大乘唯識論

This is the path of cultivation unshared,

Expounding the meaning that is without equal.

Bowing in reverence to the principle of the Mahāyāna,

I shall now set forth establishment and refutation.

Immeasurable Buddhas have cultivated this,

Removing both the obscurations and their roots.

Consciousness-only, self-nature pure—

The deluded do not believe it.

The Mahāyāna establishes that the three realms are consciousness-only, meaning that the three realms are only consciousness. As the sūtra says: "Sons of the Buddha! The three realms are only mind." Mind, mentation, and consciousness are general designations. One should know that this mind possesses dharmas associated with it. To say "only" is to exclude form-objects and so forth.

In truth there is no external object,

Consciousness arises resembling an object.

Like a person with diseased eyes,

Who sees hairs and two moons.

According to the meaning of the Mahāyāna, external objects do not truly exist. If so, why does one see that there are external objects? To prove this meaning it is said that, owing to consciousness arising, owing to consciousness transforming, it resembles the presence of external objects.

Sentient beings, in whom objective realms have no real existence, see that there are objective realms. To clarify the meaning of this arising of consciousness's transformations and manifestations, the example is given of a person with diseased eyes or disordered eye-faculties. Where there is nothing, consciousness sees as though there were two moons, just as a thirsty deer sees an appearing scene.

The meaning of consciousness-only is likewise. Therefore the three realms truly have no external object; owing to consciousness turning, it resembles the appearance of objective realms. The three natures and the two truths are all natureless in nature; this is called the non-established.

Time and place would both be indeterminate,

Not bound to a continuum, indeterminate.

Performed actions would all fail to succeed,

[Yet] consciousness-only, with no objective realm.

What is this verse meant to convey? If, apart from the six objects, form and so forth are produced by consciousness, not arising from objects, then for what reason does consciousness arise in this place and not arise in another place? In this place it either arises or does not arise, and is not such that it always arises at every moment.

If many people are simultaneously in one place, then consciousness arises in an indeterminate continuum, not following just one person. Just as a person with diseased eyes sees hairs, sees two moons, and so forth, while others do not see them. Again, for what reason does a person with diseased eyes see objective realms such as strands of hair, flies, and so forth, yet cannot make use of those strands of hair or flies, whereas other objects can be put to use?

Again, while dreaming one sees oneself eating and drinking, wearing clothes, or encountering poison, blade, or staff, and so forth, yet cannot actually carry out the eating and drinking and so on, whereas other things can be put to use? Again, the city of the Gandharvas is not truly existent and cannot be used, whereas other cities can be used? If they are alike in having no objective realm, why then are there four differing meanings?

Therefore, apart from an objective realm, the four meanings—fixed place, fixed time, indeterminate continuum, and performed action—do not succeed. As for "not failing to succeed," the meanings such as fixed place and so forth are like a dream.

Why is it that in a dream, though apart from objects, there is yet a place? One may see land and country, gardens and groves, men and women, and so forth—but not everywhere. Or in that place one at times sees and at times does not see, and is not such that one sees at all times. Therefore, apart from an objective realm, fixed place and fixed time are established. Like hungry ghosts, the continuum is indeterminate. Thus the indeterminate continuum of hungry ghosts is established.

Why is it established?

All of them see a river of blood and pus. Because the river is filled with blood and pus, it is called a river of blood and pus—like a vat that holds milk. Because hungry ghosts share one and the same karmic retribution, all of them see a river filled with blood and pus, and it is not seen by only one.

Just as they see a river of blood and pus, so too are the rivers of filth and dung. Or they see persons holding blade and staff barring the way, not letting them approach. In this way the consciousness-only continuum, indeterminate and apart from objects, is established.

Just as in a dream one sees various harmful deeds, so too is it. Just as in a dream, apart from objects, one sees oneself coupling with men and women and emitting impurity, so too in a dream one sees the performed action of being harmed. These examples all illustrate the four meanings: place, time, fixity, and so forth—all are established.

Furthermore, the hells too illustrate the establishment of the four meanings.

Why is it established?

One sees the hell-wardens and those who are oppressed. Just as the sinners in hell see the various hell-wardens and so forth, in fixed place and fixed time they see dogs, see crows, see mountains, and so forth, all alike and not single. Those who undergo the oppression are likewise. In truth there are no hell-wardens and so forth; owing to the dominant condition of shared karmic retribution, it is so in the other places as well. Therefore in this example the four meanings are all established.

Why are the hell-wardens, dogs, crows, and so forth not real sentient beings?

Because such is not in accord with reason. These hell-wardens are not persons undergoing punishment in hell, and so they do not undergo the suffering of hell. If the persons in hell were to torment one another, then how could one distinguish which are hell-wardens and which are sinners? If they had the same form and figure and equal strength, then there would be no being terrified of one another. And when the fire blazes up and the ground turns into red-hot iron, they themselves cannot even endure the heat—how could they there oppress others? They are not persons in hell.

How does one come to be born in hell? How can an animal be born in heaven? In this way are hell, animal, and hungry ghost distinct kinds; is one born in hell called a hell-warden?

It is not so.

As animals [are born] in heaven,

In hell there is no mixed path.

The suffering retribution within the hells

Is not undergone by the hell-wardens.

If an animal is born up in the heavenly realm by mixed karma, it can experience the joyful retribution of the world above among the gods. The hell-wardens are not like this; they do not undergo the suffering retribution of hell. Therefore animals and hungry ghosts are not born into hell.

Owing to the karmic retribution of the sinners,

There arises what resembles hell-wardens.

If you grant that they transform,

Then any transformation of consciousness will do.

Owing to the karmic retribution of the persons in hell, there arise the various hell-wardens, possessing the four great elements of a different kind, manifesting distinct forms and colors—these are called hell-wardens. As for other transformations, it is likewise—such as the manifest moving of hands and feet performing dreadful deeds of killing, or the manifestation of two mountains resembling two rams suddenly drawing apart and suddenly crashing together, or, again, the manifestation of a forest of iron trees with sharp thorns, some piercing downward from above or piercing upward from below—yet the opponent does not speak of this.

Why does he not say that this transformation is, owing to consciousness's setting karma in motion, a transformation of consciousness, but instead says that it is the four great elements that have this transformation? Furthermore:

Karma is perfumed within consciousness,

Yet one clings to the fruit arising outside.

Why, where the cause is perfumed,

Within, does one not speak of the fruit?

This is the karma of the sinners within hell, which can be seen as the gathering and transformation of the four great elements. This karma is perfumed within the continuum of consciousness of the persons in hell, and not elsewhere. This place of perfuming is the transformation of consciousness resembling hell-wardens and so forth. This is the fruit-retribution of karma; it is not at the original locus, not the place of perfuming, that the karmic fruit is produced.

On what ground is there this clinging?

It is on the ground of the Āgama. If there is only consciousness resembling form-objects and so forth that produces the various formless external objects and so forth, then the Buddha, the World-Honored One, would not have said that form and so forth, the various entrances, truly exist.

The ground is not the Āgama, nor is it the intent of the Āgama.

The Buddha taught that there is the entrance of form

To instruct those who cling to a self.

Because it was spoken with another intent,

Like saying there is birth by transformation.

Just as the Buddha, the World-Honored One, said that there are sentient beings born by transformation—this was spoken with another intent. It speaks of the continuum being uninterrupted on through to the later life.

Furthermore the Buddha said:

There is no self, no sentient being,

There are only dharmas of cause and effect.

By this distinct teaching one knows that it is a special instruction. The Buddha, the World-Honored One, speaking of the entrances such as Form and so forth, is likewise—it is in order to deliver sentient beings as is fitting.

This is spoken according to the Buddha's intent; so then what is the intent of the special instruction?

Consciousness arises from seeds,

Manifesting in a way that resembles an object.

To make up the inner and outer entrances,

The Buddha therefore said there are two.

What does this verse intend? It means that consciousness, from its own seeds of various kinds, through powerful transformation-difference, produces what resembles an external object, manifesting in a way that resembles form-consciousness arising. As an expedient means, the Buddha, the World-Honored One, spoke in sequence of the eye-entrance and form, on up to the consciousness resembling touch. From the own seeds, on through transformation-difference, it arises. This seed and this resemblance of touch manifest as the arising of touch-consciousness. As an expedient means, the Buddha, the World-Honored One, spoke of the body-entrance and the touch-entrance—it is with reference to this meaning that he spoke of the entrances.

What benefit is there in speaking thus?

If [one follows] this teaching,

One can enter the selflessness of the person,

And by the special instruction one can remove

And discern the emptiness of the dharmas of the entrances.

If the Buddha, the World-Honored One, by this meaning of the entrances spoke of the various entrances—from just six pairs there arise only six consciousnesses, with not a single dharma that is a seer, on through that which makes contact—if one knows this meaning, it is to speak of the emptiness of the person; then the disciples who are instructed will be able to enter the selflessness of the person. To say "by the distinct teaching" is to say that by the doctrine of consciousness-only one can enter the selflessness of the dharmas.

How does one enter the emptiness of dharmas? It means that all dharmas are produced by consciousness, resembling form-objects and so forth, and there is not a single dharma that is a [real] characteristic. If one knows it thus, one can enter the emptiness of dharmas.

If all dharmas are altogether empty, then consciousness-only too would be empty—how then can consciousness-only be established?

It is not that all dharmas are uniformly empty and void such that this is called the emptiness of dharmas. It is precisely by not understanding "empty" to mean void and hollow that one is said to enter the emptiness of dharmas.

If so, then by what means does one enter the emptiness of dharmas?

It is by removing the discriminated nature-and-characteristic that one enters the emptiness of dharmas. Just as the ordinary person discriminates the possessed dharma-characteristics, by these dharma-characteristics one knows that all dharmas are empty, without possession—this is called the emptiness of dharmas. It is not that, because one cannot articulate the substance of the realm of the Buddhas, one says that the dharmas are empty.

Like this consciousness-only: because it is discriminated by another consciousness, its substance is without possession, and therefore it is said to be empty. If one can enter this principle, then the principle of consciousness-only is established and one enters the selflessness of the person and the dharmas—and it is not by repudiating all dharmas as empty. Were it not so, then the distinct consciousness would become the object of the distinct consciousness.

In that case the meaning of consciousness-only would not be established, because object-consciousness would truly exist.

How can one believe this meaning?

The Buddha, the World-Honored One, said that form and so forth, the various entrances, exist—but not by truly existing. Form and so forth, the various entrances, are the objective realm of the eye-consciousness and so forth. By this principle, the meaning can be believed.

The external object and the atom

Are neither one nor different.

Their aggregate is not an object,

Because the atoms do not coalesce.

What is the meaning of this verse? It means that form and so forth, the various entrances, each being an object of the eye-consciousness and so forth, would have to be one with the atom—as the Vaiśeṣikas cling to it, holding that there are parts of form; or would have to be not-one, since the atoms are each separate; or would have to be such that the aggregated atoms make up the form-entrance, becoming one with the atoms, serving as the object of the eye-consciousness.

The meaning is not so. It means that there is a part-form, but within that part-form one cannot perceive a separate substance. Nor is it many, because each single atom cannot be perceived. Nor is it that many atoms gather together to make up an object, because atoms do not form a single thing.

How is it that they do not form one?

When six gather at one moment in one place,

The atom comes to have six directions.

If the six are in one and the same place,

The mass would be the measure of an atom.

There are six atoms from six directions coming together to coalesce with a single atom. Therefore one atom does not form a single thing, because it has six directional parts. The place of one atom—atoms of the other directions cannot abide there. If the place of one atom were the six places, then all would be in one and the same place. In that case the measure of all things gathered together would equal an atom, no greater, and like the measure of an aggregate of atoms, would also be imperceptible.

If you say that atoms do not gather together because they have no directional parts—because of this fault [of having parts], gathering cannot arise—[then you say that] the atoms gathered together have correspondence.

The masters of the Vaibhāṣika of the land of Kashmir set up such a doctrine; one should question them.

If you say that atoms aggregate into a thing, then this aggregate is no different from the atom.

If atoms do not coalesce,

What coalesces within the aggregate?

And if there are no directional parts,

The atoms' gathering would not succeed.

If atoms do not combine, then within the aggregate, what dharma combines? But if you again say that atoms can combine with one another, this meaning does not hold. Why? Because atoms have no directional parts; if they were to combine, it would not succeed—how much less can there be a mere nominal designation as "aggregate." So one should put it thus: the aggregate has directional parts; if the meaning is combination, it cannot be established.

If atoms have no directional parts, how can combination succeed? Therefore atoms do not make up a single thing. Whether atoms can or cannot combine is not now under discussion.

If a thing has directional parts,

Then it does not form a single thing.

The atom in the directional part to the East differs from the atoms in the five other directional parts, on down to the directional part below, which is likewise. If one takes as substance an aggregate of atoms having different directional parts, how can it form a single thing, and how would shadow and obstruction come about?

If one atom has no directional parts, why is it that when the sun rises there is shadow on one side?

Why ask thus? It is that the atom has no separate directional parts, but it is precisely owing to the sun's shining. Furthermore, this atom and that atom, if both have no directional parts, how do they obstruct one another? Why? This atom has no other positional part; where it joins this place, another coming will be obstructed. If there were no obstruction, then all the atoms of the six directions would be in one and the same place. In that case the measure of the whole aggregate would be equal to an atom.

This meaning is as said before: that shadow and obstruction belong to the aggregate and do not belong to the atom. Why not accept this meaning?

Do you now accept that the aggregate is different from the atom, that you would say shadow and obstruction belong to the aggregate?

It is not so. If they are the same, then there are not two. If the aggregate is no different from the atom, then this shadow and obstruction do not belong to the aggregate. Why? It is only by discerning the shape-characteristic that one calls it an aggregate—what need is there to deliberate in this way?

The substance-characteristic of these objects, form and so forth, has not yet been refuted.

What is its substance?

The objective realms such as form and so forth, and the kinds such as blue and so forth, must be examined. The objective realms such as the eye and so forth, and the kinds such as blue and so forth, which you cling to as the substance of the object—are these many things or a single thing?

What fault is there in being many or one?

If many, the fault is as before. If one, there is also a fault. As the verse says:

If one, there would be no going forward;

Reached and not-yet-reached would both be impossible.

And distinct kinds, manifold matters,

And the small and the great—their meaning is hard to discern.

If all the blue and yellow, without separation, being the objective realm of the eye, are clung to as a single thing, then there would be no next step. For as soon as one set down a foot, one would have to traverse everywhere. This place has been reached; that place has not yet been reached.

In one moment one cannot be both here and there—the two cannot both succeed. Why? Because in one moment a single thing cannot be both already reached and not-yet-reached.

Nor could there be many distinct kinds such as elephants, horses, and so forth; nor could there be many distinct matters. Why? Because if, in one thing, there were therein many things, how could one discern the difference between this and that?

Furthermore, what is the case of one and of two: from this one place to that second place, there must be an intervening space that is empty. Furthermore, how could one see the color of the smallest kind of tiny insect in water and the general color of the water? If you cling [to the view] that, owing to the differing characteristics of form-objects and so forth, there are various distinct things—then surely the various distinct atoms must be discerned as distinct objects, and thus the atoms do not form a single thing.

Form and so forth, the five objects, are not the objective realm of the eye and so forth, and so the meaning of consciousness-only is established. The objects take consciousness and the dharmas of consciousness as their substance; apart from grasper and grasped, they do not increase; establishing the true cause and effect, they do not decrease, with no causelessness and no unequal cause. The two emptinesses and the twelve links of dependent arising are their nature.

As the verse says, whether it is existent or non-existent is determined as right or wrong by relying on the various inferences. Among all inferences, direct perception is the most supreme of all.

If objects truly do not exist, then how can such direct cognition arise, that one says "I cognize thus"?

Direct cognition is like a dream.

Just as when in a dream, apart from objects, one sees the various forms of mountains, rivers, trees, and grasses—direct cognition is likewise.

At that time, when there is direct cognition,

At that time one does not see the object.

How then can one cognize the object?

As you say, when cognition arises, one says "I cognize thus." Yet at that time you do not see the object; it is only by the discrimination of consciousness, because the eye-consciousness has already ceased.

How can that object be cognized, if one says that moment by moment it ceases?

This person, at that very time, grasps form, on through touch, which has already faded away. If it is not through the inference of the five consciousnesses, then the mind-consciousness cannot remember and retain it. Therefore the five objects are definitely inferred by the five consciousnesses. That inference is precisely seeing. Therefore form and so forth, the six objects, are what is cognized.

The meaning is not so. They were cognized before, and only afterward are they remembered and retained. Why? As it is said that consciousness resembles the object: apart from form and so forth, the six objects, the eye and so forth, the six consciousnesses, arise resembling the six objects. This meaning is as said before.

From this, memory and retention arise.

From that consciousness resembling an object, there is the discriminating mind-consciousness associated with it, which remembers and retains, and the resemblance of the object having been aroused before, only afterward is it produced. Therefore one cannot cling [to the view] that it arises owing to memory and retention. It means that previously, by consciousness, the object was cognized.

If consciousness in a dream can arise without an object, then upon waking it is likewise. Just as worldly people know of themselves that consciousness in a dream has no object, so too they ought to know of themselves that consciousness upon waking also has no object. Since there is no such thing [as this knowing], one knows that the object seen upon waking differs from the object seen in a dream. Furthermore, in a dream there is a time of waking, whereas upon waking there is no such thing. It is not that all is without an object.

This statement has no proof.

The object in a dream is non-existent;

Not yet awake, one cannot know it.

Because they have grown accustomed to false discrimination, worldly people see an object that is not real—as is seen in a dream—and take it to be truly existent. When one has awakened from the dream, it is not so. If one can understand as it truly is that the objective realm in a dream is not truly existent, then the cultivator of contemplation, of the world-transcending curative path, attains the non-discriminating cognition, enters the non-established noble truth, enters the stage of the path of seeing, and attains awakening.

At that time, with non-discriminating cognition and the purified subsequently-attained cognition, one sees that the six objects, in accord with principle, are all not truly existent. This meaning is uniform. Owing to the strengthening of one's own continuum, the six consciousnesses of sentient beings arise resembling the six objects, but in truth they do not arise from the six objects.

Owing to following good or bad companions, and to receiving right or wrong causes and dharmas, sentient beings have the two fixed determinations, wrong and right.

How is this established?

By close association and proximity, and by whether what is taught is correct or not.

Further, by the power of dominance,

The two consciousnesses are fixed as right or wrong.

All sentient beings, owing to consciousnesses being mutually dominant, come to have two kinds of fixed consciousness—either rightly fixed or wrongly fixed. To say "mutual" is for self and other to alternately accomplish [it] for one another. Therefore, whichever distinct consciousness-continuum prevails in strength, that prevailing strong distinct consciousness-continuum arises, and it does not arise from an external object. Just as consciousness in a dream has no realm, so too is consciousness upon waking.

Why is it that for two people, one asleep and one awake, performing good or evil deeds, the two fruits are not the same?

In dream and waking, [the mind] is impaired by sleep,

So the future fruit is not the same.

It means that owing to the right cause that makes the mind dream, there is no fruit-retribution, because it is the stupor of sleep, the activity of the mind being feeble, unable to fashion good or evil karma.

If all is only consciousness, then there is no body and no speech. Why is it that the various animals such as oxen and sheep and so forth, which are not killed and made to die by the butcher—their death being not owing to the butcher—why does the butcher incur the sin of killing?

By the transforming of another's consciousness,

The matter of death is brought about.

Just as in that one losing the mind,

It is owing to the mind-power of a ghost.

It is also like a ghost or spirit using mental-consciousness transformation to make that one either lose mindfulness, or see a dream, or be possessed by a ghost, and so forth—all owing to the transformations. Furthermore, it may be owing to the mental resolve of one possessing supernatural power that such an event is transformed into being. As King Sāraṇa saw a dream, or owing to the mental resolve of Mahākātyāyana. Furthermore, as owing to the wrathful mind of the seer of the wilderness, or as King Vemacitra saw frightful things. In this way, by the transformation of another's consciousness, one can cut off another's life-faculty. By such a matter, that the homogeneous continuum is cut off is called death. One should know that the meaning is thus. Furthermore:

Why was the Daṇḍaka forest

Emptied by the seers' wrath?

If by the dominance of another's consciousness-transformation, not letting the sentient beings die, the World-Honored One establishes that mental punishment is the very gravest of sins—

"Elder Upāli! Have you heard why the Daṇḍaka forest, the Kaliṅga forest, and the Mātaṅga forest are empty, pure, and void?"

"Gautama! I have heard that it was owing to the seers' wrath."

That mental punishment is the gravest sin—

This too [shows it]. How is it established?

If you cling [to the view] that there were ghosts and spirits who, out of love and reverence for the seers, killed the sentient beings therein, and that it was not owing to the wrathful mind of the seers—if so, how, by this karma, would mental punishment be the gravest sin? It is owing to the seers' wrathful mind, the punishment being excessively strong upon body and speech, that these sentient beings died, and so mental punishment becomes the gravest sin.

If all is consciousness-only, does one who possesses the penetration of others' minds know the minds of others or not know them? If [either], then why? If one does not know, why is it called the attainment of the penetration of others' minds? If one knows, then why is it said that consciousness has no realm?

The cognition of one with the penetration of others' minds

Does not know the realm. Why?

If it knows, it is one's own mind;

It does not know, like the realm of the Buddha.

This realm of the cognition of others' minds—why is it not as though through non-cognition? If one cannot articulate its substance, then others' minds become the realm of the Buddha, and therefore cannot be known. These two realms do not manifest in this way, because the discrimination of grasper and grasped has not yet been extinguished. The principle of consciousness-only is boundless; its categories are most profound and inexhaustible.

Having accomplished the principle of consciousness-only,

I have composed this according to my own power.

But as for its principle and its measure,

The realm of the Buddha is hard to fathom.

Even though we exert every effort, we still cannot fathom this principle. This principle is not the objective realm of reasoning and examination. Whoever penetrates this realm—that is the realm of the Buddha. Why? The Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones, know all dharmas without hindrance, as to principle and as to measure. This realm only a Buddha can see.

Treatise on Consciousness-Only

(The End)