1

Lecture Notes 9 & 10: The Doctrines of the Yogācāra Partly in reaction to the Prajñāpāramitā school of thought which categorically claimed that “all is empty”, there arose the other major Mahāyāna school known as the Yogācāra, around the latter part of the 3rd century C.E. In this context, it must be noted that although Nāgārjuna brilliantly expounded on the doctrine of śūnyatā and as a result the Mādhyāmika school came to be established, it is debatable whether he could be called the founder of the school in the proper sense. For one thing, his Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā had been highly esteemed and commented upon by masters of both the Mādhyamika and the Yogācāra schools. Akira Saito, noting that great Yogācāra masters such as Asaṅga, Sthiramati,1 etc. — and not only the Mādhyamika masters — wrote commentaries on it, suggests that the Mūlamadhyamaka-kārikā had been a common property to the various Mahāyāna masters holding different interpretative perspectives on it. He suggests that it was probably owing to these differences in perspective that there came to be the Yogācāra school followed by the Mādhyamika school. 2 The name of the school, “Yogācāra”, was derived from its fundamental work, the Yogācāra-bhūmi (瑜伽師地論; translated by Xuan Zang in 100 fascicles). The word, Yogācāra, seems to have been used as an adjectival compound, meaning “one whose practice is yoga”, i.e., a spiritual practitioner. Historically, the Mahāyāna Yogācāras were most probably evolved from the Śrāvakayāna yogācāra-s in the Sarvāstivāda tradition. In the Great  Commentary (大毘婆沙論), these ancient yogācāra-s figure quite prominently and seem to have been highly respected by even the Ābhidharmika-s (the Abhidharma specialists). Asaṅga (circa 4th century C.E.) was generally regarded as the effective founder of the Yogācāra school. Tradition tells us that he received the Yogācāra teachings from Bodhisattva Maitreya in the Tuṣita heaven at nights. For this reason, the school is sometimes said to have been founded by Maitreya, and the Chinese tradition scribes the Yogācāra-bhūmi to Maitreya (Tibetan tradition gives its author as Asaṅga). Other works considered to be authored by him include the Madhyānta-vibhaṅga (辯中邊論) and the Dharma-dharmatā-vibhāga (辯法法性論), etc. The historicity of Maitreya as Asaṅga’s spiritual teacher, however, is controversial among scholars. Nevertheless Asaṅga can no doubt be claimed as the school’s systematiser. Works attributed to him are: Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra (大乘莊嚴經論), *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (攝大乘論), Abhidharma-samuccaya (阿毘達磨集論), Xian-yang-sheng-jiao-lun (顯揚聖教論), etc.3 Vasubandhu (circa 361–440 C.E.) continued his effort, and further importantly contributed to the school’s doctrinal development. He composed the Twenty Verses on  the  Proof  of  Mere-Cognition (Viṃśikā  Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi; 唯識二十論) and Thirty Verses on the Proof of Mere-cognition (Triṃśatikā Vijñaptimātratā-siddhi; 唯識三十論) — the latter came to be studied as a standard textbook on the mere-cognition doctrine — and wrote commentaries on Asaṅga’s works. Doctrinal position of the earliest Yogācāras While the Yogācāra school came to advocate the famous “mere-cognition” (vijñaptimātra 唯識 ; ‘mere-consciousness’) doctrine denying the reality of the external world, the earliest Yogācāra masters, as seen in the Basic Section (本地分) of the Yogācāra-bhūmi (瑜伽師地論), were in fact realists accepting the existence of the external reality. For them, while all objects of knowledge are not separated from our mind, these objects nevertheless have their ultimate existential bases (vastu-

2

mātra; 唯事) which are real and specific, but ultimately ineffable. Unlike the Prajñāpāramitā school of thought, they think it important to assert the intrinsic natures (svabhāva; 自性) of all dharma-s which, for them, are twofold:

(1) Intrinsic nature of conceptualization (prajñaptivāda-svabhāva; 假說自性 ) which are non-existent. E.g., the intrinsic nature of “matter” (rūpa; 色) being “visible, obstructive”; “consciousness” (vijñāna; 識 ) being that which discerns; etc. — as taught by the Abhidharma masters.

(2) Ineffable intrinsic nature (nirabhilāpya-svabhāva; 離言自性) which are the ultimate, real bases for conceptualization. These can only be directly experienced through spiritual insight. Like the Ābhidharmikas, the conceptualized is necessarily based on an ultimately real basis.

Interpretation of śūnyatā and the Middle Way The above doctrine of the twofold intrinsic nature, representing two levels of truths, is elaborately expounded in the Chapter on Reality (tattvārtha; 真實義品) of the Basic Section. This doctrine also explicitly shows the Middle Way, rejecting the two extremes: the Abhidharma standpoint that all dharma-s have intrinsic natures as defined by them, and the “all is empty” standpoint of the Prajñāpāramitā school of thought. For these earliest Yogācāras, the Abhidharma doctrine is one of superimposition (samāropa; 增益) — superimposing conceptual intrinsic natures on the ultimately ineffable reals; while “all is empty” is the extreme of denial (apavāda; 減損) —denying the ultimate real existents. The real Middle Way consists in steering clear of these two extremes, emptying what is not existent, but affirming what truly exists. This, to them, is the proper way of understanding the śūnyatā doctrine found in the Prajñāpāramitā scriptures. The bodhisattva is exhorted by these early Yogācāras to skilfully interpret in a conforming manner (anulomayati; 會通) the true meaning of these Prajñāpāramitā scriptures:

Some sentient beings do not understand the intentional (implicit) meanings of the Tathāgata’s sūtra-s connected with profound śūnyatā. In these sūtra-s, it is stated that all dharma-s are without any intrinsic nature, without any object-base (nirvastuka; 無有事), without arising and ceasing; all dharma-s are said to be the same as space, like dreams, like illusion. The bodhisattva skilfully and properly interprets [these] implicit and profound meanings …, and explain to them:

“These sūtra-s do not assert that all dharma-s in every way are non-existent. Rather, their linguistically constituted (abhilāpātmaka 所言說) intrinsic nature does not exist. For this reason, they state that all dharma-s are without any intrinsic nature.

Even though there is this effable object-base (abhilāpya-vastu; 所言說事), basing on which linguistic expressions (abhilāpa) operate; but from the absolute standpoint, it is not constituted of that intrinsic nature which is linguistically expressed by means of such linguistic expression. Accordingly [the dharma-s] are said [in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtra-s] to be without any object-base ...

Just as, in space (ākāśa), variegated material forms and material activities are apperceived, and it accommodates these material forms and material activities. ... If at that time, all these material forms and material activities are removed, thereupon,

3

the pure space of only the nature of the mere absence of material forms manifests. In the same way, with regard to that ineffable object-base (nirabhilāpye  vastuni) comparable to space, there arise various ideation-conceptualizations generated by linguistic expression (abhilāpa-kṛta) accompanied by attachment to conceptual proliferation, comparable to the material activities [in space]. And that ineffable object-base comparable to space accommodates all those linguistically generated ideation-conceptualization accompanied by attachment 4 to conceptual proliferation which are comparable to the variegated material activities [in space]. And when those linguistically originated false ideation-conceptualizations accompanied by attachment to conceptual proliferation have been completely removed by the bodhisattva-s through the noble (outflow-free) knowledge, then on account of that noble knowledge, that ineffable object-base which alone exists, manifested through the non-nature of all effable intrinsic natures, comparable to space and pure, is realized by those most noble bodhisattva-s. And it is not that they seek another intrinsic nature of it beyond that.

Therefore, the dharma-s are said to be the same as space, [empty in this sense]. It is just like the case of an illusion (māyā); it does not exist in the manner that it manifests, nor does what is created by that illusion definitely not exist in every way. Likewise, those dharma-s do not exist in the very manner in which they manifest to the fools (the unenlightened) by virtue of linguistic conditioning/familiarity (abhilāpasaṃstava-vaśena), nor do they not exist in every way in respect of the absolute ineffable nature (pāramārthika-nirabhilāpyātmanā; 勝義離言自性 ). From the perspective of this principle-penetration, the [dharma-s] are neither existent nor non-existent, and thus non-dual, like an illusion. Hence they are said be like an illusion.”

It is in this way that a bodhisattva ... distinctly knows the real as real (bhūtañ  ca  bhūtataḥ  prajānāti 若法實有，知為實有 ) and declares accordingly. ...5

Śūnyatā is the ultimately real From the above passage, it is also clear that the Yogācāras would disagree with the assertion that “emptiness too is empty”. For them śūnyatā is the ultimate reality — existent in the absolute sense, albeit ineffable — revealed by emptying all that is non-existent, i.e., śūnya (空性 = 空所顯性). Asaṅga’s Analysis of the Middle  and  the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhaṅga; 辯中邊論) states at the very beginning:

The false imagination exists; [But] duality therein is not found. Emptiness however exists in it, And it too exists in that [Emptiness].6

[Commentary:] 'The False Conceptualization' — the grasped-grasper conceptualization. 'Duality' — grasped and the grasper. Śūnyatā — the devoidness/absence of that False Conceptualization as the grasped and the grasper.

4

‘And it too exists in that’ — [it refers to] the False Conceptualization. In this way, wherein that which does not exist, one properly observes (samanupaśyati) on account of that as “empty”. And that which comes to be left here one truly understands (yathābhūtaṃ  prajānāti): "It is existing here." — Thus, the non-topsy-turvy characteristic of śūnyatā comes to be illuminated.

This stanza, together with its commentary, famously expounds on the Yogācāra notion of śūnyatā: What does not exist is śūnya; but the śūnyatā itself, which comes to be revealed after removing all that is śūnya, is not śūnya. It is the Absolute Reality that exists. It is noteworthy that the last paragraph commenting on śūnyatā is virtually identical with that in the Majjhima-nikāya.7 Doctrine of the threefold natures and threefold absence of nature A little later, we see in the Sandhinirmocana-sūtra (解深密經), a doctrine of the threefold natures and threefold absence of nature. The three intrinsic natures are:

1. The completely conceptualized/imagined (= PK; parikalpita, 遍計所執性) 2. The other-dependent (PT; paratantra, 依他起性) 3. The fully accomplished (PN; pariniṣpanna 圓成實性)

These three intrinsic natures represent three progressive levels of cognition, and the three corresponding degrees of reality. Together, they also represent what the Yogācāra believes is that correct understanding of the Buddha's teaching on what are śūnya and what are not, and hence also of the Middle way: PK is śūnya, non-existent in every sense; PT is not śūnya, being a relative existent; PN is also not śūnya, being absolute existent. This is believed to be a truer perspective of śūnyatā: Firstly, it distinguishes between what is śūnya and what is aśūnya, thus conforming to the Buddha's Middle Way standpoint. Secondly, it not only distinguishes between existent and non-existent, but further distinguishes between a relative and absolute existent. In the course of development, this doctrine came to be progressively articulated in the various Yogācāra texts.

The 'completely conceptualized' is totally unreal, non-existent, śūnya. The term itself indicates clearly that it is completely a superimposition in our cognition through language and concept. This process results in ontologizing what we cognize through concepts. This is compared to the erroneous cognition of a rope as a snake.

But the 'completely conceptualized' cannot simply come about without any basis. This cognitive basis is the 'other-dependent'. It is an existent that arises in the phenomenal world in accordance with the principle of conditioned co-arising. That is, it is a phenomenon that arises when the necessary assemblage of conditions obtains. It is not an absolute existent existing by virtue of itself — not a 'thing in itself'. But at the same time it is not a total non-existent, not śūnya; but a relative existent. This is compared to the understanding that the snake that was mistakenly cognized is after all a rope, an existent arisen by virtue of conditioned Co-arising. It is the referent to which the linguistic reference 'snake' conventionally refers.

In the course of spiritual progress, when the completely conceptualized is totally purged, absolute reality is fully/completely (pari- 圓 ) brought about/accomplished (niṣpanna 成實). This is the highest level of reality, called the 'completely accomplished'. It can only be realized by the Non-conceptualizing Insight (nirvikalpa-jñāna 無分別智). This absolute reality is a true existent, and certainly not śūnya. It has various synonyms: śūnyatā, tathatā (真如), dharmatā (法

5

性), paramārtha (勝義), etc., This is compared to the ultimate realization that not only is the snake wrongly cognized was totally non-existent; the rope so-called too is only a relative existent, derived from hemp which is the ultimate source. The so-called 'threefold absence of intrinsic nature' are formulated on the basis of the three intrinsic natures. They are :

1. Absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of characteristic (LN, lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā 相無自性性 *mtshan nyid gyis ngo po nyid med pa) 2. Absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of arising (UN, utpatti-ni˙svabhāvatā 生無自性性 *skye ba kyis ngo po nyid med pa) 3. Absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of Absolute Reality (PN, paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā 勝義無自性性 *don  dam  pa  kyis  ngo  po  nyid med pa)

The PK characteristic is totally imagined, they do not exist from the standpoint of intrinsic nature. This is the 'absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of characteristic'.

The PT characteristic is produced in dependence on causal conditions; they are not independent intrinsic natures that arise independently by themselves. Hence, 'the absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of arising'.

The absolute realty (paramārtha 勝義) is the object-domain of the Non-conceptualizing Insight; it is No-Self-ness. Therein there is neither the PK nor the PT characteristic. Hence 'the absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of Absolute Reality'. Further, PN is the Absolute Reality which is śūnyatā, revealed by what are śūnya — by the absence of intrinsic nature — hence it is the 'absence of intrinsic nature from the perspective of Absolute Reality' Doctrine of the ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶) In the fully developed form of Yogācāra, eight consciousness are enumerated: (1) visual … (6) mental consciousness, (7) the defiled manas (末那) — responsible for the attachment to the Self, (8) the ālaya-vijñāna. The last, sometimes called the fundamental consciousness is the base and sources of all the preceding seven which are collectively called the activity-consciousness (pravṛtti-vijñāna; 轉識). However, It is certain that the doctrine of the ālaya-vijāna evolved gradually within the Yogācāra.8 The ālaya-vijñāna is where all the potential efficacies (bīja; seeds) of conceptual conditionings — including karmic efficacies — are stored; hence also called the “store consciousness” (藏識), and the all-seed consciousness (sarva-bījaka-vijñāna; 一切種子識). The relationship between these seeds and the ālaya-vijñāna is said to one of being neither identical nor different. In every moment, the totality of existence, including ourselves and the external world, is manifested from these efficacies (seeds) within the ālaya-vijñāna. In the same moment as the phenomena are manifesting out of these seeds, they perfume back on the ālaya-vijñāna, leaving behind their efficacies. In this way, one has the continuity in our experiencing oneself and the universe. This simultaneous process is called “the seeds generating the manifested phenomena; the manifested phenomena perfuming as seeds” (種生現，現熏種).

The ālaya-vijñāna is the agent of transmigration, continuing as a serial flow from life to life. It ceases only when the practitioner, after a gradual process of spiritual striving comes to have his whole psycho-physical complex (his whole being) transformed, with the attainment of the non-discriminating wisdom which

6

enables him to see things truly as they are (yathā-bhūtam; 如實). As the ālaya-vijñāna is the fundamental cause (source) of pollution/defiling (saṃkleśa-hetu; 雜染因); this transformation also results in the annihilation of all defiling. This is called the “transformation of the basis” (āśraya-parāvṛtti/parivṛtti; 轉依. D.T. Suzuki calls it the “revulsion at the seat of consciousness”). The Saṃgrahaṇī (攝決擇分) of the Yogācārabhūmi explains thus:

The ālaya-vijñāna is the element (dhātu; 界) of the conditionings subsumed by all the proliferations (prapañca; 戲論) … [the practitioner] by repeatedly developing the knowledge that takes Suchness (tathātā; 真如; i.e., Ultimate Reality) as the cognitive object, comes to acquire the transformation of the basis. Immediately after his basis has been transformed, his ālaya-vijñāna is said to have ceased. As a result its ceasing, all defiling is said to have been ceased. …9

Doctrine of mere-cognition (vijñaptimātra; 唯識) The Yogācāra came to develop an idealistic doctrine that the external world is nothing but a projection from our mind. As we have seen above, this means that it is merely a manifestation from the seeds within our ālaya-vijñāna. This doctrine seems to have been based on meditative experience, as seen in the Sandhinirmocana-sūtra:

Maitreya: “Bhagavat, the image focused in vipaśyanā samādhi — is it different from the mind or not different? Buddha: O Maitreya, It is not different. Why? Because that image is mere-cognition. O Maitreya, I have explained that the cognitive object of consciousness is manifested by mere-cognition. Maitreya: Bhagavat, if that image focused in samādhi is not different from this mind, how does this mind perceive this mind itself? Buddha: O Maitreya, herein no any dharma perceives any other dharma. Nevertheless. As that mind arises in such a manner, there is a manifestation [of the image] in such a manner. (de ltar skyes pa’i sems gang  yin  pa  de  de  ltar  snang  ngo; ‘that mind which arises in such a manner manifests in such a manner’). O Maitreya, just as, basing on a form when the form itself is perceived, one thinks “I see an image.” … Maitreya: Bhagavat, the manifestation to sentient beings as matter, etc., which is a mental image abiding in its own nature — is this too not different from the mind? Buddha: It is to be said to be not different. …10

Thus, starting from the situation in meditative experience, the text then goes on to generalize that even in the normal situations, when we are not in samādhi, the objects cognized by us are in fact none other than our mind — they are mere-cognition.11 However, this doctrine is not elaborated until we come to Asaṅga’s Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra (大乘莊嚴經論). The following verse elucidates on the principle that at

7

each moment of our experience, our consciousness bifurcates simultaneously into the apprehender (grāhaka; 能取) and the apprehended (grāhya; 所取):

The untrue conceptualization(/-zer), Characterized as the apprehended and the apprehender, Of threefold-threefold manifestation (ābhāsa; 光), Is the characteristic of the other-dependent (PT).12 (所取及能取 二相各三光 不真分別故 是說依他相) [Commentary:] 'Of threefold-threefold manifestation' — It has a threefold-threefold manifestation. Among them, the [first] threefold manifestation is: manifestation of location (pada; 句)13, of the object (artha; 義) and of body (deha; 身).

There is a further threefold manifestation: the manifestation of the mind (manas 意), of grasping/apprehension (udgraha, 受) and of conceptualization (vikalpa 分別). The mind is that which is always defiled. Grasping is the group of five [sensory] consciousnesses. Conceptualization is the mental consciousness (mano-vijñāna).

Among them, the first threefold manifestation has the characteristic of the grasped/apprehended. The second has the characteristic of the grasper/apprehender. Such is this untrue conceptualization, the characteristic of the other-dependent.14

These explanations may be represented as follows: Accordingly, it can be seen that these manifestations comprise the totality of our experience — the 18 dhātu-s comprising the objects, the organs and the corresponding consciousnesses.

PT = Untrue Conceptualization (ālaya-vijñāna)

Apprehendedaspect (所取=相)

apprehending aspect (能取=見)

manifn of location （句光 = receptacle world)

manifn of object (義光)

manifn of body (身光) = body possessing organs

manifn of manas = manas (意光) manifn of grasping = 5 consc (受光)

manifn of conceptn = mental consc (分別光)

object

organs

consc

8

Next, in the *Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (攝大乘論), Asaṅga gives definitive arguments to establish this doctrine of mere-cognition. Firstly, he speaks of the ālaya-vijñāna as the fundamental basis (āśraya; 所依) of the totality of existence — the whole of it is manifested from the seeds within the ālaya-vijñāna. Even the attainment of Nirvāṇa — the process of purification — has it as the basis. He also explicitly subsumes all phenomena (into a total of 11 classes) — “physical”, “mental”, “inner”, “outer”, “beings” and the phenomenal world — as cognitions (vijñapti). In brief, according to both texts, the apprehended-apprehender experiential complex is all manifestation from the seeds qua consciousness. And this represents Asanga's perspective that all forms of consciousnesses evolve from the one consciousness comprising all seeds (一識轉變), the ālaya-vijñāna. Progress of insight into the fact of mere-cognition The liberative insight into the fact of mere-cognition is described in the following sequence in Maitreya-Asaṅga’s Analysis of the Middle and the Extremes:

Basing on the (consciousness’s) apperceivability, the (object’s) non-apperceivability is begotten. Basing on the (object’s) non-apperceivability, the [consciousness’s] non-apperceivabilty is begotten. Hence is established the fact of apperceivabilty being of the nature of non-apperceivability. And therefore the equality can be known of non-apperceivability and apperceivability.15

External phenomena are manifested by the Untrue Conceptualization (ālaya-vijñāna); they exist relatively. When the practitioner contemplates on their completely conceptualized nature (遍計所執相 PK), he is able to empty them; hence the insight into their non-apperceivability. Having first realized the emptiness of external phenomena by relying on the consciousness which is existent (non-empty; i.e., apperceivable), of the nature of other-dependent (依他有 PT), he now comes to realize that the consciousness itself too is non-existent — since now no external phenomenon serves as object to generate consciousness. (This doctrine that consciousness arises necessarily by taking an object is actually a doctrine derived from the Abhidharma tradition). Hence, consciousness’s non-apperceivability. In fact, as we saw above, PT is without svabhāva from the absolute standpoint (勝義無自性). When even consciousness is experienced to be empty — non-existent — he comes to realize that both the (formerly) apperceivable consciousness (subject) and the non-apperceivable phenomena (object) are in fact likewise non-apperceivable. Thus, the equality/sameness — non-duality, non-distinguishability — of Absolute Reality (= dharma-nature 法性 = PN = emptiness) comes to be revealed.16 1 See Asaṅga’s , 順中論 T no. 1565, and Sthiramati’s 大乘中觀釋論, T no. 1567. 2 See SAITO, Akira, “Is Nāgārjuna a Mādhyamika?”. In: 法華經と大乘經の硏究, 2007, 153 ff. Saito of course offeres other corroborative reasons for his conclusion. 3 Yin Shun also ascribe the Viniścaya-saṃgarhaṇī (攝抉擇分) of the Yogācāra-bhūmi to him. See Yin Shun, A History of Buddhist Thoughts in India, 248.

9

4 Dutt, 181: prapañcasaṃjñā-. Corrected to prapañcasaṅga- in Wogihara (Skt–Ch Index, 259); supported by Chinese, T30, 541b: 戲論著. 5 《瑜伽師地論》卷 45：「若諸有情, 於佛所說甚深空性相應經典, 不解如來密意義趣, 於此經中說一切法皆無自性皆無有事無生無滅。… 菩薩為彼 … 方便善巧如理會通 … 為彼說言: 此經不說一切諸法都無所有; 但說諸法所言自性都無所有, 是故說言一切諸法皆無自性。雖有一切所言說事。依止彼故諸言說轉。然彼所說可說自性。據第一義非其自性。是故說言一切諸法皆無有事。… 譬如空中, 有眾多色色業可得容受一切諸色色業。謂虛空中 , 現有種種若往若來若住起墮屈伸等事。若於爾時諸色色業皆悉除遣, 即於爾時唯無色性, 清淨虛空, 其相顯現。如是, 即於相似虛空離言說事, 有其種種言說所作邪想分別隨戲論著, 似色業轉。又, 即如是一切言說邪想分別隨戲論著似眾色業, 皆是似空離言說事之所容受。若時菩薩以妙聖智, 遣除一切言說所起邪想分別隨戲論著, 爾時菩薩最勝聖者, 以妙聖智證得諸法離言說事, 唯有一切言說自性, 非性所顯。譬如虛空清淨相現 , 亦非過此有餘自性應更尋求; 是故宣說一切諸法皆等虛空。又如幻夢 , 非如顯現如實是有, 亦非一切幻夢形質都無所有。如是, 諸法非如愚夫言說串習勢力所現如實是有, 亦非一切諸法勝義離言自性都無所有。由此方便, 悟入道理: 一切諸法非有非無, 猶如幻夢, 其性無二。是故宣說, 一切諸法皆如幻夢。如是, 菩薩普於一切諸法法界, 不取少分, 不捨少分, 不作損減, 不作增益, 無所失壞。若法實有, 知為實有。若法實無, 知為實無; 如其所知, 如是開示。當知是名菩薩隨順會通方便善巧。」(T30, 541a12-b23) 6 abhūtaparikalpo ‘asti dvayam tatra na vidyate | śūnyatā vidyate tv atra tasyām api sa vidyate || 

yang dag ma yin kun rtog yod | de la gnyis po yod ma yin | stong pa nyid ni ‘di la yod | de la yang ni de yod do || 辯中邊論 :虛妄分別有, 於此二都無, 此中唯有空, 於彼亦有此(T31, 464b) 7 Cˬasuññatå-sutta (M.N. III, 104-109):

I. yaµ hi kho tattha na hoti, tena taµ suññaµ samanupassati; II. yam pana tattha avasi††haµ hoti, taµ santam idam atth¥ti pajånåti. III. evam assa eså, Ónanda, yathåbhuccå avipallatthå parisuddhå suññatå-avakkanti bhavati.

In this sutta, the purpose is to lead the meditator into the meditation on the empty; it stresses the seeing truly into the presence and absence of the practitioner’s defilements. 8 《瑜伽師地論》「復次此所建立種子道理。當知且依未建立阿賴耶識聖教而說。若已建立阿賴耶識。當知略說諸法種子。一切皆依阿賴耶識。又彼諸法若未永斷。若非所斷。隨其所應所有種子隨

逐應知」(T30, no. 1579, p. 584, a15-b2) 9 《瑜伽師地論》卷 51：「 … 阿賴耶識是一切戲論所攝諸行界… 由緣真如境智 , 修習多修習故, 而得轉依。轉依無間, 當言已斷阿賴耶識。由此斷故, 當言已斷一切雜染。」(T30, 581, c3-8) 10 sems can rnams kyi gzugs la logs par snang ba, sems kyi gzugs brnyan rang bzhin du gnas pa gang lags ba | de yang sems dang tha dad pa ma lags zhes bgyi ‘am |  11 《解深密經》卷 3：「慈氏菩薩復白佛言: 世尊, 諸毘鉢舍那三摩地所行影像, 彼與此心當言有異、當言無異? 佛告慈氏菩薩曰：善男子，當言無異。何以故？由彼影像, 唯是識故。善男子，我說識所緣, 唯識所現故。世尊，若彼所行影像，即與此心無有異者，云何此心還見此心？善男子，此中無有少法能見少法；然即此心如是生時，即有如是影像顯現。善男子, 如依善瑩清淨鏡面，以質為緣，還見本質；而謂我今見於影像，及謂離質別有所行影像顯現。如是 , 此心生時、相似有異三摩地所行影像顯現。

世尊, 若諸有情自性而住, 緣色等心所行影像 －－ 彼與此心亦無異耶? 善男子、亦無有異。而諸愚夫, 由顛倒覺, 於諸影像不能如實知唯是識, 作顛倒解。」(T16, 698, a27-b13) 12 trividhatrividhābhāso grāhygrāhakalakṣaṇaḥ |abhūtaparikalpo hi paratrantrasya lakṣaṇam ||(XI, 40) 13 The Chinese version here has 句! 14 所取及能取 二相各三光 不真分別故 是說依他相 釋曰。此偈顯示依他相。此相中自有所取相及能取相。所取相有三光。謂句光義光身光。能取相有

三光。謂意光受光分別光。意謂一切時染污識。受謂五識身。分別謂意識。彼所取相三光及能取相

三光。如此諸光。皆是不真分別故。是依他相。 15 upalabdhiṃ samāśritya nopalabdhiḥ prajāyate | nopalabdhṃ samāśritya nopalabdhiḥ prajāyate ||6|| upalabdhes tataḥ siddhā nopalabdhi-svabhāvatā|tasmāc ca samatā jñeyā nopalambhopalambhayoḥ ||7|| 16 T31, no. 1600, p. 465, a5-15