金剛般若波羅蜜經 分六 正信希有分
須菩提替後世人問了一句心裡話：這麼深的無相之教，等如來滅度了、到了那衰惡的後五百歲，還會有人聽了真信嗎？佛先說「莫作是說」，隨即翻過來說「有」——有持戒修福、在無量佛所種過善根的人，哪怕一念生起清淨的信，如來都看得見。要緊的是，這信不是盲信，是一分隨順無相而起的智：信的人，心裡已沒有「我、人、眾生、壽者」這四種相，也不再執取「有法」的相，連「沒有法」的相都不執取。「無法相，亦無非法相」——這一句把兩邊都遣了：執法為實，是把心變的影當成心外的東西；把真實撥成空無，又落到另一頭。兩邊一放下，中道才現。佛末了打個比方：我說的法，像渡河的筏，到了岸尚且要放下，何況那些根本不是法的東西。原來連最該信、最該持的法，也是為了渡你過河，不是要你抱著筏不肯上岸。能在這樣的話裡生信的人，難怪佛說「希有」。
Subhūti voices the unspoken worry of people in ages to come: a teaching of marklessness this deep—once the Tathāgata has passed into cessation, in that final five hundred years of decline, will there still be anyone who hears it and truly believes? The Buddha first says 「莫作是說」(Do not speak so), then turns it over and says: there will—there will be those who keep the precepts and cultivate merit, who have planted roots of goodness with measureless buddhas; should even a single thought of pure faith arise in them, the Tathāgata sees it. What matters is that this faith is no blind faith, but a measure of wisdom that arises in accord with marklessness: in the one who has such faith, the four marks of 「我、人、眾生、壽者」(self, person, being, life-span) are already gone from the mind, and he no longer grasps the mark of "there is a dharma," nor even the mark of "there is no dharma." 「無法相，亦無非法相」(no mark of dharma, and also no mark of no-dharma)—this one line clears both extremes: to grasp dharmas as real is to take the reflections cast by the mind for things lying outside it; to dismiss the real as sheer nothing is to fall to the other side. With both extremes set down, the Middle Way at last appears. The Buddha closes with a simile: the Dharma I teach is like a raft for crossing the river—once you reach the far shore even the raft is to be let go, how much more whatever is not the Dharma at all. So it turns out that even the Dharma most worth believing, most worth holding, is there to ferry you across, not for you to clutch the raft and refuse to step ashore. No wonder the Buddha calls one who can give rise to faith amid such words 「希有」(rare).
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 6 · Right Faith Is Rare · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕善現問：後世頗有生實信者否
經曰：
須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，得聞如是言說章句，生實信不？」佛告須菩提：「莫作是說。如來滅後後五百歲，有持戒修福者，於此章句能生信心，以此為實，當知是人不於一佛二佛、三、四、五佛而種善根，已於無量千萬佛所種諸善根。
須菩提對佛說：「世尊！會有眾生，聽到這樣的言說章句，生起真實的信心嗎？」佛告訴須菩提：「不要這樣說。如來滅度以後、到了後五百歲那衰惡的時候，仍會有持守戒律、修積福德的人，對這樣的章句能夠生起信心，並把它當作真實的道理。要知道，這樣的人，不是只在一尊佛、兩尊佛、三尊四尊五尊佛那裡種下善根，而是早已在無量千萬尊佛那裡種下了種種善根。
〔二〕一念淨信，如來悉知悉見，得無量福德
經曰：
聞是章句，乃至一念生淨信者，須菩提！如來悉知悉見是諸眾生得如是無量福德。何以故？是諸眾生無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相。
這樣的人聽到這些章句，哪怕只是一念之間生起清淨的信心——須菩提！如來都完全知道、完全看見，這些眾生因此得到這樣無量的福德。為什麼呢？因為這些眾生心裡，已經不再有『我』的相、『人』的相、『眾生』的相、『壽者』的相了。
〔三〕無法相，亦無非法相
經曰：
「無法相，亦無非法相。何以故？是諸眾生若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者。「若取法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。何以故？若取非法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。
「他們也不再執取『法』的相，也不執取『沒有法』的相。為什麼呢？因為這些眾生如果心裡一執取相，就是執著了『我、人、眾生、壽者』。如果執取『有法』的相，也就是執著了『我、人、眾生、壽者』。又為什麼呢？如果執取『沒有法』的相，同樣是執著了『我、人、眾生、壽者』。
〔四〕不應取法不應取非法·筏喻
經曰：
是故不應取法，不應取非法。以是義故，如來常說：『汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。』
所以，不應當執取『有法』，也不應當執取『沒有法』。正因為這個道理，如來常常說：『你們眾比丘，要明白我所說的法，就像渡河用的筏一樣——連我所說的法，到了岸都尚且應當捨下，何況那些不是法的東西呢？』
〔1〕Subhūti asks: in a later age, will there be any who give true faith?
The sūtra says:
須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，得聞如是言說章句，生實信不？」佛告須菩提：「莫作是說。如來滅後後五百歲，有持戒修福者，於此章句能生信心，以此為實，當知是人不於一佛二佛、三、四、五佛而種善根，已於無量千萬佛所種諸善根。
Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, will there be beings who, hearing words and lines such as these, give rise to true faith?" The Buddha told Subhūti: "Do not say so. Even after the Tathāgata has passed away, in the last five hundred years of decline, there will still be those who keep the precepts and cultivate merit, who can give rise to faith in lines such as these and take them as true. Know that such a person has not planted roots of goodness with just one Buddha, or two, three, four, or five Buddhas, but has long since planted every kind of root of goodness with measureless thousands upon thousands of Buddhas.
〔2〕A single thought of pure faith — the Tathāgata fully knows and sees it; the merit is measureless
The sūtra says:
聞是章句，乃至一念生淨信者，須菩提！如來悉知悉見是諸眾生得如是無量福德。何以故？是諸眾生無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相。
Such a person, on hearing these lines, gives rise to pure faith even in a single thought — and Subhūti, the Tathāgata fully knows and fully sees that these beings thereby gain measureless merit like this. Why? Because in the minds of these beings there is no longer any mark of a self, mark of a person, mark of a being, or mark of a life-span.
〔3〕No mark of dharma, and no mark of non-dharma
The sūtra says:
「無法相，亦無非法相。何以故？是諸眾生若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者。「若取法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。何以故？若取非法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。
"They no longer grasp the mark of 'dharma,' nor do they grasp the mark of 'no-dharma.' Why? Because if the mind of these beings grasps at any mark, that is to cling to self, person, being, and life-span. If one grasps the mark of 'there is a dharma,' that too is to cling to self, person, being, and life-span. And why again? If one grasps the mark of 'there is no dharma,' that likewise is to cling to self, person, being, and life-span.
〔4〕One should grasp neither dharma nor non-dharma · the raft simile
The sūtra says:
是故不應取法，不應取非法。以是義故，如來常說：『汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。』
"Therefore one should not grasp at 'there is a dharma,' nor grasp at 'there is no dharma.' It is for just this reason that the Tathāgata often says: 'You monks, understand that the Dharma I teach is like a raft for crossing a river — even the Dharma I teach is to be let go once the far shore is reached, how much more so what is not the Dharma.'"
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 6 · Right Faith Is Rare · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、三無性、二取二障來照金剛經的「無法相·亦無非法相」與筏喻。
本分的眼：問「誰能信」，破「所信之法」
前一分（分五）剛說過「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」，把「相」一概破了。須菩提就接著起一個很實在的疑：無相的因、無相的果，這道理既然這麼深，到了如來滅度以後、後五百歲那衰惡的時候，還真有眾生聽了能生起真實信心嗎？這一問，正問在「無相之教，惡世誰信」的關口上。佛先以「莫作是說」遮住，隨即翻轉說「有」——有持戒修福的人，曾在無量佛所種過善根，所以能信。
這一分有兩條線。一條是「能信之人」：什麼樣的人能信無相之教。一條是「所信之法」：信的這個法，本身又須破去「法相」。古德判這一分，世親說它在破第二疑——「無相因得無相果，惡世誰能信」之疑；無著判它是「欲得言說法身」的住處（要證無相法身，先得藉言說的教法起信）。用唯識的眼讀，這一分最要緊的，是它頭一次把「破相」推到了「法相」這一層——前面破的是「我相」，這裡開始破「法相」。
能信之人：於依他的教法上，起隨順無相的智
佛說能信的人「持戒修福」，曾於無量千萬佛所種諸善根，乃至一念生淨信。這「實信」是什麼樣的信？古德讀得很細：不是世俗一念的情感託付，而是「能起智，順其無相因果」（窺基），智顗也說它是「無所得信」——是一種隨順無相之理而起的智，不是盲信。
用唯識看，這信之所以能起，正落在「依他起」上。佛所說的言說章句（修多羅、教法），是依緣而立、緣生宛然的教——這是依他起。能信的人，在這依他的教法上起隨順之智：不把它執成「心外實有一個法」（那就是遍計），也不把它撥成「一無所有」（那就落了損減）。不執實、不撥無，正契合無相的因果。所以「信」在這裡不是信仰一個對象，是於緣起的教上、起一分不落兩邊的智。能有這分智，是因為善根久植——不是一佛二佛，是無量千萬佛所種來的資糧。
無四相：先破人我執，遣的是煩惱障
佛說這些眾生「無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相」。這一句，是承前一分破「我相」而來。用唯識說，把五蘊和合的身心當成一個實在的「我」，這是人我執；它障礙解脫，叫煩惱障。「若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者」——只要心一取相，就墮回這人我執裡去了。所以「無四相」遣的，是這層人我執、煩惱障。這是本分破執的前一步；緊接著，就要往更細的「法相」推進了。
「無法相，亦無非法相」：一句之內，遍計圓成各歸其位
本分的眼，落在這一句：「無法相，亦無非法相。」這是金剛經「即非」的一個變式——不作「X、即非X、是名X」的完整三段，而作「無……亦無……」的雙遣。窺基逐句以三性釋之，兩邊各遣一執，正好遣盡遍計、顯出圓成。
順著看：
- 「無法相」＝遣遍計所執：凡夫把「法」執成心外實有的東西——窺基說這是「執法我為有」。遍計所執就是這樣一層妄計：把心所變現的影，當成心外實在的法。既然通達它本是空、法體並非實有，這層妄執就立不住了，所以說「無法相」——無的是那個被執為實有的法相。這是遣增益（不把無的執成有）。
- 「亦無非法相」＝顯圓成實：另有一種人，矯枉過正，把圓成實的真實也一概撥成「沒有」——窺基說這是「撥圓成而是無」，落到了損減的一邊。可是有智慧的人了知：圓成實是有的，二無我之理是真實有的（窺基「二無我理是實有」）。所以也「無非法相」——無的是那層「把圓成撥為空無」的執。這是遣損減（不把有的撥成無）。
兩邊一遣，妙處就出來了：「無法相」遣掉遍計的「實有」，「亦無非法相」遣掉損減的「空無」；兩執雙遣，正契中道。 窺基把這層說得最透：「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我……雙無二執故即契中道，故云『無法相，亦無非法相』者，離二執也。」般若用一個「空」字總說這雙遣，唯識則用三無性點明這「空」到底空的是什麼：遍計所執是相無性（它的相本來就無）、依他起是生無性（它沒有自然而生的自性，只依他緣起）、圓成實是勝義無性（它是離一切遍計的勝義）。所以「無法相」空的是遍計那一層，並不是把依他、圓成也一併抹掉；「亦無非法相」正是要你別把圓成也空掉。
世親一偈把這四句法相收得乾淨：「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種。」「一切空無物」——人法二我俱無（遍計空）；「實有」——二無我理的體並非沒有（圓成有）；「不可說」——這實有之理不可執言為有為無；「依言辭而說」——雖不可說，仍依言相而宣。羅什的本子在這裡只顯了兩句（「無法相、亦無非法相」），另兩句「無相、亦非無相」隱在後文「不取法、不取非法」裡；窺基逕為補足，說「無相」是二無我理不可言宣，「亦非無相」是於無言處仍依言而說——這就是「依言離言」。
從破我相到破法相：法執起處，所知障隨之而現
把這一分放回全經來看，它是一個過渡的關口。前面破「四相」，遣的是人我執、煩惱障；這裡破「法相」，遣的是法我執。把心所變的種種法當成心外實有，這是法我執；它障礙成佛的遍知，叫所知障。窺基點出二者的牽連：「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」——取了法相（法執）在先，著我著人（煩惱）隨之而起。所以破法相，正是斷所知障的開端。
這也就接上了全經後半的伏脈：到分十三「即非」密集連發、分十七「通達無我、法」明說二無我、斷二障、轉依，即非之所遣，便由「人我」一路推進到「法我」，成了完整的兩重無我。本分這一句雙遣，是這條線的起點。
筏喻：教法是渡河的筏，藉言而證，證則捨言
佛末後引一個老譬喻收束：「知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。」既然不應取法、也不應取非法，那如來說的這個「法」，又該怎麼安頓？答案在筏喻裡。
筏是渡河的工具，到了岸就該放下。佛所說的法（言說的教、修多羅），正是這樣一具渡河的筏。用唯識說，這一捨一藉，正是「依言離言」的次第——窺基說得明白：「將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用也。」要證那無相的真如（圓成），先得藉言說的教法（依他）起信、起修；可是到了真正親證的時候，言說就用不上了，如同到岸捨筏。
要緊的是：捨的是什麼？捨的是「把教法執成實有可取」的那層遍計，不是捨掉教法本身的緣起妙用——筏渡了河才捨，沒渡河之前正要用它。所以「法尚應捨，何況非法」：連佛所說的正法，到頭尚且要捨去那層執，何況那些本不是法的邪見、空見（更是遍計，更該捨）。世親把這一捨配在「得證智捨法」上，正是從藉教到證真的這一轉——這在唯識便是轉依的方向：捨遍計之執取，轉得圓成之真如。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識從金剛經流出——三性、三無性、二障二取之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本（辯中邊、成唯識），般若另是一系；而是同一「遣執而存實相」之旨，金剛經以經語（無法相·亦無非法相·筏喻）說，唯識以論語（遍計／圓成·三無性·二障）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌以「遍計種種物」說所遣的法相之遍計、以「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」說那不可撥為無的圓成，正是本分「無法相·遣遍計、亦無非法相·顯圓成」的論本對應；辯中邊論辨三性之虛實、辨二空，與這一句雙遣相印；成唯識論說遍計所執與圓成實、說「法執現行則煩惱障隨起」，正是窺基讀本分二障相生的技術語。般若一系的心經「是諸法空相，不生不滅……無智亦無得」，諸法空而不撥為無，與本分「無法相（空遍計）·亦無非法相（不撥圓成）」同是一個不落空有之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「無法相，亦無非法相」，成唯識論以「遣遍計所執·顯圓成實·離二執」的技術語說的，是同一件事〔此一會通，釋慧鏡《從百法到金剛》（S5-P10）已明其旨〕。
Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, and the two graspings and two hindrances, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark” and the simile of the raft.
The Eye of This Division: Asking “Who Can Believe,” Breaking “the Dharma Believed In”
The previous division (5) had just said 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」, whatever has marks is all false, breaking “marks” wholesale. Subhūti then raises a very concrete doubt: the cause markless, the fruit markless — this principle being this deep, when the Tathāgata has passed into nirvāṇa and the latter five hundred years, that age of decline and evil, has come, will there yet truly be beings who, hearing it, can give rise to real faith? This question asks at the very pass of “a markless teaching — in an evil age, who believes?” The Buddha first blocks it with 「莫作是說」, “do not say so,” and at once turns to say “there are” — there are those who keep the precepts and cultivate merit, who have planted roots of good in the presence of measureless Buddhas, and so can believe.
This division has two threads. One is “the person who can believe”: what kind of person can believe a markless teaching. The other is “the dharma believed in”: the dharma here believed must itself have its “dharma-mark” broken. The ancient masters judge this division thus: Vasubandhu says it breaks the second doubt — the doubt that “a markless cause attains a markless fruit; in an evil age, who can believe?”; Asaṅga judges it the abode of “wishing to attain the dharma-body of speech” (要證無相法身，先得藉言說的教法起信, to realize the markless dharma-body, one must first, by the verbal teaching, give rise to faith). Read through the Yogācāra eye, what matters most in this division is that it for the first time pushes the “breaking of marks” onto the layer of the “dharma-mark” — what was broken before was the “mark of self”; here it begins to break the “mark of dharmas.”
The Person Who Can Believe: Upon the Dependently-Arisen Teaching, Giving Rise to a Wisdom That Accords with Marklessness
The Buddha says the one who can believe “keeps the precepts and cultivates merit,” has planted roots of good in the presence of measureless thousands and tens of thousands of Buddhas, even to a single thought of pure faith. What kind of faith is this “real faith”? The ancient masters read finely: it is not a worldly one-thought entrustment of feeling, but 「能起智，順其無相因果」 (able to give rise to wisdom, according with the markless cause and fruit — Kuiji); Zhiyi too calls it 「無所得信」, “faith of nothing attained” — a wisdom that arises in accord with the principle of marklessness, not blind belief.
Seen through Yogācāra, the reason this faith can arise lands precisely upon “依他起.” What the Buddha speaks — the verbal chapters and lines (the sūtra, the teaching) — is a teaching set up in reliance on conditions, vividly arisen from conditions: this is 依他起. The one who can believe gives rise, upon this dependently-arisen teaching, to a wisdom that accords: neither clinging it into “a dharma really existing outside the mind” (which would be the wholly-imagined), nor dismissing it as “nothing whatsoever” (which would fall into denial). Not clinging it as real, not dismissing it as void — this accords precisely with markless cause and fruit. So “faith” here is not faith in an object, but, upon the conditionally-arisen teaching, the giving rise to a measure of wisdom that falls into neither extreme. That one can have this measure of wisdom is because the roots of good are long planted — not one Buddha or two, but the provisions planted in the presence of measureless thousands and tens of thousands of Buddhas.
No Four Marks: First Breaking the Clinging to a Personal Self — What Is Removed Is the 煩惱障
The Buddha says these beings 「無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相」, have no further mark of self, of person, of being, of life-span. This line comes carried from the previous division’s breaking of the “mark of self.” In Yogācāra’s terms, to take the body-and-mind, the conjunction of the five aggregates, for a real “self” is the clinging to a personal self (人我執); it obstructs liberation and is called the 煩惱障. 「若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者」 (if the mind grasps marks, it then clings to self, person, being, life-span) — so soon as the mind grasps a mark, it falls back into this clinging to a personal self. So what “no four marks” removes is this layer of the clinging to a personal self, the 煩惱障. This is the prior step of breaking clinging in this division; immediately after, it must push onward to the finer “dharma-mark.”
“No Dharma-Mark, Nor Any Non-Dharma-Mark”: Within One Line, the Wholly-Imagined and the Truly-Perfected Each to Its Place
The eye of this division falls upon this line: 「無法相，亦無非法相」, no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark. This is a variant of the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not” — not the full three-phrase form “X / is-not X / is named X,” but the twofold removal (雙遣) of “no… nor….” Kuiji explains it phrase by phrase through the three natures, each side removing one clinging, removing the wholly-imagined clean and showing forth the perfectly-accomplished.
Following along:
- “No dharma-mark” = removing 遍計所執: the ordinary person clings “dharmas” into things really existing outside the mind — Kuiji says this is 「執法我為有」, clinging the dharma-self as existing. 遍計所執 is just such a layer of deluded reckoning: taking the reflection transformed by mind for dharmas really existing outside the mind. Since one penetrates that it is at root empty, the dharma-substance not really existing, this deluded clinging cannot stand — so it says “no dharma-mark”: what is “no” is that dharma-mark clung as really existing. This is the removing of superimposition (不把無的執成有, not clinging what is non-existent into existent).
- “Nor any non-dharma-mark” = showing 圓成實: there is another sort who, over-correcting, dismiss the very reality of 圓成實 wholesale as “nonexistent” — Kuiji says this is 「撥圓成而是無」, dismissing the perfectly-accomplished as nothing, falling to the side of denial. But the wise one knows: 圓成實 exists; the principle of the two non-selves is really existent (Kuiji: 「二無我理是實有」, the principle of the two non-selves is really existent). So also “no non-dharma-mark”: what is “no” is that layer of “dismissing the perfectly-accomplished as void.” This is the removing of denial (不把有的撥成無, not dismissing what is existent into non-existent).
With both sides removed, the wonder comes out: “no dharma-mark” removes the wholly-imagined’s “really existent,” “nor any non-dharma-mark” removes the denier’s “void”; the two clingings both removed, it precisely accords with the Middle Way. Kuiji states this layer most penetratingly: 「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我……雙無二執故即契中道，故云『無法相，亦無非法相』者，離二執也」 (to cling the dharma-self as existing is also to cling self and person; to cling the perfectly-accomplished as nonexistent is also to cling person and self… both the two clingings absent, it accords with the Middle Way; thus to say “no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark” is to leave the two clingings). Prajñā states this twofold removal with the single word “empty” (空); Yogācāra, by the three non-natures, points out what this “empty” empties: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (the non-nature of marks — its mark is from the first non-existent), 依他起 is 生無性 (the non-nature of arising — it has no self-nature of arising of itself, only dependent co-arising), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (the non-nature of ultimate meaning — it is the ultimate apart from all imputation). So “no dharma-mark” empties that layer of the wholly-imagined, not erasing the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished along with it; “nor any non-dharma-mark” is precisely the warning not to empty the perfectly-accomplished too.
Vasubandhu’s one verse gathers these four dharma-marks clean: 「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種」 — “all empty, no thing” (the two selves of person and dharma both absent — the wholly-imagined empty); “really existent” (the substance of the principle of the two non-selves is not nonexistent — the perfectly-accomplished existent); “unsayable” (this really-existent principle cannot be clung in speech as existent or nonexistent); “spoken in reliance on words” (though unsayable, it is yet proclaimed in reliance on verbal marks). Kumārajīva’s text here shows only two phrases (“no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark”), the other two — “no mark, nor non-mark” — lying hidden in the later 「不取法、不取非法」 (grasping neither dharma nor non-dharma); Kuiji directly fills them out, saying “no mark” is the principle of the two non-selves being unutterable, “nor non-mark” being, in the place of no-words, still proclaiming in reliance on words — and this is “relying on words yet apart from words” (依言離言).
From Breaking the Mark of Self to Breaking the Dharma-Mark: Where the Dharma-Clinging Arises, the 所知障 Appears with It
Set this division back into the whole sūtra, and it is a transitional pass. Before, it broke the “four marks,” removing the clinging to a personal self, the 煩惱障; here it breaks the “dharma-mark,” removing the clinging to a dharma-self. To take the various dharmas transformed by mind for things really existing outside the mind is the clinging to a dharma-self (法我執); it obstructs the omniscience of Buddhahood and is called the 所知障. Kuiji points out the linkage of the two: 「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」 (because there is the active manifestation of the dharma-clinging, the 煩惱障 arises following upon it) — grasping the dharma-mark (dharma-clinging) coming first, the clinging to self and person (defilement) arises following upon it. So breaking the dharma-mark is precisely the beginning of cutting off the 所知障.
This too links up with the hidden vein of the latter half of the sūtra: at Division 13 the “is-not”s fire densely in succession, and at Division 17 “penetrating the non-self of person and of dharmas, cutting off the two hindrances, 轉依” is plainly stated — what the “is-not” removes pushes, from “personal self,” all the way onward to “dharma-self,” becoming the complete twofold non-self. This division’s one line of twofold removal is the starting point of that thread.
The Simile of the Raft: the Teaching Is a Raft for Crossing the River — by Words One Realizes; Realizing, One Forsakes the Words
The Buddha closes by citing an old simile: 「知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法」, know that my teaching of the Dharma is like the simile of the raft — the Dharma is still to be forsaken, how much more what is not Dharma. Since one should grasp neither dharma nor non-dharma, how then is this “Dharma” the Tathāgata speaks to be settled? The answer is in the simile of the raft.
A raft is a tool for crossing the river; reaching the shore, one should set it down. The Dharma the Buddha speaks (the verbal teaching, the sūtra) is just such a raft for crossing. In Yogācāra’s terms, this forsaking-and-relying is precisely the sequence of “relying on words, apart from words” (依言離言) — Kuiji says it plainly: 「將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用也」 (about to realize the real, one must rely on speech; come to the right realization, one borrows no words — as the raft reaching the shore is then of no use). To realize that markless 真如 (the perfectly-accomplished), one must first, by the verbal teaching (the other-dependent), give rise to faith and to practice; but at the moment of true direct realization, speech is of no use, as one reaching the shore forsakes the raft.
What matters is: what is forsaken? What is forsaken is the layer of 遍計所執 that “clings the teaching as really existent and graspable,” not the forsaking of the teaching’s own dependently-arisen wondrous use — the raft is forsaken once the river is crossed; before crossing, it is just what one needs. So “the Dharma is still to be forsaken, how much more what is not Dharma”: even the true Dharma the Buddha speaks must, in the end, have that layer of clinging forsaken — how much more those false views and views-of-emptiness which are at root not Dharma (still more the wholly-imagined, still more to be forsaken). Vasubandhu sets this forsaking under “the wisdom of realization forsakes the dharma” (得證智捨法), exactly this turn from relying on the teaching to realizing the real — and in Yogācāra this is the direction of 轉依: forsaking the grasping-clinging of the wholly-imagined, turning toward the real of the perfectly-accomplished 真如.
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 flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, the three non-natures, the two hindrances and two graspings have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Madhyānta-vibhāga, the Cheng weishi lun); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same purport of “removing the clinging yet keeping the real mark” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (no dharma-mark · nor any non-dharma-mark · the simile of the raft), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計 / 圓成 · the three non-natures · the two hindrances); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, by 「遍計種種物」 (the wholly-imagined reckoning various things), speak the wholly-imagined of the dharma-mark to be removed, and by 「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」 (the perfectly-accomplished, with respect to it, is ever apart from the prior nature), speak that perfectly-accomplished which is not to be dismissed as void — exactly the treatise-correspondence of this division’s “no dharma-mark · removing the wholly-imagined, nor any non-dharma-mark · showing the perfectly-accomplished.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the falseness and reality of the three natures, discerns the two emptinesses, sealing with this line of twofold removal. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of 遍計所執 and 圓成實, and of 「法執現行則煩惱障隨起」 (the dharma-clinging being active, the 煩惱障 arises following) — precisely the technical terms of Kuiji’s reading of the two hindrances arising in succession in this division. The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「是諸法空相，不生不滅……無智亦無得」 — dharmas empty yet not dismissed as void — is, with this division’s “no dharma-mark (empty the wholly-imagined) · nor any non-dharma-mark (do not dismiss the perfectly-accomplished),” one and the same gate falling into neither emptiness nor existence. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「無法相，亦無非法相」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “removing 遍計所執 · showing 圓成實 · leaving the two clingings” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 6 · Right Faith Is Rare · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分六 正信希有分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 前半（眾生空·破四相·煩惱障；信無相因果之門） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 般若正觀（第一周·破相之後明信） |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 第四住 欲得法身之「欲得言說法身」（「為欲得言說法身住處故，經言『頗有眾生，於未來世』」[0760b27–28]；八住攝之為「欲住處」＝欲得色身·法身 [0758c02]） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「無相因得無相果，惡世誰能信」之疑（破第二疑 T1700 0133c06；T1511 偈「不空以有實，菩薩三德備」[0783b06]／T1513 偈「因與果甚深，於彼惡時說，此非無利益，由三菩薩殊」[0876a12–13]） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「『佛告須菩提』下，此第二章明如來答……『如來滅後後五百歲』下，此第二、明有信答。就文大開七別」[0105b13–20] |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『頗有』下，第二明信者行深。文為三，一、明行深，二、釋，三、引證」[0077c21–22] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依世親「破第二疑」[0133c06]；依無著為「第四欲得法身住處」之「欲得言說法身」[0133c19–27] |
信義：此分承前分（分五「凡所有相皆是虛妄」破相）而問：無相之因果既深，後五百歲惡世頗有能生實信者乎？佛答有「持戒修福」（羅什）／「持戒修福德智慧」（流支）／「具戒具德具慧」（玄奘·義淨）之菩薩，曾於無量佛所種善根，故能於此無相章句生實信。古德判此分之歸趣有二脈：無著（達摩笈多譯 T1510）判為十八住中第四「欲得法身」住處之「欲得言說法身」——欲證無相法身，先起四親近行（近善友·聞·思·修），故先求言說法身（修多羅教）；世親（T1511 流支·T1513 義淨）則以三德（戒·福／福德·慧）統「菩薩三德備」，明惡世非無信者。即非一式於本分非作「X／即非X／是名X」之完式，而以「無法相·亦無非法相」之雙遣密現（見目三）。本分既明「能信之人」，復破「所信之法」之四相（法相·非法相·相·非相），引筏喻結「法尚應捨，何況非法」，正是由我空（前破四相）通向法空（破法相）之過渡。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 信一段）
要句：頗有眾生生實信 / 後五百歲正法滅時 / 持戒修福（具戒具德具慧）/ 無四相 / 無法相亦無非法相（四句）/ 不取法不取非法 / 筏喻
| 版本 | 信一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，得聞如是言說章句，生實信不？」佛告須菩提：「莫作是說。如來滅後後五百歲，有持戒修福者，於此章句能生信心，以此為實……是諸眾生無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相。無法相，亦無非法相。何以故？是諸眾生若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者。若取法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。何以故？若取非法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。是故不應取法，不應取非法。以是義故，如來常說：『汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。』」 | 0749a26–b11 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | ……「於未來世末世，得聞如是修多羅章句，生實相不？」……「有未來世末世，有菩薩摩訶薩，法欲滅時，有持戒修福德智慧者，於此修多羅章句，能生信心……是諸菩薩，無復我相、眾生相、人相、壽者相。是諸菩薩，無法相，亦非無法相。無相，亦非無相……不應取法，非不取法。以是義故，如來常說栰喻法門，是法應捨，非捨法故。」 | 0753a24–b16 |
| 真諦 T237 | ……「於今現時及未來世，頗有菩薩聽聞正說如是等相此經章句，生實想不？」……「於未來世，後五百歲，正法滅時，有諸菩薩摩訶薩，持戒修福及有智慧……是諸菩薩無法想非無法想，無想非無想。何以故？……是故菩薩不應取法，不應取非法。為如是義故，如來說：『若觀行人，解筏喻經，法尚應捨，何況非法。』」 | 0762b24–c15 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | ……「頗有眾生，當有未來世……後分五百，正法破壞時中，轉時中……實想發生當有？」……「當有未來世，菩薩摩訶薩，後分五百，正法破壞時中，轉時中，戒究竟、功德究竟、智慧究竟……菩薩摩訶薩，法想轉，無法想轉；不亦彼等，想、無想轉不……菩薩摩訶薩法取應，不非法取應。彼故此義意，如來說筏喻，法本解法，如是捨應，何況非法。」 | 0767b07–c03 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | ……「頗有有情於當來世，後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時，聞說如是色經典句生實想不？」……「有菩薩摩訶薩於當來世……具足尸羅、具德、具慧……彼菩薩摩訶薩無法想轉、無非法想轉，無想轉亦無非想轉……不應取法，不應取非法，是故如來密意而說筏喻法門。諸有智者法尚應斷，何況非法！」 | 0980c03–28 |
| 義淨 T239 | ……「頗有眾生，於當來世，後五百歲，正法滅時，聞說是經，生實信不？」……「當來之世，有諸菩薩，具戒具德具慧……彼諸菩薩，非法想，非非法想，非想，非無想。何以故？……是故菩薩，不應取法，不應取非法。以是義故，如來密意宣說筏喻法門，諸有智者，法尚應捨，何況非法。」 | 0772b04–21 |
異文所繫：
- 「生實信／生實想／生實相」：羅什作「生實信」
[0749a27]、義淨同[0772b06]；流支作「生實相」[0753a25]、玄奘·真諦·笈多作「生實想／實想發生」（玄奘0980c05·真諦0762b26·笈多0767b10）。信／相／想之異，繫於「生實信」是起隨順智、以無相為實（窺基「『生實想』者，謂能起智，順其無相因果」[0133c16–18]），非世俗之信仰，故古德皆以「淨信」「無所得信」「無相為淨信」釋之（智顗[0078a07]）。 - 後五百歲：羅什作「如來滅後後五百歲」
[0749a28]；流支作「於未來世末世……法欲滅時」[0753a24·a28]；真諦作「後五百歲，正法滅時」[0762c01]；笈多作「後分五百，正法破壞時」[0767b08–09]；玄奘最詳作「後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時」[0980c03–04]；義淨作「後五百歲，正法滅時」[0772b05]。古德於「後五百歲」有二判：吉藏取《大智度論》明五百歲已後（正法滅、入像法之衰世）[0105b25–29]，智顗取「從六百至一千，亦云最後五百」[0078a03–04]，窺基取《月藏經》五五百年之第三五百（多聞堅固）後、正法滅時[0134a17–24]——三家皆讀為惡世猶有信者，以況現世。 - 三德：羅什但「持戒修福」（二德）
[0749a28]；流支「持戒修福德智慧」、真諦「持戒修福及有智慧」、笈多「戒究竟、功德究竟、智慧究竟」、玄奘「具足尸羅、具德、具慧」、義淨「具戒具德具慧」（皆三德）。世親偈「菩薩三德備」[0783b06]、窺基「三德者，謂戒、定、慧學」[0133c13]——羅什之「修福」，餘本析為「德（福德）」與「慧」，故成三。 - 四句法相：六本全具四句式（法相·非法相·相·非相）——羅什略作「無法相，亦無非法相」
[0749b05–06]（二句顯，二句隱於「不取法、不取非法」）；流支足作「無法相，亦非無法相。無相，亦非無相」[0753b10–11]，真諦「無法想非無法想，無想非無想」[0762c10–11]，玄奘「無法想轉、無非法想轉，無想轉亦無非想轉」[0980c21–22]，義淨「非法想，非非法想，非想，非無想」[0772b15–16]，笈多「法想轉，無法想轉……想、無想轉不」[0767b25–26]。世親判此「依八八義別」（人四·法四，破之為八八）[0783b20·b23–25]；羅什之略，古德補足為四（吉藏「若依論經，人空之中有於四句，法空之中亦有四句」[0106b26–28]；窺基逕補「此中更應云『無相，亦非無相』」[0134c21–22]）。此四句正是「破法相」之文本指紋——能信之人破我相（人空），所信之法破法相（法空），引向後分（分十七起）之「破法見」。 - 不取法·筏喻·法尚應捨：羅什「不應取法，不應取非法……如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法」
[0749b09–11]；流支「不應取法，非不取法……是法應捨，非捨法故」[0753b14–16]；玄奘獨於「筏喻」前加「密意」（「如來密意而說筏喻法門」[0980c27]）、結作「法尚應斷」（餘本作「捨」）；義淨同加「密意」（「如來密意宣說筏喻法門」[0772b20]）。「密意」之有無，繫於世親義淨譯所釋之「一筏之上有其取捨，故名為密」（T1513[0876c14–15]，見目四）。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 加重）
「是諸眾生……無法相，亦無非法相」[0749b05–06]——此分「即非」之變式：非「X／即非X／是名X」之完式，而作「無法相·亦無非法相」之雙遣。 古德（窺基）逐句以三性釋之，正是本書「即非映三性」之古德所本：
- 「無法相」＝遣遍計所執：窺基「『無法相』者，謂凡情妄執執法我為有名為法相；既達為空，知法體而非實，故云無法相，無其所執實有法相故」
[0134c16–18]。執法我為有（遍計），既達為空，故無法相——此即遣遍計所執。 - 「亦無非法相」＝顯圓成實：窺基「『亦無非法相』者，謂愚者妄情撥圓成而是無，名非法相，空無有體故；智者了此圓成是有，故無非法相，無其所執為空相故。二無我理是實有」
[0134c18–21]。撥圓成為無（落損減邊），智者了圓成是有，故無「非法相」——此即顯圓成實。 - 依他起隱於「能信之人」：能信者於緣生章句（依他）起隨順智，「達二空理，不著空、有」（窺基
[0134a03]）——依他幻有之教（修多羅）為起信之所緣，不執為實（非遍計）、不撥為無（非損減），即依他不離圓成。
雙遣即中道·二空：窺基結之曰「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我。取是執義，雙無二執故即契中道，故云『無法相，亦無非法相』者，離二執也」[0135a05–07]。又補第三、四句「無相，亦非無相」釋「依言離言」：「無相」者，二無我理不可言宣為有為無；「亦非無相」者，於無言處依言相說[0134c22–28]。世親偈括之「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種」[0783c08–09]——「一切空無物」（人法二我無）、「實有」（二無我理體非無）、「不可說」（不可言有無）、「依言辭而說」（依言離言）。
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「破法相·我空轉法空」過渡位之一施。 前破四相（我空·遣人我之遍計），此破法相（法空·遣法我之遍計、顯圓成），即非之所遣由「人我」漸向「法我」推進；後半（分十三即非密集·分十七法空）乃成完式。本分「無法相·亦無非法相」之雙遣，並繫「二障」之讀：窺基「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」[0135a15–16]——法執（取法相）為所知障之本，我執（著我人）為煩惱障之相，破法相即斷所知障之始〔此即§17 二分前半煩惱障·後半所知障讀法之微縮先聲，參分十七目四〕。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 三性·三德 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——窺基（唯識）以三性逐句釋「無法相·亦無非法相」，世親（二譯）以三德讀「能信之人」。
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親判此「破第二疑」——「上來既說行無相因得無相果，義既甚深……佛滅度後一切眾生……不生信心，如來是不成空說耶？……為破此疑，故佛答云，未來有菩薩備三德者，曾已積集善根，故能生實想，亦不空說」[0133c05–12]。三德＝戒定慧三學，又開為三：「一者、修行，謂具三學；二者、逢善友，謂值諸佛；三者、離空、有執，謂證二無我理」[0133c13–15]。依無著科，判此分為「第四欲得法身住處」之「欲得言說法身」——「上為修行求證色身，佛言有相虛妄，法身是實，因此便求法身無相，將欲證其無相，先起四親近行，謂近善知識、從彼求聞、思惟、修習，故先欲得言說法身也」[0133c23–27]。「無法相·亦無非法相」之三性釋見目三 [0134c16–21]。結成筏喻：「此釋第二依言離言相也。『不應取法』者，不應如聲取法，謂不如言而取故；『不應取非法』者，隨順第一義智正說……此結成筏喻也。謂將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用也」[0135a20–27]。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 偈 [0783b05–06]：
「說因果深義，於彼惡世時，不空以有實，菩薩三德備。」
釋曰：「彼惡世時，菩薩具足持戒功德智慧故，能生信心。以此義故，名不空說」[0783b07–08]。又偈「彼壽者及法，遠離於取相，亦說知彼相，依八八義別」[0783b19–20]——明菩薩離壽者相（人空·四種）、離法相（法空·四種），破之為八八。法相四種偈：「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種」[0783c08–09]；釋「有可取、能取一切法無故，言無法相。以無物故，彼法無我，空實有故，言亦非無法相」[0783c11–13]。栰喻偈「如人捨船栰，法中義亦然」[0784a29]，釋「得證智捨法故，如到彼岸捨栰故」[0784b01–02]。
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 偈 [0876a12–13]：
「因與果甚深，於彼惡時說，此非無利益，由三菩薩殊。」
釋「縱於末代而有菩薩具戒、具德、具慧，由此說法果利不虛」[0876a14–15]。具戒具德＝「於先佛所為持戒故，而行恭敬承事及為種諸善根」（偈「由於先佛所，奉持於戒學，并植善根故，名具戒具德」[0876a16–17]）；具慧＝斷我想四·法想四（偈「能斷於我想，及以法想故，此名為具慧，二四殊成八」[0876a22–23]）。法想四：「一、法想；二、無法想；三、想；四、無想……此謂能取所取諸法皆無故，法想不生，即無法想。彼之非有法無自性，空性有故非無法想」[0876b05–07]。實想＝「由具慧者不如言而取，及由隨順勝義智故，取為正說故，名為實想」[0876b16–18]。筏喻偈「證不住於法，為是隨順故，猶如捨其筏，是密意應知」[0876c10–11]，釋「一筏之上有其取捨，故名為密」[0876c14–15]——此即玄奘·義淨譯「密意」之所本。
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：判此分為十八住之「第四欲得法身」住處之「欲得言說法身」——「為欲得言說法身住處故，經言『頗有眾生，於未來世於如是修多羅句說』等」[0760b27–28]；八住攝之為「欲住處」[0758c02]。釋「實想」對治五種邪取（外道·內法凡夫聲聞·增上慢菩薩·世間共想定·無想定）[0760c15–22]；釋「不應取法、非法」：「於法體及法無我並不分別故」[0761a08–09]；釋栰喻：「法尚應捨者，實想生故；何況非法者，理不應故」[0761a11–12]。
吉藏（三論）T1699：判「明有信答……就文大開七別：第一、明信之時節；第二、明能信之人；第三、明所信之法；第四、正出信心；第五、明信之所由；第六、明信之利益；第七、廣釋信義」[0105b17–21]。「後五百歲」取《大智度論》「五百歲已後」（正法滅、入像法之衰世）[0105b25–29]。「無法相，無非法相」＝第二句明法空：「雖不見我，猶見有五陰之法，故今明亦無法相。五陰之法既無，五陰本無，名為非法，空病亦空，故云無非法相」[0106b16–19]；判同《淨名》三空（眾生空·法空·空病亦空）[0106b20–22]。四句法相「一者、法相；二者、非法相；三者、相；四者、非相，此四是病也」[0106c01–02]，逐句破（陰界入不可得→無法相；空病亦空→無非法相；不可謂涅槃還是有無相→無相；無說而說→非無相）[0106c04–16]。筏喻引《阿含》「取草為栰度於彼岸，既至彼岸則便捨筏……以法捨人，以空捨有；次則人法兩除，空有雙淨」[0107a11–17]。
智顗（天台）T1698：判「第二明信者行深。文為三，一、明行深，二、釋，三、引證」[0077c21–22]。「淨信，無所得信也，無相者為淨信」[0078a07]。法空但兩句：「次列法空，但有兩句，法、非法也。今言法者，說五陰空為法，五陰相為非法，即以陰空為藥名法，陰有為病名非法，陰病既除，空藥亦遣，非法既謝，在法亦亡」[0078a21–24]；歸中道：「持戒為法，破戒為非法，次若持、若犯並非法，非持非犯為法，是中道義，此信達中道，離有無二邊，乃信此經耳」[0078a24–27]。筏喻「譬欲濟河，搆筏自運，既登彼岸，棄筏而去……道法尚捨，而況非法？初以善捨惡，後則俱捨」[0078b01–04]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同明「破法相·顯法空」：吉藏判第二句法空（《淨名》三空）、智顗判法空兩句歸中道、窺基逐句配三性（遣遍計·顯圓成·依言離言）。世親二譯（流支·義淨）以三德（戒·福德·慧）讀「能信之人」，無著判為「欲得言說法身」。此即本分「信無相·破法相」之古德定讀。
五、術語
實信／實想／實相 bhūta-saṃjñā（生實信＝起隨順智·以無相為實；窺基「謂能起智，順其無相因果」[0133c16–18]，智顗「無所得信」[0078a07]）·
後五百歲（paścimāyāṃ pañcaśatyāṃ；正法將滅時；古德三判見目二）·
持戒修福（具戒具德具慧 śīla-guṇa-prajñā；世親「三德」＝戒定慧 [0133c13]）·
法相／非法相 dharma-saṃjñā／adharma-saṃjñā（四句法相之初二；窺基配遍計·圓成 [0134c16–21]）·
遍計所執／圓成實（窺基「凡情妄執執法我為有」＝遍計，「智者了此圓成是有」＝圓成 [0134c16–21]）·
筏喻 kola-upama（栰喻；法尚應捨，玄奘·義淨作「密意」ābhiprāyika；世親「一筏之上有取捨，故名為密」T1513 [0876c14–15]）。〔梵文發音輔助；四句法相之漢譯異名見目二（流支「無相亦非無相」·玄奘「無想轉亦無非想轉」·義淨「非想非無想」）。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（筏喻 · 較量結構亦現）
筏喻 [0749b10–11]：「如來常說：『汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。』」
- 喻體：筏（栰）——渡河之具，到岸則捨。
- 喻依：佛之說法（修多羅·言說法身）——藉教悟理之具，正證則不假言。
- 所顯唯識義：法（教·正法）尚應捨，何況非法（邪見·遍計）。古德三家同讀為雙捨之喻：以法捨人、以空捨有（取筏度河），既至彼岸則人法兩除、空有雙淨（捨筏）（吉藏
[0107a14–17]、智顗「初以善捨惡，後則俱捨」[0078b03–04]、窺基「將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用」[0135a25–27]）。玄奘·義淨之「密意」即點此「一筏之上有取捨」之雙義（世親 T1513[0876c14–15]）。
修辭之要：本分先以「問端反顯」起——善現問「頗有眾生生實信不」，佛以「莫作是說」遮之（吉藏「遮無答」[0105b15]），復以「莫作是說」之後陡轉為「有」，以遮顯立，反激出「惡世猶有信者」之希有。次以「較量結構」隱現：「不於一佛二佛三四五佛種善根，已於無量千萬佛所種諸善根」[0749b01–02]——以「一二三四五」之少與「無量千萬」之多相形，反顯能信者善根之深、所信法之希有（正信「希有」分名所本）。終以筏喻之捨收束，全而即捨，與前破相（分五）、後破法（分十三起）之即非式呼應。此目於本分以筏喻一喻為重（與分四虛空·分二十六法身非相·分三十二六喻同屬譬喻加重之列）。
七、互讀
- 三十頌（T1586）：二空·遍計所執／圓成實（v.20「由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物」＝法相之遍計；v.21「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」＝無非法相之圓成）；本分「無法相·亦無非法相」即三性「遣遍計·顯圓成」之經語對應。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·三性·二空（「無法相」遣遍計、「亦無非法相」顯圓成，即三性虛實之辯）；本分窺基「雙無二執故即契中道」之論本對位〔見目三〕。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：遍計所執性·圓成實性·二執二障（「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我」＝法執·我執之論本技術語；「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」＝二障相生〔見目三〕）。
- 心經（T251）：「是諸法空相，不生不滅……無智亦無得」——諸法空相而不撥為無，與本分「無法相（空）·亦無非法相（不撥圓成為無）」同一不落空有之門。
本分「無法相·亦無非法相」，即三十頌、辯中邊論、成唯識論「遍計／圓成·三性」之經語對應；「不取法不取非法」即心經「無智亦無得」之不落空有。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。攝大乘論於本分無正面對位，從闕；成唯識論 起草中，穩定名引俟成增鏈。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 筏喻·「法尚應捨」 ↔ 西方維特根斯坦《邏輯哲學論》之「梯子」喻（攀梯既上則須棄梯；命題為消解之具，悟後當捨）：可對觀——二者皆以言說／命題為自我消解之工具；然唯識／古德之「捨筏」非僅棄一無用之梯，乃「將欲證真必因言說，及其正證即不假言」（窺基
[0135a25–27]）之轉依次第——藉教（言說法身·依他）悟理（證得法身·圓成），捨者捨遍計之執取，非捨教之緣起妙用。玄奘·義淨之「密意」（一筏取捨雙存）正點此非純棄之雙運。 - 「無法相·亦無非法相」之雙遣 ↔ 西方解構（德里達之「既非在場亦非缺席」）與否定神學（via negativa）：西方多讀為靜態之邏輯雙否定（懸置一切肯定）；唯識讀為三性之動轉——「無法相」遣遍計（破增益）、「亦無非法相」顯圓成（破損減），雙遣之後有「二無我理是實有」（窺基
[0134c21]）之立，非純否定之懸置。此東西之別，正一可注之義。 - 「生實信」之信 ↔ 西方宗教哲學之「信仰」（fides；克爾凱郭爾之信仰跳躍）：西方多讀「信」為理性之外的意志決斷或情感託付；古德讀「實信」為起隨順智、以無相為實（窺基「謂能起智，順其無相因果」
[0133c16–18]、智顗「無所得信」[0078a07]）——是智之信，非情之信，根於善根久植（不於一佛種善根）之修證資糧，非一念之跳躍。 - 後五百歲·正法滅時 ↔ 西方宗教史之「末世論」（eschatology）：可對觀其「衰世猶有少數真信者」之結構；然古德之「後五百歲」非預言末日，乃以惡世況現世（吉藏「未來是惡世……尚信波若，況現世之人」
[0105b11–13]），是激信之修辭，非歷史之斷言。 - （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 [0749a26–b11]（原典 · 正信希有分）。六譯本信一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0753a24–b16] · 真諦 T0237 [0762b24–c15] · 笈多 T0238 [0767b07–c03] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0980c03–28] · 義淨 T0239 [0772b04–21]。 科判／釋論本：無著 T1510 [0757b23–26·0758c02·0760b27–0761a13] · 世親 T1511 [0783a05–0784b03] · 世親 T1513 [0876a07–c15]。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0105b04–0107a28] · 智顗 T1698 [0077c21–0078b04] · 窺基 T1700 [0133c05–0135b10]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 6, Right Faith Is Rare |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | First half (the emptiness of beings · breaking the four marks · the affliction-hindrance; the gate of faith in the markless cause-and-fruit) |
| Dao'an's three-part schema | The main teaching · prajñā's right contemplation (the first round · making clear faith after breaking marks) |
| Asaṅga's eighteen abodes, T1510 | The “desiring to attain the verbal Dharma-body” of the fourth abode, desiring to attain the Dharma-body (「為欲得言說法身住處故，經言『頗有眾生，於未來世』」 [0760b27–28]; the eight abodes subsume it as the 「欲住處」 = desiring to attain the form-body · the Dharma-body [0758c02]) |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt “a markless cause attaining a markless fruit — who in the evil age can believe” (breaking the second doubt T1700 0133c06; T1511 verse 「不空以有實，菩薩三德備」 [0783b06] / T1513 verse 「因與果甚深，於彼惡時說，此非無利益，由三菩薩殊」 [0876a12–13]) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699 | 「『佛告須菩提』下，此第二章明如來答……『如來滅後後五百歲』下，此第二、明有信答。就文大開七別」 [0105b13–20] |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698 | 「『頗有』下，第二明信者行深。文為三，一、明行深，二、釋，三、引證」 [0077c21–22] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700 | following Vasubandhu's “breaking the second doubt” [0133c06]; following Asaṅga as the “fourth abode of desiring to attain the Dharma-body” of “desiring to attain the verbal Dharma-body” [0133c19–27] |
Sense of faith: this division carries on after the preceding division (division 5, 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」 breaking marks) and asks: the markless cause-and-fruit being so profound, in the evil age of the latter five hundred years are there any who can give rise to true faith? The Buddha answers that there are bodhisattvas who 「持戒修福」 (Kumārajīva) / 「持戒修福德智慧」 (Bodhiruci) / 「具戒具德具慧」 (Xuanzang · Yijing), who, having planted good roots at the place of measureless Buddhas, can give rise to true faith in these markless passages. The ancient masters judge this division's import along two lines: Asaṅga (Dharmagupta's translation T1510) judges it the fourth “abode of desiring to attain the Dharma-body” of the eighteen abodes, “desiring to attain the verbal Dharma-body” — desiring to realize the markless Dharma-body, one first arouses the four practices of close approach (drawing near a good friend · hearing · pondering · cultivating), and so first seeks the verbal Dharma-body (the sūtra-teaching); Vasubandhu (Bodhiruci T1511 · Yijing T1513) subsumes “the bodhisattva endowed with three virtues” by the three virtues (precepts · merit / merit-virtue · wisdom), making clear that the evil age is not without those who believe. The is-not formula in this division is not the full “X / is-not-X / is called X,” but appears densely as the dual dispelling of 「無法相·亦無非法相」 (see register 3). This division, having made clear “the person who can believe,” further breaks “the dharma that is believed” of its four marks (dharma-mark · non-dharma-mark · mark · no-mark), and draws the raft simile to conclude “the dharma should still be abandoned, how much more the non-dharma” — just the passage from the emptiness of self (the prior breaking of the four marks) toward the emptiness of dharmas (breaking the dharma-mark).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the faith passage)
Key clauses: are there beings who give rise to true faith / the latter five hundred years when the true Dharma is perishing / keeping precepts and cultivating merit (endowed with precepts, virtue, wisdom) / no four marks / no dharma-mark and no non-dharma-mark (the four clauses) / grasping neither dharma nor non-dharma / the raft simile
| Version | The faith passage (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，得聞如是言說章句，生實信不？」佛告須菩提：「莫作是說。如來滅後後五百歲，有持戒修福者，於此章句能生信心，以此為實……是諸眾生無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相。無法相，亦無非法相。何以故？是諸眾生若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者。若取法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。何以故？若取非法相，即著我、人、眾生、壽者。是故不應取法，不應取非法。以是義故，如來常說：『汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。』」 | 0749a26–b11 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | ……「於未來世末世，得聞如是修多羅章句，生實相不？」……「有未來世末世，有菩薩摩訶薩，法欲滅時，有持戒修福德智慧者，於此修多羅章句，能生信心……是諸菩薩，無復我相、眾生相、人相、壽者相。是諸菩薩，無法相，亦非無法相。無相，亦非無相……不應取法，非不取法。以是義故，如來常說栰喻法門，是法應捨，非捨法故。」 | 0753a24–b16 |
| Paramārtha T237 | ……「於今現時及未來世，頗有菩薩聽聞正說如是等相此經章句，生實想不？」……「於未來世，後五百歲，正法滅時，有諸菩薩摩訶薩，持戒修福及有智慧……是諸菩薩無法想非無法想，無想非無想。何以故？……是故菩薩不應取法，不應取非法。為如是義故，如來說：『若觀行人，解筏喻經，法尚應捨，何況非法。』」 | 0762b24–c15 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | ……「頗有眾生，當有未來世……後分五百，正法破壞時中，轉時中……實想發生當有？」……「當有未來世，菩薩摩訶薩，後分五百，正法破壞時中，轉時中，戒究竟、功德究竟、智慧究竟……菩薩摩訶薩，法想轉，無法想轉；不亦彼等，想、無想轉不……菩薩摩訶薩法取應，不非法取應。彼故此義意，如來說筏喻，法本解法，如是捨應，何況非法。」 | 0767b07–c03 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | ……「頗有有情於當來世，後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時，聞說如是色經典句生實想不？」……「有菩薩摩訶薩於當來世……具足尸羅、具德、具慧……彼菩薩摩訶薩無法想轉、無非法想轉，無想轉亦無非想轉……不應取法，不應取非法，是故如來密意而說筏喻法門。諸有智者法尚應斷，何況非法！」 | 0980c03–28 |
| Yijing T239 | ……「頗有眾生，於當來世，後五百歲，正法滅時，聞說是經，生實信不？」……「當來之世，有諸菩薩，具戒具德具慧……彼諸菩薩，非法想，非非法想，非想，非無想。何以故？……是故菩薩，不應取法，不應取非法。以是義故，如來密意宣說筏喻法門，諸有智者，法尚應捨，何況非法。」 | 0772b04–21 |
What the variants turn on:
- “Giving rise to true faith / true perception / true reality”: Kumārajīva gives 「生實信」
[0749a27], Yijing the same[0772b06]; Bodhiruci gives 「生實相」[0753a25], Xuanzang · Paramārtha · Dharmagupta give 「生實想／實想發生」 (Xuanzang0980c05· Paramārtha0762b26· Dharmagupta0767b10). The divergence of faith / reality / perception turns on “giving rise to true faith” being the arousing of conforming wisdom, taking the markless as the real (Kuiji 「『生實想』者，謂能起智，順其無相因果」[0133c16–18]), not worldly belief — hence the ancient masters all gloss it by “pure faith,” “the faith of no-attainment,” “the markless as pure faith” (Zhiyi[0078a07]). - The latter five hundred years: Kumārajīva gives 「如來滅後後五百歲」
[0749a28]; Bodhiruci 「於未來世末世……法欲滅時」[0753a24·a28]; Paramārtha 「後五百歲，正法滅時」[0762c01]; Dharmagupta 「後分五百，正法破壞時」[0767b08–09]; Xuanzang most fully 「後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時」[0980c03–04]; Yijing 「後五百歲，正法滅時」[0772b05]. The ancient masters have two judgments of “the latter five hundred years”: Jizang takes the Mahāprajñāpāramitā treatise's clear statement of after the five hundred years (the true Dharma perished, entering the declining age of semblance-Dharma)[0105b25–29], Zhiyi takes “from the sixth to the thousandth, also called the last five hundred”[0078a03–04], Kuiji takes the Candragarbha Sūtra's third five-hundred of the five five-hundred-years (firm in much-hearing) after, the time when the true Dharma perishes[0134a17–24]— all three lineages read it as the evil age still having those who believe, to liken to the present age. - The three virtues: Kumārajīva has only 「持戒修福」 (two virtues)
[0749a28]; Bodhiruci 「持戒修福德智慧」, Paramārtha 「持戒修福及有智慧」, Dharmagupta 「戒究竟、功德究竟、智慧究竟」, Xuanzang 「具足尸羅、具德、具慧」, Yijing 「具戒具德具慧」 (all three virtues). Vasubandhu's verse 「菩薩三德備」[0783b06], Kuiji 「三德者，謂戒、定、慧學」[0133c13]— Kumārajīva's “cultivating merit” the other versions analyze into “virtue (merit-virtue)” and “wisdom,” thus making three. - The four-clause dharma-mark: all six versions carry the four-clause formula (dharma-mark · non-dharma-mark · mark · no-mark) — Kumārajīva abbreviates to 「無法相，亦無非法相」
[0749b05–06](two clauses shown, two clauses hidden in 「不取法、不取非法」); Bodhiruci gives in full 「無法相，亦非無法相。無相，亦非無相」[0753b10–11], Paramārtha 「無法想非無法想，無想非無想」[0762c10–11], Xuanzang 「無法想轉、無非法想轉，無想轉亦無非想轉」[0980c21–22], Yijing 「非法想，非非法想，非想，非無想」[0772b15–16], Dharmagupta 「法想轉，無法想轉……想、無想轉不」[0767b25–26]. Vasubandhu judges this “distinguished by the sense of eight and eight” (four of persons · four of dharmas, broken into eight and eight)[0783b20·b23–25]; Kumārajīva's abbreviation the ancient masters supplement to four (Jizang 「若依論經，人空之中有於四句，法空之中亦有四句」[0106b26–28]; Kuiji supplies directly 「此中更應云『無相，亦非無相』」[0134c21–22]). This four-clause formula is just the textual fingerprint of “breaking the dharma-mark” — the person who can believe breaks the marks of self (the emptiness of persons), the dharma that is believed breaks the dharma-mark (the emptiness of dharmas), leading toward the latter part's (from division 17) “breaking the dharma-view.” - Grasping neither dharma · the raft simile · the dharma should still be abandoned: Kumārajīva 「不應取法，不應取非法……如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法」
[0749b09–11]; Bodhiruci 「不應取法，非不取法……是法應捨，非捨法故」[0753b14–16]; Xuanzang alone adds 「密意」 before “raft simile” (「如來密意而說筏喻法門」[0980c27]) and concludes 「法尚應斷」 (the others give 「捨」); Yijing likewise adds 「密意」 (「如來密意宣說筏喻法門」[0772b20]). The presence or absence of “密意 (hidden intent)” turns on what Vasubandhu's Yijing translation glosses, 「一筏之上有其取捨，故名為密」 (T1513[0876c14–15], see register 4).
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · weighted)
「是諸眾生……無法相，亦無非法相」 [0749b05–06] — this division's variant of the “is-not”: not the full “X / is-not-X / is called X” formula, but a dual dispelling of “no dharma-mark · also no non-dharma-mark.” The ancient masters (Kuiji) gloss it clause by clause by the three natures, just the ancient-master basis of this book's “is-not mapping the three natures”:
- 「無法相」 = dispelling the wholly-imagined: Kuiji 「『無法相』者，謂凡情妄執執法我為有名為法相；既達為空，知法體而非實，故云無法相，無其所執實有法相故」
[0134c16–18]. Grasping the dharma-self as existent (the wholly-imagined), having reached its emptiness, hence no dharma-mark — this is the dispelling of the wholly-imagined. - 「亦無非法相」 = disclosing the perfectly-accomplished: Kuiji 「『亦無非法相』者，謂愚者妄情撥圓成而是無，名非法相，空無有體故；智者了此圓成是有，故無非法相，無其所執為空相故。二無我理是實有」
[0134c18–21]. Repudiating the perfectly-accomplished as non-existent (falling to the side of deprecation), the wise one understanding the perfectly-accomplished as existent, hence no “non-dharma-mark” — this is the disclosing of the perfectly-accomplished. - The other-dependent hidden in “the person who can believe”: the one who can believe arouses conforming wisdom upon the condition-born passages (the other-dependent), 「達二空理，不著空、有」 (Kuiji
[0134a03]) — the other-dependent illusory-existent teaching (the sūtra) is the object-support for arousing faith, neither grasped as real (not the wholly-imagined) nor repudiated as non-existent (not deprecation), the other-dependent not apart from the perfectly-accomplished.
The dual dispelling is the Middle Way · the two emptinesses: Kuiji concludes it, 「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我。取是執義，雙無二執故即契中道，故云『無法相，亦無非法相』者，離二執也」 [0135a05–07]. He further supplements the third and fourth clauses “無相，亦非無相” to gloss “depending on words, apart from words”: 「無相」 — the principle of the two selflessnesses cannot be declared in words as existent or non-existent; 「亦非無相」 — at the wordless place, by depending on words, marks are spoken [0134c22–28]. Vasubandhu's verse sums it up, 「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種」 [0783c08–09] — 「一切空無物」 (the two selves, of persons and dharmas, non-existent), 「實有」 (the substance of the principle of the two selflessnesses not non-existent), 「不可說」 (not to be spoken as existent or non-existent), 「依言辭而說」 (depending on words, apart from words).
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 transitional position of “breaking the dharma-mark · the emptiness of self turning to the emptiness of dharmas.” The prior breaking of the four marks (the emptiness of self · dispelling the wholly-imagined of the self-among-persons), this breaking of the dharma-mark (the emptiness of dharmas · dispelling the wholly-imagined of the dharma-self, disclosing the perfectly-accomplished) — what the is-not dispels advances gradually from “the self-among-persons” toward “the dharma-self”; the latter half (division 13's dense is-not · division 17's emptiness of dharmas) then becomes the full form. This division's dual dispelling of “no dharma-mark · also no non-dharma-mark” also ties to the reading of “the two hindrances”: Kuiji 「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」 [0135a15–16] — dharma-clinging (grasping the dharma-mark) is the root of the cognitive hindrance, self-clinging (clinging to self-and-person) the aspect of the affliction-hindrance, breaking the dharma-mark being the start of cutting the cognitive hindrance 〔this is the miniature forerunner of the §17 two-part reading of the affliction-hindrance in the first half and the cognitive hindrance in the latter half; cf. division 17, register 4〕.
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (the three natures · the three virtues · weighted)
Core, weighted — Kuiji (Yogācāra) glosses 「無法相·亦無非法相」 clause by clause by the three natures, and Vasubandhu (two translations) reads “the person who can believe” by the three virtues.
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu's judgment of this as “breaking the second doubt” — 「上來既說行無相因得無相果，義既甚深……佛滅度後一切眾生……不生信心，如來是不成空說耶？……為破此疑，故佛答云，未來有菩薩備三德者，曾已積集善根，故能生實想，亦不空說」 [0133c05–12]. The three virtues = the three trainings of precepts, concentration, wisdom, also opened into three: 「一者、修行，謂具三學；二者、逢善友，謂值諸佛；三者、離空、有執，謂證二無我理」 [0133c13–15]. Following Asaṅga's schema, he judges this division the “fourth abode of desiring to attain the Dharma-body” of “desiring to attain the verbal Dharma-body” — 「上為修行求證色身，佛言有相虛妄，法身是實，因此便求法身無相，將欲證其無相，先起四親近行，謂近善知識、從彼求聞、思惟、修習，故先欲得言說法身也」 [0133c23–27]. The three-natures gloss of 「無法相·亦無非法相」 is at register 3 [0134c16–21]. Concluding the raft simile: 「此釋第二依言離言相也。『不應取法』者，不應如聲取法，謂不如言而取故；『不應取非法』者，隨順第一義智正說……此結成筏喻也。謂將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用也」 [0135a20–27].
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's translation) verse [0783b05–06]:
「說因果深義，於彼惡世時，不空以有實，菩薩三德備。」
Glossing: 「彼惡世時，菩薩具足持戒功德智慧故，能生信心。以此義故，名不空說」 [0783b07–08]. Also the verse 「彼壽者及法，遠離於取相，亦說知彼相，依八八義別」 [0783b19–20] — making clear that the bodhisattva is apart from the life-span mark (the emptiness of persons · four kinds) and apart from the dharma-mark (the emptiness of dharmas · four kinds), broken into eight and eight. The four-kinds-of-dharma-mark verse: 「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種」 [0783c08–09]; glossing 「有可取、能取一切法無故，言無法相。以無物故，彼法無我，空實有故，言亦非無法相」 [0783c11–13]. The raft-simile verse 「如人捨船栰，法中義亦然」 [0784a29], glossing 「得證智捨法故，如到彼岸捨栰故」 [0784b01–02].
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's translation) verse [0876a12–13]:
「因與果甚深，於彼惡時說，此非無利益，由三菩薩殊。」
Glossing 「縱於末代而有菩薩具戒、具德、具慧，由此說法果利不虛」 [0876a14–15]. Endowed-with-precepts-and-virtue = 「於先佛所為持戒故，而行恭敬承事及為種諸善根」 (verse 「由於先佛所，奉持於戒學，并植善根故，名具戒具德」 [0876a16–17]); endowed-with-wisdom = cutting the four self-perceptions and the four dharma-perceptions (verse 「能斷於我想，及以法想故，此名為具慧，二四殊成八」 [0876a22–23]). The four dharma-perceptions: 「一、法想；二、無法想；三、想；四、無想……此謂能取所取諸法皆無故，法想不生，即無法想。彼之非有法無自性，空性有故非無法想」 [0876b05–07]. True perception = 「由具慧者不如言而取，及由隨順勝義智故，取為正說故，名為實想」 [0876b16–18]. The raft-simile verse 「證不住於法，為是隨順故，猶如捨其筏，是密意應知」 [0876c10–11], glossing 「一筏之上有其取捨，故名為密」 [0876c14–15] — this is the basis of Xuanzang's and Yijing's translation of 「密意」.
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta's translation): judges this division the “fourth desiring to attain the Dharma-body” abode of “desiring to attain the verbal Dharma-body” of the eighteen abodes — 「為欲得言說法身住處故，經言『頗有眾生，於未來世於如是修多羅句說』等」 [0760b27–28]; the eight abodes subsume it as the “abode of desire” [0758c02]. Glossing “true perception” as counteracting five kinds of wrong grasping (non-Buddhist · ordinary persons and śrāvakas within the inner teaching · bodhisattvas of overweening pride · the world's common conception-concentration · the no-perception concentration) [0760c15–22]; glossing “grasping neither dharma nor non-dharma”: 「於法體及法無我並不分別故」 [0761a08–09]; glossing the raft simile: 「法尚應捨者，實想生故；何況非法者，理不應故」 [0761a11–12].
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: judges “the answer of there being faith……opening the text broadly into seven divisions: first, making clear the time of faith; second, the person who can believe; third, the dharma that is believed; fourth, properly setting forth the mind of faith; fifth, the ground of faith; sixth, the benefit of faith; seventh, broadly glossing the sense of faith” [0105b17–21]. “The latter five hundred years” he takes from the Mahāprajñāpāramitā treatise's “after the five hundred years” (the true Dharma perished, entering the declining age of semblance-Dharma) [0105b25–29]. 「無法相，無非法相」 = the second clause making clear the emptiness of dharmas: 「雖不見我，猶見有五陰之法，故今明亦無法相。五陰之法既無，五陰本無，名為非法，空病亦空，故云無非法相」 [0106b16–19]; judged the same as the Vimalakīrti's three emptinesses (the emptiness of beings · the emptiness of dharmas · the emptiness of the emptiness-disease) [0106b20–22]. The four-clause dharma-mark 「一者、法相；二者、非法相；三者、相；四者、非相，此四是病也」 [0106c01–02], broken clause by clause (the aggregates, elements, and bases unattainable → no dharma-mark; the emptiness-disease also empty → no non-dharma-mark; one cannot say nirvāṇa is still with-mark or without-mark → no-mark; speaking without speaking → not no-mark) [0106c04–16]. The raft simile cites the Āgama 「取草為栰度於彼岸，既至彼岸則便捨筏……以法捨人，以空捨有；次則人法兩除，空有雙淨」 [0107a11–17].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: judges “second, making clear the believer's deep practice. The text is in three: first, making clear the deep practice; second, glossing; third, citing proof” [0077c21–22]. 「淨信，無所得信也，無相者為淨信」 [0078a07]. The emptiness of dharmas in only two clauses: 「次列法空，但有兩句，法、非法也。今言法者，說五陰空為法，五陰相為非法，即以陰空為藥名法，陰有為病名非法，陰病既除，空藥亦遣，非法既謝，在法亦亡」 [0078a21–24]; coming to the Middle Way: 「持戒為法，破戒為非法，次若持、若犯並非法，非持非犯為法，是中道義，此信達中道，離有無二邊，乃信此經耳」 [0078a24–27]. The raft simile 「譬欲濟河，搆筏自運，既登彼岸，棄筏而去……道法尚捨，而況非法？初以善捨惡，後則俱捨」 [0078b01–04].
The three ancient-master streams (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) on this division make clear alike “breaking the dharma-mark · disclosing the emptiness of dharmas”: Jizang judges the second clause the emptiness of dharmas (the Vimalakīrti's three emptinesses), Zhiyi judges the emptiness of dharmas in two clauses coming to the Middle Way, Kuiji matches it clause by clause to the three natures (dispelling the wholly-imagined · disclosing the perfectly-accomplished · depending on words apart from words). Vasubandhu's two translations (Bodhiruci · Yijing) read “the person who can believe” by the three virtues (precepts · merit-virtue · wisdom), and Asaṅga judges it “desiring to attain the verbal Dharma-body.” This is the settled ancient-master reading of this division's “faith in the markless · breaking the dharma-mark.”
5 · Terminology
實信／實想／實相 bhūta-saṃjñā (giving rise to true faith = arousing conforming wisdom · taking the markless as the real; Kuiji 「謂能起智，順其無相因果」 [0133c16–18], Zhiyi 「無所得信」 [0078a07]) ·
後五百歲 (paścimāyāṃ pañcaśatyāṃ; the time when the true Dharma is about to perish; the ancient masters' three judgments, see register 2) ·
持戒修福 (endowed with precepts, virtue, wisdom śīla-guṇa-prajñā; Vasubandhu's “three virtues” = precepts, concentration, wisdom [0133c13]) ·
法相／非法相 dharma-saṃjñā／adharma-saṃjñā (the first two of the four-clause dharma-mark; Kuiji matches the wholly-imagined · the perfectly-accomplished [0134c16–21]) ·
遍計所執／圓成實 (Kuiji 「凡情妄執執法我為有」 = the wholly-imagined, 「智者了此圓成是有」 = the perfectly-accomplished [0134c16–21]) ·
筏喻 kola-upama (the raft simile; the dharma should still be abandoned, Xuanzang · Yijing give 「密意」 ābhiprāyika; Vasubandhu 「一筏之上有取捨，故名為密」 T1513 [0876c14–15]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; for the rendering variant-names of the four-clause dharma-mark, see register 2 (Bodhiruci's 「無相亦非無相」 · Xuanzang's 「無想轉亦無非想轉」 · Yijing's 「非想非無想」).〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the raft simile · the comparison-of-merit structure also appears)
The raft simile [0749b10–11]: 「如來常說：『汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法。』」
- Vehicle of the simile: the raft — the means of crossing a river, abandoned on reaching the shore.
- Ground of the simile: the Buddha's expounding of the Dharma (the sūtra · the verbal Dharma-body) — the means of awakening to principle by means of teaching, the words no longer needed at true realization.
- Yogācāra sense shown: the dharma (the teaching · the true Dharma) should still be abandoned, how much more the non-dharma (wrong views · the wholly-imagined). The three ancient-master lineages read it alike as a simile of dual abandoning: by dharma abandoning persons, by emptiness abandoning existence (grasping the raft to cross the river), and once at the far shore persons and dharmas both removed, emptiness and existence both purified (abandoning the raft) (Jizang
[0107a14–17], Zhiyi 「初以善捨惡，後則俱捨」[0078b03–04], Kuiji 「將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用」[0135a25–27]). Xuanzang's and Yijing's 「密意 (hidden intent)」 points to just this dual sense of “upon one raft there is grasping and abandoning” (Vasubandhu T1513[0876c14–15]).
The point of the rhetoric: this division first opens with a reverse-disclosure through the question — Subhūti asks 「頗有眾生生實信不」, and the Buddha bars it with 「莫作是說」 (Jizang 「遮無答」 [0105b15]), then after 「莫作是說」 abruptly turns to “there are,” disclosing the established by barring, and provokes by reaction the rareness of “the evil age still having those who believe.” Next, a comparison-of-merit structure appears implicitly: 「不於一佛二佛三四五佛種善根，已於無量千萬佛所種諸善根」 [0749b01–02] — setting off the few of “one, two, three, four, five” against the many of “measureless thousands and tens of thousands,” reverse-disclosing the depth of the believer's good roots and the rareness of the dharma that is believed (the basis of the name of “Right Faith Is Rare”). Finally it closes with the abandoning of the raft simile, whole and at once abandoned, echoing the prior breaking of marks (division 5) and the later breaking of dharmas (from division 13) in the is-not formula. This register is weighted in this division by the single raft simile (belonging, with division 4 empty space · division 26 the Dharma-body is not a form · division 32 the six similes, to the line of simile-weighted divisions).
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the two emptinesses · the wholly-imagined / the perfectly-accomplished (v.20 「由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物」 = the wholly-imagined of the dharma-mark; v.21 「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」 = the perfectly-accomplished of no non-dharma-mark); this division's 「無法相·亦無非法相」 is the sūtra-language correspondence of the three natures' “dispelling the wholly-imagined · disclosing the perfectly-accomplished.”
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on distinguishing the real · the three natures · the two emptinesses (「無法相」 dispelling the wholly-imagined, 「亦無非法相」 disclosing the perfectly-accomplished, just the distinguishing of the falsity-and-reality of the three natures); the treatise-correspondence of Kuiji's “the dual non-clinging accords with the Middle Way” for this division 〔see register 3〕.
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the wholly-imagined nature · the perfectly-accomplished nature · the two clingings and two hindrances (「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我」 = the technical-language treatise-basis of dharma-clinging · self-clinging; 「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」 = the mutual arising of the two hindrances 〔see register 3〕).
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「是諸法空相，不生不滅……無智亦無得」 — all dharmas markless yet not repudiated as non-existent, the same gate of falling to neither emptiness nor existence as this division's “no dharma-mark (empty) · also no non-dharma-mark (not repudiating the perfectly-accomplished as non-existent).”
This division's 「無法相·亦無非法相」 is the sūtra-language correspondence of the Thirty Verses', Madhyānta-vibhāga's, and Cheng weishi lun's “the wholly-imagined / the perfectly-accomplished · the three natures”; 「不取法不取非法」 is the Heart Sūtra's “no wisdom and no attainment” falling to neither emptiness nor existence. 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. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha has no frontal correspondence on this division, and is left out; the Cheng weishi lun is in progress, cited by stable name to await the additive link on completion.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- The raft simile · “the dharma should still be abandoned” ↔ the “ladder” simile of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in the West (having climbed the ladder, one must throw it away; the proposition is the means of its own dissolution, to be abandoned after insight): this may be set side by side — both take speech / the proposition as a self-dissolving tool; yet the ancient masters' / Yogācāra's “abandoning the raft” is not merely the discarding of a useless ladder but the transformation-of-the-basis sequence of “desiring to realize the true, one must depend on speech; and at true realization, one no longer borrows words” (Kuiji
[0135a25–27]) — what is abandoned is the wholly-imagined's grasping-attachment, not the abandoning of the teaching's conditioned wondrous function. Xuanzang's and Yijing's 「密意 (hidden intent)」 (the dual presence of grasping-and-abandoning upon one raft) points to just this co-running that is not pure discarding. - The dual dispelling of “no dharma-mark · also no non-dharma-mark” ↔ Western deconstruction (Derrida's “neither present nor absent”) and negative theology (via negativa): the West mostly reads it as a static logical double negation (suspending all affirmation); Yogācāra reads it as the dynamic turning of the three natures — 「無法相」 dispelling the wholly-imagined (breaking superimposition), 「亦無非法相」 disclosing the perfectly-accomplished (breaking deprecation), and after the dual dispelling there is the establishment of 「二無我理是實有」 (Kuiji
[0134c21]), not the suspension of pure negation. This difference between East and West is itself one note worth marking. - The faith of “giving rise to true faith” ↔ the “faith” of Western religious philosophy (fides; Kierkegaard's leap of faith): the West mostly reads “faith” as a decision of will outside reason or an entrustment of feeling; the ancient masters read “true faith” as arousing conforming wisdom, taking the markless as the real (Kuiji 「謂能起智，順其無相因果」
[0133c16–18], Zhiyi 「無所得信」[0078a07]) — a faith of wisdom, not a faith of feeling, rooted in the cultivation-realization provision of long-planted good roots (not planting good roots at one Buddha), not the leap of a single thought. - The latter five hundred years · the time the true Dharma perishes ↔ the “eschatology” (eschatology) of Western religious history: one may set side by side its structure of “the declining age still having a few true believers”; yet the ancient masters' “latter five hundred years” is not a prophecy of the end of days but the likening of the evil age to the present age (Jizang 「未來是惡世……尚信波若，況現世之人」
[0105b11–13]), a rhetoric of provoking faith, not a historical assertion. - (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 [0749a26–b11] (root · Right Faith Is Rare). For the [loc] of the six versions' faith passage, see register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0753a24–b16] · Paramārtha T0237 [0762b24–c15] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0767b07–c03] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0980c03–28] · Yijing T0239 [0772b04–21]. Sectioning / exegetical treatise-texts: Asaṅga T1510 [0757b23–26·0758c02·0760b27–0761a13] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0783a05–0784b03] · Vasubandhu T1513 [0876a07–c15]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0105b04–0107a28] · Zhiyi T1698 [0077c21–0078b04] · Kuiji T1700 [0133c05–0135b10].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 6 · Right Faith Is Rare · apparatus · Spring 2026