The contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) of the noble disciples of the Small Vehicle cannot reach the eighth consciousness

After engaging in contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) on the five aggregates being without self, if one arrives at a conclusion such as: "The aggregate of form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness are suffering; what is suffering is not the eighth consciousness and does not belong to the eighth consciousness"—does this hold up?

Having realized that the five aggregates are suffering and are not the eighth consciousness, can one gradually grow weary of and disenchanted with the five aggregates, disliking the aggregate of form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness? If so, then one would instead turn to craving and clinging to the eighth consciousness, taking delight in the eighth consciousness. Could a noble disciple of the Small Vehicle take delight in the eighth consciousness, craving and clinging to the eighth consciousness? Does such a phenomenon exist? If it did, then the arhat, because of delighting in the eighth consciousness, would continue to cultivate and learn the bodhisattva path, benefiting self and benefiting others, and would be unable to enter nirvāṇa without remainder and attain liberation from the world of the three realms.

Theoretically, one can know that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness; anyone, upon hearing the Buddha introduce the eighth consciousness, can know it in that very moment. Many people, upon a moment's reflection, also know that the aggregate of form comes and goes without cease, and is therefore certainly not the true self, nor the true eighth consciousness. There is no need to labor painstakingly in contemplative practice to realize that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness—that would be straying far off topic.

The five aggregates are suffering and are not the eighth consciousness nor possessed by the eighth consciousness—does this hold up? The manas naturally regards the five aggregates as "I" (itself), not as belonging to the eighth consciousness; only because of this does it grasp at the five aggregates as self, and only because of this is there the immeasurable suffering of birth and death. If the manas of an ordinary being regarded the five aggregates as the eighth consciousness and as belonging to the eighth consciousness, would the ordinary being's manas still have self-view (ātma-dṛṣṭi) and self-grasping? Would it still have the imputed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva)? What would there be left for the manas to grasp at, when nothing belongs to Him?

The five aggregates are in essence the eighth consciousness itself; the six great seeds that form the five aggregates all come from the eighth consciousness. The five aggregates are born from the eighth consciousness's investment, so of course the five aggregates belong to the eighth consciousness. How is it that after contemplative practice one instead comes to regard the five aggregates as not the eighth consciousness? Is that not strange? Theory always has a day when it is exhausted, a day when it can go no further and cannot be made self-consistent. As for one who has realized the truth, whether speaking horizontally or vertically, everything makes sense and holds up, and no one can refute it.