成實論

CHAPTER 54: THE IMPURITY OF THE FACULTIES

Question: Are the faculties determinate or indeterminate?

Answer: What is called determinate, and what is called indeterminate?

Question: They are determinate by virtue of their objects of cognition and the causes of the eye and the other faculties. This is called determinate.

Answer: If so, the faculties are not determinate. Why? Because the faculties are neither objects cognized by, nor causes of, the eye and the other faculties.

Question: The eyeballs, tongue, and body can be seen by the eye; the ears and nose are internal and therefore cannot be seen.

Answer: A dead person also has eyeballs, a tongue, and a body, yet in truth has no faculties.

Question: The eyeball is of two kinds: faculty and non-faculty. When a person dies, the faculty in the eyeball ceases, while the non-faculty remains.

Answer: The faculty within the eyeball cannot be seen. Therefore, it is not apprehended by the eye and the other faculties. As a sutra says: “The five faculties are visible, resistant form.” If they were visible, one could distinguish: “This part of the eyeball is the faculty, and this part is not the faculty.”

Question: As a sutra says: “Pure form produced from the four great elements is called the five faculties.” Why, then, is it said that the five faculties are invisible yet resistant form?

Answer: This is therefore a matter that may cause doubt. The power of karma is inconceivable. Through the power of karma, the four great elements are transformed into faculties.

The Buddha feared that his disciples might suppose these five faculties, because they arise from karma, not to be form; therefore, he taught that they are form. Furthermore, non-Buddhist teachers say that the five faculties arise from the self, and the self is not form. They also say that the five faculties cognize what is large and what is small, and therefore are not determinate.

These people likewise regard what is formless as a faculty. Therefore, the Buddha taught that the faculties are form, being produced from form and the other conditions. Some might claim that, since they are produced from form and the other conditions, they ought to be visible; therefore, he said: “They are invisible.” Nor are they apprehended by the ear and the other faculties.

Some might claim that, if so, they ought to offer no resistance; therefore, he said: “They offer resistance,” because they stand in opposition to their respective sense objects. Form possessing shape and resistance is called gross form and is perceived only by the eye. Furthermore, non-Buddhist teachers say: “Number; unity and difference; conjunction and separation; goodness and badness; action; general and particular characteristics; and dravya, though not dharmas of form, are nevertheless visible.” Therefore, the Buddha said that, among these, only form is visible and nothing else is visible.

That which obstructs the hand and the like is called resistant.

Question: If so, all of them ought to be tangible.

Answer: Although they all offer resistance, they do not arise in every location. Bodily consciousness arises according to its appropriate conditions and cognizes them, and thus the faculties can be distinguished. Furthermore, the faculties are truly indeterminate.

Why? If a dharma were determinate, it would be like a hand grasping an object: only a single hand grasps it. Yet the eye can see what is large and what is small; therefore, it is indeterminate.

Again, if an object is determinate, contact with it causes an effect: touching fire causes burning, and touching a knife causes cutting. The eye, however, can see from afar; therefore, it is indeterminate. Again, if a dharma is determinate, it obstructs another determinate dharma, just as one hand obstructs another.

Yet crystal, clouds, mist, and the like do not obstruct the eye; therefore, it is indeterminate. Again, if a faculty were determinate, it ought to remain within the body. Because it is within the body, even when united with the mind, it ought not to see external sense objects; yet in fact it can see them.

Therefore, it is indeterminate. Again, if the dharmas were determinate, their number would be called the five faculties. Yet the eyes, ears, and nostrils each number two, while the tongue and body number one each, making eight in all.

Therefore, they are indeterminate. Only their locations are fixed; the faculties themselves are not determinate. Again, when the left eye sees, the right eye also knows.

It is not that one faculty sees while another knows. Because the faculties have no characteristics of left and right, they are indeterminate. Again, because the conjunction of faculty and sense object cannot be apprehended, they are indeterminate.

Again, when determinate form and the other dharmas are acquired, they cannot cognize; but when a faculty is acquired, cognition occurs. Therefore, the faculties are indeterminate.

Question: The light of the eye can see what is large and what is small, and can also travel far away to see form without obstruction, just as sunlight, separated from the body, enables seeing. Because the lights of these two eyes have determinate locations, they unite into a single light and can then see form. Furthermore, the eye is one; the ears and nostrils are internal and therefore cannot be distinguished.

Thus, your statement that one faculty sees while another knows is refuted. Moreover, it is the spirit that knows, not the faculties; the faculties are merely its instruments. You also say that the conjunction of dharmas cannot be apprehended.

This has already been answered: sunlight and the faculties such as the ears cannot be apprehended because their conjunction is close and concealed, just as when trees grow densely together, the lines between them cannot be discerned. Furthermore, cognition occurs because of the spirit, not because of the faculties. The faculties are produced from the four great elements; since the four great elements do not cognize, the faculties likewise do not cognize.

Again, just as a jar is produced from atoms, and since atoms do not cognize, the jar likewise does not cognize. Furthermore, “not knowing” is said to differ from the sense objects; hence it is known that the faculties have no cognition.

Answer: You say that because the light travels, the faculty is determinate. You regard the light as the faculty; but since the light is not determinate, the faculty likewise is not determinate. Furthermore, this light does not exist, as was refuted in an earlier section. Again, you say that the eye is one. This is unreasonable. Seeing with one eye differs from seeing with two eyes. If one eye is damaged, vision is unclear. The matter of the left and right eyes has already been answered.

Question: If one eye is capable of consciousness, then of the two eyes only one should be needed. What use is the second eye?

Answer: Because the bridge of the nose separates them, they cannot be one. Even without such separation, they still could not be one, just as the fingers and the like are not one. You say that they are instruments of the spirit.

This was refuted earlier. The spirit cannot employ them. Sunlight and the like were likewise refuted earlier.

You say that their conjunction is close and concealed and therefore cannot be seen. This too is unreasonable. Why?

If dharmas were determinate, they could not truly merge, because their substances differ. Although trees may grow densely together, the lines between them can still be seen; but the conjunction of faculty and sense object cannot be seen in this way. You say that cognition occurs because of the spirit.

The later chapter on the nonexistence of a spirit will address this. You say that the great elements produce the faculties. This is unreasonable.

Through the power of karma, the great elements are transformed into faculties, and therefore differences arise.

Question: The faculties are determinate. Why? Because they are produced from the four great elements, and since the four great elements are determinate, the faculties also are determinate.

Furthermore, because the eye and the other faculties are determinate, the great elements and the other conditions can benefit them. Again, the great elements are transformed into faculties. Since the great elements are determinate, the dharmas into which they are transformed must also be determinate.

Again, corresponding to a faculty there is a sense object, and corresponding to a sense object there is a faculty. If they were indeterminate, they could not correspond to each other, just as the mind and mental objects do not correspond in this manner. Therefore, it should be known that they are determinate.

Again, people in the world apply the names of the faculties to determinate entities such as the eyeballs. Again, each faculty cognizes five determinate kinds of dharmas, unlike the mind and the like; therefore, the faculties are called determinate. Again, the faculties cognize through direct perception and are therefore called determinate.

Again, the faculties cognize presently existing objects, whereas the mind cognizes even nonexistent objects, such as past objects. Again, faculty and sense object conjoin, and from them arises the faculty’s cognition of a dharma. Therefore, it should be held that a determinate faculty corresponds to a determinate sense object.

Hence, it is known that the faculties are determinate.

Answer: Those who say that a faculty is formed from the great elements call this determination. Although all faculties arise from the great elements, there are faculties and non-faculties; thus, some are determined and some are not determined. You speak of benefit.

The benefit pertains to cognition; it does not assist the faculty. You also say that the great elements transform into faculties. Transformation likewise pertains to cognition; it does not benefit the faculty.

Furthermore, the purity of the four great elements is called a faculty, and therefore it is not determined. What you say about “faculty and object confronting each other” also pertains to the mind. Since defining a faculty is not wisdom, all those other assertions are erroneous understandings produced by the power of the mind.

Furthermore, although six consciousnesses are spoken of, definitive discernment fundamentally depends upon mind-consciousness. For example, when seeing the Four Noble Truths, directly knowing all dharmas, rightly contemplating the nature of dharmas—all these occur through mind-consciousness. Again, the revolving circle of fire, magical illusions, shimmering light, and a city of the Gandharvas are all empty, yet one falsely sees them as existent; seeing visible form is likewise so.

Therefore, the eye and the other faculties are all erroneous conditions. Some say: “Cognition arises from the conjunction of faculty and object.” Whether cognition occurs when they come into contact or without their coming into contact has already been answered above.

CHAPTER 55: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE VISIBLE-FORM AYATANA

Furthermore, blue, yellow, and other colors are called the visible-form ayatana. As a sutra states: “When the eye-ayatana ceases, the characteristic of visible form departs.” This should be understood.

Question: Some say that shape and measure are also included in the visible-form ayatana. Why is this? A sutra speaks of such visible forms as black and white, long and short, coarse and fine.

Answer: Shape and the like are distinctions of visible form. How is this known? If separated from visible form, no mental cognition of shape, measure, and the like arises. If shape and the like were different from color, a cognition of them should arise even apart from visible form, but in fact it does not. Therefore, we know that they are not different.

Question: A cognition of color arises first, and only afterward does a cognition of shape arise. Why is this? Because cognitions of black and white, square and round, do not arise simultaneously.

Answer: Since such characteristics as long and short take visible form as their object, they arise within mind-consciousness. It is as when visible form is first seen and afterward mind-consciousness gives rise to the conventional characteristics of male and female. Furthermore, because all conditioned dharmas cease from moment to moment, there is no ceasing dharma that does not pass away; because it passes away, it is called action.

Question: Going is called bodily karma. If there is no going, is there then no bodily karma?

Answer: According to conventional designation, there is bodily karma, but not in the ultimate truth.

Question: If there is no bodily karma in the ultimate truth, then in the ultimate truth there are also no merit and demerit. If there are no merit and demerit, there are likewise no corresponding results.

Answer: When a dharma arises in another place, it may benefit another person or cause harm; thus merit and demerit are established. You should not raise this objection.

CHAPTER 56: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF SOUND

Question: Why is sound not said to be a cause forming the great elements?

Answer: Sound is separate from visible form and the other qualities, whereas visible form and the others are not separate from one another; therefore, it is not so stated. Furthermore, unlike visible form and the others, sound does not continually persist. Nor does it arise simultaneously with visible form and the others.

Moreover, its mode of arising differs from theirs. Why is this? Visible form and the others arise from one another in succession, like root, sprout, and the subsequent stages, whereas sound is not like this.

Furthermore, sound takes its name from an object: one speaks of the sound of a jar, not of the sound within a jar. A person may say either that one sees a jar or that one sees the visible form of a jar, but one does not say that one hears a jar; one says only that one hears the sound of a jar. Furthermore, because of karma planted by sentient beings in previous lives, there are causes and conditions for silence.

If all things possessed sound, there would never be even a moment of silence. Therefore, sound is not a cause forming the great elements.

Question: All objects possess sound. How is this known? Sound is emitted when they move, and the great elements are always moving against one another; therefore, all things must possess sound.

Answer: Not every movement of things against one another is a cause of sound. Why is this? The eye sees two fingers moving against each other without producing any sound.

Question: Sound is produced in this case, but because it is subtle, it is not perceived.

Answer: No sound is produced; not even a subtle sound can be heard. If you claim that sound exists, this cannot be established by direct evidence. Another person might likewise say that there is sound in water, but because it is subtle it cannot be heard; that there is flavor in fire; and that visible form and the other qualities exist in wind and in space—yet in fact they do not. Therefore, not every movement of things against one another can produce sound.

Question: People commonly say that sound is a guna of space. How do we now know that it is produced by the four great elements?

Answer: We presently observe sound arising from the four great elements, and therefore we believe only what is directly observed. Moreover, people speak of the sound of a bell and the sound of a drum; hence we know that these are the sounds of the bell and drum. Furthermore, because the four great elements differ, sounds differ, as the sounds of a bell and a drum differ from each other.

Again, when bronze vessels are struck, they all produce sound, but when grasped by the hand, their sounds cease; therefore, it should be understood that the sound of moving objects is likewise so. Moreover, when sound is about to be produced, one must prepare a material object composed of the four great elements. Thus, it should be known that sound arises from the four great elements.

Furthermore, sounds differ because of karmic causes and conditions, as the voices of sentient beings may be pleasant or unpleasant. A guna of space should not arise from karmic conditions. Therefore, this assertion is incorrect.

Furthermore, there is the relation of cause and effect. A cause is that upon which a particular dharma depends in order to exist. In this way, sound exists because of the great elements, and when they are absent, sound is absent.

It is like heat: when fire exists, heat exists; when fire is absent, heat is absent. One should therefore know that heat exists because of fire. That sound is produced by the great elements is likewise so.

Space may be present where there is heat; space remains, yet heat is sometimes present and sometimes absent. It should therefore be known that space is not the cause of heat. Sound is likewise so.

Space may be present where there is sound; space remains, yet sound is sometimes absent. Therefore, we know that space is not its cause. Furthermore, the claim that sound is a guna of space cannot be believed, because among directly observable phenomena no cause of sound is seen in space, nor is there anything comparable by which this might be known, for no analogy can be made in this case.

Moreover, the various scriptures and treatises largely contradict one another; thus, none of these claims is worthy of belief. Therefore, it should be known that this assertion is unreasonable.

CHAPTER 57: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ODOR

Question: When sandalwood fragrance and other fragrances are combined, since the original fragrances differ, do they produce yet another fragrance?

Answer: Because they are blended together, they produce a different fragrance, just as mixing blue and yellow produces green. Furthermore, because there are many kinds of karmic causes and conditions, many kinds of fragrances are produced.

Question: The disciples of the Uluka school say that odor is merely a guna of the great element upon which it depends. What of this assertion?

Answer: There is no dravya, as has already been clearly explained; therefore, this assertion should be known to be unreasonable. Furthermore, the Vaisheshika school says that hàn-the, lead, tin, gold, silver, copper, and the like are all substances belonging to fire, yet they possess odor. Therefore, it should be known that odor does not belong exclusively to earth.

Question: Hàn-the and the other substances are combined with earth, and therefore possess odor?

Answer: It is not an adventitious fragrance. Why? Because before smelling those substances, that fragrance was not perceived in them.

If it had previously been perceived, it could be called adventitious, as when one first smells the fragrance of flowers and later smells it on clothing; it may then be called adventitious. But substances such as borax are not like this. Therefore, this is not a valid reason.

Moreover, when borax and the like have no fragrance, it should not be called adventitious. We could likewise say that water and the like have no color and so forth, and acquire color and so forth only when combined with earth. If you say that water and the like possess such color in themselves, we likewise say that borax possesses fragrance in itself.

Furthermore, when a quality in a substance is inseparable from it, that quality is the fragrance of that substance. Again, if water and the like possess fragrance, but it is not discerned because it is subtle, what fault is there in this? It is like saying that the moon contains fire, and fire is invariably hot.

Again, you say that the warmth in a house remains because a fire has gone out but residual hot air remains, and you also say that hot water retains a slight characteristic of coldness; fragrance in water is likewise. There is no conclusive reason here for saying that water has no fragrance. Moreover, your dravyas have no determinate characteristics.

Why? Because you yourselves say: “Earth possesses fragrance, and diamonds, crystal, and the like are transformed when burned; therefore, they are all substances of earth, yet none of them possesses fragrance.” Again, you say: “The determinate characteristic of water is coldness, and milk and the like have the same characteristic; but because butter and the like possess fragrance, they are called substances of earth.” Moreover, the moon and the like are truly cold, yet you call them substances of fire.

For these reasons, the dravyas have no determinate characteristics. Therefore, the assertion that fragrance exists only in earth is unreasonable; your assertion that borax and the like are substances of fire is also incorrect. Why?

Because their heat is not determinate. The disciples of Uluka say that fire is invariably hot, yet borax and the like are not hot.

Question: The heat of substances such as borax lies in their effect, not in their tactile quality?

Answer: Butter has a cold effect and therefore ought to be a substance of water, yet because you regard fragrance as determinate, you call it a substance of earth. Thus, to speak of the effect is not to identify the efficient cause. Again, the haritaki fruit has a decidedly heating effect and therefore ought to be a substance of fire; yet it actually possesses fragrance and has five flavors, and so it is not called a substance of fire.

Thus, speaking of the effect is not a valid reason. Borax and the like are not substances of fire. Furthermore, the characteristic of fire is lightness, whereas borax and the like are heavy; the color of fire is white, whereas borax and the like have other colors.

Moreover, borax and the like share no common characteristic with fire by which they could be known as substances of fire. Furthermore, borax and the like are opposed to fire. Why?

Because they dissolve when they encounter heat. If they were substances of fire, they ought to increase upon encountering fire; but in fact they do not increase, and therefore they are not substances of fire. Because you have not considered the matter carefully, you maintain that fragrance belongs only to earth.

But fragrance is present in all four elements.

CHAPTER 58: THE CHARACTERISTIC OF FLAVOR

Flavor comprises sweetness, sourness, saltiness, pungency, bitterness, blandness, and so forth. These six flavors all differ according to the substance; they do not arise because one of the four great elements predominates. It is said, for example, that when earth and water predominate, sweetness arises. This is unreasonable, for sweetness has immeasurably many variations. One should therefore know that substances are inherently produced with distinct differences.

Question: Some physicians say that there are only six flavors. How can this be reconciled? When they combine, there may be three, four, and so forth, becoming immeasurably many. A combination of sweetness and sourness is not simply called a sweet-and-sour flavor. When sweetness and sourness blend, they produce yet another flavor. In this way, the flavors are immeasurably numerous. Moreover, flavors differ according to worldly convention: what people regard as sweet is called sweet. Again, when flavors mature, each depends upon the others. When sweetness matures, it may remain sweet or may change into something else; the other flavors are likewise. Therefore, one should know that dharmas possess capacities of this kind and are not limited to merely six.

CHAPTER 59: THE CHARACTERISTIC OF TANGIBILITY

Tangibility comprises hardness and softness, heaviness and lightness, strength and weakness, cold and heat, roughness and smoothness, dryness and moisture, comfort and pleasure, fatigue, freedom from fatigue, illness, health, bodily acuity, bodily dullness, laziness, obscurity, headache, numbness and dampness, groaning, hunger and thirst, satiety, craving for sour things, not craving for sour things, bewilderment, and so forth.

Question: Some say that tangibility is of three kinds: cold, hot, and neither cold nor hot. What of this?

Answer: Cognition arises with regard to hardness and the like. Apart from hardness and the like, neither cold nor heat can be cognized.

Question: Uluka says that the tangibility inherent in earth is neither cold nor hot, and that the tangibility of air is likewise; the tangibility of water is cold, and that of fire is hot. What of this?

Answer: It has already been said that these characteristics are not determinate: butter and the like are decidedly cold, while borax and the like are not hot. Moreover, regarding the three tactile qualities mentioned earlier, if air is adventitious, then air has no distinct tactile quality, and therefore no characteristic is determinate. Again, the characteristic of coldness cannot be found in hot water; therefore, coldness is not a determinate characteristic of water.

Question: In hot water, the characteristic of coldness is present only slightly, but because fire predominates, it is not perceived. How is this known? When the power of fire is exhausted, the water returns to its usual state.

Answer: When hard substances such as borax and butter are combined with fire, they burn. If the characteristic of hardness does not disappear while the characteristic of fluidity appears, then hardness would itself be fluidity. If hardness disappears and fluidity appears, then the cold tactile quality has ceased and another cold tactile quality subsequently arises.

The tactile quality of earth, for example, is neither cold nor hot. When earth combines with fire, if this tactile quality does not disappear, it cannot be called transformation through cooking. If it disappears, another tactile quality arises.

Likewise, the cold tactile quality disappears and another cold tactile quality subsequently arises. Thus, the gunas in water should also undergo transformation through cooking. Your assertion is inconsistent and entails a fault.

Furthermore, opposed dharmas arise; therefore, one should know that these characteristics are impermanent, just as the characteristics of grass and the like disappear when combined with fire. If you say that the hot tactile quality merely covers the cold tactile quality, one could likewise say that the characteristic of milk does not disappear but is merely covered by the characteristic of butter. This therefore cannot be maintained.

If you say that milk is never seen to become milk again, then you lack right view. Why? Since beginningless samsara, what substance has never been burned by fire?

Moreover, black mud can be found within the earth. One should know that it too has reappeared through transformation by cooking. Thus, the cold tactile quality disappears and another cold tactile quality subsequently arises.

When some substances combine with fire, their black color disappears and another black color arises; their red color disappears and another red color arises. Likewise, if the cold tactile quality disappears and fire subsequently produces another, what fault is there? Furthermore, the Vaisheshikas say that only earth has the characteristic of being transformed through cooking, whereas water and the other elements do not.

Yet physicians say that drinking a hot medicinal preparation produces a different effect. If the color and other qualities of hot water did not disappear, how could there be a different effect? Therefore, one should know that water and the other elements also undergo transformation through cooking.

When fire burns a substance, its original characteristics disappear and other characteristics arise. Thus, one should know that substances acquire different characteristics, and water is likewise. Moreover, because these characteristics oppose one another, they are impermanent: water can extinguish fire, and fire can dissipate water.

There is nothing that the power of fire cannot dissipate; how much more, when it combines with water, could the cold tactile quality fail to disappear? Therefore, the Vaisheshika scripture’s assertion that water is invariably cold is unreasonable.

CHAPTER 60: ESTABLISHING THE INNUMERABLE [MENTAL FACTORS] IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS SECTION OF THE GROUP ON THE TRUTH OF SUFFERING

Mind, mentation, and consciousness are one in essence but differ in name. A dharma capable of cognizing an object is called mind.

Question: If so, then feeling, perception, formations, and the other mental factors should also be called mind, since they are all capable of cognizing objects?

Answer: Feeling, perception, formations, and the like are all differentiated names for mind. As stated in the Factors of the Path, a single “mindfulness” has five names: foundation of mindfulness, faculty of mindfulness, power of mindfulness, enlightenment factor of mindfulness, and right mindfulness. Diligence and the like are also so.

Moreover, a single uncontaminated wisdom has many different names, such as knowledge of suffering and knowledge of its origin. Again, a single Dharma of concentration is also called dhyana, liberation, or sphere of mastery. Thus, the mind is one; it merely receives different names according to the occasion.

Therefore, one knows that there is only a single mind. Why is this? As a sutra states: “This person’s mind is liberated from the taint of sensual desire; his mind is liberated from the taint of existence and the taint of ignorance.” If mental factors existed separately, it ought to say that the mental factors were liberated.

Again, a sutra states: “When the Buddha knows that the minds of sentient beings are joyful, pliant, harmonious, and capable of attaining liberation, only then does he teach them the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths.” Mental factors are not mentioned here. Again, a sutra states: “Because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled; because the mind is purified, sentient beings are purified.” It also says: “If a bhiksu enters the fourth dhyana and attains a purified and immovable mind, he then knows according to reality the Noble Truth of suffering and the truths of its origin, cessation, and the path.” Again, among the twelve links of dependent origination, it is said that formations condition consciousness.

It is also said that the six constituents constitute the person. It is also said that nothing is as light and readily turned as the mind. Again, a sutra states: “The messenger goes to the lord within the city and reports the truth; after reporting it, he returns.” The lord is the mind.

It also speaks of the body of consciousness within but does not say that there are mental factors. It is also said that the conjunction of three things is called contact. If mental factors existed, it would not be called a conjunction of three; yet three are indeed spoken of.

Therefore, one knows that there is only mind and that no separate mental factors exist.

CHAPTER 61: ESTABLISHING THE EXISTENCE OF MENTAL FACTORS

Question: Mind is one thing, and the dharmas of mental factors are another. Why is this? Because mind and the dharmas of mental factors are mutually associated.

If there were no mental factors, there would be no association; yet association truly exists. Therefore, one knows that the dharmas of mental factors exist. In your view, you may say that one mind is associated with another mind.

This is unreasonable. Why? Because a sutra states: “The mind travels alone, travels far, lies hidden, and is without form.” Here, only things of the same kind are excluded.

Although the mind travels together with mental factors, it is still said to travel alone. It is like saying that a bhiksu dwells alone: although insects and animals may be present, because they are not of the same kind, he is still said to dwell alone by himself. Therefore, one knows that mind is not associated with another mind; yet association truly exists.

Thus, one knows that mental factors exist. Moreover, mind is included within seven dhatus, one ayatana, and one skandha, whereas mental factors are included within one dhatu, one ayatana, and three skandhas. Moreover, mind serves as the basis for mental factors.

As a sutra states: “All these dharmas of mental factors depend upon the mind in their activity.” Furthermore, if there were no mental factors, there would be no five skandhas, which is untenable. Moreover, these two arise differently: mind arises from two, whereas mental factors arise from three. As a sutra states: “Dependent upon the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises.

The conjunction of these three things is called contact; conditioned by contact, feeling arises.” It also says: “With the aggregation of name-and-form, consciousness aggregates; with the aggregation of contact and feeling, feeling aggregates.” Moreover, the dharmas of mental factors are associated with that upon which they depend because they share the same object. Within a single lifetime, minds are not so, for they are distinct.

Therefore, one knows that mind is one thing and the dharmas of mental factors another. Again, among the four reliances it is said: Rely upon wisdom, not upon consciousness. If wisdom were consciousness, how could this reliance be stated?

Therefore, one knows that wisdom is not consciousness. Moreover, the Buddha spoke of the dharmas of mental factors. He said that what arises from mind and depends upon mind is called a mental factor.

Furthermore, the Buddha never stated the doctrine that only mind exists and mental factors do not. Another person could likewise say that only mental factors exist and mind does not.

If you use terminology to refute mental factors, I can likewise use terminology to refute mind. Moreover, because their functions differ, the characteristics of the various dharmas differ, just as water can moisten and fire can burn. In the same way, because feeling and the others have different functions, one knows that they have different characteristics.

Moreover, the sutras all say that discernment arises within the mind. Thus, one knows that mental factors differ from mind, for it is unreasonable that mind itself should arise within mind. Again, it is said that because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled, and because the mind is purified, sentient beings are purified.

If there were only mind, there would be no cause for defilement or purification. If this person were not defiled by ignorance and purified by luminous wisdom, it would follow that the mind defiles and purifies itself, which is untenable. Therefore, the dharmas of mental factors exist.

CHAPTER 62: MENTAL FACTORS ARE NOT NONEXISTENT

Although you say that what can take dharmas as objects is called mind, and that distinctions within mind are called mental factors, as stated in the Factors of the Path, this is unreasonable. Why? Because a sutra states: “The characteristic of mind is distinct, and the characteristics of mental factors are distinct.” Cognizing and distinguishing is the characteristic of consciousness; experiencing suffering and pleasure is the characteristic of feeling; apprehending distinctions is the characteristic of perception; and initiating action is the characteristic of formations.

Thus, one knows that mind is distinct and mental factors are also distinct. You say that the mind is liberated. This is unreasonable, for the sutras all say that because ignorance is abandoned, wisdom is liberated; they do not speak only of the mind being liberated.

Moreover, because mind is predominant, only mind is mentioned. Again, because worldly people generally know of mind but do not know the dharmas of mental factors, the Buddha spoke more often of mind. Furthermore, in this sutra the Buddha employed an incomplete expression; this statement is precisely such a case.

It is like the sutra saying: “Bhiksus, if you can sever one dharma, I assure you that you will attain the path of the Anagamin.” The dharma referred to is sensual desire, but in truth it is not the case that sensual desire alone must be severed. This matter is the same. Statements concerning a joyful mind and the like are answered in this way as well.

You speak of the two dharmas, internal and external. This too is unreasonable. When it is said that externally there are name-and-form, mental factors are thereby included; because they are subsumed under the external, they are called external.

Moreover, here the Buddha speaks of three things: within there is the body of consciousness, meaning consciousness together with the faculties; externally there is name-and-form, meaning the sense objects. You speak of the body of consciousness. This too is unreasonable.

This sutra says: “All external characteristics,” which refers to mental factors. You say that the conjunction of three things is called contact. This is unreasonable.

Because contact serves as a cause for mental factors such as feeling, it is therefore spoken of separately.

CHAPTER 63: MENTAL FACTORS DO NOT EXIST

Answer: You say that because there is association, the dharmas of mental factors exist. This is unreasonable. Why?

Because all dharmas proceed separately—as will be explained extensively later—there is no association. The statement that the mind travels alone is also answered in this way: it does not exclude things of the same kind but excludes the dharmas of mental factors. You say that because they are included under different categories, mental factors exist.

The composer of that treatise established these terms himself; the Buddha’s sutras do not say that they are included under one another. Therefore, this argument is invalid. You speak of a basis.

According to your view, mind-consciousness depends upon mind, yet merely because it depends upon mind, it is not thereby called a mental factor. Likewise, when mind depends upon mind, it cannot for that reason receive a different name. You say that otherwise there would be no five skandhas.

This is unreasonable. I maintain that because the mind has distinct aspects, it is sometimes called feeling, sometimes perception, and so forth. You maintain that separate mental factors constitute three skandhas.

I likewise maintain that the mind itself constitutes three skandhas. You say that they arise differently. This is unreasonable.

If mind and the dharmas of mental factors arise together, why say that mind arises from two and mental factors from three? If only mind were being discussed, the statement would still be reasonable. Why?

Because the person first speaks of cognition and afterward speaks of perception and the others. You say that because they are associated with the same object and occur in the same lifetime, one knows that they are distinct. This has already been refuted, for there is no association.

You say that one should rely upon wisdom rather than consciousness. I say that mind is of two kinds: one is called wisdom, and the other is called consciousness. Therefore, within the mind one relies upon wisdom and not upon consciousness.

You say that the Buddha called dharmas arising in dependence upon mind “mental factors.” Dharmas arising from mind are called mental factors; because mind arises from mind, it too is called a mental factor.

You say that the Buddha likewise did not state that these mental factors do not exist. I, too, do not say that there are no dharmas of mental factors; I merely say that they are called mental factors on account of distinctions within the mind. Furthermore, if a statement accords with reason, then even what cannot properly be called a statement may be called one; if it does not accord with reason, then although it has been stated, it is as though it had not been stated.

Therefore, one cannot properly take “having been stated” as a reason. Moreover, we shall explain the meaning of the arising of mind and mental factors from the mind itself. Because they give rise to the aggregation of a body in a subsequent life and are similar to the mind, they are also called mind.

Furthermore, because the mind and mental factors are both born from the mind, they are called mental factors. If someone asserts that dharmas of mental factors alone exist, that person must explain the meaning of the term “dharmas of mental factors”; but in truth, it cannot properly be explained. Therefore, this is not a valid reason.

Your statement that what is produced differs from the cognition born of mind is answered in the same way. Why? Because I hold that, owing to distinctions within the mind, the karma produced differs, and that when a mind subsequently arises within the mind, it is called cognition born of mind.

You say that defilement and purity would have no cause. This is unreasonable. Although there are no separate dharmas of mental factors, defilement and purity nevertheless exist.

Furthermore, because they have no distinct characteristics, there are no separate dharmas of mental factors. Why? You maintain that because they are associated with the mind, they are called mental factors; but associated dharmas do not exist.

This will be explained extensively below. Therefore, there are no mental factors existing separately from the mind.

CHAPTER 64: CLARIFICATION OF THE ABSENCE OF NUMEROUS FACTORS

You say that mental factors exist because they have distinct characteristics. This is unreasonable. Why?

Whether consciousness or cognition, their characteristics are the same and without distinction. The mind’s consciousness of form is itself called cognition, and is also called perception and so forth. As people in the world say, “You recognize this person,” which itself means that you know the person; and experiencing suffering or pleasure is likewise itself knowing.

Therefore, one should understand that consciousness itself is feeling and perception. If these dharmas had definitely distinct characteristics, they would now have to be stated; but in truth, they cannot be stated. Hence, one should know that they have no distinct characteristics.

You say that wisdom is liberated. This is unreasonable, because there is no basis for such a claim. Wherever a mind is defiled, ignorance is also present; within this aggregation, defilement and ignorance are both associated with one another.

If it is said that ignorance defiles wisdom while defilement defiles the mind, there is no basis for this. Likewise, the claims that wisdom is liberated through separation from ignorance and that the mind is liberated through separation from defilement are both without basis. Furthermore, this sutra is called one of provisional meaning.

As a sutra states: “Through separation from the three kinds of outflows, the mind is liberated.” Therefore, one should know that the mind is also liberated through separation from ignorance. If it is said that the mind is liberated through separation from defilement, this statement is restrictive. If the mind is liberated through separation from defilement, that is ultimate cessation.

If the mind is liberated from defilement, while wisdom is liberated from ignorance, then through separation from anger and the other afflictions, what is it that becomes liberated? This must be answered. One should therefore know that apart from the mind, nothing is liberated; hence, only the mind exists.

You say that only the mind is mentioned because it is preeminent. In what sense is the mind preeminent, while wisdom and the other dharmas are not? You say that people in the world mostly know the mind, and therefore only the mind is mentioned.

People in the world also commonly know suffering and pleasure; feeling and the other factors should therefore have been mentioned.

You say that such sutras exist. Why, then, do they not mention only mental factors, but mention only the mind? You say that only one dharma is eliminated.

This statement is reasonable, because according to whichever affliction is most abundant in sentient beings or habitually obscures their minds, the Buddha teaches that single dharma; when that dharma is eliminated, the others are naturally eliminated as well. Therefore, this is not a valid reason. You say that mentioning names and characteristics is itself mentioning mental factors.

This is merely your own imagined discrimination; the sutra does not express that meaning. If you yourself give rise to such imagined discrimination, why not say that, because names and characteristics are mentioned, the objects of the mind are thereby mentioned? That would be reasonable.

You say that contact, feeling, and the other factors serve as causes for mental factors. This statement entails many errors, because although they are all associated dharmas, you say that contact is the cause of feeling and the other factors, but not that feeling and the other factors are causes of contact. There are errors of this kind.

Therefore, one should know that only the mind exists and that there are no separate mental factors.

CHAPTER 65: THE ABSENCE OF ASSOCIATION

There are no associated dharmas. Why? Since there are no dharmas of mental factors, with what could the mind be associated?

Furthermore, the characteristics of feeling and the other factors cannot occur simultaneously. Moreover, cause and effect do not occur at the same time. Consciousness is the cause of perception and the other dharmas.

These dharmas do not coexist at a single time; therefore, there is no association. Furthermore, the Buddha taught within the profound Dharma of causes and conditions: because this occurs, that comes to arise. Moreover, as with a seed, sprout, tree, branches, leaves, flowers, fruit, and so forth, cause and effect are visibly observed to succeed one another.

Therefore, consciousness and the other factors must likewise arise in sequence. If you think that greed and the other afflictions arise simultaneously because they coexist with material form, this is unreasonable. Because material form does not possess the nature of conscious knowing, it is incapable of taking an object.

Mind and mental factors, however, have objects and conscious awareness; therefore, they cannot coexist at one time, since there cannot be many acts of conscious knowing. Furthermore, one body is called a sentient being because it has one conscious awareness. If many dharmas of mental factors existed within a single thought-moment, there would be many acts of conscious knowing; and because there would be many acts of conscious knowing, there ought to be many persons.

But this is impossible. Therefore, feeling and the other dharmas do not exist within a single thought-moment. Furthermore, why do the six consciousnesses not arise simultaneously?

Question: Is it because each consciousness awaits the sequential condition for its arising that they do not arise simultaneously?

Answer: Because they are obstructed by the faculties, they depend upon a single sequential condition; but could not the six consciousnesses arise successively within that sequence? One should understand that because the cause comes first and the effect afterward, they arise successively. Furthermore, a sutra states: “When the eye sees forms, it does not apprehend their signs.” Apprehending signs is the activity of perception.

If the Buddha acknowledged the activity of consciousness while prohibiting the activity of perception, one should know that consciousness can exist without perception. If a person apprehends a sign, the seeing has already apprehended it; this is no longer the moment of seeing. Therefore, one should know that consciousness and the other factors arise successively.

Furthermore, a sutra states: “Having seen a form with the eye, one then reflects upon it with pleasure.” Here, too, the activity of consciousness is stated first, and feeling and the other factors afterward. Furthermore, a sutra speaks of “seeing merely what is seen,” and so forth. Therefore, one should know that not every mind possesses feeling and the other factors.

This is also quite clear from the characteristics of the five consciousnesses. Why? If, within eye-consciousness, a person cannot apprehend the sign of an enemy, the sign of a friend, or the sign of one who is neither enemy nor friend, then there is no perception; nor is there sorrow or joy, because there is no discrimination.

Some say: “Here, there is also no greed or any of the other afflictions.” Therefore, one should know that there is no volition. Because volition is capable of seeking a body in a subsequent life, it is called volition. This matter will be discussed below.

Therefore, one should know that the five consciousnesses likewise contain no volition. Furthermore, various people say that the five consciousnesses are incapable of discrimination. How, then, could initial and sustained thought be present within them?

Because thought and discrimination are coarse at first and subtle afterward, they are called initial and sustained thought. Moreover, if initial and sustained thought existed within the five consciousnesses, then, as in the statement, “I wish to know you,” their basis would arise entirely from thought and cognition. In that case, when there is cognition there is no desire; and when there is knowing, how could there still be cognition?

Therefore, one must acknowledge that the five consciousnesses are without perception, initial thought, and sustained thought. Why? Since the five consciousnesses do not discriminate whether one is male or female, nor do they discriminate feeling and the other factors, what could they discriminate therein?

Furthermore, you say: “The five consciousnesses successively give rise to mental consciousness because the five consciousnesses do not discriminate.” If discrimination existed within the five consciousnesses, what need would there be for them successively to give rise to mental consciousness? Moreover, initial thought and sustained thought do not arise within a single thought-moment, because the coarse and the subtle are opposed to each other.

It is like ringing a bell: the first sound is initial thought, and the succeeding sounds are sustained thought. The analogy is likewise. If initial thought and sustained thought existed within the five consciousnesses, their functions and activities would have to be explained, but in truth they cannot be explained.

Therefore, one should know that mind and mental factors arise successively. Furthermore, delusion and wisdom are opposed to each other and cannot coexist at the same time; how, then, could there be both knowing and not knowing in a single thought-moment? Moreover, a single thought-moment cannot accommodate two doubts.

Why is this? Whether it is a bare tree or a person cannot both be apprehended in a single thought-moment, because the activity of mind lacks such power. Furthermore, some say that among the mental factors, recollection takes a past object as its condition.

How, then, could the present mind possess it? Again, one may think, “This person is my spiritual friend, for he has benefited me before,” and, after thinking this, joy arises. How could this occur within a single thought-moment?

Furthermore, how could desire and non-desire exist in a single thought-moment? As the sutra says: “If bhiksus gladly desire My Dharma, the Dharma will increase; if they do not gladly desire it, the Dharma will diminish.” How could these occur in one thought-moment? Furthermore, if the mental factors existed within a single thought-moment, the dharmas would become confused.

Why is this? Because within one mind there would be knowing and not knowing, doubt and absence of doubt, faith and absence of faith, diligence and indolence, and so forth. There would be such faults.

Furthermore, all mental factors should then exist within a single mind. What could prevent suffering, pleasure, greed, anger, and the like from existing within one mind? If you say that suffering and pleasure and the rest do not exist within one mind because they oppose one another, then knowing and not knowing and the rest likewise oppose one another and therefore should also not exist within one mind.

Thus, there is no association.

Furthermore, in the teaching on the seven factors of enlightenment, the Buddha explained the mental factors in succession: “When a bhiksu cultivates the four foundations of mindfulness, at that time the mindfulness factor of enlightenment is cultivated. With the mind established in mindfulness, he investigates the dharmas. Because he investigates the dharmas, diligence arises.

Through the power of diligence, he is able to gather wholesome dharmas, and pure joy arises in the mind. Because the mind is joyful, he attains tranquility. Because he attains tranquility, the mind becomes collected.

Because the mind is collected, he attains concentration. Because he attains concentration, he is able to abandon greed and sorrow.” Because greed and sorrow are abandoned, one thereby knows that the mental factors arise successively. Furthermore, the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path are also explained in succession: “When right view is attained, from right view arises right intention, and so forth, through right concentration.” Again, in the Sutra on Succession, the Buddha told Ananda: “One who observes the precepts need not form the wish to be free from anxiety and remorse, for it is natural that the mind of one who observes the precepts is free from anxiety and remorse.

One who is free from anxiety and remorse need not form the wish that the mind become gladdened, for it is natural that a mind free from anxiety and remorse becomes gladdened. When gladdened, the mind rejoices; when the mind rejoices, the body becomes tranquil; when the body is tranquil, one experiences pleasure; when one experiences pleasure, the mind becomes collected; when the mind is collected, one attains true knowledge; when true knowledge is attained, disenchantment arises; when disenchantment arises, one is liberated.” Thus, one knows that the mental dharmas arise successively.

Furthermore, in the Sutra on the Eight Awakenings of Great Beings, they are also explained in succession: “If a bhiksu cultivates fewness of desires, he becomes content; when content, he dwells in seclusion; when dwelling in seclusion, he is diligent; when diligent, he possesses right mindfulness; when he possesses right mindfulness, the mind becomes collected; when the mind is collected, he attains wisdom; when he attains wisdom, he brings conceptual proliferation to an end.” Furthermore, in the Sutra on the Seven Purifications, they are also explained in succession: “Purification of virtue leads to purification of mind; purification of mind leads to purification of view; purification of view leads to purification by overcoming doubt;

purification by overcoming doubt leads to purification of knowledge and vision concerning what is and is not the path; purification of knowledge and vision concerning what is and is not the path leads to purification of knowledge and vision of the way; purification of knowledge and vision of the way leads to purification of knowledge and vision through abandoning.” Furthermore, the Sutra on Causes and Conditions also explains in succession: “Conditioned by the eye and forms, the factor of delusion gives rise to false recollection.” Here, delusion is ignorance.

What the deluded person seeks is craving, and what the person driven by craving does is karma. All cases are like this.

Furthermore, in the Sutra on the Great Causes, craving is also explained successively as the first of nine dharmas: “Conditioned by craving, seeking arises; conditioned by seeking, acquisition arises; conditioned by acquisition, evaluation arises; conditioned by evaluation, attachment arises; conditioned by attachment, clinging arises; conditioned by clinging, appropriation arises; conditioned by appropriation, avarice arises; conditioned by avarice, guarding arises; conditioned by guarding, there come the taking up of rods and weapons, disputes, and all the manifold sufferings and afflictions.” Furthermore, the dharmas of a stream-enterer are also explained in succession: “One should associate with good people and thereby hear the true Dharma.

Because one hears the true Dharma, right mindfulness can arise; through the causes and conditions of right mindfulness, one can cultivate the Path.” Furthermore, the sutra says: “Conditioned by the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the conjunction of these three is called contact.” If mind and mental factors arose simultaneously, there would be no conjunction of the three. If they each arise separately, there is a conjunction of the three.

For all the foregoing reasons, there is no association.

CHAPTER 66: ASSOCIATION EXISTS

Question: Association does exist. Why is this? When a person regards feeling as the Self, consciousness is the mind that depends upon it; this is because there is association.

The aggregate of perception and the others are likewise. If there were no association, how could this be so? Furthermore, the sutra says: “Conditioned by the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; from the conjunction of the three, contact arises, and together with it arise feeling, perception, formations, and the rest.” Within these dharmas there are many kinds of conventional names, such as sentient being, deva, human, male, female, great, small, and so forth; all these names are based upon the aggregates.

If mind and mental factors arose successively, a person would be based upon only two aggregates and should not be based upon the five aggregates. Why is this? Because a person is not designated on the basis of past and future aggregates, which are distinct from the present ones.

You say that the five aggregates do not exist in the present; how, then, can devas, humans, and the rest be designated on the basis of the five aggregates? Yet here they are based upon all the aggregates, not merely two aggregates. Therefore, the five aggregates bear the designation “sentient being.” Furthermore, the sutra speaks of the meaning of association, namely, faith associated with faculty and knowledge.

Furthermore, the sutra says that together with contact arise feeling, perception, volition, and the rest. It also speaks of the five factors of the first dhyana. It further says that feeling and the rest are stations of consciousness.

If consciousness were not associated with them, how could consciousness abide in such dharmas as feeling? This abiding means abiding in dependence. Why is this?

Because consciousness itself is not said to be a station of consciousness. Furthermore, the sutra says: “The mind and these dharmas all arise from the mind and then depend upon the mind.” It also says that throughout the long night, the minds of sentient beings are defiled by greed, anger, and the rest. If there were no association, how could they be defiled?

Furthermore, because mind and mental factors are weak in nature, only by depending upon one another can they take an object as their condition, just as a bundle of reeds stands upright only by mutual support. Furthermore, the sutra says: “When the mind is agitated, one should not cultivate the three factors of enlightenment—investigation of dharmas, diligence, and joy—because they would further increase its agitation. Instead, one should cultivate the three factors of enlightenment—tranquility, concentration, and equanimity—because they restrain agitation.

Mindfulness is capable of harmonizing them all. If the mind is timid and sunken, one should not cultivate the three factors of enlightenment—tranquility, concentration, and equanimity—because they would increase its withdrawal and sinking. One should cultivate the three factors—investigation of dharmas, diligence, and joy—because they can arouse the mind.

Mindfulness is capable of harmonizing them all.” Furthermore, some masters of the treatises say that the dharmas conducive to enlightenment should be cultivated simultaneously and must not be separated from one another. Therefore, one knows that association exists.

CHAPTER 67: NON-ASSOCIATION

You say that one sees feeling as the spirit. This is unreasonable. Deluded ordinary beings mistakenly give rise to such a view because they cannot distinguish that this is feeling and that this is the consciousness upon which it depends.

If they were able to make such a distinction, they could also enter into the principle of emptiness. Unable to distinguish the continuity of mind, they speak only according to conventional language; therefore, what they say is deluded and cannot be trusted. You say that because of the skandhas, it is called a person.

It is because the five skandhas continue in succession that they are called a person, and hence the expression “the skandhas” is used. Just as people in the world speak of a person who is happy, a person who suffers, and a person who is neither happy nor suffering, although the three feelings do not exist simultaneously, so it is with the skandhas. You say that faith is associated with faculty and wisdom.

The sutras also speak of things being associated, as when they say that two bhikkhus are associated in performing one task. They also say that association with enemies is suffering and separation from loved ones is suffering. In your doctrine, form is not associated; yet conventionally it is also called associated.

So it is with wisdom and faith. Faith is capable of believing in impermanence and the like, while wisdom follows the mind and clearly comprehends them. Together they accomplish one task and therefore are called associated.

You say that immediately upon contact there arise feeling and the other constituents of a sentient being. This is unreasonable. In the world, things that occur with a slight interval between them are also described as occurring together, as when one says that one went together with a disciple.

It is also said that when King Murdhaja conceived a thought, he immediately arrived in heaven. This matter is the same. When the consciousness of an ordinary being reaches its objective condition, consciousness necessarily arises in sequence.

Following consciousness, perception arises; following perception, feeling arises; following feeling, volition arises; and from volition, sorrow, joy, and the like arise, followed by greed, anger, and delusion. Yet this is spoken of as arising immediately. You speak of the five factors of the First Dhyana.

This stage of dhyana possesses five factors, but they do not occur simultaneously, just as there are three kinds of feeling in the Desire Realm. Why is this? Because the dharmas are stated first and the stage afterward.

Moreover, initial application and sustained application cannot be associated with one another, as has already been answered. You speak of that abode of consciousness. This sutra speaks of the objects on which consciousness depends, not the places in which it abides.

How is this known? In this very sutra it is said that consciousness abides because it takes form as its object and delights in and becomes imbued with it. Although you say that consciousness takes consciousness as its object and abides, there would then have to be five abodes of consciousness.

This is unreasonable. Why? Because when consciousness has a slight cognition and has cognized an object, the mind subsequently develops and so forth; craving then arises therein.

Only because craving arises through causes and conditions is it called an abode of consciousness. Therefore, one should not say that consciousness itself is an abode of consciousness. Moreover, among the seven abodes of consciousness, consciousness is also spoken of as an abode of consciousness.

One should carefully consider this sutra and not cling merely to its words. For example, it is said that faith enables one to cross the river, but this statement is incomplete; in truth, one crosses by relying on wisdom. This matter should likewise be understood in this way.

You say that mental factors depend upon the mind. This is unreasonable. The mind first cognizes an object, and perception and the other factors arise afterward.

Moreover, the sutra says, “Feeling and the other factors depend upon the mind.” This does not mean that mental factors depend upon the mind in the way that a painting depends upon a wall. You say that mental factors depend upon one another like a bundle of reeds. This contradicts the sutras.

Why should mental factors depend upon the mind while the mind does not depend upon mental factors? If you say that, because the mind arises first and is predominant, mental factors must depend upon it, then you have established my position, for when the mind arises, no mental factors are present. You say that because the afflictions defile the mind, it is known that there is association.

This has no principle at all. If the mind is originally pure but is defiled when greed and the other afflictions come upon it, then a pure dharma could become impure, which would violate the defining characteristics of dharmas. It has also previously been said that the nature of mind is originally pure but is defiled by adventitious dusts, and that because the mind is pure, sentient beings are pure.

Would sentient beings, then, also have to be associated with them? If sentient beings cannot be associated with them, then greed and the other afflictions likewise cannot be associated with the mind. Because impurity and the like arise within the successive continuity of mind, defiling the minds in that continuity, it is called a defiled mind.

Thus it is said that one is liberated from a defiled mind. If a pure mind arises within this mental continuity, it is called liberation. This matter is the same.

Although clouds, mist, and the like are not associated with the sun and moon, they can nevertheless obscure them. Greed and the other afflictions are the same: although they are not associated with the mind, they can nevertheless defile it. Moreover, because smoke, clouds, mist, and the like can conceal the sun and moon, the latter are said to be obscured.

Greed and the other afflictions are likewise called defilements because they obstruct the pure mind.

Question: Clouds and mist and the sun and moon coexist for only a moment, whereas the afflictions and the mind are not like this. Therefore, this analogy is inappropriate.

Answer: Since they are alike in causing obstruction, the point has been established and there is no fault. Because these afflictions can defile the continuity of mind, it is called defilement. You say that mental factors arise from the mind and then depend together upon that mind.

This has already been answered. You say that the mind and mental factors are weak by nature. Because they perish from moment to moment, they are called weak; it is not that they can engage their objective conditions only by assisting one another.

If they assisted one another, they should be able to remain for a short while, but in truth this is not observed. If they possessed the power to assist one another, why would they need to be associated? You say that the seven factors of awakening operate together.

This statement means that three factors should be cultivated according to the occasion, not that they occur within a single moment of thought. As Sariputra said, “I have mastery of the seven factors of awakening and can enter them at will.” When the mind is agitated, one should then cultivate tranquility and the other two factors. The Buddha also taught that the factors of awakening are practiced sequentially.

Some say that the constituents of bodhi are cultivated simultaneously. This is unreasonable. If the thirty-seven factors were cultivated simultaneously, one would have to cultivate simultaneously the two kinds of faith, the five kinds of mindfulness, and the rest.

If you mean that whatever factor is being cultivated is thereby cultivated separately, then, because other practitioners can cultivate such attainments as the Second Dhyana, this should be called inseparable cultivation. Furthermore, the simultaneous cultivation of the thirty-seven factors is without principle. Why?

Because within a single moment of thought one cannot cultivate so many dharmas.

CHAPTER 68: MULTIPLICITY OF MINDS

Question: It has already been understood that no distinct mental factors exist and that there is no association. Now, is this mind one or many? Some say that the mind is one, but becomes many according to its arising.

Answer: There are many minds. Why? Because cognition is called mind, yet the cognition of form differs from the cognition of fragrance and the other objects; therefore, there are many minds.

Furthermore, the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness are different: it awaits light, space, and various other conditions, whereas ear-consciousness does not. The three other sensory consciousnesses arise only when their objects come into contact with their faculties, while mental consciousness arises through many conditions. Therefore, it is known that they are not one.

Furthermore, if a consciousness that cognizes the characteristics of one object always remained the same, how could it then cognize a different object? Only when many minds arise can many things be known. Thus erroneous and correct cognitions differ; certainty and doubt differ; wholesome, unwholesome, and neither wholly wholesome nor wholly unwholesome cognitions all differ.

Within the wholesome there are further distinctions, such as dhyana, samadhi, liberation, the four immeasurables, and the superknowledges. Within the unwholesome there are also distinctions, such as sensual desire, anger, and delusion. Within what is both wholesome and unwholesome there are also distinctions concerning the past, future, and so forth.

Some cognitions can initiate bodily karma and verbal karma. Some initiate modes of deportment; some unite and some separate. Because their successive conditions and dominant conditions each differ, the various minds also differ.

Furthermore, because the various kinds of feeling—pure and impure—differ, the mind also differs. Furthermore, because the actions performed differ, the mind differs. Moreover, the natures of pure and impure minds are each different. If the mind’s nature were pure, it could not be defiled, just as the sunlight, being originally pure, could never be defiled. If its nature were impure, it could not be made pure, just as the fine hairs of animals whose nature is black could never be made white. Yet in giving and the like, there truly is a pure mind, while in killing and the like, there truly is an impure mind. Therefore, the mind is not one.

Furthermore, because the various feelings of suffering, pleasure, and neither suffering nor pleasure differ, the mind also is not one. As it is said, “Through consciousness, what does a bhiksu know? He knows suffering, pleasure, and neither suffering nor pleasure.” Furthermore, if the mind were one, a single consciousness should be capable of apprehending all objects. Yet many minds are spoken of because consciousness arises in dependence upon the respective faculties; therefore, it cannot apprehend all objects. If the mind were one, what could obstruct it from apprehending all objects? Thus, one knows that there are many minds.

Furthermore, because the objects apprehended differ, that which apprehends them also differs. Some say that a person can know his own mind, but how could something know its own substance? Just as the eye cannot see itself, a knife cannot cut itself, and a finger cannot touch itself, so the mind is not one.

Furthermore, the Monkey Simile Sutra says: “Just as a monkey, upon releasing one branch, immediately grasps another branch.” The mind is likewise, constantly arising anew and ceasing. Furthermore, if the mind were one, the statement that there are six consciousnesses would be invalidated. Furthermore, a sutra says: “The body may remain for ten years, but the mind arises and ceases from moment to moment.” It also says: “One should contemplate the abiding mind as impermanent.” This mind is said to abide because its moment-to-moment continuity does not cease.

Furthermore, just as a single act of cognition cannot apprehend a second time, so too consciousness does not recur with respect to the same object. Furthermore, just as the fire in grass cannot move over into wood, so the eye-consciousness cannot enter the ear. Therefore, one knows that there are many minds.

CHAPTER 69: ONE MIND

Question: The mind is one. Why is this so? A sutra says: “Throughout the long night, this mind has been defiled by greed and the other afflictions.” If it were a different mind, it could not be called defiled. Furthermore, the Garland Sutra says: “If the mind constantly cultivates faith, morality, giving, learning, and wisdom, then after death one will be reborn in a higher realm.” Furthermore, a sutra on meditation says: “One who has attained the first dhyana can proceed from the first dhyana to the second dhyana because the mind has become harmonious and pliant throughout.” Furthermore, the Chapter on Mind says: “This mind is ever restless, like a fish out of water; therefore, you should destroy Mara’s army.” One should thus know that the mind is one, moving from here and running there.

Furthermore, a bhiksu says in the Miscellaneous Treasury: “Within the cave with five entrances, a monkey leaps and dances. Monkey, remain still for a moment; do not be as you were before.” One should therefore know that there is a single mind moving about within the cave of the body, whose five faculties are its entrances. What exists now is precisely what existed before; therefore, it says: “Do not be as you were before.”

It is also said that this mind ranges everywhere, like sunlight shining upon all. The wise can subdue it, as an elephant is controlled with a hook. Therefore, one should know that the mind is one, roaming freely and taking the various objects as its conditions.

Furthermore, because there is no self, it is the mind that initiates karma. Because the mind is one, it can initiate various karmic actions and afterward undergo their retribution. The mind that dies is the mind that is reborn; the mind that is bound is the mind that is liberated; it itself undergoes what it has produced. The mind is capable of recollection; therefore, one knows that the mind is one.

Furthermore, because the mind is one, it is capable of cultivation and accumulation. If it ceased from moment to moment, it would have no power to accumulate. Furthermore, the Buddha-Dharma teaches no-self, yet because the mind is one, it is called the characteristic of a sentient being. If there were many minds, there would be no sentient being. Furthermore, the left sees and the right knows; could it be that one thing sees and another knows? Therefore, one knows that the mind is one, seeing and knowing by itself.

CHAPTER 70: NOT MANY MINDS

Although you say that form and the other objects are known differently, this is unreasonable. Why? Because if the mind is one, it can perform many kinds of activity, just as one person in a house with openings in five directions apprehends objects everywhere. This very mind, abiding in the eye and awaiting such conditions as light, is then able to see forms. Just as this same person, while in another place and waiting for a friend, is still the same person, so this very mind knows different things under different circumstances.

Just as this same person was previously one who knew and later becomes one who does not know, so erroneous knowledge can subsequently become right knowledge. Just as this same person was previously pure and later becomes impure, so uncertain knowledge can become certain knowledge. Just as this same person previously doubted and later becomes resolved, so an unwholesome mind can subsequently become wholesome or indeterminate.

Just as this person may think wholesome thoughts, unwholesome thoughts, or indeterminate thoughts, this very mind can perform the different modes of deportment—coming and going. Just as this same person performs various activities and passes through the various modes of deportment, so a pure mind becomes impure, and an impure mind becomes pure. Just as this same person was previously pure and later becomes impure, this very mind may be associated with pleasure and later associated with suffering.

Just as this same person was previously happy and later becomes one who suffers, it is therefore said that one mind performs many activities.

You say that because one consciousness does not apprehend all six kinds of objects, there cannot be one mind. This is unreasonable. I maintain that consciousness differs because the faculties differ. When consciousness abides in the eye, it can apprehend only forms and cannot apprehend other objects; the other consciousnesses are likewise.

You say that the apprehender and the apprehended differ. This is unreasonable. The mental dharma can know its own substance, just as a lamp illuminates itself and other things, and just as one who calculates can calculate for himself as well as for others. In this way, the one mind can know its own substance and can also know others.

You cite the simile of the monkey. This is unreasonable. Just as a single monkey releases one branch and immediately grasps another, so the mind releases one conditioned object and apprehends another condition. All that you have said concerning initiating karma oneself and personally undergoing its retribution has thereby already been answered. Why? Because if the mind were different, it would follow that one entity acts while another undergoes the result, one dies while another is reborn, and there would be errors such as these. Therefore, one knows that the mind is one.

CHAPTER 71: NOT ONE MIND

Answer: You say that the mind is one and is continually defiled by greed and the other afflictions. This is unreasonable. Within the continuum of mind, one constantly perceives a single characteristic.

It is like saying that yesterday evening’s wind is this morning’s wind, that today’s river is the river of former days, or that tomorrow’s lamp is yesterday’s lamp. Just as a tooth that has fallen out and grown again is called a “regrown tooth” because of the similarity, so too, although minds are different, because their continuum is uninterrupted, they are said to be one mind. You speak of recollection.

A person may personally recollect a former mind, but if that former mind has remained until now, what is there to recollect? Moreover, how could one use this mind to recollect this very mind? No cognition of memory can know its own substance.

Therefore, it is not one mind. You speak of cultivation and accumulation. If the mind were always one, how could cultivation bring any benefit?

Because many minds arise successively as inferior, intermediate, and superior, cultivation and accumulation are possible. You say that mind has a single characteristic. If mind had a single characteristic, it would be permanent, and what is permanent would be the true self.

Why? Because only something always one and unchanging could be regarded as one. It is like water being poured in an uninterrupted stream, which the mind mistakenly takes to be one.

It is also like a person with diseased eyes seeing a cluster of hairs and taking it to be one; if someone can distinguish the matter, that person knows the hairs are actually different. Likewise, one of profound wisdom can know that minds are different. Why?

Brahma kings and others, while in delusion, utter such words as: “This body is impermanent, but this consciousness of mind is permanent.” If even Brahma kings and others remain deluded, how much more would other people cling deludedly to permanence? Therefore, one must carefully contemplate all dependently arisen dharmas; only then will that inverted conception cease. You say that the left sees what is on the right.

Through the power of cognition, one consciousness sees something and another knows it, just as one person composes a poem and many other people can understand it. Moreover, those who have become noble ones can know future events that have not yet arisen and do not yet exist, yet noble wisdom can know them. Furthermore, past events are not known through recollection alone; hence one should understand that, through the power of cognition, what has not yet come and does not yet exist can also be known.

This matter will be discussed extensively later.

CHAPTER 72: CLARIFYING THE MULTIPLICITY OF MINDS

You say that one mind performs many actions. This is unreasonable. Why?

Because mind is defined precisely by the meaning of cognition. Yet cognition of visible form differs from cognition of sound; how, then, could these minds be one? Moreover, when a hand is holding a jar, that very hand cannot simultaneously hold another object.

Likewise, when a particular mind apprehends visible form, that very mind can no longer hear sound. Furthermore, this eye-consciousness takes the eye faculty as its support and visible form as its object-condition. These two are impermanent, arising and ceasing from moment to moment; how, then, could eye-consciousness avoid ceasing from moment to moment?

Just as there can be no shadow without a tree, so, because the eye and visible form cease from moment to moment, the supports upon which consciousness arises also cease from moment to moment. A dharma that ceases from moment to moment has no power to travel. Moreover, the various replies have already been given in the Chapter on the Mental Faculty; therefore, the mental faculty does not travel.

Although you say that the real entity abides in the eye and, awaiting light, is able to see, and that this same person is able to see, hear, and so forth, this is unreasonable. Why? In this Treatise we are investigating the true meaning of dharmas, whereas a person is merely a provisional designation and should not be used as an analogy.

Furthermore, if it is necessary to investigate the characteristic of a person, then I say that the skandhas constitute the person. I also say that multiple cognitions involving doubt and the like differ from multiple cognitions involving certainty. One should not take multiple doubtful cognitions to be multiple certain cognitions.

The same applies in every case. You say that consciousness differs because the faculties differ. This is unreasonable.

The faculties are causes and conditions for the arising of consciousness. If consciousness were one, what purpose would multiple faculties serve? You use a lamp and calculation as analogies, but these analogies are inapposite.

A lamp’s substance is not non-illuminating merely because it does not illuminate itself. With the aid of the lamp, darkness is dispelled and eye-consciousness arises. Once eye-consciousness has arisen, it can see the lamp as well as jars and other objects.

Moreover, one who makes calculations can know one’s own visible form and also the visible forms of others; hence this is called mutual knowing. You speak of karma and so forth. The objection concerning karma and the rest has already been answered, so there is no fault here.

Furthermore, if the mind were always one, there would be neither karma nor its recompense. Why? The mind and that upon which it relies are precisely karma.

If the mind were one, how could there be karmic recompense? Bondage, liberation, and so forth are all likewise. Again, you say that one acts while another experiences the result.

This too is unreasonable. Because the skandhas form an uninterrupted continuum, they are neither one nor different. It is only with reference to this that karma and so forth are spoken of; such expressions do not describe the ultimate truth.

Within the continuum of the skandhas, there is no fault in using such names as “this one” and “that one.” Therefore, one should know that there are many minds.

CHAPTER 73: CONSCIOUSNESS ABIDES TEMPORARILY

Question: It has been clarified that there are many minds. Now, do these minds cease from moment to moment, or do they abide for a short time? Some say: Mind abides for a short time.

Why? Because it cognizes visible forms and so forth. If it ceased from moment to moment, it could not cognize them.

Therefore, it is not the case that it does not abide. If it ceased from moment to moment, it certainly could not know such dharmas as visible forms. Why?

Even a flash of lightning, though it abides briefly, cannot be clearly discerned; how much less could something ceasing from moment to moment be clearly discerned? Since clear cognition actually exists now, we thereby know that consciousnesses do not cease from moment to moment. Furthermore, eye-consciousness relies upon the eye faculty and takes visible form as its condition.

Since these two do not change, consciousness likewise does not change. Moreover, the mind possesses sufficient power to apprehend blue and other colors; therefore, one knows that it does not cease from moment to moment. If you maintain that it is because of the uninterrupted continuum that determinate cognition becomes possible, this too is unreasonable.

If each individual mind is incapable of determinate cognition, then even an uninterrupted continuum of them could not clearly cognize anything. Just as one blind person cannot see visible forms, many blind people cannot see them either. If you further maintain: “Just as each individual thread cannot bind an elephant, but many threads gathered together can do so, likewise a single mind cannot attain determinate cognition, but a continuum of minds can,” this too is unreasonable.

Each individual thread possesses a small measure of strength, and when they are joined together, they are capable of binding. But the mind within a single moment possesses not even a small measure of the power of clear cognition. Therefore, one knows that it does not cease from moment to moment.

Furthermore, if the mind ceased from moment to moment, all conditioned karmic actions of the past and future would become useless. Because the mind abides temporarily for a short period, it can cause them to have efficacy. Therefore, one knows that the mind does not cease from moment to moment.

Although it is impermanent, it must abide for a short time.

CHAPTER 74: CONSCIOUSNESS DOES NOT ABIDE

Answer: You say that because the mind has clear cognition, it therefore does not perish moment by moment. This is not reasonable. It is through the power of the characteristics present in the mind that it is capable of definite cognition, not because it abides.

Were it otherwise, one could not definitely cognize matters such as sounds. Why? Because it is presently observed that these things perish moment by moment, yet they are indeed definitely cognized.

Therefore, one knows that the capacity for cognition does not arise from temporarily abiding. Furthermore, that which clearly cognizes is itself the mind: the cognition of blue is not the cognition of yellow. Thus, even if it temporarily abided, the cognition of blue still could not cognize yellow.

Moreover, the moment of cognizing blue is distinct from the moment of cognizing what is not blue. A single dharma should not exist at two times, for a dharma and its time occur together; the same is true of time and the dharma. Furthermore, apprehension is of two kinds: first, definite apprehension; second, indefinite apprehension.

If consciousness did not perish moment by moment, all apprehension should be definite. I maintain that when many successive consciousnesses arise in accordance with one another, apprehension becomes clear; when only a few arise successively, it is unclear. Moreover, whether consciousness apprehends an object slowly or quickly, the mind is not fixed.

You say that the supporting objects and conditions are not different. This point has already been established: since material forms perish moment by moment, the supporting conditions also differ. You say that the mind possesses complete capacity.

Consciousness is capable of apprehending the parts of the body, and therefore it is said to apprehend them completely. Thus, there is no single consciousness capable of apprehending them all. Why?

Before it has apprehended them completely, the mind has already perished in succession; how, then, could there be a mind capable of apprehending everything? You say that activity would be useless. This is not reasonable.

Although a lamp perishes moment by moment, it still performs the function of illumination; although various karmic activities and the wind perish moment by moment, they are still capable of moving things. This consciousness is likewise. Moreover, although lamps and the like perish moment by moment, they can still be apprehended.

Consciousness is likewise: although it perishes moment by moment, it is still capable of apprehension.

Furthermore, all mind, mentation, and consciousness perish moment by moment. Why? Because blue and the other colors appear before one as groups and are capable of rapidly arising and perishing; one therefore knows that consciousness does not abide.

Moreover, a person may sometimes give rise to the thought: “At a single moment, I can apprehend various objects.” Therefore, consciousness does not abide. If consciousness temporarily abided, that person could not give rise to this mistaken thought. Why?

Because when things such as seeds and roots continue successively, they appear to abide temporarily, yet a person does not thereby mistakenly think that sprouts, trees, and the like all exist simultaneously. Therefore, one knows that consciousness perishes moment by moment. Moreover, when a person sees a vase, a recollection of the vase immediately arises.

Since recollection arises only after seeing it, consciousness perishes moment by moment. Furthermore, if the various consciousnesses did not perish moment by moment, a single cognition should be both wrong and right: just as, when seeing and apprehending a person, one would at that very moment also apprehend that which is not a person. Likewise, if doubt were apprehended, certainty would also be apprehended at that very moment, which is impossible.

Therefore, one knows that consciousness perishes moment by moment. Moreover, because there are various discriminations and various causes and conditions, one should know that consciousness perishes moment by moment. Furthermore, the characteristics of sounds continue in succession and perish moment by moment, and cognition arises in relation to them.

Therefore, one knows that the mind perishes moment by moment.

CHAPTER 75: THE SIMULTANEOUS ARISING OF CONSCIOUSNESSES

Question: It has already been clarified that the mind perishes moment by moment. Now, do the various consciousnesses arise simultaneously or successively? Some masters of the treatise say that consciousnesses arise simultaneously.

Why? Because a person can simultaneously apprehend various sensory objects. For example, while seeing a vase, a person also hears music; the nose smells fragrant flowers, while the mouth also savors a fragrant taste; a breeze fans and touches the body, while the person also reflects upon the melody of a song.

Therefore, one knows that the various sensory objects can be apprehended simultaneously. Moreover, if a single consciousness within the body can apprehend pain and pleasure throughout it, then a single visual consciousness should also be capable of apprehending all parts of a tree. But this is impossible.

How could a single consciousness cognize the roots, trunk, branches, leaves, flowers, and fruit altogether? Therefore, one knows that many consciousnesses arise simultaneously and together, apprehending all the various contacts. Moreover, cognition of many kinds of color arises simultaneously, yet cognition of blue is not cognition of yellow.

Therefore, one knows that many consciousnesses arise together at the same time. Furthermore, cognition can arise rapidly in the various parts of the body; while apprehending one part, one can immediately apprehend them all. Moreover, in the Buddha-Dharma there is no single entity possessing parts, so it is impossible for one consciousness to apprehend all the parts.

Therefore, one knows that many consciousnesses can arise simultaneously and apprehend all the parts.

CHAPTER 76: CONSCIOUSNESSES DO NOT ARISE SIMULTANEOUSLY

Answer: You say that the various consciousnesses all arise simultaneously. This is not reasonable. Why?

Because consciousness arises only after awaiting attention. As stated in the sutra: “If the eye-ayatana is unimpaired and the form-ayatana appears within its field, but there is no attention capable of producing consciousness, visual consciousness does not arise.” Therefore, one knows that the various consciousnesses await attention and do not arise simultaneously. Moreover, the arising of all dharmas depends upon karmic causes.

Since minds arise one by one, the retributions of hell and the like are not experienced simultaneously. If minds arose together, one should experience all retributions simultaneously in a single moment, but this is in fact impossible. Therefore, one knows that the various consciousnesses do not arise at the same time.

Moreover, consciousness apprehends objects rapidly, like a firebrand whirled in a circle: because it revolves swiftly, its boundaries cannot be seen. The various consciousnesses are likewise; because their duration is brief, they cannot be distinguished. Furthermore, if the various consciousnesses arose simultaneously, all arising dharmas should likewise arise together in a single thought and at a single time.

What could obstruct them? If so, the arising of all dharmas would require neither effort nor practice, and one could attain liberation without creating meritorious karma. This is impossible.

Therefore, one knows that the various consciousnesses do not arise at the same time. Moreover, the body is directed by the mind. If various minds arose together, the body would be torn apart, because minds directing it to go and return would arise at the same time.

Yet the body is not in fact destroyed. Therefore, one knows that the various consciousnesses do not arise at the same time. Furthermore, the eye sees external things such as seeds, roots, and sprouts; and in the initial embryo there are forms such as a drop of thickened milk, a thin piece of flesh, and the fetus, followed by the bodily stages of childhood, youth, maturity, and old age, which occur in sequence.

The mind must be likewise.

Moreover, as stated in the sutra: “When a pleasant feeling is experienced, the other two feelings cease—namely, painful feeling and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.” And so forth. If consciousnesses arose simultaneously, the three kinds of feeling should arise together at one time, but this is not so. Therefore, one knows that the various consciousnesses do not arise at the same time.

Moreover, because one mind arises in one body, it is called one person. If consciousnesses arose together, there should be many persons in one body, but this is not so. Therefore, they do not arise together at one time within a single body.

Furthermore, if consciousnesses arose together, one should at a single time cognize all dharmas. Why? Because immeasurable hundreds of thousands of consciousnesses would arise within the eye, and likewise within the mind.

If so, one should cognize all dharmas, but this is not so. Therefore, one knows that the various consciousnesses do not arise at the same time.

Question: Why must the various consciousnesses arise successively?

Answer: Because there is one immediately antecedent condition, each consciousness arises individually.

Question: Why is there only one immediately antecedent condition?

Answer: Such is the nature of dharmas. Just as you have one mind in one body, I likewise have one mind and one immediately antecedent condition. Just as a sprout depends upon a seed and must arise successively from it, rather than producing a trunk and the like all at once, so too, whatever dharma depends upon a mind must arise immediately after that mind and cannot give rise to other dharmas. Moreover, the characteristic of consciousness is definitely such that each consciousness arises and perishes in succession, depending upon the preceding one, just as fire and heat are characteristically related. Therefore, the various consciousnesses must arise successively.

End of Fascicle Five of the Satyasiddhi Shastra.