辯中邊論 辯相品第一（連續
人人都聽過，佛法的正見是「中道」。可是——中道，究竟是哪裡的「中」？
《辯中邊論》就是專為這個問題而寫的一部論。書名「辯中邊」，意思是「把『中』與『邊』分判清楚」。彌勒菩薩造頌、世親菩薩造釋，第一品「辯相品」開門就把答案立住。
它說：所謂兩條「邊」，一條叫增益——本來沒有的，硬說它有；一條叫損減——本來有的，硬說它無。而中道不是在兩者「中間」和稀泥，而是如實：該有的，承認其有；該無的，看破其無。
那麼，到底什麼是「該無」、什麼是「該有」？這一品用一頌立定全論的眼目：我們心裡那股不停分別、把世界切成「我」與「境」的活動，是有的；但它切出來的那一對「能取／所取」，是無的；而離了這對的空性，又是有的。順著這條線，它把萬法收成「三性」，再從「看清諸法的樣子」，一路引到「親自證見二取本空」。
換句話說，這一品給的不是一句口號，而是一張從「中道是什麼」直到「怎麼親證它」的地圖。
如果這個問題曾經困住過你，義疏層會牽著你把這條線一段一段走過；想再深入，還有逐頌原文、世親釋與古德考據。但你不必一開始就跳進去——先在這裡，把「中道究竟是哪裡的中」這一問，放在心上。
Everyone has heard that the right view in Buddhism is "the middle way." But — the middle of what, exactly?
The Madhyāntavibhāga is a treatise written for precisely this question. Its title means "Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes." Maitreya composed the verses and Vasubandhu the commentary, and the first chapter, "Characteristics," sets the answer in place from the very start.
It says: there are two "extremes." One is reification — asserting that what is not there is there. The other is denial — asserting that what is there is not there. And the middle is not splitting the difference "between" them; it is seeing as it is: granting the existence of what does exist, and seeing through the non-existence of what does not.
So what, exactly, is the "what does not" and the "what does"? This chapter fixes the eye of the whole treatise in a single verse: that restless activity of mind in us — forever discriminating, forever cutting the world into "me" and "object" — exists; but the pair it cuts out, "grasper and grasped," is absent; and the emptiness free of that pair, once again, exists. Following this thread, the chapter gathers all things into the "three natures," and then leads from "seeing clearly what things are like" all the way to "directly realizing that the two-grasping is, of itself, empty."
In other words, this chapter offers not a slogan but a map — from "what the middle is" all the way to "how to realize it for oneself."
If this question has ever held you, the exposition layer will walk you down this thread one stretch at a time; to go deeper, there are the verses themselves, Vasubandhu's commentary, and the ancient masters' findings. But you need not leap in at once — for now, just here, let the one question settle in you: the middle of what, exactly?
彌勒菩薩頌 · 世親菩薩釋《辯中邊論》· T31n1600 · 大唐三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯（661）。本品頌曰／論曰逐字錄自 CBETA，一仍其舊，非詮釋。
頌曰：唯相障真實，及修諸對治，即此修分位，得果無上乘。
論曰：此論唯說如是七義，一相、二障、三真實、四修諸對治、五即此修分位、六得果、七無上乘。今於此中先辯其相。
頌曰：虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。
論曰：虛妄分別有者，謂有所取、能取分別。於此二都無者，謂即於此虛妄分別，永無所取、能取二性。此中唯有空者，謂虛妄分別中但有離所取及能取空性。於彼亦有此者，謂即於彼二空性中亦但有此虛妄分別。若於此非有，由彼觀為空；所餘非無故，如實知為有。若如是者，則能無倒顯示空相。復次
頌曰：故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是則契中道。
論曰：一切法者，謂諸有為及無為法。虛妄分別名有為，二取空性名無為。依前理故，說此一切法非空非不空，由有空性虛妄分別故說非空，由無所取能取性故說非不空。有故者，謂有空性虛妄分別故。無故者，謂無所取能取二性故。及有故者，謂虛妄分別中有空性故，及空性中有虛妄分別故。是則契中道者，謂一切法非一向空亦非一向不空，如是理趣妙契中道，亦善符順般若等經說一切法非空非有。如是已顯虛妄分別有相無相，此自相今當說。
頌曰：識生變似義、有情、我及了，此境實非有，境無故識無。
論曰：變似義者，謂似色等諸境性現。變似有情者，謂似自他身五根性現。變似我者，謂染末那與我癡等恒相應故。變似了者，謂餘六識，了相麁故。此境實非有者，謂似義似根無行相故，似我似了非真現故，皆非實有。境無故識無者，謂所取義等四境無故，能取諸識亦非實有。復次
頌曰：虛妄分別性，由此義得成，非實有全無，許滅解脫故。
論曰：虛妄分別由此義故成非實有，如所現起非真有故；亦非全無，於中少有亂識生故。如何不許此性全無？以許此滅得解脫故。若異此者，繫縛解脫則應皆無，如是便成撥無雜染及清淨失。已顯虛妄分別自相，此攝相今當說。但有如是虛妄分別，即能具攝三種自性。
頌曰：唯所執、依他，及圓成實性，境故分別故，及二空故說。
論曰：依止虛妄分別境故，說有遍計所執自性。依止虛妄分別性故，說有依他起自性。依止所取能取空故，說有圓成實自性。已顯虛妄分別攝相，當說即於虛妄分別入無相方便相。
頌曰：依識有所得，境無所得生；依境無所得，識無所得生。
論曰：依止唯識有所得故，先有於境無所得生；復依於境無所得故，後有於識無所得生。由是方便，得入所取能取無相。復次
頌曰：由識有得性，亦成無所得，故知二有得，無得性平等。
論曰：唯識生時現似種種虛妄境故，名有所得。以所得境無實性故，能得實性亦不得成。由能得識無所得故，所取能取二有所得，平等俱成無所得性。顯入虛妄分別無相方便相已，此差別異門相今次當說。
頌曰。三界心心所，是虛妄分別，唯了境名心，亦別名心所。
論曰：虛妄分別差別相者，即是欲界色無色界諸心心所。異門相者，唯能了境總相名心，亦了差別名為受等諸心所法。今次當說此生起相。
頌曰：一則名緣識，第二名受者，此中能受用，分別推心所。
論曰：緣識者，謂藏識，是餘識生緣故。藏識為緣所生轉識，受用主故名為受者。此諸識中受能受用、想能分別、思作意等諸相應行能推諸識，此三助心故名心所。今次當說此雜染相。
頌曰：覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、三分別、受用、引起并連縛、現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間，三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。
論曰：覆障故者，謂由無明覆如實理、障真見故。安立故者，謂由諸行植本識中，業熏習故。將導故者，謂有取識引諸有情至生處故。攝故者，謂名色攝有情自體故。圓滿故者，謂六內處令諸有情體具足故。三分別故者，謂觸能分別根境識三，順三受故。受用故者，謂由受支領納順違，非二境故。引起故者，謂由愛力令先業所引後有得起故。連縛故者，謂取令識緣順欲等連縛生故。現前故者，謂由有力令已作業所與後有諸異熟果得現前故。苦果故者，謂生老死性有逼迫，酬前因故。唯此所說十二有支，逼惱世間令不安隱。三雜染者，一煩惱雜染，謂無明愛取；二業雜染，謂行有；三生雜染，謂餘支。二雜染者，一因雜染、謂煩惱業；二果雜染、謂所餘支。七雜染者，謂七種因：一顛倒因，謂無明；二牽引因，謂行；三將導因，謂識；四攝受因，謂名色、六處；五受用因，謂觸、受；六引起因，謂愛、取、有；七厭怖因，謂生、老死。此諸雜染無不皆由虛妄分別而得生長。此前總顯虛妄分別有九種相：一有相、二無相、三自相、四攝相、五入無相方便相、六差別相、七異門相、八生起相、九雜染相。如是已顯虛妄分別，今次當說所知空性。
頌曰：諸相及異門，義差別成立，應知二空性，略說唯由此。
論曰：應知所取能取空性，略說但由此相等五。所知空性其相云何？
頌曰：無二有無故，非有亦非無，非異亦非一，是說為空相。
論曰：無二，謂無所取能取。有無，謂有二取之無。此即顯空無性為性，故此空相非有非無。云何非有？無二有故。云何非無？有二無故。此顯空相非有非無。此空與彼虛妄分別非異非一，若異應成法性異法，便違正理，如苦等性；若一則應非淨智境亦非共相。此即顯空與妄分別離一異相。所知空性異門云何？
頌曰：略說空異門，謂真如、實際、無相、勝義性、法界等應知。
論曰：略說空性，有此異門。云何應知此異門義？
頌曰：由無變無倒，相滅聖智境，及諸聖法因，異門義如次。
論曰：即此中說所知空性，由無變義說為真如。真性常如，無轉易故。由無倒義說為實際，非諸顛倒，依緣事故。由相滅義說為無相，此中永絕一切相故。由聖智境義說為勝義性，是最勝智所行義故。由聖法因義說為法界，以一切聖法緣此生故。此中界者，即是因義。無我等義如理應知。云何應知空性差別？
頌曰：此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢，如水界金空，淨故許為淨。
論曰：空性差別略有二種，一雜染、二清淨。此成染淨由分位別，謂有垢位說為雜染，出離垢時說為清淨。雖先雜染、後成清淨，而非轉變成無常失。如水界等出離客塵，空淨亦然，非性轉變。此空差別復有十六，謂內空、外空、內外空、大空、空空、勝義空、有為空、無為空、畢竟空、無際空、無散空、本性空、相空、一切法空、無性空、無性自性空。此等略義云何應知？
頌曰：能食及所食，此依身所住，能見此如理，所求二淨空。為常益有情、為不捨生死、為善無窮盡，故觀此為空。為種性清淨、為得諸相好、為淨諸佛法，故菩薩觀空。
論曰：能食空者，依內處說，即是內空。所食空者，依外處說，即是外空。此依身者，謂能所食所依止身，此身空故，名內外空。諸器世間說為所住，此相寬廣故名為大，所住空故名為大空。能見此者，謂智能見內處等空。空智空故，說名空空。如理者，謂勝義，即如實行。所觀真理，此即空故，名勝義空。菩薩修行為得二淨，即諸有為、無為善法。此二空故，名有為空及無為空。為於有情常作饒益，而觀空故，名畢竟空。生死長遠無初後際，觀此空故，名無際空。不觀為空便速厭捨，為不厭捨此生死故，觀此無際生死為空。為所修善至無餘依般涅槃位，亦無散捨而觀空故，名無散空。諸聖種姓自體本有，非習所成，說名本性。菩薩為此速得清淨而觀空故，名本性空。菩薩為得大士相好而觀空故，名為相空。菩薩為令力無畏等一切佛法皆得清淨而觀此空，故名一切法空。是十四空，隨別安立。此中何者說名為空？
頌曰：補特伽羅法，實性俱非有，此無性、有性，故別立二空。
論曰：補特伽羅及法實性俱非有故，名無性空。此無性空非無自性，空以無性為自性故，名無性自性空。於前所說能食空等，為顯空相別立二空；此為遮止補特伽羅法增益執、空損減執，如其次第立後二空。如是已顯空性差別。此成立義云何應知？
頌曰：此若無雜染，一切應自脫；此若無清淨，功用應無果。
論曰：若諸法空，未生對治無客雜染者，一切有情不由功用應自然解脫。若對治已生亦不清淨，則應求解脫勤勞無果。既爾，
頌曰：非染非不染，非淨非不淨，心性本淨故，由客塵所染。
論曰：云何非染非不染？以心性本淨故。云何非淨非不淨？由客塵所染故。是名成立空差別義。此前空義總有二種，謂相安立。相復有二，謂無及有。空性有相，離有離無、離異離一以為其相。應知安立即異門等。
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.
〔標目頌〕
頌曰：
唯相障真實，及修諸對治， 即此修分位，得果無上乘。
全論綱目，盡於此七事：諸法之相、覆障此相者障、相之所依真實、對治障者修諸對治、修行所歷之分位、依修而得果、終以此道之所以為無上乘。下文七品即依此次第開展——此頌不入義理，惟為一部之目次。
〔一〕虛妄分別有
頌曰：
虛妄分別有，於此二都無， 此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。
此全論之題眼。四句立四義，句句不可移：
第一，「虛妄分別有」——「虛妄分別」（梵 abhūta-parikalpa）者，謂心識不息之分別造作。名之「虛妄」，非謂其不存在，而謂其所現之境相靠不住。此分別之活動本身，是有的、是實在地在轉的。（此即三性中之依他起：依緣而起之心識流。）
第二，「於此二都無」——「二」者，能取（執取之主）與所取（被執之境）。心一動，即裂為「我在此、境在彼」之兩橛。然就此虛妄分別而觀，此能所二分永無。（此即遍計所執：橫計而執之主客對立，本不成立。）
第三，「此中唯有空」——拆去此虛妄之二分格線，所餘者即空（梵 śūnyatā）。空非空無一物，空即「二取不成立」這一事相本身，且不在別處，正在此虛妄分別之中。（此即圓成實：於依他起上、二取永無所顯之真實。）
第四，「於彼亦有此」——返言之：於彼空性之中，此虛妄分別亦仍有。空與分別非二層，乃一事之兩面。
合之：分別有、二取無、空有、分別亦有——既不墮實有（破增益），亦不墮全無（破損減）。
〔二〕契中道
頌曰：
故說一切法，非空非不空， 有無及有故，是則契中道。
承前偈。故說一切法非空亦非不空： 就「虛妄分別有」與「空性有」言，故非一向空； 就「二取無」言，故非一向不空。 有（分別與空之有）、無（二取之無）、及有（空中分別之有）——三義並陳，不偏一端，是即契於中道。此「中」非調停折中，乃如實而觀之準。
〔三〕識變四似
頌曰：
識生變似義、有情、我及了， 此境實非有，境無故識無。
申明虛妄分別之內容。識生起時，變現為四類似相： 似義——似有外在對象（梵 artha，所緣之境）； 似有情——似有根身、眾生之相（五根所攝）； 似我——似有恆常之自我（即染污末那所執之我）； 似了——似有了別之用（即六識之能了境者）。
〔論主斷曰：〕此四所似之境，實非有——皆識所變，非心外實存。境既非有，則能取之識亦不成立（能取待所取而立，所取既空，能取之為能取者亦泯）。
〔四〕非實有非全無
頌曰：
虛妄分別性，由此義得成， 非實有全無，許滅解脫故。
虛妄分別之自性，正由上來諸義而得成立。其性非實有、非全無：
〔難曰：〕若虛妄分別是實有，何以言空？若是全無，又何所辨？ 〔答曰：〕非實有——若實有，則應堅住不可滅；非全無——以佛法許其滅即是解脫故。可滅者必非全無（無則無可滅），滅之即脫者必非實有（實有則不可滅）。故知其性在有無之間，恰為依他起之如實相。
〔五〕三性所由
頌曰：
唯所執、依他，及圓成實性， 境故分別故，及二空故說。
總標三自性及其所以立之由： 所執（遍計所執，梵 parikalpita）——由「境」而說，即所現似有之外境； 依他（依他起，梵 paratantra）——由「分別」而說，即能分別之虛妄分別自身； 圓成實（梵 pariniṣpanna）——由「二空」而說，即能所二取俱空所顯之真實。
一切法不出此三性；三性亦不外乎前偈「有、無、空」之三義。
〔六〕入無相方便
頌曰：
依識有所得，境無所得生； 依境無所得，識無所得生。
示悟入唯識之次第，雙重「無所得」相依而起： 先，依「識有所得」（了知萬法唯識所現），而生「境無所得」（外境不可得）； 次，依「境無所得」（外境既不可得），而生「識無所得」（能取之識亦不可得）。
境泯則識亦泯——緣所取之空，能取者隨之而空。此非斷滅，乃能所雙遣以契無分別。
〔七〕二取平等
頌曰：
由識有得性，亦成無所得， 故知二有得，無得性平等。
由「識有得（能取）」之性，終亦轉成「無所得」。故知：有得（能取所取之執）與無得（二取俱泯）二者，其性平等——同為虛妄分別上之轉現，無一可獨立堅住。能所對待既破，平等性顯。
〔八〕心與心所
頌曰：
三界心心所，是虛妄分別， 唯了境名心，亦別名心所。
界定虛妄分別之外延：三界一切心、心所，皆是虛妄分別——無一法在此分別之外。 其中，但總了別境相者，名為心（梵 citta）； 於境別取差別行相者，名為心所（梵 caitta）。 心王總緣，心所別緣；二者俱攝於虛妄分別之中。
〔九〕緣識與受者
頌曰：
一則名緣識，第二名受者， 此中能受用，分別推心所。
就心之轉現再分為二： 其一名「緣識」——為餘識生起所緣依之根本識（即阿賴耶識，能持種、作餘識生起之緣）； 其二名「受者」——即依緣識而轉之諸識（受用境界之轉識）。 此受者之中，能受用（領納，即「受」）、分別（取相，即「想」）、推（推動造作，即「思」）等，即是相應之心所。
〔十〕虛妄分別現雜染
頌曰：
覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、 三分別、受用、引起并連縛、 現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間， 三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。
明虛妄分別如何現起生死流轉之全程——此即十二緣起，逐支配當： 覆障（無明，覆真實）、安立（行，立習氣種）、將導（識，引識趣生）、攝（名色，攝聚自體）、圓滿（六處，諸根圓備）、三分別（觸，根境識三和之取別）、受用（受，領納苦樂）、引起（愛，由受起貪）、連縛（取，繫縛不捨）、現前（有，業成現感）、苦果（生、老死，純苦聚集）。
惟此一連環惱亂世間，更無他者。此十二支復攝為三、二、七雜染：三為煩惱雜染（無明、愛、取）、二為業雜染（行、有）、七為生（事）雜染（識、名色、六處、觸、受、生、老死）。三類雜染，皆由虛妄分別而有——生死非別有根，即此一分別之自現。
〔十一〕辨空之綱
頌曰：
諸相及異門，義差別成立， 應知二空性，略說唯由此。
以下辨空性，立四綱目：其相（空之體相）、其異門（空之別名）、其義差別（諸名所含義之分齊）、其成立（空所以得立之理）。二空性（人空、法空）之大要，略說即盡於此四門。下文依次開展。
〔十二〕空相
頌曰：
無二有無故，非有亦非無， 非異亦非一，是說為空相。
先辨空之相。空者，乃「能所二取之無」這一事之有——以「無二之有無」故，說空： 非有——以能取所取之二本無故，不可謂有； 亦非無——以「二取之無」確然是有故，不可謂無； 非異——空不離虛妄分別別有自體，故不異於分別； 亦非一——空乃分別上二取永無所顯，非即是分別，故不一。 非有非無、非一非異——是即空之相。
〔十三〕空之異門
頌曰：
略說空異門，謂真如、實際、 無相、勝義性、法界等應知。
次辨空之異門（別名）。略說空性復有諸名，應知：真如、實際、無相、勝義性、法界等——名異而所指一，皆目此圓成實之空性。
〔十四〕異門之義
頌曰：
由無變無倒，相滅聖智境， 及諸聖法因，異門義如次。
申前諸名所以立之義，如其次第： 名真如者——以其無變（常如其性，不遷不易）； 名實際者——以其無倒（真實無謬之究竟際）； 名無相者——以其相滅（一切虛妄相於此寂滅）； 名勝義性者——以其為聖智境（無分別聖智所行之境）； 名法界者——以其為諸聖法因（聖法依之而生，界即因義）。 五名所詮，如次配當，皆一空性之異目。
〔十五〕染淨依空
頌曰：
此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢， 如水界金空，淨故許為淨。
辨空性與染淨之關係。此空性，或說雜染、或說清淨：有垢時名雜染，無垢時名清淨。其體未嘗異，異者惟垢之有無——譬如水、金、虛空三者，本性恆淨，然可為客塵所翳而似染；垢去淨顯，以其本淨故，許其為淨。空性亦然：染非其自性，淨乃其本然。
〔十六〕觀空所依
頌曰：
能食及所食，此依身所住， 能見如此理，所求二淨空。
辨觀空所緣之諸事，以攝諸空：能食（內六處，受用者）、所食（外六境，所受用）、此二所依之身（根身自體）、身之所住（器世間，所依止之處）、能見者（能觀之主）、如此理（所觀之如理）；乃至行者所求之二淨空（所應證得之二種清淨空性）。內、外、依、住、能、所，一一觀其為空——空非一端，隨所緣事而立諸空。
〔十七〕觀空之由（一）
頌曰：
為常益有情、為不捨生死、 為善無窮盡，故觀此為空。
辨菩薩觀空之所為。其一：為恆常饒益有情（不取寂滅而捨眾生）、為不捨生死（住生死而不為所染，方能度生）、為善法無有窮盡（善行相續無盡）——以此三故，菩薩觀此（諸事）為空。觀空非為自了，乃為利他無盡之資。
〔十八〕觀空之由（二）
頌曰：
為種性清淨、為得諸相好、 為淨諸佛法，故菩薩觀空。
其二：為種性清淨（淨治如來種性）、為得諸相好（成就佛之相好莊嚴）、為淨諸佛法（圓淨一切佛法）——以此三故，菩薩觀空。前三為利他，此三為自證菩提之因；觀空一行，自他二利俱攝。
〔十九〕別立二空之理
頌曰：
補特伽羅法，實性俱非有， 此無性、有性，故別立二空。
辨空之成立。補特伽羅（人，數取趣者）與法，二者之實性俱非有——人無實我，法無實自性。然此「無（實）性」本身，復是有性（其無實之真實，確然成立，即圓成實）。以人、法二處各遣其實執，故別立二空：人空、法空。空者非墮斷無，乃遣執所顯之真實有。
〔二十〕染淨俱成之必然
頌曰：
此若無雜染，一切應自脫； 此若無清淨，功用應無果。
返顯心性必兼染淨二義： 〔設難一：〕此（心性）若本無雜染，則一切有情應自然解脫——無染可斷，何待修行？然事不然，故知有客染。 〔設難二：〕此若本無清淨（無可淨之性），則修行功用應無果——無淨可顯，修亦徒勞。然修必有果，故知有本淨。 二難並立，逼出下偈之結論。
〔廿一〕心性本淨
頌曰：
非染非不染，非淨非不淨， 心性本淨故，由客塵所染。
結辯相品。心性之相，非染、非不染，非淨、非不淨： 非染——以心性本淨故，染非其自性； 非不染——以客塵所染故，非全無染； 非淨——以現為客塵所翳故，非已顯淨； 非不淨——以本性元淨故，非真不淨。 要旨惟在二句：心性本淨故，由客塵所染——本淨是體，客染是緣；染可離而淨可復，此即一品所辨「相」之歸結，亦下「辯障品」對治之所本。
〔Summary Verse / uddāna〕
唯相障真實，及修諸對治， 即此修分位，得果無上乘。
The whole treatise comes down to these seven matters: the characteristics (of phenomena), the obscurations that veil them, the reality on which the characteristics rest, the cultivation of antidotes to the obscurations, the stages through which cultivation proceeds, the fruit attained thereby, and finally why this path is the unsurpassed vehicle. The seven chapters that follow unfold in exactly this order. This verse carries no doctrine; it is the table of contents for the work.
〔1〕The unreal imagination exists
虛妄分別有，於此二都無， 此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。
This is the pivot of the entire treatise. Four lines establish four points, none of which may be displaced:
First, "the unreal imagination exists." The "unreal imagination" (abhūta-parikalpa) is the ceaseless constructive activity of mind. It is called "unreal" not because it does not occur, but because the object-appearances it throws up are not what they seem. The activity itself genuinely exists, genuinely turns. (This is the other-dependent nature, paratantra: the conditioned flow of mind.)
Second, "in it, the two do not exist at all." The "two" are grasper (the subject that seizes) and grasped (the object seized). The moment mind stirs, it splits into "I here, object there." But examined within this unreal imagination, that subject–object division is wholly absent. (This is the wholly-imagined nature, parikalpita: a subject–object opposition merely projected, never real.)
Third, "here there is only emptiness." Strip away that false dividing line and what remains is emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is not a blank nothing; emptiness just is the fact that the duality does not hold — and it is found nowhere else but within this very unreal imagination. (This is the perfectly-accomplished nature, pariniṣpanna: the reality disclosed when, upon the other-dependent, the two never were.)
Fourth, "and in that, this too exists." Conversely: within that emptiness, the unreal imagination still exists. Emptiness and the imagination are not two storeys but two faces of one thing.
Taken together: the imagination exists, the two are absent, emptiness exists, the imagination also exists — falling neither into substantial existence (which would over-affirm) nor into sheer nonexistence (which would under-deny).
〔2〕Accord with the middle way
故說一切法，非空非不空， 有無及有故，是則契中道。
Following from the previous verse: thus all phenomena are said to be neither empty nor non-empty. In view of the existence of the unreal imagination and of emptiness, they are not simply empty; in view of the absence of the two, they are not simply non-empty. Existence (of imagination and emptiness), absence (of the two), and existence again (of imagination within emptiness) — these three asserted together, leaning to no extreme, constitute accord with the middle way. This "middle" is no splitting of the difference; it is the measure of seeing things as they are.
〔3〕Consciousness transforms into four semblances
識生變似義、有情、我及了， 此境實非有，境無故識無。
The content of the unreal imagination is specified. When consciousness arises, it transforms so as to appear as four kinds of semblance: semblance of object — as if there were an external object (artha, the cognized field); semblance of sentient being — as if there were sense-bodies and beings (the five faculties); semblance of self — as if there were an abiding self (the self grasped by the defiled manas); semblance of cognizing — as if there were an act of discerning (the six consciousnesses that cognize objects).
〔The proponent concludes:〕 These four semblance-objects truly do not exist — all are transformations of consciousness, not real things outside mind. Since the object does not exist, the consciousness too does not stand (a grasper depends on a grasped; the grasped being empty, the grasper qua grasper likewise dissolves).
〔4〕Neither substantially existent nor wholly nonexistent
虛妄分別性，由此義得成， 非實有全無，許滅解脫故。
The nature of the unreal imagination is established precisely by the foregoing. Its nature is neither substantially existent nor wholly nonexistent:
〔Objection:〕 If the unreal imagination is substantially existent, how can you call it empty? If wholly nonexistent, what is there to analyse? 〔Reply:〕 Not substantially existent — for if it were, it would abide unalterably and could never cease. Not wholly nonexistent — for the Dharma admits that its cessation is liberation. What can cease is not nothing (nothing has nothing to cease); what liberates upon ceasing is not substantial (the substantial cannot cease). Its nature therefore lies between existence and nonexistence — exactly the true character of the other-dependent nature.
〔5〕The ground of the three natures
唯所執、依他，及圓成實性， 境故分別故，及二空故說。
The three natures and the grounds on which each is posited: the wholly-imagined (parikalpita) — spoken of by reason of the object, i.e. the seemingly external field that appears; the other-dependent (paratantra) — spoken of by reason of discrimination, i.e. the discriminating unreal imagination itself; the perfectly-accomplished (pariniṣpanna) — spoken of by reason of the twofold emptiness, i.e. the reality disclosed when grasper and grasped are both empty.
No phenomenon falls outside these three natures; and the three natures are nothing other than the "existence, absence, emptiness" of the earlier verse.
〔6〕The method of entering signlessness
依識有所得，境無所得生； 依境無所得，識無所得生。
The sequence of entering "consciousness-only," in which two "non-apprehensions" arise in mutual dependence: first, based on the apprehension that there is consciousness (knowing that all is but appearance of consciousness), there arises the non-apprehension of object (the external object is not found); then, based on the non-apprehension of object (the external being unfindable), there arises the non-apprehension of consciousness (the grasping consciousness too is not found).
When the object is dissolved, consciousness too is dissolved — the grasper, having a grasped no longer, is itself emptied. This is no annihilation, but the dual abandonment of grasper and grasped in order to accord with non-discrimination.
〔7〕Grasping and non-grasping are equal
由識有得性，亦成無所得， 故知二有得，無得性平等。
From the apprehending (grasping) nature of consciousness, there finally comes about non-apprehension as well. Know therefore that apprehension (the clinging of grasper-and-grasped) and non-apprehension (the vanishing of both) are equal in nature — both are turnings within the unreal imagination, neither able to stand alone and abide. The subject–object correlation once broken, their equal nature is disclosed.
〔8〕Mind and mental factors
三界心心所，是虛妄分別， 唯了境名心，亦別名心所。
The extension of the unreal imagination is fixed: all mind and mental factors of the three realms are the unreal imagination — no factor lies outside it. That which merely cognizes the object as a whole is called mind (citta); that which seizes the particular modes of the object is called mental factors (caitta). Mind apprehends the whole, the factors apprehend the particulars; both are subsumed within the unreal imagination.
〔9〕The conditioning consciousness and the experiencer
一則名緣識，第二名受者， 此中能受用，分別推心所。
Within the turning of mind, a further twofold division: the first is called the "conditioning consciousness" — the root consciousness on which the arising of the other consciousnesses depends (the ālaya, which holds the seeds and serves as condition for the rest to arise); the second is called the "experiencer" — the consciousnesses that turn in dependence on the conditioning consciousness and experience their fields. Within this experiencer, the functions of experiencing (reception, i.e. vedanā), discriminating (seizing the mark, i.e. saṃjñā), and impelling (driving formation, i.e. cetanā) are the associated mental factors.
〔10〕The unreal imagination manifests as defilement
覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、 三分別、受用、引起并連縛、 現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間， 三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。
How the unreal imagination manifests the entire course of cyclic existence — this is the twelvefold dependent origination, matched link by link: veiling (ignorance, which veils reality), establishing (formations, which lay down the seeds of habit), leading on (consciousness, which draws one toward rebirth), gathering (name-and-form, the coalescing of the embryonic self), completing (the six sense-bases, the faculties brought to completion), threefold discrimination (contact, the seizing-as-distinct of the meeting of faculty-object-consciousness), experiencing (feeling, the reception of pleasure and pain), giving rise (craving, greed arising from feeling), binding (grasping, the clinging that will not let go), manifesting (becoming, karma matured into present effect), suffering-fruit (birth, aging-and-death, the pure mass of suffering).
This one chain alone afflicts the world; there is no other. These twelve links are further gathered into three, two, seven defilements: the three are the defilement of affliction (ignorance, craving, grasping); the two are the defilement of karma (formations, becoming); the seven are the defilement of birth/event (consciousness, name-and-form, the six bases, contact, feeling, birth, aging-and-death). All three classes of defilement arise from the unreal imagination — cyclic existence has no separate root; it is just the self-manifesting of this one imagination.
〔11〕The framework for analysing emptiness
諸相及異門，義差別成立， 應知二空性，略說唯由此。
The exposition of emptiness now sets up four headings: its characteristic (the essential mark of emptiness), its synonyms (the alternative names of emptiness), the differentiation of meaning (the precise sense carried by each name), and its establishment (the reasoning by which emptiness is secured). The essentials of the two emptinesses (of person and of dharma) are, in brief, exhausted by just these four. They unfold in turn below.
〔12〕The characteristic of emptiness
無二有無故，非有亦非無， 非異亦非一，是說為空相。
First, the characteristic of emptiness. Emptiness is the existence of the very fact that grasper and grasped do not exist — by reason of "the existence of the nonexistence of the two," emptiness is asserted: not existent — since grasper and grasped are themselves absent, it cannot be called existent; yet not nonexistent — since the absence of the two genuinely obtains, it cannot be called nonexistent; not different — emptiness has no substance apart from the unreal imagination, so it is not other than it; yet not identical — emptiness is the never-having-been of the two disclosed upon the imagination, not the imagination itself, so it is not one with it. Not existent nor nonexistent, not one nor different — this is the characteristic of emptiness.
〔13〕The synonyms of emptiness
略說空異門，謂真如、實際、 無相、勝義性、法界等應知。
Next, the synonyms (alternative names) of emptiness. Briefly, emptiness bears further names, to be known: suchness (tathatā), the true limit (bhūtakoṭi), the signless (animitta), the ultimate (paramārthatā), the dharma-realm (dharmadhātu), and so on — different in name, one in referent, all designating this perfectly-accomplished emptiness.
〔14〕The sense of each synonym
由無變無倒，相滅聖智境， 及諸聖法因，異門義如次。
The grounds for each name, respectively: called suchness — because it is unchanging (ever thus in nature, neither shifting nor altering); called the true limit — because it is non-erroneous (the ultimate point of truth, free of mistake); called the signless — because in it all marks cease (every unreal sign is here stilled); called the ultimate — because it is the object of holy wisdom (the field ranged over by non-discriminating noble cognition); called the dharma-realm — because it is the cause of holy dharmas (the noble dharmas arise in dependence on it; "realm/dhātu" carries the sense of "cause"). The five names, matched in order, are alternative designations of one emptiness.
〔15〕Defilement and purity rest on emptiness
此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢， 如水界金空，淨故許為淨。
The relation of emptiness to defilement and purity. This emptiness is spoken of now as defiled, now as pure: when with stain it is called defiled, when without stain it is called pure. Its substance is never altered; what alters is only the presence or absence of stain — just as water, gold, and space, pure by nature, may be obscured by adventitious dirt and so seem defiled; when the dirt departs, purity shows, and because its nature is pure, it is admitted as pure. So too emptiness: defilement is not its own nature; purity is its original condition.
〔16〕The bases for contemplating emptiness
能食及所食，此依身所住， 能見如此理，所求二淨空。
The objects on which the contemplation of emptiness bears, gathering the several emptinesses: the consumer (the six inner bases, that which receives), the consumed (the six outer fields, that which is received), the body on which these two depend (the sense-body itself), the dwelling in which the body resides (the receptacle world, its supporting locus), the seer (the contemplating subject), and the principle thus seen (the truth contemplated); and on up to the two purified emptinesses that the practitioner seeks (the twofold pure emptiness to be realized). Inner, outer, support, dwelling, subject, object — each is contemplated as empty. Emptiness is not single; the several emptinesses are posited according to the matter contemplated.
〔17〕The reasons for contemplating emptiness (i)
為常益有情、為不捨生死、 為善無窮盡，故觀此為空。
Why the bodhisattva contemplates emptiness. First set: to benefit beings perpetually (not seizing quiescence and abandoning beings), not to forsake saṃsāra (abiding in saṃsāra undefiled by it, so as to deliver beings), that good be inexhaustible (wholesome conduct continuing without end) — for these three the bodhisattva contemplates this as empty. Contemplating emptiness is not for one's own quietude, but is the resource for endless benefit to others.
〔18〕The reasons for contemplating emptiness (ii)
為種性清淨、為得諸相好、 為淨諸佛法，故菩薩觀空。
Second set: for the purity of the [buddha-]lineage (the cleansing of the tathāgata-gotra), to attain the marks and signs (the major and minor marks of a buddha), to purify the buddha-dharmas (perfecting all the qualities of buddhahood) — for these three the bodhisattva contemplates emptiness. The former three serve others; these three are the cause of one's own awakening. The single practice of contemplating emptiness subsumes both the benefit of self and of others.
〔19〕Why two emptinesses are separately posited
補特伽羅法，實性俱非有， 此無性、有性，故別立二空。
The establishment of emptiness. Person (the one who takes up the aggregates) and dharma: the real nature of both is nonexistent — the person has no real self, dharmas have no real own-being. Yet this very lack of real nature is itself an existent nature (the truth of their being unreal genuinely obtains — this is the perfectly-accomplished). Because the real-clinging is removed in each of the two domains, person and dharma, two emptinesses are separately posited: the emptiness of person and the emptiness of dharma. Emptiness does not lapse into mere annihilation; it is the real existent disclosed by removing what is clung to.
〔20〕Defilement and purity must both obtain
此若無雜染，一切應自脫； 此若無清淨，功用應無果。
Showing in reverse that mind-nature must hold both defilement and purity: 〔Objection one:〕 If this [mind-nature] had no defilement at all, then all beings should be liberated of themselves — with no defilement to remove, why await practice? But it is not so; hence there is adventitious defilement. 〔Objection two:〕 If this had no purity (no nature capable of being purified), then the exertion of practice should bear no fruit — with no purity to disclose, practice would be in vain. But practice does bear fruit; hence there is original purity. The two objections, set side by side, force the conclusion of the next verse.
〔21〕The nature of mind is originally pure
非染非不染，非淨非不淨， 心性本淨故，由客塵所染。
The chapter on characteristics concludes. The character of mind-nature is neither defiled nor undefiled, neither pure nor impure: not defiled — because the nature of mind is originally pure, defilement is not its own nature; not undefiled — because it is defiled by adventitious dust, it is not wholly without defilement; not pure — because it is presently veiled by adventitious dust, its purity is not [yet] manifest; not impure — because its nature is primordially pure, it is not truly impure. The whole point lies in two clauses: the nature of mind is originally pure, yet defiled by adventitious dust — original purity is the substance, adventitious defilement the condition; the defilement can be removed and the purity restored. This is the conclusion of the "characteristic" expounded in this chapter, and the very basis on which the next chapter, on the obscurations and their antidotes, rests.
本篇講的是辯相品的首段——從第一頌的「目次」起，到第八頌的「見道」止。這一段自成一條完整的線：先立中道，再開三性，最後由「相」轉入「修」。[009] 以下之空性十一頌，義理已備於同品白話與考據。
《辯中邊論》是彌勒菩薩造頌、世親菩薩造釋的一部論。「辯中邊」三字，意思是「分別『中』與『邊』」——把佛法的正見（中道）從兩種偏邪的見（二邊）裡分判出來。全論一百一十三頌，玄奘譯本分作七品；這第一品叫「辯相品」，講的是諸法實相的「相」——也就是：一切法究竟是什麼樣子。
要先說清楚這部論最關心的「兩條邊」，因為整品都繞著它走：
- 一條叫增益——本來沒有的，硬說它有；把虛妄的東西當成真實。
- 一條叫損減——本來有的，硬說它無；連該承認的也一概抹掉。
「中道」不是在這兩條邊「中間」折個衷，而是如實：該有的承認其有，該無的看破其無。辯相品首段，就是一步步把這個「如實」立起來。
〔標目頌〕全論的目次：七品七義
第一頌不講道理，只列目次。它把整部論要談的七件事一次數盡：
相、障、真實、修諸對治、（修）分位、得果、無上乘。
這七件事，就是七品：
- 相——諸法實相之相（辯相品，即本品）。
- 障——遮蔽這實相的煩惱（辯障品）。
- 真實——實相之所依（辯真實品）。
- 修諸對治——對治那些遮障的修行（辯修對治品）。
- （修）分位——修行所經歷的階位（辯修分位品）。
- 得果——依修行而證得的果（辯得果品）。
- 無上乘——以上這條道，何以是無上的大乘（辯無上乘品）。
古德把這七品再收成「境、行、果」三段來看：前二品（相、障）是所觀之境，中三品（真實、修對治、修分位）是能修之行，後二品（得果、無上乘）是所證之果。所以整部論，其實就是一條「境→行→果」的修證之路。這一頌，先把這條路的七個站牌立好；下一頌起，才正式入第一站。
一、中道的根本一頌：虛妄分別「有」
第二頌是全論的題眼——整部論的眼睛都在這一頌上。它用四句話，把中道立定：
虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。
先解「虛妄分別」這四個字。它指的是：心識不停在分別、造作的這股活動。叫它「虛妄」，不是說它不存在，而是說——它所現出來的境相靠不住，不像它所現的那樣。活動本身是實實在在地在轉的；現出來的那個「我對著境」的對立相，才是假的。
四句逐一講開：
- 「虛妄分別有」——這股分別活動，是有的。（它就是後面要講的三性裡的「依他起」：依著種種緣而生起的心識流。）
- 「於此二都無」——「二」指能取（能執取的一方，像是「我」）與所取（被執取的一方，像是「境」）。心一動，就裂成「我在這邊、境在那邊」這兩橛。但就這股虛妄分別本身去看，這能、所兩橛永遠是沒有的。（這就是三性裡的「遍計所執」：橫加計度而執出來的主客對立，本來就不成立。）
- 「此中唯有空」——就在這股虛妄分別「之中」，離了能所二取的那個空性，是有的。這空性，就是真如，是虛妄分別的體。
- 「於彼亦有此」——「彼」指那空性（真如）；就在真如之中，也只有這股虛妄分別在——分別不離真如。
四句合起來，是一個「有—無—有—有」的格式：依他有、遍計無、圓成（真如）有、依他不離圓成。它既不是「真的有」（破掉增益），也不是「全然無」（破掉損減）——這個「不落兩邊」，就是「中」。
世親用一句話收這一頌：在虛妄分別上，二取確實不在，所以「觀它為空」（這是「無的就知道它無」，破增益）；而剩下的（虛妄分別與真如這兩樣）並非沒有，所以「如實知它為有」（這是「有的就知道它有」，破損減）。中道不是和稀泥，而是無顛倒地看見：二取之無，與依他、圓成之有。
二、推及一切法：非空非不空
第二頌就「虛妄分別」這一件事立了四句；第三頌把同一個道理，推到一切法上，並且點明它的經典依據：
故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是則契中道。
開頭「故說」二字要緊。世親明說：這是「善符順般若等經」——也就是說，這個中道不是論主新發明的，而是順著《般若經》講「一切法非空非有」而說的。唯識講的「空」，就是般若講的「空」，差別只在更精準。
這裡的「一切法」有確指。世親判：有為法（就是虛妄分別、依他起）加上無為法（就是二取空性、圓成實）。至於遍計所執的那個能所二取，「體是無法」——根本不成一個東西，所以不算進「法」裡。（古德解「法」字為「可執持」：能拿得住、立得住的，才叫法。）
於是兩重否定，逐字配上三性：
- 「非空」——因為依他、圓成這兩性的體並非沒有，所以不能說一切法是空的。
- 「非不空」——因為遍計所執的能所二取確實沒有，所以也不能說一切法不空。
「有無及有故」一句，就是把第二頌的「有—無—有」收攏過來。末句「是則契中道」：一切法「不是一味地空，也不是一味地不空」，這才扣得上中道。
這一頌正面對治的，是惡取空——聽到「一切皆空」就以為一切皆無，那是墮進損減邊。要記住一句話：所空的，是二取；不是連依他、圓成也一併空掉。中道不在兩種斷言之間找平衡，而在「究竟空掉的是什麼」這件事上看得如實。
三、虛妄分別如何運作：識變四似
第二、三頌把中道立住了；第四頌轉個方向，講虛妄分別是怎麼運作的——也就是「識變」。
識生變似義、有情、我及了，此境實非有，境無故識無。
識一生起，就變現出四類「似」相（「似」就是「彷彿是、像是」，看著像有、其實不如所見）：
- 變似義——變現出像是色等外境的相。
- 變似有情——變現出像是自他身上五根的相。
- 變似我——這是第七末那識，恆與「我癡」等相應，變現出一個像是「我」的相。
- 變似了——這是前六識，了別之相較粗，變現出種種了別。
這四樣，依古德（慈恩一系）的正解：它們是依他起的，「似」是說它們體非真實、卻虛妄地顯現得像個實有的東西，所以叫「似」。
「此境實非有」——這四種所變的境，並不真有。「境無故識無」——所取的這四種境既然不成其為實有，那麼能取的識，就其執實而言，也不成其為實有。這正是第二頌「二都無」落到識變上的講法：不是先有外境、後有識去取它，而是識自己變似了境、境本來就無，所以能取的一邊也站不住。
要留意一句：「境無故識無」是遣它的「執實」，不是撥它為全無——這一點，緊接的第五頌就會收住。
四、依他「非實有、非全無」：為什麼不能說它全無
第五頌，把前面三頌（立四句、遍一切法、明識變）的意思收攏，給虛妄分別（也就是依他起）一個精準的定位：非實有，也非全無。
虛妄分別性，由此義得成，非實有全無，許滅解脫故。
- 「非實有」——它所現起的（那個二取相）並不真實，不如所現，所以不是「真的有」。
- 「非全無」——可是其中還有「亂識」（也就是虛妄分別自身）在生起，所以也不是「什麼都沒有」。
最要緊的是末句的理由——「許滅解脫故」。世親反問：憑什麼不許它全無？答：因為我們承認「滅掉它就能得解脫」。你想：如果虛妄分別本來就全然沒有，那就沒有東西可滅、也沒有繫縛可解，「解脫」這回事根本說不起來了。正因為它「定有少體」（確實有那麼一點實在的體），所以滅它、才有解脫可言。
世親順勢把話鎖死：若硬把虛妄分別撥為全無，那麼繫縛、解脫就都不存在了，連染、淨也一筆抹掉——這就墮成「撥無雜染與清淨」的大失。
這一頌，是唯識對「惡取空」的正面防線，也是「依他非無」這條唯識命脈的根據。一句話：依他的「有」，正繫在修證的可能上——空掉遍計的二取，卻保住依他的緣起，染淨、繫縛、解脫才有立足之處；若一概皆空，修證就無處下腳了。
五、三性的標名：一虛妄分別的三面
到第六頌，才正式把前面反覆在講的依他、遍計、圓成，落成三個定名，並說它們各自憑什麼立名：
唯所執、依他，及圓成實性，境故分別故，及二空故說。
世親逐一配：
- 遍計所執自性——依著虛妄分別所緣的「境」而立（心所對的那個二取境）。
- 依他起自性——依著虛妄分別的「性（體）」而立（那能計度的心體本身）。
- 圓成實自性——依著「能取、所取都空」而立（二取的那個空性）。
下兩句「境故、分別故、及二空故」，就是這三者立名的由來：境（遍計）、分別（依他）、二空（圓成）。
這一頌最該記住的一點是：三性不是三個各自獨立的東西，而是同一股虛妄分別的三個面——所緣的境，是遍計；能計的體，是依他；二取的空，是圓成。一股虛妄分別，就攝盡了三性。三性既然標明了，世親隨即一轉：「就在這股虛妄分別上，修觀以入二取無相」——於是從「相」（三性之立）轉進「修」（觀行）。
六、由「相」入「修」：入無相的方便道
第七頌，是上一頌末「入無相方便」的正文——講怎麼修觀，才能入二取無相。它點出一個次第：
依識有所得，境無所得生；依境無所得，識無所得生。
「有所得／無所得」就是：能取所取「立得起來／立不起來」。這一頌的修法，是分兩步走的：
- 第一步：依著「唯識」先安立（識，有所得）；由此見到外境無可得（境無所得）。
- 第二步：既然境已無可得，那能取的識也跟著無可得（識無所得）。
古德把這兩步配上「四加行」的位次：前兩句「心有、境無」，是煗位、頂位（先觀所取空）；後兩句「境無、識也無」，是忍位（再觀能取空）。
這一頌的關鍵，就在這個次第：不是一步就喊「境識俱空」，而是先境後識——先立唯識來遣外境，再由境無來遣能取的識。唯識的止觀不是懸空談玄，而是有下手處、有階梯的觀行。
七、根本道：能所二無平等
第八頌，是這條修行線的頂點——講「二無平等」，也就是見道（根本道）所親證的境界：
由識有得性，亦成無所得，故知二有得，無得性平等。
順著上一頌往下逼：
- 「由識有得性」——識生起時，現似種種境，所以名為「有所得」。
- 「亦成無所得」——可是所得的境既然無實，那能得（識）的實性也就立不起來了，於是識「也成了無所得」。
- 「故知二有得，無得性平等」——既然連能得的識也無所得，那麼所取、能取這兩邊（原先都還算「有所得」），就平等地一同成了「無所得」。
古德點得很準：「非一獨無，故名平等」——不是只有境無、而識還獨存著，而是能、所一同泯去，所以才叫「平等」。
這就是見道：能、所雙雙泯盡，平等一味。要看出第七、第八這兩頌的分工——第七頌是方便道（先境後識，有先有後地遣），第八頌是根本道（能所俱泯，沒有先後）。唯識觀的極致，不停在「識有、境無」那一步（那仍是「有所得」，仍存著一個能取），而要走到「能所俱無所得」，才真正離了二取相、安住於真唯識。
結：辯相品首段的一條線
把這八頌連起來看，辯相品的首段是一條完整的線：
第一頌列出全論七品的目次；第二頌立中道的根本四句（有—無—有—有），破增益與損減二邊；第三頌把這中道推到一切法，並繫於般若經，點明唯識之空即般若之空，只是更精準；第四頌講虛妄分別如何「識變四似」地運作，境無故識無；第五頌收定依他「非實有、非全無」，以「許滅解脫」守住損減邊，立穩「依他非無」這條命脈；第六頌正式標名三性，並點出三性只是一股虛妄分別的三個面；第七頌由「相」入「修」，說入無相的方便道（先境後識，配煗頂忍）；第八頌到達根本道——能所二無平等，即見道之證。
立中道、開三性、由相入修、終於見道——這就是辯相品首段，給人的一條從「看清諸法的樣子」走到「親證二取本空」的完整路徑。
What follows covers the first arc of the "Characteristics" chapter — from the opening "table of contents" verse to the eighth verse's "path of seeing." This arc is a single complete line of thought: first it establishes the middle, then it opens the three natures, and finally it turns from "characteristics" into "practice." For the eleven emptiness verses from [009] onward, the doctrine is fully covered in this chapter's vernacular and apparatus layers.
The Madhyāntavibhāga is a treatise whose root verses were composed by the bodhisattva Maitreya and whose commentary (bhāṣya) was written by the bodhisattva Vasubandhu. The title means "Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes" — separating the right view (the middle) from two kinds of mistaken view (the extremes). The whole treatise has 113 verses; Xuanzang's translation divides it into seven chapters. This first chapter, "Characteristics" (lakṣaṇa), treats the characteristics of how things really are — that is: what, ultimately, all things are like.
First we must be clear about the two "extremes" this treatise is most concerned with, because the whole chapter turns on them:
- One is reification (samāropa) — asserting that what is not there is there; taking the unreal for the real.
- One is denial (apavāda) — asserting that what is there is not there; sweeping away even what should be granted.
The "middle" (madhyamā pratipad) is not splitting the difference "between" these two. It is seeing as it is: granting the existence of what does exist, and seeing through the non-existence of what does not. The first arc of this chapter sets that "seeing as it is" up, step by step.
〔Uddāna〕The Table of Contents: Seven Chapters, Seven Topics
The first verse states no doctrine; it only lists the contents. It names, all at once, the seven things the whole treatise will treat:
characteristics, obscuration, reality, cultivating the antidotes, the stages [of that cultivation], attaining the fruit, the unsurpassed vehicle.
These seven are the seven chapters:
- Characteristics — the characteristics of how things really are (the present chapter).
- Obscuration — the afflictions that veil those characteristics.
- Reality — that on which those characteristics rest.
- Cultivating the antidotes — the practice that counters those veils.
- The stages — the levels the cultivation passes through.
- Attaining the fruit — the fruit realized through that cultivation.
- The unsurpassed vehicle — why this whole path is the unsurpassed Great Vehicle.
The ancient masters gather these seven further into three: object, practice, fruit. The first two chapters (characteristics, obscuration) are the object to be contemplated; the middle three (reality, antidotes, stages) are the practice to be undertaken; the last two (fruit, unsurpassed vehicle) are the fruit to be realized. So the whole treatise is, in fact, a single road of "object → practice → fruit." This verse sets up the seven signposts of that road; from the next verse on, we enter the first stop.
1. The Root Verse of the Middle: False Imagining "Exists"
The second verse is the eye of the whole treatise — everything looks through this one verse. In four clauses it establishes the middle:
False imagining exists; within it the two are both absent; here there is only emptiness; and in that, this too exists.
First, the term false imagining (abhūta-parikalpa). It names the ongoing activity of mind discriminating and constructing. It is called "false" not because it does not occur, but because what it presents is unreliable — things are not as it presents them. The activity itself is fully, really going on; it is the presented appearance of "me over here facing an object over there" that is false.
The four clauses, opened up:
- "False imagining exists." This activity of discrimination exists. (It is what the three natures will call the other-dependent — paratantra — the flow of mind arising in dependence on conditions.)
- "Within it the two are both absent." "The two" are the grasper (the grasping side, e.g. "I") and the grasped (the side grasped at, e.g. "the object"). The moment mind stirs, it splits into these two poles, "I here, object there." But regarding this false imagining itself, these two poles are forever absent. (This is the wholly-imagined nature — parikalpita — the subject-object opposition fabricated by reckoning, which never held in the first place.)
- "Here there is only emptiness." Within this very false imagining, the emptiness (śūnyatā) that is free of the two — grasper and grasped — does exist. This emptiness is suchness (tathatā), the very essence of false imagining.
- "And in that, this too exists." "That" is the emptiness (suchness); within suchness, likewise, there is only this false imagining — the imagining is not apart from suchness.
Taken together, the four clauses are an "exists — absent — exists — exists" pattern: the other-dependent exists, the wholly-imagined is absent, the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) exists, and the other-dependent is not apart from the perfectly-accomplished. It is neither "really existent" (this rules out reification) nor "wholly void" (this rules out denial) — and this "falling to neither extreme" is the "middle."
Vasubandhu closes the verse in a single move: upon false imagining the two are indeed not there, so one "observes it as empty" (knowing the non-existent as non-existent — against reification); yet the remainder — false imagining and suchness — is not nothing, so one "knows it truly as existing" (knowing the existent as existent — against denial). The middle is no compromise; it is seeing without error: the absence of the two, and the existence of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished.
2. Extending to All Dharmas: Neither Empty Nor Non-Empty
The second verse established the four clauses for the single matter of "false imagining"; the third verse carries the same principle to all dharmas, and points to its scriptural ground:
Therefore all dharmas are spoken of as neither empty nor non-empty — because of existence, non-existence, and existence again — and this accords with the middle.
The opening "therefore … is spoken of" matters. Vasubandhu states plainly that this "well accords with the Prajñāpāramitā and other sūtras, which say all dharmas are neither empty nor existent" — that is, this middle is not the author's invention but follows the Perfection-of-Wisdom sūtras' "all dharmas are neither empty nor existent." The emptiness that consciousness-only teaches just is the emptiness the Prajñā sūtras teach; the only difference is that it is more precise.
"All dharmas" here is exactly specified. Vasubandhu fixes it as: the conditioned (that is, false imagining, the other-dependent) plus the unconditioned (that is, the emptiness of the two-grasping, the perfectly-accomplished). As for the grasper-grasped duality of the wholly-imagined nature, "its substance is no dharma at all" — it does not even amount to a thing, and so is not counted among "dharmas." (The masters gloss "dharma" as "what can be held": only what can be held and stands as a thing is a dharma.)
So the double negation maps, term by term, onto the natures:
- "Not empty" — because the substance of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished is not nothing, all dharmas cannot be called empty.
- "Not non-empty" — because the grasper-grasped of the wholly-imagined nature genuinely is not there, all dharmas cannot be called non-empty either.
The clause "because of existence, non-existence, and existence again" simply gathers up the "exists — absent — exists" of the second verse. The final clause, "this accords with the middle": all dharmas are "not one-sidedly empty, nor one-sidedly non-empty," and this is what fits the middle.
This verse directly counters the wrong grasp of emptiness — hearing "all is empty" and supposing all is nothing, which falls into the extreme of denial. Hold onto one sentence: what is emptied is the two-grasping; it is not that the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished are emptied along with it. The middle is not a balance struck between two assertions, but seeing rightly what it is that is ultimately empty.
3. How False Imagining Operates: The Four Semblances
The second and third verses fixed the middle; the fourth verse turns to how false imagining works — the transformation of consciousness (識變).
Consciousness arises transforming as the semblance of object, sentient being, self, and cognizing; these objects are truly non-existent; the object being absent, consciousness too is absent.
The moment consciousness arises, it transforms-as four kinds of "semblance" ("semblance" meaning "seeming to be" — looking as if present, yet not as it looks):
- semblance of object (artha) — appearing as form and the other outer objects.
- semblance of sentient being (sattva) — appearing as the five sense-faculties of one's own and others' bodies.
- semblance of self (ātman) — the defiled manas, the seventh consciousness, ever conjoined with self-delusion, appearing as a "self."
- semblance of cognizing (vijñapti) — the first six consciousnesses, whose cognizing is comparatively coarse.
On the masters' settled (Cien-school) reading, these four are other-dependent: "semblance" means they are not real in substance, yet falsely appear as though they were real things — hence "semblance."
"These objects are truly non-existent" — the four objects so transformed are not truly there. "The object being absent, consciousness too is absent" — since the grasped four objects do not amount to anything real, the grasping consciousness too, so far as taking it to be real is concerned, does not amount to anything real. This is the consciousness-transformation form of the second verse's "the two are both absent": it is not that the outer object exists first and consciousness then grasps it, but that consciousness itself transforms-as the object, and the object being absent from the start, the grasping side cannot stand either.
Note one point: "the object being absent, consciousness too is absent" dispels its being-taken-as-real — it does not dismiss it as wholly nothing. The fifth verse, immediately following, secures exactly this.
4. The Other-Dependent, "Neither Really Existent Nor Wholly Non-Existent"
The fifth verse gathers the previous three (the four clauses, all dharmas, the transformation) and gives false imagining — the other-dependent — a precise placement: neither really existent, nor wholly non-existent.
The nature of false imagining is established by this principle: it is neither really existent nor wholly non-existent — because, granting its cessation, there is liberation.
- "Neither really existent" — what it presents (the two-grasping appearance) is not real, not as presented; so it is not "really existent."
- "[Nor] wholly non-existent" — yet within it a slight "disturbed consciousness" (false imagining itself) still arises; so it is not "wholly nothing."
The decisive part is the final reason — "because, granting its cessation, there is liberation." Vasubandhu asks: on what ground do we refuse to grant it wholly non-existent? Answer: because we grant that "ceasing it brings liberation." Consider: if false imagining were wholly non-existent from the start, there would be nothing to cease and no bondage to loosen — "liberation" simply could not be spoken of. Precisely because it "must have a slight substance" (something really there), ceasing it can issue in liberation.
Vasubandhu then locks the argument: if one forcibly dismisses false imagining as wholly non-existent, then bondage and liberation both vanish, and defilement and purity are wiped out together — falling into the great error of "denying defilement and purity."
This verse is consciousness-only's frontline defense against the wrong grasp of emptiness, and the ground of "the other-dependent is not nothing," the lifeline of consciousness-only. In one sentence: the "existence" of the other-dependent rests precisely on the possibility of practice-realization — empty the wholly-imagined two-grasping, yet keep the other-dependent's conditioned arising, and only then do defilement and purity, bondage and liberation, have a place to stand; were all emptied alike, practice and realization would have nowhere to set foot.
5. Naming the Three Natures: Three Faces of One False Imagining
At the sixth verse, the other-dependent, the wholly-imagined, and the perfectly-accomplished — referred to again and again above — are finally given three fixed names, with the ground of each name stated:
Only the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished nature — spoken of, respectively, by reason of object, of discrimination, and of the two emptinesses.
Vasubandhu assigns each:
- the wholly-imagined nature (parikalpita) — established by reason of the "object" that false imagining takes (the two-grasping object the mind faces).
- the other-dependent nature (paratantra) — established by reason of the "nature" (substance) of false imagining (the discriminating mind itself).
- the perfectly-accomplished nature (pariniṣpanna) — established by reason of the "two emptinesses," that grasper and grasped are both empty (the emptiness of the two-grasping).
The lower two clauses, "by reason of object, of discrimination, and of the two emptinesses," are just the ground of these three namings: object (wholly-imagined), discrimination (other-dependent), two emptinesses (perfectly-accomplished).
The one point to hold from this verse: the three natures are not three independent things, but three faces of one and the same false imagining — the object it takes is the wholly-imagined; the discriminating substance is the other-dependent; the emptiness of the two-grasping is the perfectly-accomplished. One false imagining subsumes all three natures. The three natures named, Vasubandhu at once turns: "upon this very false imagining, cultivate contemplation so as to enter the signlessness of the two-grasping" — and so we pass from "characteristics" (the establishing of the three natures) into "practice" (contemplation).
6. From "Characteristics" into "Practice": The Path of Means
The seventh verse is the body of the previous verse's closing "means of entering signlessness" — how one cultivates contemplation in order to enter the signlessness of the two-grasping. It sets out a sequence:
In dependence on consciousness's attaining, the non-attaining of the object arises; in dependence on the object's non-attaining, the non-attaining of consciousness arises.
"Attaining / non-attaining" (upalabdhi / anupalabdhi) means: grasper and grasped "standing up / failing to stand." The cultivation here goes in two steps:
- Step one — in dependence on first establishing "consciousness-only" (consciousness, attaining), one thereby sees the outer object as un-attainable (no object attained).
- Step two — the object now un-attainable, the grasping consciousness too becomes un-attainable (no consciousness attained).
The masters map the two steps onto the four aids to penetration: the upper two clauses, "mind exists, object absent," are the stages of heat and summit (first contemplating the emptiness of the grasped); the lower two, "object absent, consciousness too absent," are the stage of forbearance (then contemplating the emptiness of the grasper).
The key to this verse is precisely this sequence: not crying "object and consciousness are both empty" in one stroke, but object first, then consciousness — first establishing consciousness-only to dispel the outer object, then, from the object's absence, dispelling the grasping consciousness. Consciousness-only's calm-and-insight is no airy talk of emptiness; it is contemplation with a place to begin and a ladder to climb.
7. The Fundamental Path: The Equality of the Two Absences
The eighth verse is the summit of this line of practice — it explains "the equality of the two absences," what the path of seeing (the fundamental path) directly realizes:
Because consciousness has the property of attaining, it too comes to be un-attained; therefore one knows: the two attainings, in their non-attaining-nature, are equal.
Pressing on from the previous verse:
- "Because consciousness has the property of attaining" — when consciousness arises, it appears as manifold objects, and so is called "attaining."
- "It too comes to be un-attained" — but the attained object having no real nature, the attaining (consciousness)'s real nature too fails to be established; so consciousness "too comes to be un-attained."
- "Therefore one knows: the two attainings, in their non-attaining-nature, are equal" — since even the attaining consciousness is un-attained, the grasped and the grasper (formerly both still counted as "attaining") alike, and equally, come to be of the "non-attaining" nature.
The masters put it exactly: "not one alone being absent — hence 'equal.'" It is not that only the object is absent while consciousness still stands; rather grasper and grasped alike dissolve, and so it is called "equal."
This is the path of seeing: grasper and grasped both dissolved, equal and of one taste. Notice the division of labour between the seventh and eighth verses — the seventh is the path of means (object first, then consciousness, dispelled in sequence); the eighth is the fundamental path (grasper and grasped dissolved together, with no sequence). The culmination of consciousness-only contemplation does not stop at the step "consciousness exists, object absent" (which is still "attaining," still keeping a grasper); it goes all the way to "grasper and grasped alike un-attained" — and only then has one truly left the two-grasping mark and come to rest in true consciousness-only.
Conclusion: The Single Line of the First Arc
Read as a whole, the first arc of "Characteristics" is one complete line:
The first verse lists the seven-chapter contents of the whole treatise; the second verse establishes the root four clauses of the middle (exists — absent — exists — exists), breaking the two extremes of reification and denial; the third verse carries this middle to all dharmas and ties it to the Prajñā sūtras, showing that consciousness-only's emptiness just is the Prajñā sūtras' emptiness, only more precise; the fourth verse shows how false imagining operates by "transforming as the four semblances," the object absent and so consciousness too absent; the fifth verse secures the other-dependent as "neither really existent nor wholly non-existent," holding the line against denial with "granting its cessation, there is liberation," and so steadying the lifeline "the other-dependent is not nothing"; the sixth verse formally names the three natures, and points out that the three are only three faces of one false imagining; the seventh verse turns from "characteristics" into "practice," teaching the path of means for entering signlessness (object first, then consciousness; mapped to heat, summit, forbearance); and the eighth verse arrives at the fundamental path — the equality of the two absences, the realization of the path of seeing.
Establish the middle, open the three natures, turn from characteristics into practice, and arrive at the path of seeing — this is the first arc of the "Characteristics" chapter, a complete path leading from "seeing clearly what things are like" to "directly realizing that the two-grasping is, of itself, empty."
考據Apparatus
本品 23 偈全；依世親〈虛妄分別九相〉＋窺基〈空性五門〉依類分段（標目＋11 段＋結頌），段內逐偈深釋。
科判定位（窺基《述記》T1835·卷上）
本品 genus 段聚偈所依之古德科判——窺基《辯中邊論述記》(T44n1835) 之科文，逐字錄並對位玄奘頌。〔科判＝詮釋史座標·顯既有段結構之古德權威·非新立義。〕
七品宏判（窺基·境/行/果）：[0001a18]「然初二品是境。次三品是行。後二品是果。是七品意。」→ 相品①·障品②攝「境」。
正宗入口：[0002a01]「此正宗中合有一百一十三頌。合分為二。初之一頌顯論所明。名總標分。所餘諸頌依標別顯。名別釋分。」→ [001]＝總標分；[002]–[023]＝別釋分·相品。
相品頂判：[0002a24]「此一品中二十二頌。初十一頌辯妄分別。後十一頌辯圓成實。」
妄分別九相：[0002b01]「於別解相十一頌中。初之二頌辯依妄分別明三性有無相。次二頌辯妄分別自相。次一頌辯攝相。次二頌辯入無相方便之相。次半頌辯差別相。次半頌辯異門相。次有一頌辯生起相。次有二頌辯雜染相。」總結 [0006a25]「今者總結為九種相。」
圓成實五門（所知空性）：[0006b03]「下十一頌明所知空性」·[0006b08]「總標五義以顯空性。下有十頌。別明五門。」結前 [0009c06]「今總結為二。以第一是空之相。」
| 窺基科判 | 頌數 | 玄奘頌 | genus 段 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 〔妄分別〕三性有無相 | 2 | [002]–[003] | 中道根本 |
| 自相 | 2 | [004]–[005] | 識變·依他 |
| 攝相 | 1 | [006] | 三性標名 |
| 入無相方便相 | 2 | [007]–[008] | 入無相方便 |
| 差別·異門·生起相 | ½+½+1 | [009]–[010] | 差別·異門·生起 |
| 雜染相 | 2 | [011]–[012] | 雜染相 |
| 〔圓成實〕空諸相 | 2 | [013]–[014] | 空性綱·空相 |
| 空異門·異門義 | 2 | [015]–[016] | 空異門及義 |
| 空差別（十六空） | 5 | [017]–[021] | 空之染淨／空之所知差別 |
| 空成立 | 1 | [022] | 空成立 |
| 結前（相·安立二義） | — | [023] | 辯相品結頌 |
〔§numbering：窺基計相品 22 頌（不含 [001] uddāna）；本譯玄奘頌編 [001]–[023]（uddāna 計入·共 23）。窺基「22 頌」≈ 玄奘頌 [002]–[023]，差一係 uddāna 計入與否所致，非異文。〕
偈 [001] · 標目頌─七義總攝
校本錨 · T1601 [p0477c07] 頌 · T1600 [p0464b08 稽首頌 / p0464b11 標目頌 / p0464b13 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451a11 真002] 真諦 · T1835 [p0001a17–c04 述曰] 窺基述記
唯相障真實，及修諸對治， 即此修分位，得果無上乘。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
標目頌不立義理、不破不立，只「安立論體」（世親 p0464b10）。但七義的次第本身即一義理主張：先境（所觀之相與障）、次行（真實·對治·分位之能修）、終果（得果與無上乘）——窺基境行果三分（p0001a23）。換言之，全論不是格言雜湊，而是「見實相與障 → 修真實對治、歷分位 → 證果、明最上乘」一條首尾完整的次第。本頌即此次第之綱目；[002] 以下乃逐站展開。
世親釋要
稽首造此論，善逝體所生，及教我等師，當勤顯斯義。 ……此中最初安立論體。頌曰：唯相障真實，及修諸對治，即此修分位，得果無上乘。 論曰：此論唯說如是七義，一相、二障、三真實、四修諸對治、五即此修分位、六得果、七無上乘。今於此中先辯其相。
世親先以歸敬頌（稽首造此論…）禮頌主與傳者，後標「安立論體」，列出七義，末以「今於此中先辯其相」承接辯相品。須辨：歸敬頌（稽首…）是世親所加之別序（見〈諸家異釋〉窺基判），非彌勒本頌；玄奘《頌》本（T1601）所收 [001] 即「唯相障真實…」之標目頌，不含歸敬頌。此即 本論特有之 他釋（異人作釋） 結構：頌出彌勒、釋出世親。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰）開卷即立全論科判，要點：
- 三分科判（p0001b04）：「此論一部總有三分。」——世親歸敬別序分（稽首頌）、慈氏本頌之正宗、結釋（[113]）。又判此論略無通序，逕入別序歸敬。
- 傳承（p0001b16）：歸敬頌「上之八字（善逝體所生）正顯頌主彌勒大尊，下之五字（及教我等師）明教論者無著菩薩」——即頌主彌勒、教傳無著、釋者世親之法相傳承。
- 本頌結構（p0001a25）：「彌勒本有一百一十三頌。初一總攝，後一結釋，中為正宗。」世親釋有七百頌（八字為句、三十二字為頌）。
- 境行果（p0001a23）：七品開為境（二）、行（三）、果（二）。
- 題名（p0001a17）：「中邊」之辯為依士釋（屬格，梵第六轉）；並斥「舊云世親所造，非也」——頌出彌勒，非世親造。
- 真諦舊譯評（p0001a29–b02）：窺基謂真諦梁朝已譯，「文錯義違，更譯茲日」。誠實層按：此為慈恩宗本位之總評。就具體異讀（如 [002] 此／彼 近遠指（指示）），本譯注視真諦為合法異本、列為對讀，不採窺基此處之全盤否定（別記存疑）。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451a11 真002 (c. 557–569) | 「相障及真實，研習對治道，修住而得果，無上乘唯爾。」對位=玄奘 [001]：真諦另立歸敬偈（真001「恭敬善行子…」），序位 +1，此即真諦 119≠玄奘 113 之一因。七義同；用字異：玄「唯相」╱真「相障」、玄「修諸對治」╱真「研習對治道」、玄「修分位」╱真「修住」。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c07 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0464b11) | 「唯相障真實，及修諸對治，即此修分位，得果無上乘。」底本：有世親釋（T1600）＋窺基述記（T1835）完整漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀圖
本頌為標目頌，功能近於各論之「總標目次」（非義理偈），故四論對映取「開卷立目」之義：
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 「一切法者，略有五種」總標五位 | 安立識變、三性、唯識位之綱 | 立「唯識無境」宗 | 本頌（七義／境行果總攝） |
（此為標目對映之輕引，跨論對映性本弱。）
互見:
- 標目頌跨論對映性弱；若取「開卷總標」之義，可與 《大乘百法明門論》「一切法者，略有五種」總標對讀。
偈 [002]–[003] · 中道根本 — 虛妄分別有相·無相·契中道
校本錨（合段） · 〔偈 [002]〕 T1601 [p0477c09] 頌 · T1600 [p0464b16 頌 / p0464b18 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451a16 真003] 真諦 · T1835 [p0002b08–c15 述曰] 窺基述記 · 〔偈 [003]〕 T1601 [p0477c11] 頌 · T1600 [p0464b25 頌 / p0464b27 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451a25 真004] 真諦 · T1835 [p0002c18–0003a04 述曰] 窺基述記
虛妄分別有，於此二都無， 此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。 故說一切法，非空非不空， 有無及有故，是則契中道。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
〔偈 [002]〕
《辯中邊論》立中道於增益（執二取為實）與損減（撥依他、圓成為無）二邊之間。本頌「有─無─有─有」四句即此 中道 的骨架。世親以一句收束：「若於此非有，由彼觀為空；所餘非無故，如實知為有。」——窺基釋之為「無知無、有知有」：於虛妄分別上二取性非有，故觀之為空（無知無，破增益）；而妄分別與真如二性是「二取餘體」，非無故如實知有（有知有，破損減）。如此「則能無倒顯示空相」（世親），「依他起上二取空無，真空性有，故成無倒顯示」（窺基）。中道不是折中，而是「無倒」——如實見二取之無與依圓之有。
〔偈 [003]〕
本頌正面回應惡取空（損減邊）：若聞「一切皆空」便謂一切皆無，即墮損減。世親「非一向空」破之——依、圓二性非無；「非一向不空」破增益——遍計二取非有。要義在末句：此非與般若立異，乃明標「善符順般若等經說一切法非空非有」（世親 p0464c06）——唯識之「空」即般若之「空」，差別唯在精準：空者，虛妄分別上之二取空，非謂虛妄分別與空性亦無。中道不在兩種斷言之間折中，而在「所空為何」之如實。
世親釋要
〔偈 [002]〕
論曰：虛妄分別有者，謂有所取、能取分別。於此二都無者，謂即於此虛妄分別，永無所取、能取二性。此中唯有空者，謂虛妄分別中但有離所取及能取空性。於彼亦有此者，謂即於彼二空性中亦但有此虛妄分別。若於此非有，由彼觀為空；所餘非無故，如實知為有。若如是者，則能無倒顯示空相。
世親的長行逐句牒釋彌勒頌：先定「虛妄分別」為能所二取之「分別」（有），次明此分別上「二取永無」（無），再明分別中「離二取之空性」是有（有），末明空性中「亦但有此虛妄分別」（有）。收於「若於此非有，由彼觀為空；所餘非無故，如實知為有」——一句立「無知無、有知有」的中道知見。這是 本論特有的 他釋（異人作釋）層：頌出彌勒、釋出世親，作者有別（對比《唯識二十論》之自釋（自註））。
〔偈 [003]〕
論曰：一切法者，謂諸有為及無為法。虛妄分別名有為，二取空性名無為。依前理故，說此一切法非空非不空，由有空性虛妄分別故說非空，由無所取能取性故說非不空。有故者，謂有空性虛妄分別故。無故者，謂無所取能取二性故。及有故者，謂虛妄分別中有空性故，及空性中有虛妄分別故。是則契中道者，謂一切法非一向空亦非一向不空，如是理趣妙契中道，亦善符順般若等經說一切法非空非有。
世親逐字釋：先定「一切法」之外延（有為＝虛妄分別、無為＝二取空性），次以「有空性虛妄分別」釋「非空」、以「無所取能取」釋「非不空」，再將第三句「有無及有」配回 [002] 之有─無─有，末標此「妙契中道」且「善符順般若等經」。一句點出唯識與般若之續承關係。
諸家異釋
〔偈 [002]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰）逐句配三性，是漢傳法相的定讀：
- 句1「虛妄分別有」= 依他起有（「緣此分別乃是依他…非全無自性，故名為有」）；並辨「即所取能取之分別」是依士釋、非「二取即分別」之持業釋。
- 句2「於此二都無」= 遍計所執無（「於此妄分別之上，遍計所執二取永無」）；並引《解深密經》辨：執亦可起於圓成實性，然本頌「略不言於如，以性相違故」。
- 句3「此中唯有空」= 圓成實／真如有（「真如是妄分別之性」；空性即真如）。
- 句4「於彼亦有此」= 妄分別不離真如（「於彼真如中，亦但有此虛妄分別」）。
- 又辨「虛妄分別有」乃就染分而言（「此但約染分說妄分別有即依他；非依他中唯妄分別，有淨分別為依他故」）——非謂依他起唯是虛妄分別。
- 總結：「三性中，初性（遍計所執）是無，後二性（依他、圓成）有別」——四句即三性之有無。
〔偈 [003]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0002c18–0003a04）順世親而申：
- 釋「故說」：「故般若等經作此說也」——中道有經據，非新立。
- 釋「一切法」：二取體無故不入，依他、圓成二體有故名一切法；「此中言法，可執持故」（「法」之持義）；又「二取空性即是真如，空之性故」。
- 釋二重否定：「二性（依圓）體非無故名曰非空」「遍計所執二取非有說非不空；非不空者，體是無義」——逐字配三性。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
〔偈 [002]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451a16 真003 (c. 557–569) | 「虛妄分別有，彼處無有二，彼中唯有空，於此亦有彼。」真諦以「彼」指虛妄分別、「此」指空性——近遠指與玄奘鏡像反轉（見下按）。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c09 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0464b16) | 「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。」玄奘以「此」指虛妄分別、「彼」指空性。取為底本之由：有世親釋（T1600）＋窺基述記（T1835）完整漢傳釋讀鏈，且為慈恩宗所依。 |
舊譯／新譯之別 · 此／彼 近遠指（指示） 反轉（據古譯二本＋古德核） 二家所指全同，差別僅在「此／彼」近遠指之取向——而其指涉，世親釋以漢文逐句坐實，無待梵本： 玄奘「此」＝虛妄分別、「彼」＝空性（世親：「謂即於此虛妄分別…」「謂即於彼二空性中…」；窺基復證「『此』者此妄分別，『中』者第五轉〔處所義〕」T1835 p0002b22）。真諦「彼」＝虛妄分別、「此」＝空性，近遠指用字相反而指涉不異。 非義理之爭，乃 近遠指取向之異。 底本取捨：採玄奘為底本——其「此＝虛妄分別」有世親釋逐句坐實、窺基漢傳釋讀（第五轉／此＝妄分別）為證，且虛妄分別為受釋之主題，取近指為宜；真諦之異列為對讀、不判為誤、不強解（別記存疑）。
〔偈 [003]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451a25 真004 (c. 557–569) | 「故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是名中道義。」前三句與玄奘全同；唯末句玄「是則契中道」╱真「是名中道義」，義同而辭異。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c11 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0464b25) | 「故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是則契中道。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
〔偈 [002]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
本頌於百法・三十論頌・二十論・辯中邊論四論中之相照位置。
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 心王心所（三界心心所＝虛妄分別，參 [009]） | 偈 20–25（三性正面展開） | 偈 1（立宗唯識；本頌之正面體性義 即二十論所防衛） | 本頌（三性·中道根本） |
（互見 《唯識三十論頌》偈20 / 《唯識二十論》偈1）
梵文（古德音寫）
古德音寫一例（窺基拆梵以明「空／空性」之別）：「梵云瞬若（śūnya），但名為空；言瞬若多（śūnyatā）故，說真如名空性也，以『多』（-tā）此翻是性義故。」——「空」（śūnya）≠「空性」（śūnyatā），後者之 -tā 即「性」義（圓成實／真如）。
〔偈 [003]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 五位百法即「一切法」之開列 | 偈 23「即依此三性，立彼三無性」 | — | 本頌（一切法·非空非不空） |
並與 《心經》「空」對讀：般若「色不異空、空不異色」之「空」，於此得唯識之精準義（所空＝二取）。
互見:
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 20–25（三性正面展開）· 《唯識二十論》偈 1（唯識立宗，本頌之 正面體性義 即二十論所防衛者）· 《大乘百法明門論》 心王心所（三界心心所＝虛妄分別，參 [009]）。
- 《心經》「空」（般若「非空非有」之的解）· 《唯識三十論頌》偈 23（三性立三無性，本頌「一切法」之三性歸屬下文）· [002]（四句題眼，本頌之所承）· [006]（三性標名，本頌之所導）。
偈 [004]–[005] · 識變·依他存在論 — 識變四似·境無識無·非實有全無
校本錨（合段） · 〔偈 [004]〕 T1601 [p0477c13] 頌 · T1600 [p0464c09 頌 / p0464c11 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451b07 真005] 真諦 · T1835 [p0003b15–0003c05 述曰] 窺基述記 · 〔偈 [005]〕 T1601 [p0477c15] 頌 · T1600 [p0464c18 頌 / p0464c20 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451b19 真006] 真諦 · T1835 [p0003c27–0004a24 述曰] 窺基述記
識生變似義、有情、我及了， 此境實非有，境無故識無。 虛妄分別性，由此義得成， 非實有全無，許滅解脫故。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
〔偈 [004]〕
本頌之「似」字是樞紐——而「似」字如何解，正是法相內部一大分判（見〈諸家異釋〉護法↔安慧）。要義：識所變之四境「非實有」，故能取之識亦非實有（就執實言）；但此非謂識全無——[005] 即收「依他非實有全無」。如是破增益（境、識實有）而不墮損減（依他非無）。「境無故識無」一句，把 [002] 之「能所二取無」落實到識變的運作：不是先有外境後有識，而是識變似境、境本無故能取亦不成實。
〔偈 [005]〕
本頌是 本論 對惡取空（損減）的正面防線。窺基記其論諍場景：「如何不許此性全無」是「假徵起，設中百論師等難」（p0004a19）——即假設中觀（《中論》《百論》）一系之難：虛妄分別亦應全無。答：「以許此滅得解脫故」（世親）——「若如空華，少分非有，應無斷滅解脫義成；既解脫成、有斷滅者，故妄分別定有少體」（窺基 p0004a22）。此即唯識與「惡取空」分判之關鍵：空二取（遍計）而存依他，方有染淨、繫縛、解脫可言；若一概皆空，則修證無立足處。中道之「不落損減」，於此一頌見其鋒。
世親釋要
〔偈 [004]〕
論曰：變似義者，謂似色等諸境性現。變似有情者，謂似自他身五根性現。變似我者，謂染末那與我癡等恒相應故。變似了者，謂餘六識，了相麁故。此境實非有者，謂似義似根無行相故，似我似了非真現故，皆非實有。境無故識無者，謂所取義等四境無故，能取諸識亦非實有。
世親以四似配識：似義（境）、似有情（五根）、似我（染末那）、似了（六識），把「虛妄分別」具體化為一識變現四境的活動。次明四似「非實有」（無行相、非真現），末以「境無故識無」收：所取既不成實，能取之識亦不成實。
〔偈 [005]〕
論曰：虛妄分別由此義故成非實有，如所現起非真有故；亦非全無，於中少有亂識生故。如何不許此性全無？以許此滅得解脫故。若異此者，繫縛解脫則應皆無，如是便成撥無雜染及清淨失。
世親兩面立定依他：一面「非實有」（所現非真），一面「亦非全無」（中有亂識生）；再以一問一答鎖死損減邊——若許虛妄分別全無，則「滅而得解脫」無從說起，繫縛、解脫俱壞，墮「撥無雜染及清淨」之失。依他之「有」，正繫於修證之可能。
諸家異釋
〔偈 [004]〕
窺基記護法↔安慧之分（T44n1835 p0003b16–20）——此為法相內部對「似」字的根本分判：
- 安慧等（舊解）：「唯自證分，無相見者……此似根境，皆體是無，似情有故名為似也。」——即一分說：唯自證分實，相、見二分俱無；所變根境「體是無」，以其「似」有情境故名「似」。
- 護法等（慈恩所宗）：「此相分根境亦是依他。所言似此，體非實有，虛妄顯現似計所執體實有法，故立似名。」——即相分亦是依他起，「似」者體非實有而虛妄顯現，似遍計所執之實有法。
二說之別：安慧以相、見俱無，護法以相分是依他（似而非實）。窺基從護法，詳見《成唯識論》卷三。又：變似我即染末那，變似了即餘六識；窺基並記「三本梵文勘之皆同」（頌言「識生變似」，釋家略「識」字，p0003b27）。
安慧《辯中邊論釋疏》：漢無傳本（梵疏唯存現代校本，本譯注不取）；上之安慧說乃窺基所引述，其疏全文待梵本逐字，不憑記憶代擬。
〔偈 [005]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0003c27–0004a24）：
- 判頌之開合：「上十三字成妄分別體非實有，不同所執少分亦無；故下七字說許少有，以自所許滅妄分別得解脫故。」（p0004a08）
- 釋「非全無」：「以識之體有少妄亂，識亦變似境等，不同所執無少分生。」
- 設難與答：「如何不許此性全無」乃「設中百論師等難」（p0004a19）；答以「滅得解脫故……故妄分別定有少體」（p0004a23）。
- 真諦舊譯評：窺基謂真諦舊論「解虛妄名（境不實故、體散亂故）」一段「今勘梵本……本無此也」（p0004a17）。誠實層按：此為慈恩本位之校語；本譯注仍存真諦於〈譯名〉對讀，不據此刪。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
〔偈 [004]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451b07 真005 (c. 557–569) | 「塵根我及識，本識生似彼，但識有無彼，彼無故識無。」真諦「塵、根、我、識」對玄奘「義、有情、我、了」（塵＝義／境，根＝五根，識＝了）；真諦明標「本識」為能變主體，玄奘作「識生」未別標本識。此差異關涉能變主體，窺基有辨（p0003b13）。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c13 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0464c09) | 「識生變似義、有情、我及了，此境實非有，境無故識無。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
〔偈 [005]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451b19 真006 (c. 557–569) | 「亂識虛妄性，由此義得成，非實有無故，滅彼故解脫。」真諦標「亂識虛妄性」對玄奘「虛妄分別性」（真諦以「亂識」名之）；「非實有無故」≈玄「非實有全無」；「滅彼故解脫」≈玄「許滅解脫故」。窺基記真諦此處別有「解虛妄名」一段，謂「勘梵本本無」（見〈諸家異釋〉）。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c15 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0464c18) | 「虛妄分別性，由此義得成，非實有全無，許滅解脫故。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
〔偈 [004]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 心王八識（變似我＝末那、變似了＝六識） | 偈 1「此能變唯三」·偈 17「是諸識轉變，分別所分別」 | 偈 1「安立唯識…實無外境」 | 本頌（識變四似·境無識無） |
〔偈 [005]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 依他起＝心心所之緣生 | 偈 21「依他起自性，分別緣所生」 | 偈 1（唯識立宗，所防即「依他非無」） | 本頌（依他非實有全無·許滅解脫） |
互見:
- 《唯識二十論》偈 1（唯識無境；本頌「境無故識無」即其種子）· 《唯識三十論頌》偈 1「此能變唯三」·偈 17「識轉變」（識所變之系統化）· 《成唯識論》（護法正義；四分說，本頌「似」字之裁定）。
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 21「依他起自性，分別緣所生」（依他之正面展開，本頌「非全無」之所成）· [006]（三性標名，本頌之所導）· 《唯識二十論》偈 1（唯識立宗，所防即依他非無）。
偈 [006] · 三性標名·虛妄分別攝三性
校本錨 · T1601 [p0477c17] 頌 · T1600 [p0464c26 頌 / p0464c29 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451c01 真007] 真諦 · T1835 [p0004b07–0004c01 述曰] 窺基述記
唯所執、依他，及圓成實性， 境故分別故，及二空故說。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
本頌之要，在「三性皆依虛妄分別而立」——非三個各自獨立的實體，而是同一虛妄分別之三面：所緣境＝遍計、能計體＝依他、二取空＝圓成。此即唯識三性論之根：遍計無（破增益）、依他圓成有（破損減），三性即 [002] 中道之開展。
護法↔安慧異解（窺基 p0004b12–18）：護法謂「非是一切虛妄分別之境皆計所執，五八識中無有執故」——前五識與第八識不起執，故非凡妄分別境皆遍計，「遍計所執境能緣心狹故，此護法等之所分別」；安慧等則「以此證知八識皆能起計所執」。窺基從護法（慈恩所宗），詳《成唯識論》。
世親釋要
論曰：依止虛妄分別境故，說有遍計所執自性。依止虛妄分別性故，說有依他起自性。依止所取能取空故，說有圓成實自性。已顯虛妄分別攝相，當說即於虛妄分別入無相方便相。
世親三句逐配三性，皆「依止虛妄分別」之某一面而立：依其境立遍計、依其性（體）立依他、依其二取空立圓成。末句「已顯虛妄分別攝相，當說即於虛妄分別入無相方便相」一轉，由「相」（三性之立）入「修」（入無相方便，[007][008]）——三性既明，即於此虛妄分別上修觀以入二取無相。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0004b07–c01）：
- 提綱：「上二句出三性，下二句成攝義」；「故妄分別攝三性也」。
- 護法↔安慧：護法「非一切虛妄分別之境皆計所執，五八識中無有執故」；安慧「八識皆能起計所執」。窺基從護法（如《成唯識論》二師計）。
- 真諦舊本評：窺基以比量辨真諦舊本三性之喻——初性（遍計）喻「空華」、依他喻「幻物」、真實（圓成）喻「虛空」——謂其「雖少有比量，而不善能立」（如「虛空大乘非有，同喻所立不成」，p0004b19–26）。誠實層按：此為慈恩本位之破立；本譯注存真諦於〈譯名〉對讀，不據此刪。
安慧《辯中邊論釋疏》：漢無傳本（梵疏唯存現代校本，本譯注不取）；上之安慧說乃窺基所引述，其疏全文待傳本，不憑記憶代擬。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451c01 真007 (c. 557–569) | 「分別及依他、真實唯三性，由塵與亂識，及二無故說。」真諦「分別／依他／真實」對玄奘「遍計所執／依他／圓成實」；「由塵與亂識及二無」對玄奘「境故分別故及二空故」（塵＝境／遍計，亂識＝分別／依他，二無＝二空／圓成）。結構全合，用字異。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c17 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0464c26) | 「唯所執、依他，及圓成實性，境故分別故，及二空故說。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 五位百法即三性所攝之諸法 | 偈 20–22（三性各別釋）·偈 23「即依此三性，立彼三無性」 | 偈 1（唯識立宗，三性之能變所依） | 本頌（三性標名·虛妄分別攝三性） |
互見:
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 20–23（三性詳展＋三無性，本頌標名之系統開展）· 《大乘百法明門論》（五位百法＝三性所攝）· [005]（依他之存在論，本頌標名之所承）· [007][008]（入無相方便，本頌之所導）。
偈 [007]–[008] · 入無相方便 — 境無所得·識無所得·二無平等見道（見道）
校本錨（合段） · 〔偈 [007]〕 T1601 [p0477c19] 頌 · T1600 [p0465a04 頌 / p0465a07 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451c08 真008] 真諦 · T1835 [p0004c02–0004c12 述曰] 窺基述記 · 〔偈 [008]〕 T1601 [p0477c21] 頌 · T1600 [p0465a09 頌 / p0465a12 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451c14 真009] 真諦 · T1835 [p0004c13–0004c25 述曰] 窺基述記
依識有所得，境無所得生； 依境無所得，識無所得生。 由識有得性，亦成無所得， 故知二有得，無得性平等。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
〔偈 [007]〕
本頌之「次第」是樞紐：不是一步到位說「境識俱空」，而是先境後識——先依唯識破外境（境無所得），再由境無破能取識（識無所得）。此次第即四加行之煗、頂、忍：煗頂位「心有境無」（觀所取空），忍位「境無識亦無」（觀能取空）。要義在：唯識止觀非懸空談空，乃有下手次第之觀行——先立唯識以遣境，後遣識以入二空，方便有階。
〔偈 [008]〕
本頌之「平等」是樞紐：[007] 之次第是「先境後識」的方便（有先後），[008] 則「二有得，無得性平等」——能所無先後、俱泯一味，此即根本道（見道）之證。窺基「非一獨無故名平等」：不是只境無、識獨存，而是能所俱無，故曰平等。唯識觀之極，不停在「識有境無」（那仍是「有所得」，仍存能取），而至「能所俱無所得」，方真離二取相、住真唯識。此頌與 [007] 合，正是唯識止觀「加行 → 見道」之骨。
世親釋要
〔偈 [007]〕
論曰：依止唯識有所得故，先有於境無所得生；復依於境無所得故，後有於識無所得生。由是方便，得入所取能取無相。
世親以「先境後識」之次第解此頌：依唯識「有所得」，先生「境無所得」；依「境無所得」，後生「識無所得」。前者遣所取（境），後者遣能取（識）；「由是方便，得入所取能取無相」——此即唯識觀入二取無相之下手次第。
〔偈 [008]〕
論曰：唯識生時現似種種虛妄境故，名有所得。以所得境無實性故，能得實性亦不得成。由能得識無所得故，所取能取二有所得，平等俱成無所得性。
世親三轉：識現似境故名「有所得」；所得境無實，故能得識之實性「亦不得成」；由能得識亦無所得，故所取、能取「平等俱成無所得性」。一路由「識有得」逼至「能所俱無得」，能所之偏盡泯，平等乃成。
諸家異釋
〔偈 [007]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0004c02–c12）：
- 判二頌：「初頌（[007]）解方便道所能取無，後頌（[008]）解根本道二無平等。」
- 配四加行位：「上二句許心有而境無，即煗頂位；下二句說境無而識亦無，即忍等位。」
- 真諦舊論評：窺基駁真諦舊論「以塵無有體，本識即不生」之說——「非也，豈許七識生也」（p0004c06，意謂：若塵無體則本識〔藏識〕不生，何以七識獨生？）。誠實層按：此為慈恩本位之破；本譯注存真諦於〈譯名〉對讀，不據此刪。
〔偈 [008]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0004c13–c25）：
- 判：「此頌解二無平等。上二句解平等理，下二句結成平等。」
- 「由境無故顯識亦無，亦者亦境無也」——「亦成無所得」之「亦」，即「亦如境之無」。
- 「以能得識同境無故，能取所取先有得，今皆成無，非一獨無故名平等」——能所俱無，非偏無一邊，故名平等。
- 並結前生後：「差別約界竪論，異門約行橫說」（下接 [009] 三界心心所之差別、異門二相）。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
〔偈 [007]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451c08 真008 (c. 557–569) | 「由依唯識故，境無體義成，以塵無有體，本識即不生。」上半「由依唯識故，境無體義成」≈玄「依識有所得，境無所得生」；唯下半真諦作「以塵無有體，本識即不生」（塵無體故藏識不生），玄奘作「依境無所得，識無所得生」（能取識無所得）——此處玄、真有實質差異，窺基有破（見〈諸家異釋〉）。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c19 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465a04) | 「依識有所得，境無所得生；依境無所得，識無所得生。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
〔偈 [008]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451c14 真009 (c. 557–569) | 「是故識成就，非識為自性。……由是義平等。」（真諦本此處夾「疏本云應知識不識」之校語，本身有版本異讀。）大意：識成就而非以識為自性、終歸平等——對玄奘「二有得，無得性平等」。玄奘簡明，從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c21 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465a09) | 「由識有得性，亦成無所得，故知二有得，無得性平等。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
〔偈 [007]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | 偈 27（加行位：「現前立少物，謂是唯識性，以有所得故，非實住唯識」） | 偈 1（唯識立宗，境無之所成） | 本頌（入無相方便·境無所得·識無所得） |
與 《唯識三十論頌》偈 27「以有所得故，非實住唯識」對讀：本頌「依識有所得」尚是方便（有所得），須進至「識無所得」方真入唯識性。
〔偈 [008]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | 偈 28「若時於所緣，智都無所得，爾時住唯識，離二取相故」（通達位／見道） | 偈 1（唯識立宗，二取泯之所成） | 本頌（二無平等·能所俱成無所得） |
與 《唯識三十論頌》偈 28 對讀：本頌「無得性平等」即彼「智都無所得……離二取相」——皆指根本智見道、能所雙泯。
互見:
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 27（加行位，本頌入無相方便之系統位次：「現前立少物…以有所得故，非實住唯識」）· [008]（根本道二無平等，本頌之所導）· 《唯識二十論》偈 1（唯識立宗，境無之所成）。
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 28（通達位／見道，「智都無所得，離二取相」即本頌「無得性平等」）· [007]（方便道，本頌根本道之所承）· 《唯識二十論》偈 1（唯識立宗，二取泯之所成）。
偈 [009]–[010] · 差別·異門·生起相 — 三界心心所·緣識受者
校本錨（合段） · 〔偈 [009]〕 T1601 [p0477c23] 頌 · T1600 [p0465a17 頌 / p0465a19 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451c21 真010] 真諦 · T1835 [p0004c26–0005a08 述曰] 窺基述記 · 〔偈 [010]〕 T1601 [p0477c25] 頌 · T1600 [p0465a23 頌 / p0465a25 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0451c28 真011] 真諦 · T1835 [p0005a11–0005a29 述曰] 窺基述記
三界心心所，是虛妄分別， 唯了境名心，亦別名心所。 一則名緣識，第二名受者， 此中能受用，分別推心所。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
〔偈 [009]〕
本頌之要，在「三界心心所皆虛妄分別，無一例外」。窺基「八識俱然」一語，遮「有某識非虛妄分別」之計：前五、第六、第七、第八，凡三界心識，悉是虛妄分別所攝。而「心」「心所」非二物，乃同一虛妄分別了境之總別二門——了總相為心、了差別為心所。此承 [006]「虛妄分別攝三性」之綱，進說虛妄分別於一切心識中之差別與異門。
〔偈 [010]〕
本頌建立識之生起結構：藏識為本緣、七轉識為受者、心所助成。要義：一切識之生起，以藏識（阿賴耶）為本緣——此即唯識緣起之根。窺基辨「緣識」是現行生起相，非指種子識本身（「設說種子，無理能違；以是根本不名受者」）：藏識作為「餘識生緣」是就現行緣起說，作為種子根本則不名受者，受者唯七轉識。如是一識之生，本緣（藏識）、能受用之轉識（受者）、助成之心所，三分備焉。
世親釋要
〔偈 [009]〕
論曰：虛妄分別差別相者，即是欲界色無色界諸心心所。異門相者，唯能了境總相名心，亦了差別名為受等諸心所法。
世親兩句逐釋頌之上、下二句：上二句（三界心心所，是虛妄分別）明差別相——三界諸心心所；下二句（唯了境名心，亦別名心所）明異門相——了總相名心、了差別名心所。一虛妄分別，於三界遍為心心所，而以總別二門立「心」「心所」之名。
〔偈 [010]〕
論曰：緣識者，謂藏識，是餘識生緣故。藏識為緣所生轉識，受用主故名為受者。此諸識中受能受用、想能分別、思作意等諸相應行能推諸識，此三助心故名心所。
世親三釋：緣識＝藏識（餘識生緣）；受者＝藏識為緣所生之轉識（受用主）；心所＝受、想、思作意等（助心）。一頌立識生起之三分：本緣（藏識）、能受用之轉識（受者）、助成之心所。
諸家異釋
〔偈 [009]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0004c26–0005a08）：
- 判頌：「上二句解差別相……下二句解異門。」提綱：「王所同名差別，王所異名異門」——心王、心所，同名者就「差別」（界別）說，異名者就「異門」（總別）說。
- 「八識俱然」（p0005a02）——三界八識心心所悉是虛妄分別。
- 釋異門：「心王與所行相同異，王唯總取，臣（心所）取總別」（p0005a04）——心王唯取境之總相，心所則總、別俱取。
- 真諦舊本評：窺基謂舊論「總相／別相」之名「非也」，又「但言心所取別，不言取總，違瑜伽等說」（p0005a07）。誠實層按：此為慈恩本位之校語；本譯注存真諦於〈譯名〉對讀，不據此刪。
〔偈 [010]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0005a11–0005a29）：
- 判頌：「頌上二句明識生起，頌下二句明心所生。」
- 釋緣識：「此辯現行生起之相，非種子識……以是根本不名受者」（p0005a14）——緣識就現行緣起說；藏識作種子根本則不名受者。
- 釋受者：「即七轉識皆名受者……識從俱時之受立受者名，即隣近釋」（p0005a18）——七轉識依與之俱起的「受」而得「受者」之名（隣近釋）。
- 釋心所：受（受用）、想（分別境相）、思作意（推心於所緣）——「此受想行三蘊助成於心緣境之事，名心所」；並云「解心所名，此如攝論等第三卷解」（p0005a26）。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
〔偈 [009]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451c21–c25 真010 (c. 557–569) | 「虛妄總類者，三界心心法，〔…〕唯塵智名心，差別名心法。」真諦「心心法」對玄奘「心心所」（心所＝心法）；「唯塵智名心」對玄「唯了境名心」（塵智＝了境之智）；「差別名心法」對玄「亦別名心所」。對位 玄[009]↔真[010]（真諦較玄奘多一歸敬偈，序位 +1）。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c23 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465a17) | 「三界心心所，是虛妄分別，唯了境名心，亦別名心所。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
〔偈 [010]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0451c28 真011 (c. 557–569) | 「第一名緣識，第二是用識，於塵受分別，引行謂心法。」真諦「用識」對玄奘「受者」（受用之識）；「於塵受、分別、引行」對玄「能受用、分別、推」（受用／分別／推〔引行〕）；「心法」對「心所」。對位 玄[010]↔真[011]。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c25 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465a23) | 「一則名緣識，第二名受者，此中能受用，分別推心所。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
〔偈 [009]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 心法八＋心所五十一（即三界心心所） | 偈 1「此能變唯三」（心王心所之能變） | — | 本頌（三界心心所皆虛妄分別） |
〔偈 [010]〕
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 第八阿賴耶識（緣識）＋七轉識＋遍行心所 | 偈 2–4「初阿賴耶識」（初能變）·偈 3「觸作意受想思」 | — | 本頌（緣識＝藏識·受者＝轉識·心所助成） |
互見:
- 《大乘百法明門論》 心法／心所（五位百法之心王、心所，即三界心心所）· 《唯識三十論頌》偈 1（能變之心王心所）· [006]（虛妄分別攝三性，本頌之所承）· [010]（識之生起相，本頌之所導）。
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 2–4（初能變阿賴耶識，本頌「緣識＝藏識」之系統展開）·偈 3（遍行心所「觸作意受想思」）· 《大乘百法明門論》 第八識／遍行心所· [009]（三界心心所，本頌之所承）。
偈 [011]–[012] · 雜染相 — 十二有支·三二七雜染（虛妄分別九相之末）
校本錨 · T1601 [p0477c27 / p0477c29] 頌 · T1600 [p0465b01 頌 / p0465b05 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0452a08 真012 / p0452a10 真013] 真諦 · T1835 [p0005b08–0006a29 述曰] 窺基述記
覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、 三分別、受用、引起并連縛、 現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間， 三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
本段之要，在「雜染（流轉）皆由虛妄分別生長」——十二緣起非外於心識之機械鏈，乃虛妄分別於染分之展開。世親以十一門／十二支／三二七雜染層層收攝，皆指歸一虛妄分別。此承 [009][010] 之差別、異門、生起，至雜染相而虛妄分別九相備；九相既顯，[013] 起翻入「所知空性」——由染（虛妄分別）轉淨（二空性）之樞。
世親釋要
論曰：覆障故者，謂由無明覆如實理、障真見故。安立故者，謂由諸行植本識中，業熏習故。將導故者，謂有取識引諸有情至生處故。攝故者，謂名色攝有情自體故。圓滿故者，謂六內處令諸有情體具足故。三分別故者，謂觸能分別根境識三，順三受故。受用故者，謂由受支領納順違，非二境故。引起故者，謂由愛力令先業所引後有得起故。連縛故者，謂取令識緣順欲等連縛生故。現前故者，謂由有力令已作業所與後有諸異熟果得現前故。苦果故者，謂生老死性有逼迫，酬前因故。唯此所說十二有支，逼惱世間令不安隱。三雜染者，一煩惱雜染，謂無明愛取；二業雜染，謂行有；三生雜染，謂餘支。二雜染者，一因雜染、謂煩惱業；二果雜染、謂所餘支。七雜染者，謂七種因：一顛倒因，謂無明；二牽引因，謂行；三將導因，謂識；四攝受因，謂名色、六處；五受用因，謂觸、受；六引起因，謂愛、取、有；七厭怖因，謂生、老死。此諸雜染無不皆由虛妄分別而得生長。
世親逐門配十二有支，明緣起即虛妄分別之雜染相；再以三、二、七雜染三度收攝同一緣起（煩惱／業／生·因／果·七因）。末句「此諸雜染無不皆由虛妄分別而得生長」一語定宗——一切流轉雜染，皆虛妄分別所生。
繼而世親總結虛妄分別之九種相：
此前總顯虛妄分別有九種相：一有相、二無相、三自相、四攝相、五入無相方便相、六差別相、七異門相、八生起相、九雜染相。如是已顯虛妄分別，今次當說所知空性。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0005b08–0006a29）逐門配支，並會通瑜伽／對法／成唯識：
- 覆障＝無明支（「癡覆境、無明蔽心，雙隱蔽立覆障名」）；評舊論（真諦）「唯說障見者非」。
- 安立＝行支（三行熏第八、種植業習氣）；將導＝識支（第八異熟主，最初生時導業果往生處）——評舊論「謂本識及意識者非也」（主非餘七、通不唯意）。
- 攝＝名色、圓滿＝六處、三分別＝觸（順三受）、受用＝受、引起＝愛（如水潤）、連縛＝取（「有取識者，有漏識也」）、現前＝有、苦果＝生老死（「雙解二支」）。
- 三雜染「同瑜伽，違對法，如唯識會」；二雜染約因果／異熟辯；七雜染「束十二支為七」。
- 九相結構：「上來十一頌隨別解釋九門相訖，今者總結為九種相」；並辨「下空中慈氏（彌勒）自為初門總頌，天親（世親）後總結之」——慈氏頌、天親結之分。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0452a08 真012 / p0452a10 真013 (c. 557–569) | 「覆藏及安立，將導與攝持，圓滿三分成，領觸并牽引。／執著及現前，苦故惱世間，三種二種難，亦七由虛妄。」真諦「覆藏／攝持／三分（觸）／領（受）／牽引（愛）／執著（取）」對玄奘「覆障／攝／三分別／受用／引起／連縛」，門名小異而支義同；「三種二種難，亦七」對玄「三、二、七雜染」。對位 玄[011][012]↔真[012][013]。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0477c27–c29 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465b01) | 「覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、三分別、受用、引起并連縛、現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間，三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀圖
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 心不相應行「流轉／緣起」等假立 | 偈 19「由諸業習氣，二取習氣俱」（緣起流轉） | — | 本段（十二有支＝虛妄分別雜染相） |
互見:
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈 19（緣起流轉「業習氣／二取習氣」）· 《大乘百法明門論》 心不相應行（流轉、緣起等假立）· [009][010]（差別／異門／生起，本段之所承）· [013]起（所知空性，本段之所導）。
偈 [013]–[014] · 空性綱·空相 — 二空性略說五門·非有非無·非異非一
校本錨（合段） · 〔偈 [013]〕 T1601 [p0478a02] 頌 · T1600 [p0465b28 頌 / p0465c01 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0452b07 真014] 真諦 · T1835 [p0006b17–b26 述曰] 窺基述記 · 〔偈 [014]〕 T1601 [p0478a04] 頌 · T1600 [p0465c03 頌 / p0465c05 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0452b10 真015] 真諦 · T1835 [p0006b27–0007a07 述曰] 窺基述記
諸相及異門，義差別成立， 應知二空性，略說唯由此。 無二有無故，非有亦非無， 非異亦非一，是說為空相。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
〔偈 [013]〕
虛妄分別九相既竟（[002]–[012]），此下辯所知空性——即所取、能取俱空所顯之真如理。本頌標其綱：二空性之略說，唯由相、異門、義、差別、成立五門開顯。窺基科判此下：辯空之相（[014]）、辯空異門（[015]）、辯異門義（[016]）、辯空差別（[017] 起五頌）、辯空成立（後二頌）。要義在：空非斷無，乃二取空所顯之真如——「二取之空即以為門，所顯之性乃真如理」（窺基）。由染（虛妄分別）轉淨（空性），中道之第二輪於焉開。
〔偈 [014]〕
空相之立，在「非有非無·非異非一」。「無二」者，無所取、能取二（遮無）；「有無」者，有二取之無（顯有）——即以「二取之無」為空之體（「空無性為性」）。故空相非有（無能所二取之「二有」故）、非無（有二無我理故）：於俗諦中，既不同依他之定有，亦異遍計之常無。又，此空（真如）與虛妄分別非異非一：非異——真如是諸法之性（若異則法性異於法，違理；如苦、無常、空、無我與法非異）；非一——若一，則真如應非無漏無分別智之境（即同五蘊故）。中道之空，離有無二邊、離一異二執——此即「空相」。
世親釋要
〔偈 [013]〕
論曰：應知所取能取空性，略說但由此相等五。
世親一句總標：所知空性（所取能取空），略說唯由「相等五」門。下文即依此五門逐一開展（相、異門、義、差別、成立），本頌為二空性一節之綱目。
〔偈 [014]〕
論曰：無二，謂無所取能取。有無，謂有二取之無。此即顯空無性為性，故此空相非有非無。云何非有？無二有故。云何非無？有二無故。此顯空相非有非無。此空與彼虛妄分別非異非一，若異應成法性異法，便違正理，如苦等性；若一則應非淨智境亦非共相。此即顯空與妄分別離一異相。
世親兩重立空相：一以「無二（無能所取）＋有無（有二取之無）」明空「以無性為性」，故非有非無——非有者無二取之「二有」，非無者有二取無之理。二以「非異非一」明空與虛妄分別之關係：異則法性異法（違理）、一則真如非淨智境。空相者，離有無、離一異。
諸家異釋
〔偈 [013]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0006b17–b26）：
- 釋綱：「二取之空即以為門，所顯之性乃真如理；略分別者，唯由此中相等五義」——以二取空為門，所顯為真如。
- 科判二空性段：「初之一頌辯空之相（[014]），次有一頌辯空異門（[015]），次有一頌辯異門義（[016]），次有五頌辯空差別（[017]+），後有二頌辯空成立。」
〔偈 [014]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0006b27–0007a07）：
- 判頌：「上三句明空諸相，下一句總結空相」；「無二者除如所執，遮無也；有無者有二空性，顯於有也」。
- 護法↔安慧異解（p0006c04）：「若準安慧釋，二取二分皆計所執；若依護法釋，依二分（相見）二取起，二所執故名無也。」窺基從護法（「下所有文與此同者，皆準此釋」）。
- 釋非有非無：「二無者即二無我理，有此二理故說非無；於俗諦中，不同依他定有，亦異所執常無。」
- 非異非一二比量：非異——「真如是彼法之性故名非異，如苦無常空無我等（小乘說與法非異）為喻」；非一——「若一，真如應非無漏無分別智境，即五蘊故」。
安慧《辯中邊論釋疏》：漢無傳本（梵疏唯存現代校本，本譯注不取）；上之安慧說乃窺基所引述，其疏全文待傳本，不憑記憶代擬。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
〔偈 [013]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0452b07 真014 (c. 557–569) | 「體相及眾名，其義與分別，成立理應知，略解空如是。」真諦「體相／眾名／義／分別／成立」對玄奘「相／異門／義／差別／成立」（眾名＝異門，分別＝差別）；窺基謂「眾名」非，當作「異門」（詳 [015]）。對位 玄[013]↔真[014]。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a02 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465b28) | 「諸相及異門，義差別成立，應知二空性，略說唯由此。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
〔偈 [014]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0452b10 真015 (c. 557–569) | 「無二、有此無，是二名空相，故非有非無，不異亦不一。」前三句與玄奘義同（無二／有此無＝有二取之無／非有非無）；末「不異亦不一」對玄「非異亦非一」。對位 玄[014]↔真[015]。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a04 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465c03) | 「無二有無故，非有亦非無，非異亦非一，是說為空相。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
〔偈 [013]〕
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為法（真如即二空所顯） | 偈二十三（三性立三無性·圓成即二空所顯真如） | — | 本頌（二空性略說·五門） |
〔偈 [014]〕
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為·真如（空所顯性） | 偈二十五（圓成實·二空所顯之真如） | — | 本頌（空相·非有非無·非異非一） |
並與《心經》對讀：般若「色不異空、空不異色」之「不異」，於此得唯識精準義——空（真如）與虛妄分別非異非一。
互見:
- 《唯識三十論頌》偈二十三（三性立三無性，圓成即二空所顯）·《心經》空（般若二空之的解）· [012]（虛妄分別九相竟，本頌之所承）· [014]（空相，本頌之所導）。
- 《心經》空（般若「不異」之的解，空與分別非異非一）·《唯識三十論頌》偈二十五（圓成實·二空所顯真如）· [013]（二空性略說，本頌之所承）· [015][016]（空異門及其義，本頌之所導）。
偈 [015]–[016] · 空異門及其義 — 真如·實際·無相·勝義·法界
校本錨 · T1601 [p0478a06 / p0478a08] 頌 · T1600 [p0465c13 / p0465c17 頌 · p0465c15 / p0465c19 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0452b24 真016 / p0452b27 真017] 真諦 · T1835 [p0007a08–b19 述曰] 窺基述記
略說空異門，謂真如、實際、 無相、勝義性、法界等應知。 由無變無倒，相滅聖智境， 及諸聖法因，異門義如次。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
此二頌（[015] 列名、[016] 釋義）說空性之異門——即空（真如）之五種別名，及各名之所據。異門非五物，乃一空性就五義而立五名：
| 異門（空之別名） | 由（義） | 釋 |
|---|---|---|
| 真如 | 無變 | 真者不虛妄、如者常（無轉易） |
| 實際 | 無倒 | 非顛倒所依之緣事 |
| 無相 | 相滅 | 永絕一切相（離十相） |
| 勝義性 | 聖智境 | 最勝智所行（義勝義） |
| 法界 | 聖法因 | 一切聖法緣此而生（界＝因義） |
要義有二。其一，「異門」非「眾名」：窺基明梵本「但言異門」，真如不可說體、約假名而辯，故立「異門」之名為精（破真諦舊譯「眾名」）。其二，五名同詮一空性：真如、實際、無相、勝義、法界，皆此二取空所顯之真如，隨義立名，名異而體一——與般若諸經真如十二名、《對法》七名同脈（合真如有十六名，此舉其五）。
世親釋要
論曰（[015]）：略說空性，有此異門。
論曰（[016]）：即此中說所知空性，由無變義說為真如。真性常如，無轉易故。由無倒義說為實際，非諸顛倒，依緣事故。由相滅義說為無相，此中永絕一切相故。由聖智境義說為勝義性，是最勝智所行義故。由聖法因義說為法界，以一切聖法緣此生故。此中界者，即是因義。無我等義如理應知。
世親 [015] 一句標「空性有此異門」，[016] 逐名釋其立名之由：無變故名真如（真常如、無轉易）、無倒故名實際（非倒所依緣）、相滅故名無相（絕一切相）、聖智境故名勝義性（最勝智所行）、聖法因故名法界（聖法緣此生，界即因義）。末「無我等義如理應知」應頌之「等」字（尚有餘名，略不具列）。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0007a08–b19）：
- 異門↔眾名：「舊論曰眾名，今顯梵本但言異門」——真如不可說體、約假名辯，當言「異門」（評真諦舊譯「眾名」）。
- 法界等↔法身：「舊論云法身等，然本無法身言，譯家增語」——真諦增「法身」二字，梵本所無。
- 五名來源：「《對法》第二有七名，此中有五；般若經說有十二名……合真如有十六名」；頌言「等」即等取其餘十一名。
- 勝義三釋：「勝義有三：一義勝義，謂真如（依主釋）——此所說是；二得勝義，謂涅槃（持業釋）；三行勝義，謂勝道（有財釋）。」此處「勝義性」取義勝義（真如）。
- 無相之十相：離色、聲、香、味、觸、生、異、滅、女〔男〕等相，故名無相（《佛地論》說）。
舊譯／新譯：真諦作「眾名」「法身」，玄奘作「異門」、無「法身」。窺基判真諦為「增語」「非」。誠實層按：此為慈恩本位之校語；本譯注存真諦於〈譯名〉對讀，不據此刪、不判全誤。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0452b24 真016 / p0452b27 真017 (c. 557–569) | 「如如及實際，無相與真實，法界法身等，略說空眾名。／非變異不到，相滅聖境界，聖法因及依，是眾名義次。」真諦「如如／真實／法界法身」對玄奘「真如／勝義性／法界」（多「法身」，少明「勝義」）；「眾名」對「異門」。窺基判「眾名」「法身」為譯家增語（見〈諸家異釋〉）。對位 玄[015][016]↔真[016][017]。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a06–a08 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465c13) | 「略說空異門，謂真如、實際、無相、勝義性、法界等應知。由無變無倒，相滅聖智境，及諸聖法因，異門義如次。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為·真如（六無為之真如即此空性異門所詮） | 偈二十五（圓成實·真如） | — | 本段（空之五異門·同詮真如） |
並與《心經》對讀：般若真如諸名（真如·法界·實際…）同詮一空性，於此得唯識「異門」之精準義（隨義立名、名異體一）。
互見:
- 《心經》真如／空（般若真如諸名同詮一空性，本段「異門」之的解）·《唯識三十論頌》偈二十五（圓成實·真如）· [014]（空相，本段之所承）· [017]起（空之染淨差別，本段之所導）。
偈 [017] · 空之染淨差別 — 有垢無垢·水界金空喻
校本錨 · T1601 [p0478a10] 頌 · T1600 [p0465c26 頌 / p0465c28 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0452c07 真018] 真諦 · T1835 [p0007b22–0007c20 述曰] 窺基述記
此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢， 如水界金空，淨故許為淨。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
空差別之首：空性有雜染、清淨二種差別，由分位別——有垢位說為雜染、出離垢時說為清淨。然此非「先染後淨」之轉變無常：以水界、金、虛空三者為喻，垢（塵、雲）皆客塵，非性成染；去垢亦非性成淨。空性自性本淨，染淨唯約客塵之有無分位而立，性無轉變。此即「心性本淨、客塵所染」之先聲（下貫 [023]）。
世親釋要
論曰：空性差別略有二種，一雜染、二清淨。此成染淨由分位別，謂有垢位說為雜染，出離垢時說為清淨。雖先雜染、後成清淨，而非轉變成無常失。如水界等出離客塵，空淨亦然，非性轉變。
世親立空之染淨差別於分位（有垢／無垢），而非體之轉變——故無「先染後淨即成無常」之過。水界、金、空出離客塵之喻，明空性自性恆淨，染淨乃客塵分位，非性轉易。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0007b22–0007c20）：
- 判：空差別共五頌，「初一頌染淨差別（本頌），次四頌所知差別（[018]–[021]）」。
- 三喻為客塵之同法喻：「如水界有塵、如金有垢、如太虛空有雲，皆是客塵，非性成染；後去塵已非性成淨」。
- 三比量（有寬狹）：空性可成染淨差別（有垢故，如水界金）·空性性非染（暫有客塵故）·空性非無常（以性淨故，如虛空）。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0452c07–c14 真018 (c. 557–569) | 「亦染亦清淨，如是空分別。〔…〕有垢亦無垢。〔…〕水界金空靜，法界淨如是。」真諦「亦染亦清淨」對玄奘「此雜染、清淨」；「水界金空靜」對「如水界金空」；末「法界淨如是」明所喻為法界（空性）之淨。對位 玄[017]↔真[018]。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a10 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0465c26) | 「此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢，如水界金空，淨故許為淨。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為·真如（自性清淨·客塵所染） | 偈二十二（圓成與依他非異非不異） | — | 本頌（空之染淨差別·水界金空喻） |
並與《心經》對讀：自性清淨、客塵所染之旨，與般若「不垢不淨」相發。
互見:
- 《心經》「不垢不淨」（自性清淨客塵所染之相發）· [023]（心性本淨·客塵所染，本頌之所導）· [016]（空異門，本頌之所承）。
偈 [018]–[021] · 空之所知差別 — 十六空·後二空（窺基「次四頌所知差別」）
校本錨（合段） · 〔偈 [018]–[020]〕 T1601 [p0478a12 / a14 / a16] 頌 · T1600 [p0466a07 頌 / p0466a13 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0452c21 真019] 真諦 · T1835 [p0007c21–0008c04 述曰] 窺基述記 · 〔偈 [021]〕 T1601 [p0478a18] 頌 · T1600 [p0466b03 頌 / p0466b05 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0453a14 真020] 真諦 · T1835 [p0009a16–0009b14 述曰] 窺基述記
能食及所食，此依身所住， 能見如此理，所求二淨空。 為常益有情，為不捨生死， 為善無窮盡，故觀此為空。 為種性清淨，為得諸相好， 為淨諸佛法，故菩薩觀空。 補特伽羅法，實性俱非有， 此無性、有性，故別立二空。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
〔偈 [018]–[020]〕
空之所知差別：依所治立十六空。此三頌明其前十四（後二「無性空·無性自性空」見 [021]）。十四空，前八約「能食…二淨」之所緣境立名，後六即觀空十義——菩薩何以觀空之由（為利有情、為不捨生死……為淨佛法）。十四空一覽（依世親論曰）：
| 空 | 所據（頌） | 立名之由 |
|---|---|---|
| 內空 | 能食 | 依內處（受用者） |
| 外空 | 所食 | 依外處（所受用） |
| 內外空 | 此依身 | 能所食所依止之身 |
| 大空 | 所住 | 諸器世間（相寬廣） |
| 空空 | 能見此 | 能見空之智亦空 |
| 勝義空 | 如理 | 如實行所觀真理（勝義） |
| 有為空·無為空 | 所求二淨 | 菩薩為得二淨（有為·無為善法） |
| 畢竟空 | 為常益有情 | 為有情常作饒益而觀空 |
| 無際空 | 為不捨生死 | 生死無初後際，不厭捨而觀空 |
| 無散空 | 為善無窮盡 | 所修善至無餘依涅槃亦無散捨 |
| 本性空 | 為種性清淨 | 聖種姓本有，為速清淨而觀空 |
| 相空 | 為得諸相好 | 為得大士相好而觀空 |
| 一切法空 | 為淨諸佛法 | 為令力無畏等佛法皆淨而觀空 |
要義：空非一味遮遣，乃菩薩就所緣、就所為而別觀——「觀空十義」明觀空之用在大乘行果（利他、不捨生死、成佛法），非趣寂之斷空。
〔偈 [021]〕
十六空之末二。前三頌（[018]–[020]）就「能食…二淨」之所緣、就菩薩觀空之所為，立前十四空；本頌就空之自性別立後二，補足十六。後二空各遮一執：
- 無性空——補特伽羅（人）與法，實性俱非有（人法二執所執之實我實法，體本非有），故名無性空，遮增益執。
- 無性自性空——此「無性」非謂一無所有：人法實性雖無，其空（所顯真如）非無自體，「空以無性為自性」，故名無性自性空，遮損減執。
要義：前十四空約詮門廣開（隨所治、所為而別），後二空約空之自性收攝——一切空相不過「不執人法之增益」與「不撥空性之損減」二邊。無性空遮「執有」，無性自性空遮「撥空」；一遮一存，中道乃立。此即《辯中邊》「非空非不空」根本義（[003]）於空門之落實。
世親釋要
〔偈 [018]–[020]〕
論曰：能食空者，依內處說，即是內空。所食空者，依外處說，即是外空。此依身者，謂能所食所依止身，此身空故，名內外空。諸器世間說為所住，此相寬廣故名為大，所住空故名為大空。能見此者，謂智能見內處等空。空智空故，說名空空。如理者，謂勝義，即如實行。所觀真理，此即空故，名勝義空。菩薩修行為得二淨，即諸有為、無為善法。此二空故，名有為空及無為空。為於有情常作饒益，而觀空故，名畢竟空。生死長遠無初後際，觀此空故，名無際空。不觀為空便速厭捨，為不厭捨此生死故，觀此無際生死為空。為所修善至無餘依般涅槃位，亦無散捨而觀空故，名無散空。諸聖種姓自體本有，非習所成，說名本性。菩薩為此速得清淨而觀空故，名本性空。菩薩為得大士相好而觀空故，名為相空。菩薩為令力無畏等一切佛法皆得清淨而觀此空，故名一切法空。是十四空，隨別安立。
世親逐一配釋十四空：前八（內、外、內外、大、空空、勝義、有為、無為）約能食至二淨之所緣立，後六（畢竟、無際、無散、本性、相、一切法）約菩薩觀空之所為立——故曰「隨別安立」。
〔偈 [021]〕
論曰：補特伽羅及法實性俱非有故，名無性空。此無性空非無自性，空以無性為自性故，名無性自性空。於前所說能食空等，為顯空相別立二空；此為遮止補特伽羅法增益執、空損減執，如其次第立後二空。如是已顯空性差別。
世親二義並立：人法實性俱非有→無性空；然此無性空「非無自性」，乃以無性為自性→無性自性空。立後二之意，明示於「能食空等」十四之外別出，專為遮二執——增益執（執人法為實有）對無性空、損減執（撥空性為斷無）對無性自性空，「如其次第」。至此「空性差別」（染淨·所知·後二）三義圓。
諸家異釋
〔偈 [018]–[020]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0007c21–0008c04）：
- 釋類：內、外、內外、大、空空 五空為依主釋（「內身之空……空之空」）；勝義空為持業釋（如理即空）；有為空·無為空為依士釋（有為等之空）。
- 四頌分二段：「初三頌（[018]–[020]）明十四空，後一頌（[021]）明二空——前約能詮設故十四，後約空性明故二。」
- 諸經空數對勘：《顯揚》十五／十六空；《般若》初會二十空、二會十八空、三會十六空；《瑜伽》七十七卷十七空——名目離合有異，義不增。本論取十六空。
〔偈 [021]〕
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0009a16–0009b14）：
- 頌科：上三句出二空，下一句結成；初二句解無性空，次一句解無性自性空。
- 無性空：「不遮假有，但說實無」——非撥假名之人法，唯遮其實性；「無性之空即是法性，無性即空」，乃約所無之空門顯空。
- 無性自性空：「二無性所顯之空即真如理，非無自體」、「以無二性為自體，故成有體」——空非斷無，自有其體（真如）。
- 別立之意（設難「前十四不出後二，別說何用」）：「為遮我法增益執故說無性空，為遮空性如理損減執故說無性自性空。我法無故唯有增益〔約體，體無故唯增益〕，空性有故唯有損減〔約名撥之，名為無亦成損減〕，如其次第配後二空。」
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
〔偈 [018]–[020]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0452c21 真019 (c. 557–569) | 「食者所食空，身及依處空，能見及如理，所求至得空。」真諦此頌對玄奘 [018]（能食所食……所求二淨空）。惟玄奘 [019][020]「觀空十義」二頌，真諦此處 偈句分合有異（真諦 119 偈≠玄奘 113）——對位，列為異本對讀。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a12–a16 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0466a07) | 「能食及所食，此依身所住，能見如此理，所求二淨空。為常益有情……故菩薩觀空。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
〔偈 [021]〕
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0453a14 真020 (c. 557–569) | 頌「人法二皆無，此中名為空，彼無非是無，此中有別空。」釋立二空為「一非有空、二非有性空」，「為離人法增益、為離人法空毀謗，如次第」。真諦「非有空」對玄奘「無性空」、「非有性空」對「無性自性空」；「離增益／離毀謗」即玄奘「遮增益執／損減執」，二譯義同。對位：真諦觀空十義（玄[019][020]）併入長行不別立頌，故序位較玄奘回退，玄[021]↔真020。 玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a18 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0466b03) | 「補特伽羅法，實性俱非有，此無性、有性，故別立二空。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
〔偈 [018]–[020]〕
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為·真如（諸空所顯一空性） | — | — | 本段（十六空之十四·觀空十義） |
並與《心經》對讀：般若諸空（內空外空……一切法空）即此十六空所本；本論以「觀空十義」明菩薩觀空之大乘用。
〔偈 [021]〕
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為·真如（二無我所顯一空性） | 二空所顯之圓成實 | 破増益執·唯識無境（外法非實） | 本頌（後二空·人法二空·遮增益損減） |
並與《心經》對讀：「照見五蘊皆空」破人執、「無……乃至無老死」破法執，與本頌「人法實性俱非有」之無性空同旨；而「空不異色」不墮斷無，即無性自性空「空非無體」之意。
互見:
- 《心經》諸空（般若空門之所本）· [017]（空之染淨差別，本段之所承）· [021]（後二空·人法二空，本段十六空之餘二）。
- 《心經》（人法二空·照見五蘊皆空）· [018]–[020]（前十四空，本頌補足後二）· [023]（空之究竟·心性本淨，空義之所結）· [003]（一切法非空非不空，後二空遮增益損減之根本）。
偈 [022] · 空成立 — 染淨二量（若無染應自脫·若無淨功用無果）
校本錨 · T1601 [p0478a20] 頌 · T1600 [p0466b11 頌 / p0466b13 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0453a22 真021] 真諦 · T1835 [p0009b15–0009b24 述曰] 窺基述記
此若無雜染，一切應自脫； 此若無清淨，功用應無果。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡
空性既明（相·異門·義·所知差別），須成立其「可染可淨」——否則「空性即如太虛空，應無染淨」之難不破（窺基）。世親以兩重反難（二量）立之：
- 若空性無雜染（謂未起對治即無客塵之染）——則一切有情不待修道功用，應自然解脫。然眾生實未自脫，故知空性有客染。
- 若空性無清淨（謂對治已起猶不成淨）——則求解脫之勤勞應無果報。然修道實有果，故知空性可成淨。
要義：此非謂空性自體有生滅染淨，乃就客塵之有無分位（承 [017] 染淨差別）證成「染淨於空性可立」。二量皆返難（以悖理逆顯正義）——遮「空即斷無、無關染淨」之執，為下頌（[023]）「心性本淨·客塵所染」之結張本。
世親釋要
論曰：若諸法空，未生對治無客雜染者，一切有情不由功用應自然解脫。若對治已生亦不清淨，則應求解脫勤勞無果。
世親兩量並出：前量返「無染」（若本無客染，眾生應不修自脫，違現見）；後量返「無淨」（若修治不成淨，勤求應無果，違現見）。二者俱以現見之解脫事為證，逆成空性「容染容淨」——染由客塵之有、淨由客塵之離，皆不離分位。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0009b15–0009b24）：
- 頌科：「結第四生第五」，成立義有二頌——「初頌（本頌）出成立之因，後頌（[023]）結已成義」。
- 立頌之由：「既言空性，應無淨染，如太虛空；為成此義故說此頌」——正破「空同虛空、無染淨」之疑。
- 二量配句：「初半成有染〔返難無染〕，後半成有淨〔返難無淨〕」——上半「若無雜染→應自脫」釋成有染，下半「若無清淨→功用無果」釋成有淨。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0453a22 真021 (c. 557–569) | 頌「若言不淨者，眾生無解脫；若言無垢者，功用無所施。」釋「若諸法空對治未起時，為客塵不染故自然清淨，煩惱障無故不因功力，一切眾生應得解脫；若對治已起，自性故不淨，為得解脫修道功用無果報故」。真諦「不淨／無垢」二難對玄奘「雜染／清淨」二量，義同；真諦「功用無所施」即玄奘「功用應無果」。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a20 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0466b11) | 「此若無雜染，一切應自脫；此若無清淨，功用應無果。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 無為·真如（離繫所顯·客塵可離） | — | — | 本頌（空成立·染淨二量） |
並與《心經》對讀：「無無明，亦無無明盡，乃至無老死，亦無老死盡」明染淨於空性中俱不可得而修證宛然，與本頌「容染容淨」之成立相發。
互見:
- [023]（心性本淨·客塵所染，本頌「成立之因」之所結）· [017]（空之染淨差別·分位染淨，本頌二量之所承）。
偈 [023] · 辯相品結頌 — 心性本淨·客塵所染
校本錨 · T1601 [p0478a22] 頌 · T1600 [p0466b16 頌 / p0466b18 論曰] 世親釋 · T1599 [p0453a28 真022] 真諦 · T1835 [p0009b25–0009c16 述曰] 窺基述記
非染非不染，非淨非不淨， 心性本淨故，由客塵所染。
深入三門
論諍 / 義理脈絡（樞紐）
辯相品結頌，亦全論空義之收束（[013]–[023] 空性諸頌之結）。承前頌（[022]）「空容染淨」之成立，本頌以四非正答「空性與染淨」之究竟相，並出二因：
- 非染——心性本淨故（自性不曾成染）。
- 非不染——由客塵所染故（非謂全無染）。
- 非淨——由客塵所染故（未離客塵，不得名已淨）。
- 非不淨——心性本淨故（淨體恆在，不得名不淨）。
「心性本淨、客塵所染」八字為樞紐：淨約自性（恆）、染約客塵（暫），故染淨並立而不相違。二取虛妄分別（[002] 以來辯相品之根本）即此「客塵」，其所依之心性（圓成空性）則本淨。此句下開唯識「轉依」（捨染得淨即離客塵、顯本淨）。
世親結曰「是名成立空差別義」，並總收辯相品空義：空義總有二——相與安立；相復有二——無（二取非有）與有（空性離有離無、離異離一，承 [014]）；安立即異門等（承 [015]–[016]）。故本頌不止結 [022]，乃迴環收攝 [013]（五門：相·異門·義·差別·成立）全綱。
世親釋要
論曰：云何非染非不染？以心性本淨故。云何非淨非不淨？由客塵所染故。是名成立空差別義。此前空義總有二種，謂相安立。相復有二，謂無及有。空性有相，離有離無、離異離一以為其相。應知安立即異門等。
世親以二因釋四非：心性本淨故，說非染非不染；客塵所染故，說非淨非不淨。「是名成立空差別義」結成立義（承 [022]）。下「此前空義總有二種……」非更立新義，乃總收辯相品空門——相（無·有）攝 [014]，安立（異門等）攝 [015]–[016]，全品空義至此圓結。
諸家異釋
窺基《辯中邊論述記》（T44n1835，沙門基撰，p0009b25–0009c16）：
- 頌科：「上二句立二宗〔非染非不染·非淨非不淨〕，下二句立二因〔心性本淨·客塵所染〕。」
- 二句互攝（細辨）：「頌第一句〔非染〕與第二句〔非不淨〕體雖無別，約所非及所詮別成二句；以義同故乃雙牒之。第一句中『非染』即第二句中『非不淨』，牒此雙問，以第三句『心性本淨故』答；『非不染』『非淨』則以第四句『客塵所染故』答。」——故四非實交絡為二問二答：本淨答「非染·非不淨」，客染答「非不染·非淨」。
- 總結：「『是名成立空差別義』，此總結也。」上來別解空五義訖，今總為二——第一是空之相，餘四門安立；相中「無」即 [014]「無二有無故」之二取非有，「有」即空性「離有離無、離異離一」；「安立即異門」即 [015]–[016] 差別成立。
譯名 — 古譯對讀（玄奘·真諦）
| 譯本 | 譯文與分析 |
|---|---|
| 陳 真諦《中邊分別論》 (T31n1599) p0453a28 真022 (c. 557–569) | 頌「不染非不染，非淨非不淨，心本清淨故，煩惱客塵故。」釋「云何不染非不染？心本自性清淨故。云何非淨非不淨？煩惱客塵故」。真諦「心本清淨」對玄奘「心性本淨」、「煩惱客塵」對「客塵所染」，二譯此句最為相近；惟真諦首句作「不染」（玄奘作「非染」），「煩惱客塵」明點所染為煩惱。玄奘從。 |
| ★ 唐 玄奘《辯中邊論頌》 (T31n1601) p0478a22 (661) · 釋 (T31n1600 p0466b16) | 「非染非不染，非淨非不淨，心性本淨故，由客塵所染。」底本：有世親釋＋窺基述記漢傳釋讀鏈。 |
進階參考
★ 四論互讀
| 百法 | 三十頌 | 二十論 | 辯中邊論 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 心王·心所（客塵）／無為·真如（心性本淨） | 轉依·捨染得淨 | — | 本頌（心性本淨·客塵所染·辯相品結） |
並與《心經》「不垢不淨」對讀：垢淨於空性中不可得，正是「心性本淨〔故非垢〕、客塵所染〔故非淨之自性〕」之般若表詮。
互見:
- 《心經》「不垢不淨」（心性本淨客塵所染之般若表詮）· [017]（空之染淨差別·客塵先聲，本頌之所承）· [022]（空成立·染淨二量，本頌「結已成義」之所承）· [013]–[016]（空性五門·空相·異門，本頌「此前空義總有二種」之所總收）。
Covers all 23 verses of this chapter, grouped into the uddāna + 11 genus sections + the concluding verse.
Doctrinal Outline (Kuiji's 科判, T1835 · fasc. 上)
The ancient doctrinal outline (科判) underlying this chapter's genus-grouped verse sections — Kuiji's Madhyāntavibhāga Shuji (T44n1835), transcribed verbatim and aligned to Xuanzang's verses. 〔科判＝詮釋史座標·顯既有段結構之古德權威·非新立義。〕
Whole-text division into seven chapters (Kuiji · object / practice / fruit): [0001a18]「然初二品是境。次三品是行。後二品是果。是七品意。」→ the Characteristics chapter ① and the Obscurations chapter ② subsume the "object."
Entry to the main exposition: [0002a01]「此正宗中合有一百一十三頌。合分為二。初之一頌顯論所明。名總標分。所餘諸頌依標別顯。名別釋分。」→ [001] = the general-statement portion; [002]–[023] = the particular-exposition portion, the Characteristics chapter.
Crown division of the Characteristics chapter: [0002a24]「此一品中二十二頌。初十一頌辯妄分別。後十一頌辯圓成實。」
The nine characteristics of false imagining: [0002b01]「於別解相十一頌中。初之二頌辯依妄分別明三性有無相。次二頌辯妄分別自相。次一頌辯攝相。次二頌辯入無相方便之相。次半頌辯差別相。次半頌辯異門相。次有一頌辯生起相。次有二頌辯雜染相。」 Summed up at [0006a25]「今者總結為九種相。」
The five gates of the perfectly-accomplished nature (the emptiness of the knowable): [0006b03]「下十一頌明所知空性」 · [0006b08]「總標五義以顯空性。下有十頌。別明五門。」 Concluded at [0009c06]「今總結為二。以第一是空之相。」
| Kuiji's 科判 node | Verses | Xuanzang verse | Genus segment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 〔false imagining〕 existence-&-absence of the three natures | 2 | [002]–[003] | The Root of the Middle |
| Own-characteristic | 2 | [004]–[005] | Consciousness-Transformation · the Other-Dependent |
| Subsuming-characteristic | 1 | [006] | Naming the Three Natures |
| Characteristic of entering signlessness | 2 | [007]–[008] | Entering Signlessness |
| Difference · synonym · arising characteristics | ½+½+1 | [009]–[010] | Difference · Synonym · Arising |
| Defilement-characteristic | 2 | [011]–[012] | The Defilement Characteristic |
| 〔perfectly-accomplished nature〕 emptiness of the characteristics | 2 | [013]–[014] | The Outline & the Mark of Emptiness |
| Synonyms of emptiness & their senses | 2 | [015]–[016] | The Synonyms of Emptiness & their Senses |
| Differentiation of emptiness (the sixteen emptinesses) | 5 | [017]–[021] | The Knowable Differentiation of Emptiness |
| Establishing emptiness | 1 | [022] | Establishing Emptiness |
| Concluding verse (the senses of characteristic & positing) | — | [023] | Concluding Verse of the Characteristics Chapter |
〔On §numbering: Kuiji counts the Characteristics chapter as 22 verses (excluding [001], the uddāna); this edition numbers Xuanzang's verses [001]–[023] (the uddāna counted in, 23 total). Kuiji's "22 verses" ≈ Xuanzang's [002]–[023]; the difference of one is whether the uddāna is counted in, not a textual variant.〕
Verse [001] · The Uddāna · Seven Topics in Summary
Source anchor · T1601 [p0477c07] verse · T1600 [p0464b08 homage / p0464b11 uddāna / p0464b13 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451a11 真002] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0001a17–c04 述曰] Kuiji 述記
唯相障真實，及修諸對治， 即此修分位，得果無上乘。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
The summary-stanza asserts no doctrine and refutes nothing — it only "establishes the body" (Vasubandhu, p0464b10). Yet the sequence itself is a claim: first the object (the characteristics and obscurations observed), then the practice (cultivating reality, the antidotes, and the stages), and finally the fruit (attainment and the unsurpassed vehicle) — Kuiji's object–practice–fruit triad (p0001a23). In other words, the treatise is no anthology of maxims but one complete sequence — "see the real and its obscurations → cultivate reality and the antidotes, pass through the stages → realize the fruit and the highest vehicle." This verse is the outline of that sequence; [002] onward unfolds it station by station.
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
稽首造此論，善逝體所生，及教我等師，當勤顯斯義。 ……此中最初安立論體。頌曰：唯相障真實，及修諸對治，即此修分位，得果無上乘。 論曰：此論唯說如是七義，一相、二障、三真實、四修諸對治、五即此修分位、六得果、七無上乘。今於此中先辯其相。
Translation (mine): "Bowing my head, I compose this treatise — [to him who is] born of the Well-Gone One's body, and to the master who taught us; let me diligently set forth this meaning. … Here, first, the body of the treatise is established. The verse: Only characteristics, obscuration, reality, and the cultivating of the antidotes; just this cultivation's stages; the attaining of the fruit; the unsurpassed vehicle. Commentary: This treatise speaks only of these seven matters — (1) characteristics, (2) obscuration, (3) reality, (4) cultivating the antidotes, (5) the stages of that cultivation, (6) attaining the fruit, (7) the unsurpassed vehicle. Now, here, we first discuss characteristics."
Note: the homage stanza (稽首造此論…) is Vasubandhu's added preface (so Kuiji judges; see Commentarial Forks), not part of Maitreya's root verses; Xuanzang's verse-text (T1601) gives [001] as the uddāna proper, without the homage. This is MAV's hetero-commentary structure: the verse is Maitreya's, the prose Vasubandhu's.
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基) opens by laying out the whole treatise's structure:
- Three-part division (p0001b04): "the treatise as a whole has three parts" — Vasubandhu's homage preface (the 稽首 stanza), the main body of Maitreya's root verses, and the concluding exposition ([113]). He notes the treatise omits the general preface, going straight to the particular homage.
- Lineage (p0001b16): of the homage, "the upper eight graphs (善逝體所生) point to the verse-author, the great honored Maitreya; the lower five (及教我等師) to the teacher-transmitter, the bodhisattva Asaṅga" — i.e. verse = Maitreya, transmission = Asaṅga, commentary = Vasubandhu, the Faxiang lineage.
- Verse structure (p0001a25): "Maitreya's root verses number one hundred thirteen: first the total summary, last the concluding exposition, the middle the main body." Vasubandhu's commentary runs to seven hundred verses (eight graphs per pāda, thirty-two per stanza).
- Object–practice–fruit (p0001a23): the seven chapters open into object (two), practice (three), fruit (two).
- The title (p0001a17): "the distinguishing of middle-and-extremes" is a tatpuruṣa (genitive, the sixth Sanskrit case); and he rejects "the old [view] that Vasubandhu composed it — incorrect," since the verses are Maitreya's, not Vasubandhu's.
- On Paramārtha's old translation (p0001a29–b02): Kuiji holds that Paramārtha already translated it in the Liang, but "erroneous in text and divergent in meaning, so it was re-translated [by Xuanzang]." Honesty-layer note: this is a Cien-school verdict. On specific variants (e.g. the [002] 此/彼 deixis) this edition treats Paramārtha as a legitimate reading, recorded for comparison, and does not adopt Kuiji's blanket dismissal here.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451a11 真002 (c. 557–569) | 「相障及真實，研習對治道，修住而得果，無上乘唯爾。」Corresponds to Xuanzang [001]. Paramārtha adds a separate homage verse (真001 「恭敬善行子…」), so his numbering runs +1 — one cause of his 119 vs Xuanzang's 113. The seven matters are the same; wording differs (Xuanzang 唯相 / Paramārtha 相障; Xuanzang 修諸對治 / Paramārtha 研習對治道; Xuanzang 修分位 / Paramārtha 修住). |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c07 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0464b11) | 「唯相障真實，及修諸對治，即此修分位，得果無上乘。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
This is a summary-stanza, functioning like each treatise's "contents heading" (not a doctrinal verse); the quartet mapping therefore takes the sense of "opening enumeration":
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| "all dharmas are roughly of five kinds" — heads the five categories | the frame: consciousness-transformation, the three natures, the stages of vijñapti | states the "consciousness-only, no external object" thesis | this verse (the seven matters / object–practice–fruit summary) |
(a light mapping — cross-treatise correspondence is inherently weak for an uddāna.)
Key Terms
The seven words (seven matters) are the seven chapters, each unfolded below in its own chapter. The chapter division here follows T1599, T1600, and T1601; the romanized terms below serve only as pronunciation aids and do not establish a separate chapter division.
- characteristics — lakṣaṇa (相; 辯相品): the character of the real; begins at [002] with false imagining and the middle.
- obscuration — āvaraṇa (障; 辯障品): the afflictive and cognitive obscurations.
- reality — tattva (真實; 辯真實品): the ten realities.
- cultivating the antidotes — pratipakṣa (修對治; 辯修對治品): the thirty-seven limbs of awakening and other antidotes.
- the stages — avasthā (修分位; 辯修分位品): the stages of cultivation.
- attaining the fruit — phala (得果; 辯得果品): the fruit of cultivation.
- the unsurpassed vehicle — anuttara-yāna (無上乘; 辯無上乘品): why this is the single highest vehicle.
sibling cross-references:
- A summary-stanza maps weakly across treatises; taking the sense of "opening enumeration," it may be read against baifa's "all dharmas are roughly of five kinds."
Verse [002]–[003] · The Root of the Middle — False Imagining's existence & absence · contemplating the Middle
Source anchor (combined) · 〔Verse [002]〕 T1601 [p0477c09] verse · T1600 [p0464b16 verse / p0464b18 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451a16 真003] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0002b08–c15 述曰] Kuiji 述記 · 〔Verse [003]〕 T1601 [p0477c11] verse · T1600 [p0464b25 verse / p0464b27 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451a25 真004] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0002c18–0003a04 述曰] Kuiji 述記
虛妄分別有，於此二都無， 此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。 故說一切法，非空非不空， 有無及有故，是則契中道。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
〔Verse [002]〕
The MAV stakes the middle between reification (samāropa 增益 — taking the duality as real) and denial (apavāda 損減 — dismissing the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished as nothing). The verse's exists–absent–exists–exists is the very frame of that madhyamā pratipad. Vasubandhu closes: "If something is absent here, by that one observes [it] as empty; since the remainder is not non-existent, one knows it truly as existing." Kuiji reads this as "knowing the non-existent as non-existent, knowing the existent as existent": upon the false imagining the two are not, so it is observed as empty (knowing the non-existent — against reification); yet the imagining and suchness, the two natures, are "the remainder beyond the two" and not nothing, so are known truly as existing (knowing the existent — against denial). The middle is not a compromise but the errorless seeing of the two's absence and the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished's presence.
〔Verse [003]〕
This verse answers misapprehended emptiness (the nihilist extreme) head-on: to hear "all is empty" and conclude all is nothing is to fall into denial. Vasubandhu's "not wholly empty" refutes it — the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished are not nothing; "not wholly non-empty" refutes reification — the wholly-imagined two-grasping is not real. The crux is the closing line: this is no departure from the Prajñā but expressly "accords with the Prajñāpāramitā and other sūtras' 'all dharmas are neither empty nor existent'" (Vasubandhu, p0464c06) — consciousness-only's "emptiness" is the Prajñā "emptiness," differing only in precision: what is empty is the two-grasping upon false imagining, not the false imagining and emptiness as well. The middle is not a compromise between two assertions but the truthfulness of "what is empty."
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
〔Verse [002]〕
論曰：虛妄分別有者，謂有所取、能取分別。於此二都無者，謂即於此虛妄分別，永無所取、能取二性。此中唯有空者，謂虛妄分別中但有離所取及能取空性。於彼亦有此者，謂即於彼二空性中亦但有此虛妄分別。若於此非有，由彼觀為空；所餘非無故，如實知為有。若如是者，則能無倒顯示空相。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. 'False imagining exists' means there is the discrimination of the grasped and the grasper. 'Within it the two are both absent' means that within this very false imagining the two natures — grasped and grasper — are eternally absent. 'Here there is only emptiness' means that within the false imagining there is only the emptiness that is free of the grasped and the grasper. 'And in that, this too exists' means that within those two emptinesses there is likewise only this false imagining. If something is absent here, through that one observes [it] as empty; since the remainder is not non-existent, one knows it truly as existing. In this way one can reveal the character of emptiness without error."
Vasubandhu's prose glosses Maitreya's verse clause by clause — fixing "false imagining" as the discrimination of grasped-and-grasper (exists), the two's eternal absence upon it (absent), the duality-free emptiness within it (exists), and the imagining's abiding within emptiness (exists), closing on the errorless middle knowledge. This is MAV's distinctive hetero-commentary layer: the verse is Maitreya's, the prose Vasubandhu's — a different author (contrast ershilun's svavṛtti, an auto-commentary).
〔Verse [003]〕
論曰：一切法者，謂諸有為及無為法。虛妄分別名有為，二取空性名無為。依前理故，說此一切法非空非不空，由有空性虛妄分別故說非空，由無所取能取性故說非不空。有故者，謂有空性虛妄分別故。無故者，謂無所取能取二性故。及有故者，謂虛妄分別中有空性故，及空性中有虛妄分別故。是則契中道者，謂一切法非一向空亦非一向不空，如是理趣妙契中道，亦善符順般若等經說一切法非空非有。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. By 'all dharmas' is meant the conditioned and the unconditioned dharmas. False imagining is the conditioned; the emptiness of the two-grasping is the unconditioned. On the foregoing principle, these all dharmas are said to be neither empty nor non-empty: because there exist emptiness and false imagining, they are said 'not empty'; because there is no grasped-or-grasper nature, they are said 'not non-empty.' 'Because of the existent' means: because emptiness and false imagining exist. 'The non-existent' means: because the two natures, grasped and grasper, do not exist. 'And the existent' means: because within false imagining there is emptiness, and within emptiness there is false imagining. 'This, then, meets the middle way' means: all dharmas are neither wholly empty nor wholly non-empty — such a principle finely meets the middle way, and accords well with the Prajñāpāramitā and other sūtras' saying that all dharmas are neither empty nor existent."
Vasubandhu glosses word by word: first fixing the extension of "all dharmas" (conditioned = false imagining; unconditioned = the two-grasping's emptiness), then reading "not empty" by "there exist emptiness and false imagining" and "not non-empty" by "there is no grasped-or-grasper," then mapping the third line "existent–non-existent–existent" back onto [002], and closing on its "finely meeting the middle" and "according with the Prajñāpāramitā." One line states the continuity of consciousness-only with the Prajñā.
Commentarial Forks
〔Verse [002]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835) maps the four clauses onto the three natures — the definitive Chinese Faxiang reading:
- Clause 1 "false imagining exists" = paratantra exists ("the discrimination that takes [grasper/grasped] as object is the other-dependent… not wholly without self-nature, hence called existent"); he also parses "the discrimination of grasped-and-grasper" as a tatpuruṣa, not the karmadhāraya "the two-grasping that is discrimination."
- Clause 2 "within it the two are absent" = parikalpita absent ("upon this false imagining, the wholly-imagined grasper-grasped duality is forever absent"); citing the Saṃdhinirmocana, he notes one may also grasp at the perfectly-accomplished nature, yet the verse "omits 'upon suchness,' because nature and characteristic are contrary."
- Clause 3 "here there is only emptiness" = pariniṣpanna / suchness exists ("suchness is the nature of false imagining"; emptiness = suchness).
- Clause 4 "in that, this too exists" = the imagining is not apart from suchness ("within that suchness, there is likewise only this false imagining").
- Summary: "Of the three natures, the first (parikalpita) is non-existent; the latter two (paratantra, pariniṣpanna) exist, with a distinction."
〔Verse [003]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0002c18–0003a04) develops Vasubandhu:
- On "therefore said": "it is because the Prajñā etc. sūtras say so" — the middle has scriptural ground, not a new invention.
- On "all dharmas": the two-grasping, without substance, is not counted; the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished, having substance, are named "all dharmas"; "'dharma' here, because it is graspable/upholds"; and "the two-grasping's emptiness is suchness — the nature of emptiness."
- On the double negation: "the two natures [other-dependent, perfectly-accomplished], not being nothing, are called 'not empty'"; "the wholly-imagined two-grasping being non-existent, [they are] said 'not non-empty'; 'not non-empty' means [the two-grasping] is by nature non-existent" — mapped clause-by-clause to the three natures.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
〔Verse [002]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451a16 真003 (c. 557–569) | 「虛妄分別有，彼處無有二，彼中唯有空，於此亦有彼。」Paramārtha takes 彼 ("there") for the false imagining and 此 ("here") for emptiness — the deixis is mirror-reversed from Xuanzang (see note). |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c09 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0464b16) | 「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此。」Xuanzang takes 此 ("here") for the false imagining and 彼 ("there") for emptiness. Adopted as base text for its complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835) — and as the Cien-school standard. |
Old-vs-new axis · the 此/彼 deixis is reversed (two ancient translations + 古德). Both render the same referents; they differ only in the proximal/distal framing — and the referents are fixed by Vasubandhu's own Chinese gloss, with no need of the Sanskrit: Xuanzang: 此 = false imagining, 彼 = emptiness (Vasubandhu: "within this very false imagining…", "within those two emptinesses…"; Kuiji confirms "'here' (此) means this false imagining; 'within' (中) is the locative" — T1835 p0002b22). Paramārtha: 彼 = false imagining, 此 = emptiness — the opposite deictic words, the same referents. Both render the same referents; they differ only in whether the false imagining is rendered proximal (Xuanzang 此) or distal (Paramārtha 彼). Not a doctrinal disagreement but a difference of deictic framing. Adjudication: adopt Xuanzang as base — his "此 = false imagining" is fixed by Vasubandhu's own gloss and anchored by Kuiji's Chinese reading (the locative; 此 = the false imagining), and the false imagining (the subject under analysis) is fittingly proximal; Paramārtha's variant is recorded as a parallel reading, not judged an error, not harmonized.
〔Verse [003]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451a25 真004 (c. 557–569) | 「故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是名中道義。」The first three lines are identical to Xuanzang; only the last differs — Xuanzang 是則契中道 / Paramārtha 是名中道義, the same sense in different words. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c11 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0464b25) | 「故說一切法，非空非不空，有無及有故，是則契中道。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
〔Verse [002]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
How v.2 sits across baifa / sanshisong / ershilun / bianzhongbian.
| Baifa (taxonomy) | Sanshisong (architecture) | Ershilun (thesis + defense) | Madhyāntavibhāga (the middle · root trisvabhāva) |
|---|---|---|---|
| mind-kings / mental factors (三界心心所 = false imagining, cf. [009]) | vv. 20–25 (trisvabhāva unfolded) | v. 1 (the vijñapti-mātra thesis; this verse supplies the positive ontology the Viṃśatikā defends) | this verse (root of the middle · trisvabhāva) |
(sibling vv. sanshisong#20 / ershilun#1)
Key Terms (IAST)
abhūta-parikalpa — abhūtaparikalpa (虛妄分別) — false imagining
The dependently-arisen flow of mind. Kuiji judges it "what cognizes, not what is grasped at," hence "not wholly without self-nature" and so "existent" — but this holds only of the defiled portion (Kuiji: "this speaks of false imagining as paratantra only on the side of defilement; it is not that paratantra is only false imagining, for there is also pure discrimination as paratantra"). It is "false" in that the duality it presents is not as presented, not in that it fails to occur. Anchor order: sūtra (the Prajñāpāramitā's "neither empty nor existent") → śāstra (this verse + Vasubandhu) → modern (the translator's own; §9 — no named modern authority).
dvaya — dvaya (二; grāhya-grāhaka) — duality (grasper–grasped)
The subject–object bifurcation grasped as the wholly-imagined nature (parikalpita); forever absent upon the false imagining. (sibling: sanshisong grasper/grasped 能取／所取 ✅)
śūnyatā — śūnyatā (空) — emptiness
The perfectly-accomplished nature (pariniṣpanna) / suchness; the absence of duality within the false imagining is itself emptiness. Kuiji parses the Sanskrit to separate "empty" from "emptiness": "Sanskrit śūnya (瞬若) is merely 'empty'; śūnyatā (瞬若多) — the suffix -tā (多) carrying the sense of 'nature/-ness' — names suchness as 'emptiness.'" (sibling: xinjing 空 ✅)
〔Verse [003]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the five categories enumerate "all dharmas" | v.23 "upon these three natures, the three non-natures are set" | — | this verse (all dharmas · neither empty nor non-empty) |
Read also against xinjing's 空: the Prajñā "form is not other than emptiness" finds here its consciousness-only precision (what is empty = the two-grasping).
Key Terms (IAST)
all dharmas yī-qiè-fǎ — sarva-dharma
Fixed by Vasubandhu as: the conditioned (other-dependent · false imagining) + the unconditioned (perfectly-accomplished · emptiness). The wholly-imagined two-grasping, being "without substance," is not counted in this "dharma." Kuiji glosses 法 (dharma) as "the graspable / that which upholds."
neither empty nor non-empty fēi-kōng fēi-bù-kōng
A double negation mapped clause-by-clause onto the three natures: not empty = the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished are not nothing; not non-empty = the wholly-imagined two-grasping is absent. Kuiji: "'not non-empty' means [the two] are by nature non-existent."
middle way zhōng-dào — madhyamā pratipad
"Neither wholly empty nor wholly non-empty" (Vasubandhu) — the precise sense of the Prajñā "neither empty nor existent": what is empty is the two-grasping, not the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished along with it.
sibling cross-references:
- sanshisong vv. 20–25 (trisvabhāva unfolded) · ershilun v.1 (the vijñapti-mātra thesis — this verse supplies the positive ontology that the Viṃśatikā defends) · baifa mind-kings & mental factors (the 三界心心所 = false imagining, cf. [009]).
- xinjing 空 (the precise sense of the Prajñā "neither empty nor existent") · sanshisong v.23 (the three natures establish the three non-natures; this verse's "all dharmas" receive their three-nature assignment below) · [002] (the four-clause eye, which this verse continues) · [006] (the three-natures naming, which this verse leads to).
Verse [004]–[005] · Consciousness-Transformation · The Other-Dependent's ontology — Four Semblances · no object no consciousness · neither real nor wholly non-existent
Source anchor (combined) · 〔Verse [004]〕 T1601 [p0477c13] verse · T1600 [p0464c09 verse / p0464c11 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451b07 真005] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0003b15–0003c05 述曰] Kuiji 述記 · 〔Verse [005]〕 T1601 [p0477c15] verse · T1600 [p0464c18 verse / p0464c20 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451b19 真006] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0003c27–0004a24 述曰] Kuiji 述記
識生變似義、有情、我及了， 此境實非有，境無故識無。 虛妄分別性，由此義得成， 非實有全無，許滅解脫故。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
〔Verse [004]〕
The pivot of this verse is the word "semblance" (似) — and how "semblance" is read is itself a root division within Faxiang (see Commentarial Forks: Dharmapāla vs Sthiramati). The point: the four objects consciousness transforms-into are "not really existent," and so the grasping consciousness too is not really existent (as grasped-real); yet this is not to say consciousness is nothing — [005] closes on "the other-dependent is neither really existent nor wholly non-existent." Thus reification (object and consciousness as real) is refuted without falling into denial (the other-dependent is not nothing). The line "object absent, consciousness absent" grounds [002]'s "grasper–grasped both absent" in the working of transformation: not an outer object first and then consciousness, but consciousness transforming-as object, and — the object being from the start absent — the grasper too failing to be real.
〔Verse [005]〕
This verse is the MAV's positive defence against misapprehended emptiness (the nihilist extreme). Kuiji records its debate setting: "why not grant this nature wholly non-existent?" is "a hypothetical challenge raised, positing the objection of the Mādhyamika (Middle- and Hundred-Treatise) masters and the like" (p0004a19) — i.e. a Madhyamaka-line objection that false imagining too should be wholly non-existent. The answer: "because, granting that it ceases, one attains liberation" (Vasubandhu) — "were it like a sky-flower, slightly non-existent, then there would be no cessation and liberation could not hold; since liberation holds and there is something to be cut off, false imagining must have a slight substance" (Kuiji p0004a22). This is the crux of the division between consciousness-only and misapprehended emptiness: emptying the two-grasping (the wholly-imagined) while keeping the other-dependent is what makes defilement, bondage, and liberation speakable; empty everything alike, and practice-and-realization has no place to stand. The middle's "not falling into denial" shows its edge in this one verse.
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
〔Verse [004]〕
論曰：變似義者，謂似色等諸境性現。變似有情者，謂似自他身五根性現。變似我者，謂染末那與我癡等恒相應故。變似了者，謂餘六識，了相麁故。此境實非有者，謂似義似根無行相故，似我似了非真現故，皆非實有。境無故識無者，謂所取義等四境無故，能取諸識亦非實有。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. 'Transforms as the semblance of object' means the appearing of the nature of form and the other objects. 'Transforms as the semblance of sentient being' means the appearing of the nature of the five faculties of one's own and others' bodies. 'Transforms as the semblance of self' means the defiled manas, because it is ever conjoined with self-delusion and the rest. 'Transforms as the semblance of cognizing' means the remaining six consciousnesses, their cognizing-mode being coarse. 'These objects are truly non-existent' means: because the semblance-object and semblance-faculty are without [real] mode, and the semblance-self and semblance-cognizing do not truly appear, all are not really existent. 'The object absent, consciousness too absent' means: because the grasped four objects — object and the rest — are absent, the grasping consciousnesses too are not really existent."
Vasubandhu matches the four semblances to consciousness — semblance-object (the field), semblance-being (the five faculties), semblance-self (the defiled manas), semblance-cognizing (the six consciousnesses) — making "false imagining" concrete as one consciousness transforming-into four objects. He then shows the four "not really existent" (without [real] mode, not truly appearing), closing with "object absent, consciousness absent": the grasped failing to be real, the grasper too fails.
〔Verse [005]〕
論曰：虛妄分別由此義故成非實有，如所現起非真有故；亦非全無，於中少有亂識生故。如何不許此性全無？以許此滅得解脫故。若異此者，繫縛解脫則應皆無，如是便成撥無雜染及清淨失。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. False imagining, by this principle, comes to be not really existent — because what it presents, as it arises, is not truly existent; yet not wholly non-existent either — because within it a slight disturbed consciousness arises. Why is its nature not granted wholly non-existent? Because, granting that this ceases, one attains liberation. Were it otherwise, bondage and liberation would both be void, and thus one would fall into denying defilement and purity."
Vasubandhu fixes the dependent on both sides: on one side "not really existent" (what it presents is not true), on the other "nor wholly non-existent" (within it a disturbed consciousness arises); then, with one question and answer, he locks the nihilist extreme shut — to grant false imagining wholly non-existent leaves "ceasing-and-thereby-liberation" unsayable, voiding bondage and liberation alike, falling into "denying defilement and purity." The other-dependent's "existence" hangs on the very possibility of practice-and-realization.
Commentarial Forks
〔Verse [004]〕
Kuiji records the Dharmapāla–Sthiramati division (T44n1835 p0003b16–20) — the root reading of the word "semblance" within Faxiang:
- Sthiramati and others (the old reading): "only the self-witnessing aspect, with no seen-and-seeing aspects … these semblance-faculty-and-object are all without substance; because they semble as sentient-objects, they are called 'semblance.'" — i.e. the one-aspect view: only the self-witnessing aspect is real, the image and seeing aspects both unreal; the transformed faculty-and-object is "without substance," called "semblance" because it sembles a being's object.
- Dharmapāla and others (the Cien position): "this image-aspect, faculty-and-object, is also other-dependent; the 'semblance' here is — its substance not really existent, yet falsely appearing as if it were the wholly-imagined really-existent dharma — and so the name 'semblance' is set." — i.e. the image-aspect too is dependently-arisen; "semblance" means a substance not real yet falsely manifesting.
The difference: Sthiramati takes image and seeing both as nothing; Dharmapāla takes the image-aspect as other-dependent (semblance, but not nothing). Kuiji follows Dharmapāla — see the Cheng weishi lun juan 3. Further: semblance-self = the defiled manas; semblance-cognizing = the remaining six; and Kuiji notes "collated against the three Sanskrit texts, they all agree" (the verse says "consciousness arises, transforms-as," the prose-commentator abbreviating the word "consciousness" — p0003b27).
Sthiramati, Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā: 漢無傳本 (the Skt ṭīkā survives only in modern editions and is not cited); the Sthiramati view above is as reported by Kuiji, his full ṭīkā awaiting a transmitted witness and not paraphrased from memory.
〔Verse [005]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0003c27–0004a24):
- On the verse's division: "the upper thirteen graphs establish that false imagining's substance is not really existent — unlike the wholly-imagined, which is wholly without even a slight; therefore the lower seven graphs say it is granted slight existence, because by granting that one's own false imagining ceases, one attains liberation" (p0004a08).
- On "not wholly non-existent": "because consciousness's substance has a slight disturbance, consciousness too transforms-as objects and the rest — unlike the wholly-imagined, of which not even a slight arises."
- The challenge and answer: "why not grant this nature wholly non-existent?" is "positing the Mādhyamika masters' objection" (p0004a19); answered by "granting it ceases, one attains liberation … so false imagining must have a slight substance" (p0004a23).
- On Paramārtha's old translation: Kuiji holds that a passage in Paramārtha's old commentary "glossing the name 'false' [as 'because the object is unreal,' 'because the substance is scattered']" is, "on collating the Sanskrit … not there at all" (p0004a17). Honesty-layer note: this is a Cien-school collation remark; this edition still keeps Paramārtha in the 〈Translation Choices〉 comparison, and does not delete on its basis.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
〔Verse [004]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451b07 真005 (c. 557–569) | 「塵根我及識，本識生似彼，但識有無彼，彼無故識無。」Paramārtha's "object, faculty, self, and consciousness" answer to Xuanzang's "object, sentient being, self, cognizing" (塵 = object, 根 = the five faculties, 識 = cognizing); Paramārtha expressly marks the "root consciousness" (本識) as the transforming subject, whereas Xuanzang writes "consciousness arises" without singling out the root consciousness. The divergence touches the transforming subject; Kuiji discusses it (p0003b13). Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c13 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0464c09) | 「識生變似義、有情、我及了，此境實非有，境無故識無。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
〔Verse [005]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451b19 真006 (c. 557–569) | 「亂識虛妄性，由此義得成，非實有無故，滅彼故解脫。」Paramārtha names it "the false nature of disturbed consciousness" (亂識虛妄性) against Xuanzang's "the nature of false imagining" (he calls it "disturbed consciousness"); 非實有無故 ≈ Xuanzang 非實有全無; 滅彼故解脫 ≈ 許滅解脫故. Kuiji notes Paramārtha here adds a passage "glossing the name 'false'" which he says "the Sanskrit does not have" (see Commentarial Forks). Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c15 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0464c18) | 「虛妄分別性，由此義得成，非實有全無，許滅解脫故。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
〔Verse [004]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the eight mind-kings (semblance-self = manas, semblance-cognizing = the six) | v.1 "this transforming is but threefold" · v.17 "these consciousnesses transforming — discriminating and discriminated" | v.1 "establishing consciousness-only … truly no external object" | this verse (four semblances · object absent, consciousness absent) |
The line "object absent, consciousness absent" is the seed of the Viṃśatikā's consciousness-only-no-object.
Key Terms (IAST)
consciousness transforms-as shì-shēng biàn-sì — when consciousness arises it brings forth semblance-appearances (the four semblances)
the four semblances: object (artha · the field), sentient being (sattva · the five faculties), self (ātman · the defiled manas), cognizing (vijñapti · the first six consciousnesses).
object absent, consciousness absent jìng-wú gù shì-wú
The four grasped objects being non-existent, the grasping consciousnesses too "are not really existent" — with respect to their being grasped as real. This is not to say consciousness is wholly nothing ([005] closes on "the other-dependent is neither really existent nor wholly non-existent").
〔Verse [005]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the other-dependent = the conditioned arising of mind and mental factors | v.21 "the other-dependent nature, born of discriminating conditions" | v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, whose defence is "the other-dependent is not nothing") | this verse (the other-dependent · neither really existent nor wholly non-existent · ceasing it, liberation) |
Key Terms (IAST)
the nature of false imagining xū-wàng fēn-bié xìng — the "nature"/substance of the other-dependent.
neither really existent nor wholly non-existent fēi shí-yǒu quán-wú
Not really existent (what it presents is not true) + not wholly non-existent (within it a disturbed consciousness arises). Kuiji: the upper thirteen graphs establish "false imagining's substance is not really existent," the lower seven say "it is granted slight existence" (p0004a08).
because, granting its cessation, there is liberation xǔ-miè jiě-tuō gù
Liberation is the ceasing of false imagining; there being something to cease, it "must have a slight substance." This is the proof of "the other-dependent is not nothing."
sibling cross-references:
- ershilun v.1 (consciousness-only, no object; this verse's "object absent, consciousness absent" is its seed) · sanshisong v.1 "this transforming is but threefold" · v.17 "consciousness transforming" (the systematization of what consciousness transforms into) · chengweishilun (Dharmapāla's正義; the four-aspect doctrine, the adjudication of this verse's "semblance").
- sanshisong v.21 "the other-dependent nature, born of discriminating conditions" (the positive unfolding of the other-dependent, which this verse's "not wholly non-existent" establishes) · [006] (the three-natures naming, which this verse leads to) · ershilun v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, whose defence is "the other-dependent is not nothing").
Verse [006] · Naming the Three Natures · False Imagining Subsumes the Three
Source anchor · T1601 [p0477c17] verse · T1600 [p0464c26 verse / p0464c29 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451c01 真007] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0004b07–0004c01 述曰] Kuiji 述記
唯所執、依他，及圓成實性， 境故分別故，及二空故說。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
The crux is that "all three natures are established in dependence on false imagining" — not three self-standing entities but three faces of one false imagining: its taken-object = wholly-imagined, its discriminating substance = other-dependent, its two-grasping emptiness = perfectly-accomplished. This is the root of the consciousness-only doctrine of the three natures: the wholly-imagined is absent (against reification), the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished exist (against denial) — the three natures are the unfolding of [002]'s middle.
The Dharmapāla–Sthiramati division (Kuiji p0004b12–18): Dharmapāla holds that "not every object of false imagining is the wholly-imagined, since the five [sense-consciousnesses] and the eighth have no grasping" — so not all false-imagining objects are wholly-imagined ("the object of imagined-grasping has a narrow cognizing mind — so Dharmapāla and his school analyze it"); Sthiramati and others "take this to prove that all eight consciousnesses can give rise to imagined-grasping." Kuiji follows Dharmapāla (the Cien position) — see the Cheng weishi lun.
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
論曰：依止虛妄分別境故，說有遍計所執自性。依止虛妄分別性故，說有依他起自性。依止所取能取空故，說有圓成實自性。已顯虛妄分別攝相，當說即於虛妄分別入無相方便相。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. In dependence on the object of false imagining, the wholly-imagined nature is said to exist. In dependence on the nature of false imagining, the other-dependent nature is said to exist. In dependence on the emptiness of grasped-and-grasper, the perfectly-accomplished nature is said to exist. Having shown the subsuming character of false imagining, we shall now state the character of the means of entering signlessness within false imagining."
Vasubandhu's three sentences match the three natures, each established upon one face of "false imagining": upon its object, the wholly-imagined; upon its nature (substance), the other-dependent; upon its two-grasping emptiness, the perfectly-accomplished. The closing sentence — "having shown the subsuming character of false imagining, we shall now state the means of entering signlessness within false imagining" — turns from "Characteristics" (the three natures established) to "Practice" (entering signlessness, [007][008]): the three natures clear, one cultivates contemplation upon this very false imagining to enter the signlessness of the two-grasping.
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0004b07–c01):
- Heading: "the upper two lines bring out the three natures, the lower two establish the subsuming"; "so false imagining subsumes the three natures."
- Dharmapāla ↔ Sthiramati: Dharmapāla — "not every object of false imagining is wholly-imagined, since the five and the eighth have no grasping"; Sthiramati — "all eight consciousnesses can give rise to imagined-grasping." Kuiji follows Dharmapāla (as in the Cheng weishi lun's two-masters account).
- On Paramārtha's old text: Kuiji, by formal inference (比量), examines Paramārtha's old similes for the three natures — the wholly-imagined likened to a "sky-flower," the other-dependent to a "magical thing," the perfectly-accomplished to "empty space" — and judges them "though they offer a little inference, not well-established" (e.g. "empty space, for the Mahāyāna, is non-existent, so the corroborating example does not establish what is claimed," p0004b19–26). Honesty-layer note: this is a Cien-school critique; this edition keeps Paramārtha in the 〈Translation Choices〉 comparison and does not delete on its basis.
Sthiramati, Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā: 漢無傳本 (Skt only in modern editions; not cited); the Sthiramati view above is as reported by Kuiji, his full ṭīkā awaiting a transmitted witness and not paraphrased from memory.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451c01 真007 (c. 557–569) | 「分別及依他、真實唯三性，由塵與亂識，及二無故說。」Paramārtha's "discriminating / other-dependent / real" answer to Xuanzang's "wholly-imagined / other-dependent / perfectly-accomplished"; "by object and disturbed consciousness, and the twofold absence" answers to Xuanzang's "because of the object, the discriminating, and the twofold emptiness" (塵 = object / wholly-imagined, 亂識 = discriminating / other-dependent, 二無 = twofold emptiness / perfectly-accomplished). The structure fully agrees; the wording differs. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c17 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0464c26) | 「唯所執、依他，及圓成實性，境故分別故，及二空故說。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the five categories are dharmas subsumed by the three natures | vv.20–22 (the three natures glossed severally) · v.23 "upon these three natures, the three non-natures are set" | v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, the ground of the natures' transforming) | this verse (naming the three natures · false imagining subsumes the three) |
Key Terms (IAST)
the three natures sān-xìng — trisvabhāva
The wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, the perfectly-accomplished. The Chinese terms are settled in the corpus (sibling: sanshisong ✅ · baifa), and are reused.
false imagining subsumes the three natures shè sān-xìng
Kuiji's principle: a single false imagining subsumes all three faces — the object it takes (wholly-imagined), the discriminating substance (other-dependent), the two-grasping's emptiness (perfectly-accomplished). The three natures are not three external entities but three faces of one false imagining.
sibling cross-references:
- sanshisong vv.20–23 (the three natures unfolded + the three non-natures, the systematic development of this verse's naming) · baifa (the five categories = subsumed by the three natures) · [005] (the ontology of the other-dependent, which this verse's naming continues) · [007][008] (the means of entering signlessness, which this verse leads to).
Verse [007]–[008] · Entering Signlessness — object un-attained · consciousness un-attained · equality of the two absences (Path of Seeing)
Source anchor (combined) · 〔Verse [007]〕 T1601 [p0477c19] verse · T1600 [p0465a04 verse / p0465a07 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451c08 真008] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0004c02–0004c12 述曰] Kuiji 述記 · 〔Verse [008]〕 T1601 [p0477c21] verse · T1600 [p0465a09 verse / p0465a12 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451c14 真009] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0004c13–0004c25 述曰] Kuiji 述記
依識有所得，境無所得生； 依境無所得，識無所得生。 由識有得性，亦成無所得， 故知二有得，無得性平等。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
〔Verse [007]〕
The pivot is the sequence: not a single leap to "object and consciousness both empty," but object first, then consciousness — first, by consciousness-only, refuting the external object (object non-attained); then, by the object's absence, refuting the grasping consciousness (consciousness non-attained). This sequence is the heat–summit–forbearance of the four aids: heat and summit, "mind exists, object absent" (contemplating the grasped's emptiness); forbearance, "object absent, consciousness too absent" (contemplating the grasper's emptiness). The point: consciousness-only's calm-and-insight is no airy talk of emptiness but a contemplation with a graded point of entry — first establish consciousness-only to dispel the object, then dispel consciousness to enter the two emptinesses.
〔Verse [008]〕
The pivot is "equality": [007]'s sequence is the means "object first, then consciousness" (with a before-and-after), while [008] is "the two attainings, in non-attaining-nature, equal" — grasper and grasped without before-or-after, alike dissolved, of one taste: the fundamental path (the path of seeing). Kuiji's "not one alone being absent, hence 'equal'": not merely the object absent and consciousness left standing, but both absent. The summit of consciousness-only contemplation does not rest at "consciousness present, object absent" (still an "attaining," the grasper still standing) but reaches "grasper and grasped alike un-attained" — only then truly leaving the two-grasping mark and abiding in true consciousness-only. This verse with [007] is the very bone of the consciousness-only calm-and-insight, "aids → path of seeing."
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
〔Verse [007]〕
論曰：依止唯識有所得故，先有於境無所得生；復依於境無所得故，後有於識無所得生。由是方便，得入所取能取無相。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. Because, in dependence on consciousness-only, there is attaining, first the non-attaining of the object arises; then, in dependence on the non-attaining of the object, afterward the non-attaining of consciousness arises. By this means, one comes to enter the signlessness of grasped and grasper."
Vasubandhu reads the verse by the sequence "object first, then consciousness": in dependence on consciousness-only's "attaining," the "non-attaining of object" first arises; in dependence on that, the "non-attaining of consciousness" afterward arises — the former dispelling the grasped (object), the latter the grasper (consciousness); "by this means, one enters the signlessness of grasped and grasper." This is the consciousness-only contemplation's graded point of entry into the two-grasping's signlessness.
〔Verse [008]〕
論曰：唯識生時現似種種虛妄境故，名有所得。以所得境無實性故，能得實性亦不得成。由能得識無所得故，所取能取二有所得，平等俱成無所得性。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. When consciousness-only arises, because it appears as the semblance of manifold unreal objects, it is called 'attaining.' Because the attained object has no real nature, the attaining [consciousness]'s real nature too fails to be established. Because the attaining consciousness is un-attained, grasped and grasper, the two attainings, alike come to be — equally — of the non-attaining nature."
Vasubandhu's three turns: consciousness, appearing as objects, is called "attaining"; the attained object having no reality, the attaining consciousness's real nature "too fails to be established"; the attaining consciousness too un-attained, grasped and grasper "alike come to be, equally, of the non-attaining nature." Driving from "consciousness attains" all the way to "grasper and grasped alike un-attained," the bias of grasper-and-grasped is wholly dissolved, and equality comes to be.
Commentarial Forks
〔Verse [007]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0004c02–c12):
- On the two verses: "the first verse ([007]) explains, on the path of means, the absence of the grasped; the second ([008]), on the fundamental path, the equality of the two absences."
- Mapping the four aids: "the upper two lines grant mind exists while object is absent — the heat and summit stages; the lower two say object absent and consciousness too absent — the forbearance stage."
- On Paramārtha's old commentary: Kuiji refutes Paramārtha's reading "because the object has no substance, the root consciousness does not arise" — "not so: would you then grant that the [other] seven consciousnesses arise?" (p0004c06 — i.e. if the object's absence stopped the root [store] consciousness from arising, why would the seven arise?). Honesty-layer note: a Cien-school refutation; this edition keeps Paramārtha in the 〈Translation Choices〉 comparison and does not delete on its basis.
〔Verse [008]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0004c13–c25):
- "This verse explains the equality of the two absences. The upper two lines explain the principle of equality, the lower two conclude the equality."
- "Because the object is absent, consciousness too is shown absent — 'too' [in 'it too comes to be un-attained'] means 'also as the object is absent.'"
- "Because the attaining consciousness, like the object, is absent, grasped and grasper, formerly attained, now both come to be absent; not one alone being absent, hence 'equal.'"
- And the linking of before and after: "'difference' speaks vertically by realm, 'synonym' speaks horizontally by mode" (passing to [009]'s "difference and synonym" of the three-realm mind).
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
〔Verse [007]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451c08 真008 (c. 557–569) | 「由依唯識故，境無體義成，以塵無有體，本識即不生。」The upper half "in dependence on consciousness-only, the object's having-no-substance is established" ≈ Xuanzang "in dependence on consciousness's attaining, the object's non-attaining arises"; but the lower half — Paramārtha "because the object has no substance, the root consciousness does not arise" (the store consciousness not arising) vs Xuanzang "in dependence on the object's non-attaining, the non-attaining of consciousness arises" (the grasping consciousness un-attained) — a substantive divergence here, which Kuiji refutes (see Commentarial Forks). Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c19 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465a04) | 「依識有所得，境無所得生；依境無所得，識無所得生。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
〔Verse [008]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451c14 真009 (c. 557–569) | 「是故識成就，非識為自性。……由是義平等。」(Paramārtha's text here carries an interlinear collation note, 「疏本云應知識不識」, a witness-variant of its own.) Sense: consciousness is established yet not with consciousness as its own-nature, and in the end is equal — answering to Xuanzang's "the two attainings, in non-attaining-nature, equal." Xuanzang, the clearer, is followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c21 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465a09) | 「由識有得性，亦成無所得，故知二有得，無得性平等。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
〔Verse [007]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | v.27 (the aids-to-penetration stage: "setting up a slight something before one, calling it the nature of consciousness-only — because of an attaining, it is not truly abiding in consciousness-only") | v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, what the object's absence accomplishes) | this verse (the means of entering signlessness · object un-attained, consciousness un-attained) |
Read against sanshisong v.27 "because of an attaining, it is not truly abiding in consciousness-only": this verse's "in dependence on consciousness's attaining" is still a means (with attaining); one must advance to "consciousness un-attained" to truly enter the nature of consciousness-only.
Key Terms (IAST)
attaining / non-attaining yǒu-suǒ-dé / wú-suǒ-dé — upalabdhi / anupalabdhi
"Attaining" = the establishing of grasper-and-grasped; "non-attaining" = un-attainability. This verse makes "consciousness attains → object non-attained → consciousness non-attained" the sequence of entering signlessness.
the means of entering signlessness rù wú-xiàng fāng-biàn
The path-of-means by which consciousness-only contemplation enters, in sequence, the signlessness of the two-grasping. Kuiji maps it onto the heat–summit–forbearance aids.
〔Verse [008]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| — | v.28 "when, regarding the object, cognition attains nothing at all, then one abides in consciousness-only, having left the two-grasping mark" (the path of penetration / seeing) | v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, what the dissolving of the two-grasping accomplishes) | this verse (the equality of the two absences · grasped and grasper alike un-attained) |
Read against sanshisong v.28: this verse's "the non-attaining nature, equal" is that verse's "cognition attains nothing at all … leaving the two-grasping mark" — both the fundamental wisdom of the path of seeing, grasper and grasped dissolved.
Key Terms (IAST)
the equality of the two absences èr-wú píng-děng
Grasper and grasped alike becoming un-attained, equal and of one taste. Kuiji: "not one alone being absent, hence 'equal'" — not merely the object absent while consciousness stands, but both absent.
property of attaining / non-attaining nature yǒu-dé-xìng / wú-dé-xìng
Consciousness attains (appears as objects) → object has no real nature → consciousness too un-attained → both alike un-attained, equal: the move from the bias "consciousness present, object absent" to the evenness "grasper and grasped alike un-attained."
sibling cross-references:
- sanshisong v.27 (the aids-to-penetration stage, the systematic placement of this verse's means of entering signlessness; "because of an attaining, it is not truly abiding in consciousness-only") · [008] (the fundamental path, the equality of the two absences, which this verse leads to) · ershilun v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, what the object's absence accomplishes).
- sanshisong v.28 (the path of penetration / seeing; "cognition attains nothing at all, leaving the two-grasping mark" = this verse's "non-attaining nature, equal") · [007] (the path of means, which this verse's fundamental path continues) · ershilun v.1 (the consciousness-only thesis, what the dissolving of the two-grasping accomplishes).
Verse [009]–[010] · Difference · Synonym · Arising — the mind & mental factors of the three realms · the condition-consciousness & the experiencer
Source anchor (combined) · 〔Verse [009]〕 T1601 [p0477c23] verse · T1600 [p0465a17 verse / p0465a19 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451c21 真010] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0004c26–0005a08 述曰] Kuiji 述記 · 〔Verse [010]〕 T1601 [p0477c25] verse · T1600 [p0465a23 verse / p0465a25 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0451c28 真011] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0005a11–0005a29 述曰] Kuiji 述記
三界心心所，是虛妄分別， 唯了境名心，亦別名心所。 一則名緣識，第二名受者， 此中能受用，分別推心所。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
〔Verse [009]〕
The verse's crux is that the mind and mental factors of the three realms are all false imagining, without exception. Kuiji's phrase "all eight consciousnesses are likewise" bars the supposition that "some consciousness is not false imagining": the first five, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth — every mind-consciousness of the three realms is subsumed under false imagining. And "mind" and "mental factors" are not two things but the general and particular gates of one false imagining cognizing its object — cognizing the general character is "mind," cognizing the differentiated is "mental factors." This continues [006]'s thesis "false imagining subsumes the three natures," now stating false imagining's difference and synonym within all mind-consciousnesses.
〔Verse [010]〕
This verse establishes the structure of consciousness's arising: the store-consciousness as the root condition, the seven evolving consciousnesses as the experiencer, the mental factors as helpers. The point: the arising of every consciousness has the store-consciousness (the ālaya) as its root condition — this is the root of consciousness-only's dependent origination. Kuiji distinguishes that the "condition-consciousness" is the character of the active (manifest) arising, not the seed-consciousness itself ("granting that one speaks of the seed, no reasoning can refute it; but as the root it is not called the experiencer"): the store-consciousness as "the condition for the arising of the other consciousnesses" is said with respect to the active dependent origination, while as the seed-root it is not called the experiencer — the experiencer is only the seven evolving consciousnesses. Thus in the arising of a single consciousness three parts are complete: the root condition (the store-consciousness), the evolving consciousness that experiences (the experiencer), and the mental factors that help.
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
〔Verse [009]〕
論曰：虛妄分別差別相者，即是欲界色無色界諸心心所。異門相者，唯能了境總相名心，亦了差別名為受等諸心所法。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. The character of difference in false imagining is just the mind and mental factors of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm. The character of synonym is: that which only cognizes the general character of an object is called 'mind'; that which also cognizes the differentiated is called 'feeling' and the other mental-factor dharmas."
Vasubandhu's two sentences gloss the verse's upper and lower halves in turn: the upper half (the mind and mental factors of the three realms are false imagining) shows the character of difference — the various mind and mental factors of the three realms; the lower half (only what cognizes the object is called mind, what also differentiates is called mental factors) shows the character of synonym — what cognizes the general character is "mind," what cognizes the differentiated is "mental factors." One false imagining pervades the three realms as mind and mental factors, and by the two gates of general and particular sets up the names "mind" and "mental factors."
〔Verse [010]〕
論曰：緣識者，謂藏識，是餘識生緣故。藏識為緣所生轉識，受用主故名為受者。此諸識中受能受用、想能分別、思作意等諸相應行能推諸識，此三助心故名心所。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. The condition-consciousness is the store-consciousness, because it is the condition for the arising of the other consciousnesses. The evolving consciousnesses arisen with the store-consciousness as their condition, being the lords of experiencing, are called the experiencer. Among these consciousnesses, feeling is able to experience, perception is able to differentiate, and volition, attention, and the rest — the concomitant formations — are able to impel the consciousnesses; these three, helping the mind, are called mental factors."
Vasubandhu's three glosses: the condition-consciousness = the store-consciousness (the condition for the other consciousnesses' arising); the experiencer = the evolving consciousnesses arisen with the store-consciousness as condition (the lords of experiencing); the mental factors = feeling, perception, volition-and-attention, and the rest (helping the mind). One verse sets up the three parts of consciousness's arising: the root condition (the store-consciousness), the evolving consciousness that experiences (the experiencer), and the mental factors that help.
Commentarial Forks
〔Verse [009]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0004c26–0005a08):
- On the verse's division: "the upper two lines explain the character of difference … the lower two explain synonym." His heading: "for the mind-king and the mental factors, where they share a name it is by 'difference' (the realm-division), where they differ in name it is by 'synonym' (general vs particular)" — i.e. mind-king and mental factors, named alike with respect to "difference" (the division by realm), named differently with respect to "synonym" (the general-and-particular gates).
- "All eight consciousnesses are likewise" (p0005a02) — the mind and mental factors of the eight consciousnesses across the three realms are all false imagining.
- On synonym: "the cognizing-mode of mind-king and mental factors is at once the same and different — the mind-king takes only the general, the ministers (the mental factors) take general and particular both" (p0005a04) — the mind-king cognizes only the general character of its object, while the mental factors cognize both general and particular.
- On Paramārtha's old text: Kuiji holds that the old treatise's names "general character / particular character" are "incorrect," and further that "it says only that the mental factors take the particular, not that they take the general, contrary to the Yogācārabhūmi and the rest" (p0005a07). Honesty-layer note: this is a Cien-school collation remark; this edition keeps Paramārtha in the 〈Translation Choices〉 comparison and does not delete on its basis.
〔Verse [010]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0005a11–0005a29):
- On the verse's division: "the verse's upper two lines clarify the arising of consciousness, the lower two clarify the arising of the mental factors."
- On the condition-consciousness: "this discusses the character of the active (manifest) arising, not the seed-consciousness … as the root it is not called the experiencer" (p0005a14) — the condition-consciousness is said with respect to active dependent origination; the store-consciousness as the seed-root is not called the experiencer.
- On the experiencer: "the seven evolving consciousnesses are all called the experiencer … consciousness takes the name 'experiencer' from the simultaneous 'feeling' — this is the proximity-gloss" (p0005a18) — the seven evolving consciousnesses take the name "experiencer" by way of the "feeling" co-arisen with them (a proximity-gloss, upacāra).
- On the mental factors: feeling (experiencing), perception (differentiating the object's character), volition-and-attention (impelling the mind toward its object) — "these three aggregates, feeling-perception-formation, help accomplish the mind's task of cognizing its object, and are called mental factors"; and he notes, "for the gloss of the name 'mental factors,' see the third juan of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the rest" (p0005a26).
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
〔Verse [009]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451c21–c25 真010 (c. 557–569) | 「虛妄總類者，三界心心法，〔…〕唯塵智名心，差別名心法。」Paramārtha's "mind and mental dharmas" (心心法) answers Xuanzang's "mind and mental factors" (心心所) (mental dharmas = mental factors); "only the object-knowing is called mind" (唯塵智名心) answers Xuanzang's "only what cognizes the object is called mind" (object-knowing = cognizing the object); "the differentiated is called mental dharmas" answers Xuanzang's "what also differentiates is called mental factors." Corresponds to Xuanzang [009] ↔ Paramārtha [010] (Paramārtha adds a homage verse, so his numbering runs +1). Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c23 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465a17) | 「三界心心所，是虛妄分別，唯了境名心，亦別名心所。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
〔Verse [010]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0451c28 真011 (c. 557–569) | 「第一名緣識，第二是用識，於塵受分別，引行謂心法。」Paramārtha's "the experiencing-consciousness" (用識) answers Xuanzang's "the experiencer" (受者) (the consciousness that experiences); "upon the object, feeling, differentiating, impelling" (於塵受分別引行) answers Xuanzang's "experiencing, differentiating, impelling" (feeling / differentiating / impelling [引行 = impel]); "mental dharmas" (心法) answers "mental factors." Corresponds to Xuanzang [010] ↔ Paramārtha [011]. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c25 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465a23) | 「一則名緣識，第二名受者，此中能受用，分別推心所。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
〔Verse [009]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the eight mind-dharmas + fifty-one mental factors (i.e. the mind and mental factors of the three realms) | v.1 "this transforming is but threefold" (the transforming of mind-king and mental factors) | — | this verse (the mind and mental factors of the three realms are all false imagining) |
Key Terms (IAST)
mind / mental factors — citta / caitta (心／心所) — mind / mental factors
The mind and mental factors of the three realms are all false imagining — every one of the eight consciousnesses across the realms, none excepted (Kuiji: "all eight consciousnesses are likewise"). Mind and mental factors are not two things but the general and particular gates of one false imagining cognizing its object.
difference — (差別; the realm-division) — difference
The character of difference: the various mind and mental factors across the desire, form, and formless realms — false imagining told "vertically by realm."
synonym — (異門; general vs particular) — synonym
The character of synonym: what cognizes only the general character of an object is "mind," what also cognizes the differentiated is "mental factors" — false imagining told "horizontally by mode." Kuiji: the mind-king takes only the general; the mental factors take general and particular both.
〔Verse [010]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the eighth ālaya-consciousness (the condition-consciousness) + the seven evolving consciousnesses + the universally-active mental factors | vv. 2–4 "first, the ālaya-consciousness" (the first transformation) · v.3 "contact, attention, feeling, perception, volition" | — | this verse (the condition-consciousness = the store-consciousness · the experiencer = the evolving consciousnesses · the mental factors helping) |
Key Terms (IAST)
the store-consciousness — ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識／藏識／本識) — the store-consciousness
The root condition of all consciousness's arising — "the condition for the arising of the other consciousnesses." Kuiji distinguishes that as the "condition-consciousness" it names the active (manifest) arising, while as the seed-root it is not called the experiencer.
the condition-consciousness — (緣識) — the condition-consciousness
The store-consciousness named as the condition (緣) for the arising of the other (evolving) consciousnesses — the character of active dependent origination, not the seed-consciousness as root.
the experiencer — (受者) — the experiencer
The seven evolving consciousnesses, arisen with the store-consciousness as condition, named "experiencer" as the lords of experiencing — taking the name from the co-arisen "feeling" (Kuiji's proximity-gloss).
sibling cross-references:
- baifa mind-dharmas / mental factors (the mind-kings and mental factors of the five-category hundred dharmas = the mind and mental factors of the three realms) · sanshisong v.1 (the transforming of mind-king and mental factors) · [006] (false imagining subsumes the three natures, which this verse continues) · [010] (the arising of consciousness, which this verse leads to).
- sanshisong vv. 2–4 (the first transformation, the ālaya-consciousness — the systematic unfolding of this verse's "condition-consciousness = the store-consciousness") · v.3 (the universally-active mental factors "contact, attention, feeling, perception, volition") · baifa the eighth consciousness / the universally-active mental factors · [009] (the mind and mental factors of the three realms, which this verse continues).
Verse [011]–[012] · The Defilement Characteristic — the twelve links of becoming · the 3/2/7 defilements (the last of false imagining's nine characteristics)
Source anchor · T1601 [p0477c27 / p0477c29] verse · T1600 [p0465b01 verse / p0465b05 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0452a08 真012 / p0452a10 真013] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0005b08–0006a29 述曰] Kuiji 述記
覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、 三分別、受用、引起并連縛、 現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間， 三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
The heart of this section is that defilement (the round of becoming) is wholly born and nurtured of false imagining — the twelve links of dependent origination are no mechanical chain external to mind-consciousness, but the unfolding of false imagining on its defiled side. Vasubandhu subsumes them layer upon layer — the eleven gates / the twelve links / the 3-, 2-, and 7-fold defilements — and refers them all back to a single false imagining. This continues from [009]–[010]'s distinction, alternative designations, and arising; and with the defilement characteristic, false imagining's nine characteristics are now complete. Once the nine are shown, [013] onward turns over into the emptiness of the knowable — the pivot from defilement (false imagining) to purity (the two emptinesses).
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
論曰：覆障故者，謂由無明覆如實理、障真見故。安立故者，謂由諸行植本識中，業熏習故。將導故者，謂有取識引諸有情至生處故。攝故者，謂名色攝有情自體故。圓滿故者，謂六內處令諸有情體具足故。三分別故者，謂觸能分別根境識三，順三受故。受用故者，謂由受支領納順違，非二境故。引起故者，謂由愛力令先業所引後有得起故。連縛故者，謂取令識緣順欲等連縛生故。現前故者，謂由有力令已作業所與後有諸異熟果得現前故。苦果故者，謂生老死性有逼迫，酬前因故。唯此所說十二有支，逼惱世間令不安隱。三雜染者，一煩惱雜染，謂無明愛取；二業雜染，謂行有；三生雜染，謂餘支。二雜染者，一因雜染、謂煩惱業；二果雜染、謂所餘支。七雜染者，謂七種因：一顛倒因，謂無明；二牽引因，謂行；三將導因，謂識；四攝受因，謂名色、六處；五受用因，謂觸、受；六引起因，謂愛、取、有；七厭怖因，謂生、老死。此諸雜染無不皆由虛妄分別而得生長。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. 'Obscuring-and-veiling' means that through ignorance the true principle is obscured and the true seeing veiled. 'Establishing' means that the formations are planted in the store-consciousness as the perfuming of karma. 'Leading-forward' means that the appropriating consciousness leads sentient beings to their place of birth. 'Subsuming' means that name-and-form subsumes the very body of a sentient being. 'Completing' means that the six inner sense-bases make a sentient being's body complete. 'Threefold-discrimination' means that contact can discriminate the three — faculty, object, and consciousness — conformably to the three feelings. 'Experiencing' means that through the link of feeling one takes in the agreeable, the disagreeable, and the neither-of-the-two as objects. 'Giving-rise' means that through the force of craving the future existence drawn forth by prior karma comes to arise. 'Binding-fast' means that appropriation makes consciousness, taking the agreeable, desire, and the rest as objects, arise bound fast. 'Manifesting' means that through the force of [the link] becoming, the matured fruits of the future existence that already-done karma yields come to manifest before one. 'The fruit of suffering' means that birth, old-age-and-death are by nature afflicting and oppressing, requiting the prior cause. These twelve links of becoming, just as stated, oppress and afflict the world and leave it ill at ease. As for the three defilements: first, the defilement of affliction — namely ignorance, craving, appropriation; second, the defilement of karma — namely the formations and becoming; third, the defilement of birth — namely the remaining links. As for the two defilements: first, the defilement of cause — namely affliction and karma; second, the defilement of fruit — namely the remaining links. As for the seven defilements — that is, seven kinds of cause: first, the cause that is error — namely ignorance; second, the drawing-forth cause — namely the formations; third, the leading-forward cause — namely consciousness; fourth, the appropriating cause — namely name-and-form and the six sense-bases; fifth, the experiencing cause — namely contact and feeling; sixth, the giving-rise cause — namely craving, appropriation, and becoming; seventh, the dread-and-fear cause — namely birth, old-age-and-death. None of these defilements is anything other than what is born and nurtured of false imagining."
Vasubandhu matches each gate to the twelve links of becoming, showing that dependent origination is itself the defilement characteristic of false imagining; he then subsumes one and the same dependent origination three times over by the 3-, 2-, and 7-fold defilements (affliction / karma / birth · cause / fruit · the seven causes). The closing line — "none of these defilements is anything other than what is born and nurtured of false imagining" — settles the thesis: all the defilement of the round of becoming is born of false imagining.
He then sums up the nine characteristics of false imagining:
此前總顯虛妄分別有九種相：一有相、二無相、三自相、四攝相、五入無相方便相、六差別相、七異門相、八生起相、九雜染相。如是已顯虛妄分別，今次當說所知空性。
Translation (mine): "All the foregoing has displayed in sum that false imagining has nine characteristics: first, the characteristic of existence; second, the characteristic of absence; third, its own characteristic; fourth, the subsuming characteristic; fifth, the characteristic that is the means of entering signlessness; sixth, the distinction characteristic; seventh, the alternative-designation characteristic; eighth, the arising characteristic; ninth, the defilement characteristic. Having thus displayed false imagining, next we shall speak of the emptiness of the knowable."
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0005b08–0006a29) matches each gate to its link and harmonizes the Yogācārabhūmi / Abhidharma-samuccaya / Cheng weishi lun:
- Obscuring-and-veiling = the ignorance link ("delusion obscures the object, ignorance veils the mind — the two screenings together establish the name 'obscuring-and-veiling'"); he faults the old commentary (Paramārtha) for "speaking only of veiling the seeing."
- Establishing = the formations link (the three [kinds of] formations perfume the eighth [consciousness], planting the habit-energy of karma); leading-forward = the consciousness link (the eighth, master of maturation, at the very first moment of birth leading the karmic fruit to the place of rebirth) — he faults the old commentary's "the root consciousness and the mind-consciousness" as wrong (the master is not the other seven, and the term is not confined to the mind-consciousness).
- Subsuming = name-and-form, completing = the six sense-bases, threefold-discrimination = contact (conformable to the three feelings), experiencing = feeling, giving-rise = craving (like water moistening), binding-fast = appropriation ("'the appropriating consciousness' is the consciousness with outflows"), manifesting = becoming, the fruit of suffering = birth, old-age-and-death ("glossing two links together").
- The three defilements "accord with the Yogācārabhūmi, diverge from the Abhidharma-samuccaya, as the Cheng weishi lun harmonizes"; the two defilements are argued by cause/fruit, i.e. maturation; the seven defilements "gather the twelve links into seven."
- The nine-characteristic structure: "the foregoing eleven verses have explained the nine gate-characteristics one by one as the occasion required; now they are summed up as nine characteristics"; and he distinguishes — "in what follows on emptiness, Maitreya himself sets the opening gate as the overall verse, and Vasubandhu afterward sums it up" — the division of Maitreya's verse and Vasubandhu's summary.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0452a08 真012 / p0452a10 真013 (c. 557–569) | 「覆藏及安立，將導與攝持，圓滿三分成，領觸并牽引。／執著及現前，苦故惱世間，三種二種難，亦七由虛妄。」Paramārtha's "覆藏 (obscuring) / 攝持 (subsuming) / 三分 (threefold = contact) / 領 (experiencing = feeling) / 牽引 (giving-rise = craving) / 執著 (binding-fast = appropriation)" answer to Xuanzang's "覆障 / 攝 / 三分別 / 受用 / 引起 / 連縛" — the gate-names differ slightly, the link-sense is the same; "三種二種難，亦七 (the three kinds, the two kinds, and the seven)" answers to Xuanzang's "the 3-, 2-, and 7-fold defilements." Alignment: 玄[011][012] ↔ 真[012][013]. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0477c27–c29 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465b01) | 「覆障及安立、將導、攝、圓滿、三分別、受用、引起并連縛、現前、苦果故，唯此惱世間，三、二、七雜染，由虛妄分別。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the conditioned-factors-dissociated-from-mind designations "the round of becoming / dependent origination," etc. | v.19 "from the habit-energy of karma, together with the habit-energy of the two-grasping" (the round of dependent origination) | — | this section (the twelve links of becoming = the defilement characteristic of false imagining) |
Key Terms (IAST)
the twelve links (of dependent origination) — dvādaśāṅga / pratītya-samutpāda (十二有支／緣起) — the twelve links of becoming
The mechanical chain of dependent origination is here read as the defilement characteristic of false imagining: ignorance (= obscuring-and-veiling) … through to birth and old-age-and-death (= the fruit of suffering). The mapping is Vasubandhu's, gate by gate; Kuiji confirms it link by link.
saṃkleśa — saṃkleśa (雜染) — defilement
The round of becoming on the defiled side. Vasubandhu subsumes the twelve links three times — as three defilements (affliction / karma / birth), as two (cause / fruit), and as seven (the seven causes) — all of one false imagining. "None of these defilements is anything other than what is born and nurtured of false imagining."
the defilement characteristic zá-rǎn xiàng — the ninth and last of false imagining's nine characteristics
Here “nine” belongs to the nine characteristics of false imagining, of which defilement is the ninth; it does not mean nine gates of defilement. The eleven explanatory verses are summed up here as the nine characteristics; with this last one complete, the chapter turns to the emptiness of the knowable ([013] onward).
sibling cross-references:
- Triṃśikā v.19 (the round of dependent origination, "the habit-energy of karma / the habit-energy of the two-grasping") · Mahāyāna-śatadharmā (Baifa) conditioned-factors-dissociated-from-mind (the designations "the round of becoming," "dependent origination," etc.) · [009]–[010] (distinction / alternative designations / arising, on which this section follows) · [013] onward (the emptiness of the knowable, to which this section leads).
Verse [013]–[014] · The Outline & the Mark of Emptiness — the two emptinesses in brief, by five gates · neither existent nor non-existent · neither different nor identical
Source anchor (combined) · 〔Verse [013]〕 T1601 [p0478a02] verse · T1600 [p0465b28 verse / p0465c01 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0452b07 真014] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0006b17–b26 述曰] Kuiji 述記 · 〔Verse [014]〕 T1601 [p0478a04] verse · T1600 [p0465c03 verse / p0465c05 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0452b10 真015] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0006b27–0007a07 述曰] Kuiji 述記
諸相及異門，義差別成立， 應知二空性，略說唯由此。 無二有無故，非有亦非無， 非異亦非一，是說為空相。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
〔Verse [013]〕
With the nine characteristics of false imagining now complete ([002]–[012]), the treatise turns from here to the emptiness of the knowable — the principle of suchness revealed once both the grasped and the grasper are empty. This verse states its outline: the brief account of the two emptinesses is opened by just five gates — mark, synonym, sense, difference, establishment (相, 異門, 義, 差別, 成立). Kuiji's 科判 of what follows runs: the mark of emptiness ([014]), the synonyms of emptiness ([015]), the sense of the synonyms ([016]), the differences of emptiness ([017] onward, five verses), the establishment of emptiness (the final two verses). The crux: emptiness is not annihilation-nothing but the suchness revealed by the emptiness of the two-grasping — "the emptiness of the two-grasping is itself taken as the gate, and the nature it reveals is the principle of suchness" (Kuiji). With the turn from defilement (false imagining) to purity (emptiness), the middle's second wheel is set turning.
〔Verse [014]〕
The mark of emptiness is set in "neither existent nor non-existent · neither different nor identical." "Non-dual" (無二) means: the two — grasped and grasper — are absent (the negative side, denying being); "the existence-of-absence" (有無) means: there is the absence of the two-grasping (the positive side, revealing being) — i.e. it takes "the absence of the two-grasping" as the substance of emptiness ("non-being-as-nature is its nature"). So the mark of emptiness is not existent (because the "twofold being" of the grasped-and-grasper duality is absent) and not non-existent (because the principle of the twofold no-self is present): in the conventional truth it is neither the fixed existence of the other-dependent nor the perpetual non-existence of the wholly-imagined. Again, this emptiness (suchness) and false imagining are neither different nor identical: not different — suchness is the nature of dharmas (if different, the nature-of-dharmas would be other than the dharma, against principle; as with suffering, impermanence, emptiness, and no-self, which are not different from the dharma); not identical — were they identical, suchness would not be the object of the uncontaminated non-discriminating cognition (i.e. it would be the very five aggregates). The middle's emptiness leaves behind both extremes of being-and-non-being and both fixations of identity-and-difference — this is the "mark of emptiness."
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
〔Verse [013]〕
論曰：應知所取能取空性，略說但由此相等五。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. The emptiness of the grasped and the grasper, it should be known, is in brief [opened] only by these five — mark and the rest."
Vasubandhu states the outline in one sentence: the emptiness of the knowable (the emptiness of grasped-and-grasper) is, in brief, opened only by "the five — mark and the rest." The text below then unfolds each of these five gates in turn (mark, synonym, sense, difference, establishment); this verse is the contents-heading for the whole section on the two emptinesses.
〔Verse [014]〕
論曰：無二，謂無所取能取。有無，謂有二取之無。此即顯空無性為性，故此空相非有非無。云何非有？無二有故。云何非無？有二無故。此顯空相非有非無。此空與彼虛妄分別非異非一，若異應成法性異法，便違正理，如苦等性；若一則應非淨智境亦非共相。此即顯空與妄分別離一異相。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. 'Non-dual' means: the grasped and the grasper are absent. 'The existence-of-absence' means: there is the absence of the two-grasping. This reveals that emptiness has non-being-as-nature for its nature; therefore this mark of emptiness is neither existent nor non-existent. How is it not existent? Because the twofold being [of the duality] is absent. How is it not non-existent? Because the twofold absence is present. This reveals that the mark of emptiness is neither existent nor non-existent. This emptiness and that false imagining are neither different nor identical: if different, the nature-of-dharmas would come to be other than the dharma, which would contravene right principle — as with the natures of suffering and the rest; if identical, then it would not be the object of the pure cognition, nor a common characteristic. This reveals that emptiness and false imagining are free of the mark of identity-and-difference."
Vasubandhu establishes the mark of emptiness on two registers: first, by "non-dual (the grasped and grasper absent) + the existence-of-absence (the absence of the two-grasping)," he shows that emptiness "has non-being-as-nature for its nature," and so it is neither existent nor non-existent — not existent because the "twofold being" of the two-grasping is absent, not non-existent because the principle of the two-grasping's absence is present. Second, by "neither different nor identical," he shows emptiness's relation to false imagining: if different, the nature-of-dharmas would be other than the dharma (against principle); if identical, suchness would not be the object of the pure cognition. The mark of emptiness leaves behind both being-and-non-being and identity-and-difference.
Commentarial Forks
〔Verse [013]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0006b17–b26):
- Glossing the outline: "the emptiness of the two-grasping is itself taken as the gate, and the nature it reveals is the principle of suchness; the brief distinguishing is opened only by these five senses here — mark and the rest" — i.e. the emptiness of the two-grasping is the gate, suchness the revealed.
- 科判 of the two-emptinesses section: "the first verse ([014]) distinguishes the mark of emptiness; the next verse ([015]) the synonyms of emptiness; the next ([016]) the sense of the synonyms; the next five verses ([017]+) the differences of emptiness; the last two verses the establishment of emptiness."
〔Verse [014]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0006b27–0007a07):
- Judging the verse: "the upper three lines clarify the several marks of emptiness, the lower one line summarizes the mark of emptiness"; "'non-dual' removes [the duality] as wholly-imagined — this is the negation, denying being; 'the existence-of-absence' — there is the two-emptiness nature — this reveals being."
- Dharmapāla ↔ Sthiramati division (p0006c04): "if one follows Sthiramati's reading, the two-grasping and the two aspects [image, seeing] are all the wholly-imagined; if one follows Dharmapāla's reading, the two-grasping arises in dependence on the two aspects (image and seeing), and because of the two [graspings being] wholly-imagined it is called 'absent.'" Kuiji follows Dharmapāla ("whatever follows below that accords with this is to be construed by this reading").
- On "neither existent nor non-existent": "the twofold absence is the principle of the twofold no-self; because there is this twofold principle, it is said 'not non-existent'; in the conventional truth, it is unlike the other-dependent's fixed existence and unlike the wholly-imagined's perpetual non-existence."
- The two inferences on "neither different nor identical": not different — "suchness is the nature of those dharmas, hence called not-different, with suffering, impermanence, emptiness, no-self and the rest as the example (the Hīnayāna's saying that [these] are not different from the dharma)"; not identical — "if identical, suchness would not be the object of the uncontaminated non-discriminating cognition, for it would be the very five aggregates."
Sthiramati, Madhyāntavibhāga-ṭīkā: no transmitted (Chinese) witness; the Skt ṭīkā survives only in modern editions and is not cited. The Sthiramati view above is as reported by Kuiji; his full ṭīkā awaits a transmitted witness and is not paraphrased here from memory.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
〔Verse [013]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0452b07 真014 (c. 557–569) | 「體相及眾名，其義與分別，成立理應知，略解空如是。」Paramārtha's "essence-mark / many-names / sense / discriminating / establishment" answer to Xuanzang's "mark / synonym / sense / difference / establishment" (眾名 = synonym, 分別 = difference); Kuiji holds "many-names" (眾名) wrong, that it should read "synonym" (異門) (detailed at [015]). Corresponds: Xuanzang [013] ↔ Paramārtha [014]. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a02 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465b28) | 「諸相及異門，義差別成立，應知二空性，略說唯由此。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
〔Verse [014]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0452b10 真015 (c. 557–569) | 「無二、有此無，是二名空相，故非有非無，不異亦不一。」The first three lines agree in sense with Xuanzang (無二 / 有此無 = the absence of the two-grasping / neither existent nor non-existent); the last 不異亦不一 answers to Xuanzang's 非異亦非一. Corresponds: Xuanzang [014] ↔ Paramārtha [015]. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a04 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465c03) | 「無二有無故，非有亦非無，非異亦非一，是說為空相。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya + Kuiji's 述記. |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
〔Verse [013]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the unconditioned dharmas (suchness = what the two emptinesses reveal) | v.23 (the three natures establish the three non-natures · the perfectly-accomplished = the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses) | — | this verse (the two emptinesses in brief · five gates) |
Key Terms (IAST)
the two emptinesses èr-kōng-xìng — the emptiness of grasped and grasper (所取能取空)
The principle of suchness revealed once both grasped and grasper are empty. Kuiji: "the emptiness of the two-grasping is itself the gate, and the nature it reveals is the principle of suchness" — emptiness is not annihilation-nothing but the revealed suchness. (sibling: xinjing 空 · sanshisong#23)
the five gates xiāng děng wǔ — lakṣaṇa and the rest
The five by which the two emptinesses are opened: mark (相; lakṣaṇa), synonym (異門), sense (義), difference (差別), establishment (成立). The contents-heading for the whole section [014]–[023].
〔Verse [014]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the unconditioned · suchness (the nature revealed by emptiness) | v.25 (the perfectly-accomplished · the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses) | — | this verse (the mark of emptiness · neither existent nor non-existent · neither different nor identical) |
Read also against xinjing: the Prajñā "form is not other than emptiness, emptiness is not other than form" — its "not other" finds here its consciousness-only precision: emptiness (suchness) and false imagining are neither different nor identical.
Key Terms (IAST)
the mark of emptiness kōng-xiàng — śūnyatā-lakṣaṇa
Set in "neither existent nor non-existent · neither different nor identical." Vasubandhu: emptiness "has non-being-as-nature for its nature" — its substance is the absence of the two-grasping, not an annihilation-nothing.
neither existent nor non-existent fēi-yǒu fēi-wú
Not existent because the "twofold being" of the grasped-and-grasper duality is absent; not non-existent because the principle of the twofold no-self is present. Kuiji: in the conventional truth, unlike the other-dependent's fixed existence and unlike the wholly-imagined's perpetual non-existence.
neither different nor identical fēi-yì fēi-yī
Emptiness (suchness) and false imagining: not different — suchness is the nature of dharmas (if different, the nature would be other than the dharma, against principle); not identical — were they identical, suchness would not be the object of the pure non-discriminating cognition (it would be the very five aggregates). (sibling: xinjing 不異)
sibling cross-references:
- sanshisong v.23 (the three natures establish the three non-natures, the perfectly-accomplished = the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses) · xinjing 空 (the precise sense of the Prajñā's two emptinesses) · [012] (the nine characteristics of false imagining now complete, which this verse follows) · [014] (the mark of emptiness, which this verse leads to).
- xinjing 空 (the precise sense of the Prajñā's "not other"; emptiness and false imagining are neither different nor identical) · sanshisong v.25 (the perfectly-accomplished · the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses) · [013] (the two emptinesses in brief, which this verse follows) · [015][016] (the synonyms of emptiness and their sense, which this verse leads to).
Verse [015]–[016] · The Synonyms of Emptiness & their Senses — suchness · the real limit · the signless · the ultimate · the dharma-realm
Source anchor · T1601 [p0478a06 / p0478a08] verse · T1600 [p0465c13 / p0465c17 verse · p0465c15 / p0465c19 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0452b24 真016 / p0452b27 真017] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0007a08–b19 述曰] Kuiji 述記
略說空異門，謂真如、實際、 無相、勝義性、法界等應知。 由無變無倒，相滅聖智境， 及諸聖法因，異門義如次。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
These two verses ([015] lists the names, [016] glosses their sense) state the synonyms of emptiness — the five alternative names for emptiness (suchness) and what each name is grounded on. The synonyms are not five things; one emptiness, by reference to five senses, is given five names:
| Synonym (alternative name of emptiness) | Ground (sense) | Gloss |
|---|---|---|
| suchness (真如 tathatā) | changeless (無變) | "true" = not false; "such" = constant (without alteration) |
| the real limit (實際 bhūta-koṭi) | unmistaken (無倒) | not the objective base on which the inversions rest |
| the signless (無相 animitta) | marks ceased (相滅) | the eternal absence of every mark (free of the ten marks) |
| the ultimate (勝義性 paramārtha) | object of noble wisdom (聖智境) | what the most excellent wisdom ranges over (the ultimate-as-meaning) |
| the dharma-realm (法界 dharma-dhātu) | cause of the noble dharmas (聖法因) | all the noble dharmas arise in dependence on this (realm = the sense of cause) |
Two points of substance. First, "synonym" is not "many names": Kuiji shows that the Sanskrit "merely says synonym" — suchness's substance cannot be spoken; it is discussed under a provisional name, and so the term "synonym" is the precise one (correcting Paramārtha's old rendering "many names"). Second, the five names all denote one emptiness: suchness, the real limit, the signless, the ultimate, the dharma-realm are all the suchness revealed by this emptiness of the two-grasping, named according to sense — different in name, one in substance — of one line with the twelve names of suchness in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras and the seven names in the Abhidharma-samuccaya (suchness has sixteen names in all; this lists five of them).
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
論曰（[015]）：略說空性，有此異門。
論曰（[016]）：即此中說所知空性，由無變義說為真如。真性常如，無轉易故。由無倒義說為實際，非諸顛倒，依緣事故。由相滅義說為無相，此中永絕一切相故。由聖智境義說為勝義性，是最勝智所行義故。由聖法因義說為法界，以一切聖法緣此生故。此中界者，即是因義。無我等義如理應知。
Translation (mine): "Commentary ([015]). In brief, emptiness has these synonyms.
Commentary ([016]). The knowable emptiness here spoken of: by the sense of changeless it is called suchness, for its true nature is constantly so, without alteration. By the sense of unmistaken it is called the real limit, for it is not the objective base on which the inversions rest. By the sense of marks ceased it is called the signless, for herein every mark is eternally absent. By the sense of object of noble wisdom it is called the ultimate, for it is what the most excellent wisdom ranges over. By the sense of cause of the noble dharmas it is called the dharma-realm, for all the noble dharmas arise in dependence on this; and here 'realm' is precisely the sense of cause. The sense of selflessness and the rest should be understood according to principle."
Vasubandhu's [015] states in one sentence "emptiness has these synonyms"; [016] glosses, name by name, the ground of each naming: by changelessness named suchness (true, constant, without alteration); by unmistakenness named the real limit (not the base on which the inversions rest); by marks ceased named the signless (absent of every mark); by object of noble wisdom named the ultimate (what the most excellent wisdom ranges over); by cause of the noble dharmas named the dharma-realm (the noble dharmas arise in dependence on this — realm being the sense of cause). The closing "the sense of selflessness and the rest should be understood according to principle" answers to the verse's word "etc." (yet other names remain, not listed in full).
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0007a08–b19):
- synonym ↔ many names: "the old treatise says 'many names'; now the Sanskrit text is shown to say merely 'synonym'" — suchness's substance cannot be spoken; it is discussed under a provisional name, so the proper word is "synonym" (a critique of Paramārtha's old rendering "many names").
- dharma-realm-etc. ↔ dharma-body: "the old [treatise] says 'dharma-body etc.,' but the root has no word 'dharma-body' — the translator added the word" — Paramārtha added the two graphs "dharma-body," absent from the Sanskrit.
- the source of the five names: "the Abhidharma-samuccaya, fascicle two, has seven names; here there are five; the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras state twelve names … suchness has sixteen names in all"; the verse's "etc." takes in the remaining eleven names.
- the three senses of "ultimate": "the ultimate has three: (1) the ultimate-as-meaning, i.e. suchness (tatpuruṣa, the genitive analysis) — this is what is meant here; (2) the ultimate-as-attainment, i.e. nirvāṇa (karmadhāraya); (3) the ultimate-as-practice, i.e. the supreme path (bahuvrīhi)." Here "the ultimate" takes the ultimate-as-meaning (suchness).
- the ten marks of the signless: free of the marks of form, sound, smell, taste, touch, arising, alteration, ceasing, woman, [man], and the like — hence called the signless (per the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra).
Old-vs-new axis: Paramārtha writes "many names" and "dharma-body"; Xuanzang writes "synonym" and has no "dharma-body." Kuiji judges Paramārtha's as "an added word," "incorrect." Honesty-layer note: this is a Cien-school collation remark; this edition keeps Paramārtha in the 〈Translation Choices〉 comparison, does not delete on its basis, and does not judge it wholly an error.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0452b24 真016 / p0452b27 真017 (c. 557–569) | 「如如及實際，無相與真實，法界法身等，略說空眾名。／非變異不到，相滅聖境界，聖法因及依，是眾名義次。」Paramārtha's "thusness / the real / dharma-realm-and-dharma-body" answer to Xuanzang's "suchness / the ultimate / dharma-realm" (with an added "dharma-body," and no explicit "ultimate"); "many names" answers to "synonym." Kuiji judges "many names" and "dharma-body" to be words the translator added (see Commentarial Forks). Alignment: Xz [015][016] ↔ Pa [016][017]. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a06–a08 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465c13) | 「略說空異門，謂真如、實際、無相、勝義性、法界等應知。由無變無倒，相滅聖智境，及諸聖法因，異門義如次。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the unconditioned · suchness (among the six unconditioneds, suchness is what this section's synonyms of emptiness denote) | v.25 (the perfectly-accomplished · suchness) | — | this section (the five synonyms of emptiness · all denoting suchness) |
Read also against xinjing: the Prajñā names of suchness (suchness · the dharma-realm · the real limit …) all denote one emptiness, and here receive the consciousness-only precision of "synonym" (named according to sense — different in name, one in substance).
Key Terms (IAST)
suchness — tathatā (真如) — suchness
By the sense of changeless: "true" = not false, "such" = constant (without alteration). The first and chief of the five synonyms; the emptiness of the two-grasping revealed as suchness. (sibling: sanshisong v.25 ✅ · baifa unconditioned · suchness)
the real limit — bhūta-koṭi (實際) — the real limit
By the sense of unmistaken: not the objective base on which the inversions rest.
the signless — animitta (無相) — the signless
By the sense of marks ceased: the eternal absence of every mark. Kuiji lists the ten marks it is free of (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, arising, alteration, ceasing, woman, [man]), per the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra.
the ultimate — paramārtha (勝義性) — the ultimate
By the sense of object of noble wisdom: what the most excellent wisdom ranges over. Kuiji distinguishes three senses of "ultimate" — the ultimate-as-meaning (suchness), the ultimate-as-attainment (nirvāṇa), the ultimate-as-practice (the supreme path); here the ultimate-as-meaning (suchness) is intended.
the dharma-realm — dharma-dhātu (法界) — the dharma-realm
By the sense of cause of the noble dharmas: all the noble dharmas arise in dependence on this — "realm" being precisely the sense of cause.
sibling cross-references:
- xinjing 真如 / 空 (the Prajñā names of suchness all denote one emptiness; this section's "synonym" is their precise reading) · sanshisong v.25 (the perfectly-accomplished · suchness) · [014] (the character of emptiness, which this section continues) · [017] onward (the defiled-and-pure distinction of emptiness, which this section leads to).
Verse [017] · The Defiled-and-Pure Difference of Emptiness — with-stain / without-stain · the water, gold, and space analogy
Source anchor · T1601 [p0478a10] verse · T1600 [p0465c26 verse / p0465c28 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0452c07 真018] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0007b22–0007c20 述曰] Kuiji 述記
此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢， 如水界金空，淨故許為淨。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
The first of emptiness's differences: emptiness has the twofold difference of defilement and purity, set by stage — in the with-stain stage it is called defiled, when freed of stain it is called pure. Yet this is no impermanence of transformation, "first defiled and afterward pure": with the three things water, gold, and space as analogy, the stains (the dust, the cloud) are all adventitious (āgantuka), not defilements that nature has produced; and the removal of stain is likewise not a purity that nature has produced. Emptiness's own-nature is intrinsically pure; defilement and purity are posited only with respect to the presence or absence of the adventitious by stage — nature does not transform. This is the herald of "mind's nature is intrinsically pure, defiled by adventitious dust" (carried down to [023]).
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
論曰：空性差別略有二種，一雜染、二清淨。此成染淨由分位別，謂有垢位說為雜染，出離垢時說為清淨。雖先雜染、後成清淨，而非轉變成無常失。如水界等出離客塵，空淨亦然，非性轉變。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. The differences of emptiness are roughly twofold: first, defilement; second, purity. Its becoming defiled or pure is by difference of stage — that is, in the with-stain stage it is called defiled, and when freed of stain it is called pure. Although first defiled and afterward becoming pure, this is not a transforming that becomes the fault of impermanence. As the water-element and the like, when freed of the adventitious dust [are not changed in nature], so too the purity of emptiness — it is not a transformation of nature."
Vasubandhu sets emptiness's defiled-and-pure difference upon stage (with-stain / without-stain), not upon a transformation of the substance — hence there is no fault of "first defiled then pure amounting to impermanence." The analogy of water, gold, and space freed of the adventitious dust makes clear that emptiness's own-nature is ever pure; defilement and purity are the adventitious by stage, not a turning of the nature.
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0007b22–0007c20):
- Division: the differences of emptiness comprise five verses in all — "the first verse, the defiled-and-pure difference (the present verse); the next four verses, the difference of the knowable ([018]–[021])."
- The three analogies are like-instances of the adventitious: "as the water-element has dust, as gold has stain, as the great vault of space has cloud — all are adventitious, not defilements that nature has produced; afterward, the dust once removed, [it is] not a purity that nature has produced."
- Three formal inferences (with broader and narrower scope): emptiness can become the defiled-and-pure difference (because it has stain, like the water-element and gold) · emptiness's nature is not [really] defiled (because the adventitious is only temporarily present) · emptiness is not impermanent (because its nature is pure, like space).
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0452c07–c14 真018 (c. 557–569) | 「亦染亦清淨，如是空分別。〔…〕有垢亦無垢。〔…〕水界金空靜，法界淨如是。」Paramārtha's 「亦染亦清淨」 answers to Xuanzang's 「此雜染、清淨」; 「水界金空靜」 to 「如水界金空」; the closing 「法界淨如是」 makes plain that what the analogy points to is the purity of the dharma-realm (emptiness). Correspondence Xuanzang [017] ↔ Paramārtha [018]. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a10 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0465c26) | 「此雜染、清淨，由有垢、無垢，如水界金空，淨故許為淨。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| unconditioned · suchness (own-nature pure · defiled by the adventitious) | v.22 (the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent: neither identical nor wholly different) | — | this verse (the defiled-and-pure difference of emptiness · the water, gold, and space analogy) |
Read also against the Heart Sūtra: the sense of "own-nature pure, defiled by the adventitious" answers to the Prajñā "neither defiled nor pure."
Key Terms (IAST)
adventitious — āgantuka (客塵) — adventitious (dust / defilement)
The dust, the stain, the cloud — all are guest-comers (āgantuka), not defilements native to the nature. Defilement and purity are posited only with respect to the presence or absence of this adventitious dust by stage; the nature itself does not transform.
emptiness — śūnyatā (空性) — emptiness
The own-nature here said to be intrinsically pure: water, gold, and space, freed of the adventitious dust, are unchanged in nature; so too emptiness's purity is no transformation of nature but its abiding own-nature.
sibling cross-references:
- Heart Sūtra 「不垢不淨」 ("neither defiled nor pure" — answering to "own-nature pure, defiled by the adventitious") · [023] (mind's nature is intrinsically pure, defiled by the adventitious — what this verse leads to) · [016] (the synonyms of emptiness, which this verse follows).
Verse [018]–[021] · The Knowable Differentiation of Emptiness — the sixteen emptinesses · the last two (Kuiji’s “next four verses, the differences of the knowable”)
Source anchor (combined) · 〔Verse [018]–[020]〕 T1601 [p0478a12 / a14 / a16] verse · T1600 [p0466a07 verse / p0466a13 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0452c21 真019] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0007c21–0008c04 述曰] Kuiji 述記 · 〔Verse [021]〕 T1601 [p0478a18] verse · T1600 [p0466b03 verse / p0466b05 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0453a14 真020] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0009a16–0009b14 述曰] Kuiji 述記
能食及所食，此依身所住， 能見如此理，所求二淨空。 為常益有情，為不捨生死， 為善無窮盡，故觀此為空。 為種性清淨，為得諸相好， 為淨諸佛法，故菩薩觀空。 補特伽羅法，實性俱非有， 此無性、有性，故別立二空。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
〔Verse [018]–[020]〕
Emptiness's difference of the knowable: the sixteen emptinesses are set with respect to what is to be countered. These three verses make plain its first fourteen (the last two, "the emptiness of non-existence · the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence," see [021]). Of the fourteen emptinesses, the first eight are named with respect to the cognized objects of "the eater … the twofold purity," while the latter six are precisely the ten meanings of contemplating emptiness — the reason why the bodhisattva contemplates emptiness (to benefit sentient beings, to not forsake birth-and-death … to purify the dharmas of a buddha). The fourteen emptinesses at a glance (following Vasubandhu's commentary):
| Emptiness | Basis (verse) | Ground of the naming |
|---|---|---|
| the inner emptiness | the eater | based on the inner sense-spheres (the experiencer) |
| the outer emptiness | the eaten | based on the outer sense-spheres (what is experienced) |
| the inner-and-outer emptiness | this basis · the body | the body that is the support of eater and eaten |
| the great emptiness | what is dwelt-in | the receptacle-worlds (broad and wide in character) |
| the emptiness of emptiness | seeing this | the cognition that sees emptiness is itself empty |
| the ultimate emptiness | as the principle | the true principle observed by the practice of the real (the ultimate) |
| the conditioned emptiness · the unconditioned emptiness | the sought twofold purity | the bodhisattva, to gain the twofold purity (the conditioned · the unconditioned wholesome dharmas) |
| the absolute emptiness | for the constant benefit of sentient beings | contemplating emptiness so as to do constant good to sentient beings |
| the limitless emptiness | for not forsaking birth-and-death | birth-and-death has no first or last limit; not wearying of it and contemplating emptiness |
| the unscattered emptiness | for the inexhaustibility of the good | the good one cultivates is not scattered or cast off even at the nirvāṇa-without-remainder |
| the emptiness of intrinsic nature | for the purity of the [noble] lineage | the noble lineage is intrinsically present; contemplating emptiness so as to purify it swiftly |
| the emptiness of characteristics | for gaining the marks and signs | contemplating emptiness so as to gain the marks and signs of a great being |
| the emptiness of all dharmas | for purifying the dharmas of a buddha | contemplating emptiness so as to purify all the buddha-dharmas, the powers and fearlessnesses and the rest |
The essential meaning: emptiness is no uniform negation, but is contemplated by the bodhisattva differentially with respect to its object and with respect to its purpose — the "ten meanings of contemplating emptiness" make plain that the use of contemplating emptiness lies in the practice-fruit of the Mahāyāna (benefiting others, not forsaking birth-and-death, perfecting the buddha-dharmas), not a nihilist emptiness that hurries to quiescence.
〔Verse [021]〕
The last two of the sixteen emptinesses. The first three verses ([018]–[020]) set the first fourteen emptinesses with respect to the cognized object of "the eater … the twofold purity" and with respect to the bodhisattva's purpose in contemplating emptiness; the present verse, with respect to the own-nature of emptiness, sets the last two apart, completing the sixteen. Each of the last two counters one grasping:
- the emptiness of non-existence — the person (pudgala) and dharmas, their real natures both non-existent (the real self and real dharmas grasped by the two graspings at person and dharmas are, in substance, originally non-existent); hence it is named the emptiness of non-existence, countering reification (superimposition).
- the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence — this "non-existence" does not mean a sheer nothing: though the real natures of person and dharmas are non-existent, their emptiness (the suchness made manifest) is not without its own substance — "emptiness has non-existence for its own-nature" — hence it is named the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence, countering denial (depreciation).
The essential meaning: the first fourteen emptinesses open broadly with respect to the gate of expression (set differentially according to what is countered and what is purposed); the last two emptinesses gather up with respect to the own-nature of emptiness — every characteristic of emptiness is no more than the two sides of "not grasping the reification of person and dharmas" and "not dismissing the denial of emptiness." The emptiness of non-existence counters "grasping as existent"; the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence counters "dismissing emptiness"; one counter, one preserve, and the middle is established. This is the Madhyāntavibhāga's root sense "neither empty nor non-empty" ([003]) realized within the gate of emptiness.
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
〔Verse [018]–[020]〕
論曰：能食空者，依內處說，即是內空。所食空者，依外處說，即是外空。此依身者，謂能所食所依止身，此身空故，名內外空。諸器世間說為所住，此相寬廣故名為大，所住空故名為大空。能見此者，謂智能見內處等空。空智空故，說名空空。如理者，謂勝義，即如實行。所觀真理，此即空故，名勝義空。菩薩修行為得二淨，即諸有為、無為善法。此二空故，名有為空及無為空。為於有情常作饒益，而觀空故，名畢竟空。生死長遠無初後際，觀此空故，名無際空。不觀為空便速厭捨，為不厭捨此生死故，觀此無際生死為空。為所修善至無餘依般涅槃位，亦無散捨而觀空故，名無散空。諸聖種姓自體本有，非習所成，說名本性。菩薩為此速得清淨而觀空故，名本性空。菩薩為得大士相好而觀空故，名為相空。菩薩為令力無畏等一切佛法皆得清淨而觀此空，故名一切法空。是十四空，隨別安立。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. The emptiness of the eater is stated with respect to the inner sense-spheres — this is the inner emptiness. The emptiness of the eaten is stated with respect to the outer sense-spheres — this is the outer emptiness. This basis · the body means the body that is the support of the eater and the eaten; because this body is empty, it is named the inner-and-outer emptiness. The receptacle-worlds are said to be what is dwelt-in; because this characteristic is broad and wide it is called 'great,' and because what is dwelt-in is empty it is named the great emptiness. Seeing this means the cognition that can see the emptiness of the inner sense-spheres and the rest; because the emptiness-cognition is empty, it is named the emptiness of emptiness. As the principle means the ultimate, that is, the practice of the real. The true principle observed — because this too is empty, it is named the ultimate emptiness. The bodhisattva practices so as to gain the twofold purity, namely the conditioned and unconditioned wholesome dharmas; because these two are empty, they are named the conditioned emptiness and the unconditioned emptiness. Contemplating emptiness so as to do constant good to sentient beings — it is named the absolute emptiness. Birth-and-death being far-stretching, without first or last limit, contemplating its emptiness — it is named the limitless emptiness. Not contemplating it as empty, one would quickly weary and forsake it; so as not to weary of and forsake this birth-and-death, one contemplates this limitless birth-and-death as empty. So that the good one cultivates, up to the stage of nirvāṇa-without-remainder, is likewise not scattered or cast off, one contemplates emptiness — it is named the unscattered emptiness. The natures of the noble lineages are intrinsically present in their own substance, not produced by cultivation — it is called intrinsic nature. The bodhisattva, so as to gain its purity swiftly, contemplates emptiness — it is named the emptiness of intrinsic nature. The bodhisattva, so as to gain the marks and signs of a great being, contemplates emptiness — it is named the emptiness of characteristics. The bodhisattva, so as to make all the buddha-dharmas — the powers, the fearlessnesses, and the rest — wholly pure, contemplates this emptiness; hence it is named the emptiness of all dharmas. These fourteen emptinesses are established each according to its difference."
Vasubandhu glosses the fourteen emptinesses one by one: the first eight (inner, outer, inner-and-outer, great, emptiness-of-emptiness, ultimate, conditioned, unconditioned) are set with respect to the cognized objects from "the eater" to "the twofold purity," while the latter six (absolute, limitless, unscattered, intrinsic-nature, characteristics, all-dharmas) are set with respect to the bodhisattva's purpose in contemplating emptiness — hence "established each according to its difference."
〔Verse [021]〕
論曰：補特伽羅及法實性俱非有故，名無性空。此無性空非無自性，空以無性為自性故，名無性自性空。於前所說能食空等，為顯空相別立二空；此為遮止補特伽羅法增益執、空損減執，如其次第立後二空。如是已顯空性差別。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. Because the real natures of both the person and dharmas are non-existent, it is named the emptiness of non-existence. This emptiness of non-existence is not without own-nature — because emptiness has non-existence for its own-nature, it is named the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence. With respect to the emptiness of the eater and the rest spoken of above, in order to make plain the character of emptiness, the two emptinesses are set apart; these, in order to forestall the reifying grasp at the person and dharmas and the denying grasp at emptiness, establish the last two emptinesses in their respective order. Thus the differences of emptiness have been made plain."
Vasubandhu sets up two senses together: the real natures of person and dharmas being both non-existent → the emptiness of non-existence; yet this emptiness of non-existence is "not without own-nature," but is precisely non-existence taken as its own-nature → the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence. The intent of setting the last two apart is to show that, beyond the fourteen of "the emptiness of the eater and the rest," these two are drawn out expressly to counter the two graspings — the reifying grasp (grasping person and dharmas as really existent) is met by the emptiness of non-existence, the denying grasp (dismissing the nature of emptiness as a nihilistic nothing) is met by the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence, "in their respective order." With this the three senses of "the differences of emptiness" (defiled-and-pure · the knowable · the last two) are complete.
Commentarial Forks
〔Verse [018]–[020]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0007c21–0008c04):
- Kinds of compound: the five — inner, outer, inner-and-outer, great, emptiness-of-emptiness — are tatpuruṣa ("the emptiness of the inner body … the emptiness of [the cognition of] emptiness"); the ultimate emptiness is karmadhāraya (the principle-of-the-real is itself emptiness); the conditioned emptiness and unconditioned emptiness are tatpuruṣa of the agent-genitive ("the emptiness of the conditioned and the rest").
- The four verses divide into two parts: "the first three verses ([018]–[020]) make plain the fourteen emptinesses; the last one verse ([021]) makes plain the two emptinesses — the former is set as fourteen with respect to the means of expression, the latter is set as two with respect to the nature of emptiness."
- Collation of the emptiness-counts across the sūtras: the Xianyang gives fifteen / sixteen emptinesses; the Prajñā gives twenty emptinesses in the first assembly, eighteen in the second, sixteen in the third; the Yogācārabhūmi (fascicle 77) gives seventeen emptinesses — the names join and divide differently, but the meaning does not increase. The present treatise takes the sixteen emptinesses.
〔Verse [021]〕
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0009a16–0009b14):
- Verse-parsing: the upper three lines bring out the two emptinesses, the lower one line concludes them; the first two lines explain the emptiness of non-existence, the next one line explains the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence.
- The emptiness of non-existence: "it does not negate the conventionally existent, but states only the absence of the real" — it does not dismiss the conventionally-named person and dharmas, only counters their real nature; "the emptiness of non-existence is precisely the nature of dharmas, the non-existent being emptiness" — it is an emptiness made manifest through the gate of what is absent.
- The emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence: "the emptiness made manifest by the two non-existences is precisely the principle of suchness, not without its own substance"; "taking the two-fold non-nature for its own substance, hence it is established as having substance" — emptiness is not a nihilistic nothing but has of itself its substance (suchness).
- The intent of setting them apart (answering the challenge "if the first fourteen do not exceed the last two, what use is the separate statement"): "in order to counter the reifying grasp at self and dharmas the emptiness of non-existence is stated; in order to counter the denying grasp at the principle of emptiness's suchness the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence is stated. Since self and dharmas are non-existent, there can only be reification [with respect to substance, the substance being non-existent there can only be reification]; since the nature of emptiness exists, there can only be denial [with respect to the name dismissing it, to name it as non-existent likewise amounts to denial] — matched to the last two emptinesses in their respective order."
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
〔Verse [018]–[020]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0452c21 真019 (c. 557–569) | 「食者所食空，身及依處空，能見及如理，所求至得空。」Paramārtha's verse here answers to Xuanzang's [018] (the eater, the eaten … the sought twofold-purity emptiness). But for Xuanzang's [019][020], the two verses of "the ten meanings of contemplating emptiness," Paramārtha's verse-line division joins and divides differently (Paramārtha's 119 verses ≠ Xuanzang's 113) — the correspondence is recorded here as a variant-text comparison. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a12–a16 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0466a07) | 「能食及所食，此依身所住，能見如此理，所求二淨空。為常益有情……故菩薩觀空。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
〔Verse [021]〕
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0453a14 真020 (c. 557–569) | The verse 「人法二皆無，此中名為空，彼無非是無，此中有別空。」, and the commentary establishes the two emptinesses as "first, the emptiness of non-being; second, the emptiness of the nature of non-being," "in order to depart from the reification of person and dharmas, in order to depart from the disparagement of person and dharmas, in their respective order." Paramārtha's 「非有空」 answers to Xuanzang's 「無性空」 and his 「非有性空」 to 「無性自性空」; his "departing from reification / departing from disparagement" is just Xuanzang's "countering the reifying grasp / the denying grasp" — the two translations agree in sense. Correspondence: Paramārtha folds the ten meanings of contemplating emptiness (Xuanzang [019][020]) into prose without setting them as a separate verse, so his ordinal recedes from Xuanzang's, Xuanzang [021] ↔ 真020. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a18 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0466b03) | 「補特伽羅法，實性俱非有，此無性、有性，故別立二空。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
〔Verse [018]–[020]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| unconditioned · suchness (the one emptiness made manifest by the [several] emptinesses) | — | — | this section (fourteen of the sixteen emptinesses · the ten meanings of contemplating emptiness) |
Read also against the Heart Sūtra: the Prajñā's several emptinesses (inner emptiness, outer emptiness … the emptiness of all dharmas) are what these sixteen emptinesses are grounded on; the present treatise, with the "ten meanings of contemplating emptiness," makes plain the Mahāyāna use of the bodhisattva's contemplating emptiness.
Key Terms (IAST)
the sixteen emptinesses — (śoḍaśa-)śūnyatā (十六空) — the sixteen emptinesses
The sixteen kinds set with respect to what is to be countered; these three verses give the first fourteen, the last two reserved to [021]. The names join and divide differently across the sūtras (Kuiji's collation), but the meaning does not increase; the present treatise takes the sixteen.
the ten meanings of contemplating emptiness — (觀空十義) — the ten meanings of contemplating emptiness
The reasons why the bodhisattva contemplates emptiness — for the constant benefit of sentient beings, for not forsaking birth-and-death, for the inexhaustibility of the good, for the purity of the lineage, for gaining the marks and signs, for purifying the buddha-dharmas. They make plain that the use of contemplating emptiness lies in the practice-fruit of the Mahāyāna, not in a nihilist emptiness hurrying to quiescence.
〔Verse [021]〕
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| unconditioned · suchness (the one emptiness made manifest by the two selflessnesses) | the perfectly-accomplished made manifest by the two emptinesses | refuting the reifying grasp · consciousness-only without object (outer dharmas are not real) | this verse (the last two emptinesses · the two emptinesses of person and dharmas · countering reification and denial) |
Read also against the Heart Sūtra: "illuminating the five aggregates as all empty" breaks the grasp at person, "no … up to no aging-and-death" breaks the grasp at dharmas — of one sense with this verse's emptiness of non-existence, "the real natures of person and dharmas both non-existent"; while "emptiness is not other than form" does not fall into a nihilistic nothing — just the sense of the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence, "emptiness is not without substance."
Key Terms (IAST)
the two emptinesses — (二空; 人空／法空) — the two emptinesses (emptiness of the person / of dharmas)
The last two of the sixteen, set with respect to the own-nature of emptiness: the emptiness of non-existence (person and dharmas non-existent in real nature) countering reification, and the emptiness whose own-nature is non-existence (emptiness itself not without substance) countering denial — together the realization within the emptiness-gate of "neither empty nor non-empty."
the person — pudgala (補特伽羅) — the person
The conventionally-named person; its real nature (a real self) is non-existent — this is the emptiness of the person. Kuiji: the emptiness of non-existence "does not negate the conventionally existent, but states only the absence of the real" — it counters the real nature of person and dharmas, not their conventional name.
sibling cross-references:
- Heart Sūtra the several emptinesses (what the Prajñā emptiness-gate is grounded on) · [017] (the defiled-and-pure difference of emptiness, which this section follows) · [021] (the last two emptinesses · the two emptinesses of person and dharmas — the remaining two of this section's sixteen).
- Heart Sūtra (the two emptinesses of person and dharmas · illuminating the five aggregates as all empty) · [018]–[020] (the first fourteen emptinesses, which this verse completes with the last two) · [023] (the consummation of emptiness · mind's nature is intrinsically pure — where the sense of emptiness is concluded) · [003] (all dharmas neither empty nor non-empty — the root of the last two emptinesses' countering of reification and denial).
Verse [022] · Establishing Emptiness — the two arguments from defilement and purity (without defilement, all would be self-liberated; without purity, effort would bear no fruit)
Source anchor · T1601 [p0478a20] verse · T1600 [p0466b11 verse / p0466b13 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0453a22 真021] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0009b15–0009b24 述曰] Kuiji 述記
此若無雜染，一切應自脫； 此若無清淨，功用應無果。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context
With emptiness now set out (its characteristic, its synonyms, its meaning, the differences of the knowable), it must be established that it "can be defiled and can be purified" — otherwise the objection is not met that "emptiness is just like empty space, so it should have neither defilement nor purity" (Kuiji). Vasubandhu establishes it by two counter-arguments (two demonstrations):
- If emptiness had no defilement (i.e. no adventitious defilement even before the antidote arises) — then all sentient beings, without the effort of cultivating the path, would be liberated of themselves. Yet beings are in fact not self-liberated, so we know emptiness bears an adventitious defilement.
- If emptiness had no purity (i.e. were it still not pure even after the antidote has arisen) — then the toil of seeking liberation would bear no fruit. Yet the path does in fact bear fruit, so we know emptiness can become pure.
The point: this is not to say that emptiness in its own substance has arising-and-ceasing, defilement-and-purity; it is, with respect to the presence or absence of the adventitious dust in its stages (continuing [017]'s difference of defilement and purity), to establish that "defilement and purity can be posited of emptiness." Both arguments are counter-arguments (drawing out the correct sense by way of the absurdity of the contrary) — barring the grasping that "emptiness is sheer nothingness, unrelated to defilement and purity," and so laying the ground for the next verse's ([023]) conclusion that "mind's nature is intrinsically pure, defiled by adventitious dust."
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
論曰：若諸法空，未生對治無客雜染者，一切有情不由功用應自然解脫。若對治已生亦不清淨，則應求解脫勤勞無果。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. If dharmas being empty, there were no adventitious defilement [in emptiness] before the antidote has arisen, then all sentient beings, without effort, ought to be liberated naturally. If, even after the antidote has arisen, [emptiness] were still not pure, then the toil of seeking liberation ought to bear no fruit."
Vasubandhu sets out the two arguments together: the first counters "no defilement" (were there no adventitious defilement to begin with, beings ought to be self-liberated without cultivating — contrary to what is plainly seen); the second counters "no purity" (were cultivation not to issue in purity, diligent seeking ought to bear no fruit — contrary to what is plainly seen). Both take the plainly-seen fact of liberation as evidence, and so establish, in reverse, that emptiness "admits defilement and admits purity" — defilement by the presence of the adventitious dust, purity by its departure, neither apart from the stages.
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0009b15–0009b24):
- Verse placement: "it concludes the fourth and gives rise to the fifth" — the sense of "establishing" has two verses: "the first verse (this one) brings out the cause of the establishing, the latter verse ([023]) concludes the established sense."
- Why the verse is set: "since one speaks of emptiness, it ought to have neither purity nor defilement, like empty space; to establish this sense, this verse is spoken" — squarely refuting the doubt that "emptiness is the same as empty space, without defilement and purity."
- The two arguments matched to the lines: "the first half establishes that there is defilement [by countering 'no defilement'], the latter half establishes that there is purity [by countering 'no purity']" — the upper half, "if there were no defilement → all would be self-liberated," establishes that there is defilement; the lower half, "if there were no purity → effort would bear no fruit," establishes that there is purity.
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0453a22 真021 (c. 557–569) | Verse: 「若言不淨者，眾生無解脫；若言無垢者，功用無所施。」Commentary: 「若諸法空對治未起時，為客塵不染故自然清淨，煩惱障無故不因功力，一切眾生應得解脫；若對治已起，自性故不淨，為得解脫修道功用無果報故」。Paramārtha's two objections "not-pure / without-stain" answer to Xuanzang's two arguments "defilement / purity," the sense being the same; Paramārtha's 功用無所施 ("effort would have nothing to apply to") is Xuanzang's 功用應無果 ("effort would bear no fruit"). Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a20 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0466b11) | 「此若無雜染，一切應自脫；此若無清淨，功用應無果。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| the unconditioned · suchness (revealed by freedom from bondage · the adventitious is separable) | — | — | this verse (establishing emptiness · the two arguments from defilement and purity) |
Read also against the Heart Sūtra: "no ignorance and also no ending of ignorance, … no aging-and-death and also no ending of aging-and-death" — showing that defilement and purity are alike unattainable within emptiness while cultivation-and-realization still stand, mutually illuminating with this verse's establishing of "admitting defilement and admitting purity."
Key Terms (IAST)
defilement — saṃkleśa (雜染) — defilement
The adventitious defilement upon emptiness; its presence is what is established by the upper half. Were emptiness without it, beings would be self-liberated — contrary to what is seen. (sibling: continues [017]'s defilement-and-purity by stages.)
adventitious — āgantuka (客塵) — adventitious (dust / defilement)
The "guest-dust": defilement that comes and goes, not belonging to emptiness's own substance. Emptiness's defilement is by its presence, its purity by its departure — neither apart from the stages; this prepares [023]'s "defiled by adventitious dust."
sibling cross-references:
- [023] (mind's nature intrinsically pure · defiled by adventitious dust — what this verse, "the cause of the establishing," leads to in conclusion) · [017] (emptiness's difference of defilement and purity · defilement-and-purity by stages — which this verse's two arguments continue).
Verse [023] · Concluding Verse of the Characteristics Chapter — mind's nature is intrinsically pure, defiled by adventitious dust
Source anchor · T1601 [p0478a22] verse · T1600 [p0466b16 verse / p0466b18 comm.] bhāṣya · T1599 [p0453a28 真022] Paramārtha · T1835 [p0009b25–0009c16 述曰] Kuiji 述記
非染非不染，非淨非不淨， 心性本淨故，由客塵所染。
In Depth · The Three Gates
The Debate · Doctrinal context (the pivot)
The concluding verse of the Characteristics chapter, and the close of the whole treatise's emptiness-teaching (the conclusion of the emptiness verses [013]–[023]). Continuing the previous verse's ([022]) establishing that "emptiness admits defilement and purity," this verse answers, with four negations, the ultimate character of "emptiness and defilement-and-purity," and gives two causes:
- Not defiled — because mind's nature is intrinsically pure (its own nature was never defiled).
- Not undefiled — because it is defiled by adventitious dust (it is not that there is no defilement at all).
- Not pure — because it is defiled by adventitious dust (not yet free of the adventitious dust, it cannot be called already pure).
- Not impure — because mind's nature is intrinsically pure (the pure substance is ever present, so it cannot be called impure).
The eight graphs "mind's nature is intrinsically pure, defiled by adventitious dust" are the pivot: purity is with respect to its own nature (constant), defilement with respect to the adventitious dust (temporary), so defilement and purity stand together without contradiction. The duality of false imagining (the root of the Characteristics chapter from [002] on) is this very "adventitious dust," while the mind's nature on which it depends (the perfectly-accomplished, emptiness) is intrinsically pure. This opens onto consciousness-only's transformation of the basis (āśraya-parāvṛtti: to relinquish defilement and gain purity is to part with the adventitious dust and reveal the intrinsic purity).
Vasubandhu concludes: "this is called establishing the meaning of the differences of emptiness," and gathers up the Characteristics chapter's whole emptiness-teaching: the meaning of emptiness has two aspects in all — characteristic and positing; the characteristic again has two — absence (the two are not) and presence (emptiness is free of being and non-being, free of difference and identity, continuing [014]); the positing is the synonyms and so forth (continuing [015]–[016]). So this verse does not merely conclude [022] but circles back to subsume the whole frame of [013] (the five gates: characteristic · synonyms · meaning · differences · establishing).
From Vasubandhu's Commentary (bhāṣya)
論曰：云何非染非不染？以心性本淨故。云何非淨非不淨？由客塵所染故。是名成立空差別義。此前空義總有二種，謂相安立。相復有二，謂無及有。空性有相，離有離無、離異離一以為其相。應知安立即異門等。
Translation (mine): "Commentary. How is it neither defiled nor undefiled? Because mind's nature is intrinsically pure. How is it neither pure nor impure? Because it is defiled by adventitious dust. This is called establishing the meaning of the differences of emptiness. The foregoing meaning of emptiness has, in all, two kinds — namely, characteristic and positing. The characteristic again has two — namely, absence and presence. Emptiness has a characteristic: free of being and free of non-being, free of difference and free of identity — this is its characteristic. Know that the positing is the synonyms and so forth."
Vasubandhu explains the four negations by two causes: because mind's nature is intrinsically pure, it is said to be neither defiled nor undefiled; because it is defiled by adventitious dust, it is said to be neither pure nor impure. "This is called establishing the meaning of the differences of emptiness" concludes the establishing-sense (continuing [022]). The following "the foregoing meaning of emptiness has, in all, two kinds…" sets up no new doctrine; it gathers up the whole Characteristics chapter's emptiness-gates — the characteristic (absence · presence) subsuming [014], the positing (synonyms and so forth) subsuming [015]–[016] — the whole chapter's emptiness-teaching here coming round to a complete close.
Commentarial Forks
Kuiji's exegesis (辯中邊論述記, Shuji; T44n1835, by 沙門基, p0009b25–0009c16):
- Verse placement: "the upper two lines set out the two theses [neither defiled nor undefiled · neither pure nor impure], the lower two lines set out the two causes [mind's nature intrinsically pure · defiled by adventitious dust]."
- The lines interlock (a fine point): "though the first line [non-defiled] and the second line [non-impure] are no different in substance, by what is negated and what is conveyed they form two distinct lines; because the sense is the same, they are stated paired. The 'non-defiled' of the first line is the 'non-impure' of the second; taking up this pairing as the question, it is answered by the third line, 'because mind's nature is intrinsically pure'; the 'non-undefiled' and 'non-pure' are answered by the fourth line, 'because it is defiled by adventitious dust.'" — so the four negations in fact cross-knit into two questions and two answers: intrinsic purity answers "non-defiled · non-impure," adventitious defilement answers "non-undefiled · non-pure."
- Summing up: "'this is called establishing the meaning of the differences of emptiness' — this is the general conclusion." Having severally glossed the five meanings of emptiness above, it is now gathered into two — the first is emptiness's characteristic, the remaining four the positing; within the characteristic, "absence" is the two-grasping's non-existence of [014] "because the two are neither existent nor non-existent," and "presence" is emptiness's being "free of being and non-being, free of difference and identity"; "the positing is the synonyms" is the differences and establishing of [015]–[016].
Translation Choices · Two ancient witnesses (Xuanzang · Paramārtha)
| Witness | Text & Analysis |
|---|---|
| Chen · Paramārtha, 中邊分別論 (T31n1599) p0453a28 真022 (c. 557–569) | Verse: 「不染非不染，非淨非不淨，心本清淨故，煩惱客塵故。」Commentary: 「云何不染非不染？心本自性清淨故。云何非淨非不淨？煩惱客塵故」。Paramārtha's 心本清淨 ("mind intrinsically pure") answers to Xuanzang's 心性本淨, and 煩惱客塵 ("adventitious dust of the afflictions") to 客塵所染 — the two translations are at their closest here; only, Paramārtha's first graph is 不染 ("undefiled," where Xuanzang has 非染 "not defiled"), and 煩惱客塵 makes explicit that what defiles is the afflictions. Xuanzang followed. |
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang, 辯中邊論頌 (T31n1601) p0478a22 (661) · bhāṣya (T31n1600 p0466b16) | 「非染非不染，非淨非不淨，心性本淨故，由客塵所染。」Base text: it carries the complete Chinese reading-chain — Vasubandhu's bhāṣya (T1600) + Kuiji's 述記 (T1835). |
For Scholars · notes, parallels, cross-references
★ Quartet Reading-Map
| Baifa | Sanshisong | Ershilun | Madhyāntavibhāga |
|---|---|---|---|
| mind-kings · mental factors (the adventitious dust) / the unconditioned · suchness (mind's nature intrinsically pure) | the transformation of the basis · relinquishing defilement and gaining purity | — | this verse (mind's nature intrinsically pure · defiled by adventitious dust · the conclusion of the Characteristics chapter) |
Read also against the Heart Sūtra's "neither defiled nor pure": defilement and purity being unattainable within emptiness is just the Prajñā-mode expression of "mind's nature intrinsically pure 〔hence not defiled〕, defiled by adventitious dust 〔hence not pure in its self-nature〕".
Key Terms (IAST)
mind's nature is intrinsically pure xīn-xìng běn-jìng
The pivot of the verse, taken with respect to mind's own nature (constant): the perfectly-accomplished emptiness on which false imagining depends was never itself defiled — the cause of "neither defiled nor impure."
adventitious — āgantuka (客塵) — adventitious (dust / defilement)
The "guest-dust," taken with respect to what comes and goes (temporary): the duality of false imagining, the root of the Characteristics chapter from [002], is this very adventitious dust — the cause of "neither undefiled nor pure." Purity is by nature, defilement by the adventitious, so the two stand together without contradiction.
sibling cross-references:
- Heart Sūtra "neither defiled nor pure" (the Prajñā-mode expression of mind's nature intrinsically pure, defiled by adventitious dust) · [017] (emptiness's difference of defilement and purity · the first sounding of the adventitious dust, which this verse continues) · [022] (establishing emptiness · the two arguments from defilement and purity, whose "concluding the established sense" this verse continues) · [013]–[016] (the five gates of emptiness · the characteristic of emptiness · the synonyms, which this verse's "the foregoing meaning of emptiness has two kinds in all" gathers up).