成唯識論了義燈 1.77

1.77

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.