成唯識論 釋違教·三性
三性是唯識最核心的一組座標：遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性。
依他起是底子：一切有為法都是眾緣所生，沒有一樣是自己冒出來的。你此刻的見聞覺知，都是依他起。
遍計所執是加上去的：在依他起之上，妄計有實我實法。看見繩，執為蛇——蛇就是遍計所執。頌說「由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物，此遍計所執，自性無所有」：所執之物，畢竟沒有。
圓成實是本來如此的：依他起上遠離遍計所執，所顯的真實性。不是另有一物，是同一個依他起，拿掉錯認之後的樣子。
三性的關係，論主辨得極謹慎。 圓成實與依他起是「非異非不異」——若異，則真如與諸法成兩截，證真如就與諸法無關；若不異，則真如也該生滅。所以是非異非不異，如無常性之於無常法。
這裡有一個很要緊的判別：三性之中只有遍計所執是「無」，依他起與圓成實都不是無。 唯識不是說什麼都沒有，是說你加上去的那一層沒有。
繩喻最好記：繩是依他起（眾緣所成，有），蛇是遍計所執（全無），繩之為麻是圓成實（本來如此）。 你怕的那條蛇從來沒有過；而繩，一直在那裡。
修行做的，不是把繩也毀掉，是不再把它看成蛇。
The three natures are the central coordinates of this system: the wholly imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly accomplished.
The other-dependent is the ground: every conditioned dharma arises from a gathering of conditions, and not one springs up of itself. Your seeing and hearing at this moment are other-dependent.
The wholly imagined is what is laid on top: upon the other-dependent, a real self and real dharmas are falsely reckoned. A rope is seen and taken for a snake — the snake is the wholly imagined. The verse says: "by this and that imagining, all manner of things are imagined; this wholly imagined has no own-being at all." What is imagined is, in the end, absent.
The perfectly accomplished is how things have always stood: the reality disclosed when the wholly imagined is removed from the other-dependent. Not a further thing — the same other-dependent, with the misreading taken away.
The relation among the three is drawn with great care. The perfectly accomplished and the other-dependent are "neither different nor not different." Were they different, suchness and dharmas would fall into two halves and realizing suchness would have nothing to do with dharmas. Were they not different, suchness would arise and cease. Hence neither — as impermanence stands to what is impermanent.
One discrimination here is essential: of the three, only the wholly imagined is absent; neither the other-dependent nor the perfectly accomplished is. Consciousness-only does not say that nothing is there. It says that the layer you added is not.
The rope is the easiest to hold: the rope is other-dependent (made of conditions, present); the snake is wholly imagined (wholly absent); the rope's being hemp is the perfectly accomplished (how it always was). The snake you feared was never there — and the rope has been there all along.
Practice does not destroy the rope. It stops seeing it as a snake.
〔頌曰 15 T31 0045c08〕
２０由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物，
此遍計所執，自性無所有。
２１依他起自性，分別緣所生。
圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。
２２故此與依他，非異非不異，
如無常等性，非不見此彼。
論曰：周遍計度，故名遍計；品類眾多，說為「彼彼」。謂能遍計虛妄分別。即由彼彼虛妄分別，遍計種種所遍計物：謂所妄執蘊、處、界等，若法、若我自性差別。此所妄執自性差別，總名遍計所執自性。如是自性，都無所有，理、教推徵，不可得故。
或初句顯能遍計識，第二句示所遍計境，後半方申遍計所執若我、若法自性非有，已廣顯彼不可得故。
初能遍計，自性云何？
有義：八識及諸心所，有漏攝者，皆能遍計，虛妄分別為自性故；皆似所取、能取現故；說阿賴耶以遍計所執自性，妄執種為所緣故。
有義：第六、第七心品執我、法者，是能遍計。
唯說意識能遍計故，意及意識名意識故；計度分別能遍計故；執我、法者必是慧故；二執必與無明俱故；不說無明有善性故；癡、無癡等不相應故；不見有執導空智故；執有、達無不俱起故；曾無有執非能熏故。
〔T31 0046a02〕有漏心等不證實故，一切皆名虛妄分別。雖似所取、能取相現，而非一切能遍計攝，勿無漏心亦有執故，如來後得應有執故。經說佛智現身、土等種種影像，如鏡等故，若無緣用應非智等。雖說藏識緣遍計種，而不說唯，故非誠證。由斯理趣，唯於第六、第七心品，有能遍計。
識品雖二，而有二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九、十等遍計不同，故言「彼彼」。
次所遍計自性云何？《攝大乘》說是依他起，遍計心等所緣緣故。圓成實性寧非彼境？真非妄執所緣境故，依展轉說亦所遍計。遍計所執雖是彼境，而非所緣緣，故非所遍計。
遍計所執，其相云何？與依他起，復有何別？
有義：三界心及心所，由無始來虛妄熏習，雖各體一，而似二生：謂見、相分，即能、所取。如是二分，情有理無，此相說為遍計所執。二所依體，實託緣生，此性非無，名依他起，虛妄分別緣所生故。
云何知然？諸聖教說：虛妄分別是依他起，二取名為遍計所執。
有義：一切心及心所，由熏習力所變二分，從緣生故，亦依他起。遍計依斯妄執定實有無、一異、俱不俱等，此二方名遍計所執。
諸聖教說：唯量、唯二、唯種種，皆名依他起故。又相等四法、十一識等，論皆說為依他起攝故。
不爾，無漏後得智品二分，應名遍計所執。許應聖智不緣彼生，緣彼智品應非道諦；不許應知有漏亦爾。又若二分是遍計所執，應如兔角等非所緣緣，遍計所執體非有故。又應二分不熏成種，後識等生，應無二分。又諸習氣是相分攝，豈非有法能作因緣？若緣所生內相、見分，非依他起，二所依體，例亦應然，無異因故。
〔T31 0046b04〕由斯理趣，眾緣所生心、心所體及相、見分，有漏、無漏皆依他起。
依他眾緣而得起故。頌言：「分別緣所生」者，應知且說染分依他，淨分依他亦圓成故。或諸染淨心、心所法，皆名分別，能緣慮故。是則一切染、淨依他，皆是此中依他起攝。
二空所顯圓滿成就，諸法實性，名圓成實。顯此遍、常，體非虛謬，簡自、共相、虛空、我等。無漏有為，離倒、究竟、勝用周遍，亦得此名。然今頌中，說初非後。
此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性。
說「於彼」言：顯圓成實與依他起，不即不離；「常遠離」言：顯妄所執能、所取性，理恒非有。「前」言義顯不空依他；「性」顯二空非圓成實，真如離有離無性故。
由前理故，此圓成實與彼依他起，非異非不異。異應真如非彼實性；不異此性應是無常。彼此俱應淨、非淨境，則本後智，用應無別。
云何二性，非異非一？如彼無常、無我等性。無常等性與行等法異，應彼法非無常等；不異此應非彼共相。
由斯喻顯，此圓成實與彼依他，非一非異，法與法性，理必應然，勝義、世俗，相待有故。
非不證見此圓成實，而能見彼依他起性。
未達遍計所執性空，不如實知依他有故。無分別智證真如已，後得智中，方能了達依他起性如幻事等。
雖無始來心、心所法，已能緣自相、見分等，而我、法執恒俱行故，不如實知。眾緣所引自心、心所，虛妄變現，猶如幻事、陽焰、夢境、鏡像、光影、谷響、水月、變化所成，非有似有。依如是義，故有頌言：
「非不見真如，而能了諸行，
皆如幻事等，雖有而非真。」
〔T31 0046c07〕此中意說：三種自性，皆不遠離心、心所法。
謂心、心所及所變現，眾緣生故，如幻事等，非有、似有，誑惑愚夫，一切皆名依他起性。愚夫於此橫執我法、有無、一異、俱不俱等，如空花等，性、相都無，一切皆名遍計所執。依他起上，彼所妄執我、法俱空，此空所顯識等真性，名圓成實。
是故此三，不離心等。
虛空、擇滅、非擇滅等，何性攝耶？
三皆容攝。
心等變似虛空等相，隨心生故，依他起攝；愚夫於中，妄執實有，此即遍計所執性攝；若於真如，假施設有虛空等義，圓成實攝。有漏心等，定屬依他；無漏心等，容二性攝。眾緣生故，攝屬依他；無顛倒故，圓成實攝。
如是三性與七真如，云何相攝？
七真如者：一、流轉真如，謂有為法，流轉實性；二、實相真如，謂二無我，所顯實性；三、唯識真如，謂染淨法，唯識實性；四、安立真如，謂苦實性；五、邪行真如，謂集實性；六、清淨真如，謂滅實性；七、正行真如，謂道實性。
此七實性，圓成實攝，根本、後得二智境故；隨相攝者，流轉、苦、集三，前二性攝，妄執雜染故；餘四皆是圓成實攝。
三性六法，相攝云何？彼六法中，皆具三性。色、受、想、行、識及無為，皆有妄執緣生理故。
三性五事，相攝云何？
〔T31 0047a01〕諸聖教說，相攝不定：
謂或有處說：依他起攝彼相、名、分別、正智；圓成實性攝彼真如；遍計所執不攝五事。彼說有漏心、心所法，變似所詮，說名為相；似能詮現，施設為名；能變心等，立為分別；無漏心等，離戲論故，但總名正智，不說能、所詮。四從緣生，皆依他攝。
或復有處說：依他起攝相、分別；遍計所執，唯攝彼名；正智、真如，圓成實攝。彼說有漏心及心所相分名相，餘名分別；遍計所執，都無體故，為顯非有，假說為名；二無倒故，圓成實攝。
或有處說：依他起性唯攝分別；遍計所執，攝彼相、名；正智、真如，圓成實攝。彼說有漏心及心所相、見分等，總名分別，虛妄分別為自性故，遍計所執，能詮、所詮，隨情立為名、相二事。
復有處說：名屬依他起性，義屬遍計所執。彼說有漏心、心所法相、見分等，由名勢力成所遍計，故說為名；遍計所執，隨名橫計，體實非有，假立義名。
諸聖教中所說五事，文雖有異，而義無違。然初所說不相雜亂，如《瑜伽論》廣說應知。
又聖教中說有五相，此與三性相攝云何？
所詮、能詮各具三性：謂妄所計，屬初性攝；相、名、分別，隨其所應，所詮、能詮，屬依他起；真如、正智，隨其所應，所詮、能詮，屬圓成實，後得變似能詮相故。
二相屬相，唯初性攝，妄執義、名，定相屬故。
彼執著相，唯依他起，虛妄分別為自性故。
不執著相，唯圓成實，無漏智等為自性故。
又聖教中說四真實，與此三性相攝云何？
世間、道理所成真實，依他起攝；三事攝故；二障淨智所行真實，圓成實攝；二事攝故。
〔T31 0047b01〕《辯中邊論》說：初真實唯初性攝，共所執故；第二真實通屬三性，理通執無執，雜染、清淨故；後二真實唯屬第三。
三性四諦，相攝云何？
四中一一皆具三性。
且苦諦中無常等四各有三性。無常三者：一、無性無常，性常無故；二、起盡無常，有生滅故；三、垢淨無常，位轉變故。
苦有三者：一、所取苦，我、法二執所依取故；二、事相苦，三苦相故；三、和合苦，苦相合故。
空有三者：一、無性空，性非有故；二、異性空，與妄所執自性異故；三、自性空，二空所顯為自性故。
無我三者：一、無相無我，我相無故；二、異相無我，與妄所執我相異故；三、自相無我，無我所顯為自相故。
集諦三者：一、習氣集，謂遍計所執自性執習氣，執彼習氣假立彼名；二、等起集，謂業、煩惱；三、未離繫集，謂未離障真如。
滅諦三者：一、自性滅，自性不生故；二、二取滅，謂擇滅二取不生故；三、本性滅，謂真如故。
道諦三者：一、遍知道，能知遍計所執故；二、永斷道，能斷依他起故；三、作證道，能證圓成實故。然遍知道，亦通後二。
七三三性，如次配釋。今於此中，所配三性，或假或實，如理應知。
三解脫門所行境界，與此三性相攝云何？理實皆通，隨相各一。空、無願、相，如次應知。緣此復生三無生忍：一、本性無生忍；二、自然無生忍；三、惑苦無生忍。如次此三，是彼境故。
此三云何攝彼二諦？應知世俗具此三種；勝義唯是圓成實性。世俗有三：一、假世俗；二、行世俗；三、顯了世俗。如次應知即此三性。勝義有三：一、義勝義，謂真如，勝之義故；二、得勝義，謂涅槃，勝即義故；三、行勝義，謂聖道，勝為義故。無變、無倒，隨其所應，故皆攝在圓成實性。
〔T31 0047c04〕如是三性，何智所行？遍計所執，都非智所行，以無自體，非所緣緣故。愚夫執有，聖者達無，亦得說為凡、聖智境。依他起性，二智所行。圓成實性，唯聖智境。
此三性中，幾假？幾實？遍計所執，妄安立故，可說為假；無體相故，非假非實。依他起性，有實有假：聚集、相續、分位性故，說為假有；心、心所、色，從緣生故，說為實有。若無實法，假法亦無，假依實因而施設故。圓成實性，唯是實有，不依他緣而施設故。
此三為異？為不異耶？應說俱非，無別體故；妄執、緣起、真義別故。
如是三性，義類無邊，恐厭繁文，略示綱要。
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.
〔所釋之頌〕第二十頌至第二十二頌
〔所釋頌〕
甲、釋三性（v20–22）
〔難〕如果一切都只是識，那世尊為什麼還要在好多經裡到處講「三性」（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實這三種法的體性）呢？〔答〕要曉得：這三性也離不開識——它們本來就是就著識來立的，並不是識以外另有三樣東西。
先解頌裡的字。「遍計」這個名字，是從「周遍計度」來的——也就是不論什麼，這個心都要去周遍地計量它、推度它（這裡量量、那裡度度，無一不執），所以叫「遍計」。又因為它計度的種類非常多，所以頌才說「彼彼」（這樣那樣、種種不一）。至於頌裡講的「能遍計」，指的就是那個會「虛妄分別」的心（妄加分別、執實的心）。
就是靠這「彼彼」種種的虛妄分別，這個心去遍計種種『被它計度的東西』——也就是它胡亂執著的蘊、處、界等等，不管把它當成「法」、還是當成「我」，連同它們的自性（是什麼）和差別（彼此怎麼不一樣）。凡是這樣被妄執出來的自性和差別，總起來就叫「遍計所執自性」（被遍計之心所執取的那種體性）。
像這樣被遍計所執出來的自性，其實『什麼都沒有』（根本不存在）——因為不管你拿正理去推求、還是拿聖教去查對，都找不到它。
這頌文也可以這樣一句一句配著講：第一句「由彼彼遍計」，點出的是『能遍計的識』（會計度的那個心）；第二句「遍計種種物」，點出的是『被遍計的境』（被它計度的對象）；後面那兩句「此遍計所執，自性無所有」，才正式說明：被遍計所執的東西，不管當成「我」還是當成「法」，它的自性都是沒有的——因為前面已經把它『找不到』這一點講得很清楚了。
一、能遍計（誰是能遍計之識）
先問第一個問題：那個「能遍計」（會去計度的心）本身是什麼？換句話說，到底哪些識才算是能遍計？
〔異說一·八識都是能遍計〕 一說：八個識和它們相應的各種心所，凡是屬於「有漏」（還沒清淨、帶著煩惱）的，全都是「能遍計」。他們的理由有三條：一是，有漏的心和心所，本身就是以「虛妄分別」為體性的（個個都會妄加分別）；二是，它們現起時都會像有「所取、能取」這兩面（看起來既有被緣的對象、又有能緣的作用）；三是，論裡又說，阿賴耶識（第八識）緣的對象，正是那「遍計所執自性」的妄執種子（既然連藏識緣的都是妄執的種子，可見藏識也算進能遍計裡）。
〔應知·只有六、七是能遍計〕 又一說（這是正義）：只有「第六意識」和「第七末那」（恒審思量、執我的那個識）這兩類心裡頭、那些在執我、執法的部分，才是「能遍計」。理由一條一條看，總共十條：
一、聖教裡只說「意識能遍計」（沒說別的識能遍計）。 二、這裡「意識」一詞要寬著看：「意」（指第七末那）和「意識」（指第六）都可以叫作「意識」——所以「意識能遍計」這句話，把第六、第七都包進去了。 三、能遍計的，必須是會「計度分別」的（會掂量、會推斷）；而前五識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）只是直接照見，並不會計度，所以前五識不算。 四、會執我、執法的，必定是「慧」（一種審察的心所）在起作用；而前五識裡頭慧很弱、不顯，所以前五識不算。 五、我執、法執這兩種執，一定是跟「無明」（糊塗、不明理）一起起的。 六、可是聖教從不說無明會有「善」的性質；既然無明不通善，那善心就不是能遍計（善心不帶無明，不會起這種妄執）。 七、「癡」（無明）跟「無癡」（明白、不糊塗）這兩個心所是合不來、不相應的；所以那種無漏的、帶著無癡的心，就不是能遍計。 八、從沒見過哪個「執」能引出『證空的智慧』來（執著和證空這兩件事不能並存）；可見起執的心不是證空的智。 九、「執有」（執著實有）和「達無」（通達它本無）這兩樣不會同時起；所以那種無漏的、通達本無的智，不會是能執的心。 十、從來沒有哪個「執」是「不能熏」的（凡是執，都會熏成種子）；可是像異熟識（第八）這類識並不能熏，所以它不是能遍計。
下面回頭駁〔異說一〕的理由。先說它第一、二條（有漏心都是虛妄分別、都現似二取）。有漏的心確實不能證得真實（緣不到真如），所以這些心統統可以叫「虛妄分別」，這沒錯；可是『現起時雖然像有所取、能取兩面』，並不就等於『個個都是能遍計』。為什麼？因為無漏的心起來時，同樣也像有這兩面——照〔異說一〕的講法，那豈不是連無漏心也成了有執？再推下去，連如來的「後得智」（佛成就後緣俗境的那種清淨智）也該有執了，這當然講不通。所以，不能拿『現起來像有能取所取』這一點，當作『個個都是能遍計』的證據。
而且經裡說：佛的智慧會現起身、國土等等種種影像，就像明鏡照出影子一樣。假如硬說無漏智沒有『緣慮的作用』（也就是說它不會現起像被緣的對象那樣的相分），那它就不該叫「智」了——可見『現起時像有能取所取兩面』並不就是「執」。
再說它第三條（藏識緣的是遍計所執的種子）。聖教雖然說過藏識會緣遍計的種子，可並沒有說藏識「只」緣這個——藏識所緣的，還兼有實實在在的境（不光是妄執的種子）。所以這一條也不能確定地證明『藏識就是能遍計』。從上面這一番道理就看得出來：只有在第六、第七這兩類心裡頭，才有「能遍計」。
能遍計的識，種類雖然只有兩個（第六、第七），可是它們去遍計的時候，開合分數卻有二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九、十等等種種不同的算法（看你怎麼把它的分別細分或合併）——正因為分法這麼多樣，頌才說「彼彼」（這樣那樣、種種不一）。
二、所遍計（所遍計之境是什麼）
接著問第二個問題：那個「所遍計」（被計度的對象）本身是什麼？《攝大乘論》說：被遍計的，就是「依他起」（靠眾緣才生起的那些法）。為什麼這麼說？因為依他起這些法，正是能遍計的心去攀緣時的「所緣緣」（它所緣、又能牽動它的對象）——也就是說，妄執一定得攀著一件依他起的事，才生得起來。
〔難〕那圓成實（真如那種真實的體性）難道不也是能遍計所緣的境嗎？〔答〕「真」（也就是圓成實）並不是妄執能直接緣的境——妄執的心攀不到真如；不過依著「展轉」（拐個彎、隔一層）來說，它倒也可以勉強算「所遍計」（因為迷了真，才起的妄，這樣輾轉牽連著）。另一方面，「遍計所執」（被妄執出來的那個我、法）雖然也是能遍計心面對的「境」，可是它根本沒有體、當不了「所緣緣」（它不是個能牽動心的實在對象），所以它不算「所遍計」。嚴格講，真正的「所遍計」就只是依他起。
三、遍計所執之相（與依他起何別）
「遍計所執」這個法，它的相狀是什麼樣子？它跟「依他起」又有哪裡不同？
〔異說一·二取就是遍計所執〕 一說：三界裡的心和心所，由於無始以來受了虛妄的熏習，它們各自的本體雖然只是一個，可是起來時卻像分成「兩分」生出來——也就是「見分」（能緣的那一面）和「相分」（被緣的影像那一面），這兩面其實就是「能取、所取」。這「兩分」是『妄情上好像有、道理上其實無』的，所以這個相就叫作「遍計所執」。至於這兩分底下所依的那個「體」（也就是心、心所的本身），確實是靠著眾緣才生起的、不能說它沒有，這個就叫「依他起」——因為它是『虛妄分別等眾緣湊起來才生出來的』。
怎麼知道是這樣？因為各種聖教都說：「虛妄分別」（也就是心、心所的本體）是「依他起」；而「二取」（見、相兩分，也就是能取、所取）才叫「遍計所執」。
〔應知·兩分也是依他·定執了才是遍計所執〕 又一說（這是正義）：一切心和心所，因熏習的力量所變現出來的那「兩分」（見分、相分），既然也是靠眾緣才生的，那它們同樣是「依他起」（兩分本身並不就是遍計所執）。真正的遍計所執，是能遍計的心攀著這兩分，再去硬硬地執定它『一定實有、一定實無、是一、是異、是合、是不合』等等——這層「妄執」才叫「遍計所執」。
這一說的根據有兩條：一是，各種聖教都說「唯量」（指自證分，識自己印證自己的那一面）、「唯二」（指見、相兩分）、「唯種種」（指種種多樣的相分），這些統統叫「依他起」——可見兩分本來就歸在依他起裡。二是，像『相分、見分、自證分、證自證分』這四分，以及《攝論》講的「十一識」等等，論裡都說是歸「依他起」所收的。
底下用幾個推不通的後果，反過來證明『兩分不是遍計所執』。先說一個：假如兩分就是遍計所執，那連無漏「後得智」（佛清淨智的一種）所現的那兩分，也得叫遍計所執了。這樣一逼，就左右為難——若你承認（後得智的兩分也是遍計所執），那聖者的智慧就不該攀著遍計所執而生、而緣著它的那種智也就不該算「道諦」（修道的真實之法）了，這當然講不通；若你不承認（也就是認後得智的兩分不是遍計所執），那同樣要曉得：有漏的兩分也跟它一個道理，也不是遍計所執。
再說一個：假如兩分是遍計所執，那它就該像「兔角」一樣（兔子哪有角，根本沒有這東西），當不了「所緣緣」——因為遍計所執本來就沒有體，沒體的東西牽動不了心。又一個：兩分既然（照你說）沒有體，那它就不該能熏成種子；種子既然熏不成，後面的識等生起時就應該沒有兩分才對——可事實上後識明明都帶著見、相兩分，這就跟事實對不上了。
再說一個：各種「習氣」（也就是種子）是歸「相分」所收的，那它豈不正是『有體的法』、又能當「因緣」嗎？（種子明明有體、能作因，可見相分也是有體的、屬依他起。）再說一個：你若說那靠眾緣生出來的『內相分、見分』不是依他起，那照同一個道理，它們底下所依的那個「體」（自證分）也該不是依他起了——因為沒有別的理由能把它們分開來看；可這樣推下去，依他起這一整套就全垮了。
從上面這幾番道理就看得出來：凡是靠眾緣生出來的『心、心所本身』，連同它們的「相分、見分」，不管是有漏的還是無漏的，全都是「依他起」——因為它們都是靠著眾緣才生起來的。
頌裡說「分別緣所生」（依他起自性，分別緣所生），要曉得這只是『暫且偏著染的那一分依他起來講』——因為『淨的那一分依他起』其實也歸到圓成實去了（清淨那一分的依他和圓成是貼在一塊兒、分不開的），所以頌這裡先不把它算進來。
或者也可以換個講法：不管染的、淨的心、心所，都可以叫「分別」（因為它們都會緣慮、都會起作用）；這樣一來，一切染的、淨的依他起，就都歸這頌裡的「依他起」所收了（不單限在染的那一分）。
四、圓成實之相（v21 後半、v22）
由「我空」（沒有真實的我）、「法空」（沒有真實的法）這兩種空所顯出來的、那「圓滿、成就」的諸法真實體性，就叫「圓成實」。這名字裡『圓滿、成就、實』三個意思，正好點出這真性的三樣特點：「圓滿」說它周遍（無處不在）、「成就」說它常住（恆久不變）、「實」說它的體不虛假。用這三點，順帶就把幾樣容易混淆的撇開了：撇開「自相、共相」（這兩種不周遍，所以不是「圓滿」）、撇開「虛空」（無為的虛空無體不實，所以不是「成就」、不是「實」）、撇開「我」（妄執的我是虛假的，所以不是「實」）。
其實無漏的「有為」法（像無漏智這一類），因為它離了顛倒、已到究竟、殊勝的作用又周遍，所以也可以掛上「圓成實」這名字。不過要分清：眼下這頌裡講的圓成實，是取『頭一個意思』（也就是圓滿成就的諸法實性，亦即真如），不是取『後一個意思』（無漏的有為法）。
這個圓成實，就是『在那依他起上頭，永遠離開了前面所說的遍計所執』，並且以『兩空所顯出來的真如』當它的體性——這正是頌說的「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」。
下面把頌裡這幾個字一個一個摳出來講。頌說「於彼」（在那依他起上），意思是：圓成實和依他起兩個「不即不離」（既不是同一個、也不是兩個分開的東西）。頌說「常遠離」，意思是：那被妄執出來的能取、所取的體性，『在道理上根本就不曾有過』——注意是「常」遠離，不是一時沒有、是本來就一直沒有。頌說「前」（遠離「前」面的那個性，也就是只把遍計趕走），意思是『依他不空』——所空掉的只是遍計，依他起本身並不空。頌說「性」（遠離前面那個「性」），意思是：所離掉的，就只是那「二空」（也就是遍計所執的我、法兩種體性），而這「二空」本身並不就是圓成實——因為真如是『既不落有、也不落無』的，並不是把遍計空掉的那個「無」就算圓成實。
由前面「不即不離」這個道理，所以圓成實和那依他起是「非異、非不異」（這就是頌說的「故此與依他，非異非不異」）。一邊一邊看：假如說它倆「異」（完全是兩回事），那真如就不該是依他的「實性」了——可實性正是依他自身的那個性，所以不能說完全是兩回事；假如說它倆「不異」（完全是一回事），那圓成這個性就該跟依他一樣是「無常」的了——可真如是常住不變的，所以也不能說完全是一回事。
再說：假如它倆要嘛完全是兩回事、要嘛完全是一回事，那這兩個（圓成和依他）就該一起都是『清淨的境』、或一起都是『不清淨的境』了；這樣一來，「根本智」（直緣清淨真如的那種智）和「後得智」（兼緣染、淨的那種智）所對的用就該沒有差別了——這當然講不通。那麼，這兩個性到底怎麼能『不異又不一』呢？回答：就像「無常、無我」這些性跟「諸行法」之間的關係（既不全異也不全一）一樣。
就拿「無常」這些性跟「諸行」這些法來說：假如說它倆「異」（完全是兩回事），那諸行法就該不是無常的了——可諸行明明就是無常，所以不能說完全是兩回事；假如說它倆「不異」（完全是一回事），那這「無常」就不該是諸行共通的「共相」了——可共相是貫通眾多法的，所以也不能說完全是一回事。拿這個比方一比就清楚了：圓成實和依他也是「不一不異」——這正是「法」（依他）和「法性」（圓成）之間的關係，道理本來就該如此（圓成就是依他的法性）；因為「勝義」（圓成）和「世俗」（依他）這兩個，本來就是互相對待著才成立的（有此才有彼，分不開）。
接著解頌「非不見此彼」這一句。它的意思是：絕不會『沒有先證見這圓成實，卻能如實見到那依他起性』這種事——也就是說，要先見圓成，才能如實見依他。為什麼？因為一個人若還『沒有通達遍計所執其實是空的』，他就不能如實了知『依他起是有的』——不曉得能取所取本是空，他就會把依他誤當成遍計，看走了眼。
一定要等「無分別智」（不起分別、直契真如的那種智）證了真如以後，再到「後得智」裡頭，才能真正了達依他起性是『像幻變出來的事』這一類——也就是像幻一樣，不是真有、卻看著好像有。
雖然心、心所這些法，從無始以來就已經能緣自己的相分、見分等等，可是因為我執、法執一直跟著它們一塊兒起，所以它們始終沒法如實地了知（也就是看不清依他和圓成的真相）。
那些靠眾緣牽引而起的自心、心所，都是虛妄地變現出來的，就好比幻術變的事、晴天的陽焰、夢裡的境界、鏡中的影像、光下的影子、山谷的回聲、水中的月亮、變化變出來的東西——這八樣都是『明明沒有、卻看著好像有』（論主一連用八個比方，來說依他起就像這樣如幻不實）。
就依著這個道理，所以有一首頌說：『不是還沒見到真如，就能了知諸行都像幻變出來的事一樣；〔諸行〕雖然有，卻不是真實的。』
這頌的意思是說：三種自性（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實）都離不開心、心所這些法——這就把前面『三性也不離識』這一段總收起來了。
五、三性總攝心法（三性皆不離識）
先說依他起。心、心所，連同它們變現出來的種種相，都是靠眾緣才生的，就像幻變的事一樣『明明沒有卻看著好像有』，騙得住那些不明理的人（愚夫）——這一切都叫「依他起性」。
再說遍計所執。不明理的人，就在這些依他起的事上頭，硬橫地執著它是『我、是法、是有、是無、是一、是異、是合、是不合』等等——這些執，其實就像空中的花一樣（眼花才見的，根本沒有），『體性、相狀統統沒有』——這一切都叫「遍計所執」。
最後說圓成實。就在依他起上頭，那些被妄執的我、法統統是空的，這個「空」所顯出來的『識等的真實體性』，就叫「圓成實」。所以這三種性，全都離不開心等——這正回扣到開頭『三性也不離識』這個結論。
六、三性攝三無為
〔問〕虛空、擇滅、非擇滅這三種無為法（不生不滅、無造作的法），歸三性裡的哪一性管？〔答〕三性都收得進去——看你從哪一面去看，它就歸哪一性。
一面看：心等變現出像虛空那樣的相，它是隨著心才生的，所以歸「依他起」收。二面看：不明理的人在這裡頭妄執這虛空等是實實在在有的，這個妄執就歸「遍計所執」收。三面看：若是就著真如，方便地安立「虛空」等這層意思（比方拿擇滅來顯真如），那就歸「圓成實」收。
有漏的心等，一定只歸「依他」管；無漏的心等，就可以同時歸「依他、圓成」這兩性管——一面說它是眾緣生的，這就歸依他；一面說它沒有顛倒，這就歸圓成實。
七、三性與七真如相攝
這三性跟「七真如」（七個角度說的真如）怎麼互相收攝？先把七真如列一列：一、流轉真如——就是有為法在流轉中的那個真實體性；二、實相真如——就是人無我、法無我這兩種無我所顯出來的真實體性；三、唯識真如——就是染、淨諸法「唯是識」這一面的真實體性；四、安立真如——就是「苦諦」的真實體性；五、邪行真如——就是「集諦」的真實體性；六、清淨真如——就是「滅諦」的真實體性；七、正行真如——就是「道諦」的真實體性。
這七個既然都是「真實體性」，那就都歸「圓成實」收（因為它們都是根本智、後得智這兩種智所緣的境）。可是若換個角度，『隨著相』來分，那情形就不一樣了：其中『流轉、安立（也就是苦）、邪行（也就是集）』這三個，要歸『前兩性』（遍計、依他）收——因為這三個帶著妄執、帶著雜染；剩下那四個真如（實相、唯識、清淨、正行）才都歸圓成實收。
八、三性與六法相攝
三性跟「六法」怎麼互相收攝？六法（也就是色、受、想、行、識，再加上無為）這六樣，每一樣裡頭都具足三性——因為這六法上頭都有三層意思可說：有人在上面起「妄執」（這是遍計）、它本身是『靠眾緣生』的（這是依他）、它又各有自己的「真實道理」（這是圓成）。
九、三性與五事相攝
三性跟「五事」（相、名、分別、正智、真如這五樣）怎麼互相收攝？各種聖教在這上頭講法不一定（也就是有好幾家不同的說法，下面一家一家列）：
〔五事攝·第一說〕 有的地方這麼說：依他起收「相、名、分別、正智」這四樣，圓成實收「真如」一樣，遍計所執『一樣都不收』。它的講法是：有漏的心、心所，變現出像「所詮」（被指說的內容）那樣的，就叫「相」；變現出像「能詮」（能指說的言詞）那樣的，就安立為「名」；能變的那個心等，就立作「分別」；至於無漏的心等，因為已經離了戲論，就總起來叫「正智」（不再另外分能詮、所詮）——這四樣都是從眾緣生的，所以都歸依他起收。
〔五事攝·第二說〕 另有的地方這麼說：依他起收「相、分別」兩樣，遍計所執只收「名」一樣，正智、真如都歸圓成實收。它的講法是：有漏心、心所的相分叫「相」，其餘的（也就是見分等）叫「分別」；遍計所執本來一點體都沒有，為了把它「沒有」這件事點出來，才方便給它安個「名」（拿名來指這個其實沒有的東西）；至於「正智、真如」這兩樣，因為沒有顛倒，所以歸圓成實收。
〔五事攝·第三說〕 又有的地方這麼說：依他起只收「分別」一樣，遍計所執收「相、名」兩樣，正智、真如都歸圓成實收。它的講法是：有漏心、心所的相分、見分等等，總起來都叫「分別」（因為它們的體性就是虛妄分別）；至於遍計所執那邊的能詮、所詮，是隨著妄情才立起來的，就立作「名、相」這兩樣。
〔五事攝·第四說〕 還有的地方這麼說：「名」歸依他起，「義」歸遍計所執。它的講法是：有漏心、心所的相分、見分等等，是靠著「名」的牽動力，才成了『被遍計的對象』，所以把它說成「名」；而遍計所執呢，是隨著名去橫加計度出來的、實際上根本沒有體，所以方便給它立個「義」的名目。
各種聖教講的這五事，文字上雖然各說各的、不太一樣，可是意思上並不互相矛盾。不過要曉得：這幾說裡頭，還是『頭一說』（第一說）分得最清楚、最不會混在一塊兒——詳細的可看《瑜伽論》裡廣說。
十、三性與五相相攝
聖教又講有「五相」，跟三性怎麼互相收攝？這裡頭「所詮」（被指說的）和「能詮」（能指說的）各自都具足三性。怎麼分？『被妄情計度出來的』歸頭一性（遍計所執）收；「相、名、分別」這三樣，看它擔當哪個角色——不管當被指說的、還是當能指說的，都歸依他起收；「真如、正智」這兩樣，也看它擔當哪個角色——當被指說的、還是當能指說的，都歸圓成實收（因為後得智能變現出像能指說那樣的相）。
五相裡的「二相屬相」（指能詮、所詮這兩個彼此牽連、互相隸屬的那種相），只歸頭一性（遍計）收——因為那被妄執出來的義和名，是死死地綁在一塊兒、互相隸屬的。「執著相」只歸依他起收（因為它的體性就是虛妄分別）；「不執著相」只歸圓成實收（因為它的體性是無漏智等）。
十一、三性與四真實相攝
聖教又講「四真實」（也就是：世間人公認的真實、講道理推出來的真實、斷了煩惱障的清淨智所緣的真實、斷了所知障的清淨智所緣的真實），跟三性怎麼互相收攝？『世間公認、講道理推出來』這兩種真實，歸依他起收（因為它們是被前面五事裡的相、名、分別這三樣所收的）；『斷二障的清淨智所緣』這種真實，歸圓成實收（因為它是被五事裡的正智、真如這兩樣所收的）。
《辯中邊論》另有一種分法：第一種真實（世間公認的）只歸頭一性收——因為它是世間人一起執著、共同認定的；第二種真實（講道理推出來的）就通三性了——因為它這個「道理」既通到「有執」也通到「無執」、既通雜染也通清淨，所以三性都沾得上；後面兩種真實（斷二障智所緣的）就只歸第三性（圓成實）。
十二、三性與四諦相攝
三性跟「四諦」（苦、集、滅、道四種真實）怎麼互相收攝？四諦裡每一諦都具足三性。
先拿「苦諦」來說。苦諦底下有「無常、苦、空、無我」這四個行相（觀苦的四個面向），這四個各自又都有三性。
「無常」這一個，配三性是這樣：一、無性無常（配遍計——遍計所執的那個性永遠是沒有的，『常沒有』這也算一種「無常」）；二、起盡無常（配依他——依他起的法有生有滅，所以叫「無常」）；三、垢淨無常（配圓成——圓成實在染、淨位上隨之轉變而顯現出來，所以也說它「無常」）。
「苦」這一個，配三性是這樣：一、所取苦（配遍計——它是我執、法執這兩種執所依著、所抓取的）；二、事相苦（配依他——依他起的事相上具足三種苦相）；三、和合苦（配圓成——圓成跟苦相和合在一塊兒、離不開）。
「空」這一個，配三性是這樣：一、無性空（配遍計——它的性本來就沒有，所以說它空）；二、異性空（配依他——依他起跟妄執出來的那個自性是兩回事、不一樣，所以也說它空，意思是空掉那層遍計）；三、自性空（配圓成——它就是拿兩空所顯出來的當自己的體性）。
「無我」這一個，配三性是這樣：一、無相無我（配遍計——那個「我」的相本來就沒有）；二、異相無我（配依他——依他起跟妄執出來的那個我相不一樣）；三、自相無我（配圓成——它就是拿『無我所顯出來的』當自己的相）。
說完苦諦，再看「集諦」（招感苦果的根源）配三性：一、習氣集（配遍計——就是那『執遍計所執自性』所留下來的習氣；就著這層執的習氣，方便給它安個「集」的名）；二、等起集（配依他——就是由業和煩惱一齊發動所招起的）；三、未離繫集（配圓成——就是那還沒離開煩惱障繫縛的真如）。
再看「滅諦」（苦的止息）配三性：一、自性滅（配遍計——它的自性本來就不生，所以說它本來就是滅的）；二、二取滅（配依他——就是用擇滅的工夫，叫能取、所取兩面不再生起）；三、本性滅（配圓成——就是真如，它的本性原就是寂滅的）。
再看「道諦」（通往滅的修行之路）配三性：一、遍知道（針對遍計——這條道能徹底了知遍計所執〔曉得它本空〕）；二、永斷道（針對依他——這條道能斷掉〔染的那一分〕依他起）；三、作證道（針對圓成——這條道能證得圓成實）。不過要補一句：「遍知道」這一條不光針對遍計，它也通到後面兩個（也能了知依他、也能證得圓成）。
把上面數一數：苦諦底下「無常、苦、空、無我」四門，再加上集、滅、道三諦，一共是『七組各配三性』；這七組的三性，都照上面的次序一一配下來了。要曉得，這裡所配的三性，有的是屬「假」的、有的是屬「實」的，這個按道理就能分辨出來。
十三、三性與三解脫門、三無生忍、二諦相攝
「三解脫門」（空、無願、無相這三道通往解脫的門）所緣的境界，跟三性怎麼互相收攝？按真實道理講，這三門其實都通三性；可是若隨著相來配，就各對一個：「空」解脫門〔配遍計〕、「無願」解脫門〔配依他〕、「無相」解脫門〔配圓成〕——照這個次序去懂就是了。
緣著這三性，又能生出「三無生忍」（三種對「諸法不生」的安忍體認）：一、本性無生忍；二、自然無生忍；三、惑苦無生忍。這三種忍，也照次序拿三性當所緣的境——本性無生忍緣遍計（體認它本性就沒有）、自然無生忍緣依他（體認它沒有一個自然而然的自性、全靠眾緣）、惑苦無生忍緣圓成（體認惑與苦本來就無生）。
這三性又怎麼收攝「二諦」（世俗諦、勝義諦）呢？要曉得：「世俗諦」這一邊，三性都有份（遍計、依他、圓成在世俗這一層各占一分）；「勝義諦」這一邊，就只是圓成實性。
「世俗」這一邊又分三層：一、假世俗（就是遍計所執，純是假立的）；二、行世俗（就是依他起，諸行生滅的這一層）；三、顯了世俗（就是圓成實，在世俗位上把真實顯露出來的這一層）——這三層照次序，正好就是那三性。
「勝義」這一邊也分三層，差別在「勝」和「義」這兩個字怎麼搭：一、義勝義（就是真如——是「勝」的「義」，也就是那殊勝之法的義理本身）；二、得勝義（就是涅槃——這裡「勝」就是「義」，所證得的那個殊勝果，本身即是義）；三、行勝義（就是聖道——這裡「勝」是被「行」所趣向的義，也就是能通往殊勝的那種行）。這三層因為都『不變動、不顛倒』，所以隨它們各自的情形，全歸在圓成實性裡。
十四、三性與智所行、假實、異不異
這三性各是哪種智所緣的？「遍計所執」根本不是「智」所緣的對象（因為它沒有自體、當不了所緣緣）；不過呢，不明理的人把它執成有、聖者通達它本是無，就這一層說，倒也可以勉強說它是凡夫智、聖者智的「境」。
「依他起性」是『根本智、後得智』這兩種智所緣的；「圓成實性」就只是聖者智的境（只有無分別智〔以及後得智〕才緣得到）。
這三性裡頭，幾個是假、幾個是實？「遍計所執」因為純是妄妄安立出來的，所以可以說它是「假」；可是再深一層想，它連體、連相都沒有，所以嚴格講它其實『不假也不實』——因為「假」一定得靠著「實」才立得起來，而遍計連個實在的依託都沒有（連假都談不上）。
「依他起性」就有實有假兩面：一面，憑著「聚集」（許多東西湊在一塊兒，像瓶子）、「相續」（前後接連不斷，像水流）、「分位」（某種狀態的安立，像時間）這幾種性，說它是「假有」（這些都是假立的法）；另一面，憑著「心、心所、色」都是從眾緣生的，說它是「實有」。要曉得：若沒有實在的法，假的法也就跟著沒了——因為假法一定得靠著實在的因才安立得起來。
「圓成實性」就只是實有——因為它不靠別的緣才安立（真如本來如此，不是等著眾緣湊出來的）。
這三性彼此是異、還是不異？應該說『兩樣都不是』（既非異、也非不異）：一面說，三性並沒有各自分開的體（就這點說，它們不異）；一面說，「妄執」（遍計）、「緣起」（依他）、「真實義」（圓成）這三層意思各不相同（就這點說，它們也不是不異）。
這三性的義理門類，多得說不完；只怕文字太繁瑣、看的人生厭，所以上面就只把大綱要點略略點一點罷了。
〔Verses expounded〕
A. Expounding the Three Natures (v20–22)
〔Q〕 If everything is only consciousness, why then does the World-Honored One still speak of "the three natures" (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — the substance-natures of these three sorts of dharma) all through so many scriptures? 〔A〕 You should realize: these three natures too are not apart from consciousness — they are set up precisely with respect to consciousness in the first place, and are not three separate things existing outside consciousness.
First the words of the verse are explained. The name "imagining" (遍計) comes from "imagining all-round" (周遍計度) — that is, whatever it be, this mind must go and measure and reckon it all-round (measuring here, reckoning there, grasping it all as real with nothing left out); and so it is called "imagining." And because the kinds of things it reckons are very many, the verse says "this and that" (彼彼 — such and such, this sort and that, manifold and not one). As for the "imaginer" (能遍計) that the verse speaks of, it means that mind which performs "unreal discrimination" (虛妄分別 — the mind that adds false discrimination and grasps things as real).
It is by just this "this-and-that" manifold of unreal discrimination that this mind goes and imagines all-round the manifold "things that get wholly-imagined by it" (所遍計物) — namely, the aggregates, bases, and elements, and the rest, that it grasps at random, whether it takes them as "dharma" or takes them as "self," together with their self-nature (what they are) and their differences (how they differ from one another). Whatever self-nature and differences get deludedly grasped in this way are, taken together, called "the wholly-imagined self-nature" (遍計所執自性 — that substance-nature which the imagining mind grasps and takes up).
A self-nature deludedly grasped in this way as wholly-imagined is in fact "nothing at all" (都無所有 — it does not exist at all) — because whether you go probing for it by right principle, or go checking for it by holy teaching, you simply cannot find it.
This verse can also be expounded clause by clause to match [the doctrine]: the first clause, "by this and that imagining," points to "the imagining consciousness" (the mind that does the reckoning); the second clause, "one imagines the manifold things," points to "the wholly-imagined object" (the thing reckoned by it); and the latter two clauses, "this wholly-imagined, its self-nature is nothing at all," then formally set out that the thing wholly-imagined, whether taken as "self" or as "dharma," has no self-nature at all — for the foregoing has already shown at length that it "cannot be found."
1. The imaginer (which consciousness is the imaginer)
First, the first question is raised: what is that "imaginer" (the mind that does the reckoning) itself? Put otherwise: which consciousnesses, in the end, count as the imaginer?
〔One view · all eight consciousnesses are imaginers〕 One view holds: the eight consciousnesses and their associated various mental factors, every one of them that is "contaminated" (有漏 — not yet purified, still bearing defilements), are all "imaginers." Their reasons are three: first, contaminated mind and mental factors are themselves, in their very substance-nature, "unreal discrimination" (each of them adds false discrimination); second, when they arise they all show forth as if having the "two, grasped and grasper" (they look as though they had both an object cognized and a cognizing function); third, the treatise also says that the object the ālaya-consciousness (the eighth) refers to is precisely the deludedly-grasped seeds of "the wholly-imagined self-nature" (since even what the store-consciousness refers to is deludedly-grasped seeds, it follows that the store-consciousness too is to be counted among the imaginers).
〔To be known · only the sixth and seventh are imaginers〕 And another view holds (this is the correct meaning): only the "sixth mental consciousness" and the "seventh manas" (the consciousness of constant deliberation that grasps a self) — in those parts of them that are grasping self and grasping dharmas — are the "imaginer." The reasons, taken one by one, come to ten in all:
One. Holy teaching says only "the mental consciousness is the imaginer" (it does not say the other consciousnesses are imaginers).
Two. The word "mental consciousness" (意識) here is to be taken broadly: both "the mind-faculty" (意 — meaning the seventh manas) and "the mental consciousness" (意識 — meaning the sixth) may be called "mental consciousness" — so the sentence "the mental consciousness is the imaginer" takes in both the sixth and the seventh.
Three. The imaginer must be that which performs "reckoning-discrimination" (which weighs and infers); whereas the first five consciousnesses (eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness) only directly perceive and do no reckoning, so the first five are not counted.
Four. Whatever grasps self and grasps dharmas must have "discernment" (慧 — a mental factor of examination) at work; and in the first five consciousnesses discernment is weak and unmanifest, so the first five are not counted.
Five. The two graspings, self-grasping and dharma-grasping, must arise together with "ignorance" (無明 — befuddlement, not understanding the principle).
Six. But holy teaching never says ignorance can have a "wholesome" nature; and since ignorance does not extend to the wholesome, the wholesome mind is not the imaginer (the wholesome mind does not carry ignorance and will not raise this kind of delusion-grasping).
Seven. The two mental factors "delusion" (癡 — ignorance) and "non-delusion" (無癡 — clarity, not befuddled) do not go together, are not concurrent; so the uncontaminated mind that bears non-delusion is not the imaginer.
Eight. No one has ever seen a "grasping" that could lead forth "the wisdom that realizes emptiness" (grasping and realizing-emptiness cannot stand together); so the grasping mind is not the emptiness-realizing wisdom.
Nine. "Grasping the existent" (grasping things as really existent) and "penetrating the non-existent" (penetrating that they are originally non-existent) do not arise at once; so that uncontaminated wisdom which penetrates the originally-non-existent cannot be the grasping mind.
Ten. There has never been a "grasping" that "cannot perfume" (whatever grasps perfumes seeds); yet a consciousness such as the maturation-consciousness (the eighth) cannot perfume, so it is not the imaginer.
Below it turns back to refute the reasons of 〔the first view〕. Take first its reasons one and two (that all contaminated mind is unreal discrimination, all shows forth as if having the two graspings). It is indeed so that the contaminated mind cannot realize the real (it cannot reach suchness as object), so all these minds may be called "unreal discrimination" — that much is right; but "though when they arise they look as if having the two, grasped and grasper" does not amount to "every one of them being an imaginer." Why? Because the uncontaminated mind, when it arises, likewise looks as if having these two — and by 〔the first view's〕 way of putting it, would not even the uncontaminated mind then turn out to have grasping? Press it further, and even the Tathāgata's "subsequently-attained wisdom" (the pure wisdom that, after the Buddha's attainment, refers to conventional objects) would have to have grasping too — which plainly cannot be. So one cannot take "looking, when it arises, as if having grasper and grasped" as proof that "every one is an imaginer."
Moreover, scripture says: the Buddha's wisdom manifests the manifold images of a body, a land, and the rest, just as a bright mirror throws back reflections. Were one to insist that the uncontaminated wisdom has no "referring function" (that is, that it raises no image-part resembling a referred-to object), then it ought not to be called "wisdom" at all — which shows that "looking, when it arises, as if having grasper and grasped" is not itself "grasping."
Take next its reason three (that the store-consciousness refers to the seeds of the wholly-imagined). Holy teaching did say that the store-consciousness refers to the wholly-imagined seeds, but it never said the store-consciousness refers "only" to these — what the store-consciousness refers to also includes solidly real objects (not merely the deludedly-grasped seeds). So this reason too cannot conclusively prove that "the store-consciousness is an imaginer." From this whole stretch of reasoning it is plain: only in the sixth and seventh sorts of mind is there an "imaginer."
The imaginer-consciousnesses, though only two in kind (the sixth and the seventh), differ when they go imagining in how they are tallied — by two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and so on, all manner of different countings (depending on how finely you split or lump their discriminating). And just because the ways of dividing are so various, the verse says "this and that" (manifold and not one).
2. The wholly-imagined (what is the wholly-imagined object)
Next the second question is raised: what is that "wholly-imagined" (the object reckoned) itself? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: what gets wholly-imagined is the "other-dependent" (依他起 — those dharmas that arise only in dependence on the many conditions). Why say so? Because these other-dependent dharmas are precisely the "object-support condition" (所緣緣 — the object the imaginer reaches out to, which also moves it) for the imagining mind when it reaches out — that is, the deluded grasping must lean upon some other-dependent thing before it can arise at all.
〔Q〕 Then is not the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實 — that real substance-nature, suchness) also an object that the imaginer refers to? 〔A〕 The "real" (i.e. the perfectly-accomplished) is not an object the deluded grasping can directly refer to — the deluded-grasping mind cannot reach suchness; only, taken "by mediation" (展轉 — at one remove, around a bend), it may just barely be counted as "wholly-imagined" too (because it is by being deluded about the real that the delusion arises, and so the two are linked at one remove). On the other side, the "wholly-imagined" (遍計所執 — that self, that dharma deludedly grasped) is indeed an "object" the imagining mind faces, yet it has no substance at all and cannot serve as an "object-support condition" (it is no real thing that can move the mind), so it does not count as "the imagined." Strictly, the true "wholly-imagined" is only the other-dependent.
3. The mark of the wholly-imagined (how it differs from the other-dependent)
This dharma "the wholly-imagined" — what is its mark like? And how does it differ from "the other-dependent"?
〔One view · the two graspings just are the wholly-imagined〕 One view holds: the mind and mental factors within the three realms, owing to the unreal perfuming undergone since beginningless time, though each one in its own substance is but a single thing, yet when they arise they come forth as if split into "two parts" — that is, the "seeing-part" (見分 — the cognizing side) and the "image-part" (相分 — the side that is the cognized reflection), and these two sides just are "grasper and grasped." These "two parts" are "existent to deluded feeling but non-existent to principle," and so this mark is called "the wholly-imagined." As for the "substance" underlying these two parts (that is, the mind and mental factors themselves), it does indeed arise in dependence on the many conditions and cannot be said to be non-existent, and this is called "the other-dependent" — because it is "born of the many conditions, unreal discrimination and the rest, coming together."
How is this known to be so? Because the various holy teachings say: "unreal discrimination" (that is, the very substance of mind and mental factors) is "the other-dependent"; while "the two graspings" (the seeing- and image-parts, that is, grasper and grasped) are what is called "the wholly-imagined."
〔To be known · the two parts too are other-dependent · only when definitely grasped is it the wholly-imagined〕 And another view holds (this is the correct meaning): in all mind and mental factors, those "two parts" (the seeing-part and the image-part) transformed by the force of perfuming, since they too are born in dependence on the many conditions, are equally "other-dependent" (the two parts in themselves are not the wholly-imagined). The real wholly-imagined is when the imaginer-mind leans upon these two parts and then goes and stiffly grasps them as definitely so — "definitely really existent, definitely really non-existent, one, different, combined, not combined," and so on — and it is this layer of "deluded grasping" that is named "the wholly-imagined."
This view has two grounds. First, the various holy teachings all say that "consciousness-measure-only" (唯量 — meaning the self-witnessing part, the side by which consciousness witnesses itself), "the two-only" (唯二 — meaning the seeing- and image-parts), and "the manifold-only" (唯種種 — meaning the manifold and various image-parts) are all named "other-dependent" — which shows the two parts belong from the start within the other-dependent. Second, the "four parts" — image-part, seeing-part, self-witnessing part, and witness-of-the-self-witnessing part — and the "eleven consciousnesses" the Mahāyānasaṃgraha speaks of, and the rest, are all said by the treatises to be subsumed under "the other-dependent."
Below, several untenable consequences are used to prove, conversely, that "the two parts are not the wholly-imagined." Take one: suppose the two parts just were the wholly-imagined; then even the two parts manifested by the uncontaminated "subsequently-attained wisdom" (a kind of the Buddha's pure wisdom) would have to be called wholly-imagined. Pressed this way, one is caught both ways: if you concede [that the subsequently-attained wisdom's two parts too are wholly-imagined], then the holy ones' wisdom ought not to arise leaning upon the wholly-imagined, and the wisdom that refers to it ought not to count as "the path-truth" (道諦 — the real dharma of cultivating the path), which plainly cannot be; and if you do not concede it (that is, you allow that the subsequently-attained wisdom's two parts are not wholly-imagined), then equally you must realize: the contaminated two parts are by the same reasoning likewise not the wholly-imagined.
Take another: suppose the two parts were the wholly-imagined; then they ought, like "a hare's horn" (a hare has no horn; there is no such thing at all), to be unable to serve as an "object-support condition" — because the wholly-imagined has no substance from the start, and a thing without substance cannot move the mind. And take another: since the two parts (by your account) have no substance, they ought not to be able to perfume seeds; and the seeds being unable to be perfumed, when the later consciousness and the rest arise there ought to be no two parts at all — yet in fact the later consciousness plainly does carry both seeing- and image-parts, which does not square with the facts.
Take another: the various "habit-energies" (that is, the seeds) are subsumed under "the image-part" — and are these not, then, "dharmas that have substance" and that can act as "causal condition"? (The seeds plainly have substance and can act as cause, which shows the image-part too has substance and belongs to the other-dependent.) And take another: if you say the "inner image-part and seeing-part" born in dependence on the many conditions are not other-dependent, then by the very same reasoning the "substance" (the self-witnessing part) underlying them ought not to be other-dependent either — for there is no other reason that could set them apart; yet pressed this way the whole apparatus of the other-dependent collapses entirely.
From these several stretches of reasoning it is plain: whatever is born in dependence on the many conditions — "the mind and mental factors themselves," together with their "image-part and seeing-part" — whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are all "other-dependent" — because they all arise in dependence on the many conditions.
When the verse says "born of the conditions of discrimination" (the other-dependent self-nature is born of the conditions of discrimination), you should realize that this is only "speaking, for the moment, of the defiled portion of the other-dependent" — because "the pure portion of the other-dependent" actually belongs over with the perfectly-accomplished (the pure portion's other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished cling together and cannot be told apart), and so the verse here leaves it out of account for now.
Or, putting it another way: whether defiled or pure, mind and mental factors may all be called "discrimination" (分別 — because they all refer and cognize, all exert function); and on this reading, all the defiled and pure other-dependent are subsumed under the "other-dependent" of this verse (not limited just to the defiled portion).
4. The mark of the perfectly-accomplished (the latter half of v21, and v22)
That "perfectly-accomplished" real substance-nature of dharmas, disclosed by the two emptinesses — "the emptiness of self" (我空 — there is no real self) and "the emptiness of dharmas" (法空 — there is no real dharma) — is called "the perfectly-accomplished" (圓成實). The three senses within this name — "perfect, accomplished, real" — point to just three features of this true nature: "perfect" says it is all-pervading (everywhere without exception); "accomplished" says it is constant-abiding (everlasting, unchanging); "real" says its substance is not false. By these three points, in passing, several easily-confused things are marked off: marked off are "the particular and general characteristics" (these two do not pervade, so they are not "perfect"); marked off is "space" (the unconditioned space, being substanceless, is unreal, so it is not "accomplished," not "real"); and marked off is "a self" (the deludedly-grasped self is false, so it is not "real").
Actually the uncontaminated "conditioned" dharmas (such as the uncontaminated wisdom) — because they are apart from inversion, have reached the ultimate, and their excellent function is all-pervading — may also bear the name "perfectly-accomplished." But a distinction must be kept: the perfectly-accomplished spoken of in this present verse takes "the first sense" (that is, the perfectly-accomplished real nature of dharmas, namely suchness), not "the latter sense" (the uncontaminated conditioned dharmas).
This perfectly-accomplished is precisely "upon that other-dependent, the everlasting being-apart from the former wholly-imagined just spoken of," and it has as its nature "the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses" — which is just what the verse says, "the perfectly-accomplished, upon that, is ever apart from the former nature."
Below, these few words of the verse are picked out and explained one by one. The verse says "upon that" (upon that other-dependent), which means: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are the "two that are neither-identical-nor-apart" (不即不離 — neither one and the same, nor two things set apart). The verse says "ever apart," which means: the deludedly-grasped nature of grasper and grasped "has, in principle, never once existed" — note that it is "ever" apart, not absent only for a time, but never-having-been from the very start. The verse says "former" (apart from the "former" nature — that is, only the wholly-imagined is driven off), which means "the other-dependent is not emptied" — what is emptied is only the wholly-imagined, while the other-dependent itself is not emptied. The verse says "nature" (apart from that "nature" before it), which means: what is parted from is only those "two emptinesses" (that is, the self- and dharma-natures of the wholly-imagined), and these "two emptinesses" are not themselves the perfectly-accomplished — because suchness is "neither falling into existence nor falling into non-existence," and it is not that the "non-existence" left when the wholly-imagined is emptied counts as the perfectly-accomplished.
By the foregoing principle of "neither-identical-nor-apart," the perfectly-accomplished and that other-dependent are therefore "neither-different, nor-not-different" (this is just what the verse says, "hence this, with respect to the other-dependent, is neither-different-nor-not-different"). Take each side in turn: suppose one said they are "different" (wholly two separate matters); then suchness would not be the "real nature" of the other-dependent — yet the real nature is precisely that nature of the other-dependent itself, so one cannot say they are wholly two separate matters. Suppose one said they are "not-different" (wholly one and the same matter); then this perfectly-accomplished nature would have to be "impermanent" just like the other-dependent — yet suchness is constant-abiding and unchanging, so neither can one say they are wholly one and the same matter.
Further: suppose those two were either wholly two matters or wholly one matter; then the two (the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent) would have to be together both "the pure object" or together both "the impure object" — and on that footing, "the root wisdom" (根本智 — the wisdom that directly refers to the pure suchness) and "the subsequently-attained wisdom" (後得智 — the wisdom that refers to both defiled and pure) would have to face no different function at all, which plainly cannot be. How, then, can these two natures be "not-different and yet not-one"? The answer: just as with the relation between such natures as "impermanence and no-self" and "the conditioned dharmas" (neither wholly different nor wholly one).
Take the relation between such natures as "impermanence" and such dharmas as "the conditioned" (the formations): suppose one said they are "different" (wholly two separate matters); then the conditioned dharmas ought not to be impermanent — yet the conditioned are plainly impermanent, so one cannot say they are wholly two separate matters. Suppose one said they are "not-different" (wholly one and the same matter); then this "impermanence" ought not to be the "shared characteristic" running through the conditioned — yet a shared characteristic runs through many dharmas, so neither can one say they are wholly one and the same matter. Compare it by this figure and it becomes clear: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are likewise "not-one-and-not-different" — this is just the relation between "the dharma" (the other-dependent) and "the dharma-nature" (the perfectly-accomplished), and in principle it must be so (the perfectly-accomplished just is the dharma-nature of the other-dependent); because "the ultimate" (the perfectly-accomplished) and "the conventional" (the other-dependent), these two, are from the start set up only by mutually awaiting one another (there is this only because there is that, and they cannot be parted).
Next the verse's "not without seeing this, [one sees] that" (非不見此彼) is explained. Its meaning is: it never happens that one "without first having realizing-vision of this perfectly-accomplished, can yet really see that other-dependent nature" — that is, one must first see the perfectly-accomplished, and only then can one really see the other-dependent. Why? Because so long as a person has "not yet penetrated that the wholly-imagined is in fact empty," he cannot really know that "the other-dependent is existent" — not knowing that grasper and grasped are originally empty, he mistakes the other-dependent for the wholly-imagined, and so sees awry.
Only when "non-discriminating wisdom" (無分別智 — that wisdom which raises no discrimination and directly meets suchness) has realized suchness can one, going on into the "subsequently-attained wisdom," truly penetrate that the other-dependent nature is "like things conjured by illusion" and the like — that is, like an illusion, not really existent yet looking as though existent.
Although mind and mental factors, those dharmas, have from beginningless time already been able to refer to their own image-part, seeing-part, and the rest, yet because self-grasping and dharma-grasping have all along run together with them, they have never been able to know really (that is, they cannot see clearly the true face of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished).
Those self-mind and mental factors drawn up in dependence on the many conditions are all unreally transformed and manifested; they are just like a thing conjured by illusion, the shimmering mirage of a clear day, the scenes in a dream, the reflection in a mirror, the shadow cast under light, the echo in a valley, the moon in the water, the things made by transformation — these eight are all "not existent yet looking as though existent" (the author strings together eight figures in a row, to say that the other-dependent is just like this, illusion-like and unreal).
In dependence on this meaning, there is a verse that says: "It is not that, without seeing suchness, one can yet understand that all the formations are alike things conjured by illusion; [the formations,] though existent, are not real."
The verse's meaning is to say: the three self-natures (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished) are none of them apart from mind and mental factors, those dharmas — and this gathers up the whole foregoing stretch of "the three natures too are not apart from consciousness."
5. The three natures subsume mind-dharmas (the three natures all not apart from consciousness)
First, the other-dependent. Mind and mental factors, together with the manifold marks they transform and manifest, are all born in dependence on the many conditions, and so, just like things conjured by illusion, are "not existent yet looking as though existent," fooling those who do not understand the principle (the foolish) — all of this is named "the other-dependent nature."
Next, the wholly-imagined. Those who do not understand the principle go, upon these other-dependent things, and crosswise grasp them as being "self, dharma, existent, non-existent, one, different, combined, not combined," and the like — these graspings are in fact just like "a flower in the sky" (something seen only by dazzled eyes, with nothing there at all), their "nature and mark altogether nothing" — all of this is named "the wholly-imagined."
Last, the perfectly-accomplished. Upon the very other-dependent, those deludedly-grasped self and dharmas are altogether empty; and this "emptiness"-disclosed "true substance-nature of consciousness and the rest" is called "the perfectly-accomplished." And so these three natures are, every one, not apart from mind and the rest — which loops right back to the conclusion stated at the opening, "the three natures too are not apart from consciousness."
6. The three natures subsume the three unconditioned
〔Q〕 Space, cessation-through-discrimination, and cessation-not-through-discrimination — these three unconditioned dharmas (dharmas that neither arise nor perish, made by no activity) — under which of the three natures do they fall? 〔A〕 All three natures can take them in — depending on which side you view them from, they fall under that nature.
Viewed from one side: mind and the rest transform and manifest a mark resembling space, and since this is born following the mind, it is taken in by "the other-dependent." Viewed from a second side: those who do not understand the principle, within this, deludedly grasp this space and the rest as solidly really existent, and this deluded grasping is taken in by "the wholly-imagined." Viewed from a third side: if, with respect to suchness, one conventionally sets up the sense of "space" and the like (for instance, taking cessation-through-discrimination to disclose suchness), then that is taken in by "the perfectly-accomplished."
Contaminated mind and the rest definitely belong only under "the other-dependent"; uncontaminated mind and the rest can belong at once under the two natures "the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished" — on the one hand, said to be born of the many conditions, it belongs under the other-dependent; on the other hand, said to be without inversion, it is taken in by the perfectly-accomplished.
7. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the seven suchnesses
How do these three natures and "the seven suchnesses" (suchness spoken of from seven angles) mutually subsume one another? First the seven suchnesses are listed: one, the suchness-of-flux — that is, the true substance-nature of conditioned dharmas amid their flowing-and-turning; two, the suchness-of-the-real-mark — that is, the true substance-nature disclosed by the two no-selves, the no-self-of-person and the no-self-of-dharmas; three, the suchness-of-consciousness-only — that is, the true substance-nature of the defiled and pure dharmas on the side of their "being only consciousness"; four, the suchness-of-establishment — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of suffering"; five, the suchness-of-wrong-conduct — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of origination"; six, the suchness-of-purity — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of cessation"; seven, the suchness-of-right-conduct — that is, the true substance-nature of "the truth of the path."
Since these seven are all "true substance-nature," they all fall under "the perfectly-accomplished" (because they are all objects of those two wisdoms, the root wisdom and the subsequently-attained wisdom). But viewed from another angle, "following the mark," the case differs: among them, the three — "the suchness-of-flux, the suchness-of-establishment (that is, suffering), and the suchness-of-wrong-conduct (that is, origination)" — fall under "the former two natures" (the wholly-imagined and the other-dependent), because these three carry deluded grasping and defilement; while the remaining four suchnesses (the real-mark, consciousness-only, purity, and right-conduct) all fall under the perfectly-accomplished.
8. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the six dharmas
How do the three natures and "the six dharmas" mutually subsume one another? In the six dharmas (that is, form, feeling, conception, formation, consciousness, plus the unconditioned), each one of the six fully possesses the three natures — because upon each of these six dharmas there are three layers of sense to be spoken of: someone raises a "deluded grasping" upon it (this is the wholly-imagined); it is itself "born of the many conditions" (this is the other-dependent); and it has, each, its own "true principle" (this is the perfectly-accomplished).
9. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the five matters
How do the three natures and "the five matters" (mark, name, discrimination, right-wisdom, and suchness — these five) mutually subsume one another? The various holy teachings, on this point, do not speak uniformly (that is, there are several differing accounts, listed one by one below):
〔Five-matters subsumption · first account〕 In some places it is said thus: the other-dependent subsumes "mark, name, discrimination, right-wisdom" (these four), the perfectly-accomplished subsumes "suchness" (this one), and the wholly-imagined "subsumes not one of the five matters." Its account runs: when contaminated mind and mental factors transform and manifest something resembling "the expressed" (the content pointed at), this is called "mark"; when they manifest something resembling "the expresser" (the words that point), this is set up as "name"; the transforming mind and the rest are set up as "discrimination"; and as for uncontaminated mind and the rest, since they are apart from conceptual proliferation, they are simply named, all together, "right-wisdom" (no further dividing into expresser and expressed) — these four are all born of conditions, and so are all subsumed under the other-dependent.
〔Five-matters subsumption · second account〕 In other places it is said thus: the other-dependent subsumes "mark, discrimination" (these two), the wholly-imagined subsumes only "name" (this one), and "right-wisdom, suchness" both fall under the perfectly-accomplished. Its account runs: the image-part of contaminated mind and mental factors is called "mark," and the rest (that is, the seeing-part and so on) is called "discrimination"; the wholly-imagined, having no substance at all, is — in order to point up that it "is not there" — conventionally given a "name" (using a name to point at this thing that in fact is not there); while "right-wisdom and suchness," these two, being without inversion, fall under the perfectly-accomplished.
〔Five-matters subsumption · third account〕 In yet other places it is said thus: the other-dependent subsumes only "discrimination" (this one), the wholly-imagined subsumes "mark, name" (these two), and "right-wisdom, suchness" both fall under the perfectly-accomplished. Its account runs: the image-part, seeing-part, and the rest of contaminated mind and mental factors are, all together, named "discrimination" (because their very substance-nature is unreal discrimination); while on the side of the wholly-imagined, its "expresser and expressed," set up following deluded feeling, are set up as the two matters "name and mark."
〔Five-matters subsumption · fourth account〕 And in still other places it is said thus: "name" belongs to the other-dependent, "meaning" belongs to the wholly-imagined. Its account runs: the image-part, seeing-part, and the rest of contaminated mind and mental factors become "the imagined object" by the moving-force of "name," and so are spoken of as "name"; while the wholly-imagined, crosswise reckoned-up following the name and in fact without any substance, is conventionally set up under the heading "meaning."
The five matters spoken of in the various holy teachings, though their wording differs from account to account and does not match up, are in sense not in conflict with one another. But it should be known: among these accounts, it is still "the first account" that divides them most cleanly, with the least chance of muddling — for the details, see the broad treatment in the Yogācārabhūmi.
10. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the five marks
Holy teaching also speaks of there being "five marks" — how do these and the three natures mutually subsume one another? Within them, "the expressed" (what is pointed at) and "the expresser" (what does the pointing) each fully possess the three natures. How divided? "What is reckoned-up by deluded feeling" falls under the first nature (the wholly-imagined); the three — "mark, name, discrimination" — according to which role they take on (whether as the expressed or as the expresser), fall under the other-dependent; and the two — "suchness, right-wisdom" — likewise according to which role they take on (whether as the expressed or as the expresser), fall under the perfectly-accomplished (because the subsequently-attained wisdom can transform and manifest a mark resembling the expresser).
Among the five marks, "the two-marks-belonging-to-each-other-mark" (that is, the mark by which the expresser and the expressed are bound to and belong to one another) falls only under the first nature (the wholly-imagined) — because the deludedly-grasped meaning and name are tied fast to one another, belonging to each other inseparably. The "grasping mark" falls only under the other-dependent (because its substance-nature is unreal discrimination); the "non-grasping mark" falls only under the perfectly-accomplished (because its substance-nature is the uncontaminated wisdom and the rest).
11. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the four realities
Holy teaching also speaks of "four realities" (namely: the reality the world commonly grants, the reality reasoning works out, the reality that is the object of the pure wisdom that has cut off the affliction-obstruction, and the reality that is the object of the pure wisdom that has cut off the knowable-obstruction) — how do these and the three natures mutually subsume one another? The two realities, "what the world commonly grants" and "what reasoning works out," fall under the other-dependent (because they are subsumed by the three matters among the foregoing five matters — mark, name, discrimination); the reality "that is the object of the pure wisdom that has cut off the two obstructions" falls under the perfectly-accomplished (because it is subsumed by the two among the five matters — right-wisdom and suchness).
The Madhyāntavibhāga has another way of dividing them: the first reality (what the world commonly grants) falls only under the first nature — because it is what people of the world together grasp and jointly settle on; the second reality (what reasoning works out) extends, then, to all three natures — because this "reasoning" of it reaches both to "grasping" and to "non-grasping," to both the defiled and the pure, so all three natures touch upon it; and the latter two realities (the objects of the wisdom that has cut off the two obstructions) fall only under the third nature (the perfectly-accomplished).
12. The mutual subsumption of the three natures and the four truths
How do the three natures and "the four truths" (suffering, origination, cessation, the path — these four realities) mutually subsume one another? In the four truths, each single truth fully possesses the three natures.
Take first the "truth of suffering." Beneath the truth of suffering there are the four aspects "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, no-self" (the four facets by which suffering is contemplated), and each of these four again has, each, the three natures.
"Impermanence," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, no-nature-impermanence (matched to the wholly-imagined — the nature of the wholly-imagined is forever nothing, and "ever nothing" counts too as a kind of "impermanence"); two, arising-and-perishing-impermanence (matched to the other-dependent — the other-dependent dharmas have arising and perishing, and so are called "impermanent"); three, defiled-and-pure-impermanence (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — the perfectly-accomplished turns-and-shifts and shows forth accordingly in the defiled and pure states, and so it too is called "impermanent").
"Suffering," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, the grasped-suffering (matched to the wholly-imagined — it is what the two graspings, self-grasping and dharma-grasping, lean upon and lay hold of); two, the thing-mark-suffering (matched to the other-dependent — upon the thing-marks of the other-dependent the three marks of suffering are fully present); three, the conjoined-suffering (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — the perfectly-accomplished is conjoined together with the mark of suffering, inseparable from it).
"Emptiness," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, no-nature-emptiness (matched to the wholly-imagined — its nature is from the start nothing, and so it is called empty); two, other-nature-emptiness (matched to the other-dependent — the other-dependent is a separate matter from the deludedly-grasped self-nature, unlike it, and so it too is called empty, in the sense of emptying away that layer of the wholly-imagined); three, own-nature-emptiness (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it takes as its own substance-nature just what is disclosed by the two emptinesses).
"No-self," this one aspect, matched to the three natures, runs thus: one, no-mark-no-self (matched to the wholly-imagined — that "self"-mark is from the start nothing); two, other-mark-no-self (matched to the other-dependent — the other-dependent is unlike the deludedly-grasped self-mark); three, own-mark-no-self (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it takes as its own mark just "what is disclosed by no-self").
Having finished the truth of suffering, look next at the "truth of origination" (the root that summons up the fruit of suffering) matched to the three natures: one, the habit-energy-origination (matched to the wholly-imagined — it is the habit-energy left by "grasping the wholly-imagined self-nature"; with respect to this layer of grasping's habit-energy, the name "origination" is conventionally set up); two, the equal-rising-origination (matched to the other-dependent — it is what is summoned up by "karma" and "the afflictions" rising together); three, the not-yet-released-from-bondage-origination (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it is the suchness "not yet released from the bondage of the affliction-obstruction").
Look next at the "truth of cessation" (the stilling of suffering) matched to the three natures: one, own-nature-cessation (matched to the wholly-imagined — its own nature is from the start unarisen, and so it is said to be from the start ceased); two, the two-graspings-cessation (matched to the other-dependent — it is the use of the work of cessation-through-discrimination to make the two sides, grasper and grasped, no longer arise); three, root-nature-cessation (matched to the perfectly-accomplished — it is suchness, whose root-nature is from the start quiescent-cessation).
Look next at the "truth of the path" (the road of cultivation leading to cessation) matched to the three natures: one, the path-of-full-knowing (aimed at the wholly-imagined — this path can know through and through the wholly-imagined 〔knowing it to be originally empty〕); two, the path-of-everlasting-cutting-off (aimed at the other-dependent — this path can cut off the 〔defiled portion of the〕 other-dependent); three, the path-of-effecting-realization (aimed at the perfectly-accomplished — this path can realize the perfectly-accomplished). But one phrase must be added: this "path-of-full-knowing" is aimed not only at the wholly-imagined; it extends also to the latter two (it can both know the other-dependent and realize the perfectly-accomplished).
Count up the foregoing: beneath the truth of suffering, the four gates "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, no-self," plus the three truths of origination, cessation, and the path — seven groups in all, "each matched to the three natures"; and the three natures of these seven groups have all been matched off one by one in the order above. It should be known: the three natures matched here are, some of them, of the "conventional" kind and some of the "real" kind — this can be told apart by reasoning.
13. The mutual subsumption of the three natures with the three doors of liberation, the three forbearances of non-arising, and the two truths
The object-field that the "three doors of liberation" (emptiness, wishlessness, and marklessness — these three doors leading through to liberation) refer to — how does it and the three natures mutually subsume one another? Strictly by principle, these three doors actually all extend to all three natures; but if one matches them "following the mark," then each faces one: the "emptiness" door of liberation 〔matched to the wholly-imagined〕, the "wishlessness" door of liberation 〔matched to the other-dependent〕, the "marklessness" door of liberation 〔matched to the perfectly-accomplished〕 — understand it in this order, and that is enough.
Referring to these three natures, one can again give rise to "the three forbearances of non-arising" (three kinds of settled forbearing realization that "dharmas do not arise"): one, the root-nature forbearance-of-non-arising; two, the of-itself forbearance-of-non-arising; three, the delusion-and-suffering forbearance-of-non-arising. These three forbearances too take, in order, the three natures as the object they refer to — the root-nature forbearance-of-non-arising refers to the wholly-imagined (realizing that its root nature is from the start nothing), the of-itself forbearance-of-non-arising refers to the other-dependent (realizing that it has no self-nature arising of itself, but rests wholly on the many conditions), and the delusion-and-suffering forbearance-of-non-arising refers to the perfectly-accomplished (realizing that delusion and suffering are from the start non-arising).
How again do these three natures subsume "the two truths" (the conventional truth and the ultimate truth)? It should be known: on the side of "the conventional truth," all three natures have a share (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished each take a portion at this conventional level); on the side of "the ultimate truth," it is only the perfectly-accomplished nature.
The side of "the conventional" again divides into three layers: one, the conventional-of-the-merely-set-up (that is, the wholly-imagined, which is purely set up by convention); two, the conventional-of-the-formations (that is, the other-dependent, the layer of the formations' arising-and-perishing); three, the conventional-of-the-disclosed (that is, the perfectly-accomplished, the layer that, at the conventional level, lays the real bare) — these three layers, in order, are just those three natures.
The side of "the ultimate" too divides into three layers, the difference lying in how the two words "ultimate" (勝) and "meaning" (義) pair up: one, the meaning-ultimate (that is, suchness — the "meaning" of the "ultimate," that is, the very meaning-principle of that supreme dharma); two, the attainment-ultimate (that is, nirvāṇa — here the "ultimate" just is the "meaning," the supreme fruit attained being itself the meaning); three, the conduct-ultimate (that is, the holy path — here the "ultimate" is the meaning toward which the "conduct" heads, that is, the conduct that can lead through to the supreme). Because these three layers are all "unchanging and uninverted," they all, according to their several cases, fall within the perfectly-accomplished nature.
14. The three natures with the wisdom-fields they belong to, the conventional and the real, the different and the not-different
These three natures are each referred to by which kind of wisdom? "The wholly-imagined" is not at all an object referred to by "wisdom" (because it has no substance of its own and cannot serve as an object-support condition); only, the foolish grasp it as existent and the holy ones penetrate it to be in fact non-existent, and on just this much it may, just barely, be said to be a "object" of the ordinary person's cognition and of the holy one's cognition.
"The other-dependent nature" is referred to by those two wisdoms, "the root wisdom and the subsequently-attained wisdom"; "the perfectly-accomplished nature" is only the object of the holy one's cognition (only the non-discriminating wisdom, 〔together with the subsequently-attained wisdom,〕 can reach it as object).
Among these three natures, how many are conventional, how many real? "The wholly-imagined," being purely set up by deluded fancy, may be called "conventional"; yet, thought through one layer deeper, it has neither substance nor mark, and so, strictly, it is in fact "neither conventional nor real" — because "the conventional" must lean upon "the real" in order to be set up at all, and the wholly-imagined has not even a real basis to lean upon (it does not even amount to the conventional).
"The other-dependent nature" has both a real and a conventional side: on the one side, by reason of such natures as "aggregation" (many things gathered into one, like a pot), "continuity" (one following the next without break, like a stream of water), and "stage" (the setting-up of some state, like time), it is said to be "conventionally existent" (these are all conventionally set-up dharmas); on the other side, by reason of "mind, mental factors, and form" all being born of the many conditions, it is said to be "really existent." It should be known: were there no really-existent dharma, the conventional dharma would vanish along with it — because the conventional dharma must lean upon a really-existent cause in order to be set up at all.
"The perfectly-accomplished nature" is only really existent — because it is not set up by leaning upon other conditions (suchness is just so of itself, not something waited on the many conditions to be conjured out).
Are these three natures, one to another, different, or not-different? It should be said "neither" (neither different, nor not-different): on the one hand, the three natures have no substances separate one from another (on this point they are "not-different"); on the other hand, the three layers of sense — "deluded grasping" (the wholly-imagined), "dependent arising" (the other-dependent), and "the real meaning" (the perfectly-accomplished) — are each distinct (on this point they are "not not-different").
The kinds and classes of meaning within these three natures are more than can be told; only for fear the wording grow too verbose, and the reader weary of it, the foregoing has merely pointed up, in brief, the main heads and the gist.
〔所釋之頌〕第二十頌至第二十二頌
前面已經一路說「唯有識」，這裡會遇到一個現成的反問：既然萬法唯識，那世尊為什麼在許多經裡反覆講「三性」（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實）？這一節就是回答這個「違教難」。要先把答案點出來：三性並不在識之外另立一套東西，三性正是就著「識」而安立的——所以說「三性亦不離識」。下面順著頌文，先把三性各自講通（誰在遍計、被遍計的是什麼、遍計所執長什麼樣、圓成實又是什麼），再把三性跟一套套教法名相（三無為、七真如、六法、五事、五相、四真實、四諦、三解脫門、二諦……）一一對攝，最後辨它們之間是假是實、是異非異。
三性之立，經論早有所本。《解深密經·一切法相品》明說「諸法相略有三種」：遍計所執相是「一切法名假安立自性差別」（只是依名言假安立出來的自性、差別）、依他起相是「一切法緣生自性」（此有故彼有、此生故彼生，從緣而生）、圓成實相是「一切法平等真如」。此經更以「清淨頗胝迦寶」（水晶）為喻：水晶本淨，染上一層色相便似有種種顏色；依他起相本身如水晶，而「遍計所執相」就像那加上去的染色——並非依他自有，只是妄執安立的言說習氣染上去的。此經又就「相、名相應」與「執、無執」分判三相的了知次第；到《無自性相品》，更依三相說『相無自性、生無自性、勝義無自性』三無自性性——這正是後一節「即依此三性，立彼三無性」的經本。《瑜伽師地論·攝決擇分》同樣定三自性：遍計所執是『名言安立、數數周遍計度而建立』，依他起是『眾緣生、他力所起、非自然有，故說無性』，圓成實即諸法真如；並判『在依他、圓成上妄起遍計執』叫作「增益邊」——這正是頌文「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」所要遠離的（所離者唯這增益的遍計，依他本身不空）。本論這一節所釋，經根即在《解深密》，論本即在《瑜伽師地論》（旁及《攝大乘論》《辯中邊論》）——下面順著頌文講開。
甲、先把三性各自講通（v20–22）
一、能遍計——是哪些識在「遍計」？
先問：能去「遍計」的，是哪一種識？
所謂「遍計」，就是『周遍地計量、推度』——心對境普遍地分別、揣度，所以叫「遍計」；這種能分別之心品類眾多，所以頌文用「彼彼」兩字來說它。簡單講，能遍計就是那「虛妄分別」之心。就由這「彼彼」種種虛妄分別，去遍計種種『被分別的東西』——也就是被妄執的五蘊、十二處、十八界等等，不管把它執成「法」還是執成「我」，所執出來的那些自性、差別，總名叫「遍計所執自性」。而這樣執出來的自性，其實全然是「都無所有」的：拿正理去推、拿聖教去驗，都找不到它的實體。
頌文也可以這樣配著讀：第一句「由彼彼遍計」顯『能遍計的識』，第二句「遍計種種物」示『被遍計的境』，後半兩句「此遍計所執，自性無所有」才正式說明——遍計所執不管是執我還是執法，其自性都是沒有的，因為前面已經廣顯它了不可得。
那麼究竟哪些識是能遍計？這裡有兩說。
一說（八識皆能遍計）：八識連同它們的心所，凡是有漏的，都算能遍計。理由有三：第一，有漏的心、心所都以「虛妄分別」為體性；第二，它們都現起似「所取、能取」的二相；第三，論裡還說阿賴耶識是以「遍計所執自性」的妄執種子作所緣的，可見連藏識也該攝在能遍計裡。
又一說（正義·唯六七能遍計）：只有第六意識和第七末那這兩個心品裡頭「執我、執法」的部分，才是真正的能遍計。理由要逐條看：一、聖教只說「意識能遍計」；二、「意」（指第七）和「意識」（指第六）都可名為「意識」，所以這「意識」是把六、七一併攝進去的；三、能遍計必須是「計度分別」，而前五識沒有計度的功能；四、能執我、執法的必是「慧」，前五識裡慧不勝；五、我、法二執必定跟「無明」一起生；六、聖教不說無明有善性，所以善心不是能遍計；七、「癡」跟「無癡」不能相應，所以無漏無癡之心不是能遍計；八、從沒見過有哪個「執」能引導出「空智」，可見執與證空不並存；九、「執有」跟「達無」不會同時起，所以無漏的達無之智不會起執；十、從來沒有哪個「執」是「不能熏」的，而異熟識等本不熏習，所以也不是能遍計。
回頭把前一說的理據一一化解。先說『有漏心都是虛妄分別』這條：有漏心確實不能證真如，所以一律名為「虛妄分別」沒錯；但『雖然現似所取、能取之相』並不等於『都是能遍計』——否則無漏心也現似這二相，難道無漏心也有執？那如來的後得智豈不也該有執了？這顯然不行。所以不能拿「現似二取」當作『都是能遍計』的證據。經裡更明說：佛智能現起身、土等種種影像，就像明鏡照物一樣；倘若說無漏智沒有『緣慮之用』（即不現似相分），那它就不成其為「智」了——可見「現似二相」絕不等於「執」。再說「藏識緣遍計種」這條：聖教雖說藏識緣遍計所執的種子，卻沒說藏識「唯」緣這個（藏識所緣其實兼有實境），所以這不能確證『藏識是能遍計』。由上面這些道理可知：唯有第六、第七這兩個心品，才有能遍計。
窺基《述記》在這裡立「四句分別」，把「遍」（普遍能緣）和「計」（計度執著）兩義交絡開來，好揀清能遍計的寬狹：一、有「遍」而非「計」——指無漏諸識、以及有漏的善識等，它們能普遍廣緣一切境，卻不起計執；二、有「計」而非「遍」——指第七有漏識（恒執我，卻只內緣藏識一境，不普遍）；三、亦「遍」亦「計」——指有漏染污、執我執法的第六意識等（既能普遍計度、又起執）；四、非「遍」非「計」——指有漏的前五識以及第八識等（既不普遍計度、也不起執）。四句一擺，『真正的能遍計唯是六、七執我法者』就揀得分明了。窺基又就「遍計種種物」的「物」字釋作「物者，體也」——這「物」是隨能計之心而說的，因為能計之心品類眾多，所以說「種種」，並不是說「物體」本身有種種（種種只在能計心那一邊）。
附帶一句：能遍計的識品雖只有兩個（六、七），可是它「遍計」的開合卻有二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九、十等種種不同的分法（隨分別開合而算），所以頌文才說「彼彼」。
二、所遍計——被遍計的，是什麼境？
再問：被遍計的（所遍計），它的自性是什麼？
《攝大乘論》說：所遍計就是「依他起」——因為依他起正是能遍計之心的「所緣緣」（妄執必定要託著依他事才起得來，不會憑空執）。
這裡有人追問：圓成實性難道不也是能遍計之心的境嗎？回答：真如（圓成實）不是妄執能「親緣」的境（妄執攀不到真如），不過依「展轉」來說（迷了真才起妄），也勉強可說它是所遍計。至於「遍計所執」呢，它雖然是能遍計之心所對的「境」，可它根本沒有體、不能充當「所緣緣」，所以也不算嚴格意義的所遍計。嚴格說來，所遍計就只是依他起。
三、遍計所執之相——它跟依他起到底差在哪？
接著辨：遍計所執長什麼樣？它跟依他起又有什麼分別？這一段是全節的關鍵，也有兩說。
一說（二取就是遍計所執）：三界的心、心所，由無始以來的虛妄熏習，雖然各自的「體」只有一個，卻現起似「二分」——也就是「見分、相分」（亦即能取、所取）。這「二分」是「情有理無」的（在妄情上彷彿有、在道理上其實無），這個樣子就叫「遍計所執」。而二分所依的那個「體」（心心所的自體），是實實在在託眾緣而生的、它的性不是沒有，這就叫「依他起」——因為它是「虛妄分別緣所生」的。怎麼知道是這樣分的？因為諸聖教就這麼說：「虛妄分別」（心心所體）是依他起，「二取」（見相二分／能所取）才叫遍計所執。
又一說（正義·二分也是依他，妄定執才是遍計所執）：一切心、心所由熏習力所變出來的「二分」（見、相），既然是從緣生的，那也該是「依他起」——二分本身並不就是遍計所執。要等能遍計者依著這二分，去妄執它『定是實有、定是實無、是一、是異、俱、不俱』等等，這個「妄執」才叫遍計所執。理據是：第一，諸聖教說『唯量（自證）、唯二（見相二分）、唯種種（眾多相分）』都名為依他起，可見二分屬依他；第二，『相、見、自證、證自證』這四法以及《攝論》講的「十一識」等，論裡都判作依他起所攝。
接著正義用幾重反證來夾死前說。其一：若二分就是遍計所執，那無漏「後得智」品裡的二分也該叫遍計所執了；若承認，那聖智就不該緣著遍計所執而生、緣它的智品就不該算是「道諦」（這不行）；若不承認（即承認後得智的二分不是遍計所執），那就該知道有漏的二分也一樣不是遍計所執。其二：若二分是遍計所執，那它就該像「兔角」一樣不能作所緣緣（因為遍計所執沒有體，作不了緣）；而且二分既然沒有體，就不該熏成種子；種子既熏不成，後面的識生起時就該沒有二分了——這些都跟事實相違。其三：諸「習氣」（種子）是「相分」所攝的，這豈不正說明相分是「有法」、能作「因緣」嗎？（可見相分有體、屬依他。）再說，若硬說緣所生的『內相分、見分』不是依他起，那它們『所依的體』（自證）照同樣的道理也該不是依他了（沒有別的理由可分），這樣一推，整套就全垮了。由這些道理可知：凡眾緣所生的「心、心所自體」和它的「相分、見分」，不論有漏無漏，全都是依他起——因為它們都是依眾緣而生起的。
那頌文「分別緣所生」這句，是『且就染分依他』說的（偏就染污那一分講）——因為「淨分依他」其實已攝歸圓成（淨分依他與圓成相即）。或者也可以說：染、淨的心心所都可名為「分別」（因為都能緣慮），這樣一來，一切染、淨的依他就全是這頌「依他起」所攝，不限於染分了。
四、圓成實之相（v21 後半、v22）
由『我空、法空』二空所顯出來的、「圓滿、成就」的諸法實性，就叫「圓成實」。『圓滿、成就、實』這三個字，正顯這真性是『周遍、常住、體非虛謬』的——用來簡別開「自相、共相」（那是不周遍的）、「虛空」（無體、不是實）、「我」（虛謬的）等等。另外，無漏的「有為」法（比如無漏智），因為它離顛倒、究竟、勝用周遍，也可以叫「圓成實」；不過這一頌講的圓成實取的是「初義」（圓滿成就的諸法實性，即真如），不是「後義」（無漏有為）。
這圓成實，就是『在那依他起之上，永遠遠離前面所說的遍計所執』，以『二空所顯的真如』為它的體性——這正是頌文「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」。逐字看這句：說「於彼」（在那依他起上），是顯圓成實跟依他起「不即不離」；說「常遠離」，是顯妄執的能取、所取性『在道理上恆常沒有』（不是一時才無，而是本來常無）；說「前」（遠離「前」性，即只離遍計），其義在顯『依他不空』（所要空掉的只是遍計，依他本身不空）；說「性」（遠離前「性」），是顯所離的只是「二空」（即遍計的我、法二性），而「二空」本身並不就是圓成實——因為真如是「離有、離無」之性（不是把它說成「無」就成了圓成）。
由前面「不即不離」這層道理，所以圓成實跟依他起是「非異、非不異」（這正是頌文「故此與依他，非異非不異」）。為什麼不能說「全異」？因為若全異，真如就該不是依他的「實性」了（實性即是依他之性，所以不能全異）。為什麼不能說「全同」？因為若全同，圓成這性就該跟依他一樣是「無常」了（真如是常住的，所以不能全同）。再說，若全異或全同，那圓成與依他就該同樣都是「淨境」、或同樣都是「非淨境」，這麼一來「根本智」（緣淨）跟「後得智」（緣染淨）的作用就該沒分別了，這不行。那麼二性怎能「非異非一」呢？這就好比「無常、無我」等性與行法之間的關係：「無常」等性跟「行」等法，若說「異」，那行法就該不是無常了（可行法當體就是無常，所以不能全異）；若說「不異」，那這無常就不該是諸行的「共相」了（共相是通於諸法的，所以不能全同）。由這個比喻可顯：圓成實與依他「非一非異」——這就是「法」與「法性」的關係，道理上必然如此（圓成正是依他的法性）；因為「勝義」（圓成）跟「世俗」（依他）是相待而有的。
再看頌文「非不見此彼」這句。它的意思是：並不是『沒證見圓成實，就能見到依他起性』（必須先見圓成，才能如實見依他）——因為一個人若還沒通達「遍計所執性空」，就不能如實了知『依他之有』（不知二取是空，便會把依他誤當成遍計）。唯有「無分別智」證了真如之後，才能在後得智中了達依他起性「如幻事」一般（如幻、非實有而似有）。要知道，無始以來心心所雖然早就能緣自己的相分、見分等，可是因為我執、法執恆與它一起運轉，所以始終不能如實了知（依他與圓成）。眾緣所牽引的自心、心所，虛妄地變現出來，就像幻術、陽焰、夢境、鏡中像、光影、空谷回響、水中月、變化所成——『不是有而像是有』（這八個比喻顯依他如幻）。依著這個道理，所以有頌說：『不是還沒見真如，便能了知諸行皆如幻事等；那些行雖有而不真。』這頌的意思就是說：三種自性（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實），都不離心、心所法。
五、三性總攝心法——三性都不離識
把上面收束起來：所謂心、心所以及它們所變現的相，都是眾緣生的，像幻事一樣『不是有而像是有』、誑惑著愚夫，這一切都名為「依他起性」。愚夫就在這依他事上橫加執取「我、法、有、無、一、異、俱、不俱」等等，像空中花一樣『性、相都沒有』，這一切都名為「遍計所執」。而在依他起上，那些被妄執的我、法都是空的，這個「空」所顯出來的「識等真性」，就名為「圓成實」。所以這三性都不離心等——這正是「三性亦不離識」的結論。
乙、三性與一套套教法名相的對攝
六、三性攝三無為
有人問：虛空、擇滅、非擇滅這三種無為，該歸三性中的哪一性？回答：三性都可以容攝它（依不同的角度而攝）。其一，心等變現出似「虛空」等的相，這是隨著心而生的，所以屬「依他起」攝；其二，愚夫在這上頭妄執虛空等是實有的，這就屬「遍計所執」攝；其三，若就真如而假名安立「虛空」等的意義（比如擇滅是用來顯真如的），那就屬「圓成實」攝。再說，有漏的心等一定屬「依他」；無漏的心等則容許「依他、圓成」二性都攝它——因為它是眾緣生的，所以攝屬依他；又因為它無顛倒，所以攝屬圓成實。
七、三性與七真如相攝
三性跟「七真如」怎麼相攝？先列七真如：一、流轉真如（有為法流轉的實性）；二、實相真如（我、法二無我所顯的實性）；三、唯識真如（染淨法唯識的實性）；四、安立真如（苦諦的實性）；五、邪行真如（集諦的實性）；六、清淨真如（滅諦的實性）；七、正行真如（道諦的實性）。這七者既然都是「實性」，就都歸「圓成實」攝（因為它們是根本智、後得智二智所緣的境）。不過若「隨相」而攝，那『流轉、安立（苦）、邪行（集）』這三者就屬「前二性」（遍計、依他）攝——因為它們帶有妄執、雜染；其餘四者（實相、唯識、清淨、正行）才都歸圓成實攝。
八、三性與六法相攝
三性跟「六法」（色、受、想、行、識、無為）怎麼相攝？這六法當中，每一法都具足三性——因為這六法都同時有「妄執」（遍計）、「緣生」（依他）、「理」（圓成）這三層意思。
九、三性與五事相攝
三性跟「五事」（相、名、分別、正智、真如）怎麼相攝？這裡聖教所說「相攝不定」，有好幾家不同的分法，依次列出。
說一：依他起攝「相、名、分別、正智」這四事，圓成實攝「真如」，遍計所執則「不攝五事」。這一說的講法是：有漏心心所變出似『所詮（被表詮的義）』的，叫「相」；變出似『能詮（能表詮的言）』的，安立為「名」；那能變的心等立為「分別」；而無漏心等因為離戲論，所以總名為「正智」（不再分能詮、所詮）——這四者都是從緣生的，所以全歸依他攝。
說二：依他起攝「相、分別」，遍計所執只攝「名」，正智、真如都歸圓成實攝。這一說的講法是：有漏心心所的相分叫「相」，其餘的叫「分別」；遍計所執本來都沒有體，為了顯它的「非有」，姑且假說它為「名」；「正智、真如」二者因為無倒，所以歸圓成實攝。
說三：依他起只攝「分別」，遍計所執攝「相、名」，正智、真如都歸圓成實攝。這一說的講法是：有漏心心所的相分、見分等，總名為「分別」（因為它以虛妄分別為體性）；遍計所執的能詮、所詮，是隨情而立的「名、相」二事。
說四：「名」屬依他起，「義」屬遍計所執。這一說的講法是：有漏心心所的相分、見分等，是靠「名」的勢力才成了「所遍計」，所以說它為「名」；遍計所執則是隨著名去橫計、體實在沒有，所以假立一個「義」的名目。
這幾家所說的五事，文字雖然不同，意義卻不相違背。不過要知道，「初說」（說一）是「不相雜亂」、最為周正的，這在《瑜伽論》裡有詳細的說明，應當依它而知。
十、三性與五相相攝
聖教又說有「五相」，它跟三性怎麼相攝？「所詮、能詮」各自都具三性：「妄所計」歸初性（遍計所執）攝；「相、名、分別」隨它所對應的，不管是作所詮還是作能詮，都歸依他起攝；「真如、正智」隨它所對應的，作所詮或能詮，都歸圓成實攝（因為後得智能變出似「能詮」的相）。另外，「二相屬相」（能詮、所詮二相互相隸屬的那個相）只歸初性（遍計）攝——因為妄執的義、名一定相隸屬。而「執著相」只歸依他起攝（以虛妄分別為體性）；「不執著相」只歸圓成實攝（以無漏智等為體性）。
十一、三性與四真實相攝
聖教又說「四真實」（世間極成、道理極成、煩惱障淨智所行、所知障淨智所行），它跟三性怎麼相攝？『世間極成、道理極成』這兩種真實歸依他起攝（因為被相、名、分別這三事所攝）；「二障淨智所行」這真實歸圓成實攝（因為被正智、真如這二事所攝）。《辯中邊論》則另有一說：第一真實（世間極成）只歸初性攝——因為它是世間共同所執的；第二真實（道理極成）通歸三性——因為它的理通於「執」與「無執」、通於雜染與清淨；後二真實（二障淨智所行）只歸第三性（圓成實）。
十二、三性與四諦相攝
三性跟「四諦」怎麼相攝？四諦中每一諦都具三性。
就拿「苦諦」來說，它的「無常、苦、空、無我」四個行相，各各都有三性。先看「無常」的三性：一、無性無常（遍計所執之性常是無的，所以說「無常」）；二、起盡無常（依他有生有滅，所以「無常」）；三、垢淨無常（圓成在染、淨位上轉變而顯，所以「無常」）。再看「苦」的三性：一、所取苦（遍計——是我、法二執所依取的）；二、事相苦（依他——具足三苦之相）；三、和合苦（圓成——與苦相和合、不相離）。再看「空」的三性：一、無性空（遍計——它的性非有，所以空）；二、異性空（依他——它跟妄執的自性相異，所以說空，即空掉那遍計）；三、自性空（圓成——以二空所顯為自性）。再看「無我」的三性：一、無相無我（遍計——我相本來就無）；二、異相無我（依他——跟妄執的我相相異）；三、自相無我（圓成——以「無我所顯」為自相）。
接著是「集諦」的三性：一、習氣集（遍計——即遍計所執自性執的習氣，就著『執那習氣』而假立「集」名）；二、等起集（依他——即業與煩惱所等起）；三、未離繫集（圓成——即還沒離障的真如）。再來「滅諦」的三性：一、自性滅（遍計——它的自性本來不生，故本來滅）；二、二取滅（依他——即擇滅令二取不生）；三、本性滅（圓成——即真如、本性寂滅）。最後「道諦」的三性：一、遍知道（對遍計——能遍知遍計所執）；二、永斷道（對依他——能斷染分依他起）；三、作證道（對圓成——能證圓成實）；不過「遍知道」也通於後二（也知依他、也證圓成）。
這樣，苦諦下的「無常、苦、空、無我」四門，加上集、滅、道三諦，總共這『七組三』的三性，都如上面依次配釋。要知道，此處所配的三性，有的是屬「假」、有的是屬「實」，當如理而知。
十三、三性與三解脫門、三無生忍、二諦相攝
「三解脫門」（空、無願、無相）所行的境界，跟三性怎麼相攝？就道理而言，這三門都通於三性；若隨相而配，則各配一性：「空」解脫門配遍計、「無願」解脫門配依他、「無相」解脫門配圓成，依次而知。緣著這三性，又生起「三無生忍」：一、本性無生忍；二、自然無生忍；三、惑苦無生忍——這三忍依次以三性為境（本性無生忍緣遍計、自然無生忍緣依他、惑苦無生忍緣圓成）。
那麼這三性又怎麼攝「二諦」呢？應知「世俗諦」具足這三種（含遍計、依他、圓成的世俗分）；「勝義諦」則只是圓成實性。世俗有三：一、假世俗（即遍計所執）；二、行世俗（即依他起）；三、顯了世俗（即圓成實，於世俗位上顯了）——依次就是這三性。勝義也有三：一、義勝義（即真如——是「勝」之「義」，殊勝法的義）；二、得勝義（即涅槃——「勝」即是「義」，所得的殊勝就是義）；三、行勝義（即聖道——「勝」「為」義，能趣向殊勝之行）。這三者因為「無變、無倒」，隨它所對應的，全都攝在圓成實性裡。
十四、三性與智所行、假實、異不異
最後辨三性的幾個性質。先問：三性各是哪種智所行？「遍計所執」根本不是「智」所行的（因為它沒有自體、不能作所緣緣）；不過愚夫把它執為有、聖者把它通達為無，所以也勉強可說它是凡智、聖智之「境」。「依他起性」是根本、後得二智所行；「圓成實性」則唯是聖智之境（只有無分別智及後得智能緣它）。
再問：這三性裡幾分是假、幾分是實？「遍計所執」因為是妄安立的，可以說它是「假」；可是它根本無體相，所以其實是「非假非實」（因為「假」必須依著「實」才立得起，而遍計根本沒有實可依）。「依他起性」則有實也有假：就「聚集、相續、分位」這些性而言說它是「假有」（像瓶、像流、像時這類假法）；就「心、心所、色」是從緣生的而言說它是「實有」。要知道，若沒有實法，假法也就沒有了——因為假法必須依著實的因才施設得出來。「圓成實性」則純是實有——因為它不依他緣而施設（真如不待緣而立）。
最後問：這三性是異、還是不異？應當說「俱非」（非異也非不異）：因為三性沒有各別的體，所以不能說「異」；而「妄執、緣起、真義」這三層意義各有分別，所以也不能說「不異」。三性的義類其實無邊無盡，這裡怕文字太繁讓人生厭，所以只略略示出綱要如上。
承衍
三性（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實）是唯識系判一切法的總綱，本節所立的三性義，後出諸論依次承用。《百法明門論》立八識心王與諸心所：能遍計就是那有漏的第六、第七心心所，遍計所執則不入百法所攝（因為它情有理無、根本沒有體），圓成實所依的真如則收在「無為法」之下——三性正好把百法統攝起來。《唯識三十論頌》的頌二十（遍計所執·自性無所有）、頌二十一（依他起·圓成實·常遠離前性）、頌二十二（與依他非異非不異·非不見此彼），正是本節所釋的本頌，逐頌相承。《辯中邊論·辯相品》以「虛妄分別」的『境、性、二空』立三性——依虛妄分別的「境」說有遍計所執、依虛妄分別的「性」說有依他起、依「所取能取空」說有圓成實，跟本節「三性亦不離識」是同一條路；本節辨「四真實」時所引的別判，也出自《辯中邊論》。《攝大乘論·所知相分》是三性的廣辯本：它說依他起相是『以阿賴耶識為種子、虛妄分別所攝的諸識』，遍計所執相是『於無義中似義顯現』，圓成實相是『在那依他起相上、似義之相永遠沒有』——本節『所遍計就是依他起』一句，正是引《攝大乘論》而立。至於《二十唯識論》，主於成立唯識無境、破外人的實境之執，對三性的相攝判釋沒有正面對位，這裡從闕。
We have been saying all along that "there is only consciousness," and right here a natural objection presents itself. If the ten thousand things are only consciousness, then why did the World-honored One, in sūtra after sūtra, repeatedly teach the three natures — the wholly-imagined nature (what is grasped through pervasive imagining), the other-dependent nature (what arises in dependence on conditions), and the perfectly-accomplished nature (the real character of things)? This section answers that "objection from scripture." Let the answer be stated first: the three natures do not set up some separate set of things outside of consciousness. The three natures are precisely established with reference to consciousness itself — which is why we say "the three natures, too, are not apart from consciousness." In what follows we will track the verses: first work each of the three natures through clearly (who does the imagining, what is wholly-imagined, what the wholly-imagined looks like, and what the perfectly-accomplished is), then match the three natures one by one against the various sets of doctrinal categories (the three unconditioned, the seven suchnesses, the six dharmas, the five items, the five characteristics, the four realities, the four truths, the three gateways to liberation, the two truths, and so on), and finally distinguish among the three natures whether each is nominal or real, and whether they are different or not different.
The establishing of the three natures has its roots in scripture and treatise alike. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on the characteristics of all dharmas, says plainly that "the characteristics of dharmas are in brief of three kinds": the wholly-imagined mark is "the self-nature and the distinctions of all dharmas, nominally established through names" (merely a self-nature and distinctions nominally set up in reliance on conventional designation); the other-dependent mark is "the condition-born nature of all dharmas" (this being, that is — this arising, that arises — born from conditions); and the perfectly-accomplished mark is "the equal suchness of all dharmas." The same sūtra gives the image of a "pure crystal gem": the crystal is in itself clear, yet once it takes on a tint of color it seems to bear all manner of hues; the other-dependent mark is itself like the crystal, while the "wholly-imagined mark" is like the tint laid over it — not something the other-dependent has of itself, but only the perfuming of verbal habit, falsely grasped and laid on top. The sūtra further divides the order in which the three characteristics are understood by way of "characteristic-and-name in correspondence" and "grasping versus non-grasping"; and in its chapter on the characteristic of non-self-nature it goes on, in reliance on the three characteristics, to teach the three kinds of non-self-nature — "the non-self-nature of characteristic, the non-self-nature of arising, and the non-self-nature in the ultimate sense" — which is precisely the scriptural basis for the later section, "in reliance on just these three natures, those three non-natures are established." The Yogācārabhūmi, in its chapter on the ascertaining of the meaning, likewise fixes the three self-natures: the wholly-imagined is "established by conventional designation, set up through repeated all-pervading reckoning"; the other-dependent is "born of the host of conditions, arisen by the power of others, not existing of itself, and so said to be without nature"; and the perfectly-accomplished is just the suchness of all dharmas. It further judges that "falsely giving rise to wholly-imagined grasping upon the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished" is called "the extreme of superimposition" — which is exactly what the verse "the perfectly-accomplished is, upon that, forever apart from the previous nature" means to set apart (what is set apart is only this superimposed wholly-imagined; the other-dependent itself is not emptied). What this section expounds has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi (with the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the Madhyānta-vibhāga alongside) — and with that we follow the verses and open the exposition.
A. First, work each of the three natures through clearly (v20–22)
1. The imagining agent — which consciousnesses do the "pervasive imagining"?
First the question: which kind of consciousness is the one that does the "pervasive imagining"?
"Pervasive imagining" means measuring and reckoning all-pervasively — the mind discriminating and conjecturing about its objects across the board; this is why it is called pervasive imagining. And because this discriminating mind comes in many kinds, the verse uses the words "this one and that one" to speak of it. Put plainly, the imagining agent is just that mind of "false discrimination." It is by this "this-and-that" variety of false discrimination that one pervasively imagines all manner of "wholly-imagined things" — that is, the falsely-grasped aggregates, sense-fields, and elements, grasped whether as "dharmas" or as "self." The natures and distinctions that are grasped out in this way are together called the "wholly-imagined nature." And a nature grasped out in this way is in fact "entirely without any existence at all": probe it by correct reasoning, test it against the holy teaching, and no substantial reality can be found.
The verse can also be read matched up this way: the first line, "by this and that imagining," shows the consciousness that does the imagining; the second line, "imagining all manner of things," indicates the object that is wholly-imagined; and the latter half, "this wholly-imagined nature has no existence of its own," is the formal statement — that the wholly-imagined, whether it grasps self or grasps dharma, has no nature of its own, because the foregoing has already shown at length that it cannot be found.
So then, which consciousnesses are actually the imagining agent? Here there are two views.
One view (all eight consciousnesses can imagine): the eight consciousnesses together with their mental factors — whatever among them is defiled (with-outflow) — all count as imagining agents. The reasoning is threefold. First, defiled mind and mental factors all have "false discrimination" as their very substance. Second, they all arise displaying the semblance of two characteristics, the "grasped and the grasper." Third, the treatise also says that the store-consciousness, the ālaya-vijñāna, takes as its object the seeds of the wholly-imagined nature's false grasping — which shows that even the store-consciousness should be included among the imagining agents.
Another view (the settled, correct reading: only the sixth and seventh imagine): only those parts within the two mind-kinds — the sixth, the mental consciousness, and the seventh, the manas — that "grasp self and grasp dharma" are truly the imagining agent. The reasons must be taken point by point. (1) The holy teaching says only that "the mental consciousness can imagine." (2) Both "manas" (the seventh) and "mental consciousness" (the sixth) can be named "mental consciousness," so this term "mental consciousness" gathers the sixth and seventh together. (3) An imagining agent must be capable of "reckoning discrimination," and the first five consciousnesses have no faculty of reckoning. (4) What can grasp self and grasp dharma must be "discernment" (prajñā), and in the first five consciousnesses discernment is not strong. (5) The two graspings, of self and of dharma, must arise together with "ignorance." (6) The holy teaching does not say that ignorance has a wholesome nature, so a wholesome mind is not an imagining agent. (7) "Delusion" and "non-delusion" cannot accompany one another, so an undefiled mind of non-delusion is not an imagining agent. (8) No "grasping" has ever been seen to lead forth the "wisdom of emptiness," which shows that grasping and the realization of emptiness do not coexist. (9) "Grasping as existent" and "penetrating non-existence" never arise at once, so the undefiled wisdom that penetrates non-existence will not give rise to grasping. (10) No "grasping" has ever been one that "cannot perfume"; and the consciousness of karmic maturation and the like do not perfume, so they too are not imagining agents.
Now let us go back and dissolve, one at a time, the reasons given for the first view. Take first the point that "all defiled mind is false discrimination." It is true that defiled mind cannot realize suchness, so it may indeed all be named "false discrimination"; but "even though it arises displaying the semblance of grasped and grasper" does not amount to "therefore it is all an imagining agent." Otherwise, undefiled mind also arises displaying the semblance of these two characteristics — would undefiled mind then also have grasping? Would the subsequently-attained wisdom of a Tathāgata then also have grasping? Plainly this will not do. So one cannot take "displaying the semblance of the two graspings" as proof of "being an imagining agent." Scripture says even more explicitly: a Buddha's wisdom can give rise to all manner of images — bodies, lands, and the rest — just as a clear mirror reflects things; and if one said that undefiled wisdom had no "function of cognizing-its-object" (that is, did not display the semblance of an object-aspect), then it would no longer be "wisdom" at all — which shows that "displaying the semblance of the two characteristics" is by no means the same as "grasping." Take next the point that "the store-consciousness takes the wholly-imagined seeds as object." Although the holy teaching does say that the store-consciousness takes as object the seeds of the wholly-imagined nature, it does not say that the store-consciousness takes only this as object (the store-consciousness in fact also takes real objects), so this does not establish for certain that "the store-consciousness is an imagining agent." From all the foregoing it is known: only these two mind-kinds, the sixth and the seventh, have the capacity for pervasive imagining.
Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) sets up here a "four-alternative analysis," disentangling the two senses of "pervasive" (universally able to take an object) and "imagining" (reckoning and grasping), the better to mark off how wide or narrow the imagining agent is. First, "pervasive but not imagining" — this covers the undefiled consciousnesses, and the defiled wholesome consciousnesses and the like, which can take all objects widely and all-pervasively yet give rise to no reckoning-grasping. Second, "imagining but not pervasive" — this is the defiled seventh consciousness (it constantly grasps a self, but takes only the single inner object of the store-consciousness, and is not all-pervading). Third, "both pervasive and imagining" — this is the defiled, self-and-dharma-grasping sixth consciousness and the like (which both reckons all-pervasively and gives rise to grasping). Fourth, "neither pervasive nor imagining" — this covers the defiled first five consciousnesses and the eighth consciousness (which neither reckon all-pervasively nor give rise to grasping). Once the four alternatives are laid out, "the true imagining agent is only the sixth and seventh, those that grasp self and dharma" stands out clearly. Kuiji further glosses the word "things" in "imagining all manner of things": "'things' means substances" — and this "thing" is spoken with reference to the imagining mind, for since the imagining mind comes in many kinds it is said to be "all manner," and it is not that the "substances" themselves come in many kinds (the manifoldness lies only on the side of the imagining mind).
A note in passing: although there are only two kinds of imagining consciousness (the sixth and seventh), its "imagining" admits of various ways of counting — two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and so on (reckoned according to how the discrimination is grouped or split out). This is why the verse says "this one and that one."
2. The wholly-imagined object — what is the object that is wholly-imagined?
Next the question: as for the imagined (the object of imagining), what is its own nature?
The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha says: the imagined is just the dependent nature — because the other-dependent nature is precisely the "object-condition" of the imagining mind (false grasping must always lean upon an other-dependent event to arise; it never grasps out of thin air).
Here someone presses further: is the perfectly-accomplished nature not also an object of the imagining mind? The answer: suchness (the perfectly-accomplished) is not an object that false grasping can "directly take" (false grasping cannot reach all the way to suchness); yet, speaking by way of "succession" (it is by deluding oneself about the real that one then gives rise to the false), one may, with some stretching, call it wholly-imagined too. As for the "wholly-imagined" itself — although it is the "object" that the imagining mind faces, it has no substance whatever and cannot serve as an "object-condition," so it too does not count as the wholly-imagined in the strict sense. Strictly speaking, then, the imagined is just the dependent nature.
3. The character of the wholly-imagined — exactly how does it differ from the other-dependent?
Next the distinction: what does the wholly-imagined look like, and how does it differ from the other-dependent? This passage is the pivot of the whole section, and here too there are two views.
One view (the two aspects just are the wholly-imagined): the mind and mental factors of the three realms, through beginningless false perfuming, although each has but a single "substance," arise displaying the semblance of "two aspects" — namely the "seeing-aspect and the object-aspect" (that is, the grasper and the grasped). These "two aspects" are "present to feeling but absent in reason" (seemingly there to deluded feeling, in fact not there in reason), and this appearance is what is called the "wholly-imagined." But the "substance" on which the two aspects depend (the self-substance of the mind and mental factors) is genuinely born in reliance on the host of conditions, and its nature is not nothing — and this is called the "other-dependent," because it is "born from the conditions of false discrimination." How do we know it is divided this way? Because the holy teachings put it just so: "false discrimination" (the substance of mind and mental factors) is the other-dependent, and "the two graspings" (the seeing- and object-aspects, the grasper and grasped) are what is called the wholly-imagined.
Another view (the settled, correct reading: the two aspects too are other-dependent; it is the false fixed grasping that is the wholly-imagined): the "two aspects" (seeing and object) that all mind and mental factors transform out through the power of perfuming, since they too are born from conditions, ought also to be "other-dependent" — the two aspects are not in themselves the wholly-imagined. It is only when the imagining agent, leaning on these two aspects, falsely grasps that they are "definitely really existent, definitely really nonexistent, one, different, both, or not-both," and so on, that this "false grasping" is what is called the wholly-imagined. The reasons are these. First, the holy teachings say that "the cognizing-measure alone (self-awareness), the two alone (seeing- and object-aspects), and the many alone (the manifold object-aspects)" are all named other-dependent — which shows that the two aspects belong to the other-dependent. Second, the four — object-aspect, seeing-aspect, self-awareness, and the awareness of self-awareness — together with the "eleven cognitions" of which the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha speaks, are all judged in the treatise to be included under the other-dependent.
Then the settled reading uses several layers of counter-argument to pin down the first view. (i) If the two aspects just were the wholly-imagined, then the two aspects in the undefiled "subsequently-attained wisdom" would also have to be called wholly-imagined; and if this is granted, then holy wisdom ought not to arise taking the wholly-imagined as object, and the wisdom-kind that takes it as object ought not to count as the "truth of the path" (which will not do); and if this is not granted (that is, if one grants that the two aspects of subsequently-attained wisdom are not wholly-imagined), then one should recognize that the defiled two aspects are likewise not wholly-imagined. (ii) If the two aspects were wholly-imagined, then they should be unable, like a "hare's horn," to serve as an object-condition (since the wholly-imagined has no substance and cannot serve as a condition); moreover, the two aspects, having no substance, ought not to be perfumed into seeds; and seeds not being perfumed, then when later consciousness arises there ought to be no two aspects at all — all of which run contrary to the facts. (iii) The various "perfumings" (seeds) are included under the "object-aspect" — does this not precisely show that the object-aspect is "an existent dharma" and can serve as a "causal condition"? (Which shows the object-aspect has substance and belongs to the other-dependent.) Furthermore, if one insisted that the condition-born "inner object-aspect and seeing-aspect" are not other-dependent, then by the very same reasoning their "underlying substance" (self-awareness) ought also not to be other-dependent (there being no other ground to divide them), and on this reasoning the whole structure collapses. From these reasons it is known: every condition-born "self-substance of mind and mental factors," together with its "object-aspect and seeing-aspect," whether defiled or undefiled, is wholly other-dependent — because they all arise in reliance on the host of conditions.
As for the verse line "born from the conditions of discrimination," this is spoken "with reference, for the moment, to the defiled portion of the other-dependent" (taking, in particular, the defiled portion) — because the "pure portion of the other-dependent" is in fact already gathered into the perfectly-accomplished (the pure portion of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished are mutually identical). Or one may also say: both defiled and pure mind and mental factors may be named "discrimination" (since both cognize objects), and on this reading the whole of the other-dependent, defiled and pure alike, is gathered under this verse's "other-dependent," not limited to the defiled portion.
4. The character of the perfectly-accomplished (latter half of v21, v22)
The "full, accomplished" real nature of all dharmas, displayed by the two emptinesses — the emptiness of self and the emptiness of dharmas — is called the "perfectly-accomplished." The three words "full, accomplished, real" display that this real nature is "all-pervading, abiding, and not false in substance" — used to set it off from "self-character and common-character" (which are not all-pervading), from "empty space" (which has no substance and is not real), from "self" (which is false), and the like. Furthermore, an undefiled "conditioned" dharma (such as undefiled wisdom), because it is free of inversion, ultimate, and all-pervading in its superior function, may also be called "perfectly-accomplished"; but the perfectly-accomplished of this verse takes the "first sense" (the full, accomplished real nature of all dharmas, that is, suchness), not the "later sense" (undefiled conditioned dharmas).
This perfectly-accomplished is just "that which, upon the other-dependent, is forever apart from the previously-stated wholly-imagined," with the "suchness displayed by the two emptinesses" as its very nature — and this is exactly the verse's "the perfectly-accomplished is, upon that, forever apart from the previous nature." Reading this line word by word: to say "upon that" (upon the other-dependent) displays that the perfectly-accomplished is "neither identical with nor apart from" the other-dependent; to say "forever apart" displays that the falsely-grasped grasper-nature and grasped-nature are "in reason eternally absent" (not merely absent at one moment, but absent from the very beginning and always); to say "previous" (apart from the previous nature, that is, apart only from the wholly-imagined) has as its point to display that "the other-dependent is not emptied" (what is to be emptied is only the wholly-imagined; the other-dependent itself is not emptied); to say "nature" (apart from the previous nature) displays that what is set apart is only the "two emptinesses" (that is, the self-nature and the dharma-nature that are wholly-imagined), and that "the two emptinesses" are not themselves the perfectly-accomplished — because suchness is a nature "apart from existence and apart from nonexistence" (one does not make it the perfectly-accomplished merely by calling it "nonexistent").
By the foregoing principle of being "neither identical with nor apart from," the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are therefore "not different, not non-different" (this is exactly the verse's "therefore this and the other-dependent are neither different nor non-different"). Why can one not say "wholly different"? Because if wholly different, then suchness would not be the "real nature" of the other-dependent (the real nature just is the nature of the other-dependent, so they cannot be wholly different). Why can one not say "wholly the same"? Because if wholly the same, then this perfectly-accomplished nature would, like the other-dependent, be "impermanent" (suchness is abiding, so they cannot be wholly the same). Furthermore, if wholly different or wholly the same, then the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent would both alike be "pure objects" or both alike be "non-pure objects," and on this reading the functions of "fundamental wisdom" (which takes the pure as object) and "subsequently-attained wisdom" (which takes both defiled and pure as object) would have no distinction — which will not do. Then how can the two natures be "not different and not one"? It is just like the relation between properties such as "impermanence and non-self" and the conditioned dharmas they characterize: properties such as "impermanence" and dharmas such as the "conditioned" — if you say "different," then the conditioned dharmas ought not to be impermanent (yet conditioned dharmas in their very substance are impermanent, so they cannot be wholly different); if you say "not different," then this impermanence ought not to be the "common-character" of all conditioned things (a common-character pervades all dharmas, so they cannot be wholly the same). By this analogy it is displayed: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "not one, not different" — this is the relation of "dharma" to "dharma-nature," which in reason must necessarily be so (the perfectly-accomplished is precisely the dharma-nature of the other-dependent); for "ultimate truth" (the perfectly-accomplished) and "conventional truth" (the other-dependent) are established only in mutual dependence.
Now look at the verse line "it is not that, without seeing this, one sees that." Its meaning is: it is not the case that "without realizing the perfectly-accomplished one could yet see the other-dependent nature" (one must first see the perfectly-accomplished before one can see the other-dependent as it truly is) — because a person who has not yet penetrated "the emptiness of the wholly-imagined nature" cannot know as it truly is "the existence of the other-dependent" (not knowing that the two graspings are empty, one will mistake the other-dependent for the wholly-imagined). Only after "non-discriminating wisdom" has realized suchness can one, in subsequently-attained wisdom, penetrate the other-dependent nature as "like a conjured event" (illusory, not really existent yet seemingly existent). One should know that, from beginningless time, although mind and mental factors have long been able to take their own object-aspect, seeing-aspect, and so on as object, yet because the grasping of self and the grasping of dharma run on perpetually along with them, they can never know as it truly is (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished). One's own mind and mental factors, drawn along by the host of conditions, falsely manifest, just like a magician's conjuring, a heat-shimmer mirage, a dream, an image in a mirror, a shadow or reflection, an echo in an empty valley, the moon in water, or a thing produced by transformation — "not existent yet seemingly existent" (these eight similes display the other-dependent as illusory). On this principle there is a verse that says: "It is not that, without yet seeing suchness, one can know all conditioned things to be like conjured events and the rest; those conditioned things, though existent, are not real." The meaning of this verse is just this: the three self-natures (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished) are all not apart from mind and mental factors.
5. The three natures all gathered into the dharmas of mind — the three natures are all not apart from consciousness
Drawing the above together: what we call mind, mental factors, and the characteristics they manifest are all born from the host of conditions, and like conjured events are "not existent yet seemingly existent," deceiving the foolish — and all of this is named the "other-dependent nature." The foolish, upon these other-dependent events, forcibly impose grasping at "self, dharma, existence, nonexistence, one, different, both, not-both," and so on, which like a flower in the sky has "neither nature nor character" — and all of this is named the "wholly-imagined." And upon the other-dependent, the self and the dharmas that are falsely grasped are all empty; the "real nature of consciousness and the rest" displayed by this "emptiness" is named the "perfectly-accomplished." Thus these three natures are all not apart from mind and the rest — which is exactly the conclusion, "the three natures, too, are not apart from consciousness."
B. Matching the three natures against the various sets of doctrinal categories
6. The three natures gather the three unconditioned
Someone asks: empty space, cessation-through-analysis, and cessation-not-through-analysis — these three unconditioned — into which of the three natures do they fall? The answer: all three natures can gather them (each gathering from a different angle). First, mind and the rest manifesting the semblance of "empty space" and so on, these arise in train with mind, and so belong to the other-dependent. Second, the foolish, upon these, falsely grasp that empty space and so on are really existent, and this belongs to the wholly-imagined. Third, if, with reference to suchness, one nominally establishes the meanings of "empty space" and so on (as cessation-through-analysis is used to display suchness), then this belongs to the perfectly-accomplished. Furthermore, defiled mind and the rest definitely belong to the other-dependent; undefiled mind and the rest, however, may be gathered by both natures, other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished — because, being born from the host of conditions, they are gathered under the other-dependent, and because, being free of inversion, they are gathered under the perfectly-accomplished.
7. The three natures and the seven suchnesses
How do the three natures gather the "seven suchnesses"? First, list the seven suchnesses: (1) the suchness of flowing-on (the real nature of conditioned dharmas as they flow on); (2) the suchness of the real character (the real nature displayed by the two selflessnesses, of self and of dharma); (3) the suchness of consciousness-only (the real nature of defiled and pure dharmas as consciousness-only); (4) the suchness of the established (the real nature of the truth of suffering); (5) the suchness of wrong conduct (the real nature of the truth of origination); (6) the suchness of purity (the real nature of the truth of cessation); (7) the suchness of right conduct (the real nature of the truth of the path). Since these seven are all "real nature," they all belong to the perfectly-accomplished (because they are the objects of the two wisdoms, fundamental and subsequently-attained). However, if gathered "by way of their characteristics," then "flowing-on, the established (suffering), and wrong conduct (origination)" — these three — belong to the "first two natures" (wholly-imagined and other-dependent), because they carry false grasping and defilement; the remaining four (real character, consciousness-only, purity, and right conduct) all belong to the perfectly-accomplished.
8. The three natures and the six dharmas
How do the three natures gather the "six dharmas" (form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness, and the unconditioned)? Among these six dharmas, every single one is fully endowed with the three natures — because each of these six dharmas at once carries the three layers of meaning: "false grasping" (wholly-imagined), "condition-born" (other-dependent), and "principle" (perfectly-accomplished).
9. The three natures and the five items
How do the three natures gather the "five items" (characteristic, name, discrimination, right wisdom, and suchness)? Here the holy teaching says the "gathering is not fixed," and there are several different ways of dividing it among the schools, listed in order.
Account one: the other-dependent gathers the four items "characteristic, name, discrimination, and right wisdom"; the perfectly-accomplished gathers "suchness"; and the wholly-imagined "does not gather any of the five items." The explanation of this account: defiled mind and mental factors transforming out the semblance of "the signified (the meaning that is expressed)" is called "characteristic"; transforming out the semblance of "the signifier (the words that express)" is established as "name"; the transforming mind and the rest are established as "discrimination"; and undefiled mind and the rest, because they are free of conceptual elaboration, are together named "right wisdom" (no longer dividing signifier from signified) — and these four, being all born from conditions, all belong to the other-dependent.
Account two: the other-dependent gathers "characteristic and discrimination"; the wholly-imagined gathers only "name"; and right wisdom and suchness both belong to the perfectly-accomplished. The explanation of this account: the object-aspect of defiled mind and mental factors is called "characteristic," and the rest is called "discrimination"; the wholly-imagined in itself has no substance at all, so, in order to display its "non-existence," it is tentatively spoken of as "name"; "right wisdom and suchness," being free of inversion, belong to the perfectly-accomplished.
Account three: the other-dependent gathers only "discrimination"; the wholly-imagined gathers "characteristic and name"; and right wisdom and suchness both belong to the perfectly-accomplished. The explanation of this account: the object-aspect, seeing-aspect, and the rest of defiled mind and mental factors are together named "discrimination" (because their very substance is false discrimination); the signifier and signified of the wholly-imagined are the two items "name and characteristic" established in accord with deluded feeling.
Account four: "name" belongs to the other-dependent, and "meaning" belongs to the wholly-imagined. The explanation of this account: the object-aspect, seeing-aspect, and the rest of defiled mind and mental factors become "the imagined" by the force of "name," and so are spoken of as "name"; the wholly-imagined, following the name, is forcibly reckoned and in substance is truly nothing, so a designation of "meaning" is tentatively set up for it.
These several schools' accounts of the five items, though differing in wording, do not conflict in meaning. But one should know that the "first account" (account one) is "without confusion or jumbling" and the most correct and well-formed — this is set out in detail in the Yogācārabhūmi, and one should rely on it for understanding.
10. The three natures and the five characteristics
The holy teaching also speaks of "five characteristics" — how do they gather with the three natures? "The signified and the signifier" each is fully endowed with the three natures: "what is falsely reckoned" belongs to the first nature (wholly-imagined); "characteristic, name, and discrimination," according to what they correspond to, whether functioning as signified or as signifier, all belong to the other-dependent; "suchness and right wisdom," according to what they correspond to, functioning as signified or signifier, all belong to the perfectly-accomplished (because subsequently-attained wisdom can transform out the semblance of a "signifier"). Furthermore, "the characteristic of the two characteristics' mutual belonging" (the characteristic by which signifier and signified are subordinate to one another) belongs only to the first nature (wholly-imagined) — because the falsely-grasped meaning and name are necessarily subordinate to each other. And "the characteristic of grasping" belongs only to the other-dependent (since its substance is false discrimination); "the characteristic of non-grasping" belongs only to the perfectly-accomplished (since its substance is undefiled wisdom and the like).
11. The three natures and the four realities
The holy teaching also speaks of "four realities" (what is established by common consent in the world, what is established by reasoning, the object of the wisdom purified of the affliction-hindrance, and the object of the wisdom purified of the cognitive-hindrance) — how do they gather with the three natures? "What is established by common consent in the world" and "what is established by reasoning," these two realities, belong to the other-dependent (because they are gathered by the three items: characteristic, name, and discrimination); "the objects of the two wisdoms purified of the hindrances," this reality, belongs to the perfectly-accomplished (because it is gathered by the two items: right wisdom and suchness). The Madhyānta-vibhāga, however, has a different account: the first reality (what is established by common consent in the world) belongs only to the first nature — because it is what is commonly grasped in the world; the second reality (what is established by reasoning) belongs to all three natures — because its principle runs through "grasping" and "non-grasping," through defilement and purity; the latter two realities (the objects of the two wisdoms purified of the hindrances) belong only to the third nature (the perfectly-accomplished).
12. The three natures and the four truths
How do the three natures gather the "four truths"? Within the four truths, every single truth is fully endowed with the three natures.
Take the "truth of suffering": its four aspects of "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self" each has the three natures. First, the three natures of "impermanence": (1) the impermanence of no-nature (the wholly-imagined nature is forever nonexistent, hence "impermanent"); (2) the impermanence of arising-and-ceasing (the other-dependent has arising and ceasing, hence "impermanent"); (3) the impermanence of defilement-and-purity (the perfectly-accomplished turns and is displayed across the defiled and pure positions, hence "impermanent"). Next, the three natures of "suffering": (1) the suffering of what is grasped (the wholly-imagined — what the two graspings of self and dharma lean upon and take); (2) the suffering of the character of events (the other-dependent — fully endowed with the characteristics of the three sufferings); (3) the suffering of conjunction (the perfectly-accomplished — conjoined with the character of suffering and not apart from it). Next, the three natures of "emptiness": (1) the emptiness of no-nature (the wholly-imagined — its nature is non-existent, hence empty); (2) the emptiness of difference-of-nature (the other-dependent — it differs from the falsely-grasped nature, hence said to be empty, that is, empty of the wholly-imagined); (3) the emptiness of own-nature (the perfectly-accomplished — its own-nature is what the two emptinesses display). Next, the three natures of "non-self": (1) the non-self of no-characteristic (the wholly-imagined — the self-characteristic is originally nonexistent); (2) the non-self of difference-of-characteristic (the other-dependent — it differs from the falsely-grasped self-characteristic); (3) the non-self of own-characteristic (the perfectly-accomplished — its own-characteristic is what "non-self displays").
Next, the three natures of the "truth of origination": (1) the origination of perfuming (the wholly-imagined — that is, the perfumings of the wholly-imagined nature's grasping; with reference to "grasping those perfumings," a "origination" is nominally established); (2) the origination of co-arising (the other-dependent — that is, what karma and afflictions co-arise); (3) the origination of the not-yet-unbound (the perfectly-accomplished — that is, the suchness not yet free of the hindrances). Next, the three natures of the "truth of cessation": (1) the cessation of own-nature (the wholly-imagined — its own-nature is originally unborn, hence originally ceased); (2) the cessation of the two graspings (the other-dependent — that is, cessation-through-analysis causing the two graspings not to arise); (3) the cessation of fundamental nature (the perfectly-accomplished — that is, suchness, fundamentally still and ceased). Finally, the three natures of the "truth of the path": (1) the path of full knowing (toward the wholly-imagined — able to fully know the wholly-imagined); (2) the path of forever-severing (toward the other-dependent — able to sever the defiled portion of the other-dependent); (3) the path of bearing-witness (toward the perfectly-accomplished — able to realize the perfectly-accomplished); but the "path of full knowing" also runs through the latter two (it also knows the other-dependent and realizes the perfectly-accomplished).
In this way, the four gateways of "impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self" under the truth of suffering, together with the three truths of origination, cessation, and path, in total these "seven sets of three" natures are all matched and explained in order as above. One should know that the three natures matched here are some of them "nominal" and some "real," and one should understand this as it accords with principle.
13. The three natures and the three gateways to liberation, the three forbearances of non-arising, and the two truths
The realms accessed by the "three gateways to liberation" (emptiness, wishlessness, and signlessness) — how do they gather with the three natures? In point of principle, these three gateways all run through the three natures; if matched "by way of characteristic," then each matches one nature: the gateway of "emptiness" matches the wholly-imagined, the gateway of "wishlessness" matches the other-dependent, the gateway of "signlessness" matches the perfectly-accomplished — to be understood in order. Taking these three natures as object, there arise, further, the "three forbearances of non-arising": (1) the forbearance of non-arising of fundamental nature; (2) the forbearance of non-arising of the spontaneous; (3) the forbearance of non-arising of affliction-and-suffering — and these three forbearances take the three natures as their objects in order (the forbearance of fundamental nature takes the wholly-imagined as object, the forbearance of the spontaneous takes the other-dependent as object, the forbearance of affliction-and-suffering takes the perfectly-accomplished as object).
Then how do these three natures gather the "two truths"? One should know that "conventional truth" is fully endowed with these three kinds (it contains the conventional portion of the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished); "ultimate truth" is only the perfectly-accomplished nature. The conventional is of three kinds: (1) the nominal conventional (that is, the wholly-imagined); (2) the active conventional (that is, the other-dependent); (3) the made-manifest conventional (that is, the perfectly-accomplished, made manifest at the conventional position) — in order, just these three natures. The ultimate too is of three kinds: (1) the ultimate as meaning (that is, suchness — the "meaning" of the "ultimate," the meaning of the supreme dharma); (2) the ultimate as attainment (that is, nirvāṇa — the "ultimate" itself being the "meaning," the supreme that is attained just being the meaning); (3) the ultimate as practice (that is, the holy path — the "ultimate" "made into" meaning, the practice that proceeds toward the supreme). These three, because they are "unchanging and non-inverted," according to what they correspond to, are all gathered into the perfectly-accomplished nature.
14. The three natures and the wisdoms that access them, the nominal and the real, the different and the non-different
Finally, distinguish several properties of the three natures. First the question: which kind of wisdom accesses each of the three natures? The "wholly-imagined" is not at all what "wisdom" accesses (because it has no self-substance and cannot serve as an object-condition); yet the foolish grasp it as existent, and the noble penetrate it as nonexistent, so with some stretching one may say it is the "object" of both ordinary wisdom and noble wisdom. The "other-dependent nature" is accessed by both wisdoms, fundamental and subsequently-attained; the "perfectly-accomplished nature," however, is the object of noble wisdom alone (only non-discriminating wisdom and subsequently-attained wisdom can take it as object).
Next the question: among these three natures, how much is nominal and how much real? The "wholly-imagined," because it is falsely established, may be said to be "nominal"; yet it has no substance or characteristic at all, so in fact it is "neither nominal nor real" (because the "nominal" must be established in reliance on the "real," and the wholly-imagined has no real on which to rely). The "other-dependent nature," on the other hand, has both real and nominal: with reference to natures such as "aggregation, continuity, and positional phase," it is said to be "nominally existent" (nominal dharmas like a jar, like a stream, like a span of time); with reference to "mind, mental factors, and form" being born from conditions, it is said to be "really existent." One should know that if there were no real dharmas, then nominal dharmas too would be gone — because a nominal dharma must be set up in reliance on a real cause. The "perfectly-accomplished nature," however, is purely real — because it is not set up in reliance on other conditions (suchness is established without awaiting conditions).
Finally the question: are these three natures different, or not different? One should say "both not" (neither different nor non-different): because the three natures have no separate substances, one cannot say "different"; and because the three layers of meaning — "false grasping, dependent arising, and the real meaning" — each has its distinction, one cannot say "not different." The kinds of meaning of the three natures are in fact boundless and inexhaustible; here, fearing that too much wording would weary the reader, only the essentials are sketched as above.
Onward Transmission
The three natures — the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — are the master rubric by which the consciousness-only system sorts out all dharmas, and the meaning of the three natures established in this section is taken up in order by the later treatises. The Hundred Dharmas treatise sets up the eight mind-kings and the various mental factors: the imagining agent is just the defiled sixth and seventh mind and mental factors; the wholly-imagined does not enter into the hundred dharmas at all (present to feeling but absent in reason, it has no substance whatever); and the suchness on which the perfectly-accomplished rests is gathered under the "unconditioned dharmas" — so the three natures exactly draw the hundred dharmas together into one. The Thirty Verses — verse twenty (the wholly-imagined, its own-nature having no existence), verse twenty-one (the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished as forever apart from the previous nature), and verse twenty-two (it and the other-dependent as neither different nor non-different; not that, without seeing this, one sees that) — are the very root-verses this section expounds, verse answering to verse. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on characteristics, sets up the three natures by way of the "object, nature, and twofold emptiness" of "false discrimination" — in reliance on the "object" of false discrimination it speaks of the wholly-imagined, in reliance on the "nature" of false discrimination it speaks of the other-dependent, and in reliance on "the emptiness of grasped and grasper" it speaks of the perfectly-accomplished — which is one and the same road as this section's "the three natures, too, are not apart from consciousness"; the alternative account this section cites when distinguishing the "four realities" likewise comes from the Madhyānta-vibhāga. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the characteristic of the knowable, is the place where the three natures are expounded at length: it says the other-dependent mark is "the various consciousnesses gathered under false discrimination, with the ālaya-vijñāna as their seed," the wholly-imagined mark is "the semblance of meaning appearing where there is no meaning," and the perfectly-accomplished mark is "the perpetual absence, upon that other-dependent mark, of the semblance of meaning" — and this section's line "the imagined is just the other-dependent nature" is set up precisely by citing the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha. As for the Twenty Verses, its concern is to establish consciousness-only and the absence of external objects, and to refute the outsiders' grasping at real external objects; it has no direct counterpart to the matching and judging of the three natures, and here it is left aside.
考據Apparatus
〔所釋之頌〕第二十頌至第二十二頌
本章釋《唯識三十論頌》頌二十（遍計所執·自性無所有）、頌二十一（依他起·圓成實·常遠離前性）、頌二十二（與依他非異非不異·非不見此彼）。
一、科判定位
| 科判 | 此章之位 |
|---|---|
| 釋妨難 | 釋違理難 → 釋違教難·三性 → 釋三無性（後章·頌二三–二五） |
| 三性章內 | 釋三性（頌二十–二二）· 三性相攝諸門（三無為·七真如·六法·五事·五相·四真實·四諦·三解脫門·二諦） |
| 所釋頌 | 《唯識三十論頌》頌二十全 · 頌二十一全 · 頌二十二全 |
「若唯有識，何故世尊處處經中說有三性」——此章承「唯識無境」之立宗，釋「三性」非違唯識（三性亦不離識），下啟「即依此三性，立彼三無性」之三無性章。
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物，此遍計所執，自性無所有。 〔T1586 0061a14–a15〕 依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。 〔T1586 0061a16–a17〕 故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。 〔T1586 0061a18–a19〕
頌二十明遍計所執（情有理無·都無所有），頌二十一明依他起（緣生·非有似有）與圓成實（依他上常離遍計·二空所顯真如），頌二十二明圓成與依他「非異非不異」及「非不見此彼」（須先見圓成乃如實見依他）。本論依之廣辯，皆為坐實「三性亦不離識」——三性正就識而立，非識外別有。
| 頌語 | 義門 | 所辯 |
|---|---|---|
| 由彼彼遍計 | 能遍計 | 周遍計度之虛妄分別；「彼彼」顯品類眾多 |
| 遍計種種物 | 所遍計 | 所妄執蘊處界、若法若我之自性差別 |
| 此遍計所執，自性無所有 | 遍計所執相 | 都無所有，理教推徵不可得 |
| 依他起自性，分別緣所生 | 依他起相 | 眾緣所生心心所及相見分，染淨皆攝 |
| 圓成實於彼，常遠離前性 | 圓成實相 | 依他上常離遍計，二空所顯真如為性 |
| 故此與依他，非異非不異 | 圓成依他關係 | 法與法性，勝義世俗相待，非一非異 |
| 非不見此彼 | 證見次第 | 非不證見圓成而能見依他；未達執空不知依他有 |
「能遍計」（八識皆攝／唯六七）、『遍計所執與依他別』（二取即遍計所執／二分亦依他、定執方是遍計所執）——本論於此二處列諸「有義」而以後說為正，逐說具於〔義疏〕。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
經證
謂諸法相略有三種，何等為三？一者、遍計所執相；二者、依他起相；三者、圓成實相。云何諸法遍計所執相？謂一切法名假安立自性差別，乃至為令隨起言說。云何諸法依他起相？謂一切法緣生自性，則此有故彼有，此生故彼生，謂無明緣行，乃至招集純大苦蘊。云何諸法圓成實相？謂一切法平等真如。 〔解深密經·一切法相品 T676 0693a15–a22〕
如彼清淨頗胝迦上，所有染色相應；依他起相上，遍計所執相言說習氣，當知亦爾。 〔解深密經·一切法相品 T676 0693b10–b12〕
復次，德本！相名相應以為緣故，遍計所執相而可了知；依他起相上，遍計所執相執以為緣故，依他起相而可了知；依他起相上，遍計所執相無執以為緣故，圓成實相而可了知。 〔解深密經·一切法相品 T676 0693b21–b25〕
當知我依三種無自性性密意，說言一切諸法皆無自性，所謂相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性。 〔解深密經·無自性相品 T676 0694a13–a15〕
《解深密·一切法相品》立三相之經本（遍計所執相＝名假安立自性差別、依他起相＝緣生自性此有故彼有、圓成實相＝平等真如），並以頗胝迦寶染色喻顯「依他起相上遍計所執相」之執與無執；《無自性相品》依三相說三無自性性（相·生·勝義），即頌二三「即依此三性，立彼三無性」之經本。
論本（瑜伽師地論 T1579）
云何增益邊？謂諸法自性略有三種。一、遍計所執自性，二、依他起自性，三、圓成實自性。遍計所執自性者，謂諸所有名言安立諸法自性，依假名言，數數周遍計度諸法而建立故。依他起自性者，謂眾緣生他力所起諸法自性，非自然有，故說無性。圓成實自性者，謂如前說。若於依他起自性、或圓成實自性中，所有遍計所執自性妄執，當知名增益邊。 〔瑜伽師地論·攝決擇分 T1579 0656c01–c09〕
《瑜伽師地論》定三自性：遍計所執＝名言安立·數數周遍計度而建立（頌「周遍計度故名遍計」之論本），依他起＝眾緣生他力所起·非自然有·故說無性（頌「分別緣所生」及生無自性之論本），圓成實＝諸法真如圓成實自性·聖智所行；又判『於依他、圓成上起遍計妄執』名增益邊（頌「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」之論本——所離者唯增益之遍計）。護法糅釋所宗，其經在解深密，其論在瑜伽師地論、攝大乘論、辯中邊論。
四、本論釋要（護法糅釋 · T1585）
遍計 · 能所
論曰：周遍計度，故名遍計；品類眾多，說為「彼彼」。謂能遍計虛妄分別。即由彼彼虛妄分別，遍計種種所遍計物：謂所妄執蘊、處、界等，若法、若我自性差別。此所妄執自性差別，總名遍計所執自性。如是自性，都無所有，理、教推徵，不可得故。 〔T1585 0045c14–c19〕
能遍計 · 二說
有義：八識及諸心所，有漏攝者，皆能遍計，虛妄分別為自性故…… 〔T1585 0045c22–c23〕 有義：第六、第七心品執我、法者，是能遍計。唯說意識能遍計故…… 〔T1585 0045c25–c26〕 由斯理趣，唯於第六、第七心品，有能遍計。 〔T1585 0046a08〕
所遍計
次所遍計自性云何？《攝大乘》說是依他起，遍計心等所緣緣故。 〔T1585 0046a10–a11〕
遍計所執與依他別 · 二說
有義：三界心及心所，由無始來虛妄熏習，雖各體一，而似二生：謂見、相分，即能、所取。如是二分，情有理無，此相說為遍計所執。 〔T1585 0046a15–a18〕 有義：一切心及心所，由熏習力所變二分，從緣生故，亦依他起。遍計依斯妄執定實有無、一異、俱不俱等，此二方名遍計所執。 〔T1585 0046a21–a24〕 由斯理趣，眾緣所生心、心所體及相、見分，有漏、無漏皆依他起。 〔T1585 0046b04–b06〕
圓成實 · 體
二空所顯圓滿成就，諸法實性，名圓成實。顯此遍、常，體非虛謬，簡自、共相、虛空、我等。 〔T1585 0046b10–b11〕 此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性。 〔T1585 0046b13–b14〕
圓成依他 · 不即不離
說「於彼」言：顯圓成實與依他起，不即不離；「常遠離」言：顯妄所執能、所取性，理恒非有。「前」言義顯不空依他；「性」顯二空非圓成實，真如離有離無性故。 〔T1585 0046b14–b18〕
非異非不異
由前理故，此圓成實與彼依他起，非異非不異。異應真如非彼實性；不異此性應是無常。 〔T1585 0046b18–b20〕
結 · 三性不離識
此三為異？為不異耶？應說俱非，無別體故；妄執、緣起、真義別故。如是三性，義類無邊，恐厭繁文，略示綱要。 〔T1585 0047c13–c16〕
要義：本論於「遍計」以「周遍計度」釋名，定能遍計（破八識皆遍計、歸唯六七執我法者，以前五無計度、善心無明非俱、無漏無執故）、定所遍計（依《攝大乘》歸依他起，以妄執必託依他事為所緣緣；圓成真如非妄執親緣，依展轉乃名所遍計）。於『遍計所執與依他別』破『二取即遍計所執』、歸『二分亦依他·定執方名遍計所執』（以後得智二分非執、二分能熏成種、習氣相分能作因緣三證）。於圓成實以「二空所顯圓滿成就諸法實性」立體，逐字釋「於彼·常遠離·前·性」四言，明圓成與依他『不即不離·非異非不異』（異則真如非依他實性、不異則圓成同依他無常），喻以『無常等性與行法』之共相關係。總歸『三性皆不離心等』——依他（緣生似有）、遍計（橫執性相都無）、圓成（依他上我法俱空所顯識等真性）。
五、諸家異釋（窺基《述記》T1830）
今依正義，由此應作四句分別，有遍而非計，謂無漏諸識，有漏善識等能遍廣緣，而不計執者；有計而非遍，謂第七有漏識，有亦遍亦計，謂有漏染污我、法執第六識等；有非遍非計，謂有漏五識及第八識等。 〔T1830 0540a19–a24〕
物者，體也，即能計心起所執也……隨能計心，故說為物，心多品故，說為種種，體非種種也。 〔T1830 0540b03–b15〕
依他是所於，真如是能於，非即一法有所、能於，顯如與依他體非即故。若是即者，真如應有滅，依他應不生……若全離者，如應非彼依他之性，應離依他別有如性，云何言「於彼」？故「於彼」言顯不即離…… 〔T1830 0546a12–a18〕
勝義、世俗相待立故。謂若有俗，理必有真；若無真時，待何為俗……由斯道理故，前三真亦名為俗，真家俗故，故後三俗，亦名為真，俗家真故。如斯勝理，故彼二性非異、非一。 〔T1830 0547a07–a13〕
窺基於「遍計」立「四句分別」揀能遍計之寬狹（有遍非計＝無漏諸識及有漏善識能廣緣不執、有計非遍＝第七有漏識、亦遍亦計＝有漏染污執我法之第六識等、非遍非計＝有漏五識及第八識）——以「遍」「計」二義交絡，定唯六七執我法者乃真能遍計。於「種種物」釋「物者體也」（隨能計心而說為物、心多品故說種種，非物體種種）。於圓成「於彼」二字釋「不即不離」（依他是所於、真如是能於；若即真如應有滅依他應不生、若全離如應非依他之性）。於「非異非不異」以「勝義世俗相待」結（有俗必有真、有真必有俗，故二性非異非一）。能遍計二說、遍計所執與依他別二說之繫名（何說屬何師），《述記》詳之。
六、譯名 · 古譯對讀（玄奘 ↔ 真諦《轉識論》）
| 義 | 玄奘《成唯識論》 | 真諦《轉識論》 |
|---|---|---|
| 三性總名 | 遍計所執性 · 依他起性 · 圓成實性 | 分別性 · 依他性 · 真實性 |
| 能所對 | 能遍計（識）· 所遍計（境） | 能分別（即依他性）· 所分別（即分別性）（「能即依他性、所即分別性」〔0062c12〕） |
| 依他起義 | 分別緣所生 | 依他性（「能分別……為依他性」〔0062c24〕） |
| 圓成實／真實性 | 二空所顯真如 | 無性性（「真實性名無性性，無有性、無無性……非有性非無性故，重稱無性性」〔0063b23〕） |
| 三無性 | 相無性 · 生無性 · 勝義無性 | 此三無性（「此三無性，是一切法真實，以其離有故名常」〔0063b25〕） |
玄奘《成唯識論》以『遍計所執·依他·圓成』三性立名，真諦《轉識論》以『分別·依他·真實』三性立名；真諦於真實性釋作「無性性」（約人法故無有性、約二空故無無性），與玄奘「二空所顯真如」義通而名異——古譯於三性立名一分歧。
七、術語
遍計所執自性（parikalpita-svabhāva）— 周遍計度所妄執之自性差別；情有理無，都無所有。 依他起自性（paratantra-svabhāva）— 眾緣生他力所起；分別緣所生，非有似有。 圓成實自性（pariniṣpanna-svabhāva）— 二空所顯圓滿成就之諸法實性；即真如。 能遍計 · 所遍計 — 周遍計度之虛妄分別（唯六七執我法者）· 所妄執之境（即依他起）。 三無性 — 相無性（依遍計立）· 生無性（依依他立）· 勝義無性（依圓成立）。 不即不離 — 圓成與依他之關係；非異（不離）非不異（不即）。 〔梵文為古德所傳發音輔助。〕
八、互讀（唯識系次第：百法 → 三十頌 → 二十論 → 辯中邊論 → 攝大乘論）
- 百法：心法·心所（能遍計＝有漏心心所之第六、第七）；遍計所執非百法所攝（情有理無）；無為·真如（圓成實所依）。
- 三十頌：頌二十（遍計所執）· 頌二十一（依他起·圓成實）· 頌二十二（非異非不異·非不見此彼）——逐頌姊妹。
- 二十論：〔從闕〕主唯識無境、破外執，三性之相攝判釋無正面對位。
- 辯中邊論：辯相品·三性（「唯所執、依他，及圓成實性，境故分別故，及二空故說」〔T1600 0464c27〕；「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」〔T1600 0464c29–0465a02〕）——以虛妄分別之境·性·二空立三性，與本論「三性亦不離識」同轍；本章釋四真實亦引《辯中邊論》別判。
- 攝大乘論：所知相分·三性（「依他起相？謂阿賴耶識為種子，虛妄分別所攝諸識」〔T1594 0137c29〕；「遍計所執相？謂於無義唯有識中似義顯現」〔T1594 0138a12〕；「圓成實相？謂即於彼依他起相，由似義相永無有性」〔T1594 0138a14〕）——三性之廣辯本；本論「次所遍計自性云何攝大乘說是依他起」即引此。
章內：釋違理難（前章）· 釋三無性（後章——即依此三性立彼三無性·相生勝義三無性）· 釋唯識實性（此諸法勝義即真如·唯識實性）。
九、校本定位
頌 T1586〔0061a14·0061a16·0061a18〕· 本論 T1585 三性釋〔遍計能所 0045c14–c19·能遍計二說 0045c22·0045c25·0046a08·所遍計 0046a10·遍計依他別二說 0046a15·0046a21·0046b04·圓成體 0046b10·0046b13·不即不離 0046b14–b18·非異非不異 0046b18·結 0047c13–c16〕· 述記 T1830〔四句分別 0540a19–a24·種種物 0540b03·0540b14·不即不離 0546a12–a17·勝義世俗相待 0547a07–a13〕· 《轉識論》T1587〔0062c12·0062c24·0063b23·0063b25〕。 〔經證〕解深密 T676〔一切法相品 0693a15–a22·0693b10–b12·0693b21–b25·無自性相品 0694a13–a15〕。〔論本〕瑜伽師地論 T1579〔攝決擇分 0656c01–c09〕· 攝大乘論本 T1594〔0137c29·0138a12·0138a14〕· 辯中邊論 T1600〔0464c27·0464c29–0465a02〕。
This chapter expounds Triṃśikā verse 20 (the wholly-imagined · its self-nature is nothing at all), verse 21 (the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished · "ever apart from the former nature"), and verse 22 (neither-different-nor-not-different from the other-dependent · "not without seeing this, [one sees] that").
1. Position in Kuiji's Structural Outline
| Outline level | This chapter's place |
|---|---|
| Resolving objections | resolving the objection-against-principle → resolving the objection-against-scripture · the three natures → resolving into the three non-self-natures (the next chapter · verses 23–25) |
| Within the three-natures chapter | expounding the three natures (verses 20–22) · the gates by which the three natures subsume all dharmas (the three unconditioned · the seven suchnesses · the six dharmas · the five matters · the five marks · the four realities · the four truths · the three doors of liberation · the two truths) |
| Verse expounded | Triṃśikā verse 20 in full · verse 21 in full · verse 22 in full |
"If there is only consciousness, why does the World-Honored One, throughout the scriptures, speak of three natures?" — this chapter carries on from the thesis set up earlier, "consciousness-only, without an object," and resolves that "the three natures" do not contradict consciousness-only (the three natures too are not apart from consciousness); it opens onto the three-non-self-natures chapter that follows, "in dependence on just these three natures, those three non-natures are set up."
2. Source verse · doctrinal context
由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物，此遍計所執，自性無所有。 〔T1586 0061a14–a15〕 依他起自性，分別緣所生。圓成實於彼，常遠離前性。 〔T1586 0061a16–a17〕 故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。 〔T1586 0061a18–a19〕
tr. "By this and that imagining, one imagines the manifold things; this wholly-imagined — its self-nature is nothing at all. / The other-dependent self-nature is born of the conditions of discrimination. The perfectly-accomplished, upon that [other-dependent], is ever apart from the former nature. / Hence this, with respect to the other-dependent, is neither-different-nor-not-different — as with impermanence and the rest [in relation to conditioned dharmas]: not without seeing this [the perfectly-accomplished] [does one see] that [the other-dependent]."
Verse 20 clarifies the wholly-imagined (existent to feeling, non-existent to principle · nothing at all); verse 21 clarifies the other-dependent (condition-born · non-existent yet seeming-existent) and the perfectly-accomplished (upon the other-dependent, ever apart from the wholly-imagined · the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses); verse 22 clarifies that the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "neither-different-nor-not-different" and "not without seeing this [does one see] that" (one must first see the perfectly-accomplished to see the other-dependent as it really is). The root treatise argues at length on the strength of these verses, all to make firm that "the three natures too are not apart from consciousness" — the three natures are set up precisely with respect to consciousness, not separately existent apart from consciousness.
| Verse phrase | Doctrinal gate | What it argues |
|---|---|---|
| 由彼彼遍計 by this and that imagining | the imaginer | the unreal discrimination that imagines all-round; "this and that" shows the manifold of kinds |
| 遍計種種物 one imagines the manifold things | what is wholly-imagined | the self-nature and differences, dharma or self, deludedly grasped in the aggregates, bases, and elements |
| 此遍計所執，自性無所有 this wholly-imagined — its self-nature is nothing at all | the mark of the wholly-imagined | nothing at all, unfindable when probed by principle or scripture |
| 依他起自性，分別緣所生 the other-dependent self-nature is born of the conditions of discrimination | the mark of the other-dependent | mind and mental factors born of the many conditions, together with the seeing- and image-parts; defiled and pure both subsumed |
| 圓成實於彼，常遠離前性 the perfectly-accomplished, upon that, is ever apart from the former nature | the mark of the perfectly-accomplished | upon the other-dependent, ever apart from the wholly-imagined; the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses as its nature |
| 故此與依他，非異非不異 hence this, with respect to the other-dependent, is neither-different-nor-not-different | the perfectly-accomplished–other-dependent relation | dharma and dharma-nature, the ultimate and the conventional mutually awaiting — neither one nor different |
| 非不見此彼 not without seeing this [does one see] that | the sequence of realizing-vision | one does not, without realizing-vision of the perfectly-accomplished, manage to see the other-dependent; until one penetrates the emptiness of the grasped, one does not know the other-dependent to be existent |
"The imaginer" (subsumed under all eight consciousnesses / only the sixth and seventh) and "the difference between the wholly-imagined and the other-dependent" (the two graspings just are the wholly-imagined / the two parts are also other-dependent, only the definite grasping being the wholly-imagined) — on these two points the root treatise lists several "one view holds…" positions and takes the latter as correct, each position given in full in the Exposition.
3. Scriptural and treatise grounding (scripture → root śāstra)
Scriptural witnesses
謂諸法相略有三種，何等為三？一者、遍計所執相；二者、依他起相；三者、圓成實相。云何諸法遍計所執相？謂一切法名假安立自性差別，乃至為令隨起言說。云何諸法依他起相？謂一切法緣生自性，則此有故彼有，此生故彼生，謂無明緣行，乃至招集純大苦蘊。云何諸法圓成實相？謂一切法平等真如。 〔解深密經·一切法相品 T676 0693a15–a22〕
tr. "The marks of dharmas are, in brief, of three kinds; what are the three? First, the wholly-imagined mark; second, the other-dependent mark; third, the perfectly-accomplished mark. What is the wholly-imagined mark of dharmas? It is the self-nature and differences of all dharmas conventionally set up by name, even to the point of giving rise to corresponding speech. What is the other-dependent mark of dharmas? It is the condition-born self-nature of all dharmas — that is, this being, that is; this arising, that arises: namely, ignorance conditions formations, on up to the massing of this whole great heap of suffering. What is the perfectly-accomplished mark of dharmas? It is the equal suchness of all dharmas."
如彼清淨頗胝迦上，所有染色相應；依他起相上，遍計所執相言說習氣，當知亦爾。 〔解深密經·一切法相品 T676 0693b10–b12〕
tr. "As, upon a clear crystal, a dyeing color may be conjoined [making it appear as a gem], so upon the other-dependent mark the speech-habit-energy of the wholly-imagined mark — know it to be likewise."
復次，德本！相名相應以為緣故，遍計所執相而可了知；依他起相上，遍計所執相執以為緣故，依他起相而可了知；依他起相上，遍計所執相無執以為緣故，圓成實相而可了知。 〔解深密經·一切法相品 T676 0693b21–b25〕
tr. "Further, Guṇākara! Because the conjunction of mark and name serves as condition, the wholly-imagined mark can be understood; because the grasping of the wholly-imagined mark upon the other-dependent mark serves as condition, the other-dependent mark can be understood; because the non-grasping of the wholly-imagined mark upon the other-dependent mark serves as condition, the perfectly-accomplished mark can be understood."
當知我依三種無自性性密意，說言一切諸法皆無自性，所謂相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性。 〔解深密經·無自性相品 T676 0694a13–a15〕
tr. "Know that I, with the hidden intent of the three kinds of non-self-nature, declare all dharmas to be without self-nature — namely, the mark-less-ness of self-nature, the arising-less-ness of self-nature, and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature."
The Saṃdhinirmocana's chapter on the marks of all dharmas sets down the scriptural source of the three marks (the wholly-imagined mark = self-nature and differences conventionally set up by name, the other-dependent mark = condition-born self-nature, "this being, that is," the perfectly-accomplished mark = equal suchness), and with the figure of the crystal-gem's dyeing color discloses the grasping and non-grasping of "the wholly-imagined mark upon the other-dependent mark"; its chapter on the markless self-nature teaches the three non-self-natures (mark · arising · ultimate-meaning) in dependence on the three marks — the scriptural source of verse 23, "in dependence on just these three natures, those three non-natures are set up."
Root śāstra (Yogācārabhūmi T1579)
云何增益邊？謂諸法自性略有三種。一、遍計所執自性，二、依他起自性，三、圓成實自性。遍計所執自性者，謂諸所有名言安立諸法自性，依假名言，數數周遍計度諸法而建立故。依他起自性者，謂眾緣生他力所起諸法自性，非自然有，故說無性。圓成實自性者，謂如前說。若於依他起自性、或圓成實自性中，所有遍計所執自性妄執，當知名增益邊。 〔瑜伽師地論·攝決擇分 T1579 0656c01–c09〕
tr. "What is the extreme of superimposition? The self-nature of dharmas is, in brief, of three kinds: first, the wholly-imagined self-nature; second, the other-dependent self-nature; third, the perfectly-accomplished self-nature. The wholly-imagined self-nature is the self-nature of dharmas set up by all name-and-speech — established by imagining dharmas all-round, again and again, in dependence on conventional name-and-speech. The other-dependent self-nature is the self-nature of dharmas born of the many conditions, raised by another's power, not existent of itself, and so said to be without nature. The perfectly-accomplished self-nature is as said before. If, in the other-dependent self-nature or in the perfectly-accomplished self-nature, there is any deluded grasping of the wholly-imagined self-nature, know it to be named the extreme of superimposition."
The Yogācārabhūmi fixes the three self-natures: the wholly-imagined = set up by name-and-speech · wholly-imagined all-round again and again (the śāstra-source of the verse's "imagining all-round, hence named the wholly-imagined"); the other-dependent = born of the many conditions, raised by another's power · not existent of itself · and so said to be without nature (the śāstra-source of "born of the conditions of discrimination" and of arising-less-ness); the perfectly-accomplished = the perfectly-accomplished self-nature, the suchness of dharmas · the field of holy wisdom; and it judges "deluded grasping of the wholly-imagined raised upon the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished" to be the extreme of superimposition (the śāstra-source of "the perfectly-accomplished, upon that, is ever apart from the former nature" — what is apart from being only the superimposed wholly-imagined). What Dharmapāla's redaction takes as authority has its scripture in the Saṃdhinirmocana, and its śāstra in the Yogācārabhūmi, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and the Madhyāntavibhāga.
4. Essentials of the root treatise (Dharmapāla's redaction · T1585)
The wholly-imagined · imaginer and wholly-imagined
論曰：周遍計度，故名遍計；品類眾多，說為「彼彼」。謂能遍計虛妄分別。即由彼彼虛妄分別，遍計種種所遍計物：謂所妄執蘊、處、界等，若法、若我自性差別。此所妄執自性差別，總名遍計所執自性。如是自性，都無所有，理、教推徵，不可得故。 〔T1585 0045c14–c19〕
tr. "The treatise says: imagining all-round, hence named imagining; the kinds being manifold, it is spoken of as 'this and that.' That is, the imaginer, the unreal discrimination. By just this and that unreal discrimination, one imagines the manifold wholly-imagined things: namely, the self-nature and differences, dharma or self, deludedly grasped in the aggregates, bases, elements, and the rest. This deludedly-grasped self-nature and differences are together named the wholly-imagined self-nature. Such a self-nature is nothing at all, being unfindable when probed by principle and by scripture."
The imaginer · two positions
有義：八識及諸心所，有漏攝者，皆能遍計，虛妄分別為自性故…… 〔T1585 0045c22–c23〕
tr. "One view holds: the eight consciousnesses and all the mental factors, those subsumed under the contaminated, are all imaginers, for unreal discrimination is their self-nature…"
有義：第六、第七心品執我、法者，是能遍計。唯說意識能遍計故…… 〔T1585 0045c25–c26〕
tr. "One view holds: the sixth and seventh mind-groups that grasp self and dharmas are the imaginer, for [scripture] says only the mental consciousness is the imaginer…"
由斯理趣，唯於第六、第七心品，有能遍計。 〔T1585 0046a08〕
tr. "By this line of reasoning, it is only in the sixth and seventh mind-groups that there is the imaginer."
What is wholly-imagined
次所遍計自性云何？《攝大乘》說是依他起，遍計心等所緣緣故。 〔T1585 0046a10–a11〕
tr. "Next, what is the self-nature of the imagined? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says it is the other-dependent, for it is the object-support condition of the imagining mind and the rest."
The wholly-imagined and the other-dependent · two positions
有義：三界心及心所，由無始來虛妄熏習，雖各體一，而似二生：謂見、相分，即能、所取。如是二分，情有理無，此相說為遍計所執。 〔T1585 0046a15–a18〕
tr. "One view holds: the mind and mental factors of the three realms, by the unreal perfuming from beginningless time, though each one in substance, yet arise as if two: namely, the seeing-part and the image-part, which are the grasper and the grasped. These two parts are existent to feeling and non-existent to principle, and this mark is said to be the wholly-imagined."
有義：一切心及心所，由熏習力所變二分，從緣生故，亦依他起。遍計依斯妄執定實有無、一異、俱不俱等，此二方名遍計所執。 〔T1585 0046a21–a24〕
tr. "One view holds: in all mind and mental factors, the two parts transformed by the force of perfuming, being born of conditions, are also other-dependent. The imagining, in dependence on these, deludedly grasps [them] as definitely really existent or non-existent, one or different, both or neither, and the rest — only these two [graspings] are then named the wholly-imagined."
由斯理趣，眾緣所生心、心所體及相、見分，有漏、無漏皆依他起。 〔T1585 0046b04–b06〕
tr. "By this line of reasoning, the substance of mind and mental factors born of the many conditions, together with the image- and seeing-parts, whether contaminated or uncontaminated, are all other-dependent."
The perfectly-accomplished · its substance
二空所顯圓滿成就，諸法實性，名圓成實。顯此遍、常，體非虛謬，簡自、共相、虛空、我等。 〔T1585 0046b10–b11〕
tr. "The real nature of dharmas, perfectly-accomplished and disclosed by the two emptinesses, is named the perfectly-accomplished. [The name] discloses it to be all-pervading and constant, its substance neither void nor false — marking it off from the particular and general characteristics, from space, from a self, and the rest."
此即於彼依他起上，常遠離前遍計所執，二空所顯真如為性。 〔T1585 0046b13–b14〕
tr. "This is, upon that other-dependent, the being ever apart from the former wholly-imagined, having as its nature the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses."
The perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent · neither identical nor apart
說「於彼」言：顯圓成實與依他起，不即不離；「常遠離」言：顯妄所執能、所取性，理恒非有。「前」言義顯不空依他；「性」顯二空非圓成實，真如離有離無性故。 〔T1585 0046b14–b18〕
tr. "The saying 'upon that' discloses that the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are neither-identical-nor-apart; the saying 'ever apart' discloses that the deludedly-grasped nature of grasper and grasped is, in principle, ever non-existent. The word 'former' means to disclose that the other-dependent is not [itself] emptied; the word 'nature' discloses that the two emptinesses are not the perfectly-accomplished, for suchness has the nature of being apart from existence and apart from non-existence."
Neither-different-nor-not-different
由前理故，此圓成實與彼依他起，非異非不異。異應真如非彼實性；不異此性應是無常。 〔T1585 0046b18–b20〕
tr. "By the foregoing principle, this perfectly-accomplished, with respect to that other-dependent, is neither-different-nor-not-different. Were it different, suchness would not be the real nature of that [other-dependent]; were it not-different, this nature would have to be impermanent."
Conclusion · the three natures not apart from consciousness
此三為異？為不異耶？應說俱非，無別體故；妄執、緣起、真義別故。如是三性，義類無邊，恐厭繁文，略示綱要。 〔T1585 0047c13–c16〕
tr. "Are these three different? Or not-different? It should be said: neither, for there is no separate substance [among them]; [yet] because deluded-grasping, dependent-arising, and the real-meaning are distinct [they are not not-different]. Such are the three natures, boundless in their kinds of meaning; for fear of wearying [the reader] with verbose text, only the main outline is shown."
Essentials: the root treatise glosses the name of "the wholly-imagined" by "imagining all-round," fixes the imaginer (refuting [the view that] all eight consciousnesses imagine, coming home to only the sixth-and-seventh that grasp self and dharmas — since the first five do not reckon, the wholesome mind is not concurrent with ignorance, and the uncontaminated has no grasping), and fixes the imagined (coming home, per the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, to the other-dependent — since the deluded grasping must lean upon an other-dependent thing as its object-support condition; the perfectly-accomplished, suchness, is not the direct condition of deluded grasping, named "wholly-imagined" only by mediation). On "the wholly-imagined and the other-dependent," it refutes "the two graspings just are the wholly-imagined" and comes home to "the two parts are also other-dependent · only the definite grasping is named the wholly-imagined" (by three proofs: the two parts of the subsequently-attained wisdom are no grasping, the two parts can perfume seeds, and the habit-energy image-part can act as causal condition). For the perfectly-accomplished it sets the substance as "the real nature of dharmas, perfectly-accomplished and disclosed by the two emptinesses," glosses word by word the four terms "upon that · ever apart · former · nature," and clarifies that the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "neither-identical-nor-apart · neither-different-nor-not-different" (different, and suchness is not the other-dependent's real nature; not-different, and the perfectly-accomplished is as impermanent as the other-dependent), illustrating it by the shared-characteristic relation of "impermanence and the rest with conditioned dharmas." It all comes home to "the three natures are none of them apart from mind and the rest" — the other-dependent (condition-born, seeming-existent), the wholly-imagined (the crosswise grasping, nature and mark nothing at all), and the perfectly-accomplished (upon the other-dependent, the true nature of consciousness and the rest disclosed by the emptiness of both self and dharmas).
5. Divergent readings across the masters (Kuiji, Shuji T1830)
今依正義，由此應作四句分別，有遍而非計，謂無漏諸識，有漏善識等能遍廣緣，而不計執者；有計而非遍，謂第七有漏識，有亦遍亦計，謂有漏染污我、法執第六識等；有非遍非計，謂有漏五識及第八識等。 〔T1830 0540a19–a24〕
tr. "Now following the correct meaning, one should make a four-fold distinction here. There is the all-round-yet-not-reckoning: namely, the uncontaminated consciousnesses and the contaminated wholesome consciousness and the rest, which can range broadly all-round, yet do not reckon-and-grasp. There is the reckoning-yet-not-all-round: namely, the contaminated seventh consciousness. There is the both-all-round-and-reckoning: namely, the contaminated, defiled sixth consciousness that grasps self and dharmas, and the rest. There is the neither-all-round-nor-reckoning: namely, the contaminated five consciousnesses and the eighth consciousness, and the rest."
物者，體也，即能計心起所執也……隨能計心，故說為物，心多品故，說為種種，體非種種也。 〔T1830 0540b03–b15〕
tr. "'Thing' means substance — that is, what the reckoning mind raises and grasps… following the reckoning mind, it is spoken of as 'thing'; the mind being of many kinds, it is spoken of as 'manifold,' [though] the substance is not manifold."
依他是所於，真如是能於，非即一法有所、能於，顯如與依他體非即故。若是即者，真如應有滅，依他應不生……若全離者，如應非彼依他之性，應離依他別有如性，云何言「於彼」？故「於彼」言顯不即離…… 〔T1830 0546a12–a18〕
tr. "The other-dependent is the 'upon-which,' suchness the 'which-is-upon'; it is not that in one single dharma there is [both] the 'upon-which' and the 'which-is-upon' — disclosing that suchness and the other-dependent are not identical in substance. Were they identical, suchness would have to perish and the other-dependent would have to not arise… were they wholly apart, suchness would not be the nature of that other-dependent, and there would have to be, apart from the other-dependent, a separate suchness-nature — [then] how could one say 'upon that'? Hence the saying 'upon that' discloses the neither-identical-nor-apart…"
勝義、世俗相待立故。謂若有俗，理必有真；若無真時，待何為俗……由斯道理故，前三真亦名為俗，真家俗故，故後三俗，亦名為真，俗家真故。如斯勝理，故彼二性非異、非一。 〔T1830 0547a07–a13〕
tr. "The ultimate and the conventional are set up mutually awaiting one another. That is, if there is the conventional, in principle there must be the real; and were there no real, against what would there be the conventional?… By this reasoning, the former three [kinds of] real are also named conventional, being the conventional of the real-house; and so the latter three conventional are also named real, being the real of the conventional-house. Such being the excellent principle, those two natures are neither-different-nor-one."
Kuiji, on "the wholly-imagined," sets up the "four-fold distinction" to mark the breadth and narrowness of the imaginer (all-round-yet-not-reckoning = the uncontaminated consciousnesses and the contaminated wholesome consciousness, which range broadly without grasping; reckoning-yet-not-all-round = the contaminated seventh; both-all-round-and-reckoning = the contaminated, defiled sixth that grasps self and dharmas; neither-all-round-nor-reckoning = the contaminated five consciousnesses and the eighth) — by interweaving the two senses "all-round" and "reckoning," he fixes that only the sixth-and-seventh that grasp self and dharmas are the true imaginer. On "the manifold things" he glosses "'thing' means substance" (spoken of as 'thing' following the reckoning mind, and as 'manifold' because the mind is of many kinds, not [because] the thing-substance is manifold). On the perfectly-accomplished's "upon that" he glosses "neither-identical-nor-apart" (the other-dependent is the 'upon-which,' suchness the 'which-is-upon'; identical, and suchness would perish and the other-dependent not arise; wholly apart, and suchness would not be the other-dependent's nature). On "neither-different-nor-not-different" he concludes by "the ultimate and the conventional mutually awaiting" (with the conventional there must be the real, with the real there must be the conventional, hence the two natures are neither-different-nor-one). The assignment of names for the imaginer's two positions and the wholly-imagined–other-dependent's two positions (which position belongs to which master) the Shuji details.
6. Rendering of terms · old-translation comparison (Xuanzang ↔ Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun)
| Sense | Xuanzang, Cheng Weishi Lun | Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun |
|---|---|---|
| general names of the three natures | 遍計所執性 · 依他起性 · 圓成實性 the wholly-imagined nature · the other-dependent nature · the perfectly-accomplished nature | 分別性 · 依他性 · 真實性 the discriminated nature · the other-dependent nature · the real nature |
| grasper–grasped pairing | 能遍計（識）· 所遍計（境）the imaginer (consciousness) · the wholly-imagined (object) | 能分別（即依他性）· 所分別（即分別性）the grasping discrimination (i.e. the other-dependent nature) · the discriminated (i.e. the discriminated nature) ("the grasper is the other-dependent nature, the grasped the discriminated nature" 〔0062c12〕) |
| sense of the other-dependent | 分別緣所生 born of the conditions of discrimination | 依他性 the other-dependent nature ("the grasping discrimination… is the other-dependent nature" 〔0062c24〕) |
| the perfectly-accomplished / the real nature | 二空所顯真如 the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses | 無性性 the no-nature nature ("the real nature is named the no-nature nature, having no being-nature and no non-being-nature… since it is neither being-nature nor non-being-nature, it is doubly called the no-nature nature" 〔0063b23〕) |
| the three non-natures | 相無性 · 生無性 · 勝義無性 the mark-non-nature · the arising-non-nature · the ultimate-meaning-non-nature | 此三無性 these three no-natures ("these three no-natures are the real of all dharmas; because they are apart from existence, they are named constant" 〔0063b25〕) |
Xuanzang's Cheng Weishi Lun names the three natures as "the wholly-imagined · the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished"; Paramārtha's Zhuanshi lun names the three natures as "the discriminated · the other-dependent · the real." Paramārtha glosses the real nature as "the no-nature nature" (no being-nature with respect to person and dharmas, no non-being-nature with respect to the two emptinesses), which is one in meaning with Xuanzang's "the suchness disclosed by the two emptinesses" though differing in name — the old and new renderings parting on a single point in the naming of the three natures.
7. Key terms
- the wholly-imagined self-nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) — the self-nature and differences deludedly grasped by imagining all-round; existent to feeling and non-existent to principle, nothing at all.
- the other-dependent self-nature (paratantra-svabhāva) — born of the many conditions, raised by another's power; born of the conditions of discrimination, non-existent yet seeming-existent.
- the perfectly-accomplished self-nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva) — the real nature of dharmas, perfectly-accomplished and disclosed by the two emptinesses; that is, suchness.
- the imaginer · the imagined — the unreal discrimination that imagines all-round (only the sixth-and-seventh that grasp self and dharmas) · the object deludedly grasped (i.e. the other-dependent).
- the three non-natures — the mark-non-nature (set up in dependence on the wholly-imagined) · the arising-non-nature (set up in dependence on the other-dependent) · the ultimate-meaning-non-nature (set up in dependence on the perfectly-accomplished).
- neither-identical-nor-apart — the relation of the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent; neither-different (not apart) nor-not-different (not identical). 〔Sanskrit forms are a pronunciation aid transmitted by the ancient masters.〕
8. Cross-reading (the Yogācāra sequence: Baifa → Triṃśikā → Viṃśatikā → Madhyāntavibhāga → Mahāyānasaṃgraha)
- Baifa (Hundred Dharmas): mind and mental factors (the imaginer = the sixth and seventh among the contaminated mind and mental factors); the wholly-imagined is not subsumed under the hundred dharmas (existent to feeling, non-existent to principle); the unconditioned · suchness (what the perfectly-accomplished rests on).
- Triṃśikā: verse 20 (the wholly-imagined) · verse 21 (the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished) · verse 22 (neither-different-nor-not-different · "not without seeing this, [one sees] that") — the verse-by-verse sisters.
- Viṃśatikā: 〔no correspondence〕 it chiefly [treats] consciousness-only without an object and refutes outer grasping; the subsuming-judgment of the three natures has no direct counterpart there.
- Madhyāntavibhāga: the Characteristics chapter · the three natures ("only the grasped, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished nature: spoken of by reason of the object, by reason of discrimination, and by reason of the two emptinesses" 〔T1600 0464c27〕; "in dependence on the object of unreal discrimination, the wholly-imagined self-nature is said to be; in dependence on the nature of unreal discrimination, the other-dependent self-nature is said to be; in dependence on the emptiness of the grasped and the grasper, the perfectly-accomplished self-nature is said to be" 〔T1600 0464c29–0465a02〕) — setting up the three natures by the object · nature · two-emptinesses of unreal discrimination, of one track with this treatise's "the three natures too are not apart from consciousness"; this chapter's exposition of the four realities also cites the Madhyāntavibhāga's separate judgment.
- Mahāyānasaṃgraha: the Knowable-Characteristic division · the three natures ("the other-dependent mark? It is the consciousnesses subsumed under unreal discrimination, with the ālaya-consciousness as seed" 〔T1594 0137c29〕; "the wholly-imagined mark? It is the seeming-appearance of an object within the objectless, where there is only consciousness" 〔T1594 0138a12〕; "the perfectly-accomplished mark? It is, upon that other-dependent mark, the everlasting absence of the seeming-object nature" 〔T1594 0138a14〕) — the broad-argument source of the three natures; this treatise's "next, what is imagined? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says it is the other-dependent" cites just this.
Within the treatise: resolving the objection-against-principle (the prior chapter) · resolving into the three non-natures (the next chapter — in dependence on just these three natures, those three non-natures are set up · the mark, arising, and ultimate-meaning non-natures) · resolving the true nature of consciousness-only (this ultimate-meaning of all dharmas is just suchness · the true nature of consciousness-only).
9. Collation position
Verse T1586 〔0061a14·0061a16·0061a18〕 · root T1585 the exposition of the three natures 〔the wholly-imagined, imaginer-and-imagined 0045c14–c19 · the imaginer, two positions 0045c22·0045c25·0046a08 · the wholly-imagined 0046a10 · the wholly-imagined–other-dependent distinction, two positions 0046a15·0046a21·0046b04 · the perfectly-accomplished's substance 0046b10·0046b13 · neither-identical-nor-apart 0046b14–b18 · neither-different-nor-not-different 0046b18 · the conclusion 0047c13–c16〕 · Shuji T1830 〔the four-fold distinction 0540a19–a24 · the manifold things 0540b03·0540b14 · neither-identical-nor-apart 0546a12–a17 · the ultimate and conventional mutually awaiting 0547a07–a13〕 · Zhuanshi lun T1587 〔0062c12·0062c24·0063b23·0063b25〕. 〔Scripture〕 Saṃdhinirmocana T676 〔chapter on the marks of all dharmas 0693a15–a22·0693b10–b12·0693b21–b25 · chapter on the markless self-nature 0694a13–a15〕. 〔Śāstra〕 Yogācārabhūmi T1579 〔Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī 0656c01–c09〕 · Mahāyānasaṃgraha root T1594 〔0137c29·0138a12·0138a14〕 · Madhyāntavibhāga T1600 〔0464c27·0464c29–0465a02〕.