翻譯名義集 6.35

[Ādāna]: Translated by its meaning as 'holding and grasping' (ādāna), meaning the capacity to hold and grasp the seeds and the sense-faculties of the physical body, maintaining their continuum of arising. There are three kinds of holding and grasping: first, holding and grasping the sense-faculties of the physical body so that they do not rot and decay; second, holding and grasping the seeds so that they are not scattered and lost; third, grasping and taking up rebirth in an unbroken continuum. That is to say, when a sentient being is at the final phase of the intermediate state (antarābhava), at the very first thought-moment when the eighth consciousness takes rebirth, there is the function of grasping and continuing life. 'Conjoining' (jie) means binding and belonging: because, in a single thought-moment of receiving life in the mother's womb, it is bound and belongs to it. It is also like a lodestone attracting iron: the iron is like the two drops of semen and ovum from the parents, and the eighth consciousness is like the lodestone, grasping and abiding in an instant. Simultaneously, the seeds of sense-organs and objects from its own consciousness also give rise to manifest activity; this is called grasping and taking rebirth. Therefore, the Śūraṅgama Sūtra states: 'The subtle ādāna consciousness / Its karmic traces like a torrential flow— (Zuili says: 'Regarding karmic traces, they refer to the perfumed residues, which is an alternative name for seeds. Because within the eighth consciousness, beginningless karmic impressions arise and cease subtly, streaming incessantly, they are like a torrential flow.' The Sandhinirmocana Sūtra says: 'Like a torrential stream of water producing many waves, all these waves depend on the water; the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses all depend on this consciousness.') / Fearing confusion over whether it is true or not true, / I do not commonly expound it. (The Zongjing lu says: 'If the Buddha were solely to say it is true, sentient beings would no longer advance in their practice and would fall into excessive pride, because although unpolluted it becomes polluted, not being devoid of adventitious defilements. If he were solely to say it is not true, sentient beings would discard their own bodies and generate annihilationist views, so they would never attain Buddhahood. Therefore, fearing that ordinary persons and those of the two vehicles would give rise to confusion and delusion, he does not commonly expound it.' Therefore, the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra states: 'The ādāna consciousness is extremely subtle; all seeds are like a torrential flow. I do not expound it to the foolish and ordinary, fearing they would conceptualize and cling to it as a self.' Xunwen says: 'Paramārtha refers to this as the seventh consciousness, likely taking the defiled portion of the eighth to establish the designation. When the Consciousness-Only One Hundred Dharmas refers to it as the eighth consciousness, it comprehensively takes the union of defiled and pure as the cause.')' What the Sandhinirmocana Sūtra refers to as the ninth consciousness is said by singling out the pure portion of the eighth. Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'The Bhagavat's exposition of the Dharma has three aspects: first, the defiled portion; second, the pure portion; and third, the defiled-and-pure portion. For example, within earth containing gold ore there are three things: the earth element, gold, and dirt clods. The earth serves as an analogy for the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), possessing both defiled and pure portions; this is the eighth consciousness. The dirt serves as an analogy for the conceptualized nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), which is the defiled portion of saṃsāra; this is the seventh consciousness. The gold serves as an analogy for the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva), which is the pure portion of nirvāṇa; this is the ninth consciousness.' The Zongjing lu states: 'Distinguishing among the consciousnesses and their varying division and combination all depend on essence and function. In terms of essence, there is distinction without distinction, because the essence which is fully functional does not obstruct function. In terms of function, there is diversity without diversity, because the function which is fully essential does not lose its essence. It is like taking the whole ocean to form waves without losing the ocean, or taking the waves to form the ocean without obstructing the waves. Neither existing nor non-existing, one can only then fathom the nature of consciousness; neither identical nor different, one can investigate the source of the mind.' An ancient master said: 'Regarding the aspects of the consciousnesses, although singular and multiple are indeterminate, they are all the conditioned arising of essence and function, root and branch subsuming each other. The root is the ninth consciousness; the branches are the five consciousnesses. Moving from root to branch, quiescent yet constantly functioning; moving from branch to root, functioning yet constantly quiescent. Being quiescent yet constantly functioning, it is still without stagnation. Functioning yet constantly quiescent, it moves without chaos. Because it is still without stagnation, thusness is conditioned arising. Because it moves without chaos, conditioned arising is thusness. Because thusness is conditioned arising, there is no nirvāṇa that is not saṃsāra, which means the eighth and ninth are the sixth and seventh. Because conditioned arising is thusness, there is no saṃsāra that is not nirvāṇa, which means the sixth and seventh are the eighth and ninth. Because there is no saṃsāra that is not nirvāṇa, the entire dharmadhātu is saṃsāra; because there is no nirvāṇa that is not saṃsāra, the entire dharmadhātu is nirvāṇa. Because the entire dharmadhātu is nirvāṇa, saṃsāra is not disorder; because the entire dharmadhātu is saṃsāra, nirvāṇa is not mere quiescence. Because saṃsāra is not disorder, sentient beings are themselves the Buddha; because nirvāṇa is not mere quiescence, the Buddha is himself sentient beings. Therefore, when the dharmadhātu is contrary, we say that nirvāṇa is saṃsāra, which is principle functioning in accordance with sentiment; when the dharmadhātu is aligned, we say that saṃsāra is nirvāṇa, which is sentiment functioning in accordance with principle. When clarified in this way, it is said that sentiment is not outside principle, and principle is not outside sentiment. Because sentiment is not outside principle, relying on the real, the sixth and seventh are called the eighth and ninth. The real is the essence. Because principle is not outside sentiment, relying on the provisional, the eighth and ninth are called the sixth and seventh. The provisional is the function. Because provisional and real are unimpeded, person and dharma are both empty. Because essence and function are unimpeded, emptiness has nothing that can be emptied. Because person and dharma are both empty, it is called absolute. Because emptiness has nothing that can be emptied, it is called wondrous function. Such explanations are also words intended to dismiss sentiment; when discussing the ultimate reality, it cannot be captured by names and characteristics. The ultimate cannot be discriminated by the two truths; cannot be captured by names and characteristics, and therefore is not expressible through words and images; cannot be discriminated by the two truths, and therefore is not explainable through existence and non-existence. Therefore it is said: The ultimate principle has no words; wise and noble ones remain silent. It can only be met in spirit, but cannot be sought through the discriminating mind.' Question: 'The One Mind is clear and quiescent; how do the waves of the consciousnesses arise?' Answer: 'Merely because of non-enlightenment, thoughts suddenly arise.' The Awakening of Faith says: 'Because of not knowing in accordance with reality that the dharma of thusness is one, the non-enlightened mind arises.' The Treatise on the Mahāyāna says: 'This demonstrates the causes and conditions for the arising of fundamental non-enlightenment. Due to what causes and conditions does fundamental non-enlightenment arise and exist? It arises and exists because of not being in accord. Regarding what dharmas is it not in accord? It is said to not be in accord regarding three dharmas. What is the meaning of

Those three dharmas all abide within the one and never depart from it; therefore, they are collectively called 'one.'" Furthermore, the Awakening of Faith says: "Through the perfuming power of ignorance, the mind stirs in non-enlightenment, at first forming the karmic consciousness. Because of this karmic consciousness, the evolving consciousness and the rest are further produced." The commentary explains: "The initial non-enlightenment is called the first aspect, the karmic aspect. There is no distinction between the perceiver and the perceived; the mental king and its thought-dharmas cannot be analyzed. There is only the meaning of a fine, concealed flowing; hence it is named 'karma.' Such movement arises solely from non-enlightenment. In the second aspect, the evolving aspect, taking the thought of the karmic aspect as its support, it evolves to become the subjective grasper, flowing into the aspect of cognition. In the third aspect, the manifesting aspect, taking the evolving cognition as its support, the realms of conceptual proliferation fully manifest before it, and the objective image-aspects grasped are completely and perfectly arrayed. Based on this seeing-aspect, those image-aspects manifest. Furthermore, regarding the moving aspect: moving constitutes the karmic consciousness, whose principle is extremely subtle. That is to say, the mind of original enlightenment, stirred by the wind of ignorance, subtly moves throughout its entire substance. This aspect of subtle movement is not yet capable of grasping external conditions; it is simply non-enlightenment. That is, from original enlightenment non-enlightenment arises, which constitutes the karmic aspect. It is like the subtle ripples on the ocean, moving subtly from tranquility, yet without having shifted from their original place. As for the evolving aspect: relying on the power of ignorance to assist the karmic aspect, it evolves to become the subjective grasper, having the function of seeing, which arises directed outward; this is named the evolving aspect. Although there is the evolving aspect, it cannot yet manifest the objective image-aspects of the five sense-objects grasped. It is like waves on the ocean, which, relying on the power of the wind to further aid the subtle motion, surge as stirred waves and rise in shifting motion. As for the manifesting aspect: from the evolving aspect, the manifesting aspect is formed, and only then do the material objects—the mountains, rivers, the great earth, the receptacle world, and so forth—come into being." In the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra: "Mahāmati addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat! How many kinds of arising, abiding, and cessation do the consciousnesses have?' The Buddha told Mahāmati: 'The consciousnesses have two kinds of arising, abiding, and cessation, which are not known through discursive thought. They are: the arising, abiding, and cessation of the continuous flow, and the arising, abiding, and cessation of characteristics (in Sanskrit nigha, here translated as unbroken continuous flow; this speaks of continuous flow). Pertaining solely to the eighth [consciousness] itself, its three aspects are subtle and concealed, and its seeds and actual manifestations are unbroken; this is named the continuous flow. Due to the condition of ignorance, the karmic consciousness initially arises; hence it is called arising. It continues for long eons; hence it is called abiding. When one reaches the vajra-samādhi, in a single thought of equal enlightenment, fundamental ignorance is severed; this is called the cessation of the continuous flow. As for the arising, abiding, and cessation of characteristics: this refers to the remaining seven consciousnesses, whose minds and objects are coarse and manifest; hence they are named characteristics. Although the seventh grasps the eighth, and in comparison to the sixth is subtle, it possesses the four delusions; hence it is also called coarse. Dependent upon those manifest consciousnesses' own seeds, when conditions for the various objects combine, the seven arise; this is called the arising of characteristics. Perfuming across long eons is named the abiding of characteristics. Turning from the branches toward the root, gradually subduing and severing them until the end of the seventh stage; this is named the cessation of characteristics. Based on the former arising and cessation, the basis of delusion and awakening is established. Based on the latter arising and cessation, the basis of defilement and purity is established. The latter is short and the former is long; functionally they are divided into two distinct types: that is, the arising, abiding, and cessation of the continuous flow, and the arising, abiding, and cessation of characteristics.'" The Benevolent King Prajñā Sūtra says: "However, for all sentient beings, throughout long and distant eons, the consciousness of the initial kṣaṇa is distinct from wood and stone; born with defilement and purity, each can become the root of immeasurable and countless defiled and pure consciousnesses. From the initial kṣaṇa of ineffable eons up to the final kṣaṇa of the vajra[-like samādhi], there are ineffable and ineffable consciousnesses that produce the two dharmas of matter and mind for all sentient beings—matter is called the form skandha, and mind is called the four [mental] skandhas." Zongjing records an ancient commentary: "'The consciousness of the initial kṣaṇa is distinct from wood and stone' means that the consciousness of a single thought possesses awareness and sensation; hence it is distinct from wood and stone. This reveals that the mind of the final stage of the intermediate existence in the preceding thought, in which it sees the two impurities of red and white, is identical in kind to external receptacle [elements like] wood and stone. When this consciousness arises, it grasps them to form a body; hence it is distinct from wood and stone. Question: 'Since it is not a distant, beginningless past, why is it called the initial consciousness?' Answer: 'The past and future lack real substance; momentary perfuming belongs solely to the present. At the very moment when a false thought arises in the present, the false thought opposes the true; this is named the initial consciousness. It is not that in the past a consciousness was first initiated and therefore called the initial consciousness. Therefore we know that horizontally encompassing all places and vertically penetrating immeasurable time, all is just the single mind of the immediate present; there is no other principle.'" In the Daoqi Jing: "Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat! The ālayavijñāna possesses all dharmas, exceeding the sands of the Ganges. Taking what as their root do these dharmas arise, and where are they born?' The Buddha said: 'The place of origin of all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas like this is supreme and inconceivable. Why is this? Because in the place that is neither conditioned nor unconditioned, it is able to give birth to both conditioned and unconditioned dharmas.' Mañjuśrī again addressed the Buddha, saying: 'Bhagavat! What is called the place that is neither conditioned nor unconditioned?' The Buddha said: 'The place that is neither conditioned nor unconditioned is what is called the fundamental dharma of the one mind. Because it is not conditioned, it can make the conditioned; because it is not unconditioned, it can make the unconditioned. Therefore I say its place of origin is supreme and inconceivable.' He also said: 'Two gates should be established and clearly explained: the first is the gate of downward turning, and the second is the gate of upward turning. The gate of arising and cessation does not go beyond these two. How are these two gates differentiated? A verse says: When all defiled dharmas have power, / And all pure dharmas have no power, / Turning away from the root and revolving ever downward, / This is named the gate of downward turning. / When all pure dharmas have power, / And all defiled dharmas have no power, / Heading toward the source and revolving ever upward, / This is named the gate of upward turning.'" The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Treatise says: "How should one know that, dependent upon the transformations of consciousness, the self and dharmas are provisionally designated and do not exist as distinct real entities, and that because of this everything is consciousness only? A verse says: These consciousnesses transform (transformation has the meaning of altering and transforming; that is, the eight kinds of consciousness transform from the self-verifying aspect, appearing like the two aspects: that is, the transformed seeing-aspect has active function and is called seeing; the transformed image-aspect is that which is acted upon and is called image. Both revolve relying on the self-verifying aspect. Since the two aspects of seeing and image encompass all dharmas completely, these two aspects are transformed and arise from the substance of the mind; therefore, we know that all dharmas are not separate from the mind), / Into the grasper and that which is grasped (from the initial karmic consciousness, the two gates of seeing and image arise. Based on seeing, the subject is established; based on image, the object is established. As soon as subject and object are complete, the self and dharmas mutually arise. Or it is said that function is the qualifying characteristic, and substance is that which is characterized;

Or taking the seventh consciousness as the defining characteristic and the eighth consciousness as what is characterized.) "Therefore, both are nonexistent" (On these two aspects of seeing and seen, the false grasping of real self and phenomena—both graspings are nonexistent; that is, apart from these two aspects of seeing and seen, the realms of self and phenomena outside the mind falsely grasped by deluded sentiment are entirely nonexistent). "Therefore, everything is consciousness-only" (Only consciousness refutes the existence of external objects; 'consciousness' excludes the emptiness of mind. Using the word 'only' refutes the Sarvāstivādin grasp of real external objects outside the mind; using the word 'consciousness' excludes Bhāviveka and others who grasp at a pernicious emptiness. It dismantles the two extremes of emptiness and existence, properly abiding in the Middle Way.) Furthermore, what the various masters have clarified generally comprises the doctrine of the four aspects: First is the aspect of the seen (nimittabhāga) (1. The real mark is called 'aspect': its substance is precisely Suchness (tathatā), because it is the real mark. 2. The objective mark is called 'aspect', because it can serve as the objective realm for the sense faculties and mind. 3. The appearance is called 'aspect': this applies only to conditioned phenomena, because they possess appearances. It encompasses both shadow-images and underlying substances, which are solely transformations of consciousness. 4. The semantic mark is called 'aspect': that is, the semantic aspect that is signified beneath the signifying expression. Among these four aspects, the latter three are taken as the aspect of the seen. Moreover, the aspect of the seen is twofold: one is that which consciousness transforms abruptly, which is the underlying substance; the other is when consciousness and so forth cognize an object, it only transforms a shadow-image to cognize, unable to grasp the underlying substance). Second is the aspect of seeing (darśanabhāga). The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: With respect to its own cognized object, it has the function of discerning (The aspect of seeing has five categories: 1. Seeing as realization is called 'seeing', which is the aspect of seeing of the three fundamental wisdoms. 2. Illuminating is called 'seeing', because both the sense faculties and the mind possess the meaning of illumination. 3. Being the cognizing subject is called 'seeing', because all three internal aspects are capable of cognizing. 4. Remembering and understanding is called 'seeing', because one remembers and understands the signified meaning. 5. Inferential deliberation is called 'seeing', which is the mind of inferential valid cognition deliberating all realms. Among these five kinds of seeing, excluding the five physical faculties and the two inner and outer aspects, the remainder are all subsumed under the aspect of seeing). Third is the aspect of self-awareness (svasaṃvittibhāga), meaning that which can directly realize that its own aspect of seeing cognizes the aspect of the seen without error, because it is capable of serving as a witness. Fourth is the aspect of awareness of self-awareness (svasaṃvitti-saṃvittibhāga), meaning that which can directly realize the third aspect of self-awareness cognizing the aspect of seeing without error. It takes its name from what it realizes. As for the meaning of these four aspects: the mirror itself is like the aspect of self-awareness; the mirror's clarity is like the aspect of seeing; the reflections in the mirror are like the aspect of the seen; and the back handle of the mirror (bì mà) is like the aspect of awareness of self-awareness. Regarding these four aspects, four masters established their doctrines: First, Bodhisattva Sthiramati established the single aspect of self-awareness. The Treatise on Consciousness says: "This aspect of self-awareness arises from conditions and is of other-dependent nature (paratantra); therefore, it is said to exist. The two aspects of seeing and seen do not arise from conditions, but exist due to the false grasping of the conceptualizing mind. These two aspects exist in deluded sentiment but are nonexistent in principle. Only the aspect of self-awareness is of other-dependent nature, born from seeds, and is truly existent. The two aspects of seeing and seen are nonexistent, and the further transformed grasping of self and phenomena is likewise nonexistent; thus, nonexistence resembles nonexistence. If following Bodhisattva Dharmapāla, then existence resembles nonexistence. The two aspects of seeing and seen have substantial entity; the transformed graspings of self and phenomena lack substantial entity. Therefore Sthiramati cited the Laṅkāvatāra: 'The defiled minds and mental factors of the three realms all have false conceptualization as their intrinsic nature.' Hence we know that the two aspects of seeing and seen in the eight consciousnesses all exist through the false grasping of the imagined nature. Only the single aspect of self-awareness is of other-dependent nature and is truly existent." Second, the Master Nanda established two aspects to constitute consciousness-only. In setting forth his thesis: whenever any mind arises, it invariably possesses the two aspects of seeing and seen. The two aspects of seeing and seen are the cognizing subject condition and the cognized object condition. If there were no aspect of the seen to pull the mind, mental factors would have no way to arise; if there were no aspect of seeing as the cognizing subject, who would know that there is an aspect of the seen as the cognized object? Thus, having both object and mind constitutes consciousness-only. The aspect of seeing is that which transforms, and the aspect of the seen is what is transformed; for subject and object to be established, both aspects must be present. The aspect of seeing and the aspect of the seen are both of other-dependent nature. Sometimes cognizing a solitary shadow-image, they arise from the same seed; sometimes cognizing an object with underlying substance, they arise from distinct seeds; thus they are not the imagined nature. If one does not accept this, the Buddhas should not manifest various reflected images such as bodies and lands. Third, Bodhisattva Dignāga established three aspects. Sthiramati established one aspect, having only entity but lacking function; Nanda established the two aspects of seeing and seen, having only function but lacking entity; both are mutually deficient. As for the establishing logic, it refers to establishing the meaning of the result of valid cognition (pramāṇa-phala). The treatise says: because the means of valid cognition (pramāṇa), the object of valid cognition (prameya), and the result of valid cognition (pramāṇaphala) are distinct, the seen and the seeing must have a substantial entity upon which they rely. The aspect of the seen is the object of valid cognition, and the aspect of seeing is the means of valid cognition; thus one requires the aspect of self-awareness to verify it, which is the result of valid cognition. By analogy, a ruler measuring silk: the silk is the object of measurement, the person with the ruler is the means of measurement, and the knowledge of recording the number is called the result of measurement. Now, that the aspect of seeing cognizes the aspect of the seen without error is entirely because the aspect of self-awareness acts as the result. Now, when the aspect of seeing of the eye consciousness cognizes blue, it definitely does not cognize yellow, like the aspect of seeing cognizing an unseen object. When it suddenly cognizes a yellow object, it definitely does not cognize blue; if there were no aspect of self-awareness, the aspect of seeing would not be able to remember itself. Therefore, we know that three aspects must be established. If there were no aspect of self-awareness, the seen and the seeing would also be nonexistent. If one asserts that there are two aspects, then there must definitively be the aspect of self-awareness. The verse of the Pramāṇasamuccaya states: 'The cognized object resembles the form of the external object; that which grasps the form is self-awareness.' The commentary explains: 'The cognized object resembling the form of the external object' means the aspect of the seen manifests resembling an external object. 'That which grasps the form is self-awareness' means the aspect of seeing can grasp the aspect of the seen. Therefore, self-awareness is precisely the substance. Fourth, Bodhisattva Dharmapāla established four aspects. Setting forth the thesis: if minds and mental factors are finely analyzed, they should possess four aspects. Setting forth the logic: if there were no fourth aspect, what phenomenon would serve as the result of valid cognition for the third aspect? You, Dignāga, established three aspects because the aspect of seeing has the function of acting as the means of valid cognition to discern objects, and you thus took the aspect of self-awareness as the result of valid cognition. Your aspect of self-awareness also possesses the capacity of a means of valid cognition to illuminate objects; therefore, what phenomenon would serve as the result of valid cognition for the aspect of self-awareness as the means of valid cognition? Thus one must take the fourth aspect, awareness of self-awareness, as the result of valid cognition for the third aspect. He cited the Ghanavyūha Sūtra: 'The minds of sentient beings have two natures, all divisions inner and outer (the one inner division is one nature, and the two divisions of seeing and seen are the second nature, which are the inner and outer natures of mind and object), entangled by the grasped and the grasper (the coarse activity of the cognizing subject is the aspect of seeing as the grasper; the grasped is the bondage to the cognized aspect), seeing manifold distinctions (the aspect of seeing encompasses the three kinds of valid cognition, hence it is said to have manifold distinctions).' Now, to be a result of valid cognition, it must be direct perception (pratyakṣa) before it can serve as a result of valid cognition.

Although the seeing-portions of the first five consciousnesses and the eighth consciousness are direct perception, because they cognize externally, they are not the fruit of valid cognition (pramāṇa-phala). To be the fruit of valid cognition, it must cognize internally. Although the seventh consciousness cognizes internally, it is also not the fruit of valid cognition. To be the fruit of valid cognition, it must possess two criteria: first, direct perception; second, internal cognition. Furthermore, although the seeing-portion of the subsequently attained [wisdom] in the fruit state is direct perception, when cognizing internally it manifests an image to cognize it, and therefore is not the fruit of valid cognition. Thus, three criteria must be possessed. Furthermore, although the seeing-portion of the fundamental wisdom in the fruit state directly realizes suchness, because it does not manifest an image, it is a mental function, and therefore is not the fruit of valid cognition. Thus, it must be the mental essence and fully possess four criteria: first, direct perception; second, internal cognition; third, not manifesting an image; and fourth, being the mental essence—only then is it the fruit of valid cognition. Question: 'What do the four portions take as their essential nature?' Answer: 'The image-portion takes manifested matter and mind as its essential nature. As for the internal three portions, they take active mental factors as their essence.'

The Zongjing [lu] states: 'Question: "There has never been an object without mind, nor has there ever been a mind without an object. Speaking generally of ordinary beings and noble ones, how many kinds of objects are there in total?" Answer: "Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of objects. A verse says:

Nature-objects do not follow the mind
(Nature has the meaning of real; that is, the real sense-faculties, sense-data, four great elements, and the image-portion objects such as real matter produced by concentration. That they do not follow the mind means that because these image-portions of sense-faculties, sense-data, and so forth are all produced from their own real seeds, they do not follow the seeds of the cognizing seeing-portion);
Solitary images solely arise from the seeing
(Image means reflection, an alternative name for the image-portion. Because this provisional image-portion has no seed as an accompaniment, but is merely individually nominal, it is called a solitary image; that is, sky-flowers, rabbit horns, and various provisional reflected phenomena of the past and future. These merely manifest and arise from the cognizing seeing-portion and share the same seed as the seeing-portion; hence it is said that solitary images solely arise from the seeing);
Substance-carrying [objects] connect feeling and origin
(That is, one half of the image-portion is produced from the same seed as the original substance, and one half is produced from the same seed as the seeing-portion; hence it is said to connect feeling and origin. Feeling is the cognizing seeing-portion; origin is the cognized original substance);
Nature, seeds, and so forth accord as appropriate
(Accords as appropriate indicates indefiniteness; that is, among the three kinds of objects, each accords with what is appropriate. The differentiations of nature, seed, realm, bondage, the three categories, and vipāka are indefinite)."

It further explains in detail: As for nature-objects, the image-portion having a real essence is called a nature-object. That is, the real forms cognized by the first five consciousnesses, the eighth consciousness-king, and the sixth consciousness of direct perception, which apprehend the self-characteristic of the object without taking on nominal conventions and without a calculating mind—only this object is called a nature-object. Also, when fundamental wisdom cognizes suchness, it is also a nature-object, because it operates spontaneously without conceptualization. That it does not follow the mind comprises five kinds of non-following: First, non-following of nature: the cognizing seeing-portion encompasses the three natures, while the cognized image-portion object is exclusively indeterminate nature; thus it does not follow the cognizing seeing-portion in encompassing the three natures. Second, non-following of seeds: the seeing-portion is produced from its own seeing-portion seeds, and the image-portion is produced from its own image-portion seeds; because it does not follow the mental seeds of the cognizing seeing-portion, it is called non-following of seeds. Third, non-following of realm-bondage: for example, when the clear mental consciousness cognizes the objects of smell and taste, those two objects of smell and taste are bound exclusively to the desire realm and do not follow the clear mental consciousness in encompassing the upper realms. Also, for example, when the eighth consciousness of the desire realm cognizes the object of seeds, that cognizing eighth consciousness is bound exclusively to the desire realm, whereas the cognized seeds encompass the three realms; thus the sixth and eighth consciousnesses have non-following of realm-bondage. Fourth, non-following of the three categories: regarding the non-following of the five aggregates, the seeing-portion of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under consciousness seeds, whereas the image-portion of the five sense-data is subsumed under the aggregate of form—this is non-following of the aggregate category; regarding the twelve āyatanas, the seeing-portion of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the mind āyatana, whereas the image-portion of the five sense-data is subsumed under the five object āyatanas—this is non-following of the āyatana category; regarding the eighteen dhātus, the seeing-portion of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the five consciousness dhātus, whereas the image-portion of the five sense-data is subsumed under the five object dhātus—this is non-following of the three categories. Fifth, non-following of vipāka: for example, the seeing-portion of the eighth consciousness is of the nature of vipāka, whereas the cognized image-portion of the five sense-data is not of the nature of vipāka; this is called non-following of vipāka.

Solitary image objects are when the image-portion is produced from the same seed as the seeing-portion; this is called solitary images solely arising from the seeing. For example, when the sixth consciousness cognizes sky-flowers, rabbit horns, the past and future, and manifests images to cognize the unconditioned, as well as cognizing the phenomena of earth-element, or cognizing provisional matter produced by concentration that is extremely distant, extremely subtle, and so forth—these are all provisional reflections. These merely manifest and arise from the seeing-portion and have no seeds of their own; hence they are said to solely arise from the seeing. There are two kinds of solitary images: First, solitary images without substance, which are the image-portions manifested when the sixth consciousness cognizes sky-flowers, rabbit horns, the past, the future, and so on. Their image-portion is produced from the same seed as the seeing-portion of the sixth consciousness, and there is no substance of sky-flowers and the like. Second, solitary images with substance, which are when the sixth consciousness cognizes the seeds and active states of the five sense-faculties; because they all arise relying on a substance, their image-portion is also produced from the same seed as the seeing-portion, and they are also called solitary image objects.

Third, substance-carrying [objects] are mind cognizing mind. For example, when the seventh consciousness cognizes the object of the seeing-portion of the eighth consciousness, its image-portion is not produced from a separate seed: half is produced from the same seed as the original substance, and half is produced from the same seed as the cognizing seeing-portion. That which is produced from the original substance is non-obscured nature; that which is produced from the cognizing seeing-portion is obscured nature. Because its subsumption under both ends is indefinite, it is said to connect feeling and origin. Substance is the cognizing seeing-portion of the seventh; origin is the cognized seeing-portion of the eighth. Furthermore, through fourfold analysis: First, solely distinct seeds and not the same seed: this is the nature-object. Second, solely the same seed and not distinct seeds: this is the solitary image object. Third, both: this is the substance-carrying object. Fourth, neither: this is fundamental wisdom cognizing suchness. Because suchness is not produced from the seed of the seeing-portion, it is called not the same seed. Moreover, suchness in its own essence is unconditioned, attained solely through revelation by realization, and is not a phenomenon produced by a generative cause; hence it is called not distinct seeds. Nature, seeds, and so forth accord as appropriate: nature means nature-objects; kinds and varieties mean categories. That is to say, among the three kinds of objects, each has distinct categories, and now all must be explained according to what is appropriate.

Furthermore, distinguishing according to the eight consciousnesses: the first five evolving consciousnesses at all times are exclusively nature-objects, without distinguishing whether they are used interchangeably or not. Between the two kinds of manifestation, they are exclusively manifestation through causes and conditions, and also share the same object with the five sense-faculties. The sixth mental consciousness has four classes: First, clear mental consciousness, which also encompasses the three objects; when cognizing the real five sense-data together with the five [consciousnesses], in the initial moment of spontaneous mind, it is a nature-object. If in subsequent moments it cognizes provisional forms such as square, round, long, and short superimposed on the five sense-data, it is a solitary image with substance, also called an object resembling substance-carrying.

Second, the solitary mental consciousness in scattered states also encompasses the three objects and is mostly solitary images, because it generally cognizes phenomena of the three periods of time with or without substance. When it cognizes its own active mind and mental factors, it is a substance-carrying object. When it cognizes its own five sense-faculties and the mind and mental factors of others, it is a solitary image object, also called an object resembling substance-carrying. Moreover, when the solitary mental consciousness in the initial instant cognizes a small portion of the five sense-data as real form, it is also called a nature-object. Third, the mental consciousness in concentration also encompasses the three objects; because it generally cognizes phenomena of the three periods of time with or without substance, it is a solitary image object. Furthermore, because it can cognize its own active mind and mental factors, it is a substance-carrying object. Moreover, prior to the seventh ground, in the defiled state of concentration, because it can also induce the five consciousnesses to cognize the five sense-data, it is a nature-object. Fourth, the mental consciousness in dreams is exclusively a solitary image object. The seventh consciousness is exclusively a substance-carrying object. As for the eighth consciousness, its consciousness-king is exclusively a nature-object, because of manifestation through causes and conditions; its associated five mental factors of attention and so forth are resembling substance-carrying and truly solitary image objects.' Question: 'What do the three objects take as their essence?' Answer: 'First, the nature-object takes the real five sense-data as its essence, because it is formed possessing the eight dharmas. The eight dharmas are the four great elements—earth, water, fire, and wind—and the four subtle [elements] of visible form, smell, taste, tangible, and so forth. Speaking with respect to the conditioned, if within the cognizing defiled state, with the exception of the seventh consciousness, the remaining seven all take their own mind and mental factors as their essence. Second, the solitary image object takes the provisional image-portion manifested by the seeing-portion of the sixth consciousness as its essence, and the cognizer takes its own mind and mental factors as its essence. Third, the substance-carrying [object] takes the provisional intermediate image-portion that is manifested as its essence; if within the cognizing defiled state, it takes solely the mind and mental factors of the sixth and seventh consciousnesses as its essence. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says:

Traveling far and wandering alone,
Bodiless, slumbering in a cave,
Taming this mind that is hard to tame—
Such a one is called a true brahmacārin.

The Bai fa [lun] explains: "The Tathāgata, relying on the basis of the mind faculty, speaks of traveling far and wandering alone; following the mental consciousness of ignorance, it comprehensively cognizes all objects, and hence is called traveling far. Furthermore, because all mental states arise in succession, each evolving one by one without a real controller, it is called wandering alone. Bodiless means that the mind has no physical form. Slumbering in a cave means that relying on the various faculties, it secretly operates within the body, which is called slumbering in a cave. Slumbering means concealing; that is, what is stored by the mind within the body. The intent of this verse is to refute the non-Buddhists' attachment to a real self. The Bhagavat said: It is merely the mind wandering alone without a separate controller; hence it is said to wander alone. Furthermore, having roamed through the objects of the six sense-data since beginningless time, it is therefore called traveling far."'"