Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-Śāstra (唯識二十論述記)

Translator: Monk Xuanzang

The Treatise on the Twenty Verses of Consciousness-Only (Viṁśatikā-vṛtti) was composed by the Bodhisattva Vasubandhu. The title indicates that this text contains twenty verses to expound the fundamental doctrines of this school; it is named thus to distinguish it from the Thirty Verses (Triṁśikā). Long ago, the Dharma Master Jue'ai made the first translation during the Wei dynasty, and the Tripiṭaka master Jiayi made a second rendition during the Chen dynasty. Now, our spiritual teacher, the Tripiṭaka master Xuanzang, has compared various Sanskrit manuscripts. Upon examining the earlier two translations, he found that they fail to grasp the profound principles, contain many omissions and errors in meaning, and show an ignorance of Sanskrit phonetics and grammar, resulting in a language that is overly wordy and crude. These issues are not isolated; it would be difficult to enumerate them all. Therefore, those who have studied these translations thoroughly over the centuries have been unable to fully explore their meaning.

Now, during the Tang dynasty, in the first year of the Longshuo era (corresponding to the year Xinyou), on the first day of the sixth month, at the Qingfu Hall in Yuhua Monastery, we began the translation of this treatise. I, Kuiji, received the instructions and held the brush. By the eighth day of the same month, the detailed translation was completed. We deleted redundancies, corrected errors, and supplemented gaps. Upon seeing this new version, one can truly recognize the original work of Vasubandhu. The holy teachings have thus been newly established in China; the divine countenance of the master is reborn in this age of semblance-dharma. Wise and discerning gentlemen should examine this for themselves.

This treatise is rich in principles yet concise in wording. Over a dozen commentaries on it exist in the Western Regions. The foundational commentary comes from Gyatso, a disciple of Vasubandhu, while the final one is by the Bodhisattva Dharmapala. Dharmapala’s work is titled *Introduction to Consciousness-Only*, and in India it is treasured as a gem of both meaning and style. It was so valued that even non-Buddhists would savor its discussions and engage in debates about it.

My teacher, not considering me dull-witted, instructed me to present its intent. Following the teachings as I received them, I compiled this *Recorded Explanations*. Whenever I encountered intricate and tangled points or passages that repetitively supported the doctrine, I extracted and explained the meanings for ease of instruction. Further work was left for another time, hoping to translate and explain more fully.

But the work remained incomplete, and before it could be finished, my teacher passed away. Thus, the profound source of this teaching remains obscured and inaccessible, while its hidden brilliance languishes in perpetual darkness. It can be said that even a precious jade disc is easier to entrust than this Dharma treasure. From now on, even its shallow meanings and scattered passages have come to an end.

In Sanskrit, *Vijñapti* refers to "consciousness"; *Mātra* means "only"; *Viṃśatikā* indicates "twenty"; *Śāstra* is translated as "treatise." Combining these in accord with this language, it is called the *Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only*.

- "Only" denotes exclusivity and distinction. - "Consciousness" signifies discernment and comprehension.

There is only inner mind, no external objects independent of mind. Thus the name "Consciousness-Only" is established (details to be explained later). "Consciousness" itself *is* "Only," so the term expresses the identity of the action and its result. The addition of "Twenty" refers to the number of verses, resulting in the full title *Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only* (a compound with a numeral). The word "Treatise" is interpreted as usual; explanations of meaning and refutations of objections will be addressed in the text proper. The earlier version was simply called *Treatise on Consciousness-Only*—this was a translator's abbreviation.

Teaching: The Mahayana establishes that the three realms are mere consciousness.

I will now explain this text by dividing it into three sections: First, clarifying the time and capacity of the teaching, and the scope of its classification. Second, clarifying the essence of the treatise and the reasons for its composition. Third, based on what the treatise clarifies, we will analyze the text and explain it separately.

For the first section—clarifying the time, capacity, and classification of the teaching—there are three parts: First, clarifying the time; second, clarifying the capacity; third, clarifying the classification.

First, regarding the time: The Tathagata's teachings are generally divided into three periods. Initially, at Deer Park, he taught the Agamas, which contain the teachings on the Four Noble Truths, aimed at refuting attachment to the self. Next, at Vulture Peak, he taught the Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, which negate the two kinds of grasping—to subject and object—refuting attachment to the existence of phenomena. Although these teachings on emptiness and existence can free one from clinging to extremes of eternalism and nihilism, they still do not fully realize the Middle Way. Finally, at seven locations and eight assemblies, he taught that the three realms are mere mind, simultaneously transcending both existence and emptiness, in accord with the Middle Way. This is represented by sutras such as the *Avatamsaka* and the *Sandhinirmocana*, which empty the mind of the two kinds of grasping that arise externally.

Breaking the initial attachment to existence reveals the inner realization of one mind. Dispelling the later grasp of emptiness, this treatise thus rightly rests in the Middle Way—this is the third turning, the teaching of ultimate truth. As explained in texts like the *Samdhinirmocana Sutra* and the *Yogacara-bhumi*, the earlier teachings of the first and second turnings are not grounded in scripture and cannot be relied upon. This has been extensively discussed in separate chapters.

Now, regarding the capacity to understand, sentient beings have five kinds of innate natures: three kinds of fixed nature, one of undetermined nature, and one of complete lack of potential for liberation. Among these five, only those with the fixed Mahāyāna nature and the undetermined nature can receive and listen to this teaching. It is not something that those of the Śrāvaka or Pratyekabuddha natures can rely on or believe.

As the *Cheng Weishi Lun* says, "Beings without the seed for liberation cannot reach the depths" and "Those who incline toward cessation cannot comprehend." The doctrine being explained is the unsurpassed vehicle, which teaches that there is only One Mind and no objects outside the mind. Thus, even Shariputra and others were like the deaf and the blind [to this truth], as explained in the commentaries on the *Cheng Weishi Lun*.

Doctrinally speaking, this teaching belongs to the Abhidharma collection within the Three Baskets, and to the Bodhisattva collection within the Two Baskets. Among the twelve divisions of teachings, it is classified under the category of discourses on doctrine. Within the five vehicles, it is included in the Great Vehicle. These doctrinal classifications are explained in detail in other chapters.

Second, Clarifying the Thesis and Structure of the Treatise, and the Reason for Composing It. This section is also divided into three parts: (1) Distinguishing the thesis of the treatise; (2) Distinguishing the structure of the treatise; (3) Distinguishing the reason for composing the treatise.

When first discerning the essential principle, what is illuminated is Consciousness-Only itself. Consciousness-Only is the central teaching, for apart from what it clarifies, there is no other guiding doctrine.

Now, regarding the nature of the body: as explained elsewhere, there are four kinds of bodies. When we gather appearances back into their essence, true suchness is the body. When we gather objects back into consciousness, the mind is the body. When we gather the illusory back into the real, the body is based on sound.

**Two Types of Distinction Between Nature and Appearance**

There are two kinds of distinction between fundamental nature and superficial appearance:

**1. The Causal Condition of Predominance**

When the Buddha teaches the Dharma, the teaching itself consists of the flawless, pure sounds, words, and concepts he expresses. When the Buddha is not speaking, his teachings are embodied by the wisdom and compassion found in the state of great meditative absorption (samadhi).

**2. The Primary and Secondary Causes**

Whether the Buddha speaks or remains silent, the essence of teaching lies in the sounds and their transformations that arise within the listener’s ears and consciousness. The ultimate source of this discussion is the Buddhist sutras themselves. Therefore, when explaining this essence, we should rely on what the sutras say.

However, the authors of these treatises view the act of teaching merely as a supporting condition. It enables the listener to **create** the teaching’s essence within their own mind. Combining both the distant and immediate conditions, the essence of the teaching consists of sound, names, phrases, and texts.

The *Ten Stages Sutra* states: "Both the speaker and the listener complete their task through two things: sound and correct words." The text below says: "Through the progressive power of cause and effect, two consciousnesses achieve certainty." The *Cheng Weishi Lun* explains: "The objects of skillful understanding of the Dharma and of word-meaning differ." Many scriptures and principles are cited to clarify this essential nature, as explained elsewhere.

Now, as for the reason why this treatise was composed: although there is no explicit statement in the text, we infer from other treatises that it was written to ensure the Buddha’s teaching endures long and to benefit sentient beings.

Specifically, it was composed: - To help people understand the third turning of the Dharma wheel, which reveals the true Middle Way; - To counter various mistaken views—such as those who hold that external objects are as real as the mind (like the Sarvāstivādins), or that the mind is as unreal as external objects (like the Nihilist outsiders), or that the functions of consciousness are distinct but share a single essence (like a certain class of bodhisattvas), or that mental factors are not separate from the mind (like the Sautrāntikas), or that the wardens of hell are real sentient beings (like the Mahāsāṃghikas), or that such wardens are not sentient beings but arise from karma-generated material elements with differing natures (like the Sarvāstivādins), or that these wardens, though not sentient beings, result from habitual impressions and are not transformations of consciousness (like the Sautrāntikas), or that external objects are single substances (like the Vaiśeṣikas), or that objects consist of multiple moments while the mind lasts only an instant (like the Saṃmitīyas), or that atoms have mutual influence and serve as objects of the five senses (like Bhadanta Saṅghabhadra and his followers).

All these thinkers, due to either wrong views or ignorance, fail to understand the true meaning and thus remain obstructed from realizing the two-fold result. Now, to clear away these various misconceptions and to enable people to gain true insight into the profound principle of Consciousness-Only, this treatise is written. These points will be addressed in detail later, when each mistaken view is refuted in the text. Therefore, no further explanation is given here.

Question: How does this differ from the meaning in the *Thirty Verses*, that you would create another treatise to clarify the nature of Consciousness-Only?

Answer: The *Thirty Verses* extensively reveals the doctrine's own position, while the *Twenty Verses* here broadly refutes external objections. Although both elucidate Consciousness-Only, the two treatises differ.

Furthermore, the *Thirty Verses* extensively clarifies the correct meaning, whereas the *Twenty Verses* here provides extensive explanations of external objections. Moreover, the *Thirty Verses* was composed later by Vasubandhu, containing verses without commentary, while the *Twenty Verses* was written first by Vasubandhu, containing both verses and commentary.

Thus, when it comes to clarifying Consciousness-Only, although the two treatises share a common goal, they establish a thousand different approaches, allowing one to enter through any single one. Therefore, it was necessary to compose these two treatises separately.

Furthermore, since the subtle principle is profound and mysterious, repeated instruction is needed to clarify it. Though the core teaching is the same, the two treatises explain it again. This is why the two treatises have their own distinct origins.

Third, according to the commentaries, the text is divided and explained as follows: Bodhiruci, which means "Awakening Love"—previously translated as "Awakening Joy"—is the Dharma Master Bodhiruci from the Wei Dynasty. Some say that during the Wei Dynasty, there was a layperson named Prajñāruci, which means "Wisdom Love," who produced a translation. At the end of the Liang Dynasty and the beginning of the Chen Dynasty, there was Guṇarata, which means "Family Dependence" (or "Personal Dependence"), that is, the Master Paramārtha, also known as the Tripiṭaka Master. Each of them translated the *Twenty Verses on Consciousness Only*. Master Bodhiruci's version has more prose and fewer verses; Master Paramārtha's version has fewer prose and more verses. The present translation balances prose and verses.

For example, Master Bodhiruci's version has 23 verses and 18 folios; Master Paramārtha's version has 24 verses and 9 folios in total. The present new translation has 21 verses and 8 folios in total. The verse quoting a scripture, which appears as the 21st in Bodhiruci's translation, is absent from the other two versions. The first two verses of homage at the beginning of Paramārtha's translation are absent from the other two versions. Therefore, these are known to be additions made by the translators, supplementing the explanation and incorporating it into the original treatise.

Next, regarding the opening verses establishing the doctrine: the two older commentaries contain them, but the newest commentary does not. Comparing the three Sanskrit manuscripts and examining the title, they should not be there in any version. The text is called the *Twenty Verses on Mere-Consciousness* — how could these verses be present?

Ajita added the first verse and the twenty-first verse; Vasubandhu himself added the first three verses. Therefore, it is understood that the remaining twenty-one verses, present in all three commentaries, constitute the core text. These twenty verses elucidate Mere-Consciousness, which is why it is titled *Twenty Verses on Mere-Consciousness*. The final verse is a concluding verse of praise and dedication, not part of establishing the doctrine.

Thus, the text falls into two parts: first, a proper explanation of the principal doctrine, refuting misconceptions and addressing objections; second, a concluding statement of the author’s own work, praising the depth and deferring to the Buddha.

In the first part of the initial chapter, there are two major sections. First, it establishes the doctrine of Mahayana: that the three realms are only consciousness and have no external objects. Second, it raises a challenge regarding this principle, and then, in response to external objections, thoroughly refutes different views.

Within the [School of] Tenet Establishment, the text has four parts: First, establishing the doctrinal principle that all phenomena are consciousness‑only. Second, showing that this is grounded in the sutras, using scripture as evidence. Now, in elucidating consciousness‑only, we are merely establishing the meaning of Mahāyāna consciousness‑only. Alternatively, what the treatise clarifies is to fulfill the meaning of the sutras, establishing that the Great Vehicle was spoken by the Buddha, and that consciousness‑only is not false. Third, refuting external objections and refining the meaning of the word “only.” Fourth, clarifying the meaning of consciousness‑only by using a simile to illustrate it.

The text can be divided into three parts: first, establishing the central thesis; second, presenting the logical reasoning based on scripture; third, offering an illustrative analogy. The preceding third section already incorporates the thesis to avoid errors. Now, what is stated here—"Establishing the Mahayana teaching that the three realms are only mind"—constitutes the central thesis itself. This encompasses three main meanings:

First, establishing the teaching of Mind-Only within the Mahayana. Since other schools do not accept it as the Buddha's teaching, we widely cite scriptural and logical evidence, as in the *Cheng Weishi Lun* (The Demonstration of Consciousness-Only). This is not explained here in detail. The logical reasoning is as follows: I declare that the Mahayana is the Buddha's teaching because it is included within the scriptures that possess the Three Dharma Seals, just like the *Ekottara Agama* and other canonical texts. What we say here—that the three realms are nothing but mind—reveals the very teaching that conveys the doctrine of Mind-Only.

Second, establish the principle taught in the Mahāyāna that the three realms are nothing but consciousness. Various schools assert the existence of objects outside the mind, and therefore they do not accept the principle that the three realms are simply mind. Thus, it is necessary to demonstrate this now. When we say "the Mahāyāna teaches that the three realms are only consciousness," this reveals the core teaching of consciousness-only.

3. "Establishing the Mahayana teachings and the principles of Consciousness-Only. Because one has no faith in either the teachings or the principles, they are matched according to the text. 'Establishing' (ānlì) means to set forth or confirm. It refers to this treatise establishing the Mahayana doctrine that the Three Realms are Consciousness-Only, using causes and examples to confirm the thesis – this is called 'establishing.'

Furthermore, 'establishing' means to arrange or set up, using extensive reasoning to set up the doctrine of Consciousness-Only, since its essential points are subtle. Or, 'establishing' means to unfold or explain: what has not yet been explained is now taught – this is called 'setting up' (lì); what has already been explained is now expanded upon – this is called 'arranging' (ān).

Additionally, 'ān' means fitting or proper – bringing teachings and principles into harmony; 'lì' means to construct or build. The nature of phenomena is beyond words, yet now words are used to construct it – this is called 'constructing' (lì). Aligning with the principles is therefore called 'fitting' (ān).

Dignāga explained: Both valid proof and valid refutation are collectively called 'establishing' – it means establishing one's own Mahayana Consciousness-Only doctrine, and refuting other schools' doctrines of external objects – therefore it is called 'establishing.'"

What is "Great Vehicle"? According to the *Discourse on the Middle & Extremes*, the "Chapter on the Supreme Vehicle," it is called the Supreme Vehicle for three reasons: 1) Supreme conduct; 2) Supreme object of focus; 3) Supreme cultivation & realization. Supreme conduct has six aspects: supreme, attention, following the teachings, transcending extremes, differentiation, and non-differentiation—each of these contains many methods. The twelve objects of focus are: establishment, reality-ground, ability-to-establish, support, seal, inner, sustaining, penetrating, increase, realization, carrying, and supreme. Cultivation & realization have ten aspects: no lapse, undamaged, active, complete, arise, stable, flexible, non-abiding, no two obstructions, and ceaseless. Thus, through these teachings, these three meanings are explained as the Great Vehicle.

The *Compendium of Abhidharma* (*Sangīti Paryāya*, fascicle 11) states: "Because it possesses seven great characteristics, this path is called Mahāyāna (the Great Vehicle). These seven are: 1. Great object; 2. Great practice; 3. Great wisdom; 4. Great diligence; 5. Great skillful means; 6. Great attainment; 7. Great activity.

- **Great object** refers to taking vast and extensive teachings as its focus. - **Great practice** refers to benefiting both oneself and others. - **Great wisdom** refers to the wisdom of realizing the emptiness of both self and phenomena. - **Great diligence** refers to cultivating countless kinds of difficult practices over three incalculable eons. - **Great skillful means** refers to not dwelling in either worldly or transcendent states. - **Great attainment** refers to realizing all excellent qualities such as the ten powers. - **Great activity** refers to establishing the deeds of Buddhahood until the end of all sentient existence.

Because this teaching distinguishes these seven meanings, it is called the Great Vehicle.

**Comprehensive Commentary says:**

Alternatively, "Great Vehicle" — interpreting "great" and "vehicle" as a possessive compound, meaning that which possesses greatness is a vehicle. Also, it can be read as a descriptive compound, where "vehicle" and "great" are synonymous, hence called Mahayana, or Great Vehicle.

"Three realms" refers to the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, and the Formless Realm.

Vasubandhu explains: "They are called 'realms' because they can uphold their own characteristics." Alternatively, "realms" can mean "categories" or "families."

"Desire" refers to the craving caused by eating solid food, sleeping, and sexual desire. The realm to which this desire belongs is called the Realm of Desire.

"Form" refers to what appears as visible, obstructive matter. The realm to which this form belongs is called the Realm of Form.

In that realm, since form does not exist, it is called Formless. Its essence is not form, so it is given the name "Formless." This does not mean that absence of form itself is the essence; rather, the realm where form is absent is called the Formless Realm. This is like saying "pepper drink" (meaning a drink made from pepper) or "golden ring" (meaning a ring made of gold), where the middle word is omitted for brevity.

Alternatively, we could say: "the realm of desire" is called the Realm of Desire because this realm supports or sustains desire. The same should be understood for the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm. Their substances encompass the five aggregates, and this interpretation follows the "dependent determinant" compound.

Asanga explains: "It means beings bound by craving for desire, etc., are immersed within the three realms."

**On "Consciousness-Only"**

According to Master Qipo, the term "Consciousness-Only" is established based on three qualities:

1. **The Quality of Original Nature**: The naturally pure, fundamental nature of consciousness. 2. **The Quality of the Middle Path**: Relying on Consciousness-Only, one cultivates all practices. Over three vast eons, one gradually eliminates the coarse hindrances of skin, flesh, and marrow. 3. **The Quality of Ultimate Attainment**: Upon reaching Buddhahood, one’s blessings and wisdom are perfectly complete, rare and uniquely supreme.

"Only" means exclusive, singular. "Consciousness" means the faculty of discernment. Its essence comprises the five categories of phenomena: mind and mental factors.

Why is this so? Generally speaking, all phenomena are categorized into three natures:

- **The Nature of Imputed Existence** (Parikalpita-svabhāva): Illusory Consciousness-Only. This refers to falsely conceptualized objects. - **The Nature of Dependent Origination** (Paratantra-svabhāva): Appearing as if real but ultimately unreal, it is produced by causes and conditions. This is *Conditioned Consciousness-Only*—the appearance of consciousness. - **The Nature of Perfect Reality** (Pariniṣpanna-svabhāva): The principle of emptiness, which is the absence of the imputed nature within dependent origination. This is *True Consciousness-Only*—the true nature of consciousness.

Ordinary beings, confused about the Nature of Perfect Reality, cling to the dependent nature as either identical to or different from it. They believe there are real, external objects existing independently of mind—objects that the mind apprehends. Blinded by ignorance, their true wisdom does not arise.

Now, in order to clarify their teachings: - The falsely imputed, real objects existing apart from mind are nonexistent. Only illusory consciousness appears. - There is only the conditioned appearance of consciousness—the Consciousness-Only of Dependent Origination. - And there is the unconditioned true nature of consciousness—the Consciousness-Only of Perfect Reality.

Therefore, it is now comprehensively stated that **all phenomena are Consciousness-Only**. This enables one to understand what is existent and nonexistent, and to realize the fruit of transformation—abandoning the defiled and attaining the pure.

This explains the distinction between the *appearance* and the *true nature* of consciousness.

When it is said that all perceived objects are encompassed by the mind and thus are called "Consciousness-Only," then the ultimate reality (Suchness), being the true nature of consciousness itself, is also included in this term "Consciousness-Only." This viewpoint aligns with the teachings of the Three Natures. If explained according to the Two Truths, there are also distinctions, categorized into four levels:

1. Emptiness and existence as consciousness. 2. Phenomenal and principle as consciousness. 3. Particular and universal as consciousness. 4. Description and meaning as consciousness.

(This is as explained in the *Cheng Weishi Lun Shu*—The Commentary on the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only.)

In the context of dependent nature existing only as consciousness, some masters explain thus: There is only the self-verifying part of consciousness itself, without the perceiving and perceived aspects. This is because the sacred teachings state that subject and object are constructs of attachment, both lacking inherent nature, and this is called "consciousness-only."

These masters mean that the eight defiled consciousnesses of ordinary beings, the minds of learners—including bodhisattvas and the two vehicles—and all undefiled minds possess perceiving and perceived aspects. Because they have these aspects, they are subject to attachment to phenomena. However, this does not apply to a Buddha’s mind—more on this will be explained later.

Some say that only self-validating cognition—the seeing part [subject], the seen part [object], and their intrinsic aspects—exists; apart from these, there are no grasped object or grasping subject concepts that are falsely imputed. This is called **"Mind-Only"**. Both the seeing and seen parts are not separate from consciousness.

This master’s view holds that only the sixth and seventh consciousnesses generate attachment to doctrines [Dharma-grasping], not the other consciousnesses. A detailed explanation will be given later in the analogy section.

The meaning explained here is that this treatise establishes that all phenomena within the three realms, as posited in Mahayana, are nothing but consciousness.

Question: Are liberated phenomena also only consciousness? Answer: They are also only consciousness.

Question: Why then does this text speak only of "the three realms"? Answer: It temporarily cites the delusional phenomena experienced by ordinary beings to reveal the principle of "only consciousness." Thus, it focuses on "the three realms," not because unconditioned phenomena lack the nature of "only consciousness." This is for the sake of clear understanding, or it may be based upon scriptural authority.

Conclusion: As stated in the sutras, the three realms are nothing but mind.

Now I shall explain the second point: the demonstration that the doctrine is established through the scriptures. Presently, we clarify the principle of "Mind-Only" (vijñapti-mātra) by using the sūtras to complete the treatise, so that faith may easily arise. The fifth inflection in Sanskrit is equivalent to the word "for" or "because." For example, in the Flower Ornament Sūtra (Avataṃsaka) and other scriptures, it is said: "The various dharmas of the three realms are only mind." This statement appears in the eighth chapter of the Ten Stages Sūtra (Daśabhūmika-sūtra), within the explanation of the sixth stage. Now we are establishing the meaning of "Mind-Only."

In Sanskrit, the term "sūtra" (sūtra) is translated as "scripture" (qì jīng; convenant-text). The word "qì" (convene) means "to accord," and "jīng" is as commonly explained: a text that accords with correct principles, harmonizing with the inherent nature of beings (jī) — hence it is called "qì jīng." Because the Buddha’s scriptures teach that "only mind" exists, this text clarifies "Mind-Only" by using the scriptures to complete the treatise.

Alternatively, what this text clarifies through the term "only mind" is what the scriptures teach: "only mind exists." For this reason, this treatise establishes the principle while bringing the scriptures to completion. Or again, consider that what is now said — "only mind" — is substantiated by what? It is because the scriptures have declared that "only mind" is necessarily true.

Question: Why do the sutras say, “The Three Realms are merely mind”?

The teachers of the Sutra School hold that the mind has no arising in relation to objects, but this is not universally the case. To refute that view, it is stated that the three realms consist only of consciousness. As the *Wu Xing Shi* explains: "This statement of 'only consciousness' establishes that there are only minds and mental factors, without the falsely imagined objects of the three realms." This statement does not deny the true nature as an object of cognition; the objects of dependent nature are included within the path of truth. The two kinds of objects—fundamental and subsequent—are not clung to by craving, are not objects to be overcome, are not deluded, are not included in the three realms, yet are not separate from consciousness, so they need not be mentioned separately. Since among the perceivers in the three realms there is the capacity for false discrimination, and among the perceived objects there are falsely imagined objects, and in the sphere of defilement there is false imagination, to counter this clinging it is only said that all is mind. This does not refer to undefiled phenomena, nor does it mean that everything is only consciousness; this will be explained in detail later.

Question: It is said that the Realm of Desire and the Realm of Form contain physical forms. If we deny this and say everything is just mind, then since the Formless Realm has no physical forms, it should not be described as "mind only."

This objection is invalid. The "real" things beings grasp at are all nonexistent. Denying this is what "mind only" means. It is not merely denying the existence of physical forms, which is why the scripture says the three realms are all mind only. Nor does it assert that a truly existing "mind only" or any other objects like space exist.

Furthermore, the Sautrāntika school teaches that the minds and mental factors in the Formless Realm lack physical form and have no substance—they have no real object to be perceived. Afraid that people might mistakenly think they are not minds or mental factors at all, the scripture says the three realms are all entirely mind only.

Question: Are these teachings the only evidence you rely on?

Furthermore, the *Scripture of the Unraveling of the Profound* states: "All things are merely manifestations of consciousness." It also says: "All phenomena are inseparable from mind"; "Sentient beings become pure or impure according to their minds"; and "By perfecting the four kinds of wisdom, Bodhisattvas can gradually awaken to the truth of consciousness-only and the non-existence of external objects." This is explained in detail in the *Mahayana-samgraha*, Volume Four, and the *Cheng Weishi Lun* (*Demonstration of Consciousness-Only*), Volume Seven.

Moreover, the *Avatamsaka Sutra*, Volume Nine, states:

> "The mind is like a skilled painter, > Depicting all kinds of the five aggregates. > In all the worlds, > Nothing is created beyond it. > Just as the mind is, so is the Buddha; > Just as the Buddha is, so are sentient beings. > The mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings— > These three are without distinction."

Question: Why does this treatise mention only one sutra?

Answer: Let me cite one scripture to establish the teaching and its truth. Why should multiple scriptures be needed to make the truth evident?

Question: Why does the treatise speak only of "Consciousness-Only" (Vijñapti-mātra), while the sutras call it "Mind-Only" (Citta-mātra)? By citing the mind to verify consciousness, how is this principle established?

The mind, thought, consciousness, and discernment—these are merely different names.

Now, the third section explains an implicit objection and refines the meaning of the word "only." This section has two parts: first, explaining the implicit objection to clarify the term "consciousness"; second, explaining the word "only." This is the first part. The objection is as mentioned earlier, and this is the answer. It is as follows: The words "mind," "intent," "consciousness," and "discernment" mentioned in various scriptures and treatises refer to the same essence, differing only in name. "Mind" means accumulation; "intent" means deliberation; "consciousness" means discernment; discernment implies understanding. The text here is brief, so it only uses the word "discernment." The older treatise uses the word "and so forth" to express this same idea.

Accumulation has two aspects: 1. The aspect of accumulating cognitive images; 2. The aspect of storing seeds. The first applies to all consciousnesses, while the second applies only to the eighth (Alaya consciousness). Deliberation has two aspects: 1. Uninterrupted awareness; 2. Active deliberation. The first applies to all consciousnesses, while the second applies only to the seventh (Manas consciousness). Discrimination has two aspects: 1. Subtle; 2. Coarse. The first applies to all consciousnesses, while the second applies only to the first six. Thus, each of the eight consciousnesses has four names.

If someone worries that the meaning is not fully covered by including the word "etcetera," then how could "etcetera" be necessary if it is not a common name for all eight? Therefore, following the original Sanskrit text, we should simply say "discernment" (了). As explained by Asvabhāva (無性): "Mind and consciousness are one." None of the eight consciousnesses has a mind separate from its objects; each is called "consciousness-only." Thus, the sutra's teaching of "mind" does not contradict the treatise's teaching—they are only different names. There are further explanations in the *Chapter on Consciousness-Only* (唯識章).

Question: Among these eight consciousnesses, if all can be called mind, intention, or consciousness, why do various scriptures state that the eighth consciousness is called "mind," the seventh is called "intention," and the remaining six are called "consciousness"?

Reply: Volume Five of the *Cheng Weishi Lun* (The Treatise on the Completion of Mere-Consciousness) states: "These three meanings, though applicable to all eight consciousnesses, are distinguished according to their predominant function. The eighth consciousness is called the 'mind' (心), as it gathers the seeds of all phenomena and generates them. The seventh consciousness is called the 'mentation' (意), as it constantly and deeply deliberates on the notion of self. The remaining six are called 'consciousness' (識), as they are coarse, fluctuating, intermittent, and engage in discrete cognition." Each consciousness—based on its distinct prominence—receives a specific name. In truth, however, all three terms (mind, mentation, consciousness) could apply to each, but this explanation emphasizes their generalized functions, so there is no contradiction.

Question: If each of the eight consciousnesses has its own identity as "consciousness-only," why is it said that they are all the activity of a single mind?

According to the original Sanskrit text, there is no character for "one"—it only speaks of "mind-only." In modern interpretation, "only" means sole or exclusive, while "one" means without duality. The terms differ but their meaning is the same. This refers to the absence of an external world; there is only mind. Thus it is called "one mind," not because the nature of mind is a single entity.

Question: To speak according to reality—is consciousness singular or multiple in essence?

A reply: As stated in the Compendium of Abhidharma, some Bodhisattvas assert that the eight consciousnesses share a single essence, while other masters claim they have multiple essences. We follow the latter view.

The seventh volume of The Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only says: "The self-natures of the eight consciousnesses cannot be definitively said to be identical, because their modes of functioning, their supporting bases, their objects, and their associated mental factors differ. Moreover, when one consciousness is extinguished, the others are not extinguished; and the capacities for direct influence, indirect influence, and so forth are each distinct. Nor can they be definitively said to be different, because the sutras describe the eight consciousnesses as being like water and waves, with no ultimate distinction. If they were definitively different, they could not function as causes and effects. Like illusions and the like, they have no fixed nature. According to conventional worldly truth, we speak of eight distinct types, but this is not the ultimate true meaning. In the ultimate true meaning, both mind and speech are transcended." This shows that the essence of the eight consciousnesses is neither identical nor separate.

The verse from the Lankavatara Sutra says: The eight kinds of mind, intention, and consciousness—In worldly truth, they appear distinct; In ultimate truth, their appearances are without difference, For both the perceiver and the perceived are absent.

If one were to follow the view that their essence is singular, then even in worldly truth, the essence would not be manifold. The statement "in worldly truth, appearances are distinct" is explained in terms of their functions.

The specific analysis of the eight consciousnesses through various categories is detailed in the second and third volumes of The Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only: the eighth consciousness is explained through ten categories in volumes four and five; the seventh consciousness is also explained through ten categories in volumes five and six; and the remaining six consciousnesses are explained through nine categories.

The schools of the Abhidharma ask: Since it is said that consciousness alone exists, it should follow that there are no mental factors, for the text says "consciousness alone"—not "mental factors as well."

Explanation: Here, the teachings include the mind, intent, and all mental factors.

The statement below continues with the second point: clarifying the meaning of "mind-only." The scriptures cited in the Treatise, when speaking of "mind-only,"—although they only use the term "mind"—actually also imply the inclusion of all mental factors. This is because there are only mental factors and no truly existing objects to be grasped.

Question: Why not speak of it?

Wuxing's commentary explains: "The word 'only' is used to exclude the perception of objects." Since objects do not exist, the perceiving subject also does not exist. This does not exclude mental factors, because they are inseparable from the mind. As it is said: "If there were no mental factors, the mind would never function."

The Sautrāntika and Sthavira schools object: "If so, why is the attainment of cessation described as 'mind-only'?" That is a flaw in their own system. In our Mahāyāna, wherever there is mind, there are necessarily associated mental factors. If there were no associated mental factors, the mind itself would definitely not exist.

The *Cheng Weishi Lun* (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only) says: Because the mind is primary, only the mind is mentioned. Mental factors arise depending on the mind's power; for brevity, they are not stated.

Qu Bo’s commentary says: Here the word "only" is meant to highlight the primacy, not to indicate exclusivity. Since the mind is supreme within the three realms, as a sutra says: "The path is only guarding the sense faculties; the precepts are called 'ascetic'." It is because consciousness brings forth the three realms that it is called supreme. Hence it quotes the verse:

Mind is the forerunner of all dharmas, Mind is supreme, mind is the source. If a person sets forth a pure mind In speech and in action, Joy follows from the three wholesome roots, Pursuing him like a shadow.

Mind is the forerunner of all dharmas, Mind is supreme, mind is the source. If a person sets forth a defiled mind In speech and in action, Suffering follows from the three unwholesome roots, Like a wheel following an ox's hoof.

Because mental factors accompany the mind, the phrase "mind-only" also includes them.

**Question:** What are mental factors?

Answer: All mental factors constantly arise dependent on the mind, are in harmony with the mind, and belong to the mind. Therefore, they are called mental factors, just as a king has ministers, or a person has wealth, etc.

Question: Are mental factors the same as the mind, or are they different?

Answer: Schools like the Sarvāstivāda hold that mental factors are fundamentally different from the mind itself. Schools like the Sautrāntika hold that they are no different from the mind. In Mahāyāna, as explained in detail with extensive questions and answers in the seventh chapter of the *Cheng Weishi Lun* (*Demonstration of Consciousness-Only*), the relationship is clarified. The general meaning is: from a conventional perspective, we speak of them as distinct, differing from the Sautrāntika view. From an ultimate perspective, mental factors and the mind are neither entirely separate nor identical—like the sun and its light, differing from the Sarvāstivāda view.

Question: According to conventional understanding, the mind and its objects are distinct. When the mind interacts with these objects, how does it differ from the objects themselves?

Reply: The Twenty Verses on Consciousness Only (Cheng Weishi Lun), Chapter 5, states: "The mind, when engaging its object, only grasps the general form; mental factors, when engaging that same object, also grasp the specific aspects. As they assist the mind in its function, they are called mental factors, much like a painter and his assistant—one drafts the outline, the other fills in the colors." The first verse of the Discourse on Distinguishing the Middle and the Extremes (Bian Zhong Bian Lun) says: "The mind and mental factors of the three realms are false discrimination. The overall awareness of an object is called mind, while the specific awareness is called mental factors." This means that mental factors grasp both the general and specific aspects of an object, whereas the mind-king grasps only the general form—and so forth in extensive explanation.

Question: How many mental factors are there? Which mind is associated with which mental factor? What objects do they perceive? And so on, expanding to explain all categories of meaning.

Answer: As extensively explained in texts such as *The Completion of Mere-Consciousness* (Cheng Weishi Lun) and other chapters, there are detailed distinctions. We cannot elaborate further here.

Question: The sutras only speak of the mind and speech; how could we know there is a "something" (an objective reality)?

Treatise: It only refutes the existence of external objects, but does not eliminate the mind’s associated factors.

It is said: For those who are ignorant, not knowing that there are no real objects or appearances outside the mind, they cling to these as truly existent, thereby creating all kinds of unwholesome actions and two types of heavy obstructions. The scriptures speak of "mind-only" to counter the mistaken belief in the reality of objects that are imputed to exist apart from the mind, independent of subjective perception. This teaching does not aim to deny the dependent nature of phenomena—those that arise in dependence on conditions—which are not separate from the mind and mental factors. Because the mind is primary, the scriptures say there is only mind; logically, however, there are also only mental factors.

**Question:** What is meant by "harmony"?*

Response from the third volume of the Treatise on the Completion of Mere Consciousness: Though mental and mental factors differ in their modes of operation, they are simultaneous, share the same basis, and have equal objects and functions. Because of these four shared qualities, they are called "associated," excluding only the shared mode of operation. That text contradicts the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and also differs slightly in logic, as is explained there.

Question: If we deny the existence of external objects, does that also reject the various perceptions that arise from our own consciousness?

Answer: Now we also reject the notion that these consciousnesses directly apprehend their objects—this does not deny that they have a real nature. Apart from external objects of the mind, it is not a blanket denial of existence altogether, but simply states that the mind cannot directly grasp them. What the mind directly grasps must be inseparable from the mind; if it were separate from the mind, it could certainly not be directly apprehended.

Question: If the mind's functions are not completely negated by the term "consciousness-only," and the nature of suchness is not explicitly taught in the sutras, then perhaps it should not be called "consciousness-only"?

The *Cheng Weishi Lun* explains: The true nature of consciousness is inseparable from consciousness itself, hence it is called “consciousness-only,” not like mental factors, which are referred to as “mind-only dharmas” and not “consciousness-only.” Suchness is also the true nature of mental factors, and it too can be called a mind-only dharma—this principle applies universally.

In the earlier translation of this text, a separate verse was included to establish the doctrine's foundation. Paramartha's verse states: “There are truly no external objects; only the consciousness that appears as objects, like a person with cataracts who sees hairs and moons.” Bodhiruci's version says: “Consciousness-only has no realm; there is no illusory perception, like a person with eye disease who sees hairs and moons.” Although these meanings are not contradictory, when comparing three Sanskrit manuscripts, this verse is absent—an addition merely made by the translators.

Discussion: When internal consciousness arises, it appears as if there is an external world, like someone with blurred vision seeing hairs or flies that are not actually there—none of these appearances have any true reality whatsoever.