A Doctrinal Resolution of Three Profound Passages in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra — According to the Intent of the Cheng Weishi Lun and Its Commentary (Shuji)
I. Explaining the Dependent Nature (Paratantra-svabhāva) and the Principle of “Ultimate Non-self-nature” (Paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā)
Scriptural Passage:
“That which is dependently arisen is also called the ultimate non-self-nature. Why is this so? Among all dharmas, if something is a pure object of cognition, I reveal it as ultimate non-self-nature. The dependent nature, however, is not a pure object of cognition; therefore it too is said to be ultimate non-self-nature.”
Exposition:
This passage determines the relationship between the Three Natures (trisvabhāva) and the Three Non-self-natures (triniḥsvabhāvatā). The scripture states that “dependently arisen dharmas” (that is, the dependent nature) may also be designated “ultimate non-self-nature.” Why?
The true “ultimate non-self-nature” refers to the Perfectly Accomplished Nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva), which is directly apprehended by the noble ones’ fundamental non-discriminative wisdom as a pure realm of cognition. By contrast, the dependent nature belongs to conditioned, contaminated existence and is not itself the ultimate pure object of cognition. Precisely because it lacks the intrinsic character of ultimate truth, it is termed “ultimate non-self-nature.”
This is a crucial point in Yogācāra refutation of the erroneous doctrine of nihilistic emptiness (evil grasping of emptiness)—the mistaken claim that all dharmas, including dependent arising itself, are utterly nonexistent.
When the Buddha says that the dependent nature is “without self-nature,” this means only that it lacks ultimate self-existence, or lacks independently arising inherent reality; it does not mean that the dependent nature (the functioning basis of consciousness) is utterly nonexistent or devoid of causal efficacy.
Scriptural and Treatise Citations:
Cheng Weishi Lun, fascicle 9:
“Regarding the dependent nature, the non-self-nature of arising is established. It is like illusion, because it arises through many conditions; falsely grasped as naturally existing, yet lacking such intrinsic nature... It may also be called ultimate non-self-nature, because what ordinary beings grasp as ultimate reality—real self and real dharmas—has no intrinsic nature. Or this indicates that such dharmas are not ultimate truth. Since the dependent nature arises through karma and afflictions, it is not ultimate truth, and is therefore also called ultimate non-self-nature.”
Shuji (Commentary):
“To say it is not ultimate truth means it is not a pure object of cognition... Because the dependent nature is contaminated and conditioned, not a pure undefiled realm, it is called ultimate non-self-nature.”
Conclusion:
The treatise accords exactly with the scripture. The dependent nature is called “without self-nature” because it is not ultimate truth—not because it lacks all real functional existence. Conditioned arising, brought forth through karma and affliction, undeniably operates; how could it be denied?
II. Explaining Determinate Śrāvakas and “Active Buddha-Nature” (Uncontaminated Seeds)
Scriptural Passage:
“Good son, if there is a person of the śrāvaka lineage who is fixedly inclined toward quiescence, even though all Buddhas employ many courageous practices and skillful means to guide him, he can never be made to sit at the bodhimaṇḍa and attain unsurpassed perfect awakening. This is because he possesses only inferior lineage from the outset... Therefore I say he is called one who is fixedly inclined toward quiescence.”
Exposition:
This passage is decisive proof for the Yogācāra doctrine of Five Distinct Lineages (pañcagotra)—namely, that not all sentient beings are equally capable of Buddhahood.
The “śrāvaka lineage fixedly inclined toward quiescence” corresponds to the Yogācāra category of determinate two-vehicle beings (fixed śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas).
The Buddha explicitly states: such beings possess only an inferior spiritual lineage from the beginning—that is, in their ālayavijñāna they inherently lack the uncontaminated Mahāyāna seeds for supreme enlightenment. Thus, no matter how skillfully the Buddhas instruct them, they remain fearful of saṃsāra, hasten toward liberation, and seek entry into nirvāṇa without remainder. They will never attain full Buddhahood.
This directly refutes later universalist claims that “all beings possess Buddha-nature and will certainly become Buddhas.” Yogācāra insists that Buddhahood requires the presence in the foundational consciousness of innate uncontaminated Mahāyāna seeds—called active Buddha-nature. If there is no gold ore in the earth, no amount of refining can produce gold.
Scriptural and Treatise Citations:
Cheng Weishi Lun, fascicle 2:
“Because there are differences in whether innate uncontaminated seeds are present or absent, there are differences among the five lineages... The pratyekabuddha lineage possesses only the uncontaminated seeds of the two vehicles. The Tathāgata lineage additionally possesses Buddha uncontaminated seeds... If there is no innate uncontaminated basis, the uncontaminated path cannot arise.”
Cheng Weishi Lun, fascicle 8:
“Determinate two-vehicle beings... attain the uncontaminated path realizing emptiness of personhood... and eventually enter quiescent extinction. Entering nirvāṇa without remainder, both body and cognition cease.”
Conclusion:
What the scripture calls “inferior lineage” is identified in the treatise as the absence of Mahāyāna uncontaminated bodhi-seeds. Lacking this cause, determinate śrāvakas can only end in extinction of body and cognition. This demonstrates Yogācāra’s precise distinction: though principle-Buddha-nature may be equal, active Buddha-nature (seed-capacity) differs.
III. Explaining Why the False Depends on the Real, and the Error of “Slandering the Three Characteristics”
Scriptural Passage:
“Because there are the dependent characteristic and the perfectly accomplished characteristic, the imagined characteristic can be posited. If one sees the dependent and perfected characteristics as without characteristics, one thereby also slanders the imagined characteristic. Therefore such a person is said to slander the three characteristics... Though such a one gains merit by generating faith in the Dharma, because he clings to what is not true meaning, he loses wisdom.”
Exposition:
This passage is Yogācāra’s sharp critique of those attached to one-sided emptiness views in Madhyamaka—those who emphasize negation alone and deny the real functioning of consciousness.
It establishes the principle: the false must depend upon the real.
Deluded false appearances (the imagined nature) can arise only by relying upon real operative structures:
the dependent nature (causal functioning consciousness), and
the perfected nature (ultimate suchness).
If a practitioner falls into extreme emptiness and claims that both dependent consciousness and perfected suchness are utterly without reality, then even illusion itself loses its basis. This is the grave fault called “slandering the three characteristics,” or nihilistic emptiness.
The Shuji clearly judges that although such persons may gain merit through faith in Buddhism, because they cling to false doctrines such as “all dharmas are absolutely empty,” they become blind to the real principles of dependent origination and transformation of consciousness, thereby losing wisdom.
Scriptural and Treatise Citations:
Cheng Weishi Lun, fascicle 8:
“One should know that what is falsely posited must rely on real entities... If there are no real dharmas, false dharmas also cannot exist... The imagined nature has no real mark in itself; the dependent and perfected always have their marks. Without dependent and perfected reality, the imagined could not be established.”
Shuji:
“This refutes Bhāviveka and others who claim that dependent and perfected are empty even in ultimate truth... If one says dependent and perfected are entirely nonexistent, this is evil grasping of emptiness... Since dependent and perfected are denied, the imagined has no basis, and thus this is called slandering the three characteristics. Denying causality, one loses wisdom.”
Conclusion:
Through this passage Yogācāra establishes the Middle Way of Consciousness-Only:
The imagined nature is indeed empty, but the karmic transformations of ālayavijñāna (dependent nature) and absolute suchness (perfected nature) are definitively real. To deny the functional reality of the dependent nature is to commit nihilistic emptiness and destroy the basis of karmic causality.
General Synthesis
These three profound passages of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra form the doctrinal foundation of the three great teachings of the Cheng Weishi Lun:
1. Establishing the Middle Way of the Three Natures:
The dependent nature (consciousness itself) is not unreal illusion; it is called “without self-nature” only because it is not ultimate truth, never because it is sheer nothingness.
2. Establishing the Five Distinct Lineages:
Buddhahood requires innate Mahāyāna uncontaminated seeds in the foundational consciousness. Determinate two-vehicle beings lack this direct cause and therefore never attain Buddhahood.
3. Refuting Nihilistic Emptiness:
False appearances can arise only on the basis of real foundations (dependent and perfected natures). To deconstruct all dharmas excessively and deny consciousness altogether inevitably results in the loss of wisdom.