大乘起信論 真如自體相・六義・如來藏即法身
「上說真如，其體平等離一切相，云何復說體有如是種種功德？」
你剛才說它平等、離一切相——現在又說它有這麼多功德，這不是自己打自己嗎？
這一段就是為了回答這句話。而答案分三層，一層比一層貼近讀的人。
第一層：功德是實有的，只是不分開
「雖實有此諸功德義，而無差別之相，等同一味，唯一真如。」
論主沒有用『其實沒有』來解消問題。他說：有，只是它們並不彼此分開。
像一味的水，不是六杯不同的水。
第二層：那為什麼還能分著說
「以依業識，生滅相示。」
——是依著業識、藉生滅之相來顯示的。
那個分別不在被說的東西上，在能說能聽的這一邊。
我們在生滅裡，只能一樣一樣地聽；於是同一味，被說成了六個名字。
第三層：六個名字，其實是六個『沒有』
論主把六義一一對回妄染，而方向與人的直覺相反——
「心性不起，即是大智慧光明義故。」——心不起，就是明。
「若心起見，則有不見之相。心性離見，即是遍照法界義故。」——一起見，就有見不到的地方。
「若心有動，非真識知，無有自性，非常、非樂、非我、非淨，熱惱衰變則不自在」——心一動，後四義全部落空。
反過來說：不起、離見、無動，於是那六個名字就顯出來了。
不是先有一堆功德再去描述，是把妄染一項項拿掉，剩下的就是功德的名字。
所以「滿足」是無所欠
「若心有起，更見前法可念者則有所少。」
只要前面還有一個可念的，就是「有所少」。
「如是淨法無量功德，即是一心，更無所念，是故滿足。」
滿足不是加到滿，是無所欠。
回到那個問的人
他真正的困惑其實是：既然真如在我身上不增不減，為什麼我感覺不到？
論主的答覆不是『你修得不夠』。是：你感覺不到的，正因為心在起、在見、在動。
那些功德並沒有離開，是被自己的動蓋住了。
而這一段開頭那句話，也就有了分量：「一切凡夫、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、諸佛，無有增減」
不是要去掙來，是別再蓋著它。
“It was said above that suchness is equal in substance and apart from every mark. Why is it now said that its substance has all these various qualities?”
The objection is not trivial. The passage appears to withdraw with one hand what it has just asserted with the other.
This whole unit answers that objection. The answer has three levels, each one drawing closer to the person who asked.
First: The Qualities Exist, but Not Separately
“Although the meanings of these qualities truly exist, they have no differentiated marks. They are equal in one flavor and are only the one suchness.”
The author does not resolve the problem by saying that the qualities are unreal. What disappears is separation, not reality.
One flavor of water, not six different cups.
Second: Why Can They Still Be Named Separately?
“They are shown in dependence upon the karmic consciousness, through the marks of arising and ceasing.”
The distinction therefore belongs to the side of telling and hearing, not to what is being told.
We live within arising and ceasing and can hear only one thing at a time. The one flavor is therefore given six names.
Third: The Six Names Are Really Six Absences
The author sets each meaning against deluded defilement, moving in the opposite direction from ordinary intuition.
“That the nature of mind does not arise is the meaning of the light of great wisdom.” Nonarising itself is light.
“If seeing arises in the mind, there is a mark of not seeing. That the nature of mind is apart from seeing is the meaning of universally illuminating the Dharma-realm.” The moment one seeing is established, something falls outside it.
“If the mind moves, there is no true knowledge and awareness and no own nature; there is neither permanence, nor bliss, nor self, nor purity, but heated distress, deterioration, change, and lack of freedom.” Once the mind moves, the latter four meanings all fail to appear.
Reverse the direction: nonarising, freedom from seeing, nonmovement—and the six names are disclosed.
The treatise does not first posit a collection of qualities and then describe it. It removes deluded defilements one by one, and what remains receives the names of the qualities.
Completeness Means That Nothing Is Lacking
“If the mind arises and still sees some dharma before it on which thought can rest, then something is lacking.”
Lack is defined here by objectification: as soon as thought sets something before itself, the one flavor has already been divided.
“The immeasurable qualities of pure dharmas such as these are just the one mind, with nothing further on which thought can rest. Therefore it is said to be complete.”
Completeness is not achieved by adding until full. It means that nothing is missing.
Return to the Person Who Asked
The deeper question was this: if suchness neither increases nor decreases within me, why can I not feel it?
The answer is not “you have not practiced enough.” The very reason it is not felt is that the mind is arising, seeing, and moving.
The qualities have not left. The mind’s own movement covers them.
The opening sentence can now be heard at its full weight: “In ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas alike, there is neither increase nor decrease.”
It is not something to be won. It is something no longer to cover.
馬鳴菩薩造·梁西印度三藏法師真諦譯《大乘起信論》〈真如自體相・六義・如來藏即法身〉· 大正藏 T32n1666〔起 T32 0579a12〕。段／行首〔T32 …〕＝大正藏頁・欄・行錨。
〔T32 0579a12〕復次，真如自體相者，一切凡夫、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、諸佛，無有增減，非前際生、非後際滅，畢竟常恒。從本已來，性自滿足一切功德。所謂自體有大智慧光明義故，遍照法界義故，真實識知義故，自性清淨心義故，常樂我淨義故，清涼不變自在義故。具足如是過於恒沙不離、不斷、不異、不思議佛法，乃至滿足無有所少義故，名為如來藏，亦名如來法身。 問曰：「上說真如，其體平等離一切相，云何復說體有如是種種功德？」 答曰：「雖實有此諸功德義，而無差別之相，等同一味，唯一真如。此義云何？以無分別離分別相。是故無二。復以何義得說差別？以依業識，生滅相示。此云何示？以一切法本來唯心，實無於念，而有妄心，不覺起念，見諸境界故說無明。心性不起，即是大智慧光明義故。若心起見，則有不見之相。心性離見，即是遍照法界義故。若心有動，非真識知，無有自性，非常、非樂、非我、非淨，熱惱衰變則不自在，乃至具有過恒沙等妄染之義。對此義故，心性無動則有過恒沙等諸淨功德相義示現。若心有起，更見前法可念者則有所少。如是淨法無量功德，即是一心，更無所念，是故滿足。名為法身如來之藏。」
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.
馬鳴菩薩造·梁西印度三藏法師真諦譯《大乘起信論》，自「復次，真如自體相者」至「名為法身如來之藏」。段首（…）＝大正藏頁·欄·行錨。
〔一·於一切人無增減〕（0579a12）再者，所謂真如的自體相：在一切凡夫、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、諸佛身上，都沒有增減；不是在前際生出來的，也不是在後際滅去的，畢竟常恆。
〔二·性自滿足〕（0579a13）從本以來，性中自然滿足一切功德。
〔三·自體之六義〕（0579a14）就是說：自體有大智慧光明之義、遍照法界之義、真實識知之義、自性清淨心之義、常樂我淨之義、清涼不變自在之義。
〔四·二名〕（0579a16）具足像這樣超過恒河沙數的、不離不斷不異、不可思議的佛法，乃至滿足而無所欠少之義——名為如來藏，也名為如來法身。
〔五·問：平等離相，何以說有功德〕（0579a21）問：『上面說真如，其體平等、離一切相，為什麼又說體上有這樣種種功德？』
〔六·答：無差別之相，等同一味〕（0579a23）答：『雖然實有這些功德之義，卻沒有差別之相，等同一味，唯是一真如。
（0579a24）這道理怎麼說？因為它無分別、離分別相，所以無二。
〔七·那憑什麼分著說〕（0579a25）那又依什麼義而能說差別？——是依著業識，以生滅之相來顯示。
〔八·如何顯示〕（0579a25）怎麼顯示？因為一切法本來唯是心，實在沒有念；而有妄心，不覺起念，見種種境界，所以說為無明。
（0579a27）心性不起，就是大智慧光明之義。
（0579a28）若心起了見，就有不見之相；心性離見，就是遍照法界之義。
（0579a29）若心有動，就不是真實識知、沒有自性，非常、非樂、非我、非淨，熱惱衰變而不自在，乃至具有超過恒沙的妄染之義。
（0579b03）對著這一義，所以說心性無動，就有超過恒沙的種種淨功德之相顯示出來。
〔九·滿足是無所欠〕（0579b04）若心有起，還見到前面有法可念，就有所欠少。
（0579b05）像這樣淨法的無量功德，就是一心，更沒有可念的——所以說滿足。
（0579b07）名為法身如來之藏。』
Composed by the Bodhisattva Aśvaghoṣa; translated by Paramārtha, Tripiṭaka Master of Western India, under the Liang. The Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle, “The Substance and Marks of Suchness, the Six Meanings, and the Tathāgata-womb as the Dharma-body,” from “Again, as for the substance and marks of suchness itself” to “it is called the Tathāgata-womb of the dharma-body.” The bracketed figures at the head of each segment give the Taishō page, register, and line.
〔1 · Neither increase nor decrease in anyone〕（0579a12）Again, as for the substance and marks of suchness itself: in ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas alike, there is neither increase nor decrease. It did not arise at the former limit and will not cease at the latter limit; it is ultimately constant and enduring.
〔2 · Complete in its own nature〕（0579a13）From the beginning, its nature is spontaneously complete in all qualities.
〔3 · Six meanings of its own substance〕（0579a14）That is to say, its own substance has the meaning of the light of great wisdom, the meaning of universally illuminating the Dharma-realm, the meaning of true knowledge and awareness, the meaning of the mind pure in its own nature, the meaning of permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and the meaning of coolness, immutability, and freedom.
〔4 · Two names〕（0579a16）It is complete in inconceivable dharmas of a buddha, exceeding the sands of the Ganges, which are inseparable, unceasing, and not different from it; it is complete, lacking nothing. For these meanings it is called the Tathāgata-womb, and it is also called the Tathāgata’s dharma-body.
〔5 · Question: if it is equal and apart from marks, why speak of qualities?〕（0579a21）Question: “It was said above that suchness is equal in substance and apart from every mark. Why is it now said that its substance has all these various qualities?”
〔6 · Answer: without differentiated marks, equal in one flavor〕（0579a23）Answer: “Although the meanings of these qualities truly exist, they have no differentiated marks. They are equal in one flavor and are only the one suchness.
（0579a24）“Why is this so? Because suchness is nondiscriminating and apart from the marks of discrimination, there is no duality.
〔7 · On what ground, then, are distinctions spoken?〕（0579a25）“On what ground, then, can distinctions be spoken? They are shown in dependence upon the karmic consciousness, through the marks of arising and ceasing.
〔8 · How they are shown〕（0579a25）“How are they shown? All dharmas are originally mind alone, and in reality there is no thought. But because there is a deluded mind, thoughts arise in non-awakening and various object-realms are seen; this is called ignorance.
（0579a27）“That the nature of mind does not arise is the meaning of the light of great wisdom.
（0579a28）“If seeing arises in the mind, there is a mark of not seeing. That the nature of mind is apart from seeing is the meaning of universally illuminating the Dharma-realm.
（0579a29）“If the mind moves, there is no true knowledge and awareness and no own nature; there is neither permanence, nor bliss, nor self, nor purity, but heated distress, deterioration, change, and lack of freedom, up to and including deluded defilements exceeding the sands of the Ganges.
（0579b03）“In contrast to this, when the nature of mind does not move, the marks of pure qualities exceeding the sands of the Ganges are shown forth.
〔9 · Completeness means lacking nothing〕（0579b04）“If the mind arises and still sees some dharma before it on which thought can rest, then something is lacking.
（0579b05）“The immeasurable qualities of pure dharmas such as these are just the one mind, with nothing further on which thought can rest. Therefore it is said to be complete.
（0579b07）“It is called the Tathāgata-womb of the dharma-body.”
立義分立了三大：體、相、用。前面幾段說的是體與生滅；從這一段起，論主回頭把相補齊。
而他一開口就把話說得很重：
「一切凡夫、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、諸佛，無有增減，非前際生、非後際滅，畢竟常恒。」
凡夫與佛，在這件事上是相等的。
這句話若信不下去，後面的修行就沒有立足點；若信得下去，修行的性質也跟著變了——不是去獲得，是去顯露。
「性自滿足」四個字
「從本已來，性自滿足一切功德。」
滿足，是本來就滿的意思，不是攢到後來才滿。這兩個字放在「性自」之後，語氣是斷然的。
這一句與立義分的「一者、體大，謂一切法真如平等不增減故」是同一件事的兩處說法：那裡就其平等說，這裡就其本具說。而兩處都用了同一個否定：不增。
若功德是修出來的，就會有增；一有增，前面那句「一切凡夫、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、諸佛，無有增減」就站不住。所以這一句不是抒情，是為了守住「不增」而必須這樣說。
六個「義」，一個一個看
「所謂自體有大智慧光明義故，遍照法界義故，真實識知義故，自性清淨心義故，常樂我淨義故，清涼不變自在義故。」
六義不是六樣東西，是同一個自體的六面：
- 大智慧光明義——它本身是明的。不是照到什麼才明，是它自己就是明。
- 遍照法界義——這個明無所不到，沒有照不到的角落。
- 真實識知義——它的知是真實的，不是推想、不是猜度。
- 自性清淨心義——它的清淨不是洗出來的，是自性如此。
- 常樂我淨義——四個字合說其德：常而不斷、樂而不惱、我而自在、淨而不染。
- 清涼不變自在義——不熱惱、不變異、不受拘。
這六義排列的次第也值得看一眼：前二說明（自身明、明遍照），第三說知（所知真實），第四說淨，第五第六說德與自在。從照見到清淨到自在——由智而德，由德而用，順序不是隨手排的。
而六義之中，第五「常樂我淨」四字特別容易被誤讀。世間常說無常、苦、無我、不淨，這裡卻反過來說常樂我淨；二者並不相違：所破的是對五陰身心妄計常樂我淨，此處所說的是離妄之後真如自體所具之德。同一組字，一邊是所破，一邊是所顯——讀時須各繫其處，不可混。
六義列完，論主把它們收在兩個名字上：「具足如是過於恒沙不離、不斷、不異、不思議佛法，乃至滿足無有所少義故，名為如來藏，亦名如來法身。」
如來藏與如來法身，論文在此明說是同一個東西的兩個名字。 一個就其含藏說——那些功德都在裡面；一個就其為身說——那是佛之所以為佛的那個身。本段末了還有第三種說法：「名為法身如來之藏」——三個說法，同一個東西。
『平等離相，怎麼又有這麼多功德？』
這是本單元的樞紐。問得極到位：上面說真如「其體平等離一切相」，現在卻說體上有種種功德——這不是自相矛盾嗎？
論主的答覆分三步，一步比一步深。
第一步：功德實有，而無差別之相。
「雖實有此諸功德義，而無差別之相，等同一味，唯一真如。」
功德不是假的——論主沒有用『其實沒有』來解消問題。他說的是：它們並不彼此分開。像一味的水，不是六杯不同的水。
理由是：「以無分別離分別相。是故無二。」
第二步：那為什麼還能分著說？
「以依業識，生滅相示。」
——是依著業識、藉生滅之相來顯示的。
這一句是全段最要緊的一著。六義之所以能被說成六個，不是真如那邊有六樣，是我們這邊在生滅中，只能一樣一樣地聽。
換句話說：那個分別不在被說的東西上，在能說能聽的這一邊。
第三步：逐義示現的方式。
論主接著把六義一一對回妄染。這一段是全論最精巧的推導之一，而它的方向與人的直覺相反：
- 「心性不起，即是大智慧光明義故。」——心不起，就是明。不是起了一個明。
- 「若心起見，則有不見之相。心性離見，即是遍照法界義故。」——一起見，就有見不到的地方；離見，才叫遍照。
- 「若心有動，非真識知，無有自性，非常、非樂、非我、非淨，熱惱衰變則不自在」——心一動，後面四義全部落空：不真識知、無自性、非常樂我淨、不自在。
- 「對此義故，心性無動則有過恒沙等諸淨功德相義示現。」
看清楚這個推導：不是先有一堆功德再去描述它們，是把妄染一項項拿掉，剩下的就是功德的名字。
起見 → 有不見；有動 → 非真識知。反過來：不起、離見、無動——於是明、遍照、真識知、常樂我淨、清涼自在。六義是六個『沒有』的另一種說法。
所以論主最後收在無所欠上：「若心有起，更見前法可念者則有所少。如是淨法無量功德，即是一心，更無所念，是故滿足。」
滿足，是因為沒有可念的了。 不是加到滿，是無所欠——我們習慣把功德想成一件件累積起來的東西，這裡的說法恰好相反：只要還有一個可念的在前面，就是「有所少」。
這一句其實把『修行有沒有進步』這件事換了一個量法。一般人衡量進步，看的是多了什麼——多懂了一分、多定了一刻、多做了一件善事。而依這一段的說法，衡量的是少了什麼：前面還有沒有一個可念的東西在。
兩種量法會帶出兩種心態。以「多」為量，人會不斷向外求，而且永遠不夠；以「少」為量，人所做的只是把手鬆開，而每一次鬆開都是實的。論主用「有所少」三字說前一種心態的處境——正在累積的那個人，恰恰是缺著的那個人，因為他前面還立著一個可念之物。而論主並不因此責備他——這一段從頭到尾沒有一句誡語，只是把量法擺出來，讓人自己看見自己在用哪一把尺。
兩個名字之外，還有一件事要交代
論主說「名為如來藏，亦名如來法身」，而本段之末又說「名為法身如來之藏」——同一段裡三種說法。
這不是行文之疏。三種說法各有其側重：「如來藏」重在含藏——那些功德都在裡面而未顯；「如來法身」重在其為身——那是佛之所以為佛者；「法身如來之藏」則把兩邊合起來說。
而三者所指是同一個東西，這一點對讀的人很要緊。因為「如來藏」三字在別處常被讀成一個潛藏的、有待開發的東西，好像它與法身之間還隔著一段路。論文在這裡把話說死了：沒有隔。 你現在身上那個含藏著一切功德的東西，就是佛之法身，不是它的胚胎。
也正因為如此，前面那句「一切凡夫、聲聞、緣覺、菩薩、諸佛，無有增減」才不是一句安慰話——它是這段文字自己推出來的結論。
這一段對讀的人意味著什麼
把三步合起來看，這一段其實在回答一個很日常的疑問：既然真如在我身上不增不減，為什麼我感覺不到那些功德？
論主的答覆不是『你修得不夠』，而是：你感覺不到的，正是因為心在起、在見、在動。 那些功德並沒有離開，是被自己的動蓋住了。
這一問一答之間，還藏著這部論處理語言的一貫手法：凡是它說「有」的地方，都會補一句這個「有」是怎麼被說出來的。 前面說真如而立刻說「言真如者，亦無有相」；此處說功德而立刻說「無差別之相，等同一味」。說了不撤，人就把話當成了東西；撤了不說，人連門也找不到。
而這也解釋了為什麼這部論不把修行說成累積。若功德是累積來的，那麼此刻沒有的，就要一點一點去掙；既然是本具而未顯的，那麼要做的只是不再蓋著它。
下一段論主要說「用」——那些功德如何從裡面出來、成為對眾生的作用。但用之所以能起，根據就在這一段：先有本具，才談得上發用。
換一個角度說：這一段講的是『有什麼』，下一段講的是『怎麼出來』。而我們讀這部論最容易跳過的，正是『有什麼』這一段——因為它沒有故事、沒有譬喻，只有六個名詞和一個問答。但若這一段沒有站住，下一段的應身報身就成了神話，修行也就成了向外求。
承衍——注家如何讀這一段
上來是這一段自身的義。此下另以注家之眼旁照——注非論，只是同一樁事，換一個位置來看。
法藏《大乘起信論義記》在解釋立義分時就已預告了本段的位置：「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也。」——立義分所立的那個「義」（體相用三大），其廣說就從這裡開始。所以在他的科判裡，本段不是新起一義，是回頭把先前立好的東西展開。
他在別處釋「覺義」時另有一句與六義相接的話：覺之所以名為覺，正因為破了闇，「乃有大智慧光明義等」——六義之第一，與覺義是同一件事的兩處安置。
元曉《起信論疏》於本段不重錄論文，是隨科而釋；兩本此段亦無相違之判可並錄。
而論自己那句「性自滿足一切功德」還立在那裡——它不需要注家，也不需要階位。
The part on setting up the meaning established three greatnesses: substance, mark, and function. The preceding passages treated substance and arising and ceasing; with this passage, the author returns to fill out the mark.
His opening statement admits no half measure:
“In ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas alike, there is neither increase nor decrease. It did not arise at the former limit and will not cease at the latter limit; it is ultimately constant and enduring.”
On this point, ordinary beings and buddhas stand equal.
If this cannot be trusted, practice has no ground on which to stand. If it can be trusted, the nature of practice changes with it: practice is not acquisition but disclosure.
Four Words: Complete in Its Own Nature
“From the beginning, its nature is spontaneously complete in all qualities.”
Completeness here belongs to the nature itself, before anything is accumulated. Placed together, those words make an uncompromising claim.
The sentence speaks of the same matter as the earlier “first, greatness of substance—the suchness of all dharmas is equal, neither increasing nor decreasing.” The earlier passage speaks from equality; this one, from what is inherently present. Both are guarded by the same negation: no increase.
If qualities were produced by practice, there would be increase; once increase is admitted, the statement that ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas undergo neither increase nor decrease can no longer stand. The sentence is not lyrical embellishment. It must speak this way in order to preserve “no increase.”
Six Meanings, Taken One by One
“Its own substance has the meaning of the light of great wisdom, the meaning of universally illuminating the Dharma-realm, the meaning of true knowledge and awareness, the meaning of the mind pure in its own nature, the meaning of permanence, bliss, self, and purity, and the meaning of coolness, immutability, and freedom.”
The six meanings are not six separate things, but six faces of one substance:
- The meaning of the light of great wisdom—it is luminous in itself. It does not become luminous only when it shines upon something; its own nature is luminosity.
- The meaning of universally illuminating the Dharma-realm—that luminosity reaches everywhere, leaving no corner unillumined.
- The meaning of true knowledge and awareness—its knowing is true, neither inference nor guesswork.
- The meaning of the mind pure in its own nature—its purity is not washed into being; its nature is already so.
- The meaning of permanence, bliss, self, and purity—four words state its qualities together: permanent and unbroken, blissful and untroubled, self and free, pure and undefiled.
- The meaning of coolness, immutability, and freedom—without heated distress, alteration, or constraint.
The order of the six also deserves notice. The first two speak of light—luminous in itself, then illuminating everywhere. The third speaks of knowing—what is known is known truly. The fourth speaks of purity. The fifth and sixth speak of quality and freedom. From illumination to purity to freedom, from wisdom to quality, and from quality to function: the sequence is not casual.
The fifth expression, permanence, bliss, self, and purity, is particularly easy to misread. Ordinary teaching speaks of impermanence, suffering, nonself, and impurity; here the terms are reversed. There is no contradiction. What is refuted is the deluded attribution of permanence, bliss, self, and purity to the body and mind of the five aggregates. What is disclosed here is the quality possessed by the substance of suchness once delusion has been left behind. The same four words name what is refuted in one place and what is disclosed in another. Each must remain in its own context.
After listing the six meanings, the author gathers them under two names: “It is complete in inconceivable dharmas of a buddha, exceeding the sands of the Ganges, which are inseparable, unceasing, and not different from it; it is complete, lacking nothing. For these meanings it is called the Tathāgata-womb, and it is also called the Tathāgata’s dharma-body.”
The treatise explicitly presents Tathāgata-womb and the Tathāgata’s dharma-body as two names for the same referent. One speaks from containment—the qualities are all held within. The other speaks from embodiment—the body through which a buddha is a buddha. At the close of the passage a third formulation appears: “the Tathāgata-womb of the dharma-body.” Three formulations, one referent.
If It Is Equal and Apart from Marks, How Can It Have Qualities?
This is the pivot of the unit. The question goes straight to the difficulty: suchness was said above to be “equal in substance and apart from every mark,” yet now its substance is said to possess various qualities. Is that not self-contradictory?
The answer proceeds in three steps, each deeper than the last.
First step: the qualities truly exist, but have no differentiated marks.
“Although the meanings of these qualities truly exist, they have no differentiated marks. They are equal in one flavor and are only the one suchness.”
The author does not dissolve the question by declaring the qualities unreal. What is denied is their separateness. They are like one flavor of water, not six different cups.
The reason is that suchness “is nondiscriminating and apart from the marks of discrimination; therefore there is no duality.”
Second step: why, then, can distinctions still be spoken?
“They are shown in dependence upon the karmic consciousness, through the marks of arising and ceasing.”
The sentence locates the distinction on the side of the telling and hearing, not within what is told. The six meanings can be spoken as six because we, within arising and ceasing, can receive them only one by one.
In other words, the distinctions do not divide suchness; they accommodate the consciousness to which suchness is being shown.
Third step: how each meaning is disclosed.
The author now sets each of the six meanings against deluded defilement. This is one of the treatise’s most exact derivations, and its direction runs opposite to ordinary intuition:
- “That the nature of mind does not arise is the meaning of the light of great wisdom”—nonarising itself is light; no separate light is made to arise.
- “If seeing arises in the mind, there is a mark of not seeing. That the nature of mind is apart from seeing is the meaning of universally illuminating the Dharma-realm”—as soon as one seeing is established, something falls outside its sight; only freedom from seeing can be called universal illumination.
- “If the mind moves, there is no true knowledge and awareness and no own nature; there is neither permanence, nor bliss, nor self, nor purity, but heated distress, deterioration, change, and lack of freedom”—when mind moves, the latter four meanings all fail to appear: no true knowing, no own nature, no permanence, bliss, self, or purity, and no freedom.
- “In contrast to this, when the nature of mind does not move, the marks of pure qualities exceeding the sands of the Ganges are shown forth.”
See the direction of the derivation clearly. The text does not begin with a heap of qualities and then describe them. It removes deluded defilements one by one, and what remains receives the names of the qualities.
Seeing arises → something is not seen. Movement occurs → knowing is not true. Reverse the movement: nonarising, freedom from seeing, nonmovement—and the light, universal illumination, true knowing, permanence, bliss, self, purity, coolness, and freedom are disclosed. The six meanings are another way of naming six absences.
The author therefore closes on lacking nothing: “If the mind arises and still sees some dharma before it on which thought can rest, then something is lacking. The immeasurable qualities of pure dharmas such as these are just the one mind, with nothing further on which thought can rest. Therefore it is said to be complete.”
It is complete because nothing remains on which thought can rest. Completeness is not the result of adding until a vessel is full; it means that nothing is lacking. We habitually imagine qualities as things accumulated one after another. The treatise turns that image around: as long as even one thinkable thing stands before the mind, something is lacking.
That sentence quietly changes the measure of progress in practice. Progress is usually measured by what has been added—one more insight, one longer interval of concentration, one more wholesome act. Here the measure is what has fallen away: does some object on which thought can rest still stand before the mind?
The two measures produce two dispositions. Measured by “more,” a person seeks outward without ever having enough. Measured by “less,” practice is the loosening of the hand, and every loosening is real. With the words “something is lacking,” the author describes the predicament of the first measure: the one still accumulating is precisely the one who lacks, because a thinkable object still stands in front. Yet there is no rebuke. The passage gives no command; it simply places the two measures in view and lets the reader see which one is being used.
Beyond the Two Names, One Point Remains
The author says that it “is called the Tathāgata-womb, and is also called the Tathāgata’s dharma-body,” while the end of the passage says “the Tathāgata-womb of the dharma-body”—three formulations within one passage.
This is not careless prose. Each formulation has its own emphasis. Tathāgata-womb emphasizes containment: all the qualities are within, though not yet disclosed. The Tathāgata’s dharma-body emphasizes embodiment: this is that through which a buddha is a buddha. The Tathāgata-womb of the dharma-body draws the two sides together.
All three point to the same referent, and that matters greatly for the reader. Elsewhere, Tathāgata-womb is easily heard as something latent and awaiting development, as though a stretch of road still lay between it and the dharma-body. Here the treatise closes that distance: there is no gap. What now contains all qualities within sentient beings is the dharma-body of a buddha, not an embryo that will later become it.
Only on that ground does the opening statement—that ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and buddhas undergo neither increase nor decrease—cease to be reassurance and become the passage’s own conclusion.
What This Passage Means for Its Reader
Taken together, the three steps answer an ordinary question: if suchness neither increases nor decreases within me, why can I not feel any of those qualities?
The answer is not “you have not practiced enough.” It is that the very reason they are not felt is that the mind is arising, seeing, and moving. The qualities have not gone elsewhere; the mind’s own movement covers them.
Between question and answer lies a method the treatise uses throughout when handling language: whenever it says that something “is” or “has,” it immediately explains how that assertion is being made. Earlier it spoke of suchness and at once added that “what is called suchness also has no mark.” Here it speaks of qualities and at once adds that they “have no differentiated marks, are equal in one flavor.” If assertion is never withdrawn, words harden into things; if it is only withdrawn and never spoken, no entrance remains.
This also explains why the treatise does not present practice as accumulation. If qualities had to be accumulated, what is absent now would have to be won piece by piece. If they are inherently present but undisclosed, the work is simply to stop covering them.
The next unit turns to “function”—how those qualities emerge from within and become activity for sentient beings. The ground of function, however, is established here: only what is inherently present can come forth as function.
Put another way, this passage asks what is there; the next asks how it comes forth. The temptation is to skip this one because it has no story and no simile, only six names and one question and answer. But if this passage does not stand, the response body and reward body of the next become mythology, and practice becomes an outward search.
Carrying Forward—How the Commentators Read This Passage
The foregoing is the sense of this passage in itself. What follows lets the commentators’ eyes shine on it from the side—a commentary is not the treatise, only the same matter seen from another position.
While explaining the part on setting up the meaning, Fazang’s Record of the Meaning of the Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle already announces this passage’s place: “As for greatness of meaning, it gives rise to the text below beginning with ‘again, as for the substance and marks of suchness itself.’” The “meaning” established in the earlier part—the three greatnesses of substance, mark, and function—begins its extended explanation here. In Fazang’s outline, therefore, this passage does not begin a new doctrine; it unfolds what was already set up.
Elsewhere, in explaining the meaning of awakening, he gives another sentence that meets the six meanings here: when the darkness opposed to awakening has been broken, “there are then the meaning of the light of great wisdom and the rest.” The first of the six meanings and the meaning of awakening are two placements of the same matter.
Wonhyo’s Commentary on the Awakening of Faith does not recopy the treatise in this passage but explains it according to its outline. Nor do the two commentaries offer conflicting judgments here for side-by-side record.
The treatise’s own words—“complete in all qualities in its own nature”—still stand where they were, needing neither a commentator nor a stage.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
本單元為全論十六單元之第九，範圍〔T32 0579a12–0579b08〕，三百八十七字。所說為真如之自體相（即立義分三大之「相大」）：於一切人無增減・性自滿足・六義・二名・問答（平等離相何以有功德）。碑界二端皆論文自身之「復次」。
《義記》於立義分處已預告此段之所在：「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也」〔T44n1846 0251a08〕——即立義分所立之「義」（三大），其廣說即自本段起。
二、異譯對勘
實叉難陀本此段之六義名目與本段不盡同形；本段之名不得逕搜彼本。二本此段之逐段對勘未備，誌之。
三、經論宗依
本段無逐字引經之句（已逐句查本單元）。「常樂我淨」〔0579a15〕為本論所用之成語，論文未標其出處，不代為繫某經。
四、本段釋要
六義與妄染之對——本段之推導出於論文自身：每一義皆對著一種妄染而立（心性不起→大智慧光明；心性離見→遍照法界；心性無動→餘四義）。《義記》於釋覺義處亦有相應之語：「覺之闇。乃有大智慧光明義等」〔T44n1846 0256b21〕。
「義大」之所指——《義記》：「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也。」〔T44n1846 0251a08〕本段既為立義分「義」之廣說，故其科名應繫於三大而非別立。
五、諸家異釋（分欄並錄）
| 鏡 | 逐字 | 錨 |
|---|---|---|
| 法藏《義記》（唐·繫本段於立義分之「義大」） | 「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也。」 | 〔T44n1846 0251a08〕 |
元曉《疏》為科釋體，本段不重錄論文；本段無二家相違之判可並錄——已查 T44n1846、T44n1844 兩本。
六、術語
- 真如自體相〔0579a12〕：即立義分三大之相大，此處廣說。
- 六義〔0579a14〕：大智慧光明・遍照法界・真實識知・自性清淨心・常樂我淨・清涼不變自在。『六義』一詞論文無，為後人綜稱；讀者面用之不得加「」。
- 如來藏／如來法身〔0579a16〕：論文於此明言二名同指（「名為如來藏，亦名如來法身」）；本段末又作「法身如來之藏」〔0579b07〕——同段之內三種說法，誌之。
- 業識〔0579a25〕：此處用前文所立之名而不重釋——讀本段須先通生滅因緣一段。
七、譬喻·修辭
本段無譬喻——三百八十七字全為直說與遮遣之語，無一譬。誌此，不代為本段造譬。
其修辭之特出者：六義逐一以「若心」起句之式對出其反面（若心起見則有不見之相／若心有動非真識知／若心有起則有所少），以妄染之有無顯淨德之名——是遮詮而非表詮。
八、徵引承衍
- 論內之前後相繫：本段是立義分「二者、相大，謂如來藏具足無量性功德故」之廣說；「以依業識，生滅相示」〔0579a25〕承生滅因緣一段五意之業識；次單元說「用」，與本段之「自體相」合為三大之後二。
- 本叢書之內：如來藏與法身二名同指之說，與《楞伽》帙之如來藏／藏識語脈各出其書；各繫其書，不相混計。
九、校本定位
本單元域〔0579a12–0579b08〕之異讀三處，並錄不判：
| 錨 | 大正作 | 他本作 |
|---|---|---|
| 〔0579a13〕 | 有 | 有差別 |
| 〔0579a14〕 | 自 | 自然 |
| 〔0579a22〕 | 有如 | 如有 |
〔0579a13〕「無有增減」之處他本作『無有差別增減』一系，於本段起句之義相關；並錄不判。
本單元域內：缺字標記 0、私用區字 0、夾註 0。
Placement of the passage as a whole. This unit is the ninth of the sixteen units of the whole treatise, its range 〔T32 0579a12–0579b08〕, three hundred and eighty-seven characters. It treats the substance and marks of suchness itself—that is, the “greatness of mark” among the three greatnesses in the part on setting up the meaning: neither increase nor decrease in anyone; completeness in its own nature; six meanings; two names; and a question and answer on how something equal and apart from marks can possess qualities. Both boundaries are marked by the treatise’s own “again.”
I. Doctrinal-Outline Placement
The Record of the Meaning already announces the location of this passage while commenting on the part on setting up the meaning: 「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也」—“As for greatness of meaning, it gives rise to the text below beginning with ‘again, as for the substance and marks of suchness itself’” 〔T44n1846 0251a08〕. What the earlier part set up as “meaning”—the three greatnesses—begins its extended explanation with this passage.
II. Cross-Recension Collation
The names of the six meanings in Śikṣānanda’s recension do not everywhere take the same form as those in this passage; the names used here may not simply be searched for in that recension. A paragraph-by-paragraph collation of the two recensions has not been prepared for this passage; this is recorded as such.
III. Scriptural and Treatise Basis
This passage contains no verbatim scriptural citation (every sentence of the unit has been checked). “Permanence, bliss, self, and purity” 〔0579a15〕 is a received expression used by the treatise, but the treatise does not identify its source; no particular scripture is assigned to it here.
IV. Exegesis of the Passage (the word-by-word mirror, phrase by phrase)
The six meanings contrasted with deluded defilement. The derivation belongs to the treatise itself: each meaning is established in contrast to a form of deluded defilement (the nature of mind does not arise → the light of great wisdom; the nature of mind is apart from seeing → universal illumination of the Dharma-realm; the nature of mind does not move → the other four meanings). In explaining the meaning of awakening, the Record of the Meaning gives a corresponding statement: 「覺之闇。乃有大智慧光明義等」—“The darkness opposed to awakening being gone, there are then the meaning of the light of great wisdom and the rest” 〔T44n1846 0256b21〕.
What “greatness of meaning” designates. The Record of the Meaning says: 「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也。」—“As for greatness of meaning, it gives rise to the text below beginning with ‘again, as for the substance and marks of suchness itself’” 〔T44n1846 0251a08〕. Since this passage is the extended explanation of the “meaning” set up in the part on setting up the meaning, its doctrinal placement belongs to the three greatnesses rather than forming a separate topic.
V. Divergent Readings of the Commentators (recorded side by side, without adjudication)
| Mirror | Word for word | Anchor |
|---|---|---|
| Fazang, Record of the Meaning (Tang; linking this passage to “greatness of meaning” in the part on setting up the meaning) | 「義大者。起下文復次真如自體相者已下文也。」—“As for greatness of meaning, it gives rise to the text below beginning with ‘again, as for the substance and marks of suchness itself.’” | 〔T44n1846 0251a08〕 |
Wonhyo’s Commentary follows an outline-and-explanation form and does not recopy the treatise in this passage. No conflicting judgments from the two commentators are available here for side-by-side recording—both T44n1846 and T44n1844 have been checked.
VI. Terms (first occurrences in this passage)
- 真如自體相 — the substance and marks of suchness itself 〔0579a12〕: the extended explanation of the greatness of mark among the three greatnesses set up earlier.
- 六義 — the six meanings 〔0579a14〕: the light of great wisdom; universal illumination of the Dharma-realm; true knowledge and awareness; the mind pure in its own nature; permanence, bliss, self, and purity; and coolness, immutability, and freedom. The expression “the six meanings” does not occur in the treatise itself; it is a later collective name and may not be placed within quotation marks in the reader-facing layers.
- 如來藏／如來法身 — Tathāgata-womb · the Tathāgata’s dharma-body 〔0579a16〕: the treatise explicitly gives the two as names for the same referent (「名為如來藏，亦名如來法身」—“it is called the Tathāgata-womb, and it is also called the Tathāgata’s dharma-body”). At the end of the passage it further says 「法身如來之藏」—“the Tathāgata-womb of the dharma-body” 〔0579b07〕—three formulations within the same passage, recorded as such.
- 業識 — the karmic consciousness 〔0579a25〕: the name established earlier is used here without renewed explanation; this passage presupposes the preceding account of the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing.
VII. Simile and Rhetoric
This passage has no simile. Its three hundred and eighty-seven characters consist entirely of direct statement and expression through negation, without a single figure. This is recorded; no simile is manufactured for it.
Its distinctive rhetoric lies elsewhere: each of the six meanings is shown through a contrary introduced by the pattern “if the mind” (if seeing arises in the mind, there is a mark of not seeing; if the mind moves, there is no true knowledge and awareness; if the mind arises, something is lacking). The names of pure qualities are disclosed through the presence or absence of deluded defilement—an explanation by negation rather than by positive predication.
VIII. Citation and Carrying Forward
- What goes before and after within the treatise: this passage is the extended explanation of “second, greatness of mark: the Tathāgata-womb is complete in immeasurable qualities of its own nature” from the part on setting up the meaning. 「以依業識，生滅相示」—“they are shown in dependence upon the karmic consciousness, through the marks of arising and ceasing” 〔0579a25〕 carries forward the karmic consciousness among the five mentations in the preceding account of the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing. The next unit explains “function”; together with the present “substance and marks,” it completes the latter two of the three greatnesses.
- Within this series: the identification of Tathāgata-womb and dharma-body here and the nexus of Tathāgata-womb and store consciousness in the Laṅkāvatāra edition each belong to their own text; their terminologies and counts are not conflated.
IX. Text-critical Placement
There are three variant readings within this unit’s range 〔0579a12–0579b08〕, recorded side by side without adjudication:
| Anchor | Taishō reads | Other witnesses read |
|---|---|---|
| 〔0579a13〕 | 有 | 有差別 |
| 〔0579a14〕 | 自 | 自然 |
| 〔0579a22〕 | 有如 | 如有 |
At 〔0579a13〕, where the Taishō text has 「無有增減」—“there is neither increase nor decrease,” one line of other witnesses has 『無有差別增減』—“there is no differentiated increase or decrease.” This bears on the opening meaning of the passage and is recorded without adjudication.
Within this unit: lacuna markers 0, private-use-area characters 0, interlinear notes 0.