[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 1.44 # 成唯識論了義燈 1.44 成唯識論了義燈 1.44 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.44) 又復設爾，不應別判《華嚴》等為頓，又以一音名為一時，無教定判。又云半、滿而為二時，《法苑》所破亦恐不當。《經》云：為聲聞說半字者，豈不約逗機？故恐不爾。亦不解彼《法苑》說意，彼意不障逗機，而說名為半滿，但不許判為漸頓機。說於半、滿，名漸、頓教，為定姓人，亦說半滿故。詮宗各異者，敘外道如下破，明及法師《瑜伽論》抄，明敘小乘。計如法師異部疏具解，煩不具引。明自宗者，別宗即唯識章是，然疏略解，名成唯識故，此即以唯識為宗。識有非空，境無非有，以為宗也。雖具明諸法，皆不離識也。 > Furthermore, even if it were so, one should not separately classify the Avataṃsaka and so forth as sudden; moreover, to take a single voice as meaning a single time has no scriptural teaching to determinately classify it. Furthermore, to say that the half-letter and full-letter \[teachings\] constitute two periods—what is refuted by the Fayuan is also, I fear, inappropriate. The sūtra says: "Expounding the half-letter for śrāvakas"—is this not with reference to meeting the capacity \[of the listener\]? Therefore I fear it is not so. It also fails to understand the intended meaning of what the Fayuan says: its intention does not obstruct meeting the capacity \[of the listener\] in calling them half and full, but it merely does not allow classifying them as gradual and sudden capacities. Speaking of the half and full as the gradual and sudden teachings is because for people of determinate spiritual lineage he also expounds both the half and the full. As for "the doctrines expressed being distinct", the account of the tīrthikas is as refuted below; Master Ming's Commentary on the Yogācārabhūmi clearly recounts the Hīnayāna. The tenets are fully explained as in the Master's Commentary on the Heterodox Sects, and I will not cite them in full to avoid tediousness. As for clarifying our own school: the distinct school is precisely the Treatise on Vijñapti-mātra; however, the commentary briefly explains it as named "Cheng weishi"; hence, it takes vijñapti-mātra as its doctrine. Consciousness exists and is not empty; cognitive objects are absent and are not existent—this is taken as the doctrine. Although it fully clarifies all phenomena, none of them are separate from consciousness. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.43) - [Next: 1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.45) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.1.44) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.1.11) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.44) · Pramāṇa