditative concentration is present, however, the manifestation of the container world, bodies with faculties, realms, and grounds—whether one’s own or another’s—is not fixed. The manifested bodies with faculties and container worlds generally continue for a long time, whereas manifested sounds and lights are generally temporary, because they arise when stimulated by the power of present conditions.

Briefly stated, the objects manifested by this alaya-consciousness comprise all seeds of defiled dharmas, the ten material bases—the five faculties and five sense objects—and the real forms that appear and are included within the dharma-ayatana.

Why can this consciousness not manifest semblances of mind and mental factors as its objects?

The transformations of defiled consciousness are broadly of two kinds: first, transformation according to the power of causes and conditions; second, transformation according to the power of discrimination. The former has actual efficacy, while the latter merely serves as an object. The transformations of the store of karmic maturation accord only with causes and conditions; therefore, the visible forms and sounds it manifests must possess actual efficacy.

If it were to manifest mind, that manifestation would have no actual efficacy, because the appearance part resembling mind cannot apprehend objects. Only when the actual functions of mind and mental factors are required do they arise from the alaya-consciousness. Likewise, if it were to manifest unconditioned dharmas, those manifestations would have no actual efficacy.

Therefore, it should be known that the store of karmic maturation does not apprehend mind or mental factors as its objects. Upon reaching the undefiled stage, the store of karmic maturation is associated with a superior assemblage of wisdom. Although it is free from discrimination and its nature is tranquil and lucid, it can nevertheless manifest images of those unconditioned dharmas, even though they lack actual efficacy like mind and mental factors.

If this were not so, the Buddhas would not be perfectly and universally enlightened.

Therefore, it should be known that at the defiled stage, this store of karmic maturation apprehends as its objects only the container world, the body with its faculties, and defiled seeds. In the desire realm and the form realm, all three kinds of objects are present. In the formless realm, however, it apprehends only defiled seeds, because beings there have renounced form and possess no material result produced by karma, but only form produced by meditative concentration. This does not contradict reason. The eighth consciousness of beings among the gods of the formless realm also apprehends this form produced by concentration as its object.

“Unknowable” means that it cannot be known. Because the mode of activity of this consciousness is extremely subtle, it is difficult to comprehend. Alternatively, the internally appropriated objects apprehended by this consciousness are themselves extremely subtle and difficult to know, while the scope of the external container world is immeasurable. Therefore, it is called unknowable.

– How does the mode of activity of this consciousness refute the claim that its object of cognition is difficult to know? As in the attainment of cessation, consciousness does not depart from the body, and therefore it should be accepted as existing. Thus, it must certainly be acknowledged that the eighth consciousness remains present in the attainment of cessation, because one who enters the attainment of cessation still belongs to the class of sentient beings, just as when the mind is active. In the states of the attainment of non-perception and the Heaven of Non-Perception, mind still exists; this should be understood in the same way. (18)

(End of fascicle two of the Chinese text)

Notes:

(13). This passage refutes the Small Vehicle position that “formations dissociated from mind” truly exist. According to the Small Vehicle, it is because a dissociated formation combines with another dharma that the latter becomes acquisition or non-acquisition; because the characteristic of arising combines with a dharma, it becomes an arisen dharma; because the characteristic of abiding combines with it, it becomes an abiding dharma; and so forth.

The skandha of formations dissociated from mind. The formation skandha consists of two kinds: one associated with mind and one not associated with mind. The kind associated with mind comprises forty-nine mental factors—that is, of the fifty-one mental factors, apart from feeling and perception, which constitute two separate skandhas, the remaining forty-nine mental factors belong to the formation skandha.

The kind not associated with mind consists of fourteen factors (the Mahayana enumerates twenty-four dissociated formations): acquisition, non-acquisition, commonality of kind, the fruit of non-perception, the attainment of non-perception, the attainment of cessation, life faculty, arising, abiding, change, cessation, names, phrases, and collections of syllables. Because these fourteen have no capacity for cognition, they are not associated with mind or mental factors; because they offer no material resistance, they are not associated with form; and because they arise and cease, they are not associated with unconditioned dharmas.

They are collectively called the fourteen formations dissociated from mind.

First, the Treatise presents three reasons to refute the claim that formations dissociated from mind truly exist.

a. Formations dissociated from mind are certainly not entities distinct from form, mind, and mental factors, possessing their own real substance and real function (proposition), because they are included within the formation skandha (reason), just as form is included within the form skandha and mind within the consciousness skandha (example).

b. Formations dissociated from mind certainly do not truly exist (proposition), because they are not included among mind, mental factors, or unconditioned dharmas (reason), just like something that is entirely nonexistent (example).

c. Formations dissociated from mind certainly do not truly exist (proposition), because they are not included within any real dharma whatsoever (reason), just like other provisionally established dharmas (example).

Next, the Treatise refutes them individually under seven headings: acquisition and non-acquisition, commonality of kind, life faculty, mindless attainments, the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas, names, phrases and collections of syllables, and latent tendencies.

Finally, it refutes the three unconditioned dharmas of the Small Vehicle: the unconditioned of space, the unconditioned of cessation through discernment, and the unconditioned of cessation independent of discernment.

a. The unconditioned of space—Here, space does not merely mean empty extension, but the nature of non-obstruction. Because there is this nature of non-obstruction, one dharma does not hinder another; arising dharmas continue to arise and ceasing dharmas continue to cease, without obstruction. This very nature of non-obstruction does not arise and cease along with dharmas, and is therefore called unconditioned. Yet the eye cannot see it and the hand cannot touch it. It is merely discriminated by the conceptual mind and then perfumed into the root consciousness. When consciousness transforms and manifests that appearance, it is mistakenly grasped as truly existent.

b. The unconditioned of cessation through discernment—The unconditioned is suchness, the nature of Consciousness-Only, which cannot manifest because it is obscured by the afflictions of views and thought. The afflictions of views and thought are divided into five groups.

The afflictions of views comprise four groups arising from delusion concerning the Four Noble Truths. These four groups of afflictions of views are eliminated when the principle of the Four Noble Truths is seen. The afflictions of thought form one group.

Across the nine levels of the three realms, each level contains nine grades of the afflictions of thought, making a total of eighty-one grades throughout the nine levels. By relying on discerning wisdom, each portion of every group and grade of affliction is eliminated, and a corresponding portion of the true nature of suchness is revealed. It is therefore called the unconditioned of cessation through discernment.

c. The unconditioned of cessation independent of discernment—The unconditioned true nature of suchness is originally neither born nor destroyed; it is intrinsically pure and unconditioned, without needing discerning wisdom to eliminate afflictions before it can be revealed. It is therefore called cessation independent of discernment. Alternatively, because the requisite conditions are absent, the afflictions of views and thought do not arise to obscure suchness; thus suchness remains undefiled. This is also called the unconditioned of cessation independent of discernment.

The sutras teach the unconditioned of space and so forth, which may briefly be classified into two kinds. As the Treatise has clearly explained here, and so on: cessation resulting from the cessation of painful and pleasant feelings is called the unconditioned cessation of immovability; cessation resulting from the non-activity of the skandhas of perception and feeling is called the unconditioned cessation of perception and feeling.

In summary, all five unconditioned dharmas are merely provisionally established on the basis of the nature of suchness; even the term “suchness” itself is a provisional designation. Non-Buddhists and adherents of the Small Vehicle do not perceive this principle and therefore grasp these dharmas as truly existent. The author of the Treatise refutes them as follows:

– The dharmas grasped by non-Buddhists and adherents of the Small Vehicle possess no distinct real nature apart from mind and mental factors (proposition), because they are what is apprehended, namely, the objective aspect (reason), just like the subjective aspect of mind and mental factors (example).

– The cognitive nature that apprehends the appearances of those dharmas also cannot cognize appearances of those dharmas outside the mind (proposition), because it is the apprehending subject, namely, the subjective aspect (reason), just like the cognitive nature that cognizes the internal objective aspect (example).

The objective aspect that is apprehended and the subjective aspect that apprehends both arise from the self-cognizing aspect; that is, neither is separate from consciousness. Therefore, whether considered as what is apprehended or as that which apprehends, all the dharmas they grasp are Consciousness-Only. It is merely because they do not understand this that they grasp them as truly existent.

Yet mind and its mental factors are themselves not truly existent, because they are dependently arisen (reason), like an illusion (example).

Consciousness is a dependently arisen dharma. It exists through various conditions; consciousness is not something independently and truly existent apart from all dharmas. In order to dispel the deluded attachment to dharmas as truly existing independently of consciousness, the Buddha taught that there is consciousness only. If one then grasps Consciousness-Only itself as truly existent, this is no different from grasping external objects and is likewise attachment to dharmas.

The preceding passage employs dependently arisen consciousness to refute imagined attachment. This passage explains that consciousness is dependently arisen, illusory, and unreal; if one grasps Consciousness-Only as truly existent, that too becomes attachment to dharmas.

Thus, the essential purport of the Dharma-character school of Consciousness-Only is truly no different from that of the Dharma-nature school of True Emptiness. Therefore, the Sutra of the Great Buddha’s Crown states: “Upon realizing and entering the perfectly accomplished nature, one leaves far behind attachment to the dependent and imagined natures.”

(14). This passage distinguishes attachment to dharmas. Attachment to dharmas is of two kinds: innate attachment to dharmas and conceptually discriminated attachment to dharmas. Innate attachment is again of two kinds: that which is continuously present and that which is intermittent. Conceptually discriminated attachment is likewise of two kinds: attachment arising in dependence upon false teachings concerning the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus; and attachment arising in dependence upon false teachings concerning intrinsic nature and so forth. These have been clearly explained in the Treatise.

From the beginning of the Treatise up to this point, it has analyzed and clearly shown that neither self nor dharmas truly exist; self and dharmas are merely provisional designations. At this point, someone raises a doubt and asks: If no real self or real dharmas exist outside consciousness, then can there be no provisionally designated self or dharmas either? For a provisional designation must rely upon an actual thing, a similar thing, and a quality shared by them before it can be established.

For example, there is actual fire, there is a person who resembles fire, and there is a quality shared by them, such as an intense red appearance. Actual fire has an intense red appearance, and the person who resembles fire has an intense red appearance; only then can it be said that the person is like fire. Likewise, if self and dharmas do not truly exist, upon what basis can they be provisionally designated?

And if no provisional designation is possible, then appearances resembling a self and dharmas cannot be established either. How, then, can it be said that mind transforms and manifests appearances resembling a self and dharmas?

The author of the treatise explains: It is incorrect to say that figurative designation is based upon qualities of the same kind, because the intense redness in a person is not of the same kind as the intense redness in fire, which has the capacity to burn. If a person possesses intense redness but lacks the capacity to burn like fire, yet one still says that the person is like fire, then water may also possess intense redness but lack the capacity to burn like fire; can it therefore be said to be like fire? It cannot. Hence, the figurative statement that a person is like fire need not be based upon qualities of the same kind; the figurative designation of self and dharmas is likewise so.

It is also incorrect to say that figurative designation can be made only in dependence upon real entities, because a real entity is precisely the thing in itself. How could falsely discriminating cognition and verbal expression apprehend a thing in itself? Yet one still speaks of this thing and that thing; this is figurative designation, and it need not be based upon real entities.

Thus, the characteristics of self and dharmas are all transformations of consciousness. Because ordinary beings do not clearly understand this, they grasp them as truly existent. In order to eliminate that attachment, the terms “figurative” and “resembling” are used. Once deluded attachment has been completely eliminated, even “figurative” and “resembling” have no meaning.

– All the preceding passages discuss the self and dharmas that are transformed, belonging to the nature of the imagined and grasped. From this point onward, the transforming consciousness is discussed, belonging to the dependent nature. Verses twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-five discuss the three non-natures, belonging to the perfectly accomplished nature. Verses twenty-six through thirty discuss the stages and fruits of cultivation and realization.

(15). This passage states that the transforming consciousnesses are, in brief, of three kinds: the maturation consciousness, the deliberative consciousness, and the consciousness that discerns objects, namely, the first six consciousnesses.

Transformation is of two kinds:

a. Causal transformation, that is, manifestation by causes. The eight consciousnesses are dependently arisen dharmas. They do not exist by themselves but arise in dependence upon the habitual seeds of homogeneous continuity and the habitual seeds of maturation. (These two kinds of habitual seeds are explained clearly later, in the discussion of the nineteenth verse.) Thus, the eight consciousnesses are the result, while the two kinds of habitual seeds are the causes. Because these two kinds of habitual seeds manifest the eight consciousnesses, this is called causal transformation.

b. Resultant transformation, that is, manifestation by results. The eight consciousnesses are the result. From the self-cognizing aspect of the eight consciousnesses themselves arise the perceiving aspect and the perceived aspect; then, relying upon these perceiving and perceived aspects, discrimination and deluded attachment take them to be self and dharmas—that is, sentient and insentient beings. Thus, the eight consciousnesses are results that manifest the various dharmas, and therefore this is called resultant transformation.

In resultant transformation, the eight consciousnesses are divided into three kinds, called the three transforming consciousnesses.

(16). The first transforming consciousness is defined in the ten lines of verse from “First, the alaya” through “is entirely relinquished by arhats,” comprising twelve topics:

a. Its intrinsic characteristic (namely, first, the alaya consciousness).

b. Its resultant characteristic (namely, the maturation consciousness).

c. Its causal characteristic (namely, the consciousness of all seeds).

d. Its unknowability.

e. Its objects (namely, appropriation and place).

f. Its mode of activity (namely, cognition).

g. Its associations (namely, that it is always accompanied by the mental factors of contact and so forth).

h. Its feeling (namely, neutral feeling).

i. The three moral natures (namely, its nature as unobscured and indeterminate).

k. The mental factors follow the mind as their model (namely, the mental factors are likewise so).

l. The Dharma analogy of cause and result (namely, it perpetually flows like a stream).

m. The stage at which it is subdued and eliminated (namely, it is relinquished at the stage of arhatship).

Consciousness is a dependently arisen dharma, born of conditions; therefore, it has so many related aspects and differing characteristics. These topics are explained one by one below.

The first transforming consciousness is called alaya, translated as the storehouse consciousness. It fully comprises three meanings: that which stores, that which is stored, and the store appropriated through attachment to self. The eighth consciousness has the capacity to gather, contain, and preserve all wholesome and unwholesome seeds, conditioned and unconditioned, defiled and undefiled; therefore, it is called that which stores. It is also the place into which all seeds are deposited and stored; therefore, it is called that which is stored. Moreover, it is that which sentient beings delight in appropriating as their self; therefore, it is called the store appropriated through attachment to self.

The storehouse consciousness is the intrinsic characteristic of the eighth consciousness, comprising both its causal and resultant characteristics and thereby constituting its intrinsic characteristic. The storehouse consciousness may be compared to a heap of objects containing every kind of thing, both good and bad. The objects, in turn, also come forth from the heap, and every object is stored within it.

Without the objects, there would be no heap of objects; without the heap, there would be no objects. The objects and the heap exist by serving mutually as causes, conditions, and results. The objects change, while the heap always remains; it is merely called a heap of impure objects when it contains impure objects, and a heap of pure objects when it contains pure objects.

The storehouse consciousness is likewise so. Without the seeds of the various dharmas, there would be no storehouse consciousness; without the storehouse consciousness, there would be no seeds of the various dharmas. The storehouse consciousness and the seeds of the various dharmas serve mutually as causes, conditions, and results.

This is the meaning of the statement, “The storehouse consciousness and the various defiled dharmas serve mutually as conditions.”

The first transforming consciousness is also called maturation. This has three meanings. First is maturation through transformation: from cause to result, its form changes through the successive stages before it matures; if it remained perpetually in its original state without changing, it could not mature.

Second is maturation at a different time: the cause comes first and the result afterward, and maturation occurs at a different time. Third is maturation into a different category: it matures into something of a different category, “category” here meaning moral nature. The causes possess wholesome or unwholesome natures, whereas the result has only an indeterminate nature.

Wholesome and unwholesome causes yield an indeterminate result; thus, maturation occurs into a different category of moral nature. For example, earth and water are fashioned into a jar. Earth is earth and water is water, and they differ from one another; but when they are fashioned into a jar, the jar is indeterminate—it is neither earth nor water.

Sentient beings are likewise so. When creating karmic causes, their deeds are wholesome or unwholesome; but when all those wholesome and unwholesome karmic causes combine to produce a retributive body in the human realm, the asura realm, and so forth, that very retributive body is indeterminate, neither wholesome nor unwholesome. The overall retributive body of each such class is called true maturation and is brought about by projecting karma.

From that overall retributive body of true maturation arise all its various distinctions, manifesting as suffering or happiness, good or bad, favorable or adverse, and so forth. These are called maturation-born results and are brought about by completing karma. The maturation consciousness is the resultant characteristic of the first transforming consciousness.

When referring to the causal characteristic of the first transforming consciousness, it is called the consciousness of all seeds.

(17). This passage discusses the consciousness of all seeds, that is, the causal characteristic of the first transforming consciousness.

What are seeds? They are functions, powers, and habitual tendencies—the seeds stored within the storehouse consciousness. Whenever they encounter the appropriate conditions, they arise and become manifest, appearing as the various characteristics of this or that dharma.

Seeds are causes, or causal dharmas; their manifestation as the characteristics of this or that dharma is the result, or resultant dharma. Each causal dharma manifests its corresponding resultant dharma without confusion. For example, a sesame seed produces a sesame plant, a bean seed produces a bean plant, a wholesome seed gives rise to the wholesome, an unwholesome seed gives rise to the unwholesome, a seed of wisdom gives rise to wisdom, a seed of ignorance gives rise to ignorance, and so forth.

Every kind of seed is of two types:

The first is innate, meaning the kind that has always been present in the storehouse consciousness. Whenever a body is born, these seeds are born together with it. Thus, although newborn infants do not yet know anything, this does not mean that they lack greed, hatred, and delusion, or that they lack good qualities. On this basis, it is said that human nature at birth is originally good, originally evil, or originally neither good nor evil.

The second is the discriminatively acquired kind. Seeds of this kind are not present at birth. Later, through contact with favorable or unfavorable surroundings, or with the wise or the foolish, one discriminates in accordance with those surroundings; over time, this becomes habitual, and these habits are the seeds.

Whether seeds are innate or arise from discrimination, they all possess two natures: contaminated, comprising unwholesome, wholesome, and defiled-neutral seeds; and uncontaminated, namely wholly pure wholesome seeds arising from the nature of non-self. Unwholesome, wholesome, and defiled-neutral seeds are called contaminated because they arise from the nature of attachment to self.

Seeds are also called latent tendencies because they constantly accompany sentient beings, lying dormant and concealed within the store consciousness. From the outside they seem nonexistent, but when conditions are encountered, they arise.

Seeds are called habitual energies because they are the residual force, the lingering influence, formed through habitual conditioning.

Seeds are also called gross heaviness because their nature is coarse and burdensome, rendering one incapable of bearing any responsibility (the nature of incapacity).

When seeds are called latent tendencies, habitual energies, gross heaviness, or the nature of incapacity, these terms refer to contaminated seeds, not uncontaminated seeds.

Although both contaminated and uncontaminated seeds depend upon the maturation consciousness, when seeds have not yet become manifest and remain latent within the maturation consciousness, contaminated seeds share the neutral nature of the maturation consciousness. By contrast, although uncontaminated seeds depend upon the maturation consciousness, they remain wholesome throughout, from beginning to end.

– Are all seeds originally existent, or are they newly produced? There are three views. One view holds that seeds are exclusively innate. Another holds that seeds are produced only through new perfuming. A third holds that seeds include both those originally existent and those newly produced. Alternatively, although originally existent, they must still be strengthened and brought forth through perfuming. The third view is the most correct.

– Some cite the sutra statement, “The nature of mind is originally pure; it is defiled by adventitious afflictions,” to maintain that uncontaminated seeds are innate rather than newly produced. This is also incorrect, for would those who lack innate uncontaminated seeds then never become noble beings? Moreover, even if innate uncontaminated seeds exist, one must still listen to the Dharma, reflect, and cultivate, continually perfuming them over a long period so that the uncontaminated seeds grow strong and can arise. Otherwise, they cannot arise.

Another view says that the presence or absence of uncontaminated seeds is established according to whether the two obstructions—the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction—are present or absent. This is also incorrect, for if uncontaminated seeds did not exist, by what could those two obstructions be eliminated?

However, something can become a seed only when it possesses all six characteristics: momentary cessation, simultaneous coexistence with its fruit, continuous accompanying transformation, determinate nature, dependence upon multiple conditions, and production of its own fruit. It must also become a seed through perfuming. Perfuming means impregnation and habitual conditioning, and it requires two parties: one that is perfumed and receives the perfuming, and another that perfumes and has the capacity to impregnate—like tea on one side and flowers on the other.

When flowers are used to scent tea, their fragrance permeates the tea and makes it fragrant. This is called perfuming. So it is here: on one side, the store consciousness is that which is perfumed and receives perfuming; on the other, the first seven consciousnesses are that which perfumes and possesses the capacity to perfume.

Each side must possess all four characteristics in order to be that which is perfumed or that which perfumes.

The four characteristics of that which is perfumed are stability, neutrality, receptivity to perfuming, and harmonious conjunction with that which perfumes.

The four characteristics of that which perfumes are arising and ceasing, possessing powerful activity, being capable of increase and decrease, and transforming in harmonious conjunction with that which is perfumed.

Among the eight consciousnesses, only the store consciousness possesses all four characteristics of that which is perfumed. Therefore, the store consciousness alone is always that which is perfumed; the seven transforming consciousnesses cannot be so, just as the store consciousness cannot be that which perfumes.

Conversely, only the first seven transforming consciousnesses are that which perfumes; the store consciousness cannot be that which perfumes, just as the seven transforming consciousnesses can never be that which is perfumed.

(18). This passage discusses the mode of activity and the object of the first transforming consciousness. The mode of activity is the manner in which it functions. What is the mode of activity of the first transforming consciousness? It is discernment, or cognition; that is, the seeing aspect.

There are five kinds of seeing:

a. Realizing vision is called seeing—That is, fundamental wisdom realizing true suchness.

b. Illuminating vision is called seeing—That is, the five faculties and the mind illuminating their objects.

c. Apprehending is called seeing—That is, the seeing aspect, the self-cognizing aspect, and the aspect that cognizes self-cognition.

d. Recollection and comprehension are called seeing—That is, remembering, contemplating, and comprehending meanings and principles.

đ. Inference and ascertainment are called seeing—That is, reasoning and comparison.

Of these, apart from the physical faculties, the self-cognizing aspect, and the aspect that cognizes self-cognition, all the remainder belong to the seeing aspect.

– What are the objects of the first transforming consciousness? They are the receptacle world, seeds, and the body with its faculties. Of these, seeds and the body with its faculties are taken as objects by the eighth consciousness, appropriated as its own substance, maintained without loss, and sharing security and peril with it.

The mode of activity of discernment is that which apprehends, the seeing aspect of consciousness; its object is the appearance aspect of consciousness.

The appearance aspect comprises five kinds:

a. True appearance is called appearance—That is, the nature of true suchness, the true nature of all dharmas.

b. Objective appearance, or essential appearance, is called appearance—That is, the appearance of each dharma itself as presented before the faculties and consciousness.

c. Form is called appearance—That is, the forms of conditioned dharmas: long, short, square, round, large, small, red, yellow, and so forth.

d. Deportment is called appearance—That is, the manners of walking, standing, lying down, sitting, bending, and extending.

đ. Characteristic meaning is called appearance—That is, the qualities and attributes of all dharmas: bad, good, permanent, impermanent, non-self, and so forth.

Take the moon as an example. What is the moon’s true appearance? It cannot be known. The moon’s true appearance is signless true suchness, in which nothing can be apprehended; it can be known only through awakened wisdom, not through consciousness. What is the moon’s objective appearance, or essential appearance? It is the moon itself appearing before our eyes. What is the moon’s form? It is its roundness or irregular shape, brightness or dimness. What is the moon’s deportment? It is its movement higher or lower. What is the moon’s characteristic meaning? It is beautiful, ugly, permanent, impermanent, and so forth.

The appearance aspect includes particular appearances. For example, seeds and the body with its faculties are individually transformed by the particular karma of each sentient being. It also includes common appearances, such as the receptacle world, which is collectively transformed by the shared karma of sentient beings.

Transformation, however, occurs in two ways: transformation through discrimination and transformation through causes and conditions. Transformation through discrimination is produced by deluded, inverted discriminative feelings. Thus, when joyful, one sees joyful scenes; when sorrowful, one sees sorrowful scenes; when fond of something, one praises it as beautiful; when disliking it, one condemns it as ugly, and so forth.

Similarly, the seventh consciousness takes the eighth consciousness as its object and clings to it as self, while the five universally functioning mental factors of the eighth consciousness transform the objects they apprehend. These are entirely baseless illusions. Transformation through causes and conditions occurs when deluded feelings rely upon the appearance aspect and the seeing aspect.

What is not self is regarded as self; what is not a dharma is regarded as a dharma; what is neither sentient nor insentient is grasped as sentient or insentient; what is neither form nor mind is grasped as form or mind. These names and appearances are continually perfumed into the store consciousness, and over a long period they become seeds—that is, deeply ingrained habits from time immemorial. Thus, when conditions are encountered, they manifest, and wherever one looks, one sees both self and dharmas.

The myriad forms and manifold appearances of the world are all appearances of self and dharmas according to this manner of seeing, and they are difficult to change.

– The objective aspect is one of the four aspects of consciousness. Regarding the consciousnesses of the mind-kings and mental factors, the Treatise Master Sthiramati maintained that there is only one aspect, the self-cognizing aspect; whereas the Treatise Master Nanda maintained that there are two aspects: the perceiving aspect and the objective aspect. The Treatise Master Dignaga maintained that there are three aspects: the perceiving aspect, the objective aspect, and the self-cognizing aspect. The self-cognizing aspect is the intrinsic nature of consciousness; the perceiving aspect and the objective aspect are the functional manifestations of consciousness. Furthermore, the perceiving aspect apprehends the objective aspect. What, then, apprehends the perceiving aspect if there is no self-cognizing aspect? Where there is that which measures and that which is measured, there must also be the result of measurement. It is like using a ruler to measure cloth: the ruler is the perceiving aspect that performs the measurement, while the cloth is the objective aspect that is measured. Yet how could one know the resulting measurement of the cloth if there were no third party? The self-cognizing aspect is like that third party, being the result of cognition. The Treatise Master Dharmapala, however, maintained that there are four aspects, reasoning that consciousness sometimes knows directly, which is direct perception; and sometimes knows indirectly, which is inference. Yet direct cognition may sometimes be erroneous, and indirect cognition may also be erroneous; these constitute invalid cognition. The perceiving aspect’s cognition of the objective aspect may be direct perception, inference, or invalid cognition. The self-cognizing aspect, however, cognizes only through direct perception. The self-cognizing aspect verifies and knows the perceiving aspect; what, then, verifies and knows the self-cognizing aspect? The perceiving aspect cannot verify and know the self-cognizing aspect, because the perceiving aspect may sometimes be invalid cognition, whereas the self-cognizing aspect is the intrinsic nature of consciousness and is always direct perception. How, then, could the perceiving aspect verify and know it? There must therefore be a fourth aspect, the aspect that verifies self-cognition, to verify and know the self-cognizing aspect. Conversely, the self-cognizing aspect verifies and knows the aspect that verifies self-cognition, because both of these aspects know through direct perception.

Ultimately, however, the four aspects are only relative distinctions. The fourth aspect may be subsumed under the third, leaving only three aspects; or the second may likewise be subsumed, leaving only two aspects. Moreover, the perceiving and objective aspects originally have no intrinsic nature of their own, but must rely upon the One Mind, the one true Dharma-realm, as their intrinsic nature. Since the essence of the One Mind encompasses all functions, function is not different from essence. Thus it may be said, “Not a single form or a single direction is other than the Middle Way.” Accordingly, whether one speaks of Consciousness-Only, Form-Only, or Direction-Only, each formulation is acceptable.