成唯識寶生論

The treatise says: The Nairayika-pālas are like deer hunters. Thus, it should be understood that they not only do not undergo the suffering of harming one another, but, although they dwell in a realm where suffering is shared, they are not harmed by the wardens of hell. If this were otherwise, when they were subjected to the unbearable torment of being burned upon seething molten iron, how could they still afflict others?

When their bodies move upon the scorching ground, the limbs of the beings in Naraka seem to fall apart, leaving them unable to do anything. Moreover, amid seething, boiling iron, they are restrained by the wardens of hell and have not the slightest freedom. Yet those wardens eagerly harm others; hence, it is certain that they do not undergo that suffering.

They are like cooks turning fish back and forth while frying them in a pan of hot oil. It is untenable to regard the wardens as beings in Naraka who harm one another. If that were so, it would contradict the meaning of “warden of hell.” To establish the thesis that Nairayika-pālas are beings in Naraka is to incur the fault of contradicting one’s own thesis.

Furthermore, if it is said that, because the molten iron causes extreme suffering, the beings in Naraka cannot harm them—just as one whose life has been placed amid burning coals cannot do so—then perhaps these beings do not undergo this suffering, just as the gods of Tuṣita do not. These are plainly wardens of hell, not beings in Naraka. Here, the opponents offer a separate explanation and cite scripture as evidence, but this is gravely mistaken.

They are merely persons of inferior wisdom who have clearly seen little; therefore, only a few points will be mentioned briefly.

They further ask: “I also do not accept that the wardens in hell undergo no suffering. As the scripture says: ‘Bhikṣus! There is a Naraka called the Six Bases of Contact. When the sentient beings born there see forms with their eyes, they see only objects that are disagreeable.’”

Indeed, such is the experience of those sentient beings. Regarding the view that the insentient wardens of hell are sentient beings, the masters of the treatises do not accept it. They are aggregates of empty space that invade and overturn one another. The proponents of that view raise the following question: Since the beings in Naraka differ in the sufferings they undergo, must they not also have different bodies? For within a single Avīci hell there are many who have committed the uninterrupted offenses.

This still cannot exclude other interpretations. As stated earlier, when the various kinds of sentient beings born in Naraka undergo suffering, their sufferings differ from the grievous sufferings in other realms. Yet whenever there are sufferings common to those hells, all undergo them alike. In those places, however, because of grave karma, violent winds blow and bodies meet extreme suffering. One being in Avīci may not undergo the violent sufferings of the various other Avīci beings; since they do not undergo them in common, the reason becomes indeterminate. This matter is explained in order to exclude those wardens of hell.

Among the beings in Naraka, there is no such difference. When suffering is common to that realm, all undergo it alike. Thus, in the thesis as established, there is no alternative thesis. How, then, could the reasoning become indeterminate?

For those in a single Avīci hell undergo the same suffering alike.

Another question is raised: “Because those wardens of hell do not undergo suffering.” This is not a correct answer, for it entails indeterminacy.

Yet one should not decide the matter in this way, supposing that if one is seen to undergo suffering, the others must do likewise. This is also presently observed in the world. For example, when goats or camels are stung to death by scorpions, birds peck at and eat them.

Such differences exist among animals. Among human beings as well, one may be seen not to undergo the suffering. For example, when a person has a painful swelling, a physician may step upon heated iron and then press his foot against the afflicted spot.

Although the patient suffers intense pain, the physician’s foot does not hurt. Yet in truth, there is no difference in their nature as sentient beings. Likewise, because suffering is a co-arisen phenomenon in the realm of Naraka, those who are not seen to undergo it are not thereby called beings in Naraka.

Those seen to be bitten by venomous creatures and so forth may lose their lives. This is presented merely by way of a broad illustration. The clever notions of worldly people have no bearing upon this treatise or upon what accords with reason.

If it is said that this is based solely on similarities within the realm of sentient beings, then that realm of sentient beings is included in this thesis. Yet within that very realm, some are seen not to undergo the sufferings of the realm. Clearly, therefore, that thesis incurs the fault of indeterminacy.

This still fails to clarify the meaning of what I establish. In that realm of sentient beings, there are determinate sufferings that they do not undergo in common; this is the meaning of the probans before it takes effect. It is not the case that humans and animals born in that realm of sentient beings are necessarily subject, by the law of that realm, to such sufferings and yet do not undergo them. For example, goats and so forth may suffer and die when stung by venomous scorpions, or someone may suffer pain produced by a heated foot. If they were entirely unaffected by the sufferings of that realm, they would not possess the nature of beings belonging to that realm, and these faults would consequently arise.

Another opinion states: “Because the wardens of hell arise through the dominant force of their own and others’ karma, they are not harmed. They afflict one another with suffering, yet do not themselves undergo it.” Now I tell you: attached to your own views, your mind is deluded, like one taking inverted steps through empty space. The Nairayika-pālas are not born because they are harmed or oppressed by those beings. There are painful torments that they certainly do not undergo; this is accepted. But who lends support to the claim that they do not undergo any of the punitive sufferings in that place?

They then ask in reply: “Although they do not harm one another, their functions differ, causing their stations to differ, like one who is bound and one who binds.” Your words turn back and contradict your own thesis, for one cannot simultaneously bind and be bound. Or do they perform the act of binding one another, as when it is said that two persons bind each other in succession? This too is unreasonable.

One is called “the bound” because one undergoes binding, while whoever binds another is capable of binding. Yet even if these two activities caused suffering, they still could not be established among the beings in Naraka. If, while being tormented by poison, one suffers intensely, one would not be a being in Naraka; but if one were harmed by another and experienced pain at that time, one would be a being in Naraka—this should not be accepted.

A continuous sequence of punishment, with birth and death, constitutes a grave offense; mutual harm at a single moment cannot do so. Since this does not occur within a single instant of thought, they hastily return to denying that such a position can be maintained. If the position is altered, then although they belong to the same realm of sentient beings, their names differ because their functions differ: one is called a being in Naraka and the other a warden of hell.

Likewise, in the human realm, prison guards are not themselves fettered in cangues.

This too is unreasonable, because the designation does not depend upon that function. A being in Naraka is not so called because of a difference in function, as is one who is bound. Rather, this designation is due solely to the realm of sentient beings as its cause. How, then, can those wardens of hell be excluded? It should therefore be understood that their stations differ because they do not share the same realm of sentient beings as the supporting condition. The binder and the bound differ because their functions differ; accordingly, they should be distinguished by their respective stations, and in truth there is no fault.

If differences of station are accepted, it must also be accepted that the beings in Naraka are not wardens of hell. For my thesis, this alone is essential. Therefore, it closely accords with and supports the meaning established by the foregoing probans. If it is accepted that one truly possesses the nature of a being in Naraka but is sometimes called a prison warden because of a difference in function, this view can be established only by positing distinct stations, and no fault arises. Thus, distinct ranks are accepted, as a verse says:

Through great anger, they create dreadful karma,

Delighting in the performance of evil deeds.

Seeing suffering, their minds rejoice;

They become wardens of Yama.

Since these are not of the Naraka class, if this verse expresses the true meaning, how can you hastily utter such words? Those prison guards are not numbered among sentient beings. They are appearances seen by the beings in Naraka according to their circumstances.

How does saying this contradict reason? Those of shallow vision, seeing the differences in their movements, infer and conjecture that they possess minds. Yet fundamentally, when the seeds within consciousness mature, distinct appearances arise accordingly, and discrimination arises.

The Buddha taught this doctrine in accordance with what they perceive, wishing to cause sentient beings who have committed papa, evil karma, to eliminate wrong views concerning transgression, and to reveal in the most dreadful Naraka the painful retributions born from evil karma. In accordance with the attachments of those sentient beings, he spoke of disagreeable things existing outside consciousness; but when the true principle is explained, they are all similar appearances manifested through internal conditions.

Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Another view says: Although they again inflict painful harm upon one another, these classes do not depart from the ordinary, because at that time their positions are not fixed. The one who is harmed is called a Naraka being, while the one who harms another is called a Para. Therefore, one should know that precisely when a Naraka being is harmed, no fault is incurred by the prison guard.

When this is maintained, the function of prison guards is thereby established for us. Have you never admitted even in the slightest that they experience pleasure?

One doctrine holds that, through the power of karma, they possess such strange forms. They pursue sentient beings without any fixed rule. Because they previously tormented and harmed one another, they are in turn subjected to punishment and slaughter together in hell.

Each oppresses and harms the other, and they encounter agonizing pain. Even if they possess life, they themselves have no bodily strength. Those who harm others know only suffering and have not the slightest respite.

Because those sentient beings formerly created enmity together, they now inflict painful harm upon one another. They are all Naraka beings, yet they harm one another in succession. This is not accepted by others, for since they are born according to appearances produced by karmic consciousness, they are said not to possess the nature of prison guards.

To say that they are incapable of harming is entirely meaningless if it is accepted that the one harmed is a Naraka being, while the one who harms does not undergo these sufferings.

One doctrine says: Although they belong to the same realm of sentient beings, the prison guards need not necessarily possess the same form, strength, and so forth. Rather, those prison guards are cruel, venomous, and terrifying; upon seeing them, one immediately becomes afraid. Their bodies are immense, imposing, and extraordinarily fierce.

Even supposing their forms and strength were similar, their bodies possess a terrifying, harmful venom, like the Mlecchas, at the sight of whom one immediately trembles. These are the class capable of harming. Even supposing that members of this class have small bodies, they are endowed by nature with strength, courage, and agility; even when confronting someone of enormous stature, they would not dare regard them as mere grass and treat them with scorn and contempt.

This still cannot refute that profound meaning. Yet although their position contains faults and oversights, I shall pardon them. The matter of the Naraka beings harming one another is no different.

Their forms, strength, and so forth must necessarily be similar. At times, however, this too is said. Because of this statement, the matter becomes difficult to explain: “Their forms and strength need not necessarily be similar.” Whom is this intended to refute?

If one measures one’s own strength and is certain of victory, there will be no fear. If this is admitted, then to speak of cruelty or majesty becomes meaningless. Fear arises from being oppressed too severely, not from the one capable of harming.

When it was established that they became exceedingly afraid, a fault arose; this expedient was used to clarify this distinction in appearance. Now, by again establishing cruelty and majesty, you have bestowed a great favor and can become a good friend who adds to my splendor. What was stated above establishes that their substance is distinct and that they do not share the sufferings of hell.

Or else the blazing fires arise through the power of karma, and thus they do not suffer the pain of being burned. This is your own error. What good friend could speak so directly?

A truly intimate good friend always extends beneficent aid, no matter how perilous the time. This was said in order to clarify that they do not suffer the pain of being burned. Yet in helping to establish the meaning, the intention of a good friend is revealed.

Because they do not undergo those sufferings, you intend to establish that they are not Naraka beings. Now you further say: “Through the power of karma, great fires are said to exist, yet they do not burn.” This truly establishes the meaning of Consciousness-Only. Since there is no real fire, it is only through the power of karma that it can destroy their intrinsic nature.

Since they certainly do not undergo sufferings such as these, it follows that this fire fundamentally lacks intrinsic nature. Yet your thesis admits that it possesses true existence. If so, then you must admit that the entities appearing as manifestations of consciousness are fundamentally nonexistent.

Through the power of karma, this is therefore not real fire. This accords with reason, because it is the due maturation of previous karma. Otherwise, if through the predominating power of karma it brings about a presently manifest result, why do they not perceive it?

This is like an ignorant person who, wishing to extinguish a fire, pours on still more oil. The Consciousness-Only school now makes this clear. By these principles it is demonstrated that they are not of the Naraka class.

If so, this is not established. What fault in reason would there be if those appearing among the Naraka beings were ghosts or animals?

If they are not Naraka beings, why are they born in that evil realm?

Because they cannot be born in another realm of sentient beings, they are born in Naraka.

If so, once born there, they must be the same as the Naraka beings. Moreover, for what reason do you admit that they can be born there? And if they are born there, they share a common nature with them. When they are first born, they must be nonexistent, because they are not admitted among those possessing the nature of sentient beings. Yet because they dwell together within the same realm of sentient beings, there is no indeterminacy.

If you maintain this understanding and call it birth, then great and mighty divine beings also enter this Naraka to rescue sentient beings. Thus, although they are not of the Naraka class, they are nevertheless seen there, and so the matter becomes indeterminate; the doctrine is not established on the basis of an invariably fixed rule. The intended meaning is that they are seen only in this evil realm of Naraka.

But when King Yama goes forth, a retinue accompanies him. At that time, neither the king nor his retinue leaves that realm. If that realm contained no distinct classes, how could animals, such as celestial elephants and so forth, exist in heaven?

Although they are not devas, they are born in that realm. Likewise, in the realm of King Yama, the various prison guards, dogs, crows, and so forth are not of the same class, yet they too are born there. On this reasoning, they are all said to be Naraka beings.

When the prison guards and so forth are born in hell, they are included within that realm. Why? Because they are born in the same place.

By this very principle, it is established with certainty that they must undergo those sufferings.

Upon examination, this is not so. Although born in hell, they are not Naraka beings. Why? Because they do not undergo the same experiences, just as animals in heaven do not.

It is not so in hell, for the realms of animals, devas, and so forth are not distinguished in that way. Naraka beings and so forth are brought forth by their own karma and differ from one another. According to the karma they have created, they undergo suffering through the power of their own karma; but those born in heaven all enjoy bliss together, because they are born there through karma conducive to happiness.

As for the assertion that animals and ghosts do not undergo those sufferings: animals, hungry ghosts, and so forth undergo various sufferings in the realms where they are born. If this were not so, why would the prison guards and others not undergo those sufferings? Therefore, one should know that the suffering of Naraka is not a retribution arising merely from birth, but is the retribution that must be undergone in that karmic destiny, as in the case of Narada and others.

If so, one without that karma would not be born there.

This too has already been clearly distinguished above: through the power of that karma, they are brought forth and appear therein.

This is not an analogous example. Yet what they seek to establish is certainly untenable. It is not something that we have accepted. Here, however, things such as iron mountains perform actions, suddenly separating and suddenly closing together. As other masters say, those hell wardens also undergo those sufferings. Yet if so, the stated reason and example are dissimilar, and the earlier and later assertions contradict each other. Therefore, it must be said that, because their bases differ, or because the dominant power of karma differs, they do not undergo suffering. Why is this? If they do not undergo it, then what is said here is faulty.

Moreover, others say: In the Formless Realm, painful and pleasant sensations also have places in which they are experienced. Those who experience them have their respective objects of experience. It is likewise here.

This view is unreasonable. Sentient beings are born in the Formless Realm, but that realm is not like a receptacle. Since that realm has no place of experience and so forth, and no activities, how could spatial regions contain them? Spatial extension is a cause; only what possesses spatial extension can serve as such a cause. Thus, it should be understood that there is in fact no spatial extension there. Only sentient beings born in the two realms of Desire and Form have causes that accumulate. Therefore, birth there must possess spatial extension. Just as the Form Realm possesses spatial extension, so too does the Desire Realm, for that realm is a cause.

It is not so, for because the Formless Realm is formless, it has no dwelling place, just as there is no conjunction.

This is unreasonable. If so, one should accept that the dominant power of the karma of those beings in Naraka produces other great elements that are not included among sentient beings. The great elements of earth and so forth assume distinctive shapes and powers in hell. If these were sentient beings, their forms, complexions, and so forth would all differ; their hands and feet, their dimensions—long or short, large or small—and their functions would all have to differ before they could be called hell wardens and so forth.

If, then, they are not sentient beings, how can the hell wardens, without depending upon external conditions, set their feet, hands, and bodily parts into action, terrifying those beings by manifesting various forms of might and moving their hands and feet?

It is the wind dhatu that causes their hands and feet to move and display various distinct functions. That power of wind resembles a person's intention, emerging in accordance with thought. It is likewise with the beings in Naraka. As soon as they see them, fear arises. Through the power of karma, the beings in those hells become afraid. It is like a wooden puppet that performs movements and displays various things through the conjunction of the great elements, although it has no awareness. Through the causes and conditions of karmic power, movements of the hands and feet are seen, and various actions are displayed. Thus, the principle concerning sentient beings and so forth is established.

In that place, through the dominant power of the karma of beings in Naraka, they themselves see goats and mountains that suddenly appear and suddenly vanish. Although these are not sentient beings, they are nevertheless seen as existent. The distinctions among the hell wardens in their dwelling places are precisely of this kind; they are not sentient beings. The principle is thereby established, and there should be no further uncertainty.

If so, the hell wardens and so forth are not objects of cognition but arise through intention. The hell wardens and their locations do not share a single form through which the beings in Naraka and so forth are manifested. Through karmic power in hell, the great elements generate distinctive shapes and colors, manifesting movements of hands and feet in various places and among the great elements; or the absence of these bonds and so forth is due to karmic power. Thus, the principle ought not to be established.

Why do you not accept that consciousness is transformed in this way through karmic power, just as in a dream one sees assembled forms, while externally there arise images displaying various appearances? It is reasonable to accept likewise that their functions arise through transformation.

If consciousness is transformed in this way through karmic power, it will conflict with the locations. If you accept that it is due to karmic power, what need is there for other great elements? The distinctive functions of the hell wardens and so forth—the movements of hands and feet and so on—are transformations of the four great elements, just as forms and so forth are seen in various places in a dream. Their shapes have neither substance nor function, or their distinctive characteristics are not the earth element and so forth, just as the previously mentioned goats, mountains, and so forth. Since you do not accept that manifested shapes and appearances are produced, transformations are likewise not accepted, because their distinct shapes and so forth arise through another power.

These various distinct and dissimilar forms are transformed by consciousness; apart from consciousness, there is nothing whatsoever that can be seen.

If consciousness alone transforms itself into various distinct forms and appearances, then since the appearances of hell wardens and so forth are transformed by one's own consciousness, they should share the same cause of suffering.

The beings in Naraka are not the hell wardens. The latter are the four great elements produced by the dominant result of common karma; therefore, when the former undergo suffering, the latter do not undergo suffering with them. For this reason, it is necessary to speak of the four great elements.

To speak in this way does not effectively address the other school.

Why does it not?

One need only say that the consciousness of the sentient beings themselves transforms and manifests the hell wardens performing cruel and dreadful deeds. Because their own consciousness transforms and manifests the hell wardens and so forth, the sufferings and harms do not contradict one another. Yet when one's own consciousness sees reflected appearances of sufferings and harms belonging to the same class, if their causes are the same, all should undergo suffering.

A master and disciple who perform one undertaking have aspects that are the same and aspects that are not. To insist that things which are not the same are the same, and to establish great elements when beings isolated in hell do not see one another and do not undergo the same sufferings, is logically untenable.

Karma permeating various places means that some hold that beings in Naraka are produced through the distinct causes of their own karmic power. That karma permeates them, and it should reasonably be accepted that it continues within consciousness, because the accumulated power of karma does not reside elsewhere. Only when karmic power produces earth and so forth in various places are cause and effect conjoined.

Thus, because the result is accumulated there, the distinct consciousnesses that take the images of hell wardens and so forth as their objects arise in conjunction and discriminate various kinds of form. Otherwise, through karmic power, the conjunction of the great elements would be the accumulated cause, and the result would be accomplished through distinctions in the continuity of karma. Thus, it should be understood that a determinate result is obtained within the continuity of one's own being.

The seeds conditioned by the permeation of recollections are likewise not separate from the continuity of a sentient being. Thus it is known that the reason for using one person, a small number, and so forth as illustrations is to reveal the internal permeation of the mental continuity and its mental factors, thereby encompassing the different results of the five destinies. Because these are produced by the permeation of one's own karma, they resemble the result of permeation in the Formless Realm.

Apart from mind and mental factors, there is no other associated formation. Here, only distinctions in verbal designation are stated, while the substance of the matter is not different. Therefore, this should be described as an implicit intention.

Or, although they are not separate from mind and mental factors, their substance and the place of their arising are not the same. Those who have not yet become free from the Desire Realm permeate the Form Realm and are born there precisely according to their own power, because their practice has been established. Just as karma permeates the Formless Realm, either mind and mental factors are not separate from the sphere of form, or what is produced by the great elements can arise only through conjunction with karmic power.

Or the continuity of consciousness abides in the result of permeation, as do thoughts of affection and aversion, and so forth. Forms produced from the great elements, being images transformed by consciousness, are likewise not separate from consciousness. Regarding their distinctive shapes, one doctrine maintains that results in various other places permeate consciousness.

To say that there is a result means that the result permeated by that is the cause of this.

Other masters say that solely the power of one's own substance transforms into the result, producing birth in the Desire and Form Realms. Karmic power permeates the consciousness that serves as the basis, as in the Formless Realm. Accumulated arising is due to karmic permeation. They say that permeation rests upon indeterminate consciousness and that all groups of consciousness are associated with the result, but this should not be so. Therefore, it is said that the basis extends throughout everything and encompasses sentient beings, or that attainment occurs without the need to exert effort.

There are also other theories which say: The karmic result of one’s own person is such that cause and effect exist within a single body. Therefore, just as the ripening consciousness is established, karma is differentiated. Hence it is said that the great elements constituting the body are separately arranged and disposed. Yet a result should not exist. If that were so, then among the bodies of many different persons, the supporting consciousness and that which it supports would perform the same function without any distinction. Since they are produced by sentient beings, they would belong to the same stream and would all flow into the ripening consciousness.

If so, the various conceptions of the wardens of hell and so forth would not arise from the great elements combining to construct the hells and the sentient beings therein. Therefore, their continuities are differentiated.

Thus, when the continuity of consciousness proceeds without interruption, through a dominant cause it can generate diverse classes of consciousness. At that time, there must be distinct causal and resultant continuities that turn and arise. Otherwise, how could this be called a differentiated cause?

Just as seeds united with the continuity of mind are established as causes, here it is said that only the cause is capable of establishing them; it is not said that the dominant condition of consciousness is their basis. Thus they arise from the various seeds in this uninterrupted continuity of consciousness, yet it is only through the continuity of the seeds’ own nature that they can arise. To speak of dominance means that, just as earth and so forth can merely serve as productive conditions, so too must the four great elements.

This too is not so. When something arises from its own seed, that is said to be merely its condition. Otherwise, apart from the continuity of consciousness, there would be separate seeds of the four great elements. It is like dying in the Formless Realm and being born in the Form Realm: that dominant result is brought about by the ripening of karma, and the requisites to be enjoyed are obtained as a ripened result. This is brought about by the continuity of one’s own karma, according to one’s desires and inclinations. This principle accords with the Agama teaching that the result is a transformation of consciousness.

Why do you not accept this? It is due to your own narrow and unreasonable attachment to views, contrived through forced speculation. How does the result of consciousness contradict the Agamas? On what grounds can such a view be accepted?

The Agama sutras do not establish consciousness-only. If apart from consciousness there were no form and so forth, one should not speak of the twelve ayatanas.

Nevertheless, without departing from consciousness and the twelve ayatanas, wholesome and other dharmas are established. Thus one should know that form and so forth—the twelve ayatanas—exist, for they were taught by the Buddha. If one departed from form and so forth, what is established would not be tenable, since it would contradict the Buddha’s words. Alternatively, form and so forth—the twelve ayatanas—are real entities, just like the mind ayatana, because they were taught by the Buddha.

Consciousness and form and so forth likewise do not exist separately, just like the dharma ayatana.

This reasoning is incorrect. Nothing said here can refute consciousness-only. Why?

With reference to beings born by transformation, the World-Honored One taught with a hidden intention that form and so forth—the twelve ayatanas—exist, just as the World-Honored One said that there are sentient beings born by transformation. He relied only upon the uninterrupted continuity of mind, which can proceed into a later life. This was his hidden intention; he did not say that sentient beings born by transformation truly exist.

To call this a hidden intention means that, in order to discipline a certain class of sentient beings, the Buddha said that sentient beings born by transformation exist. This was a statement made with hidden intent. Their annihilationist views harm sentient beings: following their own inclinations, they hold that there is no future life and no causality of wholesome and unwholesome deeds.

To cleanse away such evil views, he taught that the continuity of mind is uninterrupted. To speak of the continuity of mind clarifies that rebirth will occur. Thus, in accordance with reason, one dies here and is born there; because the continuity is uninterrupted, to say that there is birth by transformation is a statement of hidden intent.

Apart from consciousness, there is no other self.

How is this known?

As a sutra says: “There is no self and no sentient being; there are only causal dharmas.”

The sutra is not so. That sutra does not say that sentient beings do not exist either.

Only then would it not contradict the sutra. Speaking of the continuity of mind clarifies the meaning of noninterruption and its ability to proceed into a later life. Thus one should understand that form and so forth—the twelve ayatanas—were taught to bring a certain class of sentient beings to maturity.

Because this was spoken with hidden intent, what is established does not entail the fault of contradicting one’s own teaching. Regarding what is established here, the reason is also inconclusive. Why?

On the level of conventional truth, the Buddha separately taught that there are sentient beings born by transformation, yet he did not say that apart from the consciousness skandha there separately exist wholesomeness, unwholesomeness, their results, and so forth. The separate existence of sentient beings is therefore an inconclusive reason. Hence the Buddha spoke in order to eliminate the annihilationist view that there is no future life.

Since in a future life the continuity of mind proceeds without interruption, a sentient being is provisionally established upon the consciousness skandha; in brief, it is said to exist within verbal designation.

Concerning there being no object apart from mind, there are four aspects. What are the four? First, the hidden intention; second, the object realm; third, the clarification of the result; and fourth, the meaning of the hidden intention. The objects of discrimination to which one is bound are precisely the causes and conditions of bondage; thus they are spoken of as the twelve ayatanas. These are all that must be established. As they successively arise, questions and answers should proceed in accordance with reason.

Why does the hidden intention speak of the twelve ayatanas and of sentient beings? Just as the continuity of mind proceeds without interruption, the designating expression “sentient being” and that which it designates are established upon mind. One apprehends an image; likewise, form, sounds, and other objects must be distinguished.

Consciousness arises from its own seeds and transforms in the semblance of objective appearances, thus becoming the internal and external ayatanas. The Buddha said that ten of these exist. From the eye ayatana and so forth arise the form ayatana and so forth; this should be understood in accordance with reason.

With respect to these two kinds of ayatanas, the appearances of these seeds and the corresponding consciousnesses are taught. As the World-Honored One said, in order to establish the ayatanas and so forth, sounds, the eye, and other distinctions are conventionally admitted; this is what is intended to be established. It is said that blue and other colors appear distinctly, and that those homogeneous forms arise from that consciousness.

For persons who have not abandoned desire, when the seeds established in consciousness become predominant, those seeds are produced. Although already established, their results are not yet presently experienced until the power of corresponding conditions is obtained. Amid unceasing arising and ceasing, they continue from moment to moment, acquiring subtle and exquisitely refined natures and undergoing increasingly predominant differentiated transformations.

Just as rice grains, soil, and other conditions combine and foster growth, their natures being dissimilar, and are successively established so that sprouts appear, so too are the seeds of external dharmas and those within. This continuity of the inner mind is presently manifest and relatively uninterrupted; within the span of a moment, it can produce blue and other differentiated natures. Yet these seeds are called the eye dhatu.

Successively manifesting as resultant natures, the mind and mental factors establish this form as that eye ayatana; the same applies to the others. If form manifests with such distinctions and is conjoined with the substance of consciousness, then it is known that the seeds of blue and so forth abide in the alaya-consciousness. Because consciousness is capable of cognition even before they manifest, transformed images and differentiated intrinsic natures arise, like crystal, lapis lazuli, mica, and so forth: when a lightly colored object is placed within them, the arising consciousness reflects an image according to its particular color.

The World-Honored One analyzed this in accordance with reason and called it the form ayatana. Yet within his own teaching, he said that the configurations based upon that consciousness are not identical. For the sake of benefit, he called this form the form ayatana.

Thus, down to the images within consciousness of hardness, moisture, warmth, and so forth—their bases, objects, and predominant powers and functions—are all produced by the ripening consciousness. When the appearances of the seeds arise, reflected images, sounds, names, and so forth are differentiated transformations of that which is apprehended. In this way, the differing functional divisions that constitute form are established within the alaya-consciousness.

Those who possess wisdom discern and understand this. To speak of the external ayatanas and of their differentiated arrangement and disposition is a statement of hidden intent. As with the establishment of the dhatus, here the consciousness dhatu is established as relying upon the mind dhatu and arising on the basis of six kinds.

If the intrinsic nature of the mind dhatu is thus differentiated, is it nevertheless also said that there are those eighteen dhatus?

Just as the maturation consciousness and the eye-consciousness, and so forth, successively serve as seeds, they are called the eye ayatana, and so forth, each manifesting distinctly. Why are they called seeds? Because they are capable of sprouting and producing various things of distinct essential natures, such as the primary elements and the derived forms.

They also allow sprouts and so forth of their own respective kinds to arise in diverse ways. This is like the seeds of the various kinds of grain, as is universally accepted in the world. Their essential natures are different, not of a single kind, and only thus can they produce the eye and eye-consciousness.

In conjunction with the second moment, from these two dhatus arise the conditions for the other; their natures are established according to what can be known in conformity with them. It is not the case that a single thing can produce them all at one time. Just as a single mental factor can separately produce the innumerable qualities of form, so too is this the case here.

In relation to the eye ayatana and so forth, the maturation consciousness is either the same or different, for when consciousness arises, its own essence is distinct. The maturation consciousness constitutes the subtle form of the eye ayatana and so forth. The various capacities by which the eye and the other faculties and consciousnesses arise are not alike and are extremely difficult to perceive.

Nor is it the case that, as here, there are distinct eyes and so forth, or that purified primary elements are the conditions for form, sound, and so forth.

This would differ from the Agama. The Buddha taught that the fleshly eye and the other ayatanas are purified forms produced from the four primary elements. Form is visible and resistant. The same applies through to the body and so forth.

This is not reasonable. The image appearing within consciousness is what was intended by this esoteric teaching. Thus, the four primary elements are the objective aspect and are not separate from consciousness. Nor does this take the consciousness that apprehends blue and so forth as its seed. Because consciousness is perfumed through the apprehension of appearances, the seed of consciousness, perfumed by that apprehension, is what the maturation consciousness apprehends and sustains.

This also is not so. There is purified form that is visible and resistant.

Not so. If the manifestation of consciousness were resistant and so forth, it would not be the eye-consciousness and so forth that are perfumed; rather, the decayed seeds and the establishment of the supporting basis and the cognitive object would be indicated.

This too is unclear. The analytical exposition set forth in the Agama is based on the alaya-consciousness, which since beginningless time has contained causes and effects succeeding one another and immeasurable powers arising distinctly. The entities of form are mutually dependent, and the dhatus and ayatanas give rise to distinct manifestations; they do not all arise at once on every occasion.

To elaborate in this manner, the distinctions of the eye and so forth, through to the bodily appearance, are likewise so. In order to reveal the excellent essential nature of the seeds of that consciousness, the Buddha established the adana-consciousness in this sutra. That is, just as images of earth and so forth appear, they condition the corresponding factors.

It establishes the natures of the various sprouts contained in the seeds. Their essence is not destroyed, yet their forms, such as sprouts and so forth, clearly manifest through the power of conjunction. Essential natures such as hardness arise in manifestation according to conditions.

Because the alaya-consciousness contains the conjunction of the causes and effects of the form ayatana, or because the reflected appearances of earth and so forth undergo dissimilar transformations, the four primary elements can be produced within the form ayatana. Yet this is provisionally established as that which is expressed by verbal action.

In the Formless Realm, verbal action does not function to express meanings, because form does not manifest in that realm, or because form has been cut off; therefore, it is not spoken of.

Although seeds of form exist, they are not objects of the eye. This kind of form is the power of conditions reflected as images and is therefore established as the fruit of form. Because this is the cause, material obstruction is not established. Those things capable of damaging the reflected image of the eye faculty cannot apprehend this purity; only in this way can it perform its function. Thus, through to the body, without confusion, the supporting bases and cognitive objects are all established by it. If they were destroyed or their seeds decayed, and so forth, that which is established there should logically still exist. Therefore, if each type of form were individually discriminated here, the successive differentiations would continue endlessly.

Others again say: The twelve ayatanas are taught in order to bring a certain class of sentient beings to maturity.

This teaching is untenable and meaningless. Those who lack rational discernment find it difficult to understand what is supremely subtle and profound. To enable them to awaken and enter, the Buddha taught and established the meaning of consciousness-only. Furthermore, to enable those who lack sufficient capacity to enter easily into those form ayatanas, with their immeasurable faults, this Dharma-gate causes those who cling to a self to relinquish that attachment. Just as the truth of suffering is called the suffering of the body, so teaching the form ayatana and so forth increases deluded disturbance and provides an abiding place for the seeds of craving and attachment. This is the esoteric intent. On the basis of the cause, the name of the fruit is established.

Treatise on the Jewel of the Establishment of Consciousness-Only, Fascicle III