Vasubandhu

Main texts

Triṃśikā 唯识三十颂 (Sanskrit extant; tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1586; Paramārtha’s Zhuanshi lun 转识论, T31 no.1587; Derge Tibetan, Toh 4055); Viṃśatikā 唯识二十论 with autocommentary (Sanskrit extant; tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1590; tr. Paramārtha, T31 no.1589; tr. Prajñāruci, T31 no.1588; Tibetan, Toh 4056—4057); Trisvabhāvanirdeśa 三自性论 (Sanskrit and Tibetan extant, no Chinese translation; Toh 4058); Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga 辩中边论 (Sanskrit extant; tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1600; tr. Paramārtha, T31 no.1599); Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya 摄大乘论释 (tr. Xuanzang, T31 no.1597; tr. Paramārtha, T31 no.1595; Tibetan, Toh 4050); Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 阿毗达磨俱舍论 (Sanskrit extant; tr. Xuanzang, T29 no.1558). Commentarial layer: Sthiramati’s commentary on the Triṃśikā (Sanskrit and Tibetan extant) and the Cheng weishi lun 成唯识论 of Dharmapāla and others (T31 no.1585). Works of disputed attribution: Foxing lun 佛性论, Wangsheng lun 往生论, and others.

Core-text marks

若時於所緣智都無所得爾時住唯識｜無得不思議是出世間智｜此諸法勝義亦即是真如｜若時得彼出世對治無分別智乃名真覺

yet in verses 26—30 he clearly distinguishes not-yet-abiding / abiding, the latent dispositions of the two graspings not yet extinguished / extinguished, the supramundane wisdom of non-apprehension, and the transformation of the basis. The autocommentary of the Viṃśatikā (E-11) further defines true awakening directly as attaining non-discriminating wisdom, which constitutes an explicit completion condition for the ② direction in another T1 work. The placement is formally ② “Direct Seeing of the Ground” (B), not raised to A; the systematic evidence for ① and the key C-grade competing interpretation are both retained, and the variant readings of the versions are not adjudicated. What ② calls non-deletable is the function of non-objectifying direct realization / true awakening; it does not require that “wisdom’s non-apprehension” and “abiding in consciousness-only” be two mutually independent entities or events.

Most distinctive feature: Vasubandhu gives a direct text on the relation between “no-mind” and “wisdom”. The Sanskrit of verse 29 of the Triṃśikā says: “that is without mind (acitta), without apprehension, and that is supramundane wisdom” (E-22) — no-mind is not the cancellation of cognition, but is itself the highest wisdom. This stands in direct contrast to the local C of No.08 Huangbo on “whether no-mind belongs to the cognitive function”.

At the same time Vasubandhu brings the core proposition of his own teaching into the dismantling: once “this is only consciousness” is set up as something apprehended, it is not abiding in consciousness-only (E-20); the consciousness-only-ness grasped by another consciousness itself has no own-being (E-10); the whole Viṃśatikā is composed only “隨自能” (“according to my own ability”), and its entirety is “难思，佛所行” (“inconceivable, the domain of the Buddhas”) (E-13). (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 the dependent nature’s being “常” (“always”) free of the imagined nature (E-16); suchness that is “一切时如是” (“so at all times”) is consciousness-only-ness (E-18); the perfected nature is “无变异” (“without change”) (E-25); the nature of mind is originally luminous and the afflictions are adventitious (E-33); and the “離言法性” (“dharma-nature beyond words”) that is the domain of the Buddhas is not denied (E-10). This layer does not wait for recognition; it passes the deletion test. (2) The layer of dismantling: external objects (E-09, E-15), the grasping of “consciousness-only” (E-20, E-10), the reliability of self-knowledge (E-12) and the completeness of the treatise itself (E-13) are all dismantled. (3) The layer of completion: “abiding in consciousness-only” is conditioned on wisdom’s non-apprehension of its object (E-21);

this is supramundane wisdom and brings about the transformation of the basis (E-22); the transformation of the basis is the dharma-body (E-23); “true awakening” is defined as attaining non-discriminating wisdom (E-11); if the antidote has not arisen, sentient beings cannot be naturally liberated (E-33); without non-discriminating wisdom, even though all dharmas are by nature non-discriminating, there is no liberation (E-36). The B inference of ② depends on the third layer, and the third layer is stated explicitly in three of Vasubandhu’s own works.

Most delicate point: verse 25 (“is”) and verses 26—29 (“not yet abiding / abiding / transformation of the basis”) must both hold. The ① direction can understand “non-apprehension”, “no-mind” and “supramundane wisdom” as one and the same non-dual occurrence, and this reading does not violate the Sanskrit coordinate syntax of verse 29; but whether that same occurrence is still a non-deletable function of direct realization is a separate question. The autocommentary of the Viṃśatikā takes “未得真覺不能自知／得無分別智乃名真覺” (“not having attained true awakening, one cannot know by oneself / attaining non-discriminating wisdom is called true awakening”) as the real criterion of completion. Verse 28 jñāna / vijñāna and verse 29 Derge med / other versions de both have verifiable transmitted variants;

the original prints and the Sanskrit critical editions have not been checked, and no ruling is made on the original form.

Note on the text: Vasubandhu’s works belong to different periods and systems. The biographies by both Paramārtha and Xuanzang say that he first took ordination in the Sarvāstivāda and composed the Abhidharmakośa, and after being guided by Asaṅga to turn his mind to the Mahāyāna composed the Consciousness-only treatises (E-01—E-03); modern scholarship also has the “two Vasubandhus” hypothesis, which this archive does not adjudicate; it only lists the Abhidharmakośa as T2 and does not use it to judge the final structure of Consciousness-only. The Triṃśikā and Viṃśatikā survive in Sanskrit, Chinese and Tibetan with consistent attribution, and are T1. The Trisvabhāvanirdeśa has no Chinese translation and its attribution is debated; the commentaries on the Madhyāntavibhāga and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha are Vasubandhu’s commentaries on others’ root verses; both are listed as T2. The attribution of the Foxing lun and Wangsheng lun is found only in the Chinese tradition; they are listed as T3.

Scope and note on collation (2026-10-16): the core ② conditional chain holds, but verse 35 of the Trisvabhāvanirdeśa has differences of word-form in the Sanskrit and two readings, counter-argument / positive, and neither alone is made to bear weight.

• the root verses and autocommentary of the Viṃśatikā (E-09—E-13). Sanskrit extant (this archive uses the GRETIL and DSBC electronic texts); three to four Chinese translations; the Derge Tibetan translations are all attributed to Vasubandhu (Tibetan translators Jinamitra, Śīlendrabodhi and Ye shes sde). The prose between the verses of the Taishō Triṃśikā comes from the Cheng weishi lun system and is not part of Vasubandhu’s text (E-04).
• T2 = (1) Vasubandhu’s commentaries on others’ root verses: the commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga (E-31—E-33) and the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (E-34—E-36); (2) his own works whose attribution is debated or whose system differs: the Trisvabhāvanirdeśa (E-25—E-30; Sanskrit and Tibetan extant, no Chinese translation) and the Abhidharmakośa (E-07, E-08; early Sarvāstivāda–Sautrāntika framework); (3) the Zhuanshi lun, a mixture of translation and explanation (E-24).
• T3 = the commentarial layer and treatises of disputed attribution: Sthiramati’s commentary on the Triṃśikā (E-38) and the Cheng weishi lun of Dharmapāla and others (E-37); the Foxing lun (E-06) and the Wangsheng lun (E-05).

• T4 = biographies: Paramārtha’s Posupandou fashi zhuan 婆薮槃豆法师传 (E-01, E-02) and Xuanzang’s Da Tang Xiyu ji 大唐西域记 (E-03). Used only as background on life and authorship.

Sanskrit–Chinese–Tibetan collation: this archive takes Xuanzang’s translation as the principal Chinese citation; every key sentence is read against the Sanskrit (GRETIL and DSBC electronic texts, numbered by BuddhaNexus segmentation), and collated with the variant translations of Paramārtha, Prajñāruci and others and with the Derge Tibetan translation (Esukhia electronic transcription; images of the original print not checked), recorded in the cards under “Sanskrit–Chinese–Tibetan collation”. Main results: (1) the autocommentary on verse 17 of the Viṃśatikā, “attaining non-discriminating wisdom is called true awakening”, agrees in the Sanskrit, the three Chinese translations and the Tibetan (E-11); (2) in verse 28 of the Triṃśikā the two Sanskrit electronic texts differ in the subject (jñāna / vijñāna), and the Tibetan reads “by knowing” (E-21); special collation: Sthiramati’s Sanskrit gloss, the quotation of the verse in Advayavajra’s Tattvaratnāvalī, the Tibetan root verse and Sthiramati’s commentary, and the Chinese translations of Xuanzang and Paramārtha all read “wisdom / knowing”; among the electronic texts used in this archive vijñāna appears in DSBC;

further, according to Kitano Shintarō (2013), Lévi’s edition and the manuscript on which it is based also have the reading vijñāna, so it cannot be said that only DSBC has this reading; (3) for acitta in verse 29, Xuanzang translates “不思議” (“inconceivable”), Paramārtha “非心非境” (“neither mind nor object”), the Tibetan “no mind” (E-22); the Derge Tibetan root verse reads this line as “no wisdom”, contrary to the Sanskrit, while the root verse as quoted in the Derge Sthiramati commentary reads “this wisdom”; the special collation confirms: the Derge root verse reads “no wisdom” at this word, consistent across three Derge-line transcriptions (Esukhia, BuddhaNexus, the base text of the comparative edition), which cannot be explained merely as a single electronic transcription error; Peking and Golden read “this” (Nance 2005), and the comparative edition gives a further variant note here for Narthang and Peking (the note’s OCR glyphs are unclear); this is a substantive variant of transmission, and the original reading is undetermined; (4) the final line of verse 35 of the Trisvabhāvanirdeśa, mokṣāpattir ayatnataḥ, is read in the Tibetan as “the fault that liberation would follow without effort”, corresponding to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha’s “應離功用無顛倒智” (E-29); (5) the deletion-test statement in the commentary on verse 1.21 of the Madhyāntavibhāga agrees in Sanskrit and Chinese (E-33).

Method: following v1.3, first secure the layer of the ground (so at all times), the layer of the nature of cognition (consciousness-only-ness is suchness) and the layer of dismantling (the two graspings and the objectified view of consciousness-only), then test the layer of completion independently. The functional mediation need not be an entity separate from “abiding in consciousness-only”, nor two events, nor an extra contrivance; what is tested is this: if the realizing function of “knowing / consciousness having no apprehension of its object, so that the two graspings cease” is removed, can true awakening, the transformation of the basis and liberation still be explained as the original text does? One must not mistake “wisdom’s non-apprehension” and “abiding” being one event for the function having been deleted, nor take yadā…tadā alone as automatically proving causation. Evidence grades: the conditional sentence can be A, the cross-text v1.3 classification is B; ① has systematic positive evidence but has not yet made the layer of completion pass the deletion test.

Citations: Chinese from the CBETA transcription (T26 no.1524, T29 no.1558, T31 nos.1585, 1586, 1587, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1599, 1600, 1610, T50 no.2049, T51 no.2087), marked to page, register and line; Sanskrit from the GRETIL and DSBC electronic texts in BuddhaNexus, marked by file number and segment number;

1. when inner consciousness arises it appears like external objects (E-09); the transformation of the consciousnesses is discrimination, and what is discriminated does not exist, therefore everything is consciousness-only (E-15).
2. Explaining the world: self and dharmas are provisional designations, dependent on the transformation of consciousness; the three transformers — ālaya, manas and the six consciousnesses — explain the structure of the world and of mind (E-14).
3. Three natures and three non-natures: the dependent nature is discrimination arising from conditions; the perfected nature is its being always free of the imagined nature (E-16); not seeing the perfected nature one does not see the dependent nature as it is (E-17); the perfected nature is the ultimate of all dharmas, suchness, so at all times, and is consciousness-only-ness (E-18).
4. Dismantling the grasping of “consciousness-only”: the consciousness-only-ness grasped by another consciousness also has no own-being (E-10); setting up “this is only consciousness” as something apprehended is not abiding in consciousness-only (E-20); even the knowledge of one’s own mind is not as it really is (E-12).
5. Abiding in consciousness-only: while consciousness does not yet abide in consciousness-only-ness, the latent dispositions of the two graspings do not cease (E-19);

1. when wisdom has no apprehension of its object, one abides in consciousness-only (E-21); this is the supramundane wisdom without mind and without apprehension, through which the basis is transformed (E-22).
2. Fruit: the transformation of the basis is the undefiled realm, inconceivable, wholesome, permanent, blissful; it is the body of liberation and the dharma-body (E-23).
3. Statements of the same structure elsewhere: “true awakening” is attaining non-discriminating wisdom (E-11); if the antidote has not arisen there is no natural liberation (E-33); without non-discriminating wisdom there is no liberation even though the nature is non-discriminating (E-36); through attaining the dharma-realm one attains awakening (E-30).
4. Self-reflexivity: the treatise is composed only “隨自能” (“according to my own ability”); the entirety of consciousness-only is the domain of the Buddhas (E-13).

The direction of this chain is consistent: the ground (consciousness-only-ness = suchness) is so at all times; external objects, the grasping of consciousness-only and the reliability of self-knowledge are dismantled layer by layer;

• the “離言法性” (“dharma-nature beyond words”) that is the domain of the Buddhas is not denied on account of the selflessness of dharmas (E-10).
• Layer of relation: the perfected and the dependent are “非異非不異” (“neither different nor not different”) (E-17); the three natures are pairwise “of non-different characteristic” (E-26); in the simile of the illusion suchness is like the wood, always present in the appearing of the elephant (E-27).

Thus Vasubandhu’s ground is neither an external entity nor an object of knowledge, but the true nature of consciousness itself — the permanent absence of the imagined, and suchness that is so at all times. This layer does not wait for recognition: E-16, E-18, E-25 and E-33 all directly support an inherent ground. The inference to ② does not come from the layer of the ground, but from Vasubandhu’s determination of “abiding in” consciousness-only-ness.

the second layer, the teaching, self-reflexivity and the critique of grasping at consciousness-only, remains complete; in the third layer, without this direct realization, the latent dispositions of the two graspings in E-19 do not cease, the “not having attained true awakening, one cannot know by oneself” of E-11, and the transformation of the basis and the stage of fruition of E-22—E-23 cannot be explained as the original text does. That “non-apprehension” and “abiding” may refer to one event does not amount to deleting the event and leaving only the nature. This cross-textual mapping is B, not A.

(1) The ground is established: consciousness-only-ness is suchness, “so at all times” (E-18); the perfected nature is “always” free of the imagined (E-16), “without change” (E-25); “心性本淨” (“the nature of mind is originally pure”) (E-33). If the arising of wisdom is deleted, not one word of these determinations changes; Sthiramati’s commentary even says explicitly that it is so in the stage of ordinary beings. The first layer passes the deletion test; these are substantive positive evidence for the ① direction, and must not be described as existing only after awakening. (A: stated in the text)

(2) Dismantling and the student: external objects are dismantled (E-09, E-15); the grasping of “this is only consciousness” is dismantled (E-20); the consciousness-only-ness that is grasped also has no own-being (E-10);

even the knowledge of one’s own mind is not as it really is (E-12). What can be deleted is all objectifying cognition and all holding of the correct doctrine; Vasubandhu himself has already deleted them. But the same Triṃśikā does not delete the difference between “abiding / not abiding in consciousness-only”; it makes it the theme of verses 26—28 (E-19, E-21).

(3) Ultimate completion: Vasubandhu gives the same structure in three different works: the Triṃśikā — “若時於所緣，智都無所得，爾時住唯識” (“when wisdom has no apprehension at all of its object, then one abides in consciousness-only”) (E-21), “無得不思議，是出世間智，捨二麁重故，便證得轉依” (“without apprehension, inconceivable, this is supramundane wisdom; through abandoning the two kinds of grossness, one realizes the transformation of the basis”) (E-22), “此即無漏界……大牟尼名法” (“this is the undefiled realm … of the great sage it is called the dharma[-body]”) (E-23); the autocommentary of the Viṃśatikā — “若時得彼出世對治無分別智，乃名真覺” (“when one attains the supramundane, counteractive non-discriminating wisdom, that is called true awakening”) (E-11); the commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga — “若諸法空，未生對治無客雜染者，一切有情不由功用應自然解脫” (“if the emptiness of dharmas had no adventitious defilement before the antidote arose, all sentient beings would be liberated naturally without effort”) (E-33).

In addition, the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya — “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 by own-nature without discrimination, they are not liberated”) (E-36), and the Trisvabhāvanirdeśa — through apprehending the dharma-realm one attains awakening (E-30).

Judgment and break-point: withdraw the arising of wisdom while retaining “consciousness-only-ness is suchness”, and the first layer is still complete; but the “latent dispositions of the two graspings do not cease” of verse 26 have no way to cease, the “abiding in consciousness-only” of verse 28 has no way to occur, the transformation of the basis of verse 29 loses that from which it comes, the “true awakening” of the Viṃśatikā loses its definition, and the “一切有情不由功用應自然解脫” (“all sentient beings would be liberated naturally without effort”) rejected by the commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga would on the contrary hold. The “necessity” here is not what makes suchness exist (suchness is so at all times), nor the addition of yet another objectifying cognition (the grasping of “this is only consciousness” has already been dismantled), but the arising of a supramundane wisdom that has no apprehension of its object, is without mind and yet is wisdom. This is a B-grade structural inference running through several of Vasubandhu’s works, and its direct textual basis is close to explicit statement.

Vasubandhu’s own answer to the deletion test: in two places, the commentary on verse 1.21 of the Madhyāntavibhāga (E-33) and the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya (E-36), Vasubandhu himself raises the question of the deletion test — if emptiness is originally pure and all dharmas are by nature non-discriminating, why are sentient beings not naturally liberated? — and gives the same answer: because the antidote / non-discriminating wisdom has not arisen. The former affirms “心性本淨” (“the nature of mind is originally pure”) in the same passage, explicitly laying down that the original purity of the ground cannot cancel the necessity of the antidote. In No.09 statements of this kind belong to the commentarial layer; in this archive they are Vasubandhu’s own words (T2).

Independence of the evidence and its limits: E-21 and E-22 both come from the Triṃśikā, E-11 from the Viṃśatikā, E-33 from the commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga, E-36 from the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya — they are statements by the same author in different works, and can be regarded as evidence of the consistency of the author’s thought, but the last two comment on others’ root verses and are not weighted equally with the Triṃśikā.

B does not rest on the number of pieces of evidence, but on whether the relation “originally so — not yet abiding — wisdom without apprehension — abiding / transformation of the basis / awakening” remains consistently coherent across Vasubandhu’s different works. The Sanskrit electronic transcriptions have not been checked against manuscripts; the variant readings of the subject of verse 28 (jñāna / vijñāna) and of the Tibetan of verse 29 (“no wisdom” / “this wisdom”) have been recorded and do not affect the conditional structure.

Systematic positive evidence for the ① direction: E-16 the perfected nature always free, E-18 consciousness-only-ness = suchness and so at all times, E-20 the withdrawal of the grasped view of consciousness-only, E-25—E-27 the three natures and the nature not increasing, E-33 the nature of mind originally pure, and E-22 no-mind / non-apprehension, form a real chain of evidence running through the ground, self-reflexivity and the mode of cognition, and are by no means isolated sentences. Yet this evidence does not explicitly declare that there is no difference in completion between an ordinary being “not having attained true awakening” and “having attained true awakening”. In particular, the T1 autocommentary E-11 retains the order of attaining non-discriminating wisdom and subsequent wisdom.

If this awakening is restated as “recognition”, that “recognition” must still occur and has the functional difference of not awakened / awakened; renaming cannot replace a real deletion test. Hence ② is provisionally B, and the full ① competing interpretation is C.

What has been withdrawn or de-substantialized: the real existence of external objects (E-09, E-15); the substance of self and dharmas (E-14); the own-nature of the imagined (E-16); the grasping of “consciousness-only” (E-10, E-20); the trueness of the knowledge of one’s own mind (E-12); the treatise’s exhausting the whole of consciousness-only (E-13); the grasping mind (E-22, E-38); the opposition of apprehension and non-apprehension (E-32); Sarvāstivāda-style “discernment of dharmas” as the final model of the path (E-01, E-07, E-08, superseded by the framework of Mahāyāna Consciousness-only).

The last load-bearing point: consciousness-only-ness is suchness, so at all times — this is Vasubandhu’s strongest determination of the ground; but in the Triṃśikā, the Viṃśatikā and the two commentaries Vasubandhu continually lays down the boundaries of “abiding / not abiding”, “awakened / not awakened”, “liberation / no natural liberation”, and takes the arising of “wisdom’s non-apprehension of its object” as their condition — this non-deletable function of direct realization on the student’s side is the last load-bearing point (②, B).

the consciousness-only-ness grasped by another consciousness also has no own-being (E-10). (2) Towards self-knowledge: ordinary beings’ knowledge of their own mind is not as it really is, being covered by ignorance (E-12). (3) Towards the treatise: the whole Viṃśatikā is composed only “隨自能” (“according to my own ability”), and every aspect of consciousness-only is “難思，佛所行” (“inconceivable, the domain of the Buddhas”) (E-13). (A)

Positive evidence for self-inclusion: verse 25 identifies “consciousness-only-ness” — the true nature of consciousness — with suchness, and says it is so at all times (E-18). This goes a step beyond Asaṅga’s inclusion of “大乘妙正法教” (“the wondrous true teaching of the Great Vehicle”) in the perfected nature (No.09 E-16): what is placed within the ground is not a certain kind of verbal teaching, but the true nature of consciousness itself; that is, the nature of the consciousness that is cognizing, that is teaching, is suchness. The Trisvabhāvanirdeśa shows by “suchness is like the wood” that it is always present in all appearing (E-27). This is real positive material for “the place of cognition within a more fundamental structure” required by v1.3, and it is given in the defining manner of the root verses.

The logical limits of self-inclusion: what E-18 places is “the true nature of consciousness = suchness”; it cannot be inferred directly that all present activity of consciousness, speech or writing is already ultimate completion;

(2) Cognitive self-inclusion: what is identified with suchness is “consciousness-only-ness” — the nature of consciousness (E-18); Paramārtha’s Zhuanshi lun says “境智無差別，名如如智” (“the non-difference of object and wisdom is called the wisdom of suchness”) (E-24).

(3) The form of cognition: the final state is “no-mind”, “non-apprehension” (E-22); apprehension and non-apprehension are equal (E-32).

(4) The relation of the three natures: the three natures are not different (E-26); suchness is always present in the illusion (E-27).

(5) Verse 35 of the Trisvabhāvanirdeśa read on its own in the Sanskrit: mokṣāpattir ayatnataḥ can be read as “liberation is obtained without effort” (E-29).

These five layers together constitute a complete candidate for the ① direction in Vasubandhu’s works, and must be taken seriously.

Why it is still ②:

(1) Vasubandhu makes a temporal distinction between the nature’s “being” and the student’s “not abiding / abiding”. yadā…tadā alone is not enough to prove two separable causal events;

but E-19 “while not abiding, the latent dispositions of the two graspings do not cease” and E-11 “not having attained true awakening / attaining non-discriminating wisdom is true awakening” explicitly record the difference in completion. This is the functional fact on which ② must bear weight.

(2) The Sanskrit of verse 29 coordinates no-mind, non-apprehension and supramundane wisdom; they may be different names for one and the same non-dual occurrence, need not be two entities, and are not a three-stage causal chain. The judgment of ② does not rest on the word “wisdom” itself, but on its inseparability from the cessation of latent dispositions in verse 26, the transformation of the basis in verse 29, and the condition of true awakening in the autocommentary of the Viṃśatikā. The Tibetan variant med / de is retained.

(3) Vasubandhu himself answers the deletion test twice. The commentary on the Madhyāntavibhāga: if emptiness were originally undefiled, all sentient beings would be liberated naturally without effort — a rejected consequence (E-33); the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya: sentient beings are not liberated because they lack non-discriminating wisdom (E-36). The former stands in the same passage as “心性本淨” (“the nature of mind is originally pure”).

(4) For the “effortless liberation” of verse 35 of the Trisvabhāvanirdeśa there is both the counter-argument interpretation of Tola / Dragonetti, who from context read it as “if external objects really existed, there would be natural liberation”, and the positive interpretation of Garfield, who from the Tibetan reads it as “through correct cognition and following the three kinds of knowledge, liberation is obtained naturally”; the two modern interpretations really do differ substantively (E-29). Hence it cannot be said that this verse can only be read according to the counter-argument structure of E-33; but the positive interpretation likewise presupposes the three kinds of knowledge, and does not automatically complete ①’s deletion test of cognitive mediation.

(5) The deletion test: it is not deleting the name “abiding” while retaining the non-apprehending direct realization it refers to; it is deleting the whole completing operation on the student’s side, “from the two graspings not yet extinguished to non-apprehension / true awakening / transformation of the basis”, while retaining permanent suchness. Then the “not attained / attained” of E-11, the unextinguished latent dispositions of E-19 and the stage of fruition of E-23 cannot be explained. The ① counter-theory can restate what occurs, but has not proved that it can be deleted.

Source level and terminological boundaries: “consciousness-only-ness” (vijñaptimātratā) and “abiding in consciousness-only” (vijñaptimātratve avasthāna) are different terms; “no-mind” (acitta) in Vasubandhu is a determination of supramundane wisdom and cannot be transferred directly to “no-mind” in the sense of No.08 Huangbo; “境智無差別” (“the non-difference of object and wisdom”) comes from Paramārtha’s mixed translation-explanation and cannot be taken word for word as Vasubandhu’s original.

Grades: grade A is that the text directly says the sentences “一切时如是” (“so at all times”), “即唯識性” (“is consciousness-only-ness”), “若時……智都無所得，爾時住唯識” (“when … wisdom has no apprehension at all, then one abides in consciousness-only”), “that is without mind, without apprehension, and that is supramundane wisdom”, “若時得彼出世對治無分別智，乃名真覺” (“when one attains the supramundane, counteractive non-discriminating wisdom, that is called true awakening”), and “一切有情不由功用應自然解脫” (“all sentient beings would be liberated naturally without effort”, as a rejected consequence); grade B is the view, running through several of Vasubandhu’s works, that the arising of wisdom cannot be deleted from the student’s ultimate completion.

the ① direction has systematic positive evidence, and the key alternative reading is C; the Derge med / other versions de and the verse 28 wisdom / consciousness variants await external checking of the original prints and critical editions; the version disputes are retained)

Why ②: the primary load-bearing is the autocommentary of the Viṃśatikā, E-11, “未得真觉不能自知／得无分别智乃名真觉” (“not having attained true awakening, one cannot know by oneself / attaining non-discriminating wisdom is called true awakening”); second is the complete chain in the Triṃśikā, E-19, E-21, E-22—E-23: the latent dispositions of the two graspings not yet ceased — non-apprehension of the object — abiding in consciousness-only — transformation of the basis / dharma-body. E-33 and E-36 are T2 side-evidence in the same direction, from Vasubandhu’s commentaries on others’ treatises. The number of translated versions of three different works cannot serve as independent witnesses; still less can “wisdom and abiding must be two independent events” be treated as a new threshold of v1.3.

Why it cannot yet be placed in ①: ① has systematic evidence of a real nature, the non-difference of the three natures, de-objectification and cognitive self-inclusion; but “suchness does not wait for recognition” cannot be pushed directly to “the student’s true awakening does not wait to occur”.

The strong ① alternative theory describes “attaining non-discriminating wisdom” as “recognizing what was originally so”; this is compatible with the permanence of the nature, but still retains the difference of not attained / attained, and does not substantively delete this cognitive function of completion. Replacing “suchness is so” at all times with “already truly awakened” at all times is an additional premise, not explicit T1 text of Vasubandhu.

Why not ③: Vasubandhu is not asking whether the ground exists or how it is possible; he determines the ground directly (consciousness-only-ness, suchness), and gives the condition and the fruition of abiding in it.

Why not ④: Vasubandhu’s explanation of the world and of mind is highly developed — the three transformers, the fifty-one mental factors, seeds and perfuming, the point-by-point refutation of external objects — and could easily be seen as “explaining the world”. But the Triṃśikā gathers all explanation into the “consciousness-only-ness” of verse 25 and the “abiding in consciousness-only” of verses 26—30, and says explicitly in verse 27 that even “this is only consciousness” must not be grasped (E-20); the Viṃśatikā ends with “难思，佛所行” (“inconceivable, the domain of the Buddhas”) (E-13). Explanation is the ladder to direct seeing, not the final position.

• No.05 Xinxin ming (②; local C at the ① / ② boundary): “一如體玄，兀爾忘緣” (“the One Suchness is profound in substance; unmoving, one forgets conditions”) and “歸根得旨” (“returning to the root, one attains the meaning”) can be compared to a limited extent with Vasubandhu’s “consciousness-only-ness is suchness” and “abiding in consciousness-only”; the Xinxin ming does not distinguish “being” from “abiding”, whereas Vasubandhu distinguishes them explicitly in two adjacent verses.
• No.073 Wenzi, Zai and Sheng (①, direction of the completed archive): the thought of Zai–Sheng, through the whole structure of Zai and Sheng, 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; Vasubandhu’s corresponding material is “consciousness-only-ness is suchness, so at all times” and “no-mind is wisdom”. Here the comparison is only by the complete direction of thought of each archive; no isolated sentence of the other is made into a counter-proof for this archive, nor is a settled placement of one figure allowed to prove No.10 in reverse.

• Madhyāntavibhāga 辩中边论: the root verses are traditionally spoken by Maitreya, the prose is Vasubandhu’s commentary. Sanskrit extant (GRETIL electronic transcription); Chinese translations: Xuanzang, Bian zhongbian lun (T31 no.1600); Paramārtha, Zhongbian fenbie lun (T31 no.1599).
• Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya 摄大乘论释: Vasubandhu’s commentary, tr. Paramārtha (T31 no.1595) and Xuanzang (T31 no.1597); Tibetan Derge Toh 4050 (translated by Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna and Tshul khrims rgyal ba).
• Abhidharmakośabhāṣya 阿毗达磨俱舍论: composed by Vasubandhu. Sanskrit extant (GRETIL electronic transcription); Chinese translations by Xuanzang (T29 no.1558) and Paramārtha (T29 no.1559). The biographies regard it as a work from before his turn to the Mahāyāna.
• Works of disputed attribution: the Foxing lun (tr. Paramārtha, T31 no.1610), the Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuansheng ji (tr. Bodhiruci, T26 no.1524), and others. Not used as core evidence in this archive.
• Biographies: Paramārtha (tr.), Posupandou fashi zhuan (T50 no.2049); Xuanzang, Da Tang Xiyu ji, fasc. 5 (T51 no.2087).

• Materials not used as core evidence: the historical question of the “two Vasubandhus” hypothesis, the later evaluations of the Faxiang school and of the Tibetan tradition, and late legends of Vasubandhu.

External readings newly added this time (not substitutes for the primary texts): R. Nance, Vasubandhu’s Triṃśikā: A Concordance of Sanskrit–Tibetan (Derge–Golden–Peking)–English Translations (2005), verses 28—29 and footnote 26; Fernando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti, “The Trisvabhāvakārikā of Vasubandhu,” Journal of Indian Philosophy 11 (1983), 225–266 (Sanskrit manuscripts, the two Tibetan translations and their interpretation); Jay L. Garfield, “Vasubandhu’s Treatise on the Three Natures: A Translation and Commentary” (1997), the positive translation of verse 35. These materials are all publicly available editorial readings / scholarly interpretations found this time, and do not amount to having checked the original Sanskrit manuscripts or the Tibetan original prints. The special collation further used: the comparative edition of the Tengyur by the China Tibetology Research Center (OpenPecha P000792 transcription and variant-note layer, BDRC W1PD95844); the BuddhaNexus Tibetan electronic texts (T06D4055, T06D4064); the Sanskrit electronic text of Advayavajra’s Tattvaratnāvalī (BuddhaNexus T02n2918u).;