唯識三十頌 偈一 假說
害眼病的人，眼前飄著一團毛輪；做夢的人，夢裡山河歷歷。他都一口咬定：外面真有。
世親菩薩的三十首偈，第一句不講玄理，先點破這場睜眼的夢——我們脫口而出的「我」、伸手就碰的「東西」，都只是借個名字說說，並沒有一個自己撐得住的實體在那裡。可它也不是全然沒有：那是我們的心識，自己變出來的一幅影像，再被自己當了真。
要緊的是接下來那一刀切得不偏不倚：別把影像當成外頭真有（這是「增」），也別因為它是假的就連能變的心識一起抹掉（這是「減」）。
能變的識，就三種。第一部唯識的大書，從這裡起步。且看世親怎麼把這個被你喚作「我」與「世界」的，一層一層拆給你看。
A man with an eye-disease sees a ring of hair drifting in the air; a dreamer sees mountains and rivers, vivid and whole. Each insists: there really is something out there.
Vasubandhu's thirty verses open not with doctrine but by breaking this open-eyed dream — the "I" that leaps from our mouths, the "things" our hands reach for, are only spoken of by a borrowed name; there is no self-standing entity sitting out there. And yet it is not simply nothing: it is an image our own mind-consciousness transforms into, then takes for real.
What matters is the cut that comes next, falling exactly down the middle: do not take the image for something truly outside (this is "adding"), and do not, because it is conventional, erase the very consciousness that transforms it (this is "subtracting").
The transformers are just three. The first great book of Consciousness-Only starts here. Watch how Vasubandhu takes apart, layer by layer, the very thing you have been calling "I" and "the world."
原典＝玄奘譯《唯識三十論頌》世親菩薩造（T31n1586）。釋論揉頌見《成唯識論》（T31n1585）。
本頌（玄奘 T31n1586）〔T31n1586 0060a27–28〕
由假說我法，有種種相轉。
彼依識所變，此能變唯三：
科判位：唯識相 · 略辯（初一行半略辯唯識相）· 全論起點。
釋論寄問與揉頌（成唯識論 T31n1585 卷一）
外問徵起：
若唯有識，云何世間及諸聖教說有我、法？〔T31n1585 0001a18–19〕
舉頌依義正答（揉頌，同本頌）：
由假說我、法，有種種相轉。彼依識所變，此能變唯三：〔T31n1585 0001a20–21〕
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.
本頌
由假說我法，有種種相轉。 彼依識所變，此能變唯三：
白話
我們每天一開口，就離不開兩種話。
一種是講「我」：我很高興、我好累、我的房子、我的孩子、我說了算。另一種是講一個一個的「東西」——佛經裡把這些東西叫作「法」：這是一張桌子、那是一座山、這是一個念頭、那是一條規矩。不管是世間人說話，還是佛經裡說法，都這樣講，這沒有問題。
世親菩薩在第一首偈一上來，先輕輕點一句：這些「我」、這些「東西」，都是『借個名字這麼說說』而已——這就是「由假說我法」的「假」。它的意思不是說它們是騙人的、根本沒有；而是說，並沒有一個獨立存在、實實在在、自己撐得住、誰也動不了的「我」或「東西」，真的擺在那裡。我們以為有，其實是借名安立的。
那有人會問：既然不是真的，那這些「我」和「東西」，怎麼會有那麼多花樣、還一直在變來變去呢？——這就是「有種種相轉」：種種樣子（相），不停地隨著因緣翻出新花樣（轉）。
偈子接著回答這個問題：這一切的花樣，都是「識」變出來的——這就是「彼依識所變」。是我們的心識，自己變現出一幅『好像有個我、好像有個外面的世界』的影像；我們再回過頭去抓住這幅影像，把它當成真的「我」、真的『外面的東西』。
最後一句問：那個會變的「識」，到底有幾種？偈子在這裡只先答：就三種（此能變唯三）。三種能變的名稱，從下一首偈才開始列出。
整部《三十頌》要講的「唯識」道理，就從這句話起步：我們以為的「我」和「世界」，說到底，都依識所變。 後面二十九首偈，從三種能變的名稱起，把這件事一層一層說清楚。
The verse
由假說我法，有種種相轉。 彼依識所變，此能變唯三：
Because we speak, by convention, of a self and of things, the many appearances arise and turn. These rest on what consciousness transforms — and the transformers are just three.
In plain words
The moment we open our mouths, two kinds of speech come out.
One is talk of a "self": I'm happy, I'm tired, my house, my child, I get to decide. The other is talk of "things" one by one — what the sūtras call dharmas: this is a table, that is a mountain, this is a thought, that is a rule. Ordinary people talk this way, and the scriptures speak this way too. Nothing wrong with that.
Vasubandhu, in his very first verse, gently points out one thing: this "self" and these "things" are only spoken of by way of a borrowed name — that is the word 假 ("convention, designation") in "由假說我法." He does not mean they are fakes, that there is simply nothing there. He means there is no independent, solid, self-standing "self" or "thing" actually sitting out there the way we assume. We take it to be there; in fact it is only set up under a name.
Someone will ask: if they are not real, then why do these "selves" and "things" have so many shapes, and keep shifting? — that is "有種種相轉": countless appearances (相), endlessly turning out new forms as conditions shift (轉).
The verse answers: all these shapes are what "consciousness" transforms into — that is "彼依識所變." It is our own mind-consciousness that conjures up an image of "as-if there's a self, as-if there's an outer world"; then we turn around, grab that image, and take it for a real "self" and real "outer things."
The last line asks: this consciousness that does the transforming — how many kinds are there? Here the verse gives only the number: just three (此能變唯三). Their names begin in the next verse.
Everything the whole Thirty Verses sets out to say starts from this line: what we take to be "self" and "world" rests on what consciousness transforms. The remaining twenty-nine verses begin by naming the three transformers, then unfold the point layer by layer.
為什麼不從「識」講起，先說一個「假」字
一部叫《唯識三十論頌》的書，照理該開門見山講「識」。可世親菩薩偏不——他第一句先說「由假說我法」，先擱下一個「假」字。為什麼？
因為他知道讀的人心裡卡著一個問：你們唯識家說一切唯識、沒有外境；可是我明明天天在用『我』、天天在碰『東西』，佛經裡也照樣說『有我、有法』——這怎麼算唯識？《成唯識論》把這個問擺在最前頭，原話是：「若唯有識，云何世間及諸聖教說有我、法？」（〔T31n1585 0001a18–19〕）
世親的答，就是這個「假」字：我、法照說不誤，但那是「但由假立，非實有性」（〔0001a23–24〕）——借名安立，不是有個實體。
「假」不是「沒有」——這一關最容易走偏
一聽「假」，很多人立刻滑到另一邊：那就是空的、沒有的、騙人的囉？
不是。這正是唯識最吃緊、也最容易誤會的一關。《成唯識論》把話說得極穩：愚夫所執的那個「實我、實法」，確實「都無所有」，因為那只是隨妄情安立的，所以叫「假」；可是「內識所變似我、似法雖有，而非實我、法性，然似彼現，故說為假」（〔0001b08–10〕）。
換句話說，「假」有兩層：一層是凡夫硬安上去的「實我實法」，那是真的沒有；另一層是識自己變現出來的「似我似法」的影像，那是有的——只是它不是你以為的那種獨立實體。「假」說的是後者：有影像，但無實體。
世親怕你還是抓不住，《成唯識論》在這裡舉了一個誰都有過的經驗——「如患夢者，患夢力故，心似種種外境相現，緣此執為實有外境」（〔0001b05–07〕）。害了眼病的人，眼前飄著毛輪；做夢的人，夢裡山河歷歷在目。那些景象，並不是眼前真有那個東西，全是病力、夢力從自己心裡變出來的；可變出來的當下，他偏偏一口咬定『外面真有』。我們無始以來認「我」、認「外境」，就是這麼一場醒著的病、睜眼的夢。
「我」「法」到底指什麼
順帶把兩個字說清楚。「我謂主宰，法謂軌持」（〔0001a24〕）。窺基解得很實在：「我」像一國之主，有自在、能作主的味道（「如國之主有自在故」〔T43n1830 0239c02〕）——我們執的那個「我」，就是覺得有個能當家作主、常住不變的東西。「法」是「軌謂軌範可生物解，持謂住持不捨自相」（〔0239c05–06〕）——一個東西能讓你認得出它是什麼（軌生物解）、又能保住自己的樣子（住持自相），就叫一個「法」。
這些「我」「法」的種種花樣怎麼來的？「彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設」（〔0001a27–28〕）。識一動，就「轉似二分」——變出一個被看的部分（相分）和一個能看的部分（見分），我們就在這能、所之間，安立出「我」和「法」。再加上無始的分別熏習，識生起時就「變似我、法」，明明在心識之內，卻像在外面一樣現出來（「雖在內識，而由分別似外境現」）。
一句話的中道：不增、不減
最後，《成唯識論》用一組對句收住，這也是這一首偈最深的落點——「外境隨情而施設故，非有如識；內識必依因緣生故，非無如境，由此便遮增、減二執」（〔0001b10–12〕）。
這話是兩頭都不許走偏：
- 不准「增」——別把識變出來的影像，硬說成識外真有的東西（執實我實法，是增益）；
- 也不准「減」——別因為外境是假的，就連能變的識也一筆抹掉，說什麼都沒有（撥無內識，是損減）。
外境，沒有識那樣的真實（非有如識）；內識，卻不是像外境那樣的空無（非無如境）。所以《成唯識論》補一句安立：「境依內識而假立故，唯世俗有；識是假境所依事故，亦勝義有」（〔0001b12–13〕）——外境只在世俗的層面有個說法，內識則連勝義上都站得住。
一個「假」字，就這樣同時擋掉了兩種人最常掉進去的坑：一種把假當真（增），一種把假當無（減）。站在這不增不減的中間，才走得進後面二十九首偈所說的唯識。
唯識為讀法：本頌與釋論
世親這三十首，是他臨終前造的本頌，還來不及自己寫長行解釋就走了（「世親菩薩臨終時造，未為長行廣釋，便卒」〔T43n1830 0232a14–16〕）。後來護法等十位論師各為它作釋，玄奘把它們糅譯成《成唯識論》，其中「護法聲德獨振」（〔0232a09〕），成了這一系讀三十頌的正脈。所以這一層的『唯識讀法』，不是後人新添的義理，而是本頌自己的釋論——以護法正義為骨，逐句把這首偈所立的『我法但假、依識所變、能變唯三』讀出來而已。
Why not begin with "consciousness"? Why begin with "convention"?
A book called Thirty Verses on Consciousness-Only ought, you would think, to open with "consciousness." Vasubandhu does not. His first words are "由假說我法" — he first sets down the word 假, "conventional, said-by-designation." Why?
Because he knows a question is stuck in the reader's mind: "You Yogācārins say everything is consciousness-only, that there is no outer object — yet I use 'I' all day long, I bump into 'things' all day long, and the scriptures themselves say 'there is a self, there are dharmas.' How is that consciousness-only?" The Cheng Weishi Lun puts exactly this question first: "若唯有識，云何世間及諸聖教說有我、法？" 〔T31n1585 0001a18–19〕.
Vasubandhu's answer is that one word, 假: self and dharmas are indeed spoken of, but "但由假立，非實有性" 〔0001a23–24〕 — set up by designation, not as real entities.
"Conventional" is not "nonexistent" — this is the hardest turn
Hearing 假, many slide straight to the other side: so it's empty, there's nothing, it's all a lie?
No. This is the most load-bearing and most easily mistaken turn in Yogācāra. The CWL states it with great care: the "real self, real dharmas" the deluded grasp at are indeed "都無所有," utterly without existence, since they are merely posited by deluded feeling — that is why they are called "conventional"; yet "內識所變似我、似法雖有，而非實我、法性，然似彼現，故說為假" 〔0001b08–10〕.
So "conventional" has two layers: the "real self and real dharmas" people impose — that truly does not exist; and the "as-if self, as-if dharma" image that consciousness itself transforms into — that does exist, only it is not the independent entity you take it to be. "Conventional" speaks of the latter: there is the image, but no entity behind it.
To keep you from missing it, the CWL offers an experience everyone has had: "如患夢者，患夢力故，心似種種外境相現，緣此執為實有外境" 〔0001b05–07〕. A person with an eye-disease sees a floating ring of hair; a dreamer sees mountains and rivers vivid before him. Those scenes are not really out there — they are conjured from his own mind by the force of disease, the force of dream; yet in that very moment he insists, "there really is something outside." Our beginningless habit of taking "self" and "outer world" as real is just this: a waking disease, an open-eyed dream.
What "self" and "dharma" mean
A word on the two terms. "我謂主宰，法謂軌持" 〔0001a24〕. Kuiji glosses concretely: "self" is like the ruler of a state, with the flavor of sovereignty, of calling the shots ("如國之主有自在故" 〔T43n1830 0239c02〕) — the "self" we grasp is the sense that there is something in charge, autonomous, unchanging. A "dharma" is "軌謂軌範可生物解，持謂住持不捨自相" 〔0239c05–06〕 — anything that lets you recognize what it is (norm-bearing) and holds onto its own character (sustaining itself) counts as a "dharma."
Where do their many shapes come from? "彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設" 〔0001a27–28〕. The moment consciousness stirs, it "轉似二分" — it manifests a part that is seen (the object-part) and a part that sees (the seeing-part), and between this perceiver and perceived we set up "self" and "dharma." Add the beginningless perfuming of discrimination, and when consciousness arises it "變似我、法," appearing — though wholly within consciousness — as if outside ("雖在內識，而由分別似外境現").
The Middle Way in a single sentence: neither adding nor subtracting
Finally the CWL closes with a paired clause — the deepest landing of this first verse: "外境隨情而施設故，非有如識；內識必依因緣生故，非無如境，由此便遮增、減二執" 〔0001b10–12〕.
It forbids erring on either side:
- no "adding" (增) — do not take the image consciousness transforms and declare it a thing really existing outside consciousness (grasping at real self and dharmas is over-statement);
- no "subtracting" (減) — do not, because the outer object is conventional, erase the transforming consciousness too and say nothing exists at all (denying inner consciousness is under-statement).
The outer object lacks the reality of consciousness (非有如識); inner consciousness is not the emptiness of the outer object (非無如境). And so the CWL adds its placement: "境依內識而假立故，唯世俗有；識是假境所依事故，亦勝義有" 〔0001b12–13〕 — the outer object exists only conventionally, while inner consciousness stands even at the level of ultimate truth.
One word, "conventional," thus blocks at once the two pits people most often fall into: one takes the conventional for the real (adding), the other takes the conventional for nothing (subtracting). Only standing in that middle — neither adding nor subtracting — can one walk into the consciousness-only the remaining twenty-nine verses set out.
Yogācāra as the reading; root verse and commentary
Vasubandhu composed these thirty verses at the very end of his life and passed away before writing his own prose commentary ("世親菩薩臨終時造，未為長行廣釋，便卒" 〔T43n1830 0232a14–16〕). Ten masters later wrote commentaries; Xuanzang redacted them into the Cheng Weishi Lun, in which "護法聲德獨振" 〔0232a09〕 — Dharmapāla's voice stands out, the orthodox line for reading the Thirty Verses. So the "Yogācāra reading" of this layer is not a later addition of doctrine, but the verse's own commentary — built on Dharmapāla's orthodoxy, reading out, clause by clause, only what this verse already establishes: self and dharmas are conventional, they rest on consciousness's transformation, and the transformers are just three.
考據Apparatus
本偈為全論起點：寄『若唯有識，云何說有我、法』之問，舉頌答以『我法但假、依識所變、能變唯三』——唯識相之略標；其釋論即《成唯識論》（護法等十大論師·玄奘揉譯），逐偈釋之。
一、科判定位
| 科判系統 | 此偈之位 |
|---|---|
| 護法略標（玄奘 T1586 頌本卷首·主錨） | 唯識相（前二十四行頌）→ 略辯（初一行半略辯唯識相）。〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| 成唯識論 釋文科段 | 明唯識相 → 略釋難標宗 → （一）將發論端寄問徵起〔「若唯有識，云何…說有我、法」〕→ （二）舉頌依義正答〔頌曰〕→ （三）長行釋 |
| 窺基《述記》三分判 | 本頌唯有正說（世親臨終造頌·未及長行廣釋而卒）；釋論具三分：宗前敬敘分（歸敬頌·護法等）· 依教廣成分（正釋本文）· 釋結施願分。〔T43n1830 0232a13–20〕 |
護法於頌本卷首略標三十頌大科（玄奘 T1586 頌本所載「護法等菩薩約此三十頌造《成唯識》，今略標所以」段）：
謂此三十頌中，初二十四行頌明唯識相；次一行頌明唯識性；後五行頌明唯識行位。就二十四行頌中，初一行半略辯唯識相；次二十二行半廣辯唯識相。〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕
窺基判本頌之體（世親未釋而卒，故十論師造釋）：
此論本頌唯有正說，世親菩薩臨終時造，未為長行廣釋，便卒，故無初、後二分文也。〔T43n1830 0232a14–16〕
二、古漢義理平行
《轉識論》T1587 僅作古漢義理平行，不作世親造、同本異譯或逐頌校本。
本偈要義所參古漢文本：玄奘《三十論頌》T1586（底本）·《成唯識論》T1585 揉頌（同玄奘）· 真諦《轉識論》T1587（陳·真諦譯；卷首題下注「從無相論出」；非本頌同本異譯或逐偈校本，只就『我法二相·三能變』段作義理平行）。
句一 我法二相（一切所緣不出我、法，二俱非實）
| 文本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 玄奘 T1586 | 由假說我法，有種種相轉。彼依識所變， | T31n1586 0060a27–28 |
| 真諦《轉識論》T1587 | 識轉有二種：一轉為眾生、二轉為法。一切所緣不出此二，此二實無，但是識轉作二相貌也。 | T31n1587 0061c06–08 |
義理平行所見：（甲）「我／法」玄奘以「我、法」標，真諦以『轉為眾生／轉為法』標（眾生＝我，法＝法）。（乙） 玄奘「彼二離此無所依」之旨，真諦作「此二實無，但是識轉作二相貌」——皆明我法非識外實有，但是識所變現之二相。
句二 三能變／三能緣
| 文本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 玄奘 T1586 | 此能變唯三： | T31n1586 0060a28 |
| 真諦《轉識論》T1587 | 次明能緣有三種：一果報識，即是阿梨耶識；二執識，即阿陀那識；三塵識，即是六識。 | T31n1587 0061c08–09 |
義理平行所見：玄奘本頌在此只說「能變唯三」，三名「異熟·思量·了別境」起於下一偈。真諦文本則在相鄰義段說「能緣有三種」，列果報識·執識·塵識；本目只並讀「三」之結構，不據此建立逐頌異文或共同底本。
三、唯識義之釋據（眼）
本偈立『我法但假·依識所變·能變唯三』，其釋據即《成唯識論》卷一逐句釋之：
（一） 假必依實·我法但假非實——〔T31n1585 0001a23–24〕
世間、聖教說有我、法，但由假立，非實有性。我謂主宰，法謂軌持。
窺基字釋（我·法之義）：
我如主宰者，如國之主有自在故，及如輔宰能割斷故，有自在力及割斷力，義同我故。…法謂軌持，軌謂軌範可生物解，持謂住持不捨自相。〔T43n1830 0239c01–c06〕
（二） 種種相·轉——〔T31n1585 0001a24–27〕
彼二俱有種種相轉：「我種種相」謂有情、命者等，預流、一來等。「法種種相」謂實、德、業等；蘊、處、界等。「轉」謂隨緣施設有異。
（三） 依識所變·識體轉似二分——〔T31n1585 0001a27–b03〕
如是諸相若由假說，依何得成？彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設。「識」謂了別，此中識言亦攝心所，定相應故。「變」謂識體轉似二分，相、見俱依自證起故，依斯二分施設我、法，彼二離此無所依故。或復內識轉似外境。我、法分別熏習力故，諸識生時變似我、法〔，此我、法相雖在內識，而由分別似外境現，下略〕。
（四） 似有非實·故說為假——〔T31n1585 0001b07–10〕
愚夫所計實我、實法都無所有，但隨妄情而施設故，說之為假。內識所變似我、似法雖有，而非實我、法性，然似彼現，故說為假。
（五） 遮增減二執·二諦安立——〔T31n1585 0001b10–13〕
外境隨情而施設故，非有如識；內識必依因緣生故，非無如境，由此便遮增、減二執。境依內識而假立故，唯世俗有；識是假境所依事故，亦勝義有。
→ 承衍：解深密經〈一切法相品〉我法假立·二十論「唯識無境」·本論 v.17「是諸識轉變，分別、所分別，由此彼皆無，故一切唯識」·v.20–25 三性三無性。
四、諸家異釋（古德·十大論師·標宗）
三十頌諸家異釋盡在其釋論——《成唯識論》乃十大論師釋本頌之糅譯，護法正義為主。窺基《述記》所列十論師為護法、德慧、安慧、親勝、難陀、淨月、火辨、勝友、勝子、智月，並記勝友、勝子、智月三人為護法門人。〔T43n1830 0231c06–0232a08〕
護法獨振·論題標首：
製此釋者雖十論師，於中護法聲德獨振，故此論題特以標首。此師所說最有研尋，於諸義中多為南指…逈拔眾師，頴超群聖者，其惟一人乎！〔T43n1830 0232a08–12〕
本偈之諸家異判伏筆（此處伏·v.17 發）：本偈「變謂識體轉似二分，相、見俱依自證起」〔T31n1585 0001a29–b01〕乃護法四分正義（識變現相、見二分，依自證起，二分有體）。安慧義（識體一分，相、見二分皆遍計所執無體）·難陀（二分）·陳那（三分）·護法（四分）之諸師異判，本論於 v.17「是諸識轉變」段全發；本偈但伏其端，詳見 v.17 諸家異釋。〔安慧之義經《成唯識論》漢譯所載者引之；其僅存現代梵文校本之《釋論》梵本不取——漢無傳本。〕
五、術語
| 漢 | 古德傳梵（羅馬字·發音輔助） | 古德音義所徵 | 唯識精確義 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 我 | ātman | 述記「我如主宰…有自在力及割斷力」〔T43n1830 0239c01〕 | 主宰義：執為常一自在之主體（有情·命者·預流等種種相） |
| 法 | dharma | 述記「軌謂軌範可生物解，持謂住持不捨自相」〔T43n1830 0239c05–06〕 | 軌持義：任持自性、軌生物解（實·德·業·蘊·處·界等種種相） |
| 假（說） | upacāra | 〔T31n1585 0001a23「但由假立，非實有性」〕 | 隨情施設、依實而立之假名；非虛無，乃『依識所變似我似法』之假 |
| 能變 | pariṇāma | 〔T31n1585 0001a29–b01「變謂識體轉似二分」〕 | 識體轉變、現似相見二分；《轉識論》義理平行段另作「能緣」 |
| 相分·見分·自證分 | — | 〔T31n1585 0001b01「相、見俱依自證起」〕 | 識變所現之所緣相（相分）、能緣用（見分），俱依自證分起（護法四分義之三） |
六、譬喻·修辭
（一） 患夢喻——〔T31n1585 0001b05–07〕
諸有情類無始時來緣此執為實我、實法，如患夢者，患夢力故，心似種種外境相現，緣此執為實有外境。
- 喻體：患（眩翳病）·夢之人，由病力夢力，心現種種外境之相。
- 喻依：諸有情緣識所變似我似法而執為實我實法。
- 所顯唯識義：外境非識外實有，乃識（病夢之力＝分別熏習之力）所變現之相，妄情緣之而執實。
（二） 流浪喻（真諦《轉識論》·旁及）——〔T31n1587 0062a11–12〕
此識及心法，但是自性無記，念念恒流如水流浪。本識如流，五法如浪。
- 真諦釋本識（阿梨耶）念念恒流、心法如浪——與本論 v.4「恒轉如瀑流」、v.15「如濤波依水」同一喻系（識流·浪起），本偈三能變之第一能變即此。
（三） 馬騎喻（真諦·釋作意思惟·旁及）——〔T31n1587 0062a08–10〕
作意如馬行，思惟如騎者，馬但直行不能避就是非，由騎者故令其離非就是。
七、互讀
本偈為唯識相之略標，全論之起點；依唯識系次第系聯，只列與本偈實相關者：
- 解深密經〈一切法相品〉：「一切法名假安立自性差別」——我法假立之經源（本經為唯識經源，本偈「但由假立」承之）。
- 唯識二十論：「安立大乘三界唯識」「實無外境，唯有內識」——本偈『依識所變·遮增減二執』之專論。
- 三十頌 v.17：「是諸識轉變，分別、所分別，由此彼皆無，故一切唯識」——本偈「依識所變」之結成；四分諸師異釋亦發於此。
- 三十頌 v.20–25：三性三無性——本偈『我法但假』之三性開展（遍計所執我法無·依他識變似有·圓成實性）。
- 百法明門論：『一切法略有五種』——我法所攝之百法位（我法假立所依之諸法）。
- 成唯識論：本頌之釋論（全論逐偈釋）。
互讀以穩定徵引（藏經號·偈號）為主。
八、校本定位
- 玄奘 T1586（底本）：頌一〔T31n1586 0060a27–28〕· 卷首略標大科〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕。
- 成唯識論 T1585（釋論骨幹·護法等十大論師·玄奘揉譯）：寄問〔0001a18–19〕· 揉頌〔0001a20–21〕· 假立非實〔0001a23–24〕· 我謂主宰法謂軌持〔0001a24〕· 種種相轉〔0001a24–26〕· 識變似二分〔0001a27–b04〕· 患夢喻〔0001b05–07〕· 似有非實故假〔0001b07–10〕· 遮增減二執〔0001b10–12〕· 二諦〔0001b12–13〕。
- 真諦《轉識論》T1587（古漢義理平行）：識轉二種·我法二相〔0061c06–08〕· 三能緣（果報·執·塵）〔0061c08–09〕· 本識如流五法如浪〔0062a11–12〕· 馬騎喻〔0062a08–10〕。
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》T1830：十大論師名判〔T43n1830 0231c06–0232a08〕· 護法獨振〔0232a08–12〕· 三分判〔0232a14–20〕· 本頌唯正說〔0232a14–16〕· 我謂主宰法謂軌持字釋〔0239c01–06〕。
- 窺基《大乘法苑義林章》T1861：本偈未直接徵引，從闕。
Continuous vernacular is in 〈baihua〉; doctrinal exposition in 〈yishu〉; the root verse in 〈source〉. This verse opens the whole treatise: it raises the challenge "若唯有識，云何說有我、法" and answers in verse — self and dharmas are merely conventional, resting on consciousness's transformation, and the transformers are just three. Its commentary is the Cheng Weishi Lun (護法 et al., ten masters, Xuanzang's redaction).
1 · Sectioning (科判定位)
| Scheme | Placement of this verse |
|---|---|
| 護法 Dharmapāla's brief statement (head of the T1586 verse-text · primary anchor) | Characteristic of Consciousness-Only (first 24 verses) → brief statement (the first one-and-a-half verses). 〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| CWL exegetical段 | Clarifying consciousness-only-characteristic → brief explanation raising the doubt → (i) opening the treatise by posing a question 〔"若唯有識，云何…說有我、法"〕→ (ii) answering with the verse → (iii) prose commentary |
| Kuiji Shuji, three-part analysis | The root text is 正說 only (Vasubandhu composed the verses at the end of his life and died before writing the prose commentary); the commentary has three parts: 宗前敬敘分 · 依教廣成分 · 釋結施願分. 〔T43n1830 0232a13–20〕 |
Dharmapāla, at the head of the verse-text, states the master sectioning of the thirty verses (the 「護法等菩薩約此三十頌造《成唯識》，今略標所以」 passage carried in the T1586 verse-text):
謂此三十頌中，初二十四行頌明唯識相；次一行頌明唯識性；後五行頌明唯識行位。就二十四行頌中，初一行半略辯唯識相；次二十二行半廣辯唯識相。〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕
Kuiji on why ten masters wrote the commentary (Vasubandhu died before glossing his own verses):
此論本頌唯有正說，世親菩薩臨終時造，未為長行廣釋，便卒，故無初、後二分文也。〔T43n1830 0232a14–16〕
2 · Ancient-Chinese thematic parallels (古漢義理平行)
T1587 is used only as an ancient-Chinese thematic parallel, not as evidence of Vasubandhu authorship, a common source text, or a verse-by-verse variant recension.
Ancient-Chinese texts: Xuanzang's Triṃśikā T1586 (base) · CWL T1585 redacted verse (= Xuanzang) · Paramārtha's 《轉識論》 T1587 (Chen dynasty, ~a century before Xuanzang; Shèlùn southern transmission; prose restatement, not verse-by-verse, thematically aligned to this verse's "self/dharmas · three transformers").
Clause 1 — the two appearances of self and dharmas (neither real)
| Text | Verbatim | Loc |
|---|---|---|
| Xuanzang T1586 | 由假說我法，有種種相轉。彼依識所變， | T31n1586 0060a27–28 |
| Paramārtha 《轉識論》 T1587 | 識轉有二種：一轉為眾生、二轉為法。一切所緣不出此二，此二實無，但是識轉作二相貌也。 | T31n1587 0061c06–08 |
What the thematic parallel shows: (a) where Xuanzang marks "我／法," Paramārtha marks "轉為眾生／轉為法" (sentient-being = self, dharma = dharma). (b) Xuanzang's "neither has any basis apart from this [consciousness]" is given by Paramārtha as "此二實無，但是識轉作二相貌" — both deny that self and dharmas are real apart from consciousness; they are two appearances consciousness transforms into.
Clause 2 — three transformers / three perceiving consciousnesses
| Text | Verbatim | Loc |
|---|---|---|
| Xuanzang T1586 | 此能變唯三： | T31n1586 0060a28 |
| Paramārtha 《轉識論》 T1587 | 次明能緣有三種：一果報識，即是阿梨耶識；二執識，即阿陀那識；三塵識，即是六識。 | T31n1587 0061c08–09 |
What the thematic parallel shows: Xuanzang's root verse says only that the transformers are three; the names 異熟·思量·了別境 begin in the next verse. Paramārtha's text separately says there are three perceiving consciousnesses and lists 果報識·執識·塵識. This register compares the threefold structure only; it does not treat the passage as a verse-level variant or proof of a common source text.
3 · The doctrinal grounding in the commentary (釋據 · the eye)
This verse establishes "self/dharmas are merely conventional · they rest on consciousness's transformation · the transformers are just three." The CWL glosses it clause by clause:
(i) The conventional must rest on the real; self and dharmas are conventional, not real 〔T31n1585 0001a23–24〕
世間、聖教說有我、法，但由假立，非實有性。我謂主宰，法謂軌持。
Kuiji's word-gloss of 我 / 法:
我如主宰者，如國之主有自在故，及如輔宰能割斷故，有自在力及割斷力，義同我故。…法謂軌持，軌謂軌範可生物解，持謂住持不捨自相。〔T43n1830 0239c01–c06〕
(ii) Their many appearances, and "turning" 〔T31n1585 0001a24–27〕
彼二俱有種種相轉：「我種種相」謂有情、命者等，預流、一來等。「法種種相」謂實、德、業等；蘊、處、界等。「轉」謂隨緣施設有異。
(iii) Resting on consciousness's transformation; consciousness turns into two parts 〔T31n1585 0001a27–b03〕
如是諸相若由假說，依何得成？彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設。「識」謂了別，此中識言亦攝心所，定相應故。「變」謂識體轉似二分，相、見俱依自證起故，依斯二分施設我、法，彼二離此無所依故。或復內識轉似外境。我、法分別熏習力故，諸識生時變似我、法〔，此我、法相雖在內識，而由分別似外境現，下略〕。
(iv) Appearing-as, yet not real; hence "conventional" 〔T31n1585 0001b07–10〕
愚夫所計實我、實法都無所有，但隨妄情而施設故，說之為假。內識所變似我、似法雖有，而非實我、法性，然似彼現，故說為假。
(v) Blocking the two extremes of over- and under-statement; the two truths 〔T31n1585 0001b10–13〕
外境隨情而施設故，非有如識；內識必依因緣生故，非無如境，由此便遮增、減二執。境依內識而假立故，唯世俗有；識是假境所依事故，亦勝義有。
→ Further connections: 解深密經〈一切法相品〉 (the conventional positing of self/dharmas) · 二十論 ("consciousness-only, no outer object") · this treatise v.17 (是諸識轉變…故一切唯識) · v.20–25 (the three natures and three non-natures).
4 · Variant readings of the masters (諸家異釋 · the ten commentators)
The variant readings of the Thirty Verses lie entirely within its commentary — the CWL is Xuanzang's redaction of the ten masters' glosses, with 護法 (Dharmapāla) as the orthodox voice. Kuiji's Shuji lists 護法, 德慧, 安慧, 親勝, 難陀, 淨月, 火辨, 勝友, 勝子, and 智月, and records the last three as Dharmapāla's disciples. 〔T43n1830 0231c06–0232a08〕
Dharmapāla's preeminence, and why the title is set under his name:
製此釋者雖十論師，於中護法聲德獨振，故此論題特以標首。此師所說最有研尋，於諸義中多為南指…逈拔眾師，頴超群聖者，其惟一人乎！〔T43n1830 0232a08–12〕
The fork latent here, erupting at v.17: this verse's "變謂識體轉似二分，相、見俱依自證起" 〔T31n1585 0001a29–b01〕 is Dharmapāla's four-part (四分) orthodoxy (consciousness manifests the object-part and seeing-part, arising from self-witnessing; the two parts have substance). The divergence of the masters — Sthiramati (one part: object- and seeing-parts are both the wholly-imagined, without substance), Nanda (two parts), Dignāga (three parts), Dharmapāla (four parts) — is developed fully at v.17 ("是諸識轉變"); this verse only lays its seed. See v.17's register 4. 〔Sthiramati's position is cited as recorded within the Chinese CWL; his Bhāṣya, surviving only in modern Sanskrit editions, is not used — no transmitted Chinese witness.〕
5 · Terminology (術語)
| 漢 | Masters'-transmitted Skt. (romanized · pronunciation aid) | Attestation | Yogācāra precise sense |
|---|---|---|---|
| 我 | ātman | 述記「我如主宰…有自在力及割斷力」〔T43n1830 0239c01〕 | the "sovereign" sense: grasped as a permanent, single, autonomous subject |
| 法 | dharma | 述記「軌謂軌範可生物解，持謂住持不捨自相」〔T43n1830 0239c05–06〕 | the "norm-bearing" sense: holding its own nature, prompting cognition of "what it is" |
| 假（說） | upacāra | 〔T31n1585 0001a23「但由假立，非實有性」〕 | conventional, name-based positing that rests on the real; not nothingness |
| 能變 | pariṇāma | 〔T31n1585 0001a29–b01「變謂識體轉似二分」〕 | consciousness's transforming, manifesting object- and seeing-parts; the thematic passage in 《轉識論》 separately says 能緣 |
| 相分·見分·自證分 | — | 〔T31n1585 0001b01「相、見俱依自證起」〕 | object-part, seeing-part, and the self-witnessing on which both rest (three of the four parts) |
6 · Simile and rhetoric (譬喻·修辭)
(i) The simile of the diseased/dreaming eye 〔T31n1585 0001b05–07〕
諸有情類無始時來緣此執為實我、實法，如患夢者，患夢力故，心似種種外境相現，緣此執為實有外境。
- Vehicle: one with an eye-disease, or a dreamer — by the force of disease or dream, the mind manifests appearances of outer objects.
- Tenor: sentient beings grasp consciousness's transformed "as-if self / as-if dharma" as real self and real dharmas.
- Doctrinal point: the outer object is not real apart from consciousness; it is an appearance consciousness transforms (the "force of disease/dream" = the force of discriminating perfuming), which deluded feeling then grasps as real.
(ii) The current-and-waves simile (Paramārtha, in passing) 〔T31n1587 0062a11–12〕
此識及心法，但是自性無記，念念恒流如水流浪。本識如流，五法如浪。
- Paramārtha's image of the base consciousness (ālaya) flowing moment to moment, mental factors as waves — the same image-family as this treatise's v.4 「恒轉如瀑流」 and v.15 「如濤波依水」.
(iii) The horse-and-rider simile (Paramārtha, glossing attention, in passing) 〔T31n1587 0062a08–10〕
作意如馬行，思惟如騎者，馬但直行不能避就是非，由騎者故令其離非就是。
7 · Cross-readings (互讀)
This verse is the brief statement of the consciousness-only characteristic and the treatise's starting point; cross-linked along the Yogācāra sequence, listing only what genuinely bears on this verse:
- 解深密經〈一切法相品〉: 「一切法名假安立自性差別」 — the scriptural source of the conventional positing of self/dharmas.
- 唯識二十論: 「實無外境，唯有內識」 — the dedicated treatise on "resting on consciousness · blocking the two extremes."
- 三十頌 v.17: 「是諸識轉變，分別、所分別，由此彼皆無，故一切唯識」 — the completion of "resting on consciousness"; the four-part fork also erupts here.
- 三十頌 v.20–25: the three natures / three non-natures — the unfolding of "self/dharmas are merely conventional."
- 百法明門論: 『一切法略有五種』 — the hundred-dharma placement of what "self and dharmas" are posited upon.
- 成唯識論: the commentary on the root verses (verse-by-verse, the whole treatise).
8 · Manuscript loci (校本定位)
- Xuanzang T1586 (base): verse 1 〔T31n1586 0060a27–28〕 · the opening structural outline 〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕.
- 成唯識論 T1585 (commentary backbone · ten masters · Xuanzang redaction): question 〔0001a18–19〕 · redacted verse 〔0001a20–21〕 · conventional-not-real 〔0001a23–24〕 · 我謂主宰法謂軌持 〔0001a24〕 · appearances/turning 〔0001a24–26〕 · transform-into-two-parts 〔0001a27–b04〕 · diseased/dream simile 〔0001b05–07〕 · appearing-yet-not-real 〔0001b07–10〕 · blocking two extremes 〔0001b10–12〕 · two truths 〔0001b12–13〕.
- 真諦《轉識論》 T1587 (ancient-Chinese thematic parallel): two transformations / self-dharma appearances 〔0061c06–08〕 · three perceivers 〔0061c08–09〕 · current-and-waves 〔0062a11–12〕 · horse-and-rider 〔0062a08–10〕.
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》 T1830: roster of the ten masters 〔T43n1830 0231c06–0232a08〕 · Dharmapāla's preeminence 〔0232a08–12〕 · three-part analysis 〔0232a14–20〕 · root-text-is-正說-only 〔0232a14–16〕 · word-gloss of 我謂主宰法謂軌持 〔0239c01–06〕.
- 窺基《大乘法苑義林章》 T1861: not directly cited at this verse; omitted.