Causation, Karma, and the Three Natures

On the basis of these same four conditions, with reference to fifteen distinct bases, ten causes are established. How are these established with reference to fifteen bases?

First, the basis of verbal expression: the nature of speech arising from a dharma's name and conceptualization. It is with reference to this basis that the cause of expression-in-accordance is established — meaning that, relying on this speech, one expresses various meanings in accordance with what is seen, heard, and the like; this, then, is the capacity to express serving as the cause of what is expressed. Some treatises state that this consists in name, conceptualization, and view, since, just as a name grasps a characteristic, one comes to express things through the attachment that follows.

Second, the basis of reception: the nature of what is depended upon and what receives, in mutual regard. It is with reference to this basis that the cause of mutual dependence is established — meaning that, in dependence upon this, those various matters come to arise, abide, be accomplished, or be attained; this, then, is their cause of mutual dependence.

Third, the basis of habituation: the stage at which inner and outer seeds have not yet ripened. It is with reference to this basis that the drawing-forth cause is established, since it is capable of drawing forth its own result from a distance.

Fourth, the basis of moistened seeds: the stage at which inner and outer seeds have already ripened. It is with reference to this basis that the arising cause is established, since it is capable of giving rise to its own result close at hand.

Fifth, the basis of immediately preceding cessation: mind and mental factors' own condition of immediately preceding sameness. Sixth, the basis of the sense-field: mind and mental factors' condition of the objective support. Seventh, the basis of the faculties: the six faculties on which mind and mental factors depend. Eighth, the basis of functional action: the deed done, the instrument of action, and the function itself — every manifest, assisting condition apart from seeds. Ninth, the basis of human effort: the deed done, the agent, and the function — every manifest condition of action apart from seeds.

Tenth, the basis of genuine insight: uncontaminated view, excepting the drawing-forth of its own seed, which is capable of assisting realization with respect to uncontaminated dharmas. It is with general reference to these six bases that the encompassing cause is established — meaning that, encompassing five of these bases, it brings about contaminated dharmas, while, encompassing all six, it brings about uncontaminated dharmas.

Eleventh, the basis of accordance: the neutral, defiled, and wholesome manifest and seed activities, capable of according with superior dharmas of their own kind. It is with reference to this basis that the eliciting cause is established, since it is capable of eliciting superior activity of its own kind, and of eliciting the attainment of unconditioned dharmas.

Twelfth, the basis of distinctive function: the distinct capacity each conditioned dharma has for giving rise to and realizing its own result. It is with reference to this basis that the fixed-and-differentiating cause is established, since each is capable of generating a result belonging to its own realm, and each is capable of attaining a result belonging to its own vehicle.

Thirteenth, the basis of concurrence: the power of concurrence, from the basis of reception up through the basis of distinctive function, with respect to the result to be generated, sustained, accomplished, or attained. It is with reference to this basis that the shared-task cause is established, since, from the cause of mutual dependence up through the fixed-and-differentiating cause, all share equally in a single task of generating and the like.

Fourteenth, the basis of obstruction: whatever dharma is capable of obstructing the matter of generating, sustaining, accomplishing, or attaining. It is with reference to this basis that the opposing cause is established, since it is capable of opposing that matter.

Fifteenth, the basis of non-obstruction: whatever dharma does not obstruct the matter of generating, sustaining, accomplishing, or attaining. It is with reference to this basis that the non-opposing cause is established, since it does not oppose that matter.

These ten causes are subsumed under two causes: the capable-of-generating cause, and the facilitating cause. The Bodhisattvabhūmi states: "the drawing-forth seed and the arising seed are called the capable-of-generating cause; every remaining cause is subsumed under the facilitating cause." This means that, among the drawing-forth, arising, eliciting, fixed-and-differentiating, shared-task, and non-opposing causes, whatever causal-condition seeds have not yet ripened are called drawing-forth seeds, and whatever have already ripened are called arising seeds. Although manifest activity, too, can be a capable-of-generating cause, this is often interrupted, and so is not discussed here in brief. Alternatively, whatever directly brings about a result is also called a "seed," as when one speaks of the manifest grain, wheat, and the like as "seeds."

The remaining causes — the first, second, fifth, and ninth, together with whatever within the six causes is not a causal-condition dharma — are all, being apart from the ripening and ripened causal-condition seeds, together subsumed under the facilitating cause. It is not that these two kinds of seed belong exclusively to those two causes, since the remaining four causes, too, contain causal-condition seeds; nor is it that only those eight are called the remaining causes, since those first two causes also contain seeds that are not causal-condition seeds.

The Stage with Coarse and Subtle Discursive Thought and the like states that the arising cause is the capable-of-generating cause, and the rest are subsumed under the facilitating cause. This passage means: among the six causes, whatever manifest activity or seed is a causal condition is called the arising cause, since it is capable of directly generating a result of its own kind; every remaining cause is subsumed under the facilitating cause. It is not that arising belongs exclusively to that one cause, since the remaining five causes, too, contain causal conditions; nor is it that only those nine are called the remaining causes, since the arising cause, too, contains what is not a causal condition.

Alternatively, the Bodhisattvabhūmi's statement of "the drawing-forth and arising seeds" refers to those same two causes, and "every remaining cause" refers to the remaining eight. Although, within these two causes, there is also what is not the capable-of-generating cause, the causal-condition seed is the more prominent and evident, and so is spoken of preferentially; although, within the remaining causes, there is also what is not the facilitating cause, the dominant condition is present in the majority, and so is spoken of preferentially.

As for the Stage with Coarse and Subtle Discursive Thought's statement that "the arising cause is the capable-of-generating cause, and the rest are facilitating" — "arising" refers to that same arising cause, and "the remaining causes" should be understood as the remaining nine. Although, within the arising cause, there is also what is not a causal-condition seed, it is close to its result, directly and evidently so, and hence spoken of preferentially; although, within the drawing-forth cause, too, there is a causal-condition seed, it is distant from its result, and hence not spoken of this way. That the rest are subsumed under the facilitating cause should be understood by analogy with what has already been explained.

With reference to which bases are the four conditions already discussed established? And how, in turn, do they subsume the ten causes and the two causes? The treatise states: the causal condition is established with reference to seeds; the condition of immediately preceding sameness is established with reference to immediately preceding cessation; the condition of the objective support is established with reference to the sense-field; the dominant condition is established with reference to everything else.

Here, "seeds" refers to the causal-condition seeds subsumed within the third, fourth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, and fifteenth bases — although the fourth basis, too, involves manifest activity and thus also has a causal condition, this is often interrupted, and so is not discussed here in brief. Alternatively, this, too, is capable of directly bringing about its own result, as with external wheat and the like, and so is also called a "seed." Or else the term "seed" refers exclusively to the fourth basis, its inclusion or exclusion following the same pattern as above.

As for speaking of the bases of immediately preceding cessation and the sense-field — these should be understood as broadly indicating the bases for these two conditions, and not exclusively the fifth and sixth bases, since the remaining bases, too, involve the meaning of these two intervening conditions.

The treatise states: the causal condition is subsumed under the capable-of-generating cause; the nature of the dominant condition is precisely the facilitating cause; the two intervening conditions are subsumed under the encompassing cause. Although the facilitating cause, too, possesses all three of the latter conditions, the dominant condition predominates, and so this is spoken of preferentially; although the remaining causes, too, involve the two intervening conditions, they are more evident within the encompassing cause, and so this, too, is spoken of preferentially.

The causes and conditions already discussed must certainly have results. How many kinds of result are there, and with reference to which bases are they obtained? There are five kinds of result: first, the ripened result, meaning the neutral, karmically-resultant state, belonging to one's own continuum, brought about by contaminated wholesome and unwholesome dharmas; second, the outflow result, meaning a similar kind of result drawn forth by cultivated wholesome states and the like, which either resembles the prior karma or follows after it accordingly; third, the result of liberation from bondage, meaning the wholesome, unconditioned dharma realized through the uncontaminated path's elimination of obstruction; fourth, the result of human effort, meaning the task accomplished by various agents by means of various instruments; fifth, the dominant result, meaning every result obtained apart from the previous four.

The Yogācārabhūmi and other texts state: the basis of habituation obtains the ripened result; the basis of accordance obtains the outflow result; the basis of genuine insight obtains the result of liberation from bondage; the basis of human effort obtains the result of human effort; every remaining basis obtains the dominant result. Each of these five phrases indicates the entire capacity, across every one of the fifteen bases, for bringing about its corresponding result — were this not so, the classification would be either too broad or too narrow.

Alternatively, "habituation" refers exclusively to the third basis, since the ripening cause is distant from its result, and habituation is of this same character; "accordance" refers exclusively to the eleventh basis, since this cause's eliciting of superior activity is especially evident, as is accordance; "the basis of genuine insight" refers exclusively to the tenth basis, since this basis's realization of liberation from bondage is especially evident; "the basis of human effort" refers exclusively to the ninth basis, since the name and characteristic here are especially evident; and "every remaining basis" refers exclusively to the remaining eleven bases, since these mostly bring about the dominant result, while the rest have already been shown to bring about other results.

This being so, it may accordingly be said: the ripened result is obtained through the drawing-forth, arising, fixed-and-differentiating, shared-task, and non-opposing causes, by way of the dominant condition. The outflow result is obtained through the drawing-forth, arising, encompassing, eliciting, fixed-and-differentiating, shared-task, and non-opposing causes, by way of the first and last conditions. The result of liberation from bondage is obtained through the encompassing, eliciting, fixed-and-differentiating, shared-task, and non-opposing causes, by way of the dominant condition.

As for the result of human effort — one view holds it is obtained through the mutual-dependence, encompassing, shared-task, and non-opposing causes, by way of the dominant condition; another view holds it is obtained through the mutual-dependence, drawing-forth, arising, encompassing, eliciting, fixed-and-differentiating, shared-task, and non-opposing causes, by way of the latter three conditions, excepting the condition of the objective support. The dominant result may be obtained through any of the ten causes and four conditions.

The digression has now concluded; the main topic should be addressed. The seeds within the root consciousness are capable of serving as three of the four conditions in generating manifest discrimination, excepting the condition of immediately preceding sameness. That is: each seed, with respect to its own direct result, is that result's causal condition; it serves as the condition of the objective support for whatever consciousness takes it as an object; and, if a seed has the capacity to assist, or does not obstruct, some other dharma, it is that dharma's dominant condition. The generation of pure manifest activity should be understood the same way.

Manifest discrimination, considered in mutual relation, is likewise capable of serving as three conditions, lacking only the causal condition. That is: among different classes of sentient being, one's own and another's, considered in mutual relation, are capable of serving as two conditions, excepting the condition of immediately preceding sameness.

One's own eight consciousness-clusters, considered in mutual relation, certainly have the dominant condition, and certainly lack the condition of immediately preceding sameness. As for the condition of the objective support, this may be absent or present: the eighth serves as this condition for the seventh, but the seventh does not serve as this condition for the eighth, since the remaining seven are not the underlying basis the eighth relies upon. The seventh lacks this condition with respect to the sixth and the five, having it with respect to only one; the remaining six entirely lack this condition with respect to the seventh. The sixth lacks this condition with respect to the five, while the five have it with respect to the sixth, since the five sense-consciousnesses rely solely on the eighth consciousness's perceived aspect.

Within its own kind, before and after, the sixth is capable of all three conditions; the rest, excepting the condition of the objective support, take only present objects. For those who grant that a later moment of the five sense-consciousnesses can take an earlier moment's aspect as its object, the five and the seventh, too, before and after, likewise have all three conditions. The first seven consciousnesses, with respect to the eighth, can also possess the condition of the objective support, since they are capable of perfuming and forming its perceived and perceiving-aspect seeds.

Within the same cluster, distinct essences, considered in mutual relation, have only the dominant condition, since the various associated dharmas, relying on the same underlying basis, do not take one another as their object. Or else, with reference to the perceiving aspect, it is said that they do not take one another as object; with reference to the perceived aspect, there is a sense in which they do — meaning that the various perceived aspects arise serving as one another's underlying basis, just as a seed within consciousness serves as the underlying basis for the perceived aspect of contact and the rest. Were this not so, in the formless realm these would have no object at all; and, even granting that they transform into color-form, they would still necessarily take a seed as their object, lest the perceiving aspect's object fail to share the same underlying basis.

The perceived aspect, belonging to the same essence, serves the perceiving aspect as two conditions; the perceiving aspect, with respect to it, has only the dominant condition. The perceiving aspect and the self-witnessing aspect, considered in mutual relation, are the same way. The remaining two, considered in mutual relation, each serve as two conditions for the other. This discussion does not concern the perceived aspect as seed, but speaks only of manifest activity mutually serving as a condition.

For the pure eight consciousness-clusters, one's own and another's, considered in mutual relation, all possess the condition of the objective support, since these are capable of universally taking one another as object — excepting only the perceiving aspect, which is not itself an object taken by another perceived aspect, since a perceived aspect, by its very nature, has no capacity to take an object at all.

Since manifest discrimination arises taking both seeds and manifest activity as its object, seeds, too, should by the same reasoning arise taking manifest activity and seeds as their object — how many conditions, then, can manifest activity and seeds serve as for seeds? Seeds certainly do not arise through either of the two intervening conditions, since these two are established only with reference to mind and mental factors. Manifest activity serves its own direct seed as two conditions, and serves a seed that is not its own only as the dominant condition. A seed, with respect to its own direct seed, likewise serves as two conditions, and, with respect to a seed that is not its own, likewise serves only as the dominant condition.

On this basis, the inner consciousnesses' mutual functioning as conditions, and the discrimination of cause and result, are established by both reason and scriptural teaching alike. Even granting that the externally-grasped-at condition existed, it would serve no purpose — how much less so, then, when it stands in conflict with both reason and scriptural teaching? Why cling to it so stubbornly?

Although the term "discrimination" broadly indicates the minds and mental factors of the three realms, the sacred teachings, following whatever is most prominent in each context, display this through many different approaches, at times speaking of it as two, three, four, five, and so on — as is fully and extensively distinguished in other treatises.

Although inner consciousness exists, with no external condition at all, how do sentient beings continue through birth-and-death? The verse states: "It is through the habituation of karma, together with the habituation of the two graspings, that, once the former ripening is exhausted, a further ripening is again produced."

The treatise states: the various karmic acts are meritorious, demeritorious, and unmoving — that is, contaminated wholesome and unwholesome volitional actions. What accompanies these acts is likewise called "karma," since it shares in drawing forth and completing the ripened result. Although this karmic act, once it arises, ceases immediately without interruption, it would make no sense for it to be capable of directly bringing about a future ripened result on its own — rather, it perfumes the root consciousness, giving rise to its own functional capacity, and it is precisely this functional capacity that is called "habituation": karma's own residual trace, brought about through habituation, distinguished from the karmic act itself — hence it is called "habituation." Such habituation, continuing in unbroken succession, brings about the ripened result once it reaches maturity — this shows the future result's dominant condition.

The perceiving and perceived aspects, name and form, mind and mental factors, the fundamental and the derivative — every instance of grasping among these is included within the two graspings. The functional capacity within the root consciousness that this grasping perfumes and brings forth, and that is directly capable of generating this same grasping again, is called the habituation of the two graspings. This shows the mind of the ripened result in a future life, together with its associated causal-condition seeds. "Together" means that the karmic seed and the seed of the two graspings occur together, standing in an indirect and direct conditional relationship, mutually assisting one another.

Since it is karma that draws forth and makes manifest rebirth, the verse mentions it first. "The former ripening" refers to the ripened result of karma from an earlier life; "a further ripening" refers to the ripened result of karma from a subsequent life.

Although the seed of the two graspings receives its result without end, the habituation of karma's receiving of its result is finite, since a ripened result, differing in kind from its cause, is difficult to bring about, while an outflow or dominant result, being of the same kind as its cause, is readily brought about. On account of the ripening of the seeds belonging to karma that brings forth a further life, once the former ripened result's experience is exhausted, a further, distinct ripened result is again generated. It is through this that the wheel of birth-and-death turns without end — what need is there to posit an external condition before this continuity can occur? This verse means to say: through karma and the two graspings, the entire cycle of birth-and-death is never apart from consciousness, since mind and mental factors are its very nature.

Furthermore, birth-and-death's continuity is brought about by the various habituations. These habituations, broadly speaking, are of three kinds. First, the habituation of verbal designation, meaning each conditioned dharma's own distinct, direct seed. Verbal designation is of two kinds: expressive verbal designation, meaning the distinct sound capable of conveying meaning; and object-revealing verbal designation, meaning the mind and mental factors capable of cognizing an object. The seeds formed through the habituation of these two kinds of verbal designation serve as each conditioned dharma's own distinct causal condition.

Second, the habituation of self-attachment, meaning the seed of the false attachment to a self and to what belongs to a self. Self-attachment is of two kinds: the innate attachment to self, eliminated on the path of cultivation; and the discriminated attachment to self, eliminated on the path of seeing. The seeds formed through the habituation of these two kinds of self-attachment bring about the distinction between self and other among sentient beings.

Third, the habituation of the link of existence, meaning the seed of karma that brings about a ripened result within the three realms. This link is of two kinds: contaminated wholesome karma, capable of bringing about a desirable result; and unwholesome karma, capable of bringing about an undesirable result. The seeds formed through the habituation of these two kinds bring about the distinction between wholesome and unwholesome destinies in the ripened result. It should be understood that the habituation of self-attachment and of the link of existence serve as the dominant condition for this distinction in results.

"The habituation of karma," as spoken of in the earlier verse, should be understood as precisely the habituation of the link of existence; "the habituation of the two graspings" should be understood as precisely the two habituations of self-attachment and of verbal designation — since both are formed through habituation by grasping at a self and what belongs to self, and by grasping at verbal designation, both are called "grasping."

Furthermore, birth-and-death's continuity is brought about by affliction, karma, and suffering. The affliction that initiates karma and moistens rebirth is called "affliction"; the karma capable of bringing about a subsequent existence is called "karma"; the manifold suffering that karma draws forth and gives rise to is called "suffering." The seeds of all three are called "habituation." The first two serve as the dominant condition for the suffering of birth-and-death, assisting in generating it; the third serves as its causal condition, directly generating it.

It should be understood that affliction, karma, and suffering together encompass the twelve links of existence, from ignorance up through old age and death, as is extensively explained in the treatise.

The twelve links, however, may be summarized under four groups. First, the drawing-forth links: ignorance and volitional formations, since these are capable of drawing forth the seeds of the five subsequent results, consciousness and the rest. Here, "ignorance" refers exclusively to whatever is capable of initiating wholesome or unwholesome karma that genuinely brings about a future life; what this initiates is, precisely, called "volitional formations." On this account, every karmic act experienced within the very life it is performed, or that merely assists some other karma still to come, is not included within the link of volitional formations.

Second, the drawn-forth links: the seeds of consciousness and the other four results, directly generated within the root consciousness, that will produce the future ripened result — drawn forth by the previous two links. Here, the seed of consciousness refers to the cause that is the root consciousness itself; apart from the latter three causes, every other cause is included within the seed of name-and-form. These latter three causes, in the order named, are precisely the latter three seeds.

The Abhidharmasamuccaya states that consciousness, too, can be a drawing-forth link, since the karmic seed within consciousness is called the link of consciousness, while the seed of the ripening consciousness is included within name-and-form. The sūtras state that the link of consciousness extends to both the drawing-forth and the drawn-forth aspects, since both the karmic seed and the consciousness-seed are alike called "consciousness" — consciousness being the basis on which name-and-form depend, rather than being included within it.

Although the seeds of consciousness and the other four results, perfumed and brought forth by karma, genuinely arise at the same time, yet, because they differ in their relationship as principal and accompanying, general and specific, superior and inferior, cause and result, the sacred teachings provisionally speak of them as sequential; or else, with reference to the positional sequence of their future manifest arising, they are spoken of as sequential. On this account, consciousness and the rest are also spoken of as manifest activity — though, at the causal stage, they certainly have no meaning as manifest activity. It is also on this basis that drawing-forth and being drawn forth are said to occur simultaneously, since the moistened and not-yet-moistened states can certainly never coincide.

Third, the generating links: craving, grasping, and existence, since these give rise, in the near term, to birth and old-age-and-death still to come. That is: conditioned by delusion regarding the inner ripened result, one initiates karma genuinely capable of bringing about a subsequent existence, drawing forth and directly generating the seeds of the five results at the stage of future birth and old-age-and-death; then, further conditioned by delusion regarding the outer dominant result, one takes feeling regarding the sense-field as a condition and gives rise to craving; craving in turn generates the four kinds of grasping, desire and the rest; and craving and grasping, jointly moistening the drawn-forth karmic seed and cause, thereby transform into what is called "existence," since both are capable of nearly bringing about the result of a subsequent existence.

Fourth, the generated links: birth and old-age-and-death, since these are what craving, grasping, and existence give rise to in the near term. That is: from the intermediate-state existence up through the actual, embodied existence, everything prior to decline and change is included within the link of birth; every stage of decline and change is collectively called "old age"; the body's destruction and the ending of the life-faculty are, precisely, called "death." Old age is not always present, and is established as a link only in connection with death.

Why is illness not established as a link? Because it is neither universal nor fixed. Although old age, too, is not fixed, it is universal, and so is established as a link, since, in every realm, destiny, and form of birth, excepting those who die prematurely, one invariably undergoes the activity of decline and decay as death approaches.

Name-and-form is not universal — why, then, is it established as a link? Because it is fixed: for those born from a womb, an egg, or moisture, the six sense-fields are not yet complete, and name-and-form is certainly present. It is, moreover, also universally present: for a being born through spontaneous generation, at the very first moment of rebirth, though the five faculties are already complete, they do not yet have function, and so this is not yet called the link of the six sense-fields; at the first moment of rebirth in the formless realm, the mental faculty, though certainly present, is not yet clear and distinct — hence the treatise states that, of the twelve links, a portion of each is present in the two upper realms.

Craving is not universally present — why, then, is it separately established as a link? Because those born into an unfortunate destiny do not crave that destiny. It is separately established because it is fixed: those born into a fortunate destiny who do not seek non-existence certainly have craving. For a non-returner moistening rebirth, though craving does not manifestly arise, still, just as with grasping, its seed is certainly present. Craving, moreover, is also universal: even one born into an unfortunate destiny has craving with respect to the self that presently appears to them — it is with reference to the absence of any wish for it that the sūtras state there is no craving for an unfortunate destiny's body, not that it is entirely absent.

Why are the generated links established as birth and old-age-and-death, while the drawn-forth links are separately established as consciousness and the other four? Because the distinct characteristics of the causal stage are difficult to discern, five links are separately established with reference to the corresponding future result: at the moment of continued rebirth, the characteristic of consciousness as cause is prominent; next, once the faculties are not yet complete, the characteristic of name-and-form increases; next, once the faculties are complete, the six sense-fields become clear and vigorous; on this basis, contact arises, and, through contact, feeling arises — at that point, the result of feeling is complete. It is with reference to this stage of result that the cause is established as five links. The stage of result, being comparatively easy to discern, is established in general as only two links, in order to display the three kinds of suffering — spoken of as birth and old-age-and-death when the result still lies in the future, in order to induce aversion toward it, and as consciousness and the other five once it has arrived in the present, in order to make its positional sequence known.

Why is it that, at the stage of initiating karma, ignorance alone is generally established as the link, while, at the stage of moistening karma, craving and grasping are separately established? Although every affliction is capable of both initiating and moistening karma, at the stage of initiating karma, the power of ignorance is especially pronounced, since it alone possesses eleven distinguishing features. At the stage of moistening karma, the power of craving is especially pronounced, and craving is compared to water, capable of soaking and moistening — for it is only through repeated irrigation that the sprout of "existence" can grow. With reference to the earlier and later stages, craving and grasping are distinguished as two, without any sense of repeated initiation, and so only a single ignorance is established. Although the link of grasping encompasses every affliction, craving's moistening predominates, and so it is spoken of as craving's own intensification.

Do all the links of dependent origination each belong to their own stage exclusively? There are cases where volitional formations initiated depend on ignorance of another stage — as when ignorance of a lower stage initiates volitional formations of an upper stage. Were this not so, one who has only just suppressed the lower stage's defilement, and who thereby brings forth an upper-stage concentration, should not have this counted as the link of volitional formations at all, since that upper stage's own ignorance has not yet arisen.

When one born in an upper or lower stage is to be reborn in a lower or upper stage, respectively, with reference to which feeling does the link of craving arise? That craving, too, takes as its object the feeling of the stage one is to be born into, whether manifest or as a seed — this is in no way contrary to reason.

Among these twelve links, the ten causal links and the two resultant links are certainly never of the same lifetime as each other. Among the causal links, the first seven, in relation to craving, grasping, and existence, may be of either a different or the same lifetime — but the second, third, and seventh are each certainly of the same lifetime as these three. Thus, these twelve links, forming a single round of cause and result, already suffice to display the turning of the wheel of rebirth and to steer clear of both the extremes of annihilation and permanence — positing two full rounds would truly serve no purpose, and going further still would lead to an infinite regress.

As for the further distinctions among these twelve links: nine are genuinely real, and three are merely provisional — the already-moistened six links, combined, are called "existence," while consciousness and the other four, distinguished by their three positional characteristics, are called birth and the rest. Five are single matters — ignorance, consciousness, contact, feeling, and craving; the rest are not single matters. Three are exclusively defiled, being of the nature of affliction; seven are exclusively undefiled, being of the nature of a ripened result, though, since defilement can arise within their seven positional stages, they are provisionally said to extend to both; the rest extend to both kinds as well.

Ignorance, craving, and grasping are called "exclusive characteristics," since they are not intermixed with the other links; the rest are "mixed characteristics." Six are exclusively non-physical — ignorance, consciousness, contact, feeling, craving, and grasping; the rest extend to both physical and non-physical. All are contaminated, and are included exclusively among the conditioned — the uncontaminated and the unconditioned are not links of existence at all.

Ignorance, craving, and grasping extend only to the unwholesome and to the obscured-neutral; volitional formations are exclusively wholesome or unwholesome; existence extends to the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the unobscured-neutral; the remaining seven are exclusively unobscured-neutral, though, within their seven positional stages, wholesome and defiled states can also arise. Although all twelve extend to the three realms, some are only partially present and some fully so. The link of volitional formations at an upper stage is capable of suppressing a lower stage, through the six modes of activity such as coarseness and suffering, since there are those who seek rebirth in an upper realm and, accordingly, give rise to this.

All twelve links are exclusively brought forth by contaminated wholesome karma — never karma initiated by a noble one, whether trainee or beyond training, since such karma has clarity as its condition, contrary to the link of existence, and so is not included within it. From this it should be understood that a noble one certainly never creates karma that brings about a subsequent existence, since such a being is never deluded into seeking a future painful result. Cultivating meditative absorption in mixed fashion, so as to support and complete a prior act of karma, and thereby being reborn in the Pure Abodes and the like, is in no way contrary to reason.

One view holds: ignorance is eliminated only on the path of seeing, since it is only through delusion regarding the principle of the truths that it is capable of initiating volitional formations, and a noble one certainly never creates karma for a subsequent existence; the links of craving and grasping are eliminated only on the path of cultivation, since these crave and seek a future existence and moisten rebirth; the remaining nine links extend to both paths.

Another view holds: all twelve links extend to both. The treatise states: a stream-enterer has already eliminated a portion of every link of existence, with none entirely eliminated. If ignorance were eliminated only on the path of seeing, how could it be said that a stream-enterer has none entirely eliminated? If craving and grasping were eliminated only on the path of cultivation, how could it be said that this person has already eliminated a portion of every link? It is also stated that every affliction throughout an entire realm is capable of binding one to rebirth, while volitional formations leading to an unfortunate destiny are initiated only by discriminated affliction — it is not said that moistening rebirth is accomplished only by what is eliminated on the path of cultivation, nor that every volitional formation bringing about a subsequent existence is initiated only by what is eliminated on the path of seeing.

From this, it is known that ignorance, craving, and grasping likewise extend to both paths. Yet, with respect to ignorance, whatever genuinely initiates volitional formations is eliminated only on the path of seeing, while whatever merely assists is not fixed either way; with respect to craving and grasping, whatever genuinely moistens rebirth is eliminated only on the path of cultivation, while whatever merely assists is not fixed either way.

Furthermore, a defiled dharma, by its own nature, must be eliminated, since, once its counteragent arises, it is permanently eliminated; a contaminated, undefiled dharma is not, by its own nature, something to be eliminated, since it does not conflict with the path. Yet there are two senses in which something is spoken of as "eliminated": elimination through freedom from bondage, meaning the elimination of the affliction that takes it as an object; and elimination through non-arising, meaning the elimination of its basis, causing it to permanently cease arising. With reference to freedom from bondage, contaminated wholesome states and the unobscured-neutral are eliminated only on the path of cultivation; with reference to non-arising, an unfortunate destiny, the concentration of no-conception, and the like are eliminated only on the path of seeing.

Ten links occur together with pleasure and equanimity, since, in the stage of old-age-and-death, there is for the most part no pleasant feeling, though equanimity can still be present. Eleven links occur together with suffering. Eleven links, in part, are included within the suffering of change, since old-age-and-death for the most part lacks pleasant feeling, and the suffering of change is established with reference to pleasure. All twelve links, in part, are included within the suffering of suffering, since painful feeling is present within every link; and all twelve, in full, are included within the suffering of formations, since every contaminated dharma is subject to it. This is the genuine meaning; within the various sacred teachings, what is said varies according to whichever characteristic is emphasized in each case.

All twelve links are included within the truth of suffering, being of the nature of the aggregates of grasping. Five are also included within the truth of origination, being of the nature of karma and affliction.

Considered in mutual relation, the twelve links certainly possess the dominant condition; the remaining three conditions may or may not be present between them. Craving in relation to grasping, and existence in relation to birth, involve a causal condition; if the link of consciousness is a karmic seed, volitional formations, in relation to consciousness, likewise serve as a causal condition. Between the remaining links, there is no such relation — though the Abhidharmasamuccaya's statement that ignorance, in relation to volitional formations, does involve a causal condition is spoken with reference to the karmic habituation present at the time of ignorance, "ignorance" here being a provisional way of speaking for what is genuinely the seed of volitional formations.

Ignorance in relation to volitional formations, craving in relation to grasping, and birth in relation to old-age-and-death also possess the remaining two conditions; existence in relation to birth, and feeling in relation to craving, possess the condition of the objective support but not the condition of immediately preceding sameness. This discussion is offered only with reference to adjacent, sequential links, in accordance with the genuine account of dependent origination — considered in other ways, the conditions involved are not fixed. Every discerning reader should reflect on this according to reason.

As for how affliction, karma, and suffering encompass these twelve links: ignorance, craving, and grasping are included within affliction; volitional formations, and a portion of existence, are included within karma; the seven remaining links, and the rest of existence, are included within suffering. What is brought about by affliction and karma is exclusively called "suffering" because it is included exclusively within the truth of suffering, in order to induce aversion toward it. Since affliction, karma, and suffering are precisely these twelve links, it is these that are capable of making birth-and-death continue without end.

Furthermore, birth-and-death's continuity is brought about by inner causes and conditions, not dependent upon anything external — hence there is only consciousness. "Cause" refers to the two kinds of karma, contaminated and uncontaminated, which genuinely bring about birth-and-death; "condition" refers to the two obstructions, afflictive and cognitive, which assist in bringing it about.

Birth-and-death is of two kinds. First, fragmentary birth-and-death: the coarse ripened result within the three realms, brought about by contaminated wholesome and unwholesome karma through the assisting power of the afflictive obstruction — the body and life-span, long or short, having a fixed limit according to the power of cause and condition; hence it is called "fragmentary."

Second, inconceivable transformative birth-and-death: the superior, subtle ripened result brought about by uncontaminated karma still involving discrimination, through the assisting power of the cognitive obstruction. Through the power of compassion and vow, one's body and life-span are altered and transformed, without any fixed limit; hence it is called "transformative." Since uncontaminated concentration and vow genuinely support and bring this about, and its subtle function is difficult to fathom, it is called "inconceivable." It is also called "the mind-made body," since it is accomplished according to one's own intention and vow.

As the sūtras state: just as grasping serves as the condition, with contaminated karma as cause, for continuing into a subsequent existence — so too, with the stage of ignorance's habituation as condition, and uncontaminated karma as cause, arhats, solitary buddhas, and bodhisattvas who have attained mastery give rise to three kinds of mind-made body. This is also called the "transformation body," since the power of uncontaminated concentration transforms it, causing it to differ from its original form.

As a certain treatise states: how could a śrāvaka beyond training, who has permanently exhausted any subsequent existence, still be capable of realizing unsurpassed bodhi? It is by relying on the transformation body, not the karma-retribution body, that unsurpassed awakening is realized — hence this is not contrary to reason. Were the cognitive obstruction, assisting uncontaminated karma, capable of bringing about birth-and-death, then those of the two vehicles with fixed spiritual lineage should never permanently enter remainderless nirvāṇa at all, just as ordinary beings, bound by affliction, cannot.

How, then, could the truth of the path genuinely bring about suffering? Who has said that it genuinely brings it about? Uncontaminated concentration and vow support contaminated karma, causing the result obtained to continue for a long duration, growing progressively more pronounced — it is this that is provisionally called "bringing about." When this occurs, it is through the cognitive obstruction serving as an assisting condition, not something brought about by uncontaminated karma alone; yet the cognitive obstruction does not obstruct liberation, since it has no capacity to initiate karma or moisten rebirth.

What purpose is served by supporting and bringing about the suffering of birth-and-death this way? It is so that one may personally realize bodhi and bring benefit and happiness to others. Solitary buddhas and śrāvakas of indeterminate spiritual lineage, and bodhisattvas of great vow who have attained mastery, having already eliminated or suppressed the afflictive obstruction, are no longer capable of receiving a future fragmentary body. Fearing that this would abandon the long-term cultivation of bodhisattva practice, they instead rely on the power of uncontaminated supreme concentration and vow, like a life-extending method, to support the cause of their present body, causing its result to continue unbroken over a long duration — through such repeated support, again and again, until unsurpassed bodhi is finally realized.

Why, then, would such a being still need the cognitive obstruction's assistance? Since they have not yet perfectly realized signless great compassion, without grasping at bodhi and sentient beings as genuinely real, there would be no basis for arousing fierce, compassionate vow at all. Moreover, since the cognitive obstruction obstructs great bodhi, in order to permanently eliminate it, one retains the body and abides for a long duration; and since the cognitive obstruction serves as the basis for contaminated states, were it absent, those states would be absent too — hence it provides substantial assistance toward the body's continued abiding.

If the body one retains is supported by contaminated concentration and vow, it is included within the fragmentary body; if supported by uncontaminated concentration and vow, it is included within the transformative body. From this, it should be understood that transformative birth-and-death, in its own nature, is contaminated and included within the ripened result — with respect to uncontaminated karma, it is the dominant result. Where the sacred teachings speak of it as uncontaminated and as transcending the three realms, this is spoken with reference to its assisting cause.

"The habituation of karma," as spoken of in the verse, refers to the seeds of the two kinds of karma already discussed; "the habituation of the two graspings" refers to the seeds of the two obstructions, since both involve attachment.

Although transformative birth-and-death lacks fragmentary birth-and-death's distinct, sequential exhaustion and generation of separate ripened results, it too, through repeated support and progressive transformation, involves a sense in which the former is exhausted and a further one is generated. Although this, too, occurs through the continuity of manifest birth-and-death, the seed is certainly always present, and it is this that the verse speaks of preferentially.

In the beginning, middle, and final periods alike, the wheel of birth-and-death turns without depending on any external condition — and, since this is entirely through inner consciousness, the continuity of pure dharmas, too, should be understood the same way. Since beginningless time, contaminated and uncontaminated seeds have depended upon the root consciousness, and, through the transforming consciousnesses' repeated perfuming, they gradually grow more pronounced, until, at last, upon attaining buddhahood, one permanently relinquishes the originally defiled consciousness-seeds and instead attains the newly-arisen pure seed-consciousness, sustaining every seed of merit and virtue. Through the power of one's original vow, one gives rise to manifold sublime functions throughout all future time, continuing without end. From this, it should be understood that there is only inner consciousness.

If there is only consciousness, why does the World-Honored One, throughout the sūtras, speak of the three natures existing? It should be understood that the three natures, too, are never apart from consciousness. Why is this so? The verse states: "Through this and that universal discrimination, one universally discriminates all manner of things; this discriminated, attached-to nature has no essence of its own whatsoever. The dependent nature is that which discrimination, arising from conditions, produces. The perfectly accomplished nature is what, within that dependent nature, is forever free of the former, discriminated-and-attached-to nature. Hence this and the dependent nature are neither different nor not different — like impermanence and similar characteristics, nor is it that seeing one precludes seeing the other."

The treatise states: pervasively discriminating and measuring is why it is called "universal discrimination"; its kinds being manifold, it is spoken of as "this and that." This refers to the false discrimination capable of universally discriminating. It is precisely through this and that false discrimination that one universally discriminates all manner of universally-discriminated things — namely, the falsely grasped-at aggregates, sense-fields, elements, and the rest, whether their distinct nature as dharmas or as a self. This falsely grasped-at distinct nature is, in general, called the discriminated, attached-to nature. Such a nature has no existence whatsoever, since, whether sought through reason or through scriptural teaching, it can nowhere be found.

Alternatively: the first line shows the consciousness that universally discriminates; the second line indicates the object that is universally discriminated; the latter half then explains that the discriminated, attached-to self or dharma-nature does not exist, having already extensively shown that it cannot be found.

What, first, is the nature of that which universally discriminates? One view holds: the eight consciousnesses and their mental factors, insofar as they are contaminated, are all capable of universal discrimination, since false discrimination is their very nature, since all of them appear resembling a grasped object and a grasping subject, and since the treatise states that the ālayavijñāna takes, as its object, the seed of the false attachment to the discriminated, attached-to nature.

Another view holds: only the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, insofar as they grasp at self and dharmas, are what universally discriminate. This is because it is said that only the mental consciousness is capable of universal discrimination, since both manas and the mental consciousness are called by the name "mental consciousness"; because calculating discrimination alone is capable of universal discrimination; because whatever grasps at self and dharmas must be a form of discernment; because these two forms of attachment must occur together with ignorance, which is never said to have a wholesome nature; because delusion and non-delusion are never mutually associated; because attachment is never seen to lead into the wisdom of emptiness; because grasping at existence and realizing non-existence never arise together; and because whatever has never involved attachment has no capacity to perfume.

Since contaminated mind and the rest never realize reality directly, all such states are called false discrimination. Although they appear resembling a grasped object and a grasping subject, this does not mean all of them are included within what universally discriminates — otherwise, even uncontaminated mind would have to involve attachment, and a tathāgata's subsequently-attained wisdom would have to involve attachment as well. The sūtras state that a buddha's wisdom manifests the body, the land, and various other reflected images, just like a mirror — were it to lack the function of taking an object, it could not be called wisdom at all. Although it is stated that the storehouse consciousness takes the seeds of universal discrimination as its object, it is not stated that this is exclusively so — hence this is not genuine proof to the contrary.

By this line of reasoning, it is only within the sixth and seventh consciousnesses that what universally discriminates is found. Although these are two consciousnesses, the ways in which universal discrimination occurs differ — two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and so on — hence the verse speaks of "this and that."

Next, what is the nature of that which is universally discriminated? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that this is the dependent nature, since it is the condition of the objective support for the mind and the rest that universally discriminate. Should not the perfectly accomplished nature, too, be its object? Since genuine reality is never the object taken by false attachment, it is only spoken of, in a further, derivative sense, as also being universally discriminated. The discriminated, attached-to nature, though it too is an object of this discrimination, is not itself a condition of objective support, and hence is not what is universally discriminated.

What is the character of the discriminated, attached-to nature, and how does it differ from the dependent nature? One view holds: the minds and mental factors of the three realms, through beginningless false habituation, though each possesses a single essence, appear to arise as two — namely, the perceiving and perceived aspects, the grasping subject and grasped object. These two aspects exist as far as ordinary feeling is concerned but not in genuine reality, and it is this appearance that is called the discriminated, attached-to nature. The essence on which these two aspects depend genuinely arises through conditions, and this nature is not nonexistent — it is called the dependent nature, since it is what false discrimination, arising from conditions, produces. How is this known? The sacred teachings state: false discrimination is the dependent nature; the two graspings are called the discriminated, attached-to nature.

Another view holds: every mind and mental factor's two transformed aspects, brought about through the power of habituation, likewise arise from conditions, and so are also the dependent nature. It is only when universal discrimination, relying on these, falsely grasps at their being fixedly existent or nonexistent, one or different, co-occurring or not co-occurring, and so forth, that these two aspects come to be called the discriminated, attached-to nature. The sacred teachings state that mere cognition, mere duality, and mere manifoldness are all called the dependent nature; and the treatise, moreover, states that the four dharmas beginning with characteristic, and the eleven kinds of consciousness, are all included within it.

Were this not so, the two aspects belonging to uncontaminated, subsequently-attained wisdom would have to be called the discriminated, attached-to nature — meaning either that a noble one's wisdom would have to arise without taking any object at all, or that the wisdom-state taking such an object would then not be the truth of the path. Furthermore, were these two aspects the discriminated, attached-to nature, they should, like a rabbit's horn, not be a condition of objective support at all. Furthermore, they should then not be perfumed into forming seeds, and subsequent consciousness and the rest should then arise without them entirely. Furthermore, the various habituations are themselves included within the perceived aspect — how could this not itself be a real dharma capable of serving as a causal condition? If the inner perceived and perceiving aspects, arising from conditions, were not the dependent nature, then the very essence these two depend upon should, by the same reasoning, likewise not be so, there being no relevant difference in cause between them.

By this line of reasoning, the essence of mind and mental factors, together with their perceived and perceiving aspects, arising from manifold conditions, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are all the dependent nature, since they arise in dependence upon manifold conditions. The verse's phrase "discrimination, arising from conditions, produces" should be understood as speaking, for now, only of the defiled portion of the dependent nature — the pure portion of the dependent nature is also the perfectly accomplished nature. Or else, every defiled and pure mind and mental factor is called "discrimination," since all are capable of taking an object and reflecting upon it — in which case, every defiled and pure instance of the dependent nature is included within the dependent nature spoken of here.

The genuine nature of all dharmas, perfectly accomplished through the two emptinesses, is called the perfectly accomplished nature. This shows it to be pervasive and constant, its essence never false or erroneous, distinguishing it from a thing's own particular characteristic, its shared characteristic, empty space, a self, and the like. Uncontaminated conditioned dharmas, too, being free of distortion, ultimate, and of superior, pervasive function, may also receive this name — yet the present verse speaks only of the former, unconditioned sense.

This is precisely suchness, revealed by the two emptinesses, taking for its nature the permanent freedom, upon that same dependent nature, from the former, discriminated, attached-to nature. The phrase "within that" shows that the perfectly accomplished nature and the dependent nature are neither identical nor separate. The phrase "forever free of" shows that the falsely grasped-at nature of a grasping subject and grasped object, in principle, is eternally nonexistent. The word "former" conveys that the dependent nature is not itself empty; the word "nature" shows that the two emptinesses themselves are not the perfectly accomplished nature, since suchness has a nature free of both existence and nonexistence.

For this same reason, this perfectly accomplished nature and that dependent nature are neither different nor not different. Were they different, suchness would not be the dependent nature's own genuine nature; were they not different, this nature would then have to be impermanent. Were they both, the pure and impure would become each other's object, and the fundamental and subsequently-attained wisdoms would have no distinct function.

How, then, can these two natures be neither different nor one? Just as with impermanence, non-self, and similar characteristics: were impermanence and the like different from conditioned dharmas and the rest, those dharmas would then not be impermanent; were they not different, impermanence should then not be their shared characteristic either. By this analogy, it is shown that this perfectly accomplished nature and that dependent nature are neither one nor different — a dharma and its nature must, by principle, necessarily be related this way, since the ultimate and the conventional exist only in mutual dependence upon each other.

It is not that one could see the dependent nature without ever realizing this perfectly accomplished nature — without having penetrated the emptiness of the discriminated, attached-to nature, one cannot genuinely know the dependent nature's existence either. Only once non-discriminating wisdom has realized suchness can one, within subsequently-attained wisdom, come to understand that the dependent nature is like a magical illusion and the like. Although, since beginningless time, mind and mental factors have already been capable of taking their own perceived and perceiving aspects as their object, since the attachment to self and dharmas has always accompanied this activity, one does not genuinely know it as such.

One's own mind and mental factors, drawn forth by manifold conditions, falsely transform and manifest, just like a magical illusion, a mirage, a dream, a reflection in a mirror, a shadow, an echo in a valley, the moon reflected in water, or a conjured apparition — not truly existing, yet appearing to exist. With reference to this meaning, a verse states: "It is not that, without seeing suchness, one could still come to understand that all conditioned things are like magical illusions and the like — existing, yet not truly real."

This verse means to say: the three natures are all never removed from mind and mental factors. Mind, mental factors, and what they transform and manifest, arising from manifold conditions, are like a magical illusion and the like — not truly existing yet appearing to exist, deceiving and confusing the ignorant — and all of this is called the dependent nature. The ignorant, with respect to this, wrongly grasp at self and dharmas, at existence and nonexistence, at oneness and difference, at co-occurrence and non-co-occurrence, and so forth — like flowers in the sky, having no nature or characteristic whatsoever — and all of this is called the discriminated, attached-to nature. Upon this same dependent nature, the falsely grasped-at self and dharmas are both empty, and this emptiness, revealing the genuine nature of consciousness and the rest, is called the perfectly accomplished nature. Hence these three are never apart from mind and the rest.

Which of the three natures do empty space, analytical cessation, non-analytical cessation, and the like belong to? All three can, in fact, be involved. Mind and the rest transform so as to resemble the characteristics of empty space and the like, arising according to mind — this is included within the dependent nature. The ignorant, with respect to this, falsely grasp at its genuine existence — this is included within the discriminated, attached-to nature. Where empty space and the like are provisionally posited with reference to suchness itself, this is included within the perfectly accomplished nature. Contaminated mind and the rest are fixedly included within the dependent nature; uncontaminated mind and the rest can be included within either of two natures.

How, then, do these three natures correspond to the seven kinds of suchness? They are: the suchness of flux, conditioned dharmas' own genuine nature of flux; the suchness of true characteristic, the genuine nature revealed by the two forms of selflessness; the suchness of Consciousness-Only, the genuine nature of defiled and pure dharmas as Consciousness-Only; the suchness of establishment, the genuine nature of suffering; the suchness of wrong practice, the genuine nature of origination; the suchness of purity, the genuine nature of cessation; and the suchness of correct practice, the genuine nature of the path.

These seven genuine natures are included within the perfectly accomplished nature, since they are the object of both fundamental and subsequently-attained wisdom. Classified according to their corresponding characteristic instead: the suchness of flux, and the truths of suffering and origination, are included within the first two natures, since they involve falsely grasped-at defilement; the remaining four are all included within the perfectly accomplished nature.

How do the three natures correspond to the six categories of dharma? Within these six categories, all three natures are present — form, feeling, conceptualization, volitional formations, consciousness, and the unconditioned all involve the principle of false grasping and of arising from conditions alike.

How do the three natures correspond to the five categories? The sacred teachings speak of this in more than one way. In some places, it is said: the dependent nature encompasses characteristic, name, discrimination, and correct wisdom; the perfectly accomplished nature encompasses suchness; the discriminated, attached-to nature encompasses none of the five. This account holds that contaminated mind and mental factors, transforming to resemble what is expressed, are called "characteristic"; transforming to resemble what expresses, are called "name"; and the transforming mind itself is called "discrimination"; uncontaminated mind, free of conceptual proliferation, is simply called "correct wisdom." All four, arising from conditions, are included within the dependent nature.

In other places, it is said: the dependent nature encompasses characteristic and discrimination; the discriminated, attached-to nature encompasses only name; correct wisdom and suchness are encompassed by the perfectly accomplished nature — this account holds that contaminated mind and mental factors' perceived aspect is called "characteristic," and the rest is called "discrimination," while the discriminated, attached-to nature, having no essence whatsoever, is provisionally called "name" precisely to show its nonexistence.

In yet other places, it is said: the dependent nature encompasses only discrimination; the discriminated, attached-to nature encompasses characteristic and name; correct wisdom and suchness are encompassed by the perfectly accomplished nature — this account holds that contaminated mind and mental factors' perceived and perceiving aspects are, in general, called "discrimination," since false discrimination is their very nature, while the discriminated, attached-to nature's expressing and expressed aspects are established, according to ordinary feeling, as name and characteristic.

In still other places, it is said: name belongs to the dependent nature, and meaning belongs to the discriminated, attached-to nature — this account holds that contaminated mind and mental factors' perceived and perceiving aspects, through the power of name, become what is universally discriminated, and are hence called "name," while the discriminated, attached-to nature, wrongly conceived according to name, having no genuine essence, is provisionally called "meaning."

Although the sacred teachings' statements regarding the five categories differ in wording, their meaning is not in conflict; the first account given, however, keeps them from being intermixed, as is extensively explained in the Yogācārabhūmi.

The sacred teachings also speak of five aspects — how do these correspond to the three natures? Both what is expressed and what expresses each involve all three natures: what is falsely conceived is included within the first nature; characteristic, name, and discrimination, as what is expressed and what expresses, are included within the dependent nature; suchness and correct wisdom, as what is expressed and what expresses, are included within the perfectly accomplished nature.

The aspect of mutual belonging between the two is included exclusively within the first nature, since the false grasping at meaning and name are fixedly interrelated; the aspect of attachment is included exclusively within the dependent nature, since false discrimination is its very nature; the aspect of non-attachment is included exclusively within the perfectly accomplished nature, since uncontaminated wisdom is its very nature.

The sacred teachings also speak of four kinds of genuine reality — how do these correspond to the three natures? Worldly genuine reality, and genuine reality established through reasoning, are included within the dependent nature; the genuine reality that is the object of wisdom purified of the two obstructions is included within the perfectly accomplished nature. The Madhyāntavibhāga states: the first genuine reality is included exclusively within the first nature, since it is commonly grasped at; the second extends to all three natures, since it extends to both attachment and non-attachment, defilement and purity; the latter two belong exclusively to the third nature.

How do the three natures correspond to the four noble truths? Each of the four truths, in turn, involves all three natures. Take the truth of suffering, whose four aspects — impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self — each have three forms.

Impermanence: through the absence of any fixed nature; through arising and ceasing; through the alternation of defilement and purity. Suffering: the suffering of what is grasped at, since it is what the two attachments depend upon; the suffering of actual characteristics, the three kinds of suffering; the suffering of combination. Emptiness: through the absence of any nature; through a nature different from the falsely grasped-at one; through its own nature, revealed by the two emptinesses. Non-self: through the absence of any characteristic of self; through a characteristic different from the falsely grasped-at self; through its own characteristic, revealed by the absence of self.

Origination: origination through habituation, the habituation of attachment to the discriminated, attached-to nature; origination through equal arising, karma and affliction; origination through not-yet-being-freed-from-bondage, suchness not yet freed from obstruction. Cessation: cessation through own-nature; cessation of the two graspings, the analytical cessation in which they no longer arise; cessation as fundamental nature, suchness itself. The path: the path of complete knowledge, knowing the discriminated, attached-to nature; the path of permanent elimination, eliminating the dependent nature; the path of realization, realizing the perfectly accomplished nature — though the path of complete knowledge also extends to the latter two.

These seven groups of three each correspond, in the order given, to the three natures; whether each is provisional or real should be understood according to reason.

How do the objects of the three gates of liberation correspond to these three natures? In principle, all three gates extend to all three natures; classified according to their most fitting correspondence, emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness, in the order given, correspond to the three. Taking these as their object, three further forms of the patient acceptance of non-arising are generated: of essential nature, of spontaneous nature, and of affliction and suffering — these three, in the same order, take the three natures as their object.

How do these three natures correspond to the two truths? Conventional truth encompasses all three; ultimate truth is exclusively the perfectly accomplished nature. Conventional truth is of three kinds — provisional, functional, and manifest — corresponding, in the same order, to the three natures. Ultimate truth is of three kinds: the ultimate as meaning, namely suchness; the ultimate as attainment, namely nirvāṇa; the ultimate as practice, namely the noble path — all three, being unchanging and free of distortion, are included within the perfectly accomplished nature.

Which wisdom, then, takes each of these three natures as its object? The discriminated, attached-to nature is not, in fact, the object of any wisdom at all, since it has no essence of its own and is not a condition of objective support — yet, since the ignorant grasp at its existence while the noble realize its nonexistence, it may also be spoken of as the object of both ordinary and noble wisdom. The dependent nature is the object of both fundamental and subsequently-attained wisdom. The perfectly accomplished nature is the object of noble wisdom alone.

Among these three natures, how many are provisional, and how many real? The discriminated, attached-to nature, being falsely posited, may be called provisional; yet, having no essence or characteristic at all, it is, strictly speaking, neither provisional nor real. The dependent nature has both real and provisional aspects: what is of the nature of an aggregation, a continuity, or a positional state is called provisionally existent; mind, mental factors, and form, arising from conditions, are called genuinely existent — for, without a real dharma, no provisional dharma could exist either, since a provisional designation is established only in dependence upon a real cause. The perfectly accomplished nature is exclusively, genuinely existent, since it is established without depending on any other condition.

Are these three natures different from one another, or not different? Neither applies: they have no separate essence apart from one another, and yet false attachment, dependent arising, and genuine reality are each distinct in meaning.

The full range of meaning involved in these three natures is boundless; for fear of wearying the reader with excessive text, only its essential outline has been shown here.