Chinese
大正藏第 31 册 No. 1619 无相思尘论 No. 1619 无相思尘论 陈那菩萨造 陈西印度三藏法师真谛译 若说邻虚 是根本因 不似起故 非境如根 识似聚起 不从彼生 聚无有体 譬如二月 由此二义 外物非尘 有说邻虚 聚成万物 识似彼起 故立为尘 邻虚体相 若是实有 识不似故 非境如尘 邻虚若尘 则识无别 若言相异 则识不同 异相在假 故体非真 邻虚体量 众处无别 若除邻虚 万识不起 是故万物 悉是假名 于内尘相 如外而显 立为识尘 识似现故 是识缘缘 随生决定 共立功能 令次第起 二根共生 胜能为根 于识无碍 更互为因 胜能为尘 互生无始 若有人执眼等六识。缘外境起。是人或分别邻虚为境。是识因故。或分别邻虚聚为境。似聚识起故尘者何相。若识能了别其体相。如其体相识起。是故说此名尘。邻虚无此事。若邻虚实是识因譬如五根。是故邻虚非尘。若尔邻虚聚应是境。如聚识起故。虽复如此如其相起。识不从此生。是故聚亦非尘。何以故。若尘能生识。似其体相可信为尘。何以故。可说此尘 现代汉语译本 《无相思尘论》 陈那菩萨造 陈西印度三藏法师真谛译 如果有人说极微（邻虚）是根本因，但识的生起并不像极微。 外境不像根一样是识的直接原因，识的生起类似于聚合，但并非直接从聚合产生。 聚合本身没有实体，就像空中的第二个月亮一样。由于这两个原因， 外在事物不是识的所缘（尘）。有人说极微（邻虚）聚合形成万物， 识的生起类似于这些聚合，因此将它们立为所缘（尘）。极微（邻虚）的体相， 如果是真实存在的，但识的生起并不像它，因此它不像尘一样是识的所缘。 如果极微（邻虚）是尘，那么识就没有差别。如果说它们有不同的相， 那么识也就不同于极微。不同的相是虚假的，因此极微的体不是真实的。 极微（邻虚）的体量，在各处没有差别。如果除去极微， 万种识就不会生起。因此，万物都是假名。 内在的尘相，如外在一样显现，立为识尘。 识的生起类似于所缘，是识的缘缘，随其生起而决定。 共同建立功能，令次第生起。两个根共同生起， 胜能为根，于识无碍，更互为因。 胜能为尘，互生无始。 如果有人执着于眼等六识，认为它们缘于外境而生起。这个人或者分别极微（邻虚）为境，因为它是识的因；或者分别极微（邻虚）聚为境，因为识的生起类似于聚合。那么，尘的相是什么呢？如果识能够了别它的体相，并且识的生起就像它的体相，因此说这个名为尘。极微（邻虚）没有这件事。如果极微（邻虚）确实是识的因，譬如五根，因此极微（邻虚）不是尘。如果这样，极微（邻虚）聚应该是境，因为识的生起类似于聚。即使这样，识的生起并不从此聚产生。因此，聚也不是尘。为什么呢？如果尘能够生识，并且类似于它的体相，才可以相信它是尘。为什么呢？可以说这个尘。
English
English version The Treatise on No-Appearance of Thought-Objects By Bodhisattva Dignāga (Chenna) Translated by Paramārtha (Zhendi), Tripitaka Master from Western India of the Chen Dynasty If it is said that the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') is the fundamental cause, but the arising of consciousness is not like the ultimate particle. External objects are not the direct cause of consciousness like the sense organs; the arising of consciousness is similar to aggregates, but it does not arise directly from aggregates. Aggregates themselves have no substance, like the second moon in the sky. Because of these two reasons, external things are not objects (dust, 'chen') of consciousness. Some say that ultimate particles (neighboring void, 'lin xu') aggregate to form all things, and the arising of consciousness is similar to these aggregates, therefore they are established as objects (dust, 'chen'). The substance of the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu'), if it is truly existent, but the arising of consciousness is not like it, therefore it is not an object of consciousness like dust. If the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') is dust, then consciousness has no distinction. If it is said that they have different appearances, then consciousness is also different from the ultimate particle. The different appearances are false, therefore the substance of the ultimate particle is not real. The quantity of the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') is not different in all places. If the ultimate particle is removed, the myriad consciousnesses will not arise. Therefore, all things are provisional names. The internal appearance of dust is manifested like the external, and is established as consciousness-dust. The arising of consciousness is similar to the object, it is the object of consciousness's object, and it is determined by its arising. Together they establish function, causing sequential arising. Two sense organs arise together, the superior ability is the root, without obstruction to consciousness, mutually as cause. The superior ability is the dust, mutually arising without beginning. If someone clings to the six consciousnesses, such as eye consciousness, believing that they arise from external objects. This person either distinguishes the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') as the object, because it is the cause of consciousness; or distinguishes the aggregate of ultimate particles (neighboring void, 'lin xu') as the object, because the arising of consciousness is similar to the aggregate. Then, what is the appearance of dust? If consciousness can discern its substance, and the arising of consciousness is like its substance, therefore it is said that this is called dust. The ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') does not have this. If the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') is indeed the cause of consciousness, like the five sense organs, therefore the ultimate particle (neighboring void, 'lin xu') is not dust. If so, the aggregate of ultimate particles (neighboring void, 'lin xu') should be the object, because the arising of consciousness is similar to the aggregate. Even so, the arising of consciousness does not arise from this aggregate. Therefore, the aggregate is also not dust. Why? If dust can produce consciousness, and is similar to its substance, then it can be believed to be dust. Why? This dust can be spoken of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
为识生缘故。聚者则不如此。非实有故。譬如二月由眼根乱。识似二月起二月非。识境界实无有故。聚亦如此。离邻虚无有实体故。聚非识境界。是故外尘。由此二义非识境界。一一分不具故。有诸师说。是邻虚聚集成万物。有多种相具足。立此为境界。何以故。有别相能生证智。非但邻虚及邻虚聚。是故于邻虚及邻虚聚中。有相为六识作境邻虚相者非尘。譬如坚等。邻虚中有坚湿热动触。此物实有非眼识境界。眼识不如其起故。邻虚中万物亦如此。何以故。邻虚者于万物中若生识。是识则无差别。以万物中邻虚无有异故。若汝言由相差别故生识异。瓶等诸物相貌不同。缘此相故起识有异。是义不然。何以故。如此相貌差别。于瓶等假名物中。不无于邻虚。实物中则无邻虚。体量不异故。于万物中邻虚体量。所谓圆细无有差别。是故万物相貌非是实有。是假名有。是假名相者。谓瓶等诸物。若除邻虚。似瓶等识不生故。实物者。若析相应法似实物识不灭。如未析时。于瓶中五尘识生。析竟五尘识亦不灭故。五尘等是实有由此邻虚及聚。万物不能生识。是故外尘非识境界。若尔何法名尘。于内尘相如外显现。是名识尘外尘实无所有。于内识中众生乱心分别故。起六尘分别。此分别如在于外。如此显现。是四缘中名识缘缘 现代汉语译本 为了识别产生‘缘’（因缘，hetu-pratyaya）的缘故，聚集起来的事物并非如此，因为它不是真实存在的。比如，就像二月时由于眼根的错乱，意识似乎产生了二月，但实际上并没有二月。意识的境界实际上并不存在，所以聚集起来的事物也是如此。由于邻近的虚空没有实体，所以聚集起来的事物不是意识的境界。因此，外在的尘埃（rupa）由于这两个原因，不是意识的境界，因为每一个部分都不完整。 有些老师说，是邻近的虚空聚集起来形成了万物，具有多种相貌，并以此作为境界。为什么呢？因为有不同的相貌能够产生证智（pramana-jnana）。不仅仅是邻近的虚空和邻近虚空的聚集。因此，在邻近的虚空和邻近虚空的聚集之中，有相貌作为六识的境界。邻近虚空的相貌不是尘埃，比如坚硬等等。在邻近的虚空中，有坚硬、潮湿、热、运动等触觉。这些事物是真实存在的，但不是眼识的境界，因为眼识不能如实地产生。邻近虚空中的万物也是如此。为什么呢？如果邻近虚空在万物中产生意识，那么这个意识就没有差别，因为万物中的邻近虚空没有差异。如果你们说，由于相貌的差别，所以产生的意识不同，比如瓶子等事物的相貌不同，因为这些相貌的缘故，产生的意识也有差异。这个说法是不对的。为什么呢？因为这种相貌的差别，在瓶子等假名的事物中存在，但在邻近虚空的实物中则不存在，因为它们的体量没有差异。在万物中，邻近虚空的体量，比如圆形、细小，没有差别。因此，万物的相貌不是真实存在的，而是假名存在的。这个假名的相貌，指的是瓶子等事物。如果去除邻近虚空，那么类似瓶子等的意识就不会产生。实物是，如果分析相应的法，类似实物的意识不会消失，就像未分析时一样。在瓶子中，五尘的意识产生，分析完毕后，五尘的意识也不会消失。五尘等是真实存在的。因此，邻近虚空和聚集起来的万物不能产生意识。所以，外在的尘埃不是意识的境界。如果这样，那么什么法叫做尘埃呢？在内在的尘埃的相貌，如外在显现，这叫做识尘（vijnana-rupa）。外在的尘埃实际上什么都没有，在内在的意识中，众生由于错乱的心而分别，所以产生了六尘的分别。这种分别就像在外一样如此显现。这是四缘（catuh-pratyaya）中的识缘（vijnana-pratyaya）。
English
English version For the sake of recognizing the arising of ‘causes’ (hetu-pratyaya), aggregates are not like that, because they are not truly existent. For example, like the illusion of a second moon arising from the derangement of the eye faculty in the second month, but there is no actual second moon. The realm of consciousness is actually non-existent, so aggregates are also like that. Because adjacent spaces have no substance, aggregates are not the realm of consciousness. Therefore, external dust (rupa) is not the realm of consciousness due to these two reasons, because each part is not complete. Some teachers say that adjacent spaces aggregate to form all things, possessing various appearances, and establish this as a realm. Why? Because there are distinct appearances that can generate valid cognition (pramana-jnana). Not just adjacent spaces and aggregates of adjacent spaces. Therefore, within adjacent spaces and aggregates of adjacent spaces, there are appearances that serve as objects for the six consciousnesses. The appearance of adjacent spaces is not dust, such as hardness, etc. In adjacent spaces, there are sensations of hardness, moisture, heat, and movement. These things are truly existent, but they are not the realm of eye consciousness, because eye consciousness does not arise accordingly. All things in adjacent spaces are also like that. Why? If adjacent spaces generate consciousness in all things, then this consciousness would have no difference, because adjacent spaces in all things have no difference. If you say that consciousness arises differently due to differences in appearance, such as the different appearances of objects like pots, and consciousness arises differently because of these appearances, this is not correct. Why? Because this kind of difference in appearance exists in nominally existent things like pots, but does not exist in the real substance of adjacent spaces, because their dimensions are not different. In all things, the dimensions of adjacent spaces, such as roundness and fineness, have no difference. Therefore, the appearances of all things are not truly existent, but nominally existent. This nominal appearance refers to things like pots. If adjacent spaces are removed, then consciousness resembling pots, etc., will not arise. Real substances are such that if corresponding dharmas are analyzed, consciousness resembling real substances will not disappear, just as it does not disappear when unanalyzed. In a pot, the consciousness of the five dusts arises, and after analysis, the consciousness of the five dusts does not disappear. The five dusts, etc., are truly existent. Therefore, adjacent spaces and aggregates of all things cannot generate consciousness. Therefore, external dust is not the realm of consciousness. If so, then what dharma is called dust? The appearance of internal dust manifests as external, this is called consciousness-dust (vijnana-rupa). External dust actually has nothing, in internal consciousness, sentient beings discriminate due to a confused mind, so the discrimination of the six dusts arises. This discrimination manifests as if it were external. This is the consciousness-condition (vijnana-pratyaya) among the four conditions (catuh-pratyaya). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。以是识体相故由此识生故。所以者何。是识作内尘相。从内尘生。具二法故。是故内尘名境界。问曰。如尘起识是亦可然。内尘是识一分共一时起。云何得作缘缘。答曰。立缘缘者。识缘此生无有二故。缘者或一时共起。能成余法从他生。决定随逐生不生故。问若次第生所缘能缘相云何。答曰。若因在前果在后。果随因因不随果。若因有果必有。若因无果必无。果随因或有或无。是名因果相。复次为安置功能次第故。立所缘能缘。是似尘识次第起为生。似果起功能生识相续。问曰。若内尘是识。缘缘是缘生。经当云何释经言依根缘色眼识得生。广说如经。答曰。功能体相能共造果。说名为根。问根者体用云何答胜能为体。此体因何法可比度知。有由生自果故。是其胜能可得了别。非有四大色此功能于识中无有妨碍。此功能在识中离识。其体不可显示。如我所立根与汝所立根。同功能为体。此有何异。如此功能及似尘相。更互为因。如此功能及似尘相生从无始来悉尔。依功能说名根缘内尘相名境。是乱识不可言其相。得生此法更互为因亦无有始。何以故。或功能成熟故起似尘识。或似尘识故功能得成。识者或异二或不异二或不可说。如此内尘具二法故可为识境。 无相思尘论 现代汉语译本：因此，由于认识到识的体相，以及由于这个识的生起，所以会这样说。为什么呢？因为这个识产生了内在的尘相（指内心产生的虚幻影像）。它从内在的尘生起，具备两种法则的缘故。因此，内在的尘被称为境界（vishaya）。 问：如果说尘的生起导致识的生起，这还可以理解。但内在的尘是识的一部分，并且是同时生起的，怎么能作为缘缘（alambana-pratyaya，所缘缘，即作为识生起的对象和条件）呢？ 答：建立缘缘的说法，是因为识缘此（内尘）而生，没有第二个原因。缘，有时是同时共同生起，能够成就其他法，从其他法生起，决定地随逐生或不生。 问：如果（识和内尘）是次第生起的，那么所缘（alambana，对象）和能缘（alambanaka，能取对象者）的相状是怎样的呢？ 答：如果因（hetu）在前，果（phala）在后，果随逐于因，因不随逐于果。如果因存在，果必定存在；如果因不存在，果必定不存在。果随逐于因，有时存在，有时不存在。这叫做因果相。 再者，为了安置功能（karitra）的次第，所以建立所缘和能缘。这类似于尘的识次第生起而产生。类似于果的功能生起，识相续不断。 问：如果内在的尘就是识，缘缘就是缘生，那么经典应该如何解释‘依根（indriya，感觉器官）缘色（rupa，颜色、形状），眼识（caksu-vijnana）得以生起’这样的说法呢？（广说如经，即如经典中广泛地解释那样） 答：功能、体相能够共同创造果，这被称为根。问：根的体和用是怎样的呢？答：殊胜的功能是其体。这个体通过什么法可以比较度量得知呢？由于它能生起自身的结果，所以它的殊胜功能是可以了解和辨别的。并非四大色（四大元素）所组成，此功能在识中没有妨碍。此功能在识中，离开识，其体不可显示。如同我所建立的根与你所建立的根，都以功能为体，这有什么不同呢？如此功能及类似于尘的相，更互相为因。如此功能及类似于尘的相的生起，从无始以来都是这样。依据功能，说名为根；缘内在尘相，名为境。这是乱识（bhranta-vijnana，错误的认知），不可言说其相。得以生起此法，更互相为因，也没有开始。为什么呢？或者因为功能成熟的缘故，生起类似于尘的识；或者因为类似于尘的识的缘故，功能得以成就。识，或者与二者相异，或者与二者不异，或者不可说。如此内在的尘，具备两种法则的缘故，可以作为识的境界。 《无相思尘论》