宗鏡錄 70.27

70.27

Answer: The Hundred Dharmas states that Dharmapāla explains: Regarding this eighth citta and its caittas, termed 'this category,' whether in cause or in fruit, the presence or absence of the remote objective condition (ālambanapratyaya) is indefinite. If during the causal stage the eighth consciousness relies on others' gross matter (fuchen) and the receptacle world, transforming [its own] nimittabhāga to take them as objects, they can then be mutually enjoyed and used, which constitutes the meaning of the remote objective condition. If it is the meaning of self and other as objects, the five sense faculties and the seeds do not mutually transform and become objects, and thus there is no meaning of the remote objective condition. Furthermore, in the form realm, there is gross matter, and the receptacle world can be mutual; having gross matter, it has the remote objective condition. In the formless realm, because there is no form upon which to rely, there is no meaning of the remote objective condition. If one's own eighth consciousness takes its own three objects as conditions, there is only the immediate objective condition. This is the analysis during the causal stage. If arriving at the stage of the Buddha-fruit, when the eighth consciousness takes its own objects, tathatā, and all past, future, and substanceless dharmas as objects, it does not have the remote objective condition. If it takes the bodies and lands of other Buddhas as objects, it transforms reflections to take them as objects, and this also has the remote meaning. Thus, for the eighth consciousness as the mental king itself in the stage of fruit, the presence or absence of the remote objective condition is indefinite. For the five caittas of the eighth, in both causal and fruitional stages, they all have the remote objective condition, because they rely on the three objects of the eighth mental king as the archetype (bimba) to take them as objects. As for the seventh consciousness, the treatise states: 'At the stage where the seventh citta-category has not yet undergone the transformation of the basis (āśrayaparavṛtti), being innate, it necessarily relies on an external archetype; hence it also definitely has the remote objective condition. At the stage of the transformation of the basis, this is not definitely present, because when taking tathatā as object, there is no external archetype.' Now it is stated: Regarding this seventh consciousness in the tainted stage, its substance is innate, and acting spontaneously it lacks strength; because it necessarily relies on the eighth consciousness as an external archetype so that it itself may then transform a reflection to take it as an object, it definitely has the remote objective condition. With respect to the untainted state, the presence or absence of the remote objective condition is indefinite. If it is the seventh citta-category associated with fundamental cognition (mūlajñāna) taking tathatā as object, there is no remote condition. If it is subsequent cognition (pṛṣṭhalabdhajñāna) taking tathatā as object, there is a remote condition. If the untainted seventh takes past, future, and various substanceless dharmas as objects, none have the remote objective condition.