唯識二十論 偈十二 破極微二
偈十一末毘婆沙師退守：原子不相黏，是「聚色」（堆出的粗物）在相黏。偈十二用一個簡單事實戳破它——「聚」不是原子以外的另一種東西，它就是原子。你說「原子不黏、聚色才黏」，可聚色既然就是那堆原子，原子既然不黏，那「黏的」到底是誰？「極微既無合，聚有合者誰」，責任無處可推。
對手若再退「那聚色也不黏」，世親說：可以，但你這一退就拆了自己的理由——你先前說「原子不黏是因為沒方分」，現在聚色明明有方分卻照樣不黏，可見「黏不黏」跟「有沒有方分」根本是兩回事，「不由無方分」。兩頭一堵，「一實極微不成」。
破到這裡「合」這條路已斷，世親不收手，再架更底層的槓桿：這原子到底有沒有「方分」？「若許極微有分無分，俱為大失」——有方分錯、沒方分也錯，「所以者何」把重量交給偈十三。要抓住那把最省力的鑰匙——「聚不異微」：唯識破原子論不靠另立玄理，而是死咬「堆就是原子本身」這個對手也不能否認的事實，讓對手每步退守都退回原地。偈十三再封死「方分」，極微之破於焉鐵案。
At the end of Verse 11 the Vaibhāṣika master fell back to a defensive line: atoms do not stick to one another; it is the "aggregate-form" (聚色 — the coarse stuff heaped up out of atoms) that does the sticking. Verse 12 punctures this with one simple fact — the "aggregate" is not some other thing over and above the atoms; it just is the atoms. You say "atoms don't stick, the aggregate-form does," but since the aggregate-form just is that heap of atoms, and the atoms do not stick, then who exactly is "the sticker"? 「極微既無合，聚有合者誰」 ("Since the atoms do not combine, who is the combiner that makes the aggregate combine?") There is nowhere for the responsibility to be pushed.
If the opponent then falls back to "well then, the aggregate-form doesn't stick either," Vasubandhu says: you may, but with this retreat you have dismantled your own reason — earlier you said "atoms don't stick because they have no spatial parts," but now the aggregate-form plainly does have spatial parts and yet too does not stick, which shows that "sticking or not" and "having or not having spatial parts" are simply two different matters, 「不由無方分」 ("not because of having no spatial parts"). Both ways blocked, "a single real atom is not established" (一實極微不成).
By this point the road of "combining" has been cut off, and Vasubandhu does not let up; he sets up an even more basic lever: does this atom in fact have "spatial parts" at all? 「若許極微有分無分，俱為大失」 ("if you grant the atom has parts or has no parts, both alike are a grave fault") — having spatial parts is wrong, having none is wrong too, and 「所以者何」 ("Why so?") hands the weight over to Verse 13. Grasp the key that takes least effort — "the aggregate is not other than the atoms" (聚不異微): Yogācāra refutes atomism not by setting up some further abstruse principle, but by biting down hard on the fact even the opponent cannot deny — "the heap just is the atoms themselves" — so that every step of his retreat leads right back to where he started. Verse 13 then seals off "spatial parts" as well, and the refutation of atoms becomes an ironclad case.
§頌
極微既無合，聚有合者誰？ 或相合不成，不由無方分。
§論（世親自註）
論曰：今應詰彼所說理趣。既異極微無別聚色，極微無合聚合者誰？若轉救言：「聚色展轉，亦無合義。」則不應言：「極微無合，無方分故。」聚有方分，亦不許合。故極微無合，不由無方分。是故一實極微不成。又許極微合與不合，其過且爾。若許極微有分無分，俱為大失。所以者何？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
極微既然沒有相合， 那「聚色相合」的「能合者」又是誰呢？ 或者（你說聚色）也相合不成—— 那可見「（極微）不相合」並不是因為沒有方分。
§論 白話
世親解釋這首偈。
現在應該詰問對方所說的道理。既然離開極微並沒有另一種「聚色」（聚色就是極微），那麼極微既然沒有相合，「聚色相合」的能合者又是誰呢？
如果對方再轉個說法來救：「聚色彼此之間，其實也沒有相合這回事。」那麼，對方就不該再說：「極微之所以沒有相合，是因為它沒有方分。」——因為聚色明明有方分，卻一樣不許它相合。可見「極微沒有相合」，並不是因為它沒有方分。
所以，「一顆實在的極微」根本立不起來。
再說，承認極微相合或不相合，它的過失就如上面所說了。（更進一步，）如果承認極微「有方分」或「無方分」，兩種都是大過失。為什麼呢？世親用下一首偈來說明。
§Verse — plain reading
Since the atoms (極微 paramāṇu) do not, after all, combine, who then is the "combiner" that makes the aggregate-form (聚色) combine? Or [if you say the aggregates too] fail to combine — then it is plain that [the atoms'] "not combining" is not because they have no spatial parts.
§Treatise — plain reading
Vasubandhu explains this verse.
Now one should press the opponent on what he has claimed. Since, apart from the atoms, there is no further thing called "aggregate-form" (the aggregate-form just is the atoms), then, the atoms having no combining, who is the "combiner" that makes the aggregate-form combine?
Suppose the opponent shifts his words again to save himself: "Among the aggregate-forms there is, in fact, no such thing as combining either." Then the opponent ought no longer to say: "The reason the atoms do not combine is that they have no spatial parts." For the aggregate-forms plainly do have spatial parts, and yet they too are not allowed to combine. So it is plain that "the atoms do not combine" is not because they have no spatial parts.
Therefore "a single real atom" simply cannot be established.
Further: granting that the atoms combine or do not combine, the fault is as stated above. (And going one step further,) granting that the atoms "have spatial parts" or "have no spatial parts" — both alike are a grave fault. Why so? Vasubandhu explains it with the verse that follows.
一句話戳破退守
偈十一末，毘婆沙師退守：原子不相黏，是「聚色」（堆出來的粗物）在相黏。世親偈十二就來戳破它，用的是一個再簡單不過的事實——「聚」不是原子以外的另一種東西，它就是原子。
把這個事實一擺，退守立刻塌：你說「原子不黏，聚色才黏」；可聚色既然就是那堆原子，原子既然不黏，那「黏的」到底是誰？——「極微既無合，聚有合者誰？」根本找不出一個「能黏的」來。你想把黏的責任從原子推給聚色，可聚色背後還是原子，責任無處可推。
連退守的退守也堵掉
對手也許還想再退：「那好，乾脆連聚色也不黏。」世親說：可以，但你這一退，等於把自己先前的理由也拆了。你先前說「原子之所以不黏，是因為它沒有方分」；現在聚色明明有方分，卻照樣不黏——那可見「黏不黏」跟「有沒有方分」根本是兩回事！「不由無方分」。你原先拿「無方分」當原子不黏的理由，現在這理由自己作廢了。
兩頭一堵：說聚色黏，找不出黏者；說聚色也不黏，又證明「無方分」不是不黏的原因。無論哪條路，「一顆實在的原子」都立不起來——「一實極微不成」。
還沒完：再開一條更狠的戰線
破到這裡，「合」這條路已經斷了。但世親不收手，反而又架起一根更根本的槓桿。他說：剛才談的是原子「黏不黏」的過失；現在換個更底層的問法——這原子到底有沒有「方分」（有沒有方向上的部分）？他撂下一句：「若許極微有分無分，俱為大失」——你說它有方分，錯；說它沒方分，也錯。為什麼？「所以者何？」——這一問，把全部重量交給偈十三。
承衍
偈十二做完兩件事：一是徹底破掉「聚色能合」的退守（聚不異微、無合與方分無關），坐實「一實極微不成」；二是把戰線從「合」推進到「方分」，撂下「有分無分俱為大失」的新兩難。讀偈十二，要抓住那把最省力的鑰匙——「聚不異微」：唯識破原子論，靠的不是另立玄理，而是死死咬住「堆就是原子本身」這個對手也不能否認的事實，讓對手每一步退守都退回原地。偈十三接著把「方分」這條也封死，極微之破於焉鐵案。
One sentence that punctures the retreat
At the end of Verse 11 the Vaibhāṣika master fell back to a defensive line: atoms do not stick to one another; it is the "aggregate-form" (聚色 — the coarse stuff heaped up out of atoms) that does the sticking. Verse 12 comes to puncture this, and it does so with a fact about as simple as facts come — the "aggregate" is not some other thing over and above the atoms; it just is the atoms.
Lay that fact down and the retreat collapses at once: you say "atoms don't stick, the aggregate-form sticks"; but since the aggregate-form just is that heap of atoms, and the atoms do not stick, then who exactly is "the sticker"? — 「極微既無合，聚有合者誰？」 ("Since the atoms do not combine, who is the combiner that makes the aggregate combine?") There is simply no "combiner" to be found. You meant to push the responsibility for sticking off the atoms and onto the aggregate-form; but behind the aggregate-form there are still only atoms, and so there is nowhere for the responsibility to be pushed.
Even the retreat behind the retreat is blocked off
The opponent may want to fall back once more: "All right then — let's just say the aggregate-form doesn't stick either." Vasubandhu says: you may, but with this retreat you have dismantled your own earlier reason. Earlier you said "the reason atoms don't stick is that they have no spatial parts (方分)"; now the aggregate-form plainly does have spatial parts, and yet it too does not stick — so it is plain that "sticking or not" and "having or not having spatial parts" are simply two different matters! 「不由無方分」 ("not because of having no spatial parts"). The "no spatial parts" you originally took as the reason atoms don't stick has now invalidated itself.
Both ways are blocked: say the aggregate-form sticks, and no sticker can be found; say the aggregate-form too does not stick, and this proves that "no spatial parts" is not the reason for not sticking. Whichever road you take, "a single real atom" cannot be established — 「一實極微不成」 ("a single real atom is not established").
Not done yet: a fiercer front is opened
By this point the road of "combining" (合) has been cut off. But Vasubandhu does not let up; instead he sets up an even more fundamental lever. He says: what we have just been discussing is the fault in atoms' "sticking or not"; now let us change to a more basic question — does this atom in fact have "spatial parts" (have directional parts) at all? And he lays down a line: 「若許極微有分無分，俱為大失」 ("if you grant the atom has parts or has no parts, both alike are a grave fault") — say it has spatial parts, wrong; say it has no spatial parts, also wrong. Why? 「所以者何？」 ("Why so?") — with this question he hands the whole weight over to Verse 13.
Carried forward (承衍)
Verse 12 does two things. First, it thoroughly demolishes the retreat that "the aggregate-form can combine" (the aggregate is not other than the atoms; combining has nothing to do with spatial parts), making good the conclusion that "a single real atom is not established." Second, it pushes the front from "combining" forward to "spatial parts," laying down the new dilemma that "having parts or no parts, both alike are a grave fault." In reading Verse 12, grasp the key that takes least effort — "the aggregate is not other than the atoms" (聚不異微): Yogācāra refutes atomism not by setting up some further abstruse principle, but by biting down hard on the one fact even the opponent cannot deny — "the heap just is the atoms themselves" — so that every step of the opponent's retreat leads him right back to where he started. Verse 13 then seals off the "spatial parts" road as well, and with that the refutation of atoms becomes an ironclad case.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
| 系統 | 此偈之位 |
|---|---|
| 全論五段 | §參 破極微（偈十–十四）之正破偈（二）。偈十一出毘婆沙師救（極微無合·聚色有合）→ 偈十二破此救：聚不異微，極微無合則聚無合者；且聚有方分亦不許合，故「極微無合」不由無方分 → 偈十三 破方分 |
| 偈十一→偈十二 | 偈十一斷「此亦不然」未展，偈十二正破——抽掉「聚色能合而極微不能」之立足點，並指出「極微無合」與「方分之有無」無關 |
| 玄奘段位 | §頌〔p0076a06–07〕· §論自註〔p0076a08–13〕 |
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
§頌兩問一斷：「極微既無合，聚有合者誰？」——聚色不異極微，極微既無合，則聚色無「能合者」；「或相合不成，不由無方分」——若轉救「聚色亦無合」，則「極微無合是因無方分」之理由自破（聚有方分而亦無合，可見無合與方分無關）。
§論三節：(一)詰——異極微既無別聚色，極微無合則聚之合者誰？(二)轉救與反破——若救「聚色展轉亦無合」，則不應說「極微無合因無方分」；聚有方分亦不許合，故極微無合不由無方分。(三)結與轉——「一實極微不成」；又極微合與不合之過已如上，更進「極微有分無分俱為大失」，啟偈十三（方分難）。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
- 經證：聚色之粗、可見，現量共許；世親即以「聚不異微」之事實，使「聚能合而微不能」之救自壞。
- 論本：世親自註（T1590）以「聚不異微」反詰合者，並破「無方分故無合」之救，結「一實極微不成」；論本之破，繫於對辯宗（有部）自設之概念，逐節拆解，不增不判。
四、本論釋要（世親自註 T1590）
本偈專破偈十一所引毘婆沙師之救。其鑰在「異極微無別聚色」——聚色不是極微以外另一種東西，它就是極微。既如此：(一)若說「極微無合、唯聚色合」，可聚色既即是極微，極微無合，「能合的」到底是誰？無人可當合者。(二)若再退「那聚色也無合」，則先前「極微之所以無合，是因為它無方分」這個理由就站不住了——因為聚色明明有方分，卻同樣無合；可見「無合」與「有無方分」根本無關。兩路堵死，「一實極微不成」之結遂定。末又開新軸——不論你給極微「有分」或「無分」，皆成大失——把戰線引向偈十三之方分難。本偈所破之毘婆沙師救為論本明標之對辯宗，志其救語與破，不判其宗之高下。
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）——卷三釋本偈，展開「聚不異微」破合者及無方分救之評破。〔標宗：護法於聚微不異及方分無關之破有詳釋；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 | 「極微既無合，聚有合者誰？或相合不成，不由無方分」 | 五言四句，以「聚不異微·合者誰」破救，並斷「無合不由無方分」；以此為底本 |
| 陳·真諦 T31n1589《大乘唯識論》 | 散文連展破聚合與無方分救（古代漢證·參校） | |
| 後魏·般若流支 T31n1588《唯識論》 | 對應偈頌段以散文出之；逐字以 CBETA 為準（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 |
|---|---|---|
| 聚色 | saṃghāta-rūpa | 極微聚成之粗色；論主指其不異極微 |
| 方分 | digbhāga | 方向之分；本偈斷「無合與方分有無無關」 |
| 合者 | — | 能相合者；聚不異微，故無別合者可立 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| #11 色法——「聚色」即所執粗色；破之即破色為實外境 ⭐ | 偈一「彼依識所變」——粗色亦識變，非極微聚成 | 偈十一 破極微一——本偈破其「聚色有合」之救 |
| #1 眼識——「聚色可見」之能緣 | 偈八 似色現識——聚色似現，非實聚 | 偈十三 破極微三——進破極微之方分 |
| #8 阿賴耶識——色等似境之所變 | 偈十七「故一切唯識」——§參 歸結 | 偈十四 破極微四——結成唯識 |
九、校本定位
- 漢文正文（§頌）：T31n1590〔p0076a06–07〕（玄奘譯）
- 漢文自註（§論）：T31n1590〔p0076a08–13〕（玄奘譯）
- 參校漢譯：T31n1589（真諦《大乘唯識論》）· T31n1588（般若流支《唯識論》）
- 古德釋：T31n1591（護法《成唯識寶生論》卷三·漢有傳本）
1. Doctrinal-outline placement
| System | This verse's place |
|---|---|
| The treatise's five parts | The second refuting-verse of §III Refuting Atoms (破極微) (vv.10–14). Verse 11 puts forth the Vaibhāṣika master's rescue (the atom does not combine · the aggregate-form does combine) → Verse 12 refutes this rescue: the aggregate is not other than the atoms, so if the atoms do not combine then the aggregate has no combiner; moreover the aggregate too, having spatial parts, is not allowed to combine, hence "the atoms' not combining" is not because of having no spatial parts → Verse 13 refutes spatial parts |
| v.11 → v.12 relation | Verse 11 broke off at 「此亦不然」 ("this too is not so") without unfolding it; Verse 12 carries out the direct refutation — pulling away the footing of "the aggregate-form can combine while the atoms cannot," and pointing out that "the atoms' not combining" has nothing to do with "the presence or absence of spatial parts" |
| Xuanzang's textual loci | §Verse 〔p0076a06–07〕· §Auto-commentary 〔p0076a08–13〕 |
2. The source-verse · the doctrinal thread
The §Verse poses two questions and one judgment: 「極微既無合，聚有合者誰？」 ("Since the atoms do not combine, who is the combiner that makes the aggregate combine?") — the aggregate-form is not other than the atoms, and since the atoms do not combine, the aggregate-form has no "combiner"; 「或相合不成，不由無方分」 ("or [if] combining fails to hold, [it is] not because of having no spatial parts") — if [the opponent] shifts to the rescue that "the aggregate-form too does not combine," then his reason "the atoms' not combining is because of having no spatial parts" refutes itself (the aggregate has spatial parts and yet too does not combine, which shows that not-combining has nothing to do with spatial parts).
The §Treatise has three movements: (i) the challenge — apart from the atoms there is no separate aggregate-form, so if the atoms do not combine, who is the aggregate's combiner? (ii) the shifted rescue and the counter-refutation — if [the opponent] rescues with "the aggregate-form, one with another, too does not combine," then he should not say "the atoms do not combine because of having no spatial parts"; the aggregate has spatial parts and yet too is not allowed to combine, hence the atoms' not combining is not because of having no spatial parts. (iii) the conclusion and the turn — 「一實極微不成」 ("a single real atom is not established"); and further, the fault of the atoms' combining and not-combining is as above, and pressing on, 「極微有分無分俱為大失」 ("the atom having parts or having no parts, both alike are a grave fault"), opening Verse 13 (the difficulty of spatial parts).
3. Scripture and treatise: the grounding (scriptural proof → treatise-root)
- Scriptural proof. That aggregate-form is coarse and visible is jointly granted by direct perception (現量共許 pratyakṣa); Vasubandhu uses precisely this fact of "the aggregate is not other than the atoms" (聚不異微) to make the rescue "the aggregate can combine while the atom cannot" collapse of itself.
- Treatise-root. Vasubandhu's auto-commentary (T1590), with "the aggregate is not other than the atoms" (聚不異微), challenges back at the combiner, and refutes the rescue "no combining because of no spatial parts" (無方分故無合), concluding 「一實極微不成」 ("a single real atom is not established"); the treatise's refutation fastens onto the concepts the disputed school (the Sarvāstivāda) sets up for itself, dismantling them movement by movement, neither adding to them nor passing judgment on them.
4. The treatise-root in essence (Vasubandhu's auto-commentary, T1590)
This verse refutes specifically the Vaibhāṣika master's rescue cited in Verse 11. Its key lies in 「異極微無別聚色」 ("apart from the atoms there is no separate aggregate-form") — the aggregate-form is not some other thing over and above the atoms; it just is the atoms. This being so: (i) if one says "the atoms do not combine, only the aggregate-form combines," then since the aggregate-form just is the atoms, and the atoms do not combine, who exactly is "the combiner"? No one can serve as combiner. (ii) If one then falls back to "the aggregate-form too does not combine," then the earlier reason "the atoms do not combine because they have no spatial parts" cannot stand — for the aggregate-form plainly has spatial parts and yet too does not combine; which shows that "not-combining" has nothing to do with "the presence or absence of spatial parts." Both roads blocked, the conclusion 「一實極微不成」 ("a single real atom is not established") is then settled. At the end it opens a new axis — whichever you assign the atom, "having parts" or "having no parts," both come to a grave fault — drawing the front toward the difficulty of spatial parts in Verse 13. The Vaibhāṣika rescue refuted in this verse is the disputed school explicitly named in the treatise-root; [the treatise] records its rescue-words and the refutation, without passing judgment on the relative merit of its school.
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) — fascicle three expounds this verse, unfolding the critical refutation of the combiner by "the aggregate is not other than the atoms" (聚不異微) and of the no-spatial-parts rescue. 〔Position stated: Dharmapāla gives a detailed exposition of the refutation as to the non-difference of aggregate and atom and the irrelevance of spatial parts; 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 | 「極微既無合，聚有合者誰？或相合不成，不由無方分」 | A five-character quatrain; it refutes the rescue by "the aggregate is not other than the atoms · who is the combiner" (聚不異微·合者誰), and judges that "not-combining is not because of having no spatial parts" (無合不由無方分); taken here as the base text |
| Chen · Paramārtha T31n1589 《大乘唯識論》 | Unfolds in continuous prose the refutation of aggregate-combining and of the no-spatial-parts rescue (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison) | |
| Later Wei · Prajñāruci T31n1588 《唯識論》 | Renders the corresponding verse-passage in prose; verbatim follows CBETA as the standard (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison) |
Verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text; what has not been collated against the original text is not recorded verbatim.
7. Terms (Sanskrit per the ancient transmission · pronunciation aid)
| Chinese | Sanskrit (pronunciation aid) | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| 聚色 | saṃghāta-rūpa | the coarse form aggregated out of atoms; the treatise-master indicates it is not other than the atoms |
| 方分 | digbhāga | directional parts; this verse judges "not-combining has nothing to do with the presence or absence of spatial parts" |
| 合者 | — | the one that does the combining; the aggregate not being other than the atoms, no separate combiner can be established |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| #11 form-dharma (色法) — "aggregate-form" is just the grasped coarse form; to refute it is to refute form as a real external object ⭐ | v.1 「彼依識所變」 ("that rests on the transformation of consciousness") — coarse form too is a transformation of consciousness, not aggregated out of atoms | Verse 11 Refuting Atoms (I) — this verse refutes its rescue that "the aggregate-form has combining" |
| #1 eye-consciousness — that which apprehends "the visible aggregate-form" | v.8 the consciousness in which form seems to appear (似色現識) — the aggregate-form seems to appear, it is not a real aggregate | Verse 13 Refuting Atoms (III) — pressing on to refute the atom's spatial parts |
| #8 storehouse consciousness (阿賴耶識) — that which transforms so that form and the rest seem like objects | v.17 「故一切唯識」 ("therefore all is consciousness-only") — §III's conclusion | Verse 14 Refuting Atoms (IV) — concluding into consciousness-only |
9. Witness placement
- Chinese verse-text (§Verse): T31n1590 〔p0076a06–07〕 (Xuanzang's translation)
- Chinese auto-commentary (§Treatise): T31n1590 〔p0076a08–13〕 (Xuanzang's translation)
- Chinese translations collated for comparison: T31n1589 (Paramārtha, 《大乘唯識論》) · T31n1588 (Prajñāruci, 《唯識論》) — verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text
- Ancient master's commentary: T31n1591 (Dharmapāla, 《成唯識寶生論》fascicle three · a transmitted Chinese witness)