成唯識論

8. Furthermore, a sutra says: “All sentient beings depend upon nutriment for their continued existence. If this consciousness did not exist, the substance of consciousness-nutriment would be impossible.” That is to say, the sutra teaches that there are four kinds of nutriment:

1. Edible nutriment — Its characteristic is the alteration and disintegration of food. This means that in the Desire Realm, fragrant, flavorful, and tangible substances serve as nutriment as they are altered and digested. Therefore, visible form is not included in edible nutriment, because when color changes and disintegrates, it has no function of nourishing the body.

2. Contact-nutriment — Contact with an object is its characteristic. This means that when the contaminated mental factor of contact in a sentient being contacts an object and produces a joyful or pleasant feeling, it can serve as nutriment. Although the mental factor of contact is associated with all consciousnesses, contact associated with the first six consciousnesses has the stronger meaning of “nutriment,” because the objects contacted here are coarse and clearly manifest; it receives joyful, pleasant, and neutral feelings, accords with the mind, benefits the body, and has a stronger nourishing function.

Treatise on the Demonstration of Consciousness-Only: Proof of the Existence of the Eighth Consciousness (page 8)

3. Volitional nutriment — Hope is its characteristic. This means that the contaminated mental factor of volition, arising together with the mental factor of desire, hopes for desirable objects and can thereby serve as nutriment. Although this mental factor of volition is associated with all consciousnesses, volition associated with mental consciousness has the stronger meaning of nutriment, because mental consciousness has strong expectations regarding its objects.

4. Consciousness-nutriment — Sustaining and maintaining is its characteristic. This means that contaminated consciousness, strengthened by the power of edible nutriment, contact-nutriment, and volitional nutriment, can fulfill the meaning of nutriment. Although “consciousness” here applies generally to the essential nature of all consciousnesses, the eighth consciousness has the stronger meaning of nutriment, because it is of a single kind, continuously sustaining the faculty of life with greater strength.

Therefore, the Compendium of Abhidharma includes these four kinds of nutriment within three skandhas—the skandhas of form, formations, and consciousness—five ayatanas—the ayatanas of odor, flavor, tangibility, dharmas, and mind—and eleven dhatus—the dhatus of odor, flavor, tangibility, dharmas, mind, and the six consciousnesses. These four kinds of nutriment can sustain the bodies and lives of sentient beings and prevent them from perishing; therefore, they are called nutriment.

Edible nutriment functions only in the Desire Realm. Although contact-nutriment and volitional nutriment exist throughout the three realms, they operate in dependence upon the six consciousnesses and therefore may be present or absent according to whether those consciousnesses are present or absent. The evolving consciousnesses—eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, and so forth—are interrupted and subject to change; they do not universally and constantly sustain the body and life.

That is to say, in mindless concentrations—the concentration of non-perception and the concentration of cessation—during deep sleep, unconsciousness, and existence in the Heaven of Non-Perception, the evolving consciousnesses are interrupted. Even in states where mind is present, they change according to their supporting faculties and apprehended objects, across the three natures, three realms, and nine grounds. Therefore, in sustaining the body and life, the evolving consciousnesses neither function universally nor continuously.

How, then, could they sustain them?

Those who maintain that there is no eighth consciousness: upon what, then, does consciousness-nutriment depend? And why does the sutra say, “All sentient beings depend upon nutriment for their continued existence”? Nor can one say that, in a mindless state, although no consciousness is presently active, past or future consciousness serves as nutriment. Past and future consciousnesses are not present and do not endure constantly; like flowers seen in the sky, they have no real substance or real function. Even if they possessed real substance and function, because they are not present, they would be like empty space and could not constitute nutriment.

Nor can one say that the mind which entered the concentration is the nutriment of a sentient being in a mindless state, because when the mindless state is reached, the preparatory mind that entered the concentration no longer exists. It belongs to the past and is not nutriment, its function having already been completely fulfilled.

Furthermore, one cannot say that the formation dissociated from mind present in the concentration of non-perception is nutriment for the sentient being who has entered that concentration, because formations dissociated from mind are not included among the four kinds of nutriment and, apart from form and mind, they have no real existence.

Some maintain that the sixth consciousness remains in the concentration of cessation and can serve as nutriment for the sentient being within that concentration. This view is also unreasonable and will be extensively refuted later. Moreover, let them explain: when sentient beings born in the Form Realm and Formless Realm give rise to an uncontaminated mind, what serves as their nutriment? Since uncontaminated consciousness destroys conditioned existence within the realms, it cannot serve as nutriment for the bodies and lives of sentient beings in those two realms.

Nor can one maintain that contaminated seeds within uncontaminated consciousness can serve as consciousness-nutriment for those sentient beings, because uncontaminated consciousness, like nirvana, cannot sustain contaminated seeds.

Furthermore, one cannot say that the body and life of a sentient being in the higher realms mutually sustain one another and thus serve as nutriment for each other, because body and life are not included among the four kinds of nutriment; among those four there is no “body-and-life nutriment.” Moreover, in the Formless Realm there is no body, so life cannot be sustained by a body; and the commonality of beings among sentient beings has no real substance.

Therefore, it is certainly known that, distinct from the evolving consciousnesses, there is a retributive consciousness that is of one kind, constant, and universal, sustaining the body and life so that they do not perish. On this basis, the Blessed One said: “All sentient beings depend upon nutriment for their continued existence.” Sentient beings are established solely in dependence upon the five appropriated skandhas. The Buddha has no contaminated five skandhas and therefore is not included among sentient beings. Thus, the statement “Sentient beings depend upon nutriment for their continued existence” should be understood as a provisional and skillful teaching, that is, as a figurative expression.

It has thus been established that the retributive consciousness possesses the nature of nutriment to the greatest degree, and that consciousness is precisely this eighth consciousness.

9. Furthermore, a sutra says: “For one abiding in the concentration of cessation, bodily, verbal, and mental formations have all ceased”—bodily formation refers to inhalation and exhalation; verbal formation refers to initial and sustained thought;

mental formation refers to feeling and perception—“yet the life faculty does not cease, warmth is not abandoned, the faculties do not deteriorate, and consciousness does not leave the body.” If this retributive consciousness did not exist, then for one abiding in the concentration of cessation, it would be impossible for “consciousness not to leave the body.” That is to say, because one sees that eye-consciousness and the others have coarse and agitated modes of activity toward their apprehended objects, and that whenever eye-consciousness and the others arise they are accompanied by strain and disturbance, one becomes weary of them and temporarily seeks repose.

Gradually suppressing eye-consciousness and the others so that they no longer arise, until they are entirely extinguished, one abides in the concentration of cessation precisely on the basis of that state. Therefore, within the concentration of cessation, all the evolving consciousnesses have ceased. If one does not accept the existence of another subtle consciousness that remains of one kind before and after, constant and universal, sustaining the life faculty and warmth, then upon what basis does the sutra say, “Consciousness does not leave the body”?

If it is said that after emerging from the concentration of cessation, those evolving consciousnesses arise again, like an intermittent fever returning on alternate days, and therefore they are said not to leave the body, then it should not be said that “mental formations have ceased,” because the six consciousnesses and feeling and perception are alike in arising and ceasing. Moreover, if the life faculty, warmth, and the other faculties were also like the six consciousnesses, grave errors would follow. Therefore, one should accept that the eighth consciousness, like the life faculty and warmth, truly does not leave the body.

Furthermore, if there were absolutely no consciousness during the state of the concentration of cessation, then one would be like bricks and tiles and would not be a sentient being. How, then, could one be called a person abiding in the concentration of cessation?

Furthermore, if there were no retributive consciousness in the state of the concentration of cessation, what would sustain the faculties, the life faculty, and warmth? If they were not sustained, they would all deteriorate and perish, as in a corpse, and there would consequently be neither life faculty nor warmth. If that were so, consciousness certainly could not arise again afterward. Yet it is said, “Consciousness does not leave the body.” To which consciousness could that consciousness belong? For when a retributive consciousness abandons this body, departs from this body, and takes support in another body, it does not arise again in this body.

Furthermore, if in the state of the attainment of cessation there were no consciousness maintaining the seeds, then, in the absence of seeds, how could consciousness subsequently arise again? It has already been established that past and future dharmas and formations dissociated from mind have no real substance. As for material dharmas, apart from consciousness they do not exist at all. The claim that, apart from the eighth consciousness, there is something that receives perfuming and preserves the seeds has also already been refuted.

Yet in a mindless state such as the attainment of cessation, just as in a state where mind is present, this consciousness must certainly exist, because the faculties, vitality, and warmth are all present; that is, it is included within sentient existence, whether the state is mindless or mindful.

For this reason, in the state of the attainment of cessation, there must certainly be a real consciousness that does not leave the body.

– If it is said that in the state of the attainment of cessation there is a sixth consciousness called the “consciousness that does not leave the body,” this is also unreasonable, because this attainment is also called a mindless attainment, in which the sixth consciousness is absent.

If it is maintained that it is called mindless because the five consciousnesses are absent, then all meditative attainments could be called mindless attainments, since in every meditative attainment the five sensory consciousnesses are absent.

Mental consciousness is included among the six active consciousnesses and, like the five consciousnesses, is absent in the attainment of cessation. Alternatively, if it is said that the consciousness present in the state of the attainment of cessation has an activity and object that are both unknowable, like vitality and warmth, then it is not the sixth consciousness.

If, in the state of the attainment of cessation, there were a consciousness whose activity and object could both be known, that state would resemble other states and would not be included within this attainment of cessation. It is precisely to bring to rest the consciousness whose activity and object can be clearly known that one enters this attainment of cessation.

Furthermore, if the sixth consciousness existed in the state of the attainment of cessation, would its associated mental factors exist or not? If mental factors existed, the sutra should not say, “While abiding in this attainment, the three formations all cease.” Nor should it be called the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception.

Objection: - When cultivating the preparatory practice for this attainment, one aims solely to become disenchanted with feeling and perception; therefore, within this attainment, only feeling and perception cease. Feeling and perception exert especially powerful influence upon the mind, and so, among the mental factors, they alone are called mental formations. Thus, what contradiction is there in saying that mental formations cease, meaning only that feeling and perception cease, rather than that mind and its mental factors cease?

The Treatise Master: - In the attainment of non-perception, perception alone should then cease, since one is disenchanted only with perception; yet you do not accept that only perception ceases. Moreover, as you have just said, feeling and perception exert especially powerful influence upon the mind. Therefore, when these two cease, the mind should also cease.

Objection: - No, the mind—the sixth consciousness—does not cease, just as the bodily formation, namely inhalation and exhalation, may cease while the body continues to exist. Why insist that the mind must cease together with its formations, feeling and perception?

The Treatise Master: - If so, when the verbal formations of initial and sustained thought cease, speech should not cease. But this is not accepted.

However, among formations related to a dharma, some are universally present and others are not universally present. When a universally present formation ceases, the dharma must necessarily cease with it; but when a formation that is not universally present ceases, the dharma may or may not cease.

The formation that is not universally present refers only to inhalation and exhalation, the bodily formation, for it is observed that when the breath ceases, the body still remains.

Initial and sustained thought are universally present formations in relation to speech; therefore, when initial and sustained thought cease, speech must cease.

Feeling and perception are likewise universally present formations in relation to mind, as is the mental factor of volition. They belong to the universally pervasive dharmas—the ten universally pervasive dharmas are the five omnipresent and the five object-determining mental factors, which pervade every mind. Therefore, when feeling and perception cease, the mind must necessarily cease with them. How, then, can it be said that feeling and perception cease while the mind, namely mental consciousness, does not cease?

Furthermore, the Sarvastivadins hold that “volition belongs to the universally pervasive dharmas.” Then, when feeling and perception cease, volition should also cease. If volition ceases, faith too would be absent in the state of the attainment of cessation. For it cannot be said that the omnipresent mental factors cease while other mental factors, such as faith, need not cease. How, then, can it be said that other mental factors remain apart from feeling and perception? If it is accepted that feeling and perception, like volition, belong to the universally pervasive dharmas, then if volition exists in this state, feeling and perception should also exist.

Furthermore, if volition exists within this attainment of cessation, contact should also exist, because all other mental factors arise in dependence upon the power of contact. If contact is accepted as present, feeling should also be present, because contact serves as the condition for feeling. Once feeling is accepted as present, perception should also be present, because feeling and perception are inseparable.

Objection: - Just as “feeling” serves as the condition for the arising of “craving,” yet it does not follow that every feeling can serve as a condition for the arising of craving, so contact serving as the condition for the arising of feeling does not mean that every contact serves as a condition for the arising of feeling. Therefore, the foregoing objection is unreasonable.

The Treatise Master: - Your attempted defense is invalid, because there is a difference. The Buddha himself made a distinction, saying that only feelings arising conditionally from “contact accompanied by ignorance” serve as conditions for the arising of craving. Yet the Buddha never made such a distinction when saying generally that contact gives rise to feeling. Therefore, wherever contact exists, feeling necessarily exists. That feeling and perception occur together is certain. Otherwise, just as in other states of distracted mind, feeling and perception should both remain unceased.

It is maintained that the mental factor of volition exists in the state of the attainment of cessation. If this is admitted, it contradicts the statement that “mental formations cease,” and the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception also cannot be established.

If there are no mental factors, then the mind-kings of the six consciousnesses are also absent, for no mind is ever seen apart from mental factors; when the omnipresent mental factors cease, the mind-king ceases with them. If it is said that the mind-king exists without mental factors, then feeling and perception would not be universally pervasive dharmas, and this consciousness could not be a dharma associated with mental factors. If this were accepted, it could have neither a supporting faculty nor an apprehended object; like material dharmas and so forth, it could not be called mind.

Furthermore, a sutra says: “With the mental faculty and dharmas as conditions, mental consciousness arises. The conjunction of these three gives rise to contact, and together with contact there also arise feeling, perception, and volition.” If mental consciousness exists within the attainment of cessation, then, because the three are conjoined, contact must exist; and contact certainly arises together with feeling, perception, and volition. How, then, could consciousness exist without mental factors?

Suppose it is said that at other times the conjunction of the three has the power to establish mutual contact and thereby give rise to the mental factor of contact, which in turn gives rise to feeling. But in this attainment, because before entering it one became disenchanted with the mental factors, the three lack this capacity and do not establish mutual contact; therefore, contact does not arise, and feeling is also absent.

If so, it should be called the attainment of the cessation of mental factors. Why, then, is it said that only feeling and perception cease?

Suppose it is said that, because one becomes disenchanted with feeling and perception, when those two cease the other mental factors also cease along with them, precisely in accordance with the preceding disenchantment, and for that reason it is named the attainment of complete cessation.

If so, within that attainment of cessation the sixth mind should also cease, because the mental factors of feeling and perception, with which one has become disenchanted, arise together with the other mental factors. Otherwise, how could it be called a mindless attainment, since the attainment of cessation is also called a mindless attainment?

Furthermore, in the state of the attainment of cessation, what ethical nature would mental consciousness possess? It cannot be defiled or morally indeterminate, for such states do not occur within wholesome meditative attainments. Defiled and morally indeterminate mind-kings necessarily have associated mental factors. Nor should one, after becoming disenchanted with the wholesome, give rise again to defilement, for one who seeks quiescence would not instead give rise to distraction.

If it is said that the mental consciousness in this attainment of cessation is wholesome, then it may be wholesome through association and therefore should be associated with the wholesome root of non-greed and so forth. The sixth consciousness in that attainment cannot be wholesome by intrinsic nature or wholesome in the ultimate sense, for this would contradict your own tenet: that mind is neither a wholesome root such as non-greed nor nirvana.

If it is said that the mind in that attainment is wholesome by way of origination because it is initiated by the preparatory practice of wholesome roots, this reasoning is also incorrect, for it contradicts your own tenet. Like wholesome minds in other states, it is not wholesome by way of origination. Since a wholesome mind can be followed without interruption by any of the three natures—wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate—why should a wholesome mind be initiated by what precedes it?

Therefore, if a mind is wholesome, this is due to the power of its associated mental factors. Consequently, it must be associated with the wholesome root of non-greed. How, then, can it be said specifically that the sixth wholesome mind in this attainment of cessation has no mental factors?

Since this attainment has no mental factors, the sixth primary mind must also be absent.

– By examining the matter in this way, one knows that when the active consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—are in the state of the attainment of cessation, they are not the “consciousness that does not depart from the body.” Therefore, when the sutra says, “Consciousness does not depart from the body,” it refers precisely to this eighth consciousness, because one does not enter the attainment of cessation in order to suspend this extremely quiescent appropriating and sustaining consciousness.

– The consciousness present in the attainment of non-perception and among the gods of non-perception should be understood analogously.

10. Furthermore, a sutra says: “Because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled; because the mind is purified, sentient beings are purified.” If this consciousness did not exist, there could be no such mind that is defiled or purified. That is to say, defiled and purified dharmas take mind as their basis, arise because of mind, abide in dependence upon mind, and are perfumed into the mind; the mind, in turn, preserves the seeds of those defiled and purified dharmas.

– Defiled dharmas may briefly be classified into three distinct kinds: afflictions, karma, and results. If this consciousness did not preserve the seeds of the afflictions, then when a sentient being returned from a higher realm or higher plane to a lower realm or lower plane, after there had been no defiled mind in the higher realm, the defiled afflictions of the lower realm would arise again without any cause. This is because other dharmas cannot preserve the seeds of the afflictions belonging to that lower plane, while past and future mental dharmas do not truly exist. If those afflictions could arise again without a cause, there would be no stages of training or beyond training in any of the three vehicles. Why? Because afflictions that had already been eliminated could arise again without a cause.

If this eighth consciousness did not preserve the seeds of karma and its results, then after sentient beings passed back and forth between different realms and planes, the many kinds of pure and defiled karma and the results subsequently arising from them would likewise have no cause. The claims that one kind of result arises from the causal seeds of another kind, that form and mind mutually arise as one another’s causes and conditions, or that some other dharma preserves the seeds have already been refuted above.

If karma and its results could arise without a cause, then even after entry into nirvana without remainder, karma and results within the three realms would arise again, because afflictions too could arise without a cause.

Moreover, without the eighth consciousness, the statement that “formations serve as conditions for the arising of consciousness” could not be established, because it has already been refuted that the active consciousnesses receive perfuming. Nor can this refer to the defiled consciousness that links one to rebirth, because that consciousness is not produced by the karmic influence of formations. Neither can it be said that formations serve as conditions for name-and-form, because formations and name-and-form are widely separated in time and state, and thus cannot stand in a conditional relationship.

Since the statement that “formations serve as conditions for the arising of form” cannot be established, the subsequent links—such as “formations serve as conditions for the six sense bases” and “grasping serves as a condition for the arising of aging and death”—also cannot be established.

– Pure dharmas likewise comprise three distinct kinds: the seeds of the mundane path, the seeds of the supramundane path, and the result of elimination. If this consciousness that produces karmic maturation did not preserve the pure seeds of the mundane and supramundane paths, then after a mind of a different kind arose—that is, when a supramundane mind arose from a mundane mind—the pure dharmas of the mundane and supramundane paths could arise without a cause. If it is maintained that they arise from some other cause, that claim has already been refuted.

If the pure seeds of the two paths—the mundane and the supramundane—could arise without a cause, then after entry into the realm of nirvana without remainder, those pure seeds of the two paths should arise again, because the bodies and wisdom that serve as the support of the two pure paths could likewise arise again without a cause.

Moreover, the initial pure mind of the supramundane path could not arise, because there would be nothing to preserve the naturally inherent seeds of the pure mind of the path. Conditioned dharmas with outflows are of a different kind and cannot serve as the cause of the uncontaminated seeds of the path. To arise without a cause means not arising from seeds within consciousness. Without seeds, the supramundane path could not initially arise, nor could it arise afterward. Thus, there could be no paths or fruits of the three vehicles.

Furthermore, if this consciousness did not preserve the seeds of the afflictions, the fruit of the transformation of the basis, realized through eliminating the afflictions, could not be established. That is to say, when the noble path arose, neither the manifest activity of the afflictions nor their seeds would exist, because defiled and pure minds cannot arise simultaneously. The sixth mind associated with the noble path certainly cannot preserve the seeds of the afflictions, because the intrinsic nature of the afflictions and the noble path are mutually opposed, just as the nature of nirvana is opposed to defiled dharmas.

Past and future dharmas, acquisition of the noble path, and all other dharmas do not truly exist and therefore cannot preserve seeds or establish the fruit of elimination. If it is said that some other dharmas preserve the seeds of the afflictions, this reasoning likewise cannot be established.

If there are no afflictions to be eliminated, then there is also no path that eliminates the afflictions. In dependence upon what, and on what basis, could the fruit of elimination be established? If the fruit of elimination is established on the grounds that the power of the path prevents afflictions from arising subsequently, then one should become one beyond training as soon as the path first arises, because all subsequent afflictions would have no cause and would therefore never arise again.

If one accepts the existence of this consciousness that produces karmic maturation, all the causal relationships of defilement and purity can be established, because only this consciousness is capable of preserving all defiled and pure seeds.

The principles proving the existence of this eighth consciousness are innumerable. Fearing that the text would become too lengthy, I have presented only a brief outline of the essentials.

The teachings and reasoning have clearly demonstrated the distinct existence of this eighth consciousness. Those endowed with wisdom should give rise to profound faith, accept it, and uphold it. (22).

The scriptures of the various Buddhist schools also speak with implicit intent of a distinct alaya-consciousness. Thus, in the Agama scriptures of the Mahasanghika school, this consciousness is implicitly called the root consciousness, the support of visual consciousness and so forth, just as the root of a tree is the foundation of its branches and leaves. Visual consciousness and the other consciousnesses do not possess this meaning.

– In the scriptures of the Sthavira school and of the Vibhajyavadins, this consciousness is implicitly called the bhavanga-consciousness. Bhava means the three modes of existence—the three realms—and anga means cause. Only this consciousness, which is continuous and all-pervading, can serve as the cause of the three modes of existence.

– The Mahīśāsaka school says that this consciousness is the “aggregate that endures to the end of samsara.” Apart from the eighth consciousness, there can be no distinct aggregate-dharma that continues to the furthest limit of birth and death without ever being interrupted. In the Formless Realm, form is absent; in the Heaven of No-Perception, all other mental states cease; and the non-associated formations cannot exist independently apart from form and mind. This is already accepted. Therefore, we know that only this ālayavijñāna can be called the aggregate that endures to the end of samsara.

– The Ekottara Āgama of the Sarvāstivāda school also implicitly refers to this consciousness as ālaya, speaking of delighting in ālaya, taking pleasure in ālaya, rejoicing in ālaya, and being glad in ālaya. That is, because the craving of manas for ālaya (Ālaya-rāma, Ālaya-rata, Ālaya-sammudita) exists generally throughout the three times yet differs in its particular aspects, these four names are established. Sentient beings cling to it as their real inner self; until that attachment is ended, they continually give rise to a mind that delights in and clings to it. Therefore, ālayavijñāna is the true object of cherished attachment. They do not cherish the five aggregates of clinging, for when born in a place where only suffering is experienced, they do not cherish the body composed of the five aggregates of clinging found there, but constantly loathe it, thinking: “When shall I be able to cast off this life faculty constituted by the five aggregates of clinging, this common species-nature, and this suffering body and mind, so that I may freely enjoy happiness?”

The five sensual desires are likewise not the true objects of cherished attachment. Those who have become 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 cherished attachment. Those who have become free from the defilements of the Third Dhyāna, although they have grown weary of the pleasant feeling of the Third Dhyāna, still cherish their own self.

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

The evolving consciousnesses are likewise not the true objects of cherished 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 physical body is likewise not the true object of cherished attachment. Those who have become free from the defilements associated with form, although they loathe the physical body, still cherish their own self.

Because the non-associated formations cannot exist independently apart from form and mind, they too are not the true objects of cherished attachment.

When ordinary beings and those still in training give rise to self-love, they may or may not cherish the other aggregates, but they invariably cherish and cling to this eighth consciousness as the self.

Therefore, only this eighth consciousness is the true object of cherished attachment. Hence, when the Ekottara Āgama uses the name ālaya, it does so precisely to reveal this ālayavijñāna.

– The sacred teachings have above been cited as evidence for the existence of ālayavijñāna. We shall now set forth correct reasoning as proof.

1. A sūtra says: “That in which the seeds of all defiled and pure dharmas are accumulated and from which they arise is called mind.” If this consciousness did not exist, there could be no mind that preserves those seeds. The evolving consciousnesses are interrupted when one enters the attainment of cessation and similar states.

The faculties, objects, attention, wholesome mental states, and so forth belong to different classes; they arise and perish as readily as lightning, are unstable, cannot be perfumed, and cannot preserve seeds. Therefore, they are not the mind in which the seeds of defiled and pure dharmas are accumulated and from which they arise. Only this eighth consciousness continues uninterruptedly as one kind from before to after; it possesses a stable nature and can receive perfuming, as sesame seeds absorb fragrance.

It therefore corresponds to the meaning of the word “mind” spoken of in the sūtra. If one does not accept the existence of a mind that preserves seeds, one contradicts not only scripture but also correct reasoning, for defiled and pure dharmas would then arise without having been perfumed. If perfuming did not produce seeds, their arising would be groundless.

If defiled and pure dharmas arose without seeds as their causes, this would be the same as the non-Buddhist doctrine of spontaneous arising.

– Form and the non-associated formations are not mind, just as echoes and light are not. They are not loci perfumed by inner defiled and pure dharmas, so how could they preserve seeds? Moreover, because form and these non-associated formations cannot exist independently apart from consciousness, how could they be regarded as the basis of inner seeds?

The mental factors associated with the evolving consciousnesses are, like those consciousnesses, subject to interruption, readily arising and perishing, and lacking autonomy. Since they are not mind, they cannot preserve seeds or receive perfuming. Therefore, according to correct reasoning, there must be a distinct mind that preserves seeds.

– One theory holds that the six consciousnesses, from beginningless time, arise in dependence upon faculties and objects and possess successive stages. Although the substance of consciousness changes according to the three natures, it remains of a single class and can therefore receive perfuming and preserve seeds. The causality of defilement and purity is thereby established; why, then, is it necessary to assert an eighth consciousness?

– This claim is meaningless. Why? If the class of consciousness is held to be substantially real, the position is the same as that of the non-Buddhist Vaiśeṣikas. If the class of consciousness is held to be merely nominal, it lacks effective activity and therefore cannot preserve the real seeds of inner dharmas.

Furthermore, to which nature is this supposed class of consciousness assigned? If it is wholesome or unwholesome, it cannot receive perfuming, because it is morally determinate, just as the unconditioned cessation attained through discrimination is. If it is indeterminate, then whenever a wholesome or unwholesome mind arises, no indeterminate mind is present; that class of consciousness would consequently be interrupted. One cannot say that particular instances of consciousness are wholesome or unwholesome while their class alone is indeterminate, because if their natures differ, the class differs just as the substance of consciousness differs.

In states without mind, this class of consciousness certainly does not exist. Since it is interrupted and its nature is not stable, how can it be said to preserve seeds and receive perfuming?

Furthermore, the six classes of consciousness in an arhat and in an ordinary being are alike indeterminate. It would therefore be possible for an arhat to perfume defiled dharmas and for an ordinary being to perfume undefiled dharmas. Accepting this entails error.

Furthermore, the eye, ear, and other faculties, or other dharmas, and eye-consciousness would all alike be indeterminate in their respective classes—the class of faculties, the class of dharmas, and the class of consciousness. They should therefore perfume one another. Yet you do not accept this. Thus, it should not be maintained that the class of consciousness receives perfuming.

Furthermore, whether one considers the six consciousnesses themselves or their classes, two successive moments do not arise simultaneously. Just as moments separated in a longer sequence cannot perfume one another, neither can two successive moments, 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 follows from the reasoning already stated that the sixth consciousness is not that which is perfumed; therefore, it cannot preserve seeds either.

– Some maintain that form and mind continue uninterruptedly within their own respective classes, with the preceding moment serving as the seed of the following moment. The principle of cause and effect is thus established. Therefore, the preceding statement—that what accumulates seeds and gives rise to their effects is called mind, thereby indicating ālayavijñāna—does not constitute valid proof.

– That position is unreasonable because no perfuming occurs. Since there is no perfuming between the preceding and following moments within the same class, how can the preceding moment be regarded as the seed of the following moment? Moreover, after a class has been interrupted, it could never arise again; and those of the Two Vehicles who are beyond training would have no body of five skandhas in a subsequent life, because, according to that theory, the form and mind present at death serve as the seeds of the subsequent body.

Nor should it be held that form and mind successively serve as seeds that give rise to one another, because the evolving consciousnesses and form are both incapable of being perfumed, as already explained above.

– One theory holds that all dharmas of the three times possess causes that bring about results, and results that requite causes; why, then, laboriously posit an eighth consciousness that preserves the seeds? However, the reason the sutras say that mind is the seed is that mind possesses the powerful function of giving rise to defiled and pure dharmas.

– The assertion that dharmas of all three times exist is unreasonable. The past and future are neither permanent nor presently existent; like illusory flowers in the sky, they do not truly exist. Moreover, since they are said to have no function, they cannot be regarded as 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 cling to the Mahayana principle of “emptiness and signlessness” as ultimate and, relying only on specious inference, repudiate everything entirely, maintaining not only that this consciousness does not exist but also that no dharma whatsoever exists. Such people merely contradict and undermine the scriptural passages cited above. They regard the knowing of suffering, abandoning of its origin, realization of cessation, cultivation of the path, and the causes and effects of defilement and purity as all unreal, thereby falling into grave wrong view. Even non-Buddhists who disparage the causes and effects of defilement and purity do not say that they are entirely nonexistent; they 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 unreal samsara. What intelligent person would seek the child of a barren woman or raise an army to fight a dreamlike enemy?

Therefore, one should believe that there is a mind that preserves the seeds and, on that basis, establish the causes and effects of defilement and purity. 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. For the eye consciousness and so forth are interrupted and are not always karmic results (when they are indeterminate, they are karmic results; when they arise as wholesome or unwholesome, they are not karmic results). Like lightning, therefore, they are not the maturation mind. The maturation mind cannot cease and then resume, because the life faculty, which is a maturation, does not function in that way.

Although the six consciousnesses—eye, ear, and so forth—are brought about by karma, like sound they do not continue constantly. They are maturation-born, not true maturation.

One must therefore accept that there is a true maturation mind that requites the projecting karma, pervades everywhere without interruption, and manifests the faculties, body, and material world as the basis of sentient beings. For the faculties, body, and material world cannot exist apart from the maturation mind. Dharmas dissociated from mind have no real substance, while the evolving consciousnesses do not exist constantly. If there were no such maturation mind, what would manifest the faculties, body, and material world? Furthermore, upon what dharma would sentient beings continuously depend?

Again, while one is in a meditative absorption without any deliberation, or while one is not in absorption but is deliberating about something else, many bodily sensations continually arise. If no maturation mind apprehended and sustained those sensations, the body could not afterward experience ease or fatigue. If the maturation mind did not exist constantly, how could this bodily sensation occur upon emergence from absorption?

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

Question: Why is it only the Buddha who has no maturation mind?

Answer: When one accepts that the true maturation mind arises, its possessor is thereby a sentient being and not a Buddha.

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

3. Furthermore, the sutras say: Sentient beings transmigrate among the five destinies and 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, universality, and non-confusion—can be established as the essential basis of the five destinies and four modes of birth. If a dharma were not a maturation, the essential basis of the destinies and modes of birth would become confused, for while abiding in one of them, a dharma belonging to another destiny or mode of birth could arise.

Maturation forms and the portions of the five consciousnesses produced by karma do not pervade all destinies and modes of birth, because in the Formless Realm there is no form whatsoever and none of the five consciousnesses manifests. Innately acquired wholesome qualities and the karma-produced aspects of mental consciousness, although they pervade all destinies and modes of birth and arise without confusion, do not exist constantly.

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

Only the maturation mind and its mental factors—truly existent, constant, universal, and unmixed—can truly and properly serve as the essential basis of the destinies and modes of birth. If this maturation mind did not exist, then when one is born in the Formless Realm, where there is no form and none of the five consciousnesses, and a wholesome mind arises, that mind could not constitute the essential basis of a destiny or mode of birth. Suppose it were accepted as such a basis because it comprises conditioned dharmas subject to outflows; then when non-returners born in the Formless Realm give rise to an uncontaminated mind, that mind would not constitute the essential basis of their destiny or mode of birth. Such a claim contradicts reason.

To avoid both the former fault and this one, one should understand that only a maturation dharma can truly and properly be the essential basis of the destinies and modes of birth. Consequently, the Tathagata is not included within the essential basis of any destiny or mode of birth, because a Buddha no longer possesses indeterminate maturation dharmas. Nor is a Buddha included within any realm, because a Buddha no longer possesses the three outflows and because the Blessed One has relinquished the truths of suffering and its origin. The seeds of conceptual proliferation in him have been forever eradicated.

The true essential basis of the destinies and modes of birth consists solely of the maturation mind and its mental factors, but this mind and its mental factors cannot exist apart from the eighth consciousness. Therefore, one knows that this eighth consciousness exists distinctly.

4. Furthermore, the sutras say: “The body endowed with material faculties is appropriated and experienced. If this eighth consciousness did not exist, there would be nothing capable of appropriating and sustaining that material body.” This means that the five material faculties and their bases are appropriated and sustained only in the present life; hence, they must be appropriated and sustained by a mind capable of doing so. That mind can only be the maturation mind brought about by previous karma. No wholesome, defiled, or other indeterminate dharma is capable of universally and continuously appropriating and sustaining the body endowed with material faculties. Nor do the evolving consciousnesses—eye, ear, and so forth—possess such a capacity.

The statement, “Only the maturation mind appropriates and sustains the faculties and body,” is intended to show that the evolving consciousnesses—eye, ear, and so forth—do not possess the uniform nature capable of universally and continuously appropriating and sustaining their own internal body endowed with material faculties. It does not mean that only the maturation mind is capable of appropriation and sustenance, for the immaculate consciousness also appropriates and sustains.

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

The evolving consciousnesses arise in dependence on present conditions, like sound or wind. Wholesome and defiled minds are not brought about by karma, just as cessation through discrimination is not. What is maturation-born is not true maturation; it is not the universal basis of all dharmas and does not continue uninterruptedly. Like lightning, it is incapable of appropriating and sustaining the contaminated material body.

– When “mind-consciousnesses” are mentioned, their mental factors are included, because mind and mental factors are necessarily associated with one another, just as the expression “Consciousness-Only” includes the mental factors as well.

Neither the “material faculties” nor the “formations dissociated from mind” are capable of appropriating the body endowed with material faculties, because they have no object of cognition, just like empty space.

Therefore, there must be a distinct mind that appropriates the body, 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, then no consciousness capable of preserving lifespan and warmth for a long duration could be found.” This means that the active consciousnesses are interrupted and subject to change, like wind and sound, and do not function continuously to preserve them.

Thus, the “active consciousnesses” cannot be established as the consciousness that preserves lifespan and warmth. Only the uninterrupted and unchanging maturation consciousness, which, like lifespan and warmth, functions continuously to preserve them, can be established as the consciousness that preserves lifespan and warmth. The sutra says that these three depend upon and sustain one another.

If only lifespan and warmth continued in a homogeneous series while consciousness did not, this would be contrary to correct reasoning.

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 all three realms, since there is no warmth in the Formless Realm. Why, then, can it not also be accepted that consciousness alone is interrupted and subject to change?

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

The foregoing reasoning was used to demonstrate that the consciousness spoken of among the three dharmas—lifespan, warmth, and consciousness—is not an active consciousness. Therefore, even if warmth is held not to pervade all three realms, how does this undermine the preceding reasoning? Thus, as stated before, the principle is conclusively established.

Furthermore, of the three dharmas, lifespan and warmth are only contaminated; therefore, it is known 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 maturation consciousness, what consciousness would preserve the lifespan in that Formless Realm? Hence, it should be known that there is a maturation consciousness that is homogeneous, constant, and all-pervading. The consciousness that preserves lifespan, warmth, and consciousness is precisely 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 of mind, not in a mindless concentration. If this maturation consciousness did not exist, the mind present at birth and death could not exist.” This means that at birth and death, body and mind are dull and obscured, as in dreamless sleep or a stupor; at those times, the lucid active consciousnesses certainly do not arise.

Moreover, at the stages of birth and death, the modes of activity and objects of the six active consciousnesses cannot be known. As in a mindless state, the active consciousnesses certainly do not operate. If the modes of activity and objects of the six active consciousnesses were operating, they would certainly be clearly known, as at other times, rather than being as they are at the moment of birth or impending death.

The modes of activity and objects of the true maturation consciousness are too subtle to be discerned. It is the retributive result produced by karma, continuing throughout a given lifetime and remaining ever unchanged. It is precisely this distracted state of mind that is called the mind at birth and death.

This does not contradict correct reasoning.

—One theory holds: “The five consciousnesses are certainly absent at the stage of taking birth. Mental consciousness apprehends its objects and arises either because of the five consciousnesses, because of another’s instruction, or because of the power of concentration. Since none of these causes is present at the time of taking birth, mental consciousness is also absent at that stage.” This theory speaks thus because it regards only the five consciousnesses as causes giving rise to mental consciousness.

—If so, after a sentient being is born in the Formless Realm, mental consciousness should never arise again, since the five consciousnesses do not exist there. A concentrated mind must first be induced by distracted mental consciousness; but since neither the five consciousnesses nor another’s instruction exists in the Formless Realm, there would be no cause by which a distracted mind could induce a concentrated mind.

If it is said that such concentration suddenly manifests through the power of prior habituation, why, then, does it not arise immediately upon birth in that realm?

Furthermore, when one first takes birth in the Desire Realm or Form Realm, habituated mental consciousness should likewise manifest. If, because of dullness and obscuration, it cannot manifest at first, then its failure to arise is precisely due to that dullness and obscuration, and it must subsequently arise from seeds within the root consciousness. Since this earlier cause has already been acknowledged, why labor further to say that it arises from three other causes—the five consciousnesses, another’s instruction, and the power of concentration?

—Other schools maintain: “At the stages of birth and death, there is a subtle kind of mental consciousness whose mode of activity and object cannot be clearly known.” It should be understood that this subtle kind of mental consciousness is precisely this eighth consciousness, for it has already been admitted that manifest, coarse mental consciousness is not such a subtle and difficult-to-know kind.

Furthermore, when death approaches, owing to wholesome or unwholesome karma, sensations of cold gradually arise in the body from below upward or from above downward. If this maturation consciousness did not exist, this could not occur, for the active consciousnesses cannot appropriate the body. The five consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—each have their own distinct bases and therefore may not be functioning.

The sixth mental consciousness does not then abide in the body, and the objects it cognizes are not fixed. Moreover, because the consciousness residing in the body as death approaches must continue uninterruptedly at all times, the sensation of cold cannot be produced temporarily by the sixth mental consciousness. Therefore, it should be known that only the maturation mind, through the power of past karma, constantly and universally continues to appropriate every part of the body.

Thus, when death approaches, wherever the maturation mind relinquishes what it has appropriated in the body, a sensation of cold arises there. Since lifespan, warmth, and consciousness are inseparable, wherever a sensation of cold arises becomes non-sentient. Although this dead, insentient body is also transformed and cognized by the maturation mind, it is no longer appropriated by it.

Therefore, this eighth consciousness certainly exists.

7. Furthermore, a sutra says: “Consciousness conditions name-and-form, and name-and-form conditions consciousness.” These two dharmas depend upon each other in succession, like two sheaves of reeds standing upright together 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 physical form in the womb at the kalala stage and so forth. These two abide in mutual dependence with consciousness, like two sheaves of reeds that always condition one another and stand together simultaneously, never separating. The active 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 name in name-and-form refers only to the five sense consciousnesses, while the consciousness in the phrase “consciousness conditions name-and-form” refers to the sixth consciousness, because at the kalala stage the five consciousnesses do not yet exist.

Furthermore, the active consciousnesses are interrupted and subject to change and therefore lack the power constantly to grasp and sustain name-and-form. How, then, could they be said always to condition name-and-form mutually?

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

8. Furthermore, a sutra says: “All sentient beings depend upon nutriment for their continued existence.” If this consciousness did not exist, the essential nature of consciousness as nutriment could not be established. That is to say, the sutra teaches that there are four kinds of nutriment:

1. Morsel nutriment — Its characteristic is the decomposition of food. That is, in the Desire Realm, fragrant, flavorful, and tangible substances are taken as food while undergoing decomposition. Therefore, visible form does not belong to morsel nutriment, because when color decomposes, it has no function of nourishing the body.

2. Contact nutriment — Its characteristic is contact with an object. That is, when the defiled mental factor of contact in a sentient being contacts an object and gives rise to feelings of joy and pleasure, this may be taken as nutriment. Although the mental factor of contact is associated with all consciousnesses, contact accompanying the first six consciousnesses has a stronger significance as “nutriment,” because the objects contacted here are coarse and evident; it receives feelings of joy, pleasure, and equanimity, accords with the mind, benefits the body, and thus has a stronger nourishing function.

3. Volitional thought nutriment — Its characteristic is hope. That is, the defiled mental factor of volition arises together with the mental factor of desire and hopes for a desirable object; this may be taken as nutriment. Although this mental factor of volition is associated with all consciousnesses, the “volition” associated with mental consciousness has a stronger significance as nutriment, because mental consciousness has strong hope regarding its objects.

4. Consciousness nutriment — Its characteristic is sustaining and retaining. That is, defiled consciousness, strengthened by the power of morsel, contact, and volitional thought nutriments, is able to fulfill the meaning of nutriment. Although “consciousness” here applies to the essential nature of all consciousnesses, the eighth consciousness has a stronger significance as nutriment, because the eighth consciousness is of a single continuous kind and sustains and retains the life faculty more powerfully.

Therefore, the Compendium of the Higher Teaching includes these four nutriments within three skandhas—the form, formations, and consciousness skandhas—five ayatanas—the ayatanas of odor, taste, touch, mental objects, and mind—and eleven dhatus—the dhatus of odor, taste, touch, mental objects, mind, and the six consciousnesses. These four nutriments can sustain the bodies and lives of sentient beings and prevent them from perishing; hence they are called nutriments.

Morsel nutriment functions only in the Desire Realm. Although contact and volitional thought nutriments exist throughout all three realms, they operate in dependence upon the six consciousnesses and therefore are present or absent according to whether those consciousnesses are present or absent. The active consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—are intermittent and subject to change; they do not universally and continuously sustain the body and life.

That is, during the attainments without mind—the attainment of non-perception and the attainment of cessation—during deep sleep, during unconsciousness, and in the Heaven of Non-perception, the active consciousnesses are interrupted. Even in states where mind is present, they vary according to their supporting faculties and apprehended objects among the three moral natures, the three realms, and the nine grounds. Thus, in sustaining the body and life, the active consciousnesses neither pervade all states nor operate continuously.

How, then, could they provide such sustenance?

Those who maintain that there is no eighth consciousness: upon what do they base consciousness nutriment? And how do they account for the sutra’s statement, “All sentient beings subsist in dependence upon nutriment”? Nor can they say that, in a state without mind, although no consciousness is presently active, past or future consciousness serves as nutriment. Past and future consciousness is not present and is not continuous; like illusory flowers in empty space, it has no real substance or real function. Even if it were granted real substance and real function, since it is not present, it would be like empty space and could not constitute nutriment.

Nor can it be said that the mind which enters concentration is the nutriment of a sentient being in a state without mind, because while that being is without mind, the preparatory mind that entered concentration has already ceased. It belongs to the past and is not nutriment, for its task has already been completely accomplished.

Nor can it be said that the formation dissociated from mind present in the attainment of non-perception is nutriment for the sentient being who has entered that attainment, because formations dissociated from mind are not included among the four nutriments and, apart from form and mind, have no real existence.

Some maintain that the sixth consciousness remains during the attainment of cessation and can serve as nutriment for a sentient being in that attainment. This position is also unreasonable and will be extensively refuted later. Further, let them explain what serves as nutriment when sentient beings born in the Form and Formless Realms give rise to an undefiled mind. Since undefiled consciousness destroys conditioned existence in the realms, it cannot serve as nutriment for the bodies and lives of sentient beings in those two realms.

Nor can it be maintained that undefiled consciousness contains defiled seeds that can serve as nutriment for those sentient beings, because undefiled consciousness, like nirvana, cannot sustain and retain defiled seeds.

Nor can it be said that the bodies and lives of sentient beings in the higher realms sustain one another and thus serve as nutriment for one another, because their bodies and lives are not included among the four nutriments—there is no “body-and-life nutriment” among the four. Moreover, in the Formless Realm there is no body, and life cannot sustain itself, because the commonality of sentient beings has no real substance.

Therefore, we know with certainty that, distinct from the active consciousnesses, there is a resultant consciousness of a single, continuous kind that is constant and pervasive and sustains and retains the body and life, preventing them from perishing. On this basis, the Blessed One said, “All sentient beings subsist in dependence upon nutriment.” Sentient beings are established solely in dependence upon the five appropriated skandhas. The Buddha has no five defiled skandhas and therefore is not included among sentient beings. When it is said that “sentient beings subsist in dependence upon nutriment,” this should be understood as a provisional and skillful presentation—that is, a figurative statement.

It has thus been established that resultant consciousness possesses the character of nutriment above all others, and this consciousness is precisely the eighth consciousness.

9. Furthermore, a sutra says: “For one abiding in the attainment of cessation, bodily, verbal, and mental formations have all ceased—bodily formation refers to inhalation and exhalation; verbal formation refers to initial and sustained thought; mental formation refers to feeling and perception—yet the life faculty does not cease, nor is warmth relinquished;

therefore, the faculties do not deteriorate, and ‘consciousness does not leave the body.’” If this resultant consciousness did not exist, it could not be said of a person in the attainment of cessation that “consciousness does not leave the body.” That is, because the modes of activity of visual consciousness and the other consciousnesses toward their apprehended objects are observed to be coarse and agitated, and because one is continually wearied whenever visual consciousness and the others arise, one becomes disenchanted with them and temporarily seeks repose.

Gradually, visual consciousness and the others are suppressed and prevented from arising until they have entirely ceased; it is precisely upon this state that abiding in the attainment of cessation is established. Therefore, within the attainment of cessation all the active consciousnesses have ceased. If one does not accept the existence of a subtle consciousness that remains of one constant, pervasive kind before and after, sustaining and retaining the life faculty and warmth, then on what basis does the sutra say, “Consciousness does not leave the body”?

If it is said that, after emerging from the attainment of cessation, those active consciousnesses arise again, like an intermittent fever, and therefore it is said that consciousness does not leave the body, then it should not be said that “mental formations have ceased,” because the six consciousnesses and feeling and perception are alike in arising and ceasing. Moreover, if the life faculty, warmth, and the faculties were also like the six consciousnesses, grave errors would follow. Therefore, one should accept that the eighth consciousness, like the life faculty and warmth, truly does not leave the body.

Furthermore, if there were absolutely no consciousness in the state of the attainment of cessation, the person would be like tiles and stones and would not be a sentient being. How, then, could such a one be called a person abiding in the attainment of cessation?

Furthermore, if there were no resultant consciousness in the state of the attainment of cessation, what would sustain and retain the faculties, the life faculty, and warmth? If they were not sustained and retained, they would all deteriorate and perish, as in a corpse, whereupon there would be no life faculty or warmth. If so, consciousness certainly could not arise again afterward. Yet it is still said, “Consciousness does not leave the body.” To which consciousness, then, does this refer? For when the resultant consciousnesses leave this body, depart from it, and become attached to another body, they do not arise again in this body.

Furthermore, if in the state of the attainment of cessation there were no consciousness sustaining the seeds, then, in the absence of seeds, how could consciousness arise again afterward? Past and future dharmas and formations dissociated from mind have no real substance; this has already been established. As for material dharmas, apart from consciousness, none exists. It has also already been refuted that anything other than the eighth consciousness could receive perfuming and retain seeds.

Yet in a mindless state such as the attainment of cessation, just as in a state where mind is present, this consciousness must certainly exist, because the faculties, vitality, and warmth are all present; that is, it is included within the condition of a sentient being, whether mindless or mindful.

For this reason, in the attainment of cessation there must certainly be a real consciousness that does not depart from the body.

– If it is said that in the attainment of cessation there is a sixth consciousness called “the consciousness that does not depart from the body,” this too is unreasonable, because this attainment is also called a mindless attainment, in which the sixth consciousness is absent.

If it is maintained that it is called mindless because the five consciousnesses are absent, then all attainments could be called mindless attainments, because in every attainment the five bodily consciousnesses are absent.

Mental consciousness is included among the six active consciousnesses. Like the five consciousnesses, it is absent in the attainment of cessation. Or, if it is said that the consciousness present in the attainment of cessation has an activity and object that are both unknowable, like vitality and warmth, then it is not the sixth consciousness.

If, in the attainment of cessation, there were a consciousness whose activity and object could both be known, then this state would resemble other states and would not be included within the attainment of cessation. It is precisely in order to bring to rest the consciousness whose activity and object can be clearly known that one enters this attainment of cessation.

Moreover, if the sixth consciousness exists in the attainment of cessation, do its mental factors exist or not? If mental factors exist, the sutra should not say, “While abiding in this attainment, the three formations all cease.” Nor should it be called the attainment of the cessation of sensation and perception.

Objection: - When cultivating the preparatory practices for this attainment, one aims solely at becoming disenchanted with sensation and perception; therefore, within this attainment, only sensation and perception cease. Sensation and perception greatly support the mind, and thus, among the mental factors, they alone are called mental formations. What contradiction is there, then, in saying that the mental formations cease, meaning only that sensation and perception cease, rather than that the mind and its mental factors cease?

The Treatise Master: - In the attainment of non-perception, perception alone should cease, because one is disenchanted only with perception; yet you do not accept that only perception ceases. Moreover, as you have just said, sensation and perception greatly support the mind; therefore, when these two cease, the mind should also cease.

Objection: - No, the mind, namely the sixth consciousness, does not cease. Just as the bodily formation, the inhalation and exhalation of breath, ceases while the body continues to exist, why must you insist that the mind ceases together with its formations, sensation and perception?

The Treatise Master: - If so, when the verbal formations of initial and sustained thought cease, speech should not cease. Yet this is not accepted.

However, among the formations associated with a dharma, some are universally pervasive and others are not. When a universally pervasive formation ceases, that dharma must certainly cease along with it; but when a formation that is not universally pervasive ceases, the dharma may or may not cease.

The formation that is not universally pervasive refers only to inhalation and exhalation, the bodily formation, for it is observed that when breathing ceases, the body still remains.

Initial and sustained thought, in relation to speech, belong to the class of universally pervasive formations; therefore, when initial and sustained thought cease, speech must cease.

Sensation and perception, in relation to mind, also belong to the class of universally pervasive formations, as does the mental factor of volition. They belong to the universal mental dharmas—the ten universal mental dharmas are the five omnipresent factors and the five object-determining factors, which pervade all states of mind. Therefore, when sensation and perception cease, the mind must necessarily cease with them. How, then, can it be said that sensation and perception cease while the mind, namely mental consciousness, does not cease?

Moreover, the Sarvastivadins hold that “volition belongs to the universal mental dharmas.” Then, when sensation and perception cease, volition should also cease. If volition ceases, faith is also absent in the attainment of cessation. For it cannot be said that the omnipresent mental factors cease while other mental factors, such as faith, do not cease. How, then, can it be said that mental factors other than sensation and perception remain? If it is accepted that sensation and perception, like volition, belong to the universal mental dharmas, then if volition exists in this state, sensation and perception should also exist.

Furthermore, if volition exists in this attainment of cessation, contact should also exist, because all other mental factors arise through the power of contact. If contact is accepted as existing, sensation should also exist, because contact is a condition for sensation. If sensation is accepted as existing, perception should also exist, because sensation and perception are inseparable.

Objection: - Just as “sensation” conditions the arising of “craving,” yet not every sensation necessarily conditions the arising of craving, so too, although contact conditions the arising of sensation, this does not mean that every contact necessarily conditions the arising of sensation. Therefore, the objection stated above is unreasonable.

The Treatise Master: - Your attempted defense is invalid, because there is a distinction. The Buddha himself specifically distinguished that only sensations arising with “contact conditioned by ignorance” serve as conditions for the arising of craving. Yet the Buddha never made such a distinction when saying generally that contact gives rise to sensation. Therefore, wherever contact exists, sensation necessarily exists. That sensation and perception occur together is certain. Otherwise, as in other states of distracted mind, sensation and perception should both remain unceased.

You maintain that the mental factor of volition exists in the attainment of cessation. If this is admitted, it contradicts the statement that “the mental formations cease,” and the attainment of the cessation of sensation and perception could not be established.

If there are no mental factors, then the six primary consciousnesses also do not exist, for no mind is ever observed apart from mental factors; when the omnipresent mental factors cease, the primary mind ceases with them. If it is claimed that the primary mind exists without mental factors, then sensation and perception would not be universal mental dharmas, and this consciousness could not be a dharma associated with mental factors. If this were admitted, it could have neither a supporting faculty nor a perceived object; like material dharmas and so forth, it could not be called mind.

Moreover, the sutra says, “With the mental faculty and dharmas as conditions, mental consciousness arises. The conjunction of the three gives rise to contact, and together with contact there also arise sensation, perception, and volition.” If mental consciousness exists in the attainment of cessation, then, because there is a conjunction of the three, contact must exist; and together with contact, sensation, perception, and volition must certainly arise. How, then, could consciousness exist without mental factors?

Suppose it is said that at other times the conjunction of the three possesses the power to constitute contact and thereby gives rise to the mental factor of contact, which in turn gives rise to sensation. But in this attainment, because one had become averse to the mental factors before entering it, the three lack that capacity while one remains in the attainment and do not constitute contact; consequently, contact does not arise, nor does sensation exist.

If so, it should be called the attainment of the cessation of mental factors. Why, then, is it said that only sensation and perception cease?

Suppose it is said that because one becomes disenchanted with sensation and perception, when those two cease, the other mental factors cease along with them; nevertheless, in accordance with the preceding disenchantment, it is named the attainment of complete cessation.

If so, the sixth mind should also cease in that attainment of cessation, because the mental factors of sensation and perception with which one has become disenchanted arise together with the other mental factors. Otherwise, how could it be called a mindless attainment, since the attainment of cessation is also called a mindless attainment?

Furthermore, in this state of the attainment of cessation, what is the nature of mental consciousness? It cannot be defiled or morally indeterminate, for such states do not occur within wholesome attainments. Defiled and morally indeterminate primary minds necessarily possess mental factors. One should not become disenchanted with the wholesome and then give rise again to defilement; nor should one seek quiescence only to give rise again to distraction.

If it is said that the mental consciousness in this attainment of cessation is wholesome, then it could only be wholesome through association and should therefore be associated with such wholesome roots as non-greed. The sixth mind in that attainment cannot be wholesome by intrinsic nature or wholesome in the ultimate sense, because this contradicts your own tenets: that mind is neither a wholesome root such as non-greed nor nirvana.

If it is maintained that the mind in that concentration is wholesome by way of causal arousal, having been elicited by wholesome roots in the preparatory practice, this reasoning is likewise incorrect, for it contradicts their own tenets. Like wholesome minds in other states, it is not wholesome by way of causal arousal. Since a wholesome mind may be immediately followed without interruption by states of all three moral natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate—why should a wholesome mind be causally aroused by the preceding state?

Therefore, if a mind is wholesome, it is so through the power of its associated mental factors. This being so, it must be associated with the wholesome root of non-greed. How, then, can it be said that this sixth wholesome mind in the concentration of cessation has no mental factors?

Since this concentration has no mental factors, the sixth principal consciousness must likewise be absent.

– By investigating in this manner, it is known that the active consciousnesses—eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, and so forth—when in the state of the concentration of cessation, are not the “consciousness that does not leave the body.” Therefore, when the sutra says, “Consciousness does not leave the body,” it refers precisely to this eighth consciousness, for one does not enter the concentration of cessation in order to bring this utterly quiescent appropriating and sustaining consciousness to rest.

– The consciousness present in the concentration of non-perception and in the Heaven of Non-Perception should be understood by analogy with this.

10. Furthermore, a sutra says: “Because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled; because the mind is purified, sentient beings are purified.” If this consciousness did not exist, that mind which is defiled or purified could not exist. That is to say, defiled and purified dharmas take mind as their basis, arise because of mind, and abide in dependence upon mind. The mind receives the perfuming of defiled and purified dharmas and, in turn, maintains the seeds of those defiled and purified dharmas.

– Defiled dharmas may be summarized as comprising three kinds: afflictions, karma, and results, each of distinct types. If this consciousness did not maintain the seeds of the afflictions, then when a sentient being returned from a higher realm or higher plane and was born in a lower realm or lower plane, after there had been no defiled mind in the higher realm, the defiled afflictions of the lower realm would arise again without any cause. This is because other dharmas cannot maintain the seeds of those afflictions belonging to the lower plane, while past and future mental dharmas do not truly exist. If those afflictions could arise again without a cause, there would be no stages of Learning or Beyond Learning in the three vehicles. Why? Because afflictions that had already been eliminated could arise again without a cause.

If this eighth consciousness did not maintain the seeds of karma and its results, then after sentient beings had passed back and forth between various realms and planes, the many kinds of pure and defiled karma and results that subsequently arose would likewise have no cause. The assertions that one kind of seed as cause produces a different kind of result, that form and mind mutually serve as causes and conditions for each other’s arising, or that some other dharma maintains the seeds have already been refuted above.

If karma and its results could arise without a cause, then after entry into nirvana without remainder, karma and results within the three realms would arise again, since afflictions, too, could arise without a cause.

Furthermore, without the eighth consciousness, the statement that “volitional formations serve as conditions for the arising of consciousness” could not be established, because the claim that the active consciousnesses receive perfuming has already been refuted above. Nor can this refer to the “defiled consciousness at the linking of rebirth,” because that consciousness is not produced through the influence of volitional formations.

Neither can it be said that volitional formations serve as conditions for name-and-form, because volitional formations and name-and-form are widely separated in time and stage, and thus cannot serve as conditions for one another. Since the assertion here that “volitional formations serve as conditions for the arising of form” cannot be established, later links, such as “volitional formations serve as conditions for the six sense entrances” and “grasping serves as a condition for aging and death,” likewise cannot be established.

– Purified dharmas also comprise three distinct kinds: seeds of the mundane path, seeds of the supramundane path, and the result of elimination. If this consciousness of karmic maturation did not maintain the purified seeds of the mundane and supramundane paths, then after a mind of a different kind arose—when a mundane mind gave rise to a supramundane mind—the purified mundane and supramundane dharmas could arise without a cause. If it is held that they arise from some other cause, that claim has already been refuted.

If the purified seeds of the two paths—the mundane and supramundane—could arise without a cause, then after entry into the realm of nirvana without remainder, those two kinds of purified path-seeds should arise again, because the bodies and wisdom upon which the two purified paths depend could likewise arise again without a cause.

Furthermore, the initial pure mind of the supramundane path could not arise, because there would be nothing to maintain the naturally inherent seeds of the dharmas of that pure path. Conditioned dharmas of a different kind cannot be the cause of the unconditioned path-seeds. To arise without a cause means not arising from seeds within consciousness. Without seeds, the supramundane path cannot arise initially, nor can it arise subsequently. Thus, the paths and fruits of the three vehicles could not exist.

Furthermore, if this consciousness did not maintain the seeds of the afflictions, the fruit of transformation of the basis, realized through eliminating the afflictions, could not be established. That is to say, when the Noble Path arises, both the manifest activity of the afflictions and their seeds would be absent, because defiled and purified minds cannot arise simultaneously. The sixth mind associated with the Noble Path certainly cannot maintain the seeds of the afflictions, because the intrinsic natures of the afflictions and the Noble Path are opposed to each other, just as the nature of nirvana is opposed to defiled dharmas.

Past and future dharmas, attainment of the Noble Path, and other dharmas do not truly exist and therefore cannot maintain the seeds or establish the fruit of elimination. If it is said that those other dharmas maintain the seeds of the afflictions, that reasoning likewise cannot be established.

Since there would be no afflictions to be eliminated, there would also be no path that eliminates the afflictions. In dependence upon what and by virtue of what, then, could the fruit of elimination be established? If the fruit of elimination were established because the power of the path prevents afflictions from arising subsequently, then one should attain the state Beyond Learning as soon as the path first arose, because all subsequent afflictions would be without a cause and thus would never arise again.

If the existence of this consciousness of karmic maturation is accepted, then all causes and results, both defiled and purified, can be established, because only this consciousness is capable of maintaining all defiled and purified seeds.

The principles proving the existence of this eighth consciousness are innumerable. Fearing excessive prolixity, we have presented only their essential outline.

Both scriptural teaching and reasoning have clearly demonstrated that this eighth consciousness exists distinctly. Those endowed with wisdom should therefore give rise to profound faith, accept it, and uphold it. (22)

X. THE SECOND TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS

– The characteristics of the first transforming consciousness have been explained above. What, then, are the characteristics of the second transforming consciousness?

The verse states:

The second transforming consciousness

Is called the manas consciousness.

Depending upon that, it evolves; that it takes as its object;

Deliberation and calculation constitute its nature and character.

It is associated with four afflictions:

Delusion concerning self, view of self,

Pride of self, and attachment to self,

As well as contact and the other mental factors.

Its nature is obscured and indeterminate;

It arises together with the alaya.

Upon attaining arhatship, in the concentration of cessation,

And on the supramundane path, it is absent.

The Treatise says: “Following the consciousness of karmic maturation, the first transforming consciousness, we should now explain the characteristics of the deliberating and calculating consciousness, the second transforming consciousness.” (23)

– In the Noble Teachings, this consciousness is specifically called manas because its nature of continual examination, deliberation, and calculation is stronger than that of the other consciousnesses.

– How does this name differ from that of the sixth consciousness, the mental consciousness? Here, the name “manas” is explained as a karmadharaya compound, like the term “storehouse consciousness,” because consciousness itself is manas. By contrast, “mental consciousness” is explained as a tatpurusha compound, like “eye-consciousness,” because the consciousness is distinct from the faculty of manas. (A karmadharaya explanation names something on the basis of its own function, while a tatpurusha explanation names it on the basis of that upon which it depends.)

– In the Noble Teachings, however, to prevent this consciousness from being confused with that one, the seventh consciousness is called only “manas” and not “mental consciousness.”

Furthermore, it is designated “manas” in order to distinguish it from the “eighth mind” and from the six consciousnesses, because manas is inferior to the eighth consciousness in the sense of accumulation, and inferior to the six consciousnesses in the sense of distinct cognition. Or, wishing to indicate that manas is the most immediate basis of that mental consciousness, it is called simply “manas.” (24)

The phrase “evolves in dependence upon it” indicates the basis of the manas-consciousness. “It” refers to the store consciousness, the first transforming consciousness discussed previously. The noble teachings state that this consciousness depends upon the store consciousness.

– According to one view, this manas takes only the seeds within the eighth consciousness as its basis, and does not take the manifest eighth consciousness as its basis, because this manas is uninterrupted and need not rely upon the manifest eighth consciousness as a simultaneous basis in order to arise.

– According to another view, this manas takes both the seeds and the manifest eighth consciousness as its basis. Although manas is uninterrupted, it undergoes transformation—changing from defiled to pure and from pure to defiled—and is therefore called an evolving consciousness. It must rely upon the manifest eighth consciousness as a simultaneous basis in order to arise.

“Evolves” means that it flows onward, that is, it arises continuously. This indicates that manas always arises in dependence upon the manifest eighth consciousness and the seeds within the eighth consciousness, and moreover takes the eighth consciousness as its object. (Manas arises from the seeds within the eighth consciousness: this is the causal condition. Its arising in dependence upon the eighth consciousness is the simultaneous basis, an empowering condition.)

All minds and mental factors have bases, and these bases are of three kinds:

1. The causal-condition basis (also called the seed basis), namely, the respective seed of each dharma. All conditioned dharmas rely upon it as their basis, because apart from their own causal seeds they could never arise.

2. The empowering-condition basis (also called the simultaneous basis), namely, the six internal ayatanas, or six faculties. All minds and mental factors rely upon this basis, because apart from a simultaneous faculty they could never arise.

3. The immediately antecedent condition as basis (also called the initiating basis), namely, the preceding mental activity that has ceased, thereby opening the way for the subsequent mental activity to arise. All minds and mental factors rely upon this basis, because apart from the initiating basis—the immediately antecedent condition that opens and guides the way—they could never arise.

Only minds and mental factors must possess all three of these bases and are therefore said to have bases; other dharmas are not so described.

– First, concerning the seed basis, or causal-condition basis, there are two theories:

a. Some say that the seed must first cease before the manifest effect can arise, for the seed must no longer exist before the effect can arise, as stated in the Compendium of Abhidharma. Moreover, a seed and its sprout do not exist simultaneously.

b. Others hold that the citation from the Compendium of Abhidharma does not establish this claim, because that treatise speaks only with reference to one seed of a given kind producing a subsequent seed of the same kind. The analogy that a seed produces a sprout is not entirely correct, because it is not accepted that the seed ceases and the sprout then arises. Just as a lampwick and its flame must exist simultaneously in order to serve as causes for one another.

Within a succession of seeds of the same kind, cause and effect are not simultaneous; but when a seed produces a manifest activity and a manifest activity produces a seed, they definitely exist simultaneously. Therefore, the Yogacara Treatise states that an impermanent conditioned dharma serves as the cause of something of a different nature and also as the cause of something of the same nature in the subsequent moment. This is precisely the meaning of “causal condition.” “The same nature” indicates that a seed of a given kind in the preceding moment serves as the cause of a seed of the same kind in the subsequent moment. “A different nature” indicates that seed and manifest activity serve as causes for one another.

The Mahayana-samgraha also states that the store consciousness and defiled dharmas serve as causal conditions for one another, like a bundle of reeds that stand upright by supporting one another simultaneously. It further states that a seed and its manifest effect must exist simultaneously. Thus, the “seed basis” cannot precede or follow its effect. Although some passages state that “the seed and its manifest effect occur successively,” it should be understood that these statements follow an accommodated mode of teaching—that is, adapting Mahayana to explain the principles of the Lesser Vehicle, or expressing the primary principle in accordance with a secondary principle.

Thus, each of the eight consciousnesses and their mental factors necessarily has its own distinct seeds as its basis.

– Second, concerning the simultaneous basis, or empowering-condition basis, there are four theories:

a. One theory holds that the five consciousnesses—visual, auditory, and so forth—take mental consciousness as their simultaneous basis, because whenever the five consciousnesses arise, mental consciousness must be present. They do not have the eye faculty and the other distinct faculties as simultaneous bases, because the five faculties are precisely the seeds of the five consciousnesses. As a verse in the Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only states:

Consciousness arises from its own seed,

Transforming with an appearance resembling an object;

To establish the internal and external ayatanas,

The Buddha taught that these are ten.

The meaning of this verse is that, in order to establish the twelve ayatanas, the Blessed One taught that the seeds of the five consciousnesses are the five faculties and so forth, while the image portions of the five consciousnesses are the five sense objects and so forth. Thus, it should be understood that the eye faculty and the other faculties are precisely the seeds of the five consciousnesses.

The Treatise on the Contemplation of the Perceived Object also states:

The potency for form upon consciousness

May reasonably be called the five faculties.

This potency and the objects of form

Have been causes of one another since beginningless time.

The meaning of this verse is that the seeds within the maturation consciousness that produce visual consciousness and the other consciousnesses of form are called the potency for form. This potency for form is said to be the five faculties; there are no separate five faculties. The seeds of the faculties and the consciousnesses of form continually serve as causes for one another, because manifest consciousness and manifest form, which are capable of perfuming, always serve as reciprocal causes with the seeds of the faculties.

The seventh and eighth consciousnesses have no distinct simultaneous bases, because their own power is strong and they arise continuously at all times. The sixth consciousness, however, has a simultaneous basis, because it must depend upon manas in order to arise.

b. Others hold that the preceding position contradicts both reason and scripture. If the five material faculties were precisely the seeds of the five consciousnesses, the seeds of the eighteen dhatus would become confused. Yet each of the eighteen dhatus has its own distinct seeds, as is taught everywhere in the noble teachings.

Moreover, the seeds of each of the five consciousnesses are capable of producing distinct image portions and perceiving portions. Which, then, is held to be the eye faculty and the other faculties: the image portion or the perceiving portion? If the seed of the perceiving portion is held to be the faculty, then the perceiving portion belongs to the consciousness skandha. If the seed of the image portion is held to be the faculty, then the image portion belongs to the external ayatanas. Both assertions contradict the noble teaching that “the five faculties—the eye, ear, and so forth—belong to the form skandha and the internal ayatanas.”

Moreover, if the five faculties were precisely the seeds of the five consciousnesses, the five faculties would be causal conditions of the five consciousnesses and should not be classified as empowering conditions.

Moreover, if the olfactory and gustatory faculties were precisely the seeds of their respective consciousnesses, then, like the olfactory and gustatory consciousnesses, those two faculties should be bound only to the desire realm;

or else, like the olfactory and gustatory faculties, both the olfactory and gustatory consciousnesses should also be bound to the form realm. To accept either position would contradict the noble teachings. (It is taught that only the three consciousnesses of sight, hearing, and touch exist in the second stage, whereas the olfactory and gustatory consciousnesses exist only in the desire realm.) Furthermore, if the three faculties of sight, hearing, and touch were precisely the seeds of their three consciousnesses, they should exist only in two stages: the stage where beings of the five destinies dwell together and the first dhyana.

Or, if it were said that they do not exist in any of the five stages—the stage where beings of the five destinies dwell together and the four dhyanas—the same objection would apply.

Moreover, since the seeds of the five consciousnesses include both wholesome and unwholesome natures, the five material faculties could not be exclusively morally indeterminate.

Moreover, since the seeds of the five consciousnesses belong to the category of what is not appropriated, the five faculties should likewise not be appropriated.

Moreover, if the five material faculties were the seeds of the five consciousnesses, then the seed of mental consciousness would have to be manas, because those five consciousnesses would already take the five faculties as dharmas of the same class, all serving as faculties upon which the evolving consciousnesses depend.

Furthermore, the Yogacarabhumi Treatise states that each of the six consciousnesses—eye, ear, and so forth—possesses all three supports: the support of seeds, also called the causal support; the support of the faculties, also called the simultaneous support; and the support of the immediately antecedent mind, also called the immediately antecedent support. Now, if it is said that the five material faculties are precisely the seeds of the five consciousnesses, there would be only two supports.

Furthermore, when the sacred teachings speak of the five faculties—eye, ear, and so forth—they refer collectively to both the faculties in active manifestation and the seeds of the faculties. To maintain that the seeds of the five consciousnesses are the five faculties contradicts all the sacred teachings.

– Wishing to avoid the foregoing error, some defend this position by saying: “The dominant karmic seeds that bring forth the five consciousnesses within the maturation consciousness are called the five material faculties; they are not the causal seeds that produce the five consciousnesses.” This reasoning accords well with the two verses and is fully consistent with the Yogacarabhumi Treatise.

– What they say is merely empty speech devoid of true meaning, for if that were so, the five material faculties ought not to be morally indeterminate. Furthermore, if karmic seeds were the five faculties, they would not be exclusively appropriated; they would not be included solely within the form skandha or solely within the internal ayatanas; the nose and tongue faculties ought to be bound only to the Desire Realm; and the other three faculties ought not to be bound to the five levels—the Mixed Abode of the Five Destinies and the four dhyanas. Since the karmic seeds that bring forth the mental consciousness should, by this reasoning, be Manas, it cannot be the case that eye, ear, and so forth, both in active manifestation and as seeds, can again be the eye, ear, and so forth without being material faculties. Furthermore, if all five consciousnesses were brought forth by karma, they could invariably be included within the morally indeterminate nature. Yet wholesome, unwholesome, and other states of the five consciousnesses are not brought forth by karma and consequently would have no eye faculty and so forth as simultaneous supports. Therefore, your statement is not a skillful defense.

Furthermore, all the sacred teachings state: “The alaya-consciousness manifests semblances of the material faculties, the body upon which the faculties depend, and the container world.” Why, then, do you deny the existence of the material faculties, while allowing the eye-consciousness and so forth to manifest semblances of forms and sounds, yet refusing to allow the eye-consciousness and so forth to be manifested by the storehouse consciousness? Such delusion and error gravely contradict both scripture and reason.

However, when the verse says, “The capacities of the seeds are called the five faculties,” its purpose is to refute those who maintain that five faculties truly exist apart from consciousness.

It should be understood that the fundamental consciousness itself manifests semblances of the eye faculty and the other faculties. Because these faculties have the capacity to generate the five consciousnesses, they are provisionally called seeds and material capacities. This does not mean that the material faculties are themselves the seeds of consciousness or of karma.

Furthermore, because the clearly discerning mental consciousness apprehends the five objects, it must take the five consciousnesses as simultaneous supports, for this clearly discerning mental consciousness must arise simultaneously with the five consciousnesses. If the clearly discerning mental consciousness did not depend upon the eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, and so forth, it could not serve as a support for the five consciousnesses, because they mutually depend upon one another and possess equal power.

Furthermore, although the seventh consciousness is uninterrupted, it undergoes transformation upon reaching the paths of seeing and cultivation. Therefore, like the six consciousnesses, it must have a simultaneous support. Otherwise, it should not be included among the transforming consciousnesses, contradicting the sacred teaching that there are seven transforming consciousnesses. It must therefore be accepted that the seventh consciousness has a simultaneous support, and that this simultaneous support is the eighth consciousness in active manifestation. As the Yogacarabhumi Treatise states: “Because there is a storehouse consciousness, there is Manas consciousness; with Manas consciousness as its support, the mental consciousness arises.”

The meaning of that treatise is that only with the storehouse consciousness in active manifestation as its support can there be Manas consciousness; it does not arise from its seeds within the storehouse consciousness. Otherwise, it should have said that because there is a storehouse consciousness, the mental consciousness arises. Therefore, the assertion that seeds are the faculties and that Manas has no simultaneous support contradicts both reason and scripture.

Thus it is said: “Each of the first five transforming consciousnesses must have two simultaneous supports: the five material faculties and the mental consciousness arising at the same time.”

The sixth transforming consciousness necessarily and always has one simultaneous support, namely, the seventh consciousness. If the mental consciousness arises simultaneously with the first five consciousnesses, it also takes those first five consciousnesses as simultaneous supports. The seventh transforming consciousness necessarily has only one simultaneous support, namely, the eighth consciousness. The eighth consciousness alone is constant and undergoes no transformation; it stands firmly by itself and does not require a simultaneous support.”

c. Some hold that the foregoing statement does not fully express the principle. Since the eighth consciousness, like the other consciousnesses, is likewise consciousness, why should it not be allowed to have a simultaneous support? Since the seventh and eighth consciousnesses always arise together and mutually depend upon one another, what fault would there be in this?

Since it has been accepted that a consciousness in active manifestation takes its own seeds as its support, it should also be accepted that those seeds in turn depend upon the consciousness in active manifestation. That is to say, manifest consciousness depends upon seeds, and seeds depend upon manifest consciousness. The seven transforming consciousnesses in active manifestation can perfume the maturation consciousness and form seeds within it. Those seeds take the seven perfuming transforming consciousnesses as their support, and they exist by taking the perfumed maturation consciousness as their support. Apart from the seven perfuming transforming consciousnesses and the perfumed maturation consciousness, the seeds could neither arise, grow, nor remain.

Furthermore, in a realm possessing form, the maturation consciousness appropriates and sustains the body and arises in dependence upon the material faculties. As a sutra states: “The alaya-consciousness, stirred by the winds of karma, depends throughout upon the faculties and constantly arises in an uninterrupted continuum.” The Yogacarabhumi Treatise states: “Because each of the six consciousnesses—eye, ear, and so forth—has its own distinct support, none is capable of appropriating the entire body endowed with material faculties.” If the maturation consciousness did not appropriate and depend upon the material faculties, then, like the six consciousnesses, it would be incapable of appropriation; otherwise, in Buddhist logic, the reason adduced would incur the fault of inconclusiveness.

Therefore, when the storehouse consciousness arises in active manifestation, it necessarily has one support, namely, the seventh consciousness. When it exists in a realm possessing form, it also depends upon the material faculties. As for consciousness-seeds, they necessarily have one support, namely, the maturation consciousness; when they are newly perfumed, they also depend upon the perfuming consciousnesses. The remaining principles are as explained above.

d. Some hold that all the preceding statements are unreasonable because their proponents have not clearly distinguished between a support and dependence. Dependence means that all arising and ceasing dharmas must rely upon causes and conditions in order to arise and continue.

That upon which they rely may also be called a support. Thus king and minister mutually depend upon one another. But only a dharma that necessarily exists simultaneously, possesses an object of cognition, acts as master, and is capable of enabling the mind and mental factors to apprehend their respective objects can properly be called a support.

More precisely, only the six internal ayatanas—the six faculties—are supports. Anything else that possesses no object of cognition, lacks the nature of necessity, and does not act as master is not a support, just as the king is the master and the minister is not. Therefore, the sacred teachings say that only mind and mental factors have supports—the faculties—whereas material dharmas do not, because material dharmas have no objects of cognition.

They say only that mental factors take the mind as their support; they do not say that mental factors serve as supports for the mind, because mental factors are not masters and lack autonomy, like ministers.

Nevertheless, in some places, that which is depended upon is called a support, or a support is called that which is depended upon; these are merely provisional expressions employed as appropriate.

Consequently, each of the five consciousnesses has supports, and necessarily has four: the five material faculties, the sixth consciousness, the seventh consciousness, and the eighth consciousness. If any one of these is absent, the five consciousnesses cannot arise. Expressed differently, these four supports are respectively the common-object support, the discriminating support, the defiled-and-purified support, and the fundamental support.

However, the sacred teachings usually say only that the five consciousnesses depend upon the five faculties, because each of the five faculties is the particular support of its respective consciousness. Moreover, as co-object supports—that is, the five faculties and their consciousnesses apprehend the same object, and so forth—they are the supports most closely concordant with the five consciousnesses.

The sixth, mental consciousness, has only two simultaneous supports: the seventh and eighth consciousnesses. If either is absent, the sixth consciousness cannot arise. Although the sixth mental consciousness, together with the five consciousnesses, clearly apprehends present objects, it does not invariably depend upon the five consciousnesses. Therefore, the five consciousnesses are not the particular supports of mental consciousness.

The sacred teachings say only that mental consciousness depends upon the seventh consciousness because the latter is its support in both defilement and purity, and because both belong to the transforming consciousnesses and are closely concordant.

The seventh consciousness has only one simultaneous support: the eighth consciousness. Without the eighth, the store consciousness, the seventh consciousness could not arise, as the verse says:

Through dependence upon alaya,

Manas therefore comes to arise;

Depending upon mind and mentation,

The other transforming consciousnesses arise.

The alaya consciousness also has only one simultaneous support: the seventh consciousness. Without the seventh consciousness, alaya consciousness certainly could not arise. Therefore, the Treatise says: “The store consciousness always arises simultaneously with manas consciousness.”

It is also said that the store consciousness always depends upon the defiled consciousness; this refers precisely to its dependence upon this manas consciousness. Yet some passages state that manas is absent in three states—the state of an arhat, the attainment of cessation, and the supramundane path. This is said with reference to the obscured nature of manas consciousness, just as it is said that alaya is absent in four states—the states of those beyond training in the Three Vehicles and the state of a Buddha.

This does not mean that the eighth consciousness is absent in those four states. Rather, because the attachment of self-love to the store has been eliminated in those four states, it is said that alaya is absent, while the essential nature of the eighth consciousness always remains. The meaning here is the same.

Although, in the realm of form, alaya consciousness also arises in dependence upon the five faculties, these faculties are not invariably present. They are therefore not included among the simultaneous supports of the eighth, alaya consciousness. The seeds of consciousness cannot manifestly apprehend their own objects; thus, they may possess the meaning of dependence but do not possess the meaning of being a support like a faculty. As for the supports of mental factors, they are explained according to the mind—the sovereign consciousness—with which they are associated; for each mental factor, the sovereign consciousness with which it is associated is additionally counted as its support. Explained in this way, the doctrine accords well with both reason and scripture.

– Finally, there is the guiding support—the support as the immediately antecedent condition. There are three theories:

1. Some hold that the first five consciousnesses, whether considered individually or through other consciousnesses, do not continue uninterruptedly from one moment to the next and therefore cannot serve as guiding supports. They must certainly be guided and brought forth by the sixth consciousness, and only the sixth consciousness serves as their guiding support. The sixth mental consciousness, however, continues in its own series and is also guided and brought forth by the preceding five consciousnesses; therefore, it takes the preceding five consciousnesses as its guiding supports.

The seventh and eighth consciousnesses continue in their own series and do not require another consciousness to guide and bring them forth. Therefore, each takes only a preceding consciousness of its own kind as its guiding support.

2. Some hold that the preceding theory does not fully express the principle. When the first five consciousnesses are in a state lacking mastery and encounter unfavorable objects, the foregoing may be said.

But when the five consciousnesses are in a state of mastery, as with the Buddhas, who have mastery over objects, whose faculties function interchangeably, and who operate spontaneously and decisively without any need for searching, how could the five sensory consciousnesses of the Buddhas fail to continue uninterruptedly? Moreover, after the homogeneous-flow states of the five consciousnesses have arisen through the power of the determining mind, the defiled or pure mind, and the mental attention of mental consciousness, then, while they continue to attend exclusively to an object that has not yet been relinquished, how could one deny that those five consciousnesses continue through many successive moments as a homogeneous flow?

Therefore, the Yogacara Treatise says: “Only after the determining mind does the defiled or pure mind arise; after that, wholesome or unwholesome eye consciousness arises. Yet these do not arise through the power of their own discrimination, but through mental consciousness, until mental consciousness turns to pursue another object. During that interval, the eye consciousness and mental consciousness, whether wholesome or defiled, continue to arise successively.

As it is with the arising of eye consciousness, so should it be understood through to the arising of body consciousness.” The purport of the Treatise is clearly to explain that, during this interval, the two consciousnesses—the sensory consciousness and mental consciousness—continue to arise simultaneously. When eye consciousness is present, mental consciousness is also present; thus, it is not the case that the two consciousnesses arise successively from one another.

When an overpowering object continues to be present and exerts such pressure upon body and mind that it cannot temporarily be relinquished, the five sensory consciousnesses must continue uninterruptedly, as when experiencing the extremely painful objects of the hot hells or the intensely pleasurable objects of the heavens in which beings become heedless through amusement, which belong to the desire realm.

Therefore, the Yogacara Treatise says: “When the six consciousnesses of the preceding moment serve as the immediately antecedent conditions for the six consciousnesses of the subsequent moment, they are conventionally designated the mental faculty.” If only mental consciousness were invariably the guiding support of the five consciousnesses from one moment to the next, that Treatise should have said: “This single mental consciousness serves as the immediately antecedent condition—the guiding support—for those six consciousnesses,” or it should have said that these six consciousnesses serve as the immediately antecedent conditions for that single consciousness.

But the Treatise does not say this. Therefore, it is known that the five consciousnesses possess continuity. When any of the five consciousnesses arises, the preceding moment of mental consciousness certainly guides the subsequent moment of mental consciousness and causes it to arise; why, then, must one of the five consciousnesses serve as its guiding support?

During a mindless state or deep sleep, mental consciousness has ceased. When it later arises again, the store consciousness and manas have continued constantly throughout the intervening period; thus, they too should serve as guiding supports for that mental consciousness. Furthermore, if mental consciousness uses a preceding moment of its own kind as the guiding support for a subsequent moment, why not also allow each of the five consciousnesses to use a preceding moment of its own kind as its own guiding support? If this is not permitted in the latter case, why should it be so in the former?

When manas consciousness first arises in association with the wisdom of equality, it must also be guided by the sixth mental consciousness, which contemplates the two kinds of emptiness. Thus, the sixth consciousness should also be taken as the guiding support for manas.

When the purified eighth consciousness first arises in association with the great perfect mirror wisdom, the sixth consciousness, associated with the wisdom of wondrous observation, and the seventh consciousness, associated with the wisdom of equality, must also serve as expedient means that guide it toward arising. Moreover, when the resultant mind is in a defiled state, it depends upon defiled mentation; or, when it is in the state of transformation of the basis, it depends upon a wholesome mind associated with vows and compassion. Thus, it must be accepted that the eighth consciousness also takes the sixth and seventh consciousnesses as its guiding supports. Consequently, all the preceding statements are not definitive.

It should instead be said that each of the first five consciousnesses, as appropriate, uses any one of the six consciousnesses of the preceding moment as its guiding support. The sixth mental consciousness uses either a preceding moment of its own kind or the seventh or eighth consciousness as its guiding support. The seventh, manas consciousness, uses either a preceding moment of its own kind or the sixth consciousness as its guiding support. The adana consciousness—the eighth consciousness—uses a preceding moment of its own kind, as well as the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, as its guiding supports. None of this contradicts reason, for it has already been explained above.

3. Some hold that the view just stated also does not accord with reason. A guiding support is a dharma possessing four meanings: it truly exists—whereas non-associated formations do not truly exist; it is capable of apprehending an object—whereas material form is incapable of cognition; it functions as the sovereign—whereas mental factors are not sovereign; and it can serve as an immediately antecedent condition—whereas a consciousness of a different kind and a consciousness of a subsequent moment cannot serve as an immediately antecedent condition. Such a dharma is called a guiding support. This belongs only to mind, and not to mental factors, material form, non-associated formations, or unconditioned dharmas.

If this consciousness of the preceding moment and the consciousness of the subsequent moment cannot arise simultaneously, only then can it be said that the former consciousness has the power to open the way for the latter. But since the eight consciousnesses within a single body can arise simultaneously, one consciousness is of a different kind from another. Being of different kinds, they can serve only as simultaneous supports; how could they serve as opening-guide supports for one another?

If it is accepted that a consciousness of a different kind can serve as an opening-guide support, then the eight consciousnesses would not arise simultaneously—for if they arose simultaneously, they could not be opening-guide supports. This would amount to the same doctrine as that held by certain schools of the Lesser Vehicle, which maintain that consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously.

Moreover, within a single body, the number of consciousnesses arising simultaneously is indeterminate—sometimes one consciousness, sometimes two or three. If they were regarded as immediately antecedent conditions for one another, then material faculties, which are of a different kind from mind, as well as non-associated formations and so forth, would likewise all be immediately antecedent conditions. This would contradict the sacred teaching: “Only mind and mental factors can be immediately antecedent conditions.”

However, when the Mahayana-samgraha says, “Form also has an immediately antecedent condition,” this is a statement provisionally conceded only to refute it afterward. That is, even if, as the Lesser Vehicle holds, preceding and subsequent forms and minds were said to have immediately antecedent conditions, such an assertion would undermine the meaning of causal conditions. If this were not so, the word “equal” in “equal and uninterrupted” would become useless.

If it is claimed that “equal” does not exclude a plurality or paucity of minds but merely indicates that they are of the same kind, then saying that only things of the same kind can be immediately antecedent conditions contradicts your own Lesser Vehicle tenet that consciousnesses of different kinds can serve as immediately antecedent conditions.

Therefore, it should be understood that each of the eight consciousnesses takes only a consciousness of its own kind as its opening-guide support. This accords perfectly with both the teachings and reasoning, for consciousnesses of the same kind cannot arise simultaneously. The opening-guide support of a mental factor is explained according to the particular sovereign consciousness with which it is associated.

Although mind and mental factors are of different kinds and arise simultaneously, they are mutually associated and harmoniously united as though they were one. They necessarily arise and cease together, and their objects and functions are also the same. When one consciousness opens the way, the other mental factors also open the way—as when the mental factor contact arises together with visual consciousness and is then immediately followed by the mental factors feeling, perception, and volition.

Therefore, in successive order they serve as immediately antecedent conditions for one another. But among the sovereign consciousnesses there is no such meaning of opening the way for one another, so mental factors should not be taken as a fixed analogy. Nevertheless, the mental factors themselves are not opening-guide supports, but only immediately antecedent conditions, because they have no autonomous power to lead to the arising of something else.

– If the immediately antecedent conditions of mind and mental factors must each be of their own kind, then when the seventh and eighth consciousnesses first undergo transformation of the basis, the mental factors faith and so forth associated with them would lack immediately antecedent conditions of their own kind. Before the seventh and eighth consciousnesses undergo transformation of the basis, they are not associated with the eleven wholesome mental factors. When transformation of the basis occurs, they become associated with the eleven wholesome mental factors. If mind and mental factors of the same kind must serve as immediately antecedent conditions, then at that time these eleven wholesome factors would lack such immediately antecedent conditions, since they did not exist before transformation of the basis. This would contradict the sacred teaching: “Mind and all mental factors arise only when all four conditions are present.”

In states without mind, deep sleep, fainting, and so forth, although mental consciousness is interrupted, when it subsequently arises, its opening-guide support is precisely a consciousness of its own kind from an earlier time. The same should be understood regarding the five consciousnesses. Since no consciousness of a different kind intervenes between them to create a separation, this is called “uninterrupted.” As soon as the consciousness of the preceding moment has ceased, it serves as the opening-guide support for the consciousness of the subsequent moment. Why would a consciousness of a different kind be required to open the way?

However, the sacred teachings sometimes say that the first six consciousnesses lead to the arising of one another, or that the seventh and eighth consciousnesses arise in dependence upon the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Such statements are made with reference to a particularly powerful dominant condition, not to an immediately antecedent condition; therefore, there is no contradiction.

The Yogacara-bhumi says: “If the consciousness of the preceding moment is uninterrupted, the consciousnesses of subsequent moments will certainly arise; therefore, the consciousness of the preceding moment is the immediately antecedent condition for the consciousness of the subsequent moment.”

It also says that the six consciousnesses of preceding moments serve as immediately antecedent conditions for the six consciousnesses of subsequent moments and are conventionally designated the faculty of mind. This statement is general in wording but specific in meaning, so there is likewise no contradiction. Therefore, it should be understood that consciousnesses of the same kind depend upon one another as opening-guide supports; this accords perfectly with the teachings and reasoning.

– The discussion of these ancillary points is now complete. We should now examine the principal meaning of this manas consciousness. Although this manas, the second transforming consciousness, possesses all three supports, the words “functions in dependence upon that” in the verse are intended only to reveal the first two supports: the causal condition, namely the seed support, and the simultaneous faculty support. This means that both the support and the object of this manas consciousness are the eighth consciousness. Furthermore,

the first two supports exercise a particularly powerful function in relation to manas. Alternatively, the opening-guide support is omitted because it is easy to understand. (25)

– Thus the support of the seventh consciousness has been explained. What, then, is its object?

It is indicated by the words “takes that as its object” in the verse. “That” refers precisely to the eighth consciousness upon which manas depends, as just explained. The sacred teaching says: “Manas takes that store consciousness as its object.” There are four theories:

1. Some hold that this manas consciousness takes as its objects the essential nature of the eighth consciousness and the five mental factors associated with it. The Treatise says that manas is constantly associated with the notions of self and what belongs to the self. This means that manas takes as its objects the essential nature of the eighth consciousness and the mental factors associated with it, and in sequence grasps them as “self” and “what belongs to the self.” Since the mental factors are inseparable from consciousness, the expression “Consciousness-Only” includes the mental factors as well; hence this does not contradict the sacred teachings.

2. Some hold that the preceding statement is unreasonable, because nowhere in the sacred teachings is it said that manas takes contact and the other mental factors of the eighth consciousness as its objects. It should therefore be said that manas takes only the perceiving aspect and the objective aspect of the eighth consciousness as its objects, and in sequence grasps them as “self” and “what belongs to the self.” Since both the perceiving and objective aspects have consciousness as their essential nature, this does not contradict the sacred teachings.

3. Some hold that the preceding statement is unreasonable, because the objective aspects consisting of the five faculties and five objects do not belong to the skandha of consciousness. If manas were to take them as its objects, then like the five consciousnesses it would also apprehend external objects, and like mental consciousness it could apprehend objects in general.

Consequently, when born in the Formless Realm, where there is no form to apprehend, it would not grasp anything as belonging to the self. Moreover, since beings are born in the Formless Realm through disenchantment with form, they no longer manifest form. It should therefore be said that manas takes only the store consciousness and its seeds as its objects, and in sequence grasps them as “self” and “what belongs to the self.” Since the seeds are precisely the functional capacities of the store consciousness and are not actual entities, this does not contradict the sacred teachings.

4. Others hold that all the foregoing theories are unreasonable, because the seeds of form and so forth do not belong to the skandha of consciousness. The Treatise says that seeds truly exist.

If seeds were merely nominal, they would be as though nonexistent; and if they did not exist, they could not serve as causal conditions from which dharmas arise. Furthermore, the view of a real person associated with manas operates spontaneously in a single uniform mode and arises in an uninterrupted continuum. How, then, could it separately grasp “self” and “what belongs to the self”?

It is impossible for a single mind simultaneously to produce two distinct attachments to the differing objects of annihilationism and eternalism. Nor can it be said that these two attachments to annihilationism and eternalism occur successively, because from beginningless time the seventh consciousness has constantly arisen in one uniform mode, without distinction between earlier and later.

– It should be understood that manas takes as its object only the presently active seeing portion of the store consciousness and nothing else, because the store consciousness, from beginningless time, has continued uninterruptedly as a single kind, appearing permanent and unitary, and always serving as the support of all dharmas. Manas apprehends only that presently active seeing portion as the inner self; the words “belonging to the self” are also used merely in conformity with conventional speech. Alternatively, manas apprehends the eighth consciousness as “that which belongs to my self” (that is, it takes the apprehending subject as the self and the apprehended object as belonging to the self). Thus, within a single apprehending view, there are two meanings. This explanation accords well with the teachings, for in many places only the “view of self” is mentioned, since the apprehensions of self and of what belongs to the self do not arise simultaneously.

While the basis has not yet been transformed, manas takes only the seeing portion of the store consciousness as its object; but after the basis has been transformed, it also takes suchness and other dharmas as its objects.

As for the wisdom of equality, because it realizes the ten kinds of equality, it knows the distinctive superior dispositions and understandings of sentient beings and manifests images of Buddhas to them. This verse, however, is principally concerned only with the state before the transformation of the basis; therefore, it states merely that manas takes the store consciousness as its object. For realization is universal whereas delusion is restricted, and the reasoning is accordingly so: the sphere of realization is non-self, while the sphere of delusion is attachment to self; one is pervasive, while the other is not.

– Why does manas take as its object that upon which it itself depends? In other words, why is the object of manas also the very support of manas?

It has already been accepted that a later moment of consciousness takes the preceding moment of consciousness as its object. What fault, then, is there in this?

– The verse says, “Its nature and mode of activity are deliberation and discernment,” thereby revealing both the intrinsic nature and the mode of activity of the manas consciousness. Manas takes deliberation and discernment as its intrinsic nature and also as its mode of activity. Because of these two meanings, it is separately given the name manas, or mentation. Because it deliberates, examines, and discerns, it is called manas. While the basis has not yet been transformed, it constantly deliberates upon and discerns the characteristic of attachment to self; when the basis has been transformed, it also constantly deliberates upon and discerns the characteristic of non-self. (Discernment of self is erroneous cognition; discernment of non-self is direct perception or correct inference.) (26)

– With how many mental factors is this manas consciousness associated?

Manas is constantly associated with four afflictions. In the verse, the word “together with” reveals the meaning of association. That is, from beginningless time until the basis has been transformed, this manas spontaneously and constantly takes the store consciousness as its object and is associated with the four fundamental afflictions: delusion concerning self, view of self, pride of self, and attachment to self.

Delusion concerning self is ignorance: being deluded about the characteristic of self and confused regarding the principle of non-self. Therefore, it is called delusion concerning self.

The view of self is attachment to self. It falsely apprehends as self that which is neither self nor a substantial dharma; therefore, it is called the view of self.

Pride of self is arrogance that relies upon the self one apprehends and causes the mind to become elevated; therefore, it is called pride of self.

Attachment to self is craving for self: toward the self already apprehended, the mind generates clinging and attachment; therefore, it is called attachment to self.

In the verse, the word “and” indicates that whenever pride of self and attachment to self are present, the view of self arises together with them; and whenever the view of self and pride of self are present, attachment to self arises together with them. This refutes those schools that maintain that these four are not associated with one another.

These four afflictions constantly arise and disturb and defile the inner mind, thereby causing the six externally functioning consciousnesses to become contaminated. Because of them, sentient beings undergo birth and death in samsara and cannot attain liberation; therefore, they are called afflictions.

Question: There are ten fundamental afflictions (the five dull fetters and the five sharp fetters). Why, then, is this consciousness associated with only four?

Answer: Because the view of self is present, the other views—such as the extreme view, wrong view, attachment to views, and attachment to precepts and prohibitions—do not arise, since two mental factors of wisdom can never be simultaneously present within the mind. (Views belong to the mental factor of wisdom.)

Question: Why must this consciousness possess the view of self?

Answer: Wrong view, attachment to views, and attachment to precepts and prohibitions arise only through discrimination and are eliminated only on the path of seeing, whereas the four afflictions associated with manas are innate and can be eliminated only on the path of cultivation. (Therefore, manas does not possess the two kinds of attachment to views or wrong view.) Moreover, the apprehension of what belongs to the self and the extreme views of annihilationism and eternalism all arise in dependence upon the view of self, whereas the view of self associated with manas does not arise in dependence upon the apprehension of what belongs to the self or upon extreme views.

There is no apprehension of what belongs to the self or any extreme view constantly operating inwardly and covertly; rather, it apprehends the eighth consciousness as self. Therefore, manas must possess the view of self. Because the view of self has the character of examining and deciding, the mental factor of doubt cannot arise.

Because there is attachment to the self, the mental factor of hatred does not arise. Thus, manas is associated with only four afflictions.

Question: How can the three—view of self, pride of self, and attachment to self—arise together?

Answer: Since the modes of activity of these three do not conflict, what fault is there in their arising together?

Question: The Yogacara Treatise says, “Craving causes the mind to become humble and submissive; pride causes the mind to become elevated.” How can these not be contradictory?

Answer: The discriminatively arisen and the innate, external objects and internal objects, being humiliated and relying upon oneself—these differ respectively as coarse and subtle. Therefore, that passage and this one are not contradictory in meaning.

Are there only four mental factors associated with manas? No. Why, then, does the verse say, “and the mental factor of contact and the rest”? (There are five theories.)

1. Some hold that the preceding line of verse means that there are only nine mental factors associated with manas: the preceding four together with the five omnipresent factors—contact, attention, feeling, perception, and volition. Manas must necessarily be associated with the omnipresent mental factors.

However, because it was previously stated that contact and the rest are associated with the maturation consciousness (and the maturation consciousness is unobscured and indeterminate, if it were now explicitly stated that manas is associated with contact and the rest), it might mistakenly be thought that manas, like the maturation consciousness, is also unobscured and indeterminate. To clarify the difference between this manas and that maturation consciousness, the verse therefore employs the words “other” and “and.” This means that the preceding four afflictions and these five omnipresent factors, making nine in all, are constantly associated with manas.

– Why is this manas not associated with the other mental factors?

It is not associated with them because “desire” is aspiration for an object not yet obtained, whereas this manas spontaneously takes as its object something already obtained and has no aspiration for anything. Therefore, it does not possess the mental factor of desire.

The mental factor of resolve confirms and firmly retains an object not previously determined, whereas this manas has, from beginningless time, constantly taken as its object something already determined and already confirmed and firmly retained. Therefore, it does not possess “resolve.”

The mental factor of mindfulness recollects what has previously been experienced or practiced, whereas this manas constantly takes as its object what is presently experienced and does not recollect anything. Therefore, it does not possess mindfulness.

The mental factor of concentration binds the mind in focused attention upon a single object, whereas this manas spontaneously takes a distinct object at each moment and is not single-mindedly focused. Therefore, it does not possess concentration.

The mental factor of wisdom is the view of self and therefore is not mentioned separately.

Wholesome mental factors are pure and are not associated with the obscured and defiled manas.

As for the secondary afflictions, they are conventionally established according to the different preceding and subsequent phases of the afflictions. This manas, however, is constantly associated with the four afflictions, remaining of a single kind before and after, without differences of phase. Therefore, manas is not associated with the secondary afflictions.

The mental factor of regret remorsefully reflects upon actions already performed, whereas this manas spontaneously and constantly takes present objects as its objects and does not regret past deeds. Therefore, it does not possess regret.

The mental factor of sleep must depend upon heaviness and torpor of body and mind, as well as upon the power of external conditions, to arise temporarily. This manas, however, has from beginningless time inwardly apprehended the self in a single, continuous manner without requiring external conditions. Therefore, this manas does not possess sleep.

The mental factors of investigation and analysis both arise in dependence upon external objects, examining them shallowly or deeply and giving rise to coarse or subtle speech. This manas, however, arises solely in dependence upon what is internal and invariably clings to a self; therefore, it is not associated with investigation and analysis.

2. Some hold that the preceding interpretation of the word “other” in the phrase “together with contact and the other mental factors” in the verse is incorrect. For the verse already states separately that this manas is included within the defiled-neutral, unlike the undefiled-neutral alaya-consciousness, but it still lacks a statement that manas is associated with the secondary afflictions. Therefore, the verse uses the word “other.” Since the afflictions must necessarily be associated with the secondary afflictions, the word “other” in the verse indicates the secondary afflictions.

Here, some hold that the pervasive secondary afflictions are associated with all defiled minds. As the Compendium states: “Torpor, restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, and heedlessness are always associated with every category of defilement.” It is impossible for defilement to exist apart from the unfitness of torpor and the other factors. When an affliction arises, the mind is already defiled and must possess those five secondary afflictions.

This is because, whenever an affliction arises, it must arise through the unfitness of torpor, the agitation of restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, and heedlessness. Although the mental factor of restlessness pervades all defiled minds, it is stronger in a state of greed; therefore, it alone is said to belong to the category of greed (self-love). Likewise, although sleep and remorse extend through all three moral natures, they are stronger in a state of delusion; therefore, remorse and sleep alone are said to belong to the category of delusion (self-delusion).

Although other passages state that either six or ten secondary afflictions pervade defiled minds, in those passages “pervasive” is always stated according to a particular meaning; it does not mean that they truly pervade every defiled mind. That is, among the twenty secondary afflictions, six are observed to have clearly manifest modes of activity, to extend through both coarse and subtle states and through both the neutral and unwholesome natures, and to obstruct both concentration and wisdom; therefore, six are taught. Among the twenty-two secondary afflictions, ten are observed to have clearly manifest modes of activity and to extend through both coarse and subtle states; therefore, ten are taught. Thus, what is stated here does not contradict what was stated above.

– However, there are fifteen mental factors associated with manas: self-delusion, self-view, self-conceit, self-love, the five universal mental factors, wisdom among the specific mental factors, and the five secondary afflictions of torpor, restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, and heedlessness. Although self-view is wisdom among the specific mental factors, its meaning differs within the fifty-one mental factors; therefore, they are counted separately.

– Why does this manas not possess the other mental factors? The ten minor afflictions, such as anger, have coarse and agitated modes of activity, whereas manas examines subtly; therefore, they are not associated. Shamelessness and lack of moral dread are exclusively unwholesome, whereas manas is exclusively neutral; therefore, they are not associated. Distraction causes the mind to roam among external objects, whereas manas constantly clings to a single kind of internal object and does not roam outward; therefore, they are not associated. Incorrect knowing causes bodily, verbal, and mental activities to proceed outwardly in violation of proper rules, whereas manas clings only internally; therefore, they are not associated. The reasons it does not possess the other mental factors are as previously explained.

3. Some hold: “It should be said that six secondary afflictions are universally associated with all defiled minds,” because the Yogacara Treatise states: “The six secondary afflictions—lack of faith, indolence, heedlessness, forgetfulness, distraction, and faulty wisdom—are associated with all defiled minds.” If forgetfulness, distraction, and faulty wisdom were absent, the mind could not give rise to the afflictions. For it is only by relying upon categories of objects previously experienced that forgetfulness and erroneous discrimination (faulty wisdom) arise, after which the afflictions of greed, hatred, and so forth arise.

These extend through both the unwholesome and defiled-neutral natures. The Yogacara text also states: “Ten secondary afflictions are pervasive,” whose meaning is as previously explained.

– However, this manas is associated with nineteen mental factors: the four root afflictions, the five universal mental factors, the six secondary afflictions, together with mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, and torpor. Here, mindfulness is separately counted, just as wisdom was previously explained. Concentration is added because manas remains intently focused upon the single kind of object it grasps as self and never relinquishes it. Torpor is added because manas is associated with extremely grave ignorance, and therefore the mind is torpid. Restlessness is absent because it is contrary to manas. The reasons it is not associated with the other mental factors should be understood according to the preceding explanation.

4. Others again hold: “Ten secondary afflictions are universally associated with all defiled minds.” As the Yogacara Treatise states: “Heedlessness, restlessness, torpor, lack of faith, indolence, wrong aspiration, wrong resolve, wrong mindfulness, distraction, and incorrect knowing”—these ten arise in all defiled minds, pervade every state, and bind beings within the three realms. For when wrong aspiration and wrong resolve are absent, the mind certainly cannot give rise to the afflictions. One must first, with regard to an encountered object, desire to experience pleasure either by uniting with that object or by separating from it, and must affirm and retain the characteristics of the matter; only then do greed and the other afflictions arise.

Those who doubt a principle nevertheless do not necessarily waver concerning phenomenal characteristics such as form; therefore, a mind associated with doubt also possesses resolve. As for one who hesitates concerning an object, as when mistaking a figure for a human being or a dangerous beast, this doubt is not an affliction. Other passages do not state that wrong aspiration and wrong resolve pervade defiled minds because, when wrong aspiration takes an undesirable object and when wrong resolve is associated with a mind of doubt, such wrong aspiration and wrong resolve are not coarse and manifest afflictions.

Whether the other mental factors are or are not associated with manas is as previously explained.

Thus, this manas possesses twenty-four mental factors: the nine dharmas, the ten secondary afflictions, together with the five specific mental factors. According to the principles previously explained, it does not possess the other mental factors. This should be understood as stated above.

5. Some hold: “None of the preceding theories is definitive.” Consider, for example, doubt about whether a future life exists or does not exist: with respect to this matter, how could there be any characteristic of aspiration or resolve? When an affliction arises, if torpor is absent, there is not necessarily any unfitness.

If restlessness is absent, there is not necessarily any agitation, and the mind would then resemble a wholesome mind rather than a defiled state. If distraction were absent from a defiled mind, it would not roam about and thus would not be a defiled mind. If forgetfulness and incorrect knowing were absent, how could afflictions become presently active?

Therefore, it should be understood that a defiled mind is necessarily associated with eight secondary afflictions: torpor, restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, heedlessness, forgetfulness, distraction, and incorrect knowing. If forgetfulness and incorrect knowing take mindfulness and wisdom as their nature, they do not pervade defiled minds, because not every defiled mind apprehends a previously encountered matter and makes discriminations concerning it.

If they take ignorance as their nature, only then do they pervade all defiled minds. This is as previously stated.

– Thus, this manas is actually associated with eighteen mental factors: the nine dharmas previously enumerated, the eight secondary afflictions, together with wisdom among the specific mental factors. The reasons manas does not possess the other mental factors, as well as the passages in the Treatise, should be interpreted according to the preceding explanations.

This account contradicts neither the teachings nor reason. (27)

(End of Fascicle Four of the Chinese text)

Notes:

(22). This passage cites the sacred teachings to prove that, in addition to the seven evolving consciousnesses, there is an eighth consciousness.

First, scriptural teachings are cited as proof, comprising three Mahayana sutras and four Nikaya-Agama sutras transmitted and upheld by the various schools.

a. The Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra contains two verses: one begins with the line, “From beginningless time, the dhatu...” and continues through “And the attainment of nirvana.” The other begins with the line, “Because it contains all dharmas...” and continues through “I reveal it to the superior ones.”

b. The Samdhinirmocana Sutra contains a verse beginning with the line:

“The adana consciousness is exceedingly profound and subtle...” and continuing through “Fearing that they would discriminate and cling to it as self.”

c. The Lankavatara Sutra contains a verse beginning with the line, “Like the ocean encountering the condition of wind...” and continuing through “Its functions presently arise and operate.”

Next, passages are cited from four sutras transmitted and upheld by various schools:

a. In an Agama Sutra of the Mahasamghika school, the term “root consciousness” is spoken of with an implicit intent. It should be understood that this root consciousness refers to this eighth consciousness and cannot refer to any other consciousness or dharma.

b. The sutras and the Vibhajyavadins of the Sthavira school also implicitly speak of the name “bhavanga consciousness.” It should likewise be understood as referring to this eighth consciousness, not to any other consciousness or dharma.

c. In a sutra of the Mahisasaka school, the name “skandha extending to the end of samsara” is also spoken of with an implicit intent. It should be understood that only the eighth consciousness continues to the very limit of samsara—that is, until liberating nirvana begins—and no other consciousness does so.

d. The Ekottara Agama of the Sarvastivada school also implicitly speaks of the name “alaya.” It should be understood that only the eighth consciousness bears this name; no other consciousness does.

Second, principles stated in the sutras are cited to prove the existence of the alaya consciousness. There are ten such principles:

a. The sutras speak of the “mind that accumulates and gives rise.”

b. The sutras speak of the “mind that is maturation.”

c. The sutras speak of “the master of the three realms, the five destinies, and the four modes of birth.”

d. The sutras speak of “a consciousness that appropriates and experiences the body and sense faculties.”

e. The sutras speak of “life span, warmth, and consciousness.”

f. The sutras speak of “the mind at the time of birth and at the time of death.”

g. The sutras say, “Volitional formations condition consciousness; consciousness conditions name-and-form.”

h. The sutras speak of “the four kinds of nutriment, among which is consciousness as nutriment.”

i. The sutras say, “Consciousness still exists in the attainment of cessation.”

j. The sutras speak of “the purified mind and the defiled mind.”

If there were no eighth consciousness by which to explain the terms “mind” and “consciousness,” as well as the matters spoken of in the sutras above, there would be no adequate way to explain the meanings of those scriptural passages.

It was just stated that among the twelve links of dependent origination, consciousness conditions name-and-form, name-and-form conditions consciousness, and volitional formations condition consciousness. Which consciousness is meant here? It cannot be said that this consciousness is one of the evolving consciousnesses, because the evolving consciousnesses arise and cease with interruptions and therefore cannot receive perfuming or preserve seeds.

Volitional formations are actions, or karma; the consciousness here is the consciousness that is the fruit of maturation. Through being perfumed by actions, the eighth consciousness forms seeds of karmic force, which transform the eighth consciousness into the maturation consciousness. The maturation consciousness is formed through volitional formations.

Thus, if there were no eighth consciousness to preserve the karmic seeds perfumed by volitional formations, those seeds would perish; what then could serve as the condition for the arising of name-and-form? Therefore, the seeds of the maturation consciousness together with the karmic seeds formed through the perfuming of volitional formations are collectively called the “link of consciousness.” It is precisely this link that conditions name-and-form.

Nor can it be maintained that in the statement “volitional formations condition consciousness,” consciousness means the defiled consciousness that links one to rebirth. The defiled consciousness linking one to rebirth is the consciousness imbued with craving and aversion while seeking the conditions of father and mother in order to take birth. It consists of craving and hatred and belongs to the afflictions, not to karma.

Therefore, it is also untenable to say that the consciousness conditioned by volitional formations is the defiled consciousness linking one to rebirth. Nor can it be said that volitional formations condition name-and-form, because volitional formations and name-and-form are separated from one another and thus cannot serve as condition for each other. Moreover, if volitional formations could condition name-and-form, the entire sequence of the twelve links of dependent origination would be lost.

The Yogacarabhumi Treatise records:

Question—Why do ignorance conditioning volitional formations, volitional formations conditioning name-and-form, and so forth occur in this sequence?

Answer—Because foolish beings are first ignorant of what should be correctly understood and clearly comprehended (ignorance), from this they produce unwholesome and erroneous actions (volitional formations); because of unwholesome and erroneous actions, the mind becomes inverted; because consciousness is affected by the inverted mind, it links one to rebirth in an uninterrupted continuum (name-and-form in the womb); because rebirth is linked in an uninterrupted continuum, the faculties become complete (the six ayatanas and contact); because the faculties are complete, objects are experienced (feeling); because objects are experienced, attachment and yearning arise (craving); because of yearning, one seeks and pursues, and the afflictions increase (clinging);

because the afflictions increase, karma producing desirable or undesirable states in a future life is initiated (becoming); because karmic force grows powerful, the painful fruits of the five destinies arise (birth); because painful fruits have arisen, there are aging and death (aging-and-death): internally, there is the suffering of the body’s aging and death; externally, changes in circumstances produce the suffering of sorrow and feverish anguish.

Thus the great mass of suffering is formed.

Thus, since volitional formations cannot bypass consciousness and directly serve as the condition for name-and-form, the subsequent links are likewise unable to skip the sequence and serve as conditions for other links.

Furthermore, sentient beings are sometimes defiled and outflowing and sometimes purified and free of outflows. While in an outflowing state, there must be an eighth consciousness for “volitional formations serving as conditions” to be established. Likewise, while in a purified state, there must also be an eighth consciousness that preserves the seeds free of outflows, so that the purification of the noble ones can be established. If there were no eighth consciousness, there would be nothing to preserve the seeds free of outflows; and without seeds free of outflows, one could not cultivate the causes of liberation or realize the fruit of nirvana. It cannot be said that outflowing seeds produce supramundane seeds of the path that are free of outflows.

Purified dharmas are the practices and realizations of the three stages of the worthy and the ten stages of the noble. They are of three distinct kinds: first, the mundane path, namely, the practices cultivated before entering the ten bhumis; second, the supramundane path, namely, the practices cultivated on the ten bhumis; and third, the fruit of cessation, the result of eliminating delusion through cultivation of the two preceding paths.

If there were no eighth consciousness to preserve the seeds of the mundane path and the seeds of the supramundane path, whatever was cultivated would be lost. Without seeds there would be no causes; without causes, fruits could not arise, and there would be no liberation from delusion and suffering. For example, while cultivating the mundane path of the four dhyanas and the four formless attainments, one also cultivates contemplation of non-self.

When entering the contemplation of non-self, one is cultivating the supramundane path; when emerging from the contemplation of non-self and returning to the four dhyanas and the four formless attainments, one returns to the mundane path. It cannot be said that the mundane path gives rise to the supramundane path. When a mundane mind that still apprehends a self hears the True Dharma and is perfumed, thereby strengthening the supramundane seeds free of outflows, this is perfuming that nurtures, not perfuming that produces.

This is because the outflowing mind that hears the Dharma merely helps the already-present seeds free of outflows grow strong enough to eliminate all afflictions and attain liberation; it does not produce the seeds free of outflows. The converse is likewise true.

(23). The second transforming consciousness, the deliberative consciousness, is defined in twelve lines of verse, from the line “The second transforming consciousness...” through the line “On the supramundane path, it is absent.” This comprises ten topics:

a. Explanation of the name.

b. Its basis (that is, it evolves in dependence upon that).

c. Its object (that is, it turns back and takes that as its object).

d. Its essential nature (that is, deliberation constitutes its nature).

e. Its mode of activity (that is, constant examination and deliberation).

f. The defilements associated with it (that is, the four afflictions).

g. The other associated mental factors (that is, contact and the others).

h. The three natures (that is, obscured and morally indeterminate).

i. Its relation to the realms (its mode of birth follows the alaya consciousness).

j. Its suppression and elimination (that is, the final two lines of verse).

The prose of the treatise explains these ten topics in sequence.

(24). This passage explains the term Manas (the mental faculty). It is called the mental faculty because it constantly examines and deliberates.

It differs from mental consciousness in this respect: this consciousness is called manas or mental consciousness by way of naming according to the bearer of an attribute. That is, it is named on the basis of its quality and capacity; because its nature is to examine and deliberate, it is called mental consciousness. This means that consciousness itself is the mental faculty, just as storehouse consciousness is so named according to the bearer of an attribute.

Because consciousness has the capacity to store and accumulate, it is called the storehouse. The storehouse itself is consciousness, and therefore it is called storehouse consciousness. It is named according to its own quality, rather than being named in dependence upon something else.

Eye consciousness, for example, is named eye consciousness in dependence upon the eye faculty. This is naming according to the governing basis.

(25). This passage explains the phrase “turning in dependence upon that” in the verse. “That” refers to the eighth consciousness. There are two views: First, manas arises solely in dependence upon its seeds within the eighth consciousness. Second, manas arises in dependence both upon its seeds within the eighth consciousness and simultaneously upon the presently manifest eighth consciousness. The second view is more correct, because manas is a consciousness subject to transformation: when the Noble Path arises, it transforms from defilement into purity.

Like the mind and the other mental factors, however, manas also has three bases of dependence: first, the causal-condition basis, namely the seed basis; second, the predominant-condition basis, namely the simultaneous basis; and third, the immediately antecedent-condition basis, namely the guiding basis.

First, the seed basis is discussed. There are two views. One view holds that a seed and its result do not exist simultaneously: only after the seed has ceased does the manifest result arise, just as only after a seed is destroyed does a sprout arise.

The second view holds that the seed and its manifest result exist simultaneously, like a flame and a lampwick. That is, the lampwick produces the flame, while the flame burns the lampwick. The lampwick’s production of the flame illustrates the seed producing the manifest activity; the flame’s burning of the lampwick illustrates the manifest activity perfuming the seed.

The lampwick of the preceding moment continuing into the lampwick of the subsequent moment illustrates one seed leading to another seed; the flame of the preceding moment continuing into the flame of the subsequent moment illustrates one manifest activity leading to another manifest activity. Of these, one seed leading to another seed belongs to the causal-condition basis, but they are not simultaneous. The seed producing the manifest activity and the manifest activity perfuming the seed also belong to the causal-condition basis, but they are simultaneous.

Only one manifest activity leading to another manifest activity belongs to the immediately antecedent-condition basis, and they are not simultaneous.

Next is the simultaneous basis. There are four differing views, but the fourth is the most correct.

Finally, there is the guiding basis. There are three views. The first view holds that, because the first five consciousnesses are interrupted, they cannot serve as their own guiding basis and must rely upon the sixth consciousness as their guiding basis. The second view holds that, after the Buddhas attain mastery, the five consciousnesses can function interchangeably and serve as guiding bases for one another, because a Buddha always has a spontaneous and determinate mind, rather than the seeking mind possessed by other sentient beings.

It should be understood that when the mind engages an object, it has five modes or states:

a. The sudden mind, which abruptly arises upon encountering an object.

b. The seeking mind, which seeks to reach that object.

c. The determining mind, which examines and clearly determines that object.

d. The defiled or purified mind, which, regarding that object, either delights in or rejects it and gives rise to a defiled or purified state of mind.

đ. The continuously flowing mind, which engages that object thought after thought in uninterrupted succession. The first five consciousnesses possess only four of these, excluding the seeking mind, because the first five consciousnesses possess only discrimination of intrinsic nature and do not possess discrimination through recollection or conceptual evaluation.

The sixth consciousness possesses all five states of mind. The seventh consciousness possesses only three states: determining, defiled or purified, and continuously flowing. Because the seventh consciousness constantly engages a present object, it has neither the sudden mind nor the seeking mind.

The eighth consciousness possesses three modes: sudden, determining, and continuously flowing. Here, “sudden” refers to the eighth consciousness at the moment when it first undergoes rebirth.

Only the third view is correct, as the treatise explains clearly. The first two views are those of Nanda and Sthiramati, who hold that the eight consciousnesses mutually and successively serve as guiding bases for one another. The third view is that of Dharmapala, who holds that, within each of the eight consciousnesses, the preceding moment of its own kind serves as the guiding basis for the subsequent moment.

(26). This passage concerns the object cognized by manas.

The objects cognized by manas are divided into two stages: the stage before transformation of the basis and the stage after transformation of the basis.

– The stage before transformation of the basis: There are four views:

a. Nanda maintains that manas takes the mind and mental factors of the eighth consciousness as its objects.

b. Citrabhanu maintains that manas takes the perceiving aspect and the perceived aspect of the mind of the eighth consciousness as its objects. It engages the perceiving aspect and grasps it as the self, and engages the perceived aspect and grasps it as belonging to the self.

c. Sthiramati maintains that manas takes the manifest activity and seeds of the eighth consciousness as its objects. It engages the manifest activity and grasps it as the self, and engages the seeds and grasps them as belonging to the self.

d. Dharmapala maintains that manas takes only the presently manifest perceiving aspect of the eighth consciousness as its object and grasps it as the self. The self and what belongs to the self are not necessarily two separate objects. What belongs to the self cannot exist apart from the self; rather, a single view of self is elaborated into the self and what belongs to the self, and these are not two separate things. Manas engages the eighth consciousness and grasps it as the self, and then further grasps it as “my self,” the self belonging to the self, thereby constituting what belongs to the self.

– The stage after transformation of the basis: Manas is transformed into the wisdom of the equality of nature and realizes the ten kinds of equality. It then engages not only storehouse consciousness but also suchness and all dharmas. By clearly knowing the differing understandings and realizations of the bodhisattvas on the Ten Grounds, it manifests bodies and lands of enjoyment for others in order to teach the Dharma and guide beings. This is called: “The Tathagata manifests the enjoyment body for others, adapted to those to be guided among the bodhisattvas of the Ten Grounds.”

The Buddha-Bhumi Sutra describes the ten kinds of equality as follows:

a. Equality of all aspects of supreme joy and bliss.

b. Equality of the dependent arising of all experiences.

c. Equality that is free from differentiated characteristics and non-characteristics.

d. Equality of great loving-kindness and universal deliverance.

đ. Equality of great loving-kindness that expects nothing in return.

e. Equality in manifesting according to the inclinations of sentient beings.

g. Equality in regarding the self-cherishing of sentient beings.

h. Equality of the single flavor of quiescence throughout the world.

i. Equality of the single flavor of the dharmas of suffering and happiness in the world.

k. Ultimate equality in cultivating and planting immeasurable merits.

Manas arises from the eighth consciousness and in turn engages the eighth consciousness, just as a subsequent moment of consciousness arises from and in turn engages the preceding moment of consciousness. Thus, when manas takes the eighth consciousness as its basis of dependence, the latter is a predominant condition; when it takes the eighth consciousness as its cognized object, the latter is an object condition.

Manas takes deliberation as its intrinsic nature and mode of activity.

(27). Manas is constantly associated with four mental factors: delusion concerning the self, the view of self, pride of self, and attachment to self. Because manas possesses these four exceedingly faulty afflictions, even when one practices the six paramitas, such as generosity and moral discipline, one still does not relinquish attachment to characteristics, and those practices remain contaminated; hence they are called defiled.

If one wishes to attain liberation, one must first diligently contemplate the principle of non-self and completely eliminate the malady of deluded attachment; only then can liberation be attained. Yet the self-grasping of manas is innate, extremely subtle, and very difficult to eradicate. It cannot itself contemplate non-self, but must rely upon the sixth, mental consciousness, in association with the mental factor of correct wisdom, to contemplate the principle of non-self properly.

This perfumes the storehouse consciousness with seeds of the understanding of non-self and nurtures the inherent uncontaminated seeds of non-self, enabling them to develop powerfully until they mature and genuine uncontaminated wisdom becomes present. Only by then repeatedly using that wisdom in contemplative cultivation can the four afflictions be completely eradicated.

Why does manas not itself contemplate non-self, but must rely on mental consciousness to contemplate it? — Because while it is deluded, that is, before the transformation of the basis, manas is profoundly deluded and cannot rise up by itself. Moreover, although mental consciousness is itself tainted by manas, its various instances come into contact with external objects and then return to nurture manas. If they nurture defiled states, the self-attachment of manas becomes ever deeper and more firmly entrenched.

But if mental consciousness hears the teaching of non-self and then contemplates non-self, manas loses the nourishment that sustains its conception of self. Instead, this causes the self-attachment of manas gradually to diminish until it disappears. It is then transformed into the wisdom of equality, and at that point it is constantly associated with twenty-one mental factors, as is the alaya consciousness.

Apart from these four afflictions, is manas associated with any other afflictions? Concerning this matter, there are five views:

a. The view that it is not associated with any other mental factors whatsoever.

b. The view that it is associated with fifteen mental factors: the four fundamental afflictions, the five omnipresent mental factors, five additional secondary afflictions—torpor, restlessness, lack of faith, indolence, and heedlessness—and wisdom among the object-specific mental factors.

c. The view that it is associated with nineteen mental factors: the above fifteen together with mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, and torpor.

d. The view that it is associated with twenty-four mental factors: the four fundamental afflictions, the five omnipresent mental factors, the ten secondary afflictions, together with the five object-specific mental factors.

đ. Dharmapala holds that it is associated with eighteen mental factors: the four fundamental afflictions, the five omnipresent mental factors, the eight major secondary afflictions, together with wisdom among the object-specific mental factors.