攝大乘論釋論

One should understand the supreme characteristics and supreme words of the support, 1–3

Chapter 14: Mundane Purification

The Treatise says: Why is it said that mundane purification cannot be established? Suppose one has not yet abandoned desire of the Desire Realm and has not yet attained a mind of the Form Realm, but uses a wholesome mind of the Desire Realm to cultivate the abandonment of desire of the Desire Realm. This cultivating mind of the Desire Realm does not arise and cease together with a mind of the Form Realm; therefore, it cannot perfume it or establish a seed.

In the past, there was no present mind of the Form Realm, and over innumerable kalpas it was separated by many intervening minds; therefore, the seed of that concentrated mind could not have been established. Since it did not exist, the establishment of that concentrated mind of the Form Realm must have the retributive consciousness containing all seeds, transmitted in continuous succession, as its causal condition, while the cultivation of the wholesome mind serves as the predominant condition.

The same pattern applies to every stage of freedom from desire. Thus, mundane purification also cannot be established apart from the retributive consciousness containing all seeds.

Explanation: It will now be clarified how mundane purification cannot be established. When one begins cultivating freedom from sensual desire, the wholesome cultivating mind of the Desire Realm does not perfume the mind of the Form Realm because they do not arise and cease together. Therefore, if that mind of the Form Realm arose without a seed, it would have to arise from a past mind of the Form Realm; yet that past mind has been separated by other consciousnesses throughout innumerable kalpas and, being past and nonexistent, cannot establish it.

The seed of that concentrated mind serves as the causal condition, for it arises from its own seed within the alaya-consciousness. Thus, that wholesome mind serving as the expedient is not devoid of efficacy. It functions as a predominant condition—that is, it has efficacy—but it is not a causal condition.

Through its predominance, the mind of the Form Realm is able to arise. The same applies when desire pertaining to the Form Realm is overcome.

Chapter 15: Supramundane Purification

The Treatise says: Why is it said that supramundane purification cannot be established? As the Blessed One said: “Through hearing the voice of another and correct reflection, right view arises from these two causes.” Does this voice and correct reflection perfume the auditory consciousness, the mental consciousness, or both the auditory and mental consciousnesses? When correct reflection arises in that process, auditory consciousness does not arise.

Mental consciousness, moreover, is separated by the objects and activities of other consciousnesses. When a mind associated with correct reflection subsequently arises, that earlier mental consciousness has long since ceased and become past; there is no longer either that which perfumes or that which is perfumed by hearing. From where, then, is the seed obtained?

The subsequently arising mind associated with correct reflection is a mundane mind, whereas the mind associated with right view is supramundane. They cannot arise and cease together; therefore, the latter cannot be perfumed by the former. Since it is not perfumed, no seed can be established.

Thus, supramundane purification cannot be established apart from the retributive consciousness containing all seeds, because otherwise the preservation of the seed of hearing cannot be established.

Explanation: The meaning of the impossibility of establishing supramundane purification will now be clarified. “The voice of another and correct reflection” means reflection that is correct and pure. “This mental consciousness is separated by the objects and activities of other consciousnesses” means that it is cut off from the supramundane mind associated with right view.

“When a mind associated with correct reflection arises” refers to the correct reflection of a later time. “That consciousness has long since ceased and become past” means that the preceding mental consciousness has ceased for an immeasurable period. Both the perfuming by hearing and that which was perfumed no longer exist; how, then, could they act as the cause producing the mind associated with correct reflection?

“Within that mental consciousness” means within mundane mental consciousness. The perfuming by hearing occurs when hearing the voice of another perfumes mental consciousness. If one thinks in this way, the preservation of that seed cannot be established.

That is, the preservation of the seed of supramundane purification cannot be established. Therefore, the meaning is tenable only if there is a seed from which it arises.

The Treatise says: Furthermore, the retributive consciousness containing all seeds is already the cause of defiled dharmas. How, then, can it also become the seed of a supramundane mind that counteracts it? Moreover, this supramundane mind has never existed before and therefore has never perfumed anything. Since there has been no perfuming, from where could its seed arise? You should answer: The perfuming by hearing that flows from the perfectly pure Dharma-realm produces its seed.

Explanation: Since this retributive consciousness is the substance of the obstructing cause, it cannot itself be the substance of the counteracting cause. Moreover, “this supramundane mind has never existed before” means that it has never arisen since beginningless time. There has been no perfuming because, since that supramundane mind has never arisen, its perfuming certainly has never existed.

“The seed is produced by the perfuming of hearing that flows from the perfectly pure Dharma-realm” means that one hears a distinct kind of sound; hence it is said that hearing flowing from the perfectly pure Dharma-realm performs the perfuming. Because the perfectly pure Dharma-realm eliminates the obstruction to knowledge and the obstruction of the afflictions, it is called the perfectly pure Dharma-realm. “Flows from” refers to the teaching of the Dharma: sutras and so forth flow from this Dharma-realm.

Because they can be heard, this is called “hearing what flows from the Dharma-realm.” This itself is the perfuming by hearing; hence it is called “the perfuming by hearing that flows from the Dharma-realm.” Furthermore, hearing itself is perfuming, and therefore it is called the perfuming by hearing. That perfuming by hearing abides in the alaya-consciousness and serves as the cause for the arising of the supramundane mind.

The Treatise says: Is this perfuming by hearing the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness or not? If it is the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness, how can it become a counteracting seed? If it is not the intrinsic nature of that consciousness, where can the support of the seed produced by the perfuming of hearing be found? Until the stage of a Buddha’s bodhi, where within the body does this perfuming by hearing reside? It arises with the same characteristics as the retributive consciousness, like water and milk mingled together, yet it is not the alaya-consciousness; thus it becomes the seed that counteracts the alaya-consciousness.

Explanation: Is the perfuming by hearing the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness, or is it not? Suppose it is one or the other; what fault follows? If it is the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness, how could the alaya-consciousness itself become the seed that counteracts itself?

If it is not the intrinsic nature of that consciousness, this perfuming by hearing must have some other support. Until the fruition of a Buddha’s bodhi, the perfuming by hearing is precisely the power of perfuming that flows from the perfectly pure Dharma-realm. Therefore, in whatever body it resides, it arises as one substance together with that body, yet it is not the intrinsic nature of the alaya-consciousness.

Just as water and milk arise mingled as one body, this perfuming by hearing is nevertheless not the alaya-consciousness, because it counteracts the alaya-consciousness.

The Treatise says: Here, based upon inferior perfuming, medium perfuming is established; and based upon medium perfuming, superior perfuming is established, through repeated perfuming by hearing, reflection, and cultivation.

Explanation: The inferior, medium, and superior mentioned here mean that the wisdom of hearing, the wisdom of reflection, and the wisdom of cultivation each have three grades. According to another interpretation, the wisdom of hearing is inferior, the wisdom of reflection is medium, and the wisdom of cultivation is superior. “Repeated perfuming by hearing, reflection, and cultivation” means intensified cultivation of hearing and the rest: the inferior grade serves as the cause for attaining the medium grade, and the medium grade serves as the cause for attaining the superior grade.

The Treatise says: The seeds of that perfuming by hearing, whether inferior, medium, or superior, are all seeds of the Dharma-body. Because they counteract the alaya-consciousness, they are not included within the alaya-consciousness. Because they flow from the supramundane, pure Dharma-realm, although they exist in the mundane world, they are seeds of the supramundane mind.

Before the substance of the supramundane mind has arisen, they can nevertheless actively counteract the afflictions, counteract the lower destinies, and counteract and destroy all evil karma. They enable one to accord with and draw near to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Therefore, although attained in the mundane world by bodhisattvas who have only recently begun cultivation, they all belong to the Dharma-body.

What is attained by sravakas and pratyekabuddhas, however, belongs to the liberation-body.

Explanation: “Actively counteract the afflictions” means that, when desire and so forth arise, their causes are eliminated. Because the afflictions are eliminated, this counteracts the evil karmic paths that would serve as causes for undergoing future retribution in the lower destinies and destroys them. In brief, it counteracts all evil karma of the past, future, and present; thus, in future lives, one personally draws near to virtuous friends.

“Those who have only recently begun cultivation” refers to ordinary beings. “Belong to the Dharma-body” means that they constitute the substance of the seeds of the Dharma-body. “Belong to the liberation-body” means that they constitute the causal substance of the liberation of sravakas.

Why? Because sravakas attain only the liberation-body and do not attain the Dharma-body.

The Treatise says: This is not the alaya-consciousness but belongs to the Dharma-body and the liberation-body. According to whether it is inferior, medium, or superior, it gradually increases in succession. In the same way, the support of the retributive consciousness gradually diminishes; this is the transformation of the support.

When the entire transformation is complete, all the seeds in this retributive consciousness containing all seeds cease to exist; thus, all are extinguished. Furthermore, that which is not the alaya-consciousness and the alaya-consciousness arise in the same place, like water and milk. How, then, are all the latter extinguished?

It is like a goose drinking the milk from a mixture of water and milk. Again, when one becomes free from desire in the mundane world, the perfuming pertaining to an unconcentrated stage ceases, while the perfuming pertaining to a concentrated stage increases; this is the transformation of the support.

Explanation: The alaya-consciousness and that which is not the alaya-consciousness arise together in one place. Yet the alaya-consciousness is exhausted while that which is not the alaya-consciousness remains, like a goose drinking the milk from a mixture of water and milk: the milk is exhausted, but the water remains. Again, when one becomes free from desire in the mundane world, within a single alaya-consciousness the perfuming by the afflictions pertaining to an unconcentrated stage ceases, while the perfuming by wholesome dharmas pertaining to a concentrated stage becomes complete; thus, the support is transformed. Supramundane perfuming is likewise.

Chapter 16: Accordance with Reason

The Treatise says: As it is said, when one enters the attainment of cessation, consciousness does not leave the body. This refers to the retributive consciousness not leaving the body. It remains because the attainment of cessation does not counteract this consciousness. Nor is it the case that this consciousness arises anew when one emerges from the attainment. Once this retributive consciousness has been severed, it does not arise again unless there is another rebirth-linking.

Explanation: The statement that consciousness does not leave the body during the attainment of cessation establishes the existence of the alaya-consciousness. The Blessed One said that consciousness does not leave the body because, apart from the retributive consciousness, none of the other consciousnesses can be established. Why?

Because the attainment of cessation counteracts the arising consciousnesses, they become quiescent when this attainment arises. If one further maintains that consciousness arises anew upon emerging from the attainment and that, for this reason, it is said not to leave the body, this interpretation is incorrect. Why?

Because after emergence from the attainment, consciousness does not arise anew in that sense. If the continuity of the retributive consciousness had been severed and there had been no rebirth-linking, it could not arise again.

The Treatise says: If one maintains that the attainment of cessation possesses mind because mental consciousness exists, the mind one maintains cannot be established: because the defining meaning of the attainment cannot be established; because no characteristic of taking an object can be found; because the fault follows that it would be associated with wholesome roots; because it cannot be associated with the unwholesome or the indeterminate; because the fault follows that perception and feeling would occur together with it and hence contact would exist; because samadhi possesses this power; because the fault follows that only perception would be extinguished; because the fault follows that volition and such active faculties as faith would all arise together;

because that which depends cannot be separated from its support; because there is an analogy; and because this is not absent in all practitioners.

Explanation: If anyone maintains that the attainment of cessation possesses mind because mental consciousness exists, the mind that person maintains cannot be established. This is because the defining meaning of the attainment cannot be established. If, wishing to dispense with the previously described intrinsic characteristic of the alaya-consciousness, one asserts that one of the arising consciousnesses is present as the mind within the attainment of cessation, this claim cannot be established.

Why? Because the defining meaning of the attainment cannot be established. A mind apart from mental factors has never been observed, just as mental factors have never been observed apart from mind.

If perception and feeling have not ceased, it cannot be called cessation. Consequently, this attainment could not be established as an attainment. If the alaya-consciousness remains, however, there is no such fault, because it abides in quiescence.

The attainment of cessation arises because the other minds and mental factors, which are the objects counteracted, cease. Since the alaya-consciousness is indistinct, this attainment does not arise to counteract it. Therefore, this attainment cannot contain the other minds.

Why? Because no characteristic of taking an object can be found. If minds and mental factors continued without interruption, they would necessarily possess the characteristic of having an object.

If the attainment of cessation possessed mind, it too could not be devoid of the characteristic of an object. Neither alternative can be found; therefore, this attainment contains none of the other minds. If the alaya-consciousness is posited, there is no such fault, for this consciousness receives its name from preserving the body.

Furthermore, if any of the other consciousnesses arose during the attainment of cessation, they would necessarily belong to one of the classes of wholesomeness, unwholesomeness, or indeterminacy. This mind could not be wholesome. If it were wholesome, it would have to be associated with wholesome roots, which would entail a contradiction.

Nor can the intrinsic nature of consciousness itself be wholesome, because wholesomeness cannot be established apart from association with wholesome roots. Thus, if the mind in the attainment were wholesome, one could not deny that it was associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed. But that cannot be admitted, for it would then be no different from wholesome minds elsewhere.

Nor could it be unwholesome or indeterminate. It cannot be associated with unwholesomeness or indeterminacy because, when one has become free from desire of the Desire Realm, all unwholesome roots have ceased, so it cannot be unwholesome; nor is it indeterminate, because this attainment is wholesome.

Neither can this mind be said to be wholesome, because the fault follows that it would occur together with perception and feeling. Apart from wholesome roots, it cannot be wholesome; only what is wholesome is associated with wholesome roots. If it is associated with wholesome roots, it must also be associated with perception and feeling, since there is no other cause that would prevent this. It cannot be established that the object counteracted is actively present while its counteragent is also present. Just as contemplation of impurity cannot be present while desire and so forth are actively occurring, so it is here.

Furthermore, if other minds apart from the alaya-consciousness existed within the attainment of cessation, the fault would follow that contact arises. This will now be illustrated by the other attainments in which one abides. Whenever wholesome roots arise associated with a mind in meditative attainment, contact necessarily accompanies them.

That is, when contact produced by meditative attainment arises with the support as its characteristic, whether it is contact associated with pleasant feeling or contact associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, this contact serves as the condition through which pleasant feeling or neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling arises. Why? Because contact has this power within meditative attainment.

Since contact is observed to arise in the other attainments and the two feelings have the capacity to arise there, the same should apply within the attainment of cessation, because there is no distinct cause obstructing them. If so, the proposition that contact conditions feeling cannot be maintained. Why?

Because the fault would follow that only perception is extinguished. Therefore, if it is said that there is contact conditioning feeling, the cultivation of this attainment would extinguish only perception. This cannot be accepted, because scripture says that both feeling and perception are extinguished.

Furthermore, contact should not be present. If contact were present in the other consciousnesses, the fault would follow that associated volition and wholesome roots such as faith would arise together. The sutra says that if consciousness arises in association with contact, volition arises together with it. Therefore, it would follow that volition actively occurs within this attainment. If volition actively occurs, it activates a wholesome mind, and this must certainly arise together with wholesome roots such as faith. This cannot be accepted.

If, wishing to avoid the previously stated faults and contradiction with the Agamas, one says that the mental factors are removed, so there are no mental factors and only mind remains, this also cannot be established. Why? Because that which depends cannot be removed from its support.

Mind is the support, and mental factors are that which depends upon it. Since beginningless samsara, mind and its mental factors, as support and dependents, have constantly relied upon one another and have never been separated. Because they lead one another in this manner, the mind must necessarily be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed.

If you say that the attainment and the preparatory practice for the attainment oppose these roots, so non-greed and the rest do not arise and only wholesomeness arises, such a thing has never been taught anywhere. Why? Because whenever associated dharmas arise, an associated resultant flow necessarily arises from them.

Therefore, this proposition cannot be established.

There is still another reason it cannot be established. As the Blessed One said: “The bodily formation ceases, the verbal formation ceases, and the mental formation ceases.” Here, the bodily formation is inhalation and exhalation; the verbal formation is initial and sustained application of thought; and the mental formation is volition and perception. Just as speech cannot arise when initial and sustained application of thought have ceased, so mental consciousness cannot arise when the mental formation has ceased.

If you say that, just as the body does not cease while the bodily formation has ceased during the attainment, so the mental formation may cease while mental consciousness continues to exist, this interpretation is incorrect. Why? Because there are causal conditions: there are other bodily factors serving as causes through which the body remains.

As the Blessed One said, through food and drink, the life faculty, and consciousness, the body can remain even without inhalation and exhalation. Mental consciousness is not like this, for there are no other mental formations to sustain it. Therefore, within that attainment, mental consciousness cannot be taken as the abiding mind.

As the Blessed One said, consciousness does not leave the body. This refers to retributive consciousness. Why? Because it contains the seeds. Therefore, after emergence from the attainment, the arising consciousnesses are born from it. This support and that which depends upon it always arise in this manner; even with additional effort, they cannot be separated. Why? Because there is an analogy. It is like things in the world that are inseparable from birth until death, always arising together, so that one cannot remove what depends from its support. An example is the four great elements and the matter derived from the four great elements. Mind and mental factors are likewise; there is no principle by which they could be separated so that mind alone remains.

If one says that it is impossible to remove what depends from its support, but because of the fault concerning perception and feeling only these two dharmas fail to occur and not any others, this also cannot be established. Why? Because all that does not occur anywhere else is absent here. Therefore, the sutra says: “Within the attainment of cessation, consciousness does not leave the body.” This establishes the existence of the alaya-consciousness. Thus, the Blessed One said that consciousness does not leave the body. Apart from the retributive consciousness, none of the other consciousnesses can be established. Why? Because the attainment of cessation counteracts the arising of the arising consciousnesses and therefore renders them quiescent.

If anyone maintains that, after one rises from the attainment, consciousness arises again from the body and therefore is said not to leave it, this also cannot be established. Upon emergence from the attainment, consciousness cannot arise again if it has been altogether severed. For if that retributive consciousness had had its continuity severed, then apart from rebirth-linking with a later body, it could not arise again.

If one maintains, apart from the alaya-consciousness, that the attainment of cessation possesses mind by reason of mental consciousness, that mind cannot be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate; all these possibilities are untenable. Since this attainment is wholesome, it cannot be unwholesome. Nor can it be the indeterminate associated with deportment, transformation, craftsmanship, and so forth. If it is said to be the indeterminate of retribution, it is precisely the alaya-consciousness, for that is the fifth kind of indeterminate. If this mind is said to be wholesome, it must be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed.

Furthermore, while this mind remains, the defiled mental faculty has ceased and it abides solely in wholesomeness. This wholesome mind must have a support and an object. When the three things come together, how could contact fail to arise? Once contact has arisen, how could feeling and the rest fail to arise? If so, the meaning of the attainment of cessation cannot be established, because mind and mental factors would not have ceased within it.

If you maintain that the power of a wholesome mind produces this attainment, this would be due to the power of the wholesome preparatory mind. Although this attainment is wholesome, you may say, it is not associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed. When there is the capacity for conjunction, it is called conjunction; therefore, although this attainment is wholesome, it has no capacity regarding the conjunction of the three things. This is not so. Just as a resultant flow arises, because the preparatory mind is wholesome, this attainment is associated with wholesome roots.

The Treatise says: If one further maintains that matter and mind arise in succession and serve as the seeds of all dharmas, this thesis, refuted as above, also cannot be established. The meaning of falling from the Formless Realm or from the Heaven of Non-Perception, and of emerging from the attainment of cessation, could not be established. Nor could the final mind of an arhat be established. Only the meaning of serving as an immediately antecedent condition can be established. Thus, apart from the retributive consciousness containing all seeds, neither defilement nor purification can be established. Therefore, as previously explained, the established characteristic of the alaya-consciousness is that it exists.

Explanation: Suppose one maintains that matter and mind continuously produce all dharmas, so that the preceding moment is regarded as a seed and serves as the cause of the succeeding moment. The consciousness of the first moment would likewise produce the consciousness of the succeeding moment. But if one falls from the Formless Realm, matter has long since been interrupted; how could it serve as the seed for the renewed arising of matter?

If one falls from the Heaven of Non-Perception or emerges from the attainment of cessation, the mind has long since ceased; how could it be regarded as the cause producing the subsequent mind? If this were so, arhats could not attain nirvana without remainder, because the causes of matter and mind would never be exhausted. The matter of the preceding moment, in relation to the matter of the succeeding moment, and the consciousness of the preceding moment, in relation to the consciousness of the succeeding moment, should be understood as merely immediately antecedent conditions, not causal conditions.

Therefore, the existence of the alaya-consciousness is established. If one abides in the arising consciousnesses, the meaning of transformation of the support cannot be established. This meaning will now be shown through three verses.

The Treatise says: Here are the verses:

Within a bodhisattva’s wholesome mind,

The five consciousnesses are far removed.

And since no other consciousness exists,

Which mind undergoes transformation of the support?

If the counteragent is transformation of the support,

It cannot be established, for the obstruction is not yet extinguished.

Cause and fruit would be without distinction,

And identification with cessation would be an error.

If seedlessness and nonexistence

Are held to be transformation of the support,

Since those two absences are not present there,

Transformation of the support cannot be established.

Explanation: “Within a bodhisattva’s wholesome mind” means within wholesome mental consciousness, associated with the supramundane counteragent. “The five consciousnesses are far removed” means that the five consciousnesses beginning with visual consciousness are absent. “No other consciousness exists” means that defiled mental consciousness and wholesome outflowing consciousness are absent. Because outflowing wholesome consciousness is absent, it is called a wholesome mind. “And since no other consciousness exists, which mind undergoes transformation of the support?” means that within the alaya-consciousness, all defiled seeds are rendered seedless in this way.

If one says that the arising of the counteragent is transformation of the support, then the counteragent itself would be transformation of the support. Because the obstruction has not yet been extinguished, this cannot be established. The extinction of the afflictions is called transformation of the support; the counteragent itself is not extinction. Why? Because the counteragent is only the cause of extinction. Otherwise, cause and fruit would be without distinction, and identifying the counteragent with extinction would be erroneous. The fruit called extinction is nirvana. The cause called the counteragent is the path. The counteragent and extinction would thus become one substance. Moreover, the moment the counteragent arose would itself be nirvana.

If you regard seedlessness and nonexistence as transformation of the support, then within the arising consciousnesses, being without seeds and without substance would be transformation of the support. But since those two absences are not present there, transformation of the support cannot be established. While one abides in supramundane meditative attainment, all the arising consciousnesses are absent.

Therefore, neither the absence of seeds nor the absence of substance can be found there, and the meaning of transformation of the support cannot be established. If the alaya-consciousness exists, then although the arising consciousnesses are absent, their seeds abide in the alaya-consciousness and can be rendered seedless and nonexistent. Since transformation of the support otherwise cannot be established, one knows that the alaya-consciousness exists.

Chapter 17: Distinctions

The Treatise says: Furthermore, what are the distinctions of this alaya-consciousness? In brief, there are three or four kinds of distinction. The three here are distinctions based upon three kinds of perfuming: 1. the distinction of perfuming by names and words; 2. the distinction of perfuming by the view of self; and 3. the distinction of perfuming by the factors of existence.

The four are: 1. the distinction of production; 2. the distinction of retribution; 3. the distinction of the objective aspect; and 4. the distinction of characteristics. Here, the distinction of production means perfuming that produces renewed existence. If there were no consciousness conditioned by formations, the existence conditioned by clinging could not be established.

The distinction of retribution means maturation in the various destinies, with formations and existence serving as conditions. If this did not exist, there would be no seeds, and the arising of dharmas in subsequent existence could not be established. The distinction of the objective aspect means the characteristic of self grasped by the mental faculty.

Without this, the object of the mental faculty’s conception and grasping of self could not be established.

Explanation: Thus, the alaya-consciousness has been established. The various distinct categories of this consciousness will now be shown. Among the three distinctions of perfuming, perfuming by names and words is like the name “eye” perfuming the retributive consciousness and serving as the productive cause of that eye. After the retributive faculty of the eye is produced, it is said to arise with this name-and-word “eye” as its cause. The same applies to all the distinctions of names and words concerning the ear and the other faculties.

The distinction of perfuming by the view of self means that, through the power of the view of a person within the defiled mental faculty, the alaya-consciousness is taken as a self. Once this perfuming has arisen, there is discrimination into “this is I” and “that is other.” Perfuming by the factors of existence means that, through the power of wholesome, unwholesome, and imperturbable karmic formations, there are differences of birth within the various destinies. This meaning will be explained extensively later in the section on characteristics.

The distinction of production means the gathering and preservation of the various distinct kinds of seeds. “Perfuming that produces renewed existence” means the perfuming that occurs when existence first arises. If this productive distinction of the alaya-consciousness did not exist, the consciousness perfumed by arising and ceasing formations could not, through the preservation of clinging, bring an existence into active manifestation. Such existence could not be established. Because it has the capacity to produce subsequent existence, this is called “existence.” This existence is precisely the wholesome and unwholesome repeatedly perfumed through clinging.

The distinction of retributive existence means that, through the accumulation of formations and existence as conditions, maturation occurs within the various destinies. Without this aspect of the alaya-consciousness that gathers and leads, there would be no cause, and the arising in subsequent existence of dharmas such as the eye and the other material faculties could not be established. This is precisely the fruit of retribution.

The distinction of the objective aspect is the aspect of the alaya-consciousness that serves, for the view of self in the defiled mental faculty dependent upon it, as the objective aspect of grasping a self. Without this objective aspect, the alaya-consciousness and the mental faculty belonging to the defiled mental faculty could not take the view of a person as their cause, and the object of this attachment to self could not be established. This is precisely the resultant flow.

The Treatise says: Here, the distinction of characteristics means that this consciousness has common characteristics and uncommon characteristics, the characteristic of seeds that do not undergo birth, and the characteristic of seeds that undergo birth. The common characteristic consists of the seeds of the vessel-world. The uncommon characteristic consists of the distinct seeds of the internal ayatanas. This common characteristic consists of seeds that do not undergo birth. When the counteragent arises, the obstruction belonging to the uncommon characteristic is extinguished, but the common characteristic is sustained by the discriminations of others. Practitioners of contemplation perceive purity within it. Whatever they aspire to see among all things is accomplished. Here are verses:

Difficult to extinguish and difficult to know:

Such are the bonds of the common characteristic.

Practitioners whose minds differ

Regard the external characteristics of the great elements.

For the purified, they are not extinguished,

Yet within them they perceive purity.

The Buddhas’ perception of purity

Establishes magnificently pure Buddha-fields.

There are also other verses:

According to their various aspirations,

What they see in every place is accomplished.

Practitioners behold a single object

According to their various aspirations.

What they see in every place is accomplished;

The object grasped is consciousness-only.

This uncommon characteristic consists of seeds that undergo birth. Without these, distinctions in the evolving production of the vessel-world and the world of sentient beings could not be established.

Explanation: There are many kinds of distinction in characteristics. “Here” refers to the common and uncommon characteristics, the characteristic of seeds that undergo birth, and the characteristic of seeds that do not undergo birth. This alaya-consciousness is the causal substance of the vessel-world shared by all sentient beings; these are seeds that do not undergo birth.

The alaya-consciousness in its uncommon characteristic is the causal substance of the ayatanas, such as form, belonging to each individual body; these are seeds that undergo birth. Apart from such characteristic types of the alaya-consciousness, the cause of the common experience of all sentient beings—that is, the vessel-world—could not be established. Likewise, apart from this second aspect of the alaya-consciousness, the world of sentient beings could not be established; beings would be like withered trees, devoid of awareness.

The Treatise says: There are also the characteristic of coarseness and the characteristic of pliancy. The characteristic of coarseness consists of the seeds of the afflictions and secondary afflictions. The characteristic of pliancy consists of the seeds of wholesome outflowing dharmas. Without these, the distinction between capability and incapability within the retributive body could not be established.

Explanation: The characteristic of coarseness means that the body lacks capability. The characteristic of pliancy means that the body possesses capability.

The Treatise says: There are also the characteristic of experience and the characteristic of non-experience. The characteristic of experience consists of matured retributive seeds of wholesome and unwholesome karma. The characteristic of non-experience consists of seeds perfumed by verbal expressions; they are seeds producing conceptual proliferation since beginningless time. Without these, the meaning of undergoing experienced results from the wholesome and evil karma continually performed could not be established. Nor could newly produced perfuming by verbal expressions be established.

Explanation: Regarding the characteristic of experience, apart from this alaya-consciousness, the continual perfuming by wholesome and evil karma could not be established. The characteristic of non-experience consists of seeds perfumed by verbal expressions, as when it is said that the seeds perfumed by all the distinctions of verbal expressions produce conceptual proliferation from beginningless time. This means that they are causes that have continually circulated since beginningless time. Without this characteristic of non-experience, the alaya-consciousness could contain neither old nor new perfuming that produces verbal expressions. Why? Because in the world, no present verbal expression can exist apart from its root.

The Treatise says: There is also the characteristic of resemblance, as in illusions, mirages, dreams, diseased vision, and so forth. Without these characteristics of resemblance within the alaya-consciousness, the establishment of inverted appearances through seeds of false discrimination could not be established.

Explanation: The characteristic of resemblance is like illusory devices serving as causes through which phenomena are falsely perceived. Likewise, the characteristics of resemblance within the alaya-consciousness are seeds of false discrimination and therefore produce inverted appearances. Without this alaya-consciousness, those inverted appearances could not be established.

The Treatise says: There are also the characteristic of completeness and the characteristic of incompleteness. Those who possess all the characteristics of bondage are called complete in mundane characteristics. Those free from desire possess diminished characteristics. Sravakas in training and bodhisattvas have removed the characteristics in part. Arhats and pratyekabuddhas have completely removed the obstruction of the afflictions, while Tathagatas have completely removed both the obstruction of the afflictions and the obstruction to knowledge. Without this alaya-consciousness, the successive extinction of the afflictions could not be established.

For what reason is wholesome and unwholesome retribution only unobstructed-indeterminate? Because this retribution is unobstructed-indeterminate, it does not oppose the wholesome or unwholesome. If it opposed the wholesome or unwholesome, then once retribution had become wholesome or unwholesome, there would be no principle by which the afflictions could be extinguished. Therefore, retributive consciousness is only unobstructed-indeterminate.

Explanation: “Unobstructed-indeterminate” means that unobstructed is undefiled. Because it is undefiled and indeterminate, it is called unobstructed-indeterminate. This is not like taking unwholesome afflictions as indeterminate when born in the Form Realm. If this retribution were wholesome or unwholesome, the afflictions could not be extinguished. Why? Because if it were wholesome, it would produce the wholesome, and if it were unwholesome, it would produce the unwholesome. This would mean that samsara could never be exhausted. Samsara consists of the afflictions, outflowing wholesome dharmas, and so forth. The meaning of the support has now been fully explained.