書 64 行两项俱坐实。（一）一世亲论：作者正面立说——「Once there is acknowledged to be one Vasubandhu who was a brother of Asaṅga, composed the AKBh, converted to Mahāyāna, and composed Yogācāra treatises that prominently advocate the Three Natures—as Jaini showed in 1958—there is very little explanatory pow
核查全文
er left for the 'two Vasubandhus' thesis.」并驳二世亲说之根基「rested from the start on a biased, shaky historical foundation」，谓所谓第二世亲「is just a catchall, a basket toward which we can throw dubiously attributed texts」。另有一处论证亦可取：若真有一位早于《俱舍》的「长老世亲」，则佛教史上千百年间对其「complete and utter lack of awareness」无从解释。（二）《俱舍》与唯识论著的思想连续：作者以「Buddhist Causal Framing」一名统摄世亲全部著作，谓此一贯之见「is implicit in the doctrines of the Three Natures and the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna), and which I have shown Vasubandhu drawing from the central goals of Abhidharma and the Buddha's core doctrines of impermanence, dependent origination, and no-self」。正文「完全可以是同一个人在不同阶段的著作」措辞有分寸，与原书相合。（三）一处宜留意（不改判）：作者虽主一人一贯，却明拒目的论式的读法——「I believe it is a mistake to set up a teleological directionality for Vasubandhu's works, with the Yogācāra system as its ultimate end」，又谓其思想「cut across, and against, doctrinal identities」，连《俱舍》虽可标为经量部，亦「collects within it countless alternative viewpoints」。正文書 64 行作「思想发展脉络」，尚不违此戒；若他处有把世亲写成「必然走向唯识」者，须按此收紧。
