Names, Phrases, and Questions Left Unanswered
The sūtra turns to the mechanics of teaching itself: the name-body, which merely labels a thing; the phrase-body, which fixes a determinate meaning around that label; and the letter-body, the written or spoken form giving both a body a bodhisattva must master to teach at all. From there the sūtra names the four kinds of reply a buddha gives — direct, turned back on the questioner, analyzed in detail, or set aside altogether — and explains why questions built on false assumptions, like whether a life-force is identical to the body it inhabits, receive only silence: not because the Buddha cannot answer, but because any direct answer would only confirm the very premise that makes the question incoherent to begin with.
Names, Phrases, and Letters
「復次，大慧！當說名句形身相。善觀名句形身菩薩摩訶薩，隨入義句形身，疾得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。如是覺已，覺一切眾生。大慧！名身者，謂若依事立名，是名名身。句身者，謂句有義身，自性決定究竟，是名句身。形身者，謂顯示名句，是名形身(形身即字也)。又形身者，謂長短高下。又句身者，謂徑跡。如象馬人獸等所行徑跡，得句身名。大慧！名及形者，謂以名說無色四陰，故說名。自相現，故說形。是名名句形身。說名句形身相分齊，應當修學。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「名身與句身， 及形身差別，
凡夫愚計著， 如象溺深泥。
"Furthermore, Mahāmati, I shall now speak of the marks of the name-body, the phrase-body, and the letter-body. A bodhisattva-mahāsattva who has rightly observed the name-body, the phrase-body, and the letter-body, and who thereby enters into the phrase-body and letter-body of true meaning, swiftly attains unsurpassed, complete enlightenment; having thus awakened, he awakens every sentient being besides. Mahāmati, as for the name-body: when a name is established in dependence on some actual matter, this is called the name-body. As for the phrase-body: when a phrase carries a determinate meaning-body all its own, its own-nature fixed and complete, this is called the phrase-body. As for the letter-body: it is that which displays the name and the phrase — this is called the letter-body (the letter-body is precisely the written letter itself). The letter-body may also be understood as [the very shape of a word,] its length, shortness, height, and depth. The phrase-body, too, may be understood as a path left behind — just as the tracks of an elephant, a horse, a person, or a beast, wherever they have walked, take the name of the phrase-body [from what they lead one toward]. Mahāmati, as for 'name' and 'letter': it is because a name speaks of the four formless aggregates that it is called a name; it is because [something's] own mark is thereby made to appear that it is called a letter. These, together, are the name-body, the phrase-body, and the letter-body. One should diligently train in the marks and the precise boundaries of the name-body, the phrase-body, and the letter-body."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse: "The name-body, and the phrase-body, and the distinctions of the letter-body —
the ignorant and the foolish become attached to them, like an elephant sinking into a deep bog."
The commentators reach past the sūtra's own terse definitions to Yogācāra scholastic vocabulary for a sharper statement of the same triad: "《唯識論》云：『名詮自性，句詮差別。文即是字，為二所依。』" — "the *Cheng Weishi Lun* states: 'a name expresses a thing's own-nature; a phrase expresses its distinctions; the written character is precisely the letter, and serves as what both the name and the phrase depend upon.'" They give the plainest possible illustration of the distinction: "名詮自性者，如說六根，但云眼耳鼻舌身意之名而已。句詮差別者，如云眼是佛眼、法眼、慧眼等種種差別也" — "a name expressing own-nature is, for instance, simply saying the names 'eye,' 'ear,' 'nose,' 'tongue,' 'body,' 'mind' for the six sense-faculties; a phrase expressing distinctions is, for instance, saying 'the buddha-eye,' 'the dharma-eye,' 'the wisdom-eye,' and so specifying the many different kinds of 'eye' there are." A bare name only points at a thing; a phrase is what fixes which specific thing, among all the things that name could point to, is actually meant.
On why the closing verse warns specifically against becoming attached to this triad — the very tool a bodhisattva has just been told to master — the commentators supply the resolution in a single line: "文字性離，即是解脫。若隨文起見，過同邪外" — "the very nature of written language is, in itself, apart from any fixed thing to grasp; this itself is liberation. Should one instead follow the letter and form a fixed view from it, the fault is exactly the same as the outsiders' own." Names, phrases, and letters remain indispensable instruments — a bodhisattva cannot teach at all without them — but the moment their own provisional, dependent character is forgotten and they are mistaken for fixed realities in their own right, the very tool built to lead someone out of confusion becomes, instead, the mire an elephant sinks helplessly into.
Questions the Buddha Leaves Unanswered
「復次，大慧！未來世智者，當以離一異、俱不俱見相，我所通義，問無智者。彼即答言：『此非正問。』謂色等常無常，為異不異？如是涅槃、諸行相所相、求那所求那造所造、見所見、塵及微塵、修與修者，如是比展轉相。如是等問，而言佛說無記止論。非彼癡人之所能知，謂聞慧不具故。如來、應供、等正覺，令彼離恐怖句故，說言無記，不為記說。又止外道見論故，而不為說。大慧！外道作如是說，謂：『命即是身。』如是等無記論。大慧！彼諸外道愚癡，於因作無記論，非我所說。大慧！我所說者，離攝所攝，妄想不生。云何止彼？大慧！若攝所攝計著者，不知自心現量，故止彼。大慧！如來、應供、等正覺，以四種記論為眾生說法。大慧！止記論者，我時時說，為根未熟，不為熟者。
「復次，大慧！一切法，離所作因緣不生，無作者故，一切法不生。大慧！何故一切性離自性？以自覺觀時，自共性相不可得故，說一切法不生。何故一切法不可持來，不可持去？以自共相，欲持來，無所來；欲持去，無所去；是故一切法，離持來去。大慧！何故一切諸法不滅？謂性自性相無故，一切法不可得，故一切法不滅。大慧！何故一切法無常？謂相起無常性，是故說一切法無常。大慧！何故一切法常？謂相起無生性，無常常，故說一切法常。」
爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：
「記論有四種， 一向及詰問，
分別及止論， 以制諸外道。
有及非有生， 僧佉毘舍師，
一切悉無記， 彼如是顯示。
正覺所分別， 自性不可得，
以離於言說， 故說離自性。」
"Furthermore, Mahāmati, a wise person in ages to come, using this same meaning I have made accessible — being apart from the view of identity and difference, of both together and neither — should put it to those without such wisdom, [only to have] them reply, 'this is not a properly framed question at all.' [Consider questions such as] whether form and the rest are permanent or impermanent, identical or different [from what possesses them]; whether nirvāṇa and the [conditioned] activities, a mark and what bears that mark, a quality and what possesses that quality, a maker and what is made, a seer and what is seen, dust and the finest atom, the practice and the one who practices — are, in each such pairing, identical or different, turning on and on through comparisons just like these. Faced with such questions, [some] say the Buddha teaches [only by way of] the undetermined, set-aside reply — yet this is not something that foolish sort of person can actually understand, since they lack a genuine hearing of it accompanied by wisdom. It is precisely so as to free such people from the very terror such phrasings would provoke that the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Truly and Fully Enlightened One, declares [some questions] undetermined, and does not give a determinate reply to them — and it is also so as to set aside the outsiders' own theoretical views that he declines to answer in this way. Mahāmati, when the outsiders make assertions such as 'the life-force is identical to the body,' this is exactly the kind of undetermined theorizing [that receives no direct reply]. Mahāmati, it is the outsiders themselves, in their ignorance, who construct undetermined theories about a cause — this is not what I myself teach. Mahāmati, what I teach is apart from the grasped and the grasper, with no false thought arising at all. How, then, do I set certain questions aside? Mahāmati, if [a questioner] is attached to the grasped and the grasper, not knowing this to be the very measure of his own mind's manifestation, it is for this reason that I set the question aside. Mahāmati, the Tathāgata, the Worthy One, the Truly and Fully Enlightened One, teaches sentient beings by way of four kinds of reply. Mahāmati, as for the reply that sets a question aside: I give it from time to time, [only] for those whose faculties are not yet ripe — never for those who are already ripe.
"Furthermore, Mahāmati, every dharma, apart from the causes and conditions that produce it, does not arise at all; since there is no maker, no dharma whatsoever arises. Mahāmati, why is it that every [fixed] nature is apart from own-nature? Because, when observed through self-realization, neither its own mark nor its shared mark can ultimately be apprehended at all — it is for this reason that every dharma is said not to arise. Why can no dharma be carried here or carried away? Because, examined by way of own mark and shared mark, there is, wishing to carry it here, nowhere it actually comes from, and, wishing to carry it away, nowhere it actually goes to — it is for this reason that every dharma is apart from being carried here or away. Mahāmati, why does no dharma whatsoever cease? Because, since [any fixed] mark of own-nature is simply absent, no dharma can ultimately be apprehended at all — it is for this reason that no dharma ceases. Mahāmati, why is every dharma impermanent? Because the [very] mark that arises has the nature of the impermanent — it is for this reason that every dharma is said to be impermanent. Mahāmati, why is every dharma permanent? Because the [very] mark that arises has the nature of the unborn, and it is impermanence itself that is [thereby] permanent — it is for this reason that every dharma is said to be permanent."
Then the World-Honored One, wishing to restate this meaning, spoke in verse: "There are four kinds of reply: the direct reply, and the reply that questions back,
the reply that analyzes in detail, and the reply that sets the question aside — by these, every outsider is kept in check.
Existence, and arising from non-existence — the Sāṃkhya teacher, and the Vaiśeṣika teacher [each hold one] —
every one of these is, in fact, undetermined; it is in just this way that [the truth of the matter] is displayed.
What the Truly Enlightened One discriminates has, itself, no [fixed] own-nature to be apprehended;
it is because it is apart from speech that its being apart from own-nature is [only ever] spoken of at all."
The commentators are precise that "undetermined" (無記) is not a confession of ignorance but a deliberate teaching strategy protecting a specific kind of listener: "非彼癡人之所能知...如來令彼離恐怖句故，說言無記，不為記說" — "this is simply not something that foolish sort of person is actually capable of understanding... it is precisely so as to free such a person from the very terror [a direct answer] would provoke that the Tathāgata declares the question undetermined, rather than giving it a determinate reply." The classic example given — "the life-force is identical to the body" — is undetermined not because the Buddha lacks a view, but because both a direct "yes" and a direct "no" would each confirm the same underlying false assumption the outsiders' question smuggles in: that there is a fixed, independently existing life-force and a fixed, independently existing body to be compared as identical or different in the first place. Answering the question as posed, in either direction, would validate its flawed premise more thoroughly than declining to answer it at all.
On the four kinds of reply named in the closing verse, the commentators give the plainest possible gloss for each: "一向曰直答，謂隨問而答也；反詰問，亦曰反質，謂反質所問也；分別，謂詳辯而答也；止論，謂置而不答也，制諸外道多用止論" — "the direct reply simply answers whatever is asked, exactly as asked; the reply that questions back, also called counter-questioning, turns the very question back upon the one who asked it; the detailed reply answers by discriminating and analyzing in full; and the reply that sets a question aside declines to answer it at all — and it is this last kind that is most often used to keep the outsiders themselves in check." The undetermined reply is thus one deliberate tool among four, reserved specifically for questions whose own framing — like the Sāṃkhya and Vaiśeṣika debate over whether effects exist within their cause beforehand or arise anew from non-existence — has already gone wrong before any answer could even be given.
Part 18 Complete
This closes Part 18: the name-body, phrase-body, and letter-body that make teaching possible at all, matched with a warning against mistaking these same tools for fixed realities in their own right, and the four kinds of reply a buddha gives — including the deliberate silence reserved for questions whose own framing has already presupposed exactly the fixed, independently existing things this entire sūtra has spent two fascicles dismantling. Part 19 turns to the four fruits of the śrāvaka path — stream-entry, once-returning, non-returning, and arhatship — and the two kinds of the view of a fixed self that stream-entry itself cuts through.
Continue to Part 19 — The Four Fruits of the Śrāvaka Path →