📜

Trisvabhāva-nirdeśa (F. Tola y C. Dragonetti 1983 trans.)

Translated by F. Tola y C. Dragonetti in Journal of Indian Philosophy 11 (1983) p. 225-266. D. Reidel Publishing Company.

  1. It is admitted that the three natures, the imaginary, the dependent and the absolute one, are the profound object of the wise men's knowledge.
  2. What appears is the dependent (nature); as it appears is the imaginary (nature), (the first one being so called) because it exists subordinated to causes, (the second one being so called) because its existence is only a mental creation.
  3. The eternal non-existence as it appears of what appears must be known as the absolute nature, because of its inalterability.
  4. And what does appear? The unreal mental creation. How does it appear? With duality. What is the non-existence with this (duality) of that (dependent nature)? It is the fact that the essence (of the dependent nature) is the non-duality in it.
  5. And what is the unreal mental creation? The mind, because as it is imagined and as it imagines its object, so it is not at all.
  6. It is admitted that mind is twofold, according to its being either cause or effect: the consciousness that is called 'ālaya" (receptacle) and the consciousness that is called 'pravṛtti' (functioning) which (at its turn) is sevenfold.
  7. The first mind is called 'citta" (mind), because it is citta (lit. accumulated = filled) by the seeds, i.e. the vāsanās, of the impurities; and the second one (is called 'citta', mind), because of its functioning under citra (diverse) forms.
  8. And this unreal mental creation, in a summary manner, is considered to be threefold: vāipakika (produced by maturation), and also naimittika (produced by causes); the other one is prātibhāsika (consisting of representations).
  9. The first (mode or aspect) is the root-consciousness, because its essence is maturation; the other one is the functioning-consciousness, because it exists as object, subject and knowledge.
  10. It is admitted the profoundness of the (three) natures, because they are being and non-being, because they are duality and unity, and because of the identity of essence of the purity and the impurity.
  11. Since the imaginary nature is grasped with existence, but it is only total non-existence, therefore it is considered as something whose characteristic (lakṣaṇa) is being and non-being.
  12. Since the dependent (nature) exists with the existence of an illusion, (but) does not exist as it appears, therefore it is considered as something whose characteristic is being and non-being.
  13. Since the absolute nature exists with non-duality, but it is only non-existence of duality, therefore it is considered as something whose characteristic is being and non-being.
  14. The nature imagined by the ignorant is considered as something whose essence is duality and unity; (duality) because of the duality of the imagined object, (unity) because of its being one due to the non-existence of that (duality).
  15. The nature that is called "dependent" is considered as something whose essence is duality and unity; (duality) because it appears with duality, (unity) because of its being one due to (duality being) a mere illusion.
  16. The absolute nature is considered as something whose essence is duality and unity; (duality) because it is nature (only) in relation to duality, (unity) because its only nature is non-duality.
  17. It must be known that the imaginary (nature) and the dependent (nature) are the characteristic 91 of impurity;it is admitted that the absolute (nature) is the characteristic of purity.
  18. It must be known that the absolute (nature) is not different from the imaginary nature, because the nature (of the first one) is the inexistence of that (duality); because the nature (of the last one) is the inexistent duality.
  19. And it must be known that the imaginary (nature) is not different from the absolute (nature), because the nature (of the first one) is the inexistence of duality; because the nature (of the last one) is non-duality.
  20. The absolute (nature) is not different from the nature that is called "dependent", because the nature (of the first one) is not being so (as it manifests itself); because (of the last one) being non-existent as it appears.
  21. And it must be known that the dependent (nature) is not different from the absolute (nature), because the nature (of the first one) is not as it appears; because the nature (of the last one) is the inexistent duality.
  22. The distinction, in (their) order, of the three natures is established from the point of view of the empirical reality and from the point of view of the penetration (praveśa) into them for the purpose of (the penetration into them) being produced.
  23. It is admitted that the imaginary (nature) is the empirical reality (vyavahāratmā); the following one (the dependent nature) is the creator (vyavahārtṛ) of the empirical (reality), and the other nature (the absolute) is the destruction of the empirical reality.
  24. At first, the dependent (nature), constituted by the non-existence of duality is penetrated; then what is only imagination, (which is found) there, (and which is) inexistent duality, is penetrated.
  25. The the absolute (nature), (which is found) there, and (which is) the existence of the inexistence of duality, is penetrated; and so therefore it is said that only it (the absolute nature), in that moment, "is and is not".
  26. Then the absolute (nature), (which is found) there, and (which is) the existence one), because of its inexistence; (the dependent one), because it does not exist as (it appears), (the absolute one), because its nature is the inexistence of that (duality).
  27. In the same way as what is produced by magic, due to the mantras' power, appear as an elephant: there is only a form there, but a (real) elephant does not exist at all -
  28. The elephant is the imaginary nature, its form is the dependent (nature), and that elephant's inexistence, which is there, is considered as the absolute (nature) -
  29. In the same way the unreal mental creation, due to the root-mind, appears with duality: duality does not exist in any way, there exists something that is only a form.
  30. The root-consciousness is like the mantra; the reality is considered as the log; the mental creation is to be considered as the elephant's form; the duality is like the elephant.
  31. When the (intellectual) penetration (prativedha) of the (true) reality of objects is produced, it is considered that (three) processes, corresponding to each nature, (take place), simultaneously, in their order: knowledge, elimination and obtention.
  32. And it is admitted that knowledge is non-perception; elimination is non-manifestation and obtention is perception beyond causes, intuition.
  33. Through non-perception of duality, the form of duality disappears; with its disappearance the absolute inexistence of duality is obtained,
  34. As, in the magical illusion, there are simultaneously the non-perception of the elephant, the disappearance of its form, and the log's perception.
  35. Through the perception of "only-mind" - because (mind) is the cause of the intellect's vision of unrealities, because of the conformity with the three knowledge, and because of the production, without effort, of liberation
  36. - there is the non-perception of the knowable object; through the nonperception of the knowable object, there is the non-perception of mind.
  37. Through the non-perception of both, there is the perception of the dharmas' fundament; through the perception of the dharmas" fundament, there is the obtention of sovereignty.
  38. And who has obtained the sovereignty, through the realization oflfis own good and the other's good, reaches, wise, the supreme enlightenment, whose essence is the three bodies.

End of the Trisvabhdva, work of the venerable Master Vasubandhu.