成唯識論

X. THE SECOND TRANSFORMATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS

(continued)

With which feeling is this defiled mind (manas-consciousness) associated?

There are three theories:

1. Some hold that it is associated only with joyful feeling, because it constantly and covertly grasps an inner self and thereby gives rise to delight.

2. Some say this is not so, because if one were to accept that joyful feeling remains associated with manas even as far as the Heaven of the Summit of Existence, this would contradict the words of the sages. (The sacred teachings say that manas-consciousness exists throughout the three realms, whereas joyful feeling extends only as far as the Second Dhyana.) Therefore, it should be said that this manas is associated with four feelings.

That is, when one is born in an evil realm, it is associated with sorrowful feeling, because it takes as its object a painful retribution produced by unwholesome karma. When one is born in the human realm, among the gods of the Desire Realm, or in the First or Second Dhyana, it is associated with joyful feeling, because it takes as its object a realm possessing joy that is the retribution of wholesome karma. When one is born in the Third Dhyana, it is associated with pleasant feeling, because it takes as its object a realm possessing pleasure that is the retribution of wholesome karma.

When one is born in the Fourth Dhyana and up to the Heaven of the Summit of Existence, it is associated with equanimous feeling, because it takes as its object a realm possessing only equanimity that is the retribution of wholesome karma.

3. Some hold that the preceding theory is incorrect, because since beginningless time manas has spontaneously and uniformly taken the inner storehouse consciousness as its object and grasped it as a self, constantly and without alteration. Therefore, it is not associated with those variable feelings. (Painful and pleasant feelings continually alternate and are therefore called variable feelings.) Moreover, wherever this manas differs in any respect from the storehouse consciousness, the treatise has always explained it separately.

Thus, if it were associated with four feelings, the treatise should likewise explain this separately. Since the treatise does not do so, manas is certainly like the storehouse consciousness in being associated only with equanimous feeling. It should therefore be understood that only equanimous feeling is associated with manas.

– Before the stage of transforming the basis, it is associated with the mental factors described above. At the stage when the basis has been transformed, only twenty-one mental factors arise together with it: the five universal factors, the five object-specific factors, and the eleven wholesome factors. Like the eighth consciousness at the stage of transforming the basis, it then arises only with equanimous feeling, because manas arises spontaneously and continually gives rise to the nature of equality with respect to its object.

– To which moral nature do manas and its mental factors belong?

– They belong to the obscured-indeterminate nature. Because manas is associated with four afflictions, which are defiled dharmas capable of obstructing the noble path and obscuring the mind itself, it is called “obscured”; and because it is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, it is called “indeterminate.” Just as the afflictions in the Form and Formless Realms are subdued and concealed by the power of concentration (and do not become manifest) and therefore belong to the indeterminate nature, so the manifest defiled dharmas associated with manas-consciousness, because manas—their basis—is extremely subtle and arises spontaneously and innately, are also indeterminate like manas. Once the basis has been transformed, however, it is wholesome only.

– To which of the nine grounds do manas and its mental factors belong?

– They belong to whichever ground in which the eighth consciousness is born. Thus, when the eighth consciousness is born in the Desire Realm (the first ground), the manifest manas and the mental factors associated with it belong to the Desire Realm. The same should be understood up to the case in which the eighth consciousness is born at the Summit of Existence. This is because manas spontaneously and constantly takes as its object the storehouse consciousness of its own ground—the very ground into which it is presently born—and grasps that storehouse consciousness as the inner self; it does not take the storehouse consciousness of another ground as its object and grasp it as the inner self. If the resultant storehouse consciousness arises through birth in another ground, then, when that resultant storehouse consciousness becomes present in that ground, it is said to be born in that ground. Defiled manas likewise takes the storehouse consciousness of that ground as its object and grasps it as a self, and thus belongs to that ground. This is called “being bound to that ground.” Alternatively, because it is bound by the afflictions of that ground, it is also called “being bound to that ground.” Once the basis has been transformed, it is no longer bound.(28)

– This defiled manas has continued since beginningless time. At which stage is it permanently eliminated, and at which stages is it temporarily suspended?

– It does not exist in the state of an arhat, in the attainment of cessation, or on the supramundane path.

Here, “arhat” refers to the fruit of one beyond training in the Three Vehicles. At this stage, both the seeds and the manifest activity of the defiled mind are permanently eliminated; therefore, it is said “not to exist.” Alternatively, while one is still at the stage of training, upon entering the attainment of cessation or the supramundane path (when contemplating non-self), one can temporarily suppress and terminate the defiled mind; therefore, it is likewise said “not to exist.” That is, since beginningless time the defiled mind has been subtle, uniform, spontaneous, and innate in its arising.

Paths with outflows, which do not contemplate non-self, cannot suppress or eliminate it. Only through the noble paths of the Three Vehicles, which contemplate the two kinds of emptiness, can it be suppressed and eliminated.

The fundamental wisdom that directly comprehends true non-self—the supramundane, uncontaminated path—is opposed to grasping at a self. The subsequently attained uncontaminated wisdom that flows from that wisdom of true non-self, when it becomes present, is likewise opposed to defiled manas. Both the wisdom of true non-self and subsequently attained wisdom are uncontaminated and are therefore called the supramundane path.

Furthermore, because the attainment of cessation is an outflow of the noble path (one enters the attainment of cessation by means of uncontaminated subsequently attained wisdom), it is exceedingly quiescent. Thus, during the attainment of cessation, the defiled mind is also temporarily absent. However, because its seeds have not yet been permanently eliminated, it becomes manifest again upon emerging from the attainment of cessation or the supramundane path, and continues to do so until it can be completely eliminated.

However, the afflictions associated with this defiled mind are innate afflictions; they are not eliminated by the path of seeing. Because they are defiled, neither do they belong to that which is not to be eliminated. These afflictions are extremely subtle; therefore, all their seeds are swiftly eliminated at the same time as the most inferior grade of afflictions at the Summit of Existence (the eighty-first grade of the afflictions eliminated by cultivation). Because their power is equal, these seeds can be swiftly eliminated only when the vajra-like concentration becomes present, whereupon one becomes an arhat. Therefore, at the stage beyond training, the defiled mind never arises again.

If those beyond training in the Two Vehicles turn toward the Mahayana, then from the moment they first arouse the bodhicitta until they attain Buddhahood, although they are in truth bodhisattvas, they are also called arhats. Because they are equal to arhats in the three meanings of “worthy of offerings,” “unborn,” and “slayer of the enemy,” they are not discussed separately.

– Here, some hold that manas possesses only the afflictive obstruction, because all the sacred teachings state that manas no longer exists in the three states of the arhat, the attainment of cessation, and the supramundane path (because the afflictive obstruction is no longer present); because they also say that it is constantly associated with the four delusions; and because manas is the basis of defilement for the sixth consciousness.

– Some hold that the preceding theory contradicts the teachings and principles, because the sutras say that manas exists at the supramundane stage (there is a purified manas that constantly deliberates upon the principle of non-self). Moreover, when the mental consciousness is undefiled, just as when it is defiled, it must have a distinct, simultaneously arisen basis (namely manas) in order to function.

The Treatise says: “The store consciousness is invariably and constantly accompanied in arising by one consciousness”; this is the manas consciousness. When the mental consciousness arises, the store consciousness is accompanied in arising by two consciousnesses: the mental consciousness and manas. When one of the five consciousnesses arises, the store consciousness is accompanied in arising by three consciousnesses: one of the five consciousnesses, together with the mental consciousness and manas.

When all five consciousnesses arise simultaneously, the store consciousness is accompanied in arising by seven consciousnesses: the five consciousnesses together with the mental consciousness and manas. If the seventh consciousness were absent in the attainment of cessation, the store consciousness would then arise alone, without any other consciousness accompanying it. This would contradict the Treatise’s preceding statement that the store consciousness is invariably accompanied in arising by one consciousness.

If manas were absent at the stage of the Noble Path, when the mental consciousness engages in uncontaminated contemplation, the store consciousness would then arise accompanied only by the sixth consciousness. How, then, could the Treatise say that when the mental consciousness arises, the store consciousness is invariably accompanied in arising by two consciousnesses—the mental consciousness and the manas consciousness?

The Treatise on the Revelation of the Profound says: “Manas is constantly associated with four afflictions at the defiled stage; or, when the conduct of conceited self-exaltation associated with manas is reversed, it becomes the conduct of equality at the purified stage.” Thus, it is known that manas pervades both the defiled and undefiled states. If, because this Treatise says, “At the stage of arhatship there is no defiled mentation,” one asserts that the seventh consciousness is entirely absent, then because this Treatise also says, “At the stage of arhatship, alaya is relinquished,” one should likewise assert that the eighth consciousness is entirely relinquished.

Yet relinquishing alaya cannot mean relinquishing the eighth consciousness itself. How, then, could relinquishing defiled mentation mean relinquishing the seventh consciousness itself?

Furthermore, the treatises say: “By transforming the seventh consciousness, the wisdom of equality is attained.” Like the wisdoms of accomplishment, wondrous observation, and the great perfect mirror, this wisdom must certainly have a corresponding purified consciousness as its support—the seventh consciousness. If the seventh consciousness did not exist, that wisdom of equality could not exist either, because the dependent wisdom of equality cannot exist apart from the seventh consciousness upon which it depends. It cannot be said that the wisdom of equality depends only upon the six evolving consciousnesses, for the Treatise accepts that the wisdom of equality of all Buddhas is constant in its activity and uninterrupted, like the wisdom of the perfect mirror.

Furthermore, if the seventh consciousness did not exist at the stage beyond learning, the eighth consciousness would have no simultaneous support. Yet the eighth consciousness has such a simultaneous support, just as the other consciousnesses do.

Furthermore, just as the attachment to a personal self continues constantly to manifest until the selflessness of the pudgala has been realized, so the attachment to a self in dharmas should likewise continue constantly to manifest until the selflessness of dharmas has been realized. If this manas did not exist in the three stages—beyond learning, before realizing the selflessness of persons, and before realizing the selflessness of dharmas—upon which consciousness would those attachments to a personal self and to a self in dharmas depend? They cannot depend upon the eighth consciousness, because the eighth consciousness does not possess the mental factor of wisdom, whereas attachment to a personal self and attachment to a self in dharmas belong to that mental factor.

– Therefore, one should believe that at the three stages—the Noble Path of the Two Vehicles, the attainment of cessation, and the stage beyond learning—this seventh consciousness still functions constantly, because the selflessness of dharmas has not yet been realized there.

Furthermore, the treatises use the five consciousnesses as analogous instances—since they arise only when they have the five faculties as supports—to prove that the sixth consciousness, being analogous to the five, must also have the seventh consciousness as its support. If, when the Noble Path arises and at the stage beyond learning, there were no purified seventh consciousness to serve as the support of the purified sixth consciousness, both the thesis

and the reason established would be fallacious. Alternatively, the five consciousnesses might also lack supports; but since the five consciousnesses always have supports, the sixth consciousness must likewise have one.

Therefore, it is certain that undefiled manas is constantly present and active at the three stages mentioned above. The verse stating, “That manas is absent at the three stages,” is spoken only with reference to defiled manas, because at those three stages there is no longer a manas that clings to a personal self. This is analogous to saying that alaya consciousness is absent at the four stages—the three stages beyond learning of the Three Vehicles and the stage of Buddhahood—without saying that the eighth consciousness itself is absent.

– This manas has three distinct types:

1. Associated with the view of a pudgala-self.

2. Associated with the view of a self in dharmas.

3. Associated with the wisdom of equality.

First: Manas associated with the view of a personal self continues uninterruptedly in all ordinary beings, in those of the Two Vehicles who are at the stage of learning, and in a class of bodhisattvas who remain in states of contaminated mind from the Seventh Ground downward. At these stages, the manas consciousness constantly takes alaya consciousness as its object and gives rise to the view of a pudgala-self—that is, attachment to a personal self.

Second: Manas associated with the view of a self in dharmas continues uninterruptedly in all ordinary beings, shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and a class of bodhisattvas who are at stages where the wisdom resulting from the realization of the emptiness of dharmas is not manifest. This wisdom is accomplished through contemplating the emptiness of dharmas; before it has manifested, it is said to be “not manifest.” At these stages, the manas consciousness constantly takes the maturation consciousness as its object and gives rise to attachment to dharmas.

Third: Manas associated with the wisdom of equality continues uninterruptedly in all Tathagatas and in bodhisattvas at the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation when the resultant wisdom realizing the emptiness of dharmas is manifest. At these stages, the manas consciousness constantly takes the maturation consciousness or the immaculate pure consciousness as its object and gives rise to the wisdom of equality.

– When the view of a pudgala-self arises, the view of a self in dharmas is also present, because attachment to a personal self necessarily arises in dependence upon attachment to dharmas. It is like mistakenly imagining in the darkness that there is a person because one has first mistakenly imagined a dangerous animal. Although the views of a personal self and a self in dharmas differ in function, they do not conflict and both depend upon a single mental factor of wisdom. This is like visual consciousness: although its essence is one—analogous to the mental factor of wisdom—it has the many nonconflicting functions of seeing blue, yellow, and other colors.

For those of the Two Vehicles at the stage of learning when the Noble Path or the attainment of cessation is present, for bodhisattvas of sudden awakening at the stage of cultivation, and for bodhisattvas of gradual awakening who have turned their minds toward the Mahayana after being learners of the Two Vehicles, if the resultant wisdom attained through realizing the principle of personal emptiness is manifest, only attachment to dharmas arises at those stages, because attachment to a personal self has there been subdued.

For those of the Two Vehicles beyond learning and for bodhisattvas of gradual awakening who have turned their minds toward the Mahayana, when the resultant wisdom realizing the emptiness of dharmas is not manifest, only attachment to dharmas likewise arises, because attachment to a personal self has there been completely eliminated.

In bodhisattvas from the Eighth Ground upward, whether of sudden or gradual awakening, attachment to a personal self never manifests again, either because it has been completely eliminated or because it has been subdued. When the resultant wisdom realizing the emptiness of dharmas is not manifest, however, attachment to dharmas still arises even from the Eighth Ground upward, because the resultant wisdom realizing personal emptiness does not conflict with attachment to dharmas.

As a sutra says: “For bodhisattvas from the Eighth Ground upward, all afflictions cease to manifest; only the cognitive obstruction, which is the support of attachment to a personal self, remains.” Here, the cognitive obstruction means the manifest cognitive obstruction, not its seeds. Otherwise, if the seeds of the cognitive obstruction could remain, the seeds of the afflictions could also remain.

Although manas associated with attachment to dharmas is called undefiled in relation to the Two Vehicles, it is still called defiled in relation to bodhisattvas, because it obstructs the bodhisattvas’ wisdom realizing the emptiness of dharmas. Therefore, manas at the bodhisattva stage is also called obscured and karmically indeterminate. In relation to the Two Vehicles, however, it is called unobscured and karmically indeterminate, because that attachment to dharmas does not obstruct their wisdom realizing personal emptiness.

This manas is included within the category of that which is born of vipāka, because it constantly arises from the vipāka consciousness; therefore, it is called “born of vipāka,” but it is not itself a vipāka fruit. The designation “born of vipāka” is used generally for all minds and mental factors that are not true vipāka, just as the term “predominant condition” encompasses whatever is not included under causal condition, immediately antecedent condition, or object-condition. (29)

How is it known that this seventh consciousness has its own distinct substance apart from eye-consciousness and the others?

It is known through the authoritative testimony of the sacred teachings and through correct reasoning. That is, in the sutras the Bhagavat—the Buddha—spoke of mind, manas, and consciousness as having three different meanings. That which accumulates and gives rise is called mind; that which deliberates is called manas; and that which discriminatively cognizes is called consciousness.

Although these three meanings are common to all eight consciousnesses, they are distinguished according to which aspect is predominant. The eighth consciousness is called mind because it accumulates the seeds of all dharmas and gives rise to all dharmas. The seventh consciousness is called manas because it takes the storehouse consciousness as its object and constantly and covertly deliberates upon it, apprehending it as a self.

The other six are called consciousnesses because each discriminatively cognizes one of the six distinct objects, which are coarse, active, and discontinuous. As the verse in the Laṅkāvatāra Sutra says:

The storehouse consciousness is called mind;

The nature that deliberates is called manas;

That which discriminatively cognizes the characteristics of objects

Is generally called consciousness.

Moreover, in many passages the Mahayana sutras teach that there is a distinct seventh consciousness; therefore, it is asserted here to exist separately. This is unlike the teaching of the Lesser Vehicle, which says that the sixth, mental consciousness is called manas when it has passed into the past, and that no distinct seventh consciousness exists. The Mahayana sutras constitute the highest scriptural authority. This has already been discussed extensively, so it will not be demonstrated again here.

The Sutra of Liberation also separately teaches the seventh consciousness. As the verse says:

Defiled manas is ever present,

And the afflictions arise and cease together with it;

When it is liberated from the afflictions,

They exist neither in the past nor in the future.

That sutra itself explains the verse as follows: Since beginningless time, there has been a defiled manas that constantly arises and ceases together with four afflictions: view of self, attachment to self, conceit of self, and delusion concerning self. When the path of counteraction is present and the afflictions are completely eradicated, this manas is thereby liberated. At that time, the afflictions associated with this manas are absent not only in the present but also in the past and future, because the past and future are devoid of intrinsic nature.

Sacred teachings such as these are found in the scriptures of all schools. For fear of wearying the reader through prolixity, they are not all set forth here. (30)

– The sacred teachings have been cited above; correct reasoning will now be demonstrated. There are six lines of reasoning: constantly active ignorance; serving as a condition for the arising of consciousness; deliberation being called manas; differences among concentrations without mind; the defilement of the gods without perception; and defilement in the three moral natures.

1. As a sutra says: “Subtle, constant, ever-active unique ignorance obscures the true meaning.” The true meaning is suchness revealed by the two kinds of emptiness. If this seventh consciousness did not exist, that unique ignorance could not exist, because it would have no basis. That is, ordinary beings, throughout all wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate states, constantly give rise to unique ignorance that is deluded regarding principle. It obscures the true meaning and veils the wisdom-eye of the noble ones, as the verse says:

Whenever a mind directed toward the true meaning is about to arise,

It constantly creates an obstruction;

It accompanies every state

(In every wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate mind),

And is called unique ignorance.

Therefore, a sutra says: “Ordinary beings dwell continually through the long night, obscured by ignorance, intoxicated and with their minds bound, never once awakening.” To say that ordinary beings sometimes temporarily do not give rise to unique ignorance would contradict the meaning of the sutra just cited. For it is unreasonable that, while beings remain in the state of ordinary beings, ignorance deluded regarding principle should sometimes be active and sometimes inactive.

It cannot be said that this unique ignorance depends upon the sixth consciousness. If this ignorance depended upon the sixth consciousness, it would be intermittent like the sixth consciousness, while the sixth consciousness would, like this ignorance, be constantly defiled. If manas is accepted, neither fault occurs.

Defiled manas is constantly associated with four afflictions, among which ignorance arises together with the others. Why, then, is ignorance alone called unique? There are three views:

a. One view holds that the view of self, conceit of self, and attachment to self associated with manas are not root afflictions; only ignorance is a root affliction, and thus it is called unique. What fault would there be in this?

b. Another view holds that this statement contradicts the teachings. For among the derivative afflictions, the view of self, conceit of self, and attachment to self are never said to be derivative afflictions; these three are included among the ten root afflictions. It is everywhere taught that defiled manas is constantly associated with four afflictions. Thus, among these four, ignorance is said to be the principal one; therefore, although it arises together with the other three, it may still be called unique ignorance. The inward stupor that has persisted since beginningless time, without ever awakening, is due to the predominance of delusion—ignorance.

Question: Since this delusion arises together with view, conceit, and attachment, should it not be called associated rather than unique?

Answer: If, when it arises, this affliction is predominant, it may also be called unique, as in the case of ignorance, and there is no fault.

c. Another view holds that this delusion is called unique because it exists only in this manas consciousness and not in the other consciousnesses, just as with the Buddha’s eighteen unique qualities.

Question: If so, should afflictions associated only with the other consciousnesses and absent from this manas consciousness also be called unique afflictions?

No. The name “unique” is established only according to a preeminent meaning, not merely because something is absent or present in one consciousness or another. That is, the ignorance associated with the seventh consciousness has been constantly active since beginningless time, obstructing the wisdom that realizes the true meaning—the wisdom that realizes suchness. Its function is exceptionally powerful and is not found in the other consciousnesses. Therefore, only the ignorance in this manas consciousness is called unique.

Question: If so, should the three—view, conceit, and attachment—that arise together with it not also be called unique?

Answer: No. Because this ignorance is predominant, it alone is called unique. Alternatively, it may be accepted that the other three are also called unique when they are predominant. Here, it is only in contrast to the kinds of delusion associated with the other consciousnesses that the delusion associated with this manas is called unique ignorance.

– In brief, unique ignorance is of two kinds:

a. Constantly active unique ignorance—This is absent from the other consciousnesses and exists only in the manas consciousness.

b. Independently active unique ignorance—This is absent from the manas consciousness and exists only in the sixth consciousness.

Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says that ignorance is of two kinds. If it arises together with greed, hatred, and so forth, it is called associated ignorance. If it does not arise together with greed, hatred, and so forth, it is called independently active ignorance. If independently active ignorance is predominant, it is eradicated only by the path of seeing. As a sutra says: “Noble ones who are still in training have completely eradicated unique, independently active ignorance and therefore do not create new karma.” If independently active ignorance is not predominant, it is also eradicated by the path of cultivation, because when it is associated with indignation, resentment, and so forth, it may be eradicated by either the path of seeing or the path of cultivation.

Constantly active unique ignorance—the ignorance in the seventh consciousness—is not recognized by the schools of the Lesser Vehicle; independently active unique ignorance—the ignorance in the sixth consciousness—is recognized in both the Mahayana and the Lesser Vehicle.

2. Furthermore, a sutra says: “With the eye and forms as conditions, eye-consciousness arises; and so, in full detail, with the mind and dharmas as conditions, mind-consciousness arises.” If there were no manas, that mind would not exist. That is, just as the five consciousnesses must each have the eye faculty, ear faculty, and so forth as their distinct, coexistent supporting basis and predominant condition, so mind-consciousness, being included among the six consciousnesses, must likewise be accepted as requiring such a supporting basis.

Yet if there were no manas, where would the supporting basis of that mind-consciousness be? It cannot be said that material form—the physical heart—serves as the support of mind-consciousness, because mind is not material form. If mind-consciousness depended upon material form, it would be like the five consciousnesses, possessing only intrinsic discrimination and lacking the two kinds of discrimination known as recollective discrimination and investigative discrimination.

Nor can it be said that the five consciousnesses have no coexistent supporting basis. The five consciousnesses arise simultaneously with the five faculties, like a sprout and a seed, or an image and its form: a sprout exists in dependence upon a seed, and the sprout and seed exist simultaneously; an image appears in dependence upon a form, and the image and form exist simultaneously.

Moreover, consciousness and its faculty must take the same object as their condition, just as mind and mental factors necessarily arise together.

– For this reason, it must be universally accepted that mind-consciousness, like eye-consciousness and the others, has its own distinct support and is named in accordance with that support. This support is not included under the immediately antecedent condition, but is a coexistent supporting basis and predominant condition, because it is universally accepted that each of the six consciousnesses pertains to a faculty.

3. Furthermore, a sutra says: “That which deliberates and calculates is called mind.” If this manas-consciousness did not exist, there would be no such deliberating and calculating mind. That is, when mind-consciousness is present, the immediately antecedent mind has already ceased and no longer exists.

Since the past and future do not exist, its function of deliberation and calculation could certainly not be accomplished. How, then, could the sutra say that what deliberates and calculates is called mind? If it is held that this is merely a figurative designation, that too is incorrect.

If there were no actual deliberation and calculation, upon what could the figurative designation of deliberation and calculation be based? If it is said that, before the present mind-consciousness arose, the preceding consciousness had once deliberated and calculated and, although now ceased, is still called mind, at that time it was called consciousness; how could it have been called mind?

– Therefore, it is known that there is a distinct seventh consciousness, manas, which constantly examines, deliberates, and calculates and is properly called mind. Alternatively, based upon the seventh consciousness, the immediately antecedent mind that has ceased is provisionally established and given the name mind.

4. Furthermore, a sutra says: “If this defiled mind did not exist, the Absorption of Non-Perception and the Absorption of Cessation would not differ from one another.”

That is, both absorptions bring about the cessation of the six consciousnesses and their mental factors. The number of minds and mental factors extinguished in establishing the two absorptions is the same. If the defiled mind were not present in the Absorption of Non-Perception and absent in the Absorption of Cessation, in what respect would the two absorptions differ?

If it is said that they differ because, during the preparatory cultivation, they depend upon different realms among the three realms, different grounds among the nine grounds, and different physical faculties, that too is incorrect, because the very cause of these differences is the existence of the seventh consciousness, manas. If manas-consciousness did not exist, the cause that differentiates the two absorptions would likewise not exist.

Therefore, it is certain that this distinct manas-mind must exist.

5. Furthermore, a sutra says: “Throughout an entire lifetime, sentient beings in the Heaven of Non-Perception are entirely without the six consciousnesses and their mental factors. If this manas-consciousness did not exist there, those sentient beings could be entirely undefiled.” That is, for a long period those sentient beings lack the six evolving consciousnesses. If they also lacked this manas-consciousness, the innately arisen attachment to self would likewise be absent. It cannot be that sentient beings who possess every kind of bondage could, throughout an entire lifetime, be completely without attachment to self. If those in that heaven had no attachment to self, they would be like those in nirvana; why, then, would they be reproached by the sages?

– If it is maintained that the attachment to self of beings in the Heaven of Non-Perception ceases only after the first half of the first kalpa and arises again only in the latter half of the final kalpa, and therefore the foregoing fault does not apply, then during the intervening period of 499 kalpas they would have no attachment to self and would thus be like those in nirvana. This is still a fault.

– If it is said that attachment to self exists in the past and future, and therefore that fault does not apply, nevertheless, what exists in the past and future is not present and is not constant as nirvana is. This is a fault. Ordinarily, this is equivalent to having no attachment to self.

Moreover, if the attained non-percipient maturation-fruit did not exist, then the sentient being capable of attaining the non-percipient retribution would likewise not exist. Non-percipient maturation is a non-associated dharma. It is provisionally established, and this has already been refuted.

If the storehouse consciousness did not exist, there would also be no perfuming. To say that dharmas other than the storehouse consciousness receive perfuming and thereby become the non-percipient maturation is unreasonable, as has already been explained.

Therefore, there must be a distinct, defiled manas-consciousness that continuously gives rise to attachment to self while one is born in the Heaven of Non-Perception. For this reason, the sages all reproach that Heaven of Non-Perception.

6. Furthermore, a sutra says: “When ordinary beings possess wholesome, defiled, or morally indeterminate minds, attachment to self always accompanies them. If there were no manas-consciousness, this attachment to self would not exist.” That is, when minds of all three natures—wholesome, unwholesome, and morally indeterminate—arise in ordinary beings, although externally they create various kinds of karma, inwardly they constantly cling to a self.

Because of this attachment to self, even when the six consciousnesses perform acts such as giving, they cannot relinquish attachment to characteristics. Therefore, the Yogacara Treatise says: “Defiled manas is the support of the six consciousnesses. As long as defiled manas has not ceased, the bonds of the image-part and perceiving-part within the six consciousnesses cannot be released.

When defiled manas has ceased, bondage to objective appearances is released.” Bondage to objective appearances means that, because of the defiled mind, the six consciousnesses cannot clearly apprehend objective appearances as illusory, neither existent nor nonexistent. Consequently, the perceiving-part and image-part remain tightly bound to one another and lack freedom; this is therefore called bondage to characteristics.

In accordance with this meaning, there is a verse:

The defiled mind is thus

The supporting basis of consciousness.

While this mind has not yet ceased,

Consciousness remains bound and is difficult to free.

Furthermore, when a wholesome or unobscured morally indeterminate mind is present, if there were no seventh consciousness clinging to a self, that wholesome or morally indeterminate mind would not be contaminated. This is because the afflictions associated with the six consciousnesses within the sentient being’s own continuum do not arise simultaneously with that wholesome or unobscured morally indeterminate mind. If it is claimed that such minds become contaminated because the afflictions of the past and future serve as conditions that bind them, this is logically impossible. One person cannot become contaminated through another person’s afflictions, just as one person cannot become uncontaminated through another person’s liberation.

Nor can it be said that, apart from mind and mental factors, there separately exist latent tendencies—non-associated formations—that arise continuously while wholesome and unobscured morally indeterminate minds are present, thereby causing those wholesome and unobscured morally indeterminate minds to become contaminated. Such latent tendencies have no real existence, as has already been conclusively established.

Nor can it be said that because those wholesome and unobscured-neutral minds arise from contaminated seeds, they thereby become contaminated. For contamination is due to manas. If there were no manas clinging to a self, the seeds of those wholesome and unobscured-neutral minds would previously have had no cause that could render them contaminated; thus, neither could contaminated seeds cause the manifest activity of wholesome and unobscured-neutral minds to become contaminated.

For it cannot be maintained that when a trainee’s uncontaminated mind becomes manifest, its manifest activity becomes contaminated merely because previously existing contaminated seeds still remain. Although acts of giving and the like may be initiated by afflictions in the six consciousnesses, those afflictions have already ceased and no longer arise together with the act of giving; therefore, they are not the principal cause of contamination.

The term “contaminated” indicates that the act of giving arises together with the contaminants on the same occasion. (That is, only because manas, with its attachment to a self, arises together with giving and so forth are these called contaminated.)

Moreover, neutral karma is not instigated by afflictions; why, then, does it become contaminated? (It is because manas clings to a self that it becomes contaminated.)

Contaminated phenomena become contaminated because manas, with its attachment to a self, arises and ceases together with the presently active afflictions within one’s own continuum, each augmenting the other. They thereby perfume seeds of contaminated dharmas, from which those dharmas subsequently become manifest. This is the meaning of “contaminated.” It is so among ordinary beings, and likewise among trainees.

The contaminated phenomena of arhats beyond training (who still retain the retributive consciousness), although they do not arise together with the contaminated seventh consciousness, arise from formerly contaminated seeds and are therefore contaminated. Understood in this way, the principle is not contradicted.

– It is because manas perpetually arises clinging to a self that wholesome and unobscured-neutral dharmas are rendered contaminated. If this manas did not exist, those contaminated phenomena certainly could not exist. Therefore, it is known that this seventh consciousness exists as a distinct consciousness.

There are very many arguments proving the existence of manas consciousness. Here, according to the principles included within the doctrine of the Mahayana, six lines of reasoning have been stated in brief. Those who possess wisdom should accordingly have faith and study them.

– Yet some sutras speak of only six consciousnesses. It should be understood that those sutras teach according to the principle of accommodating provisional doctrines. Alternatively, they speak of six consciousnesses in relation to their bases, the six faculties. In reality, however, there are eight distinct kinds of consciousness. (31)

XI. THE THIRD TRANSFORMING CONSCIOUSNESS

Thus, the second transforming consciousness has been explained. What are the characteristics of the third transforming consciousness?

The verse says:

The third transforming consciousness

Is differentiated into six consciousnesses;

Its nature and mode are the discernment of objects;

It is wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral.

The Treatise says: “Following the second transforming consciousness, which deliberates and calculates, the characteristics of the transforming consciousness that cognizes objects should now be revealed.

This consciousness is differentiated, in brief, into six kinds, according to the distinctions among the six faculties, six objects, and their respective categories. They are called eye consciousness through mental consciousness, each being named after its faculty.

A faculty possesses five meanings: it is a basis, a producer, that to which the consciousness belongs, an aid, and something analogous to a root. Although all six consciousnesses arise in dependence upon manas as the mental faculty, the sixth consciousness is called mental consciousness after its own distinct basis, manas as the mental faculty. As with the five consciousnesses, this involves no confusion. Alternatively, because it depends solely upon the mental faculty, it is called mental consciousness. This explains the naming of the six consciousnesses according to the six faculties upon which they depend. The eighth mind and the seventh mental faculty do not follow this convention.

Alternatively, they may be called form consciousness through dharma consciousness, being named after their objects in conformity with consciousness. That is, cognition of the six objects is called consciousness. The five consciousnesses—form consciousness, sound consciousness, and so forth—cognize only their respective objects of form, sound, and so forth, whereas dharma consciousness cognizes all dharmas universally.

Alternatively, because mental consciousness cognizes dharmas, it is called dharma consciousness. Thus, the names of the six consciousnesses involve no confusion. The preceding explanation names the six consciousnesses according to their faculties, while this explanation names them according to their objects.

Both explanations apply when the five material faculties have not yet attained mastery. Once mastery has been attained, however, the faculties function interchangeably: the consciousness produced by any single faculty can apprehend every object. Nevertheless, if they continue to be named according to their faculties, no confusion arises.

The Ornament Treatise says: “Each of the Tathagata’s five faculties fully apprehends all five objects.” This is stated with reference to coarse and manifest objects of the same category, namely objective objects of direct perception—the five sense objects. (That is, if the consciousness produced by a single faculty can apprehend all five coarse, manifest, and obstructive sense objects, how could it fail to apprehend immaterial objects of the mental sphere?)

The Sutra on the Buddha Ground says: “The Buddha’s Wisdom of Accomplishing Activities decisively discerns the diverse mental conduct of sentient beings, thereby initiating the three modes of action for their instruction and the four kinds of definitive replies.” If the Buddha’s five faculties did not apprehend objects universally, such an ability would be impossible.

– However, the supporting faculties and apprehended objects of the six active consciousnesses are coarse, manifest, and easily perceived, and therefore they are not discussed here. The supporting faculties were explained above when an appropriate context arose; the meaning of the apprehended objects will be explained when an appropriate context arises.

– The second line of the verse, “Its nature and mode are the discernment of objects,” reveals both the intrinsic nature and the mode of activity of the six consciousnesses. The six consciousnesses take the cognition of objects as their intrinsic nature and also take the cognition of objects as their mode of activity. Thus, this line of verse explains both designations together: because it cognizes objects, it is called consciousness. As a sutra says: “What is eye consciousness? It is the consciousness that depends upon the eye faculty and cognizes forms. Extending the explanation, what is mental consciousness? It is the consciousness that depends upon the mental faculty and cognizes dharmas.”

That sutra speaks only of the distinct bases of the six consciousnesses, their perceiving aspects, and their apprehended objects while one is at the stage before the transformation of the basis. At the stage after the transformation of the basis, the supporting faculties and cognized objects of the six consciousnesses function universally, as explained above.

– Under which moral natures are these six active consciousnesses included?

They are included under all three natures: wholesome, unwholesome, and neither. “Neither” means neutral, being neither wholesome nor unwholesome.

That which accords with what is right and brings benefit in both this life and future lives is called wholesome. The pleasant results of karma in the human and heavenly realms, although they accord with what is right and bring benefit in the present life, do not bring benefit in a future life and therefore are not called wholesome. That which opposes what is right and causes harm in both this life and future lives is called unwholesome. The painful results of karma in the lower realms, although they oppose what is right and cause harm in the present life, do not cause harm in a future life and therefore are not called unwholesome. That which lies midway between wholesome and unwholesome, with neither benefit nor harm clearly evident, is called neutral.

When these six active consciousnesses are associated with the eleven dharmas such as faith, moral shame, and moral dread, they are included under the wholesome nature. When they are associated with the ten dharmas such as shamelessness and lack of moral dread, they are included under the unwholesome nature. When they are associated with neither of these two groups, they are included under the neutral nature.

– One view holds that the three natures of the six consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously, because the six consciousnesses turn outward together while the three natures are mutually opposed. Moreover, the five consciousnesses must be guided by mental consciousness, arise at the same time as it, and apprehend the same objects before they can become wholesome or defiled. If it were accepted that the five consciousnesses could manifest all three natures simultaneously, then the mental consciousness arising together with the five would also have to possess all three natures simultaneously, which would contradict correct reasoning. Therefore, the three natures certainly do not arise together on a single occasion.

However, the Yogācārabhūmi and other treatises say: “The store consciousness, at one time, arises simultaneously with the active consciousnesses associated with all three moral natures.” Here, “at one time” is stated with reference to consciousness continuing through many successive thought-moments. It is like the expression “one mind”; it does not mean only a single instance of arising and ceasing. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

– Some hold that all six consciousnesses possess all three moral natures, because the five consciousnesses, whether occurring as initial apprehension or as a homogeneous continuation, may arise together in greater or lesser number. Furthermore, although the five consciousnesses and the mental consciousness arise simultaneously, their wholesome or unwholesome natures are not necessarily the same. The preceding objection that “the five consciousnesses must be guided by the mental consciousness” therefore proves futile. Thus, the Yogācārabhūmi says that when a person in meditative concentration encounters the condition of the sound of a chime and emerges from concentration, the auditory consciousness arises together with a wholesome mental consciousness associated with concentration. It is not merely the mental consciousness associated with that concentration that can receive the sound of the chime. Without auditory consciousness, the mental consciousness alone could not apprehend this sound and could not emerge from concentration. Nor does one emerge from concentration immediately upon apprehending the sound. After apprehending the sound, if there is an intention to do so, one subsequently emerges from concentration.

While one is in concentration, the auditory consciousness that initially apprehends the sound is not wholesome. Before the transformation of the basis, even an initially apprehending mind is only morally indeterminate.

This proves that the mental consciousness arising together with the five consciousnesses is not necessarily of the same wholesome nature as those five consciousnesses. Other passages merely say that the mental consciousness accompanying the five consciousnesses also takes the five objects as its objects, just as the five consciousnesses do; they do not say that their natures are the same.

The Saṃyuktābhidharma Treatise says: “In a state of meditative equipoise, the five consciousnesses do not exist.” This is stated with reference to what occurs for the most part while in concentration.

If, among the five consciousnesses, those of the three moral natures arise together, then whichever object the mental consciousness attends to in accordance with a particular sense consciousness, the mental consciousness is of the same nature as that sense consciousness. If it does not attend particularly to any of them, it is morally indeterminate. Thus, it is known that the six active consciousnesses possess all three moral natures. For example, the visual consciousness that apprehends an image of the Buddha is wholesome, whereas looking at flowers with craving is of an unwholesome nature.

When the stage of mastery is attained, they are included within the wholesome nature, because the Buddha’s form—the excellent marks and meritorious qualities—and the Buddha’s mind—the four wisdoms—are included in the Truth of the Path and contain nothing unwholesome; moreover, the seeds of conceptual proliferation have been completely eliminated, so they are not morally indeterminate.(32)

– With how many mental factors are the six consciousnesses associated?

The verse says:

These mental factors are the Universals,

The Specifics, the Wholesome, and the Afflictions;

The Secondary Afflictions and the Indeterminates;

All are associated with the three feelings.

The Treatise says: “These six active consciousnesses can be associated with the six groups of mental factors.” These are the five Universals, the five Specifics, the eleven Wholesome factors, the six root afflictions, the twenty secondary afflictions, and the four Indeterminates.

Because they always arise dependent upon mind, are associated with mind, and belong to mind, they are called mental factors. It is like calling something that belongs to me “mine.”

With regard to an object, mind apprehends only its general characteristic, while mental factors also apprehend its particular characteristics and assist in accomplishing the mind’s activity; therefore, they are called mental factors. They are like a master painter and his apprentices: the master draws the outline, and the apprentices apply the colors. Thus, the Yogācārabhūmi says: “Consciousness” is capable of discerning the general characteristic of a thing.

Attention is capable of discerning the characteristics not yet discerned by consciousness, the sovereign mind; this means that mental factors discern particular characteristics.

Contact is capable of discerning the agreeable and other characteristics of the object of consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Feeling is capable of discerning the characteristics received by consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Characteristic is capable of discerning the characteristics received by consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Perception is capable of discerning the characteristic that serves as the basis of verbal expression—the cause of verbal expression—for consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Volition is capable of discerning the characteristics that are proper causes for consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Therefore, attention, contact, and the others are called dharmas belonging to mind, or mental factors. The word “its” indicates that mental factors also take as their object the general characteristic apprehended by the sovereign mind; they do not apprehend only particular characteristics.

Elsewhere it is also said that desire is capable of discerning the characteristics of things deemed desirable by consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Determination is also capable of discerning the characteristics of things determined by consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Mindfulness is also capable of discerning the characteristics of things previously familiar to consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Concentration and wisdom are also capable of discerning the characteristics of the gains and losses of consciousness, the sovereign mind.

Only thereby can wholesome or defiled mental factors arise toward objects, and each can also discern the particular characteristics of the objects taken as conditions.

Although the names and meanings of the mental factors are not different in principle, according to distinctions in their classes they are divided into six groups: five Universals, five Specifics, eleven Wholesome factors, six Afflictions, twenty Secondary Afflictions, and four Indeterminates. Thus, the six groups comprise fifty-one mental factors.

Because they are present in every mind, they are called Universal mental factors.

Because they arise in relation to specific objects, they are called Specific mental factors.

Because they arise only in wholesome minds, they are called Wholesome mental factors.

Because their nature is included among the root afflictions, they are called Afflictive mental factors.

Because their nature is merely a homogeneous outflow of the root afflictions, they are called Secondary Afflictive mental factors.

Because they are not definitely and distinctly either wholesome or defiled, they are called Indeterminate mental factors.

The Yogācārabhūmi, however, combines the six groups into five, because the Afflictions and Secondary Afflictions are both defiled and are therefore grouped together.

Furthermore, it uses four kinds of universality to distinguish the differences among the five groups. The four kinds of universality are: universality of moral nature—wholesome, unwholesome, and morally indeterminate; universality of plane—the three realms and nine planes; universality of time—states with mind or without mind, contaminated or uncontaminated; and universality of accompaniment—the eight sovereign minds. Among the five groups, the Universals possess all four kinds of universality.

The Specifics possess only the first two. The Wholesome factors possess only one, namely, universality of plane. The defiled factors possess none of the four kinds of universality.

The Indeterminates possess only one, namely, universality of moral nature. Thus, the five groups differ in their classifications.

– Because these six active consciousnesses vary and are not fixed, they can be associated with all three feelings. This is because all six consciousnesses can experience agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral objects. When the characteristic of an agreeable object is experienced as pleasing to body and mind, it is called pleasant feeling. When the characteristic of a disagreeable object is experienced as oppressive to body and mind, it is called painful feeling. When the characteristic of a neutral object is experienced as neither painful nor pleasant to body and mind, it is called neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.]

Each of these three feelings may also be divided into two. Feelings associated with the five consciousnesses are called bodily feelings because they depend specifically upon the body. Feelings associated with the mental consciousness are called mental feelings because they depend solely upon mind.

– Furthermore, all three feelings may be either contaminated or uncontaminated. Painful feeling can also arise from the uncontaminated, as when one experiences hardship while cultivating the uncontaminated path.

Alternatively, each of the three feelings may be divided into three: those to be abandoned through seeing—the feelings associated with conceptually discriminated delusions; those to be abandoned through cultivation—the feelings associated with innate delusions; and those not to be abandoned—the feelings associated with the uncontaminated.

They may also be divided into three: those belonging to learners, those belonging to those beyond learning, and those belonging to neither.

Alternatively, all three feelings together may be divided according to four natures: wholesome, unwholesome, obscured and morally indeterminate, and unobscured and morally indeterminate.

– Some hold that each of the three feelings may be divided according to all four natures. This is because the mental factors of craving and delusion arise spontaneously together with the first five consciousnesses, and because spontaneously arising afflictions that do not produce unwholesome karma in realms of unmitigated suffering are included within the obscured and morally indeterminate nature. That obscured and morally indeterminate nature is in every case associated with the faculty of painful feeling.

– The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says: “If all afflictions arise spontaneously, their manifestations include all three feelings. If those afflictions extend to the first six consciousnesses, they are associated with all three feelings throughout all the bodies of consciousness. If they do not extend throughout all the bodies of consciousness, those afflictions are associated only with all three faculties of feeling on the mental plane, that is, in the mental consciousness.”

The Compendium of Abhidharma says: “If spontaneously arisen afflictions belonging to the Desire Realm give rise to evil conduct, they too are unwholesome. Afflictions that do not give rise to evil conduct are defiled but morally indeterminate.” Therefore, it is known that the three feelings—pain, pleasure, and equanimity—each include all four natures: wholesome, unwholesome, defiled but morally indeterminate, and undefiled and morally indeterminate.

Alternatively, taken generally, they are divided into five feelings: pain, pleasure, sorrow, joy, and equanimity. Among the three feelings of pain, pleasure, and equanimity, pain and pleasure are each further divided into two, because the characteristics of pleasure and pain in the body differ from those in the mind, and because there are distinctions between the undiscriminating feelings of equanimity and pleasure and the discriminating feelings of sorrow and pain, as well as between the very intense feelings of pain and pleasure and the very slight feelings of sorrow and joy.

The feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant is not divided into two, because it has no differing characteristics of pain oppressing the body and mind or pleasure delighting the body and mind, being impartial and without discrimination.

Pleasant feelings associated with the five consciousnesses are ordinarily called the feeling of pleasure. When associated with the mental consciousness, if they occur in the Desire Realm, the First Dhyāna, or the access stage of the Second Dhyāna, they are called joy, because the pleasure is only mental. If they occur in the fundamental concentrations of the First and Second Dhyānas, they are called both pleasure and joy, because the pleasure is both bodily and mental. If they occur in the access stage or fundamental concentration of the Third Dhyāna, they are called pleasure, because there the tranquility is exceedingly great and without discrimination.

Oppressive feelings associated with the five consciousnesses are ordinarily called pain. If associated with the mental consciousness, one opinion holds that they are called only sorrow, because they oppress only the mind. This is because the sacred teachings say that the sorrowful feeling of the mental consciousness is called the faculty of sorrow.

The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says: “For beings born in hell through perfuming, the retributive consciousness continues without interruption, while retributively produced pain and sorrow continue unceasingly.” It also says: “In hell there is sorrowful mental activity, that is, sorrow in the mental consciousness. The same applies to some hungry ghosts and animals.” Therefore, it is known that even the extremely intense sorrowful feeling in the mental consciousness is called sorrow, much more so other, lighter forms of oppression.

Another opinion holds that the mental consciousness includes both the feelings of sorrow and pain. Among humans and devas, it is ordinarily called sorrow because the oppression is not exceedingly intense. Among animals and hungry ghosts, it is called both sorrow and pain because, between mixed experience and exclusively painful experience, there are differences of lesser and greater intensity.

In Naraka, that is, hell, it is called only pain, because the exclusively painful experience is extremely intense and cannot be discriminated.

– The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says: “If all afflictions arise spontaneously, their manifestations include all three feelings of pain, pleasure, and equanimity.” The full explanation is as given above.

– It further says that the spontaneously arisen affliction of satkāyadṛṣṭi, the view of a self in the body, is only defiled but morally indeterminate. The same should be understood of the extreme view. Therefore, when it is associated with painful feeling, it is included only in the faculty of pain, not in the faculty of sorrow, because the Treatise says that the faculty of sorrow is not morally indeterminate.

– The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise also says: “Sentient beings in hell possess all the faculties; apart from these, it is certain that three faculties of feeling cannot manifest there. The same applies in the realms of hungry ghosts and animals that experience only pain.” The three faculties of feeling mentioned here are the faculties of pleasure, joy, and sorrow. This is because the feeling of equanimity certainly manifests in those hells; it is not being said that equanimous feeling does not exist in hell. If, without understanding that the text of the Yogācārabhūmi Treatise speaks only of the feeling of equanimity, one should not say that beings in hell certainly possess the mental faculty, since the Treatise allows that at times the six consciousnesses are absent in hell.

It should not be claimed that the Treatise speaks only of the feeling of equanimity, since it speaks generally of all the faculties, and there is no special reason for mentioning only the feeling of equanimity. Moreover, if the Treatise were speaking with reference to the feeling of equanimity, why would it also say that eight faculties of feeling are certainly possessed in hell?

If it is said that because the first five consciousnesses are not continuous, the faculty of sorrow is therefore certainly declared to be the eighth faculty, then at the times of death, birth, and unconsciousness, how could there be a faculty of sorrow?

If someone maintains that the faculty of pain alone is the eighth faculty, that position is refuted in the same way.

Suppose it is maintained that in hell one sexual faculty, either the male or female faculty, is the eighth faculty. This too is unreasonable, because bodily sex in hell is indeterminate; because beings there are brought forth through evil karma and therefore cannot possess sexual faculties; and because evil karma there causes the five sense faculties constantly to experience pain. Thus, even if the eye faculty and the other faculties exist there, what function could a sexual faculty perform? It is impossible that, in the great Avīci Hell, there could be any seeking after sexual intercourse.

Therefore, the eighth faculty mentioned here is certainly only the faculty of equanimity, because the seventh and eighth consciousnesses are associated with the faculty of equanimity. Just as, in a place of extreme happiness, the delight of the mental consciousness is called pleasure and there is no faculty of joy, so too, in a place of extreme suffering such as hell, the oppression of the mental consciousness is called pain and there is no faculty of sorrow. Therefore, the words “apart from these, there are three faculties” refer to the three faculties of sorrow, joy, and pleasure, which are absent in hell.

– Elsewhere it is said: “In hell there is pleasure of the outflow type.” It should be understood that this statement is made according to a provisional line of reasoning, presenting the Hīnayāna doctrine through the reasoning of the Mahāyāna. Alternatively, it speaks generally of places where painful and pleasant feelings are intermixed. Because there is no retributive pleasure there, it is called exclusively painful.

However, when the sacred teachings say, “The sorrowful feeling in the mental consciousness is called the faculty of sorrow,” this is stated with reference to the majority of cases, or according to a provisional line of reasoning. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

– The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says: “For the various kinds of sentient beings born in hell, the retributive consciousness continues without interruption, while retributively produced pain and sorrow continue unceasingly.” It also says: “In hell, investigation, analysis, and sorrow arise together. The same applies to some hungry ghosts and animals.” This too is stated according to a provisional line of reasoning. It further says: “The faculty of pain associated with that mental consciousness is of the same kind as sorrow in the other realms and is therefore provisionally called sorrow. Alternatively, because that faculty of pain harms the body and mind, although it is included under the faculty of pain, it is also called sorrow. Similarly, because joy in access concentration benefits the body and mind, although it is the faculty of joy, it is also called pleasure.”

The Prakaraṇāryavācā Treatise fully reveals this meaning. Yet in the “stage not yet reached,” there is certainly no faculty of pleasure, because it is said that only twenty-one faculties exist there, rather than all twenty-two: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental faculties; the faculties of pain, pleasure, sorrow, joy, and equanimity; the male and female faculties; the life faculty; faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom; the faculties of coming to know, knowing, and having fully known.

Therefore, it should be understood that the sorrowful feeling in the mental consciousness, when occurring in a place of exclusively painful experience, is also included under the faculty of pain.

The sacred teachings contain many differing explanations of this kind. For fear of prolixity, they are not all set forth here.

– One opinion holds that the six consciousnesses are not associated with all three feelings of pain, pleasure, and equanimity, because they turn outward to apprehend objects that may oppose one another. The fivefold mental consciousness apprehends the same object together with the first five consciousnesses. Since the first five consciousnesses are associated with the three feelings, the mental consciousness must be so as well. To say otherwise contradicts correct reasoning. Therefore, the six consciousnesses certainly are not all associated with all three feelings.

The Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says: “At one time, the store consciousness and the active consciousnesses arise together, associated with the three feelings.” This is said with reference to many successive moments. It is like the expression “one mind,” which does not refer merely to a single arising and ceasing of mind. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

– Another opinion holds that the six consciousnesses are associated with the three feelings. Feelings arise in relation to all three kinds of objects: agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral.

The mental consciousness does not necessarily experience the same feeling together with the five consciousnesses. When it attends closely to an object, its feeling accords with that object; when it does not attend closely, a neutral feeling arises. Therefore, the six consciousnesses possess all three kinds of feeling. Once mastery has been attained, there are only pleasure, joy, and equanimity, for all Buddhas have completely eliminated sorrow and pain.

– The six groups of mental factors have already been outlined. Their distinguishing characteristics should now be explained clearly.

What are the characteristics of the first two groups of mental factors, the universally present and the object-specific?

The verse says:

First are the universally present: contact and so forth.

Next are the object-specific: desire,

Resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom.

Their objects are not the same.

The Treatise says: Of the six groups of mental factors, the first is the universally present mental factors, namely the five—contact, attention, and so forth—which have already been explained extensively above.

How should the characteristics of these universally present factors be known? They are established through scriptural teaching and reasoning.

Here, regarding “scriptural teaching,” a sutra says: “With the eye and forms as conditions, eye-consciousness arises. The conjunction of these three is ‘contact’; together with contact there also arise ‘feeling,’ ‘perception,’ and ‘volition,’” and so forth at length. Because contact and the others pervade all four modes, they are called universally present.

Another sutra says: “If a faculty is unimpaired and its object is present, consciousness arises only when attention occurs.” Other sutras also say: “If attention is directed toward that object, then discernment of that very object occurs; and wherever discernment occurs, attention is directed toward that very object. Thus these two, attention and discernment, are always conjoined and harmonious,” and so forth at length. Therefore, attention is also universally present.

There is no lack of such testimony in the sacred teachings.

Regarding “reasoning,” whenever consciousness arises, there must be a conjunction of three factors. From that threefold conjunction, “contact” necessarily arises; yet it is also only through contact that the three factors are conjoined. Without contact, mind and mental factors could not be conjoined upon a single object.

Attention has the capacity to direct the mind toward its own object. Without attention, mind could not arise.

Feeling has the capacity to experience agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral objects, causing the mind to assume the aspect of joy, sorrow, or equanimity, because the mind never arises without conforming to one of these aspects.

Perception has the capacity to establish the defining boundaries of its own object. If the mind were to arise without this “perception,” it could not apprehend the boundaries of the object.

Volition has the capacity to cause the mind to assume the aspect of a right cause or a wrong cause and to perform wholesome or unwholesome karma. There is no state in which the mind arises without following some course of karma; therefore, “volition” must be present.

Thus it is demonstrated that the five factors—contact, attention, and so forth—are present whenever the mind arises, and so they are called universally present. The others are not universally present; this will be explained when their meanings are discussed.

– Next, the object-specific mental factors are “desire” through “wisdom.” Because their objects are for the most part dissimilar, among the six groups of mental factors they are placed immediately after the first group, the universally present mental factors.

What is desire? Its nature is aspiration toward an agreeable object, and its function is to serve as the basis for “diligence” (energetic effort).

– One view holds that an agreeable object is one that is desirable; regarding something desirable, there is the aspiration to see or hear it.

Question: Regarding something disagreeable, one merely wishes not to encounter it and hopes that it will remain distant and not be encountered. This is a distinct desire to be united with what is pleasing, rather than an aspiration arising from seeking what is disagreeable. Therefore, toward disagreeable objects and neutral objects that are neither liked nor disliked, there is invariably no desire. Yet when an agreeable object is apprehended without aspiration, does the mental factor of desire also not arise?

– One view holds that agreeableness pertains to an object for which there is seeking. Regarding something desirable, one seeks union with it; regarding something disagreeable, one seeks separation from it. In both cases there is aspiration. Toward a neutral object, however, there is invariably no desire. When something desirable or disagreeable is apprehended without seeking, desire does not arise.

– One view holds that agreeableness means wishing to examine an object. If one wishes to examine something, there is seeking; if one does not wish to examine it, one simply apprehends it spontaneously according to the circumstances of the object, and there is entirely no desire. For this reason, desire is not a universally present mental factor.

– One theory holds that only through the power of aspiration toward an object do mind and mental factors apprehend that object. Therefore, a sutra says: “Desire is the root of all dharmas.” Thus desire must be a universally present mental factor.

– That assertion is incorrect. The mind apprehends an object through attention, for the sacred teachings say: “When attention is present, the consciousnesses arise.” Nowhere has it ever been said: “Desire gives rise to mind and mental factors.” The statement “Desire is the root of all dharmas” means that desire initiates the performance of various activities. Alternatively, it means that wholesome desire gives rise to right diligence and thereby assists in accomplishing every wholesome deed. Therefore, the Treatise says that “desire” functions as the basis for “diligence.”

What is resolve? Its nature is firm conviction and sustaining assent regarding an object that has been ascertained, and its function is to prevent one from being swayed or unsettled. That is, through the evidential power of teachings and reasoning, whether false or correct, one cognizes, examines, decides upon, and sustains assent regarding an object, and is not swayed or unsettled by any other condition. Therefore, when one remains doubtful about an object, resolve is entirely absent. When the mind has not examined and decided, there is no resolve. Hence resolve is not included among the universally present mental factors.

– One theory holds that whenever the mind apprehends its own object freely and without obstruction, resolve is present.

That is unreasonable. Why? That which does not create obstruction is simply the dharmas themselves; that which is not obstructed is simply the various minds. The faculty and attention are the predominant conditions that cause mind and mental factors to arise. If resolve were the predominant condition for their arising, that resolve would itself have to await another condition before arising, resulting in an infinite regress.

What is mindfulness? Its nature is to cause the mind to remember clearly and not forget what has previously been experienced and made familiar, and its function is to serve as the basis for concentration. That is, it repeatedly remembers what has been experienced and does not allow it to be forgotten, thereby leading to concentration. Regarding a type of object never before experienced, which therefore cannot be clearly remembered, mindfulness does not arise. Thus mindfulness is not included among the universally present mental factors.

– One theory holds that whenever the mind arises, mindfulness arises together with it, serving as the cause of later recollection. This assertion is incorrect. Delusion, faith, and so forth cannot first arise together with the mind as causes, only for delusion and faith to arise afterward. Rather, a preceding mind and its mental factors, or the power of perception, are sufficient to serve as the cause of later recollection.

What is concentration? Its nature is to cause the mind to attend single-pointedly and without distraction to an object of contemplation, and its function is to serve as the basis for knowledge. That is, in contemplating whether an object is advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral, concentration causes the mind to attend single-pointedly to that object without distraction.

Based upon this, discriminating knowledge then arises. “The mind attends single-pointedly” indicates that wherever the mind wishes to abide, it is able to abide there; it does not mean that it abides exclusively upon a single object. Otherwise, at the stage of the path of seeing, when one contemplates throughout the truths of the higher and lower realms, with earlier and later objects differing from one another, meditative stabilization could not be present.

If the mind is not bound in single-pointed attention to an object, concentration cannot arise. Therefore, concentration is not a universally present mental factor.

– One view holds that even when it does not bind the mind to concentrate upon an object, concentration may still arise; it is only because its characteristic is subtle and hidden, and therefore difficult to perceive, that it is considered a universally concomitant mental factor. It should therefore be stated correctly: to say that concentration can cause mind and mental factors to unite and proceed together toward a single object, and on that account to regard it as universally concomitant, is also unreasonable, because causing mind and mental factors to unite is the function of contact. If it is said that concentration causes the mind not to change its object within a single kshana, and therefore it is included among the universally concomitant factors, that too is unreasonable, because within a single kshana the mind itself does not change with respect to its object; it is not due to concentration that the mind does not change. If it is said that through concentration the mind apprehends its object, and therefore concentration is included among the universally concomitant factors, that too is unreasonable, because it is attention itself that causes the mind to apprehend its object, not the mental factor of concentration.

Another view holds that the substance of concentration is precisely mind, because the sutras say that the training in concentration is the training of mind; they also say that concentration has the nature of causing the mind to become one-pointed upon a single object.

Citing the sutras as evidence in this way is incorrect, because it is through concentration that the mind is gathered and made one-pointed upon a single object; hence this is said. Concentration is included among the five faculties, five powers, seven factors of awakening, and eight factors of the Path, just as mindfulness, wisdom, and so forth are; concentration itself is not mind.

What is wisdom? It is the nature of discriminating and selecting with regard to an object of examination, and its function is to eliminate doubt. That is, it examines whether an object entails benefit, loss, or neither, and through the searching inquiry of wisdom arrives at a decision. When an object is not being examined, the deluded mind neither discriminates nor investigates; therefore wisdom is not included among the universally concomitant factors.

– One view holds that wisdom also arises at that time within the deluded mind, but its characteristic is so subtle and hidden that it is like placing an extremely tiny object inside a very large vessel—how could one know that it is there? For the Abhidharma treatise says: “It is a universal ground-dharma.”

– The various Abhidharma treatises contradict one another; how can you persist in taking them as authoritative standards? The sutras teach only contact, attention, and the other five as universally concomitant. The doctrine of ten universal ground-dharmas is not stated in the sutras, so it should not be obstinately maintained.

However, aspiration, resolute determination, and the others are not contact, attention, and so forth; therefore they are certainly not universally concomitant, just as the mental factor of faith, the mental factor of greed, and so forth are not universally concomitant.

– One opinion holds that the five—aspiration, resolute determination, and so forth—assist one another, so that whenever any one of them arises, the other four must also be present.

– Another opinion holds that this is not necessarily so. The Yogacara treatise says: “These five object-specific mental factors do not possess two of the four kinds of universality: universality at all times and universality in all minds.” (With universality of nature and universality throughout all grounds added, there are four.)

– It also says that these five object-specific factors arise in relation to four kinds of objects. Because their objects and their apprehending aspects do not necessarily arise together, it is said that sometimes only one of these five arises. Thus, in relation to a desirable object, only the mind of aspiration arises; or, in relation to a determinate object, only the mind of confirming acceptance, namely resolute determination, arises; or, in relation to an object previously experienced, only the mind of recollection, namely mindfulness, arises; or, in relation to an object of contemplation, only the mind of concentration arises. That is, deluded beings, wishing to restrain the distracted mind, may concentrate upon an object, yet be unable to discriminate and investigate it. Everyone knows that such persons possess concentration but lack wisdom. Because such persons, at the stage of preparatory practice, have heard and reflected to some small extent, it is said that at the stage of samadhi they take an object of contemplation as their object. Alternatively, because concentration and wisdom are for the most part present together, it is said that at the stage of samadhi an object of contemplation is taken as the object. For example, beings in the Heaven of Delighting in Forgetfulness, within the desire realm, concentrate upon a single object and give rise to greed or anger; this is concentration without wisdom. There are many examples of this kind. Or, in relation to an object of contemplation, only the mind of discrimination arises; that is, it merely ranges about in search and inquiry without becoming concentrated. This is wisdom without concentration.

Or sometimes two object-specific mental factors arise at once. This occurs when, in relation to an object that is both desirable and determinate, aspiration and resolute determination arise. Or, in relation to an object that is both desirable and previously experienced, aspiration and mindfulness arise. Proceeding in this way, up to the case in which concentration and wisdom arise in relation to a desirable object, there are altogether twelve cases in which two object-specific mental factors arise.

Or sometimes three mental factors arise. Thus, in relation to an object that is desirable, determinate, and previously experienced, aspiration, resolute determination, and mindfulness arise. Proceeding in this way, up to the case in which mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom arise in relation to a previously contemplated object, there are altogether thirteen cases in which three object-specific mental factors arise.

Or sometimes four mental factors arise. Thus, in relation to an object that is desirable, determinate, previously experienced, and contemplated, aspiration, resolute determination, mindfulness, and concentration arise. Proceeding in this way, up to the case in which the four mental factors of aspiration, resolute determination, mindfulness, and concentration arise in relation to an object that is determinate, previously experienced, and contemplated, there are altogether five cases in which four mental factors arise simultaneously.

– Or sometimes all five mental factors arise. This occurs when, in relation to an object that is desirable, determinate, previously experienced, and contemplated, all five object-specific mental factors arise.

Thus, in relation to the four kinds of cases in which the five object-specific mental factors arise, the particular and combined possibilities together amount to thirty-one cases.

Or, when in a state in which mind is present, none of the five object-specific mental factors arises. Examples include occasions when the object is not one of the four kinds, the initial spontaneous mind, and the five object-specific factors associated with the storehouse consciousness. There is more than one such case.

In the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, the five object-specific mental factors may be present or absent according to the particular stage, as explained above. In the sixth, mental consciousness, they are all fully present at every stage, whether or not the transformation of the basis has occurred; there is no obstruction.

– One opinion holds that the five sense consciousnesses do not possess the five object-specific mental factors. Because the five consciousnesses apprehend objects directly present before them, they have no aspiration. Because they lack the capacity to examine and determine, they have no confirming retention, namely resolute determination. Because they constantly apprehend new objects, they have no recollective mind, namely mindfulness. Because their intrinsic nature is scattered and agitated, they have no concentration. Because they lack the capacity for inferential comprehension, they have no discriminative selection, namely wisdom.

– Another opinion holds that all five sense consciousnesses fully possess the five object-specific mental factors. Although they do not have strong aspiration toward objects, they possess a subtle and weak inclination toward agreeable objects. Although they do not engage in strong examination and determination, they possess subtle and weak confirming retention of objects. Although they do not clearly remember objects previously experienced, they possess subtle and weak recollection of objects. Although they do not direct attention and bind mindfulness to a single object, they possess subtle and weak concentration. Their nature is said to be scattered and agitated in order to deny samahita, not to deny samadhi. Therefore, they can possess concentration. (Samahita is translated as “concentrative absorption,” while samadhi is translated as “concentrative abiding.” Concentration has entry, abiding, and emergence. Entering and emerging from concentration constitute concentrative absorption, while abiding in concentration constitutes concentrative abiding.) Although they cannot inferentially comprehend their objects, they possess subtle and weak discrimination. Therefore the sacred teachings say: “Divine vision and divine hearing are wisdom associated with visual consciousness and auditory consciousness.” By analogy, the three consciousnesses of smell, taste, and touch all possess wisdom; thus there is no fault.

At the stage before mastery has been attained, the five object-specific mental factors may sometimes be absent. Once mastery has been attained, all five must certainly be present. Because there is delight in contemplating all objects, the mental factor of aspiration is never lacking. Because objects are confirmed and retained, resolute determination is never lacking. Because previously experienced objects are remembered, mindfulness is never lacking.

Moreover, the Buddha’s five sense consciousnesses apprehend all three periods of time; the Tathagata has no unconcentrated mind; and all five consciousnesses possess the wisdom that accomplishes what is to be done.

With which feelings are these five specific mental factors associated?

– One opinion holds that the mental factor of desire is associated with three feelings, excluding pain and sorrow, because the two objects of pain and sorrow are not desirable. The other four mental factors extend to four feelings, excluding painful feeling, because their nature is discerning determination, which is absent in the five consciousnesses.

– Another opinion holds that all five specific mental factors are associated with all five feelings. The Treatise says: “The faculty of sorrow, when aspiring to the unsurpassed Dharma, anxiously seeks: How may it quickly be realized?” Moreover, in a state of unalloyed painful feeling, there is the desire to gain release from it. That there is a faculty of painful feeling in the mental consciousness has already been explained above.

The Treatise says: “When craving arises, it may be associated with both sorrow and pain.” Wherever there is association with craving, desire is certainly present. Since the faculty of painful feeling is associated with the mental consciousness, and the mental consciousness is associated with the mental factors of resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, what fault is there in saying that painful feeling is also associated with resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom?

– Furthermore, the five specific mental factors are associated with the five consciousnesses, because the five consciousnesses also subtly confirm and retain, recollect, concentrate upon, and discern their objects, as explained above.

It should therefore be understood that desire, resolve, and the others are associated with all five feelings.

These five specific mental factors may further be distinguished according to the three natures, the three realms, the three trainings, and so forth. These distinctions should be contemplated in accordance with reason.

(End of Fascicle Five of the Chinese text)

Notes:

(28). This passage explains with which feeling manas is associated. One opinion holds that it is associated with equanimous feeling; another holds that it is associated with the four feelings of sorrow, pleasure, joy, and equanimity. The most correct opinion, however, is that it is associated only with equanimous feeling.

Like the store consciousness, after the transformation of the basis, manas is associated with twenty-one mental factors: the five universal mental factors, the five specific mental factors, the eleven wholesome mental factors, and equanimous feeling.

Before the transformation of the basis, the nature of manas is veiled and indeterminate; after the transformation of the basis, it is exclusively wholesome.

Before the transformation of the basis, whichever realm or level in which the alaya consciousness is born, manas is bound accordingly and apprehends a self belonging to that realm and level. After the transformation of the basis, it becomes sovereign and is no longer bound.

(29). This passage speaks of two stages in the subduing and elimination of manas:

– First, there is the absence of defiled manas. At the stage of the arhat, the one beyond training, both the seeds and the active manifestations of defiled manas are completely eliminated. When one enters the attainment of cessation, it is also temporarily suppressed, but it remains after one emerges from that attainment. The same applies to those still under training: when the supramundane path is present, defiled manas is absent; when the supramundane path is not present, it arises again. The direct realization that truly perceives the principle of no-self and subsequently acquired wisdom are both uncontaminated and are therefore called the supramundane path, in contrast to modes of cultivation that still involve a self, which are called the mundane path.

– Second, there is purified manas, because manas continues through both defiled and undefiled stages. When it is associated with the view of a personal self (pudgala-atmadrsti), that is, the innate attachment to self, defiled manas is present in ordinary beings and in those still under training whenever they are not contemplating no-self. When it is associated with the view of a self in dharmas, then from ordinary beings through sravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and those bodhisattvas who have not yet attained the resultant wisdom realizing the emptiness of dharmas, manas is both defiled and purified. When it is associated with the Wisdom of Equality, it is found only in the Tathagata. This is purified manas.

(30). This passage cites the sacred teachings to demonstrate that there is a distinct manas consciousness in addition to the other seven consciousnesses.

There are two scriptural proofs:

1. In many sutras, the Bhagavan speaks of mind, mentation, and consciousness. According to their distinctive and preeminent meanings, mind means that which accumulates and gives rise; mentation means that which deliberates; and consciousness has the distinctive meaning of discerning.

According to their common meanings, however, mind, mentation, and consciousness each possess all three meanings: accumulating and giving rise, deliberating, and discerning. Thus, “mentation” refers to the manas consciousness. The manas consciousness is present under all circumstances.

At the stage of contaminated mind—from ordinary beings, through sravakas and pratyekabuddhas who are still under training, to bodhisattvas below the eighth bhumi—manas constantly takes the alaya consciousness as its object and continuously examines and deliberates upon the pudgala, that is, the personal self, thereby producing attachment to self. At the stage of entry into the attainment of cessation and when the resultant wisdom realizing the emptiness of persons is present, manas constantly takes the maturation consciousness as its object and continuously examines and deliberates upon attachment to a self in dharmas.

Among bodhisattvas on the higher bhumis, when the resultant wisdom realizing the emptiness of persons is present, manas takes the maturation consciousness as its object and continuously examines and deliberates upon the two kinds of no-self. At the stage of the Tathagata, manas takes the immaculate consciousness as its object and continuously examines and deliberates upon the two kinds of no-self.

The Lesser Vehicle regards the past mind as mentation, the present mind as consciousness, and the future mind as mind. Thus, a single mind has three names according to the three times.

Bhagavan means the Blessed One. According to the Sutra of the Buddha Bhumi, one is called Bhagavan because one possesses six meanings:

a. Sovereignty: forever unbound by afflictions.

b. Splendor: the fire of wisdom blazes fiercely.

c. Renown: all sublime virtues are perfected.

d. Majestic beauty: possessing the thirty-two excellent marks.

đ. Auspiciousness: approached, praised, and venerated with offerings by the world.

e. Venerability: employing skillful means to benefit and bring happiness to sentient beings, never becoming indolent.

Alternatively, one is called Bhagavan because one has destroyed the four Maras.

2. The Sutra of Liberation contains the verse:

Here “defiled mentation” is the manas consciousness. It is constantly associated with the four fundamental afflictions: delusion concerning self, view of self, conceit of self, and attachment to self. When, through the path of counteraction—the contemplation of emptiness and no-self—all afflictions are eliminated, manas is liberated.

At that time, the afflictions associated with it are absent not only in the present but also in the past and future, because afflictions possess no real intrinsic nature. A single present moment of deluded thought contains innumerable seeds of past affliction, karma, and suffering, thereby producing innumerable afflictions, karmic actions, and sufferings in the future. Yet the past has already vanished, the future has not yet arrived, and there is only a single instant of present mind.

The present mind changes without cease; how could it possess any real substance? It is on the basis of deluded mind that the three times appear. If mind is sought but cannot be found, then the present is already nonexistent—how could the three times exist?

Only when the deluded thoughts of the three times are completely ended right where one presently sits can the three times be penetrated and comprehended. Furthermore, when mind is sought but cannot be found, obstructive forms still remain; yet at that very moment the ten directions vanish, and luminous wisdom universally illuminates the ten directions. As the ancient masters said, this is the meaning of the line: “The afflictions have neither been nor will be.”

Through the path of counteraction—namely, the contemplative wisdom of the twofold emptiness—one clearly sees that afflictions are originally devoid of self-nature. Since they do not arise from themselves, they also do not arise from another, from both self and other together, or without a cause; they arise only provisionally and falsely through the convergence of causes and conditions. At the very moment of their delusive arising, they are fundamentally neither within, nor without, nor in between; they are neither in the past, nor in the present, nor in the future.

Arising itself is non-arising, ultimately devoid of self-nature. Since self-nature does not exist, how could other-nature exist? Since neither self nor other exists, how could a conjoint nature exist?

Even to speak of arising is untenable, how much more so to speak of arising without a cause. If one continues such profound contemplation without interruption, newly acquired permeations are eliminated, and the seeds of karma and affliction naturally dissolve. Therefore, the Section on Determination in the Yogacara treatise says: “Question: When afflictions are severed, are the bonds—the manifest entanglements—abandoned, or are the latent tendencies—the seeds of affliction—abandoned?

Answer: Only the latent tendencies are abandoned, and then the bonds come to an end. Question: Are past latent tendencies abandoned, present latent tendencies, or future latent tendencies? Answer: It is not that the past, future, or present is severed, yet it is said that the latent tendencies of the three times are severed.

Why? If a mind possessing latent tendencies existed in the past, it has already ceased by itself and its nature has already been severed; what, then, remains to be severed? If a mind possessing latent tendencies were to exist in the future, its nature has not yet arisen and its own substance does not yet exist; what, then, could be severed?

If a mind possessing latent tendencies exists in the present, it changes in the succeeding moment, neither remaining nor requiring severance. Furthermore, a mind possessing latent tendencies and a mind free from latent tendencies do not coexist; therefore, it is not the present that is severed. Nevertheless, through the causes and conditions of the true Dharma externally and correct mental attention internally, right view arises.

Whenever the counteractive mind directed against the afflictions to be counteracted arises, the minds containing the latent tendencies to be counteracted cease. As this mind arises, that mind ceases, equally and correspondingly. When the path of counteraction arises, the latent tendencies to be counteracted cease.

When a counteractive mind associated with right view is present, there are no latent tendencies in the present; there are likewise no latent tendencies in the past, and because the succeeding moment of mind is free from latent tendencies, there will also be no latent tendencies in the future. From this point, the transformation of the basis has been attained and the latent tendencies have been severed. By virtue of this, within the continuity of this very body there will arise worldly wholesome and neutral states of mind—that is, these wholesome states are still subject to arising and ceasing.

Since the past, present, and future positions are all free from latent tendencies, it is said that the latent tendencies of all three times are severed.”

(31). This passage adduces correct reasoning to prove that there is a distinct manas consciousness apart from the other seven consciousnesses. Above, there were two proofs from scripture; here, there are six proofs from reasoning: constantly active ignorance, serving as the condition for the arising of consciousness, deliberation being called manas, the distinction between the two samadhis without mind, the defilement of the gods of No-Perception, and defilement throughout the three kinds of moral nature:

a. Constantly active ignorance — This is the subtle ignorance that obstructs correct wisdom. It is continually present throughout all wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral minds of ordinary beings at every stage; hence it is called constantly active.

It is also the ignorance associated solely with the manas consciousness and not found in the other consciousnesses; hence it is also called distinctive ignorance. Its full name is “constantly active distinctive ignorance,” as distinguished from independently active distinctive ignorance, which is the ignorance that is deluded solely regarding the principles of the Four Noble Truths and is associated only with the sixth consciousness.

Furthermore, ignorance is of two kinds: associated ignorance, namely ignorance arising together with greed, hatred, and so forth; and independently active ignorance, namely ignorance arising by itself alone. The ignorance in manas also arises with greed and hatred and may therefore be called associated ignorance. Yet because this ignorance is uniquely and continually present everywhere, it is not called associated but constantly active; whereas ignorance arising together with greed and hatred in the sixth consciousness is called associated.

If it arises by itself alone, it is called “independently active.” It belongs to the four classes of afflictions of view and is severed only by the path of seeing. If it arises together with the ten minor subsidiary afflictions, it is called independently active but not predominant. It belongs to the five classes of afflictions and must be severed by both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation.

b. Serving as the condition for the arising of consciousness — Each of the first five consciousnesses takes one of the five faculties as its simultaneous basis and dominant condition for arising. Accordingly, the sixth consciousness must likewise have a support serving as its simultaneous basis and dominant condition before it can arise. What, then, could be the simultaneous basis and dominant condition of the sixth consciousness, if not manas?

c. Deliberation is called manas — The sutras say that deliberation is called manas. If manas did not exist, this deliberative manas would not exist.

d. The distinction between the samadhis without mind — Of the two samadhis without mind, the samadhi of no-perception extinguishes only the sixth consciousness and its mental factors, whereas the samadhi of cessation must additionally extinguish the defiled seventh manas. If there were no defiled seventh manas, would these two samadhis not be indistinguishable?

e. The defilement of the gods of No-Perception — The gods of No-Perception have entirely ceased the mind and mental factors of the mental consciousness. If the mental consciousness no longer existed and manas likewise did not exist, then would the gods of No-Perception, whose realm still belongs to the cycle of rebirth within the three realms, no longer possess any defilement?

f. Defilement throughout the three kinds of moral nature — All three kinds of mind in sentient beings—wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral—are defiled and conditioned. If manas did not exist, how could wholesome and neutral minds be defiled?

In summary, through the proofs from scripture and reasoning presented above, the manas consciousness must exist. The reason sutras often speak of only six consciousnesses is that they employ an explanation according to reasoning that accords with what is provisionally accepted—that is, they adapt the ultimate reasoning of the Mahayana in presenting it. Explanations according to the reasoning of the Lesser Vehicle are not yet ultimate. According to ultimate reasoning, there must be all eight consciousnesses.

(32). This passage discusses the third transforming consciousness, namely the consciousness that discriminates objects, or the first six consciousnesses. It comprises thirty-two lines of verse, from the line “The third transforming consciousness” ... through the line “During deep sleep or unconsciousness,” and is divided into nine categories for explanation.

– The category of distinctions — The third transforming consciousness is the consciousness that discriminates objects. It is also the six consciousnesses, which are named according to the six faculties upon which they depend. The consciousness that arises in dependence upon the eye faculty is called eye consciousness; the consciousness that arises in dependence upon the ear faculty is called ear consciousness, and so forth. Because they also arise in dependence upon the six sense objects, they could likewise be called form consciousness through mental-object consciousness. However, once mastery has been attained, as by a Buddha, the eye consciousness alone can cognize all sense objects; therefore, naming them form consciousness, sound consciousness, and so forth according to their objects is not appropriate. The five sense objects are also dharmas, yet it is not said that the eye sees dharmas, but only that it sees forms. This is because forms and sounds are restricted, each being cognized by only its corresponding consciousness, whereas mental objects are universal and can be cognized only by the mental consciousness.

A faculty possesses five meanings: a. Basis faculty: consciousness relies upon the six faculties as its simultaneous bases. b. Generative faculty: consciousness arises from the six faculties. c. Faculty affiliation: consciousness depends upon the faculty; when the faculty is strong, perception is clear, and when the faculty is impaired, perception is dim. d. Assisting faculty: it assists the faculty in becoming distinctly manifest. e. Resembling the faculty: it cognizes an object precisely as presented by the faculty.

The category of self-nature and mode of activity: All six consciousnesses take discrimination as both their self-nature and their mode of activity.

– Objects are of three kinds: objects as they are in themselves, objects bearing an image of their basis, and objects that are mere isolated images.

Objects as they are in themselves are also called real objects. Real objects are of two kinds: a. Objects as they are in themselves according to ultimate truth, or objects without a material basis, namely suchness, the true nature.

These objects are directly realized only by wisdom, not through discriminating consciousness. b. Objects as they are in themselves according to conventional truth, or objects possessing a material basis. These are real objects arising from the causes and conditions of seeds, rather than being manifested through subjective discrimination, such as the five sense objects cognized by the five consciousnesses or objects experienced in samadhi.

Although these objects truly exist, they are real only in the relative, conventional sense. From the standpoint of ultimate truth, the five faculties, five objects, and consciousnesses are themselves merely provisional and illusory. The eighth consciousness and the first six consciousnesses can cognize these objects as they are in themselves that possess a material basis.

The exclusively imaged object is an image-object apprehended by the mental consciousness alone. There are two kinds: a. An exclusively imaged object with a basis: an object that does not exist at this time and place, but exists at another time and place, as when the present mental consciousness recollects an object previously experienced. b. An exclusively imaged object without a basis: an object that does not exist at this time and place, nor does it exist at any other time or place, such as a turtle’s hair, a hare’s horn, or an image fabricated by the mental consciousness. Before realization of suchness, the appearance of suchness produced by the mental consciousness as an object of contemplation also belongs to this category of exclusively imaged objects without a basis.

An object accompanied by a basis is an object transformed by consciousness that carries with it an external basis. There are two kinds: a. A genuine object accompanied by a basis: an object in which mind apprehends mind, as when the mental consciousness apprehends all minds and mental factors, or when manas apprehends the seeing portion of the eighth consciousness. b.

A seemingly basis-accompanied object: an object in which mind apprehends form. This is solely an object of the independently operating mental consciousness; it is an appearance superimposed upon a thing by the mental consciousness. For example, in distinguishing a table or a chair, the eye sees only visible color and shape; the body contacts only hardness and smoothness; the nose smells only the scent of wood, and so forth.

Yet the independently operating mental consciousness then perceives it as a table. When the appearance of the table is perceived, that appearance still carries visible color, shape, and so forth; therefore, it is called an object accompanied by a basis.

– The category of the three moral natures - These are wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. All six consciousnesses possess all three. Some, however, hold that the five consciousnesses possess all three natures because they are guided by the mental consciousness.