金剛般若波羅蜜經 分十三 如法受持分
須菩提問：這部經該叫什麼名字，我們又該怎樣奉持？佛立了一個名——「金剛般若波羅蜜」，要他們就用這名字奉持；可是名字才安穩，佛隨手便把它撥開：佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜。立名即遣名。接著像連珠一樣，微塵即非微塵、世界即非世界、三十二相即是非相——舉相即遣相。一段話裡，「即非」連發了四次，是全經前半最密的一處。要緊的是，這密集的遣，正是在回答「云何奉持」：所謂如法受持，就是如它即非之法去持——不把名當成名所指的實，不把相當成相外的法。我們慣於一拿到名字就抓住它、一見到相好就以為見了如來；佛卻在替這部經命名的同一口氣裡，先教你別把這名、這相，又攢成一個可執的東西。名照樣立、相照樣說，只是那層「如說即有」的實，當下遣去。遣而不墮於無——是名般若波羅蜜，是名微塵，是名三十二相。受持這部經，受持的就是這「即立即遣」的一段。
Subhūti asks: what should this sūtra be named, and how are we to uphold it? The Buddha sets up a name—「金剛般若波羅蜜」(Vajra-prajñā-pāramitā, the Diamond Perfection of Wisdom)—and tells them to uphold it by just this name; yet no sooner is the name settled than he sweeps it aside with the same motion: 「佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜」(what the Buddha calls prajñā-pāramitā is not prajñā-pāramitā). To set up the name is at once to dismiss the name. Then, strung like beads, come the rest: dust-motes are not dust-motes, the world is not the world, the thirty-two marks are precisely no-marks—to raise the mark is at once to dismiss the mark. Within a single passage, this "is, yet is not" (即非) fires off four times, the densest such stretch in the whole first half of the sūtra. And what matters is that this concentrated dismissing is itself the answer to "how should it be upheld?" To receive and keep the Dharma as it is means to keep it according to its own is-yet-is-not law—not taking the name for the real thing the name points to, not taking the mark for a dharma lying beyond the mark. We are used to seizing a name the moment we are handed one, and to supposing, the moment we see the auspicious marks, that we have seen the Tathāgata; but the Buddha, in the very breath that names this sūtra, first teaches you not to gather up this name and this mark into one more graspable thing. The name is still set up, the marks are still spoken of; only that layer of "as said, so real" is dismissed on the spot. Dismissed, yet not fallen into nothing—「是名般若波羅蜜」(that is what is called prajñā-pāramitā), that is what is called a dust-mote, that is what is called the thirty-two marks. To uphold this sūtra is to uphold just this passage of "set up and at once dismissed."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 13 · Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕問經名與奉持，佛立「金剛般若波羅蜜」之名而即遣其名
經曰：
爾時，須菩提白佛言：「世尊！當何名此經？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「是經名為『金剛般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。所以者何？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。
那時，須菩提對佛說：「世尊！這部經應當叫什麼名字？我們又該怎樣奉持它呢？」佛告訴須菩提：「這部經就叫作『金剛般若波羅蜜』。你們就用這個名字來奉持。為什麼這樣立名呢？須菩提，佛所說的般若波羅蜜，並不是真有一個實在的『般若波羅蜜』可取。」
〔二〕如來無所說 · 微塵即非微塵 · 世界即非世界
經曰：
須菩提！於意云何？如來有所說法不？」須菩提白佛言：「世尊！如來無所說。」「須菩提！於意云何？三千大千世界所有微塵是為多不？」須菩提言：「甚多，世尊！」「須菩提！諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。
「須菩提！你怎麼想？如來有沒有說過什麼法呢？」須菩提對佛說：「世尊！如來並沒有說過什麼。」「須菩提！你怎麼想？三千大千世界裡所有的微塵，算不算多呢？」須菩提說：「很多，世尊！」「須菩提！這許許多多的微塵，如來說它們並不是真有實在的微塵，只是假借這個名字叫作微塵。如來說的世界，也不是真有一個實在的世界，只是假借這個名字叫作世界。」
〔三〕三十二相即是非相
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以三十二相得見如來。何以故？如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相。」
「須菩提！你怎麼想？可以憑著三十二相來見如來嗎？」「不可以的，世尊！不能憑著三十二相見到如來。為什麼呢？因為如來所說的三十二相，並不是真有實在的相，只是假借這個名字叫作三十二相。」
〔四〕捨身命布施，不如持說四句偈
經曰：
「須菩提！若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多。」
「須菩提！假如有善男子、善女人，拿等同恒河沙那麼多的身命去布施；可是另外有一個人，只從這部經裡，哪怕受持四句偈這麼一小段，又為別人講說，這人的福就非常多了。」
〔1〕Asked the sūtra's name and how to uphold it, the Buddha sets up the name "Vajra-Prajñā-Pāramitā" and at once withdraws it
The sūtra says:
爾時，須菩提白佛言：「世尊！當何名此經？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「是經名為『金剛般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。所以者何？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。
At that time Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! What should this sūtra be called? And how are we to uphold it?" The Buddha told Subhūti: "This sūtra is called 'Vajra-Prajñā-Pāramitā.' By this name you should uphold it. Why is it named so? Subhūti, what the Buddha calls prajñā-pāramitā is not some real thing called 'prajñā-pāramitā' that can be grasped."
〔2〕The Tathāgata has taught nothing · motes of dust are not motes · a world is not a world
The sūtra says:
須菩提！於意云何？如來有所說法不？」須菩提白佛言：「世尊！如來無所說。」「須菩提！於意云何？三千大千世界所有微塵是為多不？」須菩提言：「甚多，世尊！」「須菩提！諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。
"Subhūti! What do you think? Has the Tathāgata taught any Dharma at all?" Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! The Tathāgata has taught nothing." "Subhūti! What do you think? Are all the motes of dust in the three-thousandfold great-thousand world-system many?" Subhūti said: "Very many, World-Honored One!" "Subhūti! These many motes of dust — the Tathāgata says they are not real motes of dust; it is only borrowing the name and calling them motes of dust. And what the Tathāgata calls a world is not a real world either; it is only borrowing the name and calling it a world."
〔3〕The thirty-two marks are precisely not marks
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以三十二相得見如來。何以故？如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相。」
"Subhūti! What do you think? Can one see the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks?" "One cannot, World-Honored One! One cannot see the Tathāgata by means of the thirty-two marks. Why? Because the thirty-two marks of which the Tathāgata speaks are not real marks; it is only borrowing the name and calling them the thirty-two marks."
〔4〕Giving away body and life does not match keeping and telling four lines
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多。」
"Subhūti! Suppose a good man or good woman were to give away their body and life in giving, as many times as there are sands in the Ganges; and suppose another person, from within this sūtra, were to receive and keep even so little as a four-line verse and tell it to others — this person's merit would be very great."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 13 · Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、三無性，來照金剛經這一段密集連發的「即非」。
本分的眼：一段之內，即非四現
到這一分，須菩提問起一件很實在的事：這部經該叫什麼名字？我們該怎麼奉持它？佛立了一個名——「金剛般若波羅蜜」，要他們就用這個名字奉持。可是名字才立穩，佛隨即把它一手撥開：「佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。」立名即遣名。接著又一連三度：微塵即非微塵、世界即非世界、三十二相即是非相——舉相即遣相。一段話裡，「即非」密集連發了四次，是全經前半即非式最稠密的一處。
古德判這一段，仍接著前面「持經之福勝過財施之福」的較量在說（吉藏判它「猶屬格量段」、辨經名是格量裡的「辨於經名」一章）。所以「如法受持」這四個字，落在這即非密集上有它的分量：要奉持這部經，就得如它「即非」之法去受持——不取名、不取相、不取那「如說即有」的實。用唯識的眼來照，這四個「即非」，每一個都是三性的明文。
即非一：般若波羅蜜——立名即遣名
佛立「金剛般若波羅蜜」之名而即遣之，這是四即非裡最關鍵的一施。順三性看：
- 「般若波羅蜜」＝依他起：般若不是沒有——它是可名、可說、可受持的教法，依緣而立，宛然有它的假相。吉藏正說它是「佛波若、佛金剛」，是佛的般若、佛的金剛，實有可尊可持的教法在。
- 「則非般若波羅蜜」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是凡夫在這教法上妄加的那層「實有一個般若可取」之執——把名字當成名字所指的那個心外實法。遍計所執就是這樣一層妄計：把心所變現的影，當成心外實在的東西。吉藏說這「非」遣的是「非二乘智慧、非二乘金剛」，智顗一句「此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」——「即非」正是般若慧所照之空。
- 圓成這一支，在本分隱含著：般若並非斷滅（依他可說可持），所遣的只是它名相上的那層實——立名而即遣名，方才契合無分別。
窺基讀這一句，還點出一層深意：「佛說般若波羅蜜」是十方諸佛同說，「則非般若波羅蜜」是非一佛獨陳——因為般若是諸佛的本母，能出生一切佛，所以諸佛同讚而非誰獨說。下文須菩提答「如來無所說」，正是這個意思：沒有哪一法是如來一人獨說的（諸佛共宣），這也是遣那「實有一法、由某佛獨陳」的執。
即非二、三：微塵、世界——破實有極微，存緣生假名
佛舉三千大千世界的微塵問多不多，須菩提答「甚多」，佛隨即說：「諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。」兩個即非，同是三性式：
- 「微塵」「世界」＝依他起：碎世界成微塵、微塵聚成世界，這緣生的事相宛然——可說、可數，是依眾緣而現的假相。
- 「非微塵」「非世界」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是外道（衛世師）所執的那種「實有不可分的極微」。窺基說得明白：「說非微塵者，非如衛世等所執有實微塵也」——不是真有一個個實在的極微在那裡；微塵只是「寄微塵以喻貪等」，借它來譬喻貪等煩惱，並不是微塵本身就是貪的實體。執極微為實有，正是遍計所執。
- 「是名微塵」「是名世界」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡了那層實執，緣生的假名照樣可說——窺基稱之為「寄喻之微塵」，吉藏稱「結是成地微塵」。無實自性，而為世俗諦上可說的寄喻。
這裡的「破實微塵」，唯識另有一部論專講：把物質一路析到「不可再分的實在極微」，這個極微根本立不住（極微若有方分則可再分、不成其為極微；若無方分則無法積聚成色）。本分一句「諸微塵即非微塵」，所破的正是這同一個「實有極微」之執。
即非四：三十二相——化身相，非法身相
佛末後問：可以憑三十二相見如來嗎？須菩提答不可，並收一句即非：「如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相。」順三性：
- 「三十二相」＝依他起：這是化身的相（窺基「謂化身相」），緣起所現，宛然可見。
- 「即是非相」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是「把這三十二相當成法身、以為見相即見如來」之執。窺基說「即是非相者，非法身相」——三十二相不是法身相；相好之業並不就是正覺的體性（世親「以彼非法身故」）。要見如來，須見第一義法身（無著「應見第一義法身」），不是停在可見的相上。
- 「是名三十二相」＝立圓成、存假名：遣執之處，化身的三十二相無實而仍可說（窺基「是化身三十二相」）。
唯識說三身（法身·化身），這一句「非法身相、是化身相」，正用得上：把化身之相誤認作法身之實，就是遍計；知它是化身假名而不取為法身，便是遣執存名。
收尾的較量：捨恒河沙身命，不如持說四句
佛在四即非之後，收一句較量：「若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多。」前面（分十一）較量的是七寶財施，這裡進一層：拿身命去布施——布施裡最重的一種捨。可是縱使捨恒河沙那麼多的身命，還不如從這部經裡受持四句偈、為人講說。
為什麼身命之捨反不如四句之持？順著本分的眼看就明白：捨身命仍是有相之福——所捨的身命、能捨的我、所得的福，三處都還在相上；而受持四句、為人演說，持的正是這「即非」之法——遣名、遣相、遣實的般若。福的高下，不在捨的東西多重，在有沒有離那一層執。這一句較量，正把「如法受持」四個字收緊：如法受持，勝過最重的身捨。到分十五，這個較量還要放大——初日分、中日分、後日分，日日以恒河沙身命布施，歷無量劫，仍不如聞經信心不逆（見分十五）——本分這一句，是那個大較量的先聲。
一以貫之：四即非同一個樞——遣實而存可說
把四個即非並看，它們共用同一把鑰匙：遣掉那層「自性／如說即有」的實，而所遣不墮於無。所遣的是名（般若波羅蜜）、是實法（微塵）、是假名（世界）、是相（三十二相）——名、法、假名、相四處，立即遣；可是一個「是名」收住，遣而不落斷滅。般若用一個「空」字總說這四遣，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「即非」空的是遍計那一層，不是把依他、圓成也一併抹掉。
之所以在「辨經名」之際把即非排得這樣密，正為集中顯出「如法受持」的真義：受持這部經，就得如它即非之法——不取名、不取相、不取那如說即有的實。名甫立而即遣，正是教人別把「金剛般若波羅蜜」這個名，又當成一個可執的實。
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、破極微之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本（攝論、二十論），般若另是一系；而是同一「即非而存假名」的實相，金剛經以經語（即非·是名）密集說了一遍，唯識以論語（三性·三無性·遍計所執）分疏其旨，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌以遍計所執說「即非微塵」所遣的實法、以圓成實說「是名」的世諦可說；二十論破實有極微，與本分「諸微塵即非微塵」同一所破；辯中邊論辨三性，成唯識論說遍計所執與法身化身，皆與這四即非相印；般若一系的心經「諸法空相」、名相皆遣而存假名，與本分「即非微塵·是名微塵」同一遣執存名之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語密集說的這四「即非」，成唯識論以「遍計所執·三性三無性」的技術語、二十論以「破極微」的論證說的，是同一件遣實存名之事〔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) and the three non-natures to throw light on this densely-fired run of “is-nots” in the Diamond Sūtra.
The Eye of the Division: Within One Passage, the “Is-Not” Appears Four Times
By this division, Subhūti asks a very practical thing: what should this sūtra be called? How are we to receive and keep it? The Buddha sets up a name — 「金剛般若波羅蜜」 (“Vajra-prajñāpāramitā”) — telling them to receive and keep it by just this name. Yet no sooner is the name set firm than the Buddha sweeps it aside with one hand: 「佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜」 (“the Buddha says prajñāpāramitā is not prajñāpāramitā”). To set up a name is to dispel the name. Then three times in a row: a mote of dust is not a mote of dust, a world is not a world, the thirty-two marks are no marks — to raise a mark is to dispel the mark. Within one passage the “is-not” is fired densely four times — the thickest concentration of the “is-not” form in the whole first half of the sūtra.
The ancient masters judge this passage as still following on from the preceding weighing — “the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving wealth” (Jizang judges it to “still belong to the section of measuring,” and the discerning of the sūtra’s name to be one chapter, “discerning the sūtra’s name,” within that measuring). So the four words “receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is” carry their weight just upon this density of “is-nots”: to receive and keep this sūtra, one must receive and keep it according to its “is-not” Dharma — not grasping the name, not grasping the mark, not grasping the reality of “what is, as soon as it is said.” Held up to the Yogācāra eye, each of these four “is-nots” is the express text of the three natures.
Is-Not One: Prajñāpāramitā — to Set Up a Name Is to Dispel the Name
The Buddha sets up the name 「金剛般若波羅蜜」 and at once dispels it — this is the most pivotal stroke among the four “is-nots.” Reading along the three natures:
- “Prajñāpāramitā” = 依他起 paratantra: prajñā is not nothing — it is a teaching that can be named, spoken, received, and kept, established in reliance on conditions, manifestly having its provisional mark. Jizang indeed says it is 「佛波若、佛金剛」 (“the Buddha’s prajñā, the Buddha’s vajra”), the Buddha’s prajñā, the Buddha’s vajra — a teaching really present and worthy of reverence and of keeping.
- “Is not prajñāpāramitā” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the layer the ordinary person adds onto this teaching — the clinging that “there really is a prajñā to grasp,” taking the name to be the very mind-external real dharma the name points to. 遍計所執 is just such a layer of false reckoning: it takes the image conjured by the mind to be a thing really existing outside the mind. Jizang says this “is-not” dispels 「非二乘智慧、非二乘金剛」 (“not the wisdom of the two vehicles, not the vajra of the two vehicles”), and Zhiyi’s line 「此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」 (“what this wisdom illumines — no dharma is not empty — is ‘is-not prajñā,’ that is, the emptiness illumined by wisdom”): the “is-not” is precisely the emptiness illumined by prajñā-wisdom.
- The 圓成實 strand is here implicit: prajñā is not annihilation (依他is sayable and keepable); what is dispelled is only the layer of reality on its name-and-mark — to set up a name and at once dispel it is just then to accord with non-discrimination.
In reading this line, Kuiji points out a further depth: 「佛說般若波羅蜜」 is said in common by all the Buddhas of the ten directions, while 「則非般若波羅蜜」 is no statement of one Buddha alone — because prajñā is the very mother of the Buddhas, able to give birth to all Buddhas, and so all Buddhas praise it in common, none stating it alone. The line below, where Subhūti answers 「如來無所說」 (“the Tathāgata has nothing to say”), carries just this sense: there is no single dharma stated by the Tathāgata alone (all Buddhas proclaim it in common) — and this too dispels the clinging that “there really is a dharma, stated by some one Buddha alone.”
Is-Not Two and Three: Motes of Dust, the World — Breaking the Reality of the Atom, Preserving the Conditionally-Arisen Provisional Name
The Buddha raises the motes of dust of the three-thousand great-thousandfold world and asks whether they are many; Subhūti answers “very many,” and the Buddha at once says: 「諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界」 (“the motes of dust, the Tathāgata says, are not motes of dust; that is what is called motes of dust. The Tathāgata says the world is not a world; that is what is called a world”). Both “is-nots” are alike of the three-nature form:
- “Motes of dust,” “world” = 依他起 paratantra: to shatter a world into motes of dust, and motes of dust gathered into a world — this conditionally-arisen phenomenon is manifestly there, sayable and countable, a provisional mark manifested in reliance on a manifold of conditions.
- “Not motes of dust,” “not a world” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the kind of “really existent, indivisible atom” grasped by the outer-path Vaiśeṣika. Kuiji says it plainly: 「說非微塵者，非如衛世等所執有實微塵也」 (“to say ‘not motes of dust’ is: not like the real motes of dust grasped by the Vaiśeṣika and others”) — it is not that there are real atoms standing one by one; the motes of dust are merely 「寄微塵以喻貪等」 (“lodged in the motes of dust to figure greed and the rest”), borrowed to liken greed and the other afflictions, and not that the motes of dust are themselves the real substance of greed. To grasp the atom as really existent is precisely 遍計所執.
- “That is what is called motes of dust,” “that is what is called a world” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where that layer of real clinging is wholly dispelled, the conditionally-arisen provisional name is still sayable as before — Kuiji calls it 「寄喻之微塵」 (“the motes of dust lodged as a simile”), Jizang 「結是成地微塵」 (“gathered into the motes of dust that form the ground”). Without real own-nature, yet sayable on the level of conventional truth as a lodged simile.
This “breaking the real atom” has its own treatise that expounds it in Yogācāra: pressing matter all the way down to “an indivisible, really existent atom,” this atom from the root cannot stand (if the atom had spatial parts, it could be further divided and would not be an atom; if it had no spatial parts, it could not accumulate into form). This division’s single line 「諸微塵即非微塵」 (“the motes of dust are not motes of dust”) breaks precisely this same clinging to a “really existent atom.”
Is-Not Four: the Thirty-Two Marks — the Marks of the Transformation-Body, Not the Marks of the Dharma-Body
Last the Buddha asks: can one see the Tathāgata by the thirty-two marks? Subhūti answers no, and gathers it in an “is-not”: 「如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相」 (“the Tathāgata says the thirty-two marks are no marks; that is what is called the thirty-two marks”). Along the three natures:
- “The thirty-two marks” = 依他起 paratantra: these are the marks of the transformation-body (Kuiji, 「謂化身相」, “these are the marks of the transformation-body”), manifested by conditions, manifestly visible.
- “Are no marks” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the clinging that “takes these thirty-two marks to be the Dharma-body, supposing that to see the marks is to see the Tathāgata.” Kuiji says 「即是非相者，非法身相」 (“‘are no marks’ — they are not the marks of the Dharma-body”) — the thirty-two marks are not the marks of the Dharma-body; the karma of the marks and excellences is not itself the very substance of right awakening (Vasubandhu, 「以彼非法身故」, “because they are not the Dharma-body”). To see the Tathāgata, one must see the Dharma-body in the highest sense (Asaṅga, 「應見第一義法身」, “one should see the Dharma-body in the highest sense”), not stop at the visible marks.
- “That is what is called the thirty-two marks” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where clinging is dispelled, the transformation-body’s thirty-two marks are without reality yet still sayable (Kuiji, 「是化身三十二相」, “these are the transformation-body’s thirty-two marks”).
Yogācāra speaks of the three bodies (the Dharma-body · the transformation-body), and this line — “not the marks of the Dharma-body, but the marks of the transformation-body” — fits just here: to mistake the marks of the transformation-body for the reality of the Dharma-body is 遍計; to know them as the transformation-body’s provisional name and not grasp them as the Dharma-body is the dispelling of clinging while preserving the name.
The Closing Weighing: Giving Away Ganges-Sands of Body and Life Does Not Equal Keeping and Telling Four Lines
After the four "is-nots" the Buddha closes with a weighing: "Suppose a good man or good woman were to give away their body and life in giving, as many times as there are sands in the Ganges; and suppose another person, from within this sūtra, were to receive and keep even so little as a four-line verse and tell it to others — this person's merit would be very great." Earlier (division 11) the weighing was against the giving of seven-jewel wealth; here it goes a step further: giving one's own body and life — the heaviest giving there is. Yet even giving away body and life as many times as the Ganges has sands does not equal receiving and keeping four lines from within this sūtra and telling them to others.
Why does the heaviest of gifts fall short of four lines kept? Seen with this division's eye it is plain: the giving of body and life is still merit within marks — the body given away, the self that gives, the merit gained, all three still stand upon marks; while to receive and keep four lines and tell them to others is to keep precisely this Dharma of the "is-not" — the prajñā that dispels the name, the mark, and the taken-as-real. The height of the merit lies not in the weight of what is given up, but in whether that layer of clinging has been left behind. This one weighing draws tight the four words "receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is": to receive and keep as the Dharma is outweighs even the heaviest bodily giving. At division 15 this weighing is amplified — morning watch, midday watch, and evening watch, day after day giving Ganges-sands of bodies and lives through measureless eons, still not equal to hearing this sūtra with a faith that does not go against it (see division 15) — this division's sentence is the herald of that great weighing.
Threaded Through As One: the Four “Is-Nots” Share One Pivot — Dispelling the Real, Preserving the Sayable
Set the four “is-nots” side by side and they share a single key: to dispel that layer of “own-nature / what-is-as-soon-as-said” reality, while what is dispelled does not fall into nothing. What is dispelled is a name (prajñāpāramitā), a real dharma (the atom), a provisional name (the world), and a mark (the thirty-two marks) — name, dharma, provisional name, and mark; at all four it is at once dispelled, yet a “that is what is called” reins it in, dispelling without falling into annihilation. Prajñā states all four dispellings with a single word, “empty”; Yogācāra, with the three non-natures, points out exactly what this “empty” is the emptiness of: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (mark-non-nature: its mark is from the start not there), 依他起 is 生無性 (arising-non-nature: it has no self-naturally-arising own-nature, only conditioned arising in reliance on other), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (ultimate-non-nature: it is the ultimate apart from all 遍計). So the “is-not” empties out the layer of 遍計, not 依他 and 圓成 along with it.
The reason the “is-not” is arranged so densely at the moment of “discerning the sūtra’s name” is precisely to disclose, in concentration, the true sense of “receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is”: to receive and keep this sūtra, one must do so according to its “is-not” Dharma — not grasping the name, not grasping the mark, not grasping the reality of “what is, as soon as it is said.” The name is just set up and at once dispelled — this is precisely teaching people not to take this name “Vajra-prajñāpāramitā” itself, again, as a graspable reality.
Yogācāra as Mirror: One and the Same Reality, in the Sūtra’s Words and the Treatise’s Words
To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the three natures, the three non-natures, and the breaking of the atom have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatise-witnesses (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Twenty Verses); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same reality — “is-not, yet preserving the provisional name” — which the Diamond Sūtra states densely in the sūtra’s words (is-not · that is what is called), and which Yogācāra parses in purport in the treatise’s words (the three natures · the three non-natures · 遍計所執); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, through 遍計所執, speak of the real dharma dispelled by “the motes of dust are not motes of dust,” and through 圓成實 of the conventional-truth sayability of “that is what is called”; the Twenty Verses break the really-existent atom — the same thing broken as this division’s “the motes of dust are not motes of dust”; the Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the three natures, and the Cheng weishi lun speaks of 遍計所執 and of the Dharma-body and transformation-body — all sealing with these four “is-nots.” And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「諸法空相」 (“all dharmas are empty of mark”), where names and marks are all dispelled yet the provisional name preserved, is one and the same gate of “dispelling clinging while preserving the name” as this division’s “the motes of dust are not motes of dust · that is what is called motes of dust.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states densely in the sūtra’s words as these four “is-nots,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “遍計所執 · the three natures and three non-natures,” and the Twenty Verses state in the demonstration of “breaking the atom” — and it is one and the same matter of dispelling the real and preserving the name 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 13 · Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（即非密集 · 目三加重）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分十三 如法受持分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 前半（眾生空·破四相·煩惱障；持經奉持·即非密集） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 校量持經功德段之續（辨經名·釋成格量） |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 跨第九 遠離隨順外論散亂（般若波羅蜜即非·如言執義 [0757c07–09]）·第十 色及眾生身摶取中觀破相應行（地塵·世界 [0757c10–11]）·第十一 供養給侍如來（三十二大丈夫相 [0757c12–13]）；八住攝之歸離障礙住處（餘十二種）[0758c03]（離障第五 樂隨外論散動·第六 破影像相無巧便·第七 福資糧不具） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「云何成彼勝福」之釋——持經福何以勝財施？答以「彼珍寶布施福德是染煩惱因」（地塵喻），相好之業亦不及持經，故持說此法門能成佛菩提（T1511 0787a04–a29／T1513 0878b17–c02） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「『當何名此經』下……此文猶屬格量段也」[0113a05–08]；辨經名屬格量第二章「辨於經名」，微塵·三十二相為「釋成上格量意」[0113c13–14] |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『當何名』下，第二、辨名空無所有」[0079b03]；微塵·身相為「受、持福多……不無所有」[0079c04–06] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 「『當何名此經』下，能摧二障故勝」[0138c18–19]；依無著為第九離樂外論散亂（般若即非）·第十破色身影像（地塵）·第十一不具福資糧（三十二相）[0138c24–27·0139b28–29] |
即非密集義：此分承前格量（持經四句勝財施）而辨經名。佛立「金剛般若波羅蜜」之名，隨即「佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜」——立名即遣名；復以微塵即非微塵、世界即非世界、三十二相即非相，舉相即遣相。一段之中即非四現（般若波羅蜜·微塵·世界·三十二相），密集如連珠，為前半即非式之最密集處（故目三加重）。古德三家俱判此段仍屬「格量」之釋成（持經之福何以勝財施之福）：依世親二譯，財施福是「煩惱塵染因」（故以地塵為喻——塵雖多而成染因），相好之業亦「非法身」（故三十二相即非相），唯持說般若能成佛菩提（見目三、目四）。「如法受持」者，受持此經當如其即非之法——名相皆遣，不取如言之實。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 辨名·微塵·三十二相·捨身命一段）
要句：當何名此經·云何奉持 / 般若波羅蜜即非般若波羅蜜 / 如來無所說 / 微塵即非微塵 / 世界即非世界 / 三十二相即非相 / 恒河沙等身命布施·其福甚多
| 版本 | 辨名·微塵·三十二相一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「世尊！當何名此經？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「是經名為『金剛般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。所以者何？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。須菩提！於意云何？如來有所說法不？」須菩提白佛言：「世尊！如來無所說。」「須菩提！於意云何？三千大千世界所有微塵是為多不？」須菩提言：「甚多，世尊！」「須菩提！諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以三十二相得見如來。何以故？如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相。」 | 0750a11–a23 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | 「世尊！當何名此法門？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「是法門名為『金剛般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。何以故？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。「須菩提！於意云何？如來有所說法不？」……「三千大千世界所有微塵，是為多不？」……「是諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。」佛言：「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二大人相見如來不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！何以故？如來說三十二大人相，即是非相，是名三十二大人相。」 | 0754a25–b08 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「世尊！如是經典，名號云何？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「此經名『般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。何以故？須菩提！是般若波羅蜜，如來說非般若波羅蜜。須菩提！汝意云何？頗有一法一佛說不？」須菩提言：「無有，世尊！無有一法一如來說。」……「此諸微塵，如來說非微塵，故名微塵。此諸世界，如來說非世界，故說世界。」……「可以三十二大人相見如來不？」……「此三十二大人相，如來說非相，故說三十二大人相。」 | 0763b25–c09 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「何名此，世尊！法本？云何及如此持我？」……世尊言：「『智慧彼岸到』名，此，善實！法本，如是此持。彼何所因？若如是，善實！智慧彼岸到；如來說，彼如是非彼岸到；彼故，說名智慧彼岸到者。」……「所有，善實！三千大千世界地塵有多有？」……「若彼，世尊！地塵，如來說；非塵，彼，如來說；彼故，說名地塵者。若彼世界，如來說；非界，如來說；彼故，說名世界者。」……「三十二大丈夫相，如來、應、正遍知見應？」……「所有，世尊！三十二大丈夫相，如來說；非相所有，如來說；彼故，說名三十二大丈夫相者。」 | 0768b23–c11 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 「世尊！當何名此法門？我當云何奉持？」……佛告善現言：「具壽！今此法門名為能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多，如是名字汝當奉持。何以故？善現！如是般若波羅蜜多，如來說為非般若波羅蜜多，是故如來說名般若波羅蜜多。」……「乃至三千大千世界大地微塵寧為多不？」……「大地微塵，如來說非微塵，是故如來說名大地微塵；諸世界，如來說非世界，是故如來說名世界。」……「應以三十二大士夫相觀於如來、應、正等覺不？」……「三十二大士夫相，如來說為非相，是故如來說名三十二大士夫相。」 | 0982a06–a23 |
| 義淨 T239 | 〔微塵·三十二相在前〕「三千大千世界所有地塵，是為多不？」……「諸地塵，佛說非塵，故名地塵。此諸世界，佛說非界，故名世界。」「妙生！……可以三十二大丈夫相觀如來不？」……「三十二相，佛說非相，是故說為大丈夫相。」〔辨名在後·繫於涕淚段〕「世尊！當何名此經？我等云何奉持？」佛告妙生：「是經名為『般若波羅蜜多』，如是應持。何以故？佛說般若波羅蜜多，則非般若波羅蜜多。」 | 0773a25–b09 |
異文所繫：
- 段次之異（辨名與微塵·三十二相之先後）：羅什、流支、真諦、笈多四本作一連貫段——辨名（般若波羅蜜即非）→ 微塵·世界 → 三十二相；義淨獨將「辨名·般若波羅蜜即非」後置，繫於下分（離相寂滅）之「深解義趣·涕淚悲泣」前
[0773b07–09]，而微塵·三十二相提前於[0773a25–b01]。世親二譯之論本與此相應：流支 T1511 於經文中「般若波羅蜜即非」雖在辨名處[0786c23]，其釋此句之論文（般若波羅蜜即非）卻置於涕淚段[0787b07–08]；義淨 T1513 同——釋「般若波羅蜜即非」之頌「境岸非知故」在涕淚段後[0878c15–18]。段次之異繫於「辨名」一句之歸屬（屬格量末·抑屬涕淚段首）。 - 「三十二相」之譯：羅什作「三十二相」；流支、真諦作「三十二大人相」；笈多、義淨作「三十二大丈夫相」；玄奘作「三十二大士夫相」（dvātriṃśan mahā-puruṣa-lakṣaṇāni，「大丈夫／大人／大士夫」皆 mahā-puruṣa 之異譯）。
- 能斷系重詞·勿擅縮：玄奘「能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多……如來說為非般若波羅蜜多，是故如來說名般若波羅蜜多」
[0982a08–11]——三句式具足且名標「能斷」；笈多作「智慧彼岸到……非彼岸到……說名智慧彼岸到者」[0768b25–28]（prajñāpāramitā 義譯「智慧彼岸到」、微塵作「地塵」、世界「非界」）。羅什、流支但作「即非般若波羅蜜」（無「是名」尾），真諦作「如來說非般若波羅蜜」。即非式之具缺（三句／二句），乃法相系（玄奘·義淨·笈多）傳本之文相，逐字錄之，不縮。 - 「微塵／地塵」與「即非」式：羅什、流支、真諦作「微塵」（諸微塵·非微塵·是名微塵）；笈多、玄奘、義淨作「地塵」（pṛthivī-rajas，「大地微塵」）。世界一句，羅什作「如來說世界，非世界，是名世界」
[0750a19–20]，玄奘「諸世界，如來說非世界，是故如來說名世界」[0982a17–18]，笈多「彼世界，如來說；非界，如來說；彼故，說名世界者」[0768c04–06]——能斷三系三句式具足。 - 「如來無所說／頗有少法如來可說」：羅什「如來有所說法不？……如來無所說」
[0750a15–16]，流支同[0754a28–b01]，窺基判此為「顯己不獨說」（無有一法如來獨說[0139a24–26]）；真諦作「頗有一法一佛說不？……無有一法一如來說」[0763b28–c01]；義淨作「頗有少法是如來所說不？……無有少法是如來所說」[0773a23–24]（此句義淨提前）；笈多「有法若如來說？……不有，世尊！法，若如來說」[0768b28–c01]。諸本俱明「無一法如來獨說」（諸佛共宣），繫於般若是諸佛本母（見目四）。
捨身命段（格量收尾 · 什 [0750a23–a26]）：
| 版本 | 捨身命段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多。」 | 0750a23–a26 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | 佛言：「須菩提！若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施，若復有人，於此法門中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多無量阿僧祇。」 | 0754b09–b12 |
| 真諦 T237 | 佛告須菩提：「若有善男子、善女人，如諸恒河所有沙數，如是沙等身命捨以布施。若有善男子、善女人，從此經典，乃至四句偈等，恭敬受持，為他正說。此人以是因緣，生福多彼無量無數。」 | 0763c10–c14 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 世尊言：「若復時，善實！婦女，若丈夫，若日日恒伽河沙等我身捨，如是捨恒伽河沙等劫所有我身捨，若此法本乃至四句等偈，受已，為他等分別，此如是，彼緣，多過福聚生，無量、不可數。」 | 0768c11–c15 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 佛復告善現言：「假使若有善男子或善女人，於日日分捨施殑伽河沙等自體，如是經殑伽河沙等劫數捨施自體。復有善男子或善女人，於此法門乃至四句伽他，受持、讀誦、究竟通利，及廣為他宣說、開示、如理作意，由是因緣所生福聚，甚多於前無量無數。」 | 0982a23–a29 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！若有男子女人，以弶伽河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中受持一頌，并為他說，其福勝彼無量無數。」 | 0773b02–b03 |
異文所繫（捨身命段）：
- 單式與「日日·歷劫」加強式：羅什、流支但作「以恒河沙等身命布施」單式；真諦疊言沙數（「如諸恒河所有沙數，如是沙等身命捨以布施」）而無日日·劫；義淨亦單式（「以弶伽河沙等身命布施」）。笈多、玄奘（能斷系）於此位已作「日日×歷劫」加強式——笈多「日日恒伽河沙等我身捨，如是捨恒伽河沙等劫所有我身捨」、玄奘「於日日分捨施殑伽河沙等自體，如是經殑伽河沙等劫數捨施自體」。至分十五，什本方出「初日分·中日分·後日分」三時式（見分十五目二）——捨身格量之遞進，諸本詳略異位。
- 「身命」之譯：什、流支、義淨作「身命」；真諦「身命捨」；笈多「我身捨」、玄奘「自體」（ātma-bhāva——所捨者自身之體）。
- 受持之量：什、流支、真諦作「（乃至）四句偈等」；笈多「四句等偈」；玄奘「四句伽他」（gāthā 音譯）；義淨獨作「受持一頌」。
- 福句：什「其福甚多」渾言之；流支「其福甚多無量阿僧祇」；真諦「生福多彼無量無數」、玄奘「甚多於前無量無數」、義淨「其福勝彼無量無數」明著比較（多彼·多於前·勝彼）；笈多「多過福聚生，無量、不可數」。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 即非密集 · 加重）
本分即非四現：「般若波羅蜜 — 即非般若波羅蜜」[0750a14–15]、「諸微塵 — 如來說非微塵 — 是名微塵」[0750a18–19]、「（如來說）世界 — 非世界 — 是名世界」[0750a19–20]、「三十二相 — 即是非相 — 是名三十二相」[0750a22–23]——一段四即非，前半即非式之最密集者。
即非一（般若波羅蜜）映三性：羅什作「佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜」（無「是名」尾；玄奘·真諦補足三句）。
- 般若波羅蜜（X）即依他——可名、可說、可受持之教法（吉藏：「此是佛波若、佛金剛」
[0113b05–06]）。 - 即非般若波羅蜜即遣遍計——非二乘所執之實般若、非如言可取之自性（吉藏：「非是二乘智慧、非二乘金剛」
[0113b06–07]；智顗：「此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」[0079b11–12]）。 - 圓成一支於本分隱攝：般若非無（依他可說可持），唯遣其名相之實——立名即遣名，方契無分別。
即非二·三（微塵·世界）映三性：
- 微塵·世界（X）即依他——緣生事相（碎世界為塵·塵聚成界，事相宛然）。
- 即非微塵·非世界即遣遍計——非外道（衛世師）所執之實有極微（窺基：「非如衛世等所執有實微塵」
[0139b13–14]），非貪等煩惱之自體（窺基：「但寄微塵以喻貪等，非即微塵是貪體」[0139b15–16]）。 - 是名微塵·是名世界即立圓成——無實自性而為世諦可說之寄喻（窺基：「是寄喻之微塵」
[0139b16–17]；吉藏：「結是成地微塵」[0113c08–09]）。
即非四（三十二相）映三性：
- 三十二相（X）即依他——化身之相（窺基：「謂化身相」
[0139b26]）。 - 即是非相即遣遍計——非法身相（窺基：「非法身相」
[0139b26–27]；吉藏：「法身之果勝相好之果」[0113c18]）。 - 是名三十二相即立圓成——化身三十二相無實而為世諦可說（窺基：「是化身三十二相」
[0139b27–28]）。
本分之眼（即非密集）：四即非俱以「遣自性／如言之實而存可說」為樞——名（般若波羅蜜）、實法（微塵）、假名（世界）、相（三十二相）四者，立即遣，遣不墮無（是名）。密集之故，正以辨經名之際集中顯「如法受持＝受持其即非之法」：受持此經當如其即非，不取名、不取相、不取如言之實。此即非映三性之讀，見釋慧鏡《即非三段式映射唯識三性》〔摘自 S5-P01〕；本分為其於即非密集位之四施。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 煩惱染因·相好非法身 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》「彼福德是煩惱塵染因」（地塵喻）·「彼相非法身」（三十二相），二漢譯並存： 世親以「云何成彼勝福」釋此段——持經之福何以勝財施？以財施福是煩惱染因（故寄地塵為喻）、相好之業非法身（故三十二相即非相）反顯持說般若能成佛菩提；二譯名異義一。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 論偈 [0787a04–a06]：
「尊重於二處，因習證大體；彼因習煩惱，此降伏染福。」
- 尊重於二處：一所說處（隨處說此經令生尊重）、二能說人（受持及說者尊重），「非七寶等隨何處捨、隨何人能捨」
[0787a07–11]——此釋「無所說」（無一法唯獨如來說、餘佛不說[0787a12–13]）。 - 地塵喻（微塵·世界）：「彼珍寶布施福德是染煩惱因，以能成就煩惱事故。此因示現遠離煩惱因故，是故說地微塵喻」
[0787a13–16]；「彼微塵非貪等煩惱體，以是義故名為地微塵……彼世界非煩惱染因界，是故說世界」[0787a18–20]。 - 三十二相非法身：「及成就大丈夫相福德中勝故……彼相於佛菩提非相故，以彼非法身故。是故說大丈夫相」
[0787a22–25]——相好之業亦不及持經，以相非法身。
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 論頌（地塵·相好）[0878b08–09]：
「兩成尊重故，由等流殊勝；煩惱因性故，由劣亦勝故。」
- 兩成尊重：「由所託處成制底塔故……其所依身成如大師尊重性故」
[0878b10–12]；「無有法是如來獨說，皆是諸佛共宣揚故」[0878b14–16]（釋無所說）。 - 地塵喻：「此施珍寶福是苦惱事生起之因……將地塵為喻，如來說作非塵，由此說為地塵……此地塵不是染等性塵，是故名作地塵……彼世界非是煩惱之因名界，為此說為世界」
[0878b17–23]。 - 三十二相：「彼能成大丈夫相所有福業，此成菩提因持說法門之福亦為是劣。由彼眾相非是正覺之體性故，為此名為大丈夫相，是彼標相故」
[0878b26–c02]。 - 釋「般若波羅蜜即非」（境岸非知） 論頌
[0878c05–08]「境岸非知故，於餘不共故……」，釋句[0878c15–18]：「『如來說為般若波羅蜜多者，彼即非波羅蜜多』。為何意趣作如是說？答：境岸非知故。由其所知境岸，除佛於餘無能知者」——般若之「即非」，以其境岸唯佛能知、餘所不共故。
〔二譯對位：尊重二處（所說處·能說人）同 · 地塵喻財施為煩惱染因同 · 大丈夫相非法身（非正覺體性）同——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。〕
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此段跨十八住之第九 遠離隨順外論散亂·第十 色及眾生身摶取中觀破相應行（地塵 [0757c10–11]）·第十一 供養給侍如來（三十二大丈夫相 [0757c12–13]）；八住攝之歸離障礙住處（餘十二種）[0758c03]。釋「般若波羅蜜即非」（離障第五 樂隨外論散動·對如言執義）：「於如是法中，或起如言執義。為對治彼未來罪故，經言『如來所說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜』故。如般若波羅蜜非波羅蜜，如是亦無有餘法如來說者」[0762a19–23]。釋微塵·世界（離障第六 破影像相無巧便）：「為破色身影像相故，顯示二種方便：一細作方便，如經『三千大千世界所有地塵寧為多不』等；二不念方便，如經『所有地塵，如來說非塵，是名地塵』故。為破眾生名身影像相故，經言『所有世界，如來說非世界，是名世界』」[0762a28–b05]。釋三十二相（離障第七 福資糧不具）：「為離不具福資糧故……顯示為福資糧故，親近、供養如來時，不應以相成就見如來。云何見？應見第一義法身故」[0762b07–10]。
吉藏（三論）T1699：判「當何名此經」仍屬格量段——「此文猶屬格量段也。前格量中開為二別：第一、正舉二種財施格量稱嘆；第二章、辨於經名」[0113a07–09]；辨經者，「經在處則處貴、居人則人尊……咸欲受持，但未識名字，是故此中辨名」[0113a09–12]。釋「即非般若」依論判二句：「初句明下有所異，次句明上有所同……下異二乘、上同諸佛故可尊敬」[0113a28–b02]；「則非般若者，非是二乘智慧、非二乘金剛也」[0113b06–07]。釋微塵·三十二相為「釋成上格量意」：「布施雖多，是煩惱塵染因，還得顛倒生死果。譬如大千世界微塵雖多，還成世界塵土之果……持經雖少而得福多」[0113c01–04]；微塵兩種（塵染之塵·成世界無記之塵 [0113c05–08]）；三十二相「法身之果勝相好之果，顯法身因勝相好因」[0113c18–19]。
智顗（天台）T1698：判「當何名」為「第二、辨名空無所有」[0079b03]。釋「即非般若」：「金剛所擬，物莫不碎，此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」[0079b11–12]；復明「如空·如亦空」（佛說般若則非般若是如空，性空如亦空 [0079c01–03]）。釋微塵·身相為「受、持福多……不無所有」[0079c04–06]：「『佛說微塵，即非微塵，是名微塵』，故是無所有，如是有……散為微塵，合成世界，世界無性故非，假名即有」[0079c06–09]；三十二相「非相假名身相，只以身為非身，不是遣除身別有非身」[0079c10–12]。
窺基（唯識）T1700：判「當何名此經」為「能摧二障故勝」[0138c18–19]；依無著為離障第九（離樂外論散亂 [0138c26]）·第十破色身影像·第十一不具福資糧 [0139b28–29]。釋「即非般若」：「『佛說般若波羅蜜』者，十方佛同說也……『則非般若波羅蜜』者，非一佛獨陳也……由般若是諸佛本母，能出生諸佛，故諸佛同讚」[0139a16–22]。釋微塵：「『說非微塵』者，非如衛世等所執有實微塵也，謂但寄微塵以喻貪等，非即如言而有微塵故……非即微塵是貪體也。『是名微塵』者，謂是寄喻之微塵」[0139b13–17]；世界喻財施（財施為貪因 [0139b17–19]）。釋三十二相：「謂法身是如來，非三十二相化身也……『說三十二相』者，謂化身相；『即是非相』者，非法身相；『是名三十二相』者，是化身三十二相」[0139b25–28]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸世親二偈：辨經名仍屬格量之釋成（持經之福何以勝財施）——財施福是煩惱塵染因（故寄地塵為喻·塵雖多而成染因），相好之業非法身（故三十二相即非相·法身果勝相好果），唯持說般若能成佛菩提。即非密集之眼，由「立名即遣名、舉相即遣相」反顯「如法受持＝受持其即非」。此即本分「如法受持」之古德定讀；「般若是諸佛本母·餘佛不獨說」一義，論本即在世親「尊重於二處」「無有法是如來獨說」（
T1511 0787a07–13／T1513 0878b10–16）。
五、術語
般若波羅蜜 prajñāpāramitā（玄奘「能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多」[0982a08]、笈多義譯「智慧彼岸到」[0768b25]；吉藏「佛波若·佛金剛，非二乘智慧」[0113b05–07]）·
金剛 vajra（無著「金剛者，細、牢故。細者，智因故。牢者，不可壞故。能斷者……如金剛斷處而斷」[0759a14–17]〔立名義句〕；窺基「煩惱如山如石，而有金剛能破；或煩惱如金剛，般若能除斷；或如彩畫之金剛」[0139a06–08]）·
微塵／地塵 paramāṇu ／ pṛthivī-rajas（羅什·流支·真諦作「微塵」，笈多·玄奘·義淨作「地塵·大地微塵」；窺基「非如衛世等所執有實微塵」[0139b13–14]——簡外道極微）·
世界 loka-dhātu（窺基·吉藏判世界喻財施·財施為貪因；世親「界是因義，即是世之因」T1513 0878b23）·
三十二相／大丈夫相 dvātriṃśan mahā-puruṣa-lakṣaṇāni（羅什「三十二相」、流支·真諦「大人相」、笈多·義淨「大丈夫相」、玄奘「大士夫相」；世親「以彼非法身故」T1511 [0787a25]·窺基「化身相·非法身相」[0139b26–27]）·
即非（密集）（一段四現：般若波羅蜜·微塵·世界·三十二相，X／即非X／是名X；智顗「即慧空」[0079b12]）。〔梵文發音輔助；「三十二相」之漢譯異名見目二（大人·大丈夫·大士夫）。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（地塵喻 · 即非連珠之密集）
地塵喻 [0750a17–20]：「三千大千世界所有微塵……如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。」
- 喻體：三千大千世界碎為微塵（窺基「謂碎世界以作塵者，有其二喻」
[0139b01]）。 - 喻依：塵雖多而成世界塵土之染因（吉藏「布施雖多，是煩惱塵染因，還得顛倒生死果。譬如大千世界微塵雖多，還成世界塵土之果」
[0113c01–03]；窺基「劣喻」：「如以財施故多煩惱因……世界既為塵因，財施亦作染因」[0139b03–07]）。 - 所顯唯識義：以微塵之多反顯財施福之為煩惱染因（依他可說而非實自性·非貪體），持經之福雖少而成佛菩提因——「以福之多反顯經之無得」之較量，續前格量分（見分八目六）。
修辭之要在即非連珠之密集：本分修辭異於他分者，在「即非」之密集連發——立「金剛般若波羅蜜」之名，名甫立即「即非般若波羅蜜」（立名即遣名）；繼之微塵即非微塵、世界即非世界、三十二相即非相，四即非如連珠迭出，一段之內遣盡名（般若波羅蜜）·實法（微塵）·假名（世界）·相（三十二相）。智顗以「名空無所有」「不無所有」貫之（散為微塵·合成世界·世界無性故非·假名即有 [0079c08–09]），正狀此即遣即立之密集筆勢。地塵喻則以具象（碎界為塵）承載「財施為染因」之較量義。此目於本分以「即非密集」見其修辭，具象譬喻則於分四·十四·廿六·卅二加重。
七、互讀
- 三十頌（T1586）：遍計所執（v.20）·二空——本分微塵「即非微塵」遣外道所執實微塵，即「遍計所執之實法」之經語對應；圓成實（v.21）為「是名微塵·是名世界」世諦可說之論本。
- 二十論（T1590）：破極微·外道實有微塵——本分「諸微塵即非微塵」破實有極微，與二十論破鄰虛（極微非實·無方分）之論證同一所破；古德判「即非微塵＝非外道所執實微塵」〔見目四〕即二十論破極微之經語對應。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·三性——微塵·世界·三十二相之即非映三性，與辯中邊三性轉依相通。
- 攝大乘論（T1594）：所知相·三性——「即非」遣依他上之遍計、存圓成可說事，攝論三相之論本。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：遍計所執·法身／化身——三十二相「非法身相·是化身相」即成唯識論三身（法身·化身）之技術語對應；「實微塵」所執即遍計所執之論本。
- 心經（T251）：「是諸法空相·無眼耳鼻舌身意」——名相皆遣而存假名，與本分「即非微塵·是名微塵」同一遣執存名之無得。
本分「諸微塵即非微塵」「三十二相即是非相」，即三十頌·成唯識論「遍計所執·法身化身」之經語對應，破實微塵尤與二十論破極微同所破；「即非般若波羅蜜·受持其即非」即心經「諸法空相」之奉持位。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〕：金剛經「即非微塵·三十二相非相」一段，世親論以「煩惱染因·相非法身」之技術語、二十論以「破極微」之論證說同一遣實之事。〔約定：只列實相關者，不強挂——系聯，非湊數。百法於本分無正面對位，從闕；二十論破極微之系聯俟成增鏈。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「般若波羅蜜即非般若波羅蜜」之立名即遣名 ↔ 西方語言哲學之「自我指涉／命名的弔詭」、解構主義之「延異」（名甫立即被其否定所追蹤）：西方多讀「即非」為一靜態之語意弔詭（命名與其否定同陳，似自相矛盾）；唯識／古德讀為三性動轉——般若非無（依他可名可持），唯遣其如言之實（遣遍計），「即非」非命名之矛盾，乃「除佛餘所不共」之境岸（世親「境岸非知故」
T1513 0878c17）·「諸佛本母·餘佛不獨說」之共證（窺基[0139a20–22]），是體性之轉，非語言之謎。 - 「微塵即非微塵」之破實有極微 ↔ 西方原子論／構成性實在論之「終極微粒」（物可析至不可分之實有原子）：西方原子論執極微為實有之終極構成；古德／唯識判「即非微塵」正破此執（窺基「非如衛世等所執有實微塵」
[0139b13–14]）——微塵非實自體，乃寄喻貪等之假名（是名微塵），是遣遍計而非另立更小之實，與二十論破極微（無方分·非實）同一進路（見目七）。 - 「三十二相即是非相」之相非法身 ↔ 西方象徵學／圖像神學之「形相與本體」（可見之相能否表詮不可見之本體）：西方多就「象徵指涉本體」之表詮關係立論；古德判「即是非相」為化身相非法身相（窺基
[0139b26–27]）——非「相象徵法身」，乃相好之業非正覺體性（世親「以彼非法身故」T1511 [0787a25]），須見第一義法身（無著「應見第一義法身」[0762b10]），是修證所證之轉依，非表詮之象徵。 - 即非之密集連發 ↔ 西方否定神學（via negativa；以連串否定趨近不可言之絕對）、真矛盾論（dialetheism；普里斯特、加菲爾德論佛教即非為真矛盾）：西方或讀密集即非為「層層否定以指向超言之實在」，或讀為「即非即真矛盾」；唯識讀為「遣遍計（即非）·存可說（是名）」之雙存——四即非非純否定之累積，乃名·實法·假名·相四處之三性同轉。此東西之別，正一可注之義。
- （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 [0750a11–a26]（原典 · 如法受持分）。六譯本辨名·微塵·三十二相·捨身命一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0754a25–b12] · 真諦 T0237 [0763b25–c14] · 笈多 T0238 [0768b23–c15] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0982a06–a29] · 義淨 T0239 [0773a25–b09]（捨身命句 [0773b02–b03]）（辨名·般若即非後置 [0773b07–09]）。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0757c07–13·0758c03·0761c06–15·0762a19–b10] · 世親 T1511 [0786c20–0787a29·0787b07–08] · 世親 T1513 [0878b08–c02·0878c15–18]。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0113a05–c19] · 智顗 T1698 [0079b03–c12] · 窺基 T1700 [0138c18–0139b28]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (dense “is-not” · register 3 weighted)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 13, Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is (如法受持分) |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | First half (emptiness of beings · breaking the four marks · the affliction-hindrance; keeping and upholding the sūtra · dense “is-not”) |
| Dao’an’s three-part schema | Main-teaching division · continuation of the merit-weighing of keeping the sūtra (settling the sūtra’s name · making good the weighing) |
| Asaṅga’s eighteen abodes, T1510 | Spans the ninth, keeping clear of the distraction of following outer treatises (prajñā-pāramitā is-not · grasping the sense as worded [0757c07–09]) · the tenth, contemplative breaking of the corresponding act in the grasping of form and the bodies of beings (earth-particles · world [0757c10–11]) · the eleventh, offering and attending upon the Tathāgata (the thirty-two great-being marks [0757c12–13]); the eight-abode collation gathers it under the abode of being free of hindrance (the remaining twelve kinds) [0758c03] (the fifth hindrance, the stirring of relishing outer treatises · the sixth, lacking skill in breaking the reflection-image mark · the seventh, not being furnished with the provision of merit) |
| Vasubandhu’s twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The gloss of “how it makes good that surpassing merit” — why does keeping the sūtra surpass the giving of wealth? Answered by “that jewel-giving merit is the cause that defiles by affliction” (the earth-particle simile); the work of the marks too falls short of keeping the sūtra; therefore keeping and expounding this Dharma-gate can accomplish the Buddha’s awakening (T1511 0787a04–a29／T1513 0878b17–c02) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise), T1699 | “『當何名此經』下……此文猶屬格量段也” [0113a05–08]; settling the sūtra-name belongs to the weighing’s second chapter “辨於經名,” while the particle · thirty-two marks are “釋成上格量意” [0113c13–14] |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai), T1698 | “『當何名』下，第二、辨名空無所有” [0079b03]; particle · bodily mark as “受、持福多……不無所有” [0079c04–06] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra), T1700 | “『當何名此經』下，能摧二障故勝” [0138c18–19]; following Asaṅga: the ninth, keeping free of relishing outer treatises (prajñā is-not) · the tenth, breaking the form-body image (earth-particles) · the eleventh, not furnished with the provision of merit (thirty-two marks) [0138c24–27·0139b28–29] |
Sense of the dense “is-not”: this division turns from the foregoing weighing (the four lines kept of the sūtra surpassing the giving of wealth) to settle the sūtra’s name. The Buddha sets up the name “Vajra-prajñā-pāramitā,” and at once 「佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜」 — to set up the name is at once to dispel the name; then with particle-is-not-particle, world-is-not-world, thirty-two-marks-are-not-marks, to raise a mark is at once to dispel the mark. Within a single passage “is-not” appears four times (prajñā-pāramitā · particle · world · the thirty-two marks), dense as a string of pearls, the densest point of the first half’s “is-not” formula (hence register 3 is weighted). The three ancient masters alike judge this passage to still belong to the “making good of the weighing” (why the merit of keeping the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving wealth): by Vasubandhu’s two recensions, the merit of giving wealth is “the cause that defiles by the dust of affliction” (hence the earth-particle as simile — though particles are many they become the cause of defilement), and the work of the marks too is “not the Dharma-body” (hence the thirty-two marks are-not-marks); only keeping and expounding prajñā can accomplish the Buddha’s awakening (see registers 3, 4). To “receive and keep the Dharma as it is” is to keep this sūtra according to its “is-not” law — names and marks all dispelled, not grasping the real as worded.
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the passage on settling the name · particle · thirty-two marks · giving away body and life)
Key clauses: by what name shall this sūtra be called · how upheld / prajñā-pāramitā is-not prajñā-pāramitā / the Tathāgata has nothing spoken / particle is-not particle / world is-not world / the thirty-two marks are-not marks / giving away Ganges-sands of body and life · the merit is very great
| Version | The passage on settling the name · particle · thirty-two marks (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「世尊！當何名此經？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「是經名為『金剛般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。所以者何？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。須菩提！於意云何？如來有所說法不？」須菩提白佛言：「世尊！如來無所說。」「須菩提！於意云何？三千大千世界所有微塵是為多不？」須菩提言：「甚多，世尊！」「須菩提！諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二相見如來不？」「不也，世尊！不可以三十二相得見如來。何以故？如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相。」 | 0750a11–a23 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 「世尊！當何名此法門？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「是法門名為『金剛般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。何以故？須菩提！佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜。「須菩提！於意云何？如來有所說法不？」……「三千大千世界所有微塵，是為多不？」……「是諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。」佛言：「須菩提！於意云何？可以三十二大人相見如來不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！何以故？如來說三十二大人相，即是非相，是名三十二大人相。」 | 0754a25–b08 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「世尊！如是經典，名號云何？我等云何奉持？」佛告須菩提：「此經名『般若波羅蜜』。以是名字，汝當奉持。何以故？須菩提！是般若波羅蜜，如來說非般若波羅蜜。須菩提！汝意云何？頗有一法一佛說不？」須菩提言：「無有，世尊！無有一法一如來說。」……「此諸微塵，如來說非微塵，故名微塵。此諸世界，如來說非世界，故說世界。」……「可以三十二大人相見如來不？」……「此三十二大人相，如來說非相，故說三十二大人相。」 | 0763b25–c09 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「何名此，世尊！法本？云何及如此持我？」……世尊言：「『智慧彼岸到』名，此，善實！法本，如是此持。彼何所因？若如是，善實！智慧彼岸到；如來說，彼如是非彼岸到；彼故，說名智慧彼岸到者。」……「所有，善實！三千大千世界地塵有多有？」……「若彼，世尊！地塵，如來說；非塵，彼，如來說；彼故，說名地塵者。若彼世界，如來說；非界，如來說；彼故，說名世界者。」……「三十二大丈夫相，如來、應、正遍知見應？」……「所有，世尊！三十二大丈夫相，如來說；非相所有，如來說；彼故，說名三十二大丈夫相者。」 | 0768b23–c11 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 「世尊！當何名此法門？我當云何奉持？」……佛告善現言：「具壽！今此法門名為能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多，如是名字汝當奉持。何以故？善現！如是般若波羅蜜多，如來說為非般若波羅蜜多，是故如來說名般若波羅蜜多。」……「乃至三千大千世界大地微塵寧為多不？」……「大地微塵，如來說非微塵，是故如來說名大地微塵；諸世界，如來說非世界，是故如來說名世界。」……「應以三十二大士夫相觀於如來、應、正等覺不？」……「三十二大士夫相，如來說為非相，是故如來說名三十二大士夫相。」 | 0982a06–a23 |
| Yijing T239 | 〔微塵·三十二相在前〕「三千大千世界所有地塵，是為多不？」……「諸地塵，佛說非塵，故名地塵。此諸世界，佛說非界，故名世界。」「妙生！……可以三十二大丈夫相觀如來不？」……「三十二相，佛說非相，是故說為大丈夫相。」〔辨名在後·繫於涕淚段〕「世尊！當何名此經？我等云何奉持？」佛告妙生：「是經名為『般若波羅蜜多』，如是應持。何以故？佛說般若波羅蜜多，則非般若波羅蜜多。」 | 0773a25–b09 |
What the variants turn on:
- The order of the passages (whether settling-the-name precedes or follows particle · thirty-two marks): Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha, and Dharmagupta give a single continuous passage — settling-the-name (prajñā-pāramitā is-not) → particle · world → thirty-two marks; Yijing alone places “settling-the-name · prajñā-pāramitā is-not” later, fixing it before the next division’s (Beyond Marks) “deeply grasping the sense · weeping for sorrow,” at
[0773b07–09], while moving particle · thirty-two marks forward to[0773a25–b01]. Vasubandhu’s two treatise-recensions correspond to this: in Bodhiruci T1511, though “prajñā-pāramitā is-not” stands in the name-settling place in the sūtra-text[0786c23], the treatise-prose glossing this clause (prajñā-pāramitā is-not) is placed at the weeping passage[0787b07–08]; Yijing T1513 likewise — the stanza glossing “prajñā-pāramitā is-not,” 「境岸非知故」, comes after the weeping passage[0878c15–18]. The order-difference hangs on which way “settling-the-name” is grouped (the close of the weighing · or the opening of the weeping passage). - The translation of “the thirty-two marks”: Kumārajīva gives 「三十二相」; Bodhiruci and Paramārtha 「三十二大人相」; Dharmagupta and Yijing 「三十二大丈夫相」; Xuanzang 「三十二大士夫相」 (dvātriṃśan mahā-puruṣa-lakṣaṇāni; 「大丈夫／大人／大士夫」 are all variant renderings of mahā-puruṣa).
- The Able-to-Cut lineage’s repeated terms · do not contract: Xuanzang 「能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多……如來說為非般若波羅蜜多，是故如來說名般若波羅蜜多」
[0982a08–11]— the three-clause form complete and the name marked “Able-to-Cut”; Dharmagupta 「智慧彼岸到……非彼岸到……說名智慧彼岸到者」[0768b25–28](prajñāpāramitā rendered by sense as 「智慧彼岸到」, the particle as 「地塵」, world as 「非界」). Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci give only 「即非般若波羅蜜」 (without the “is-called” tail), and Paramārtha 「如來說非般若波羅蜜」. The completeness or lack of the “is-not” formula (three clauses / two) is the textual fingerprint of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage transmissions (Xuanzang · Yijing · Dharmagupta); recorded verbatim, not contracted. - 「微塵／地塵」 and the “is-not” formula: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha give 「微塵」 (諸微塵·非微塵·是名微塵); Dharmagupta, Xuanzang, Yijing give 「地塵」 (pṛthivī-rajas, “great-earth particle”). For the world-clause, Kumārajīva 「如來說世界，非世界，是名世界」
[0750a19–20], Xuanzang 「諸世界，如來說非世界，是故如來說名世界」[0982a17–18], Dharmagupta 「彼世界，如來說；非界，如來說；彼故，說名世界者」[0768c04–06]— the Able-to-Cut three lineages’ three-clause form complete. - 「如來無所說／頗有少法如來可說」: Kumārajīva 「如來有所說法不？……如來無所說」
[0750a15–16], Bodhiruci likewise[0754a28–b01]; Kuiji judges this to “show that he does not speak alone” (no single dharma the Tathāgata speaks alone[0139a24–26]); Paramārtha 「頗有一法一佛說不？……無有一法一如來說」[0763b28–c01]; Yijing 「頗有少法是如來所說不？……無有少法是如來所說」[0773a23–24](this clause moved forward in Yijing); Dharmagupta 「有法若如來說？……不有，世尊！法，若如來說」[0768b28–c01]. All versions alike make plain “no single dharma the Tathāgata speaks alone” (all Buddhas proclaim it together), hanging on prajñā being the very mother of all Buddhas (see register 4).
The giving-away-body-and-life passage (close of the weighing · Kumārajīva [0750a23–a26]):
| Version | The giving-away-body-and-life passage (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多。」 | 0750a23–a26 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 佛言：「須菩提！若有善男子、善女人，以恒河沙等身命布施，若復有人，於此法門中，乃至受持四句偈等，為他人說，其福甚多無量阿僧祇。」 | 0754b09–b12 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 佛告須菩提：「若有善男子、善女人，如諸恒河所有沙數，如是沙等身命捨以布施。若有善男子、善女人，從此經典，乃至四句偈等，恭敬受持，為他正說。此人以是因緣，生福多彼無量無數。」 | 0763c10–c14 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 世尊言：「若復時，善實！婦女，若丈夫，若日日恒伽河沙等我身捨，如是捨恒伽河沙等劫所有我身捨，若此法本乃至四句等偈，受已，為他等分別，此如是，彼緣，多過福聚生，無量、不可數。」 | 0768c11–c15 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 佛復告善現言：「假使若有善男子或善女人，於日日分捨施殑伽河沙等自體，如是經殑伽河沙等劫數捨施自體。復有善男子或善女人，於此法門乃至四句伽他，受持、讀誦、究竟通利，及廣為他宣說、開示、如理作意，由是因緣所生福聚，甚多於前無量無數。」 | 0982a23–a29 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！若有男子女人，以弶伽河沙等身命布施；若復有人，於此經中受持一頌，并為他說，其福勝彼無量無數。」 | 0773b02–b03 |
What the variants turn on (giving-away-body-and-life passage):
- The simple form versus the "day after day · through eons" intensified form: Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci give only the simple 「以恒河沙等身命布施」 (giving away body and life as many as the Ganges' sands); Paramārtha doubles the sand-count (「如諸恒河所有沙數，如是沙等身命捨以布施」) yet without day-after-day or eons; Yijing likewise the simple form (「以弶伽河沙等身命布施」). Dharmagupta and Xuanzang (the Able-to-Cut lineage) already give the "day after day × through eons" intensified form at this place — Dharmagupta 「日日恒伽河沙等我身捨，如是捨恒伽河沙等劫所有我身捨」, Xuanzang 「於日日分捨施殑伽河沙等自體，如是經殑伽河沙等劫數捨施自體」. Only at division 15 does Kumārajīva's text bring out the three-watch form 「初日分·中日分·後日分」 (see division 15, register 2) — the escalation of the body-giving weighing sits at different places in the different transmissions.
- The rendering of 「身命」 (body and life): Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, and Yijing give 「身命」; Paramārtha 「身命捨」; Dharmagupta 「我身捨」 and Xuanzang 「自體」 (ātma-bhāva — what is given away is one's own bodily existence).
- The measure of what is kept: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, and Paramārtha give 「（乃至）四句偈等」 (even so little as a four-line verse); Dharmagupta 「四句等偈」; Xuanzang 「四句伽他」 (gāthā transliterated); Yijing alone gives 「受持一頌」 (keeping one stanza).
- The merit clause: Kumārajīva says broadly 「其福甚多」 (the merit is very great); Bodhiruci 「其福甚多無量阿僧祇」; Paramārtha 「生福多彼無量無數」, Xuanzang 「甚多於前無量無數」, and Yijing 「其福勝彼無量無數」 make the comparison explicit (more than that · more than the former · surpasses that); Dharmagupta 「多過福聚生，無量、不可數」.
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · dense “is-not” · weighted)
This division’s four “is-nots”: 「般若波羅蜜 — 即非般若波羅蜜」[0750a14–15], 「諸微塵 — 如來說非微塵 — 是名微塵」[0750a18–19], 「（如來說）世界 — 非世界 — 是名世界」[0750a19–20], 「三十二相 — 即是非相 — 是名三十二相」[0750a22–23] — four “is-nots” in one passage, the densest of the first half’s “is-not” formula.
“Is-not” one (prajñā-pāramitā) mapping the three natures: Kumārajīva gives 「佛說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜」 (without the “is-called” tail; Xuanzang · Paramārtha supply the third clause).
- 般若波羅蜜 (X) is the other-dependent — the teaching that can be named, spoken, kept (Jizang: 「此是佛波若、佛金剛」
[0113b05–06]). - 即非般若波羅蜜 dispels the wholly-imagined — not the real prajñā grasped by the two vehicles, not a self-nature graspable as worded (Jizang: 「非是二乘智慧、非二乘金剛」
[0113b06–07]; Zhiyi: 「此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」[0079b11–12]). - The perfectly-accomplished prong is here implicitly held: prajñā is not nothing (the other-dependent can be spoken and kept), only the reality of its name-and-mark is dispelled — to set up the name is at once to dispel it, and so to accord with non-discrimination.
“Is-not” two · three (particle · world) mapping the three natures:
- 微塵·世界 (X) is the other-dependent — conditioned event-marks (the world crushed into particles · particles massed into a world, the event-marks vivid).
- 即非微塵·非世界 dispels the wholly-imagined — not the real atoms held by the outer path (Vaiśeṣika) (Kuiji: 「非如衛世等所執有實微塵」
[0139b13–14]), not the very substance of greed and the rest of the afflictions (Kuiji: 「但寄微塵以喻貪等，非即微塵是貪體」[0139b15–16]). - 是名微塵·是名世界 sets up the perfectly-accomplished — without real self-nature, yet a borrowed figure speakable by conventional truth (Kuiji: 「是寄喻之微塵」
[0139b16–17]; Jizang: 「結是成地微塵」[0113c08–09]).
“Is-not” four (the thirty-two marks) mapping the three natures:
- 三十二相 (X) is the other-dependent — the marks of the transformation-body (Kuiji: 「謂化身相」
[0139b26]). - 即是非相 dispels the wholly-imagined — not the marks of the Dharma-body (Kuiji: 「非法身相」
[0139b26–27]; Jizang: 「法身之果勝相好之果」[0113c18]). - 是名三十二相 sets up the perfectly-accomplished — the transformation-body’s thirty-two marks, without reality yet speakable by conventional truth (Kuiji: 「是化身三十二相」
[0139b27–28]).
The eye of this division (dense “is-not”): all four “is-nots” pivot on dispelling the self-nature / the worded reality while preserving the speakable — name (prajñā-pāramitā), real dharma (particle), nominal designation (world), mark (the thirty-two marks); set up, at once dispelled, and the dispelling does not fall into nothing (是名). The reason for the density is precisely that, in the moment of settling the sūtra’s name, it concentrates the display of “to receive and keep the Dharma as it is = to keep its ‘is-not’ law”: to keep this sūtra is to keep it according to its “is-not,” grasping neither name, nor mark, nor the reality-as-worded. For this “is-not” mapping the three natures: see Shi Huijing’s The Three-Part “Is-Not” Formula Mapping the Yogācāra Three Natures 〔from S5-P01〕; this division is its fourfold instance at the position of dense “is-not.”
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (the cause that defiles by affliction · marks-not-the-Dharma-body · weighted · by school)
Core, weighted — Vasubandhu’s Vajracchedikā treatise, “that merit is the cause that defiles by the dust of affliction” (the earth-particle simile) · “those marks are not the Dharma-body” (the thirty-two marks), both recensions present: Vasubandhu glosses this passage by “how it makes good that surpassing merit” — why does the merit of keeping the sūtra surpass the giving of wealth? Because the merit of giving wealth is the cause that defiles by affliction (hence the borrowed earth-particle as simile) and the work of the marks is not the Dharma-body (hence the thirty-two marks are-not-marks), throwing into relief that only keeping and expounding prajñā can accomplish the Buddha’s awakening; the two recensions, names differing, sense one.
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci’s rendering), treatise-verse [0787a04–a06]:
「尊重於二處，因習證大體；彼因習煩惱，此降伏染福。」
- 尊重於二處: first the place spoken (wherever this sūtra is spoken it gives rise to honour), second the person who speaks (the keeper and the expounder, honoured), 「非七寶等隨何處捨、隨何人能捨」
[0787a07–11]— this glosses “nothing spoken” (no single dharma the Tathāgata speaks alone, the rest of the Buddhas not speaking it[0787a12–13]). - The earth-particle simile (particle · world): 「彼珍寶布施福德是染煩惱因，以能成就煩惱事故。此因示現遠離煩惱因故，是故說地微塵喻」
[0787a13–16]; 「彼微塵非貪等煩惱體，以是義故名為地微塵……彼世界非煩惱染因界，是故說世界」[0787a18–20]. - The thirty-two marks not the Dharma-body: 「及成就大丈夫相福德中勝故……彼相於佛菩提非相故，以彼非法身故。是故說大丈夫相」
[0787a22–25]— the work of the marks too falls short of keeping the sūtra, the marks being not the Dharma-body.
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing’s rendering), treatise-stanza (earth-particle · the marks) [0878b08–09]:
「兩成尊重故，由等流殊勝；煩惱因性故，由劣亦勝故。」
- 兩成尊重: 「由所託處成制底塔故……其所依身成如大師尊重性故」
[0878b10–12]; 「無有法是如來獨說，皆是諸佛共宣揚故」[0878b14–16](glossing “nothing spoken”). - The earth-particle simile: 「此施珍寶福是苦惱事生起之因……將地塵為喻，如來說作非塵，由此說為地塵……此地塵不是染等性塵，是故名作地塵……彼世界非是煩惱之因名界，為此說為世界」
[0878b17–23]. - The thirty-two marks: 「彼能成大丈夫相所有福業，此成菩提因持說法門之福亦為是劣。由彼眾相非是正覺之體性故，為此名為大丈夫相，是彼標相故」
[0878b26–c02]. - Glossing “prajñā-pāramitā is-not” (the shore of the object is not knowable) — stanza
[0878c05–08]「境岸非知故，於餘不共故……」, gloss[0878c15–18]: 「『如來說為般若波羅蜜多者，彼即非波羅蜜多』。為何意趣作如是說？答：境岸非知故。由其所知境岸，除佛於餘無能知者」 — the “is-not” of prajñā is because the shore of its object is knowable to the Buddha alone, not shared with the rest.
〔The two recensions mapped: honouring at two places (the place spoken · the person who speaks) the same · the earth-particle simile, giving-wealth as the cause that defiles by affliction, the same · the great-being’s marks not the Dharma-body (not the very substance of right awakening), the same — the same treatise of Vasubandhu in two Chinese renderings, names differing, sense one.〕
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta’s rendering): this passage spans the ninth, keeping clear of the distraction of following outer treatises · the tenth, contemplative breaking of the corresponding act in the grasping of form and the bodies of beings (earth-particles [0757c10–11]) · the eleventh, offering and attending upon the Tathāgata (the thirty-two great-being marks [0757c12–13]); the eight-abode collation gathers it under the abode of being free of hindrance (the remaining twelve kinds) [0758c03]. Glossing “prajñā-pāramitā is-not” (the fifth hindrance, the stirring of relishing outer treatises · against grasping the sense as worded): 「於如是法中，或起如言執義。為對治彼未來罪故，經言『如來所說般若波羅蜜，即非般若波羅蜜』故。如般若波羅蜜非波羅蜜，如是亦無有餘法如來說者」[0762a19–23]. Glossing particle · world (the sixth hindrance, lacking skill in breaking the reflection-image mark): 「為破色身影像相故，顯示二種方便：一細作方便，如經『三千大千世界所有地塵寧為多不』等；二不念方便，如經『所有地塵，如來說非塵，是名地塵』故。為破眾生名身影像相故，經言『所有世界，如來說非世界，是名世界』」[0762a28–b05]. Glossing the thirty-two marks (the seventh hindrance, not being furnished with the provision of merit): 「為離不具福資糧故……顯示為福資糧故，親近、供養如來時，不應以相成就見如來。云何見？應見第一義法身故」[0762b07–10].
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: judges “by what name shall this sūtra be called” to still belong to the weighing — 「此文猶屬格量段也。前格量中開為二別：第一、正舉二種財施格量稱嘆；第二章、辨於經名」[0113a07–09]; the settling of the name being that 「經在處則處貴、居人則人尊……咸欲受持，但未識名字，是故此中辨名」[0113a09–12]. Glossing “is-not prajñā” by the treatise’s two clauses: 「初句明下有所異，次句明上有所同……下異二乘、上同諸佛故可尊敬」[0113a28–b02]; 「則非般若者，非是二乘智慧、非二乘金剛也」[0113b06–07]. Glossing particle · thirty-two marks as “making good the foregoing weighing”: 「布施雖多，是煩惱塵染因，還得顛倒生死果。譬如大千世界微塵雖多，還成世界塵土之果……持經雖少而得福多」[0113c01–04]; two kinds of particle (the particle that defiles · the particle that constitutes the indeterminate world [0113c05–08]); the thirty-two marks 「法身之果勝相好之果，顯法身因勝相好因」[0113c18–19].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: judges “by what name shall it be called” to be 「第二、辨名空無所有」[0079b03]. Glossing “is-not prajñā”: 「金剛所擬，物莫不碎，此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」[0079b11–12]; further making plain “like space · the like too empty” (佛說般若則非般若 is the “like space”; nature-empty, the like too empty [0079c01–03]). Glossing particle · bodily mark as “keeping-merit-many … not nothing-at-all” [0079c04–06]: 「『佛說微塵，即非微塵，是名微塵』，故是無所有，如是有……散為微塵，合成世界，世界無性故非，假名即有」[0079c06–09]; the thirty-two marks 「非相假名身相，只以身為非身，不是遣除身別有非身」[0079c10–12].
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: judges “by what name shall this sūtra be called” to be “surpassing because it can crush the two hindrances” [0138c18–19]; following Asaṅga, the ninth hindrance (keeping free of relishing outer treatises [0138c26]) · the tenth, breaking the form-body image · the eleventh, not furnished with the provision of merit [0139b28–29]. Glossing “is-not prajñā”: 「『佛說般若波羅蜜』者，十方佛同說也……『則非般若波羅蜜』者，非一佛獨陳也……由般若是諸佛本母，能出生諸佛，故諸佛同讚」[0139a16–22]. Glossing the particle: 「『說非微塵』者，非如衛世等所執有實微塵也，謂但寄微塵以喻貪等，非即如言而有微塵故……非即微塵是貪體也。『是名微塵』者，謂是寄喻之微塵」[0139b13–17]; world as the simile of giving wealth (giving wealth as the cause of greed [0139b17–19]). Glossing the thirty-two marks: 「謂法身是如來，非三十二相化身也……『說三十二相』者，謂化身相；『即是非相』者，非法身相；『是名三十二相』者，是化身三十二相」[0139b25–28].
The three streams of the ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) converge in this division on Vasubandhu’s two verses: settling the sūtra-name still belongs to the making-good of the weighing (why the merit of keeping the sūtra surpasses the giving of wealth) — the merit of giving wealth is the cause that defiles by the dust of affliction (hence the borrowed earth-particle as simile · though particles are many they become the cause of defilement), and the work of the marks is not the Dharma-body (hence the thirty-two marks are-not-marks · the Dharma-body fruit surpasses the marks-fruit); only keeping and expounding prajñā can accomplish the Buddha’s awakening. The eye of the dense “is-not,” by “to set up a name is at once to dispel the name, to raise a mark is at once to dispel the mark,” throws into relief “to receive and keep the Dharma as it is = to keep its ‘is-not.’” This is the ancient masters’ settled reading of this division’s “receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is”; the single sense “prajñā is the very mother of all Buddhas · the rest of the Buddhas do not speak it alone” has its treatise source just in Vasubandhu’s “honouring at two places” “no dharma the Tathāgata speaks alone” (
T1511 0787a07–13／T1513 0878b10–16).
5 · Terminology
般若波羅蜜 prajñāpāramitā (Xuanzang 「能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多」[0982a08], Dharmagupta’s sense-rendering 「智慧彼岸到」[0768b25]; Jizang 「佛波若·佛金剛，非二乘智慧」[0113b05–07]) ·
金剛 vajra (Asaṅga 「金剛者，細、牢故。細者，智因故。牢者，不可壞故。能斷者……如金剛斷處而斷」[0759a14–17] 〔the name-establishing line〕; Kuiji 「煩惱如山如石，而有金剛能破；或煩惱如金剛，般若能除斷；或如彩畫之金剛」[0139a06–08]) ·
微塵／地塵 paramāṇu ／ pṛthivī-rajas (Kumārajīva · Bodhiruci · Paramārtha give 「微塵」, Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing 「地塵·大地微塵」; Kuiji 「非如衛世等所執有實微塵」[0139b13–14] — distinguishing the outer path’s atoms) ·
世界 loka-dhātu (Kuiji · Jizang judge world as the simile of giving wealth · giving wealth as the cause of greed; Vasubandhu 「界是因義，即是世之因」T1513 0878b23) ·
三十二相／大丈夫相 dvātriṃśan mahā-puruṣa-lakṣaṇāni (Kumārajīva 「三十二相」, Bodhiruci · Paramārtha 「大人相」, Dharmagupta · Yijing 「大丈夫相」, Xuanzang 「大士夫相」; Vasubandhu 「以彼非法身故」T1511 [0787a25] · Kuiji 「化身相·非法身相」[0139b26–27]) ·
即非（密集）the “is-not” (dense) (four appearances in one passage: prajñā-pāramitā · particle · world · the thirty-two marks, X／即非X／是名X; Zhiyi 「即慧空」[0079b12]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; for the Chinese translation-variants of 「三十二相」 (大人·大丈夫·大士夫) see register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the earth-particle simile · the density of the “is-not” strung as pearls)
The earth-particle simile [0750a17–20]: 「三千大千世界所有微塵……如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界。」
- The figure: the three-thousand-great-thousandfold world crushed into particles (Kuiji 「謂碎世界以作塵者，有其二喻」
[0139b01]). - The ground of the figure: though particles are many they become the defiling cause of the world’s dust (Jizang 「布施雖多，是煩惱塵染因，還得顛倒生死果。譬如大千世界微塵雖多，還成世界塵土之果」
[0113c01–03]; Kuiji’s “inferior simile”: 「如以財施故多煩惱因……世界既為塵因，財施亦作染因」[0139b03–07]). - The Yogācāra sense displayed: through the abundance of particles it throws into relief that the merit of giving wealth is the cause that defiles by affliction (a other-dependent that can be spoken yet is no real self-nature · not the substance of greed), while the merit of keeping the sūtra, though slight, becomes the cause of the Buddha’s awakening — the weighing of “throwing the no-gain of the sūtra into relief through the abundance of merit,” carrying on the foregoing weighing-division (see division 8, register 6).
The point of the rhetoric lies in the density of the “is-not” strung as pearls: what sets this division’s rhetoric apart from the others is the dense, rapid firing of “is-not” — the name “Vajra-prajñā-pāramitā” is set up, and the name no sooner set than 「即非般若波羅蜜」 (to set up the name is at once to dispel the name); then particle-is-not-particle, world-is-not-world, thirty-two-marks-are-not-marks, four “is-nots” issuing one after another like pearls, dispelling within a single passage the name (prajñā-pāramitā) · the real dharma (particle) · the nominal designation (world) · the mark (the thirty-two marks). Zhiyi runs it through by “the emptiness of the name · not nothing at all” (散為微塵 · 合成世界 · 世界無性故非 · 假名即有 [0079c08–09]), exactly describing this dense brush of at-once-dispelling-at-once-setting-up. The earth-particle simile then, in concrete form (the world crushed into particles), carries the weighing-sense of “giving wealth as the cause of defilement.” This register shows its rhetoric in this division as the “dense ‘is-not’”; concrete simile is weighted in division 4 · 14 · 26 · 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the wholly-imagined (v.20) · the two emptinesses — this division’s particle 「即非微塵」 dispels the real atoms held by the outer path, the sūtra-wording correspondence of “the real dharma of the wholly-imagined nature”; the perfectly-accomplished (v.21) is the treatise source for “是名微塵·是名世界,” speakable by conventional truth.
- Twenty Verses (T1590): breaking atoms · the outer path’s real atoms — this division’s 「諸微塵即非微塵」 breaks real atoms, of one with the Twenty Verses’ argument against the near-void atom (the atom not real · without spatial parts); the ancient masters’ judgement 「即非微塵＝非外道所執實微塵」 〔see register 4〕 is the sūtra-wording correspondence of the Twenty Verses’ breaking of atoms.
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): chapter on the real · the three natures — particle · world · the thirty-two marks’ “is-not” mapping the three natures connects with the Madhyānta-vibhāga’s three-natures transformation of the basis.
- Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (T1594): the marks of the knowable · the three natures — the “is-not” dispels the wholly-imagined upon the other-dependent and preserves the speakable perfectly-accomplished, the treatise source of the Saṃgraha’s three marks.
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the wholly-imagined · Dharma-body / transformation-body — the thirty-two marks 「非法身相·是化身相」 is the technical-language correspondence of the Cheng weishi lun’s three bodies (Dharma-body · transformation-body); the grasped “real atoms” are the treatise source of the wholly-imagined nature.
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「是諸法空相·無眼耳鼻舌身意」 — names and marks all dispelled yet the nominal designation preserved, of one with this division’s “particle is-not particle · is called particle,” the same no-gain that dispels the grasped and preserves the named.
This division’s 「諸微塵即非微塵」 「三十二相即是非相」 is the sūtra-wording correspondence of the Thirty Verses’ and Cheng weishi lun’s “wholly-imagined · Dharma-body and transformation-body”; its breaking of real atoms is especially of the same target as the Twenty Verses’ breaking of atoms; 「即非般若波羅蜜·受持其即非」 is the upholding-position of the Heart Sūtra’s “all dharmas’ mark of emptiness.” Shi Huijing’s thesis, “what the Diamond Sūtra says in sūtra-wording, the Cheng weishi lun says in technical language” 〔from From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond, S5-P10〕: this division’s passage 「即非微塵·三十二相非相」 is what Vasubandhu’s treatise states in the technical language of “the cause that defiles by affliction · the marks not the Dharma-body” and the Twenty Verses in the argument of “breaking atoms,” the same matter of dispelling the real. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent, no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The Hundred Dharmas has no frontal correspondence in this division, omitted; the Twenty-Verses breaking-atoms linkage, link to be added when sealed.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- “To set up the name is at once to dispel the name” in “prajñā-pāramitā is-not prajñā-pāramitā” ↔ the “self-reference / paradox of naming” of Western philosophy of language, and deconstruction’s “différance” (a name no sooner set than tracked by its own negation): the West largely reads “is-not” as a static semantic paradox (the name and its negation co-stated, seemingly self-contradictory); the Yogācāra / ancient-master reading is a three-nature transformation — prajñā is not nothing (the other-dependent can be named and kept), only its reality-as-worded is dispelled (dispelling the wholly-imagined); the “is-not” is no paradox of naming, but the “shore of the object, not shared with the rest, knowable to the Buddha alone” (Vasubandhu 「境岸非知故」
T1513 0878c17) · the joint witnessing of “the very mother of all Buddhas · the rest of the Buddhas do not speak it alone” (Kuiji[0139a20–22]), a turn of substance, not a riddle of language. - “Particle is-not particle” in the breaking of real atoms ↔ the “ultimate particle” of Western atomism / constitutive realism (matter analyzable to indivisible real atoms): Western atomism holds the atom as a real ultimate constituent; the ancient-master / Yogācāra judgement of 「即非微塵」 just breaks this grasping (Kuiji 「非如衛世等所執有實微塵」
[0139b13–14]) — the particle is no real self-substance, but a nominal designation borrowed to figure greed and the rest (是名微塵), dispelling the wholly-imagined and not erecting some smaller real, of one approach with the Twenty Verses’ breaking of atoms (without spatial parts · not real; see register 7). - “The thirty-two marks are-not marks” in the marks-not-the-Dharma-body ↔ the “form and substance” of Western symbology / iconic theology (whether the visible mark can signify the invisible substance): the West largely argues from the signifying relation of “symbol pointing to substance”; the ancient masters judge 「即是非相」 as the transformation-body’s marks not the Dharma-body’s marks (Kuiji
[0139b26–27]) — not “the mark symbolizes the Dharma-body,” but the work of the marks not the very substance of right awakening (Vasubandhu 「以彼非法身故」T1511 [0787a25]), requiring one to see the first-principle Dharma-body (Asaṅga 「應見第一義法身」[0762b10]), a transformation of the basis to be realized, not a symbol that signifies. - The dense rapid firing of “is-not” ↔ Western negative theology (via negativa; approaching the unspeakable absolute by a chain of negations), and dialetheism (Priest and Garfield reading the Buddhist “is-not” as a true contradiction): the West may read the dense “is-not” as “layer upon layer of negation pointing to a reality beyond words,” or as “‘is-not’ = a true contradiction”; the Yogācāra reading is the joint preservation of “dispelling the wholly-imagined (即非) · preserving the speakable (是名)” — the four “is-nots” are no mere accumulation of negation, but the simultaneous three-nature turning at the four places of name · real dharma · nominal designation · mark. This difference between East and West is itself one note worth marking.
- (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 [0750a11–a26] (root · Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is). The six versions’ passage on settling the name · particle · thirty-two marks · giving away body and life [loc], see register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0754a25–b12] · Paramārtha T0237 [0763b25–c14] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0768b23–c15] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0982a06–a29] · Yijing T0239 [0773a25–b09] (the body-and-life clause at [0773b02–b03]) (settling-the-name · prajñā-is-not placed later [0773b07–09]). Sectioning / treatise sources: Asaṅga T1510a [0757c07–13·0758c03·0761c06–15·0762a19–b10] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0786c20–0787a29·0787b07–08] · Vasubandhu T1513 [0878b08–c02·0878c15–18]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0113a05–c19] · Zhiyi T1698 [0079b03–c12] · Kuiji T1700 [0138c18–0139b28].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 13 · Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is · apparatus · Spring 2026