攝大乘論釋

Chapter Three: Explanation of the Supporting Citations

Section 6: Conformity with Reasoning

The Treatise says: If a person enters the attainment of the cessation of mind, because consciousness does not leave the body, the retributive consciousness likewise does not leave the body while in that attainment.

Explanation: This section further cites what does not contradict reasoning in order to clarify that the fundamental consciousness truly exists. Those called saints who have attained the third or fourth fruit, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth cultivate the attainment of the cessation of mind because they have attained a peaceful abiding and are free from the fault of regression. It is not the cessation of the substance of mind that is called the cessation of mind; rather, because the mental factors are ceased, it is called the cessation of mind.

Since that which depends is designated according to its support, the term “mind” is established. The Buddha said: When this person enters the attainment, consciousness does not leave the body. This consciousness can only be the retributive consciousness.

If, apart from this consciousness, one says that any one of the six consciousnesses, or any of the other consciousnesses, does not leave the body, this proposition cannot be established. Why? The cultivation of this attainment of the cessation of mind is an antidote to the manifesting consciousnesses.

Through contemplating the faults of the manifesting consciousnesses, one sees that they are not tranquil. “Faults” means that when the six consciousnesses take external objects as their conditions, improper mental activity arises. Because of improper mental activity, one regresses from meditative concentration.

This is the first fault: the manifesting consciousnesses, being in a distracted state, create an obstruction. One cannot attain the utmost subtle tranquility; this is the second fault. What has been attained is lost, and what has not been attained cannot be attained.

In order to counteract these two faults, one cultivates the attainment of the cessation of mind. If a consciousness that does not leave the body is established, one should know that it is the fundamental consciousness.

The Treatise says: Why is this so?

Explanation: By what further principle is it demonstrated that the consciousness which does not leave the body is only the fundamental consciousness?

The Treatise says: Because the attainment of the cessation of mind does not counteract this consciousness.

Explanation: If a person wishes to attain an abiding in tranquility, one does not contemplate the faults of this consciousness and cannot counteract this consciousness; therefore, one cultivates the attainment of the cessation of mind. Thus, precisely when entering the attainment of the cessation of mind, this consciousness is not ceased; that is to say, this consciousness does not leave the body.

The Treatise says: How is this known?

Explanation: How can this proposition be known? Why not say that when one enters the attainment of the cessation of mind, there truly is no mind, but that the mind has not been extinguished forever because it will arise again afterward, and therefore it is said that consciousness does not leave the body? The Buddha said: If a person enters the fourth dhyana, bodily activity ceases.

If a person enters the second dhyana, and so forth, verbal activity ceases. If a person enters the attainment of the cessation of mind, mental activity ceases. Thus, although bodily activity ceases, the body is not extinguished; it is likewise with the mind.

Only mental activity ceases, while the mind itself is not extinguished. Therefore, it is said that consciousness does not leave the body. This proposition is incorrect.

Why?

The Treatise says: Because if this consciousness were counteracted, then upon emerging from the attainment, consciousness would not arise again.

Explanation: If, within this attainment, the continuity of consciousness were interrupted, there could be no other consciousness from which, after emerging from the attainment, consciousness could arise again.

The Treatise says: Why is this so?

Explanation: A further principle is now cited to establish this proposition.

The Treatise says: Because the continuity of the retributive consciousness would already have been severed. Once one has departed from the process of taking rebirth, it cannot arise again.

Explanation: Just as when a person has exhausted one period of retribution, the continuity of the retributive consciousness is permanently severed and cannot arise again, so if consciousness were to arise again, it would have to take rebirth in another body. Without taking rebirth in another body, it is impossible for the retributive consciousness to arise again in the original body. Therefore, one knows that when it is said that consciousness does not leave the body upon entering the attainment of the cessation of mind, this refers only to the fundamental consciousness.

The Treatise says: Some say that mind still exists in the attainment of the cessation of mind. The mind of which they speak is not properly so called.

Explanation: Do they say that the sixth mind exists and call this “the existence of mind,” or do they say that the sixth mind is the consciousness that does not leave the body? What they speak of is not mind.

The Treatise says: Why is this so?

Explanation: A further principle is now cited to refute the sixth consciousness and clearly establish that the fundamental consciousness does not leave the body. If, apart from the characteristic of the fundamental consciousness established previously, one arbitrarily grasps any one of the manifesting consciousnesses and says that it exists in the attainment of the cessation of mind, this is not so. Why?

The Treatise says: Because the definition of the attainment could not be established.

Explanation: Below, ten principles are used to clarify the errors in claiming that mind exists in the attainment of the cessation of mind. This is the first error. Mind and mental factors have never been observed to be separate from one another.

Just as mental factors are not separate from other mental factors—for example, perception is never separate from feeling, nor is feeling ever apart from perception—so too mind and mental factors are never separate from one another. If they are not separate, then neither the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception nor the attainment of the cessation of mind could be established. This attainment is accomplished through the cessation of these three dharmas.

Since the three dharmas would not have ceased, this attainment could not be established. If one who holds that the fundamental consciousness exists says that this consciousness does not leave the body, there is no such fault. Why, then, do all the other consciousnesses cease while this consciousness alone does not cease?

Those who cultivate the attainment of the cessation of mind seek to abide in tranquility. Because the attainment of the cessation of mind arises in order to counteract the mind and mental factors that can obstruct abiding in tranquility, and is not cultivated to counteract the failure to comprehend the fundamental consciousness, the other consciousnesses cease while this consciousness does not. Furthermore, in this attainment, apart from the fundamental consciousness, no other consciousness can be established.

The Treatise says: Because neither an apprehended characteristic nor an object can be found.

Explanation: This is the second error. If one holds that mind and mental factors exist, then whatever exists must have an apprehended characteristic and an objective domain. There are two kinds of apprehension of characteristics: first, nondiscriminative; second, discriminative.

Nondiscriminative apprehension belongs to the five consciousnesses. Mental consciousness may be either discriminative or nondiscriminative. If it is nondiscriminative, all six consciousnesses directly cognize.

If it is discriminative, it knows through comparison and inference. The objective domains are the six objects and the suchness of the six objects. Both mind and mental factors that apprehend characteristics and objective domains can clearly apprehend those characteristics and objective domains.

Since neither can be found in this attainment, one knows that no other consciousnesses whatsoever exist in this attainment. If one says that the fundamental consciousness exists in this attainment, there is no contradiction, for this consciousness can manifest the support from which the others arise.

The Treatise says: Because of the fault of association with wholesome roots.

Explanation: This is the third error. Furthermore, if one holds that another consciousness arises in this attainment, this consciousness cannot fall outside the three natures: wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate. This mind cannot be established as wholesome, because doing so entails the fault of its association with wholesome roots, since the two positions contradict one another.

If a consciousness were not associated with wholesome roots yet were intrinsically wholesome, this would be meaningless. If this mind is wholesome, it must certainly be associated with wholesome roots. If one says that because the mind in meditative concentration is wholesome, the attainment is therefore called wholesome, this is incorrect.

It is not because you accept that it is associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed and so forth. Such a proposition would necessarily entail the loss of the attainment of the cessation of mind. Why?

A wholesome mind universally includes all nondiscriminative factors, because all mental factors are inseparable from one another. If they are inseparable, feeling and perception likewise would not cease. Therefore, this mind cannot be established as wholesome.

The Treatise says: Because it cannot be associated with the unwholesome or the indeterminate.

Explanation: This is the fourth error. Furthermore, this mind cannot be established as unwholesome or indeterminate, because neither of these two natures can be established. When one has become free from desire in the Desire Realm, all unwholesome dharmas cease; hence it is not unwholesome. Consequently, it must necessarily be wholesome, and therefore this mind cannot be established as indeterminate.

The Treatise says: Because of the fault that perception and feeling would arise.

Explanation: This is the fifth fault. Furthermore, this mind cannot be said to be wholesome, because that would entail the fault that perception, feeling, and so forth are present. Apart from wholesome roots, a wholesome nature cannot be established; therefore, a wholesome mind must be associated with wholesome roots.

Just as it must be associated with wholesome roots, so too it must be associated with feeling and perception. Since there is no other cause, this proposition cannot be established. When that which is to be counteracted is present, that which counteracts it is also present.

For example, when desire and so forth arise, contemplation of impurity and so forth cannot be present. If you do not accept this proposition, it should be understood that a wholesome mind cannot be established.

The Treatise says: When these three unite, contact must be present, because in all other concentrations they possess this function.

Explanation: This is the sixth fault. Furthermore, if one accepts the foundational consciousness, there is no fault of contact arising in this concentration. Thus, just as in other concentrations, if in the concentration of the cessation of mind there arises another wholesome mind distinct from the foundational consciousness, this mind must not be devoid of contact.

Since it arises from concentration, how could it not have the characteristic capable of producing pleasant feeling and so forth? Contact that is pleasant and contact that is neither painful nor pleasant must produce their causes; how, then, could contact that gives rise to pleasant feeling and to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling fail to arise? Why is this?

In other concentrations, contact has already been seen to possess the function of producing the two feelings of pleasure and equanimity. This concentration is likewise, since there is no obstruction or impediment. Therefore, this concentration must also depend upon contact for feeling to arise.

This proposition is not so. Why?

The Treatise says: Because it entails the fault that only perception is extinguished.

Explanation: This is the seventh fault. Furthermore, if one accepts that, because of contact, feeling is present in this concentration, then only perception would be absent from this concentration. This proposition is not so. Why? The Buddha said that both perception and feeling are absent.

The Treatise says: Because it entails the fault that wholesome roots such as attention, faith, and so forth arise.

Explanation: This is the eighth fault. Furthermore, this contact should not be present. In the other consciousnesses, contact is invariably associated with them, because when they arise, wholesome roots such as attention and faith arise, entailing a fault if contact arises associated with the mind.

The Buddha said: Attention, feeling, and so forth must arise together with contact. If attention is present, it can produce a wholesome mind and so forth. Wholesome roots such as faith then arise following attention.

This proposition is incorrect, because it does not escape the fault already stated. If you wish to escape the fault already stated, as well as the fault of contradicting the Agamas, and say that because the mental factors are regarded with aversion, only the mental factors are expelled, so that this concentration has only mind and no mental factors, this proposition is not so. Why?

There is no principle whereby that which depends can be eliminated while its basis remains.

The Treatise says: Because that which depends cannot be eliminated apart from its basis.

Explanation: This is the ninth fault. Furthermore, if you say that, because contact, feeling, perception, and so forth are regarded with aversion through the preparatory practices for this concentration, the mental factors are eliminated, leaving only mind without contact and so forth, this proposition is not so. Why?

It is impossible to eliminate that which depends while retaining its basis. The basis is mind; that which depends upon it consists of the mental factors. Mind and mental factors have stood in the relationship of basis and dependent from beginningless samsara until now and have never been separated.

Because they lead one another onward, the mind must therefore be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed. If you say that the concentration and the preparatory practices through which it arises must be opposed to wholesome roots such as non-greed, and therefore wholesome roots such as non-greed do not arise, while only wholesome mind arises, such a proposition has never been observed anywhere else. If phenomena are associated in their cause, the corresponding result is likewise associated.

This assertion is incorrect.

The Treatise says: Because there is an analogy.

Explanation: This is the tenth fault. Furthermore, the Buddha said: In this concentration, all bodily formations, verbal formations, and mental formations cease and do not arise. Bodily formations are the two breaths, inhalation and exhalation. Verbal formations are initial and sustained mental application. Mental formations are attention, perception, feeling, and so forth. Just as, when initial and sustained mental application have completely ceased, speech does not arise, so too, if mental formations cease, the mind must cease along with them. If you say that, just as when bodily formations cease, the body of the person in concentration is not destroyed, so too, although mental formations cease in concentration, the mind does not cease, this proposition is likewise not so. Why?

The Treatise says: Because it is not like all formations, for all formations are not like this.

Explanation: When bodily formations cease, there is a distinct sustaining cause that enables the body to be maintained without perishing. As the Buddha said: Apart from inhalation and exhalation, food and drink, lifespan-consciousness, and so forth can maintain the body and keep it from perishing. Thus, when bodily formations cease, there is a distinct dharma that maintains the body's continuance.

When mental formations cease, however, there is no distinct dharma that maintains the mind and prevents its cessation. Therefore, everything you posit is inconsistent with this principle. Accordingly, because its continuance is maintained in this way, it is certain that there is no mind.

If there is no mind, why did the Buddha say that consciousness does not leave the body? It is the mind of karmic fruition that the Buddha called consciousness. When one emerges from contemplation, mental consciousness arises from this consciousness containing all seeds, because this consciousness is the cause of the subsequent consciousness, and because within the body abiding in concentration there is alimentary consciousness.

Therefore, it is known that the fundamental consciousness certainly exists. If, from time immemorial, it has performed the great function of supporting the dependent and its support, it is unreasonable that the dependent could be removed and made to leave its support. Why?

Because this is established by analogy. In the world, things that from time immemorial until the very end have always arisen together and have never been separated cannot reasonably have the dependent removed from its support. Just as there is no principle by which matter produced by the four great elements can be separated from the four great elements that produce it, so too with mental dharmas: they cannot be made to leave their support.

Therefore, it is incorrect to say that in the concentration without mind there is only mind and no mental dharmas. Suppose you maintain that it is unreasonable to remove the dependent from its support, but that because only feeling and perception are rejected, only these two dharmas cease. You may say that within this concentration these two dharmas do not function, while the other dharmas still do.

This claim is incorrect. Why? If not all activities could cease in this way, such cessation could not occur in relation to all activities.

If the universally associated mental factors cease, the mind must certainly cease along with them; yet the Buddha should then not have said that consciousness does not leave the body. Because this consciousness exists, it is known that the Tathagata intended to establish that the fundamental consciousness is present within this concentration. Furthermore, the sutra says that consciousness does not leave the body.

This means that, apart from the fundamental consciousness, the other consciousnesses cannot be established. Why? This concentration of mental cessation arises as an antidote to the arising consciousnesses, because they are contemplated as unquiet.

Suppose someone says that the mind will arise again upon emerging from concentration, and that perhaps it is for this reason that consciousness is said not to leave. That too is incorrect. Why?

According to this interpretation, when one emerges from concentration, the consciousness of karmic fruition would not arise again. If its continuity had been severed, then after it had left its support there would be no possibility of its arising again. Suppose someone, apart from the fundamental consciousness, relies on mental consciousness and maintains that there is mind within the concentration of mental cessation.

The mind that this person posits cannot be established as mind, because it cannot be established as wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate in nature. Since this concentration is said to be wholesome in nature, it is not unwholesome, nor is it indeterminate. Minds associated with deportment, craftsmanship, and magical transformation do not exist within this concentration.

Therefore, if one says that it contains an indeterminate mind of karmic fruition, that is precisely the fundamental consciousness, because there is no fifth kind of indeterminate mind. If you say that this mind is wholesome, it must consequently be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed. Why?

When the defiled mind has ceased, that is precisely the time when a wholesome mind arises. The mental faculty also has an object, and the three dharmas also come together; why, then, would contact not arise? If contact exists, why would feeling not exist?

If so, the meaning of the concentration of mental cessation cannot be established, because within it mind and mental dharmas would not cease. Suppose someone maintains that this concentration is wholesome because of its inducing cause: during the preparatory stage, the exertion of wholesome mind can induce this concentrated state. The concentrated state is a similar effect; although wholesome, it is not associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed.

Therefore, wishing to clarify that contact gives rise to feeling, the Tathagata first analyzed this conjunction: dependent upon a faculty and conditioned by an object, consciousness arises. Because the three are capable of conjunction, contact gives rise to feeling. If the three are incapable of conjunction, only contact arises and feeling does not.

Therefore, although this concentration is wholesome, it is incapable of conjunction, and consequently there is neither feeling nor perception. The mind of preparation is associated with the three wholesome roots, but its similar effect is not so. This claim is incorrect.

Why? Because the dependent cannot be removed from its support. These objections have already been fully explained above.

Treatise: If someone maintains that matter and mind successively produce the seeds of these dharmas, that view is incorrect.

Explanation: Suppose someone maintains that the matter of the preceding moment is the cause of the matter of the subsequent moment and can serve as the seed of the subsequent matter. Likewise, the consciousness of the preceding moment is the cause of the consciousness of the subsequent moment and can serve as the seed of the subsequent consciousness. This view is incorrect.

Treatise: Why? Because it has the fault already stated, and there are also further faults.

Explanation: The previously stated fault is that if the continuity of consciousness is severed, the subsequent consciousness has no cause and therefore cannot arise. Furthermore, when one period of karmic fruition has ended, apart from taking support in a subsequent womb, it cannot arise again. Such faults have already been fully explained above. There is also the following view: If a person falls from the Formless Realm and is reborn in the Form Realm, and if the former seed has already ceased long before that later birth in the Form Realm, then from what cause does this existence in the Form Realm arise?

Treatise: Another fault is that, in the case of a person who falls from the Heaven of Non-Perception, or one who emerges from the concentration of mental cessation, all the preceding views concerning these cases are incorrect.

Explanation: For one born in the Heaven of Non-Perception or one who enters the concentration of mental cessation, the mind has ceased for a long time. If afterward the former falls and is reborn, or the latter emerges from concentration, how can the preceding mind be established as the cause of the mind that will subsequently arise, if the matter is defined in this way?

Treatise: Nor can the final mind of an arhat be established.

Explanation: This would mean that an arhat does not enter nirvana without remainder. Why? Because the causes of the final matter and the final mind would remain unexhausted. Therefore, this principle should be understood.

Treatise: If sequential condition is excluded, this view cannot be established.

Explanation: The matter of the preceding moment corresponds to the subsequent matter because of the sequential condition. Consciousness is likewise. The preceding and subsequent moments do not correspond because of a causal condition. Therefore, if this view excludes sequential condition and establishes the meaning of causal condition, it cannot be established, because it contradicts liberation.

Treatise: Thus, if the fruition-consciousness containing all seeds is excluded, neither the purified nor the impure categories can be established. Therefore, the existence of this mind is established. It should be faithfully understood according to the characteristics described above. A verse now follows:

Explanation: This principle has already been fully explained above. If a person accepts only the arising consciousnesses and not the fundamental consciousness, the meaning of the transformation of the basis cannot be established. To clarify this principle, three verses are given here.

Treatise:

When a bodhisattva abides in wholesome consciousness,

He is then apart from those five consciousnesses.

If there is no other mind, by what means

Can the basis be transformed?

If the antidote that transforms the basis

Is not cessation, it cannot be established.

Cause and effect would be indistinguishable;

To call it cessation would entail a fault.

Without seeds, there are no dharmas;

If this is held to be transformation of the basis,

Since neither of the two exists,

The meaning of transforming the basis cannot be established.

Explanation: Bodhisattvas are of two classes: ordinary beings and noble ones. Those from the stage of the ten faiths downward are ordinary beings; those from the stage of the ten understandings upward are noble ones. Now, to clarify the transformation of the basis of an ordinary being into the basis of a noble one: in which consciousness can this transformation of the basis be accomplished?

It can be accomplished only in the fundamental consciousness. If there were no fundamental consciousness, it could not be accomplished in the other consciousnesses. How is this known?

This meaning is successively clarified by three verses. Because it is free from evil and the morally indeterminate, it is called wholesome. Because it is the sixth consciousness, it is called consciousness.

This wholesomeness is the supramundane mind associated with the thirty-seven factors conducive to awakening and is called wholesome consciousness. This wholesome consciousness is free from the five kinds of distraction and is also never associated with the five consciousnesses; therefore it is said, “It is apart from those five consciousnesses.” How can arising and separation occur together? They arise in this way at all times.

The Treatise says: “There is no other mind.”

Explanation: Apart from the defiled mental consciousness and the wholesome consciousness with outflows, if one spoke only of wholesome consciousness without saying that there are no other minds, then the wholesome consciousness with outflows would be included therein.

The Treatise says: “What is the means for transforming the basis?”

Explanation: When all seeds of defilement are extinguished and abandoned, leaving only the fundamental consciousness, this is called the characteristic of transformation of the basis. By what means is it accomplished? It is as stated in the following verse.

The Treatise says: “If the antidote is the transformation of the basis,”

Explanation: If you say that because the antidote arises, the basis is merely transformed into something different, and that the antidote is the transformation of the basis, the meaning is not so.

The Treatise says: “It is not extinction; thus it cannot be established.”

Explanation: If extinction is not taken as the transformation of the basis, the position cannot be established for two reasons. First, if the antidote arises but the seeds are not extinguished, the basis remains as before and is not transformed. Second, if the antidote itself is the transformation of the basis, it is clear that the cause, rather than the essence, is being regarded as the transformation of the basis.

The antidote is the truth of the path. The transformation of the basis is liberation and the Dharma-body, which constitute the truth of cessation. Therefore, the extinction of the seeds must be taken as the transformation of the basis.

If you maintain that when the antidote arises, the seeds are extinguished, and that these two meanings are present at all times, why is extinction taken as the transformation of the basis rather than the path? This assertion entails an error.

The Treatise says: “Cause and effect would be without distinction; to call it cessation thus entails an error.”

Explanation: The effect is the truth of cessation, called nirvana. The cause is the truth of the path, called the antidote. If the antidote were the truth of cessation, cause and effect would become one. What error would there be if they became one? Upon attaining the antidote, one would immediately enter parinirvana. If someone establishes the truth of cessation as the transformation of the basis, is the extinction of the seeds to be regarded as the transformation of the basis, or is the extinction of consciousness to be regarded as the transformation of the basis?

The Treatise says: “The absence of seeds and the absence of phenomena—if these are regarded as the transformation of the basis,”

Explanation: If someone says that the extinction of both that which depends and that upon which it depends is called the transformation of the basis, then within the mental consciousness, the seeds, which are that which depends, are extinguished; and when the dependent seeds have been extinguished, the mental consciousness, which is their basis, is also extinguished. Therefore, this is called the transformation of the basis. If these two meanings are accepted as the transformation of the basis, this is not so.

The Treatise says: “Since the two absences do not exist, the meaning of transformation of the basis cannot be established.”

Explanation: When the arisen sixth consciousness is absent during meditative concentration, there are neither seeds nor the unconditioned; therefore, the meaning of transformation of the basis cannot be established. If the fundamental consciousness exists, the arisen consciousness produces seeds through perfuming, and these seeds abide in the fundamental consciousness. Although the arisen consciousness is absent, it is possible to cause both the absence of the seeds and the absence of the arisen consciousness; this is called the transformation of the basis.

Apart from the fundamental consciousness, these two absences do not exist; therefore, the meaning of transformation of the basis cannot be established. For this reason, one must firmly believe in the existence of the fundamental consciousness.

Chapter Four: Explanation of the Distinctions

Section 1: Verbal Expressions

Explanation: This chapter has two general sections and seven specific sections. The two general sections are: 1. Perfuming, and 2. Function. The seven specific sections are: 1. Verbal Expressions, 2. View of Self, 3. Factors of Existence, 4. Production, 5. Retribution, 6. Objective Characteristics, and 7. Features. The preceding three chapters have established the fundamental consciousness. It has distinctions of various kinds, which will now be explained further.

The Treatise says: What distinctions does this alaya-consciousness possess?

Explanation: This asks whether the fundamental consciousness has distinctions in nature or distinctions in its particular aspects.

The Treatise says: Generally speaking, there are three or four kinds of distinctions.

Explanation: Distinctions in particular aspects are now being discussed. There is only one fundamental consciousness, and its nature does not differ. In its particular aspects, however, there are three, four, or seven kinds of distinction.

The Treatise says: The three kinds are distinctions produced by three kinds of perfuming. They are the distinction of perfuming by verbal expressions, the distinction of perfuming by the view of self, and the distinction of perfuming by the factors of existence.

Explanation: The reason these three are not explained in the root treatise is that these three meanings are explained first later in the section “The Supreme Characteristics That Must Be Understood”; therefore, they are not explained here. The distinction of perfuming by verbal expressions means that although there is only one fundamental consciousness, three kinds arise because of distinctions in perfuming. Verbal expressions have names as their essence.

Names are of two kinds: spoken names and mentally conceived names. These two kinds of names are rooted in sound. The faculty capable of seeing form is designated by the sound “eye.” Through repeatedly becoming accustomed to this designation, attachment and clinging arise and perfume the fundamental consciousness.

This perfuming is the cause from which the eye faculty arises. When the eye faculty as retribution arises, it is said to arise from the perfuming by attachment within the fundamental consciousness. Therefore, the perfuming by verbal expressions is established as the cause of the eye faculty.

As with the eye faculty, so too with the ear faculty and the others: all likewise arise from the perfuming by verbal expressions. This is the first distinction of the fundamental consciousness.

Section 2: View of Self

The Treatise says: Through the distinction of perfuming by the view of self.

Explanation: Consciousness is defiled because it is the basis of the view of self and so forth. Within the fundamental consciousness arise various perfumings of self, what belongs to self, and so forth. Because of these perfumings, discrimination arises, namely, regarding oneself as “self” and those who are not oneself as others. This is the second distinction of the fundamental consciousness.

Section 3: Factors of Existence

The Treatise says: Through the distinction of perfuming by the factors of existence.

Explanation: In accordance with various wholesome, unwholesome, and immovable karmas, one receives different sets of six faculties within the six realms. Therefore, the fundamental consciousness has distinctions within the three realms and the six paths. This is the third distinction of the fundamental consciousness.

Section 4: Production

The Treatise says: The four kinds are the distinction of production, the distinction of retribution, the distinction of objective characteristics, and the distinction of features. The distinction of production is the perfuming that brings forth something new. If this did not exist, consciousness arising in dependence upon formations and existence arising in dependence upon grasping could not be established.

Explanation: What are the characteristics of the production of different kinds? It is the perfuming that brings forth something new. The distinction of the fundamental consciousness is such that formations, as they arise and cease, perfume consciousness and are preserved through grasping. Without production, the existence that leads to birth could not be established. Because arising occurs from this existence, it is called the dharma of existence. Grasping, wholesomeness, unwholesomeness, and so forth are results produced through repeated perfuming in previous lives.

Section 5: Retribution

The Treatise says: The distinction of retribution means that, through formations, this dharma matures within the six paths. If this did not exist, no phenomena would arise when birth is subsequently received.

Explanation: Formations and existence are the guiding causes that bring this fundamental consciousness to maturity within the six paths; therefore, this is called guidance. If this did not exist, after birth the faculties such as the eye and the objects such as forms could not arise again. These phenomena are the result of retribution.

Section 6: Objective Characteristics

The Treatise says: The distinction of objective characteristics means that within the mind there are characteristics capable of giving rise to clinging to a self. If this did not exist, there would be no characteristics serving as objects of clinging to a self within the various minds.

Explanation: This foundational consciousness serves as the objective condition for the ego-clinging of the second consciousness and the view of self of the sixth consciousness. If this foundational consciousness did not take differentiated characteristics as its objects, then, because the view of a body is the cause, the objective sphere of ego-clinging could not be established. This is called the analogous result.

Chapter 7: Characteristics

The Treatise says: Differences in characteristics mean that this consciousness has common characteristics, uncommon characteristics, the characteristics of seeds that do not give rise to awareness and sensation, and the characteristics of seeds that do give rise to awareness and sensation.

Explanation: Characteristics comprise many different categories. In brief, there are four kinds.

The Treatise says: The common characteristic consists of the seeds of the receptacle-world. The uncommon characteristic consists of the distinct internal seeds. Furthermore, the common characteristic consists of the seeds that do not give rise to awareness and sensation. The uncommon characteristic consists of the seeds that do give rise to awareness and sensation.

Explanation: The foundational consciousness has a function shared in common with all sentient beings; that is, together with sentient beings, it jointly makes use of the world, like a vessel, as a generative cause. Furthermore, the common characteristic consists of the seeds that do not give rise to awareness and sensation. This foundational consciousness is a dharma without awareness or sensation.

This refers to external generative causes such as the four great elements, the five sense-objects, and so forth. If the foundational consciousness did not possess such characteristics, it could not constitute the cause of the receptacle-world jointly used by sentient beings. The uncommon characteristic consists of the distinct internal seeds.

“Distinct seeds” refers to self and others. Because their objective spheres differ, their categories differ, and the characteristics they apprehend differ, they are each said to be distinct. Furthermore, what is called “self” is internal, while “other” is external.

Thus, the generative causes of the internal faculties, sense-objects, and so forth are the uncommon characteristics. To say that these are seeds that give rise to awareness and sensation means that this foundational consciousness is the generative cause of dharmas possessing awareness and sensation. If this second characteristic did not exist, the world of sentient beings could not be established.

If it were established through some other cause, it would lack awareness and sensation, like trees and stones. Of these two kinds of seeds, which does the Noble Path destroy?

The Treatise says: When the counteracting path arises, only the uncommon characteristic is extinguished.

Explanation: When the Path arises, these uncommon seeds, being contrary to the Path, are necessarily destroyed by it. Why is this? There is no case in which one person attains the Path and many other people thereby attain liberation. What function does the Path have with respect to the common seeds?

The Treatise says: As for the common characteristic, it is maintained by the many other sentient beings, while one’s own right view becomes purified.

Explanation: With respect to the common seeds, the Path both has no function and does have a function. It does not have the same function here as it has with respect to the uncommon seeds; hence it is said to have no function. After one attains the Path, however, what one sees becomes purified and differs from what one saw before; hence it is also said to have a function.

How does the Path function differently with respect to the common and uncommon seeds? It is because the common seeds are discriminated by others. If so, how does the Path function with respect to the common seeds?

It merely eliminates discrimination. Because nondiscrimination arises with regard to the objective sphere, the Dharma-eye becomes purified with respect to that sphere. Since it takes only the absence of inherent nature as its object, if compassionate prajna again gives rise to discrimination, this discrimination relies upon true suchness, and therefore what is discriminated becomes a pure realm.

Since there is only one objective sphere, why do sentient beings see it differently?

The Treatise says: It is like practitioners of contemplation who, with respect to a single kind of object, establish many modes of contemplation and many aspirations according to their own minds.

Explanation: Because the minds of practitioners of contemplation transform, sentient beings see a single kind of object differently. Although this objective sphere is maintained by the discriminations of others, practitioners of contemplation see purity within it.

The Treatise says: There is a verse as follows:

Difficult to extinguish and difficult to unravel,

It is named the common fetter.

Practitioners of contemplation have minds that differ;

Because of the great characteristic, it is established externally.

Those purified have not yet extinguished it,

Yet within it they behold purity.

They accomplish a pure Buddha-land

Through the purity of Buddha-vision.

Explanation: There are two kinds of fetters: first, the fetter of characteristics; second, the coarse and heavy element within the fetter. The fetter of characteristics is difficult to unravel. The coarse and heavy element within the fetter is difficult to extinguish.

The mind’s discrimination of the various sense-objects is the fetter of characteristics. Because this discrimination gives rise to afflictions such as desire, anger, and so forth, it is called the coarse and heavy fetter. If one attains nondiscriminating wisdom, one can unravel the fetter of characteristics.

When the fetter of characteristics no longer arises, the coarse and heavy fetter is also extinguished accordingly. Furthermore, “difficult to extinguish” refers to the uninterrupted path, because the uninterrupted path is difficult to attain, while “difficult to unravel” refers to the path of liberation. Because the uninterrupted path is difficult to attain, the path of liberation is difficult to attain.

Since the fetter arises within the common objective sphere, it is called the common fetter. If spoken of in terms of one’s own continuum, it is not called common. Why is this affliction difficult to extinguish and difficult to unravel?

The Treatise says: “Practitioners of contemplation have minds that differ; Because of the great characteristic, it is established externally.”

Explanation: Apart from consciousness, no separate external objective sphere exists. Therefore, practitioners of contemplation contemplate only the emptiness of internal dharmas and do not contemplate external dharmas; hence it is said that their minds differ. The characteristic of discrimination pervades the worlds of the ten directions; hence it is called the great characteristic.

The contemplative mind is contrary to the internal seeds but has no relation to the external; hence it is said to be established externally. Because of these three meanings, the external fetter is difficult to unravel and difficult to extinguish. If this fetter possesses these three meanings and is difficult to extinguish and difficult to unravel, what function can practitioners who cultivate the Path and contemplation accomplish?

The Treatise says: “Those purified have not yet extinguished it, Yet within it they behold purity.”

Explanation: When the counteracting path arises and the uncommon seeds are extinguished, practitioners of contemplation attain partial purity or complete purity. Although they have not yet extinguished external characteristics, inwardly their Dharma-eye and wisdom-eye are purified and free from attachment.

The Treatise says: “They accomplish a pure Buddha-land.”

Explanation: If wisdom and compassion are present, discrimination arises for the benefit of others; this is precisely the function that accomplishes a pure Buddha-land. Through what causes and conditions is this pure Buddha-land accomplished?

The Treatise says: “Through the purity of Buddha-vision.”

Explanation: The first bhumi is the bodhisattva’s stage of seeing. The purity within the first bhumi is the purity of the path of seeing. The purity of the path of seeing is the purity of Buddha-vision.

Through this purity, one can attain a pure Buddha-land, all the more so at the stage of cultivation and the ultimate stage. Furthermore, contemplation of true suchness is called Buddha-vision. Why is this?

Upon reaching the ultimate stage, what is attained through the contemplation of true suchness does not differ from this; hence it is called Buddha-vision. Furthermore, a bodhisattva is also called a Buddha because, through samadhi, the bodhisattva attains Buddhahood. Since the cause receives the name of the result, it is called Buddha-vision.

Furthermore, when the bodhisattva’s counteracting path arises, the uncommon seeds are extinguished, and the bodhisattva is then endowed with three kinds of purity: first, the purity of the Dharma-eye; second, the purity of the Buddha-land; and third, the purity of seeing the Buddha, which is called seeing the three bodies. Because the bodhisattva gives rise to vision with the Buddha as its object, it is called Buddha-vision.

The Treatise says: There is another verse as follows:

The various aspirations and things seen

Are attained by practitioners of contemplation.

With regard to a single kind of object,

They are accomplished according to their intentions.

Because many kinds of appearances are accomplished,

That which is apprehended is consciousness-only.

Explanation: What does this verse seek to demonstrate? It seeks to demonstrate two meanings: first, that the bodhisattva cultivates inward contemplation without relying on anything external; second, that through this contemplation there is only consciousness and no external sense-object. These two meanings mutually reveal one another.

The Treatise says: “The various aspirations and things seen Are attained by practitioners of contemplation.”

Explanation: Practitioners of contemplation make vows either so that they themselves may attain mastery or because they wish to enable others to accept the true teaching. All the various transformations they vow to accomplish can be attained. Once a vow has been fulfilled, both what they themselves see and what others see accords precisely with that vow. Do these vows have different objects, or do they have a single object?

The Treatise says: “With regard to a single kind of object,”

Explanation: If many practitioners of contemplation make different vows, they can each differently transform the same object; it can indeed be transformed in different ways. How is this possible?

The Treatise says: “It is accomplished according to their intentions.”

Explanation: Because there is consciousness-only and truly no external object, it can be transformed differently according to their intentions. If an external object truly existed, the vows of practitioners of contemplation would not be fulfilled. Since the cause could not be accomplished, the different transformations seen by themselves and others could not be accomplished either.

The Treatise says: “It is seen to be accomplished in many ways. Therefore, that which is apprehended is consciousness-only.”

Explanation: Because the consciousness of a practitioner of contemplation serves as the dominant condition, consciousness is transformed differently for different people. When what was vowed by the practitioner of contemplation appears, one knows with certainty that there is only the fundamental consciousness and no external object. Previously, it was explained that the cause of definite cognition and experience consists of non-common seeds, while the cause of the absence of definite cognition and experience consists of common seeds. It will now be explained how common and non-common causes jointly produce a single result.

The Treatise says: These are the non-common seeds within the fundamental consciousness that produce differences in cognition and experience. If these did not exist, there would be no conditions for the arising of the world of sentient beings. These are the common seeds of the alaya-consciousness that do not produce cognition and experience. If these did not exist, there would be no conditions for the arising of the receptacle world.

Explanation: The two causes, common and non-common, produce the five internal faculties and the five internal sense objects. As the support of the six consciousnesses, they are the result of the non-common cause; as objects of the six consciousnesses of others, they are the result of the common cause. If neither of these two causes produced a result, there would be neither the form skandha nor objects seen in common.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, consciousness has an aspect of coarse heaviness and an aspect of subtle lightness.

Explanation: This passage reveals the corresponding results of the two kinds of karma, wholesome and unwholesome, within the fundamental consciousness; these aspects are also the causes from which the two kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma arise.

The Treatise says: The consciousness characterized by coarse heaviness consists of the seeds of the two classes of afflictions, great and small.

Explanation: The mind’s lack of efficacy with regard to principle and phenomena is called coarse heaviness. All future afflictions and karma arise from this consciousness, and hence it is called their seeds.

The Treatise says: The consciousness characterized by subtle lightness consists of the seeds of all conditioned wholesome dharmas.

Explanation: Because the mind possesses efficacy with regard to principle and phenomena, it is called subtly light. All future wholesome qualities associated with the five faculties, such as faith, arise from this consciousness, and hence it is called their seeds.

The Treatise says: If this did not exist, the superior capacity and the lack of superior capacity pertaining to former karmic results would have no distinct support.

Explanation: If this consciousness did not exist, neither the habitual result nor the retributive result could be established. The habitual result is the result resembling its cause. The retributive result is the fundamental consciousness within the six destinies.

Within the fundamental consciousness there are also the aspect of coarse heaviness and the aspect of subtle lightness. The habitual result is also called the result resembling its cause. Superior capacity is the support of the result resembling its cause.

It accounts for the distinctions among humans and devas in the wholesome destinies of retributive results, and for the distinctions among hell beings, hungry ghosts, and animals in the unwholesome destinies; hence it is called a distinct support. The support of the wholesome destinies possesses superior capacity, whereas the support of the unwholesome destinies lacks superior capacity. If the fundamental consciousness did not possess these two aspects, all meanings of cause and result would fail to be established.

The Treatise says: There are also two kinds of fundamental consciousness: the aspect subject to exhaustion through experience and the aspect not subject to exhaustion through experience.

Explanation: This is intended to reveal that the capacities within the fundamental consciousness may either be exhausted or inexhaustible.

The Treatise says: The aspect subject to exhaustion through experience is the consciousness containing wholesome and unwholesome seeds that have already ripened into retributive results.

Explanation: This fundamental consciousness formerly contained wholesome and unwholesome seeds. When their retributive results have all ripened and been experienced, the seeds are exhausted. Only while they still remain within the fundamental consciousness is this fundamental consciousness said to possess the aspect subject to exhaustion through experience.

The Treatise says: The aspect not subject to exhaustion through experience consists of seeds perfumed by names and words.

Explanation: This fundamental consciousness is experienced inexhaustibly throughout samsara. Through it, the continuity of the various seeds and karma remains uninterrupted; hence it is called the aspect not subject to exhaustion through experience. What is the essence of this aspect?

It is precisely the seeds perfumed by names and words. Initially, sounds are used to designate all dharmas; this is called speech. Subsequently, without uttering speech, the mind directly takes as its object what was previously expressed through sound; this is a name.

The nature of this name is discrimination. If this name is used to discriminate internal dharmas—either exaggerating or diminishing them, either in accordance with principle or contrary to principle—this is called the affliction of the flesh, meaning the affliction within the flesh and blood. If this name is used to discriminate external objects, giving rise to such things as desire, anger, and so forth, this is called the affliction of the skin, meaning the affliction outside the skin.

If this name is used to discriminate all the different mundane and supramundane dharmas, apart from the preceding two kinds of discrimination, this is called the affliction of the mind, meaning the affliction within the mind. Therefore, all afflictions take discrimination as their essence and obstruct the non-discriminative object and non-discriminative wisdom. Why is this called the aspect not subject to exhaustion through experience?

The Treatise says: From the immeasurable past arise the seeds of conceptual proliferation.

Explanation: The four kinds of worldly expression are called conceptual proliferation. That is, seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing are discriminated solely through names and words. Since these four do not take true meaning as their object, they are called conceptual proliferation. From their beginning in the past until their end in the future, this conceptual proliferation is never exhausted; hence it is called conceptual proliferation throughout immeasurable time. Whether this conceptual proliferation is produced or arises, it is generated through perfuming by names and words; hence perfuming by names and words is said to be the seed of conceptual proliferation. If this did not exist, what faults would arise concerning these two aspects?

The Treatise says: Therefore, if this consciousness did not exist, whether wholesome and unwholesome karma had been performed or not performed, the meaning that its retributive result is exhausted through experience could not be established.

Explanation: If there were no fundamental consciousness possessing the aspect subject to exhaustion through experience, then the two kinds of wholesome and unwholesome karma, whether repeatedly performed or not performed, would, when their capacity to produce retribution had been exhausted, no longer yield retribution; this is called exhaustion through experience. This meaning could not be established, because it would entail the fault of losing the meaning of liberation. If one does not accept the existence of the aspect not subject to exhaustion through experience, what fault would arise?

The Treatise says: Nor could the first arising of perfuming by names and words occur.

Explanation: If there had been no prior perfuming by names and words, it would be impossible for perfuming by names and words, never before existing, to occur in the present or future. Why is this so? If a homogeneous cause does not exist, a result of the same outflow cannot arise.

If it could arise, then after arhats and pratyekabuddhas had completely eradicated their afflictions, those afflictions would have to arise again. If they cannot arise, there must be no fundamental afflictions. If there are no fundamental afflictions, there is no karma.

If there are neither afflictions nor karma, there is neither existence nor its distinctions. The two truths of the origin and suffering would then be naturally extinguished, and one would enter nirvana without needing to cultivate the path. Since these two alternatives—the absence of liberation and spontaneous liberation—are impossible, one knows with certainty that the two aspects, subject to exhaustion through experience and not subject to exhaustion through experience, do exist.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, there is consciousness possessing the aspect of analogy.

Explanation: Just as illusory transformations that produce elephants, horses, and so forth are causes of mental confusion, so the illustrative characteristics of this fundamental consciousness are the seeds of false discrimination and are therefore the cause of all confused and inverted states of mind.

The Treatise says: Like an illusion, like a thirsty deer seeing a mirage, like a dream, like distorted vision, and so forth—the first consciousness is analogous to these phenomena.

Explanation: These four phenomena illustrate the four inversions. An illusion illustrates attachment to self. A thirsty deer illustrates craving for self.

A dream illustrates conceit of self. Distorted vision illustrates ignorance. All four analogies illustrate the fundamental consciousness.

The fundamental consciousness resembles these four phenomena. An illusion causes sentient beings to form erroneous attachments. A thirsty deer represents the arising of craving in sentient beings.

A dream causes sentient beings to give rise to confused states of mind. Distorted vision obstructs sentient beings, preventing them from seeing objects clearly. As long as the adana consciousness has not ceased, it can transform the fundamental consciousness, producing the six consciousnesses and giving rise to the four kinds of manifest inverted mental states.

Therefore, it is said that the fundamental consciousness resembles these phenomena.

The Treatise says: If these seeds of false discrimination did not exist, this consciousness could not serve as the cause and condition of inversion.

Explanation: If the fundamental consciousness did not have a component associated with the adana consciousness, it could not serve as the cause and condition of the four inversions. Why is this? Since this fundamental consciousness is the cause and condition of the seeds of false discrimination, all false discrimination arises from this fundamental consciousness.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, there is the characteristic of completeness and the characteristic of incompleteness.

Explanation: This teaches that the consciousness possessing illustrative characteristics and the fundamental consciousness further constitute two characteristics: first, the characteristic of complete bondage; and second, the characteristic of incomplete bondage.

The Treatise says: Sentient beings who are completely bound possess the characteristic of completeness.

Explanation: This means that sentient beings in the Desire Realm who have not yet become free from desire possess all three afflictions and are therefore said to have the characteristic of completeness.

The Treatise says: If one attains worldly freedom from desire, one possesses the characteristic of diminution.

Explanation: If sentient beings of the Desire Realm or Form Realm become free from desire, while the fleshly afflictions, mental afflictions, and skin-like afflictions remain complete, these afflictions are gradually diminished. Sentient beings in both these cases are still ordinary beings.

The Treatise says: Those who are trainees among the sravakas and the bodhisattvas possess the characteristic of partial cessation and separation.

Explanation: A portion of the fleshly afflictions has been exhausted, while the skin-like afflictions may have been diminished or may not yet have been diminished.

The Treatise says: Arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and Tathagatas possess the characteristic of complete and total separation and cessation. Why is this? Because arhats and pratyekabuddhas eliminate only the obstruction of afflictions, whereas Tathagatas eliminate both the obstruction of afflictions and the obstruction to knowledge.

Explanation: Arhats and pratyekabuddhas only cease and completely separate from the delusions eliminated by the paths of seeing and cultivation, and therefore they are not liberated from the obstruction to liberation. Tathagatas cease and completely separate from all three afflictions; therefore, the fundamental consciousness of a Tathagata is forever separated from every obstruction to liberation and obstruction to knowledge.

This consciousness is sometimes called non-discriminating wisdom and sometimes called the wisdom subsequent to non-discriminating wisdom. When it initiates deeds benefiting sentient beings, one aspect is called conventional wisdom. When it arises by taking the absence of intrinsic nature in all dharmas as its object, one aspect is called the wisdom of suchness.

These two together are called the responsive body.

The Treatise says: If this did not exist, it would not be possible to eliminate all afflictions sequentially.

Explanation: If there were no characteristic of completeness and characteristic of incompleteness, the meaning of ordinary beings, noble trainees, and non-trainees sequentially accomplishing cessation could not be established. Among the three natures, why is the fundamental consciousness solely of an indeterminate nature? It is because it is retributive fruition.

The Treatise says: For what reason is the retributive fruition of the two kinds of dharmas, wholesome and unwholesome, solely of an unobscured and indeterminate nature?

Explanation: Because it is not defiled by afflictions, it is called unobscured and indeterminate. It is unlike the afflictions of the higher realms, which are obscured and indeterminate. Why is it unlike them? The causes are wholesome and unwholesome, whereas the fruition is indeterminate.

The Treatise says: This indeterminate nature arises together with both wholesome and unwholesome dharmas and is not opposed to either.

Explanation: Because the unobscured and indeterminate nature does not conflict with either the wholesome or unwholesome nature, both wholesome and unwholesome karma can arise within indeterminate retributive fruition. Because it arises from karma, there are the two wholesome and unwholesome destinies.

The Treatise says: The two kinds of dharmas, wholesome and unwholesome, are mutually opposed.

Explanation: If retributive fruition were wholesome or unwholesome, then the wholesome and unwholesome natures would conflict. Thus, if it were wholesome, the unwholesome could not arise, and there would be no unwholesome destiny; if it were unwholesome, the wholesome could not arise, and there would be no wholesome destiny. Of the two destinies, wholesome and unwholesome, either only one would have to exist or neither would exist at all.

The Treatise says: If retributive fruition were wholesome or unwholesome in nature, there would be no means of liberation from afflictions.

Explanation: If retributive fruition were wholesome or unwholesome in nature, wholesome causes would again produce wholesome retributive fruition, and unwholesome causes would again produce unwholesome retributive fruition. Since retribution would give rise to further retribution, samsara would never cease, and therefore liberation would be impossible.

The Treatise says: Nor would there be any means for wholesome qualities and afflictions to arise.

Explanation: If it were wholesome, afflictions could not arise; if it were already unwholesome, wholesome qualities could not arise.

The Treatise says: Therefore, there would be neither liberation nor bondage.

Explanation: Without wholesome qualities, there would be no liberation. Without afflictions, there would be no bondage.

The Treatise says: Because these two consequences do not obtain, the nature of retributive consciousness is unobscured and indeterminate.

Explanation: It is not the case that there is no liberation, nor is it the case that there is no bondage. Since it is certain that both liberation and bondage exist, one knows that the fundamental consciousness is definitively of an indeterminate nature.