唯識三十頌 偈二十三 三無性·密意說無性
佛說「一切法無自性」，跟三性矛盾嗎？——密意說無性。
立了三性（遍計無·依他圓成非無），立刻撞上《成唯識論》所舉的佛說：『一切法皆無自性』。這一首答難：不是推翻佛說，而是指出佛那句「無性」本是『即三性而密意說』；《述記》把這一三無性框架明繫《解深密經·無自性相品》〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕。
「即依此三性，立彼三無性」——三無性不是另起爐灶，正對著三性反面說：依遍計立相無性·依依他立生無性·依圓成立勝義無性。立遮一體。
要害在「密意」二字。《成唯識論》：「說『密意』言顯非了義」——別有所指、非字面。其內容：後二性（依他圓成）「體非無」，唯愚夫於其上增益妄執實我法（遍計），佛為除此執乃「於有及無，總說無性」。故佛說無性「非性全無」——空的是遍計（妄加那層）、空的是「自然有」之執，不撥依他圓成。
這一字之差，是唯識與惡取空的分水嶺。論主重囑：「諸有智者不應依之總撥諸法都無自性。」此即《解深密經·無自性相品》『依三相說三無自性性』的義脈：相無性遮遍計，生無性與勝義無性則依依他、圓成假立，並非把後二性撥成全無。下一首把三無性對著三性講細。
Does the Buddha's "all dharmas without own-nature" conflict with the three natures? — the hidden-intent teaching of no-nature.
Having established the three natures (the wholly-imagined absent · the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished not absent), the CWL at once raises the Buddha's statement, “all dharmas are without own-nature.” This verse answers not by overturning the Buddha's teaching, but by pointing out that his “no-nature” was “established upon the three natures, spoken with hidden intent”; Kuiji's Commentary explicitly connects this three-non-natures framework to the Saṃdhinirmocana's “No-Own-Nature-Mark” chapter 〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕. “Upon these very three natures the three non-natures are established” — the three non-natures are no fresh start but the negative statement against the three natures: upon the wholly-imagined the mark-less-nature · upon the other-dependent the birth-less-nature · upon the perfectly-accomplished the ultimate-meaning-no-nature. Establishing and negating, one body.
The crux is "hidden intent." The CWL: "saying 'hidden intent' shows non-literal" — a particular aim behind it, not the surface. Its content: the latter two natures (other-dependent, perfectly-accomplished) are "not absent in substance," but the fool superimposes upon them a real self-and-dharma nature (the wholly-imagined), and to remove this grasping the Buddha "speaks of no-nature over both the existent and the non-existent." So the Buddha's no-nature is "not the nature wholly absent" — it empties the wholly-imagined (the layer falsely added) and the grasping at the natural, not dismissing the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished.
This one word's difference is the watershed against nihilistic emptiness. The commentator admonishes: “those of wisdom should not, relying on it, dismiss all dharmas as wholly without own-nature.” This is the line of the Saṃdhinirmocana's “No-Own-Nature-Mark” chapter: mark-less-nature negates the wholly-imagined; birth-less-nature and ultimate-meaning-no-nature are provisionally established upon the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished, rather than dismissing those latter two as wholly absent. The next verse states the three non-natures one by one against the three natures.
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 0061a22–23〕
即依此三性，立彼三無性，
故佛密意說，一切法無性。
偈二十三明三性與三無性之關係：即依前說三性（遍計·依他·圓成），立後說三無性（相·生·勝義無性）；故佛「密意」（非了義）說「一切法無自性」——非謂性全無。《述記》將此三無性框架明繫《解深密經·無自性相品》〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕，此處不另作跨經系會通。
科判位：唯識相 · 廣辯 · 三性三無性（偈二十–二十四）→ 三無性（偈二十三–二十四）→ 即三性立三無性·密意說無性（偈二十三）。
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
即依此三性，立彼三無性， 故佛密意說，一切法無性。
白話
前面立了三性：遍計（無）、依他（非無）、圓成（真如）。《成唯識論》馬上自己提出問難：「若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？」既然依他、圓成不是無，世尊為何又總說「一切法無自性」？這一首就回答這個難；《述記》並把三無性的框架連到《解深密經·無自性相品》。
- 「即依此三性，立彼三無性」：佛說的「無性」，不是憑空說的，正是依著前面這三性，對應立了三種「無性」（相無性、生無性、勝義無性，細目在下一首）。三性是正面說、三無性是反面說，說的是同一件事的兩面。
- 「故佛密意說，一切法無性」：所以佛說「一切法無自性」，是「密意」說的。「密意」就是『話裡有話、別有所指、不是字面那麼直白』（術語叫「非了義」）。
關鍵在「密意」二字。《成唯識論》講得很清楚：佛說無性「非性全無」——不是說連體性都一概沒有。為什麼這麼說？因為後兩性（依他、圓成）「體非無」（本身不是無），可是愚夫偏要在它們上面「增益」、硬安一個「實我、實法」的自性，這一安就成了遍計所執。佛為了破掉這個妄執，才「於有及無，總說無性」——一句「無性」，把該破的妄執（遍計）掃掉。
所以「一切法無性」是密意說，不是把一切總撥成沒有：它破的是遍計（你妄加的那一層）、破的是「自然有」的執著，並不是把依他（緣生的識變）、圓成（真如）也一筆撥掉。《成唯識論》後面特別叮囑：有智慧的人，不應依著這句『無性』就把一切法都撥成沒有。
（這一首立的是《成唯識論》對契經無性語的三性式解讀：掃除遍計增益，不總撥依他、圓成。下一首把三無性一個個對著三性講細。）
The verse
即依此三性，立彼三無性， 故佛密意說，一切法無性。
upon these very three natures the three non-natures are established; so the Buddha with hidden intent says all dharmas are without nature.
In plain words
The earlier verses established the three natures: the wholly-imagined (absent), the other-dependent (not absent), the perfectly-accomplished (suchness). The CWL at once raises its own difficulty: "if there are three natures, why did the World-Honored One say all dharmas are without own-nature?" If the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished are not absent, why is no-own-nature stated comprehensively? This verse answers that question; Kuiji also connects the three-non-nature framework with the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra's No-Own-Nature-Mark chapter.
- "Upon these very three natures the three non-natures are established": the "no-nature" the Buddha speaks is not spoken out of thin air — it is established upon these three natures just stated, the corresponding three "non-natures" (the mark-less-nature, birth-less-nature, ultimate-meaning-no-nature; particulars in the next verse). The three natures are the positive statement, the three non-natures the negative — the two faces of one and the same matter.
- "So the Buddha with hidden intent says all dharmas are without nature": so the Buddha's "all dharmas without own-nature" is spoken with "hidden intent." "Hidden intent" means "there is more meaning behind the words, a particular aim, not as flat as the surface says" (the technical term is "non-literal").
The crux is the phrase "hidden intent." The CWL states it plainly: the Buddha's no-nature is "not the nature wholly absent" — not that even the substance-nature is one and all absent. Why so? Because the latter two natures (the other-dependent, the perfectly-accomplished) are "not absent in substance," yet the fool insists on "superimposing" upon them, fixing a "real self, real dharma" nature — and this fixing is the wholly-imagined. To break this false grasping, the Buddha "speaks of no-nature over both the existent and the non-existent" — one word "no-nature" sweeps away the grasping (the wholly-imagined) that should be swept.
So "all dharmas without nature" is a hidden-intent teaching, not a wholesale dismissal: what it breaks is the wholly-imagined (the layer falsely added) and the grasping at "natural existence"; it does not dismiss the other-dependent (the condition-born consciousness-transformation) and the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) along with it. The CWL later especially admonishes: "those of wisdom should not, relying on this word 'no-nature,' dismiss all dharmas as wholly without nature."
(This verse establishes the CWL's three-nature reading of scriptural no-nature language: it removes the wholly-imagined superimposition without dismissing the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished. The next verse states the three non-natures one by one against the three natures.)
三性一立，世尊「一切法無自性」的問難就來了
前面三首立了三性：遍計（無）、依他（非無）、圓成（真如）。這一立，立刻撞上一個極硬的問難——《成唯識論》自己把它擺出來：「若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？」論文在此只說「世尊」，沒有指明特定經名；《述記》則把三無性的框架連到《解深密經·無自性相品》〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕。問題很清楚：既說依他、圓成體非無，怎樣理解世尊又總說「一切法無自性」？
這一問非答不可。這一首的答法極漂亮：不是推翻世尊所說的「無性」，而是依《成唯識論》的釋法，指出這句「無性」是『依三性而密意說』的。
三無性不是另起爐灶，是三性的反面說
「即依此三性，立彼三無性」——《成唯識論》：「即依此前所說三性，立彼後說三種無性，謂即相、生、勝義無性」（〔T31n1585 0048a03–05〕）。佛說的三無性，不是離開三性另立的一套，正是對著三性的反面說：依遍計說「相無性」、依依他說「生無性」、依圓成說「勝義無性」（細目在下一首）。三性是「立」、三無性是「遮」，立遮一體，說的是同一件事。
要害在「密意」二字：非了義
那為什麼佛要用「無性」這麼斬截的話？要害全在「密意」二字。「故佛密意說，一切法無性」——《成唯識論》拈得極準：「說『密意』言顯非了義」（〔T31n1585 0048a06〕）。「密意」就是『別有所指、不是字面那麼直白』，也就是「非了義」（不是究竟直說的那一層）。
接著論主把這「密意」的內容點透：「謂後二性雖體非無，而有愚夫於彼增益，妄執實有我、法自性，此即名為遍計所執。為除此執，故佛世尊於有及無，總說無性」（〔T31n1585 0048a06–10〕）。看清這幾句的層次：
- 後二性（依他、圓成）體非無——它們本身不是沒有。
- 可是愚夫偏要在它們上面「增益」，硬安一個「實我、實法」的自性——這一安，就是遍計所執。
- 佛為了除掉這個妄執，才「於有及無，總說無性」——一句「無性」，把該掃的那一層（遍計）掃乾淨。
所以佛說的「一切法無性」，《成唯識論》斬釘截鐵地補一句：「非性全無」（〔0048a06〕）。所破的是遍計（你妄加的那一層）、是『自然有、實有』的執，不是把依他（緣生的識變）、圓成（真如）也一併撥成沒有。
密意說無性，不是總撥一切
這一字之差，是唯識與「惡取空」的分水嶺。論主在這一段末了，特別下了一句重的叮囑：「諸有智者不應依之總撥諸法都無自性」（〔T31n1585 0048b03–04〕）——真有智慧的人，不該抓著佛這句「無性」，就把一切法（連依他圓成）都撥成空無。這正是《解深密經·無自性相品》『佛依三相說三無自性性』的本意：無性是依三性而假說的密意，不是斷滅。
到這裡，《成唯識論》對「一切法無自性」的三性式解讀就立住了：所遮的是遍計之實、自然有之執；所不應總撥的是依他與圓成——緣生之識變、二空所顯之真如。 一句「無性」掃除增益，而不把後二性一併撥無，這正是本偈「密意」二字的分量。下一首把相、生、勝義三無性，一個個對著三性講細。
Once the three natures are established, the World-Honored One's "all dharmas without own-nature" becomes the difficulty
The previous three verses established the three natures: the wholly-imagined (absent), the other-dependent (not absent), the perfectly-accomplished (suchness). This at once raises a hard difficulty, which the CWL itself states: "if there are three natures, how does the World-Honored One say all dharmas are without own-nature?" The passage here says only "the World-Honored One" and does not identify a particular sūtra. Kuiji connects the three-non-nature framework with the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra's No-Own-Nature-Mark chapter 〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕. The question is precise: if the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished are not absent in substance, how is the World-Honored One's comprehensive statement of no-own-nature to be understood?
This question must be answered. The answer is precise: not to overturn the World-Honored One's "no-nature," but, following the CWL's explanation, to show that it is "spoken with hidden intent upon the three natures."
The three non-natures are not a fresh start, but the negative statement of the three natures
"Upon these very three natures the three non-natures are established" — the CWL: "upon these three natures stated before, the three non-natures stated after are established, namely the mark · birth · ultimate-meaning no-nature" (〔T31n1585 0048a03–05〕). The three non-natures the Buddha speaks are not a separate set apart from the three natures, but precisely the negative statement against the three natures: upon the wholly-imagined the "mark-less-nature," upon the other-dependent the "birth-less-nature," upon the perfectly-accomplished the "ultimate-meaning-no-nature" (particulars in the next verse). The three natures are "establishing," the three non-natures "negating"; establishing and negating are one body, stating the same matter.
The crux is "hidden intent": non-literal
So why does the Buddha use words as sweeping as "no-nature"? The crux is wholly in the phrase "hidden intent." "So the Buddha with hidden intent says all dharmas are without nature" — the CWL pins it precisely: "saying 'hidden intent' shows non-literal" (〔T31n1585 0048a06〕). "Hidden intent" means "there is a particular aim behind it, not as flat as the surface" — that is, "non-literal" (not the ultimate, direct statement).
The commentator then makes the content of this "hidden intent" plain: "the latter two natures, though not absent in substance, yet the fool superimposes upon them, falsely grasping a real self-and-dharma nature, and this is named the wholly-imagined. To remove this grasping, the World-Honored One speaks of no-nature over both the existent and the non-existent" (〔T31n1585 0048a06–10〕). See the layers of these lines:
- The latter two natures (the other-dependent, the perfectly-accomplished) are not absent in substance — they themselves are not nothing.
- Yet the fool insists on "superimposing" upon them a "real self, real dharma" nature — and this fixing is the wholly-imagined.
- To remove this false grasping, the Buddha "speaks of no-nature over both the existent and the non-existent" — one word "no-nature" sweeps clean the layer (the wholly-imagined) that should be swept.
So the Buddha's "all dharmas without nature," the CWL adds decisively: "not the nature wholly absent" (〔0048a06〕). What is denied is the wholly-imagined (the layer you falsely added) and the grasping at "natural, real existence" — not the other-dependent (the condition-born consciousness-transformation) and the perfectly-accomplished (suchness) dismissed along with it.
No-nature spoken with hidden intent, not a wholesale dismissal
This one word's difference is the watershed between Yogācāra and "nihilistic emptiness." At the close of this passage the commentator lays down a weighty admonition: "those of wisdom should not, relying on it, dismiss all dharmas as wholly without own-nature" (〔T31n1585 0048b03–04〕) — one truly of wisdom should not, grasping the Buddha's word "no-nature," dismiss all dharmas (the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished included) as empty nothing. This is the very import of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra's "No-Own-Nature-Mark" chapter, "the Buddha speaks of the three no-own-nature-natures by the three marks": no-nature is a hidden intent provisionally spoken upon the three natures, not annihilation.
With this, the CWL's three-nature reading of "all dharmas without own-nature" stands: what is negated is the wholly-imagined reality and the grasping at natural existence; what must not be dismissed wholesale is the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished — the condition-born consciousness-transformation and the suchness revealed by the two emptinesses. The single word "no-nature" removes the superimposition without erasing the latter two natures — this is the force of "hidden intent" in the verse. The next verse states the mark, birth, and ultimate-meaning non-natures one by one against the three natures.
考據Apparatus
本偈明即三性立三無性、佛密意說一切法無性（非性全無）。其釋論《成唯識論》卷九釋之，正答『既有三性，何以世尊說一切法無自性』之難；《述記》以《解深密經·無自性相品》為此三無性框架的經源〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕。
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 → 三性三無性（偈二十–二十四）→ 三無性（偈二十三–二十四）→ 即三性立三無性·密意說無性（偈二十三）。〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| 成唯識論 釋文科段 | 「若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？」設問〔T31n1585 0047c25 前〕→ 即三性立三無性·密意·非性全無（卷九） |
前立三性（遍計無·依他圓成非無），《成唯識論》遂問：「若有三性，如何世尊說一切法皆無自性？」本偈以『即三性立三無性·佛密意說』作答：無性是密意（非了義），非謂體性全無。
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） | 即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。 | T31n1586 0061a22–23 |
| 成唯識論 T1585（揉頌） | 「即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。」 | T31n1585 0047c26–27 |
| 真諦《轉識論》T1587 | 〔分別性〕此但唯有名，名所顯體實無。 | T31n1587 0063a18–19 |
義理平行所見：玄奘本頌與成唯識論揉頌全同。真諦《轉識論》三無性段循『分別性相類·依他性麁重』之異框架，不逐頌對應玄奘「相·生·勝義無性」之文；其判分別性（＝遍計）「此但唯有名，名所顯體實無」，與本偈相無性（依遍計立·體相畢竟非有）同——分別性唯名無體即相無性之義。
三、唯識義之釋據（眼）
（一） 即三性立三無性·非性全無——〔T31n1585 0048a03–06〕：
論曰：即依此前所說三性，立彼後說三種無性，謂即相、生、勝義無性，故佛密意說一切法皆無自性，非性全無。〔T31n1585 0048a03–05〕
（二） 「密意」顯非了義·為除增益遍計——〔T31n1585 0048a06–10〕：
說「密意」言顯非了義，謂後二性雖體非無，而有愚夫於彼增益，妄執實有我、法自性，此即名為遍計所執。為除此執，故佛世尊於有及無，總說無性。〔T31n1585 0048a05–09〕
→ 三性與三無性一一相依：依遍計立相無性·依依他立生無性·依圓成立勝義無性（細目見次偈 v.24）。佛說「一切法無自性」是密意（非了義）——後二性（依他·圓成）體非無，唯因愚夫於其上增益妄執實我法（遍計），佛乃「於有及無，總說無性」以除執。故「無性」非「性全無」；這是《成唯識論》對契經無性語的三性式解讀：所除是遍計增益，不是總撥依他、圓成。 → 承衍：本論 v.24（三無性細目·相生勝義）· v.20–22（所依之三性）· v.25（唯識實性·圓成）。
四、諸家異釋（古德·標宗）
本偈以『即三性立三無性·密意非了義』回答契經無性說，諸家無大諍，盡在釋論糅文（〔T31n1585 0048a05〕「非性全無」、〔0048a06〕「說『密意』言顯非了義」）。此『密意說無性』之判，本於《解深密經·無自性相品》（佛依三相說三無自性性），《成唯識論》承之；亦即「諸有智者不應依之總撥諸法都無自性」（〔T31n1585 0048b03–04〕）之所本。
五、術語
| 漢 | 古德傳梵（羅馬字·發音輔助） | 唯識精確義 |
|---|---|---|
| 三無性 | trividhā niḥsvabhāvatā | 相·生·勝義無性；即三性而立·密意說〔0048a03〕 |
| 密意 | ābhiprāyika | 非了義；佛於有及無總說無性、為除遍計增益〔0048a06〕 |
| 一切法無性 | — | 佛密意說一切法無自性；非性全無〔0048a05〕 |
| 非性全無 | — | 後二性（依他圓成）體非無；無性非斷滅〔0048a06〕 |
六、譬喻·修辭
本偈喻在次偈（v.24）三無性各立處（空華·幻事·太虛空）廣陳，此偈但立『即三性立三無性·密意』之總綱。修辭在「密意」二字之拈——「說『密意』言顯非了義」〔T31n1585 0048a06〕：以「密意」一語，定佛「一切法無性」之教為非了義（有所為而說·為除遍計增益），杜「總撥諸法都無自性」之惡取空。
七、互讀
- 三十頌 v.20–22：三性（遍計·依他·圓成）——本偈三無性即依此三性而立。
- 三十頌 v.24：相無性·生無性·勝義無性——本偈三無性之細目。
- 三十頌 v.25：唯識實性——本偈勝義無性即依圓成立，圓成即唯識實性。
- 解深密經·無自性相品：三相·三無自性性——本偈『密意說無性』之經源。
- 諸契經中說無性言：《成唯識論》總攝為「非極了義」，警示不應據此總撥諸法都無自性〔T31n1585 0048b03–04〕。
八、校本定位
- 玄奘 T1586（底本）：偈二十三〔T31n1586 0061a22–23〕。
- 成唯識論 T1585（釋論骨幹·卷九）：論曰即三性立三無性·非性全無〔0048a03–06〕· 密意顯非了義·為除增益遍計〔0048a06–10〕· 不應總撥諸法都無自性〔0048b03–04〕。
- 真諦《轉識論》T1587（古漢義理平行）：分別性唯有名·體實無〔0063a18–19〕。
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》T1830：三無性·密意之疏，並以《解深密經》為經源（卷九）；本頌專釋段〔T43n1830 0554b18–0554c15〕。
This verse states that upon the three natures the three non-natures are established, and the Buddha with hidden intent says all dharmas are without nature (not that the nature is wholly absent). The CWL fascicle 9 uses it to answer: if there are three natures, why did the World-Honored One say all dharmas are without own-nature? Kuiji identifies the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra's No-Own-Nature-Mark chapter as the scriptural framework for these three non-natures 〔T43n1830 0554c03–05〕.
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 and three non-natures (verses 20–24) → the three non-natures (verses 23–24) → upon the three natures establishing the three non-natures · the hidden-intent teaching of no-nature (verse 23). 〔T31n1586 0060a21–24〕 |
| CWL exegetical段 | "if there are three natures, how does the World-Honored One say all dharmas are without own-nature?" 〔before T31n1585 0047c25〕 → upon the three natures establishing the three non-natures · hidden intent · not the nature wholly absent (fasc. 9) |
After establishing the three natures (the wholly-imagined absent · the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished not absent), the CWL asks: "if there are three natures, why did the World-Honored One say all dharmas are without own-nature?" This verse answers by "upon the three natures establishing the three non-natures · the Buddha's hidden-intent teaching": no-nature is hidden intent (non-literal), not that the substance-nature is wholly absent.
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) | 即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。 | T31n1586 0061a22–23 |
| 成唯識論 T1585 (redacted verse) | 「即依此三性，立彼三無性，故佛密意說，一切法無性。」 | T31n1585 0047c26–27 |
| Paramārtha 《轉識論》 T1587 | 〔分別性〕此但唯有名，名所顯體實無。 | T31n1587 0063a18–19 |
What the thematic parallel shows: Xuanzang's root verse and the CWL redaction are wholly identical. Paramārtha's 《轉識論》 three-non-nature section follows a different framework of "the discriminated as semblance-kind · the other-dependent as coarse-heaviness," not redacting verse-by-verse the Xuanzang "mark · birth · ultimate-meaning no-nature"; his judgment of the discriminated nature (＝ the wholly-imagined) "this only has a name, the substance the name shows is truly absent" is the same as this verse's mark-less-nature (established upon the wholly-imagined · its substance-mark utterly non-existent) — the discriminated being only a name without substance is the sense of the mark-less-nature.
3 · The doctrinal grounding in the commentary (釋據 · the eye)
(i) Upon the three natures the three non-natures · not the nature wholly absent — 〔T31n1585 0048a03–06〕:
論曰：即依此前所說三性，立彼後說三種無性，謂即相、生、勝義無性，故佛密意說一切法皆無自性，非性全無。〔T31n1585 0048a03–05〕
(ii) "Hidden intent" shows non-literal · to remove the superimposed wholly-imagined — 〔T31n1585 0048a06–10〕:
說「密意」言顯非了義，謂後二性雖體非無，而有愚夫於彼增益，妄執實有我、法自性，此即名為遍計所執。為除此執，故佛世尊於有及無，總說無性。〔T31n1585 0048a05–09〕
→ The three natures and three non-natures correspond one-to-one: upon the wholly-imagined the mark-less-nature is established · upon the other-dependent the birth-less-nature · upon the perfectly-accomplished the ultimate-meaning-no-nature (the particulars at the next verse, v.24). The Buddha's saying "all dharmas without own-nature" is hidden intent (non-literal) — the latter two natures (the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished) are not absent in substance, but because the fool superimposes upon them, falsely grasping a real self-and-dharma nature (the wholly-imagined), the Buddha "speaks of no-nature over both the existent and the non-existent" to remove the grasping. Thus "no-nature" is not "the nature wholly absent." This is the CWL's three-nature reading of scriptural no-nature language: it removes the wholly-imagined superimposition without dismissing the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished. → Further connections: this treatise v.24 (the three non-natures' particulars · mark, birth, ultimate-meaning) · vv.20–22 (the three natures it rests on) · v.25 (the Consciousness-Only-reality · the perfectly-accomplished).
4 · Variant readings of the masters (諸家異釋 · standard-setting)
This verse answers scriptural no-nature language by "upon the three natures establishing the three non-natures · hidden intent, non-literal," with no great dispute among the masters, all lying within the commentary's redaction (〔T31n1585 0048a05〕 "not the nature wholly absent"; 〔0048a06〕 "saying 'hidden intent' shows non-literal"). This judgment is based on the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra's No-Own-Nature-Mark chapter (the Buddha speaks of the three no-own-nature-natures by the three marks), which the CWL inherits; it is also the basis of "those of wisdom should not, relying on it, dismiss all dharmas as wholly without own-nature" (〔T31n1585 0048b03–04〕).
5 · Terminology (術語)
| 漢 | Masters'-transmitted Skt. (pronunciation aid) | Yogācāra precise sense |
|---|---|---|
| 三無性 | trividhā niḥsvabhāvatā | mark · birth · ultimate-meaning no-nature; established upon the three natures · hidden-intent teaching 〔0048a03〕 |
| 密意 | ābhiprāyika | non-literal; the Buddha speaks of no-nature over both existent and non-existent, to remove the superimposed wholly-imagined 〔0048a06〕 |
| 一切法無性 | — | the Buddha's hidden-intent teaching that all dharmas are without own-nature; not the nature wholly absent 〔0048a05〕 |
| 非性全無 | — | the latter two natures (other-dependent, perfectly-accomplished) not absent in substance; no-nature is not annihilation 〔0048a06〕 |
6 · Simile and rhetoric (譬喻·修辭)
This verse's similes the commentator sets out at length where the three non-natures are each established (v.24 · sky-flower · illusion · empty space); this verse only establishes the general principle of "upon the three natures the three non-natures · hidden intent." The rhetoric lies in the pinning of "hidden intent" — "saying 'hidden intent' shows non-literal" 〔T31n1585 0048a06〕: with the single phrase "hidden intent," the Buddha's teaching "all dharmas without nature" is fixed as non-literal (spoken for a purpose · to remove the superimposed wholly-imagined), barring the nihilistic clinging-to-emptiness of "dismissing all dharmas as wholly without own-nature."
7 · Cross-readings (互讀)
- 三十頌 v.20–22: the three natures (the wholly-imagined · the other-dependent · the perfectly-accomplished) — this verse's three non-natures are established upon these three natures.
- 三十頌 v.24: the mark-less · birth-less · ultimate-meaning no-nature — the particulars of this verse's three non-natures.
- 三十頌 v.25: the Consciousness-Only-reality — this verse's ultimate-meaning-no-nature is established upon the perfectly-accomplished, and the perfectly-accomplished is the Consciousness-Only-reality.
- 解深密經·無自性相品 (Saṃdhinirmocana · No-Own-Nature-Mark chapter): the three marks · the three no-own-nature-natures — the scriptural source of this verse's "hidden-intent teaching of no-nature."
- The no-nature language of the sūtras: the CWL gathers it as "not utterly definitive" and warns against using it to dismiss all dharmas as wholly without own-nature 〔T31n1585 0048b03–04〕.
8 · Manuscript loci (校本定位)
- Xuanzang T1586 (base): verse 23 〔T31n1586 0061a22–23〕.
- 成唯識論 T1585 (commentary backbone · fasc. 9): 論曰 upon the three natures the three non-natures · not the nature wholly absent 〔0048a03–06〕 · hidden intent shows non-literal · to remove the superimposed wholly-imagined 〔0048a06–10〕 · one should not dismiss all dharmas as wholly without own-nature 〔0048b03–04〕.
- 真諦《轉識論》 T1587 (ancient-Chinese thematic parallel): the discriminated nature only has a name · the substance truly absent 〔0063a18–19〕.
- 窺基《成唯識論述記》 T1830: gloss on the three non-natures and hidden intent, identifying the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra as the scriptural framework (fasc. 9); verse-specific section 〔T43n1830 0554b18–0554c15〕.