成唯識論 白話全本 · 冊1
序分·唯識總標Preface · The General Statement of Consciousness-Only
全文五層 →Full five layers →〔所釋之頌〕第一頌至第二頌
〔所釋頌〕
甲、宗前敬序分
一、歸敬福田（歸敬頌）
先說頭一句「稽首」，就是恭恭敬敬地頂禮。頂禮的對象是「唯識性」——也就是識的真實本性，也就是「圓成實」（圓滿成就的真實）。除了頂禮這個真理，還頂禮那些已經證得這個真理、因而清淨的人，這些人分兩種：一種是「滿清淨」，指的是圓圓滿滿、徹底清淨的佛；一種是「分清淨」，指的是只證得一部分、還沒到頂的諸位菩薩。頂禮過後，作者接著表明心意：我如今要來解釋世親菩薩所造的這些頌，目的是為了利益、安樂一切眾生。
二、造論之意（三說攤開）
作者為什麼要造這部論？對於這個問題，把各家的說法攤開來，一共有三種講法：
〔一說·令悟斷得果〕 第一種講法是這樣：造這部論，是一環扣一環、層層往上推的。一條一條看——
第一步，先講為什麼要讓人「生正解」。有些人對「二空」（也就是「我空」——沒有一個實在的我；「法空」——沒有一個實在的法）弄不明白、講錯了，造這部論就是要讓這些人生起正確的理解。
第二步，再問：讓人生起正解，又是為了什麼？答案是為了斷掉「二重障」（兩重障礙）。這兩重障礙是怎麼來的？是由「我執」（執著有個我）和「法執」（執著有個實在的法）這兩樣帶出來的——我執帶出「煩惱障」，法執帶出「所知障」，兩樣執著一起，兩重障礙也就一起生出來。可是只要證得了二空，這兩重障礙也就跟著斷掉了。
第三步，再往上問：斷掉障礙，又是為了什麼？答案是為了證得「二勝果」（兩種殊勝的果）。這兩種果各對著一重障：斷掉「煩惱障」（它會讓生死一直接續下去），就證得真正的「解脫」；斷掉「所知障」（它會障礙智慧的明了），就得到「大菩提」（也就是無上的正覺、成佛的智慧）。
所以這一說把整條線串起來，就是：生正解 → 為了斷二障 → 為了得二果。
〔又說·令達空悟性〕 第二種講法比較簡單：造這部論，是要替那些『把我、把法執得死死的、又對唯識的道理迷迷糊糊』的人點破——讓他們能通達二空（我空、法空），對唯識這個道理，照它本來的樣子如實弄明白。
〔應知（正義）·破執顯理〕 第三種講法（這是正確的講法）說得最細：另外還有一些對唯識道理弄錯、弄迷糊的人，他們執著的偏見有四種——
(一)有人執『外境跟識一樣都是實有的』（外境不是沒有，它跟識一樣真有）； (二)有人執『裡頭的識跟外境一樣根本沒有』（識也是空的，跟外境一樣本來就沒有）； (三)有人執『各個識作用雖然不同、可是體性是同一個』（八個識用處各別，骨子裡卻是一個體）； (四)有人執『離開了心王，並沒有另外的心所』（只有心王，沒有心所這回事）。
造這部論，就是要把這幾種各式各樣的偏見一一擋掉、破掉，好讓人對唯識這個又深又妙的道理，得到如實的、正確的理解。
乙、依教廣成分·明唯識相·略釋難標宗
一、寄問徵起
〔難〕有人先提一個問題：如果真的『只有識』（識以外並沒有一個實在的外境），那麼世間人平常的說話、以及佛的種種經教裡，為什麼都明明在講『有我、有法』呢？（既然只有識，怎麼又冒出個我、冒出個法來？）
二、舉頌正答
〔答·頌曰〕回答就用一首頌：「我」和「法」這兩樣，都是「假說」立起來的（不過是隨方便安個名，不是真有），因著這假說，就現出種種不同的相狀來；而這種種相狀，全都是靠「識變現」才有的；至於這個能變現的識，總共只有三類——第一類是「異熟識」（也就是第八阿賴耶識），第二類是「思量識」（也就是第七末那），第三類是「了別境識」（也就是前六識：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意這六個）。
三、長行釋（釋上三句）
（一）我法但假，依識而立
論主回答說：世間人和佛的經教裡所講的『有我、有法』，都只是「假立」的（隨著情況、隨方便安個名而已），並不是真有一個實實在在、本身就存在的東西。先把「我」「法」這兩個字講清楚：「我」指的是『能主宰的那個』（一個說了算、能做主的東西）；「法」指的是「軌持」——意思是它能持住自己的特性、又能當作認識它的一個準則（讓人照著它去認得它是什麼）。
我、法這兩樣，各自都現出種種不同的相狀來。先說「我」的種種相，又分兩路：一路是世俗人所計度的，像「有情」（有情識的眾生）、「命者」（有壽命的活物）這些；一路是佛的經教裡所說的，像「預流」「一來」這些（這些是修行果位的名目，其實也只是假名）。再說「法」的種種相，也分兩路：一路是外道所計度的，像「實、德、業」這些（外道分類萬物的範疇）；一路是佛的經教裡所說的，像「蘊、處、界」這些。
最後那個「轉」字，意思是這些相狀都是『隨著因緣的不同而安立的、樣子也跟著不一樣』——並不是固定死板的一個樣子。
（二）相依識變而成
〔難〕這裡先設個問難：我、法這些相狀如果都只是假說立起來的，那它們究竟是靠什麼才立得起來呢（總得有個依託，不能憑空假說）？
〔答〕回答是：這些相狀全都是靠『識的轉變』才假安立起來的。這裡有兩個關鍵詞要先講明白——
先講「識」這個字。「識」的本性就是「了別」（去分辨、去認識）。還要注意：這裡說「識」，其實連「心所」也一起包進去了；為什麼能一起包？因為心所一定跟心王配著一起起、形影不離（叫「相應」），所以講識的時候，心所也就跟著算進去了。
再講「變」這個字。「變」是說：識這個本體，會轉變、現出像是有『兩部分』的樣子來——這兩部分就是「相分」和「見分」。「相分」是被認識的那一面（也就是所緣的影像），「見分」是去認識的那一面（也就是能緣的作用）。這相分、見分兩面，又都是從更裡頭的「自證分」生出來的。我、法就是靠這兩分安立的：「法」安立在相分上、「我」安立在見分上——我和法這兩樣，一旦離開了這相、見兩分，就再沒有別的地方可以依託了。
（三）內識變似外境
換個角度再說一遍：裡頭的識會轉變、現出像是有「外境」的樣子來。這是怎麼來的呢？是因為『我執、法執』這種分別，過去一再熏習、留下了種子；靠這股種子的力量，各個識一起來，就變現出像是「我」、像是「法」的相狀。這些我、法的相狀，其實明明是在裡頭的識當中，可是經分別這麼一弄，就現得好像是『外面的境』一樣。眾生從無始以來，就攀著這個（裡頭的識變出來的、像外境的相）把它執成『真實的我、真實的法』。
這裡打個比方就明白了：好比一個生病的人、或是在作夢的人，由著病、由著夢的力量，心裡也會現出種種像是外境的相來，他就攀著這些相、把它執成『真有外面的境』——其實那都只是病中、夢中自己心裡變出來的，外面並沒有。
（四）假之雙義：愚計都無·識變似有
這裡要分清楚：同樣一個「假」字，其實有兩種不一樣的意思。
第一種「假」：愚夫所計度的那個「實我、實法」，根本就一點都沒有、全無這回事；只是他隨著虛妄的情執，硬安上這麼個名目。這種「假」，是『底下根本沒有東西、純粹隨情執安名』的假（也就是「無體隨情假」——連個體都沒有）。
第二種「假」：裡頭的識所變現的那個『像我、像法』的相，這個倒是有的（它是「依他起」的有——靠眾緣湊起來的、有它一份作用的存在）；可是它雖然有，卻並不是真有『實我、實法的本性』（並沒有那個被遍計所執著的、實在的我法自性）。它只是『現得像那個我、那個法』罷了，所以也叫它「假」。這種「假」，是『底下有個東西、不過是隨方便安立的』假（也就是「有體施設假」——有體，但只是施設）。
（五）遮增減·結二諦有
最後把外境、內識兩邊擺平，剛好擋掉兩種偏執——
一邊：外境是隨著虛妄的情執安立起來的，所以它「不是有」——不像裡頭的識那樣是真有的。這一句是要擋掉「增益執」（也就是無中生有、硬把外境當成實在有的那種多加一截的偏執），叫人別把外境當真有。
另一邊：裡頭的識一定是靠因緣才生得起來的，所以它『不是沒有』——不像外境那樣本來就沒有。這一句是要擋掉「損減執」（也就是把本來有的硬說成沒有、那種少減一截的偏執），叫人別連識也一筆抹掉。
這樣一來，增、減這兩種偏執就都擋住了——不多加、也不抹減。
再進一步，從兩種真理（二諦）來分：外境是靠裡頭的識才假立起來的，所以它只在「世俗」這一層上算有（也就是「俗諦」裡頭有）；而識呢，是那假外境所依靠的真實事體，所以它連在「勝義」這一層上也算有（也就是「真諦」裡頭也有）。
〔Verse expounded〕
"Because self and dharmas are posited only by convention, manifold appearances turn; these rest on what consciousness transforms, and the transformers are but three: the maturational, the deliberative, and the consciousness that discerns objects." (v1)
A. The Prefatory Homage Division
1. Homage to the field of merit (the homage stanza)
Take the first words, "I bow my head" (稽首) — that is, paying reverent homage. The object of this homage is the consciousness-only nature (唯識性) — the true nature of consciousness, which is the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實, the perfectly-accomplished reality). Besides paying homage to this truth, [the author] also pays homage to those who have realized this truth and are thereby purified; these are of two kinds. One is the fully-purified (滿清淨) — the Buddha, who is completely and thoroughly pure. The other is the partially-purified (分清淨) — the bodhisattvas, who have realized only a part and not yet reached the summit. Having paid homage, the author then states his purpose: I now expound these verses composed by the bodhisattva Vasubandhu, for the benefit and ease of all sentient beings.
2. The intent in composing the treatise (three accounts laid open)
Why did the author compose this treatise? On this question, when the several masters' accounts are laid open, there are three in all:
〔One position · to awaken, sever, and attain the fruit〕 The first account runs thus: composing this treatise is a chain of links, each pushing up to the next. Taken one by one —
First step: why people must be made to "generate right understanding." Some people are confused or mistaken about the two emptinesses (二空 — "emptiness of self," that there is no real self; "emptiness of dharmas," that there is no real dharma). The treatise is composed to make such people generate correct understanding.
Second step: and generating right understanding is in turn for what? It is for severing the twofold obscuration (二重障). Where do these two obscurations come from? They are brought out by self-attachment (我執, grasping a self) and dharma-attachment (法執, grasping a real dharma): self-attachment brings out the affliction-obscuration (煩惱障), dharma-attachment brings out the obscuration-to-the-knowable (所知障); the two attachments together raise the two obscurations together. Yet once the two emptinesses are realized, these two obscurations are severed along with them.
Third step: and severing the obscurations is in turn for what? It is for realizing the two excellent fruits (二勝果), each answering to one obscuration: severing the affliction-obscuration (which keeps the round of birth-and-death running on) realizes true liberation (解脫); severing the obscuration-to-the-knowable (which blocks the clarity of wisdom) attains great awakening (大菩提 — the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment, the wisdom of buddhahood).
So this account threads the whole line together: generate right understanding → in order to sever the two obscurations → in order to attain the two fruits.
〔Another · to penetrate emptiness and awaken to the nature〕 The second account is simpler: the treatise is composed to point things out to those who grasp self and dharmas rigidly and are muddled about consciousness-only — so they may penetrate the two emptinesses (emptiness of self, emptiness of dharmas) and understand the principle of consciousness-only as it really is.
〔It should be known (the correct view) · to break attachments and display the principle〕 The third account (this is the correct one) is the most detailed: there are still others who get the principle of consciousness-only wrong or muddled, and their biased attachments are of four kinds —
(1) Some hold that "the outer object, like consciousness, is not non-existent" (the outer object is not nothing; it is just as real as consciousness); (2) Some hold that "inner consciousness, like the object, is non-existent" (consciousness too is empty, originally nothing, just like the outer object); (3) Some hold that "the several consciousnesses differ in function but are one in substance" (the eight consciousnesses have separate uses but are, at bottom, a single substance); (4) Some hold that "apart from the mind-king there are no separate mental factors" (there is only the mind-king, no such thing as mental factors).
The treatise is composed to ward off and break these various biases one by one, so that people may gain a true and correct understanding of this deep and subtle principle of consciousness-only.
B. The Establishing-the-Teaching-at-Length Division · Clarifying the Marks of Consciousness-Only · Brief Exposition Raising the Thesis
1. Posing the question
〔Q〕 Someone first raises a question: if there really is "consciousness alone" (with no real outer object apart from consciousness), then why do ordinary people in their everyday speech, and the Buddha's various scriptural teachings, all plainly speak of "there being self and dharmas"? (Since there is only consciousness, where do a self and dharmas come from?)
2. The verse gives the answer
〔A · the verse〕 The answer is given in a verse: the two things "self" and "dharmas" are both set up by conventional positing (假說 — merely a name given for convenience, not something truly there); and because of this conventional positing, manifold differing appearances show forth; and these manifold appearances all exist only because consciousness transforms and manifests them. As for this transforming consciousness, there are just three classes in all — the first is the maturational consciousness (異熟識, i.e. the eighth, the ālaya); the second is the deliberative consciousness (思量識, i.e. the seventh, manas); the third is the object-discerning consciousness (了別境識, i.e. the first six: the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousnesses).
3. The long-prose exposition (expounding the three lines above)
(a) Self and dharmas are merely conventional, set up in dependence on consciousness
The author answers: the "self and dharmas" spoken of by ordinary people and in the Buddha's teachings are all merely set up by convention (following circumstance, a name given for convenience), and not some really existent thing that exists in its own right. First, the two words "self" and "dharma." "Self" (我) means "that which governs" (something that calls the shots, that takes charge). "Dharma" (法) means "holding-and-rule" (軌持) — that it holds its own character and can serve as a standard by which one recognizes it (lets one know it for what it is).
Self and dharmas each show forth manifold differing appearances. Take first the manifold appearances of "self," which run along two tracks: one is what worldly people reckon — things like "sentient being" (有情, a being with sentience), "life-bearer" (命者, a living thing with a lifespan); the other is what the Buddha's teachings speak of — things like "stream-enterer" (預流) and "once-returner" (一來) (these are names of stages on the path, which are likewise only conventional names). Take next the manifold appearances of "dharmas," which also run along two tracks: one is what the heterodox reckon — things like "substance, quality, motion" (實、德、業, their categories for classifying all things); the other is what the Buddha's teachings speak of — things like "aggregates, bases, elements" (蘊、處、界).
That last word, "turn" (轉), means that these appearances "are set up according to differing conditions, and so look different too" — not one fixed, rigid shape.
(b) The appearances come about through consciousness's transformation
〔Q〕 Here a difficulty is set up: if the appearances of self and dharmas are all set up only by convention, then on what do they actually get established (there must be some support — they cannot be conventionally posited out of thin air)?
〔A〕 The answer: these appearances are all conventionally set up in dependence on the transforming of consciousness. Two key words need clarifying first —
First, the word "consciousness" (識). The nature of consciousness is just discerning (了別 — to distinguish, to cognize). Note too that "consciousness" said here also takes in the mental factors (心所). Why can they be taken in together? Because the mental factors always arise together with the mind-king, inseparable from it (this is called "concurrence," 相應) — so when consciousness is spoken of, the mental factors are counted in along with it.
Next, the word "transform" (變). "Transform" means that the substance of consciousness turns and shows forth what looks like "two parts" — and these two parts are the image-part (相分) and the seeing-part (見分). The image-part is the side that is cognized (the supported image, the object); the seeing-part is the side that does the cognizing (the supporting, cognizing function). Both these parts, image and seeing, arise from a still more inward self-witnessing part (自證分). Self and dharmas are set up upon these two parts: "dharma" is set up upon the image-part, "self" upon the seeing-part — and self and dharmas, once apart from these two parts of image and seeing, have nowhere else to rest.
(c) Inner consciousness transforms to resemble an outer object
Put another way: the inner consciousness turns and shows forth what looks like an "outer object." How does this come about? It is because the discrimination of self-attachment and dharma-attachment, perfuming again and again in the past, has left seeds; by the force of these seeds, when the several consciousnesses arise, they transform and manifest appearances that look like "self" and like "dharmas." These appearances of self and dharmas are plainly within the inner consciousness; yet, worked up by discrimination, they show forth as if they were "outer objects." Sentient beings, from beginningless time, have clung to this (the inner consciousness's transformed appearance, which looks like an outer object) and grasped it as a "real self and real dharmas."
A comparison makes this clear: it is like a sick person, or a person dreaming — by the force of the sickness, by the force of the dream, the mind also shows forth all sorts of appearances that look like outer objects, and the person clings to these appearances and grasps them as "really existent outer objects" — when in fact those are all manifested within his own mind in sickness or dream, and outside there is nothing.
(d) The two senses of "convention": the fool's reckoning (wholly nothing) · consciousness's transformation (a seeming-existent)
Here a distinction must be drawn: the single word "convention" (假) in fact carries two different meanings.
The first sense of "convention": the "real self and real dharmas" that the fool reckons are utterly without existence, simply not there at all; he merely fastens such a label on, following his deluded feeling. This "convention" is the convention of "there being nothing underneath at all — purely a name fastened on according to feeling" (i.e. substanceless-following-feeling convention, 無體隨情假 — not even a substance to it).
The second sense of "convention": the appearance "resembling self, resembling dharmas" that the inner consciousness transforms and manifests — this one does exist (it exists as other-dependent, 依他起 — an existence assembled from a confluence of conditions, with a function of its own); yet, though it exists, it is not really of the nature of "real self and real dharmas" (there is no such wholly-imagined, really-existent self-and-dharma nature). It merely "shows forth resembling that self, that dharma," and so it too is called "convention." This "convention" is the convention of "there being a thing underneath, only set up for convenience" (i.e. substantial-designation convention, 有體施設假 — having substance, but merely designated).
(e) Warding off over- and under-statement · resolving on the two truths
Finally, the two sides, outer object and inner consciousness, are squared off — and this exactly wards off two biased attachments.
On the one side: the outer object is set up following deluded feeling, and so it "is not existent" — not really existent in the way the inner consciousness is. This line wards off the attachment of over-statement (增益執 — making something out of nothing, the bias of adding an extra layer by treating the outer object as really existent); it tells people not to take the outer object as truly there.
On the other side: the inner consciousness must arise in dependence on causes and conditions, and so it "is not non-existent" — not originally nothing in the way the outer object is. This line wards off the attachment of under-statement (損減執 — taking what is there and declaring it not there, the bias of subtracting a layer); it tells people not to wipe out consciousness as well.
In this way both the biases, over- and under-statement, are warded off — nothing added, nothing subtracted.
A step further, dividing by the two truths (二諦): the outer object is only conventionally set up in dependence on the inner consciousness, and so it counts as existent only on the "conventional" level (it exists within the conventional truth, 俗諦); whereas consciousness is the real thing on which that conventional outer object depends, and so it counts as existent even on the "ultimate" level (it exists within the ultimate truth, 真諦) as well.