The Difficult Points of Mind and Basis-of-all Extensively Commented, Tsongkhapa, tr. Ilia Durovic (partial)

The Difficult Points of Mind and Basis- of-all extensively commented

by Je Tsong kha pa (1357-1419)

translated by Ilia Durovic

629

I prostrate to Buddha Śakyamuni, Lord of Speech.

1. I pay obeisance with my head to the wise among the wise,
Who teach perfectly, un-mistakenly and without admixture,
Through having interiorised, as it is, the worthy Utterance and the worthy Path,
Trail travelled by the Conquerors and the Scions of the Conquerors.

2. I will explain, here, in dependence on the utterances of the Guru,
For the sake of healing my memory and
Teaching clearly mind and basis-of-all,
The extremely difficult topics of the treatises of the Vijñaptimātrins.

Here, should on enquire at just what period the tenets of Cittamātra arise and from what, so as to ascertain both mind and basis-of-all:

3. After Ārya Nāga, prophesied as upholding
The Supreme Vehicle [propounded] by the Holy Speech,
Spread the Supreme Vehicle,
Before Asaṇga, who fulfilled the prophecies, pioneered the track,

After the Muni entered in equipoise in the expanse of phenomena, the Teachings of the Mahāyāna set in Jambudvipa: only the teachings of the Hearers remained and the propounders of Buddhist Tenets were exclusively the Vaibhaṣika and so forth; since the Mahāyāna Sūtras were neither respected nor cared for and had no practitioners, the manifest Dharma, the Hundred Thousand [Verse Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra] and so forth vanished and the profound and vast Sūtras, the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras and so forth were reputed to have survived in the abode of the great king of the Nāgas.

630

As is said in the “Letter to a Disciple“:

After the great ones with rearing heads, the Nāgas, beseeched respectfully
[The One] akin to a crown jewel,
What the mode of utter purification,
The Teachings, akin to a supreme jewel, beneficial to the worthy, was
[It] illuminated the gloom dwelling within the depths of the earth.

The [stanzas] in the Ārya Laṇkāvatāra Sūtra:

Prithee, after the Lord hath passed beyond torment
Who will the upholder be?
After the Lord hath passed beyond torment,
The upholder of modes,
Will arise after both times have passed,
As Mahāmati will you know him,
In the south, in the land of Veta,
Renowned as the “Glorious Bhikṣu”,
Otherwise quoth Nāga,
He will destroy the biases of existence and non-existence
After supremely explaining my vehicle,
The peerless Mahāyāna to the world,
He will realise the Ground of “Supreme Joy“
And depart to Sukhāvatī.

prophesy that the Great Being, Ārya Nāgārjuna, after being born in the southern land of Veta, will become ordained in the Teachings of the Buddha and, after retrieving the Perfection of Wisdom Sūtras and so forth from the land of the Nāgas, for the sake of clarifying the Mahāyāna in a signless manner in Jambudvipa, will dispel the bad views of both one’s own and other’s denominations and will compose the treatises of the Mādhyamika Collection of Reasoning and so forth. Thereafter, [the stanzas] in the Mañjuśrī Mūla-tantra:

The Bhikṣu called “Asaṇga”,
Learned in the meaning of the Śastras,
Will distinguish in numerous guises
The definitive and interpretable meaning of the Basket of Sūtras.
That Being, teacher of knowledge to the world,
Will become one who is endowed with the distinction of the Treatises from within.
631
The realisation of that knowledge
Is called the “ Messengeress of Sāla”;
By the power of her mantra,
A good mind will be generated.

For the teachings to subsist for a protracted period,
He will summarise the meaning of the Sūtras.
Upon the disintegration of his body, he will betake himself to the Land of the gods,
Living for one hundred and fifty years.

After experiencing lasting bliss
While transmigrating among transmigrators
That Great Being will culminate
By attaining Enlightenment.

prophesy that Master Asaṇga, through realising Ārya Maitreya, will have a vision of him. After betaking himself to Tuṣita, he will listen to the Five Dharmas of Maitreya and returning to Jambudvipa bearing the Dharmas of Maitreya, after composing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, will initiate and disseminate the Cittamātra view. As is said:

I prostrate to the one called “Asaṇga”
Who, to benefit the world in its totality,
Requested a handful of Teachings,
Flow of nectar induced by the strength of the samādhi of the “Continuum of Dharma”,
Poured from the vase of the mouth of Ārya Maitreya.

Well then, should one enquire, how the Mahāyāna view subsisted before Asaṇga pioneered the track:

3. . . . before . . . Mādhyamika only

since, before Asaṇga, a commentary other than in the mode of the Mādhyamikas on the intent of the utterances of the Tathāgata, dependent origination only, bereft of the extremes of permanence and nihilism, did not exist, the sole clear propounder of the Mahāyāna was Nāgārjuna.

632

Therefore, even though the Māhayāna is established as Utterance in the Māhayānasūtrālaṃkāra, the Bodhicaryāvatāra, the Madhyamakahṛdaya and so forth, when Ārya Nāgārjuna extensively disseminated the Māhayāna in Jambudvipa, it was for the sake of dispelling both wrong views of those Pandits of the lower systems of tenets, who, relying on the reasons that:

i. they had not heard the Māhayāna before

ii. [it] was incompatible with whatever type of basket they accepted as a valid cogniser

deprecatingly stated “The Māhayāna bereft of the two extremes is not Utterance”.

The Ācārya, himself, however, in dependence on the lines of reasoning refuting all the elaborations of the eight extremes and so forth as well as on Hinayāna scriptural quotes such as :

The Bhagavān, through knowing the real and the unreal,
Refuted both existence
And non-existence within
The instructions of Kātyāyana.

taught the intent of the Utterances of the emptiness of inherent existence and by stating:

Who, with a mind, would vilify that?

established the Māhayāna as being the Utterance of Buddha. Likewise, after Nāgārjuna, when Asaṇga pioneered the track of the Cittamātra view extensively, the direct disciples of the Ācārya, Bhāvaviveka and so forth, after setting out extensively the assertions of the Vijñaptimātrins, refuted them. Having done so, the following meanings arise: after the Muni had passed beyond torment, the Vaibhaṣika Panditas and so forth, after composing the Seven Collections of Abhidharma, disseminated their own tenets and stained the precious teachings through commenting the meaning of Sūtras differently.

633

Likewise:

The Teacher partly closed the mundane eye and
Most powerful beings disappeared and
Those with bad views of their own fabrication who did not behold suchness
Troubled these teachings.

and:

This was said by the Teacher, [they] claim!

[Won cheuk‘s “Extensive Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra” states];

After the Buddha had passed beyond torment, demonic activities greatly increased, self-proclaimed upholders of the [Scriptural] Collections appeared and since they were mainly Abhidharmikas subscribing to the view of existence, the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna, having attained Extreme Joy, is said to have composed the Madhyamika treatises and so forth in dependence on the scriptures [propounding] the signless emptiness of the Mahāyāna.

In this way, while the Lower Tenets were extremely disseminated for a long period of time, the Mahāyāna did not exist even in name. Nāgārjuna having disseminated the Mahāyāna pioneered it. After that, since Master Asaṇga extensively pioneered the Cittamātra view, although before Nāgārjuna and Asaṇga, the mere names of Madhyamaka and Vijñaptivāda did exist, the foundation of the texts commenting the intent of the Sūtras differently, in terms of the the two Tenets, was as follows: formerly, only the likes of the Teacher upheld, otherwise, before Nāgārjuna, Asaṇga and so forth, should either a Treatise or Master which commented on the intent of the Utterances pioneered by the Mahāyāna, have been required, they would not have been found.

Likewise, should one enquire at what time those two Masters prophesied by the Tathāgata arose:

634

As is said in the [Mañjuśrī] Mūla-tantra, Ārya Nāgārjuna arose :

When four hundred years have elapsed
Since I went beyond torment . . .

while the seventy fifth sheaf of the Great Chinese Commentary on the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra states:

Then, when two hundred years had lapsed after Buddha had passed beyond torment, the Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna composed Treatises in dependence on the Sūtra Collection of the Perfection of Wisdom i.e. commentaries on the Perfection of Wisdom, Madhyamaka and so forth. Through abandoning the nature thoroughly analysed in both of these, he taught vigorously the mode of characterlessness. Then, Āryadeva and so forth received these texts correctly, in a lineage from the one to the other and propagated them; when nine hundred years had lapsed after the Buddha had passed beyond torment, the Bodhisattva Maitreya, relying upon the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and so forth, composed treatises such as the Yogacāryabhūmi, the Madhyāntavibhāga and so forth. Master Asaṇga and Vasubandhu, after receiving these texts correctly, propagated them vigorously. Inasmuch as, at that period, the Buddhadharma was of one taste, there was no contention between the Propounders of Emptiness and those of Existence, therefore according to Master Nye ba’i od :

During the play of a thousand years, the Dharma of the Buddha was of one taste. Thereafter, as recollection and wisdom gradually ceased, the Propounders of Emptiness and those of Existence spread in the world.

Well then, what is the mind-basis-of-all and the afflicted mind which arise from these Cittamātra Tenets?

635

Taught concisely:

4. The definitions, proofs and
Refuting the assertions of the nine and the one,
One should know the basis-of-all and the afflicted mind
By the four entities [and] aspects.

Ascertaining the definitions and their proofs and refuting assertions of collections of consciousness as nine and one, one should know the basis-of-all and the afflicted mind by the four entities [and] aspects.

For a more extensive explanation, from within the four:

Regarding the first, definitions, within the two ascertainments of the definitions of basis-of all and afflicted mind, the teaching that basis-of-all has two definitions: supporting basis-of-all of maturation and supported basis-of-all of the seed, I teach [as follows]:

5. I assert that, within the two definitions,
The definition [of] basis-of-all,
Being subdivided into supporting and supported,
Has two aspects.

Should one enquire what the definition of the supporting basis-of-all is, I teach [this] by stating:

6. Regarding that, the supporting basis-of-all has
Entities, sentient beings and imprints
Cognition not cognising,
Neutrality, contact and so forth (the five).

Moreover, [the supporting basis-of-all] should be known through the four: object of observation, aspect, nature and associates.

1. the object of observation, it observes the three:

1.1 the five entities,: form, sound, smell, taste and tactile sensation

1.2 the sentient beings of the five sense-organs: sight, hearing, smell, taste and body

1.3 the imprints of manifest predilection which impute self and phenomena.

2. the aspect, although both the beings and the environment, appear, it does not determine them and later is unable to induce determination as well.

3. the nature is un-obscured and neutral and

636

4. [the associates], it is endowed with an entourage of only five mental factors similar to it: sensation, discrimination, intention, contact and attention.

As is also said:

The consciousness to which
Entities and sentient beings appear
Is thoroughly generated.

and in the “Thirty Verses“:

Both appropriations and places
Cognition not cognising
Are always accompanied by
Contact, attention
Knowledge, discrimination and intention.

It has neutral sensation:
It is un-obscured, neutral,
Likewise for contact and so forth.

Should one enquire how the matured and the suchness and other ineffable imprints become observed by the matured?

6. . . .by the power of the seeds

7. I assert both the observed because of the appearance
As place, entity and body.

although, after the seed has appeared, it does not become an object, by its power, that matured basis-of-all is posited as observing because of becoming the appearance of place, the sense bases, body, the sense-organs and entity, the five [sensory] objects. For instance, it is similar to asserting that since, under the power of the object, consciousness bearing that aspect arises, although that object does not appear, it is observed.

Well then, should on enquire, whether the beings and the environment also appear to a Formless mind basis-of-all:

8. As to both apprehended factors of basis-of-all,
Since they are apprehended by the five consciousnesses and
Are imputed terminologically by the sixth,
They are determined in both Realms:

9. Were this not so, a Formless one
Would not have gone beyond the discrimination of form and
It would ensue that it would be on the ground endowed with form
Since, apart from appearing as form to consciousness,
Outside, nothing exists.

637

Since, to appear directly as an entity to the mind basis-of-all, [something] is apprehended both by the five sensory consciousnesses and is terminologically imputed on the entity of the mental consciousness, beings and the environment do not appear to a Formless mind basis-of-all: the terminological imputation of form by a Formless mind basis-of-all does not exist. Therefore, the five entities directly appearing to a mind basis-of-all of one base are not hidden from the sensory consciousnesses of that base.

Well then, should one enquire, if one accepts that one apprehended object becomes the factor apprehended by two consciousnesses, inasmuch as whatever appears to a consciousness is of the nature of that [consciousness], two consciousnesses would become of one substance and therefore common apprehended factors would not exist.

There is no fault because, the statement:

Whatever appears to consciousness is either of its nature or
is neither established as one nor as different from it.

is for when analysis occurs and at that time, while common apprehended factors are not accepted, from the standpoint of the un-investigated and un-analysed, common apprehended factors are accepted. However, they are not asserted as of the nature of consciousness, otherwise, it would ensue that the presentation of the five aggregates would disintegrate and strands of hair, the yellow of a conch and dream-objects would be substantially established and that form, sound, etc would be the nature of experience.
If beings and environment appeared to a mind basis-of-all of the Formless Realm, sentient beings of the Formless Realms would not have gone beyond the discrimination of form since beings and environments endowed with form would appear directly to their consciousnesses. This cannot be accepted because it is said:

The discrimination of obstacles ceases
As well as the discrimination of the variegated.

638

Moreover, a being of the Formless Realm would have arisen on a ground endowed with form because beings and environments endowed with form would appear directly and genuinely to the mind basis-of-all of the first.
It also does not determine [it] since even in the lower two realms, outside forms are not established apart from the mere appearance as form to consciousness. Therefore, since, under the impetus of a meditative absorption of the Formless [Realm], the seeds existing within the mind basis-of-all of the appearance of being endowed with form, are harmed, while abiding in the Formless [Realm] what is endowed with form cannot appear. For instance, just as under the impetus of a meditative absorption bereft of discrimination, the seeds existing within the mind basis-of-all of the six collections [of consciousness] are harmed, for as long as one has not arisen from that meditative absorption, the six collections [of consciousness] will not arise.

If this is the case, should one enquire: the mind basis-of-all of the Formless [Realm] lacks an [object of] observation because environment and beings endowed with form do not appear and the entity posited as observed [by] the imprints also does not exist. Should this be accepted, one accepts the existence of consciousnesses bereft of an [object of] observation.

There is no fault, because in as is said in [Asaṇga’s] Mahāyānasaṃgraha:

Since the past and so forth, just as dreams
As well the two aspects of reflections
Are bereft of observation,
That is suitable to be observed.

all consciousnesses do not need to rely an existing [object of] observation and in particular since the mind basis-of-all, having been impelled as a basis of pleasant and bad transmigrations by former [respectively] virtuous and non-virtuous karma is not countered for even one instant until one dies, it engages under the force of impelling karma and not under the force of the observed appearance.
Hence, since in the Formless [Realm], entities and sense-organs are non-existent, from within the three [entities of] observation, imprints are observed and in addition, although imprints cannot directly become entities which are observed,

639

nonetheless since, under their impetus, places, entities and bodies are suitable to appear, they are observed. For instance, it is just as in [the following example]: since, should a grain in a grain-bin encounter the conditions, it is suitable to generate a sprout, it is called “[that which] acts [as the] condition [of the] sprout”. This is why some prick the assertion that “environment and beings endowed with form appear to the Formless [Realms] minds basis-of-all.“

If this is the case in the Formless [Realm], should one enquire whether in the two Lower Realms, as well, all substances of beings and environments appear to one basis-of-all:

10. In the Lower, as well,
Should all beings and environments
Appear to the basis-of-all of one sentient being,
The hells would appear, as well, to a god of the Form Realm,
The beings and environments of gods
Would appear, as well, to denizens of hell and
Manifold objects of the eons
Would appear, as well, to ordinary beings as well.

If, in the Two Lower Realms as well, all the substances of the beings and environments appeared to one basis-of-all, the appearances of the hells, burning and blazing iron, and so forth, would occur as well to a god of the Form Realm. Should this be accepted, both would have the agony of suffering, because the seeds of the appearance of genuine appearances of the hells awaken on its basis-of-all:

1. [the reason] is not established since these appearances of hell appear directly to the basis-of-all and, in addition, depend on the awakening of the imprints.

2. it is also not indefinite[100], if under the impetus of a seed, both appear directly, they become beneficial or harmful. For instance, it is similar to the appearance of a pleasant or unpleasant object during a dream, being respectively beneficial or harmful.

640
One cannot claim that:

Since the environment of migrators of similar type is established from karma which becomes both appearance and conduct, it will become beneficial or harmful, whereas, since, while the environments of [migrators of] discordant types are established from karma which becomes appearance but not from karma which becomes conduct, they will not become beneficial or harmful.
because:

1. some migrators of similar type will see some objects, such as form, sound and so forth as beneficial and some will see them as harmful and

2. since environments apart from the mere appearance as form to inner consciousness are not asserted, the pleasant and the unpleasant become beneficial or harmful through the mere appearance of a self-characterised appearing object and do not depend on action.

For instance, it is similar to fear arising should an illusory Yama appear as a self-characterised Yama, and to desire arising should an illusory youth merely appear as a self-characterised youth.

In addition, does that appearance of hell to the mind basis-of-all of a human being appear or not appear just as it appears to a hell-being ?

1. In the first case, it would follow that, that appearance of hell is not an appearance under the power of the karma of only a denizen of hell. If this were asserted, it would be invalidated by the stanza:

Who made the ground of blazing iron?
What did those balls of flame arise from?
Therefore, the Muni said that all those
Arose from a sinful mind.

and also, one would have to accept that the environment would appear to the basis-of-all of a hell [being] just as it appeared to the basis-of-all of a human being and, in that case:

Since, to pretas, animals, human beings and
Gods, each in keeping with [their] type,
One thing [appears] differently [to the] mind,
I assert that entities are not established.

641

the statements of the lines of reasoning of the non-establishment of exterior entities would also be repudiated.

Should one enquire, if just that appeared to the sensory consciousnesse of both those sentient beings would it and the appearance to the basis-of-all be two-fold or one-fold?

Both appearances as the five sense entities to sensory consciousness are the apprehended factor of the basis-of-all: it has been taught by the quote “It arises as the consciousness of the appearance as the five entities” and “[It is] apprehended by the five consciousnesses“.

2. In the second case, although there is not an appearance precisely as it appears to denizens of hell, should one assert a genuine appearance of hell, there would be extreme consequences: all the happiness of the happy transmigrations would appear as well! The four remaining verses, as well, should be understood as being explicated by these lines of reasoning.
Therefore, some Abhidharmikas assert that [all beings] from the Āvici hell to the Fourth Dhyāna appear to one basis-of-all and another asserts that since the Fourth Dhyāna is established from uncommon karma, it does not appear, but nonetheless appears to another.

Others, reflecting on the meaning of a quote from the “Detailed Explanation“:

Its object of observation and aspect cannot be totally severed.

assert the appearance of all the substances of environment and beings, which cannot be altogether severed, however, this is unproven and there are refutations. Should [someone say]: “This is not so, this very quote refutes it.”

The meaning of this quote does not teach that all environments and beings cannot be altogether severed, instead the meaning is that, “such an object of observation has been upheld by such an aspect”, the basis-of-all, itself, is unable to

642

sever clearly, and, later, in addition is unable to induce definiteness, otherwise, the previous refutation would occur.

Well then, should one enquire how the environment and beings appear in two Lower Realms?

11. Directly: sense-organs, entities.
Indirectly, whatever can appear
As objects of it’s six collections,
Is also posited as object of the basis-of-all.

Are directly observed the objects which appear to the sense-organs of one’s continuum and are indirectly posited as object of the basis-of-all of its base, whatever can appear as objects of the six collections of it’s base.

Well then, should one say that this is harmed by the statement:

Sentient beings are whatever appears as the five senses within one’s own or another’s continuum.

in the commentary on “sentient beings”.

That teaches the five senses within one’s own or another’s continuum as the sense-organs which appear to the basis-of-all but does not teach the direct appearance of the five senses within one’s own or another’s continuum to one basis-of-all. Such is not the case: if another’s sense-organs appearing directly to one’s basis-of-all were the genuine sense-organs of another’s continuum, migrators would become of one continuum, because:

i. the consciousnesses of the bodies and the embodied occur from imprints of manifest verbalisation and

ii. those imprints, in addition, within one’s basis-of-all cannot be harmed by the consciousness within another’s continuum.

Should someone say:

If all objects of the six collections were objects of the basis-of-all, wouldn’t objects of the mental consciousness such as the Twelve Limbs of Scripture and imputations, such as past and so forth, also become objects of the basis-of-all?

643

12. Objects of the six apart from organs and entities
Do not become objects of the basis-of-all
Because the sixth is the imputing subject and
The basis-of-all is devoid of apprehending the variegated.

Objects of the mental consciousness (apart from from the three, organs, entities and imprints) such the Twelve Limbs, past etc. and imputations do not become the objects of the basis-of-all because:

i. both have merely become objects through imputation by the mental consciousness and because

ii. the basis of all, as well, is devoid of discrimination, apprehending the variegated. which imputes terminologically.

Should someone say that the basis-of-all is definitely only neutral and unstained without being posited as virtuous or non-virtuous:

13. Because of being the basis infused with imprints and
Because of engaging manifestly
The virtuous [and] non-virtuous in one continuum
It is established as unstained and neutral.

i. Because the basis-of-all is the basis infused [with] virtuous and non-virtuous imprints and

ii. because [of] engaging simultaneously, in one continuum, manifestly virtuous and non-virtuous minds,

it is established as unstained and neutral because the virtuous and the afflicted are unsuitable to be the basis of imprints.

Should someone say, does the statement the five contact and so forth are definite aver that the associated mental factors are definitely five-fold?

14. Because [it is] neutral and not clear,
Definitely the five, contact and so forth.

The eleven virtuous mental factors, the six root afflictions, the twenty subsidiary afflictions do not occur and because it is not able to sever clearly the particularities of the object, the five object-determining mental factors do not occur. Also, since the four mutable mental factors do not occur [in] the basis of imputation, it is not

644

endowed with them at all. It is endowed with the five omnipresent mental factors because contact is the cause of all mental factors and because all minds observe any one of the three aspects experienced and because all minds merely sever the tinge of objects and merely move towards objects and merely focus mentally on their observation.

Should one enquire, which of the three experiences, the sensation associated with the basis-of-all might be?

14. . . . Sensation is intermediate

Sensation is neither of the nature of pleasure nor agony, it is an intermediate experience, of neutrality. Here, regarding [what is] observed [by] sensation, it is totally devoid pleasure and agony.

Should one ask, how?

If sensation were endowed with pleasure, the grounds from the fourth contemplation and beyond would also become grounds of pleasant sensation and pleasant maturations would also exist in hell. If that were endowed with suffering, the maturation of merit and immutable karma would induce suffering and vast [consequences would ensue]: the likes of Formless Beings would also become a ground of agony.

Should one enquire, “Why is the supporting consciousness of maturation called “basis-of-all”?

15. Because it is conjoined
With the Self,
Basis-of-all.

Sentient beings of the five migrations, conjoin it with the Self by means of the afflicted mind, it is called “basis-of-all” because the object which is viewed as the Self by the afflicted mind is a factor of maturation of the basis-of-all.

Should one enquire, “Until what time does one engage and counter such a factor of maturation?”

16. [It] engages the continuum uninterruptedly
Until remainderless and vajra-like.

645

It is countered after a remainderless Nirvāṇa of the Lower Vehicle and after a vajra-like samādhi of the Mahāyāna, whereas before it engages uninterruptedly. Moreover, as is said:

Both apprehensions of karmic imprints,
After exhausting the maturation of
Former imprints and so forth,
Generate another maturation.,

That matured mind basis-of-all impelled by previous life virtuous or sinful karma engages in this life until death and since, when the potency of that karma is exhausted, after reverting from that, it engages, again, the dream produced by later karma, it does so uninterruptedly.

Should one enquire why, here, the supporting consciousness alone is called “matured” [and] the eye and so forth, the five organs, are not also matured ?

There is no fault because such a maturation is:

1. unstained and neutral and

2. engages the continuum uninterruptedly for as long as one lives and

3. is the result impelled by former virtue or non-virtue,

it must be something endowed with those three characteristics and, apart from the basis-of-all and its associates, nothing is suitable. Although the unstained and neutral is not incompatible with being the matured of the virtuous and non-virtuous, the virtuous and non-virtuous sequentially are incompatible with the maturation of the non-virtuous and the virtuous because they are mutually discordant and mutual antidotes.

If someone should enquire : since there is no incompatibility between virtue, itself, being the maturation of virtue and non-virtue, itself, being the maturation of non-virtue, maturation is not definitely, only, neutral.

646

In that case, the defect of the totally afflicted having no counter would arise: when such a matured [phenomenon] engages the continuum uninterruptedly for as long as one lives, during all lives, if the matured were virtuous, since a virtuous mind would engage the continuum without interruption of the continuum for even an instant, there would be no opportunity for the generation of the totally afflicted and, having no generation, the cessation which precedes it would also be non-existent.
If it is a matured non-virtue, there is no opportunity for the generation of an uninterrupted antidote to non-virtuous minds and, since that does not exist, the totally afflicted will not be countered. Moreover, there are endless [confutations, such as] a person having severed the roots of virtue manifestly having virtuous minds. Therefore, only unstained and neutral are definite.

Thereupon, should someone enquire, why is the maturation of virtuous and non-virtuous phenomena a maturation which is taught to be unstained as well as neutral ?

In this case, unstained as well as neutral is not incompatible with the virtuous and the non-virtuous: the virtuous and the non-virtuous are mutually discordant. If the matured also became virtuous or non-virtuous, the totally afflicted would not be negated. Therefore, matured consciousness is taught to be unstained [and] neutral. Also, since [Asaṇga’s] Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that:

Because, apart from conception, the severance of the continuum of the matured consciousness, has no manifest establishment . . .

i.e. because until the matured is alive, it necessarily engages, it must occur until death however, because the eyes and so forth are also seen to be countered before death,

647

they are not fully-characterised maturations. Also, it is said in [Asaṇga’s] Abhidharmasamuccaya, as well:

Should one enquire what the matured is, it is endowed with what is akin to the consciousness basis-of-all and so forth.

therefore, the supporting consciousness alone is matured. These two complete the explanation of the definition of the base.

Should one enquire what the definition of the supported, the basis-of-all of the seed, is?

17. Through infusing the supported,
The seed basis-of-all,
When the basis infused is
Manifestly oriented towards ceasing
A potency has been placed.

When the basis infused by the seven infusing collections is manifestly oriented towards its ceasing, the potency which has been placed, virtuous, non-virtuous and neutral seeds, has disintegrated. Moreover, one third part of the virtuous, non-virtuous and neutral seeds are placed by the six collections, since both have one third part of virtue and so forth. The afflicted mind and its associates infuse only neutral seeds because it dwells permanently in a neutral nature.

Should one enquire how the seven infusing collections and their associates are determined?

Both the engaging consciousnesses and the basis-of-all are mutually, permanently conjoined as resulting things and causal things: likewise, the engaging consciousnesses, through nourishing the old seeds, act as the controlling condition for the factor of the seed basis-of-all and through implanting new seeds, act as the causal condition thereof. As is said:

Both consciousnesses are conditions of each other:
It is said in the Abhidharma Sūtra:

All phenomena are conjoined with consciousness,
Both of these as well, likewise.
Resulting things are mutually, permanently
Conjoined to causal things.

648

from the standpoint of simultaneous cause and effect; from the standpoint of non-simultaneous [cause and effect], this explanation posits also a seed which will establish a factor of maturation of the basis-of-all of a future life. Moreover, since that base and infuser arise and cease together, [they] infuse: for instance, just as, when sesame and sumanā are kept together, through arising and ceasing, later, although that flower no longer exists, the sesame is subsequently affected by the perfume of the flower.
Moreover, in that remark, the consciousness engaging it acts as condition with regards to the mind basis-of-all through two aspects:

i. by means of completely nurturing the seed with regards to visible phenomena and

ii. by means of placing the complete apprehension of a seed for the sake of establishing that manifestly in a future life.

Therefore, if the seeds of visible phenomena were completely developed:

However many supported virtues, non-virtues or neutral [states] occur within the consciousness basis-of-all, just so much is there suffusion through arising and ceasing together within one’s base.

Should one enquire, what sort of a basis infused is needed?

. . . The basis infused

18. Is endowed with five characteristics:
Stable, neutral, that which is infused,
Being related to the infuser and
Having become the support of one limit.

Something which is endowed with the five characteristics is posited as the basis infused.

Should one enquire what the five are?

Stable, just as sesame and so forth, needs a continuous continuum, whereas the unstable such as sound and lightning are unsuitable as basis infused: neither of these two are asserted to have imprints and even should they have them, they would go to waste.

649

This indicates that the seven collections of consciousness and form are unsuitable as basis infused, because:

1. in keeping with:

Mental consciousness always occurs
(With the exception of the bereft of discrimination,
Both aspects of meditative equipoise and
Mindless sleep and fainting.)

and:

[It] neither exists during a transcendental path
Nor does it exist, either, during meditative equipoise on cessation.

the continuum of both is severed and

2. because even form is non-existent in the Formless.

In that case, should someone say, that the basis-of-all is unsuitable to be a basis infused because its continuum is severed, as is said:

From Arhathood, that is countered.

There is no fault because, for as long as the infusing exists, it is allowed to be uninterrupted. Neutral because, while no seed can infuse the odorous scents of the likes of garlic and sandalwood, since they can [infuse] the odorless scent of the like of sesame, there is no discordance between the neutral which is like an odorless scent and virtuous and non-virtuous minds being extremely clear. This teaches that the virtuous and the afflicted are not suitable as basis infused.
That which is infused: since it is said that “[It] infuses the impermanent, but cannot infuse the permanent, the uncompounded is taught to be unsuitable as infused base. Being related to the infuser: the infuser and the basis infused must have a relationship of arising and ceasing at the same time. This teaches that phenomena which are of different continuums or non-simultaneous are not suitable to be [posited as] infused and infuser. Having become the support of

650

one limit: having become the support of one limit, it is not manifold. This dispels contact and so forth, the associates of the basis-of-all, being the base infused, since they rely on the consciousness basis-of-all, a main mind, they have not become the support of one limit.

Well then, should someone say: Do contact and so forth infuse the seeds which they establish in the basis-of-all or not?

In the first case, there would exist infusers other than the seven collections [of consciousness].

In the second case, they would be unchangeable.

Here, “because of becoming causeless, [they] must infuse” and “because [they] are extremely unclear, neutral [phenomena], they do not infuse”.
However, by asserting that since they are the maturation of former karma, they “engage through impelling, until death “, although both are explained, the latter is preferable, otherwise, since the basis-of-all, itself, would also necessarily infuse, the flaw of the base infused being unfindable would arise.

Should one enquire, what the succinct division of such imprints is?

A six-fold division, a three-fold division, two four-fold divisions.

1. The six-fold division

19. Outer, inner and unclear,
Both, conventional and
Ultimate object, all of these
I accept as the six aspects of seeds.

Outer seeds are similar to barley seeds or utpala seeds. Inner seeds are a component of the seeds of the basis-of-all. Unclear, both: unclear is neutral because it has both the thoroughly afflicted and the totally purified unclear or the virtuous and non-virtuous unclear. Both are outer seeds and inner seeds.

651

According to the system of one of the commentators of [Asaṇga’s] Mahāyānasaṃgraha, from the standpoint of the statement “both as unclear” if one analyses in terms of the thoroughly afflicted and totally purified or the virtuous and non-virtuous, neither of these is unclear nor neutral, at all.
Alternatively, both, since, inasmuch as the mind basis-of-all, itself, is endowed with seeds of afflicted phenomena, thoroughly afflicted phenomena arise, hence, these two, causality and the seeds of totally purified phenomena abide or having constructed a thing which is a base, both these two and having become cause and effect.
Likewise, in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha :

The statement, ” . . .unclear, both” refers to both virtue and non- virtue or both the thoroughly afflicted and the totally purified being unclear, utterly unclear, i.e. the term “neutral”.
Some read “into both“: if one differentiates seeds into both virtuous and non-virtuous or differentiates into both thoroughly afflicted and totally purified, unclear, means “neutral”.
There, outer seeds are neutral, through that very neutrality, they are unclear. The inner ones, also, are unclear because of not being observed as of the nature of virtue and so forth.

and also the Upanibandhana states:

Unclear is neutral. Both is outer and inner. Alternatively, effect and cause: these two reasons [demonstrate] that the basis-of-all has also both aspects. Regarding that, by means of foundational things which are cause and effect, thoroughly afflicted and totally purified phenomena arise.

652

Conventional seeds are exterior seeds, because of being mere objects of a terminological consciousness. Ultimate seeds are inner seeds because, when one analyses, one must also accept this. From the standpoint of the former explanations in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha and the Upanibandhana, the first, third and fifth become merely ancillary whereas, from the standpoint of the second explanation of the Upanibandhana, it is ancillary.
Regarding this, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha also states:

Outer, inner and unclear,
Both, conventional and
Ultimate object, all of these
I accept as the six aspects of seeds
. . .

The supported, which is infused,
Is related to the infuser and
Is not other than the infuser.
That is the characteristic of imprints.

2. A three-fold division

20. Moreover, the three, imprints of manifest verbalisation,
Of the view of the Self and of the limbs of existence.

Moreover, as keeping with the statement:

Should one enquire what the thorough division of this mind basis-of-all is?
In brief, it should be seen as three-fold and four-fold. In this respect, the three particular aspects of the three aspects of imprints are the particular of imprints of manifest verbalisation, the particular of the imprints of the view of the Self and the particular of the imprints of the limbs of existence.

there are three [particular aspects of imprints].

2.1 Imprints of manifest verbalisation

Here, the first imprint is an imprint on the basis-of-all arising in the aspect of the name and marks of phenomena ranging from form to omniscience and in brief, the causal condition of the mental consciousness imputing various designations.

653

It is also called “elaborating imprint” because it is a seed elaborating the numerous objects of the mental consciousness. It is also called “imprint of manifest verbalisation” because it is the seed of the mental consciousness having the aspect of verbalising “the eye is the eye” and “form is form”.

In that case, should someone quote the Mahāyānasaṃgraha which states:

Here, because whatever cognition of bodies, embodied ones and ingesters and
Whatever cognition of the thoroughly enjoyed and
Whatever cognition of the thorough enjoyer and
Whatever cognition of time, number, object and designation
Arise from seeds of the imprints of manifest verbalisation.

As I see it, there is no fault because the statement earlier, “seed of the mental consciousness”, is predominantly the case, however, what is taught here is that although other-powered phenomena are cognitions included within incorrect conceptualisation having seeds of the basis-of-all, when cognitions ranging from “body” to “designation” manufacture the three imprints, they arise from imprints of manifest verbalisation because they do not arise from the other two even though those two are manifestly verbalised phenomena of the mental consciousness.
Therefore, from the standpoint of the manifestly verbalised, although its imprints posit it, it is posited only by mental consciousness and its associates and although generated, the terminologically imputed mental consciousness is generated.

2.2 Imprints of the view of the Self

654

Seeds which arise as the cognition of the appearance as Self and other posited by the afflicted mind and what is akin to it. As is said:

Because that which is the particular cognition of Self and other arises from the seeds of the imprints of the view of the Self.

These are also called “imprints of the view of the disintegrating composite” because they are the seeds of the view of the disintegrating composite.

2.3 Imprints of the limbs of existence

Seeds which appear as existence, i.e. happy or bad transmigrations, death and birth deposited by virtuous or non-virtuous engaging consciousnesses. As is said:

Because that which is the cognition of happy and bad transmigrations, death and birth arose from the seeds of the limbs of existence.

These are also called “imprints of maturation” because they become of the nature of complete maturation.

Should someone ask whether both organs and objects are referred to here as “cognition” since they have become of the nature of conscious knowledge?

No.

Well then, why?

When one analyses both the appearances of organs and form, sound and so forth as the five objects, although appearances as exterior are totally severed, not asserting, at that time, both of those as of the nature of consciousness is presented in keeping with what is renowned in the world and appears to impure minds.
When one investigates and analyses, such appearances are ineffably different from consciousness and thusness, because they are totally imputed. Therefore, with regards to observing appearances as objects, the ātman, the pradhāna and so forth of the likes of the Tīrthikas and the imputations of subtle

655

particles in keeping with our lower systems are not established: both appearances are illogical and, although apprehender and apprehended are logically refuted, since experience is substantially observed, that very interior consciousness appears in that manner and is mentally imputed. Also concerning this, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states:

All realms, migrators and birthplaces subsumed by these cognitions, i.e. other-powered phenomena, are taught to be incorrect conceptuality. Just the mere cognition within these cognitions is not subsumed by incorrect conceptuality. That which is the abode of the appearance of false objects is the other-powered characteristic.

Regarding that, should someone enquire what the imputed characteristic is?

That which has no object, however mere cognition appears as that very object.

Should someone enquire what the thoroughly established characteristic is?

That characteristic of the object which does not exist at all in the other-powered characteristic.

and:

Should one ask , what examples there are for the statement, “Both these cognitions are mere cognitions since they lack an object”?

One should take dreams and so forth as examples. For instance, in a dream, although there is no object, just mere consciousness appears in the aspect of various objects such as forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, dwellings, forests, land, mountains and so forth.
This example [indicates that] everything also is included within mere cognition. By stating “and so forth”, illusions, mirages and cataracts are to be understood as examples.

656

3. The first division of the four-fold one

21. The four aspect of seeds:
The common, the uncommon,
Those with sensation and those without. . . .

Moreover, the common seeds are the seeds which establish the world of the receptacle upon the basis-of-all. The uncommon ones are the seeds which establish the world of the essence. These two are also respectively called seeds without sensation and seeds with sensation: since the receptacle is not apprehended by mind, it does not appear as a base of happiness and suffering, whereas for the essence, it is the opposite. As is also said:

Should one enquire what its division by characteristics is: that which itself [has] common characteristics, uncommon characteristics, the characteristics of seeds arising without sensation and the characteristics of seeds arising with sensation. The common is what are the seeds of the world of the receptacle. The uncommon, what are the seed of one’s own locus. What is common are the seeds arising without sensation. What is uncommon, the seeds arising with sensation.

4. The second division of the four-fold one

21. . . . The assumption of bad states,

22. Pliancy, completed behavior and
The uncompleted
Are also said to be the four.

Here, the seeds of the assumption of bad states are the seeds of the root afflictions, desire, hatred and so forth and of the secondary afflictions, wrath, vindictiveness and so forth. The seeds of pliancy are the seeds of virtuous,

657

mundane Dharmas. The seeds of completed behavior are virtuous and non-virtuous seeds which are the complete maturation in the nature of maturations of happy and bad transmigrations because, just as cooked food, they will not mature again. The seeds of uncompleted behavior [are called thus] because, since the imprints of manifest verbalisation have been arising beginninglessly, sentient beings, without relying specifically on merely having been born, engage many elaborations of apprehender and apprehended in the continuum. As is also said:

Also, the characteristics of the assumption of bad states and the characteristics of pliancy. The characteristics of the assumption of bad states are whatever is a seed of afflictions or secondary afflictions. The characteristics of pliancy are whatever is a seed of contaminated, virtuous phenomena.

and:

Also, the characteristics of completed and uncompleted behavior. The characteristics of completed behavior is that the maturation of whatever virtuous or non-virtuous seed has completed maturing. The characteristic of the uncompleted, i.e. whatever seed of the imprint of manifest verbalisation, because of being a seed through giving rise to elaborations from time without beginning.

Therefore, someone’s assertion regarding the statement in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha concerning both completed and uncompleted behavior:

Just as, progressively, when the sprout germinates, the germ disappears, there is a two[-fold division]:

i. because the matured imprints of happy and bad transmigrations have completed maturing in the nature of [their] maturation, they are non-existent [and] are not nourished and

ii. since imprints which have not become results are new imprints, they are nourished.

658

is not the intent of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha.

Should one enquire: are such two imprints are substantially one or different from the consciousness which is their base?

23. From their base, imprints are, moreover,
Neither substantially one nor different.

How? Should one say, [that they are] not one:

24. Since the objects of observations of seeds exist and
The seeds of the five migrations
Would become erroneous and
The realms as well would become erroneous: [they] are not one.

Seeds and the consciousness basis-of-all are not substantially one, otherwise that component [of] the seed basis-of-all would have both object of observation and aspect. Should this be accepted, this would be contradictory with the explanation:

Seeds have neither object of observation nor aspect.

Also, the seeds of the five migrations would become erroneous because one would have to accept that the seeds of the five migrations were substantially one.

Should someone ask, how?

The existence of seeds of the five migrations on one base, simultaneously, would have to exist and both of these, in addition, would have to be accepted as substantially one with one instant of that base’s consciousness basis-of-all and, since that instant has no parts, those five seeds having no substantial parts, would become one, i.e. would be of the nature of one, component-less consciousness.

Should someone ask, how?

The existence of seeds of the five migrations on one base, simultaneously, would have to exist and both of these, in addition, would have to be accepted as substantially one with one instant of that base’s consciousness basis-of-all and, since that instant has no parts, those five seeds having no substantial parts, would become one because two parts of consciousness would be of one nature.

659

Should that be accepted, it would ensue that a non-virtuous depositor would deposit that matured seed of happy migrations, because it is a matured seed of bad migrations. Moreover, it would ensue that a virtuous depositor would deposit that matured seed of bad migrations, because it is a matured seed of happy migrations.

Regarding that, if someone who did not strive at vast reasoning engaging intelligently but the dawning of a mere sound generality were to think “The seeds of the five migrations do not have to be mutual: things are different from form.”

Let us analyse this: what thing which is substantially one with form is the substance of form or not. In the first case, your assertion is not established: you accept that thing which is substantially one with form as substantially one as well with sound, smell, taste and the like, however, whatever is the substance of form, does not succeed to those. That whatever is not the substance of form in addition to being substantially one is also substantially different are the words of a lunatic. We do not debate with lunatics!
Sakya Pandita (1182-1251) also states:

Things which are isolated from non-wood:
Whatever is rosewood is not another wood,
Whatever is another wood is not rosewood,
Because its nature is not other.

Is that thing which is isolated from not being wood substantially one or substantially different from rosewood?
In the first case, the instances of wood other than rosewood would not be wood however, in the second case, rosewood would not be wood because it would not negate non-wood.
If one asserted that, apart from rosewood, also [another] substantially one with wood, this is subsequently concordant with the reasoning stating:

660

Rosewood is not wood because the substances abide in mutual admixture.

Therefore, as long as one asserts a substantially established generality apart from the instances, one is unable to abandon both defects of investigating [as] substantially one and substantially different. Moreover if, after having accepted [that they are] substantially one, the assertion [that they had] two components was devoid of contradiction, since both the branch and that which is endowed with branches are substantially one, even Buddha would be unable to refute [this].
Also, the realms would become erroneous as well because:

1. in that way, under the impetus of a god of the Form Realm’s meditative equipoise, that infusion in a basis-of-all of [the] Desire [Realm] of a seed which will establish the maturation of a Form Realm god would have to be asserted as substantially one with that consciousness basis-of-all and

2. that seed would only belong to the Ground of Desire because that newly deposited seed would be a consciousness basis-of-all of the Desire Realm.

There are, therefore, countless lines of reasoning like this [countering the assertion that they are] substantially one.

Should one enquire, why [are they] not substantially different?

25. Since on one base, two basis-of-all
There would be, they are not distinct.

If they were substantially different, they would not be form, non-associated or the seven collections at all because they exist even if the substantially established and form do not and arise also when the seven collections of consciousness are non-existent. Therefore, both consciousnesses basis-of-all would necessarily become one and should that be accepted, since two consciousnesses basis-of-all would exist on one base, there would be multiple continuums.

Should someone enquire: this is not definite, it is just like many mental factors arising in association with one mind or, even though the basis-of-all and the seven collections of consciousness engage together, nonetheless they do not become many.

661

It is not akin: regarding engagement from the standpoint of one mind, the seven collections obtain, i.e. engage, one basis-of-all and should two basis-of-all exist, neither would depend on the other, because both are independent, stable consciousnesses. The defect remains.

Well then, how do the imprints abide?

26. Therefore, they are ineffably
Neither just that nor other from the base,
Because of abiding as mere imputed existents.

It is because they are not in any wise substantially one or substantially different that, not being established in any wise as one or different from that base consciousness, that consciousness’s potency abides as a mere imputed existent whose nature is latent. As is said:

Should one enquire whether both the consciousness basis-of-all and the seeds of all thoroughly-afflicted phenomena abide distinctly and diffferently or do not abide differently?

Abiding on that, they are neither substantially different nor non-different, however the distinctive impetus arising therein, that consciousness basis-of-all, arise thus and is called “all seeds”.

and in its commentary, the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

Thus, since both positions also seems to have faults, asserting that ” they are neither substantially different . . .” means that “[they] are ineffably neither the that-ness nor the other-ness of the consciousness basis-of-all.”

and also, since, in its commentary, the Upanibandhana:

The statement:

. . . they are neither substantially different nor non-different, however. . .
662
states that the abiding of the imprints in the consciousness basis-of-all [occurs] in a manner which authentically transcends being different and not being different because it is the nature of a distinctive potency. As to the distinctive potency of “imprints”, neither the potency nor that which is endowed with potency is said to be either “the that-ness or the other[-ness]” [of the other].
The question: “[Are they] mutually different or non-different with those two” is incorrect, because once the that which is endowed with potency has become a cause, it is imputed.

this Ācāryabecause of asserting that potencies are imputedly existent and that which is endowed with a potency is substantially existent, after commenting that “both imprints and consciousness basis-of-all are not substantially different nor of one isolate” asserts that both are substantially one but of different isolates. Since the Buddhist terminology of other textual traditions is wealthy [in such statements], this is not something he came out with by himself.
Moreover, in the commentarial explanation on the second topic of Abhidharma, it is said that:

The so-called “seeds, potencies and imprints” are synonymous. Seeds are imputededly existent but are not substantially existent.

hence, the intent of both siblings is one and the same.
Therefore, this infused seed, from the standpoint of the aggregate of compositional factors is an attained, non-associated compositional phenomena, because it is a composite phenomenon but is neither mind nor mental factor and because it is said in the Abidharmasammucaya:

Should one enquire, endowed with what? With the characteristics, as previously. Thoroughly divided into three: that which is endowed with seeds, that which is endowed with power and endowed with origin.

663

In that case, how can you quote the previously quoted passage [in Asaṇga’s Mahāyānasaṃgraha]:

. . . the three particular aspects of the three aspects of imprints

and also in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

The consciousness basis-of-all is also differentiated into two, seeds and the particular aspect of maturation.

There is no fault: in general, teaching the seed basis-of-all also using the terminology of consciousness is a type of explanation which does not differentiate between seeds and maturation because, after having differentiated them, when the question of whether seeds and consciousness are substantially one or different arises, it is taught that they are neither.
Such is taught in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha, in particular. If one seeks for its developments, they are to be found in the extensive commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and because

1. both commentaries provide concordant commentaries concerning:

. . . distinctly and differently or . . .

2. and:

Through engaging the continuum of the former seed, [at] the time of the later seed, [it] is a causal condition which is exclusively different. It is not a controlling condition, because it is a manifestly established cause of the same kind. It is also not a similar, immediately preceding condition because it is not in the nature of a mental factor, nor is it an object condition, because seeds have no objects.

occurs in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha

4. and:

Mere imprints are not the consciousness basis-of-all, however . . .

in the Upanibandhana,

through merely reading the letters, [one is] inappropriately perturbed.

Should someone say:

If one accepts that seeds are things without accepting that they are substances, this is a system which never existed before!

As to that also, there is no fault: this Ācārya subdivides things into substances and

664

imputed [phenomena], [in keeping] with the siblings because although they accept that non-associated compositional phenomena are composite, they do not accept that they are substances. Hence, also, the Ācārya’s unadulterated subdivision of his own system is that of a forthright and lucid scholar.

Should one enquire, where the three-fold [subdivision] of those imprints into virtuous, non-virtuous and neutral [derives from]?

27. Irrespective of whether the depositor is virtuous and so forth,
The deposited imprint is neutral.

“Unstained” is additional.

Should someone say, this is illogical, because it contradicts both scripture and logic because it is said in the Abhidharmasamuccaya:

Should one enquire what subsequently related virtue is?
That which is the imprint of just those.

and:

Should one enquire what subsequently related non-virtue is?
The imprints of just those.

[this] states that imprints are virtuous or non-virtuous and, should one accept that all infused imprints are neutral, it would follow that:

1. [they] would not operate as matured causes and

2. seeds generated by virtuous, non-virtuous and neutral engaging consciousnesses would not generate causally concordant effects and

3. after obtaining vows, for so long as they were not for repudiated, virtue would not arise continually

because:

1. matured impellings are necessarily either virtuous or non-virtuous,

2. causally concordant effects are necessarily of concordant type with their cause,

3. when the six collections cease, although mind does not exist manifestly, seeds do exist, however, they are accepted as neutral.

That is not so.

Should one enquire, well then, how?

28. The assertion that [they] are fully-characterised virtue
Or non-virtue has no proof.

665

Should one enquire, why [in the light of] just the former quotes and lines of reasoning?

The proof of the fully-characterised virtue and non-virtue of imprints is not authentic.

Should one ask, why?

It is taught not to contribute towards a scriptural proof and not to proceed towards a logical proof:

1. Absence of scriptural proof:

Since there are quotes such as ” . . . subsequently related . . .”, if imprints became fully-characterised virtuous or non-virtuous [ones], from that standpoint, in the Formless Realm as well, fully-characterised form would exist, inasmuch as the explanation of being subsequently related as form would exist in a fully-characterised fashion there, because the seeds of form would exist. In the two Lower Realms, fully-characterised non-virtue would also exist.

2. Absence of logical proof:

2.1 Stating:

. . . it would follow that they would not operate as matured causes . . .

i.e. accepting that it would follow that they would not be impelling, matured [causes], because those imprints would have been impelled by virtuous and non-virtuous depositors, since the depositors, themselves, are impelling.
As far as the consequence they would not operate as matured causes is concerned, there is no entailment, otherwise, the previous instant of the consciousness basis-of-all would also [not] become neutral.

2.2 The statement:

. . . it would follow that causally concordant effects would not be suitable . . .

also does not undermine[321] [this] because merely being causally concordant with a depositor satisfies the meaning of being causally concordant.

2.3 Stating:

. . .vows . . . would not arise continually. . .

also does not undermine [this], because for as long as phenomena at odds with the preceptsremain close to our continuum, after generating shame, embarrassment and recollection (if the potency of the vows exists within the continuum of degenerated ethics), previously taken vows can be posited as existent merely through that and, in addition, at that time, are re-engaged.

666

Moreover, since unclear is glossed in both commentaries as neutral, it is established as neutral.

Well then, isn’t this non-contradictory with the passages in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

Because whatever is produced by inner virtuous or non-virtuous phenomena, is virtuous or non-virtuous.

and:

Because seeds, also, are neutral on the unstained, they only give rise to neutral phenomena on the unstained and it is inappropriate for virtuous or non-virtuous phenomena to arise from the unstained and neutral.

The latter merely sets out the former position but is not definite: otherwise, neutral minds would not operate as immediately preceding conditions of virtuous and non-virtuous minds.
The former scriptural passage is a mere hypothesis explaining unclear, our system is the former hypothesis quoted previously because:

1. the statement in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha concerning the illustration of [dyeing with] the extract of pits:

After imprints have become the cause of the consciousness basis-of-all, because they engage, they are not different and because they observe neither virtue nor non-virtue, they are not variegated.

2. [and] at the time of imprints, the statement:

. . . [they] are not different and not variegated . . .

are accepted both by the [propounder of the] previous position and by our own system; this is how it should be commented.

Should someone enquire: if imprints are not different from the basis-of-all and are different by their own characteristics from [their] effect due to not appearing as virtuous, non-virtuous or variegated, it is unsuitable for them to arise as virtuous, non-virtuous, etc. or variegated, because it is illogical for a different effect [to arise] out of a non-different cause.

667

There is no fault. Understand this in keeping with the Mahāyānasaṃgraha:

Should one enquire: how are imprints, which are neither different nor variegated, the cause of different, variegated phenomena?

For instance, even though fabric mordanted by various extracts of pits does not appear variegated, when it is plunged in vats of dyes, the fabric shows numerous, various aspects of different stripes of colors. Likewise, the consciousness basis-of-all infused by various imprints is not variegated at the time of the imprints, however, if it is revealed in vats of dyes revealing the result, measureless, various phenomena are elicited. This is the subtle, supremely profound dependent origination of the Mahāyāna.

Should one enquire: Do these imprints remain primordially on the basis-of-all or is one newly infused ?

29. The mode of deposition of imprints is threefold.
Abiding in thusness, previously ungenerated
I accept both of these.

There are three systems of the Ācāryas of the Yogācāra.

Should one enquire, which ones?

The Pibrīttiguhyārtha after setting out three systems:

1. Those who assert [that they] dwell in Thusness without relying on an infuser

2. Those who assert new, previously non-existent, deposition by infusers and the nourishment of the previously deposed by infusers

3. Those who assert the nourishment of [those] dwelling in Thusness and new, previously non-existent, deposition

668

reciprocally criticises them, expands on the abandonment of their contradictions and although it accepts the first system as a suitable position, here the third is upheld.
Moreover, one should analyse from the standpoint of uncontaminated seeds, causally concordant seeds and seeds of maturation:

1. Since the first is the Naturally dwelling Lineage, it dwells in thusness because it is said in the Yogacārybhūmi:

. . .

678

. . .

Discarding elaborations, the ordinary explanation:

Should one enquire: “Why is the seed-component of the basis-of-all called “basis-of-all”?

30. Because of being conjoined
To all thoroughly afflicted phenomena,
Causal or resulting things,
Basis-of-all!
This should be explained in accordance with the statement:

Should one enquire, why is it called “consciousness basis-of-all”?

It is consciousness basis-of-all because of being connected to all thoroughly afflicted phenomena endowed with birth, i.e. resulting things or, in addition, because of being connected with both of those causal things. Alternatively, it is consciousness basis-of-all because of connecting sentient beings to their Self.

Regarding that, here, since this statement amounts to deriving one phenomenon from three derivations without distinguishing between seeds and maturations, I will explain the distinction:

1. Moreover, here, in general, it is for the sake of conjoining the meaning present in basis-of-all to all phenomena and, in particular, stating
679
basis-of-all with respect to the component of the seed basis-of-all, includes it within the seven collections of consciousness or, since it is the causal condition of the thoroughly afflicted phenomena which are affliction, karma and birth, both are conjoined, here, to its effect or, alternatively, because basis-of-all, itself, is conjoined, here, to the causal things of both of these phenomena, [it is] basis-of-all.

2. The matured component of the basis-of-all is [called] basis-of-all because all sentient beings of the five migrations are conjoined to the Self by the afflicted mind.

Should one enquire at what time such a seed component is countered?

31. Therefore, Those who have attained Dominion and Arhats
Have no basis-of-all
Because neither depositor exists.

Therefore, since, either thoroughly afflicted phenomena are resulting things or that very seed basis-of-all is conjoined to both its causal things and since the afflicted mind connects to the Self, deposing in the basis-of-all, Eighth Ground Bodhisattvas who have attained Dominion and above and Hearer and Solitary Realiser Arhats, in particular, lack the component of the seed basis-of-all and, in general, are bereft of the consciousness basis-of-all because, having abandoned the afflictions without exception, neither depositor in the basis-of-all exists in the slightest.
It is not the case that the reason is not established, it is said in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha:

Learner Hearers and Bodhisattvas are characterised by unilateral teaching. Arhats, Solitary Realisers and Tathagatas are characterised by teaching all
680
afflictive obstructions and are conjoined to all types of characteristics of teaching all afflictive obstructions and obstructions to omniscience.

in particular, regarding the time of countering the three imprints, the Pibrīttiguhyārtha states:

The seeds of the imprints of the limbs of existence exist for as long as the matured result has not arisen. The seeds of the view of the disintegrating composite and the seeds of the afflictive, elaborating imprints exist until the antidote arises. The seeds of virtuous and neutral elaborating imprints for Hearers and Solitary Realisers also exist until an utter Nirvāṇa is attained. Those of the Tathāgatas, until the vajra-like [samādhi], [for] mere Stream-Enterers, occur uninterruptedly.

Should one enquire: if Those who have attained Dominion and the Arhats do not have a consciousness basis-of-all, must one accept that all eight collections of consciousness are present within their continuum or not? If one must, the consciousness basis-of-all would exist, otherwise there would exist a consciousness not included within the eight collections. If one must not, engagement until the matured, the vajra-like [samādhi] and the remainderless Nirvāṇa, would degenerate.

There is no fault. Even though the consciousness basis-of-all is necessarily matured, matured consciousnesses are not necessarily basis-of-all: although Those who have attained Dominion and the Arhats necessarily have a matured consciousness, since it is devoid of the meaning of a basis-of-all, the second defect does not occur and when the eight collections are taught, formulating them as eight with the

681

consciousness basis-of-all is for the sake of logic and [they] are not mental substances. Otherwise, asserting that there is an intersection between what is neither:

1. an Arhat or an Eighth Ground Bodhisattva and above’s engaging consciousness which has entered a cessation and

2. a basis-of-all

would be illogical. It is also illogical to state:

The basis-of-all has no seed component.

because the component of maturation is deposited on the basis-of-all and also, depositing the matured component in the basis-of-all is said to be the meaning of the afflicted mind being conjoined to the Self. Likewise, it is said in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

. . . because regarding the assertion “engaging in the matured consciousness, i.e. . . . ” refers to the consciousness basis-of-all, there is no entailment: likewise, it does not exist in the continuum of a Bodhisattva dwelling on the Eighth Ground and so forth and in the continuum of an Arhat and a Solitary Realiser, however a matured consciousness does exist.

and in the Viniścayasaṃgraha it is also said that there are “four intersections”:

1. The intersection of the consciousness basis-of-all existing and the engaging consciousness not existing, is the Five States;

2. The opposite, No-more-Learning and Non-Returning Bodhisattvas in a state in which mind exists;

3. Both exist, at the time when mind exists during states other than those;

4. Neither exists, [when] No-more-Learning and Non-Returning Bodhisattvas engage in a cessation and a Nirvāṇa without remaining aggregates.

and since it is stated in the “Trimśika”:

From Arhathood, that is countered.
682

the boundaries of non-existence of the basis-of-all which I taught previously will be upheld unscathed.
Therefore, since that eighth consciousness in the continuum of Bodhisattvas who have attained Dominion and Arhats has a matured consciousness and inconceivable transference at death, it is not designated the “basis-of-all” of the so-called “appropriating consciousness”.

Should someone enquire: therefore, Those have attained Dominion and Arhats also have no mind, since it is said:

Why should [they] also have a “mind”?

Because the various seeds of the imprints of phenomena are completely accumulated.

This is not akin, its meaning is that while, in Sutra, the statement:

Mind, mentation and consciousness

assert a third constituent, mentation, different from mind and consciousness, that is not posited as something else, apart from the consciousness basis-of-all. The meaning of such mentation, must be explained as accumulation in that context, however the basis-of-all is the accumulation of all imprints and through thinking: “That meaning is not satisfied by mind and consciousness”, even though there does not exist within those two, an accumulation of imprints different from mind and consciousness, there does exist a mentation which satisfies the meaning of:

Regarding that, consciousness sees objects.

because:

1. the meaning of mentation being only the accumulation of imprints is not definite and

2. apart from the three or two depositors in the basis-of-all, others are not taught.

683

Likewise, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states:

No third possibility apart from the consciousness basis-of-all is observed, therefore the consciousness basis-of-all is established as mind.

Now, let us examine this:

Some scholars say that both Lower Vehicles assert that the matured component is countered from a Lower Vehicle remainderless [Nirvāṇa] onwards. Which Lower Vehicle Tenet [school], i.e. Vaibhaṣika and Sautrāntika, asserts this or is there ambiguity regarding the differentiation of those dwelling on Lower Vehicle Hearer and Solitary Realiser Paths?

The first is illogical because these two Propounders of Tenets do not accept consciousnesses apart from the six collections of consciousness.
The second is also illogical: both of these would have to teach the presentation of an ascertainment of engaging and countering the basis-of-all and moreover, this is not to be found.

Well then, whose system?

The extensive presentation of its engaging and countering occurs in the treatises of the Yogācāra.

In that case, there exists in the Mahāyāna, one extinguishing abandonment of the obstructions to omniscience by the Hinayāna, because the matured factor is countered from its remainderless [Nirvāṇa] onwards.

There is no fault: at the time of such a remainderless [Nirvāṇa], although there is no abandonment by a Lower Vehicle Path forsaking incrementally and without exception the obscurations to omniscience of a smaller potency, there does exist a countering which severs the continuum of the obscurations to omniscience, because countering the continuum of the five aggregates exists. It is not the case that the reason is not established: although the time of a remainderless [Nirvāṇa] is that of forsaking the compositional phenomena of the Arhat’s life, after his death, as to the occurrence of knowledge after that,

684

if he had to take birth, since karma and afflictions have been abandoned without exception, since he has also negated the matured aggregates of birth, there would also be no birth under the power of karma and affliction and the aspect of karma and affliction could also not establish a body, because this is unilateral pacification and because the base is negated. Therefore, here, the thorough pacification of elaborations is only the signless core severing the continuum of engagement of the composite.

In that case, there would be no difference with the signless core of the Mahāyāna?

That is not so: while this is the mere thorough pacification of engagement of the composite, no Body fulfilling the welfare of others rises from the core, because one has not become familiarised with a path for the sake of others.
In addition, since it is said in the Viniścayasaṃgraha that the intersection of neither an engaging consciousness nor a basis-of-all is a remainderless Nirvāṇa, this is also similar to previously. Also, one cannot state :

This is similar to the infusion of a Hearer

because if the basis-of-all exists, it is in the context of ascertainment. Therefore, the Vaibhaṣikas assert that at the time of a remainderless [Nirvāṇa], the analytical cessation of the continuum of composite phenomena exists as a non-composite substantially established phenomenon, whereas the Sautrāntikas assert a non-implicative negation which doesn’t exist at all because they assert being bereft of the aggregates but do not assert non-composite phenomena as substances. The second, however, is thought to be the meaning of the passage from Sūtra:

The body has disintegrated, sensations have been shattered,
Discrimination has ceased, compositional factors are pacified,
Consciousness has set,
Thus is the end of suffering.

685

In particular, the Sautrāntikas, in keeping with:

Just like a butter lamp dies out,
His mind is completely liberated.

state that the complete deliverance of the mind of an Arhat is like the dying out of a butter-lamp and this is asserted to be compatible with our tenets. The Yogācāras assert that the thusness which is the thorough pacification of all engagement in matter or cognition:

1. albeit lacking happy sensations, has a happiness which is totally bereft of suffering

2. does not lack a non-implicative negation at all

3. is also not a substantially established existent and

4. is an existent which does not become permanent.

Therefore, until a remainderless [Nirvāṇa], engagement in the Mahāyāna exists, however, thereafter, engagement is not asserted. In the Viniścayasaṃgraha, it is stated:

Why, does a Hearer upon becoming utterly Enlightened dwell within the core of a Nirvāṇa with remainder, the aggregates and did he establish a peerless, complete and utter Enlightenment? Well then, should one say that he dwells within and enact the core of a Nirvāṇa without the remainder of the aggregates?

[In answer:] He dwells within and enacts the core of a Nirvāṇa with the remainder of the aggregates because dwelling thus within the core of a Nirvāṇa without the remainder of the aggregates is bereft of all beginnings and the continuum of all striving is severed.

Apprehending Cittamātra and Madhyamika unilaterally without differentiating between such modes of assertion, some assert that matured consciousnesses are countered within a remainderless [Nirvāṇa] of the Lower Vehicle, some do “not

686

counter” since even after a remainderless [Nirvāṇa], one must enter the Mahāyāna, relying on the extreme of fatigue and weariness.
Here, more extensive, similar instructions regarding [Nirvāṇa] with and without aggregates should be known from the presentation of Cittamātra assertions in:

1. the commentary on the vows of the Viniścayasaṃgraha

2. the commentary “Determination and entailment of the object in [Haribhadra’s] Abhisamayālaṃkārāloka“

In this context, although I could elaborate on the modes of assertion of the interpretable and the definitive of the Vijñaptivādins and the Madhyamakas regarding Sūtras asserting three or one [final] Vehicles [as well as] the proofs of both of these, the genesis of the textual traditions, since if there are many words, those of dull acumen will become deranged, I have set this aside, for the time being.
Both of these conclude the explanation of all the difficult points of the matured consciousness and of the basis-of-all of the seed.

What would a definition of the afflicted mind be like?

32. The definition of the afflicted mind is:
A matured component of the basis-of-all and
With the view of the Self, obscured but neutral
With only nine: contact, lust and so forth.

As to that, from within the two, seeds and matured components, the object of observation is the latter, because its object of observation must be akin to the Self and phenomena.
The aspect is the conceit that the object of observation is the Self. Moreover, since the Pibrīttiguhyārtha states:

[By its power], it is through generating the aspect of the Self and not through positing its nature.

although, after the appearance of that very matured substance, it does not become

687

the object of the afflicted mind, under the impetus of that matured consciousness, it is posited as object with respect to merely being mistaken as the Self.
The nature is obscured but neutral.

What is the meaning of obscured and unobscured?

Obscured because in addition to being befouled by the afflictions, this mind is also befouled by the four root afflictions. “Unobscured”, i.e. unstained by the afflictions, such as the eleven [virtues] faith and so forth.
Regarding this meaning, someone’s assertions:

1. that meditative equipoise is [either] obscured or unobscured mulling over the fact that the afflicted mind is absent in an Ārya’s meditative equipoise and that the basis-of-all is present and

2. that Liberation is [either] obscured or unobscured mulling over the fact that without abandoning the afflictive obscurations without exception, Liberation is not attained,

amounts to not knowing its obscured and unobscured nature and through positing these two for the basis-of-all and the afflicted mind alone, evinces a narrow perspective. Likewise, although the meaning of these two is whether a phenomenon, itself, is obscured or unobscured, it is not whether it obscures or does not obscure another, otherwise:

1. since the virtuous and neutral minds of Āryas, having become distracting factors, thwart equipoise, they would become obscured and

2. since, without abandoning all origins [of suffering] definitely impelling to another existence, none of the Three Liberations would be attained, it would follow that meritorious and immutable karmas definitely impelling existence would also become obscured.

688

One cannot also state:

Since both are thoroughly afflicted karma, they are obscured.

because obscurations are said to be afflictions or the physical and verbal non-virtues motivated by these and because even virtues and the thoroughly afflicted obscurations of [this] life would become obscured. Also, as is said in Abhidharmasamuccaya:

[Why is it investigated as afflicted?] The non-virtuous and obscured but neutral is afflicted. The obscured but neutral is an affliction akin to omnipresent minds and a view of the disintegrating composite arising together with and akin to mental consciousness and is akin to the view apprehending the extremes and to the Form and Formless [Realms].

and:

The virtuous and unobscured but neutral are not afflicted.

and also in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha:

Inasmuch as the mind is afflicted, it is obscured but neutral. It is always akin to the four obscured afflictions. Just as the afflictions engaged in while in the Form and Formless [Realms], this is taught to be obscured but neutral. The mind which engages while in the Form and Formless [Realms] is enfolded by calm abiding, but is always endowed with mind.

If such is the meaning of obscured, why isn’t neutral alone determining?

Since the afflicted mind is afflicted, it is not virtuous, but it is not non-virtuous because of engaging manifestly and simultaneously in one continuum with virtuous minds. Otherwise, it would not happen for virtuous or non-virtuous minds to be generated manifestly in an ordinary being, because this mind always engages

689

manifestly for as long as an Ārya Path has not been generated.
The associates are the five, contact and so forth and desire, ignorance, pride and the view of the Self, because only nine occurs in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

Because it has four afflictions and the formerly explained five omnipresent [mental factors], its mental factors are only nine.

and in the Trimśika:

Dwelling [and] arising within that
It has the “mind” [as] object
The mind [as] aspect, with the nature of the mind [apprehending] the I,
Always associated with the four afflictions
Which are obscured but neutral:
View of the Self and benightedness of the Self,
Pride in the Self and lust for the Self:
Wherever it arises, so do the others.
Contact and so forth, also . . .

What sensation is associated with this?

Sensation is exclusively equanimous: if it were pleasant, the mind would have to be pleasant, however, it would follow that in an ordinary being an unhappy mind would never occur at all because, from that standpoint, a pleasant mind would always, manifestly occur and, also, the Fourth Contemplation and above would become the ground of pleasant sensation and even in the Avici [hell] , a happy mind would always engage manifestly. It is not the case that this is not determined: there is no difference in number between its associates in all Three Realms because, since it is a stable consciousness, the main [mind] and the time of engaging and countering are one. One should ascertain the non-occurrence of the sensation of suffering as well by that line of reasoning.
Therefore, the joyful aspect of the afflicted mind is not the joyful aspect of

690

sensation but instead the joyful aspect of desire because, in the Trimśika, the five, contact and so forth, associated with the basis-of-all are also explained to be associated with the afflicted mind and sensation has not been treated in particular.
In this vein, also, the Pibrīttiguhyārtha states:

Although having a joyful aspect, it does not have a sensation of delight, because, since it is said:

Wherever it arises, so do the others . . .

just as contact and so forth are timely, alone it is analogous, however, should yet another sensation exist, it would have to be treated specially.

and:

Well then, if it is equanimous, how does it have a joyful aspect?

Because it is akin to desire for the Self.

Why is it definite that its associates are nine-fold? Aren’t there fifteen associates, since these six [additional mental factors] occur:

1. the distraction imputed on thinking “I”,
2. heedlessness imputed on desire and benightedness,
3. agitation imputed on desire,
4. faithlessness imputed on the component of benightedness,
5. laziness and
6. lethargy

Although it is explained that these occur, the nine-fold enumeration is definite: since these six are of the substance of all four afflictions which are its basis of imputation, there are none apart from those four. More extensively, the fact that other mental factors do not arise out of these nine substances should be known from the explanation in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha: out of misgivings that I will be too verbose and since these are not difficult points, I will not write no more.

5. Analysing the Ground

In whomsoever’s continuum this afflicted mind exists, is that support a ground arising there or not? From the first standpoint, since, when an ordinary being of

691

the Desire Realm is bereft of lust in the Desire Realm, the afflicted mind is not countered, afflictions of the Desire Realm engage the continuum manifestly. From the second standpoint, since the afflicted mind and its associates, in the basis-of-all of that base, crave the Self, they are biased, therefore afflictions of the Desire Realm do not expand.

Because of the passage:

Wherever it arises, that is its’.

and of the aforementioned defect, the second position is not accepted.

In that case, aren’t defects also stated regarding the first position?

There is no fault, because, since:

An ordinary being of the Desire Realm . . . bereft of lust in the Desire Realm

refers principally to being bereft of the lust for copulation and the absence of the torment of mental unhappiness upon having attained the path of calm abiding and one’s continuum not being tormented by manifest lust for the five objects of desire and exterior focus abandons just some anger and lust but, since this afflicted mind is akin to the innate view of the Self, to counter it under the impetus of its antidote, uncontaminated wisdom must be generated.

What are the times of engaging and countering of such a mind?

33. At the period of equipoise on cessation,
Finally: the Ones having attained Power, the Arhats.

This comprises a contingent, occasional time of countering and a final, durable, time of countering.
The first is the time of entering a cessation for an Eighth Grounder who has not attained a [Path of] No-more-Learning and the time of equipoise for Āryas. The second [is the time from becoming] an Eighth Ground Bodhisattva who has attained Power

692

and above and of Hearer and Solitary Realiser Arhats, because such is also said in the Trimśika:

. . . Arhats do not have [it],
It does not exist during meditative equipoise on cessation
Nor does it exist during a transcendental path
This becomes the second.

as well as in the Abhidharmasamuccaya:

What is [the afflicted] mind?

That which has, at all times, the nature of conceit, observes the consciousness basis-of-all and is akin to all four afflictions, the view of the Self, lust for the Self, the pride thinking “I” and ignorance. Also it accompanies all virtuous, non-virtuous and neutral [minds] apart from the manifestation of the Path, entering in equipoise on cessation and the Ground of No-More-Learning and is a consciousness immediately preceding the ceasing of any one of the six consciousnesses.

This being so, the [afflicted] mind is two-fold: a mind thinking “I” and a mind immediately preceding that. These two are respectively called “ultimate mind and conventional mind” because of being a substantial existent capable of autonomy without relying on another consciousness and of not being posited apart from the six consciousnesses.
Regarding these, the first, through operating as an abode for binding the six collections to signs, operates as a contaminated, thoroughly afflicted [phenomenon] whereas the second, through operating as the immediately preceding condition of the six collections, distinguishes the later generation of consciousness by the force of its ceasing. As is said:

Regarding that, [the afflicted] mind is two-fold:

693

1. because of having become an abode by operating [as] the immediately preceding condition, the so-called “mind immediately preceding the ceasing of consciousness”, is the abode of the generation of consciousness and

2. the second, the afflicted mind being always akin to all four afflictions (the view of the disintegrating composite, the pride thinking “I”, lust for the Self and ignorance) is the abode of thoroughly afflicted consciousness.

The first, that which is the abode of consciousness, generates whereas the second operates as afflicted: because of cognising objects, it is consciousness; because of being immediately preceding and of thinking “I”, the [afflicted] mind is two-fold.

If the afflicted mind did not exist in Bodhisattvas having attained Power, Arhats and in the meditative equipoise of an Ārya, mental consciousness would also not exist within them, because the controlling condition of mental consciousness, the afflicted mind would not exist. Also, the Ones having attained Power and Arhats would have attained the Wisdom of Equality because, in keeping with:

Since it dwells in the abode of the afflicted mind,
I will call it, Wisdom of Equality.

the afflicted mind is countered.

34. Even were the apprehension of the person,
Which is the afflicted depositor, negated,
Because its mere cognitive clarity exists and
Because the potency to generate the apprehension of phenomena has not been negated,
Both defects, the absence of mental consciousness and attaining Equality,
Are abandoned at a remove.

In answer to this, I will analyse whether the mind exists or not in equipoise and whether that mind is contaminated or not.

1. Does the mind exist or not in equipoise.

694

Even at the time of equipoise, the severance of the substantial continuum of mind is not negated, because it is taught in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra that, although the basis-of-all is small, a consciousness engages together with the mind and at the time of equipoise, the object of observation is close to the basis-of-all and the causal condition also arises from the basis-of-all, in addition, experiences such as the ones of six collections of consciousness, the one viewing form, the other listening to sound, not being of discordant types, for as long as cyclic existence exists, [they] will engage as of one type. In this vein, the Pibrīttiguhyārtha also states:

It is also not definite that a mental consciousness on the occasion of being a Learner does not engage in a transcendental equipoise, because at that time, also, there is abiding in mental becoming. Because, in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra:

at times, . . .with one . . .

refers to:

with the mind.

Because:

at times, with two . . .

refers to:

. . . the [afflicted] mind and mental consciousness.

If, also, at that time, in addition to transforming, it also transformed into that which is not mind, this also would transform into that which is not mind.

As was said, when [stating]:

at times, . . .with one . . .

is to be explained also as

. . . with mental consciousness.

Moreover, if it were logical to say:

The collections of consciousness engaging during fainting and so forth depend on an object, because those generations are not close, the stream is severed,

The mind is of one type for as long as cyclic existence exists and is close to [its] object of observation, arising out out of the mind basis-of-all, how could the continuum be severed?

2. Analysing whether that mind is contaminated or not.

Within the systems of the two Ācāryas of the Vijñaptivāda, according to the first

695

system, that mind at the time of equipoise is uncontaminated because it does not occur for afflicted and uncontaminated consciousnesses to engage simultaneously in one continuum and the stream of the mind is also not severed and, at that time, the four, the view of the disintegrating composite and so forth, dwell as mere seeds. Moreover, when the meditative equipoise of the mental consciousness sees selflessness directly, just as the basis-of-all, which becomes uncontaminated, occurs out of enduring within its uncontaminated seeds, likewise, at that time, the mind also engages together with the basis-of-all, in an uncontaminated fashion, out of enduring by means of the thusness of uncontaminated seeds. After rising out of that, when the likes of a contaminated, virtuous intention manifests, that mind operates afflictedly after the four root afflictions manifest out of the seeds of the four afflictions. In this vein, the Pibrīttiguhyārtha also states:

That mind, as well, says someone, is therefore on occasion, uncontaminated: whatever is afflicted like that is posited on the occasion of seeds not occurring at all in the stream through engaging in equipoise on an Ārya path.

The uncontaminated occurs with the consciousness basis of all just as the Ārya path having realised selflessness directly out of its own beginingless type.

Hence, according to this system as well, since in equipoise, the four afflictions are non-manifest, it lacks a befouled, stained afflicted mind, however, since that mind is asserted to be uncontaminated, bereft of the four, it is asserted to have a controlling condition.
According to the second system, the mind exists during equipoise and, in addition, it is asserted to exists in a contaminated fashion.

696

Well then, do the afflictions’ contamination exist? It does not: otherwise, how [could it] be contaminated?

This seventh mind has:

1. a potency which generates afflictions after beholding the basis of all as owner and

2. a potency which generates obstructions to omniscience apprehending phenomena, after having acted as the innate support of the mental consciousness imputing various designations.

Regarding these, the first is the depositor of afflicted minds and, in addition, for as long as the afflictions, without exception, have not been abandoned, it engages and for the sake of negating [it], when ignorance and views are countered, since Eighth Ground [Bodhisattvas] and above and Arhats abandon root and subsidiary afflictions without exception, the potency to generate the apprehension of persons is negated. Since that is negated, depositing the afflicted also does not exist, hence, the afflicted mind is negated. Nonetheless, that mind’s potency to generate the apprehension of phenomena is not negated and the mere stream of that mind’s cognitive clarity is not severed, therefore, the defect that, since the controlling condition of the mental consciousness does not exist, the mental consciousness would not exist also, is not present and because the Wisdom of Equality is attained through being bereft of all stains, without destroying the apprehension of phenomena, the attainment of wisdom will also not occur.
This is logical because consciousness is asserted to arise cleanly out of definite, individual conditions and even though the seventh consciousness becomes afflicted under the influence of the four afflictions, since it is not so by its nature, when those afflicted associates, i.e. the afflicted obstructions, are abandoned, while its countering is logical, the utter countering of that mind’s nature is illogical. This

697

is so because after the transformed object, the adventitious faults, are exhausted under the impetus of the path, its nature is asserted to become clear. As is stated in the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

If someone says: because the contaminated, likewise, has two potencies.

Again, carefully analysing this latter system yields [the following]: before a past path is generated, at one time, the apprehension of persons and phenomena will have occurred, however, when a past path is generated, if it is that of an Ārya Hearer, at the time of equipoise, that mind lacks the superimposition of persons and engages clearly the selflessness of persons, however, it is not bereft of the superimposition of phenomena and does not engage it clearly.
In addition, although [it is] akin to the four un-afflicted ones (ignorance, the view, pride and desire), since they are also un-afflicted, do not thwart the attainment of the result of a Hearer and are also not virtuous.
If it is that of an Ārya Bodhisattva, both selflessnesses are perceived directly at the time of equipoise, hence, since both the apprehension of persons and of phenomena which thwart perceiving both selflessnesses are non-manifest, it is uncontaminated. Likewise, the Pibrīttiguhyārtha states:

In dependence on that which is the ignorance which thwarts perceiving both selflessness concurrently, just as conception conceptualises forcefully an initial snake on the existing shape of a rope, the view akin to the afflicted mind, concurrently, conceptualises forcefully phenomena and persons.
698
If a transcendental path is generated, because Ārya Hearers perceive the selflessness of persons, that mind devoid of the superimposition of persons, is not clear with respect to phenomena and the nature of superimposition is akin to benightedness and the view. Because:

i. those un-afflicted ones do not thwart the attainment of the result of a Hearer and

ii. of being the cause of the result of desire and

iii. of prompting the attainment of Nirvāṇa,

because it is not ultimate, it is not virtuous.

and:

As to not being an afflicted phenomenon, it is also akin to both lust and pride.

and:

[However], if a Bodhisattva has become utterly dedicated to Enlightenment or has become of definite type, on that occasion only the uncontaminated direct perception of both selflessnesses will arise.

Well then, what is the controlling condition of the mental consciousness on the Ground of Buddhahood?

In the Pibrīttiguhyārtha:

Are imprints infused or not in the Mirror-like Wisdom? If they are infused, since earlier Buddhas would have infused imprints for longer, they would be more powerful, whereas since later Buddhas would have done so for a shorter period, they would be less powerful and it would not be definite that the base of infusion of the imprints was only neutral.
If they are not infused, in answer to [the statement]:

The arising of the immeasurable qualities of force, fearlessness and so forth, would be causeless

since, at the time of the Vajra-like samādhi, all uncontaminated seeds would develop their final potency concurrently, without relying on new imprints, in keeping with the statement, “the stream would be severed”, after the end of the stream, since that very uncontaminated
699
generation would have reached the nature of [its] final potency, “it follows that [one] enters the severance of the stream” or, alternatively, those wisdoms dwelling in whichever consciousness should be known as mutually conditioning and conditioned.

Proceeding as previously, although the 9th Ground is also said to dwell [in] the mental consciousness, the Four Correct, Individual Knowledges have been obtained, because one has attained power over wisdom and because, with the exception of the smallest of the small abandonments of meditation, while the mere coarse is intended, since the imprints, without exception, of the elaborations dwelling within the mental consciousness, without exception, have been extirpated, the consciousness arising in the aspect of name and sign does not exist, therefore, the obstructions to omniscience are abandoned without exception.
Hence, I have set out the explanation of the uninterrupted arising of non-conceptual wisdom from the 8th Ground onwards and of the spontaneous arising of activities in which striving is pacified.
Although the pacification of predilective, conceptual striving in a person thinking “I will enact the weal of sentient beings” is intended, it is not the case that the mental mobility imputing the various designations of obstructive afflictions, does not exist. In that case, although the Ones having attained Power and the Arhats have that clear, cognitive substance of the mind, it is not called “afflicted mind” and although they have a matured consciousness, it is not called “basis-of-all”: both meanings are complete.
Although there was much to be said about those two, I felt entitled to elaborate. This completes the explanation of the ascertainment of the definition of the afflicted mind. This is the first chapter of “An Ocean of worthy explanations: the Difficult Points of Mind and Basis- of-all extensively commented”

700

2. Teaching the proofs of mind and basis-of-all

If one accepts a basis-of-all and a mind different from the six collections of consciousness, from what is it know that both of these exist?

35. The existence of a mind and mind basis-of-all
Different from the six consciousnesses
Should be interiorised
Through credible scripture and logic.

There are both scriptural proofs and logical ones.

2.1 Scriptural proofs

2.1.1 [Scriptural proofs of the mind basis-of-all]

It is said in the Abhidharmamahāyāna Sūtra:

The core of times without beginning
Is the abode of all phenomena.
Since that exists, all migrators and
Nirvāṇa, as well, will be attained.

and:

Since it is the basis-of-all [of] the maturation of
All seeds of all phenomena,
I have explained the mind basis-of-all
To both Holy ones.

and also in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra:

Deep and subtle is the appropriating consciousness,
All seeds flow as in a roiling river,
“To comprehend it as the Self is inappropriate:,
This, I do not teach to children.

and in the Ārya Laṇkāvatāra Sūtra:

[That which] thinks “I” [with respect to]
Mentation, i.e. the mind basis-of-all, is the [afflicted] mind.
Whatever thoroughly cognises the object,
That, I assert to be the engaging consciousness.

numberless [such quotes] occur within the Mahāyānasaṃgraha.

2.1.2 Scriptural [proofs] of the afflicted mind

It is said in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra:

At times, the mind basis-of-all, engages together with one consciousness, the mind, and at times, with two, the mind and the
mental consciousness and, at times, together with all seven engaging consciousnesses.

701

and in the tenth sheaf of the Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra:

Through purifying the mind dwelling in the basis-of-all, one attains the Saṃbhogakāya.

in addition, the statements in the Ghanavyūha Sūtra, the Laṇkāvatāra Sūtra and so forth regarding the eight consciousness prove this.

2.2 Logical Proofs

2.2.1 Logical proof of the mind basis-of-all

36. Although countless logical proofs
Are stated in the system of the treatises of the Vijñaptimātrins,
Since they are summarised into eight, that:
Appropriation, the first and clarity
Seeds, karma and physical sensation and
Equipoise and passing away are inappropriate,
I will explain these.

In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha the three inappropriate, thoroughly afflicted, afflictions, karma and birth and the two inappropriate mundane and transcendental thoroughly purified, making five with elaborations [are] extensively [explained] and in the Pañcaskandhaprakaraṇa, the four lines of reasoning and in the earlier commentary on the Bhūmi, the seventen scriptural proofs and the logical proofs and in the Pratītyasamutpādā-divibhaṇganirdeśa, some of the lines of reasoning of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and regarding the proofs set out in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, since the statement in the Viniścayasaṃgraha:

Appropriation, the first and clarity,
Seeds, karma and physical sensation and
Mindless meditative equipoise and passing away would become inappropriate.

702

summarises most of the eight lines of reasoning set out in the Abhidharmasamuccaya- vyākhyā [508]:

The existence of the mind basis-of-all is to be realised in an eightfold manner because:

1. If such a mind basis-of-all did not exist, the appropriation of the body would not occur

2. Beginningless-ness would not occur

3. Clarity would not occur

4. Seed, themselves, would not occur

5. Karma would not occur

6. Physical experience would not occur

7. Mindless meditative equipoise would not occur

8. Passing away would not occur.

I will, therefore, explain these eight.

The first line of reasoning

If the basis-of-all did not exist, how would the appropriation of the body be inappropriate?

Since, if one does not assert a basis-of-all, the afflicted mind would also not exist, the six collections [of consciousness] would have to appropriate the body, however, it is inappropriate for the body to be appropriated by the five causes. In this vein, inasmuch as the mind basis-of-all is the maturation of karma from a previous life, it engages under the impetus of karma, therefore it exists even at the time of conception, therefore it is appropriate [for it] to appropriate the body.
As to the six collections of consciousness, inasmuch as it is said in Sūtra that they are generated under the sway of attention to the inner organs, outer objects, the view, desire and so forth and inasmuch as, when the body has been established, they arise from its present conditions, they do not exist at conception and since, even if an engaging consciousness, the maturation of former karma and mental consciousness, did exist at conception, one still cannot state that the six collections appropriate the body because whatever is a fully-characterised maturation and a consciousness at conception is a maturation at the initial junction of the place of birth, within it having to be be absolutely neutral, both are beheld as also virtuous and non-virtuous and one also cannot state:

703

If, these six [collections of consciousness] have both virtuous and non-virtuous [components and also are unobscured and neutral, there is nonetheless no fault, since they are maturations.

because, if the neutral which has become a component of maturation engages uninterruptedly for as long as one lives, the six collections do not have an uninterrupted engagement for that long and also, if the six consciousnesses appropriated the body, if it were not pervaded by the mental stream appropriating the body, since whatever was not pervaded would not be apprehended by consciousness, it would become like a corpse, therefore, because the six collections are definite in their respective place, in whichever place a consciousness occurs, just that as been apprehended and since the remaining bodies have not been apprehended, they are likewise because engaging consciousnesses do not have the potency to generate the pervasion of all bodies at the same time.

If the place, body and organs of discrimination pervade all bodies, do places apprehend themselves?

This is inappropiate because since they are bereft of consciousness, they do not apprehend and, in addition, if those six [collections of consciousness] appropriated the body, this would also incur the defect of numerous appropriations of the body in one life, because these are occasionally present and occasionally absent. Therefore, if the basis-of-all did not exist, one would have to assert that the six collections appropriated the body, however, these five causes are inappropriate and to observe the appropriation of the body, one should accept the appropriator, the mind basis-of-all. As is also said:

Why is the appropriation of the body inappropriate?

As was stated, the five aspects: likewise, the consciousness totally appropriating arises from the cause of previous compositional factors. The engaging consciousness of the eye and so forth arises from present conditions, as is said, stating extensively:

Consciousnesses arise under the sway of organs, objects and the attention generated by these.

704

This is the first argument.
Also, the six collections of consciousness observe the virtuous and the non-virtuous; this is the second argument.
Also, since the six collections of consciousness have a neutral maturation, an un-included aspect is not observed: this is the third argument.
Also, the arising of the six collections of consciousness is definite in their respective places: it is inappropriate for whichever consciousness arising in whatever place apprehending that, not to apprehend the remainder. Apprehending [it] is also inappropriate, because consciousness does not exist. This is the fourth argument.
Over and again the faults of taking a body occur: likewise, at times the visual consciousness occurs and at times not. The same [is true] for the remaining ones. This is the fifth argument.

The second line of reasoning

Should someone say: There is also a defect concerning the assertion of the existence of the basis-of-all: both consciousnesses would likewise occur concurrently because the engaging consciousness also occurs occasionally while the basis-of-all engages continually.

You are someone who apprehends a fault where there is no fault: this is my assertion! If both consciousnesses did not occur concurrently, a given person, after desiring to see the six objects, would desire until consciousness [appeared] when the six non-discriminating attentions directed to their respective objects are unbiased, initially, even a particular consciousness will not arise, because there is no difference in the existence of the causes of body, organ and attention of those two engaging consciousnesses.

705

Since the two conceptions desiring to see and desiring to hear do not arise concurrently, even though they are said to be like the six attentions directed to the six objects existing simultaneously, it is appropriate for whatever occurs unbiasedly and undiscriminatedly with respect to its respective object, to be one.

If, even when a non-discriminating attention approaches [its] object and organ, it is not definite that “Within the six consciousnesses, this will arise first”, when any one of these has arisen, no other consciousness will arise simultaneously with it, because one attention does not chronologise two concurrent consciousnesses of similar type.

If the attention desiring to behold an object, such as form, must be determined, since both conceptions are not concurrent, you are right, however, since, if the four conditions are assembled, the result, consciousness, arises, two consciousness do occur concurrently because the causal condition, the object and the organ of such six collections [of consciousness] also exists simultaneously and the immediately preceding condition also ceases before [them].

Well then, this is contradictory with the statement: “There is neither a place nor an occasion on which two consciousnesses occur concurrently“?

It is not contradictory: consciousnesses of two similar types are intended. Likewise, also:

Why is engagement from the inception inappropriate?

If some said, as previously:

If the mind basis-of-all existed, then two consciousnesses would occur concurrently.

Regarding that, it was stated formerly: your discrimination of what is faultless as faulty has ceased and both such consciousnesses occur concurrently.

706

Why so?

In this vein, someone after desiring to see concurrently, would desire until consciousness [appeared] however, initially, it would be inappropriate for any consciousness to occur because, likewise, there is no also particularity to the existence of attention, organ and object in that.

The third line of reasoning:

If both consciousnesses do not occur concurrently, the mental consciousness does not engage with clarity. Why is this so?

In this vein, a clear engaging motion, by the subsequently conceiving mental consciousness with respect to the object apprehended by sensory consciousnesses, observes, however, inasmuch as the mental motion recollecting a formerly experienced, past object by sensory consciousnesses is unclear, since one must assert clear, actual motion towards the object of a present sensory consciousness, it is appropriate for both consciousnesses to occur concurrently as well as for mental motion to be clear. If this were not so, it would be inappropriate for those two subsequently conceiving mental consciousnesses to have clarity and non-clarity.

If it is also not simultaneous with sensory consciousness, although the present subject, the mind, has clarity, the likes of the past one would not.

This is inappropriate because when both of those mental consciousnesses engage the object, the objects’ own characteristics do not appear, past does not exist and consciousnesses apprehending simultaneous objects with clarity also not exist. Also, in the same vein:

If consciousnesses occuring concurrently do not exist, why would the visual consciousness and so forth together with the subsequently engaging mental consciousness not be clear?

Likewise, at the time of the subsequent recollection experiencing a past object, the appropriate mental consciousness is unclear however the
707
mind moving towards a present object is not, at present, unclear, therefore occurring concurrently and the mental consciousness being clear are also appropriate.

The fourth line of reasoning:

It follows that virtuous, non-virtuous seeds and so forth do not exist because the basis-of-all does not exist. It is not the case that this is not definite because the only the basis-of-all is the basis of accumulation of imprints.

If the six collections are the support of seeds, there is no defect!

This is illogical: if, for seeds to be infused, the generation and cessation of the infuser and the base of infusion must operate simultaneously, both non-virtue would occur after virtue and ending likewise, after a mundane mind a supramundane mind would occur. Moreover, at the time of the severance of the stream of the six collections of consciousness, the support of the imprints would not exist, in addition, from that standpoint, the minds occuring after the severance of the stream, from that viewpoint, would become causeless. Likewise:

Why aren’t the six collections of consciousness each other’s seeds?

Here, non-virtue occuring after virtue, virtue after non-virtue, neutrality after both, intermediate realms after bad realms, good realms after intermediate realms, and likewise bad realms after good realms, the uncontaminated after the contaminated, the contaminated after the uncontaminated, the supramundane after the mundane and the mundane after the supramundane are inappropriate as seeds.
708
Even when a long time has passed after the continuum has been severed, since it will arise after that long period has elapsed, it is also inappropriate.

This explains the fifth line of reasoning of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha.

The fifth line of reasoning:

If many consciousnesses did not occur concurrently, it would follow that:

1. the cognition of the vessel, such as a mountain trail,

2. the cognition of the place, such as [where] to raise and set one’s foot down,

3. the cognition thinking “I”,

4. the cognition of the object, such as rocks and so forth by the trail,

would not occur simultaneously. If this is asserted, it is said:

When going quickly and so on, through observation, these are clear.

If [summarised] in one aspect:

1. the cognition of the vessel is the appearance of the exterior world, the support.

2. The cognition of the place is the appearance of the mutable world, the substance of sentient beings, the six loci with the base.

3. The cognition thinking “I”, through looking inwards, engages, while always thinking “I”.

4. The cognition of the object is the appearance as form, sound and so forth.

Therefore, since the appearance of the exterior and of the interior, the apprehension of the I and the apprehension as any of the six objects are observed simultaneously, many consciousnesses occur concurrently because such karmas of different nature would be inappropriate for one consciousness.

Why are these four called “karma”?

They manifest as karma under the sway of performance and karma because of appearing as Self and Mine. Likewise, it is illogical to assert that these four are not the basis-of-all, while accepting that they are, is logical.
The cognition to which the exterior and the interior appear i.e. to which objects and sentient beings appear, is the very basis-of-all. The appearance of the Self i.e. the cognition of the Self, is the afflicted mind. As to the appearance of the object, in keeping with:

Thirdly, what objects of observation
Do the six objects have? These two are . . .

it is the six collections. Likewise:

709
Why, if two consciousnesses do not occur concurrently, is karma non-existent?

Likewise, in brief, the four aspects of karma i.e. these cognitions (the cognition of the vessel, the cognition of the place, the cognition thinking “I” and the cognition of the object) are observed to occur concurrently, instant by instant: the instant of one consciousness is inappropriate as such a karma of a different nature.

The sixth line of reasoning:

If the basis-of-all did not exist, on the occasion of befitting and unbefitting mentations and so forth, the experience of their pervading the body, totally, would not exist since there would be no support engaging in the generation of that experience in the body by vouchsafing a support, the causal condition would incur the defect of lacking a seed. Likewise:

If the mind basis-of-all did not exist, why would physical experience be inappropriate?

In this vein, some [assert that] although befitting and unbefitting mentations, subsequent ideations, mental equipoise, non-mental equipoise are appropriate, it would nonetheless be inappropriate for
whatever physical experiences occured to be observed with the occurrence of these many variegated aspects and and numerous aspects, therefore the mind basis-of-all exists.

The seventh line of reasoning:

If the basis-of-all did not exist, both equipoises would be inappropriate: likewise, if it did not exist, it would follow that that person engaging in both equipoises, would discard the body with consciousness, because the six collections would have ceased and the basis-of-does not exist. If this were asserted, it would be contradictory with the statement teaching the difference between those two [states] and death:

His consciousness has not gone beyond the body.
710

Since, if [it is] accompanied by an unclear mental consciousness, it would not become bereft of consciousness.

This is inappropriate because, if consciousness exists, the sensation subsuming the three [exists] and if that exists, sensation and discrimination exists, therefore a “meditative equipoise in which discrimination and sensation have ceased” is unsuitable. From that standpoint:

Even if the basis-of-all existed, since sensation and discrimination are omnipresent mental factors, at that time, also, it is unsuitable for discrimination and sensation to cease.

That is true, however, since the motion of the discrimination and sensation associated with the six collections of consciousness is not necessarily coarse and since the collected sensations associated with the basis-of-all have an extremely subtle object and aspect, this is not contradictory with an equipoise on cessation, therefore, [they] exist, however, since there is no defect, it is not akin.
Likewise:

If the mind basis-of-all did not exist, why wouldn’t mindless meditative equipoises exist?

Likewise, if it was logical for the very consciousness engaged in a meditative equipoise bereft of discrimination to pass beyond the body, not having passed beyond would, therefore, occur at the time of death. As is said:

Also, the Bhagavan’s consciousness was bereft of a body.

The eighth line of reasoning:

If the basis-of-all did not exist, passing away would be inappropriate: if one asserts a death through the relinquishment of the body by consciousness if, in addition, the basis-of-all did not exist, the mental consciousness would have to relinquish, however, from that standpoint, the gradual withdrawal of physical warmth would be inappropriate because there is no non-occurence of mental consciousness prior to the instant of death.

Well then, since the stream of the basis-of-all is also uninterrupted prior to the cessation of life, [it is] akin [to that].

To explain the distinction, in keeping with:

The consciousness basis-of-all pervades all viscera.
711

after the potency of the impelling karma [of] that basis-of-all which abides, while stably pervading all the body, is extinguished, then, since the basis-of-all withdraws from whichever area of the body has become inappropriate for the abiding of that basis-of-all, the sense-organs supported by it cease and warmth fades.
Since the sense organs, without exception, are discarded in these stages and since warmth withdraws from the totality of the body, they are not akin because, upon passing away, there is neither a mental consciousness dwelling in a pervasive fashion in all the body nor is there a withdrawal from the body, area by area.
Therefore, at death, the body is discarded through the gradual withdrawal of the sensation of warmth and it is illogical for something other than consciousness to enact this because the like is not observed in what is bereft of consciousness.
Although they are consciousnesses, the five sensory consciousnesses do not occasionally discard the body: if they did, since they dwell within parts of the body, it would follow that the sensation of warmth would be absent from whichever component of the body they were absent and upon fainting and so forth, death would also occur.
Although the mental consciousness does not dwell within the components of the body, like the basis-of-all which also pervades all the body without dwelling [in the components of the body] however if, by its mere existence, the body is not discarded :

1. inasmuch as from the fact that, until life is finally severed, the sensation of warmth is not withdrawn, before that, as well, the sensation of warmth is withdrawn and

2. inasmuch as the withdrawal of the sensation of warmth is also beheld when the body is discarded,

a relinquisher of the body, the basis-of-all, is accepted. As is also said:

If the mind basis-of-all did not exist, why would passing away also be inappropriate?

Likewise, the consciousness of death causes warmth to fade at the top or the bottom of the body and if relinquished, it is not the case that mental consciousness never occurs, therefore, also:

1. inasmuch as the mind basis-of-all is bereft of an apprehension of the body, and

2. since [it is] bereft of a mental consciousness observing also the fading of bodily warmth and the absence of bodily sensation,

[it] does not [do so], therefore, this is also illogical.

712

Having proceeded in this fashion, the five lines of reasoning (i.e. the first, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth) are actual proofs of existence after formulating the defects of the non-existence of the basis-of-all, whereas the remaining three abandon [adverse] debate.

Apart from the basket of the Mahāyāna Sūtras, doesn’t that mind basis-of-all occur in the discourses of the Hinayāna?

37. That mind basis-of-all
Also [exists] in the discourses of the Hinayāna.
Both the terms, the root consciousness basis-of-all and
Aggregates existing for as long as the limbs of existence
Are taught.

Notes