成唯識論

XI. THE THIRD TRANSFORMATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS (continued from Part 1)

The two groups of mental factors—the Universals and the Object-Determining—have already been explained. What are the characteristics of the Wholesome mental factors?

The verse says:

The wholesome are faith, self-respect, and regard for others,

The three wholesome roots: non-greed and so forth,

Diligence, tranquility, non-negligence,

Equanimity, and non-harming.

The Treatise says: The consciousness that distinguishes objects arises together only with wholesome mental factors; hence they are called Wholesome mental factors. They are faith, self-respect, and so forth, eleven in all.

What is faith? The nature of faith is the purification of the mind: deeply accepting what is Real, taking profound delight in Virtue, and earnestly aspiring toward Capacity. Its function is to counteract faithlessness and to delight in seeking wholesome things.

In brief, faith has three distinct forms:

1. Faith in what is Real – With regard to the real facts of dharmas, the conventional truth, and their real principle, the ultimate truth, one deeply believes that they truly exist and accordingly accepts them.

2. Faith in Virtue – With regard to the Three Jewels, which are replete with true and pure virtues, one deeply believes in them and joyfully follows them.

3. Faith in Capacity – With regard to all wholesome qualities, both mundane and supramundane, one deeply believes that they possess efficacy and that one possesses the capacity to practice them, thereby obtaining pleasant results and ultimately realizing the noble path. Thus one gives rise to aspiration and resolve.

Therefore, faith counteracts faithlessness regarding the Real, Virtue, and Capacity, while inspiring delight in realizing and cultivating mundane and supramundane wholesome qualities.

Question: “Acceptance” is precisely “determination” among the Object-Determining mental factors, and it is the cause of faith. “Taking delight and aspiring” is precisely “desire” among the Object-Determining mental factors, and it is the result of faith. Thus the intrinsic characteristic of faith has still not been established!

Answer: Has it not just been said that faith takes purification of the mind as its intrinsic nature?

Question: The meaning of “purification of the mind” is still unclear.

If purity is itself the mind, the mind-king, then faith is not a mental factor—how, then, can it be called the mental factor of faith? If it is called the mental factor of faith because it purifies the mind-king, then how does faith differ from the mental factors of self-respect and regard for others, which also purify the mind? If it is said that a pure dharma arises together with the mind and is therefore called purity of mind, the same objection applies.

Answer: The nature of faith is clear and tranquil, and it is capable of purifying the mind and mental factors. However, because the mind-king is preeminent over the mental factors, only “purification of the mind” is mentioned, rather than purification of the mental factors. It is like a water-purifying jewel, whose nature is itself clear and which is also capable of clarifying turbid water. Although self-respect, regard for others, and so forth are wholesome, their intrinsic nature is not purity itself; the intrinsic nature of the mental factor of faith, however, is purity itself. Therefore, there is no error of confusing it with self-respect, regard for others, and so forth.

Furthermore, all defiled dharmas have their own particular characteristics, but the mind of faithlessness alone has turbidity as its intrinsic characteristic and also renders other minds and mental factors turbid. Thus it is extremely defiling: it is itself defiled and also defiles others. Faith is the opposite of faithlessness and therefore takes purity as its characteristic.

– One view holds that faith takes joyful delight as its characteristic. If so, it could encompass all three moral natures: faith would belong to the wholesome nature, delight could belong to the defiled nature, and joy could belong to the morally indeterminate nature. Since it would encompass all three natures, its essence would then be desire among the Object-Determining mental factors, whereas faith belongs only to the wholesome nature. Moreover, it would follow that the truths of suffering and its origin could not be objects of faith.

– Some hold that faith takes compliance as its characteristic. If so, faith should encompass all three moral natures; but what encompasses all three natures is determination and desire, not faith. If compliance means affirming and accepting, it is determination among the Object-Determining mental factors. If it means joyfully inclining toward something, it is desire among the Object-Determining mental factors. Apart from these two entities, no characteristic of compliance exists.

– Therefore, it should be understood that faith is the purification of the mind.

What is self-respect? Its nature is the sense of shame before oneself. Relying upon the strength of oneself and the teachings one has learned, one venerates the virtuous and the wholesome. Its function is to counteract shamelessness and stop unwholesome conduct. That is, relying upon oneself and one’s teachings, one regards oneself and those teachings as worthy of honor and possesses a strong regard for them. Therefore, one venerates virtuous persons and wholesome deeds, feels shame at wrongdoing, and dares not commit it again. Thus one counteracts shamelessness and stops all unwholesome conduct.

What is regard for others? Its nature is the sense of shame before others. Relying upon the influence of the world, one disdains and resists what is violent and evil. Its function is to counteract disregard for others and stop unwholesome conduct. That is, relying upon the world’s censure, disdain, and resistance toward violent and evil acts, one feels shame. It serves to counteract disregard for others and stop unwholesome karma.

Feeling shame and embarrassment over wrongdoing are characteristics common to both self-respect and regard for others. Therefore, the sacred teachings provisionally describe them as their respective essences. If one maintains that shame and embarrassment are two different characteristics, then self-respect and regard for others would each have only a single essence.

Two dharmas having one essence could certainly not be associated with each other, just as there cannot be two instances of feeling or two instances of perception that are associated with each other. If self-respect and regard for others become distinct only by awaiting the characteristics of one’s own strength and the worldly strength of others, then self-respect and regard for others would not be real entities, contradicting the sacred teachings.

If one admits that self-respect and regard for others are real but arise separately, this contradicts the Treatise’s statement that ten factors universally accompany wholesome minds. The Treatise speaks of eleven Wholesome mental factors, among which tranquility does not universally accompany every wholesome mind, while the other ten—including self-respect and regard for others—do. If self-respect and regard for others were one, how could nine factors remain universally present?

If venerating and disdaining-and-resisting are two different characteristics, then their objects must differ, and they need not arise together. Whether one says that shame and embarrassment arise together or separately, the errors are the same; why, then, censure only the error of their arising separately?

– The author of the Treatise: Who says that the two dharmas have different objects?

– Another says: If not, then how is it?

– When a wholesome mind arises, whether it takes a wholesome or an unwholesome object as its condition, it both venerates virtuous persons and wholesome deeds and disdains and resists evil persons and evil deeds. Therefore, it should be understood that self-respect and regard for others both universally accompany wholesome minds and have the same objects.

– Have I not already explained that the two characteristics of self-respect and regard for others are common to both?

– Since you hold that the intrinsic characteristics of self-respect and regard for others are identical, how can you avert the preceding objection that there are ten factors universally accompanying wholesome minds?

Nevertheless, the sacred teachings say: “They are established by considering oneself and others in relation to one another.” What pertains to oneself is called “self,” while the world is called “other.” Alternatively, within this formulation, venerating the wholesome, which benefits oneself, is called “self,” while resisting evil, which prevents harm to oneself, is called “other.”

Non-greed and the others refer to non-hatred and non-delusion. These three are called the wholesome roots because they have the strongest capacity to produce wholesome qualities and because they most directly counteract the three unwholesome roots.

What is non-greed? Its nature is non-attachment to the three realms of existence and to the requisites of existence within those three realms. Its function is to counteract attachment and to delight in doing what is wholesome.

What is non-hatred? Its nature is the absence of hatred toward suffering and the karmic causes of suffering—suffering and the conditions of suffering. Its function is to counteract hatred and to delight in doing what is wholesome.

Whenever a wholesome mind arises, whatever object it takes as its condition, it is without attachment or hatred regarding existence and the requisites of existence, suffering and the conditions of suffering. These two wholesome roots, non-greed and non-hatred, are established merely through contemplating existence and suffering; they are not established only when existence and suffering become the immediate objects. This is like self-respect and regard for others discussed above, which are established through contemplating wholesome and unwholesome objects: self-respect is established through contemplating the veneration of the wholesome, and regard for others through contemplating disdain for evil. Therefore, these two mental factors universally accompany wholesome minds.

What is non-delusion? It is the nature of clearly understanding principles and phenomena. Its function is to counteract delusion and delight in doing good.

– One opinion holds that wisdom is the nature of non-delusion, and that non-delusion is provisionally established on the basis of wisdom. The Compendium states that non-delusion takes as its essence the discernment arising from maturation, teaching, realization, and knowledge, because the various kinds of wisdom acquired respectively through birth as karmic maturation, hearing the teachings, reflection, and cultivation all have the nature of discernment. Although non-delusion is wisdom, it is separately stated to show that its function is more excellent than that of wisdom—for non-delusion is exclusively wholesome, whereas wisdom may be either wholesome or defiled—just as wrong views are separately stated among the five fundamental afflictions because wrong views are exclusively unwholesome, whereas wisdom may be either unwholesome or wholesome.

– Another opinion holds that non-delusion is not itself wisdom but has its own distinct nature, because it directly counteracts ignorance and, together with non-greed and non-hatred, is included among the three wholesome roots. The Yogacara Treatise states: “The mind of great compassion is included in non-hatred and non-delusion, but is not included in the faculty of wisdom among the twenty-two faculties.” If non-delusion took wisdom as its nature, then the mind of great compassion, like the ten powers and four fearlessnesses, should be included in the faculty of wisdom among the twenty-two faculties.

Furthermore, if non-delusion had no distinct nature, then, like non-harming—which takes non-hatred as its essence—it would not truly exist. This would contradict the treatise, which states: “Among the eleven wholesome mental factors, only heedfulness, equanimity, and non-harming exist conventionally; all the others, including non-delusion, truly exist.”

However, when the Compendium says that non-delusion takes wisdom as its essence, it cites the causal and resultant aspects of the three kinds of wisdom in order to reveal its nature of clear understanding. This is just as acceptance and joy are used to indicate the essential nature of faith. This interpretation accords with reason.

Because greed, hatred, and delusion are the principal afflictions associated with the six consciousnesses and give rise to unwholesomeness more powerfully than all others, they are designated the three unwholesome roots. Their elimination requires both general and specific counteragents: the general counteragent is wholesome wisdom alone, while their specific counteragents are precisely the three wholesome roots. Therefore, non-delusion must exist distinctly.

Diligence is effort. Its nature is courageous vigor in cultivating good and eliminating evil, and its function is to counteract indolence and bring wholesome qualities to fulfillment. “Courageous” indicates excellent progress, unlike defiled dharmas; “vigorous” indicates purity, unlike purified karmically indeterminate states, that is, unobscured indeterminate states. This shows that effort is included exclusively within the wholesome nature.

Effort has five distinctive aspects: donning armor, application, not regarding oneself as inferior, non-retreat, and non-contentment. These should respectively be understood as being capable, courageous, diligent, resolute, and never relinquishing the yoke of wholesomeness.

These five aspects may be distinguished as follows: the aspect of initially arousing the aspiration—donning armor, or possessing capability; excellent progress in cultivating one’s own portion—application, or possessing courage; and within the cultivation of one’s own portion there are three levels—superior, intermediate, and inferior—namely, not regarding oneself as inferior, non-retreat, and non-contentment. These constitute the five.

Alternatively, there are the aspect of initially arousing the aspiration and four distinctive aspects of cultivation: prolonged cultivation, uninterrupted cultivation, earnest cultivation, and cultivation leaving nothing further. These constitute five. Alternatively, they are distinguished according to the five paths: the path of accumulation, the path of application, the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path of no-more-learning.

Alternatively, whether it is one of the Two Vehicles at the culmination of the path of no-more-learning whose mind aspires to great bodhi, or the Buddhas at the culmination of the path who delight in benefiting and transforming others, or the two stages of application—the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation—each possesses a distinct form of excellent progress, and all are called diligence.

What is pliancy? Its nature is adaptability. Freedom from heaviness is “pliancy,” while the harmonious ease of body and mind is “well-being.” Its function is to counteract torpor and transform body and mind into states of ease and joy. That is, it dispels the dharmas that habitually obstruct meditative concentration, enabling the body and mind upon which one relies to become peaceful and at ease.

Heedfulness is the absence of negligence. It comprises effort and the three wholesome roots. Its nature is to guard against evils that should be eliminated and prevent them from arising, while diligently cultivating and increasing the wholesome qualities that should be cultivated.

Its function is to bring to complete fulfillment all wholesome activities, both mundane and supramundane. That is, it is precisely through four dharmas—effort and the three wholesome roots—that one can guard against evils to be eliminated and cultivate the good to be cultivated. This is therefore called heedfulness.

Apart from those four dharmas, it has no distinct essence, because it has no distinct characteristic. In guarding against evil and cultivating good, if one sets aside the four functions above, no separate function can be found. Although faith, moral shame, moral dread, and so forth are also capable of guarding against evil and cultivating good, their power and function are subtle and weak compared with effort and the three wholesome roots.

They are neither the three roots nor the effort that impels all activities. Therefore, faith, moral shame, and moral dread are not the basis of heedfulness.

Objection: Is not guarding against evil and cultivating good itself the characteristic and function of heedfulness?

Reply: If so, how would guarding against evil and cultivating good differ from effort and the three wholesome roots?

Objection: Those four dharmas must depend upon heedfulness before they can guard against evil and cultivate good.

Reply: If so, heedfulness would also have to depend upon something else, resulting in an infinite regress.

Objection: “Diligence” merely universally urges wholesome dharmas onward, while the “wholesome roots” merely serve universally as the basis of wholesome dharmas. Why, then, is it said that they have the function of guarding against evil and cultivating good?

Reply: What do you say is the characteristic of this function of guarding against evil and cultivating good? If universal reliance by all wholesome states of mind is called guarding against evil and cultivating good, that is precisely the three wholesome roots of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. If it means universally urging wholesome dharmas onward, how does it differ from effort?

If it means stopping evil and advancing the good, that is precisely the common function of all four dharmas: effort and the three wholesome roots. If it causes the mind to remain undistracted, that is concentration. If it causes the mind and mental factors jointly to apprehend their object, how does it differ from contact?

If it causes the mind not to forget, that is precisely mindfulness. Examining the matter in this way, the alleged function of heedfulness, entirely apart from the four dharmas of effort and the three wholesome roots, cannot be found at all. Therefore, it should be understood that heedfulness has no distinct essence.

What is the equanimity of formations? It consists of effort and the three wholesome roots. Its nature is to cause the mind to abide in evenness, uprightness, and effortlessness, and its function is to counteract restlessness and enable the mind to dwell in tranquil peace. That is, it is precisely through the four dharmas of effort and the three wholesome roots that the mind is freed from such obstacles as restlessness and enabled to dwell in tranquil peace; this is called equanimity. “Abiding in evenness, uprightness, and effortlessness” distinguishes the three successive stages—initial, intermediate, and final—of equanimity.

Through heedfulness, defilements are first eliminated; the equanimity of formations then causes the mind to abide in quiescence. The equanimity of formations has no distinct essence, for, like heedfulness, it has no distinct characteristic or function apart from those four dharmas. What causes quiescence is precisely the four dharmas; that which is made quiescent is precisely the mind.

What is non-harming? It is the nature of being free from hatred and not afflicting or injuring sentient beings; its function is to counteract harmfulness and engender compassion. That is, because one is free from anger and does not afflict or injure sentient beings, the provisional designation “non-harming” is established.

Non-hatred opposes hatred, which destroys the lives of sentient beings; non-harming opposes harmfulness, which afflicts and injures sentient beings. Non-hatred bestows happiness, while non-harming rescues beings from suffering. These are the two broadly distinguished characteristics of non-harming.

In truth, non-hatred truly possesses its own essence, whereas non-harming is provisionally established upon one aspect of non-hatred. In order to reveal the distinction between the two characteristics of loving-kindness and compassion, in benefiting and bringing happiness to sentient beings these two—non-hatred and non-harming, loving-kindness and compassion—are supreme.

– One opinion holds that non-harming is not simply non-hatred, but has a distinct substance of its own, namely, the nature of goodness and benevolence. What is its characteristic? It is not causing injury or distress. Non-hatred is likewise such and has no distinct nature of its own. That is, not causing injury or distress to sentient beings, through universal goodness and benevolence, is non-hatred.

– The verse uses the word “and” to make clear that, apart from the eleven wholesome mental factors just discussed, there are still other mental factors. These are such wholesome mental factors as “delight” and “disenchantment,” and so forth. These mental factors are given many names because their meanings differ according to circumstances, but their substance remains one; therefore, they are not established separately. “Delight” means joyful appreciation. It accompanies “desire” and is a part of non-hatred, because there is no hatred or aversion toward a pleasing object. Non-indignation, non-resentment, non-vexation, non-envy, and so forth are likewise. In each case, when reversed, the one becomes the other. Thus, non-indignation, when reversed, becomes indignation, which is a part of hatred. “Disenchantment” accompanies wisdom and is a part of non-greed, because there is no attachment to an object worthy of disenchantment. Non-stinginess, non-conceit, and so forth should be understood in the same way. When reversed, they respectively become stinginess and conceit, all of which are parts of greed. Non-concealment, non-deceit, and non-flattery are parts of non-greed and non-delusion; when reversed, they respectively become concealment, deceit, and flattery, all of which are parts of greed and delusion.

– One opinion holds that non-concealment is only a part of non-delusion, because nowhere is concealment said to be a part of greed.

– One opinion holds that non-conceit is a part of faith. That is, one does not behave conceitedly toward someone in whom one has faith.

– One opinion holds that non-conceit is a part of equanimity, because when the mind is impartial, there is no conceit.

– One opinion holds that non-conceit is partially included within moral shame, because when one reveres and esteems someone, one does not behave conceitedly toward that person.

– One opinion holds that non-doubt is included within faith, because when one has faith in something, one no longer hesitates or doubts.

– One opinion holds that non-doubt is resolute determination, because once a decision has been made, there is no hesitation or doubt.

– One opinion holds that non-doubt is right wisdom, because when there is right view, there is no hesitation. The substance of non-distraction is included within wisdom. “Non-forgetfulness” is precisely right mindfulness. Remorse, torpor, initial application, and sustained application are common to both defiled and undefiled states, as are contact, desire, and so forth. Therefore, there is no corresponding meaning established by reversing them.

– Why is it that, when defiled mental factors are reversed into wholesome mental factors, some are established separately while others are not?

– Those mental factors whose characteristics and functions differ are established separately. As for wholesome mental factors for which no corresponding mental factor is established through reversal, they are not established separately; therefore, no objection should be raised.

Furthermore, because the unwholesome defiled factors—greed, hatred, delusion, lack of moral shame, lack of moral dread, lack of faith, laziness, torpor, restlessness, and heedlessness—pervade all six consciousnesses and are especially powerful, their opposites are established as the ten wholesome factors: non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion, moral shame, moral dread, faith, diligence, pliancy, and equanimity.

Conceit, indignation, and so forth are associated only with mental consciousness, so their opposites are not established separately. Although “harming” is likewise so, it frequently arises, injures and distresses others, and obstructs compassion, which is the supreme cause of the unsurpassed vehicle. To reveal the grave faults of harming, its opposite, non-harming, is therefore established separately.

When forgetfulness, distraction, and incorrect knowing are reversed, they become mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom among the wholesome specific-object mental factors; therefore, they are not discussed separately.

Question: Defiled mental factors and purified mental factors are opposites, so why are purified mental factors fewer in number than defiled mental factors?

Answer: Purified mental factors are excellent, whereas defiled mental factors are inferior; therefore, purified factors are necessarily few, while defiled factors are numerous.

Moreover, because wholesome states awaken to and understand the universal principle, wholesome mental factors, though numerous, share the same substance. Defiled mental factors, however, are deluded in disposition and confined to the many particular characteristics of phenomena, and thus are divided into many kinds. Therefore, no objection should be raised concerning the relative numbers of defiled and purified mental factors.

– Among these eleven wholesome mental factors, three—heedfulness, equanimity, and non-harming—are provisionally existent, as explained above. The remaining mental factors truly exist, each having its own distinct characteristic and function.

– One opinion holds that, among the eleven wholesome factors, four pervade wholesome minds: diligence and the three wholesome roots. The other seven are indeterminate in this respect, because when one investigates principles and phenomena without having reached a decision, faith does not arise. Moral shame and moral dread belong to the same category but have different bases; when one of these mental factors arises, the other does not. Pliancy is attained only when the mundane path that eliminates afflictions arises. Heedfulness and equanimity can arise only when the undefiled path is present. Non-harming arises only when there is a compassionate mind toward sentient beings.

– The Treatise says that the eleven wholesome factors arise in six stages. At the stage of certainty, faith is associated with the mind. When defilements are brought to rest, moral shame and moral dread arise through reflection upon oneself and others. At the wholesome stage, diligence and the three wholesome roots are present. When the mundane path—the four dhyanas and eight concentrations—is present, pliancy arises. When the supramundane path—the undefiled path contemplating non-self—is present, equanimity and heedfulness arise. When sentient beings are gathered in and transformed, non-harming arises.

– One opinion holds that the foregoing explanation is unreasonable. When one investigates principles and phenomena but the mind has not yet reached a decision, if faith does not arise, the state is not wholesome, just as a defiled mind lacks purified faith. Moral shame and moral dread are of different categories; their bases differ, but the objects they apprehend are the same. Both pervade wholesome minds, as explained above.

If pliancy did not arise when the supramundane path is present, the awakening factor of pliancy would not be undefiled. If equanimity and heedfulness were absent from the mundane path, it would neither be quiescent, prevent evil, and cultivate good, nor be able to subdue restlessness and heedlessness. Since a wholesome outflowing mind fully possesses the four factors of diligence and the three wholesome roots, it is like the supramundane path and should therefore possess the two mental factors of equanimity and heedfulness. Moreover, whenever a wholesome mind arises, it does not harm beings; precisely because it is a factor contrary to harming, it is called non-harming.

However, when the Treatise says, “In six circumstances, the eleven wholesome mental factors arise,” it assigns the name of each factor according to the circumstance in which that factor is especially predominant. Therefore, the first opinion is certainly unreasonable.

It should therefore be said that among the eleven wholesome factors, ten—faith, moral shame, moral dread, and so forth—pervade all wholesome minds; only “pliancy” does not pervade them. Pliancy is present only at the stage of meditative concentration, because the harmonious ease of body and mind found there cannot be attained at other stages that are not meditative concentration.

The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī section of the Yogācārabhūmi Treatise says: “The ten wholesome mental factors pervade wholesome minds whether at a stage of meditative concentration or at a stage without meditative concentration; only in the concentrated stage is ‘pliancy’ more predominant.”

One opinion holds that the preparatory stage of concentration is also called a concentrated stage, because a subtle harmonious ease of body and mind is present there as well. Consequently, pliancy also exists in the desire realm. Were this not so, it would contradict the statement in the Basic Grounds section of the Yogācārabhūmi Treatise: “The eleven wholesome factors, such as faith, moral shame, and moral dread, extend throughout all grounds.”

– One opinion holds that pliancy occurs only when there is concentration, for only when nurtured by concentration does there arise ease and harmonious functioning. The Treatise says: “Because the mind and mental factors in the desire realm lack pliancy, it is called the unconcentrated ground.” It is said that all grounds possess the eleven wholesome mental factors because these extend throughout the three grounds: the ground with applied thought and sustained thought, the ground without applied thought but with sustained thought, and the ground with neither applied thought nor sustained thought (the fundamental first dhyana is called the samadhi with applied thought and sustained thought; the preparatory stage of the second dhyana is called the samadhi without applied thought but with sustained thought).

– These eleven wholesome mental factors have already been fully explained. The seventh and eighth consciousnesses possess them or do not possess them according to their stage (at the stage of delusion they do not possess them; at the stage of awakening both consciousnesses possess all eleven); the sixth consciousness possesses them all at every stage. When not in a state of concentration, it lacks only pliancy.

One opinion holds that the five consciousnesses possess only ten because, being by nature distracted and active, they do not possess pliancy.

Another opinion holds that the five consciousnesses also possess pliancy. This is because wholesome states induced by concentration also possess the ease and harmonious functioning of pliancy. Wholesome states accompanying the wisdom of accomplishing activities certainly possess pliancy.

– With which feelings are these eleven wholesome mental factors associated? Ten wholesome mental factors are associated with all five feelings. Pliancy alone is not associated with the feelings of sorrow and pain, because where sorrow and pain are present, the ease and harmonious functioning of pliancy are absent.

– These eleven wholesome mental factors are all associated with the five object-specific mental factors, because faith, moral shame, moral dread, and so forth do not conflict with desire, resolute determination, and so forth.

– These eleven mental factors are exclusively wholesome.

– Apart from pliancy, which does not occur in the desire realm, the other ten extend throughout all three realms.

– The eleven wholesome mental factors do not obstruct the path of seeing and therefore are not of the class eliminated by the path of seeing. The Yogacara Treatise says: “The six faculties—faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, and the faculty of one who is to know what is not yet known—if they are contaminated, are eliminated only through cultivation, not through seeing.”

As for further distinctions among these eleven wholesome mental factors according to other aspects, they should be understood in accordance with reason.

– Thus the wholesome mental factors have been explained. What, then, are the characteristics of the afflictive mental factors associated with the six consciousnesses?

The verse says:

The afflictions are greed and hatred,

Delusion, conceit, doubt, and wrong views.

The Treatise states: “These six—greed, hatred, and so forth—belong by nature to the fundamental afflictions and are therefore called afflictions.”

What is greed? It is the nature of defiled attachment to existence and the requisites of existence. Its function is to obstruct non-greed and produce suffering and distress. That is to say, through the power of craving and attachment, the appropriated skandhas come into being.

What is hatred? It is the nature of aversion and anger toward suffering and the conditions of suffering. Its function is to obstruct non-hatred and to serve as the basis for unrest and evil conduct. That is to say, because of hatred, body and mind are invariably made feverish, and various evil and unwholesome karmas arise.

What is delusion? It is the nature of being confused and obscured regarding phenomena and principles. Its function is to obstruct non-delusion and to serve as the basis for all defilement. That is to say, because of ignorance (delusion), the fundamental afflictions of doubt, wrong views, greed, and so forth, as well as the secondary afflictions, arise; thus evil karma is performed that can bring about defiled phenomena in a future life.

What is conceit? It is the nature of relying upon oneself and behaving arrogantly toward others. Its function is to obstruct the absence of arrogance and to produce suffering and distress.

That is to say, when conceit is present, the mind is not humble before the Three Jewels, which possess true and pure virtues, or before virtuous persons; consequently, one revolves endlessly through birth and death and undergoes various sufferings and afflictions. This conceit has seven distinctions (conceit, greater conceit, conceit beyond conceit, self-conceit, conceit of superiority, inferior conceit, and perverse conceit), or nine kinds: in relation to those who are superior, equal, or inferior, and with regard to self, qualities, and status, one thinks, “I am superior,” “I am equal,” or “I am inferior,” thereby forming the nine kinds of conceit.

All forms of conceit extend to those eliminated by the path of seeing. At the noble stage, since innate self-conceit no longer manifests, the various forms of conceit that arise from it are likewise no longer at fault.

What is doubt? It is the nature of hesitating and being undecided regarding the truths and principles. Its function is to obstruct the mind free from doubt and to obstruct wholesome dharmas. That is to say, because of hesitation, wholesome qualities do not arise.

One opinion holds that this doubt takes wisdom as its substance. Because there is hesitation in making a choice, it is called doubt. This is because the term “vi” means assisting “mati” (wisdom), and because “mati” and prajna have the same meaning (vimati, or viprajna, assists prajna and assists awakening. Only when there is doubt can awakening occur; without doubt, awakening certainly does not occur. Therefore, that which assists awakening is doubt).

Another opinion holds that this doubt has its own distinct substance: it causes wisdom to be indecisive but is not itself wisdom.

The Yogacara Treatise says: “Among the six afflictions, only wrong views exist conventionally, because they are a portion of wisdom; the other afflictions all truly possess distinct natures of their own.” If, because “vi” assists “mati” to form “vimati,” one maintains that wisdom is doubt, then could one likewise say that because “vi” assists “jnanam” (knowledge) to form “vijnanam,” knowledge thereby becomes consciousness? Assistance does not cause the meaning of a term to change into something else. Therefore, doubt does not take wisdom as its substance.

What are wrong views? They are the nature of defiled wisdom that examines and infers the truths and principles in an inverted manner. Their function is to obstruct right views and bring about suffering. That is to say, a person with wrong views must undergo much suffering and distress. The modes of activity of wrong views are distinguished into five kinds (that is, the five acute fetters).

1. Satkayadrsti (view of a self in the body) — This means apprehending the five appropriated skandhas as self and belonging to self. Its function is to serve as the basis for all attachments to views (the view of a self in the body includes both discriminatively arisen and innate forms). This view is distinguished into twenty propositions and sixty-five propositions; they all arise through discrimination and are not innate (for these five kinds of wrong views, see in detail the Brahmajala Sutta in the Digha Nikaya, or the Brahmajala Sutra in the Dirgha Agama).

2. Attachment to extreme views — This means taking that satkayadrsti to imply annihilationism or eternalism. It obstructs the cultivation of the practice of emancipation according to the Middle Way, which is neither annihilationist nor eternalist. The distinctions of this view are found among the various speculative doctrines: regarding the past, there are the four doctrines of universal eternalism and the doctrines of partial eternalism; regarding the future, there are sixteen doctrines of conscious existence, eight of unconscious existence, and eight of existence that is neither conscious nor unconscious. The seven doctrines of annihilationism and so forth all arise through discrimination.

3. Wrong view — This means denying cause and effect, denying efficacy, and denying facts. It also includes all other erroneous attachments apart from the other four wrong views: the view of a self in the body, attachment to extreme views, attachment to views, and attachment to prohibitions and observances.

This is just as the dominant condition includes all conditions other than the three conditions of the causal condition, the immediately antecedent condition, and the objective condition, because its designation and meaning are very comprehensive. The distinctions of this view are found among the various speculative doctrines: the two doctrines of causelessness concerning the past, the four doctrines of the world’s finitude or infinitude, the doctrines of endless equivocation, and the five doctrines of nirvana in the present life concerning the future; or the belief that Isvara, the Lord of the World, Sakra, Brahma, and other beings or things are eternally undergoing change; or the belief that Isvara is the cause of all things; or stubborn adherence to erroneous paths of liberation;

or the deluded belief that what is not the path is the path.

Views such as these are all included within this wrong view.

4. Attachment to views — This means clinging to the wrong views above and to the appropriated skandhas upon which those wrong views depend for their objects, regarding them as supreme and as capable of purifying sentient beings. Its function is to serve as the basis for all contention.

5. Attachment to precepts and prohibitions means conforming to the precepts and prohibitions associated with those wrong views, and grasping at the skandhas upon which those wrong views depend, regarding them as supreme and capable of purifying sentient beings. Its function is to serve as the basis for fruitless ascetic practices.

However, some passages say that grasping it as supreme—taking what is not the fruit to be the fruit—is called attachment to views, while grasping it as capable of bringing about purification—taking what is not a good cause to be a good cause—is called attachment to precepts and prohibitions. This is an abbreviated, reciprocal manner of expression. Alternatively, it is stated from the standpoint of conformity: when supremacy is spoken of, purification is already implicit within it; when purification is spoken of, supremacy is already implicit within it. Otherwise, why would taking what is not cessation to be cessation and what is not the path to be the path be called wrong view, rather than the two attachments—attachment to views and attachment to precepts and prohibitions?

– Among the ten general and specific afflictions described above, six—greed, hatred, delusion, pride, the view of a self, and the extreme view—may be both innate and arisen through discrimination. Whether arising spontaneously or through examination and reflection, these wrong views may occur. Doubt and the three views—wrong view, attachment to views, and attachment to precepts and prohibitions—arise only through discrimination, because they can arise only through bad companions, the influence of false teachings, and one’s own examination and reflection.

– One theory holds that, within the extreme view, the form that is innate belongs to the view of annihilation, whereas the characteristics of the view of permanence are coarse and can arise only when induced by the influence of bad companions and false teachings. As the Yogacarabhumi says: “Which extreme view is innate? It is the extreme view belonging to the view of annihilation. A trainee in direct contemplation gives rise to this fear: ‘Where is this self of mine now?’ Therefore, just as birds and beasts, when they encounter adverse conditions, all fear that their selves will be annihilated and consequently give rise to fear.”

– Another opinion holds that the statement in that treatise was made with reference to coarse characteristics. In truth, the innate form also includes the view of permanence. For example, because birds and beasts cling to the permanence of the self, they zealously act to gather and store provisions for the long term. Treatises such as the Prakaranaryavaca and others all say: “With regard to the five appropriated skandhas, grasping at annihilation or permanence may be either innate or arisen through discrimination.”

– Which of these ten afflictions are associated with one another?

– Greed definitely does not arise together with hatred or doubt, because the objects of attraction and aversion are not the same. With regard to an object about which one is still doubtful and has reached no definite conclusion, attachment does not occur. Greed can be associated with pride and the views. Although the object of craving and the object of pride are not identical and therefore do not arise simultaneously in that respect, the defiled object of craving and the object upon which pride relies may be the same; hence they can be associated. Because craving may occur with respect to the objects of all five wrong views, there is no fault in greed being associated with the five views.

– Hatred and pride or doubt may sometimes arise together. Since the object of hatred and the object upon which pride relies are not identical, hatred and pride are said not to be associated. Yet the object of contempt and the object of resentment may be the same, and therefore they may arise together. Since one does not feel hatred while initially wavering in doubt, hatred and doubt are said not to arise together. But after prolonged reflection without reaching a decision, one may become angry; therefore hatred and doubt can be associated. The same applies according to whether the object of doubt is agreeable or disagreeable. Hatred is certainly not associated with the two attachments—attachment to precepts and prohibitions and attachment to views—because when one has grasped something as the supreme path, one does not hate it. Hatred may or may not be associated with the three views—the view of a self, the extreme view, and wrong view. When one regards the desirable body composed of the five skandhas as permanent, one does not hate it; in that case hatred is not associated. If, with regard to the painful and detestable body composed of the five skandhas, one gives rise to the view that the body is permanent, one feels hatred and anger toward it; hence hatred is said to be capable of arising together with that view. Regarding the view of annihilation, whether hatred is associated with it should be understood by reversing the foregoing analysis. Wrong view repudiates both bad and good things; whether hatred is associated with wrong view should be understood respectively in accordance with those cases.

The mental factor of pride operates with regard to an object that has already been ascertained, whereas the mental factor of doubt cannot do so. Therefore, pride and doubt are not associated. Pride and the five views may arise together because their modes of activity do not conflict. However, pride does not arise together with the view of annihilation, because when one believes that the self will be annihilated, there is no one in relation to whom one can rely upon oneself and become arrogant. One part of pride does not arise together with the view of a self, and the same applies to wrong view.

Doubt is indecisive and therefore conflicts with the five views; consequently, doubt and the five views cannot arise together. Nor can the five views be associated and arise together with one another, because multiple forms of discerning wisdom as views cannot exist within a single mind-moment.

Delusion can be associated with each of the other nine afflictions, because the afflictions can arise only through delusion.

– With which consciousnesses are these ten afflictions associated?

– None are present in the storehouse consciousness. Four are present in the manas consciousness, and all ten are present in the mental consciousness. Only three—greed, hatred, and delusion—are present in the first five consciousnesses. Because the first five consciousnesses lack the nature of discrimination, they do not contain pride and the others, since pride and the like arise only through discriminative comparison.

– With which feelings are these ten afflictions associated?

– Innate greed, hatred, and delusion, as well as greed, hatred, and delusion arisen through discrimination, are all associated with the five feelings. When greed encounters an adverse object or condition, both sorrow and pain arise with it; when it encounters an agreeable object or condition, both joy and pleasure arise with it.

One opinion holds that both innate pride and pride arisen through discrimination are associated with four feelings, excluding pain. Since sentient beings rely upon their own ugly and painful bodies composed of the five skandhas and thereby give rise to sorrow, pride is associated with sorrow.

Another opinion holds that, when innate, pride is also associated with pain, because pain exists in the mental consciousness, as previously explained. Pride and the like that arise through discrimination, however, do not exist in realms where beings experience only pain, because there are no false teachers or false teachings there. Yet beings in those realms of unmitigated pain do not create, while there, the karma that leads to an evil destiny, because the karma leading to those evil destinies must be created through discriminatively arisen afflictions produced by the mental consciousness.

Doubt and the three views—wrong view, attachment to views, and attachment to precepts and prohibitions—are associated only with four feelings, excluding pain. In the Desire Realm, doubt is not associated with pain but is associated with joy and sorrow. If attachment to views and attachment to precepts and prohibitions take as their object a view associated with sorrow, they are at that time associated with the feeling of sorrow.

One opinion holds that the innate view of a self and extreme view are associated only with joy, pleasure, and equanimity. Because these two views are not associated with the five sensory consciousnesses, they are not accompanied by pain; and because the five sensory consciousnesses are karmically indeterminate, they are not accompanied by sorrow. The discriminatively arisen view of a self and extreme view are associated only with four feelings, excluding pain.

If one grasps the body composed of the five skandhas, which arises together with pain, as self or belonging to self and as permanent, that view of a self and extreme view are accompanied by sorrow. If one grasps the body composed of the five skandhas, which arises together with pleasure, as self or belonging to self and as subject to annihilation, that view of a self and extreme view are also associated with sorrow.

Another opinion holds that, when innate, the view of a self and extreme view are associated with pain, because in realms of unmitigated pain they take only the intensely painful body composed of the five skandhas as their object and are therefore associated with the feeling of pain.

The Treatise says: “All innate afflictions invariably manifest together with three feelings.” The detailed explanation is as given previously. The remaining meanings are also as previously explained.

– What follows is stated according to the true meaning. If explained in terms of coarse characteristics, greed, conceit, and the four views are all associated with pleasant, joyful, and equanimous feeling. Hatred is associated only with painful, sorrowful, and equanimous feeling. Doubt is associated with all five feelings. Doubt and wrong view are associated with four feelings, excluding painful feeling. The association of greed and delusion with pleasant feeling extends throughout the four lower grounds, from the Ground of the Five Destinies Intermingled to the Ground of the Third Dhyana. As for the association of the other seven—namely, the five unwholesome views, conceit, and doubt—with pleasant feeling, the ground of the Desire Realm is excluded; it extends throughout the three grounds of the First, Second, and Third Dhyanas. In the Desire Realm, doubt and independently arising delusion are associated only with sorrowful and equanimous feeling. How the other feelings arise together with them may be understood by reasoning accordingly.

– How many of these ten afflictions are associated with the mental factors belonging to the Specific States?

– Greed, hatred, delusion, and conceit arise together with all five Specific States. Because they focus intently upon a single object, the mental factor of concentration is present. Doubt and each of the five views are associated with four of the Specific States. Doubt is not associated with decisive resolve, because doubt is indecisive. Views are not associated with wisdom, because they are not distinct from wisdom.

– Under which moral natures are these ten afflictions subsumed?

– Hatred is exclusively unwholesome in nature because it harms oneself and others. The remaining nine are associated with both the unwholesome and the morally indeterminate. In the two higher realms, the Form and Formless Realms, they are subsumed under the morally indeterminate because there they are suppressed. When bound to the Desire Realm, hatred that arises through discrimination is exclusively subsumed under the unwholesome because it gives rise to evil conduct. Hatred that arises innately is also subsumed under the unwholesome because it harms oneself and others. The remaining afflictions are subsumed under the morally indeterminate because, being subtle, they neither obstruct wholesome qualities nor greatly harm oneself or others. It should therefore be understood that innately arising view of a self and extreme view are exclusively subsumed under the morally indeterminate. Although they continually manifest, they do not generate evil karma or obstruct wholesome dharmas.

– To which realms are these ten afflictions bound?

– Hatred is bound only to the Desire Realm, while the remaining nine extend throughout all three realms. When one is born in a lower ground and has not yet become free from that ground’s defilements, the afflictions of a higher ground do not become manifest. Only after attaining the fundamental concentration of that higher ground can its afflictions become manifest.

Although the contaminated paths—only the four Dhyanas and eight concentrations, without contemplation of the two kinds of emptiness, and therefore called contaminated paths—cannot suppress discriminatively arisen afflictions or the subtle innately arising afflictions in the seventh consciousness, they can suppress and eliminate the coarse innately arising afflictions in the sixth consciousness, thereby enabling one gradually to realize the fundamental concentration of a higher ground.

Because these innately arising afflictions are merely delusion concerning phenomena, arise outwardly, and are distracted, coarse, and agitated, they directly obstruct meditative concentration. Therefore, once the concentration of a higher ground has been attained, the innately and discriminatively arisen afflictions of that higher ground can all become manifest. When a person is born in a higher ground, both the discriminatively and innately arisen afflictions of a lower ground may become manifest.

For example, when one born among the Non-percipient Devas in the Fourth Dhyana enters the intermediate state, one may be born in hell because of having slandered the path of liberation.

Furthermore, while one’s body is in a higher ground and one is about to be born in a lower ground, innately arising craving arises to moisten and facilitate birth in the lower ground. Passages stating that those born in a higher ground do not give rise to the afflictions of a lower ground speak according to what is generally the case, or according to the method that accords with conventional exposition.

Afflictions of a lower ground may also arise by taking a higher ground as their object. The Yogacara Treatise states that “greed” bound to the Desire Realm may nevertheless arise together with a higher ground because one delights in the concentration of that higher ground. Just as hatred includes resentment, jealousy and envy should likewise be said to arise by taking as their objects the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path; so too jealousy and envy may arise by taking a ground free from desire as their object.

When one takes all physical and mental formations throughout the three realms collectively as the object and clings to them as self or belonging to a self through view of a self, regards them as annihilated or eternal through extreme view, and gives rise to conceit, all these may arise by taking the higher realms as their objects. It is certain that the remaining five views may arise by taking the higher realms as their objects.

Nevertheless, passages stating that greed, hatred, conceit, and so forth do not take the higher realms as their objects speak according to their coarse characteristics or with reference to other kinds of objects. No worldly person is seen to cling to the dharmas of another ground as self and so forth, and extreme view can arise only in dependence upon view of a self. As for the statement that afflictions of a higher ground may also take dharmas of a lower ground as their objects, this means that one born in a higher realm, relying upon one’s own superior qualities, may develop a domineering attitude toward sentient beings in the lower realms.

By taking all formations collectively as the object, clinging to them as self or belonging to a self, regarding them as annihilated or eternal, and delighting in them, one can take a lower ground as the object.

Doubt and the latter three views should be understood in accordance with reasoning. Nevertheless, passages stating that afflictions of the higher realms do not take the lower realms as their objects speak according to what is generally the case or with reference to other kinds of objects.

– Under which stage of training are these ten afflictions subsumed?

– They are subsumed only under the stage of neither trainee nor one beyond training; they are not subsumed under the stages of trainees or those beyond training, because those two stages are exclusively wholesome, whereas these afflictions are defiled.

– Are these ten afflictions abandoned by the path of seeing, abandoned by the path of cultivation, or not to be abandoned?

– They are not among those that are not to be abandoned, because what is not to be abandoned is undefiled. When these ten afflictions arise through discrimination, they are abandoned exclusively by the path of seeing because, being coarse, they are easily abandoned. When they arise innately, they are abandoned exclusively by the path of cultivation because, being subtle, they are difficult to abandon. The ten discriminatively arisen afflictions abandoned by the path of seeing are actually abandoned all at once, because the true path of seeing collectively takes all Four Truths as its objects in a single instant. (Because the ten discriminatively arisen afflictions arise through delusion concerning the principles of the Four Truths, when the principles of the Four Truths are clearly seen, these ten discriminatively arisen afflictions are immediately and entirely extinguished.)

Nevertheless, delusion concerning the characteristics of the Four Truths may be either general or particular. “General” means that all ten afflictions arise from delusion concerning the principles of the Four Truths. The Truths of Suffering and Origin are the causes and supports of the ten afflictions, while the Truths of Cessation and the Path are what the ten afflictions fear.

“Particular” means that various afflictions arise from delusion concerning the individual characteristics of the Four Truths. Of these, view of a self and extreme view arise solely from delusion concerning the Truth of Suffering, while the other eight arise from delusion concerning all Four Truths. This is because view of a self and extreme view arise only in relation to the suffering body that is the fruit.

The particular characteristics of emptiness and non-self belong to the Truth of Suffering. (The Truth of Suffering has four characteristics: impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self.) That is to say, doubt and the three views directly misconceive the principle of suffering, while the two kinds of attachment cling to those three views; attachment to precepts and observances, together with the body composed of the five skandhas, is regarded as supreme and capable of bringing about purity.

In relation to one’s own views, the views of others, and their respective adherents, greed, hatred, and conceit arise successively as circumstances dictate—that is, greed toward oneself, hatred toward others, and conceit toward one’s adherents. The ignorance associated with them—that is, the ignorance accompanying greed, hatred, and so forth—together with the other nine likewise arises from delusion concerning the principle of the Truth of Suffering.

“Unassociated ignorance” (also called independently arising ignorance, because it does not accompany greed, hatred, and so forth, and hence is abandoned solely by the path of seeing) arises by directly misconceiving the principle of the Truth of Suffering. Doubt and wrong view arise by directly misconceiving the principle of the Truth of Origin, and so forth. The two kinds of attachment, greed, and the rest should be understood analogously to their treatment under the Truth of Suffering.

Hatred, however, may also directly misconceive the Truths of Cessation and the Path, because fear of Cessation and the Path gives rise to jealousy and anger.

Direct delusion concerning the principle of the Four Noble Truths and indirect delusion concerning the principle of the Four Noble Truths, in their coarse aspects, are as described above. As for their subtle aspects, concomitantly arisen craving, anger, pride, the three views, and doubt also, as appropriate, are deluded concerning the principle of the Four Noble Truths in the foregoing manner. The two concomitantly arisen views, together with the craving, pride, and ignorance associated with them, arise through delusion concerning the Truth of Suffering; yet because they are subtle and difficult to eliminate, they can be eliminated only on the path of cultivation.

Anger, independently arising craving and pride, and the ignorance associated with them arise through delusion concerning particular sentient beings or phenomenal objects. Since they do not conflict with the wisdom that contemplates the principle of the Truths—because these factors do not arise from the principle of the Four Noble Truths, they do not obstruct the wisdom that contemplates that principle—they too can be eliminated only on the path of cultivation.

Although all these afflictions have an objective aspect, the underlying substance upon which they depend to transform and manifest that objective aspect may or may not exist. Accordingly, they are called afflictions taking an existent object as their condition or afflictions taking a nonexistent object as their condition. For example, afflictions arising in relation to a presently existing object are called afflictions taking an existent object as their condition, because they possess an underlying substance; afflictions arising in relation to objects of the past, future, and so forth are called afflictions taking a nonexistent object as their condition, because they lack an underlying substance.

Although the immediate objective aspects apprehended by them are all conditioned, outflowing dharmas, the underlying substances upon which they depend to transform and manifest those aspects may also be unconditioned, non-outflowing dharmas. Thus, these are called afflictions arising with outflowing dharmas as their conditions or afflictions arising with non-outflowing dharmas as their conditions. For example, afflictions arising in relation to the outflowing dharmas of the Truths of Suffering and Origin are called afflictions taking outflowing dharmas as their conditions; afflictions arising in relation to the non-outflowing dharmas of the Truths of Cessation and the Path are called afflictions taking non-outflowing dharmas as their conditions.

They are also called delusions conditioned by the outflowing and the non-outflowing.

When an affliction takes its own level—the level in which one presently abides—as its condition, its objective aspect resembles the underlying substance and is said to apprehend a concrete object produced by conceptual discrimination. When an affliction takes the Truths of Cessation and the Path or another level—another place or realm—as its condition, its objective aspect does not resemble the underlying substance and is said to apprehend an abstract, nominal object produced by conceptual discrimination.

As for the other ways of distinguishing the ten afflictions, they should be contemplated in accordance with the principles already explained.

– The characteristics of the six root afflictions have already been explained. What are the characteristics of the secondary afflictions?

The verse says:

The secondary afflictions are fury,

Resentment, concealment, vexation, envy, stinginess,

Deceit, flattery, harmfulness, and arrogance;

Shamelessness and lack of moral dread;

Restlessness and torpor;

Lack of faith and indolence;

Negligence and forgetfulness;

Distraction and incorrect knowing.

The Treatise says: “They are merely distinct manifestations and derivative natures of the root afflictions, and are therefore called secondary afflictions—that is, afflictions that exist in dependence upon the root afflictions.”

These secondary afflictions comprise twenty factors divided into three classes. The ten factors from “fury and resentment” through “harmfulness and arrogance” each arise separately and are therefore called the minor secondary afflictions. Shamelessness and lack of moral dread pervade all unwholesome states of mind and are therefore called the middling secondary afflictions. The eight factors from “restlessness” through “incorrect knowing” pervade all defiled states of mind and are therefore called the major secondary afflictions.

What is fury? It is the nature of becoming enraged at a presently encountered object that is not beneficial. Its function is to obstruct the nature of non-anger. That is, a person harboring fury often manifests fierce bodily actions, such as taking up a staff. Fury takes one part of anger as its essential nature. Apart from anger, fury has no characteristics or functions of its own.

What is resentment? It is the nature of harboring malice, remaining bound by hostility, and refusing to relinquish what one previously became angry about. Its function is to obstruct a mind free from resentment and to make one prone to agitation. That is, a person bound by resentment cannot patiently endure and is frequently agitated. It also takes one part of anger as its essential nature. Apart from anger, resentment has no distinct characteristics or functions of its own.

What is concealment? It is the nature of hiding offenses one has committed out of fear of losing material support and reputation. Its function is to obstruct a mind free from concealment and to make one prone to remorse and distress. That is, a person who conceals an offense will certainly later experience remorse, distress, and unease.

One opinion holds that concealment takes one part of delusion as its essential nature, because the Treatise says that concealment is one part of delusion: not understanding and fearing future suffering, one conceals one’s offenses.

Another opinion holds that concealment is included in parts of both craving and delusion, because one also conceals one’s offenses out of fear of losing material support and reputation. The Treatise states that it is one part of delusion from the standpoint of its coarse and manifest aspect. Likewise, although “restlessness” is said to be one part of craving, because restlessness is said to pervade all defiled states of mind, it cannot be maintained that it is only one part of craving.

What is vexation? It is the cruel and violent nature that develops from fury and resentment and presses closely upon others. Its function is to obstruct a mind free from vexation and to make one prone to viciousness. That is, one recalls a past object of hostility, and then, upon encountering adverse conditions in the present, the mind becomes cruel and violent, causing one to speak coarsely and behave viciously toward others. Vexation also takes one part of anger as its essential nature. Apart from anger, it has no distinct characteristics or functions of its own.

What is envy? It is the nature of being preoccupied with fame and gain, jealously unable to endure the distinction and prosperity of others. Its function is to obstruct a mind free from envy and to make one prone to sorrow. That is, when a person with an envious mind sees or hears of another’s distinction and prosperity, that person becomes deeply sorrowful and uneasy. Envy also takes one part of anger as its essential nature. Apart from anger, it has no distinct characteristics or functions of its own.

What is stinginess? It is the miserly nature that clings to material wealth and Dharma and refuses to give them to anyone. Its function is to obstruct a mind free from stinginess and craving and to make one delight in base hoarding. That is, a person with a stingy mind is miserly and hoards wealth and Dharma, refusing to give them away. Stinginess also takes one part of craving and attachment as its essential nature. Apart from craving, it has no characteristics or functions of its own.

What is deceit? It is the nature of falsely pretending to possess virtue in order to obtain material support and reputation. Its function is to obstruct the nature of being free from falsity and to make one prone to perverse pride. That is, a deceitful and arrogant person’s mind constantly devises unusual schemes, falsely displaying unreal qualities and giving rise to perverse pride. Deceit also takes parts of craving and delusion as its essential nature. Apart from craving and delusion, it has no distinct characteristics or functions of its own.

What is flattery? It is the devious and treacherous nature that displays unusual postures and conduct in order to deceive others. Its function is to obstruct the nature of being free from flattery and the nature of being amenable to instruction. That is, a devious and flattering person, seeking to cast a net to deceive others, adapts to circumstances and falsely displays expedient behavior to win people’s favor; or such a person conceals personal faults and refuses to heed the instruction of teachers and friends. Flattery also takes parts of craving and delusion as its essential nature. Apart from craving and delusion, it has no distinct characteristics or functions of its own.

What is harmfulness? It is the nature that delights in injuring and causing suffering to sentient beings, without the slightest compassion. Its function is to obstruct the nature of non-harmfulness and to make one prone to afflicting others. That is, a person with a harmful mind delights in afflicting others. Harmfulness also takes one part of anger as its essential nature. Apart from anger, it has no distinct characteristics or functions of its own. It should be understood, by comparison with the eleven wholesome factors, that anger and harmfulness have different characteristics: non-anger bestows happiness and is loving-kindness, whereas non-harmfulness rescues beings from suffering and is compassion.

What is arrogance? It is the nature of being intoxicated with pride and deeply attached to one’s own prosperity. Its function is to obstruct non-arrogance and to serve as a basis for defilement and attachment. That is, one who is intoxicated with pride readily gives rise to and develops all manner of defilements. It also takes a portion of craving as its essence. Apart from craving, arrogance has no distinct characteristic or function of its own.

What is shamelessness? It is the nature of failing to reflect upon one’s own conduct and of scorning and resisting what is virtuous and wholesome. Its function is to obstruct the sense of shame and to foster evil. That is, one fails to reflect upon one’s own conduct, scorns and resists the virtuous and wholesome, feels no shame before wrongdoing, and fosters various evils.

What is disregard for moral censure? It is the nature of failing to consider others and of honoring and esteeming what is violent and evil. Its function is to obstruct the sense of moral embarrassment and to foster evil. That is, one does not consider others but blindly honors and esteems what is violent and evil, feels no shame concerning wrongdoing, and fosters evil conduct.

Being unashamed of wrongdoing is a characteristic common to both shamelessness and disregard for moral censure. Therefore, the expositors of the sacred teachings describe it as their essence. If one maintains that “being unashamed” comprises two distinct characteristics—being unashamed in accordance with shamelessness and being unashamed in accordance with disregard for moral censure—their essences would still be indistinguishable.

Consequently, these two dharmas could not arise simultaneously, unlike feeling and perception, for which such simultaneity is meaningful. If shamelessness and disregard for moral censure were established merely in relation to oneself and others, they would not be truly existent, and this would contradict the sacred teachings. Yet if one accepts that these two have real essences and arise separately, this would again contradict the treatise, which says that both pervade all unwholesome states of mind.

Whenever an unwholesome mind arises, regardless of the object upon which it depends, there is both the nature of scorning and resisting the wholesome and the nature of honoring and esteeming evil. Therefore, these two—shamelessness and disregard for moral censure—are said to pervade all unwholesome states of mind. Since their objects are not different, there is no fault in their arising separately.

Nevertheless, when the sacred teachings speak of not considering oneself and others, “oneself” means the one who personally performs the deed, while “others” means the world at large. Alternatively, regarding the resistance of the wholesome or the honoring of evil, what brings benefit or harm to oneself is designated as “oneself” and “others.” When the treatise says that these are portions of craving and so forth, it means that they are outflows of craving and so forth; it does not mean that craving itself is the nature of shamelessness and disregard for moral censure.

That is, shamelessness and disregard for moral censure develop from craving, but are not portions of craving itself.

What is restlessness? It is the nature that prevents the mind from being tranquil with respect to its object. Its function is to obstruct equanimity and the cultivation of shamatha, that is, calm abiding.

Some hold that restlessness is included within a portion of craving. The treatise says only that it is a portion of craving because it arises through recollecting former pleasures.

Some hold that restlessness is not included within craving, because the treatise says, “Restlessness pervades all defiled states of mind.” Furthermore, the characteristic of restlessness is non-tranquility, because this is a characteristic common to all afflictions. Apart from the afflictions, restlessness has no distinct characteristic or function of its own. Although it is provisionally established in dependence upon all afflictions, craving predominates among them; hence restlessness is said to be a portion of craving.

Some hold that restlessness has its own distinct nature and that it pervades all defiled states of mind, just as lack of faith and so forth do. Merely because it is said to be a portion of something else does not mean that its essence is unreal; otherwise, lack of faith and so forth would also have to be merely provisionally existent. The treatise, however, says, “It exists only in the conventional sense, like sleep and so forth.” This is stated with reference to the characteristics of other factors, that is, other afflictions.

The distinct characteristic of restlessness is precisely the agitated nature that prevents the mind and mental factors arising together with it from becoming tranquil. If restlessness had no distinct characteristic apart from the afflictions, it should not be stated separately that restlessness obstructs shamatha. Therefore, non-tranquility is not the distinct characteristic of restlessness.

What is torpor? It is the nature that renders the mind incapable with respect to its object. Its function is to obstruct pliancy and the cultivation of vipashyana, that is, insight.

Some hold that torpor is a portion of delusion. The treatise says only that it is a portion of delusion, for obscurity, dullness, and heaviness are characteristics of delusion.

Some hold that torpor is not included solely within delusion. Incapacity is the characteristic of torpor, and all afflictions have the nature of incapacity. Apart from this nature of incapacity, torpor has no distinct characteristic of its own. Although torpor is provisionally established in dependence upon all afflictions, because the characteristic of delusion predominates among them, torpor alone is said to be a portion of delusion.

Some hold that torpor has its own distinct nature. Although it is called a portion of delusion, it is an outflow of delusion, like lack of faith and so forth; it is not delusion itself. With reference to the characteristics of other factors—that is, because it arises in dependence upon craving, hatred, and delusion—it is said to exist in the conventional sense, just as sleep and so forth are truly existent in nature.

The distinct characteristic of torpor is precisely obscurity, dullness, and heaviness, causing the mind and mental factors arising together with it likewise to become heavy and incapable. If torpor had no distinct characteristic apart from the afflictions, it should not be stated separately that torpor obstructs the cultivation of vipashyana. Therefore, incapacity is not the distinct characteristic of torpor.

Torpor differs from delusion in characteristic: delusion is obscuration concerning an object and directly obstructs non-delusion, but it is not dullness and heaviness. The characteristic of torpor, by contrast, is obscurity, dullness, and heaviness with respect to an object, and it directly obstructs pliancy, but it is not obscuration.

What is lack of faith? It is the nature of a defiled mind that does not accept, delight in, or aspire toward Reality, Virtue, and Capacity. Its function is to obstruct pure faith and to serve as a basis for degeneration.

That is, one without faith readily becomes indolent. The three characteristics of lack of faith are the opposites of faith in Reality, Virtue, and Capacity. Although all defiled dharmas have their own distinct characteristics, the intrinsic characteristic of lack of faith alone is turbidity: it is itself turbid and also makes other minds and mental factors turbid.

Just as something exceedingly filthy is itself soiled and also soils other things, lack of faith is therefore said to have mental defilement as its nature. Because of lack of faith, one does not accept, delight in, or aspire toward Reality, Virtue, and Capacity; it is not that lack of faith possesses some other distinct nature. If, regarding other matters, the mind perversely accepts, delights in, and aspires toward them, this is merely a cause or effect of lack of faith, belonging to wrong desire and wrong determination, and is not the intrinsic nature of lack of faith.

What is indolence? It is the nature of being lazy in cultivating the wholesome and abandoning evil. Its function is to obstruct diligence and to increase defilement. That is, an indolent person nurtures and increases defilement. One who diligently pursues defiled activities is also said to be indolent, because such diligence destroys what is wholesome. Diligence in pursuing morally neutral activities neither advances nor diminishes the wholesome. This belongs only to desire and wrong determination; that kind of diligence has no distinct nature of its own. Likewise, accepting, delighting in, and aspiring toward morally neutral activities is neither pure nor defiled, and is neither faith nor lack of faith.

What is heedlessness? It is the nature of being unrestrained, failing to guard against defilement and failing to cultivate purity. Its function is to obstruct heedfulness and to serve as a basis for the increase of evil and the decline of good.

That is, because of indolence and greed, hatred, and delusion, one does not guard against defilement or cultivate purity; this is collectively called heedlessness, rather than there being a separate intrinsic nature of heedlessness. Although pride, doubt, and so forth also have this capacity, they are weaker than indolence and greed, hatred, and delusion: greed, hatred, and delusion obstruct the three wholesome roots, while indolence obstructs diligence.

Therefore, heedlessness is not established on the basis of pride and doubt. The characteristics of heedlessness should be examined in the same way as those of heedfulness.

What is forgetfulness? It is the nature of failing to remember clearly the objects of cognition. Its function is to obstruct right mindfulness and to serve as a basis for distraction. That is, the mind of one who is forgetful becomes distracted.

One opinion holds that forgetfulness is a part of mindfulness, for it is mindfulness associated with afflictions.

Another opinion holds that forgetfulness is a part of delusion, because the Yogācāra Treatise says: “Forgetfulness is a part of delusion.” Delusion causes mindfulness to be lost, and hence it is called forgetfulness.

Another opinion holds that forgetfulness is a part of greed, hatred, delusion, and so forth, because the two preceding passages speak concisely from contrasting perspectives, and because the Treatise also says: “Forgetfulness pervades all defiled states of mind.”

What is distraction? It is the nature that causes the mind to disperse among its objects of cognition. Its function is to obstruct right concentration and to serve as a basis for wrong wisdom. That is, wrong wisdom arises in one whose mind is distracted.

One opinion holds that distraction is included within greed, hatred, and delusion, because the Compendium Treatise says: “Distraction is a part of the three—greed, hatred, and delusion.” The Yogācāra Treatise says: “Distraction is a part of delusion.” This is because it pervades all defiled states of mind; that is, greed, hatred, and delusion cause the mind to wander and become unrestrained more than any other dharmas, and therefore it is called distraction.

Another opinion holds that distraction has its own distinct intrinsic nature. When the Compendium Treatise says that it is “a part of the three—greed, hatred, and delusion,” it means that distraction is an outflowing nature of the three—greed, hatred, and delusion—as is the case with shamelessness and so forth; it does not mean that distraction itself is greed, hatred, and delusion. It is spoken of according to other characteristics—the characteristics of greed, hatred, and delusion—and is thus said to exist in the conventional sense.

The distinct characteristic of distraction is restlessness and disturbance, causing the mind and mental factors arising together with it to disperse. If, apart from the three—greed, hatred, and delusion—distraction had no distinct intrinsic nature, the Treatise should not separately state that distraction obstructs samādhi (concentration).

– How do the functions of restlessness and distraction differ? Restlessness causes the mind to change its apprehension: while remaining upon the same object, it fluctuates, apprehending it in one way and then another, never settling, like a lamp illuminating one place but continually flickering. Distraction causes the mind to change its object: it has just cognized one object when it turns to another, never settling, like a lamp that illuminates one place and then rapidly sweeps toward another. Although within a single moment neither the apprehension nor the object changes, such changes occur over a succession of many moments. In a defiled state of mind, the powers of restlessness and distraction usually cause the mind to change both its apprehension and its object. If at times the mind remains properly settled, this is because the power of mindfulness and so forth restrains it, like a rope binding a monkey or ape and causing it to remain still temporarily. Therefore, restlessness and distraction pervade all defiled states of mind.

What is incorrect knowing? It is the nature of mistakenly understanding the object under observation. Its function is to obstruct correct knowing and to serve as a basis for transgression.

One opinion holds that incorrect knowing is included within a part of wisdom; that is, wisdom associated with afflictions becomes incorrect knowing. Another opinion holds that incorrect knowing is included within a part of delusion, because the Yogācāra Treatise says: “Incorrect knowing is a part of delusion.” Delusion causes knowing to become incorrect, and this is called incorrect knowing.

Another opinion holds that incorrect knowing is a common part of all afflictions, because the two preceding passages speak concisely from contrasting perspectives, and because the Treatise also says: “Incorrect knowing pervades all defiled states of mind.”

– In the verse, the three words “and,” “together with,” and “as well as” indicate that the derivative afflictions are not limited to twenty kinds, for the Miscellaneous Matters Treatise says: “There are many kinds of afflictions belonging to greed, hatred, and so forth.” It also says: “The derivative afflictions include all other defiled afflictions apart from the twenty listed above,” because they are outflowing natures of the previously mentioned root afflictions. Other defiled afflictive dharmas of the same class as the root afflictions are called only derivative afflictions and are not included among the root afflictions. Only twenty derivative afflictions are discussed here because they are not root afflictions and are merely defiled and coarse. Other defiled dharmas are either phases of the derivative afflictions or outflowing natures of the derivative afflictions and are all included herein. Their differing categories should be understood in accordance with reason.

– Among these twenty derivative afflictions, the ten minor derivative afflictions and the two intermediate derivative afflictions are definitely conventionally existent. Shamelessness, lack of moral dread, lack of faith, and indolence are definitely substantially existent, as established by scriptural teaching and reasoning. Regarding the three—restlessness, torpor, and distraction—some hold that they are conventionally existent, while others hold that they are substantially existent. The scriptural teachings and reasoning cited as proof should be understood as explained above.

– All twenty derivative afflictions may be both innate and arisen through discrimination, because they arise in accordance with the power of the two kinds of root afflictions: those that are innate and those that arise through discrimination.

– Among these twenty derivative afflictions, the ten minor derivative afflictions—from rage and resentment through harmfulness and arrogance—arise successively in alternation and definitely do not arise simultaneously, because their natures are mutually opposed. The mode of activity of each is coarse and intense, and each acts independently as master. The two intermediate derivative afflictions, shamelessness and lack of moral dread, are associated with every unwholesome state of mind and arise simultaneously with both the minor and major derivative afflictions. The Treatise says: “The eight major derivative afflictions, from lack of faith through incorrect knowing, pervade all defiled states of mind and arise together in alternation with the minor and intermediate derivative afflictions.” One passage says that when the six—lack of faith, indolence, heedlessness, forgetfulness, distraction, and restlessness—become powerful, they arise simultaneously. Another passage says that five pervade defiled states of mind, because torpor and restlessness are opposed only to wholesome qualities: torpor obstructs pliancy, while restlessness obstructs equanimity.

– Since the twenty derivative afflictions are exclusively defiled, they are not associated with the eighth consciousness. The seventh consciousness is associated only with the eight major derivative afflictions. The differing interpretations as to which are accepted or rejected should be understood as explained above. The sixth consciousness is associated with all twenty. The ten minor derivative afflictions, being coarse and intense in nature, are not associated with the first five consciousnesses. The intermediate and major derivative afflictions extend to all of them and are all present within the five consciousnesses.

– Therefore, the intermediate and major derivative afflictions are associated with the five feelings. One opinion holds that, among the ten minor derivative afflictions, the seven other than deceit, guile, and arrogance—rage, resentment, and so forth—are associated with three feelings: joy, sorrow, and equanimity; while deceit, guile, and arrogance are associated with four feelings, excluding pain. Another opinion holds that rage and so forth are associated with four feelings, excluding pleasure, while the three—deceit, guile, and arrogance—are associated with all five feelings. It has already been explained above that pain may occur in the mental consciousness.

The characteristics of the secondary afflictions correspond to the five kinds of feeling. The remaining three additionally correspond to pleasant feeling. The coarse characteristics of the intermediate and great secondary afflictions are likewise understood in this way.

– These twenty secondary afflictions can all arise together with the five specific mental factors, because they do not conflict with one another. Defiled mindfulness and defiled wisdom (defiled mindfulness is loss of mindfulness, and defiled wisdom is incorrect knowing), although they do not arise together with mindfulness and wisdom, are aspects of delusion (ignorance), and therefore are still said to correspond with them. “Mindfulness” may also take as its objects present phenomena and things repeatedly habituated, while “indignation” may also take as its object the immediately preceding past moment; therefore indignation and mindfulness may also correspond with each other. When defiled concentration arises, the mind is also restless and disturbed; therefore distraction and concentration correspond with each other.

– The two intermediate secondary afflictions and the eight great secondary afflictions all correspond with the ten fundamental afflictions. The ten minor secondary afflictions certainly do not correspond with wrong views or doubt, because their characteristics are coarse and agitated, whereas wrong views and doubt investigate with subtle discernment. Indignation, resentment, vexation, jealousy, and harmfulness—the five—correspond with pride and doubt, but do not correspond with greed or anger, because they are aspects of anger. Avarice, delusion, and pride correspond with one another, but greed and anger cannot correspond with each other, because avarice is an aspect of greed. Arrogance corresponds with delusion; it differs from pride and indolence and is an aspect of greed. Concealment, deceit, and dissimulation correspond with greed, delusion, and pride, because their modes of activity do not conflict, and they are all aspects of greed and delusion.

Seven of the minor secondary afflictions are indignation, resentment, vexation, concealment, jealousy, arrogance, and harmfulness. The two intermediate secondary afflictions are shamelessness and lack of moral dread; these are included only in the unwholesome nature. Three minor secondary afflictions are dissimulation, deceit, and arrogance. The eight great secondary afflictions also extend to the morally indeterminate nature.

– The seven minor and two intermediate secondary afflictions are included only in the Desire Realm. Deceit and dissimulation extend to both the Desire Realm and the Form Realm. The remaining kinds extend throughout all three realms. One born in a lower plane may give rise to eleven kinds belonging to a higher plane: through attachment to the objects of concentration, one gives rise to arrogance, and in relation to the Desire Realm one also gives rise to deceit and dissimulation. If born in a higher plane, one may give rise to the latter ten kinds belonging to a lower plane, because wrong views and craving correspond with each other and can therefore cause them to arise there. When one is born in a higher plane, there is no reason for the ten minor secondary afflictions to arise in a lower plane, because they neither directly nurture rebirth nor constitute wrong views that malign cessation. The two intermediate and eight great secondary afflictions in a lower realm may also take a higher realm as their object, because they arise in correspondence with greed that takes the higher realm as its object.

One opinion holds that the ten minor secondary afflictions in higher and lower realms cannot take a higher realm as their object, because their modes of activity are coarse, heavy, shallow, and limited, and therefore cannot apprehend remote objects.

Another opinion holds that jealousy and the others may also take a higher realm as their object, because jealousy may arise toward the dharmas of a higher realm. The eight great secondary afflictions, together with dissimulation and deceit, in a higher realm may also take a lower realm as their object, because they arise in correspondence with “pride” that takes the lower realm as its object.

For example, Brahma may give rise to dissimulation and deceit toward a son of the Shakya clan. “Arrogance” does not take a lower realm as its object, because it is not an object upon which one could justifiably presume.

– All twenty secondary afflictions are included among what is neither pertaining to one in training nor pertaining to one beyond training, because they are exclusively defiled, whereas the states of those in training and those beyond training are pure.

– The latter ten among the twenty secondary afflictions are subject to elimination through both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, because they correspond with the two kinds of fundamental afflictions: those that are innate and those that arise through discrimination.

– Afflictions subject to elimination through seeing arise together according to whether one is deluded about the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths collectively or individually. Therefore, as appropriate, they extend throughout all four classes of afflictions. (That is, the four classes of afflictions generated through delusion concerning the principles of the Four Noble Truths: afflictions arising through delusion concerning one Truth constitute one class, and delusion concerning the Four Truths constitutes four classes.) Delusion concerning the Four Noble Truths, whether direct or indirect, is explained in the same manner as the afflictions.

One opinion holds that the first ten among the twenty secondary afflictions are only afflictions subject to elimination through cultivation, because they arise innately and spontaneously and take coarse and superficial phenomenal characteristics as their objects.

Another opinion holds that they extend to elimination through both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, because they arise through the power of the two kinds of fundamental afflictions—the innate and the discriminatively arisen—and because indignation, resentment, and the others may also arise upon taking another person’s wrong views as their objects.

Afflictions subject to elimination through seeing, according to their capacity to take the Four Noble Truths collectively or individually as their objects, extend throughout all four classes of afflictions.

Concerning this, one opinion holds that indignation and the others take as their objects only indirectly the outflows arising from delusion concerning the principles of the Four Noble Truths, and do not directly misconceive the principles of the Four Noble Truths, because their modes of activity are coarse and superficial and cannot apprehend what is profound and remote.

Another opinion holds that jealousy and the others may also directly misconceive the principles of the Four Noble Truths, because jealousy may arise with regard to the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path.

Nevertheless, the ten kinds such as indignation, resentment, and the others take only factual phenomena as their objects, because they can arise only in dependence upon the essential nature of such facts. Their taking conditioned dharmas subject to outflows as objects should be understood in accordance with the foregoing.

(End of Fascicle Six of the Chinese text)