Asaṅga

Main texts

Mahāyānasaṃgraha 摄大乘论 (Sanskrit lost; three Chinese translations: by Buddhaśānta, 531, T31 no.1592; by Paramārtha, 563, T31 no.1593; by Xuanzang as She dasheng lun ben 摄大乘论本, 649, T31 no.1594); Abhidharmasamuccaya 大乘阿毗达磨集论 (tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1605); Xianyang shengjiao lun 显扬圣教论 (tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1602; attribution found only in the Chinese tradition). Commentarial layer: Vasubandhu’s Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya 摄大乘论释 (tr. Paramārtha, T31 no.1595; tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1597) and Asvabhāva’s Mahāyānasaṃgrahopanibandhana 摄大乘论释 (tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1598). Works of disputed attribution: Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽师地论, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra 大乘庄严经论, Madhyāntavibhāga 中边分别论, and others.

Core-text marks

無分別智火所燒時圓成實自性顯現｜若義義性成無無分別智此若無佛果證得不應理｜唯識性覺猶如蛇覺亦當除遣｜轉依即解脫

Current six-position placement

② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B; the ① direction has systematic positive evidence, and the key competing interpretation is graded C)

But the root text of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha also explains ultimate completion by the fire of wisdom not yet burning / having burned, by “having already arisen”, by the impossibility of Buddhahood without wisdom, and by the first attainment of the dharma-body (E-18, E-21, E-27, E-33); these constitute a function on the student’s side that the ① competing interpretation has not succeeded in deleting. The placement is ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B), not raised to A, with the key ① competing interpretation graded C; the positive establishment of the ① ground and of self-inclusion does not automatically let the whole layer of completion pass the deletion test.

Most distinctive feature: through the system of a treatise, Asaṅga gives the answer to the deletion test almost explicitly. The simile of the gold-bearing ore says: the gold (the counterpart of the perfected nature in the ore simile) is already real before smelting, but it does not appear “無分別智火未燒時” (“while the fire of non-discriminating wisdom has not yet burned”), and appears only when burned by the fire of wisdom (E-18); a verse says that without non-discriminating wisdom “佛果證得不應理” (“the attainment of Buddhahood is not reasonable”) (E-27); the commentary even asks itself: if all dharmas are by nature non-discriminating, why are sentient beings not naturally liberated? — “無分別智彼無有故” (“because they lack non-discriminating wisdom”) (E-42, commentarial layer).

At the same time Asaṅga systematically dismantles the objectification of cognition: grasper and grasped (E-12), the very view of consciousness-only (E-20), the duality of cognizing and cognized (E-21); and in defining non-discriminating wisdom he expressly excludes the readings “無作意” (“absence of attention”) and “想受滅” (“cessation of perception and feeling”) (E-23). (A: stated in the text; overall structure B)

The last load-bearing point: three layers. (1) The layer of the ground: the perfected nature is named “由無變異性” (“because of its unchanging nature”) (E-14), suchness is “自性無變異” (“unchanging in its own nature”) (E-35), the first of the four purities is “自性清淨” (“purity by its own nature”) (E-15), and all dharmas are “本性無分別” (“by nature non-discriminating”) (E-26). This layer does not wait for recognition; it passes the deletion test. (2) The layer of the path: perfuming by hearing arises as an outflow of the pure dharma-realm, increases through lower, middle and higher grades while the maturation consciousness decreases, and thus the basis is transformed (E-08, E-09); entry first subdues external objects and then removes the notion of consciousness-only (E-20).

(3) The layer of completion: the appearing of the perfected nature (E-18), the entry into the perfected nature (E-21), saṃsāra being nirvāṇa (E-31), the transformation of the basis (E-29, E-30), Buddhahood (E-27) and the first attainment of the dharma-body (E-33) are all tied to non-discriminating wisdom or the wisdom of sameness. The B inference for ② depends on the third layer, and in the root text the third layer is almost explicit.

The most delicate point: the ① direction is not a reading of a single sentence. Its full positive evidence is “the perfected nature is without change” (E-14) — “purity by its own nature” (E-15) — “the true Mahāyāna teaching belongs to the perfected nature and is an outflow of the most pure dharma-realm” (E-16) — “the gold is real even before smelting” (E-18) — “wisdom is not different from its object” (E-25), echoed by “suchness, pure, realized inwardly by itself” (E-32). But the further judgment that ① requires — that the arising of non-discriminating wisdom is not a non-deletable mediator of completion — must still be able to explain at once “not appearing before the burning / appearing after the burning”, “without this wisdom Buddhahood is not achieved” and “first attainment”. In E-26 the final line in Xuanzang, “無分別智無”, in Paramārtha, “彼無無分別”, and in Buddhaśānta, “彼智無分別”, show real differences of translation and interpretation;

the ancient commentaries’ reading of a lack of wisdom has weight, but cannot replace the T1 root text. On balance ② (B) is maintained and the systematic ① competing interpretation keeps C; the textual grounds and limits of both enter the archive’s final judgment.

Note on the texts: most of Asaṅga’s works no longer survive in Sanskrit. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha has three Chinese translations, by Buddhaśānta of the Northern Wei (531), Paramārtha of the Chen (563) and Xuanzang of the Tang (649), made separately; the Sanskrit exemplars they used and their lines of transmission have not been collated one by one. There is also a Tibetan translation (Derge Toh 4048, translated by Jinamitra 胜友, Śīlendrabodhi 戒帝觉 and Ye shes sde 智军; the special check has compared the key verses — see “Tibetan collation” in each card). The archive quotes Xuanzang’s She dasheng lun ben as its main text and collates every key sentence with the Paramārtha and Buddhaśānta translations, listed in the cards under “Collation of the three translations”; where the three agree, the content is treated as the stable layer of the root text, and where their wording diverges (E-24, E-25, E-26) it is discussed separately. The Abhidharmasamuccaya (tr. Xuanzang) is by Asaṅga, on which the Chinese and Tibetan traditions agree; the attribution of the Xianyang is found only in the Chinese tradition.

• All three Chinese versions of the former name Asaṅga as author (Buddhaśānta’s version reads “阿僧伽作”, “made by Asaṅga”), and the preface from Paramārtha’s translation bureau says plainly “本論即無著法師之所造也” (“this root treatise was composed by Dharma Master Asaṅga”) (E-04); the latter is assigned to Asaṅga by both the Chinese and Tibetan traditions, and Sanskrit fragments survive.
• T2 = the Xianyang shengjiao lun (E-38): the version translated by Xuanzang is headed “無著菩薩造” (“composed by Bodhisattva Asaṅga”), and the Xiyu ji also records the place where Asaṅga composed it, but no Sanskrit or Tibetan version confirms this, and its content is broadly a digest of the Yogācārabhūmi. Huikai’s preface to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, as a document of the translation bureau, is recorded as T2 (E-04) and used only for attribution and dating.
• T3 = two kinds: (1) works of disputed attribution: the Yogācārabhūmi, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Madhyāntavibhāga, Jingang bore lun 金刚般若论, Shunzhong lun 顺中论 and others (E-06, only as a note on attribution);

• (2) the commentarial layer: Vasubandhu’s and Asvabhāva’s commentaries on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (E-39—E-43), used to record the classical commentaries’ readings of the verses, not to replace an independent judgment of the meaning of the root text.
• T4 = biography and travel records: the Posoupandou fashi zhuan 婆薮槃豆法师传 (Life of Vasubandhu) translated by Paramārtha (E-03) and Xuanzang’s Da Tang Xiyu ji 大唐西域记 (E-01, E-02). Used only as background for life and authorship, not as evidence of thought.

Collation of the three translations: on the basis of the CBETA transcriptions, with Xuanzang’s She dasheng lun ben (T31 no.1594) as base text, the corresponding wording of every key sentence was located in Paramārtha’s translation (T31 no.1593) and Buddhaśānta’s translation (T31 no.1592) and recorded in the cards. Result: the simile of the gold-bearing ore (E-18), the removal of the notion of consciousness-only (E-20), the entry into the perfected nature (E-21), non-discriminating wisdom as a condition of Buddhahood (E-27), the conditional sentence on saṃsāra being nirvāṇa (E-31) and the first attainment of the dharma-body (E-33) agree in structure in all three translations, and at E-21 Paramārtha’s translation even writes more directly “由無分別智得證得住真如法界” (“by non-discriminating wisdom one realizes and abides in the dharma-realm of suchness”).

The marked differences of wording among the three are: the basis of non-discriminating wisdom, “非心而是心／非心非非心／善心正是心” (E-24); “非智而是智／非智非非智／有智及無智” (E-25); and the final line “無分別智無／彼無無分別／彼智無分別” (E-26; the third translation must also be read together with its whole verse, “眾生中分別”). Sharing the same argumentative chapters does not prove that each verse is equivalent word for word or in meaning. These differences fall precisely on the ① candidate sentences, so for these the archive additionally cites the commentaries of Vasubandhu and Asvabhāva as grounds for reading. Special check of the Tibetan translation (2026-10-15): on the basis of the Derge Tibetan translation (Toh 4048, esukhia electronic transcription, not checked against images of the original blocks), E-24—E-26 were compared verse by verse, and the completion chain E-18, E-20, E-21, E-23, E-27, E-31—E-33 was checked; the corresponding passages of the Tibetan translations of Vasubandhu’s and Asvabhāva’s commentaries (Toh 4050, 4051) were also compared. Result: every sentence of the completion chain is present in the Tibetan, with the same structure as the three Chinese translations; at E-24 the Tibetan supports the affirmative form “not mind, and yet only mind”;

in E-25 the second line of the Tibetan is a double negation (“neither non-knowing nor knowing”), as in Paramārtha, while the third and fourth lines still take “the knowing that is without difference from the knowable” as subject; in E-26 the final line of the Tibetan reads “therefore that knowing is non-discriminating”, as in Buddhaśānta’s translation — a statement of the nature of the wisdom, neither “wisdom too is absent” nor directly “sentient beings lack wisdom”, the latter sense being found in both the Tibetan and Chinese commentarial lines. The Sanskrit originals of the three verses could not be found for this archive; the modern editions and Sanskrit reconstructions of Lamotte (1938), Nagao Gadjin and others were not checked for this archive.

Method: following v1.3, three different questions are separated. (a) Does the ground hold without waiting for wisdom? — the perfected nature is without change, pure by its own nature, the gold is originally real: yes. (b) Can seeing, hearing, speech and teaching be positively placed within the ground? — E-16 directly places “the excellent true teaching of the Mahāyāna”, but does not directly cover all speech and cognitive operations. (c) Given (a) and (b), if the arising and direct-realizing function of non-discriminating wisdom is removed, does the Mahāyānasaṃgraha’s account of the student’s entry, of Buddhahood and of the first attainment of the dharma-body remain complete? The deletion test removes only the function in (c);

1. the perfected nature is “無變異” (“without change”) and pure by its own nature (E-14, E-15).
2. Dismantling objectified cognition: no dharma at all can grasp another dharma (E-12); external objects are like a dream, recognized only on waking (E-11); the very view of consciousness-only must also be removed, like the notion of a snake (E-20).
3. Entry: after the notion of consciousness-only is removed, “於法界中便得現見相應而住” (“in the dharma-realm one then sees directly and abides in accord with it”); non-discriminating wisdom that is equal, equal arises, and “由此” (“by this”) one is called one who has entered the perfected nature, and enters the stage of Utmost Joy (E-21, E-22).
4. The determination of non-discriminating wisdom: it is not absence of attention, not cessation of perception and feeling (E-23); its basis is not mind and yet mind, its object is suchness (E-24); Xuanzang’s “非智而是智” (“not wisdom, and yet wisdom”), the double-negative form found in Paramārtha and the Tibetan, and the non-difference of wisdom and object (E-25); the variant translations of “by nature non-discriminating / 無分別智無” and the ancient commentaries’ reading of a lack of wisdom (E-26, E-42, E-43), without letting the commentaries replace the root text;

1. without this wisdom Buddhahood is not achieved (E-27).
2. Completion: the transformation of the basis — on the dependent nature, when the antidote arises, the defiled is abandoned and the pure attained (E-29); the appearing of the true advances with the stages (E-30); “若起平等智，爾時由此證，生死即涅槃” (“if the wisdom of sameness arises, then, by this realization, saṃsāra is nirvāṇa”) (E-31); the dharma-body is permanent and inconceivable (E-32), and its “最初證得” (“first attainment”) is through non-discriminating wisdom and the diamond-like concentration (E-33).
3. Return: subsequently attained wisdom is like opening the eyes, like forms appearing in space (E-28); the Buddha embraces sentient beings who have greed as his own body (E-34).

The direction of this chain is consistent: the ground never changes; the objectification and duality of cognition are dismantled layer by layer; and non-discriminating wisdom, though “equal, equal” with suchness, still plays a key role in the student’s ultimate completion as what is to be realized and as what the deletion test can test;

• Layer of relation: the perfected nature is not another thing apart from consciousness, but “即於彼依他起相，由似義相永無有性” (“on that very dependent nature, the permanent non-existence of the character of seeming objects”) (E-10); saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are two parts of the same dependent nature (E-17, E-29); all dharmas are “本性無分別” (“by nature non-discriminating”), because what is discriminated (the imagined) is originally absent (E-26).
• Layer of purity: among the four purities, “自性清淨” (“purity by its own nature”) is suchness originally pure, “離垢清淨” (“purity of freedom from stains”) is the same suchness free of obstructing stains, “得此道清淨” (“purity of the path to attain it”) is the factors of awakening and the perfections, and “生此境清淨” (“purity of the object that gives rise to it”) is the true Mahāyāna teaching (E-15, E-16). The perfected nature thus includes four aspects: originally so, realized, the path of realization, and the condition of realization.

Therefore Asaṅga’s ground is neither a cognizing subject nor an entity outside consciousness, but the permanent absence of the imagined nature on consciousness, and the original purity revealed thereby. E-14, E-15, E-26 and E-35 support that the ground is originally present and does not wait for recognition;

the inference to ② does not come from the layer of the ground, but from Asaṅga’s determinations of the “appearing” of the ground and the student’s “attainment”.

The differences of all things: Asaṅga gives a systematic account of the differences of the world: the consciousnesses of the dependent nature are divided into eleven kinds — body, embodied, experiencer, time, number, place, speech, distinction of self and other, and death and birth in good and bad destinies, among others — produced respectively from the seeds of the perfuming of verbal expression, of the view of self, and of the limbs of existence (T31 no.1594, 138a01—07); hungry ghosts, animals, humans and gods see the same thing differently (context of E-27). This is substantive content at the level of “explaining the world” among the six positions, and is highly developed in Asaṅga; but all these accounts serve “consciousness-only without objects” and entry, and are not the final position (see Part 11, “Why not ④”).

[Functional threshold of the layer of completion] What the archive calls a “cognitive mediator” is not objectifying cognition in which subject and object stand opposed, but a realizing function that in the text still differs between “not yet arisen / having arisen”, and without which the student’s ultimate completion cannot be explained. The non-duality of wisdom and what is realized does not exclude this function;

(1) The ground holds: the perfected nature is “無變異” (“unchanging”) (E-14), suchness is “自性無變異” (“unchanging in its own nature”) (E-35), “自性清淨，謂真如空、實際、無相、勝義、法界” (“purity by its own nature, namely suchness, emptiness, the limit of reality, signlessness, the ultimate, the dharma-realm”) (E-15), “一切法，本性無分別” (“all dharmas are by nature non-discriminating”) (E-26). If non-discriminating wisdom is deleted, not a word of these determinations changes. In the simile of the gold-bearing ore, the gold too “是實有” (“is real”) before burning (E-18). The first layer passes deletion; these are substantive positive evidence for the ① direction, and may not be described as existing only after awakening. (A: stated in the text)

(2) The path and the student: grasper and grasped are dismantled (E-12); external objects are dismantled (E-11, E-13); the notion of consciousness-only, as a correct understanding, is also dismantled (E-20); the duality of subject and object is replaced by “equal, equal” (E-21). What can be deleted is all objectifying cognition and all views attached to correct doctrine; Asaṅga himself has already deleted them. But the same treatise does not delete the distinction “the fire of non-discriminating wisdom not yet burning / having burned”; it uses it as an important boundary of appearing on the student’s side (E-18).

(3) Ultimate completion: the root text of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha links completion with non-discriminating wisdom in many places, in several genres, and with agreement among the three translations: simile — “無分別智火未燒時……真實圓成實自性不顯現。此識若為無分別智火所燒時……真實圓成實自性顯現” (“while the fire of non-discriminating wisdom has not yet burned … the true perfected nature does not appear; when this consciousness is burned by the fire of non-discriminating wisdom … the true perfected nature appears”) (E-18); definition — “無分別智已得生起，由此菩薩名已悟入圓成實性” (“non-discriminating wisdom has arisen; by this the bodhisattva is called one who has entered the perfected nature”) (E-21), which Paramārtha renders “由無分別智得證得住真如法界” (“by non-discriminating wisdom one realizes and abides in the dharma-realm of suchness”); premise of argument — “此若無，佛果證得不應理” (“if this were absent, the attainment of Buddhahood would not be reasonable”) (E-27); verse — “若起平等智，爾時由此證，生死即涅槃” (“if the wisdom of sameness arises, then, by this realization, saṃsāra is nirvāṇa”) (E-31); question and answer — “云何如是法身最初證得？謂緣總相大乘法境無分別智及後得智……故得轉依” (“how is such a dharma-body first attained? Through non-discriminating wisdom and subsequently attained wisdom taking the Mahāyāna dharma in its general character as object …

therefore the transformation of the basis is attained”) (E-33). This is the coherent structure of one treatise and is not to be added up as several independent historical sources; but it appears in five different positions — simile, definition, argument, verse, question and answer — which are not repetitions of the same sentence.

Judgment and break-point: the counterfactual withdraws only this realizing / entering function of non-discriminating wisdom, not the perfected nature, purity by its own nature, the teaching or perfuming by hearing. The layer of the ground and the layer of the teaching still hold; but the appearing of the perfected nature in E-18, the having-entered of E-21, the premise of the argument for Buddhahood in E-27, the “若起平等智” (“if the wisdom of sameness arises”) of E-31 and the first attainment of the dharma-body in E-33 all lose the conditions the root text explicitly sets. This is the main B-grade structural ground for ②. The specific textual conditions can be A; raising them to the six-position ② requires an additional premise: relative to the ground, which always holds, there is still a cognitive / realizing function that arises on the student’s side and without which the whole work’s account of ultimate completion is incomplete, and “wisdom not different from its object” has not cancelled this difference of arising.

This premise is a structural inference running through the chapters, not a direct answer of any verse to the six positions.

Confirmation from the commentarial layer: in explaining the final line of E-26, the commentaries of Vasubandhu and Asvabhāva themselves raise the deletion test: “若一切法本來自性無分別者，何不一切有情之類從本已來不作功用自然解脫？無分別智彼無有故” (“if all dharmas are originally non-discriminating by their own nature, why are not all kinds of sentient beings, from the beginning, naturally liberated without effort? Because they lack non-discriminating wisdom”) (E-42, Asvabhāva); “此顯彼無無分別智，雖一切法本來自性無有分別而不解脫” (“this shows that they lack non-discriminating wisdom; although all dharmas are originally non-discriminating by their own nature, they are not liberated”) (E-43, Vasubandhu). This is an interpretive tradition, not Asaṅga himself; the archive does not use it to replace the root text, but only to confirm that among the earliest readers of Asaṅga’s school original non-discrimination and the necessity of non-discriminating wisdom were not contradictory.

[Limits of interpretation across the three translations and the Tibetan] In E-26, Xuanzang’s “無分別智無” and Paramārtha’s “彼無無分別” have ambiguities of ellipsis and reference;

the Derge Tibetan, “therefore that knowing is non-discriminating”, and Buddhaśānta’s “彼智無分別” (“that wisdom is non-discriminating”) state the non-discriminating nature of this wisdom; none of them can serve as an explicit statement that “this wisdom need not arise”. The lack-of-wisdom explanation of Vasubandhu and Asvabhāva belongs to the T3 commentarial layer; the ② (B) conclusion for Asaṅga’s root text must be borne by the chain of completion conditions in E-18, E-21, E-27, E-31 and E-33.

Independence of evidence and limits: E-18, E-21, E-27, E-31 and E-33 come from the same Mahāyānasaṃgraha and cannot be scored as five independent confirmations; the three translations are three translations of one treatise, not three sources of thought. B does not rest on the number of witnesses, but on whether one relation — “originally pure — not appearing — non-discriminating wisdom — appearing / transformation of the basis / attainment” — remains consistent through the different chapters of the work (characteristics of the knowable, entry into the knowable, heightened wisdom, fruit of elimination, fruit of wisdom). The Sanskrit is lost, and each Chinese translation may be influenced by its translator’s understanding (Paramārtha’s translation, for instance, often adds explanatory words); but the key relation is missing from none of the three translations.

Systematic positive evidence for the ① direction and the deletion test: E-14’s unchanging perfected nature, E-15’s purity by its own nature, E-16’s true Mahāyāna teaching belonging to the outflow of the dharma-realm, E-18’s gold already real before burning, E-25’s non-difference of wisdom and object, together with E-32’s pure suchness realized inwardly by itself, form a ① structural chain running through ground — teaching — the relation of wisdom and object, and are by no means isolated verses. If wisdom is deleted, the propositions about the perfected nature, purity and the source of the teaching can be kept as they are. But ① must still explain why the root text continues to make the burning of the fire of wisdom, the arising of wisdom, the impossibility of Buddhahood without wisdom, and the first attainment of the dharma-body conditions of ultimate completion. The non-difference of wisdom and object alone cannot, without rewriting the text, delete the distinction “not yet arisen / having arisen”. Therefore the positive evidence for ① in the dimensions of the ground and self-inclusion can be A, while ① as an overall six-position classification has not yet passed the deletion test; it is kept as a serious competing interpretation at C.

[Full-chain check of the ① direction] The archive acknowledges the complete positive ① evidence formed by E-14 / E-15 / E-16 / E-18 / E-25: the ground originally present, the belonging of the teaching, the non-duality of wisdom and object. But one further step is needed for ① as the overall six-position classification: it must be shown that “even without the arising of wisdom, the whole account of the appearing of the perfected nature, entry, Buddhahood and the first attainment of the dharma-body remains sufficient”, and the present material of the root text precisely does not support this additional step. The strength of the positive evidence of the first step cannot be transferred directly to the latter proposition.

Withdrawn or de-substantialized: the reality of external objects (E-11, E-13, first half of E-27); the substantial relation of grasper and grasped (E-12); the notion of consciousness-only (E-20); the duality of subject and object (E-21, E-39, E-40); the reading of “non-discrimination” as absence of attention or cessation of perception and feeling (E-23); wisdom as ordinary discriminating wisdom (E-25, E-41); saṃsāra and nirvāṇa as two places (E-17, E-31); the ālaya-vijñāna as a permanent basis (E-09, E-29).

The last load-bearing point: the non-duality of non-discriminating wisdom and suchness is not false, but the root text continually determines the not-yet-arisen / having-arisen of wisdom and the corresponding consequences of entry, Buddhahood and first attainment of the dharma-body; in this final structure there still remains a non-deletable realizing / cognitive function on the student’s side (②, B). The ① direction is the systematic positive evidence “unchanging perfected nature — purity by its own nature — outflow of the true teaching — gold originally real — non-difference of wisdom and object”, not local rhetoric; the key hypothesis of its overall placement at ① lies in cancelling wisdom as an independent condition of completion, which cannot yet explain E-18, E-21, E-27 and E-33. The archive records the systematic positive evidence for ① and the strength of the final classification separately: ② (B), with the key ① competing interpretation at C; it does not replace A–D with a mixed “B/C” grade.

Return: Asaṅga’s return appears in subsequently attained wisdom “如人……復開目” (“as a person … opens his eyes again”) and “如虛空……於中現色像” (“like space …

even the language of non-duality is handed over to the discrimination of the three natures. (A)

Positive evidence of self-inclusion: E-16 explicitly lists “大乘妙正法教” (“the excellent true teachings of the Mahāyāna”) among the four purities, determines it as “最淨法界等流” (“an outflow of the most pure dharma-realm”), and excludes it from the categories of the imagined and the dependent; E-08 further determines that “正聞熏習” (“perfuming by correct hearing”) is an outflow of the pure dharma-realm. This is the original treatise’s positive placement of the true Mahāyāna dharma it proclaims and of that dharma becoming the source of perfuming by hearing; it cannot be called merely a “candidate for self-inclusion”, nor be weakened because of the main class ②. However, what the original text refers to is first of all “the excellent true teachings of the Mahāyāna”; it does not directly determine that any worldly discourse, or every utterance and reception of the teaching, is already fulfilled; still less does it say that non-discriminating wisdom can be deleted.

Logical limits of self-inclusion: from “the true teaching belongs to the perfected nature” one cannot directly infer “every expounding, understanding and appearing of the teaching is automatically completed”. E-08 gives the teaching as the source of perfuming by hearing, and E-18 gives the fire of wisdom as making the true appear;

Why it looks like ①:

(1) The layer of the ground: the perfected nature is unchanging (E-14), pure by its own nature (E-15), and all dharmas are by nature non-discriminating (E-26).

(2) The form of wisdom: non-discriminating wisdom takes neither discrimination nor any other object (E-25), is not different from its object (E-25), and object and subject are equal, equal (E-21); Asvabhāva’s commentary even says that at entry “作者作用息滅究竟” (“the agent and its activity have ceased completely”) (E-40). The duality of cognizer and cognized is completely dismantled.

(3) The layer of the dharma-body: the inconceivability of the dharma-body is “真如清淨自內證” (“suchness, pure, realized inwardly by itself”) (E-32); realization and the realized are one.

(4) Variant translations: Xuanzang’s final line of E-26, “無分別智無”, can raise a reading that cancels wisdom as independent; Paramārtha’s “彼無無分別” and Buddhaśānta’s “彼智無分別” cannot be treated as three synonymous lines; they keep several possible interpretations of the relation between “wisdom / non-discrimination”.

One must further combine E-16, “the true teaching belongs to the perfected nature”, and E-18, “the gold is already real before burning”.

This constitutes systematic positive evidence for the ① direction; but for ① to become the overall six-position class, the non-deletable relation of completion in E-18, E-21, E-27 and E-33 must still be explained.

Why it is still ②:

(1) E-23 explicitly distinguishes non-discriminating wisdom from five substitute definitions such as “absence of attention” and “cessation of perception and feeling”; therefore it cannot simply be equated with unknowing or a complete halt of mind. This provides independent conceptual reinforcement for ②, not an independently sufficient proof of the ② placement. “與境無有異” (“not different from its object”) determines the non-dual character of wisdom; whether an arising on the student’s side is further required is tested by passages such as E-18, E-21 and E-33. The ancient commentary’s explanation (E-41) of the non-difference of wisdom and object belongs to T3 and does not directly replace the root text.

(2) In E-26 the root text has coexisting different Chinese translations: Xuanzang “無分別智無”, Paramārtha “彼無無分別”, Buddhaśānta “彼智無分別”. “彼智無分別” (“that wisdom is non-discriminating”) does not directly prove that wisdom need not exist; “無分別智無”, because of its elided relation, cannot on its wording alone be finally judged to have cancelled the necessity of wisdom.

Vasubandhu’s and Asvabhāva’s commentaries (E-42, E-43) read it as sentient beings lacking wisdom and therefore not being liberated; this has interpretive value but belongs to T3, and the two commentaries’ interpretive supplements cannot be presented as the word-for-word explicit text of Asaṅga’s root treatise. ② does not depend on E-26 for its settlement here.

(3) The wisdom that is “not different from its object” still has the distinction “not yet arisen / having arisen”: the “未燒時” (“when not yet burned”) and “所燒時” (“when burned”) of the simile of the gold-bearing ore (E-18), the “已得生起，由此” (“has arisen; by this”) of entry (E-21), the “最初證得” (“first attainment”) of the dharma-body (E-33). That suchness and true wisdom are equal does not mean that true wisdom has always already arisen; if true wisdom had always already arisen, there would be no “未燒時……真實圓成實自性不顯現” (“when not yet burned … the true perfected nature does not appear”).

(4) The deletion test can therefore be carried out: what is deleted is not suchness, but the event “true wisdom has arisen”. When it is deleted, suchness is unharmed (the positive evidence for the ① direction is kept), but the gold cannot be found, sentient beings are not liberated, and the dharma-body is not first attained (the break-point of the ② direction appears).

Source-level and terminological boundary: “equal, equal”, “not different from its object” and “inward self-realization” describe the form of non-discriminating wisdom when it arises, and cannot be directly equated with “the ground is originally this very wisdom”. The three translations diverge in wording at E-24, E-25 and E-26, precisely where such sentences are hardest to translate; the archive does not take a particular wording of Xuanzang’s (such as “而是智” — “and yet wisdom”) as settled, but relies on the structure that the three translations keep in common (whether wisdom arises decides whether there is appearing).

Grades: A grade is that the text directly says “無變異” (“unchanging”), “自性清淨” (“purity by its own nature”), “本性無分別” (“by nature non-discriminating”), “無分別智火所燒時……圓成實自性顯現” (“when burned by the fire of non-discriminating wisdom … the perfected nature appears”), “此若無，佛果證得不應理” (“if this were absent, the attainment of Buddhahood would not be reasonable”); B grade is that, running through the whole work, non-discriminating wisdom cannot be deleted from the student’s ultimate completion.

The competing reading holds that the wisdom not different from its object is the self-manifestation of the ground itself, so that the deletion test does not apply to Asaṅga — the positive grounds of this reading also include E-16’s inclusion of the teaching itself, and it cannot simply be said to arise from quoting out of context; however, the present material cannot yet use it to cancel the student-side chain of completion of E-18, E-21, E-27 and E-33; so it is kept as a systematic ① competing interpretation at C, without changing the strength of the main class ② (B).

Conditions for reopening: if Sanskrit fragments or a reliable modern critical edition show that the original meaning of the final line of E-26 is indeed “non-discriminating wisdom too does not exist” (the Derge Tibetan does not support this reading, having “therefore that knowing is non-discriminating”), and this reading can run through the whole work without conflicting with the simile of the gold-bearing ore and the first attainment of the dharma-body; or if it can be positively proved from Asaṅga’s root text that “the gold does not appear before burning” is only an expedient description from the standpoint of ordinary beings and not part of the structure of completion, then the strength of ② and the ①/② boundary should be reassessed.

[Threshold of proof for the overall judgment] The systematic positive evidence for ① is not itself downgraded;

The archive does not count several occurrences in the same treatise as several independent witnesses, nor the three translations as three sources of thought; B is the structural inference required to explain its full ultimate completion, and its textual basis is close to explicit.

Why not yet ①: ① must positively explain a more complete structure of the ground that includes cognition and one’s own speech, and, when correct recognition is deleted, its full account of ultimate completion must remain unharmed. E-16 and E-08 are positive material for self-inclusion (the teaching and perfuming by hearing belong to the outflow of the dharma-realm); E-14, E-15 and E-26 are strong positive evidence that the ground does not wait for recognition; E-12, E-20, E-21 and E-40 dismantle grasper and grasped, the view of consciousness-only and the contrivance of the cognizer. But whether non-discriminating wisdom arises still clearly decides, in the root text, whether the perfected nature appears, whether sentient beings are liberated and whether the dharma-body is attained (E-18, E-27, E-33), and the commentarial tradition answers the deletion test directly on this basis (E-42, E-43).

Why not ③: Asaṅga is not asking whether the ground exists or how it is possible; in the manner of a treatise he directly determines the ground (the perfected nature, suchness) and gives the complete path of reaching it.

• The two archives have the same placement, but the forms of wisdom differ.
• No.05 Xinxin ming (②; local C at the ①/② boundary): phrases such as “一如體玄，兀爾忘緣” (“the One Suchness is profound in essence; unmoved, one forgets conditions”) and “歸根得旨” (“returning to the root, one gains the meaning”) can be compared, within limits, with Asaṅga’s “平等平等” (“equal, equal”) and “於法界中便得現見” (“in the dharma-realm one then sees directly”); the non-dual language of the Xinxin ming has fewer conditional sentences, while Asaṅga submits all non-dual language to the discrimination of the three natures.
• No.073 Wenzi, Zai and Sheng (①, direction of a completed archive): the thought of Zai and Sheng, through the whole structure of the two works, positively places cognition, writing, language and all things within being and occurrence, and explains by “认亦在中” (“recognition, too, is within”) that recognition itself is also an occurrence; Asaṅga’s corresponding material is “大乘妙正法教……最淨法界等流性” (“the excellent true teachings of the Mahāyāna … by nature an outflow of the most pure dharma-realm”) and “與境無有異” (“not different from its object”). The comparison here is made only according to the complete direction of thought of each archive;

on the other hand, the root text of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, in five chapters, through simile, definition, argument, verse and question and answer, repeatedly ties the appearing of the perfected nature, entry, saṃsāra being nirvāṇa, Buddhahood and the first attainment of the dharma-body to non-discriminating wisdom, with structural correspondence among the three translations in the key completion relations; the two commentaries further provide, with “sentient beings lack wisdom”, a clear interpretive tradition for E-26.

The final classification is ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B), not A, nor a vague ①/② boundary C. The additional inference behind B is: non-discriminating wisdom has, on the student’s side, a completion difference between not yet arisen and having arisen, and this difference, relative to the perfected nature that always holds, still has an independent, non-deletable realizing function. The ① direction is the systematic positive evidence formed by E-14, E-15, E-16, E-18 and E-25, not merely the isolated variant of E-26; it supports the ground being originally present, the self-inclusion of the teaching and the non-duality of wisdom and object, but has still not explained why, when the arising of wisdom is withdrawn, the completion conditions for Buddhahood / the dharma-body set by the root text would not be lacking. The important competing interpretation is C; the commentaries are not taken as the root text, and the three translations are not counted as votes.

• the Chinese literal renderings after the Tibetan quotations are this archive’s research translations, not independently reviewed by a Tibetan philologist, and do not pretend to be definitive translations of the Tibetan. The archive quotes Xuanzang’s translation as its main text and collates key sentences with the other two translations.
• Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya / Upanibandhana: Vasubandhu’s commentary, tr. Paramārtha (T31 no.1595) and tr. Xuanzang (T31 no.1597); Asvabhāva’s commentary, tr. Xuanzang (T31 no.1598). Commentarial layer, providing only the classical commentarial tradition’s specific solutions for the verses of the root text, not used to eliminate the ambiguities among the root text’s several translations.
• Abhidharmasamuccaya: composed by Asaṅga, tr. Xuanzang in seven fascicles (T31 no.1605). Sanskrit fragments survive, and the Tibetan translation also names Asaṅga.
• Xianyang shengjiao lun: Xuanzang’s translation is headed “無著菩薩造” (“composed by Bodhisattva Asaṅga”) (T31 no.1602); no Sanskrit or Tibetan version. Its content is broadly a digest of the Yogācārabhūmi.