Cheng Weishi Lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), Volume 4
一身唯一等無間緣，如何俱時有多識轉？既許此一引多心所，寧不許此能引多心？又誰定言此緣唯一？說多識俱者，許此緣多故。又欲一時取多境者，多境現前寧不頓取？諸根、境等和合力齊，識前後生不應理故。又心所性雖無差別而類別者，許多俱生，寧不許心異類俱起？又如浪像依一起多，故依一心多識俱轉。又若不許意與五俱，取彼所緣應不明瞭，如散意識緣久滅故。
For one body there is only one immediately preceding condition, so how can many consciousnesses operate at the same time? Since you allow this one to bring forth many mental factors, why not allow this one to bring forth many minds? And who decides that this condition is only one? Those who say many consciousnesses are together allow that this condition is many. Also, for one who wants to take many objects at one time, when many objects are present, why does he not take them at once? Since the combined power of faculties and objects is equal, it is unreasonable for the consciousnesses to arise one after another. Also, though mental factors are not different in nature, they are different in kind, and many arise together; why not allow minds of different kinds to arise together? Also, like waves relying on one, many arise, so many consciousnesses operate together relying on one mind. Moreover, if one does not allow the mental consciousness to be together with the five, then taking those objects would be unclear, like a scattered mental consciousness taking things long past.
如何五俱唯一意識，於色等境取一或多？如眼等識各於自境取一或多，此亦何失？相、見俱有種種相故。
How, when the five arise together with only one mental consciousness, does it take one or many for objects such as form? As the eye and other consciousnesses each take one or many in their own objects, what fault is there in this? Because both the image and the seeing have many kinds of aspects.
何故諸識同類不俱？於自所緣若可了者，一已能了，餘無用故。若爾，五識已了自境，何用俱起意識了為？五俱意識助五令起，非專為了五識所緣。又於彼所緣能明瞭取，異於眼等識，故非無用。由此聖教說彼意識名有分別，五識不爾。
Why do consciousnesses of the same kind not arise together? Because, for their own objects that can be understood, one is already able to understand and the rest are useless. If so, since the five consciousnesses have already understood their own objects, what use is the accompanying mental consciousness arising? The mental consciousness accompanying the five assists the five to arise, and is not solely for the objects of the five consciousnesses. And it can clearly take those objects, which differs from the eye and other consciousnesses, so it is not useless. Because of this, the holy teachings say that mental consciousness is called discriminating, and the five consciousnesses are not so.
多識俱轉何不相應？非同境故，設同境者，彼此所依體、數異故，如五根識互不相應。
Why do many consciousnesses operating together not correspond? Because they do not share the same object, and even if they share the same object, their supports differ in substance and number, as the consciousnesses of the five faculties do not correspond with one another.
八識自性不可言定一，行相、所依、緣、相應異故；又一滅時餘不滅故，能、所燻等相各異故；亦非定異，經說八識如水波等，無差別故；定異應非因果性故。如幻事等，無定性故。
The nature of the eight consciousnesses cannot be said to be definitely one, because their modes of appearance, supports, objects and correspondences differ; also, when one ceases the others do not, and the aspects of what perfumes and what is perfumed differ; nor are they definitely different, because the sutra says the eight consciousnesses are like waves of water and the like, without distinction; and if definitely different, they would not be of cause and effect. They are like illusions and the like, with no fixed nature.
如前所說，識差別相依理世俗，非真勝義，真勝義中，心言絕故。
As stated above, the aspects of distinction among consciousnesses rest on principle in the conventional sense and are not the true ultimate; in the true ultimate, the mind and words are cut off.
如伽他說：
As a gatha says:
「心、意、識八種，俗故相有別；
"Mind, thought and consciousness, eight kinds, are conventionally different in aspect;
真故相無別，相、所相無故。」
Ultimately there is no difference in aspect, for aspect and what has aspect do not exist."
已廣分別三能變相為自所變二分所依。云何應知依識所變假說我、法非別實有，由斯一切唯有識耶？
Having widely distinguished the three transformers as the support of the two parts they themselves transform, how is one to know that the self and dharmas provisionally spoken of based on what the consciousnesses transform are not separately and truly existent, and thus that everything is consciousness only?
頌曰：
The verse says:
１７是諸識轉變，分別所分別，
17 These consciousnesses transform, as discriminator and discriminated,
由此彼皆無，故一切唯識。
Because of this those do not exist at all, so everything is consciousness only.
論曰：「是諸識」者，謂前所說三能變識及彼心所，皆能變似見、相二分，立「轉變」名。
The treatise says: "These consciousnesses" means the three transforming consciousnesses described above and their mental factors, all of which can transform into the two parts, the seeing part and the image part, and the name "transformation" is established.
所變見分說名「分別」，能取相故；所變相分名「所分別」，見所取故。
The transformed seeing part is called "the discriminator," because it can grasp the image; the transformed image part is called "the discriminated," because it is what the seeing part grasps.
由此正理，彼實我、法離識所變皆定非有，離能、所取無別物故，非有實物離二相故。
By this correct reasoning, those real self and real dharmas apart from what consciousness transforms are definitely nonexistent, because apart from the grasper and the grasped there is no other thing, and no real thing exists apart from the two aspects.
是故一切有為、無為，若實、若假，皆不離識。「唯」言為遮離識實物，非不離識心所法等。
So all conditioned and unconditioned things, whether real or provisional, are not apart from consciousness. The word "only" is to deny real things apart from consciousness, not the mental factors and other dharmas that are not apart from consciousness.
或轉變者，謂諸內識轉似我、法外境相現。
Or, transformation means that the various inner consciousnesses transform and appear as images of external objects, self and dharmas.
此能轉變即名分別，虛妄分別為自性故，謂即三界心及心所。此所執境名所分別，即所妄執實我、法性。
This capacity to transform is called discrimination, because its nature is false discrimination, that is, the mind and mental factors of the three realms. The objects grasped by it are called the discriminated, that is, the real self and real dharma natures falsely clung to.
由此分別變似外境假我、法相，彼所分別實我、法性，決定皆無，前引教理已廣破故。
By this discrimination, transformed into the appearance of provisional self and dharmas as external objects, those discriminated real self and real dharma natures are definitely nonexistent, since they have been widely refuted above by citing teaching and reasoning.
是故一切皆唯有識，虛妄分別有極成故。「唯」既不遮不離識法，故真空等亦是有性。
So everything is consciousness only, because false discrimination is well established. Since "only" does not deny dharmas not apart from consciousness, true emptiness and the like also have being.
由斯遠離增、減二邊，唯識義成，契會中道。
By this one stays far from the two extremes of increase and decrease, the meaning of consciousness-only is established, and it accords with the Middle Way.
由何教理唯識義成？
By what teaching and reasoning is the meaning of consciousness-only established?
豈不已說？
Has it not already been said?
雖說未了，非破他義己義便成；應更礭陳，成此教理。
Though it has been said, it is not yet clear; refuting the other's meaning does not in itself establish one's own; one should state it more definitely and establish this teaching and reasoning.
如契經說：「三界唯心」；又說：「所緣唯識所現」；又說：「諸法皆不離心」；又說：「有情隨心垢、淨」。
As the sutras say: "The three realms are mind only"; and: "The objects are only manifested by consciousness"; and: "All dharmas are not apart from mind"; and: "Beings are defiled or pure according to the mind."
又說：「成就四智菩薩能隨悟入唯識無境」。
It also says: "Bodhisattvas who have accomplished four kinds of wisdom can follow and awaken to consciousness-only without objects."
一、相違識相智：謂於一處，鬼、人、天等隨業差別所見各異，境若實有，此云何成？二、無所緣識智：謂緣過、未、夢境像等非實有境，識現可得，彼境既無，餘亦應爾。三、自應無倒智：謂愚夫智若得實境，彼應自然成無顛倒，不由功用應得解脫。四、隨三智轉智：一、隨自在者智轉智：謂已證得心自在者，隨欲轉變地等皆成，境若實有，如何可變？二、隨觀察者智轉智：謂得勝定修法觀者，隨觀一境，眾相現前，境若是實，寧隨心轉？三、隨無分別智轉智：謂起證實無分別智，一切境相皆不現前，境若是實，何容不現？
First, the wisdom of contradictory aspects of consciousness: in one place, ghosts, humans, devas and the like see differently according to their karma; if the object were really existent, how could this be established? Second, the wisdom of consciousness without an object: that is, past, future, dreams and images are not really existent objects, yet consciousness appears and can be obtained; since that object does not exist, the others should be the same. Third, the wisdom of there being no inversion by themselves: if the wisdom of fools grasped real objects, they would naturally have no inversion and would attain liberation without effort. Fourth, the wisdom that turns with three kinds of wisdom: first, the wisdom that turns with those of mastery: those who have already realized mastery of mind can transform earth and the like as they wish, and if objects were really existent, how could they be transformed? Second, the wisdom that turns with those who contemplate: those who have attained supreme concentration and practice Dharma contemplation, as they contemplate one object, many aspects appear before them, and if the object were real, how could it turn with the mind? Third, the wisdom that turns with non-discriminating wisdom: those who give rise to the wisdom of non-discrimination realizing reality, in whom no object aspects appear, and if the objects were real, how could they fail to appear?
菩薩成就此四智者，於唯識理決定悟入。
Bodhisattvas who have accomplished these four wisdoms definitely awaken to the principle of consciousness-only.
又伽他說：
A gatha also says:
心、意、識所緣，皆非離自性，
The objects of mind, thought and consciousness are all not apart from their own nature,
故我說一切唯有識無餘。
So I say that everything is consciousness only with no remainder.
此等聖教誠證非一。
These are proofs from the holy teachings and are not just one.
極成眼等識，五隨一故，如餘，不親緣離自色等。餘識識故，如眼識等，亦不親緣離自諸法。此親所緣定非離此，二隨一故，如彼能緣。所緣法故，如相應法，決定不離心及心所。
The generally accepted eye and other consciousnesses, being the five and following the one, like the others, do not directly take as objects things such as form apart from themselves. The other consciousnesses, being consciousness, like the eye consciousness and so on, also do not directly take as objects dharmas apart from themselves. This directly taken object is definitely not apart from this, because the two follow the one, like that which takes it. Because it is a dharma that is taken as object, like corresponding dharmas, it is definitely not apart from the mind and mental factors.
此等正理，誠證非一，故於唯識，應深信受。
These correct reasonings and proofs are not just one, so one should deeply believe and accept consciousness-only.
我、法非有；空、識非無。離有、離無，故契中道。
Self and dharmas do not exist; emptiness and consciousness are not nonexistent. Apart from existence and apart from nonexistence, it accords with the Middle Way.
慈尊依此說二頌言：
The Compassionate One, relying on this, spoke two verses, saying:
「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，
"False discrimination exists, but in this the two are entirely nonexistent,
此中唯有空，於彼亦有此，
In this there is only emptiness, and in that there is also this,
故說一切法，非空非不空，
So it is said that all dharmas are neither empty nor not empty,
有無及有故，是則契中道。」
Because of existence, nonexistence and having, this is accord with the Middle Way."
此頌且依染依他說，理實亦有淨分依他。
This verse speaks provisionally in terms of the defiled dependent nature; in principle there is also a pure aspect of the dependent nature.
若唯內識似外境起，寧見世間情、非情物，處、時、身、用定、不定轉？
If only inner consciousness arises appearing as external objects, how do we see worldly sentient and insentient things, in place, time, body and function, operating in a fixed or unfixed way?
如夢境等，應釋此疑。
Like dream objects and the like, this doubt should be explained.
何緣世尊說十二處？
Why did the World-Honored One speak of the twelve sense-fields?
依識所變，非別實有。為入我空說六二法，如遮斷見說續有情。為入法空復說唯識，令知外法亦非有故。
They depend on what consciousness transforms, and are not separately real. To enter the emptiness of self he spoke of the six and two dharmas, like denying annihilation and speaking of continuing beings. To enter the emptiness of dharmas he again spoke of consciousness-only, so that one knows external dharmas are also nonexistent.
此唯識性豈不亦空？
Is this nature of consciousness-only not also empty?
不爾。
It is not so.
如何？
Why?
非所執故。
Because it is not what is clung to.
謂依識變，妄執實法，理不可得，說為法空；非無離言正智所證唯識性故，說為法空。
That is, what depends on consciousness's transformation, the real dharmas falsely clung to, cannot be found by reasoning, and is called emptiness of dharmas; it is not that the nature of consciousness-only realized by right wisdom beyond words is nonexistent, and is so called emptiness of dharmas.
此識若無，便無俗諦；俗諦無故，真諦亦無。真、俗相依而建立故。
If this consciousness were absent, there would be no conventional truth; because the conventional truth would be absent, the ultimate truth would also be absent, since the true and the conventional are established in dependence on each other.
撥無二諦是惡取空，諸佛說為不可治者。應知諸法有空、不空，由此慈尊說前二頌。
To deny both truths is wrongly grasping emptiness, which the Buddhas say is incurable. One should know that dharmas are both empty and not empty, and so the Compassionate One spoke the two verses above.
若諸色處亦識為體，何緣乃似色相顯現，一類堅住相續而轉？
If the sense-fields of form also have consciousness as their substance, why do they appear in the aspect of form, and operate continuously in a fixed and stable manner?
名言燻習勢力起故。
Because they arise by the force of the perfuming of verbal conventions.
與染、淨法為依處故。謂此若無，應無顛倒，便無雜染，亦無淨法，是故諸識亦似色現。如有頌言：
Because they are the support for defiled and pure dharmas. That is, if this did not exist, there would be no inversion, and so no defilement and no pure dharma, so the consciousnesses also appear as form. As a verse says:
亂相及亂體，應許為色識，
The aspect of confusion and the substance of confusion should be allowed to be the consciousness of form,
及與非色識，若無餘亦無。
And the consciousness that is not form; if the former did not exist, the others would not either.
色等外境分明現證，現量所得，寧撥為無？
External objects such as form are clearly and directly present, obtained by direct perception; how can one deny them as nonexistent?
現量證時，不執為外，後意分別，妄生外想。故現量境是自相分，識所變故，亦說為有；意識所執外實色等，妄計有故。說彼為無。
At the time of direct perception, one does not cling to them as external; only later does the mental discrimination falsely produce the idea of externality. So the object of direct perception is the part of its own image, since it is transformed by consciousness, and is also said to exist; the external real form and so on clung to by the mental consciousness are falsely imagined to exist, so those are said to be nonexistent.