成唯識論

– With how many mental factors is this alaya-consciousness associated?

It is always associated with the mental factors of contact, attention, feeling, perception, and volition. That is, from beginningless time until it is transformed into wisdom, the alaya-consciousness is always associated with these five mental factors in every state, because they belong to the universally operative mental factors.

– The mental factor of contact occurs when the three—faculty, object, and consciousness—are in harmony. Contact discriminates in accordance with the transformations of these three harmoniously conjoined factors, causing mind and mental factors to come into contact with the object, and it functions as the support for the mental factors of feeling, perception, and volition. That is, because faculty, object, and consciousness accord with one another, they are called the three harmoniously conjoined factors. Contact arises in dependence upon their harmony and causes the three to unite. Therefore, the mental factor of contact is said to be the state in which those three are united. All three have the capacity to accord with one another and produce mental factors, and thus they are called transformations. Contact arises in a manner resembling those transformations and is therefore called discrimination. However, because the transformation of the faculty has a stronger power to induce contact than consciousness and the object do, the Compendium states only: “Contact discriminates in accordance with the transformation of the faculty.”

Uniting all minds and mental factors and causing them alike to come into contact with the object—this is the intrinsic nature of contact.

Because the mental factor of contact has the capacity, corresponding to the harmony of the three factors, to give rise to mental factors, its activity consists in serving as the support for feeling and the other mental factors. The Sutra on Arising and Cessation says: “The skandhas of feeling, perception, and formations all take contact as their condition; therefore, consciousness, contact, and feeling are taught. Consciousness arises from the conjunction of the two—faculty and object; contact arises from the conjunction of the three—faculty, object, and consciousness;

feeling arises from the conjunction of the four—faculty, object, consciousness, and contact.” The Yogacara Treatise states only: “Contact serves as the support for feeling, perception, and volition.” Here, “volition” is the principal and predominant factor within the formation skandha; therefore, the single term “volition” encompasses the other forty-seven mental factors (of the fifty-one mental factors, forty-seven remain after excluding feeling, perception, contact, and volition).

The Compendium states only: “Contact serves as the support for feeling,” because the production of feeling from contact is more immediate and predominant than the production of the other mental factors. That is, the apprehended characteristic of contact when its object is agreeable is extremely close to the apprehended characteristic of feeling when its object is beneficial and agreeable. Moreover, contact induces feeling more powerfully than it induces the other mental factors.

– Yet the intrinsic nature of contact is real, not nominally existent, because it is one of the mental factors among the six groups of six dharmas—six faculties, six objects, six consciousnesses, six cravings, six contacts, and six feelings; because it is included within contact as nutriment (one of the four kinds of nutriment); and because it is one condition among the twelve links of dependent origination. Like the nature of feeling, it has a distinct real existence; contact is not merely the conjunction of the three factors, which is nominally existent.

The mental factor of attention has the nature of alerting the mind and the activity of directing the mind toward an object. That is, it alerts the seeds of the mind that should arise, causing them to arise, and directs the arisen mind toward the object; hence it is called attention. Although it can also induce the arising of mental factors, only the directing of the mind is mentioned because the mind itself is primary.

One theory states: “Causing the mind, which is presently engaging one object, to turn toward another object, or causing the mind to remain fixed upon a single object, is called attention.” Both formulations are unreasonable, for then attention would not be a universally operative mental factor and would be no different from the mental factor of concentration.

The mental factor of feeling has the nature of receiving the agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral characteristics of objects, and it has the activity of arousing craving in the mind, for it gives rise to three kinds of desire: the desire to unite, the desire to separate, and the desire for neither.

Some hold that feeling is of two kinds:

1. Feeling of the object, namely, experiencing the object of cognition.

2. Feeling of intrinsic nature, namely, experiencing the contact that arises together with it.

They maintain that, of these two kinds of feeling, only feeling of intrinsic nature is the defining characteristic of feeling, whereas feeling of the object is not its defining characteristic because the characteristic of its object is shared with mind and the other mental factors.

Their assertion is unreasonable, because the mental factor of feeling certainly does not cognize the mental factor of contact that arises together with it. If the mental factor of feeling arises resembling the mental factor of contact and is therefore said to experience contact, would everything whose effect resembles its cause then be “feeling”? Furthermore, since contact is the cause of feeling, it should be called the cause of feeling; why call it feeling of intrinsic nature?

If it is said that, just as a king consumes the products of his realm—the king arises from that realm and then consumes its products—so too feeling is the act of receiving, while contact gives rise to the substance of feeling and is therefore called feeling of intrinsic nature, this reasoning is also incorrect, because it contradicts your own thesis that feeling of intrinsic nature consists in receiving the contact that arises together with feeling. Moreover, feeling cannot itself directly know feeling, just as a knife cannot cut itself.

If it is said that feeling, while receiving, does not relinquish its own intrinsic nature and is therefore called feeling of intrinsic nature, then logically all dharmas should be feelings of intrinsic nature. Therefore, it should be understood that their formulation is merely intended to entice children. (The preceding passage refutes feeling of intrinsic nature.)

– Yet feeling of the object does not share its characteristic with mind and the other mental factors, because receiving an agreeable or disagreeable characteristic belongs exclusively to feeling and is called feeling of the object; it is not shared with the characteristics of mind and the other mental factors. (Feeling is characterized by reception; consciousness, by discernment; perception, by apprehending the appearance of the object; aspiration, by hoping for the object; and wisdom, by examining and discerning the contemplated object. Thus, none of their characteristics is shared.)

The mental factor of perception has the nature of apprehending the appearance of an object and the activity of establishing various names and expressions. That is, only because perception establishes the defining characteristics that delimit an object can names and expressions subsequently be designated in accordance with them.

The mental factor of volition has the nature of causing the mind to act and the activity of impelling the mind to perform good or evil. That is, after apprehending the characteristic of a correct cause in an object, it drives and impels the mind to perform good or evil. (If it apprehends the characteristic of a false cause, it causes the mind to commit evil, and so forth.)

The above five mental factors are included among the universally operative factors; therefore, they are necessarily associated with the store consciousness. The characteristics of the universally operative factors will be explained extensively below.

– Although the modes of activity of the five mental factors—contact and the others—differ from the mode of activity of the resultant consciousness, they arise at the same time, depend upon the same support, cognize the same object, and each has its own substance; hence they are called associated.

Furthermore, the “feeling” associated with this resultant consciousness is only a true karmic result and continually operates in accordance with the past projecting karma, without needing to await present conditions. Because it proceeds spontaneously solely according to the power of wholesome and unwholesome karma, it is only neutral feeling. Painful and pleasant feelings, however, are born of karmic result but are not true karmic results; they must await present conditions before they can arise. Therefore, painful and pleasant feelings are not associated with this resultant consciousness.

– Moreover, because this resultant consciousness remains continuously unchanged, sentient beings constantly grasp it as an inner self. If it were associated with painful or pleasant feeling, it would undergo alteration, and how could sentient beings continue to grasp it as a self? Therefore, it should be understood that this consciousness is associated only with neutral feeling.

Question: - If so, why is this consciousness also a karmic result produced by unwholesome karma?

Answer: - Since it is accepted that wholesome karma can produce neutral feeling, unwholesome karma should likewise be able to do so, because neutral feeling does not conflict with either pain or pleasure. It is like morally indeterminate dharmas, which can be produced by either wholesome or unwholesome karma.

Question: - Why is this resultant consciousness not associated with the mental factors whose objects are specific?

Answer: - Because the five mental factors whose objects are specific have mutually opposed natures. That is:

The mental factor of aspiration, or hope, arises only toward a desirable object, whereas this consciousness proceeds spontaneously in accordance with karma and has no hope whatsoever.

The mental factor of determination arises only in relation to an object that has been firmly ascertained and decisively upheld, whereas this consciousness is obscured and does not firmly ascertain or uphold anything.

The mental factor of mindfulness clearly remembers only what has previously been experienced and become familiar, whereas this consciousness is obscured and weak and cannot clearly remember anything.

The mental factor of concentration is capable of causing the mind to focus on a single object, whereas this consciousness, operating spontaneously from moment to moment, takes various objects and conditions as its objects.

The mental factor of wisdom discriminates gain, loss, and so forth, whereas this consciousness is subtle, obscured, and weak, and cannot discriminate anything.

Therefore, this resultant consciousness is not associated with the five object-specific mental factors.

– Moreover, because this consciousness is resultant in nature, it is not associated with mental factors of a wholesome nature—the eleven wholesome mental factors—or with mental factors of a defiled nature—the afflictive mental factors.

– Although the four indeterminate mental factors—remorse, torpor, initial investigation, and sustained examination—may sometimes be morally neutral in nature, because they are intermittent, they are certainly not associated with resultant consciousness.

Question: Dharmas are of four kinds: wholesome, unwholesome, obscured-neutral, and unobscured-neutral. To which kind of dharma does the alaya-consciousness belong?

Answer: This consciousness is exclusively unobscured-neutral because it is resultant in nature. If resultant consciousness were wholesome or defiled, neither the cycle of birth and death nor its cessation, nirvana, could be established: if wholesome, it would lead only to cessation; if defiled, it would lead only to continued cyclic existence.

Furthermore, this consciousness is the support of both wholesome and defiled states. If it were exclusively wholesome or exclusively defiled, then, because these are opposed to one another, it could not serve as the support of both.

Furthermore, this consciousness is that which receives perfuming. If it were wholesome or defiled, then, like an extremely fragrant or extremely foul odor, it could not receive perfuming from odors different from itself. If there were no perfuming, neither the causes and effects of defilement nor those of purification could be established. Therefore, this consciousness is exclusively unobscured-neutral.

“Obscured” means that a defiled dharma obstructs the noble path and continually veils the mind, rendering it impure. Because this consciousness is not defiled, it is called unobscured.

“Determinate” means that wholesome and unwholesome deeds, their agreeable and disagreeable fruits, and their distinctive intrinsic natures can all be clearly designated. Because this consciousness is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, it is called neutral.

– The statement, “The mental factor of contact and so forth are likewise,” means that just as the alaya-consciousness is included solely within the unobscured-neutral nature, so too are the mental factors of contact, attention, volition, feeling, perception, and intention, because associated dharmas must necessarily be of the same nature.

– Furthermore, like the alaya-consciousness, the five mental factors beginning with contact are also resultant; their objects and modes of apprehension cannot be clearly known. The consciousness takes as its objects the three kinds of objective domains—seeds, the sense faculties and body, and the external world—while the five mental factors associated with it are likewise unobscured-neutral in nature.... Therefore, the treatise says, “The mental factor of contact and so forth are likewise.”

– One theory holds: “The mental factor of contact and so forth, like the alaya-consciousness, are also resultant and possess all the seeds”; and so it elaborates until saying, “They are unobscured-neutral in nature,” because the verse merely says “likewise” without making any distinction.

That interpretation is also unreasonable. Why? Because contact depends upon consciousness and is not autonomous. Like the mental factors of craving, faith, and so forth, it cannot receive perfuming; how, then, could contact and the others, like the alaya-consciousness, be capable of preserving seeds?

Furthermore, if the mental factor of contact and so forth could also receive perfuming, then logically a single sentient being would possess six distinct repositories of seeds—one principal consciousness and the five omnipresent mental factors, all perfumed together. If so, when a fruit arose, from which seed would it arise? It cannot be said to arise from all six seeds, because many seeds have never been seen to produce a single sprout.

If it were said that the fruit arose from only one seed, the other five kinds of seeds would become useless. Nor can it be said that the seeds produce fruits successively, one after another, because they are perfumed at the same time and possess equal potency. Nor can it be said that all six fruits—arising from the alaya-consciousness and the five omnipresent mental factors—suddenly arise simultaneously, because a single sentient being cannot produce six visual consciousnesses, auditory consciousnesses, and so forth in the same instant.

– Who says that the mental factor of contact and so forth can also receive perfuming and preserve seeds?

– If they cannot, why does the statement, “Contact and so forth are like consciousness,” call them “possessing all the seeds”?

– It is because the five mental factors—contact, attention, and so forth—have an objective aspect resembling the seeds that they are called “possessing all the seeds.” Moreover, the object of contact is equal to the object of consciousness; in the Formless Realm, the mental factor of contact has an object; and the immediate objective condition must always be present.

– The aspect resembling the seeds that is said to appear in the mental factor of contact is not the causal condition that produces manifest consciousness. It is like the aspect resembling the visual faculty that appears in the mental factor of contact: it does not truly serve as the support of consciousness, just as an image resembling fire has no power to burn.

– That person’s attempted resolution of the objection is unreasonable. Contact, attention, and so forth take as their objects aspects resembling the seeds; this should be compared with consciousness only when the passage concerning “that which is appropriated” is discussed.

– Therefore, in the preceding verse, the phrase “possessing all the seeds” must refer to the meaning that consciousness receives perfuming and preserves the seeds, rather than to the conditioned seeds of outflows as objects. Otherwise, the root verse would be guilty of needless repetition.

Furthermore, because that verse says “likewise” without making distinctions, the comparison adduced as evidence cannot be established. It cannot be said that the five mental factors beginning with contact also possess the capacity to discern. Nor are contact and the others associated with contact in the way consciousness and the others are. Therefore, it should be understood that the phrase “likewise” in the verse applies according to what is appropriate; it does not mean that contact resembles resultant consciousness in every respect. (19)

– Is the alaya-consciousness annihilated or permanent?

– It is neither annihilated nor permanent, because it is constant yet evolving. “Constant” means that, from beginningless time, this consciousness has continued uninterruptedly as a single stream, because it is the fundamental basis upon which the three realms, six destinies, and four modes of birth are conventionally established. Its intrinsic nature is stable, and it preserves the seeds without allowing them to be lost. “Evolving” means that, from beginningless time, this consciousness has arisen and ceased in every instant, changing from before to after: the cause ceases and the fruit arises. Because it is not eternally one, it can serve as the basis upon which the seven evolving consciousnesses perfume and form seeds. “Constant” precludes annihilation, while “evolving” indicates that it is not permanent. It is like a rushing stream. Cause and effect are likewise: like a rushing stream, they are neither annihilated nor permanent; through their continuous succession, drifting and submersion occur. This consciousness is the same. From beginningless time, it has arisen and ceased in continuous succession, neither permanent nor annihilated, causing sentient beings to drift and sink and not allowing them to escape.

Again, like a rushing stream that continues to flow without interruption even when stirred by the wind into waves, this consciousness likewise continues uninterruptedly even when, upon encountering various conditions, visual consciousness and the others arise.

Again, like a rushing stream that, though flowing over rises and falls, carries fish, shrimp, grasses, and refuse along without their leaving its current, consciousness is likewise continually accompanied in its transformations by internal habitual tendencies and by external associated dharmas such as the mental factor of contact.

The teaching and analogy above are intended to reveal that, from beginningless time, the causal continuum of this consciousness is neither annihilated nor permanent.

That is to say, from beginningless time the nature of this consciousness has been such that, moment after moment, the effect arises as the cause ceases. Because the effect arises, it is not annihilation; because the cause ceases, it is not permanence. Neither annihilation nor permanence is the meaning of the principle of dependent origination. Therefore, this consciousness is said to be constant yet evolving, like a rushing stream.

Question: Since the past and future are not truly existent, it is reasonable to say that there is no permanence, but how can there be no annihilation? Yet if non-permanence is itself annihilation, how can the true principle of dependent origination be established?

Answer: If the past and future were truly existent, one might say there is no annihilation, but how could there be no permanence? Yet if non-annihilation is itself permanence, the true principle of dependent origination would likewise not be established.

Question: Nevertheless, one cannot establish one's own doctrine merely by refuting the errors of others, can one?

Answer: Unless erroneous views are demolished, it is difficult to reveal what is correct. At the very moment the preceding cause ceases, the subsequent effect arises, like the two ends of a balance rising and falling simultaneously. In this way, causes and effects continue like a flowing stream. Why must the past and future truly exist in order for there to be no annihilation?

Question: At the very moment the cause exists, the subsequent effect has not yet arisen. Of what, then, is that cause the cause? At the very moment the effect exists, the preceding cause has already passed away. Of what cause, then, is that effect the effect? Since there is neither cause nor effect, what is it that is free from annihilation and permanence?

Answer: If you say that when the cause exists the subsequent effect already exists, then since that effect already exists, why need it await the preceding cause? If there is no cause, how can there be an effect? Without cause and without effect, how could there be freedom from annihilation and permanence?

– According to the Mahayana teaching, the meaning of cause and effect is established in dependence upon the functioning of the essential nature of dharmas. Therefore, your objection has no bearing upon our Mahayana doctrine. According to your position, if the essential nature of the effect already exists inherently, then the function of the effect also already exists inherently, and the causes and conditions upon which it must depend also already exist inherently. Thus, cause and effect could certainly not exist.

– You should therefore have faith in and follow the Mahayana's true principle of dependent origination, the profound and wondrous principle that transcends words. The terms “cause” and “effect” are both provisional designations. Observing that a present dharma has the function of bringing about what follows, one provisionally designates what is to come as the future effect and, in relation to it, speaks of the present dharma as the cause. Observing that a present dharma bears the characteristic of corresponding to what preceded it, one provisionally designates what preceded as the past cause and, in relation to it, speaks of the present dharma as the effect. “Provisional” means that within present consciousness there appear semblances of those characteristics of cause and effect.

In this way, the principle of cause and effect is clearly revealed, far removed from the two extremes of annihilation and permanence and accordant with the Middle Way. Those who possess wisdom should follow it in their study and practice.

– Other schools say: “Although the past and future do not exist, causes and effects nevertheless continue without interruption.” That is to say, present dharmas change so swiftly that they appear to have two phases, a beginning and an end. At the time of arising, a dharma answers to its cause; at the time of ceasing, it leads to the arising of an effect. Although there are two times, their essential nature is one. The very moment the preceding cause ceases is the very moment the subsequent effect arises. Although their essential characteristics differ, both truly exist. Thus, cause and effect are not fictitious fabrications, yet they are free from annihilation and permanence and are not subject to the preceding objection. How could a wise person reject this and believe that other doctrine?

The author of the treatise: Those are merely empty words, utterly devoid of true meaning. If a single moment contains two times, and arising and cessation are opposed to one another, how can both belong to the present? If cessation is in the present, arising must be in the future.

“Existence” is called arising, and since it is already present, while “nonexistence” is called cessation, how could cessation not belong to the past? If cessation is not nonexistence, then arising is not existence. Since arising is present existence, cessation should be present nonexistence.

Moreover, since the two oppose one another, how can their essential nature be one? No such thing is observed, as it is with suffering and pleasure. If arising and cessation are one, the preceding and subsequent times must be two; but if arising and cessation differ, how can their essential nature be said to be identical?

Therefore, the proposition that arising and cessation both exist in the present and both depend upon a single essential nature cannot be established.

– The position of the masters of the Sautrantika school concerning the continuity of cause and effect also cannot be established, because they do not accept the existence of the alaya-consciousness that preserves the seeds.

– Therefore, one should have faith in and follow the Mahayana's true principle of dependent origination and the continuity of cause and effect. (20)

– From beginningless time, this consciousness has been constant yet evolving like a flowing stream. At what stage, then, is it completely relinquished?

– It is completely relinquished only at the stage of arhatship. That is to say, when noble beings have severed the afflictive obstruction until it is entirely exhausted, they are called arhats. At that time, the coarse burden of the afflictions in this consciousness is forever removed; hence this is called relinquishment.

Here, the term “arhat” collectively includes the fruit of the stage beyond training in all three vehicles. This is because those of all three vehicles have forever slain the enemy of the afflictions, are worthy of receiving the finest offerings of the world, and will never again undergo the fruit of delimited birth and death.

– How is this known? In the section on ascertainment in the Yogacarabhumi, it is said: “Arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and Tathagatas no longer possess the alaya-consciousness” (that is, they no longer possess the storehouse appropriated through attachment to self). The Compendium further says: “When bodhisattvas attain bodhi, they immediately sever the afflictive obstruction and the cognitive obstruction, attaining the fruit of alaya and Tathagata.”

Question: If so, because bodhisattvas have not yet forever severed all seeds of the afflictions and are not arhats, logically they should all still possess the alaya-consciousness. Why, then, does that same section on ascertainment also say: “Non-retrogressing bodhisattvas likewise do not possess the alaya-consciousness”? (“Possess” here means that the alaya-consciousness still exists.)

Answer: What that section on ascertainment says refers only to those at the stage beyond training in the Two Vehicles who have redirected their minds toward great bodhi. They will certainly never again regress to give rise to the afflictive obstruction. Because they have then set forth toward bodhi, their designation is changed and they are called non-retrogressing bodhisattvas. These persons do not possess the alaya-consciousness; that is, they are included among the arhats. Therefore, that passage of the treatise does not conflict with this meaning.

Furthermore, in bodhisattvas at the eighth, Immovable Ground and above, none of the afflictions ever become active again. They spontaneously flow within the stream of attachment to dharmas and can fully give rise to all practices, such as generosity and so forth. Because they advance progressively with each successive moment, only at this stage are they called non-retrogressing and immovable bodhisattvas.

Although bodhisattvas on this Immovable Ground have not yet completely severed the seeds of the afflictions within the resultant consciousness, the view of self and attachment to self that take this resultant consciousness as their object no longer appropriate it as an inner self. They thereby forever relinquish the designation “alaya.” Therefore, it is said that at this stage they do not possess the alaya-consciousness, and they too are called arhats.

– One view holds that bodhisattvas from the First Ground onward, because they have realized the true principle revealed by the two kinds of emptiness, attained the two kinds of excellent wisdom—fundamental wisdom and subsequently acquired wisdom—eliminated the two discriminatively arisen heavy obstructions in their seed form, and perfected all practices within each single practice, may therefore, whenever they give rise to afflictions for the benefit of sentient beings, do so without incurring the faults of affliction. They are thus called non-retrogressing bodhisattvas. Although bodhisattvas at this stage have not yet completely eliminated the俱生 afflictions, the discriminative consciousness that conditions this consciousness no longer appropriates and stores it as an inner self. Hence, they also relinquish the name alaya. It is therefore said that at this stage they no longer possess the alaya-consciousness, and this verse also calls bodhisattvas from the First Ground onward arhats. Thus, the Compendium of Abhidharma says: “Although bodhisattvas of the Ten Grounds have not yet permanently eliminated all afflictions, these afflictions are merely like poisons counteracted by spells and medicines; they no longer carry the faults of affliction. At every stage, these bodhisattvas are like arhats who have completely eliminated afflictions, and therefore they too are called arhats.”

The Treatise Master: - That assertion is unreasonable. Up through the Seventh Ground, there still remain the俱生 view of self and attachment to self—not discriminatively arisen ones—which appropriate and store this consciousness as an inner self. How, then, could the name alaya have been relinquished? If it is said that, because the discriminatively arisen view of self and attachment to self—rather than the俱生 ones—no longer appropriate and store this consciousness as an inner self, this too is called relinquishment, then could trainees such as stream-enterers also be said to have relinquished the name alaya? If this were accepted, it would contradict and undermine what is taught in the treatises.

– Bodhisattvas on the Grounds always possess right wisdom; thus, even when afflictions arise, they incur no fault. Stream-enterers cannot do this, so how could they be compared with bodhisattvas?

The Treatise Master: - Although afflictions may arise within the six consciousnesses of bodhisattvas who have entered the Grounds, because they possess right wisdom, they do not incur the faults of affliction. Yet, when the seventh consciousness is in a contaminated state of mind, it still spontaneously manifests and appropriates the eighth consciousness as a store. In this respect, how are they not the same as stream-enterers? Therefore, it should be known that the foregoing assertion is unreasonable.

Arhats, however, have completely eliminated the coarse heaviness of afflictions within the storehouse consciousness and no longer appropriate and store the alaya-consciousness as an inner self. Consequently, the name alaya is permanently lost; this is what is meant by “relinquishment.” It does not mean relinquishing the entire substantial existence of the alaya-consciousness. One must not suppose that arhats have no consciousness that preserves the seeds and that they therefore immediately enter nirvana without remainder.

Although the eighth consciousness exists in every sentient being, many different names are established for it according to distinctions in meaning.

It is called Mind because it is where the seeds perfumed by all dharmas are accumulated and stored. It is called Adana because it grasps and retains the seeds and the material faculties, preventing them from being lost or destroyed. It is called the Basis of the Knowable because it serves as the basis for all knowable defiled and purified dharmas. It is called the Seed Consciousness because it spontaneously grasps and retains the seeds of all mundane and supramundane dharmas. The names given above apply throughout all stages, from ordinary beings to the worthy and noble ones.

It is called Alaya because it contains and preserves defiled dharmas and because it is appropriated and stored as an inner self by the view of self and attachment to self. This name applies only at the stages of ordinary beings and trainees; it cannot apply at the stages of those beyond training or non-retrogressing bodhisattvas, for at those stages the meaning of appropriating and storing defiled dharmas no longer exists.

It is called the Retributive Consciousness because it leads to the retributive fruits of wholesome and unwholesome karma throughout birth and death. This name applies only at the stages of ordinary beings, practitioners of the Two Vehicles, and bodhisattvas; it does not apply at the stage of the Tathagata, for the Tathagata no longer possesses indeterminate retributive dharmas.

It is called the Immaculate Consciousness because it serves as the basis for supremely pure, uncontaminated dharmas. This name applies only at the stage of the Tathagata. Bodhisattvas, practitioners of the Two Vehicles, and ordinary beings still grasp and retain contaminated seeds, remain susceptible to perfuming, and have not yet attained an eighth consciousness that is perfectly pure. As a sutra says:

The Tathagata’s immaculate consciousness

Is pure in nature and uncontaminated,

Liberated from every obstruction,

And conjoined with mirror-like wisdom.

Because the name alaya involves grave faults and is relinquished first, it is emphasized first in this verse. Bodhisattvas relinquish the substantial existence of the retributive consciousness when they are about to realize bodhi, while shravakas and pratyekabuddhas relinquish it when they enter nirvana without remainder. The substantial existence of the Immaculate Consciousness, however, is never relinquished, because the time during which sentient beings are benefited is endless. The four names Mind, Adana, Basis of the Knowable, and Omniseed apply throughout all stages, each being used according to the appropriate meaning of defilement or purity.

– The eighth consciousness, in general, has two stages:

1. - At the contaminated stage, it belongs to the indeterminate nature. Although it is associated with the five universally active mental factors, it takes as its objects only the appropriated objects and the surrounding world, as explained above.

2. At the uncontaminated stage, it belongs to the wholesome nature and is associated with twenty-one mental factors: the five universally active factors, the five object-determining factors, and the eleven wholesome factors. The universally active mental factors are always associated with every mind.

The mental factor of aspiration always delights in realizing and knowing contemplated objects. The mental factor of resolute conviction always confirms and firmly retains contemplated objects. The mental factor of mindfulness always clearly remembers objects previously experienced.

As for the mental factor of concentration, the Blessed One is never without a concentrated mind. The mental factor of wisdom always investigates and determines all dharmas. Because there is supremely pure faith, it is always associated with the eleven wholesome factors.

Because it is undefiled, it is not associated with the fundamental or derivative afflictions. Because it is undistracted, it is not associated with the indeterminate mental factors. It is also associated only with neutral feeling, because it always functions spontaneously, freely, and impartially.

It takes all dharmas as its objects because mirror-like wisdom universally takes all dharmas as its objects. (21)

IX. PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE EIGHTH CONSCIOUSNESS

– How is it known that, apart from the eye consciousness and so forth, there exists a distinct substantial eighth consciousness?

Its existence is known by taking the sacred teachings and correct reasoning as authoritative means of knowledge. As the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra says:

The element, since beginningless time,

Has been the basis of all dharmas;

Because of it, the various destinies exist,

And nirvana is realized.

Because the intrinsic nature of this eighth consciousness is subtle, it is revealed through its functions. The first half of the verse shows that the eighth consciousness functions as a cause and condition. The second half shows that the eighth consciousness functions as a basis that grasps and sustains both the cycle of transmigration through the various destinies and the return to cessation in nirvana.

The word “element” means cause; it refers to the Seed Consciousness, which, since beginningless time, has continued in an uninterrupted succession and directly gives rise to all dharmas. Therefore, it is called the cause, or element. The word “basis” means condition; it refers to the consciousness that grasps and sustains.

Since beginningless time, this consciousness has equally served as the basis of all dharmas; therefore, it is called a condition. That is, because it grasps and sustains the seeds and serves as the basis for dharmas in active manifestation, the seeds transform into those actively manifesting dharmas, while its grasping and sustaining provide the basis for those actively manifesting dharmas.

What it transforms into are the external world and the body endowed with faculties. To serve as the support for those dharmas means to serve as the support for the evolving consciousnesses. Because this consciousness appropriates the five material faculties, it enables the five consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—to arise in dependence upon those faculties.

It also serves as the support for manas, while the sixth, mental consciousness, arises in dependence upon that manas. Because manas and mental consciousness both belong to the evolving consciousnesses, like visual consciousness and the others, they must rely upon a coexistent faculty in order to arise. Since the eighth consciousness is itself of the nature of consciousness, it likewise takes the seventh consciousness as its coexistent support.

This explains the function of the eighth consciousness as a cause and condition.

In the verse, the words “because of it, there are” mean because this eighth consciousness exists. “The various destinies” are the wholesome and unwholesome realms. That is, because this eighth consciousness exists and sustains all dharmas conducive to the cyclical flow of samsara, it causes sentient beings to continue revolving through birth and death. Although afflictions, karma, and birth—the four modes of birth—are all aspects of this cyclical flow, “destinies,” being the results, are more significant and are therefore emphasized. Alternatively, “the various destinies” encompasses both that which proceeds toward a destiny and the destiny toward which it proceeds. Since the provisions for the destinies—that is, afflictions and karma—are also called “destinies.”

Afflictions, karma, and birth all depend upon this consciousness. Thus, this consciousness functions as the supporting basis for cyclical existence.

The phrase “And the attainment of nirvana” means that because this eighth consciousness exists, nirvana can be attained. That is, because this eighth consciousness exists and sustains all dharmas conducive to return and cessation, it enables practitioners to attain nirvana. Here only the path of attainment is mentioned, because nirvana does not exist in dependence upon this consciousness. Alternatively, only nirvana as the object of attainment is mentioned here, because it is precisely what practitioners seek.

Alternatively, both nirvana—the Truth of Cessation—and the path—the Truth of the Path—are discussed here in general, for both belong to the category of return and cessation. That is, the word “nirvana” in the verse indicates the quiescent state that is realized. The words “attainment” that follow indicate the path capable of attaining it. Through the path capable of severance—the uninterrupted path—the afflictive outflows to be severed are eliminated, and at the ultimate stage nirvana is attained. The path capable of severance, the afflictive outflows to be severed, the path capable of realization, and the nirvana to be realized all depend upon this consciousness. Thus, this consciousness functions as the supporting basis for return and cessation.

Furthermore, in the verse above, the first line reveals that the intrinsic nature of this consciousness has always existed from beginningless time. The following three lines reveal that it serves, either generally or specifically, as the support for the two classes of dharmas: the defiled and the pure. Defiled dharmas are the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origination: namely, the destinies toward which one proceeds, the four modes of birth, and that which proceeds toward them—afflictions and karma.

Pure dharmas are the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path: namely, the nirvana to be realized and the path capable of realizing it. Both nirvana and the path exist in dependence upon this consciousness. If they depended upon the evolving consciousnesses, they could not be established.

Alternatively, the first line of the verse reveals that the substance of this consciousness has continued without interruption from beginningless time, while the following three lines reveal that it serves as the support for the three natures: the dependent nature in the second line, the imagined nature in the third line, and the perfectly accomplished nature in the fourth line. They should be understood in this sequence.

– The meanings expressed in the verse above could not be established apart from the eighth consciousness. Indeed, the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra says:

Because the consciousness stores all

The seeds of the various dharmas,

It is called alaya.

I teach it only to the excellent.

Because this eighth, fundamental consciousness contains all seeds, it can store the defiled dharmas. In accordance with this meaning, the eighth consciousness is named alaya. It is not like the “primal nature” asserted by the Vaisheshika school, which they claim transforms into the Great Principle of Intelligence and so forth. Here, the substance of a seed and the fruit of that seed are not identical, because that which depends and that upon which it depends arise and cease together.

Because it and the defiled dharmas mutually store one another, and because it is also that which sentient beings grasp and conceal as a self, this consciousness is called alaya.

– Bodhisattvas who have entered the path of seeing and attained true direct contemplation are called “the excellent.” Because they can directly realize and know the alaya consciousness, our Blessed One explicitly revealed and taught it to them. Alternatively, all bodhisattvas before the ten bhumis are called “the excellent.” Although before entering the path of seeing they cannot yet directly realize and know the alaya consciousness, they can accept through faith the principle of Consciousness-Only and seek the fruit of transforming its basis; therefore, the Buddha also teaches it to them. The evolving consciousnesses cannot possess these meanings.

– The Samdhinirmocana Sutra also says:

The adana consciousness is exceedingly profound and subtle;

All its seeds are like a rushing stream.

I do not teach it to ordinary, foolish beings,

Lest they discriminate and grasp it as a self.

Because it can retain the seeds of the various dharmas, appropriate the five material faculties and the body upon which those material faculties depend, and also grasp the aggregates conditioned by karma so that rebirth continues without interruption, this consciousness is called adana. Sentient beings who lack the disposition for awakening cannot know its ultimate depth; therefore, it is said to be exceedingly profound.

Those of the Two Vehicles whose disposition inclines toward quiescence cannot comprehend it; therefore, it is said to be exceedingly subtle. It is the true seed of all dharmas. Whenever it encounters stimulating conditions, it immediately manifests the waves of the evolving consciousnesses, constantly and without interruption, like a rushing stream.

In the verse, “ordinary” refers to those who lack the disposition for awakening, while “foolish” refers to those of the Two Vehicles who incline toward quiescence. Fearing that these two kinds of beings would discriminate regarding this consciousness, falsely grasp it as a self, fall into unwholesome destinies, and obstruct their birth into the noble path, our Blessed One did not reveal it to them.

Only the eighth consciousness fully possesses such characteristics.

– The Lankavatara Sutra also says:

Just as the ocean, encountering the condition of wind,

Gives rise to waves of every kind,

Which manifestly produce their functions

Without ever being interrupted,

So too is the ocean of the store consciousness:

Stirred by the winds of sense objects,

It constantly gives rise to waves of consciousness,

Which manifestly produce their functions.

The visual, auditory, and other consciousnesses cannot, like the great ocean, continuously evolve and give rise to waves of consciousness. Therefore, it is known that there must be a distinct eighth consciousness-nature.

In countless Mahayana sutras, this eighth consciousness is taught as distinctly existent. Moreover, the Mahayana sutras accord with the principle of non-self and oppose the satkaya-drishti—the view of a sentient self. They contain principles that reject the cyclical flow of birth and death and lead toward the return and cessation of nirvana; praise the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; refute non-Buddhist teachings; reveal the dharmas of the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus; and reject the primal nature asserted by non-Buddhists. Therefore, those who delight in the Mahayana all accept that the Mahayana sutras reveal principles free from error. Because they are included among the sutras, just as the Ekottara Agama and other scriptures are, they constitute valid scriptural testimony.

Furthermore, the noble Maitreya used the following seven reasons to prove that the Mahayana sutras were truly spoken by the Buddha:

1. Because the Buddha did not previously predict otherwise—If the Mahayana sutras had been composed after the Buddha’s nirvana by people who wished to destroy the True Dharma, why did the Blessed One not predict this beforehand, as he had predicted the terrifying events that would occur?

2. Because they have circulated together from the beginning—The teachings of the Great and Lesser Vehicles have circulated together from ancient times until the present. How, then, can it be known that only the Mahayana sutras were not spoken by the Buddha?

3. Because it is not the sphere of others – The vast and exceedingly profound Mahayana teaching is not a sphere that non-Buddhists can fathom through discursive thought. Their scriptures and treatises have never spoken of the Mahayana teaching; even if it were explained to them, they would neither believe nor accept it. Therefore, the Mahayana sutras could not have been spoken by anyone who was not a Buddha.

4.. Because it should be acknowledged – If it is said that the Mahayana teaching was spoken by other Buddhas and not by Shakyamuni Buddha, then the Mahayana teaching was spoken by Buddhas; this principle clearly must be acknowledged.

5. Because of the reasoning concerning existence and nonexistence – If one accepts that the Mahayana teaching exists, then one should believe that it was spoken by the Buddha, because apart from the Mahayana sutras there is no Mahayana teaching. If one says that the Mahayana teaching does not exist, then the teaching of the Shravaka Vehicle also does not exist, because apart from the Mahayana teaching, it is certainly impossible to know what one could rely upon to attain Buddhahood. If there were no Buddha, who could appear in the world and expound the teaching of the Shravaka Vehicle? Therefore, to accept only the teaching of the Shravaka Vehicle as spoken by the Buddha while disparaging the Mahayana teaching is unreasonable.

6. Because it counteracts – Those who diligently practice in accordance with the Mahayana teaching can all attain nonconceptual wisdom, which is capable of directly counteracting all afflictions. Therefore, one should believe that the Mahayana sutras were spoken by the Buddha.

7. Because the meaning differs from the words – The intent of the Mahayana teaching is extremely profound. One must not grasp the meaning merely according to the words and then give rise to slander, claiming that it was not spoken by the Buddha.

For reasons such as those above, it should be known that the Mahayana sutras were truly spoken by the Buddha. The Treatise on the Adornment of the Mahayana contains a verse summarizing the meanings above:

Not foretold beforehand, yet transmitted together;

Not the sphere of non-Buddhists;

Acknowledged alike, whether existent or nonexistent;

Counteraction, and meaning differing from the words.

The sutras belonging to the various Buddhist schools also covertly and intentionally speak of the alaya-consciousness. For example, in the Agama sutras of the Mahasanghika school, this consciousness is covertly designated the Root Consciousness, the basis upon which the eye-consciousness and so forth rely, just as the root of a tree is the basis of its branches and leaves. The eye-consciousness and so forth do not possess this meaning.

– In the sutras of the Sthavira school and of the Vibhajyavadins, this consciousness is covertly designated the bhavanga-consciousness. Bhava means the three modes of existence—the three realms—and anga means cause. Only this consciousness, which is constant and all-pervading, can serve as the cause of the three modes of existence.

– The Mahishasaka school calls this consciousness the Skandha Enduring to the End of Samsara. Apart from the eighth consciousness, there cannot separately be any skandha-dharma that proceeds to the uttermost limit of samsara without ever being interrupted. In the Formless Realm, form is interrupted; in the Heaven of Non-Perception, the other minds are extinguished; and the formations dissociated from mind cannot exist independently apart from form and mind. This is something that has already been acknowledged. Therefore, it should be known that only this alaya-consciousness can be called the Skandha Enduring to the End of Samsara.

– The Ekottara Agama of the Sarvastivada school also covertly says that this consciousness is called alaya, as when it speaks of love of alaya, delight in alaya, fondness for alaya, and rejoicing in alaya. That is, because the craving of manas toward alaya (Alaya-rama, Alaya-rata, Alaya-sammudita) throughout the three times has both general existence and specific differences, these four names are established. Sentient beings grasp it as the true inner self; until that grasping has ceased, they constantly give rise to a mind that cherishes and clings to it. Therefore, the alaya-consciousness is the true object of attachment. They do not cling to the “five appropriated skandhas” as such, because when born in a place where only suffering is experienced, they do not cherish and cling to the body of the five appropriated skandhas there, but continually loathe that body of five appropriated skandhas, thinking, “When shall I be able to relinquish this life faculty of the five appropriated skandhas, this common nature of the species, and this suffering body and mind, so that I may freely enjoy bliss?”

The five sensual desires are likewise not the true object of attachment. Those who are free from sensual desire, although they no longer crave or delight in the five sensual desires, still cherish their own self.

Pleasant feeling is likewise not the true object of attachment. Those who have become detached from the defilement of the Third Dhyana, although they loathe the pleasant feeling of the Third Dhyana, still cherish their own self.

The view of a self in the body is likewise not the true object of attachment. Those who are not beyond training but believe in the principle of non-self, although they do not give rise to attachment to the view of a self in the body, still cherish and cling to the self within.

The evolving consciousnesses are likewise not the true object of attachment. Those who are not beyond training but seek the cessation of mind, although they loathe the evolving consciousnesses, still cherish their own self.

The material body is likewise not the true object of attachment. Those who are free from defilement concerning form, although they loathe the material body, still cherish their own self.

Because formations dissociated from mind cannot exist independently apart from form and mind, they likewise are not the true object of attachment.

When ordinary beings and those in training give rise to self-love, although they may or may not have attachment toward the other skandhas, they invariably cherish and grasp this eighth consciousness as the self.

Therefore, only this eighth consciousness is the true object of attachment. Thus, the Ekottara Agama mentions the name alaya precisely to reveal this alaya-consciousness.

– The sacred teachings have above been cited as evidence for the existence of the alaya-consciousness. The correct reasoning that establishes it will now be presented.

1. A sutra says: The place where the seeds of all defiled and purified dharmas are accumulated and from which they arise is called mind. If this consciousness did not exist, the mind that preserves those seeds could not exist.

The evolving consciousnesses are interrupted when one enters the attainment of cessation and so forth. The faculties, objects, attention, wholesome mind, and so forth are of different kinds; they arise and perish easily, like flashes of lightning. Being unstable, they can neither be perfumed nor preserve seeds; therefore, they are not the mind that accumulates and gives rise to the seeds of defiled and purified dharmas.

Only this eighth consciousness, which remains continuously of one kind from before to after without interruption, possesses a stable nature and can receive perfuming like sesame seeds. It therefore corresponds to the meaning of the word “mind” spoken of in the sutra. If one does not accept the existence of a mind that preserves seeds, one contradicts not only the sutras but also correct reasoning.

For then defiled and purified dharmas would arise without having been perfumed. If perfuming did not produce seeds, their arising would be without purpose. If defiled and purified dharmas arose without depending upon seeds, this would be the same as the non-Buddhist doctrine of spontaneous arising.

– Form and formations dissociated from mind are not mind, just as echoes and light are not. They are not the place perfumed by internal defiled and purified dharmas, so how could they preserve seeds? Furthermore, these dharmas of form and dissociated formations cannot exist independently apart from consciousness, so how could they be posited as the basis of internal seeds?

The mental factors associated with the evolving consciousnesses are, like the evolving consciousnesses themselves, interrupted, easily arising and easily perishing, lacking autonomy, and not mind. Therefore, they cannot preserve seeds, nor can they receive perfuming. Thus, according to correct reasoning, there must be a distinct mind that preserves seeds.

– One theory holds that the six consciousnesses, from beginningless time, depend upon faculties and objects and possess successive stages. Although the substance of consciousness changes according to the three natures, it remains of the same class and can therefore receive perfuming and preserve seeds. In this way, the causes and effects of defilement and purification are established; why, then, is it necessary to posit an eighth consciousness?

– That assertion is meaningless. Why? Because if one maintains that the class of consciousness is real, one falls into agreement with the non-Buddhist Vaiśeṣika school. If one maintains that the class of consciousness is merely nominal, it has no powerful efficacy and therefore cannot preserve the real seeds of internal dharmas.

Furthermore, under which moral nature is this class of consciousness included? If it is wholesome or unwholesome in nature, it cannot receive perfuming, because it is morally determinate, just as the unconditioned dharma of cessation through discernment is. If it is morally indeterminate, then whenever a wholesome or unwholesome mind arises, there is no morally indeterminate mind, and this class of consciousness would necessarily be interrupted. Nor can it be said that the substance of consciousness may be wholesome or unwholesome while its class alone is morally indeterminate, because if their classes differ, this is likewise the same as saying that the natures of the substances of consciousness differ.

In a state without mind, this class of consciousness certainly does not exist. Since it is interrupted and its nature is not enduring, how can it be maintained that it preserves seeds and receives perfuming?

Moreover, in an arhat or an ordinary being, the classes of the six consciousnesses are alike morally indeterminate. It would then be possible for an arhat to perfume them with defiled dharmas and for an ordinary being to perfume them with undefiled dharmas. To allow this would entail error.

Moreover, the faculties of the eye, ear, and so forth, or other dharmas, together with eye-consciousness, have classes—the class of the faculty, the class of the dharma, and the class of that consciousness—that are alike morally indeterminate. They should therefore perfume one another. Yet you do not accept this. Consequently, one should not maintain that the class of consciousness receives perfuming.

Furthermore, regarding the six consciousnesses, whether their own substances or their classes, two successive moments do not arise simultaneously. Just as moments widely separated in time cannot perfume one another, so too these successive moments cannot perfume each other, because that which perfumes and that which is perfumed must exist simultaneously.

As for those who maintain that “the six consciousnesses arising simultaneously can perfume one another” (the first five consciousnesses simultaneously perfume the sixth), it should be understood from the reasoning already given that, since the sixth consciousness is not that which can be perfumed, it also cannot preserve seeds.

– Some maintain that matter and mind continue without interruption within their own respective classes, with the preceding moment serving as the seed of the subsequent moment, and that the principle of cause and effect is thereby established. Therefore, the foregoing statement—that it is called Mind because it accumulates and gives rise to phenomena, referring to the ālaya-consciousness—does not constitute valid proof.

– That position is unreasonable because there is no perfuming. Since there is no perfuming between the successive moments of their respective classes, how can one maintain that the preceding moment serves as the seed of the subsequent moment? Furthermore, if continuity within a class is interrupted, it could never arise again; and adepts of the Two Vehicles beyond training would have no body of five skandhas in a subsequent life, because according to that position, the matter and mind present at death serve as seeds for the subsequent body.

Nor should it be maintained that matter and mind alternately serve as seeds that produce one another, because neither the evolving consciousnesses nor matter receive perfuming, as already explained.

– One theory holds that all dharmas of the three times possess causes that bring about fruits and fruits that requite causes; why, then, is it necessary to maintain that an eighth consciousness preserves the seeds? The sutras speak of mind as seed only because mind possesses the powerful function of bringing forth defiled and pure dharmas.

– The assertion that dharmas of the three times exist is unreasonable. Past and future dharmas are neither permanent nor presently existent; like flowers seen in empty space, they do not truly exist. Furthermore, since they are said to have no activity, they cannot be maintained to be causes and conditions. If there were no eighth consciousness to preserve the seeds of defilement and purity, the principle of cause and effect could not be established.

– Some maintain that the Mahayana principle of “emptiness and signlessness” is ultimate. Relying only on seemingly valid inference, they repudiate everything completely, maintaining not only that this consciousness does not exist but that no dharma whatsoever exists. Such people contradict and undermine the scriptural passages cited above. They regard as unreal the knowledge of suffering, the abandonment of its origin, the realization of cessation, the cultivation of the path, and the causes and effects of defilement and purity; thus, theirs is a gravely wrong view. Even non-Buddhists who malign the causes and effects of defilement and purity do not say that they are utterly nonexistent but merely maintain that they are not real. If absolutely nothing truly existed, bodhisattvas should not diligently cultivate the unreal provisions for bodhi in order to relinquish an unreal samsara. What wise person would seek the child of a barren woman or raise an army to fight an illusory enemy seen in a dream?

Therefore, one should believe that a mind exists which preserves seeds and on the basis of which the causes and effects of defilement and purity are established. That mind is precisely this eighth consciousness.

2. Furthermore, the sutras say: There is a maturation mind brought about by wholesome and unwholesome karma. If this eighth consciousness did not exist, that maturation mind could not exist. Eye-consciousness and the other consciousnesses are interrupted and are not always karmic fruits (when morally indeterminate, they are karmic fruits; when wholesome or unwholesome, they are not karmic fruits). Like lightning, they therefore are not the maturation mind. The maturation mind cannot cease and then resume, because the life faculty, which is a maturation, does not behave in that manner.

Although the six consciousnesses—eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, and so forth—are brought about by karma, they do not continue constantly, just as sound does not. They are products of maturation, not the true maturation itself.

It must therefore be accepted that there is a true maturation mind which requites the projecting karma, pervades the entire body without interruption, and manifests the faculties, body, and surrounding world as the support of sentient beings. The faculties, body, and surrounding world cannot exist apart from the maturation mind. Conditioned forces dissociated from mind have no real substance, and the evolving consciousnesses do not exist perpetually. If there were no such maturation mind, what would manifest the faculties, body, and surrounding world? Moreover, upon what dharma would the continuous existence of sentient beings depend?

Furthermore, while one is in a meditative concentration devoid of all deliberation, or while outside concentration one is considering something else, many sensations nevertheless continually arise in the body. If there were no maturation mind to apprehend and sustain those sensations, the body could not subsequently experience ease or fatigue. If the maturation mind did not exist perpetually, how could these bodily sensations be experienced after emerging from concentration?

Among sentient beings who are not Buddhas, whenever other wholesome minds arise, the true maturation mind must certainly arise simultaneously with them.

Question: Why does a Buddha alone have no maturation mind?

Answer: - When the true maturation mind is accepted as arising, its possessor is thereby a sentient being and not a Buddha.

Therefore, sentient beings always possess the true maturation mind, and that mind is precisely this eighth consciousness.

3. Furthermore, the sutras say: Sentient beings transmigrate through the five destinies and the four modes of birth. If this consciousness did not exist, the essential basis of those five destinies and four modes of birth could not exist. That is, only a dharma possessing all four qualities—real existence, constancy, pervasiveness, and freedom from confusion—can properly be established as the essential basis of the five destinies and four modes of birth. If a dharma is not a maturation, the essential basis of the destinies and modes of birth would become confused, since while abiding in one, a dharma belonging to another destiny or mode of birth could arise.

Material maturations and the portions of the five consciousnesses brought about by karma do not pervade all destinies and modes of birth, because in the formless realm there is no matter whatsoever and none of the five manifest consciousnesses. Innately acquired wholesome qualities and the portions of mental consciousness brought about by karma pervade all destinies and modes of birth and arise without confusion, but they do not exist constantly.

Conditioned forces dissociated from mind have no real substance. None of the dharmas mentioned above can therefore be established as the true essential basis of the five destinies and four modes of birth.

Only the fruition mind and its mental factors truly exist, are constant, pervasive, and unmixed, and can therefore properly and truly serve as the real substance of a realm of rebirth. If this fruition mind did not exist, then when one is born in the formless realm—where there is no form and none of the five consciousnesses, but only mental consciousness—and a wholesome mind arises, it would certainly not constitute the substance of that realm of rebirth. Even if it were accepted as the substance of the realm of rebirth because it subsumes all contaminated dharmas, when non-returners are born in the formless realm and an uncontaminated mind arises, it would not constitute the substance of the realm of rebirth. Such an assertion is contrary to reason.

To avoid both the preceding fault and this fault, it should be understood that only the fruition dharma properly and truly constitutes the substance of a realm of rebirth. Therefore, the Tathagata is not included within the substance of any realm of rebirth, because the Buddha no longer possesses any indeterminate fruition dharma. Nor does the Buddha belong to any realm, because the Buddha no longer possesses the three outflows, and because the Blessed One has relinquished the truths of suffering and its origin. In him, the seeds of conceptual proliferation have been forever eradicated.

The true substance of a realm of rebirth consists solely of the fruition mind and its mental factors, yet this mind and its mental factors cannot exist apart from the eighth consciousness. Therefore, it should be understood that this eighth consciousness exists distinctly.

4. Furthermore, a sutra says: “The body endowed with material faculties is appropriated and experienced. If this eighth consciousness did not exist, there could be nothing capable of appropriating and experiencing that body endowed with material faculties.” This means that the five material faculties and their supporting basis are appropriated and experienced only during the present life.

They must therefore be appropriated and experienced by a mind capable of doing so. That mind can only be the fruition mind produced by past karma; it cannot be any wholesome, defiled, or other indeterminate dharma, for none of these is capable of pervasively and continuously appropriating and experiencing the body endowed with material faculties. The evolving consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—also lack such a capacity.

The statement, “Only the fruition mind appropriates and experiences the body and its faculties,” is intended to show that the evolving consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—do not possess a uniform nature capable of pervasively and continuously appropriating and experiencing their own internal body endowed with material faculties. It does not mean that only the fruition mind is capable of appropriation and experience, for the immaculate consciousness also appropriates and experiences.

Otherwise, one might suppose that the Buddha’s uncontaminated material body is not appropriated and experienced, whereas the Buddha’s material body is appropriated and experienced by the immaculate consciousness. Here, however, the appropriation and experience of a contaminated material body is said to belong solely to the fruition mind.

The evolving consciousnesses arise in dependence upon present conditions, like sounds or wind. Wholesome and defiled minds are not produced by karma, just as non-analytical cessation is not. That which is born of fruition is not true fruition; it is not the basis of all dharmas and does not continue uninterruptedly. Like a flash of lightning, it is incapable of appropriating and experiencing the contaminated material body.

– The expression “various minds and consciousnesses” also includes their mental factors, because mind and mental factors are necessarily associated with one another, just as the expression “Consciousness-Only” also includes mental factors.

Neither the “material faculties” nor “formations dissociated from mind” are capable of appropriating and experiencing the body endowed with material faculties, because they have no objects of cognition, just as space does not.

Therefore, there must be a distinct mind that appropriates and experiences, and that mind is precisely this eighth consciousness.

5. Furthermore, a sutra says: “The three dharmas—lifespan, warmth, and consciousness—depend upon and sustain one another, thereby continuing to exist. If this consciousness did not exist, there could be no consciousness capable of preserving lifespan and warmth so that they endure for a long time.” The evolving consciousnesses are interrupted and undergo change, like wind and sound.

They do not perform a continuous sustaining function and therefore cannot be established as the consciousness that preserves lifespan and warmth. Only the uninterrupted and unchanging fruition consciousness, which is like lifespan and warmth, continuously performs the sustaining function. Therefore, this fruition consciousness may be established as the consciousness that preserves lifespan and warmth.

The sutra says that these three depend upon and sustain one another. If lifespan and warmth alone continued uniformly while consciousness did not, this would be contrary to right reason.

Question: Although it is said that the three dharmas—lifespan, warmth, and consciousness—depend upon and sustain one another, it is nevertheless accepted that warmth does not pervade the three realms, since there is no warmth in the formless realm. Why, then, may it not be separately accepted that “consciousness” is interrupted and undergoes change?

Answer: This does not constitute a valid objection to the preceding reasoning. Wherever all three dharmas are present without interruption or change, they can continuously sustain one another. If this were not so, they could not perform the function of continuously sustaining one another.

The preceding reasoning was used to show that the consciousness mentioned among the three dharmas—lifespan, warmth, and consciousness—is not an evolving consciousness. Thus, even if it is held that warmth does not pervade the three realms, how would that undermine the preceding reasoning? Therefore, as stated before, the principle is conclusively established.

Moreover, among the three dharmas, lifespan and warmth are exclusively contaminated. It should therefore be understood that the consciousness preserving that lifespan and warmth is also contaminated. When one is born in the formless realm and an uncontaminated mind arises, if there were then no fruition mind, what consciousness would sustain the lifespan in that formless realm? From this it should be understood that there is a uniform, constant, and pervasive fruition consciousness that sustains lifespan, warmth, and consciousness. This is the eighth consciousness.

6. Furthermore, a sutra says: “When sentient beings take birth and when their lives end, they are certainly in a distracted state with mind, not in a concentration devoid of mind. If this fruition consciousness did not exist, there could be no mind at the times of birth and death.” This means that at the times of birth and death, the body and mind are dull and obscured, as in dreamless sleep or unconsciousness.

At those times, the lucid evolving consciousnesses certainly do not arise. Moreover, in those states of birth and death, neither the modes of activity nor the objects of the six evolving consciousnesses can be known. As in a state devoid of mind, the evolving consciousnesses certainly do not function.

If the modes of activity and objects of the six evolving consciousnesses were functioning, they would certainly be clearly known as at other times, and would not be as they are at the moment of birth or on the verge of death. The modes of activity and objects of the true fruition consciousness are exceedingly subtle and cannot be clearly known. It is the karmic result produced by karma, continuing for a certain period and remaining constantly without change.

This very distracted state with mind is called the mind at the times of birth and death. This does not contradict right reason.

– One theory holds: “At the moment of taking birth, the five consciousnesses certainly do not exist. Mental consciousness apprehends its objects and arises either because of the five consciousnesses, because of instruction from others, or because of the power of concentration. Since none of these causes is present at the time of taking birth, mental consciousness also does not exist in that state.” This theory regards only the five consciousnesses as causes for the arising of mental consciousness and therefore speaks in this way.

– If so, after sentient beings are born in the formless realm, mental consciousness should never arise again, because the five consciousnesses do not exist in the formless realm. A concentrated mind must certainly be induced by distracted mental consciousness, yet neither the five consciousnesses nor instruction from others exists in the formless realm. Thus, there would be no basis from which the distracted mind that induces the concentrated mind could arise.

If it is said that the concentrated mind suddenly manifests later through the force of prior habituation, why does it not arise immediately upon birth in that realm?

Moreover, when one first takes birth in the desire realm or the form realm, habitual mental consciousness should likewise manifest. If it initially fails to manifest because of dullness and obscuration, then dullness and obscuration are precisely the reason it does not arise, and it must later arise from seeds in the fundamental consciousness. Once this previously stated cause has been acknowledged, why labor to claim that it arises from three other causes—the five consciousnesses, instruction from others, and the power of concentration?

– Other schools hold: “At the moment of birth and at the moment of death, there is a kind of subtle consciousness whose mode of activity and object cannot be clearly known.” It should be understood that this subtle consciousness is precisely the eighth consciousness discussed here, for they have already acknowledged that manifest, coarse consciousness is not such a subtle and difficult-to-know kind.

Furthermore, when death approaches, owing to wholesome or unwholesome karma, a sensation of cold gradually arises in the body, proceeding either upward or downward. Without this consciousness of karmic maturation, this could not occur, because the evolving consciousnesses are unable to receive and sustain the body. The five consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—each have their own particular basis and therefore may not be active.

At that time, the sixth, mental consciousness does not abide throughout the body, and the objects apprehended by the sixth consciousness are not fixed. Moreover, while life continues, the body is constantly and continuously inhabited; therefore, the sensation of cold cannot be produced by a temporary activity of the sixth consciousness. Thus, it should be understood that only the mind of karmic maturation, arising through the force of past karma, constantly and pervasively continues to receive and sustain the parts of the body.

When death approaches, wherever the mind of karmic maturation relinquishes what it has received and sustained in the body, a sensation of cold arises there. Since vitality, warmth, and consciousness do not separate from one another, wherever the sensation of cold arises, that place is no longer part of a sentient being. Although this dead, insentient body is also transformed and taken as an object by the mind of karmic maturation, it is no longer received and sustained by it.

Therefore, the existence of this eighth consciousness is certain.

7. Furthermore, a sutra says: “Consciousness conditions name-and-form; name-and-form conditions consciousness.” These two dharmas depend upon each other in turn, like two bundles of reeds standing upright at the same time. If this eighth consciousness did not exist, the essential nature of the “consciousness” in the statement “consciousness conditions name-and-form” could not be established.

That sutra itself explains that “name” consists of the four non-material skandhas, while “form” is the bodily form in the womb at the kalala stage and so forth. These two, together with consciousness, abide in mutual dependence, like two bundles of reeds that constantly condition one another, standing simultaneously and never separating. The evolving consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—are included within “name.” If the eighth consciousness did not exist, what consciousness could be meant by the statement “consciousness conditions name-and-form”?

Nor can it be said that the consciousness skandha included within the “name” of name-and-form refers only to the five bodily consciousnesses, while the “consciousness” in the statement “consciousness conditions name-and-form” refers to the sixth consciousness, because at the kalala stage the five consciousnesses do not yet exist.

Moreover, the evolving consciousnesses arise intermittently and undergo change; they lack the power constantly to maintain name-and-form. How, then, could they be said always to condition name-and-form mutually?

Therefore, it should be understood that the “consciousness” in “consciousness conditions name-and-form” clearly refers to the eighth consciousness.

(End of Fascicle Three of the Chinese text)

Notes:

(19). This passage states that the alaya-consciousness is associated only with the five universally operative mental factors and neutral feeling.

The five universally operative mental factors are contact, attention, feeling, perception, and volition.

These five mental factors possess four kinds of universality: they pervade all natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate; they pervade all grounds, being present throughout the nine grounds of the three realms; they pervade all times, for whenever mind arises, these five mental factors arise together with it; and they pervade all primary minds. Whenever any of the eight consciousnesses as primary mind arises, these five mental factors arise together with it. Even after consciousness has been transformed into wisdom, these five mental factors remain associated with it.

These five mental factors have modes of activity distinct from consciousness. The mode of activity of consciousness as primary mind is discernment; that of contact is the conjunction of faculty, object, and consciousness; that of attention is arousal; that of feeling is the reception of an object; that of perception is the apprehension of an image; and that of volition is formation and activity. Yet all five share four equalities with consciousness and are therefore said to be associated with mind.

These four equalities are: primary mind and mental factors each equally possess their own distinct essence; they have the same object, meaning that primary mind and mental factors take the same object; they apprehend the object at the same time; and they rely upon the same faculty as their common basis.

Although these five mental factors are always associated with the alaya-consciousness, they do not have the capacity, as the alaya-consciousness does, to receive perfuming—that is, to undergo impregnation.

The alaya-consciousness is also associated only with neutral feeling, and its nature is always unobscured and indeterminate. This means that it has no self-nature. It is only the seventh consciousness that mistakenly grasps it as a self; it is not itself a self. Therefore, it can receive everything perfumed into it by the seven evolving consciousnesses. If it possessed a self-nature, it would certainly discriminate, selecting some things and rejecting others, and could not receive every perfuming. For this same reason, the alaya-consciousness is not associated with wholesome, unwholesome, or defiled mental factors.

(20). This passage states that the alaya-consciousness is central to the principle of causation and fruition.

The alaya-consciousness is like a stream of water: continuous yet changing, neither annihilated nor permanent. Within a single instant, it contains arising, ceasing, cause, and result, just as the two ends of a balance rise and fall simultaneously. The two ends of the balance represent cause and result, while their rising and falling represent arising and ceasing.

Arising and ceasing, cause and result, are present in the same place and within the same present instant. From the present, looking toward the past, the present is called a result; looking toward the future, the present is called a cause. In relation to the present result, the past is called its cause.

Thus, the countless billions of kalpas in the past are still as they are today: the appearance of that cause is merely an appearance resembling something existent, transformed by consciousness. The past has already passed; how could consciousness directly penetrate and know it? Or, in relation to a present cause, one speaks of a future result.

Then even immeasurable kalpas hence are before one’s eyes: only through consciousness is there manifested an appearance resembling the existence of a future result. Yet the future result does not yet exist; how could consciousness actually take it as an object? Therefore, an ancient master said: “The boundless oceans of worlds, self and other, are not separated upon the tip of a hair; the ten times, ancient and present, from beginning to end, never depart from the present thought.”

The Record of the Mirror of the Source says: “Past and future have no substance; through perfuming in each instant, they all belong to the present. Precisely when a present deluded thought arises in opposition to true nature, it is called the initial arising of consciousness; it is not that some initially arising consciousness existed in the past. Therefore, it should be understood that, extending horizontally throughout all places and vertically throughout all times, everything is contained within the single present thought.

“In relation to the present, consciousness transforms and manifests the appearance of a past cause and the appearance of a future result. Sequence, arising, and ceasing are all provisionally posited and do not truly exist. Yet other schools maintain that the arising of cause and result is unreal while the dharma serving as cause and the dharma serving as result exist substantially, with real existence and real cessation. All such views are deluded attachments to dharmas and do not accord with the ultimate principle.”

(21). This passage discusses relinquishing the designation “alaya-consciousness” and explains other names of the eighth consciousness.

Alaya means the storehouse consciousness and comprises the capacity to store, that which is stored, and appropriation as the storehouse through attachment to self. Of these, appropriation as the storehouse through attachment to self is the source of delusion, giving rise to afflictions, the creation of karma, and the suffering of transmigration through birth and death. Thus, when appropriation as the storehouse through attachment to self has been completely ended, the designation “alaya” is relinquished. (This does not mean that the eighth consciousness itself is entirely relinquished.)

At the three stages beyond training attained by sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas, the afflictive obstructions have been completely eliminated and appropriation as the storehouse through attachment to self has been relinquished. Therefore, at these three stages, the designation “alaya” no longer applies.

That is, at the stage of the arhat, the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva from the eighth bhumi onward, the designation “alaya” is relinquished because there is no longer any attachment to self.

The essential nature of consciousness is only one, but according to its meanings, many names are established. At each stage, one name is relinquished and another adopted; relinquishing a name does not mean relinquishing the essential nature itself. For the seeds of all dharmas, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are always present.

If there were no eighth consciousness to sustain them, those seeds would perish and fall into annihilation. Therefore, the essential nature of the eighth consciousness is always present to sustain the seeds, preventing their annihilation. The essential nature of the eighth consciousness is perpetually present, but its designation changes according to changes in its qualities.

Broadly speaking, there are two clearly distinguished stages: defiled and pure. At the defiled stage, namely the contaminated stage, it is called alaya or vipaka, and is associated with the five universally operative mental factors. At the pure stage, namely the uncontaminated stage, when it has been transformed into wisdom, it is called the immaculate consciousness, also called the pure white consciousness, and is associated with twenty-one mental factors: the five universally operative factors, the five object-determining factors, and the eleven wholesome factors.

As for the names Mind, Adana, Support of the Knowable, Seed Consciousness, and Eighth Consciousness, these apply at both the defiled and pure stages, and it is associated only with the five universally operative mental factors.