金剛般若波羅蜜經 分七 無得無說分
佛忽然一雙反問：如來真得了「菩提」嗎？真說過「法」嗎？善現答得乾淨——無有定法可得，無有定法可說。這不是說沒有覺、沒有教，是說那覺、那教，本來就不是一個可以握在手裡、擺上嘴邊的東西。要緊的是「非法、非非法」這一句：說它是個實有的法，不對，那是凡夫把心裡的影當成心外的實物；說它什麼都不是，也不對，因為遣盡了妄執之後，那離言的真如分明還在。眼前說法的這一尊，是應化的身影，不是那無得無說的法身本身——所以「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」。然而最深的一翻在末句：一切賢聖，都依著這無造作的無為而分出高下——無所得處，並非一片漆黑的空無，正是賢聖以無分別智親證真如、深淺各異的所在。無得，是離了「能得—所得」的得；無說，是離了取相言詮的說。否定到了盡頭而不墮斷滅，那無一法可握之處，恰恰是真如現前、賢聖立階之時。
The Buddha suddenly puts a pair of questions in return: has the Tathāgata really attained "awakening" (bodhi)? Has he really taught any "Dharma"? Subhūti answers cleanly—there is no fixed dharma that can be attained, and no fixed dharma that can be taught. This does not say there is no awakening, no teaching; it says that that awakening, that teaching, was never a thing one could hold in the hand or lay upon the tongue. What matters is the line 「非法、非非法」(not dharma, not no-dharma): to call it a really existent dharma is wrong—that is the ordinary person taking the reflection within the mind for a real object outside it; to call it nothing at all is also wrong, for once deluded grasping is cleared away, that ineffable suchness (真如, tathatā) plainly remains. This very figure now teaching the Dharma is a manifested, transformational form, not the markless, attainless, speechless Dharma-body itself—and so 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」(the manifested form is not the real Buddha, nor the one who teaches the Dharma). Yet the deepest turn is the closing line: all the noble and the wise are distinguished in rank by this uncontrived unconditioned (無為, asaṃskṛta)—the place of "nothing attained" is no pitch-black void, but precisely the place where the noble and wise, by non-discriminating wisdom, intimately realize suchness, each to a different depth. "Nothing attained" is the attainment apart from "attainer and attained"; "nothing taught" is the teaching apart from grasping marks and verbal description. Negation pressed to its very end, yet not falling into annihilation: that place where not one dharma can be held is exactly when suchness comes forth and the noble and wise take their grades.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 7 · Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕雙問：如來得菩提耶？有所說法耶？
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」
「須菩提！你怎麼想？如來真的得到了無上正等正覺這件事嗎？如來真的有講說過什麼法嗎？」
〔二〕善現答：無有定法得、無有定法說
經曰：
須菩提言：「如我解佛所說義，無有定法名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。
須菩提回答說：「照我理解佛所說的義理，並沒有一個固定的東西可以叫作無上正等正覺，也沒有一個固定的法是如來可以講說的。
〔三〕所說法不可取、不可說、非法、非非法
經曰：
何以故？如來所說法，皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法。
為什麼這樣說呢？因為如來所講說的法，都是取不住的、說不出的，說它是個實有的法也不對，說它什麼法都不是也不對。
〔四〕一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別
經曰：
所以者何？一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」
之所以如此，是因為一切賢人聖者，都是依著那無造作的無為法，才分出了高下深淺的不同。」
〔1〕A twofold question: has the Tathāgata attained awakening? has he taught any dharma?
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」
"Subhūti, what do you think — has the Tathāgata in fact attained supreme, perfect awakening? And has the Tathāgata in fact taught any dharma?"
〔2〕Subhūti answers: there is no fixed dharma to attain, and none to teach
The sūtra says:
須菩提言：「如我解佛所說義，無有定法名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。
Subhūti answered: "As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has taught, there is no fixed thing that can be called supreme, perfect awakening, and there is no fixed dharma that the Tathāgata can teach.
〔3〕The dharma taught cannot be grasped, cannot be told, is neither dharma nor non-dharma
The sūtra says:
何以故？如來所說法，皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法。
Why is this said? Because the dharma the Tathāgata teaches can none of it be grasped and none of it be told; to call it a really existing dharma is wrong, and to call it no dharma at all is also wrong.
〔4〕All the worthy and the holy differ by way of the unconditioned dharma
The sūtra says:
所以者何？一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」
And why so? Because all the worthy ones and the holy ones differ from one another in their rank and depth only by way of that unconditioned dharma, free of all contriving."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 7 · Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·圓成實）、真如無為、法報化三身、能取所取，來照金剛經的「無有定法得、無有定法說」。
本分的眼：一雙反問，逼出無得無說
前面幾分破了身相、破了法相非法相，到這一分，佛回過頭來一雙反問：「如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」——你以為佛實實在在得了一個「菩提」、實實在在講了一套「法」嗎？所破的，正是「佛實證菩提、實有說法」這一層執。善現順著答：沒有一個固定的法可叫作菩提，也沒有一個固定的法是如來可說——「無有定法」得、「無有定法」說。
古德同判：這不是說沒有菩提、沒有說法，而是約真如法身（第一義）而言。法身寂淨、離言絕相，本來就沒有一個可取可說的「定法」；至於世俗諦上報身、化身的化證化說，並不在所遣之列（窺基）。世親判此為破「化佛非真佛」之疑，以一偈統攝：「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相。」
無得無說＝離能取所取：法身上沒有「得者—所得」的對立
唯識怎麼看「無得無說」？關鍵在能取、所取這一對。凡夫的迷執，總是把心二分成「能得的我」和「所得的法」、「能說的人」和「所說的法」——這層把一分為二的對待，正是遍計所執的根。若真有一個「定法」可得，就落進了「有一個能得的如來、有一個所得的菩提」的二取裡，那便不是真菩提。
所以「無有定法得菩提」，不是斷滅菩提，是遣掉那層「實有能得之我、所得之法」的妄計；「無有定法可說」，也不是佛從未開口，是遣掉那層「實有能說之人、所說之法」的執——世親偈所謂「說法不二取，無說離言相」。無得，是離了能所對立的得；無說，是離了言詮取相的說。法身上本無這一對，故曰無得、無說。
「非法、非非法」：三性的雙遣——遣遍計、立圓成
善現接著說，如來所說法「皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法」。這一句「非法、非非法」，是本分的眼。它不是「X／即非X／是名X」那種三段完式（那要到下一分「佛法者即非佛法」才出現），而是一個就真如雙遣有無的雙否定。窺基依世親，正把這兩否定逐一標在三性上：
- 「非法」＝遣遍計所執：凡愚在人、法之上妄執實有，把心所變現的影當成心外實在的東西，這叫「法」（執為實有）；聖者了達人、法本無此實，所以說「非法」——不是真有那層被執的實法。窺基說「愚夫執人、法為有，名之為法；聖者達人、法為無，名為非法」，遣的就是這遍計所執。
- 「非非法」＝立圓成實：可是也不能因此撥真如為空。把圓成真如也說成一無所有（窺基判這「撥圓成是無」亦名「非法」，是另一種偏執），所以說「非非法」——圓成真實是有的。窺基說「了圓成為有，名非非法」，立的就是這圓成實。
- 法身寂淨，雙離二邊：遣盡遍計（非法），立穩圓成（非非法），而真如離言，這兩重否定到頭來俱泯——「法身寂淨，不可說非法，亦不可說非非法」。雙遮之極，正是圓成的究竟。
世親同此讀：「非法者，一切法無體相故」——這是遣遍計；「非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故」——這是立圓成；並標明「依真如義說」。所以「非法非非法」不是含糊的兩可，是三性分明的一遣一立：所遣者唯遍計所執，所顯者真如圓成。般若用「不可取、不可說」總說這離言，唯識則用遍計、圓成把這「非法非非法」說得清清楚楚。
化佛非真佛：三身讀「無得無說」
那麼，眼前說法度生的釋迦牟尼，難道沒有得菩提、沒有說法嗎？這正是世親要破的疑。唯識說佛有三身：法身（真如所顯的本體）、報身、化身（應機示現的應化身）。世親點得明白：「釋迦牟尼名為佛者，此是化佛，此佛不證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不說法。」——眼前應化示現的這一尊，是化身；化身是法身隨緣而現的影，它本身並不是那個「實證菩提、實說法」的主。實證的是法身，而法身離言絕相、無得無說。
所以「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」：把應化身誤認作真實法身、以為真有一尊佛實證實說，這就是一層遍計；知它是化身假現、而真實在離言的法身，便是遣執。這一層三身的讀法，與上文「非法非非法」是同一把鑰匙——遣掉「實有能得能說之佛」的執（遍計），顯出法身真如（圓成）的離言。
賢聖以無為而有差別：依真如而立，所悟有淺深
末後一句陡轉，是本分最深的一翻：「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」前面一向否定——無得、無說、不可取、不可說、非法、非非法；到這裡卻翻出「差別」來：賢聖的階位高下，並非沒有。
唯識看這層很順。「無為法」即真如、即圓成所顯的諸法實性。賢聖之所以為賢聖，不在他們得了什麼外法，而在他們「以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑」（窺基）——以那把不落能所對待的無分別智，親證真如，斷除煩惱、所知二障。證真如而斷惑，這是賢聖之所同（同依無為）；而契證的深淺、斷惑的多少各各不同，於是立出階位的差別（差別在斷證，不在所證的真如本身）。窺基所謂「皆以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑，而立差別」，正是此意。
所以這「差別」不從外得，是就同一真如上、隨無分別智契證的淺深而分。無得之中而有賢聖之差別，無說之中而有教法之施設——否定之極而不墮斷滅，正是「無得之得、無說之說」。這一翻，已是般若「即非」式在非完式段裡的先聲。
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、真如、三身之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本（攝論、成唯識），般若另是一系；而是同一「無得無說而非斷滅」的實相，金剛經以經語（無有定法·非法非非法·賢聖無為差別）說，唯識以論語（遍計·圓成·真如·三身·斷二障）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌以圓成實說真如、以「無得不思議」說轉依果的離言，與本分「非法非非法據真如」「無有定法得」相印；辯中邊論立「真如為無為·圓成」，正是本分賢聖所依的無為之論本；成唯識論說自性身（法身）、受用身（報身）、變化身（化身），即窺基本分三身讀的技術語。般若一系的心經「無智亦無得，以無所得故」，與本分「無有定法得菩提」同是一個無得之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「無得無說·非法非非法」，成唯識論以「遍計·圓成·真如·三身」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〕。
按：本分無「X／即非X／是名X」之即非完式，唯識義繫於「非法非非法」之雙遣與「無為」之真如；百法、二十論於本分無正面對位，故不強掛，止於鏡照。
Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), 真如 the unconditioned, the three bodies of dharma-, reward-, and transformation-body, and grasper-and-grasped, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “no fixed dharma is attained, no fixed dharma is taught.”
The Eye of This Division: a Pair of Counter-Questions Presses Out “Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught”
The foregoing divisions broke the bodily mark, broke the dharma-mark and non-dharma-mark; in this division the Buddha turns back with a pair of counter-questions: 「如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」, has the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi? Has the Tathāgata anything taught? — do you suppose the Buddha really and truly attained a “bodhi,” really and truly taught a set of “Dharma”? What is broken is exactly this layer of clinging that “the Buddha really realized bodhi, really has a teaching of Dharma.” Subhūti answers along: there is no fixed dharma to be called bodhi, nor any fixed dharma the Tathāgata may teach — 「無有定法」 attained, 「無有定法」 taught.
The ancient masters judge alike: this is not to say there is no bodhi, no teaching of Dharma, but is spoken with respect to 真如 the dharma-body (the first meaning). The dharma-body is quiescent-and-pure, apart from words and cut off from marks; from the first it has no “fixed dharma” to be grasped or taught; as for the transformation-realization and transformation-teaching of the reward-body and transformation-body on the plane of conventional truth, these are not within what is removed (Kuiji). Vasubandhu judges this as breaking the doubt that “the transformation-Buddha is not the real Buddha,” gathering it with one verse: 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相」 (the responsive-transformation is not the real Buddha, nor the teacher of Dharma; the teaching of Dharma is no twofold grasping; the teaching-less is apart from the mark of words).
Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught = Leaving Grasper-and-Grasped: Upon the Dharma-Body There Is No Opposition of “Attainer—Attained”
How does Yogācāra see “nothing attained, nothing taught”? The key lies in this pair, grasper and grasped (能取、所取). The ordinary person’s deluded clinging always divides the mind in two — “a self that attains” and “a dharma attained,” “a person who teaches” and “a dharma taught” — and this layer that splits one into two is exactly the root of 遍計所執. If there really were a “fixed dharma” to be attained, one would fall into the twofold grasping of “there is a Tathāgata who attains, there is a bodhi that is attained,” and that would not be the real bodhi.
So 「無有定法得菩提」, no fixed dharma attains bodhi, is not the annihilation of bodhi, but the removing of that layer of deluded reckoning of “a real self that attains, a real dharma attained”; 「無有定法可說」, no fixed dharma can be taught, is likewise not that the Buddha never opened his mouth, but the removing of that layer of clinging of “a real person who teaches, a real dharma taught” — what Vasubandhu’s verse calls 「說法不二取，無說離言相」 (the teaching of Dharma is no twofold grasping; the teaching-less is apart from the mark of words). Nothing attained is the attaining apart from the opposition of grasper-and-grasped; nothing taught is the teaching apart from the verbal grasping of marks. Upon the dharma-body this pair is from the first absent — therefore it is said “nothing attained, nothing taught.”
“Not Dharma, Not Non-Dharma”: the Twofold Removal of the Three Natures — Removing the Wholly-Imagined, Establishing the Truly-Perfected
Subhūti then says the Dharma the Tathāgata teaches is 「皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法」, all ungraspable, unsayable, not dharma, not non-dharma. This phrase “not dharma, not non-dharma” is the eye of this division. It is not the full three-phrase form “X / is-not X / is named X” (that appears only in the next division, 「佛法者即非佛法」, “the Buddha-dharma is not the Buddha-dharma”), but a twofold negation that, with respect to 真如, removes both existence and non-existence. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, sets these two negations one by one upon the three natures:
- “Not dharma” = removing 遍計所執: the foolish deludedly cling existence upon person and dharmas, taking the reflection transformed by mind for a thing really existing outside the mind — this is called “dharma” (clinging it as really existent); the noble one penetrates that person and dharmas are at root without this reality, and so it is said “not dharma” — there is no real layer-of-dharma clung. Kuiji says 「愚夫執人、法為有，名之為法；聖者達人、法為無，名為非法」 (the foolish cling person and dharmas as existent, calling it “dharma”; the noble penetrate person and dharmas as non-existent, calling it “not dharma”) — what is removed is this 遍計所執.
- “Not non-dharma” = establishing 圓成實: yet one must not on that account dismiss 真如 as void. To call the perfectly-accomplished 真如 too a sheer nothing (Kuiji judges this 「撥圓成是無」, dismissing the perfectly-accomplished as nonexistent, also named a kind of one-sided clinging), and so it is said “not non-dharma” — the perfectly-accomplished exists. Kuiji says 「了圓成為有，名非非法」 (to realize the perfectly-accomplished as existent is called “not non-dharma”) — what is established is this 圓成實.
- The dharma-body quiescent-and-pure, doubly leaving the two extremes: removing the wholly-imagined clean (not dharma), setting the perfectly-accomplished firm (not non-dharma), and 真如 apart from words, these two negations come in the end both to vanish — 「法身寂淨，不可說非法，亦不可說非非法」 (the dharma-body quiescent-and-pure cannot be called “not dharma,” nor called “not non-dharma”). The utmost of the twofold negation is precisely the ultimate of the perfectly-accomplished.
Vasubandhu reads it the same: 「非法者，一切法無體相故」 (“not dharma” — because all dharmas are without substance-mark) — this is removing the wholly-imagined; 「非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故」 (“not non-dharma” — because that 真如, the markless of non-self, is really existent) — this is establishing the perfectly-accomplished; and he marks it 「依真如義說」, spoken in the sense of 真如. So “not dharma, not non-dharma” is no vague either-way, but a removing-and-establishing clear in the three natures: what is removed is 遍計所執 alone, what is shown forth is the perfectly-accomplished 真如. Prajñā states this leaving-of-words wholesale with “ungraspable, unsayable”; Yogācāra, by the wholly-imagined and the perfectly-accomplished, states this “not dharma, not non-dharma” perfectly clear.
The Transformation-Buddha Is Not the Real Buddha: Reading “Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught” Through the Three Bodies
Then has Śākyamuni, here before us teaching the Dharma and delivering beings, not attained bodhi, not taught Dharma? This is exactly the doubt Vasubandhu would break. Yogācāra says the Buddha has three bodies: the dharma-body (the substance shown forth by 真如), the reward-body, and the transformation-body (the responsive-transformation body manifested to suit beings). Vasubandhu points it out plainly: 「釋迦牟尼名為佛者，此是化佛，此佛不證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不說法」 (the one called Buddha by the name Śākyamuni — this is the transformation-Buddha; this Buddha does not realize anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, nor teach Dharma) — the responsive-transformation here manifested is the transformation-body; the transformation-body is a reflection the dharma-body shows forth according to conditions, and it is not itself the subject that “really realizes bodhi, really teaches Dharma.” What really realizes is the dharma-body, and the dharma-body is apart from words and cut off from marks, nothing attained and nothing taught.
So 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」 (the responsive-transformation is not the real Buddha, nor the teacher of Dharma): to mistake the responsive-transformation body for the real dharma-body, supposing there really is a Buddha who really realizes and really teaches, is a layer of the wholly-imagined; to know it as the transformation-body’s provisional manifestation, while the real lies in the dharma-body apart from words, is the removing of clinging. This reading through the three bodies is one key with the above “not dharma, not non-dharma” — removing the clinging of “a real Buddha able to attain and able to teach” (the wholly-imagined), showing forth the leaving-of-words of the dharma-body 真如 (the perfectly-accomplished).
The Worthies and Sages Differ by the Unconditioned: Established in Reliance on 真如, with Shallow and Deep in What Is Realized
The closing line takes an abrupt turn, the deepest turn of this division: 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」, all the worthies and sages differ by the unconditioned dharma. The foregoing was all negation — nothing attained, nothing taught, ungraspable, unsayable, not dharma, not non-dharma; here it turns out “difference”: the gradations of worthies and sages, high and low, are not nonexistent.
Yogācāra reads this layer smoothly. The “unconditioned dharma” (無為法) is just 真如, just the real nature of dharmas shown forth by the perfectly-accomplished. That the worthies and sages are worthies and sages is not in their having attained some outer dharma, but in their 「以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑」 (by the non-discriminating wisdom realizing the true principle, can they then cut off delusion — Kuiji) — by that non-discriminating wisdom (無分別智) which falls into no opposition of grasper-and-grasped, directly realizing 真如, cutting off the two hindrances of defilement and the knowable. To realize 真如 and cut off delusion is what worthies and sages share (sharing reliance on the unconditioned); while the depth or shallowness of realization, the more or less of delusion cut off, each differs — and so the gradations of difference are set up (the difference in cutting-off-and-realization, not in the 真如 realized itself). What Kuiji calls 「皆以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑，而立差別」 (all, by the non-discriminating wisdom realizing the true principle, can then cut off delusion, and so difference is established) is precisely this sense.
So this “difference” is not attained from outside; it is, upon the one same 真如, divided according to the shallow and deep of realization by the non-discriminating wisdom. Within nothing-attained there is yet the difference of worthies and sages; within nothing-taught there is yet the institution of teachings — the utmost of negation that does not fall into annihilation, precisely the “attaining of nothing-attained, the teaching of nothing-taught.” This turn is already the forerunner of the prajñā “is-not” form in a passage lacking the full form.
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, 真如, and the three bodies have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same reality of “nothing attained, nothing taught, yet not annihilation” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (no fixed dharma · not dharma, not non-dharma · the worthies and sages differ by the unconditioned), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計 · 圓成 · 真如 · the three bodies · cutting off the two hindrances); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses speak 真如 by the perfectly-accomplished, and the leaving-of-words of the fruit of 轉依 by 「無得不思議」 (nothing attained, inconceivable), sealing with this division’s “not dharma, not non-dharma according with 真如” and “no fixed dharma attained.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga sets up “真如 as the unconditioned · the perfectly-accomplished,” precisely the treatise for the unconditioned on which the worthies and sages of this division rely. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the self-nature body (the dharma-body), the enjoyment body (the reward-body), and the transformation body (the transformation-body) — exactly the technical terms of Kuiji’s reading of the three bodies in this division. The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「無智亦無得，以無所得故」 (no wisdom and no attainment, because of nothing attained) is, with this division’s 「無有定法得菩提」, one and the same gate of nothing attained. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「無得無說 · 非法非非法」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “遍計 · 圓成 · 真如 · the three bodies” 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)〕.
Note: this division has no full “is-not” form of “X / is-not X / is named X”; the Yogācāra meaning is tied to the twofold removal of “not dharma, not non-dharma” and to the 真如 of the “unconditioned.” The Hundred Dharmas and the Twenty Verses have here no frontal correspondence, and so no peg is forced — it rests at mirroring.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 7 · Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分七 無得無說分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 前半（眾生空·破四相·煩惱障；破「實證實說」之執） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 第一周（智慧門說般若） |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 第四「欲得法身」住處 → 證得法身 → 智相法身（十八住「四、欲得法身」[0757b07]；「法身復有二種，謂言說法身、證得法身。此證得法身亦有二種，謂智相、福相」[0757b23–25]；「為欲得智相法身故，經言『有法如來正覺阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶』如是等」[0757b28–c01]） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 破「化佛非實證實說」之疑（T1511「自此以下……為遮異疑」[0784b05–09]；窺基述世親作「破第三疑」[0135b12–13]；T1513「次後更為除疑」[0876c16]） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 破「無說之疑」（「此下第二破無說之疑」[0107b26–27]） |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『如來得菩提』下，第二、舉菩薩正行為證」[0078b04–05] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依世親「此破第三疑也」[0135b12–13]；兼引無著「第四欲得法身……智相至得法身住處」[0135c26–0136a01] |
無得無說義：此分承前（分五·分六）破身相、破法相非法相之後，佛反問「如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」——所破者，「佛實證菩提、實有說法」之執。善現答以「無有定法」得、「無有定法」說，所說法「不可取、不可說、非法、非非法」，終以「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」收。古德同判此一段約真如法身（第一義諦）而問答：法身寂淨，本無定法可得、可說，而不遮世諦報、化二身之化證化說（窺基「不遮世諦報、化之身亦有不定得、不定說」[0135c04–05]）。世親以「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相」一偈統攝（T1511 0784b19–20／T1513 0876c22·0876c28），無著繫之於「欲得法身」住處之「智相法身」（[0757b28–c01]）。本分無「X／即非X／是名X」之完式，「非法非非法」乃約真如雙遣有無（見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 無得無說一段）
要句：如來得菩提·有所說法（佛問）／ 無有定法得·無有定法說（善現答）／ 不可取·不可說·非法·非非法 ／ 一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別
| 版本 | 無得無說一段（逐字錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」須菩提言：「如我解佛所說義，無有定法名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。何以故？如來所說法，皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法。所以者何？一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」 | 0749b12–b17 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | 「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」須菩提言：「如我解佛所說義，無有定法如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。何以故？如來所說法，皆不可取不可說，非法非非法。何以故？一切聖人，皆以無為法得名。」 | 0753b17–b23 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」須菩提言：「如我解佛說義，無所有法如來所得，名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；亦無有法如來所說。何以故？是法如來所說，不可取，不可言；非法，非非法。何以故？一切聖人皆以無為真如所顯現故。」 | 0762c16–c22 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！有如來、應、正遍知，無上正遍知證覺？有復法如來說？」善實言：「如我，世尊！世尊說義解，我，無有一法若如來無上正遍知證覺；無有一法若如來說。彼何所因？若彼，如來法說，不可取，彼不可說，不彼法，非不法。彼何因？無為法顯明聖人。」 | 0767c03–c10 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 佛復告具壽善現言：「善現！於汝意云何？頗有少法，如來、應、正等覺證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？頗有少法，如來、應、正等覺是所說耶？」善現答言：「世尊！如我解佛所說義者，無有少法，如來、應、正等覺證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有少法，是如來、應、正等覺所說。何以故？世尊！如來、應、正等覺所證、所說、所思惟法皆不可取，不可宣說，非法非非法。何以故？以諸賢聖補特伽羅皆是無為之所顯故。」 | 0980c29–0981a08 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？如來於無上菩提有所證不？復有少法是所說不？」妙生言：「如我解佛所說義，如來於無上菩提實無所證，亦無所說。何以故？佛所說法，不可取，不可說，彼非法，非非法。何以故？以諸聖者，皆是無為所顯現故。」 | 0772b22–b27 |
異文所繫：
- 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」（全分之眼）：六本於此一句異最甚，正是「異文即義之所在」——
- 羅什：一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別（賢聖以無為而立階差）；
- 流支：一切聖人皆以無為法得名（聖人之名依無為而立）；
- 真諦：一切聖人皆以無為真如所顯現故；
- 笈多：無為法顯明聖人（梵序倒置，主賓互換）；
- 玄奘：諸賢聖補特伽羅皆是無為之所顯故；
- 義淨：諸聖者皆是無為所顯現故。
「而有差別」（羅什·階位義）與「得名／所顯」（餘五本·依無為而立義）為二讀。世親論本作「得名」（
T1511 0784b16），釋為「一切聖人依真如法清淨得名」（[0784c06–08]）——即「以無為法得名」之系；真諦·玄奘·義淨之「無為所顯」同此。羅什「而有差別」一讀則為古德展開「同悟無為·所悟淺深」之文本支點（吉藏「雖同悟無為，所悟不同」[0107c24]；智顗「無為雖一，解有明昧、淺深差別」[0078b17]）。
- 如來·能斷系重詞：玄奘「如來、應、正等覺」一詞於本段五現（證得·所說·所證所說所思惟，逐處不省），笈多作「如來、應、正遍知」、義淨但作「如來／佛」——能斷系（玄奘·笈多）足譯三身果號，羅什·流支·真諦但作「如來」。〔依§校驗協定 ②，玄奘重詞逐字錄，不縮。〕
- 「定法」之有無：羅什·流支·真諦作「無有定法」（無「決定」之法）；笈多·玄奘·義淨作「無有一法／少法」（無「一」「少」法）——「定」（決定相）與「一／少」（量）之異，前者遮法之自性定相，後者遮法之可得分量，義相通而著眼別。
- 「非法非非法」：六本全具（笈多作「不彼法，非不法」、真諦「非法，非非法」），無一省略——此乃本分雙遮之骨，異譯所同。
三、即非・三性（本分無「即非」完式 · 唯識義）
本分無「X／即非X／是名X」之三段完式（完式見分八「佛法者即非佛法」、密集於分十三）；其唯識義繫於「非法、非非法」之雙遮，與「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」之真如義。
「非法、非非法」即三性之雙遣（窺基逐標）：
- 非法＝遣遍計所執：「謂愚夫執人、法為有，名之為法；……聖者達人、法為無，名為非法」
[0135c11–13]——凡愚於人法上妄執實有（遍計），約此「實法」言之則曰「非法」（無此實法）。 - 非非法＝立圓成實：「撥圓成是無，名非法；……了圓成為有，名非非法」
[0135c12–14]——撥真如圓成為空者，亦非；圓成真實有，故曰「非非法」。 - 法身寂淨，雙離二邊：「法身寂淨，不可說非法，亦不可說非非法也」
[0135c13–14]——真如離言，二遮俱泯，是即圓成之究竟（窺基「謂於內真如理不可說非法非非法，故即無說無取也」[0136a09–11]）。
世親同此：「非法者，一切法無體相故（＝遣遍計）。非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故（＝立圓成）」[0784c02–03]；「依真如義說」[0784c02]。義淨譯本明標：「非法、非非法此據真如道理而說。彼非是法，謂是法無為其性故。復非非法，由彼無自性體是有故」[0877a01–03]。
「無得無說」即轉依果上之離言：如來於菩提「無有定法得」、於法「無有定法說」，非無菩提無說法，乃法身（圓成所顯）離言絕相、不可取說。此即由破「實證實說」之執（遍計）而顯真如法身（圓成）之一施。本分為「即非」之唯識義於非完式段之示——所遣者人法二執，所立者真如無為。映三性之讀，見釋慧鏡《即非三段式映射唯識三性》（S5-P01）；本分以「非法非非法」一式當之。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 標宗）
核心——世親《金剛般若論》以「應化非真佛」一偈統此一段，二漢譯並存：
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 破異疑 [0784b05–09]：「向說不可以相成就得見如來。何以故？如來非有為相得名故。若如是，云何釋迦牟尼佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，說名為佛？云何說法？是名異疑，為斷此疑。」論偈 [0784b19–20]：
「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相。」
釋三身 [0784b21–23]：「佛有三種：一者法身佛；二者報佛；三者化佛。又釋迦牟尼名為佛者，此是化佛，此佛不證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不說法。」釋「無為法得名」[0784c06–08]：「一切聖人依真如法清淨得名，以無為法得名故。以此義故，彼聖人說彼無為法。」
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 二頌 [0876c22·0876c28]：
「化體非真佛，亦非說法者。」 「說法非二取，所說離言詮。」
釋三身 [0876c23–25]：「由有三佛：一、法身佛；二、受用身佛；三、化身佛。言釋迦牟尼佛者，即是化身，此乃元非證覺，亦不說法度生。」釋非法非非法 [0877a01–03]：「非法、非非法此據真如道理而說。彼非是法，謂是法無為其性故。復非非法，由彼無自性體是有故。」釋無為所顯 [0877a06–08]：「由諸聖人並從真如清淨之法所顯現故，名無為所顯，是故彼還說無為法。」
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此段為十八住第四「欲得法身」住處中「證得法身」之「智相法身」——「法身復有二種，謂言說法身、證得法身。此證得法身亦有二種，謂智相、福相」[0757b23–25]；「為欲得智相法身故，經言『有法如來正覺阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶』如是等」[0757b28–c01]。
吉藏（三論）T1699：判此分以「三佛」破「無說之疑」——「此下第二破無說之疑……雖無實證而有化證，雖無實說而有化說」[0107b26–c01]。釋「不可取不可說」[0107c05–06]：「以言語滅故不可說，以心行滅故不可取。」釋「非法非非法」[0107c08–11]：「諸法實相非有非無，非有故非法、非無故非非法。既離有離無，云何可說？既離有離無，云何可取？」釋「賢聖無為差別」[0107c24–26]：「雖同悟無為，所悟不同，故有三聖為異。三鳥出網、三獸度河，而昇空有近遠、涉水有淺深。」
智顗（天台）T1698：「『如來得菩提』下，第二、舉菩薩正行為證」[0078b04–05]。釋無定 [0078b07–09]：「無定即是性空，解窮相盡謂之菩提，無相故不有，假名即不無，不有不無，何實可得？何定可說？」釋不說而說 [0078b11–12]：「說即不說，不說而說。若知如來常不說，是為具足多聞。」釋非法非非法 [0078b13–14]：「非法即不有，非非法即不無，故不可說，有無並無，理之極也。」釋無為差別 [0078b14–17]：「理無生滅謂之無為，無為之理，眾聖同解……無為雖一，解有明昧、淺深差別也。」
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親「此破第三疑也」[0135b12–13]，約三身（法·報·化）[0135b20–22]、二諦（世諦報化可得可說／第一義諦真如法身本無得無說）[0135b29–c05]。三性逐標「非法非非法」[0135c11–14]（見目三）。引論偈「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相」[0135c14–16]。釋「賢聖無為差別」[0135c22–24]：「謂諸聖者皆以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑，而立差別，故聖人說彼無為法。」釋「唯言說、不言證」[0135c18–20]：「若不證者，即不能說，故謂要先證，方能說也。」
古德五家（無著·世親·吉藏·天台·唯識）於本分同約真如法身（第一義諦）讀「無得無說」：化佛非實證實說，而真如法身離言絕相，本無定法可得可說；「非法非非法」雙遮有無、雙遣遍計圓成；「賢聖無為差別」明聖人依無為（真如）而立、所悟有淺深。此即本分「無得無說」之古德定讀。
五、術語
阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi（無上正等正覺；玄奘作「無上正等菩提」、笈多作「無上正遍知證覺」[0767c05]）·
定法（無有定法 niyata-dharma 之遮；笈多·玄奘·義淨作「無有一法／少法」）·
不可取·不可說 agrāhya · anabhilāpya（吉藏「言語滅故不可說，心行滅故不可取」[0107c05–06]）·
非法·非非法 na dharmo nādharmaḥ（窺基三性讀：法＝執遍計為有，非法＝撥圓成為無與遣遍計，非非法＝立圓成 [0135c11–14]）·
無為法 asaṃskṛta（真如·圓成所顯；真諦作「無為真如」[0762c22]）·
賢聖／聖人 ārya（玄奘作「賢聖補特伽羅」ārya-pudgala [0981a07–08]）·
法身·報身·化身 dharma-kāya · saṃbhoga-kāya · nirmāṇa-kāya（世親三身 [0784b21–22]／[0876c23]）。〔梵文發音輔助；「賢聖無為差別」一句之漢譯異名（得名／所顯／而有差別）見目二。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（本分無譬喻 · 修辭即雙反問與雙遮）
本分無譬喻（虛空喻在分四·筏喻在分六）。修辭之要在雙反問與雙遮：佛以「得菩提耶？有所說法耶？」一雙反問起，逼出「無得·無說」之雙否定；復以「不可取、不可說」「非法、非非法」之四重否定層層相遮，至「無為法而有差別」陡轉——於一向否定之中翻出「差別」（賢聖階位非無）。否定之極而不墮斷滅，即「無得之得、無說之說」（智顗「說即不說，不說而說」[0078b11]）。此「雙遮顯中」之修辭，正是般若「即非」式於非完式段之先行音。古德以「三鳥出網、三獸度河」一喻（吉藏 [0107c25]）況「同悟無為而淺深有異」——此乃古德所引之喻，非經之本喻。此目於本分輕，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）：圓成實·轉依（v.21–24 三性·三無性；v.29 圓成）——本分「非法非非法據真如」「賢聖以無為所顯」即三十頌「圓成實·真如」之經語對應；「無得無說」之離言即轉依果（v.29「無得不思議」）之經位。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·無為真如（圓成實之安立）——本分「無為法」之賢聖所依，即此論「真如為無為·圓成」之論本。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：三性·三身（自性身=法身·受用身=報身·變化身=化身）——窺基本分三身讀（法·報·化
[0135b20–22]）即成唯識論三身義之經語對應；「非法（遍計）·非非法（圓成）」即成唯識論遍計所執·圓成實之技術語。 - 心經（T251）：「無智亦無得……以無所得故」
[0848c13–c14]——度法而無能得所得，與本分「無有定法得菩提·無有定法可說」同一無得之門。
本分「非法非非法·賢聖無為所顯」，即三十頌、成唯識論「圓成實·真如·三身」之經語對應；「無得無說」即心經「無智亦無得」之無得位。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。百法·二十論於本分無正面對位，從闕。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「無得無說」「不可取不可說」 ↔ 西方語言哲學之「不可言說者」（維根斯坦《邏輯哲學論》「凡不可說者，應當沉默」）：西方多讀為語言界限之劃定（可說／不可說之分判）；古德讀為真如離言——非語言之外有一神祕物，乃法身寂淨、言詮所不及（窺基「真理離言，無其說相」
[0135c18–19]），且「不說而說」（智顗[0078b11]），非止於沉默。 - 「非法、非非法」之雙遮 ↔ 西方否定神學（via negativa）與遮詮（apophasis）：西方以層層否定趨近不可名之絕對；古德之雙遮非趨近一絕對實體，乃雙遣遍計（非法）、雙立圓成（非非法）之三性動轉——遮中有顯（圓成真如），非純否定。此東西之別，正一可注之義。
- 「化佛非真佛」之三身 ↔ 西方基督教神學之位格論、現象之顯與本體之隱：可對觀「應化（現象）非法身（本體）」之分；然唯識三身根於轉依所證（法身=圓成所顯），非存有論之三位安立。
- 「賢聖以無為而有差別」 ↔ 西方之「同一真理·不同證會層級」（如神祕主義之階位、詮釋學之理解深淺）：可對觀；然古德之「差別」根於「無分別智契證真理·方能斷惑」（窺基
[0135c22–23]），是斷惑之修證階差，非僅認知之深淺。 - （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 [0749b12–b17]（原典 · 無得無說分）。六譯本無得無說一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0753b17–b23] · 真諦 T0237 [0762c16–c22] · 笈多 T0238 [0767c03–c10] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0980c29–0981a08] · 義淨 T0239 [0772b22–b27]。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0757b06·0757b23–c01] · 世親 T1511 [0784b05–0784c12] · 世親 T1513 [0876c16–0877a14]。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0107b25–0108a08] · 智顗 T1698 [0078b04–b17] · 窺基 T1700 [0135b12–0136a14]。 互讀：心經 T0251 [0848c13–c14]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 7, Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught (無得無說分) |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | First half (emptiness of beings · breaking the four marks · the affliction-hindrance; breaking the clinging to "real attainment, real teaching") |
| Dao'an's three-part schema | Main-teaching division · first cycle (the gate of wisdom expounding prajñā) |
| Asaṅga's eighteen abodes, T1510 | Fourth abode, "desiring to attain the dharma-body" → the attained dharma-body → the dharma-body of the mark of knowing (eighteen abodes, "fourth, desiring to attain the dharma-body" [0757b07]; 「法身復有二種，謂言說法身、證得法身。此證得法身亦有二種，謂智相、福相」 [0757b23–25]; 「為欲得智相法身故，經言『有法如來正覺阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶』如是等」 [0757b28–c01]) |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | Breaking the doubt "the transformation-Buddha is not the real attainer or teacher" (T1511 「自此以下……為遮異疑」 [0784b05–09]; Kuiji reports Vasubandhu as making the "breaking of the third doubt" [0135b12–13]; T1513 「次後更為除疑」 [0876c16]) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise), T1699 | Breaking the doubt about "no teaching" (「此下第二破無說之疑」 [0107b26–27]) |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai), T1698 | 「『如來得菩提』下，第二、舉菩薩正行為證」 [0078b04–05] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra), T1700 | Following Vasubandhu, 「此破第三疑也」 [0135b12–13]; with Asaṅga's 「第四欲得法身……智相至得法身住處」 [0135c26–0136a01] |
Sense of "nothing attained, nothing taught": after the previous divisions (5 and 6) have broken the bodily mark, broken the mark of dharma being non-dharma, the Buddha turns and asks, "Has the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi? Does the Tathāgata have a dharma he has taught?" — what is broken is the clinging that "the Buddha really attained bodhi and really has a dharma to teach." Subhūti answers with "no fixed dharma" attained, "no fixed dharma" taught, the dharma taught being 「不可取、不可說、非法、非非法」, closing with 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」. The ancient masters all judge this passage as a question-and-answer set about suchness, the dharma-body (the truth of the supreme meaning): the dharma-body is quiescent, with no fixed dharma to be attained or spoken from the outset, yet this does not bar the worldly-truth body of recompense and transformation from its non-fixed attaining and non-fixed teaching (Kuiji: 「不遮世諦報、化之身亦有不定得、不定說」 [0135c04–05]). Vasubandhu sums it under the single verse 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相」 (T1511 0784b19–20 / T1513 0876c22·0876c28); Asaṅga ties it to the "dharma-body of the mark of knowing" within the abode of "desiring to attain the dharma-body" ([0757b28–c01]). This division has no full "X — is-not-X — is called X" formula; 「非法非非法」 is the twofold removal of existence and non-existence as predicated of suchness (see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the "nothing attained, nothing taught" passage)
Key passage: the Tathāgata's attainment of bodhi · his having a dharma taught (the Buddha's question) / no fixed dharma attained · no fixed dharma taught (Subhūti's answer) / cannot be grasped · cannot be spoken · neither dharma nor non-dharma / all the worthy and holy are differentiated only by the unconditioned
| Version | The "nothing attained, nothing taught" passage (verbatim) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」須菩提言：「如我解佛所說義，無有定法名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。何以故？如來所說法，皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法。所以者何？一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別。」 | 0749b12–b17 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 「須菩提！於意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」須菩提言：「如我解佛所說義，無有定法如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有定法如來可說。何以故？如來所說法，皆不可取不可說，非法非非法。何以故？一切聖人，皆以無為法得名。」 | 0753b17–b23 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」須菩提言：「如我解佛說義，無所有法如來所得，名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提；亦無有法如來所說。何以故？是法如來所說，不可取，不可言；非法，非非法。何以故？一切聖人皆以無為真如所顯現故。」 | 0762c16–c22 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！有如來、應、正遍知，無上正遍知證覺？有復法如來說？」善實言：「如我，世尊！世尊說義解，我，無有一法若如來無上正遍知證覺；無有一法若如來說。彼何所因？若彼，如來法說，不可取，彼不可說，不彼法，非不法。彼何因？無為法顯明聖人。」 | 0767c03–c10 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 佛復告具壽善現言：「善現！於汝意云何？頗有少法，如來、應、正等覺證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？頗有少法，如來、應、正等覺是所說耶？」善現答言：「世尊！如我解佛所說義者，無有少法，如來、應、正等覺證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦無有少法，是如來、應、正等覺所說。何以故？世尊！如來、應、正等覺所證、所說、所思惟法皆不可取，不可宣說，非法非非法。何以故？以諸賢聖補特伽羅皆是無為之所顯故。」 | 0980c29–0981a08 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？如來於無上菩提有所證不？復有少法是所說不？」妙生言：「如我解佛所說義，如來於無上菩提實無所證，亦無所說。何以故？佛所說法，不可取，不可說，彼非法，非非法。何以故？以諸聖者，皆是無為所顯現故。」 | 0772b22–b27 |
What the variants turn on:
- 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」 (the eye of the whole division): here the six versions diverge most, which is precisely "the variant is where the meaning lies" —
- Kumārajīva: 一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別 (the worthy and holy establish their gradations by the unconditioned);
- Bodhiruci: 一切聖人皆以無為法得名 (the holy ones' names are established on the unconditioned);
- Paramārtha: 一切聖人皆以無為真如所顯現故;
- Dharmagupta: 無為法顯明聖人 (Sanskrit word-order inverted, subject and object exchanged);
- Xuanzang: 諸賢聖補特伽羅皆是無為之所顯故;
- Yijing: 諸聖者皆是無為所顯現故.
「而有差別」 (Kumārajīva · the sense of gradation of rank) and 「得名／所顯」 (the other five · the sense of being established on the unconditioned) are two readings. Vasubandhu's treatise has 「得名」 (
T1511 0784b16), glossing it as 「一切聖人依真如法清淨得名」 ([0784c06–08]) — i.e. the line of "named by the unconditioned"; Paramārtha, Xuanzang, and Yijing's 「無為所顯」 are the same. Kumārajīva's 「而有差別」 reading is the textual fulcrum on which the ancient masters open out "the same awakening to the unconditioned · realized at differing depths" (Jizang 「雖同悟無為，所悟不同」[0107c24]; Zhiyi 「無為雖一，解有明昧、淺深差別」[0078b17]).
- The Tathāgata · the "Able-to-Cut"-lineage repeated phrase: Xuanzang's 「如來、應、正等覺」 appears five times in this passage (attaining · taught · realized-taught-contemplated, unabbreviated at each point); Dharmagupta has 「如來、應、正遍知」, Yijing only 「如來／佛」 — the "Able-to-Cut" lineage (Xuanzang · Dharmagupta) gives a full rendering of the title of the three-body fruit, while Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, and Paramārtha have only 「如來」. 〔Per §collation protocol ②, Xuanzang's repeated phrase is recorded verbatim, not compressed.〕
- The presence or absence of "fixed dharma": Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, and Paramārtha have 「無有定法」 (no "determined" dharma); Dharmagupta, Xuanzang, and Yijing have 「無有一法／少法」 (no "one" or "slight" dharma) — the difference between 「定」 (the mark of determinacy) and 「一／少」 (quantity): the former bars a dharma's self-natured fixed mark, the latter bars a dharma's attainable measure; the meaning is shared but the focus differs.
- 「非法非非法」: present in all six versions (Dharmagupta 「不彼法，非不法」, Paramārtha 「非法，非非法」), not one omitting it — this is the bone of the division's twofold negation, held in common across the variant translations.
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (this division has no full "is-not" formula · the Yogācāra sense)
This division has no full three-part "X — is-not-X — is called X" formula (the full formula is seen in division 8, 「佛法者即非佛法」, and densely in division 13); its Yogācāra sense is tied to the twofold negation of 「非法、非非法」, and to the suchness-sense of 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」.
「非法、非非法」 is the twofold removal of the three natures (Kuiji marks it throughout):
- 非法 = the removal of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): 「謂愚夫執人、法為有，名之為法；……聖者達人、法為無，名為非法」
[0135c11–13]— the foolish falsely cling to person and dharma as really existent (the wholly-imagined); spoken of in terms of this "real dharma," it is called 「非法」 (there is no such real dharma). - 非非法 = the establishing of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實): 「撥圓成是無，名非法；……了圓成為有，名非非法」
[0135c12–14]— to withdraw the perfectly-accomplished suchness as empty is also wrong; the perfectly-accomplished is really existent, hence 「非非法」. - The dharma-body is quiescent, parting from both extremes: 「法身寂淨，不可說非法，亦不可說非非法也」
[0135c13–14]— suchness is apart from words, both negations alike dissolved; this is the ultimate of the perfectly-accomplished (Kuiji 「謂於內真如理不可說非法非非法，故即無說無取也」[0136a09–11]).
Vasubandhu reads the same: 「非法者，一切法無體相故（＝遣遍計）。非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故（＝立圓成）」 [0784c02–03]; 「依真如義說」 [0784c02]. Yijing's version states it expressly: 「非法、非非法此據真如道理而說。彼非是法，謂是法無為其性故。復非非法，由彼無自性體是有故」 [0877a01–03].
"Nothing attained, nothing taught" is the parting-from-words upon the fruit of the transformation of the basis: the Tathāgata has 「無有定法得」 with respect to bodhi, 「無有定法說」 with respect to dharma — not that there is no bodhi and no teaching of dharma, but that the dharma-body (what the perfectly-accomplished manifests) is apart from words, cut off from marks, ungraspable and unspeakable. This is one expression where, by breaking the clinging to "real attainment, real teaching" (the wholly-imagined), the suchness dharma-body (the perfectly-accomplished) is manifested. This division is the display of the Yogācāra sense of "is-not" in a non-full-formula passage — what is removed is the twofold clinging to person and dharma, what is established is suchness, the unconditioned. For the reading that maps the three natures, see Shi Huijing, The Mapping of the Three-Part “Is-Not” Formula onto the Yogācāra Three Natures (S5-P01); this division stands in for it with the single 「非法非非法」 formula.
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school)
Core — Vasubandhu's Vajracchedikā Treatise sums this passage under the single verse "the apparitional is not the true Buddha," in two coexisting Chinese translations:
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's translation) breaking the divergent doubt [0784b05–09]: 「向說不可以相成就得見如來。何以故？如來非有為相得名故。若如是，云何釋迦牟尼佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，說名為佛？云何說法？是名異疑，為斷此疑。」 The treatise's verse [0784b19–20]:
「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相。」
The gloss on the three bodies [0784b21–23]: 「佛有三種：一者法身佛；二者報佛；三者化佛。又釋迦牟尼名為佛者，此是化佛，此佛不證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不說法。」 The gloss on "named by the unconditioned" [0784c06–08]: 「一切聖人依真如法清淨得名，以無為法得名故。以此義故，彼聖人說彼無為法。」
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's translation) two stanzas [0876c22·0876c28]:
「化體非真佛，亦非說法者。」 「說法非二取，所說離言詮。」
The gloss on the three bodies [0876c23–25]: 「由有三佛：一、法身佛；二、受用身佛；三、化身佛。言釋迦牟尼佛者，即是化身，此乃元非證覺，亦不說法度生。」 The gloss on neither-dharma-nor-non-dharma [0877a01–03]: 「非法、非非法此據真如道理而說。彼非是法，謂是法無為其性故。復非非法，由彼無自性體是有故。」 The gloss on "what the unconditioned manifests" [0877a06–08]: 「由諸聖人並從真如清淨之法所顯現故，名無為所顯，是故彼還說無為法。」
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta's translation): this passage is, within the fourth abode "desiring to attain the dharma-body," the "dharma-body of the mark of knowing" of the "attained dharma-body" — 「法身復有二種，謂言說法身、證得法身。此證得法身亦有二種，謂智相、福相」 [0757b23–25]; 「為欲得智相法身故，經言『有法如來正覺阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶』如是等」 [0757b28–c01].
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: he judges this division as breaking the "doubt about no teaching" by the "three Buddhas" — 「此下第二破無說之疑……雖無實證而有化證，雖無實說而有化說」 [0107b26–c01]. On 「不可取不可說」 [0107c05–06]: 「以言語滅故不可說，以心行滅故不可取。」 On 「非法非非法」 [0107c08–11]: 「諸法實相非有非無，非有故非法、非無故非非法。既離有離無，云何可說？既離有離無，云何可取？」 On 「賢聖無為差別」 [0107c24–26]: 「雖同悟無為，所悟不同，故有三聖為異。三鳥出網、三獸度河，而昇空有近遠、涉水有淺深。」
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: 「『如來得菩提』下，第二、舉菩薩正行為證」 [0078b04–05]. On "no fixed" [0078b07–09]: 「無定即是性空，解窮相盡謂之菩提，無相故不有，假名即不無，不有不無，何實可得？何定可說？」 On teaching-while-not-teaching [0078b11–12]: 「說即不說，不說而說。若知如來常不說，是為具足多聞。」 On neither-dharma-nor-non-dharma [0078b13–14]: 「非法即不有，非非法即不無，故不可說，有無並無，理之極也。」 On the unconditioned and differentiation [0078b14–17]: 「理無生滅謂之無為，無為之理，眾聖同解……無為雖一，解有明昧、淺深差別也。」
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu, 「此破第三疑也」 [0135b12–13], reading by the three bodies (dharma · recompense · transformation) [0135b20–22] and the two truths (the worldly truth, recompense and transformation, may be attained and spoken / the supreme-meaning truth, the suchness dharma-body, has from the outset nothing attained and nothing taught) [0135b29–c05]. He marks the three natures on 「非法非非法」 throughout [0135c11–14] (see register 3). He cites the treatise's verse 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相」 [0135c14–16]. On 「賢聖無為差別」 [0135c22–24]: 「謂諸聖者皆以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑，而立差別，故聖人說彼無為法。」 On "only the teaching is spoken of, not the realization" [0135c18–20]: 「若不證者，即不能說，故謂要先證，方能說也。」
The five ancient-master houses (Asaṅga · Vasubandhu · Jizang · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all read "nothing attained, nothing taught" in this division about the suchness dharma-body (the supreme-meaning truth): the transformation-Buddha is not the real attainer or teacher, while the suchness dharma-body is apart from words and cut off from marks, with from the outset no fixed dharma to be attained or spoken; 「非法非非法」 doubly removes existence and non-existence, doubly removing both the wholly-imagined and the perfectly-accomplished; 「賢聖無為差別」 makes clear that the holy ones are established on the unconditioned (suchness) and realize it at differing depths. This is the ancient masters' settled reading of "nothing attained, nothing taught" in this division.
5 · Terminology
阿耨多羅三藐三菩提 anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (supreme perfect awakening; Xuanzang has 「無上正等菩提」, Dharmagupta 「無上正遍知證覺」 [0767c05]) ·
定法 (the removal of a fixed dharma, niyata-dharma; Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing have 「無有一法／少法」) ·
不可取·不可說 agrāhya · anabhilāpya (Jizang 「言語滅故不可說，心行滅故不可取」 [0107c05–06]) ·
非法·非非法 na dharmo nādharmaḥ (Kuiji's three-natures reading: 法＝clinging to the wholly-imagined as existent, 非法＝withdrawing the perfectly-accomplished as non-existent and removing the wholly-imagined, 非非法＝establishing the perfectly-accomplished [0135c11–14]) ·
無為法 asaṃskṛta (what suchness · the perfectly-accomplished manifests; Paramārtha has 「無為真如」 [0762c22]) ·
賢聖／聖人 ārya (Xuanzang has 「賢聖補特伽羅」 ārya-pudgala [0981a07–08]) ·
法身·報身·化身 dharma-kāya · saṃbhoga-kāya · nirmāṇa-kāya (Vasubandhu's three bodies [0784b21–22] / [0876c23]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; for the variant Chinese renderings of the 「賢聖無為差別」 line (得名／所顯／而有差別), see register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (no simile in this division · the rhetoric is the twin rhetorical question and the twofold negation)
This division has no simile (the empty-space simile is in division 4, the raft simile in division 6). The point of the rhetoric lies in the twin rhetorical question and the twofold negation: the Buddha opens with a twin rhetorical question, 「得菩提耶？有所說法耶？」, forcing out the twin negation of "nothing attained · nothing taught"; then with the fourfold negation of 「不可取、不可說」「非法、非非法」 he removes, layer upon layer, down to the sudden turn at 「無為法而有差別」 — within an unbroken negation, "differentiation" is turned out (the gradations of the worthy and holy are not nothing). At the extreme of negation it does not fall into annihilationism: this is "the attainment of no attainment, the teaching of no teaching" (Zhiyi 「說即不說，不說而說」 [0078b11]). This rhetoric of "the twofold negation manifesting the middle" is precisely the prelude-note of prajñā's "is-not" formula in a non-full-formula passage. The ancient masters use the single simile 「三鳥出網、三獸度河」 (Jizang [0107c25]) to figure "the same awakening to the unconditioned but with depths that differ" — this is a simile the ancient masters cite, not a simile native to the sūtra. This register is light in this division and heavy in the simile divisions of the main body (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 perfectly-accomplished · the transformation of the basis (vv. 21–24, the three natures · the three non-natures; v. 29, the perfectly-accomplished) — this division's 「非法非非法據真如」「賢聖以無為所顯」 is the scriptural counterpart of the Thirty Verses' "perfectly-accomplished · suchness"; the parting-from-words of "nothing attained, nothing taught" is the scriptural position of the fruit of the transformation of the basis (v. 29, 「無得不思議」).
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on the real · the unconditioned suchness (the establishing of the perfectly-accomplished) — the unconditioned on which the worthy and holy rest in this division is the treatise-text of this śāstra's "suchness as unconditioned · the perfectly-accomplished."
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the three natures · the three bodies (the self-nature body = the dharma-body · the enjoyment body = the recompense body · the transformation body = the transformation body) — Kuiji's three-body reading of this division (dharma · recompense · transformation
[0135b20–22]) is the scriptural counterpart of the Cheng weishi lun's three-body sense; 「非法（遍計）·非非法（圓成）」 is the technical vocabulary of the Cheng weishi lun's the wholly-imagined and the perfectly-accomplished. - Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無智亦無得……以無所得故」
[0848c13–c14]— to traverse dharmas with no attainer and nothing attained is one and the same gate of no-attainment as this division's "no fixed dharma to attain bodhi · no fixed dharma to teach."
This division's 「非法非非法·賢聖無為所顯」 is the scriptural counterpart of the Thirty Verses' and Cheng weishi lun's "perfectly-accomplished · suchness · three bodies"; "nothing attained, nothing taught" is the no-attainment position of the Heart Sūtra's 「無智亦無得」. Shi Huijing's thesis "the Diamond Sūtra says in scriptural 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 Hundred Dharmas and the Twenty Verses have no frontal counterpart in this division; omitted.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- "Nothing attained, nothing taught" · "cannot be grasped, cannot be spoken" ↔ the "unsayable" of Western philosophy of language (Wittgenstein, Tractatus: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"): the West largely reads this as the drawing of the limits of language (the demarcation of the sayable from the unsayable); the ancient masters read it as suchness being apart from words — not that there is some mystical thing outside language, but that the dharma-body is quiescent and beyond the reach of verbal expression (Kuiji 「真理離言，無其說相」
[0135c18–19]), and moreover "teaches while not teaching" (Zhiyi[0078b11]), not stopping at silence. - The twofold negation of 「非法、非非法」 ↔ Western negative theology (via negativa) and apophasis: the West approaches the unnameable absolute by negation upon negation; the ancient masters' twofold negation does not approach an absolute substance but is the dynamic of the three natures — twofold removal of the wholly-imagined (非法), twofold establishing of the perfectly-accomplished (非非法) — there is manifesting within the removing (the perfectly-accomplished, suchness), not pure negation. This difference between East and West is itself one note worth marking.
- The three bodies of "the transformation-Buddha is not the true Buddha" ↔ Western Christian theology of the persons of the godhead, the appearing of phenomenon and the hiddenness of substance: one may set beside it the distinction "the apparitional (phenomenon) is not the dharma-body (substance)"; yet the Yogācāra three bodies are rooted in what the transformation of the basis realizes (the dharma-body = what the perfectly-accomplished manifests), not an ontological establishing of three persons.
- 「賢聖以無為而有差別」 ↔ the West's "one and the same truth · differing levels of realization" (as in the gradations of mysticism, the shallows and depths of hermeneutic understanding): one may set them beside; yet the ancient masters' "differentiation" is rooted in "by non-discriminating wisdom contacting and realizing the principle · only then able to cut off delusion" (Kuiji
[0135c22–23]), a gradation of realization through the cutting of delusion, not merely a depth of cognition. - (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 [0749b12–b17] (root · Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught). The six versions' "nothing attained, nothing taught" passage [loc] is in register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0753b17–b23] · Paramārtha T0237 [0762c16–c22] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0767c03–c10] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0980c29–0981a08] · Yijing T0239 [0772b22–b27]. Sectioning / treatise texts: Asaṅga T1510a [0757b06·0757b23–c01] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0784b05–0784c12] · Vasubandhu T1513 [0876c16–0877a14]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0107b25–0108a08] · Zhiyi T1698 [0078b04–b17] · Kuiji T1700 [0135b12–0136a14]. Cross-reading: Heart Sūtra T0251 [0848c13–c14].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 7 · Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught · apparatus · Spring 2026