(3) Refers to the three natures of Arhat: namely, the nature of cessation, the nature of separation, and the nature of annihilation. The words come from Volume 14 of "Chengshi Lun". The severance and separation of nature are called nirvana where Arahant Mingdi lives. That is to say, the end of all worries is called severance of nature; the separation from the desires of the six realms is called separation of nature. The nature of annihilation refers to the cessation of the five yin phases and the entry into nirvana without any residue. Lecture 5 of Lu Cheng's "A Brief Lecture on the Origin of Indian Buddhism" (Excerpt)
The so-called "Three Nature Theory" comes from the distinction of famous quotes. (1) It is expressed by famous quotes and held as reality, so that The understanding obtained is unreal distinction, which is called "the nature of the grasping of all-in-one calculations"; (2) the grasping of all-in-one calculations does not come out of thin air, but has something to rely on. The nature on which it relies is called "depending on others". Nature' (that is, arising according to various causes and conditions); (3) The pervasive attachment based on the nature of other origins is of course unreal. If you remove it, you can get the authenticity of all dharmas. This understanding is the most complete , is also the most real, and is called 'perfection into reality'. Therefore, from the perspective of the theory of dependent origin of self-nature, to understand the reality of all dharmas, we must distinguish the three natures in detail. The understanding of the reality is also the understanding of the three natures.
The three natures are related to the concepts of "existence" and "nothingness". The nature of the persistence of the universal plan is due to the persistence of the universal plan, so it is "nothing". The nature of dependence on otherness is the basis for the rise of universal reckoning, so it is 'existence', but it is consistent with universal reckoning (it arises due to the seeds of universal reckoning, and after it arises, there is the establishment of universal reckoning). Therefore, this Existence is not real existence, but 'false existence'. Only when it reaches perfection can it be said to be ‘real existence’. By understanding the three natures in this way, we not only have a correct understanding of "existence" and "non-existence", but also have a correct understanding of the "falseness" and "reality" of "existence". This is an unbiased understanding, which is called the "Middle Way" . This kind of view of the Middle Way goes a step further than what Nagarjuna said. Later, Chen Na gave a vivid explanation using metaphors: For example, when you see a rope while walking at night, you mistake it for a snake. Later, when you see clearly, you realize that it is a rope and not a snake. If you look carefully, you realize that the rope is made of hemp. This step-by-step understanding explains the three natures very well: misrecognition of the rope is caused by all-round calculation and attachment; the body of the rope arises from causes and conditions, then it arises from others; the knowledge that the rope is made of hemp, then it is round. Reality. This metaphor also illustrates the relationship between nothingness, false existence, and real existence: originally there is no snake, which is "nothing". At first glance, the rope is a snake. Although it is an illusion, it still exists, but it is "false existence". This also illustrates the relationship between relying on others and clinging to bias.
Asanga's view of the Middle Way is the understanding of the unity of the three natures, and believes that this is the only way to achieve the truth. Obviously, these statements are related to previous theories, and their origins can be traced back to the Prajna Sutra, but the scriptures do not mention it so clearly. Asanga himself also said that his theory of the three natures came from the Prajna Sutra, and integrated it with the principles of the Prajna Sutra (see the Mahayana Sutra). He said that the meaning of emptiness and nothingness discussed in the Prajna Sutra is not a general discussion, but refers to the omnipresence and persistence of all dharmas; the term "illusion and transformation" refers to the nature of others, existence but not reality; it also refers to When knowing and doing are pure, people can gain correct understanding in understanding and be liberated in practice, which is the so-called "original purity of dharma nature" (including the means to obtain purity), etc., which refers to the perfection of reality. It can also be said that if we do not use the three natures to explain these principles in the sutra, we will not be able to explain them thoroughly. The theory of the three natures is the inevitable destination of the principles of the Prajna Sutra.
The "Prajna Sutra" still developed later. For example, at the end of the second part of "The Great Prajna Sutra", a new "Ci Shi Wen Pin" was published. This chapter says that all dharmas (such as material dharmas) have three categories of distinctions, namely, the all-inclusive (form), the differentiated (form), and the dharma-nature (form). This is not only consistent with the theory of three natures, but also has almost the same name. This product is not found in the translations of Luo Shi and Xuanzang. Although it is available in the Tibetan translation, the catalog also indicates that it was published later. In addition, this article's statement on the three natures was quoted in the "Explanation of the Mahayana" written by Wu Xing. It can be seen that this article already existed in the Wu Xing era. All these can prove that "Ci Shi Wen Pin" was added later. In fact, the "Prajna Sutra" has the principles of emptiness, illusion and transformation, and the original purity of the nature of the law, which is enough to prove that the "Prajna Sutra" is narrated by the three natures. Whether it has this quality or not does not matter much.
The theory of the three natures discussed above is one of the characteristics of the Asanga and Vasubandhu doctrines.
The center of the theory of three natures is the nature of others. "Bodhisattva Ground" only talks about the "hypothetical nature" and "the self-nature of separation". Asanga and Vasubandhu thought it was simple and not enough to explain the relationship of understanding, so they added "depending on others". The key point between the two, in this way, "depending on others" has become the center of the theory of three natures. Dependence on other matters refers to all dharmas. Once establishment of dependence on other matters, all dharmas belong to one mind. The so-called "he" is the famous sayings (concepts) seeds of various dharma, which are all hidden in the alaya consciousness and exist in dependence on the alaya. The manifestation of these seeds gives rise to the myriad worlds (all dharmas). Huo Taohui's "The Five Meanings of Consciousness-Only" (Excerpt)
The Three Self-natures are the three concepts proposed by the Consciousness-Only School to illustrate existence, and are also one of the basic principles of the Consciousness-Only Sect. In terms of ideological origins, the issue of existence has always been emphasized by Buddhism. The pain in life comes from ignorance of the principles of existence. From this pursuit, in the era of Prajna and Madhyamaka, we discovered that the highest existence (absolute truth) is not within the scope of our knowledge at all, and the existence of everything we think about is empty. Emptiness is the principle of existence, which can only be understood through the dissolution of dual dialectics.
However, if existence is nothingness, why does it appear as existence in our experience? From existence to emptiness, how does the subject know? These questions cannot be answered by Madhyamaka scholars (or do not need to be answered). The successor of the consciousness-only school is to answer these questions, analyze the nature of existence, and find the root of existence for various existences.
According to the reflection of the Consciousness-Only Sect, all objects of our experience are transformed from the seeds held by Alaya Consciousness (a^laya-vijn~a^na). When these seeds are inactive, they are hidden in the alaya consciousness in a latent state. When the conditions for their activity are mature, they will appear and become the objects of our experience. This is the so-called 'consciousness transformation' ( vijn~a^na-parina^-ma). According to the concept of consciousness transformation, the existence as an object is provided by the subject (mind); as for its presentation, it is determined by conditions (causal principles), so the existence transformed in this way is called paratartra. -sva-bha^va, the true meaning is translated as 'dependence on others'). 'Self-nature' is the traditional translation. The original text (svabha^va) can be interpreted as 'one's own existence' (composed of the prefix sva- which means 'one's own' and the gerund bha^va which means 'existence'. Synthesis), but the usage of Madhyamaka is different from the usage of consciousness-only: the usage of Madhyamaka refers to an independent body that is not restricted by conditions, while consciousness-only is used to express the existence of objects.
Therefore, Madhyamaka says it is empty because they think it is impossible to realize such a body of divination; while consciousness-only says it exists because they do feel the existence of objects. However, the consciousness-only school discovered that starting from experience, there should be two types of existence: one is the existence that is absorbed in based on the distinguishing activities of the experiential mind, and the other is the existence that is the objective source of the object. The biggest difference between these two kinds of existence is that the former is based on the distinguishing activity of the mind, so if it is separated from the distinguishing function of the mind, this double existence will not exist; but the latter has nothing to do with the distinguishing activity of the mind. The existence of it is purely based on the affirmation of transcendence to solve the problem of objectivity of knowledge and the problem that the subject cannot know the object truthfully, which requires the improvement of the subject's wisdom through practice. Consciousness-only scholars call the former the self-nature of all-encompassing considerations (parikalpita-svabha^-va, the true meaning is translated as discrimination), while the latter is the self-nature that arises from others. The analysis of these two kinds of existence is somewhat similar to the approach of British empiricist J. Locke and others, but the conclusions are different.
Although, according to the above, the existence of dependence on others is also provided by consciousness, this is only based on the theory of dependence and relationship, not the theory of cognitive relationship. In other words, the relationship between consciousness and environment is, on the one hand, an existential relationship, where consciousness itself is transformed into an environment, and the environment is rooted in consciousness (and its seeds); on the other hand, it is a cognitive relationship, where consciousness has a distinguishing effect on the environment it transforms. From this, there is another existence under the action of discrimination. This existence is empty and arises with the discrimination of consciousness. It can be said that it is rooted in the discrimination of consciousness. However, whether all eight consciousnesses have these two relationships can be discussed. The early consciousness-only masters such as Asanga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, etc. do not seem to have deeply reflected on it, because they said that all eight consciousnesses can be counted. Later consciousness-only scholars such as Dhar-mapa^la believed that only the sixth and seventh consciousnesses can be counted all over the place, so the existence under the action of this distinction can only be found in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses (see "The Perfect Theory of Consciousness-Only"). "Volume 2 and Volume 8, and "Shu Ji"). From this, we can connect it to other concepts used to express objects, such as close objects, remote objects, essence separation, image separation, and concepts that explain the origin of their origin, such as cause-and-condition change, separation change, etc. Forming an extremely complex relationship, these relationships are all derived from the decomposition of the eight consciousnesses (and their mental states). In the original sense, it is enough to say that there are these two relationships between consciousness states.
Because there are two levels of existence, but from the standpoint of real experience, the world that sentient beings know is obscured by the discriminating function of the mind, so they can only see the existence that they are clinging to. It is impossible to know the truth based on other principles, so the consciousness-only school hopes that through practice, it can transform the fundamental wisdom and penetrate into the object. Since the activities of fundamental wisdom are non-discriminatory (also called non-discriminating wisdom), the self-nature that was originally attached to the self-nature of other-origins will dissipate, allowing the self-nature of self-dependence to emerge and become the fundamental self-nature. The object of direct observation by wisdom. At this time, we have reached the realm of saints, and what the fundamental wisdom faces is the noblest reality, so it is also called the perfect true nature (parinis!panna-svabha^-va, the true meaning is translated as authenticity. Note: If according to the original If the language is translated literally, the word "shi" in Yuan Chengshi's translation by Xuanzang is also added). "Thirty Verses of Consciousness Only" says: "Therefore, this and dependence on others are neither different nor the same, just like the nature of impermanence, which is not invisible to the other." ’ The last sentence of An Hui Jie points out that ‘when this perfected nature is not seen, the nature that arises from others will also not be seen. ’ This shows the relationship between the two. Therefore, although the concept of the Three Self-Nature indicates that there are three kinds of existence, in reality, the real existence is only dependent on others. When the subject is taken as the object, there is a difference between the comprehensive and complete reality. However, the spirit of Buddhism pursues wisdom and transforms ignorance, so it will not talk about an irrelevant structure of existence apart from the subject, and say that it originates from the original purpose of others, which is to dissolve all the clinging to the subject in order to achieve perfection. The so-called 'transforming consciousness into wisdom' is the destination of the theory of the consciousness-only school. Therefore, if we talk about it this way, the decomposition of the three self-natures cannot be abolished.