Mahāyāna Karma-Siddhi Śāstra (大乘成業論)

Mahayana Doctrine of Karma, One Volume

Composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu

Translated by the Tang Dynasty Tripitaka Master Xuanzang by Imperial Decree

As the Sutra on Every Occasion states, the World-Honored One spoke of three kinds of karma: bodily karma, verbal karma, and mental karma. Here, it is said that what is done through the body is called bodily karma; speech itself is called verbal karma. Both of these have manifestation and non-manifestation as their intrinsic nature. Karma associated with the mind is called mental karma, and this karma has intention as its intrinsic nature. Now, what is meant by "manifestation"? Bodily manifest karma takes form and color as its nature; it is generated by the mind and so forth based on this as an object. Whose form and color? The form and color of the body. If it is the form and color of the body, why was it earlier said that what is done through the body is called bodily karma? Because it is included as a part of the whole body, it is called the body's form and color. It arises dependent on the primary elements of the body, hence it is called something done through the body. The term "body" is also applied to its parts, just as in worldly speech one speaks of "living in a village" or "dwelling in a forest." Why is it further stated that it is "generated by the mind and so forth based on this as an object"? This is to distinguish it from the form and color of the lips and so forth, which are not generated by the mind based on this as an object, since they are generated by the mind based on speech sounds. It is also to distinguish form and color arising from prior vows and the mind, which are not generated by the mind based on this as an object; they are produced by other karmic retribution causes and the mind. Why is it called "manifestation"? Because it can indicate the mind that initiated the action, making it known to others. To clarify this meaning, the verse states:

What is shape or form? It refers to characteristics like length and so forth. What are length and the like? They are names and concepts that arise based on growth and extension. Where are these included? They belong to the category of visible objects. Now we must carefully consider: Are length and the like subtle differentiations of particles, similar to color? Or are they accumulations of subtle differentiations of particles? Or are they separate entities that pervade clusters of color and so on?

If this is the case, what would be the flaw? If length and the like were subtle differentiations of particles, then just like color, within every cluster of matter, each minute part should individually give rise to perceptions of length. If they were accumulations of subtle differentiations of particles, what difference would there be between this and accumulations of color particles? The very differences in the accumulation of colors should then constitute length and the like. If there were a separate entity that pervades clusters of color and so on, then because it is one and pervasive, it should be fully perceivable in every single part, since it exists in all parts; or perhaps it should not be one, because it dwells separately in each part. Moreover, this would contradict one's own school's tenet that all twelve sense bases are accumulations of subtle particles. It would also support the school of the "rice-porridge-eaters," who hold that parts truly exist and pervade all parts.

Therefore, within the combined aggregate of matter, when we see one side as abundant, we develop the perception of length; when we see one side as scarce, we develop the perception of shortness; when we see four sides as equal, we develop the perception of squareness; when we see all sides as full, we develop the perception of roundness; when we see a protrusion in the middle, we develop the perception of height; when we see a depression in the middle, we develop the perception of lowness; when we see the surface as smooth, we develop the perception of evenness; when we see the surface as uneven, we develop the perception of unevenness. Just as when we observe brocade while turning a wheel, various perceptions of different shapes arise. It is not reasonable that truly existing different forms could all dwell in the same place, as colors do. If we allowed that, then we should perceive all shapes in every single place. Yet this is not the case. Therefore, shape and form have no separate substance; they are simply the different arrangements of colors in various directions that give rise to perceptions like length, just as there is nothing wrong with the rows of trees or ants.

If that is so, then how is it that in a distant or dark place, we're unable to perceive color but can perceive shape? For example, how can we not perceive the shape of a tree but still perceive the shape of its row? However, there is no row apart from the trees. Or perhaps, in a distant or dark place, within the clusters of matter, both color and shape cannot be perceived clearly. Even if we can detect something, it is not distinct—we wonder what it is. What is it we are seeing? Therefore, we should understand that we are merely perceiving color, but due to distance or darkness, the perception is not clear. Hence, the argument that shape is indicated separately from color is not logically established.

Some say: "An action of the body is in the nature of movement, and it arises from the mind and other conditions conditioned on that." Why is it said again, "conditioned on that, the mind and others arise"? In order to exclude the mere shaking of the lips, etc., which does not arise from the mind and others conditioned on that; for it arises from the mind conditioned on speech. What is called "movement"? It means reaching another place. Where is this included? It is included in the category of visible form. How is it known that this reaches another place? Because the characteristic of the difference cannot be known. This reasoning is not correct. For example, in the case of a transformed thing, although when it first touches fire, light, snow, vinegar, and other transformative conditions, there is immediately a difference, yet the characteristic of that difference cannot be known. Nevertheless, its before and after are not without difference. This should also be the same. For example, in a long firewood or grass, the parts are similar; individually produced flames, though having differences, yet the characteristic of those differences cannot be known. Nevertheless, those parts are not without difference. This should also be the same. If, when a transformed thing first touches the conditions, the characteristics of transformation do not arise immediately, then it would not arise later either, because the conditions are not different. If, in a long firewood or grass where the parts are similar, a flame is not separately born in each part, then that flame would be non-existent; for because of those differences, there are differences in shape, size, illumination, and heat of the flame. Therefore, one should not, because the characteristic of the difference cannot be known, assert that this very thing reaches another place. One should carefully discern that characteristic of the difference.

If someone says: "Because a cause of the cessation cannot be obtained, we know that this very dharma reaches another place," this is also not reasonable. For example, in the case of mind, mental factors, sound, lamp-flame, etc., what cause of cessation exists for their moment-by-moment cessation? Others should also be the same; cessation does not depend on a cause. If one says that mind, etc., also have a cause of cessation, namely, their own respective nature of impermanence, then why do others not allow this? Since others do not allow it, why should this be the case? Therefore, it is known that the cessation of mind, etc., does not depend on a cause. Since mind, etc., are thus, others should also be the same. If the cessation of other dharmas did not depend on a cause, then before firewood, etc., are combined with fire, etc., their nature of form, etc., should be imperceptible. Just as in the state after combination, so too afterwards, they should be perceptible as in the state before. How is it that before the wind or hand has not touched or taken hold of a lamp or bell, the lamp-flame and bell-sound are clearly perceptible, and not in the later state? Yet the cessation of flame and sound does not depend on wind or hand. Firewood, etc., being similar, should not create a difficulty.

Furthermore, if firewood, etc., were destroyed by fire, etc., and their nature of form, etc., became imperceptible, then as soon as they touch, they should become imperceptible; for at the moment of touching, there is a difference, and also those external conditions are without difference. In the case of the various transformed things, when characteristics of transformation of lower, middle, and higher grades arise, with that as the cause, later ones arise successively, and earlier ones are destroyed. What again is the cause? It is not proper that this dharma, because it arises from that, should also be destroyed by that dharma. Two contradictory dharmas do not share one single cause; this is firmly established in the world. Therefore, conditioned dharmas, without depending on a cause of cessation, cease by themselves spontaneously. Regarding the previous perception and the later non-perception, it should be known that there is a slight increase in the characteristic of difference when the continuum is transmitted and destroyed.

Furthermore, if a ceasing dharma also has a cause, then there would be no ceasing dharma without a cause. Mind, mental factors, etc., depending on a cause, arise; cessation should also be the same. There is no impermanence established in the world separately from mind, etc. Moreover, because the cause is different, the cessation should be different, just as the differences in transformation arise from the differences between fire, light, snow, vinegar, etc. Moreover, a dharma that has already ceased should be c e able again, because a cause is admitted, just like form, etc. Therefore, a ceasing dharma is definitely without a cause. Because cessation is without cause, it ceases as soon as it arises. Hence, it is known that there is no reaching of another place.

If someone says: "Because a cause of arising cannot be obtained, we know that this very dharma reaches another place," this is also unreasonable. For there is a cause of arising, namely, the former acts as the cause of arising for the latter. For example, the former moment of mind acts for the latter moment of mind, the former transformation acts for the latter transformation, milk for curd, grape juice for wine, wine for vinegar, etc. Therefore, there is not even a single dharma that reaches another place. Since a reaching action does not exist, how can there be movement? Furthermore, if there is abiding, then there is no movement. Since there is no movement, it (the dharma) should be permanent. If a dharma has no abiding, neither is there movement. As soon as it arises, it ceases; there is no meaning of motion. If so, what is it that is seen in the present world as movement? That which is seen in another place is not the original thing itself. How is it known that it is not the original thing? Because in each and every place, new ones arise and arise. For example, the flame of grass and the movement of a shadow: it is not that the shadow of this place is seen in another place while the substance remains motionless; but because the light of the sun, etc., revolves far and near, that shadow is seen as either long or short, or as moving. Furthermore, a small portion of the obstruction of light is produced.

There is a counter-question: "Why do you press this difficulty regarding the meaning 'reaching another place'? Moreover, how does one know that what is seen in another place is not the original thing?" This should also be proven by the previous reasoning, namely, if there is abiding, then there is no motion, etc. Furthermore, when the external conditions like fire, etc., are not different, yet a difference is perceived later, this proves that each moment is distinct. Moreover, if one argues that because there is no evidence of a different cause, what is seen elsewhere is still the original thing—since there is no cause proving it is the original thing, why not say it is not the original thing? Thus, both these positions are uncertain. Therefore, the meaning of 'reaching another place' is not established.

The proponents of arising-from-sunrise claim: All conditioned things truly have no meaning that extends to other places, because the nature of conditioned phenomena is to cease in each moment. However, there exists a phenomenon distinguished by mental distinction as cause, arising based on hands, feet, etc. This phenomenon can create things such as hands and feet. That which generates arising in a different place is called "action" and also "bodily expression." In which category is this included? It is included in the domain of visible form. If so, why is it not accepted as visible to the eye like other manifest colors? Since it is not seen and does not indicate others, how can it be called "expression"? And how do we know this phenomenon truly exists? How does this phenomenon cause one's own body to turn toward another place, arising distinctly? If it is said to arise from mental distinctions, then the wind element generated should be exactly like this. The wind element has movement as its nature; it alone can serve as the cause of arising in a different place for the feet. Why cling to a movement phenomenon apart from wind? Furthermore, for grass, leaves, etc., apart from the external wind element, there is no separate movement phenomenon—how do they shift? Yet, the wind element produces sensations like shaking, and its nature is movement; it should be accepted as able to cause hands, etc., to transition and arise in other places. Why bother with a separate grasping? Whether in substance or function, the view that a movement phenomenon arises is not universally established.

If it were otherwise, the element of wind (air) produced by the mind’s distinctions would serve as the cause for movements of the hand and other limbs in various directions, and this would be considered bodily expression. But since the wind element itself has no designated meaning, how can it be called an expression? Furthermore, asserting that tangible objects can be classified as wholesome or unwholesome contradicts the teachings of the Buddha’s disciples.

If it is not so, then mental distinctions cause the body to arise elsewhere in other forms. Yet if it is the body itself that arises, that should be "bodily expression." In that case, bodily expression would be nominal, not real, because one's own body is a composite of many factors. Moreover, if there is no communication, why call it "expression"? Fragrance, for instance, cannot convey a message to another. Furthermore, if you assert that fragrance can be virtuous or non-virtuous, then you are not a disciple of the Buddha. If it is not so, then the visible forms born from mental distinctions should be considered bodily expression. But visible forms are not produced merely by mental distinctions; they arise from their own seeds, which are influenced by the wind element. Also, if you claim that visible forms are virtuous or non-virtuous, you are not a follower of the Buddha. If these visible forms are not inherently bodily expression, then what arises elsewhere in other forms should still be bodily expression. Dear one, you may exhaust your efforts in endlessly redefining and reinterpreting this concept of action, but this is not something that can be accomplished through force of effort. Why do you trouble yourself with wearisome labor? Who can establish that "life" has a separate essence? This "life" you cling to is not like form, which is directly visible; nor is it like the eye, the organ that sees. How, then, can we know it exists? Moreover, if it is invisible, how can it be called "expression"? As stated earlier, it cannot convey meaning to another. Also, if visible forms could be virtuous or non-virtuous, you might claim that this life is the bodily expression of action. However, as already explained, visible forms are neither virtuous nor non-virtuous. The same applies to life. Therefore, there is definitely no real, substantial bodily action.

If that is the case, then bodily deeds should be only non-expressive. What does the term "non-expressive" refer to? It refers to the precepts, which are mental factors—forms of discipline and so forth. Why would the desire realm have virtuous non-expressive actions that arise independently of express actions? If the desire realm does have such non-expressive actions, what fault would there be? They should follow the mind, as in the form realm. In that case, during other mental states or states without mind, there should be no discipline or indiscipline. Suppose one argues that when receiving the precepts, it is a verbal commitment that initiates it, so there is no such flaw. But when reciting the precepts in a ceremony, without speaking or making such a commitment, how does one acquire the offense of false speech? Furthermore, there would be no neutral bodily deeds, because non-expressive actions are only of two kinds [virtuous and non-virtuous]. Moreover, there would be no moment of virtuous or non-virtuous bodily action, because non-expressive actions are necessarily continuous. To explain: if the mind is weak, no non-expressive action arises; if the mind is strong, what arises is definitely continuous. Although one may interpret things arbitrarily, claiming that there is truly physical and verbal "action-form," this cannot be established as virtuous or non-virtuous. Why? Because they claim that such form-action ceases entirely at the moment of death. How, then, could one thereby obtain a pleasant or unpleasant result in the future?

Some say: Why is this invalid? Because past actions truly exist in substance and can bring about future results. This is like a pustule growing upon another pustule—they cling to the notion that past actions have real substance. What is named "past" is that which first existed and later does not exist. How can one insist that its substance is truly existent? If this were so, why did the World-Honored One Himself say:

The phrase "never lost or decayed" indicates what meaning? It reveals that the actions one performs do not go without their effects. The latter half of the verse confirms this principle. Who does not accept that good and bad actions, even after a long time, can still bring their results? We should simply examine how these results come about.

Do they arise through the gradual transformation of a continuity, like rice seeds producing new grains? Or do they arise through the action itself, remaining unchanged and undecayed over time? If results arise through the transformation of a continuity, that is plausible. But if they arise because the action itself remains intact for a long time, then we would have to say that the action never perishes and can produce its result even after ages.

If one claims that the action does not perish in its own nature but simply ceases to function, how does it lose its function? Because it can no longer bring about future results. Why can it not bring future results? Because it has already produced its own result. A result cannot be produced again once it has already been produced, just as a phenomenon that has already arisen cannot arise again. Then why does it not produce other effects of the same kind? Because there is no limit to the scope of such effects. Is it not true that this result already exists in the present moment? Since it has been produced, there is no need to produce it again. If the action itself never perishes, it should always be present and constantly produce its results. Why doesn't it keep producing results?

But wasn’t it already stated that a result cannot be produced again once it has been produced, like a phenomenon that has arisen cannot arise again? Then why raise this objection? Although this was said earlier, it does not resolve the difficulty. If the action always exists, it should be like the middle state (the present), constantly described as "present" and constantly capable of producing results. It should be like the beginning state, always able to arise again.

If one says that past actions still have existence but lack function and therefore are not present, and being not present they cannot produce results, this is also untenable. Since they always exist, they should, like present things, always have function. Moreover, in your own doctrine, past dharmas can still give results. Why are they not considered present?

If you say that "present" is only defined by the function of receiving results, this is also incorrect because the meaning of "function" is the same. Both should be present. In your system, past dharmas lack the function of receiving results and are called past. But as long as they have the function of giving results, they should be called present. When that function ends, they should be said to have perished. This would mean that dharmas perish multiple times, and by the same logic, they would also arise multiple times. Therefore, this doctrine is not established logically.

Furthermore, how is a dharma said to "produce a result"? It means it establishes that result so that it will arise in the future. For those who have eliminated all defilements (the arhats), the last moment of consciousness should not produce a result, because no further birth follows. Thus, that last moment should not be considered present, and there would be no need for it to pass into the past. If it had no function from the very beginning of the present moment, how can we later say it has "perished"? If it perishes even after having no function, then the past would need to perish again.

If the past perishes again, then what has already arisen would have to arise again. This contradicts the earlier reasoning.

If one argues that this moment has the potential to produce a future result, but due to the absence of supporting conditions, the result does not arise—this also is illogical. Since the result certainly does not arise, how can we know that it had the potential to do so? Rather, we should say that because favorable and unfavorable conditions may or may not be present, although the moment arises from causes, it lacks the power to produce future results.

Therefore, the idea in your system that an action inherently possesses the ability to bring about its result is logically untenable. For this reason, it is through the nurturing of the seed of the effect that we can speak of producing a result.

Furthermore, your system claims that both past and future states truly exist. If so, why is the future not able to produce results like the present does? If all things exist at all times, when and what thing does not exist? Yet the scriptures say: "When many causes and conditions come together, then the result of that action will come due."

You would also need to explain: who, at what point, is capable of what? You describe "establishing something so that it will arise in the future" as producing a result. But since everything exists at all times, the assertion that past actions truly exist and can bring about future results is logically untenable.

If this is the case, then we must accept that from the continuous flow of good and bad physical and verbal karma, a distinct element arises. This element is substantially real and belongs to the category of formations not associated with mind. Some say this element is called "accumulation." Others say it is called "indestructibility." Because of this element, future pleasant or unpleasant results are obtained.

We must also accept that mental karma possesses such an element. Otherwise, when another mind arises, this element would be cut off and cease. If, within the continuity of the mind, no such distinct element is produced, how could future-life results be obtained? Therefore, we must certainly accept the existence of this element.

Consider this: In the past, one recites and studies the meaning of texts. Later, after a long time, memory of them arises again. Likewise, in the past, through repeated seeing and hearing of various objects, one later—after a long time—experiences memory arising again toward those same objects. In which moment, then, does this cause what element to arise, so that at a later time memory arises again?

Then, regarding the mind that first enters the cessation attainment and so on—what phenomenon does it bring forth, such that later, when emerging from that state, the mind of arising from concentration occurs?

Furthermore, consider the juice of the purple mineral dye coloring a citron flower: both the dye and the flower cease, but what phenomenon is caused, such that later, when the fruit forms, its pulp is red?

Thus, setting aside the concept of a separate entity produced by bodily and verbal actions, it is simply the distinct functioning of volitional intention that perfumes the mental continuum, giving rise to a latent potential. Through the transformation of this potential, different future results arise accordingly. Just as the juice of the purple mineral dye, through the successive transformation of the citron flower, causes the fruit’s pulp to become red, the same principle applies to internal mental perfuming.

Why not accept that bodily and verbal actions also perfume the mental continuum? Because bodily and verbal actions are themselves conditioned by the mind, becoming either wholesome or unwholesome.

It should not be said that the mind makes them wholesome or unwholesome, yet actions from a different continuum can produce pleasant or unpleasant results in the future—otherwise, the one who performs the action would not be the one who experiences its result.

If it is argued that, although the action itself has ceased, the perfumed mental continuum, through its transformations, can still bring about pleasant or unpleasant results in the future, then what about the state of non-perception (the attainment of cessation) and the heaven of no thought? In those states, the mental continuum is interrupted—how then can past actions produce future pleasant or unpleasant results?

Some explain: In this life, the mind previously perfumed will necessarily continue, and thus future pleasant or unpleasant results arise. But if the mind is interrupted, what cause can bring about its continuation?

The mind that enters concentration serves as an equanimous immediate condition, enabling the mind to continue. However, if that condition has long ceased, how can it still function as an equanimous immediate condition?

This is similar to the argument against past actions producing results—the same reasoning applies, and therefore, the mind of emerging from concentration should not arise.

Some assert: “It is due to the power of the seeds that depend on the physical sense faculties that mental activity arises again later. Because the seeds that generate mental events depend on two lines of continuity: the continuity of the mind, and the continuity of the physical sense faculties, according to the specific case.” But hasn’t the scripture explained: “Consciousness arises conditioned by the mind and mental objects.” How then could consciousness arise without the mind? Understand that the mind-seed is sometimes called “mind,” because the name of the result is given based on its cause—just as we use the terms “hunger” or “thirst” based on the experience of touch.

Now, how could each individual mental event arise sequentially from two different kinds of seeds? We don’t see such a situation in physical seeds giving rise to sprouts. One result can be produced by relying on many conditions, but no single result arises from two seeds. If that were the case, then we would again be stuck with the previous problem: in the state of non-conscious meditation and the heaven of no-thought, the continuity of the mind is broken—so how could past actions yield future desirable or undesirable results? This is the flaw in their position.

What is “their position”? It is the claim that in these states there is absolutely no mind. If one maintains that mental activity still exists in these states, then this problem does not arise. As the Venerable Vasumitra states in his *Questions and Discussions*: “If you insist that in the cessation meditation there is absolutely no mind, then you have this flaw; I say that even in cessation meditation, a subtle mind remains—so there is no such mistake.”

He further cites a scripture to support this meaning: As the scripture says: “One who enters cessation meditation has all physical activities cease” — and continues — “while the sense faculties remain unimpaired, and consciousness does not leave the body.” In this state, what kind of consciousness is admitted?

Some say: There is a sixth consciousness in this state. But does the scripture not say: Mind and mental objects serve as conditions for the arising of mind-consciousness; the union of the three brings about contact; and wherever there is contact, there arise feeling, perception, and volition. How then could there be mind-consciousness in this state without the union of the three, or the union of the three without contact, or contact without feeling and perception? For this reason it is called the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception.

Some explain it this way: How is it that the World-Honored One says feeling is the condition for craving, yet not all feelings are conditions for craving? Contact should be the same—not all contact is the condition for feeling and so on. The World-Honored One himself clarified this point in another scripture, saying that it is the feelings born of ignorant contact that serve as the condition for the arising of craving. Nowhere does he make such a distinction regarding contact giving rise to feeling. Since there is no such distinction, this is not a good explanation.

Others explain differently: The union of the three brings about contact—meaning when the three factors have power, their coming together produces contact. But in this state, the three factors lack the power to produce contact or to produce feeling and perception, because the mind that entered this attainment is averse to and has destroyed them. While actually dwelling in this attainment, there is not even contact—how much less feeling and perception! Therefore, in this state only mind-consciousness remains, without any mental factors.

If that is so, what is this mind-consciousness in this state? Is it wholesome, defiled, or neutral? What fault would there be either way?

If it is wholesome, how could something wholesome not be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed? And if it is associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed, how could there be no contact?

If one claims that this consciousness is wholesome because it is produced by the immediately preceding condition of a wholesome mind—that does not hold, because a wholesome mind can be immediately followed by three types of mind. Moreover, a wholesome mind produced by the power of wholesome roots has no cause that could prevent it, since it lacks non-greed and so on. And without wholesome roots, it should not qualify as wholesome. Yet this attainment of cessation, like cessation itself, is wholesome.

If it is defiled, how could something defiled not be associated with afflictions such as greed? And if it is associated with afflictions such as greed, how could there be no contact? As the Buddha himself says in the Scripture of Ten Questions: All feeling, perception, and volition are conditioned by contact. Moreover, even the attainment of no-perception is not permitted to be defiled—how much less the attainment of complete cessation!

If it is neutral, being neither obscured nor unobscured—is it karmic result, gestural, artistic, or transformative? What fault would there be either way?

If it is karmic result: How could a mind of the peak of existence in meditative attainment be immediately followed, across the gap of eight intermediate levels, by a karmic-result mind of the desire realm arising? And how could that mind in turn be immediately followed by the arising of the mind of the immovable stage? As the Mahākauṣṭhila Sutra asks: "When emerging from the attainment of cessation, how many contacts does one touch?" The answer: "Venerable sir, one touches three contacts—the contact of immovability, the contact of nothingness, and the contact of signlessness."

Moreover, a karmic-result mind is drawn forth by past karma—by what principle? It is by the force of the resolve made before entering the attainment of cessation that the time of emergence is not exceeded. And for what reason is it only at the final moment of the meditative mind that takes cessation as its object at the peak of existence that a karmic-result mind drawn by the habitual tendencies of past karma of the desire realm can arise, and not at an earlier point?

And for what reason, when this karmic-result form that has arisen is cut off, does it not continue, while the karmic-result mind, though cut off, arises again?

If it is gestural, artistic, or transformative—how could this mind, taking gesture and so on as its object, without contact, perform any activity?

Furthermore, it is accepted that the nine progressive attainments and the eight liberations are all wholesome in nature. Therefore, a defiled or neutral mind should not arise in this state.

Also, it is only by relying on the peak of existence, taking cessation as object, and the calm contemplation of cessation as support, that one can enter the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception. As the Mahākauṣṭhila Sutra asks regarding the attainment of cessation: "By how many causes and how many conditions does one rely to enter the signless meditative attainment?" The answer: "Venerable sir, by two causes and two conditions one relies to enter the signless meditative attainment: by not thinking of any signs, and by rightly contemplating the signless realm."

If there is mind-consciousness in the attainment of cessation, what object does it take? What aspect does it have? If it takes cessation as its object and has a calm aspect, how is it not wholesome? And if it is wholesome, how can it not be admitted to be associated with wholesome roots such as non-greed? And if such association is admitted, how can contact not be admitted as a condition for its arising? If it takes another object and has another aspect, how is it not contradictory that a scattered mind arises immediately after the mind that entered the attainment of cessation?

If you suppose there is some other neutral state, these two causes would still not make sense. Therefore, you do not truly understand the meaning of the Āgamas. You indulge in arbitrary speculation that a sixth mind-consciousness exists in the attainment of cessation and the like, and on that basis you insist that there is a mind in this state.

If that is so, how can it be accepted that there is still a mind in states without mind, such as the attainment of cessation? It should be as accepted by those who follow a certain sutra as authoritative: a subtle mind still exists in those states. That is, the ripened-result consciousness, which holds all seeds, continues without interruption from the first moment of rebirth until death, flowing on through various rebirths according to the different categories of ripened causes, and is only finally extinguished at Nirvana. Because this consciousness is uninterrupted, it is said that there is mind even in states without mind. The other six consciousnesses do not operate in these states, and so they are called states without mind. Through the power of the preparatory effort that enters the attainment of cessation, the seeds of the six consciousnesses are temporarily suppressed and cannot arise, and so it is called without mind—but not without all mind. Mind is of two kinds: first, the collecting mind, because it is the place where countless seeds are collected; second, the manifesting mind, because it turns toward objects with different characteristics. In the attainment of cessation and similar states, the second kind of mind is absent, and so it is called without mind—just as a one-legged bed is also called legless because it lacks the other legs. When those consciousness-seeds are in a suppressed state, the ripened-result consciousness undergoes momentary transformation and difference, and the power of suppression gradually weakens and becomes subtler until it is entirely exhausted—like the force of a heated arrow that burns and gradually weakens until it is completely gone. At that time, the consciousness-seeds regain the ability to produce results. First, consciousness arises again from the consciousness-seeds, and later, the other consciousnesses gradually arise according to conditions. This is what was previously described as the ripened-result consciousness, which contains the seeds of all dharmas. When those other consciousnesses and their associated dharmas of wholesome and unwholesome nature are repeatedly perfumed and activated, the power of the seeds increases accordingly, and through this the continuity transforms and differs. As the power of the seeds matures and meets supporting conditions, it brings about desirable and undesirable results in the future. Based on this meaning, a verse says:

The World-Honored One, based on this, spoke these verses in the Great Vehicle Sutra of the Explanation of the Profound Secret: