---
title: "成唯識論證義 · 第二"
description: "明王肯堂所著成唯識論證義是對世親菩薩成唯識論的權威注疏。該書創作於明代唯識學復興背景下，以唯識古學為基礎，系統闡釋阿賴耶識、三性三無相等核心教義，並對唯識思想進行科判與證義。此作被譽為漢傳唯識學重要文獻，融合了唐代唯識傳承與明代學術特質，為研究唯識學說提供了關鍵注釋依據，在佛教義理史與唯識宗發展脈絡中具有承先啟後的學術地位。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmczktsc60pcpjj047ux3nk4u"
---

## 成唯識論卷第二

> Cheng Weishi Lun, Volume 2

金壇居士　王肯堂　證義

> King Tang Layman Wang Kentang's Commentary

復如何知諸有為相至是故四相皆是假立。

> How then can we know that all conditioned characteristics are merely provisional? This is why the four marks are all established as relative designations.

五破三有為。俱舍論頌曰。相謂諸有為。生住異滅性。釋曰。由此四種是有為相。法若有此。應是有為。與此相違。是無為法。此於諸法能起名生。能安名住。能衰名異。能壞名滅。性是體義。豈不經說有三有為之有為相。於此經中應說有四。不說者何。所謂住相。然經說住異。是此異別名。如生名起。滅名為盡。如是應知異名住異。若法全行三世遷流。此經說為有為之相。令諸有情生厭畏故。謂彼諸行生力所遷。令從未來流入現在。異及滅相力所遷。迫。令從現在流入過去。令其衰異及壞滅故。傳說如有人處稠林。有三怨敵。欲為損害。一從稠林牽之令出。一衰其力。一壞命根。三相於行。應知亦爾。住於彼行攝受安立。甞樂與彼不相捨離。故不立在有為相中。又無為法有自相住。住相濫彼。故經不說。先大乘問。次餘乘答。此經下。大乘破。先總斥非第六聲下。次別破。別破又分三。初約能所破。第六聲。即八轉聲中第六屬聲也。俱舍云。生相若無。應無生覺。又第六轉言不應成。謂色之生。受之生等。此外計也。又云。是故生等唯假建立。無別實物。為了諸行本無今有。假立為生。如是本無。今有生相。依色等法種類眾多。為簡所餘。說第六轉。言色之生受之生等。為令他知此生唯色非餘受等。餘例亦然。如世間說旃檀者香。石子之體。此亦應爾。如是住等。隨應當知。此彼論破詞也。此中破意。謂非第六屬聲。便表生等離色等外有實自體。以色受等之生住滅。即色受等五蘊攝故。生等為能相。色等為所相。非生等相異色等相。不可說言堅相異地相。濕相異水相故若有為體異有為相者。則無為體應異無為相。今無為體不異無為相。則有為體。亦豈異有為相哉。又生等相下。二約體用破。謂若生等三俱有實體者。應一切時齊興作用。則一法一時。有生住滅更互相違。成大過失。世間不見一法一時有生住滅。唯見異法異時有三故。若以用相違故。無頓興之理者。則體亦相違。如何俱有。便有自語相違之過。又住異滅互相違反。用不應俱。而能所相不待因緣。體俱本有。體既如此。用亦應然。體用不容有二性故。若謂體雖本有不待因緣。而用非本有必待因緣和合而有者。所待因緣從外來故。定非本有。所待既爾。能待亦然。又汝既許從因緣生。又執生等復何所用。若謂諸有為法是恒有故。而與生滅相合。則應無為法亦是恒有。亦有生滅。何以故。有為無為同一因故。立量云。三有為法。與生等合。所相恒有故。如三無為。三無為法。與生等合。所相恒有故。如三有為。今既不同無為則有為所相。定非恒有。所相尚非恒有。況能相生滅而實有哉。又去來世下。三。約三世破。為彼宗執生在未來。現在已生。不更生故。過去已滅。都無生用。故以來同去破之。過去已滅。未來未生。已滅非常。未生非現。體如空華。無實有性。量云。去來世非實有性宗。因云。非現非常故。喻如空華。生即已生。非同未生。豈在未來。滅即已滅。非同未滅。應非現在。若以滅為非無。應以生為非有。又滅無住有。二相相違。生與住。俱屬現有。相不相違。今彼以過現為一起。未來為一起。滅屬過去。住屬現在。生屬未來。則滅與住同時。而住與生異世矣。豈理也哉。進退之詳。具廣百論。然有為法。仗因托緣而得生起。故一切法緣合則生。緣散則滅。表異無為。假立四相。非謂實有。瑜伽問云。若有為法生住異滅四有為相具足可得。何故世尊但說三種。答。由一切行三世所顯故。從未來世本無而生。是故世尊由未來世。於有為法說生有為相。彼既生已落謝過去。是故世尊由過去世。於有為法說滅有為相現在世法。二相所顯。唯現在世有住可得。前後變異。亦唯現在。是故世尊由現在世。於有為法總說住異為一有為相。前三有故四句。揀異小乘生在未來。餘三現在如何無法與有為相難也。表此後無為相何失。總答也。餘乘問。後一既是無法。如何亦預有為相中。故答云。表此現在生住異法後定是無。為有為相有何過失。且此四相各有所表無而忽有。故以生表。有而後無。故以滅表。變易不常。故以異表。蹔時有用。故以住表。此在有為雖俱名表。而所表相各各有異。此依剎那念念不停。假立四相。非約三世。若約一期生死果報始終分位。亦有四相。初出胎時名生。命終名滅。生已。或二三十年。或七八十年。只是此身相續不斷名住。自少而壯。自壯而老。遷變不同名異。故俱舍云。無始以來色等諸法。名言熏習種類不同。及先所造諸有趣業。種種差別功能轉變。隨所遇緣成熟發起。變生色等生等差別。所言緣者。謂精血等是其生緣。衣食定等是其住緣。毒藥災橫四大亂等是其滅緣。是故四相皆是假立。總結也。

> \*\*Breaking Down the Five Views on Conditioned Phenomena\*\* The \*Abhidharmakosha\* verse says: "Marks refer to conditioned phenomena: arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing." Explanation: These four are the marks of conditioned phenomena. Whatever has these marks is conditioned; whatever is opposite is unconditioned. "Arising" brings things into being, "abiding" sustains them, "changing" makes them decay, and "ceasing" ends them. "Nature" here means fundamental essence. But doesn't the sutra only mention three marks of conditioned phenomena? Why doesn't it list abiding? Actually, when the sutra says "abiding and changing," "changing" is another name for the mark of change. Just as arising is called "coming into being" and ceasing is called "ending," we should understand that "changing" here refers to the mark that both abides and changes. When a thing fully operates across the three times (past, present, future), the sutra calls this the mark of conditioned phenomena, to inspire weary detachment in beings. Specifically: the power of arising moves things from future into present; the power of changing and ceasing forces them from present into past, causing decay and destruction. The tradition says: it's like a person trapped in a dense forest with three enemies wanting to harm them. One drags them out of the forest, one weakens their strength, and one destroys their life. The three marks should be understood similarly. Abiding, however, keeps things stable, holding them close to pleasure, never letting go. Thus it is not included among the marks of conditioned phenomena. Also, unconditioned things have their own nature of abiding, so the mark of abiding would be confused with that, which is why the sutra doesn't mention it. \*\*The Great Vehicle's Rebuttal\*\* First, the Great Vehicle asks; then, the other vehicles answer. After the sutra passage, the Great Vehicle refutes it. The refutation begins with a general criticism of the sixth case (the genitive case in Sanskrit grammar). \*Abhidharmakosha\* says: "If the mark of arising did not exist, there would be no perception of arising. Also, the sixth case would not apply, such as 'the arising of form,' 'the arising of feeling.'" The text further states that arising and the others are merely conventional designations, not real entities. To indicate that things didn't exist before but now exist, we provisionally establish arising. These marks depend on various types of forms and feelings. To distinguish them, we use the sixth case, saying "arising of form," "arising of feeling," so that others know this arising belongs only to form, not to feeling, etc. The same applies to abiding, changing, and ceasing. The point of this refutation: the sixth case does not prove that arising and the others exist as separate entities apart from forms and feelings. Since "arising of form," "ceasing of form," etc., are included within the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness), arising and the others are the marks that characterize, while forms and feelings are the things characterized. The marks of arising, etc., are not separate from the marks of forms, etc. Just as we cannot say that the mark of hardness is separate from earth, or the mark of wetness separate from water, if conditioned phenomena were different from their marks, then unconditioned phenomena would be different from \*their\* marks. But since unconditioned phenomena are not different from their marks, how could conditioned phenomena be different from theirs? \*\*The Attack on Function vs. Essence\*\* If arising, abiding, and ceasing were all real entities, they should always operate simultaneously. Then one thing would simultaneously arise, abide, and cease—mutually contradictory, creating a major absurdity. The world never sees one thing arising, abiding, and ceasing at the same time; only different things at different times. If these functions are contradictory and cannot happen simultaneously, then their essences must also be contradictory. How can they coexist? (This is self-contradiction.) Abiding, changing, and ceasing oppose each other, so their functions cannot occur together. Yet the marks and the things marked are not dependent on causes; their essences are inherently present. Since essence is thus, function should be too—essence and function cannot have two different natures. If someone claims essence is originally present without causes, while function is not originally present but arises only when causes and conditions combine—then the necessary causes and conditions come from outside, so they cannot be originally present. If the conditions are thus, the things conditioned are likewise. Also, if you admit that things arise from causes and conditions, what further use is there for marks like arising? \*\*The Argument from the Three Times\*\* If conditioned phenomena were permanent, yet connected to arising and ceasing, then unconditioned phenomena should also be permanent yet connected to arising and ceasing. Why? Both arise from the same cause. The reasoning: Conditioned phenomena, being connected with arising etc., are permanent in their essence, like unconditioned phenomena. Unconditioned phenomena, being connected with arising etc., are also permanent in their essence, like conditioned phenomena. But since they are not like unconditioned phenomena, conditioned phenomena cannot be permanent. If even the things characterized are not permanent, how can the characterizing marks like arising and ceasing be real? \*\*The Attack on the Three Time Periods\*\* Opponents claim arising is in the future, but what has already arisen cannot arise again, and what has already ceased in the past has no arising function. The refutation uses parallelism between future and past: the past has ceased and is not permanent; the future has not arisen and is not present. Their essence is like sky-flowers—without real existence. The reasoning: Future and past are not real in essence. Reason: They are neither present nor permanent. Example: Like sky-flowers. What has arisen is already arisen, unlike what has not arisen—so how can it be in the future? What has ceased has already ceased, unlike what has not ceased—so it should not be present. If you say ceasing is not non-existence, you should also say arising is not existence. Ceasing and non-abiding are contradictory; arising and abiding both belong to the present, so they are not contradictory. But opponents consider the past and present as one, and the future as another. Ceasing belongs to the past, abiding to the present, arising to the future. Then ceasing and abiding happen at the same time, while abiding and arising happen in different times. How can that be rational? For a detailed discussion, see the \*Śata-śāstra\* (Hundred Treatise). \*\*Conclusion: The Marks Are Provisional\*\* Conditioned phenomena arise through causes and conditions. Thus, all things arise when conditions meet and cease when conditions disperse. To distinguish them from unconditioned phenomena, we provisionally establish four marks. They are not ultimately real. The \*Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra\* asks: "If conditioned phenomena definitely have four marks—arising, abiding, changing, ceasing—why did the World-Honored One only mention three?" Answer: "Because all conditioned processes are manifested through the three times. Things arise from the future when they didn't exist before. Therefore, the Tathāgata, through the future, speaks of arising as a mark. Once arisen, they fall into the past. Thus, through the past, he speaks of ceasing as a mark. Present phenomena are marked by two: abiding can only be found in the present, and change also only in the present. Therefore, through the present, he collectively speaks of abiding-and-changing as one mark." The four-conditioned and three-conditioned positions differ. Compared to the Small Vehicle, which places arising in the future and the other three in the present, the objection asks: "How can something that is not a dharma be a mark of conditioned phenomena?" General answer: "These marks signify something. If one asks: 'Since ceasing is non-existence, how can it be included among the marks?' The answer: 'It indicates that after the present arising, abiding, and changing, there is certainly ceasing. What fault is there in this being a mark of conditioned phenomena?'" Each of these four marks indicates something: - Arising indicates that something appears from nothing. - Ceasing indicates that after existence, there is non-existence. - Changing indicates impermanence and transformation. - Abiding indicates temporary usefulness. Although they are all called marks within conditioned phenomena, what they indicate differs. This is based on momentary, continuous change, provisionally establishing four marks—not based on the three times. If we consider the entire life span from birth to death, there are also four marks: birth is "arising," death is "ceasing," continuous life for decades is "abiding," and the changes from youth to adulthood to old age are "changing." Thus, the \*Abhidharmakosha\* concludes: "Since beginningless time, all conditioned things have various kinds of name-habitual impressions and various kinds of karmic actions producing different states of existence. With their functions transforming, they encounter conditions and develop, producing differences in form, arising, etc. The conditions spoken of—such as blood and semen for arising, food and shelter for abiding, poison and disaster for ceasing—are all causes. Therefore, the four marks are provisional designations." This is the summary.

復如何知異色心等至香味等假立三故。

> Moreover, how can we verify that the senses—such as color, form<note>and so on</note>—differ from the mind and mental states? It is because (the experiences of) scent, taste, and so forth are established as dependent on the conceptual designation of the Three Natures.

六破名句文身。瑜伽論云。云何名身。謂依諸法自性施設自相施設由徧分別。為隨言說唯建立想。是謂名身。云何向身。謂即依彼自相施設所有諸法差別。施設建立功德。過失。雜染。清淨。戲論。是謂句身。云何文身。謂名身句身所依止性所有字身。是謂文身又於一切所知所詮事中極略想是文若中是名。若廣是句。若唯依文。但可了達音韻而已。不能了達所有事義。若依止名。便能了達彼彼諸法自性自相。亦能了達所有音韻。不能了達所揀法深廣差別。若依止句。當知一切皆能了達。復如何知異色心等有實詮表名句文身。論主問也。契經說故如契經說佛得希有名句文身。小乘答也。此經不說異色心等有實名等為證不成。論主總破。若名句文異聲實有下。論主廣破。據俱舍論等。經部師言。名句文身用聲為體。色自性攝。所以者何。由教及理。知別有故。教。謂經言語身文身。若文即語。別說何為。又說應持正法文句。又言依義不依於文等。由此等教。證知別有能詮諸義名句文身。猶如語聲實而非假。理。謂現見有時得聲而不得字有時得字而不得聲。故知體別。有時得聲不得字者。謂雖聞聲而不了義。現見有人麤聞他語。而復審問汝何所言。此聞語聲不了義者。都由未達所發文故。如何乃執文不異聲。有時得字不得聲者。謂不聞聲而得了義。現見有人不聞他語。覩唇等動。知其所說。此不聞聲得了義者。都由己達所發文故。由斯理證。文必異聲等。廣如彼說。薩婆多。亦有名由聲生。名由聲顯。二義。故論主取生。破顯云。若名句文異聲實有。則名句文同色香味。非實能詮。以離聲無別能詮故。量云。名句文身非實能詮。異聲實有故喻如色等。若謂聲能生名句文者。此聲必有音韻屈曲。此已足成能詮。何用名等為耶。正理師救云。聲上屈曲是名句文體異於聲而是實有。故論主破云。若謂聲上音韻屈曲即名句文。異聲實有。名能詮者。則所見色上形量屈曲。亦應異色處別有實體。亦名能詮。若謂聲上音韻屈曲。如絃管聲非能詮者。則此語聲音韻屈曲。亦應如絃管聲不能詮表。不能別生名等矣。彼又難云。誰說彼絃管聲定不能詮乎。論主答云。聲若能詮。則應現前風鈴聲等皆有詮用。今此語聲與風鈴聲等無詮表。不別生實名句文身。故知語聲非實能詮。若唯語聲能生名等。而風鈴聲等不能者。如何不許唯語能詮。而謂絃管聲亦能詮耶。外人問云。若一切外聲皆非能詮。據何道理定知能詮即是言語。寧知非語亦有能詮。論主答云。語為能詮人天共了者。謂人與天俱用語言有詮表用。為欲界以音聲為佛事故。天愛非餘者。或有天中不用語為能詮。如光明說法。天鼓說法之類。唯是色界光音以上等天。不通下界。故曰非餘。今固人也。而天語乎。次假外問云。既聲體即是能詮。何有名等三種差別。故論主申正義云。然依語聲分位差別等。於中有四。從初至假建立名句文身。一顯假差別。此論主解依聲建立名句文身。如梵音斫蒭此翻眼。若但言斫。唯言蒭。未有所目。說為字分位。若二連合。能詮法體。詮於眼體。說為名分位。然未有句位。更添言阿薩利縛。名為眼有漏。說為句位。故依分位以立名等。依一切位。非自在故。外又問曰。何者是分位差別。故答云。名詮自性至為二所依。二。顯三用殊。名詮諸法自性。句詮諸法差別。文即是字。為名句之所依。不能詮自性及差別故。文者彰義。與二為依。彰義二故。又名為顯。與二為依。能顯義故。而體非顯。字者。無改轉義是其字體。文。是功能。功能即體。故言文即是字等。或字為初首。即多剎那聲集成一字。集多字為所依。次能成名詮諸法體。多名已後。方成句身。詮法差別。即雜集論云。自性差別。及此二言。如是三法。總攝一切。彼二言者。即是字也。字即語故。說之為言。名句二種所依止之言也。瑜伽論云。名於自性施設。句於差別施設。名句所依止性。說之為字。又顯揚言。句必有名。名不必有句。名必有字。字不必有名等。此三離聲至亦不即聲。三。明不即不離。論主答難。謂先有問言。上來雖言名等即聲。若名等是不相應行者。色上屈曲非不相應。聲何故爾。故此答曰。此三離聲雖無別體。而名等是假。聲是實有。假實異故。故名等三非即是聲。非聲處攝。但是差別之聲義說名等。以詮義故。是不相應。無別種子生。故言即聲。外人問。言若名等即聲。法詞二無礙解。境有何別。故論答云。由此法詞至亦各有異。即緣此故。二境有異。法無礙解。緣假名等。詞無礙解。緣實聲等。故說境差別。非二俱緣實。雖二自性互不相離。法對所詮。故但取名。詞多對機。故但說聲。耳聞聲已竟了義故。以所對不同。說二有異。非體有異也。又此二境及名等三與聲別者。蘊處界攝亦有異故色蘊。聲處。聲界。唯屬於聲行蘊。法處。法界。屬名句文。問曰。聲上屈曲假。即言不相應。色上屈曲假。應非色處攝。答云。聲上有教。名等不相應。色上無教。故是色處攝。又問云。聲上有屈曲。即以為教。色上有屈曲。亦應得為教。故論主答云。且依此土說名句文至假立三故。四。會相違。謂且依此土。依聲假立名句文身。非謂一切界土亦依聲立。問曰。餘界土中依何立耶。答云。諸餘佛土。亦依光明妙香味等。假立名句文身。以彼見聞覺知光明香味能了義故。此所引。即維摩詰所說經。而言等者。等取觸思取等。上皆得假立名等三種。亦是不相應攝此三法故。以眾生機欲對待故假。又梵云便善那。此有四義。一者扇。二相好。三根形四味。此即是鹽。能顯諸物中味故。味即是文。如言文義巧妙等。目之為便善那。此中四義。總是一顯義故。古德說名為味。對法論云。此文名顯。能顯彼義。故為名句所依能顯義故。惡察那是字。是無改轉義。如對法說。鉢陀是迹。如尋象迹以覔象等。此名為句。理應名迹。義之迹故。尋此知義也。順古所翻。稱之為句。

> \*\*Sixth: The notion of "Name, Phrase, and Syllable Phenomena" is refuted.\*\* The \*Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra\* states: What is the "Name Aggregate"? It refers to the establishment of designations for the intrinsic nature and characteristics of phenomena, based on conceptual proliferation, in order to facilitate spoken communication. This is simply a constructed concept, and is called the Name Aggregate. What is the "Phrase Aggregate"? It refers to establishing, based on those same self-characteristics, the differences among all phenomena. This includes establishing qualities, faults, defilements, purity, and conceptual elaboration. This is called the Phrase Aggregate. What is the "Syllable Aggregate"? It refers to the syllables that serve as the basis for both the Name Aggregate and Phrase Aggregate. This is called the Syllable Aggregate. Furthermore, among all knowable and expressible things, a very brief idea is a \*syllable\*. What is midway is a \*name\*. What is extensive is a \*phrase\*. If one relies only on syllables, one can only understand sounds and rhythms, not the meaning of the things themselves. If one relies on a name, one can understand the intrinsic nature and characteristics of various phenomena, and also the sounds and rhythms. However, one cannot understand the deep and extensive differences between the phenomena being examined. If one relies on a phrase, one should be able to understand everything. \*\*Question:\*\* How do you know that the Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates, which are different from the physical and mental realms, have a real, expressive nature? (This is the author's question.) \*\*Answer:\*\* Because the scriptures say so. For instance, a scripture says, "The Buddha attained the rare Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregate." (This is the Small Vehicle's answer.) \*\*Refutation:\*\* This scripture does not say that there are real names, etc., separate from form and mind. Therefore, this is not valid proof. (This is the author's general refutation.) \*\*Detailed Refutation:\*\* \[Starting with "If names, phrases, and syllables are truly separate from sound..." the author expands on the refutation\]. According to the \*Abhidharmakośabhāṣya\* and other texts, the Sautrāntika school says that the Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates have sound as their essence, belonging to the category of form. Why? Because both scripture and reason prove they are distinct. \*\*Scripture:\*\* The scriptures speak of "speech aggregates" and "sentence aggregates." If a text were merely speech, why would they be mentioned separately? It also says, "One should uphold the correct Dharma phrases and sentences," and "Rely on the meaning, not on the words." From these scriptural passages, we can infer the existence of separate Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates that can express all meanings, which, like the sound of speech, are real and not merely conventional. \*\*Reason:\*\* We often experience times when we hear sounds but not words, and times when we get words but not sounds. This proves they are distinct entities. \* \*\*Hearing sounds without words:\*\* This is when, although we hear a voice, we don't understand the meaning. We see people who vaguely hear someone speaking but have to ask, "What did you say?" This occurs because they haven't grasped the sound's structure. How then can one insist that the text is not different from the sound? \* \*\*Getting words without hearing sounds:\*\* This is when we understand the meaning without hearing the sound. We see people who, without hearing the speaker, watch the lips move and know what is being said. This understanding comes from grasping the sound's structure. From this reasoning, we prove that a text must be different from mere sound. (This is explained in detail there.) \*\*Vaibhāṣika school's view:\*\* They also hold that names arise from sound and are \*manifested\* by sound. The author of the refutation takes the position of "arising" and refutes the "manifestation" view. \*\*Refutation of the view that names, phrases, and syllables are real and separate from sound:\*\* If names, phrases, and syllables were real entities separate from sound, they would be like form, taste, etc. They would not be able to truly \*express\* meaning, because there is no separate expressive function apart from sound. \*\*Logical argument:\*\* The Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates are not truly expressive entities, because they are said to be real and separate from sound, like form, etc. \*\*Further refutation of the view that sound \*gives rise\* to names, phrases, and syllables:\*\* If sound gives rise to them, this sound must have its own prosodic contours and patterns. This in itself is sufficient for expression. What need is there for names, etc.? \*\*Reply from the Nyāyānusāra school:\*\* The prosodic contours on sound are the very essence of names, phrases, and syllables. These are separate from sound but are real. \*\*The author's refutation:\*\* If you say that the prosodic contours on sound \*are\* the names, phrases, and syllables, and that they are real entities separate from sound, capable of expressing meaning, then the contour-like shapes seen in visible forms would also be separate entities, distinct from form, and capable of expression. If you say that the prosodic contours on sound, like the sound of a stringed instrument, are not capable of expression, then the prosodic contours in speech should also be like the sound of a stringed instrument, incapable of expression, and unable to generate real names, etc. \*\*Opponent's challenge:\*\* Who said the sound of a stringed instrument definitely cannot express anything? \*\*The author's response:\*\* If sound could express meaning, then sounds like wind-chimes would also have an expressive function. But just as speech sounds do, wind-chimes have no expressive function and do not produce real Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates. Therefore, speech sounds are not truly expressive entities. If only speech sounds can generate names, etc., and wind-chimes cannot, then you should admit that only speech can express meaning. Why then do you claim that the sound of a stringed instrument can also express meaning? \*\*Opponent's question:\*\* If no external sound can express meaning, how do you know that what is capable of expression is necessarily speech? Why can't non-speech sounds also have expressive power? \*\*The author's answer:\*\* Speech is recognized as capable of expression by humans and heavenly beings. This is clear. For example, humans and heavenly beings both use language for communication. In the Desire Realm, sound is used as the basis for Buddhist teachings. However, the "heavenly beloved" are different. Some heavenly realms do not use speech for expression, communicating instead through light, the proclamation of heavenly drums, etc. This mainly refers to realms like the Heaven of Light-Sound and above in the Form Realm, not the lower realms. Therefore, the statement "not others" is made. Now, we are humans, speaking human language. \*\*Question from a hypothetical opponent:\*\* If sound itself is what can express, why are there three different categories of Name, Phrase, and Syllable? \*\*The author's presentation of the correct view:\*\* However, based on the different stages of spoken sound, etc. This has four parts. 1. \*\*Demonstrating the conventional differences:\*\* The author explains that Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates are established based on sound. For example, in Sanskrit, \*cakṣu\* (eye). If you only say \*ca\* or \*kṣu\*, it doesn't refer to anything specific. This is the "syllable stage." If you combine them to form \*cakṣu\*, it can refer to the eye itself. This is the "name stage." However, there is still no phrase. Adding \*āsrava\* to make \*cakṣu-āsrava\* (the eye as defiled) creates the "phrase stage." Therefore, names, etc., are established based on stages, not as independent entities. 2. \*\*Demonstrating the three functions:\*\* A name expresses the intrinsic nature of phenomena. A phrase expresses the distinctions \[qualities\] of phenomena. A letter/syllable is the basis for names and phrases. It cannot by itself express nature or distinctions. A letter reveals meaning and serves as the basis for the other two. Sometimes a syllable is called a "manifestation" (\*vyakti\*), as it can reveal meaning for the other two, but its own essence is not a manifestation. A \*letter\* (\*akṣara\*) is unchanging. The \*text\* (\*vyañjana\*) is a function. The function and essence are the same, so it's said "the text is the letter, etc." Or, a letter is the first unit. Many momentary sounds come together to form one letter. Many letters come together to form the basis. Next, it can become a name that expresses the essence of phenomena. After many names, a phrase aggregate is formed, expressing the distinctions. The \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\* says: Nature, distinctions, and the words for these two. These three phenomena sum up everything. The "words for these two" refers to the letter. The letter is language, so it is called "speech." It is the speech that is the basis for names and phrases. 3. \*\*Demonstrating that they are neither separate from sound nor identical with it:\*\* The author answers an objection. The objection is: "You have previously said that names, etc., are sound. But if they are uncompounded (dissociated) phenomena, then contour-like patterns on form \[are not uncompounded\], so why this distinction?" The answer is: Although these three have no separate essence apart from sound, names, etc., are conventional (\*prajñapti\*), while sound is real. Because the conventional is different from the real, names, etc., are not identical to sound. They are not included in the sense faculty of sound. They are merely sound spoken of as names, etc., based on distinction. Because they express meaning, they are uncompounded \[or dissociated\]. Since they have no separate seed to produce them, they are said to be "sound." \*\*Opponent's question:\*\* If names, etc., are sound, then what distinguishes the object of the \*Dharmapratisaṃvit\* (Analytic Knowledge of the Teaching) from that of the \*Niruktipratisaṃvit\* (Analytic Knowledge of Language)? \*\*Answer:\*\* Because of this, the two types of Analytic Knowledge have different objects. The Analytic Knowledge of the Teaching focuses on conventional names, etc. The Analytic Knowledge of Language focuses on real sound, etc. Therefore, their objects are different. It's not that both focus on the real. Although their nature is not separate, the Analytic Knowledge of the Teaching is oriented toward meaning, so it focuses on names. The Analytic Knowledge of Language is oriented toward the audience, so it focuses on sound. After hearing the sound, meaning is understood. Therefore, based on the different objects, the two are said to be distinct, but their essence is not different. Furthermore, the difference between these two objects and the three of name, phrase, and syllable from sound can be seen from their inclusion in the aggregates (\*skandha\*), sense-fields (\*āyatana\*), and elements (\*dhātu\*). \* Form Aggregate, Sound sense-field, and Sound element all belong to sound. \* The Mental Formations Aggregate, the Phenomena sense-field, and the Phenomena element all belong to name, phrase, and syllable. \*\*Question:\*\* If the contours on sound are conventional, I would say they are not part of the phenomenon of sound. \[Opponent: If the conventions on visible form are conventional, they should not be included in the Form sense-field.\] \*\*Answer:\*\* Sound carries teaching, and names, etc., are not associated with it. Form does not carry teaching, so its conventions are included in the Form sense-field. \*\*Further question:\*\* Since sound has contours, it is considered teaching. If form also has contours, it should also be considered teaching. \*\*The author's answer:\*\* I will now address the apparent contradictions. 4. \*\*Reconciling apparent contradictions:\*\* This is what is meant by "At present, in this world, we conventionally establish Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates based on sound." This does not mean that all worlds establish them based on sound. \*\*Question:\*\* In other worlds, what are they based on? \*\*Answer:\*\* In other Buddha-lands, they also conventionally establish Name, Phrase, and Syllable Aggregates based on light, fragrance, taste, etc. This is because beings in those lands can understand meaning through seeing, hearing, smelling, and otherwise perceiving light and fragrance. This is quoted from the \*Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra\*. The word "etc." refers to touch, mental formations, etc. In all of these, names, etc., can be conventionally established. This is also included in the uncompounded (dissociated) group. Because these three phenomena \[names, phrases, and syllables\] are like that. \[Thus, it's conventional because it's relative to the faculties and needs of beings.\] Furthermore, the Sanskrit word \*vyañjana\* has four meanings: (1) a fan, (2) excellent features or marks, (3) bodily characteristics, and (4) flavor. This is like salt, because it brings out the taste in various substances. "Flavor" here is the "text." For example, we say "the meanings of the text are subtle," etc. This is referred to as \*vyañjana\*. These four meanings all share the meaning of "manifestation." Ancient masters translated it as "flavor." The \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\* says, "This text is called \*manifestation\* because it can manifest that meaning." Therefore, it is the basis for names and phrases, able to manifest meaning. The word \*akṣara\* is "letter," meaning "unchanging." As the \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\* says, \*pada\* is a "track," like finding an elephant by its tracks. This is called a "phrase." It should be called a "track," because it is the track of meaning. By finding this, we know the meaning. Following the ancient translation, it is referred to as a "sentence" or "phrase."

有執隨眠異心心所至准前理趣皆應遮止。

> There is grasping with dormant tendencies—disparate mental factors— <note>up to</note> According to the reasoning explained above, all such cases should be abandoned.

七破餘執。隨眠。即貪等染心所。隨者俱生義。眠者種子義。謂煩惱種子。隨逐有情。眠伏藏識。彼執是不相應行蘊攝。故論主破云。貪等種子。名貪等故即如貪等現行。定與染心相應。豈得名為不相應耶。量云。所執隨眠非不相應。名貪等故。如現貪等有餘不相應行者。即後未破十法。謂流轉。定異。相應。勢速。次第。時方。數。和合性。不和合性。准前理趣者准前所破十四法之理趣。遮止者。遮止異色心等有實自性也。

> Seventh: Refuting the Remaining Attachments. \* \*\*Anusaya (latent tendencies):\*\* refers to mental factors like greed that stain the mind. "Anu" means "accompanying" or "co-arising." "Saya" means "seed" or "latent." It refers to the seeds of afflictions that follow living beings, lying dormant in the Alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness). \* \*The opponent's view:\* These latent tendencies belong to the category of "disassociated formations" (mental factors not associated with mind). \* \*Therefore, the author refutes it with this logic:\* The seed of greed is called "greed," just like the active manifestation of greed. It is definitely associated with a defiled mind. How can it be called "disassociated"? \* \*Formal syllogism:\* The latent tendency you propose is not a disassociated formation. Because it is called by the same name as "greed," etc. Just like the active greed, etc. \* \*\*Remaining disassociated formations:\*\* refers to the ten dharmas not yet refuted. They are: Pativartika (flow/transmigration), Niyata (determinism), Anvaya (association/correspondence), Java (velocity/rapidity), Anukrama (sequence/order), Kala (time), Dik (space/place), Samkhya (number), Samagri (combination/conjunction), and Asamagri (disjunction). \* \*In accordance with the same reasoning:\* that is, according to the logical principle used to refute the previous fourteen dharmas. \* \*To stop/negate:\* means to negate the idea that these have a truly existing nature separate from the matter and mind (form and consciousness).

諸無為法離色心等至離色心等實無為性。

> All unconditioned phenomena are free from form and mind <note>and so forth</note>. Free from form and mind and so forth, they truly possess the nature of unconditioned existence.

三無為法分三。一總破。先總斥。且定有下。為將破無為。先舉有為為例。先標數。下別釋。如色心等者。即是五識身他心智境。謂色等五塵及心心所。此約總聚。不別分別此何識境。現量所知。非境所知。如瓶衣等者。此雖現見受用。而非現量所緣。是假法故。但是現世所受用物。問。此中緣瓶等心是何量攝。答。非量收。不親緣得法自體故。非比度故非量所收。不待因成者。言此二法不待宗因比量成立。共知是有故。如眼耳等者。此五色根非現量得。亦非現世人所共知。此眼耳等。各由彼彼有發識用。比知是有。言證知者。證成道理也。以現見果。比有因故。果。謂所生心心所法。比量知有諸淨色根。此非現量他心智成。然今大乘第八識境。亦現量得。佛智緣時。亦現量得。除佛已外。共許為論。非世共悉。是故但言比知是有。若無為者。既非現所知法。又非有作用法現受用是假法。今但破無為非實。故此不揀。設許有作用。則應是無常。如何執定有無為耶。然諸下。正顯無為不實之義。所知性者。謂從聞說無為名。領納心中有無為性。所顯性者。色心有為。因果義盡或緣闕時。無有為義。顯是無為。此所知性。及所顯性。如色心等悉是無常。故不可執離心實有。量云無為是有法。不應執為離色心等實無為性是宗因云。所知性故。或色心等所顯性故。喻如色心等。

> The three unconditioned dharmas are divided into three parts. First, a general refutation, preceded by a general criticism. The passage beginning with "it is definitely established" is intended to refute the unconditioned by first citing the conditioned as an example. After first indicating the number, the explanation follows. "Such as form and mind" refers to the objects of the five sense consciousnesses and the mind of others' cognition—namely, the five sense objects like form and so on, as well as mental factors. This is discussed in terms of general aggregates, without specifically distinguishing which consciousness perceives which object. It is known through direct perception, not through objective cognition. "Such as a vase or robe" refers to things that, though directly seen and used, are not the objects of direct perception; because they are conventional entities, they are merely objects used in the present lifetime. Question: To which type of valid cognition does the mind that perceives a vase belong? Answer: It falls under invalid cognition, because it does not directly apprehend the intrinsic nature of phenomena, nor does it involve inference; thus, it is not included in valid cognition. "It is not established by depending on a reason" means that these two types of dharmas are known to exist without relying on a thesis or reason for inference; they are commonly known to exist. "Such as eyes and ears" refers to the five sense faculties, which are not obtained through direct perception nor commonly known in the present world. These faculties, such as eyes and ears, are known to exist through the inference of their function of generating consciousness. "That which is testified" refers to the principle of proof—through observing the effect, one infers the cause. The effect is the mental factors produced; through inference, one knows the existence of the pure form sense faculties. This is not achieved through direct perception or the mind of others. However, in Mahayana, the objects of the eighth consciousness are also known through direct perception, and when the Buddha's wisdom perceives them, it is also direct perception. Setting aside the Buddha, it is commonly accepted in discussion. It is not universally known in the world; therefore, it is only said to be known through inference. As for the unconditioned: Since it is neither known through direct perception nor a functional entity<note>Directly experienced objects in current life are conventional entities. Here, the unconditioned is merely refuted as not being real, so this distinction is not made.</note>. Even if it were granted to have a function, it would then be impermanent. So how can one insist on the existence of a permanent unconditioned? The passage beginning with "however, all" directly reveals the unreality of the unconditioned. "The nature to be known" refers to hearing the term "unconditioned" and then apprehending the nature of the unconditioned within the mind. "The nature to be manifested" refers to the conditioned dharmas of form and mind, where the meaning of cause and effect is exhausted or when conditions are absent; the meaning of "conditioned" ceases, and it is revealed as the unconditioned. This "nature to be known" and "nature to be manifested" are all impermanent, like form and mind. Therefore, one cannot insist that apart from the mind, there truly exists an unconditioned nature. The logical formulation is: The unconditioned is the subject; it should not be held as a truly unconditioned nature separate from form, mind, etc.—this is the thesis. The reason is: because it is a nature to be known, or a nature manifested by form and mind. The example is: such as form and mind.

又虗空等為一為多至應如兔角非異心等有。

> The question arises: Is space singular or plural? But consider this—space is like a rabbit's horn. It does not truly exist apart from the mind.

二別破。是無為法。約諸經論凡有六種。一虗空無為者。離一切色心諸法障礙所顯真理。名為虗空無為。虗空有三。一識變虗空。即六識上作解心。變起虗空相分。二法性虗空。即真如體有。離諸障礙故。名為虗空。三事虗空。即所見頑空是也。二擇滅無為。由無漏智起簡擇。滅諸障染。所顯真如理故。三非擇滅無為。有法不由擇力起無漏智簡擇。而本性淨。即自性清淨涅槃是也。即真如本性。離諸障染。不由起智斷惑。本體淨故。四不動無為。第四禪離八患三災。證得不動無為。五想受滅無為。從第四禪已上。至無所有處已來。捨受不行。并麤想亦無。顯得真如。名想受滅無為。六真如無為。有二。一約對得名。謂真如理。對事得名。二簡法者。即真如。簡徧計。離於生滅也。餘乘只許初二三種。離色心等實有自體。先約一多破。又虗空等為一為多。等者。等餘二種。若體是一下。出一體過。若體是多下。出多體過。初出一體過中。虗空容受下。破虗空非一。一部一品下。破擇滅非一。一法緣闕下。破非擇滅非一。若體是一。遍一切處。標彼宗所執也。虗空若不能容受色等。何名虗空。既能容受色等。即與色等合而為一。色等既多。虗空之體亦應多。何言是一。一法合處。餘皆不合。何言徧一切處若不與一法合而合餘法者。則應諸法互相周徧。以虗空悉入一切法故。若謂虗空是一。不與諸法相合而合一法者。則應虗空不能容受。如餘無為。以餘無為不能攝受諸法故。量云虗空無為是有法。應非容受宗。因云。不與法合故。喻如餘無為。又色等中有虗空否。有則空色雜而不分。無則空色離而不徧。次以擇滅非擇滅例破云。若是一體者。則應斷一部一品結時。不但得一部一品擇滅。餘一切部一切品擇滅皆得。一法緣闕不生時。不但得一非擇滅。應得一切非擇滅。何以故。彼執體一。則一即一切。理應爾故。結。是思惑。有八十一品。分屬九部。九部即九地。後出多體過云。若虗空等體是多。應非實無為是宗。因云。有品類故。喻如色等。又虗空應非徧容受是宗。因云。有品類故。喻如色等。擇滅。非擇滅。准此應知。餘部所執下。總顯無為非實有。餘部所執。即後三種無為。准前應破者。准前一多有無等例。更相徵詰也。又申量總破云。諸無為非異心等有是宗。因云。許無因果故喻如兔角。

> Secondly, the refutation is divided. These unconditioned dharmas, according to various sutras and treatises, are generally of six kinds. 1. Space unconditioned: The principle revealed by being free from all obstructions of material and mental dharmas is called space unconditioned. Space has three types: (a) Consciousness-transformed space, which is the spatial aspect arisen from the conceptualizing mind of the six consciousnesses. (b) Dharma-nature space, which is the essence of suchness that is inherently free from obstructions and thus called space. (c) Conventional space, which is the tangible void we perceive. 2. Cessation through discerning unconditioned: This is produced by non-outflow wisdom that discerns, eliminating all defilements and afflictions, thereby revealing the principle of suchness. 3. Cessation without discerning unconditioned: Some dharmas are inherently pure without relying on the discerning power of non-outflow wisdom. This is the nirvana of intrinsic purity. The nature of suchness itself is free from all defilements and afflictions; it is pure fundamentally, without needing to activate wisdom to cut off delusion. 4. Imperturbable unconditioned: In the fourth dhyana, by transcending eight afflictions and three calamities, one attains the imperturbable unconditioned. 5. Cessation of perception and feeling unconditioned: From the fourth dhyana up to the sphere of nothingness, where neutral feelings cease and even coarse thoughts are absent, suchness is manifested. This is called cessation of perception and feeling unconditioned. 6. Suchness unconditioned: This has two aspects: (a) Named in relation to objects, i.e., the principle of suchness is named in contrast to conventional phenomena. (b) Distinguishing dharmas: Suchness itself separates from imputed constructs and is free from arising and ceasing. Other vehicles only accept the first three kinds, considering them to be truly existent entities apart from matter and mind. First, we refute from the perspectives of oneness and multiplicity. We ask: Is space, etc., one or many? "Etc." covers the other two kinds. If their essence is one, we reveal the error of a single essence. If their essence is many, we reveal the error of multiple essences. Initially, exposing the error of a single essence: "Space accommodates..." refutes that space is not one. "One section, one grade..." refutes that discerning cessation is not one. "When the conditions for a dharma are absent..." refutes that non-discerning cessation is not one. If the essence is one and all-pervading—this states the tenet of that school—if space cannot accommodate matter, etc., how can it be called space? Since it can accommodate matter, etc., it would merge with matter into a single unity. Matter, etc., is many; therefore, the essence of space should also be many. How can it be said to be one? Where one dharma merges, the others do not. How can it be said to be all-pervading? If it merges with one dharma but not others, then all dharmas should interpenetrate mutually, because space enters into all dharmas. If space is one and does not combine with various dharmas but yet combines with one dharma, then space should be unable to accommodate—like other unconditioned dharmas, since other unconditioned dharmas cannot receive or include all dharmas. The syllogism: Space unconditioned is the subject; it should be incapable of accommodating is the predicate; because it does not combine with dharmas is the reason; like other unconditioned dharmas is the example. Furthermore, is there space within matter? If yes, then space and matter are mixed and inseparable. If no, then space and matter are separate but not all-pervading. Next, using discerning and non-discerning cessations as analogies for refutation: If they are a single essence, then when cutting off one section, one grade of bonds, one should attain not only that single section and grade's discerning cessation but also all sections and grades of discerning cessations. When one dharma's conditions are absent and it does not arise, one should attain not only that one non-discerning cessation but also all non-discerning cessations. Why? Because that school holds their essence to be one; if one equals all, logic demands it. Conclusion: Bonds are mental afflictions, with eighty-one grades divided into nine sections, i.e., nine stages. Later, exposing the error of multiple essences: If space, etc., has multiple essences, then it should not be truly unconditioned is the predicate; because it has categories is the reason; like matter, etc., is the example. Also, space should not be all-pervading and accommodating is the predicate; because it has categories is the reason; like matter, etc., is the example. The same applies to discerning and non-discerning cessations. Regarding the other schools' tenets—which refer to the last three kinds of unconditioned—they should be refuted similarly using the previous patterns of oneness, multiplicity, existence, and non-existence, with further cross-examination. A general refutation syllogism is also presented: All unconditioned dharmas are not separate from mind, etc., is the thesis; because they are admitted to be without cause and effect is the reason; like a rabbit's horn is the example.

然契經說有虗空等至故諸無為非定實有。

> However, the sutras mention "emptiness-like" states<note>(and so forth)</note>; therefore, the unconditioned elements are not ultimately real.

三顯正義。一依識變假施設有者。此依識變出體。謂空無為。初無本質。唯心所變。猶如極微。假而無體。於佛等處。聞其名故。而心變之。聞說空等五種無為。數數串習熏陶力故。諸識生時。變似空等影像相分。為所緣境。此所現相。前後相似。無有變易。唯有一類空等相故。假說為常。若說本質無為者。即不離於識變有也。問。若言識變相分說是無為者。即是相狀之相。隨識而為。何成無為耶。答。此說是識變。假說是無為。其實非是無為。無為是常住法故。今此依無為體者。但取隨識獨影相分為體。以相似不變。故假說為常耳。此六無為。地前菩薩識變。即是有漏。若地上後得智變。即無漏也。二依法性假施設有者。此依法性出體。五種無為。皆是真如。真如體外。更無別出。六種無為。各皆依真如實德也。此體須證人法二空。無我之後。方得顯故。言有則墮增益謗。言無則墮減損謗。言亦有亦無則墮相違謗。言非有非無則墮戲論謗。故曰有無俱非。心欲緣而慮亡。口欲言而辭喪。故曰心言路絕。性相各別。故曰非一。即性即相。故曰非異。為法之性。故曰法性。無諸障礙。故曰虗空。擇滅者。亦名數緣滅。數。謂慧數。由慧為緣。揀擇諸惑。能顯滅理。故唐三藏譯為譯滅。擇力所得滅。名為擇滅。如牛所駕車。名曰牛車也。此以離繫為性。由無漏智。斷諸障染。遠離繫縛。證得解脫。假名擇滅。非擇滅者。亦名非數緣滅。非由慧數滅惑所得。但以性淨。及於緣闕之所顯故。緣闕者俱舍論云。畢竟礙當生。別得非擇滅。釋云。當生者。當來生法。緣會則生。緣闕不生。於不生時。得非擇滅。此非擇滅。礙當生法。令永不起。名畢竟礙。言別得者。謂非擇滅有實體相。緣闕位中。起別得故。非擇滅得。不因擇滅。但由緣闕。名非擇滅。論指事明云。如眼與意。專一色時。餘色聲香味觸等謝。緣彼境界五識身等。住未來世。畢竟不生。由彼不能緣過去境。緣不具故得非擇滅。釋曰。謂眼緣色時亦合緣聲等。以專注色故。耳等不緣聲等。同時聲等剎那已謝。故令緣聲等識更不復生。以前五識唯緣現量。不緣過未。而言觸等者。等取法中有與能緣同時為所緣境者。如他心智所緣境是也。此他心智。唯緣現在心王。亦合緣心所。以專注心王。故於心所得非擇滅。不動者。離前三定。至第四禪。離三災。出八難。無喜樂等搖動身心所顯真理。名不動滅。想受滅者。謂已離無所有處欲。超過有頂。暫止息想。作意為先。故諸不恒行心心所滅。及恒行一分心心所滅。所顯真理。名想受滅。真如亦是假施設者。真如約詮。而詮體是一。此五無為。依真如上假名空等。而真如體非如非不如。故真如名亦是假立。如食油蟲。不稱彼體。唯言顯故。譬如有蟲名曰食油。實非食油。不稱體故。真如亦爾。遮空見者。說如為有。遮小乘中化地部等執定實有。故說為空。非言無為體即空也。勿謂虗幻者。虗揀徧計。幻揀依他。即顯真如是圓成實。以無虗妄顛倒法故。名真如也。故宗鏡錄云。問。如何聖教說真如實耶。答。今言有者。不是真如名實有但說有。即是遣惡取空。故說有體是妙有真空。故言非空非有。問。如何聖教說真如為空耶。答。為破執真如心外實有。故說為空。即空其情執。不空真如體也。通上二破餘乘竟。

> \*\*Clarifying the Correct Meaning\*\* 1. \*\*Existence based on conscious transformation, provisionally posited as having existence.\*\* This refers to the essence derived from the transformation of consciousness. For example, "Space" (a type of Unconditioned Dharma) originally has no inherent substance; it is solely a transformation of the mind. It is like an "ultimate particle" (an atom)—a provisional concept without a real entity. When one hears of these at a Buddha’s or sage’s place, the mind transforms accordingly. Upon hearing of the five types of Unconditioned Dharmas (like Space, etc.), through repeated practice and familiarization, the various consciousnesses, when they arise, manifest images resembling these unconditioned states. These images, being similar and unchanging from moment to moment, are \*provisionally\* called "permanent." If we speak of the fundamental unconditioned state, it is not separate from the transformative function of consciousness. \*Question\*: If the "images" born of conscious transformation are said to be Unconditioned, then these images are conditioned forms that arise with the mind. How can they be Unconditioned? \*Answer\*: This is a \*provisional\* label. The transformation of consciousness creates the \*appearance\* of being unconditioned. In truth, it is not truly Unconditioned; the true Unconditioned is a permanent and unchanging reality. Here, we take the mind’s own image as the provisional basis for the concept. Because this image appears stable and unchanging, we tentatively call it "permanent." These six types of Unconditioned Dharmas, when experienced by bodhisattvas before attaining "the stage of clarity" (the first bhumi), are \*defiled\* (conditioned with mental outflows). When experienced by a bodhisattva’s "wisdom after enlightenment" (the wisdom attained after seeing the nature of reality), they are \*undefiled\* (untainted). 2. \*\*Existence based on the essential nature of reality, provisionally posited as having existence.\*\* This defines the essence directly from the ultimate nature (the Dharma-nature). The five types of Unconditioned Dharmas (excluding the first, Space), are all identical to "Thusness" (Suchness, Ultimate Reality). Aside from the essence of Thusness itself, there is no truly separate entity. Each of the six Unconditioned states is merely an expression of the real virtues of Thusness. This ultimate essence can only be revealed after attaining the wisdom that realizes the emptiness of both the personal self and the nature of all phenomena. To say "it exists" commits the fault of \*affirming what is beyond concept\*. To say "it does not exist" commits the fault of \*denying what truly is\*. To say "both exists and does not exist" is contradictory. To say "neither exists nor does not exist" is mere conceptual proliferation. Therefore, it is described as "beyond all four logical extremes." When the mind tries to grasp it, conceptual thought fails. When speech tries to describe it, words are inadequate. Thus, it is called the "path of mental and verbal silence." Furthermore, its \*nature\* and its \*manifestations\* are distinct, so it is "not one." Yet, its nature \*is\* its manifestation, so it is "not different." It is the nature of all dharmas, so it is called "Dharma-nature." It is free from all obstacles, so it is called "Space" (in a metaphorical sense). "Nirvana through Discernment" (also known as "Cessation through Cognitive Power"): The word "discernment" refers to the faculty of wisdom (prajna). Through the power of this wisdom, we distinguish and eliminate all mental afflictions, revealing the truth of cessation. Master Xuanzang translated this term as "accomplished by elimination." Just as a cart pulled by an ox is \*called\* an "ox-cart," this state of cessation, achieved through the force of discernment, is \*called\* "Cessation through Discernment." Its essence is freedom from all entanglements. Through transcendental wisdom, one cuts off all defilements and bonds, realizing liberation. This is provisionally called "Cessation through Discernment." "Nirvana without Discernment" (also known as "Cessation through Insufficiency of Causes"): This is not attained by the power of wisdom to eliminate afflictions. Instead, it is revealed due to the pure nature of reality itself, or when the necessary conditions for an event's arising are absent. The \*Abhidharmakosha\* explains: "When there is a permanent obstacle to a future arising, one gains a separate type of cessation called 'Non-Discernment Cessation'." Commentary: "Future arising" means an event that \*would\* have occurred. When its conditions are complete, it arises. When conditions are missing, it does not. At that moment of non-arising, one attains this form of cessation. This non-discernment cessation acts as a permanent barrier, ensuring that the potential event never manifests. The "separate attainment" refers to the fact that this form of cessation has its own distinct essence. Scriptural example: When the eye and mind are intensely focused on a single material object, at that very moment, all other sensory objects (sounds, smells, tastes, touches) pass away as the mind is not directed to them. The consciousnesses that \*would\* have perceived these other objects remain in a dormant future state and are forever prevented from arising. Since the five sense-consciousnesses only perceive present objects, not past or future ones, they can never experience the past stimuli. Therefore, due to the "insufficiency of conditions," they attain this non-discernment cessation. (Note: This also applies to mental events, such as "other-knowing wisdom," which focuses on one specific mind-moment, thereby gaining non-discernment cessation regarding all other simultaneous mental factors.) "Imperturbability": Surpassing the first three stages of meditative absorption, one enters the Fourth Dhyana. Here, one is free from the three calamities and the eight difficulties. There is no more joy or bliss to agitate the body or mind. The eternal truth revealed through this state is called "Imperturbability Cessation." "Cessation of Perception and Feeling": Having passed the "Sphere of Neither-Perception-Nor-Non-Perception," one enters the highest peak of existence (the summit of samsara). Through a deliberate intention to temporarily halt mental activity, all ordinary fluctuating mental functions cease, along with a portion of the more subtle mental functions of the mind. The ultimate truth revealed is called "Cessation of Perception and Feeling." 3. \*\*Thusness (Suchness) itself is also a provisional designation.\*\* The term "Thusness" is used to \*point\* to the ineffable reality, and this reality is the one ground for all. The five Unconditioned states above are names provisionally given \*upon\* this ground, like labeling it "Space," etc. But the essence of Thusness is neither "such" nor "not such." Therefore, even the name "Thusness" is itself a convenient label. It is like an insect called an "oil-eater"—it doesn’t actually eat oil; the name doesn't match its reality. Similarly: - To counter the view of nihilism (that nothing truly exists), the teachings speak of Thusness as "existing." - To counter the view of the Mahishasaka school (that unconditioned events are truly real entities), the teachings speak of Thusness as "empty." This does not mean that the essence of the Unconditioned is literally emptiness or nothingness. Do not conceive of it as something illusory. "Illusory" refutes the imaginary nature (parikalpita). "Illusory" also refutes the dependent nature (paratantra). This points directly to the "Perfectly Realized Nature" (parinishpanna)—the nature of Thusness, which is free from all false, distorted mental constructs. Therefore, the \*Record of the Source-Mirror\* asks: "Why do the sacred teachings say that Thusness is truly real?" Answer: "When they say 'it exists,' it is not defining Thusness as an actual, absolute thing. They simply say 'it exists' to eliminate the misapprehension of clinging to emptiness as nothingness. 'It has essence' refers to a wondrous existence, a wonderful emptiness. Thus, it is neither empty nor existent." \*Question\*: "Why then do the scriptures say that Thusness is empty?" \*Answer\*: "To counteract the attachment of holding Thusness to be a real entity \*outside\* the mind, they say it is 'empty.' This negates the subjective, false clinging—it does not negate the essence of Thusness itself." This completes the explanation refuting the misinterpretations of non-Mahayana schools.

外道餘乘所執諸法至如執外境亦是法執。

> Non-Buddhists and followers of other vehicles<note>up to</note> assert that various phenomena possess inherent existence—clinging to external objects as if they are real is also a form of attachment to phenomena (dharma-graha).

三總破。此破外道餘乘法執已竟。亦如我執例。立一比量總破之。彼先能後所。此先所後能。以我屬根。法屬境故。所執諸法異心心所。是前陳有法。非實有性。是後陳宗體。因云。是所取假相分故。喻如心心所也。能取彼法之覺。亦不緣彼法是宗。因云。是能取見分故。喻如緣此能緣之覺也。謂第六識緣假法時。其假相分。但從見分變生。自無其種。亦無所仗本質。名獨影唯從見。故以心心所緣此覺為同喻。此是徧計所執性。以前既明異心心所非實有性。恐人遂執諸心心所是實有性。故申量云。諸心心所是有法。非真實有是宗。因云。依他起故。喻如幻事。設有問云。諸心心所既非實有。何故教中說唯有識。故此答云。為遣外道餘乘所執離心心所別有實境。是故教中說唯有識。若執唯識真實有者。還同妄執外境實有。亦是法執。由是理故。但應遣彼心外之境。同兔角無。能緣彼心。如幻事有。故少分不同。非謂即心亦名實有。故轉識論云。立唯識義者。本為遣境遣心。今境界既無。唯識又泯。即是了唯識義成也。此即淨品。煩惱及境界二俱無故。問。遣境存識乃可稱唯識義。既境識俱遣。何識可成。答。立唯識。乃一往遣境留心。卒終為論。遣境為欲空心。故境識俱泯。是其正義。此境識俱泯。即是實性。實性即阿摩羅識也。古德云。如緣真如。作有如解。即是法執。若作無解。雖不稱如。仍因成聖。釋曰。若作如解即是法執者。若起能解之心即立所證之理。所境既立。迷現量心。知解纔生便成比量。失唯識宗。所以華嚴經云。智外無如為智所入。如外無智能證於如。則心境如如。一道清淨。

> Three kinds of total refutation. This concludes the refutation of the false views held by non-Buddhists and other vehicles regarding attachment to phenomena. Following the same model as the refutation of attachment to self, we establish a syllogism for total refutation. They first posited the subject and then the object; here we posit the object first and then the subject. Because self pertains to the sense faculties, while phenomena pertain to objects. The phenomena they grasp are different from mind and mental factors—this is the subject of the premise. They are not truly existent as substances—this is the predicate of the conclusion. The reason is: because they are false objective images that are taken. For example, like mind and mental factors. The awareness that grasps those phenomena also does not truly apprehend those phenomena—this is the conclusion. The reason is: because it is the subjective perceiving aspect. For example, like the awareness that perceives this very perceiving capacity. When the sixth consciousness grasps unreal phenomena, those false objective images arise only from the subjective perceiving aspect, having neither their own seeds nor any supporting basis. This is called "exclusive mental image derived solely from the seeing aspect." Thus, the awareness that perceives these with mind and mental factors is used as a common example. This is the nature of false conceptualization. Since we previously clarified that phenomena differ from mind and mental factors and lack true substance, fearing that people might then cling to mind and mental factors as truly real, we establish the syllogism: "All mind and mental factors are the premise. They are not truly real—this is the conclusion. The reason is: because they are dependently arisen. For example, like illusions." If someone asks: "Since mind and mental factors are not truly real, why does the scripture teach 'consciousness-only'?" This is answered: "To eliminate the false views of non-Buddhists and other vehicles who cling to the existence of real objects outside of mind and mental factors. Therefore, the scripture teaches 'consciousness-only.' If one clings to consciousness-only as truly real, then this is the same as falsely clinging to external objects as truly real; it is also attachment to phenomena. Based on this principle, we should only eliminate the external objects apprehended by the mind, regarding them as nonexistent like a rabbit's horn. The mind that perceives them exists like an illusion. Therefore, there is a slight difference—it is not that the mind itself is considered truly real. Thus, the \*Treatise on the Transformation of Consciousness\* says: 'The purpose of establishing the doctrine of consciousness-only is originally to eliminate both objects and mind. Now that objects are gone and consciousness-only is also eliminated, this is precisely the fulfillment of understanding consciousness-only.' This is the pure aspect. Both afflictions and their objects are absent. Question: 'If we eliminate objects and preserve mind, that may be called the meaning of consciousness-only. But if both objects and consciousness are eliminated, what consciousness remains?' Answer: 'Establishing consciousness-only is a provisional step to eliminate objects and focus on mind. Ultimately, the conclusion is that eliminating objects is to empty the mind. Therefore, eliminating both objects and consciousness is the correct meaning. This elimination of both objects and consciousness is the true nature. True nature is the \*Amala-consciousness\*. An ancient master said: "If, when contemplating true suchness, one understands it as existence, that is attachment to phenomena. If one understands it as nonexistence, although it does not match true suchness, it still leads to sagehood." Explanation: The statement "If, when contemplating true suchness, one understands it as existence, that is attachment to phenomena" means: if a mind of understanding arises, then it posits the principle to be realized. Once the object is established, it obscures the directly perceived mind. As soon as intellectual understanding arises, it becomes inferential knowledge, losing the tradition of consciousness-only. Therefore, the \*Avatamsaka Sutra\* says: "Outside wisdom, there is no suchness to be entered by wisdom. Outside suchness, there is no wisdom to realize suchness." Thus, mind and reality are one suchness; the single path is pure.

然諸法執略有二種至法空真如即能除滅。

> However, attachment to the nature of things can be broadly divided into two types<note>Jian</note>, and only the realization of their true emptiness can eliminate it.

四總舉通執。蘊處界相者。教中即一念而開色心。即色心而開五蘊。即色塵而開十二處。又即五蘊而開十八界。五蘊合色為一。開心為四。為迷心不迷色者設也。十二處合心為一半對前開四故今。云合。謂意處全。及法處一分。適公曰。意所取境。名之為法。法處有四。一心所。二不相應行。三無為。四無表色。今指心所一分。故云半也。開色為十半對前合色為一為開也。謂色聲香味觸及眼耳鼻舌身全為十。言半者。即法處中無表色。為迷色不迷心者設也。十八界心色俱開謂開色為十半。如前開心為七半。即六識為六。意根及法處心所也。為心色俱迷者設也。皆是假立。豈有實法。而可執耶。因所緣有開有合。故能緣亦或總或別。此法執與前我執。若約大乘分別二執。初地初心一時頓斷。俱生二執。於地地中各斷一分。乃至等覺。尚有二愚。金剛後心。一時頓盡。故曰。分別我法極喜無。六七俱生地地除。第七修道除種現金剛道後等皆無。若約小乘。初見道時。頓斷分別我執。即證初果。斷盡俱生。遂證四果。而法執不與焉。自性等相。即數論等所執冥初自性等類。餘文例前我執可知。

> Fourth: General Summary of Pervasive Clinging. The characteristics of the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements are as follows: In the teachings, form and mind are distinguished within a single thought. From form and mind, the five aggregates are distinguished. From form-objects, the twelve sense-fields are distinguished. Also, from the five aggregates, the eighteen elements are distinguished. The five aggregates combine form into one and divide mind into four. This is established for those who are confused about mind but not form. The twelve sense-fields combine mind into half <note>In contrast to the previous division into four, here it is said "combine." That is, the mind faculty in its entirety and one part of the mental-object field. Master Shi said: The objects taken by the mind are called mental objects. The mental-object field has four parts: 1. mental factors, 2. unaffiliated formations, 3. the unconditioned, and 4. unmanifested form. Here, it refers to one part of the mental factors, hence the term "half."</note> and divide form into ten and a half <note>In contrast to the previous combination of form into one, this is a division. That is, form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body faculties in their entirety make ten. The term "half" refers to the unmanifested form within the mental-object field.</note>. This is established for those who are confused about form but not mind. The eighteen elements divide both mind and form <note>This refers to dividing form into ten and a half as before, and dividing mind into seven and a half—namely, the six consciousnesses as six, plus the mind faculty and the mental factors of the mental-object field.</note>. This is established for those who are confused about both mind and form. All of these are merely provisional designations. How could there be any real dharma to cling to? Because the objects of condition have distinctions and combinations, the corresponding subjects of cognition also have general and specific modes. This clinging to dharmas, along with the previously discussed clinging to self, are analyzed differently in the Mahayana and Hinayana systems. According to the Mahayana, at the first level of the first stage, the intellectually constructed clinging to self and dharmas is cut off in a single moment. The innate clinging to both is cut off, one portion at a time, at each stage of cultivation. Even at the stage of near-enlightenment, there are still two kinds of ignorance. Only at the last moment of the vajra-like concentration are they completely eliminated. Hence, it is said: "Intellectually constructed self and dharmas are eliminated at the stage of great joy. At the first six and seventh levels, the innate clinging is eliminated stage by stage. At the seventh level of cultivation, the seeds and manifestations are eliminated, and after the vajra-like path, they are all gone." According to the Hinayana, at the first seeing of the path, intellectually constructed clinging to self is cut off in a single moment, leading to the first fruit of stream-entry. When innate clinging is completely eliminated, the fourth fruit of arhatship is attained. However, the clinging to dharmas is not addressed. The characteristics of primal nature and so forth refer to the categories of primal nature and the like adhered to by the Samkhya and other schools. The rest of the text should be understood by analogy with the earlier analysis of clinging to self.

如是所說一切法執至依他起性如幻事等。

> Thus, all attachment to the nature of dharmas is based on the dependent nature, which is like a magical illusion.

此總結內外法執。自心外法。即蘊處界等相本質之法。自心內蘊。即自心變起影像相分法。或有或無者。影像相分是有。分別計度假法是無。又第七是有。第六是無。一切皆有者。第六識上變起影像相分必是有故。如前已明。然雖許此心上變起似法之相一切皆有。以依他起故。亦如幻有耳。若所執實有。是徧計執。如石女兔角。決定非有。既立二量。又引聖教以證結之。廣百論云。一切所見。皆識所為。離識無有一法是實。為無始來數習諸見。隨所習見。隨所遇緣。隨自種子成熟差別。變似種種法相而生。猶如夢中所見事等。皆虗妄現。都無一實。一切皆是識心所為。難。若爾。大乘應如夢啞。撥一切法皆悉是虗。不能辯說一切世間出世間法自性差別。是大苦哉。我等不能隨喜如是大乘所立虗假法義。以一切法皆可現見。不可撥無現見法故。答。奇哉可愍。薄福愚人。不能信解大乘法義。若有能見。可見所見。能見既無。誰見所見。以諸能見。不能自審。知自有體。亦不審他。於審察時。能見所見皆無所有。是故不應執現見法決定有體。以回心時。諸所緣境皆虗假故。所以者何。起憶念時。實無見等種種境界。但隨因緣自心變似見等種種境相而生。以所憶念非真實故。唯有虗假憶念名生。如曾更諸法體相。回心追憶。故名為念。當憶念時。曾所更境皆無有故。能念亦無。而名念者。隨順慣習顛倒諸見。假名施設。由此念故。世間有情妄起種種分別諍論。競執諸法自性差別。沒惡見泥。不能自出。若無所見。亦無所聞。是則一切都無所有。云何今時編石為筏。通上二破法執竟。

> \*\*Summary of Attachment to Internal and External Phenomena\*\* The so-called "external phenomena" are merely the essential natures of the aggregates, sense bases, and elements. The "internal aggregates" are the mental images projected by the mind itself. These images may seem to exist or not: the mental images do exist, but the conceptual attachments we project onto them do not. The seventh consciousness clings to a self, while the sixth consciousness fabricates distinctions. Still, all mental images arising from the sixth consciousness must exist, as explained before. Although we acknowledge that all apparent phenomena arising from the mind exist—since they arise through dependent origination, like illusions—the truly real entities that beings cling to are mere conceptual fabrications, like a barren woman's child or a rabbit's horns; they absolutely do not exist. Having established these two kinds of valid cognition, we now cite a sacred scripture to confirm this. The \*Extensive Hundred Treatise\* says: "Everything we see is produced by consciousness. Apart from consciousness, there is not a single real phenomenon. Because of beginningless habitual patterns of perception, based on those habits, conditions encountered, and the maturation of different seeds, consciousness manifests as various appearances, just like things seen in a dream. They are all illusory appearances; none are real. Everything is but the activity of consciousness." \*\*Objection:\*\* If so, then Mahāyāna would be like a dream or a mute, denying the reality of all phenomena and unable to explain the inherent natures and distinctions of worldly and transcendent dharmas. How terrible! We cannot accept such a false doctrine of Mahāyāna, for all phenomena are directly observable. One cannot deny what is directly observable. \*\*Reply:\*\* How pitiful! These ignorant, unlucky people cannot believe or understand the Mahāyāna teachings. If there were truly a seer, there would be something seen. But since the seer itself does not exist, who sees what is seen? The seer cannot examine itself to know its own existence, nor can it truly examine others. Upon careful investigation, both seer and seen are utterly absent. Therefore, one should not cling to what is seen as truly existent. When the mind turns back in recollection, all those perceived objects are false. Why? Because when memories arise, there are actually no real perceptions or other experiences. Only the mind, conditioned by causes, manifests images of seeing and other experiences. Since what we recall is not real, only a false recollection arises. For example, one might recall past experiences of phenomena. When the mind looks back, those past experiences are gone—so the recollection itself is also empty. Yet we call it "recollection" as a conventional label for our habitual, deluded perceptions. Because of this recollection, beings in the world vainly generate various discriminations and disputes, clinging to the self-natures and distinctions of phenomena, sinking into the mire of wrong views from which they cannot escape. If there were truly nothing seen and nothing heard, then all would be nothing at all. How then could we now bind stones together to make a raft \[for crossing the river\]? This concludes the refutation of attachment to both internal and external phenomena.

如是外道餘乘所執至習氣擾濁心故似彼而轉。

> Thus, the attachments upheld by other paths outside the Way corrupt the heart because of habitual patterns from the past, making it appear to turn in a similar manner.

第三總結。離識我法皆非實有。故心心所決定不用離識色法不相應法及無為法為所緣緣。以離識外皆無實體故。親所緣緣。必依有體真實法故。若非心變。色等諸法。決不親緣。現在下。乃二比量。現在者。揀過未。現在觸緣。必有同時一聚心心所法相應現起。故名為聚。以八個識各有四分。自見分只能親緣自相分。不能親緣他識四分。故曰現在彼聚心心所法。非此聚識親所緣緣。因云。他聚攝故。喻如非所緣。如色非耳所緣。聲非眼所緣也。即一識中同聚心所。亦非同聚心王親緣。以王與所。自體異故。喻如餘非所取。所取即相分。能取即見分。餘非所取。即是不對能取者說名餘也。由此二比量義。可見全無外境。唯有內識似外境生又引契經證之。

> Third Summary: Apart from consciousness, both self and dharmas are not truly real. Therefore, mental dharmas and primary minds definitely do not, apart from consciousness, use form-dharmas, dharmas not associated with mind, or unconditioned dharmas as the condition of the objective support. Because outside of consciousness, there is no real entity. The direct objective support must depend on a real, substantial dharmas. If it is not transformation of mind, various dharmas such as form can never be the direct object of cognition. "Present" in the following: These are two inferences. "Present" refers to excluding the past and future. Present conditions and objects necessarily have, simultaneously, a collection of mind and mental dharmas arising in correspondence with one another; therefore, it is called a "collection." Because the eight consciousnesses each have four divisions, the self-witnessing part can only directly perceive its own object division and cannot directly perceive the four divisions of other consciousnesses. Hence: "The mind and mental dharmas of that present collection are not the direct objective support of this collection's consciousness." The reason: "Because it is included in another collection." The analogy: "Just as that which is not the object, as form is not an object of the ear, and sound is not an object of the eye." Even within the same consciousness, mental dharmas of the same collection are not directly cognized by the primary mind of the same collection. Because the primary mind and its mental factors are different in substance. The analogy: "Just as the remainder is not what is apprehended." "What is apprehended" refers to the object division, and "what apprehends" refers to the seeing division. "The remainder is not what is apprehended" means: what is not related to the apprehending subject is called "remainder." From these two inferences, the meaning is clear: there are no external objects at all. Only inner consciousness appears similar to external objects arising. Furthermore, a sutra is cited as evidence.

有作是難若無離識至如何說心似外境轉。

> If this were the case, the problem arises: if there is no object apart from consciousness, how can we say that the mind appears to operate in terms of external objects?

第四重釋外難。此難即從上似字而生。謂相見說為似我法者。為當似誰。曰。以內似外。以有似無。約此說似也。故此難云。有真事方有似事。依此二事共相。然後可說似事為假。如有真火。方說有似火人。以此人有似火猛赤色法。方可假說此人為火。我法既無。復何所似。豈可牛毛返似龜毛耶。似既不成。云何說言心似彼轉。

> \*\*Fourth: Resolving an External Objection\*\* This objection arises from the word "seems" used above. It asks: when we say that perceived forms and mental objects seem to be a self or phenomena, what exactly do they resemble? The answer is: they seem to be an inner representation of an outer reality, or they seem to be something that exists resembling something that does not. It is in this sense that we speak of "seems." Now the objection continues: for something to "seem like" something else, there must first be a real thing it resembles. For example, we can only speak of a person "seeming like fire" if there is actual fire whose qualities—such as redness and heat—the person's appearance resembles. But if the self and phenomena have no true existence, what could mental images possibly resemble? Can cow hair resemble turtle hair? Since there is no basis for resemblance, how can you say that the mind projects images that seem like objects?

彼難非理離識我法至由此假說不依實成。

> That would be unreasonable, because "self" and "objects" are separate from the mind. <note>to</note> Therefore, this is merely a conventional teaching, not based on ultimate reality.

此釋難分二。先明喻。後顯法。喻中一總二別。總中特破真火二字。為彼以真火喻所執我法故。言汝之真火。已破成非。何勞再舉。緣前廣破我法執皆不成故。故依類依實假說火等皆不成也。同德曰類。共體曰實。依類即是共法。依實即是真火。下分二節破之。破依類云。火以能熱能照為德。人猛赤相無此德故。即非同類。若與火無共德而可假說為火人者。則亦可於水等物假說火等名矣。何為依類乎。若謂德雖不同。而人與猛赤常不相離。亦可假說者。則現見猛赤非人。人非猛赤。即猛赤在人。亦有時而不現者。安在其為不相離也。既不共德。又互相離。若依類方可假說者。則不應言有似火人。而今常言有似火人。則知假說不依似事立矣。破依實云。人與火共體。方可言依實。人與火猛赤德非共體有。故依實假說理亦不成。謂猛赤之德。在火則能熱能照。在人則身熱心煩。其體各別。其所依則有情無情亦各別故。無共德而假說彼。有水濫火名之過。猶夫前耳。若謂人有煖德與火相似。可假說者。理亦不然。說火在人。是猛赤相。非在煖德說人似火。故知假說亦不依實事立也。

> This explanation is divided into two parts: first, clarifying the analogy, and second, revealing the underlying teaching. The analogy is further divided into a general statement and two specific points. The general statement specifically refutes the notion of "true fire," because the opponent uses the idea of "true fire" as an analogy for the self and phenomena they believe in. You say, "Your 'true fire' has already been shown to be invalid. Why bring it up again?" This is because we have already thoroughly refuted the attachment to self and phenomena—they are ultimately baseless. Therefore, any notion of classifying or grounding fire in a concrete reality—or any similar claim—is also groundless. "Class" refers to shared characteristics; "reality" refers to a shared physical basis. Classifying something based on shared characteristics means using a general category, while grounding it in reality means using a concrete entity like "true fire." The following two sections break this down. \*\*Refuting the idea of classification by shared characteristics:\*\* Fire's defining traits are its ability to produce heat and light. A person with a fierce, red complexion does not possess these traits, so they do not belong to the same class. If you could call something "fire" just because it lacks the shared characteristics of fire, you could also call water "fire," and so on. What would be the point of classification by shared characteristics? If you argue that even though the traits are different, "person" and "fierce red complexion" are never separate, so the analogy is valid, then we can see directly: the fierce red is not the person, and the person is not the fierceness. Even when fierceness appears within a person, it is sometimes not evident. So how can they be said to be inseparable? Since they share no common traits and are separable, if classification by shared characteristics were necessary for an analogy, we could never say someone is "fiery." And yet, we often do! This shows that analogy does not rely on establishing shared categories. \*\*Refuting the idea of grounding in a shared reality:\*\* For the analogy of "grounding in reality" to work, people and fire must share a common physical basis. But the traits of fierceness and redness do not belong to a shared basis between fire and people. So the logic of "grounding in reality" also fails to hold. The trait of fierceness-redness, in fire, means it can burn and illuminate. In a person, it refers to bodily heat or mental agitation. Their natures are entirely different. Likewise, the beings they depend on—animate and inanimate—are also distinct. If you could make analogies based on traits that are not shared, you'd be guilty of confusing water and fire, just like before. If you argue that human warmth is similar to fire, and therefore the analogy works, this is also incorrect. When we say "fire in a person," we are referring to the image of fierceness and redness, not to a quality of warmth. So we know that analogy is not built upon a grounding in concrete reality.

又假必依真事立者至故於識所變假說我法名。

> Again, the provisional must depend on the true reality to be established. Therefore, within the transformations of consciousness, we provisionally speak of the self and dharmas in name only.

此又明假事不依真事立。後結成正義。宗鏡云。何故名自相共相。曰。若法自體。唯證智知。言說不及。是為自相。若法體性。言說所及。假智所緣。是為共相。言假智者。即作行解心。名假智也。言詮者。心上解心名句文。及聲上名句文。是能詮。皆不得所詮自相也。顯假不依真。唯依共相轉。即此真事。不說心識實體名真。但心所取法自體相。言說不及。假智緣不著。說之為真。此唯現量智知。性離言說。及智分別。此出真體。非智詮及。如色法等而為自性。水濕為性。但可證知。言說不及。第六意識。隨五識後起。緣此智故。發言語等。但是所緣所說法之共相。非彼自相。又遮得自相。名得共相。若所變中有共相法是可得者。即得自體。應一切法可說可緣。故共相法亦說緣不及。然非是執。不堅取故。又言說若著自相者。說火之時。火應燒口。火以燒物為自相故。緣亦如是。緣火之時。火應燒心。今不燒心。及不燒口。明緣及說俱得共相。若爾。喚火何不得水。不得火之自相故。如喚於水。此理不然。無始慣習共呼故。又自相者。即諸法之自體相。如火以煖為自相。喚火之時不得煖故。不得自相。此煖自相。唯身識現量證故。非名所得。共相者。此以名下所詮之義名共相。如詮火等法時。遮非火等。此義即通一切火上。故名共相也。能詮。即言說。所詮。即假智。此假智詮。亦非離此共相。外別有方便。施設自相。為彼所依。然假智詮。必依相似言聲而起。聲不及處此假智詮。便不流轉。由能詮所詮。俱不能親證自相。故知假說不依真事。但依似事而轉。似謂增益者。謂現量智了自相已。於後剎那。有同類智。是有分別變現影像。乃從相上增益其相。故名為似。如照鏡人。形之與影。宛然二人。非增益乎。聲依智詮。唯依增益似相而轉。故不可說假必依真也。問。既假事不依真立。此假我法依何而起。答云。雖不依真。然依內識變現而有。由彼外道餘乘。妄計心外實有我法。為對遣此執。故說似我似法是內識所變。其意若曰。外境雖無。談汝執情。外境實有。故為所似耳。以內似外。以有似無。此之謂也。此段近結當文。遠結前文頌中。由假說我法。有種種相轉。彼依識所變三句。通上略辨唯識分中。一釋前三句頌竟。

> This further clarifies that provisional phenomena do not rely on true phenomena to be established. The conclusion is then stated as the correct principle. The \*Source Mirror\* says: "What is meant by 'own-nature' and 'common nature'? If a thing's own essence is known only through direct perception, beyond the reach of words, that is its own-nature. If a thing's essence can be reached by words and conceptual understanding, that is its common nature. 'Conceptual knowledge' refers to the mind that engages in interpretation. Words and phrases—both those in the mind and those on the sound—are the means of expression. None of them can grasp the own-nature of what is expressed. This shows that the provisional does not depend on the true, but only operates within the sphere of common nature." Now, as for "true phenomena": It doesn't mean that the mind and consciousness themselves are called "true." Rather, "true" refers to the own-nature of a thing that the mind takes as its object—something that cannot be expressed in words and cannot be reached by conceptual knowledge. This is known only through direct perception, its nature transcends both words and mental discrimination. This is the essence of the true—it cannot be reached by concepts or words. For example, the inherent nature of color or the wetness of water can only be known directly, not described in words. The sixth consciousness arises after the five senses, and when it perceives objects, it generates language. But what it perceives and describes is only the common nature of phenomena, not their own-nature. By negating own-nature, we arrive at common nature. If a mental image contained common nature that could be directly grasped, then one could directly know the essence of all things, and everything could be described or grasped conceptually. But since common nature itself cannot be fully expressed or directly known—though it is not a false clinging, as the mind does not hold it rigidly—this shows that both speech and conceptualization deal only with common nature. If speech could grasp own-nature, then when we say "fire," fire would burn the mouth, since burning is its nature. Likewise, if conceptual thought could grasp own-nature, when we think of fire, it would burn the mind. But since neither the mouth nor the mind is burned, clearly both speech and thought deal only with common nature. If that were not the case, why can't the word "fire" bring water? Because we cannot directly obtain fire's own-nature through the word; just as calling "water" does not give us its own-nature. This is not unreasonable—it is due to our habitual conditioning since beginningless time, whereby we collectively assign names. Furthermore, "own-nature" is the intrinsic quality of each phenomenon. Fire has heat as its own-nature, but when we say "fire," we do not obtain heat. Thus, we do not obtain own-nature through words. Heat as own-nature can only be directly perceived by the body's sense consciousness, not attained by naming. "Common nature" refers to the meaning conveyed by a name—when we say "fire," it excludes non-fire, and this meaning applies to all instances of fire. Therefore, it is called common nature. "Expression" means language; "expressed meaning" refers to conceptual knowledge. This conceptual expression does not exist apart from common nature, nor is there any separate means to directly designate own-nature as its basis. However, conceptual expression must rely on similar sound-words; where sound cannot reach, conceptual expression does not flow. Since both expression and meaning cannot directly experience own-nature, we know that provisional designations do not depend on true phenomena, but only on "similar phenomena" (apparent phenomena). "Similar" means amplified—when direct perception has known own-nature, in the next moment a similar kind of understanding arises, which is discriminatory and produces an image. From the original nature, this image amplifies it, hence the term "similar." It is like someone looking in a mirror: the person and the reflection seem like two separate people—is that not an amplification? Sound arises through conceptual expression, which operates only through amplified similar images. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisional must depend on the true. Question: Since provisional phenomena do not rely on true phenomena for their existence, what are these provisional "self" and "phenomena" based on? Answer: Though they do not rely on the true, they arise due to the transformations of the inner consciousness. Because outsiders and followers of other vehicles mistakenly imagine a real self and real phenomena outside the mind, in order to counter and eliminate this clinging, the scriptures say that the apparent self and apparent phenomena are transformations of the inner consciousness. The meaning is this: although external objects do not exist, it is suggested that from the perspective of your grasping, these external objects do appear to be real—hence they serve as apparent objects. The inner appears as outer, the existent appears as the non-existent—this is the principle. This passage concludes the present discussion, and also sums up the preceding verses: "By the provisional designations of self and phenomena, various forms appear, and they arise from transformations of consciousness." This completes the brief discernment of consciousness-only in the earlier section—the explanation of the first three lines of the verse.

識所變相雖無量種至名為異熟非謂一切。

> The forms transformed by consciousness, though countless in variety—some are classified as \*vipāka\* (retributive fruition), but this does not mean all of them.

二釋三能變。即後三句頌。此即釋頌中此能變唯三一句。識所變相。即牒上頌中語。以該我法種種相也。初能變名異熟者。有三義故。謂變異而熟。異時而熟。異類而熟。種變異時。果方熟故。造因果熟。定異時故。因通善惡。果唯無記。因果性異故。異字屬因。熟字屬果。因果不同。作相違釋。異及熟也。或異之熟。若異字屬果。異即是熟。或異熟屬現。異熟即識。持業釋也。若異熟屬種。異熟之識。依主釋也。雖第六亦有異熟。而唯一分。八識偏多。故曰多異熟性。二能變名思量者。思。謂思慮。量。謂量度。慮度第八見分為自內我。恒者。無間義。審者。執我義思。量即識。持業釋也。雖諸識皆有思量。然或恒而不審。或審而不恒。唯第七亦恒亦審故。三能變名了境者。了。謂了達。雖七八識亦能了境。依內門轉。唯了細境唯第六識住外門故。了麤相境。及言。明頌中及字。乃前五識與第六識合為一種也。前五取境。必有同時意識起故。次釋能變義。一因能變。即種子現行門。種子生現行。名因習氣。於中有二。先標。後釋。等流習氣者。即前七識中三性種子。各生自現。熏第八種。而令增長。唯除第八。不能熏故。異熟習氣者。由前六識善惡現行。熏第八善惡異熟種子而令增長。唯除第七。七是無記。非異熟因故。前是因緣。此增上緣也。二果能變。即前二因所生現果。謂有緣法能變現者。名果能變。種種相者。即第八識相應心所相見分等。及苦樂等種種現果。等流習氣為因緣下。別釋。前七識以三性力熏第八識成種生長。即現八識三性種子各自生現。名等流果。所生之果。與能生種。性是一故。因果相似名等。是彼類故名流。善種生善現行。煩惱種生惡現行。無記種生無記現行。是等流果。殺生得短命報。放生得長壽報。名假等流。是增上果。異熟果者。由前六善惡業為殊勝增上緣。招感第八酬他引業。長時無間。立異熟名。引。謂牽引。謂業有力能引總報。即前六識造善惡業。牽引第八受善惡報。相續不斷。名異熟果。其前六識所造之業。能滿自識善惡二果。名異熟生。以從第八體上生故。不名異熟。以前六識有間斷故。六識不徧無色界等。無心定等。六識皆不行故。故第八名總報主。而第六名別報主也。單言異熟。不攝別報。言異熟生。總別皆是。因通善惡。果唯無記。故曰果異因故。此異熟名。雖有多義。此中但取受熏持種能變善惡二果本識。名為異熟。非謂異時異聖變異等一切義也。通上略辨唯識竟。

> \*\*Explanation of the Three Transformations\*\* This explanation corresponds to the last three lines of the verse, specifically the line "These transformations are only three." The various forms and characteristics that consciousness takes on refer to what was mentioned in the previous verse, encompassing all types of self and phenomena. \*\*First Transformation: The "Ripening" Consciousness\*\* This aspect is called "ripening" for three reasons: ripening through change, ripening at a different time, and ripening into a different category. When seeds undergo change, the results ripen only later. When we create karma, the results must necessarily ripen at a different time. Causes can be good or evil, but the result is always neutral (non-defining). Cause and effect belong to different categories. The word "different" applies to the cause, and "ripening" applies to the result. Since cause and effect are not the same, this is a "contradictory explanation" — different and yet ripening. Or it could mean "ripening of something different." If "different" belongs to the result, then "different" is itself the ripening. Or if "ripening" refers to the present, then "ripening consciousness" means the eighth consciousness itself — this is a "possessive explanation." If "ripening" refers to seeds, then it is "ripening seeds of consciousness" — a "dependent explanation." Although the sixth consciousness also has a ripening aspect, it is only a part of it. The eighth consciousness has this quality predominantly, so it is said to have a "mostly ripening nature." \*\*Second Transformation: The "Thinking" Consciousness\*\* "Thinking" means to deliberate, and "measuring" means to weigh and evaluate. It deliberates and evaluates the seeing aspect of the eighth consciousness, mistaking it for a permanent self within. "Constant" means without interruption; "thorough" means holding onto self. Thinking and measuring are themselves consciousness — this is a "possessive explanation." Although all consciousnesses have the capacity for thinking and measuring, some are constant but not thorough, and others are thorough but not constant. Only the seventh consciousness is both constant and thorough. \*\*Third Transformation: The "Object-Discernment" Consciousness\*\* "Discernment" means to understand and reach. Although the seventh and eighth consciousnesses also discern objects, they operate internally, only discerning subtle objects. Only the sixth consciousness operates externally, discerning coarse objects. The word "and" in the verse indicates that the first five consciousnesses and the sixth consciousness are grouped together. When the first five consciousnesses perceive objects, a simultaneous sixth consciousness necessarily arises. \*\*Next: Explanation of the Meaning of "Transformation"\*\* \*\*1. Transformations Based on Causes (Seeds)\*\* This is the process of seeds giving rise to manifest consciousness. When seeds produce their manifest forms, this is called "cause-based habituation." There are two types: - \*\*Equal-Flow Habituation:\*\* This refers to the seeds of the three natures (good, evil, neutral) within the first seven consciousnesses. Each type generates its own manifest consciousness, and in turn, it perfumes the eighth consciousness, causing those seeds to grow. The eighth consciousness itself is excluded from this because it cannot perfume. - \*\*Ripening-Flow Habituation:\*\* This arises when the first six consciousnesses engage in good or evil actions. These actions perfume the eighth consciousness, creating seeds for good or evil ripening results, causing them to grow. The seventh consciousness is excluded here because it is neutral (non-defining) and therefore not a cause of ripening. The first type is a direct cause; the second is a supporting condition. \*\*2. Transformations Based on Results\*\* This refers to the manifest results produced by the two types of causes described above. When a conditioned phenomenon has the capacity to manifest, it is called a "result-based transformation." The phrase "various forms" refers to the mental factors, the seeing and perceived aspects of the eighth consciousness, and various manifest results such as pleasure and pain. Under "The equal-flow habituation as the direct cause..." there is further explanation. The first seven consciousnesses, by the power of the three natures, perfume the eighth consciousness, causing its seeds to grow. These seeds then generate their respective manifest forms of the eighth and other consciousnesses. This is called an "equal-flow result." The result that arises and the seed that gave rise to it share the same nature. Because cause and effect are similar, it is called "equal." Because they belong to the same category, it is called "flow." - Good seeds produce good manifest actions. - Defiled (afflicted) seeds produce evil manifest actions. - Neutral seeds produce neutral manifest actions. This is the true equal-flow result. - Killing brings a short life. - Releasing beings brings a long life. This is called a "false equal-flow result," which is actually a "predominant result" (from a distinct cause). \*\*The Ripening Result:\*\* This refers to the powerful good and evil actions of the first six consciousnesses acting as a strong supporting condition. This causes the eighth consciousness to receive the karmic consequences of those actions over a long, uninterrupted period. This is given the specific name "ripening result." "Leading" means guiding. It means that the action has the power to guide the overall result. The good and evil actions created by the first six consciousnesses guide the eighth consciousness to receive either a good or evil result, continuing without interruption. This is the ripening result. The actions of the first six consciousnesses that can fulfill the good and evil results of their own consciousness are called "ripening-born." Because they arise from the basis of the eighth consciousness, they are not directly called "ripening." This is also because the first six consciousnesses are intermittent — they do not operate in the formless realm or during states of meditative absorption like cessation. Therefore, the eighth consciousness is the "main result-holder," while the sixth consciousness is the "secondary result-holder." When the term "ripening" is used alone, it does not include the secondary result. When "ripening-born" is used, it includes both the main and secondary results. The cause can be good or evil, but the result is always neutral. Therefore, it is said, "the result differs from the cause." Although this term "ripening" has multiple meanings, in this context it specifically refers to the fundamental consciousness that receives perfuming, holds seeds, and transforms to produce good and evil results. This consciousness is called "ripening." It does not refer to all the other meanings like "ripening at a different time" or "ripening through change." This ends the overview of the Consciousness-Only doctrine.

下廣辨唯識分二。一明三能變。二答五外問。一又分三。即初二三種能變。

> Now I will explain the theory of Consciousness-Only in detail. This explanation has two parts: first, clarifying the three transformations of consciousness; second, answering five external questions. The first part is further divided into three, corresponding to the first, second, and third types of transformation.

今初能變分三。一結前標問。二天親頌。三釋頌意。

> Now, regarding the first transformation (of consciousness), this is divided into three parts: 1. Concluding the preceding and posing a question. 2. Vasubandhu's verse. 3. Explaining the meaning of the verse.

雖已略說能變三名至且初能變其相云何。

> Although we have briefly explained the three types of transforming consciousness, let us now focus on the first. What is its nature and characteristics?

一結前標問。

> \*\*Question:\*\* After summarizing what came before, let me ask this directly.

頌曰初阿賴耶識至恒轉如暴流阿羅漢位捨。

> Verse: The primal Alaya consciousness, Rolls on like a raging torrent, Ceasing only at the stage of Arhatship.

此天親第二半頌。及第三第四頌。總有十二門。一自相門。即初阿賴耶識。二果相門。即異熟。三因相門。即一切種。四不可知門。即不可知。五所緣門。即執受處。六行相門。即了。七相應門。即常與觸作意受想思相應。八受俱門。即唯捨受。九三性門。即是無覆無記。十心所例王門。即觸等亦如是。十一因果法喻門。即恒轉如暴流。十二伏斷位次門。即阿羅漢位捨。

> The second, third, and fourth verses by Vasubandhu contain twelve categories: 1. Category of Self-Nature—that is, the fundamental consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). 2. Category of Result-Nature—that is, its karmic ripening (vipāka). 3. Category of Cause-Nature—that is, the seeds of all phenomena. 4. Category of Inaccessibility—that is, its ineffable quality. 5. Category of Object—that is, what it grasps and supports. 6. Category of Mode—that is, its function of perceiving. 7. Category of Association—that is, its constant connection with contact, attention, feeling, recognition, and intention. 8. Category of Feeling—that is, it is associated only with neutral feeling. 9. Category of Three Natures—that is, it is neutral and untainted (anivṛta-avyākṛta). 10. Category of Mental Factors Analogous to the Mind—that is, contact and the rest are similarly structured. 11. Category of Causal and Illustrative Simile—that is, it flows constantly like a raging torrent. 12. Category of Stages of Cessation—that is, it ceases only at the stage of an arhat.

下三釋頌意分二。

> The next three sections explain the meaning of the verses. This is divided into two parts.

一正釋頌意。二證有識體。

> Proper Explanation of the Verse. And Validation of the Conscious Principle.

一正釋頌意分八。

> I now explain the true meaning of the verse, which unfolds in eight parts.

論曰初能變識大小乘教至藏初過重是故偏說。

> The Treatise states: The first transformative consciousness \[the ālaya-vijñāna\] is discussed first because it surpasses the teachings of both the Mahayana and Hinayana traditions.

一釋自相門。大小乘教名阿賴耶。真諦就名翻為無沒識。取不失之義。奘師就義翻為藏識。能含藏諸法種故。為此識體具三藏義。能藏所藏執藏故。一能藏者。即能含藏義。猶如庫藏。能含藏寶貝。故得藏名。此能含藏雜染種故名為藏。亦即持義。此約持種邊說。二所藏者。即是所依義。猶如庫藏。是寶等所依故。此識是雜染所依處故。此約受熏邊說。三執藏者。堅守不捨義。猶如金銀等藏。為人堅守。執為自內我。故名為藏。此識為染末那堅執為我。故名為藏。起信鈔釋云。第八能藏所藏義者。且所藏義。謂此識體藏。是根身種子器世間所藏處也。以根身等是此識相分故。如藏中物像。如身在室內。欲覓賴耶識。只在色心中。欲覔摩尼珠。只在青黃內。次能藏義。謂根身等法。皆藏在識身之中。如像在珠內。欲覔一切法。總在賴耶中。欲覔一切像。總在摩尼內。與前義互為能所。雜染者。簡清淨法。互為緣。即更互為因果。說見後條。即具能所二藏義。有情執為自內我者。釋執藏義。以第七為有情識故。自內我。揀他外我。以色等為他外我故。此即顯示下。釋此藏名。依自相立。以藏識能攝持因果故。攝謂收攝。持謂執持。攝是能藏所藏義。持是執藏義。然無能藏。亦無所藏執藏。二種唯能藏義過失最重。是故偏說。此明藏識專以能藏得名之故。世親云。謂緣一切雜染品法。所有熏習。能生於彼功能差別。識為自性。為欲顯示如是功能。故說攝持種子相應。謂依一切雜染品法所有熏習。即與彼法為能生因。攝持種子者。功能差別也。相應者是修義。是名安立此識自相。

> \*\*Section One: The Self-Nature of the Consciousness\*\* In both Mahayana and Hinayana teachings, this consciousness is called Alaya. Master Paramartha translated it as the "Unlost Consciousness," emphasizing the sense of never being lost. Master Xuanzang translated it as the "Storehouse Consciousness," based on its meaning, because it can contain and hold the seeds of all phenomena. This consciousness’s essence has three aspects of "storehouse": the storehouse that can contain, the storehouse that is contained, and the storehouse that is grasped. \*\*1. The Storehouse that Can Contain\*\* – this refers to the ability to hold, like a treasury that can hold treasures, hence the name "storehouse." This storehouse can hold the seeds of all defiled phenomena, thus it is called a storehouse. It also has the meaning of "sustaining." This aspect speaks to its function of holding seeds. \*\*2. The Storehouse that Is Contained\*\* – this refers to the meaning of being a basis, like a treasury that serves as the basis for treasures, etc. This consciousness is the basis on which all defiled phenomena depend. This aspect speaks to its function of being receptive to influence. \*\*3. The Storehouse that Is Grasped\*\* – this refers to the meaning of firmly holding without letting go, like a hoard of gold or silver that a person guards tenaciously, holding it as their own personal possession, thus it is called a storehouse. This consciousness is tenaciously grasped as a self by the defiled \*manas\* (the seventh consciousness), hence it is called a storehouse. The \*Awakening of Faith Commentary\* explains: Regarding the eighth consciousness's aspects of being able to contain and being contained: First, the aspect of being contained means that this consciousness's essence is the container where the physical body, seeds, and the material world are stored. Because the physical body and such are the perceived objects of this consciousness, like objects in a storehouse or a person inside a room. If you want to find the Alaya consciousness, it is only within matter and mind. If you want to find the wish-fulfilling gem, it is only within blue and yellow colors. Second, the aspect of being able to contain means that phenomena like the physical body are all stored inside this consciousness, like an image inside a gem. If you want to find all phenomena, they are all within the Alaya. If you want to find all images, they are all within the wish-fulfilling gem. These two aspects are mutually cause and effect. "Defiled" refers to all impure phenomena, as opposed to pure dharmas. They are "mutually conditioning," meaning they serve as each other's causes and effects. This is explained in the following clause. Thus, the consciousness has these two aspects of being able to contain and being contained. Sentient beings grasping it as their own inner self explains the aspect of "the grasped storehouse." This is because the seventh consciousness is the defiled sentient being's consciousness. Their own inner self is distinguished from an external self, as physical forms are considered an external self. This then shows—explaining the name of this storehouse—is established based on its own self-nature. Because the Storehouse Consciousness can hold and sustain causes and effects. "Hold" means to receive and contain; "sustain" means to firmly grasp. "Holding" relates to the aspects of being able to contain and being contained. "Sustaining" relates to the aspect of being grasped. However, without the aspect of being able to contain, there would be no aspects of being contained or being grasped. Among these two, the meaning of being able to contain has the most severe consequence with its potential faults, which is why it is particularly emphasized. This clarifies why the Storehouse Consciousness is specifically named for its ability to contain. Vasubandhu said: It is described as that which conditions all defiled phenomena and all their influences, giving rise to distinct functions regarding those phenomena. Its own nature is consciousness. To display this function, it is said to be associated with holding and sustaining seeds. That is, depending on all defiled phenomena and their influences, it serves as the generating cause for those phenomena. "Holding and sustaining seeds" refers to those distinct functions. "Associated" means to be connected. This is what establishes the self-nature of this consciousness.

此是能引諸界趣生至異熟實不共故偏說之。

> This is what leads to rebirth in various realms and states of existence,<note>up to</note> and produces the actual results of karma. Because this effect is truly unique to each individual, it is emphasized in particular.

二釋果相門。由前世前六脩五戒十善等業。招感今生天人總別異熟樂果。若前世前六作十不善業。招感今生三途總別異熟苦果。由此義故。說名異熟。由依此識相分種子。假立命根。由依此識身心分位。假立同分。若無此識。則一切命根眾同分等異生勝異熟果不可得故。此識果相雖多。而異熟此識所專。故偏說之。世親云。謂即依彼雜染品法。無始熏習。此識續生。而能攝持無始熏習。是名安立此識果相。

> \*\*Explanation of the Result Aspect (Phala-lakṣaṇa)\*\* Based on the cultivation of the five precepts and ten good deeds in previous lives through the first six consciousnesses, we experience the pleasant karmic results of being reborn as a human or in the heavenly realms, both individually and collectively, in this life. Conversely, if the first six consciousnesses engaged in the ten evil deeds in previous lives, this causes us to experience the painful karmic results of rebirth in the three lower realms, both individually and collectively, in the present life. Because of this principle, it is called "karmic fruition" (vipāka). The "life faculty" (jīvitendriya) is established provisionally based on the seeds that are the objective supports (nimitta) of this consciousness. The "similar classification" (nikāya-sabhāga) is also established provisionally based on the mental and physical states of this consciousness. Without this foundational consciousness, the specific and superior karmic results belonging to sentient beings—such as the life faculty and common characteristics—could not be obtained. Although this consciousness has many aspects of karmic results, it is specifically associated with karmic fruition. Therefore, this aspect is singled out for explanation. As Vasubandhu said: "That which, based on the defiled dharmas, through beginningless habituation, causes this consciousness to continue arising and holds those beginningless habituations—this is established as the result aspect of this consciousness."

此能執持諸法種子至持種不共是故偏說。

> This can retain the seeds of all phenomena— unique in its ability to sustain these seeds, which is why it is emphasized.

三釋。一因相門分二。先總釋。後別釋。今初。能持諸種。名一切種。全取他名。即有財釋也。餘法者。即餘色心等法。及二所顯不相應法。或有間轉。或無實體。故離第八。餘能持種不可得故。此識因相雖多。而持種義。他識所無。故偏說之。世親曰。謂即次前所說品類一切種子阿賴耶識。由彼雜染品類諸法熏習所成功能差別。為彼生因。是名安立此識因相。右攝論所說三相。與此小異。故存世親之釋以便參攷。

> \*\*3. Explanation\*\* \*\*Part One: The Door of Causal Characteristics\*\* is divided into two sections. First, a general explanation; second, a detailed explanation. \*\*Now the general explanation:\*\* Being able to hold all seeds is called “all seeds.” This name is formed by taking the object (the “all seeds”) and using it to name the subject (the consciousness that holds them)—this is known as the “possessor-of-the-object” (upapādārtha) compound. “Other phenomena” refers to all other dharmas of form, mind, and so on, as well as the two kinds of unconditioned dharmas and the dharmas not associated with mind. Some of these may undergo change or cessation, while others lack a substantial essence. Therefore, apart from the eighth consciousness (ālayavijñāna), there is no other entity capable of holding seeds. Although this consciousness has many causal characteristics, the function of holding seeds is unique to it and not found in other consciousnesses. Thus, it is emphasized here. \*\*Vasubandhu says:\*\* “What is meant here is precisely the next-preceding category of all-seed ālayavijñāna. Through the impregnation (vāsanā) of all defiled and impure dharmas, this consciousness functions as a specific potentiality and serves as the generating cause for those dharmas. This is called establishing the causal characteristic of this consciousness.” The description of the three characteristics in the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* cited above differs slightly from this. Therefore, Vasubandhu’s explanation is preserved here for reference.

初能變識體相雖多略說唯有如是三相。

> The initial transformative consciousness, though its essence and characteristics are numerous, can be summarized in just these three aspects.

總結略說三名。天親云。決定藏論中。明本識有八相。異彼廣說。故言略說有三種。後別釋一切種分四。一正明種相。二明種子二義。三明種子六義。四能所熏。

> Let me briefly summarize three key points. As explained by Vasubandhu, the \*Decisive Treasury Treatise\* describes the fundamental consciousness through eight aspects, differing from more extensive explanations. Therefore, this summary covers three essentials. Later, the interpretation of the "all-seeds aspect" is divided into four parts: First, clarifying the characteristics of the seed; Second, explaining the two meanings of a seed; Third, describing the six qualities of a seed; Fourth, explaining the condition of the perceiver and the perceived.

一切種相應更分別至非無記性所攝異熟。

> All forms of conditioning, when further differentiated,<note>until</note>do not belong to the karmic retribution associated with the undetermined (neutral) nature.

一正明種相。初句標。次句徵。又次句正指種體。此與下。明非一異。本識。即第八。第八自證分上一分親生現行功能。謂之種子。世親云。攝持種子者。功能差別也。能攝持是識功能。能生現是種子功能。一切雜染品法不同。故言差別。又第八識從種子生。故名果報識。能攝持種子。故亦名種子識。又本識是集諦。故名種子。是苦諦。故名果報。體用因果者。本識是體。種子是用。種子是因。所生是果。此之二法。理應如是。不一不異。本識望種。於出體中攝相歸性。故皆無記。種從現行望於本識相用別論。故通三性。若即是一。不可說為有因果法。有體有法。若一向異。應糓麥等能生豆等。以許因果一向異故。不爾。法滅應方有用。以許體用一向異故。用體相似。氣勢必同。因果相似。功能狀貌。可相隨順。非一向異。然言不一不異。恐同菩提子計。有法與有等性非一非異。故又言雖非一異。而體是實有。不同假法。假法如畢竟無。不能生果。非因緣故。外人難云。此本識。與所生諸法。既非一異。應如瓶等。泥團與瓶。非一異故。必許瓶體是相狀假。則汝本識同瓶是假。識中無漏真如種子。亦應是假。則違自宗真勝義諦。量云。此與諸法是假非實宗。因云。不一不異故。喻如瓶等。論主答云。此說種子體是實有者。唯依世俗諦中說故。不同真如勝義諦說。以真如性離非一異戲論種故。種子雖依下。釋有漏種不同真如義。言種子雖依第八為體。即是第八相分。非餘。是第八見分所取故。雖非一異。而是有體實法。不可言無。諸有漏種子。是第八所緣。真如無漏種子。非彼因中所緣。俟轉依時。鏡智圓明。方得緣故。此有漏種。與本第八識。體無別故。性類是同。唯是無記。若能所生法。皆通善等三性。謂此種子本能熏習現行之因。及後所生現行之果。皆通三性。故言因果俱善等性。即是功能差別門說。非依體門。性唯無記。此約有漏種說。若無漏種。非異熟性所攝故。故非無記。體性不順本識體故。體既不同。不可相即。又性類別。能治所治漏無漏殊。不可相即。外人又難云。若無漏種非異熟性。何故彼說皆異熟種。皆異熟生。二十二根者。即五色根。男女二根。命根。意根。五受根。信等五根。三無漏根彼難三無漏根同異熟故。論主答云。雖決擇分說皆異孰種。不與第八同無記性。二十二法皆善性故。謂此諸法。依異熟識故。名異熟種。如眼等識。依異熟故。名異熟生。皆是異性相依。決不同性。或無漏種下。又作一義釋異熟名。謂無漏種子。由熏習力。轉變成熟。立異熟名。非是無記第八異熟。故知無漏唯善性攝。

> \*\*Clarifying the Nature of Seeds (Bīja) and the Fundamental Consciousness (Ālaya)\*\* The initial statement establishes the view; the next sentence raises a question; and the following sentence directly identifies the essence of what a "seed" is. The discussion below clarifies that seeds and the Fundamental Consciousness are neither identical nor entirely different. The Fundamental Consciousness is the Eighth Consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna). On its self-validating part, one aspect gives rise directly to active manifestations, and this function is called a "seed." Vasubandhu says: "That which holds and sustains seeds is the function of differentiation." What holds and sustains is the function of consciousness; what gives rise to active states is the function of seeds. All defiled phenomena are different, hence the term "differentiation." Moreover, the Eighth Consciousness arises from seeds, so it is also called the "Resultant Consciousness." Because it holds and sustains seeds, it is also called the "Seed Consciousness." Furthermore, the Fundamental Consciousness belongs to the truth of origination (samudaya-satya), so it is called "seeds"; it belongs to the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya), so it is called "result." Regarding substance, function, cause, and effect: The Fundamental Consciousness is the substance; seeds are its function. Seeds are the cause; what they produce is the effect. These two aspects should be understood as neither one nor different. From the perspective of the Fundamental Consciousness in relation to seeds, when we extract the essence and return it to its nature, both are morally neutral (avyākṛta). But when seeds are considered from the standpoint of their active manifestations in relation to the Fundamental Consciousness, because we distinguish between aspect and function, they may be virtuous, unvirtuous, or neutral. If they were simply identical, we could not speak of a causal relationship between a cause and its effect, or of a substance having functions. If they were entirely different, then grains like millet and wheat could produce beans like peas, because we would have to accept that cause and effect are wholly different. Otherwise, only when a phenomenon ceased would its function arise, because we would have to accept that substance and function are entirely distinct. In fact, function and substance share a similar momentum; cause and effect share a similar pattern and capability. They follow each other—not being entirely different. Thus, we say they are neither one nor different, to avoid falling into the view that, for instance, "the quality of being blue" and "blueness itself" are neither one nor different. Even though they are neither one nor different, the seed itself is a real entity, unlike conceptual constructs (prajñapti-dharma). Conceptual constructs, like absolute non-existence, cannot produce effects because they are not causal conditions. An opponent might argue: Since the Fundamental Consciousness and the phenomena it produces are neither one nor different, they should be like a pot, where the lump of clay and the pot are neither one nor different. In that case, you would have to admit that the Fundamental Consciousness is a conceptual construct like a pot, and that the seeds of the Uncontaminated (anāsrava) Thusness within consciousness are also conceptual constructs. This would contradict your own doctrine of the ultimate truth. The objection uses the following syllogism: The Fundamental Consciousness and phenomena are conceptual constructs, not real entities. Reason: because they are neither one nor different. Example: like a pot. The Master replies: This teaching that seeds are real entities is only stated within the context of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). It is not like the teaching of Thusness as ultimate truth, because the nature of Thusness is free from conceptual proliferation concerning "neither one nor different." \*"Although seeds depend on..."\* explains why conditioned seeds are different from Thusness. Although seeds depend on the Eighth Consciousness as their substance—being its perceived objects (nimitta-bhāga) and not anything else, since they are perceived by the Eighth Consciousness's perceiving aspect (darśana-bhāga)—they are neither one with nor different from it, yet they are real, substantial entities. They cannot be said to be non-existent. All conditioned seeds are objects of the Eighth Consciousness. The seeds of Uncontaminated Thusness are not objects during the causal stage; only at the stage of Transformation (āśraya-parāvṛtti), when the Mirror-like Wisdom (ādarśa-jñāna) is perfected, can they be perceived. Conditioned seeds, being no different in substance from the Fundamental Eighth Consciousness, share its nature—they are morally neutral (avyākṛta). However, their active manifestations and what they produce can be virtuous, unvirtuous, or neutral. That is, the cause that comes from previous habitual energies and the future result they produce can all be virtuous and so on. This is said from the perspective of function and differentiation, not from the perspective of substance. From the substance perspective, they are only neutral. This discussion applies to conditioned seeds. Unconditioned seeds are not included in the resultant nature (vipāka), so they are not neutral. Their nature does not conform to that of the Fundamental Consciousness. Since their substance is different, they cannot be identical. Also, because their nature differs—the remedy and the affliction being distinct as conditioned and unconditioned—they cannot be identical. Another opponent might argue: If unconditioned seeds are not of the resultant nature, why does the text say that all are resultant seeds and arise from the resultant? The Twenty-Two Faculties (indriya) are: the five physical sense faculties, the male and female faculties, the life faculty, the mental faculty, the five feeling faculties, the five faith faculties, and the three unconditioned faculties. The opponent objects that the three unconditioned faculties are also resultant. The Master replies: Although the text "Discernment and Choice" (Viniścaya) says they are all resultant seeds, they do not share the neutral nature of the Eighth Consciousness. All twenty-two faculties are virtuous. That is, these phenomena are called "resultant seeds" because they depend on the resultant consciousness, just as the eye-consciousness and other consciousnesses are called "resultant-born" because they depend on the resultant—they are different natures depending on each other and are certainly not identical. Alternatively, the term "resultant seed" for unconditioned seeds can be explained differently: By the power of habitual energy (vāsanā), they undergo transformation and maturation, hence the name "resultant seed." But this is not the neutral result of the Eighth Consciousness. Therefore, know that unconditioned seeds are only virtuous in nature.

一正明種相竟。

> The explanation of the various true characteristics of the singular reality is now complete.

此中有義一切種子至如是建立因果不亂。

> Herein lies the principle: all seeds ensure that cause and effect are established without confusion.

二明種子有本有新熏二義分三。一本有。二新熏。二正義兼本有新熏。今初。即清目等師唯立本有。謂有漏無漏俱本性有。不從熏生。由熏習力。但令本有增長成熟。如契經下。引經證。瑜伽下。引論證。惡叉聚者。毒樹果也。一枝三子。生必同科。經中取喻惑業苦三不相離義。一切種子皆悉具足者。染淨二種皆本有也。闕三菩提種者。清淨種子具而不發也。三種菩提者。一真性。二實智。三方便。真名不偽。性名不改。能照真性之智。稱理不虗。名為實智。善巧隨機。化用自在。名為方便。般涅槃者。此云入圓寂。即無漏法因也。今引瑜伽中說。從無始來有此法因。一切種子具足無此法因。便闕三種菩提種子。如此等文。誠證本有不一而足。五種性者。謂異生種性。聲聞種性。菩薩種性。如來種性。外道種性。楞伽云。云何知聲聞乘無間種性。若聞得陰界入自共相斷知時。舉身毛孔。熙怡欣悅。及樂修相智。不脩緣起發悟之相。是名聲聞乘無間種性。緣覺乘無間種性者。若聞說各別緣無間。舉身毛竪。悲泣流淚。不相近緣。所有不着。種種自身。種種神通。若離若合種種變化。聞說是時。其心隨入。是名緣覺乘無間種性。如來乘無間種性者。謂自性法無間種性。離自性法無間種性。得自覺聖無間種性。外剎殊勝無間種性。若聞此四事。心不驚怖者。是名如來乘無間種性。不定種性者。謂說彼三種時。隨說而入。隨彼而成。各別種性者。謂一闡提也。三無漏根者。一未知欲知根九根和合信法二人見諦中未知欲知。二知根信解見得二人思惟中九根和合轉名根。三知已至無學中九根轉名知。知者。即是真見道故。引地獄具此三根者。亦證種子本有故。本性住種。詳見下文。由此等證無漏種子法爾本有。例有漏種亦不熏生。第八識中本有種子。由諸轉識熏令增長。不由別別熏令生起。種起現時。種因現果。現起種時。現因種果。如是建立。因果不亂。若許新熏者。漏熏無漏。無漏熏漏。善與不善。亦互相熏。因果亂矣。

> \*\*Second: The Principle of Seeds—Three Aspects of Innate and Newly-Perfumed Seeds\*\* 1. \*\*Innate Seeds\*\* 2. \*\*Newly-Perfumed Seeds\*\* 3. \*\*The Correct View: Combining Innate and Newly-Perfumed\*\* \*\*First: The View of Innate Seeds\*\* Teachers like Qingmu hold that only innate seeds exist. They say that both contaminated and uncontaminated seeds are inherently present in our nature from the beginning. They are not produced by perming. The power of perming only causes these innate seeds to grow and mature. \*\*Evidence from Scripture:\*\* As the sutras say... \[they then quote the sutras as evidence\]. \*\*Evidence from the Yogaśāstra:\*\* As the Treatise on Yoga says... \[they then quote the treatise as evidence\]. \*\*The "Aksha Fruit" (Lustrous-Fruit) Analogy:\*\* The \*aksha\* fruit is the fruit of a poisonous tree. One branch bears three fruits, and they always grow together in the same bunch. In the sutras, this is used as a metaphor for the three things that are never separate: delusion, action, and suffering. \*\*"All seeds are fully present"\*\* means that both the contaminated and uncontaminated seeds are innate. \*\*"Lacking the seeds for the three types of enlightenment"\*\* means that the seeds for purity are present but not yet activated. \*\*The Three Kinds of Enlightenment Are:\*\* 1. \*\*True Nature\*\* (The unchanging, real essence) 2. \*\*True Wisdom\*\* (The wisdom that directly illumines this true nature) 3. \*\*Skillful Means\*\* (The ability to adapt teachings to help beings) \*\*"True"\*\* means not false. \*\*"Nature"\*\* means not changing. The wisdom that can illuminate true nature is called "True Wisdom" because it is in harmony with reality and not empty. \*\*"Skillful Means"\*\* is the ability to adapt to beings' capacities and use methods freely to guide them. \*\*"Nirvana"\*\* means "entering perfect stillness." It is the cause of the uncontaminated dharmas. Now, the treatise on Yoga says: "From beginningless time, these uncontaminated seeds have existed as the cause. If all seeds are fully present, then there is no lack of this cause. If someone lacks this cause, then they are missing the seeds for the three kinds of enlightenment." Passages like this are clear proof that innate seeds are not something that can be exhausted. There is ample evidence for this. \*\*The Five Natures:\*\* 1. Ordinary being nature 2. Hearer (Śrāvaka) nature 3. Solitary Realizer (Pratyekabuddha) nature 4. Bodhisattva nature 5. Thus-come One (Tathāgata) nature The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: "How do you know someone has the uninterrupted nature of the Hearer Vehicle? If, when hearing about cutting off the knowledge of self-nature and shared-nature of the aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, their entire body's pores are thrilled with joy, and they delight in cultivating the wisdom of characteristics, and do not cultivate the realization born from dependent origination, then this person has the uninterrupted nature of the Hearer Vehicle." "The uninterrupted nature of the Solitary Realizer Vehicle is: If, when hearing about the various conditions in isolation, their body hair stands on end, they weep with compassion, they are not attached to near conditions, they are unattached to all possessions, they possess various bodies, various psychic powers, various transformations of separation and union, and when hearing this, their mind flows into it, then this person has the uninterrupted nature of the Solitary Realizer Vehicle." "The uninterrupted nature of the Thus-come One Vehicle has four aspects: the nature of self-nature dharmas, the nature of dharmas transcending self-nature, the nature of realizing the noble self-awareness, and the nature of the special external realm. If, when hearing these four things, the mind is not frightened, then this person has the uninterrupted nature of the Thus-come One Vehicle." "The undetermined nature is: When the three natures are taught, one enters whichever is taught and is accomplished accordingly." "The separate nature is: the \*icchantika\* (one who is utterly destitute of roots of good)." \*\*The Three Rootless Uncontaminated Faculties Are:\*\* 1. \*\*The faculty of "not yet knowing, desiring to know"\*\* (The nine faculties are combined for the practitioner of faith and the one following the Dharma in the stage of seeing the truth) 2. \*\*The faculty of "knowing"\*\* (The nine faculties are transformed for the one of faith and understanding and the one of seeing and attaining, in the stage of reflection) 3. \*\*The faculty of "fully known"\*\* (The nine faculties are transformed for the one in the stage of no more learning) "Knowing" here refers to the true seeing of the path. The passage about \*\*hell-beings possessing these three faculties\*\* is also evidence that seeds are innate. The concept of "innate nature-abiding seeds" is explained in detail below. \*\*Conclusion from this evidence:\*\* Uncontaminated seeds naturally exist as innate. By analogy, contaminated seeds are also not produced by perming. The seeds that are innate in the eighth consciousness (ālayavijñāna) are made to grow and mature by the perming of the active consciousnesses, but they are not individually produced by perming from separate seeds. \*\*The Principle of Cause and Effect:\*\* When a seed produces an active manifestation, the seed is the cause and the manifestation is the result. When an active manifestation produces a seed, the manifestation is the cause and the seed is the result. This establishes the proper order of cause and effect without confusion. \*\*Refuting the View of New Perming Only:\*\* If we accept that seeds are only newly produced by perming, then contaminated perming could produce uncontaminated seeds, and uncontaminated perming could produce contaminated seeds. Good and bad would also mutually perfume each other. This would completely confuse the law of cause and effect.

有義種子皆熏故生至依熏可生非己有體。

> Some say: All seeds arise through being perfumed.<note>to</note> They can arise depending on perfume, and do not inherently possess their own essence.

二新熏。即難陀所執。謂有漏無漏俱熏故生。非本來有。如麻香氣。華熏故生者。即胡麻中所有香氣。必假華熏。方得香也。西方若欲作塗身香油。先以華香取與巨勝子聚為一處。淹令極爛。後取巨勝壓油。油遂香氣芬馥。比來胡麻中無香氣。因華熏故生。如契經下。引經證。論說下。引論證。內種外種者。攝論云。種子有二。一外種子。但是假名。以一切法唯有識故。二內種子。則是真實。以一切法以識為本。此二種子。念念生滅。剎那剎那。先生後滅。無有間故。此法得成種子。何以故。常住法不成種子。一切時無差別故。復次云何外種子。如糓麥等無熏習得成種子。由內。外得成。是故內有熏者。外若成種子。不由自能。必由內熏習感外。故成種子。何以故。一切外法。離內則不成。是故於外不成熏習。一由內有熏習得成種子。此云或有者。外種是依報。乃眾生共相業種所感。亦名熏習。或無者。以自有根種展轉相傳故。名言等三種習氣。詳見第八卷。引此以證有漏種生必由熏起。無漏種生下。意牒上義。例顯無漏亦熏習生。說聞熏習下。證成無漏亦熏生義。等流者。同是無漏也。謂聞無漏正法。熏成無漏種子。名出世心種子性。出世心者。即是見道。手杖論云。出世之智。雖不曾得。但以墮在自相續中。所有似說二無性智。共許從此熏習之處而作生因。此聞之熏。是極清淨法界等流之體性故。法界即是如來法身。我法二無性解。是法界所流果法。謂法身。界。即因也。是出世間諸法之界。謂能持彼熏習性故。及斷煩惱所知二障所有餘習。名極清淨。其聞熏習。是似彼果。彼為增上緣而得生起故。同彼體性故。如有說云。諸初發心菩提薩埵。所有正聞熏習種子。雖曰世間。應知即是法身所攝。室羅縛迦鉢羝迦佛陀。應知即是解脫身攝。是故定知雖是世間。而能親作出世間心種子也。有情本來下。破前清目等說有五性差別。故定執有法爾種子之義。而言依障建立者。意在成就新熏理故。以斷有漏。即熏無漏。如瑜伽說下。引證依障建立義。於真如境者。以真如是迷悟依。諸染淨法依之得生。故言於真如境上有二障種者。不得入圓寂。立為異生性。即不定性闡提性。二乘不斷所知。唯斷煩惱。斷有利鈍。故分為二。聲聞根鈍。三界九地。地各九品。品品別斷。獨覺根利。三界諸惑合為一聚。九品別斷。為二種性。如來二障永斷。二死永亡。覺性圓滿。名佛種性。由此故知種性差別。依障建立。非關無漏種子有無。瑜伽所說地獄成就三無漏根。是種非現。亦依熏生。非本有義。

> \#### (2) New熏. This refers to the view held by Nanda. It means that both contaminated and uncontaminated states arise through being熏ed (perfumed), not as something inherently existing. For example, the fragrance of sesame seeds—it arises because flowers are熏ed. Take sesame seeds: in their natural state they have no fragrance. But if you soak them together with fragrant flowers, they become extremely softened; when you then press them for oil, the oil becomes richly scented. This shows that the fragrance of sesame seeds is not intrinsic but produced by the熏ing of flowers. The scriptures cited below confirm this. The treatises also provide support. #### Internal seeds and external seeds. The \*Gathering of All Treatises\* says: Seeds are of two kinds. First, external seeds—these are merely provisional designations, because all phenomena are only consciousness. Second, internal seeds—these are real, because all phenomena have consciousness as their root. Both kinds of seeds arise and cease in each moment: in every instant, the earlier arises, the later ceases, with no gap between them. Only in this way can something function as a seed. Why? Because a permanent thing cannot serve as a seed, as it remains unchanged at all times. Furthermore, consider external seeds—like grains, rice, etc.—which become seeds without any熏ing. But their becoming seeds depends on internal conditions. Therefore, it is because internal factors are熏ed that external things become seeds—not of their own accord, but by the influence of internal熏ing. Why? Because all external phenomena cannot form independently of internal ones. Hence, the concept of熏ing does not apply to the external in isolation. It is solely because of internal熏ing that external seeds are produced. #### Interpretation of "some say." External seeds refer to the "dependent retribution"—the common retribution experienced by beings, which arises from the karma-seeds of collective habits. This is also called熏ing. When it is said "some," it acknowledges that in one sense, seeds may be passed down continuously through inherent factors. When it is said "none," it indicates that even so, they still require renewal through熏ing. The three kinds of habit-energy—names, words, and self—are detailed in \*Fascicle 8\*. This is cited here to prove that contaminated seeds must arise through熏ing. #### And uncontaminated seeds too arise... Building on the above meaning, this principle is extended to show that uncontaminated state seeds also arise through熏ing. #### The "hearing and熏ing" passage. This verifies that uncontaminated states too are generated by熏ing. "Equally flowing" here means they share the nature of being free from contamination. When one hears the uncontaminated true Dharma, a seed of uncontaminated nature is熏ed. This is called the seed-nature of the mind that transcends worldly existence. The "mind that transcends worldly existence" refers to the Path of Seeing. The \*Treatise on the Staff\* says: Although the wisdom that transcends the world has never been directly obtained, yet because it falls within one's own mental continuum—approximating the understanding of "the two self-natures"—it is commonly accepted that from this point of熏ing it serves as the generating cause. The熏ing of hearing is itself the extremely pure body of the Dharma-realm's equal-flow essence. That Dharma-realm is the Tathāgata's Dharmakāya. The insight into the two self-natures' emptiness is the result flowing from the Dharma-realm: the Dharma-realm is the cause. It is the very realm of all world-transcending phenomena, capable of holding the nature of that熏ing. It also cuts off all residual habits of the two hindrances (afflictive and cognitive)—hence it is called "extremely pure." The熏ing of hearing approximates that result. It arises with the result as the predominant condition, sharing its essential nature. As a sutra says: For all bodhisattvas who have just brought forth the Bodhi-mind, the seeds that arise from hearing the true Dharma, though still within the mundane realm, should be understood as included within the Dharmakāya. The \*Śrāvaka\* and \*Pratyekabuddha\* practices, however, belong only to the body of liberation. Therefore it is definitively known that even worldly hearing can directly produce the seeds of a mind that transcends the world. #### The section "Beings inherently..." This refutes the earlier assertion of Cāturmārga and others that there are five fixed spiritual capacities. They insist on the innate existence of seeds by their very nature. The argument that one is established based on hindrances is intended to prove the principle of new熏ing. For by eradicating the contaminated, one is simultaneously熏ing the uncontaminated. As the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says: This is illustrated by the principle of establishing spiritual capacities based on obstacles. #### Regarding "the state of true suchness." Since true suchness serves as the basis for both delusion and awakening—all pure and impure phenomena arise depending on it—it is said that one who has seeds of the two hindrances within the state of true suchness cannot enter nirvāṇa, and is established as having an ordinary being's nature, i.e., the indeterminable or \*icchantika\* nature. The Two Vehicles only cut off the afflictive hindrance, not the cognitive one. Their cutting power differs in sharpness and dullness, hence they are divided into two spiritual capacities. The \*Śrāvaka\* has dull faculties: across the three realms and nine stages, each stage has nine grades; these are severed grade by grade. The \*Pratyekabuddha\* has sharp faculties: all afflictions across the three realms are grouped as one mass, and severed in nine distinct grades—this constitutes the two natures. The Tathāgata has completely severed both hindrances, utterly transcended both kinds of death (fragmented and mental), and achieved perfect awakening—this is called the Buddhanature. Thus we know: the differences in spiritual capacities are established based on the presence of obstructions, not on the existence or absence of uncontaminated seeds themselves. When the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* says that beings in hell can attain the three roots of wholesomeness that transcend the world, it means these as seeds, not as actualized states. Even these seeds arise from熏ing, not as something inherently existing from the beginning.

有義種子各有二類至此即名為習所成種。

> Some scholars say that each seed has two categories<note>to</note>, and this is what is called a seed that has been cultivated and developed through practice.

三護法正義兼本有新熏分三。一出正義。二破本有。三破新熏。今初。生蘊處界。即是功能。此功能差別。即是種子。一切種子。與第八識一時而有。從此能生前七現行。現行頭上又熏種子。世尊下。總通前清目所引兩經二論之義。諸有情等。即第一經義。餘所引證。即所引第二經與二論始起中。世尊下。總通前難陀所引一經二論之義。初一經義。諸論亦說下。即二論義。本性住種。習所成種。二名。見瑜伽論。彼論菩薩地種性品云。云何種性。謂略有二種。一本性住種性。二習所成種性。本性住種性者。謂諸菩薩六處殊勝。有如是相。從無始世。展轉傳來法爾所得。是名本性住種性。習所成種性者。謂先串習善根所得。是名習所成種性。此中義意。二種皆取。又此種性。未習成果。說名為細。未有果故。已習成果。說名為麤。與果俱故。此單就菩薩種性言之。故有六處殊勝等言。其實有漏無漏皆有本性住種性也。護法意云。有漏無漏種子。皆有新熏本有。合生現行。亦不雜亂。若新熏遇緣。即從新熏生。若本有遇緣。即從本有生。若偏執唯從新熏。或偏執但是本有。二俱違教。若二義俱取。善符教理。古德問此總未聞熏時。此本有從何而生。答。謂從無始時來。此身與種子俱時而有。如外草木等種。又古德解熏種義。諸法雖有新舊二種。當生現時。或從新生。或從舊生。名為二種。非謂二種於一念中同生一現。若爾。即有多種共生一芽之過。以此唯知色等相分種並同於此。又問。八識之中既具本有新熏之義。何識是能熏因。所熏果。答。依經論正義。即是前七現行識為能熏因緣之因。熏生新熏種子。第八識是前七現行識所熏生因緣之果。又問。本識等雖無力能熏自種。而能親生自種故現行本識等得自生種為因緣者。既不熏自種。如何能生自種。又熏與生何別。答。熏者資熏擊發之義。生者生起。從因生出之義。謂本識等雖無力資熏擊發自種之義。而有親生自種之義。如有種性者。法爾本有無漏種子。雖有生果之能。若不得資加二位有漏諸善資熏擊發。即不能生現。須假有漏諸善資熏。方能生現。又如本識中善染等種。能引次後自類種子。雖有生義。無自熏義。如穀麥等種。雖有生芽之能。若不得水土等資熏擊發。亦不能生。其現行本識。雖有生種之能。然自力劣。須假六七與熏方生。由是義故。本識等雖非能熏。而能生種。故與親種得為因緣。五根塵等諸根分亦應然。此解今依因位現行。望自親所熏種。能為二緣。即是因緣增上緣。唯除第八。及六識中極劣無記。非能熏故。今按此文。現於親種得為因緣中。既除第八及六識中極劣無記非能熏故。望自親種無因緣義。若言本識及六識中極劣無記。能生自種得為因緣者。便犯異熟有能熏過。違聖教失。又問。如前六識所變五塵相分。不能自熏新種。須假能變心緣。方能熏自種故。五塵相分。得為能熏。其極劣無記。亦假能變心緣。何故不同五塵相分得為能熏。答。今按有為法分為三品。一者上品。如七轉識及相應等。一分能緣慮故力最強。悉有力自熏。二者中品。如五塵相分等。雖有熏力。而力稍微。假心與力。彼方自熏。三者下品。即極劣無記。如極羸病無力之人。不能自起。縱人與力扶持。亦不能起。本識等類。亦復如是。本無熏力。謂心與力亦不能熏。由是義故。極劣無記。一向無力。故非能熏。與五塵相分不同。彼自有力。但力相劣。不能獨熏。假心相助。自有半力。故是能熏。由是義故。今正解者。第八識聚。及此所變異熟五根相分。并異熟浮根等。及異熟前六識等。並無新種。以其極劣。非能熏故。從本有舊種所生。其長養五根。及此浮根。及等流五塵等相分。前六識所變者。皆可各有新本二種。

> The three aspects of protecting the Dharma's correct meaning, along with innate and newly熏习 seeds, are divided into three sections: First, presenting the correct meaning. Second, refuting the theory of innate seeds only. Third, refuting the theory of newly熏习 seeds only. Now, we begin with the first. The five aggregates, the twelve sense bases, and the eighteen elements are functions. The distinctions among these functions are seeds. All seeds exist simultaneously with the eighth consciousness. From these seeds, the first seven manifest consciousnesses arise. These manifest consciousnesses, in turn,熏习 new seeds. When the text says "The World-Honored One," it summarizes the meaning of the two sutras and two treatises previously cited by Pure Light. "All sentient beings" refers to the meaning of the first sutra. "The other citations" refer to the meaning of the second sutra and the two treatises in their beginning sections. When the text says "The World-Honored One" again, it summarizes the meaning of the one sutra and two treatises previously cited by Nanda. "The first sutra's meaning" is one point. The phrase "the treatises also say" refers to the meaning of the two treatises. The two names, "innately abiding seed nature" and "habitually accomplished seed nature," are found in the \*Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra\*. That treatise's "Bodhisattva Ground" chapter on seed nature states: "What is seed nature? Briefly speaking, there are two types. First, the innately abiding seed nature. Second, the habitually accomplished seed nature. The innately abiding seed nature means that the six sense bases of bodhisattvas have a special quality, transmitted continuously from beginningless time, naturally obtained. This is called the innately abiding seed nature. The habitually accomplished seed nature means that obtained through repeated practice of wholesome roots. This is called the habitually accomplished seed nature." In this context, both types are included. Furthermore, this seed nature, when it has not yet accomplished its result through practice, is called "subtle" because the result is not yet present. When it has accomplished its result through practice, it is called "coarse" because the result is present. This is discussed specifically in terms of the bodhisattva seed nature, hence the mention of the six sense bases being special. In reality, both contaminated and uncontaminated \[seeds\] have an innately abiding seed nature. Dharma Master Dharmapāla's intention is as follows: Contaminated and uncontaminated seeds all have both newly熏习 and innate aspects. They combine to produce manifest activity, but without confusion. If a newly熏习 seed encounters conditions, it will produce manifestation from that newly熏习 seed. If an innate seed encounters conditions, it will produce manifestation from that innate seed. If one insists exclusively on production only from newly熏习 seeds, or only from innate seeds, both positions contradict the teachings. If one accepts both meanings, that correctly accords with the teachings and reasoning. An ancient master asked: Before any hearing or熏习, where do these innate seeds arise from? The answer: From beginningless time, this body and its seeds have always existed simultaneously, like the seeds of external grasses and trees. Another ancient master explained the meaning of熏习 seeds: Although dharmas have both new and old seeds, when they produce their manifestation, sometimes it arises from the new seed, sometimes from the old seed. These are called the two types. It is not that both types of seed generate the same manifestation in a single moment. If that were the case, there would be the fault of many seeds producing one sprout. Understand that this principle applies similarly to all form-based and other representational seeds. Another question: Since the eight consciousnesses all contain the meaning of both innate and newly熏习, which consciousness is the cause that performs the熏习, and which is the result that receives the熏习? Answer: According to the correct meaning of the sutras and treatises, the first seven manifest consciousnesses are the causes that serve as the direct condition for熏习, generating new熏习 seeds. The eighth consciousness is the result that receives the熏习 generated by the first seven manifest consciousnesses as the direct condition. Another question: Although the fundamental consciousness and others lack the power to熏习 their own seeds, they can directly produce their own seeds. Thus, the manifest fundamental consciousness and others produce their own seeds as the direct condition. But if they do not熏习 their own seeds, how can they produce their own seeds? And what is the difference between "熏习" and "production"? Answer: "熏习" means to assist, permeate, stimulate, and activate. "Production" means to arise, to bring forth from a cause. Although the fundamental consciousness and others lack the power to assist, permeate, stimulate, or activate their own seeds, they have the meaning of directly producing their own seeds. For example, someone with the seed nature has naturally innate uncontaminated seeds. Although these seeds have the ability to produce a result, if they are not assisted, permeated, stimulated, and activated by the wholesome practices of the stages of accumulation and preparation, they cannot produce their manifestation. They must rely on the assisted permeation of these wholesome practices to produce the manifestation. Similarly, the seeds of goodness or defilement within the fundamental consciousness can give rise to subsequent seeds of their own kind. Although they have the meaning of production, they do not have the meaning of self-熏习. Like the seeds of grain or wheat: although they have the ability to produce a sprout, if they are not assisted, permeated, stimulated, and activated by water and soil, they cannot produce it. Likewise, the manifest fundamental consciousness, although it has the ability to produce seeds, its own power is weak. It must rely on the熏习 of the sixth and seventh consciousnesses to produce seeds. For this reason, although the fundamental consciousness and others are not the agents of熏习, they can produce seeds, and therefore serve as the direct condition for their own immediate seeds. The faculties of the five sense organs and their objects should be understood similarly. This explanation is based on the manifest state of the causal stage. In relation to its own directly熏习 seeds, it can serve as two types of conditions: the direct condition and the influential condition. This excludes the eighth consciousness and the extremely weak neutral moments of the six consciousnesses, as they are not capable of熏习. According to this text, when it is said that the manifest consciousness serves as the direct condition for its own immediate seeds, it excludes the eighth consciousness and the extremely weak neutral moments of the six consciousnesses, which lack the capacity for熏习. If one were to claim that the fundamental consciousness and the extremely weak neutral moments of the six consciousnesses can produce their own seeds and serve as the direct condition, then they would incur the fault of the retribution consciousness having the quality of熏习, which contradicts the holy teachings. Another question: The representational objects of the five sense objects transformed by the first six consciousnesses cannot themselves熏习 new seeds. They must rely on the mind that transforms them to enable the熏习 of their own seeds. Therefore, the representational objects of the five sense objects can be agents of熏习. The extremely weak neutral mind is also dependent on the transforming mind. Why is it not like the representational objects of the five sense objects in being able to be agents of熏习? Answer: According to the analysis, conditioned dharmas are divided into three categories. First, the superior category, such as the seven transforming consciousnesses and their mental factors. These partially have the nature of cognitive awareness, so their power is the strongest, and they all have the ability to熏习 themselves. Second, the middle category, such as the representational objects of the five sense objects. Although they have the power of熏习, that power is slight. They rely on the mind to provide power, and then they can熏习 themselves. Third, the inferior category, i.e., the extremely weak neutral mind. Like an extremely weak and sick person without strength, they cannot arise on their own. Even if others provide strength and support, they still cannot arise. The fundamental consciousness and its kind are also like this. They fundamentally have no power of熏习. Even if the mind provides power, they cannot熏习. For this reason, the extremely weak neutral mind is thoroughly without power and is therefore not an agent of熏习. This is different from the representational objects of the five sense objects. Those have some power themselves, but their power is weak. They cannot熏习 alone, but with the assistance of the mind, they have half the power, so they are agents of熏習. For this reason, the correct interpretation is this: the collection of the eighth consciousness, the retribution objects of the five sense organs transformed by it, the retribution subtle sense organs, and the retribution first six consciousnesses—none of these have new seeds. Because they are extremely weak and incapable of熏习, they arise from the innate old seeds. The growth-based five sense organs, their subtle organs, the representational objects of the five sense objects of the equal-flow type—those transformed by the first six consciousnesses—can each have both new and innate seeds.

若唯本有轉識不應至故唯本有理教相違。

> If it were solely the innate consciousness, then there would be no transformation. Therefore, the idea that it is only the innate conflicts with both reason and scripture.

二破清目等獨執本有非理。謂若唯本有無新熏者。前七王所亦具能熏義。不應與第八為因緣性。頌中法字。即前七轉識。識字。即第八識。諸法於識藏。能攝藏也。謂與諸識作二緣性。一為彼種子。二為彼所依。識於法亦爾。所攝藏也。謂諸轉識。亦與阿賴耶為二緣。一於現法中能長養彼種子。二於後法中轉攝植彼種。互相生故。顯揚論云。一於現法長養彼種者。謂如依止阿賴耶識善不善無記轉識時。如是如是於一依止同生同滅。熏習阿賴耶識。由此因緣。後後轉識善不善無記性。轉更增長。轉更熾盛。轉更明了。二於後法轉攝植彼種者。謂彼熏習種類。能引攝當來異熟無記阿賴耶。如是為彼種子故。為彼所依故。長養種子故。攝植種子故。應知建立阿賴耶識與諸轉識互為緣性。即此中互為因果義也。如炷與焰者。謂一剎那燈炷為依發生燈焰。是則燈炷為焰生因。即此剎那焰復能燒所依燈炷。是則燈焰為炷燒因。內炷生焰。如種生現。內𦦨燒炷。如現熏種。此舉增上緣喻因緣義。如束蘆者。如二束蘆。更互依持。令住不倒。若於爾時此能持彼令住不倒。即於爾時彼能持此。令住不倒。此以俱有依喻因緣義。唯依此二。謂種與現。或曰能所熏也。若謂種子本有。由熏令長。即經論中說因緣義者。則善惡業與異熟果。亦可謂之因緣乎。為善惡業與異熟果是增上緣。四緣不容相濫也。又諸聖教說有種子由熏習生。即不言唯熏令長。今執本有。皆乖聖教矣。由前違理。由後違教。故曰理教相違。

> \*\*2. Refuting the view that "the seeds of Clear Vision are inherently existent and uncreated."\*\* They claim that if seeds were exclusively inherent and not newly cultivated, then the first seven consciousnesses would also have the capacity to act as "perfumers" (causes). But that would be inconsistent with their role as the causal condition for the eighth consciousness. In the verse, the term "dharmas" refers to the first seven consciousnesses, and the term "consciousness" refers to the eighth consciousness, the \*Alaya\*. The phrase "dharmas are within the storehouse consciousness" means that dharmas can be contained there. This is because the first seven serve two roles as conditions for the \*Alaya\*: they act as its seeds and as its support. Conversely, the \*Alaya\* also serves these two roles for the first seven: in the present life, it nourishes their seeds, and in future lives, it sustains and implants their seeds. They thus give rise to each other mutually. The \*Xianyang Treatise\* explains: First, "nourishing seeds in the present life" means that when the good, evil, or neutral consciousnesses arise on the basis of the \*Alaya\*, they coexist and cease together with that same support. This "perfumes" the \*Alaya\*, and due to this, the subsequent good, evil, or neutral consciousnesses grow stronger, more intense, and clearer. Second, "sustaining and implanting seeds for future lives" means that this process of "perfuming" also serves to draw forth and bring about the future, neutral \*Alaya\* consciousness. Therefore, it should be understood that the \*Alaya\* and the other consciousnesses are established as mutually conditioning—that is, they are cause and effect for each other. Consider the example of the wick and the flame: At a single moment, the wick supports the flame that arises. So the wick is the cause of the flame. In that same moment, the flame then burns its supporting wick. So the flame is then the cause of the wick burning. The internal wick giving rise to the flame is analogous to the seed producing the manifestation. The internal flame burning the wick is analogous to the manifestation perfuming the seed. This illustrates the concept of a "contributing condition" (\*adhipati-pratyaya\*) as an analogy for the causal condition. Take the example of bundles of reeds: Two bundles of reeds support each other to stay upright. Just as one supports the other, so does the other support the first. This is an analogy for the causal relationship of "co-existing supports." Thus, the only two aspects are the seed and its manifestation, i.e., the perfumer and the perfumed. If one insists that seeds are inherently existent and that perfuming only makes them grow, then the causal condition described in the sutras and treatises would be confused. For the law of cause and effect makes clear that good and evil karma and their resultant retribution are "contributing conditions," not the causal condition. These four types of conditions must not be confused. Furthermore, the sacred teachings explicitly state that seeds arise due to being "perfumed." They do not say that perfuming only makes them grow. The view that seeds are exclusively inherent contradicts both reason and scripture. Therefore, the text concludes that such a view is a "contradiction of reason and scripture."

若唯始起有為無漏至各有本有始起二類。

> If only that which arises from conditions is classified as conditioned, yet without outflows,<note>to</note> then each has two categories: original existence and initial arising.

三破難陀等獨執始起非理。謂若唯新熏無本有者。上品無漏。無記第八。此上二類無新熏理。又無本有。從何種生。問。何為有為無漏因緣。答。即四德種子。如攝論云。轉依名法身。由聞熏法。四法得成。一信樂大乘。是大淨種子。二般若波羅蜜。是大我種子。三虗空器三昧。是大樂種子。四大悲。是大常種子。此聞熏習及四法。為四德種子。四德圓時。本識都盡。四德本來是有。不從種子生。從因作名。故稱種子。此聞熏習。能損滅本識。為對治本識。與本識性相違。故不為本識性所攝。故云。四德圓時。本識都盡。若不淨種子。則熏習生。增益本識也。此中大意。言若本來無無漏種性。則眾生永無成佛分。不應有漏為無漏種。若有漏為無漏種。則無漏亦應為有漏種。而諸佛等應起雜染。還作眾生矣。分別論者。即後三卷所引上座部經分別論者是也。分別論說心性本淨等語。一往觀之。似有漏心性即是無漏。不須別有無漏種子。細而察之。則心性本淨一語。即是心空所顯真如。而為無漏四德之因。故無漏法。非是無因而生。定有種子在也。且汝所謂心性者。何所指耶。若指空理。空即非情。何為心因。空是常法。豈為法種。體前後無轉變故。釋所以為常法之故也。量云。空理非諸法種子。以體前後無轉變故。喻如虗空。若即是心。心體本一。而有漏無漏轉變者。即同數論冥性常一而二十三法轉變之謬執矣。量云。性即是心。相雖轉變而體常一故。喻如數論。又無漏是善。心通三性。心是無漏因。不善無記心應是無漏善。若許二心是善。應與信等相應。若不許彼相應。便應非善心體。善名且不可得。况無漏乎。即有漏善心。亦不應為無漏因。何以故。既名雜染。即與惡心等。故有漏不應為無漏種。善等應為不善等種。如前破故。量云。有漏善心是有法。性非無漏是宗。因云。是雜染故。如惡心等。若曰有漏心具無漏性。則應無漏心亦具有漏性矣。而可乎。何以故。一性之中。差別因緣不可得故。又異生心是無漏種。則異生位所起現行悉是無漏。應名聖者。何名異生。若謂異生之性雖是無漏。而異生之相尚在染位。不名無漏。無斯過者是亦不然。異生之相既是有漏。則心種子亦非無漏。何故汝論說有異生唯得成就無漏種子乎。種子成就。現行亦成。何以故。種子現行性相同故。淨則俱淨。染則俱染。不容有差別也。然契經下。釋心性本淨正義。言心性者即是真如。以真如是心之真實性故。一說。心體上本無煩惱故。名性本淨。不同前破有漏之心性是無漏故名本淨也。真如無為。非心之因。亦非種子。能有果法。如虗空等。故非有漏心。性是無漏。名本性淨也。由此心性本淨之故。諸有情類無始時來有無漏種。不由熏習法爾成就。後至資糧加行位中。藉聞熏力熏令增長。故見道位斷分別惑。無漏現起。必仗此真如清淨無漏種子為因而成現行。無漏現行既起。展轉熏成一切智種。由此義故。定有本住新熏二類種子。無漏既爾。有漏應知。諸聖教下通前所引。瑜伽內種定有熏生之義。以明有漏不待熏生。然本有種。亦由熏習令其增盛。方能得果者。明教說熏習。是增上緣。非說因緣熏生內種也。其聞熏習下。通前所引聞熏習聞淨法界等語。明無漏種亦有熏生義。其聞熏習聞正法時。不唯熏起有漏法種。亦能熏起本有無漏法種。展轉生出世心。出世心者。即是見道。聞熏習中有二種緣義熏生有漏。感變易生死勝異熟果。為出世法作增上緣。至修道位。此種可斷。熏生無漏。與出世法為正因緣。此因直至佛果位中無有間斷。非所斷攝。問。若有漏種是增上緣。何故能熏出世心種。答。此無漏種正因緣性。微細幽隱。不能了知。故假託麤略顯明有漏性中勝增上緣。方便說為出世心種。其實出世心種。是本有無漏正因緣也。依障建立下。通前所引依障建立種性別義。非涅槃法。即異生性法。以諸異生無涅槃故。無漏法種。能害二障。故無彼種。二障永不可害。二乘種性。唯斷煩惱。不斷所知。故所知障永不可害。根有利鈍。故分二種。佛無漏種具者。彼二障種俱可永害。由此無漏種或有或無故。障有可斷不可斷二義。若不由無漏種子有無。彼二種障依何為因。而有斷有不斷耶。然無漏種。微細幽隱。難可了知。故約二障顯而易見者。明種性差別耳。豈謂全無無漏種子哉。若謂法爾有此障別。則亦應法爾有無漏法種。而彼不許。何哉。若無漏法種非本有者。則三乘聖道永不得生。是誰能斷二障種子。而說依障立種性別乎。既諸聖道永不得生。則彼所云依熏可生。非己有體之義亦不成矣。況諸聖教說有本有種子。今執唯始起。彼義謂何。由前違理。由後違教。故曰理教相違。由此應知諸法種子。各有本有始起二類。結成正義可知。通上二明種子二義竟。

> The disciple Pohanantuo held the mistaken view that causes begin only at the start. He said: If seeds are only newly perfumed (newly conditioned) and have no originally inherent nature, then the supreme-grade unconditioned state (anāsrava) and the neutral eighth consciousness (ālayavijñāna) — these two categories have no basis for being newly produced. And if they have no original nature, what kind of seeds would they come from? Question: What is the cause and condition (hetu-pratyaya) for conditioned unconditioned states (saṃskṛta-anāsrava)? Answer: They are the seeds of the Four Virtues (guṇa). As the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* says: "Turning the basis (\*āśraya-parāvṛtti\*) is called Dharmakāya. Through hearing the Dharma (\*śruta\*), four qualities arise: 1. Faith and joy in the Great Vehicle is the seed of Great Purity (\*mahā-śuddhi\*). 2. Transcendental wisdom (\*prajñāpāramitā\*) is the seed of Great Self (\*mahātman\*). 3. The samādhi of space-like receptivity (\*ākāśa-kośa-samādhi\*) is the seed of Great Bliss (\*mahā-sukha\*). 4. Great compassion (\*mahā-karuṇā\*) is the seed of Great Permanence (\*nitya\*). This hearing-perfuming (\*śruta-vāsanā\*) and these four qualities are the seeds of the Four Virtues. When the Four Virtues are complete, the fundamental consciousness is entirely gone. The Four Virtues have always existed; they are not born from seeds but are called "seeds" in terms of their causal function. This hearing-perfuming can diminish and counteract the fundamental consciousness, and since it opposes its nature, it is not included within it. Thus it is said: "When the Four Virtues are complete, the fundamental consciousness is entirely finished." As for impure seeds, they are born from perfuming and increase the fundamental consciousness. The essential point here is: If originally there were no seeds of the unconditioned (anāsrava-bīja), then sentient beings would never have the potential for Buddhahood. It is not reasonable that the conditioned (sāsrava) could serve as seeds for the unconditioned. If the conditioned could be seeds for the unconditioned, then the unconditioned could also be seeds for the conditioned. Then all Buddhas would give rise to defilements and once again become ordinary beings. The "Discriminators" (\*Vibhajyavādins\*), as cited in the later three volumes, are the Sthavira (Elder) school's treatise \*Vibhajya-vāda\*. They say that the nature of the mind is originally pure. At first glance, this seems to imply that the conditioned mind-nature is identical with the unconditioned, with no need for separate unconditioned seeds. But upon careful examination, the phrase "mind-nature originally pure" refers to the ultimate reality (\*tathatā\*), the emptiness that is the true nature of mind, which serves as the cause of the unconditioned Four Virtues. Therefore, unconditioned dharmas do not arise without a cause; they must have seeds. Furthermore, what do you mean by "mind-nature"? If you mean empty principle (\*śūnyatā-tattva\*), then emptiness is inanimate (\*asaṃskṛta\*)—how could it be the cause of mind? Emptiness is a permanent dharma—how could it be the seed of conditioned dharmas? Because its substance does not change through past or future (so it is a permanent dharma). The reasoning is: "Empty principle is not the seed of all dharmas, because its substance does not change through time, like space." If you say mind-nature \*is\* mind itself, and mind's substance is inherently one, but changes between conditioned and unconditioned, then this is the same fallacy as the Sāṃkhya school, which holds that primal nature (\*prakṛti\*) is eternal and one, while the twenty-three evolutes (\*tattva\*) arise from it. The reasoning is: "Nature is mind itself; although its appearances change, its substance remains eternally one—like the Sāṃkhya doctrine." Again, the unconditioned is good (\*kuśala\*), whereas mind exists in three natures (\*triguṇa\*). If mind itself is the cause of the unconditioned, then an unwholesome (\*akuśala\*) or neutral (\*avyākṛta\*) mind should also be the cause of the unconditioned good. If you say both minds could be good, then they should be associated with faith (\*śraddhā\*) and other good mental factors. If you deny this association, then they cannot be called good minds. Even the name "good" would be lost, let alone "unconditioned." Moreover, a conditioned good mind also cannot serve as the cause of the unconditioned. Why? Because it is defiled (\*saṃkleśa\*), just like a bad mind. Therefore, the conditioned cannot be the seed of the unconditioned. By the same logic, what is good should not be the seed of what is unwholesome, and so on. The reasoning is: "A conditioned good mind is not of the nature of the unconditioned because it is defiled, like a bad mind." If you say the conditioned mind possesses unconditioned nature, then the unconditioned mind should also possess conditioned nature. Is that acceptable? Why? Because within a single nature, the causes for differentiation cannot be found. Furthermore, if an ordinary being's mind were the seed of the unconditioned, then all the activities arising from that mind at the stage of ordinary being would be unconditioned, and such a being should be called a saint, not an ordinary being. If you say that although the nature of an ordinary being is unconditioned, its appearances (\*lakṣana\*) are still in the defiled state and cannot be called unconditioned—so there is no fault—still, this is not correct. If an ordinary being's appearances are conditioned, then its mind-seed is not unconditioned. How then does your doctrine say that there are ordinary beings who achieve only unconditioned seeds? If the seed is achieved, the activity is also achieved. Why? Because seed and activity share the same nature; if one is pure, both are pure; if one is defiled, both are defiled; there is no room for difference. As for the scriptural statement about mind-nature being originally pure: "Mind-nature" means ultimate reality (\*tathatā\*), because true suchness is the real nature of mind. One explanation holds that the mind-substance originally has no afflictions, so its nature is called originally pure. This is different from the earlier flawed view that the conditioned mind-nature is unconditioned and thus originally pure. True suchness, being unconditioned, is neither the cause of mind nor a seed that can produce effects, like space. Therefore, it does not mean that the conditioned mind's nature is unconditioned and thus originally pure. Because the mind-nature is originally pure, sentient beings, since beginningless time, have possessed unconditioned seeds (\*anāsrava-bīja\*), naturally existing without the need for perfuming. Later, during the stages of accumulation and practice, through the power of hearing the Dharma, these seeds are perfumed and increase. Thus, at the path of seeing, discrimination-based defilements are cut off, and the unconditioned arises. This must depend on the pure true suchness as the unconditioned seed, which becomes the direct cause for the manifestation of the unconditioned. Once the unconditioned appears, it perfumes and creates seeds of all-knowledge. Therefore, it is established that there are two types of seeds: originally existing (\*prakṛti\*) and newly perfumed (āgantuka). Since this is true for the unconditioned, it should also be known for the conditioned. The following passages from the holy scriptures explain: The \*Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra\* says that internal seeds must arise from perfuming. This is meant to show that conditioned seeds do not require perfuming to arise since they originally exist. However, originally existing seeds are also enhanced by perfuming so that they can produce their results. This clarifies that the scriptures speak of perfuming as a contributory condition, not as the direct cause for producing internal seeds. Now, regarding hearing-perfuming and the "pure realm" etc., this explains the meaning of producing unconditioned seeds. When one hears the Dharma through hearing-perfuming, not only does it perfume and create conditioned dharma-seeds, it also perfumes and enhances the originally existing unconditioned dharma-seeds. Through this, the world-transcending mind gradually arises. The world-transcending mind refers to the path of seeing. Within hearing-perfuming, there are two functions: 1. Perfuming the conditioned, which causes the exceptional result of a transformed rebirth, acting as a contributory condition for world-transcending dharmas. In the path of cultivation, this kind of seed can be severed. 2. Perfuming the unconditioned, which acts as the direct cause for world-transcending dharmas. This cause continues without interruption up to the stage of Buddhahood and is not subject to severance. Question: If conditioned seeds only serve as contributing conditions, how can they perfume and produce the seeds of a world-transcending mind? Answer: The unconditioned seeds are the direct cause, but they are subtle and hidden and cannot be easily recognized. Therefore, we rely on the clear and evident conditioned nature, which serves as a powerful contributory condition, and conventionally we speak of it as the seed of the world-transcending mind. In reality, the world-transcending mind-seed is the originally existing unconditioned direct cause. As for the passage "Dependent on obstructions, we establish differences in spiritual potential," it means: Those who are not inclined toward nirvāṇa are ordinary beings, because ordinary beings lack nirvāṇa. Unconditioned dharma-seeds can destroy the two obstructions — affliction-obstruction (\*kleśāvaraṇa\*) and knowledge-obstruction (\*jñeyāvaraṇa\*). Therefore, those who lack such seeds can never destroy these two obstructions. For those of the two vehicles (śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha), they only cut off the affliction-obstruction, not the knowledge-obstruction; hence, for them, the knowledge-obstruction is never destroyed. Since their faculties are sharp or dull, they are further divided into two types. For those who possess all unconditioned seeds (i.e., Buddhahood), both obstructions can be destroyed forever. Thus, because unconditioned seeds sometimes exist and sometimes do not, obstructions are sometimes breakable and sometimes not. If there were no unconditioned seeds, how could the two obstructions serve as the basis for whether they are cut off or not? Unconditioned seeds are subtle and hidden, difficult to know. Therefore, we speak of the two obstructions, which are evident, to explain the differences in spiritual potential. Does this mean there are no unconditioned seeds at all? If you say these obstructions naturally exist as such, then it should follow that unconditioned dharma-seeds also naturally exist. Yet you deny this! If unconditioned dharma-seeds are not originally existent, then the path of the three vehicles (śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, and bodhisattva) would never arise. Who would then be able to cut off the seeds of the two obstructions? And how could you say that we rely on obstructions to establish differences in spiritual potential? If the path of the three vehicles can never arise, then your claim that seeds arise only from perfuming and do not inherently exist as substances also falls apart. Moreover, many holy scriptures explicitly state that there are originally existing seeds. You, however, insist that everything arises solely from new conditions. What is the meaning of such a position? Because it contradicts reason on one hand and the scriptures on the other, it is said to violate both reason and scripture. Therefore, it should be known that all dharma-seeds are of two types: originally existing and newly conditioned. This conclusion establishes the correct meaning. \*Thus concludes the explanation of the two meanings of seeds.\*

然種子義略有六種至是共相種所生果故。

> The meaning of "seed" can be briefly described in six aspects. Yet, because the result arises from the common seeds shared by all beings, it is considered a universal characteristic.

三明種子六義。上二義。是種子原本。此六義。是就已成種子後說。一剎那滅者。生已無間即滅壞故。顯是有為。有轉變義。於轉變位。能取與果。方成種子。問。剎義揀去何法。不得名種。答。揀無為法。及長時四相。并外道常我。所以者何。以一切時。其性如本。無差別故。無能生用。難云。若剎那滅為種子者。應前念種。望後念現。或因一念自他相望。皆與為種。答。第二義揀。要果俱有。果俱有者。與自現果俱時現有。方成種子。故無性云。何者俱有。已滅生果。不應理故。如死雞鳴。是故應許種子與果俱時而住。一此與果不相違故。如蓮華根。雖後俱有。然非一二。釋云。謂此種子。要望所生現行果法。俱時現有。現者。謂顯現。現在。現有。三義名現。即顯現言。簡彼第七。第七不名種子。果不顯現故。現在。簡前後。現有。簡假法。體是實有。方成種子。和合。簡相離。前後。即過去未來。相離。謂一切法與法不相應者。現行種子。雖是類別。互不相違。一身俱時有能生用。即後章所云能熏生種。種起現行。如俱有因。得士用果。非如種子自類相生。前後相違。必不俱有。即後章所云種子前後自類相生。如同類因。引等流果。因果俱。即現種異類。因果不俱。即種子自類。此即雙成二義。謂現在因有。是果俱有。未生已滅。是前後義。明種子名。但依種生現立。不依種生種立。故但應說與果俱有。故世親云。言俱有者。謂非過去。亦非未來。亦非相離得為種子。何以故。若於此時種子有。即於爾時果生故。難云。種因生現。要與現果俱時而有。方得名種。現因熏種。亦與種果俱時而有。應亦名種。答。有第三義。要恒隨轉。恒隨轉者。謂要長時相續。其性一類。方成種子。究竟位。即金剛心道。恒隨轉。真諦譯為隨逐。究竟位。譯為治際。天親云。治。謂金剛心道。阿梨耶識。於此時。功能方盡。故名際。外種子至果熟及根壞時。功能則盡。是故三名隨逐至治際。遮彼轉識現熏種時。雖一念與種果俱有。非恒隨轉。問。能熏現。與所熏種。何非恒隨。答。間斷之識三性互起。非長相續一類而轉。故能熏現不得名種。問。若爾。第七不間。應得名種。答。漏無漏間。不得名種。問。若云一類。如何說有有壽盡相。答。約生果有限。名有壽盡相。種體非斷。難云。若恒隨轉得名種子。應善等種生染等現。答。有第四義揀。要性決定。謂隨能熏善惡無記。決定無雜。生各性果。名性決定。遮彼異性為自類因。故世親云。言決定者。謂此種子各別決定。不從一性一切得生。從此物種還生此物。問。若異性因不名種子。如何說有因通善惡果唯無記。答。彼增上緣。此說因緣。難云。若自性因生自性果。名種子者。應此性因一時頓生此性多果。答。有第五義揀。要待眾緣。其種雖有。要須等待眾緣和合。方起現行。始成種子。親因緣。增上緣。等無間緣。所緣緣。此名眾緣。心種待四緣。色種待二緣。謂因緣。增上緣。若不待緣而成種者。則一因應為一切因。以待眾緣成故不漫為因。問。誰說一因頓生多果。答。謂有外道執自然等頓生多果。又餘部小乘執緣恒有。今眾緣。正遮此二所執。以明有生未生者乃緣合未合耳。難云。若同性待緣生一性果。應善色種生善心果。餘性準此。答。有第六義揀。要引自果。謂自種子但引自果。要別別色。及別別心。各各引生自色心果。方成種子。如阿賴耶識種子。唯能引生阿賴耶現識。如稻穀等。唯能引生稻穀等果。問。色心互生。是誰所執。答。謂有外道計一因能生一切諸果。是故遮之。問。無性第七。具前五義。應名種子。答。闕果俱有。第八現識雖具恒隨。亦缺果俱。唯本識下結成本識中一分差別功能。具上六義。方成種子。決非餘義所能成故。其外種子。如稻穀等。皆是眾生共受用業之所招感。內識所變。依世俗說。假名種子耳。此種下。明內外種子俱有生引二因。能生芽等。乃至果熟。是外生因。能生果報。乃至命終。是內生因。外種能引枯後相續。內種能引喪後屍骸。由引因故。多時續住。若一種子唯作生因非引因者。收置倉中麥等種子。不應久時相似相續。喪後屍骸。如青瘀等。分位隨轉。亦不應有。生因已謝。果應滅故。若說剎那轉轉相生。前剎那為後剎那作因。得相續住者。若爾。最後不應都盡。既無此二義。故知別有引因。此二種因。譬如人射。彎弓放箭。放箭為生因。彎弓為引因。放箭得離弦。遠有所至。若但以放箭為因。不以彎弓為因。則箭不得遠。若言前剎那箭。生後剎那箭。故箭得遠。則箭無落義。種子亦爾。由生因盡故枯喪。由引因盡故滅盡。內種必由熏習者。如無多聞熏習之因。必無多聞之果。外種熏習。有無不定。故置或言。如以炭與牛糞毛等。次第生彼苣蕂青蓮華根及以蒲等。非苣蕂等與彼炭等俱生俱滅。互相熏習。而從彼生。如是外種或無熏習。如巨勝與華鬘等俱生俱滅。由熏習故。生香氣等。如是外種或有熏習。是增上緣。非因緣攝。若辦所生果。必以內種為彼因緣。由稻穀等外法種子。皆是眾生感受用業。熏習種子。依阿賴耶力所變現。是故外種離內無別。亦是多人共業所感。故曰共相。

> \*\*The Six Meanings of the "Bright Seeds" (Three Understandings)\*\* The first two meanings relate to the seed's origin. These six meanings, however, apply to seeds that have already been established. \*\*1. Ceasing in an Instant:\*\* A seed is born and then immediately destroyed, without a gap. This shows it is conditioned and subject to change. It is at the moment of change that it can produce its fruit. This meaning excludes unconditioned things (like space or nirvana), phenomena that last a long time with their four phases, and the eternal self or soul imagined by non-Buddhists. Why? Because these things are always the same in nature, with no distinction, and cannot produce anything. \*Question:\* If an instantaneously ceasing moment is a seed, then the previous moment's seed, facing the next moment's manifestation, could be a seed for that, just from one moment to another? \*Answer:\* The \*\*Second Meaning\*\* clarifies: the seed must exist simultaneously with its fruit. "Simultaneous with the fruit" means the seed and its own manifest fruit are present at the same time. Only then is it a seed. As explained: "How is it simultaneous? If something has already ceased and then produces a result, that is unreasonable—like a dead chicken crowing. Therefore, we must accept that the seed and its fruit exist together at the same time. They are not in conflict, like a lotus root and its sprout." \*Explanation:\* This seed must coexist with the manifest result it gives rise to. "Manifest" has three meanings: appearing, present, and actual. "Appearing" excludes the seventh consciousness (underlying ego), whose results are not manifest. "Present" excludes past and future. "Actual" excludes conceptual constructs. It must be a real entity to be a seed. "Together" excludes separation in time or space. This means the manifest result and seed, though different in type, are not contradictory and can arise together in the same person—like fire and fuel. This is the principle of "seeds giving rise to manifestation and manifestation perfuming seeds," like a "simultaneous cause" yielding a "functional result." It is different from seeds producing seeds of their own kind over time, which necessarily happen one after another and never at the same time. This establishes two truths: \* When cause and effect are different types (seed and manifestation), they exist simultaneously. \* When cause and effect are the same type (seed to seed), they exist sequentially. Thus, the name "seed" is established based on a seed producing its manifestation, not on a seed producing another seed. Therefore, it is said: "The seed must be simultaneous with its fruit." As Vasubandhu says: "Simultaneous means it is not in the past, not in the future, and not separate. Why? Because at the moment the seed exists, the result arises." \*Question:\* If a cause seed must coexist with its manifest result to be a seed, then a manifest cause (the perfuming action) coexists with its seed-like result (the new seed). So shouldn't that manifest cause also be called a seed? \*Answer:\* The \*\*Third Meaning\*\* handles this: the seed must continually accompany (the consciousness). "Continually accompanying" means it must be a continuous, unchanging series of the same nature for a long time. Only then is it a seed. This "long time" lasts until the final stage (the Diamond-like Path of enlightenment). In that final stage, the seed's function is exhausted. This meaning excludes manifest causes that perfume seeds, which, although simultaneous with their seed results, are not continuous and unchanging. The reason is that these manifest consciousnesses arise and cease, are interrupted, and mix good, bad, and neutral states. They are not a long, unchanging series of one nature, so they are not seeds. \*Question:\* If so, the seventh consciousness (underlying ego), which is not interrupted, should be a seed. \*Answer:\* It alternates between defiled and pure states, so it lacks the necessary continuity of one nature. \*Question:\* If a seed must be of one nature, how can it be said to have a "lifespan" or a time of exhaustion? \*Answer:\* Its lifespan refers to the limit of its ability to produce results, not that the seed's substance is destroyed. \*Question:\* If something continuously accompanying is a seed, then a good seed could produce a bad result. \*Answer:\* The \*\*Fourth Meaning\*\* clarifies: the seed's quality must be determined. This means the seed's nature (good, bad, or neutral) is fixed according to the perfuming cause, with no mixture. It produces a result of its own nature. This excludes the idea that a cause of one nature can produce a result of a different nature directly. As Vasubandhu says: "Determined means each seed is individually fixed. Not all results can come from one single nature. From the seed of this thing, only this thing is born." \*Question:\* If a cause of a different nature cannot be a seed, how can it be said that a cause can be good or bad but its result is neutral? \*Answer:\* That refers to a "contributing condition" (conditioning cause), not the "direct cause" (seed condition) we are discussing here. \*Question:\* If a cause of one nature must produce a result of the same nature to be called a seed, could that one cause then produce many results of the same nature at once? \*Answer:\* The \*\*Fifth Meaning\*\* clarifies: the seed must wait for the combination of necessary conditions. A seed may exist, but it must wait for various conditions to come together before its manifest function arises. Only then is it a genuine seed. The conditions are: the direct cause, the contributing condition, the immediately preceding condition, and the object condition. Mental seeds require all four; physical seeds require only two: the direct cause and the contributing condition. Without waiting for conditions, one cause could be the cause of everything. Because it must wait for conditions, it does not produce results indiscriminately. \*Question:\* Who says one cause can produce many results instantly? \*Answer:\* This refers to some non-Buddhist schools that claim a single origin (like Nature or a Creator) spontaneously produces all results. Also, some Buddhist schools hold that conditions are always present. This meaning of "waiting for conditions" directly refutes these two extremes, explaining that a seed's ability to produce a result depends on whether conditions are present or not. \*Question:\* If a seed of one nature produces a result of the same nature, waiting for conditions, then a good physical seed could produce a good mental result, and vice versa. \*Answer:\* The \*\*Sixth Meaning\*\* clarifies: the seed must produce its \*own\* specific result. This means each seed only leads to its own unique fruit. A specific physical seed produces a specific physical result; a specific mental seed produces a specific mental result. Only then is it a seed. For example, the seeds in the storehouse consciousness (Alaya) only lead to the manifest Alaya consciousness. Rice seeds only lead to rice plants. \*Question:\* Who holds that mind and matter can directly produce each other? \*Answer:\* Non-Buddhist schools that believe in a single cause for all effects hold this, and it is refuted here. \*\*The Seventh Consciousness and the Eighth (Alaya) Consciousness\*\* The seventh consciousness, though possessing the other five meanings, lacks the simultaneous existence with its result. The manifest eighth consciousness, though continuously accompanying, also lacks the simultaneous result. \*\*Only the storehouse consciousness (Alaya), which contains the differentiated functioning of seeds, possesses all six meanings.\*\* Only this qualifies as a seed. No other factor can be a seed. \*\*External Seeds and the Two Causes\*\* External seeds, such as rice grains, are manifestations produced by the collective karma of beings through the power of the Alaya consciousness. Conventionally, they are called "seeds." Both internal and external seeds have two functions: the \*\*producing cause\*\* and the \*\*sustaining cause\*\*. The producing cause makes the seed actually grow into a sprout, etc., until the fruit ripens (external) or until the end of life (internal). The sustaining cause keeps the effect continuing after the producing cause has ended. For example, an external seed, after producing the fruit, continues the process until the plant dies. An internal seed continues the physical body after death (the corpse). The sustaining cause allows the effect to persist for a period of time. If a seed were only a producing cause and not a sustaining cause, then stored wheat seeds would not persist. Also, after death, there would be no body. Since the producing cause is finished, the result should immediately cease. If you argue that the result continues through instantaneous causation (each moment producing the next), then the final moment (the corpse or fruit) should never stop. Since we don't see this, there must be a separate sustaining cause. These two causes are like an archer: releasing the arrow is the producing cause, and drawing the bow is the sustaining cause. The release makes the arrow fly, but the drawing\* (the force stored in the bow) is what makes it fly far. If only the release were the cause, the arrow would not go far. If you say each arrow moment produces the next, the arrow would never fall. Similarly, with seeds: the end of the producing cause leads to decay or death. The end of the sustaining cause then leads to complete dissolution. \*\*Perfuming\*\* Internal seeds necessarily arise from perfuming. Without the cause of learning (hearing the Dharma), one cannot have the result of learned wisdom. External seeds also depend on perfuming, but in a less direct way. For example, charcoal can be used to grow sesame seeds, and cow dung can be used to grow lotus roots. The result is produced in connection with these materials, not because the materials themselves become the seed. In other cases, perfuming is direct: mandarin flowers placed in sesame oil cause the oil to take on the flower's fragrance. In all external cases, this perfuming is a \*\*contributing condition\*\*, not a \*\*direct cause\*\* (seed cause). Ultimately, the true cause for producing any result is the internal seed (in the Alaya consciousness). The so-called external seeds (rice, etc.) are merely manifestations of the collective karma stored in the internal seeds of beings. They are not separate from the inner seeds. These are the "shared manifestations" produced by the collective actions of many sentient beings.

依何等義立熏習名至令種生長故名熏習。

> What is the meaning behind the term "perfuming"? It means that it causes seeds to arise and grow. That is why it is called "perfuming."

四能所熏習分四。一問。二總答。三正釋。依何等義立熏習名。問也。所熏至故名熏習。此總答也。熏者。發也。或猶致也。習者。生也。近也。數也。即發致果於本識內。令種子生近生長故。

> The explanation of "perfuming" (or "permeating influence") is divided into four parts: a question, a general answer, a detailed explanation, and the specific meaning behind the term. \*\*Question:\*\* On what basis is the term "perfuming" established? \*\*General Answer:\*\* It is due to the interaction of "that which is perfumed" and "that which perfumes," which results in "perfuming." \*\*Detailed Explanation:\*\* The word "perfume" (xūn) means to stimulate or to bring about. "Practice" (xí) means to give rise to, to draw near to, or to repeat. In essence, perfuming refers to the process of bringing about results within the fundamental consciousness (ālayavijñāna), allowing seeds to be generated, be kept close, and to grow.

何等名為所熏四義至可是所熏非心所等。

> What are the four characteristics of that which can be "perfumed"? It is that which is capable of being perfumed (influenced and conditioned), and not the mental factors or other phenomena.

三正釋分三。一所熏。二能熏。三總結。今初。何等名為所熏四義。別徵也。一堅住性下。別釋也。所熏四義。唯第八具。所以第八獨為所熏。四義者。一堅住性。從無始之始。至究竟之終。一類相續。為堅住性。夫為所熏識者。且須一類堅住。相續不斷。能持習氣。乃是所熏。今前六轉識。若五位無心時。皆間斷故。既非堅住。非是所熏。一云。轉識。謂七轉識。兼含心所。若許七識能持種者。初地已破四惑。應失一切有漏種子。已轉七識成平等性。猶有有漏種者。明是八識能持。言風聲等者。此揀根塵。以間斷相顯。故偏語之。理實等字等取根塵及法處所攝色等一切皆揀。至無色界。即無色故。入滅定等。心亦無故。名不堅住。此亦遮經部師將色心更互持種。論主云。且如於無色界入滅定時。色心俱間斷。此時將何法能持種。又如五根五塵。皆不通三界。亦非堅住。如何堪為所熏性。又第七識在有漏位雖不間斷。在十地位中亦有解脫間斷。謂得無漏時不能持有漏種。以有漏無漏體相違故。以第八識雖是有漏。以在因中體無解脫。唯無覆性。即不妨亦能持無漏種。得名所熏。應立量云。前七轉識是有法。非所熏宗。因云。不堅住故。同喻如電光聲風等。問。若言有堅住性即是所熏者。只如佛果第八亦是堅住性。應名所熏。答。將第二義簡。曰無記性。夫為所熏者。須唯是一類無記。即不違善惡性。方受彼熏。今佛果第八既是善性。即不容不善及無記性非是所熏。以佛果圓滿故。如似沉麝。不受臭穢物熏。若不善性者。即是煩惱。又不容信等心所熏。互不相容納故。其所熏性。如寬心捨行之人。能容納得一切善惡事。若惡心性人即不中。第八識似寬心捨行之人。能容一切習氣。有此義故方名所熏。若如來第八無漏淨識。唯在因中曾所熏習。帶此舊種。非新受熏。以唯善故。違於不善等。又云。善染如沉麝韭蒜等故不受熏。無記如素帛。故能受熏。如善不容於惡。猶白不受於黑。若惡不容於善。如臭不納於香。唯本識之含藏。同太虗之廣納矣。問。若言有堅住性。及無記性二義。便名所熏者。且如第五心所同心王。具此二義。應是所熏。又如無為。亦有堅住性義。為所熏何失。答。將第三義簡曰可熏性。言自在者。正簡難陀許第八五心所能受熏。論主云。心所不自在故。依他生起。非所熏性。言性非堅密者。即簡馬鳴菩薩真如受熏。論主云。無為體堅密。如金石等。決不受熏。夫可熏者。且須體性虗踈。能容種子。方得。馬鳴救云。我言真如受熏者。以真如是性。第八是相。性相不相離。若熏著相時。兼熏著性。或攝相歸性。故真如受熏何失。如將金石作指鐶等。護法破云。熏相不熏性。如火燒世界。不燒虗空。今唯是第八心王體性虗踈。方可受熏。如衣服虗踈。方能受香等熏。問。若言有堅住性。無記性。及可熏性。三義。即是所熏者。應可此人第八識。受他人前七識熏。以此人第八是可熏性故。答。將第四義簡。曰與能熏共和合性。今將此人第八。望他人前七。無同時同處和合義故。非是所熏。亦遮經部師前念之識熏後念義。他身即簡同處。無有以他身識為我所熏故。剎那前後即簡同時。前念識體。與後念識相。不相及故。唯異熟識。具此四義。可是所熏。非心所等。此總結也。非心所者。即第八同時心所。等取所餘。如上所揀。

> \*\*Three Main Explanations: (1) the Object of Influence (2) the Influencing Agent (3) Summary.\*\* \*\*1. The Object of Influence\*\* What exactly qualifies something as an "object of influence"? This requires four specific conditions. The Buddha's teaching is clear: only the eighth consciousness (the storehouse consciousness, or \*alaya-vijñana\*) meets all four conditions, making it the unique foundation for receiving influence. \*\*Condition One: Continuity without Interruption.\*\* From the beginningless beginning until the final end (liberation or Buddhahood), the eighth consciousness continues as a single, unbroken stream. This unbroken continuity is necessary to \*hold\* and \*maintain\* the seeds of experience. A mind that can be influenced must have this stable, continuous nature. The first five consciousnesses (senses) and even the sixth (thought-based) consciousness are inherently unstable. They cease completely during certain states like deep sleep, unconsciousness, or the meditation of complete cessation (\*nirodha-samāpatti\*). They are therefore not continuous and cannot serve as the basis for influence. The seventh consciousness (the evaluative, ego-clinging consciousness) also changes. Even though it operates continuously in ordinary beings, in the first stage of enlightenment (\*bhūmi\*) it purifies itself, and at that point, its defiled seeds must be held by another—the eighth consciousness. The Buddha uses examples like wind and sound to illustrate this transient nature; everything that is not the constant flow of the eighth consciousness is excluded. Even in a formless realm, where physical matter is absent, the mind (other than the eighth) still possesses transient states. At the moment of entering cessation, even mental activity ceases (for these other consciousnesses). This definitively refutes the idea held by some schools, like the Sautrāntikas, that physical and mental events could act as a storehouse for each other's seeds. The question cannot be answered by referencing two unstable things holding each other up. \*\*Condition Two: Neutral Nature.\*\* To be an object of influence, something must be morally neutral (\*avyākrta\*). An influenced thing must be open to receiving both good and bad impressions, like a clean piece of cloth that can take any dye. If something were inherently good, it would reject bad impressions. If it were inherently bad, it would reject good impressions. The eighth consciousness alone is this unfixed, neutral receptacle. When a Buddha reaches full enlightenment, their eighth consciousness has transformed into a pure, fully good consciousness. It holds old seeds from the past but no longer receives new influences, for a perfect and pure substance cannot be tainted again. This quality is likened to a broad-minded, tolerant person who can hold all kinds of experiences, unlike a rigid or guarded person. The inherently good and bad mind-discerners (\*caitta\* - mental factors) lack this capacity to freely accept the opposite. \*\*Condition Three: The Capacity to Be Influenced (Pliability).\*\* The environment for influence must be \*flexible\* and \*open\*, not dense, solid, or closed. This excludes all inanimate objects and even the abstract principle of true reality (\*tathatā\* or \*dharmatā\*). True reality is likened to a diamond—perfect, stable, and solid—it cannot be "stained" or "impressed" by experiences. The \*prapañca\*-entangled aspect of the eighth, however, is subtle and adaptable. It is like a soft, loose fabric that can absorb scent, while a dense rock cannot. The master Vasubandhu demonstrates that mental factors (\*caittas\*) exist as dependent, non-autonomous processes; they are still too tied to moment-to-moment causation. The ultimate, stable nature of reality is beyond this malleable capacity. Only the primary, eighth consciousness has this quality. This quality is essential for it to be a "seed-bed." \*\*Condition Four: Simultaneous Presence (Cooperation).\*\* An object of influence must be together with the influencing agent at the same time and place. This condition resolves a crucial point: your own eighth consciousness is only influenced by your own experiences, not by mine. My influencing thoughts or actions cannot impress themselves onto your consciousness, because they are not happening \*in you\* at the same moment. This condition also refutes the idea that the previous moment of consciousness influences the next, as they do not co-exist. For one entity to alter another, they must occur simultaneously. This is why \*only\* your storehouse consciousness, your root mind, fits this condition. Thus, the unique collection of these four characteristics—\*continuity\*, \*neutral receptivity\*, \*capacity to be molded\*, and \*concurrent presence\* with an active influence—makes the Eighth Consciousness (and only the Eighth) the true "object of influence" (\*āśraya\*). The auxiliary mental factors of the eighth consciousness are not themselves the storehouse."

何等名為能熏四義至具此四義可是能熏。

> What are the four characteristics that define a condition as a "perfuming" or "seeding influence"? Only when all four are present can something truly be regarded as such a perfuming force.

二能熏。何等名為能熏四義。徵也。一有生滅下。別釋。且外人問無為法得名能熏否。答。將第一義簡曰有生滅。以生滅法有能生長之作用故。今前七識有生滅。有生長作用。故是能熏。問。若爾者。且如業感異熟生心心所。及色法。不相應行等。皆有生滅。亦非作用。應是能熏。答。將第二義簡。要有勝用。謂善惡有覆強盛之力。名為勝用。其業感異熟生心心所等。劣弱無強盛作用。能熏色法。雖有強盛。又無緣慮勝用。不相應行。二用俱闕。此非能熏。又勝用有二。一能緣勝用。即簡諸色為相分熏。非能緣熏二強盛勝用。謂不任運起。即揀別類異熟心等有緣慮用。無強盛用。為相分熏。非能緣熏。由斯內色等有強盛用。無能緣用。異熟心等有能緣用。無強盛用。不相應法二用俱無。皆非能熏。即緣勢用可致熏習。如強健人能致功効故。問。若有生滅。及有勝用。即名能熏者。且如佛果前七識。亦具此二義。應是能熏。答。將第三義簡。要有增減。增減者。損益之義。佛無損益。故非能熏。疏喻說云應剛即剛。合柔即柔。能成辦事。第七末那。至無漏位。亦有增減。唯除佛果。言有勝劣者。前佛應勝。後佛應劣。以前佛熏得無漏種子多故。問。若言具有生滅。有勝用。有增減。三義。即名能熏者。且如他人前七識。亦有上三義。應與此人第八為能熏性。答。將第四義簡。要與所熏和合而轉。揀自他不得互熏前後不得互熏。同所熏第四義。上二皆云共和合者。和合即是相應異名。唯七轉識至可是能熏。結也。所以能所第四合者。有二義故。一以二種第四。但能所異。言全似故。二用此文。別為總結。故論結云。如是能熏與所熏識俱生俱滅。熏習義成等。問。七能熏中。熏第八四分之中。約熏何分。答。前五轉識。能熏阿賴耶相分種子。第六意識。能熏第八相見分種子。第七末那。唯熏第八見分種子。問。前七識四分。何分能熏。答。見相二分能熏種。以此二分有作用故。問相分是色。何能熏種。答。但是見分與力。令相分熏種。如梟附塊而成卵㲉。又見分是自證分與力。問。能熏前七皆有王所。亦同第八唯王非所否。答。王所皆能。問。前七心所。何故同王亦能熏耶。答。四義具故。問。第八心所。何不同王亦所熏耶。答。前已揀故。缺自在義。所以非所。難曰。心所不自在。心所非所熏。心所不自在。心所非能熏。答。已具義不具義故。何煩再問。我問前義。豈可重繁。答。為因據有力。心所亦能熏。心所有力故。受熏須報主。心所非所熏。所非報主故。難曰。為因言有力。心所便能熏。為果應有力。心所亦所熏。答。為果無力。又過失多。所以心所非是所熏。何知無力及有過失。答。既有過失。知是無力。問。何過失。答。頓生六果故。若第八識王所一聚。六皆受熏。凡一能熏。熏六箇種。後遇緣時。六種頓生六箇現行。問。設生六果。何便是過。答。如一有情。頓生六箇第八現行。成六有情。故是大過。問。一設成六。何成大過。答。聖教所說。其眾生界無有增減。既違聖教。又無此理。故成大過。難。能熏第七一聚王所有十八法。緣第八時。齊熏一十八箇質種。何無頓生十八果失。答。能熏雖多。一處受熏。唯生一果。如一麥中有多󳫹塵。共生一芽。此亦如彼。應法合云。麥殻一而󳫹塵眾。共生一芽。持處一而種子多。同生一果。其或麥粒成多。自爾藂苞競秀。若也受熏非一。何疑眾果齊生。

> \*\*Second: The Ability to Perfume (Neng Xun).\*\* What are the four characteristics of a phenomenon that can perfume? This is a question. Let's explain them one by one. First, someone may ask: Can unconditioned phenomena (Wu Wei Fa) be said to perfume? The answer uses the first characteristic to clarify: It must have arising and ceasing. Only conditioned phenomena with arising and ceasing have the function to generate and grow. The first seven consciousnesses have arising and ceasing and this generating function; therefore, they can perfume. Second, someone may ask: If a phenomenon has arising and ceasing, does it automatically count as a perfuming agent? For example, the mind and mental factors produced by karmic retribution (Yi Shu Sheng), as well as material form (Se Fa) and the unassociated formations (Bu Xiang Ying Xing), all have arising and ceasing. Shouldn't they also be able to perfume? The answer uses the second characteristic to clarify: It must have superior function (Sheng Yong). This means it must possess the powerful force of good, evil, or defiled-neutral (You Fu) that is deliberate and strong. The mind and mental factors produced by karmic retribution are weak and lack this strong force. Material forms, though sometimes having strong force, lack the superior function of mental activity. The unassociated formations lack both functions entirely. Therefore, they cannot perfume. Superior function is of two kinds: (1) The function of being able to cognize (Neng Yuan), which eliminates material forms that are only perfumed as perceptual objects (Xiang Fen). (2) The function of being a powerful, deliberate force (Qiang Sheng), which is not spontaneous (Bu Ren Yun Qi). This eliminates certain types of retribution minds that have cognition but lack this strong intentional force. Thus, material forms have strong force but no cognitive function; retribution minds have cognitive function but no strong force; unassociated formations have neither. None of them can perfume. It is the function of deliberate activity that creates the power of perfuming, just as a strong person can accomplish tasks effectively. Third, someone may ask: If arising and ceasing plus superior function make something a perfuming agent, then wouldn't the first seven consciousnesses of a Buddha also qualify? The answer uses the third characteristic to clarify: It must have increase and decrease (Zeng Jian). Increase and decrease mean the state of being affected or diminished. A Buddha is beyond loss or gain, so a Buddha's consciousness cannot perfume. An analogy is given: It should be hard when hardness is needed and soft when softness is needed to accomplish things. The seventh consciousness (Manas), until it reaches the stage of no-outflow, still has increase and decrease. Only the Buddha's fruit is excluded. If it were otherwise, then earlier Buddhas would be superior and later ones inferior, because earlier Buddhas would have perfumed more outflow-free seeds. Fourth, someone may ask: If a phenomenon has arising and ceasing, superior function, and increase and decrease, then wouldn't another person's first seven consciousnesses be able to perfume this person's eighth consciousness (Alaya)? The answer uses the fourth characteristic to clarify: The perfuming agent must be combined and turn together (He He Er Zhuan) with the perfumed consciousness. This eliminates the possibility of one person's consciousness perfuming another's, or of a past moment perfuming a future moment (they must be simultaneous). This is the same condition as the fourth characteristic of the perfumed consciousness. In summary, only the seven transforming consciousnesses (Qi Zhuan Shi) can truly be perfuming agents. \*\*Conclusion:\*\* The dual fourth characteristics in this text have two meanings: (1) The fourth characteristic for both the perfuming agent and the perfumed object appear similar but are different (it is not identical). (2) This text serves as a general conclusion. Thus, the treatise states, "Thus, the perfuming agent and the perfumed consciousness arise and cease together, and the condition of perfuming is accomplished," and so forth. \*\*Question:\*\* Among the seven perfuming consciousnesses, which division (Fen) of the eighth consciousness (the four divisions: self-nature, seeing, image, and self-certification) do they perfume? \*\*Answer:\*\* The first five consciousnesses perfume only the seeds of the perceptual objects of the Alaya consciousness. The sixth consciousness (Manas) perfumes the seeds of both the seeing and perceptual-object divisions of the eighth consciousness. The seventh consciousness (Manas) perfumes only the seeds of the seeing division of the eighth consciousness. \*\*Question:\*\* Among the four divisions of the first seven consciousnesses, which divisions can perfume seeds? \*\*Answer:\*\* The seeing and perceptual-object divisions can perfume seeds, because these two divisions have an active function. \*\*Question:\*\* But perceptual objects are material forms; how can they perfume seeds? \*\*Answer:\*\* It is the seeing division that gives power to the perceptual-object division, enabling it to perfume seeds. This is like an owl incubating a stone as an egg—it is through contact and force that the inert object becomes effective. \*\*Question:\*\* Do all the rulers and mental factors of the first seven consciousnesses perfume, or only the rulers (the primary mind)? \*\*Answer:\*\* Both the rulers and their mental factors can be perfuming agents. \*\*Question:\*\* Why is the same not true for the eighth consciousness? Its mental factors are not considered perfumed objects. \*\*Answer:\*\* This exclusion was already made earlier. The mental factors lack the quality of "self-mastery" (Zi Zai). Therefore, they cannot be the receiving foundation (perfumed object) for the main consciousness. \*\*Objection:\*\* If mental factors are not self-masterful, they cannot be perfumed objects. But then shouldn't the same logic mean they also cannot be perfuming agents? \*\*Answer:\*\* The earlier question is settled: Perfuming agents require the four characteristics, and mental factors possess them. Perfumed objects require the characteristic of being a "host" and "self-masterful," which mental factors lack. That is why they differ. \*\*Objection:\*\* So when acting as a cause (perfuming), mental factors have agency, so they can perfume. As a result (being perfumed), they should also have agency and be able to be perfumed objects. \*\*Answer:\*\* As an effect, they lack agency and have many flaws. Therefore, mental factors are not proper objects to be perfumed. How do we know they lack agency and have flaws? Because if they were perfumed, it would lead to the fault of producing six fruits simultaneously. If the eighth consciousness and its mental factors as a group were all perfumed, then each single act of perfuming would create six seeds. Later, when conditions converge, those six seeds would produce six simultaneous manifestations. If six fruits arose at once from one being, that being would split into six individuals—a major fallacy. \*\*Objection:\*\* Why is that such a great error? \*\*Answer:\*\* The sacred teachings state that the realm of beings has no increase or decrease. This contradicts that teaching and is illogical. Therefore, it is a serious flaw. \*\*Objection:\*\* Then, consider the seventh consciousness: there are eighteen dharmas in its group (one ruler and seventeen mental factors). When it cognizes the eighth consciousness, it perfumes all eighteen kinds of seeds. Why doesn't that also produce eighteen simultaneous fruits? \*\*Answer:\*\* Although the perfuming seed is multiple, they are held within one "location" (the receiving consciousness) and produce a single fruit. It is like many starch particles within a single grain of wheat giving rise to one sprout. Follow the analogy: One wheat husk holds many starch particles, and together they produce one sprout. One supporting location (the eighth consciousness) holds many seeds (from the seventh consciousness), which produce a single fruit together. If a single grain of wheat were to split into many grains, then indeed each might grow independently. In the same way, if the receiving foundation (the eighth consciousness) were not a single entity, there would be doubt that multiple fruits would arise. But that is not the case here.

如是能熏與所熏識至是謂略說一切種相。

> Thus, the conditioning consciousness and the conditioned consciousness—up to this point—are what is briefly called the seed aspect of all phenomena.

三總結。如熏苣蕂者。苣蕂本來是炭。多時埋在地中。便變為苣蕂。西方若欲作塗身香油。先以華香。取與苣蕂子聚為一處。淹令極爛。後取苣蕂壓油。油遂香氣芬馥。故攝論云。復次何等名為熏習。熏習能詮。何謂所詮。謂依彼法俱生俱滅。此中有能生彼因性。是謂所詮。如苣勝中有華熏習。苣勝與華俱生俱滅。是諸苣勝帶能生彼香因而生。又如所立貪等行者。貪等熏習。依彼貪等俱生俱滅。此心帶彼生因而生。或多聞者。多聞熏習。依聞作意俱生俱滅。此心帶彼記因而生。由此熏習能攝持故名持法者。阿賴耶識熏習道理當知亦爾。能熏識等下。明能熏所熏俱時和合種現相生為親因緣。言三法者。前後種子為二法。中間現識為一法。望前種子是能生。望後種子是所生。是故因果展轉同時。下喻同時義。前後燋炷。喻前後種。中間光焰。喻現行識。蘆束相依。喻不相離。法喻兩齊。故曰理不傾動。應立量云。種現是有法。因果同時宗。因云。展轉相生故。同喻如炷焰。或云。更互相依故。喻如二束蘆。俱有因。同類因。即六因中二因。士用果。等流果。即五果中二果也。此第八識。六因中有四。能持種子義邊。是持種因。若因種子俱時而有。即俱有因。若望自類種子前後相引。即同類因。若望同時心所等。即相應因。無餘二因者。異熟因是善惡性。此識無記。若徧行因是染。謂見疑無明等。此識非染。於五果中具四。唯除離繫。望自種子。是等流果。望作意等心所。是士用果。望第七識。為增上果。望善惡因。即異熟果。此單就種現言。故只舉其二耳。種生現。如俱有因。得士用果。即因果同時者。即前異類不相違。種引種。如己類因。得等流果。即因果不同時。即前自類相違。云何士用果。謂諸作者。假諸作具。所辦事業。士謂士夫。用謂作用。此人士用。若法士用者。因法為作者。緣法為作具。如士夫用。從喻彰名。云何等流果。謂習善等所引同類。或似先因。後果隨轉。因果相似名等。是彼類故名流。此二即前種生現。現熏種。種引種。以因果同時故。種生現熏。合而為一。故攝二耳。餘法即現引現。故云三類親因緣。四類真等流也。欲明其義當閱開蒙。彼中難云。種子生現行。因種與果俱。種子引種子。因應與果俱。何理不同耶。答。種望現果是異類。體不相違。許同時。種望種果。是同類。自體相違時須異。問。何理同類便說相違。異類不違耶。答。如子望母。子不是母。是異類故。同時俱有。母自望母。名為同類。故於一時無二身並。故種引種雖是自體。定不同時。若許自體同時生者。有無窮過。如一種子。同念並生。自一種子。所生種子當念又生。如是展轉同念並生無窮種子。豈有此理。如父果必以能生子。豈有同念父自生父也。故種引種現引理。不同時。種生現。現熏種。却同時。何以故。種引種。現引現。約剎那四相前後相引。乃橫說故。不同時也。種生現。現熏種。約頭上脚下生莖結子。乃豎說故却同時也。是故不同。問。種生現。現熏種。如父生子。子復生孫。是親因緣殊無凝滯。其種引種。何理說為親因緣耶。答。前念既滅。後念已生。即前念體親引後念。知是親因緣。譬如輥彈。前輥至後。後彈即是前彈之體。豈不親耶。其種現相生。別辨體者。尚說為親。此種引種。前念後念即是一體。豈不是親。問。如現引現。亦是前念親引後念。應是因緣。何故却說為真等流。答。疏出已有種子生故。謂前念種子。生起頭上前念現行。其種輥至第二念時。還生頭上第二念現。故知後念現行。不是前念現行親生。如戴華人。向前行時。其華不曾自向前行。隨人向前也。問。三類親因緣。四類真等流。請以喻釋不同之理。答。種生現。如炷生焰。現熏種。如焰生燋炷。種引種。如炷前後自相引生。現引現。如焰前後自家相引。炷親生焰。焰親生燋炷。此易見者。若炷引炷者。其炷脚下更無有物能生炷者。即知前炷親引後炷。此亦名親。其焰引焰。脚下已有前後燈炷能生焰故。即知後焰非前焰親引。若前後焰自親引生。何故炷盡焰便隨滅耶。固是前焰不能親生也。故非因緣。只是等流。止是相似。名真等流。不是親生。故非因緣。是謂略說一切種相。通結前來一切種相。應更分別下四科之義。

> Three Summary Principles. Consider the example of steeping a sesame seed in incense. The sesame seed is originally just a charcoal. But if it is buried in incense for a long time, it becomes infused with the incense's fragrance. In the Western Regions, when they want to make scented body oil, they first take fragrant flowers and mix them with sesame seeds, letting them soak together until completely macerated. They then press the sesame seeds for oil, and the oil becomes richly fragrant and aromatic. Therefore, the \*Compilation of the Mahāyāna Śāstra\* says: "Furthermore, what is meant by 'perfuming'? Perfuming is the 'signifier'. What is the 'signified'? It is that actions and their objects arise and cease together. Within this, there exists a causal potential for their arising—this is what is meant by the 'signified.' It is like sesame seeds that have the perfuming of the flower: the sesame seed and the flower arise and cease together. These sesame seeds carry the potential to produce that fragrance and thus come into being. Likewise, a person habituated to desire, etc., has the perfuming of desire: the mind arises and ceases together with that desire, and this mind carries the potential to produce that desire and thus comes into being. Similarly, a learned person has the perfuming of learning: the mind arises and ceases together with the intention to listen (learning), and this mind carries the potential to retain that knowledge and thus comes into being. Because this perfuming allows for retention, it is called 'the possessor of the Dharma.' The principle of perfuming for the \*ālaya-vijñāna\* (the foundational storehouse consciousness) should be understood in the same way." The phrase "the perfuming consciousness, etc., below" clarifies that the perfuming and perfumed consciousness simultaneously cooperate, producing both seeds and their manifestations, which act as the direct cause (\*hetupratyaya\*). What are the "three dharmas"? Past and future seeds constitute two dharmas, and the present manifest consciousness is the third. The present seeds are the cause of the manifest consciousness, and the manifest consciousness is the cause of the future seeds. Thus, cause and effect are simultaneous and mutually reinforcing. The following simile illustrates this simultaneity. "A forward and backward wick" illustrates the past and future seeds; "the middle flame" illustrates the manifest consciousness; "the mutual support of a sheaf of reeds" illustrates their inseparability. Since the principle and the simile align, it is said that "the principle is unshaken." We should construct a logical argument: Seeds and their manifestations are the subject. The thesis is that cause and effect occur simultaneously. The reason is that they mutually produce each other. This is like the wick and the flame. Alternatively, the reason could be that they are mutually dependent, like a pair of bundled reeds. Simultaneous cause (\*sahabhu-hetu\*) and same-type cause (\*sabhaga-hetu\*), these are two of the six causes. The result of a person's effort (\*puruṣakāra-phala\*) and the result with a similar nature (\*niṣyanda-phala\*), these are two of the five results. This eighth consciousness fulfills four of the six causes: in its capacity to hold seeds, it is the "seed-holding cause." If cause and seed exist simultaneously, it is the simultaneous cause. If it looks to the successive linkage of seeds of its own kind, it is the same-type cause. If it looks to the simultaneous mental factors (\*caitta\*), it is the conjoined cause (\*samprayukta-hetu\*). It lacks the other two causes: The maturational cause (\*vipāka-hetu\*) is good or evil in nature; this consciousness is neutral. The pervasive cause (\*sarvatraga-hetu\*) is defiled—like wrong views, doubt, and ignorance; this consciousness is not defiled. Of the five results, it possesses four, excluding only the result of liberation (\*visamyoga-phala\*). In relationship to its own seeds, it is the result with a similar nature. In relationship to intention (\*manasikāra\*) and other mental factors, it is the fruit of one's own effort. In relationship to the seventh consciousness, it is the dominant effect (\*adhipati-phala\*). In relationship to good and evil causes, it is the maturational result (\*vipāka-phala\*). This explanation is given solely in terms of seeds and manifestations, so only two results have been mentioned. Seed producing manifestation is like the simultaneous cause, yielding the result of one's own effort. This is cause and effect simultaneous, which is the "non-opposition of different types" from before. A seed producing another seed (seed-to-seed) is like the same-type cause, yielding a result with a similar nature. This is cause and effect not simultaneous, which is the "opposition of the same type" from before. What is the fruit of one's own effort? It refers to the tasks accomplished by agents using tools. "One" means a person, "effort" means action, hence the phrase "one's own effort." If a dharma is the fruit of one's effort, the causal dharma is the agent, and the conditional dharma is the tool, like a person's exertion. It is named by metaphor. What is the result with a similar nature? It refers to the result generated by the same type that is induced by habitual good actions, etc. Or, the result conforms to the preceding cause, and the later cause follows the earlier one. Cause and result being similar is called "same type," and the result belonging to that category is called "outflow" (like a class of beings). These two correspond to the earlier categories: seed producing manifestation, manifestation perfuming seed, and seed producing seed. Since cause and effect are simultaneous in seed producing manifestation and manifestation perfuming seed, they are grouped together as one. The other dharmas refer to phenomena producing phenomena. Therefore, one speaks of the "three types of immediate cause" (\*hetupratyaya\*) and the "four types of true outflow." To understand this meaning, one should consult the \*Kaimeng\* (Opening of Wisdom). That text raises the following objection: Objection: "When a seed produces a manifestation, the causal seed and the effect coexist. When a seed generates another seed (seed-to-seed), the cause and effect should also coexist. Why does reason dictate differently?" Answer: "From the perspective of the seed as the cause of the manifesting fruit, they are different types. Their nature does not conflict, so they are permitted to arise simultaneously. But from the perspective of seed producing a like seed, the cause and effect are of the same type. Their intrinsic nature is in conflict, so their time must be different." Question: "Why does same type imply conflict, but different types do not?" Answer: "It is like a child looking to its mother. The child is not identical to the mother; they are different types, so they can exist simultaneously. But a mother looking to herself as a 'mother' is of the same type; therefore, there cannot be two identical bodies at one time. Thus, a seed generating another seed, though it is the same entity, absolutely cannot be simultaneous. If identical entities could arise simultaneously, there would be the fault of infinite regress. For one single seed, if a seed were to be born in the same thought-moment, then the newly born seed would itself produce another seed in that same thought-moment. This would continue in a chain of infinite seeds all arising in the same moment, which is impossible. It is like how a father's result is necessarily a son. Could a father produce himself in the same instant? Certainly not. Therefore, seed producing seed and phenomenon producing phenomenon () are based on cause and effect not being simultaneous. Seed producing manifestation and manifestation perfuming seed are, conversely, simultaneous. Why? Seed producing seed and phenomenon producing phenomenon are described laterally, according to the four aspects \[arising, abiding, changing, ceasing\] of a specific moment; thus they are not simultaneous. Seed producing manifestation and manifestation perfuming seed are described vertically, like a head producing a stem and the stem bearing fruit; they are simultaneous. Therefore, they are different." Question: "Seed producing manifestation and manifestation perfuming seed are like a father producing a son, and the son later producing a grandson. This as a direct cause (\*hetupratyaya\*) is clear and unproblematic. But seed generating another seed (seed-to-seed) — by what reason is it also called a direct cause?" Answer: "When the preceding thought-moment has ceased and the subsequent thought-moment has arisen, the preceding essence directly gives rise to the subsequent essence. This is known as direct cause. It is like a rolling ball: the preceding ball rolls to the position of the succeeding ball, and the succeeding ball's essence is exactly that of the preceding ball's. How can this not be 'direct'? If one explains the mutual arising of seeds and manifestations by differentiating their substance, one still calls that 'direct'. This 'seed generating seed' where the preceding and succeeding thought-moments are the same entity — how could it not be 'direct'?" Question: "Similarly, a manifest phenomenon producing the next manifest phenomenon—the preceding moment directly gives rise to the subsequent. Shouldn't this also be a cause? Why then is it instead called a 'true outflow' (\*niṣyanda\*)?" Answer: "The commentary has already stated that 'due to the seeds present'. The preceding seed gives rise to the manifest phenomenon of that initial moment. That seed then rolls on to the second moment, where it gives rise to the second moment's manifestation. Therefore, know that the subsequent manifestation is not \*directly\* produced by the preceding manifestation. It is like a person wearing garlands of flowers. As the person walks forward, the flowers themselves do not walk; they move forward by depending on the person. Question: "Please explain the difference between 'three types of direct cause' and 'four types of true outflow' with an analogy." Answer: "Seed producing manifestation is like the wick producing the flame. Manifestation perfuming seed is like the flame scorching the wick. Seed producing seed (seed-to-seed) is like the wick sequentially producing itself from moment to moment. Manifest phenomenon producing phenomenon is like the flame sequentially producing itself from moment to moment. The wick directly produces the flame; the flame directly scorches the wick—this is easy to observe. Regarding the wick producing the next wick: there is no other thing beneath the wick that can produce the wick. Therefore, one knows that the preceding wick directly gives rise to the succeeding wick. This is also called 'direct'. As for the flame producing the next flame: there is clearly a preceding and succeeding lamp-wick underneath that can both produce the flame. Therefore, one knows that the succeeding flame is not directly produced by the preceding flame. If it were so, why would the flame die as soon as the wick is consumed? This is because the preceding flame cannot directly give birth to the succeeding flame. Therefore, it is not a cause, just an outflow. It is merely a similarity, and is called 'true outflow'. It is not direct birth, so it is not a cause." This is the abbreviated explanation of the "nature of all seeds." It summarizes all the previous meanings. "Further explanation" below covers the four sections \[on seeds, perfuming, etc.\].

通上一釋三名竟。下二釋行相分二。一問答標名。

> Having completed the explanation of the three names, we now move to the section explaining the characteristics and aspects, which has two parts.

此識行相所緣云何謂不可知執受處了。

> What is the mode of operation and object of this consciousness? It is the unfathomable \["unknowable"\] grasping of the substratum, the sense-fields, and the act of cognition.

此識行相所緣云何。此總問也。謂不可知執受處了。此總答也。了。即第五行相門。執受處。即第四所緣門。不可知。即能所緣行相之內差別之義。問答標名竟。下二正釋分二。一釋執受處了分二。

> What are the characteristics and objects of this consciousness? This is a general question. It says: "unknowable, grasping, experiencing, and the locus." This is a general answer. "Experiencing" refers to the fifth aspect, the characteristic of cognitive activity. "Grasping and experiencing" and "locus" refer to the fourth aspect, the object of consciousness. "Unknowable" indicates the specific distinction between the subject and object within this cognitive characteristic and its realm. The question and answer have now identified the topics. The following section provides a detailed explanation in two parts: first, explaining "grasping, experiencing, and the locus," which is also divided into two.

了謂了別即是行相至行相仗之而得起故。

> "Understanding" means discriminating, which is the very nature of mental activity. All mental activity depends on this in order to arise. <note>到</note> Mental activity arises because it relies on this.

一總釋。了謂了別者。即第八識能緣見分。見分取境。有了別用。故名行相。處謂處所下。此第八所緣相分。以八識恒取器世間相為境故。第八自證分上。一分生現功能。謂之種子。有根之身。名為根身。根身所依世界如器。名器世間。相名分別習氣者。釋種子也。相即業習氣。屬相分。名即名言二種習氣。屬見分。分別即我法二種習氣。屬徧計。即五法之三也。色根及根依處者。釋根身也。色根。即勝義根。所依處。即色根所依之處。此二皆是識所執受。攝為自體。同安危故。此二者。正指種子及根身也。執受各具二義。執二義者。一攝義。二持義。言攝者。即攝為自體。言持者。即持令不散。受二義者。一領義。二覺義。領者。領以為境。覺者。令生覺受。安危共同。根身具執受四義。一攝為自體。同是無記性故。二持令不散。第八能任持此身。令不爛壞故。三領以為境。此根身是第八親相分故。四令生覺受。安危共同。若第八危。五根危。第八安。五根安故。若器世間量。但緣。非執受。即受二義中領以為境。又言非執受者。緣無攝為自體持令不散令生覺受三義。不似他根身。名非執受。即無受四義中領以為境一義。問。何以器界不似根身。第八親執受。答。以與第八遠故。所以不攝為自體。又器界損時。第八亦不隨彼安危共同。所以不執受。若髮。毛。爪。齒。膀胱宿水等雖近。已同外器攝。所以第八亦不執受。由此第八或持或緣。應具四句。一持而不緣。即無漏種。二緣而不持。即器界現行。三俱句。即內身根塵。四俱非。即前七現行。問。第八何不緣前七現行。答。有多過。故不緣。若變影像。即犯第八緣假過。若親緣。即犯唯識義不成過。親取他心故。西明云。若變影像。即有情界增過。以變起前七現行故。即有兩重第七等。又解以心法要種而生。今異熟第八微劣。設緣得前七。亦不能熏種。故不緣也。問。第八何不緣長等。答。是假。故不緣。問。無為是實。第八何故不緣。答。若實無為。因位不證。若假無為。又非彼境。阿賴耶識等者。言第八以因緣力得生自體。即復自變三類性境為自所緣。而了別之見分。又仗此所緣相分而得生起也。所緣之義。前已略陳。所變之義。後當順釋。

> A General Explanation: “To discern” refers to the seeing portion of the eighth consciousness, which perceives objects. Since its seeing portion has the function of discernment, this is called its “mode of activity.” “Location” refers to the experienced portion that is the object of the eighth consciousness. The eighth consciousness constantly takes the material world as its object. Within the self-validating portion of the eighth consciousness, the portion that has the function of generating appearances is called “seeds.” The body formed by the sense faculties is called the “faculty-body.” The world on which this faculty-body depends, which is like a vessel, is called the “vessel-world.” “Appearances, names, and discrimination—these habitual energies” explains seeds. “Appearances” refers to the habitual energies of actions, which belong to the experienced portion. “Names” refers to the two types of habitual energies of verbal expressions, which belong to the seeing portion. “Discrimination” refers to the two types of habitual energies of self and phenomena, which belong to the falsely discriminated. These three are three of the five elements. “Material faculties and their supporting basis” explains the faculty-body. “Material faculties” refers to the supreme-meaning faculties. Their “supporting basis” is the location on which these material faculties depend. Both of these are grasped and sustained by the consciousness, taken as its own substance, sharing the same fate—safe or endangered. “These two” specifically refers to seeds and the faculty-body. “Grasping” and “sustaining” each have two meanings. The two meanings of “grasping” are: 1) taking as its own substance; 2) holding so that it does not scatter. The two meanings of “sustaining” are: 1) receiving as an object; 2) making it produce sensations. Their safety and danger are shared. The faculty-body fully possesses all four meanings of both grasping and sustaining: 1) It is taken as own substance because both share the nature of being morally neutral; 2) It is held so as not to scatter—the eighth consciousness can support this body and prevent it from decaying; 3) It is received as an object—this faculty-body is the direct experienced portion of the eighth consciousness; 4) It makes sensations arise—safety and danger are shared. When the eighth is in danger, the five faculties are in danger; when the eighth is safe, the five faculties are safe. As for the vessel-world, the eighth consciousness merely perceives it but does not grasp or sustain it. It only fulfills one meaning of “sustaining”—receiving it as an object. And when we say it is “not grasped,” this means it lacks three meanings of “grasping”: taking as own substance, holding so that it does not scatter, and making sensations arise. Unlike the faculty-body, it is called “not grasped,” meaning it lacks three of the four meanings—it only has “receiving it as an object.” Question: Why does the eighth consciousness not directly grasp the vessel-world like it does the faculty-body? Answer: Because it is far from the eighth consciousness, so it is not taken as its own substance. Also, when the vessel-world is damaged, the eighth consciousness does not share its safety or danger. Therefore it is not grasped. Even things like hair, nails, teeth, bladder fluids, etc., though close, are already included in the external vessel-world category, so the eighth consciousness also does not grasp them. Therefore, the eighth consciousness’s functions of holding and perceiving can be summarized in four statements: 1) Holding without perceiving—this refers to seeds without outflows. 2) Perceiving without holding—this refers to the manifest vessel-world. 3) Both—this refers to the internal faculties and their objects. 4) Neither—this refers to the manifest activities of the first seven consciousnesses. Question: Why doesn’t the eighth consciousness perceive the manifest activities of the first seven? Answer: There would be too many problems. If it transformed images of them, this would violate the rule against the eighth perceiving illusions. If it perceived them directly, the doctrine of “consciousness-only” would be undermined—it would directly take another’s mind. Ximing says: If it transformed images of them, the realm of sentient beings would increase—transforming the manifest activities of the first seven would create a double set of the seventh consciousness, and so on. Another explanation: Since mental dharmas must arise from seeds, the maturational eighth consciousness is subtle and weak. Even if it could perceive the first seven, it would not be able to perfume seeds. Therefore it does not perceive them. Question: Why doesn’t the eighth consciousness perceive things like length and shape? Answer: Because they are conceptual constructs, it does not perceive them. Question: The unconditioned is real—why doesn’t the eighth perceive it? Answer: If it is the real unconditioned, it is not realized in the causal stage. If it is a fabricated unconditioned, it is not within its scope. “The ālaya consciousness, etc.” means the eighth consciousness, by the power of causes and conditions, generates its own essence. It then transforms three kinds of real objects from within itself as its own objects, and its seeing portion arises relying on these experienced portions. The meaning of “object of perception” has been briefly explained above. The meaning of “transformation” will be explained later in sequence.

此中了者謂異熟識至了別即是識之見分。

> In this context, "to discern" refers to the Alaya-consciousness—the action of discerning is precisely the "seeing part" of consciousness.

二別釋分四。一別釋行相門。此一了字。只是一見分耳。為見分必須有所見影像。故立相分。又必須有本體。故立自證分。自證分又必有本體。故立證自證分。四分足。然後了字明。故以四分釋一了字。初明立二。次明立三。三明立四。而安慧一分。於二分中破之。今當先明四分。一相分。二見分。三自證分。四證自證分。相分有四。一實相名相。體即真如。是真實相故。二境相名相。為能與根心而為境故。三相狀名相。此唯有為法。有相狀故。通影及質。唯是識之所變。四義相名相。即能詮下所詮義相分是。於上四種相中。唯取後三相為相分相。又相分有二。一識所頓變。即是本質。二識等緣境。唯變影像。不得本質。二見分者。論云。於自所緣。有了別用。此見分有五類。一證見名見。即三根本智見分是。二照燭名見。此通根心。俱有照燭義故。三能緣名見。即通內三分。俱能緣故。四念解名見。以念。解所詮義故。五推度名見。即比量心。推度一切境故。於此五種見中。除五色根。及內二分。餘皆見分所攝。三自證分。為能親證自見分緣相分不謬。能作證故。四證自證分。謂能親證第三自證分緣見分不謬故。從所證處得名。此四分義。總以鏡喻。鏡如自證分。鏡明如見分。鏡像是相分。鏡後弝如證自證分。此四分。有四師立義。第一安慧菩薩。立一分自證分。謂自證分從緣所生。依他起性。有種子生。故說為有。見相二分。不從緣生。因徧計心妄執而有。故說為無。第二難陀論師立二分。謂即一切心。皆有見相二分。見相二分。即能所二緣也。若無相分牽心。心法無由得生。若無能緣見分。誰知有所緣相分耶。即有境有心等成唯識也。安慧難云。汝立相分。豈不心外有境。何名唯識。難陀言。見分是能緣。相分是所緣。攝所從能。還是唯識。若云相分是妄情有者。即第八所緣識中相分種子。是相分攝。即種子是能生自證現行親因緣法。如種子相分是妄情者。則所生現行自證分亦是妄情。不違種子識義耶。若不許自證分是妄情者。即能生種子亦是實有。即因果皆實。證相分亦是實有。既有相分。即有見分。能所既成。即二分成立唯識也。又五根是第八識相分。若相分是徧計。豈有徧計根能發生五識耶。安慧云。不假五根發生五識。五識俱自從種子生也。問。若不假根發生。但從種子生者。汝許五識種子是第八相分否。答。許是第八相分。難。既爾。即種子是徧計。能生五識亦是徧計也。安慧救云。種子但是第八識上氣分有生現行功能。故假名種子。但是習氣之異名。非實也。難云。諸聖教從種子生者名實。依他立者名假。豈有假種子生實現行。若是假種子者。如何親報自果耶。若種子是假法者。即因中第八識因緣變義不成。若非因緣變者。即違一切。安慧絕救。第三陳那菩薩。謂前師安慧立一分。即但有體而無用。難陀立見相二分。但有用而無體。皆互不足。故總前體用立三分。即立量果義。護法菩薩又以量果義。增證自證分。而立四分。其說詳見論中。今當次第釋之。初立二分云。然有漏識至說名見分者。謂依他二分。似徧計所執二分。又以小乘相分名行相。能取所緣故。見分名事。是心心所自體相故。今似心外之境。名似所緣。是心外法。此中無故。所變相分為所緣耳。若明相分。未是顛倒。向心外取。方為倒耳。又言見者。是能緣境義。通心心所。非推求義。推求義者。唯慧能故。次破安慧唯立自證分。先破無所緣云。若心心所無所緣相應不能緣自所緣境。謂緣色之心。應不能緣色也。或應一一能緣一切。謂隨一識等。能緣一切境也。以眼識無所緣。而能緣於色。餘識無色緣。亦應能緣色。既餘不能緣一切。明知無所緣者。是義不然。此中正義。緣自境時。心上必有帶境之相。如鏡上面。似面相生。次破無能緣云。若心心所無能緣相。應不能緣同於虗空。以虗空不能緣故。或虗空等亦是能緣。此反難也。謂心心所法無能緣。而能緣所緣。此虗空等無能緣。亦應緣所緣。故總申正義云。故心心所必有能緣所緣二相。如契經說。即密嚴經也。一切唯有覺者。即唯識也。所覺義皆無者。即心外妄執實境是無。能覺所覺分者。能覺是依他實見分。所覺。是依他實相分。各自然而轉者。見分從心種子生。相分從相分種子生起。故知須立二分。唯識方成。此偈上半明無外境。下半明有見相二分。各各自從因緣所生。名自然而轉。下結正義。先出難陀立二分之非。言彼不立自證分者。以心外本質為所緣境。王所所變影像為相分。即以王所之體名見分。此總以見分體相為見相二分也。又為彼釋云。何故彼以外境為所緣。猶彼不立自證分。即以外境為所依根。及所緣境行相相似者。王所所變相分。同是影像故。事雖數等而相各異。識受想等相各別故者。事即見分。數即心所。言心王與心數。雖同以見分為體。平等無異。而了別領納緣慮之相各各不同。故以見分體相分見相也。由彼不立自證。故境不自內出。直以見分緣本質。即以見分體相為見相也。次出陳那立三分之是。達無離識所緣境等者。由彼達自心之外。無別有境。境是內識自證分所變。故以自變相分為所緣。而以能緣見分為行相。識以了別為行相故。即相見所依自體名事。此事即自證分。相離於見。無別自體。但二功能。故應別有一所依體。若無自證。應不自憶心心所法。如不曾更境。必不能憶。謂如見分不更相分之境。則不能憶。要曾更之。方能憶之。若無自證。已滅心所。則不能憶。以曾不為自證緣故。則如見分不曾更境。今能憶之。明先有自證已曾緣故。如於見分憶曾更境故。次下立三分云。然心心所。一一生時。以理推徵。各有三分。能量所量量果別故。相見必有所依體故。相分為所量。見分為能量。即要自證分為證者是量果也。喻如尺量絹時。絹為所量。尺人為能量。記數之智。名為量果。今見分緣相分不錯。皆由自證分為作果故。今眼識見分緣青時。定不緣黃也。如見分緣不曾見境。忽然緣黃境時。即定不緣青。若無自證分。即見分不能自記憶。故知須立三分。若無自證分。即相見亦無。若言有二分者。即須定有自證分。自證分喻如牛頭。二角喻相見二分。如集量論頌說。似境相所量者。即相分似外境現。能取相者。即是見分能取相分。故自證即是體也。彼三者。一能取相。二自證。三即能量及果。此三體無差別。果是何義。成滿因義。言無別體者。同一識故。則離心無境也。次立四分云。立宗者。心心所若細分別。應有四分。立理者。若無第四分。將何法與第三分為證耶。見分是心分。須有自證分。自證是心分。應有第四證。故曰。心分既同。應皆證故。汝陳那立三分者。為見分有能量了境用故。即將自證分為量果。汝自證分亦有能量照境用故。即將何法與能量自證分為量果耶。即須將第四證自證分為第三分量果也。故曰諸能量者必有果故。恐彼救云。却用見分為第三分果。故云不應見分是第三果云云。意明見分通於三量。三量者。謂現量。比量。非量。即明見緣相時。或量非量。不可非量法為現量果。或見緣相是比量。及緣自證復是現量。故自證是心體。得與比量非量為果。見分非心體。不得與自證為量果也。故曰見分不證第三。證自體者必現量故。此四分中下。申上義。相分見分。於外門轉。名為外性。自證分。證自證分。唯是內證。名為內性。故下頌云。眾生心二性初一分是所緣。後三分是能緣。故曰通一。相分是見分家親所緣緣。見分即自證分親所緣緣。自證分是證自證分親所緣緣。故曰第二但緣第一等。宗鏡云。見分外緣虗疎。通比非二量故。即不取見分為自證量果。內二分唯現量故。互為果無失。夫為量果者。須是現量。方為量果。比非定非量果。喻如作保證人。須是敦直者方為證。若略虗人。不能堪為保證。第三四分既是現量。故得相證。無無窮失。意云。若以見分為能量。但用三分。亦得足矣。若以見分為所量。必須第四為其量果。若通作喻者。絹如所量。尺如能量。智為量果。即自證分若尺為所使。智為能使。何物用智。即是於人。如證自證分人能用智。智能使人。故能更證。亦如明鏡。鏡像為相。鏡明為見。鏡面如自證。鏡背如證自證。面依於背。背復依面。故得互證亦可以銅為證自證。鏡依於銅。銅依於鏡也。引證密嚴經偈云云。心二性者。即是內二分為一性。見相二分為第二性。即心境內外二性。能取纏者。即是能緣麤動。是能緣見分。所取纏者。即是相縛。所緣縛也。見種種差別。以見分通三量故。論解頌意可知。如是四分下。總結四分唯一見分。第三第四。果體一故。證自證分攝入自證分。則止是三分。即陳那所立也。第三四與第二。俱是能緣見分攝故。合而為一。與第一為二。則止是二分。即難陀所立也。相分即見分上所現影像。故又合而為一。則止是一分。即安慧所立也。又引入楞伽經偈。證唯一心。如是處處唯一心者。外境無故。唯有一心。內執著故。似外境轉。定無外境。許有自心。不離心故。總名一識。故識行相即是了別。了別即是識之見分。結釋了字義也。

> \*\*Section Two: Detailed Explanation of the Four Parts\*\* This section explains the meaning of the single word "awareness" (\*liao\*) by breaking it down into four parts. \*\*Part 1: The Nature of Mental Activity (The "Seeing" Function)\*\* The word "aware" (\*liao\*) here refers only to the "seeing" function (\*drsti\*), which is the mind's basic capacity to perceive. For this seeing function to operate, it must have an image to perceive, therefore we establish the "perceived aspect" (\*nimitta\*, the image). Furthermore, it must have a fundamental basis, so we establish the "self-verifying function" (\*svasamvedana\*, self-awareness). The self-verifying function itself also needs a basis, so we establish the "verification of self-verification" (\*svasamvedana-svasamvedana\*). Only when these four parts are complete is the meaning of "awareness" fully clarified. Therefore, the word "awareness" is explained through these four parts. \*\*a) Establishing Two Parts\*\* \*\*b) Establishing Three Parts\*\* \*\*c) Establishing Four Parts\*\* (We will first explain the refutation of Master Anhui’s doctrine of a single part, which is refuted within the discussion of two parts. Now, let us first clarify the four parts.) \*\*1. The Perceived Aspect (\*Nimitta\*):\*\* - \*True Reality Aspect\*: The fundamental nature of reality (\*tathatā\*), which is the true form of all things. - \*Objective Aspect\*: The object that appears to the sense faculties and consciousness. - \*Form Aspect\*: Conditioned phenomena (\*samskrta-dharmas\*), which have specific characteristics. These include both direct sense data and their mental representations, all of which are transformations of consciousness. - \*Meaning Aspect\*: The conceptual meaning expressed by words. Of these four, only the last three are considered the perceived aspect (the image). Also, the perceived aspect has two types: - The original object (\*alambana\*) directly transformed by the foundational consciousness (\*alaya-vijñana\*). - The mental image (\*pratibimba\*) transformed during perceptual activity, which does not include the original object itself. \*\*2. The Perceiving Aspect (\*Darsana\*):\*\* The text says that it has the function of discerning its own object. The perceiving aspect has five categories: - \*Direct perception\*: The intuitive wisdom of enlightenment. - \*Illumination\*: Both the sense faculties and the mind have the quality of illuminating their objects. - \*Capacity to cognize\*: This includes the inner three functions (the two self-verifying aspects plus one part of the perceiving aspect). - \*Recognition and understanding\*: The mental factors of memory and discernment that understand meaning. - \*Reasoning\*: The inferential mind that deduces and grasps all objects. Of these five, the five sense organs and the inner two functions (self-verification and its verification) are excluded; the rest are included in the perceiving aspect. \*\*3. The Self-Verifying Function (\*Svasamvedana\*):\*\* This is the inner awareness that directly confirms that the perceiving aspect correctly perceives the perceived aspect, acting as a witness. \*\*4. The Verification of Self-Verification (\*Svasamvedana-svasamvedana\*):\*\* This function verifies that the third function (self-verification) correctly perceives the perceiving aspect. It is named after its object of verification. \*\*A Metaphor for the Four Parts:\*\* The four parts can be compared to a mirror: - The mirror itself is the self-verifying function. - The mirror’s brightness is the perceiving aspect. - The reflected image is the perceived aspect. - The handle of the mirror is the verification of self-verification. \*\*The Four Schools' Doctrines:\*\* \*\*Master Anhui (Anhui):\*\* He established only one part: the self-verifying function. He argued that the self-verifying function arises from causes and conditions (\*paratantra-svabhava\*) and has a seed as its source, thus it is real. The perceiving and perceived aspects, he claimed, do not arise from causes and conditions but are the false constructions of the conceptual mind (\*parikalpita-svabhava\*), and therefore they are unreal. \*\*Master Nanda (Nanda):\*\* He established two parts. He argued that all mental activity has both a perceiving aspect and a perceived aspect. These are the subject and object of cognition. Without the perceived aspect to stimulate the mind, consciousness could not arise. Without the perceiving aspect, who would know the perceived object? Thus, both mental activity and its object together constitute the principle of "Consciousness-Only" (\*vijñapti-mātra\*). \*\*Objection by Anhui:\*\* You (Nanda) say there is a perceived aspect – doesn’t that mean there is an object outside the mind? How can that be called Consciousness-Only? \*\*Reply by Nanda:\*\* The perceiving aspect is the cognizing subject. The perceived aspect is the cognized object. By including the object within the subject, it is still only consciousness. If you say the perceived aspect is a false construction, then consider the seeds in the eighth consciousness (storehouse consciousness). These seeds are the perceived aspect, and they are the direct cause (\*hetu-pratyaya\*) that produces the self-verifying function. If the seed-as-perceived was a false construction, then the resulting self-verifying function would also be false. Wouldn’t that contradict the idea of seed-consciousness? If you don’t accept the self-verifying function as false, then the causal seeds are also real. Thus, both cause and effect are real, proving the perceived aspect is also real. With a real perceived aspect, there must be a real perceiving aspect. The establishment of subject and object is proven, and the doctrine of two parts completes the theory of Consciousness-Only. Furthermore, the five sense organs are the perceived aspect of the eighth consciousness. If the perceived aspect were a false construction, would it be possible for false organs to produce the five sense-consciousnesses? Anhui responded: The five sense-consciousnesses arise from their own seeds, not through the mediation of the sense organs. He was then questioned: Are the seeds of the five sense-consciousnesses the perceived aspect of the eighth consciousness? If so, then those seeds are also false constructions. And if false seeds can produce real consciousness, then something false could produce something real. How could a false seed directly produce its own effect? This led to a final defeat for Anhui’s position. \*\*Master Dignāga (Chenna):\*\* He argued that Anhui’s single part has a substance but no function, while Nanda’s two parts have function but no substance. Both are insufficient. Therefore, he combined them to establish three parts, introducing the concept of "measurement and result" (pramāṇa-phala). \*\*Master Dharmapāla (Hufa):\*\* He further elaborated on the concept of measurement and result, adding the fourth part (verification of self-verification), thus establishing four parts. His detailed explanation is found in the texts. Now we will explain them in order. \*\*First, Establishing Two Parts:\*\* The text says that defiled consciousness... is called the perceiving aspect. It explains that conditioned things (\*paratantra\*) have a nature that is similar to the falsely imagined nature (\*parikalpita\*). To the small schools (Hinayana), the perceived aspect is called "activity" (\*akara\*), meaning it is the object of cognition. The perceiving aspect is called "substance" or "reality" (\*vastu\*), as it is the inherent nature of mind and mental factors. Now, the mind mistakenly takes what appears as objects outside itself (\*parikalpita\*). This external appearance is actually non-existent in reality. So the transformed perceived aspect is the actual object of cognition. The perceived aspect itself is not a wrong view; the error lies in taking it as an external object. The term "seeing" means the ability to cognize, which pertains to both mind and mental factors. It is not the same as "reasoning," which is a function unique to the mental factor of wisdom (\*prajñā\*). \*\*Second, Refuting Anhui:\*\* \*Refuting the lack of a perceived object:\* If mind and mental factors had no perceived aspect, they would be unable to perceive their own objects. For example, the mind that perceives form would be incapable of perceiving form. Or else, any one consciousness would be able to perceive all objects. But since the eye-consciousness, if it had no object, would still be able to see form, and other consciousnesses without a form object would also be able to see form. Since they don’t, the argument is invalid. The correct view is that when cognizing an object, the mind inevitably has a mental image of that object, just as a mirror always has an image of a face. \*Refuting the lack of a perceiving subject:\* If mind and mental factors had no perceiving function, they would be like empty space, incapable of perception. Or else empty space itself could also perceive. The correct conclusion is that all mental activity necessarily has both a subject (perceiver) and an object (perceived). This is what the \*Surangama Sutra\* says: "All is only awareness (\*vijñapti\*). The objects of perception are completely absent. The aware subject and the perceived object arise naturally from their own causes." The first half of the verse illustrates the absence of external objects. The second half establishes the presence of two parts (subject and object), each arising from its own causes, hence the phrase "arise naturally." \*\*Third, Refuting Nanda:\*\* He failed to establish the self-verifying function because he took external objects as the perceived and the conscious mind’s activity as both the perceiver and the perceived. Thus, he didn’t have a separate, internal self-verifying function. In his doctrine, the perceived aspect is the mental image transformed by the primary and subordinate minds, and the perceiving aspect is the basic nature of those minds. This results in the mind mistakenly taking the external object as its object, not realizing the true internal structure. \*\*Fourth, Establishing Three Parts (Dignāga’s view):\*\* Since the perceived object never exists apart from consciousness, the object of cognition is the self-verifying function’s own transformation. This self-transformed image acts as the perceived object, while the perceiving function becomes the cognitive activity. The fact that we can remember past mental events proves that there must be a self-verifying function that has previously encountered that mental state. Otherwise, if the perceiving function had never met the object, it could not recall it. Thus, each moment of mental activity has three parts: the measured (object), the measure (subject), and the result of measurement (the self-verifying function). A simile: When measuring cloth, the cloth is the measured, the person with the ruler is the measurer, and the number recorded is the result of measurement. Similarly, the perceiving aspect measures the perceived aspect correctly only because the self-verifying function provides the result. For example, when the eye-consciousness perceives blue, it does not also perceive yellow. If there were no self-verifying function, the consciousness could not later remember which color it saw. Therefore, three parts are necessary. \*\*Fifth, Establishing Four Parts (Dharmapāla’s view):\*\* Upon further analysis, each mental event should have four parts. The argument is: If there is no fourth part, what would verify the third (self-verifying)? If the perceiving aspect, being a part of mind, requires a self-verifying function, then the self-verifying function, also a part of mind, requires a fourth part to verify it. The text says: "Since mental parts are similar, they should all be verifiable." You (Dignāga) established three parts based on the principle of measurement and result, where the self-verifying function is the result of the perceiving aspect’s measurement. But the self-verifying function also has a measuring ability (for itself). Therefore, it also needs a result, which is the fourth part. The argument says: "Every measuring function must have a result." The possible counter-argument that the perceiving aspect could be the result of the self-verifying function is rejected. Why? Because the perceiving aspect operates through three modalities: direct perception (\*pratyakṣa\*), inference (\*anumāna\*), and error (\*ābhāsa\*). When it perceives an object through inference or error, it cannot be the result of direct perception (which the self-verifying function is). The self-verifying function, being direct perception, can serve as the result for both inferential and erroneous perceptions. But the perceiving aspect, being indirect, cannot serve as the result for the self-verifying function’s direct perception. Thus, only the fourth part can validate the third. \*\*The Nature of the Four Parts:\*\* - The perceived and perceiving aspects operate externally, thus they are called "external nature." - The self-verifying and verification-of-self-verifying functions are purely internal, thus they are called "internal nature." - The perceived aspect is the object. The other three are subjects (perceivers). - The perceived is the direct object of the perceiving aspect. The perceiving aspect is the direct object of the self-verifying function. The self-verifying function is the direct object of the verification-of-self-verifying function. Therefore, the second (perceiving) part only grasps the first (perceived) part, and so on. \*\*Metaphor for the Four Parts:\*\* Cloth (perceived), ruler (perceiver), recorded number (result = self-verifying), and the person using the ruler (verification-of-self-verifying). Or, like a mirror: image (perceived), brightness (perceiver), surface (self-verifying), and back/handle (verification-of-self-verifying). The back depends on the surface, and the surface depends on the back, so they verify each other. Thus, the \*Mahāyāna-sūtra\* states: "The mind has two natures." The first two (self-verifying and verification-of-self-verifying) form one nature (internal). The second two (perceiver and perceived) form another nature (external). These are the internal and external natures of mind and its objects. The "grasping" nature of the perceiver and the "grasped" nature of the perceived reveal their binding functions. \*\*Conclusion:\*\* The four parts ultimately reduce to a single perceiving aspect. The third and fourth parts share the same nature (as a result). The second, third, and fourth are all perceiving aspects of the mind. When combined, they form two parts (subject and object). The perceived aspect is merely an image on the perceiving aspect, so all can be unified into a single part (the self-verifying function). This integration mirrors the four philosophical positions. Finally, the \*Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra\* verse is quoted to prove the sole reality of mind: “Only mind exists. External objects are non-existent. Only one mind exists. Due to internal clinging, external objects appear. There is absolutely nothing outside. Only self-mind is admitted.” Thus, the word "awareness" (feeling, \*vedanā\* in some contexts) summarizes the function of consciousness. The function of consciousness is discrimination. Discrimination is the perceiving aspect of consciousness. This fully explains the meaning of the word "awareness."

所言處者謂異熟識至鬼人天等所見異故。

> The so-called "basis" refers to the foundational consciousness. Depending on one's karmic fruits—whether as a hungry ghost, human, celestial being, or otherwise—different beings perceive it differently.

一別釋所緣門。分三。一釋處字。處即有情依報。謂異熟識下。釋共變之義。此有四句。一共中共變。如山河等。非唯一趣獨能用故。二共中不共變。如己田宅。及鬼見猛火。人見為水之類。三不共中不共變。如眼等根。唯自識依。用之緣境。非他依故。四不共中共變。如自浮塵根。他亦受用故。此中意言。由自種子為因緣故。本識變為器世間相。唯外非情。此即能造及所造色。在外處故。言外大種。非心外法。且諸種子總有二種。一是共相。二不共相。何為共相。多人所感故。雖知人人所變各別。名為唯識。然有相似共受用義。說名共相。實非自變他能用之。若能用者。此即名緣心外法故。又唯識義鏡云。共中共者。多識同變。名之為共。變已同用。重名為共。又唯識鈔云。謂多趣有情識所變色。同在一處。互相涉入。其相相似。同共受用。名共中共。初之共字。約所緣緣。後之共字。約增上緣。即無主山河等是。若有主者。即共中不共所攝。此言共相者。即共中共也。雖諸有情所變各別者。天見天處。人見人處。鬼見鬼處等。此即共中不共。雖各各別。而相相似。大千之處所無異。如眾燈明各徧似一者。此釋共果同在一處。不相障礙。謂外器相。如眾燈明。共在一室。各各徧室。一一自別。而相相似。處所無異。此如何知各各徧也。一燈去時。其光尚徧。若共為一。是則應將一燈去已。餘明不徧。又相涉入。不相隔礙。故見似一。置多燈已。人影亦多故。誰異熟識。此揀通局。謂前義為局。後義為通也。誰之異熟識變為此相。問也。有義一切。言聖凡共變。此月藏義也。若爾。則凡聖淨穢。無揀別故。諸佛菩薩應變染穢土。而諸異生應變淨妙土矣。以一切言包聖凡故。又無色界天。已厭離有色。生無色界矣。又變此欲染穢土何用。故此器世間相。乃現居此土及未來當生此土者之異熟所變。非一切也。由現居故。生居穢而佛居淨。故無諸佛變穢異生變淨之失。由當生故。故無無色聖者變下土之失。經但依少分故。說一切耳。此又一義也。護法破云。若現居當生者識變此界。則世界壞時。已無現居當生者。復用誰識成立此界乎。又無色界天。即未許必不下生。而無理頌變此土以為下生之地。故曰預變為土。此復何用也。設許無色界人變成色身受用色界。然其所依器界。尚與異地器界麤細懸絕。不相依持。即能變此為彼。亦復何益。前言聖者。此言異生。前言必不下生。此言預變為土。蓋無色界天果報既盡。有墮三惡道者。況下生乎。於是申正義云。所變世界。本為色身依持受用。故爾變現。若於己身有依持受用。於己有益。便變為彼。由是義故。無色界人。設生他方無色界時。彼異熟識。亦得變為無色自地。而得依持受用。若彼土雜居。設生此土雜居。彼識亦得變為此土雜居而得依持受用。故器世界將壞初成之時。雖無現居及當生者。而此器界。亦得現有。既言無有情。云何復言現有。曰。若不現有。即眾生界盡。何緣復有眾生。復成壞相續耶。莊椿云。世界成壞無窮。有二因緣。一由眾生同業所感。謂同一迷心三毒惑業。感現依報。惑業未盡。依報何窮若無所依。何名受報。故令世界成壞連續。二由諸佛願力所感。謂佛有弘願。度盡眾生。眾生既無窮。佛願亦無盡。由是所感依報連續爾。然則染淨不同。同歸唯識矣。此上所言。皆共中共變者。其共中不共相。准此可知。故不復言。鬼人天等所見異者。謂人見是水。鬼見膿河。或成猛火。天見琉璃。魚龍窟宅。共一水體。不共見故。

> \*\*Section One: Explanation of the Field of Perception (The Object Realm)\*\* This is divided into three parts. First, we explain the term "place" or "realm." Place refers to the environment that beings depend on—the external world created by the foundational consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Below, we explain the meaning of "co-created" or "shared transformation." There are four categories: 1. \*\*Shared within the shared\*\*: Like mountains and rivers—objects not exclusive to any single realm of beings, but commonly used. 2. \*\*Unshared within the shared\*\*: Like one's own fields or houses, or how ghosts see a blazing fire where humans see water. 3. \*\*Unshared within the unshared\*\*: Like the sense organs (eyes, etc.)—they are only the basis for one's own consciousness and not for others. 4. \*\*Shared within the unshared\*\*: Like the physical sensory organs (the "dust" of the body)—others can also use them. The essential meaning is: due to the causal power of one's own seeds (karmic potentials), the fundamental consciousness transforms into the appearance of a material world. This external world is not sentient. It consists of both the primary elements (earth, water, fire, air) and their derived forms (matter), which exist externally. The "external great elements" refer not to phenomena outside the mind, but to the environment. \*\*Seeds are of two types:\*\* - \*\*Shared seeds\*\*: Experienced by many individuals. - \*\*Unshared seeds\*\*: Experienced only by oneself. Even though each individual's transformation is distinct—this is the principle of "consciousness-only"—there is still the appearance of shared use due to similarity. This similarity is called "shared marks." But it is not that one being's transformation is used by another. If that were the case, it would mean contacting an object outside the mind. \*\*Commentary from \*The Mirror of Consciousness-Only\*:\*\* "Shared within the shared" means many consciousnesses together transform an object, and after transformation, they use it together. The first "shared" refers to the object condition (ālambana-pratyaya); the second "shared" refers to the empowering condition (adhipati-pratyaya). Examples include ownerless mountains and rivers. If there is an owner, it falls under "unshared within the shared." \*\*Even though each sentient being's transformation is distinct\*\*—heavenly beings see heavenly realms, humans see human realms, ghosts see ghost realms—this is "unshared within the shared." Yet appearances are similar; the environment is without difference, like many lamps in a room each shining throughout the room. Individually distinct, but their light merges as one. This explains how the external world is co-located and non-obstructive. How do we know that each lamp's light fills the whole room? When one lamp is removed, the remaining light still fills the room. If it were truly one shared light, then removing one lamp should reduce the illumination. Also, the lights interpenetrate without hindrance, so they appear as one. But if you add many lamps, many shadows appear. \*\*Whose foundational consciousness transforms this realm?\*\* This distinguishes the general from the specific. The earlier argument is specific; the later is general. \*\*Question:\*\* Whose foundational consciousness transforms this world? \*\*One view:\*\* All beings—saints and ordinary people—share in this transformation. This is the view of the scholar Yue Zang. If so, then the pure and impure realms of saints and ordinary people would not differ. Buddhas and bodhisattvas would have to transform a defiled world, and ordinary beings would have to transform a pure world—because "all beings" includes saints and ordinary people. Also, beings in the formless realm have already abandoned desire for form, so why would they transform a defiled, desire-realm world? Therefore, the world we perceive is actually transformed by the foundational consciousness of those currently living in that world or destined to be reborn there—not by all beings. Because of "currently living," those residing in defiled worlds (like humans) and Buddhas residing in pure worlds do not get mixed up. Because of "destined to be reborn," beings in the formless realm are not forced to transform a lower world. The scriptures say "all beings" only in a limited sense. \*\*Master Dharmapāla (Protector of the Dharma) refutes this:\*\* If only currently living or future beings transform this world, then when the world is destroyed, there would be no one currently living or destined to be reborn there. Whose consciousness would then establish this world? Also, beings in the formless realm have not necessarily concluded they will never be reborn in the form realm. There is no reason for them to pre-transform a form-realm world as a place for future birth. Furthermore, even if formless-realm beings were to transform a form-realm body and enjoy form-realm pleasures, the objects and environments of different realms are vastly different in subtlety and coarseness and do not support each other. So this transformation would be useless. \*\*The master then clarifies the correct view:\*\* The transformed world exists as a support and basis for the physical body and its enjoyment. Therefore, if it benefits one's own body and experience, one's foundational consciousness will transform it. Based on this, if a formless-realm being is reborn in another formless realm, their foundational consciousness will transform that formless realm as a basis. If beings of mixed realms live together, their consciousness will transform that common world. Thus, when a world is destroyed or first formed, even if there are no current or future inhabitants, the world still appears. But if you say there are no beings, how can the world appear? Because if the world did not appear, the cycle of beings would end. Why would beings continue? \*\*Master Zhuang Chun comments:\*\* The endless cycle of world formation and destruction has two causes: 1. The collective karma of beings—shared confusion and the three poisons (greed, hatred, ignorance) create the environment. As long as these are not exhausted, the environment continues. 2. The power of the vows of Buddhas—they vow to save all beings, and since beings are endless, their vows are endless, so the environment continues. In conclusion, whether pure or impure, everything returns to consciousness-only. The above explanation focuses on "shared within the shared." The category "unshared within the shared" can be understood similarly, so it will not be repeated. \*\*Different perceptions by ghosts, humans, and heavenly beings:\*\* Humans see water; ghosts see a river of pus or blazing fire; heavenly beings see lapis lazuli; fish and dragons see a dwelling. The substance is the same water, but perceptions differ due to unshared karmic vision.

諸種子者謂異熟識至如真如性不違唯識。

> As for what is meant by "all seeds": it refers to the maturation-consciousness.<note>to</note> This ultimate nature is no different from the principle of Mere-Consciousness.

二釋執受分二。一釋執受種子。有漏種子。同異熟識是無記性。故第八見分領以為境。故是所緣。無漏種子。唯是善性。不隨第八成無記。以相違故。不領為境。故非所緣。雖非所緣。而與八識不相捨離。如真如性是識實性。不違唯識。故第八識有持而不緣者。無漏種子是也。有亦持亦緣者。有漏種子是也。有緣而不持者。器世間是也。有不緣不持者。前七現行是也。

> Explanation of the Objects of Grasping, Part 1: The Grasping of Seeds Seeds subject to defilement (有漏種子) share the same neutral character as the Alaya Consciousness (異熟識). Therefore, the perceiving function (見分) of the eighth consciousness takes them as its object and grasps them. As a result, they become its objects (所緣). Seeds free from defilement (無漏種子), however, are inherently wholesome (善性). They do not follow the eighth consciousness and become neutral—this is because their natures conflict. Consequently, the eighth consciousness does not grasp them as objects, so they are not its objects. Even though they are not objects, they never separate from the eighth consciousness—just as the nature of suchness (真如) is the true nature of consciousness itself. This principle does not contradict Mind-Only (唯識). Therefore, the eighth consciousness has four types of relationships: - Those it holds but does not grasp as objects: the seeds free from defilement. - Those it both holds and grasps as objects: the seeds subject to defilement. - Those it grasps but does not hold: the physical world (器世間). - Those it neither holds nor grasps: the active consciousnesses of the first seven (前七現行).

有根身者謂異熟識至彼餘尸骸猶見相續。

> A sentient body is that which is the matured consciousness<note>until</note> even after the body has decayed, one still sees a causal continuity.

二釋執受根身。根即勝義根。身即根依處。即浮塵根。前器界是諸有情共業所感。共所受用。故曰共種。此之根身。是諸有情各別業種所成。故名不共相種。變似色根者。清淨大種所成勝義根也。名不共中不共。故唯識鈔云。一不共中不共變。如眼等五根。唯自第八於中有末心第一念。託父母遺體時變。名不共。唯自第八變故。又唯自受用。復名不共。如眼識。唯依眼根發眼識。乃至身識依身根等。二不共中共變。即內浮塵根。初唯自第八變。名不共。變生已後。他人亦有受用義。復名為共。雖此根身是不共種所成。然於不共種中。復有一分共相種子成熟之力。能於他人身處。亦變似彼他人浮塵根為已受用。不爾。應無受用他人之義。問。若許受用他人浮塵者。何名唯識。以心外取法故。答。受用他人浮塵時。自識先變一重相分在他人身上。若受用時。還受用自相分。心外無法。得成唯識。問。本識各變自根。還變他根否。答。有二師義有。師云。不但變自根。亦能變他根。以辯中邊論中說。似自他身五根現故。既曰他身五根。即是能變他人浮塵勝義根也。有師申正義云。此本識唯能變似他人浮塵根為我受用。決不能變他人勝義根為我受用。以他淨色根無我受用理故。若無用亦變。何不變七識耶。以無緣慮用而得緣故。然則說自他根現。文如何通耶。曰。言自他者。謂自他八識。各各自變為根耳。非自變他根也。一則無用不變他根。二由不定說言自身本識變他根。故不可為證。生他地。謂凡位。將捨此身而生他地者也。般涅槃。謂聖位。入圓寂者也。生他地者。般涅槃者。其識固已舍舊即新。彼餘尸骸。無能執受。便應滅壞。然不滅壞。猶見久時相似相續。猶是自識引因之力。非他身變。故知但能變似依處。決不能變他人勝義也。

> \*\*Explanation of Grasping and Root-Body\*\* "Root" refers to the \*ultimate sensory organ\*, the subtle, formless faculty. "Body" refers to the \*physical basis\* of these faculties, the gross organs of the body (the "dust-body"). The external world \[instrument realm\] is created by the shared karma of all beings and is experienced collectively. Thus it is called a "shared-seed" phenomenon. This root-body, however, is created by the individual karmic seeds of each being. Therefore, it is called an "unshared-seed" phenomenon. The transformation into a semblance of material roots involves the pure elements creating the ultimate sensory organs. This is considered "unshared within the unshared." As the \*Karmic Consciousness Commentary\* explains: 1. \*\*The unshared within the unshared:\*\* When the \*eighth consciousness\* (ālayavijñāna) has its first thought, at the moment of conception, relying on the parents' physical offering, it transforms only these five material sense organs (eyes, ears, etc.). This is "unshared" because only one's own eighth consciousness creates them. Furthermore, it is "unshared" because only the self can directly use them. For example, eye-consciousness arises only through its own eye faculty. 2. \*\*The shared within the unshared:\*\* This refers to the internal, physical "dust-body" of the sense organs. Initially, only one's own eighth consciousness creates them, so this stage is "unshared." But after they are formed, they can also be experienced by others. Thus, they are also "shared." Even though this root-body is created by unshared seeds, within those seeds there is also a portion of shared-seed energy that has matured. This allows one person's consciousness to transform a semblance of another person's physical sense organs for their own use. Without this ability, we could not experience another person's physical body at all. \*\*Question:\*\* If it is possible to experience another person's "dust-body," then how is this purely consciousness (Vijñaptimātra)? Wouldn't that be grasping an object outside the mind? \*\*Answer:\*\* When experiencing another's "dust-body," your own consciousness first creates a mental representation (\*nimitta\*) within that other person's body. When you experience it, you are actually experiencing your own mental representation. There is no object outside the mind. Thus, the principle of Vijñaptimātra is upheld. \*\*Question:\*\* Does the root-consciousness (ālayavijñāna) transform only its own roots, or does it also transform the roots of others? \*\*Answer:\*\* There are two views on this. \* \*\*One Master's View:\*\* It transforms not only its own roots but also the roots of others. This is supported by the \*Dialectics of the Middle and Extremes\*, which says, "There appears the semblance of the five sense organs of oneself and others." Since "other's five sense organs" is explicitly mentioned, it proves that the consciousness can transform the "dust-body" and the ultimate sensory organs of others. \* \*\*The Correct Master's View:\*\* This root-consciousness can only transform a semblance of another's "dust-body" for its own experience. It can \*never\* transform another's ultimate sensory organ for its own use. Why? Because there is no principle that allows one being's pure sensory faculty to be used by another. If something could be transformed simply because it exists, even when useless, why wouldn't it transform the seventh consciousness (manas)? The seventh consciousness has no function of objective perception, so it cannot be objectified this way. \*\*Reply:\*\* So how do we explain the scriptural passage stating "one's own and other's roots appear"? \*\*Answer:\*\* That phrase means that one's own and others' \*eight consciousnesses\* each individually transform \*their own roots\*. It does \*not\* mean one's own consciousness transforms another's roots. This is supported by two reasons: 1. There is no benefit in transforming another's roots, so this does not occur. 2. The scripture does not definitively state that one's own root-consciousness transforms the roots of others. Therefore, this passage cannot be used as evidence. \*\*Analogy:\*\* When a being is about to be reborn in a new realm (during an ordinary life) or is about to enter nirvāṇa (a Saint's life), its consciousness leaves the old body and takes on a new one. The old corpse, with no consciousness grasping it, should naturally decay and disintegrate. But it does not; we see it continues to exist for a long time in a state of seeming continuity. This is the residual momentum of the very \*consciousness\* that created it, a momentum which drives its continued, apparent existence. It is not because one consciousness grasps another's body. From this we know that one's consciousness can only transform a semblance of a physical support \[the "dust-body"\]. It absolutely cannot transform the ultimate sensory organs of another being.

前來且說業力所變至及墮法處所現實色。

> Now let us speak of how karmic force transforms and manifests into actual forms and colors in the realms where beings fall.

三結顯二變分二。上言業力所變器身。此言定力所變器身。即墮法處色也。前來且說眾生業力所變器身。界地自他。各有差別。不能移易。以彼眾生定業所感故。若是聖者。定慧神通等力所變器身界地。或自身為他。或他身為自。或自界為他。或他界為自。則不決定。若約所變身土。自受用故。窮未來際無有盡時。故多恒相續。若約放光動地等事。為利他故。隨眾生緣感之力得發起故。多分蹔時。是故不定。下總結四類性境。略說本識所變之境。有漏種子。一也。有根之身。二也。五塵器界。三也。墮法處所現實色。四也。以定果色亦是法處色所攝故。亦名定自在所生色。如十徧處定。乃至魚米肉山。長河酥酪。大地黃金等。皆此色攝。

> The explanation of the two transformations is now divided into two parts. The previous discussion focused on the corporeal environment created by the power of karma. This section discusses the corporeal environment created by the power of meditative concentration (samadhi), which belongs to the category of mental-object-sensory-data (dharma-āyatana-rūpa). Earlier, we explained that the environment and bodies produced by the karmic power of ordinary beings vary according to their realm and position. These are fixed and cannot be changed freely, because they arise from the definite karma of those beings. However, for enlightened beings (saints), the environment and bodies (including their own realms) created by the powers of meditative concentration, wisdom, and spiritual powers are not fixed. They may appear as another person's body for their own body, or vice versa; or their own realm may appear as another's realm, and so on. Regarding the bodies and lands they manifest, when it is for their own enjoyment, they remain unceasing until the end of time—thus they are continuous over long periods. But when it comes to displaying miracles such as emitting light or shaking the earth, these are for the benefit of others. They arise in response to the conditions and affinities of sentient beings, so they are mostly temporary. Therefore, such manifestations are not fixed. Next follows a summary of four types of "nature-reality" (svabhāva-prakṛti) objects: 1. The contaminated seeds stored in the foundational consciousness (ālayavijñāna). 2. The body with sense faculties. 3. The material world of the five sense objects. 4. The actual forms that appear as mental objects (dharma-āyatana-rūpa). The last type includes the forms produced by meditative concentration, which are also referred to as "forms produced by the power of mastery" (adhiṣṭhāna-rūpa). Examples include the "ten omnipresent meditations" (kasiṇa), and even appearances such as fish, rice, meat, mountains, rivers, ghee, the great earth made of gold, and so on—all belong to this category.

何故此識不能變似至彼識亦緣此色為境。

> Why is this consciousness unable to transform to resemble that \[object\]? Because even that consciousness takes this form as its object.

此明本識二變中是因緣變也。問云。此識既能變似依處而為所緣。何故不變似心心所相應無為等為所緣耶。有漏識變下。皆是答詞。因緣變者。謂由先業。及名言實種。即要有力。唯任運心。非由作意。其心乃生。即五八識。隨其增上異熟因為緣。名言種為因。故變於境。分別變者。謂作意生心。是籌度心。即六七識。隨自分別作意生故。由此六七緣時。影像相分。無有實體。未必有用。初隨因緣變。必有實體用。即五八等所變之境。後隨分別變。但能為境。非必有用。即第七識等。又解。初唯第八。異熟生故。所熏處故。能持種故。變必有用。後餘七識所變色觸等。皆無實用。似本質用。如鏡中光。於三境中。性境不隨心。因緣變攝。獨影帶質。皆分別變。異熟識變等。顯變色等從實種生。故所變法必有體用。若相分心。心所。如化心等。故不緣之。緣便無用。解深密經說。諸變化心。無自依心。有依他心。佛地論云。無自緣慮實體之心。有隨見分所變相分似慮之心。如鏡中光。此即分別變。四句分別者。一因緣變非分別變。即五識心心所。及第八識心王。為所緣相分從自種生故。二唯分別變非因緣變。即有漏第七識。及第八五心所是為所變相分。唯從分別心生故。三俱句。即有漏第六。及無漏八識。以能通緣假實法故。四俱非。即不相應行是。以無實體故。不與能緣同種生故。問。變心心所。是假相分。第八不緣。三種無為。與不相應。何不變緣。答。若實無為。因位未證。若變無為。亦無實用。故不變緣。不相應法。分位假立。亦無實用。亦不變緣。故異熟識不緣心等。但緣實色。然此亦約有漏位說。若無漏位。第八異熟轉成鏡智。雖無分別。而鏡體澄淨。故諸影像雖無實用。亦從彼現。不爾。諸佛不名正徧知故。故有漏位。此異熟識。在欲色界。皆緣三類性境。若無色界。唯緣漏種。不緣身器。以厭色故。無業果色。故根身器界十有漏色皆非所緣。唯墮法處定果實色是彼所緣。彼界異熟。以此色為境故。亦具三緣。通上釋執受處了境。

> Now, this clarifies that within the two transformations of the ālaya-vijñāna (eighth consciousness), the first type is transformation by causes and conditions. You ask: "Since this consciousness can transform a seeming support and location as its object, why does it not transform seemingly corresponding mental states and unconditioned phenomena into its objects?" The answer is given in the passage "With defiled consciousness..." This transformation by causes and conditions involves previous karma and the actual seeds of names and words—these must be powerful, operating naturally without deliberate effort. Once the mind arises this way—as in the fifth and eighth consciousnesses—the transformation of objects is based on the ripening resultant cause as a condition and name-seeds as the primary cause. Transformation by discrimination involves mind arising from deliberate attention—a calculative mind, as in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. When these transform objects based on their own discrimination, the reflected images have no real substance and may not be functional. In the first case (causes and conditions), the transformation necessarily has real substance and function. This applies to the objects transformed by the fifth and eighth consciousnesses, etc. In the latter case (discrimination), the transformation only serves as an object and is not necessarily functional—this applies to the seventh consciousness, etc. Another interpretation: Only the eighth consciousness is of the first type, because it arises from the ripening result, is the site where impressions are planted, and holds seeds. Whatever it transforms must be functional. The other seven consciousnesses transform forms, tangibles, etc., all of which lack real function—they merely resemble the function of the original entity, like light in a mirror. Regarding the three types of cognitive objects: - True objects (which do not follow the mind) fall under transformation by causes and conditions. - Unique mental images and qualified reflections fall under transformation by discrimination. The transformation by the ripening consciousness etc. shows that the transformed forms arise from real seeds, so what is transformed necessarily has substance and function. However, if it were to transform mind and mental factors as reflected objects, those would be like magical mind-objects, and therefore it does not take them as objects—taking them would be useless. The \*Sandhinirmocana Sūtra\* states that all transformed minds lack a self-reliant mind and have a mind dependent on others. The \*Buddhabhumi Śāstra\* says there is no self-reliant, true mental substance that grasps; rather, there is a reflected image that follows the seeing part and appears to be a mind, like light in a mirror. This is transformation by discrimination. Four categories can be distinguished: 1. Transformation by causes and conditions only, not by discrimination: This applies to the five sense consciousnesses and their mental factors, as well as the king of the eighth consciousness. Their reflected objects arise from their own seeds. 2. Transformation by discrimination only, not by causes and conditions: This applies to the defiled seventh consciousness and the five mental factors of the eighth consciousness. Their transformed objects arise only from discriminative mind. 3. Both: This applies to the defiled sixth consciousness and all undefiled eight consciousnesses, as they can take both conventional and ultimate objects. 4. Neither: This applies to the unconditioned formations (viprayukta-saṃskāra), which have no real substance and do not arise from the same seed as the perceiving consciousness. Question: Why does the eighth consciousness not transform minds and mental factors (which are false reflected objects) or the three kinds of unconditioned (asāmata) and the unconditioned formations—why doesn't it take them as objects? Answer: Real unconditioned phenomena are not realized at the ordinary stage. Even if it were to transform the unconditioned, it would have no real use, so it does not transform or take them. The unconditioned formations are provisionally established based on mental divisions and also have no real use, so it does not transform or take them. Therefore, the ripening consciousness does not take minds, etc., as objects; it only takes real forms. However, this explanation refers to the defiled stage. In the undefiled stage, the eighth consciousness, as the ripening consciousness, transforms into mirror-like wisdom. Although it lacks discrimination, the mirror's essence is clear and still, so all images—even if lacking real function—still appear in it. Otherwise, the Buddhas would not be called all-knowing ones. Therefore, in the defiled stage, this ripening consciousness, when in the desire and form realms, takes all three types of true objects. In the formless realm, it takes only the seeds of defiled phenomena and does not take the body or physical environment, because one is disgusted with forms there. Since there is no karmic result form, the ten kinds of defiled forms (the sense organs, body, and world) are not its objects. Only the actual form of meditative attainment, which belongs to the domain of dharmas, is its object—that realm's ripening consciousness takes this form as its object. Thus, it also fulfills the three conditions: taking possession, functioning as support, and cognizing objects.

不可知者謂此行相至無想等位當知亦爾。

> What cannot be known refers to this aspect <note>up to</note> the states of no-thought, etc. The same principle should be understood to apply similarly.

二別釋不可知門。此有二說。一謂行相微細難知。故不可知。行相即了別。即能緣見分也。一謂內根既微細難知。外器又廣大難測。故不可知。即所緣相分也。所以者何。謂阿賴耶識。於欲界中。緣狹小執受境。於色界中。緣廣大執受境。於無色界。空無邊處識無邊處。緣無量執受境於無所有處。緣微細執受境。於非非想處。緣極微細執受境。由此識緣境微細。世聰慧者亦難了故。故曰不可知也云何下。徵。如滅下。約滅定以顯不可知。以滅定中。恒行心所與不恒行心所悉皆滅盡。尚云識不離身。如有心等。以有微細一類相續異熟心在。故滅定中。此識相顯。取此以見八識行相。微細幽隱。甚深難了。應信為有勸生信也。遂申量云。滅定有識有情攝故。如有心時。無想下。例明。

> Second: A specific explanation of the "unknowable" aspect. There are two interpretations: First: It is unknowable because its functioning is extremely subtle and difficult to perceive. "Functioning" refers to discernment — that is, the perceiving aspect (the "seeing" component of cognition). Second: It is unknowable because the internal sense faculties are extremely subtle and difficult to discern, while the external world is vast and hard to measure — that is, the perceived aspect (the "objective" component of experience). Why is this so? Because the Ālaya Consciousness in the realm of desire grasps a narrow, limited field of support; in the realm of form, it grasps a vast, extensive field of support; in the formless realm — the sphere of infinite space and infinite consciousness — it grasps an immeasurable field of support; in the sphere of nothingness, it grasps a subtle and refined field of support; and in the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception, it grasps an extremely subtle field of support. Because the objects perceived by this consciousness are so subtle, even the wisest people in the world find them difficult to understand. Therefore, it is said to be "unknowable." What comes next — "how?" — is an inquiry. The passage beginning with "like extinction" uses the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti) to demonstrate this unknowability. In this meditative state, both continuous mental factors and non-continuous mental factors are completely extinguished. Yet it is still said that "consciousness does not leave the body," as if one were conscious, because a subtle, continuous, and uniform karmic-reward consciousness remains. During this attainment, the characteristics of this consciousness become apparent. This reveals that the functioning of the eighth consciousness is so subtle, hidden, profound, and difficult to perceive that one should believe in its existence and be encouraged to confidently trust. Therefore, a logical argument is presented: "In a state of cessation, consciousness exists, because it is part of a sentient being — just like in a conscious state." The same principle is illustrated using the example of the "no-thought" attainment.

## 成唯識論卷第二

> Cheng Weishi Lun, Volume 2