Completing the Mind, and the Case for Consciousness-Only

The characteristics of the twenty secondary afflictions have now been fully explained. The indeterminate factors number four; what are their characteristics? The verse states: "The indeterminates are regret and sleep, and coarse and subtle discursive thought — two, each two."

The treatise states: regret, sleep, and coarse and subtle discursive thought are called "indeterminate" because each is indeterminate with respect to being wholesome, defiled, or otherwise; because, unlike contact and the rest, they are not fixed to accompany every mind; and because, unlike aspiration and the rest, they are not fixed to pervade every meditative stage.

Regret means "ill-doing": regretting a deed already done is its nature; obstructing calm is its function. This is a case of provisionally naming an effect after its cause — one first does the ill deed, and only afterward comes to regret it. Regretting having failed to do something is likewise included under "ill-doing," as when one regrets, saying: "I did not do such-and-such before — that itself was my ill-doing."

Sleep means slumber: causing the body to lose its self-mastery, and obscurity and contraction, are its nature; obstructing insight is its function. That is: in the state of sleep, the body loses its self-mastery, the mind becomes extremely dim and weak, and consciousness operates through a single channel alone. "Obscurity" distinguishes it from meditative absorption; "contraction" distinguishes it from the waking state — together showing that sleep is not without its own real substance and activity. Even in a mindless moment of sleep, this name is still provisionally extended to it, on the analogy of how the other hindrances and entanglements, too, are said to be associated with mind.

One view holds: these two have delusion alone as their essence, since they are said to be secondary afflictions and portions of delusion.

Another view holds: this is not so, since these two also extend to wholesome states. It should instead be said that these two have defiled delusion as their essence when defiled; when pure, they are simply non-delusion — the treatise's statement that they are secondary afflictions and portions of delusion refers only to their defiled portion.

Another view holds: this account, too, does not accord with reason, since a morally neutral state is neither delusion nor non-delusion in nature. It should instead be said that ill-doing has intention and discernment as its essence, since it clearly deliberates upon a deed already done; sleep, in turn, has intention and conception jointly as its essence, since intention and conception together give rise to a dream's various images. In both cases the treatise calls them conventionally existent for this very reason. Their defiled instances are simply an outflow of delusion, spoken of as "portions of delusion" just as lack of faith and the rest are.

Another view holds: this account, too, does not accord with reason, since intention, discernment, and conception, in their nature as entanglements, are not identical with these two. It should instead be said that these two each have their own distinct essence, since their mode of activity differs from every other mental factor; they are called "conventionally existent" simply because they are described in terms that follow delusion's own pattern.

Coarse discursive thought means seeking out: causing the mind to move hastily over a mentally-conceived, name-bound object in a coarse manner is its nature. Subtle discursive thought means examining closely: causing the mind to move hastily over a mentally-conceived, name-bound object in a subtle manner is its nature. Both have as their function providing the basis for the body and mind's abiding, whether at ease or ill at ease. Both take a portion of intention and discernment jointly as their essence, distinguished by whether one probes an object shallowly or deeply — for apart from intention and discernment, no distinct essential kind for coarse and subtle discursive thought can be found at all.

As for "two, each two": one view holds that coarse and subtle discursive thought each have two distinct kinds, defiled and pure.

Another view holds this does not accord with correct principle, since regret and sleep, too, have both a defiled and a pure kind. It should instead be said, as with the various defiled mental factors already discussed, that some are afflictions in the strict sense and others secondary afflictions — these two indeterminates each have an unwholesome and a neutral kind, or, alternatively, each has both an active entanglement and a dormant underlying tendency.

Another view holds that this, too, does not accord with reason, since the phrase comes only after all four indeterminates have already been named. It should instead be said that "two" indicates two sets of two: one set is regret and sleep; the other is coarse and subtle discursive thought. These two sets differ in kind, and so the single word "two" indicates two twofold sets. Each of the four, in turn, has two aspects — defiled and undefiled — unlike the wholesome and defiled categories, each of which is only of a single kind. Or else the phrase serves simply to set the defiled instances apart, since some are also spoken of as secondary afflictions. The phrase "two, each two" is stated precisely to make the meaning of "indeterminate" clear — so this wording, in fact, is put to very good use.

Among these four, coarse and subtle discursive thought are definitely conventionally existent, formed jointly out of intention and discernment, as the sages themselves have stated.

As for regret and sleep — one view holds that these, too, are conventionally existent, since the Yogācārabhūmi describes them as conventionally existent. Another view holds that these two are genuinely, substantially real things, since that same passage speaks of conventional existence only with reference to the latter two. The term "conventionally existent," when applied to regret and sleep, follows the pattern of describing something in terms of what it resembles, and does not show that the first two must be conventionally existent — just as the inner seeds, though genuinely real in essence, are nevertheless also spoken of by the treatise as "conventionally existent."

Among these four, coarse and subtle discursive thought definitely never co-occur with each other, since, though the same in kind, they differ as coarse and subtle. It is with reference to the presence or absence of coarse and subtle discursive thought that the three meditative stages are distinguished — not with reference to whether their seeds are manifestly active — so there is no confusion involved. Both can occur together with the first two, regret and sleep, and the first two, in turn, can also occur together with each other.

None of the four is ever associated with the seventh or eighth consciousness, for reasons already explained above; regret and sleep are associated only with the sixth consciousness, since they are not among the five sense-consciousnesses' own factors.

One view holds that coarse and subtle discursive thought, too, can be associated with the five sense-consciousnesses, since the treatise states that the five sense-consciousnesses possess coarse and subtle discursive thought, and states, further, that coarse and subtle discursive thought are precisely the "seven kinds of discrimination," including discrimination-with-respect-to-sign and the rest. The Abhidharmasamuccaya likewise says that spontaneous discrimination refers to the five sense-consciousnesses.

Another view holds that coarse and subtle discursive thought are associated only with the mental consciousness. The treatise states that seeking-out and close-examination are exclusive properties of the mental consciousness, and states, further, that they are associated with sorrow and joy but never with pain or pleasure — since they are pervasively associated with equanimous feeling, this need not be separately stated. Why is it not said that they occur with pain and pleasure? Although the first meditative absorption possesses a mental pleasure, this is never separated from joy, and so is simply called by the name "joy"; although a realm of pure suffering possesses a mental pain, this resembles sorrow, and so is simply called "sorrow." It is stated, further, that coarse and subtle discursive thought take the meaning of names and terms as their object, whereas the five sense-consciousnesses do not take the meaning of names and terms as their object at all.

As for the statement that the five sense-consciousnesses "possess" coarse and subtle discursive thought — this shows only that they largely arise on account of these, not that they are literally associated with them. As for the Abhidharmasamuccaya's statement that spontaneous discrimination refers to the five sense-consciousnesses — its meaning differs from what the Yogācārabhūmi calls "discrimination": that text speaks of the spontaneous kind as being precisely the five sense-consciousnesses themselves, while the Yogācārabhūmi speaks of this as the coarse and subtle discursive thought that co-occurs with the five sense-consciousnesses yet is associated with the mental consciousness. Hence what is cited does not succeed as proof — and for this reason, the five sense-consciousnesses definitely lack coarse and subtle discursive thought.

One view holds: ill-doing is associated with sorrow and equanimity, since it operates only in a distressed mode, though it can also be morally neutral. Sleep arises together with joy, sorrow, and equanimous feeling, since it can operate in a joyful, distressed, or neutral mode alike. Coarse and subtle discursive thought are associated with sorrow, joy, equanimity, and pleasure, since the first meditative absorption possesses a mental pleasure occurring together with them. Another view holds: these four are also associated with painful feeling, since a realm of pure suffering possesses a mental pain occurring together with them as well.

All four can occur together with the five particular mental factors, since their modes of activity and objects are not mutually incompatible.

Regret and sleep can occur together with only ten of the eleven wholesome factors, since these two exist only in the desire realm, which lacks pliancy. Coarse and subtle discursive thought can occur together with all eleven, since the first meditative absorption possesses pliancy occurring together with them.

Regret can occur together with only one of the fundamental afflictions, ignorance, since its mode of activity is coarse, while craving and the rest are subtle. Sleep, and coarse and subtle discursive thought, can occur together with all ten fundamental afflictions, since these do not mutually conflict.

Regret can occur together with the middling and major secondary afflictions, but not with wrath and the other nine minor ones, since each of these minor afflictions must itself take the leading role whenever present. Sleep, and coarse and subtle discursive thought, can occur together with all twenty secondary afflictions, since these can all arise during sleep and states like it.

All four extend to the three moral qualities — wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral — alike, since one can even come to regret a morally neutral deed. One view holds: the first two, regret and sleep, belong only to innate wholesomeness, since their mode of activity is coarse, unrefined, obscure, and contracted; the latter two also extend to wholesomeness cultivated through effort, since wholesome states arisen from learning and the like possess coarse and subtle discursive thought. Another view holds: the first two, too, can belong to wholesomeness cultivated through effort, since regret and sleep are present during the stages of learning and reflection.

The latter three extend to defiled-neutral and undefiled-neutral states alike; ill-doing does not extend to the defiled-neutral, since its understanding is too coarse and forceful. Among the four kinds of neutral state — the karmically-resultant, the deportment-related, the craft-related, and the meditation-produced — regret belongs only to the middle two, since its mode of activity is coarse and forceful, and it is not a product of meditative concentration; sleep is absent only from the meditation-produced kind, since it is not itself brought about by concentration, though even a karmically-resultant mind can experience sleep; coarse and subtle discursive thought are absent only from the craft-related kind, since that understanding is too feeble to seek out or examine the meaning of names and the like.

Ill-doing and sleep exist only in the desire realm; coarse and subtle discursive thought exist in the desire realm and the first meditative absorption, since the dharmas of every other realm and stage are subtle and still.

Regret and sleep, once one is born into an upper realm, certainly never manifest again; coarse and subtle discursive thought bound to a lower or upper stage can each still take the other as their object. One view holds: regret and sleep cannot take an upper realm as their object, since their mode of activity is coarse, immediate, and extremely obscure and contracted. Another view holds: these two, too, can take an upper realm as their object, since one who holds a wrong view can regret having cultivated meditative concentration, and a dream can range universally over anything one has ever experienced.

Regret does not belong to the beyond-training category, since it is abandoned once one is free of desire; sleep, and coarse and subtle discursive thought, all extend to all three categories — trainee, beyond-training, and neither. Every conditioned wholesome dharma belonging to one still seeking liberation is called "training"; every conditioned wholesome dharma belonging to one who has completed the training is called "beyond training."

Regret and sleep are eliminated only on the path of seeing or the path of cultivation, since they, too, arise through the power of wrong view and the like, are never directly brought forth by the uncontaminated path itself, and, unlike sorrow in its deeper form, do not arise from a genuine search for liberation. Since something is called "not subject to elimination" precisely because it has already been eliminated, sleep in one beyond training should likewise be classified as not subject to elimination. Coarse and subtle discursive thought, though not themselves the genuine uncontaminated path, are nevertheless capable of leading toward it, and can also be brought forth by it in turn — hence they extend to the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the not-subject-to-elimination category alike.

One view holds: coarse and subtle discursive thought, in their not-subject-to-elimination aspect, are included, among the five categories of dharmas, only under "discrimination," since the Yogācārabhūmi states that they are discrimination. Another view holds: these two are also included under correct wisdom — for it is said that correct intention is itself uncontaminated, since it is what causes the mind to seek out and the like; and it is said, further, that they are the cause of verbal expression, since one who has not yet reached the ultimate stage cannot yet fully know matters such as medicine and illness, and subsequently-attained wisdom, when teaching others, must necessarily rely on coarse and subtle discursive thought, unlike the effortless teaching found at the stage of buddhahood — hence these two also extend to the uncontaminated. Although it is said that coarse and subtle discursive thought must be discrimination, this does not mean they belong exclusively to the third of the five categories, since subsequently-attained correct wisdom, too, involves discrimination.

Every remaining point of classification should be considered by analogy with what has already been explained above.

Are these mental factors, across all six categories, possessed of a distinct essence apart from mind itself? Or are they simply mind's own positional differences? Suppose either horn — what is the difficulty? Both alternatives involve faults.

If they have a distinct essence apart from mind itself, then how can the sacred teaching say that only consciousness exists? And how can it be said that mind travels far and moves alone, that defilement and purity are governed by mind, and that a person is composed of six elements? How, moreover, can the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra's own statement be reconciled with this? As that treatise's verse says: "It is granted that mind manifests appearing as two aspects; in just the same way, it appears as craving and the rest, or as faith and the rest — there being no separate defiled or wholesome dharmas apart from this."

If, instead, they are simply mind's own positional differences, then how can the sacred teaching speak of mind's "association" with mental factors — since "association" by definition means association between two dharmas of differing nature, not with one's own nature? And how can it be said that mind and mental factors arise together at the same moment, like the sun and its light? How, moreover, can the Yogācārabhūmi's own statement be reconciled with this, since it states that mental factors are not simply identical with mind? As that treatise's verse says: "The five categories would not be established; this is the fault of mere positional difference; since cause and condition would then be no different between the two, this contradicts the sacred teaching."

It should be said: mental factors have a distinct essence apart from mind. Because mind is the more prominent factor, it is said that "only consciousness" exists; because mental factors arise dependent upon mind's own power, it is said that they "appear resembling it" — not that they are simply identical with mind. Moreover, the terms "consciousness" and "mind" also include mental factors within their own scope, since these are constantly associated together. Hence both the statement "only consciousness" and the statement that mental factors "appear resembling" mind are equally free of fault — this, however, is spoken from the conventional standpoint.

From the ultimate standpoint, mental factors and mind are neither separate nor identical; and the same should be understood to hold for how the various consciousnesses relate to one another as well. This is the subtle principle governing the Mahāyāna's ultimate and conventional truths.

The six consciousnesses' association with mental factors has now been explained. How should their conditions of arising be understood? The verse states: "Resting on the root consciousness, the five sense-consciousnesses arise according to conditions — together, or not together — like waves resting upon water. The mental consciousness constantly arises, except when born in the heaven of no-conception, in the two mindless concentrations, in sleep, and in fainting."

The treatise states: "the root consciousness" refers to the ādāna-consciousness, since it is the root from which all defiled and pure consciousnesses arise. "Resting on" means that the first six transforming consciousnesses take the root consciousness as their shared, direct support. "The five consciousnesses" refers to the first five transforming consciousnesses, spoken of together since they are similar in kind. The phrase "arise according to conditions" shows that they do not arise constantly — "conditions" meaning attention, the sense faculties, the object, and the rest: the five sense-consciousness-bodies rely inwardly on the root consciousness, and, depending outwardly on the coming together of attention, the five sense faculties, their objects, and the rest of the many conditions, only then do they actually manifest. On this account they arise either together or not together, since the outer conditions may converge all at once or only gradually — like water's waves, rising according to however many conditions converge. This simile, and further teachings of this kind, are explained at length in the sūtras.

Because the mode of activity of the five transforming consciousnesses is coarse and unstable, the many conditions they depend on are often incomplete, and so the times they arise are few, and the times they do not arise are many. The sixth, the mental consciousness, though its mode of activity is likewise coarse, nevertheless never lacks the conditions it depends on — yet, owing to obstructing conditions, there are still times it does not arise. The seventh and eighth consciousnesses have a subtle mode of activity, and the many conditions they depend on are present at all times, so no obstructing condition is capable of preventing their activity altogether.

Furthermore, the five sense-consciousness-bodies are incapable of deliberation, and operate only outwardly, depending on many conditions — hence the times they are interrupted are many, and the times they are manifestly active are few. The sixth, the mental consciousness, is itself capable of deliberation, and operates both inwardly and outwardly, without depending on many conditions. Except in five particular states, it is constantly capable of manifesting — hence the times it is interrupted are few, and the times it is manifestly active are many. For this reason, it is not described as "arising according to conditions" in the same way as the five sense-consciousnesses.

What are these five states? "Born in the heaven of no-conception," and the rest. The heaven of no-conception is where, through cultivating that concentration and the power of aversion toward coarse conceptualization, one is born into that heaven; there, the mind and mental factors that do not operate constantly are suppressed, with the cessation of conceptualization foremost among them — hence it is called "the heaven of no-conception." The six transforming consciousnesses, accordingly, are all interrupted there.

One view holds: in that heaven, the six consciousnesses are permanently absent, since the sacred teaching states that beings there lack the transforming consciousnesses, states that they possess only the physical constituent among the five aggregates, and states, further, that this is a mindless stage.

Another view holds: in that heaven, at the moment approaching death, the transforming consciousnesses must arise before death actually occurs, since one must give rise to the craving that moistens rebirth into a lower state; the Yogācārabhūmi states: "once conceptualization has arisen again, these beings then pass away from that state." The statement that they lack the transforming consciousnesses refers only to the long duration of that state, not to their being utterly absent throughout.

Another view holds: at the moment of birth there, too, the transforming consciousnesses are present, since the intermediate-state being must give rise to the affliction that moistens rebirth, just as, in every other state of embodied existence, the transforming consciousnesses are necessarily present at its very outset. The Yogācārabhūmi states: "once born there, one only enters and does not arise again; once conceptualization arises, one passes away from that state" — if, at the very outset of that existence, the transforming consciousnesses were entirely absent, how could this be called "entering" at all? Only where something is present first and then absent can it properly be called "entering."

The Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī states: "the cessation of whatever mind and mental factors are innately produced is called no-conception." This shows that, at the very outset of that existence, the karmically-resultant transforming consciousnesses briefly arise through the power of a prior causal condition, and thereafter do not arise again. It is on account of this that the karmically-resultant, morally-neutral positional difference thus brought about is called "no-conception," just as the two wholesome concentrations are called "wholesome" because they are brought forth by a wholesome cause. Were this not so — were the transforming consciousnesses never active there at all — how could it be said that only what is innately produced ceases? Hence, at that initial stage, the transforming consciousnesses do briefly arise.

That heaven exists only within the fourth meditative absorption, since, below it, conceptualization is too coarse and unstable to be readily suppressed, and, above it, there is no place bearing the karmic result of no-conception. It is precisely the volition that brings forth the concentration of no-conception that is capable of producing that heaven's karmic result.

"And the two mindless concentrations" refers to the concentration of no-conception and the concentration of cessation — both entirely lack the six consciousnesses, and are therefore called "mindless."

The concentration of no-conception: an ordinary being who has suppressed craving for the third absorption's pervasive purity, but has not yet suppressed defilement toward what lies above it, through an aspiration for liberation, preceded by a specific attention, causes the mind and mental factors that do not operate constantly to cease, with the cessation of conceptualization foremost among them — hence it is named "no-conception." It causes the body to become peaceful and harmonious, and so is also called a "concentration."

Its cultivation divides into three grades. One who cultivates it at the lowest grade will certainly regress from it within this very life, and cannot quickly bring it forth again; when later born into that heaven, one will not be especially radiant and pure, one's physical form will be vast, and one will certainly die prematurely. One who cultivates it at the middle grade need not regress from it, and, should one regress, can quickly bring it forth again; when later born into that heaven, though quite radiant and pure, with a vast physical form, one will not be at the utmost extreme, and although premature death may occur, it is not certain. One who cultivates it at the highest grade will certainly not regress from it; when later born into that heaven, one will be radiant and pure to the utmost degree, with a vast physical form, will certainly not die prematurely, and will pass away only after the full span of one's lifetime is exhausted.

This concentration belongs exclusively to the fourth meditative absorption. It is, moreover, exclusively wholesome, since it is brought forth by a wholesome cause. It is absent from every stage below or above, for the reasons already explained. It extends to three of the four categories of karmic ripening, excluding only that ripening experienced within the very life in which the act is performed.

One view holds: this concentration arises only in the desire realm, since it is brought forth by the persuasive power of non-Buddhist teachers, and the understanding of those in the human realm is especially sharp and forceful. Another view holds: having first cultivated it in the desire realm, one can later, born in the form realm, bring it forth again, except at the very culmination of the heaven of no-conception itself. This concentration is entered through aversion toward conceptualization and delight in that heaven's result, and so it is exclusively contaminated — it is never brought forth by a noble one.

The concentration of cessation: a noble one, whether beyond training or still in training, who has suppressed or become free of craving for the sphere of nothingness — craving for what lies above this being not fixed either way — through an aspiration for stillness, preceded by a specific attention, causes both the mind and mental factors that do not operate constantly, and the defiled ones among those that do operate constantly, to cease; hence it is named "cessation." It causes the body to become peaceful and harmonious, and so is also called a "concentration." Because it especially involves aversion toward feeling and conceptualization, it is also called "the concentration that extinguishes these two."

Its cultivation likewise divides into three grades: one who cultivates it at the lowest grade will certainly regress from it within this very life, and cannot quickly bring it forth again; one who cultivates it at the middle grade need not regress from it, and, should one regress, can quickly bring it forth again; one who cultivates it at the highest grade will never regress from it at all.

This concentration, when first cultivated, must be entered by relying on the peak of existence, using uncontaminated contemplative insight as its preparatory practice, since it comes last among the concentrations arranged in sequence — though it belongs to the peak of existence, it is nevertheless classified as uncontaminated. Once one has attained mastery in cultivating it, it can also manifest following a mind of any other stage. Though it belongs to the truth of the path, it is classified as neither a trainee's nor a beyond-training's attainment, since it resembles nirvāṇa itself.

This concentration, when first arisen, occurs only among humans, since it is brought forth by the persuasive power of the Buddha and his disciples, and the understanding of those in the human realm is especially sharp and forceful; afterward, it can also manifest in the two upper realms — the Udāyī Sūtra serves as genuine proof of this, since the formless realm, too, is called "the heaven of mind alone." One who has not yet come to believe in the teaching of the storehouse consciousness, if born into the formless realm, will not bring forth this concentration, fearing that, in the absence of form, the mind itself would be utterly annihilated; one who already believes, however, can bring it forth even when born there, knowing that the storehouse consciousness exists and is never utterly annihilated.

One must have eliminated the afflictions eliminated on the path of seeing throughout the three realms before this concentration can arise at all, since an ordinary being is incapable of suppressing and eliminating the mind and mental factors of the peak of existence; this concentration is subtle and profound, brought forth only through the subsequently-attained wisdom that arises, as appropriate, from realizing the two emptinesses.

One view holds: among the afflictions of the lower eight stages eliminated on the path of cultivation, one must have entirely eliminated those of the desire realm, while the rest need only be suppressed or eliminated, before this concentration can first arise — since the seeds of the desire realm's afflictions are of a doubly complex nature and obstruct concentration especially strongly. Hence it is said that only non-returners, the beyond-training of all three vehicles, and bodhisattvas attain this concentration; once attained, it can, as appropriate, arise again after being born into any of the eight upper stages.

Another view holds: one must have eliminated the afflictions of the lower four stages eliminated on the path of cultivation, while the rest need only be suppressed or eliminated, before this concentration can first arise — since the seeds of the afflictions associated with changeable feeling obstruct concentration especially strongly; once attained, it can, as appropriate, arise again after being born into any of the upper five stages.

Should one object: if merely suppressing the lower afflictions is enough to bring forth this concentration, and one is later reborn in an upper stage without having eliminated them, would this not mean eliminating the lower afflictions only after already being reborn above? In reply: there is no fault in this — just as one born in an upper stage does eliminate the innate afflictions of manas bound to the lower stage. A non-returner's counteracting power, however, is especially strong: at the very moment of moistening rebirth, no affliction actually arises; rebirth into the upper stage is brought about solely through the affliction's seed. Although the suppressed affliction may or may not later regress, there is no sense in which suppressing a lower affliction is what brings about rebirth in an upper stage — hence there is no fault in eliminating the lower affliction only after being reborn above.

Should a bodhisattva have already attained the concentration of cessation while still at the level of the two vehicles, and only afterward turn their mind toward the Mahāyāna, they are capable of bringing forth this concentration at every subsequent stage. If this is not the case, then only upon completing the seventh ground is one capable of permanently suppressing every affliction — and although the afflictions of the desire realm eliminated on the path of cultivation have not yet been permanently eliminated, one can, as though they had been eliminated, bring forth this concentration; the treatise states that only a bodhisattva who has already entered the far-reaching ground is capable of manifesting the concentration of cessation. There are also those who, from the first ground onward, are already capable of permanently suppressing every affliction, just as an arhat is — such bodhisattvas bring forth this concentration throughout all ten grounds, since the sūtras state that a bodhisattva can manifest the concentration of cessation even within the first six grounds.

"Mindless sleep and fainting" refers to an extremely deep sleep or fainting spell that causes all of the first six consciousnesses to cease manifesting entirely. A bodily state brought about by conditions such as extreme fatigue, which is incompatible with the first six consciousnesses, is called "extremely deep sleep" — during this sleep, although sleep's own essence as a mental factor is actually absent, it is provisionally so named because the state resembles it. A bodily state brought about by conditions such as wind or heat disorders, likewise incompatible with the six consciousnesses, is called "extreme fainting," or else both of these are simply a portion of the tangible sense-object. Apart from these five states, the mental consciousness is constantly active.

At the very moments of death and rebirth, the mental consciousness is likewise absent — why, then, does the verse speak of only five states in which it does not operate? One view holds: death and rebirth are indicated by the words "and" and "with." This does not accord with reason — why so? Because only six occasions, in total, are called "mindless": the five states already named, together with the state of remainderless nirvāṇa. It should instead be said that death and rebirth are simply included within fainting, since they represent fainting's most extreme instance; the words "and" and "with" are stated to show that these five states are kept distinct from one another. This also shows that, once the six consciousnesses have ceased, they subsequently arise again from their own seeds within the root consciousness — and it is for this reason that the verse does not mention entering remainderless nirvāṇa.

Among these five states, an ordinary being can experience four, excluding the concentration of cessation; a noble one can experience only the latter three, and, among these, a tathāgata or a bodhisattva who has attained mastery experiences only one, since they are free of sleep and fainting.

Hence, for every sentient being, the eighth consciousness and manas — these two — are constantly active together; when the sixth arises as well, three are then active together; as further conditions converge, from one up to all five of the sense-consciousnesses may also arise, giving four active together, and so on up to all eight acting together at once. This is a brief statement of the meaning of the consciousnesses' simultaneous activity.

If, within a single sentient being, multiple consciousnesses are simultaneously active, how can that being still be called a single sentient being? In reply: if a being's identity were established by the number of consciousnesses present, would you not then have to say that a being in a mindless state is not a sentient being at all? And, at a moment when only a portion of mind is manifest, how could this still be spoken of as one's own individual being? Rather, establishing a being's identity with reference to the number of life-faculties, or with reference to the ripening consciousness, does not conflict with reason, since, in either case, there is constantly only a single one present.

A single body has only a single moment's immediately-preceding condition for any resulting mind — how, then, can multiple consciousnesses be simultaneously active? In reply: since it is already granted that this single condition can give rise to multiple mental factors, why should it not likewise be granted that it can give rise to multiple minds? Moreover, who has ever definitively said that this condition must be single? Those who speak of multiple consciousnesses being simultaneously active thereby grant that this condition, too, is multiple.

Furthermore, for one who wishes to apprehend multiple objects at a single moment, when multiple objects are all present at once, why should they not be grasped all together? Since the sense faculties and their objects converge with equal force, it would not accord with reason for their corresponding consciousnesses to arise only one after another.

Furthermore, although the nature of mental factors admits no intrinsic difference across their basic types, yet, since they do differ in kind, it is granted that multiple kinds arise together — why, then, should it not likewise be granted that minds of different kinds arise together? And just as, resting on a single body of water, many waves and reflected images can arise at once, so too, resting on a single mind, multiple consciousnesses can be simultaneously active.

Furthermore, were it not granted that the mental consciousness operates together with the five sense-consciousnesses, then apprehending their objects should never be clear — as when the scattered mental consciousness takes as its object something long since past.

How can a single mental consciousness, accompanying the five sense-consciousnesses, apprehend either one or many objects such as color-form all at once? In reply: just as the eye-consciousness and the rest, each within its own object, can apprehend either one or many, what fault is there here either — since both the perceived and the perceiving aspects can each involve many distinct characteristics.

Why do consciousnesses of the same kind never arise together? Because, with respect to whatever object can be apprehended by one such consciousness, that single consciousness is already capable of apprehending it, and any further consciousness of the same kind would serve no purpose.

If so, then, given that the five sense-consciousnesses have already apprehended their own objects, what use is there for the mental consciousness to arise together with them and apprehend the same thing? In reply: the mental consciousness that accompanies the five sense-consciousnesses assists them in arising, rather than existing solely to apprehend what they already apprehend; moreover, it apprehends that same object with a clarity that differs from the eye-consciousness and the rest, and so it is not without its own use. It is for this reason that the sacred teaching calls this mental consciousness "possessed of discrimination," while the five sense-consciousnesses are not so called.

If multiple consciousnesses are simultaneously active, why are they not mutually associated? Because they do not share the same object; and even where they do happen to share the same object, the substance and number of what each depends on for support still differ between them — just as the five sense-consciousnesses, resting on their own distinct faculties, are never mutually associated with one another either.

The eight consciousnesses' own essential nature cannot be said to be fixedly one, since their modes of activity, their supports, their conditions, and their associated factors all differ; and since, when one ceases, the others do not necessarily cease along with it; and since their respective characteristics as that which perfumes and that which is perfumed likewise differ from one another.

Nor, however, are they fixedly different, since the sūtras compare the eight consciousnesses to water and its waves, showing they are without real difference; and since, were they fixedly different, they could not stand in a causal relationship to one another at all. Like a magical illusion and the like, they possess no fixed nature in either direction.

As already explained, the distinct characteristics of the various consciousnesses are established with reference to conventional truth, not ultimate reality — for within ultimate reality itself, mind and language alike are cut off. As a verse says: "Mind, mentation, and consciousness, in their eight kinds, have distinct characteristics conventionally; ultimately, they have no distinct characteristics, since there is no characterized object and characterizing subject at all."

The character of the three transformations has now been fully explained, as the basis for their own transformed dual aspects. How should it be understood that a self and dharmas, provisionally designated on the basis of what consciousness itself transforms, are not separately, genuinely real things — and that, by this, everything is nothing but consciousness? The verse states: "These consciousnesses undergo transformation into what discriminates and what is discriminated; because of this, both are without real, independent existence; hence, everything is Consciousness-Only."

The treatise states: "these consciousnesses" refers to the three transformations already discussed, together with their associated mental factors — all of these are capable of transforming so as to appear as the perceiving and perceived aspects, and it is this that is called "transformation." The transformed perceiving aspect is called "the discriminating," since it is capable of grasping characteristics; the transformed perceived aspect is called "the discriminated," since it is what the perceiving aspect grasps.

By this correct principle, a real self or real dharmas, apart from what consciousness itself transforms and manifests, are certainly nonexistent, since apart from the perceiving and the perceived there is no separate thing at all — there is no real thing existing apart from these two aspects. Hence everything, conditioned or unconditioned, whether real or provisional, is never apart from consciousness. The word "only" serves to negate any real thing existing apart from consciousness — it does not negate mental factors and the like that are themselves not apart from consciousness.

Alternatively, "transformation" means that the various inner consciousnesses transform so as to appear resembling external objects in the form of self and dharmas. This capacity for transformation is itself called "the discriminating," since false discrimination is its very nature — namely, the minds and mental factors of the three realms. The object thus grasped at is called "the discriminated," namely the falsely grasped-at nature of a real self and real dharmas. Through this discrimination, the provisional characteristics of self and dharmas come to appear resembling an external object; but that which is discriminated as a real self or real dharma-nature is certainly, entirely nonexistent, as already extensively refuted through the scriptural and rational arguments cited earlier.

Hence everything is nothing but consciousness, since false discrimination's own existence is thoroughly established. Since the word "only" does not negate dharmas that are themselves not apart from consciousness, genuine emptiness and the like, too, possess real existence. By this, the two extremes of overstating and understating are both left behind, the meaning of Consciousness-Only is established, and the middle way is fully realized.

By what scriptural and rational proof is the meaning of Consciousness-Only established? Has this not already been explained? Although already stated, it has not yet been made fully clear — refuting another's position does not, by itself, establish one's own; this should be set out more precisely, to firmly establish this scriptural and rational proof.

As the sūtras state: "the three realms are mind alone"; and state: "whatever is taken as an object is nothing but what consciousness manifests"; and state: "all dharmas are never apart from mind"; and state: "sentient beings' defilement and purity follow upon mind." It is also stated: "a bodhisattva who has accomplished four wisdoms is able to awaken, accordingly, into the truth that there is Consciousness-Only, without any external object."

First, the wisdom of consciousness's mutually contradictory appearances: in one and the same place, hungry ghosts, humans, gods, and the rest, according to their differing karma, each see something different — were the object genuinely real, how could this be so?

Second, the wisdom of consciousness without an objective support: consciousness taking the past, the future, dream-images, and the like as its object plainly occurs, even though these are not genuinely real objects; since those objects are absent, the same should hold for every other case as well.

Third, the wisdom that an unenlightened being's understanding should, of itself, already be free of error: if an ordinary being's understanding actually grasped a real object, it should then naturally already be free of distortion, and liberation should be attained without any exertion at all.

Fourth, the wisdom that accords with three further wisdoms' transformation: first, the wisdom that accords with the mastery-attaining one's transformation — one who has attained mastery over mind can, at will, transform the earth and the rest into whatever is wished; were the object genuinely real, how could it be transformed at all? Second, the wisdom that accords with the contemplative's transformation — one who has attained supreme concentration and cultivates the contemplation of dharmas finds that, whatever single object is contemplated, its manifold characteristics present themselves; were the object genuinely real, how could it transform according to the mind? Third, the wisdom that accords with the transformation of non-discriminating wisdom — when one gives rise to the non-discriminating wisdom that realizes reality, no characteristic of any object manifests at all; were the object genuinely real, how could it possibly fail to appear?

A bodhisattva who has accomplished these four wisdoms attains a settled awakening into the principle of Consciousness-Only. A verse likewise states: "The objects taken by mind, mentation, and consciousness are none of them apart from their own nature; hence I say that everything, without remainder, is nothing but consciousness."

These scriptural proofs are far from being the only ones. The commonly-accepted eye-consciousness and the rest do not directly take as their object any color-form and the like existing apart from themselves, since each is one among the five sense-consciousnesses — just like the others. Every other consciousness, too, being a consciousness, likewise does not directly take as its object any dharma existing apart from itself — just like the eye-consciousness and the rest. Whatever a consciousness directly takes as its object is certainly never apart from that very consciousness, since it is one of two mutually corresponding things — just like the consciousness that takes it as an object. Being an object taken by a consciousness, it is, like an associated mental factor, certainly never apart from mind and its mental factors.

These principles, too, provide manifold genuine proof — hence one should deeply believe in and accept the Consciousness-Only teaching. Self and dharmas do not exist; emptiness and consciousness are not nonexistent. Apart from both existence and nonexistence as extremes, this accords with the middle way. Relying on this, the Compassionate One speaks two verses: "False discrimination exists; within it, the duality of grasped object and grasping subject is entirely absent. Within this, there is only emptiness; and within that emptiness, this discrimination likewise exists. Hence it is said: all dharmas are neither empty nor not empty — because of existence, nonexistence, and existence once more, this accords precisely with the middle way."

This verse speaks, for now, only with reference to the defiled portion of the dependent nature; in genuine reality, there is also a pure portion of the dependent nature. If it is only the inner consciousness that arises resembling an external object, why does one perceive worldly sentient and insentient things transforming with fixed or unfixed places, times, bodies, and functions? This doubt should be resolved by the example of a dream, and the like.

Why did the World-Honored One teach the twelve sense-fields? They are established with reference to what consciousness itself transforms and manifests, not as something separately, genuinely real. In order to lead beings into the emptiness of self, he taught these six pairs of dharmas, just as, to counter the view of annihilation, he taught the continuity of sentient beings. In order to lead beings into the emptiness of dharmas, he further taught Consciousness-Only, so that they would know that external dharmas, too, do not exist.

Is not this very nature of Consciousness-Only, then, also empty? No, it is not. Why so? Because it is not itself something falsely grasped at. That is: with reference to what consciousness transforms, the falsely grasped-at real dharma cannot actually be found — this is what is meant by "the emptiness of dharmas"; it is not that the nature of Consciousness-Only realized by correct, word-transcending wisdom is itself nonexistent — this, too, is what is meant by "the emptiness of dharmas."

Were this consciousness itself nonexistent, there would then be no conventional truth; and, conventional truth being absent, ultimate truth, too, would be absent — since the ultimate and the conventional are established only in mutual dependence on each other. To deny both truths entirely is a case of nihilistic emptiness taken to a ruinous extreme, which the buddhas declare to be incurable. One should understand that all dharmas are both empty and not empty — and it is on this very basis that the Compassionate One speaks the two verses cited above.

If the sense-fields of color-form, too, have consciousness as their essence, why do they still appear resembling color-form, arising in a single, stable, continuous stream? Because they arise through the power of habituation from verbal designation, and because they serve as the basis for both defiled and pure dharmas. That is: were this not so, there would be no distorted perception, hence no defilement, and likewise no purity — and so consciousness, too, manifests appearing as color-form. As a verse states: "The appearance of confusion and the substance of confusion should be accepted, respectively, as the consciousness that manifests as form and the consciousness that does not manifest as form; were either absent, the other, too, would be absent."

External objects such as color-form are clearly evidenced and apprehended by direct perception — how, then, could one deny their existence? At the very moment of direct perception, one does not yet grasp them as external; it is only the subsequent mental discrimination that falsely gives rise to the notion of something external. Hence the object of direct perception is simply one's own perceived aspect, transformed by consciousness itself, and so it, too, is spoken of as existing; it is the real external color-form grasped at by the mental consciousness that is falsely conceived — and it is this that is said to be nonexistent. Moreover, objects such as color-form are not color-form itself but merely resemble color-form, not external but merely resembling the external, like the object taken in a dream, which one cannot grasp as being a real, external color-form.

If, in the waking state, color-form, too, is like a dream-object, never apart from consciousness, then — just as, upon waking from a dream, one comes to know that dream was mind alone — why does one not, in the waking state, likewise recognize one's own color-form objects as Consciousness-Only? Just as, while still dreaming, one is incapable of recognizing this for oneself, and can only recognize it retrospectively upon waking, the color-form objects of the waking state, too, should be understood the same way: while not yet genuinely awakened, one is incapable of recognizing this for oneself, and can only recognize it retrospectively once genuine awakening is reached. One who has not yet attained genuine awakening dwells constantly within a kind of dream — hence the Buddha spoke of the long night of birth-and-death — and it is for this reason that one has not yet realized that color-form objects are nothing but consciousness.

External color-form is genuinely nonexistent, and so may indeed not be an object of inner consciousness — but another's mind genuinely exists; how, then, could it not be an object one's own consciousness directly takes? Who has said that another's mind is not an object of one's own consciousness? It is only said that it is not a direct object taken. That is: when a consciousness arises, it involves no genuine causal action — unlike a hand actually grasping an external object, or the sun actually casting its light to illuminate an external object; rather, it is simply like a mirror, appearing to resemble an external object — this is what is called "cognizing another's mind," not "directly cognizing it." What is directly cognized is simply what one's own consciousness itself transforms and manifests. Hence the sūtra states: "no dharma whatsoever is capable of grasping another dharma; it is simply that, when a consciousness arises, it appears resembling that thing's characteristic, and this is called grasping that thing." The same holds for taking another's mind as an object, exactly as with color-form and the rest.

If distinct objects genuinely exist after all, how can this still be called Consciousness-Only? How remarkable — clinging so stubbornly that doubt arises at every turn! Does the teaching of Consciousness-Only really claim that there is only a single consciousness? It is not so — then how is it? You should listen carefully: were there truly only a single consciousness, how could there be the distinctions of the ten directions, of the ordinary and the noble, of the exalted and the lowly, of cause and effect, and the rest? Who would be teaching, and to whom? What dharma would be sought, and by what means? Hence the term "Consciousness-Only" carries a profound intent.

The word "consciousness" broadly indicates that every sentient being individually possesses eight consciousnesses and the six categories of mental factors, their transformed perceived and perceiving aspects, their distinct positional differences, and the true suchness revealed by the principle of their emptiness — since these are, respectively, consciousness's own nature, what is associated with consciousness, what consciousness transforms into these two aspects, consciousness's positional differences, and consciousness's genuine nature. All such dharmas being never apart from consciousness, the general term "consciousness" is applied to them collectively. The word "only" serves simply to negate what the ignorant falsely grasp at: a real color-form and the like, existing fixedly apart from every consciousness.

If one understands the intent of the Consciousness-Only teaching in this way, one becomes capable of correctly and thoroughly preparing the provisions for the path, swiftly entering the emptiness of dharmas, realizing unsurpassed awakening, and rescuing sentient beings from the cycle of birth-and-death — this is not something that one who entirely denies everything, taking emptiness to a ruinous nihilistic extreme in defiance of scriptural and rational teaching, could ever accomplish. One should, therefore, most certainly believe that everything is nothing but consciousness.

If there is only consciousness and no external condition whatsoever, from what, then, do the various discriminations arise? The verse states: "It is because consciousness possesses every kind of seed that it transforms in this way and that; through the power of mutual interaction, this or that discrimination is thereby generated."

The treatise states: "the consciousness of all seeds" refers to the distinct functional capacities within the root consciousness that are capable of generating their own respective results — since these give rise to the results of outflow, ripening, human effort, and dominance, they are called "all seeds," excepting only what is liberated from bondage, since this is not produced from a seed. Although liberation, too, can be realized, it is not the result of a seed, but is attained only through the actual manifestation of the path that severs the fetters — this involves a further, distinct kind of relation, not what is meant here, since what is meant here is specifically the seeds capable of generating discrimination. This consciousness has these seeds as its very essence, and so is named "consciousness," since the seeds have no nature apart from the root consciousness itself.

The two-character phrase "seed-consciousness" distinguishes it from what is neither seed nor consciousness — there being consciousness that is not seed, and seed that is not consciousness. Moreover, the phrase indicates the seeds within consciousness, not the consciousness that holds the seeds, as will be explained later. The seeds within this consciousness, aided by other conditions, transform in just such and such a way — meaning that they transform from the stage of arising to the stage of ripening; to show that the transforming seeds are many, the phrase "in just such and such a way" is repeated. That is: "all seeds" encompasses the three kinds of habituation, exhausting the shared and unshared consciousness-seeds alike.

"The power of mutual interaction" refers to the eight manifest consciousnesses, together with their associated perceived and perceiving aspects, all of which mutually assist one another with their own power. It is these manifest consciousnesses and the rest that are collectively named "discrimination," since false discrimination is their very nature; and since discrimination is of many kinds, the verse says "this and that."

This verse means to say: although there is no external condition, it is through the distinct transformations of all the seeds within the root consciousness, together with the power of mutual interaction among the eight manifest consciousnesses, that this or that discrimination is able to arise — what need is there to posit an external condition before discrimination can arise at all? The arising of the various pure dharmas, too, should be understood the same way, since these, too, are generated through the manifest activity of pure seeds serving as their condition.

As for the seeds and manifest activity said to generate discrimination as their condition — how should the character of this conditioned generation be understood? There are, in fact, four conditions.

First, the causal condition: a conditioned dharma that directly brings about its own result. This has two aspects: seeds, and manifest activity. Seeds are the distinct functional capacities — wholesome, defiled, or neutral, across the various realms and stages — within the root consciousness, capable of drawing forth their own subsequent, similar-kind functional capacity, and of giving rise, at the same moment, to a manifest result of their own kind; it is only with reference to these that the causal condition applies. Manifest activity refers to the seven transforming consciousnesses, together with their associated transformed perceived and perceiving aspects, their nature, realm, and stage, and the rest — excepting the wholesome activity of buddhahood and the most inferior kind of neutral activity, the rest perfume the root consciousness, generating seeds of their own kind; it is only with reference to these that the causal condition applies. The eighth consciousness itself has nothing that perfumes it — not because its basis is somehow excluded, but because it alone is capable of perfuming; being extremely subtle and perfectly complete, it is not itself perfumed so as to form a seed.

Manifest activities of the same kind, considered in relation to one another, are never a causal condition for each other, since each arises from its own seed; manifest activities of every different kind, likewise considered in relation to one another, are never a causal condition for each other either, since neither directly generates the other. Some hold that manifest activities of different kinds, or of the same kind, considered in relation to one another, do serve as a causal condition — this should be understood as a provisional manner of speaking, or as following a particular expository approach. Some hold that only seeds have the nature of a causal condition — this position, too, emphasizes what is most prominent rather than stating the complete truth, since the sages themselves state that the transforming consciousnesses and the ālayavijñāna, considered in relation to one another, do serve as a causal condition.

Second, the condition of immediately preceding sameness: the eight manifest consciousnesses, together with their mental factors, form successive clusters, each equally and directly opening the way for and guiding, without interruption, the arising of its own subsequent kind, causing it to arise with certainty. Since many seeds of the same kind are active simultaneously, this is not, however, like the factors dissociated from mind, which are not included under this condition — and it is for this reason that the eight consciousnesses do not serve as this condition for one another. Mind and mental factors, though constantly active together, are, being mutually associated, unified in a way that harmonizes them as though they were one, and cannot be treated as entirely separate and distinct — hence they are capable of mutually serving as this condition for each other. The mind at the moment of entering remainderless nirvāṇa is at its most extremely feeble, has no capacity to open the way for and guide anything further, and, moreover, has no subsequent dharma of immediately preceding sameness yet to arise — and so it is not included under this condition. How is this known? The treatise offers explicit statement: whenever this consciousness is immediately followed, without interruption, by that consciousness's certain arising, it is precisely this that is meant by calling the former the latter's condition of immediately preceding sameness.

On the basis of this meaning, it should accordingly be said: the ādāna-consciousness, throughout the three realms and nine stages, is capable of mutually serving as the condition of immediately preceding sameness across all of them, since a lower or upper stage, death or rebirth, can each open the way for and guide the other. An uncontaminated consciousness can arise immediately following a contaminated one; but an uncontaminated consciousness can never give rise to a contaminated one afterward, since, once the mirror-like wisdom has arisen, it certainly never ceases or is interrupted — and the same holds for the relationship between wholesome and neutral consciousness.

Following which realm does the uncontaminated consciousness first arise? Either following the form realm, or following the desire realm. An ordinary being who seeks buddhahood necessarily gives rise to the uncontaminated consciousness only after the form realm, since such a being must be reborn in the Pure Abodes, in the palace of the Great Sovereign God, in order to attain enlightenment there. One of the two vehicles who turns toward great bodhi necessarily gives rise to the uncontaminated consciousness only after the desire realm, since turning toward the Mahāyāna while retaining one's present body occurs only in the desire realm — for although such a person, too, must eventually go to the palace of the Great Sovereign God to attain buddhahood, the very body retained through the power of that original vow was born in the desire realm.

One view holds: in the form realm, too, there are śrāvakas who turn toward the Mahāyāna and vow to retain their body, since this is not in conflict with either scriptural or rational teaching — hence a śrāvaka's uncontaminated eighth-consciousness mind, following a form-realm mind, too, can manifest. Among the five Pure Abodes, however, none turn toward the Mahāyāna in this way, since the sūtras do not state that beings there give rise to the great resolve.

The seventh transforming consciousness, too, throughout the three realms and nine stages, is capable of mutually serving as the condition of immediately preceding sameness, since it follows wherever the eighth consciousness is bound by rebirth. Contaminated and uncontaminated instances are capable of mutually giving rise to one another, since, throughout the ten grounds, they are capable of drawing one another forth. The same holds for the relationship between wholesome and neutral instances; and, within the neutral category, defiled and undefiled instances likewise open the way for and guide one another, since, before and after the result of the wisdom realizing the emptiness of self, they are capable of drawing one another forth. This mutual generation between contaminated and uncontaminated instances occurs in the desire and form realms, but not in the formless realm, since bodhisattvas who have attained the grounds are not reborn there.

The sixth transforming consciousness, throughout the three realms and nine stages, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, wholesome or unwholesome, and so on, is likewise capable of mutually serving as this condition, since, at the moment of moistening rebirth and the like, these draw one another forth in turn — though the first arising of an uncontaminated instance occurs only after the form realm, since the wholesome factors of the decisive stage belong only to the form realm.

The eye-, ear-, and body-consciousnesses, spanning two realms and two stages, and the nose- and tongue-consciousnesses, confined to a single realm and stage, mutually serve as this condition only among their own kind; the same should be understood to hold for their relationship as wholesome and the rest.

One view holds: the five sense-consciousnesses' contaminated and uncontaminated instances mutually serve as this condition among their own kind, since, before buddhahood is attained, they are capable of mutually arising. Another view holds: an uncontaminated instance can arise following a contaminated one, but a contaminated instance can never arise following an uncontaminated one — since the uncontaminated five sense-consciousnesses are absent only in the case of a buddha; since those five physical sense faculties are necessarily contaminated; since these are themselves included within the ripening consciousness's perceived aspect; since a contaminated, unshared faculty, and its correspondingly-objected uncontaminated consciousness produced together, would not accord with reason; and since these two differ in the clarity or obscurity of their respective objects.

Third, the condition of the objective support: whatever dharma bears the mind's own aspect, and is reflected upon and relied upon by the mind or its associated factors. This has two aspects: direct, and indirect. Whatever is not separate in essence from the perceiving consciousness — the inwardly reflected-upon, relied-upon perceiving aspect and the rest — should be understood as the direct condition of objective support; whatever is separate in essence from the perceiving consciousness, yet serves as the underlying basis capable of giving rise to that inward reflection and reliance, should be understood as the indirect condition of objective support. Every perceiving consciousness necessarily has the direct condition of objective support, since it certainly cannot arise apart from an inward object of reflection and reliance. A perceiving consciousness may or may not have the indirect condition of objective support, since it can also arise without an external object of reflection and reliance.

As for the eighth consciousness: one view holds that it has only the direct condition of objective support, since it transforms spontaneously according to the power of karmic causes. Another view holds that it also necessarily has the indirect condition of objective support, since it must rely on another's transformed underlying basis before it can itself transform. Another view holds that neither of these two positions accords with reason. One's own and another's body and land can be mutually made use of, since what another has transformed can serve as one's own underlying basis; yet there is no principle by which one's own seeds could be made use of by another, since it would not accord with reason for another's transformation to serve as one's own basis, and since the seeds belonging to different sentient beings are not all equal. It should instead be said that, for this consciousness, the indirect condition of objective support is neither fixedly present nor fixedly absent across every state.

As for the seventh consciousness: prior to the transformation of its basis, it is an innate, spontaneously co-arisen affliction, and so must necessarily rely on an external underlying basis — hence it, too, necessarily has the indirect condition of objective support. After the transformation of its basis, this is not necessarily present, since it takes suchness and the like as its object, which has no external underlying basis.

As for the sixth consciousness: its mode of activity is forceful and sharp, capable of operating freely across every state; the external underlying basis it relies on may be present or absent, and so the indirect condition of objective support is neither fixedly present nor fixedly absent for it. As for the first five consciousnesses: prior to the transformation of their basis, being coarse, dull, and inferior, they must necessarily rely on an external underlying basis, and so they, too, necessarily have the indirect condition of objective support; after the transformation of their basis, this is not necessarily present, since they can take the past, the future, and the like as their object, which has no external underlying basis.

Fourth, the dominant condition: whatever dharma possesses superior power and function, capable of either favoring or opposing some other dharma. Although the first three conditions are, in fact, also instances of dominance, the present, fourth condition excludes those three and takes up only what remains, in order to display the distinct characteristics of the various conditions. This favoring or opposing function operates across four domains, corresponding to the four distinct matters of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and attaining. Although the dominant function operates across many matters, the most prominent and evident number only twenty-two — these should be understood as precisely the twenty-two faculties.

The first five, the physical faculties, take as their nature the pure form of the eye and the rest, transformed by the root consciousness. The male and female faculties, being included within the body faculty, take as their nature a portion of that very faculty. The life faculty is provisionally established with reference solely to a positional difference of the root consciousness's own direct seed, and has no separate nature of its own. The mental faculty takes, in general, all eight consciousnesses as its nature. The five feeling faculties each take their own respective feeling as their nature, as appropriate. Faith and the other four faculties take faith and the rest, and correct recollection and the like, as their own nature.

As for the faculty of "will come to know what is not yet known" — its essence has three stages: first, the fundamental stage, which refers to the path of seeing, excepting its final moment, since, at that final moment, there is no longer anything not yet known that remains to be known; second, the preparatory stage, which refers to warmth, summit, forbearance, and supreme worldly dharma, since these are capable of drawing the fundamental stage near and bringing it forth; third, the provisioning stage, which refers to the period from when one first generates a settled, superior aspiration for wholesome dharmas, in order to attain direct realization of the truths, up until one has not yet attained the wholesome roots belonging to the stage of decisive discernment — this is called the provisioning stage, since it is capable of supplying, from a distance, what gives rise to the fundamental stage.

Within these three stages, faith and the other four faculties, together with the mental faculty, joy, pleasure, and equanimity, constitute this faculty's nature; during the preparatory stage and the like, there is also, at times, a faculty of sorrow, arising from anxious concern over realizing the superior dharma still to come — but, not being a genuinely wholesome root, it is for the most part not discussed.

As for the presence of this faculty in the first three formless stages — this occurs through a superior path of seeing cultivated concurrently, or, alternatively, in the case of those from the two vehicles who turn toward the Mahāyāna: in order to realize the emptiness of dharmas, they, too, prior to reaching the grounds, give rise to the uncontaminated realization of the emptiness of self associated with the nine stages — all such practitioners being bodhisattvas, this faculty is included in their case. A bodhisattva's path of seeing, too, possesses this faculty, though the treatise speaks of it only prior to the grounds, on account of the brevity of that period.

Beginning from the path of seeing's final moment up to the vajra-like concentration, whatever uncontaminated faith and the other nine faculties are present all belong to the nature of the faculty of "having already known." One not yet free of desire, anxiously concerned over realizing the liberation still to come, also has, at times, a faculty of sorrow — but, not being a genuinely wholesome root, it is for the most part not discussed.

At every stage of one beyond training, the uncontaminated nine faculties are all, without exception, of the nature of the faculty of "complete knowledge." Though the peak of existence does possess a wandering, contemplative uncontaminated state, it is not sufficiently clear and sharp to count as any of these latter three faculties.

The twenty-two faculties' own nature is as has been explained; every remaining point of classification should be understood according to the treatise.