楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 卷二 · 緣起·常聲·如幻·名身
夏日午後的柏油路上，遠遠一汪水光在晃。你走近，它退開；再走近，它又退開——那水一輩子也走不到，因為它從來就不在那裡，只是熱氣騙了眼睛。可它偏偏分明地晃在眼前。
我們見的一切，多半是這樣一汪走不到的水。大慧追問世尊：緣起既說因、說緣，怎麼不落外道那「別有一因」的窠臼、也不墮進因追事、事追因的無窮？世尊只答一句：此有故彼有——能取的、所取的都無實性，唯是你自心現量。因不在路的那頭，在你眼底。
那汪陽焰為什麼「常」？不是它凝住不動，而是它相相不壞——一水四見，餓鬼見膿、餘趣見水，隨業變現而其變現的理不曾壞。聖者見它如幻、不實、速滅如電，剎那一現即滅；凡夫卻把它認作實水，又借名字、句子替它安個實有的身，於是像巨象陷進深泥，愈掙愈陷。
同一汪水，執之則象溺深泥，觀之則疾得菩提。分野只在一念：計著，還是不計著。
且入此段，看那你追了半生的水光，究竟從哪片自心現量裡晃起。
On a summer afternoon a pool of water-light wavers on the asphalt road, far off ahead. You walk toward it, and it draws back; you walk nearer, and it draws back again — that water you will never reach in a whole lifetime, because it was never there at all; it is only the heat deceiving the eyes. And yet there it plainly wavers, before you.
Most of what we see is water of this kind, a pool one can never reach. Mahāmati presses the World-Honored One: dependent origination speaks of cause and of condition — how does it not fall into the outsiders' rut of "some cause set apart," nor sink into the endlessness of cause chasing thing and thing chasing cause? The World-Honored One answers with a single line: this being, that is — the grasper and the grasped are alike without real nature; there is only your own mind's manifestation. The cause is not at the far end of the road; it is beneath your own eye.
Why is that pool of heat-shimmer "constant"? Not because it stiffens and stops, but because mark and mark do not perish — one water, four seeings, the hungry ghost seeing pus and the other destinies seeing water, manifesting differently according to deeds while the principle of that manifesting has never perished. The noble one sees it as illusion-like, unreal, swiftly perishing like lightning, manifesting in an instant and in an instant gone; but the common person takes it for real water, and further borrows names and sentences to set up a real body for it — and so, like a giant elephant sunk in deep mire, sinks the more it struggles.
One and the same pool of water: cling to it, and it is the elephant sunk in mire; observe it, and it is the swift winning of awakening. The whole divide lies in a single thought — to cling, or not to cling.
Now enter this span, and look: that water-light you have chased half your life — out of what stretch of your own mind's manifestation, after all, does it waver into being?
T16n0670 逐字節錄〔起 T16 0493a05〕· 復次大慧/白佛言 段 ＝
#### 〔出處〕· 機械抽取 2026-07-02。非詮釋。
〔T16 0493a05〕
爾時，大慧菩薩摩訶薩復白佛言：「世尊！佛說緣起，如是說因緣，不自說道。世尊！外道亦說因緣，謂：勝、自在、時、微塵生，如是諸性生。然，世尊所謂因緣生諸性，言說有間悉檀、無間悉檀。世尊！外道亦說有無有生，世尊亦說無有生，生已滅。如世尊所說：『無明緣行，乃至老死』，此是世尊無因說，非有因說。世尊建立作如是說：『此有故彼有』，非建立漸生，觀外道說勝，非如來也。所以者何？世尊！外道說因，不從緣生而有所生。世尊說觀因有事，觀事有因。如是因緣雜亂，如是展轉無窮。」
佛告大慧：「我非無因說，及因緣雜亂說。此有故彼有者，攝所攝非性，覺自心現量。大慧！若攝所攝計著，不覺自心現量，外境界性非性，彼有如是過，非我說緣起。我常說言：『因緣和合而生諸法』，非無因生。」
大慧復白佛言：「世尊！非言說有性，有一切性耶？世尊！若無性者，言說不生。世尊！是故言說有性，有一切性。」
佛告大慧：「無性而作言說，謂兔角龜毛等，世間現言說，大慧！非性非非性，但言說耳。如汝所說，言說自性，有一切性者，汝論則壞。大慧！非一切剎土有言說。言說者，是作耳。或有佛剎瞻視顯法，或有作相、或有揚眉、或有動睛、或笑、或欠、或謦咳、或念剎土、或動搖。大慧！如瞻視，及香積世界，普賢如來國土，但以瞻視令諸菩薩得無生法忍，及殊勝三昧。是故，非言說有性有一切性。大慧！見此世界蚊蚋蟲蟻，是等眾生，無有言說，而各辦事。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「如虛空兔角，及與槃大子，
無而有言說，如是性妄想。
因緣和合法，凡愚起妄想，
不能如實知，輪迴三有宅。」
〔T16 0493b11〕
爾時，大慧菩薩摩訶薩復白佛言：「世尊！常聲者，何事說？」
佛告大慧：「為惑亂。以彼惑亂，諸聖亦現，而非顛倒。大慧！如春時炎、火輪、垂髮、乾闥婆城、幻、夢、鏡像。世間顛倒，非明智也，然非不現。大慧！彼惑亂者，有種種現，非惑亂作無常。所以者何？謂離性非性故。大慧！云何離性非性惑亂？謂一切愚夫種種境界故。如彼恒河，餓鬼見不見故，無惑亂性；於餘現故，非無性。如是惑亂，諸聖離顛倒不顛倒。是故惑亂常，謂相相不壞故。大慧！非惑亂種種相妄想相壞，是故惑亂常。大慧！云何惑亂真實？若復因緣，諸聖於此惑亂，不起顛倒覺、非不顛倒覺。大慧！除諸聖，於此惑亂有少分想，非聖智事想。
「大慧！凡有者，愚夫妄說，非聖言說。彼惑亂者，倒不倒妄想，起二種種性，謂：聖種性，及愚夫種性。聖種性者，三種分別。謂：聲聞乘、緣覺乘、佛乘。云何愚夫妄想，起聲聞乘種性？謂：自共相計著，起聲聞乘種性，是名妄想起聲聞乘種性。大慧！即彼惑亂妄想，起緣覺乘種性。謂：即彼惑亂自共相，不觀計著，起緣覺乘種性。云何智者？即彼惑亂想，起佛乘種性。謂：覺自心現量，外性非性，不妄想相，起佛乘種性，是名即彼惑亂起佛乘種性。又種種事性，凡夫惑想，起愚夫種性。彼非有事，非無事，是名種性義。大慧！即彼惑亂不妄想，諸聖心、意、意識過習氣自性法轉變性，是名為如。是故說如離心。我說此句顯示離想，即說離一切想。」
大慧白佛言：「世尊！惑亂為有為無？」
佛告大慧：「如幻，無計著相。若惑亂有計著相者，計著性不可滅，緣起應如外道，說因緣生法。」
大慧白佛言：「世尊！若惑亂如幻者，復當與餘惑作因。」
佛告大慧：「非幻惑因，不起過故。大慧！幻不起過，無有妄想。大慧！幻者從他明處生，非自妄想過習氣處生，是故不起過。大慧！此是愚夫心惑計著，非聖賢也。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「聖不見惑亂，中間亦無實，
中間若真實，惑亂即真實。
捨離一切惑，若有相生者，
是亦為惑亂，不淨猶如翳。
「
〔T16 0493c23〕
復次，大慧！非幻無有相似，見一切法如幻。」
大慧白佛言：「世尊！為種種幻相計著，言一切法如幻？為異相計著？若種種幻相計著，言一切性如幻者，世尊！有性不如幻者。所以者何？謂色種種相非因。世尊！無有因色種種相現如幻。世尊！是故無種種幻相計著相似性如幻。」
佛告大慧：「非種種幻相計著相似，一切法如幻。大慧！然不實一切法，速滅如電，是則如幻。大慧！譬如電光，剎那頃現，現已即滅，非愚夫現。如是一切性，自妄想自共相，觀察無性，非現色相計著。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「非幻無有譬，說法性如幻；
不實速如電，是故說如幻。」
大慧復白佛言：「如世尊所說，一切性無生，及如幻，將無世尊前後所說自相違耶？說無生性如幻。」
佛告大慧：「非我說無生性如幻前後相違過。所以者何？謂生無生，覺自心現量。有非有，外性非性，無生現。大慧！非我前後說相違過，然壞外道因生，故我說一切性無生。大慧！外道癡聚，欲令有無有生，非自妄想種種計著緣。大慧！我非有無有生，是故我以無生說而說。大慧！說性者，為攝受生死故，壞無見斷見故，為我弟子攝受種種業受生處故，以性聲說，攝受生死。大慧！說幻性自性相，為離性自性相故，墮愚夫惡見相悕望，不知自心現量。壞因所作生，緣自性相計著。說幻夢自性相一切法，不令愚夫惡見悕望，計著自及他一切法，如實處見，作不正論。大慧！如實處見一切法者，謂起自心現量。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「無生作非性，有性攝生死，
觀察如幻等，於相不妄想。
「
〔T16 0494a28〕
復次，大慧！當說名句形身相。善觀名句形身菩薩摩訶薩，隨入義句形身，疾得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。如是覺已，覺一切眾生。大慧！名身者，謂若依事立名，是名名身。句身者，謂句有義身，自性決定究竟，是名句身。形身者，謂顯示名句，是名形身。又形身者，謂長短高下。又句身者，謂徑跡。如象馬人獸等所行徑跡，得句身名。大慧！名及形者，謂以名說無色四陰，故說名。自相現，故說形。是名名句形身。說名句形身相分齊，應當修學。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「名身與句身，及形身差別，
凡夫愚計著，如象溺深泥。
「
〔T16 0494b13〕
復次，大慧！未來世智者，當以離一異、俱不俱見相，我所通義，問無智者。彼即答言：『此非正問。』謂色等常無常，為異不異？如是涅槃、諸行相所相、求那所求那造所造、見所見、塵及微塵、修與修者，如是比展轉相。如是等問，而言佛說無記止論。非彼癡人之所能知，謂聞慧不具故。如來、應供、等正覺，令彼離恐怖句故，說言無記，不為記說。又止外道見論故，而不為說。大慧！外道作如是說，謂：『命即是身。』如是等無記論。大慧！彼諸外道愚癡，於因作無記論，非我所說。大慧！我所說者，離攝所攝，妄想不生。云何止彼？大慧！若攝所攝計著者，不知自心現量，故止彼。大慧！如來、應供、等正覺，以四種記論為眾生說法。大慧！止記論者，我時時說，為根未熟，不為熟者。 「
〔T16 0494b29〕
復次，大慧！一切法，離所作因緣不生，無作者故，一切法不生。大慧！何故一切性離自性？以自覺觀時，自共性相不可得故，說一切法不生。何故一切法不可持來，不可持去？以自共相，欲持來，無所來；欲持去，無所去；是故一切法，離持來去。大慧！何故一切諸法不滅？謂性自性相無故，一切法不可得，故一切法不滅。大慧！何故一切法無常？謂相起無常性，是故說一切法無常。大慧！何故一切法常？謂相起無生性，無常常，故說一切法常。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「記論有四種，一向及詰問，
分別及止論，以制諸外道。
有及非有生，僧佉毘舍師，
一切悉無記，彼如是顯示。
正覺所分別，自性不可得，
以離於言說，故說離自性。」
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.
本分名相（緣起、悉檀、無明緣行、此有故彼有、攝所攝、自心現量、常聲、惑亂、如幻、名句形身、四種記論等）一仍其舊。
緣起：此有故彼有，非外道無因、非因緣雜亂
那時，大慧菩薩摩訶薩又對佛說：「世尊！佛說緣起，是這樣說因、說緣，卻不曾自說出那道理來。世尊！外道也說因緣，他們講：由『勝妙』、由『自在天』、由『時』、由『微塵』生出——如是種種體性都這樣生。可是，世尊所說『因緣生種種體性』，在言說上有『有間悉檀』、有『無間悉檀』。世尊！外道也說有無有之生，世尊也說『無有生、生了以後又滅』。像世尊所說的：『無明緣行，乃至老死』，這在人看來是世尊的無因之說，不是有因之說。世尊建立起來，作這樣的說法：『此有故彼有』，卻不是建立起漸次的生——這樣看，外道所說反倒顯得殊勝，不如如來了。為什麼這樣說呢？世尊！外道說因，是不從緣生而別有所生的；世尊說的卻是『觀因而有事、觀事而有因』。這樣一來，因與緣豈不雜亂了？如此輾轉推求，豈不無窮無盡了？」
佛告訴大慧：「我並不是無因之說，也不是因緣雜亂之說。我說『此有故彼有』，意思是：能攝取的與所攝取的都沒有實性，唯是覺了自心的現量。大慧！若對能攝、所攝起了計著，不覺知那原是自心的現量，把外境界當作有性或無性，他才會有這樣的過失——那可不是我所說的緣起。我常常這樣說：『因緣和合而生種種法』，並不是無因而生。」
大慧又對佛說：「世尊！莫不是言說有實性，才有一切法的實性嗎？世尊！倘若言說無性，言說便不會生起了。世尊！所以正是言說有性，才有一切法的性。」
佛告訴大慧：「就算無性也可以作起言說來，譬如『兔角』、『龜毛』等等，世間現有這樣的言說。大慧！這些是非有性、也非非有性，只是言說罷了。像你所說的，若『言說有自性，便有一切法的性』，那麼你的論便壞了。大慧！並不是一切剎土都有言說。言說這樁事，只是造作出來的罷了。或有佛剎是以瞻視來顯法的，或以作相、或以揚眉、或以動睛、或以微笑、或以呵欠、或以謦欬（清嗓）、或以憶念剎土、或以動搖，來顯法。大慧！就像那以瞻視顯法，以及香積世界、普賢如來的國土，只用瞻視，便能令諸菩薩證得無生法忍，以及殊勝的三昧。所以說，並不是言說有性、才有一切法的性。大慧！你看這世界裡的蚊、蚋、蟲、蟻，這一類眾生，並沒有言說，卻各各辦得成自己的事。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
就像虛空、兔角，以及那『槃大』之子，
本來沒有卻起了言說，種種體性的妄想也是這樣。
因緣和合而成之法，凡愚卻於其上起了妄想，
不能如實了知，於是輪迴在三有的宅舍裡。
常聲：佛依惑亂而說常，惑亂即常
那時，大慧菩薩摩訶薩又對佛說：「世尊！那『常』的言說，是依什麼事而說的呢？」
佛告訴大慧：「是為著惑亂而說的。就在那惑亂上，諸聖也一樣顯現，卻並不是顛倒。大慧！好比春時的陽焰、旋轉的火輪、目病所見的垂髮、乾闥婆城（蜃樓）、幻、夢、鏡中之像——這些是世間的顛倒，不是明智者所見，然而也不是不現。大慧！那惑亂，有種種的顯現，卻不是惑亂就成了無常。為什麼這樣說呢？因為它是離了『有性』與『無性』的。大慧！怎樣叫作惑亂離了有性、無性呢？就是說，它是一切愚夫種種境界之所現。就像那恒河之水，餓鬼由於業障或見或不見，所以說它沒有一定的惑亂性；而在其餘諸趣則見得到，所以又不是全無性。像這樣的惑亂，諸聖於其上離了顛倒、也離了不顛倒。所以說惑亂是常的——因為它相與相都不壞的緣故。大慧！並不是惑亂的種種相、隨著妄想相就壞了，正因如此，所以說惑亂是常。大慧！怎樣叫作惑亂的真實呢？就是若再論它的因緣，諸聖於這惑亂上，不起顛倒之覺、也不是不顛倒之覺。大慧！除了諸聖之外，凡於這惑亂還有少分想的，那都不是聖智所行境界的想。
「大慧！凡說『有』的，是愚夫的妄說，不是聖者的言說。那惑亂，隨著顛倒或不顛倒的妄想，生起兩種種性，就是：聖種性，以及愚夫種性。聖種性，又有三種分別，就是：聲聞乘、緣覺乘、佛乘。怎樣叫作愚夫以妄想生起聲聞乘種性呢？就是對『自相、共相』起了計著，因而生起聲聞乘種性——這就叫作以妄想生起聲聞乘種性。大慧！就在那同一個惑亂妄想上，也生起緣覺乘種性——就是對那惑亂的自相、共相，不加觀察而起計著，因而生起緣覺乘種性。怎樣叫作智者呢？就在那同一個惑亂之想上，生起佛乘種性——就是覺了自心的現量，知外性非性，不起妄想之相，因而生起佛乘種性，這就叫作就在那惑亂上生起佛乘種性。又，於種種事相之性，凡夫起惑亂之想，因而生起愚夫種性。那惑亂，既不是實有事、也不是全無事——這就叫作『種性』的義理。大慧！就在那同一個惑亂上，不起妄想時，諸聖的心、意、意識，那超過習氣的自性法，便轉變其性了——這就叫作『如』。所以說『如』是離心的。我說這一句，正是要顯示『離想』，也就是說離一切想。」
大慧對佛說：「世尊！那惑亂，是有呢、還是無呢？」
佛告訴大慧：「它如幻一般，沒有可計著的相。倘若惑亂有可計著的相，那所計著的性便不可滅，緣起就該像外道那樣，說『從因緣生法』了。」
大慧對佛說：「世尊！倘若惑亂如幻，那它又該與其餘的惑作因了。」
佛告訴大慧：「並不是這幻作了惑的因，因為它不會生起過失。大慧！幻不生起過失，是由於它本無妄想。大慧！幻是從他人明處（幻師施術之處）而生的，不是從自己妄想的過患習氣處而生的，所以不起過失。大慧！這只是愚夫心裡的惑亂計著，不是聖賢的事。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
聖者不見那惑亂，其中間也沒有實體，
中間若是真實的，惑亂就成了真實了。
若捨離了一切惑，而還有相生起的，
那也就是惑亂，仍不清淨，猶如翳眼所見。
如幻：不實速滅如電，非計著相似之如幻
再者，大慧！並不是這幻沒有可相似之處，才見一切法如幻。」
大慧對佛說：「世尊！是為著對『種種幻相』起計著，才說一切法如幻嗎？還是為著對『異相』起計著呢？倘若是對種種幻相起計著，才說一切法如幻，那麼世尊！便有些法的性不如幻了。為什麼這樣說呢？因為色的種種相並沒有一個作它的因。世尊！並沒有一個因，使色的種種相現得如幻一般。世尊！所以並沒有『對種種幻相起計著的那種相似性』叫作如幻。」
佛告訴大慧：「並不是對種種幻相起計著、那種相似，才說一切法如幻。大慧！而是說一切法不實、迅速壞滅如電光一般，這才叫作如幻。大慧！譬如電光，剎那之頃一現，現了以後隨即壞滅，不是愚夫所現見的。像這樣，一切體性，於自妄想、自相共相上觀察，都是無性的，不該於現前的色相起計著。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
不是這幻沒有可譬喻處，才說法的性如幻；
是因它不實、迅速如電，所以才說如幻。
大慧又對佛說：「像世尊所說的，『一切體性無生』，以及『如幻』——這豈不是世尊前後所說自相矛盾了嗎？既說無生，又說性如幻。」
佛告訴大慧：「我說『無生』、說『性如幻』，並沒有前後相違的過失。為什麼這樣說呢？就是說：生與無生，唯是覺了自心的現量；有與非有，是外性非性，於是『無生』便顯現了。大慧！我並沒有前後相違的過失，然而為了破壞外道『因中生果』的說法，所以我說『一切體性無生』。大慧！外道癡迷成聚，要令『有』與『無有』能生，卻不知那不過是自妄想種種計著之緣。大慧！我並不是說『有』或『無有』能生，所以我用『無生』之說來說。大慧！我所以說『性』，是為了攝受生死，為了破壞『無見（斷見）』，也為了我的弟子攝受種種業、攝受受生之處，才以『性』的言說，來攝受生死。大慧！我所以說『幻性的自性相』，是為了令人遠離『自性相』的執著，免得墮入愚夫的惡見，於相狀上起希望，不知那原是自心的現量。我要破壞那『因中所作而生、於緣自性相起計著』的見，所以說『一切法如幻、如夢的自性相』，好教愚夫不再依惡見而起希望，不再對自己與他人的一切法起計著、在如實之處妄見，作出不正之論。大慧！所謂於如實之處見一切法的，就是指起了自心的現量。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
無生是說它非有實性，說『有性』是為攝受生死，
觀察它如幻等等，便於相狀上不起妄想。
名句形身：善觀三相入義，疾得菩提
再者，大慧！我當說『名身、句身、形身』之相。善於觀察名句形身的菩薩摩訶薩，隨即契入義、句、形身，很快便證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。像這樣覺悟以後，也令一切眾生覺悟。大慧！所謂名身，就是若依著事而立名，這就叫作名身。所謂句身，就是句子裡有義的身，其自性決定、究竟，這就叫作句身。所謂形身，就是顯示名與句的，這就叫作形身。又，所謂形身，是指長、短、高、下。又，所謂句身，是指途徑、蹤跡——就像象、馬、人、獸等等所行走的途徑蹤跡，因而得了『句身』之名。大慧！所謂名與形，是說：以『名』來稱說那無色的四陰，所以說『名』；因自相顯現出來，所以說『形』。這就叫作名句形身。我說名句形身之相的分齊，你們應當修學。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
名身與句身，以及形身的差別，
凡夫愚人於其上起計著，就像大象陷溺在深泥裡。
止論：離一異俱不俱，四種記論攝眾生
再者，大慧！未來世的智者，當以『離一、異、俱、不俱』之見相，就我所通達的義理，去問那沒有智慧的人。那人便會答說：『這不是正當的問法。』就是問：色等是常還是無常？是異還是不異？如是問涅槃、問諸行與相、所相，問求那（德）與所求那，問造與所造，問見與所見，問塵及微塵，問修與修者——像這一類輾轉相關的相。問這一類問題，卻說『佛說此為無記、止論』。這不是那愚癡之人所能了知的，因為他聞慧不具足的緣故。如來、應供、等正覺，為著令他遠離恐怖之句，所以說『無記』，而不為他記別解說；又為著遮止外道的見論，所以不為他說。大慧！外道作這樣的說法，就是說：『命就是身。』如是等等，都屬於無記之論。大慧！那些外道愚癡，於因上作起無記之論，那可不是我所說的。大慧！我所說的，是離了能攝、所攝，妄想不生。那我為什麼要『止』他呢？大慧！若對能攝、所攝起了計著，不知那原是自心的現量，所以才止他。大慧！如來、應供、等正覺，是以四種記論來為眾生說法的。大慧！至於『止記論』（該止而不答的），我也時時說到，那是為著根機未熟的人，不是為根機已熟的人而說。
一切法不生不滅、無常亦常
再者，大慧！一切法，離了『所作』與『因緣』便不生，因為沒有一個作者的緣故，所以一切法不生。大慧！為什麼說一切體性離了自性呢？因為以自覺去觀察時，那自相、共相之性都不可得的緣故，所以說一切法不生。為什麼說一切法不可持之而來、不可持之而去呢？就自相、共相說：想持它而來，卻無所從來；想持它而去，卻無所往去——所以說一切法離了『持來、持去』。大慧！為什麼說一切諸法不滅呢？就是說：它性的自性相本來沒有，一切法都不可得，所以說一切法不滅。大慧！為什麼說一切法無常呢？就是說：相的生起是無常性的，所以說一切法無常。大慧！為什麼又說一切法是常呢？就是說：相的生起原是無生性的，這無常的本身即是常，所以說一切法是常。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
記論有四種：一向記、詰問記（反問而記），
分別記與止論，用來制伏諸外道。
說『有』與『非有』能生的，是僧佉（數論）與毘舍師（勝論），
這一切都是無記，他們卻如是顯示出來。
正覺者所分別的，是那自性不可得，
因它離於言說，所以說『離自性』。
Technical terms of this division (dependent origination, the modes of exposition, ignorance-conditions-formations, this being that is, grasper and grasped, one's own mind's manifestation, the word "constant," the deluding confusion, illusion-like, the name-body-sentence-body-and-form-body, the four modes of exposition, and so on) are kept as they stand.
Dependent origination: this being, that is — not the outsiders' causelessness, not jumbled causal conditions
At that time the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Mahāmati again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! The Buddha teaches dependent origination — He speaks thus of causes and of conditions, yet He has not of Himself stated the reason of it. World-Honored One! The outsiders too speak of causes and conditions; they say: from 'the Supremely-Fine,' from 'the Sovereign Lord,' from 'Time,' from 'the atom' are all sorts of natures thus born. Yet what the World-Honored One states — that 'by causes-and-conditions all sorts of natures are born' — has, in the way it is stated, an exposition-with-interval and an exposition-without-interval. World-Honored One! The outsiders too speak of a being and a non-being arising, and the World-Honored One too speaks of a 'not-yet-arisen arising, and having arisen it ceases again.' As with what the World-Honored One states — 'ignorance conditions the formations, on to old-age-and-death' — this seems, to onlookers, the World-Honored One's causeless teaching, not a teaching with a cause. The World-Honored One sets it up, making this statement: 'this being, that is' — yet He does not set up a gradual, sequential arising. Seen thus, what the outsiders state seems rather the more excellent, and not to be like the Tathāgata. Why do I say so? World-Honored One! When the outsiders state a cause, it is not that something is born from conditions but that there is some cause set apart; whereas what the World-Honored One states is 'observing the cause, there is the thing; observing the thing, there is the cause.' In that case, are not cause and condition thereby jumbled? And, tracing it back and forth like this, is it not endless without limit?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "I do not teach causelessly, nor do I teach jumbled causal conditions. When I say 'this being, that is,' the meaning is: the grasper and the grasped are alike without real nature — there is only the awakening to one's own mind's manifestation. Mahāmati! If one clings to grasper and grasped, and does not awaken that this was one's own mind's manifestation, taking the outer objective realm to be a being or a non-being, then such a one will have the fault you fear — but that is not the dependent origination I state. I constantly say thus: 'By the joining of causes-and-conditions all sorts of dharmas are born,' and not that they are born without a cause."
Mahāmati again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! Is it not that speech has real nature, that there is therefore the real nature of all dharmas? World-Honored One! If speech were without nature, speech would not arise. World-Honored One! It is therefore precisely because speech has nature that there is the nature of all dharmas."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Even the natureless can be made into speech; take 'a hare's horn,' 'a tortoise's hair,' and the like — the world has such speech. Mahāmati! These are neither of real nature nor of non-real nature; they are speech and nothing more. As for what you say — that if 'speech has intrinsic nature, then there is the nature of all dharmas' — thereby your thesis is ruined. Mahāmati! It is not that in all buddha-lands there is speech. Speech, as a matter, is a thing merely fashioned. In some buddha-lands the dharma is shown by gazing; in some by making a sign, or by raising the brow, or by moving the eyes, or by a smile, or by a yawn, or by a clearing of the throat, or by the recollection of a land, or by a trembling. Mahāmati! As with showing the dharma by gazing — and the Fragrance-Accumulated world, the land of the Tathāgata Samantabhadra — by gazing alone can the bodhisattvas be brought to win the forbearance of the unborn dharma, and the excellent samādhis. It is therefore said that it is not that speech has nature, that there is thereby the nature of all dharmas. Mahāmati! Look at the gnats, the midges, the worms, and the ants in this world — this kind of being has no speech, and yet each and every one accomplishes its own business."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
As with empty space, a hare's horn, and the child of a barren woman,
having no [reality] they yet give rise to speech, and so it is with the false imagining of all sorts of natures.
Dharmas formed by the joining of causes-and-conditions — the foolish common person gives rise to false imagining upon them,
and, unable to understand them as they truly are, revolves within the dwelling of the three existences.
The word "constant": the Buddha states "constant" in dependence on the deluding confusion — the deluding confusion is itself the constant
At that time the bodhisattva-mahāsattva Mahāmati again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! That word 'constant' — on what matter is it stated?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is stated for the sake of the deluding confusion. And it is right within that deluding confusion that the noble ones too alike manifest, and yet it is not distortion. Mahāmati! It is like the spring heat-shimmer, the whirling firebrand-wheel, the falling hairs seen by a diseased eye, the mirage-like gandharva-city, illusion, dream, the image in a mirror — these are the distortion of the world, not what the clear-sighted see, and yet they are not un-manifest. Mahāmati! That deluding confusion has all sorts of manifestations, and yet it is not that the deluding confusion thereby becomes impermanent. Why do I say so? Because it is apart from 'being of nature' and 'being of non-nature.' Mahāmati! What is it for the deluding confusion to be apart from being of nature and of non-nature? It is this: it is that which all the foolish manifest as their sundry objective realms. Just as with that water of the Ganges — the hungry ghosts, by the obstruction of their deeds, either see it or see it not, and so it is said to have no fixed nature of deluding confusion; while to the other destinies it is seen, and so again it is not wholly without nature. In a deluding confusion such as this, the noble ones, upon it, are apart from distortion and apart also from non-distortion. It is therefore said that the deluding confusion is constant — because mark and mark do not perish. Mahāmati! It is not that the sundry marks of the deluding confusion perish along with the mark of false imagining; and precisely for this reason it is said that the deluding confusion is constant. Mahāmati! What is the reality of the deluding confusion? It is this: if one goes on to speak of its causes-and-conditions, the noble ones, upon this deluding confusion, give rise neither to a distorted apprehension nor to a non-distorted apprehension. Mahāmati! Apart from the noble ones, any who still hold the least thought concerning this deluding confusion — that is none of it a thought of the realm in which noble wisdom moves.
"Mahāmati! Whoever speaks of 'being' — that is the false speaking of the foolish, not the speaking of the noble ones. That deluding confusion, following the false imagining of distortion or non-distortion, gives rise to two [kinds of] nature-lineage, namely: the noble nature-lineage and the foolish common person's nature-lineage. The noble nature-lineage has, further, three divisions, namely: the śrāvaka-vehicle, the pratyekabuddha-vehicle, and the buddha-vehicle. What is it for the foolish common person, by false imagining, to give rise to the śrāvaka-vehicle nature-lineage? It is this: clinging to the 'particular mark and shared mark,' one gives rise thereby to the śrāvaka-vehicle nature-lineage — this is called giving rise, by false imagining, to the śrāvaka-vehicle nature-lineage. Mahāmati! Right upon that very same deluding confusion and its false imagining, the pratyekabuddha-vehicle nature-lineage too arises — that is, upon the particular mark and shared mark of that deluding confusion, without contemplating one clings, and gives rise thereby to the pratyekabuddha-vehicle nature-lineage. What is it to be the wise? Right upon that very same thought of the deluding confusion, one gives rise to the buddha-vehicle nature-lineage — that is, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation, knowing that the outer nature is without nature, not giving rise to the mark of false imagining, one gives rise thereby to the buddha-vehicle nature-lineage; this is called giving rise, right upon that deluding confusion, to the buddha-vehicle nature-lineage. Again, upon the natures of all sorts of thing-marks, the common person gives rise to the thought of deluding confusion, and gives rise thereby to the foolish common person's nature-lineage. That deluding confusion is neither a really-existent thing nor wholly a non-thing — this is called the meaning of 'nature-lineage.' Mahāmati! Right upon that very same deluding confusion, at the time when no false imagining is given rise to, the noble ones' mind, mentation, and mental consciousness, that intrinsic-nature dharma which surpasses the habit-energy, then transform their nature — and this is called 'suchness.' It is therefore said that suchness is apart from mind. This one statement I make is precisely to show 'apartness from thought,' that is, apartness from all thought."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! That deluding confusion — is it a being, or is it a non-being?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is like an illusion, having no mark that can be clung to. Were the deluding confusion to have a mark that could be clung to, then the nature clung to could not be made to cease, and dependent origination would have to be — as with the outsiders — a saying that 'dharmas are born from causes-and-conditions.'"
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! If the deluding confusion is illusion-like, then it ought to become a cause for the other delusions."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is not that this illusion becomes the cause of delusion, for it does not give rise to fault. Mahāmati! The illusion does not give rise to fault, because it is of itself without false imagining. Mahāmati! The illusion is born from another's place of brightness (the place where the illusionist plies his craft), not born from one's own false imagining, the place of the fault-laden habit-energy — and so it gives rise to no fault. Mahāmati! This is merely the deluding confusion and clinging within the mind of the foolish, and is no matter of the noble and sagely."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
The noble one does not see that deluding confusion, nor is there any real substance in the midst of it;
were the midst of it truly real, the deluding confusion would become real.
If, having cast off all delusion, there yet arises a mark,
that too is deluding confusion, still unpurified, like what the film-covered eye sees.
Illusion-like: unreal and swiftly perishing like lightning — not the illusion-likeness of clinging to a resemblance
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! it is not that this illusion has no point of resemblance, that all dharmas are therefore seen as illusion-like."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! Is it for the sake of clinging to 'the manifold marks of illusion' that all dharmas are said to be illusion-like? Or is it for the sake of clinging to 'a differing mark'? If it be for the sake of clinging to the manifold marks of illusion that all dharmas are said to be illusion-like, then, World-Honored One, there would be some dharmas whose nature is not illusion-like. Why do I say so? Because the manifold marks of form have no single [thing] that is their cause. World-Honored One! There is no single cause that makes the manifold marks of form manifest as though illusion-like. World-Honored One! It is therefore that there is no 'resemblance of clinging to the manifold marks of illusion' to be called illusion-like."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is not that for the sake of clinging to the manifold marks of illusion — that resemblance — all dharmas are said to be illusion-like. Mahāmati! It is rather that all dharmas are unreal, swiftly ruined and perishing like a lightning-flash — and this is what is called illusion-like. Mahāmati! Just as a lightning-flash manifests in an instant, and having manifested at once ruins and perishes, and is not something the foolish [have time to] manifestly see — so it is with every nature: contemplated upon one's own false imagining, upon the particular and shared mark, it is all without nature, and one ought not to cling upon the present marks of form."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
It is not that this illusion has no point of comparison, that the nature of dharmas is said illusion-like;
it is because it is unreal, swift as lightning, that it is therefore said to be illusion-like.
Mahāmati again said to the Buddha: "As with what the World-Honored One states — that 'all natures are unborn,' and again 'illusion-like' — is this not a self-contradiction, an earlier and a later, in what the World-Honored One states? Having said 'unborn,' He again says the nature is illusion-like."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "When I say 'unborn' and say 'the nature is illusion-like,' there is no fault of an earlier-and-later contradiction. Why do I say so? It is this: arising and non-arising are but the awakening to one's own mind's manifestation; being and non-being are 'the outer nature is without nature,' and thereupon 'the unborn' is made manifest. Mahāmati! There is for me no fault of an earlier-and-later contradiction; rather, in order to break the outsiders' saying of 'fruit born within a cause,' I therefore say 'all natures are unborn.' Mahāmati! The outsiders, deluded and clumped together, would have 'being' and 'non-being' be able to arise, not knowing that this is but the condition of one's own false imagining and its manifold clinging. Mahāmati! I do not say that 'being' or 'non-being' is able to arise, and it is therefore that I state it with the teaching of 'the unborn.' Mahāmati! That I state a 'nature' is for the sake of taking in birth-and-death, for the sake of breaking the 'view of nothingness (the view of annihilation),' and for the sake of my disciples — to take in the manifold deeds, to take in the place of receiving birth — that with the speech of 'nature' I take in birth-and-death. Mahāmati! That I state 'the intrinsic mark of illusion-nature' is in order to make one leave behind the clinging to 'the intrinsic mark,' lest one fall into the evil views of the foolish, giving rise to hope upon the marks and states, not knowing that this was one's own mind's manifestation. I would break that view of 'clinging, upon what is made-and-born-within-a-cause, to the intrinsic mark of conditions'; and I therefore say 'all dharmas are like illusion, like a dream in their intrinsic mark,' so as to teach the foolish no longer to give rise to hope in dependence on evil views, no longer to cling to all the dharmas of self and other, or, at the place of the real, to see falsely and make an unrighteous discourse. Mahāmati! As for what is called 'seeing all dharmas at the place of the real' — it means giving rise to one's own mind's manifestation."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
'The unborn' says that it is without real nature; the saying of a 'nature' is for taking in birth-and-death.
Contemplating it as illusion-like and the rest, one gives rise to no false imagining upon the marks and states.
The name-body-sentence-body-and-form-body: observe the three marks well and enter the meaning, swiftly winning awakening
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! I shall now state the marks of the 'name-body, sentence-body, and form-body.' The bodhisattva-mahāsattva who observes the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body well thereupon enters into meaning, sentence, and form-body, and swiftly wins supreme, right, and perfect awakening. And, having thus awakened, he brings all sentient beings likewise to awaken. Mahāmati! What is called the name-body is this: naming set up in dependence on a thing — this is called the name-body. What is called the sentence-body is this: within the sentence there is a body of meaning, its intrinsic nature settled and ultimate — this is called the sentence-body. What is called the form-body is this: that which displays name and sentence — this is called the form-body. Further, what is called the form-body refers to long and short, high and low. Further, what is called the sentence-body refers to the path and the track — as with the paths and tracks trodden by elephant, horse, human, and beast, whereby they win the name of 'sentence-body' [track-body]. Mahāmati! What is called name and form is this: by 'name' one calls those four aggregates that are without form, and so one says 'name'; because the particular mark is made manifest, one says 'form.' This is called the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body. I have stated the delimitation of the marks of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body, in which you should all train."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
The name-body and the sentence-body, and the differences of the form-body —
the foolish common person gives rise to clinging upon them, like a great elephant sunk in deep mire.
The mode of setting-aside: apart from one, other, both, and not-both — the four modes of exposition take in beings
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! the wise of a future age should, with a view apart from 'one, other, both, and not-both,' put a question, in respect of the meaning I have penetrated, to one who is without wisdom. That one will answer, saying: 'This is not a fitting way to ask.' That is, one asks: are form and the rest constant or impermanent? different or not-different? — and so one asks about nirvāṇa; asks about the formations and the mark, the marked; asks about quality and the qualified; asks about the made and the made-thereof; asks about the seer and the seen; asks about the dust and the atom; asks about cultivating and the cultivator — this kind of marks that are traced back and forth in relation. To ask this kind of question, and yet [to be told] 'the Buddha states this as unexplained, a setting-aside' — this is not what that foolish one can understand, because his wisdom-of-hearing is not complete. The Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Awakened One, in order to make him leave behind the phrases that occasion dread, therefore states it as 'unexplained,' and does not explain it for him by way of distinction; and, in order to fend off the outsiders' view-discourses, therefore does not state it for him. Mahāmati! The outsiders frame a doctrine like this, saying: 'The life is the very body.' Such [sayings] as this belong to the discourse of the unexplained. Mahāmati! Those outsiders, foolish, frame a discourse of the unexplained upon the cause — and that is not what I state. Mahāmati! What I state is that, being apart from grasper and grasped, false imagining does not arise. Then why should I 'set him aside'? Mahāmati! If one clings to grasper and grasped, not knowing that this was one's own mind's manifestation, it is therefore that I set him aside. Mahāmati! The Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Perfectly Awakened One, states the dharma for sentient beings by the four modes of exposition. Mahāmati! As for the 'setting-aside mode of exposition' (that which is to be set aside and not answered), I too state it from time to time — it is stated for the sake of those whose faculties are not yet ripe, not stated for those whose faculties are already ripe."
All dharmas are unborn and unperishing, impermanent and yet constant
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! all dharmas, being apart from 'the made' and 'causes-and-conditions,' are unborn — because there is no single doer, all dharmas are unborn. Mahāmati! Why is it said that all natures are apart from intrinsic nature? Because when one contemplates by self-awareness, the natures of the particular mark and the shared mark are none of them to be found — it is therefore said that all dharmas are unborn. Why is it said that all dharmas cannot be borne hither and cannot be borne away? As regards the particular mark and the shared mark: would one bear it hither, there is nowhere it comes from; would one bear it away, there is nowhere it goes to — it is therefore said that all dharmas are apart from 'bearing hither and bearing away.' Mahāmati! Why is it said that all dharmas are unperishing? It is this: the intrinsic mark of their nature is from the first non-existent, and all dharmas are unfindable — it is therefore said that all dharmas are unperishing. Mahāmati! Why is it said that all dharmas are impermanent? It is this: the arising of marks is of an impermanent nature — it is therefore said that all dharmas are impermanent. Mahāmati! And why, again, is it said that all dharmas are constant? It is this: the arising of marks is of itself an unborn nature; this very impermanence is itself the constant — it is therefore said that all dharmas are constant."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
The modes of exposition are of four kinds: the direct exposition, the counter-questioning exposition (answering by asking back),
the distinguishing exposition and the setting-aside — with which to subdue all the outsiders.
Those who say that 'being' and 'non-being' can arise are the Sāṃkhya and the Vaiśeṣika;
all of these are the unexplained, and yet they set it forth thus.
What the Perfectly Awakened One distinguishes is that the intrinsic nature is unfindable;
because it is apart from speech, it is therefore said to be 'apart from intrinsic nature.'
從一個追問起
大慧這回的問，帶著逼人的鋒芒。他說：世尊講緣起，只說因、說緣，卻沒把那道理自己道破；可外道也講因緣——他們說由勝妙、由自在天、由時、由微塵而生。既然雙方都在說「因」「緣」，那世尊說的「無明緣行，乃至老死」，在旁人看來豈不成了無因之說？更麻煩的是：世尊立「此有故彼有」，又說「觀因有事、觀事有因」——因待事而立、事待因而有，這樣輾轉推求，不就墮進因緣雜亂、無窮無盡的泥沼裡了嗎？
這一問問得極准。它把緣起逼到一個死角：要嘛落外道的「別有一因」，要嘛落自己的「輾轉無窮」。而世尊的答，只用了一句話便把兩頭截斷——這一句話，正是整個唯識一系緣起義的根。
攝所攝非性：緣起不在外，在自心現量
世尊答得斬截：我說「此有故彼有」，是說能攝取的與所攝取的都沒有實性，唯是覺了自心的現量。若對能攝、所攝起了計著，不覺那原是自心所現，把外境當作有、當作無，才有大慧所憂的那個過失——那可不是我說的緣起。
這一答的關節，全在「攝所攝非性，覺自心現量」十個字上。古德讀楞伽，正從這裡下刀。宗泐把「此」「彼」二字點得極實：此，就是六根；彼，就是六塵；根塵相由而起，這才是「此有故彼有」的本義。而所以能說「攝所攝非性」，是因為了達因緣所生之法唯是自心所現，其中並無一個真實的能取、也無一個真實的所取。
順著這一刀看下去，大慧的兩難便自行瓦解了。外道的「別有一因」，錯在把因安在心外——勝妙也好、微塵也好，都是離心而立的一個實體。「輾轉無窮」的憂懼，也錯在同一處：只要因與事都被當成心外的實有，它們互相追討，自然沒完沒了。而世尊把整條緣起收回自心：能取所取本無實性，緣起只是自心現量上的此有彼有——根塵相由，如鏡現像，鏡不動而像自呈。境不在外，追討的對象便落了空，雜亂無窮之難自然不生。用唯識的一面鏡子照過來，這正是「唯識無境、能所俱遣」：所取的境非實，能取的識亦不獨立，遍計於此雙遣，緣起還它一個依他起的本來面目。
大慧不甘，又進一步：莫非是言說有實性，才有一切法的性？世尊隨手拈出兔角、龜毛——世間明明說著這些名字，它們卻非有非非有，只是言說罷了。又指香積世界、普賢國土，只用瞻視便令菩薩得無生法忍，何嘗靠言說？再指蚊蚋蟲蟻，無有言說而各各辦事。這一串，把「言說有性故有法性」的執也破了：言說是造作出來的相，不是法的實性所在。
惑亂即常：一水四見，聖凡同觀而異覺
接著大慧問「常聲」：那個「常」字，是依什麼而說的？
世尊的答出人意表：是為著惑亂而說的。而正是在這惑亂上，諸聖也一樣顯現，卻不顛倒。什麼是惑亂？經自己給了一串譬喻：春時的陽焰、旋轉的火輪、目病所見的垂髮、蜃樓般的乾闥婆城、幻、夢、鏡中之像——這些是世間的顛倒所見，非明智者所取，然而也並非不現。
這一串譬喻的分量，全在「非明智，然非不現」八個字。陽焰非水，卻分明晃動在眼前；火輪非輪，卻分明轉成一圈。它不是全然沒有——不是龜毛兔角那樣的一無所有；它也不是真實的有——不是明智者所認的實境。惑亂就懸在這非有非無之間。宗泐點得直白：這七喻正喻顛倒惑亂，凡夫在迷，把本無的當作實有。
而經又添了一個更利的譬喻：恒河。同一條河水，餓鬼因業障或見為膿血、或竟不見，餘趣則見為水。就這「餓鬼見不見」而論，它沒有一定的惑亂性；就「於餘趣現」而論，它又不是全無。一水而隨業異現——這正把「離性非性」四個字，當著眼前演給人看。
問題於是逼到最緊處：既是這樣的惑亂，為什麼說它「常」？世尊答：因為相與相都不壞。惑亂的種種相，並不隨妄想相一同壞去，所以說惑亂是常。這個「常」，不是凡夫執取的那種停住不動的常——恰恰相反，是那隨業變現、念念不同的相，其「相相不壞」的這一面，被指認為常。用唯識這面鏡子照：一水四見，見膿見水各隨其業，這是依他起隨緣的現行；凡愚於此妄計一個定有定無的實水，這是遍計所執；而聖者於此離顛倒不顛倒、了它離性非性，這便是圓成實在依他上的顯現。同一個惑亂，凡聖同觀而異覺——聖者不是別見一物，只是不於此起顛倒之計著。
也正因這一點，經接著把「同一個惑亂」剖出三乘一凡的分野：於自共相起計著，是聲聞種性；於自共相不觀而計著，是緣覺種性；覺自心現量、知外性非性、不起妄想相，是佛乘種性；於種種事相起惑亂想，是愚夫種性。四種種性，並不是四個惑亂，而是就同一個惑亂，起心不同而分。到那不起妄想時，聖者的心、意、意識轉過那習氣的自性，便名為「如」——所以說如是離心的，離想的，離一切想的。這一轉，正是唯識所謂的轉依：不是滅了識別立一個真，而是就在這識上，捨那遍計的執，轉出圓成的如。
大慧再問：那惑亂究竟是有是無？世尊答：如幻，無可計著之相。若惑亂真有可計著的實相，那執取之性便滅不掉，緣起就要墮成外道的「從因緣生法」了。又問：若惑亂如幻，那它豈不又作了餘惑的因？世尊答得極細：幻不作惑的因，因為它本無妄想，不生過失；幻是從幻師施術的明處而生，不是從自妄想的過患習氣而生——這只是愚夫心裡的惑亂計著，不是聖賢的事。這一分，把「幻」與「妄想」判然剖開：幻無妄想，故清淨無過；惑亂之過不在幻，而在凡夫於幻上的計著。
如幻：不實速滅如電
順著「如幻」，經再問一層：說一切法如幻，是取它哪一點像幻？
大慧的疑很細：若說是取「種種幻相」的計著相似，那有些法就不如幻了——因為色的種種相並沒有一個作它的因，並沒有一個因使色現得如幻。世尊糾正得很準：不是取幻相計著的那種相似。一切法之所以如幻，是取它「不實、速滅如電」。
於是經拈出這一段裡最亮的譬喻——電光。譬如電光，剎那之頃一現，現了隨即壞滅，快得連愚夫都來不及現見。一切體性也正是這樣：於自妄想、自相共相上觀察，都是無性的，不該於現前色相起計著。這電光喻，比前面的陽焰、火輪又進了一層：陽焰喻的是非有非無的惑亂，電光喻的是剎那生滅的速滅。它把「如幻」從「像不像一個幻術」的相似義，扭到「剎那即滅、觀之無性」的實義上來。用唯識的鏡子照：所謂「觀察無性、非現色相計著」，正是遍計所執於色相上的雙遣；所謂「速滅如電」，正是依他起念念生滅、剎那不住的本相。
大慧又擒住一個矛盾追問：世尊既說「一切性無生」，又說「如幻」——無生是不生，如幻是宛然而現，這前後豈不打架？世尊答得周密：生與無生，唯是覺自心現量；有與非有，是外性非性，於是「無生」便顯現。我所以說無生，是為破外道「因中生果」；我所以說「性」，是為攝受生死、破斷滅之見、令弟子知有業有受生之處；我所以說「幻夢的自性相」，是為令人離自性相之執，不於相上妄起希望——好教他於如實之處見一切法，那如實之見，就是起了自心現量。這一答把「無生」與「如幻」收成一義的兩面：說「無生」是遮外道的實生，說「如幻」是遮凡愚的實有；一遮生、一遮有，同歸自心現量，何嘗相違。用唯識的話收：無生正是三無性的一面——相無性遮遍計之相，生無性遮依他之實生，勝義無性顯圓成之離言；如幻則是依他起的宛然假現。無生與如幻，本就是三性三無性的一體兩說。
名身、句身、形身：言筌是渡義的舟，象溺深泥是執筌的病
末了經轉到一樁看似平淡、卻通貫全段的事：名身、句身、形身。
善觀名句形身的菩薩，隨即契入義、句、形身，很快便得菩提，自覺覺他。什麼是名身？依事而立名，就是名身。什麼是句身？句子裡有義的身，其自性決定、究竟，就是句身。什麼是形身？顯示名與句的，就是形身，也指長短高下。以名稱說那無色的四陰，故說名；因自相顯現出來，故說形。
這三身，古德讀得極透。宗泐把它判為「三假」——對「聲」這一實而言，名、句、形只是三重假立：名詮它的自性，如但說「眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意」之名；句詮它的差別，如說「眼」有佛眼、法眼、慧眼種種差別；形（文）即是字，為前二者的所依。這一實三假，合起來便是「能詮的教體」——是渡人到義那邊去的舟筏。而唯識立名身、句身、文身於心不相應行之中，正是把這能詮之教安了一個明確的位子：名詮自性、句詮差別、文為二者所依。楞伽在這裡起的名句形身義，唯識論便照這三重承接了下去。
可是經隨即以一偈點出病處：名身與句身及形身的差別，凡夫愚人於其上起計著，就像大象陷溺在深泥裡——愈掙愈陷。這譬喻用得極重。舟本為渡河，執舟不放便渡不成河；名句形身本為入義的筌，凡夫卻執那能詮的差別為實有，於名上、句上、形上處處計著，於是像巨象溺泥，自拔不出。用唯識的鏡子照到底：這正是遍計所執在名言上的現行——把假立的能詮之相執作實法。善觀者不然：他借名句形身之筌渡到所詮之義，得筌而不執筌，隨入義句形身而疾得菩提。同是這三身，執之則象溺深泥，觀之則疾得菩提——分野只在一個「計著」與「不計著」。
至於後文所帶的「四種記論」與「一切法不生不滅、無常亦常」，也還是這同一軸的餘勢：離一異俱不俱之見而以四記論攝眾生，是不落言說兩邊；說一切法無常者，以相起無常性故，說一切法常者，以相起無生性故——無常的當體即是常。這一句，與前面「惑亂即常、相相不壞」正是同一味：不是別立一個常在無常之外，是就無常的相起、見它無生性的那一面，名之為常。
承衍
這一段所立的四義——緣起唯自心現量、惑亂即常、如幻速滅、名句形身——皆歸「覺自心現量」一軸，而後世唯識一系於此各有承接。
承得最實的，是名句形身一義。宗泐註楞伽這一段時，直引唯識能詮三法來會通：名詮自性、句詮差別、文即是字、為二所依。這一引，把楞伽的名句形身，接成了百法二十四不相應行裡名身、句身、文身的三個位子——楞伽起的能詮之教，安進了唯識心不相應行的格局。緣起「攝所攝非性、覺自心現量」一義，可與成唯識「唯識無境、能所俱遣」互讀；「無生、如幻」不相違一義，可與三自性三無性互讀。《成唯識論》三處明引《入楞伽》，卻都未明引本段，故此處只說承義，不說引文。
禪傳承史料須分層來看：淨覺 T2837 記達摩令慧可依四卷《楞伽》行而自然得度〔T85n2837 1284c24–25〕，道宣 T2060 記「初達摩禪師以四卷楞伽授可」〔T50n2060 0552b20–22〕；「可以印心」則見宋人卷首序〔T16n0670 0479c10–13〕。因而，本段可放在後世禪門接受史中互讀，卻不能把宋序語回填至唐代史料，亦不能斷為祖師禪唯一所本。
Beginning from a pressing question
Mahāmati's question, this time, comes with a cutting edge. He says: the World-Honored One teaches dependent origination, speaking only of cause and of condition, but has never Himself laid bare the reason of it; yet the outsiders too speak of cause and condition — they say things arise from the Supremely-Fine, from the Sovereign Lord, from Time, from the atom. Now if both sides are speaking of "cause" and "condition," then the World-Honored One's "ignorance conditions the formations, on to old-age-and-death" — does it not look, to an onlooker, like a causeless teaching? And there is worse: the World-Honored One sets up "this being, that is," and also says "observing the cause, there is the thing; observing the thing, there is the cause" — the cause being established in dependence on the thing, and the thing in dependence on the cause. Trace it back and forth like this, and does one not sink into the mire of jumbled causal conditions, endless and without limit?
The question is put with great precision. It drives dependent origination into a dead corner: either fall into the outsiders' "some cause set apart," or fall into one's own "endless regress." And the World-Honored One's answer cuts off both ends with a single sentence — and that sentence is the very root of the whole Yogācāra lineage's sense of dependent origination.
Grasper and grasped are without nature: dependent origination is not outside, but in one's own mind's manifestation
The World-Honored One answers with a clean stroke: when I say "this being, that is," I say that the grasper and the grasped are alike without real nature — there is only the awakening to one's own mind's manifestation. If one clings to grasper and grasped, and does not awaken that this was one's own mind's manifestation, taking the outer realm to be a being or a non-being, only then does one have the fault Mahāmati fears — and that is not the dependent origination I state.
The joint of this answer lies wholly in the ten words: grasper and grasped are without nature, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation. The ancient masters, reading the Laṅkā, set their blade in right here. Zonglei points the two words "this" and "that" as concretely as could be: "this" is the six faculties; "that" is the six dusts; faculties and dusts, resting upon one another, arise — this is the very sense of "this being, that is." And the reason one can say "grasper and grasped are without nature" is that one has understood that dharmas born of causes-and-conditions are but one's own mind's manifestation, and that within them there is no real grasper and no real grasped.
Follow this one blade down, and Mahāmati's dilemma dissolves of itself. The outsiders' "some cause set apart" errs by lodging the cause outside the mind — Supremely-Fine or atom, each of them a real substance set up apart from mind. The dread of an "endless regress" errs in the same place: so long as cause and thing are both taken as realities outside the mind, they chase each other in an endless demand. And the World-Honored One draws the whole line of dependent origination back into one's own mind: grasper and grasped are of themselves without real nature, and dependent origination is only a this-being-and-that-is upon one's own mind's manifestation — faculties and dusts resting upon one another, as a mirror manifests images, the mirror unmoving while the image of itself presents. The object not being outside, the thing chased after falls away, and the difficulty of the jumbled and the endless does not arise of itself. Turn a mirror upon it, and this is just "consciousness-only, without object · grasper and grasped both dispelled": the grasped object is unreal, the grasping consciousness too does not stand alone; the imagined is here doubly dispelled, and dependent origination is given back its own true face as the dependent nature.
Mahāmati will not let go, and presses a step further: is it not that speech has real nature, that there is therefore the nature of all dharmas? The World-Honored One picks up, offhand, a hare's horn and a tortoise's hair — the world plainly speaks these names, yet they are neither being nor non-being; they are speech and nothing more. He points, further, to the Fragrance-Accumulated world and the land of Samantabhadra, where by a mere gaze the bodhisattvas are brought to the forbearance of the unborn dharma — when did that lean upon speech? He points, again, to the gnats and midges, worms and ants, who have no speech and yet each accomplishes its own business. This whole string breaks the clinging to "there being the nature of dharmas because speech has nature": speech is a fashioned mark, not the place where the real nature of a dharma resides.
The deluding confusion is itself the constant: one water, four seeings — the noble and the common observe alike and apprehend differently
Next Mahāmati asks about the word "constant": that word "constant" — on what is it stated?
The World-Honored One's answer confounds expectation: it is stated for the sake of the deluding confusion. And it is right upon this deluding confusion that the noble ones too alike manifest, and yet are not distorted. What is the deluding confusion? The scripture itself gives a string of similes: the spring heat-shimmer, the whirling firebrand-wheel, the falling hairs seen by a diseased eye, the mirage-like gandharva-city, illusion, dream, the image in a mirror — these are the distorted seeing of the world, not what the clear-sighted take, and yet they are not un-manifest.
The whole weight of this string of similes rests in the eight words: not what the clear-sighted see, and yet not un-manifest. The heat-shimmer is not water, yet it plainly wavers before the eyes; the firebrand-wheel is no wheel, yet it plainly spins into a ring. It is not utterly nothing — not the sheer nothing-at-all of a tortoise's hair or a hare's horn; and it is not really something — not the real realm the clear-sighted acknowledge. The deluding confusion hangs just here, between neither-being and neither-non-being. Zonglei points it plainly: these seven similes are just the simile for the distortion of the deluding confusion, the common person in delusion taking the non-existent for the real.
And the scripture adds a keener simile still: the Ganges. One and the same river-water — the hungry ghosts, by the obstruction of their deeds, see it as pus and blood or do not see it at all, while the other destinies see it as water. As regards "the hungry ghosts see it or see it not," it has no fixed nature of deluding confusion; as regards "it manifests to the other destinies," it is again not wholly without nature. One water manifesting differently according to deeds — this stages the four words "apart from nature and non-nature" right before the eyes.
The question is thereby driven to its tightest point: given a deluding confusion such as this, why is it said to be "constant"? The World-Honored One answers: because mark and mark do not perish. The sundry marks of the deluding confusion do not perish along with the mark of false imagining, and so the deluding confusion is said to be constant. This "constant" is not the sort of constant the common person clings to — a stopped, unmoving abiding; on the contrary, it is the marks — themselves changing with deeds, moment by moment unlike — whose "mark and mark do not perish" that is named the constant. Turn upon it the mirror of Yogācāra: one water, four seeings, the seeing-of-pus and the seeing-of-water each following its deeds — this is the present activity of the dependent nature following conditions; the common person's false reckoning of one fixedly-existent or fixedly-non-existent water upon it — this is the imagined; and the noble one's being, upon it, apart from distortion and non-distortion, understanding it as apart from nature and non-nature — this is the truly-perfected manifesting upon the dependent. One and the same deluding confusion, the noble and the common observe alike and apprehend differently — the noble one does not see some other thing, but only does not give rise, upon it, to distorted clinging.
And it is upon just this point that the scripture goes on to carve, out of "one and the same deluding confusion," the divide of the three vehicles and the one common lineage: to cling upon the particular and shared mark is the śrāvaka lineage; to cling upon the particular and shared mark without contemplating is the pratyekabuddha lineage; to awaken to one's own mind's manifestation, to know the outer nature as without nature, and to give rise to no mark of false imagining, is the buddha-vehicle lineage; to give rise to the thought of deluding confusion upon the sundry thing-marks is the foolish common person's lineage. The four lineages are not four deluding confusions, but the one same deluding confusion, divided by the differing rising of the mind. And at that point where no false imagining is given rise to, the noble ones' mind, mentation, and mental consciousness turn past that intrinsic nature which is the habit-energy, and this is named "suchness" — and so it is said that suchness is apart from mind, apart from thought, apart from all thought. This one turning is precisely what Yogācāra calls the transformation of the basis: not that discernment is extinguished and a real set up apart, but that, right upon this consciousness, the imagined clinging is cast off, and the truly-perfected suchness is turned forth.
Mahāmati asks again: is that deluding confusion, then, a being or a non-being? The World-Honored One answers: it is illusion-like, with no mark that can be clung to. Were the deluding confusion truly to have a real mark that could be clung to, then the nature clung to could not be extinguished, and dependent origination would fall into the outsiders' "dharmas are born from causes-and-conditions." And again: if the deluding confusion is illusion-like, does it not then become a cause for the other delusions? The World-Honored One answers with great fineness: the illusion is not the cause of delusion, because it is of itself without false imagining and gives rise to no fault; the illusion is born from the place of brightness where the illusionist plies his craft, not from one's own false imagining, the place of fault-laden habit-energy — this is only the deluding confusion and clinging within the mind of the foolish, and no matter of the noble and sagely. This division sunders "illusion" and "false imagining" clean apart: the illusion is without false imagining, and so is pure and faultless; the fault of the deluding confusion lies not in the illusion, but in the common person's clinging upon the illusion.
Illusion-like: unreal and swiftly perishing like lightning
Following on from "illusion-like," the scripture asks a further layer: when all dharmas are said to be illusion-like, on what point are they taken to resemble illusion?
Mahāmati's doubt is fine: if it be taking the resemblance of clinging to "the manifold marks of illusion," then some dharmas would not be illusion-like — for the manifold marks of form have no single thing that is their cause, no single cause that makes form manifest as though illusion-like. The World-Honored One corrects it with great precision: it is not taking that resemblance of clinging to the marks of illusion. All dharmas are illusion-like in that one takes their being "unreal, swiftly perishing like lightning."
And so the scripture picks out the brightest simile in this whole span — the lightning-flash. Just as a lightning-flash manifests in an instant and, having manifested, at once ruins and perishes, too swift for even the foolish to catch sight of it. So it is with every nature: contemplated upon one's own false imagining, upon the particular and shared mark, it is all without nature, and one ought not to cling upon the present marks of form. This lightning-simile goes a layer beyond the earlier heat-shimmer and firebrand-wheel: those figured the neither-being-nor-non-being of the deluding confusion, while the lightning figures the swift perishing of instantaneous arising-and-ceasing. It wrenches "illusion-like" off the resemblance-sense of "how like a piece of conjuring is it" and onto the real sense of "in an instant it perishes, contemplated it is without nature." Turn on it the mirror of Yogācāra: what is called "contemplated as without nature · not clinging upon the present marks of form" is precisely the double dispelling of the imagined upon the marks of form; and what is called "swiftly perishing like lightning" is precisely the true face of the dependent, arising and ceasing moment by moment, not resting for an instant.
Mahāmati seizes hold of a seeming contradiction and presses on: the World-Honored One says "all natures are unborn," and also says "illusion-like" — unborn is not-arising, illusion-like is a vivid manifesting; do the earlier and the later not clash? The World-Honored One answers with all thoroughness: arising and non-arising are but the awakening to one's own mind's manifestation; being and non-being are "the outer nature is without nature," and thereupon "the unborn" is made manifest. I say "unborn" in order to break the outsiders' "fruit born within a cause"; I say a "nature" in order to take in birth-and-death, to break the view of annihilation, to teach my disciples that there are deeds and a place of receiving birth; I say "the intrinsic mark of illusion and dream" in order to make one leave behind the clinging to intrinsic mark, no longer to give rise to hope upon the marks — so as to teach one to see all dharmas at the place of the real, which real seeing is just the giving-rise to one's own mind's manifestation. This answer gathers "unborn" and "illusion-like" into the two faces of one sense: saying "unborn" fends off the outsiders' real arising; saying "illusion-like" fends off the common person's real being; the one fending-off-arising and the one fending-off-being come alike home to one's own mind's manifestation — how should they contradict? Gather it in the words of Yogācāra: the unborn is precisely one face of the threefold naturelessness — the naturelessness of mark fends off the imagined mark, the naturelessness of arising fends off the real arising of the dependent, the naturelessness of the ultimate makes manifest the word-parted truly-perfected; and illusion-likeness is the vivid provisional manifesting of the dependent. The unborn and the illusion-like are, from the first, the one-bodied two-saying of the three natures and the threefold naturelessness.
The name-body, the sentence-body, the form-body: the word-trap is the boat that ferries meaning across, the elephant sunk in mire is the sickness of clutching the trap
At the last the scripture turns to a matter that looks plain and yet runs through the whole span: the name-body, the sentence-body, the form-body.
The bodhisattva who observes the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body well thereupon enters into meaning, sentence, and form-body, and swiftly wins awakening, awakening himself and awakening others. What is the name-body? Naming set up in dependence on a thing — that is the name-body. What is the sentence-body? Within the sentence, a body of meaning, its intrinsic nature settled and ultimate — that is the sentence-body. What is the form-body? That which displays name and sentence — that is the form-body, and it refers also to long and short, high and low. By "name" one calls those four aggregates that are without form, and so one says name; because the particular mark is made manifest, one says form.
These three bodies the ancient masters read through and through. Zonglei judges them the "three provisional designations" — over against the one real of the "utterance," name, sentence, and form are but a threefold provisional setting-up: the name expresses its intrinsic nature, as one but says the names "eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind"; the sentence expresses its differentiation, as one says the eye has the buddha-eye, the dharma-eye, the wisdom-eye, and the manifold differences; the form (the letter) is just the graph, being that on which the former two rest. This one-real-and-three-provisional, joined together, is the expressing teaching-body — the boat and raft that ferries a person over to that far shore of meaning. And Yogācāra sets up name-body, sentence-body, and letter-body among the dharmas-not-concomitant-with-mind, fixing this expressing teaching a definite place: the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation, the letter is that on which the two rest. The sense of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body that the Laṅkā gives rise to here, the Yogācāra treatise takes up along just these three folds.
But the scripture straightway, with a single verse, points out the place of sickness: the name-body and the sentence-body and the differences of the form-body — the foolish common person gives rise to clinging upon them, like a great elephant sunk in deep mire, sinking the more it struggles. This simile is used with great weight. The boat is for crossing the river; clutch the boat and let it not go, and one does not cross the river at all; the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body are of themselves a trap for entering meaning, and yet the common person clings to the differences of the expressing as real, clinging everywhere upon name, upon sentence, upon form, and so, like a giant elephant sunk in mire, cannot draw himself out. Turn on it the mirror of Yogācāra to the bottom: this is just the present activity of the imagined upon the terms of speech — taking the provisionally-set-up mark of the expressing as a real dharma. Not so the one who observes well: he borrows the trap of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body to ferry across to the meaning expressed, winning the trap and yet not clutching the trap, entering into meaning, sentence, and form-body and swiftly winning awakening. The self-same three bodies: cling to them, and it is the elephant sunk in mire; observe them, and it is the swift winning of awakening — the whole divide lying in a single "clinging" and "not-clinging."
As for the "four modes of exposition" and the "all dharmas are unborn-and-unperishing, impermanent and yet constant" that the later text carries along, these too are still the residual momentum of this one same axis: to take in beings by the four modes of exposition, apart from the view of one, other, both, and not-both, is not to fall into the two extremes of speech; to say all dharmas are impermanent, because the arising of marks is of an impermanent nature, and to say all dharmas are constant, because the arising of marks is of an unborn nature — this very impermanence is itself the constant. This sentence is of one flavor with the earlier "the deluding confusion is itself the constant, mark and mark do not perish": it is not to set up some other constant apart from the impermanent, but to see, in the very arising of the impermanent mark, that face of it which is the unborn nature, and to name it the constant.
Onward Transmission
The four senses this span sets up — dependent origination as but one's own mind's manifestation, the deluding confusion is itself the constant, illusion-like swift perishing, the name-body-sentence-body-and-form-body — all come home to the single axis of "awakening to one's own mind's manifestation," and the later Yogācāra lineage takes up each of them.
The one taken up most concretely is the sense of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body. When Zonglei annotates this span of the Laṅkā, he cites the Yogācāra's three expressing dharmas: the name expresses intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses differentiation, and the letter is the graph on which both depend. This joins the Laṅkā's teaching to the name-, sentence-, and letter-bodies among the dharmas not concomitant with mind. "Grasper and grasped are without nature, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation" can be cross-read with consciousness-only; "non-arising and illusion-likeness do not conflict" can be cross-read with the three natures and threefold naturelessness. The Cheng Weishi Lun explicitly quotes the Ru Laṅqie three times, but none quotes this span; the relation here is doctrinal cross-reading, not textual citation.
Chan reception sources must remain stratified. Jingjue T2837 records Bodhidharma telling Huike to practice in reliance on the four-scroll Laṅkā and thereby attain deliverance〔T85n2837 1284c24–25〕; Daoxuan T2060 records entrustment of the four-scroll Laṅkā〔T50n2060 0552b20–22〕. The formula "it may seal the mind" belongs to the Song preface〔T16n0670 0479c10–13〕. This movement may therefore be read within later Chan reception, but the Song formula cannot be backfilled into Tang sources and the movement cannot be declared Patriarchal Chan’s unique foundation.
考據Apparatus
本段承前藏識義而轉言『緣起唯此有故彼有（攝所攝非性·覺自心現量）』，破外道勝自在時微塵之因；次明「常聲」——惑亂即常（相相不壞）；次明「如幻」——不實速滅如電；末立「名句形身」三相入義修學。四段皆歸「覺自心現量」一軸——楞伽緣起·如幻·名身義之經據；承衍唯識諸論（名句形身直承《唯識論》名詮自性句詮差別）。
一、科判定位
| 科判系統 | 此段之位 |
|---|---|
| T670 四卷本〈一切佛語心品〉 | 卷二·四問區（緣起〔T16 0493a05〕—名句形身〔0494b13〕）。四卷本一品貫通，依大慧問答輪次切；本段當「緣起何以說此有故彼有」·「常聲何事說」·「一切法云何如幻」·「名句形身相」四問所開，皆承前藏識段而歸「覺自心現量」 |
| 法藏《入楞伽心玄義》T1790（綱·非逐文） | 判全經宗要為「五法、三性、八識、二空，莫不皆於自心如來藏立」〔T39n1790 0426a17–19〕；本段四問未別立逐文科（玄義為綱，「常聲」「名句形身」「此有故彼有」皆不逐文出），統攝於自心緣起·五法（名·相·分別·正智·如如）之綱位 |
| 宗泐·如玘《註解》T1789（逐文·四卷本主疏） | 逐文科本段四問：緣起釋「此即六根，彼即六塵，謂根塵相由而起」〔T39 0374b23–24〕；常聲釋「無常說常，要達無常即常」〔0377b10〕；名句形身釋「名詮自性、句詮差別、文即是字」，判為三假〔0377b10〕 |
| T671 入楞伽經（菩提留支） | 緣起段當集一切佛法品第三（〔T16 0534b06〕外道因果段）；名身段當〔0536a19〕區 |
| T672 大乘入楞伽經（實叉難陀） | 緣起段當集一切法品（〔T16 0603a09〕此有故彼有）；名句文身段當〔0604a26〕區 |
二、術語
| 漢 | 古德傳梵（羅馬字·發音輔助） | 古德音寫所徵 | 唯識精確義 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 此有故彼有 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 T16n0670 0493a17〕 | 緣起正說；攝（能取）所攝（所取）非性，覺自心現量，非無因、非漸生、非外道因緣雜亂。宗泐：「此即六根，彼即六塵，謂根塵相由而起」〔T39n1789 0374b23–24〕 |
| 攝所攝 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0493a17〕 | 能取（攝）與所取（所攝）；計著攝所攝則不覺自心現量。宗泐：「攝所攝非性等者，謂了因緣生法唯心所現，無能取所取」〔T39n1789 0374b24–25〕 |
| 常聲 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0493b11〕 | 「常」之言說；佛依惑亂（無常）而說常——相相不壞故常。宗泐：「常聲者，說常法也……無常說常，要達無常即常故」〔T39n1789 0375a20〕 |
| 惑亂 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0493b12·0493c22〕 | 種種現而離性非性者；愚夫執之起顛倒，諸聖於此離顛倒不顛倒。宗泐：「惑亂者，無常也」〔T39n1789 0375a21〕 |
| 如幻 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0493c23·0494a02〕 | 一切法不實、速滅如電（剎那頃現，現已即滅），非種種幻相計著相似之如幻 |
| 名句形身 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0494a28〕 | 名身（依事立名）·句身（句有義身·自性決定究竟）·形身（顯示名句·長短高下）；善觀者疾得菩提。宗泐判為「三假」〔T39n1789 0377b14〕 |
IAST 為發音輔助。本段四問要語（此有故彼有·攝所攝·常聲·惑亂·如幻·名句形身）於四卷本無古德音寫可徵者，一律從闕，不以近代還原充數。
三、譬喻·修辭
(一) 惑亂諸喻（春炎·火輪·垂髮·乾闥婆城·幻·夢·鏡像）——〔T16n0670 0493b13〕「如春時炎、火輪、垂髮、乾闥婆城、幻、夢、鏡像。世間顛倒，非明智也，然非不現」：
- 喻體：陽炎·旋火輪·目病垂髮·乾闥婆城（蜃樓）·幻·夢·鏡像七事。喻依：惑亂（種種現而離性非性）。
- 所顯義：惑亂之法非有非無——「然非不現」，故非斷；「非明智」，故非常執之實有。宗泐：「如春時焰等七喻，正喻顛倒惑亂，凡夫在迷，執無為有」〔T39n1789 0375a26–27〕。
(二) 恒河餓鬼喻（惑亂離性非性）——〔T16n0670 0493b18〕「如彼恒河，餓鬼見不見故，無惑亂性；於餘現故，非無性」：
- 喻體：恒河一水，餓鬼業障見為膿血或竟不見、餘趣則見為水。喻依：惑亂之離性非性。
- 所顯義：一境隨業異現——「餓鬼見不見」故非定有性，「於餘現」故非定無性。惑亂即於此非有非無中常（相相不壞）。
(三) 電光喻（如幻·速滅）——〔T16n0670 0494a02〕「譬如電光，剎那頃現，現已即滅，非愚夫現。如是一切性，自妄想自共相，觀察無性」：
- 喻體：電光剎那一現即滅。喻依：一切法之「如幻」（不實速滅）。
- 所顯義：如幻非取「種種幻相計著相似」，乃取「不實·速滅如電」——剎那生滅、觀察無性。偈頌之：「不實速如電，是故說如幻」〔0494a07〕。
(四) 象溺深泥喻（名句形身計著）——〔T16n0670 0494b11〕偈「名身與句身，及形身差別，凡夫愚計著，如象溺深泥」：
- 喻體：象陷深泥，愈掙愈陷。喻依：凡夫於名句形身之差別起計著。
- 所顯義：名句形身本為入義之筌，凡夫執能詮之差別為實，如象溺泥不能自拔。宗泐承之判名句形三身為「三假」（對「聲」一實而言）〔T39n1789 0377b14〕。
四、異譯·經內平行對勘
本段要句之漢三譯校本：T670（底本·求那跋陀羅）· T671（全本主對校·菩提留支）· T672（完帙對校·實叉難陀）。三譯此段品目切分不同，逐句對位如下。
句一 緣起·此有故彼有（攝所攝非性·覺自心現量）
| 版本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| T670 求那 | 此有故彼有者，攝所攝非性，覺自心現量。大慧！若攝所攝計著，不覺自心現量，外境界性非性，彼有如是過，非我說緣起。我常說言：『因緣和合而生諸法』，非無因生。 | T16n0670 0493a17–21 |
| T671 流支 | 我說諸法從因緣生，非無因緣亦不雜亂，亦無展轉無窮之過。何以故？以無能取可取法故。大慧！外道不知自心見故，執著能取可取之法，不知不覺惟自心見內外法故。 | T16n0671 0534b09–13 |
| T672 實叉 | 我了諸法唯心所現，無能取所取，說此有故彼有，非是無因及因緣過失。大慧！若不了諸法唯心所現，計有能取及以所取，執著外境若有若無，彼有是過，非我所說。 | T16n0672 0603a09–12 |
異文所繫：三譯同破外道「勝、自在、時、微塵」之無因／雜亂因，同歸「攝所攝非性·覺自心現量」——(甲) T670 作「攝所攝非性，覺自心現量」；T671 作「無能取可取法·惟自心見」；T672 作「無能取所取·唯心所現」——「攝／能取」「所攝／可取／所取」三譯異名同指，『覺自心現量／自心見／唯心所現』為一義三譯。(乙) T670 直用「此有故彼有」立緣起正說，T672 同標「說此有故彼有」，T671 此句作「我說諸法從因緣生……非無因緣亦不雜亂」〔T16n0671 0534b12–13〕（義同而不用「此有故彼有」四字）。
句二 名句形身（名·句·形／文 三相）
| 版本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| T670 求那 | 名身者，謂若依事立名，是名名身。句身者，謂句有義身，自性決定究竟，是名句身。形身者，謂顯示名句，是名形身。 | T16n0670 0494b02–04 |
| T671 流支 | 何者名身？謂依何等何等法作名，名身事物名異義一。大慧！是名我說名身。大慧！何者是句身？謂義事決定究竟見義故。大慧！是名我說句身。大慧！何者是字身？ | T16n0671 0536a19–22 |
| T672 實叉 | 名身者，謂依事立名，名即是身，是名名身。句身者，謂能顯義決定究竟，是名句身。文身者，謂由於此能成名句，是名文身。 | T16n0672 0604a26–29 |
異文所繫：(甲) 第三相名，T670 作「形身」（顯示名句·長短高下），T671／T672 作「字身／文身」（能成名句）——「形」與「文（字）」為此相之異名，T670 取「形」（顯示相狀），T671／T672 取「文（字）」（能成之字）。(乙) 句身，T670「句有義身·自性決定究竟」、T671「義事決定究竟見義」、T672「能顯義決定究竟」——三譯同明句身以「決定究竟顯義」為性。(丙) T671 於名身下更立「名身事物名異義一」（一事異名而義一）之義，為 T670／T672 所無之補釋。
五、唯識義之經據（眼）
本段承前藏識段而轉言緣起·如幻·名身，皆以「覺自心現量」為軸，為楞伽緣起義·如幻義·名身義之經據；名句形身一段並承衍唯識名詮自性·句詮差別之教體說。
(一) 緣起唯覺自心現量·攝所攝非性——〔T16n0670 0493a17〕「此有故彼有者，攝所攝非性，覺自心現量」：緣起正說非外道之勝自在時微塵（無因），亦非因緣雜亂展轉無窮，唯是攝（能取）所攝（所取）非性、覺了自心現量。→ 唯識「唯識無境·能所俱遣」之經據；三譯同以「無能取所取·唯心所現」釋此有故彼有（目四·句一）。
(二) 如幻速滅·觀察無性——〔T16n0670 0494a01〕「不實一切法，速滅如電，是則如幻……自妄想自共相，觀察無性，非現色相計著」：一切法如幻非取相似，乃取剎那速滅、自共相觀察無性——不於色相起計著。→ 唯識遍計所執「非現色相計著」·依他起「速滅如電」（剎那生滅）之經據。
(三) 無生·如幻不相違——〔T16n0670 0494a11〕「謂生無生，覺自心現量。有非有，外性非性，無生現……壞外道因生，故我說一切性無生」：無生與如幻不前後相違，二說同破外道有無有生、同顯覺自心現量。→ 唯識三無性（相·生·勝義無性）·『說幻夢自性相一切法……如實處見·起自心現量』之經據。
(四) 名句形身·能詮教體——〔T16n0670 0494a28〕「當說名句形身相……善觀名句形身菩薩摩訶薩，隨入義句形身，疾得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」：名句形身為能詮之教，善觀之則入所詮之義。→ 承衍唯識論『名詮自性、句詮差別、文即是字』之能詮建立（下句直引）；名句文身即百法〈不相應行法〉名身·句身·文身三位之經源。宗泐引《唯識論》會通：
「名句形身者，《唯識論》云：『名詮自性，句詮差別。文即是字，為二所依。』」〔T39n1789 0377b09–11〕
六、諸家異釋（古德·標宗）
藏經內現存四卷楞伽古德源二家涉本段：宗泐·如玘《註解》（逐文主疏·四問俱釋）· 法藏《玄義》（綱·本段四問未逐文出）。
宗泐·如玘《楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解》T39n1789（逐文·主）
釋緣起·此有故彼有（根塵相由）：
「言此有故彼有者，此即六根，彼即六塵，謂根塵相由而起。攝所攝非性等者，謂了因緣生法唯心所現，無能取所取。」〔T39n1789 0374b23–25〕
（宗泐以「六根·六塵相由」釋此有故彼有，以『因緣生法唯心所現·無能取所取』釋攝所攝非性——緣起唯自心現量之古德讀。）
釋常聲·惑亂即常（無常即常）：
「常聲者，說常法也。問意謂如來說常法，依何事而說也。惑亂者，無常也，佛意正謂無常說常，要達無常即常故。言諸聖亦現者，謂惑亂無常生死之法，非唯眾生實造，而諸佛果後權現，示同眾生，以了無常即常，不同凡夫，故曰非顛倒也。」〔T39n1789 0375a20–26〕
（宗泐判「常聲」為佛依無常之惑亂而說常——要在達「無常即常」；諸聖亦現惑亂而不顛倒，以了無常即常故，異於凡夫執無常為常之顛倒。）
釋名句形身·三假（一實三假·能詮教體）：
「名詮自性者，如說六根，但云眼耳鼻舌身意之名而已。句詮差別者，如云眼是佛眼、法眼、慧眼等種種差別也。然此名句形三身，名為三假。假者對實而言，則聲為實，此一實三假乃能詮教體。」〔T39n1789 0377b10–18〕
（宗泐判名·句·形三身為「三假」，對「聲」之一實而言：名詮自性、句詮差別、形（文）即是字；此一實三假合為能詮之教體，善觀之則達所詮之義。）
法藏《入楞伽心玄義》T39n1790（綱）
法藏判全經宗要，緣起·自心繫於五法·自心如來藏：
「所謂五法、三性、八識、二空，莫不皆於自心如來藏立，為學大乘者生正見處、正信正行由此成就。」〔T39n1790 0426a17–19〕
（法藏《玄義》為綱非逐文，本段「常聲」「名句形身」「此有故彼有」四問皆不逐文出；緣起·惑亂·名句諸義統於『五法（名·相·分別·正智·如如）·自心如來藏』之宗要——承其綱而不逐本段之文。）
七、互讀·承衍
本經為唯識系經源；本段所立緣起唯自心現量·如幻速滅·名句形身諸義，承衍諸論承接。依唯識系次第向承衍掛鏈，只列與本段實相關者：
- 《唯識論》名詮自性·句詮差別：宗泐《註解》引「《唯識論》云：名詮自性，句詮差別。文即是字，為二所依」〔T39n1789 0377b10〕，正以唯識能詮三法會通楞伽名句形身——名句形身義之古德承衍硬掛。
- 百法〈不相應行法〉名身·句身·文身：五位百法二十四不相應行中名身·句身·文身三位，即本段「名句形身」之百法位（名詮自性·句詮差別·文為二所依）。
- 成唯識論·三無性：本段「無生·如幻」可與成唯識論三自性三無性義互讀；然成唯識論三處《入楞伽》明引〔唯心 0010c07–10·藏識海浪 0014c14–18·心意識 0024c15–17〕皆未顯引本段緣起如幻文，故只誌承義，不誤繫引文。
- 禪傳承史料：淨覺 T2837 記達摩令慧可依四卷《楞伽》行而自然得度〔T85n2837 1284c24–25〕；道宣 T2060 記「初達摩禪師以四卷楞伽授可」〔T50n2060 0552b20–22〕；「可以印心」見宋人卷首序〔T16n0670 0479c10–13〕。本段只置於後世禪門接受史中互讀，不據此判作祖師禪唯一經據。
互讀以穩定徵引（藏經號·品號·頌號）為主；名句形身承《唯識論》之引已核硬掛（宗泐牒引），餘俟承衍論定本硬掛。
八、校本定位
- T670 求那（底本）：〔T16n0670 0493a05〕緣起問起—〔0494b13〕名句形身訖。此有故彼有 0493a17–21 · 常聲惑亂 0493b11 起 · 七喻 0493b13 · 恒河餓鬼喻 0493b18 · 相相不壞 0493b20 · 如幻電光 0494a01–04 · 無生 0494a11–13 · 名句形身 0494a28–b04 · 名句形身偈 0494b11。
- T671 流支（全本主對校）：緣起段〔T16n0671 0534b06〕集一切佛法品第三 · 因緣生法唯自心見 0534b09–13 · 名身段 0536a19–22。
- T672 實叉（完帙對校）：緣起段〔T16n0672 0603a09〕集一切法品 · 此有故彼有唯心所現 0603a09–12 · 名句文身 0604a26–29。
- 宗泐·如玘 T1789（逐文主疏）：此有故彼有註〔T39n1789 0374b23–25〕· 常聲惑亂註 0375a20–26 · 名句形身三假註 0377b10–18 · 引《唯識論》名詮自性 0377b10。
- 法藏 T1790（玄義綱）：宗要〔T39n1790 0426a17–18〕；本段四問無逐文科，統於五法·自心如來藏綱位。
- 《唯識論》名詮自性句詮差別（承衍·硬引）：宗泐牒引〔T39n1789 0377b10〕；百法名身·句身·文身三位之教體源。
Carrying on from the store-consciousness sense of the preceding movement, this movement turns to speak of dependent origination — "this being, that is" (grasper and grasped are without nature · awakening to one's own mind's manifestation) — breaking the outsiders' causes of the Supremely-Fine, the Sovereign Lord, Time, and the atom; next it makes plain the "word 'constant'" — the deluding confusion is itself the constant (mark and mark do not perish); next it makes plain "illusion-like" — unreal and swiftly perishing like lightning; and last it sets up the three marks of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body for entering into meaning and training. All four passages return to the single axis of "awakening to one's own mind's manifestation" — the scriptural warrant for the Laṅkāvatāra's sense of dependent origination, illusion-likeness, and the name-body; carried forward by the Yogācāra treatises (the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body inheriting directly from the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra's "the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation").
1 · Classificatory placement (科判定位)
| Outline system | Placement of this movement |
|---|---|
| T670, four-scroll,〈Chapter on the Heart of All Buddha-Word〉 | Scroll Two · the four-question region（dependent origination〔T16 0493a05〕— the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body〔0494b13〕）. The four-scroll text runs through as a single chapter, cut by the rounds of Mahāmati's questioning; this movement falls under the four questions "why is dependent origination stated as 'this being, that is'" · "on what matter is the word 'constant' stated" · "how are all dharmas illusion-like" · "the marks of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body", all carrying on from the preceding store-consciousness passage and returning to "awakening to one's own mind's manifestation" |
| Fazang, Profound Meaning of the Laṅkāvatāra T1790 (outline, not phrase-by-phrase) | judges the whole scripture's guiding tenet to be「五法、三性、八識、二空，莫不皆於自心如來藏立」〔T39n1790 0426a17–19〕— tr. "the five dharmas, the three natures, the eight consciousnesses, and the two emptinesses are, without exception, all established upon the Tathāgata-womb that is one's own mind"; this movement's four questions are not separately outlined phrase by phrase (the Profound Meaning being an outline — "the word 'constant,'" "the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body," and "this being, that is" are none of them drawn out phrase by phrase), being gathered under the outline-place of one's-own-mind dependent origination · the five dharmas (name · mark · discrimination · right knowledge · suchness) |
| Zonglei & Ruqi, Annotations T1789 (phrase-by-phrase; chief commentary on the four-scroll) | outlines the four questions of this movement phrase by phrase: dependent origination it glosses as「此即六根，彼即六塵，謂根塵相由而起」〔T39n1789 0374b23–24〕— tr. "'this' is the six faculties, 'that' is the six dusts — the faculties and dusts, resting upon one another, arise"; the word "constant" it glosses as「無常說常，要達無常即常」〔T39n1789 0375a20–23〕— tr. "the impermanent is spoken of as the constant — the essential is to fathom that the impermanent is itself the constant"; the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body it glosses as「名詮自性、句詮差別、文即是字」〔T39n1789 0377b10〕— tr. "the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation, the letter is just the graph," judging them the three provisional designations |
| T671 Entering the Laṅkā (Bodhiruci) | the dependent-origination passage falls in the Collecting-All-Buddha-Dharmas chapter, the third（〔T16 0534b06〕the outsiders' cause-and-fruit passage）; the name-body passage falls in the〔0536a19〕region |
| T672 Mahāyāna Entering the Laṅkā (Śikṣānanda) | the dependent-origination passage falls in the Collecting-All-Dharmas chapter（〔T16 0603a09〕this being, that is）; the name-sentence-letter-body passage falls in the〔0604a26〕region |
2 · Terms (術語)
| Chinese | Transmitted Sanskrit (Roman · pronunciation aid) | Attestation of the ancient masters' transliteration | Precise Yogācāra sense |
|---|---|---|---|
| 此有故彼有 this being, that is | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | 〔this movement, T16n0670 0493a17〕 | the right statement of dependent origination; grasper (the grasping) and grasped (the grasped) are without nature, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation — not causeless, not gradual arising, not the outsiders' jumbled causal conditions. Zonglei:「此即六根，彼即六塵，謂根塵相由而起」— tr. "'this' is the six faculties, 'that' is the six dusts — the faculties and dusts, resting upon one another, arise"〔T39n1789 0374b23–24〕 |
| 攝所攝 grasper and grasped | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | 〔this movement, T16n0670 0493a17〕 | the grasper and the grasped; to cling to them is not to awaken to one's own mind's manifestation. Zonglei:「攝所攝非性等者，謂了因緣生法唯心所現，無能取所取」〔T39n1789 0374b24–25〕— tr. "'grasper and grasped are without nature' means: to understand that dharmas born of causes-and-conditions are but one's own mind's manifestation, wherein there is no grasper and no grasped" |
| 常聲 the word "constant" | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | 〔this movement, 0493b11〕 | the utterance of "the constant"; the Buddha states "constant" in dependence on the deluding confusion (the impermanent) — for mark and mark do not perish, and therefore [it is] constant. Zonglei:「常聲者，說常法也……無常說常，要達無常即常故」— tr. "'the word constant' means the speaking of a constant dharma … the impermanent is spoken of as the constant, for the essential is to fathom that the impermanent is itself the constant"〔T39n1789 0375a20〕 |
| 惑亂 the deluding confusion | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | 〔this movement, 0493b12·0493c22〕 | that which manifests in all sorts and yet is apart from nature and non-nature; the foolish cling to it and give rise to distortion, while the noble ones, upon it, are apart from both distortion and non-distortion. Zonglei:「惑亂者，無常也」— tr. "the deluding confusion is impermanence"〔T39n1789 0375a21〕 |
| 如幻 illusion-like | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | 〔this movement, 0493c23·0494a02〕 | all dharmas are unreal, swiftly perishing like lightning (manifesting in an instant, and having manifested at once perishing), not the illusion-likeness of a resemblance in clinging to the manifold marks of illusion |
| 名句形身 the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | 〔this movement, 0494a28〕 | the name-body (naming set up in dependence on things) · the sentence-body (the sentence has a body of meaning · its intrinsic nature settled and ultimate) · the form-body (that which displays name and sentence · long and short, high and low); one who observes them well swiftly wins awakening. Zonglei judges them the three provisional designations〔T39n1789 0377b14〕 |
IAST is a pronunciation aid. The key phrases of this movement's four questions (this being that is · grasper and grasped · the word "constant" · the deluding confusion · illusion-like · the name-body sentence-body and form-body) have no ancient-master transliteration attestable in the four-scroll text; they are one and all left blank, not filled out from modern reconstructions.
3 · Simile and figure (譬喻·修辭)
(1) The similes of the deluding confusion (the spring shimmer · the firebrand-wheel · falling hairs · the gandharva-city · illusion · dream · mirror-image) —〔T16n0670 0493b13〕「如春時炎、火輪、垂髮、乾闥婆城、幻、夢、鏡像。世間顛倒，非明智也，然非不現」— tr. "like the spring shimmer, the firebrand-wheel, falling hairs, the gandharva-city, illusion, dream, mirror-image. These are the distortion of the world, not what the clear-sighted see — yet they are not un-manifest":
- Vehicle: the seven — the heat-shimmer · the whirling firebrand-wheel · the falling hairs seen by a diseased eye · the gandharva-city (a mirage) · illusion · dream · mirror-image. Tenor: the deluding confusion (that which manifests in all sorts and yet is apart from nature and non-nature).
- What it shows: the deluding dharma is neither being nor non-being — "yet not un-manifest," and so not cut off; "not what the clear-sighted see," and so not the real being that eternalist clinging takes it for. Zonglei:「如春時焰等七喻，正喻顛倒惑亂，凡夫在迷，執無為有」— tr. "the seven similes of the spring shimmer and the rest are precisely the simile for the distortion of the deluding confusion — the foolish common person, in delusion, clings to the non-existent as existent"〔T39n1789 0375a26–27〕.
(2) The simile of the Ganges and the hungry ghosts (the deluding confusion apart from nature and non-nature) —〔T16n0670 0493b18〕「如彼恒河，餓鬼見不見故，無惑亂性；於餘現故，非無性」— tr. "as with that Ganges: because the hungry ghosts see it or see it not, there is no [fixed] nature of deluding confusion; because it manifests to the other [destinies], it is not without nature":
- Vehicle: the one water of the Ganges — the hungry ghosts, by the obstruction of their deeds, see it as pus and blood or do not see it at all, while the other destinies see it as water. Tenor: the deluding confusion's being apart from nature and non-nature.
- What it shows: one realm manifests differently according to deeds — "the hungry ghosts see it or see it not," and so it is not of fixed being; "it manifests to the other [destinies]," and so it is not of fixed non-being. The deluding confusion is, right within this neither-being-nor-non-being, constant (mark and mark do not perish).
(3) The simile of the lightning-flash (illusion-like · swiftly perishing) —〔T16n0670 0494a02〕「譬如電光，剎那頃現，現已即滅，非愚夫現。如是一切性，自妄想自共相，觀察無性」— tr. "just as a lightning-flash manifests in an instant and, having manifested, at once perishes, not [long enough to be] manifest to the foolish — so is every nature: upon one's own false imagining, upon the particular and shared mark, contemplated, it is without nature":
- Vehicle: the lightning-flash, in an instant one manifestation and at once perished. Tenor: the "illusion-likeness" (unreal, swiftly perishing) of all dharmas.
- What it shows: illusion-likeness does not take "the resemblance of clinging to the manifold marks of illusion," but takes "unreal · swiftly perishing like lightning" — instantaneous arising and ceasing, contemplated as without nature. The verse states it:「不實速如電，是故說如幻」— tr. "unreal and swift as lightning — therefore called illusion-like"〔0494a07〕.
(4) The simile of the elephant sunk in deep mire (clinging to the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body) —〔T16n0670 0494b11〕the verse「名身與句身，及形身差別，凡夫愚計著，如象溺深泥」— tr. "the name-body and the sentence-body, and the differences of the form-body — the foolish common person clings to them, like an elephant sunk in deep mire":
- Vehicle: an elephant mired in deep mud, sinking the more it struggles. Tenor: the common person's clinging to the differences of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body.
- What it shows: the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body are of themselves a fish-trap for entering meaning; the common person clings to the differences of the expressing [terms] as real, like an elephant sunk in the mire and unable to draw itself out. Zonglei follows this in judging the three bodies of name, sentence, and form to be the "three provisional designations" (over against the "utterance" as the one real)〔T39n1789 0377b14〕.
4 · Variant-translation and intra-scriptural parallel collation (異譯·經內平行對勘)
The Chinese three-translation witnesses of this movement's key sentences: T670 (base · Guṇabhadra) · T671 (chief cross-collation of the full recension · Bodhiruci) · T672 (cross-collation of the complete recension · Śikṣānanda). The three divide this passage into chapters differently; the phrase-by-phrase alignment follows.
Sentence 1 Dependent origination · this being, that is (grasper and grasped are without nature · awakening to one's own mind's manifestation)
| Version | Verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| T670 Guṇa. | 此有故彼有者，攝所攝非性，覺自心現量。大慧！若攝所攝計著，不覺自心現量，外境界性非性，彼有如是過，非我說緣起。我常說言：『因緣和合而生諸法』，非無因生。 | T16n0670 0493a17–21 |
| T671 Bodhi. | 我說諸法從因緣生，非無因緣亦不雜亂，亦無展轉無窮之過。何以故？以無能取可取法故。大慧！外道不知自心見故，執著能取可取之法，不知不覺惟自心見內外法故。 | T16n0671 0534b09–13 |
| T672 Śikṣ. | 我了諸法唯心所現，無能取所取，說此有故彼有，非是無因及因緣過失。大慧！若不了諸法唯心所現，計有能取及以所取，執著外境若有若無，彼有是過，非我所說。 | T16n0672 0603a09–12 |
tr. — T670: "'This being, that is' means: grasper and grasped are without nature, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation. Mahāmati! If one clings to grasper and grasped and does not awaken to one's own mind's manifestation, [taking] the outer objective realm as being or non-being, then such a one has this fault — and that is not my teaching of dependent origination. I constantly say: 'By the joining of causes-and-conditions the dharmas are born,' not born without a cause." — T671: "I say that the dharmas are born from causes-and-conditions, not without causal condition and not jumbled, and without the fault of an unending regress. Why so? Because there is no grasper and no graspable dharma. Mahāmati! The outsiders, not knowing that it is one's own mind's seeing, cling to grasper and graspable dharmas, not knowing and not awakening that inner and outer dharmas are but one's own mind's seeing." — T672: "I understand that the dharmas are but one's own mind's manifestation, wherein there is no grasper and no grasped, and I state 'this being, that is' — this is not the fault of causelessness or of [jumbled] causal conditions. Mahāmati! If one does not understand that the dharmas are but one's own mind's manifestation, and reckons there to be a grasper and a grasped, clinging to the outer realm as being or as non-being, then such a one has this fault — that is not what I state."
Where the variants lie: The three translations alike break the outsiders' causeless / jumbled causes of "the Supremely-Fine, the Sovereign Lord, Time, the atom," and alike return to "grasper and grasped are without nature · awakening to one's own mind's manifestation" — (a) T670 has「攝所攝非性，覺自心現量」("grasper and grasped are without nature, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation"); T671 has「無能取可取法·惟自心見」("no grasper and graspable dharma · but one's own mind's seeing"); T672 has「無能取所取·唯心所現」("no grasper and grasped · but one's own mind's manifestation") — "grasper / the-one-who-grasps" and "grasped / the-graspable / the-object-grasped" are variant names pointing to one thing across the three, and "awakening to one's own mind's manifestation / one's own mind's seeing / but one's own mind's manifestation" are one sense in three renderings. (b) T670 uses "this being, that is" straight out to set up the right statement of dependent origination, and T672 alike marks "states 'this being, that is'"; in T671 this sentence reads「我說諸法從因緣生……非無因緣亦不雜亂」〔T16n0671 0534b12–13〕("I say the dharmas are born from causes-and-conditions … not without causal condition and not jumbled") — the same in sense but not using the four graphs "this being, that is."
Sentence 2 The name-body, sentence-body, and form-body (name · sentence · form/letter, the three marks)
| Version | Verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| T670 Guṇa. | 名身者，謂若依事立名，是名名身。句身者，謂句有義身，自性決定究竟，是名句身。形身者，謂顯示名句，是名形身。 | T16n0670 0494b02–04 |
| T671 Bodhi. | 何者名身？謂依何等何等法作名，名身事物名異義一。大慧！是名我說名身。大慧！何者是句身？謂義事決定究竟見義故。大慧！是名我說句身。大慧！何者是字身？ | T16n0671 0536a19–22 |
| T672 Śikṣ. | 名身者，謂依事立名，名即是身，是名名身。句身者，謂能顯義決定究竟，是名句身。文身者，謂由於此能成名句，是名文身。 | T16n0672 0604a26–29 |
tr. — T670: "As for the name-body: naming set up in dependence on things — this is called the name-body. As for the sentence-body: the sentence has a body of meaning, its intrinsic nature settled and ultimate — this is called the sentence-body. As for the form-body: that which displays name and sentence — this is called the form-body." — T671: "What is the name-body? Making a name in dependence on such-and-such dharmas — the name-body: the thing being one and its names being different, the meaning is one. Mahāmati! this is what I call the name-body. Mahāmati! What is the sentence-body? The matter of meaning being settled and ultimate, because the meaning is seen. Mahāmati! this is what I call the sentence-body. Mahāmati! What is the letter-body?" — T672: "As for the name-body: naming set up in dependence on things, the name being itself the body — this is called the name-body. As for the sentence-body: that which can display the meaning, settled and ultimate — this is called the sentence-body. As for the letter-body: that whereby name and sentence can be formed — this is called the letter-body."
Where the variants lie: (a) The name of the third mark — T670 has "form-body" (displaying name and sentence · long and short, high and low), T671／T672 have "letter-body" (that whereby name and sentence can be formed) — "form" and "letter" are variant names for this mark: T670 takes "form" (the displayed shape and state), T671／T672 take "letter" (the graph whereby [they] are formed). (b) The sentence-body — T670 "the sentence has a body of meaning · its intrinsic nature settled and ultimate," T671 "the matter of meaning settled and ultimate, the meaning being seen," T672 "that which can display the meaning, settled and ultimate" — the three alike make plain that the sentence-body has as its nature "displaying the meaning, settled and ultimate." (c) T671 further sets up, under the name-body, the sense of「名身事物名異義一」("the thing being one and its names being different, the meaning is one" — one thing, differing names, and one meaning), a supplementary gloss that T670／T672 lack.
5 · The scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra doctrine〔the eye〕(唯識義之經據)
This movement, carrying on from the preceding store-consciousness passage, turns to speak of dependent origination · illusion-likeness · the name-body, all taking "awakening to one's own mind's manifestation" as their axis, as the scriptural warrant for the Laṅkāvatāra's sense of dependent origination · illusion-likeness · the name-body; and the name-body-sentence-body-and-form-body passage further carries forward the Yogācāra teaching-body doctrine of "the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation."
(1) Dependent origination is but awakening to one's own mind's manifestation · grasper and grasped are without nature —〔T16n0670 0493a17〕「此有故彼有者，攝所攝非性，覺自心現量」: the right statement of dependent origination is neither the outsiders' Supremely-Fine, Sovereign Lord, Time, atom (causeless), nor jumbled causal conditions in an unending regress, but is solely grasper and grasped being without nature, awakening to one's own mind's manifestation. → the scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra "consciousness-only, without object · grasper and grasped both dispelled"; the three translations alike gloss "this being, that is" by "no grasper and grasped · but one's own mind's manifestation" (rubric 4 · sentence 1).
(2) Illusion-like, swiftly perishing · contemplated as without nature —〔T16n0670 0494a01〕「不實一切法，速滅如電，是則如幻……自妄想自共相，觀察無性，非現色相計著」: all dharmas are illusion-like not by taking a resemblance, but by taking their instantaneous swift perishing, contemplated in the particular and shared mark as without nature — not clinging upon the present marks of form. → the scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra "not clinging upon the present marks of form" of the imagined [nature] · "swiftly perishing like lightning" (instantaneous arising and ceasing) of the dependent [nature].
(3) Non-arising and illusion-likeness do not contradict —〔T16n0670 0494a11〕「謂生無生，覺自心現量。有非有，外性非性，無生現……壞外道因生，故我說一切性無生」: non-arising and illusion-likeness do not contradict as an earlier and later; the two statements alike break the outsiders' being-and-non-being arising, and alike make manifest awakening to one's own mind's manifestation. → the scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra threefold naturelessness (naturelessness of mark · of arising · of the ultimate) · "[speaking of] the intrinsic mark of all dharmas as illusion and dream … at the place of the real, seeing · giving rise to one's own mind's manifestation."
(4) The name-body, sentence-body, and form-body · the expressing teaching-body —〔T16n0670 0494a28〕「當說名句形身相……善觀名句形身菩薩摩訶薩，隨入義句形身，疾得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」: the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body are the expressing teaching; one who observes them well enters into the meaning expressed. → carried forward into the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra's establishing of the expressing [terms] as "the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation, the letter is just the graph" (cited straight out in the next passage); the name-body, sentence-body, and letter-body are the scriptural source of the three positions — name-body · sentence-body · letter-body — among the 〈dharmas-not-concomitant〉 of the Hundred Dharmas. Zonglei cites the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra to reconcile:
「名句形身者，《唯識論》云：『名詮自性，句詮差別。文即是字，為二所依。』」〔T39n1789 0377b09–11〕
tr. "As for the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body, the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra says: 'The name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation. The letter is just the graph, being that on which the two rest.'"
6 · The divergent readings of the masters (ancient masters · tenet marked) (諸家異釋)
Two ancient-master sources on the four-scroll Laṅkā extant within the canon bear on this movement: Zonglei & Ruqi's Annotations (phrase-by-phrase chief commentary · all four questions glossed) · Fazang's Profound Meaning (outline · this movement's four questions not drawn out phrase by phrase).
Zonglei & Ruqi, Annotations on the Laṅkāvatāra-ratna-sūtra T39n1789 (phrase-by-phrase · chief)
Glossing dependent origination · this being, that is (faculties and dusts resting upon one another):
「言此有故彼有者，此即六根，彼即六塵，謂根塵相由而起。攝所攝非性等者，謂了因緣生法唯心所現，無能取所取。」〔T39n1789 0374b23–25〕
tr. "As to 'this being, that is': 'this' is the six faculties, 'that' is the six dusts — the faculties and dusts, resting upon one another, arise. As to 'grasper and grasped are without nature' and the rest: to understand that dharmas born of causes-and-conditions are but one's own mind's manifestation, wherein there is no grasper and no grasped."
(Zonglei glosses "this being, that is" by "the six faculties and six dusts resting upon one another," and glosses "grasper and grasped are without nature" by "dharmas born of causes-and-conditions are but one's own mind's manifestation · no grasper and grasped" — the ancient master's reading of dependent origination as but one's own mind's manifestation.)
Glossing the word "constant" · the deluding confusion is itself the constant (the impermanent is itself the constant):
「常聲者，說常法也。問意謂如來說常法，依何事而說也。惑亂者，無常也，佛意正謂無常說常，要達無常即常故。言諸聖亦現者，謂惑亂無常生死之法，非唯眾生實造，而諸佛果後權現，示同眾生，以了無常即常，不同凡夫，故曰非顛倒也。」〔T39n1789 0375a20–26〕
tr. "'The word constant' means the speaking of a constant dharma. The intent of the question is: on what matter does the Tathāgata speak of a constant dharma? 'The deluding confusion' is impermanence, and the Buddha's intent is precisely that the impermanent is spoken of as the constant, for the essential is to fathom that the impermanent is itself the constant. As to 'the noble ones too manifest [it]': the deluding, impermanent dharma of birth-and-death is not something that sentient beings alone really fashion; rather the buddhas, after [attaining] the fruit, manifest it by expedient, appearing the same as sentient beings — but, because they fathom that the impermanent is itself the constant, they are not like the common person, and so it is said 'not distortion.'"
(Zonglei judges "the word 'constant'" to be the Buddha's speaking of "constant" in dependence on the deluding confusion of impermanence — the essential lying in fathoming that "the impermanent is itself the constant"; the noble ones too manifest the deluding confusion and yet are not distorted, because they fathom that the impermanent is itself the constant, differing from the common person's distortion of clinging to the impermanent as constant.)
Glossing the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body · the three provisional designations (one real, three provisional · the expressing teaching-body):
「名詮自性者，如說六根，但云眼耳鼻舌身意之名而已。句詮差別者，如云眼是佛眼、法眼、慧眼等種種差別也。然此名句形三身，名為三假。假者對實而言，則聲為實，此一實三假乃能詮教體。」〔T39n1789 0377b10–18〕
tr. "'The name expresses the intrinsic nature': as in speaking of the six faculties, one says merely the names 'eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind.' 'The sentence expresses the differentiation': as in saying the eye is the buddha-eye, the dharma-eye, the wisdom-eye, and so the manifold differences. Yet these three bodies of name, sentence, and form are called the three provisional [designations]. 'Provisional' is said over against the real: the utterance is the real, and this one-real-and-three-provisional is precisely the expressing teaching-body."
(Zonglei judges the three bodies of name · sentence · form to be the "three provisional designations," over against the one real of the "utterance": the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation, the form (letter) is just the graph; this one-real-and-three-provisional, joined together, is the expressing teaching-body, and one who observes it well fathoms the meaning expressed.)
Fazang, Profound Meaning of the Laṅkāvatāra T39n1790 (outline)
Fazang judges the whole scripture's guiding tenet, tying dependent origination · one's own mind to the five dharmas · the Tathāgata-womb that is one's own mind:
「所謂五法、三性、八識、二空，莫不皆於自心如來藏立，為學大乘者生正見處、正信正行由此成就。」〔T39n1790 0426a17–19〕
tr. "That is: the five dharmas, the three natures, the eight consciousnesses, and the two emptinesses are, without exception, all established upon the Tathāgata-womb that is one's own mind — the place where one who studies the great vehicle gives rise to right view, and whereby right faith and right practice are accomplished."
(The Profound Meaning being an outline and not phrase-by-phrase, this movement's four questions "the word 'constant,'" "the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body," and "this being, that is" are none of them drawn out phrase by phrase; the senses of dependent origination · the deluding confusion · name-and-sentence are gathered under the guiding tenet of "the five dharmas (name · mark · discrimination · right knowledge · suchness) · the Tathāgata-womb that is one's own mind" — inheriting his outline without following out this movement's text phrase by phrase.)
7 · Cross-reading and onward transmission (互讀·承衍)
This scripture is a scriptural source of the Yogācāra lineage; the senses established in this movement — dependent origination as but one's own mind's manifestation · illusion-like swift perishing · the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body — are taken up by the later treatises. Following the Yogācāra sequence in linking the onward transmission, only what genuinely bears on this movement is listed:
- The Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra "the name expresses the intrinsic nature · the sentence expresses the differentiation": Zonglei's Annotations cites「《唯識論》云：名詮自性，句詮差別。文即是字，為二所依」〔T39n1789 0377b10〕, reconciling the Laṅkā's name-body, sentence-body, and form-body precisely by the Yogācāra three expressing dharmas — the ancient master's hard link of onward transmission for the sense of the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body.
- The name-body · sentence-body · letter-body among the 〈dharmas-not-concomitant〉 of the Hundred Dharmas: the three positions of name-body · sentence-body · letter-body among the twenty-four dharmas-not-concomitant within the five-fold hundred dharmas are the Hundred-Dharmas place of this movement's "name-body, sentence-body, and form-body" (the name expresses the intrinsic nature · the sentence expresses the differentiation · the letter is that on which the two rest).
- The Cheng Weishi Lun · the threefold naturelessness: this movement's "non-arising · illusion-likeness" can be cross-read with the treatise's three natures and threefold naturelessness. T1585 explicitly quotes the Ru Laṅqie at mind-only〔0010c07–10〕, the store-consciousness ocean and waves〔0014c14–18〕, and mind-mentation-consciousness〔0024c15–17〕; none quotes this dependent-origination and illusion-like passage. This is doctrinal cross-reading, not a textual citation.
- Chan reception sources: Jingjue T2837 records Bodhidharma telling Huike to practice in reliance on the four-scroll Laṅkā and thereby attain deliverance〔T85n2837 1284c24–25〕; Daoxuan T2060 records「初達摩禪師以四卷楞伽授可」〔T50n2060 0552b20–22〕. The formula "it may seal the mind" belongs to the Song preface〔T16n0670 0479c10–13〕. This movement is placed only within later Chan reception, not declared a unique foundation of Patriarchal Chan.
Cross-reading rests chiefly on stable citation (Taishō number · chapter number · verse number); the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body's citation of the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra is already verified and hard-linked (Zonglei's citation), the rest to be hard-linked once the onward-transmission treatises' definitive editions are set.
8 · Witness placement (校本定位)
- T670 Guṇabhadra (base): 〔T16n0670 0493a05〕the dependent-origination question begins —〔0494b13〕the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body end. This being that is 0493a17–21 · the word "constant" and the deluding confusion begin 0493b11 · the seven similes 0493b13 · the Ganges-and-hungry-ghosts simile 0493b18 · mark and mark do not perish 0493b20 · the illusion-like lightning-flash 0494a01–04 · non-arising 0494a11–13 · the name-body, sentence-body, and form-body 0494a28–b04 · the name-body-sentence-body-and-form-body verse 0494b11.
- T671 Bodhiruci (chief cross-collation of the full recension): the dependent-origination passage〔T16n0671 0534b06〕the Collecting-All-Buddha-Dharmas chapter, the third · dharmas born of causes-and-conditions are but one's own mind's seeing 0534b09–13 · the name-body passage 0536a19–22.
- T672 Śikṣānanda (cross-collation of the complete recension): the dependent-origination passage〔T16n0672 0603a09〕the Collecting-All-Dharmas chapter · this being that is, but one's own mind's manifestation 0603a09–12 · the name-sentence-letter-body 0604a26–29.
- Zonglei & Ruqi T1789 (phrase-by-phrase chief commentary): the this-being-that-is annotation〔T39n1789 0374b23–25〕· the word-"constant"-and-deluding-confusion annotation 0375a20–26 · the name-body-sentence-body-and-form-body-three-provisional annotation 0377b10–18 · the citation of the Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra "the name expresses the intrinsic nature" 0377b10.
- Fazang T1790 (Profound-Meaning outline): the guiding tenet〔T39n1790 0426a17–18〕; this movement's four questions have no phrase-by-phrase outline, being gathered under the outline-place of the five dharmas · the Tathāgata-womb that is one's own mind.
- The Vijñaptimātratā-śāstra "the name expresses the intrinsic nature, the sentence expresses the differentiation" (onward transmission · hard citation): Zonglei's citation〔T39n1789 0377b10〕; the teaching-body source of the three positions name-body · sentence-body · letter-body of the Hundred Dharmas.