楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 卷三 · 不生·世論·外道涅槃
前面才說「一切法不生」，這裡佛卻回頭下一道禁令：連這句「不生」，你都不許立作宗。
不是把話收回。是提醒你：凡能架成一個宗、拿去和人對辯的，就已經不是那親證的境了。不生是言想俱絕的意思，一立為宗，當下就落回言、落回想——所以佛只教你「說一切法如幻夢」：如幻，才實無自性而不落有，宛然而現而不落無。
底下一條龍，變形上天把帝釋都辯倒了。世間言論的可畏不在它淺，在它文飾淩厲、勝得了人，卻始終只在身覺境界裡打轉，出不了六塵那一圈。佛說自己「我不說世論，亦無來去，惟說不來不去」——不來不去就是不生不滅；世論一味向外攀，這一句向自心現量返照，是二者的分水嶺。
到末後，外道二十餘種涅槃一一攤開：滅盡的、不壞的、作者的……佛一判——「悉墮二邊」，偈中又說「斯從心想生」。他們都朝外指認一個東西當涅槃，忘了那全是自心妄想現的影。就像鏡中之像，現而非有，愚夫偏認影為實，還要在影上分能證所證。
且入此段，看那被你朝外指認、拿去立宗、拿去對辯的一切「不生」與「涅槃」，究竟是不是心鏡裡的一縷垂髮。
Just now it said "all dharmas are non-arising"; here the Buddha turns back and lays down a prohibition: this one word "non-arising" — you are not permitted even to set it up as a thesis.
It is not that the words are taken back. It is a reminder to you: whatever can be framed into a thesis and carried off to dispute with people is already no longer that realm realized in person. Non-arising is the sense in which word and thought are alike cut off; the moment it is set up as a thesis, then and there it falls back into word, falls back into thought — and so the Buddha teaches you only to "say that all dharmas are like illusion, like a dream": illusion-like, and so truly without intrinsic nature yet not falling into existence, vividly appearing yet not falling into non-existence.
Below comes a single dragon, changing its form and going up to heaven to argue even Śakra down. The dreadfulness of worldly discourse lies not in its shallowness but in its ornament and its edge, that it can win over a man, and yet from first to last it spins only within the realm of bodily awareness, never getting past that ring of the six dusts. The Buddha says of himself, "I do not teach worldly discourse, [and] there is no such thing as coming or going; I teach only not-coming, not-going" — not-coming, not-going is just not-arising, not-ceasing; worldly discourse reaches ever outward and clutches, and this one sentence turns the light back upon the measure of one's own mind's manifestation: this is the watershed of the two.
At the very end, the outsiders' twenty-odd nirvāṇas are spread open one by one: the utterly-ceased, the unruinable, the maker … and the Buddha lays down one judgment — "they fall, one and all, into the two extremes"; and the verse says, "all arise from the thought of the mind." They all point outward and identify some thing as nirvāṇa, forgetting that it is wholly the shadow manifested by their own mind's false imagining. It is like an image in a mirror, appearing yet not existent; the foolish will insist on taking the shadow for real, and would go on to divide out of the shadow a realizer and a realized.
Now enter this passage, and look: all those "non-arisings" and "nirvāṇas" you have pointed at outward, carried off to set up as a thesis, carried off to dispute — are they, after all, or are they not, a single strand of hovering hairs inside the mirror of the mind.
T16n0670 逐字節錄〔起 T16 0502a27〕· 復次大慧/白佛言 段 ＝
#### 〔出處〕· 機械抽取 2026-07-02。非詮釋。
〔T16 0502a27〕
復次，大慧！一切法不生者，菩薩摩訶薩不應立是宗。所以者何？謂宗一切性非性故，及彼因生相故。說一切法不生宗，彼宗則壞。彼宗一切法不生彼宗壞者，以宗有待而生故。又彼宗不生，入一切法故，不壞相不生故。立一切法不生宗者，彼說則壞。大慧！有無不生宗，彼宗入一切性，有無相不可得。大慧！若使彼宗不生，一切性不生而立宗，如是彼宗壞。以有無性相不生故，不應立宗。五分論多過故，展轉因異相故，及為作故，不應立宗分，謂一切法不生，如是一切法空、如是一切法無自性，不應立宗。大慧！然菩薩摩訶薩，說一切法如幻夢，現不現相故，及見覺過故，當說一切法如幻夢性，除為愚夫離恐怖句故。大慧！愚夫墮有無見，莫令彼恐怖，遠離摩訶衍。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈曰：
「無自性無說，無事無相續，
彼愚夫妄想，如死尸惡覺。
一切法不生，非彼外道宗，
至竟無所生，性緣所成就。
一切法不生，慧者不作想，
彼宗因生故，覺者悉除滅。
譬如翳目視，妄見垂髮相，
計著性亦然，愚夫邪妄想。
施設於三有，無有事自性，
施設事自性，思惟起妄想。
相事設言教，意亂極震掉，
佛子能超出，遠離諸妄想。
非水水相受，斯從渴愛生，
愚夫如是惑，聖見則不然。
聖人見清淨，三脫三昧生，
遠離於生死，遊行無所畏。
修行無所有，亦無性非性，
性非性平等，從是生聖果。
云何性非性？云何為平等？
謂彼心不知，內外極漂動；
若能壞彼者，心則平等見。」
爾時，大慧菩薩白佛言：「世尊！如世尊說，如攀緣事智慧不得，是施設量，建立施設。所攝受非性，攝受亦非性。以無攝故，智則不生，唯施設名耳。云何，世尊！為不覺性自相共相，異不異故，智不得耶？為自相共相，種種性自性相隱蔽故，智不得耶？為山巖石壁，地水火風障故，智不得耶？為極遠極近故，智不得耶？為老小盲冥，諸根不具故，智不得耶？世尊！若不覺自共相異不異，智不得者；不應說智，應說無智，以有事不可得故。若復種種自共相性自性相隱蔽故，智不得者；彼亦無智，非是智。世尊！有爾炎故智生，非無性會爾炎，故名為智。若山巖石壁，地水火風，極遠極近，老小盲冥，諸根不具，智不得者；此亦非智，應是無智，以有事不可得故。」
佛告大慧：「不如是，無智應是智，非非智。我不如是隱覆，說攀緣事，智慧不得，是施設量建立。覺自心現量，有無有、外性非性，智而事不得。不得故，智於爾炎不生。順三解脫，智亦不得。非妄想者，無始性非性，虛偽習智，作如是知。是知彼不知。故於外事處所，相性作無性，妄想不斷。自心現量建立，說我我所相，攝受計著。不覺自心現量，於智爾炎而起妄想。妄想故，外性非性，觀察不得，依於斷見。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「有諸攀緣事，智慧不觀察，
此無智非智，是妄想者說。
於不異相性，智慧不觀察，
障礙及遠近，是名為邪智。
老小諸根冥，而智慧不生，
而實有爾炎，是亦說邪智。
「
〔T16 0503a11〕
復次，大慧！愚癡凡夫，無始虛偽惡邪妄想之所迴轉，迴轉時，自宗通及說通，不善了知。著自心現外性相故，著方便說，於自宗四句清淨通相，不善分別。」
大慧白佛言：「誠如尊教。唯願，世尊！為我分別說通及宗通。我及餘菩薩摩訶薩，善於二通，來世凡夫聲聞緣覺不得其短。」
佛告大慧：「善哉，善哉！諦聽，諦聽！善思念之，當為汝說。」
大慧白佛言：「唯然受教。」
佛告大慧：「三世如來，有二種法通，謂：說通及自宗通。說通者，謂：隨眾生心之所應，為說種種眾具契經。是名說通。自宗通者，謂：修行者，離自心現種種妄想。謂：不墮一異、俱不俱品，超度一切心、意、意識。自覺聖境界，離因成見相，一切外道、聲聞、緣覺墮二邊者，所不能知。我說是名自宗通法。大慧！是名自宗通及說通相。汝及餘菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「謂我二種通，宗通及言說，
說者授童蒙，宗為修行者。」
〔T16 0503b02〕
爾時，大慧菩薩白佛言：「世尊！如世尊一時說言：『世間諸論種種辯說，慎勿習近。若習近者，攝受貪欲，不攝受法。』世尊何故作如是說？」 佛告大慧：「世間言論，種種句味，因緣譬喻，採習莊嚴，誘引誑惑愚癡凡夫。不入真實自通，不覺一切法，妄想顛倒，墮於二邊。凡愚癡惑而自破壞，諸趣相續不得解脫，不能覺知自心現量，不離外性自性，妄想計著。是故世間言論種種辯說，不脫生老病死憂悲苦惱，誑惑迷亂。大慧！釋提桓因，廣解眾論，自造聲論。彼世論者有一弟子，持龍形像，詣釋天宮，建立論宗，要壞帝釋千輻之輪。隨我不如，斷一一頭，以謝所屈。作是要已，即以釋法，摧伏帝釋。釋墮負處，即壞其輪，還來人間。如是，大慧！世間言論，因譬莊嚴，乃至畜生，亦能以種種句味，惑彼諸天及阿修羅著生滅見，而況於人。是故，大慧！世間言論，應當遠離，以能招致苦生因故，慎勿習近。大慧！世論者，惟說身覺境界而已。大慧！彼世論者，乃有百千，但於後時後五十年，當破壞結集。惡覺因見盛故，惡弟子受。如是，大慧！世論破壞結集，種種句味，因譬莊嚴，說外道事，著自因緣，無有自通。大慧！彼諸外道，無自通論，於餘世論，廣說無量百千事門，無有自通，亦不自知愚癡世論。」 爾時，大慧白佛言：「世尊！若外道世論，種種句味因譬莊嚴，無有自通，自事計著者；世尊亦說世論，為種種異方諸來會眾天人、阿修羅，廣說無量種種句味。亦非自通耶？亦入一切外道智慧言說數耶？」 佛告大慧：「我不說世論，亦無來去，惟說不來不去。大慧！來者，趣聚會生。去者，散壞。不來不去者，是不生不滅。我所說，不墮世論妄想數中。所以者何？謂：不計者外性非性，自心現處。二邊妄想所不能轉。相境非性，覺自心現，則自心現，妄想不生。妄想不生者，空無相無作，入三脫門，名為解脫。大慧！我念一時，於一處住。有世論婆羅門，來詣我所。不請空閑，便問我言：『瞿曇！一切所作耶？』我時答言：『婆羅門！一切所作，是初世論。』彼復問言：『一切非所作耶？』我復報言：『一切非所作，是第二世論。』彼復問言：『一切常耶？一切無常耶？一切生耶？一切不生耶？』我時報言：『是六世論。』大慧！彼復問我言：『一切一耶？一切異耶？一切俱耶？一切不俱耶？一切因種種受生現耶？』我時報言：『是十一世論。』大慧！彼復問言：『一切無記耶？一切有記耶？有我耶？無我耶？有此世耶？無此世耶？有他世耶？無他世耶？有解脫耶？無解脫耶？一切剎那耶？一切不剎那耶？虛空耶？非數滅耶？涅槃耶？瞿曇！作耶？非作耶？有中陰耶？無中陰耶？』大慧！我時報言：『婆羅門！如是說者，悉是世論。非我所說，是汝世論。我唯說無始虛偽妄想習氣種種諸惡，三有之因，不能覺知自心現量而生妄想，攀緣外性。如外道法，我諸根義，三合智生。我不如是，婆羅門！我不說因，不說無因。惟說妄想攝所攝性，施設緣起，非汝所及餘墮受我相續者，所能覺知。』大慧！涅槃、虛空、滅，非有三種，但數有三耳。 「
〔T16 0504a02〕
復次，大慧！爾時世論婆羅門，復問我言：『癡愛業因故，有三有耶？為無因耶？』我時報言：『此二者，亦是世論耳。』彼復問言：『一切性皆入自共相耶？』我復報言：『此亦世論。婆羅門！乃至意流妄計外塵，皆是世論。』 「
〔T16 0504a08〕
復次，大慧！爾時世論婆羅門，復問我言：『頗有非世論者不？我是一切外道之宗，說種種句味、因緣、譬喻莊嚴。』我復報言：『婆羅門！有非汝有者。非為，非宗，非說，非不說種種句味，非不因譬莊嚴。』婆羅門言：『何等為非世論，非非宗，非非說？』我時報言：『婆羅門！有非世論，汝諸外道所不能知，以於外性不實妄想虛偽計著故。謂妄想不生，覺了有無自心現量。妄想不生，不受外塵。妄想永息，是名非世論。此是我法，非汝有也。婆羅門！略說彼識，若來若去，若死若生，若樂若苦，若溺若見，若觸若著，種種相。若和合相續，若受，若因計著。婆羅門！如是等比者，是汝等世論，非是我有。』大慧！世論婆羅門，作如是問，我如是答。彼即默然，不辭而退。思自通處，作是念言：『沙門釋子，出於通外，說無生無相無因，覺自妄想現，妄想不生。』大慧！此即是汝向所問我：『何故說習近世論種種辯說，攝受貪欲，不攝受法？』」
大慧白佛言：「世尊！攝受貪欲及法，有何句義？」
佛告大慧：「善哉，善哉！汝乃能為未來眾生，思惟諮問如是句義。諦聽，諦聽！善思念之，當為汝說。」
大慧白佛言：「唯然受教。」
佛告大慧：「所謂貪者，若取、若捨、若觸、若味，繫著外塵，墮二邊見。復生苦陰，生老病死憂悲苦惱。如是諸患，皆從愛起，斯由習近世論，及世論者，我及諸佛說名為貪。是名攝受貪欲，不攝受法。大慧！云何攝受法？謂：善覺知自心現量，見人無我及法無我相，妄想不生。善知上下地，離心意意識，一切諸佛智慧灌頂，具足攝受十無盡句，於一切法無開發自在，是名為法。所謂不墮一切見、一切虛偽、一切妄想、一切性、一切二邊。大慧！多有外道癡人，墮於二邊若常若斷，非黠慧者。受無因論，則起常見；外因壞因緣非性，則起斷見。大慧！我不見生住滅故，說名為法。大慧！是名貪欲及法。汝及餘菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「一切世間論，外道虛妄說，
妄見作所作，彼則無自宗。
惟我一自宗，離於作所作，
為諸弟子說，遠離諸世論。
心量不可見，不觀察二心，
攝所攝非性，斷常二俱離，
乃至心流轉，是則為世論。
妄想不轉者，是人見自心，
來者謂事生，去者事不現。
明了知去來，妄想不復生，
有常及無常，所作無所作，
此世他世等，斯皆世論通。」
〔T16 0504c01〕
爾時，大慧菩薩復白佛言：「世尊！所言涅槃者，為何等法，名為涅槃？而諸外道各起妄想。」
佛告大慧：「諦聽，諦聽！善思念之，當為汝說。如諸外道妄想涅槃，非彼妄想隨順涅槃。」
大慧白佛言：「唯然受教。」
佛告大慧：「或有外道，陰界入滅，境界離欲，見法無常，心心法品不生，不念去來現在境界，諸受陰盡，如燈火滅，如種子壞，妄想不生。斯等於此，作涅槃想。大慧！非以見壞，名為涅槃。大慧！或以從方至方，名為解脫，境界想滅，猶如風止。或復以覺所覺見壞，名為解脫。或見常無常，作解脫想。或見種種相想，招致苦生因；思惟是已，不善覺知自心現量，怖畏於相，而見無相，深生愛樂，作涅槃想。或有覺知內外諸法，自相共相，去來現在，有性不壞，作涅槃想。或謂我、人、眾生、壽命，一切法壞，作涅槃想。或以外道惡燒智慧，見自性及士夫，彼二有間，士夫所出，名為自性。如冥初比，求那轉變，求那是作者，作涅槃想。或謂福非福盡，或謂諸煩惱盡，或謂智慧。或見自在是真實作生死者，作涅槃想。或謂展轉相生，生死更無餘因。如是即是計著因，而彼愚癡不能覺知。不知故，作涅槃想。或有外道言，得真諦道，作涅槃想。或見功德，功德所起和合，一異、俱不俱，作涅槃想。或見自性所起孔雀文彩，種種雜寶，及利刺等性，見已作涅槃想。大慧！或有覺二十五真實，或王守護國，受六德論，作涅槃想。或見時是作者，時節世間，如是覺者，作涅槃想。或謂性，或謂非性，或謂知性非性，或見有覺與涅槃差別，作涅槃想。有如是比種種妄想，外道所說，不成所成，智者所棄。大慧！如是一切，悉墮二邊，作涅槃想。如是等外道涅槃妄想，彼中都無若生若滅。大慧！彼一一外道涅槃，彼等自論。智慧觀察，都無所立。如彼妄想心意來去，漂馳流動，一切無有得涅槃者。大慧！如我所說涅槃者，謂善覺知自心現量，不著外性，離於四句，見如實處，不隨自心現妄想二邊，攝所攝不可得。一切度量不見所成，愚於真實，不應攝受。棄捨彼已，得自覺聖法。知二無我，離二煩惱，淨除二障，永離二死。上上地如來地，如影幻等諸深三昧，離心、意、意識，說名涅槃。大慧！汝等及餘菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學，當疾遠離一切外道諸涅槃見。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「外道涅槃見，各各起妄想，
斯從心想生，無解脫方便。
愚於縛縛者，遠離善方便，
外道解脫想，解脫終不生。
眾智各異趣，外道所見通，
彼悉無解脫，愚癡妄想故。
一切癡外道，妄見作所作，
有無有品論，彼悉無解脫。
凡愚樂妄想，不聞真實慧，
言語三苦本，真實滅苦因。
譬如鏡中像，雖現而非有，
於妄想心鏡，愚夫見有二。
不識心及緣，則起二妄想，
了心及境界，妄想則不生。
心者即種種，遠離相所相，
事現而無現，如彼愚妄想。
三有惟妄想，外義悉無有，
妄想種種現，凡愚不能了。
經經說妄想，終不出於名，
若離於言語，亦無有所說。」
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（一切法不生、宗、五分論、自宗通、說通、世論、三脫門、二無我、二障、涅槃、如幻夢）一仍其舊。外道所計的種種涅槃，一一列出，不省併。
一切法不生·菩薩不應立此為宗
「再者，大慧！說『一切法不生』的人——菩薩摩訶薩不應當把這個立作宗旨。為什麼呢？因為這個宗旨主張『一切法的體性其實無性』，又主張『它們是從因所生之相』。若說『一切法不生』作宗，這宗旨自身便壞了。這『一切法不生』的宗一壞，是因為這宗要靠對待才能成立。再說，那宗旨主張『不生』，卻要遍入一切法裡去講，於是它那『相不壞、體不生』的說法就矛盾了。所以立『一切法不生』為宗的人，他的說法自身便壞。大慧！立『有、無都不生』為宗的人，這宗一入到一切法性裡，『有相、無相』都了不可得。大慧！假使那宗立『一切法性不生』而作宗旨，這樣它也壞了——因為『有性、無性』之相本來不生的緣故，所以不應當立宗。因明的五分論有種種過失，展轉推求則因相各異，又都是造作而成的，所以不應當立這樣的宗分，就是說：不應當立『一切法不生』為宗，也一樣不應當立『一切法空』、立『一切法無自性』為宗。
「大慧！然而菩薩摩訶薩，該說『一切法如幻、如夢』——因為它有現、有不現之相的緣故，又因為凡見、凡覺都有過失的緣故，就當說一切法如幻夢的體性；只除了為使愚夫遠離恐怖而說的那句話之外。大慧！愚夫墮在『有、無』的見解裡，別讓他恐怖，以致遠離了摩訶衍大乘。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
無自性、無可說，無事、無相續，
那愚夫的妄想，如同死屍般的惡覺。
說「一切法不生」，並不是那外道的宗，
說到究竟本無所生，體性是眾緣所成就。
「一切法不生」，有慧的人不作此想，
那宗仍是從因而生，覺者把它一概除滅。
譬如眼睛害了翳病去看，妄見有垂髮之相，
計著法性也是這樣，愚夫作邪妄的分別。
在三有之中施設種種，其實無有事的自性，
施設了事的自性，一思惟便起了妄想。
把相、事施設為言教，心意亂而極其震掉，
佛子能超脫出來，遠離種種妄想。
本非是水卻受作水相，這是從渴愛而生，
愚夫這樣被惑亂，聖者所見則不然。
聖人所見清淨，三解脫、三昧從此而生，
遠離了生死，遊行無所畏懼。
修行到無所有，也無有性、無有非性，
性與非性平等，從這裡生出聖果。
怎樣是「性、非性」？怎樣叫作「平等」？
就是那愚心不知道，內外都極其漂動；
若能壞了那漂動，心就平等而見。
那時，大慧菩薩對佛說：「世尊！如世尊所說，就像對於所攀緣之事，智慧攀取不得，這是所施設的度量、所建立的施設。能攝受的既非有性，所攝受的也非有性。因為沒有可攝的，智慧就不生起，只是所施設的名字罷了。世尊！這是為什麼呢——是因為不能覺知法的自相、共相，於『異、不異』上分不清，所以智慧攀取不得嗎？還是因為自相、共相種種性、自性之相被隱蔽了，所以智慧不得呢？還是因為有山巖、石壁、地水火風的障隔，所以智慧不得呢？還是因為太遠、太近，所以智慧不得呢？還是因為年老、年幼、盲冥，諸根不具，所以智慧不得呢？世尊！若是因為不覺自相、共相的異與不異而智慧不得，那就不該說是『智』，該說是『無智』，因為明明有事在而攀取不得。若又是因為種種自相、共相、性、自性之相被隱蔽了而智慧不得，那也是無智，並不是智。世尊！是因為有『所知境』在，智才生起；並不是無所知境而遇合了所知境才叫作智。若說因為山巖、石壁、地水火風、太遠太近、老幼盲冥、諸根不具而智慧不得，那也不是智，該是無智，因為明明有事在而攀取不得。」
佛告訴大慧：「不是這樣的，你把無智當成了智，其實不是『非智』。我並不是那樣說的。我說對於所攀緣之事智慧攀取不得，這是所施設的度量所建立。是說：覺了自心所現的量，於『有、無有』、外境的『有性、無性』，智於事上攀取不得。因為不得，所以智於所知境上不生。隨順三解脫時，智也一樣不可得。不是那妄想的人，於無始以來性、非性虛偽的習智，作這樣的了知：知那本不可知。所以於外事的處所，把有相之性作無性看，妄想不斷。他在自心所現的量上建立起來，說『我、我所』之相，攝受而計著。他不覺是自心所現的量，於智與所知境上起了妄想。因為妄想，於是外境的有性、非性，觀察不得，便依著斷見了。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
對於種種所攀緣之事，智慧不去觀察，
這無智並不是智，是妄想的人如此說。
於不異之相、之性，智慧不去觀察，
被障礙以及遠近所隔，這就叫作邪智。
年老、年幼、諸根昏冥，而智慧不生，
其實明明有所知境在，這也叫作邪智。
宗通與說通：離自心現妄想
「再者，大慧！愚癡的凡夫，被無始以來虛偽、惡邪的妄想所轉來轉去；轉的時候，對於『自宗通』與『說通』，不能好好了知。他執著自心所現的外境之相，執著方便的言說，對於自宗『離四句而清淨』的通相，不能好好分別。」
大慧對佛說：「誠如尊者所教。唯願世尊！為我分別解說『說通』與『宗通』。使我以及其餘的菩薩摩訶薩，善於這二種通，令未來世的凡夫、聲聞、緣覺挑不出我們的短處。」
佛告訴大慧：「善哉，善哉！你仔細聽、仔細聽！好好思念，我當為你說。」
大慧對佛說：「是的，我領受教誨。」
佛告訴大慧：「三世如來，有二種法通，就是：說通，及自宗通。所謂說通，是說：隨順眾生心之所應，為他們說種種眾多的契經。這就叫作說通。所謂自宗通，是說：修行的人，離了自心所現的種種妄想。就是說：不墮在『一、異』、『俱、不俱』這些品類裡，超越了一切心、意、意識。那自覺聖的境界，離了因所成的見相，一切外道、聲聞、緣覺這些墮在二邊的人，都不能知。我說這就叫作自宗通法。大慧！這就叫作自宗通及說通之相。你以及其餘的菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
我說有二種通，就是宗通及言說，
言說是教授童蒙的，宗通是為修行者的。
世論慎勿習近：龍形摧帝釋
那時，大慧菩薩對佛說：「世尊！如世尊有一次曾說：『世間種種論議、種種辯說，切莫親近習學。若習近了，只攝取貪欲，不攝取正法。』世尊為什麼作這樣的說呢？」
佛告訴大慧：「世間的言論，有種種文句意味、因緣譬喻，採集習學而加以莊嚴，用來誘引誑惑愚癡的凡夫。它不能契入真實的自通之地，不能覺知一切法，妄想顛倒，墮在二邊。凡愚被癡惑而自己破壞了正見，於是在諸趣裡相續不斷、不得解脫，不能覺知這是自心所現的量，不離外境的自性，妄想而計著。所以世間言論、種種辯說，不能脫離生老病死、憂悲苦惱，只是誑惑迷亂罷了。大慧！釋提桓因廣解眾論，自己造了聲明之論。那世論的人有一個弟子，持著龍的形像，來到帝釋天宮，建立起論宗，要壞掉帝釋千輻的寶輪。約定：若我不如你，便斷我一一之頭，以謝所屈。作了這樣的約定，就用帝釋自己的論法，摧伏了帝釋。帝釋墮在負處，那弟子就壞了他的輪，回到人間來。就像這樣，大慧！世間言論，用因、譬來莊嚴，乃至是畜生，也能用種種文句意味，惑亂那諸天以及阿修羅，令他們著在生滅之見上，何況是人呢。所以，大慧！世間言論，應當遠離，因為它能招致苦生之因的緣故，切莫親近習學。大慧！那世論的人，只說身覺的境界罷了。大慧！那些世論的人，竟有百千之多；但到後時、後五十年，將破壞這結集。因為惡覺、惡見盛行的緣故，惡弟子就承受了。就像這樣，大慧！世論破壞了結集，用種種文句意味、因、譬來莊嚴，說外道的事，著在自家的因緣上，並沒有真正的自通。大慧！那些外道，並無自通之論，於其餘的世論，廣說無量百千事門，並無自通，也不自知那是愚癡的世論。」
那時，大慧對佛說：「世尊！若外道的世論，用種種文句意味、因、譬莊嚴，並無自通，只著在自家的事上；那麼世尊您也說世論——為種種從異方而來的與會大眾、天人、阿修羅，廣說無量種種文句意味。這樣，難道也不是自通嗎？難道也算入一切外道智慧言說之數了嗎？」
佛告訴大慧：「我不說世論，也無所謂來、去，只說『不來、不去』。大慧！所謂『來』，是趣向聚會而生；所謂『去』，是散壞。所謂『不來、不去』，就是不生、不滅。我所說的，不墮在世論妄想之數中。這是為什麼呢？就是說：不計著外境的有性、非性，就在自心所現之處。二邊的妄想都不能轉動它。相、境並非有性，覺了是自心所現，那麼於自心所現處，妄想便不生。妄想不生，就是空、無相、無作，契入三解脫門，這叫作解脫。大慧！我記得有一次，住在一個地方。有一個世論婆羅門，來到我這裡。他不待請、也不在閒暇之時，便問我說：『瞿曇！一切都是所作的嗎？』我當時回答：『婆羅門！說「一切是所作」，這是第一種世論。』他又問：『一切都不是所作的嗎？』我又答他：『說「一切非所作」，這是第二種世論。』他又問：『一切是常嗎？一切無常嗎？一切是生嗎？一切不生嗎？』我當時答他：『這是六種世論。』大慧！他又問我：『一切是一嗎？一切是異嗎？一切是俱嗎？一切不俱嗎？一切都是由種種因而受生顯現的嗎？』我當時答他：『這是十一種世論。』大慧！他又問：『一切是無記嗎？一切是有記嗎？有我嗎？無我嗎？有此世嗎？無此世嗎？有他世嗎？無他世嗎？有解脫嗎？無解脫嗎？一切是剎那嗎？一切不剎那嗎？有虛空嗎？有非數滅嗎？有涅槃嗎？瞿曇！是作的嗎？是非作的嗎？有中陰嗎？無中陰嗎？』大慧！我當時答他：『婆羅門！像這樣說的，通通是世論，不是我所說的，是你的世論。我只說：無始以來虛偽妄想的習氣，種種諸惡，是三有之因；不能覺知這是自心所現的量而生起妄想，去攀緣外境。像外道的法，說「我的諸根、外義、我這三者會合，智便生起」。我不是這樣說的。婆羅門！我不說有因，也不說無因。只說妄想能攝、所攝之性，施設緣起——這不是你所能及的，也不是其餘墮在「受我」相續中的人所能覺知的。』大慧！涅槃、虛空、滅，並不是有這三種實體，只是名數上有三罷了。」
世論婆羅門再問：癡愛業因·一切入自共相
「再者，大慧！那時世論婆羅門，又問我說：『是因為癡、愛、業這些因，才有三有嗎？還是無因呢？』我當時答他：『這兩種說法，也都是世論罷了。』他又問：『一切法性都攝入自相、共相裡嗎？』我又答他：『這也是世論。婆羅門！乃至意念流動、妄計外塵，通通是世論。』」
世論婆羅門三問：有沒有「非世論」
「再者，大慧！那時世論婆羅門，又問我說：『有沒有「非世論」的呢？我是一切外道的宗主，說種種文句意味、因緣、譬喻莊嚴。』我又答他：『婆羅門！有——只是不是你所有的那種：不是造作的，不是（你那種）宗，不是（你那種）說，也不是不說種種文句意味，不是不用因、譬莊嚴。』婆羅門說：『什麼叫作非世論、非「非宗」、非「非說」呢？』我當時答他：『婆羅門！有一種非世論，是你們諸外道所不能知道的，因為你們對外境不實而作虛偽的妄想計著。所謂：妄想不生，覺了「有、無」都是自心所現的量。妄想不生，便不受外塵。妄想永遠止息，這就叫作非世論。這是我的法，不是你所有的。婆羅門！略說那識：若來、若去，若死、若生，若樂、若苦，若溺、若見，若觸、若著，種種之相；若和合、相續，若受，若因而計著。婆羅門！像這一類的，都是你們的世論，不是我所有的。』大慧！那世論婆羅門，作這樣的問，我作這樣的答。他就默然，不辭而退了。他思量自通之處，作這樣的念頭：『那沙門釋子，出於通外，說「無生、無相、無因，覺了自妄想所現，妄想不生」。』大慧！這就是你先前問我的：『為什麼說習近世論、種種辯說，會攝受貪欲、不攝受法？』」
大慧對佛說：「世尊！攝受貪欲以及攝受法，有什麼句義呢？」
佛告訴大慧：「善哉，善哉！你竟能為未來的眾生，思惟諮問這樣的句義。仔細聽、仔細聽！好好思念，我當為你說。」
大慧對佛說：「是的，我領受教誨。」
佛告訴大慧：「所謂貪，就是：若取、若捨、若觸、若味，繫著在外塵上，墮在二邊之見。又生起苦陰，招來生老病死、憂悲苦惱。這些禍患，都從愛而起，這是由於習近世論以及世論的人——我以及諸佛，把這叫作貪。這就叫作攝受貪欲，不攝受法。大慧！怎樣叫作攝受法呢？就是：善能覺知自心所現的量，見人無我以及法無我之相，妄想不生。善知從下地到上地的次第，離了心、意、意識，得一切諸佛智慧的灌頂，具足攝受『十無盡句』，於一切法無須造作而自在——這就叫作法。就是說：不墮在一切見、一切虛偽、一切妄想、一切法性、一切二邊裡。大慧！有許多外道癡人，墮在二邊——或執常、或執斷，不是黠慧的人。他們接受了『無因論』，就起常見；把外因、把因緣壞為非有性，就起斷見。大慧！我因為不見『生、住、滅』，所以說名為法。大慧！這就叫作貪欲以及法。你以及其餘的菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
一切世間的論議，是外道虛妄之說，
妄見有「能作、所作」，他們便沒有真正的自宗。
只有我這一種自宗，離於「能作、所作」，
為諸弟子而說，令遠離種種世論。
心量本不可見，不去觀察那能所二心，
能攝、所攝都非有性，斷、常二見都遠離，
乃至心一流轉，那就成了世論。
妄想不轉的人，這人便見了自心，
所謂「來」是說事生，所謂「去」是說事不現。
明明白白了知去、來，妄想便不再生起，
有常以及無常，能作以及無所作，
此世、他世等等，這些全是「世論通」。
外道諸種涅槃差別
那時，大慧菩薩又對佛說：「世尊！所說的『涅槃』，是什麼樣的法，叫作涅槃？而諸外道各起種種妄想。」
佛告訴大慧：「仔細聽、仔細聽！好好思念，我當為你說。像諸外道所妄想的涅槃，並不是那能隨順涅槃的妄想。」
大慧對佛說：「是的，我領受教誨。」
佛告訴大慧：
「有的外道，把陰、界、入都滅了，於境界離欲，見諸法無常，令心、心所法一類不生，不憶念過去、未來、現在的境界，諸受陰盡了，如燈火滅、如種子壞，妄想不生——這一類人，就在這上頭作『涅槃』之想。大慧！並不是以『見的壞滅』就叫作涅槃。
「大慧！有的以『從此方到彼方』叫作解脫，境界之想滅了，猶如風止。
「有的又以『能覺、所覺的見壞滅了』叫作解脫。
「有的見『常、無常』，作解脫之想。
「有的見種種相想會招致苦生之因，思惟這個以後，卻不能善覺知這是自心所現的量，於是怖畏有相，而見一個無相，深深生起愛樂，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的覺知內外諸法的自相、共相，於過去、未來、現在有一個『有性』不壞，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的說『我、人、眾生、壽命，一切法都壞了』，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的以外道那被惡見所燒的智慧，見一個『自性』以及一個『士夫』，在那二者之間，是士夫所出，名為自性——就像數論的『冥初』那一比，由『求那』（三德）轉變，『求那』是作者——作『涅槃』之想。
「有的說『福、非福都盡了』，有的說『諸煩惱盡了』，有的說『是智慧』。
「有的見『自在天是真實的、是生死的作者』，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的說『展轉相生，生死更沒有別的因』——這樣就是計著有一個因，而那愚癡人不能覺知；因為不知，便作『涅槃』之想。
「有的外道說『得了真諦之道』，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的見『功德以及功德所起的和合，是一、是異、是俱、是不俱』，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的見『自性所起』——如孔雀的文彩、種種雜寶、以及利刺等的體性，是自然而有的——見了便作『涅槃』之想。
「大慧！有的覺了『二十五種真實（諦）』；有的『王守護國，受六德論』，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的見『時是作者』，說時節能作世間——這樣覺者，作『涅槃』之想。
「有的說是『有性』，有的說是『非性』，有的說『知性、非性』，有的見『有一個「覺」與涅槃有差別』，作『涅槃』之想。
「有像這一類種種妄想，是外道所說，不成而說成，是智者所棄捨的。大慧！像這一切，通通墮在二邊，而作『涅槃』之想。像這樣種種外道涅槃的妄想，那裡頭其實根本沒有什麼『生』、什麼『滅』。大慧！那一一外道的涅槃，是他們各自的論說；以智慧觀察，都無所建立。像那妄想之心、之意的來去，漂馳流動，一切都沒有一個得涅槃的。
「大慧！像我所說的涅槃，是說：善能覺知自心所現的量，不著外境之性，離於四句，見如實之處，不隨自心所現的妄想二邊，能攝、所攝都不可得。一切度量都不見有所成，愚於真實的不應攝受。捨棄了那些以後，得自覺聖法。了知二無我，離二種煩惱，淨除二障，永離二種死。到那上上地、如來地，如影、如幻等等甚深三昧，離了心、意、意識——這才說名為涅槃。大慧！你們以及其餘的菩薩摩訶薩，應當修學，應當趕快遠離一切外道的種種涅槃之見。」
那時，世尊想要重新宣明這一義理，便以偈頌說：
外道的涅槃之見，各各起著妄想，
都是從心想而生，並無解脫的方便。
愚於「所縛、能縛」的人，遠離了善巧方便，
外道的解脫之想，解脫終究不生。
眾多的智見各趣異途，是外道所見的通，
他們都無解脫，因為愚癡妄想的緣故。
一切愚癡的外道，妄見有「能作、所作」，
立「有、無有」的品論，他們都無解脫。
凡愚愛樂妄想，不能聽聞真實之慧，
言語是三苦之本，真實才是滅苦之因。
譬如鏡中之像，雖然顯現卻非實有，
在妄想的心鏡上，愚夫見有能所二法。
不識心以及緣，便起了能所二妄想，
了達心以及境界，妄想便不生起。
心本身就是種種，遠離了「相、所相」，
事雖顯現而實無所現，正如那愚人的妄想。
三有唯是妄想，外境之義全都無有，
妄想種種顯現，凡愚不能了達。
一部部經所說的妄想，終究出不了「名」，
若離了言語，也就無有所說。
Technical terms of this division (all dharmas non-arising, thesis, the five-membered inference, realization-mastery, teaching-mastery, worldly discourse, the three gates of liberation, the twofold no-self, the two obstructions, nirvāṇa, illusion and dream) are all kept as they stand. The several nirvāṇas that the outsiders reckon are set out one by one, none abridged or merged.
All dharmas non-arising · the bodhisattva should set up no thesis
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! one who says 'all dharmas are non-arising' — the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should not set this up as a thesis. Why so? Because this thesis holds that the nature of all dharmas is in truth no-nature, and holds too that they are the mark of what arises from cause. If 'all dharmas non-arising' is made a thesis, this thesis ruins itself. That the thesis of 'all dharmas non-arising' ruins itself is because this thesis can be established only by way of a correlate. Again, that thesis holds 'non-arising,' yet would enter into all dharmas to teach it — and thereupon its saying that 'the mark is not ruined, the substance does not arise' contradicts itself. So one who sets up 'all dharmas non-arising' as a thesis, his saying ruins itself. Mahāmati! for one who sets up 'existent-and-non-existent both non-arising' as a thesis, the moment this thesis enters into the nature of all dharmas, 'the mark of existence, the mark of non-existence' are alike unfindable. Mahāmati! were that thesis to set up 'the nature of all dharmas is non-arising' as its thesis, in this way too it ruins itself — because the mark of 'existent nature, non-existent nature' is, from the very first, non-arising, and therefore one should set up no thesis. The five-membered inference of logic has faults of many kinds; pursued round and round, the marks of the reason turn out each different, and all of them are made [things] — therefore one should set up no such thesis-member, which is to say: one should set up no thesis of 'all dharmas non-arising,' just as one should likewise set up no thesis of 'all dharmas empty,' or of 'all dharmas without intrinsic nature.'
"Mahāmati! And yet the bodhisattva-mahāsattva ought to say that 'all dharmas are like illusion, like a dream' — because they have the mark of appearing and not-appearing, and because all seeing, all awareness has its faults, one should then say that the nature of all dharmas is like illusion and dream; save only for that one saying spoken to make the foolish leave off their dread. Mahāmati! the foolish common person falls into the view of 'existence' and 'non-existence'; do not let him be frightened, and thereby leave the great vehicle of the Mahāyāna."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
Without intrinsic nature, without anything to say, without thing, without continuum —
that false imagining of the foolish is like the evil awareness of a corpse.
To say "all dharmas are non-arising" is not the thesis of the outsiders;
said to the very end, there is nothing at all arisen, the nature being brought about by the many conditions.
"All dharmas are non-arising" — the one with insight forms no such thought;
that thesis is still what arises from cause, and the awakened one demolishes it all.
Just as an eye harmed with cataract falsely sees a mark of hovering hairs,
so to cling to the nature of dharmas is the foolish making a wrong discrimination.
Setting up all sorts of things within the three existences, there is in truth no self-nature of a thing;
having set up a self-nature for the thing, one thought and false imagining arises.
Setting up mark and thing as verbal teaching, the mind runs wild and is shaken to the utmost;
the son of the Buddha is able to escape it, leaving behind all sorts of false imagining.
What is in truth not water is taken for the mark of water, and this arises from thirsting craving;
thus is the foolish deluded, [whereas] what the noble see is not so.
What the noble see is pure, the three liberations and samādhi are born of it,
leaving behind birth-and-death, they roam with nothing to fear.
Cultivating practice down to "nothing whatever," there is neither existent nature nor non-existent nature;
nature and non-nature being equal, from this the noble fruit is born.
What is "nature and non-nature"? what is called "the equal"?
It is that the foolish mind does not know, and inner and outer are drifting to the utmost;
could one but ruin that drifting, the mind would be equal and would see.
At that time the bodhisattva Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! as the World-Honored One has said — that as regards the thing taken as object, wisdom takes hold of it and cannot get it, and this is the measure that is set up, the setting-up that is established — the grasper being of no existent nature, the grasped too being of no existent nature; because there is nothing to grasp, wisdom does not arise, [and it is] only the name that is set up. World-Honored One! why is this so — is it because one cannot awaken to the particular mark and the shared mark of dharmas, and cannot tell 'different' from 'not-different,' that wisdom cannot get its hold? Or is it because the particular mark, the shared mark, and the various natures and self-nature-marks are hidden away, that wisdom cannot get [them]? Or is it because there is the barrier of a crag, a stone wall, or earth-water-fire-wind, that wisdom cannot get [them]? Or is it because [a thing] is too far or too near, that wisdom cannot get [it]? Or is it because of old age, or infancy, or blindness, the faculties not being complete, that wisdom cannot get [it]? World-Honored One! if it is because one does not awaken to the difference or not-difference of the particular and shared marks that wisdom cannot get its hold, then it ought not to be called 'wisdom' — it ought to be called 'no-wisdom,' since plainly there is a thing there and yet [wisdom] takes hold and cannot get it. And if it is again because the various particular and shared marks, natures and self-nature-marks are hidden away that wisdom cannot get [them], that too is no-wisdom, and is not wisdom. World-Honored One! it is because there is a 'known object' present that wisdom arises; it is not that, there being no known object, [wisdom] meets with a known object and is then called wisdom. If one says that because of a crag, a stone wall, earth-water-fire-wind, too far or too near, old age, infancy, blindness, the faculties not being complete, wisdom cannot get its hold — that too is not wisdom, but ought to be no-wisdom, since plainly there is a thing there and yet [wisdom] takes hold and cannot get it."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "It is not so; you have taken no-wisdom for wisdom, [when] in truth it is not 'not-wisdom.' It is not thus that I taught it. I said that as regards the thing taken as object wisdom takes hold and cannot get it, and this is the measure that is set up, [the setting-up] established. It is to say: awakening to what is the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, then as regards 'existence, non-existence' and the 'existent nature, non-existent nature' of the outer objective realm, wisdom takes hold of the thing and cannot get it. Because it cannot get it, wisdom does not arise as regards the known object. In accord with the three liberations, wisdom too is alike unattainable. It is not the false-imagining man, who as regards the nature and non-nature of the false habit-wisdom that is beginningless makes this kind of knowing — knowing that which is fundamentally unknowable. So as regards the place of outer things, taking a nature that has a mark for no-nature, false imagining does not cease. He, upon what is the measure of his own mind's manifestation, sets up and speaks of the mark of 'I and mine,' grasping and clinging. He does not awaken to its being the measure of his own mind's manifestation, and as regards wisdom and the known object raises false imagining. And because of false imagining, thereupon as regards the existent nature and non-nature of the outer objective realm he examines and cannot get [it], and so leans upon the annihilation-view."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
As regards the various things taken as object, wisdom does not examine them,
this no-wisdom is not wisdom, [so] says the false-imagining man.
As regards the mark and nature of 'not-different,' wisdom does not examine [them],
barred off by hindrance and by far-and-near — this is called wrong wisdom.
Old age, infancy, the faculties dim, and wisdom does not arise,
[when] plainly there is a known object present — this too is called wrong wisdom.
Realization-mastery and teaching-mastery: apart from the false imagining of one's own mind's manifestation
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! the foolish common person is turned this way and that by the beginningless, false, evil-and-crooked imaginings; and being so turned, as regards 'realization-mastery' and 'teaching-mastery' he cannot rightly know [them]. Clinging to the mark of the outer objective realm that is his own mind's manifestation, clinging to the verbal teaching of expedients, as regards the mastery-mark of the [tenet]-school itself — 'apart from the four alternatives and pure' — he cannot rightly discriminate."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "It is just as the Honored One instructs. Would that the World-Honored One might discriminate and expound for me 'teaching-mastery' and 'realization-mastery,' so that I and the rest of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas, being skilled in these two masteries, might leave the common people, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas of the future age unable to find any fault in us."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Well done, well done! Listen closely and closely, [and] think well upon it; I shall teach it for you."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "So it is; I receive the teaching."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "The Tathāgatas of the three times have two kinds of dharma-mastery, namely: teaching-mastery, and realization-mastery of the [tenet]-school itself. What is called teaching-mastery is to say: according to what the minds of sentient beings will respond to, teaching for them all sorts of many sūtras. This is called teaching-mastery. What is called realization-mastery of the [tenet]-school itself is to say: the man who cultivates practice is apart from the various false imaginings that are his own mind's manifestation. That is to say: he does not fall into such classes as 'one and different,' 'both and not-both,' and passes beyond all mind, mentation, and mental consciousness. That realm of noble self-realization, apart from the seeing-mark brought about by causes — all the outsiders, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas, those men who fall into the two extremes, are unable to know it. I call this the dharma of realization-mastery of the [tenet]-school itself. Mahāmati! this is called the mark of realization-mastery of the [tenet]-school itself and of teaching-mastery. You and the rest of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should train in it."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
I teach two kinds of mastery, namely realization-mastery and verbal teaching,
verbal teaching is for instructing the ignorant child, realization-mastery is for the man who cultivates practice.
Take great care not to habituate to worldly discourse: the dragon-form subduing Śakra
At that time the bodhisattva Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! as the World-Honored One once said: 'The world's many disputations, its many arguings — take great care not to draw near and habituate to them. If one habituates to them, one seizes only craving and desire, one does not seize the right dharma.' Why did the World-Honored One make this kind of saying?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Worldly verbal discourse, with all sorts of phrases, flavors, causes, and figures, gathered and habituated to and thereby made ornate, is used to lure and delude and deceive the foolish common people. It cannot enter the true ground of self-mastery, it cannot awaken to all dharmas, [being] false imagining upside-down, falling into the two extremes. The foolish, deluded by delusion, themselves ruin their right view, and thereupon in the various destinies flow on unbroken and do not gain liberation; unable to awaken to its being the measure of their own mind's manifestation, not apart from the self-nature of the outer objective realm, they falsely imagine and cling. So worldly verbal discourse, its many arguings, cannot be free of birth-old-age-sickness-death, grief-sorrow-suffering-vexation — it is only a deluding and confounding. Mahāmati! Śakra, lord of the devas, understanding widely the many disputations, himself composed a treatise on sound. That worldly-discourse man had a disciple who, taking the form of a dragon, came to the palace of Śakra's heaven, set up a thesis, and made it his aim to break Śakra's thousand-spoked precious wheel. He made this pact: 'If I am not your match, I shall cut off my heads one by one, to atone for being worsted.' Having made this pact, he then with Śakra's own [logic-]method subdued Śakra. Śakra fell into the loser's place, and that disciple thereupon broke his wheel and came back to the human world. Just so, Mahāmati! worldly verbal discourse, ornamenting itself with cause and figure — even a beast is able, with all sorts of phrases and flavors, to delude those devas and asuras, making them cling to the view of arising-and-ceasing, how much more a man. Therefore, Mahāmati! worldly verbal discourse should be kept far from, because it is a cause bringing on the arising of suffering; take great care not to draw near and habituate to it. Mahāmati! that worldly-discourse man teaches only the realm of bodily awareness. Mahāmati! those worldly-discourse men run indeed to hundreds and thousands; but in a later time, after five hundred years, they will ruin this compilation. Because evil awareness and evil views run rampant, evil disciples will take it up. Just so, Mahāmati! worldly discourse ruins the compilation, ornamenting itself with all sorts of phrases, flavors, causes, and figures, teaching the affairs of the outsiders, clinging to its own causes and conditions, and having no true self-mastery. Mahāmati! those outsiders have no discourse of self-mastery, and as regards the rest of worldly discourse expound at large measureless hundreds and thousands of subject-gates, having no self-mastery, and not themselves knowing that it is foolish worldly discourse."
At that time Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! if the outsiders' worldly discourse, ornamented with all sorts of phrases, flavors, causes, and figures, has no self-mastery and clings only to its own affairs — then the World-Honored One too teaches worldly discourse, expounding for the many assemblies come from other quarters, [for] devas, men, and asuras, at large all sorts of measureless phrases and flavors. Is this too, then, not self-mastery? And is it too to be reckoned within the number of all the outsiders' wisdom-and-verbal-teaching?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "I do not teach worldly discourse, [and] there is no such thing as coming or going; I teach only 'not-coming, not-going.' Mahāmati! what is called 'coming' is to run toward a gathering and be born; what is called 'going' is to disperse and be ruined. What is called 'not-coming, not-going' is just not-arising, not-ceasing. What I teach does not fall within the number of the false imagining of worldly discourse. Why is this so? It is to say: not clinging to the existent nature or non-nature of the outer objective realm, [but] right at the place of one's own mind's manifestation. The false imagining of the two extremes cannot turn it. Mark and objective realm being of no existent nature, awakening to their being one's own mind's manifestation, then at the place of one's own mind's manifestation false imagining does not arise. False imagining not arising is just emptiness, marklessness, wishlessness — entering the three gates of liberation, and this is called liberation. Mahāmati! I recall that once I dwelt at a certain place. There was a worldly-discourse brahmin who came to where I was. Without waiting to be invited, and not at a leisured hour, he asked me, saying: 'Gautama! is all a made thing?' I answered then: 'Brahmin! to say "all is a made thing" is the first kind of worldly discourse.' He asked again: 'Is all not a made thing?' I again answered him: 'To say "all is not made" is the second kind of worldly discourse.' He asked again: 'Is all eternal? is all impermanent? is all arising? is all not-arising?' I answered him then: 'These are six kinds of worldly discourse.' Mahāmati! he asked me again: 'Is all one? is all different? is all both? is all not-both? is all born and made manifest by all sorts of causes?' I answered him then: 'These are eleven kinds of worldly discourse.' Mahāmati! he asked again: 'Is all undetermined? is all determined? is there a self? is there no self? is there this world? is there no this world? is there another world? is there no other world? is there liberation? is there no liberation? is all a momentary [thing]? is all not momentary? is there space? is there cessation-not-by-discernment? is there nirvāṇa? Gautama! is it made? is it not-made? is there an intermediate existence? is there no intermediate existence?' Mahāmati! I answered him then: 'Brahmin! what is spoken in this way is one and all worldly discourse, not what I teach; it is your worldly discourse. I teach only this: that the beginningless, false, false-imagining habit-energy, all its various evils, is the cause of the three existences; that being unable to awaken to its being the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, one raises false imagining and reaches out to the outer objective realm. Like the dharma of the outsiders, who say "when my faculties, the outer meaning, and this self of mine — these three — meet, then wisdom arises," it is not thus that I teach. Brahmin! I teach neither that there is a cause nor that there is no cause. I teach only that the grasping-and-grasped nature of false imagining sets up dependent-arising — [and] this is not what you can reach, nor what the rest, who fall into the continuum of "receiving a self," can awaken to.' Mahāmati! nirvāṇa, space, and cessation are not that there are these three [as] substance; it is only in name and number that there are three."
The worldly-discourse brahmin asks again: delusion-craving-action as cause · all entering the particular-and-shared mark
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! at that time the worldly-discourse brahmin asked me again, saying: 'Is it because of delusion, craving, and action — these causes — that there are the three existences? or is it without cause?' I answered him then: 'These two sayings too are both only worldly discourse.' He asked again: 'Do the natures of all dharmas enter into the particular mark and the shared mark?' I again answered him: 'This too is worldly discourse. Brahmin! down to the flowing of a thought and the false reckoning of the outer dust — it is one and all worldly discourse.'"
The worldly-discourse brahmin's third question: is there a "non-worldly-discourse"
"Furthermore, Mahāmati! at that time the worldly-discourse brahmin asked me again, saying: 'Is there such a thing as a "non-worldly-discourse"? I am the tenet-lord of all the outsiders, teaching all sorts of phrases, flavors, causes, and figures [made] ornate.' I answered him again: 'Brahmin! there is — only it is not the kind that you have: it is not a made [thing], not [your kind of] thesis, not [your kind of] teaching, and not not-teaching all sorts of phrases and flavors, not not-ornamenting with cause and figure.' The brahmin said: 'What is it to be called non-worldly-discourse, non-"non-thesis," non-"non-teaching"?' I answered him then: 'Brahmin! there is a non-worldly-discourse that you outsiders are unable to know, because as regards the outer objective realm you unreally make a false-imagining reckoning-and-clinging. It is to say: false imagining does not arise, [there is] awakening to "existence, non-existence" as alike the measure of one's own mind's manifestation. False imagining not arising, one then does not take in the outer dust. False imagining forever stilled — this is called non-worldly-discourse. This is my dharma, not the kind that you have. Brahmin! to speak briefly of that consciousness: whether coming or going, whether dying or being born, whether pleasure or suffering, whether sinking or seeing, whether touching or clinging, all sorts of marks; whether combining, [whether] continuum, whether receiving, whether clinging to a cause. Brahmin! such kinds as these are one and all your worldly discourse, not the kind that I have.' Mahāmati! that worldly-discourse brahmin, asking in this way, I answered in this way. He then fell silent, and without taking leave withdrew. He turned over in his mind his own place of self-mastery, [and] formed this thought: 'That śramaṇa son-of-the-Śākyas — he stands outside [our] masteries, teaching "no-arising, no-mark, no-cause, awakening to the false-imagined manifestation of one's own [mind], false imagining not arising."' Mahāmati! this is what you asked me before: 'Why is it that to draw near and habituate to worldly discourse and its many arguings is to seize craving and desire and not to seize the dharma?'"
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! 'seizing craving and desire' and 'seizing the dharma' — what are the phrase-meanings of these?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Well done, well done! that you are able, for the sentient beings of the future, to reflect and inquire of such phrase-meanings. Listen closely and closely, [and] think well upon it; I shall teach it for you."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "So it is; I receive the teaching."
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "What is called craving is to say: whether grasping, whether casting off, whether touching, whether savoring, [one is] bound and clinging to the outer dust, falling into the view of the two extremes. And there arises again the aggregate of suffering, bringing on birth-old-age-sickness-death, grief-sorrow-suffering-vexation. These calamities all arise from craving — [and] this comes of drawing near and habituating to worldly discourse and to the worldly-discourse men. I, and the buddhas, call this craving. This is called seizing craving and desire, [and] not seizing the dharma. Mahāmati! what is it to be called seizing the dharma? It is to say: being well able to awaken to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, seeing the no-self of persons and the mark of the no-self of dharmas, false imagining does not arise. Rightly knowing the sequence from the lower ground to the upper ground, apart from mind, mentation, and mental consciousness, one gains the wisdom-consecration of all the buddhas, is furnished in full with the seizing of the 'ten inexhaustible phrases,' and as regards all dharmas is sovereign without need of contriving — this is called the dharma. It is to say: not falling into all views, all falsity, all false imagining, all natures-of-dharmas, all the two extremes. Mahāmati! there are many foolish outsiders who fall into the two extremes — clinging now to the eternal, now to annihilation, [being] not men of keen insight. Having received the doctrine of 'no-cause,' they raise the view of the eternal; ruining the outer cause and the causes-and-conditions into no existent nature, they raise the view of annihilation. Mahāmati! it is because I do not see 'arising, abiding, ceasing' that I speak of the name 'dharma.' Mahāmati! this is what is called craving-and-desire and the dharma. You and the rest of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should train in it."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
All the world's disputations are the outsiders' false and empty teaching,
falsely seeing 'a maker, a made' — they have no true tenet-school of their own.
Only this one tenet-school of mine, apart from 'a maker, a made,'
is taught for the disciples, that they may leave behind all sorts of worldly discourse.
The measure of mind is fundamentally unfindable, examine not those grasper-and-grasped two minds;
grasper and grasped are alike of no existent nature, the two views of annihilation and the eternal are both left behind,
[but] down to a single flowing of the mind, and it becomes worldly discourse.
The man whose false imagining does not turn, this man then sees his own mind,
what is called 'coming' says the thing is born, what is called 'going' says the thing does not appear.
Understanding going-and-coming plainly and clearly, false imagining then no longer arises,
the eternal and the impermanent, a maker and no maker,
this world, the other world, and the rest — all these are the "worldly-discourse mastery."
The several distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders
At that time the bodhisattva Mahāmati again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! this 'nirvāṇa' that is spoken of — what kind of dharma is it that is called nirvāṇa, that the outsiders should each raise all sorts of false imagining [about it]?"
The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Listen closely and closely, [and] think well upon it; I shall teach it for you. Such nirvāṇas as the outsiders falsely imagine are not the false imagining that can accord with nirvāṇa."
Mahāmati said to the Buddha: "So it is; I receive the teaching."
The Buddha told Mahāmati:
"There are outsiders who, having made the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields all cease, free of desire toward the objective realm, seeing dharmas to be impermanent, making mind and mental factors of one class not arise, not calling to mind the objects of past, future, and present, the aggregates of feeling exhausted — like a lamp's flame gone out, like a seed spoiled, [with] false imagining not arising — this class of men, upon this, form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.' Mahāmati! it is not by the 'ruin of seeing' that [a thing] is called nirvāṇa.
"Mahāmati! there are [those] who take 'going from this quarter to that quarter' for liberation, the thought of the objective realm ceasing, as if the wind were stilled.
"There are [those] again who take 'the seeing of grasp-and-grasped being ruined' for liberation.
"There are [those] who see 'the eternal and the impermanent,' [and] form the thought of liberation.
"There are [those] who see that all sorts of mark-thoughts bring on the cause of the arising of suffering, [and] having reflected on this, are yet unable to awaken well to its being the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, and so, dreading what has a mark, they see a marklessness, and deeply raise a love-and-delight [in it], forming the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who awaken to the particular mark and shared mark of inner and outer dharmas, [and] as regards past, future, and present [see] an 'existent nature' that is not ruined, [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who say that 'self, person, sentient being, life-span, and all dharmas are ruined,' [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who, with that outsider-wisdom scorched by evil views, see an 'intrinsic nature' and a 'Person,' [and hold that] between those two, [what is] issued forth by the Person is named intrinsic nature — like the Sāṃkhya's 'primordial-obscure' by analogy, transformed by the 'guṇas' (the three qualities), the 'guṇas' being the maker — [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who say that 'merit and non-merit are exhausted'; there are [those] who say that 'the afflictions are exhausted'; there are [those] who say that 'it is wisdom.'
"There are [those] who see that 'the Sovereign Lord is real, is the maker of birth-and-death,' [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who say that 'in turn one thing gives birth to another, and birth-and-death has no other cause besides' — [and] thus they reckon there being a cause, [while] that foolish man is unable to awaken to it; because he does not know, he forms the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are outsiders who say that 'the way of the [ultimate] truth has been attained,' [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who see that 'merit and the combining that arises from merit — [whether] one, different, both, not-both,' [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who see that 'what is issued from intrinsic nature' — like the patterns on a peacock, the many kinds of miscellaneous gems, and the nature of sharp thorns and the like, being naturally so — [and] having seen it, form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"Mahāmati! there are [those] who awaken to 'the twenty-five reals (principles)'; there are [those] who, [holding that] 'a king guards the country and receives the doctrine of the six virtues,' form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who see that 'Time is the maker,' saying that the seasons are able to make the world — thus awakening, [they] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are [those] who say it is an 'existent nature,' [those] who say it is a 'non-nature,' [those] who say [there is] a 'knowing of nature-and-non-nature,' [those] who see that 'there is a "awareness" that is distinct from nirvāṇa,' [and] form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.'
"There are such kinds of all sorts of false imagining as these, taught by the outsiders, [what is] not established yet spoken as established, [what] is cast off by the wise. Mahāmati! all such [things] as these fall, one and all, into the two extremes, and form the thought of 'nirvāṇa.' In such kinds of the outsiders' false imagining of nirvāṇa, there is in truth no 'arising' at all within it, no 'ceasing.' Mahāmati! that each and every one of the outsiders' nirvāṇas is [only] their several own doctrines; examined with wisdom, they set up nothing at all. Like the coming-and-going of the false-imagining mind and its thought, drifting and racing and flowing, there is in it all not one that attains nirvāṇa.
"Mahāmati! the nirvāṇa I teach is to say: being well able to awaken to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, not clinging to the nature of the outer objective realm, apart from the four alternatives, seeing the place as-it-really-is, not following the two extremes of the false imagining of one's own mind's manifestation, [so that] grasper and grasped are alike unfindable. All measures being seen to set up nothing, [what is] foolish as to the real should not be seized. Having cast those off, one gains the noble dharma of self-realization. Knowing the twofold no-self, apart from the two kinds of affliction, cleansing away the two obstructions, forever apart from the two kinds of death; reaching that highest-of-high ground, the Tathāgata-ground, [with] such profound samādhis as [seeing all] like a shadow, like an illusion, apart from mind, mentation, and mental consciousness — this at last is named nirvāṇa. Mahāmati! you and the rest of the bodhisattva-mahāsattvas should train in it, should quickly keep far from all the outsiders' several nirvāṇa-views."
At that time the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse:
The outsiders' nirvāṇa-views, each raising its own false imagining,
all arise from the thought of the mind, [being] without the means of liberation.
The men foolish as to 'the bound and the binder,' are far from skillful means,
the outsiders' thought of liberation — liberation in the end is not born.
The many wisdom-views each run their divergent ways, [being] the mastery the outsiders see,
they are one and all without liberation, because of foolish and false imagining.
All the foolish outsiders, falsely see 'a maker, a made,'
setting up the classing of 'existent, non-existent' — they are one and all without liberation.
The foolish love and delight in false imagining, unable to hear the wisdom of the real,
verbal speech is the root of the three sufferings, the real is the cause that ends suffering.
Just as an image in a mirror, though it appears is not truly existent,
upon the mirror of the mind of false imagining, the foolish see there being grasp-and-grasped, the two.
Not recognizing mind and condition, they then raise the grasp-and-grasped, the two false imaginings,
understanding mind and the objective realm, false imagining then does not arise.
Mind itself is the all sorts [of things], apart from 'the mark and the marked,'
the thing appears yet in truth there is nothing appearing, just like the foolish man's false imagining.
The three existences are only false imagining, the meaning of the outer objective realm is all without existence,
false imagining manifests all sorts [of things], [which] the foolish are unable to understand.
The false imagining that sūtra after sūtra teaches in the end does not get past 'name,'
were one apart from verbal speech, there would then be nothing taught at all.
從一個難處問起
前面一路說「一切法不生」，說得那樣切；到這裡，佛卻忽然回過頭來，對菩薩下一道禁令：這「一切法不生」，你不許把它立作宗旨。
這就叫人愣住了。既說一切法不生，怎麼連「一切法不生」都不能說、不能立？難道剛給的話，轉眼又收回去？
要看清這一著，得先分清兩件事：一是「不生」這樁事本身，一是「把不生立成一個宗」這樁事。佛破的，從頭到尾只是後者，不是前者。這一分，正是這一整段的眼——它逼著我們把「唯識所現」與「口舌上的立宗」徹底分開：凡是能被架成一個對待之宗、能被拿去和外道對辯的，就已經不是那自覺聖智所證的境了。
不生不許立宗：因為它一落言想就走樣
佛的理路，古德說得極直白：一切法不生，是「言想俱絕」的意思——說到究竟，能說、所說都歇了。可你一旦把它立成「宗」，宗就得有主、有對待、有能立所立，於是這「言想俱絕」的一句，當下就落進了言、落進了想。言之已非，何況還鄭重立它為宗？外道立一個「不生宗」，反倒從這宗上生出枝生出葉，愈立愈遠——所以佛說：不應立是宗。
用唯識的眼看，這一破破得極深。一切法不生、法無自性，這話若當作一個「一切都沒有」的斷見去立，那就墮了法藏所說的第一種疑——聞畢竟空，執無因果。可佛的不生，從來不是這個。它是遍計所執的那一分無自性——你在依他起的如幻影像上，硬安一個實有的自性，這安上去的自性本來就沒有，所以說不生、說無自性；而那如幻如夢的依他影像，現不現之間宛然是有。所以佛緊接著給了正說：不要立不生為宗，要「說一切法如幻夢」。如幻，才兩頭都保得住——實無自性，故不落有；宛然而現，故不落無。這正是三無性所要護的那條中道：無性非撥無，如幻非實有。
也正因為究竟處言想俱絕，這一段的頌才反覆用一個譬喻來點：如同眼睛害了翳病去看，妄見空中有一縷垂髮。垂髮本無，是病眼自己現的；法的自性本無，是妄心自己計的。你若把「這裡本無垂髮」立成一個宗去和人爭，爭的還是病眼裡的事。佛要的，是治好那隻眼——覺了它本是自心所現，垂髮之相自然不勞破而自空。
世論慎勿習近：一條龍能把帝釋辯倒
分清了「不生非可立之宗」，底下一問便順勢逼來：那菩薩該不該去學世間的種種辯論？佛先前明明說過，世論切莫親近，習近了只攝貪欲、不攝正法——這是為什麼？
佛講了一段極生動的往事。帝釋天善解眾論，自造聲明之學；有一個世論外道的弟子，變作一條龍的形像，直上帝釋天宮，跟帝釋立宗對辯，約定輸的一方斷頭謝罪——結果這弟子竟用帝釋自己的論法，把帝釋辯倒、壞了他的千輻寶輪，才回到人間。
這條龍是要點。世間言論的可畏，不在它淺，恰在它文飾莊嚴、機鋒淩厲，淩厲到「乃至畜生」都能用種種句味，把諸天、阿修羅惑得死死著在生滅二見上——何況是人。它動人、勝人，卻始終「惟說身覺境界」，出不了六根六塵那一圈，契不進真實自通之地。所以佛的誡，不是怕輸，是怕那套本事把人愈引愈深地扎進二邊，離了大乘。
那麼佛自己為種種天人廣說無量言教，豈不也成了世論？大慧就這樣反問上來。佛的回答，一句話劃開了界：我不說世論，也無所謂來去，只說「不來不去」。所謂來，是趣聚會而生；所謂去，是散壞；不來不去，就是不生不滅。你看外道的世論，無論說常說斷、說一說異、說作說非作、說有此世他世——那一長串的問，佛一律判作世論，因為它們無一不是在「外境實有」的地基上打轉，無一不落二邊。而佛所說，立在另一處：不計著外性的有無，就在自心所現之處看；二邊妄想轉不動它。這就是唯識與世論的分水嶺——世論向外攀，唯識向自心現量返照；向外攀則生滅去來紛然，返照則相境非有、妄想不生，當下便是空、無相、無作的三解脫。
於是那婆羅門又追問：世上到底有沒有一種「非世論」？佛答得斬截：有，只是不是你所有的那一種。什麼是非世論？——妄想不生，覺了有無都是自心現量；妄想不生，就不受外塵；妄想永息，這才叫非世論。這一句，正是整個唯識的骨：離能取所取，返自心現量，二取不生。世論攝的是貪，這法攝的是——善覺自心現量、見人法二無我、離心意意識、得諸佛智慧灌頂。一個向外繫縛，一個返照解縛；貪與法之分，只在一個「覺自心現」的轉身。
外道諸種涅槃：一面照出二取的鏡子
到這一段的末後，大慧問出了最要緊的一問：所謂涅槃，究竟是什麼法叫涅槃？——因為外道各各起著不同的涅槃想，其說紛紜。
佛沒有先立自己的涅槃，而是先把外道的涅槃想一種一種攤開來給你看：有的把陰界入都滅盡、如燈滅種壞，以為那寂滅就是涅槃；有的以從此方到彼方、境界想滅如風止為涅槃；有的以能覺所覺見壞為涅槃；有的怖畏有相、硬見一個無相而愛著它；有的執一個「有性不壞」；有的計「我人眾生壽命一切法壞」；有的立一個「冥初、自性、士夫、求那作者」；有的說福盡、煩惱盡、或說是智慧；有的奉自在天為生死作者；有的計時是作者；有的覺二十五諦；有的執有性、執非性、執知性非性……種種計著，各自成論。
這一長串，佛不一一去和它對辯，只下一句總判：像這一切，通通墮在二邊而作涅槃想；那裡頭其實根本沒有什麼生、什麼滅。你把它們一一拿智慧去照，「都無所建立」——就像妄心的來去漂馳流動，一切都沒有一個真得涅槃的。
外道錯在哪？錯在都朝外去指認一個「東西」當涅槃——或指一個滅盡的境，或指一個不壞的性，或指一個作者。他們沒有回頭看：這一切被指認的，全是自心妄想所現的影。所以佛收束時，給出正說：我所說的涅槃，是善覺知自心現量，不著外性，離於四句，能攝所攝都不可得；了知二無我，離二煩惱，淨除二障，永離二死，到那如來地——這才名為涅槃。這一路，正是唯識轉依：不是滅掉一個什麼，是把那向外執取、迷為實有的識，轉成不迷自心現量的智；所依既轉，二障淨盡，便是大般涅槃。異譯裡有一句說得更利落——不知證自智境界、轉所依藏識為大涅槃。轉的是藏識，得的是涅槃；外道向外找的那一切「涅槃」，恰恰都在這一個「轉依」之外。
而收攝這一整段的，是那面鏡子。經末的偈說：譬如鏡中之像，雖現而非實；在妄想的心鏡上，愚夫卻見有能所二法；不識心與緣，便起二妄想，了達心與境界，妄想就不生。外道那二十餘種涅槃，說到底，都是心鏡裡的像——現而非有，愚夫卻認影為實，還要在影上分出一個能證、一個所證的涅槃來。了得這一面鏡就是自心，鏡裡本無二，妄想自然不生；那時，不必另求一個涅槃，妄想不生處即是。
承衍
這一段所立的三義，後世唯識諸論一一承接。「一切法不生、法無自性」不許立為斷宗，承成三十頌「即依此三性，立彼三無性」的三無性——相無性、生無性、勝義無性，正是護住「不生非撥無、如幻非實有」那條中道；佛不立不生為宗，論不立三無性為斷，同一機杼。「善覺自心現量、離能所二取」，承成唯識一系「唯識無境、離能取所取」的正義；世論向外攀而佛返照自心現，到了論裡便是「識所緣唯識所現」的返照工夫。而「離四句、轉依藏識、淨二障得涅槃」，承成唯識論二轉依的果——外道向外指認的種種涅槃都在轉依之外，唯轉那迷執的藏識為智，才是真涅槃；三十頌末後「此即無漏界，不思議善常」的解脫身，頌的正是這一轉。
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 hard place
All along, the scripture has been teaching "all dharmas are non-arising," and teaching it with such force; yet here the Buddha suddenly turns back and lays a prohibition upon the bodhisattva: this "all dharmas are non-arising" — you are not permitted to set it up as a thesis.
This is enough to leave one dumbstruck. Having just said that all dharmas are non-arising, how can one not even say, not even set up, "all dharmas are non-arising"? Are the words just given taken back again in the very next breath?
To see this move clearly, one must first tell two things apart: one is the matter of "non-arising" itself, the other is the matter of "making non-arising into a thesis." What the Buddha demolishes, from first to last, is only the latter, never the former. And this one distinction is precisely the eye of this whole passage — it forces us to draw an absolute line between "what consciousness-only manifests" and "the setting-up of a thesis on the tongue": whatever can be framed into a correlative thesis, whatever can be carried off to dispute with the outsiders, is already no longer that realm which the noble wisdom of self-realization realizes.
Non-arising is not to be set up as a thesis: because the moment it falls into word and thought it goes askew
The Buddha's line of reasoning the ancient masters put with the utmost plainness: all dharmas non-arising is the sense in which "word and thought are alike cut off" — said to the very end, both the saying and the said fall still. But the instant you set it up as a "thesis," a thesis must have a subject, a correlate, a proving and a proved; and thereupon this "word and thought alike cut off" falls, then and there, into word and into thought. To speak it is already to falsify it — how much more to set it up solemnly as a thesis? An outsider sets up a "non-arising thesis," and precisely from this thesis grows branch and grows leaf, the more it is set up the further astray — and so the Buddha says: one should set up no such thesis.
Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this demolition cuts very deep. "All dharmas are non-arising, dharmas are without intrinsic nature" — if this saying is set up as an annihilatory view that "all is nothing whatever," then it falls into the first of the doubts Fazang names: hearing ultimate emptiness, one clings to there being no cause-and-fruit. But the Buddha's non-arising was never this. It is that one portion of naturelessness that is the imagined — upon the illusion-like image that is the dependent, you forcibly install a really-existent intrinsic nature, and this installed nature was from the first not there, and so it is called non-arising, called without intrinsic nature; while that illusion-like, dream-like dependent image is, between appearing and not-appearing, vividly present. So the Buddha at once gives the right teaching: do not set up non-arising as a thesis; rather, "say that all dharmas are like illusion, like a dream." Illusion-like — only so are both ends kept safe: truly without intrinsic nature, and so it does not fall into existence; vividly appearing, and so it does not fall into non-existence. This is exactly the middle way the threefold naturelessness means to guard: naturelessness is no negation-into-nothing, illusion-like is no really-existent.
And it is just because at the ultimate point word and thought are alike cut off that this passage's verse turns again and again upon a single simile to point it out: like an eye harmed with cataract that falsely sees a strand of hovering hairs in the empty air. The hovering hairs were never there; the diseased eye itself manifests them. The intrinsic nature of a dharma was never there; the false mind itself reckons it. If you take "here there are no hovering hairs" and set it up as a thesis to contend with people, what is contended over is still an affair inside the diseased eye. What the Buddha wants is to heal that eye — awaken to its being one's own mind's manifestation, and the mark of the hovering hairs, without any labor of demolishing, empties of itself.
Take great care not to habituate to worldly discourse: a single dragon can argue Śakra down
Once "non-arising is no thesis that can be set up" has been told apart, a question presses in at once from below: ought the bodhisattva, then, to go and study the world's many disputations? The Buddha had plainly said before that worldly discourse must not be drawn near, that to habituate to it is to seize only craving and not to seize the right dharma — why so?
The Buddha tells a most vivid old tale. Śakra, lord of the devas, understood the many disputations well and himself composed a science of sound; and a disciple of a worldly-discourse outsider changed himself into the form of a dragon, went straight up to the palace of Śakra's heaven, set up a thesis and disputed with Śakra, pacting that the loser should cut off his head to atone — and in the end this disciple, using Śakra's own method of disputation, argued Śakra down, broke his thousand-spoked precious wheel, and only then came back to the human world.
This dragon is the point. The dreadfulness of worldly discourse lies not in its shallowness but exactly in its ornament and adornment, its edge and its keenness — keen enough that "even a beast" can, with all sorts of phrases and flavors, delude the devas and asuras into clinging fast to the two views of arising-and-ceasing — how much more a man. It moves people, it wins over people, and yet from first to last it "teaches only the realm of bodily awareness," never getting past that ring of the six faculties and six dusts, never entering the true ground of self-mastery. So the Buddha's caution is not a fear of losing; it is a fear that such a skill draws a man ever deeper into the two extremes, away from the great vehicle.
Then does the Buddha himself, teaching measureless verbal doctrine for the many devas and men, not likewise become worldly discourse? Just so Mahāmati asks back. And the Buddha's answer, in a single sentence, draws the boundary clear: I do not teach worldly discourse, and there is no coming or going; I teach only "not-coming, not-going." What is called coming is running toward a gathering and being born; what is called going is dispersing and being ruined; not-coming, not-going is just not-arising, not-ceasing. Look at the outsiders' worldly discourse: whether they say eternal or annihilated, say one or different, say made or not-made, say there is this world and another world — that whole long string of questions the Buddha judges, one and all, to be worldly discourse, because there is not one of them that is not spinning upon the ground of "the outer objective realm being really existent," not one that does not fall into the two extremes. But what the Buddha teaches stands at another place: not clinging to the existence or non-existence of the outer nature, but seeing right at the place of one's own mind's manifestation; the false imagining of the two extremes cannot budge it. This is the watershed between Yogācāra and worldly discourse — worldly discourse reaches outward and clutches, Yogācāra turns the light back upon the measure of one's own mind's manifestation; reach outward and clutch, and arising-and-ceasing, going-and-coming, teem in confusion; turn the light back, and mark and objective realm are of no existent nature, false imagining does not arise, and then and there it is the three liberations of emptiness, marklessness, and wishlessness.
And so the brahmin presses further: is there, in the world, after all, such a thing as a "non-worldly-discourse"? The Buddha answers point-blank: there is — only it is not the kind that you have. What is non-worldly-discourse? — false imagining not arising, awakening to existence and non-existence as alike one's own mind's manifestation; false imagining not arising, then one does not take in the outer dust; false imagining forever stilled — this at last is called non-worldly-discourse. This one sentence is the very bone of the whole of Yogācāra: apart from grasper and grasped, turning back to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, the twofold grasping does not arise. What worldly discourse seizes is craving; what this dharma seizes is — being well able to awaken to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, seeing the twofold no-self of persons and dharmas, being apart from mind, mentation, and mental consciousness, gaining the wisdom-consecration of all the buddhas. The one binds outward, the other turns the light back and unbinds; the parting of craving and dharma lies only in that one turning-round of "awakening to one's own mind's manifestation."
The outsiders' several nirvāṇas: a mirror that shows the twofold grasping reflected
At the very end of this passage, Mahāmati asks the most crucial question of all: this "nirvāṇa" that is spoken of — what kind of dharma, in the end, is it that is called nirvāṇa? — for the outsiders each raise a different thought of nirvāṇa, and their teachings run wild.
The Buddha does not first set up his own nirvāṇa; he first spreads open the outsiders' nirvāṇa-thoughts, one kind and one kind, for you to see: some make the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields cease utterly, and, as with a lamp gone out and a seed spoiled, take that stillness for nirvāṇa; some take going from this quarter to that, the thought of the objective realm ceasing as the wind is stilled, for nirvāṇa; some take the ruin of the seeing of grasp-and-grasped for nirvāṇa; some, dreading what has a mark, forcibly see a marklessness and cling in love to it; some cling to an "existent nature that is not ruined"; some reckon "self, person, sentient being, and life-span, and all dharmas, ruined"; some set up a maker — a "primordial-obscure, an intrinsic nature, a Person, the guṇas"; some say merit is exhausted, or the afflictions exhausted, or say it is wisdom; some serve the Sovereign Lord as the maker of birth-and-death; some reckon Time to be the maker; some awaken to the twenty-five principles; some cling to an existent nature, cling to a non-nature, cling to a knowing of nature-and-non-nature — reckonings of all sorts, each making its own doctrine.
This whole long string, the Buddha does not go and dispute one by one; he lays down only a single overall judgment: all such [things] as these fall, one and all, into the two extremes and form the thought of nirvāṇa; and within them there is in truth no arising at all, no ceasing. Take them one by one and shine wisdom upon them, and they "set up nothing at all" — like the coming-and-going of the false mind, drifting and racing and flowing, there is in it all not one that truly attains nirvāṇa.
Where do the outsiders go wrong? They go wrong in that all of them point outward and identify some "thing" as nirvāṇa — pointing now to a realm of utter cessation, now to an unruinable nature, now to a maker. They have not turned back to look: all that is pointed at and identified is wholly the shadow manifested by their own mind's false imagining. And so, when the Buddha draws to a close, he gives the right teaching: the nirvāṇa I teach is to be well able to awaken to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, not clinging to the outer nature, apart from the four alternatives, [so that] grasper and grasped are alike unfindable; knowing the twofold no-self, apart from the two afflictions, cleansing away the two obstructions, forever apart from the two deaths, reaching that Tathāgata-ground — this at last is named nirvāṇa. This whole course is precisely the Yogācāra transformation of the basis: it is not the snuffing-out of some thing, but the turning of that consciousness which grasps outward and, deluded, [takes things] for really existent, into the wisdom that is not deluded as to one's own mind's manifestation; the basis once transformed, the two obstructions cleansed to the end, this is the great parinirvāṇa. A variant translation puts it more trenchantly still — not knowing that to realize the realm of one's own wisdom, transforming the store consciousness that is the basis, is the great nirvāṇa. What is transformed is the store consciousness; what is gained is nirvāṇa; and all those "nirvāṇas" the outsiders sought by reaching outward fall, every one, outside this single "transformation of the basis."
And what gathers up this whole passage is that mirror. The verse at the passage's end says: just as an image in a mirror, though it appears is not real; upon the mirror of the false-imagining mind the foolish yet see there being grasp-and-grasped, the two; not recognizing mind and condition, they raise the two false imaginings, [but] understanding mind and the objective realm, false imagining does not arise. The outsiders' twenty-odd nirvāṇas are, in the last reckoning, all images inside the mirror of the mind — appearing yet not existent; the foolish take the shadow for real, and would go on to divide out of the shadow a realizer and a realized nirvāṇa. Understand that this one mirror is just one's own mind, and within the mirror there were from the first no two; false imagining does not arise of itself; and at that moment, without seeking another nirvāṇa, right at the place where false imagining does not arise, it is.
Onward Transmission
The three senses this passage establishes are taken up, one by one, by the Yogācāra treatises of the after-time. That "all dharmas non-arising, dharmas without intrinsic nature" is not permitted to be set up as an annihilatory thesis carries forward into the Thirty Verses' "upon these three natures the threefold naturelessness is set up" — the naturelessness of mark, the naturelessness of arising, the naturelessness of ultimate meaning are exactly what guards that middle way of "non-arising is no negation-into-nothing, illusion-like is no really-existent"; the Buddha's not setting up non-arising as a thesis, and the treatise's not setting up the threefold naturelessness as an annihilation, are of one loom. That "being well able to awaken to one's own mind's manifestation, apart from the grasp-and-grasped two" carries forward into the Yogācāra lineage's right sense of "consciousness-only, without objects, apart from grasper and grasped"; worldly discourse reaches outward and clutches while the Buddha turns the light back upon the measure of his own mind's manifestation, and by the time this reaches the treatises it becomes the turning-the-light-back work of "what consciousness takes as object is only what consciousness manifests." And that "apart from the four alternatives, transforming the basis that is the store consciousness, cleansing the two obstructions and gaining nirvāṇa" carries forward into the fruit of the twofold transformation of the basis — all those nirvāṇas the outsiders point at by reaching outward fall outside the transformation of the basis; only in transforming that deludedly-grasping store consciousness into wisdom is there the true nirvāṇa; and the Thirty Verses' closing "the blissful body of liberation, this the untainted realm, inconceivable, good and constant" sings just this one turning.
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
本段立三事：一切法不生（菩薩不應立宗）· 世論婆羅門問答（佛不墮世論數）· 外道諸種涅槃差別（並錄不判）——皆歸「離四句、覺自心現量」為正。
一、科判定位
| 科判系統 | 此段之位 |
|---|---|
| T670 四卷本〈一切佛語心品〉 | 卷三·不生門—世論門—涅槃門（〔T16 0502a27〕一切法不生·菩薩不應立宗起—〔0505b09〕外道涅槃見偈訖）。四卷本一品貫通，依大慧問答輪次切；本段含四番問答：①一切法不生（不立宗）②宗通說通 ③世論慎勿習近（世論婆羅門問答）④外道涅槃差別 |
| 宗泐·如玘《註解》T1789（逐文·四卷本主疏） | 科「不應立宗」為撮義『恐菩薩立不生為宗，混於外計，故說此以破之』〔T39n1789 0396b24–25〕；科世論答為「顯正教」〔T39n1789 0399c10〕；科涅槃差別為撮義『對邪顯正…前論二乘所得涅槃，與外道以妄想識滅為涅槃，辯之明矣』〔T39n1789 0401c10–12〕 |
| 法藏《入楞伽心玄義》T1790（綱·非逐文） | 判學此經三疑，其一「聞畢竟空，執無因果」〔T39 0426a12〕——本段「一切法不生·不應立宗」正對治此疑（不生非斷無）；其三「聞說能所心境，執無唯識」——世論門「覺自心現量」正對治此 |
| T671 入楞伽經（菩提留支） | 一切法不生·不應建立段〔T16 0545c24〕· 世間論段〔0536b08〕區 · 外道涅槃段〔0549a14〕 |
| T672 大乘入楞伽經（實叉難陀） | 涅槃差別段〔T16 0597a16〕· 一切法不生段〔0611c〕區 · 世論段〔0612c09〕· 外道涅槃見偈〔0614b10〕 |
五、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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 世論 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 宗泐：「即外道盧伽耶陀，此翻左世、亦云惡論」〔T39n1789 0399a14〕 | 外道世間言論；但飾文詞、誑惑凡愚，攝取世間財欲不得法利。宗泐：「不詮正理，卒歸於二邊」 |
| 自宗通 / 宗通 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 T16n0670 0503a15〕 | 修行者離自心現妄想、超度心意意識、自覺聖境界。宗泐：「宗者道之本…宗以明趣」〔0389c17〕 |
| 說通 / 言說 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0503a13〕 | 隨眾生心之所應為說種種契經。宗泐：「說者教之跡…教以詮理」〔0389c17〕 |
| 五分論 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 宗泐：「一宗、二因、三喻、四合、五結」〔T39n1789 0371a04–05〕 | 因明五支；宗泐：「宗、因、喻三，亦云三支比量。合、結但成此三義」〔T39n1789 0371a04–05〕——本段「五分論多過故」不應立宗之所指 |
| 三脫門 / 三解脫 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0503c08–09·0504b05〕 | 空·無相·無作。本段「妄想不生者，空無相無作，入三脫門，名為解脫」〔T16n0670 0503c08–09〕 |
| 二無我 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0504b07–08·0505a13〕 | 人無我·法無我。攝法門云「見人無我及法無我相，妄想不生」〔T16n0670 0504b07–08〕；涅槃門云「知二無我」 |
| 二障 / 二死 | —（無古德音寫·從闕） | 〔本段 0505a13–14〕 | 涅槃門：「離二煩惱，淨除二障，永離二死」〔T16n0670 0505a13–14〕——如來地涅槃相 |
| 涅槃 | nirvāṇa | —（本段無古德音寫·從闕） | 本段明外道諸種妄想涅槃（並錄不判）與佛所說涅槃（善覺知自心現量·離四句）之分 |
IAST 為發音輔助。本段諸名（世論·自宗通·說通·五分論等）無四卷本古德音寫可徵者，從闕，不以近代還原充數；涅槃 nirvāṇa 為通行梵名，繫作發音輔助。
六、譬喻·修辭
(一) 龜毛·沙油喻（不生·不立宗）——〔T16n0670 頌 0502b16–17〕本段破外道立不生宗，經以「無自性無說，無事無相續，彼愚夫妄想，如死尸惡覺」等頌斥之；宗泐引前文「龜應生毛、沙應出油」（0501c 區「兔無角、龜毛、沙油」之類）明妄立宗之過（有種無種、三緣和合而生則墮不決定義）。
- 喻依：立「一切法不生」為宗者。所顯義：不生乃言想俱絕之義，一立為宗即「言之已非」（宗泐 0396b21），反同外道枝葉。
(二) 龍形詣天·摧帝釋喻（世論之惑）——〔T16n0670 0503b12–15〕「彼世論者有一弟子，持龍形像，詣釋天宮，建立論宗，要壞帝釋千輻之輪…即以釋法，摧伏帝釋」：
- 喻依：世間言論因譬莊嚴之力。所顯義：世論文飾能惑諸天阿修羅著生滅見，「乃至畜生亦能以種種句味惑彼」〔T16n0670 0503b17〕，況於人——故當遠離。三譯俱存（T672 0612c09「現作龍身詣釋天宮」）。
(三) 破瓶·焦種喻（斷滅之過）——本段承前門「譬如破瓶，不作瓶事；亦如焦種，不作牙事」〔T16n0670 0483c01–02〕之喻，斥外道「陰界入性已滅、今滅、當滅」之斷見（涅槃門所破）。
- 喻依：妄計法性斷滅者。所顯義：斷滅則無次第生，同外道斷見。
(四) 鏡中像喻（外道涅槃偈·唯心）——〔T16n0670 偈 0505a29〕「譬如鏡中像，雖現而非有，於妄想心鏡，愚夫見有二。不識心及緣，則起二妄想，了心及境界，妄想則不生」：
- 喻體：鏡中像（現而非有）。喻依：妄想心鏡所現二取。所顯義：諸法如鏡像，現而非實；了唯心則二妄想不生——收攝外道涅槃諸妄於「唯心」一義。此喻直承本經藏識義（現識如明鏡持像）。T672 偈全同「譬如鏡中像，雖現而非實；習氣心鏡中，凡愚見有二」〔T16n0672 0614b20–21〕。
二、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（菩提留支）· T672（實叉難陀）。三譯此段品目切分不同，逐句對位如下。
句一 一切法不生·菩薩不應立宗
| 版本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| T670 求那 | 一切法不生者，菩薩摩訶薩不應立是宗。所以者何？謂宗一切性非性故，及彼因生相故。 | T16n0670 0502a27–28 |
| T671 流支 | 不應建立諸法不生。何以故？以建立法同諸法有，若不爾者同諸法無…以彼建立三法五法和合有故，離於建立有無不生。 | T16n0671 0545c24– |
| T672 實叉 | （去來現在諸如來說一切法不生。何以故？自心所見非有性故，離有無生故，如兔馬等角凡愚妄取，唯自證聖智所行之處，非諸愚夫二分別境。） | T16n0672 0611c06– |
異文所繫：三譯同立「一切法不生」而處理「立宗」不同。T670 直破「菩薩摩訶薩不應立是宗」（不生是自覺聖智境，一立為宗即混外計）；T671 作「不應建立諸法不生」（就立量之自破明之）；T672 於此逕明「一切法不生」之所以（自心所見非有·離有無生·兔馬等角），未別立「破立宗」之破。三本同歸：不生非可立之宗，乃言想俱絕之自覺聖智境。
句二 世論慎勿習近·龍形摧帝釋
| 版本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| T670 求那 | 大慧！釋提桓因，廣解眾論，自造聲論。彼世論者有一弟子，持龍形像，詣釋天宮，建立論宗，要壞帝釋千輻之輪…即以釋法，摧伏帝釋。 | T16n0670 0503b12–15 |
| T672 實叉 | 大慧！釋提桓因廣解眾論、自造諸論。彼世論者有一弟子，現作龍身詣釋天宮，而立論宗作是要言：『憍尸迦！我共汝論，汝若不如，我當破汝千輻之輪…』即以論法摧伏帝釋、壞千輻輪，還來人間。 | T16n0672 0612c10–14 |
異文所繫：T670／T672 龍形摧帝釋喻逐句大同（持龍形像／現作龍身·詣釋天宮·壞千輻輪·還來人間）；T672 補出憍尸迦（帝釋別名）之對論要言，較詳。同顯：世論文飾之惑力，乃至能現龍形惑諸天，故當遠離。
句三 外道諸種涅槃差別（陰界入滅·如燈滅種壞）
| 版本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| T670 求那 | 或有外道，陰界入滅，境界離欲，見法無常，心心法品不生，不念去來現在境界，諸受陰盡，如燈火滅，如種子壞，妄想不生，斯等於此，作涅槃想。大慧！非以見壞，名為涅槃。 | T16n0670 0504c05–08 |
| T671 流支 | 有諸外道厭諸境界，見陰、界、入滅諸法無常，心心數法不生現前，以不憶念過去未來現樂境界，諸陰盡處如燈火滅種種風止，不取諸相妄想分別，名為涅槃。大慧！而彼外道見如是法生涅槃想。 | T16n0671 0549a16– |
| T672 實叉 | 〔涅槃差別段〕涅槃差別之相，一切皆是妄分別有，無所有故，妄計未來諸根境滅以為涅槃，不知證自智境界轉所依藏識為大涅槃。 | T16n0672 0597a16– |
異文所繫：(甲) 陰界入滅·如燈滅種壞之第一種外道涅槃想，T670／T671 逐句相校（陰界入滅·見法無常·心心法品不生·如燈火滅），T671 補「種種風止、不取諸相」；此當提婆《涅槃論》二十種之第一（目四）。(乙) T672 於此以「轉所依藏識為大涅槃」正判——直以藏識轉依攝涅槃義（唯識義眼所繫，目三）；T670 之正判在段末「善覺知自心現量…知二無我、離二煩惱、淨除二障」〔T16n0670 0505a09–14〕。三本同破：外道以境滅想滅為涅槃，皆「非以見壞名為涅槃」。
句四 外道涅槃見偈
| 版本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| T670 求那 | 外道涅槃見，各各起妄想，斯從心想生，無解脫方便。…譬如鏡中像，雖現而非有，於妄想心鏡，愚夫見有二。不識心及緣，則起二妄想，了心及境界，妄想則不生。 | T16n0670 0505b03– |
| T672 實叉 | 外道涅槃見，各各異分別；彼唯是妄想，無解脫方便。…譬如鏡中像，雖現而非實；習氣心鏡中，凡愚見有二。不了唯心現，故起二分別；若知但是心，分別則不生。 | T16n0672 0614b10–14 |
異文所繫：T670／T672 偈逐句相校：偈首「外道涅槃見，各各起妄想」（T672 作「各各異分別」）；鏡中像喻二本俱存（現而非有／非實·妄想心鏡／習氣心鏡·了心及境界／若知但是心，妄想則不生／分別則不生）。二本同歸唯心一義：外道涅槃諸見皆從心想生，了唯心則妄想不生。
三、唯識義之經據（眼）
本段立三唯識義：①一切法不生＝三無性·自覺聖智境（非斷無）②世論門「覺自心現量」＝唯識所現·離二取 ③外道涅槃差別歸「轉依藏識·離四句」＝唯識涅槃義。
(一) 一切法不生·非菩薩所立宗——三無性之經據——「五分論多過故…不應立宗分，謂一切法不生，如是一切法空、如是一切法無自性，不應立宗」〔T16n0670 0502b07–10〕：一切法不生非可立之宗（一立即混外計、墮言想），乃「說一切法如幻夢，現不現相故」〔T16n0670 0502b10–11〕之自覺聖智境。→ 唯識三無性義（相·生·勝義無性）之經據：法無自性非撥無因果之斷，乃遍計所執之無自性而依他如幻——與法藏所治「聞畢竟空執無因果」之疑相應（目一·目四）。
(二) 世論門·覺自心現量——唯識所現離二取——「有非世論，汝諸外道所不能知…謂妄想不生，覺了有無自心現量。妄想不生，不受外塵」〔T16n0670 0504a13–16〕；撮義『善覺知自心現量…攝所攝性…見人無我及法無我相，妄想不生』：非世論者，唯覺自心現量、二取（攝所攝）不生。→ 唯識「唯識無境·離能取所取」之經據：佛不墮世論數者，正以「不計著外性非性、自心現處，二邊妄想所不能轉」〔T39n1789 0399c06–07〕。
(三) 外道涅槃差別·佛所說涅槃——轉依·離四句——「如我所說涅槃者，謂善覺知自心現量，不著外性，離於四句，見如實處…知二無我，離二煩惱，淨除二障，永離二死，上上地如來地…離心意意識，說名涅槃」〔T16n0670 0505a08–09·0505a13–15〕：佛涅槃＝覺自心現量·離四句·二轉依（二無我·離二障）。T672 逕作「轉所依藏識為大涅槃」〔0597a17〕。→ 唯識涅槃義（轉依·淨除二障得二果·離心意意識）之經據；外道二十餘種涅槃想皆「墮二邊、從心想生」，正反顯唯識涅槃之離二邊。
承衍論之引楞伽：成唯識論三處引楞伽（藏識海浪·心意識伽他·三性）皆繫本經藏識/心意識義，非顯引本段之不生·世論·涅槃三事（校本定位詳目八）；本段唯識義以「承其義」相繫（三無性·唯識所現·轉依涅槃），不虛繫硬引。
四、諸家異釋（古德·標宗）
藏經內涉本段古德三源：宗泐·如玘《註解》（四卷本逐文主疏）· 法藏《玄義》（綱）· 提婆《外道小乘涅槃論》（釋本經涅槃段·古德專論）。誌錄不判：三源並錄，外道涅槃諸說如經自判「悉墮二邊」，錄其判不代立。
宗泐·如玘《楞伽阿跋多羅寶經註解》T39n1789（逐文·主）
釋「不應立宗」：
「上言妄想與聖智皆空，乃真妄俱遣，是不生義。恐菩薩立此為宗，混於外計，故說此以破之。言一切法不生，則言想俱絕，言之已非，況妄立宗乎？如彼外道立不生宗，反生枝葉，故云『不應立是宗』。」〔T39n1789 0396b23–27〕
（宗泐明：不生是言想俱絕之義，一立為宗即言之已非、反同外道枝葉——故破立宗，非破不生。）
釋世論答（顯正教）：
「此顯正教。初大慧反問，如來所說亦同世論…答中先拂初難，言我不說世論。蓋世論說去來，佛唯說不去不來。」〔T39n1789 0399c10–15〕
（宗泐：佛說「不來不去＝不生不滅」，不墮世論妄想數，異於外道說去來聚散。）
釋涅槃差別（對邪顯正）：
「前論二乘所得涅槃，與外道以妄想識滅為涅槃，辯之明矣。大慧於此復有所請者，恐理未盡明、見未盡破…如來乃告曰或有外道陰界入滅等作涅槃想者。」〔T39n1789 0401c10–16〕
「（如我所說涅槃者…）如我所說等者，對邪顯正。其文亦五：謂善覺知自心現量，不著外性，一也。離於四句，見如實處，二也。不墮自心現妄想二邊，則能取所取不可得，三也。」〔T39n1789 0402c21·0402c28–0403a03〕
（宗泐以五義科佛涅槃：①覺自心現量不著外性 ②離四句見如實 ③二取不可得，餘二承之——對破外道諸妄想涅槃。）
提婆《釋楞伽經中外道小乘涅槃論》T32n1640（古德專論·宗泐所引）
宗泐釋「陰界入滅作涅槃想」，引提婆論明外道涅槃二十種：
「按提婆論釋，凡外道妄計涅槃有二十種，此當第一，論曰：『諸受陰盡，如燈滅、種壞、風止，名涅槃。』」〔T39n1789 0401c16–18〕
（提婆菩薩造·菩提流支譯 T1640，專釋本經外道涅槃段，判外道妄計涅槃二十種；宗泐引之，判本段「陰界入滅·如燈滅種壞」為其第一種。古德以古德釋經，並錄不判。）
法藏《入楞伽心玄義》T39n1790（綱）
法藏判學此經三疑，本段一切法不生·涅槃義所對治者：
「（初學菩薩聞諸大乘經所說深義，未能決了，生三種疑：）一、聞畢竟空，執無因果；二、聞如來藏具足功德，疑同外道神我；三、聞說能所心境，執無唯識。」〔T39n1790 0426a10–14〕
（本段「一切法不生·不應立宗」對治第一疑——不生是如幻依他，非撥無因果；世論門「覺自心現量」對治第三疑——非無唯識。）
七、互讀·承衍
本經為唯識系經源；本段所立三義（不生·唯識所現·轉依涅槃），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，以穩定徵引為主，不虛繫硬引：
- 成唯識論：論引楞伽三處（藏識海浪偈·心意識伽他·三性）皆繫本經藏識/心意識義，非顯引本段之不生·世論·涅槃；本段「一切法不生·法無自性」承衍論三無性義（相·生·勝義無性）、「善覺知自心現量·離二取」承衍論唯識無境義、「轉依·淨除二障·離心意意識」承衍論二轉依涅槃義——皆承其義而繫，不硬引其文（免虛繫）。
- 三十頌 v.23–24 三無性·v.29–30 轉依：「即依此三性，立彼三無性」（三無性）承本段「一切法無自性」不生義；「無得不思議…此即無漏界，不思議善常，安樂解脫身」〔T31n1585 0050c19·0057a11–12〕（轉依果）承本段佛涅槃「知二無我·離二障·如來地」義。
- 攝大乘論〈彼果斷分〉·〈彼果智分〉：無住涅槃·轉依二果承本段佛涅槃離二邊義；攝論本 T1594 文中「首楞伽摩」為三摩地名，非楞伽經（誌此以免誤繫）——承其義而不引其文。
- 百法〈無為法〉·〈心不相應行〉：涅槃（擇滅無為）之百法位承本段佛涅槃義；外道所計「時·自性·士夫·冥初·求那」等作者，即百法所破之外計。
- 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；本段無承衍論顯引之硬掛（成唯識論引楞伽三處皆藏識義·非本段），故一律承其義而繫，俟承衍論定本若有硬掛再補。
八、校本定位
- T670 求那（底本）：〔T16n0670 0502a27〕一切法不生·不應立宗起—〔0505b09〕外道涅槃見偈訖。不應立宗 0502a27 · 五分論多過 0502b07 · 頌 0502b13 · 攀緣事智不得問答 0502c08 · 宗通說通 0503a12 · 世論慎勿習近 0503b03 · 龍形摧帝釋 0503b12 · 我不說世論·不來不去 0503c 區 · 世論婆羅門十一世論問答 0503c– · 涅槃虛空滅非三 0504a01 · 癡愛業因 0504a03 · 頗有非世論 0504a08 · 妄想不生不受外塵 0504a16 · 攝受貪欲及法 0504b· · 見人無我法無我 0504b06 · 所言涅槃者 0504c01 · 外道涅槃差別 0504c05 · 如我所說涅槃者 0505a08 · 知二無我離二障 0505a13 · 鏡中像偈 0505a29。
- T671 流支（異譯對校）：不應建立諸法不生〔T16n0671 0545c24〕· 世間論置答〔0536b08〕· 非盧迦耶陀〔0548b06〕· 外道厭境界作涅槃想〔0549a16〕。
- T672 實叉（異譯對校）：一切法不生·自心所見非有〔T16n0672 0611c06〕· 涅槃差別·轉所依藏識為大涅槃〔0597a16〕· 世論·龍身詣釋天〔0612c09〕· 外道涅槃見偈·鏡中像〔0614b10〕。
- 宗泐·如玘 T1789（逐文主疏）：不應立宗註〔T39n1789 0396b20〕· 五分論三支〔0370c25〕· 宗通說通〔0389c11〕· 世論註〔0399a11〕· 我不說世論〔0399c03〕· 攝受貪欲及法〔0400c28〕· 頗有非世論〔0400b19〕· 所言涅槃者〔0401c02〕· 陰界入滅·引提婆論〔0401c15〕· 二十五真實〔0402b23〕· 如我所說涅槃者〔0402c21〕。
- 提婆 T1640（古德專論·外道涅槃二十種）：宗泐所引〔轉引 T39n1789 0401c16〕· 本論《提婆菩薩釋楞伽經中外道小乘涅槃論》（提婆菩薩造·菩提流支譯）。
- 法藏 T1790（玄義綱）：三疑〔T39n1790 0426a12–14〕· 宗要五法三性八識二空〔0426a17 區〕。
- 成唯識論 T1585：引楞伽三處〔0010c08 三性·0014c14 藏識海浪·0024c15 心意識〕皆藏識/心意識義，非顯引本段，從闕硬掛。
- 攝論 T1594：「首楞伽摩」＝三摩地名〔T31n1594 0133a11〕，非本經，從闕。
This movement establishes three things: that all dharmas are non-arising (the bodhisattva should set up no thesis) · the questioning of the worldly-discourse brahmin (the Buddha does not fall into the reckoning of worldly discourse) · the several distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders (recorded, not judged) — all resolving to "apart from the four alternatives, awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation" as the correct [teaching].
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 Three · the Gate of Non-Arising — the Gate of Worldly Discourse — the Gate of Nirvāṇa（〔T16 0502a27〕classificatory summary『一切法不生·菩薩不應立宗起』begins —〔0505b09〕the outsiders'-nirvāṇa-view verse ends）— tr. all-dharmas-non-arising · the-bodhisattva-should-set-up-no-thesis begins → the outsiders'-nirvāṇa-view verse ends. The four-scroll text runs through as a single chapter, cut by the rounds of Mahāmati's questioning; this movement holds four rounds of question-and-answer: ① all dharmas non-arising (set up no thesis) ② realization-mastery and teaching-mastery ③ take great care not to habituate to worldly discourse (the questioning of the worldly-discourse brahmin) ④ the distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders |
| Zonglei & Ruqi, Annotations T1789 (phrase-by-phrase · chief commentary on the four-scroll) | gives the classificatory summary『恐菩薩立不生為宗，混於外計，故說此以破之』〔T39n1789 0396b24–25〕— tr. "fearing that the bodhisattva might set up non-arising as a thesis and confound it with the outsiders' reckonings, this is spoken to demolish that"; outlines the worldly-discourse answer as「顯正教」〔T39n1789 0399c10〕— tr. "making manifest the right teaching"; gives the classificatory summary『對邪顯正…前論二乘所得涅槃，與外道以妄想識滅為涅槃，辯之明矣』〔T39n1789 0401c10–12〕— tr. "answering the wrong to make manifest the right … the nirvāṇa attained by the two vehicles, discussed earlier, and the outsiders' [taking] the ceasing of the consciousness of false imagining for nirvāṇa — the distinction between them is here made plain" |
| Fazang, Profound Meaning of the Laṅkāvatāra T1790 (outline, not phrase-by-phrase) | judges three doubts in studying this scripture, the first being「聞畢竟空，執無因果」〔T39 0426a12〕— tr. "hearing ultimate emptiness, one clings to there being no cause-and-fruit" — this movement's "all dharmas non-arising · set up no thesis" counters precisely this doubt (non-arising is not annihilatory nothingness); the third,「聞說能所心境，執無唯識」— tr. "hearing subject-and-object, mind-and-realm taught, one clings to there being no consciousness-only" — the Gate of Worldly Discourse's "awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation" counters this |
| T671 Entering the Laṅkā (Bodhiruci) | all-dharmas-non-arising · should-not-be-established passage〔T16 0545c24〕· worldly-discourse passage〔0536b08〕region · outsiders'-nirvāṇa passage〔0549a14〕 |
| T672 Mahāyāna Entering the Laṅkā (Śikṣānanda) | distinct-nirvāṇas passage〔T16 0597a16〕· all-dharmas-non-arising passage〔0611c〕region · worldly-discourse passage〔0612c09〕· outsiders'-nirvāṇa-view verse〔0614b10〕 |
5 · Terms (術語)
| Chinese | Transmitted Sanskrit (Roman · pronunciation aid) | Attestation of the ancient masters' transliteration | Precise Yogācāra sense |
|---|---|---|---|
| 世論 worldly discourse | —（no ancient master's transliteration · left blank） | Zonglei:「即外道盧伽耶陀，此翻左世、亦云惡論」〔T39n1789 0399a14〕— tr. "that is, the outsiders' Lokāyata, here rendered 'crooked world,' also called 'the evil discourse'" | the worldly disputation of the outsiders; but ornamenting words and phrases, it deceives and deludes the foolish, seizing on the world's goods and desires and gaining no benefit of the dharma. Zonglei:「不詮正理，卒歸於二邊」— tr. "it expounds no right principle, and comes in the end only to the two extremes" |
| 自宗通 / 宗通 realization-mastery | —（left blank） | 〔this movement, T16n0670 0503a15〕 | the practitioner is apart from the false imagining of one's own mind's manifestation, passes beyond mind-mentation-mental-consciousness, [dwelling in] the realm of noble self-realization. Zonglei:「宗者道之本…宗以明趣」〔0389c17〕— tr. "the tenet is the root of the way … the tenet makes plain the aim" |
| 說通 / 言說 teaching-mastery / verbal teaching | —（left blank） | 〔this movement, 0503a13〕 | according to what the minds of sentient beings will respond to, teaching the many kinds of sūtra. Zonglei:「說者教之跡…教以詮理」〔0389c17〕— tr. "teaching is the trace of the doctrine … the doctrine expounds the principle" |
| 五分論 the five-membered [inference] | —（left blank） | Zonglei:「一宗、二因、三喻、四合、五結」〔T39n1789 0371a04–05〕— tr. "first the thesis, second the reason, third the example, fourth the application, fifth the conclusion" | the five members of Buddhist logic; Zonglei:「宗、因、喻三，亦云三支比量。合、結但成此三義」〔T39n1789 0371a04–05〕— tr. "thesis, reason, and example — the three; also called the three-membered inference. Application and conclusion only complete these three senses" — this is what this movement's "the five-membered inference has many faults, therefore [one] should set up no thesis" points to |
| 三脫門 / 三解脫 the three gates of liberation | —（left blank） | 〔this movement, 0503c11·0504b05〕 | emptiness · marklessness · wishlessness. This movement: "when false imagining does not arise — emptiness, marklessness, wishlessness — one enters the three gates of liberation, and this is called liberation" |
| 二無我 the twofold no-self | —（left blank） | 〔this movement, 0504b06·0505a13〕 | the no-self of persons · the no-self of dharmas. The dharma-taking passage: "seeing the no-self of persons and the mark of the no-self of dharmas, false imagining does not arise"; the nirvāṇa passage: "knowing the twofold no-self" |
| 二障 / 二死 the two obstructions / the two deaths | —（left blank） | 〔this movement, 0505a13〕 | the nirvāṇa passage: "apart from the two afflictions, cleansing away the two obstructions, forever apart from the two deaths" — the mark of the nirvāṇa of the Tathāgata-ground |
| 涅槃 nirvāṇa | nirvāṇa | —（no ancient master's transliteration in this movement · left blank） | this movement makes plain the distinction between the outsiders' many kinds of falsely-imagined nirvāṇa (recorded, not judged) and the nirvāṇa the Buddha teaches (well awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation · apart from the four alternatives) |
IAST is a pronunciation aid. For this movement's several names (worldly discourse · realization-mastery · teaching-mastery · the five-membered inference, etc.) no four-scroll ancient-master transliteration can be attested; they are left blank, not filled out from modern reconstructions; 涅槃 nirvāṇa is the current Sanskrit name, appended as a pronunciation aid.
6 · Simile and figure (譬喻·修辭)
(1) The tortoise-hair-and-sand-oil simile (non-arising · setting up no thesis) —〔T16n0670 verse 0502b16–17〕this movement demolishes the outsiders' setting-up of a non-arising thesis; the scripture rebukes it with such verses as「無自性無說，無事無相續，彼愚夫妄想，如死尸惡覺」— tr. "without intrinsic nature, without anything to say, without thing, without continuum — that false imagining of the foolish is like the corpse's evil awareness"; Zonglei cites the earlier text「龜應生毛、沙應出油」— tr. "a tortoise ought to grow hair, sand ought to yield oil" (the「兔無角、龜毛、沙油」region at 0501c) to make plain the fault of falsely setting up a thesis (whether with-seed or without-seed, to say that things arise from the joining of three conditions falls into the meaning of indeterminacy).
- Vehicle-basis: one who sets up "all dharmas non-arising" as a thesis. What it shows: non-arising is the sense in which word and thought are alike cut off; the moment it is set up as a thesis, "to speak it is already to falsify it" (Zonglei 0396b21), and it turns back into the very branches and leaves of the outsiders.
(2) The dragon-form-going-to-heaven, subduing-Śakra simile (the delusion of worldly discourse) —〔T16n0670 0503b12–15〕「彼世論者有一弟子，持龍形像，詣釋天宮，建立論宗，要壞帝釋千輻之輪…即以釋法，摧伏帝釋」— tr. "that worldly-discourse man had a disciple who, taking the form of a dragon, went to the palace of Śakra's heaven, set up a thesis, and made it his aim to break Śakra's thousand-spoked wheel … and with Śakra's own [logic-]method subdued Śakra":
- Vehicle-basis: the power with which worldly verbal discourse ornaments itself with figure. What it shows: the ornamented words of worldly discourse can delude the devas and asuras into clinging to the view of arising-and-ceasing, "so that even a beast is able, with all sorts of phrases and flavors, to delude them" — how much more a man — therefore one should keep far from it. All three translations keep it (T672 0612c09「現作龍身詣釋天宮」— tr. "manifesting a dragon's body he went to the palace of Śakra's heaven").
(3) The broken-pot-and-scorched-seed simile (the fault of annihilation) — this movement carries over the earlier gate's simile「譬如破瓶，不作瓶事；亦如焦種，不作牙事」〔T16n0670 0483c01–02〕— tr. "just as a broken pot does not do the work of a pot, and a scorched seed does not do the work of sprouting" — rebuking the outsiders' annihilation-view that "the nature of the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields has already ceased, is now ceasing, will cease" (demolished in the nirvāṇa gate).
- Vehicle-basis: one who falsely reckons the nature of dharmas to be annihilated. What it shows: with annihilation there is no arising in sequence, the same as the outsiders' annihilation-view.
(4) The image-in-the-mirror simile (the outsiders'-nirvāṇa verse · mind-only) —〔T16n0670 verse 0505a29〕「譬如鏡中像，雖現而非有，於妄想心鏡，愚夫見有二。不識心及緣，則起二妄想，了心及境界，妄想則不生」— tr. "just as an image in a mirror, though it appears is not existent, so upon the mirror of the mind of false imagining the foolish see there being two. Not recognizing mind and condition, they raise the two [-fold] false imagining; understanding mind and the objective realm, false imagining then does not arise":
- Vehicle: the image in the mirror (appearing yet not existent). Vehicle-basis: the grasper-and-grasped manifested upon the mirror of the mind of false imagining. What it shows: dharmas are like a mirror-image, appearing yet not real; understand it to be mind-only, and the twofold false imagining does not arise — gathering the outsiders' many falsely-imagined nirvāṇas into the single sense of "mind-only." This simile directly carries forward this scripture's store-consciousness sense (the manifesting consciousness like a bright mirror holding images). T672's verse is wholly the same:「譬如鏡中像，雖現而非實；習氣心鏡中，凡愚見有二」〔T16n0672 0614b20–21〕— tr. "just as an image in a mirror, though it appears is not real, so within the mirror of the mind of habit-energy the foolish see there being two."
2 · Variant-translation and intra-scriptural parallel collation (異譯·經內平行對勘)
The three Chinese translations of this movement's key sentences: T670 (base · Guṇabhadra) · T671 (Bodhiruci) · T672 (Śikṣānanda). The three divide this passage into chapters differently; the phrase-by-phrase alignment follows.
Sentence 1 All dharmas non-arising · the bodhisattva should set up no thesis
| Version | Verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| T670 Guṇa. | 一切法不生者，菩薩摩訶薩不應立是宗。所以者何？謂宗一切性非性故，及彼因生相故。 | T16n0670 0502a27–28 |
| T671 Bodhi. | 不應建立諸法不生。何以故？以建立法同諸法有，若不爾者同諸法無…以彼建立三法五法和合有故，離於建立有無不生。 | T16n0671 0545c24– |
| T672 Śikṣ. | （去來現在諸如來說一切法不生。何以故？自心所見非有性故，離有無生故，如兔馬等角凡愚妄取，唯自證聖智所行之處，非諸愚夫二分別境。） | T16n0672 0611c06– |
tr. — T670: "As for 'all dharmas are non-arising': the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should not set this up as a thesis. Why so? Because the thesis [asserts] that the nature of all is no-nature, and because of its mark of arising from cause." — T671: "One should not establish that dharmas are non-arising. Why so? Because to establish [it as] a dharma is the same as [asserting] dharmas exist, and were it otherwise it is the same as [asserting] dharmas do not exist … because they establish that the three dharmas and five dharmas exist by combining, it is apart from establishing existence-or-non-existence that there is non-arising." — T672: "The Tathāgatas of past, future, and present teach that all dharmas are non-arising. Why so? Because what one's own mind sees is without existent nature, because [it is] apart from arising-as-existent-or-non-existent, [and] as the foolish falsely grasp at such things as the horns of a hare or a horse — it is only the ground trodden by the noble wisdom of self-realization, not the objective realm of the twofold discrimination of the foolish."
Where the variants lie: the three translations alike set up "all dharmas non-arising" but handle "setting up a thesis" differently. T670 demolishes directly, "the bodhisattva-mahāsattva should not set this up as a thesis" (non-arising is the realm of the noble wisdom of self-realization; the moment it is set up as a thesis it is confounded with the outsiders' reckonings); T671 reads "one should not establish that dharmas are non-arising" (making it plain by the self-demolition of setting up a formal inference); T672 here states outright the reason why "all dharmas are non-arising" (what one's own mind sees is without existent nature · apart from arising-as-existent-or-non-existent · the horns of a hare or a horse), and does not separately set up a demolition of "demolishing the thesis." The three come to the same end: non-arising is no thesis that can be set up; it is the realm of the noble wisdom of self-realization, in which word and thought are alike cut off.
Sentence 2 Take great care not to habituate to worldly discourse · the dragon-form subduing Śakra
| Version | Verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| T670 Guṇa. | 大慧！釋提桓因，廣解眾論，自造聲論。彼世論者有一弟子，持龍形像，詣釋天宮，建立論宗，要壞帝釋千輻之輪…即以釋法，摧伏帝釋。 | T16n0670 0503b12–15 |
| T672 Śikṣ. | 大慧！釋提桓因廣解眾論、自造諸論。彼世論者有一弟子，現作龍身詣釋天宮，而立論宗作是要言：『憍尸迦！我共汝論，汝若不如，我當破汝千輻之輪…』即以論法摧伏帝釋、壞千輻輪，還來人間。 | T16n0672 0612c10–14 |
tr. — T670: "Mahāmati! Śakra, lord of the devas, understanding widely the many disputations, himself composed a treatise on sound. That worldly-discourse man had a disciple who, taking the form of a dragon, went to the palace of Śakra's heaven, set up a thesis, and made it his aim to break Śakra's thousand-spoked wheel … and with Śakra's own [logic-]method subdued Śakra." — T672: "Mahāmati! Śakra, lord of the devas, understanding widely the many disputations, himself composed treatises. That worldly-discourse man had a disciple who, manifesting a dragon's body, went to the palace of Śakra's heaven, set up a thesis, and made this challenge: 'Kauśika! I will dispute with you; if you are not my match, I shall break your thousand-spoked wheel …' and with the [logic-]method of disputation subdued Śakra, broke the thousand-spoked wheel, and returned to the human world."
Where the variants lie: T670 / T672 are word-for-word alike in the dragon-form-subduing-Śakra simile (taking the form of a dragon / manifesting a dragon's body · going to the palace of Śakra's heaven · breaking the thousand-spoked wheel · returning to the human world); T672 adds Kauśika (an epithet of Śakra) and fills out the challenge-words of the dispute, being the fuller. Both show the same: the deluding power of worldly discourse's ornament, able even to manifest a dragon-form to delude the devas — therefore one should keep far from it.
Sentence 3 The distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders (the ceasing of the aggregates-elements-sense-fields · like a lamp gone out or a seed spoiled)
| Version | Verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| T670 Guṇa. | 或有外道，陰界入滅，境界離欲，見法無常，心心法品不生，不念去來現在境界，諸受陰盡，如燈火滅，如種子壞，妄想不生，斯等於此，作涅槃想。大慧！非以見壞，名為涅槃。 | T16n0670 0504c05–08 |
| T671 Bodhi. | 有諸外道厭諸境界，見陰、界、入滅諸法無常，心心數法不生現前，以不憶念過去未來現樂境界，諸陰盡處如燈火滅種種風止，不取諸相妄想分別，名為涅槃。大慧！而彼外道見如是法生涅槃想。 | T16n0671 0549a16– |
| T672 Śikṣ. | 〔涅槃差別段〕涅槃差別之相，一切皆是妄分別有，無所有故，妄計未來諸根境滅以為涅槃，不知證自智境界轉所依藏識為大涅槃。 | T16n0672 0597a16– |
tr. — T670: "There are outsiders who, the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields having ceased, the objective realm free of desire, seeing dharmas to be impermanent, [making] the class of mind and mental factors not arise, not calling to mind the objects of past, future, and present, the aggregates of feeling exhausted — like a lamp's flame gone out, like a seed spoiled — [with] false imagining not arising: such as these, upon this, form the thought of nirvāṇa. Mahāmati! it is not by the ruin of seeing that [a thing] is called nirvāṇa." — T671: "There are outsiders who, weary of the objective realms, seeing the aggregates, elements, and sense-fields cease and dharmas to be impermanent, [make] the mind and mental factors not arise before them, [and] because they do not call to mind the pleasant objects of past, future, and present, [reach] the place where the aggregates are exhausted, like a lamp's flame gone out and the various winds stilled — not grasping at marks, [with] false imagining and discrimination [stilled] — [and] call it nirvāṇa. Mahāmati! yet those outsiders, seeing such a dharma, give rise to the thought of nirvāṇa." — T672: "〔the distinct-nirvāṇas passage〕the marks of the distinct nirvāṇas are, one and all, [something] existing [only by] false discrimination, being without anything whatever; falsely reckoning the ceasing of the future faculties and objects to be nirvāṇa, they do not know that to realize the realm of one's own wisdom, transforming the store consciousness that is the basis, is the great nirvāṇa."
Where the variants lie: (a) The first kind of outsider's nirvāṇa-thought — the ceasing of the aggregates-elements-sense-fields, like a lamp gone out or a seed spoiled — T670 / T671 collate phrase by phrase (aggregates-elements-sense-fields ceasing · seeing dharmas impermanent · the class of mind and mental factors not arising · like a lamp's flame gone out), T671 adding "the various winds stilled, not grasping at marks"; this is the first of Deva's twenty [kinds] in the Treatise on Nirvāṇa (rubric 4). (b) T672 here judges rightly with "transforming the store consciousness that is the basis is the great nirvāṇa" — taking the transformation of the basis of the store consciousness itself to embrace the sense of nirvāṇa (bearing on the Yogācāra eye of the doctrine, rubric 3); T670's own right judgment is at the passage's end, "well awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation … knowing the twofold no-self, apart from the two afflictions, cleansing away the two obstructions"〔T16n0670 0505a09–14〕. All three demolish the same thing: the outsiders take the ceasing of the objective realm and the ceasing of thought for nirvāṇa, and all of it is "not by the ruin of seeing is [a thing] called nirvāṇa."
Sentence 4 The outsiders'-nirvāṇa-view verse
| Version | Verbatim | Locus |
|---|---|---|
| T670 Guṇa. | 外道涅槃見，各各起妄想，斯從心想生，無解脫方便。…譬如鏡中像，雖現而非有，於妄想心鏡，愚夫見有二。不識心及緣，則起二妄想，了心及境界，妄想則不生。 | T16n0670 0505b03– |
| T672 Śikṣ. | 外道涅槃見，各各異分別；彼唯是妄想，無解脫方便。…譬如鏡中像，雖現而非實；習氣心鏡中，凡愚見有二。不了唯心現，故起二分別；若知但是心，分別則不生。 | T16n0672 0614b10–14 |
tr. — T670: "The outsiders' nirvāṇa-views, each raising its own false imagining, arise from the thought of the mind, [being] without the means of liberation. … Just as an image in a mirror, though it appears is not existent, so upon the mirror of the mind of false imagining the foolish see there being two. Not recognizing mind and condition, they raise the two [-fold] false imagining; understanding mind and the objective realm, false imagining then does not arise." — T672: "The outsiders' nirvāṇa-views, each discriminating differently, are only false imagining, [being] without the means of liberation. … Just as an image in a mirror, though it appears is not real, so within the mirror of the mind of habit-energy the foolish see there being two. Not understanding it to be mind-only's manifestation, they raise the twofold discrimination; if they knew it to be but mind, discrimination then would not arise."
Where the variants lie: T670 / T672 collate the verse phrase by phrase: the verse's opening「外道涅槃見，各各起妄想」("the outsiders' nirvāṇa-views, each raising its own false imagining"; T672 reads「各各異分別」"each discriminating differently"); the image-in-the-mirror simile is present in both (appearing yet not existent / not real · the mirror of the mind of false imagining / the mirror of the mind of habit-energy · understanding mind and the objective realm / if they knew it to be but mind, false imagining then does not arise / discrimination then would not arise). Both come to the single sense of mind-only: the outsiders' nirvāṇa-views all arise from the thought of the mind; understand it to be mind-only, and false imagining does not arise.
3 · The scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra doctrine〔the eye〕(唯識義之經據)
This movement establishes three Yogācāra senses: ① all dharmas non-arising = the threefold naturelessness · the realm of the noble wisdom of self-realization (not annihilatory nothingness) ② the Gate of Worldly Discourse's "awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation" = what consciousness-only manifests · apart from the twofold grasping ③ the distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders resolve to "transforming the basis, the store consciousness · apart from the four alternatives" = the Yogācāra sense of nirvāṇa.
(1) All dharmas non-arising · not a thesis set up by the bodhisattva — the scriptural warrant for the threefold naturelessness —「五分論多過故…不應立宗分，謂一切法不生，如是一切法空、如是一切法無自性，不應立宗」〔T16n0670 0502b07–10〕— tr. "because the five-membered inference has many faults … one should set up no thesis-member, namely 'all dharmas non-arising'; likewise 'all dharmas empty,' likewise 'all dharmas without intrinsic nature' — one should set up no thesis": all dharmas non-arising is no thesis that can be set up (the moment it is set up it is confounded with the outsiders' reckonings, and falls into word and thought); it is the realm of the noble wisdom of self-realization, spoken as "all dharmas are like illusion and dream, because of the mark of appearing and not-appearing." → the scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra sense of the threefold naturelessness (naturelessness of mark · of arising · of ultimate meaning): that dharmas are without intrinsic nature is no annihilation that negates cause-and-fruit, but the naturelessness-of-the-imagined that yet [is] dependent-and-illusion-like — answering to the doubt Fazang counters, "hearing ultimate emptiness one clings to there being no cause-and-fruit" (rubrics 1 · 4).
(2) The Gate of Worldly Discourse · awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation — what consciousness-only manifests, apart from the twofold grasping —「有非世論，汝諸外道所不能知…謂妄想不生，覺了有無自心現量。妄想不生，不受外塵」〔T16n0670 0504a13–16〕; summary『善覺知自心現量…攝所攝性…見人無我及法無我相，妄想不生』— tr. "there is a non-worldly-discourse … namely, false imagining does not arise, [there is] awakening to existence-and-non-existence as the measure of one's own mind's manifestation. False imagining not arising, one does not take in the outer dusts" / "well awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation … the nature of grasper-and-grasped … seeing the no-self of persons and the mark of the no-self of dharmas, false imagining does not arise": the non-worldly-discourse man only awakens to the measure of his own mind's manifestation, [and] the twofold grasping (grasper-and-grasped) does not arise. → the scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra sense of "consciousness-only, without objects · apart from grasper and grasped": that the Buddha does not fall into the reckoning of worldly discourse is precisely because "not clinging to the outer nature or no-nature, at the place of one's own mind's manifestation, the false imagining of the two extremes cannot turn [it]."
(3) The distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders · the nirvāṇa the Buddha teaches — the transformation of the basis · apart from the four alternatives —「如我所說涅槃者，謂善覺知自心現量，不著外性，離於四句，見如實處…知二無我，離二煩惱，淨除二障，永離二死，上上地如來地…離心意意識，說名涅槃」〔T16n0670 0505a08–09·0505a13–15〕— tr. "as for the nirvāṇa I teach: it is well awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, not clinging to the outer nature, apart from the four alternatives, seeing the place as-it-really-is … knowing the twofold no-self, apart from the two afflictions, cleansing away the two obstructions, forever apart from the two deaths, [reaching] the highest-of-high ground, the Tathāgata-ground … apart from mind, mentation, and mental consciousness — this is named nirvāṇa": the Buddha's nirvāṇa = awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation · apart from the four alternatives · the twofold transformation of the basis (the twofold no-self · apart from the two obstructions). T672 states it directly as "transforming the store consciousness that is the basis is the great nirvāṇa"〔0597a17〕. → the scriptural warrant for the Yogācāra sense of nirvāṇa (the transformation of the basis · cleansing away the two obstructions and gaining the two fruits · apart from mind, mentation, and mental consciousness); the outsiders' twenty-odd kinds of nirvāṇa-thought all "fall into the two extremes, arising from the thought of the mind," making manifest by contrast the apartness-from-the-two-extremes of Yogācāra nirvāṇa.
Onward-transmission treatises' citing of the Laṅkā: the Cheng Weishi Lun cites the Laṅkā in three places (the store-consciousness ocean and waves · the mind-mentation-consciousness gāthā · the three natures), all bearing on this scripture's store-consciousness / mind-mentation-consciousness sense, not overtly citing this movement's three things of non-arising · worldly discourse · nirvāṇa (witness placement in rubric 8); this movement's Yogācāra sense is linked by "inheriting the sense" (the threefold naturelessness · what consciousness-only manifests · the transformation-of-the-basis nirvāṇa), not by a hollow or forced hard citation.
4 · The divergent readings of the masters (ancient masters · tenet marked) (諸家異釋)
Three ancient-master sources within the canon bear on this movement: Zonglei & Ruqi's Annotations (phrase-by-phrase, chief commentary on the four-scroll) · Fazang's Profound Meaning (outline) · Deva's Treatise on the Nirvāṇa of the Outsiders and the Lesser Vehicle (expounds this scripture's nirvāṇa passage · an ancient master's dedicated treatise). Recorded, not judged: the three sources are set down side by side; the outsiders' several nirvāṇa-teachings, as the scripture itself judges, "one and all fall into the two extremes" — their judgment is recorded, [which] is not to establish [it].
Zonglei & Ruqi, Annotations on the Laṅkāvatāra-ratna-sūtra T39n1789 (phrase-by-phrase · chief)
On "should set up no thesis":
「上言妄想與聖智皆空，乃真妄俱遣，是不生義。恐菩薩立此為宗，混於外計，故說此以破之。言一切法不生，則言想俱絕，言之已非，況妄立宗乎？如彼外道立不生宗，反生枝葉，故云『不應立是宗』。」〔T39n1789 0396b23–27〕
tr. "The above says that false imagining and noble wisdom are alike empty — this is the twin dismissal of true and false, and is the sense of non-arising. Fearing that the bodhisattva might set this up as a thesis and confound it with the outsiders' reckonings, this is spoken to demolish that. To say 'all dharmas are non-arising' is to have word and thought alike cut off; to speak it is already to falsify it — how much more falsely to set it up as a thesis? As those outsiders set up a non-arising thesis and turned back to grow branches and leaves, therefore [the scripture] says 'should not set this up as a thesis.'"
(Zonglei makes plain: non-arising is the sense in which word and thought are alike cut off; the moment it is set up as a thesis, to speak it is already to falsify it and turns back into the outsiders' branches and leaves — therefore [what is] demolished is the setting-up of a thesis, not non-arising.)
On the worldly-discourse answer (making manifest the right teaching):
「此顯正教。初大慧反問，如來所說亦同世論…答中先拂初難，言我不說世論。蓋世論說去來，佛唯說不去不來。」〔T39n1789 0399c10–15〕
tr. "('I do not teach worldly discourse; I teach only not-coming and not-going.') This makes manifest the right teaching. First Mahāmati asks back in return, [suggesting] that what the Tathāgata teaches too is the same as worldly discourse … in the answer, [the Buddha] first brushes aside the initial objection, saying 'I do not teach worldly discourse.' For worldly discourse speaks of going and coming, [whereas] the Buddha teaches only not-going and not-coming."
(Zonglei: the Buddha teaches "not-coming and not-going = not-arising and not-ceasing," and does not fall into the reckoning of the false imagining of worldly discourse, differing from the outsiders' speaking of going-and-coming, gathering-and-dispersing.)
On the distinct nirvāṇas (answering the wrong to make manifest the right):
「前論二乘所得涅槃，與外道以妄想識滅為涅槃，辯之明矣。大慧於此復有所請者，恐理未盡明、見未盡破…如來乃告曰或有外道陰界入滅等作涅槃想者。」〔T39n1789 0401c10–16〕
「（如我所說涅槃者…）如我所說等者，對邪顯正。其文亦五：謂善覺知自心現量，不著外性，一也。離於四句，見如實處，二也。不墮自心現妄想二邊，則能取所取不可得，三也。」〔T39n1789 0402c21·0402c28–0403a03〕
tr. "The nirvāṇa attained by the two vehicles, discussed earlier, and the outsiders' [taking] the ceasing of the consciousness of false imagining for nirvāṇa — the distinction between them is here made plain. That Mahāmati here has a further request is [because he] fears the principle is not yet fully clear and the views not yet fully demolished … the Tathāgata then says: there are outsiders who, the aggregates-elements-sense-fields having ceased and so on, form the thought of nirvāṇa." — "('As for the nirvāṇa I teach …') 'As for the [nirvāṇa] I teach' and the rest answers the wrong to make manifest the right. Its text too has five [points]: namely, well awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, not clinging to the outer nature — the first. Apart from the four alternatives, seeing the place as-it-really-is — the second. Not falling into the two extremes of the false imagining of one's own mind's manifestation, so that grasper and grasped are unfindable — the third."
(Zonglei outlines the Buddha's nirvāṇa by five senses: ① awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation, not clinging to the outer nature ② apart from the four alternatives, seeing as-it-really-is ③ grasper and grasped unfindable, the remaining two carrying on from these — answering to demolish the outsiders' several falsely-imagined nirvāṇas.)
Deva, Treatise Explaining the Nirvāṇa of the Outsiders and the Lesser Vehicle in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra T32n1640 (an ancient master's dedicated treatise · cited by Zonglei)
Explaining "the ceasing of the aggregates-elements-sense-fields, forming the thought of nirvāṇa," Zonglei cites Deva's treatise to make plain the outsiders' twenty kinds of nirvāṇa:
「按提婆論釋，凡外道妄計涅槃有二十種，此當第一，論曰：『諸受陰盡，如燈滅、種壞、風止，名涅槃。』」〔T39n1789 0401c16–18〕
tr. "According to Deva's treatise's explanation, the outsiders falsely reckon nirvāṇa in twenty kinds; this is the first, the treatise saying: 'The aggregates of feeling exhausted, like a lamp gone out, a seed spoiled, the wind stilled, is called nirvāṇa.'"
(Composed by the bodhisattva Deva · translated by Bodhiruci, T1640, dedicated to explaining this scripture's outsiders'-nirvāṇa passage, judging the outsiders' falsely-reckoned nirvāṇas to be twenty kinds; Zonglei cites it, judging this movement's "aggregates-elements-sense-fields ceasing · like a lamp gone out or a seed spoiled" to be the first kind. An ancient master explaining the scripture by an ancient master, recorded, not judged.)
Fazang, Profound Meaning of the Laṅkāvatāra T39n1790 (outline)
Fazang judges three doubts in studying this scripture, [those] which this movement's all-dharmas-non-arising · the sense of nirvāṇa counters:
「（初學菩薩聞諸大乘經所說深義，未能決了，生三種疑：）一、聞畢竟空，執無因果；二、聞如來藏具足功德，疑同外道神我；三、聞說能所心境，執無唯識。」〔T39n1790 0426a10–14〕
tr. "(The beginning bodhisattva, hearing the profound meaning taught in the Mahāyāna scriptures, unable yet to settle it, gives rise to three kinds of doubt:) First, hearing ultimate emptiness, one clings to there being no cause-and-fruit. Second, hearing that the Tathāgata-womb is furnished with all qualities, one suspects it the same as the outsiders' divine self. Third, hearing subject-and-object, mind-and-realm taught, one clings to there being no consciousness-only."
(This movement's "all dharmas non-arising · set up no thesis" counters the first doubt — non-arising is the dependent-that-is-illusion-like, not a negation of cause-and-fruit; the Gate of Worldly Discourse's "awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation" counters the third doubt — [it is] not that there is no consciousness-only.)
7 · Cross-reading and onward transmission (互讀·承衍)
This scripture is a scriptural source of the Yogācāra lineage; the three senses established in this movement (non-arising · what consciousness-only manifests · the transformation-of-the-basis nirvāṇa) are taken up by the later treatises. Following the Yogācāra sequence, the onward-transmission links list only what genuinely bears on this movement, resting chiefly on stable citation, [with] no hollow or forced hard citation:
- Cheng Weishi Lun: the treatise cites the Laṅkā in three places (the store-consciousness-ocean-and-waves verse · the mind-mentation-consciousness gāthā · the three natures), all bearing on this scripture's store-consciousness / mind-mentation-consciousness sense, not overtly citing this movement's non-arising · worldly discourse · nirvāṇa; this movement's "all dharmas non-arising · dharmas without intrinsic nature" carries forward into the treatise's threefold-naturelessness sense (naturelessness of mark · of arising · of ultimate meaning), "well awakening to the measure of one's own mind's manifestation · apart from the twofold grasping" into the treatise's consciousness-only-without-objects sense, "the transformation of the basis · cleansing away the two obstructions · apart from mind, mentation, and mental consciousness" into the treatise's twofold-transformation-of-the-basis nirvāṇa sense — all linked by inheriting the sense, [with] its text not hard-cited (to avoid a hollow linkage).
- Thirty Verses vv.23–24 the threefold naturelessness · vv.29–30 the transformation of the basis: "upon these three natures the threefold naturelessness is set up" (the threefold naturelessness) carries this movement's "all dharmas without intrinsic nature" non-arising sense; "the unattainable, inconceivable … this is the untainted realm, inconceivable, good and constant, the blissful body of liberation" (the fruit of the transformation of the basis) carries this movement's Buddha-nirvāṇa sense of "knowing the twofold no-self · apart from the two obstructions · the Tathāgata-ground."
- Mahāyāna-saṃgraha 〈Section on the Fruit of Cutting Off〉·〈Section on the Fruit of Knowledge〉: the unabiding nirvāṇa · the two fruits of the transformation of the basis carry this movement's Buddha-nirvāṇa sense of apartness-from-the-two-extremes; the "Śūraṅgama" in the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha text T1594 is the name of a samādhi, not the Laṅkā scripture (noted here to forestall a mistaken linkage) — it inherits the sense without citing the text.
- Hundred Dharmas 〈unconditioned dharmas〉·〈dharmas not concomitant with mind〉: the Hundred-Dharmas placement of nirvāṇa (the unconditioned that is cessation-through-discernment) carries this movement's Buddha-nirvāṇa sense; the makers the outsiders reckon — "Time · intrinsic-nature · the Person · the primordial-obscure · the guṇas" and the rest — are just the outer reckonings the Hundred Dharmas demolishes.
- 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); this movement has no overt hard-link from an onward-transmission treatise (the Cheng Weishi Lun's three Laṅkā citations are all the store-consciousness sense · not this movement), so all [links here] inherit the sense, to be filled out later should a receiving treatise's definitive edition carry a hard link.
8 · Witness placement (校本定位)
- T670 Guṇabhadra (base): 〔T16n0670 0502a27〕all-dharmas-non-arising · set-up-no-thesis begins —〔0505b09〕the outsiders'-nirvāṇa-view verse ends. Set up no thesis 0502a27 · the five-membered inference has many faults 0502b07 · verse 0502b13 · the wisdom-cannot-grasp-the-object question-and-answer 0502c08 · realization-mastery and teaching-mastery 0503a12 · take great care not to habituate to worldly discourse 0503b03 · the dragon-form subduing Śakra 0503b12 · I-do-not-teach-worldly-discourse · not-coming-not-going 0503c region · the eleven worldly discourses of the worldly-discourse brahmin's questioning 0503c– · nirvāṇa-space-cessation are not three 0504a01 · delusion-craving-action as cause 0504a03 · is-there-a-non-worldly-discourse 0504a08 · false imagining not arising, not taking in the outer dust 0504a16 · taking in craving-and-desire and the dharma 0504b· · seeing the no-self of persons and dharmas 0504b06 · what is called nirvāṇa 0504c01 · the distinct nirvāṇas of the outsiders 0504c05 · as for the nirvāṇa I teach 0505a08 · knowing the twofold no-self, apart from the two obstructions 0505a13 · the image-in-the-mirror verse 0505a29.
- T671 Bodhiruci (variant cross-collation): one should not establish that dharmas are non-arising〔T16n0671 0545c24〕· the worldly-discourse [answer] set aside〔0536b08〕· not the Lokāyata〔0548b06〕· the outsiders weary of the objective realm forming the thought of nirvāṇa〔0549a16〕.
- T672 Śikṣānanda (variant cross-collation): all-dharmas-non-arising · what one's own mind sees is without existent [nature]〔T16n0672 0611c06〕· the distinct nirvāṇas · transforming the store consciousness that is the basis is the great nirvāṇa〔0597a16〕· worldly discourse · the dragon's body going to Śakra's heaven〔0612c09〕· the outsiders'-nirvāṇa-view verse · the image in the mirror〔0614b10〕.
- Zonglei & Ruqi T1789 (phrase-by-phrase chief commentary): the set-up-no-thesis annotation〔T39n1789 0396b20〕· the five-membered-inference three members〔0370c25〕· realization-mastery and teaching-mastery〔0389c11〕· the worldly-discourse annotation〔0399a11〕· I do not teach worldly discourse〔0399c03〕· taking in craving-and-desire and the dharma〔0400c28〕· is there a non-worldly-discourse〔0400b19〕· what is called nirvāṇa〔0401c02〕· the aggregates-elements-sense-fields ceasing · citing Deva's treatise〔0401c15〕· the twenty-five reals〔0402b23〕· as for the nirvāṇa I teach〔0402c21〕.
- Deva T1640 (an ancient master's dedicated treatise · the outsiders' twenty kinds of nirvāṇa): cited by Zonglei〔re-cited at T39n1789 0401c16〕· the treatise itself, the Treatise Explaining the Nirvāṇa of the Outsiders and the Lesser Vehicle in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra (composed by the bodhisattva Deva · translated by Bodhiruci).
- Fazang T1790 (Profound-Meaning outline): the three doubts〔T39n1790 0426a12–14〕· the guiding tenet — the five dharmas, three natures, eight consciousnesses, two emptinesses〔0426a17 region〕.
- Cheng Weishi Lun T1585: cites the Laṅkā in three places〔0010c08 the three natures · 0014c14 the store-consciousness ocean and waves · 0024c15 mind-mentation-consciousness〕, all the store-consciousness / mind-mentation-consciousness sense, not overtly citing this movement, [so] the hard link is left blank.
- Mahāyāna-saṃgraha T1594: "Śūraṅgama" = the name of a samādhi〔T31n1594 0133a11〕, not this scripture, left blank.