[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) › 1.77 # 成唯識論了義燈 1.77 成唯識論了義燈 1.77 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.77](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.77) 今又助解，或十支中，除攝大乘，彼論別釋《阿毘達摩經》，非瑜伽論支分之義，應加《正理門論》，以論緣起。中云：案達羅國王，請陳那菩薩證無學果。菩薩撫之，欲遂王請，文殊師利於虛空中彈指警曰：何捨大心而期小果？可制因明，以弘慈氏所造瑜伽論。菩薩敬受指誨，奉以周旋，遂造《正理門論》故，應取此以為一支。《集量》、《因明》皆此支攝。《正理門論》名，建正摧邪論，或可舊釋為正，雖釋阿毘達摩、瑜伽，亦是廣釋諸經。唯識即是《華嚴》等說，既是彼支故，取《攝論》亦復無妨。若爾因明，何支所攝？答：義門少故，略不名支。故此唯識，即十支中之一支也。 > Now to provide an additional interpretation: alternatively, among the ten branches, if one excludes the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* because that treatise specifically comments on the \*Abhidharmasūtra\* and does not have the sense of being a branch of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, one should add the \*Nyāyamukha\*, on account of the treatise's origin. In it, it says: The king of Andhra invited the Bodhisattva Dignāga to realize the fruit of non-learning. The Bodhisattva, consoling him, was about to fulfill the king's request, when Mañjuśrī snapped his fingers in the sky and warned him, saying: "Why abandon the great aspiration and seek a small fruit? You should formulate hetuvidyā to propagate the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* composed by Maitreya." The Bodhisattva respectfully received the instruction, followed it diligently, and thereupon composed the \*Nyāyamukha\*. Therefore, one should take this as one branch. The \*Pramāṇasamuccaya\* and \*Nyāyapraveśa\* are both subsumed under this branch. The \*Nyāyamukha\* is named the Treatise Establishing the Correct and Crushing the Deviant. Alternatively, the old explanation may be correct: although it comments on the \*Abhidharmasūtra\*, the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* also broadly comments on various sūtras. Vijñapti-mātra is precisely what is taught in the \*Avataṃsaka\* and other texts, and since it is a branch of that, taking the \*Mahāyānasaṃgraha\* also presents no difficulty. If so, under which branch is hetuvidyā subsumed? Answer: Because its doctrinal aspects are few, it is summarily not named a branch. Therefore, this \*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi\* is indeed one branch among the ten branches. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.76](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.76) - [Next: 1.78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.78) - [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.1.77) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.77](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.77) · Pramāṇa