I. What This Concept Is About
In contemporary discussions of "speaking," we mostly care about whether the tone is polite, the logic coherent, and the evidence sufficient. But in the argumentative framework of the Yogācāra school (瑜伽部, as in the 《瑜伽師地論》 T1579 and 《顯揚聖教論》 T1602), what the proposer (立論者, the one who puts forward a thesis and engages in debate) says must first pass a more fundamental checkpoint: whether one's words correspond (相應) to "meaning" (義, artha). "Meaning" here is not style, not rhetoric, but the principle itself — whether one's speech actually matches the true principle it intends to point to. "Non-correspondence with meaning" (非義相應, anarthasaṃprayukta, literally "corresponding to what is meaningless") is precisely the concept established for the failure of this checkpoint.
It is listed among the proposer's nine faults of speech (九種言過, the nine faults in a proposer's speech), in order: 雜亂 (disorder), 麁獷 (harshness), 不辯了 (unintelligibility), 無限量 (lack of measure), 非義相應 (non-correspondence with meaning), 不以時 (untimeliness), 不決定 (indecisiveness), 不顯了 (unclarity), 不相續 (discontinuity). Whoever commits any of these "falls into the losing position" (墮在負處) — that is, loses the debate. The other eight are mostly established from "form": 雜亂 (disorder) is abandoning the matter under discussion and speaking confusedly about other things; 麁獷 (harshness) refers to signs of excitation such as erupting anger and agitation; 不辯了 (unintelligibility) means the audience and the opponent cannot make out what is being said; 無限量 (lack of measure) is speech that is verbose or excessively brief; 不以時 (untimeliness) is when what should be said first is said later, losing the proper order; 不決定 (indecisiveness) is establishing and then destroying, destroying and then re-establishing; 不顯了 (unclarity) is mixing classical and colloquial language, inviting ridicule; 不相續 (discontinuity) is when the words break off in the middle.
The special feature of 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) is that it is established specifically with regard to whether one's speech corresponds to meaning — it is the only one among the nine faults that directly touches on "whether the content matches the principle." Its criterion is not whether something sounds good, but whether it is said correctly, whether it accords with the doctrinal meaning. The treatise subdivides this fault into ten aspects (十相), each of which is a concrete face of "coming unglued from meaning." These ten aspects must be examined one by one; they cannot be blurred together.
The Complete Unfolding of the Ten Aspects
According to the 《瑜伽師地論》 (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra), non-correspondence with meaning has ten aspects; the 《顯揚聖教論》 (Prakaraṇāryavācā-śāstra) likewise opens ten aspects, with only the ninth differing slightly in wording (the former reads 成立能成, "establishing what establishes"; the latter reads 成立已成, "establishing what is already established"; the other nine are completely identical). We examine both treatises together and define each aspect.
一、無義 (anartha, "without meaning") — what is said has fundamentally no meaning. The sentences uttered have no actual referent, nothing verifiable — pure piling of rhetoric, language spinning in place.
二、違義 (viruddhārtha, "contrary to meaning") — what is said contradicts the meaning. The very principle one seeks to establish is precisely what one's own words violate.
三、損理 (nyāya-hāni, "damaging reasoning") — what is said damages the principle. Though not necessarily a complete violation, some part of the speech has already broken down the fundamental reasoning.
四、與所成等 (sādhya-sama, "on par with what is to be established") — what is said does not fit the thesis to be established. The thesis (宗, the proposition the proposer seeks to prove) aims at A, but what the speech presents does not reach A, or merely compares side details without touching the main thesis.
五、招集過難 (doṣāvāhana, "inviting faults and objections") — one invites others' attacks upon oneself. By giving out a handle that can be attacked, one is essentially inviting the opponent to refute.
六、不得義利 (anartha-prāpti, "obtaining no benefit from meaning") — it brings no benefit of meaning to self or other. After the speech is done, neither self nor other gains any advantage; there is no real use.
七、義無次序 (anupūrva, "disorder in meaning") — what is said loses proper sequence. Between principles there should be an order, a hierarchy, a grounding — yet these are disrupted, jumped, inverted.
八、義不決定 (aniyatārtha, "indeterminate meaning") — what is said wavers. The position sways, is self-contradictory, and its actual meaning is hard to pin down.
九、成立能成 (sādhana-sādhya, "establishing what establishes") (《瑜伽》) / 成立已成 (siddha-sādhana, "establishing what is already established") (《顯揚》) — the difference in wording between the two texts here deserves separate attention: - The 《瑜伽師地論》 reads 成立能成: what establishes is the cause (因), what is established is the thesis (宗); the meaning is that only "the cause that establishes" (the reason, the ground) has been established, without actually arriving at "the thesis to be established" (the conclusion) — one has argued for a long time but only reached the premise, not the claim. - The 《顯揚聖教論》 reads 成立已成: meaning that one re-establishes what has already been established, adding nothing but needless repetition. - The two formulations point to the same type of failure: the force of the argument does not land on what truly needs to be established — either it stops halfway, or it goes around in circles.
十、順不稱理諸邪惡論 (following evil discourses that do not accord with reason) — what one follows is an evil discourse that does not accord with right reason. This aspect is jointly pointed out by both texts: it points to heretical teachings (外道邪論) — discourses that lead to what is meaningless and profitless, that violate principle, and that depart from the four noble truths. The 《顯揚聖教論》 further states this in verse: 「外道所宣說，能引無義利，非理遠四處，無記不應思。」 ("What heretics proclaim can lead to what is meaningless and profitless; being contrary to reason, far from the four truths, and unclassifiable, it should not be pondered.") And again: 「不應思不記，當知由四因，非定一甚深，引無義相住。」 ("One should not ponder the unclassifiable; know that by four causes — not fixed, one is very profound, and one dwells drawn toward the sign of meaninglessness.") The former says heretical discourses belong to the "unclassifiable" (無記, avyākṛta) and should not be pondered; the latter says "dwelling drawn toward the sign of meaninglessness" (引無義相住) is one of the causes that makes the mind dwell attached to the sign of what has no meaning. The tenth aspect is thereby elevated to the level of doctrinal discernment: not only should it be avoided in debate, it should also be kept at a distance in listening and reflection.
The Position of This Concept in the Entire Path of Liberation
To understand 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta), one must place it back in a three-layered context.
The first layer is the level of debate technique: it is one of the nine faults of speech, functioning to help the proposer self-examine — is what I am saying actually "establishing meaning," or merely "circulating words"? This is the methodological safeguard at the stage of listening and reflection.
The second layer is the level of discernment in listening and reflection: the tenth aspect, "following evil discourses that do not accord with reason," pushes it from pure debate technique to the level of distinguishing teachings. When a learner listens widely and reads widely, does one notice whether the speech being taken in is itself "meaningless and profitless," whether it "violates well-being"? The 《顯揚聖教論》 explicitly has the proposer ask himself: 「將無種種惡不善法而生長耶？非不利益安樂自及他耶？」 ("Will not various evil and unwholesome dharmas grow? Will it not fail to benefit the ease and happiness of self and other?") 「不因此故諸天世人無義無利不安樂耶？」 ("Will not gods and humans thereby be without meaning, without profit, and without happiness?") These self-questions transform 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) from an external rule of debate into an internal vigilance in listening and reflection.
The third layer is the level of cultivation and realization: if "speech" is the surface of "mind," then the deep root of 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) is often the mind's dwelling-attachment to "the sign of meaninglessness" (無義相) — the mind being hooked, entangled, and unable to turn out of content that has no real meaning. The four characters "引無義相住" ("dwelling drawn toward the sign of meaninglessness") pull this concept from "speaking" to the depth of "mind-activity": what you say, in turn, reveals what sign your mind is dwelling upon.
A Distinction That Must Be Made First
Elsewhere the 《瑜伽師地論》 presents the term "別義相應意趣" (the intent connected with a different meaning), which belongs to the classification of "intent" (意趣, śāsanayoniśaya, the deep intention of the teaching), and its meaning is "setting aside, such as the literal sound of words, the remaining superior meaning" (除遣如言音等其餘勝義) — meaning that in the Buddha's teaching, sometimes the layer of meaning attached to the literal sound of words must be set aside, leading to a deeper superior meaning. This is identical in name but different in substance from 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) as one of the faults of speech, and the two must not be conflated. The former is a teaching intent that proceeds in the right direction (making an intent in accordance with the superior meaning); the latter is a fault of speech that goes in the reverse direction (committing a fault by departing from the doctrinal meaning). Confusing the two is the most common trap when reading this treatise.
II. A Walk-Through in Everyday Life
To keep these ten aspects from becoming dead entries, let us walk them into the concrete situations of contemporary people. A friend making a project proposal at work, someone posting intensively on social media, or the repeated arguments in an intimate relationship — all of these may be places where 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) quietly occurs. We take a speech at a project meeting as the main scene, switching when necessary to family conversations and public discussion.
Scene Setting
A team holds its weekly meeting, and member A wants to push forward a new proposal. By the third round of discussion, A begins the final "closing statement."
First Aspect | 無義 (anartha, "without meaning") — what is said has no referable, verifiable actual meaning.
A's speech falls into this pit from the very start: "In a deep sense, this proposal is a commitment to the future, a reshaping of user mentality, a tribute to our organizational culture…" The passage sounds good, but every phrase is unverifiable. Where is the "deep sense"? What kind of "commitment"? How does one "reshape mentality"? A tribute to whom? When the listener tries to grab a handle to pursue further, one discovers there is no actual referent. This is 無義 (without meaning) — what is said does not correspond to any identifiable principle; it is purely spinning in the realm of language.
Walk-through point: 無義 (without meaning) does not equal "sounds bad"; it is often very well packaged. Its characteristic is unverifiable, un-pursuable, un-implementable. The "corporate jargon" of daily work, the "packaging words" of meetings, the "chicken-soup sentences" of social media feeds — many of these fall under this aspect.
Second Aspect | 違義 (viruddhārtha, "contrary to meaning") — one's own words violate the meaning one seeks to establish.
A continues: "We must decide decisively, execute quickly, and land immediately." But the first half of the proposal argues that "this is something requiring long-term cultivation, deep sedimentation, and at least twelve months of user education before results appear." The meaning to be established is "long-term," yet the conclusion is "immediately." This is 違義 (contrary to meaning) — what was stated earlier and what is established later fight each other; the speech contradicts the principle to be established.
Walk-through point: 違義 (contrary to meaning) often appears as a "sudden U-turn." A person says A earlier, then suddenly asks you to accept -A, without even realizing the turn. This is especially common in intimate relationships: "I did all this entirely for you" / "but you never consider my feelings" — between the two sentences, the meaning has already contradicted itself.
Third Aspect | 損理 (nyāya-hāni, "damaging reasoning") — one part of the speech breaks the overall chain of reasoning.
To prove the proposal will succeed, A cites a case: "You see, Company XX did something similar, lost money in the first year, but tripled its valuation in the third year." The case itself is not wrong, but it has an implicit premise: that Company XX's conditions are comparable to ours. A has not argued for this comparability, and the listener immediately becomes suspicious: "The conditions are completely different." The whole chain of reasoning is damaged at this one unfortified link — not completely collapsed, but destabilized.
Walk-through point: 損理 (damaging reasoning) is not a total logical error, but logic being corroded by one's own sentence. The "over-extended analogy," the "unexamined metaphor," the "treating the particular as universal" of daily life all belong to this aspect. In debate it appears most easily: citing a case that sounds pretty but hands the opponent a flaw to seize.
Fourth Aspect | 與所成等 (sādhya-sama, "on par with what is to be established") — what is said does not touch the main thesis.
A's proposal is about "we should change our pricing strategy." But in the eight minutes of speech, six minutes are spent on user profiles, product iteration, and industry trends — and the pricing strategy itself is never actually touched: neither the problems of the current pricing, nor the rationale for a new one, nor the projected gains and losses after the change. The thesis is "change pricing," yet the speech is almost entirely outside the thesis. This is 與所成等 (on par with what is to be established) — the speech does not fit the thesis to be established.
Walk-through point: This aspect is most common in "report-style speech" and "summary-style speech." Formally flowing at length, but content-wise going around a big circle, and when one looks back, the main thesis has not been established. It also appears frequently in family meetings and partner communication: "I want to talk about how we divide up the chores" — and then thirty minutes are spent on how it was at home when one was a child.
Fifth Aspect | 招集過難 (doṣāvāhana, "inviting faults and objections") — actively handing the opponent a handle.
To emphasize the strength of his proposal, A says: "Everyone who has ever opposed this direction has later been proven wrong." The moment this sentence is uttered, the opponents on the scene are provoked. The originally rational discussion atmosphere instantly becomes adversarial. A has actively invited a crowd of objections — not only will opponents question the proposal, but even "those who opposed in the past" will come to question the sentence itself.
Walk-through point: 招集過難 (inviting faults and objections) is extremely common in contemporary public discussion. An emotional, personal, over-escalating sentence drags the conversation from "matter" to "person" to "position," and the space for debate collapses in an instant. On social media, this is the fastest button to ignite a fire.
Sixth Aspect | 不得義利 (anartha-prāpti, "obtaining no benefit from meaning") — after speaking, neither self nor other gains any benefit.
A's speech ends. The meeting disperses. Colleagues return to their desks and continue their own tasks. A himself also returns to what he was doing. No one has gained a new understanding, a new judgment, or a new action regarding the proposal. The entire speech was like a ritual — spoken and passed, with no real use for self or other. This is 不得義利 (obtaining no benefit from meaning).
Walk-through point: The criterion for this aspect is "verification by result" — after listening, has the understanding or action of self or other been increased? If not, then no matter how fluent or ornate, it falls under this aspect. The "meeting without deliberating" of contemporary meetings, the "chatting without depth" of social interactions, the "arguing without deciding" of intimate relationships — all are the same disease.
Seventh Aspect | 義無次序 (anupūrva, "disorder in meaning") — the sequence and hierarchy between principles are disrupted.
In the middle of the speech, A suddenly jumps to "the opponent's strategy," then back to "our advantages," then to "next year's budget," then back to "user feedback," and finally to "the CEO's attitude." These points have no clear causal relation to one another, no sequential connection; the listener must constantly piece together the logic. 義無次序 (disorder in meaning) is not "having no order" (if there were absolutely no order, that would be 雜亂 (disorder), which is another fault of speech altogether), but rather order that is out of place — between principles there should be grounding and progression, yet they are shuffled.
Walk-through point: When writing emails, drafting proposals, or composing articles, a tangled logical thread is the most common problem. When readers and listeners feel "it seems to make sense but I can't sort it out," this aspect is usually the cause.
Eighth Aspect | 義不決定 (aniyatārtha, "indeterminate meaning") — the position wavers, self-contradictory before and after.
During the speech, after being questioned twice by colleagues, A says respectively: "This proposal should be implemented immediately," "No, I mean phased piloting," "Maybe we can first try a small module, but in the end we still need full rollout." In the same meeting, three different versions. 義不決定 (indeterminate meaning) is independently listed in debate rules as another fault of speech (不決定, indecisiveness), but within the ten aspects of non-correspondence with meaning it appears again in another guise — the wavering itself already makes "whether what is said corresponds to meaning" impossible to judge, because there is no stable "what is said" to correspond to in the first place.
Walk-through point: This is especially prevalent today because the information environment gives high-frequency feedback, and people get used to adjusting their position based on the latest piece of feedback — adjusting faster than their own reflection. In debate arenas, parliaments, and partner quarrels, 義不決定 (indeterminate meaning) is the biggest cause of lost trust — not because you are wrong, but because you waver to the point where I cannot know what your "meaning" actually is.
Ninth Aspect | 成立能成 / 成立已成 (sādhana-sādhya / siddha-sādhana, "establishing what establishes / establishing what is already established") — the force does not land on what truly needs to be established.
The two texts differ slightly in wording for this aspect, but the root cause is the same. We walk through it in two sub-scenarios:
Sub-scenario 9A (成立能成, establishing what establishes): A spends a great deal of effort proving "users have this need," "the market has this space," "it is technically feasible," "the team has this capability" — all of these are "causes that can establish" (reasons, grounds). But when the time comes to integrate these causes and establish "therefore we should do this proposal" — the thesis (conclusion) — A instead says lightly, "So, in summary, I think this is worth considering." The listener must press: you have only proven it is "worth considering," but the thesis is "we should do it," and between the two there is still a major step. A has not crossed it. This is what the 《瑜伽》 calls "establishing what establishes" — the establishing cause has been established, but the thesis to be established has not.
Sub-scenario 9B (成立已成, establishing what is already established): At the start of the meeting, A spends ten minutes explaining "why we should care about user value," "why experience matters," "why long-termism is meaningful" — propositions that everyone present had already agreed to and endorsed long ago. A's effort goes into re-establishing an already-established consensus, without advancing a single step. This is what the 《顯揚》 calls "establishing what is already established" — establishing once more what has already been established.
Walk-through point: In the contemporary workplace and public discussion, 9A is extremely common — reports have data, analysis, and research, but the "conclusion" alone is weak; 9B is common in the "consensus restatement" segment of meetings — lively for a while, with no progress whatsoever. Both leave participants with the feeling of "being drained without a conclusion."
Tenth Aspect | 順不稱理諸邪惡論 (following evil discourses that do not accord with reason) — what one follows is itself a discourse that does not accord with principle.
During the meeting, a colleague interjects to recommend a book / a theory / a "successful person's" video, saying "You should all look at this; this is the real solution." The recommended content is a discourse with obvious ideological manipulation, actual harm to others, or logic that simply does not hold — for example, attributing complex social problems to a single ethnic group, promoting a conspiracy theory that has been refuted by multiple parties, or selling some kind of psychological manipulation script. A does not fully accept it, but out of a "let's all take a look" attitude, brings it into the space of discussion. This is 順不稱理諸邪惡論 (following evil discourses that do not accord with reason) — while one may not oneself proclaim it, one follows it, introduces it, and opens a door for the evil discourse.
Walk-through point: The contemporary significance of the tenth aspect is extremely deep. In today's information environment, we are surrounded every day by content that "looks very reasonable." Forwarding, citing, recommending, liking — all of these may constitute following an evil discourse. We need not ourselves proclaim it; merely opening a position for it to be heard already places us under this aspect. The 《顯揚》's vigilance on this is: such content "can lead to what is meaningless and profitless," "is contrary to reason," "is far from the four truths," and "being unclassifiable, should not be pondered" — it leads to what is meaningless and profitless, violates principle, is distant from the four noble truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path, belongs to what cannot be classified, and should not be pondered.
A Small Reminder After the Walk-Through
Having walked through all ten aspects, one thing can be noticed: the place where people most easily mis-map is understanding 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) merely as "whether the content is right or wrong." But of the ten aspects, only the second (違義, contrary to meaning), the third (損理, damaging reasoning), and the tenth (evil discourse) are purely about "right or wrong." The remaining seven — 無義 (without meaning), 與所成等 (on par with what is to be established), 招集過難 (inviting faults and objections), 不得義利 (obtaining no benefit from meaning), 義無次序 (disorder in meaning), 義不決定 (indeterminate meaning), 成立能成／已成 (establishing what establishes / what is already established) — most often appear in speech that is not obviously wrong. A person can be "right" in every sentence and still be unglued from meaning: there can be no actual referent (無義), off-topic (與所成等), handing out handles (招集過難), without any benefit (不得義利), with scrambled order (義無次序), wavering and contradictory (義不決定), establishing only the cause without the thesis (成立能成) or merely restating consensus (成立已成). This reminds us: "corresponding to meaning" is a higher standard than "speaking correctly" — it also requires actual reference, relevance, stability, order, progress, real use, not handing out handles, and not following evil discourses.
III. Why Contemporary People Need It
Because We Are Living Through a "Great Inflation of Speech"
In past societies, speech was a scarce resource — few people could write, speak, or debate, so hearing a piece of speech often meant that a certain weight of thought was being injected. But the contemporary era is an era of speech surplus: every day when one opens one's phone, hundreds of short essays, short videos, long essays, long videos, streamers, podcasts, and group messages flood in; AI can generate in a few seconds a long essay with complete structure, fluent sentences, and seemingly flawless logic. In such an environment, "the quantity of speech" has long exceeded "the meaning of speech." What we need is precisely this sieve of 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) — it makes us ask anew: does what you say correspond to the meaning you point to? Or are you merely mass-producing things that "look like speech"?
Contemporary information theory has a notion of "signal-to-noise ratio" (信噪比, the ratio of signal to noise) — in a large amount of signals, how high is the proportion that carries real information. This metaphor has a structural resonance with 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta), but its limitation must be pointed out: signal-to-noise ratio is an engineering concept concerned with the efficiency of information transmission; "corresponding to meaning" is a concept of principle concerned with the correspondence between speech and the true nature of things. The former need not promise "truth"; the latter must. AI-generated text can indefinitely improve the signal-to-noise ratio while completely falling into all ten aspects — it can be without meaning (piling rhetoric), contrary to meaning (self-contradictory), damaging to reasoning (latent flaws), inviting objections (collapsing when pressed), without benefit (no use after reading), and so on. The progress of tools does not automatically bring an improvement in "corresponding to meaning." On the contrary, because output has become so easy, the latter needs all the more to be deliberately maintained.
Because the "Loss of Meaning" in Public Discussion Is a Structural Phenomenon
The contemporary public sphere — social media, comment sections, live-streaming — shows a clear tendency toward "loss of meaning" (失義化): formal intensity masks substantive meaninglessness. A sentence can be very "explosive," very "quotable," very "addictive," and after it is said, nothing is accomplished with respect to meaning. The tenth aspect, "following evil discourses that do not accord with reason," deserves particular vigilance in such an environment — it does not require you to believe it, only to follow it, forward it, like it, cite it, and bring it into view. On algorithm-driven platforms, this kind of discourse, because of its high emotional intensity, is more easily propagated; contemporary people need the discernment of 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) so as not to open doors for evil discourses without knowing it.
Because It Protects Not Only the Listener, but Also the Proposer Himself
This point is extremely critical yet most easily overlooked. The nine faults of speech are listed not to find fault with opponents, but for the proposer's self-examination. When a person finishes speaking, the one who most directly bears the consequence is himself — will he be trapped by his own words? Will he, after speaking, have moved farther from meaning? Will he trigger unnecessary conflict because of "inviting faults and objections"? Will his position become thinner and thinner because of "indeterminate meaning"? Will he have said a great deal without any real use because of "obtaining no benefit from meaning"?
From this angle, 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) is not an external tool of critique, but a mirror of introspection. It allows us, before opening our mouths and after closing them, to look back: does my speech correspond to the meaning I intend to point to?
Because It Gives "Listening and Reflection" a Concrete Standard of Quality
The 《顯揚聖教論》 explicitly links 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) with "meaningless" and "meaningless and profitless," and prompts the proposer to ask himself: 「將無種種惡不善法而生長耶？非不利益安樂自及他耶？」 ("Will not various evil and unwholesome dharmas grow? Will it not fail to benefit the ease and happiness of self and other?") 「不因此故諸天世人無義無利不安樂耶？」 ("Will not gods and humans thereby be without meaning, without profit, and without happiness?") Behind these self-questions lies a deeper question: does what I take in, hear, read, and think about genuinely bring meaning and benefit to self and other? In an age of massive information and mixed thought, this question is no longer the homework of a few practitioners, but the foundational act of anyone who wants their listening and reflection to have quality.
IV. Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading One: "非義相應" (anarthasaṃprayukta) Means "Saying the Wrong Thing"
This is the most common narrowing. "Saying the wrong thing" corresponds to the second (違義, contrary to meaning), third (損理, damaging reasoning), and tenth (evil discourse) aspects — that is, the rightness or wrongness of "meaning" itself. But 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) is a much larger category — it covers every failure that prevents speech from corresponding to doctrinal meaning, including having no actual referent, lacking order, being indeterminate, being without benefit of meaning, not touching the thesis, going around in circles, actively handing out handles, and so on. A person can be "right" in every sentence and still fall entirely under this fault.
Clarification: To judge whether 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) applies, one cannot look only at the truth-value of a single sentence; one must look at whether the whole passage of speech substantively advances, touches, and stably points to the meaning to be established. This is a higher standard than "right or wrong."
Misreading Two: "非義相應" (anarthasaṃprayukta) Is Merely a Rhetorical Problem
Some understand it as "not speaking beautifully enough," "not organized enough," "not elegant enough," and relegate it to the domain of oratory, communication skills, and rhetoric. This vulgarizes a very deep concept from the Yogācāra treatises.
Clarification: The core of 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) is correspondence with meaning, not the beauty of wording. In fact, a passage of speech can be rhetorically poor, harsh in diction, and chaotic in syntax (these would fall under other faults of speech such as 麁獷 (harshness), 不辯了 (unintelligibility), 不相續 (discontinuity)) and still correspond to meaning; it can also be rhetorically excellent, ornate in diction, quotable in every line, and yet be entirely non-corresponding to meaning because it has no actual referent, no order, and does not touch the thesis. Rhetoric is not the standard; meaning is.
Misreading Three: Conflating It with "別義相應意趣" (the Intent Connected with a Different Meaning)
The two are similar in name ("別義相應意趣" and "非義相應"), but their substance is completely different:
- "別義相應意趣" (the intent connected with a different meaning, from the 《瑜伽師地論》's classification of intents): it refers to the fact that in the Buddha's teaching, sometimes one must "set aside, such as the literal sound of words, the remaining superior meaning" — that is, the listener must not cling to the surface of the literal words but enter a deeper superior meaning. This is a teaching intent that proceeds in the right direction, belonging to "the intent of the Tathāgata's teaching." - "非義相應" (anarthasaṃprayukta, one of the nine faults of speech): it refers to the proposer's speech being disconnected from the doctrinal meaning, a fault of speech that goes in the reverse direction, belonging to "the fault of the proposer."
The former is making an intent in accordance with meaning; the latter is committing a fault by departing from meaning. Identical in name, different in substance; they must not be conflated.
Misreading Four: "Heretical Evil Discourses" (外道邪論) Is a Historical Concept, Not Applicable to the Contemporary Era
Some read the tenth aspect, "following evil discourses that do not accord with reason," and think that "heretics" (外道, tīrthika) is merely a proper noun from ancient Indian religious contexts, irrelevant to the contemporary world. This is a serious narrowing.
Clarification: The criterion in the original text is "does not accord with reason," "can lead to what is meaningless and profitless," "far from the four truths," "unclassifiable, should not be pondered" — that is, violating principle, leading to what is meaningless and profitless, departing from the four noble truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path, and belonging to what cannot be classified. This criterion can structurally be applied to any contemporary discourse and thought that violates principle and leads to what is meaningless and profitless — not only meaningless and profitless for oneself, but even more so for others and for the whole. Historical names can be adjusted; the spirit of the criterion should not be buried by the age.
Misreading Five: "非義相應" (anarthasaṃprayukta) Is a Tool for Criticizing Others
Some people use 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) to pick at others' speech — "this is 違義 (contrary to meaning)," "that is 損理 (damaging reasoning)" — thinking this is a weapon for winning debates. But the Yogācāra treatises list the nine faults of speech as faults that the proposer himself should avoid, not faults that should be pointed out in one's opponent (the opponent's faults are separately listed under entries such as "faults of the opponent" (敵論者過)).
Clarification: 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) is first and foremost a mirror for oneself, and only secondarily a discernment of others. Its deepest use is to make oneself, before, during, and after speaking, look back at whether one's own speech corresponds to meaning. Using the mirror as a stone to throw at others is to degrade a methodology into an offensive technique, betraying the original purpose for which the concept was established.
Misreading Six: Understanding "無義利" (Meaningless and Profitless) as "No Benefit to Me"
In the contemporary context, 無義利 (meaningless and profitless) is easily misread as "no benefit to me." But the 《顯揚聖教論》 explicitly links "meaning and benefit" (義利) with "ease and happiness" (安樂), and the objects of self-questioning include "self and other" (自及他) and "gods and humans" (諸天世人) — that is, the ease and happiness of "self and other" and of "the whole."
Clarification: 無義利 (meaningless and profitless) is not a calculation of personal interest, but something more fundamental — does this passage of speech bring real benefit and ease? This "ease and happiness" is not transient pleasure, but the kind of ease that can reduce suffering, can depart from faults, and can incline toward liberation. Narrowing 無義利 (meaningless and profitless) to "no benefit to me" degrades a deep and broad criterion into a self-interested calculation.
Finally: Returning to the Phrase "引無義相住" (Dwelling Drawn Toward the Sign of Meaninglessness)
Having walked through the ten aspects, let us look back at the 《顯揚》's verse: 「不應思不記，當知由四因，非定一甚深，引無義相住。」 — "One should not ponder the unclassifiable; know that by four causes — not fixed, one is very profound, and one dwells drawn toward the sign of meaninglessness." — "Dwelling drawn toward the sign of meaninglessness" (引無義相住) is one of the four causes that make things unworthy of pondering and unclassifiable, meaning that it makes the mind dwell attached to the sign of what has no meaning.
This verse pulls 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta) from "speaking" back to "mind-activity." What we say, what we repeatedly say, what content occupies our attention, what sign the mind dwells upon — beneath all of this is the question of "where the mind dwells." When the mind dwells on the sign of meaninglessness, speech naturally becomes non-corresponding to meaning; when the mind dwells on the sign of meaning, speech becomes capable of corresponding to meaning.
So 非義相應 (anarthasaṃprayukta), this seemingly highly technical debate concept, ultimately points to a very ancient question: where does our mind dwell today? The content we take in, discuss, forward, and argue about every day — does it make the mind dwell on an ever more real meaning, or on an ever more ornate meaninglessness? This question, in an age of great inflation of speech, deserves more reflection now than in any previous age.