The Contemplative Practice of Hīnayāna Noble Disciples Cannot Access the Eighth Consciousness.

After contemplating the five aggregates as non-self, if one reaches a conclusion such as: "The aggregate of form, feeling, perception, volitional 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 logically?

Having realized that the aggregate of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are suffering and are not the eighth consciousness, can one gradually become weary of and disenchanted with the aggregate of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness, and no longer like them? If so, then one would instead crave and cling to the eighth consciousness, taking delight in the eighth consciousness. Can the noble disciples of the Small Vehicle take delight in the eighth consciousness and crave the eighth consciousness? Does such a phenomenon exist? If it did, then arhats, because of their delight in the eighth consciousness, would continue to cultivate and study the bodhisattva path, benefiting themselves 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 who hears the Buddha introduce the eighth consciousness can know this on the spot. Many people, upon a moment's reflection, also know that the aggregate of form, with its coming and going without pause, is certainly not the real self, nor is it the real eighth consciousness. There is no need to labor painstakingly in contemplation to realize that the five aggregates are not the eighth consciousness — that would be straying far too much from the topic.

The five aggregates are suffering; can it hold up logically to say they are not the eighth consciousness and do not belong to the eighth consciousness? The manas certainly regards the five aggregates as belonging to itself (as "I"), 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 measureless suffering of birth and death. If the manas of ordinary beings regarded the five aggregates as being the eighth consciousness and belonging to the eighth consciousness, would the manas of ordinary beings still have the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) and self-grasping? Would it still have the imputed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva)? What would the manas have left to grasp at, if nothing belonged 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 (vipaśyanā-caryā), one instead concludes that the five aggregates are 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 can no longer be self-consistent. For one who has realized the truth, speaking horizontally or vertically, everything makes sense and holds up logically, and no one can refute it.