淨名玄論 1.43

1.43

Third, explaining the catuṣkoṭi of objects and consciousness prevalent in the world: First, the Sarvāstivāda school, failing to attain the emptiness of dharmas, asserts that there are objects and there is consciousness. Second, the Vaitulyaka renunciants, studying the Vaipulya, cling to the erroneous doctrine of nonexistence, asserting that there is neither consciousness nor objects. Third, before the arrival of the Tripiṭaka master Kumārajīva, there was the theory of 'no-mind', which asserted that there are objects but no consciousness. As Master Sengzhao's Treatise on the Emptiness of the Non-Absolute states: 'Those who advocate no-mind mean having no mind toward the myriad things, but the myriad things have never been nonexistent.' Master Sengzhao evaluated it, saying: 'This succeeds in the stillness of the spirit, but fails in the emptiness of things.' Fourth, asserting that there are no objects but there is consciousness, such as clinging to Vijñaptimātratā without external spheres of cognition. Theories such as these all fall into the four gates and likewise do not transcend the four; therefore, they lack the Way of nonduality, and are refuted as above. Question: Having objects and having consciousness is the Sarvāstivāda view of clinging to existence; having neither objects nor consciousness is the Vaitulyaka tenet of erroneous nonexistence; having objects without consciousness is the personal idea of Chinese masters. These three can rightly be rejected. But the purport of Vijñaptimātratā is the grand tenet of the Vaipulya sūtras and the great treatise of the bodhisattva; why reject it? Answer: If one examines the intention of Vasubandhu's Vijñaptimātratā, it merely borrows the mind to forget the object, and once the object is forgotten, the mind does not remain; serenely without reliance, the principle naturally converges in profound mystery. It does not mean that the object is an arbitrary imputation while the mind is truly existent. Later students fail to comprehend his intent, so it is indeed necessary to refute them. Therefore, the fault lies with the disciples, not with Vasubandhu. In the section on the Pure Land, their merits and faults will be examined in detail.