Realization, Yoga, and the Inconceivable
Four chapters, three of them short, and then the beginning of the long one that ends the treatise. Direct realization is completed: the path of seeing arrives in three minds and cuts a hundred and twelve afflictions, and the bodhisattva enters it holding his own suffering and everyone else's as equal. The chapter on yoga defines the perfection of wisdom as a knowledge that takes hold of what is beyond words, and answers the objection that follows immediately — if the sages do not take words at their word, what is the use of teaching. The chapter on the inconceivable lists nine matters that speculation should be kept off, and gives reasons rather than prohibitions. Then the concluding chapter opens, and its first determination is the largest single piece of doctrine in the treatise: eight arguments that there must be an ālayavijñāna, and five marks under which it is established.
Where This Fascicle Picks Up
Fascicle 16 broke off at the threshold of the path of seeing, having brought the practitioner as far as the supreme worldly dharma — the last and highest thing an ordinary being can reach. This fascicle steps across. It then closes out the two remaining short chapters and opens the eleventh, which will occupy the rest of the treatise.
Collating against T1603 gives twelve verse lines in the remainder of the chapter on direct realization, eight in the chapter on yoga, twenty in the chapter on the inconceivable, and eight at the head of the concluding chapter — forty-eight in all, matching line for line. Two single-character variants fall here and are noted where they occur. The concluding chapter also introduces something the collation has to account for: verses quoted from other texts, marked in the source with quotation marks, which are not root verses and do not appear in T1603 at all.
Classical text is set in the left-hand column, our English in the right. See also this site's note on translation method.
1. The Path of Seeing: Three Minds, and a Hundred and Twelve Afflictions
論曰：如是已得煖等善根，當知從此入於現觀。頌曰：
從此無加行， 解脫智三心，
一百一十二， 煩惱斷十攝。
論曰：從此無間無有加行，解脫見道所斷隨眠三心智生：一內遣有情假緣智、二內遣諸法假緣智、三遍遣一切有情諸法假緣智。此中前二是法智，第三是種類智。如是三智能斷一百一十二煩惱，如是煩惱十種所攝。一百一十二煩惱者，謂欲界見苦諦等所斷各有十種，色無色界見苦諦等所斷各有九種，謂各除瞋。如是名為一百一十二煩惱。何等十煩惱所攝？謂五見自性、五非見自性，如前已說。復次頌曰：
此證菩提分， 六種淨智相，
行無分別故， 隨所作建立。
論曰：當知此智真證覺分、非方便位，亦是六種清淨智相，所謂法智、種類智、苦智、集智、滅智、道智相。此智無分別故，但隨所作建立六智相貌，不由行差別故建立六種應知。
The exposition: having thus obtained the wholesome roots of warmth and the rest, one should know that from here one enters direct realization.
From this, without application,
the liberating knowledge of three minds;
a hundred and twelve afflictions
are cut, comprised within ten.
The exposition: from this, without interval and without application, the knowledge of three minds arises which frees one from the latent tendencies abandoned by the path of seeing. First, the knowledge that inwardly dispels the provisional object that is a sentient being. Second, the knowledge that inwardly dispels the provisional object that is things. Third, the knowledge that dispels throughout the provisional object that is all sentient beings and all things. Of these, the first two are knowledge of things; the third is knowledge by kind. These three knowledges are able to cut a hundred and twelve afflictions, and these afflictions are comprised within ten. The hundred and twelve afflictions: in the realm of desire, those abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering and the rest are ten apiece; in the realms of form and formlessness, those abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering and the rest are nine apiece, hatred being excluded from each. These are called the hundred and twelve afflictions. Within what ten afflictions are they comprised? Within the five that are views by nature and the five that are not views by nature, as stated above.
This realizes the factors of enlightenment,
the marks of six pure knowledges;
since its practice is without discrimination,
they are established according to what is done.
The exposition: know that this knowledge truly realizes the factors of enlightenment and is not at the stage of expedient means; and it is also the marks of six pure knowledges, namely the marks of knowledge of things, knowledge by kind, knowledge of suffering, of origin, of cessation, and of the path. Since this knowledge is without discrimination, the marks of the six knowledges are established merely according to what is done, and are not, it should be known, established as six by any difference in the practice.
The three minds of the path of seeing are given here in the distinctive Yogācāra form, and the ordering repays notice: first the provisional being is dispelled, then provisional things, and then both together throughout. This is not the Sarvāstivāda sixteen mind-moments; it is the scheme of the Treatise on the Stages of Yogic Practice, and its three steps track the two selflessnesses of the preceding chapters in the same order those chapters used — persons first, things second, and a final pass that covers everything at once. That third mind is 種類智, knowledge by kind, which extends what was seen in one place to everywhere it applies.
The arithmetic of the hundred and twelve is worth doing once. Ten afflictions abandoned by seeing each of the four truths in the desire realm gives forty; nine apiece in each of the two upper realms, since hatred does not occur there, gives thirty-six twice; forty plus seventy-two is a hundred and twelve. The exclusion of hatred above the desire realm is the standard Abhidharma position and it carries a claim about what those realms are like: aversion requires something unwanted to push against, and in the absorptions there is nothing unwanted.
The last sentence quietly resolves a difficulty that the six knowledges create for a non-discriminating path. If the knowledge of the path of seeing is 無分別, without discrimination, how can it be six knowledges — knowledge of suffering, of origin, and so on — when telling those apart is exactly what discrimination does? Asaṅga's answer is that the six are named 隨所作, according to what is done, and not 由行差別, by any difference in the practice itself. The knowledge is one act; the sixfold division describes its effects from outside. This is the same move the treatise makes elsewhere about the ten powers and the analytic knowledges, and it is what allows a Yogācāra author to keep the full Abhidharma inventory without giving the awakening itself any internal seams.
2. The Bodhisattva's Five Equanimities, and the Great Self
復次頌曰：
菩薩在此位， 先修勝因力，
於自他身苦， 起平等心性。
論曰：在此現觀位中諸菩薩，由先修習勝資糧力故，於自他相續苦中起五種平等心，謂麁重平等心、無我平等心、斷精進平等心、無愛味精進平等心、一切菩薩現觀平等心。復次頌曰：
是大我意樂， 於自性無得，
廣意樂當知， 二性無分別。
論曰：當知此平等心性，即是大我阿世耶及廣大阿世耶，於遍計所執自性無所得故。於有漏無漏二性過失功德亦無所得，由無分別故。復次頌曰：
次上十六行， 清淨世間智，
對治界地故， 究竟事成就。
論曰：從此諦現觀已上，於修道中有十六行，世出世清淨智生。謂於欲繫苦諦生二智，一現觀審察智、二現觀決定智；於色無色繫苦諦亦有如是二智。如於苦諦有四智，如是於集滅道諦亦各有四智，如是總有十六種智。復次如是現觀智，若聲聞等所得，為對治欲色無色三界雜染。若諸菩薩所得，為對治十種地障。如是當知諸所作事成就究竟，所謂轉依究竟，亦是現觀智究竟，亦名究竟現觀。
Furthermore:
The bodhisattva at this stage,
by the power of causes cultivated before,
toward the suffering in his own body and others'
gives rise to a mind of equality.
The exposition: at this stage of direct realization, bodhisattvas — by the power of the excellent provisions cultivated earlier — give rise to five minds of equality with respect to the suffering in their own continuum and in others': the mind of equality as to coarse heaviness, as to selflessness, as to diligence in cutting off, as to diligence free of relish, and as to the direct realization of all bodhisattvas.
This is the intention of the great self;
nothing is found in the own-nature;
know it as the vast intention,
without discrimination as to the two natures.
The exposition: know that this nature of a mind of equality is the intention of the great self and the vast intention, since nothing whatever is found in the imagined own-nature. Nothing is found either in the faults and qualities of the two natures, contaminated and uncontaminated, since there is no discrimination.
Next above, the sixteen aspects,
the pure worldly knowledge;
because it counteracts realms and levels,
what is to be done is finally accomplished.
The exposition: from this direct realization of the truths and above, in the path of cultivation there are sixteen aspects, and pure knowledge both worldly and transcendent arises. That is, with respect to the truth of suffering as bound to the desire realm, two knowledges arise — the knowledge that examines in direct realization, and the knowledge that is certain in direct realization; and with respect to the truth of suffering as bound to the realms of form and formlessness there are likewise these two. As there are four knowledges with respect to the truth of suffering, so there are four apiece with respect to the truths of origin, cessation, and the path; and thus there are sixteen kinds of knowledge in all. Further, this knowledge of direct realization, when obtained by śrāvakas and the rest, is for counteracting the defilements of the three realms of desire, form, and formlessness; when obtained by bodhisattvas, it is for counteracting the obstructions of the ten grounds. Thus know that what is to be done is finally accomplished — that is, the transformation of the basis is final, and the knowledge of direct realization is final, and this is also called final direct realization.
The five equalities are the bodhisattva's version of the path of seeing, and the first two are the ones that do the philosophical work. Equality as to coarse heaviness says that my unwieldiness and yours are the same kind of thing; equality as to selflessness says that neither of us is anybody. Between them they remove the two grounds on which one might rank one's own suffering above another's. The third and fourth then transfer that equality from the diagnosis to the effort — diligence in cutting off, and diligence 無愛味, free of relish, without savoring the practice as an achievement of one's own.
大我 is an arresting phrase to find in a treatise that has just spent two chapters abolishing the self, and the prose is careful to defuse it in the same breath: the intention of the great self is precisely the state in which 於遍計所執自性無所得, nothing is found in the imagined nature. The greatness is not in the self having grown but in there being no boundary left to keep one person's suffering separate from another's. Read against fascicle 15, which denied a self at every point where one might be located, the phrase reads as deliberate: what looks like the largest possible self is what remains when the small one is gone.
3. Six Kinds of Direct Realization
復次頌曰：
此現觀差別， 或六或十八，
相勝利眾多， 隨經論所說。
論曰：當知現觀差別復有六種，一思現觀、二信現觀、三戒現觀、四現觀智諦現觀、五現觀邊智諦現觀、六究竟現觀。問：思現觀以何為體？答：以上品思所生慧為體，或彼俱行菩提分法為體。問：信現觀以何為體？答：以上品世出世緣三寶淨信為體，或彼俱行菩提分法為體。問：戒現觀以何為體？答：以聖所愛身語等業為體，或彼俱行菩提分法為體。問：現觀智諦現觀以何為體？答：以緣非安立諦聖慧為體，或彼俱行菩提分法為體。問：現觀邊智諦現觀以何為體？答：以緣安立諦聖慧為體，或彼俱行菩提分法為體。問：究竟現觀以何為體？答：以盡智無生智等為體，或彼俱行菩提分法為體。
又此現觀差別有十八種，謂聞所生智現觀、思所生智現觀、修所生智現觀、順決擇分智現觀、見道現觀、修道現觀、究竟道現觀、不善清淨世俗智現觀、善清淨世俗智現觀、勝義智現觀、不善清淨行有分別智現觀、善清淨行有分別智現觀、善清淨行無分別智現觀、成所作前行智現觀、成所作智現觀、成所作後智現觀、聲聞等智現觀、菩薩等智現觀。復次如是現觀相貌勝利，隨諸經論多種應知。
Furthermore:
The distinctions of direct realization
are six, or eighteen;
its marks and benefits are many,
as the scriptures and treatises state.
The exposition: know that the distinctions of direct realization are again of six kinds: direct realization by reflection, by faith, by moral discipline, direct realization of the truths by the knowledge of direct realization, direct realization of the truths by the knowledge on the far side of direct realization, and final direct realization. Question: what is the substance of direct realization by reflection? Answer: the wisdom born of reflection of the higher grade, or the factors of enlightenment that accompany it. Question: what is the substance of direct realization by faith? Answer: pure faith of the higher grade, worldly and transcendent, taking the Three Jewels as object, or the factors of enlightenment that accompany it. Question: what is the substance of direct realization by moral discipline? Answer: the actions of body and speech and the rest that are dear to the noble ones, or the factors of enlightenment that accompany them. Question: what is the substance of the direct realization of the truths by the knowledge of direct realization? Answer: noble wisdom taking the non-conceptually-established truths as object, or the factors of enlightenment that accompany it. Question: what is the substance of the direct realization of the truths by the knowledge on the far side of direct realization? Answer: noble wisdom taking the conceptually established truths as object, or the factors of enlightenment that accompany it. Question: what is the substance of final direct realization? Answer: the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the rest, or the factors of enlightenment that accompany them.
Further, the distinctions of this direct realization are of eighteen kinds: direct realization by the knowledge born of hearing; by the knowledge born of reflection; by the knowledge born of cultivation; by the knowledge of the factors conducive to penetration; direct realization of the path of seeing; of the path of cultivation; of the final path; by conventional knowledge not well purified; by conventional knowledge well purified; by ultimate knowledge; by discriminating knowledge whose practice is not well purified; by discriminating knowledge whose practice is well purified; by non-discriminating knowledge whose practice is well purified; by the knowledge that precedes the accomplishing of what is to be done; by the knowledge that accomplishes what is to be done; by the knowledge subsequent to accomplishing what is to be done; by the knowledge shared by śrāvakas and the rest; and by the knowledge shared by bodhisattvas. Further, the marks and benefits of this direct realization should be known in their many kinds according to the various scriptures and treatises.
The verse here carries a variant. T1603 reads 隨經論廣說, "as the scriptures and treatises expound at length," where T1602 reads 隨經論所說, "as the scriptures and treatises state." Nothing turns on it, and the prose gives no decisive help — though its closing sentence, 隨諸經論多種應知, leans slightly toward T1602's plainer verb. We have followed T1602.
The six kinds are more interesting than a list of six usually is, because the first three are not knowledge at all. Reflection, faith, and moral discipline are counted as forms of direct realization in their own right, each with a stated substance, and each can be possessed by someone still an ordinary being — the marks given in the next section make that explicit. This is a genuinely wide use of 現觀. What unifies the six is not a cognitive event but a settledness: something has become unshakeable, whether it is one's understanding, one's confidence, or simply one's conduct.
4. What Each Kind Looks Like from Outside
問：思現觀有何相貌？答：若有成就思現觀者，能正了知諸行無常、諸行皆苦、諸法無我、涅槃寂靜。雖住異生位，已能如是決定解了一切；沙門婆羅門、諸天魔梵及餘世間，決定無能如法引奪。
問：信現觀有何相貌？答：若有成就信現觀者，或住異生位或住非異生位，若於現法若現後法，終不宣說於異眾中別有大師、別有善說法、別有正行僧。問：戒現觀有何相貌？答：若有成就戒現觀者，乃至畜生終不故害其命及不與取行、邪佚行、知而妄語、飲窣羅迷隷耶末陀放逸處酒。問：現觀智諦現觀有何相貌？答：若有成就現觀智諦現觀者，終不依止異見起所作業、及於自所證起疑起惑、及染著一切生處計行吉相而得清淨、誹謗三乘造惡趣業，況復能起害父害母等諸無間業、乃至終不生第八有。問：現觀邊智諦現觀有何相貌？答：若有成就現觀邊智諦現觀者，於自所證，若他問難終不怯怖。問：究竟現觀有何相貌？答：若有成就究竟現觀者，終不墮於五種犯處、終不故害眾生之命、及不與取習近婬佚非梵行法、故說妄語貯積財物受用諸欲，又終不怖畏不可記論事，終不計執自作苦樂、他作苦樂、自他作苦樂、非自非他作無因生苦樂。諸如是等名為現觀相貌，當知此即現觀勝利。若隨經隨論，如前廣說。
Question: what are the marks of direct realization by reflection? Answer: one who has accomplished direct realization by reflection can rightly understand that formations are impermanent, that formations are all suffering, that things are selfless, and that nirvāṇa is peace. Though he abides at the stage of an ordinary being, he has already come to understand all this with certainty; and ascetics and brahmins, gods, Māra, Brahmā, and the rest of the world are certainly unable to draw him away from it by any teaching.
Question: what are the marks of direct realization by faith? Answer: one who has accomplished direct realization by faith, whether he abides at the stage of an ordinary being or beyond it, will never in this life or in this life and the next declare that among some other company there is another teacher, another well-spoken teaching, another Saṅgha of right practice. Question: what are the marks of direct realization by moral discipline? Answer: one who has accomplished direct realization by moral discipline will never deliberately kill even an animal, nor take what is not given, nor engage in sexual misconduct, nor speak falsely knowing it to be false, nor drink surā, maireya, or madya, the liquors that are the ground of heedlessness. Question: what are the marks of the direct realization of the truths by the knowledge of direct realization? Answer: one who has accomplished it will never undertake action in dependence on an alien view; nor give rise to doubt or confusion about what he himself has realized; nor be attached to any place of birth and suppose that purity is attained by practicing auspicious signs; nor slander the three vehicles and thereby make karma for the bad destinies — how much less could he commit the acts of immediate retribution such as killing father or mother; and he will never come to an eighth existence. Question: what are the marks of the direct realization of the truths by the knowledge on the far side of direct realization? Answer: one who has accomplished it will never be timid or afraid when questioned or challenged by another about what he himself has realized. Question: what are the marks of final direct realization? Answer: one who has accomplished final direct realization will never fall into the five occasions of transgression — never deliberately kill a living being, take what is not given, resort to sexual conduct that is not chaste, deliberately speak falsely, or hoard wealth and indulge in sense pleasures; and he will never be afraid of matters that are set aside as unanswerable; and he will never suppose that pleasure and pain are made by oneself, made by another, made by both, or arise causelessly, made by neither. Such are the marks of direct realization, and these should be known as its benefits. As for the scriptures and treatises, they are as expounded at length above.
Every one of these marks is stated negatively — what the person will never do — and that is what makes them usable. An inner attainment cannot be checked from outside; a pattern of refusals can. The mark of faith is not a warm feeling but the fact that this person will never say there is a better teacher somewhere else. The mark of discipline is not scrupulousness in general but five specific things that will not happen, down to the killing of an animal. These are diagnostic criteria, and they are pitched so that a bystander could apply them.
Two of the marks are worth pulling out. 終不生第八有 — he will never come to an eighth existence — is the canonical description of a stream-enterer, who has at most seven more births; the treatise slots it in without announcing that it has just told us which fruit this kind of realization corresponds to. And the mark of the fifth kind is nerve: 若他問難終不怯怖, when challenged about what he has realized he is never timid or afraid. That is the one benefit on the list that concerns how a person holds up in argument, and it is assigned to the knowledge that works with the conceptually established truths — the kind of understanding that can be articulated, and therefore defended.
5. Establishing Yoga: The Perfection of Wisdom
論曰：前說菩薩於此位中先修因力等。云何名為先因力耶？頌曰：
般若度瑜伽， 等至無分別，
一切一切種， 無有分別故。
論曰：依止三摩鉢底發起般若波羅蜜多瑜伽勝行，即此正慧能到彼岸，是大菩提最勝方便，故名瑜伽。此所依止等至無有分別，於一切法及一切種無分別故。云何一切及一切種？頌曰：
一切一切種， 三相與三輪，
謂名相染淨， 及俱非二種。
論曰：一切者，謂三輪：一所知境、二能知智、三能知者。一切種者，謂三相：一名相、二染淨、三俱非。名者，謂假立等十二種。名相者，謂自相及共相。染者，謂染污法。淨者，謂諸善法。俱非者，謂無覆無記法。
The exposition: it was said above that the bodhisattva at this stage has cultivated the power of causes beforehand. What is this prior power of causes?
The yoga of the perfection of wisdom:
the attainment is without discrimination,
as to all and as to all kinds,
since there is no discrimination.
The exposition: in dependence on the attainments one arouses the excellent practice that is the yoga of the perfection of wisdom; and this right wisdom is able to reach the far shore, and is the most excellent means to great enlightenment, and is therefore called yoga. The attainment on which it rests is without discrimination, since it does not discriminate as to all things or as to all kinds. What are "all" and "all kinds"?
All, and all kinds:
three marks and three wheels —
name and mark, defiled and pure,
and the two that are neither.
The exposition: "all" means the three wheels: the object known, the knowledge that knows, and the knower. "All kinds" means the three marks: the mark of name, the defiled and the pure, and what is neither. "Name" means the twelve kinds beginning with the provisionally established. "The mark of name" means the particular mark and the general mark. "Defiled" means the things of defilement. "Pure" means all the wholesome things. "Neither" means things that are unobscured and indeterminate.
三輪 — the three wheels — is a term that arrives here without ceremony and carries a great deal. In the perfection literature it names the three components whose purification makes an act a perfection: giver, gift, and recipient, in the case of generosity. Here it is stated in its cognitive form — object known, knowing knowledge, and knower — and the claim is that the yoga of wisdom does not discriminate among these three. The knower is not set over against the known. This is the same doctrine the chapter on emptiness reached by dismantling the self, arriving now from the other direction, as a description of what a certain kind of concentration is like.
Note also that the chapter defines yoga rather than assuming it. 瑜伽 is not, in this treatise, a general word for meditative practice: it is specifically 般若波羅蜜多瑜伽, the yoga of the perfection of wisdom, resting on the attainments and defined as 大菩提最勝方便, the most excellent means to great enlightenment. The chapter is one page long because it has one thing to say — the practice that gets one there is wisdom without discrimination, and everything else is its support.
6. Neither Existent nor Non-existent, and Why Teaching Is Still of Use
復次如是所說無分別者，於何等法說無分別耶？頌曰：
於法及法空， 無二種戲論；
無分別無窮， 此上非應理。
論曰：法與法空俱無二種戲論，故名無分別。云何為二？謂有及無。何以故？色非是有，遍計所執相無故；亦非是無，彼假所依事有故。色空亦非有，遍計所執相無所顯故；亦非是無，諸法無我有所顯故。如於色、色空，如是於餘一切法及一切法空當知亦爾、非離諸法及法空外更有餘境是可得者、是故但說二無分別。非無分別更無分別，有無窮過，此上更無所知境故。復次頌曰：
若都無所取， 無慧亦無度，
俱成取離言， 為順非無用。
論曰：此若無有二種分別，即無有取。都無取故，慧體尚無，況到彼岸。是故必有離言相取。由此取故，慧到彼岸二俱成就。所以者何？由此聖慧雖不取如所言相性，而取離言相性故。問：若此聖慧不取如言相性者，宣說正法應無所用。答：不然，為隨順故。所以者何？為欲隨順離言相取，是故如來宣說正法。
Further: this being said to be without discrimination, with respect to what things is it said to be without discrimination?
As to things and the emptiness of things,
the two elaborations are absent;
non-discrimination has no endless regress —
beyond this there is nothing that stands to reason.
The exposition: both things and the emptiness of things are without the two elaborations, and so it is called non-discrimination. What two? Existence and non-existence. Why? Form is not existent, since the imagined mark is absent; nor is it non-existent, since the matter on which the provisional rests does exist. The emptiness of form is likewise not existent, since the imagined mark is not what is displayed by it; nor is it non-existent, since the selflessness of things is displayed by it. As with form and the emptiness of form, so should it be known with respect to all other things and the emptiness of all things. Nor is there any further object to be found apart from things and the emptiness of things; and so it is said only that non-discrimination is twofold. It is not that non-discrimination has a further non-discrimination, which would incur the fault of an endless regress — for beyond this there is no further knowable object.
If nothing at all were taken up,
there would be no wisdom and no perfection;
both are accomplished by taking up what is beyond words;
and, being in accord with it, teaching is not useless.
The exposition: if here there were none of the two discriminations, there would be no taking up at all. And since there were no taking up whatever, the very substance of wisdom would be absent, still less its reaching the far shore. Therefore there must be a taking up of the mark that is beyond words. By this taking up, both wisdom and reaching the far shore are accomplished. Why? Because this noble wisdom, although it does not take up a nature marked as words have it, does take up the nature marked as beyond words. Question: if this noble wisdom does not take up the nature marked as words have it, then declaring the true Dharma should be of no use. Answer: not so — because it is in accord with it. Why? Because the Tathāgata declares the true Dharma in order to accord with the taking up of the mark that is beyond words.
The passage on form is the clearest short statement of the Yogācāra middle in the whole treatise, and it is symmetrical. Form is not existent, because the imagined mark is not there; not non-existent, because 彼假所依事有, the matter the provisional rests on does exist. Then the same is said of the emptiness of form, which is the step usually left out: emptiness too is neither existent nor non-existent, and for parallel reasons. Denying that emptiness is a further thing to be found is what stops the regress, and Asaṅga names the danger explicitly — 無窮過, the fault of endlessness — a non-discrimination of the non-discrimination, and so on without end.
The second half faces the objection that any such position invites, and does not evade it. If wisdom takes up nothing at all, there is no wisdom; a perfection has to be a perfection of something. Asaṅga's answer is that something is indeed taken up — 離言相, the mark that is beyond words — and this is what preserves the perfection of wisdom as an accomplishment rather than a blank. And the question that follows is the one a teacher of this doctrine must eventually answer aloud: if the sages do not take words at their word, why teach? 為隨順故, in order to accord with it. Words do not deliver the wordless, but they can be arranged to point the same way, and the treatise's own existence is the argument's test case.
7. Nine Inconceivable Matters
論曰：要先思惟方入現觀，是故應離不可思議處方便思惟。云何名為不可思議處？頌曰：
九事不思議， 由依止五處，
有五種因故， 德失俱三種。
論曰：有九種事不可思議，一我、二有情、三世界、四業報、五靜慮者境界、六諸佛境界、七十四不可記事、八非正法、九一切煩惱之所引攝。若有思惟如是九事，必定依止五種處所方起思惟：一見、二忍、三推尋、四利養、五散亂。依止於見思惟我及有情；依止於忍思惟世界；依止推尋思惟業報、靜慮者境界諸佛境界及十四種不可記事；依止利養思惟非正法；依止散亂思惟，一切煩惱之所引攝。問：何因緣故，如是九事不應思議？答：五因緣故。一、我及有情無自相故，不應思議。二、世界現成相故，不應思議。三、業報及二境界甚深相故，不應思議。四、不可記事非一定相故，不應思議。五、非正法及諸煩惱之所引攝能引無義相故，不應思議。
若有思議如是等事，當知能引三種過失：一起心亂過失、二生非福過失、三不得善過失。若不思議，能引三種功德，翻此應知。
The exposition: one must first reflect in order to enter direct realization, and so one should keep away from the topics that are not to be speculated about and reflect by skillful means. What are the topics not to be speculated about?
Nine matters are inconceivable,
resting on five bases,
and for five reasons;
qualities and faults, three of each.
The exposition: there are nine matters that are not to be speculated about. First, a self. Second, sentient beings. Third, the world. Fourth, the recompense of karma. Fifth, the range of a meditator. Sixth, the range of the buddhas. Seventh, the fourteen matters set aside as unanswerable. Eighth, what is not the true Dharma. Ninth, all that is drawn in by the afflictions. Anyone who reflects on these nine matters must certainly rest on one of five bases to do so: view, acceptance, searching out, gain, and distraction. Resting on view, one reflects on a self and on sentient beings. Resting on acceptance, one reflects on the world. Resting on searching out, one reflects on the recompense of karma, the range of a meditator, the range of the buddhas, and the fourteen matters set aside as unanswerable. Resting on gain, one reflects on what is not the true Dharma. Resting on distraction, one reflects on all that is drawn in by the afflictions. Question: for what reason should these nine matters not be speculated about? Answer: for five reasons. First, a self and sentient beings have no particular mark of their own, and so should not be speculated about. Second, the world has the mark of being already accomplished, and so should not be speculated about. Third, the recompense of karma and the two ranges have the mark of profundity, and so should not be speculated about. Fourth, the matters set aside have no single fixed mark, and so should not be speculated about. Fifth, what is not the true Dharma and what is drawn in by the afflictions have the mark of leading to what is without meaning, and so should not be speculated about.
If one speculates about such matters, know that three faults are incurred: the fault of arousing a disordered mind, the fault of producing demerit, and the fault of failing to obtain the wholesome. If one does not speculate about them, three qualities are gained, to be known as the reverse of these.
The verse here carries the second of this fascicle's variants, and it is the same one that has recurred through the treatise: T1603 reads 得失俱三種, T1602 reads 德失俱三種 — gains and losses, or qualities and faults. The prose settles it exactly as it did in earlier fascicles: 能引三種過失 … 能引三種功德, three faults and three qualities. T1602's 德 is confirmed by its own gloss, and this is now the third place in the treatise where the same pair of characters has divided the two texts in the same direction. That consistency is itself worth recording; it looks less like a copyist's slip than like a settled difference between the two transmissions.
What distinguishes this chapter from a simple prohibition is that each of the five reasons is a different kind of reason. A self is off limits because there is nothing there to think about. The world is off limits because it is 現成, already accomplished — the question of why it is thus rather than otherwise has no purchase on something that is simply the case. Karma and the two ranges are off limits because they are too deep, which is a claim about our capacity rather than about the subject. The fourteen are off limits because the question is malformed. And the last two are off limits because thinking about them leads nowhere good. Only the third is a limit on the thinker; the others are defects in the question.
8. Four Reasons, and Why the Self and Others Cannot Be Thought
復次頌曰：
不應思不記， 當知由四因，
非定一甚深， 引無義相住。
論曰：又若略說，由四種因於不可思議事自不應思惟，亦不應為他記別。一、我及有情若有若無非一定故，不可思惟、不可記別。二、業報及二境界皆甚深故，不可思惟、不可記別。三、世界不可記事非正法，一切煩惱之所引攝，引無義故，不可思惟、不可記別。四、真如於行等法不即不離，其相法爾安住故，不可思惟、不可記別。復次頌曰：
不思我有無， 成二過失故，
於他亦二失， 不應思一異。
論曰：不應思我若有若無。何以故？成二過失故。若思為有，即於非實有義起增益執過；若思為無，即於假有義起損減執過。於他有情若執一異，亦成二過。若執為一，有情多過；若執為異，非六處過。復次頌曰：
二雖不依見， 成故不應思，
不思如是生， 三過所隨故。
論曰：有情世界、器世界，此之二種雖不依見，亦不應思。何以故？世共了知現成相故。問：何故不思此事如是生非不如是耶？答：若如是思者，或謂即如是、或謂異如是、或謂無如是，此三種過所隨逐故。
Furthermore:
Not to be thought, not to be answered:
know it by four reasons —
not fixed, one, profound,
and leading to the mark of the meaningless, and abiding.
The exposition: further, in brief, for four reasons one should not oneself reflect on the inconceivable matters, nor give an account of them to another. First, a self and sentient beings, whether existent or non-existent, are not fixed as one thing, and so cannot be reflected on or given an account of. Second, the recompense of karma and the two ranges are all profound, and so cannot be reflected on or given an account of. Third, the world, the matters set aside as unanswerable, what is not the true Dharma, and all that is drawn in by the afflictions lead to what is without meaning, and so cannot be reflected on or given an account of. Fourth, suchness is neither identical with nor apart from the formations and the rest, and its mark abides just as it is by its very nature, and so cannot be reflected on or given an account of.
Do not think whether a self exists or not:
two faults follow;
with others, two faults also —
do not think them one or other.
The exposition: one should not think whether a self exists or does not exist. Why? Because two faults follow. If one thinks it exists, one incurs the fault of grasping by superimposition upon what is not really existent; if one thinks it does not exist, one incurs the fault of grasping by denial upon what is provisionally existent. And if one grasps other sentient beings as one or as other, two faults follow as well. If one grasps them as one, there is the fault of a multiplicity of beings; if one grasps them as other, there is the fault of the six sense fields not being one's own.
Though the two do not rest on view,
being accomplished, they are not to be thought;
do not think why they arose thus,
since three faults attend it.
The exposition: the world of sentient beings and the receptacle world — although these two do not rest on view, they too are not to be thought about. Why? Because the world in common understands them to have the mark of being already accomplished. Question: why should one not think about whether this matter arose thus or not thus? Answer: because if one thinks so, one will say either that it is just thus, or that it is other than thus, or that it is not thus at all, and these three faults will follow along after.
The treatment of the self here is the treatise's most exact statement of what it has been doing for three chapters. Do not say the self exists — that superimposes on what is not really there. Do not say it does not exist — that denies 假有義, what is provisionally existent. Both are named as faults, and the same pair was listed among the five wrong graspings at the end of fascicle 16. It would be easy to read the preceding chapters as an extended argument that the self does not exist; this passage says plainly that the flat denial is itself an error, because the conventional person is not nothing.
The fourth reason is the one that reaches furthest. Suchness cannot be reflected on because it is 不即不離 with the formations, neither identical nor apart, and because 其相法爾安住 — its mark abides just as it is by its very nature. 法爾 is the term for what is simply the way things are, admitting no further why. That places suchness on the inconceivable list not because it is hidden but because there is no question left to ask about it, which is a different reason from any of the other three.
9. Karma, the Meditator, and the Range of the Buddhas
復次頌曰：
善趣與惡趣， 二作者非定，
過去善惡業， 處事等難思。
論曰：於業報中不應思議修福行者定往善趣、為惡行者定往惡趣，不決定故。又過去世淨不淨業，若處若事、若因若報等，不可思議。復次頌曰：
真如無漏性， 成所作義利，
靜慮者如來， 無譬自在故。
論曰：靜慮者及佛二種境界中，真如及無漏性皆不可思議。又諸佛等成所作義，謂所作利益眾生事亦不可思議。何以故？無譬喻故，一切世間無有少事能譬甚深二種境界。又自在故，諸如來等由內證得心自在故起所作事，世間所有一切作用若離因緣和合所不見故。
復次頌曰：
外道所宣說， 能引無義利，
非理遠四處， 無記不應思。
論曰：一切不應記事不應思議，諸邪外道之所說故；能引諸無義利故；不如正理故；遠離四種正思惟處故，謂因思惟處、果思惟處、雜染思惟處、清淨思惟處。
Furthermore:
Good destinies and bad destinies,
and the two who make them, are not fixed;
past wholesome and unwholesome karma,
its place and its matter, are hard to think.
The exposition: with respect to the recompense of karma one should not speculate that one who cultivates meritorious conduct will certainly go to a good destiny, or that one who does evil will certainly go to a bad one, since it is not settled. And the pure and impure karma of past lives — its place, its matter, its cause, its recompense, and the rest — is not to be speculated about.
Suchness and the uncontaminated nature,
the benefit of accomplishing what is to be done,
the meditator and the Tathāgata:
beyond comparison, and self-mastered.
The exposition: within the two ranges, that of the meditator and that of a buddha, suchness and the uncontaminated nature are both inconceivable. And the accomplishing of what is to be done by the buddhas and the rest — that is, the work they do of benefiting beings — is inconceivable as well. Why? Because it is beyond comparison: in all the world there is not the least thing that can serve as a comparison for these two profound ranges. And because of self-mastery: the Tathāgatas and their like give rise to the work they do because of the mastery of mind they have inwardly realized, whereas nothing in the world is seen to function at all apart from the coming together of causes and conditions.
What the outsiders declare
leads to what is without benefit,
is contrary to reason, far from the four topics —
the unanswerable is not to be thought.
The exposition: all matters that should not be answered should not be speculated about, because they are what the wrong-headed outsiders declare; because they lead to what is without benefit; because they are not in accord with right reason; and because they are far removed from the four topics of right reflection, namely the topic of causes, of effects, of defilement, and of purity.
The first verse is more startling than its placement suggests. It forbids speculating that a person who does good will certainly go to a good destiny — 不決定故, because it is not settled. This is not skepticism about karma; the treatise has assumed karma throughout. It is a caution about individual prediction. The system is real; its resolution in any particular case involves too many concurrent causes to be read off from a single life's conduct. Anyone who has watched the good suffer will recognize the pastoral point being made, and it is made without softening the doctrine.
The reason given for the Buddha's activity being inconceivable is the most philosophically loaded sentence in this chapter. Everything in the world functions only 因緣和合, by the coming together of causes and conditions; a buddha's work arises from 心自在, mastery of mind, inwardly realized. There is nothing in ordinary causation to compare it to — not because it is magical, but because it is the one case where what a mind has realized about itself becomes the operative cause. That is precisely what the transformation of the basis in fascicle 16 was said to accomplish.
10. Three Faults, Eight Qualities, and Two Reasons
復次如前所說，若思惟彼有三種過。云何而有？頌曰：
非處勤功用， 毀謗於大我，
不修清淨善， 故成三過失。
論曰：由於非處勤功用故起心亂過失，由於得靜慮者及佛世尊毀謗最勝功德故生非福過失，由不發起淨善法故有不得善過失。復次頌曰：
遠離不思議， 思可思議處，
具八種功德， 故如理應思。
論曰：由於不可思議處強思議者有如是過失，故應遠離。於可思議處如理思惟，若如是思具八功德。何等為八？所謂能善了知闇說大說、依義思惟不依文字、少以淨信信解、少以慧觀觀察、堅固思惟、審諦思惟、常勤思惟、於所思惟善能究竟中無懈退。復次頌曰：
諸佛之所說， 遍知等無違，
五因二因故， 於此不應思。
論曰：由五因故，於不可思議處不應欣樂思惟，謂諸佛所說故，及於四諦中遍知斷證修不相違故。又略由二因故，謂教及證。教謂諸佛所說，證謂遍知苦等。
Further, as stated above, if one reflects on those matters there are three faults. How do they come about?
Diligent effort where it does not belong;
slandering the great self;
not cultivating the pure and wholesome —
thus the three faults come about.
The exposition: because of diligent effort where it does not belong, the fault of a disordered mind arises. Because of slandering the most excellent qualities of those who have attained the absorptions and of the Buddha, the Blessed One, the fault of demerit is produced. Because one does not arouse pure and wholesome things, there is the fault of failing to obtain the wholesome.
Keeping far from the inconceivable,
reflecting on what may be conceived,
one is furnished with eight qualities —
and so one should reflect in accordance with reason.
The exposition: since one who forces speculation upon what is not to be speculated about incurs such faults, he should keep far from it. Reflecting in accordance with reason upon what may be conceived, one who reflects thus is furnished with eight qualities. What eight? Being well able to understand what is said obscurely and what is said greatly; reflecting according to the meaning and not according to the letter; having some measure of confident understanding through pure faith; having some measure of examination through the observation of wisdom; reflecting firmly; reflecting with careful scrutiny; reflecting with constant diligence; and, in bringing what is reflected on well to its end, being without slackening or backsliding.
What the buddhas have declared,
full knowledge and the rest, are not contradicted;
for five reasons and for two,
one should not speculate about this.
The exposition: for five reasons one should not take pleasure in speculating about what is not to be speculated about — namely, because it is what the buddhas have declared, and because within the four truths full knowledge, abandoning, realizing, and cultivating are not contradicted. And in brief for two reasons, namely scripture and realization. Scripture means what the buddhas have declared; realization means the full knowledge of suffering and the rest.
The eight qualities are a portrait of good intellectual practice, and two of them are stated with a modesty that stands out. 少以淨信信解 and 少以慧觀觀察 — some measure of confident understanding through faith, some measure of examination through wisdom. Not "great faith" and not "penetrating analysis," but a measure of each. The pairing is the point: faith without examination and examination without faith are each incomplete, and the treatise asks for a working amount of both rather than an excess of either.
The second quality is the classical one — 依義思惟不依文字, reflect according to the meaning and not the letter, the first of the four reliances — and it sits in this chapter for a reason. A treatise that has just forbidden nine topics might be read as forbidding thought. The eight qualities are the corrective: what is asked for is firm, scrupulous, constant, unslackening reflection on everything that can be reflected on. The prohibition is narrow and the encouragement is broad.
11. Gathering the Superior Determinations: Ten Aspects
論曰：如是遠離不思議處方便思已，於九種事應以十相發起種種最勝決擇。何等為十？頌曰：
數、相、別、有、處、 邊際與生起、
想、善巧、攝等， 勝決擇諸事。
論曰：十種相者，一數、二相、三差別、四有性、五處所、六邊際、七生起、八想、九善巧、十攝等。此中數者，謂色數有十五，如是等。相者，謂假立相、自相、共相。此中事亦名相，是所相故。名亦名相，相應亦名相，俱是能相具故，如與火色相應表知有煖。如是等眾生亦名相，是相者故。取亦名相，是能相體故。差別者，謂有色無色、有見無見等差別。有性者，謂假有性、實有性、勝義有性。處所者，如四大展轉及與造色同一處住，又色心等同一處所，又依欲界身色界等心展轉安住。邊際者，如色至色界及與極微是其邊際樂受，乃至第三靜慮是其邊際，如是等。生起者，謂由如是因緣如是法生，如引勢生等。想者，謂句迷惑等。善巧者，謂蘊善巧等。攝等者，謂若攝、若相應、若依、若緣、若問論。如是問論復有多種，謂一行、順前句、順後句、四句、無事句。若能如是善了知者，名善問記。
The exposition: having thus kept far from the topics not to be speculated about and reflected by skillful means, one should give rise to the various superior determinations regarding the nine matters by way of ten aspects. What ten?
Number, mark, difference, existence, place,
limit and arising,
notion, skill, subsumption and the rest:
the superior determination of all matters.
The exposition: the ten aspects are number, mark, difference, the kinds of existence, place, limit, arising, notion, skill, and subsumption and the rest. Among these, number means that the number of forms is fifteen, and so on. Mark means the provisionally established mark, the particular mark, and the general mark. Here a matter is also called a mark, since it is what is marked. A name is also called a mark; and association is also called a mark, both being the means by which marking is done — as association with the color of fire indicates that there is heat. In the same way a being too is called a mark, since it is what has marks. And appropriation is also called a mark, since it is the substance by which marking is done. Difference means the differences of material and immaterial, visible and invisible, and the rest. The kinds of existence means provisional existence, real existence, and ultimate existence. Place means, for instance, that the four great elements in their mutual relation abide in the same place as derived form; and that form and mind and the rest occupy the same place; and that in dependence on a body of the desire realm, a mind of the form realm and the rest abide in their mutual relation. Limit means, for instance, that form reaches to the form realm and that the subtle particle is its limit; that pleasant feeling extends to the third absorption, which is its limit; and so on. Arising means that from such and such causes and conditions such and such things arise, as with arising by impetus and the rest. Notion means the confusions of a clause and the rest. Skill means skill in the aggregates and the rest. Subsumption and the rest means subsumption, association, support, object, and questioning. And such questioning is again of many kinds: the single line, the clause that follows from what precedes, the clause that follows from what comes after, the four-cornered clause, and the clause without a basis. One who can understand these well is called skilled in question and answer.
This is the treatise's method statement for its final chapter, and it is worth reading as such. Everything from here to the end of fascicle 20 will be an application of these ten aspects to the nine topics of chapter one — how many, what marks, what differences, what sort of existence, where, how far, from what, under what notion, what skill, and how subsumed. The chapter's title, 攝勝決擇, is exactly what that describes: gathering the superior determinations, running the whole inventory through a fixed set of questions.
The gloss on 相 is the densest part and repays slow reading, because it is deliberately promiscuous. A matter is a mark, since it is what gets marked. A name is a mark. Association is a mark, and the example given is homely and good: the color of fire tells you there is heat. A being is a mark, and even 取, appropriation, is a mark. The term has been stretched to cover both what indicates and what is indicated. This is not sloppiness; it is a warning at the head of the chapter that its key term is being used in several registers, and the reader should expect to sort them by context.
12. Two Kinds of Mind, and Eight Proofs of the Ālayavijñāna
復次於一切事應起種種最勝決擇，心事決擇今當先說。頌曰：
心性有二種， 異熟及與轉，
初阿賴耶識， 種子二應知。
論曰：略說心性有二種，一名異熟心、二名轉心。異熟心者，即是阿賴耶識，亦名一切種子識。此復二種應知，一證成、二建立。云何證成？頌曰：
執受、初、明了、 種子、業、身受、
無心定、命終， 無皆不應理。
論曰：由八種相證阿賴耶識決定是有。謂若無阿賴耶識，依止執受應不可得、最初生起定不可得、明了生起應不可得、諸法種子應不可得、四種業用應不可得、種種身受應不可得、二無心定應不可得、命終時識應不可得。
Further, the various superior determinations should be given rise to regarding all matters; and the determination regarding the matter of mind shall be stated first.
The nature of mind is of two kinds,
the ripening and the evolving;
the first is the ālayavijñāna,
the seeds — these two are to be known.
The exposition: in brief the nature of mind is of two kinds, the ripening mind and the evolving mind. The ripening mind is the ālayavijñāna, also called the consciousness that holds all seeds. And this again should be known in two ways: by the proof of it, and by the establishing of it. How is it proved?
Appropriation, first arising, clarity,
seeds, karmic function, bodily feeling,
the mindless attainments, the moment of death:
without it, none of these stands to reason.
The exposition: by eight aspects it is proved that the ālayavijñāna definitely exists. That is, if there were no ālayavijñāna, the appropriation of a support could not be found; the very first arising certainly could not be found; a clear arising could not be found; the seeds of things could not be found; the four karmic functions could not be found; the various bodily feelings could not be found; the two mindless attainments could not be found; and the consciousness at the moment of death could not be found.
This is the classical eightfold proof of the ālayavijñāna, and its structure is worth naming before the arguments begin. Every one of the eight has the same form: here is something we manifestly observe; it cannot be accounted for by the six evolving consciousnesses alone; therefore there is a further consciousness. The argument is inferential throughout, not scriptural — scripture is cited twice in what follows, but always as corroboration after a reason has been given. Whatever one makes of the conclusion, the method is the same one fascicle 16 used to establish the dependent nature: something is going on that requires a support, and the support is inferred from the requirement.
The pairing of 異熟心 and 轉心 at the head is the frame for everything that follows. One mind ripens — it is the carrying-forward of what has been done, and it does not choose. The other evolves — it turns toward objects, is wholesome or unwholesome, comes and goes. Almost all of the eight arguments turn on some job that only a mind of the first kind could do, because the second kind is too intermittent, too morally variable, or too tied to a particular sense.
13. First Proof: Appropriation, in Five Reasons
問：何故若無阿賴耶識，依止執受不可得耶？答：由五因故。何等為五？謂阿賴耶識先行因生，眼等轉識現緣因起。如經言：根境作意力故諸轉識生，乃至廣說。是名初因。
又六識身善不善可得，是名第二因。又六識身一類異熟無記，所攝必不可得，是名第三因。又六識身各別依轉，若依彼彼所依彼彼識轉，彼彼所依應有執受、餘無執受，不應道理。雖許能執，亦不應理，識遠離故。是名第四因。又所依止應成數數執受過失。所以者何？眼識一時轉一時不轉，餘識亦爾。是名第五因。如是先業因現緣因所生故、善不善故、一類不可得故、各別所依故、數數執受過故，不應道理。
Question: why is it that without the ālayavijñāna the appropriation of a support could not be found? Answer: for five reasons. What five? The ālayavijñāna arises from causes that ran before it, whereas the evolving consciousnesses of the eye and the rest arise from causes that are conditions presently at hand. As the scripture says: by the force of faculty, object, and attention, the evolving consciousnesses arise — and so on at length. This is the first reason.
Again, the six bodies of consciousness are found to be wholesome and unwholesome. This is the second reason. Again, the six bodies of consciousness certainly cannot be comprised within what is of a single kind, ripened, and indeterminate. This is the third reason. Again, the six bodies of consciousness each evolve upon a separate support; and if a given consciousness evolved upon its own given support, then that particular support would have to be appropriated and the others not, which does not stand to reason. And even if one granted that it could appropriate, that too would not stand to reason, since consciousness is remote from them. This is the fourth reason. Again, the support would incur the fault of being appropriated over and over. Why? Because eye consciousness evolves at one time and does not at another, and the same for the rest. This is the fifth reason. Thus: because they arise from causes that are prior karma and from causes that are present conditions; because they are wholesome and unwholesome; because what is of a single kind cannot be found; because each has a separate support; and because of the fault of appropriating over and over — it does not stand to reason.
The first argument is the strongest of the eight and it is an argument about the body. Something holds this body as mine — keeps it warm, keeps it sensitive, keeps it from being a corpse — and that holding is continuous. The five reasons then show, one at a time, that no sense consciousness can be doing it. Eye consciousness is wholesome or unwholesome by turns, and appropriation is morally neutral. Eye consciousness is not 一類異熟無記, of a single kind, ripened, and indeterminate, which is what a continuous holding would have to be. Eye consciousness attaches to the eye, so at best it could appropriate the eye and not the foot. And eye consciousness stops, so the body would be dropped and picked up again all day long.
數數執受過 — the fault of appropriating over and over — is the reason with the most immediate force, because it appeals to something anybody can check. Close your eyes and the eye consciousness ceases; the body does not go cold. Whatever is keeping it alive did not blink. The argument does not prove that the holder is a consciousness rather than something else, and Asaṅga does not claim it does; it proves that if the holder is a consciousness, it is not one of the six we already had names for.
14. Proofs Two Through Four: First Arising, Clarity, Seeds
問：何故最初生起不可得耶？答：設有難言：若有阿賴耶識，應有二識同時生起。應告彼言：汝於無過妄生過想，容有二識同時轉故。所以者何？謂如有一，俱時欲見乃至欲識，隨別一識最初生起，不應道理。何以故？爾時作意無有差別，根及境界不壞現前，何因緣故識不俱轉？問：何故明了生起不可得耶？答：若有定執識不俱生，與眼等識同行一境，明了意識應不可得。所以者何？若時緣過去境生起憶念，爾時不明了意識現在前行，非於現境意識現行。得有如是不明了相，是故應許諸識俱轉。或應許彼第六意識無明了性，是即有過。
問：何故種子不可得耶？答：六轉識身各別異故。所以者何？是六轉識從善無間不善性生，不善無間善性復生，從二無間無記性生，劣界無間中界生，中界無間妙界生。如是妙界無間乃至劣界生，有漏無間無漏生，無漏無間有漏生，世間無間出世生，出世無間世間生，非如是相為種子體，應正道理。
又彼諸識長時間斷，相續經久流轉不息，是故轉識能持種子，不應道理。
Question: why could the very first arising not be found? Answer: suppose someone objects, saying that if there were an ālayavijñāna, two consciousnesses would have to arise at the same time. He should be told: you falsely imagine a fault where there is none, for it is admissible that two consciousnesses evolve at once. Why? Suppose someone wishes at the same moment to see and on down to wishes to cognize: that some one consciousness singled out from these should arise first does not stand to reason. Why? At that moment attention makes no distinction among them, and the faculties and objects are unimpaired and present; so for what reason would the consciousnesses not evolve together? Question: why could a clear arising not be found? Answer: if one firmly held that consciousnesses do not arise together, then a clear mind consciousness proceeding upon one object together with eye consciousness and the rest could not be found. Why? Because when one gives rise to recollection taking a past object, an unclear mind consciousness is what proceeds before one, and it is not that mind consciousness proceeds upon a present object. Since such an unclear mark can be had, one must grant that the consciousnesses evolve together — or else grant that the sixth, mind consciousness, has no clarity at all, which incurs a fault.
Question: why could the seeds not be found? Answer: because the six bodies of evolving consciousness are each different. Why? These six evolving consciousnesses arise as unwholesome immediately after the wholesome, and as wholesome again immediately after the unwholesome, and as indeterminate immediately after either; the middling realm arises immediately after the inferior, the excellent immediately after the middling, and so from the excellent on down to the inferior arising again; the uncontaminated arises immediately after the contaminated and the contaminated immediately after the uncontaminated; the transcendent immediately after the worldly and the worldly immediately after the transcendent. That something with such marks should be the substance of the seeds does not accord with right reason.
Again, those consciousnesses are interrupted for long stretches, while the continuum flows on without cease over a long course; and so that the evolving consciousnesses could hold the seeds does not stand to reason.
The second argument is really a defense that turns into an offense. The opponent's objection is that positing an ālaya means two consciousnesses running at once, which the older Abhidharma denied. Asaṅga replies that simultaneous consciousnesses are not a fault at all, and then produces the reason: if you want to see and hear and think at the same moment, and attention is not favoring any of them, and every faculty and object is present and unimpaired — what could possibly determine which one goes first? A theory that allows only one consciousness at a time owes an account of the selection, and has none.
The third argument makes the same point from the phenomenology of recollection, and it is a nice piece of observation. When you remember something, the mind consciousness engaged with the memory is unclear — dim, thin, not vivid. When mind consciousness runs alongside the senses on a present object, it is clear. If consciousnesses never ran together, mind consciousness would never be accompanying the senses, and so would always be in its dim mode. But it is not always dim. Therefore they run together. The argument is built entirely out of the difference between how a memory feels and how the present feels.
The fourth argument is the one that has done the most work in the later tradition, and its force is entirely in the list. The six consciousnesses swing from wholesome to unwholesome to indeterminate, from the inferior realm to the excellent and back, from contaminated to uncontaminated, from worldly to transcendent — and they do it from one moment to the next, 無間, without interval. A seed store has to be stable enough to keep what is deposited in it. Something that reverses its moral quality between adjacent moments cannot be that. And then the second half of the argument, stated almost in passing: 長時間斷, they are interrupted for long stretches. Whatever holds the seeds through dreamless sleep is not a consciousness that stops during dreamless sleep.
15. Proofs Five Through Eight: Function, Feeling, the Mindless Attainments, and Death
問：何故諸業不可得耶？答：若無諸識同時生起諸業俱轉，不應道理。所以者何？若略說業有四種：一器了別業、二依了別業、三我了別業、四境了別業。如是四種了別業用，剎那剎那俱現可得，非於一識一剎那中有如是等差別業用，是故必有諸識俱起。
問：何故若無阿賴耶識，身受不可得耶？答：謂如有一，或如理思惟、或不如理思惟，所有推尋，若心在定、若不在定，身受生起非一眾多，若無此識應不可得如是身受；既現可得，是故定有阿賴耶識。
問：何故若無阿賴耶識，諸無心定不可得耶？答：如薄伽梵說：入無想定及滅盡定，當知爾時識不離身。若無此識，爾時識應離身。識若離身，便應捨命，非謂在定。
問：何故若無阿賴耶識，命終時識不可得耶？答：謂如有一臨命終時，或從身上分識漸捨離冷觸漸發，或從身下分，非彼意識有時不轉，故知唯有阿賴耶識能執持身。此識若捨，於彼身分冷觸可得，身無覺受。意識不爾，是故若無此識，不應道理。如是已說阿賴耶識證成道理。
Question: why could the karmic functions not be found? Answer: because if the consciousnesses did not arise at the same time, the several functions evolving together would not stand to reason. Why? Because in brief there are four functions: the function of cognizing the receptacle world; the function of cognizing the support; the function of cognizing a self; and the function of cognizing objects. These four functions of cognizing are found present together moment after moment; and it is not the case that within one consciousness in one moment there are differing functions such as these. Therefore the consciousnesses must arise together.
Question: why is it that without the ālayavijñāna the bodily feelings could not be found? Answer: suppose someone reflects, whether in accordance with reason or not in accordance with reason, and whatever searching out he does, whether his mind is in concentration or not in concentration — bodily feelings arise in many kinds and not just one. If there were no such consciousness, such bodily feelings could not be found; and since they manifestly are found, there certainly is an ālayavijñāna.
Question: why is it that without the ālayavijñāna the mindless attainments could not be found? Answer: as the Blessed One said, when one enters the attainment of no-thought and the attainment of cessation, know that at that time consciousness has not left the body. If there were no such consciousness, at that time consciousness would have left the body; and if consciousness left the body, one would have to relinquish life, and it could not be said that one was in an attainment.
Question: why is it that without the ālayavijñāna the consciousness at the moment of death could not be found? Answer: suppose someone at the point of death: consciousness gradually withdraws either from the upper part of the body, with cold gradually spreading, or from the lower part. It is not that mind consciousness sometimes does not evolve; and so one knows that it is the ālayavijñāna alone that can appropriate and hold the body. Where this consciousness has let go, cold can be felt in that part of the body and the body has no sensation there. Mind consciousness is not like this; and therefore it does not stand to reason that there should be no such consciousness. Thus the reasoning that proves the ālayavijñāna has been stated.
The fifth argument names the four things the ālayavijñāna is doing at every moment, and the list is a good summary of the whole doctrine: it cognizes the receptacle world, the support that is the body, a self, and objects — all four at once, 剎那剎那俱現可得. Any theory that allows only one consciousness at a time has to make these four take turns, and they manifestly do not.
The eighth argument is the most concrete passage in the treatise and the one most often cited from it. Dying is described as a withdrawal that proceeds through the body from one end or the other, with the cold following the withdrawal — and the diagnostic is exact: where the holding has been let go, that part goes cold and has no sensation, and mind consciousness does not behave that way. The observation is offered as evidence, not as a symbol. What makes it a good argument is precisely that the boundary moves and can be located, so whatever is retreating has an extension in the body, which no ordinary sense consciousness does.
16. Establishing It: Five Marks, and the Objects It Cognizes
云何建立？頌曰：
所緣境、相應， 更互二因性，
識等俱流轉， 雜染污還滅。
論曰：略說此識建立，由五種相：一所緣境相、二相應相、三互為因相、四俱轉相、五雜染還滅相。當知前四種相建立流轉，後一種相建立還滅。
問：所緣境相建立云何？答：若略說此識由了別二種所緣境故轉，一由了別內執受故、二由了別外無分別相器故。了別內執受者，謂了別遍計所執自性妄執習氣及諸色根根所依處，謂在有色界若無色界，唯有妄執習氣執受。了別外無分別相器者，謂了別依止緣內執受阿賴耶識故，於一切時無有間斷器世界相。譬如燈焰生時，內執炷膩，外發光明。如是阿賴耶識，內緣執受境，外緣器世界境，生起道理應知亦爾。又即此識緣境微細，世聰慧者難了知故。又即此識緣境無廢時無變易，從初執受剎那乃至命終，一味了別而流轉故。又即此識於所緣境念念生滅，當知剎那相續流轉非常非一。又即此識於欲界中緣狹小執受境，於色界中緣廣大執受境，於無色界中空無邊處識無邊處緣無量執受境，無所有處緣微細執受境，非想非非想處緣極微細執受境。如是了別二種所緣境故、微細了別所緣境故、相似了別故、剎那了別故、了別狹小執受所緣境故、了別廣大執受所緣境故、了別無量執受所緣境故、了別微細執受所緣境故、了別極微細執受所緣境故，是名建立阿賴耶識所緣境相。
How is it established?
The object it takes, its association,
the nature of the two mutual causes,
the consciousnesses flowing on together,
defilement and the return to cessation.
The exposition: in brief this consciousness is established by five marks: the mark of the object it takes; the mark of its association; the mark of mutual causation; the mark of concurrent evolving; and the mark of defilement and the return to cessation. Know that the first four marks establish the flowing on, and the last establishes the return to cessation.
Question: how is the mark of the object established? Answer: in brief, this consciousness evolves by cognizing two kinds of object — by cognizing the inner appropriation, and by cognizing the outer receptacle whose marks are undiscriminated. Cognizing the inner appropriation means cognizing the habitual tendencies of false grasping at the imagined own-nature, together with the material faculties and the places on which the faculties depend; and in the realms that have form, or in the formless realm, there is appropriation of the habitual tendencies of false grasping alone. Cognizing the outer receptacle whose marks are undiscriminated means cognizing, in dependence on the ālayavijñāna that takes the inner appropriation as its object, the marks of the receptacle world at all times without interruption. It is like a lamp flame when it arises: inwardly it takes hold of the wick and the oil, outwardly it sends forth light. So too with the ālayavijñāna, which inwardly takes the appropriated object and outwardly the object that is the receptacle world; the principle of its arising should be known to be just so. Again, the object this consciousness takes is subtle, and hard for the clever of this world to understand. Again, the object this consciousness takes has no time of ceasing and no alteration, since from the first moment of appropriation down to the end of life it flows on cognizing with a single taste. Again, this consciousness arises and ceases moment by moment with respect to its object; know that its momentary continuity in flowing on is neither permanent nor one. Again, this consciousness takes a narrow appropriated object in the realm of desire, a vast appropriated object in the realm of form; in the formless realm it takes a measureless appropriated object at the spheres of the infinity of space and the infinity of consciousness, a subtle appropriated object at the sphere of nothing whatever, and an extremely subtle appropriated object at the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception. Thus: because it cognizes two kinds of object; because it cognizes its object subtly; because it cognizes uniformly; because it cognizes momentarily; and because it cognizes a narrow, a vast, a measureless, a subtle, and an extremely subtle appropriated object — this is called the establishing of the mark of the ālayavijñāna's object.
The lamp is the best image in the treatise and it earns its place. A flame does two things at once with one act of burning: inwardly it grips the wick and the oil, outwardly it throws light into the room. The ālayavijñāna does the same — inwardly it appropriates the body and the habitual tendencies, outwardly it presents a world. Neither is a separate operation added to the other, and neither could happen without the other. The image also answers, without argument, the question of how one consciousness could have two such different objects: a flame is not doing two jobs.
Two of the descriptions are in tension and the treatise means them to be. It flows on 一味, with a single taste, unchanged from the first moment of appropriation to death — and it arises and ceases 念念, moment by moment, and is therefore 非常非一, neither permanent nor one. Both are asserted in adjacent sentences. The continuity is real and it is not the continuity of a thing that persists; a river has a single taste from source to mouth without any water staying put. This is what keeps the ālaya from being the self that the preceding chapters spent so long refuting.
17. Its Association, and Mutual Causation
問：相應轉相建立云何？答：此阿賴耶識恒與遍行五種心法相應，所謂作意、觸、受、想、思。如是五法亦異熟攝，最極微細，世聰慧者亦難了故。如是心法亦常一類緣境而轉。又即此識相應受，一向不苦不樂無記性攝。當知餘心所法行相亦爾。如是遍行心法相應故、一類異熟相應故、最極微細相應故、恒常一類緣境而起相應故、不苦不樂相應故、一向無記相應故，是名建立阿賴耶識相應轉相。
問：互為因相建立云何？答：阿賴耶識與彼轉識為二種因，一為種子生因、二為所依止因。種子生因者，謂諸所有善不善無記轉識生時，一切皆因阿賴耶識種子而生。所依止因者，謂由阿賴耶識所執色根為依止故，五識身轉，非無執受。又由有此識故得有意根，由此意根為依止故意識得生。譬如依止眼等五種色根五識身轉，非無五根；意識亦爾，非無意根。復次轉識與阿賴耶識為二種因，一於現法中長養彼種子故、二於後法中為彼得生攝殖彼種子故。於現法中長養彼種子者，謂隨依止阿賴耶識，如是如是善不善無記轉識生時，於一依止同生同滅，如是如是熏習此識。由是為因緣故，後後轉識善不善無記性轉，復增上轉、復熾然轉，復明了而得生起。於後法中攝殖彼種子者，謂彼熏習種類能引攝未來，即此異熟阿賴耶識。如是種子因故、依止因故、長養種子故、攝殖種子故，是名建立阿賴耶識轉識互為因相。
Question: how is the mark of association in evolving established? Answer: this ālayavijñāna is constantly associated with the five universal mental factors, namely attention, contact, feeling, perception, and volition. These five are also comprised within the ripened, and are extremely subtle, being hard even for the clever of this world to understand. These mental factors likewise evolve constantly, taking their object in a single manner. Again, the feeling associated with this consciousness is invariably comprised within the neither-painful-nor-pleasant and the indeterminate. Know that the modes of the remaining mental factors are likewise. Thus: because it is associated with universal mental factors; because it is associated with what is of a single kind and ripened; because its association is extremely subtle; because its association arises constantly, taking its object in a single manner; because it is associated with the neither-painful-nor-pleasant; and because it is associated with the invariably indeterminate — this is called the establishing of the mark of the ālayavijñāna's association in evolving.
Question: how is the mark of mutual causation established? Answer: the ālayavijñāna is two kinds of cause for the evolving consciousnesses: a cause producing them as seeds, and a cause serving as their support. As a cause producing them as seeds: when any wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate evolving consciousness arises, all of them arise caused by the seeds in the ālayavijñāna. As a cause serving as their support: because the material faculties appropriated by the ālayavijñāna serve as support, the five bodies of consciousness evolve — not without appropriation. And because there is this consciousness, there is a mind faculty; and because this mind faculty serves as support, mind consciousness is able to arise. Just as the five bodies of consciousness evolve in dependence on the five material faculties of the eye and the rest, and not without those five faculties, so too with mind consciousness, which is not without the mind faculty. Further, the evolving consciousnesses are two kinds of cause for the ālayavijñāna: they nourish its seeds in the present life, and they gather and plant its seeds so that they may arise in a later life. Nourishing its seeds in the present life means that, according as wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate evolving consciousnesses arise in dependence on the ālayavijñāna, arising together and ceasing together upon a single support, they thus and thus perfume this consciousness. Because of this as cause and condition, the later and later evolving consciousnesses evolve as wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate, and evolve with greater dominance, and evolve more intensely, and arise more clearly. Gathering and planting its seeds for a later life means that the kinds of that perfuming can draw in and gather what is future — that is, this very ripened ālayavijñāna. Thus: because it is the cause as seeds; because it is the cause as support; because they nourish the seeds; and because they gather and plant the seeds — this is called the establishing of the mark of mutual causation between the ālayavijñāna and the evolving consciousnesses.
The five factors assigned to the ālaya are the five universals from fascicle 2, and the list is exactly as short as it can be. Attention, contact, feeling, perception, volition — nothing else. No aspiration, no resolve, no wisdom; nothing wholesome and nothing afflicted. This consciousness has just enough mental accompaniment to count as a consciousness at all, and its feeling is always neutral. That last point is what keeps the doctrine coherent: a store that felt pleasure or pain would be undergoing something, and would be a candidate for the very self this treatise denies.
The account of mutual causation is where the system becomes a closed loop, and the four directions are worth counting. Downward, the ālaya causes the evolving consciousnesses twice, as their seeds and as their support. Upward, they cause it twice, by nourishing its seeds now and by planting seeds for later. There is no first term and no outside. And the sentence describing the perfuming is precise about simultaneity — 於一依止同生同滅, arising together and ceasing together upon a single support. Seed and perfuming are not in sequence; the depositing happens in the same moment as the act.
18. How Many Consciousnesses Run at Once
問：諸識俱轉相建立云何？答：阿賴耶識或於一時唯與一轉識俱起，謂與意根。所以者何？由此意根恒與我見我慢等相應高舉行相，若有心位若無心位，恒與此識俱時生起。又此意根恒緣阿賴耶識為其境界，執我及慢高舉行相而起。又即此識於一時間或與二轉識俱起，謂意及意識。於一時間或與三轉識俱起，謂五識身隨一起時，前二及此一。於一時間或與四轉識俱起，謂五識身隨二起時，前二及此二。如是於一時間或乃至與七轉識俱起，謂五識身和合起時，前二及此五。復次前說意識依染污意生，意未滅時於相了別縛不得解脫；若意滅已，相縛解脫。又此意識能緣他境及緣自境。緣他境者，謂或總或別緣五識身境。緣自境者，謂緣法境。
復次阿賴耶識或於一時與苦受樂受不苦不樂受俱轉。此受與轉識相應依轉識起，從此識種子生。又於人趣，若於欲纏天中，及於一分鬼畜趣中，俱生不苦不樂受，與彼苦樂不苦不樂轉識身相應雜相續受一時俱轉。若於地獄趣中他所映奪，不苦不樂受與彼轉識相應純苦無雜相續受俱轉。當知此受被映奪故，相難可了。如於地獄一向與苦受俱轉，如是於下三靜慮地一向與樂受俱轉，於第四靜慮地乃至有頂地中一向與不苦不樂受俱轉。
Question: how is the mark of the consciousnesses evolving together established? Answer: the ālayavijñāna sometimes arises together with only one evolving consciousness, namely with the mind faculty. Why? Because this mind faculty is constantly associated with the view of self, self-conceit, and the rest, in a mode of self-elevation, and whether one is in a state with mind or in a state without mind, it constantly arises together with this consciousness. Again, this mind faculty constantly takes the ālayavijñāna as its object, and arises grasping a self and, in conceit, in a mode of self-elevation. Again, at another time this consciousness arises together with two evolving consciousnesses, namely mind and mind consciousness. At another time it arises together with three, namely, when any one of the five bodies of consciousness arises, the former two and this one. At another time it arises together with four, namely, when any two of the five bodies arise, the former two and these two. And so at another time it may arise together with as many as seven evolving consciousnesses, namely, when the five bodies of consciousness arise all together, the former two and these five. Further, it was said above that mind consciousness arises in dependence on the defiled mind. While that mind has not ceased, one is not freed from the bond of cognizing marks; when that mind has ceased, one is freed from the bond of marks. Again, this mind consciousness can take an object that is another's and an object that is its own. Taking an object that is another's means taking the objects of the five bodies of consciousness, either together or singly. Taking an object that is its own means taking objects that are things.
Further, the ālayavijñāna sometimes evolves together with painful feeling, pleasant feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These feelings are associated with the evolving consciousnesses and arise in dependence on them, being produced from the seeds in this consciousness. And in the human destiny, and among the gods bound to desire, and in some part of the destinies of hungry ghosts and animals, the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling that arises together with it evolves at one time together with the mixed and continuing feelings — painful, pleasant, and neither — associated with those bodies of evolving consciousness. In the destiny of the hells, where it is overwhelmed by what is other, the neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling evolves together with the purely painful, unmixed, continuing feeling associated with those evolving consciousnesses. Know that because this feeling is overwhelmed, its mark is hard to discern. As in the hells it evolves invariably together with painful feeling, so in the three lower absorption levels it evolves invariably together with pleasant feeling, and from the fourth absorption level up to the summit of existence it evolves invariably together with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.
The count runs from one to seven and the floor is the interesting number. There is never a moment with the ālaya alone: the defiled mind, 意根, is always there, and what it is always doing is taking the ālaya as its object and construing it as a self. That is the whole seventh consciousness in one sentence. The store carries; the defiled mind looks at what is carrying and says "I." And the phrase for its mode, 高舉行相, self-elevation, is not a technical abstraction — it names the small continuous lift of self-regard that runs underneath everything, including sleep, since it operates 若有心位若無心位, in states with mind and without.
The passage on the hells contains an observation that is easy to skip and hard to forget. The ālaya's own feeling is always neutral, even there; but 被映奪故，相難可了 — because it is overwhelmed, its mark is hard to discern. Something in every being is always at rest, and in extreme suffering it is drowned out rather than destroyed. The treatise offers this as a technical point about how feelings co-occur, and does not moralize it. But it is the only place in these fascicles where the doctrine of the ālaya says something consoling.
19. Why Concurrence Is Not a Contradiction: The Torrent and the Mirror
復次阿賴耶識於一時間或與轉識相應善不善無記諸心法俱轉。如是阿賴耶識與諸轉識一時俱轉，亦與客受及客善不善無記心法俱轉。
然不應說與彼相應。何以故？由不與彼同一緣轉故。猶如眼識與眼雖復俱轉，然不相應。此亦如是，由與彼法少分相似故得為喻，喻之道理應如是知。又如諸心法，心法體義雖無差別，然相異故，一身俱轉互不相違。如是此識與諸轉識，當知俱轉亦不相違。又如依止暴流，有多波浪種種俱起互不相違。又如依止清淨鏡面，種種影像同時俱起互不相違。如是依止阿賴耶識有多轉識，當知俱起亦不相違。又如一眼識於一時間於一事境，唯取一類無異相色，或於一時頓取非一種種相色。如眼識於色，如是乃至身識於觸，於一時一事境，或取一相，或復頓取多種境相。如是分別意識於一時間，或取一境或復頓取眾多境界，當知亦不相違。
復次如前所說意根常與此識俱轉，於一切時乃至未斷，當知恒與任運俱生四種煩惱相應，所謂薩迦耶見、我慢、我愛、無明。此四煩惱，若在定地若不定地，當知恒行，不與善等相違，是有覆無記性。如是與轉識俱轉故、諸受俱轉故、善等俱轉故，是名建立阿賴耶識俱轉相。
Further, the ālayavijñāna sometimes evolves together with the wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate mental factors associated with the evolving consciousnesses. Thus the ālayavijñāna evolves at one time together with the evolving consciousnesses, and evolves together with adventitious feelings and with adventitious wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate mental factors.
Yet one should not say that it is associated with them. Why? Because it does not evolve upon one and the same object with them. It is like eye consciousness and the eye: though they evolve together, they are not associated. So too here; and because it resembles those things in some small part it can serve as a comparison, and the principle of the comparison should be understood in this way. Again, it is like the mental factors: although there is no difference in the substance and sense of a mental factor as such, yet because their modes differ they evolve together in one body without contradicting each other. So too, know that this consciousness and the evolving consciousnesses evolve together without contradiction. Again, it is like a torrent, upon which many waves of various kinds arise together without contradicting each other. Again, it is like the surface of a clean mirror, upon which images of various kinds arise together at the same time without contradicting each other. So too, in dependence on the ālayavijñāna there are many evolving consciousnesses, and know that their arising together is likewise without contradiction. Again, it is like a single eye consciousness which at one time, upon one object, takes only a single kind of form with no differing marks — or which at one time takes at once forms of many differing marks. As eye consciousness is with respect to form, so on down to body consciousness with respect to the tangible: at one time, upon one object, it either takes a single mark or takes at once the marks of many objects. Just so, discriminating mind consciousness at one time either takes one object or takes at once many objects; know that this too is without contradiction.
Further, as stated above, the mind faculty constantly evolves together with this consciousness; and at all times, until it is cut off, know that it is constantly associated with four afflictions that arise spontaneously along with it — namely the view of a substantial body, self-conceit, self-love, and ignorance. These four afflictions, whether on a level of concentration or not, know to be constantly in operation; they do not contradict the wholesome and the rest, and are of the obscured-indeterminate kind. Thus: because it evolves together with the evolving consciousnesses; because it evolves together with the feelings; and because it evolves together with the wholesome and the rest — this is called the establishing of the mark of the ālayavijñāna's concurrent evolving.
The distinction drawn at the start of this passage is fine and load-bearing: the ālaya evolves together with the other consciousnesses but is not associated with them, and the criterion is 不與彼同一緣轉, it does not evolve upon the same object. Association in Abhidharma is a technical relation requiring shared object, shared support, and shared time. The eye and eye consciousness are simultaneous but not associated, and that homely example licenses the whole account: the ālaya can run alongside a wholesome thought without becoming wholesome, because it is not looking at what the thought is looking at.
The two famous similes are both about the same thing — many surface events on one continuous support — but they are not interchangeable. The torrent is about motion: the waves are made of the water, the water is going somewhere, and no wave is a separate thing added to the river. The mirror is about neutrality: the images do not stain the surface, and the surface contributes nothing to what appears on it. Between them they say that the ālaya both is what the evolving consciousnesses are made of and is untouched by what they contain, which is exactly the pair of claims the doctrine needs.
The four afflictions of the defiled mind are given here in their standard form — the view of a substantial body, self-conceit, self-love, and ignorance — and two details of the description matter. They are 任運俱生, arising spontaneously along with it, not decided on or learned. And they are 有覆無記, obscured-indeterminate: not wholesome, not unwholesome, but obscuring. That classification is what allows the treatise to say the next thing, which would otherwise be a contradiction: 不與善等相違, they do not contradict the wholesome. A person can perform a genuinely good act while the sense of being a self who is doing it runs underneath unbroken. This is the most useful thing in the passage, and it is why the seventh consciousness has to be cut separately rather than dissolving when one becomes a better person.
20. The Root of All Defilement
問：阿賴耶識雜染還滅相建立云何？答：若略說阿賴耶識，當知是一切雜染法根本。所以者何？此阿賴耶識亦是有情世間生起根本，能生諸根根所依處及轉識等故。亦是器世間生起根本，能生器世間故。又即此識亦是一切有情互相生起根本，一切有情互為增上緣故。所以者何？無有眾生於餘眾生見聞等時，不受用彼起苦樂等受。由此義故，當知眾生界互為增上緣。
復次阿賴耶識具一切種子故，於現在世是苦諦體，是未來世苦諦生因，亦是現在世集諦生因。如是有情世間生根本故、器世間生根本故、是現在世苦諦體故、能生未來苦諦故、能生現在集諦故，當知阿賴耶識是一切雜染根本。
復次阿賴耶識所有攝持順解脫分及順決擇分等善根種子，此非集諦因，由順解脫分善根等違流轉故。所餘世間所有善根因此生故，轉復明淨。所以者何？由是緣故，彼所攝受自類種子轉有功能、轉有勢力，增長種子而得成立。由此種子故，彼諸善法轉明淨生。又復能感後世增上可愛異熟。又依此一切種子阿賴耶識故，薄伽梵說：眼界色界眼識界，乃至意界法界意識界。由於阿賴耶識中有種種界故。又如經說惡叉聚喻，由於阿賴耶識中有非一界故。
Question: how is the mark of the ālayavijñāna's defilement and return to cessation established? Answer: in brief, know that the ālayavijñāna is the root of all the things of defilement. Why? Because this ālayavijñāna is the root of the arising of the world of sentient beings, since it can produce the faculties, the places on which the faculties depend, and the evolving consciousnesses and the rest. And it is the root of the arising of the receptacle world, since it can produce the receptacle world. And this same consciousness is also the root of all sentient beings arising in relation to one another, since all sentient beings are dominant conditions for each other. Why? Because there is no being who, on seeing or hearing another being, does not undergo it and give rise to feelings of pleasure or pain. In this sense, know that the realm of beings serves as dominant condition for itself.
Further, because the ālayavijñāna holds all seeds, it is the substance of the truth of suffering in the present life, the cause producing the truth of suffering in a future life, and also the cause producing the truth of origin in the present life. Thus: because it is the root of the arising of the world of sentient beings; because it is the root of the arising of the receptacle world; because it is the substance of the truth of suffering in the present; because it can produce the truth of suffering in the future; and because it can produce the truth of origin in the present — know that the ālayavijñāna is the root of all defilement.
Further, the seeds of wholesome roots conducive to liberation and conducive to penetration and the rest, which the ālayavijñāna holds and sustains, are not causes of the truth of origin, since wholesome roots conducive to liberation and the rest run counter to the flowing on. And since the remaining worldly wholesome roots arise from this, they become brighter and purer. Why? Because by this condition the seeds of their own kind which it has taken in become more capable and more powerful, and the seeds grow and are established. Because of these seeds, those wholesome things arise brighter and purer. And they can further bring about a ripening in a future life that is dominant and welcome. And it is in dependence on this ālayavijñāna that holds all seeds that the Blessed One said: the element of the eye, the element of form, the element of eye consciousness, on down to the element of mind, the element of things, the element of mind consciousness — because within the ālayavijñāna there are various elements. And so too the simile of the heap of akṣa seeds spoken of in the scripture, because within the ālayavijñāna there is more than one element.
The third root is the one that goes beyond what the argument strictly needed. Having said that the ālaya is the root of one's own body and of the world, Asaṅga adds that it is the root of beings arising in relation to one another, and the reason he gives is affective: 無有眾生於餘眾生見聞等時，不受用彼起苦樂等受 — there is no being who, on seeing or hearing another, does not undergo it and feel pleasure or pain. We are each other's 增上緣, dominant conditions. This is a strong claim in a system often accused of solipsism, and it is grounded not in a metaphysical argument but in the observation that other people affect us whether we consent or not.
The paragraph on wholesome seeds is the escape hatch, and it is stated carefully. Most of what the ālaya holds feeds the truth of origin. But the seeds conducive to liberation and to penetration are explicitly exempted — 非集諦因, not causes of origin — because they 違流轉, run counter to the flowing on. The same store that keeps saṃsāra going also holds the one kind of seed that works against it, and those seeds grow stronger the more they are used. Without this exemption the system would be a closed prison; with it, the prison contains the tool.
21. How the Ālayavijñāna Is Cut
是故當知，即此雜染根本阿賴耶識，以修習善法故即得轉滅。又此善法修習，若諸異生以緣轉識為境作意故，方便住心為欲入初諦現觀故。非未見諦者於諸諦中未得法眼，而能通達一切種子阿賴耶識。此未見諦者修如是行已，或入聲聞正性離生、或入菩薩正性離生。通達一切法界已，亦能通達阿賴耶識，當於爾時總觀各別自內一切雜染。又復了知自身，外為相縛所縛，內為麁重縛所縛。
又此行者由阿賴耶識是一切戲論所攝諸行界故。略彼諸行於阿賴耶識。總為一團一積一聚。為一聚已。以緣真如境智修習多修習故。所依止轉轉依無間。當知已斷阿賴耶識。由此斷故。當知已斷一切雜染。
又此轉依以相違故，當知能治阿賴耶識。又阿賴耶識體是無常、有取受性，轉依是常、無取受性，以緣真如境聖道能轉故。又阿賴耶識麁重所隨，轉依究竟遠離一切麁重。又阿賴耶識是煩惱生因、聖道不生因，轉依是煩惱不生因、聖道生因。此是建立因體非生因體。又阿賴耶識令於善淨無記法中不得自在，轉依令於一切善淨無記法中得大自在。
Therefore know that this very ālayavijñāna, the root of defilement, is transformed and brought to cessation by the cultivation of wholesome things. And as to this cultivation of wholesome things: ordinary beings attend to the objects of the evolving consciousnesses and by skillful means settle the mind, in order to enter the first direct realization of the truths. It is not that one who has not seen the truths, and has not obtained the Dharma eye with respect to them, is able to penetrate the ālayavijñāna that holds all seeds. Once one who has not seen the truths has cultivated such practice, he enters either the certainty of rightness of the śrāvakas or the certainty of rightness of the bodhisattvas. Having penetrated the whole realm of things, he can also penetrate the ālayavijñāna; and at that time he observes, both as a whole and severally, all the defilement within himself. And he further understands that his own person is outwardly bound by the bond of marks and inwardly bound by the bond of coarse heaviness.
Again, this practitioner — since the ālayavijñāna is the realm of all the formations comprised within discursive elaboration — gathers those formations into the ālayavijñāna, taking them all as one lump, one heap, one mass. Having made them one mass, and by cultivating and cultivating much the knowledge that takes suchness as its object, the support turns, and with the transformation of the basis, without interval, know that the ālayavijñāna has been cut. And because it has been cut, know that all defilement has been cut.
Again, since this transformation of the basis is its opposite, know that it is the antidote to the ālayavijñāna. Again, the substance of the ālayavijñāna is impermanent and of the appropriating kind, whereas the transformation of the basis is permanent and not of the appropriating kind, since the noble path that takes suchness as its object is able to turn it. Again, the ālayavijñāna is attended by coarse heaviness, whereas the transformation of the basis finally keeps far from all coarse heaviness. Again, the ālayavijñāna is a cause for the arising of afflictions and a cause for the non-arising of the noble path, whereas the transformation of the basis is a cause for the non-arising of afflictions and a cause for the arising of the noble path — this being the substance of an establishing cause and not the substance of a producing cause. Again, the ālayavijñāna makes one lack mastery over the wholesome, the pure, and the indeterminate, whereas the transformation of the basis brings great mastery over all wholesome, pure, and indeterminate things.
The procedure described here is unusual enough to be worth stating plainly, because it inverts what one might expect. The practitioner does not pick the formations apart. He does the opposite: 總為一團一積一聚, he gathers them into one lump, one heap, one mass, and then applies the knowledge of suchness to the whole thing at once. Analysis has already been done — that was the previous sixteen fascicles. What remains is to stop treating the contents individually and to see the entire elaborated world as a single object, at which point the support turns. The image is almost physical, of sweeping everything into one pile before it can be moved.
Note also the ordering constraint stated just before, which is easy to miss and doctrinally strict: one who has not seen the truths cannot penetrate the ālayavijñāna. The store consciousness is not a preliminary teaching or a working hypothesis for beginners. It becomes an object of direct knowledge only after the path of seeing, and the treatise says so at the point where it has just spent five sections proving the thing exists. Proof and penetration are different achievements, and only the first is available to argument.
The four contrasts at the end are the treatise's tightest definition of what the transformation of the basis is, given entirely by opposition — impermanent against permanent, appropriating against not appropriating, attended by coarse heaviness against far from it, cause of affliction against cause of the path. Then a technical caution that saves the whole scheme: 此是建立因體非生因體, this is the substance of an establishing cause and not of a producing cause. The transformed basis does not manufacture the noble path the way a seed manufactures a sprout. It is what makes the path possible, in the way that removing an obstruction is a cause of passage. Without that distinction the permanent transformation would be busy producing things, and a permanent producer is what this treatise has spent three chapters refuting.
22. What Cessation Leaves, and Four Alternatives
復次此阿賴耶識斷滅相者，謂此阿賴耶識正斷滅故便捨二種取，其身雖住猶如變化。所以者何？未來後有苦因斷故，便捨未來後有之取；於現法中一切煩惱因斷故，便捨現法一切雜染所依之取，一切麁重遠離故，唯有命緣暫住。由有此故，佛經中說：爾時但受身邊際受、命邊際受，廣說乃至即於現法一切所受究竟滅盡。如是建立雜染根本故、趣入通達修習作意故、建立轉依故，是名建立阿賴耶識雜染還滅相。如是由勝義道理建立心意識已，隨此所說道理故，於三界中一切心意識一切雜染道理及清淨道理，應隨顯了。若於餘處所顯心意識道理，此由所化有情差別故，但依具愚夫慧所化有情而說，方便令彼易入法故。
問：若成就阿賴耶識，亦成就轉識耶？設成就轉識，亦成就阿賴耶識耶？答：此應為四句，謂或成就阿賴耶識非轉識，謂無心睡眠者、無心悶絕者、入無想定者、入滅盡定者、生無想天者。或有成就轉識非阿賴耶識，謂住有心位阿羅漢、獨覺、不退轉菩薩及與如來。或有俱成就，謂所餘住有心位者。或有俱不成就，謂阿羅漢、獨覺、不退轉菩薩及與如來入滅盡定，若處無餘依涅槃界。
Further, as to the mark of the ālayavijñāna's being cut off: because this ālayavijñāna is properly cut off, one relinquishes two kinds of appropriation, and though the body remains it is as though a magical transformation. Why? Because the cause of the suffering of future existence has been cut, one relinquishes the appropriation of future existence; and because in the present life the cause of all afflictions has been cut, one relinquishes the appropriation that is the support of all defilement in the present life. Since all coarse heaviness is kept far away, only the condition of the life span remains, abiding for a while. Because of this, the Buddha's scripture says: at that time one undergoes only the feelings that are the limit of the body and the feelings that are the limit of life — and so on at length, down to: in this very life everything that is felt is finally exhausted. Thus: because the root of defilement has been established; because of the attention of approach, penetration, and cultivation; and because the transformation of the basis has been established — this is called the establishing of the mark of the ālayavijñāna's defilement and return to cessation. Having thus established mind, thought, and consciousness according to the ultimate principle, one should, following the principle here stated, make clear the whole principle of mind, thought, and consciousness in the three realms and the principles of all defilement and of purity. As for the principle of mind, thought, and consciousness set forth elsewhere, that is on account of differences among the beings being trained, and is spoken only in dependence on beings to be trained who have the wisdom of an ordinary person, as a skillful means to let them enter the teaching easily.
Question: if one possesses the ālayavijñāna, does one also possess the evolving consciousnesses? And supposing one possesses the evolving consciousnesses, does one also possess the ālayavijñāna? Answer: this should be given as four alternatives. Some possess the ālayavijñāna and not the evolving consciousnesses — namely one in mindless sleep, one who has fainted without mind, one who has entered the attainment of no-thought, one who has entered the attainment of cessation, and one born in the heaven of no-thought. Some possess the evolving consciousnesses and not the ālayavijñāna — namely arhats, pratyekabuddhas, non-retrogressing bodhisattvas, and Tathāgatas, while abiding in a state with mind. Some possess both — namely all others abiding in a state with mind. And some possess neither — namely arhats, pratyekabuddhas, non-retrogressing bodhisattvas, and Tathāgatas when they have entered the attainment of cessation, or when they are in the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder.
猶如變化 — as though a magical transformation. The body of one whose ālaya has been cut is still there, still walking about, but it is no longer being appropriated; nothing is claiming it. The comparison to a conjured form is exact and not merely poetic, since a conjured form also appears without anyone's karma sustaining it. What remains is 唯有命緣暫住, only the condition of the life span, abiding for a while — the momentum of a body already started, running down. This is the treatise's picture of an arhat still alive, and it explains the scriptural tag it then quotes about undergoing only the feelings that are the limit of the body and of life.
The remark about other presentations is a rare moment of the treatise commenting on its own literature. Accounts of mind, thought, and consciousness given 於餘處, elsewhere — meaning the presentations that make do with six consciousnesses — are said to be pitched at students 具愚夫慧, having the wisdom of an ordinary person, as a skillful means. It is a confident claim and worth naming as such: the older analysis is not called wrong, it is called introductory. Readers who find that too convenient should note that the eight arguments came first, and the claim of superiority is made only after the case has been argued.
The fourfold answer is a good test of whether the doctrine has been understood, and the second and fourth alternatives are the ones that catch people out. An arhat walking around has the evolving consciousnesses but no ālaya — the store has been cut, and the six still function. An arhat in the attainment of cessation has neither. Note what this implies: the eighth argument above proved that something must hold the body in the mindless attainments, which is why an ordinary person in that attainment has the ālaya and nothing else. An arhat there has nothing at all holding the body in that way, and the treatise leaves the consequence unstated, since the transformation of the basis has taken over the office.
Fascicle 17 Complete
The chapter on direct realization closes with the path of seeing in three minds, the hundred and twelve afflictions it cuts, and the five equalities by which a bodhisattva enters it holding his own suffering and everyone else's as one. The chapter on yoga defines the perfection of wisdom as a knowledge that lets go of what words mark out and takes hold of what they cannot, and defends the usefulness of teaching on exactly that basis. The chapter on the inconceivable fences off nine topics and gives a distinct reason for each, then furnishes eight qualities for reflecting well on everything else. And the concluding chapter opens with its ten aspects of determination and applies the first of them to mind: eight arguments that there must be an ālayavijñāna, five marks under which it is established, and an account of how the thing that is the root of all defilement is also what gets cut. Fascicle 18 continues the determinations.
Continue to Fascicle 18 — Gathering the Superior Determinations, Part Two →