Cheng Weishi Lun, Fascicle One
「如海遇風緣，起種種波浪，
"Like the ocean meeting the condition of wind, it stirs up various waves,
現前作用轉，無有間斷時。
and their manifest functions go on turning, without any time of interruption.
藏識海亦然，境等風所擊，
The ocean of the storehouse consciousness is also like this: struck by the wind of objects and so on,
恆起諸識浪，現前作用轉。」
it constantly stirs up the waves of the consciousnesses, and their manifest functions go on turning."
眼等諸識，無如大海恆相續轉起諸識浪，故知別有第八識性。
The eye consciousness and the other consciousnesses do not constantly and continuously arise as waves of consciousness like the great ocean, so one knows there is a separate eighth consciousness nature.
此等無量大乘經中，皆別說有此第八識。
In these and other immeasurable Mahayana sutras, this eighth consciousness is everywhere separately taught.
諸大乘經：皆順無我，違數取趣；棄背流轉，趣向還滅；讚佛、法、僧，毀諸外道；表蘊等法，遮勝性等；樂大乘者，許能顯示無顛倒理，契經攝故，如《增壹》等至教量攝。
All the Mahayana sutras accord with non-self and oppose the doctrine of the repeated taking of rebirth; they renounce the turning of rebirth and move toward return and cessation; they praise the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha and criticize the non-Buddhist paths; they expound the aggregates and other dharmas and refute the doctrine of the Supreme Nature and the like; those who delight in the Mahayana admit that they can reveal the principle without inversion, because they are included in the sutras, just like the Ekottara Agama and other scriptures counted as authoritative teaching.
又，聖慈氏以七種因，證大乘經真是佛說。
Moreover, the holy Maitreya uses seven reasons to prove that the Mahayana sutras were truly spoken by the Buddha.
一、先不記故。若大乘經佛滅度後，有餘為壞正法故說，何故世尊非如當起諸可怖事，先預記別？
First, no prior prediction. If the Mahayana sutras had been spoken after the Buddha's extinction by some other people in order to destroy the true Dharma, why did the World-Honored One not foretell it in advance, as he did with other fearful events that were to arise?
二、本俱行故。大小乘教本來俱行，寧知大乘獨非佛說？
Second, they were practiced together from the beginning. The Mahayana and Hinayana teachings have been practiced together from the start; how can one know that only the Mahayana was not spoken by the Buddha?
三、非餘境故。大乘所說廣大甚深，非外道等思量境界。彼經論中曾所未說，設為彼說，亦不信受，故大乘經非非佛說。
Third, it is not the domain of others. What the Mahayana teaches is vast and profound, and not a realm that non-Buddhists and others can reach by thought. It was never taught in their scriptures and treatises, and even if it were taught to them, they would not believe and accept it, so the Mahayana sutras are not something other than the Buddha's teaching.
四、應極成故。若謂大乘是餘佛說，非今佛語，則大乘教是佛所說，其理極成。
Fourth, it must be established. If one says that the Mahayana was spoken by some other buddha and not in the present Buddha's words, then the principle that the Mahayana teaching was spoken by a Buddha is fully established.
五、有、無有故。若有大乘，即應信此諸大乘教是佛所說，離此大乘不可得故。
Fifth, existence and non-existence. If there is the Mahayana, one should believe that these Mahayana teachings were spoken by the Buddha, because apart from this Mahayana there is no way to be obtained.
若無大乘，聲聞乘教亦應非有，以離大乘決定無有得成佛義，誰出於世說聲聞乘？故聲聞乘是佛所說，非大乘教不應正理。
If there is no Mahayana, the Shravaka Vehicle teachings should also not exist, because apart from the Mahayana there is definitely no meaning of attaining buddhahood, and who would have appeared in the world to teach the Shravaka Vehicle? So the Shravaka Vehicle was spoken by the Buddha, and to say it is not the Mahayana teaching is not in accord with right reason.
六、能對治故。依大乘經勤修行者，皆能引得無分別智，能正對治一切煩惱，故應信此是佛所說。
Sixth, the ability to counteract. Those who diligently cultivate and practice according to the Mahayana sutras can all attain nonconceptual wisdom, which can properly counteract all afflictions, so one should believe that this was spoken by the Buddha.
七、義異文故。大乘所說意趣甚深，不可隨文而取其義，便生誹謗謂非佛語。
Seventh, the meaning differs from the words. The intention of the Mahayana teachings is extremely profound, and one cannot take their meaning according to the letter and then give rise to slander, saying they are not the Buddha's words.
是故大乘真是佛說。
Therefore the Mahayana was truly spoken by the Buddha.
如《莊嚴論》頌此義言：
As the verse of the Ornament Treatise says about this meaning:
「先不記、俱行、非餘所行境、
"No prior prediction, practiced together, not the domain of others,
極成、有無有、對治、異文故。」
fully established, existence and non-existence, counteraction, the meaning differing from the words."
餘部經中亦密意說阿賴耶識有別自性。
In the scriptures of other schools too, the alaya consciousness is taught with a hidden intention as having a nature of its own.
謂大眾部阿笈摩中，密意說此名根本識，是眼識等所依止故。譬如樹根是莖等本，非眼等識有如是義。
For instance, in the Agama of the Mahasamghika school, with a hidden intention, it is called the root consciousness, because it is the support of the eye consciousness and the others. It is like the root of a tree being the base of the trunk and so on; it is not that the eye and other consciousnesses have this meaning.
上坐部經分別論者，俱密意說此名有分識，「有」謂三有；「分」是因義，唯此恆、遍，為三有因。
The Sthavira school and the Vibhajyavadins all teach with a hidden intention that it is called the bhavanga consciousness, where "bhava" refers to the three realms of existence and "anga" has the meaning of cause; only this consciousness is constant and pervasive, and is the cause of the three realms of existence.
化地部說此名窮生死蘊，離第八識無別蘊法，窮生死際無間斷時。謂無色界諸色間斷，無想天等餘心等滅，不相應行離色、心等無別自體，已極成故，唯此識名窮生死蘊。
The Mahishasaka school says it is called the aggregate lasting to the end of birth and death, and that apart from the eighth consciousness there is no other aggregate dharma lasting through the limit of birth and death without interruption. In the formless realm there is interruption of forms, in the heaven of non-perception other mental activities cease, and the conditioned dharmas not associated with mind have no separate substance apart from form, mind and so on, which is already fully established; only this consciousness is called the aggregate lasting to the end of birth and death.
說一切有部《增壹》經中，亦密意說此名阿賴耶，謂愛阿賴耶、樂阿賴耶、欣阿賴耶、憙阿賴耶。
In the Ekottara Agama of the Sarvastivada school, it is also taught with a hidden intention that this is called alaya, namely love of alaya, delight in alaya, pleasure in alaya, and joy in alaya.
謂阿賴耶識是貪總、別三世境故，立此四名。有情執為真自內我，乃至未斷恒生愛著，故阿賴耶識是真愛著處。
That is, the alaya consciousness is the general and specific craving for the objects of the three times, and these four names are established for it. Sentient beings cling to it as a true inner self and, until it is cut off, constantly give rise to attachment, so the alaya consciousness is the true place of attachment.
不應執餘五取蘊等，謂生一向苦受處者，於餘五取蘊不生愛著，彼恆厭逆餘五取蘊，念我何時當捨此命、此眾同分、此苦身心，令我自在受快樂故。
One should not cling to the other five aggregates of clinging, and so on. For those born in a realm of exclusively painful feeling do not give rise to attachment to the other five aggregates of clinging; they constantly loathe and resist them, thinking: when shall I abandon this life, this community of beings, this painful body and mind, so that I can freely enjoy pleasure?
五欲亦非真愛著處，謂離欲者於五妙欲，雖不貪著而愛我故。
The five desires are also not the true place of attachment. For those free from desire, toward the five wondrous desires, though they do not crave, they still love the self.
樂受亦非真愛著處，謂離第三靜慮染者，雖厭樂受而愛我故。
Pleasant feeling is also not the true place of attachment. For those free from the defilement of the third dhyana, though they are weary of pleasant feeling, they still love the self.
身見亦非真愛著處，謂非無學信無我者，雖於身見不生貪著，而於內我猶生愛故。
The view of self in the body is also not the true place of attachment. For those who are not arhats and believe in no-self, though they do not give rise to craving toward the view of self in the body, they still give rise to love toward the inner self.
轉識等亦非真愛著處，謂非無學求滅心者，雖厭轉識等而愛我故。
The active consciousnesses and the like are also not the true place of attachment. For those who are not arhats and seek the cessation of mind, though they are weary of the active consciousnesses and the like, they still love the self.
色身亦非真愛著處，離色染者，雖厭色身而愛我故。
The material body is also not the true place of attachment. Those free from the defilement of form, though weary of the material body, still love the self.
不相應行離色、心等無別自體，是故亦非真愛著處。
The conditioned dharmas not associated with mind have no separate substance apart from form, mind and so on, so they too are not the true place of attachment.
異生、有學起我愛時，雖於餘蘊有愛、非愛，而於此識，我愛定生，故唯此是真愛著處。
When ordinary beings and those still learning give rise to love of self, though they have love or non-love toward the other aggregates, toward this consciousness love of self arises without fail, so only this is the true place of attachment.
由是彼說阿賴耶名，定唯顯此阿賴耶識。
Therefore, the name alaya that they speak of definitely refers only to this alaya consciousness.
已引聖教，當顯正理。
Having cited the holy teachings, we should now reveal the right reasoning.
謂契經說：雜染、清淨諸法種子之所集起，故名為心，若無此識，彼持種心不應有故。
The sutra says: it is the gathering and arising of the seeds of all defiled and pure dharmas, and so it is called mind. If there were no such consciousness, that mind holding the seeds could not exist.
謂諸轉識在滅定等有間斷故，根、境、作意、善等類別易脫起故，如電光等不堅住故，非可燻習，不能持種，非染、淨種所集起心。
The active consciousnesses are interrupted in the absorption of cessation and other states; their faculty, object, attention and wholesome and other categories easily slip and arise differently, like lightning and the like not firmly abiding; they are not what can be perfumed, cannot hold seeds, and are not the mind where the seeds of defilement and purity gather and arise.
此識一類、恆無間斷，如苣蕂等堅住可燻，契當彼經所說心義。
This consciousness is of one kind and constantly without interruption, firmly abiding and perfumable like sesame and the like, and accords with the meaning of mind spoken of in that sutra.
若不許有能持種心，非但違經，亦違正理。
If one does not admit that there is a mind able to hold seeds, one not only contradicts the sutras but also contradicts right reasoning.
謂諸所起染、淨品法，無所燻故，不燻成種，則應所起唐捐其功。染、淨起時既無因種，應同外道執自然生。
That is, if the defiled and pure categories of dharmas that arise had nothing to perfume them and did not form seeds by perfuming, then their arising would be effort thrown away. When defilement and purity arise without causal seeds, they should be the same as the non-Buddhists' view that they arise spontaneously.
色、不相應，非心性故，如聲、光等，理非染、淨內法所燻，豈能持種？又彼離識無實自性，寧可執為內種依止？
Form and the dharmas not associated with mind are not of the nature of mind, like sound, light and the like, and in principle they are not perfumed by inner dharmas of defilement and purity, so how could they hold seeds? Moreover, they have no real own nature apart from consciousness, so how could they be taken as the support of inner seeds?
轉識相應諸心所法，如識間斷，易脫起故，不自在故，非心性故，不能持種，亦不受燻。
The mental factors associated with the active consciousnesses, like the consciousnesses themselves, are interrupted, easily slip and arise differently, and are not sovereign, not of the nature of mind, and cannot hold seeds or receive perfuming either.
故持種心，理應別有。
Therefore a seed-holding mind must, in principle, exist separately.
有說：六識無始時來，依根、境等前後分位，事雖轉變而類無別，是所燻習，能持種子。由斯染、淨因果皆成，何要執有第八識性？
Some say: the six consciousnesses, from beginningless time, depend on faculties, objects and so on in their earlier and later stages; though the events change, the kind does not differ, and this kind is what is perfumed and can hold seeds. In this way the cause and effect of defilement and purity are both established; why must one cling to the existence of an eighth consciousness?
彼言無義！
Their words are meaningless!
所以者何？
Why?
執類是實，則同外道；許類是假，便無勝用，應不能持內法實種。
If you hold the "kind" to be real, you are the same as the non-Buddhists; if you admit it to be nominal, it has no superior function and should not be able to hold the real seeds of inner dharmas.
又執識類何性所攝？若是善、惡，應不受燻，許有記故，猶如擇滅；若是無記，善、惡心時，無無記心，此類應斷，非事善、惡類可無記；別類必同別事性故。
Moreover, to which nature is this kind of consciousness assigned? If it is wholesome or unwholesome, it should not be perfumed, because it is admitted to be karmically marked, like cessation through analysis; if it is neutral, then at the time of wholesome and unwholesome minds there is no neutral mind, and this kind should be cut off, and it is not that the kind of a wholesome or unwholesome event can be neutral; a different kind must share the nature of a different event.
又無心位此類定無，既有間斷，性非堅住，如何可執持種、受燻？
Moreover, in the state without mind this kind definitely does not exist; since there is interruption, its nature does not firmly abide, so how can it be taken as holding seeds and receiving perfuming?
又阿羅漢或異生心，識類同故，應為諸染，無漏法燻，許便有失。又眼等根或所餘法，與眼等識根、法類同，應互相燻，然汝不許。
Moreover, the minds of an arhat or an ordinary being, being the same in kind of consciousness, should be perfumed by all defiled dharmas and by undefiled dharmas, and once admitted this would be a fault. Again, the eye and other faculties or other dharmas, being the same in kind as the eye and other consciousnesses, should perfume one another, but you do not admit this.
故不應執識類受燻。
Therefore one should not hold that the kind of consciousness receives perfuming.
又六識身，若事、若類，前後二念既不俱有；如隔念者，非互相燻。能燻、所燻必俱時故。
Moreover, the body of six consciousnesses, whether as events or as kinds, of two successive moments, do not coexist; like those separated by a moment, they do not perfume each other. The perfuming and the perfumed must be simultaneous.
執唯六識俱時轉者，由前理趣，既非所燻，故彼亦無能持種義。
Those who hold that only the six consciousnesses turn simultaneously, by the reasoning above, since they are not what is perfumed, likewise have no sense of holding seeds.
有執色、心自類無間，前為後種，因果義立，故先所說，為證不成。
Some hold that form and mind, each in its own kind without interruption, are earlier seeds for later ones, so the meaning of cause and effect is established, and so what was said earlier does not stand as proof.
彼執非理，無燻習故。謂彼自類既無燻習，如何可執前為後種？
Their view is unreasonable, because there is no perfuming. That is, since their own kinds have no perfuming, how can one hold that the former is the seed of the latter?
又間斷者，應不更生，二乘無學應無後蘊，死位色、心為後種故。
Moreover, what is interrupted should not arise again, and the two vehicles' arhats should have no later aggregates, because the form and mind at the position of death would be the seeds for the later ones.
亦不應執色、心展轉互為種生，轉識、色等非所燻習，前已說故。
Nor should one hold that form and mind take turns being seeds for each other; the active consciousnesses and form and so on are not what is perfumed, as already said.
有說：三世諸法皆有，因果感赴，無不皆成，何勞執有能持種識？然經說心為種子者，起染、淨法，勢用強故。
Some say: dharmas of the three times all exist, and cause and effect are brought about in response, so nothing fails to be established; why bother to hold that there is a consciousness able to hold seeds? But the sutra says that mind is the seed, giving rise to defiled and pure dharmas, with strong power and function.
彼說非理。過去、未來，非常、非現，如空花等，非實有故。
What they say is unreasonable. The past and future are neither permanent nor present, like flowers in the sky and the like, and are not really existent.