成唯識論述記 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

I reflect that the subtleties of the six positions depend on the "Wings" of the images to trap the truth, and the obscurities of the two texts rely on Zhuangzi and Liezi to probe their impulses. How much more so is this true of neither existence nor emptiness, which stills explications beyond speech and snares; and neither arising nor ceasing, which cuts off names and characteristics at the ford of eternal quiescence! The Supreme Enlightenment shone afar on its principle, and the near-sage alone discerned its helm. The breeze of wordless words stirred, veiling deep colors as the moon grew obscure; the waves of non-existent existence surged, settling bright patterns as the ocean billowed. Were it not for one possessing full realization and bordering on wisdom, clarifying the abstruse and plumbing the deep, the definitive meaning of the nature of emptiness would have all but ceased! The Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratāsiddhi is one branch among ten branches, composed by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. When the white rainbow flew as an omen and the white urna's radiance dissolved, the profound tenets of the threaded flowers became distorted like false phonetics, and the sacred leaves of palm books deviated like misread glyphs. Reflecting that the Dharma jewel was about to decline, he gave birth to this synthesis of consciousness, continuing the transmission of the lamp with preeminent steps: dimming his solitary radiance in the Abhidharmakośa to harmonize with the mundane by teaching existence, and untying the knot of wisdom in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to manifest the ultimate sage by explaining emptiness. His discernment was profound, his wisdom comprehensive, plumbing the spiritual and exhausting the sagacious; he refined his mind upon these verses to set forth the profound apex. Before his explanatory text was completed, he returned to the real and ascended above; the meanings were manifold, the words concise, their source doubly secret. Thereupon, the ten great bodhisattvas, including Dharmapāla, purified their sentiments across the seven inflections, releasing a river of eloquence to praise the subtle words; they roamed their spirits through the eight treasuries, striking the golden sound to produce marvelous commentaries. Purifying that true consciousness, they completed this elegant treatise, named the Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only (Cheng weishi lun), or named the Treatise on the Purification of Consciousness-Only. Its meanings encompass the provisional and the real, soaring high above Vulture Peak; its principles plumb the obscure and subtle, outshining the Dragon Palace with blazing splendor. Gathering the overarching guidelines of the various sūtras, it traces the hidden and embraces the doctrine; grasping the quintessence of the myriad treatises, it collects the rare and highlights the extraordinary. With wind scattering the three pramāṇas, the heterodox lowered their banners; with springs gushing the two causes, the Hīnayāna broke ranks. Thus, it models itself on Heaven and Earth, carrying all alike; it conceives the sun and moon, blending their brightness. How could it merely contend for flow with the vast rivers, or vie in resonance with the thunderclaps! In the past, when the Zhou star hid its light, the Supreme Way was stifled and unpromulgated; when the Han sun shed its rays, the semblance teaching spread and reached afar. Translating sūtras, vinaya, and treatises proceeded in unbroken succession; yet most encountered only talents from west of the Pamirs, rarely hearing from the luminaries of India. Sound and rhythm were separated like earth and heaven, confusing the standard tones between Chinese and barbarians; scripts were as distant as the skies, obscuring graph and sound between Indic and Jin. Although they roughly grasped the dregs, they failed to exhaust the deep and dark; great principles were sometimes violated, subtle phrasing caused deviations, vast doubts and weighty obstacles gathered like mist and congealed like clouds, and obscure splendor was repeatedly displayed—the details of which may be passed over. Only our preceptor, the Tripiṭaka Dharma Master Xuanzang, embodied perfection and surpassed the ordinary, illuminating the morning sun upon his spiritual terrace; accumulating virtue and presiding over the school, surging ripples of discourse from the pool of wisdom. Galloping along the jeweled tracks of the three turnings, he traveled far to the Golden Sands; clarifying the true waves of the eight liberations, he drew pure water from the distant Jade Well. Forgetting his body and sacrificing himself for the Dharma, entrusting himself to destiny and praying for passage, he secretly coincided with the heavenly truth, barely relying on acquired habit. Without displaying the miraculous to reveal anomalies, he inherently harbored merit and attracted auspiciousness, fully treading the divine paths and plumbing the secret repositories. What former worthies had not seen, he grasped entirely at the axis of insight; what past sages had left behind, he embraced to the utmost limit of mind. Vowing to broadly nurture, he returned to his former land; his virtue was commended by the emperor's heart, and his way invited the celestial brush. Consequently, these precious verses were praised in the south, and the golden leaves flowed east, elucidating obscured principles at the profound ford, clearing away doubtful mists from intricate thoughts. Preeminent among the three treasuries, unmatched by any single man, rising distinguished across the five Indias, surpassing a thousand ages. How could he merely be compared to Śarvavarman gaining renown only in grammar, or Kumārajīva achieving fame merely celebrated for the Madhyamaka! As for these manuscripts collected together, the ten commentaries were divided; now they are translated in comprehensive detail and blended into one work, weighing Chinese and Sanskrit, examining the weight of expressions, firing and refining the discrepancies among the various meanings, bringing them into harmony with the master's composition. "Establishing Consciousness-Only" (Cheng weishi) raises the great outline, designating the overall title of the entire work; adding "Treatise" (lun) presents the polished mirror, distinguishing it among the two divisions of the Canon. "Cheng" (establishing) is the name of what is capable of establishing, taking the act of establishment as its function. "Weishi" (vijñapti-mātra) is the name of what is established, taking distinguishing and understanding as its meaning. The principle of the Great Awakening—that there is only consciousness—flourishes, and the root verses' demonstration of the meaning of the Middle Way is manifest. "Only" (wei) means distinguishing, excluding external objects; "consciousness" (shi) means capable of understanding, expressing the existence of the inner mind. The substance of consciousness is itself "only": this is a karmadhāraya compound. Both the nature of consciousness and the marks of consciousness are not separate from the mind; mental factors and the mind-king take consciousness as their sovereign; returning to mind and quelling characteristics, it is collectively called "vijñapti-mātra." "Only" excludes the existence of objects; those who cling to existence lose its reality. "Consciousness" distinguishes the emptiness of mind; those who stagnate in emptiness deviate from its actuality. Therefore, obscuring this emptiness and existence, one drowns long in the two extremes; awakening to that existence and emptiness, one treads high upon the Middle Way. The root treatise Triṃśikā is titled "Vijñapti-mātra"; relying on this to establish that, it is titled "Cheng weishi" (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only). The establishment of consciousness-only manifests the intent of the treatise; in the compound (samāsa) analysis, it is named as a tatpuruṣa; in the vibhakti case-endings (subanta), it is designated by the genitive case. As for "Treatise" (lun), host and guest are arrayed like clouds, banners and drums are raised, obscure gates are thrown wide open, and subtle meanings are plumbed here. Establishing teaching by means of teaching, relying on teaching to establish principle—this establishment itself is the treatise: this is a karmadhāraya compound. Establishing principle by means of principle, relying on principle to establish teaching—this is the treatise of establishment: this is a tatpuruṣa compound. I, Kuiji, am ashamed of my shallow learning, yet I have humbly served as a translator to wield the brush, far inferior to Yanzi and Ziyou, unworthy of taking a place at the master's seat. Joining in the refined music, I am truly like one who plays the yu flute without skill; gazing at the fine master, I vainly reflect the radiance of the concealed jade. All this compiled narration has received his complete direction, hoping that future talents of profound insight will mirror and examine its hidden depths. (The extensive explanation of this title and all the separate meanings below are each individually explained in the Shuyao.)

1.3

The treatise says: I bow to the nature of consciousness-only, / To those who are fully and partially purified; / I now explain their teachings / To benefit and gladden all sentient beings.

1.4

The Commentary states: At the very beginning of the treatise, an explanation is briefly given through five sections: first, distinguishing the period of the teaching and the capacity of the audience; second, clarifying the main doctrine and the essence of the treatise; third, the canon and vehicle by which it is subsumed; fourth, the time and master of the spoken teaching; fifth, evaluating and explaining the main text.

1.5

First, distinguishing the period of the teaching and the capacity of the audience. Within this there are two parts: first, distinguishing the period and assembly of the taught teaching; second, distinguishing the capacity of the audience addressed by the teaching. Regarding distinguishing the period and assembly of the taught teaching: The Tathāgata establishes teachings according with what suits the capacity. Capacities differ in three grades, and the teachings consequently differ in three periods.

1.6

Sentient beings (pṛthagjana) are blinded by ignorance, producing delusions and karma, and mistakenly grasping at a self; they sink without refuge in the ocean of saṃsāra. Therefore, after the Great Compassionate One first achieved Buddhahood, he turned the wheel of the Four Noble Truths at the Ṛṣipatana Deer Park and spoke the Āgamas to eliminate the grasp of a self, causing those of lesser capacity gradually to ascend to the holy stages. Hearing the Four Noble Truths, although they severed their delusion regarding a self, they mistakenly grasped phenomena as truly existent. To eliminate their grasp of the existence of phenomena, the World-Honoured One next spoke on Vulture Peak of the emptiness of all phenomena, namely the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtras and others, causing those of middling capacity to abandon the small and advance toward the great. Hearing the World-Honoured One's intentional teaching that negates existence to smash graspings, they then negated the two truths, claiming both their nature and characteristics to be empty, taking this as the unsurpassable principle. Because these two types of holy ones mutually grasped at existence and emptiness, delusions and errors arose in contention, failing to accord with the Middle Way.

1.7

To eliminate these graspings at emptiness and existence, the Tathāgata in the third period expounded the definitive teachings, such as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, comprehensively explaining that all phenomena are consciousness-only, and so forth.

1.8

Phenomena outside the mind do not exist, which breaks the initial grasp of existence; inner consciousness is not non-existent, which dispels the grasp of total emptiness. Leaving behind the extremes of existence and non-existence, one abides correctly in the Middle Way, having a way to understand and realize the principle of ultimate truth, and being wondrously capable of retaining and relinquishing within conventional truth. Furthermore, this treatise cites six sūtras, namely the Avataṃsaka, Saṃdhinirmocana, Tathāgatotpattiguṇālaṃkāra, Abhidharma, Laṅkāvatāra, and Ghanavyūha, and eleven treatises: the Yogācārabhūmi, Prakaraṇāryavācā, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Pramāṇasamuccaya, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Daśabhūmika, Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā/Vibhāga-yoga, Ālambanaparīkṣā, Viṃśikā, Madhyāntavibhāga, Abhidharmasamuccaya, and so forth, as proof of the principle, clarifying the three natures of consciousness-only, the causes, effects, practices, and stages of the ten grounds, and the definitive Mahāyāna; thus we know it is the Middle Way teaching of the third period. As extensively explained regarding its characteristics in the seventy-sixth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, this distinguishes the three periods with respect to the gradual teaching approach according to capacity and principle. If the great arises from the small, then there is a chronological sequence of the three periods, as in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra's teaching of consciousness-only. If it is the sudden teaching approach, where the great does not arise from the small, then there is no chronological order of the three periods, as in the Avataṃsaka's teaching of mind-only.

1.9

The teaching given immediately after first attaining the Way was the very first; this is spoken with respect to the majority. What this treatise clarifies belongs to both kinds. If addressed to those of indeterminate nature, where the great arises from the small, it is the teaching of the third period. If addressed solely to bodhisattvas, where the great does not arise from the small, it is the sudden teaching. This shows that the sudden and the gradual are not distinctly fixed teachings, because in the 'Entry into the Realm of Reality' chapter, five hundred śrāvakas were also present in the assembly, as explained in the Shuyao. Regarding distinguishing the capacity of the audience addressed by the teaching: according to the Yogācārabhūmi and others, there are five lineages (gotra): first, bodhisattvas; second, pratyekabuddhas; third, śrāvakas; fourth, indeterminate; fifth, those without lineage. Fascicle three of this treatise states: 'Bodhisattvas entering the path of seeing are all called the preeminent, because they realize the ālayavijñāna. It is directly taught for them. Moreover, those before the path of seeing who are already able to believe and understand, and seek its transformation of the basis, are also taught for.' It also states: 'Sentient beings without lineage cannot plumb its depths, so it is said to be extremely deep. Those of the lineage destined for quiescence cannot penetrate it, so it is called extremely subtle.' Therefore, the purport of this treatise addresses only the Mahāyāna and those of indeterminate lineage who tend toward the bodhisattva path; it does not address the three capacities of pratyekabuddhas, śrāvakas, and those without lineage. Hence the capacities addressed must solely be of the superior grade, and the profound principle revealed also departs from the two extremes. It is so vast and all-inclusive that it is difficult to detail fully! According to the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra, it addresses five lineages; according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, it addresses four lineages; the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra and others differ slightly from this, as explained in the Shuyao.

1.10

Second, clarifying the main doctrine and the essence of the treatise. Within this there are two parts: first, clarifying the main doctrine of the treatise; second, demonstrating the essence of the treatise, both of which are as explained in the Shuyao. Regarding clarifying the main doctrine of the treatise: All foolish ordinary people, from beginningless time, due to the causal force of false discrimination, cling to truly existent grasper and grasped outside the mind. The Tathāgata with great compassion bestowed upon them the amṛta Dharma to drink, severing their deluded and wild minds, abandoning the graspings of emptiness and existence, and realizing the true and definitive meaning. In the Avataṃsaka and others, it is taught that all phenomena are consciousness-only. To benefit sentient beings and cause the Dharma to abide long, Bodhisattva Vasubandhu relied on the teachings above to compose the Triṃśikā verses, clarifying the principle of consciousness-only. The text and meaning are complete, free from excess or brevity.

1.11

Later, Dharmapāla and others, relying on the above sūtras and treatises, gathered their essential points and extensively explained the verses, calling it the Cheng weishi lun. Thus, it takes vijñapti-mātra as its central doctrine: consciousness exists and is not empty; external objects are non-existent and are not real—this is its central doctrine. Although it explains all dharmas in detail, none of them are separate from consciousness. As for explaining the substance (vastu) of the treatise: according to the explanation at the beginning of the eighty-first fascicle, the Section on the Gathering of Expositions (Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī), of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, the substance of a scripture is twofold: first, the text (vyañjana); second, the meaning (artha). The text is that upon which [the meaning] relies, and the meaning is that which relies [upon the text], because it is through the expressive text that the meaning is made manifest. Master Nāgasena, Asvabhāva, and others say: by the conditioning power of the Buddha's compassion and fundamental vow, there arise on the audient's own mental consciousness the appearances of text and meaning, resembling the exposition of the Tathāgata. Although these appearances of text and meaning directly arise depending on the power of one's own wholesome roots, yet in terms of their fundamental condition, they are called 'spoken by the Buddha'; in reality, the Buddha does not speak words. If one considers it in terms of the source, there is indeed no text or meaning, but only anāsrava great concentration, wisdom, and compassion.

1.12

If considered according to one's own consciousness: when manifested by a sāsrava mind, its substance is resembling-anāsrava text and meaning; when manifested by an anāsrava mind, its substance is true anāsrava text and meaning. In this way, the Tathāgata in reality does not preach the Dharma. Therefore, in the four hundred and twenty-fifth fascicle of the Great Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra, and elsewhere, the Buddha himself says: 'Since I became a Buddha, I have not spoken a single word, nor have you heard one.' The śāstra says that aggregation appearing [in the mind] is the substance; this is the explanation given by a master such as Asvabhāva or the commentator on the Buddhabhūmi[-sūtra]. Dharmapāla, Bandhuprabha, and others say: by the conditioning power of the fundamental vow of those who ought to hear, there arise upon the Tathāgata's consciousness the appearances of text and meaning, and the true expresser and expressed, text and meaning, serve as the substance. If spoken of from the source, true anāsrava text and meaning serve as the substance. Thus, the sixty-fourth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra cites the Śiṃśapā-patra-upamā-sūtra: 'What I have not preached is as vast as this.' The Viṃśikā states: 'By mutual predominant power, two consciousnesses become determined.' Therefore, the World-Honoured One truly preaches the Dharma; the statement that he 'does not preach' is an intentional teaching (sandhyā-bhāṣita). Since the foundation of this treatise is Buddha-sūtras, the presentation of its substance should follow what the sūtras explain. Although there are these two interpretations, this treatise master does not accept that there is no preaching of the Dharma, and adopts the latter explanation. In discussing the presentation of the substance in general, there are briefly four levels: First, subsuming marks into the nature: all take tathatā as their substance. Thus a sūtra says: 'All dharmas are also tathatā, and even Maitreya is also tathatā.' Second, subsuming objects under mind: all is vijñapti-mātra, as when it is said in a sūtra, 'The three realms are mind-only.' Third, subsuming the provisional under the real: as in the case of citta-viprayukta-saṃskāras, which are divisions of matter and mind, for the Abhidharmasamuccaya states that they are established provisionally. Fourth, discussing nature and function separately: matter and mind, provisional and real, are each subsumed under separate categories. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that the aggregate of matter subsumes them, completely covering the ten āyatanas, and so on. Up to here, the second and fourth substances have been completed. What is transformed by one's own consciousness is the second, subsuming objects under mind. Stating both that it is spoken by the Buddha is the fourth, discussing nature and function separately. The resembled dharma of the hearer and the true teaching of the speaker both flow equally from the pure dharmadhātu. Speaking in terms of the source, this teaching also takes tathatā as its substance; this is the first, subsuming marks into the nature. The names and so forth belonging to the speaker and the hearer are modulations upon sound, having no substance apart from sound. Therefore, taking the provisional to follow the real, their substance is simply sound; this is the third, subsuming the provisional under the real. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states: 'Sound induced by accomplishment refers to the speech of the noble ones.'

1.13

Although four substances have been presented, their perspectives differ; when considered logically, they do not contradict one another. Now, regarding the substance of this treatise: if considered in terms of what is heard, it is transformed by a sāsrava mind; or if considered in terms of the sāsrava text and meaning of the speaker, it is subsumed solely under the marks and names of the paratantra, transformed by an anāsrava mind; or if it is anāsrava speech, it is subsumed under right knowledge (samyag-jñāna) and pertains to the pariniṣpanna, because conditioned anāsrava dharmas pertain to both natures. The substance of what is expressed here refers to the objects, correct practice, and fruits of vijñapti-mātra. If it is the substance of that which expresses, it is sound, names, and so on. Although scripture and its substance are twofold, we now take the expressive sound, names, sentences, and so on, because they are the substance of the authentic teaching. Question: Among the eighteen dhātus, fifteen are sāsrava; how can sound and the like also be subsumed under anāsrava? The three—name, sentence, and phoneme—are by their own nature karmically indeterminate (avyākṛta); how can it be said that they pertain to anāsrava goodness? Answer: According to the accommodative teaching (saṃvṛti-dvāra) regarding the bodies of the two vehicles and so forth, it is said that the fifteen are solely sāsrava, and names and so forth are solely avyākṛta. According to the present Mahāyāna, if they are the sound, names, sentences, and phonemes of the Dharma preached by the Tathāgata's pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna alone, they are truly wholesome and anāsrava. The Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: 'Both the speaker and the listener rely on two things: first, sound; second, wholesome syllables.' The Treatise on the Diamond-Cutting Prajñāpāramitā states: 'My dharmas are solely wholesome; yours are solely avyākṛta.'

1.14

The second fascicle of this treatise states: 'There are two unhindered analytical knowledges: dharma and nirukti. Their objects differ: dharma takes names and so forth as its object, while nirukti takes sound as its object.' Furthermore, the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the seventy-eighth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi state: 'On the ninth bhūmi, two kinds of ignorance are severed: first, the ignorance regarding mastery over dhāraṇīs of immeasurable spoken names, sentences, and syllables.' Below, in the ninth fascicle of this treatise, it states: 'Immeasurable names, sentences, and syllables constitute the unhindered analytical knowledge of dharma.' Furthermore, this treatise and the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra state that the eighteen dhātus pertain to anāsrava goodness; therefore, taking them as the substance of the teaching does not contradict reason. Question: If the substance of the teaching is explained as everything being vijñapti-mātra, why then say that it is spoken by Buddhas and bodhisattvas? Answer: Asvabhāva's commentary states: 'It arises from their predominant influence, hence it is spoken of in this way.' In the Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, Vasubandhu explains: 'By mutual predominant power, two consciousnesses become determined.' This means that because of the distinction in the consciousness of another continuum, a distinct consciousness is made to arise in another continuum, because they mutually serve as predominant conditions (adhipati-pratyaya) for one another.

1.15

Question: Since the past and the future are not substantially existent, and conditioned dharmas do not endure after having arisen, how does the audient hear the teaching such that an aggregated understanding arises? Answer: Asvabhāva's commentary states: 'According to their falling into the eight time periods, on the audient's consciousness direct and non-direct statements appear in aggregation, serving as the essential nature.'

1.16

This means that within the eight time periods, direct and non-direct modes of speech appear in aggregation upon the consciousness of the audient. As the eighty-first fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states: 'All saṃskāras are impermanent, dharmas subject to arising and ceasing; having arisen, they must perish; their pacification is bliss.' For instance, when the syllable 'All' (zhū) is uttered, after the initial perceptual mind (saṃmukhībhāva-citta), the mind of seeking (paryeṣaka-citta) must arise, continuing after the initial mind. Although it lasts for many moments, its cognitive mode is singular, and it is collectively called 'seeking', because it does not yet decisively know what 'All' refers to. As the third fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states: 'Furthermore, after the five consciousnesses have arisen for one moment, immediately following this, the mental consciousness must arise.' Then, when 'saṃskāras' (xíng) is uttered, through prior vāsanā, a connected understanding arises, and three minds appear: namely, the initial perception, seeking, and next, determination (viniścaya), decisively knowing that 'All' refers to all conditioned phenomena. Therefore the Yogācārabhūmi states: 'Immediately after seeking, if there is no distraction, a determinate mind arises; if there is distraction, its arising is not fixed.' Although one knows the self-nature, one does not yet know the meaning. To make it known, 'im-' (wú) is further uttered. At this time, among the previous three minds, there are only two regarding the syllable 'im-': namely, initial perception and seeking. Because one does not yet decisively know what is negated by 'im-', immediately after determination, seeking arises again. The treatise only definitively states that initial perception and seeking definitely arise immediately without interval; after seeking, it allows that distraction may arise. When 'permanent' (cháng) is then uttered, all five minds are complete, and its meaning can be understood. By the power of the preceding syllables, through successive vāsanā, connected with the arising of subsequent syllables, only at the final moment is one able to understand the meaning, whereupon defiled, pure, and other minds can finally operate. Therefore, although there is neither past nor future, the substance of the teaching is nonetheless established.

1.17

If with each new understanding there is an initial perception, then upon each of the four characters there are definitely two minds, namely initial perception and seeking; thus at the very end there are twelve minds gathered together at once: for the first there are two, for the second there are three, for the third there are two, and for the fourth there are five... thus there are twelve. Since there is an initial perception on the first character, and on subsequent characters there are seeking and determination, at the very end defiled, pure, and other minds arise. Only when the five minds are complete is it called an 'aggregation'; therefore the teaching of vijñapti-mātra is established in principle. There are further distinct meanings, as explained in the Shunyao. Although there are four approaches to presenting the substance here, in the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra there are only two: first, subsuming objects under mind; second, distinct substances for nature and function. Asvabhāva intended to adopt subsuming objects under mind, while Dharmapāla intended to explain distinct substances for nature and function, where the substance of the teaching is simply the expressive sound and so forth. Otherwise, the substance of the teaching would turn out to be sāsrava or defiled and indeterminate, and the Three Jewels and tathatā would also have to be likewise.

1.18

Therefore, Dharmapāla's explanation accords well with the treatise's doctrine without contradicting vijñapti-mātra, because it manifests on the consciousness of the one who preaches the Dharma. Below, in the tenth fascicle, the treatise itself will explain this.

1.19

Third, the subsumption under collections (piṭaka) and vehicles (yāna). In this there are two: first, subsumption under collections; second, subsumption under vehicles. Regarding subsumption under collections: according to the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts, two collections are spoken of: first, the Bodhisattvapiṭaka; second, the Śrāvakapiṭaka. However, because the teachings for pratyekabuddhas are fewer than those for śrāvakas, they are grouped under the majority as a collection, termed the Śrāvakapiṭaka. Alternatively, three collections are spoken of: first, Sūtra; second, Vinaya; third, Abhidharma. Or six collections are spoken of, because bodhisattvas and śrāvakas each have three. Since pratyekabuddhas have no separate vinaya and so forth, there are no three collections that could make nine. Among the two collections, this [treatise] is included in the Bodhisattvapiṭaka, because it is subsumed under the higher vehicle; among the three collections, it is included in the Abhidharmapiṭaka, because it thoroughly investigates and examines the characteristics of all dharmas; within the six collections, it is included in the Abhidharmapiṭaka of the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. Regarding subsumption under vehicles: either one vehicle is spoken of, as in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka and others; or three vehicles are spoken of: first, bodhisattva; second, pratyekabuddha; third, śrāvaka, because sūtras and treatises everywhere speak of this alike. There is no teaching that speaks solely of two vehicles: first, Mahāyāna; second, Hīnayāna. Or five vehicles are spoken of: the three vehicles as above, the fourth being the human vehicle, and the fifth being the heavenly vehicle. The first three subsume the determinate and indeterminate gotras, while the latter two subsume only the fifth, those without gotra. This treatise is properly subsumed under the One Vehicle; among the three vehicles, it is subsumed under the Bodhisattvayāna; within the five vehicles, it is included in the first vehicle. Its comparative scope of mutual subsumption with respect to the various schools and the twelve divisions of the canon is as explained in the Shunyao.

1.20

Fourth, the time of the teaching's appearance and its author. In this there are two: first, the time of the teaching's appearance; second, the author of the teaching's appearance. Regarding the time of the teaching's appearance: Dharma Master Huikai's Preface to the Kośa states: 'Eleven hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Bodhisattva Vasubandhu appeared and composed the treatise.' According to what is transmitted today, the accounts of various schools differ. Relying now on the Mahāyāna, in the nine-hundredth year Bodhisattva Vasubandhu appeared in the world and composed the original verses. Dharma Master Paramārtha's Commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga also says: 'Vasubandhu was born within nine hundred years; at the same time, only the two great masters Bandhuśrī and Citrabhāna composed commentaries on these verses; after eleven hundred years, the other eight masters then composed their commentaries.' Regarding the author of the teaching's appearance: the root text of the Triṃśikā was composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu; his distinct divine virtues are fully detailed in separate records.

1.21

There are ten masters who commented on this root verse text: First, in Sanskrit Dharmapāla, rendered in Tang [Chinese] as Hufa. This great master was the son of a king in the city of Kāñcī in the country of Drāviḍa in South India. His learning gushed forth like a spring from an ocean-basin; his comprehension was clearer than the radiance of the morning sun. In inner doctrine, he exhausted the Great and Small [Vehicles]; in linguistic science, he illuminated the ultimate and conventional truths. Non-Buddhists and Śrāvakas alike appraised him, saying: “That the Mahāyāna has this person is just as the sun and moon cling to the heavens, shining brightly and shedding their luster, and as the great ocean marks the bounds of the earth, vast and inexhaustible. Since Vasubandhu, he stands alone.” His treatises and refutations are fully recorded in his separate biography. At the age of thirty-two, he passed away at the Mahābodhi Monastery. On the day of his passing, celestial music welcomed him from the heavens, sorrowful wailing shook the city, and a voice resonated from mid-air. A brāhmaṇa said: “This was one of the Buddhas of the Fortunate Kalpa!” Thus his many marvels can hardly be recounted in full. Second, in Sanskrit Guṇamati, rendered in Tang as Dehui, the teacher of Sthiramati. His achievements surpassed previous worthies, and his realization outshone contemporary talents. His fragrant reputation spread across the four rulers, and his refined grace galloped through the five Indias. His noble virtues and wondrous marvels cannot easily be detailed. Third, in Sanskrit Sthiramati, rendered in Tang as Anhui, who compiled the Samuccaya, defended the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra, and refuted the masters of the Nyāyānusāra. A venerable predecessor contemporary with Master Dharmapāla, he was a native of the country of Lāṭa in South India. With wondrous comprehension of Hetuvidyā and thoroughly versed in the inner treatises, he fanned auspicious customs within the Lesser Vehicle and spread fragrant orchids in the Mahāyāna; his spiritual demeanor was so exalted that it is truly difficult to appraise. Fourth, in Sanskrit Bandhuśrī, rendered in Tang as Qinsheng, a contemporary of the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. When the root verses first circulated, he first composed a brief commentary that wondrously captured the author's intent, and later worthies commented [on the verses] relying on it. Fifth, in Sanskrit Nanda, rendered in Tang as Huanxi, whom Jayasena took as his patriarchal tradition; thus the newly perfumed seeds discussed in later fascicles are the exposition of this master. He composed the commentary on the Yogācāra and other works, producing extensive writings. Sixth, in Sanskrit Śuddhacandra, rendered in Tang as Jingyue, contemporary with Sthiramati, the master who composed the commentary on the Paramārthasaptati and the commentary on the Abhidharma-samuccaya. Seventh, in Sanskrit Citrabhāṇa, rendered in Tang as Huobian, also a contemporary of Vasubandhu. Especially adept in phrasing and deeply familiar with annotating and compiling, though his bodily form was hidden among the laity, his spiritual realization was exalted among true companions. Eighth, in Sanskrit Viśeṣamitra, rendered in Tang as Shengyou. Ninth, in Sanskrit Jinaputra, rendered in Tang as Shengzi. Tenth, in Sanskrit Jñānacandra, rendered in Tang as Zhiyue. These last three masters were all disciples of the Bodhisattva Dharmapāla; some commented on the Yogācāra, while others wrote separate annotations. Their spiritual reputations were both far-reaching, and their words and purports were profoundly abstruse; their spiritual virtues being so exalted, they can hardly be described fully. Although there were ten masters who composed these commentaries, Dharmapāla's reputation and virtue were uniquely preeminent among them, and therefore this treatise's title specially places him at the head. What this master taught is the most deeply investigated and serves predominantly as the southward pointer among all doctrines. Causing the deviant followers to lose their footing and the correct principles to obtain direction, towering far above all masters and standing out brilliantly above the assembly of sages—is it not he alone?

1.22

Fifth, dividing and explaining the text itself. In this there are two [parts]: first, dividing the text; second, explaining the text.

1.23

As for dividing the text: the root verses of this treatise consist solely of the main exposition. The Bodhisattva Vasubandhu composed them at the end of his life and passed away before he could compose an extensive prose commentary; therefore, there are no initial or concluding sections. Speaking of the text of its commentaries, they fully possess the three sections: the opening verse of refuge and homage together with the prose that follows constitute the “section of respectful preface before the doctrine.” From “How do worldly conventions and the various sacred teachings…” onwards, which properly explains the root text, is called the “section of extensively establishing [vijñapti-mātra] relying on the teachings.”

1.24

From “These three parts of the treatise establish vijñapti-mātra…” onwards is the third part, the “section of concluding explanation and dedicating vows.” Thus the text of that commentary is divided into these three sections. Within the first section, this initial verse is where Dharmapāla and the others take refuge in and pay homage to the field of merit, seeking protection by relying on its power, and express their own sincere intent, revealing the reason for commenting on the treatise. The prose that follows is where Sthiramati and others clarify the root author of the treatise's reasons for composing the root verses of the treatise, in order to enable sentient beings to obtain superior fruits, and so forth; this is to distinguish the differing sectional headings.

1.25

However, by analogy with the intention of the commentary, one can know that the root master was likewise. Were it not so, how could the root master fail to cause the Dharma to abide long and bring benefit and joy to all sentient beings? Within the first verse, the first two lines take refuge in and pay homage to the field of merit, while the lower two lines narrate the intention behind explaining the treatise.

1.26

As for explaining the text: the two characters “bowing my head” (jishou) reveal the marks of the ability to pay homage; the next eight characters manifest the essence of that to which homage is paid. If explained according to conventional usage, ji means “to reach,” and shou means “the head.” Bringing the head to the ground is therefore called “bowing the head.” This pertains solely to physical action, and the marks of homage would not be exhaustive. Now, merely mentioning the physical action implicitly reveals that the actions of thought and speech are also paying homage. Moreover, understood according to principle, giving rise to an earnest and pure mind, motivating superior action, and expressing sincere reliance and veneration are alternative designations for paying homage. This encompasses the three actions, and only then are the marks of homage complete.

1.27

Master Gopa says: Homage through the three actions is paid because, wishing to manifest that the Great Master possesses the divine eye, one pays homage through physical action; because he possesses the divine ear, one pays homage through vocal action; because he possesses the knowledge of others' minds, one pays homage through mental action. Furthermore, because one generates the wholesome [roots] that are complete in the three actions, one pays homage through the three actions. As taught in the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya: in the light and at a distance, one must pay homage with the body, because one can be seen; in the dark and close by, one must pay homage with speech, because one can be heard; in the dark and again at a distance, one must pay homage with the mind, because one can neither be seen nor heard. Moreover, to manifest the cause for paying homage to the three wheels, one must pay homage through the three actions.

1.28

Vasubandhu's verse of refuge and homage in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: “Therefore with utmost sincerity in body, speech, and thought, / I repeatedly cultivate homage of refuge without error.” Thus we know that “bowing the head” in principle applies to all three actions. Next, the words “those who are completely or partially purified in the nature of vijñapti-mātra” manifest the essence of that to which homage is paid. The phrase “nature of vijñapti-mātra” has briefly two kinds: first, the false, which is the imaginary [nature] (parikalpita); second, the real, which is the perfected [nature] (pariniṣpanna). With regard to the former nature of vijñapti-mātra, it is purity through elimination; with regard to the latter nature of vijñapti-mātra, it is purity through realization.

1.29

Furthermore, there are two kinds: first, conventional, which is the other-dependent [nature] (paratantra); second, ultimate, which is the perfected [nature] (pariniṣpanna). With regard to the former, it is purity through abandonment; with regard to the latter, it is purity through attainment.

1.30

This explanation conforms to the explanation of the nature of vijñapti-mātra at the beginning of the ninth fascicle below. Furthermore, the marks and nature of vijñapti-mātra are distinct: the “marks” are the other-dependent, which are exclusively conditioned and encompass both the with-outflows and without-outflows; vijñapti-mātra itself being the marks is called the “marks of vijñapti-mātra,” which is a karmadhāraya compound; the “nature” is consciousness itself, the perfected intrinsic essence being solely tathatā, unconditioned and without outflows; the nature of vijñapti-mātra is called the “nature of vijñapti-mātra,” which is a tatpuruṣa compound.

1.31

Because it is solely the purity realized internally, in order to exclude the other-dependent, it speaks of the “nature of consciousness.” Why is it necessary to exclude it? Because the other-dependent with outflows cannot be revered; and the other-dependent without outflows is also conventional truth, not the most supreme, not the true nature of all noble dharmas, not that which is realized, and not the support for delusion and awakening; or because it is itself that complete or partial purity, it is briefly omitted from homage. There is also an alternative explanation, as stated in the Shunyao. If one who is completely pure in the nature of consciousness is identical with that purity, it is a karmadhāraya compound, because purity belongs to the person; if it is one possessing complete purity, it is a tatpuruṣa compound, because purity belongs to wisdom. Here we adopt the latter explanation. This refers to the Tathāgata's wisdom being all-encompassing and virtues complete, exhausting the nature of tathatā, and therefore it is called “complete”; clear and discerning without defilement, with both obscurations utterly exhausted, it is called “pure.” Clear and discerning is “clear”; free from defilement is “pure.” “One” (zhe) is the designated person, intending to manifest that the Tathāgata has realized the principle of vijñapti-mātra to ultimate perfection, and is thus called “one who is completely pure.” As for “one who is partially pure” in the nature of vijñapti-mātra: “partially” means a small portion; “pure” is the same as above; that is, the bodhisattvas who partially realize the intrinsic nature of the tathatā of vijñapti-mātra, whose awakening is not yet fully illuminated, are called “those who are partially pure.” Wishing to manifest that master and disciple differ in awakening and realization, it speaks of “completely and partially pure” with respect to vijñapti-mātra.

1.32

Regarding that to which refuge and homage are paid, there are seven explanations in total. Three are as in the Shunyao. Now, inferring from principle, there are four different meanings: First, revering solely the Dharma and not persons. The Dharma has two kinds: first, teaching; second, principle. The Buddha, having realized vijñapti-mātra, spoke the sūtras of one mind to cause beings to practice in accordance with them. Once he entered nirvāṇa, the teachings were dispersed and lost. It was through the root master of the treatise composing the thirty verses to reveal the principle of vijñapti-mātra that the dispersed and lost Dharma was gathered and made manifest. Although the text of the treatise mentions two persons, the completely and partially [pure], the intent is to take the teaching and principle of the nature of consciousness realized and taught by these two persons. The completely pure is superior regarding teaching, because he is the original lord of the teaching. The partially pure is superior regarding principle, because he is superior in revealing principle. Because they are completely or partially pure regarding the nature of consciousness, the Tathāgata is able to expound the teaching, and the disciple is able to reveal the principle. Therefore, this homage is solely to the Dharma, not to persons. Why revere only the Dharma and not persons? Because that which all Buddhas take as teacher is what is called the Dharma, and the Buddha and disciples are born from this. Second, revering solely persons and not the Dharma. That is, the two masters of vijñapti-mātra: the root [master] and the commenting [master]. The root refers to the Tathāgata, who is completely pure regarding the nature of vijñapti-mātra. The commenting [master] refers to the author of the verses, who is partially pure regarding the nature of vijñapti-mātra. The sound-object “nature of vijñapti-mātra” is subsumed under the seventh case; it is that which qualifies.

1.33

“Those who are completely and partially pure” are subsumed under the fourth case; they are that which is qualified. According to this Sanskrit original, everything to which homage is paid is in the fourth case.

1.34

Therefore, the words “nature of vijñapti-mātra” presented in this verse reveal that which is realized, while the intent is to take refuge in and pay homage to those persons capable of realizing it, those who are completely or partially pure. Vasubandhu's verse in the Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra states: “Bowing my head to the creator of this treatise, / born from the body of the Sugata, / and to the master who instructed us, / I shall diligently reveal this meaning.” It pays homage solely to the two masters.

1.35

Why revere only the two masters, root and commenting? The Tathāgata is the creator, because he is the support of the treatise; the disciple is the expounder, because he produced this treatise. In the Yogācāra-śāstra, [fascicle] sixty-four states: If one wishes to compose a treatise, first pay homage to the two masters. Out of reverence for the Dharma, pay homage to the root master of the treatise; out of reverence for the meaning, pay homage to the master who revealed and expounded it. Sthiramati's preface at the beginning of the Samuccaya states: Because of being that upon which this treatise relies, and that which was able to produce it. The Buddha, the Bhagavān, is the support of all dharmas, because he is the locus of support for the arising of all teachings. The noble disciples of the Buddha, following and learning in accordance with the Dharma, unerringly rely upon it to compose the treatise.

1.36

Although Vasubandhu was a bodhisattva prior to the grounds (bhūmi), he possessed decisive faith and understanding regarding the nature of vijñapti-mātra; though he had not yet realized reality, he also cultivated and studied in accordance with it and partially attained it; hence he is called “one who is partially pure.”

1.37

Third, paying homage equally to both Dharma and persons. “Dharma” refers to tathatā; the intrinsic nature of all dharmas is precisely the nature of vijñapti-mātra here. “Persons” refers to those who are completely and partially pure here, because they are capable of realizing the nature of the tathatā of vijñapti-mātra. Why pay homage equally to both Dharma and persons? Because the Dharma can serve as an exemplary standard, and persons propagate the Way. Fourth, taking refuge in and paying homage to the Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha. First, the nature of vijñapti-mātra is precisely the Dharma Jewel; because it is the teacher of the Buddhas, it is taken refuge in and paid homage to first. Among the four different dharmas of principle, teaching, practice, and fruit, as an eternal exemplar, tathatā is the root. It is only when tathatā must be realized that the rest exist, because it is the true nature of the three—teaching, practice, and fruit—and because it is the foundation of the noble ones of the three vehicles.

1.38

Alternatively, it may be said that the root [principle] includes the branches, so the other three are not stated, and only the Dharma of principle is mentioned. Or [it may be that] the "nature of consciousness" successively designates the expressive [teaching], the expressed [principle], the means of realization [practice], and the realized [fruit]. Among the four kinds of Dharma-jewel—teaching, principle, practice, and fruit—the phrase "nature of consciousness" encompasses all four kinds of Dharma. The "one who is fully purified" is the Buddha-jewel, because only the Tathāgata fully realizes the Dharma and teaches it correctly; hence it is stated after the Dharma. The "one who is partially purified" is the Saṅgha-jewel, because they are able to follow the Buddha's teaching and are disciples of the Buddha; hence it is stated after the Buddha. First question: Why are the Three Jewels out of their normal sequence at the beginning of the treatise? Answer: When considered in terms of teacher and disciple, the Dharma comes first and the Buddha after; when considered in terms of manifestation and teaching, the Buddha comes first and the Dharma after. Therefore, they differ from the standard sequence of the Three Jewels, because the perspectives are different. Although the Bao'en jing does not permit placing the Dharma before the Buddha, here, on the basis of the meaning of teacher and disciple, there is likewise no fault. Second question: Why must one pay homage to the Three Jewels at the beginning of a treatise? Answer: There are four reasons. First, because they are the most auspicious. Thus the Chengshi lun states: "Because the Three Jewels are the most auspicious, they are spoken of at the beginning of my treatise." Second, because they are true fields of merit. That treatise also states: "Because they are worthy of receiving the exquisite offerings of the world." Third, because they possess great power. For the merits of the two adornments of merit and wisdom, and their spiritual powers, are truly difficult to match. Fourth, to give rise to aspiration. By speaking of the Three Jewels first at the head of expounding the Dharma, one causes those who hear the Dharma to generate a supreme mind. Only by relying on their power and requesting their assistance is one able to compose a commentary. Third question: There are two kinds of Three Jewels: those of the One Vehicle and those of the Three Vehicles. Which Three Jewels are paid homage to here? Answer: Here, homage is paid only to the Three Jewels of the One Vehicle. This is because the text speaks of the fully and partially purified [states] of the nature of consciousness, and the Two Vehicles do not cultivate the contemplation of consciousness-only. As a verse in the Prakaraṇāryavācā states: "The Sugata who well proclaims the exquisite three bodies, / The fearless, untainted realized and taught Dharma, / And the true sons of the Muni of the Supreme Vehicle: / To them I now first pay homage with the utmost sincerity."

First 38 of 682 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

成唯識論述記 — Classical Chinese