The Seven Kinds of Impermanence
Mahāmati raises a new question: the outsiders, too, teach that everything is impermanent, and the Buddha himself teaches that all conditioned things are impermanent — so is this the same teaching, or different, and how many kinds of impermanence are there in the first place? The Buddha answers by cataloguing seven outsider theories of impermanence, one by one, and showing that every single one secretly smuggles in something held to be permanent even while calling everything else impermanent — whether it is the four great elements themselves, or the "own-nature" that supposedly persists beneath the wreckage. His own teaching, closing this stretch of fascicle four, refuses the very framework of permanent-versus-impermanent altogether.
Naming the Seven Kinds
爾時，大慧菩薩摩訶薩復白佛言：「世尊！一切外道，皆起無常妄想。世尊亦說一切行無常，是生滅法。此義云何？為邪為正？為有幾種無常？」佛告大慧：「一切外道有七種無常，非我法也。何等為七？彼有說言，作已而捨，是名無常。有說形處壞，是名無常。有說即色是無常。有說色轉變中間，是名無常。無間自之散壞，如乳酪等轉變，中間不可見，無常毀壞，一切性轉。有說性無常。有說性無性無常。有說一切法不生無常，入一切法。大慧！性無性無常者，謂四大及所造自相壞。四大自性不可得，不生。彼不生無常者，非常無常。一切法有無不生，分析乃至微塵不可見，是不生義非生，是名不生無常相。若不覺此者，墮一切外道生無常義。大慧！性無常者，是自心妄想，非常無常性。所以者何？謂無常自性不壞。大慧！此是一切性無性無常事。除無常，無有能令一切法性無性者。
At that time, Mahāmati Bodhisattva-mahāsattva again said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, every outsider gives rise to some false notion of impermanence, and the World-Honored One likewise teaches that every conditioned activity is impermanent, being subject to birth and cessation — what, then, is the meaning of this? Is it correct or mistaken, and how many kinds of impermanence are there?" The Buddha told Mahāmati: "Every outsider holds to seven kinds of impermanence, and none of them is my own teaching. What are the seven? Some say that what has been done and then discarded is what is meant by impermanence. Some say that the destruction of a form's location is what is meant by impermanence. Some say that form itself simply is impermanence. Some say that the interval within which form transforms is what is meant by impermanence — a continuous, uninterrupted process of dissolution, like the transformation of milk into curds, an interval that cannot itself be seen, in which impermanence destroys and every nature is turned over. Some say that own-nature itself is impermanent. Some say that own-nature's very absence is impermanence. Some say that every dharma's being unborn is itself impermanence, entering into every dharma. Mahāmati, as for those who say own-nature's absence is impermanence: this means that the four great elements and what they construct destroy their own marks — but since the four great elements' own-nature can never ultimately be apprehended in the first place, they were never born at all. As for those who call this unborn state 'impermanence': this is neither permanence nor impermanence — every dharma's being and non-being are themselves unborn, and, analyzed down even to the finest particle, nothing can be seen there at all; this is the meaning of 'unborn,' not of 'birth,' and this alone is what is properly called the mark of unborn-impermanence. Should one fail to realize this, one falls into every outsider's own theory of 'born impermanence.' Mahāmati, as for those who say own-nature itself is impermanent: this is nothing but their own mind's false thought, not a genuine nature of permanence or impermanence at all. Why is this? Because they hold that impermanence's own-nature itself is never destroyed. Mahāmati, this is the whole matter of 'own-nature's absence is impermanence' — apart from impermanence itself, there is nothing that could ever cause every dharma's own-nature to be absent.
The commentators note that Mahāmati's question follows directly from what has just been established: "常與無常之名無異外道，不以義定，邪正曷分？上明不生不滅是真常之義，已破外計，未辯無常邪正之殊，所以再請決也" — "the very names 'permanent' and 'impermanent' are no different from the outsiders' own use of them; without settling their meaning, how can correct and mistaken be distinguished? The preceding passage clarified that 'unborn and unceasing' is the meaning of true permanence and already refuted the outsiders' theories on that point, but it had not yet distinguished correct from mistaken with respect to impermanence — this is why Mahāmati asks again for a determination." Having just spent an entire verse establishing what "unborn" truly means, Mahāmati now asks the Buddha to do the same work for its apparent opposite.
On why the seventh kind — "unborn is itself impermanence" — receives an entire paragraph of its own rather than the single line given to the others, the commentators explain the trap it sets: "佛謂常與無常一切有無諸相對法體本不生...此為如來所說不生無常之相。若不了此義，則墮外道所計生無常義，以外道不達無生之旨，雖說無生，實為有生，故斥云生無常也" — "the Buddha means that permanence and impermanence, and every relative dharma of being and non-being, are fundamentally unborn in their very substance... this is what the Tathāgata means by the mark of 'unborn-impermanence.' Should one fail to understand this meaning, one falls into the outsiders' own theory of 'born impermanence' — for the outsiders, not penetrating the principle of no-birth, though they speak of 'no birth,' in truth still hold to birth, and this is why it is rebuked as 'born impermanence.'" The outsiders can borrow the Buddha's own vocabulary — "unborn," "impermanent" — and still mean something entirely different by it, which is exactly why a careful listener needs this whole passage to tell the two apart.
Refuting the Confusion Between Agent and Action
如杖瓦石，破壞諸物。現見各各不異，是性無常事，非作所作有差別。此是無常，此是事。作所作無異者，一切性常，無因性。大慧！一切性無性有因，非凡愚所知，非因不相似事生。若生者，一切性悉皆無常。是不相似事。作所作無有別異。而悉見有異。若性無常者，墮作因性相。若墮者一切性不究竟。一切性作因相墮者，自無常應無常。無常無常故，一切性不無常，應是常。若無常入一切性者，應墮三世。彼過去色與壞俱，未來不生，色不生故，現在色與壞相俱。色者，四大積集差別。四大及造色自性不壞，離異不異故。一切外道一切四大不壞，一切三有四大及造色，在所知有生滅。離四大造色，一切外道於何所思惟無常？四大不生，自性相不壞故。離始造無常者，非四大。復有異四大，各各異相。自相故，非差別可得，彼無差別。斯等不更造，二方便不作，當知是無常。
Just as a stick or a stone or a tile can break apart various objects — one plainly observes that these are not different from one another; this is the matter of 'own-nature's impermanence,' and there is no real difference between the agent [that destroys] and the action [of destruction]: this very destroying is impermanence, and this very destroying is the event itself. But if agent and action are truly not different, then every nature would be permanent, having no cause of its own [that produces destruction]. Mahāmati, every nature's own-nature being absent does have a cause, but this is not something the foolish and ignorant can understand — it is not that a dissimilar event is produced without a cause. Were it so produced, every nature would be impermanent in exactly the same way, as one and the same dissimilar event, with no real difference between agent and action — and yet one plainly observes that differences do exist everywhere. Were own-nature itself impermanent [in this fixed sense], it would fall into the mark of a nature that is [itself] a cause of action — and, falling into this, no nature at all would ever reach its ultimate ground. Should every nature fall into the mark of being a cause of action in this way, then its very impermanence would itself have to be impermanent; and because that impermanence would itself be impermanent, no nature at all would ultimately be impermanent — it would, instead, have to be permanent. Were impermanence held to enter into every nature, it would have to fall into the three time periods: past form, already destroyed together with its destruction; future form, not yet born, since form has not yet arisen; present form, arising together with its own destruction. 'Form' here means the differentiated accumulation of the four great elements. The four great elements and the form they construct are held, by the outsiders, to have an own-nature that is never destroyed, being apart from both sameness and difference — every outsider holds that all four great elements are indestructible in just this way. Yet within the three realms of existence, the four great elements and the form they construct are, as far as can be known, subject to birth and cessation — apart from the four great elements and the form they construct, on what basis could any outsider even conceive of impermanence at all? For the four great elements are themselves unborn, since their own-nature and mark are never destroyed [on the outsiders' own account]. As for 'impermanence apart from origination' — that is not the four great elements themselves, but some other, different [kind of] four great elements, each bearing its own distinct mark; because of this distinct mark, no real differentiation can ever be apprehended among them — they remain without differentiation. Since these do not construct anything further, and neither of the two skillful means [of sameness or difference] applies, one should understand that this, too, is what is meant by 'impermanence.'
The commentators sharpen the logical trap this section sets for the outsiders: "此破外計。佛謂現前所見諸法與無常無異，安有性與事不同耶？故云『非作所作有差別』。故知無常即事、事即無常，此能所不異應是常義" — "this refutes the outsiders' theory. The Buddha means: since every dharma one plainly observes is no different from impermanence itself, how could its nature and the event [of its destruction] be different at all? This is why it says 'there is no difference between agent and action.' One thereby knows that impermanence simply is the event, and the event simply is impermanence — and, since agent and object are not different, this ought, by their own logic, to make impermanence itself something permanent." If destruction and the thing destroyed can never be pulled apart, then calling the process "impermanence" while insisting the four elements themselves persist unbroken is simply incoherent — the very distinction the outsiders need in order to call anything impermanent at all quietly collapses.
On the closing move — impermanence sorted into past, future, and present — the commentators read it as exposing the same fixed substance hiding behind every tense: "此一切外道謂四大體性不壞如此...三有之中，能造所造莫不皆是生住滅相，豈更別有無常之性，能生於物而不滅耶？此如來結斥外道之過" — "this is precisely how every outsider holds the substantial nature of the four great elements to be indestructible... within the three realms of existence, both what constructs and what is constructed bear nothing but the marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing — how, then, could there exist some further, separate nature of 'impermanence' that gives rise to things without itself ever being destroyed? This is the Tathāgata's concluding rebuke of the outsiders' fault." Whichever time period the outsiders point to, the same unexamined assumption resurfaces: something in the four elements must stay fixed for "impermanence" to have anything to act upon.
Refuting Impermanence as Destroyed Location or Transformed Form
彼形處壞無常者，謂四大及造色不壞，至竟不壞。大慧！竟者，分析乃至微塵觀察壞。四大及造色形處異見長短不可得，非四大。四大不壞，形處壞現。墮在數論。色即無常者，謂色即是無常。彼則形處無常，非四大。若四大無常者，非俗數言說。世俗言說非性者，則墮世論。見一切性，但有言說，不見自相生。轉變無常者。謂色異性現，非四大。如金，作莊嚴具，轉變現，非金性壞，但莊嚴具處所壞。如是餘性轉變等，亦如是。如是等種種外道無常見妄想。火燒四大時，自相不燒。各各自相相壞者，四大造色應斷。
As for those who hold that the destruction of a form's location is impermanence: this means that the four great elements and the form they construct are never destroyed, remaining undestroyed all the way to the very end. Mahāmati, 'the very end' means: analyzed down even to the finest particle, one observes only the destruction [of location], never of the elements themselves. Seeing the difference in the four great elements' and their constructed form's location, one finds their length or shortness ultimately unapprehendable — but this is not the four great elements themselves. The four great elements remain undestroyed, while the destruction of location merely appears — and this falls squarely into a conventional, worldly theory. As for those who hold that form itself simply is impermanence: this is, in fact, impermanence of location, not of the four great elements themselves. Were the four great elements themselves truly impermanent, this would not accord with conventional, worldly speech — and conventional speech that fails to correspond to any real nature falls into mere worldly disputation, seeing every nature as nothing but speech, without ever seeing its own true arising mark. As for those who hold that transformation is impermanence: this means that a changed appearance of form becomes manifest, but this, too, is not the four great elements themselves — like gold fashioned into an ornament: the transformation that appears is not the destruction of gold's own nature, but only the destruction of the ornament's particular location and form; every other case of transformation among the various natures is exactly the same. All of these, taken together, are the manifold false, mistaken views of impermanence held by the outsiders. When fire burns the four great elements, their own mark is not itself burned away — were each one's own mark truly destroyed in this way, then the four great elements and the form they construct would have to be utterly annihilated.
The commentators name the shared error running through all three of these theories — location-destruction, form-itself, and transformation — as a single sleight of hand: distinguishing a surface that changes from a substance that supposedly does not. On "destruction of location," they write: "但觀察滅壞形狀長短等見，不壞能造所造色體，此乃俗數言語，故云『墮在數論』也" — "one merely observes the destruction of shape, length, and the like, without the substance of what constructs and what is constructed ever being destroyed — this is nothing but conventional, worldly speech, which is why it says this 'falls into a conventional theory.'" And on the gold-ornament image used for "transformation," they draw the parallel explicitly: "如金作具，具有變壞而金性不改。言無常事壞性不壞，亦如是也" — "it is like gold fashioned into an ornament: the ornament undergoes change and destruction, yet gold's own nature is unaltered. To say that the event of impermanence is destroyed while the nature itself is not is exactly the same kind of claim."
On the closing image — fire burning the four elements without burning their "own mark" — the commentators read this as the final unmasking of the whole sevenfold catalogue's hidden assumption, tying it back to two extreme views the entire Buddhist tradition rejects: "彼作是說，火不能燒諸大自相，但各分散。若能燒者，能造所造則皆斷滅...謂四大種不壞是常見、四大分散是斷見，彼種種妄計不出此二見也" — "they hold that fire cannot burn the great elements' own mark, but only scatters them apart; for were it truly able to burn them, both what constructs and what is constructed would be utterly annihilated... to hold that the four great elements are indestructible is itself the view of eternalism, and to hold that they merely scatter apart is itself the view of annihilationism — and every one of the outsiders' manifold false theories never goes beyond these two views." Every version of "impermanence" examined in this section, on this reading, turns out to be eternalism and annihilationism wearing seven different disguises.
The Buddha's Own Teaching: Neither Permanent Nor Impermanent
大慧！我法起非常非無常。所以者何？謂外性不決定故。惟說三有微心，不說種種相有生有滅。四大合會差別，四大及造色，故妄想二種事攝所攝。知二種妄想，離外性無性二種見，覺自心現量。妄想者，思想作行生，非不作行。離心性無性妄想，世間出世間上上一切法，非常非無常。不覺自心現量，墮二邊惡見相續。一切外道不覺自妄想，此凡夫無有根本，謂世間、出世間上上法，從說妄想生，非凡愚所覺。」爾時，世尊欲重宣此義而說偈言：「遠離於始造， 及與形處異，性與色無常， 外道愚妄想。諸性無有壞， 大大自性住，外道無常想， 沒在種種見。彼諸外道等， 無若生若滅，大大性自常， 何謂無常想？一切唯心量， 二種心流轉，攝受及所攝， 無有我我所。梵天為樹根， 枝條普周遍，如是我所說， 惟是彼心量。」
Mahāmati, what I teach arises as neither permanent nor impermanent. Why is this? Because external nature is never fixed or determinate. I teach only that the three realms of existence are nothing but the subtle mind itself — I do not teach that manifold marks truly have birth and cessation of their own. The differentiated coming-together of the four great elements, and the four great elements together with the form they construct, are simply the two kinds of false thought — the apprehending and the apprehended. Knowing these to be the two kinds of false thought, one is apart from the two views of external nature's presence or absence, becoming aware that this is the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation. As for false thought itself: it arises through the activity of thinking and mental construction, not through the absence of such activity. Apart from mind's own-nature and its absence as objects of false thought, every worldly, transcendent, and supremely transcendent dharma is neither permanent nor impermanent. Failing to be aware that this is the very measure of one's own mind's manifestation, one falls into a continuous stream of the two extremes' evil views. Every outsider fails to be aware of his own false thought — this is why the ordinary person has no root at all, holding that worldly, transcendent, and supremely transcendent dharmas arise from mere speech and false thought, something the foolish and ignorant are simply unable to realize." At that time, wishing to restate this meaning once more, the World-Honored One spoke in verse: "Apart from origination itself, and apart from the difference of location as well — [taking] own-nature and form to be impermanent is the outsiders' own foolish false thought. No nature is ever truly destroyed; the great elements' own-nature abides — the outsiders' notion of impermanence is submerged in their own manifold views. Every one of these outsiders holds there to be neither birth nor cessation at all — the great elements' nature being permanent of itself — so how could they speak of a notion of 'impermanence'? Everything is nothing but the measure of mind, the two kinds of mind ever turning and flowing — the apprehending and the apprehended alike have no self and nothing that belongs to a self. [The outsiders hold that] Brahmā is the root of the tree, its branches spreading everywhere throughout — but what I myself teach is only ever the measure of that very mind."
The commentators frame this closing teaching as the Buddha finally stepping outside the entire permanent/impermanent framework the seven outsider theories were all trapped inside: "言我說諸法起於非常非無常，而能常能無常，即全體起用。外道昧此，墮於有無二見...故曰『非常非無常』" — "I say that every dharma arises as neither permanent nor impermanent, yet is capable of both permanence and impermanence — this is simply the whole substance giving rise to its function. The outsiders, being ignorant of this, fall into the two views of being and non-being... which is why it says 'neither permanent nor impermanent.'" And they trace the argument to its foundation in mind-only teaching directly: "既了諸法唯心，則心外無法，不同彼說諸相有生有滅" — "once one understands that every dharma is mind alone, there is no dharma apart from mind — unlike their claim that manifold marks truly undergo birth and cessation." The seven theories all failed for the same underlying reason: each one still treated some external nature as fixed and given, rather than seeing that the entire dispute over permanence and impermanence takes place within mind's own manifestation to begin with.
On the closing verse's image of Brahmā as a tree's root with branches spreading everywhere, the commentators identify the specific outsider doctrine being targeted: "外道計自在天初造眾生為有情本，如樹木而生枝葉，周遍一切。佛言我所說外道如是計著，皆是彼妄想心量也" — "the outsiders hold that Īśvara originally created sentient beings as the root of all living things, the way a tree gives rise to branches and leaves spreading everywhere. The Buddha says: what I have described here is simply how the outsiders cling to their own view — all of it is nothing but their own false thought's measure of mind." Even the outsiders' own creation myth, on this reading, is not refuted by denying it outright but by pointing out that it, too, is only ever a movement within mind — the same diagnosis the Buddha has just applied to every one of their seven theories of impermanence.
Part 39 Complete
This closes Part 39: the seven outsider theories of impermanence catalogued and refuted one by one, each shown to hide a fixed, permanent substance beneath its own claim of change, and the Buddha's own teaching of arising that is neither permanent nor impermanent because it is nothing apart from mind's own manifestation — closing with the image of Brahmā-as-tree-root exposed as itself just another movement of false thought. Part 40 turns to an entirely new topic Mahāmati raises immediately afterward: the graduated sequence of cessation-attainment (滅正受, nirodha-samāpatti) across the six, seventh, and eighth bodhisattva grounds.
Continue to Part 40 — The Sequence of Cessation-Attainment Across the Grounds →