攝大乘論釋

Chapter Five: The Distinguishing Characteristic That Should Be Known

Section 1: Characteristics

Explanation: This meaning has four sections: 1. Characteristics, 2. Distinctions, 3. Discrimination, and 4. Revealing the Intention upon Which It Is Based.

Treatise: The distinguishing characteristic of the basis that should be known has already been explained in this manner. How, then, should it be known?

Explanation: Previously, ten meanings were set forth in sequence, and the first—the distinguishing characteristic of the basis—was explained. Next, the second—the distinguishing characteristic that should be known—will be explained. How many aspects does this meaning have? What are their names? What are their characteristics? How can they be perceived?

Treatise: Generally speaking, the distinguishing characteristic that should be known is of three kinds.

Explanation: What follows answers the preceding three questions. The second distinguishing characteristic is, in brief, threefold; that is, it has three names and three characteristics. What are the three?

Treatise: The first is the characteristic of the dependent nature; the second is the characteristic of the discriminated nature; and the third is the characteristic of the true nature.

Explanation: This passage first clarifies that their number is three and gives the names of the three, after which it explains their three characteristics. First, second, and third indicate their number. Dependent, discriminated, and true are their names.

Treatise: The characteristic of the dependent nature means that

Explanation: What follows explains the three characteristics.

Treatise: the fundamental consciousness is the seeds, and false discrimination encompasses the various differentiated consciousnesses.

Explanation: Because the fundamental consciousness can transform and produce the eleven consciousnesses, the fundamental consciousness is itself the seeds of the eleven consciousnesses. Since the eleven consciousnesses differ from one another, they are called differentiated. Discrimination is the nature of consciousness. In what way is the discriminating nature of consciousness? It discriminates what does not exist as existent and therefore is called false. Discrimination is the cause, and falsity is the result. Because the result is false, its cause—discrimination—is revealed. This discriminating nature encompasses all consciousnesses.

Treatise: What are the differentiated consciousnesses?

Explanation: This does not ask about their common nature, but only about the distinctions among the consciousnesses.

Treatise: They are bodily consciousness, the consciousness of the embodied subject, the consciousness of the experiencing subject, the consciousness of what is to be experienced, the consciousness that directly experiences, temporal consciousness, numerical consciousness, spatial consciousness, verbal consciousness, the consciousness that distinguishes self from other, and the consciousness of the two courses of wholesome and unwholesome samsaric rebirth.

Bodily consciousness, the consciousness of the embodied subject, the consciousness of the experiencing subject, the consciousness of what is to be experienced, the consciousness that directly experiences, temporal consciousness, numerical consciousness, spatial consciousness, and verbal consciousness arise from seeds produced by the perfuming of verbal expression. The consciousness that distinguishes self from other arises from seeds produced by the perfuming of the view of self. The consciousness of the two courses of wholesome and unwholesome samsaric rebirth arises from seeds produced by the perfuming of the factors of existence.

Explanation: Bodily consciousness refers to the five dhatus beginning with the eye. The consciousness of the embodied subject is the defiled consciousness. The consciousness of the experiencing subject is the mental dhatu.

The consciousness of what is to be experienced refers to the six external dhatus beginning with form. The consciousness that directly experiences refers to the six consciousness dhatus. Temporal consciousness is the consciousness through which birth and death continue without interruption.

Numerical consciousness is the consciousness extending from the number one up to an asamkhyeya. Spatial consciousness is consciousness of the receptacle world. Verbal consciousness is the consciousness of seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing.

These nine consciousnesses take as their cause the differentiated perfuming based upon verbal expression. The consciousness that distinguishes self from other is the consciousness based upon the distinction between oneself and others and takes the perfuming of the view of self as its cause. The consciousness of the two courses of wholesome and unwholesome samsaric rebirth is the consciousness comprising the many distinctions within the courses of birth and death and takes the perfuming of the factors of existence as its cause.

Treatise: These consciousnesses encompass the afflictions within all dhatus and all courses of existence.

Explanation: All dhatus means the three realms and the eighteen dhatus. All courses of existence means the six courses. Within these dhatus and courses are three afflictions: delusion, karma, and karmic retribution. These three are also called afflictions and are also called defilements. Conventional truth does not extend beyond these dharmas. That is, these dharmas are encompassed by the eleven consciousnesses mentioned above. Because they share the same nature, they can encompass one another.

Treatise: The dependent nature is their characteristic. False discrimination is thereby made manifest.

Explanation: If one wishes to perceive false discrimination clearly, one takes only the dependent nature as its essential characteristic. The confused consciousness and the transformations of the confused consciousness are false discrimination. Discrimination is the confused consciousness, while falsity is the transformations of the confused consciousness.

Explained extensively, false discrimination comprises eleven kinds of consciousness. Explained briefly, it comprises four kinds of consciousness: 1. consciousness appearing as objects, 2. consciousness appearing as faculties, 3. consciousness appearing as self, and 4. consciousness appearing as consciousness. All false discrimination within the three realms does not go beyond these four meanings.

It is made manifest through these consciousnesses. Although it is said that these consciousnesses encompass all false discrimination, within this false discriminative attachment, what is the dependent nature, and what is the discriminated nature?

Treatise: These consciousnesses—false discrimination—have consciousness-only as their essence.

Explanation: “These consciousnesses” means the eleven consciousnesses and the four consciousnesses. Among all dharmas, there is only consciousness and no other dharma; therefore, consciousness-only is their essence. Because this essence exists, it differs from the discriminated nature. Because it is included within false discrimination, it differs from the true nature. This nature is neither truly existent nor truly nonexistent and is not free from falsity. Because this falsity is its nature, it is said to be included within false discrimination.

Treatise: Nonexistent, false objects appear, taking it as their basis. This is the characteristic of the dependent nature.

Explanation: Because they certainly do not exist, they are called nonexistent. Because there are no objects serving as conditions for the six consciousnesses to cognize, they are called false objects. They appear like faculties, objects, self, and consciousness, while the arising, abiding, and ceasing of mental states and so forth are clearly transformed; thus, they are said to appear.

Because this appearance takes the dependent nature as its cause, the dependent nature is said to be its basis. For example, when the self is grasped as an object, that object does not in fact exist, because the self is nonexistent. Yet because the mind transforms and manifests it as though it were a self, it is called a nonexistent, false object.

The appearance of this phenomenon arises because of the dependent nature; therefore, the dependent nature is the basis upon which nonexistent, false objects appear. This is the characteristic of the dependent nature.

Treatise: The characteristic of the discriminated nature means that objects do not actually exist; there is only consciousness as their essence, appearing as objects. This is the characteristic of the discriminated nature.

Explanation: Objects such as a self and so forth have no distinct essence of their own; only consciousness is their essence. Consciousness itself, however, is not taken to be the discriminated nature. Consciousness transforms and appears as a self and so forth. Although the object is nonexistent, it appears as though it exists; because it is apprehended by consciousness, it is called the discriminated nature.

Treatise: The characteristic of the true nature means that, within this dependent nature, because the characteristic of an object is forever nonexistent, this truth is not nonexistent. This is the characteristic of the true nature.

Explanation: False meanings are forever nonexistent as causes of appearance; because they have no essence that appears, they cannot be apprehended. For example, objects such as a self appear as though they truly existed. Yet when one searches for their true essence in accordance with the three means of valid cognition taught by the Buddha, it cannot be found. As with the object of self, so it is with the objects of dharmas: they are forever without an existent essence. Therefore, both persons and dharmas are without self. Thus, selflessness truly exists and is not nonexistent. Because the two kinds of objects have no true essence, the dependent nature cannot be apprehended; this also truly exists and is not nonexistent. This is the characteristic of the true nature.

Treatise: When bodily consciousness, the consciousness of the embodied subject, and the consciousness of the experiencing subject are spoken of, it should be known that they encompass the six internal dhatus beginning with the eye faculty. When the consciousness of what is to be experienced is spoken of, it should be known that it encompasses the six external dhatus beginning with form. When the consciousness that directly experiences is spoken of, it should be known that it encompasses the six consciousness dhatus beginning with eye-consciousness. Because these consciousnesses are fundamental, the other consciousnesses are differentiations of them.

Explanation: What meaning is this passage intended to convey? It is intended to clarify the meaning of the true nature. Unless one understands with certainty that all dharmas are consciousness-only, the true nature cannot manifest.

Unless all eleven consciousnesses are fully explained, the conventional truth is not completely explained. If only the first five consciousnesses are discussed, only the fundamental meaning of the conventional truth is explained, while its differentiated meaning is not. If the conventional truth is not explained comprehensively, the ultimate truth cannot be clearly understood.

If the ultimate truth is not clearly understood, the conventional truth cannot be entirely dispelled. Therefore, all eleven consciousnesses are explained. To encompass the conventional truth generally, there must be all eighteen dhatus, complete with faculties, objects, and consciousnesses.

But this is not so.

Treatise: These consciousnesses are consciousness-only, because there are no objects.

Explanation: Although the transformations of consciousness display different characteristics internally and externally, in reality there is solely consciousness; objects and so forth have no separate entities. Therefore, they are all designated by the name “consciousness.” If there are no objects, how can this consciousness, apart from objects, experience what is desirable or undesirable?

Treatise: It is like a dream. In a dream, apart from external objects, there is only consciousness. Various objects—forms, sounds, odors, tastes, tangible objects, houses, mountains, forests, lands, and so forth—appear as though real, yet not one object among them truly exists.

Explanation: In a dream, various distinctions appear, but none of them are real objects. They are all produced by consciousness, and there is also the experience of what is desirable and undesirable.

Treatise: From this analogy, one should know that everywhere and in every circumstance there is consciousness-only. From this, one should know that other analogies are likewise, such as magical illusions, the mirage seen by a thirsty deer, visual distortions, and so forth. An awakened person sees that all objective realms, everywhere and in every circumstance, are consciousness-only. It is like the realm of a dream: when a person awakens from a dream, that person clearly understands that the dream realm was consciousness-only. Why, then, does a person who is awake not know this?

No, the meaning is not like that. Among those who have attained the wisdom that realizes suchness, there is no one who does not know this. A person who is still dreaming and has not yet awakened does not give rise to this understanding. Only after awakening does this understanding arise. Likewise, a person who has not attained the wisdom that realizes suchness does not possess this awakening. One who has attained the wisdom that realizes suchness certainly possesses this awakening.

If a person has not attained the wisdom that realizes suchness, how can that person give rise to inferential knowledge concerning the principle of consciousness-only?

It can be inferred by relying upon the sacred teachings and valid reasoning. The sacred teaching is as stated in the Ten Stages Sutra, where the Buddha, the Blessed One, said: “Children of the Buddha! The three realms are consciousness-only.”

Again, as stated in the Sutra Explaining the Knots:

Explanation: Through the analogy of a dream, one knows that throughout the eighteen dhatus, everywhere and in every circumstance, there is consciousness-only and no objects. Why are two Agama passages cited to clarify the sacred teaching? The former explains it briefly, while the latter explains it extensively. Thus, the former is used to substantiate the latter.

Treatise: At that time, the bodhisattva-mahasattva Maitreya asked the Buddha:

“World-Honored One! Is this characteristic of form, which is the object apprehended by the mind in meditative concentration, different from the mind or not different from it?”

Explanation: The words “at that time” have three meanings: 1. a time of equanimity, meaning that one is neither sunken nor agitated and is free from confusion; 2. a time of harmony, meaning that the listeners are enabled to hear correctly; and 3. a time of turning the Dharma wheel, meaning the very time when the Dharma is taught and when its teaching is received. “Characteristics of form” refers to the first eight ayatanas among the ten total ayatanas. These characteristics of form are characteristics of the objects apprehended by the mind in meditative concentration. The mind is distinct and the object is distinct; that object belongs to that mind.

Treatise: The Buddha said: “Maitreya! It is not different from the mind. Why is this? I teach that there is consciousness-only. These characteristics of form are manifested through the objective domain of consciousness.”

Explanation: The Buddha teaches consciousness-only because there are no objects. If so, what dharma are the forms seen by the practitioner of contemplation? As the sutra states, these characteristics of form are manifested through the objective domain of consciousness. In reality there is no objective domain; it is produced through the transformation of consciousness. Previously, consciousness-only was taught; afterward, the objective domain of consciousness was taught. What distinction, then, is there between these two aspects of consciousness? It is to clarify two parts: one arises resembling the apprehending subject, and the other arises resembling the apprehended object.

Treatise: The bodhisattva Maitreya said: “World-Honored One! If the characteristics of form in the objective domain of meditative concentration are not different from the mind in meditative concentration, why does that consciousness take that very consciousness as its object?”

Explanation: If a separate consciousness served as the object of consciousness, the meaning of consciousness-only would not be established. If consciousness were to apprehend its own substance as its object, this also could not be established, because no such thing exists in the world.

Treatise: The Buddha said: “Maitreya! No dharma is capable of apprehending another dharma. Although it cannot apprehend another, this consciousness transforms and manifests, arising as though it were an objective realm.”

Explanation: This consciousness arises with such an appearance. Within meditative concentration, two characteristics arise. The first is the dissimilar arising of the characteristic of the apprehending subject.

The second is the dissimilar arising of the characteristic of the apprehended object. These two characteristics are both simultaneously manifested from a single consciousness. These characteristics of blue form and so forth are objects within meditative concentration; they are not objects of recollective consciousness, that is, objects recalled by consciousness.

Therefore, these forms do not exist in any fixed location. Could it be that they were cognized previously and remembered afterward? This is impossible!

When an object arises, it appears clearly before one’s eyes. Recollective consciousness is defiled, whereas when this object of meditative concentration arises, it is seen clearly and purely before one’s eyes. If you say that the two objects of hearing and reflection have been repeatedly perfumed into consciousness, and that now, after reflection, those objects reappear, just as something seen in the past is now seen again, this meaning is incorrect.

Why? The two objects of hearing and reflection are objects of the past and therefore do not presently exist. If that nonexistent thing arises in a form resembling what existed in the past, it is not the very thing formerly seen.

This makes the principle of consciousness-only even clearer. Thus, the meaning of consciousness-only and the meaning that objective realms do not truly exist are established.

Treatise: It is like looking into a mirror and seeing one’s own face. One thinks, “I see a reflection appearing like another face.”

Explanation: This analogy teaches that there is only one’s own face and no other image. Why? The principle of dharmas coming together is inconceivable. It is impossible for a dharma once seen to be seen again as that very same dharma. Reflections in water, in mirrors, and so forth are not truly other dharmas. Seeing one’s own face again is merely called another image.

Treatise: The mind in meditative concentration is likewise: it appears as though it were an objective realm and is called another mind in meditative concentration.

Explanation: The mind in meditative concentration has two parts: one part resembles consciousness, and the other part resembles an object. These two are, in reality, consciousness alone.

Treatise: Thus, the Agamas and the various reasonings establish and clarify the meaning of consciousness-only.

Explanation: “The Agamas” refers to the two sutras cited above. “The various reasonings” refers to the discussion of recollective consciousness, forms of the past, the analogy of the reflection of a face, and so forth. All these clarify the meaning of consciousness-only.

Treatise: Why is this so?

Explanation: This asks why it is said that there is consciousness-only.

Treatise: At that very time, within the mind of the practitioner of contemplation, if blue, yellow, and other characteristics of form are seen pervading everywhere, the practitioner is seeing only his own mind and does not see any separate objective forms of blue, yellow, and so forth.

Explanation: If the mind is distracted, how can it be said that the five consciousnesses arise by apprehending presently existing external objects? When the mind is distracted, mental consciousness arises by apprehending objects of the past. During contemplative practice, one cannot take external forms as objects, and the forms presently appearing are also not objects apprehended from the past. One should know that when the mind in meditative concentration apprehends forms, it is seeing only its own mind and does not see any other objective realm.

The Treatise says: By this principle, with regard to all consciousnesses, the bodhisattva should likewise infer and understand the principle of consciousness-only. The consciousness that cognizes blue, yellow, and so forth is not a recollecting consciousness, because it perceives a presently manifest object. As for the mental consciousness that retains and recollects in the two cases of hearing and reflection, this consciousness takes a past object as its condition, and an object resembling the past arises. Thus the principle of consciousness-only is established. From this, it may be inferred that if a bodhisattva has not yet attained the wisdom that realizes suchness, the bodhisattva can, through the principle of consciousness-only, give rise to inferential wisdom.

Explanation: Previously, eleven consciousnesses were explained. Generally speaking, they comprise the eighteen dhatus. Among the eighteen dhatus are faculties and objects. Regarding the principle of consciousness-only, the bodhisattva should contemplate that, just as the forms appearing in meditative concentration have no objects apart from consciousness, by comparing forms within concentration with forms outside concentration, one should likewise understand that the latter have no objects apart from consciousness.

The Treatise says: The consciousnesses previously discussed—

Explanation: The eleven consciousnesses were previously explained in full. Now, as a question is about to be raised, the eleven consciousnesses previously discussed must first be clarified.

The Treatise says:—are compared to magical illusions, dreams, and so forth. Among them, consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness establish the principle of consciousness-only.

Explanation: Previously, magical illusions and so forth were presented as analogies for the absence of separately existing faculties and objects. Now the question is whether consciousness-only can or cannot be established. Therefore, the previously presented analogies must be cited. The eleven consciousnesses fully comprise the eighteen dhatus. The consciousness of direct experience explained previously—that is, the six consciousness-dhatus—can be said to establish the principle of consciousness-only.

The Treatise says: How can the consciousnesses of the eye, forms, and so forth, which possess form, reveal the principle of consciousness-only?

Explanation: The purport of this question is that the other ten dhatus should not be said to be consciousness alone. The body-consciousness discussed previously refers to the five faculties, from the eye-faculty through the body-faculty. The consciousness of what is to be experienced discussed previously refers to the five objects, from the consciousness of form through the consciousness of tangible objects.

Therefore, they are called the consciousnesses of the eye, forms, and so forth. “Possessing form” has three meanings: first, before eye-consciousness has arisen, form already exists; second, what consciousness transforms into is form, and thus it possesses form; third, because the object possesses form, eye-consciousness arises resembling form and is called the cognition of form. If the object possessed no form, what would be cognized?

It therefore seems certain that these ten dhatus cannot establish the principle of consciousness-only.

The Treatise says: These consciousnesses should be understood through the Agamas and the principles previously explained.

Explanation: This answers the preceding question. Since two sutras and various analogies were previously cited, the matter should be understood accordingly.

The Treatise says: If form is consciousness, why does it appear in the likeness of form?

Explanation: The purport of this question is: If there is no separately existing form-object and there is only the fundamental consciousness, why does it appear as though it were form and so forth?

The Treatise says: How does it continue and remain firmly established, appearing similar before and after?

Explanation: The purport of this question is: If it is transformed by consciousness, it should suddenly arise and suddenly disappear, changing without fixity. How, then, can a single form continue and remain for a long period? Since it remains of one kind before and after without changing, it is known that form exists separately.

The Treatise says: Because it depends upon inverted afflictions.

Explanation: Inversion is the root of the afflictions. Because of the transformations of consciousness, various discriminations arise. Discrimination itself is inversion. Because there is inversion, afflictions arise that correspond to the other-dependent nature and the discriminated nature; these two natures are thus the basis of inverted afflictions. Inverted afflictions cause the other-dependent nature to correspond with the discriminated nature. Inverted afflictions are also the basis for the transformations of consciousness.

The Treatise says: If this were not so, the meaning of inversion could not be established.

Explanation: If there were no mutual dependence, consciousness could not undergo transformation. There would then be no inversion whereby what is not a thing is discriminated as a thing.

The Treatise says: If the meaning of inversion did not exist, the two kinds of afflictive obstruction—the obstruction of delusion and the obstruction to knowledge—would not exist.

Explanation: If consciousness did not transform and discriminate what is meaningless as meaningful, how could inversion exist? Without inversion, afflictions would not arise. Without afflictions, shravakas would have no obstruction to liberation, and bodhisattvas would have no obstruction to omniscience.

The Treatise says: If the two obstructions did not exist, there would also be no purified state. Therefore, one must believe that the arising of these consciousnesses in this manner is real.

Explanation: If there were no afflictions, how could there be the path to Buddhahood? This principle, too, could not be established. Therefore, one must believe that apart from consciousness, no separately existing dharma exists.

The Treatise says: Here there is a verse:

The cause of confusion and confusion itself:

Form-consciousness and formless consciousness.

If the former consciousness did not exist,

The latter consciousness could not arise.

Explanation: To apprehend existence within nonexistence is called confusion. From what dharma does this confused consciousness arise? It arises from form-consciousness.

What is form-consciousness? When enumerated, there are five consciousnesses. The five faculties and five objects are called form-consciousness.

This form-consciousness can produce eye-consciousness and so forth. Know that this form-consciousness is the cause of confusion. If this consciousness did not arise, there would be no apprehension of existence within nonexistence.

What dharma is confusion itself? It is formless consciousness. When enumerated, the five faculties are the five consciousnesses.

The mental faculty is only mental consciousness, not the consciousness of dharmas. The consciousness of dharmas, form-consciousness, and formless consciousness are all causes of confusion.

The Treatise says: “If the former consciousness did not exist, the latter consciousness could not arise.”

Explanation: The former consciousness is the cause of confusion. If the root did not exist, confusion itself, which is the result—that is, the latter consciousness—would have no cause and could not arise.

Chapter 2: Distinctions

The Treatise says: Why do body-consciousness, the consciousness of the possessor of the body, the consciousness of the experiencer, the consciousness of what is to be experienced, and the consciousness of direct experience arise in close conjunction in every place and every realm of birth?

Explanation: These five consciousnesses are the eighteen dhatus, which arise in every place and every realm throughout the three realms, the six destinies, and the four modes of birth. How can these eighteen arise in such close conjunction with one another?

The Treatise says: In order to manifest the complete process of taking birth.

Explanation: In every realm of birth, all eighteen dhatus are present within a single instant. Since the eighteen dhatus are not separate from one another, they can serve as causes that reveal one another and arise in close conjunction. Moreover, faculty, object, and consciousness are not separate from one another. There is no instance of taking birth in which a faculty is present without an object and an experiencing consciousness. The same applies to the other two. To receive one is to possess the other two in full, and the other two are used to reveal the one. Because they are not separate from one another, they arise together in close conjunction.

The Treatise says: Why do time-consciousness and the other consciousnesses previously mentioned arise in many different varieties?

Explanation: This is another question concerning the preceding five consciousnesses. Since the eighteen dhatus already encompass all dharmas, why is it necessary to speak further of the arising of the subsequent six consciousnesses?

The Treatise says: Because the continuity of birth and death has remained unbroken since beginningless time.

Explanation: To clarify that the karmic results of sentient beings have continued without interruption through birth and death in the three times since beginningless time, time-consciousness must be established.

The Treatise says: In order to encompass the immeasurable realms of sentient beings.

Explanation: To clarify that the karmic results of sentient beings vary in number among the various dhatus, such as the four dhatus, six dhatus, eighteen dhatus, and so forth, numerical consciousness must be established to encompass all numbers.

The Treatise says: In order to encompass the immeasurable container-worlds.

Explanation: To clarify that the dwelling places of sentient beings—such as the human realm, the heavenly realms, and the evil destinies—have immeasurable distinctions, place-consciousness must be established to encompass all places.

The Treatise says: In order to encompass immeasurable activities, and also to reveal mutually what has been encompassed.

Explanation: To clarify that what is spoken, seen, heard, cognized, and known each has many causes: there are immeasurable utterances concerning these, and utterances concerning activities mutually reveal what is seen and so forth. Therefore, speech-consciousness must be established to encompass all speech.

The Treatise says: Because it encompasses the immeasurable differences in inclusion and enjoyment.

Explanation: With regard to inclusion, there are the inclusion of oneself and the inclusion of others. With regard to enjoyment, there are what is enjoyed by oneself and what is enjoyed by others. Because it is intended to clarify that the selves to which each sentient being clings are of many kinds, and that what belongs to the self is likewise so, consciousnesses differentiated as self and other must be established in order to encompass all distinctions between self and other.

The Treatise says: Because it encompasses the immeasurable pleasant and unpleasant karmic results that are experienced.

Explanation: The results of wholesome karma are pleasing. The results of unwholesome karma are repugnant. The results of these two kinds of karma experienced by sentient beings are of immeasurable varieties.

The Treatise says: Because it encompasses the immeasurable distinctions of birth, attainment, realization, and death within samsara.

Explanation: Within these two kinds of results, there is birth and there is death. First receiving them is birth; their continuation after birth is attainment; approaching death is realization; and the ending of the life faculty is death. This clarifies that the results of these two kinds of karma experienced by sentient beings involve birth and death, encompassing all births and deaths in the two wholesome and unwholesome destinies.

The Treatise says: How are these consciousnesses correctly explained so as to establish the meaning of consciousness-only?

Explanation: Previously, the meaning of the five consciousnesses was explained as establishing consciousness-only. How, then, can the six consciousnesses subsequently be explained so that they too establish consciousness-only?

The Treatise says: Briefly stated, there are three characteristics through which the consciousnesses establish consciousness-only.

Explanation: If these six consciousnesses are posited so as to establish consciousness-only, there are three principles. These principles are the three characteristics: first, entry into mere measure; second, entry into mere duality; and third, entry into the various kinds. “Entry” means penetrating comprehension. What is entry into mere measure?

The Treatise says: There is only the measure of consciousness.

Explanation: If the six consciousnesses are investigated and examined in accordance with principle, only consciousness is perceived, and no other dharmas are perceived. Why is this?

The Treatise says: Because external objects have no existence whatsoever.

Explanation: Because dharmas apart from consciousness truly have no existence whatsoever, it is said that the six consciousnesses consist solely of the measure of consciousness. What is called entry into mere duality?

The Treatise says: There are only two: the image portion and the perceiving portion encompassed within consciousness.

Explanation: If one can comprehend that the six consciousnesses, such as consciousness and so forth, have one portion that becomes the image and one portion that becomes the perceiver, this is called entry into mere duality. What does this mean? Within the consciousnesses, a portion of any given consciousness transforms into images such as form and so forth, while another portion transforms into the perceiver; therefore, it is said that there are only two. Because the six consciousnesses, such as consciousness and so forth, do not go beyond these two aspects of consciousness, it is said that they encompass only two. What is entry into the various kinds?

The Treatise says: Because the arising of all images is encompassed within consciousness.

What does this mean?

Because everything is consciousness and there are no external objects, there is consciousness-only. The consciousnesses possess images and perceiving, as when the eye and so forth take form and so forth as their images. The consciousnesses associated with the eye and so forth take consciousnesses as their perceiving. Mental consciousness takes all consciousnesses, from eye-consciousness through the consciousness of dharmas, as its images. Mental consciousness takes mental consciousness as its perceiving.

Why is this so?

Because mental consciousness is capable of discrimination, it arises in discrimination resembling all the objects of consciousness.

Explanation: In the case of a single eye-consciousness, if it is divided, one portion can give rise to the various kinds of images, while another portion can apprehend those various images. That which apprehends is called the perceiver. When mental consciousness apprehends mental consciousness, all the eye-consciousnesses and so forth, together with the consciousness of dharmas, are its images.

Mental consciousness is the perceiver because the objects it takes as its conditions are not fixed. The other consciousnesses take only one fixed type of object as their condition and cannot discriminate. That which is capable of discrimination becomes the perceiver.

That which is incapable of discrimination becomes the image. Thus, the three characteristics are established. The meaning that the six consciousnesses, such as consciousness and so forth, are consciousness-only has now been clarified.

The Treatise says: Here there is a verse as follows:

Entering mere measure and mere duality,

Those who teach speak of many kinds.

At the time of comprehending consciousness-only,

And in the states of subduing and separating from consciousness.

Explanation: This verse clarifies three meanings of comprehending consciousness-only. First is comprehension of mere measure, because external objects truly have no existence whatsoever. Second is comprehension that consciousness-only consists solely of the two aspects of image and perceiving.

Third is comprehension of the arising of the various kinds of forms. There are only the various kinds of appearances, without any separate substance. Who can comprehend these three characteristics?

Only practitioners of contemplation. Practitioners of contemplation are themselves of two kinds: first, bodhisattvas who have entered the stage of seeing; and second, those who have attained the four formless concentrations and so forth. Practitioners of contemplation first comprehend this for themselves and afterward explain it to others.

In which stages are this comprehension and explanation attained?

The Treatise says: “At the time of comprehending consciousness-only, And in the states of subduing and separating from consciousness.”

Explanation: From the first bhumi through the bhumi of perfect enlightenment are the stages of comprehending consciousness-only. From the sphere of infinite space through the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, together with the concentration of non-perception and the concentration of the cessation of mind, are the states of subduing and separating from consciousness. If there is no apprehended object, how can consciousness be described as the apprehender?

If so, the meaning of mere measure cannot be established! The meaning is not so. Why?

Because the meaning of consciousness-only is not lost, nor is the meaning of apprehender and apprehended nonexistent. To establish this meaning, the three characteristics of entry are explained. Mere measure clarifies that there is only consciousness and no external object.

Since the object of consciousness does not exist, how can consciousness-only be established? To establish this meaning, mere duality and the various kinds are explained. Mere duality means image and perceiving.

The image is the apprehended; the perceiver is the apprehender. The same applies to the many kinds. Therefore, the meanings of consciousness-only and of apprehender and apprehended are necessarily established.

The latter half of the verse is also explained as above.

The Treatise says: The masters explain that this mental consciousness receives many names according to the various bases upon which it arises.

Explanation: “The masters” refers to the bodhisattvas who establish that a single mental consciousness arises successively. Although mental consciousness is one, when it arises in dependence upon the eye faculty, it receives the name eye-consciousness. Likewise, when it arises in dependence upon the body faculty, it receives the name body-consciousness. There is no consciousness therein that exists separately from mental consciousness. Apart from the alaya-consciousness, this root consciousness enters into mental consciousness. Because they are of the same kind, this mental consciousness receives distinct names according to its basis.

The Treatise says: It is like the karma of volition, which receives such names as bodily karma, verbal karma, and so forth.

Explanation: Although this karma of volition is one, when it arises in dependence upon the body, it is called bodily karma; when it arises in dependence upon speech, it is called verbal karma. Mental consciousness is likewise. It receives a distinct name according to its basis. If someone says that the five faculties, such as the eye and so forth, are non-discriminating, then mental consciousness arising in dependence upon them should also be non-discriminating. For example, when it depends upon the mental faculty and is defiled by afflictions, because its basis is defiled, the consciousness that arises in dependence upon that basis is also defiled. Mental consciousness is likewise.

The Treatise says: This consciousness arises upon every basis.

Explanation: This means that it arises in dependence upon the faculties such as the eye and so forth.

The Treatise says: Its various appearances manifest as resembling two dharmas: first, manifesting as resembling an object; second, manifesting as resembling discrimination.

Explanation: Mental consciousness arises in dependence upon the six faculties and manifests as resembling two dharmas: first, dharmas of many kinds; second, a dharma of one kind. The dharmas of many kinds belong to the object. The dharma of one kind is discrimination, which belongs to the perceiver. According to these two statements, although consciousness is a single dharma, one portion manifests as resembling an object, and one portion manifests as resembling an object. Therefore, the doctrine stated previously is free from error.

The Treatise says: In every place and everywhere, it manifests as resembling touch.

Explanation: “In every place and everywhere” means wherever form exists. Wherever form exists, there is a body; and if there is a body, it necessarily manifests as resembling touch.

The Treatise says: If it is in a realm possessing material form, mental consciousness arises in dependence upon the body.

Explanation: Why does it necessarily resemble touch wherever there is a body? Because mental consciousness must arise in dependence upon the body, it manifests as resembling touch. Because this mental consciousness depends upon the body, it arises as resembling touch. Precisely when a practitioner of contemplation enters contemplation, although the five consciousnesses do not arise, pleasant and joyful sensation arises within the physical body.

The Treatise states: It is like the material sense faculties, which arise in dependence upon the body.

Explanation: The material sense faculties, such as the eye faculty and so forth, are distinct from the physical body and depend upon the body. Because the faculties depend upon the body, they may cause harm or benefit to it. Mental consciousness is likewise: because it depends upon the body, a semblance of contact manifests, thereby bringing harm or benefit to the body. Furthermore, it is like the body faculty, which depends upon the body. If there is an external condition of contact, a semblance of contact arises in the body faculty. When this semblance of contact arises, it either harms or benefits its own basis. Mental consciousness is likewise: because it depends upon the body, a semblance of contact arises.

The Treatise states: Here there is a verse as follows:

Explanation: The bodhisattvas teach that there is only mental consciousness and that there are no five distinct consciousnesses. Therefore, a verse from the Pada-Dharma Sutra is cited to establish this meaning.

The Treatise states:

It travels far and travels alone,

Bodiless, dwelling in an empty cave.

Whoever tames what is difficult to tame

Is freed from the bonds of Mara.

Explanation: Because it is capable of taking all spheres as its objects, it is called “traveling far.” Because there is no second consciousness, it is called “traveling alone.” “Bodiless” has two meanings: first, it has no material body; second, it has no body produced by birth. The interior of the body is called an empty cave. Because consciousness dwells within the body, it is said to dwell in an empty cave.

Among the two sets of five viscera, the heart organ in the center has a hollow, and mental consciousness dwells within that hollow; therefore, it is said to dwell in an empty cave. Third, dharmas in truth have no existence whatsoever, yet they are grasped as existent. Because consciousness dwells within that nonexistence, it is said to dwell in an empty cave.

Because evil afflictions have served as its causes since beginningless time, it is called difficult to tame. If a person can tame this consciousness, causing it not to follow afflictions and karma, and attains mastery over it, this is called taming. The obstructing afflictions within the three realms are the bonds of Mara.

When this person tames what is difficult to tame, liberation is attained. There are also other passages taught by the Buddha that substantiate this meaning.

The Treatise states: As a sutra says, mental consciousness can apprehend and distinguish all the objects taken by the five faculties, such as the eye and so forth; moreover, mental consciousness is the cause from which those consciousnesses arise.

Explanation: The objects taken by these five faculties are form and so forth. When a consciousness is capable of taking form as its object, it is designated eye consciousness. Mental consciousness can apprehend each and every object and can also distinguish it; therefore, the five consciousnesses serve no function. Furthermore, if mental consciousness is disturbed, consciousnesses such as eye consciousness do not arise. Because the faculties and consciousnesses such as the eye faculty and eye consciousness arise through transformations of mental consciousness, mental consciousness is their generative cause.

The Treatise states: Another teaching explains that, among the twelve ayatanas, the aggregate of the six consciousnesses is called the mind ayatana.

Explanation: Here another teaching of the Buddha is cited to demonstrate that there is only mental consciousness and no other consciousness. In the sutras, when the Tathagata distinguished the twelve ayatanas, he combined the aggregate of the six consciousnesses into the mind ayatana. From these three meanings, one should know that there is only mental consciousness and no other consciousness.

The Treatise states: There, the fundamental consciousness is established as the object-consciousness. Here, all consciousnesses are called image-consciousnesses, while mental consciousness and the consciousness that serves as its basis are called perceiving-consciousnesses. Why is this? Because this image-consciousness is the generative cause of the perceiving aspect, manifests as though it were an object, and serves as the basis upon which the perceiving aspect arises.

Explanation: Within these two kinds of consciousness, this fundamental consciousness can be established as image-consciousness and perceiving-consciousness; the fundamental consciousness is not established as an object-consciousness. Here, all consciousnesses are called image-consciousnesses. The fundamental consciousness can be established in the two aspects of image and perception.

This fundamental consciousness takes mental consciousness and the consciousness that serves as its basis as perceiving-consciousnesses, and takes consciousnesses such as eye consciousness and all dharmas as image-consciousnesses. As this generative cause depends upon various conditions, it becomes the generative cause of perception within them. Within the dharmas, there is perception, which manifests as though it were an object.

Therefore, the cause of perception—the image of mental consciousness—abides in an uninterrupted continuum and serves as the basis for this consciousness.

The Treatise states: In this way, the various consciousnesses establish consciousness-only.

How is it known that the objects which manifest do not truly exist?

As the Buddha said, if a bodhisattva is endowed with four dharmas, he can discover and enter into the understanding that everything is consciousness and that no objects exist.

Explanation: The four dharmas are forms of wisdom. If a bodhisattva is endowed with these four forms of wisdom, then through skillful means he can discover the principle, correctly understand it, and enter into it. Therefore, one knows that everything is consciousness-only and that no objects exist.

The Treatise states: What are these four dharmas?

First is the knowledge that the images of consciousness contradict one another. For example, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and devas may all inhabit the same sphere, yet their perceptions differ.

Explanation: Within a single sphere, their discriminations are not the same; therefore, they are said to contradict one another. The objects of consciousness that contradict one another are called images. These objects do not truly exist; they are merely transformations of consciousness, and therefore the discriminations differ. If a bodhisattva comprehends this principle, he understands consciousness-only; hence this is called wisdom.

The Treatise states: Second is the knowledge that consciousness perceives objects which do not truly exist, such as images of the past or future, or objects appearing in dreams.

Explanation: At times, perception arises apart from an objective sphere, and consciousness nevertheless occurs, as in consciousness of past objects and so forth.

The Treatise states: Third is the knowledge that, without effort, non-deluded cognition would arise. For example, if objects truly existed, then consciousness arising through taking those objects as its conditions would be free from error without any effort, because it would know them as they truly are.

Explanation: The bodhisattva understands it in this way: If objects truly existed just as they appear, then even without cultivating antidotes, non-deluded wisdom would arise naturally. Since things would be known as they truly are, no such cultivation would be necessary. Yet this is not so. Therefore, one knows that objects do not truly exist. Delusion arises only because what is nonexistent is grasped as existent.

The Treatise states: Fourth is the knowledge that objects accord with the three kinds of wisdom.

Explanation: All objective meanings accord with the three kinds of wisdom. The bodhisattva is able to understand this.

The Treatise states: How is this so?

Explanation: How do all objective meanings accord with the three kinds of wisdom?

The Treatise states: When all noble beings enter contemplation,

Explanation: Noble beings are shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas. When these noble beings are in meditative concentration, this is called entering contemplation.

The Treatise states: their minds attain mastery.

Explanation: Having attained the ability to make the mind accord with whatever is undertaken, they are said to have mastery during the stages of entering, abiding in, and emerging from contemplation.

The Treatise states: Through the mastery of their aspirations,

Explanation: Whatever they wish, all objects are transformed according to that wish.

The Treatise states: objects manifest as they wish.

Explanation: If they wish to cause the earth dhatu to become the water dhatu, it becomes so in accordance with their wish. The same applies to the fire dhatu and so forth.

The Treatise states: If a practitioner of contemplation has attained shamatha,

Explanation: There are two kinds of practitioners of contemplation: first, those who have attained correct reflection; and second, those who have attained correct cultivation. Here, those who have attained correct cultivation are being discussed.

The Treatise states: and applies himself to contemplation in accordance with the Dharma,

Explanation: “Dharma” refers to the twelve divisions of scripture, such as the sutras. Relying upon the characteristics of dharmas explained in the twelve divisions of scripture, he cultivates and brings vipashyana to maturity.

The Treatise states: then objects manifest in accordance with his reflection.

Explanation: Regarding any one of the five skandhas, in accordance with the mind’s reflection it may manifest as impure, suffering, impermanent, empty, without self, and so forth. Even the sixteen aspects of the truths all manifest in accordance with reflection, and the characteristics of other dharmas do likewise.

The Treatise states: If a person has attained non-conceptual wisdom and has not yet emerged from non-conceptual contemplation, then no objects whatsoever manifest, because the meanings of the various objective spheres and so forth accord with the three kinds of wisdom. Through the foregoing evidence, the meaning of consciousness-only is established. Therefore, one knows that there is only consciousness and no objective objects. Here there are six verses that further elucidate the preceding meaning. Later, in reliance upon the training in wisdom, these verses will be explained extensively and in detail. They begin: “Hungry ghosts, animals, humans, devas, and so forth…”

Explanation: If a bodhisattva has attained non-conceptual wisdom, yet in contemplation an object appears as truly existent, then it would not constitute non-conceptual wisdom. Since non-conceptual wisdom truly exists, such a principle is untenable.

Chapter 3: Discrimination

Treatise: If consciousness-only, appearing in the likeness of objects, is the basis of manifestation and is called the dependent nature, how does it become dependent? For what reason is it called dependent?

Explanation: Apart from objects, there is only consciousness, and this consciousness can manifest in the likeness of objects. Deluded consciousness, possessing such an essential character and function, is called the dependent nature. Only deluded consciousness is seen to have an intrinsic being; nothing else is seen to exist. How, then, is this consciousness established as the dependent nature? Why is this consciousness said to be dependent?

Treatise: Because it arises from the perfuming of its own seeds and is bound by causes and conditions, it lacks autonomy. Once it has arisen, if it had no function whatsoever, it would nevertheless continue to exist on its own in the following moment; therefore, it is called dependent.

Explanation: It arises from its own cause. After arising, it lacks the power to remain by itself; yet after one moment it continues on its own. According to one explanation, this is called the dependent nature.

Treatise: If the discriminated nature depends upon the dependent nature, yet in reality there is nothing that appears in the likeness of an object, how does discrimination come to be? For what reason is it called discrimination?

Explanation: This question has three points. First is the question concerning its basis: since this discriminated nature depends upon the dependent nature, it should itself become the dependent nature; why, then, is it called discrimination? Next is the question concerning nonexistence: since this discrimination is truly nonexistent, what is there within nonexistence that can be discriminated? The final question concerns appearing in the likeness of an object: since this discrimination appears in the likeness of an object, why is it called discrimination? For what reason is it called the discriminated nature?

Treatise: Because mental consciousness discriminates immeasurable characteristics and is the cause from which delusion arises, it constitutes discrimination.

Explanation: The characteristics of all objective realms are discriminated in this way; this is called mental consciousness. The objective realm produced by inverted mental consciousness is called the cause of arising. By virtue of this principle, discrimination is established.

Treatise: Because only discrimination is perceived, while it has no intrinsic characteristic, it is called discrimination.

Explanation: Since it has no intrinsic essence and only deluded consciousness is perceived, it is called discrimination.

Treatise: If it is the true nature, then the discriminated nature is eternally devoid of anything that could serve as its characteristic. How, then, does it constitute truth? For what reason is it called true?

Explanation: Within the dependent nature, not even the slightest part of the discriminated nature ever exists. If nonexistence is taken as its characteristic, why is it established as true rather than as untrue? This question is likewise stated in this manner.

Treatise: Because it is suchness, and there is nothing that is not such, it constitutes truth;

Explanation: The following three meanings answer the two questions. This is the first: truth is revealed through the meaning of being free from contradiction. It is as when the world speaks of a true friend.

Treatise: Because it accomplishes the purified objective realm.

Explanation: This is the second: truth is revealed through the meaning of being free from delusion. Because the objective realm is not inverted, the four kinds of purity are attained. It is as when the world speaks of a genuine object.

Treatise: Because it surpasses all wholesome dharmas.

Explanation: This is the third: truth is revealed through the meaning of non-discrimination, namely, the five kinds of non-discrimination, which are the five kinds of truth. It is as when the world speaks of true conduct.

Treatise: Because it accomplishes the supreme meaning, it is called true.

Explanation: Because it does not fail with respect to the three superior matters above, it is said to accomplish them. Because it accomplishes them, it is true.

Treatise: Furthermore, if there are that which discriminates and that which is discriminated, the discriminated nature is established.

Explanation: In preparation for asking about the meaning of these three kinds of discrimination, their names are first enumerated.

Treatise: Here, what dharma is that which discriminates, what dharma is that which is discriminated, and what dharma is the discriminated nature?

Explanation: Each is asked about separately in order to ascertain their distinct characteristics.

Treatise: Mental consciousness is that which discriminates, because it possesses the three kinds of discrimination.

Explanation: The following answers the three questions. This is the answer to the first. Of the six consciousnesses, only mental consciousness is taken as that which discriminates, because mental consciousness fully possesses the three kinds of discrimination: intrinsic discrimination, recollective discrimination, and manifesting discrimination. The five consciousnesses do not possess them in this way.

Treatise: Why is this so?

Explanation: Why does mental consciousness possess the three kinds of discrimination?

Treatise: Because this consciousness takes the perfuming of its own names and words as seeds,

Explanation: For example, repeatedly speaking the names of faculties and objects perfumes the fundamental consciousness and serves as seeds. Because of these seeds, mental consciousness subsequently arises in the likeness of faculties and objects and is called form-consciousness. “Its own” has two meanings. First, just as the perfuming designated as “eye” produces only the eye and does not produce other dharmas, so it is with the other kinds of perfuming; therefore, it is called “its own.” Second, originally there is no essential entity of the dharma. Names and words are created by discrimination itself; therefore, they are called “its own.”

Treatise: and because it takes the perfuming of the names and words of all consciousnesses as seeds,

Explanation: For example, speaking the names of the six consciousnesses perfumes the fundamental consciousness and serves as seeds. Because of these seeds, mental consciousness subsequently arises in the likeness of the six consciousnesses and is called the consciousness of consciousnesses.

Treatise: therefore, it arises.

Explanation: Because of the perfuming of these two kinds of seeds, this mental consciousness is able to arise.

Treatise: Through boundless discrimination, it discriminates everywhere and in every place.

Explanation: Mental consciousness is transformed by these two kinds of seeds and, through discrimination, develops innumerable functions; therefore, it arises in the likeness of all objective realms.

Treatise: Because it alone is called discrimination, it bears the name “that which discriminates.”

Explanation: Because of this meaning, only mental consciousness is called that which discriminates. Among the three kinds of discrimination, mental consciousness is called that which discriminates.

Treatise: This dependent nature alone is that which is discriminated.

Explanation: The following answers the second question. All dharmas that are discriminated have no essential entity apart from consciousness; therefore, the dependent nature is taken as that which is discriminated.

Treatise: Its own causes make the dependent nature become that which is discriminated.

Explanation: Without causes, the dependent nature would not be established. Without the dependent nature, there would be nothing that is discriminated. Because six kinds of causes establish the dependent nature, the dependent nature is taken as that which is discriminated.

Treatise: Here, these are called the discriminated nature.

Explanation: Here, the causes that establish the dependent nature are themselves said to be the discriminated nature.

Treatise: This dependent nature is only like the characteristics of the myriad things. How can discrimination conceptualize and measure it?

Explanation: The following answers the third question. First, a question is posed in return; afterward, the answers are given in sequence. This sentence first raises the general question. How can mental consciousness, through discrimination, conceptualize and measure this dependent nature, which resembles the characteristics of all myriad things and not merely the characteristic of a single thing?

Treatise: What objective realm does it take as its condition?

Explanation: The following separately raises the six causes as questions. What dharma does it take as its objective condition when conceptualizing and measuring the dependent nature?

Treatise: What characteristic does it apprehend?

Explanation: What characteristic does it apprehend when conceptualizing and measuring the dependent nature?

Treatise: How does it observe and perceive?

Explanation: What skillful means does it first use to investigate, before subsequently determining and conceptualizing the dependent nature?

Treatise: How does it arise through conditions?

Explanation: Through what conditions does the conceptualization of the dependent nature arise?

Treatise: What discourse does it employ?

Explanation: What discourse does it employ to conceptualize the dependent nature?

Treatise: How does it superimpose?

Explanation: How can the imagined nature exist within non-apprehension? Consciousness is that which discriminates; the other-dependent is that which is discriminated. Through these six causes, mental consciousness is able to discriminate the other-dependent nature. The meaning of this will now be explained clearly.

Treatise: Through objects such as names and so forth...

Explanation: Because the other-dependent nature is free from all discrimination and has non-discrimination as its essence, names and so forth are established as objects, through which this nature is imagined and discriminated.

Treatise: Within the other-dependent nature, through attachment to characteristics,

Explanation: First, names are discriminated. Through the perfuming of these names, one becomes attached to these names as characteristics. Afterward, one discriminates these characteristics as the eye and the other faculties, form and the other sense objects, consciousness and the other minds that apprehend characteristics.

Treatise: through determination, views arise,

Explanation: First, one examines what is right and wrong; afterward, one determines matters according to one’s own view: the eye and the other faculties, up to consciousness and the other minds, are all truly existent, while anything else is false speech. Because of this attachment to views, mental consciousness imagines the other-dependent to be certainly real and then gives rise to attachment.

Treatise: through initial and sustained thought, speech arises dependently,

Explanation: One gives rise to initial and sustained thought in accordance with one’s own attachments, reflecting upon and imagining them oneself. Or one gives rise to initial and sustained thought in accordance with one’s own attachments and formulates speech that causes others to discriminate and imagine. How does one formulate speech that causes others to discriminate and imagine?

Treatise: Through the four kinds of speech, such as seeing and so forth.

Explanation: Speech does not extend beyond the four kinds, such as seeing and so forth. Because these four are produced by faculties, sense objects, and consciousness, they encompass all categories of discriminative speech. From this speech, cognitive inversion arises.

Treatise: Although sense objects do not truly exist, to apprehend them as truly existent is superimposition.

Explanation: The dharmas expressed by the four kinds of speech do not truly exist. To give rise to attachment within them and regard them as truly existent is called the attachment of superimposition.

Treatise: Through these causes, it becomes that which discriminates.

Explanation: Through these six causes, mental consciousness becomes that which discriminates the other-dependent nature, causing it to become that which is discriminated. Therefore, these causes are taken as the discriminative nature.

Treatise: What are these three natures like?

Explanation: This question asks whether the meanings of the three natures are one or different.

Treatise: Are they different or not different?

Explanation: Is the other-dependent nature one with or different from the other two natures? The same question applies to the relationship between those two natures.

Treatise: It should be said thus: they are neither different nor not different.

Explanation: In answer to the question, it should be explained that they are both one and different.

Treatise: Because the other-dependent nature has a distinct meaning, it is called other-dependent.

Explanation: What follows sets forth the general meaning that they are both one and different. There is only one consciousness. The nature of consciousness is other-dependent. Within the other-dependent nature, distinct principles are used to establish the three natures. The three natures are not identical. This is the meaning of being neither different nor not different.

Treatise: Because it has a distinct meaning, it becomes the discriminative nature. Because it has a distinct meaning, it becomes the true nature.

Explanation: By a distinct principle, this other-dependent nature becomes the discriminative nature; the same applies to the true nature.

Treatise: By what distinct meaning is this called other-dependent?

It arises from perfumed seeds and is bound in dependence upon another.

Explanation: What follows explains the three distinct meanings. There are three kinds of perfuming: first, the perfuming of names and words, namely the perfuming of consciousness; second, the perfuming of form-consciousness, namely the perfuming of consciousness-consciousness and the perfuming of perceiving consciousness; third, the perfuming of afflictions, namely the perfuming of karma and the perfuming of retribution. From these arise three kinds of seeds. Because it is bound in dependence upon causes, it is other-dependent and not either of the other two natures.

Treatise: Furthermore, by what distinct meaning does this become the discriminative nature?

This other-dependent nature is the cause of discrimination,

Explanation: Consciousness has the capacity to discriminate as its nature. That which discriminates must arise from that which is discriminated. The other-dependent nature is that which is discriminated and is the generative cause of discrimination; that is, it is the condition of discrimination.

The other-dependent nature as a condition has two meanings. If one discusses the essence of consciousness arising from seeds, it itself belongs to the other-dependent nature. If one discusses its transformation into characteristics such as form and so forth, these belong to the discriminative nature.

Characteristics such as form and so forth have no separate essence apart from consciousness. Here, when it is said that the other-dependent nature is the cause of discrimination, the meaning of the transformation of the other-dependent is taken as the cause of discrimination; the meaning that the essence of consciousness arises from seeds is not taken as the cause of discrimination.

Treatise: Because it is that which is discriminated, it becomes the discriminative nature.

Explanation: The transformed characteristics are that which consciousness discriminates. For this reason, that which is discriminated is established as the discriminative nature.

Treatise: Furthermore, for what reason does this become the true nature?

This other-dependent nature becomes the true nature because that which is discriminated does not truly exist as it is discriminated.

Explanation: The other-dependent nature transforms into discriminated sense objects such as form and so forth. These sense objects do not truly exist as they are discriminated. According to the other-dependent nature, sense objects are said to be nonexistent; thus, the other-dependent nature is taken as the true nature. To draw attention to the conditioned path, it is not explicitly stated that the other-dependent nature is the unconditioned true nature.

Treatise: Furthermore, for what reason does this one consciousness become the characteristics of all other consciousnesses?

Explanation: This again asks by what principle there is only one consciousness, yet it becomes either eight consciousnesses or eleven consciousnesses, and is therefore said to become all consciousnesses. Within each consciousness—for example, visual consciousness discriminating blue, yellow, and so forth—there are many kinds of characteristics of consciousness. Since there is only one consciousness, how can there be various consciousnesses?

The reason for this question is that the meaning of difference was explained previously, while the meaning of non-difference is explained below. This is intended to clarify that the other-dependent nature possesses all three natures. The one consciousness arising from seeds exists as the other-dependent nature; the differing characteristics of the various consciousnesses constitute discrimination.

That which is discriminated is truly nonexistent; this is the true nature.

Treatise: The root consciousness-consciousness,

Explanation: The one consciousness is called the single root consciousness. Because the root consciousness transforms to produce the various consciousnesses, it is called consciousness-consciousness. Here, transformation into faculties and sense objects is not being discussed, so only consciousness-consciousness is mentioned.

Treatise: the others are the arisen consciousnesses, because they possess many characteristics,

Explanation: “The others” refers to the adana-consciousness. The arisen consciousnesses are the six consciousnesses. Their transformation constitutes the seven consciousnesses, which are the characteristics of the root consciousness.

Treatise: and then, from these characteristics, they continue to arise again.

Explanation: Because the seven consciousnesses perfume the root consciousness and form seeds, these seeds in turn transform the root consciousness into the seven consciousnesses. The subsequent seven consciousnesses then continue to arise in accordance with the characteristics of the preceding seeds.

How many kinds of other-dependent nature are there?

Explanation: This question asks how many categories and meanings there are.

Treatise: Briefly stated, there are two kinds. First, it belongs to perfumed seeds,

Explanation: Previously, it was clarified that the categories of the other-dependent arise from two kinds of perfuming: first, from the perfuming of karma and afflictions; second, from the perfuming of hearing. Because its categories are dependent upon these two kinds of perfuming, it is called the other-dependent nature. If it is the category of retributive consciousness, which is the other-dependent nature, it arises from the perfuming of karma and afflictions. If it is the category of supramundane wisdom born of hearing, reflection, and cultivation, it arises from the perfuming of hearing.

Treatise: Second, it is not necessarily dependent upon either the pure category or the impure category. Therefore, because of these two characteristics, it is called other-dependent.

Explanation: The meaning of the dependent nature will now be explained. If the discriminating consciousness of this nature becomes affliction, karma, or karmic retribution, it belongs to the impure category. If prajna takes this nature as its object without discrimination, it becomes the pure category—namely, the purified sphere, the purified path, and the purified fruit. If there were a self-nature that was not dependent, it would necessarily belong to one single category. Since this nature is indeterminate, it may belong either to the pure category or to the impure category. Because, of these two aspects, it is not definitively established as either one, it is called dependent.

The Treatise says: The discriminated nature is also of two kinds. The first is discrimination regarding self-nature.

Explanation: It is like distinguishing one dhatu among the various dhatus, such as the eye and so forth—whether the eye, the ear, or another. This is called discrimination regarding self-nature.

The Treatise says: The second is discrimination regarding differences.

Explanation: It is like further discriminating the eye and so forth as impermanent and so on. This is called discrimination regarding differences.

The Treatise says: The true nature is also of two kinds. The first is the accomplished self-nature.

Explanation: This means suchness accompanied by defilement.

The Treatise says: The second is accomplished purity.

Explanation: This means undefiled suchness.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, discrimination may also be divided into four kinds: first, discrimination regarding self-nature; second, discrimination regarding differences; third, discrimination by those possessing understanding; and fourth, discrimination by those lacking understanding. Those possessing understanding are sentient beings capable of discriminating and comprehending names and expressions.

Explanation: If sentient beings have previously understood the four kinds of verbal expression, such as what is seen and heard, and then give rise to discrimination on the basis of names and expressions, this is called possessing understanding.

The Treatise says: Lacking understanding means sentient beings incapable of discriminating and comprehending names and expressions.

Explanation: If sentient beings, such as cattle, goats, and the like, were previously unable to understand the four kinds of verbal expression, such as what is seen and heard, and because what they discriminate is not established through language, they are said to lack understanding.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, discrimination is of five kinds. The first is the self-nature that relies upon a name to discriminate its meaning.

Explanation: “Meaning” is the dharma indicated by a name. Having previously learned the name of a thing, one subsequently uses the name to discriminate and apprehend that thing.

The Treatise says: For example, this name indicates this meaning.

Explanation: From the beginning, this name has designated this entity. Therefore, upon apprehending this name, one can discriminate this entity.

The Treatise says: The second is the self-nature that relies upon a meaning to discriminate its name.

Explanation: One first knows the entity of a thing but does not yet know its name. Later, upon hearing its name spoken, one recognizes the entity and discriminates and retains that name.

The Treatise says: For example, this meaning belongs to this name.

Explanation: This entity is precisely what bears this name. Therefore, upon apprehending this entity, one discriminates and retains this name.

The Treatise says: The third is the self-nature that relies upon one name to discriminate another name.

Explanation: It is like the name for an object in another country: when first heard, it is not understood; after the name is heard repeatedly, one discriminates and comprehends this name.

The Treatise says: For example, discriminating a name whose meaning is not yet known.

Explanation: Because one does not yet know what meaning that name denotes, one does not understand the name.

The Treatise says: The fourth is the self-nature that relies upon one meaning to discriminate another meaning.

Explanation: It is like seeing the entity of a thing without yet knowing its name. By using a thing of the same kind to distinguish this thing, one then comes to know its entity.

The Treatise says: For example, discriminating the meaning of something whose name is not yet known.

Explanation: Because the name is not yet known, one uses one meaning to discriminate another meaning.

The Treatise says: The fifth is the self-nature that relies upon both name and meaning to discriminate them.

Explanation: Consider the two names “gold” and “silver” and the two entities, gold and silver. When neither the two names nor the two entities are known, one does not know whether the name “gold” denotes the red-colored entity or the white-colored entity; the same applies to the name “silver.” The red-colored entity is called gold, and likewise the white-colored entity is called silver.

The Treatise says: For example, what meaning corresponds to this name, and what name corresponds to a given meaning?

Explanation: The meaning is as explained above.

The Treatise says: If all forms of discrimination are included, there are a further ten kinds.

Explanation: The complete meaning was already included above, but its categories were not clearly stated. This complete meaning comprises ten kinds of discrimination, which clarify the categories contained within the complete meaning and encompass everything.

The Treatise says: The first is fundamental discrimination, namely the root consciousness.

Explanation: This is the essential basis of all discrimination. Discrimination itself is the alaya-consciousness.

The Treatise says: The second is discrimination of characteristics, namely consciousness of form and so forth.

Explanation: This discrimination takes characteristics as its characteristic; that is, it consists of the consciousnesses of sense objects such as form and so forth.

The Treatise says: The third is discrimination dependent upon manifestation, namely cognition dependent upon the eye and the other consciousnesses.

Explanation: This discrimination takes dependence and manifestation as its characteristics. It is both the object discriminated and that which discriminates. That is, it comprises the six faculties and the six sense objects. The six faculties are the bases of dependence, and the six consciousnesses are that which depends upon them.

The Treatise says: The fourth is discrimination of altered characteristics.

Explanation: The characteristics are the six sense objects. This discrimination takes the alteration of characteristics as its characteristic.

The Treatise says: That is, alterations such as aging and so forth;

Explanation: The alteration of the body’s four great elements from one moment to the next is called aging. When consciousness discriminates this aging, it is called discrimination of the altered characteristic of aging. “And so forth” includes sickness and death.

The Treatise says: painful feelings, pleasant feelings, and so forth;

Explanation: The body and mind undergo painful and pleasant feelings that alter from one moment to the next. The consciousness that discriminates these feelings is called discrimination of the altered characteristic of feeling. “And so forth” includes feelings that are neither painful nor pleasant.

The Treatise says: delusions and afflictions such as desire and so forth;

Explanation: A mind of desire alters from one moment to the next. The consciousness that discriminates this desire is called discrimination of the altered characteristic of desire. “And so forth” includes delusions such as anger, delusion, and the like.

The Treatise says: and alterations involving adverse seasonal conditions and so forth;

Explanation: Irrational oppression is disturbance, while conditions that do not conflict with the cold and heat of the climate are seasonally appropriate. Disturbed and adverse seasonal conditions alter from one moment to the next. The consciousness that discriminates these disturbed and adverse seasonal conditions is called discrimination of the altered characteristic of disturbed and adverse seasonal conditions. “And so forth” includes oppression arising from causes and conditions, conflict with cold and heat, abundance, and scarcity.

The Treatise says: alterations among realms such as the hells and so forth;

Explanation: This refers to alterations among the paths of samsara. One relinquishes these five skandhas and assumes the five skandhas of the path of hell. The alteration from one path to another is called alteration of paths. The consciousness that discriminates this path is called discrimination of the altered characteristic of paths. “And so forth” includes the other five paths among the six paths.

The Treatise says: the Desire Realm and so forth.

Explanation: This fully describes the alterations arising from bondage, release from bondage, and rebirth. Rebirth in the three realms undergoes successive alterations involving complete bondage and release from bondage. The consciousness that discriminates this rebirth is called discrimination of the altered characteristic of rebirth. “And so forth” includes the Form Realm and the Formless Realm.

The Treatise says: The fifth is discrimination dependent upon the manifestation of alterations.

Explanation: This refers to the alterations of the consciousnesses of the eye and so forth. This discrimination takes the altered characteristics of the consciousnesses of the eye and so forth as its characteristics.

The Treatise says: Namely, the alterations previously described.

Explanation: These are the alterations into aging and so forth described above. The alterations occurring in these states are the alterations of the consciousnesses of the eye and so forth.

The Treatise says: Altering discrimination arises.

Explanation: In the same way, mental consciousness discriminates in dependence upon manifested alterations. Therefore, it is called discrimination of alterations dependent upon manifestation.

The Treatise says: The sixth is discrimination induced by others.

Explanation: This discrimination arises from the verbal expressions of others.

The Treatise says: This refers to discriminations arising from hearing teachings that accord with the true Dharma or do not accord with the true Dharma.

Explanation: This discrimination is of two kinds: first, discrimination arising from hearing teachings that do not accord with the true Dharma; second, discrimination arising from hearing the true Dharma. These mean discrimination belonging to the practice of unwholesome dharmas and discrimination belonging to the practice of wholesome dharmas. Reflection and cultivation are likewise. Because this discrimination takes the hearing of others’ verbal teachings as its characteristic, it is called discrimination induced by others.

The Treatise says: Seventh is discrimination contrary to reason.

Explanation: Its cause is the preceding discrimination arising from hearing teachings that do not accord with the true Dharma.

The Treatise says: This refers to the discrimination, contrary to the true Dharma, of those outside the true Dharma.

Explanation: This refers to the ninety-six kinds of non-Buddhist paths, which lie outside correct hearing, reflection, and cultivation.

The Treatise says: Eighth is discrimination in accordance with reason.

Explanation: Its cause is the preceding discrimination arising from hearing the true Dharma.

The Treatise says: This refers to the discrimination of those within the true Dharma when they hear the true Dharma.

Explanation: This refers to shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas engaged in hearing, reflection, and cultivation within the Dharma.

The Treatise says: Ninth is discrimination consisting of decisive attachments—that is, the various forms of improper reflection.

Explanation: It takes improper reflection as its cause.

The Treatise says: Its root is the view of a self in relation to the body, together with discriminations associated with the sixty-two views.

Explanation: Relying upon the view of self, the various views explained in detail in the Brahmajala Sutra are called discriminations associated with the sixty-two views.

The Treatise says: Tenth is distracted discrimination—that is, the ten kinds of discrimination belonging to bodhisattvas.

Explanation: All bodhisattva discriminations that do not accord with prajnaparamita are called distractions. The Prajnaparamita Sutra teaches ten dharmas that counteract these ten kinds of distraction. The first two dharmas are precisely prajnaparamita.

That is, they reveal true emptiness and dispel the belief that conventional existence is real existence. The bodhisattva does not perceive any bodhisattva. Concerning the following five matters, there are three explanations.

The first explanation says that they dispel the names of things. The first two dispel names: one does not perceive the name “bodhisattva” and does not perceive “prajnaparamita.” The former dispels the name of a person; the latter dispels the name of a dharma. The next two dispel things: one does not perceive practice and does not perceive non-practice.

This has three meanings: First, one does not perceive that bodhisattvas are capable of practicing while those of the Two Vehicles are incapable of practicing. Second,

one does not perceive the principal dharmas necessary to aid the path as practice, nor does one perceive laziness and so forth, which are to be counteracted, as non-practice. Third, one does not perceive that bodhisattvas practice because their cultivation of the path is not yet complete, nor does one perceive that bodhisattvas do not practice because their cultivation of the path is already complete. The last dispels both the name and the phenomenal characteristic of the thing.

What constitutes its basis? The five skandhas constitute its basis; yet one does not perceive even the five skandhas—that is, one does not perceive form, feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness. The second explanation says that the first two clarify that neither person nor dharma is perceived.

The next two clarify that one does not perceive a person who practices the Dharma as practicing, nor a person who does not practice the Dharma as not practicing. The last clarifies that the five skandhas are what practice counteracts. The five skandhas are the two truths of suffering and its origination.

One does not perceive any origination to be abandoned, nor any suffering from which to become detached. The third explanation says that the first two concern not perceiving an agent who practices or a path that is practiced. The next two concern not perceiving any aids to the path.

The last clarifies the principle of not perceiving anything to be counteracted. Each of these five matters fully comprises eight dharmas.

The Treatise says: First is the distraction of nonexistence of characteristics.

Explanation: The notion that there are no characteristics is the cause of distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “A bodhisattva truly is a bodhisattva.”

Explanation: By saying “truly is,” it reveals that there is a bodhisattva whose essence is true suchness and emptiness.

The Treatise says: Second is the distraction of existence of characteristics.

Explanation: The notion that there are characteristics is the cause of distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says that no bodhisattva is perceived.

Explanation: Not perceiving any bodhisattva has dependent discrimination as its essence.

The Treatise says: Third is the distraction of superimposition.

Explanation: Because that which is superimposed is nonexistent, this attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “Why is this? Because the intrinsic nature of form is empty.”

Explanation: Through discrimination, the nature of form is empty of the nature of form.

The Treatise says: Fourth is the distraction of diminution.

Explanation: Because that which is diminished truly exists, this attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “It is not empty because of emptiness.”

Explanation: This form is not empty merely because true suchness is empty.

The Treatise says: Fifth is the distraction of attachment to identity.

Explanation: This means holding that dependent discrimination is itself emptiness; therefore, this attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “This emptiness of form is not form.”

Explanation: If the dependent nature and the true nature were one and the same nature, then the dependent nature, whether its sphere were purified or unpurified, would likewise have to be the same.

The Treatise says: Sixth is the distraction of attachment to difference.

Explanation: Form is held to be different from emptiness. This attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “There is no form apart from emptiness; therefore, form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form.”

Explanation: If form were different from emptiness, this emptiness could not constitute the emptiness of the dharma of form and could not constitute the common characteristic of form; thus, this principle could not be established. Just as a conditioned dharma and impermanence are not different, if one apprehends the discriminated nature, it is said that form itself is emptiness and emptiness itself is form. Why is this? This discriminated form is eternally nonexistent. This eternal nonexistence is precisely both existence and emptiness. The form that is identical with emptiness is nonexistent. Just as the dependent nature and the true nature cannot be said to be one because their spheres are respectively unpurified and purified.

The Treatise says: Seventh is the distraction concerning the universal.

Explanation: One clings to form as having a universal characteristic as its nature—namely, obstruction. This attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “Why is this? Shariputra, this is only the designation ‘form.’”

Explanation: The name alone is the universal characteristic of form. Why is this? Apart from the designation, form truly has no intrinsic nature.

The Treatise says: Eighth is the distraction concerning particulars.

Explanation: Having already clung to form as possessing a universal characteristic, one further discriminates that form has such particular distinctions as arising and ceasing, defilement and purity, and so forth. This attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “Its intrinsic nature neither arises nor ceases, is neither defiled nor purified.”

Explanation: This form is nonexistent; that is its universal characteristic. If there were arising, there would be defilement; if there were defilement, there would be purification. Because these four meanings are absent, form has no particular characteristics.

The Treatise says: Ninth is the distraction of apprehending meaning according to a name.

Explanation: To cling to a meaning in accordance with a name is distraction concerning meaning. To counteract this distraction, the sutra therefore says: “Names are provisionally established in relation to things, and the various dharmas are discriminated accordingly.”

Explanation: Names are falsely and vacuously established; in relation to names, all dharmas are discriminated.

The Treatise says: Tenth is the distraction of apprehending a name according to meaning.

Explanation: To apprehend a name according to a meaning is to give rise to former attachments. This attachment is a distraction. To counteract this distraction, the sutra says: “Through the provisional establishment of adventitious names, dharmas are spoken of accordingly.”

Explanation: Names and dharmas do not have the same characteristics. The sutra says: “In accordance with the manner in which things are spoken of, attachments arise in that same manner.”

Explanation: Dharmas are spoken of according to provisionally established names, and one clings to names and dharmas as not being different. The sutra says: “Thus, the bodhisattva does not perceive any name whatsoever.” If one does not perceive them, attachment does not arise.

Explanation: Prajnaparamita is taught in order to counteract the ten kinds of distraction. Because this teaching is the cause for the arising of non-discriminating wisdom, non-discriminating wisdom extinguishes all delusive discriminations.

The Treatise says: In order to counteract these ten kinds of distracted discrimination, throughout all the teachings of the prajnaparamita sutras, the Buddha, the Blessed One, taught that non-discriminating wisdom can counteract these ten kinds of distraction. One should fully understand the meaning of the Prajnaparamita Sutra. As the Prajnaparamita Sutra says:

How does a bodhisattva practice prajnaparamita? Sariputra! A bodhisattva truly is a bodhisattva, yet does not perceive a bodhisattva, does not perceive the name “bodhisattva,” does not perceive prajnaparamita, does not perceive the practice of prajnaparamita, does not perceive the non-practice of prajnaparamita, does not perceive form, and does not perceive feeling, perception, formations, or consciousness.

Why is this? Form is empty by its own nature; it is not made empty by emptiness. It is the emptiness of form, not form itself.

There is no form apart from emptiness; therefore, form itself is emptiness, and emptiness itself is form. Why is this? Sariputra!

This is merely a name. What is called form is, in its own nature, neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure. In relation to conventionally established names, the various dharmas are discriminated.

Through conventionally established names, adventitious defilements are designated in accordance with speech as the suchness of the various dharmas; and in accordance with their being spoken of in this or that way, attachments arise. The bodhisattva does not perceive any such conventionally established names. If one does not perceive them, attachment does not arise.

Just as form is contemplated, so too should feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness be contemplated. In accordance with this passage from the Prajnaparamita Sutra, one should contemplate the ten meanings of discrimination.

Explanation: Just as there are eight contemplations of the form skandha, eight contemplations should also be made of each of the other four skandhas. Even with regard to the four preceding matters, eight contemplations should likewise be made.

The Treatise says: If, according to this particular intention, the other-dependent nature possesses the three natures, how can these three natures remain distinct without becoming intermingled and confused?

Explanation: This question concerns the earlier division into three distinct natures, followed by the statement that, through its different meanings, the other-dependent nature constitutes the three natures. If the three natures are said to exist within the other-dependent nature and yet are three distinct natures, then the three natures would become confused, and one could not speak of any one nature in particular. Why are they not confused?

The Treatise says: There is no implication of intermingling or confusion.

Explanation: Because their principles are distinct, they are not intermingled or confused.

The Treatise says: Through this principle, this nature is established as other-dependent; it is not thereby established as imagined or real.

Explanation: “This” refers to what was explained previously: because it is dependent upon seeds and dependent upon pure and impure factors, and so forth, it is established as the other-dependent nature. It cannot, through this principle, be established as the imagined nature or the real nature.

The Treatise says: Through this principle, this nature is established as imagined; it is not thereby established as other-dependent or real.

Explanation: “This” refers to what was explained previously: through such principles as discrimination concerning intrinsic nature, discrimination concerning distinctions, and so forth, it is established as the imagined nature. It cannot, through this principle, be established as the other-dependent nature or the real nature.

The Treatise says: Through this principle, this nature is established as real; it is not thereby established as other-dependent or imagined.

Explanation: “This” refers to what was explained previously: through such principles as the accomplishment of intrinsic nature, the accomplishment of purity, and so forth, it is established as the real nature. It cannot, through this principle, be established as the other-dependent nature or the imagined nature.