宗鏡錄 51.19

51.19

Answer: There would be great faults: all defiled and pure dharmas would not be established, because both would be without a cause. The *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra* states: "If this consciousness did not exist to hold the seeds of the kleśas, then when traversing between realms and stages, after an undefiled citta, when the kleśas arise, they would all be without a cause, because other dharmas cannot hold those seeds. If the kleśas arose without a cause, then the fruits of the learners and non-learners of the three vehicles would not exist, because those [kleśas] that had already been severed would all arise again. Furthermore, if this consciousness did not exist to hold the worldly and supramundane seeds of the pure path, then when those pure dharmas arise after a citta of a different category, they would all be without a cause. Moreover, the supramundane path could never arise initially, because there would be no dharma to hold those inherently existent seeds. Since it could not arise initially, it would also not arise subsequently; in that case, there would be no path and fruit of the three vehicles. If this consciousness did not exist to hold the seeds of the kleśas, the fruit of severance through transformation of the basis could also not be accomplished. This is because when the path arises, both the active kleśas and their seeds do not exist, and defiled and pure cittas do not arise together; the citta associated with the path does not hold those seeds, since their intrinsic natures are mutually contradictory, just like nirvāṇa. That other dharmas hold the seeds is logically unfeasible. Since there would be nothing to be severed, that which can sever would also not exist. Dependent on what and by means of what would the fruit of severance be established? If one says that through the power of the path subsequent afflictions do not arise and thus establishes the fruit of severance, then when the initial path arises, one should already become a non-learner, because all subsequent kleśas would already be without cause and would never arise again. If one accepts that this consciousness exists, everything is accomplished, because only this [consciousness] can hold the defiled and pure seeds." The reasons proving the existence of this consciousness are boundless; fearing that [the reader] will weary of verbose text, its essentials are briefly recounted. Thus, that this consciousness exists is obvious in both teaching and reason; all wise persons should deeply believe and accept it. Furthermore, this principle of true Vijñaptimātra is followed in common by a thousand sages; neither in this land nor in the Western Heavens has anyone refuted it. As the *Baifa chao* states: "Regarding the inference of true Vijñaptimātra: this inference is precisely what the Tripiṭaka [master] of the Great Tang established during the eighteen-day unobstructed great assembly convened by King Śīlāditya in the city of Kanyākubja in Central India. [The king] broadly summoned the śramaṇas, brāhmaṇas, and others of the five regions of India who understood the meanings of the Dharma, together with [proponents of] the Hīnayāna and non-Buddhist traditions, to serve as opponents. [Xuanzang] established a single inference, wrote it on a golden placard, and throughout the eighteen days, there was not a single person who dared to refute it." Therefore, the *Yinming shu* states: "Furthermore, when the Great Master traveled through the Western Regions, had completed his studies, and was about to return, King Śīlāditya ruled the five regions of India and convened an eighteen-day unobstructed great assembly for him, commanding the Great Master to establish his thesis. Selecting the worthy and good from all across India, they all gathered at the meeting place, and non-Buddhists and Hīnayānists were sent to compete in raising objections and interrogations. The Great Master established the inference, and none dared to respond. The Great Master's inference of Vijñaptimātra stated: 'As a thesis: In the ultimate sense, universally established matter is the subject; it is definitely not separate from the visual consciousness. As the reason: Because it is accepted by oneself as being included within the first three and not included within the eye [faculty]. As the positive example: Like visual consciousness. As the application: All that is included within the first three and not included within the eye [faculty] is not separate from visual consciousness; like visual consciousness as the positive example, and like the eye faculty as the negative example.'"