In one sentence: the various distinctions and classifications of the marks (modes of operation, characteristics) of all dharmas.
The Yogācāra school (瑜伽行派) has an easily overlooked trait: it cares not only about "what is real," but also about "how we discern." 相差别 (lakṣaṇa-prabheda, "the distinction of marks") is one of the cores of this "how to discern"—a compendium of "how to take apart, layer, and cross-reference the marks of dharmas." It appears in treatises such as the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* (《瑜伽师地论》) and the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* (《大乘庄严经论》), and is a basic method by which this tradition understands, cultivates, and expounds the meaning of the scriptures.
I. What This Concept Is About
"Marks" and "Distinctions," Taken Apart First
相 (lakṣaṇa, "mark") here does not mean only "appearance." It refers to the sign by which a dharma presents itself and operates as itself—both "how it looks" and "how it works." A stone has the mark of a stone (heavy, hard, inert); wind has the mark of wind (flowing, elusive); a thought has the mark of a thought (arising, abiding, ceasing); a meditative concentration has the mark of concentration (internal abiding, clarity, joy). The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* asks, "What is the mode of operation of marks?" and answers, "various modes of operation, immeasurable modes of operation" (種種行相、無量行相), *—"manifold modes, limitless modes"—* then lays out a long series: the mark of form, the mark of mind, the mark of mental factors, the mark of the aggregates, the marks of the sense-bases and elements, the mark of dependent origination, the mark of the establishments of mindfulness, the mark of the awakening factors, the mark of śamatha, the mark of vipaśyanā, the marks of the heavens, the marks of the concentrations… down to arising and ceasing, defilement and purity, seeing, hearing, sensing, and knowing. "Mark" in this context is the grain that covers everything we can notice as "this thing is operating in this way."
差别 (prabheda, "distinction") is also not simply "this is different from that." It includes discriminating, distinguishing, classifying, and layering—the work of taking apart, cross-referencing, and categorizing a vague mass of "marks."
Together: 相差别 = a complete set of discernment methods for taking apart, layering, and cross-referencing the dimension of "marks." In the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, it stands alongside "general indication," "establishment," "attention," "gathering the essential points of the scriptures," and "miscellaneous meanings," as an independent dimension that governs the entire meaning of the scriptures.
Key Point: 相差别 Is Not "One Classification," but "Acknowledging That Multiple Classifications Coexist"
This is where the concept is most easily read too shallowly. If you treat 相差别 as "a classification table," you have misread it. The same dharma can be taken apart from different angles, yielding different "distinctions of marks." The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* uses at least six different frameworks in different passages to take apart "marks," each of which is valid and reveals one facet:
Framework One: The Distinction of Cognitive Objects Is the Distinction of Marks (The Map of Practice)
The treatise says: "How is the distinction of cognitive objects? It is said to be the distinction of marks." (云何所緣差別？謂相差別。) *—"What is the distinction of cognitive objects? It is the distinction of marks."*
Then it opens up four marks: - 所緣相 (the mark of the cognitive object): In what form does the object that the mind grasps appear? - 因緣相 (the mark of causes and conditions): In what form do the causes and conditions producing this object operate? - 應遠離相 (the mark of what should be abandoned): What kind of mark should be abandoned? Further divided into four: 沈 (sinking—falling down, unable to rouse energy), 掉 (floating up—restlessness, a galloping mind), 亂 (scattered—chaotic and dispersed), 著 (clinging—stuck, unable to let go). - 應修習相 (the mark of what should be cultivated): What kind of mark should be cultivated? It is the mark that counteracts these four.
This framework is not academic classification—it is what a practitioner sitting there must carefully look at and discern with the mind. The treatise further lists 三十二相 (the thirty-two marks) (the mark of one's own mind, the mark of external forms, the mark of radiance, the mark of calming, the mark of elevation, the mark of insight, the mark of relinquishment, the mark of absorption, etc.) as the specific perceptual doors to be observed in meditation. The meaning is: when you sit on the cushion, don't rush to "enter a state"—first recognize which kind of mark is present right now: sinking, floating, scattered, or clinging? Once you see it clearly, you know whether to use calming, elevating, observing, or relinquishing to counteract it.
Framework Two: The Five-Mark Analysis (Looking at a Dharma through Five Dimensions)
The treatise analyzes a dharma through the five dimensions of "mark, substance, function, class, cause and effect" (相、體、業、法、因果): - 相 (mark): surface appearance + basis + abiding and moving (how it operates, how it comes to rest) - 體 (substance): intrinsic-substance mark + distinguishing mark (inner nature and its finer variations) - 業 (function): what this dharma does, what effect it produces - 法 (class): its classification as a type of dharma - 因果 (cause and effect): from what cause it arises, toward what result it leads
This framework tells us: to see a dharma clearly, staring only at the "mark" side is not enough. A person appears "cold" (mark)—what is their substance? What is operating behind the coldness? What is its function—what does this coldness cause to happen in the world? What class of phenomenon does it belong to (dharma)? Where does it come from, and where will it lead? Sweep through the five dimensions, and the whole landscape behind "coldness" emerges.
Framework Three: The Characterized and the Characterizing (The Root of Epistemology)
The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* has an extremely terse line: 「所相及能相，如是相差别。」 *—"The characterized and the characterizing: thus is the distinction of marks."*
Here one more layer of distinction is added: - 所相 (lakṣya, "the characterized"): the thing that is "marked"—the subject that possesses the characteristics - 能相 (lakṣaṇa, "the characterizing"): the characteristic itself that "gives the mark"
For example: the table before you is the characterized; the table's squareness, flatness, four legs, and hardness are the characterizing. The characterized is "that thing"; the characterizing is "that thing's qualities." At first glance this seems obvious, but all our everyday cognition—subject and object, perceiver and perceived, cognitive object and cognitive faculty—is built on this distinction. Once subject and object are blurred into one mass (for example, mistaking one's reaction to an emotion for the emotion itself), both understanding and practice become impossible. The treatise says the Buddhas reveal this structure "for the sake of gathering and benefiting living beings" (為攝利眾生) *—"to gather in and benefit sentient beings"*—this wisdom of "clearly distinguishing perceiver from perceived" is the entry point for benefiting beings.
Framework Four: Six Marks, Five Marks, Two Marks (Lenses of Different Magnification)
This is switching among different magnifications: - 六相 (six marks): the mark of having a mark, the mark of being markless, the narrow mark, the vast mark, the measureless mark, the mark of nothing-at-all - 五相 (five marks): mark, name, discrimination, thusness, right knowledge - 二相 (two marks): the intrinsic mark and the image mark
Each magnification reveals a different facet. Especially worth noting is "intrinsic mark vs. image mark" (本性相 vs 影像相)—the former is a mark accomplished jointly by "what is born from initial discrimination" and "what is born from marks" (closer to the thing's own appearance); the latter is a mark "produced by conceptual construction, manifested by intellectual determination, not abiding in its own nature" (closer to a shadow projected by the mind).
This tells us: Of the seemingly solid "mark" before our eyes, how much is the mark of the thing itself, and how much is a mark processed and fabricated by the mind? If we cannot make this distinction, then so-called "seeing the world clearly" is only "seeing the world projected by our own minds."
Framework Five: The Distinction of the Five Matters (Training in Synonym Chains)
The treatise establishes distinctions through the five matters "mark, name, discrimination, thusness, right knowledge" (相、名、分別、真如、正智), each with a set of synonyms (異門, "alternative designations"): - Distinctions of mark: mark, image, manifestation, existence, conceptual elaboration, satkāya, conditioned, produced by thought, born of conditions… - Distinctions of name: name, concept, designation, conventional speech, worldly convention, conventional establishment, verbal expression… - Distinctions of discrimination: discrimination, reflection, conceptual construction, wrong path, wrong conduct, crossing beyond the stream, incorrect grasping… - Distinctions of thusness: thusness, real nature, truth-nature, non-inverted nature, realm of no elaboration, markless realm, dharma-realm, ultimate reality…
What is interesting about this framework: it tells us "the same thing" can be approached through multiple names. The point of practice is not to memorize each name, but to possess the ability to switch freely among different names and see that they refer to the same thing. A mature mind, hearing different names like "manifestation," "image," and "born of conditions," is not led astray by the words but returns to the reality being referred to.
Framework Six: Intrinsic Mark, Conventional Mark, Causal Mark (Three Angles on the Same Thing)
In its section resolving difficulties, the treatise sets up three further angles: - 自相差別 (the distinction of the intrinsic mark): distinguishing from the angle of its own intrinsic nature - 俗相差別 (the distinction of the conventional mark): distinguishing from the angle of the conventionally agreed-upon appearance - 因相差別 (the distinction of the causal mark): distinguishing from the angle of what causes and conditions produced it
Example: water. The intrinsic mark is the nature of H₂O; the conventional mark is the water we drink every day; the causal mark is what is born of hydrogen and oxygen combining under specific conditions. The same thing, looked at from three angles, yields valid distinctions in each case.
A practitioner who sees only the conventional mark (e.g., taking "I" as the person who plays social roles) will be stuck inside the roles; only by seeing the intrinsic mark (the ever-changing, ungraspable stream of consciousness behind the roles) and the causal mark (that all of this arises from dependent origination—ignorance, craving, grasping) can anything loosen.
Framework Seven: The Distinction of Kinds (Paired Categories)
The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* directly lists several pairs: 「因與果、隨法、內與外、麁與細、勝與劣、遠與近」 *—"cause and effect; accordance with dharmas; inner and outer; coarse and subtle; superior and inferior; far and near"—* concluding with "是謂種差別" *—"this is called the distinction of kinds."*
This is a way of bringing out distinctions through paired categories. Note that the original text uses 「麁」, not 「粗」—this character preserves the original text's terminological form. In this context, 「麁」 is a technical term meaning "the relatively obvious, heavy side," paired with 「細」 (subtle). It reminds us: 相差别 distinguishes not only "what something is," but also "whether this facet is coarse or subtle."
These six pairs give us a set of ready-to-use lenses: cause and effect looks at the temporal sequence, accordance with dharmas looks at conformity with or against nature, inner and outer looks at layers, coarse and subtle looks at granularity, superior and inferior looks at rank, far and near looks at what to take and what to leave. Any phenomenon, swept once through each of these six pairs of lenses, yields a considerable amount of overlooked information.
The Seven Frameworks Together Tell Us One Thing
相差别 is not a rigid classification but an open analytical stance: it acknowledges that the same "mark" can be taken apart from different angles, each taking-apart revealing a new facet; different angles do not necessarily replace one another but are complementary. The treatise's answer is "various modes of operation, immeasurable modes of operation"—there is no end to the enumeration. The seven frameworks listed in this article are to help modern readers "connect" with the concept, but they are not, and cannot be, exhaustive.
This is consistent with the overall direction of Vijñaptimātra thought (唯識學): no single description can exhaust a dharma. To approach reality, multiple dimensions must operate simultaneously.
II. Walking Through It in Daily Life
I choose three scenarios and walk through the frameworks above step by step.
Scenario One: Scrolling on the Commute (Using Framework One + Framework Two)
Situation: On the subway, you open social media.
Shine Framework One (the four marks to be abandoned) on it: - You see a tragic news story—your heart sinks—this is the 沈相 (sinking mark): attention is trapped in heaviness, and lifting it takes effort. - You switch to a funny video—you can't help laughing, and scroll through three more—this is the 掉相 (floating mark): the mind floats on the surface, light, unable to settle. - The feed is too mixed—news, gossip, friends' updates, ads—attention jumps without stopping—this is the 亂相 (scattered mark): the cognitive object is discontinuous. - You see some controversial topic and can't resist typing a comment—this is the 著相 (clinging mark): stuck on one thought.
Most people only feel "annoyed" or "tired," unable to distinguish whether they are sinking, floating, scattered, or clinging. Once you can distinguish, the "mark of what should be cultivated" becomes useful—when sinking, "elevate" (lift the mind); when floating, "calm" (collect it down); when scattered, "observe" (see clearly the coming and going of each thought); when clinging, "relinquish" (release the grip). The calming, elevating, observing, and relinquishing among the thirty-two marks were set up precisely for these four marks—it was never abstract classification, but a tool for you on the cushion (or in front of the screen).
Use Framework Two (the five-mark analysis) to sweep the behavior of "scrolling": - 相 (mark): finger sliding, eyes fixed on the screen, shoulders slightly tensed, breath becoming shallow. - 體 (substance): What is the inner nature of this behavior?—a dependence on information, an avoidance of emptiness. - 業 (function): What does it make me do?—it takes in a huge amount of information, most of which doesn't settle; meanwhile it consumes attentional resources. - 法 (class): What class does it belong to?—it belongs to the function of "worldly scattered mind-factors." - 因果 (cause and effect): What causes lead to it?—waiting, fatigue, boredom, wanting to escape deeper feelings. What results?—more scattered attention, disconnection from the present body.
Looking only at the "mark," we blame the phone or blame ourselves for "weak willpower." Only after seeing substance, function, class, and cause-and-effect does the full picture emerge—and only with the full picture can we actually start to work on it.
The easiest place to go wrong: treating scrolling as a "bad habit" and trying to quit by willpower alone—this is practice that sees only the "mark," and cannot see the substance, function, class, and cause-and-effect behind it; of course it won't work.
Scenario Two: A Conflict with Your Partner (Using Framework Three + Framework Six)
Situation: You quarrel with your partner. You feel the other person "ignores me"; the other person responds, "You're overthinking."
Use Framework Three (the characterized vs. the characterizing) to take it apart: - I mistake "one sentence, one expression from the other person" for "the other person as a whole"—I take the "能相" (a particular behavior) as the "所相" (the whole being). - But what you are actually angry about is "a certain sentence he said at that moment"—that is the characterizing. The whole person (including why he said it, the guilt after saying it, the unease before saying it) is the characterized. The characterizing is not the characterized, but the characterizing can sway judgment of the entire characterized—this is the mechanism by which "the distinction of marks" operates in our emotions.
Use Framework Six (intrinsic mark, conventional mark, causal mark): - We most easily take the other person's role in family/work—the 俗相 (conventional mark) (the socially agreed-upon image of "husband/wife/colleague")—as the other person's 自相 (intrinsic mark) (the other as a stream of consciousness, as an ever-changing being). - Once we see him through the conventional mark of "my husband should…," any deviation from the script is amplified into "how can he be like this." - What is not seen is the 因相 (causal mark): what is the cause of this conflict? Perhaps I was not smooth at work today and came home already carrying emotion; perhaps three months ago we accumulated an unspoken need. Without seeing the causal mark, we can only stay stuck at the level of "right/wrong."
The "inner and outer" lens from the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* is also readily usable: the surface conflict (outer) and the unspoken vulnerability inside (inner) are completely different things. Most conflicts stop at the outer and refuse to go inward.
The easiest place to go wrong: solidifying one characterizing mark of the other (a sentence, an expression) into the characterized (the person), then overlaying the conventional-mark script (how you should be)—three layers of confusion stacked together make the conflict unsolvable. The starting point for untangling is first making "perceiver and perceived clear": distinguish which layer you are angry at right now.
Scenario Three: Whether to Change Jobs (Using Framework Seven)
Situation: You are considering whether to change jobs.
Sweep through each of the 種差別 (paired categories): - 因果 (cause and effect): How did the previous job get to this point? Toward what "result" will this new job lead? - 隨法 (accordance with dharmas): What does it look like to go with your nature? What does it look like to go against it? - 內外 (inner and outer): What are the external salary, title, and relationships? What are the internal growth, sense of value, and learning? - 麁細 (coarse and subtle): the surface salary change (麁) vs. inner capacity accumulation (subtle) vs. even subtler—the impact of this choice on the next five to ten years (even subtler). - 勝劣 (superior and inferior): each job has its strengths; where is the "superior"?—on which dimension is this "superior"? - 遠近 (far and near): up close, the salary gap matters a lot; at a distance, where you can be in ten years matters more?
The easiest place to go wrong: making the judgment using only the "麁" lens (salary, title, office environment), ignoring the "subtle" layers (inner growth, where you'll be in five years, this job's long-term effect on your body and mind). Note that the original text uses 「麁」, not 「粗」—precisely to remind us—「麁」 is a technical word meaning "the obvious side," paired with 「細」. Our daily "it's more or less, I can't think it through" is often because we only use the "coarse" lens and never switch to the "subtle" set.
III. Why Contemporary People Need It
Our current life has a peculiar structure: flooded by "marks," but lacking the capacity for "distinction." 相差别 is precisely prepared for this situation—but it is a classical tool, and needs a pointer connecting it to our daily pain points.
Information Overload: All Four Marks Are Active, but No Distinction Is Made
Every day, notifications, news, short videos, and chat messages surge like a flood—each one is a "mark," each one is designed to grab your attention. But we have lost the ability to discern which class these "marks" belong to and what attitude we should take toward them. You sink at tragic news, float at funny videos, cling at controversies—all four marks are online, but no distinction is made. Framework One (sinking, floating, scattered, clinging + calming, elevating, observing, relinquishing) was prepared precisely for the attention crisis of this era—it breaks down the vague complaint "I'm so annoyed today" into four technical problems that can each be worked on separately.
Role Overload: The Conventional Mark Taken as the Intrinsic Mark
The modern self is sliced into countless roles: employee, parent, partner, child, someone in a friend circle, a role in some interest community… these are all conventional marks. When we take "conventional mark" as "intrinsic mark"—taking "I as a senior executive at some company" as "I"—we get lost in the roles. The question "Who am I" is hard to answer not because the answer is hard to find, but because the question itself is posed at the wrong level—we conflate the conventional mark, the intrinsic mark, and the causal mark. Framework Six reminds us: conventional marks can change; the intrinsic mark is an ever-changing stream of consciousness; the causal mark is the dependent origination that supports all of this. Once the three layers are distinguished, the question "Who am I" itself loosens.
The Flattening of Digital Relationships: The Characterizing Overwhelms the Characterized
On social media, text messages, and emoji—we are left with almost nothing but others' "能相": the side the other person chooses to present. We cannot see the characterized (this complete person). The result is that our understanding of others is severely distorted; the perceiver-perceived relationship is wrong. Framework Three (characterized/characterizing) is precisely the antidote to this problem—first separate the characterizing from the characterized, then ask: what might the characterized behind this characterizing be? In digital life, this habit must be deliberately cultivated, because screens naturally tend to transmit only the characterizing.
The "Granularity" of Cognition Is Worn Flat: Four Letters Squash Everything
Modern commercial logic tends to describe everything in the fewest dimensions: which zodiac sign you are, which MBTI type you are, which user persona you fit—four letters suffice. **But the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*'s answer is "various modes of operation, immeasurable modes of operation." A dharma has immeasurable facets. Any move to squash it into a single label is a loss of the capacity for distinction. The paired categories coarse/subtle, superior/inferior, far/near, inner/outer** exist to counter this squashing—they force us to look at the same thing through multiple lenses.
A Comparison with Contemporary Experience (But with the Boundaries Noted)
Contemporary psychology speaks of "emotional granularity" (情緒粒度, Lisa Feldman Barrett et al.)—the capacity to distinguish fine-grained emotion words is positively correlated with mental health. Roughly speaking, this has a certain kinship with the spirit of 相差别: both advocate fine-grained discrimination rather than coarse labels. But several boundaries must be noted:
- Psychology's emotional granularity is mainly discrimination at the language-label layer; 相差别 is not only linguistic discrimination but also structural—it asks "how many dimensions does this thing have? How does each dimension stand?" - Psychology treats this as a "health indicator"; Buddhism treats fine-grained discrimination as a tool on the path to liberation, whose ultimate aim is to see through all marks and not abide in any mark. - "Multimodal learning" in AI also emphasizes understanding an object simultaneously from multiple dimensions (image, text, audio)—this is structurally similar to the spirit of the five-mark analysis, but AI's aim is prediction accuracy, while Buddhism's aim is seeing reality clearly.
Structural similarity ≠ the same thing. I use these comparisons to help modern readers "connect" with this classical concept, not to say that science has proven Buddhism, nor that Buddhism can be fully replaced by modern experience.
IV. Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading One: Narrowing "Mark" to "Appearance"
Many people, on first seeing "mark," think of "appearance," "phenomenon," "surface appearance"—this is too narrow. In the Yogācāra context, "mark" includes 行相 (mode of operation), 體相 (mode of existence), 自相 (intrinsic characteristic) and other layers. It refers both to "how it looks" and "how it operates" and "how it exists." A thought has the mark of a thought (arising, abiding, ceasing), a meditative concentration has the mark of concentration (internal abiding, clarity, joy)—none of these is covered by "appearance."
Misreading Two: Thinking 相差别 Is a Classification Table
Wrong. The treatise itself, answering "what is the mode of operation of marks," says "various modes of operation, immeasurable modes of operation," clearly telling us: the distinctions of marks have no end to their enumeration. The seven frameworks listed in this article are to help modern readers connect, but they are not all of it. Any attempt to organize it into a static table will miss its openness.
Misreading Three: Treating It as Purely Academic Classification
Wrong. Framework One (what should be abandoned / what should be cultivated + the thirty-two marks) is entirely a tool of the practice site—to be used directly when you sit on the cushion. Treating it as scholarly study precisely deviates from the purpose for which the Yogācāra school set it up.
Misreading Four: Confusing the Three Concepts of "Intrinsic-Mark Distinction," "Conventional-Mark Distinction," and "Causal-Mark Distinction"
These three are three angles, not three things. A water cup: the intrinsic mark (its nature), the conventional mark (the commonly agreed-upon image of "cup"), the causal mark (ceramic formed by firing)—three angles all point to the same cup. Taking them as "three different things" is a misreading. The wisdom of practice is to use all three angles and to know how they correspond to one another.
Misreading Five: Understanding "Characterized" and "Characterizing" as the Western Philosophical "Subject-Object" Dichotomy
This is a subtle misreading. The characterized/characterizing distinction does have a structural similarity to the subject/object distinction, but the Yogācāra school does not hold that "subject" is an independent entity—both characterized and characterizing are operations of consciousness; the so-called "characterizing" is the cognitive function of consciousness, and the so-called "characterized" is the mark manifested by consciousness. Reading it as a Cartesian "I think, therefore I am" would go completely astray. Distinguishing characterized from characterizing is an epistemological operation, not an ontological assertion.
Misreading Six: Taking "Various Modes of Operation, Immeasurable Modes of Operation" to Mean "So Any Mark Can Be Discussed"
The treatise's "immeasurable" means "open, without closed boundaries," not "any arbitrary taking-apart is valid." Distinction itself must conform to the logic of distinction—Framework One has the test of practice, Framework Two has the structure of five dimensions, Framework Seven has the rigor of paired categories. Dissection without structure is merely the impulse to dissect, not 相差别.
Misreading Seven: Changing 「麁」 to 「粗」
Technically these two characters are not interchangeable. The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* uses 「麁」, not 「粗」. In this context, 「麁」 is a technical term meaning "the relatively obvious, heavy side," paired with 「細」. 「粗」 is an everyday character; 「麁」 carries technical meaning. Change the character, and this layer of distinction is lost.
Misreading Eight: Thinking the Purpose of 相差别 Is Classification
No. The *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra* says explicitly: the Buddhas reveal this distinction of marks "for the sake of gathering and benefiting living beings" (為攝利眾生) *—"to gather in and benefit sentient beings."* Its ultimate direction is not academic clarity but the benefit of beings. Classification is the means; benefit is the end; seeing marks clearly is the starting point; seeing through marks and abiding in non-abiding is the destination. Collecting it as knowledge runs precisely counter to its direction.
Closing: Putting the Seven Frameworks Back in Their Place on the Path to Liberation
If you treat 相差别 only as "a method of analysis," it is just a handy little tool. But if you place it back in the whole path to liberation, its true position is this: it stands on the bridge between "seeing the cognitive object clearly" and "knowing reality as it is."
The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* opens by saying "the distinction of cognitive objects is the distinction of marks"—telling us clearly: the object you take as your cognitive object in meditation, what its mark is, must itself be carefully discerned. Only after discerning it clearly (elevating the sinking, calming the floating, observing the scattered, relinquishing the clinging) can you enter the stage of cultivated attainment. Without this discernment, the cognitive object is a blur, and insight wisdom has no point of entry.
But discernment itself is not the endpoint. The final item in the five-matters framework is "正智 (right knowledge)"—knowing marks, names, discrimination, and thusness as they truly are with pure wisdom; this is where the whole of 相差别 aims to push us. From the openness of "various modes of operation," through multi-angled fine discernment, to finally arriving at the pure wisdom that "discriminates all marks without clinging to any mark"—this is the complete path set out by the Yogācāra school.
So 相差别 is not meant to make us better at classifying—it is meant to take us from "seeing only one mark" to "being able to switch freely among multiple marks without being stuck on any one of them." When we no longer see only one facet of marks like "coldness," "success," "intimacy," "self," no longer automatically overlay a script, no longer solidify them into essences—at that moment, 相差别 truly comes alive in us.