金剛般若波羅蜜經 分五 如理實見分
我們總想看見佛——看見三十二相、看見金身相好，以為見到了那莊嚴的色身，就見到了如來。佛在這一分，輕輕把這念頭按了下去：「可以身相見如來不？」不可以。如來所說的身相，當體即非身相；那有生、有住、有滅的色身，從來不是那無相的法身。話到這裡還只是遮；佛卻陡然一翻，說出了全經破相的眼——「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來。」原來不是教你把相看沒了，另尋一個無相去；是教你就在這一切相上，看見它本不是你執取的那個實在之相。看破了那一層妄加上去的實有，相還是相，而如來已在其中。要緊的是這一句翻轉：相的虛妄處，正是法身的真實處；不離眼前的相，就在這相上見它非相，便見如來。
We always want to see the Buddha—to see the thirty-two marks, to see the golden body in its splendor, supposing that once we have glimpsed that adorned physical form we have seen the Tathāgata. In this division the Buddha gently presses that notion down: 「可以身相見如來不？」(Can the Tathāgata be seen by his bodily marks?) No. The bodily marks the Tathāgata speaks of are, in their very substance, precisely not bodily marks; that physical body which is born, abides, and perishes was never the markless Dharma-body. So far this is only negation; but then the Buddha abruptly turns it over and speaks the eye of the whole sūtra's breaking of marks—「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來」(Whatever has marks is all unreal; if one sees that all marks are no-marks, then one sees the Tathāgata). It turns out he is not telling you to make the marks vanish and look elsewhere for some markless thing; he is telling you to see, right upon these very marks, that they were never the real, graspable mark you took them to be. See through that one layer of "real" wrongly laid on top, and marks are still marks—yet the Tathāgata is already within them. What matters is this single reversal: the very unreality of a mark is the very reality of the Dharma-body; without leaving the mark before your eyes, see right on this mark that it is no-mark—and you see the Tathāgata.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 5 · Seeing Truly, According to Principle · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕可以身相見如來嗎
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？可以身相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。何以故？如來所說身相，即非身相。」
佛問：「須菩提，你怎麼想？可以憑佛的身相，就見到如來嗎？」須菩提答：「不可以的，世尊！不能憑身相就見到如來。為什麼呢？因為如來所說的身相，並不是真有一個實在的身相。」
〔二〕凡所有相皆是虛妄，見諸相非相則見如來
經曰：
佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來。」
佛告訴須菩提：「凡是一切有形相的東西，都是虛假不實的；如果能在這一切相上，見到它們並不是真實的相，那就見到如來了。」
〔1〕Can the Tathāgata be seen by his bodily marks?
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？可以身相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。何以故？如來所說身相，即非身相。」
The Buddha asked: "Subhūti, what do you think — can the Tathāgata be seen by his bodily marks?" Subhūti answered: "No, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata cannot be seen by his bodily marks. Why? Because the bodily marks the Tathāgata speaks of are no real, substantial bodily marks at all."
〔2〕All marks are false; see the marks as no-marks, and you see the Tathāgata
The sūtra says:
佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來。」
The Buddha told Subhūti: "Whatever has marks is false and unreal. If, in the midst of all marks, you can see that they are no real marks, then you see the Tathāgata."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 5 · Seeing Truly, According to Principle · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、遣遍計顯圓成、虛妄分別，來照金剛經的「即非·見相非相」。
破相之眼：不可以身相見如來
前一分說「不住相布施」，是就布施的修行說無住；到這一分，佛把同一把「無住」之刀，回過頭來指向佛果本身——「可以身相見如來不？」這一問一答，全經「離相見如來」的眼，從這裡睜開。
先要弄清楚經文裡的兩個詞。「身相」，古德都讀作佛的色身——就是佛那有生、有住、有滅的有為之身（吉藏「不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身」，窺基「離彼三相，即是法身如來」）。「如來」，則是無相的法身。所以「不可以身相見如來」，是說：不可以拿那有生住滅的色身，去見那無相的法身。
菩薩修行時，看見佛的色身相好莊嚴，心裡便起一念：要得到這樣一個有相的佛果。窺基把這層疑說得很實在——「覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑」，疑的是「所行之因既是無相，何故所得之果是有相」（既然修因是無相的布施，怎麼所得的果反倒是有相的佛身呢）。佛這一問，正為遣這層執。
「即非身相」：遣遍計所執
用唯識的眼看，這層執著有個準確的名字——遍計所執（把心所變現的影，當成心外實有的東西，再於其上周遍計度、執為實有）。菩薩在佛的緣生色身上，妄加一層「這就是實在的佛、是我可得的有相之果」，這一層加上去的實執，就是遍計所執，根本無體。
「如來所說身相，即非身相」，這個「即非」遣的正是這一層。窺基讀得明白：「所說三相之身相者，即非是法身之無相也」——所說的這個生住滅三相之身，並不就是那無相的法身。世親立偈更直截：「三相異體故，離彼是如來」（生、住、滅三相各是有為遷流之體，與如來法身異體；離開這三相，才是如來），義淨譯本作「三相遷異故，無此謂如來」，是同一世親論的兩個漢譯。所以「即非身相」不是把佛身一筆抹掉，是遣掉那層「以三相色身為法身、為可得之果」的遍計妄執。
這就是金剛經「即非」在此分的第一次單獨現身：它是遣遍計的一支單標。要到後文（如分十三），才湊足「X／即非X／是名X」的完整三句。
「凡所有相皆是虛妄」：虛妄即遍計所執
佛接著把話放大：不只佛的身相，「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」。這個「虛妄」二字，正是異譯與唯識相通的文本指紋——菩提流支、世親論本逕作「妄語」，玄奘作「皆是虛妄」。窺基釋這「虛妄」，列了三層意思，第三層說得最透：「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」——依他起、圓成實這兩性叫真實，唯獨遍計所執叫虛妄。
這就把「虛妄」一詞落到了實處：「凡所有相皆是虛妄」所空的「妄」，正是那層遍計所執的相，不是連依他緣生、圓成真如也一併空掉。窺基為這一讀，還引了辯中邊論作證——「《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也」（三界一切，都是虛妄分別的心、心所所現）。是知此經一句「虛妄」，與辯中邊論「虛妄分別」一系，古德早已相印：所謂相之虛妄，即是心於依他相上所起的遍計妄執。
「若見諸相非相，則見如來」：顯圓成實·真如
遣到盡處，便翻出正面一句：「若見諸相非相，則見如來。」
這一句立的是圓成實。在一切相上，見到它「非相」——不是分別心所執的那個實在之相，這一見，便見到了無為法身、見到了真如。圓成實，正是識遣盡了遍計所執之後所顯的諸法實性；真如即唯識的實性。所以「見諸相非相」不是把相都看沒了，另外去找一個「非相」；智顗一語點破：「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」——就在相上見它非實，不是離開相另立一個叫「非相」的東西。
於是這一分的三性讀法整個出來了：「身相即非身相」是遣遍計（在佛身上不執實有之相），「諸相非相則見如來」是顯圓成（於諸相見其非實，即見法身真如）。前一分「實無眾生得滅度」遣的還是隱在暗處的執，到這一分，遣遍計、顯圓成第一次正面標了出來——這就是破相之眼初成。吉藏判得兩面分明：「凡有名相，皆是憶想而有，悉是虛妄」是說失（執相之失），「若見一切諸相非法身相，即是見法身」是說得（見相非相之得），一句之中，失與得、破與立同時並舉。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識的三性之學從金剛經流出——三性、遣遍計顯圓成，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽），般若另是一系；而是同一「離相見如來」的實相，金剛經以經語（身相即非身相·諸相非相）說，唯識以論語（遍計所執·依他·圓成·遣妄顯真）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌以三性三無性遣二取，「身相即非身相」正是遍計所執非有、圓成法身非無；辯中邊論立「虛妄分別」，窺基釋本分「虛妄」逕引之，是此分與辯中邊正面對位之處；成唯識論說遍計所執之相非有、圓成真如法身，與「離三相見法身」相應；般若一系的心經「是諸法空相」「色不異空」，亦同此於相見非相、即色見空之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「凡所有相皆是虛妄、見諸相非相則見如來」，成唯識論以「遍計所執名虛妄、圓成實顯真如」的技術語說的，是同一件事〔此一會通，釋慧鏡《即非三段式映射唯識三性》（S5-P01）已明其旨〕。
Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the removing of the wholly-imagined and showing of the perfectly-accomplished, and false discrimination (虛妄分別), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not / seeing marks as non-marks.”
The Eye of Breaking Marks: One Cannot See the Tathāgata by a Bodily Mark
The previous division said “give without abiding in marks,” which was to speak of non-abiding with respect to the practice of giving; in this division the Buddha turns the same blade of “non-abiding” back upon the Buddha-fruit itself — 「可以身相見如來不？」, can one see the Tathāgata by a bodily mark? With this one question and answer, the whole sūtra’s eye of “seeing the Tathāgata apart from marks” opens here.
First the two words in the text must be made clear. “Bodily mark” (身相) the ancient masters all read as the Buddha’s form-body (色身) — that conditioned body of the Buddha which has arising, abiding, and ceasing (Jizang: 「不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身」, “one cannot by the three marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing see the Tathāgata’s unconditioned dharma-body”; Kuiji: 「離彼三相，即是法身如來」, “apart from those three marks is precisely the dharma-body Tathāgata”). “Tathāgata” (如來), then, is the markless dharma-body (無相的法身). So “one cannot see the Tathāgata by a bodily mark” says: one cannot, by that form-body which arises, abides, and ceases, see the markless dharma-body.
When a bodhisattva, in practice, beholds the dignified glory of the Buddha’s form-body, a thought arises in him: to attain just such a Buddha-fruit possessed of marks. Kuiji states this layer of doubt very concretely — 「覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑」, “beholding the Buddha’s transformation-body as having the three marks, he therefore gives rise to doubt” — the doubt being 「所行之因既是無相，何故所得之果是有相」 (since the cause practiced is the markless giving, why is the fruit attained, on the contrary, a Buddha-body possessed of marks). The Buddha’s question is precisely to remove this layer of clinging.
“Is Not a Bodily Mark”: Removing 遍計所執
Through the Yogācāra eye, this clinging has an exact name — 遍計所執 (parikalpita): taking the reflection transformed by mind for a thing really existing outside the mind, and upon it pervasively reckoning and clinging it as real. Upon the Buddha’s dependently-arisen form-body the bodhisattva deludedly adds a layer of “this is the real Buddha, the fruit-with-marks I may attain,” and this superadded real clinging is 遍計所執, which has no substance at root.
「如來所說身相，即非身相」, “the bodily mark the Tathāgata speaks of is not a bodily mark” — this “is-not” removes exactly this layer. Kuiji reads it plainly: 「所說三相之身相者，即非是法身之無相也」, “the bodily mark of the three marks here spoken of is precisely not the marklessness of the dharma-body.” Vasubandhu sets up a verse yet more directly: 「三相異體故，離彼是如來」 (the three marks of arising, abiding, ceasing are each a substance of conditioned flowing-on, differing in substance from the Tathāgata’s dharma-body; apart from these three marks is the Tathāgata) — Yijing’s version reads 「三相遷異故，無此謂如來」, two Chinese renderings of the one Vasubandhu treatise. So “is not a bodily mark” does not erase the Buddha-body at a stroke; it removes that layer of wholly-imagined delusion which “takes the three-marked form-body for the dharma-body, for an attainable fruit.”
This is the first solitary appearance of the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not” in this division: it is a single statement of removing the wholly-imagined. Only in the later text (as at Division 13) does it gather the full three-phrase form “X / is-not X / is named X.”
“Whatever Has Marks Is All False”: the False Is 遍計所執
The Buddha then broadens the words: not only the Buddha’s bodily mark — 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」, whatever has marks is all false. These two words “false” (虛妄) are precisely the textual fingerprint that links the variant translations with Yogācāra — Bodhiruci and the Vasubandhu treatise render it directly 「妄語」 (false speech), Xuanzang 「皆是虛妄」 (all are false). Kuiji, explaining this “false,” lists three layers of sense, the third stated most penetratingly: 「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」 — the two natures 依他起 and 圓成實 are called the real; 遍計所執 alone is called false.
This sets the word “false” onto firm ground: the “falseness” that 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」 empties is precisely that layer of 遍計所執 marks — not that the dependently-arisen and the perfectly-accomplished 真如 are emptied along with it. For this reading Kuiji further cites the Madhyānta-vibhāga (辯中邊論) as witness — 「《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也」 (the Madhyānta-vibhāga says: the three realms are false discrimination, mind and mental factors). One sees that this sūtra’s one word “false” the ancient masters had long sealed together with the Madhyānta-vibhāga’s lineage of “false discrimination” (虛妄分別): the so-called falseness of marks is just the pervasive deluded clinging that the mind gives rise to upon dependently-arisen marks.
“If One Sees Marks as Non-Marks, One Sees the Tathāgata”: Showing 圓成實 · 真如
Removing to the very end, it turns out a frontal line: 「若見諸相非相，則見如來」, if one sees marks as non-marks, one sees the Tathāgata.
This line establishes 圓成實. Upon all marks, to see their “non-mark” — that they are not that real mark which the discriminating mind clings to — this one seeing is to see the unconditioned dharma-body, to see 真如 (tathatā). 圓成實 is just the real nature of dharmas shown forth once the consciousness has exhausted and removed 遍計所執; 真如 is the real nature of consciousness. So “seeing marks as non-marks” is not seeing all marks away and seeking some other “non-mark”; Zhiyi points it out in a word: 「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」, “it is only seeing marks as non-marks; it does not mean removing marks and setting up apart some other thing called a non-mark.” It is right upon the marks that one sees their non-reality, not departing from marks to set up apart a thing called “non-mark.”
So the three-natures reading of this division comes out whole: “a bodily mark is not a bodily mark” is removing the wholly-imagined (upon the Buddha-body, not clinging a real mark); “marks as non-marks, then one sees the Tathāgata” is showing the perfectly-accomplished (upon all marks seeing their non-reality is to see the dharma-body, 真如). The previous division’s 「實無眾生得滅度」 still removed clinging hidden in the dark; in this division, the removing of the wholly-imagined and showing of the perfectly-accomplished is for the first time frontally marked out — and this is the first forming of the eye of breaking marks. Jizang judges it in two clear faces: 「凡有名相，皆是憶想而有，悉是虛妄」 (whatever has name and mark exists by recollective imagining and is all false) speaks the loss (the fault of clinging marks); 「若見一切諸相非法身相，即是見法身」 (if one sees that all marks are not the mark of the dharma-body, this is to see the dharma-body) speaks the gain (the gain of seeing marks as non-marks) — within one sentence, loss and gain, breaking and establishing, are held up at once.
Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise
Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra’s learning of the three natures flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the three natures, the removing of the wholly-imagined and showing of the perfectly-accomplished, have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same reality of “seeing the Tathāgata apart from marks” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (a bodily mark is not a bodily mark · marks as non-marks), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計所執 · 依他 · 圓成 · removing the false and showing the real); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, by the three natures and the three non-natures, remove the two graspings; “a bodily mark is not a bodily mark” is just the wholly-imagined being non-existent and the perfectly-accomplished dharma-body being not non-existent. The Madhyānta-vibhāga sets up “false discrimination,” and Kuiji, explaining this division’s “false,” cites it directly — this is the place of this division’s frontal correspondence with the Madhyānta-vibhāga. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the wholly-imagined mark being non-existent and the perfectly-accomplished 真如 dharma-body, according with “seeing the dharma-body apart from the three marks.” The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「是諸法空相」 and 「色不異空」 are likewise this gate of seeing non-marks upon marks, seeing emptiness right upon form. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「凡所有相皆是虛妄、見諸相非相則見如來」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “遍計所執 is called false · 圓成實 shows 真如” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s The Is-Not Three-Phrase Form Mapped onto the Yogācāra Three Natures (S5-P01)〕.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 5 · Seeing Truly, According to Principle · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（破相）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分五 如理實見分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 前半（眾生空·破四相·煩惱障；破相見如來之眼） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分（序分終於分一，流通分始於分三十二；此分居正宗） |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 第三住 欲得色身（十八住「三、欲得色身」[0757b06–07]；八住攝之為「欲住處」[0758c02–03]；錨經「為欲得色身故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』」[0757b22–23]） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 無相因得有相果之疑（「若不著於法而行施者，如何為求正覺勝果行惠施耶？」T1513 0875c19–21）→ 答以「三相異如來體」（T1511 0782c24–25） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「『可以身相見如來不』下……此下第二、明無為法身之果」[0104a09·a20–21]；判此章辨佛道（無所得因 → 無為法身果） |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『可以身相見不』下，明願行皆無相為因，法身無色為無得果」[0077c04–05] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依世親科，「『可以身相見如來不』下明斷疑，謂能斷道般若，所斷者謂二障」[0127c07–09]；「依世親科……二、『可以身相』下，廣破眾疑分」[0128b24–25] |
破相義：此分承前分四「不住相布施」之後，由布施轉入佛果之觀法。佛問「可以身相見如來不？」古德三家俱讀「身相」為佛之色身（生·住·滅三相之有為身），「如來」為無為法身——故不可以三相之色身見無相之法身（吉藏「不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身」[0104c11–12]；窺基「法身無相是如來，故離彼三相，即是法身如來」[0133b01–02]）。世親、無著統判此為「欲得色身住處」之疑對治：菩薩修行時，覩佛三相色身相好具足而欲求得，佛遮之曰三相身非如來（窺基述無著 [0133b22–27]）。佛之述成偈「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來」，由「不可以相見」進而普說一切相皆妄、見相非相方見如來——此即全經破相之總綱，後文破四相（前半）、破四見（後半）皆由此一句開出。本分「即非」初成單支（如來所說身相，即非身相，見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 破相一段）
要句：(甲) 可以「身相／相成就／相具足／勝相」見如來 · (乙) 如來所說身相即非身相 · (丙) 凡所有相皆是虛妄·若見諸相非相則見如來
| 版本 | 破相一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！於意云何？可以身相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。何以故？如來所說身相，即非身相。」佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來。」 | 0749a21–a25 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | 「於意云何？可以相成就見如來不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！不可以相成就得見如來。何以故？如來所說相，即非相。」佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是妄語。若見諸相非相，則非妄語。如是諸相非相，則見如來。」 | 0753a19–a23 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？可以身相勝德見如來不？」「不能，世尊！何以故？如來所說身相勝德，非相勝德。」「何以故？須菩提！凡所有相，皆是虛妄。無所有相，即是真實。由相無相，應見如來。」 | 0762b19–b23 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！相具足如來見應？」善實言：「不，世尊！相具足如來見應。彼何所因？若彼，如來相具足說；彼如是非相具足。」……世尊……如是言：「所有，善實！相具足，所有妄，所有不相具足，所有不妄，名此相不相如來見應。」 | 0767b01–b06 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 「於汝意云何？可以諸相具足觀如來不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不應以諸相具足觀於如來。何以故？如來說諸相具足即非諸相具足。」……佛復告……「乃至諸相具足皆是虛妄，乃至非相具足皆非虛妄，如是以相、非相應觀如來。」 | 0980b26–c02 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？可以具足勝相觀如來不？」妙生言：「不爾，世尊！不應以勝相觀於如來。何以故？如來說勝相，即非勝相。」「妙生！所有勝相，皆是虛妄。若無勝相，即非虛妄。是故應以勝相無相觀於如來。」 | 0772a29–b04 |
異文所繫：
- (甲)「身相」之譯名：羅什作「身相」，流支作「相成就」，真諦作「身相勝德」，笈多作「相具足」，玄奘作「諸相具足」，義淨作「具足勝相」。能斷系（笈多·玄奘·義淨）皆作「相具足／具足相」，與羅什、流支之「（身）相／相成就」異——此非異義，乃 lakṣaṇa-sampad（相之圓滿成就）一詞，諸相圓備之佛色身。古德判所指即佛之三相（生住滅）有為色身，非法身（見目四）。
- (乙)「即非身相」之單支：羅什「如來所說身相，即非身相」，流支「如來所說相，即非相」，玄奘「諸相具足即非諸相具足」，義淨「如來說勝相，即非勝相」——此分初現「X／即非X」之遣支單標（未具「是名X」之第三句立支，完式收於分十三·分二十六）。真諦獨作「非相勝德」（否定句，不用即非式），笈多作「彼如是非相具足」（梵序直譯）。
- (丙)「凡所有相皆是虛妄」之述成：六本皆有佛之述成，然句構分二系。羅什系（羅什·真諦·義淨）作「凡所有相皆是虛妄」＋一轉折立真（羅什止於「若見諸相非相則見如來」；真諦加「無所有相，即是真實」；義淨加「若無勝相，即非虛妄」）。流支獨作「皆是妄語……則非妄語」（以「妄語」對「虛妄」，世親 T1511 釋本同作「妄語」
[0782c14–15]）。玄奘作「諸相具足皆是虛妄，非相具足皆非虛妄」（虛妄／非虛妄相對而立，以相·非相觀如來）。羅什「諸相非相」之「相非相」對舉，玄奘明作「相、非相應觀如來」，義一。 - 「虛妄」一詞之三性指紋：「凡所有相皆是虛妄」之「虛妄」（mṛṣā／abhūta），窺基判有三義，第三義即「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」
[0133b17–18]——此即異譯「虛妄／妄語」與唯識「遍計所執」相通之文本指紋（見目三、目五）。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 加重）
「如來所說身相，即非身相」[0749a23]——此分「即非」之單支遣標；「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來」[0749a24–25]——破相之總綱。
本分尚無「X／即非X／是名X」之完式（完式密集於分十三）；此處「身相即非身相」乃遣遍計一支之單標，而「諸相非相則見如來」即由遣遍計而顯圓成：
- 身相（佛之生·住·滅三相色身）即遍計所執之相——分別心於佛身上執取有為之相為實佛、為可得之果（窺基述疑：「覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑……謂得有相之果」
[0133a24·a28]）。 - 即非身相即遣此遍計——三相之有為身非無相法身，離彼三相方是法身如來（窺基「法身無相是如來，故離彼三相，即是法身如來」
[0133b01–02]）。 - 若見諸相非相，則見如來即立圓成——於諸相上見其非相（非分別所執之實相），即見無為法身真如。此圓成一支於此分正面標出（前分三「實無眾生得滅度」尚屬隱攝），故曰破相之眼初成。
古德所本（窺基逕以三性釋「虛妄」）：此「即非映三性」之讀，古德已具其本——窺基《金剛般若經贊述》釋「凡所有相皆是虛妄」，明列虛妄三義，第三義「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」[0133b17–18]，並引「《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也」[0133b16–17]為第二義之證——即以辯中邊論「虛妄分別」釋此經之「虛妄」。是「即非」之遣，正遣遍計；「諸相非相」之見，正契依他圓成，古德先有此判（見目四）。
即非映三性之讀，見釋慧鏡《即非三段式映射唯識三性》（S5-P01）；本分為其於破相位（遣身相·顯法身）之一施，與古德三性釋「虛妄」相承。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 身相非法身 · 三相異體 · 加重）
核心 ——身相（三相有為色身）非如來（無為法身）；古德四家同歸此判，且世親、窺基逕以「三相異體」「虛妄三義」釋之。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 論偈 [0782c17–18]：
「分別有為體，防彼成就得，三相異體故，離彼是如來。」
釋曰：「若分別有為體是如來，以有為相為第一，以相成就見如來。為防彼相成就得如來身……如來名無為法身故。」[0782c19–23]「彼相成就即非相成就。何以故？三相異如來體故。」[0782c24–25]「此句顯有為虛妄故……示現彼處三相無故，相非相相對故，彼處生住滅異體不可得故，此句明如來體非有為故。」[0782c28–0783a01] 末判此分之斷疑歸宿：「菩薩如是知如來為佛菩提行於布施，彼菩薩不住於法行於布施，成如是斷疑故。」[0783a02–03]
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 論頌 [0875c22–23]：
「若將為集造，妙相非勝相，三相遷異故，無此謂如來。」
先標此分之疑 [0875c18–21]：「從此已後所有經文，皆為除遣後後疑惑……若不著於法而行施者，如何為求正覺勝果行惠施耶？」逐項錨經 [0875c24–0876a06]：「若謂如來是由施等因緣所造，於有為相中得最勝性者，便見如來有其勝相。若望如來真如之性，即無此勝相」；「三相之體是遷流故……由此勝相即非勝相」；「從因生法是虛假故無……由彼全無三種相故，由離此相即以無相為相」；「若於是處無生住滅變異之性可了知者，此顯如來不是有為造作之性因緣所成。」
〔二譯對位：分別有為體／集造妙相 · 三相異體／三相遷異 · 離彼是如來／無此謂如來——同一世親論之二漢譯，皆判「身相＝有為三相，非無為法身」。〕
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此分為十八住之第三「欲得色身」[0757b06–07]，八住攝為「欲住處……謂欲得色身、法身」[0758c02–03]。錨經「為欲得色身故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0757b22–23]。以五義（依義·說相·攝持·安立·顯現）配釋 [0760b17–b27]：「此為依義，顯示對治如來色身慢故」[0760b19]；「世尊說『須菩提！所有相具足者，彼為虛妄』，此即顯欲願……於第一義中，相具足為虛妄，非相具足為不虛妄」[0760b21–25]；「『如是諸相非相，應見如來』者，此為顯現……於彼相中非相見故」[0760b25–27]。
吉藏（三論）T1699：「『可以身相見如來不』下……此下第二、明無為法身之果。」[0104a09·a20–21] 判全經三章次第：「初章經明發菩提心，次章經明修菩薩行，今一章經辨得於佛道」[0104a25–27]；「若不識法身，則不能上求佛道也」[0104b02]。釋「身相」為三相：「不可以身相見如來者，不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身也」[0104c11–12]；「如來所說有三相者，即非身相……非是法身無為相也」[0104c17–18]。述成兩句明得失：「初句明失。凡有名相，皆是憶想而有，悉是虛妄……『若見諸法相非相』下，第二句明得。若見一切諸相非法身相，即是見法身」[0104c22–26]。
智顗（天台）T1698：「『可以身相見不』下，明願行皆無相為因，法身無色為無得果。」[0077c04–05]「如來身相即菩提果體，若識法身，菩提可登，若計性實，乖之遠矣，舉法身明菩提空也」[0077c07–09]；三身不可說，「那得以身相見如來」[0077c14–15]。釋述成句：「『凡所有相，皆是虛妄，若見非相見如來』者，非因非果，有因緣故可得言因，亦可言果……今只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相，若能如此，即見如來」[0077c17–21]。
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親科，此分起「廣破眾疑分」[0128b24–25]、「能斷道般若，所斷者謂二障」[0127c08–09]。釋疑之本：「若不住於相行布施者，所行之因既是無相，何故所得之果是有相耶？謂覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑也」[0133a22–24]。「『所說身相，即非身相』者，謂所說三相之身相者，即非是法身之無相也」[0133b07–08]。「虛妄」三義（即非三性之古德所本）：「『凡所有相，皆是虛妄』者，謂虛妄有三。一者、真如法身無生滅，故名為真實；諸餘事法，皆名虛妄……二者、諸無漏法皆名真實，諸有漏法皆名為虛妄。故《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也。三者、依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄，故此下文『我相即是非相』，乃至云『離一切諸相即名諸佛』也」[0133b13–19]。兼述無著十八住：「自下依無著釋者，此一段文即十八住處中第三為欲得色身住處也，於六種住處中第三欲住處」[0133b22–24]。
古德四家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸一判：「身相」＝佛之生·住·滅三相有為色身，「如來」＝無為法身真如；不可以有為色身見無相法身，於諸相見非相方見如來。世親（二譯）以「三相異體／三相遷異」立偈，窺基以「虛妄三義」逕通三性。此即本分「破相見如來」之古德定讀。
五、術語
身相／相成就／相具足／勝相 lakṣaṇa-sampad（相之圓滿成就；指佛之色身相好，能斷系作「具足相」，古德判即生·住·滅三相之有為色身）·
身相·法身 rūpa-kāya · dharma-kāya（色身有為·法身無為；古德「離彼三相，即是法身如來」窺基 [0133b01–02]）·
三相（生·住·滅）utpāda · sthiti · bhaṅga（有為法之三相；世親「三相異體故，離彼是如來」[0782c18]，義淨譯作「三相遷異」[0875c23]）·
虛妄／妄語 mṛṣā · abhūta（流支·世親 T1511 作「妄語」[0782c14]；窺基判虛妄三義，第三義即遍計所執 [0133b17–18]）·
相·非相 nimitta · animitta（玄奘作「以相、非相應觀如來」[0980c02]；古德「只以相為非相」智顗 [0077c20]）·
無為法身 asaṃskṛta-dharmakāya。〔梵文發音輔助；「身相」之漢譯異名見目二（能斷系「具足相」·真諦「身相勝德」）。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（破相無譬喻 · 修辭即遮詮與翻轉）
本分無譬喻（虛空喻在分四·須彌山喻在分十·六喻在分三十二）。修辭之要在遮詮與翻轉：先以一問一答遮（不可以身相見如來——遮「以相見佛」之執），復以「如來所說身相，即非身相」即遮即顯（不全否身相，乃否其為法身），終以佛之述成翻轉而立——「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」極言相之妄（遮之極），「若見諸相非相，則見如來」陡然翻為即妄見真（於虛妄相上見非相而見如來）。遮之盡與顯之立相形，破相之「破」與見如來之「立」一時並舉。此「即相破相、即破見真」之遮詮句法，正是後文密集即非式（分十三）之先聲。智顗「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」[0077c20–21]即點此遮詮非斷滅之要。此目於破相分輕，於譬喻分（分四 虛空、分二十六 法身非相、分三十二 六喻）加重。
七、互讀
- 三十頌（T1586）：三性·三無性（v.20–25；「身相即非身相」＝遍計所執非有、依他圓成非無，正三性之破立）；轉依（v.29 圓成實＝此分「見如來」之法身）。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯相品·虛妄分別（窺基釋此分「虛妄」逕引《中邊分別論》「三界虛妄，心、心所」
[0133b16–17]——此分「凡所有相皆是虛妄」之論本對應即在辯中邊「虛妄分別」一系）。 - 成唯識論（T1585）：三性·法身（遍計所執之相非有，圓成實之法身真如；「離三相見法身」之論本技術語）。
- 心經（T251）：「色不異空，空不異色」「是諸法空相」——於相見非相、即色見空，與本分「於諸相見非相則見如來」同一即相顯真之觀。
本分「身相即非身相」「諸相非相見如來」，即三十頌、成唯識論「三性·遍計所執非有·圓成法身」之經語對應；尤以窺基逕引辯中邊論「虛妄分別」釋本分「虛妄」一字，故辯中邊於本分有正面對位（異於分一·分三之從闕）。釋慧鏡命題「金剛經以經語說成唯識論以技術語說者」〔摘自《從百法到金剛》S5-P10〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」之破相 ↔ 西方現象學之「懸擱」（胡塞爾 epoché，懸置自然態度之實在設定）：西方以懸擱為認識論之方法（暫不判斷對象之實存）；古德／唯識以「相皆虛妄」為遣遍計所執之修證（非暫懸而是斷除分別實執），且懸擱之後唯餘現象之流，破相之後則顯圓成法身——遮之歸宿不同。
- 「若見諸相非相，則見如來」 ↔ 西方否定神學（via negativa，以否定一切屬性而趨近不可名之絕對）：西方以層層否定指向超越之神；古德以「於相見非相」即相而見法身真如（不離相別求），非否定之極而是即妄顯真——「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」（智顗
[0077c20–21]），此即東西之一可注。 - 身相（色身）非法身 ↔ 西方康德現象／物自身之分（Erscheinung / Ding an sich，現象可知、物自身不可知）：可對觀（三相色身如現象、無為法身如不可以相得之體）；然唯識之法身非「不可知之物自身」，乃轉依所證、無分別智所契之圓成真如，是可證而非僅設準。
- 對觀之要：西方傾向以破相為認識論之懸置或本體論之不可知（相之背後有不可達之實在）；古德以破相為三性之動轉與修證——遣遍計（身相即非）、顯圓成（諸相非相見如來），是轉依所成之見，非認識之限。懸置與轉依之別，正是東西之一可注。
- （本目為西方視角之對觀；經與唯識讀法始終為主，西方為旁參，非裁奪義理。具體文獻屬研究者考索之事。）
九、校本定位
羅什 T0235 [0749a21–a25]（原典 · 如理實見分）。六譯本破相一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0753a19–a23] · 真諦 T0237 [0762b19–b23] · 笈多 T0238 [0767b01–b06] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0980b26–0980c02] · 義淨 T0239 [0772a29–0772b04]。 科判／欲得色身本：無著 T1510 [0757b06–07·0757b22–23·0758c02–03·0760b17–b27] · 世親 T1511 [0782c11–0783a03] · 世親 T1513 [0875c18–0876a06]。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0104a09–b07·0104c09–c28] · 智顗 T1698 [0077c04–c21] · 窺基 T1700 [0127c07–c09·0128b24–25·0132c27–0133b27]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (breaking the mark)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 5, Seeing Truly, According to Principle |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | First half (the emptiness of beings · breaking the four marks · the affliction-hindrance; the eye of breaking marks to see the Tathāgata) |
| Dao'an's three-part schema | The main teaching (the prologue ends at division 1, the transmission part begins at division 32; this division lies in the main teaching) |
| Asaṅga's eighteen abodes, T1510 | The third abode, desiring to attain the form-body (the eighteen abodes, “third, desiring to attain the form-body” [0757b06–07]; the eight abodes subsume it as the “abode of desire” [0758c02–03]; the sūtra anchored at 「為欲得色身故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』」 [0757b22–23]) |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt of a markless cause attaining a marked fruit (「若不著於法而行施者，如何為求正覺勝果行惠施耶？」 T1513 0875c19–21) → answered by “the three marks are of a different substance from the Tathāgata” (T1511 0782c24–25) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699 | 「『可以身相見如來不』下……此下第二、明無為法身之果」 [0104a09·a20–21]; judges this passage distinguishing the Buddha-path (the cause of no-attainment → the fruit of the unconditioned Dharma-body) |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698 | 「『可以身相見不』下，明願行皆無相為因，法身無色為無得果」 [0077c04–05] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700 | following Vasubandhu's schema, 「『可以身相見如來不』下明斷疑，謂能斷道般若，所斷者謂二障」 [0127c07–09]; 「依世親科……二、『可以身相』下，廣破眾疑分」 [0128b24–25] |
Sense of breaking the mark: this division carries on after the preceding division 4's “markless non-abiding giving,” turning from giving into the contemplation of the Buddha-fruit. The Buddha asks, “can the Tathāgata be seen by bodily marks?” The three ancient-master lineages all read “bodily marks” as the Buddha's form-body (the conditioned body of the three marks: arising · abiding · ceasing) and “Tathāgata” as the unconditioned Dharma-body — hence one cannot see the markless Dharma-body by the form-body of the three marks (Jizang 「不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身」 [0104c11–12]; Kuiji 「法身無相是如來，故離彼三相，即是法身如來」 [0133b01–02]). Vasubandhu and Asaṅga both judge this the counteracting of the doubt of “the abode of desiring to attain the form-body”: when the bodhisattva cultivates, seeing the Buddha's three-mark form-body with its marks complete and desiring to attain it, the Buddha bars it, saying the three-mark body is not the Tathāgata (Kuiji recounting Asaṅga [0133b22–27]). The Buddha's confirming verse, 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來」, advances from “one cannot see by marks” further to universally stating that all marks are false, and that seeing marks as no-marks one then sees the Tathāgata — this is the whole sūtra's gist of breaking marks, from which the later breaking of the four marks (the first half) and breaking of the four views (the latter half) both open out. This division's “is-not” first takes form as a single branch (the bodily marks the Tathāgata speaks of is-not bodily marks, see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the breaking-the-mark passage)
Key clauses: (a) can the Tathāgata be seen by 「身相／相成就／相具足／勝相」 · (b) the bodily marks the Tathāgata speaks of is-not bodily marks · (c) whatever has marks is all false · if one sees marks as no-marks one then sees the Tathāgata
| Version | The breaking-the-mark passage (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！於意云何？可以身相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。何以故？如來所說身相，即非身相。」佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來。」 | 0749a21–a25 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 「於意云何？可以相成就見如來不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！不可以相成就得見如來。何以故？如來所說相，即非相。」佛告須菩提：「凡所有相，皆是妄語。若見諸相非相，則非妄語。如是諸相非相，則見如來。」 | 0753a19–a23 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？可以身相勝德見如來不？」「不能，世尊！何以故？如來所說身相勝德，非相勝德。」「何以故？須菩提！凡所有相，皆是虛妄。無所有相，即是真實。由相無相，應見如來。」 | 0762b19–b23 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！相具足如來見應？」善實言：「不，世尊！相具足如來見應。彼何所因？若彼，如來相具足說；彼如是非相具足。」……世尊……如是言：「所有，善實！相具足，所有妄，所有不相具足，所有不妄，名此相不相如來見應。」 | 0767b01–b06 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 「於汝意云何？可以諸相具足觀如來不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不應以諸相具足觀於如來。何以故？如來說諸相具足即非諸相具足。」……佛復告……「乃至諸相具足皆是虛妄，乃至非相具足皆非虛妄，如是以相、非相應觀如來。」 | 0980b26–c02 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？可以具足勝相觀如來不？」妙生言：「不爾，世尊！不應以勝相觀於如來。何以故？如來說勝相，即非勝相。」「妙生！所有勝相，皆是虛妄。若無勝相，即非虛妄。是故應以勝相無相觀於如來。」 | 0772a29–b04 |
What the variants turn on:
- (a) The rendering-name of “bodily marks”: Kumārajīva gives 「身相」, Bodhiruci 「相成就」, Paramārtha 「身相勝德」, Dharmagupta 「相具足」, Xuanzang 「諸相具足」, Yijing 「具足勝相」. The Able-to-Cut lineage (Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing) all give 「相具足／具足相」, differing from Kumārajīva's and Bodhiruci's 「（身）相／相成就」 — this is not a difference of sense but the one term lakṣaṇa-sampad (the fullness-and-perfection of marks), the Buddha's form-body with all marks complete. The ancient masters judge what it points to as the Buddha's three-mark (arising, abiding, ceasing) conditioned form-body, not the Dharma-body (see register 4).
- (b) The single branch of “is-not bodily marks”: Kumārajīva 「如來所說身相，即非身相」, Bodhiruci 「如來所說相，即非相」, Xuanzang 「諸相具足即非諸相具足」, Yijing 「如來說勝相，即非勝相」 — this division's first appearance of the single dispelling-branch mark of “X / is-not-X” (without the third establishing clause “是名X”; the full form closes at division 13 · division 26). Paramārtha alone gives 「非相勝德」 (a negative clause, not the is-not formula), Dharmagupta 「彼如是非相具足」 (a Sanskrit word-order calque).
- (c) The confirming statement “whatever has marks is all false”: all six versions have the Buddha's confirmation, but the sentence-structure splits into two systems. The Kumārajīva system (Kumārajīva · Paramārtha · Yijing) gives 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」 plus a turn establishing the true (Kumārajīva stopping at 「若見諸相非相則見如來」; Paramārtha adding 「無所有相，即是真實」; Yijing adding 「若無勝相，即非虛妄」). Bodhiruci alone gives 「皆是妄語……則非妄語」 (countering “虛妄” with “妄語,” the same as Vasubandhu's gloss-text T1511, which likewise gives 「妄語」
[0782c14–15]). Xuanzang gives 「諸相具足皆是虛妄，非相具足皆非虛妄」 (false / not-false set in opposition, contemplating the Tathāgata by marks · no-marks). Kumārajīva's juxtaposition of “marks · no-marks” in 「諸相非相」, Xuanzang makes explicit as 「相、非相應觀如來」, one in sense. - The three-natures fingerprint of the term “virtual-and-false”: the 「虛妄」 (mṛṣā / abhūta) of 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」, Kuiji judges to have three senses, the third being 「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」
[0133b17–18]— this is just the textual fingerprint by which the variant 「虛妄／妄語」 connects with the Yogācāra “wholly-imagined” (see registers 3 and 5).
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · weighted)
「如來所說身相，即非身相」 [0749a23] — this division's single-branch dispelling mark of the “is-not”; 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄；若見諸相非相，則見如來」 [0749a24–25] — the gist of breaking marks.
This division does not yet have the full “X / is-not-X / is called X” formula (which is dense at division 13); here 「身相即非身相」 is a single mark of the dispelling-of-the-imagined branch, and 「諸相非相則見如來」 is, by dispelling the wholly-imagined, the showing of the perfectly-accomplished:
- Bodily marks (the Buddha's arising · abiding · ceasing three-mark form-body) are the mark of the wholly-imagined — the discriminating mind grasps the conditioned marks upon the Buddha's body as a real Buddha, as an attainable fruit (Kuiji recounting the doubt: 「覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑……謂得有相之果」
[0133a24·a28]). - Is-not bodily marks is the dispelling of this wholly-imagined nature — the conditioned body of the three marks is not the markless Dharma-body; apart from those three marks is the Dharma-body Tathāgata (Kuiji 「法身無相是如來，故離彼三相，即是法身如來」
[0133b01–02]). - If one sees marks as no-marks, one then sees the Tathāgata is the establishing of the perfectly-accomplished — seeing upon all marks their no-mark (not the real mark grasped by discrimination) is to see the unconditioned Dharma-body suchness. This perfectly-accomplished branch is frontally marked out in this division (in the preceding division 3, 「實無眾生得滅度」 was still implicitly subsumed), and so it is said the eye of breaking marks first takes form.
The ancient-master basis (Kuiji glosses “virtual-and-false” directly by the three natures): this reading of “the is-not mapping the three natures” already has its basis among the ancient masters — Kuiji's Exposition of the Vajracchedikā Prajñā Sūtra, glossing 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」, sets out the three senses of virtual-and-falsity, the third being 「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」 [0133b17–18], and cites 「《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也」 [0133b16–17] as the proof of the second sense — that is, glossing this sūtra's “virtual-and-false” by the Madhyānta-vibhāga's “unreal imagining.” Thus the dispelling of the “is-not” is just the dispelling of the wholly-imagined; the seeing of “marks as no-marks” just accords with the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished — the ancient masters had this judgment first (see register 4).
The reading of the is-not as mapping the three natures: see Shi Huijing's The Mapping of the Threefold Is-Not Formula onto the Yogācāra Three Natures (S5-P01); this division is one application of it at the position of breaking marks (dispelling bodily marks · showing the Dharma-body), inheriting from the ancient masters' three-natures gloss of “virtual-and-false.”
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (the bodily marks is not the Dharma-body · the three marks of a different substance · weighted)
Core — the bodily marks (the three-mark conditioned form-body) is not the Tathāgata (the unconditioned Dharma-body); the four ancient-master lineages come alike to this judgment, and Vasubandhu and Kuiji gloss it directly by “the three marks of a different substance” and “the three senses of virtual-and-falsity.”
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's translation) the treatise-verse [0782c17–18]:
「分別有為體，防彼成就得，三相異體故，離彼是如來。」
Glossing: 「若分別有為體是如來，以有為相為第一，以相成就見如來。為防彼相成就得如來身……如來名無為法身故。」 [0782c19–23] 「彼相成就即非相成就。何以故？三相異如來體故。」 [0782c24–25] 「此句顯有為虛妄故……示現彼處三相無故，相非相相對故，彼處生住滅異體不可得故，此句明如來體非有為故。」 [0782c28–0783a01] And the closing judgment of this division's cutting-of-doubt: 「菩薩如是知如來為佛菩提行於布施，彼菩薩不住於法行於布施，成如是斷疑故。」 [0783a02–03]
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's translation) the treatise-stanza [0875c22–23]:
「若將為集造，妙相非勝相，三相遷異故，無此謂如來。」
First marking this division's doubt [0875c18–21]: 「從此已後所有經文，皆為除遣後後疑惑……若不著於法而行施者，如何為求正覺勝果行惠施耶？」 Each anchored to the sūtra [0875c24–0876a06]: 「若謂如來是由施等因緣所造，於有為相中得最勝性者，便見如來有其勝相。若望如來真如之性，即無此勝相」; 「三相之體是遷流故……由此勝相即非勝相」; 「從因生法是虛假故無……由彼全無三種相故，由離此相即以無相為相」; 「若於是處無生住滅變異之性可了知者，此顯如來不是有為造作之性因緣所成。」
〔Cross-correspondence of the two translations: 分別有為體／集造妙相 · 三相異體／三相遷異 · 離彼是如來／無此謂如來 — two Chinese renderings of the same Vasubandhu treatise, both judging “bodily marks = the conditioned three marks, not the unconditioned Dharma-body.”〕
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta's translation): this division is the third “desiring to attain the form-body” of the eighteen abodes [0757b06–07], the eight abodes subsuming it as the “abode of desire……desiring to attain the form-body and the Dharma-body” [0758c02–03]. The sūtra anchored at 「為欲得色身故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』如是等」 [0757b22–23]. He matches it by five senses (reliance-sense · stating-the-mark · upholding · establishing · manifesting) [0760b17–b27]: 「此為依義，顯示對治如來色身慢故」 [0760b19]; 「世尊說『須菩提！所有相具足者，彼為虛妄』，此即顯欲願……於第一義中，相具足為虛妄，非相具足為不虛妄」 [0760b21–25]; 「『如是諸相非相，應見如來』者，此為顯現……於彼相中非相見故」 [0760b25–27].
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: 「『可以身相見如來不』下……此下第二、明無為法身之果。」 [0104a09·a20–21] Judging the sequence of the three passages of the whole sūtra: 「初章經明發菩提心，次章經明修菩薩行，今一章經辨得於佛道」 [0104a25–27]; 「若不識法身，則不能上求佛道也」 [0104b02]. Glossing “bodily marks” as the three marks: 「不可以身相見如來者，不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身也」 [0104c11–12]; 「如來所說有三相者，即非身相……非是法身無為相也」 [0104c17–18]. The two clauses of the confirming statement, marking loss and gain: 「初句明失。凡有名相，皆是憶想而有，悉是虛妄……『若見諸法相非相』下，第二句明得。若見一切諸相非法身相，即是見法身」 [0104c22–26].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: 「『可以身相見不』下，明願行皆無相為因，法身無色為無得果。」 [0077c04–05] 「如來身相即菩提果體，若識法身，菩提可登，若計性實，乖之遠矣，舉法身明菩提空也」 [0077c07–09]; the three bodies are unspeakable, 「那得以身相見如來」 [0077c14–15]. Glossing the confirming clauses: 「『凡所有相，皆是虛妄，若見非相見如來』者，非因非果，有因緣故可得言因，亦可言果……今只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相，若能如此，即見如來」 [0077c17–21].
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu's schema, this division begins the “division of broadly breaking the multitude of doubts” [0128b24–25], 「能斷道般若，所斷者謂二障」 [0127c08–09]. The basis of the doubt: 「若不住於相行布施者，所行之因既是無相，何故所得之果是有相耶？謂覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑也」 [0133a22–24]. 「『所說身相，即非身相』者，謂所說三相之身相者，即非是法身之無相也」 [0133b07–08]. The three senses of “virtual-and-false” (the ancient-master basis of the is-not mapping the three natures): 「『凡所有相，皆是虛妄』者，謂虛妄有三。一者、真如法身無生滅，故名為真實；諸餘事法，皆名虛妄……二者、諸無漏法皆名真實，諸有漏法皆名為虛妄。故《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也。三者、依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄，故此下文『我相即是非相』，乃至云『離一切諸相即名諸佛』也」 [0133b13–19]. He also recounts Asaṅga's eighteen abodes: 「自下依無著釋者，此一段文即十八住處中第三為欲得色身住處也，於六種住處中第三欲住處」 [0133b22–24].
The four ancient-master streams (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) on this division come alike to one judgment: “bodily marks” = the Buddha's arising · abiding · ceasing three-mark conditioned form-body, “Tathāgata” = the unconditioned Dharma-body suchness; one cannot see the markless Dharma-body by the conditioned form-body, and only on seeing no-marks upon all marks does one see the Tathāgata. Vasubandhu (two translations) establishes the verse by “the three marks of a different substance / the three marks shifting and changing,” and Kuiji connects it directly to the three natures by “the three senses of virtual-and-falsity.” This is the settled ancient-master reading of this division's “breaking marks to see the Tathāgata.”
5 · Terminology
身相／相成就／相具足／勝相 lakṣaṇa-sampad (the fullness-and-perfection of marks; pointing to the Buddha's form-body's excellent marks, the Able-to-Cut lineage giving “具足相,” the ancient masters judging it the conditioned form-body of the arising · abiding · ceasing three marks) ·
身相·法身 rūpa-kāya · dharma-kāya (the conditioned form-body · the unconditioned Dharma-body; the ancient masters' 「離彼三相，即是法身如來」 Kuiji [0133b01–02]) ·
三相 (arising · abiding · ceasing) utpāda · sthiti · bhaṅga (the three marks of conditioned dharmas; Vasubandhu 「三相異體故，離彼是如來」 [0782c18], Yijing's translation giving 「三相遷異」 [0875c23]) ·
虛妄／妄語 mṛṣā · abhūta (Bodhiruci · Vasubandhu T1511 give 「妄語」 [0782c14]; Kuiji judges three senses of virtual-and-falsity, the third being the wholly-imagined [0133b17–18]) ·
相·非相 nimitta · animitta (Xuanzang gives 「以相、非相應觀如來」 [0980c02]; the ancient masters' 「只以相為非相」 Zhiyi [0077c20]) ·
無為法身 asaṃskṛta-dharmakāya. 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; for the rendering variant-names of “身相,” see register 2 (the Able-to-Cut lineage's “具足相” · Paramārtha's “身相勝德”).〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (breaking marks has no simile · the rhetoric is apophasis and reversal)
This division has no simile (the empty-space simile is in division 4 · the Mount Sumeru simile in division 10 · the six similes in division 32). The point of the rhetoric lies in apophasis and reversal: first, with one question and one answer, an apophasis (the Tathāgata cannot be seen by bodily marks — barring the clinging of “seeing the Buddha by marks”), then, with 「如來所說身相，即非身相」, an at-once-apophatic-at-once-disclosing (not wholly denying bodily marks, but denying that they are the Dharma-body), and finally, with the Buddha's confirming statement, a reversing establishment — 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」 the utmost statement of the falsity of marks (the height of apophasis), 「若見諸相非相，則見如來」 abruptly reversing into seeing the true upon the false (upon false marks seeing no-marks, and thereby seeing the Tathāgata). The exhaustion of apophasis and the establishment of disclosure set off one another; the “breaking” of breaking marks and the “establishing” of seeing the Tathāgata are upheld at one stroke. This apophatic syntax of “breaking marks upon marks, seeing the true upon the breaking” is the forerunner of the later dense is-not formula (division 13). Zhiyi's 「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」 [0077c20–21] points to just this — that the apophasis is not annihilation. This register is light in the breaking-the-mark division, and weighted in the simile divisions (division 4 empty space, division 26 the Dharma-body is not a form, division 32 the six similes).
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the three natures · the three non-natures (v.20–25; 「身相即非身相」 = the wholly-imagined non-existent, the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished non-non-existent, just the breaking-and-establishing of the three natures); the transformation of the basis (v.29 the perfectly-accomplished = this division's “seeing the Tathāgata,” the Dharma-body).
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on distinguishing marks · unreal imagining (Kuiji glosses this division's “virtual-and-false” by citing directly 《中邊分別論》「三界虛妄，心、心所」
[0133b16–17]— the treatise-correspondence of this division's 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」 lies in the Madhyānta-vibhāga's “unreal imagining” system). - Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the three natures · the Dharma-body (the wholly-imagined mark non-existent, the perfectly-accomplished Dharma-body suchness; the technical-language treatise-basis of “seeing the Dharma-body apart from the three marks”).
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「色不異空，空不異色」 「是諸法空相」 — seeing no-marks upon marks, seeing emptiness upon form, the same contemplation of disclosing the true upon marks as this division's “seeing no-marks upon all marks, one then sees the Tathāgata.”
This division's 「身相即非身相」 「諸相非相見如來」 are the sūtra-language correspondence of the Thirty Verses' and Cheng weishi lun's “the three natures · the wholly-imagined non-existent · the perfectly-accomplished Dharma-body”; in particular, because Kuiji glosses this division's one word “virtual-and-false” by citing directly the Madhyānta-vibhāga's “unreal imagining,” the Madhyānta-vibhāga has a frontal correspondence on this division (unlike the leaving-out at divisions 1 and 3). Shi Huijing's thesis, “the Diamond Sūtra says in sūtra-language what the Cheng weishi lun says in technical language” 〔drawn from From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond, S5-P10〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- The breaking-of-marks of “whatever has marks is all false” ↔ the Western phenomenology of the “bracketing” (Husserl's epoché, suspending the natural attitude's positing of reality): the West takes bracketing as an epistemological method (provisionally suspending judgment on the object's existence); the ancient masters / Yogācāra take “all marks are false” as the dispelling of the wholly-imagined in cultivation-realization (not a provisional suspension but the cutting-off of discriminative real-clinging), and after bracketing only the stream of phenomena remains, whereas after breaking marks the perfectly-accomplished Dharma-body is disclosed — the destination of the apophasis differs.
- “If one sees marks as no-marks, one then sees the Tathāgata” ↔ Western negative theology (via negativa, approaching the unnameable absolute by denying all attributes): the West, by layer upon layer of negation, points toward a transcendent God; the ancient masters, by “seeing no-marks upon marks,” see the Dharma-body suchness upon the marks themselves (not seeking apart from marks), not the extreme of negation but the disclosing of the true upon the false — 「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」 (Zhiyi
[0077c20–21]), this being one note worth marking between East and West. - Bodily marks (the form-body) is not the Dharma-body ↔ the Western Kantian division of phenomenon / thing-in-itself (Erscheinung / Ding an sich, the phenomenon knowable, the thing-in-itself unknowable): this may be set side by side (the three-mark form-body as phenomenon, the unconditioned Dharma-body as a substance not to be had by marks); yet the Yogācāra Dharma-body is not an “unknowable thing-in-itself” but the perfectly-accomplished suchness realized in the transformation of the basis and accorded with by non-discriminating wisdom — it is realizable, not merely a postulate.
- The point of the observation: the West tends to take breaking marks as an epistemological suspension or an ontological unknowability (behind the marks an unreachable reality); the ancient masters take breaking marks as the dynamic turning of the three natures and cultivation-realization — dispelling the wholly-imagined (bodily marks is-not), disclosing the perfectly-accomplished (seeing the Tathāgata upon marks as no-marks), a seeing accomplished in the transformation of the basis, not a limit of cognition. Suspension versus the transformation of the basis is itself one note worth marking between East and West.
- (This register is a Western-perspective observation; the scriptural and Yogācāra reading remains throughout the principal one, the West a secondary reference, not an adjudication. The specific literature is a matter for the researcher's inquiry.)
9 · Manuscript Placement
Kumārajīva T0235 [0749a21–a25] (root · Seeing Truly, According to Principle). For the [loc] of the six versions' breaking-the-mark passage, see register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0753a19–a23] · Paramārtha T0237 [0762b19–b23] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0767b01–b06] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0980b26–0980c02] · Yijing T0239 [0772a29–0772b04]. Sectioning / desiring-the-form-body texts: Asaṅga T1510 [0757b06–07·0757b22–23·0758c02–03·0760b17–b27] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0782c11–0783a03] · Vasubandhu T1513 [0875c18–0876a06]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0104a09–b07·0104c09–c28] · Zhiyi T1698 [0077c04–c21] · Kuiji T1700 [0127c07–c09·0128b24–25·0132c27–0133b27].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 5 · Seeing Truly, According to Principle · apparatus · Spring 2026