唯識二十論 偈九 二無我
依著「色等十二處」的教法，能悟入「人無我」——六根對六境生起六識，這裡頭沒有一個始終在看、在知的獨立主人。再依著「唯識」的教法，能悟入「諸法無我」——被當成實在外境的色法，也只是識現得「像」色法，並沒有離識而實有的色法相。
但「諸法無我」不是「什麼都沒有」。它所否定的，只是凡夫硬加上去的那層「自性實有」的妄執；諸佛所證的離言法性，並不在被否定之列。連「唯識」自己被執成對象時，那個體也是空的——立唯識不是另立一個實有去頂替外境，而是把一切「執成實有」的執都空掉，包括執唯識為實有的那個執。
所以唯識站的，是破執而不撥有：破掉妄執的自性，卻保住似境的顯現與法性的有體。既不是外境實有的實在論，也不是一切撥無的斷滅見。這條極窄的中線，到《唯識三十論》就長成了三性與三無性的完整教義。
Relying on the teaching of the "twelve bases" (colour-and-form and the rest), one can enter into "the selflessness of the person" — the six sense-faculties meet the six sense-objects, the six consciousnesses arise, and within them there is no independent master who all along sees, who all along knows. Relying further on the teaching of "consciousness-only," one can enter into "the selflessness of dharmas" — even colour-and-form, taken to be a real external object, is only consciousness presenting itself "as though" colour-and-form; there is no dharma-mark of colour-and-form really existing apart from consciousness.
But "the selflessness of dharmas" is not "there is nothing at all." What it negates is only that layer of "self-nature, really existent" that ordinary beings forcibly fasten on; the ineffable dharma-nature realized by the Buddhas is not among what is negated. Even "consciousness-only" itself, when grasped as an object, is empty in its substance — to establish consciousness-only is not to set up another really-existent thing to replace external objects, but to empty out every clinging that grasps things as really existent, including the clinging that grasps consciousness-only as really existent.
So where consciousness-only stands is in breaking the clinging without sweeping away the existent: it breaks the self-nature of the false clinging, yet preserves the manifesting of the object-likenesses and the real substance of the dharma-nature. It is neither the realism that holds external objects to be really existent, nor the annihilationist view that sweeps everything away into nothing. This razor-thin middle line grows, by the time of the Triṃśikā, into the complete teaching of the three natures and the three non-natures.
§頌
依此教能入，數取趣無我， 所執法無我，復依餘教入。
§論（世親自註）
論曰：依此所說十二處教，受化者能入數取趣無我。謂若了知從六二法有六識轉，都無見者乃至知者，應受有情無我教者便能悟入有情無我。復依此餘說唯識教，受化者能入所執法無我。謂若了知唯識現似色等法起，此中都無色等相法，應受諸法無我教者便能悟入諸法無我。若知諸法一切種無入法無我，是則唯識亦畢竟無，何所安立？非知諸法一切種無乃得名為入法無我，然達愚夫遍計所執自性差別諸法無我，如是乃名入法無我，非諸佛境離言法性亦都無故名法無我。餘識所執此唯識性其體亦無，名法無我。不爾，餘識所執境有，則唯識理應不得成，許諸餘識有實境故。由此道理，說立唯識教，普令悟入一切法無我，非一切種撥有性故。復云何知佛依如是密意趣說有色等處，非別實有色等外法為色等識各別境耶？頌曰：
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.
§頌 白話
依著這套（十二處）教法，就能悟入「數取趣無我」（人無我）； 至於「所執法無我」， 還要再依著另一套（唯識）教法才能悟入。 兩種無我，是依這兩套教法分別悟入的。
§論 白話
世親解釋這首偈在說什麼。
依著前面所說的「十二處」教法，受教化的人能悟入「數取趣無我」（也就是沒有一個實在的「數取趣」、沒有一個輪迴受報的「我」）。怎麼說呢？只要了知：由「六根、六境」這兩類六法，生起六種識在運轉，這當中根本沒有一個「能見者」乃至「能知者」——應當受「有情無我」這個教法的人，就能在這裡悟入「有情無我」。
接著再依著另外所說的「唯識」教法，受教化的人能悟入「所執法無我」。怎麼說呢？只要了知：唯有識現起、變似色等諸法生起，而這當中根本沒有實在的色等相法——應當受「諸法無我」這個教法的人，就能在這裡悟入「諸法無我」。
這時有人問：如果「了知諸法在一切種類上都無」就叫作「入法無我」，那「唯識」自己不也畢竟成無了嗎？那還拿什麼來安立唯識？
世親回答：並不是「了知諸法一切種無」才叫作「入法無我」。而是要通達「愚夫遍計所執自性所差別出來的諸法」是無我的——這樣才叫作「入法無我」。並不是說連諸佛境界的「離言法性」也都無，才叫法無我（離言法性並不在所破之內）。
至於「唯識性」呢？被其餘的識所執取的這個「唯識性」，它的體也是無的——這也叫法無我。若不是這樣——若承認其餘諸識所執的境是實有——那「唯識」的道理就立不起來了，因為那等於承認其餘諸識有實境。
依著這個道理，安立「唯識」教，普遍使人悟入「一切法無我」；但這並不是在一切種類上把諸法的「有性」一概撥除（並不是斷滅見）。
那麼又怎麼知道，佛是依著這樣的密意，才說「有色等處」，而不是另有實在的色等外法、作為色等識各別所緣的境呢？世親用下一首偈來回答。
§Verse — plain reading
Relying on this teaching (of the twelve bases), one can enter into "the selflessness of the person" (the selflessness of the pudgala); as for "the selflessness of the dharmas that are clung to," one must rely further on another teaching (that of consciousness-only) to enter into it. The two selflessnesses are entered into separately, by relying on these two teachings.
§Auto-commentary — plain reading
Vasubandhu explains what this verse is saying.
By relying on the teaching of the "twelve bases" (六根、六境, the six sense-faculties and the six sense-objects) set out earlier, the one being taught can enter into "the selflessness of the person" (數取趣無我 — that is, there is no real "pudgala" 數取趣, no "self" that transmigrates and receives recompense). How so? One need only realize this: that from these two classes of six dharmas — the six sense-faculties and the six sense-objects — six consciousnesses arise and operate, and that within all this there is no "one who sees" and on down to no "one who knows" at all. Whoever is fit to receive this teaching of "the selflessness of sentient beings" (有情無我) can, right here, enter into "the selflessness of sentient beings."
Next, by relying on the further teaching of "consciousness-only" (唯識), the one being taught can enter into "the selflessness of the dharmas that are clung to" (所執法無我). How so? One need only realize this: that there is only consciousness arising and transforming so as to resemble (變似) dharmas such as colour-and-form, and that within all this there is no real dharma-mark of colour-and-form at all. Whoever is fit to receive this teaching of "the selflessness of dharmas" (諸法無我) can, right here, enter into "the selflessness of dharmas."
At this point someone asks: if "realizing that dharmas, in every kind whatsoever, do not exist" is what is called "entering into the selflessness of dharmas," then does not "consciousness-only" itself also end up coming to nothing? In that case, on what could consciousness-only be established at all?
Vasubandhu answers: it is not that "realizing that dharmas, in every kind, do not exist" is what is called "entering into the selflessness of dharmas." Rather, it is to penetrate that "the dharmas as differentiated by the wholly-imagined nature clung to by the childish" are selfless — this is what is called "entering into the selflessness of dharmas." It is not to say that even the "ineffable dharma-nature" (離言法性) within the realm of the Buddhas does not exist, and to call that the selflessness of dharmas (the ineffable dharma-nature is not among what is to be negated).
As for "the nature of consciousness-only" (唯識性) itself? This "nature of consciousness-only," when grasped as an object by some other consciousness — its substance too is without [reality]; this likewise is called the selflessness of dharmas. Were it otherwise — were one to grant that the objects clung to by the other consciousnesses are really existent — then the principle of "consciousness-only" could not stand at all, for that would amount to granting that the other consciousnesses have real objects.
Relying on this principle, "consciousness-only" is established as a teaching, to make everyone enter universally into "the selflessness of all dharmas"; yet this is not to sweep away, in every kind whatsoever, the "existent-nature" of dharmas (it is not a view of annihilation).
How, then, are we to know that the Buddha, relying on a hidden intent (密意) of just this kind, spoke of "there being bases such as colour-and-form," rather than there being some real external dharmas of colour-and-form, serving as the separate objective supports of the several colour-and-form consciousnesses? Vasubandhu answers with the verse that follows.
一個會把唯識逼死的問題
讀到這裡，最尖銳的一問會自己冒出來：佛說「諸法無我」，唯識又把色等外境一概還原成識所變的似境，那麼——「唯識」這兩個字所指的，不也是「法」嗎？若一切法都無自性、都「無」，唯識自己豈不也該畢竟無？那還立什麼唯識？
世親沒有迴避這一問。偈九整段，正是他把這把架在自己脖子上的刀，一刀一刀拆開來。看懂這一拆，就看懂了唯識和「一切空」到底差在哪裡。
先看玄奘怎麼下字：「能入」為什麼說兩次
偈頌四句裡，「能入」二字出現兩次——「依此教能入，數取趣無我；所執法無我，復依餘教入」。這不是修辭重複。玄奘以兩個「入」字，把二無我標成依教而悟入的雙重歷程，而不是並排陳列的兩個名相：第一道依「十二處」教而入，第二道依「唯識」教而入；前者破人我之執，後者破法我之執，後者更深。讀本偈，先抓住這「兩入」的層級，後面的切割才站得穩。
兩道悟入，立在識的運作上
世親說人無我，不是憑空斷言「沒有我」，而是請你看識的運作：六根對六境，生起六識（眼識到意識），這一整套跑下來，找不到一個始終在看、在知的獨立主人——沒有那主人，就是人無我。所以第一道悟入，立在六識這一層（百法 #6 意識，正是這「都無見者乃至知者」的分別主體）。
第二道更深：連被當成實在外境的色法，也只是識現得「像」色法。能變現、能含藏這一切的根本，是阿賴耶識（百法 #8，自種之家、識變的根本所依）。兩道悟入，其實都立在這套識體系上——這也是為什麼二無我的教，到了唯識才講得透。
關鍵的兩刀，而且兩刀都有經據
對方的殺著，是把「法無我」偷換成「一切種類的法統統不存在」。世親回頭下兩刀切掉它——而這兩刀，不是世親自出機杼，是站在佛親說的三性三無性教上（經據在《解深密經·無自性相品》，同系經）：
第一刀，限定範圍。 法無我所破的，只是「愚夫遍計所執自性差別諸法」——凡夫把識變的似境硬安上去的那層「自性實有」的妄計，也就是三性裡的遍計所執性。所破止於此。至於諸佛所證的離言法性（超越言說分別的究竟法性，即圓成實所顯，百法 #100 真如的對應），並不在被否定之列。所以「法無我」絕不等於「連離言法性也沒有」。
第二刀，連唯識自己也空掉。 被另一個識攀緣、被當成對象來抓的那個「唯識性」，它的體也是無的。這一刀下在自己身上：立唯識，不是另立一個叫「唯識」的新實有去頂替外境；唯識要空的，是一切把東西執成自性實有的執——包括把「唯識」本身也執成實有的那個執。
破執，而不撥有
兩刀合起來，就是這一偈的心臟：破執，而不撥有。 破掉遍計所執的自性（無自性），同時保住依他起似境的顯現、保住圓成實離言法性的有體（非斷滅）。所以自註收在這一句：「說立唯識教，普令悟入一切法無我，非一切種撥有性故。」——立唯識，是要人人悟入一切法無我；但「無我」不是把諸法的有性一筆撥光。唯識既不是外境實有的實在論，也不是一切撥無的頑空論；它站的，正是這兩者之間那條極窄的線。
這一刀，撐起後面整個破外境
偈九是 §貳（密意·二無我，偈八–九）的收束，但它的份量不止於收束。後面 §參 破極微、§肆 破現量與夢覺，這一連串否定外境的論證，全靠本偈先立好的「破執不撥」當前提：破，必須伴隨對離言法性的保留，否則一路破下去就落進「一切無」的頑空，唯識自己也被破掉了。所以這一偈表面在講二無我，實際是替後半部論證釘下那根不會鬆的界樁。
承衍
順著本偈這兩刀往下看：護法《成唯識寶生論》釋本偈，把「非一切種撥有性」這句，展開成三性（遍計所執／依他起／圓成實）的系統論證。再往下到《唯識三十論》，就長成「即依此三性，立彼三無性」的完整教——破執的否定（無自性）與立義的肯定（圓成實之有體）同時兼存。本偈這精微的一把握，是這條義理線上較早的一節；讀通這兩刀，再讀三十論的圓成實段就容易入。
A question that would put consciousness-only to death
Reading this far, the sharpest question rises of itself: the Buddha says "all dharmas are selfless," and consciousness-only, in turn, reduces external objects such as colour-and-form entirely to object-likenesses transformed by consciousness — so then, what the two words "consciousness-only" (唯識) point to, is that not a "dharma" as well? If all dharmas are without self-nature, all of them "nothing," should not consciousness-only itself also, in the end, be nothing? Then what is left to establish consciousness-only on?
Vasubandhu does not dodge this question. The whole of Verse 9 is precisely his taking apart, cut by cut, this blade laid against his own throat. See this dismantling clearly, and you see exactly where consciousness-only and "everything is empty" part ways.
First, watch how Xuanzang sets the words down: why "can enter" is said twice
In the four lines of the verse, the two words "can enter" (能入) appear twice — "relying on this teaching one can enter the selflessness of the pudgala; the selflessness of the dharmas clung to is entered by relying further on another teaching" (依此教能入，數取趣無我；所執法無我，復依餘教入). This is not rhetorical repetition. With his two words "enter," Xuanzang marks the two selflessnesses as a twofold process of entering-through-realization by means of a teaching, not as two technical terms laid out side by side: the first entering is by way of the teaching of the "twelve bases" (十二處), the second by way of the teaching of "consciousness-only"; the former breaks the clinging to a self of the person, the latter breaks the clinging to a self of the dharmas, and the latter is the deeper. In reading this verse, first grasp this tiering of the "two enterings," and the cuts that follow will stand firmly.
The two enterings stand upon the operation of consciousness
When Vasubandhu speaks of the selflessness of the person, he is not baldly asserting out of nowhere that "there is no self"; he asks you to look at the operation of consciousness: the six sense-faculties meet the six sense-objects, and the six consciousnesses arise (eye-consciousness through mind-consciousness); run this whole array through, and you find no independent master who all along sees, who all along knows — and the absence of that master is just the selflessness of the person. So the first entering stands upon the layer of the six consciousnesses (baifa #6 the mind-consciousness 意識 is exactly the discriminating subject of this "no one who sees and on down to no one who knows").
The second is deeper: even colour-and-form, taken to be a real external object, is only consciousness presenting itself "as though" colour-and-form. The root that can transform-and-present and can hold-and-store all of this is the storehouse consciousness (阿賴耶識 ālaya-vijñāna; baifa #8, the home of its own seeds, the root basis of the transformations of consciousness). Both enterings, in truth, stand upon this system of consciousness — which is also why the teaching of the two selflessnesses is expounded through to the bottom only in consciousness-only.
The two decisive cuts — and both cuts have scriptural ground
The opponent's killing move is to substitute, by sleight of hand, "the dharmas in every kind whatsoever simply do not exist" for "the selflessness of dharmas." Vasubandhu turns and makes two cuts to sever it — and these two cuts are not Vasubandhu spinning something out of his own loom; they stand upon the three natures and three non-natures (三性三無性) the Buddha himself taught (the scriptural ground is in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, "Chapter on the Absence of Self-Nature" 解深密經·無自性相品, a sūtra of the same line):
First cut: delimit the scope. What the selflessness of dharmas negates is only "the dharmas as differentiated by the wholly-imagined nature clung to by the childish" (愚夫遍計所執自性差別諸法) — that layer of "self-nature, really existent" that ordinary beings forcibly fasten onto the object-likenesses transformed by consciousness, namely the wholly-imagined nature (遍計所執性 parikalpita-svabhāva) of the three natures. What is negated stops here. As for the ineffable dharma-nature (離言法性) realized by the Buddhas (the ultimate dharma-nature beyond verbal discrimination, that which the perfectly-accomplished nature 圓成實 manifests, corresponding to baifa #100 suchness 真如), this is not among what is negated. So "the selflessness of dharmas" is by no means equivalent to "even the ineffable dharma-nature does not exist."
Second cut: empty out even consciousness-only itself. That "nature of consciousness-only" (唯識性) which is taken hold of by another consciousness, grasped as an object — its substance too is without [reality]. This cut lands on himself: to establish consciousness-only is not to set up some new really-existent thing called "consciousness-only" to take the place of external objects; what consciousness-only empties out is every clinging that grasps things as self-nature really existent — including the very clinging that grasps "consciousness-only" itself as really existent.
Breaking the clinging, without sweeping away the existent
The two cuts together are the heart of this verse: break the clinging, without sweeping away the existent. Break the self-nature of the wholly-imagined (no self-nature), and at the same time preserve the manifesting of the object-likenesses of the other-dependent nature (依他起), preserve the real substance of the ineffable dharma-nature of the perfectly-accomplished nature (圓成實) — this is not annihilation. So the auto-commentary closes on this line: "consciousness-only is established as a teaching, to make all universally enter into the selflessness of all dharmas; it is not that the existent-nature is swept away in every kind whatsoever" (說立唯識教，普令悟入一切法無我，非一切種撥有性故). To establish consciousness-only is to bring everyone to enter into the selflessness of all dharmas; but "selflessness" is not wiping out, at a stroke, the existent-nature of the dharmas. Consciousness-only is neither the realism that holds external objects to be really existent, nor the doctrine of obstinate emptiness that sweeps everything away into nothing; where it stands is precisely that razor-thin line between the two.
This one cut holds up the whole refutation of external objects that follows
Verse 9 is the closing of §II (Hidden Intent · the Two Selflessnesses, vv.8–9), but its weight is not confined to closing. The string of arguments that follow — §III Refuting Atoms, §IV Refuting Direct Perception and Dream-and-Waking — all this negating of external objects rests on the premise of "breaking the clinging without sweeping away" that this verse first sets in place: the breaking must go together with the preservation of the ineffable dharma-nature, or else, breaking all the way down, one falls into the obstinate emptiness of "everything is nothing," and consciousness-only itself is broken along with it. So this verse, which on the surface speaks of the two selflessnesses, in fact drives in, for the arguments of the latter half, that boundary-stake that will not work loose.
Carried forward (承衍)
Read on from the two cuts of this verse: Dharmapāla's Cheng weishi baosheng lun (成唯識寶生論), commenting on this verse, unfolds the line "it is not that the existent-nature is swept away in every kind whatsoever" into a systematic argument by way of the three natures (wholly-imagined / other-dependent / perfectly-accomplished — 遍計所執／依他起／圓成實). On further still to the Triṃśikā, it grows into the complete teaching "upon just these three natures, those three non-natures are established" (即依此三性，立彼三無性) — where the negation that breaks the clinging (no self-nature) and the affirmation that establishes the meaning (the real substance of the perfectly-accomplished nature) are held together at once. This verse's subtle grasp is an earlier node on this doctrinal line; read these two cuts through, and the perfectly-accomplished nature section of the Triṃśikā becomes easy to enter.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
| 系統 | 此偈之位 |
|---|---|
| 全論五段 | §貳 密意·二無我（偈八–九）之收束偈。§壹 立宗答四難（偈一–七）→ §貳（偈八–九）→ §參 破極微（偈十–十四）→ §肆 破現量·夢覺·教證（偈十五–廿一）→ §伍 他心智·結頌（偈廿二–廿三） |
| 偈八–九 弧線 | 偈八 識從自種·還原十二處於識變雙面 → 偈九 承之導出二無我之雙重悟入 |
| 玄奘自註段位 | §頌 T31n1590〔p0075b25–26〕· §論自註〔p0075b27–c15〕（偈一–九中最長之自註段） |
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
§頌四句先後二悟入：上二句「依此教能入，數取趣無我」陳第一悟入（依十二處教→人無我）；下二句「所執法無我，復依餘教入」陳第二悟入（依唯識教→法無我）。「能入」兩出，標二無我非並列而為依教而入之雙重歷程。
自註展三節：(一) 二悟入之教與所入；(二) 對「若唯識則一切無」之難，作雙重切割——〔範圍限定〕法無我所破唯「愚夫遍計所執自性差別諸法」，非離言法性；〔唯識自空〕「餘識所執此唯識性其體亦無」；(三) 收於「立唯識教，普令悟入一切法無我，非一切種撥有性故」。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
- 經證：佛說十二處教（六根六境）為第一悟入所依；佛以密意說唯識教為第二悟入所依。自註「依此所說十二處教」「復依此餘說唯識教」即承佛經立教。
- 三性·離言法性之經據：自註所立「遍計所執自性」與「離言法性（非佛境亦無）」之分判，經據在《解深密經·無自性相品》（同系經 T16n0676）三相·三無性之說。
- 論本：世親自註（T1590）自釋本頌，即本偈之論本；論之權威接於上引佛經之十二處教與唯識密意教。
四、本論釋要（世親自註 T1590）
世親立「破執而不撥有」之雙重切割為唯識與斷滅之分界：所破限於遍計所執之自性化計度，所存為依他起似境之顯現與圓成實·離言法性之有體。「唯識性」亦在所空之列——立唯識非別立一實有以代外境，乃空一切自性執（含對唯識之自性執）。故「非一切種撥有性」一句，是世親自標唯識非頑空之教理界樁。
五、諸家異釋（古德 · 標宗）
- 護法《成唯識寶生論》T31n1591（唐·義淨譯·漢有傳本）——釋本偈展開法無我之系統論證，將其納入三性（遍計所執／依他起／圓成實）框架；本偈「非一切種撥有性」之把握，於護法釋中成三性教之教理核心。〔標宗：護法以三性釋本偈；古德讀法之一，此處只記其宗，不判。〕
- Vinītadeva Prakaraṇaviṃśakaṭīkā——藏譯存·漢無傳本，依例僅志其名，內容不入義據。
六、譯名 · 古譯對讀（三漢譯）
| 漢譯 | 譯本 | 對讀 |
|---|---|---|
| ★ 唐·玄奘 T31n1590 | 「依此教能入，數取趣無我，所執法無我，復依餘教入」 | 五言四句；「能入」兩出，顯二無我之雙重悟入歷程；自註以「數取趣無我／所執法無我」對譯人法二無我 |
| 陳·真諦 T31n1589《大乘唯識論》 | 散文體連續展二無我之推導 | 真諦譯系與其攝論宗三性框架相連（古代漢證·參校） |
| 後魏·般若流支 T31n1588《唯識論》 | 偈頌段對應位 | 譯選偏「悟入」過程語（古代漢證·參校） |
七、術語（古德所傳梵 · 發音輔助）
| 漢 | 梵（發音輔助） | 義 |
|---|---|---|
| 數取趣無我 | pudgala-nairātmya | 人無我；補特伽羅（數取趣）無實主體 |
| 所執法無我 | dharma-nairātmya | 法無我；所執諸法無自性 |
| 遍計所執自性 | parikalpita-svabhāva | 凡夫妄加之自性實有；三性之第一 |
| 離言法性 | — | 超言說分別之究竟法性；佛境所證，法無我所不撥 |
梵羅馬字僅作發音輔助；無古德音寫可徵者從闕，不據現代校本補。
八、互讀（唯識系次第）
| 百法明門論 | 唯識三十論 | 二十論內部 |
|---|---|---|
| #8 阿賴耶識 ālayavijñāna——自種之家、識變根本所依；二無我悟入之識體系立基 ⭐ | 偈廿四–廿五 三性·三無性「即依此三性，立彼三無性」——本偈「非一切種撥有性」之系統化展開 | 偈八 識從自種——本偈承其識變雙重結構導出二無我 |
| #6 意識 mano-vijñāna——「從六二法有六識轉，都無見者」之六識主體；人無我之識體系核心 | 偈一 假說我法「彼依識所變」——本偈為其教理機制之自註展開 | 偈十 破極微——§貳 收束後啟 §參；其破執不撥之前提即本偈所立 |
| #100 真如 tathatā / 離言法性——本偈「法無我所不撥之究竟法性」之百法對應 ⭐ | — | 偈廿三 結頌「佛所行」——本偈「佛境離言法性」之終極指向 |
九、校本定位
- 漢文正文（§頌）：T31n1590〔p0075b25–26〕（玄奘譯）
- 漢文自註（§論）：T31n1590〔p0075b27–c15〕（玄奘譯；偈一–九中最長自註）
- 義理錨經：解深密經·無自性相品，三性三無性教——名指互見
- 參校漢譯：T31n1589（真諦）· T31n1588（般若流支）
- 古德釋：T31n1591（護法《成唯識寶生論》·漢有傳本）
1. Doctrinal-outline placement
| System | This verse's place |
|---|---|
| The treatise's five parts | The closing verse of §II Hidden Intent · the Two Selflessnesses (密意·二無我, vv.8–9). §I Establishing the Thesis · Answering the Four Objections (vv.1–7) → §II (vv.8–9) → §III Refuting Atoms (破極微, vv.10–14) → §IV Refuting [the appeal to] Direct Perception · Dream-and-Waking · Scriptural Proof (vv.15–21) → §V Knowledge of Others' Minds · Concluding Verse (他心智·結頌, vv.22–23) |
| The vv.8–9 arc | v.8 consciousness arising from its own seeds · reducing the twelve bases to the two faces of consciousness-transformation → v.9 takes this up and draws out the twofold entering into the two selflessnesses |
| Xuanzang's auto-commentary loci | §Verse T31n1590 〔p0075b25–26〕· §Auto-commentary 〔p0075b27–c15〕 (the longest auto-commentary passage among vv.1–9) |
2. The source-verse · the doctrinal thread
The §Verse's four lines [give] two enterings in succession: the upper two lines 「依此教能入，數取趣無我」 ("relying on this teaching one can enter, the selflessness of the pudgala") state the first entering (by way of the teaching of the twelve bases → the selflessness of the person); the lower two lines 「所執法無我，復依餘教入」 ("the selflessness of the dharmas clung to, is entered by relying further on another teaching") state the second entering (by way of the teaching of consciousness-only → the selflessness of dharmas). The twofold occurrence of 「能入」 ("can enter") marks the two selflessnesses as not laid out side by side but as a twofold process of entering by means of a teaching (依教而入之雙重歷程).
The auto-commentary unfolds in three sections: (i) the teaching and the entered-into for the two enterings; (ii) against the objection "if consciousness-only, then everything is nothing" (若唯識則一切無), it makes a twofold cut — 〔delimiting the scope〕 the selflessness of dharmas negates only 「愚夫遍計所執自性差別諸法」 ("the dharmas as differentiated by the wholly-imagined nature clung to by the childish"), not the ineffable dharma-nature; 〔consciousness-only empties itself〕 「餘識所執此唯識性其體亦無」 ("this nature of consciousness-only that is clung to by another consciousness — its substance too is without [reality]"); (iii) it closes on 「立唯識教，普令悟入一切法無我，非一切種撥有性故」 ("consciousness-only is established as a teaching, to make all universally enter into the selflessness of all dharmas; it is not that the existent-nature is swept away in every kind whatsoever").
3. Scripture and treatise: the grounding (scriptural proof → treatise-root)
- Scriptural proof. The Buddha's teaching of the twelve bases (六根六境, the six sense-faculties and six sense-objects) is what the first entering relies upon; the Buddha's teaching, by hidden intent, of consciousness-only (唯識教) is what the second entering relies upon. The auto-commentary's 「依此所說十二處教」 ("relying on this teaching of the twelve bases set out") and 「復依此餘說唯識教」 ("relying further on the other teaching of consciousness-only set out") take up the Buddha's scriptural establishment of these teachings.
- Scriptural ground for the three natures · ineffable dharma-nature. The auto-commentary's distinction between the 「遍計所執自性」 ("the wholly-imagined nature clung to") and the 「離言法性」 ("the ineffable dharma-nature," which even in the realm of the Buddhas is not [denied to] exist) has its scriptural ground in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, "Chapter on the Absence of Self-Nature" (《解深密經·無自性相品》, a sūtra of the same line), in its teaching of the three characteristics · three non-natures (三相·三無性).
- Treatise-root. Vasubandhu's auto-commentary (T1590) expounds the verse itself, and is the treatise-root of this verse; the treatise's authority joins to the Buddha's scriptural teaching of the twelve bases and the hidden-intent teaching of consciousness-only cited above.
4. The treatise-root in essence (Vasubandhu's auto-commentary, T1590)
Vasubandhu sets up the twofold cut of "breaking the clinging without sweeping away the existent" (破執而不撥有) as the dividing-line between consciousness-only and annihilationism: what is negated is confined to the self-nature-izing reckoning of the wholly-imagined nature (遍計所執), and what is preserved is the manifesting of the object-likenesses of the other-dependent nature (依他起) and the real substance of the perfectly-accomplished nature · ineffable dharma-nature (圓成實·離言法性). The 「唯識性」 ("nature of consciousness-only") too is among what is emptied — to establish consciousness-only is not to set up separately some really-existent thing to replace external objects, but to empty all self-nature-clinging (including the self-nature-clinging directed at consciousness-only itself). Hence the line 「非一切種撥有性」 ("it is not that the existent-nature is swept away in every kind whatsoever") is Vasubandhu's own marking of the doctrinal boundary-stake that consciousness-only is no obstinate emptiness.
5. The ancient masters' readings (古德 · stating their position)
- Dharmapāla, Cheng weishi baosheng lun 《成唯識寶生論》T31n1591 (Tang; tr. Yijing 義淨; a transmitted Chinese witness) — commenting on this verse, it unfolds the systematic argument for the selflessness of dharmas, bringing it within the framework of the three natures (wholly-imagined / other-dependent / perfectly-accomplished — 遍計所執／依他起／圓成實); in Dharmapāla's commentary the grasp of this verse's 「非一切種撥有性」 becomes the doctrinal core of the three-natures teaching. 〔Position stated: Dharmapāla reads this verse through the three natures; this is one of the ancient masters' readings, recorded here only as to its position, not adjudicated.〕
- Vinītadeva, Prakaraṇaviṃśakaṭīkā — extant in Tibetan translation · no transmitted Chinese witness; per convention its name only is recorded, its content not entering as doctrinal ground.
6. Rendering and old-translation comparison (the three Chinese translations)
| Chinese translation | Edition | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang T31n1590 | 「依此教能入，數取趣無我，所執法無我，復依餘教入」 | A five-character quatrain; 「能入」 occurs twice, showing the twofold process of entering into the two selflessnesses; the auto-commentary renders the selflessness of person and of dharmas as 「數取趣無我／所執法無我」 |
| Chen · Paramārtha T31n1589 《大乘唯識論》 | Continuous prose unfolding the derivation of the two selflessnesses | Paramārtha's translation-line connects with the three-natures framework of his Mahāyāna-saṃgraha school (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison) |
| Later Wei · Prajñāruci T31n1588 《唯識論》 | The corresponding position in the verse passage | The translation-choice leans toward the language of the "entering" (悟入) process (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison) |
This layer records Xuanzang's translation as the main text and records the existence of the two Chinese translations of Paramārtha and Prajñāruci; verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text, and what has not been verified against the original text is not recorded verbatim.
7. Terms (Sanskrit per the ancient transmission · pronunciation aid)
| Chinese | Sanskrit (pronunciation aid) | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| 數取趣無我 | pudgala-nairātmya | the selflessness of the person; the pudgala (數取趣) has no real substantial subject |
| 所執法無我 | dharma-nairātmya | the selflessness of dharmas; the dharmas that are clung to have no self-nature |
| 遍計所執自性 | parikalpita-svabhāva | the really-existent self-nature falsely added by ordinary beings; the first of the three natures |
| 離言法性 | — | the ultimate dharma-nature beyond verbal discrimination; realized in the realm of the Buddhas, not swept away by the selflessness of dharmas |
The Sanskrit roman script is a pronunciation aid only; where no ancient-master transliteration is attested, it is left blank, not supplied from modern critical editions.
8. Cross-reading (the Yogācāra sequence)
| Baifa (Hundred Dharmas) | Triṃśikā | Within the Viṃśatikā |
|---|---|---|
| #8 storehouse consciousness ālayavijñāna — the home of its own seeds, the root basis of the transformations of consciousness; the consciousness-system foundation for entering into the two selflessnesses ⭐ | vv.24–25 the three natures · three non-natures 「即依此三性，立彼三無性」 ("upon just these three natures, those three non-natures are established") — the systematization of this verse's 「非一切種撥有性」 | v.8 consciousness from its own seeds — this verse takes up its twofold structure of consciousness-transformation to draw out the two selflessnesses |
| #6 mind-consciousness mano-vijñāna — the subject of the six consciousnesses in 「從六二法有六識轉，都無見者」 ("from the two classes of six dharmas six consciousnesses arise; there is no one who sees"); the consciousness-system core of the selflessness of the person | v.1 the provisional positing of self and dharmas 「彼依識所變」 ("they rest on the transformations of consciousness") — this verse is the auto-commentary unfolding of its doctrinal mechanism | v.10 Refuting Atoms — after §II closes, §III opens; its premise of "breaking the clinging without sweeping away" is just what this verse sets in place |
| #100 suchness tathatā / ineffable dharma-nature — the baifa correlate of this verse's "ultimate dharma-nature not swept away by the selflessness of dharmas" ⭐ | — | v.23 concluding verse 「佛所行」 ("what the Buddhas practise") — the ultimate point to which this verse's "ineffable dharma-nature of the Buddhas' realm" directs |
9. Witness placement
- Chinese verse-text (§Verse): T31n1590 〔p0075b25–26〕 (Xuanzang)
- Chinese auto-commentary (§Auto-commentary): T31n1590 〔p0075b27–c15〕 (Xuanzang; the longest auto-commentary among vv.1–9)
- Doctrinal anchor-scripture: Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, "Chapter on the Absence of Self-Nature" (解深密經·無自性相品), the teaching of the three natures and three non-natures — cross-referenced by name
- Chinese translations collated for comparison: T31n1589 (Paramārtha) · T31n1588 (Prajñāruci) — verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text
- Ancient master's commentary: T31n1591 (Dharmapāla, 《成唯識寶生論》 · a transmitted Chinese witness)