唯識二十論 偈二十一 意罰大罪
偈二十用「他識轉變」立了「殺由識成」，偈二十一世親不再自己講理，而搬出佛親口的一段問答來坐實——這是 §肆 整段倫理論辯的落槌，份量最重。
佛曾為確立「意罰（心的造業）是大罪、且比身罰語罰更重」，特地反問長者鄔波離：「你可曾聽說，彈咤迦林、末蹬伽林、羯陵伽林這三座大林，為何全成空寂無人之地？」鄔波離答：「我聽說是由於仙人的憤恚。」使三座大林化為空寂、令無數有情喪命的，是仙人的「意」（忿心），不是手、不是口。有人想岔開救：那其實是鬼神敬重仙人、代他下手殺的，非單憑仙意。世親反問頂回：若真是鬼神的身行代殺，佛還怎能拿這件事證「意罰重於身語」？佛分明用它立了「意罰最重」，可見佛意就是——正是仙人之忿令那些有情死，此理善成。
於是整段 §肆 圓滿落地：從殺羊之難、他識轉變令命根斷，到佛自說的意罰最重，層層證明殺死乃至最重的業本質都是心識之事、不待心外實物。唯識不取消業與倫理，反更深說明「心為法本」。世親收尾磊落，反手向自宗設難：他心智知不知他人心？知則似有外境、唯識破，不知則非他心智。他先給半答「雖知他心，然不如實」，完整解留給偈廿二。記住佛親口那一問的分量——讓三林空寂的，是一個「意」；心，比手和口更重。〔本偈為佛自立義之經證，如實轉述，不另作倫理評斷。〕
Verse 20 used "the transformation of another's cognition" to establish "killing is accomplished by consciousness"; in Verse 21 Vasubandhu no longer argues the matter himself, but brings out a passage of question-and-answer from the Buddha's own mouth to make it firm — this is the falling of the gavel on the whole ethical debate of §IV, the weightiest of all.
The Buddha once, in order to establish that "the penalty of mind (the karma made by mind) is the gravest crime, and graver than the penalty of body and speech," deliberately put a question back to the householder Upāli: "Have you ever heard why the Daṇḍaka forest, the Mātaṅga forest, and the Kaliṅga forest — these three great forests — all became places empty and still, without a soul?" Upāli answered: "I have heard it was on account of the seers' wrath." What turned three great forests into empty stillness, and brought countless sentient beings to their deaths, was the seers' "mind" (their wrathful heart) — not hand, not mouth. Someone wants to branch off and rescue the case: in truth it was that spirits and demons, revering the seers, killed in their stead, not by the seers' mind alone. Vasubandhu drives it back: if it really were the bodily act of spirits and demons that did the killing, how could the Buddha still take this case to prove "the penalty of mind is graver than body and speech"? The Buddha plainly used it to establish "the penalty of mind is gravest" — which shows the Buddha's meaning was just this: it was precisely the seers' wrath that made those sentient beings die. This principle is skillfully established.
And so the whole of §IV comes fully to ground: from the objection of killing a sheep, to the transformation of another's cognition severing the life-faculty, to the Buddha's own statement that the penalty of mind is gravest, layer upon layer it is proven that killing, death, and even the gravest karma are in essence all matters of mind and consciousness, not awaiting any real thing outside the mind. Consciousness-only does not abolish karma and ethics; it explains "mind is the root of all dharmas" more deeply still. Vasubandhu's close is forthright — he turns back to set a difficulty against his own thesis: does the knowledge of others' minds know another's mind or not? If it knows, there seems to be an external object and consciousness-only is broken; if it does not know, it is not the knowledge of others' minds. He gives half an answer first — "though it knows another's mind, it does not know it as it really is" — leaving the complete resolution to Verse 22. Hold on to the weight in that question from the Buddha's own mouth — what emptied the three forests was a single "mind"; mind weighs more than hand and mouth. 〔This verse is the scriptural proof for the Buddha's own established meaning, faithfully relayed, making no further ethical judgment.〕
§頌
彈咤迦等空，云何由仙忿？ 意罰為大罪，此復云何成？
§論（世親自註）
論曰：若不許由他識轉變增上力故他有情死，云何世尊為成意罰是大罪故，返問長者鄔波離言：「汝頗曾聞何因緣故，彈咤迦林、末蹬伽林、羯陵伽林皆空閑寂？」長者白佛言：「喬答摩！我聞由仙意憤恚故。」若執神鬼敬重仙人，知嫌為殺彼有情類，不但由仙意憤恚者，云何引彼成立意罰為大罪性過於身語？由此應知，但由仙忿彼有情死，理善成立。若唯有識，諸他心智知他心不？設爾何失？若不能知，何謂他心智？若能知者，唯識應不成。雖知他心，然不如實。頌曰：
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
§頌 白話
彈咤迦等（三座大林）變成空寂， 怎麼會是由於仙人的忿（意）所致呢？ （佛所立的）「意罰是大罪」這一義， （若不許意能致死，）這又怎麼能成立呢？
§論 白話
世親解釋這首偈。
如果不承認「由於他人的識起轉變、藉其增上之力，能使別的有情死亡」，那麼，世尊為了成立「意罰是大罪」這件事，為什麼要反問長者鄔波離說：「你可曾聽說，是什麼緣故，彈咤迦林、末蹬伽林、羯陵伽林都變得空曠寂靜（無人）？」長者回答佛說：「喬答摩！我聽說是由於仙人的憤恚的緣故。」
如果有人執著說：其實是鬼神敬重仙人，知道仙人心生嫌惡，就代仙人去殺那些有情，並不單是由於仙人的意憤——那麼，（世尊）又怎能引這件事來成立「意罰是大罪、其罪性超過身罰和語罰」呢？由此應當知道：正是由於仙人的忿（意），那些有情才死的——這個道理是善巧成立的。
（世親接著反問：）如果只有識，那麼諸「他心智」（知道他人心的智）到底知不知道他人的心？假設（隨你答），會有什麼過失？如果說「不能知」，那還叫什麼「他心智」？如果說「能知」，那「唯識」就應該不成立了（因為有他人的心作為被知的對象）。（世親自答：）「他心智」雖然知道他人的心，但並不是如其真實地知道。用下一首偈來說明。
§Verse — plain reading
The Daṇḍaka forest and the rest (three great forests) became empty and still — how could that have come about through a seer's wrath (his mind)? The [Buddha's established] teaching that "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime" — [if mind is not granted the power to cause death,] how then could this hold?
§Auto-commentary — plain reading
Vasubandhu explains this verse.
If one does not grant that "through the transformation of another's consciousness, by the force of its dominance, another sentient being can be made to die," then why, in order to establish that "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime," did the World-Honoured One put this question back to the householder Upāli (鄔波離): "Have you ever heard for what cause the Daṇḍaka forest, the Mātaṅga forest, and the Kaliṅga forest all became empty, open, and still (without a soul)?" The householder answered the Buddha: "Gautama! I have heard that it was on account of the seers' wrath."
Suppose someone insists: in truth it was that spirits and demons, revering the seers, knew that the seers' minds had given rise to revulsion, and so killed those sentient beings on the seers' behalf — it was not by the seers' mental wrath alone. Then how could [the World-Honoured One] cite this case to establish that "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime, its nature exceeding the penalty of body and the penalty of speech"? From this one should know: it was precisely on account of the seers' wrath (their mind) that those sentient beings died — this principle is skillfully established.
(Vasubandhu then puts a question back:) If there is only consciousness, then does the knowledge of others' minds (他心智, the knowing that knows another's mind) actually know another's mind or not? Suppose [either answer you give], what fault follows? If you say "it cannot know," then what sort of "knowledge of others' minds" is that? If you say "it can know," then "consciousness-only" ought not to hold (since there is another's mind as the object known). (Vasubandhu answers himself:) the "knowledge of others' minds," though it knows another's mind, does not know it as it really is. This is made clear by the verse that follows.
用佛自己的話來收尾
偈二十用「他識轉變」立了「殺由識成」；偈二十一，世親不再自己講理，而是搬出佛親口的一段問答來坐實它。這一偈是 §肆 整段倫理論辯的落槌，份量最重，因為它不是世親的推論，是佛的自說。
佛為什麼要問鄔波離那一句
世親提醒：佛曾為了確立一個道理——「意罰（心的造業）是大罪，而且比身罰、語罰更重」——特地反問長者鄔波離一句：
「你可曾聽說，是什麼緣故，彈咤迦林、末蹬伽林、羯陵伽林這三座大林，全都成了空寂無人之地？」
鄔波離答：「喬答摩（佛的姓）啊，我聽說，是由於仙人的憤恚（意之忿）。」
佛正是引這件事，來證成「意罰最重」。請看這裡的關鍵：使三座大林化為空寂、令其中無數有情喪命的，是仙人的「意」（忿心），不是仙人的手、不是仙人的口。
堵住一條岔路
世親預見有人會岔出來救：「不對吧？那其實是鬼神敬重仙人，體察到仙人動了嫌惡之心，於是代替仙人下手去殺那些有情——並不是單憑仙人的意憤就能致死。」
世親一句反問頂回去：若真是鬼神的『身行』代殺，那佛還怎麼能拿這件事去證明「意罰重於身語」？ 佛舉這例，恰恰是要說「意」之獨力能成大罪；你若把致死的功勞歸給鬼神的身行，這例子就證不成佛要立的義了。可佛分明用它立了「意罰最重」——可見佛的意思就是：正是仙人之忿（意），令那些有情死。 此理，善成。
心力既能致死，唯識便無倫理之憂
於是整段 §肆 在這裡圓滿落地：從偈十九的「殺羊之難」，到偈二十的「他識轉變令命根斷」，再到本偈佛自說的「意罰最重」——層層證明：殺、死、乃至最重的業，本質都是心識之事，不待心外實物。 唯識不但沒有取消業與倫理，反而更深地說明了「為什麼心比手口更要緊」——這正是佛法「心為法本」的本懷。
一個誠實的轉身：那「他心智」呢
世親收尾極為磊落——他不護短，反手向自己這一宗設了一道難題：若一切唯識，那「他心智」（聖者知他人心的智慧）到底知不知道別人的心？這是兩難：說「不知」，那還叫什麼「知他心」的智？說「知」，那不就有個「他人的心」作了被知的對象、像是心外有境，唯識豈不破了？世親先給半個答案——「雖知他心，然不如實」（知是知，但不是如其真實地知），把完整的解留給下一偈。
承衍
偈二十一是 §肆 的封頂石，也是全論「破外境」之後對倫理的最後交代：以佛問鄔波離、仙忿空林的經證，立「意罰為大罪、重於身語」，把「識（心）能致死」釘成鐵案，整段殺生倫理難題於此善了。而它末尾那一道對自宗的誠實設問（他心智知他心否），則是通向 §伍 的橋——偈廿二正面解「他心智雖知而不如實」，偈廿三則以謙退之結頌收束全論。讀偈二十一，記住佛親口那一問裡的分量——讓三林空寂的，是一個『意』；心，比手和口更重。
〔按：本偈為佛自立「意罰最重」之經證，如實轉述佛問鄔波離之公案，不就其倫理意涵另作評斷；其義之安立，佛已自定。〕
Closing with the Buddha's own words
Verse 20 used "the transformation of another's cognition" to establish "killing is accomplished by consciousness"; in Verse 21 Vasubandhu no longer argues the matter himself, but brings out a passage of question-and-answer from the Buddha's own mouth to make it firm. This verse is the falling of the gavel on the whole ethical debate of §IV, and the weightiest of all — because it is not Vasubandhu's inference, but the Buddha's own statement.
Why the Buddha put that question to Upāli
Vasubandhu reminds us: the Buddha once, in order to establish a principle — that "the penalty of mind (the karma made by mind) is the gravest crime, and graver than the penalty of body and the penalty of speech" — deliberately put a question back to the householder Upāli (鄔波離):
"Have you ever heard for what cause the Daṇḍaka forest, the Mātaṅga forest, and the Kaliṅga forest — these three great forests — all became places empty and still, without a soul?"
Upāli answered: "Gautama (the Buddha's family name)! I have heard that it was on account of the seers' wrath (the wrath of their mind)."
It was precisely this case the Buddha cited to establish "the penalty of mind is gravest." Note the crux here: what turned three great forests into empty stillness, and brought countless sentient beings within them to their deaths, was the seers' "mind" (their wrathful heart) — not the seers' hands, not the seers' mouths.
Blocking off a side-road
Vasubandhu foresees that someone will branch off to rescue the case: "Surely not? In truth it was that spirits and demons, revering the seers, perceived that the seers had stirred up a mind of revulsion, and so killed those sentient beings on the seers' behalf — it was not that the seers' mental wrath alone could cause death."
Vasubandhu drives it back with a single question: if it really were the "bodily act" of spirits and demons that did the killing in their stead, then how could the Buddha still take this case to prove that "the penalty of mind is graver than that of body and speech"? The Buddha raised this example precisely to say that "mind" can, by its own power alone, accomplish a grave crime; if you credit the deaths to the bodily act of spirits and demons, then the example fails to prove the principle the Buddha meant to establish. Yet the Buddha plainly used it to establish "the penalty of mind is gravest" — which shows the Buddha's meaning was just this: it was precisely the seers' wrath (their mind) that made those sentient beings die. This principle is skillfully established.
Since the power of mind can cause death, consciousness-only has no ethical worry
And so the whole of §IV comes fully to ground here: from the "objection of killing a sheep" in Verse 19, to "the transformation of another's cognition severing the life-faculty" in Verse 20, to "the penalty of mind is gravest" stated by the Buddha himself in this verse — layer upon layer it is proven: killing, death, and even the gravest karma are in essence all matters of mind and consciousness, not awaiting any real thing outside the mind. Consciousness-only does not abolish karma and ethics; on the contrary, it explains more deeply "why mind matters more than hand and mouth" — and this is exactly the original intent of the Buddha-dharma's "mind is the root of all dharmas."
An honest turn: and what about "the knowledge of others' minds"?
Vasubandhu's close is utterly forthright — he covers nothing up, but turns back to set a difficulty against his own thesis: if all is consciousness-only, then does "the knowledge of others' minds" (他心智, the sage's wisdom that knows another's mind) actually know another's mind or not? This is a dilemma: say "it does not know," and what sort of "knowing another's mind" is that? Say "it knows," and is there not then "another's mind" serving as the object known, as though there were an object outside the mind — has consciousness-only not been broken? Vasubandhu gives half an answer first — "though it knows another's mind, it does not know it as it really is" (it knows, yes, but not as the thing truly is) — leaving the complete resolution to the next verse.
Carried forward (承衍)
Verse 21 is the capstone of §IV, and also the treatise's final accounting to ethics after "refuting external objects": with the scriptural proof of the Buddha questioning Upāli and the seers' wrath emptying the forests, it establishes "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime, graver than body and speech," nailing down as an iron case that "consciousness (mind) can cause death," and so the whole knot of the ethics of killing is here skillfully resolved. And that honest question it sets at its end against its own thesis (does the knowledge of others' minds know another's mind?) is the bridge to §V — Verse 22 directly resolves "the knowledge of others' minds knows, yet not as it really is," and Verse 23 then closes the whole treatise with a humble concluding verse. In reading Verse 21, hold on to the weight in that question from the Buddha's own mouth — what emptied the three forests was a single "mind"; mind weighs more than hand and mouth.
〔Note: this verse is the scriptural proof for the Buddha's own establishing of "the penalty of mind is gravest"; it faithfully relays the case of the Buddha questioning Upāli, without making any further judgment upon its ethical import; the establishing of its meaning the Buddha has already settled for himself.〕
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
| 系統 | 此偈之位 |
|---|---|
| 全論五段 | §肆 破現量·夢覺·教證（偈十五–廿一）之經證收束偈。偈二十立「他識轉變令命根斷」→ 偈廿一以佛問鄔波離之經證，立「意罰為大罪、重於身語」，坐實識力致死 ；末轉問「他心智知他心否」→ §伍 偈廿二 |
| 偈二十→偈廿一 | 偈二十以理立他識轉變致死；偈廿一以教（經證）證之——意罰最重，故心力勝身語，殺由仙忿（意）善成 |
| §肆→§伍 | 偈廿一末以「他心智知他心否」之兩難收 §肆、啟 §伍（他心智不如實·結頌） |
| 玄奘段位 | §頌〔p0077a09–10〕· §論自註〔p0077a11–21〕 |
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
§頌四句兩問：「彈咤迦等空，云何由仙忿？」（彈咤迦等三林何以空寂——豈非由仙人之忿〔意〕？）·「意罰為大罪，此復云何成？」（若不許意能致死，則佛立『意罰為大罪』一義何由成立？）。以反問逼出「意能致死」。
§論三節：(一)經證——若不許他識轉變令他死，云何世尊為成「意罰是大罪」，返問長者鄔波離：「何因緣故，彈咤迦林、末蹬伽林、羯陵伽林皆空閑寂？」長者答：「我聞由仙意憤恚故。」(二)遮救——若救「實是神鬼敬重仙人、知仙嫌而代殺，非但仙意憤恚」，則世尊何能引此成立「意罰為大罪、過於身語」？故知但由仙忿（意）彼有情死，理善成立。(三)轉軸——若唯有識，諸「他心智」知他心否？知則似有外（他心）為所緣、唯識應不成；不知則何名他心智。世親斷「雖知他心，然不如實」，啟偈廿二。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
- 經證：佛為成「意罰（意業之罰）是大罪、重於身罰語罰」，返問長者鄔波離「三林空寂之由」，鄔波離答「由仙意憤恚」——此佛與鄔波離問答之經（漢譯《中阿含·優婆離經》一系所傳）為本偈之正證。世親引佛自立之「意罰最重」義，證「意（識）能致死」。
- 論本：世親自註（T1590）引此經證成「但由仙忿彼有情死」，並就「他心智」設兩難收結；論之證，唯引佛說與公認之公案，不增不判。
四、本論釋要（世親自註 T1590）
本偈以佛之自說為 §肆 封頂。世親的論證鏈極嚴：佛既為了確立「意罰（心之罰）是大罪，且重於身、語二罰」，特地反問鄔波離——那彈咤迦、末蹬伽、羯陵伽三座大林，何以盡成空寂？鄔波離答：聽說是仙人的憤恚（意）所致。佛引此以成「意罰最重」。世親順此一推：若有人救說「其實是鬼神敬重仙人、體察仙意而代為殺害，並非單由仙人之意憤」——那佛還怎麼能拿這件事去證明「意罰重於身語」？（既被鬼神之身行所代，便不成『意』之獨罰了。）故知：正是仙人之忿（意），令那些有情死，此理善成。識（意）能致死，於佛說中有據。如是 §肆 自偈十九之殺生難起，至此以經證落槌：殺、死、乃至最重之業，皆心識之事，不待外境。論末世親不停步，反手向自宗設一兩難（他心智知不知他心），既知則似違唯識、不知則非他心智，自答「雖知他心，然不如實」——把論題交給 §伍 偈廿二正解。本偈為精微之經證，據實轉述佛問鄔波離之公案與「意罰最重」之佛自立義，不以譯者之意增減、不就其倫理意涵作判。
五、諸家異釋（古德 · 標宗）
- 護法《成唯識寶生論》T31n1591（唐·義淨譯·漢有傳本）——釋本偈，展開意罰大罪之經證及他心智兩難。〔標宗：護法於意罰經證及他心智處有詳釋；古德讀法之一，此處只記其宗，不判。〕
- Vinītadeva Prakaraṇaviṃśakaṭīkā——藏譯存·漢無傳本，依例僅志其名，內容不入義據。
六、譯名 · 古譯對讀（三漢譯）
| 漢譯 | 譯本 | 對讀 |
|---|---|---|
| ★ 唐·玄奘 T31n1590 | 「彈咤迦等空，云何由仙忿？意罰為大罪，此復云何成？」 | 五言四句，以佛問鄔波離之經證立意罰最重；自註引三林空寂之公案；以此為底本 |
| 陳·真諦 T31n1589《大乘唯識論》 | 散文連展意罰經證與他心智難（古代漢證·參校） | |
| 後魏·般若流支 T31n1588《唯識論》 | 對應段以散文出之；逐字以 CBETA 為準（古代漢證·參校） |
專名（彈咤迦林·末蹬伽林·羯陵伽林·鄔波離）依玄奘譯。
七、術語（古德所傳梵 · 發音輔助·依玄奘譯名繫音）
| 漢 | 梵（發音輔助） | 義 |
|---|---|---|
| 意罰 | manas-daṇḍa | 意業之罰；佛立其為大罪、重於身語 |
| 鄔波離 | Upāli | 長者（與持律之優波離尊者異）；佛問三林空寂之對機 |
| 彈咤迦／末蹬伽／羯陵伽林 | Daṇḍaka／Mātaṅga／Kaliṅga | 三林；由仙人意憤恚故空寂之公案地 |
| 他心智 | para-citta-jñāna | 知他人心之智；末轉問其知境如實否 |
梵羅馬字僅作發音輔助·繫玄奘譯名；無古德音寫可徵者從闕，不據現代校本補。
八、互讀（唯識系次第）
| 百法明門論 | 唯識三十論 | 二十論內部 |
|---|---|---|
| #6 意識——「意罰」之能造；意業勝身語 ⭐ | 偈一「彼依識所變」——業以心為本 | 偈二十 他識轉變——本偈以經證成其「識力致死」 |
| #51 思（遍行心所）——意業之體（思為業性） | 偈三 思·作意——業之造作在思 | 偈廿二 他心智——承末「他心智不如實」 |
| #100 真如／佛淨智——他心智所不及之佛境 | 偈廿九 佛智——唯佛淨智知不可言境 | 偈廿三 結頌——難思佛所行 |
九、校本定位
- 漢文正文（§頌）：T31n1590〔p0077a09–10〕（玄奘譯）
- 漢文自註（§論）：T31n1590〔p0077a11–21〕（玄奘譯）
- 經證：佛問長者鄔波離「三林空寂之由」之經（《中阿含·優婆離經》一系所傳·名指）
- 參校漢譯：T31n1589（真諦《大乘唯識論》）· T31n1588（般若流支《唯識論》）
- 古德釋：T31n1591（護法《成唯識寶生論》·漢有傳本）
1. Doctrinal-outline placement
| System | This verse's place |
|---|---|
| The treatise's five parts | The scriptural-proof closing verse of §IV Refuting [the appeal to] Direct Perception · Dream-and-Waking · Scriptural Proof (破現量·夢覺·教證, vv.15–21). v.20 establishes "the transformation of another's cognition severs the life-faculty" (他識轉變令命根斷) → v.21, with the scriptural proof of the Buddha questioning Upāli, establishes "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime, graver than body and speech" (意罰為大罪、重於身語), making firm that the power of consciousness causes death; it ends by turning to the question "does the knowledge of others' minds know another's mind?" (他心智知他心否) → §V v.22 |
| v.20 → v.21 | v.20 establishes by reasoning that the transformation of another's cognition causes death; v.21 proves it by teaching (scriptural proof) — the penalty of mind is gravest, hence the power of mind exceeds body and speech, and killing through the seers' wrath (their mind) is skillfully established |
| §IV → §V | v.21 closes §IV and opens §V with the dilemma "does the knowledge of others' minds know another's mind?" (他心智知他心否) (the knowledge of others' minds not-as-it-really-is · concluding verse) |
| Xuanzang's textual loci | §Verse 〔p0077a09–10〕· §Auto-commentary 〔p0077a11–21〕 |
2. The source-verse · the doctrinal thread
The §Verse's four lines pose two questions: 「彈咤迦等空，云何由仙忿？」 ("The Daṇḍaka forest and the rest became empty — how could it be through the seers' wrath?" — how did the three forests, Daṇḍaka and the rest, become empty and still, if not through the seers' wrath〔their mind〕?) · 「意罰為大罪，此復云何成？」 ("The penalty of mind is the gravest crime — how again could this hold?" — if mind is not granted the power to cause death, then on what could the Buddha's established teaching that "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime" hold?). By way of rhetorical question it forces out "mind can cause death."
The §Auto-commentary has three movements: (i) Scriptural proof — if one does not grant that the transformation of another's cognition causes another to die, why did the World-Honoured One, in order to establish that "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime," put the question back to the householder Upāli: 「何因緣故，彈咤迦林、末蹬伽林、羯陵伽林皆空閑寂？」 ("For what cause did the Daṇḍaka forest, the Mātaṅga forest, and the Kaliṅga forest all become empty, open, and still?") The householder answered: 「我聞由仙意憤恚故。」 ("I have heard it was on account of the seers' mental wrath.") (ii) Blocking the rescue — if one rescues [the case by saying] "in truth it was that spirits and demons, revering the seers and knowing the seers' revulsion, killed in their stead, not the seers' mental wrath alone," then how could the World-Honoured One cite this to establish "the penalty of mind is the gravest crime, exceeding body and speech"? Therefore one knows: it was only through the seers' wrath (their mind) that those sentient beings died — this principle is skillfully established. (iii) The pivot — if there is only consciousness, does the knowledge of others' minds (他心智) know another's mind or not? If it knows, then there seems to be an external (another's mind) as object, and consciousness-only ought not to hold; if it does not know, then what is it called the knowledge of others' minds for? Vasubandhu rules 「雖知他心，然不如實」 ("though it knows another's mind, [it does] not [know it] as it really is"), opening v.22.
3. Scripture and treatise: the grounding (scriptural proof → treatise-root)
- Scriptural proof. To establish that "the penalty of mind (the penalty of mental karma) is the gravest crime, graver than the penalty of body and the penalty of speech," the Buddha put back to the householder Upāli the question "the cause of the three forests' empty stillness," and Upāli answered "it was through the seers' mental wrath" (由仙意憤恚) — this scripture of the Buddha-and-Upāli question-and-answer (as transmitted in the line of the Chinese Madhyamāgama · Upāli-sūtra 《中阿含·優婆離經》) is the direct proof of this verse. Vasubandhu cites the Buddha's own established meaning that "the penalty of mind is gravest" to prove that "mind (consciousness) can cause death."
- Treatise-root. Vasubandhu's auto-commentary (T1590) cites this scripture to establish 「但由仙忿彼有情死」 ("it is only through the seers' wrath that those sentient beings die"), and sets a dilemma over the "knowledge of others' minds" as its close; the treatise's proof cites only the Buddha's word and the universally-acknowledged case, neither adding to it nor judging it.
4. The treatise-root in essence (Vasubandhu's auto-commentary, T1590)
This verse takes the Buddha's own statement as the capstone of §IV. Vasubandhu's chain of argument is most strict: since the Buddha, in order to establish that "the penalty of mind (the penalty of mind) is the gravest crime, and graver than the two penalties of body and speech," deliberately put it back to Upāli — those three great forests, Daṇḍaka, Mātaṅga, and Kaliṅga, why did they all become empty and still? Upāli answered: I have heard it was brought about by the seers' wrath (their mind). The Buddha cited this to establish "the penalty of mind is gravest." Vasubandhu presses on from this: if someone rescues [the case by saying] "in truth it was that spirits and demons, revering the seers and perceiving the seers' mind, killed in their stead, and not by the seers' mental wrath alone" — then how could the Buddha still take this case to prove "the penalty of mind is graver than body and speech"? (Once supplanted by the bodily act of spirits and demons, it would no longer be the sole penalty of "mind.") Therefore one knows: it was precisely the seers' wrath (their mind) that made those sentient beings die, and this principle is skillfully established. That consciousness (mind) can cause death has its ground in the Buddha's word. Thus §IV, beginning from the objection of killing in Verse 19, here lets the gavel fall by scriptural proof: killing, death, and even the gravest karma are all matters of mind and consciousness, not awaiting an external object. At the treatise's end Vasubandhu does not halt, but turns back to set a dilemma against his own thesis (does the knowledge of others' minds know another's mind or not) — if it knows it seems to contravene consciousness-only, if it does not know it is not the knowledge of others' minds — and answers himself 「雖知他心，然不如實」 ("though it knows another's mind, [it does] not [know it] as it really is"), handing the topic over to §V v.22 for its direct resolution. This verse is a fine scriptural proof, faithfully relaying the case of the Buddha questioning Upāli and the Buddha's own established meaning that "the penalty of mind is gravest," neither adding to nor subtracting from it by the translator's own intent, nor making any judgment upon its ethical import.
5. The ancient masters' readings (古德 · stating their position)
- Dharmapāla, Cheng weishi baosheng lun 《成唯識寶生論》T31n1591 (Tang; tr. Yijing 義淨; a transmitted Chinese witness) — comments on this verse, unfolding the scriptural proof of the penalty of mind as the gravest crime and the dilemma of the knowledge of others' minds. 〔Position stated: Dharmapāla has a detailed reading at the scriptural proof of the penalty of mind and at the knowledge of others' minds; this is one of the ancient masters' readings, recorded here only as to its position, not adjudicated.〕
- Vinītadeva, Prakaraṇaviṃśakaṭīkā — extant in Tibetan translation · no transmitted Chinese witness; per convention its name only is recorded, its content not entering as doctrinal ground.
6. Rendering and old-translation comparison (the three Chinese translations)
| Chinese translation | Edition | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang T31n1590 | 「彈咤迦等空，云何由仙忿？意罰為大罪，此復云何成？」 | A five-character quatrain, establishing the penalty of mind as gravest by the scriptural proof of the Buddha questioning Upāli; the auto-commentary cites the case of the three forests' empty stillness; this is taken as the base text |
| Chen · Paramārtha T31n1589 《大乘唯識論》 | Continuous prose unfolding the scriptural proof of the penalty of mind and the difficulty of the knowledge of others' minds (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison) | |
| Later Wei · Prajñāruci T31n1588 《唯識論》 | The corresponding passage is given in prose; verbatim follows CBETA (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison) |
Verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text; what has not been verified against the original is not recorded verbatim. Proper names (彈咤迦林 · 末蹬伽林 · 羯陵伽林 · 鄔波離 — Daṇḍaka forest · Mātaṅga forest · Kaliṅga forest · Upāli) follow Xuanzang's translation.
7. Terms (Sanskrit per the ancient transmission · pronunciation aid · sound keyed to Xuanzang's renderings)
| Chinese | Sanskrit (pronunciation aid) | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| 意罰 | manas-daṇḍa | the penalty of mental karma; the Buddha establishes it as the gravest crime, graver than body and speech |
| 鄔波離 | Upāli | a householder (distinct from the Vinaya-keeper, the Venerable Upāli); the interlocutor the Buddha questioned about the three forests' empty stillness |
| 彈咤迦／末蹬伽／羯陵伽林 | Daṇḍaka／Mātaṅga／Kaliṅga | three forests; the locale of the case where, through the seers' mental wrath, [they] became empty and still |
| 他心智 | para-citta-jñāna | the knowledge that knows another's mind; at the end it turns to ask whether its knowing of the object is as-it-really-is |
The Sanskrit roman script is a pronunciation aid only · keyed to Xuanzang's renderings; where no ancient-master transliteration is attested, it is left blank, not supplied from modern critical editions.
8. Cross-reading (the Yogācāra sequence)
| Baifa (Hundred Dharmas) | Triṃśikā | Within the Viṃśatikā |
|---|---|---|
| #6 mind-consciousness — that which makes the "penalty of mind"; mental karma exceeds body and speech ⭐ | Triṃśikā v.1 「彼依識所變」 ("that rests on the transformations of consciousness") — karma takes mind as its root | v.20 the transformation of another's cognition — this verse establishes by scriptural proof its "the power of consciousness causes death" |
| #51 volition 思 (omnipresent mental associate) — the very substance of mental karma (volition is the nature of karma) | Triṃśikā v.3 volition · attention (思·作意) — the doing of karma lies in volition | v.22 the knowledge of others' minds — taking up the closing "the knowledge of others' minds is not as-it-really-is" |
| #100 suchness 真如／the Buddha's pure wisdom — the Buddha's domain that the knowledge of others' minds cannot reach | Triṃśikā v.29 the Buddha's wisdom — only the Buddha's pure wisdom knows the inexpressible domain | v.23 concluding verse — the hard-to-conceive sphere of the Buddha's practice |
9. Witness placement
- Chinese verse-text (§Verse): T31n1590 〔p0077a09–10〕 (Xuanzang)
- Chinese auto-commentary (§Auto-commentary): T31n1590 〔p0077a11–21〕 (Xuanzang)
- Scriptural proof: the scripture of the Buddha questioning the householder Upāli on "the cause of the three forests' empty stillness" (as transmitted in the line of 《中阿含·優婆離經》 the Madhyamāgama · Upāli-sūtra · named by reference)
- Chinese translations collated for comparison: T31n1589 (Paramārtha, 《大乘唯識論》) · T31n1588 (Prajñāruci, 《唯識論》) — verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text
- Ancient master's commentary: T31n1591 (Dharmapāla, 《成唯識寶生論》· a transmitted Chinese witness)