A Flaw in Ancient Yogacara

Regarding the nature of the manas (意根) as discussed in the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi* (成唯识论), which was either translated or partially translated and partially authored by Master Xuanzang (玄奘), it states that the manas possesses a non-defined nature (无记性), being neither unwholesome nor wholesome. At that time, I did not dare to question Master Xuanzang’s exposition and simply accepted his teachings as correct, thus aligning my understanding of the manas’ nature accordingly. Later, I gradually realized the inaccuracy and subsequently corrected the nature of the manas, which led to opposition from some individuals.

When I first began lecturing on Vijñaptimātratā (唯识), my wisdom was insufficient. I dared not question the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*, nor the highly renowned Master Xuanzang or other Vijñaptimātratā masters. Eventually, upon discovering the inaccuracies, I began teaching based on my own insights, which provoked opposition from those who rely on persons rather than the Dharma. Given the vast difference in reputation, diverging from the established teachings inevitably stirred considerable controversy.

In my book *Mental Factors Associated with the Manas* (意根心所法), I have substantially corrected the nature of the manas, differing from ancient Vijñaptimātratā interpretations. Initially, I hesitated to publish this book publicly, fearing significant resistance and unnecessary trouble. Later, as I lectured more extensively on the manas, many people developed a correct understanding of it and became receptive to the teachings. Consequently, I made it publicly available on the website for anyone to download and read freely.

Consider this: If the manas were of a non-defined nature, neither wholesome nor unwholesome, would this be tenable? Anyone with discernment can see that the manas is interwoven with both wholesomeness and unwholesomeness; spiritual cultivation is precisely about refining it. If the manas does not abandon the unwholesome and cultivate the wholesome, how can sentient beings attain Buddhahood? If the manas were devoid of unwholesomeness, why would sentient beings even need to study Buddhism and engage in practice?

Due to ignorance and lack of wisdom, sentient beings blindly revere those with great fame, especially ancient masters, utterly failing to rely on the Dharma rather than the person. The phrase "rely on the Dharma, not on the person" has become nothing more than a slogan, a formality; very few can genuinely embody it.

Master Xuanzang’s involvement in compiling and translating this treatise ensnared him, leaving a blemish on his legacy for later generations of wise individuals to judge. It was hardly worthwhile. Once, when someone asked me about a passage in the *Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi*, I began explaining it but stopped upon encountering an evident error. I had originally intended to lecture on this treatise, but after discovering the error, I dared not proceed, fearing I might become trapped and gain no benefit from either side. It simply wasn’t worth the risk.

In the past, I read some works by Master Kuiji (窥基), though not extensively, because I soon discovered rather obvious errors, and quite a few of them, so I stopped reading. If ancient Vijñaptimātratā teachings had no flaws or gaps, why did their transmission cease abruptly after the second generation with Master Kuiji? That was still the Semblance Dharma Age (像法时代), a period when the Dharma had not yet significantly declined and the spiritual faculties of sentient beings remained relatively sound.