攝大乘論釋論

One should understand the supreme characteristics and supreme expressions upon which it is based, 1–2

Chapter 4: Characteristics

The Treatise says: How can the establishment of the characteristics of this consciousness be discerned? In brief, there are three: first, the establishment of its intrinsic characteristic; second, the establishment of its causal characteristic; and third, the establishment of its resultant characteristic. Of these, the alaya-consciousness itself is its intrinsic characteristic. The perfuming by all defiled dharmas is the cause that produces it. Its causal characteristic consists in the alaya-consciousness containing all the seeds of defiled dharmas and at all times serving as the cause of their arising. Its resultant characteristic consists in this alaya-consciousness being produced through the power of perfuming by those defiled dharmas since beginningless time.

Explanation: Since it has so many different names, although the alaya-consciousness has been spoken of through these particular designations, its characteristics have not yet been made known. Therefore, the intrinsic, causal, and resultant characteristics of the alaya-consciousness are explained. Its intrinsic characteristic is that, because it is conditioned by the perfuming of all defiled dharmas, this consciousness acquires a distinct capacity to produce them; this reveals the functional nature of the consciousness.

It retains the corresponding seeds: once all defiled dharmas have perfumed it, it becomes the cause that produces those dharmas, and therefore it is said to retain their seeds. That perfuming accords with its superior capacity and is thus called corresponding. This very intrinsic characteristic—the consciousness that, after being perfumed by all defiled dharmas, acquires the corresponding capacity to retain their seeds and serve as their productive cause—means that, having been perfumed by defiled dharmas, the consciousness acquires a superior capacity by which it can become their productive cause.

This is the causal characteristic of the alaya-consciousness. Here, from the initial establishment of the resultant characteristic through the statement that it is produced by the power of perfuming since beginningless time, the meaning is that only after being perfumed by those dharmas is this consciousness produced. Because it retains the perfumings accumulated since beginningless time, this is called its resultant characteristic.

Chapter 5: Perfuming

The Treatise says: Furthermore, what is perfuming? What does this term “perfuming” signify? A dharma arises and ceases together with another and is then capable of becoming the cause that produces that other dharma; this is the meaning of causality.

It is like sesame seeds perfumed with flowers: the sesame seeds and flowers arise and cease together. Because the sesame seeds acquire within themselves a productive cause of the flowers’ fragrance, they become fragrant. Again, when desire and the other activities perfume the mind, desire and the rest arise and cease together with the mind, and afterward become the productive causes of subsequent desire and the rest.

It is also like extensive learning: through the perfuming of extensive learning, one reflects upon and recollects what one has heard, arising and ceasing together with the mind; it then becomes the productive cause of subsequent recollection. Because the perfuming is retained, this is called retaining the Dharma. One should understand that the alaya-consciousness operates according to the same principles.

Explanation: “That dharma” refers to the defiled dharmas mentioned previously. To say that, after arising and ceasing together, it becomes the productive cause of that dharma means that it in turn constitutes the causal basis of that defiled dharma.

Chapter 6: Neither Identical nor Different

The Treatise says: Furthermore, within the alaya-consciousness, do the seeds of those defiled dharmas exist separately, each in its own distinct part, or are they without distinction? No separately existing entity is established within the consciousness, yet neither are they entirely without difference. Rather, the alaya-consciousness arises in such a manner that it possesses the superior capacity to produce those dharmas; hence it is called the consciousness containing all seeds.

Explanation: Are the seeds of those defiled dharmas within the alaya-consciousness established separately, each in its own distinct part, or are they without distinction? What fault would follow from either position? If these seeds existed in separately differentiated parts, the alaya-consciousness would likewise have to consist of separately differentiated parts.

Because of such differentiation into parts, the doctrine that the alaya-consciousness ceases from moment to moment could not be established. Furthermore, perfuming by wholesome and unwholesome dharmas would make it the very substance of wholesome and unwholesome seeds. Yet it is indeterminate; therefore, if it were said to consist of separate parts, how could it be said to be a single consciousness containing many seeds?

This meaning could not be established. Thus both alternatives entail faults. No separately existing entity is established within the consciousness, yet neither are the seeds entirely without difference.

The passage through the designation “consciousness containing all seeds” states that they are neither different nor not different in order to avoid the faults mentioned above. “Arises in such a manner” means that each kind arises according to its own type. To say that its arising possesses a superior capacity means that when the defiled dharmas arise, it corresponds to the superior capacity to produce them; hence its arising is said to possess a superior capacity.

As for the expression “consciousness containing all seeds,” consider the example of a grain of wheat: when it is capable of sprouting, it has the power of a seed. If it is left exposed for a long time, or if its capacity to produce a sprout is damaged by heat or fire, the result of that capacity is likewise destroyed. The form of the grain remains as before, but because its productive power has been destroyed, it is no longer a seed.

The alaya-consciousness is the same. It possesses the capacity to produce all dharmas, and because it corresponds to this capacity, it is called the consciousness containing all seeds.

Chapter 7: Mutually Serving as Cause and Result

The Treatise says: Furthermore, how can it be seen that the alaya-consciousness and the defiled dharmas simultaneously serve as causes for one another? It is like the flame of a lamp and its wick, which, while burning, simultaneously serve as causes for one another. It is also like a bundle of reeds that stand without falling because they support one another at the same time. One should understand that the consciousness and those dharmas are likewise mutually related. Just as the alaya-consciousness is established as the cause of defiled dharmas, so defiled dharmas are also the cause of the alaya-consciousness. Other kinds of causes and conditions are not like this.

Explanation: How can it be seen that the alaya-consciousness and the defiled dharmas simultaneously serve as causes for one another? This is shown by an analogy. The flame burning at each moment and the lamp’s wick are simultaneous causes.

Because the flame arises in dependence upon the wick, the wick is the cause of the flame. At each moment, the flame burns the wick; thus the flame is the cause of the wick’s burning. This reveals the meaning of a coexistent cause.

Because the cause is presently abiding, the arising of its result is seen. The alaya-consciousness being the cause of defiled dharmas and defiled dharmas being the cause of the alaya-consciousness should be understood in the same way. The statement that other kinds of causes and conditions cannot be found here reveals that the alaya-consciousness and the defiled dharmas serve as causes for one another, and thereby also reveals causality itself.

Chapter 8: Are Cause and Result Different or Not Different?

The Treatise says: How can perfuming, which is not differentiated into many kinds, nevertheless become the cause of dharmas that are differentiated into many kinds? It is like a garment woven from many threads. At that time, many different patterns cannot be seen. But when the garment is placed in a vat of dye, many colors and patterns become manifest upon it. Consciousness is likewise so: when the various perfumings perfume it, no diverse distinctions appear at the time of perfuming, but when their results arise, the characteristics of the various dharmas become manifest.

Explanation: How can perfuming, which is not differentiated and has no diverse forms, become the causal agent of diverse and differentiated things? This principle is revealed through an analogy. A garment is woven from many kinds of threads, yet at that time its various patterns cannot be seen. Once it has been dyed, however, many patterns become visible. The alaya-consciousness is likewise so. The garment is an analogy for the arising of the result, and the dyeing is therefore called the production of the result. Thus, at the time of perfuming, the diverse forms are not yet present; but when the result arises, the perfuming becomes the causal basis of immeasurable forms. The various dharmas then become manifest like the patterns of a dyed garment.

Chapter 9: Dependent Arising

The Treatise says: This dependent arising is extremely profound and subtle within the Mahayana. Briefly, dependent arising is of two kinds: first, the division concerning intrinsic existence; second, the division concerning what is desirable and undesirable. In the first, the various dharmas arise because of the alaya-consciousness. This is dependent arising in the division concerning intrinsic existence, because it provides the conditions for the various modes of intrinsic existence. There is also the dependent arising of the twelve links, which belongs to the division concerning what is desirable and undesirable, because it provides the conditions for the various desirable and undesirable bodily forms in the fortunate and unfortunate destinies.

Explanation: It is said to be extremely profound and subtle within the Mahayana because ordinary beings cannot know it with their understanding, and thus it is subtle; arhats and others cannot fathom it through conceptual thought, and thus it is extremely profound. The brief statement that there are two kinds establishes the categories of intrinsic existence and of what is desirable and undesirable; these two kinds of dependent arising are then explained.

“Because of the alaya-consciousness” means that, because the alaya-consciousness is the cause, the various dharmas are produced. This is called the division concerning intrinsic existence. It is so called because it serves as the cause of the various kinds of bodily existence.

Ignorance and the other links belong to the division concerning what is desirable and undesirable. Why? Because they are the causes of the various desirable and undesirable bodily forms.

The Treatise says: If one is deluded regarding the first dependent arising within the alaya-consciousness, one may maintain that intrinsic nature is the cause, that deeds performed in a previous life are the cause, that the transformations of Ishvara are the cause, that a self is the cause, or that things arise without causes and conditions. Furthermore, if one is deluded regarding the second dependent arising, one may grasp at a self as agent and experiencer.

It is like a group of people blind from birth who have never known what an elephant is. Someone brings an elephant for them to touch. One touches its trunk, another its tusk, another its ear, another its tail, another its leg, and another its back.

When asked what the elephant is shaped like, one answers that it resembles a plow handle, another says that it resembles a winnowing basket, another that it resembles a wooden barrel, another that it resembles a broom, and another that it resembles a rocky mountain. In this way, those who do not know the two kinds of dependent arising, being blind from birth through ignorance, maintain either that intrinsic nature is the cause, that previous deeds are the cause, that the transformations of Ishvara are the cause, that the self is the cause, or that there is no cause; or they grasp at an agent or an experiencer.

Because they do not know the intrinsic, causal, and resultant characteristics of the alaya-consciousness, they are like those who do not know the elephant’s body. In brief, the alaya-consciousness is the resultant consciousness, the consciousness containing all seeds. This is its intrinsic characteristic, for it retains all bodies and all destinies within the three realms.

Explanation: To say that actions performed in a previous life are the cause is to refuse to accept the causal power of present effort. Therefore, the group of people blind from birth is used as an analogy to reveal this error. “Blind from birth through ignorance” refers to ignorance, the first of the twelve links of dependent arising.

Because of ignorance, they are called blind from birth. Not understanding the intrinsic, causal, and resultant characteristics of the alaya-consciousness means not understanding the previously established intrinsic characteristic of the alaya-consciousness, called its intrinsic characteristic; its established causal characteristic, called its causal characteristic; and its established resultant characteristic, called its resultant characteristic.

Because the power of ignorance prevents them from understanding the division concerning the intrinsic existence of the alaya-consciousness, they grasp at intrinsic nature and the other four, making five supposed causes of the various dharmas. Because they do not understand the second division, concerning what is desirable and undesirable, they grasp at a self as agent and experiencer. The cause consists of the perfumings of all dharmas present within the alaya-consciousness; the result consists of the dharmas that have been perfumed.

The resultant consciousness, the consciousness containing all seeds, is its intrinsic characteristic. Because the body thereby reaches maturation, it is called resultant. “All seeds” means that the perfumings are called seeds.

“All destinies” refers to the five destinies. “All bodies” refers to bodies of the same or different kinds within those destinies. The alaya-consciousness has been declared to be the seed of all dharmas.

To clarify the nature of those seeds, verses are now presented.

The Treatise says: Here are verses:

Outer and inner, unclear, twofold,

Conventional and ultimate.

These seeds of all things,

Should be known as sixfold:

Momentary and coexistent,

Continuing in sequence with their result;

Determinate and awaiting conditions,

They also draw forth their own results.

Stable, indeterminate, capable of being perfumed,

And united with that which perfumes;

What differs from this cannot be perfumed:

These are the characteristics of perfuming.

The six consciousnesses do not accord,

For three distinctions contradict it.

Two moments are not coexistent;

The analogy applies likewise to their kinds.

These outer and inner seeds

Possess productive and sustaining causes.

Through the sustaining cause, the withered remains endure;

Their own substance later wholly perishes.

Explanation: Outer and inner seeds, their lack of clarity, and the other points are revealed in five verses. Here, “outer” refers to rice grains and the like, while “inner” refers to the alaya-consciousness. “Unclear” means that the status of external things as seeds is not definitive.

“Twofold” means that the alaya-consciousness contains both wholesome and unwholesome seeds. According to another interpretation, the two are defilement and purification. “Conventional” means that external dharmas are called seeds only by conventional designation.

Why? Because one also holds that the alaya-consciousness undergoes transformation. “Ultimate” means that only the alaya-consciousness is truly the seed of those dharmas.

The seeds of these dharmas have six characteristics. “Momentary” means that these two kinds of seeds arise and cease without interruption. If they were permanent, they could not be seeds, because they would always remain as before, without change.

“Coexistent” means that the seed is neither past nor future nor located elsewhere. At the very time the seed exists, its result arises. “Continuing in sequence with their result” means that the alaya-consciousness continues in sequence until the path of counteraction arises, while an external seed continues until the supporting faculty is damaged and the result has matured.

“Determinate” means that a seed is determinate and does not produce everything; each thing that arises is individually determined. A seed of this kind produces another thing of that same kind. “Awaiting conditions” means that things do not arise at every time and in every circumstance.

They arise only at the place and time where the conditions for their arising are obtained. “They also draw forth their own results” means that each seed is capable of drawing forth its own result. Because a seed draws forth its own result, the alaya-consciousness in turn draws forth the alaya-consciousness, and rice produces rice.

These six characteristics reveal the meaning of a seed producing its result.

The characteristics of perfuming will now be revealed. “Stable” means that something can be perfumed because it is firm and enduring. It is not like moving wind, which cannot receive perfuming.

A perfume cannot be carried by the wind for even one yojana. Yet if oil has been perfumed with champaka flowers, its fragrance can be smelled from more than one hundred yojanas away. “Indeterminate” means morally neutral.

Garlic cannot be perfumed so as to remove its foul odor. The same applies to something already fragrant: it cannot be further perfumed into fragrance. An indeterminate object, however, can receive perfuming.

“Capable of being perfumed” means that an object capable of receiving perfuming does receive it; it is not incapable of perfuming. Gold, silver, stone, and the like cannot be perfumed. Only something capable of retaining a perfuming can be perfumed, as a garment and the like can receive fragrance.

“United with that which perfumes” means that perfuming can occur when the two are united, but not when they are not united. Being united means arising together without interruption. “What differs from this cannot be perfumed” means that anything other than the alaya-consciousness cannot receive perfuming.

No other consciousness can receive perfuming, because apart from the alaya-consciousness, the other consciousnesses cannot be perfumed. Thus the alaya-consciousness fully possesses the meanings of momentariness and the rest. Because it ceases from moment to moment, it coexists with the arising consciousnesses.

It continues in sequence throughout samsara until the path of counteraction arises. Because causes such as wholesome and unwholesome karma are determinate, meritorious, nonmeritorious, and contaminated wholesome actions await the conditions for maturation in fortunate or unfortunate destinies. Because the alaya-consciousness corresponds to such capacities, it can receive perfuming.

It must now be established that the arising consciousnesses cannot logically receive perfuming. “The six consciousnesses do not accord” refers to the active consciousnesses. “For three distinctions contradict it” means that each consciousness has its own basis of arising, its own object of cognition, and its own act of attention.

According to another interpretation, it means that the consciousnesses each possess distinct characteristics. The assertion that a preceding moment perfumes the following moment is presented as an analogy, and the next passage refutes this position.

The Treatise says: Two moments do not coexist, for there is no possibility that two moments arise together. Perfuming can abide only if perfumer and perfumed arise and cease together. It may be said that although the moments do not coexist, a consciousness arises in a form similar to the preceding consciousness, and therefore they can perfume one another.

But the analogy applies likewise to their different kinds; that is, distinct phenomena would then also have to perfume one another. The eye and the other faculties all have pure material form as their characteristic, and hence, by this reasoning, they should perfume one another. Thus it would have to be said that because the pure material form of the eye faculty and that of the ear faculty are of the same kind, those pure material forms should perfume one another.

Although pure material forms occupy the same location, they are separately distinguished and are not said to perfume one another. How then could consciousnesses perfume one another merely because they are of the same kind? As has been stated, outer and inner seeds are of two kinds: both possess a productive cause and a sustaining cause.

The productive cause of an external seed operates until its fruit matures. The productive cause of an internal seed operates until the end of life. The sustaining cause of an external seed operates after it has matured but before it is sown.

The sustaining cause of an internal seed accounts for the corpse after death. Because of the sustaining cause, these remain for a long time. If these two kinds of seeds possessed only productive causes, they would necessarily perish as soon as separated from those causes and could not continue to abide for a long time.

If it were said that they continue gradually from moment to moment, with the preceding moment serving as the cause of the following moment, there would never be a time when they ceased. Because cessation does occur, one should know that there must certainly be a sustaining cause. The sustaining causes of these two kinds of seeds are like the drawing of a bow, which causes an arrow to travel far.

The Treatise says: Internal seeds are not like external seeds. Therefore, verses say:

External seeds are not perfumed;

Internal seeds are not so.

If learning and the rest did not perfume them,

The arising of their results would be unreasonable.

For deeds done and deeds not done,

Gain and loss would entail contradictory faults.

For external seeds, internal factors are conditions;

They arise because of internal perfuming.

Furthermore, the other arising consciousnesses within the various bodies and destinies should be understood as the experiencers. Explanation: The statement “within the various bodies and destinies, they are the experiencers” means that, because they arise therein for the sake of experience, experience occurs. The meaning of “experiencer” is revealed in the Madhyanta-vibhaga Agama.

The Treatise says: As stated in the Madhyanta-vibhaga Treatise:

The first is the condition-consciousness;

The second is the experiencing consciousness.

The assisting mental factors

Discern this experience.

Explanation: These two consciousnesses in turn serve as cause and result for one another. “Agama” refers to the verse in the Abhidharma-sutra.

Explanation: Each serves as a cause for the other: at all times the alaya-consciousness is the cause that produces the various dharmas, and it is also constantly their result. When the alaya-consciousness is the cause, the various dharmas are the result; when the various dharmas are the cause, the alaya-consciousness is the result.

Chapter 10: The Four Conditions

The Treatise says: In the first dependent arising, the various dharmas and consciousness serve as causal conditions for one another. In the second dependent arising, what is the predominant condition? Furthermore, through how many conditions do these six consciousnesses arise? They arise through three kinds of conditions: the predominant condition, the object condition, and the immediately preceding condition. Together, the four conditions are complete in the dependent arising of samsara, of the desirable and undesirable, of the destinies, and of experience.

Explanation: These three modes of dependent arising together contain all four conditions: samsara, the desirable and undesirable, and experience. In the first dependent arising, the alaya-consciousness and the perfumings of the various dharmas serve as causal conditions for one another. In the second dependent arising, ignorance and the other links are predominant conditions.

Because of the predominance of ignorance, formations and the other links arise. Furthermore, the six kinds of consciousness are called the dependent arising of experience, and they arise through three conditions. The predominant condition of eye-consciousness is the eye; its object condition is visible form; its immediately preceding condition is the preceding consciousness that has ceased, sequentially conditioning the arising of the following consciousness.

If the preceding consciousness did not relinquish its place, the subsequent consciousness could not arise. The ear-consciousness and the other consciousnesses are likewise.

Chapter 11: Defilement by Afflictions

The Treatise says: Thus the establishment of the various names and characteristics of the alaya-consciousness has been explained. But how do we know that these names and characteristics apply specifically to the alaya-consciousness and not to the arising consciousnesses? If the alaya-consciousness were not established, neither defilement nor purification could be established. Thus defilement by afflictions, defilement by karma, and defilement by birth could not be established, nor could mundane and supramundane purity be established.

Why could defilement by afflictions not be established? Because the perfuming of seeds by afflictions and secondary afflictions within the six groups of consciousnesses could not be established. Suppose eye-consciousness arises and ceases together with desire and the other afflictions and secondary afflictions.

In that case, it would be this eye-consciousness, and no other, that was perfumed by the afflictions and became a seed. But once this eye-consciousness had ceased and another consciousness arose in the interval, neither the perfuming nor the basis receiving the perfuming could be found. Because they could not be found, after the eye-consciousness had ceased and another consciousness arose in the interval, it could not arise together with desire, for it would already be past.

Thus the perfuming could not be established. Just as karma that has ceased could not produce a resultant retribution, so this could not occur. Furthermore, if eye-consciousness arose together with desire, its perfuming could not be established, because this perfuming could not abide within desire either, since the consciousnesses each possess a distinct basis.

Moreover, because they do not arise and cease together, perfuming cannot occur within their own substance, for two consciousnesses of the same kind do not arise and cease together. Thus desire and the other afflictions and secondary afflictions cannot perfume eye-consciousness. Nor can one consciousness perfume another consciousness.

As with eye-consciousness, so it is with the other active consciousnesses. Their characteristics should be understood in this way.

Explanation: Thus the various names and the establishment of the characteristics of the alaya-consciousness have been explained. These two points will now be established. Because they apply to the alaya-consciousness and not to other consciousnesses, this will be demonstrated through reasoning.

If eye-consciousness arises and ceases together with desire and the other afflictions, then this eye-consciousness, and no other, would be perfumed by them and become a seed. In this treatise, “this” refers solely to eye-consciousness; “them” refers to greed and the other afflictions; and “become a seed” means to become a cause. “No other” means not ear-consciousness and the rest.

“Another consciousness arising in the interval” means that ear-consciousness or another consciousness arises between them. “Perfuming” refers to the habitual tendencies of greed and the rest. “The basis receiving the perfuming” is the eye-consciousness arising together with greed—that is, arising simultaneously with greed.

Because it is past, it cannot serve as a cause. Just as karma that has already deteriorated and ceased cannot again produce a resultant retribution, so too this perfuming cannot be established.

Certain Vaibhashika masters maintain that the past exists. Yet this “past” is only a name without a corresponding reality. Why?

If a dharma truly exists, how can it be past? Therefore, their position cannot establish perfuming. Furthermore, if that eye-consciousness arises together with desire, the perfuming still cannot be established.

That is to say, eye-consciousness arises together with desire, but even the eye-consciousness perfuming itself cannot be found; how then could this eye-consciousness be perfumed so as to produce subsequent desire and the rest? The statement that “this perfuming cannot abide within desire either” means that eye-consciousness cannot perfume desire. Why?

Because desire depends upon eye-consciousness and is itself unstable. Nor can perfuming abide within the other consciousnesses—that is, ear-consciousness and the rest—because their bases are different. Precisely because their bases differ, they cannot arise and cease together.

Eye-consciousness depends upon the eye, and ear-consciousness depends upon the ear. In the same way, up to and including mind-consciousness, which depends upon the mental faculty, each possesses its own distinct basis. One consciousness cannot perfume another.

The statement that perfuming “cannot occur within its own substance” means that eye-consciousness cannot perfume eye-consciousness, because two eye-consciousnesses do not arise together. Since two consciousnesses do not arise together, they also do not cease together. Therefore, within eye-consciousness the perfuming by desire and the other afflictions and secondary afflictions cannot be established.

Even the perfuming of eye-consciousness by eye-consciousness cannot be established.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, when one falls from the Heaven of Non-Perception and is born here, the first consciousness defiled by afflictions and secondary afflictions would arise without a seed, because both the perfuming and its basis would have become past and would no longer exist.

Explanation: “The first” refers to the first moment when consciousness arises. To say that it would arise without a seed means that it would arise without a cause. “The perfuming and its basis” refers to the habitual tendencies of mind and afflictions.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, when a consciousness counteracting the afflictions arises, all mundane consciousnesses cease. If there were no alaya-consciousness, the seeds of the afflictions and secondary afflictions could not establish their substance within the counteracting consciousness, and liberation could not occur, for that consciousness does not arise and cease together with the afflictions. If a mundane consciousness subsequently arose, the mind free from desire would have no supporting basis for it, and the habitual tendencies would have ceased long before. Apart from the alaya-consciousness, it would have to arise without a seed. Therefore, apart from the alaya-consciousness, the afflictions and secondary afflictions cannot be established.

Explanation: “When the counteracting consciousness arises, all mundane consciousnesses cease” means that all six consciousnesses cease. Therefore, the seeds of the afflictions and secondary afflictions cannot exist within the counteracting consciousness, because the counteracting consciousness is their opponent and cannot produce mundane consciousness. “Subsequently” means after the supramundane mind. “Supporting basis and perfuming” means that the consciousness is the supporting basis, while the perfuming consists of the perfumings by the afflictions and secondary afflictions. “Without a seed” means that, apart from the alaya-consciousness, it would arise without a cause. Thus defilement by afflictions cannot be established.

Chapter 12: Defilement by Karma

The Treatise says: Why could defilement by karma not be established? Because formations conditioning consciousness could not be established. Since this could not be established, craving and grasping conditioning existence could likewise not be established.

Explanation: The impossibility of establishing defilement by karma will now be clarified. Why could it not be established? Because formations conditioning consciousness could not be established.

Once meritorious, nonmeritorious, and imperturbable formations have arisen and ceased, apart from the alaya-consciousness, where could their perfumings be deposited? The six groups of consciousnesses cannot retain those perfumings. This has already been explained in the section on defilement by afflictions.

“Since this could not be established” means that because formations conditioning consciousness could not be established, craving and grasping conditioning existence could likewise not be established. Why? Because there is a causal relation.

Through the power of grasping, the perfuming of consciousness by formations becomes complete and is transformed into existence. Thus the defilement present within karma is called defilement by karma. Again, because defilement comes about through karma, it is called defilement by karma.

Therefore, defilement by karma could not be established.

Chapter 13: Defilement by Birth

The Treatise says: Why could defilement by birth not be established? Because the conjunction of rebirth could not be established. If one falls into an impure realm and abides in the intermediate existence, rebirth is conjoined through defiled mind-consciousness.

This defiled mind-consciousness ceases in the intermediate existence and, in the mother’s womb, unites with the kalala. If it were solely mind-consciousness that united with the kalala and underwent birth, then after that union had occurred, other mind-consciousnesses would arise in dependence upon this consciousness within the mother’s womb. There would then be two mind-consciousnesses arising simultaneously in the same place within the mother’s womb.

The mind-consciousness that unites with and undergoes birth could not be established, because mind-consciousness always depends upon a defiled mental faculty and cognizes an object, whereas these characteristics cannot be found in that united consciousness. Suppose this mind-consciousness did unite with the red and white elements. This united consciousness would then contain all seeds, and the other consciousnesses arising in dependence upon it would arise from a consciousness containing all seeds.

If that united consciousness contains all seeds, then it is precisely the alaya-consciousness; you have merely given it the separate name “mind-consciousness.” It is unreasonable to regard the consciousnesses arising in dependence upon it as containing all seeds while refusing to regard their causal supporting basis as containing all seeds. For this reason, the consciousness established as uniting with the kalala is not mind-consciousness.

It is precisely the resultant consciousness, the consciousness containing all seeds.

Explanation: Apart from the alaya-consciousness, defilement by birth cannot be established. This meaning will now be clarified. “The conjunction of rebirth could not be established” means that the acquisition of one’s own body could not be established.

An “impure realm” is the Desire Realm. To “fall” means to die. Defiled mind-consciousness is mind-consciousness accompanied by the afflictions.

To undergo birth means to assume one’s own body. That defiled mind-consciousness cognizes the coming existence, whereupon the intermediate existence ceases. “Unites” means that they become one in formation and dissolution; thus mind-consciousness is said to unite with the red and white elements.

Other mind-consciousnesses arise in dependence upon the united mind-consciousness. “Two consciousnesses existing together” means that the united mind-consciousness and another mind-consciousness arising in dependence upon it would exist at the same time. Because there would be two consciousnesses together, that united mind-consciousness could not be established as mind-consciousness.

Why? Because it would always depend upon a defiled mental faculty. The united mind-consciousness would take desire and the other afflictions of the defiled mental faculty as its basis and would cognize the coming existence.

It is therefore called defiled because it depends upon that defiled mental faculty. But once the consciousness has entered and abides in the womb, it does not depend upon a defiled mental faculty; it depends upon an indeterminate resultant substance. Moreover, it cannot be found to cognize an object as mind-consciousness does.

Mind-consciousness is so called because it cognizes dharmas. This united consciousness does not cognize an object and therefore cannot be established as mind-consciousness.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, after rebirth has been conjoined, the material faculties are retained. If there were a different consciousness, it could not possess the meaning of resultant consciousness. All the other consciousnesses have their own distinct bases and are unstable; yet without a consciousness, the material faculties could not be maintained.

Explanation: “After rebirth has been conjoined” means after the body has been acquired. “If there were a different consciousness” means if the alaya-consciousness were rejected. The other six consciousnesses each possess a distinct basis and are active and unstable. Eye-consciousness, for example, depends specifically upon the eye. Likewise, ear-consciousness and the other consciousnesses each possess their own bases. The ear and the other material faculties are the same. If there were no alaya-consciousness, each of these consciousnesses would have to retain its own supporting faculty. But because these consciousnesses are active and unstable, they are sometimes absent. When they were absent and no longer retained their faculties, the eye and the other faculties would immediately decay.

The Treatise says: Consciousness and name-and-form depend upon one another as a bundle of reeds stands through mutual dependence. This meaning also could not be established.

Explanation: It will now be clarified why this meaning could not be established. As the Blessed One said: “Consciousness conditions name-and-form, and name-and-form conditions consciousness.” Of these, the consciousness conditioned by name—where “name” refers to the group of six consciousnesses—means name apart from the four nonmaterial skandhas. “Form” is the kalala. If there were no alaya-consciousness, what would be the consciousness conditioned by name-and-form? It is because it depends upon name-and-form that consciousness can continue to arise from moment to moment without interruption.

The Treatise says: Apart from the resultant consciousness, the consciousness-nutriment of sentient beings could not be established. For apart from the resultant consciousness, no one of the six consciousnesses can serve as nutriment to sustain sentient beings in the three realms.

Explanation: This explains why consciousness as nutriment could not be established. The Blessed One taught four kinds of nutriment: first, edible food; second, contact; third, mental volition; and fourth, consciousness. Edible food has transformation as its characteristic; after being transformed, it can sustain the body.

Contact has an object as its characteristic. Visible form and other objects are merely seen, yet they can also benefit the body. Mental volition has recollection as its characteristic; merely thinking of and recollecting something can benefit the body.

It is like a thirsty person who sees water and, although not yet drinking it, does not die. Consciousness has retention as its characteristic; because this consciousness sustains and preserves the body, the body continues to exist. Without this consciousness, the body would become a putrid corpse.

Therefore, one should know that consciousness is also called nutriment, meaning that it nourishes and benefits the body. Here, the nutriment of contact belongs to the six groups of consciousnesses. Mental volition belongs to the recollecting mind.

Since consciousness-nutriment is separately mentioned, one knows that there is another consciousness. Moreover, in deep sleep, unconsciousness, fainting, the attainment of cessation, and the like, the six groups of consciousnesses cease. What then sustains the body and prevents it from decaying?

When the alaya-consciousness departs, the body decays.

The Treatise says: If one dies in this Desire Realm and is born in a higher, pure realm, rebirth there is conjoined by a defiled mind-consciousness from the impure realm. If there were no alaya-consciousness, this defiled mind belonging to the impure realm would have no seed within that higher realm.

Explanation: It was previously explained that the conjunction of rebirth in an impure realm could not be established. It will now be explained why rebirth in a pure realm could not be established. A defiled consciousness conjoins rebirth there; even in a pure realm, rebirth is conjoined through the defilement belonging to the impure realm.

It is defiled because it is tainted by the afflictions of that higher realm. Those afflictions consist in attachment to the flavor of meditative concentration. This defiled consciousness is present in the impure realm.

When that person dies in the impure realm, how could a mind belonging to the higher realm become manifest after death? If it did not become manifest, how could rebirth there be conjoined? Therefore, there must certainly be an alaya-consciousness, perfumed since beginningless time by minds belonging to that higher realm.

Because this perfumed mind becomes manifest, rebirth there can be conjoined.

The Treatise says: Suppose one is born in the Formless Realm and has wholesome and defiled minds. Apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds, these wholesome and defiled minds would have neither seeds nor an abiding basis.

Explanation: To be born in the Formless Realm is to have departed from the Form Realm. The wholesome and defiled minds consist in delighting in the flavor of samadhi. To say that they would have neither seeds nor an abiding basis means that they would have neither a cause nor a supporting basis. According to another interpretation, if they had no seeds, from what cause would they arise? If they had no abiding basis, upon what would they depend? Because those minds are retained by the alaya-consciousness, they arise from their own seeds and depend upon this consciousness. Because they have a supporting basis, they can continue to abide.

The Treatise says: If, in that very realm, a supramundane mind became manifest, all mundane minds would cease entirely, and one would immediately cease and depart from that realm.

Explanation: If a supramundane mind became manifest within that realm, then apart from this supramundane mind, all other minds would be mundane. Since those mundane minds would all be absent, one would sever and depart from that realm and, without further effort, attain nirvana without remainder. Since this is unreasonable, the doctrine cannot be established apart from the alaya-consciousness.

The Treatise says: If one is born in the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception and, relying upon the Realm of Nothingness, a supramundane mind becomes manifest, one would immediately abandon both destinies. This supramundane consciousness does not depend upon the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, nor does it depend upon the Realm of Nothingness; and its dependence upon nirvana also cannot be established.

Explanation: One born in the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception may sometimes rely upon the Realm of Nothingness for a supramundane mind to become manifest, because the mind of the latter realm is clear and keen, while the mind of the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception is dull. The supramundane mind is cultivated and made manifest in that clear and keen mind. Yet its dependence upon the first and second destinies could not be established, because both states are mundane.

Furthermore, if one is born in one state while the mind of another state becomes manifest, dependence upon either destiny could not be established, because the residual body still remains. Nor could this mind be said to take nirvana as its supporting basis. Since these three kinds of supporting basis cannot be established, apart from the alaya-consciousness, where could the supramundane mind abide?

The Treatise says: When a person who has performed wholesome or unwholesome deeds dies, apart from the alaya-consciousness, the body could not gradually grow cold either from above or from below. Therefore, apart from the resultant consciousness containing all seeds, defilement by birth also could not be established.

Explanation: When one who has performed wholesome or unwholesome deeds dies, the body grows cold in different ways, either from above or from below. One who has performed wholesome deeds ascends, while one who has performed unwholesome deeds descends. Therefore, if the alaya-consciousness were not accepted as that which retains the body, how could this process of the body growing cold occur? Because the alaya-consciousness preserves the body, it relinquishes it gradually, either from above or from below. Wherever it relinquishes the body becomes a corpse and grows cold.