金剛般若波羅蜜經 分十七 究竟無我分
開經時，須菩提問過「云何應住、云何降伏其心」；到這一分，他把同一句話，一字不改地再問了一遍。佛的答覆也彷彿重複——度盡眾生而無一眾生實滅度，有四相則非菩薩。然而古德說，這是全經的接縫：同一個問，第一次淨的是「我在度眾生」，第二次要淨的，是「我是個行菩薩道、懂得無相的菩薩」。於是空從所度的眾生，逼回到能發的心、能修的法、乃至「菩薩」這個名分本身——連「實無有法名為菩薩」也說了出來。教法在這裡轉了一個彎：由人無我，轉入法無我；由破煩惱障，轉向破所知障。而真正的菩薩，不是除掉了哪一種執著的人，是通達了這兩重無我、於一切無所得處仍能行其大願的人。「如來者，即諸法如義」——無一法可得之處，正是真如現前之時。
At the opening of the sūtra, Subhūti had asked 「云何應住、云何降伏其心」(How should one abide? How should one subdue the mind?); at this division, he asks the very same words again, not a character changed. The Buddha's reply too seems to repeat—to deliver all sentient beings while no sentient being is in reality delivered, and that one who holds the four marks is no bodhisattva. Yet the ancient masters say this is the seam of the whole sūtra: it is one and the same question, but the first time, what was purified was "I am delivering sentient beings"; what must be purified the second time is "I am a bodhisattva who walks the bodhisattva path and understands marklessness." So the emptying drives back from the sentient beings that are delivered to the mind that can give rise to the vow, to the dharma that can be practiced, and at last to the very title "bodhisattva" itself—until even 「實無有法名為菩薩」(there is in reality no dharma named "bodhisattva") is spoken aloud. Here the teaching turns a corner: from the selflessness of persons (人無我) it passes into the selflessness of dharmas (法無我); from breaking the hindrance of the afflictions (煩惱障) it turns toward breaking the hindrance to the knowable (所知障). And the true bodhisattva is not one who has done away with some particular grasping, but one who has penetrated both these selflessnesses and can still carry out his great vow right where there is nothing whatsoever to attain. 「如來者，即諸法如義」(The Tathāgata is the suchness of all dharmas)—the very place where no single dharma can be attained is the very moment suchness stands present before one.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 17 · Ultimately, No Self · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕發心二問再現，佛答「當生如是心」
經曰：
爾時，須菩提白佛言：「世尊！善男子、善女人發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，云何應住？云何降伏其心？」佛告須菩提：「善男子、善女人發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，當生如是心：『我應滅度一切眾生。滅度一切眾生已，而無有一眾生實滅度者。』何以故？須菩提！若菩薩有我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，則非菩薩。所以者何？須菩提！實無有法發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。
那時，須菩提對佛說：「世尊！如果有善男子、善女人發起了求無上正等正覺的心，他的心應當安住在哪裡？又該怎樣降伏自己的心呢？」佛告訴須菩提：「善男子、善女人發起求無上正等正覺的心，就應當生起這樣的心：『我應當度脫一切眾生。可是度脫了一切眾生之後，實際上並沒有哪一個眾生是真被度脫的。』為什麼這樣說呢？須菩提，假如一個菩薩心裡還存著『我』的相、『人』的相、『眾生』的相、『壽者』的相，那他就不算是菩薩了。又為什麼這樣說呢？須菩提，因為實在沒有一個叫作「發無上正等正覺心」的東西可得。」
〔二〕然燈佛所實無有法可得，是故與我授記
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？如來於然燈佛所，有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？」「不也，世尊！如我解佛所說義，佛於然燈佛所，無有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」佛言：「如是，如是！須菩提！實無有法，如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！若有法，如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，然燈佛則不與我受記：『汝於來世當得作佛，號釋迦牟尼。』以實無有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是故然燈佛與我受記，作是言：『汝於來世當得作佛，號釋迦牟尼。』何以故？如來者，即諸法如義。
「須菩提！你怎麼想？如來當年在然燈佛那裡，有沒有一個東西可得、因而成就了無上正等正覺呢？」「沒有的，世尊！照我理解佛所說的義理，佛在然燈佛那裡，並沒有一個東西可得而成無上正等正覺。」佛說：「正是這樣，正是這樣！須菩提，實在沒有一個東西可得，使如來成就無上正等正覺。須菩提，假如真有一個東西可得而成正覺，那麼然燈佛就不會給我授記說：『你在來世當得成佛，名號叫釋迦牟尼。』正因為實在沒有一個東西可得而成無上正等正覺，所以然燈佛才給我授記，這樣說：『你在來世當得成佛，名號叫釋迦牟尼。』為什麼呢？因為所謂「如來」，就是一切法如其本然的那個真實義。」
〔三〕無實無虛，一切法皆是佛法
經曰：
「若有人言『如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』，須菩提！實無有法，佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！如來所得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，於是中無實無虛，是故如來說：『一切法皆是佛法。』須菩提！所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法。
「如果有人說『如來得到了無上正等正覺』——須菩提，其實並沒有一個東西可得，使佛成就無上正等正覺。須菩提，如來所成就的這無上正等正覺，在這當中既不是實有、也不是虛無。正因如此，如來才說：『一切法都是佛法。』須菩提，所說的「一切法」，並不是真有一個叫「一切法」的實法，只是假借這個名字叫作一切法罷了。」
〔四〕大身喻
經曰：
「須菩提！譬如人身長、大。」須菩提言：「世尊！如來說人身長、大，則為非大身，是名大身。」
「須菩提！打個比方，就像人的身體又高又大。」須菩提說：「世尊！如來所說的人身高大，並不是真有一個實在的『大身』，只是假借這個名字叫作大身罷了。」
〔五〕實無有法名為菩薩，通達無我法者乃真菩薩
經曰：
「須菩提！菩薩亦如是，若作是言『我當滅度無量眾生』，則不名菩薩。何以故？須菩提！實無有法名為菩薩。是故，佛說：『一切法無我、無人、無眾生、無壽者。』須菩提！若菩薩作是言『我當莊嚴佛土』，是不名菩薩。何以故？如來說莊嚴佛土者，即非莊嚴，是名莊嚴。須菩提！若菩薩通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩。
「須菩提！菩薩也是這樣：如果他這樣說『我要度脫無量眾生』，那他就不算是菩薩了。為什麼呢？須菩提，因為實在沒有一個叫作「菩薩」的實法可得。正因如此，佛說：『一切法都是無我、無人、無眾生、無壽者的。』須菩提！如果一個菩薩這樣說『我要莊嚴佛的國土』，那他就不算是菩薩了。為什麼呢？因為如來所說的莊嚴佛土，並不是真有一個實在的「莊嚴」，只是假借這個名字叫作莊嚴罷了。須菩提！如果一個菩薩通達了「人無我、法無我」這兩重無我，如來才說他是真正的菩薩。」
〔1〕The two questions about setting forth the mind return, and the Buddha answers, "give rise to a mind like this"
The sūtra says:
爾時，須菩提白佛言：「世尊！善男子、善女人發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，云何應住？云何降伏其心？」佛告須菩提：「善男子、善女人發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，當生如是心：『我應滅度一切眾生。滅度一切眾生已，而無有一眾生實滅度者。』何以故？須菩提！若菩薩有我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，則非菩薩。所以者何？須菩提！實無有法發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。
At that time Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One! When a good man or good woman has set forth the mind on supreme, perfect awakening, where should the mind abide? And how should they subdue the mind?" The Buddha told Subhūti: "A good man or good woman who has set forth the mind on supreme, perfect awakening should give rise to a mind like this: 'I should lead all beings to liberation. Yet when all beings have been led to liberation, in truth there is not a single being who has really been liberated.' Why is that? Subhūti! If a bodhisattva still holds a mark of a self, a mark of a person, a mark of a being, a mark of a life-span, then he is not a bodhisattva. And why? Subhūti! Because in truth there is no such thing as a 'setting-forth of the mind on supreme, perfect awakening' that can be had."
〔2〕At Dīpaṃkara Buddha's place there was in truth no dharma to be attained, and for that reason the prediction was given
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？如來於然燈佛所，有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？」「不也，世尊！如我解佛所說義，佛於然燈佛所，無有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」佛言：「如是，如是！須菩提！實無有法，如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！若有法，如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，然燈佛則不與我受記：『汝於來世當得作佛，號釋迦牟尼。』以實無有法得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，是故然燈佛與我受記，作是言：『汝於來世當得作佛，號釋迦牟尼。』何以故？如來者，即諸法如義。
"Subhūti! What do you think? At Dīpaṃkara Buddha's place, was there any dharma by which the Tathāgata attained supreme, perfect awakening?" "There was not, World-Honored One! As I understand the meaning of what the Buddha has said, at Dīpaṃkara Buddha's place there was no dharma by which he attained supreme, perfect awakening." The Buddha said: "Just so, just so! Subhūti, in truth there is no dharma by which the Tathāgata attains supreme, perfect awakening. Subhūti, if there were any dharma by which the Tathāgata attained supreme, perfect awakening, then Dīpaṃkara Buddha would not have given me the prediction, saying: 'In a future age you shall become a buddha, named Śākyamuni.' It is precisely because there is in truth no dharma by which supreme, perfect awakening is attained that Dīpaṃkara Buddha gave me the prediction, saying these words: 'In a future age you shall become a buddha, named Śākyamuni.' Why is this? Because 'Tathāgata' means all dharmas just as they are in themselves — all things just as they really are."
〔3〕Neither real nor unreal; all dharmas are the Buddha's Dharma
The sūtra says:
「若有人言『如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提』，須菩提！實無有法，佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！如來所得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，於是中無實無虛，是故如來說：『一切法皆是佛法。』須菩提！所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法。
"If someone says 'the Tathāgata has attained supreme, perfect awakening' — Subhūti, in truth there is no dharma by which the Buddha attains supreme, perfect awakening. Subhūti, in the supreme, perfect awakening the Tathāgata has attained, there is, within it, neither the real nor the unreal. That is why the Tathāgata says: 'All dharmas are the Buddha's Dharma.' Subhūti, what is called 'all dharmas' is not some real thing called 'all dharmas'; it is only borrowing the name and calling it all dharmas."
〔4〕The simile of the great body
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！譬如人身長、大。」須菩提言：「世尊！如來說人身長、大，則為非大身，是名大身。」
"Subhūti! Take an example: a person's body that is tall and great." Subhūti said: "World-Honored One! When the Tathāgata speaks of a person's body being tall and great, it is not some real 'great body'; it is only borrowing the name and calling it a great body."
〔5〕In truth there is no dharma called a bodhisattva; one who penetrates the dharma of no-self is the true bodhisattva
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！菩薩亦如是，若作是言『我當滅度無量眾生』，則不名菩薩。何以故？須菩提！實無有法名為菩薩。是故，佛說：『一切法無我、無人、無眾生、無壽者。』須菩提！若菩薩作是言『我當莊嚴佛土』，是不名菩薩。何以故？如來說莊嚴佛土者，即非莊嚴，是名莊嚴。須菩提！若菩薩通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩。
"Subhūti! It is the same with a bodhisattva. If he says 'I shall lead measureless beings to liberation,' then he is not called a bodhisattva. Why? Subhūti, because in truth there is no dharma called a bodhisattva. This is why the Buddha says: 'All dharmas are without self, without person, without being, without life-span.' Subhūti! If a bodhisattva says 'I shall adorn the buddha-land,' he is not called a bodhisattva. Why? Because what the Tathāgata calls adorning the buddha-land is not real adorning; it is only borrowing the name and calling it adorning. Subhūti! If a bodhisattva penetrates these two — the no-self of persons and the no-self of dharmas — the Tathāgata calls him a true bodhisattva."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 17 · Ultimately, No Self · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、三無性、二取二障、轉依來照金剛經的「即非」。
樞紐：識的兩重執——我執與法執
讀到這一分，須菩提把開經時問過的兩句話，原封不動再問一遍：「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，云何應住？云何降伏其心？」同一問，前面答過了，何以重來？古德都判：這是全經「二周說」的接縫（吉藏「開為二周」、智顗「第二周重說般若」、窺基「此第二周說也」）。
用唯識的眼看，這個接縫分得很清楚。眾生的迷執有兩重：一是把五蘊和合的身心，當成一個實在的「我」——這是人我執，障礙解脫，叫煩惱障；二是把心所變現的種種法，當成心外實有的「法」——這是法我執，障礙成佛的遍知，叫所知障。金剛經前半（分一至十六）破的是「我相」，遣的是人我執、煩惱障；從這一分起，破的是「法相」，遣的是法我執、所知障。窺基依世親，正把第二周判為「斷障，障即所知」——前一周淨煩惱障，這一周轉斷所知障。
所以同一個「發心」之問，第一次淨的是「我在度眾生」之執，第二次要淨的，是「我是個行菩薩道的菩薩」這層更細的執。世親甚至先設一疑：若連「菩薩」都無實體，豈不是沒有人成佛、沒有眾生可度？這個疑，要到「通達二無我」才解得開。教法在這裡轉了一個彎：由人我空，轉入法我空；由斷煩惱障，轉向斷所知障。
「實無有法發菩提」：能發的心也是依他、無自性
佛答此問，仍說「我應滅度一切眾生，滅度一切眾生已，而無有一眾生實滅度者」，仍說「有四相則非菩薩」；不同的是末後一句——「實無有法發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者。」
前半說「無眾生可度」，是就所度的眾生說空；這裡更進一步，連那「能發心」也說無實法可得。為什麼？唯識說，一切心、心所都是依他起——依眾緣而生、剎那生滅，沒有一個獨立自存的「發心」實體。若在這緣起的發心上，妄加一個「實有我在發心、實有一法可發」的執，那一層就是遍計所執。「實無有法發菩提」，不是叫你別發心，是遣掉那層「實有能發之我、所發之法」的妄計——空從所緣的眾生，逼回到能發的心上來了。
然燈授記與「如來者即諸法如義」：圓成實·真如
佛舉自己的舊事為證：當年在然燈佛前，如來並沒有得到一個什麼「法」而成菩提；正因為「實無有法得菩提」，然燈佛才為我授記。倘若真有一法可得，反倒不授記了。唯識看這層道理很直接：有所得，就落在能取、所取的對待裡（把心分成能得的我、所得的法，這正是遍計的根），那不是真菩提；唯其無所得、二取不生，才是菩提之實。
那麼「如來」是什麼？經文給出本分的眼：「如來者，即諸法如義。」如來不是得了某物而成的一個誰，如來就是諸法的「如」——就是真如、圓成實性。圓成實，是識遣盡了遍計所執之後、所顯的諸法實性；真如即唯識的實性。窺基讀此句為「除謗無佛疑」、「明有法身」：莫因「無法可得」便疑沒有佛、沒有所證——無所得處，正有法身真如在。無所得不是斷滅，是圓成。
「一切法即非一切法」：三性三無性的正讀
如來所得的菩提，「於是中無實無虛」——不可執為實有一物，也不可撥為一無所有。就在這不落實、不落虛之處，如來說「一切法皆是佛法」，隨即收一句：「所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法。」
這三句，正是唯識三性三無性的明文。順著看：
- 「一切法」＝依他起：緣生的諸法，都是識所變現，有它緣起的假相，所以可說「一切法」。
- 「即非一切法」＝遣遍計所執、顯無自性：凡夫在依他的法上，妄加一層「心外實有」的執，這一層遍計所執根本無體——窺基說它是「非分別之相法」，意思就是：它不是分別心所執的那個實在法。般若用「空」一字總說，唯識用三無性點明這個「空」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，只是依他緣起）、圓成實是「勝義無性」（它是離一切遍計的勝義）。所以「即非」不是把法都抹掉，是遣掉那層遍計的實有——空的是遍計，不是依他、圓成。
- 「是名一切法」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡妄執之處，諸法如其本然（圓成實）宛然，依他的假名也照樣可說——窺基說這是「佛所證法」。
這就是金剛經「即非」的唯識解密：「即非」遣的是那層遍計所執（相無性）——所空者唯遍計，非依他、非圓成；「是名」則立圓成、存依他假名（三性宛然）。同一句「一切法皆是佛法、即非一切法」，般若以「空」一字總說，唯識以三性三無性分疏其旨。
大身喻：法身非相而立名
佛舉一喻收束：「譬如人身長、大」，須菩提即依即非式答：「則為非大身，是名大身。」同是三性式：「大身」不是一個遍計所執的實在大身，而是圓成法身在假名上立。身且如此，法身更如此——法身之「大」，不在有一個大相可得，而在離一切遍計之相。
「通達無我、法」＝二無我＝轉依：識淨盡二取
末後，佛把這把「無所得」之刀，回過頭來落在「菩薩」自己身上：菩薩若說「我要度脫無量眾生」，便不是菩薩，因為「實無有法名為菩薩」；若存「我要莊嚴佛土」之念，也不算菩薩。無著點得最清楚：說「我成就」是人我取，說「莊嚴國土」是法我取——存這二取，就不是菩薩。
那麼怎樣才是真菩薩？經文歸結：「若菩薩通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩。」羅什頓開「無我、法」，異譯或作「無我、無我法」、「一切法無性」，所指同一件事——人無我加法無我，這兩重無我（二空）。通達二無我，就是斷盡煩惱、所知二障，遣盡那把心二分為能取所取的遍計——這在唯識叫轉依：轉捨阿賴耶識裡遍計所執的染污種子習氣，轉得圓成實的真如。窺基說「達我、法空，證無我理，是真菩薩」；無著為二種無我立「二種正覺」；吉藏也以二無我簡別二乘——「聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩」，唯通達人法二無我者乃名真菩薩。「究竟無我」之名，正落在這識轉依的究竟處：二取淨盡，識成真如。
這也回答了世親先前那一疑：不是「沒有菩薩」，而是沒有一個遍計所執的實菩薩；於二無我中正覺，依他的菩薩、圓成的法身宛然——無實菩薩可得，正是真菩薩之所以為真。
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——唯識的賴耶、三性、三無性自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽），般若另是一系；而是同一「無住非相」的實相，金剛經以經語（即非·無所得）說，唯識以論語（三性三無性·二空·二障·轉依）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。辯中邊論辨二空、辨真實，成唯識論說二障二執，三十頌以二空遣二執而歸於轉依，般若一系的心經說「無智亦無得」——皆與本分相印。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「通達無我、法」「實無有法可得」，成唯識論以「二無我·二空·斷二障·轉依」的技術語說的，是同一件事〔此一會通，釋慧鏡《從百法到金剛》（S5-P10）已明其旨〕。
Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, the two graspings and two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis (轉依 āśraya-parāvṛtti), to throw light on the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not.”
The Pivot: the Two Clingings of Consciousness — the Clinging to Self and the Clinging to Dharma
Reading to this division, Subhūti asks again, word for word, the two questions he asked at the sūtra’s opening: 「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，云何應住？云何降伏其心？」 (“one who gives rise to the mind of supreme perfect awakening — how should he abide? how should he subdue his mind?”). The same question, answered already above — why does it return? The ancient masters all judge: this is the seam of the whole sūtra’s “two-round telling” (Jizang, 「開為二周」, “opened into two rounds”; Zhiyi, 「第二周重說般若」, “the second round re-stating prajñā”; Kuiji, 「此第二周說也」, “this is the second-round telling”).
To the Yogācāra eye, this seam divides very clearly. The deluded clinging of sentient beings has two layers: first, taking the body-mind aggregated of the five skandhas to be a really existent “self” — this is the clinging to a self in the person (人我執), hindering liberation, called the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障); second, taking the manifold dharmas manifested by the mind to be “dharmas” really existing outside the mind — this is the clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執), hindering the all-knowing of becoming a Buddha, called the cognitive-hindrance (所知障). The first half of the Diamond Sūtra (Divisions 1–16) breaks the “mark of self” and dispels the clinging to a self in the person, the affliction-hindrance; from this division on, it breaks the “mark of dharma” and dispels the clinging to a self in dharmas, the cognitive-hindrance. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, judges the second round precisely as 「斷障，障即所知」 (“cutting off the hindrance — the hindrance being the cognitive”) — the former round purifies the affliction-hindrance, this round turns to cut off the cognitive-hindrance.
So the same question of “giving rise to the mind,” asked the first time, purifies the clinging of “I am saving sentient beings”; what it must purify the second time is the subtler clinging of “I am a bodhisattva practicing the bodhisattva path.” Vasubandhu even sets up a doubt beforehand: if even “a bodhisattva” has no real substance, is it not that no one becomes a Buddha and there are no sentient beings to be saved? This doubt is not loosened until “penetrating the twofold no-self.” The teaching turns a corner here: from the emptiness of self in the person into the emptiness of self in dharmas; from cutting off the affliction-hindrance toward cutting off the cognitive-hindrance.
“In Truth There Is No Dharma That Gives Rise to Awakening”: the Mind That Gives Rise Is Also 依他, Without Own-Nature
The Buddha answers this question still saying 「我應滅度一切眾生，滅度一切眾生已，而無有一眾生實滅度者」 (“I should liberate all sentient beings; and having liberated all sentient beings, in truth not one sentient being has been liberated”), still saying 「有四相則非菩薩」 (“with the four marks, one is no bodhisattva”); what differs is the last line — 「實無有法發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 (“in truth there is no dharma that gives rise to supreme perfect awakening”).
The earlier half says “no sentient being can be saved,” speaking emptiness with respect to the sentient beings saved; here it goes a step further, saying even that “mind that can give rise to awakening” has no real dharma to attain. Why? Yogācāra says: all minds and mental factors are 依他起 — arisen in reliance on a manifold of conditions, momentary in arising and ceasing, with no independently self-subsisting substance of a “giving rise to the mind.” If, upon this conditionally-arisen giving rise to the mind, one falsely adds “there really is a self that gives rise, there really is a dharma to give rise to,” that layer is 遍計所執. “In truth there is no dharma that gives rise to awakening” is not telling you not to give rise to the mind, but dispelling that layer of false reckoning that “there really is a self that can give rise, and a dharma that is given rise to” — emptiness has been driven back, from the sentient beings conditioned as object, onto the mind that can give rise.
Dīpaṃkara’s Prophecy and “the Tathāgata Is the Suchness of All Dharmas”: 圓成實 · 真如
The Buddha raises his own former affair as proof: long ago, before Dīpaṃkara Buddha, the Tathāgata did not attain any “dharma” by which to become awakened; precisely because 「實無有法得菩提」 (“in truth there was no dharma by which awakening was attained”), Dīpaṃkara Buddha gave him the prophecy. Had there really been a dharma to attain, he would, on the contrary, not have given the prophecy. Yogācāra sees the principle of this layer very directly: to have attainment is to fall into the duality of grasper and grasped (二取) (splitting the mind into a self that attains and a dharma attained — this is the very root of 遍計), and that is not true awakening; only where nothing is attained and the two graspings do not arise is the reality of awakening.
What, then, is “the Tathāgata”? The sūtra gives the eye of the division: 「如來者，即諸法如義」 (“the Tathāgata is the suchness of all dharmas”). The Tathāgata is not some someone constituted by having attained a thing; the Tathāgata is just the “suchness” of all dharmas — that is, 真如 (tathatā), the nature of 圓成實. 圓成實 is the real nature of dharmas disclosed after consciousness has wholly dispelled 遍計所執; 真如 is the very reality of consciousness-only. Kuiji reads this line as 「除謗無佛疑」 (“removing the doubt that slanders, ‘there is no Buddha’”) and 「明有法身」 (“clarifying that there is a Dharma-body”): do not, because of “there is no dharma to attain,” doubt that there is no Buddha and nothing realized — where nothing is attained, there is precisely the Dharma-body, 真如. Nothing-attained is not annihilation; it is 圓成.
“All Dharmas Are Not All Dharmas”: the Proper Reading of the Three Natures and the Three Non-Natures
The awakening the Tathāgata attains is 「於是中無實無虛」 (“within it without reality and without falsity”) — not to be grasped as a really existent thing, nor to be dismissed as a blank nothing. Right at this place of falling neither into reality nor into falsity, the Tathāgata says 「一切法皆是佛法」 (“all dharmas are Buddha-dharma”), and at once gathers a line: 「所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法」 (“what is called all dharmas is not all dharmas; therefore it is called all dharmas”).
These three sentences are the express text of the Yogācāra three natures and three non-natures. Read along:
- “All dharmas” = 依他起 paratantra: the conditionally-arisen dharmas are all manifested by consciousness, having their conditioned provisional mark, and so “all dharmas” can be said.
- “Are not all dharmas” = the dispelling of 遍計所執, disclosing non-own-nature: upon the 依他 dharmas, the ordinary person adds a layer of clinging that “there is a real existence outside the mind,” and this layer of 遍計所執 is from the root without substance — Kuiji says it is 「非分別之相法」 (“not the dharma of discriminated marks”), which means just: it is not that real dharma grasped by the discriminating mind. Prajñā states it all with the 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 “is-not” is not the smearing-away of all dharmas, but the dispelling of that layer of 遍計 real-existence — what is emptied is 遍計, not 依他 or 圓成.
- “Therefore it is called all dharmas” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where false clinging is wholly dispelled, all dharmas as they truly are (圓成實) stand manifest, and the 依他 provisional name is still sayable as before — Kuiji says this is 「佛所證法」 (“the dharma the Buddha has realized”).
This is the Yogācāra decoding of the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not”: what “is-not” dispels is that layer of 遍計所執 (相無性) — what is emptied is 遍計 alone, not 依他, not 圓成; and “that is what is called” then establishes 圓成 and preserves the 依他 provisional name (the three natures manifestly there). One and the same line, “all dharmas are Buddha-dharma, is not all dharmas,” prajñā states all with the single word “empty,” and Yogācāra parses in purport with the three natures and three non-natures.
The Great-Body Simile: the Dharma-Body Is Not a Mark, yet a Name Is Established
The Buddha raises a simile to close: 「譬如人身長、大」 (“like a person’s body, tall and great”), and Subhūti answers at once in the “is-not” form: 「則為非大身，是名大身」 (“is then not a great body; that is what is called a great body”). It is alike of the three-nature form: the “great body” is not a really existent great body of 遍計所執, but the 圓成 Dharma-body established upon a provisional name. The body is so, and the Dharma-body all the more so — the “greatness” of the Dharma-body lies not in there being a great mark to attain, but in being apart from all marks of 遍計.
“Penetrating No-Self and No-Dharma” = the Twofold No-Self = the Transformation of the Basis: Consciousness Wholly Purified of the Two Graspings
Last, the Buddha turns this blade of “nothing-attained” back round upon “the bodhisattva” himself: if a bodhisattva says “I will liberate measureless sentient beings,” he is no bodhisattva, because 「實無有法名為菩薩」 (“in truth there is no dharma named ‘bodhisattva’”); if he harbors the thought “I will adorn the Buddha-land,” he is also no bodhisattva. Asaṅga points it out most clearly: to say “I accomplish” is the grasping of a self in the person (人我取); to say “adorning the land” is the grasping of a self in dharmas (法我取) — to harbor these two graspings is to be no bodhisattva.
How, then, is one a true bodhisattva? The sūtra concludes: 「若菩薩通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩」 (“if a bodhisattva penetrates no-self and no-dharma, the Tathāgata calls him a true bodhisattva”). Kumārajīva breaks it as “no-self, no-dharma”; the alternate translations make it “no-self, no-self-dharma,” or “all dharmas without nature” — pointing to one and the same thing: no-self-in-person together with no-self-in-dharma, these twofold no-selves (the two emptinesses). To penetrate the twofold no-self is to cut off entirely the two hindrances, affliction and cognitive, and to dispel wholly that 遍計 which splits the mind in two as grasper and grasped — this, in Yogācāra, is called 轉依 (the transformation of the basis): turning away the defiled seed-habits of 遍計所執 within the 阿賴耶識 (ālaya-vijñāna) and turning toward the 真如 of 圓成實. Kuiji says 「達我、法空，證無我理，是真菩薩」 (“penetrating the emptiness of self and of dharma, realizing the principle of no-self, is the true bodhisattva”); Asaṅga sets up “two kinds of right awakening” for the two kinds of no-self; Jizang too distinguishes the two vehicles by the twofold no-self — 「聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩」 (“the śrāvaka realizes only no-self-in-person, and so is not called a bodhisattva”), and only the one who penetrates both no-self-in-person and no-self-in-dharma is called a true bodhisattva. The name “Ultimately, No Self” falls just at this ultimate place of the consciousness’s transformation of the basis: the two graspings wholly purified, consciousness become 真如.
This also answers Vasubandhu’s earlier doubt: it is not that “there is no bodhisattva,” but that there is no really existent bodhisattva of 遍計所執; in the right awakening within the twofold no-self, the 依他 bodhisattva and the 圓成 Dharma-body are manifestly there — that no real bodhisattva can be attained is precisely why the true bodhisattva is true.
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 — Yogācāra’s 賴耶, three natures, and three non-natures have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same reality — “non-abiding, not a mark” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (is-not · nothing-attained), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (the three natures and three non-natures · the two emptinesses · the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the two emptinesses and the real; the Cheng weishi lun speaks of the two hindrances and two clingings; the Thirty Verses, dispelling the two clingings with the two emptinesses and returning to the transformation of the basis; and in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「無智亦無得」 (“no wisdom and no attainment”) — all seal with this division. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “penetrating no-self and no-dharma” and “in truth there is no dharma to attain,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “the twofold no-self · the two emptinesses · cutting off the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis” — and it is one and the same matter 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 17 · Ultimately, No Self · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（樞紐 · 加重）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分十七 究竟無我分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | ★樞紐：前半（分一至十六 眾生空·破四相·煩惱障）轉後半（分十七至卅二 法空·破四見·所知障） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 第二周 |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 第十六住 求教授 → 第十七住 證道（二問再現繫於求教授 [0757c20–23]；證道「一切法悉是非法」[0764a18]·上求佛地 [0764b11]） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「存我為菩薩」心障之疑（T1511 0790c13／T1513 0880c14）→ 菩薩無自性·聖慧之疑（T1511 0791c18／T1513 0881b12），答以通達無我 |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「就此正說，開為二周」[0099b14]；第一周利根、第二周中下根 |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『須菩提問』下，第二周重說般若」[0081b09] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 第二周（依世親科）；「世親云，此第二周說也」[0144b06] |
樞紐義：發心二問「云何應住？云何降伏其心？」[0751a08–10] 與序首問 [0748c27] 同文再現——此即「二周說」之接縫。古德三家俱判此為第二周之始（見目二、三、四）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 三核心句）
句一「如來者」· 句二「即非一切法」· 句三「通達無我」
| 版本 | 句一 如來者 | 句二 一切法（即非） | 句三 無我→真菩薩 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235 | 即諸法如義 [0751a26] | 所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法 [0751b02–03] | 通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩 [0751b11–12] |
| 流支 T236 | 即實真如 [0755b19] | 一切法、一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法 [0755b24–25] | 通達無我、無我法者 [0755c07] |
| 真諦 T237 | 真如別名 [0765a02] | 一切法者，非一切法故，如來說名一切法 [0765a07] | 信見諸法無我 [0765a19] |
| 笈多 T238 | 真如·不生法·道斷·畢竟不生（四釋）[0770a08] | 一切彼非法，如來說；彼故，說名一切法者 [0770a18–19] | 無我法、無我法者信解 [0770b03] |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 真實真如·無生法性·永斷道路·畢竟不生（四增語）[0983c27] | 一切法一切法者，如來說非一切法，是故如來說名一切法一切法 [0984a08–09] | 於無我法深信解 [0984a23] |
| 義淨 T239 | 實性真如之異名 [0774b01] | 一切法、一切法者，如來說為非法，是故如來說一切法者，即是佛法 [0774b05–07] | 信解一切法無性 [0774b15] |
異文所繫：
- 句一「如來者」（真如義）：羅什、流支、真諦作短句（如義／真如別名／實真如）；笈多、玄奘作四項並列（真如·無生·斷道·畢竟不生，乃同一梵語 tathatā／anutpāda-dharmatā… 之逐項譯）；義淨折中。皆指「如來即真如」之圓成義。
- 句二「即非一切法」：六本全具三句式——法空之「即非」施於一切法（前半止於眾生），此即由我空入法空之文證。
- 句三「通達無我」：羅什頓號「無我、法」、流支「無我、無我法」、義淨「一切法無性」——三本明指法無我之加入（即「二無我」：人與法）；其動詞由「通達」漸變為「信解／信見」。句三之異文，正是 §17 樞紐「二無我」之文本指紋。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 加重）
「一切法 — 即非一切法 — 是名一切法」[0751b02–03]，於法空位即三性：
- 一切法（X）即依他起（緣生諸法）。
- 即非一切法即遣遍計所執（非分別所執之實法；窺基：「非分別之相法」
[0146a29]）。 - 是名一切法即立圓成實（佛所證法；窺基：「謂佛所證法」
[0146a28]）。
「如來者，即諸法如義」[0751a26]，即真如（tathatā）、圓成實（窺基釋為「除謗無佛疑」之法身真如，見目四）。
樞紐之眼：即非一式，所破由「眾生」（前半·我空·破四相）轉「一切法」（後半·法空·破四見）；前後半非二法，乃同一即非施於人我、法我二處。此即非映三性之讀，見釋慧鏡《即非三段式映射唯識三性》（S5-P01）；本分為其於法空之一施。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 二無我·二障所本 · 加重）
核心 加重——此分為全經樞紐：由眾生空轉法空、煩惱障轉所知障，二無我（人·法）為其文本指紋。 世親二譯先設「若無菩薩」之疑（無菩薩則諸佛不成大菩提、眾生不入涅槃、無清淨佛土），答以「通達無我、法者即真菩薩」；三論、天台、唯識三家俱以此分為第二周之始，逐項錨於「如來即真如·一切法即非·通達二無我」。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯）：先設疑——「論曰：此中有疑，若無菩薩者，諸佛亦不成大菩提，眾生亦不入大涅槃，亦無清淨佛國土」[0791c18]。釋「如來者」——「如經『何以故？須菩提！言如來者即實真如』故。實者非顛倒義故，真如者不異不變故」[0791a26]。釋一切法即佛法——「一切法真如體故。彼法如來所證，是故言一切法佛法。彼處色等相不住故，彼一切色等諸法非法」[0791b17]。釋通達無我，世親偈 [0791c29]：
「眾生及菩薩，知諸法無我，非聖自智信，及聖以有智。」
T1513（無著頌 · 世親釋 · 義淨譯）：世親釋先設疑——「若言無有菩薩者，正覺亦無、所覺亦無，亦無眾生令入涅槃，亦不嚴淨諸佛國土」[0881b02]。釋「如來者」——「文云『妙生！言如來者，即是實性真如異名』，謂無顛倒義名為實性，無改變義是曰真如」[0880c26]。釋通達無我，無著頌 [0881b12]：
「於菩薩眾生，諸法無自性，若解雖非聖，名聖慧應知。」
世親釋之 [0881b14]：「言法無性。法無性者，此據眾生及菩薩所有之法。於彼若能信解，或世出世，謂是異生及聖皆名菩薩。由此便成決定許有覆俗、勝義二種菩薩」。
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：判地有三——「何者地？此地有三種，謂信行地、淨心地、如來地。於中，十六住處顯示信行地，證道住處是淨心地，究竟住處是如來地」[0759a10]。釋然燈授記——「又，經言『須菩提！若有法如來得正覺者，燃燈如來則不授記：「汝當得」』等」[0763c29]；「以彼法不可說故，我於彼時不得正覺，是故與我授記」[0764a04]。釋「如來者」——「如清淨故，名為如來，以如不可說故，作此說。清淨如名為真如，猶如真金」[0764a07]。釋即非一切法——「又，彼一切法，法體不成就，為安立第一義故，經言『須菩提！一切法者，悉是非法，是名一切法』故」[0764a16]。釋二無我——「又，經言『須菩提！若菩薩信解無我法、無我法』者，此言為二種無我故，謂人無我、法無我」[0764b11]；「又，經言『如來說名菩薩、菩薩』者，為於彼二種無我中二種正覺故」[0764b13]；「若言『我成就』，即為人我取；『莊嚴國土』者，是法我取。此非菩薩」[0764b15]。
吉藏（三論）T1699：判此分發心二問再現——「昔來未依般若，不成發心修行，故今請問發心修行之義也」[0118c03]。釋「如來者」——「以體如故名如來，亦體如故名得記，如中豈有法可得耶？若有得則不體如，不體如不名如來，亦不得受記也」[0119a02]。釋即非一切法——「『即非一切法』者，一切顛倒之法，此非如來所證，故云則非一切法也」[0119a21]。二無我簡二乘——「論云『悟二種無我，故名菩薩。聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩也。』」[0119c29]；「又菩薩知我無我不二，故名菩薩；二乘見我無我異，是二見之人，非菩薩也」[0120a01]。
智顗（天台）T1698：釋無我即人空——「無發心者，故知無我，即行人空；計我有惑，故非菩薩」[0081c04]。釋「如來者」——「人同如同，如故無所有，諸法性空，理無乖異，謂之為如，會如解極，故名如來也」[0081c15]。釋無人法——「佛，人也；菩提，道也。既無人、法，誰得菩提」[0082a03]。釋通達無我——「今實無一切諸法，而今言菩薩，但有其名，今明此名亦無所有故，何名此為菩薩？通達諸法無我等相，故名菩薩，真菩薩故」[0082a24]。
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親科，二周即斷已發心菩薩之增上慢、即斷所知障——「舊釋云，初周為生是善，第二周為斷障，障即所知也，故下論云『於內心修行，存我為菩薩』，即障於不住道也」[0127c01]；「今此一周為已發心菩薩言我能發心，乃至第三已斷障者言我能斷，由生分別故，則障於菩提。分別者，謂所知障，正障於不住道也」[0144b10]。釋「如來者」——「此世親第二文為除謗無佛疑也。於中初、明有法身，次、遮虛說」[0145c08]。釋即非一切法——「『言一切法』者，謂佛所證法；『即非一切法』者，非餘人所得法，或非分別之相法也」[0146a27]；「此二種身，由離所知、煩惱二障，如次得故」[0146b05]。釋通達無我——「謂若菩薩達我、法空，證無我理，是真菩薩，亦真莊嚴；若有我、法，本非菩薩，亦非莊嚴也」[0147b09]；「無著云，自此已下，皆求佛地。謂從此已下，訖至經末，差別之中是第十八，住處之中是第六究竟住處，三地之中是第三佛地也」[0147b11]。引無著二無我·二正覺——「三者、為二種無我故，如經『若菩薩通達無我、法者』；四者、為於彼二種無我中二種正覺故，如經『如來說名真是菩薩』」[0147b26]；「若言我成就，即為人我取；莊嚴國土者，是法我取；此非菩薩也」[0147b29]。
釋慧鏡 §17 二分（前半煩惱障、後半所知障）讀法之古德所本，即在此：世親二譯逕設「若無菩薩」之疑、答以通達二無我；無著判此分屬證道·上求佛地之第十七住，「悉是非法」立第一義、二無我中二種正覺；吉藏「二無我簡二乘」、智顗「無人法·誰得菩提」、窺基（依世親無著）「第二周斷所知障·達我法空證無我理」——逐項錨於「如來即真如·一切法即非·通達二無我」。此即本分「二無我·二障所本」之古德定讀。〔摘自《金剛經的自我重演》S5-P07；其結構之本即上引古德五家之文。〕
五、術語
諸法如義 tathatā（真如、如）· 增語／異名 adhivacana · 通達無我法／二無我 dvividha-nairātmya（人無我 pudgala-nairātmya ＋ 法無我 dharma-nairātmya）· 法空 dharma-śūnyatā · 所知障 jñeyāvaraṇa · 增上慢 abhimāna。〔梵文發音輔助。〕
六、譬喻・修辭
大身喻 [0751b03–05]：「人身長大 — 則為非大身 — 是名大身」，即非式之譬喻（以身喻法身之非相而立名，與句二同構）。修辭：二周之重說——同問（云何應住、降伏）再現而所答異（我空轉法空），重而有異，是全經自我重演之結構接縫。
七、互讀
- 三十頌（T1586）：二空·轉依（v.29 圓成實），本分「通達無我、法」之論本對應。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·二空。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：二障·二執（所知障所在），「第二周斷所知障」之論本。
- 心經（T251）：「無智亦無得」，法空無得之門。
本分「通達無我、法」，即三十頌、成唯識論「二無我·二障」之經語對應。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〕。
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 法空／「實無有法」 ↔ 西方反實體論（休謨之無我推及無物；懷德海過程哲學）：西方亦解構實體；然唯識不止於解構——「即非」之後有「是名」（圓成之立），非純否定。
- 即非一切法 ↔ 西方真矛盾論（dialetheism；普里斯特、加菲爾德論佛教四句、即非為真矛盾）：西方多讀「即非」為靜態之邏輯弔詭；唯識讀為三性之動轉（遣遍計、顯圓成）兼二周斷二障之修證——是轉依，非邏輯之謎。此東西之別，正一可注之義。
- 諸法如義（tathatā）↔ 西方海德格「如其所是」、現象學之「如」：可對觀；然真如於唯識為轉依所證之圓成，非存有論之斷言。
- 二問再現（二周） ↔ 西方詮釋學之循環、重而有異之呼應。
- （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 [0751a08–b12]（原典 · 究竟無我分）。六譯本三核心句 [出處] 見目二。論本：世親 T1511 [0791a·0791b·0791c] · 無著頌·世親釋 T1513 [0880c·0881b] · 無著 T1510a [0759a·0763c·0764a·0764b]。古德：吉藏 T1699 [0118c·0119a·0119c·0120a] · 智顗 T1698 [0081c·0082a] · 窺基 T1700 [0127c·0144b·0145c·0146a·0146b·0147b]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (the pivot · weighted)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 17, Ultimately, No Self (究竟無我分) |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | ★The pivot: the first half (divisions 1–16, emptiness of beings · breaking the four marks · the affliction-hindrance) turns into the second half (divisions 17–32, emptiness of dharmas · breaking the four views · the knowable-hindrance) |
| Dao’an’s three-part schema | Main-teaching division · the second round |
| Asaṅga’s eighteen abodes, T1510 | The sixteenth abode, seeking the instruction → the seventeenth abode, realizing the path (the return of the two questions tied to the seeking-of-instruction [0757c20–23]; realizing the path 「一切法悉是非法」[0764a18] · seeking-upward the Buddha-ground [0764b11]) |
| Vasubandhu’s twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The mind-hindrance doubt of “holding a self as the bodhisattva” (T1511 0790c13／T1513 0880c14) → the doubt of the bodhisattva’s no-self-nature · the holy wisdom (T1511 0791c18／T1513 0881b12), answered by penetrating no-self |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise), T1699 | “就此正說，開為二周” [0099b14]; the first round for the sharp-faculty’d, the second round for the middling-and-dull |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai), T1698 | “『須菩提問』下，第二周重說般若” [0081b09] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra), T1700 | The second round (following Vasubandhu’s sectioning); “世親云，此第二周說也” [0144b06] |
Sense of the pivot: the two questions of arousing the mind, 「云何應住？云何降伏其心？」[0751a08–10], return in the same words as the opening question at the head of the sūtra [0748c27] — this is the seam of the “two-round teaching.” The three ancient masters alike judge this to be the beginning of the second round (see registers 2, 3, 4).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the three core clauses)
Clause one “as for the Tathāgata” · clause two “is-not all dharmas” · clause three “penetrating no-self”
| Version | Clause one, as for the Tathāgata | Clause two, all dharmas (is-not) | Clause three, no-self → the true bodhisattva |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 | 即諸法如義 [0751a26] | 所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法 [0751b02–03] | 通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩 [0751b11–12] |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 即實真如 [0755b19] | 一切法、一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法 [0755b24–25] | 通達無我、無我法者 [0755c07] |
| Paramārtha T237 | 真如別名 [0765a02] | 一切法者，非一切法故，如來說名一切法 [0765a07] | 信見諸法無我 [0765a19] |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 真如·不生法·道斷·畢竟不生（四釋）[0770a08] | 一切彼非法，如來說；彼故，說名一切法者 [0770a18–19] | 無我法、無我法者信解 [0770b03] |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 真實真如·無生法性·永斷道路·畢竟不生（四增語）[0983c27] | 一切法一切法者，如來說非一切法，是故如來說名一切法一切法 [0984a08–09] | 於無我法深信解 [0984a23] |
| Yijing T239 | 實性真如之異名 [0774b01] | 一切法、一切法者，如來說為非法，是故如來說一切法者，即是佛法 [0774b05–07] | 信解一切法無性 [0774b15] |
What the variants turn on:
- Clause one “as for the Tathāgata” (the sense of true suchness): Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha give a short clause (如義／真如別名／實真如); Dharmagupta, Xuanzang give a fourfold parallel (真如·無生·斷道·畢竟不生, the item-by-item rendering of one and the same Sanskrit tathatā／anutpāda-dharmatā…); Yijing strikes a mean. All point to the perfectly-accomplished sense of “the Tathāgata is just true suchness.”
- Clause two “is-not all dharmas”: all six versions have the three-clause form complete — the “is-not” of the emptiness of dharmas applied to all dharmas (the first half stopped at beings); this is the textual witness of the entry from the emptiness of self into the emptiness of dharmas.
- Clause three “penetrating no-self”: Kumārajīva’s pause-mark in 「無我、法」, Bodhiruci’s 「無我、無我法」, Yijing’s 「一切法無性」 — three versions pointing plainly to the addition of the no-self-of-dharma (that is, “the two no-selves”: of the person and of the dharma); the verb shifting gradually from “penetrate” to “faithfully grasp / faithfully see.” The variant of clause three is just the textual fingerprint of §17’s pivot, “the two no-selves.”
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · weighted)
「一切法 — 即非一切法 — 是名一切法」[0751b02–03], at the position of the emptiness of dharmas, is just the three natures:
- 一切法 (X) is the other-dependent (the conditionally-arisen dharmas).
- 即非一切法 dispels the wholly-imagined (not the real dharmas grasped by discrimination; Kuiji: 「非分別之相法」
[0146a29]). - 是名一切法 sets up the perfectly-accomplished (the dharma realized by the Buddha; Kuiji: 「謂佛所證法」
[0146a28]).
「如來者，即諸法如義」[0751a26] is just true suchness (tathatā), the perfectly-accomplished (Kuiji glosses it as the Dharma-body true suchness of “removing the doubt of slandering-no-Buddha,” see register 4).
The eye of the pivot: the “is-not” formula — what it breaks turns from “beings” (the first half · the emptiness of self · breaking the four marks) to “all dharmas” (the second half · the emptiness of dharmas · breaking the four views); the first and second halves are not two dharmas, but the same “is-not” applied at the two places of the self-of-the-person and the self-of-the-dharma. For this “is-not” mapping the three natures: see Shi Huijing’s The Three-Part “Is-Not” Formula Mapping the Yogācāra Three Natures (S5-P01); this division is its instance at the emptiness of dharmas.
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (the two no-selves · the source for the two hindrances · weighted)
Core, weighted — this division is the pivot of the whole sūtra: turning from the emptiness of beings to the emptiness of dharmas, from the affliction-hindrance to the knowable-hindrance, the two no-selves (of the person · of the dharma) being its textual fingerprint. Vasubandhu’s two recensions first set the doubt of “if there is no bodhisattva” (if there is no bodhisattva, then the Buddhas too do not accomplish great awakening, beings do not enter nirvāṇa, and there is no purified Buddha-land), answering it with “one who penetrates no-self, no-dharma is the true bodhisattva”; the Three-Treatise, Tiantai, and Yogācāra masters alike take this division as the beginning of the second round, anchoring item by item to “the Tathāgata is just true suchness · all dharmas are-not · penetrating the two no-selves.”
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci’s rendering): first setting the doubt — 「論曰：此中有疑，若無菩薩者，諸佛亦不成大菩提，眾生亦不入大涅槃，亦無清淨佛國土」[0791c18]. Glossing “as for the Tathāgata” — 「如經『何以故？須菩提！言如來者即實真如』故。實者非顛倒義故，真如者不異不變故」[0791a26]. Glossing all-dharmas-just-Buddha-dharma — 「一切法真如體故。彼法如來所證，是故言一切法佛法。彼處色等相不住故，彼一切色等諸法非法」[0791b17]. Glossing penetrating no-self, Vasubandhu’s verse [0791c29]:
「眾生及菩薩，知諸法無我，非聖自智信，及聖以有智。」
T1513 (Asaṅga’s stanza · Vasubandhu’s gloss · Yijing’s rendering): Vasubandhu’s gloss first setting the doubt — 「若言無有菩薩者，正覺亦無、所覺亦無，亦無眾生令入涅槃，亦不嚴淨諸佛國土」[0881b02]. Glossing “as for the Tathāgata” — 「文云『妙生！言如來者，即是實性真如異名』，謂無顛倒義名為實性，無改變義是曰真如」[0880c26]. Glossing penetrating no-self, Asaṅga’s stanza [0881b12]:
「於菩薩眾生，諸法無自性，若解雖非聖，名聖慧應知。」
Vasubandhu’s gloss of it [0881b14]: 「言法無性。法無性者，此據眾生及菩薩所有之法。於彼若能信解，或世出世，謂是異生及聖皆名菩薩。由此便成決定許有覆俗、勝義二種菩薩」.
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta’s rendering): judging the ground to be of three — 「何者地？此地有三種，謂信行地、淨心地、如來地。於中，十六住處顯示信行地，證道住處是淨心地，究竟住處是如來地」[0759a10]. Glossing the Dīpaṃkara prophecy — 「又，經言『須菩提！若有法如來得正覺者，燃燈如來則不授記：「汝當得」』等」[0763c29]; 「以彼法不可說故，我於彼時不得正覺，是故與我授記」[0764a04]. Glossing “as for the Tathāgata” — 「如清淨故，名為如來，以如不可說故，作此說。清淨如名為真如，猶如真金」[0764a07]. Glossing is-not-all-dharmas — 「又，彼一切法，法體不成就，為安立第一義故，經言『須菩提！一切法者，悉是非法，是名一切法』故」[0764a16]. Glossing the two no-selves — 「又，經言『須菩提！若菩薩信解無我法、無我法』者，此言為二種無我故，謂人無我、法無我」[0764b11]; 「又，經言『如來說名菩薩、菩薩』者，為於彼二種無我中二種正覺故」[0764b13]; 「若言『我成就』，即為人我取；『莊嚴國土』者，是法我取。此非菩薩」[0764b15].
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: judging this division’s return of the two questions of arousing the mind — 「昔來未依般若，不成發心修行，故今請問發心修行之義也」[0118c03]. Glossing “as for the Tathāgata” — 「以體如故名如來，亦體如故名得記，如中豈有法可得耶？若有得則不體如，不體如不名如來，亦不得受記也」[0119a02]. Glossing is-not-all-dharmas — 「『即非一切法』者，一切顛倒之法，此非如來所證，故云則非一切法也」[0119a21]. The two no-selves distinguishing the two vehicles — 「論云『悟二種無我，故名菩薩。聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩也。』」[0119c29]; 「又菩薩知我無我不二，故名菩薩；二乘見我無我異，是二見之人，非菩薩也」[0120a01].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: glossing no-self as the emptiness of the person — 「無發心者，故知無我，即行人空；計我有惑，故非菩薩」[0081c04]. Glossing “as for the Tathāgata” — 「人同如同，如故無所有，諸法性空，理無乖異，謂之為如，會如解極，故名如來也」[0081c15]. Glossing no-person-no-dharma — 「佛，人也；菩提，道也。既無人、法，誰得菩提」[0082a03]. Glossing penetrating no-self — 「今實無一切諸法，而今言菩薩，但有其名，今明此名亦無所有故，何名此為菩薩？通達諸法無我等相，故名菩薩，真菩薩故」[0082a24].
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu’s sectioning, the two rounds being the cutting-off of the already-aroused-mind bodhisattva’s overweening pride, the cutting-off of the knowable-hindrance — 「舊釋云，初周為生是善，第二周為斷障，障即所知也，故下論云『於內心修行，存我為菩薩』，即障於不住道也」[0127c01]; 「今此一周為已發心菩薩言我能發心，乃至第三已斷障者言我能斷，由生分別故，則障於菩提。分別者，謂所知障，正障於不住道也」[0144b10]. Glossing “as for the Tathāgata” — 「此世親第二文為除謗無佛疑也。於中初、明有法身，次、遮虛說」[0145c08]. Glossing is-not-all-dharmas — 「『言一切法』者，謂佛所證法；『即非一切法』者，非餘人所得法，或非分別之相法也」[0146a27]; 「此二種身，由離所知、煩惱二障，如次得故」[0146b05]. Glossing penetrating no-self — 「謂若菩薩達我、法空，證無我理，是真菩薩，亦真莊嚴；若有我、法，本非菩薩，亦非莊嚴也」[0147b09]; 「無著云，自此已下，皆求佛地。謂從此已下，訖至經末，差別之中是第十八，住處之中是第六究竟住處，三地之中是第三佛地也」[0147b11]. Citing Asaṅga, the two no-selves · two right-awakenings — 「三者、為二種無我故，如經『若菩薩通達無我、法者』；四者、為於彼二種無我中二種正覺故，如經『如來說名真是菩薩』」[0147b26]; 「若言我成就，即為人我取；莊嚴國土者，是法我取；此非菩薩也」[0147b29].
The source from the ancient masters for Shi Huijing’s §17 two-part reading (the first half the affliction-hindrance, the second half the knowable-hindrance) lies just here: Vasubandhu’s two recensions set directly the doubt of “if there is no bodhisattva” and answer it by penetrating the two no-selves; Asaṅga judges this division to belong to the seventeenth abode of realizing-the-path · seeking-upward-the-Buddha-ground, “all is is-not dharma” establishing the first principle, the two right-awakenings within the two no-selves; Jizang “the two no-selves distinguishing the two vehicles,” Zhiyi “no-person-no-dharma · who then attains awakening,” Kuiji (following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) “the second round severs the knowable-hindrance · penetrating the emptiness of self and dharma, realizing the principle of no-self” — anchoring item by item to “the Tathāgata is just true suchness · all dharmas are-not · penetrating the two no-selves.” This is the ancient masters’ settled reading of this division’s “the two no-selves · the source for the two hindrances.” 〔From The Diamond Sūtra’s Self-Re-Enactment, S5-P07; the root of its structure is just the texts of the five ancient masters cited above.〕
5 · Terminology
諸法如義 tathatā (true suchness, suchness) · 增語／異名 adhivacana · 通達無我法／二無我 dvividha-nairātmya (the no-self-of-the-person pudgala-nairātmya + the no-self-of-the-dharma dharma-nairātmya) · 法空 dharma-śūnyatā · 所知障 jñeyāvaraṇa · 增上慢 abhimāna. 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric
The great-body simile [0751b03–05]: 「人身長大 — 則為非大身 — 是名大身」, an “is-not” formula simile (figuring the Dharma-body through the no-mark of the body and yet setting up the name, of one construction with clause two). Rhetoric: the re-telling of the two rounds — the same questions (how to abide, how to subdue) return while the answer differs (the emptiness of self turning into the emptiness of dharmas), a re-telling with a difference, the structural seam of the whole sūtra’s self-re-enactment.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the two emptinesses · transformation of the basis (v.29, the perfectly-accomplished), the treatise correspondence of this division’s “penetrating no-self, no-dharma.”
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on the real · the two emptinesses.
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the two hindrances · the two graspings (where the knowable-hindrance lies), the treatise source of “the second round severs the knowable-hindrance.”
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無智亦無得」, the gate of the no-gain of the emptiness of dharmas.
This division’s “penetrating no-self, no-dharma” is the sūtra-wording correspondence of the Thirty Verses’ and Cheng weishi lun’s “the two no-selves · the two hindrances.” 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〕.
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- The emptiness of dharmas / “there is in truth no dharma” ↔ Western anti-substantialism (Hume’s no-self extended to no-thing; Whitehead’s process philosophy): the West too deconstructs substance; yet Yogācāra does not stop at deconstruction — after the “is-not” there is the “is called” (the setting-up of the perfectly-accomplished), no mere negation.
- Is-not all dharmas ↔ Western dialetheism (Priest and Garfield reading the Buddhist tetralemma · the “is-not” as a true contradiction): the West largely reads “is-not” as a static logical paradox; the Yogācāra reading is the turning of the three natures (dispelling the wholly-imagined, manifesting the perfectly-accomplished) together with the cultivation-and-realization of the two rounds severing the two hindrances — a transformation of the basis, not a riddle of logic. This difference between East and West is itself one note worth marking.
- Suchness of all dharmas (tathatā) ↔ Western Heidegger’s “as it is,” phenomenology’s “the as”: one may observe against it; yet true suchness in Yogācāra is the perfectly-accomplished-ized by the transformation of the basis, not an ontological assertion.
- The return of the two questions (the two rounds) ↔ the Western hermeneutic circle, the echo of the re-told-with-a-difference.
- (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 [0751a08–b12] (root · Ultimately, No Self). The six versions’ three core clauses [loc], see register 2. Treatise sources: Vasubandhu T1511 [0791a·0791b·0791c] · Asaṅga’s stanza · Vasubandhu’s gloss T1513 [0880c·0881b] · Asaṅga T1510a [0759a·0763c·0764a·0764b]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0118c·0119a·0119c·0120a] · Zhiyi T1698 [0081c·0082a] · Kuiji T1700 [0127c·0144b·0145c·0146a·0146b·0147b].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 17 · Ultimately, No Self · apparatus · Spring 2026