[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) › [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861) › 1.21 # 大乘法苑義林章 1.21 大乘法苑義林章 1.21 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.21.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.1) 顯中道者，《瑜伽論．攝決擇分》八十一卷說「經體有二：一文、二義。 文是所依，義即能依。 由能詮文，義得顯故。 」能詮文中復分為二：一者龍軍論師、無性菩薩，及《佛地論》一師所說。 且無性云：「此中即是隨墮八時，聞者識上直非直說，聚集顯現以為體性。 」此意即取隨世俗說日夜八時，說《花嚴經》八會之時，詮辨諸法八轉聲時。 聞法者識所變聲等，直非直說以為教體。 《佛地論》云「謂佛慈悲本願緣力，其可聞者自意識上文義相生，似如來說。 」此意即是由佛本願為增上緣，令聞者識有文義相。 此文義相，雖自親依善根力起，而就本緣名為佛說，佛實無言。 故無性云：「若爾，云何菩薩能說？ 彼增上生故作是說。 譬如天等增上力故，令於夢中得論呪等。 若離識者，佛云何說？ 」此就本緣佛不說法，乃無文義，唯有無漏大定、智、悲。 若依聞者自識所變，有漏心現，即似無漏聲名句文以為教體。 無漏心現，即真無漏文義為體。 此即如來實不說法。 故《大波若》第四百二十五卷、《文殊問經》、《涅槃經》等皆作是言「我成道來不說一字，汝亦不聞。 」《十地》亦言三界唯識，故知教體唯心所變文義為性，善順契經，不違唯識。 問：何故佛寶即有本佛，今說法寶即唯心變？ 答：教法戲論唯說自心，餘非戲論故取本質，理、行、果法同佛寶故。 《無垢稱經》言「法非見聞覺知。 若行見聞覺知，即是見聞覺知，非求法也。 」故唯心變。 問：若取佛說，義即可然。 若聞者心所變為教，子細研究，於理實難。 過去、未來既非實有，非有為法生已便住，如何識上聚集解生？ 答：無性解云「隨墮八時聞者識上，直非直說聚集顯現，以為體性。 謂八時中聞者識上有直非直二種言說聚集顯現故。 」《瑜伽》說心略有五種：一率爾、二尋求、三決定、四染淨、五等流。 如〈五心章〉自當廣釋。 如聖教說諸行無常，有起盡法。 如言諸字率爾心已，必起尋求續初心起。 雖多剎那，行解唯一，總名尋求，未決定知諸所目故。 如《瑜伽論》第三卷說。 又一剎那五識生已，從此無間必意生故。 復言行時由先熏習連帶解生有三心現，謂率爾亦尋求及後決定，決定知諸目一切行。 故《瑜伽》說「尋求無間，若不散亂，決定心生。 若散亂時，生即不定。 雖知自性，然未知義。 為令了知，復說無字。 於此時中有先三心，於無字上但有其二，謂率爾、尋求。 未決定知無所無故，即從決定後却起尋求。 」論但定說率爾尋求定無間生，尋求已後許散亂故。 復言常時五心竝具，其義可解。 由前字力展轉熏習連後字生，於最後時始能解義，染淨等心方乃得轉。 故雖無過、未，而教體亦成。 若新新解竝有率爾，四字之上皆定有二心，謂率爾、尋求。 即於末後有十二心一時聚集，第一有二、第二有三、第三有二、第四有五，故成十二。 既於初字有率爾、尋求，於第二字新生決定，并前為三。 第三字中却起尋求，并前為四。 第四字時但新決定、染淨、等流三心而起，合有七心一時聚集。 如是方名五心具足。 故唯識教其體理成，勘《對法》第一疏應具廣之。 二者護法、勝子、親光等說。 凡論出體，總有四重：一攝相歸性體，即一切法皆性真如。 故《大波若經．理趣分》說一切有情皆如來藏，《勝鬘經》說夫生死者是如來藏，《無垢稱》言一切眾生皆如也，一切法亦如也，眾賢聖亦如也，至於彌勒亦如也。 諸經論說如是非一。 一切有為、諸無為等有別體法是如之相，譬如海水隨風等緣擊成波相，此波之體豈異水乎？ 一切諸法隨四緣會成其體相，然不離如。 有漏種子性皆本識亦復如是，故皆無記。 二攝境從識體，即一切法皆是唯識。 《花嚴》等說三界唯心，心所從王名唯識等。 如是等文誠證非一。 三攝假隨實體，即諸假法隨何所依實法為體。 > As for explaining the Middle Way: Fascicle 81 of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*'s "Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī" states: "The essence of a sūtra is twofold: first, the phonemes/words; second, the meaning. The phonemes/words are what is relied upon; the meaning is what relies upon \[them\]. Because of the expressive phonemes/words, the meaning is able to be revealed." Within the expressive phonemes/words, there are again two divisions: First is that which is stated by Master Nāgasena, Bodhisattva Asvabhāva, and one master of the \*Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna\*. Asvabhāva says: "Here, it is precisely according to the descent into the eight periods that, on the consciousness of the hearer, direct and indirect speech aggregate and manifest to constitute the essence." The intent here takes the eight periods of day and night according to conventional worldly parlance, the times of the eight assemblies when the \*Avataṃsaka-sūtra\* was preached, and the times when all phenomena are explicated through the eight case endings (\*vibhakti\*). The sound, etc., transformed by the consciousness of the hearer of the Dharma, \[as\] direct or indirect speech, is taken to be the essence of the teaching. The \*Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna\* states: "By the conditioning power of the Buddha's compassion and fundamental vows, images of words and meanings arise on the self-awareness of those capable of hearing, resembling the Tathāgata preaching." The intent here is precisely that, taking the Buddha's fundamental vows as the sovereign condition (\*adhipati-pratyaya\*), the consciousness of the hearer is made to have the forms of words and meanings. Although these forms of words and meanings directly arise on the basis of \[the hearer's\] own power of wholesome roots, in reference to the fundamental condition they are named the 'Buddha's teaching'; the Buddha in reality has no speech. Therefore Asvabhāva says: "If so, how can a bodhisattva preach? Because of their sovereign arising, it is explained thus. Just as, for instance, by the sovereign power of gods, etc., one is made to obtain treatises, spells, etc., in dreams. If it is apart from consciousness, how could the Buddha preach?" In this regard, in reference to the fundamental condition, the Buddha does not preach the Dharma, having no words or meanings, possessing only unconditioned, great samādhi, wisdom, and compassion. If based on what is transformed by the hearer's own consciousness, when manifested by a sāsrava mind, it takes words, names, phrases, and phonemes that resemble anāsrava as the essence of the teaching. When manifested by an anāsrava mind, it takes truly anāsrava words and meanings as the essence. This means that the Tathāgata truly does not preach the Dharma. Therefore the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra\* fascicle 425, the \*Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra\*, the \*Nirvāṇa-sūtra\*, and others all state: "Since my attaining the Path, I have not spoken a single word, nor have you heard one." The \*Daśabhūmika\* also states that the three realms are consciousness-only. Thus one knows that the essence of the teaching has as its nature the words and meanings transformed by mind alone, which accords well with the sūtras and does not contradict consciousness-only. Question: Why is it that the Buddha jewel possesses an original Buddha, while the Dharma jewel spoken of now is transformed only by the mind? Answer: The teaching of the Dharma is conceptual proliferation (\*prapañca\*) and only speaks of one's own mind; the remainder is not conceptual proliferation, so the original substance is taken, because the dharmas of principle, practice, and fruit are identical with the Buddha jewel. The \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra\* states: "The Dharma is not seeing, hearing, perceiving, or knowing. If one engages in seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, that is just seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, not seeking the Dharma." Hence it is transformed by mind alone. Question: If one takes the Buddha's preaching \[as the essence\], that meaning is indeed acceptable. If what is transformed by the hearer's mind is taken as the teaching, when examined in fine detail, it is truly difficult in principle. Since past and future are not real existents, and conditioned dharmas do not abide once arisen, how can an understanding arise from aggregation on consciousness? Answer: Asvabhāva explains: "According to the descent into the eight periods, on the consciousness of the hearer, direct and indirect speech aggregate and manifest to constitute the essence. This means that within the eight periods, direct and indirect—these two kinds of speech—aggregate and manifest on the consciousness of the hearer." The \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states that minds are briefly of five kinds: first, sudden (\*nirvikalpa\*); second, seeking (\*paryeṣaṇa\*); third, deciding (\*niścaya\*); fourth, defiled/purified (\*saṃkleśavyavadāna\*); fifth, equal flow (\*niṣyanda\*). As the "Chapter on the Five Minds" will itself explain at length. As the sacred teaching states: "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent; they are dharmas subject to arising and ceasing." For example, after the sudden mind at the word 'all', a seeking \[mind\] must arise following the initial mind. Although it spans many moments, the cognitive activity is single, collectively named 'seeking', because it has not yet decisively known what is indicated by 'all'. As stated in fascicle 3 of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*. Moreover, after the five consciousnesses arise in a single moment, immediately following this the mental consciousness must arise. When the word 'conditioned phenomena' is spoken, due to previous habituation, an understanding arises in connection, and three minds manifest, namely, sudden, also seeking, and subsequent deciding, decisively knowing that 'all' indicates all conditioned phenomena. Therefore the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states: "Immediately after seeking, if there is no distraction, a deciding mind arises. If there is distraction, its arising is undetermined." Although the intrinsic nature is known, its meaning is not yet known. In order to make it understood, the word 'un-' is spoken. At this time there are the prior three minds; on the word 'un-', there are only two, namely, sudden and seeking. Because it is not yet decisively known what is negated by 'un-', following the deciding mind, seeking arises again. The treatise only definitively states that sudden and seeking are definitely produced without interruption, because after seeking, distraction is allowed. When it is spoken again, at 'permanent', the five minds are simultaneously complete, and the meaning can be understood. Due to the power of the former words gradually perfuming and arising in connection with the latter words, at the very last moment one is finally able to understand the meaning, and the defiled, purified, and other minds can only then operate. Therefore, although past and future do not exist, the essence of the teaching is also established. If in each new understanding there is sudden, on all four words there are definitely two minds, namely sudden and seeking. Thus at the very end there are twelve minds aggregated at one time: the first has two, the second has three, the third has two, and the fourth has five; hence twelve are formed. Since on the first word there are sudden and seeking, on the second word deciding newly arises, making three with the former. In the third word, seeking arises again, making four with the former. At the time of the fourth word, only three minds—deciding, defiled/purified, and equal flow—newly arise, together making seven minds aggregated at one time. Only thus is it named 'complete with the five minds'. Therefore the essence of the consciousness-only teaching is logically established; one should consult the first commentary on the \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\* for a full expansion. Second is that which is explained by Dharmapāla, Jñānaputra, Prabhāmitra, and others. Whenever discussing the emergence of the essence, there are four levels in all: First, the essence that gathers marks back to nature: that is, all dharmas have as their nature tathatā. Therefore the \*Naya-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra\* states that all sentient beings are the tathāgatagarbha; the \*Śrīmālādevī-sūtra\* states that saṃsāra is the tathāgatagarbha; the \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa\* states that all sentient beings are 'thus' (\*tathā\*), all dharmas are also 'thus', all the worthy and noble ones are also 'thus', and even Maitreya is also 'thus'. Sūtras and treatises stating such are not one. All conditioned and unconditioned dharmas that possess distinct essences are the marks of suchness; just as sea water, encountering conditions such as wind, is agitated into the marks of waves, how could the essence of these waves be different from water? All dharmas assemble their essence and marks following the four conditions, yet they are not separated from suchness. Sāsrava seeds whose nature is entirely the fundamental consciousness are also like this; therefore, they are all indeterminate. Second, the essence that gathers objects into consciousness: that is, all dharmas are consciousness-only. The \*Avataṃsaka\* and others state that the three realms are mind-only, mental factors follow the primary mind and are called consciousness-only, and so forth. Such texts of sincere proof are not one. Third, the essence that gathers designations according to the real: that is, all designated dharmas take whatever real dharmas they rely upon as their essence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [1.21.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.2) 如說瓶等四塵為體。 諸不相應色心分位，即以所依分位為體。 《對法論》說不相應行色心等中是假立故，是說不害等即無瞋等。 此類非一。 四性用別論體，色心假實各別處故。 《瑜伽》等說色蘊攝彼十處界等。 此類眾多。 又有四重：一真如、二無相、三唯識、四因緣。 此二四體攝法義周，隨其所應釋一切法。 今隨義便略敘明之，庶後學徒詳而易入。 護法等說：諸教體者，謂宜聞者本願緣力，如來識上文義相生，實能所詮文義為體。 此師意說：眾生本願願聞佛說，如來識上文義相生，聽者識心即聞佛說，亦有如是似文義相。 故《升攝波葉喻經》說：佛取樹葉以問阿難，比其林葉所有多少？ 復告慶喜：我未所說乃有爾所。 故諸經首佛皆教置如是我聞。 《二十唯識》天親說云：展轉增上力，二識成決定。 謂餘相續識差別故，令餘相續差別識生，展轉互為增上緣故。 是故世尊實亦說法，言不說者是密意說，於真如性絕語言故，實無諸事。 故《波若》云：音聲尋我，不見如來。 推功歸本，仍言應化非說法者，計所執中無說法故。 於依他起，譬如幻人為幻人說，唯有假說似能說者，都無實說。 聽者心識文義之相，理有無疑，故諸教體取本無漏世尊所說文義為體。 若取能詮，唯聲名等而為體性。 《十地論》說：說者聽者俱以二事而得究竟，一者聲、二者善字。 又《解深密經》及《瑜伽論》七十八說：於第九地斷二種愚，一於無量所說法、無量名句字、陀羅尼自在愚。 《成唯識論》第九卷言：無量名句字者，謂法無礙解。 所說法者，所詮義也。 名句字者，能詮文也。 《對法》等云：成所引聲者，謂諸聖所說聲。 《成唯識論》第二復言：由此法、詞二無礙解，境有差別，法緣名等，詞緣於聲。 金剛波若天親論說：又言無記者，此義不然。 何以故？ 汝法是無記，而我法是記，是故一法寶勝無量珍寶。 是故當知，詮表教體唯聲名等，體唯無漏亦唯是善。 此通依他及圓成實，從眾緣起名曰依他，體是無漏可通成實。 《佛地論》說：依隨轉門及二乘者，說十五界唯是有漏，名、句、文身唯是無記。 今依大乘，若唯如來後得說法聲，名、句、文真善無漏。 如前所解諸教中說，故《佛地論》、《成唯識》說十八界皆通有漏及無漏。 若十地菩薩二乘說法聲，名、句、文唯是有漏。 若聽者識所變文義，或通有漏及與無漏。 一切異生、二乘、菩薩七地已前有漏後得，能聽法者皆唯有漏。 若一切二乘、七地已前無漏後得、八地已去，識上所變聲，名、句、文皆唯無漏，隨其所應說之為教。 然同所敬，既取本質無漏三寶。 故今教體亦取本質，佛等所說任運而現，非有漏戲論聲等為體。 《攝大乘》云「如末尼天鼓，無思成自事。 聲等為體，於能說者識上現，故不違唯識。 若聞者識所變為教，教唯有漏三性為體，同識性故。 」依前所說四出體中，今出教體亦應有四。 依前第一攝相歸性，教即真如。 《般若論》說「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相。 」故知教體性即真如。 無垢稱語大善現言：「文字性離，無有文字是即解脫，解脫相者即諸法也。 」又云「一切法亦如也。 」又云「法非見聞覺知，若行見聞覺知，是即見聞覺知，非求法也。 」故知教體性即真如。 依前第二攝境從識，若取根本，能說法者識心為體； 若取於末，能聞法者識心為體。 故天親云「展轉增上力，二識成決定。 」依前第三攝假隨實，一切內教體唯是聲。 由名句文體是假有，隨實說故。 《對法論》說成所引聲，不說名等名成所引。 依前第四相用別論，唯取根本能說法者識上所現聲名句文以為教體，假之與實義用殊故。 《十地論》云「一者聲、二善字。 如前教理成此體訖，此中四體約義用分，不乖真俗法相理故。 > Just as it is said that jars and the like have the four sensory data as their substance, the various conditioned factors not associated \[with the mind\] (cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra) are states of matter and mind, and thus take the states on which they depend as their substance. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states that conditioned factors not associated \[with the mind\] are nominally posited within matter, mind, and so forth; thus it says non-harmfulness and so forth are just non-hatred and so forth. Cases of this sort are manifold. Fourth, discussing substance by differentiating nature and function: because matter and mind, nominal and real, occupy distinct categories. The Yogācārabhūmi and so forth say that the aggregate of matter subsumes the ten āyatanas, dhātus, and so forth. Cases of this sort are numerous. Furthermore, there are four tiers: first, tathatā; second, signlessness (animitta); third, consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra); fourth, causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya). These two sets of four substances completely encompass the meanings of all phenomena, explaining all phenomena according to their proper application. Now, following the convenience of the meaning, I shall briefly explain them, so that future students may investigate them and easily gain entry. Dharmapāla and others say: The substance of all teachings means that by the conditioning force of the original vows of those suited to hear, aspects of text and meaning arise upon the consciousness of the Tathāgata, and the real text and meaning that express and are expressed serve as the substance. This master's meaning is: Sentient beings, having the original vow desiring to hear the Buddha's teaching, cause aspects of text and meaning to arise upon the consciousness of the Tathāgata; the listening consciousness then hears the Buddha's teaching, and likewise possesses such semblance of aspects of text and meaning. Therefore, the Śiṃśapā-parṇa-upama-sūtra says: The Buddha took up tree leaves to ask Ānanda, 'Comparing them to the leaves of this forest, how many are there?' He further said to Ānanda: 'What I have not taught is just as much \[as the leaves in the forest\].' Therefore, at the head of every sūtra, the Buddha instructed that 'Thus have I heard' be placed. In the Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā, Vasubandhu says: 'Through the reciprocal predominant power, the two consciousnesses become determinate.' This means that owing to the distinctions in the consciousness of another continuum, distinct consciousnesses are made to arise in another continuum, because they mutually serve as predominant conditions (adhipati-pratyaya). Therefore, the World-Honoured One also actually teaches the Dharma; to say that he does not speak is an intentional teaching, because within the nature of tathatā language is completely cut off, and in reality there are no such entities. Therefore the Prajñā\[pāramitā\] says: 'Those who seek me in sound will not see the Tathāgata.' Tracing the function back to the source, it is still said that the apparitional and transformation bodies are not the preachers of the Dharma, because within the conceptually constructed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) there is no preaching of the Dharma. With respect to the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), it is like an illusory person speaking to an illusory person: there is only nominal preaching appearing like an expounder, with no real preaching at all. In the listener's mental consciousness, the aspects of text and meaning unquestionably exist in principle; therefore, taking the substance of the teachings, one takes the original undefiled text and meaning spoken by the World-Honoured One as the substance. If one takes what can express, it is exclusively sound, names, and so forth that constitute the substance. The Daśabhūmikā-śāstra says: 'The speaker and the listener both attain culmination through two things: first, sound; second, good syllables.' Furthermore, the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra and the Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle seventy-eight, state: 'On the ninth ground, one abandons two kinds of ignorance: first, ignorance regarding mastery over the immeasurable Dharma taught, immeasurable names, phrases, and syllables, and dhāraṇīs.' The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle nine, states: '"Immeasurable names, phrases, and syllables" refers to the unimpeded understanding of Dharma (dharma-pratisaṃvid). "The Dharma taught" is the expressed meaning. "Names, phrases, and syllables" are the expressing text.' The Abhidharmasamuccaya and other texts state: 'Sound induced by realization refers to the sounds uttered by the noble ones.' The Cheng weishi lun, fascicle two, further states: 'Because these two unimpeded understandings of Dharma and language (nirukti-pratisaṃvid) have different objects, Dharma takes names and so forth as its object, while language takes sound as its object.' Vasubandhu's commentary on the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā states: 'Furthermore, to say it is indeterminate (avyākṛta)—this meaning is incorrect. Why is that? Your dharma is indeterminate, whereas my Dharma is determinate \[as wholesome\]; therefore, a single jewel of the Dharma surpasses immeasurable precious treasures.' Therefore, one should know that the substance of the teaching that expresses is solely sound, names, and so forth; its substance is solely undefiled, and likewise solely wholesome. This encompasses both the other-dependent (paratantra) and the consummate (pariniṣpanna): arising from multiple conditions, it is named other-dependent; its substance being undefiled, it can encompass the consummate. The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra states: 'In accordance with the provisional gateway of sequential adaptation (anuvṛtti) and the two vehicles, it is said that the fifteen dhātus are strictly defiled, and the collections of names, phrases, and syllables are strictly indeterminate.' Now, according to the Mahāyāna, if it is solely the sound, names, phrases, and syllables of the Tathāgata's post-attainment preaching of the Dharma, they are truly wholesome and undefiled. As explained in the various scriptures previously referenced, the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra and the Cheng weishi lun therefore state that the eighteen dhātus all encompass both the defiled and the undefiled. If it is the sound, names, phrases, and syllables of the preaching of the Dharma by bodhisattvas on the ten grounds and the two vehicles, they are strictly defiled. If it is the text and meaning transformed by the listener's consciousness, they may encompass both the defiled and the undefiled. All ordinary beings, the two vehicles, and bodhisattvas before the seventh ground who possess defiled post-attainment \[cognition\] and are able to listen to the Dharma are strictly defiled. If it is all those of the two vehicles, those with undefiled post-attainment \[cognition\] before the seventh ground, and those from the eighth ground onward, the sound, names, phrases, and syllables transformed upon their consciousnesses are all strictly undefiled, and are called the teaching in accordance with their proper application. However, as the shared object of veneration, since one takes the intrinsic, undefiled Three Jewels, the present substance of the teaching likewise takes the intrinsic \[form\], which is spontaneously manifested as taught by the Buddha and others, and does not take defiled conceptual proliferations such as sound as its substance. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Like a mani jewel or a heavenly drum, which accomplish their tasks without thought. Sound and so forth constitute the substance, manifesting upon the consciousness of the expounder; therefore, it does not contradict consciousness-only. If what is transformed by the listener's consciousness were the teaching, the teaching would have only defiled natures and the three moral natures as its substance, because it would share the nature of that consciousness.' In accordance with the previously explained four manners of establishing substance, the present establishment of the substance of the teaching should also have four: According to the first, subsuming appearance into the nature: the teaching is simply tathatā. The Prajñāpāramitā-śāstra states: 'The apparitional and transformation bodies are not the true Buddha, nor are they the preacher of the Dharma; in preaching the Dharma, there is no grasping of duality, and there is no preaching, for it transcends the sign of language.' Therefore, one knows that the nature of the substance of the teaching is simply tathatā. Vimalakīrti said to the Great Subhūti: 'The nature of syllables is detached; absence of syllables is itself liberation, and the sign of liberation is all phenomena.' Furthermore, it says: 'All phenomena are likewise suchness.' It also says: 'The Dharma is not seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing. If one engages in seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing, that is merely seeing, hearing, perceiving, or cognizing, not seeking the Dharma.' Therefore, one knows that the nature of the substance of the teaching is simply tathatā. According to the second, subsuming the object into consciousness: If one takes the root, the consciousness and mind of the expounder of the Dharma constitute the substance; if one takes the branch, the consciousness and mind of the hearer of the Dharma constitute the substance. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: 'Through the reciprocal predominant power, the two consciousnesses become determinate.' According to the third, subsuming the nominal into the real: the substance of all internal teachings is exclusively sound. Because the substance of names, phrases, and syllables is nominally existent, they are explained in accordance with the real. The Abhidharmasamuccaya speaks of 'sound induced by realization', and does not say that names and so forth are called 'induced by realization'. According to the fourth, discussing appearance and function separately: one exclusively takes the sound, names, phrases, and syllables manifested upon the consciousness of the original expounder of the Dharma as the substance of the teaching, because nominal and real differ in meaning and function. The Daśabhūmikā-śāstra states: 'First, sound; second, good syllables.' As the establishment of this substance has now been completed through the preceding scriptures and reasoning, the four substances here are distinguished in terms of meaning and function, without violating the principles of ultimate and conventional truths and the characteristics of phenomena. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [1.21.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.3) 」雖說一體，義不違三，即一一法各各有此四種體，故說諸法體。 准此應知，雖顯教體義有多途，而未解釋唯識教性。 如何說者識上聚集，令聽法者聚集解生？ 《顯揚論》中第十二說：有字非名謂一字，有名非句謂一字名，句必有名字，名亦必有字，字不必有名，名不必有句。 既大乘中於聲屈曲義說名等，故說名等非小乘義。 今准此義，釋說法者及聽法者識心之上聚集顯現。 如聖教說「諸惡者莫作，諸善者奉行，善調伏自心，是諸佛聖教。 」說「諸」字時，餘「惡」等字並在未來，唯有一字及依一字所成之名於心上現，此即一字成名之義。 亦有一字不成名者，非此所明。 復言「惡」時，餘「者」等字並在未來，其前諸字雖入過去、現無本質，由熏習力、唯識變力，仍於此念說「惡」字時心上顯現，即有二个一字、一个字身。 兩个一字所成名，一个一字所成名、名身，一个二字所成名。 又言「者」時，有三个一字，兩个字身，一謂「諸惡」、二謂「惡者」。 以二合說，下應准知。 不可隔越合，故無「諸者」合名字身。 一个三字多字身，三个一字所成名，二个一字所成名、名身。 如前字身二二合說，一个一字所成名、多名身。 論雖二說，今取三字名名多名身，不取四字者，下准應知。 兩个二字所成名，亦二二合說。 一个二字所成名、名身，一个三字所成名。 復言「莫」時，有四个一字，三个字身。 亦二二合說，準前應知。 兩个三字多字身，三三合說，更互除初後一字，一个四字多字身，四个一字所成名，三个一字所成名、名身，謂二二合說。 二个一字所成名三名多名身，謂三三合說，更互除初後一字。 一个一字所成名四名多名身。 三个二字所成名，謂二二合說。 二个二字所成名、名身。 一个二字所成名多名身。 二个三字所成名，更互除初後一字，如前准說。 一个三字所成名名身，一个四字所成名。 又言「作」時，有五个一字，四个字身，謂二二合說。 三个三字多字身，二个四字多字身，一个五字多字身。 至此總合字及字身并多字身，有一十五：五个一字所成名； 四个一字所成名名身，謂二二合說； 三个一字所成名三名多名身，謂三三合說； 二个一字所成名四名多名身，更互除初後一字； 一个一字所成名五名多名身； 四个二字所成名，謂二二合說； 三个二字所成名名身； 二个二字所成名三名多名身； 一个二字所成名四名多名身； 三个三字所成名，謂三三合說； 二个三字所成名名身； 一个三字所成名多名身； 二个四字所成名，更互除初後一字； 一个四字所成名名身； 一个五字所成名。 至此總合名及名身并多名身，有三十五。 合有一句，義究竟故。 梵云阿耨瑟多掣陀，即八字成句，不長不短，以圓滿故。 此中皆取無間相合方成名等，不可隔越合成名等，所隔之字即無用故。 此中且依倍倍增長而作其法，合有五剎那所依之聲於心上現，不可為難。 此依一句事究竟說。 字、名、句、聲都合尚有五十聚集，若約一頌、一段、一卷、一部聚集字名句等，理即無邊。 若薩婆多等說「惡」等字時，「諸」等字已滅，無聚集故次第而生，不俱時故、無熏習故不可至後。 前已所說字，於後心上現，故彼教義決定不成。 亦非由前字等勢力，末後字等能生顯名。 過去無體又無熏習，由何勢力，末後之字能生顯名等？ 故我今時，其說法者若在因位，及諸聽者亦在因中，由初「諸」字等熏本識已，連帶緣後「惡」者等字，識上解生。 乃至末後「作」字之時，先皆聚集，由前熏習後識之上聚集顯現，詮所詮義差別圓滿，名為說法，說為聞教。 若是佛說，雖無熏習亦聚集生，故雖無過，未唯識教成立。 說者、聽者義皆圓滿，俱以聲、字二種究竟於自心上聚集顯現，為教體故。 > "\[…\]" Although one essence is spoken of, its meaning does not contradict the three; that is, each single dharma individually possesses these four kinds of essences, and therefore they are spoken of as the essences of all dharmas. In accordance with this, one should know: although many approaches have been shown concerning the essence of the teaching, the nature of the teaching according to mere-consciousness has not yet been explained. How is it that an aggregation occurs upon the consciousness of the speaker, causing an aggregated understanding to arise in the listener? Fascicle twelve of the Xianyang \[shengjiao\] lun states: "There are phonemes that are not words, namely a single phoneme. There are words that are not phrases, namely a single-phoneme word. A phrase necessarily contains words and phonemes; a word also necessarily contains phonemes. A phoneme does not necessarily contain words; a word does not necessarily contain phrases." Since in the Mahāyāna, words and so forth are spoken of metaphorically based on the inflections of sound, the exposition of words and so forth is not the Hinayāna doctrine. Now, relying on this doctrine, we explain the aggregation and manifestation that occurs upon the consciousnesses of the speaker and listener of the Dharma. As the sacred teaching states: "Do no evil, / Practice all good, / Completely subdue one's own mind: / This is the teaching of all Buddhas." When the phoneme "all" (諸) is spoken, the remaining phonemes such as "evil" (惡) are all still in the future; only a single phoneme and the word formed relying on that single phoneme manifest in the mind: this is the meaning of a single phoneme forming a word. There are also single phonemes that do not form words, which is not what is being clarified here. When "evil" is further spoken, the remaining phonemes such as "that which" (者) are all in the future; although the preceding phoneme has entered the past and currently lacks an intrinsic entity, through the power of habituation and the power of transformation by mere-consciousness, it nevertheless manifests in the mind at this moment when the phoneme "evil" is spoken. Thus, there are two single phonemes and one phoneme-body (akṣara-kāya); two words formed of a single phoneme, one word-body (nāma-kāya) formed of single-phoneme words, and one word formed of two phonemes. Again, when "that which" (者) is spoken, there are three single phonemes and two phoneme-bodies: one being "all evil" and the second being "evil-that which". They are spoken of by combining pairs, which should be understood below accordingly. They cannot be combined across an interval; thus, there is no phoneme-body or word combining "all" and "that which". There is one multi-phoneme-body of three phonemes; three words formed of a single phoneme; two word-bodies formed of single-phoneme words, spoken of in pairs as with the phoneme-bodies above; and one multi-word-body formed of single-phoneme words. Although the treatises offer two explanations, we now take three words to be called a multi-word-body and do not take four words, as should be understood below. There are two words formed of two phonemes, also spoken of by combining pairs; one word-body formed of two-phoneme words; and one word formed of three phonemes. Again, when "not" (莫) is spoken, there are four single phonemes and three phoneme-bodies, also spoken of by combining pairs, as should be understood from the above. There are two multi-phoneme-bodies of three phonemes, spoken of by combining triplets, mutually excluding the first and last phonemes; one multi-phoneme-body of four phonemes; four words formed of a single phoneme; three word-bodies formed of single-phoneme words, meaning spoken of by combining pairs; two multi-word-bodies of three words formed of single-phoneme words, meaning spoken of by combining triplets, mutually excluding the first and last phonemes; one multi-word-body of four words formed of single-phoneme words; three words formed of two phonemes, meaning spoken of by combining pairs; two word-bodies formed of two-phoneme words; one multi-word-body of two-phoneme words; two words formed of three phonemes, mutually excluding the first and last phonemes, as explained above; one word-body formed of three-phoneme words; and one word formed of four phonemes. Again, when "do" (作) is spoken, there are five single phonemes and four phoneme-bodies, meaning spoken of by combining pairs; three multi-phoneme-bodies of three phonemes; two multi-phoneme-bodies of four phonemes; and one multi-phoneme-body of five phonemes. Up to this point, there are altogether fifteen phonemes, phoneme-bodies, and multi-phoneme-bodies: five words formed of a single phoneme; four word-bodies formed of single-phoneme words, meaning spoken of by combining pairs; three multi-word-bodies of three words formed of single-phoneme words, meaning spoken of by combining triplets; two multi-word-bodies of four words formed of single-phoneme words, mutually excluding the first and last phonemes; one multi-word-body of five words formed of single-phoneme words; four words formed of two phonemes, meaning spoken of by combining pairs; three word-bodies formed of two-phoneme words; two multi-word-bodies of three words formed of two-phoneme words; one multi-word-body of four words formed of two-phoneme words; three words formed of three phonemes, meaning spoken of by combining triplets; two word-bodies formed of three-phoneme words; one multi-word-body of three-phoneme words; two words formed of four phonemes, mutually excluding the first and last phonemes; one word-body formed of four-phoneme words; and one word formed of five phonemes. Up to this point, there are altogether thirty-five words, word-bodies, and multi-word-bodies. Together, there is one phrase, because the meaning is fully completed. In Sanskrit it is called anuṣṭubh, which consists of eight syllables forming a verse quarter, neither too long nor too short, on account of its completeness. In this context, it is only through uninterrupted combination that words and so forth are formed; they cannot be formed into words and so forth by leaping across an interval, because the intervening phonemes would then be rendered useless. Here, we provisionally formulate the method based on progressive doubling; sounds that serve as the basis for five moments manifest in the mind, which should not be objected to. This is explained on the basis of a single phrase having its meaning completed. Phonemes, words, phrases, and sounds together still yield fifty aggregations; if considered in terms of a stanza, a section, a fascicle, or an entire collection, the aggregations of phonemes, words, phrases, and so forth would theoretically be limitless. If, as the Sarvāstivādins and others hold, when phonemes such as "evil" are spoken, phonemes such as "all" have already ceased, then because there is no aggregation, they arise sequentially; because they are not simultaneous and because there is no habituation, they cannot reach what comes after. The phonemes already spoken appear in the subsequent mind; therefore, their doctrine of the teaching definitely cannot be established. Nor is it through the potency of preceding phonemes that the final phoneme can produce and manifest a word. The past lacks an intrinsic entity and furthermore has no habituation; through what potency could the final phoneme produce and manifest a word and so forth? Therefore, in our present system, when the speaker of the Dharma is in the causal stage and the listeners are also in the causal stage, because the initial phoneme "all" has habituated the fundamental consciousness, subsequent phonemes such as "evil" and "that which" are cognized in connection with it, and understanding arises upon the consciousness. Down to the final phoneme "do", the earlier ones have all aggregated; through the earlier habituation, they aggregate and manifest upon the subsequent consciousness, and the distinctions of the expressed meaning are completed: this is called expounding the Dharma and is spoken of as hearing the teaching. If it is the Buddha's exposition, although there is no habituation, they also arise in aggregation; therefore, although there is no error, the mere-consciousness teaching is established. The meaning for both the speaker and the listener is completely fulfilled: both attain culmination through the two matters of sound and phonemes, which aggregate and manifest upon their own minds, serving as the essence of the teaching. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [1.21.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.4) 於此四種出體之中，隨其所應，以圓成等及相名等三性五法各別出之，唯大乘義。 大乘義中，雖有蘊、處、界等三科之法，體性易故、復濫小教，故不取之。 三性體性略而言之，遍計所執體唯我法，性相都無。 依他、圓成各有二體：一者有漏無漏門。 諸無漏法皆名圓成，故《攝論》說「若說四清淨是即圓成實，諸有漏法皆依他起。 」二者常無常門。 諸常住者名圓成實，即唯真如圓成實攝。 《瑜伽論》說「五法之中，唯說真如是圓成。 」故一切有為皆依他起，依他眾緣而得起故。 其前教體攝相歸性唯圓成實，自餘三體可通二說，無漏有為通二性故。 五法體性如〈五法章〉，義准應悉。 餘一切章，由此門中已略顯示，更不別顯，准義知之。 此中所說義理研尋，皆是大師別加訓授。 傳者實雖文拙，而此義或可觀，冀諸有智委為詳審。 其間引證純用大乘，白日光暉不假眾星之助故也。 如有謬錯，希為箴規。 上來合是體性不同，自餘義門如餘章說。 > Among these four ways of presenting the essence, each is presented distinctively according to what is appropriate using the three natures—the consummate and so forth—and the five dharmas—signs, names, and so forth; this is exclusively a Mahāyāna doctrine. Within the Mahāyāna doctrine, although there are the dharmas of the three categories of aggregates, sense-bases, and elements, their essential natures are easily grasped and furthermore risk confusion with the Hinayāna teaching, and so they are not adopted here. To speak briefly of the essential nature of the three natures: the essence of the imagined nature consists solely of self and dharmas, possessing neither intrinsic nature nor characteristics. The dependent and the consummate each have two essences: first, the gate of the contaminated and uncontaminated. All uncontaminated dharmas are called the consummate; hence the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "If one speaks of the four purities, that is the consummate nature; all contaminated dharmas are the dependent origination nature." Second, the gate of the permanent and impermanent. All that is permanent is called the consummate nature, which means that only tathatā is subsumed under the consummate nature. The Yogācārabhūmi says: "Among the five dharmas, only tathatā is said to be the consummate." Therefore, all conditioned phenomena are the dependent origination nature, because they arise depending on other manifold conditions. As for the previously discussed essence of the teaching, subsuming characteristics into the nature is exclusively the consummate nature; the remaining three essences admit of both explanations, because uncontaminated conditioned phenomena encompass both natures. The essential natures of the five dharmas should be understood by analogy with the chapter on the "Five Dharmas". All other chapters have been briefly indicated through this approach and will not be displayed separately; one should understand them by analogy with the meaning. The investigation of the principles explained here was entirely taught by the Great Master with additional instruction. Although the recorder's writing is truly crude, these principles may perhaps be worthy of consideration; we hope the wise will examine them in detail. The textual citations used within rely purely on the Mahāyāna, just as the bright sunlight does not depend on the aid of the myriad stars. If there are errors, we hope for correction. The above constitutes the different essential natures; the remaining doctrinal approaches are as explained in the other chapters. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861~en-mt.1.21.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21) · Pramāṇa