攝大乘論釋

Chapter Two: Explanation of the Various Names

The Supreme Characteristic of the Basis, 2

Section on the Various Names

Treatise: Furthermore, in the Agama of the Mahasanghika school, this consciousness appears under the alternative name “root consciousness,” just as a tree depends upon its roots.

Explanation: Because this consciousness is the cause of all the other consciousnesses, it is the root of the consciousnesses. Just as the roots of a tree, upon which its shoots, branches, leaves, and so forth depend, are called the roots of the tree—if the roots are abandoned, the shoots and so forth cannot exist—so too, this consciousness is the root of the other consciousnesses.

Treatise: The Mahishasaka school also designates this consciousness by the alternative name “the skandha lasting until the end of samsara.” Why is this? Although form and mind may sometimes be seen to lose their continuity, their seeds within this mind are never extinguished.

Explanation: Why is this consciousness called “the skandha lasting until the end of samsara”? Birth and death do not extend beyond form and mind. Form exists at certain times, while its continuity is interrupted in certain states of concentration, as in the Formless Realm.

Mind also exists at certain times, while its continuity is interrupted in certain states of concentration, as among the gods without perception, and so forth. Yet within the Alaya consciousness, the seeds of form and mind are never extinguished. Why is this?

Because these perfumed seeds never cease until the very end of samsara. They are the cause for the subsequent re-arising of form and mind. Until one attains nirvana without remainder, this bodily skandha is never entirely cut off; it is therefore called “the skandha lasting until the end of samsara.”

Treatise: It should be known that the Basis is also called Adana, Alaya, Chitta, root consciousness, the skandha lasting until the end of samsara, and so forth.

Explanation: The first three of these are established by the Mahayana. The name Chitta is established in common by both the Mahayana and the Hinayana. “Root consciousness” is the name established by the Mahasanghika school. “The skandha lasting until the end of samsara” is the name established by the Mahishasaka school. The words “and so forth” indicate that the Sammitiya school established the name “retributive consciousness,” while the Sthavira school established the name “continuity-of-existence consciousness.”

Treatise: By means of these names, the Alaya consciousness has become a royal road within the Hinayana.

Explanation: Because these names clarify and expand the meaning of the root consciousness, it is readily visible, like a great thoroughfare. “Royal road” has three meanings: first, it is straight and has no branching paths; second, it is broad and level; third, it is bright, clean, and unobstructed. The root consciousness is likewise: its being straight and without branches is analogous to certainty without doubt; its being broad and level is analogous to the fact that both the Mahayana and Hinayana employ this meaning; and its being bright, clean, and unobstructed is analogous to the immeasurable principles cited to prove this consciousness. It is therefore compared to a road traveled by a king.

Treatise: Other treatise masters maintain that mind, mentation, and consciousness are three different names with the same meaning. This is not so.

Explanation: Here the Hinayana is used to question the Hinayana itself. The Hinayana says: “The Alaya consciousness and the Adana consciousness were established with distinct meanings merely to avoid the assertion that they are different names with the same meaning.” That doctrine is incorrect. Why is this?

Treatise: Since mentation and consciousness already have different meanings, the meaning of mind must also be different.

Explanation: In the Hinayana, mentation and consciousness differ both in name and meaning. That which is capable of discriminative cognition is consciousness. When an act of discriminative cognition has already passed away but can serve as the expedient condition for a subsequent consciousness to arise, it is called mentation. Thus consciousness means discriminative cognition, while mentation means an expedient condition for arising. Just as, in the Hinayana, these two names have two distinct meanings, the root consciousness cannot be without a name. It should therefore be known that the name “mind” corresponds to the root consciousness. This meaning cannot be otherwise.

Treatise: Other treatise masters maintain that the Tathagata spoke of “the world delighting in Alaya.”

Explanation: The Hinayana masters hold differing views concerning the name Alaya. What meaning is Alaya intended to express? An object to which one is attached is called Alaya.

Treatise: As previously stated, some among them call the five appropriated skandhas Alaya.

Explanation: There are differing interpretations of this object of attachment. Some maintain that it is the five appropriated skandhas. “Appropriation” is another name for craving. When craving takes one’s own five skandhas as its objects, they are called the appropriated skandhas. Because these appropriated skandhas are precisely that to which sentient beings are attached, they are called Alaya.

Treatise: Other treatise masters maintain that the pleasant feeling associated with desire is Alaya.

Explanation: These five skandhas are not themselves the object of attachment. If there were no pleasant feeling, and if one did not mistakenly apprehend pleasant feeling, how could attachment to the five skandhas arise? Therefore, because the deluded mind of desire has not been extinguished in relation to pleasant feeling, this pleasant feeling is the object of attachment. Since the five skandhas are associated with pleasant feeling, the five skandhas are said to be the object of attachment. Thus pleasant feeling itself is the object of attachment.

Treatise: Other treatise masters maintain that the view of a self in the body is Alaya.

Explanation: If someone says that pleasant feeling is the object of attachment, that interpretation is incorrect. Such feeling arises from delight in the self: because one cherishes the self, one delights in this pleasant feeling. It is like a person who desires longevity and therefore cherishes whatever contributes to longevity. In the same way, because one cherishes the self, one cherishes whatever contributes to the self.

Treatise: These treatise masters—

Explanation: In order to include other views, it is said that some maintain that life is the object of attachment; some say that the path is the object of attachment; some say that the six sense objects are the objects of attachment; and some say that views and their objects are the objects of attachment.

Treatise: They misunderstand Alaya because their cultivation and attainment are based upon the Agamas; hence they hold such views.

Explanation: Thus the Hinayana masters do not clearly understand the Alaya consciousness. In what way do they fail to understand it clearly? There are two kinds of failure to understand: one arises from the teaching, and the other from practice. The teaching is the Hinayana Agama. Because the Agamas determine this consciousness in a manner that is not in accord with principle, those who rely upon the Agamas misunderstand it. Practice here refers to superficial reasoning: because they possess no principle capable of proving the meaning of this consciousness, they also misunderstand it through their practice.

Treatise: Because these masters study and practice according to the Hinayana teachings, the meanings they establish are not in accord with principle.

Explanation: These masters rely upon the Hinayana teachings, separate the alternative names from the Alaya consciousness, and establish them independently. Even when examined according to the approach of the Hinayana, this interpretation is incorrect, for it contradicts the Hinayana’s own siddhanta.

Treatise: If a person does not misunderstand the Alaya consciousness and establishes this consciousness without restricting it to Hinayana terminology, that person will attain the supreme meaning.

Explanation: Those who are not deluded are bodhisattvas. Concerning the Agamas and practice: the Buddhas observe the capacities of people and establish the Agamas in accordance with those capacities. To those of lesser capacity, they teach in a concealed manner suited to lesser capacity.

To those of higher capacity, they do not teach in a concealed manner. Thus they clearly and fully teach all the consciousnesses. Therefore, through the Bodhisattva Agamas, bodhisattvas do not misunderstand this consciousness.

“Through practice” means that when practitioners are able to destroy the afflictive obstructions of the Desire Realm, they see themselves bound by the afflictive obstructions of the Form Realm. The same applies up to the Formless Realm. When their practice carries them beyond the Formless Realm, they see themselves bound within the Alaya consciousness.

In order to extinguish this bondage, they cultivate the ten bhumis. Because the bodhisattvas engage in exceedingly profound practice, they do not misunderstand this consciousness. If people can clearly understand this consciousness and, employing its Hinayana designations, establish names and meanings that correspond to one another, they attain the supreme meaning.

Treatise: Why is it called supreme?

Explanation: This reveals clearly that the Hinayana interpretation contains faults, whereas the Mahayana interpretation contains no faults. Therefore, the establishment according to the Mahayana is supreme. The fault in the Hinayana is as follows:

Treatise: If one maintains that the appropriated skandhas are Alaya, then upon taking birth in any one of the evil destinies, one would experience suffering exclusively.

Explanation: “Evil destinies” means the four evil destinies. Whichever one of the four evil destinies one is born into, it is determined solely by the karmic retribution of evil deeds, without any other kind of feeling intermingled; therefore, it is called a place where only suffering is experienced. In those realms of evil destinies, pleasurable feelings may sometimes arise. Such pleasurable feelings in the evil destinies are not fruits of retribution; they are merely analogous and provisionally called fruits. Only painful feeling is a fruit of retribution. Those offenders who undergo the retribution of suffering in the evil destinies are said to have taken birth there.

Treatise: These appropriated skandhas are extremely evil and contrary.

Explanation: Because they are unbearable both when arising and while abiding, they are called evil. Amid suffering, thoughts of abandoning desire continually arise and cease, such as: “When shall I die? When shall I cast off these bodily skandhas?” Therefore, they are called contrary.

Treatise: There is nothing lovable in these appropriated skandhas, and it is unreasonable that sentient beings should delight in them.

Explanation: In these evil destinies, the bodily skandhas are entirely the provisions and equipment of affliction and suffering. How, then, could attachment arise toward them? Therefore, joy and delight in them would be contrary to reason. If one says that the appropriated skandhas are the Alaya, this is meaningless.

Treatise: Why is this? Because the sentient beings therein constantly wish that the appropriated skandhas would be utterly extinguished and never arise again.

Explanation: Because of these sufferings, the sentient beings there wish for their present bodily skandhas to perish and for subsequent bodily skandhas never to arise again.

Treatise: If it were pleasurable feeling, it would correspond with desire. In the higher realms from the fourth dhyana upward, this feeling does not exist.

Explanation: This feeling does not pervade all three realms; it exists only in one portion of samsara.

Treatise: If those who have already attained this feeling still wish to attain the higher realms, they will become disenchanted with it.

Explanation: If people have already been born in a desirable place and attained the bliss of concentration, yet perceive this bliss as coarse and agitated, with the mind given to heedlessness, difficult to accomplish and easily lost, they give rise to disenchantment and fear and seek the tranquility of the higher realms. They then become disenchanted with this pleasure, give rise to a mind of freedom from desire toward that pleasurable state, and aspire to dwell where there is neither suffering nor pleasure.

Treatise: Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that the sentient beings therein possess joy and delight.

Explanation: If pleasure does not pervade all three realms, and if those who experience pleasure wish to abandon that pleasure, it is unreasonable to regard pleasure as the object of attachment.

Treatise: If it were the view of a self in the body, those within the true Dharma would have faith and delight in non-self and would not cherish that attachment to self.

Explanation: If it is said that the view of a self in the body is the object of attachment, this too is not so. Why? Those within the Buddha-Dharma, whether possessing wisdom born of hearing or wisdom born of reflection and cultivation, have faith in and delight in non-self.

They vow to cultivate the path in order to eliminate the view of self; therefore, the view of self is not what they cherish. Because they seek to attain the wisdom of non-arising so that the view of self and attachment to self will not arise again in the future, they do not give rise to joy or delight in them. This view of a self in the body is an object of attachment for some sentient beings and not an object of attachment for others.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the view of a self in the body is the object of attachment.

Treatise: As for this Alaya consciousness, the minds of sentient beings grasp it as their own inner self.

Explanation: Sentient beings in the six destinies give rise to a mind of attachment and designate this dharma as the self, their own inner self. They regard this inner self as autonomous and pure and as having an apprehensible characteristic. Depending on whether external conditions are complete, they experience either pleasure or suffering, if they give rise to such a view of self.

Treatise: If they are born in a destiny where only suffering is experienced, they wish that the suffering skandhas would forever perish and never arise again.

Explanation: If, because of the conditions of evil karma, people fall into an evil destiny where they experience only suffering, their grasping of a pure self remains unchanged. Because external conditions are complete, they apprehend only change and defilement, toward which non-attachment arises; they wish that the self and its external equipment would forever be severed and separated from one another. Why is this?

Treatise: Because the Alaya consciousness is bound by attachment to self, they have never wished to eliminate their own self.

Explanation: Because they do not clearly understand this consciousness, they take this consciousness as the condition and give rise to grasping at self. From grasping at self arises attachment to self. Because of this attachment to self, they do not seek to extinguish the self. Wishing this self to enjoy peace and happiness, they seek only to eliminate and separate themselves from external conditions.

Treatise: Sentient beings born from the fourth dhyana upward, although they no longer delight in feelings of sensual pleasure, are still continually followed, without separation, by attachment to their own self within the Alaya consciousness.

Explanation: It was explained above that sentient beings in the evil destinies seek only to escape suffering, while their minds do not wish to abandon the self. Here it is explained that sentient beings abiding in equanimous feeling have no pleasurable feeling worthy of attachment. They are disenchanted with pleasurable feeling just as those in the evil destinies are disenchanted with painful feeling. Yet there is no condition by which they would wish to abandon attachment to self within the Alaya consciousness. Therefore, the Alaya consciousness is the object of attachment.

Treatise: Furthermore, although those within the true Dharma delight in non-self and oppose the view of a self in the body, attachment to their own self still remains within the Alaya consciousness.

Explanation: The preceding passages concerned those outside the Buddha-Dharma; this passage concerns those within the Buddha-Dharma. There are three classes: first, those engaged in correct reflection; second, those engaged in correct cultivation; and third, those who are still in training. Among people of these three classes, the first two can subdue the view of self, while the third can eliminate it.

Why? The first two know non-self through comparative understanding, while the last directly realizes and knows non-self. The phrase “oppose the view of a self in the body” means that although they may in turn oppose the view of a self in the body, attachment to self, long and repeatedly perfumed into the Alaya consciousness, still constantly follows them within the fundamental consciousness.

Therefore, the view of a self in the body is not the object of attachment and should not be called Alaya.

Treatise: Precisely for this reason, establishing the name “Alaya” for this consciousness is supremely appropriate. This is called the establishment of the distinct designation “Alaya.”

Explanation: The meaning of this name, “the object of attachment,” does not correspond to the interpretations maintained by other masters. When this name is compared with the first interpretation, however, its name and meaning correspond. Therefore, by citing the designation established by those masters, the establishment of the fundamental consciousness is shown to be supremely appropriate. Here, the various names are gathered and principles are cited and applied to clarify the fundamental consciousness; therefore, this is called the Section on Names.

Section Two: Characteristics

Chapter 1: Characteristics

Explanation: This section has seven chapters: 1. characteristics; 2. perfuming; 3. neither identical nor different; 4. being mutually cause and effect; 5. cause and effect as neither different nor non-different; 6. dependent arising; and 7. the four conditions.

Treatise: Furthermore, how may the establishment of this characteristic be understood?

Explanation: The Alaya consciousness has already been established on the basis of its various names. Yet through these names alone, the essential characteristic of the Alaya consciousness cannot be left unexplained. If its essential characteristic is not understood, it will be difficult to comprehend this consciousness. Now, in order to enable complete understanding of this consciousness, its essential characteristic should once again be presented.

Treatise: This characteristic is, in brief, of three kinds: first, the establishment of its intrinsic characteristic; second, the establishment of its causal characteristic; and third, the establishment of its resultant characteristic. The establishment of its intrinsic characteristic means that this consciousness serves as a receptacle for the seeds of all the habitual tendencies of the defiled class of dharmas, preserving them and serving as the basis for their arising. Therefore, this is called its intrinsic characteristic.

Explanation: The Treatise on the Treasury of Determination explains that the fundamental consciousness has eight characteristics. In contrast to the extensive exposition in that treatise, they are here stated briefly as three. What is the meaning of the intrinsic characteristic? On the basis of all dharmas belonging to the defiled class, this consciousness is perfumed, thereby producing a capacity. What is the characteristic of this capacity? It is the preservation of seeds. What is meant by preservation? Perfuming and becoming one is called preservation.

The Treatise says: Establishing its causal characteristic means that this consciousness possessing all seeds is the cause that constantly gives rise to defiled phenomena; therefore, it is called the causal characteristic.

Explanation: Among the eight consciousnesses, whichever consciousness has acquired a superior potency through perfuming by phenomena belonging to the defiled category gives rise to those phenomena and thereafter becomes their cause; therefore, this is called the causal characteristic.

The Treatise says: Establishing its resultant characteristic means that this consciousness arises from the causes constituted by the various beginningless habitual impressions belonging to the defiled category; therefore, it is called the resultant characteristic.

Explanation: In dependence upon perfuming by the three kinds of phenomena belonging to the defiled category, this consciousness subsequently arises to gather, retain, and store all habitual impressions from beginningless time; therefore, it is called the resultant characteristic.

Chapter 2: Perfuming

The Treatise says: What phenomenon is called a habitual impression, and what meaning is intended by the term “habitual impression”?

Explanation: What is the difference between these two questions? The former asks what the term means; the latter asks by virtue of what meanings that term is established.

The Treatise says: It means that this phenomenon is associated with that one, arising and ceasing together with it, and subsequently becomes the cause of that one’s arising. This is the meaning thereby disclosed. It is like a person perfuming sesame seeds with flowers. The sesame seeds and flowers arise and cease together at the same time. The sesame seeds then gradually become capable of producing the fragrance of the flowers.

Explanation: This is called the phenomenon capable of receiving perfuming. That is called the phenomenon capable of perfuming. They are together at one time and in one place, arising and ceasing together.

Among phenomena subject to arising and ceasing, there are that which perfumes and that which is perfumed; otherwise, this would not be so. The continuity of that which perfumes is brief, while the continuity of that which is perfumed is long. Therefore, although that which perfumes has ceased, that which is perfumed continues to exist and subsequently becomes the cause of the arising of that former phenomenon.

“Becomes” means that this very thing produces the potency for that phenomenon; it is likewise here. This is the meaning that is disclosed. The meaning is what the term expresses, and the term is established through the meaning.

The Treatise says: If a person habitually engages in craving and the like, craving produces a habitual impression,

Explanation: The repeated arising of afflictions is called habitual engagement. Habitual engagement leaves habitual impressions. What is the characteristic of such habitual impressions?

The Treatise says: it arises and ceases together with the mind and gradually becomes a cause that produces a changed and altered state of mind.

Explanation: “Arising and ceasing together” has the same meaning as explained above. If that person repeatedly engages in craving, then, whether throughout a lifetime or during a certain period, what had not previously been perfumed now becomes changed and altered, becoming a cause for that craving’s arising. Its capacity to transform the mind into a different state is called perfuming. Within the defiled category, this is one kind known as the turbidity of the afflictions.

The Treatise says: If a person is learned, that person possesses habitual impressions of learning,

Explanation: A learned person is one who abides at the stage of reflection or at the stage of cultivation. What are the characteristics of possessing habitual impressions of learning?

The Treatise says: constantly reflecting upon what has been heard and studied, these impressions arise and cease together with the mind,

Explanation: One constantly reflects upon the statements and meanings that one has heard, adducing many principles. The correct thought present in that reflection arises and ceases together with the mental consciousness.

The Treatise says: and gradually becomes a cause that produces a lucid and understanding mind.

Explanation: Correct reflection upon what has been heard continually arises and ceases within the mental consciousness. The mental consciousness clearly understands what has been heard and perfumes the alaya-vijnana. When this mental consciousness ceases and later is to arise again, it successively becomes more excellent, and thereby the perfuming is established. Thus, whatever has been thoroughly and clearly understood is not lost.

The Treatise says: Through this perfuming, one attains firm abiding;

Explanation: When one has become firmly established in the wisdom born of reflection, one will attain abiding in the wisdom born of cultivation.

The Treatise says: therefore, this person is called one capable of retaining the Dharma.

Explanation: Because this perfuming prevents one from forgetting, even when this person encounters other circumstances, that person is still called one capable of retaining the Dharma.

The Treatise says: The principle concerning the alaya-vijnana should be understood in this way.

Explanation: Whether the perfuming is wholesome or unwholesome, its arising accords with this same principle.

Chapter 3: Neither One nor Different

The Treatise says: In what way are these defiled seeds the same as or different from the alaya-vijnana?

Explanation: The seeds of phenomena belonging to the defiled category are contained within the alaya-vijnana. If they possess distinct substances, they are different; if they possess no distinct substances, they are not different. What faults would follow from either position?

If they were different, each seed would have to constitute a separately differentiated part, and consequently the alaya-vijnana would likewise become divided into innumerable parts. If the seeds were intrinsically different from the fundamental consciousness, then the doctrine that they cease from moment to moment would also fail to be established. If this consciousness were different from the seeds, then when the two kinds of karma, wholesome and unwholesome, perfumed the consciousness, seeds would arise according to whether the karma was wholesome or unwholesome.

Since you maintain that the seeds are morally indeterminate, how could they be called different? If this consciousness and the seeds were not different, then since the seeds are many while the consciousness is only one, how could they be called not different? This objection reveals the two faults.

To avoid the two faults contained in that objection, the meaning of their being neither one nor different must be clearly understood.

The Treatise says: Because they do not consist of separately distinct substances, they are not said to be different. Within this combination, although they are difficult to distinguish, they are nevertheless not without difference.

Explanation: The alaya-vijnana and the seeds arise together in this manner. Although there are that which depends and that upon which it depends, they are not different by virtue of separately distinct substances. This is unlike the faculty of sight and visual consciousness.

The faculty of sight has material form as its substance, while visual consciousness has the immaterial as its substance. This consciousness and the seeds do not possess distinct substances in this way; therefore, they cannot be said to be different. Since they cannot be said to be different, why are they not said to be one?

Within this combination, although they are difficult to distinguish, that which depends is a provisional designation and lacks substance, while that upon which it depends is real and possesses substance. The provisional and the real are combined, and their distinct characteristics are difficult to distinguish because they do not possess two separate substances. It is like the two truths of suffering and its origin.

The truth of suffering truly possesses resultant retribution and has the five skandhas as its substance. The truth of origin is a provisional designation, discerned in dependence upon the truth of suffering; it possesses no separate substance and is provisionally spoken of as the cause. Although they are difficult to distinguish within the five skandhas, they are nevertheless not without difference.

The consciousness and the seeds are likewise. Why is this so?

The Treatise says: If the alaya-vijnana arose in precisely the same way,

Explanation: If they were not different, then before perfuming arose, this consciousness would be merely a resultant retribution and could not serve as the cause of anything else. When perfuming arises, this consciousness would still have to arise in precisely the same way, without differing from its original state. Since this is impossible, they are not without difference. Since this is impossible,

The Treatise says: then when perfuming arises, it possesses a distinct and surpassing potency; therefore, it is called the consciousness possessing all seeds.

Explanation: Previously this consciousness did not possess the potency produced by perfuming, but afterward it does; therefore, it differs from its former state. The earlier consciousness is merely a resultant retribution and cannot be called the consciousness possessing all seeds. The later consciousness is capable of serving as a cause that gives rise to other things; therefore, it is called the consciousness possessing all seeds.

The earlier consciousness gives rise only to its own continuity. The later consciousness gives rise to the continuities of both itself and others; therefore, it is superior to the former. It is like a barley grain: because it possesses the potency to produce its sprout, the barley grain is said to be the seed of that sprout.

If a barley grain is left exposed for a long time or its potency is destroyed by the heat of fire, its outward appearance is no different, but because it has lost its potency, it is no longer called a seed. This consciousness is likewise. If it possesses the potency to give rise to all phenomena, then because it is associated with that potency, it is called the consciousness possessing all seeds.

If this potency perishes and no longer remains, it is called only the resultant consciousness, not the consciousness possessing all seeds. Therefore, they are not without difference.

Chapter 4: Serving Mutually as Cause and Result

The Treatise says: How does the Alaya-consciousness, together with the defiled dharmas, simultaneously serve as mutual causes for one another?

Explanation: The Alaya-consciousness is either the cause of all dharmas or the result of all dharmas. The same is true of all dharmas in relation to the Alaya-consciousness. How is this meaning known? To clarify this meaning, an analogy must be given.

The Treatise says: It is like the flame of a lamp and its wick. The production of light and the burning of the wick simultaneously serve as mutual causes for one another.

Explanation: Because the substance of the wick serves as a support, it can produce the flame. The wick is the cause that produces the luminous flame. At the very moment the luminous flame arises, it burns the wick in that instant. The luminous flame is the cause that burns the wick. This Alaya-consciousness and all those dharmas are likewise causes of one another’s arising. The meaning should be understood in this way. Why is this so? Because while this cause presently abides and has not yet ceased, its result is already seen to arise.

The Treatise says: It is also like bundles of reeds that stand by depending upon one another.

Explanation: It is like two bundles of reeds, each depending upon and supporting the other in every instant.

The Treatise says: One should know that the fundamental consciousness and that which is capable of perfuming it serve as mutual causes for one another in the same way. Consciousness is the cause of the defiled dharmas, and the defiled dharmas are the cause of consciousness.

Explanation: This Alaya-consciousness is the generative cause of the seeds. If this consciousness did not exist, the arising and ceasing of the three kinds of karma would have no support. Just as the substance that has ceased and passed away no longer exists, so too would its efficacy. Therefore, because of this consciousness, the substance of the various dharmas gives rise to efficacy. Thus, the fundamental consciousness is their generative cause. The same is true of those dharmas. If those dharmas did not cause this consciousness to arise, there would be no principle whereby, in the present, its subsequent transformation differs from its former state. This different transformation is the result of those dharmas.

The Treatise says: Why is this so?

Explanation: Why does it not separately state that other dharmas are causes and results of one another, but speaks only of consciousness and the defiled dharmas as mutual causes and results? Whether asked by a non-Buddhist or by a follower of the Two Vehicles, this is the question posed.

The Treatise says: Because apart from these two dharmas, no other cause can exist.

Explanation: In the world, apart from the two dharmas—the imagined nature and the dependent nature—there is no other dharma. The Alaya-consciousness belongs to the dependent nature, while all other dharmas belong to the imagined nature. These two dharmas encompass all dharmas, because throughout the three realms there is consciousness alone. Therefore, apart from these two dharmas, there is no other cause. If these two dharmas are mutually existent causes, this is their causal efficacy. As the result accords with the categories of its cause, its categories are likewise of that kind.

Chapter 5: Whether Causes and Results Are Distinct or Not Distinct

The Treatise says: Why is it that perfuming is neither differentiated nor manifold, yet can serve as the cause producing dharmas that are differentiated and manifold?

Explanation: This challenge seeks to inquire about mutually existent causes. As such, the challenge cannot be established, because the result and its cause do not occur at the same time. If the question concerns the cause of retributive results, then the question can be established. The cause of a retributive result is necessarily morally determinate, while the retributive result certainly does not occur simultaneously with its cause.

The Treatise says: It is like a garment woven with many threads. The garment does not have many colors, but when it is placed in a vat of dye, many different patterns are seen to appear.

Explanation: This analogy is cited to clarify that both the causes and results of retribution can be established. When a person wishes to create patterns upon a garment, threads are first woven into it. While the garment is being woven, its appearance shows no differences. After the dyeing is completed and the interwoven threads are removed, the patterns are seen to appear.

The Treatise says: In the same way, when the Alaya-consciousness is perfumed by the various dharmas,

Explanation: The Alaya-consciousness is perfumed by the three kinds of karma—wholesome, unwholesome, and immovable—just as a garment is interwoven with threads.

The Treatise says: it has only a single nature, not many kinds.

Explanation: The process of perfuming itself has three kinds: first, the preparatory stage; second, the time of performing the action; and third, the time after the action has been performed. There are also three kinds: first, performing it oneself; second, instructing another person to perform it; and third, approving of its performance. The seeds and the Alaya-consciousness share the same morally indeterminate nature. Apart from this consciousness, the seeds do not each possess a separate substance of their own.

The Treatise says: Yet when results arise, innumerable kinds of characteristics appear within the Alaya-consciousness, just as they do in a vat of dye.

Explanation: When all conditions are complete, it is like placing the garment into a vat of dye. The various seeds and the fundamental consciousness, throughout the three times of the present, arising, and subsequent state, display within this consciousness innumerable characteristics of retributive results according to each time. Thus, although no differences are seen at the time of perfuming, once the retributive results have ripened, immeasurable distinctions appear, just as when a garment is dyed.

If you maintain that a retributive result is definitely caused by something morally determinate, why is something morally indeterminate taken as its cause? The meaning is not different. Why is this so?

Because the other tradition speaks of the cause with reference to the result, whereas the Mahayana speaks of the result with reference to the result.

Chapter 6: Dependent Arising

The Treatise says: In the Mahayana, this dependent arising is subtle and extremely profound.

Explanation: This is intended to clarify the distinction between the Mahayana and the Hinayana. The Mahayana possesses all three kinds of dependent arising, whereas the Hinayana possesses only two. The first kind of dependent arising in the Mahayana is absent from the Hinayana.

Why does the Mahayana possess it while the Hinayana does not? Because this first kind of dependent arising is extremely profound and subtle and is not taught in the other vehicles. Because the wisdom of ordinary beings cannot comprehend it, it is called subtle.

Because even the wisdom of arhats and Pratyekabuddhas cannot reach its ultimate depth, it is called extremely profound. How many kinds of dependent arising are there? Explained extensively, there are three kinds.

Explained briefly, there are two. What are the two?

The Treatise says: Briefly stated, there are two kinds of dependent arising: first, the differentiation of intrinsic nature; and second, the differentiation of what is desirable and undesirable.

Explanation: Because these two designations exist, there are two distinct kinds of dependent arising.

The Treatise says: The arising of dharmas in dependence upon the Alaya-consciousness is called dependent arising as the differentiation of intrinsic nature.

Explanation: Through the seeds of the various dharmas, when dharmas are about to arise in dependence upon the Alaya-consciousness, if the external conditions are complete, they immediately arise based upon the Alaya-consciousness. All arising dharmas take the Alaya-consciousness as their common cause; therefore, this is called the differentiation of intrinsic nature. Why is this so? Although dharmas of differing substances and natures arise with various distinctions, they all take the Alaya-consciousness as their cause. If one distinguishes the intrinsic nature of dependently arisen dharmas, it is this Alaya-consciousness alone.

The Treatise says: Because it differentiates the intrinsic nature of the causes and conditions of the various dharmas.

Explanation: Among all categories of dharmas throughout the three realms, if one distinguishes their cause of arising, there is only this one consciousness. If one distinguishes the nature of the various dharmas, it is precisely this consciousness. If one distinguishes the differences among the various dharmas, they all arise from this consciousness. Therefore, through this consciousness, all dharmas share a single nature. The second, the differentiation of what is desirable and undesirable, is:

The Treatise says: There are also the twelve factors of dependent arising, which are called the differentiation of what is desirable and undesirable.

Explanation: The twelve links are established across the three times in order to clarify cause, clarify effect, and clarify cause and effect. Therefore, apart from the eight fundamental links, there are the twelve links. The eight fundamental links do not go beyond three dharmas: afflictions, karma, and karmic retribution.

Afflictions are like a sprout arising from a seed. From afflictions arise further afflictions. From afflictions arise karma and its fruits.

From afflictions arises karmic retribution. They are also like a dragon dwelling in a pond, whose water never runs dry. If afflictions are present, birth continues without end.

They are also like the roots of a tree that have not yet been pulled up: whenever the proper season arrives, growth occurs. Until the roots of the afflictions have been eliminated, retribution in the six destinies will continually arise. Karma is like a grain of rice with its husk intact, which is capable of sprouting.

If karma is associated with the outflows, it is capable of bringing about retribution. It is also like uṣāhi—that is, banana trees, bamboo, and so forth—which die after bearing fruit. Once karma has ripened, it does not produce fruit again.

It is also like a flower, which is the proximate cause of the fruit’s arising. Karma is likewise capable of proximately producing its fruit. Karmic retribution is like cooked food and drink.

Once food and drink have been cooked, they are merely consumed and are not cooked again. Once karmic retribution has ripened, it does not produce a subsequent karmic retribution. If it were to produce further karmic retribution, liberation would be impossible.

Therefore, the twelve links of dependent origination do not go beyond these three dharmas. These twelve links can distinguish the infinitely diverse kinds of birth and embodiment because they arise through those conditions. Why is this so?

This ignorance conditionally gives rise to three classes of karma: meritorious, non-meritorious, and imperturbable formations. Because formations are of these three classes, consciousness and the other links arise either in accordance with meritorious formations, in accordance with non-meritorious formations, or in accordance with imperturbable formations. Of these three classes, the meritorious and the imperturbable are desirable, while the non-meritorious is undesirable.

Therefore, it is said that dependent origination distinguishes the desirable from the undesirable.

The Treatise says: It distinguishes the desirable from the undesirable among the wholesome and unwholesome destinies, producing their diverse causes.

Explanation: The wholesome destinies are desirable. The unwholesome destinies are undesirable. Within these wholesome and unwholesome destinies there are immeasurably many distinctions and differences. These differences do not go beyond the twelve links of dependent origination. That is, the twelve links of dependent origination constitute their diverse causes. Therefore, it is said that the twelve links of dependent origination distinguish the desirable from the undesirable.

The Treatise says: If a person is deluded concerning the first kind of dependent origination in relation to the ālaya-consciousness,

Explanation: Delusion has three errors: first, not knowing; second, doubting; and third, holding inverted views. If these three errors arise, they produce two kinds of views: one may cling to an unequal cause, or one may cling to the absence of a cause. Clinging to an unequal cause means:

The Treatise says: One may cling to primordial nature as the cause of samsara,

Explanation: The Sāṃkhyas, that is, the non-Buddhist adherents of the Enumerative School, cite five principles to establish that primordial nature truly exists. First, because where there are particulars there must be a universal, it is known that primordial nature exists. In the world, if particular things exist, there must certainly be something universal.

For example, if one pound of gold is fashioned into bracelets, the bracelets have their particular quantities, from which one knows that there is a quantity of gold common to them all. Since one observes differing particular quantities, one knows that the universal primordial nature also has quantity. Second, because the branches and derivatives resemble their root, it is known that primordial nature exists.

For example, if one pound of sandalwood is divided into many pieces, every piece has the same fragrance as the intact sandalwood before it was divided. Since the various transformations necessarily possess the three qualities of sorrow, joy, and darkness, one knows that the universal primordial nature also possesses these three qualities. Third, because activities require a capacity, it is known that primordial nature exists.

Just as a craftsman must possess the requisite skill before he can fashion objects, so, because primordial nature is a real entity, it can produce various objects through its diverse transformations. If there were no basis, this capacity could not be established. Fourth, because cause and effect are distinct, it is known that primordial nature exists.

For example, a lump of clay is the cause and a jar is the effect. Likewise, primordial nature is taken as the cause and its diverse transformations as the effects. Fifth, because the three kinds of existence become undifferentiated, it is known that primordial nature exists.

When the world is destroyed, the eleven faculties are dissolved and transformed into the five great elements; the five great elements are dissolved and transformed into the five subtle elements; the five subtle elements are dissolved and transformed into egoity; egoity is dissolved and transformed into intellect; and intellect is dissolved and transformed into primordial nature. Thus, the three kinds of existence return to primordial nature and become undifferentiated.

When the world arises, intellect arises from primordial nature, egoity arises from intellect, and so forth, until the eleven faculties arise from the five great elements. If primordial nature did not exist at the time of dissolution, there could be no subsequent arising at all. If there were no subsequent arising, there could be no successive production.

The Treatise says: Or one may cling to deeds performed in a previous life,

Explanation: The Lokāyatas, that is, the non-Buddhist adherents of the Materialist School, say that all causes in the world are deeds performed in a previous life, because present effort cannot bring about a result and therefore the present is not a cause. For example, in the world two people may work for the same master and exert equal effort, yet one is treated favorably by the master while the other is not. Therefore, they maintain that this is solely due to karma created in a previous life and has nothing to do with present effort.

The Treatise says: Or one may cling to transformations wrought by Īśvara,

Explanation: If none of the previously established theories constitutes a cause, then there is only one cause, called Īśvara, who causes us to produce good and evil, to revolve through samsara, and afterward to become disenchanted, renounce it, and seek liberation. The Doctrine of Īśvara as Cause holds that wisdom arises, all bonds are liberated, and one returns to the essential nature of Īśvara.

The Treatise says: Or one may cling to a self endowed with eight kinds of mastery,

Explanation: The Vaiśeṣikas and Naiyāyikas cling to a self. What is its characteristic, and what are its qualities? Cognition is its characteristic, and the eight kinds of mastery are its qualities. Just as heat is the characteristic of fire, so it is with the self: whether it exists independently or abides amid a mixture, the nature of cognition remains unchanged, and therefore cognition is taken as its characteristic. The eight kinds of mastery are: first, being the most subtle of the subtle; second, being the greatest of the great; third, pervading everywhere; fourth, acting at will; fifth, being unfettered and independent; sixth, transforming at will; seventh, being permanent and unchanging; and eighth, being pure and free from defiling attachment.

The Treatise says: Or one may cling to the absence of a cause.

Explanation: Because one does not clearly understand a certain portion of worldly cause and effect, one consequently supposes that all other effects are also without causes.

The Treatise says: If a person is deluded concerning the second kind of dependent origination, that person may cling to the self as the agent or to the self as the experiencer.

Explanation: Due again to the three errors, one does not clearly understand the second kind of dependent origination. Increasing or diminishing causes, effects, or events is called failing to understand the second kind of dependent origination. Increasing causes means that, apart from ignorance and the other causes, one establishes unequal causes as causes.

Diminishing causes means holding that formations and the other links have no causes. Increasing effects means holding that formations and the other links originally possess their own essential entities and afterward arise conditioned by ignorance. Diminishing effects means denying that formations and the other links are effects of ignorance.

Increasing events means holding that, when ignorance and the other links produce formations and the other links, apart from the mere conjunction of conditions there are distinct entities such as ignorance that are capable of producing distinct entities such as formations. Diminishing events means clinging to the view that ignorance lacks the capacity to produce formations and the other events. Ignorance and the other links neither move nor act.

Therefore, to be free from these three kinds of increase and diminution is called discerning the second kind of dependent origination. If one cannot discern it in this way, one is deluded concerning dependent origination and gives rise to superimposed attachments. These are called the attachment to a self, the attachment to an agent, and the attachment to an experiencer.

First, attachment to a self arises on account of the fundamental consciousness; afterward, attachment to an agent and an experiencer arises on account of cause and effect. If the self creates the cause, it is called the agent. If the self experiences the retribution, it is called the experiencer.

The Treatise says: It is like a group of people blind from birth who have never known what an elephant is.

Explanation: The multitude is an analogy for icchantikas and non-Buddhists. Those blind from birth are an analogy for being deluded about the essential nature and the causal and resultant aspects of the Alaya-vijnana. Their never having seen is an analogy for the three kinds of ignorance and for their inability to understand clearly. The elephant is an analogy for the Alaya-vijnana. Those blind from birth have never seen visible form throughout their lives. Since beginningless time in samsara, icchantikas and non-Buddhists have never understood the three characteristics of the Alaya-vijnana.

The Treatise says: Someone brought an elephant and had them touch it.

Explanation: “Someone” is an analogy for a false teacher; informing them is an analogy for false doctrines; and having them touch it is an analogy for causing them not to contemplate correctly and to cling to one-sided views.

The Treatise says: Among those blind people, one touched the trunk, another the tusks, another the ears, another the legs, another the tail, and another the back, and so forth. When someone asked what the elephant was shaped like, the blind people variously answered that it was like a plow handle, a pestle, a basket, a mortar, a broom, or a mountain rock. Those who do not understand the two kinds of dependent arising, because of innate ignorance, may say that intrinsic nature is the cause, that it is the result of actions performed in a former life, that it is a transformation wrought by Ishvara, that it is the eight kinds of sovereign self, that there is no cause, or that there is an agent and an experiencer.

Explanation: The six instances of touching the elephant are analogies for six kinds of one-sided attachment: 1. intrinsic nature, 2. past action, 3. Ishvara, 4. self, 5. absence of a cause, and 6. an agent and an experiencer. “And so forth” refers to the sixty-two views.

The Treatise says: This is because they do not understand the essential characteristic or the causal and resultant characteristics of the Alaya-vijnana. Like those blind from birth, who did not know the elephant’s essential form and therefore described it differently.

Explanation: The first chapter establishes the essence in order to reveal its essential characteristic, establishes the cause in order to reveal its causal characteristic, and establishes the result in order to reveal its resultant characteristic. Because of ignorance, these two classes of persons cannot clearly understand the three characteristics of the fundamental consciousness. Therefore, they cannot comprehend dependent arising as discriminated intrinsic nature and consequently give rise to the five attachments beginning with intrinsic nature. Nor can they comprehend dependent arising that is neither desirable nor undesirable, and consequently they give rise to the sixth attachment, that of an agent and an experiencer.

The Treatise says: To state the essential characteristic of the Alaya-vijnana briefly, it is the retributive consciousness and the repository of all seeds.

Explanation: The causal characteristic of the Alaya-vijnana is that all dharmas perfume the fundamental consciousness and abide within it; hence it is called the cause. Its resultant characteristic is that this consciousness is perfumed by other dharmas and thus becomes the result of those dharmas. Its essential characteristic is the retributive consciousness. Being the repository of all seeds is its essential characteristic.

The Treatise says: This is because this consciousness encompasses all bodies throughout the three realms and all four modes of birth within the six destinies.

Explanation: To speak of bodies in the three realms is to refer collectively to the four modes of birth within the six destinies. Some beings are alike and others are unlike, with a great many distinctions among them. When this consciousness matures, it can become the basis of existence in the six destinies. Why is this? The perfuming of the three kinds of karma constitutes the seeds of the various destinies. For this reason, all modes of birth and all destinies within the three realms are encompassed within this consciousness.

The Treatise says: To reveal this meaning, a verse states:

The internal and external are not clearly understood;

Both are provisional designations.

And, in truth, all

Seeds are of six kinds:

Perishing moment by moment, coexistent,

Continuously following, persisting until the limit of their remedy,

Determinate, dependent upon causes and conditions,

They can induce and manifest their own results.

Stable, indeterminate, and capable of being perfumed,

They correspond with that which perfumes;

If otherwise, they cannot be perfumed—

Such is the essential characteristic of perfuming.

The six consciousnesses do not correspond,

Being opposed in three distinct ways.

Two moments do not coexist;

The other kinds are likewise.

These internal and external seeds

Are productive and inducing causes;

A withered tree still continues for a time,

And only afterward dies completely.

Explanation: It has already been stated that the Alaya-vijnana is the repository of the seeds of all dharmas. Now, wishing to clarify further the meaning of “seed,” this verse is given. “The internal and external are not clearly understood” means that seeds are of two kinds: external and internal.

External seeds are rice, grain, and so forth; with respect to the two moral natures of wholesome and unwholesome, their nature is not evident because they are karmically defined. The internal seed is the Alaya-vijnana; with respect to the two moral natures of wholesome and unwholesome, its nature is evident. Alternatively, defilement and purity may be taken as the two.

“Both are provisional designations, and, in truth” means that external seeds are merely provisional designations. Why is this? Because all dharmas are consciousness-only.

Internal seeds are real. Why is this? Because all dharmas have consciousness as their root.

“All seeds are of six kinds” means that internal and external seeds together do not exceed six kinds. What are the six? “Perishing moment by moment” means that these two kinds of seeds perish in every instant.

Because the preceding arises and the subsequent ceases in uninterrupted succession, a dharma can serve as a seed. Why is this? A permanent dharma cannot constitute a seed, because it is always the same and undergoes no change.

Therefore, the first characteristic is called perishing moment by moment. “Coexistent” means that only what coexists can constitute a seed. It is neither past nor future, nor is it separate.

Whenever a seed is present, its result arises at that very time. Therefore, the second characteristic is called coexistence.

The phrase “pursuing until the ultimate limit of remedy” means continuing until the remedy is reached; “remedy” means the path of the vajra-like mind. Only at this point does the alaya-consciousness exhaust its function, and thus it is called the ultimate limit; “limit” means the final boundary. External seeds exhaust their function when the fruit ripens and the faculty deteriorates.

Therefore, the third characteristic is called pursuing until the ultimate limit of remedy. “Determinate” means that it is determined by this and not by everything whatsoever. Every result that arises is determinate.

If it is the seed of this fruit, then this fruit arises. Therefore, the fourth characteristic is called determinate. “Depending upon causes and conditions” means that only when this seed depends upon other causes and conditions does it again produce a fruit.

Thus, it does not arise at all times, nor does everything arise; rather, when the cause is present at that time, the result is produced at that time. Therefore, it does not arise perpetually. If something became a cause without depending upon other causes, then a single cause would be the cause of every fruit.

Because it becomes a cause through dependence upon causes and conditions, that which is not universal is a cause. Therefore, the fifth characteristic is called depending upon causes and conditions. “Capable of producing and manifesting its own fruit” means that each seed is capable of producing its own fruit.

Just as the alaya-consciousness can produce the fruit of the alaya-consciousness, so a grain of rice and the like can produce the fruit of rice. Therefore, the sixth characteristic is called capable of producing its own fruit. These six constitute the meaning of the arising of cause and fruit.

These explanatory means make the characteristics of perfuming easy to discern; they will now be discussed further. The words “stable, morally indeterminate, capable of being perfumed, and corresponding with that which perfumes” indicate four meanings of perfuming. First, that which abides continuously and firmly and is difficult to destroy can receive perfuming, whereas that which is unstable and subject to change cannot.

Wind, for example, cannot receive perfuming. Why is this? Even if the wind continues for one yojana, the perfume cannot follow it because the wind is dispersed and in motion.

When campaka flowers are steeped in oil, however, the perfume can be carried for one hundred yojanas because the oil abides firmly. Second, that whose odor is morally indeterminate can receive perfuming. Garlic therefore cannot receive perfuming because its odor is foul.

Agarwood, musk, and the like likewise cannot receive perfuming because their odors are fragrant. Anything that is neither fragrant nor foul can be perfumed, as in the case of clothing and the like. Third, that which is capable of being perfumed can receive perfuming.

Gold, silver, stone, and the like therefore cannot be perfumed, because they do not undergo perfuming. Things such as clothing and oil, because they can receive perfuming, are called capable of being perfumed. Fourth, when the perfumer and that which is perfumed correspond, perfuming can be received.

If they arise without interruption, they are called corresponding, and therefore perfuming is received. If they do not correspond, perfuming cannot be received. The words “If it is otherwise, it cannot be perfumed; these are the essential characteristics of perfuming” mean that if something differs from these four meanings, it cannot receive perfuming.

Therefore, apart from the alaya-consciousness, no other dharma can receive perfuming. The alaya-consciousness possesses the six preceding meanings: 1. it arises and ceases from moment to moment; 2. it coexists with the arisen consciousnesses; 3. it continues until the very end of samsara; 4. it determines whether causes are wholesome, unwholesome, and so forth; 5. it depends upon meritorious action, non-meritorious action, and imperturbable action as causes, while maturation in the two destinies of the desirable and undesirable constitutes the essence of the path; and 6. it can produce and manifest a fruit of the same kind.

Although all the arisen consciousnesses possess the six meanings required to serve as seeds, they are contrary to the four meanings of perfuming. Because the alaya-consciousness possesses the six meanings of a seed and the four meanings of perfuming, it can receive perfuming and be transformed into a seed. The other consciousnesses are not so.

Why is this? The words “The six consciousnesses do not correspond” mean that the six consciousnesses, in their preceding and subsequent moments, do not correspond with one another because they readily change and perish. Moreover, it is not only because they readily change and perish that they do not correspond; there are other reasons as well.

The words “Three distinctions are mutually opposed” mean that each consciousness arises with a different basis of support, arises with a different object, and gives rise to different deliberations and judgments and different perceptions; hence they are called mutually opposed. Moreover, the six consciousnesses do not communicate universally with one another and are therefore distinct; because they are distinct, they are mutually opposed.

The masters of the Sautrantika school say that the preceding moment perfumes the subsequent moment. Why is this? Because two consciousnesses do not arise together in a single moment and cannot exist simultaneously.

This doctrine is incorrect. Why is this? To say that two things do not coexist simultaneously in a single moment means that, if the perfumer and that which is perfumed arise and cease together at the same time, the meaning of perfuming can be established; if they are not simultaneous, the meaning of perfuming cannot be established.

Why is this? While the perfumer remains, that which is to be perfumed has not yet arisen; when that which is to be perfumed arises, the perfumer has already ceased. It is impossible for preceding and subsequent moments to arise at the same time.

Therefore, because the six consciousnesses do not arise together, there can be no perfuming. If you say that consciousnesses belong to the same class of arising and possess characteristics of this kind, and therefore can receive perfuming, that doctrine is incorrect. The same would apply to other classes of arising.

If you maintain that things which do not correspond can nevertheless perfume one another, that does not accord with the doctrine you uphold. I shall give an analogy concerning your position. The eye and the other faculties differ from consciousness and are therefore called other.

These faculties, being pure material forms of the same kind, should likewise perfume one another. Although they belong to the same class of material form, they do not correspond. Therefore, if you do not accept that they perfume one another, the same applies to the six consciousnesses.

Although they belong to the same class of consciousness, they do not correspond; how, then, can it be said that they perfume one another? It was previously stated that there are two kinds of seeds: external seeds and internal seeds. If their meaning as causes is set forth, they constitute two kinds of causes: first, producing causes; and second, sustaining causes.

To clarify this meaning, it is said that external and internal seeds are causes capable of producing and causes capable of sustaining. If external and internal seeds are producing causes and sustaining causes, what are their characteristics? The capacity to produce a sprout and so forth, up to the ripened fruit, is an external producing cause.

The capacity to produce karmic retribution up to the end of life is an internal producing cause. A sustaining cause means that, although something has died and dried up, it continues for a time afterward before truly perishing. An external seed is like an old grain of rice; an internal seed is like a dead body.

Because of the sustaining cause, it continues to remain for a period of time. If these two kinds had only producing causes, then as soon as the producing cause was exhausted, the fruit would immediately perish and could not continue to remain. If you say that it arises in a continuous series through gradual transformation from moment to moment, with the preceding moment serving as the cause of the subsequent moment, and therefore it remains as a continuum, then there would never be a final moment when it ceased.

Since neither of these two doctrines is tenable, it is known that there is a sustaining cause. These two causes are like an archer releasing an arrow. Releasing the arrow is the producing cause, and the bow is the sustaining cause.

Once the arrow is released and leaves the bowstring, it travels far. If only the release of the arrow were the cause and the bow did not serve as a cause, the arrow could not travel far. If it is said that the arrow of the preceding moment produces the arrow of the subsequent moment and therefore the arrow can travel far, this would also imply that the arrow would never fall.

External and internal seeds are likewise. Because the producing cause is exhausted, they dry up and die. Because the sustaining cause is exhausted, they perish.

The Treatise states:

External seeds are like this,

But internal seeds are not so.

This meaning is clarified by the following two verses:

Externally, there is no perfuming;

Internal seeds are not so.

If hearing were not perfumed,

The arising of its fruit would be unreasonable.

What has been done and what has not been done,

Gain and loss would both be contradicted.

Because the internal and external are established,

Therefore, internally there is perfuming.

Explanation: If internal seeds were no different from external seeds, then since the eye and the other faculties alike consist of the purified four great elements, why would they not perfume one another? It is because they are external. External seeds differ from internal seeds in three respects. Therefore, it is untenable that internal perfuming should depend upon what is external. To clarify this meaning, two verses are given. The words:

“Externally, there is no perfuming;
Internal seeds are not so.”

mean that external seeds, such as barley and so forth, come into being through their inherent efficacy, not through perfuming. Internal seeds are not like this; they must be produced through perfuming. This meaning is not established by analogy with external objects. How can this be known? The verse says:

“If learning did not perfume,
Its fruit could not reasonably arise.”

This means that if there were no internal perfuming, then just as the wisdom of learning and the wisdom of reflection did not arise before one had studied, after one now studies and acquires the wisdom of learning, the subsequent wisdom of reflection should likewise fail to arise. Why? Because both would equally be without perfuming. Since this is not so, one should know that internally, seeds are formed only through perfuming; without perfuming, they are not formed. If there were no internal perfuming, what further faults would follow? The verse says:

“What has been done and what has not been done—
Their gain and loss would both be contradictory.”

This means that if there were no internal perfuming, there would be two faults: first, one would obtain what one had not brought about; second, what one had brought about would be lost. If an internal continuum devoid of perfuming were the cause, then the resulting suffering and happiness would not have been produced by a cause; thus one would obtain what one had not brought about. If one had already exerted effort but there were no perfuming within the mind, then a result could arise without a cause; thus what one had brought about would be lost. This contradicts both worldly experience and reason. Therefore, the fundamental consciousness becomes a cause only after being perfumed by the three kinds of karma. Furthermore, why can barley and so forth become seeds without being perfumed?

“Because the external is formed through the internal,
Therefore, within there is perfuming.”

This means that if an external thing becomes a seed, it does not do so through its own power; it must be produced externally through the influence of internal perfuming and thereby become a seed. Why? Because no external dharma can come into being apart from the internal.

Therefore, the external does not accomplish perfuming. First, it is because internal perfuming forms seeds. Second, if there were no internal seeds, one would obtain what one had not brought about and lose what one had brought about, but such is not the case.

Third, external seeds are formed through the internal; therefore, the internal differs from the external and necessarily involves perfuming. Previously, dependent arising as the differentiation of intrinsic nature and dependent arising along desirable and undesirable courses were discussed. Now dependent arising with respect to experience is explained.

What is its characteristic?

Treatise: Apart from the Alaya consciousness, the objects and subjects of the other consciousnesses constitute the arisen consciousnesses. One should know that throughout all the courses of samsara, these are called the consciousnesses of experience.

Explanation: Why are these six consciousnesses called arisen consciousnesses? There are two meanings. First, the seeds within the fundamental consciousness are brought forth by these consciousnesses.

Because these six consciousnesses arise in dependence upon afflictions and karma, they are able to perfume the fundamental consciousness and cause seeds to be formed. Seeds themselves possess two powers: the power to produce and the power to project. Because of these two powers, the six consciousnesses are called “arisen.” Since the result possesses two powers, the cause receives these two designations.

Second, when the causes within the fundamental consciousness mature, the six consciousnesses arise from those causes and experience desirable and undesirable retributions and so forth. These consciousnesses are called arisen consciousnesses and are also called consciousnesses of experience. Because causes from a previous life bring them forth and cause them to experience their retributive results, they receive the two names “arisen” and “experiencing.” Since these arisen consciousnesses experience retributive results, they assume every kind of body among the four modes of birth and the six destinies.

One should know that these consciousnesses are therefore also called consciousnesses of experience. What are the characteristics of the consciousnesses of experience?

Treatise: As a verse in the Madhyantavibhaga says:

The first is called the conditioning consciousness;
The second is called the experiencing consciousness.
Comprehension and feeling are discrimination;
Volition and the other mental dharmas initiate activity.

Explanation: “The first is called the conditioning consciousness” means that the Alaya consciousness is the causal condition of the arisen consciousnesses and is therefore called the conditioning consciousness. “The second is called the experiencing consciousness” means that the other consciousnesses, previously called arisen consciousnesses, are now called experiencing consciousnesses. These consciousnesses are able to arise by taking sensory objects as their conditions, and with respect to each object they can experience suffering, happiness, and so forth; therefore, they are called experiencing consciousnesses.

This refers to the skandha of feeling. “Comprehension and feeling are discrimination” means that when these three kinds of feeling are accompanied by a distinct mental awareness, they can be discriminated and understood: this is a painful feeling, this is a pleasant feeling, and this is a feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant. This consciousness is called discriminating consciousness and refers to the consciousness of perception.

“Volition and the other mental dharmas initiate activity” means that attention and so forth are called initiators of activity. Thinking that this is good and that is bad, and so forth, is called attention. This attention can cause the mind to abandon one thing and adopt another; therefore, it is called an initiator of activity.

The initiation of activity is the skandha of formations. The six consciousnesses are called mind. Because the subsequent three mental states arise from this initial mind, they are called mental dharmas.

Treatise: These two consciousnesses are also causes of one another. As a verse in the Mahayana Abhidharma says:

All dharmas in relation to the storehouse consciousness,
And the consciousness in relation to dharmas, are likewise so.
The two are causes of one another
And are also fruits of one another.

Explanation: This is intended to clarify that the fundamental consciousness and the consciousnesses of experience are mutually cause and effect, and it cites the Agamas as evidence. Since this does not contradict the Agamas, it can certainly be trusted. Furthermore, if this were not stated, it would be unknown where this proof originated—whether it was spoken by the Buddha or was not spoken by the Buddha.

Therefore, it is stated in this way. “All dharmas in relation to the storehouse consciousness, and the consciousness in relation to dharmas, are likewise so” means that if the fundamental consciousness is the cause of all dharmas, then all dharmas are its fruits and are necessarily stored within the fundamental consciousness. If all dharmas are causes of the fundamental consciousness, then the fundamental consciousness is their fruit and necessarily stores all dharmas.

“The two are causes of one another and are also fruits of one another” means that if the fundamental consciousness is the cause of the others, the others are the fruits of the fundamental consciousness. If the others are causes of the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness is their fruit. Such is the principle of cause and effect.

Whether or not a Buddha appears, the Dharma always abides in this way.

Chapter 7: The Four Conditions

Explanation: These three kinds of dependent arising are: first, dependent arising pertaining to samsara as a whole; second, dependent arising along desirable and undesirable courses; and third, dependent arising with respect to experience. These three kinds of dependent arising involve four kinds of conditions.

Treatise: If, in the first kind of dependent arising, all dharmas and consciousness serve as causal conditions for one another, then—

Explanation: Causal conditions have already been clarified, so there is no need to ask about them again. Why? Because all dharmas perfume the Alaya consciousness and can therefore serve as causes and fruits of one another.

Treatise: In the second kind of dependent arising, what kind of condition are the dharmas?

They are dominant conditions.

Explanation: Because ignorance and so forth exercise a dominant influence, formations and so forth are able to arise. There are two kinds of dominance: inseparability and mere presence. Inseparability is exemplified by the eye faculty being the dominant condition of eye consciousness.

Mere presence means, for example, that white and so forth can reveal black and so forth. Ignorance and so forth possess both kinds of dominant condition in relation to formations and so forth. If suffering were absent, the formations governed by ignorance would not arise; and after formations have arisen, if ignorance were not cultivated along the path, those formations would not mature.

Why? Because a stream-enterer does not create karma that produces the retribution of future birth, and a non-returner does not undergo the retribution of birth in the lower realms.

Treatise: How many conditions, then, can produce the six consciousnesses?

There are three conditions: the dominant condition, the object condition, and the immediately preceding condition.

Explanation: Because it arises from a faculty, it is called the dominant condition. Because it takes an object as its condition, it is called the object-condition. Because the preceding consciousness ceases and the subsequent consciousness arises, it is called the immediately antecedent condition. Since the preceding consciousness enables the subsequent consciousness to arise without any interval intervening between them, it is called “immediately antecedent.”

The Treatise says: As for these remaining three kinds of conditioned arising—the conditioned arising associated with samsara, the conditioned arising of the path of love and hatred, and the conditioned arising of enjoyment—they possess all four conditions.

Explanation: When the four conditions are applied to the three kinds of conditioned arising, there are cases in which they are complete and cases in which they are incomplete. From the standpoint of the explicit meaning, none of them possesses all four. From the standpoint of the implicit meaning, each possesses all four conditions.