Three Means of Valid Inference Treatise (三支比量義鈔)

Three-Category Inference Commentary

Tripitaka Master Xuanzang

Compiled by Yanshou, Abbot of Yongming Temple

Commentary by Mingyu, Monk of Western Shu

The True Consciousness-Only Syllogism. This syllogism was established by the Great Tang Master of the Tripitaka. In the land of Central India, in the city of Kanyakubja, King Shiladitya held a great, unrestricted assembly for eighteen days. He widely summoned monks and Brahmins from the five regions of India who understood the Dharma's meaning, including those from the Hinayana schools and non-Buddhist paths, to serve as opponents. He set forth a single syllogism, inscribed it upon a golden plaque, and for eighteen days, not a single person dared to refute it.

According to the biography, the Master's reputation spread throughout the Five Regions of India. A King named Kumara from eastern India sent three letters to Venerable Shilabhadra, requesting to host the Master. The first letter said: "Your disciple wishes to see the great teacher from China. I beg you to send him, to comfort my longing." The second letter said: "I sincerely hope you will grant this request; do not refuse me again." Neither letter received a reply. The third letter said: "Your disciple is an ordinary man with unpredictable moods. Hearing the name of the foreign monk fills me with joy, and I earnestly seek just one meeting. If he does not come, I fear I may be an evil person, acting on past habits. I will then gather my elephant troops and trample Nalanda Monastery to dust. This promise is as certain as the sun. Please take it seriously."

Upon receiving the letter, Venerable Shilabhadra said to Master Xuanzang: "That king has little innate good nature, and Buddhism is not yet widespread in his land. But since hearing your name, he has developed deep interest. If you refuse to go, there may be trouble. So you should comply, and not fear a little inconvenience."

The Master obeyed and, bidding farewell to his teacher, left with the messenger. When he met the king, the king was overjoyed at first sight and invited him into the palace for over a month of hospitality. When King Harsha learned of this, he sent a message to King Kumara: "Send the Chinese monk to me immediately." King Kumara replied: "You may take my head, but you cannot have the Master." In anger, King Harsha sent another demand: "If your head can be taken, then send it with the messenger." King Kumara, fearing his words had gone too far, ordered an army of twenty thousand elephants and thirty thousand soldiers to escort the Master as they sailed up the Ganges to King Harsha's court.

King Harsha came out of his domain to welcome the Master, deeply delighted. He personally presented fine food, with music and flower scatterings. He then asked: "I heard you wrote a treatise called 'Refuting False Views.' Where is it?" The Master presented his logical argument to the king. The king read it, rejoiced, and praised it endlessly. He then showed it to his officials and ascetics. Afterward, he said to the Master: "This argument is very correct. Your disciple and all the teachers here accept and believe it. But I think there are still Hinayana and non-Buddhist scholars in other kingdoms who cling to ignorance. Let us hold a grand assembly at Kanyakubja. Gather all the learned from various lands to witness your high discourse. Let both sides agree, so that the truth may be believed by the world. What do you think?" The Master agreed.

So they announced the event across all kingdoms and set a date. The Master and the king traveled up the Ganges from early winter and arrived at the assembly site by year's end. Already gathered were eighteen kings from all Five Regions of India, over three thousand monks from both Mahayana and Hinayana traditions, over two thousand Brahmins and non-Buddhist ascetics, and over a thousand monks from Nalanda. All were well-versed in scriptures and eloquent in debate, eager to hear the Dharma. With attendants, elephants, carriages, and banners, the crowd was like a rising mist or surging clouds. Even the grand gatherings of ancient China, where sleeves raised covered the sky and sweat rained like rain, could not compare.

The king arranged everything, from food vessels to seats. He set up a special jeweled seat for the Master and invited him to sit as the debate master. The Master praised the Mahayana and explained the purpose of his treatise. He also invited Venerable Shilabhadra to read it to the assembly. A copy was hung outside the gate. For eighteen days, no one came forward to challenge it. The king then lifted the Master's robe and proclaimed to all: "The Chinese Master has established the meaning of Mahayana, refuting all different views. For eighteen days now, no one has dared to debate. Let this be known."

The entire assembly rejoiced and hailed Master Xuanzang as "Mahayana Deva" (the Heavenly One of the Great Vehicle).

The Treatise on the Reasons of Logic says: At that time, the Great Master traveled through the Western Regions, completing his studies and preparing to return home. King Harshavardhana, who ruled over the Five Regions of India, organized an eighteen-day unrestricted assembly. He requested the Great Master to present his teachings, inviting virtuous and learned people from all over India to gather. He sent non-Buddhist and Lesser Vehicle practitioners to challenge and dispute. The Great Master established his arguments, and no one dared to respond.

This is a commentary on Hetuvidya (Buddhist logic) composed by Master Yīn Jī, serving as evidence for the preceding matter. However, when the Great Master established his logical arguments (liàng), it was as if the sun had already risen, dimming the light of fireflies and candles. Consequently, those who followed devious paths and distorted the truth were left speechless, swallowing their words, while those who clung rigidly to texts and doubted the principles fell silent in contemplation. Such is the power of Hetuvidya!

The Great Master established the inference of Consciousness-Only, saying:

**Subject:** "Truly, ultimately, color that is universally acknowledged" **Property:** "Certainly is not separate from eye-consciousness" (thesis) **Reason:** "Because it is included in the first three, yet not included in the eye faculty" (as accepted by our tradition) **Similar example:** "Just like eye-consciousness itself" **Application:** "All things included in the first three but not included in the eye faculty are not separate from eye-consciousness — similar example: eye-consciousness. Dissimilar example: the eye faculty itself."

The phrase "True and Ultimate Attainment" is a concise expression explaining transcendence through language. The text itself clarifies this. The word "form" specifically refers to a designated object of discussion. This designated object, called the "subject of the thesis," is established first. The phrase "is definitely not separate from eye-consciousness" constitutes the "body of the thesis," which is the predicate. It deduces that the designated object—form—originally arises from the "self-validating cognition" of eye-consciousness. Since this form arises from consciousness, it is inherently not separate from consciousness. Therefore, the thesis is established: "Form is definitely not separate from eye-consciousness."

The "logical reason," stated as "because it is included in the first three [sense bases] but not included in the eye faculty," serves as the proof for establishing this. This reason shows that the thesis—form being inseparable from consciousness—is based on the principle that, except for the eye faculty itself, form is inseparable from eye-consciousness. "Included" means containing or holding. The first three [sense bases] refer to the six realms each for faculties, objects, and consciousnesses. "Included in the first three" here specifically takes the three realms of the eye. "Not included in the eye faculty" means the eye faculty is not included, because eye-consciousness does not see the eye faculty itself. This is the meaning of "separation" as accepted. Only the two realms (objects and consciousness) are taken to demonstrate the inseparability of form and consciousness.

The "similar example," such as eye-consciousness itself, means that when the seeing part of consciousness perceives a form, it directly grasps the form's own essence. This illustrates inseparability. This example mirrors the self-validating cognition of eye-consciousness in the thesis, which is not separate from the form it produces. When combined (as stated after "combining"), the body of the thesis is formed. The combination begins with the logical reason, then the thesis, followed by the example, completing the standard structure of inference.

The "dissimilar example," such as the eye faculty itself, means the eye faculty was excluded from the reason because eye-consciousness does not see it, representing separation. This differs from the "similar class" since in the thesis, reason, and example, form and consciousness are all not separate, which is why it is called "dissimilar example."

The same method applies when sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects serve as the subject of the thesis. The body of the thesis, logical reason, and examples follow the same principles as above.

Question: "Why doesn't it align with your own accepted position?"

Answer: "This is not a valid logical reason. It is merely a preliminary statement used to point out a flaw for the sake of simplicity. It is not that the Small Vehicle does not accept it, nor that the Great Vehicle itself accepts it. The reason operates on the basis of the subject—the 'dharma'—and all three components of a syllogism are shared by both parties."

From within the Mahayana tradition, some assert the existence of physical forms of Buddhas in other realms. For this reason, the phrase "as Mahayana itself claims" is placed at the beginning of the logical reason (hetu). This serves to avoid the fault of a "contradictory inference regarding the property to be proven" (dharma-viparyaya) within the subject (dharmin).

Thus, the statement "which the Lesser Vehicle does not accept" also applies here. The Mahayana tradition itself asserts this. Since the reason involved in "the first three of the five senses" is not included among visual perceptions, this reasoning is accepted by both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles.

The reason (hetu) operates on the subject (dharmin), and all three components of the logical inference—subject, reason, and example—are common ground [between both traditions].

The "first three" refers to the fact that the reasoning, the proposition, and the example are all shared. However, with regard to "forms that are definitely separate from visual consciousness," and those "not definitely separate from visual consciousness," both are included. This is because the reasoning contains the fault of being indefinite (anaikāntika). By adding the qualification "as Mahayana itself claims," this fault is avoided.

First, we clarify the thesis, then we explain the reasoning. The first part has two sections: initially defining the thesis, and next explaining the premise.

For instance, consider the opening statement "truly established form." The single word "form" is the actual subject. The remaining four words serve only to prevent logical faults.

Take the first two words "truly established"—they guard against errors like contradicting everyday experience or conflicting with scriptural teachings.

Now let us explain the concept of "inference by analogy." First, we will divide it into its own sections to clarify the structure. The initial statement, "the primary premise," is explained as follows: the word "form" is established as the primary subject of discussion. The rest serves to prevent errors. At the very beginning, under the phrase "truly, therefore," there are two types of errors that are clarified and removed, which the following text will explain on its own.

Question: In the ordinary world, even a beginner knows that color exists independently of the eye's perception. Yet the Mahayana doctrine asserts that color does not exist apart from eye-consciousness—this contradicts the world's common understanding. Why does this logical inference not commit the fallacy of contradicting worldly consensus?

Answer: When constructing logical inferences, there are three types: inferences for oneself, inferences for others, and inferences for both parties. Each type has its own specific qualifications:

- In an inference for oneself, the phrase "according to my view" qualifies the position. - In an inference for others, the phrase "according to your view" qualifies the position. - In an inference for both parties, the phrase "according to ultimate truth" qualifies the position.

This particular inference uses the latter form, with the phrase "based on ultimate truth." It is established according to the fourth level of the Four Noble Truths, known as the truth of the manifestation of essence and function.

Now, the question arises concerning the conflict with conventional appearances. The answer is given concisely based on ultimate truth. To clarify, there are four kinds of ultimate truth, which are distinct from the four kinds of conventional truth.

The four conventional truths are: 1) Worldly conventional truth, such as pots, bowls, armies, and forests; 2) Rational conventional truth, such as the aggregates, sense bases, and elements; 3) Attainment conventional truth, such as the stream-enterer and so on; 4) Established conventional truth, such as the principle of emptiness of self and phenomena.

The four ultimate truths are: 1) The truth of manifestation through essence and function—this refers to the aggregates, sense bases, and so on, which possess a real essence. It surpasses the first kind of conventional truth and is therefore called ultimate. According to specific circumstances, they are designated as aggregates, etc., each having its own function, hence the term "manifestation." 2) The truth of distinctions in cause and effect—this refers to suffering, its origin, and so on. It involves wisdom, abandonment, realization, and cultivation, and the distinctions of cause and effect. 3) The truth that reveals reality through a medium—this refers to the principle of emptiness of self and phenomena. It surpasses conventional attainment truth and is thus called ultimate. By relying on emptiness as a medium, it reveals reality, hence the term "through a medium." 4) The truth that discusses the intrinsic meaning by abandoning verbal expression—this refers to the single true suchness. Its essence is subtle, beyond words, and is already considered ultimate.

Here, we adopt the first meaning because the sense faculties, sense objects, and sense consciousnesses each embody the principle of manifestation through essence and function.

Question: "Not contradicting worldly understanding or non-learning such. Is this acceptable? Furthermore, the World-Honored One, in the Small Vehicle Agama Sutras, also allowed for the existence of form separate from consciousness. Small Vehicle practitioners collectively believe there are real objects outside the mind. Would this not contradict the Agama teachings and the Small Vehicle practitioners?"

Answer: "This is established solely based on the supreme meaning of the Great Vehicle, so it does not contradict the Small Vehicle teachings or the error of worldly understanding."

They also asked about errors like contradicting the teachings. The answer is simple: because it is the truth. When the Buddha said that form exists apart from consciousness, this was originally taught for those of lesser capacity. Such learners found understanding through seeing the distinction between adventitious dust and true emptiness. For them, he spoke of mind and objects as two separate things. They had not yet realized that the subject and object¹, the perceiver and the perceived, are fundamentally empty. He did not teach that mind and objects are non-dual. Now, based on the ultimate truth of the Great Vehicle, there is no contradiction.

¹ The terms 'subject' (能) and 'object' (所) refer to the perceiving mind and perceived phenomena. In English, 'subject/object' or 'perceiver/perceived' are equally valid. I have used 'subject and object' for immediate clarity, as it is a common philosophical pair.

Question: The use of "true," "actual," and "words" eliminates errors related to the mundane and violations of doctrine. How does the phrase "widely accepted" eliminate errors?

Answer: By including the term "widely accepted," it eliminates two types of colors that are not universally agreed upon. Among the twenty schools of the Lesser Vehicle, except for the One-Statement School, the Provisional-Statement School, the Supramundane School, and the Kukkutika School—four in total—the remaining sixteen schools all accept that the final-body Bodhisattva possesses defiled colors, and that the Buddha possesses tainted colors. The Greater Vehicle does not accept this. This is one type of not universally agreed-upon color. The Greater Vehicle speaks of colors of Buddhas in other realms and the Buddha's untainted colors. Although the Sutra School accepts colors of Buddhas in other realms, it does not accept them as untainted. The other nineteen schools do not accept their existence at all. Together with the two previously mentioned types of not universally agreed-upon colors...

Now, let us clarify the meaning of "true" and "thus." These terms simply limit the case where the thesis of the inference contradicts the scriptures or other sources. Next, the question arises: what fault is excluded by the phrase "universally accepted" (extremely accomplished)? The answer: By saying "universally accepted," we exclude the two disputants' non-universally-accepted forms. This corrects the fault of contradicting the inference's own thesis (the basis of the proposition).

Now, regarding the twenty schools: After the Buddha's parinirvana, over a hundred years later, the great Buddhist community first split ("split" means division). Due to the "Elephant-Dragon," "Borderlanders," "Erudites," and "Elders"—four groups—they debated five points: impermanence, suffering, emptiness, no-self, and nirvana's stillness. These five matters differed, and the community split into two schools: the Mahāsaṃghika and the Sthavira.

From the Mahāsaṃghika flowed eight schools, making nine including the root: 1. Mahāsaṃghika, 2. Ekavyāvahārika, 3. Lokottaravāda, 4. Kaukkutika, 5. Bahuśrutīya, 6. Prajñaptivāda, 7. Caitika, 8. Western Mountain School, 9. Northern Mountain School.

From the Sthavira school, two schools formed: 1. Sarvāstivāda, 2. The Sthavira itself, renamed the Haimavata school.

From the Sarvāstivāda, nine schools successively flowed forth. Together with the two root schools, these became eleven schools: 1. Sarvāstivāda, 2. Haimavata, 3. Vātsīputrīya, 4. Dharmottara, 5. Bhadrayānīya, 6. Saṃmatīya, 7. Sannagarika, 8. Mahīśāsaka, 9. Dharmaguptaka, 10. Kāśyapīya, 11. Sautrāntika.

Together with the earlier nine, this makes twenty schools. Excluding four schools like Ekavyāvahārika, etc., the remaining sixteen schools accept that Bodhisattvas have tainted form and Buddhas have defiled form. The Sarvāstivāda says: "Arhats still receive the results of past karma. Buddhas and the two vehicles are identical in liberation. It should be said that Bodhisattvas are still ordinary beings, with their bonds of attachment unsevered." This is the meaning behind accepting Bodhisattvas' tainted form and Buddhas' defiled form.

The Sautrāntikas do not accept that Buddhas have undefiled form. Their views largely resemble those of the Sarvāstivāda. These are the positions accepted by the Lesser Vehicle, but not by the Greater Vehicle. Conversely, what the Greater Vehicle accepts, the Lesser Vehicle does not. Therefore, the phrase "universally accepted" is used to exclude these two kinds of non-universally-accepted form.

If we simply say "form" without including the term "universally acknowledged," then in the statement "form is a valid subject, and it is necessarily inseparable from eye-consciousness," the word "form" would include both what is accepted and what is not accepted within the scope of the subject. The earlier Lesser Vehicle schools accept a certain definition of form, while the Greater Vehicle does not. If we were to establish that form is merely consciousness, we would commit the fault of having part of our own subject not universally acknowledged (one-sided self-universal non-acceptance) and also commit the fault of partly contradicting scriptural teaching. Conversely, what the Greater Vehicle accepts, the Lesser Vehicle does not. So if we propose that as the subject, we would commit the fault of the other party not accepting part of the subject (one-sided other-universal non-acceptance). Moreover, when we cite the reason "because it is included within the first three sense-fields but not included within the eye sense-field," we would then commit the fault of the basis not being established for one side or the other (one-sided basis non-establishment). This is because the prior subject term "form" is not universally acknowledged as a valid basis. Therefore, to thoroughly avoid these four faults, we include the qualifier "universally acknowledged."