唯識三十頌 偈二十二 圓成依他·非異非不異
真如與識變，是一還是異？——法與法性的關係。
上一首立圓成「於彼依他」，這一首收尾定其關係。「故此與依他，非異非不異」：圓成（真如）與依他（識變），非異、非不異。《成唯識論》點兩頭過失：「異應真如非彼實性」（若異，真如就不是依他的實性）·「不異此性應是無常」（若一，圓成就同依他是無常）——兩頭落不得。
一個現成的尺：「如無常等性」。無常·無我是諸行的共相——跟諸行非異（不離）、又非就是某一個行（非不異）。論主一句定名：「非一非異，法與法性」——依他是法、圓成是法性；法性不離法（非異）、不即某一法（非不異），勝義世俗相待而立。這「法與法性」是三性關係的定盤星，也是「法↔法性」範疇的源頭。
末句「非不見此彼」講次第：先以無分別智證圓成（真如），後得智才能了依他「如幻」——真如未證，依他的如幻看不真。依他之如幻，論列八喻：「幻事·陽焰·夢境·鏡像·光影·谷響·水月·變化所成，非有似有」——緣生而現（似有）、無自性（非有）。
三性至此圓滿：遍計（純無）·依他（如幻）·圓成（法性真如）。三者不是三個並列實體，也不是同一實體的三層：遍計是於依他上妄執，圓成是依他遠離遍計所顯。下面轉「三無性」，說佛何以又說一切法無自性。
Suchness and consciousness-transformation, one or different? — the relation of dharma and dharma-nature.
The last verse established the perfectly-accomplished "upon the other-dependent"; this verse closes the set by fixing their relation. "So this and the other-dependent are neither different nor non-different": the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) and the other-dependent (consciousness-transformation), not different, not non-different. The CWL points out the fault on each side: "were they different, suchness would not be its real nature" (if different, suchness is not the other-dependent's real nature) · "were they non-different, this nature would be impermanent" (if one, the perfectly-accomplished would be impermanent like the other-dependent) — neither side will hold.
A ready measure: "like the nature of impermanence and the rest." Impermanence and no-self are the common-marks of conditioned things — not different from conditioned things (not apart), yet not any one particular thing (not non-different). The commentator names it: "neither one nor different, dharma and dharma-nature" — the other-dependent is dharma, the perfectly-accomplished dharma-nature; the dharma-nature not apart from the dharma (not different), not any one dharma (not non-different), the ultimate and conventional in mutual dependence. This "dharma and dharma-nature" is the lodestar of the three-nature relation, source of the "dharma ↔ dharma-nature" pair.
The final line "not without seeing this, that" states the order: first realize the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) by the non-discriminating cognition, and only then can the subsequently-attained cognition discern the other-dependent as "illusory" — suchness unrealized, the other-dependent's illusoriness is not clearly seen. The other-dependent's illusoriness the commentator gives in eight similes: "illusion · mirage · dream · mirror-image · light-shadow · valley-echo · water-moon · conjuration, non-existent-yet-seeming-existent" — arising by conditions (seeming-existent), without own-nature (non-existent).
The three natures complete: the wholly-imagined (pure absence) · the other-dependent (illusory) · the perfectly-accomplished (dharma-nature · suchness). They are neither three independent entities nor three layers of one entity: the wholly-imagined is falsely imposed upon the other-dependent, while the perfectly-accomplished is disclosed when the other-dependent is free of the wholly-imagined. The verses to follow turn to the “three non-natures,” stating why the Buddha further said all dharmas are without own-nature.
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 0061a18–19〕
故此與依他，非異非不異，
如無常等性，非不見此彼。
偈二十二收三性：明圓成實（此）與依他起之關係——非異非不異（如「無常·無我」等共相與諸行之關係，即法與法性）；且「非不見此彼」——非不證見圓成（此·真如）而能見依他（彼·如幻）。 科判位：唯識相 · 廣辯 · 三性（偈二十–二十二）之收束（偈二十二）。承前偈圓成「於彼依他」，此偈以『法與法性·非異非不異』定圓成依他之關係，三性圓。
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
故此與依他，非異非不異， 如無常等性，非不見此彼。
白話
上一首立了依他起（緣生·非無）和圓成實（依他上遠離遍計所顯的真如）。這一首收尾，回答一個自然會問的問題：圓成（真如）和依他（識變），到底是『同一個』還是『兩個』？
- 「故此與依他，非異非不異」：「此」指圓成實。圓成和依他，「非異」（不是兩個別的東西）、「非不異」（也不是完全同一個）。《成唯識論》講理由：若說「異」（兩個），那真如就不是依他的實性了（可它明明是依他的實性）；若說「不異」（同一個），那圓成就該跟依他一樣是無常的了（可真如不是無常）。所以非異、非不異。
- 「如無常等性」：拿個現成的例子——就像「無常、無我」這些「共相」，和「諸行」（一切有為法）的關係。無常是諸行的共相：它跟諸行不是兩個別的東西（非異），可你也不能說無常就等於某一個具體的行（非不異）。圓成（真如）對依他，正是這樣的『法（依他）與法性（圓成）』的關係——法性不離法、也不就是某一個法。
- 「非不見此彼」：這句講『看見的次第』。「此」是圓成、「彼」是依他。『非不見此（圓成），而能見彼（依他）』——意思是：不是說不證見圓成、卻能如實見依他；而是要先證見了圓成（真如），才能真正如實地看見依他（看出依他是「如幻」的）。《成唯識論》說：要無分別智先親證真如，之後的後得智才能了達依他起「如幻事等」。
論主還列了八個比喻來形容依他的「如幻」：幻事、陽焰（地面熱氣看似有水）、夢境、鏡像、光影、谷響（回聲）、水月、變化（變化所成之物）——這八樣都是「非有似有」：沒有實體，卻彷彿有相現起。依他起就是這樣，緣生而現、卻無自性。
（到這一首，三性就講圓滿了：遍計（無）·依他（如幻·非有似有）·圓成（真如·依他之法性）。三性不是三個互不相干的實體，也不是毫無差別的一個東西：依他是緣生的所依，在它上面妄執實我實法是遍計，遠離這層妄執所顯的法性是圓成。）
The verse
故此與依他，非異非不異， 如無常等性，非不見此彼。
so this and the other-dependent are neither different nor non-different, like the nature of impermanence and the rest; not without seeing this is that seen.
In plain words
The last verse established the other-dependent (condition-born · not absent) and the perfectly-accomplished (the suchness revealed upon the other-dependent, apart from the wholly-imagined). This verse closes the set, answering a question that naturally arises: the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) and the other-dependent (consciousness-transformation) — are they "one and the same" or "two"?
- "So this and the other-dependent are neither different nor non-different": "this" means the perfectly-accomplished. The perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "not different" (not two separate things) and "not non-different" (not utterly the same either). The CWL gives the reasons: if "different" (two), then suchness would not be the other-dependent's real nature (but it plainly is the other-dependent's real nature); if "non-different" (one and the same), then the perfectly-accomplished would be impermanent like the other-dependent (but suchness is not impermanent). So neither different nor non-different.
- "Like the nature of impermanence and the rest": take a ready example — the relation of the common-marks "impermanence, no-self" to "conditioned things" (all conditioned dharmas). Impermanence is the common-mark of conditioned things: it is not two separate things from conditioned things (not different), yet you cannot say impermanence equals any one particular conditioned thing (not non-different). The perfectly-accomplished (suchness) to the other-dependent is just this relation of "dharma (the other-dependent) and dharma-nature (the perfectly-accomplished)" — the dharma-nature is not apart from the dharma, nor is it any one particular dharma.
- "Not without seeing this is that seen": this states the order of seeing. "This" is the perfectly-accomplished, "that" the other-dependent. "Not without seeing this (the perfectly-accomplished) is that (the other-dependent) seen" — meaning: it is not that one sees the other-dependent truly without realizing the perfectly-accomplished; rather, one must first realize the perfectly-accomplished (suchness), and only then can the subsequently-attained cognition discern the other-dependent (see that the other-dependent is "illusory"). The CWL says: the non-discriminating cognition must first directly realize suchness, and only then can the subsequently-attained cognition discern the other-dependent nature "as illusion etc."
The commentator further lists eight similes for the other-dependent's "illusoriness": illusion, mirage (heat-shimmer on the ground that seems to be water), dream, mirror-image, light-shadow, valley-echo, water-moon, conjuration (a thing produced by transformation) — all eight are "non-existent-yet-seeming-existent": without substance, yet seeming to arise with a mark. The other-dependent is just so: arising by conditions, yet without own-nature.
(With this verse the three natures are complete: the wholly-imagined (absent) · the other-dependent (illusory · non-existent-yet-seeming-existent) · the perfectly-accomplished (suchness · the other-dependent's dharma-nature). They are neither three unrelated substances nor one undifferentiated thing: the other-dependent is the condition-born basis, the real self-and-dharmas falsely imposed upon it are the wholly-imagined, and the dharma-nature disclosed when that grasping is absent is the perfectly-accomplished.)
圓成「於彼依他」，那它倆到底算一個還是兩個
上一首立了圓成實『於彼依他起上、常遠離遍計』。話一出口，立刻逼出一個問題：既然圓成就「在」依他上，那這真如（圓成）和識變（依他），究竟是同一個東西，還是兩個東西？這一問不能含糊——答錯一邊，三性就站不穩。這一首便以「非異非不異」收住，把圓成依他的關係定死。
兩頭都不能落：非異，非不異
《成唯識論》答得乾淨：「此圓成實與彼依他起，非異非不異」（〔T31n1585 0046b18–19〕），並把兩頭的過失都點出來：「異應真如非彼實性；不異此性應是無常」（〔0046b19–21〕）。
- 若說「異」（是兩個別的東西）：那真如就跟依他不相干了——可圓成明明是依他的「實性」（依他的真實本性），怎會是別的一物？所以不能說異。
- 若說「不異」（完全同一個）：那圓成就該跟依他一樣是「無常」的了——可真如恒常不變，怎會無常？所以也不能說不異。
兩頭都落不得，只能是「非異非不異」。
一個現成的尺：法與法性
光說「非異非不異」還抽象，論主給了一個極好的現成例子：「如彼無常、無我等性」（〔T31n1585 0046b21–22〕）。「無常」「無我」是「諸行」（一切有為法）的共相。你看這共相與諸行的關係：無常跟諸行是兩個東西嗎？不是（無常不離諸行）；無常就等於某一個具體的行嗎？也不是（它是貫通一切行的共相）。
《成唯識論》一句點破這層關係的名字：「此圓成實與彼依他，非一非異，法與法性，理必應然，勝義、世俗，相待有故」（〔0046b24–c01〕）。依他是「法」，圓成是「法性」。法性不離法（所以非異），法性又不就是某一個法（所以非不異）；一個是勝義（圓成·真如），一個是世俗（依他·識變），二者相待而立。這「法與法性」一語，是整個三性關係的定盤星——也是後來「法↔法性」這一對範疇的源頭。
看見的次第：先證圓成，才真見依他
本頌末句「非不見此彼」，講的是證見的次第。「此」是圓成、「彼」是依他。《成唯識論》：「非不證見此圓成實，而能見彼依他起性」（〔T31n1585 0046b26–c01〕）——不是『不證圓成卻能如實見依他』，而是要先以無分別智親證圓成（真如），之後的後得智才能如實了達依他（看出依他是「如幻」的）。次第不能顛倒：真如未證，依他的「如幻」就看不真切；真如一證，回頭看依他，才見它如幻而非實。
而依他的「如幻」，論主列了八個比喻：「猶如幻事、陽焰、夢境、鏡像、光影、谷響、水月、變化所成，非有似有」（〔0046c02–04〕），並引頌證：「非不見真如，而能了諸行，皆如幻事等，雖有而非真」（〔0046c04–06〕）。八喻所共顯的，正是「非有似有」四字——幻事、陽焰、回聲、水月，哪一樣有實體？卻又哪一樣不彷彿有相？依他起就是如此：緣生而現起（似有），無自性可得（非有）。
到這一首，三性圓滿了：遍計（情有理無·純無）·依他（非有似有·如幻）·圓成（法性·真如，依他之實性）。三性不是三個彼此割裂的實體，卻也不能壓成毫無差別的同一物。《述記》說：遍計並非離依他另有實體，圓成則是依他之實性；同時妄執、緣起、真義三者仍有分判〔T43n1830 0554a08–14〕。所以應依關係來看：依他是緣生的所依，於其上妄執實我實法是遍計，在依他上永離這一妄執所顯的法性是圓成。下面幾首要從「三性」轉到「三無性」，再說佛何以又說「一切法無自性」。
The perfectly-accomplished "upon the other-dependent" — so are the two one or two?
The last verse established the perfectly-accomplished "upon the other-dependent, ever-apart from the wholly-imagined." No sooner is this said than a question is forced: since the perfectly-accomplished is right "upon" the other-dependent, then this suchness (the perfectly-accomplished) and consciousness-transformation (the other-dependent) — are they one and the same thing, or two? This question cannot be left vague — answer to either side and the three natures will not stand. This verse closes it by "neither different nor non-different," fixing the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent relation firmly.
Neither side will hold: not different, not non-different
The CWL answers cleanly: "this perfectly-accomplished and that other-dependent are neither different nor non-different" (〔T31n1585 0046b18–19〕), and points out the fault on each side: "were they different, suchness would not be its real nature; were they non-different, this nature would be impermanent" (〔0046b19–21〕).
- If "different" (two separate things): then suchness would have nothing to do with the other-dependent — but the perfectly-accomplished plainly is the other-dependent's "real nature," how could it be another thing? So one cannot say different.
- If "non-different" (utterly the same): then the perfectly-accomplished would be "impermanent" like the other-dependent — but suchness is eternal and changeless, how could it be impermanent? So one cannot say non-different either.
Neither side will hold; it can only be "neither different nor non-different."
A ready measure: dharma and dharma-nature
"Neither different nor non-different" is still abstract; the commentator gives an excellent ready example: "like the nature of impermanence, no-self, and the rest" (〔T31n1585 0046b21–22〕). "Impermanence" and "no-self" are the common-marks of "conditioned things" (all conditioned dharmas). See the relation of this common-mark to conditioned things: is impermanence two things from conditioned things? No (impermanence is not apart from conditioned things); does impermanence equal any one particular conditioned thing? No either (it is the common-mark running through all conditioned things).
The CWL names this relation in one phrase: "this perfectly-accomplished and that other-dependent are neither one nor different, dharma and dharma-nature, of necessity so by reason, the ultimate and the conventional established in mutual dependence" (〔0046b24–c01〕). The other-dependent is "dharma," the perfectly-accomplished is "dharma-nature." The dharma-nature is not apart from the dharma (hence not different), and the dharma-nature is not any one particular dharma (hence not non-different); one is the ultimate (the perfectly-accomplished · suchness), one the conventional (the other-dependent · consciousness-transformation), the two established in mutual dependence. This one phrase "dharma and dharma-nature" is the lodestar of the whole three-nature relation — and the source of the later "dharma ↔ dharma-nature" pair of categories.
The order of seeing: first realize the perfectly-accomplished, then truly see the other-dependent
The verse's final line "not without seeing this, that" states the order of realization. "This" is the perfectly-accomplished, "that" the other-dependent. The CWL: "not without realizing this perfectly-accomplished can one see that other-dependent nature" (〔T31n1585 0046b26–c01〕) — not "without realizing the perfectly-accomplished one can yet see the other-dependent truly," but rather one must first directly realize the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) by the non-discriminating cognition, and only then can the subsequently-attained cognition truly discern the other-dependent (see that the other-dependent is "illusory"). The order cannot be reversed: suchness unrealized, the other-dependent's "illusoriness" is not clearly seen; suchness once realized, looking back at the other-dependent, one sees it illusory and not real.
And the other-dependent's "illusoriness" the commentator gives in eight similes: "like illusion, mirage, dream, mirror-image, light-shadow, valley-echo, water-moon, conjuration, non-existent-yet-seeming-existent" (〔0046c02–04〕), citing a verse in proof: "not without seeing suchness can one discern conditioned things, all like illusion etc., seeming-existent yet not real" (〔0046c04–06〕). What the eight similes jointly show is just the four words "non-existent-yet-seeming-existent" — illusion, mirage, echo, water-moon: which of them has substance? Yet which of them does not seem to bear a mark? The other-dependent is just so: arising by conditions (seeming-existent), with no own-nature to be had (non-existent).
With this verse, the three natures are complete: the wholly-imagined (existent-to-feeling, non-existent-to-reason · pure absence) · the other-dependent (non-existent-yet-seeming-existent · illusory) · the perfectly-accomplished (dharma-nature · suchness, the other-dependent's real nature). They are not three mutually isolated substances, but neither can they be compressed into one undifferentiated thing. The Record explains that the wholly-imagined has no separate substance apart from the other-dependent, while the perfectly-accomplished is the other-dependent's real nature; nevertheless false grasping, conditioned arising, and true meaning remain distinct 〔T43n1830 0554a08–14〕. They are therefore best read relationally: the other-dependent is the condition-born basis, the real self-and-dharmas falsely imposed upon it are the wholly-imagined, and the dharma-nature disclosed upon the other-dependent when that grasping is ever absent is the perfectly-accomplished. The verses that follow turn from "the three natures" to "the three non-natures," and state why the Buddha further said "all dharmas are without own-nature."
考據Apparatus
本偈收三性：明圓成實與依他起「非異非不異」（如無常等共相與諸行·即法與法性），及「非不見此彼」（非不證圓成而能見依他如幻）。其釋論《成唯識論》卷八釋之。本偈為三性樞紐·目⑥譬喻重（八喻）。
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 → 廣辯 → 三性（偈二十–二十二）→ 圓成依他關係·三性收束（偈二十二）。〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| 成唯識論 釋文科段 | 圓成與依他非異非不異（如無常等性·法與法性）→ 非不見此彼（無分別智證真如·後得智了依他如幻·八喻）（卷八） |
前偈立圓成『於彼依他·常遠離遍計』，此偈以『非異非不異·法與法性』定圓成依他之關係，並以「非不見此彼」明證見之序，三性圓。
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。
| 文本 | 逐字 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 玄奘 T1586（本頌） | 故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。 | T31n1586 0061a18–19 |
| 成唯識論 T1585（揉頌） | 「故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。」 | T31n1585 0045c12–13 |
義理平行所見：玄奘本頌與成唯識論揉頌全同。真諦《轉識論》雖不逐頌揉釋本偈，卻有一組接近的義理平行：說分別性與依他性「不一不異」，以「無常與有為法」為喻，並說「若不見分別性，則不見依他性」〔T31n1587 0063a24–0063b14〕。但 T1587 配對的是「分別／依他」，本偈配對的是「圓成／依他」；相同的「不一不異」語式與無常喻，被安在不同的三性關係上，故只能作異位的義理對讀，不是本偈的同本異譯或逐頌對應文。
三、唯識義之釋據（眼）
（一） 圓成與依他·非異非不異——〔T31n1585 0046b18–21〕：
由前理故，此圓成實與彼依他起，非異非不異。異應真如非彼實性；不異此性應是無常。〔T31n1585 0046b18–20〕
（二） 如無常等性·法與法性——〔T31n1585 0046b21–c03〕：
云何二性，非異非一？如彼無常、無我等性。〔T31n1585 0046b21–22〕
由斯喻顯，此圓成實與彼依他，非一非異，法與法性，理必應然，勝義、世俗，相待有故。〔T31n1585 0046b24–25〕
（三） 非不見此彼·證見之序——〔T31n1585 0046b26–c01〕：
非不證見此圓成實，而能見彼依他起性。〔T31n1585 0046b26〕
→ 圓成（此·真如）與依他（彼·識變），非異（若異，真如應非依他之實性）·非不異（若一，圓成應同依他是無常）；其關係如「無常·無我」等共相之與「諸行」——法與法性：法性不離法、亦不即法，勝義世俗相待而立。「非不見此彼」者：非不證見圓成（無分別智證真如），而能見依他（後得智了依他如幻）——必先證真如，方如實見依他。 → 承衍：本論 v.25（唯識實性·圓成樞紐）· v.28–29（通達位·修習位·無分別智／後得智）· v.30（法身·究竟）。
四、諸家異釋（古德·標宗）
本偈以「法與法性」定圓成依他關係，諸家無大諍，盡在釋論糅文（〔T31n1585 0046b24〕「法與法性，理必應然」）。其「非不見此彼」之證見序（先無分別智證圓成·後後得智了依他如幻），即下文通達·修習二位（v.28–29）之張本。
五、術語
| 漢 | 古德傳梵（羅馬字·發音輔助） | 唯識精確義 |
|---|---|---|
| 非異非不異 | — | 圓成與依他之關係；非異（真如即依他實性）·非不異（圓成非無常）〔0046b18〕 |
| 法與法性 | dharma-dharmatā | 依他＝法·圓成＝法性；法性不即不離於法〔0046b24〕 |
| 無常等性 | — | 無常·無我等共相；喻圓成（共相·法性）與依他（諸行·法）之關係〔0046b22〕 |
| 非不見此彼 | — | 非不證見圓成（此）而能見依他（彼）；無分別智證真如·後得智了如幻〔0046b26〕 |
六、譬喻·修辭（本偈譬喻重·八喻）
依他如幻八喻——《成唯識論》明後得智了依他起性「如幻事等」，列八喻：
〔眾緣所引自心、心所，虛妄變現〕猶如幻事、陽焰、夢境、鏡像、光影、谷響、水月、變化所成，非有似有。〔T31n1585 0046c02–04〕
並引頌證：
「非不見真如，而能了諸行，皆如幻事等，雖有而非真。」〔T31n1585 0046c05–06〕
- 喻體：幻事·陽焰·夢境·鏡像·光影·谷響·水月·變化（八喻）。
- 所顯：依他起（識變·見相二分）「非有似有」——非實有自性（故非遍計之實），而似有現起（故非純無）。八喻皆『有相而無實』之物，正喻依他『緣生而無自性』。
- 修辭：「無常等性」一喻明圓成依他之「非異非不異」（法與法性）；「八喻」明依他之「非有似有」。一明關係、一明體相，三性之收束盡於此二喻。
七、互讀
- 三十頌 v.20–21：遍計·依他·圓成——本偈收三性，定圓成依他「非異非不異」之關係。
- 三十頌 v.25：唯識實性——本偈圓成（法性·真如）即唯識實性之所本（樞紐偈）。
- 三十頌 v.28–29：通達位·修習位——本偈「非不見此彼」（無分別智證圓成·後得智了依他如幻）即二位之張本。
- 辯中邊論：虛妄分別·三性·中道——本偈『法與法性·非異非不異』與彼「非空非不空」中道同揆（繫 v.17 慈尊二頌）。
八、校本定位
- 玄奘 T1586（底本）：偈二十二〔T31n1586 0061a18–19〕。
- 成唯識論 T1585（釋論骨幹·卷八）：圓成依他非異非不異〔0046b18–21〕· 如無常等性·法與法性〔0046b21–c01〕· 非不見此彼·證見序〔0046b26–c01〕· 依他如幻八喻〔0046c02–04〕· 所引頌「非不見真如」〔0046c04–06〕。
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》T1830：非異非不異·法與法性·八喻之疏（卷八）；本頌專釋段〔T43n1830 0546b10–0547c09〕。
- 真諦《轉識論》T1587（古漢義理平行）：分別與依他不一不異·如無常與有為法·不見分別則不見依他〔0063a24–0063b14〕；其配對不同於本偈之圓成／依他，故不作逐頌對應。
This verse closes the three natures: the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent are "neither different nor non-different" (like the common-mark of impermanence etc. to conditioned things · that is, dharma and dharma-nature), and "not without seeing this, that" (not without realizing the perfectly-accomplished can one see the other-dependent). The CWL fascicle 8 expounds it. This verse is the three-nature pivot · simile-weighted (the eight similes).
1 · Sectioning (科判定位)
| Scheme | Placement of this verse |
|---|---|
| 護法 brief statement (head of T1586 verse-text · primary anchor) | Characteristic of Consciousness-Only → detailed exposition → the three natures (verses 20–22) → the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent relation · closing the three natures (verse 22). 〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| CWL exegetical段 | the perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent neither different nor non-different (like impermanence etc. · dharma and dharma-nature) → not without seeing this, that (the non-discriminating cognition realizing suchness · the subsequently-attained cognition discerning the other-dependent as illusory · the eight similes) (fasc. 8) |
The previous verse established the perfectly-accomplished "upon the other-dependent · ever-apart from the wholly-imagined"; this verse fixes the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent relation by "neither different nor non-different · dharma and dharma-nature," and clarifies the order of realization by "not without seeing this, that," closing the three natures.
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.
| Text | Verbatim | Loc |
|---|---|---|
| Xuanzang T1586 (root verse) | 故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。 | T31n1586 0061a18–19 |
| 成唯識論 T1585 (redacted verse) | 「故此與依他，非異非不異，如無常等性，非不見此彼。」 | T31n1585 0045c12–13 |
What the thematic parallel shows: Xuanzang's root verse and the CWL redaction are wholly identical. Although Paramārtha's 《轉識論》 does not redact this verse line by line, it contains a close thematic counterpart: the discriminated and other-dependent natures are "neither one nor different," illustrated by impermanence and conditioned dharmas, and "if one does not see the discriminated nature, one does not see the other-dependent nature" 〔T31n1587 0063a24–0063b14〕. T1587 thus assigns the formula and simile to the discriminated／other-dependent pair, while this verse assigns them to the perfectly-accomplished／other-dependent pair. The verbal and figurative proximity is real, but differently positioned; it is not a common-source variant or verse-by-verse counterpart.
3 · The doctrinal grounding in the commentary (釋據 · the eye)
(i) The perfectly-accomplished and the other-dependent · neither different nor non-different — 〔T31n1585 0046b18–21〕:
由前理故，此圓成實與彼依他起，非異非不異。異應真如非彼實性；不異此性應是無常。〔T31n1585 0046b18–20〕
(ii) Like the common-mark of impermanence etc. · dharma and dharma-nature — 〔T31n1585 0046b21–c01〕:
云何二性，非異非一？如彼無常、無我等性。〔T31n1585 0046b21–22〕
由斯喻顯，此圓成實與彼依他，非一非異，法與法性，理必應然，勝義、世俗，相待有故。〔T31n1585 0046b24–25〕
(iii) Not without seeing this, that · the order of realization — 〔T31n1585 0046b26–c01〕:
非不證見此圓成實，而能見彼依他起性。〔T31n1585 0046b26〕
→ The perfectly-accomplished (this · suchness) and the other-dependent (that · consciousness-transformation): not different (were they different, suchness would not be the other-dependent's real nature) · not non-different (were they one, the perfectly-accomplished would be impermanent like the other-dependent); their relation is like the common-mark of "impermanence · no-self" etc. to "conditioned things" — dharma and dharma-nature: the dharma-nature is not apart from the dharma, nor identical with the dharma, the ultimate and the conventional established in mutual dependence. "Not without seeing this, that": not without realizing the perfectly-accomplished (the non-discriminating cognition realizing suchness) can one see the other-dependent (the subsequently-attained cognition discerning the other-dependent as illusory) — one must first realize suchness, and only then see the other-dependent truly. → Further connections: this treatise v.25 (the Consciousness-Only-reality · the perfectly-accomplished pivot) · vv.28–29 (the penetration stage · the cultivation stage · the non-discriminating／subsequently-attained cognitions) · v.30 (the dharma-body · the ultimate).
4 · Variant readings of the masters (諸家異釋 · standard-setting)
This verse fixes the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent relation by "dharma and dharma-nature," with no great dispute among the masters, all lying within the commentary's redaction (〔T31n1585 0046b24〕 "dharma and dharma-nature, of necessity so by reason"). Its order of realization in "not without seeing this, that" (first the non-discriminating cognition realizing the perfectly-accomplished · then the subsequently-attained cognition discerning the other-dependent as illusory) is the ground of the penetration and cultivation stages below (vv.28–29).
5 · Terminology (術語)
| 漢 | Masters'-transmitted Skt. (pronunciation aid) | Yogācāra precise sense |
|---|---|---|
| 非異非不異 | — | the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent relation; not different (suchness is the other-dependent's real nature) · not non-different (the perfectly-accomplished is not impermanent) 〔0046b18〕 |
| 法與法性 | dharma-dharmatā | the other-dependent ＝ dharma · the perfectly-accomplished ＝ dharma-nature; the dharma-nature neither identical with nor apart from the dharma 〔0046b24〕 |
| 無常等性 | — | the common-mark of impermanence · no-self etc.; figures the relation of the perfectly-accomplished (common-mark · dharma-nature) to the other-dependent (conditioned things · dharma) 〔0046b22〕 |
| 非不見此彼 | — | not without realizing the perfectly-accomplished (this) can one see the other-dependent (that); the non-discriminating cognition realizing suchness · the subsequently-attained cognition discerning the illusory 〔0046b26〕 |
6 · Simile and rhetoric (譬喻·修辭 · this verse is simile-weighted · the eight similes)
The eight similes of the other-dependent as illusory — the CWL, showing the subsequently-attained cognition discerns the other-dependent nature "as illusion etc.," lists eight similes:
〔眾緣所引自心、心所，虛妄變現〕猶如幻事、陽焰、夢境、鏡像、光影、谷響、水月、變化所成，非有似有。〔T31n1585 0046c02–04〕
and cites a verse in proof:
「非不見真如，而能了諸行，皆如幻事等，雖有而非真。」〔T31n1585 0046c05–06〕
- Vehicles: illusion · mirage · dream · mirror-image · light-shadow · valley-echo · water-moon · conjuration (the eight similes).
- What it shows: the other-dependent (consciousness-transformation · the seeing-and-image parts) is "non-existent-yet-seeming-existent" — without a real own-nature (hence not the wholly-imagined's reality), yet seeming to arise (hence not pure absence). The eight similes are all things "having a mark but no substance," figuring the other-dependent as "condition-born yet without own-nature."
- Rhetoric: the single simile "the common-mark of impermanence etc." shows the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent "neither different nor non-different" (dharma and dharma-nature); the "eight similes" show the other-dependent's "non-existent-yet-seeming-existent." One shows the relation, one the substance-mark; the closing of the three natures rests wholly on these two figures.
7 · Cross-readings (互讀)
- 三十頌 v.20–21: the wholly-imagined · the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished — this verse closes the three natures, fixing the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent "neither different nor non-different" relation.
- 三十頌 v.25: the Consciousness-Only-reality — this verse's perfectly-accomplished (dharma-nature · suchness) is the ground of the Consciousness-Only-reality (the pivot verse).
- 三十頌 vv.28–29: the penetration stage · the cultivation stage — this verse's "not without seeing this, that" (the non-discriminating cognition realizing the perfectly-accomplished · the subsequently-attained cognition discerning the other-dependent as illusory) is the ground of the two stages.
- 辯中邊論 (Madhyāntavibhāga): false discrimination · three natures · the Middle Way — this verse's "dharma and dharma-nature · neither different nor non-different" is of one measure with that "neither empty nor non-empty" Middle Way (anchored to v.17's Maitreya verses).
8 · Manuscript loci (校本定位)
- Xuanzang T1586 (base): verse 22 〔T31n1586 0061a18–19〕.
- 成唯識論 T1585 (commentary backbone · fasc. 8): the perfectly-accomplished and other-dependent neither different nor non-different 〔0046b18–21〕 · like the common-mark of impermanence · dharma and dharma-nature 〔0046b21–c01〕 · not without seeing this, that · the order of realization 〔0046b26–c01〕 · the eight similes of the other-dependent as illusory 〔0046c02–04〕 · the cited verse "not without seeing suchness" 〔0046c04–06〕.
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》 T1830: gloss on neither different nor non-different · dharma and dharma-nature · the eight similes (fasc. 8); verse-specific section 〔T43n1830 0546b10–0547c09〕.
- Paramārtha 《轉識論》 T1587 (ancient-Chinese thematic parallel): discriminated and other-dependent neither one nor different · like impermanence and conditioned dharmas · not seeing the discriminated, one does not see the other-dependent 〔0063a24–0063b14〕; the pairing differs from this verse's perfectly-accomplished／other-dependent relation, so it is not treated as a verse-by-verse counterpart.