成唯識論 釋違教·三無性
三性剛立完，一個難題就來了：經裡明明說「一切法皆無自性」，你卻立三性，豈不違教？
論主的答覆是頌二十三、二十四：「即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。」關鍵在「密意」二字——佛說一切法無性，是有所指的，不是全稱否定。
三無性依三性而立：
相無性依遍計所執而立——所執之相畢竟無，故說無性。這一條是真的「無」。
生無性依依他起而立——依他起法託眾緣生，不是自然而有，所以說它「無自然性」。注意：不是說依他起沒有，是說它沒有『自己就有』的那種性。
勝義無性依圓成實而立——圓成實是諸法勝義，由遠離前面所執的我法性而顯，所以就『離所執』這一分說它無性。
所以三無性其實只有第一條是全無，後兩條都是『無某一種性』，不是「無」。 佛的密意在此：他要破的是你所執的那個自性，不是要否定一切。
論主特別警告：說「密意」言，即「顯非了義」——凡見「一切法皆無自性」而作全稱否定會，就落入惡取空。愚夫於後二性增益妄執，佛乃說無；若因此撥無依他與圓成，那就比原來的病更重。
這一節是整部論最需要細心的地方之一：空得不夠是執有，空得過頭是斷滅。中道就在這兩句話中間。
No sooner are the three natures established than a difficulty arrives: scripture plainly says all dharmas are without own-being; you establish three natures — do you not contradict the teaching?
The reply is verses 23 and 24: "In dependence on these three natures, those three non-natures are established; hence with hidden intent the Buddha said that all dharmas are without nature." Everything turns on hidden intent — the Buddha's saying was aimed at something, not a blanket denial.
The three non-natures rest on the three natures.
Non-nature of characteristic rests on the wholly imagined: what is imagined is finally absent, and so it is said to be without nature. This one is genuine absence.
Non-nature of production rests on the other-dependent: an other-dependent dharma arises through conditions and is not there of itself, so it is said to be without a nature of its own arising. Note: not that the other-dependent is absent, but that it has no such nature as existing of itself.
Non-nature in the ultimate sense rests on the perfectly accomplished: it is the ultimate of dharmas, disclosed by departing from the imagined natures of self and dharmas — and it is said to be without nature just in respect of that departure.
So of the three non-natures only the first is sheer absence; the other two are absence of a certain nature, not absence. The Buddha's hidden intent lies here: what he broke was the own-being you had imagined, not everything whatsoever.
The treatise gives a warning: "in saying hidden intent, it shows the statement is not of definitive meaning." To meet "all dharmas are without own-being" and take it as a blanket denial is to fall into a wrong grasp of emptiness. The childish superimpose upon the latter two natures, and so the Buddha spoke of absence; if one thereupon denies the other-dependent and the perfectly accomplished, the disease is worse than the one first treated.
This is among the places in the whole treatise most needing care: emptiness taken too little is grasping at existence; taken too far it is annihilation. The middle lies between those two sentences.
成唯識論卷第九
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
〔科判〕2 釋三無性不成難 〔T31 0047c24〕
若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？
頌曰：
〔頌曰 16 T31 0047c26〕
２３即依此三性，立彼三無性，
故佛密意說，一切法無性。
２４初即相無性，次無自然性，
後由遠離前，所執我法性，
２５此諸法勝義，亦即是真如，
常如其性故，即唯識實性。
〔T31 0048a03〕論曰：即依此前所說三性，立彼後說三種無性，謂即相、生、勝義無性，故佛密意說一切法皆無自性，非性全無。
說「密意」言顯非了義，謂後二性雖體非無，而有愚夫於彼增益，妄執實有我、法自性，此即名為遍計所執。為除此執，故佛世尊於有及無，總說無性。
云何依此而立彼三？
謂依此初遍計所執立相無性，由此體相畢竟非有，如空華故。依次依他立生無性，此如幻事託眾緣生，無如妄執自然性故，假說無性，非性全無。依後圓成實立勝義無性，謂即勝義由遠離前遍計所執我、法性，故假說無性，非性全無。如太虛空雖遍眾色，而是眾色無性所顯。
雖依他起非勝義故，亦得說為勝義無性，而濫第二，故此不說。
〔科判〕(貳) 明唯識性 〔T31 0048a17〕
〔科判〕一、解第二十五頌唯識真性 〔T31 0048a17〕
〔科判〕(一) 釋初三句 〔T31 0048a17〕
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〕第二十三頌至第二十四頌
釋三無性（v23–24）
〔難〕有人提出疑問：前面既然講了實實在在有「三性」（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實這三種法的性質），那世尊為什麼又說『一切法都沒有自性』呢？這兩句話豈不是自己打自己的嘴巴、前後矛盾了嗎？
〔答〕其實兩句並不矛盾。世尊正是『就著』前面講的那三種性，才回過頭立了後面這「三種無性」——也就是『相無性、生無性、勝義無性』這三種『沒有自性』。換句話說，「無性」這話是貼著「三性」來講的，不是另起一套跟它對著幹。所以佛說『一切法都沒有自性』，是「密意」的講法（話裡別有用意、不是字面那麼簡單）；祂並不是說諸法的性質統統都是空的、什麼都沒有。這就是頌文「即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性」所說的意思。
這裡用了「密意」這個詞，正是要點出：佛說「一切法無性」這句話並不是「了義」的——也就是說，它不是把話講到底、直接照字面就算數的究竟說法，而是另有一層用意藏在裡頭。為什麼這麼說呢？因為後兩種性（依他起和圓成實）本身並不是沒有體、不是空的；可是偏偏有些糊塗人（愚夫），在這兩種本來就有的法上頭，硬要『加碼』（增益），妄想著裡頭實實在在有一個「我」、有一個獨立的「法」的自性——這種憑空安上去的執著，就叫作「遍計所執」。為了破掉這種執著，佛才乾脆把『有的』（依他、圓成這兩種有體的）和『沒有的』（遍計這種本來就空的）合在一起，一句話通通說成「無性」——用「一切法無性」這一句，把該遮的都遮掉。（其實這三種「無性」各說各的，並不是真的把諸法的體都否定光了。）
一、三無性逐立（v24）
那麼，到底是怎麼『就著』這三種性、立起那三種無性的呢？一個一個來看。
(一)就著第一種性，也就是「遍計所執」，立起「相無性」（這個法的「相」是沒有的）。為什麼？因為遍計所執這種東西，根本就是憑空妄想加上去的，它的體、它的相說到底壓根兒不存在——就像空中看見的花一樣（眼睛花了才看見，其實天上哪有花）。這就是頌文「初即相無性」所說的。
(二)就著第二種性，也就是「依他起」，立起「生無性」（這個法的「生」是沒有真實自性的）。「依他起」顧名思義，是『靠著別的條件（眾緣）才生起來』的法，就像變魔術變出來的東西一樣——它得湊齊一堆條件才現得出來，並不是它自己本來就那樣、不靠任何東西就獨立存在。它並沒有那種『像凡夫妄想的那樣、自己天生就有、不待因緣』的性質，所以才『借個說法』說它『沒有自性』；這只是順著它『不能自己生自己』這一點來講，並不是說依他起這種法的體統統都是空的。這就是頌文「次無自然性」所說的（「自然」就是『自己天生就有、不靠條件』的意思）。
(三)就著第三種性，也就是「圓成實」，立起「勝義無性」（在最高真理這個層面上說它沒有自性）。要曉得，這個「勝義」指的就是圓成實——它之所以被說成「無性」，是因為它本身正是『離開了前面那種遍計所執硬安上去的『我』和『法』的自性』（圓成實就是把妄想的我、法統統剝乾淨之後所顯出來的那個真實）。所以這個「無性」也只是借個說法，貼著『它離掉了遍計妄執』這一點來講，並不是說圓成實這種法的體是空的、什麼都沒有。這就是頌文「後由遠離前，所執我法性」所說的（「後」指圓成實，「遠離前所執我法性」就是離掉前面遍計所執的我、法自性）。
打個比方來體會這個道理。就好比那一片無邊的虛空，它雖然到處都遍在、什麼顏色形狀（眾色）的東西它都容得下、處處都有它；可是虛空本身又是什麼呢？虛空正是『這些顏色形狀統統都沒有』（眾色之無性）所顯出來的那個空蕩蕩——你要先看到『這裡沒有實在的東西』，才看得出虛空來。圓成實的「勝義無性」也是這樣：它正是『把遍計妄執的我、法統統離掉、剝乾淨』之後所顯出來的那個真實，要先空掉妄執，真實才顯得出來。
這裡還要補一句、把一個容易混的地方交代清楚。其實「依他起」本身雖然『算不上勝義』（它只是緣生的法，不是最高真理），可是換個角度說，依他起上頭也『沒有遍計妄執的那種自性』，所以勉強也可以拿這一點、把依他起也說成是一種「勝義無性」。不過呢，這樣一講就會跟前面第二種「生無性」（那也是講依他起的）糊在一起、分不清楚了。為了避免這個混淆，這裡就不採用這個講法——「勝義無性」這個名目，只專門對著「圓成實」來立，不拿去說依他起。
B. Reconciling the Three Non-Self-Natures (v23–24)
〔Q〕 Someone raises a doubt: just above, you spoke of three "natures" really being there (the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — these three kinds of nature that dharmas have); so why does the World-Honored One then say "all dharmas are altogether without self-nature"? Do not these two statements slap each other in the face, contradicting one another front and back?
〔A〕 In fact the two statements do not contradict. It is precisely "in dependence on" those three natures spoken of before that the World-Honored One turned back and set up these "three non-self-natures" spoken of after — that is, "the mark-less-ness, the arising-less-ness, and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness," these three kinds of "being without self-nature." Put another way: this talk of "non-self-nature" is spoken hugging close to the "three natures"; it is not some separate system raised up to work against them. So when the Buddha says "all dharmas are altogether without self-nature," it is a "hidden-intent" way of speaking (there is an intent hidden within the words, and it is not as plain as the letter says); he is not saying that the natures of dharmas are one and all empty, that there is simply nothing at all. This is the sense of the verse "just in dependence on these three natures, those three non-self-natures are set up; hence the Buddha, with hidden intent, says all dharmas are without nature."
Here the word "hidden intent" is used precisely to point out: when the Buddha says "all dharmas are without nature," this saying is not "the definitive meaning" — that is, it is not a final, ultimate statement that takes the words to the bottom and counts them straight at face value; rather, there is a further layer of intent hidden inside. Why say so? Because the latter two natures (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished) are not in themselves without substance, are not empty; yet, just so, there are certain muddled people (the foolish) who, upon these two naturally-existent dharmas, must needs "pile something on" (superimpose), fancying that inside there really and truly is a "self," really and truly is an independent "dharma"-self-nature — and this clinging, fitted on out of thin air, is called "the wholly-imagined." It is to break this clinging that the Buddha simply takes "the existent" (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, these two that have substance) and "the non-existent" (the wholly-imagined, which is empty to begin with) together, and says, in one phrase, all of it "without nature" — using the single phrase "all dharmas are without nature" to ward off all that needs warding off. (In truth these three "non-self-natures" each say their own thing; it is not that the substance of dharmas has really been negated away entirely.)
1. The three non-self-natures set up one by one (v24)
So how, exactly, "in dependence on" these three natures, are those three non-self-natures set up? Let us take them one by one.
(a) In dependence on the first nature, namely "the wholly-imagined," the "mark-less-ness" is set up (this dharma's "mark" is not there). Why? Because this thing, the wholly-imagined, is from the root only a deluded fancy added on out of thin air; its substance, its mark, when all is said, simply does not exist at all — just like a flower seen in the sky (it is only because the eyes are dazzled that the flower is seen; in fact there is no flower up in the sky). This is the sense of the verse "the first is the mark-less-ness."
(b) In dependence on the second nature, namely "the other-dependent," the "arising-less-ness" is set up (this dharma's "arising" has no real self-nature). "The other-dependent," as the name itself says, is a dharma that "arises only by leaning on other conditions (a host of conditions)" — just like something conjured up by a magic trick: it must gather a whole set of conditions before it can show forth, and is not something that was just so of itself from the start, standing on its own without leaning on anything. It does not have that nature "such as the ordinary man deludedly imagines — born of itself, inborn, awaiting no conditions"; and so the Buddha "borrows a way of speaking" and says it is "without self-nature" — this is only said following the one point that "it cannot give birth to itself," and is not to say that the substance of this other-dependent dharma is one and all empty. This is the sense of the verse "the next, the absence of a spontaneous nature" ("spontaneous" meaning "born of itself, inborn, leaning on no conditions").
(c) In dependence on the third nature, namely "the perfectly-accomplished," the "ultimate-meaning-less-ness" is set up (at the level of the highest truth it is said to be without self-nature). You must realize: this "ultimate meaning" refers precisely to the perfectly-accomplished — the reason it gets spoken of as "without nature" is that it itself is precisely "apart from that 'self' and 'dharma'-self-nature which the former wholly-imagined forcibly added on" (the perfectly-accomplished is just that reality which shows forth once the wholly-imagined self and dharmas have all been scrubbed clean away). So this "without nature" too is only a borrowed way of speaking, said hugging close to the one point that "it has come apart from the wholly-imagined's deluded clinging," and is not to say that the substance of this perfectly-accomplished dharma is empty, that there is nothing at all. This is the sense of the verse "the last, by being apart from the former — the self- and dharma-nature [the foolish] grasp" ("the last" referring to the perfectly-accomplished; "apart from the self- and dharma-nature the former grasps" meaning the coming-apart from the self- and dharma-self-nature of the former wholly-imagined).
Take a comparison to feel into this principle. It is just like that boundless stretch of empty space: although it pervades everywhere — every color and shape (the host of forms) of thing it can hold, and everywhere it is present — yet what is empty space itself? Empty space is precisely that vacant openness which "the absence of all these colors and shapes" (the non-nature of the host of forms) discloses — you must first see that "here there is no real thing" before you can make out empty space. The perfectly-accomplished's "ultimate-meaning-less-ness" is just so: it is precisely that reality which shows forth once "the self and dharmas of the wholly-imagined's deluded clinging have all been come apart from, scrubbed clean away" — you must first empty out the deluded clinging before the reality can show forth.
Here one more sentence must be added, to settle clearly a place that is easy to confuse. In truth the "other-dependent" itself, although it "does not count as the ultimate meaning" (it is only a condition-arisen dharma, not the highest truth), can yet, looked at from another angle, be said — because upon the other-dependent too "there is no such self-nature as the wholly-imagined deludedly clings to" — to be, by a stretch, a kind of "ultimate-meaning-less-ness." Only, to speak this way would tangle it up with the second one before, "the arising-less-ness" (which also speaks of the other-dependent), so that the two could not be told apart. To avoid this confusion, this way of speaking is here not adopted — the name "ultimate-meaning-less-ness" is set up pointing only to "the perfectly-accomplished," and is not carried over to speak of the other-dependent.
〔所釋之頌〕第二十三頌至第二十四頌
前面立了「三性」（遍計所執、依他起、圓成實），馬上會碰到一個尖銳的問題：既然你立了三種「性」，那世尊為什麼又在別處說『一切法都沒有自性』？這一節就接著三性、回頭講「三無性」，把這看似自相矛盾的兩句話會通起來。順著的是兩首頌（v23–v24）。
『依三性立三無性』並非本論杜撰，經論早有所本。《解深密經·無自性相品》中，世尊親告勝義生菩薩：祂是『依三種無自性性的密意』，才說「一切諸法皆無自性」——這三種就是相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性。經裡又逐一界說：相無自性性，是就遍計所執相說的，因為它只是「假名安立」而非由自相安立；生無自性性，是就依他起相說的，因為它是『依他緣力而有、非自然有』；勝義無自性性，是就圓成實說的，是「法無我所顯」的那一分真實。經更以『空中之花、幻化之像、周遍的虛空』三個譬喻，分別配這三無性——本論底下「如空華」「如幻事託眾緣生」「如太虛空雖遍眾色而是眾色無性所顯」三喻，一一即本於此經。《瑜伽師地論·攝決擇分》同樣定這三無性是『依所化（所度化的眾生）的根機勢力而說』，並把「三種自性」與「三種無自性性」一一對配，正是『依三性立三無性』的論本。窺基《成唯識論述記》更引《解深密》第七十六卷點出這密意的所以然：佛並不是『另外觀三種自性、立三無性』，而是因為有情在依他、圓成這『確實有體』的二性之上，妄添了一層遍計所執，佛才立三無性來遮這妄添——所以『三無性並不是把後二性也說成沒有，只是說那遍計所執沒有』。本論這一節所釋，經根即在《解深密》，論本即在《瑜伽》——下面順著頌文講開。
甲、釋三無性——先解開『有三性卻說無性』的疑難
有人發難：如果真的實有三性，世尊又怎麼會說「一切法皆無自性」呢？這豈不是自己跟自己打架？
回答是：佛說的「無性」，正是『就著這前面所說的三性』而立起來的——並不是另外撇開三性、憑空說個「無」。具體說，是依這三性，立起後面所說的「三種無性」，也就是『相無性、生無性、勝義無性』。所以佛說『一切法都沒有自性』，是「密意」之說（話裡有隱含的別意），並不是說諸法的性『全然都沒有』。這正是頌文所講的：依這三性，立那三無性，所以佛是密意說一切法無性。
關鍵就在「密意」這兩個字。說它是「密意」，恰恰點明了「一切法無性」這句話並『不是了義』（不是究竟、直截了當的說法，底下藏著要簡別的意思）。為什麼這麼說？因為後面那兩性——依他起與圓成實——它們的「體」並不是沒有；只是有些愚癡的凡夫，在這『並非沒有』的東西上頭「增益」（多添了一層本來沒有的東西），妄執說真有一個實在的「我」、實在的「法」的自性，這妄添上去的部分就叫「遍計所執」。為了除掉這份妄執，佛才在「有」的（依他、圓成這兩種確實有體的）和「無」的（遍計這種本來就沒有的）上頭，籠統地、一句話通通說個「無性」——用一句話把該遮的都遮掉。所以這「無性」是對治語、是密意語，不能死扣字面當成『什麼都沒有』。
乙、三無性逐一安立——一性配一無性
那麼，究竟怎麼依著這三性、各別立起那三種無性？要一個一個對著看。
第一，依「遍計所執」這初性，立「相無性」。 為什麼叫「相無性」？因為遍計所執的東西，它的「體相」根本就徹底沒有——就像空中本沒有花，是病眼妄見的「空華」一樣，全是錯認，連個影子也立不住。這就是頌說的「初即相無性」：頭一個（遍計）對的就是相無性。
第二，依「依他起」這次性，立「生無性」。 依他起的法，是像幻術變出來的事物那樣，仗著種種因緣才生起來的；它並沒有『像凡夫妄執的那種『自然就有、自己本來如此』的性』——它不是自有的，是緣生的。正因為它『不是自然有』，所以才『假借個名』說它「無性」，並不是說它的性『全然都沒有』（它仍有緣生的這一層存在）。這就是頌說的「次無自然性」：第二個（依他）無的是那「自然性」。
第三，依「圓成實」這後性，立「勝義無性」。 這個要小心分辨：所謂圓成實的「勝義無性」，是說這勝義（也就是圓成實本身），因為它『遠離了前面遍計所執的那個我、法之性』，所以才假借個名說它「無性」——同樣不是說它的性全然都沒有。它正是『離了遍計妄執』這一面上得名為「無性」的。這就是頌說的「後由遠離前，所執我法性」：最後一個（圓成）的無性，是就『遠離前面所執的我、法性』而立的。
這裡可以打個比方來體會圓成的勝義無性：好比那廣大的虛空，雖然它周遍含著一切有形的色物，但虛空本身，正是從『眾色之上沒有實在自性』這一點被顯出來的——你正是在『色不實有』的地方，才見到那遍一切處的空。圓成的勝義無性也是如此：是在『遠離了遍計妄執』的地方，才把那真實之性顯出來的。
最後還要補一個簡別，免得讀者誤會範圍：其實依他起，由於它『不是勝義』（它只是緣生的世俗有），就著它『身上並沒有遍計那種妄執之性』這一點，本來也可以勉強說它是「勝義無性」。但要是真這麼說，就會跟『第二個』——也就是依他自己對的那個「生無性」——混淆相濫了。所以這裡不採用這個說法：勝義無性，單單就著圓成實來立，不旁及依他。這樣三性對三無性，才條理分明、各歸其位。
承衍
『依三性立三無性、密意說無性而非性全無』這一節所立，是唯識系會通『立三性』與『說空無性』的關鍵，後出諸論各有承用。《百法明門論》此處從闕——百法所列的是五位百法的「事相」，三無性屬三性之下的「理門」，沒有正面對位之條。《唯識三十論頌》的頌二十三（依三性立三無性、密意說無性）與頌二十四（相、生、勝義三無性逐一安立），正是本節所釋的本頌，逐頌相承。《二十唯識論》主於成立唯識無境、破外人實境之執，於三無性沒有正面對位，這裡從闕。《辯中邊論·辯真實品》立三自性而謂『遍計常非有、依他有而不真、圓成有無真實』，與本節『相無性約遍計、生無性約依他、勝義無性約圓成』三無性逐配相通。《攝大乘論·所知相分》立遍計、依他、圓成三自性，三無性即依此三性而立——所知相一分，正是本節『即依三性立三無性』之所宗。
Once the three natures have been set up — the wholly-imagined nature (parikalpita), the dependent-on-others nature (paratantra), and the perfectly-accomplished nature (pariniṣpanna) — a sharp problem immediately arises. If you have just established three "natures," then why does the World-Honored One elsewhere declare that "all dharmas have no self-nature"? This section follows directly on the three natures and turns back to teach the "three non-natures," reconciling these two statements that look, on their face, to contradict one another. The thread it follows is the pair of verses (v23–v24).
"Establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures" is no invention of this treatise; scripture and treatise alike provide its basis. In the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on the absence of self-nature in characteristics, the World-Honored One tells the bodhisattva Paramārtha-samudgata in person that it is "with a hidden intent directed at three kinds of non-self-nature" that he declares "all dharmas are without self-nature" — these three being the non-nature of characteristics, the non-nature of arising, and the non-nature of ultimate truth. The sūtra then defines each in turn: the non-nature of characteristics is spoken of with respect to the wholly-imagined mark, since it is only "provisionally established as a name" and not established by its own characteristic; the non-nature of arising is spoken of with respect to the dependent-on-others characteristic, since it "exists through the force of conditions and is not naturally existent"; and the non-nature of ultimate truth is spoken of with respect to the perfectly-accomplished, that portion of reality "made manifest by the selflessness of dharmas." The sūtra further pairs the three non-natures with three images — "a flower in the empty air, a conjured reflection, and all-pervading empty space" — and this section's three similes below ("like a sky-flower," "like a conjured thing arising in reliance on the gathering of conditions," and "like vast empty space which, though it pervades the host of forms, is made manifest from the formlessness of those very forms") are each grounded in this sūtra. The Yogācārabhūmi, in its section settling the points to be understood, likewise fixes these three non-natures as "spoken with respect to the capacity and disposition of those to be guided," and pairs the "three kinds of self-nature" one-to-one with the "three kinds of non-self-nature" — which is exactly the treatise-basis for "establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures." Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) goes further, citing the seventy-sixth fascicle of the Saṃdhinirmocana to bring out the reason behind this hidden intent: it is not that the Buddha "separately contemplates three kinds of self-nature and then sets up three non-natures." Rather, because sentient beings, upon the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished — the two natures that "genuinely have substance" — falsely add on a layer of the wholly-imagined, the Buddha sets up the three non-natures in order to negate that false addition. So "the three non-natures do not declare the latter two natures to be nonexistent as well; they only declare that the wholly-imagined is without nature." What this section expounds has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi — and with that we follow the verse and open the exposition.
B. Explaining the Three Non-Natures — First Untying the Difficulty of "Having Three Natures Yet Saying There Is No Nature"
Someone raises an objection: if the three natures really and truly exist, how could the World-Honored One go on to say that "all dharmas are without self-nature"? Is this not the teaching at war with itself?
The answer is this. The "non-nature" the Buddha speaks of is established precisely with reference to these very three natures set out above — it is not some separate "nothingness" conjured up apart from the three natures. Concretely, it is on the basis of these three natures that the three non-natures spoken of afterward are established: namely, the non-nature of characteristics (lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā), the non-nature of arising (utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā), and the non-nature of ultimate truth (paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā). So when the Buddha says "all dharmas have no self-nature," this is spoken with a hidden intent — there is an implicit, further meaning carried inside the words — and it is not a claim that the nature of dharmas is utterly absent. This is exactly what the verse states: in dependence on these three natures, those three non-natures are established, and therefore the Buddha, with hidden intent, says that all dharmas have no nature.
Everything turns on those two words, "hidden intent." To call it a teaching of hidden intent is precisely to point out that the statement "all dharmas have no nature" is not the definitive teaching (not the ultimate, direct, fully explicit statement; it conceals a meaning that still needs to be distinguished out). Why say so? Because the latter two natures — the dependent-on-others and the perfectly-accomplished — are not such that their substance is absent. It is only that certain deluded ordinary beings, upon these things that are not in fact absent, "superimpose" something — they add on a layer that was never there — and falsely cling to there being a real "self" and real "dharmas," a genuinely existent self-nature. That falsely added-on portion is exactly what is called the wholly-imagined nature. In order to remove this false clinging, the Buddha makes a single sweeping statement of "no nature" that covers both what is (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, the two that genuinely have substance) and what is not (the wholly-imagined, which never had any) — with one phrase he negates everything that needs negating. So this "non-nature" is corrective language, language of hidden intent; it cannot be read literally, clamped onto the words, and taken to mean "there is nothing at all."
1. Establishing the Three Non-Natures One by One — One Nature Paired with One Non-Nature
So then, exactly how are those three kinds of non-nature each established in dependence on these three natures? They must be looked at one at a time.
First, in dependence on the wholly-imagined as the initial nature, the non-nature of characteristics is established. Why is it called the non-nature of characteristics? Because the wholly-imagined thing has, in its very "substance and characteristic," no existence whatsoever — just like the sky-flower, where there is in fact no flower in the empty air and the diseased eye merely sees one falsely: it is all misrecognition, and not even a shadow of it can stand. This is what the verse means by "the first is the non-nature of characteristics": the first one (the wholly-imagined) corresponds precisely to the non-nature of characteristics.
Second, in dependence on the dependent-on-others as the next nature, the non-nature of arising is established. A dependent-on-others dharma is like a thing produced by conjuring — it arises only in reliance on the gathering of various causes and conditions. It does not possess "the kind of nature that ordinary beings falsely cling to, that of being naturally existent, self-existent, just so of itself" — it is not self-arisen, but condition-arisen. Precisely because it "is not naturally existent," it is "given a borrowed name" and called "without nature"; this is not to say that its nature is utterly absent (it still retains this layer of existence, that of condition-arising). This is what the verse means by "the next is the non-nature of the natural": the second one (the other-dependent) lacks that "natural nature."
Third, in dependence on the perfectly-accomplished as the later nature, the non-nature of ultimate truth is established. This one requires careful distinguishing. The so-called "non-nature of ultimate truth" of the perfectly-accomplished means that this ultimate (which is the perfectly-accomplished itself), because it is "far removed from the self-and-dharma nature of the wholly-imagined spoken of before," is for that reason given a borrowed name and called "without nature" — likewise not a claim that its nature is utterly absent. It is precisely on the side of "being parted from the wholly-imagined false clinging" that it earns the name "non-nature." This is what the verse means by "the last, through being far removed from the self-and-dharma nature clung to before": the non-nature of the final one (the perfectly-accomplished) is established with reference to its "being far removed from the self-and-dharma nature clung to before."
Here a comparison can help one feel out the ultimate-truth non-nature of the perfectly-accomplished. It is like vast empty space: although it pervades and contains within it every shaped and material thing, empty space itself is made manifest precisely from this point — that "upon the host of forms there is no real self-nature." It is exactly at the place where "form is not really existent" that you come to see that space which pervades all places. The ultimate-truth non-nature of the perfectly-accomplished is just so: it is at the place where one "is far removed from the wholly-imagined false clinging" that the true nature is made manifest.
Finally, one further distinction must be added, lest the reader misunderstand the scope. In fact the dependent-on-others, since it "is not the ultimate" (it is merely the condition-arisen conventional existent), could — with reference to the point that "upon it there is no imagined-clinging nature" — even be said, with some stretching, to be "ultimate-truth non-nature" as well. But if one really spoke this way, it would become confused and conflated with "the second one" — that is, with the non-nature of arising that the other-dependent itself already corresponds to. So this manner of speaking is not adopted here: the non-nature of ultimate truth is established with reference to the perfectly-accomplished alone, and does not reach over to the other-dependent. Only in this way do the three natures match the three non-natures with clear order, each returning to its own proper place.
Onward Transmission
What this section establishes — that the three non-natures are set up in dependence on the three natures, and that "no nature" is spoken with hidden intent and is not a claim that nature is utterly absent — is the keystone by which the consciousness-only system reconciles "establishing the three natures" with "teaching emptiness and non-nature," and the later treatises take it up each in their own way. The Hundred Dharmas treatise is left aside here: what it lists is the "phenomenal characteristics" of the hundred dharmas across the five categories, whereas the three non-natures belong to the "doctrinal gate of principle" under the three natures, and there is no head-on corresponding entry. The Thirty Verses — verse twenty-three (establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures, and teaching non-nature with hidden intent) and verse twenty-four (the one-by-one setting-up of the non-natures of characteristics, of arising, and of ultimate truth) — is the very root-text this section expounds, verse answering to verse. The Twenty Verses, whose concern is to establish consciousness-only-without-objects and to refute the outsiders' clinging to real objects, has no head-on counterpart for the three non-natures, and so is left aside here. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on discerning the real, sets up the three self-natures and holds that "the wholly-imagined is ever nonexistent, the other-dependent exists yet is not real, and the perfectly-accomplished is the real that is both existent and nonexistent" — converging with this section's one-to-one pairing, where the non-nature of characteristics is referred to the wholly-imagined, the non-nature of arising to the other-dependent, and the non-nature of ultimate truth to the perfectly-accomplished. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the characteristics of the knowable, sets up the three self-natures — the wholly-imagined, the other-dependent, and the perfectly-accomplished — and the three non-natures are established precisely in dependence on these three natures; that portion on the characteristics of the knowable is exactly what this section's "establishing the three non-natures in dependence on the three natures" takes as its source.
考據Apparatus
〔所釋之頌〕第二十三頌至第二十四頌
本章釋《唯識三十論頌》頌二十三（依三性立三無性·密意說無性）、頌二十四（相無性·生無性·勝義無性逐立）。
一、科判定位
| 科判 | 此章之位 |
|---|---|
| 二、依教廣成 | 釋難（釋違理難 → 釋違教難·三無性）→ 明唯識性（頌二十五） |
| 釋違教難內 | 總答（依三性立三無性·密意非了義）· 別立（相無性·生無性·勝義無性逐配）· 簡別（依他不立勝義無性） |
| 所釋頌 | 《唯識三十論頌》頌二十三全 · 頌二十四全 |
前明三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實），即有違教之難：既立三性，何故經說「一切法皆無自性」。本章依三性立三無性以會通密意，下啟頌二十五「明唯識性」（圓成實·勝義·真如即唯識實性）。
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？ 〔T1586 0061a20〕
即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。 〔T1586 0061a22–a23〕
初即相無性，次無自然性，後由遠離前，所執我、法性。 〔T1586 0061a24–a25〕
頌二十三立宗：三無性非別立，乃「即依此三性」而立，故「一切法無性」是「密意」說，非謂諸法性全無。頌二十四逐配：遍計→相無性、依他→生（自然）無性、圓成→由遠離遍計所執我法性而立勝義無性。本章皆為會通『立三性』與「說無性」之表似相違，坐實『密意非了義』一義。
| 頌語 | 義門 | 所辯 |
|---|---|---|
| 即依此三性，立彼三無性 | 總立 | 三無性即依三性而立，非別有無性 |
| 故佛密意說 | 密意 | 「一切法無性」非了義，遮遍計增益 |
| 初即相無性 | 遍計→相無性 | 體相畢竟非有，如空華 |
| 次無自然性 | 依他→生無性 | 託眾緣生，無妄執之自然性 |
| 後由遠離前，所執我、法性 | 圓成→勝義無性 | 遠離遍計我法性，假說無性 |
『依他亦得名勝義無性而濫第二，故此不說』一簡別，本論列而不取（唯約圓成立勝義無性），其說具於〔義疏〕。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
經證
勝義生！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〕
善男子！云何諸法相無自性性？謂諸法遍計所執相。何以故？此由假名安立為相，非由自相安立為相，是故說名相無自性性。 〔解深密經 T676 0694a15–a18〕
云何諸法生無自性性？謂諸法依他起相。何以故？此由依他緣力故有，非自然有，是故說名生無自性性。 〔解深密經 T676 0694a18–a20〕
云何諸法勝義無自性性？謂諸法由生無自性性故，說名無自性性……一切諸法法無我性名為勝義，亦得名為無自性性，是一切法勝義諦故，無自性性之所顯故。由此因緣，名為勝義無自性性。 〔解深密經 T676 0694a20–b01〕
善男子！譬如空花，相無自性性，當知亦爾。譬如幻像，生無自性性，當知亦爾……譬如虛空，惟是眾色無性所顯，遍一切處；一分勝義無自性性，當知亦爾，法無我性之所顯故，遍一切故。 〔解深密經 T676 0694b01–b06〕
《解深密經·無自性相品》立「三種無自性性」之經本，逐配相無自性性（遍計·假名安立）、生無自性性（依他·緣力非自然）、勝義無自性性（圓成·法無我所顯）；並以『空花·幻像·虛空』三喻配三無性——本論「如空華」「如幻事託眾緣生」「如太虛空雖遍眾色，而是眾色無性所顯」三喻一一本此經。又經明「三種無自性性密意說言一切諸法皆無自性」，即頌「故佛密意說一切法無性」之經本。
論本（瑜伽師地論 T1579）
由依彼彼所化勢力，故說三種無自性性。一、相無自性性，二、生無自性性，三、勝義無自性性。云何相無自性性？謂一切法世俗言說自性。云何生無自性性？謂一切行眾緣所生，緣力故有，非自然有，是故說名生無自性性。云何勝義無自性性？謂真實義相所遠離法，此由勝義說無自性性。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0702b18–b24〕
復次，三種自性，三種無自性性。謂相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0705a01–a02〕
《瑜伽師地論》定三無性『依所化勢力而說』（密意對機之論本）；逐釋相無自性性（世俗言說自性）、生無自性性（眾緣所生·緣力非自然）、勝義無自性性（真實義相所遠離）；又明「三種自性·三種無自性性」一一對配（依三性立三無性之論本）。護法糅釋所宗，其經在解深密·無自性相品，其論在瑜伽師地論。
四、本論釋要（護法糅釋 · T1585）
總立 · 三無性
即依此前所說三性，立彼後說三種無性，謂即相、生、勝義無性，故佛密意說一切法皆無自性，非性全無。 〔T1585 0048a03–a05〕
密意 · 非了義
說「密意」言顯非了義，謂後二性雖體非無，而有愚夫於彼增益，妄執實有我、法自性，此即名為遍計所執。為除此執，故佛世尊於有及無，總說無性。 〔T1585 0048a05–a09〕
相無性 · 遍計
謂依此初遍計所執立相無性，由此體相畢竟非有，如空華故。 〔T1585 0048a09–a11〕
生無性 · 依他
依次依他立生無性，此如幻事託眾緣生，無如妄執自然性故，假說無性，非性全無。 〔T1585 0048a11–a13〕
勝義無性 · 圓成
依後圓成實立勝義無性，謂即勝義由遠離前遍計所執我、法性，故假說無性，非性全無。如太虛空雖遍眾色，而是眾色無性所顯。 〔T1585 0048a13–a16〕
簡別 · 依他不立勝義無性
雖依他起非勝義故，亦得說為勝義無性，而濫第二，故此不說。 〔T1585 0048a16–a17〕
要義：本論於「總立」定三無性『即依三性而立』、『密意說無性·非性全無』，破『諸法性全無』之惡取空。於「密意」釋其所以非了義——後二性（依他·圓成）體非無，唯愚夫於其上增益妄執我法自性（即遍計所執），為除此執故總說無性，是知「無性」遮所增益、非遮所依之體。三無性逐立：相無性約遍計「體相畢竟非有」（如空華，全無體相）、生無性約依他『託眾緣生·無自然性』（假說無性而非全無，緣生一層仍在）、勝義無性約圓成『遠離遍計我法性』而立（亦假說無性而非全無）。末以虛空遍眾色喻勝義無性「由無性所顯」。簡別者，依他「非勝義」就『無遍計性』亦可名勝義無性，然將濫第二（生無性），故唯約圓成立勝義無性。
五、諸家異釋（窺基《述記》T1830）
依前所說遍計所執等三性，立彼三無性：一、相；二、生；三、勝義無性。 〔T1830 0554c03–c04〕
七十六說：非由別觀三種自性立三無性，然由有情於依他起自性及圓成實自性上，增益遍計所執自性故，我立三種無自性性……故依三性有體、無體，總密意說三種無性，三種無性非無後二性，但無計所執。 〔T1830 0554c10–c15〕
初性體無；後二密說。體有法故，餘文可知，不煩重釋。勝義但由無性所顯，名為無性；依他有緣生，無自然生性，故名為無性。 〔T1830 0554c19–c22〕
今恐依他勝義無性濫第二圓成勝義無性故，此頌中但說圓成勝義無性，不說依他為勝義無性，應如彼經廣說譬喻。 〔T1830 0555a08–a11〕
窺基判三無性『即依三性而立』，引《解深密》七十六釋密意之所以：非別觀三性立三無性，乃由有情於依他·圓成上增益遍計，故立三無性以遮所增益，『三無性非無後二性，但無計所執』（坐實「非性全無」一義）。又揀三無性立名之異：初性（遍計）體無故名無性，後二體有而密說——依他約「無自然生性」、勝義約「無性所顯」。於依他可否名勝義無性，窺基明本論不取之由：依他亦清淨所緣境、亦得名勝義無性，然恐與第二（圓成勝義無性）相濫，故頌唯說圓成勝義無性。
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 | 遍計所執 · 依他起 · 圓成實 | 分別性 · 依他性 · 真實性（「三無性者，即不離前三性」〔0063b17〕） |
| 相無性 | 相無性（遍計·體相畢竟非有） | 無相性（「分別性名無相性，無體相故」〔0063b18〕） |
| 生無性 | 生無性（依他·無自然性） | 無生性（「依他性名無生性……是故無生也」〔0063b18–b23〕） |
| 勝義無性 | 勝義無性（圓成·遠離遍計我法性） | 無性性（「真實性名無性性，無有性、無無性……重稱無性性也」〔0063b23–b25〕） |
玄奘三無性作「相·生·勝義」，真諦《轉識論》作『無相·無生·無性性』；於圓成（真實性），真諦立「無性性」之名，釋曰「約人法故無有性，約二空故無無性，即是非有性非無性故，重稱無性性」——古譯於圓成無性之名與釋有別。
七、術語
三無性（trividhā niḥsvabhāvatā）— 依三性立之三種無自性：相無性·生無性·勝義無性。 相無性（lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā）— 約遍計所執立；體相畢竟非有，如空華。 生無性（utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā）— 約依他起立；託眾緣生、非自然有，假說無性而非全無。 勝義無性（paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā）— 約圓成實立；由遠離遍計所執我法性而立，假說無性而非全無。 密意（ābhiprāyika）— 言中藏意；「一切法無性」是密意說、非了義，遮遍計增益。 增益（samāropa）— 於非有上妄添；愚夫於後二性上增益遍計我法自性。 〔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：〔從闕〕百法明門列五位百法之事相，三無性屬三性之理門，無正面對位。
- 三十頌：頌二十三（依三性立三無性·密意說無性）· 頌二十四（相·生·勝義無性逐立）——逐頌姊妹。
- 二十論：〔從闕〕主唯識無境、破外執，三無性無正面對位。
- 辯中邊論：辯真實品·三自性（「許於三自性，唯一常非有，一有而不真，一有無真實」——遍計常非有·依他有而不真·圓成有無真實，與三無性逐配相關）。
- 攝大乘論：所知相分·三自性（遍計·依他·圓成；三無性即依此三性而立）。
章內：釋違理難（前章·三性義）· 明唯識性（次章·頌二十五·圓成勝義即唯識實性）。
九、校本定位
頌 T1586〔0061a20·0061a22–a23·0061a24–a25〕· 本論 T1585 三無性釋〔總立 0048a03–a05·密意 0048a05–a09·相無性 0048a09–a11·生無性 0048a11–a13·勝義無性 0048a13–a16·簡別 0048a16–a17〕· 述記 T1830〔0554c03–c04·0554c10–c15·0554c19–c22·0555a08–a11〕· 《轉識論》T1587〔0063b15–b25〕。 〔經證〕解深密·無自性相品 T676〔0694a13–b06〕。〔論本〕瑜伽師地論 T1579〔攝決擇分 0702b18–b24·0705a01–a02〕。
This chapter expounds Triṃśikā verse 23 (the three non-self-natures set up in dependence on the three natures · the hidden-intent teaching of non-self-nature) and verse 24 (the mark-less-ness, the arising-less-ness, and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature set up one by one).
1. Position in Kuiji's Structural Outline
| Outline level | This chapter's place |
|---|---|
| Part Two, establishing [the teaching] by scripture, extended | reconciling objections (reconciling the objection from principle → reconciling the objection from scripture · the three non-self-natures) → clarifying the nature of consciousness-only (verse 25) |
| Within reconciling the objection from scripture | the general answer (the three non-self-natures set up in dependence on the three natures · hidden intent, not the definitive meaning) · the point-by-point setting-up (the mark-less-ness · the arising-less-ness · the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature matched one by one) · the marking-off (the other-dependent does not establish the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature) |
| Verse expounded | the whole of Triṃśikā verse 23 · the whole of verse 24 |
The three natures (the wholly-imagined · the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished) having been clarified just above, there is at once an objection from scripture: the three natures being set up, why does scripture say "all dharmas are without self-nature"? This chapter, in dependence on the three natures, sets up the three non-self-natures so as to reconcile the hidden intent, and opens below onto verse 25, "clarifying the nature of consciousness-only" (the perfectly-accomplished · the ultimate meaning · suchness, which is the real nature of consciousness-only).
2. Source verse · doctrinal context
若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？ 〔T1586 0061a20〕
tr. "If there are three natures, how is it that the World-Honored One says all dharmas are without self-nature?"
即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。 〔T1586 0061a22–a23〕
tr. "Just in dependence on these three natures, those three non-self-natures are set up; hence the Buddha, with hidden intent, says all dharmas are without nature."
初即相無性，次無自然性，後由遠離前，所執我、法性。 〔T1586 0061a24–a25〕
tr. "The first is the mark-less-ness; the next, the absence of a spontaneous nature; the last, by being apart from the former — the self- and dharma-nature [the foolish] grasp."
Verse 23 lays down the thesis: the three non-self-natures are not separately set up but are set up "just in dependence on these three natures"; hence "all dharmas are without nature" is said "with hidden intent," not that the nature of dharmas is wholly nil. Verse 24 matches them one by one: the wholly-imagined → the mark-less-ness; the other-dependent → the arising- (spontaneity-) less-ness; the perfectly-accomplished → the ultimate-meaning-less-ness, set up by being apart from the self- and dharma-nature the wholly-imagined grasps. This chapter throughout reconciles the apparent conflict between "setting up the three natures" and "speaking of non-self-nature," fixing firm the one sense, "the hidden intent is not the definitive meaning."
| Verse phrase | Doctrinal gate | What it settles |
|---|---|---|
| 即依此三性，立彼三無性 just in dependence on these three natures, those three non-self-natures are set up | the general setting-up | the three non-self-natures are set up just in dependence on the three natures, not a non-self-nature existing separately |
| 故佛密意說 hence the Buddha, with hidden intent, says | hidden intent | "all dharmas are without nature" is not the definitive meaning; it wards off the wholly-imagined's superimposition |
| 初即相無性 the first is the mark-less-ness | the wholly-imagined → mark-less-ness | substance and mark are ultimately non-existent, like a sky-flower |
| 次無自然性 the next, the absence of a spontaneous nature | the other-dependent → arising-less-ness | arising in dependence on a host of conditions, without the spontaneous nature [the deluded] imagine |
| 後由遠離前，所執我、法性 the last, by being apart from the former — the self- and dharma-nature [the foolish] grasp | the perfectly-accomplished → ultimate-meaning-less-ness | apart from the self- and dharma-nature of the wholly-imagined, non-self-nature is conventionally said |
The one marking-off, "the other-dependent too may be named the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature, but it would overlap the second, so it is here not stated," the root treatise lists but does not adopt (setting up the ultimate-meaning-less-ness only with respect to the perfectly-accomplished); its account is given in full in the Exposition.
3. Scriptural and treatise grounding (scripture → root śāstra)
Scriptural witnesses
勝義生！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。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana · chapter on the markless self-nature, T676 0694a13–a15〕
tr. "Paramārthasamudgata! 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."
善男子！云何諸法相無自性性？謂諸法遍計所執相。何以故？此由假名安立為相，非由自相安立為相，是故說名相無自性性。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana T676 0694a15–a18〕
tr. "Good son! What is the mark-less-ness of self-nature in dharmas? It is the wholly-imagined mark of dharmas. Why? Because this is set up as a mark by a conventional name, not set up as a mark by the particular characteristic; therefore it is called the mark-less-ness of self-nature."
云何諸法生無自性性？謂諸法依他起相。何以故？此由依他緣力故有，非自然有，是故說名生無自性性。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana T676 0694a18–a20〕
tr. "What is the arising-less-ness of self-nature in dharmas? It is the other-dependent mark of dharmas. Why? Because this exists by the force of conditions in dependence on others, not existing spontaneously; therefore it is called the arising-less-ness of self-nature."
云何諸法勝義無自性性？謂諸法由生無自性性故，說名無自性性……一切諸法法無我性名為勝義，亦得名為無自性性，是一切法勝義諦故，無自性性之所顯故。由此因緣，名為勝義無自性性。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana T676 0694a20–b01〕
tr. "What is the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature in dharmas? It is that, dharmas being by way of the arising-less-ness of self-nature, [they] are called without self-nature… the dharma-no-self-nature of all dharmas is named the ultimate meaning, and may also be named non-self-nature, since it is the ultimate truth of all dharmas, and is what is disclosed by non-self-nature. For this reason, it is named the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature."
善男子！譬如空花，相無自性性，當知亦爾。譬如幻像，生無自性性，當知亦爾……譬如虛空，惟是眾色無性所顯，遍一切處；一分勝義無自性性，當知亦爾，法無我性之所顯故，遍一切故。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana T676 0694b01–b06〕
tr. "Good son! As is a sky-flower, so should the mark-less-ness of self-nature be known to be. As is a phantom-image, so should the arising-less-ness of self-nature be known to be… As is space, which is only what is disclosed by the non-nature of the host of forms, pervading every place, so should the one portion [that is] the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature be known to be — for it is what the dharma-no-self-nature discloses, and is all-pervading."
The Saṃdhinirmocana's chapter on the markless self-nature is the scriptural source that sets up "the three kinds of non-self-nature," matching one by one the mark-less-ness of self-nature (the wholly-imagined · set up by a conventional name), the arising-less-ness of self-nature (the other-dependent · by the force of conditions, not spontaneous), and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature (the perfectly-accomplished · disclosed by the dharma-no-self); and with the three similes "sky-flower · phantom-image · space" it matches the three non-self-natures — the root treatise's three similes "like a sky-flower," "like a phantom thing arising in dependence on a host of conditions," and "like space which, though pervading the host of forms, is what the non-nature of the host of forms discloses" are each rooted in this scripture. Again, the scripture's "with the hidden intent of the three kinds of non-self-nature, [it] says all dharmas are without self-nature" is the scriptural source for the verse's "hence the Buddha, with hidden intent, says all dharmas are without nature."
Root śāstra (Yogācārabhūmi T1579)
由依彼彼所化勢力，故說三種無自性性。一、相無自性性，二、生無自性性，三、勝義無自性性。云何相無自性性？謂一切法世俗言說自性。云何生無自性性？謂一切行眾緣所生，緣力故有，非自然有，是故說名生無自性性。云何勝義無自性性？謂真實義相所遠離法，此由勝義說無自性性。 〔T1579 · Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī 0702b18–b24〕
tr. "In dependence on the capacity of this or that one to be guided, the three kinds of non-self-nature are taught. First, the mark-less-ness of self-nature; second, the arising-less-ness of self-nature; third, the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature. What is the mark-less-ness of self-nature? It is the worldly verbal-designation self-nature of all dharmas. What is the arising-less-ness of self-nature? It is that all formations are produced by a host of conditions, existing by the force of conditions, not existing spontaneously; therefore it is called the arising-less-ness of self-nature. What is the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature? It is the dharma that the mark of true reality is apart from; this, by way of the ultimate meaning, is said to be non-self-nature."
復次，三種自性，三種無自性性。謂相無自性性、生無自性性、勝義無自性性。 〔T1579 · Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī 0705a01–a02〕
tr. "Further, three self-natures, three non-self-natures: 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 Yogācārabhūmi fixes the three non-self-natures as "taught in dependence on the capacity [of beings] to be guided" (the śāstra-source for the hidden intent meeting the disposition); it glosses one by one the mark-less-ness of self-nature (the worldly verbal-designation self-nature), the arising-less-ness of self-nature (produced by a host of conditions · by the force of conditions, not spontaneous), and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness of self-nature (what the mark of true reality is apart from); and it clarifies "the three self-natures · the three non-self-natures" matched one by one (the śāstra-source for setting up the three non-self-natures in dependence on the three natures). What Dharmapāla's redaction takes as authority has its scripture in the Saṃdhinirmocana's chapter on the markless self-nature, and its śāstra in the Yogācārabhūmi.
4. Essentials of the root treatise (Dharmapāla's redaction · T1585)
The general setting-up · the three non-self-natures
即依此前所說三性，立彼後說三種無性，謂即相、生、勝義無性，故佛密意說一切法皆無自性，非性全無。 〔T1585 0048a03–a05〕
tr. "Just in dependence on these three natures spoken of before, those three kinds of non-self-nature spoken of after are set up — namely, the mark-, the arising-, and the ultimate-meaning-less-ness; hence the Buddha, with hidden intent, says all dharmas are without self-nature, not that the nature is wholly nil."
Hidden intent · not the definitive meaning
說「密意」言顯非了義，謂後二性雖體非無，而有愚夫於彼增益，妄執實有我、法自性，此即名為遍計所執。為除此執，故佛世尊於有及無，總說無性。 〔T1585 0048a05–a09〕
tr. "Saying 'with hidden intent' shows it is not the definitive meaning; that is, although the latter two natures are not without substance, there are the foolish who superimpose upon them, deludedly grasping a really-existent self- and dharma-self-nature — and this is named the wholly-imagined. To remove this grasping, the World-Honored One, over the existent and the non-existent, says non-self-nature all together."
The mark-less-ness · the wholly-imagined
謂依此初遍計所執立相無性，由此體相畢竟非有，如空華故。 〔T1585 0048a09–a11〕
tr. "That is, in dependence on this first [nature], the wholly-imagined, the mark-less-ness is set up — for its substance and mark are ultimately non-existent, like a sky-flower."
The arising-less-ness · the other-dependent
依次依他立生無性，此如幻事託眾緣生，無如妄執自然性故，假說無性，非性全無。 〔T1585 0048a11–a13〕
tr. "In dependence on the next, the other-dependent, the arising-less-ness is set up — this, like a phantom thing, arises in dependence on a host of conditions, having no spontaneous nature such as the deluded grasp; hence non-self-nature is conventionally said, not that the nature is wholly nil."
The ultimate-meaning-less-ness · the perfectly-accomplished
依後圓成實立勝義無性，謂即勝義由遠離前遍計所執我、法性，故假說無性，非性全無。如太虛空雖遍眾色，而是眾色無性所顯。 〔T1585 0048a13–a16〕
tr. "In dependence on the last, the perfectly-accomplished, the ultimate-meaning-less-ness is set up — that is, the ultimate meaning, by being apart from the self- and dharma-nature of the former wholly-imagined, is, for that reason, conventionally said to be non-self-nature, not that the nature is wholly nil. As is vast space, which, though pervading the host of forms, is what the non-nature of the host of forms discloses."
The marking-off · the other-dependent does not establish the ultimate-meaning-less-ness
雖依他起非勝義故，亦得說為勝義無性，而濫第二，故此不說。 〔T1585 0048a16–a17〕
tr. "Although the other-dependent, since it is not the ultimate meaning, may also be spoken of as the ultimate-meaning-less-ness, that would overlap the second; hence it is here not stated."
Essentials: in the "general setting-up" the treatise fixes that the three non-self-natures are "set up just in dependence on the three natures" and that "non-self-nature is said [with hidden intent] · the nature is not wholly nil," refuting the badly-grasped emptiness that holds "the nature of dharmas is wholly nil." In "hidden intent" it explains why it is not the definitive meaning — the latter two natures (the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished) are not without substance; it is only that the foolish superimpose upon them the deluded grasping of a self- and dharma-self-nature (which is the wholly-imagined), and to remove this grasping non-self-nature is said all together; whence it is known that "non-self-nature" wards off what is superimposed, not the substance of what is depended on. The three non-self-natures are set up one by one: the mark-less-ness, with respect to the wholly-imagined, "substance and mark are ultimately non-existent" (like a sky-flower, wholly without substance or mark); the arising-less-ness, with respect to the other-dependent, "arises in dependence on a host of conditions · without spontaneous nature" (conventionally said to be non-self-nature, yet not wholly nil — the layer of conditioned arising still stands); the ultimate-meaning-less-ness, with respect to the perfectly-accomplished, set up by "being apart from the self- and dharma-nature of the wholly-imagined" (likewise conventionally said to be non-self-nature, yet not wholly nil). It closes with the simile of space pervading the host of forms for the ultimate-meaning-less-ness "disclosed by non-nature." As for the marking-off: the other-dependent, "not being the ultimate meaning," may with respect to "the absence of the wholly-imagined nature" also be named the ultimate-meaning-less-ness, but this would overlap the second (the arising-less-ness); hence the ultimate-meaning-less-ness is set up only with respect to the perfectly-accomplished.
5. Divergent readings across the masters (Kuiji, Shuji T1830)
依前所說遍計所執等三性，立彼三無性：一、相；二、生；三、勝義無性。 〔T1830 0554c03–c04〕
tr. "In dependence on the three natures spoken of before — the wholly-imagined and the rest — those three non-self-natures are set up: first, the mark[-less-ness]; second, the arising[-less-ness]; third, the ultimate-meaning-less-ness."
七十六說：非由別觀三種自性立三無性，然由有情於依他起自性及圓成實自性上，增益遍計所執自性故，我立三種無自性性……故依三性有體、無體，總密意說三種無性，三種無性非無後二性，但無計所執。 〔T1830 0554c10–c15〕
tr. "[Yogācārabhūmi] fascicle seventy-six says: it is not by separately contemplating the three self-natures that the three non-self-natures are set up; rather, because sentient beings superimpose the wholly-imagined self-nature upon the other-dependent self-nature and the perfectly-accomplished self-nature, I set up the three kinds of non-self-nature… Hence in dependence on the three natures' having-substance and not-having-substance, the three non-self-natures are spoken all together with hidden intent; the three non-self-natures are not the absence of the latter two natures, but only the absence of the wholly-imagined."
初性體無；後二密說。體有法故，餘文可知，不煩重釋。勝義但由無性所顯，名為無性；依他有緣生，無自然生性，故名為無性。 〔T1830 0554c19–c22〕
tr. "The first nature's substance is non-existent; the latter two are spoken with hidden intent. Since they are dharmas with substance, the remaining text can be understood and need not be re-glossed. The ultimate meaning, only by being what non-nature discloses, is named non-self-nature; the other-dependent has conditioned arising [but] no spontaneous arising-nature, and so is named non-self-nature."
今恐依他勝義無性濫第二圓成勝義無性故，此頌中但說圓成勝義無性，不說依他為勝義無性，應如彼經廣說譬喻。 〔T1830 0555a08–a11〕
tr. "Now, lest the other-dependent's ultimate-meaning-less-ness overlap the second [sense] — the perfectly-accomplished's ultimate-meaning-less-ness — this verse states only the perfectly-accomplished's ultimate-meaning-less-ness, and does not speak of the other-dependent as the ultimate-meaning-less-ness; one should [refer to] that scripture's extended exposition of the similes."
Kuiji judges that the three non-self-natures are "set up just in dependence on the three natures," and cites the Saṃdhinirmocana [as glossed in Yogācārabhūmi] fascicle seventy-six on why it is hidden intent: it is not by separately contemplating the three natures that the three non-self-natures are set up, but because sentient beings superimpose the wholly-imagined upon the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, the three non-self-natures are set up to ward off what is superimposed — "the three non-self-natures are not the absence of the latter two natures, but only the absence of the wholly-imagined" (fixing firm the one sense, "the nature is not wholly nil"). He also distinguishes the difference in how the three non-self-natures get their names: the first nature (the wholly-imagined), its substance being non-existent, is named non-self-nature; the latter two, having substance, are spoken with hidden intent — the other-dependent with respect to "the absence of a spontaneous arising-nature," the ultimate meaning with respect to "what non-nature discloses." On whether the other-dependent may be named the ultimate-meaning-less-ness, Kuiji makes plain why the root treatise does not adopt it: the other-dependent is also a pure object[-field], and may also be named the ultimate-meaning-less-ness, but lest it overlap the second sense (the perfectly-accomplished's ultimate-meaning-less-ness), the verse states only the perfectly-accomplished's ultimate-meaning-less-ness.
6. Rendering of terms · old-translation comparison (Xuanzang ↔ Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun)
| Sense | Xuanzang, Cheng Weishi Lun | Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun |
|---|---|---|
| the three natures | 遍計所執 · 依他起 · 圓成實 the wholly-imagined · the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished | 分別性 · 依他性 · 真實性 the discriminated nature · the other-dependent nature · the real nature ("the three non-self-natures are just not apart from the former three natures" 「三無性者，即不離前三性」〔0063b17〕) |
| the mark-less-ness | 相無性（遍計·體相畢竟非有）the mark-less-ness (the wholly-imagined · substance and mark ultimately non-existent) | 無相性（「分別性名無相性，無體相故」〔0063b18〕）the markless-nature ("the discriminated nature is named the markless-nature, for it is without substance or mark") |
| the arising-less-ness | 生無性（依他·無自然性）the arising-less-ness (the other-dependent · no spontaneous nature) | 無生性（「依他性名無生性……是故無生也」〔0063b18–b23〕）the arisingless-nature ("the other-dependent nature is named the arisingless-nature… therefore there is no arising") |
| the ultimate-meaning-less-ness | 勝義無性（圓成·遠離遍計我法性）the ultimate-meaning-less-ness (the perfectly-accomplished · apart from the wholly-imagined self- and dharma-nature) | 無性性（「真實性名無性性，無有性、無無性……重稱無性性也」〔0063b23–b25〕）the non-nature-nature ("the real nature is named the non-nature-nature, without an existent-nature and without a non-existent-nature… therefore it is twice called the non-nature-nature") |
Xuanzang renders the three non-self-natures as "mark · arising · ultimate-meaning"; Paramārtha's Zhuanshi lun renders them as "markless · arisingless · non-nature-nature"; for the perfectly-accomplished (the real nature), Paramārtha sets up the name "the non-nature-nature," glossing it: "with respect to person and dharma, without an existent-nature; with respect to the two emptinesses, without a non-existent-nature — that is, since it is neither an existent-nature nor a non-existent-nature, it is twice called the non-nature-nature" — the old translation differing, for the perfectly-accomplished's non-self-nature, in both name and gloss.
7. Key terms
- the three non-self-natures (三無性, trividhā niḥsvabhāvatā) — the three kinds of non-self-nature set up in dependence on the three natures: the mark-less-ness · the arising-less-ness · the ultimate-meaning-less-ness.
- the mark-less-ness (相無性, lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā) — set up with respect to the wholly-imagined; substance and mark ultimately non-existent, like a sky-flower.
- the arising-less-ness (生無性, utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā) — set up with respect to the other-dependent; arising in dependence on a host of conditions, not existing spontaneously, conventionally said to be non-self-nature yet not wholly nil.
- the ultimate-meaning-less-ness (勝義無性, paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā) — set up with respect to the perfectly-accomplished; set up by being apart from the self- and dharma-nature the wholly-imagined grasps, conventionally said to be non-self-nature yet not wholly nil.
- hidden intent (密意, ābhiprāyika) — a meaning hidden within the words; "all dharmas are without nature" is said with hidden intent, not the definitive meaning, warding off the wholly-imagined's superimposition.
- superimposition (增益, samāropa) — deludedly adding on upon the non-existent; the foolish superimpose the wholly-imagined self- and dharma-self-nature upon the latter two natures.
〔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): 〔no direct correspondence〕 the Baifa-mingmen lists the matter-marks of the five-position hundred dharmas; the three non-self-natures belong to the principle-gate of the three natures, with no head-on correspondence.
- Triṃśikā: verse 23 (the three non-self-natures set up in dependence on the three natures · non-self-nature said with hidden intent) · verse 24 (the mark-, arising-, and ultimate-meaning-less-ness set up one by one) — the verse-by-verse sister.
- Viṃśatikā: 〔no direct correspondence〕 it chiefly [treats] consciousness-only-without-object and refutes outer grasping; the three non-self-natures have no head-on correspondence.
- Madhyāntavibhāga: the True-Reality chapter · the three self-natures ("granted, of the three self-natures, one is constantly non-existent, one exists yet is not real, one exists and non-exists [yet] is real" — the wholly-imagined constantly non-existent · the other-dependent existent yet not real · the perfectly-accomplished existent-and-non-existent [yet] real, bearing on the matching of the three non-self-natures one by one).
- Mahāyānasaṃgraha: the Knowable-Characteristic division · the three self-natures (the wholly-imagined · the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished; the three non-self-natures are set up just in dependence on these three natures).
Within the treatise: reconciling the objection from principle (the prior chapter · the sense of the three natures) · clarifying the nature of consciousness-only (the next chapter · verse 25 · the perfectly-accomplished ultimate meaning, which is the real nature of consciousness-only).
9. Collation position
Verse T1586 〔0061a20 · 0061a22–a23 · 0061a24–a25〕 · root T1585 the exposition of the three non-self-natures 〔the general setting-up 0048a03–a05 · hidden intent 0048a05–a09 · the mark-less-ness 0048a09–a11 · the arising-less-ness 0048a11–a13 · the ultimate-meaning-less-ness 0048a13–a16 · the marking-off 0048a16–a17〕 · Shuji T1830 〔0554c03–c04 · 0554c10–c15 · 0554c19–c22 · 0555a08–a11〕 · Zhuanshi lun T1587 〔0063b15–b25〕. 〔Scripture〕 Saṃdhinirmocana · chapter on the markless self-nature T676 〔0694a13–b06〕. 〔Śāstra〕 Yogācārabhūmi T1579 〔Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī 0702b18–b24 · 0705a01–a02〕.