Cheng Weishi Lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), Fascicle 1

然因心故，識變似聲，生滅相續，似有表示，假名語表，於理無違。

Rather, because of the mind, consciousness transforms and gives rise to an appearance like sound, arising and ceasing in succession, appearing like indication, provisionally called verbal manifest action, and there is no contradiction in principle.

表既實無，無表寧實？然依思願善惡分限，假立無表，理亦無違。謂此或依發勝身、語善惡思種增長位立；或依定中止身、語惡現行思立，故是假有。

Since manifest action is truly non-existent, how can non-manifest action be real? It is provisionally established based on the degrees of good and evil of volition and intention, and there is also no contradiction in principle. That is, it is established either based on the stage of growth of the seeds of good or evil volition that excel in producing bodily and verbal action; or based on the volition that stops bodily and verbal evil from arising in concentration, so it is conventional existence.

世尊經中說有三業，撥身、語業豈不違經？

The sutras of the World-Honored One speak of three kinds of action; does denying that bodily and verbal action exist not contradict the sutras?

不撥為無，但言非色。

It does not deny them as non-existent, it only says they are not form.

能動身思說名身業，能發語思說名語業。審、決二思，意相應故，作動意故，說名意業。

The volition that moves the body is called bodily action, the volition that produces speech is called verbal action. The two volitions of deliberation and decision, associated with mind, because they produce mental movement, are called mental action.

起身、語思，有所造作，說名為業，是審、決思所遊履故；通生苦、樂異熟果故，亦名為道。故前七業道，亦思為自性，或身、語表由思發故，假說為業，思所履故，說名業道。

The volition that gives rise to body and speech, which does creating, is itself called action, because it is what the volitions of deliberation and decision travel along; it also generates the ripening results of suffering and pleasure and is also called a path. So the first seven paths of action also have volition as their self-nature, or bodily and verbal manifest action arise from volition and are provisionally called action, and because they are traveled by volition they are called paths of action.

由此應知實無外色，唯有內識變似色生。

From this one should know that there is truly no external form, and only inner consciousness transforms and gives rise to the appearance of form.

不相應行亦非實有，所以者何？

Non-associated conditioned factors are also not real. Why?

得、非得等，非如色、心及諸心所體相可得；非異色、心及諸心所作用可得，由此故知定非實有，但依色等分位假立。

Attainment, non-attainment and the like are not obtainable in their substance and characteristics like form, mind and the various mental factors; and they are not obtainable as functions different from form, mind and mental factors; from this one knows they are definitely not real, and are provisionally established only on the stages of form and so on.

此定非異色、心、心所，有實體用，如色、心等，許蘊攝故。

This is definitely not different from form, mind and mental factors in having real substance and function, like form, mind and so on, because they are accepted as included in the aggregates.

或心、心所及色、無為所不攝故，如畢竟無，定非實有。或餘實法所不攝故，如餘假法，非實有體。

Or because they are not included in mind, mental factors, form or the unconditioned, like the absolutely non-existent, they are definitely not real. Or because they are not included in other real dharmas, like other conventional dharmas, they have no real substance.

且彼如何知得、非得，異色、心等，有實體用？

And how do they know that attainment and non-attainment differ from form, mind and so on and have real substance and function?

契經說故。如說：如是補特伽羅成就善、惡，聖者成就十無學法。又說：異生不成就聖法，諸阿羅漢不成就煩惱，成、不成言，顯得、非得。

Because the sutras say so. For example it is said: such a pudgala (one who repeatedly takes destinies, meaning a sentient being) accomplishes good and evil, and the holy ones accomplish the ten dharmas of the one beyond learning. It is also said: ordinary beings do not accomplish the holy dharmas, and arhats do not accomplish afflictions; the words accomplish and not accomplish show attainment and non-attainment.

經不說此異色、心等有實體用，為證不成。

The sutras do not say that this differs from form, mind and so on and has real substance and function, so the proof is not established.

亦說：輪王成就七寶。豈即成就他身、非情？

It is also said: the wheel-turning king accomplishes the seven treasures. Is it that he accomplishes his own body or inanimate things?

若謂於寶有自在力，假說成就，於善、惡法，何不許然，而執實得？

If it is said that he has the power of mastery over the treasures and so provisionally speaks of accomplishing them, why do you not grant the same for good and evil dharmas and instead maintain real attainment?

若謂七寶在現在，故可假說成，寧知所成善、惡等法離現在有？離現實法，理非有故。

If it is said that the seven treasures are present and so can be provisionally said to be accomplished, how do you know that the good and evil dharmas accomplished exist apart from the present? A real dharma apart from the present is not existent in principle.

現在必有善種等故。

Because in the present there must be seeds of good and so on.

又得於法有何勝用？

Moreover, what superior function does attainment have with respect to dharmas?

若言能起，應起無為，一切非情應永不起，未得、已失應永不生。

If it is said to be able to give rise, it should give rise to the unconditioned, all inanimate things should never arise, and the not yet attained and the already lost should never arise.

若俱生得為因起者，所執二生便為無用。又具善、惡、無記得者，善、惡、無記應頓現前，若待餘因，得便無用。

If innate attainment arises as a cause, the two kinds of arising they maintain would be useless. Moreover, one who possesses attainment of good, evil and neutral should have good, evil and neutral appear at once; if they wait for other causes, attainment would be useless.

若得於法是不失因，有情由此成就彼故，諸可成法不離有情，若離有情實不可得，故得於法俱為無用。

If attainment is a cause of non-loss with respect to dharmas, and sentient beings accomplish that by it, then the dharmas to be accomplished do not leave sentient beings; if they leave sentient beings they truly cannot be obtained, so attainment is of no use with respect to dharmas.

得實無故，非得亦無。

Attainment is truly non-existent, and non-attainment too.

然依有情可成諸法分位，假立三種成就：一、種子成就；二、自在成就；三、現行成就。翻此假立不成就名，此類雖多，而於三界見所斷種未永害位，假立非得，名異生性，於諸聖法未成就故。

Rather, based on the stages of sentient beings being able to accomplish dharmas, three kinds of accomplishment are provisionally established: first, accomplishment by seeds; second, accomplishment by mastery; third, accomplishment by manifest action. By reversal the name non-accomplishment is provisionally established; though such categories are many, in the three realms, at the stage where the seeds to be cut by seeing the path have not yet been eternally destroyed, non-attainment is provisionally established and called the nature of ordinary beings, because they have not yet accomplished the holy dharmas.

復如何知異色、心等有實同分？

And how do they know that there is a real commonality (nikaya-sabhaga) different from form, mind and so on?

契經說故。如契經說：此天同分、此人同分，乃至廣說。

Because the sutras say so. As the sutras say: this deva commonality, this human commonality, and so on at length.

此經不說異色、心等有實同分，為證不成。

These sutras do not say that there is a real commonality different from form, mind and so on, so the proof is not established.

若同智、言，因斯起故，知實有者，則草、木等應有同分。

If the same cognition and speech arise from this and one knows it is real, then grass, trees and so on should have commonality.

又，於同分起同智、言，同分復應有別同分，彼既不爾，此云何然？

Moreover, when the same cognition and speech arise with regard to commonality, the commonality should again have another commonality; since that is not so there, how could it be so here?

若謂為因起同事、欲，知實有者，理亦不然。宿習為因，起同事、欲，何要別執有實同分？

If it is said that it is known to be real because it causes the arising of shared undertakings and desires, that is also unreasonable. With past habit as the cause, shared undertakings and desires arise; why must one separately maintain a real commonality?

然依有情身、心相似，分位差別，假立同分。

Rather, commonality is provisionally established based on the similarity of the bodies and minds of sentient beings and the differences in their stages.

復如何知異色、心等，有實命根？

And how do they know that there is a real life-faculty different from form, mind and so on?

契經說故。如契經說：壽、煖、識三，應知命根說名為壽。

Because the sutras say so. As the sutras say: life, heat and consciousness, these three; one should know that the life-faculty is called life.

此經不說異色、心等有實壽體，為證不成。

These sutras do not say that there is a real substance of life different from form, mind and so on, so the proof is not established.

又，先已成色不離識，應此離識無別命根。

Moreover, since it was earlier established that form is not apart from consciousness, there should be no other life-faculty apart from this consciousness.

又，若命根異識實有，應如受等，非實命根。

Moreover, if the life-faculty were really different from consciousness, it should be like sensation and so on and not be a real life-faculty.

若爾，如何經說三法？義別說三，如四正斷。住無心位，壽、煖應無。豈不經說識不離身。既爾，如何名無心位？彼滅轉識，非阿賴耶。有此識因，後當廣說。此識足為界、趣、生體，是遍、恆、續。異熟果故，無勞別執有實命根。

If so, how do the sutras speak of three dharmas? The meaning of speaking of three separately is like the four right exertions. In the state without mind, life and heat should be absent. Do the sutras not say that consciousness is not apart from the body? Since so, how is it called a state without mind? What they extinguish is the active consciousnesses, not alaya (store consciousness, the earlier-mentioned ripening transformer). There is the cause of this consciousness, to be explained in full later. This consciousness is enough to be the substance of realm, destiny and birth, and is pervasive, constant and continuous. Because it is the ripening result, there is no need to separately maintain a real life-faculty.

然依親生此識種子，由業所引功能差別，住時決定，假立命根。

Rather, based on the seeds that directly produce this consciousness, the differences of capacity drawn by action, and the fixed duration of dwelling, the life-faculty is provisionally established.

復如何知二無心定、無想異熟，異色、心等有實自性？

And how do they know that the two mindless attainments and the ripening of non-perception are real natures different from form, mind and so on?

若無實性，應不能遮心、心所法，令不現起。

If they had no real nature, they should not be able to obstruct mind and mental factors so that they do not arise.

若無心位，有別實法，異色、心等，能遮於心，名無心定。

If, in the state without mind, there is another real dharma, different from form, mind and so on, that can obstruct mind, it is called the attainment of cessation of mind.

應無色時，有別實法，異色、心等，能礙於色，名無色定。彼既不爾，此云何然？

There should be, when there is no form, another real dharma, different from form, mind and so on, that can hinder form, called the formless attainment. Since that is not so there, how could it be so here?

又，遮礙心何須實法，如堤塘等，假亦能遮。

Moreover, obstructing the mind needs no real dharma; like dikes and ponds, a conventional thing can also obstruct.

謂修定時，於定加行，厭患麁動心、心所故，發勝期願，遮心、心所。令心、心所漸細漸微，微微心時，燻異熟識，成極增上厭心等種。由此損伏心等種故，麁動心等暫不現行，依此分位，假立二定。此種善故，定亦名善。

That is, when practicing concentration, in the preparatory practice of concentration, because one is weary of the coarse and moving mind and mental factors, one makes a superior vow and obstructs the mind and mental factors. One makes the mind and mental factors gradually finer and more subtle, and at the stage of the most subtle mind perfumes the ripening consciousness, producing seeds of extremely strong weariness of mind and so on. By this the seeds of mind and so on are damaged and subdued, the coarse and moving mind and so on temporarily do not manifest, and based on this stage the two attainments are provisionally established. Because of this wholesome seed, the attainment is also called wholesome.

無想定前，求無想果，故所燻成種，招彼異熟識。依定麁動想等不行，於此分位，假立無想。依異熟立，得異熟名，故此三法，亦非實有。

Before the attainment of non-perception, one seeks the result of non-perception, so what is perfumed becomes seeds and draws that ripening consciousness. Based on the concentration, coarse and moving perception and so on do not operate, and at this stage non-perception is provisionally established. It is established based on ripening and gains the name of ripening, so these three dharmas also are not real.