The Doctrine of the Two Entrances and Four Practices and the Yogācāra Understanding of the Two Truths

Verse

The Two Entrances mark the essence of mind;
The Four Practices gather the gates of practice.
Though true nature is equally revealed,
It is obscured by the delusion of adventitious dust.

The Two Truths disclose degrees of depth and shallowness;
The Five Contemplations dispel the dust of attachment.
Though Chan and Yogācāra follow different tracks,
They return alike to truth free from grasping.

Treatise

Although there are many gates for entering the Way, in brief they do not go beyond awakening to principle and cultivating practice. Bodhidharma’s Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices establishes “Entrance through Principle” and “Entrance through Practice” as its framework. Entrance through Principle means relying on the teaching to awaken to the source, deeply trusting that all beings share one true nature, though it is obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts. Entrance through Practice gathers all cultivation into four practices: enduring karmic retribution, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing, and acting in accordance with Dharma. This is an essential teaching of early Chan concerning the pacification of mind and the arousing of practice.

In the Yogācāra tradition of Dharma-character, Master Kuiji extensively unfolded the fourfold Two Truths, dividing both the conventional and the ultimate into four levels. Through the sequence of name and thing, phenomena and principle, depth and shallowness, expression and purport, he revealed how truth and convention are neither identical nor separate. He also established the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only: dismissing the false and preserving the real, abandoning the mixed and retaining the pure, gathering the derivative and returning to the root, concealing the inferior and revealing the superior, and dismissing appearances to realize nature. Through these successive discernments of dharmas, one finally realizes the perfected nature.

Now, viewed according to Yogācāra meaning, although the Two Entrances and Four Practices does not explicitly establish the eight consciousnesses, the four divisions, the hundred dharmas, or the three natures, its purport is by no means unconnected with Yogācāra. Why? Because its themes of abandoning delusion and returning to truth, leaving marks and acting in accordance with Dharma, and encountering conditions without attachment, all accord with the meaning of dismissing the imagined nature, understanding the dependent nature, and realizing the perfected nature.

I. On the Relation between the Two Entrances and the Three Natures

What is Entrance through Principle? It means relying on the teaching to awaken to the source and realizing that all beings share one true nature. Here, “one true nature,” if interpreted through Yogācāra, may be understood as close to the perfected nature. “Obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts” may be understood as close to the deluded discrimination arising from the imagined nature. “Abandoning delusion and returning to truth” means dismissing the false and turning toward the real. Entrance through Principle in the Two Entrances and Four Practices emphasizes “abiding firmly in wall contemplation, without self or other, ordinary and sage equal.” Its purpose is to leave behind distinctions of grasper and grasped, self and other, ordinary and sage, and to merge silently with principle.

Yet Yogācāra masters do not merely speak of leaving discrimination; they also clarify what gives rise to discrimination. Therefore, Kuiji’s Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only first dismisses the falsity of the imagined nature while preserving the reality of dependent arising and perfected reality. Then, through successive discernment of mind and object, essence and function, mind-king and mental factors, phenomena and principle, one reaches the dismissal of appearances and the realization of nature.

Thus, from this perspective, Chan’s Entrance through Principle tends toward directly pointing back to the source, while Yogācāra’s Five Contemplations tend toward analytical entry into principle. Chan speaks of “abiding firmly in wall contemplation”; Yogācāra speaks of “dismissing appearances to realize nature.” Though the words differ, their purport may be mutually understood. The former emphasizes direct contemplation; the latter emphasizes gradual sequence. The former takes pacifying the mind as primary; the latter takes discernment as essential.

II. On the Four Practices and Dependent Arising

What is Entrance through Practice? It consists of four practices: enduring karmic retribution, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing, and acting in accordance with Dharma. All four are cultivated amid everyday circumstances. When suffering arrives and one does not resent it, this is the practice of enduring karmic retribution. When joy arrives and one does not cling to it, this is the practice of adapting to conditions. When one does not give rise to craving toward objects of desire, this is the practice of seeking nothing. When one practices the six perfections without marks in accordance with the principle of pure nature, this is the practice of acting in accordance with Dharma.

Viewed through Yogācāra, the practices of enduring karmic retribution and adapting to conditions directly reveal the dependent nature. The suffering and joy of beings arise in dependence upon karmic conditions. Gain and loss, honor and disgrace, appear temporarily through causes and conditions. If one falsely clings to a real self and real dharmas upon dependent phenomena, this becomes the imagined nature. If one understands dependent arising as illusory, arising and ceasing through conditions, one can avoid resentment and delight. Thus the practice of enduring karmic retribution breaks anger, while the practice of adapting to conditions breaks craving. Both prevent the practitioner from giving rise to substantial attachment toward circumstances.

The practice of seeking nothing is especially close to dismissing the imagined nature. Ordinary people crave and cling everywhere; this is called seeking. The wise understand that all existence is empty and therefore put an end to conceptual seeking. The Two Entrances and Four Practices says, “All seeking is suffering; to seek nothing is bliss.” This does not mean that practitioners abandon all action. Rather, it means they do not chase objects with a mind of craving.

The practice of acting in accordance with Dharma is closest to Yogācāra’s “dismissing appearances to realize nature.” Practicing the six perfections while having no practice to grasp, benefiting beings while not grasping the mark of beings—this means not falling into imagined marks within dependent practices, but giving rise to markless wondrous activity based on the principle of the perfected nature. This may mutually illuminate the final stage of the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only, namely dismissing the appearances and functions of dependent arising and realizing the perfected nature.

III. Judging Its Depth through the Fourfold Two Truths

Question: If the Two Entrances and Four Practices already reveals true nature, why is it necessary to judge it by means of the fourfold Two Truths?

Answer: Not so. Chan language is concise, while Yogācāra doctrine is detailed. Concise language is easy to enter; detailed doctrine is easy to discern. If one merely speaks of true nature, people may grasp it as a real entity. If one merely speaks of seeking nothing, people may fall into abandoning practice. Therefore it is necessary to distinguish by means of the Two Truths, so that one understands that truth and convention are not separate.

Within the fourfold Two Truths, the first level is the Two Truths of name and thing, distinguishing between what has name but no reality and what appears through essence and function. The second level is the Two Truths of phenomena and principle, distinguishing phenomena such as aggregates and sense-fields from principles such as the Four Noble Truths. The third level is the Two Truths of depth and shallowness, distinguishing provisional establishment from revealing reality through a gate. The fourth level is the Two Truths of expression and purport, distinguishing provisional naming and non-establishment from abandoning expression and directly discussing purport. The final ultimate of ultimates is wondrous in essence, beyond language, and inwardly realized by noble wisdom.

Viewed in this light, the phrase “relying on the teaching to awaken to the source” in Entrance through Principle belongs to revealing principle through expression. “No longer following words and teachings” is close to abandoning expression and directly realizing purport. Among the Four Practices, enduring karmic retribution, adapting to conditions, and seeking nothing are still cultivated within conventional dependent arising. Acting in accordance with Dharma enters truth through convention and gives rise to practice based on truth. Therefore, although the Two Entrances and Four Practices does not explicitly list the fourfold Two Truths, its movement proceeds from conventional cultivation toward inward realization of ultimate truth.

IV. Harmonizing while Distinguishing

Some say: Bodhidharma’s Chan and Yogācāra doctrine are different and should not be forcibly harmonized.

I say: They cannot be regarded as entirely the same, nor can they be regarded as entirely different. They cannot be entirely the same because Chan does not establish elaborate Dharma-character categories, does not discuss the eight consciousnesses and four divisions in detail, and does not use the hundred dharmas and three natures as an explicit framework. Yogācāra, by contrast, emphasizes the establishment of names and marks, doctrinal classification, and stages of contemplative practice. Yet they cannot be entirely different because both break attachment to self and dharmas, both reveal that deluded thoughts obscure truth, and both take leaving discrimination and realizing reality as their final aim.

The strength of the Two Entrances and Four Practices lies in its simplicity and directness. It places practice directly amid suffering and joy, gain and loss, making practitioners contemplate the mind in the very presence of circumstances. The strength of Kuiji’s Yogācāra lies in precision. It can distinguish what is imagined falsity, what is dependent arising, and what is perfected reality, thereby preventing practitioners from falling into eternalism or annihilationism, existence or non-existence.

Thus, if one clings only to Chan and abandons Yogācāra, one may become direct but lack discernment. If one clings only to Yogācāra and abandons Chan, one may become dense in terminology but fail to touch body and mind. A good student should use Yogācāra to clarify the doctrinal path and Chan contemplation to spur actual practice.

V. Concluding Evaluation

Therefore one should know:

1. The Two Entrances and Four Practices uses “Entrance through Principle” to reveal inherent true nature and “Entrance through Practice” to reveal daily cultivation. Its essence lies in pacifying the mind, leaving marks, adapting to conditions, and seeking nothing.
2. The fourfold Two Truths can distinguish the depth and shallowness of truth and convention, enabling one to understand that verbal teachings and conceptual establishments are not ultimate, yet one cannot seek awakening apart from them.
3. The Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only clarifies the sequence of dismissing attachment, leading one from breaking the imagined nature, understanding the dependent nature, and finally realizing the perfected nature.
4. Though these three arise from different traditions, all return to abandoning delusion and revealing truth, transforming consciousness into wisdom, leaving attachment, and realizing principle.

Thus the verse says:

Chan values direct entry;
Yogācāra values precision and detail.
Direct entry guards against empty quietism;
Precision guards against vagueness.
If both can be used together,
Principle and phenomena mutually shine.
When meeting conditions, the mind abides nowhere;
Acting in accordance with Dharma is true constancy.

A Reflective Commentary on the Fourfold Two Truths

Verse

Though the Two Truths are one in meaning,
Their depth and shallowness differ.
Name and thing are first distinguished;
Phenomena and principle follow next.
Depth and shallowness open cultivation and realization;
Expression and purport reveal the true source.
From convention one gradually enters the ultimate;
By abandoning expression, one accords with the Middle.

Treatise

The Buddhas teach the Dharma through the gate of the Two Truths. Relying on convention, they establish names and words; relying on the ultimate, they reveal real principle. Yet convention and ultimate are not each of a single fixed form. According to capacities and degrees of depth, their meanings differ. Therefore Master Kuiji of Ci’en, relying on Yogācāra Dharma-character, opened the Two Truths into four levels: name and thing, phenomena and principle, depth and shallowness, expression and purport. This means that four kinds of convention and four kinds of ultimate are paired to form the fourfold Two Truths.

The four kinds of convention are: worldly convention, rational convention, convention of realization, and ultimate convention. The four kinds of ultimate are: worldly ultimate, rational ultimate, ultimate of realization, and ultimate of ultimates. When the earlier is compared with the later, the shallower is called convention and the deeper is called truth. When the later is compared with the earlier, the superior is called ultimate and the inferior is called worldly. Therefore one should know that the Two Truths are not two fixed dharmas. They are established according to the depth of wisdom and object, the presence or absence of verbal expression, and differences in provisional designation.

I. The First Level: The Two Truths of Name and Thing

Verse

The world abounds in provisional names;
Names exist, but real substance does not.
Though aggregates and sense-fields are not self,
Essence and function provisionally support each other.

Treatise

The first level of the Two Truths pairs worldly conventional truth with worldly ultimate truth and is called the Two Truths of name and thing.

What is worldly conventional truth? It refers to ordinary beings’ conceptual construction based on emotion and imagination. Upon the temporary conjunction of the five aggregates, they provisionally establish self, person, sentient being, and life-span. Upon the temporary conjunction of conditions, they provisionally establish names such as jar, garment, cart, army, and forest. These have only provisional names and no real substance. They conceal true principle and exist according to worldly sentiment. Thus they are called worldly convention. This may also be called “truth of having name but no reality.”

What is worldly ultimate truth? It refers to dharmas such as the five aggregates, twelve sense-fields, and eighteen elements. Although they are not ultimately real, compared with provisional names such as self, person, jar, and cart, they still have distinctions of essence and function and can be known by noble wisdom. Thus they are called worldly ultimate. This ultimate is only superior to the first convention and is not the ultimate in the final sense.

Question: If the five aggregates, sense-fields, and elements are also conditioned and impermanent, how can they be called ultimate?

Answer: The “ultimate” here does not mean the ultimately ineffable suchness. It is called ultimate only in relation to the first level of provisional naming. Self, person, jar, and cart are only provisionally established and have no distinct self-substance. Aggregates, sense-fields, and elements can still be analyzed according to phenomenal characteristics and possess causal essence and function. Therefore they are superior to the first convention. Because superiority and inferiority are relative, they are called ultimate.

Thus one should know that the first level of the Two Truths aims to break the coarse attachment to names held by ordinary beings, making them understand that provisional names are not real, while preventing them from falling into nihilistic emptiness. This is the gate of “breaking name and establishing thing.”

II. The Second Level: The Two Truths of Phenomena and Principle

Verse

Aggregates and sense-fields differ according to phenomena;
The Four Noble Truths reveal principle universally.
Through phenomena one may know principle;
The meaning of cause and result is inexhaustible.

Treatise

The second level of the Two Truths pairs rational conventional truth with rational ultimate truth and is called the Two Truths of phenomena and principle.

What is rational conventional truth? It refers to the Buddha’s establishment of Dharma-character categories according to the differences among dharmas, such as the five aggregates, twelve sense-fields, eighteen elements, and hundred dharmas. This enables practitioners to understand that body, mind, and world are not one real self, but a conjunction of many dharmas, each with its own distinction. Although these are established according to Buddhist reasoning, they still belong to differentiated phenomenal marks, with names and forms. Thus they are called rational convention.

What is rational ultimate truth? It refers to the Four Noble Truths—suffering, arising, cessation, and path—as well as distinctions of knowing, abandoning, realizing, and cultivating, and the causal differences of defilement and purity. These are objects of the noble one’s undefiled wisdom and enable practitioners to know suffering, abandon its arising, realize cessation, and cultivate the path. Therefore they are superior to the preceding classification of phenomena and are called rational ultimate.

Question: If the Four Noble Truths are also verbal teachings and provisional establishments, why are they called ultimate?

Answer: Although they are established provisionally, they express the causal structure of defilement and purity and the sequence of cultivation and realization. They are not merely analyses of aggregates, sense-fields, and elements. Through them one can abandon delusion, realize truth, and proceed toward liberation. Therefore they are superior to rational convention.

Thus one should know that the second level of the Two Truths aims to enter principle through phenomena. The first level breaks names and establishes things; the second level relies on things to clarify principle. If one only knows aggregates, sense-fields, and elements but does not know suffering, arising, cessation, and path, one may break self-clinging but not necessarily proceed toward realization. If one understands the causality of the Four Noble Truths, one can enter cultivation through Dharma-character.

III. The Third Level: The Two Truths of Depth and Shallowness

Verse

Skillful means open cultivation and realization;
Provisional establishment becomes the gate of entry.
Relying on emptiness, real principle is revealed;
The two graspings gradually leave no trace.

Treatise

The third level of the Two Truths pairs conventional truth of realization with ultimate truth of realization and is called the Two Truths of depth and shallowness.

What is conventional truth of realization? It refers to the Buddha’s provisional establishment of stages such as knowing, abandoning, realizing, and cultivating in order to lead beings into realization. He reveals defiled and pure causality, distinctions between ordinary and noble beings, and stages of cultivation. These enable practitioners to proceed toward realization and are therefore called “realization.” Yet they still involve what can be known, what can be cultivated, and what can be realized. Therefore they are called conventional.

What is ultimate truth of realization? It refers to twofold emptiness and suchness revealed by noble wisdom through the verbal gate of emptiness. Through contemplating the emptiness of self, one reveals the suchness disclosed by self-emptiness. Through contemplating the emptiness of dharmas, one reveals the suchness disclosed by dharma-emptiness. This is not merely a matter of describing skillful means for cultivation and realization; it reveals real principle through a skillful gate. Therefore it is called ultimate truth of realization.

Question: Since twofold emptiness and suchness have already been spoken of, why is this still not the ultimate in the final sense?

Answer: Because it is still revealed through the “gate of emptiness.” Wherever there is a gate relied upon, there remains a skillful expression. Although this is superior to marked cultivation and realization, it has not yet left behind the marks associated with verbal expression. Therefore it is called ultimate, but not the ultimate of ultimates.

Within these Two Truths of depth and shallowness, the meaning of Yogācāra cultivation is especially clear. Why? Yogācāra teaches that to enter reality, one must first dismiss the imagined nature, understand the dependent nature, and only then realize the perfected nature. In the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only, the first four levels mostly contemplate the principle of consciousness-only through dependent consciousness-appearances. The fifth level dismisses appearances and realizes nature, thereby realizing the perfected nature.

Thus one should know that the third level of the Two Truths aims, through skillful cultivation and realization, to enter twofold emptiness and suchness. Without provisional establishment, ordinary beings have no way to enter the path. If one clings to provisional means as real, one again falls into Dharma-attachment. Therefore one must rely on skillful means without abiding in them.

IV. The Fourth Level: The Two Truths of Expression and Purport

Verse

The ultimate still relies on expression;
Names and words have not yet left their source.
Abandoning words, one directly realizes the purport;
Noble wisdom becomes perfectly unobstructed.

Treatise

The fourth level of the Two Truths pairs ultimate conventional truth with ultimate ultimate truth and is called the Two Truths of expression and purport.

What is ultimate conventional truth? It refers to such doctrines as twofold emptiness and suchness, the perfected nature, and the real nature of consciousness-only. Although these are wondrous dharmas known by noble ones, when they are provisionally established through names and revealed through words, they are still not the ineffable self-realized essence. Therefore they are called ultimate convention. Here, the ultimate is what is expressed, while language is what expresses. What is expressed is superior, but the expressing medium remains conventional.

What is ultimate ultimate truth? It refers to suchness and real nature, wondrous in essence and beyond language, transcending all conceptual proliferation. It is neither existent nor non-existent, neither one nor many, and is beyond the measurement of ordinary discrimination. It is inwardly realized only by noble wisdom. It is superior to all conventions and also superior to the preceding three ultimates. Therefore it is called the ultimate of ultimates.

Question: If it is beyond words and marks, why speak of “ultimate ultimate”?

Answer: It is provisionally named in order to dismiss attachment. If it were not spoken of, beings would have no way to know that there is an ineffable real principle. If one clings to what is spoken, one contradicts the ineffable. Therefore it is spoken without attachment to speech, expressed so that expression may be abandoned. This is like pointing at the moon: the finger is not the moon, but through the finger one sees the moon, and upon seeing the moon one forgets the finger.

Some say: If the ultimate of ultimates is beyond words and marks, then all the preceding Two Truths should be discarded.

Refutation: Not so. Without the preceding conventions, there would be no way to guide ordinary beings into sagehood. Without the preceding three ultimates, there would be no way gradually to dismiss coarse and subtle Dharma-attachments. Therefore the earlier levels are skillful means for the later, and the later levels are the destination of the earlier. Relying on convention, one enters truth; truth does not depart from convention. Through expression one realizes purport; purport does not remain stuck in expression. Therefore one should not destroy the previous skillful means, nor cling to them.

Thus one should know that the fourth level of the Two Truths aims to enter purport through expression and reveal the ineffable through names and words. At this point the meaning of the Two Truths reaches its culmination. The path of language is cut off; the activity of mind ceases. This is not that there is nothing realized; rather, it is realization of the principle beyond speech.

V. General Explanation of the Fourfold Sequence

Verse

First, attachment to names is broken;
Next, the gate of phenomena and principle is clarified.
Third, one enters through cultivation and realization;
Fourth, expression is abandoned and truth is met.
Though shallow and deep differ,
Truth and convention are not separated.
If understood in this way,
The principle of Yogācāra is heard.

Treatise

These fourfold Two Truths are not spoken as separate and scattered categories; they are sequentially related.

The first level, the Two Truths of name and thing, breaks attachment to the reality of worldly provisional names, making one understand that self, person, jar, cart, and the like have only provisional names and no real self-substance, while dependently arisen phenomena such as aggregates, sense-fields, and elements may be relatively established. This is the gate of breaking coarse attachment.

The second level, the Two Truths of phenomena and principle, relies on the phenomena of aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, and further clarifies the causality of the Four Noble Truths, cultivation, abandonment, realization, and attainment. This is the gate of entering principle through phenomena.

The third level, the Two Truths of depth and shallowness, relies on skillful means of cultivation and realization to reveal twofold emptiness and suchness, so that practitioners do not remain stuck in marked cultivation but can enter reality through the gate of emptiness. This is the gate of revealing reality through a gate.

The fourth level, the Two Truths of expression and purport, recognizes that even speaking of suchness and the perfected nature remains verbal expression and provisional designation. Ultimately one must abandon expression and discuss purport, inwardly realized by noble wisdom. This is the gate of realizing reality beyond words.

Therefore one should know that the establishment of the fourfold Two Truths is neither mere terminology nor purely doctrinal classification. It is truly a ladder for practitioners to move from ordinary beings to noble wisdom, from name to thing, from thing to principle, and from expression to purport. If students merely cling to the names, they fall into Dharma-attachment. If they skillfully understand the meaning, they can use names to dismiss names and rely on expression to forget expression.

VI. Harmonizing with the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only

Verse

The Two Truths distinguish truth and convention;
The Five Contemplations dismiss deluded attachment.
One enters through verbal teaching;
One clarifies within consciousness.
Dismissing the false and preserving the real,
Dismissing appearances, one realizes nature.
Though the two gates speak differently,
They share the perfected realm as their aim.

Treatise

The fourfold Two Truths mainly clarify the depth and shallowness of truth and convention. The Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only mainly clarifies the sequence of contemplative practice. The five are: dismissing the false and preserving the real consciousness-only; abandoning the mixed and retaining the pure consciousness-only; gathering the derivative and returning to the root consciousness-only; concealing the inferior and revealing the superior consciousness-only; and dismissing appearances to realize nature consciousness-only. These five are established according to the three natures. First one dismisses the falsity of the imagined nature and preserves the reality of the dependent and perfected natures. Then, through successive discernment of mind and object, essence and function, mind-king and mental factors, phenomena and principle, one finally dismisses the appearances and functions of dependent arising and realizes the perfected nature.

When the fourfold Two Truths are compared with the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only, their meanings may be mutually related. The first level of the Two Truths breaks attachment to the reality of provisional names and is close to dismissing the false and preserving the real. The second level enters principle through phenomena and may assist the contemplations of abandoning the mixed and retaining the pure, and gathering the derivative and returning to the root. The third level reveals twofold emptiness and suchness through skillful cultivation and realization, and may assist concealing the inferior and revealing the superior. The fourth level enters purport through expression and accords most closely with dismissing appearances to realize nature. However, this is only a skillful correspondence in meaning; it does not mean the two have identical names or structures. The fourfold Two Truths are a gate of doctrinal classification, while the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only is a gate of contemplative practice.

Therefore, those who skillfully study Yogācāra should use the fourfold Two Truths to distinguish the depth of truth and convention, and use the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only to dismiss deluded grasping toward mind and object. Once truth and convention are clarified, one does not fall into emptiness or existence. Once contemplative practice is established, one does not remain stuck in names and words.

VII. Harmonizing with the Two Entrances and Four Practices

Verse

Entrance through Principle awakens through teaching;
Entrance through Practice cultivates according to conditions.
Enduring retribution removes anger;
Adapting to conditions calms deluded seeking.
Acting in accord with Dharma is markless;
Wall contemplation accords with the true stream.
If judged through the Two Truths,
One enters profundity through convention.

Treatise

The Two Entrances and Four Practices establishes Entrance through Principle and Entrance through Practice. Entrance through Principle means relying on the teaching to awaken to the source, deeply trusting that all beings share one true nature, though obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts. If one abandons delusion and returns to truth, abides firmly in wall contemplation, without self or other, ordinary and sage equal, one silently accords with principle. Entrance through Practice refers to the four practices: enduring karmic retribution, adapting to conditions, seeking nothing, and acting in accordance with Dharma.

If judged by the fourfold Two Truths, the initial phrase in Entrance through Principle, “relying on the teaching to awaken to the source,” means revealing purport through expression. The later phrase, “no longer following words and teachings,” means abandoning expression and realizing principle. This is close to the fourth level, the Two Truths of expression and purport. The practices of enduring karmic retribution and adapting to conditions clarify that suffering and joy, gain and loss, all arise from karmic conditions; they are close to conventional dependent arising and rational causality. The practice of seeking nothing contemplates all existence as empty and does not follow craving; it is close to entering the ultimate through the conventional. The practice of acting in accordance with Dharma practices the six perfections without grasping marks, based on the principle of pure nature; it is close to giving rise to markless wondrous practice based on twofold emptiness and suchness.

However, the Two Entrances and Four Practices does not analyze the fourfold Two Truths in detail, nor does it establish the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only. Its meaning is concise and direct, valuing pacification of mind. Kuiji’s Dharma-character teaching is doctrinally detailed, valuing discernment. Concision enables practitioners to practice immediately; precision prevents practitioners from falling into wrong understanding. The two complement each other and are not contradictory.

VIII. Conclusion

Verse

The four levels open the Two Truths;
Layer by layer they dismiss attachment.
Name and thing first remove self;
Phenomena and principle next clarify causes.
Depth and shallowness connect cultivation and realization;
Expression and purport enter the nameless.
If one knows the purport beyond words,
The nature of consciousness-only is perfected.

Treatise

Therefore one should know: Kuiji’s fourfold Two Truths do not merely distinguish terms and marks. They are truly a skillful means by which ordinary views enter noble wisdom. First, the Two Truths of name and thing break attachment to provisional names. Next, the Two Truths of phenomena and principle clarify the principle of cultivation and realization. Third, the Two Truths of depth and shallowness lead one into twofold emptiness and suchness. Fourth, the Two Truths of expression and purport cause one to abandon expression and inwardly realize.

If one clings only to convention, one falls into ordinary emotion. If one clings only to ultimate terminology, that too becomes Dharma-attachment. Therefore one must rely on convention to enter truth and use expression to realize purport. Once the purport is realized, one does not destroy convention yet does not abide in convention; one does not depart from the ultimate yet does not cling to the ultimate.

Thus the essence of the fourfold Two Truths may be summarized as follows:

Take convention as skillful means and the ultimate as destination.
Take verbal expression as a bridge and the ineffable as real realization.
Break attachment through layered distinctions,
And complete realization by abandoning expression and realizing purport.

This is the middle way revealed by Yogācāra Dharma-character through the gate of the Two Truths.

General Summary

In summary, the purpose of Kuiji’s fourfold Two Truths is not to multiply distinctions of names and marks. Rather, through layered discernment, they guide ordinary beings from coarse attachment into subtle contemplation, and from convention toward the ultimate. The first level, the Two Truths of name and thing, breaks attachment to the reality of worldly provisional names, making one understand that self, person, jar, cart, and the like are all established according to emotional construction. The second level, the Two Truths of phenomena and principle, opens the causality of the Four Noble Truths based on phenomena such as aggregates and sense-fields, enabling practitioners to know cultivation, abandonment, realization, and attainment through analysis of dharmas. The third level, the Two Truths of depth and shallowness, reveals twofold emptiness and suchness through provisional establishment, preventing cultivation and realization from remaining stuck in marked Dharma-gates. The fourth level, the Two Truths of expression and purport, clarifies that even ultimate terms such as suchness, perfected nature, and consciousness-only nature remain expressions. One must use expression to realize purport and abandon expression to realize reality; only then is it the ultimate of ultimates.

Compared with the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only, the fourfold Two Truths mainly judge the depth and shallowness of truth and convention, while the Fivefold Contemplation mainly clarifies the sequence of contemplative practice. The former prevents students from confusing convention and ultimate; the latter guides practitioners step by step through dismissing the false, abandoning the mixed, gathering the derivative, revealing the superior, and realizing nature. Compared with the Two Entrances and Four Practices, Bodhidharma’s teaching is simple, direct, and concise, valuing pacification of mind amid circumstances and non-attachment according to conditions. Kuiji’s teaching is precise and careful, valuing discernment of names and marks and the removal of mistaken attachments. Although their traditions differ, both take abandoning delusion and revealing truth, leaving attachment and realizing principle, as their shared destination.

Therefore one should know: without relying on convention, there is no way to establish cultivation. If one clings to convention, one cannot enter the ultimate. Without relying on verbal expression, there is no way to point to suchness. If one remains stuck in verbal expression, one remains forever separated from ineffable real nature. A good student should discern the nameless purport within names and marks, see ultimate principle within convention, leave the grasping of subject and object within cultivation, and complete real realization in the place beyond words. In this way, although the fourfold Two Truths, the Fivefold Contemplation of Consciousness-only, and the Two Entrances and Four Practices differ in expansion and contraction, all may be brought back to one meaning: relying on skillful means without abiding in skillful means, entering the ultimate without destroying convention, dismissing deluded marks and realizing real nature, and completing the Yogācāra middle way within all circumstances.

A Yogācāra Judgment on Original Awakening and True Mind

Verse

If original awakening is spoken of as mind,
Its meanings must be carefully distinguished.
Suchness is called real nature;
It is not the karma of arising-and-ceasing consciousness.
The storehouse consciousness holds all seeds
And is classified as unobscured and indeterminate, as resultant maturation.
If one clings to it as a permanent ruler,
It becomes attachment to self and dharmas.

Treatise

The expression “original awakening and true mind” found in various treatises has different meanings. According to the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, one mind opens into two gates: the gate of mind as suchness and the gate of mind as arising and ceasing. It also says, “Based on this Dharma-body, it is called original awakening.” Original awakening is established in contrast to initial awakening; when initial awakening is perfected, it is identical with original awakening. This is the doctrine of Tathāgatagarbha dependent arising and true mind as original awakening.

However, in the Dharma-character Yogācāra transmitted by Xuanzang and Kuiji, “original awakening and true mind” is not used as a central positive category. Instead, the system establishes the causal sequence of defilement and purity, cultivation and realization, through the eight consciousnesses, three natures, three non-natures, twofold emptiness, suchness, perfected nature, and transformation of basis. The Cheng Weishi Lun clearly says, “The ultimate of these dharmas is also suchness; because it is always such as it is, it is the real nature of consciousness-only.” This establishes the highest reality as suchness and the real nature of consciousness-only.

Therefore one should know: when speaking of “true mind,” one cannot speak indiscriminately. If it means suchness disclosed by twofold emptiness, the perfected nature, then Yogācāra permits it. If it means that ālaya-consciousness is the ultimate true mind, this is not the correct meaning. If one clings to a single permanent ruling mind that can generate all dharmas, one falls into attachment to self and dharmas.

I. True Mind Is Not an Entity Apart from the Three Natures

Verse

The imagined nature has no substance;
The dependent arises provisionally.
The perfected is free from deluded grasping;
This is called Yogācāra truth.

Treatise

Yogācāra establishes the three natures: the imagined nature, the dependent nature, and the perfected nature. The imagined nature means falsely clinging to real self and real dharmas upon dependent phenomena; its substance is ultimately non-existent. The dependent nature means consciousnesses and mental factors arising from conditions, existing like illusions. The perfected nature means the real nature of all dharmas revealed by twofold emptiness, in which the imagined self and dharmas are always absent upon the dependent nature.

If someone speaks of “true mind,” one should examine what is meant. If it refers to the perfected nature, namely the ultimate of dharmas, suchness, and the real nature of consciousness-only, it does not contradict Yogācāra. The Cheng Weishi Lun says of suchness: “True means real, showing that it is not false; such means always thus, indicating non-change.” Therefore suchness is the real nature of dharmas, not false discrimination.

If, however, one claims that apart from the three natures there is a permanent ruling mind that acts, receives, and gives rise to all dharmas, this is not the correct Yogācāra meaning. Why? The Cheng Weishi Lun opens by refuting real self and real dharmas. It states that the selves and dharmas spoken of in worldly and sacred teachings are all provisionally established and are not truly existent. The appearances of self and dharmas are provisionally designated based on transformations of consciousness.

Therefore, the “true mind” accepted by Yogācāra should be understood as the perfected nature. One must not establish, outside the dependent consciousnesses, a separate substantial true self.

II. Ālaya-Consciousness Is Not the Ultimate True Mind

Verse

The storehouse consciousness holds seeds;
It constantly turns like a waterfall.
Its nature is unobscured and indeterminate;
It is not pure, nor a cultivated defiled essence.

Treatise

Question: If all dharmas are consciousness-only, and ālaya-consciousness is the basis of all dharmas, why is it not called the ultimate true mind?

Answer: Although ālaya-consciousness is the first transforming consciousness, holds seeds, and serves as the basis for defiled and pure dharmas, in the stage of ordinary beings it belongs to the dependent nature, not the perfected nature. It is called ālaya because it has the meanings of active storing, being stored, and being grasped as a store. It mutually conditions defiled seeds and is grasped by the seventh consciousness, manas, as the inner self. Therefore it is called storehouse consciousness.

This consciousness is also called resultant maturation consciousness, being the maturation result of wholesome and unwholesome karma, and it sustains one lifetime’s continuity. Yet the Cheng Weishi Lun clearly says that this consciousness is “only unobscured and indeterminate, because it is resultant maturation.” If this consciousness were wholesome or defiled, then saṃsāric continuity and liberation through practice could not be established. If it could not be perfumed, then defiled and pure causes and effects could not be established.

From this one knows that ālaya-consciousness is the basis of saṃsāric continuity and liberative transformation, but not the ultimate pure true mind. At the stage of arhatship and bodhisattva transformation of basis, the name ālaya is abandoned. This does not mean the substance of consciousness is annihilated, but that its defiled meaning of being grasped as a store is abandoned and transformed into pure wisdom-function.

Therefore one should not say, “Ālaya-consciousness is original awakening and true mind.” If one clings in this way, one confuses dependent consciousness-appearance with the perfected nature and has not understood Yogācāra well.

III. Original Awakening May Be Skillfully Harmonized, but Must Not Be Substantialized

Verse

If original awakening is spoken of as nature,
Undefiled seeds are its cause.
Initial awakening is revealed through cultivation;
Ordinary beings are not already Buddha-bodies.

Treatise

Some say: All beings possess original awakening; therefore ordinary beings presently possess Buddha-wisdom, and practice merely requires recognizing the original mind.

I say: If interpreted according to the Awakening of Faith, this may be spoken of in such a way: based on original awakening there is initial awakening, and perfected initial awakening is identical with original awakening. However, according to Yogācāra of Dharmapāla, Xuanzang, and Kuiji, further distinctions must be made.

Although Yogācāra recognizes that beings have the possibility of becoming Buddhas, it explains the causal sequence through “gotra,” “undefiled seeds,” “perfuming,” and “the five stages of practice.” The Cheng Weishi Lun states that Mahāyāna gotra has two types: first, the naturally abiding gotra, meaning the beginningless undefiled Dharma-causes naturally obtained in dependence upon the root consciousness; second, the gotra formed through cultivation, meaning what is formed by hearing teachings that flow from the Dharma-realm and by subsequent perfuming through hearing and contemplation. Only when both are complete can one gradually enter consciousness-only.

Furthermore, entry into consciousness-only is briefly divided into five stages: the stage of provisions, the stage of preparation, the stage of penetration, the stage of cultivation, and the stage of ultimate attainment. In the stage of provisions, one develops deep faith and understanding. In the stage of preparation, one gradually subdues the two graspings. In the stage of penetration, one truly penetrates reality. In the stage of cultivation, one repeatedly cultivates according to the principle seen and subdues and cuts off remaining obstacles. Only in the ultimate stage does one emerge from obstruction in complete clarity.

Therefore, if Yogācāra harmonizes the idea of “original awakening,” it should be understood as beings possessing undefiled Dharma-causes and the possibility of realizing suchness. It should not be understood as ordinary beings already fully possessing the wisdom and virtues of Buddhahood without needing to cut off obstacles through cultivation. If one does not cultivate the twofold emptiness contemplation or cut off the afflictive and cognitive obstacles, but merely says “originally awakened,” one risks falling into conceited overestimation.

IV. Suchness Is the Principle Realized, Not a Self That Gives Rise to All Dharmas

Verse

Suchness is always such;
It is beyond words and beyond mind.
What realizes is called correct wisdom;
What is realized is not a causal producer.

Treatise

Question: If suchness is the real nature of consciousness-only, why not say that suchness gives rise to all dharmas?

Answer: In Yogācāra, suchness is an unconditioned dharma and the principle realized. Conditioned dharmas arise through seeds within ālaya-consciousness and through various conditions. If suchness were said to act and generate like a ruler, it would be confused with the non-Buddhist divine self. Therefore one must distinguish clearly: suchness is the real nature of dharmas, not an agent of creation.

The perfected nature is revealed by twofold emptiness; it is not something separate existing outside dharmas. The Cheng Weishi Lun says that the perfected nature is established through the absence of the imagined self and dharmas. Just as great empty space pervades forms, yet is revealed through the absence of obstruction by those forms, this analogy clarifies that suchness does not create dharmas separately. Rather, it is the reality revealed upon dependent dharmas when deluded grasping is absent.

If one says “true mind gives rise to all dharmas,” the meaning must be examined. If it means that dharmas are transformed through consciousness-seeds and their manifestations, this is acceptable. If it means that a permanent true mind produces dharmas like a creator, this is unacceptable. Yogācāra says that consciousness is the basis for the provisional objects and is also ultimately existent in a relative sense, but this consciousness remains dependently arisen and must not be grasped as a permanent unitary substance.

Therefore suchness is called real nature, not creator. Correct wisdom realizes suchness, but does not take suchness as self.

V. Harmonizing Bodhidharma’s Teaching on True Nature

Verse

True nature is obscured by dust;
Through consciousness it may be clarified.
Dismissing grasping, one returns to the perfected;
Wall contemplation subdues the two graspings.

Treatise

Bodhidharma’s Two Entrances and Four Practices says: “Deeply trust that all beings share one true nature, but it is obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts and cannot be manifest. If one abandons delusion and returns to truth, abiding firmly in wall contemplation…” This statement is close to the language of Tathāgatagarbha, Buddha-nature, and intrinsically pure mind.

If interpreted through Dharma-character Yogācāra, “one true nature” may be harmonized with suchness revealed by twofold emptiness and the perfected nature. “Obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts” may be harmonized with the imagined nature, grasper and grasped, and the afflictive and cognitive obstacles obscuring suchness. “Abandoning delusion and returning to truth” means dismissing the imagined nature and realizing the perfected upon the dependent. “Abiding firmly in wall contemplation” may be understood as the skillful practice of śamatha-vipaśyanā that subdues the two graspings and gives rise to true seeing.

However, one should know that Bodhidharma’s language is concise and direct, while Yogācāra doctrine is precise and detailed. If one takes Bodhidharma’s “true nature” and clings to it as a substantial true mind, one violates the meaning of “without self or other, ordinary and sage equal, without discrimination,” and also contradicts Yogācāra’s refutation of attachment to self and dharmas.

Thus the two traditions may be harmonized but not confused. Harmonizing means understanding true nature as the perfected nature. Not confusing means not taking ālaya-consciousness or a falsely grasped true mind as ultimate Buddha-nature.

VI. Refuting Three Misunderstandings

Verse

Clinging to mind as real self,
Mistaking consciousness for suchness,
Saying ordinary beings are already perfect Buddhas—
These three errors must all be removed.

Treatise

Furthermore, regarding “original awakening and true mind,” there are three misunderstandings that should be refuted separately.

First, clinging to original awakening as a permanent unitary ruler. This is attachment to self. Yogācāra refutes real self by showing that the imagined self is neither identical with the aggregates, nor apart from the aggregates, nor both identical and different from them. All self-grasping relies on the appearances of the five appropriated aggregates transformed by inner consciousness and falsely grasps them as self. Therefore a permanent unitary ruling mind cannot be established.

Second, mistaking ālaya-consciousness for suchness. This is attachment to dharmas. Ālaya-consciousness is dependent, conditioned, resultant maturation, unobscured and indeterminate, and capable of holding seeds and receiving perfuming. Suchness is unconditioned, perfected, and the real nature of consciousness-only. The two belong to different categories and must not be confused.

Third, saying that ordinary beings’ original awakening is already the perfect fruit of Buddhahood. This is conceited overestimation. Yogācāra establishes gradual cultivation through the five stages. One must subdue and cut off the two graspings and two obstacles, penetrate suchness, cultivate transformation of basis, and only in the ultimate stage attain great awakening. If one has not cut off obstacles but claims ultimate awakening, this is not the correct Yogācāra meaning.

Therefore the three errors must be removed: self-attachment, Dharma-attachment, and the conceit of claiming realization without realization.

VII. Summary

Verse

True mind is real nature;
Original awakening is explained as cause.
Consciousness-appearance is dependent;
Suchness becomes perfected.
Do not grasp mind as self;
Do not depart from consciousness in practice.
Through twofold emptiness one realizes transformation of basis;
This is the orthodox Yogācāra path.

Treatise

From this one should know that Yogācāra neither completely rejects “original awakening and true mind” nor accepts it according to ordinary attachment.

If “true mind” means suchness revealed by twofold emptiness, the perfected nature, and the real nature of consciousness-only, then it may be established. If “original awakening” means that beings possess undefiled Dharma-causes and the possibility of realizing suchness and attaining Buddhahood through perfuming and cultivation, it may be skillfully harmonized. But if one says ālaya-consciousness is the ultimate true mind, or that there is a permanent ruling mind that gives rise to all dharmas, it must not be accepted.

Thus the correct Yogācāra meaning may be summarized in four lines:

Suchness is real nature, not real self.
Storehouse consciousness is dependent, not perfected.
If original awakening is taken as Buddha-cause, it may be provisionally spoken of.
If one grasps it as already perfected Buddha-substance, it should be refuted by twofold emptiness.

Therefore, students wishing to harmonize Chan true mind, Tathāgatagarbha original awakening, and Dharma-character Yogācāra should judge them through the three natures, purify them through twofold emptiness, and complete them through transformation of basis. If one can dismiss imagined attachment within dependent consciousness-appearances and realize the perfected nature through contemplation of twofold emptiness, then what is called “original awakening and true mind” will not fall into divine self, nor into nihilistic emptiness, but will accord with the Yogācāra middle way.

Ci’en’s Judgment on Original Awakening

Verse

Though the name original awakening is excellent,
Its meaning must be carefully distinguished.
If understood according to suchness-principle,
It becomes the perfected nature.
If understood according to undefiled seeds,
It is the natural cause of bodhi.
If one clings to a permanent mind-substance,
It becomes attachment to self and dharmas.

Treatise

The term “original awakening” is interpreted differently by different traditions. According to the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna, one mind opens into two gates: the gate of mind as suchness and the gate of mind as arising and ceasing. It also says, “Based on this Dharma-body, it is called original awakening.” Original awakening is established in contrast to initial awakening, and perfected initial awakening is identical with original awakening. This is the meaning of original awakening as taught within the gate of Tathāgatagarbha dependent arising.

However, Ci’en Kuiji inherited the Dharma-character Yogācāra of Xuanzang and Dharmapāla. He did not take “original awakening” as the doctrinal center, but instead established the causal sequence of defilement and purity, cultivation and realization, through the eight consciousnesses, three natures, three non-natures, twofold emptiness, suchness, perfected nature, and transformation of basis. In his Commentary on the Cheng Weishi Lun, Kuiji follows the Cheng Weishi Lun in clarifying the middle way of the third-period teaching of consciousness-only, refuting attachment to truly existent external objects and also refuting the nihilistic denial of inner consciousness.

Therefore, if one wishes to harmonize “original awakening” with Ci’en’s meaning, one must first distinguish its meanings. If original awakening is spoken of as the principle realized, it is included within suchness and the perfected nature. If it is spoken of as the cause of Buddhahood, it is included within the naturally abiding gotra and undefiled Dharma-causes. If it is grasped as a permanent ruling true mind, it is the imagined nature and should be refuted through the contemplation of twofold emptiness. The Cheng Weishi Lun clearly says, “The ultimate of these dharmas is also suchness; because it is always such as it is, it is the real nature of consciousness-only.” Thus the ultimate reality established by the Ci’en school is properly called suchness and the real nature of consciousness-only, not a separate substantial true mind.

I. If Original Awakening Is Understood as Principle, It Should Be Called the Perfected Nature

Verse

Suchness is always such;
Free from delusion, the perfected is revealed.
If one speaks of the essence of original awakening,
One should know it is what is realized.

Treatise

Question: If original awakening is the awakening-nature inherently possessed by beings, does the Ci’en school allow it?

Answer: Two meanings should be distinguished. If original awakening means suchness revealed by twofold emptiness, the real nature of dharmas, it may be provisionally allowed. Why? Yogācāra establishes three natures: the imagined nature, whose essence and marks are ultimately non-existent; the dependent nature, which arises through conditions and exists like an illusion; and the perfected nature, which is the suchness revealed by twofold emptiness upon the dependent nature when the imagined self and dharmas are absent.

This suchness is not a false dharma, nor is it an arising-and-ceasing consciousness. The treatise says, “True means real, showing it is not false; such means always thus, indicating non-change.” Therefore suchness is always such in all stages and is called the real nature of consciousness-only.

Yet suchness is the principle realized; it is not a ruling mind that acts and receives. If “original awakening” means realized suchness, then it should be included within the perfected nature. If “original awakening” means a substantial mind capable of giving rise to all dharmas, then it does not accord with Ci’en Yogācāra.

Thus one should know:

When original awakening is spoken of according to principle, it is suchness and the perfected nature;
It is not a single permanent ruling real mind.

II. If Original Awakening Is Understood as Cause, It Should Be Called the Naturally Abiding Gotra

Verse

Beginningless undefiled seeds
Naturally abide in dependence upon consciousness.
Only through hearing and perfuming do they grow;
Gradually one realizes the gate of truth.

Treatise

Question: If all beings possess original awakening, does this mean ordinary beings already possess the full wisdom and virtues of Buddhahood?

Answer: No. Although Ci’en Yogācāra teaches that beings have the possibility of Buddhahood, it does not say that ordinary beings presently possess the full virtues of Buddha-fruit. What it allows is the beginningless undefiled Dharma-cause dependent upon the root consciousness, called the naturally abiding gotra. Furthermore, through hearing teachings that flow from the Dharma-realm and through the perfuming of hearing, reflection, and cultivation, there arises the gotra formed through cultivation. Only by possessing both gotras can one gradually enter consciousness-only.

Therefore, if “original awakening” means the basis for attaining Buddhahood, it may be harmonized with the naturally abiding gotra and undefiled Dharma-causes. This is only the cause of Buddha-fruit; it is not the Buddha-fruit already manifest. If one clings to “original awakening” while abandoning hearing-perfuming, preparation, cutting off obstacles, and transformation of basis, one contradicts the Yogācāra doctrine of the five stages of practice.

Furthermore, the Cheng Weishi Lun establishes five stages for entering consciousness-only: the stage of provisions, the stage of preparation, the stage of penetration, the stage of cultivation, and the stage of ultimate attainment. In the stage of provisions, one develops deep faith and understanding. In the stage of preparation, one subdues the two graspings. In the stage of penetration, one truly penetrates reality. In the stage of cultivation, one repeatedly cultivates according to the principle seen and subdues and cuts off remaining obstacles. Only in the ultimate stage does one emerge from obstruction in complete clarity.

Thus, in Ci’en’s meaning, if original awakening is spoken of as cause, it should be understood as follows:

There is originally a cause by which Buddhahood can be attained;
It is not that one is originally already the Buddha-fruit.

III. Ālaya-Consciousness Is Not Original Awakening and True Mind

Verse

The storehouse consciousness holds all seeds;
Defilement and purity rely upon it mutually.
Its nature is unobscured and indeterminate;
It is not the luminous essence of awakening.

Treatise

Some say: The eighth ālaya-consciousness holds all seeds and is the root of all dharmas. It should therefore be original awakening and true mind.

Refutation: Not so. Although ālaya-consciousness is the first transforming consciousness, possesses the meanings of active storing, being stored, and being grasped as store, holds seeds, and serves as the basis of defiled and pure dharmas, in the stage of ordinary beings it is a conditioned dharma of the dependent nature. It is not the unconditioned suchness of the perfected nature.

The Cheng Weishi Lun clearly states that ālaya-consciousness is “only unobscured and indeterminate, because it is resultant maturation.” Kuiji’s commentary explains that if this consciousness were wholesome or defiled, saṃsāric continuity and liberation through practice could not be established. Moreover, because this consciousness serves as the basis for wholesome and defiled dharmas and can receive perfuming, it must be unobscured and indeterminate.

If ālaya-consciousness were original awakening and true mind, it should be constantly pure and constantly awakened. It should not receive perfuming, should not serve as the basis of defiled seeds, and should not be grasped by the seventh manas as the inner self. Since it has the meanings of active storing, being stored, and being grasped as store, and since it is resultant maturation consciousness, unobscured and indeterminate, it cannot be called ultimate original awakening.

Thus one should know:

Ālaya-consciousness is the basis of defilement and purity, not the ultimate awakened essence.
It is dependent consciousness-appearance, not perfected nature.

IV. Ci’en Judges Cultivation through Transformation of Basis, Not through Returning to Original Awakening as the Primary Doctrine

Verse

Initial awakening returns to original awakening—
The Awakening of Faith speaks in this way.
Ci’en clarifies transformation of basis;
When the two obstacles are exhausted, perfection is complete.

Treatise

Question: The Awakening of Faith says that initial awakening is identical with original awakening. Why does the Ci’en school not establish its doctrine on this basis?

Answer: This is a difference in doctrinal formulation. The Awakening of Faith explains delusion and awakening through the two gates of one mind. Based on original awakening it speaks of initial awakening, and perfected initial awakening is identical with original awakening.

The Ci’en Dharma-character school, however, relies on the Cheng Weishi Lun to clarify twofold emptiness, the two obstacles, and the two fruits. At the beginning of the treatise, it says that the treatise was composed to give rise to correct understanding in those confused about the twofold emptiness. By realizing twofold emptiness, one cuts off the afflictive obstacle and the cognitive obstacle. By cutting off the afflictive obstacle one realizes true liberation; by cutting off the cognitive obstacle one attains great bodhi.

Therefore Ci’en cultivation does not primarily speak of “returning to original awakening,” but takes transformation of basis as essential. Through the wisdom of twofold emptiness, one turns away from the defiled basis and obtains the pure basis. By this, the eight consciousnesses are transformed into the four wisdoms, and the two supreme fruits of bodhi and nirvāṇa are accomplished. The doctrine of the Dharma-character school likewise takes transforming consciousness into wisdom as the ultimate aim of practice.

Thus one should know:

The Awakening of Faith speaks of initial awakening coinciding with original awakening.
The Ci’en school speaks of cutting off the two obstacles through twofold emptiness and accomplishing wisdom through transformation of basis.

The two may be skillfully harmonized, but their doctrinal formulations must not be confused.

V. Original Awakening Has Three Distinct Meanings

Verse

One is principle, two is cause, three is deluded grasping;
These three gates must be distinguished and not confused.
Principle returns to the perfected; cause returns to seeds.
Deluded grasping is to be sought within the imagined.

Treatise

Furthermore, if original awakening is judged according to Ci’en’s meaning, it may be summarized in three types.

1. Original Awakening as Principle

This refers to suchness revealed by twofold emptiness, always such as it is, namely the real nature of consciousness-only. This may be included within the perfected nature. If original awakening means the principle free from delusion, the truth realized, there is no fault.

2. Original Awakening as Cause

This refers to beginningless undefiled Dharma-causes dependent upon the root consciousness, namely the naturally abiding gotra. This is the cause by which bodhi can be realized, not the already accomplished fruit of bodhi. It must await hearing-perfuming and cultivation, giving rise to the gotra formed through practice, before one can gradually enter consciousness-only.

3. Original Awakening as Deluded Grasping

This refers to ordinary beings falsely grasping, under the name “original awakening,” a permanent unitary ruling true mind that can generate all dharmas, act, and receive. This is the imagined nature and should be refuted through the contemplations of selflessness of persons and selflessness of dharmas. The Cheng Weishi Lun opens by refuting real self and real dharmas, stating that self and dharmas are only provisionally established based on transformations of consciousness and are not truly existent.

Thus the three meanings must not be confused. If deluded original awakening is mistaken for principle original awakening, one falls into eternalism. If cause original awakening is mistaken for perfect fruit awakening, one falls into conceited overestimation. If one denies the real nature of suchness altogether, one falls into misapprehended emptiness.

VI. Harmonizing with Bodhidharma’s Teaching on True Nature

Verse

True nature is obscured by dust;
Yogācāra can also explain it.
When imagined grasping is fully dismissed,
The perfected nature is complete.

Treatise

Bodhidharma’s Two Entrances and Four Practices says: “Deeply trust that all beings share one true nature, but it is obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts and cannot be manifest.” This statement is close to teachings of Tathāgatagarbha, Buddha-nature, and intrinsically pure mind.

If interpreted through Ci’en Yogācāra, “one true nature” may be harmonized with suchness revealed by twofold emptiness and the perfected nature. “Obscured by adventitious dust and deluded thoughts” may be harmonized with the imagined nature, grasper and grasped, and the afflictive and cognitive obstacles obscuring suchness. “Abandoning delusion and returning to truth” means dismissing the imagined nature and realizing the perfected nature upon the dependent.

However, Bodhidharma’s language is concise and direct, while Ci’en’s doctrine is precise and detailed. If one uses Bodhidharma’s phrase “true nature” to grasp a substantial true mind, one violates the meaning of “without self or other, ordinary and sage equal,” and also contradicts Yogācāra’s refutation of self-attachment and Dharma-attachment.

Thus the way of harmonization should be stated as follows:

Bodhidharma’s true nature, according to Ci’en meaning, may be harmonized with the perfected nature;
But it must not be grasped as a permanent real self.

VII. Summary of the Correct Meaning

Verse

If original awakening returns to principle,
It is suchness.
If original awakening returns to cause,
It is named undefiled seed.
If original awakening becomes grasping,
Twofold emptiness should break that attachment.
Ci’en’s middle-way meaning
Is completed through transformation of basis.

Treatise

Therefore one should know that Kuiji neither wholly rejects original awakening nor directly accepts it as ordinary attachment understands it. If original awakening refers to suchness-principle, it is included within the perfected nature. If it refers to the possibility of Buddhahood, it is included within the naturally abiding gotra and undefiled Dharma-causes. If it is grasped as a permanent unitary ruling substantial mind, it is included within the imagined nature and should be refuted through contemplation of twofold emptiness.

The reason the Ci’en school does not establish its doctrine around “original awakening” is to prevent students from giving rise again to Dharma-attachment toward ultimate terms such as “mind,” “awakening,” and “suchness.” Therefore it uses the three natures to clarify truth and delusion, twofold emptiness to refute self and dharmas, the five stages to show cultivation and realization, and transformation of basis to accomplish Buddhahood. This is the correct meaning of the Yogācāra middle way.

Thus it is said:

Do not destroy the skillful name of original awakening;
But block the substantialist grasping of original awakening.
Do not deny the ultimate nature of suchness;
But clarify that suchness is not a ruling self.
Do not deny the cause of Buddhahood in beings;
But one must perfume, cultivate, cut off obstacles, and transform the basis.

This is Ci’en Kuiji’s judgment on original awakening.

『二入四行と唯識二諦観義』

頌曰

二入は心要を標し、
四行は行門を摂す。
真性は同じく顕るといえども、
客塵の妄に覆われて昏し。

二諦は深浅を開き、
五観は情塵を遣る。
禅と唯識は轍を異にすれども、
同じく離執の真に帰す。

論曰

夫れ入道の門は多途ありといえども、要を言えば、理を悟ることと行を修することを出でない。達摩の『二入四行観』は「理入」と「行入」とを綱とする。理入とは、教えに藉って宗を悟り、衆生が同一の真性を有することを深く信じることである。ただしそれは客塵妄想によって覆われている。行入とは、報冤・随縁・無所求・称法の四行によって諸の修行を摂することである。これは初期禅門における安心と発行の要義である。

窺基大師は法相唯識において、四重二諦を広く開いた。すなわち世俗と勝義をそれぞれ四重に分け、名事・事理・深浅・詮旨の次第によって、真と俗が一でもなく異でもない義を示した。また五重唯識観を立てた。すなわち、遣虚存実、捨濫留純、摂末帰本、隠劣顕勝、遣相証性である。これによって諸法を層々に簡択し、ついに円成実性を証する。

いま唯識の義に依ってこれを見るならば、『二入四行観』は八識、四分、百法、三性を詳しく立ててはいないが、その義趣は唯識と相通じないわけではない。なぜか。妄を破って真に帰り、相を離れて法に称い、境に遇っても著しないことは、いずれも遍計を遣り、依他を了し、円成を証する旨を離れないからである。

一、二入と三性との相摂を明かす

理入とは何か。教えに藉って宗を悟り、諸衆生が同一の真性を有することを知ることである。ここでいう「同一真性」は、唯識義によって会通すれば、円成実性に近い。「客塵妄想に覆われる」とは、遍計所執によって起こる妄分別に近い。「妄を捨て真に帰る」とは、虚を遣って実に趣くことである。『二入四行観』の理入は「凝住壁観、無自無他、凡聖等一」を強調する。その趣旨は、能所・自他・凡聖の分別を離れ、理と冥合することにある。

しかし唯識家は、ただ分別を離れることを言うだけではない。分別が何によって起こるのかも明かさなければならない。ゆえに窺基の五重唯識観は、まず遍計所執の虚を遣り、依他と円成の実を存する。さらに心境・体用・王所・事理を展転して簡択し、ついには相を遣って性を証するに至る。

このように見るならば、禅門の理入は直ちに宗に帰することに偏り、唯識の五観は分析によって理に入ることに偏る。禅は「凝住壁観」と言い、唯識は「遣相証性」と言う。言葉は異なるが、趣旨は相通じる。前者は直観を重んじ、後者は次第を重んじる。前者は安心を先とし、後者は簡択を要とする。

二、四行と依他縁起を明かす

行入とは何か。報冤・随縁・無所求・称法の四行である。この四行はいずれも日用の境界の中で修せられる。苦が至っても怨まないのが報冤行である。楽が至っても著しないのが随縁行である。諸の欲境において貪求を起こさないのが無所求行である。性浄の理に依って六度を無相に行ずるのが称法行である。

唯識によってこれを見るならば、報冤と随縁の二行は、まさに依他起性を顕す。衆生の苦楽はみな業縁によって生じ、得失栄辱はみな因縁によって暫く現れる。もし依他の法の上に実我実法を妄執すれば、それは遍計となる。もし依他は幻の如く、縁により生じ縁により滅すると知れば、怨まず喜ばないことができる。ゆえに報冤行は瞋を破り、随縁行は貪を破る。この二つはいずれも行者が境において実執を起こさないようにする。

無所求行は、とりわけ遍計所執を遣ることに近い。世人は処々に貪著する。これを求めるという。智者は万有がみな空であることを知るので、想を止めて求めることがない。『二入四行観』に「求めるところあれば皆苦なり、求めるところなければ即ち楽なり」とある。その義は、行者に事を廃せしめるものではなく、貪著の心をもって境を追わせないことである。

称法行は、唯識の「遣相証性」の旨に最も近い。六度を行じながら行ずるところなく、衆生を利しながら衆生相を取らない。これは依他の事行の中で遍計相に落ちず、円成の理に依って無相の妙行を起こすことである。これは五重唯識観の最後に依他の相用を遣り、円成実性を証する義と、互いに発明し合うことができる。

三、四重二諦によってその深浅を判ずる

問う。もし『二入四行観』がすでに真性を明かしているなら、なぜさらに四重二諦によって判ずる必要があるのか。

答える。そうではない。禅門の言は簡にして、唯識の義は繁である。言が簡であれば入りやすく、義が繁であれば弁じやすい。ただ真性と言うだけなら、人はそれを一つの実体として執する恐れがある。ただ無求と言うだけなら、人は修行を廃することに堕する恐れがある。ゆえに二諦によって分判し、真俗が相離れないことを知らしめる必要がある。

四重二諦の中で、初重の名事二諦は、有名無実と体用の顕現を弁ずる。第二の事理二諦は、蘊処等の事と四諦等の理を弁ずる。第三の深浅二諦は、方便安立と門に依って実を顕すことを弁ずる。第四の詮旨二諦は、仮名非安立と詮を廃して旨を談ずることを弁ずる。その最後の勝義勝義諦は、体妙にして言を離れ、聖智の内証である。

これによって『二入四行観』を見ると、理入の中の「教えに藉って宗を悟る」は、詮に依って理を顕すことに属する。「さらに文教に随わない」は、詮を廃して旨を談ずることに近い。四行の中の報冤・随縁・無所求は、なお世俗縁起の中で修するものである。称法行は俗より真に入り、真に依って行を起こす。ゆえに『二入四行観』は四重二諦を明列しないとはいえ、その義勢は世俗の修行から漸く勝義の内証へ入るものと見ることができる。

四、会通しつつ異を弁ずる

ある説は言う。達摩禅と唯識宗義は異なる。強いて会通すべきではない。

今、私は言う。全く同じとは言えず、また全く異なるとも言えない。全く同じではないとは、禅門は繁密な法相を立てず、八識四分を詳しくせず、百法三性を明文の構造としないからである。唯識は名相の安立、教相の分判、観行の次第を重んじる。全く異ならないとは、二者はいずれも我法二執を破り、妄想が真を覆うことを明かし、分別を離れ真実を証することを帰趣とするからである。

『二入四行観』の勝れた点は簡切にある。それは直接、苦楽得失の中に修行を置き、行者に境に即して心を観ぜしめる。窺基唯識の勝れた点は精密にある。それは、何が遍計の虚妄であり、何が依他縁起であり、何が円成真実であるかを分別し、行者が常断・有無の二辺に堕ちないようにする。

ゆえに、もし禅門に偏って唯識を捨てれば、直截ではあるが分析に欠ける失があり得る。もし唯識に偏って禅門を捨てれば、名相が繁密で身心に切実でない病があり得る。善く学ぶ者は、唯識によってその理路を明かし、禅観によってその実践を励ますべきである。

五、結評

ゆえに知るべきである。

一、『二入四行観』は「理入」によって本具の真性を明かし、「行入」によって日用の修行を明かす。その要は安心・離相・随縁・無求にある。
二、四重二諦の義は真俗の深浅を判じることができ、人に言教の施設が究竟ではないことを知らしめ、しかも言教を離れて悟りを求めてはならないことを知らしめる。
三、五重唯識観は執を遣る次第を明かし、人を遍計を破り、依他を了し、ついに円成を証するに至らしめる。
四、三者は異なる宗風より出るといえども、いずれも妄を破り真を顕し、識を転じて智と成し、執を離れて理を証することを帰趣とする。

ゆえに頌して曰く。

禅門は直入を貴び、
唯識は精詳を重んず。
直入は空寂を防ぎ、
精詳は渺茫を防ぐ。
もし二つを双運できれば、
理と事とはともに彰われる。
境に遇って心は住せず、
法に称うことこそ真常である。

『四重二諦義述記随筆』

頌曰

二諦は唯一なれども、
浅深の義は同じからず。
名事を初めに分判し、
事理は次いで相従う。
深浅は修証を開き、
詮旨は真宗を顕す。
俗より漸く勝に入り、
詮を廃して中に契う。

論曰

諸仏の説法は二諦門に依る。すなわち世俗に依って名言を安立し、勝義に依って実理を顕す。しかし世俗と勝義はそれぞれ一相ではない。機に随い深浅に応じて、義に差別がある。ゆえに慈恩窺基大師は唯識法相に依って、これを四重二諦として開いた。一に名事二諦、二に事理二諦、三に深浅二諦、四に詮旨二諦である。これは四種の世俗と四種の勝義をそれぞれ対にして、四重二諦を成すものである。

四種世俗とは、一に世間世俗、二に道理世俗、三に証得世俗、四に勝義世俗である。四種勝義とは、一に世間勝義、二に道理勝義、三に証得勝義、四に勝義勝義である。前々を後々に望めば、浅いものを俗と名づけ、深いものを真と名づける。後々を前々に望めば、勝れたものを義と名づけ、劣ったものを世と名づける。ゆえに二諦は固定された二法ではなく、ただ智境の浅深、言詮の有無、施設の差別に依って立てられることを知るべきである。

一、第一の名事二諦を明かす

頌曰

世間には仮立多く、
名はあれど実体はなし。
蘊処は我に非ずといえども、
体用は暫く相扶ける。

論曰

第一の二諦とは、世間世俗諦と世間勝義諦を相対するものであり、名事二諦と名づける。

世間世俗諦とは何か。凡夫が情に依って計度し、五蘊和合の上に我・人・衆生・寿者を仮立し、衆縁和合の上に瓶・衣・車・軍・林などの名を仮立することである。これらはただ仮名のみあり、実体はない。真理を隠覆し、世情に随って有るので、世間世俗と名づける。これをまた「有名無実諦」と名づけることができる。

世間勝義諦とは何か。五蘊、十二処、十八界などの諸法である。これらは究竟真実ではないが、我・人・瓶・車などの仮名に対しては、なお体用の差別があり、聖智によって知られ得るので、世間勝義と名づける。この勝義はただ初の俗に勝るのみで、究竟勝義ではない。

問う。もし五蘊処界もまた有為生滅であるなら、どうして勝義と名づけることができるのか。

答える。ここでいう勝義とは究竟離言の真如をいうのではなく、ただ初重の仮名施設に望んでいうのである。かの我・人・瓶・車はただ仮名安立であり、別の自体はない。蘊処界などはなお事相に依って分析でき、因縁の体用を有するので、初俗に対して勝る。勝劣が相対するので勝義と名づける。

ゆえに第一重二諦は、凡夫の粗重な名執を破り、仮名は実ではないと知らしめ、しかも断滅空に堕ちさせないことを意図する。これは「名を破って事を立てる」門である。

二、第二の事理二諦を明かす

頌曰

蘊処は事に随って別なり、
四諦は理を通じて顕す。
事に由って理を知ることができ、
因果の義は窮まりなし。

論曰

第二の二諦とは、道理世俗諦と道理勝義諦を相対するものであり、事理二諦と名づける。

道理世俗諦とは何か。仏が諸法の差別に依って、五蘊、十二処、十八界、百法などの法相を安立し、行者に身心世界は一つの実我ではなく、多くの法が和合し、それぞれ差別を有するものだと知らしめることである。これらは仏法の道理に依って立てられるとはいえ、なお事相の差別に属し、名も相もあるので、道理世俗と名づける。

道理勝義諦とは何か。苦・集・滅・道の四諦、および知・断・証・修など、染浄因果の差別である。これらは聖者の無漏智の所縁境であり、行者に苦を知り、集を断じ、滅を証し、道を修せしめる。ゆえに前の事相分類に勝り、道理勝義と名づける。

問う。もし四諦もまた言教施設であるなら、なぜ勝義と名づけるのか。

答える。それは施設ではあるが、染浄因果と修証次第を詮出することができ、単に蘊処界の事相を分析するだけではない。これによって惑を断じ真を証し、解脱に趣くことができるので、道理世俗に対して勝る。

ゆえに第二重二諦は、事より理に入ることを意図する。初重は名を破って事を立て、第二重は事に依って理を明かす。もし蘊処界を知るのみで苦集滅道を知らなければ、我を破ることはできても、必ずしも証に趣くことはできない。もし四諦因果を知れば、法相より修道に入ることができる。

三、第三の深浅二諦を明かす

頌曰

方便は修証を開き、
安立は入門となる。
空に依って実理を顕し、
二執は漸く痕を失う。

論曰

第三の二諦とは、証得世俗諦と証得勝義諦を相対するものであり、深浅二諦と名づける。

証得世俗諦とは何か。仏が衆生を証悟に趣入させるため、知・断・証・修などの次第を施設し、染浄因果、聖凡差別、修道階位を開示することである。これらは行人を証得に趣かせるので証得と名づける。しかしなお知るべき相、修すべき法、証すべき果があるので、世俗と名づける。

証得勝義諦とは何か。聖智が言詮の空門に依って、二空真如を顕すことである。我空を観じることによって我空所顕の真如を顕し、法空を観じることによって法空所顕の真如を顕す。これは単に修証方便を説くものではなく、方便門に依って実理を顕示するものである。ゆえに証得勝義と名づける。

問う。すでに二空真如と言うのに、なぜなお究竟勝義ではないのか。

答える。それはなお「空門」に依って顕されるからである。およそ依る門があるなら、なお詮表の方便がある。有相修証に勝るとはいえ、言詮に伴う相を離れていない。ゆえに勝義と名づけるが、最後の勝義勝義ではない。

この深浅二諦の中に、唯識修道の義が最もよく顕れる。なぜか。唯識宗が真実に悟入することを説くとき、まず遍計所執を遣り、依他起性を了し、それから円成実性を証する必要があるからである。五重唯識観の中で、前四重は多く依他の識相について唯識理を観じ、第五重において相を遣って性を証し、円成実性を証する。

ゆえに第三重二諦は、方便修証によって二空真如に趣入することを意図する。もし方便安立がなければ、凡夫は道に入る術がない。もし方便を実と執すれば、また法執となる。ゆえに方便に依って方便に住してはならない。

四、第四の詮旨二諦を明かす

頌曰

勝義もなお詮に依り、
名言は宗を離れず。
言を廃して旨を親証し、
聖智は自ずから円通す。

論曰

第四の二諦とは、勝義世俗諦と勝義勝義諦を相対するものであり、詮旨二諦と名づける。

勝義世俗諦とは何か。二空真如、円成実性、唯識実性などは、勝妙の法であり聖者に知られるものである。しかし、もし仮名として安立され、言詮によって顕されるなら、なお離言自証の体ではない。ゆえに勝義世俗と名づける。これは勝義を所詮とし、言説を能詮とする。所詮は勝れているが、能詮はなお俗である。

勝義勝義諦とは何か。真如実性であり、体は妙にして言を離れ、諸の戯論を超え、非有非無、非一非異であり、凡情分別の測るところではなく、ただ聖智によって内証される。これは一切世俗に勝り、また前三勝義にも勝るので、勝義勝義と名づける。

問う。もし離言絶相であるなら、なぜさらに勝義勝義と説くのか。

答える。執を遣るために仮名として説くのである。もし説かなければ、衆生は離言の実理があることを知る由がない。もし説かれたものに執すれば、離言に乖く。ゆえに説いても説に著せず、詮して詮を廃せしめる。これは月を指す指のようなものである。指は月体ではないが、指によって月を見、月を見て指を忘れる。

ある説は言う。もし勝義勝義が離言絶相であるなら、前の諸二諦はみな捨てられるべきである。

破して曰く。そうではない。もし前の諸世俗がなければ、凡を導いて聖に入らせることはできない。もし前三勝義がなければ、粗細の法執を漸く遣ることはできない。ゆえに前々はみな後々の方便であり、後々はみな前々の帰趣である。俗に依って真に入り、真は俗を離れない。詮に因って旨を会し、旨は詮に滞らない。したがって、前の方便を毀ってはならず、また前の方便に執してもならない。

ゆえに第四重二諦は、詮より旨に入り、名言によって離言を顕すことを意図する。ここに至って二諦の義は極まる。言語道断、心行処滅である。証するところが無いのではなく、言を超えた理を証するのである。

五、四重の次第を総明する

頌曰

初めに名言の執を破り、
次に事理の門を明かす。
三には修証に依って入り、
四には詮を廃して真に契う。
浅深に別ありといえども、
真俗は相分かれず。
もしこのように解すれば、
唯識の理ここに聞かれる。

論曰

この四重二諦は、離散して説かれるものではなく、次第として相望するものである。

第一重の名事二諦は、世間の仮名実執を破り、我・人・瓶・車などはただ仮名のみあり、実自体がないことを知らしめる。一方、蘊処界などの縁起事法は相対的に立てることができる。これは粗執を破る門である。

第二重の事理二諦は、蘊処界などの事相に依って、さらに四諦因果、修断証得を明かす。これは事より理に入る門である。

第三重の深浅二諦は、修証の方便に依って二空真如を顕し、行者を有相修道に滞らせず、空門に依って実に趣かせる。これは門に依って実を顕す門である。

第四重の詮旨二諦は、たとえ真如・円成実性を言説しても、それはなお言詮施設であることを知り、最後には詮を廃して旨を談じ、聖智によって内証する。これは離言によって実を証する門である。

以上より知るべきである。四重二諦の施設は、単に名相を分別するためでもなく、また純粋に教義分類に属するものでもない。実に修行者が凡より聖に入り、名より事に入り、事より理に入り、詮より旨に入るための階梯である。学者がただその名に執すれば法執となる。もし善くその義を会すれば、名を借りて名を遣り、詮に因って詮を忘れることができる。

六、五重唯識観を会通する

頌曰

二諦は真俗を判じ、
五観は妄情を遣る。
一つは言教より入り、
一つは識中に明かす。
虚を遣って実を存し、
相を遣って性を証す。
二門は説を異にすれども、
同じく円成の境に趣く。

論曰

四重二諦は主として真俗の浅深を明かし、五重唯識観は主として観行の次第を明かす。五重とは、一に遣虚存実識、二に捨濫留純識、三に摂末帰本識、四に隠劣顕勝識、五に遣相証性識である。この五重は三性義に依って立てられる。初めに遍計所執の虚を遣り、依他と円成の実を存する。後には心境・体用・王所・事理を展転して簡択し、ついに依他の相用を遣って円成実性を証する。

四重二諦を五重唯識に望めば、義は相通じる。初重二諦は仮名実執を破るので、遣虚存実に近い。第二重は事より理に入るので、捨濫留純・摂末帰本の観を助けることができる。第三重は修証方便に依って二空真如を顕すので、隠劣顕勝を助ける。第四重は詮より旨に入るので、最も遣相証性に契う。ただしこれは義理上の方便として相配するものであり、二者の名目が全く同じであるという意味ではない。四重二諦は判教の門であり、五重唯識は観行の門である。

ゆえに唯識を善く学ぶ者は、四重二諦によって真俗の浅深を弁じ、五重唯識観によって心境の妄執を遣るべきである。真俗が明らかになれば、空有に堕ちない。観行が立てば、名言に滞らない。

七、『二入四行観』を会通する

頌曰

理入は教に藉って悟り、
行入は縁に順って修す。
報冤は瞋恚を除き、
随縁は妄求を息める。
称法は無相の行、
壁観は真流に契う。
もし二諦をもって判ずれば、
俗に依って幽に入る。

論曰

『二入四行観』は理入と行入を立てる。理入とは、教に藉って宗を悟り、含生が同一の真性を有することを深く信じることである。ただし客塵妄想に覆われている。もし妄を捨て真に帰り、凝住壁観し、無自無他、凡聖等一となれば、理と冥合する。行入とは、報冤行・随縁行・無所求行・称法行である。

四重二諦によってこれを判ずれば、理入の初めにいう「教に藉って宗を悟る」は、詮に依って旨を顕すことである。後にいう「さらに文教に随わない」は、詮を廃して理を会することである。これは第四重詮旨二諦の義に近い。報冤・随縁の二行は、苦楽得失がみな業縁によることを明かすので、世俗縁起と道理因果に近い。無所求行は、万有がみな空であると観じ、貪著に随わないので、俗より勝に入ることに近い。称法行は、性浄の理に依って六度を行じながら相を取らないので、二空真如に依って無相の妙行を起こすことに近い。

しかし『二入四行観』は四重二諦を詳しく分けず、五重唯識観も立てない。その義は簡直であり、安心を貴ぶ。窺基の法相は義理繁密であり、弁析を貴ぶ。簡直なるものは行人に当下の用功をさせ、繁密なるものは行人を邪解に落とさない。二者は互いに補い合い、相違しない。

八、結論

頌曰

四重は二諦を開き、
層々に執情を遣る。
名事は初めに我を除き、
事理は次に因を明かす。
深浅は修証に通じ、
詮旨は無名に入る。
もし言外の旨を知れば、
唯識性は円成す。

論曰

ゆえに知るべきである。窺基の四重二諦は、ただ名相を分別するものではなく、実に凡夫見より聖智見へ入るための方便である。初めに名事二諦によって仮名執を破り、次に事理二諦によって修証の理を明かし、三に深浅二諦によって二空真如へ導き、四に詮旨二諦によって詮を廃して内証せしめる。

もし世俗だけを執すれば凡情に堕ちる。もし勝義の名言だけを執しても、また法執となる。ゆえに俗に依って真に入り、詮に因って旨を会すべきである。すでに旨を会したなら、世俗を壊さずして世俗に住せず、勝義を離れずして勝義に執しない。

ゆえに四重二諦の宗は、次のように総括できる。

世俗を方便とし、勝義を帰趣とする。
言詮を津梁とし、離言を実証とする。
層々の分判によって執を破り、
詮を廃して旨を証することによって円成する。

これが唯識法相において二諦門に顕される中道義である。

総結論述

総じて言えば、窺基の四重二諦の趣旨は、名相分別を徒に増やすことではなく、層々に分判する方便によって、凡夫を粗執より細観へ、世俗より勝義へと導くことにある。初重の名事二諦は世間の仮名実執を破り、我・人・瓶・車などがみな情に依って施設されたものであることを知らしめる。第二の事理二諦は、蘊処界などの事相に依って四諦因果を開き、行者に諸法を分析することを通して修断証得を知らしめる。第三の深浅二諦は、方便安立に依って二空真如を顕し、修証が有相法門に滞らないようにする。第四の詮旨二諦は、たとえ真如・円成・唯識性などの勝義名言であっても、なお能詮施設に属することを明かし、必ず詮に因って旨を会し、詮を廃して実を証してこそ、勝義勝義となることを示す。

五重唯識観と相望すれば、四重二諦は真俗の浅深を判ずることに偏り、五重唯識は観行の次第を明かすことに偏る。前者は学人に世俗と勝義を混同させず、後者は行者に次第して虚を遣り、濫を捨て、末を摂し、勝を顕し、性を証せしめる。『二入四行観』と相望すれば、達摩の説は簡切直截であり、境に即して安心し、縁に随って無著であることを貴ぶ。窺基の説は精密詳審であり、名相を弁析し、謬執を遣除することを貴ぶ。二者は宗風を異にするといえども、同じく妄を破って真を顕し、執を離れて理を証することを帰趣とする。

ゆえに知るべきである。世俗に依らなければ、修道を施設することはできない。世俗に執着すれば、勝義に契入することはできない。言詮を藉りなければ、真如を指示することはできない。言詮に滞れば、ついに離言実性から隔てられる。善く学ぶ者は、名相の中に無名の旨を明かし、世俗の中に勝義の理を見、修行の中で能所の執を離れ、離言の処において真実の証を成就すべきである。かくのごとく、四重二諦、五重唯識、二入四行は、開合こそ異なるが、みな一つの義に会帰する。方便に依って方便に住せず、勝義に入って世俗を壊さず、妄相を遣って実性を証し、一切境の中で唯識中道を成就するのである。

『唯識、本覚真心を判ずる義』

頌曰

本覚をもし心と言うなら、
義の差別を審らかにすべし。
真如は実性と名づけられ、
生滅識の業に非ず。
蔵識は諸種を持ち、
無覆無記・異熟に摂す。
もし常住主宰と執すれば、
また我法執となる。

論曰

諸論に説かれる「本覚真心」は、義に差別がある。『大乗起信論』によれば、一心は二門を開く。すなわち心真如門と心生滅門である。また「この法身に依って本覚と名づける」と説き、本覚は始覚に対して立てられ、始覚が究竟すれば即ち本覚と同じであるという。これは如来蔵縁起、真心本覚の説である。

しかし玄奘・窺基によって伝えられた法相唯識宗は、「本覚真心」を正面の核心名目とはせず、八識・三性・三無性・二空・真如・円成実性・転依などの門によって、染浄因果と修証次第を分別して建立する。『成唯識論』は明らかに「此諸法の勝義は、また即ち真如なり。常にその性の如くなるが故に、即ち唯識実性なり」と説く。これは真如・唯識実性をもって最勝の真実を安立するものである。

ゆえに今知るべきである。「真心」と言うなら、一概に論じてはならない。二空所顕の真如・円成実性をいうなら、これは唯識の許すところである。阿頼耶識を究竟真心とするなら、これは正義ではない。一つの常一主宰の心が万法を生ずると執すれば、我法二執に堕ちる。

一、真心は三性を離れて別に実体あるものではないことを明かす

頌曰

遍計はすべて体なく、
依他は仮に生ずるあり。
円成は妄執を離れ、
これを唯識の真と名づく。

論曰

唯識宗は三自性を立てる。一に遍計所執性、二に依他起性、三に円成実性である。遍計所執とは、依他の法の上に実我実法を妄執することであり、その体は畢竟して非有である。依他起性とは、諸識および心所などが衆縁に依って生じることであり、幻のごとく有る。円成実性とは、依他起の上に常に遍計所執の我法性を遠離することであり、すなわち二空所顕の諸法実性である。

もしある人が「真心」と言うなら、その指すところを審らかにすべきである。もし円成実性、すなわち諸法勝義、真如、唯識実性を指すなら、唯識義に違わない。『成唯識論』は真如について「真とは真実をいい、虚妄でないことを顕す。如とは常の如きをいい、変易なきことを表す」と説く。ゆえに真如は諸法の実性であり、虚妄分別ではないと知るべきである。

もし三性を離れて別に一つの常住主宰心があり、能く作し、能く受け、能く万法を生ずるというなら、唯識正義ではない。なぜか。『成唯識論』は開宗において実我実法を破し、世間聖教に説く我法は、みな仮立によるもので、実有性はないと説く。我法の相は、識の所変に依って仮施設されるのである。

ゆえに唯識が許す「真心」は円成実性に会帰すべきであり、依他識の外に別に一実体の真我を立ててはならない。

二、阿頼耶識は究竟真心ではないことを明かす

頌曰

蔵識は種子を持ち、
恒に転じて瀑流に似る。
無覆無記の性、
浄にも非ず染修にも非ず。

論曰

問う。もし一切法が唯識であり、阿頼耶識が諸法の所依であるなら、なぜ究竟真心と名づけないのか。

答える。阿頼耶識は初能変であり、種子を摂持し、染浄諸法の所依となるとはいえ、凡夫位においては依他起性に属し、円成実性ではない。その名を阿頼耶というのは、能蔵・所蔵・執蔵の義による。雑染種子と互いに縁となり、また第七末那によって自内我として執されるので、蔵識と名づける。

この識はまた異熟識と名づけられ、善不善業によって感得された異熟果であり、一期間の生命を相続する。しかし『成唯識論』は明らかに、この識は「ただ無覆無記、異熟性なるが故に」と説く。もしこの識が善あるいは染污であるなら、生死流転と修道還滅は成立しない。もし熏を受けることができなければ、染浄因果も成立しない。

これによって知るべきである。阿頼耶識は生死流転と修行還滅の所依であり、究竟清浄の真心ではない。阿羅漢位および菩薩の転依位に至れば、阿頼耶の名は捨てられる。これは識体を断滅するという意味ではなく、その雑染執蔵の義を捨て、清浄な智用へ転ずるということである。

ゆえに「阿頼耶識こそ本覚真心である」と言うべきではない。もしそのように執すれば、依他の識相と円成実性を混同するものであり、唯識宗義を善く解していない。

三、本覚義は方便として会通できるが、実体として執着してはならないことを明かす

頌曰

本覚をもし性と言うなら、
無漏種を因とす。
始覚は修によって顕れ、
凡夫がすでに仏身なのではない。

論曰

ある説は言う。一切衆生にはみな本覚がある。ゆえに凡夫は現前にすでに仏智を具え、修行はただ本心を認め取ればよい。

今、私は言う。この義は『起信論』によればそのように説くことができる。すなわち本覚に依るがゆえに始覚があり、始覚が究竟すれば即ち本覚に同じである。しかし護法・玄奘・窺基の唯識宗に依れば、さらに分別しなければならない。

唯識宗は衆生に成仏の可能性があることを認めるが、その因果次第を「種姓」「無漏種子」「熏習」「五位修行」によって説く。『成唯識論』は、大乗種姓に二つあると説く。一は本性住種姓であり、無始以来、本識に依附して法爾として得られた無漏法因をいう。二は習所成種姓であり、法界等流の法を聞いた後、聞所成などの熏習によって成るものをいう。この二つを具えて初めて、漸次に唯識へ悟入することができる。

また唯識への悟入には略して五位がある。資糧位、加行位、通達位、修習位、究竟位である。資糧位では深く信解し、加行位では二取を伏除し、通達位では如実に通達し、修習位では所見の理に随って数々修習し、余障を伏断する。究竟位に至って初めて障を出て円明となる。

ゆえに唯識が「本覚」を会通するなら、衆生に無漏法因と真如を証する可能性があると解すべきであり、凡夫が現前にすでに仏果の智徳を円満に具え、障を断じ修証する必要がないと解してはならない。二空観を修せず、煩悩障と所知障を断たず、ただ「本来覚」と言うなら、増上慢に堕ちる恐れがある。

四、真如は所証の理であり、万法を生ずる我ではないことを明かす

頌曰

真如は常に如なる性、
言を離れ心をも離れる。
能証を正智と名づけ、
所証は因を成さない。

論曰

問う。もし真如が唯識実性であるなら、なぜ真如が諸法を生ずると言わないのか。

答える。唯識宗において、真如は無為法であり、所証の理である。諸の有為法は阿頼耶識中の種子と衆縁に依って現行する。もし真如が能作能生であり、一つの主宰のようであると言えば、外道の神我と混同する。ゆえに分明にすべきである。真如は諸法の実性であり、造作主体ではない。

円成実性は二空所顕であり、諸法の外に別にある一物ではない。『成唯識論』は、円成実性は遍計所執の我法性を遠離することによって立てられると説く。大虚空が衆色に遍じているといえども、衆色の無性によって顕されるようなものである。この喩えは、真如が別に諸法を造るのではなく、諸依他法の上に妄執を離れて顕れる真実性であることを明らかにする。

もし「真心が万法を生ずる」と言うなら、その義を審らかにしなければならない。識種の現行に依って諸法が唯識所変であるというなら可である。一つの常住真心が造物主のように諸法を生ずるというなら不可である。唯識宗は「識は仮境の所依事であるがゆえに、また勝義に有る」と説くが、この識もなお因縁所生の依他起であり、常一の実体として執してはならない。

ゆえに真如は実性と名づけられ、造作者とは名づけられない。正智は真如を証するが、真如を我とはしない。

五、達摩の真性説を会通する

頌曰

真性は塵に覆われ、
識に依って分明となる。
執を遣って円実に帰し、
壁観は二情を伏す。

論曰

達摩の『二入四行観』は言う。「含生は同一真性を有することを深く信ぜよ。ただし客塵妄想に覆われて顕了することができない。もし妄を捨て真に帰り、凝住壁観すれば……」これは如来蔵、仏性、自性清浄心の説に近い。

法相唯識によってこれを解すれば、「同一真性」は二空所顕の真如、円成実性に会することができる。「客塵妄想に覆われる」は、遍計所執、能取所取、煩悩障と所知障が真如を覆うことに会することができる。「妄を捨て真に帰る」とは、遍計執を遣り、依他起の上に円成実を証することである。「凝住壁観」は、止観によって二取を伏除し、真見を引発する方便と見ることができる。

しかし知るべきである。達摩の語は簡直であり、唯識の義は精密である。達摩の「真性」という言葉に依って実体的真心を執すれば、「無自無他、凡聖等一、無有分別」の旨に違い、また唯識が我法二執を破する宗旨にも違う。

ゆえに二宗は会通できるが、混同してはならない。会通とは、真性を円成実性に会することである。混同してはならないとは、阿頼耶識や妄執された真心を究竟仏性としてはならないということである。

六、三種の誤解を破す

頌曰

心を執して実我とし、
識を認めて真如となし、
凡を謂って即ち円仏とする。
三失はともに除くべし。

論曰

さらに「本覚真心」について三種の誤解があり、それぞれ破すべきである。

一つには、本覚を常一主宰として執すること。これはすなわち我執である。唯識は実我を破し、所執の我は蘊に即するものでもなく、蘊を離れるものでもなく、蘊と即非即・離非離のものでもないと説く。一切の我執は内識所変の五取蘊相に依り、それを妄りに我と執する。ゆえに常一主宰の心は立てられない。

二つには、阿頼耶識を真如と認めること。これはすなわち法執である。阿頼耶識は依他起、有為、異熟、無覆無記であり、種を持ち熏を受けることができる。真如は無為、円成実、唯識実性である。二者は体類が異なり、混濫してはならない。

三つには、凡夫の本覚が即ち仏果円満であると言うこと。これはすなわち増上慢である。唯識は五位漸修を立て、二取二障を伏断し、真如に通達し、転依を修習し、究竟位に至って初めて大菩提を得ると説く。障を断たずして究竟覚を称するなら、唯識正義ではない。

ゆえに三失は除くべきである。一に我執を除き、二に法執を除き、三に未証を証と謂う慢を除く。

七、総結

頌曰

真心は即ち実性、
本覚は因によって明かす。
識相は依他起、
真如は円成となる。
心を執して我とせず、
識を離れずして修行す。
二空により転依を証する、
これ唯識の正宗なり。

論曰

以上より知るべきである。唯識宗は「本覚真心」を見るにあたって、全く遮遣するわけでもなく、また常情の執するように全面的に承認するわけでもない。

真心と言うなら、二空所顕の真如・円成実性・唯識実性であれば立てることができる。本覚と言うなら、衆生が無漏法因を具え、聞熏修習によって真如を証し、成仏転依する可能性があるという意味なら、方便として会通できる。阿頼耶識を究竟真心とし、あるいは一常住主宰心が万法を生ずると言うなら、許すべきではない。

ゆえに唯識宗の正義は四句に総摂できる。

真如は実性であり、実我ではない。
蔵識は依他であり、円成ではない。
本覚を仏因とするなら方便として説くことができる。
もし現成の仏体と執するなら、二空をもってこれを破すべきである。

ゆえに学者が禅宗の真心、如来蔵本覚、法相唯識を会通しようとするなら、三性によって判じ、二空によって清め、転依によって成ずべきである。もし依他の識相の中に遍計執を遣り、二空観の中に円成実を証するなら、いわゆる「本覚真心」は神我に落ちず、断空に堕ちず、唯識中道に相応する。

『慈恩、本覚を判ずる義』

頌曰

本覚の名は勝るといえども、
義は細かく分明すべし。
もし真如の理に約すれば、
円成実性となる。
もし無漏種に約すれば、
法爾の菩提因である。
もし常心体と執すれば、
また我法の情となる。

論曰

夫れ「本覚」と言うものは、諸宗において詮義が同じではない。『大乗起信論』によれば、一心を開いて二門とする。すなわち心真如門と心生滅門である。また「この法身に依って本覚と名づける」と言い、本覚を始覚に対して立て、始覚が究竟すれば本覚に同じであるとする。これは如来蔵縁起門において明かされる本覚義である。

しかし慈恩窺基は、玄奘・護法の法相唯識宗を承け、「本覚」を宗義の中心とはせず、八識・三性・三無性・二空・真如・円成実性・転依などの門によって、染浄因果と修証次第を建立した。窺基の『成唯識論述記』は『成唯識論』に依って第三時唯識中道を明かし、心外実境への有執を破り、また内識を撥無する空執を破る。

ゆえに、「本覚」を慈恩義に会通しようとするなら、まずその義を分別しなければならない。本覚を所証の理に約して説くなら、それは真如・円成実性に摂せられる。本覚を成仏の因に約して説くなら、それは本性住種姓・無漏法因に摂せられる。本覚が一つの常住主宰の真心として執されるなら、それは遍計所執であり、二空観によって破すべきである。『成唯識論』は「此諸法の勝義は、また即ち真如なり。常にその性の如くなるが故に、即ち唯識実性なり」と明かす。ゆえに慈恩宗が立てる究竟真実は、正しく真如・唯識実性と名づけられ、別に一つの実体真心を立てるものではない。

一、本覚を理に約すれば、円成実性と名づけるべきことを明かす

頌曰

真如は常に如なる性、
妄を離れて円成を顕す。
もし本覚の体と言うなら、
それは所証であると知るべし。

論曰

問う。本覚が衆生本具の覚性であるなら、慈恩宗はこれを許すのか。

答える。二義を分けるべきである。もし本覚が二空所顕の真如、諸法実性をいうなら、方便として許すことができる。なぜか。唯識宗は三性を立てる。遍計所執性は、体相が畢竟非有である。依他起性は、衆縁に託して生じ、幻のごとく有る。円成実性は、依他起の上に遍計所執の我法性を遠離したものであり、すなわち二空所顕の真如である。

この真如は虚妄法ではなく、生滅識でもない。論は「真とは真実をいい、虚妄でないことを顕す。如とは常の如きをいい、変易なきことを表す」と説く。ゆえにこの真如は一切位において常にその性の如くであり、唯識実性と名づけられる。

しかしこの真如は所証の理であり、能作能受の主宰心ではない。もし「本覚」を所証の真如とするなら、円成実性に摂すべきである。もし「本覚」を万法を生ずる一実体心とするなら、慈恩唯識義に合わない。

ゆえに知るべきである。

本覚を理に約して説けば、即ち真如・円成実性である。
一常一主宰の実心ではない。

二、本覚を因に約すれば、本性住種姓と名づけるべきことを明かす

頌曰

無始の無漏種、
識に依って法爾に存す。
聞熏によって初めて増長し、
漸次に真門を証す。

論曰

問う。もし一切衆生に本覚があるなら、それは凡夫がすでに仏果の円満智徳を具えていることを意味するのか。

答える。そうではない。慈恩唯識宗は衆生に成仏の可能性があることを明かすが、凡夫が現前にすでに仏果功徳を円具しているとは説かない。その許すところは、無始以来、本識に依附する無漏法因であり、これを本性住種姓と名づける。また法界等流の法を聞き、聞思修の熏習によって成るものを習所成種姓と名づける。この二種姓を具えて初めて、漸次に唯識に悟入することができる。

ゆえに「本覚」を成仏の根拠として用いるなら、本性住種姓・無漏法因に会通できる。これはただ仏果の因と名づけるのであり、仏果がすでに現れているとは名づけない。もしただ「本来覚」と執して、聞熏・加行・断障・転依を廃すれば、唯識五位修道義に違う。

さらに『成唯識論』は唯識に悟入する五位を立てる。資糧位、加行位、通達位、修習位、究竟位である。資糧位では深く信解し、加行位では二取を伏除し、通達位では如実に通達し、修習位では所見の理に随って数々修習し、余障を伏断する。究竟位に至って初めて障を出て円明となる。

ゆえに慈恩義において本覚を因として説くなら、次のように理解すべきである。

本来、成仏し得る因がある。
しかし本来すでに仏果を成じているのではない。

三、阿頼耶識は本覚真心ではないことを明かす

頌曰

蔵識は諸種を持ち、
染浄は互いに依る。
無覆無記の性、
覚体円明に非ず。

論曰

ある説は言う。第八阿頼耶識は一切種子を持ち、諸法の根本である。よって本覚真心であるべきだ。

破して曰く。そうではない。阿頼耶識は初能変であり、能蔵・所蔵・執蔵の義を具え、種子を摂持し、染浄諸法の所依となる。しかしこの識は凡夫位において依他起の有為法であり、円成実の無為真如ではない。

『成唯識論』は阿頼耶識を「ただ無覆無記、異熟性なるが故に」と明かす。窺基の『述記』は、もしこの識が善または染污であれば、流転還滅が成立しないと解釈する。またこの識は善染諸法の所依であり、熏習を受けることができるので、必ず無覆無記でなければならない。

もし阿頼耶識が本覚真心であるなら、常に浄であり常に覚であるべきである。熏を受けるべきではなく、雑染種子の所依であるべきではなく、第七末那によって自内我として執されるべきでもない。今それは能蔵・所蔵・執蔵の義を有し、かつ異熟識・無覆無記識である。ゆえに究竟本覚であるとは言えない。

ゆえに知るべきである。

阿頼耶識は染浄の依であり、究竟覚体ではない。
依他の識相であり、円成実性ではない。

四、慈恩は転依によって修証を判じ、本覚に返ることを正説としないことを明かす

頌曰

始覚が本覚に帰るとは、
起信の説くところなり。
慈恩は転依を明かし、
二障尽きて初めて円かなる。

論曰

問う。『起信論』は始覚が即ち本覚に同じであると説く。慈恩宗はなぜこれに依って立宗しないのか。

答える。これは宗義の施設が異なるのである。『起信論』は一心二門によって迷悟を説き、本覚に依って始覚を説き、始覚が究竟すれば本覚に同じであるとする。

慈恩法相宗は『成唯識論』に依って二空・二障・二果を明かす。論の初めに、二空に迷謬ある者に正解を生じさせるために造論すると説く。二空を証することによって、煩悩障と所知障を断つ。煩悩障を断って真解脱を証し、所知障を断って大菩提を得る。

ゆえに慈恩宗の修証は「本覚に返る」ことを主要表現とせず、「転依」を要とする。すなわち二空智によって雑染依を転捨し、清浄依を転得する。これによって八識を転じて四智と成し、菩提と涅槃の二勝果を成就する。法相宗の教義もまた、識を転じて智と成すことを修学の究極目標とする。

ゆえに知るべきである。

『起信論』は始覚が本覚に契うことを説く。
慈恩宗は二空によって障を断じ、転依によって智を成ずることを説く。

二説は方便として会通できるが、名義の施設を混濫してはならない。

五、本覚には三義の差別があることを明かす

頌曰

一に理、二に因、三に妄執、
三門を分判して相侵さしむるなかれ。
理は円実に帰し、因は種に帰す。
妄執はなお遍計に尋ぬべし。

論曰

さらに慈恩義に依って「本覚」を判ずるなら、略して三種がある。

一、理本覚

二空所顕の真如であり、常にその性の如く、即ち唯識実性である。これは円成実性に摂することができる。もし本覚が妄を離れた理、所証の真をいうなら、過ちはない。

二、因本覚

無始以来、本識に依附する無漏法因であり、即ち本性住種姓である。これは菩提を証し得る因であって、すでに菩提を成じた果ではない。聞熏修習を待って習所成種姓を成じ、初めて漸次に唯識へ悟入することができる。

三、執本覚

凡夫が「本覚」という名の下で、一常一主宰の真心を妄執し、それが万法を生じ、能作能受であるとすることである。これは即ち遍計所執であり、人無我・法無我の二空観をもって破すべきである。『成唯識論』は開宗において実我実法を破し、我法はただ仮立により、識所変に依って施設されるものであり、実有性はないと説く。

ゆえに三義は混同してはならない。もし執本覚を理本覚とすれば常見に堕ちる。もし因本覚を果覚円満とすれば増上慢に堕ちる。もし真如実性を撥無すれば悪取空に堕ちる。

六、達摩の真性説との会通を明かす

頌曰

真性は塵に覆われ、
唯識もまたこれを詮する。
遍計執を尽く遣れば、
円成実性は円かとなる。

論曰

達摩の『二入四行観』は言う。「含生は同一真性を有することを深く信ぜよ。ただし客塵妄想に覆われて顕了することができない。」この語は如来蔵・仏性・自性清浄心の説に近い。

慈恩唯識によってこれを解すれば、「同一真性」は二空所顕の真如・円成実性に会することができる。「客塵妄想に覆われる」は、遍計所執、能取所取、煩悩障と所知障が真如を覆うことに会することができる。「妄を捨て真に帰る」とは、遍計執を遣り、依他起の上に円成実性を証することである。

しかし達摩の語は簡直であり、慈恩の義は精厳である。もし達摩の「真性」という語に依って実体的真心を執すれば、「無自無他、凡聖等一」の旨に違い、また唯識が我法二執を破する宗旨にも違う。

ゆえに会通の道は、次のように説くべきである。

達摩の真性は、慈恩義に依れば円成実性に会することができる。
ただし常住実我として執してはならない。

七、正義を総結する

頌曰

本覚が理に帰すれば、
即ち真如性である。
本覚が因に帰すれば、
無漏種と名づける。
本覚が執となれば、
二空によってその情を破すべし。
慈恩中道の義は、
転依によって円明を証す。

論曰

ゆえに知るべきである。窺基は本覚の義を全く遮遣するのではなく、また常情の執するままに直ちに許すのでもない。もし本覚が真如理体を指すなら、円成実性に摂する。もし本覚が成仏の可能性を指すなら、本性住種姓と無漏法因に摂する。もし本覚が常一主宰の実体心として執されるなら、遍計所執に摂せられ、二空観によって破すべきである。

慈恩宗が「本覚」によって立宗しないのは、学人が「心」「覚」「真如」などの勝義名言の上に、再び法執を起こすことを防ぐためである。ゆえに三性によって真妄を明かし、二空によって我法を破し、五位によって修証を示し、転依によって仏果を成ずる。これが唯識中道の正義である。

ゆえに言う。

本覚という方便名を壊さず、
ただ本覚への実体執を遮る。
真如の勝義性を撥しないが、
真如が主宰我でないことを明かす。
衆生の成仏因を廃しないが、
必ず熏修し、障を断じ、転依しなければならない。

これが慈恩窺基の本覚義判である。