無常Impermanence
不相應行第十四。四相（生老住無常）之末（亦為其總相）。於眾同分中諸行之「相續壞滅」分位，假立「無常」之名——其體非實，乃色心分位之施設。三法印之首（*anitya*）。四相以「相續」（*prabandha*）為軸，本條 #84 為相續之終結：*prabandha-vināśa*（相續壞滅）。四相閉環：→#81 生（相續啟動）→ →#82 老（相續變異）→ →#83 住（相續不壞）→ 本條 #84 無常（相續壞滅）。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
不相應行第十四。四相（生老住無常）之末（亦為其總相）。於眾同分中諸行之「相續壞滅」分位，假立「無常」之名——其體非實，乃色心分位之施設。三法印之首（anitya）。四相以「相續」（prabandha）為軸，本條 #84 為相續之終結：prabandha-vināśa（相續壞滅）。四相閉環：→#81 生（相續啟動）→ →#82 老（相續變異）→ →#83 住（相續不壞）→ 本條 #84 無常（相續壞滅）。
經
不相應行為論藏所立之分析範疇，於阿含、尼柯耶不作獨立法目；「無常」之現象學深植共傳——「諸行無常」為三法印之首，散見諸阿含及尼柯耶（以 sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā 為代表式）。然此共傳教證為法印之普遍教示（現象的），非本體獨立法立。本條為普通 prajñapti，無 [共傳]/[大乘] 標準分判框架（依 #71 範例，→#71 漢段經已詳普通 prajñapti 之現象學-tracing opener 原則）。
共傳之「諸行無常」（sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā，AN 3.136 / Dhp 277 / SN 22.21 等諸處）陳述有為法之根本性相，此教義南北傳同確立。然「諸行是無常的」此一教義之確立，與「無常此一概念是否本身為一獨立 dharma-列之法目」乃兩層次之問題——唯識之論藏精確處理後者，詳論段。
涅槃偈（諸傳本俱有，T02n0099 等）：
諸行無常，是生滅法，生滅滅已，寂滅為樂。
——此偈為精煉之「觀無常入解脫」教示：「諸行無常」（觀察）→「是生滅法」（識其性格）→「生滅滅已」（超越四相之操作）→「寂滅為樂」（無為之果）。四相假立與寂滅無為之對照於此偈中以精煉篇幅完成。
⚠ In Review · 俟終校：涅槃偈具體出處俟字元核校（T02n0099 雜阿含為常引，同偈亦見遺教經 T12n0389 等，需確認字元精準）。
論
《顯揚聖教論》卷一（T31n1602, T31.0484b17–18，無著菩薩造）：
無常者，謂諸行自相生後滅壞性。
——「自相生後滅壞性」為顯揚對 prabandhavināśa（相續壞滅性）之漢譯：相續在自相生起（→#81 生）之後的壞滅性質。
《成唯識論》卷二（T31n1585, T31.0006a11–13，四相詞族組批判）：
暫有還無，無時名滅。
——《成唯識論》以「暫有還無，無時名滅」代 #84 無常（《成唯識論》用「滅」而非「無常」）。百法「無常」= 《成唯識論》「滅」= 《集論》 anityatā = prabandhavināśa：「暫有」（→#83 住之短暫）→「還無」（vināśa，壞滅）→「無時名滅」（壞滅時分位之假立名稱）。《成唯識論》卷一（T31.0006b13–14）：「執別有餘不相應行，准前理趣皆應遮止。」
《成唯識論》卷二（T31n1585, T31.0005c21–T31.0006a18）四相詞族總體框架（→#81 漢段已引）另含一層深意：「表異無為，假立四相」——四相之假立，正以無為法之「無生住異滅」為對比而成立。有為法有四相（假立），無為法表異於此（→#95–#99，及 #100 真如之不生不滅）。
《大乘阿毘達磨雜集論》卷二：
無常者，謂於眾同分諸行相續變壞性，假立無常。
⚠ In Review · 俟終校：上引雜集論（T31n1606）卷二引文待 CBETA 字元核校。
按：本條「無常」身兼兩役：作為四相之末，是諸行相續之終點（prabandhavināśa）；作為三法印之首（anitya），則是整個有為界之根本性相。然唯識之精確在於分辨：「一切有為法是無常的」（三法印教義）與「無常此一法目是實有的」（本體地位）是兩層問題——前者唯識全確立，後者唯識判以假立（prajñapti-mātra）。此分辨構成本條南北分歧之核心，詳巴段。
梵saṃskṛta
anityatā < a-（否定前綴）+ nitya（常、恆）+ -tā（陰性抽象後綴）——「無常之質」「不恆之性」。
nitya < ni-（向、下）+ -tya（後綴形成形容詞）——「持續者」「常者」。印歐祖語根較難確定：可能與印歐祖語 *ney-（引、導）有關，但尚有爭議，⚠️ 不上推以免過度重構。anityatā 之形態分析（a- + nitya + -tā）明確：三層疊加——否定前綴、形容詞基體、抽象名詞後綴。
Pāli aniccatā < anityatā，標準巴利化：ty→cc（子音同化）。常見短形 anicca（無常形容詞形）。
《阿毘達磨集論》（無著，Pradhan 校本，Abhidh-s 10–11）：
anityatā katamā / nikāyasabhāge saṃskārāṇāṃ prabandhavināśe anityatā iti prajñaptiḥ //
何為無常？於眾同分中諸行於相續中之壞滅（prabandha-vināśa），稱為「無常」之假立。
《集論》定義之義理精確性值得細察：
- prabandhavināśa（相續壞滅）是基底現象（vināśa = 壞滅、消滅）
- anityatā（無常之性）是其上之假立名稱（iti prajñaptiḥ）
- 因此「無常性」非一獨立 dharma-entity，乃「相續發生壞滅」此分位之施設名
⭐ 重要校準：《成唯識論》「暫有還無，無時名滅」與《集論》 anityatā 之對應為「部分」仿譯：《成唯識論》之「滅」（壞滅時刻）略窄於《集論》之 anityatā（無常之普遍性）——anityatā 指整個「有為法具有壞滅性」之概念，vināśa / 滅特指壞滅事件本身。兩者共指 prabandha-vināśa，但 anityatā 含有其概念抽象度。
⭐⭐ 三法印與 prajñapti 之層次分辨：anitya 作為三法印之教義（「一切有為法是無常的」），唯識確立；anityatā 作為 dharma-列之獨立法目，唯識判以假立。同一梵詞根（a-nitya）之教義面與本體面在唯識體系中精確分辨——此分辨構成南北深具哲學張力之交涉（詳巴段）。
按：四相最後一條之梵文 prabandhavināśa（相續壞滅）與 prabandha-avipraṇāśa（→#83 住之相續不壞）形成最後的對比：住是「不壞」，無常是「壞」——a-vipraṇāśa（不壞）vs vināśa（壞滅），兩者共用 praṇāśa / vināśa 同義詞組之正負形式，架構出四相中段（住）與終點（無常）之結構對偶。
巴pāḷi
⭐ 本條為四相詞族中南北分歧最具哲學張力者（架構框架詳 §4.8）。
南傳 aniccatā / anicca 與瑜伽行派 anityatā 為精確同源詞（ty→cc 標準巴利化），指涉相同現象，然在各自體系中之本體格位相反：
南傳格位：aniccatā 為三法印（tilakkhaṇa）之首，是有為法之最高性相（sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa，本性—究竟—特徵）。佛教標準公式「sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā」（一切行無常）在南傳體系中陳述的是諸行之 ultimate-truth-層的本性——aniccatā 是「諸法如其本性所是」之最真實描述，非概念施設，而是勝義實相之陳述（paramatthasacca）。南傳不單立 aniccatā 為 paññatti（概念）；它是諸行本身之固有性相。
北傳（瑜伽行派）格位：anityatā 作為不相應行法列項，是分位假立（prajñapti-mātra）——「無常」此概念被施設於相續壞滅之分位（prabandha-vināśa），無獨立體性。此非對「無常」教義之否定——瑜伽行派全然確立「一切有為法是無常的」此三法印教義；瑜伽行派所否定的是「無常性（anityatā）是一個獨立存在的 dharma-entity（自性實有之法）」之主張。
分歧之深度：同一 Pāli/梵文同源詞（aniccatā / anityatā），一「昇格」為 sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa（固有究竟性相，南傳），一「降格」為 prajñapti-mātra（假立，瑜伽行派）——恰成方向相反之格位判斷：
| 傳統 | 術語 | 格位判斷 | 依據 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 南傳（南傳） | aniccatā | sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa（固有究竟性相） | 三法印之首，諸行本性之如實描述 |
| 北傳（瑜伽行派） | anityatā | prajñapti-mātra（分位假立） | 依相續壞滅分位施設，非獨立 dharma-entity |
兩傳之分歧並非對「無常」教義本身的分歧——兩傳皆確立「一切有為法是無常的」。分歧在於：「無常性（aniccatā / anityatā）」此一概念／名稱自身，是否構成一獨立法（或獨立性相），抑或只是施設於 prabandha-vināśa 分位之假名。
按：本條為不相應行 24 法中南北格位分歧最具哲學張力者。兩傳皆以「無常」為修行之根本觀境（南傳以 aniccatā 為三法印修觀入口；瑜伽行派以觀諸行假立性乃至觀相續壞滅之分位假立為修行框架）——修行進路之現象學相近，而本體框架之分判相距最遠，此張力正是本條之哲學密度所在。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「無常」之梵文 anityatā 為三層疊加：a-（否定前綴，印歐祖語 *n̥-，同根：拉丁 in-、英文 un-、希臘 a-）+ nitya（「常、恆者」；< ni-「下、向、連續」+ -tya 形容詞後綴，義為「持續保持者」）+ -tā（陰性抽象後綴，形成「無常之質、不恆之性」）。nitya 之印歐祖語源待考：或與 *ney-（「引、導」）有關，但重構尚有爭議，不延伸主張。形態分析明確：否定 + 形容詞基體 + 抽象名詞後綴，三層疊加構成「不恆之性」。Pāli aniccatā 為標準巴利化音轉：ty → cc（子音同化），anityatā → aniccatā；短形 anicca（無常形容詞形）為南傳最常見教義術語。⚠️ 梵巴同源詞（anityatā / aniccatā）均指「無常之性」，然在各自體系中之本體格位截然相反（詳義理、南北段）。
無常為 24 不相應行之第十四，四相（→#81 生 →#82 老 →#83 住 →#84 無常）之末條，亦為有為相四法之終點。《集論》定義（nikāyasabhāge saṃskārāṇāṃ prabandhavināśe anityatā iti prajñaptiḥ）揭示：prabandha-vināśa（相續壞滅）為基底現象，anityatā（無常之性）為其上之假立名稱——無常性非獨立 dharma-entity，乃「相續發生壞滅」此分位之施設名。四相結構終點對比：#83 住（→#83）= prabandha-avipraṇāśa（相續「不」壞）；#84 無常 = prabandha-vināśa（相續「壞」）——兩相以 avipraṇāśa（不壞）vs vināśa（壞滅）之正負形式構成四相中段與終點之結構對偶。⭐ 重要義理分辨：「一切有為法是無常的」此三法印教義，唯識全然確立；「無常性（anityatā）是一個獨立存在之 dharma-entity」，唯識判以假立（prajñapti-mātra）。教義層與本體層之精確分辨，構成本條之核心義理密度。《成唯識論》「暫有還無，無時名滅」——「暫有」（→#83 住之短暫分位）→「還無」（vināśa 壞滅）→「無時名滅」——以「滅」而非「無常」命名，略窄於 anityatā 之概念抽象度，但共指 prabandha-vināśa。涅槃偈「諸行無常，是生滅法，生滅滅已，寂滅為樂」以精煉之語呈現：觀無常（分位假立之終點）→ 識其性（生滅法）→ 超越四相（寂滅無為）——有為法四相假立與無為法（→#95–#100）之對照，於此偈中以精煉篇幅完成。
南傳 aniccatā / anicca 與瑜伽行派 anityatā 為精確同源詞，然格位判定方向相反：南傳格位——aniccatā 為三法印（tilakkhaṇa）之首，是有為法之 sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa（固有究竟性相），陳述諸行本性之如實（paramatthasacca），非概念施設；北傳（瑜伽行派）格位——anityatā 作為不相應行法列項，為分位假立（prajñapti-mātra），依相續壞滅分位施設，無獨立體性。兩傳皆確立「一切有為法是無常的」此教義；分歧在於：「無常性（aniccatā / anityatā）」此概念名稱本身，是固有究竟性相（南傳判：是），抑或依分位假立之名（瑜伽行派判：是假立）。同一詞根、方向相反之格位判定，為南北阿毘達磨分歧之典型案例（架構詳論詳見原文§巴段）。
無常作為 prajñapti 之修行涵義：行者觀察諸行（一念、一感受、一呼吸）之「相續壞滅」——非以「無常是一種力量」之執取方式，而以「此為相續壞滅分位之假立名」之認識方式。此 prajñapti 框架防止「無常性」本身被再度實體化為「另一個要觀察之事物」。四相完整弧線（→#81 生 →#82 老 →#83 住 →#84 無常）於一呼吸中可全程觀察：生起—老變—持續（暫不壞）—壞滅；壞滅之到來揭示前三相亦從始即孕含無常——#81 生之當下已孕含無常，#83 住從未是真正的安住。
「無常」玄奘既譯。英譯 Impermanence 通行；學術譯本亦用 Impermanence-designation 以明示 prajñapti 性格。
無常 ——於眾同分（→#73）中諸行相續壞滅（prabandha-vināśa，anityatā，Pāli aniccatā 同源）之分位，假立「無常」之名；性為相續壞滅之終點分位（有為相之末條，→#81 生 →#82 老 →#83 住 →#84 無常），業為四相終結之標示；非別有體，依色心分位差別之合成假立。
英綜述en-synthesis
anityatā is a three-layer compound: a- (negation prefix, PIE *n̥-) + nitya "permanent, constant, fixed" + -tā (feminine abstract suffix "the quality of"). Nitya itself derives from ni- (directional: down/inward/continuous) + -tya (adjectival suffix); the PIE root underlying nitya is uncertain (possibly *ney- "to lead, guide" in the sense of "that which is continuously led/sustained," but this reconstruction is contested — flag: do not over-extend). The resulting form anityatā means "the quality of not-being-permanent, the state of impermanence." Pāli aniccatā is its direct cognate through standard ty→cc palatalization (nitya→nicca, anityatā→aniccatā). The short form anicca is the most familiar Theravāda doctrinal term; it appears in the classical three-marks formula. A structural etymological note for the cluster: anityatā and #83 sthiti (sthī- + -ti, "standing") are connected at the level of meaning rather than root — impermanence is the dissolution of abiding, the undoing of sthiti.
Anityatā is the fourth and final saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇa (mark of conditioned dharmas) — the life-cycle's terminus. Asaṅga's Abhidharma-samuccaya defines it as the designation upon the destruction of the continuum (nikāyasabhāge saṃskārāṇāṃ prabandhavināśe anityatā iti prajñaptiḥ). The compound prabandha-vināśa (continuum's destruction) is the base fact; anityatā is the designation-name (prajñaptiḥ) placed upon it. The Cheng Weishi Lun calques with「暫有還無，無時名滅」— "briefly existing then no-longer-existing, when-no-longer-there we call it 滅 (cessation)" — using the term 滅 rather than 無常. The nomenclature difference (無常 vs 滅) between 百法 and CWS reflects the same transmission-history divergence seen at #82 (老 vs 異): 百法 retains the older Abhidharma term connecting to the 三法印 phenomenology; CWS normalizes to the neutral cessation-term. Doctrinal payoff of the prajñapti-status: anitya as universal truth (all conditioned dharmas ARE impermanent) is fully affirmed; anityatā as a discrete dharma-entity (there IS a real impermanence-thing) is denied. This is Yogācāra's precisely calibrated position: the doctrine stands, the reification of the concept does not.
The N-S divergence at this entry is the most philosophically acute in the entire 不相應行 block (→ §4.8 for the architectural framework). In Theravāda, aniccatā is the first and highest tilakkhaṇa (mark of existence, Vism XX.18, XX.51) — a sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa, the intrinsic-ultimate characteristic of all conditioned phenomena. The Pāli formula sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā ("all formations are impermanent") is presented as a statement of ultimate truth (paramatthasacca), not a mere convention. Aniccatā is not a paññatti; it is how things truly are. In Yogācāra, anityatā as a dharma-list entry is prajñapti-mātra — a conceptual designation upon the prabandha-vināśa configurational fact. There is no "impermanence-entity" over and above the dissolution-of-continuum upon which the label is placed. The divergence can be mapped as a table:
| Tradition | Term | Ontological verdict | Grounds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theravāda | aniccatā | sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa (ultimate intrinsic characteristic) | First tilakkhaṇa — intrinsic nature of all conditioned dhammas |
| Yogācāra | anityatā | prajñapti-mātra (designation-only) | Imputed upon prabandha-vināśa; no separate dhamma-entity |
Both traditions fully affirm the anitya doctrine (all conditioned phenomena are impermanent). Their disagreement is about whether anityatā/aniccatā itself — the abstract-noun form designating the quality of impermanence — is an intrinsic characteristic (Theravāda: yes, highest rank) or a conventional designation (Yogācāra: no, prajñapti-only). The exact same cognate word-pair carries opposite category-verdicts.
Anityatā is the meditation object that closes the four-marks cycle — and in closing it, points beyond it. The arc of 四相: arising (#81) → aging (#82) → abiding (#83) → dissolution (#84). When the meditator follows this arc in a single breath, a thought, a sensation — the dissolution phase reveals what was always true of the other three phases: jāti was already pregnant with anityatā; sthiti was always only a-vipraṇāśa (not-yet-dissolved); jarā was the dissolution already underway. The practical Yogācāra move is not to observe impermanence as a quality of things, but to observe the prabandhavināśa moment as a configurational fact upon which the label "impermanence" rests. The difference is subtle and exactly the right one: "this is impermanent" (thing + property) vs "this is a designation upon the dissolution-of-continuum" (prajñapti + configurational base). The second framing prevents the mind from reifying "impermanence" as yet another thing to observe — which would be, precisely, the subtle grasping at the label that the Yogācāra system diagnoses as the root confusion about prajñapti. The涅槃偈 sequence "諸行無常，是生滅法，生滅滅已，寂滅為樂" maps the same path: see impermanence → recognize the nature of arising-and-passing → pass through the passing → arrive at parinirvāṇa. The word "arrived" is exact: the practitioner does not achieve a special impermanent state; she recognizes what was always the unconditioned underlying the conditioned arc.
Impermanence (anityatā) — upon the conditioned formations of the same class (nikāyasabhāga), in the dissolution of the continuum (prabandha-vināśa), [we apply] the designation "impermanence" — not a force destroying things, nor a separate impermanence-entity, but the conventional name for the configurational fact of conditioned-dissolution. The first of the three marks affirmed as doctrine; denied as a discrete real entity. (→ §4.8.)
譯translator's note
譯者按： 結構分析詳 S3-P12 §3.6（四相假立結構）及 S3-P14。本條為四相詞族之終點，兼三法印 anitya 教義之所出；瑜伽行派精確分辨「一切有為法是無常的」（教義，確立）與「無常性是獨立法」（本體地位，判以假立）——此分辨乃不相應行 24 法最具哲學張力之南北交涉：aniccatā（南傳，三法印首位，sabhāva-paramattha-lakkhaṇa）對 anityatā（北傳，分位假立）（架構詳 §4.8）。