金剛般若波羅蜜經 分十九 法界通化分
上一分剛說過，眾生那顆能造福的心本是顛倒虛妄、當體非實的；於是這裡冒出一個疑：顛倒的心所作出來的福，豈不也跟著顛倒？佛的回答出人意表——拿滿三千大千世界的七寶去布施，得福甚多；可是「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」。福若真有一個實在的自性，反倒不算多；正因為它無實，才說它多。要緊的是這一句藏著一把鑰匙：心顛倒，而福不顛倒——福之所以不顛倒，不在施者心裡乾不乾淨，而在它無實自性、為正覺之智所持。著相而執福為實，是「有得」之施，落在能取所取的對待裡；三事體空而不執福為實，是「無得」之施，福反而成了佛因。這一翻，正是把「有得之施」轉成「無得之施」的轉依——遣掉那層「福是個實法」的執著（這是法執，不再是「我在作福」的我執了），福便從一個可計量的東西，化作可以無盡廣施的福自在。所以福之為多，不在積得多，而在不執它為實。
The previous division had just said that the very mind in beings that can create merit is, at bottom, upside-down and empty, unreal in its own substance. From this a doubt springs up: if the mind that makes merit is itself inverted, must not the merit it produces be inverted along with it? The Buddha's answer is unexpected — take the seven jewels enough to fill a great-thousandfold world-system and give them all away in charity, and the merit so gained is very great; and yet 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」(if merit had real substance, the Tathāgata would not say the merit gained is great; it is because merit is without substance that the Tathāgata says the merit gained is great). Were merit to truly possess a real self-nature, it would on the contrary not count as great; it is precisely because it is without substance that it is called great. What matters is that this line hides a key: the mind is inverted, yet the merit is not — and the merit is uninverted not because the giver's mind is clean or unclean, but because the merit is without real self-nature and is held by the wisdom of right awakening. To cling to marks and grasp merit as real is the giving of "attainment" (有得), falling into the duality of grasper and grasped; to see the three factors — giver, gift, receiver — as empty in substance and not grasp the merit as real is the giving of "no-attainment" (無得), and the merit then becomes a cause of buddhahood. This very reversal is the transformation of the basis (轉依) by which "the giving of attainment" is converted into "the giving of no-attainment" — strip away that layer which clings to "merit is a real dharma" (and this is the clinging-to-dharmas, dharma-grāha, no longer the clinging-to-self of "I am making merit"), and merit changes from a measurable thing into a freedom of merit (福自在) that can be given out inexhaustibly. And so merit is great not because much is piled up, but because it is not grasped as real.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 19 · The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕滿三千大千七寶布施，得福甚多
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？若有人滿三千大千世界七寶以用布施，是人以是因緣得福多不？」「如是，世尊！此人以是因緣得福甚多。」
「須菩提！你怎麼想？假如有一個人，拿足以裝滿三千大千世界那麼多的七寶來布施，這個人因為這個緣故，所得的福是不是很多呢？」「是的，世尊！這個人因為這個緣故，所得的福確實非常多。」
〔二〕福德有實則不說多，福德無故才說多
經曰：
「須菩提！若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多。
「須菩提！假如福德是有一個實在自性的東西，如來反倒不會說他得的福德多；正因為福德並沒有那樣的實體，如來才說他得的福德多。」
[1] Giving the Seven Treasures That Fill the Great Chiliocosm Gains Very Much Merit
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？若有人滿三千大千世界七寶以用布施，是人以是因緣得福多不？」「如是，世尊！此人以是因緣得福甚多。」
"Subhūti, what do you think? If someone took the seven treasures, enough to fill the great-thousandfold world-system, and gave them all away, would this person, on account of this, gain much merit?" "Yes, World-Honored One, on account of this the person would gain very much merit indeed."
[2] If Merit Were Real, It Would Not Be Called Much; It Is Because Merit Has No Substance That It Is Called Much
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多。
"Subhūti, if merit were a thing with a real substance of its own, the Tathāgata would not say the person gained much merit; it is precisely because merit has no such substance that the Tathāgata says he gained much merit."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 19 · The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、法執與所知障、無得心施與轉依，來照金剛經這一處「隱藏的即非」。
承上一分而起：心既顛倒，福是不是也顛倒
上一分（一體同觀）說，佛盡知眾生的種種心，而那些心「皆為非心」——當體顛倒虛妄、無有自性。順著這話，立刻冒出一個疑問：既然能造福的那顆心本是顛倒虛妄的，那麼這顆顛倒心所作出來的福德，豈不也跟著顛倒虛妄了？若是這樣，福德還算什麼善法，又怎能成佛因？古德正是接這一疑來讀本分。世親說得最直：「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法？」吉藏也說：顛倒心所作的布施等行若都是顛倒，那就應當沒有佛因、沒有佛果了。為斷這個疑，佛才在這裡重新舉出七寶布施之福——所以本分不是另起一個福德較量，而是回頭安頓「心倒福亦倒」的疑。
七寶布施得福甚多：依他起的緣生之福，福非無
佛先立一頭：有人拿滿三千大千世界的七寶來布施，「得福甚多」。這一句先把福德的「有」這一面坐實了——福不是沒有。用唯識的眼看，這緣生的有漏之福正是依他起：依布施的人、所施的財、所施的境等眾緣而生起的福，事相宛然，所以說「得福甚多」。窺基讀這一施，更點出它的份量：若是為了求般若、為了當來成佛而行此施，「其福甚多」——福法因此圓滿（這正是佛地六種具足裡的第三「福自在具足」）。先立福之有（依他可說），下文才好遣福之實（遍計當空）。
隱藏的即非：「有實則不說多，無故才說多」
接著佛翻出本分的眼，卻翻得很特別：「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多。」
別的分說「即非」，多是「福德、即非福德、是名福德」三句並陳；本分卻不擺這三句，而是用「有實則不說多／無故則說多」這一遮一立，把同一個即非藏在裡頭——所以這是一處「隱藏的即非」。順三性把它拆開來看，三段都在：
- 「福德〔得福甚多〕」＝依他起：緣生的有漏之福，宛然可說、可得甚多。
- 「若福德有實〔如來不說得福德多〕」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是在這緣生之福上妄加的那層「實有一個自性的福德」之執。窺基說得明白：如果像為了自己的果報那樣、把福德當成實有自性去行施，「佛則不說為得福多」。「不說得福德多」這一句，正是遮掉福的實有自性——這層被執為實的福，根本無體，是遍計所執（把心所變的影，當成心外實在的東西）。
- 「以福德無故，如來說得福德多」＝立圓成、存可說：福沒有實在自性（這「無」正是離遍計所顯的真實），唯其無自性，才能以「三事體空」的無得心去施——窺基說「以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」（三事體空，就是施的人、所施的物、受施的人這三處都不取為實有）。吉藏也說：「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因也。」所以「無故說多」不是把福抹掉，是遣了福的實執，反而成就了真正廣大的福——這就是隱即非的「遣自性而存可說」。
般若用一個「空」字總說這「福德無故」，唯識則點明這「空」空的是哪一層：空的是「福德有實自性」這層遍計，不是空掉緣生的福本身（依他）、也不是空掉那離執所顯的真實（圓成）。
福執也是法執：這一施落在所知障上
要緊的是看清這個「即非」遣的是哪一重執。本分繫在樞紐分十七（從我空轉入法空、從煩惱障轉向所知障）之後、分十八（諸心非心、三世不可得）之下。前半的即非多施於相、施於眾生、破的是「我能施、我得福」這層我執（屬煩惱障）；到了這裡，所遣的是「福德有一個實在自性」這層法執——把一個緣生的福，執成心外實有的一法，這正是把法看實的法我執，屬所知障所攝。
所以本分這一刀，不是再砍「我在作福」的我執，而是砍「福是個實法」的法執。也正由此回答了那個「心倒福亦倒」的疑：所知的那顆心固然顛倒虛妄（分十八），但所作的福並不跟著顛倒——世親說「心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」「流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛」。何以心倒而福不倒？世親給出理由：因為這福「由是正覺智之持」——福是被正覺之智所執持的，是佛智慧的根本（世親兩譯名異義一：「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德」、「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄」）。福之所以不顛倒，不在施者那顆心理上乾不乾淨，而在它無實自性、為無分別的正覺智所持。
從「有得」到「無得」：這正是轉依
把這一施收到唯識的骨幹上，便是轉依。著相而施、執福為實，是「有得」之施，落在能取（我）、所取（福）的二分對待裡——那正是遍計的根。三事體空而施、不執福為實，是「無得」之施，二取不生，契合無分別智。唯識說的轉依，就是轉捨阿賴耶識裡那些遍計所執的染污種習、轉得圓成實的真如；而落在福德上，就是這裡的「轉有得之施為無得之施」——遣了福的實執，福反成佛因、成福自在。所以智顗一語翻得妙：「以無福為福，故多也……福德無實則可曠施而多」——正因不執福為實有定量，福才能無盡地廣施而成其多。執實則「有量」，無實才「無量」。
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、轉依、所知障之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本，般若另是一系；而是同一「福無實而成佛因」之旨，金剛經以經語（有實則不說多、無故則說多）藏著一個即非說了出來，唯識以論語（遍計所執·法執所知障·無得心施·轉依）分疏其旨，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌歸於轉依、說無漏界「不思議善常」，與本分「無得心施、福成佛因」相印；成唯識論說遍計所執自性非有、說法執屬所知障、說無漏福因，與本分「福德有實則不說多、以福德無故說多」相應；般若一系的心經說「無智亦無得」，正是本分「以福德無故」這「無得」之福位——福無實自性可得，方說福多。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「以福德無故，如來說得福德多」，成唯識論以「遍計所執非有·無得心施契無分別智」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 (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), clinging-to-dharmas and the cognitive hindrance (所知障), and giving-with-an-unattaining-mind together with the transformation of the basis (轉依) to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s one “hidden is-not” here. The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.
Rising from the Previous Division: If the Mind Is Inverted, Is the Merit Inverted Too?
The previous division (Seeing All as One Body) said that the Buddha knows fully the manifold minds of beings, and that those minds are “all no-mind” — inverted and false in their very substance, without own-nature. Following on this, a doubt at once arises: if the very mind that produces merit is fundamentally inverted and false, then must not the merit produced by that inverted mind be inverted and false as well? And if so, what kind of good dharma is such merit, and how could it be a cause for Buddhahood? The ancient masters read this division precisely as answering this doubt. Vasubandhu puts it most bluntly: 「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法？」— “it was just said that the mind abides in inversion; if so, then merit too is inverted; and if inverted, how is it named a good dharma?” Jizang likewise says: if the giving and so forth performed by an inverted mind were all inverted, then there ought to be no cause and no fruit of Buddhahood. To cut off this doubt, the Buddha here raises again the merit of giving the seven jewels — so this division is not a fresh contest of merit but a turning back to settle the doubt that “if the mind is inverted, the merit is inverted too.”
Giving the Seven Jewels Wins Very Much Merit: the Conditionally-Arisen Merit of the Other-Dependent — Merit Is Not Nothing
The Buddha first sets up one side: if someone gives the seven jewels filling a great-thousandfold world-system, he “wins very much merit.” This line first makes solid the side of merit’s “being” — merit is not nothing. Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this conditionally-arisen contaminated merit is exactly dependent-arising (依他起, paratantra): merit arising in reliance on a manifold of conditions — the giver, the wealth given, the field given to — its phenomenal mark vividly present, hence “wins very much merit.” Kuiji, reading this act of giving, brings out its weight: if it is performed for the sake of seeking prajñā and of attaining Buddhahood in the future, “its merit is very much,” and the merit-dharma is thereby perfected (this is precisely the third of the Buddha-ground’s six perfections, the “perfection of mastery over merit,” 福自在具足). First the being of merit is established (the other-dependent may be spoken of); only then can the text below remove the reality of merit (the wholly-imagined is to be emptied).
The Hidden “Is-Not”: “If It Were Real, He Would Not Say It Is Much; Because It Is Not, He Says It Is Much”
The Buddha then turns out the eye of this division — but turns it in a peculiar way: 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」— “if merit had reality, the Tathāgata would not say one wins much merit; because merit is not, the Tathāgata says one wins much merit.”
Other divisions state the “is-not” by ranging three clauses side by side — “merit, is-not merit, is named merit.” This division does not set out those three; instead, by this one negation-and-one-establishment — “if real, then not called much / because not, then called much” — it conceals the same “is-not” within. So this is a place of hidden “is-not.” Unfolded through the three natures, all three members are there:
- “Merit (wins very much merit)” = dependent-arising (依他起): conditionally-arisen contaminated merit, vividly speakable, attainable in great measure.
- “If merit had reality (the Tathāgata would not say one wins much merit)” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of clinging — falsely added onto this conditionally-arisen merit — to “a really existent merit possessing own-nature.” Kuiji says it plainly: if, like one acting for the sake of his own reward, one took merit to be really existent with own-nature in performing the giving, 「佛則不說為得福多」— “the Buddha would not say it counts as winning much merit.” This clause “would not say one wins much merit” is precisely the blocking-out of merit’s real own-nature — this layer of merit grasped as real is wholly without substance; it is the wholly-imagined (taking an image transformed by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind).
- “Because merit is not, the Tathāgata says one wins much merit” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the speakable (立圓成、存可說): merit has no real own-nature (this “is-not” is exactly the reality disclosed by departing from the wholly-imagined), and just because it has no own-nature, one can give with the unattaining mind in which “the three factors are empty in substance” (三事體空) — Kuiji: 「以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」— “because one gives with the three factors empty in substance, unlike giving that is attached to reward and so forth, the Tathāgata says the merit is much” (the three factors empty in substance: giver, gift, and recipient — all three not grasped as really existent). Jizang too: 「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因也」— “‘because merit is not’ clarifies the unattaining merit, and so it is a cause for Buddhahood.” So “because it is not, he says it is much” does not erase merit; it removes the clinging to merit’s reality, and thereby accomplishes truly vast merit — this is the hidden “is-not” of “removing own-nature while preserving the speakable.”
Prajñā states this “merit is not” summarily with the single word “empty”; Yogācāra points out which layer this “empty” empties: it empties “merit possessing real own-nature,” that layer of the wholly-imagined — not the conditionally-arisen merit itself (the other-dependent), nor the reality disclosed by departing from clinging (the perfectly-accomplished).
Clinging to Merit Is Also Clinging to Dharmas: This Act of Giving Falls upon the Cognitive Hindrance
What matters is to see clearly which clinging this “is-not” removes. This division is set after the pivotal Division 17 (the turn from the emptiness of self to the emptiness of dharmas, from the affliction-hindrance to the cognitive hindrance) and under Division 18 (all minds are no-mind, the three times unattainable). The “is-not” of the first half was mostly applied to marks, to beings — breaking the self-clinging (我執) of “I can give, I win merit” (belonging to the affliction-hindrance, 煩惱障). Here, what is removed is the layer of clinging to “merit having a real own-nature” — that is, clinging-to-dharmas (法執): to grasp a conditionally-arisen merit as one really-existent dharma outside the mind is precisely the dharma-self-clinging that takes a dharma to be real, and this belongs to the cognitive hindrance (所知障).
So the blade of this division does not again cut at the self-clinging of “I am making merit,” but at the dharma-clinging of “merit is a real dharma.” And just by this it answers the doubt that “if the mind is inverted, the merit is inverted too”: the mind that is known is indeed inverted and false (Division 18), but the merit performed is not inverted along with it — Vasubandhu: 「心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」, “though the mind abides in inversion, the merit is not inverted,” and 「流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛」, “the mind in transmigration may be false, but the merit-mass spoken of is not, in substance, empty-of-being.” Why is the mind inverted yet the merit not? Vasubandhu gives the reason: because this merit “is upheld by the wisdom of right awakening” (由是正覺智之持) — the merit is sustained by the wisdom of right awakening, and is the root of the Buddha’s wisdom (Vasubandhu’s two translations differ in wording but are one in sense: 「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德」, “the root of the Buddha’s wisdom, an un-inverted merit,” and 「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄」, “know that it is upheld by wisdom, and so the merit is not false”). Merit is un-inverted not because the giver’s mind is psychologically clean, but because it has no real own-nature and is upheld by the non-discriminating wisdom of right awakening.
From “Attaining” to “Not Attaining”: This Is Precisely the Transformation of the Basis
Gathered onto the trunk of Yogācāra, this act of giving is the transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti). To give while attached to marks and to cling to merit as real is the giving “with attainment,” fallen into the duality of grasper (self) and grasped (merit) — which is just the root of the wholly-imagined. To give with the three factors empty in substance, not clinging to merit as real, is the giving “without attainment,” in which the two graspings do not arise and which accords with non-discriminating wisdom. The transformation of the basis that Yogācāra speaks of is precisely the turning-away of the defiled seed-habits of the wholly-imagined within the ālaya-vijñāna and the turning-toward the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished; and falling upon merit, it is just this here — “transforming the giving-with-attainment into the giving-without-attainment.” Remove the clinging to merit’s reality, and merit instead becomes a cause for Buddhahood and a mastery over merit. So Zhiyi turns it deftly in a phrase: 「以無福為福，故多也……福德無實則可曠施而多」— “taking no-merit as merit, hence it is much… merit being without reality, it can be given limitlessly and so be much.” Precisely because one does not cling to merit as really having a fixed measure, merit can be given inexhaustibly and so attain its “muchness.” Cling to it as real and it is “measured”; only when without reality is it “measureless.”
Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language
To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, the transformation of the basis, and the cognitive hindrance have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises, the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same import — “merit being without reality, yet becoming a cause for Buddhahood” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (with an “is-not” hidden inside: if real, not said to be much; because not, said to be much) and parsed by Yogācāra in treatise-language (the wholly-imagined, dharma-clinging as the cognitive hindrance, giving-with-an-unattaining-mind, the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses come home to the transformation of the basis and call the uncontaminated realm 「不思議善常」, “inconceivable, good, permanent,” which seals with this division’s “giving with an unattaining mind, merit becoming a cause for Buddhahood.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the wholly-imagined as without own-nature, of dharma-clinging as belonging to the cognitive hindrance, and of the uncontaminated cause of merit, answering to this division’s “if merit had reality he would not say it is much; because merit is not, he says it is much.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “no wisdom and also no attainment” is precisely the position of this division’s “because merit is not” — the merit of non-attaining: merit has no real own-nature to attain, and only thus is merit called much. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “because merit is not, the Tathāgata says one wins much merit,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined is without being · giving-with-an-unattaining-mind accords with non-discriminating wisdom,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 19 · The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（福自在具足 · §17 後半 · 重說譬喻之疑）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分十九 法界通化分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 後半（法空·破四見·所知障；樞紐分十七後·法空位之「福德即非」——即非施於福德[法]，非施於相·眾生[人]） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 第二周 · 證道之佛地具足 |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 第十七住 證道中，佛地六種具足攝轉依之第三「福自在具足」——「為福自在具足故，經言『此三千大千世界』等。於中，亦安立第一義故，經言『須菩提！若福聚有實』等」[0764c08–c10]（總攝佛地六具足：國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好·相身·語·心具足 [0757c28–0758a01]；第一周「為無上見智淨具足故……乃至『若此三千大千世界』」一句總含見淨·智淨·福自在 [0758a07–09]） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「福德亦是顛倒」之疑——前說心住顛倒（分十八），疑福德亦顛倒、不名善法，為斷此疑故重說福德譬喻（T1511 [0792c07–08]／T1513 [0881c20–21]），答以福德非顛倒、由是正覺智之持（智持） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 釋疑——「上言佛知眾生心皆顛倒，則顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒……故釋此疑，明無所得心布施等則是佛因」[0120b14–18]；「前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因也」[0120b25–26] |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 法假三分之第三「明功德無所有」——「『若人滿三千七寶布施』下，明功德無所有」[0082b16]（接分十八明智慧[五眼]·明心[知心]之後，「法假竟」[0082b19–20]） |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依無著「無上見、智淨中第三為福自在具足故也」[0148c16–18]；此第三「如來成」也 [0148c22–23] |
福自在具足義：此分承樞紐（分十七 法空）·分十八（五眼·知心·三世心不可得）之後，明佛地六種具足中之第三「福自在具足」（見淨·智淨·福自在）。本分之疑接分十八而起：分十八言佛知眾生心皆顛倒虛妄（諸心即非心·三世不可得），則疑「顛倒心所作之福德亦是顛倒」（世親「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法」T1511 [0792c07–08]；吉藏「顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒，若爾應無佛因」[0120b15–16]），故重說七寶福德以斷此疑——福德非顛倒，由是正覺智之持（世親 T1513 [0881c22–23]）、無得心所作之佛因（吉藏 [0120b17–18]）。世親二譯逕判此分為三世心後之「重說（重陳）譬喻」（T1511 [0792c04]／T1513 [0881c19]）。本分七寶與分八·分十一·分十五之七寶較量異：古德明判「前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因」（吉藏 [0120b24–26]；窺基「以此准知，前以財、命等施校量不及受持此經者」[0148c26–27]）——前半之七寶為持經較量之襯，本分之七寶為福德即非·成佛因之顯。本分「即非」一現於「若福德有實……以福德無故」之遮立（見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 福德即非一段）
要句：滿三千大千七寶布施得福多／甚多／若福德有實則不說福德多·以福德無故說福德多（能斷系作即非式「若福聚有實則不說福聚福聚」）
| 版本 | 福德即非一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！於意云何？若有人滿三千大千世界七寶以用布施，是人以是因緣得福多不？」「如是，世尊！此人以是因緣得福甚多。」「須菩提！若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多。」 | 0751b29–c04 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | 「須菩提！於意云何？若有人以滿三千大千世界七寶持用布施，是善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福多不？」須菩提言：「如是，世尊！此人以是因緣，得福甚多。」佛言：「如是，如是！須菩提！彼善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福德聚多。須菩提！若福德聚有實，如來則不說福德聚、福德聚。」 | 0755c27–0756a03 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！於意云何？若有人以滿三千大千世界七寶，而用布施，是善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福多不？」須菩提言：「甚多，世尊！甚多，修伽陀！」佛言：「如是，須菩提！如是。彼善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福聚多。」佛言：「須菩提！若福德聚，但名為聚，如來則不應說是福德聚、是福德聚。」 | 0765b09–b14 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！若有善家子，若善家女，若三千大千世界七寶滿作已施與，雖然，彼善家子，若善家女，若彼緣，多福聚生？」善實言：「多，世尊！多，善逝！」世尊言：「如是，如是，善實！如是，如是！多。彼善家子，若善家女，若彼緣，多福聚生，無量、不可數。福聚、福聚者，善實！非聚，彼，如來說；彼故，說名福聚者。若復，善實！福聚有，不如來說福聚、福聚者。」 | 0770b23–c02 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？若善男子或善女人，以此三千大千世界盛滿七寶奉施如來、應、正等覺，是善男子或善女人，由是因緣所生福聚寧為多不？」善現答言：「甚多！世尊！甚多！善逝！」佛言：「善現！如是！如是！彼善男子或善女人，由此因緣所生福聚其量甚多。何以故？善現！若有福聚，如來不說福聚福聚。」 | 0984b19–b25 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？若人以滿三千大千世界七寶布施，是人得福多不？」妙生言：「甚多，世尊！」「妙生！若此福聚是福聚者，如來則不說為福聚、福聚。」 | 0774c01–c04 |
異文所繫：
- 「福德／福德聚／福聚」：羅什作「福德」、流支作「福德聚」、真諦·笈多·玄奘·義淨作「福聚」。「聚」之義，義淨論本校梵『聚』(skandha)有聚積·肩荷二義（由不能持荷菩提故說為非聚）〔逐字詳分八目四〕；羅什「福德」不出「聚」字，止標福德之有實／無實。此分之「聚」與分八之「福德聚／福聚」同詞（六本福德 較量分共此一語之譯異）。
- 羅什獨具雙條件·能斷系作即非式：羅什作「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」——雙陳遮（有實則不說多）與立（無故則說多）二條件；流支「若福德聚有實，如來則不說福德聚、福德聚」、真諦「若福德聚，但名為聚，如來則不應說是福德聚、是福德聚」、玄奘「若有福聚，如來不說福聚福聚」、義淨「若此福聚是福聚者，如來則不說為福聚、福聚」——能斷四系（流支·真諦·玄奘·義淨）止具遮句之即非式（「若福聚是實／有實，則不說福聚福聚」），以「即非」之形（不說福聚福聚＝即非福聚）攝之，而不別出羅什「以福德無故說福德多」之立句。笈多獨全三句：「福聚、福聚者，善實！非聚，彼，如來說；彼故，說名福聚者」（具足 X·非X·說名X 三句式），復加遮句「若福聚有，不如來說福聚、福聚者」
[0770c01–02]——笈多兼具完整即非三句與遮句，文相最備。羅什之「立句」（以福德無故說福德多）與能斷系之「即非式」（不說福聚福聚），同顯「福德無實自性而可說多」一義，而羅什顯之以「立」、能斷顯之以「遮」。 - 能斷系重詞：玄奘「若有福聚，如來不說福聚福聚」
[0984b24–25]、流支「不說福德聚、福德聚」[0756a03]、真諦「不應說是福德聚、是福德聚」[0765b14]、笈多「福聚、福聚者……說名福聚者……不如來說福聚、福聚者」[0770b29–c02]、義淨「不說為福聚、福聚」[0774c03–04]——能斷三系（玄奘·義淨·笈多）及流支·真諦俱具重詞（同名二舉，「福聚福聚」）；羅什則作「福德多」單舉而不重詞。重詞乃法相系傳本之文相，逐字錄之，不縮。 - 問端·問者之異：羅什·流支·真諦·義淨作「於意云何」之直問；笈多作「彼何意念」、玄奘作「於汝意云何」（同一 tat kiṃ manyase 之譯異）。布施對象：羅什·流支·真諦·義淨但言「布施」；玄奘獨標「奉施如來、應、正等覺」
[0984b20]（施境為佛），笈多「施與」泛言。福之多寡，羅什·義淨止「得福多不／甚多」，流支·真諦·笈多·玄奘加「以是因緣／彼緣」之因緣語、笈多·玄奘復加「無量、不可數／其量甚多」之極言。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 隱即非 · 後半法空 · 加重）
本分「即非」為隱即非：羅什無「X／即非X／是名X」三句，而以「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」[0751c03–04] 之遮立顯之；能斷四系作即非式「若福聚有實，則不說福聚福聚」（不說福聚福聚＝即非福聚）；笈多獨全「福聚、福聚者，非聚，說名福聚者」三句 [0770b29–c01]。即非施於「福德」（法），是後半法空位之一施。
「福德 — （以福德無故）即非福德〔有實〕— （如來說得）福德多」映三性（隱含三段）：
- 福德（X）即依他起——七寶布施緣生之有漏福，事相宛然、得福甚多（窺基「謂若將七寶等施……其福甚多也」
[0148c15–16]；緣生之福非無，故「如來說得福德多」）。 - 若福德有實〔即非〕即遣遍計所執——非分別所執之「實有自性之福德」（窺基「『若福德有實』者，謂說若為般若故行施，如為自體故行施實有者，佛則不說為得福多也」
[0148c23–25]；無著「若福聚，非聚者，此遮增益邊，以無彼福聚分別自性故」[0758c26–27]）。「不說得福德多」者，遮其實有自性之執。 - 以福德無故，如來說得福德多即立圓成（兼世諦可說）——福無實自性（圓成真實·無分別自性），唯以三事體空之無得心行施，故反成福多（窺基「以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」
[0148c25–26]；吉藏「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因也」[0120b28–29]）。即「遣自性（即非·有實則不說）而存可說（是名·無故則說多）」。
樞紐之眼（後半·法空·所知障）：本分繫於樞紐分十七（我空轉法空·煩惱障轉所知障）之後、分十八（諸心即非心·三世不可得）之下——前半（分一至十六）之即非多施於相·眾生·福德性（人我·破四相·斷煩惱障），至後半（分十七起）施於法（法我·破四見·斷所知障）。本分「福德即非」之即非，所遣為「福德有實自性」之法執（所知障攝），非前半「我能施·我得福」之我執（煩惱障攝）：所知之心既顛倒虛妄（分十八·法空），疑顛倒心所作之福亦虛妄（世親「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒」T1511 [0792c07]），故遣「福德實有自性」之執而顯「福德無實而為智持·佛因」——是法空之施於福德、所知障之破於福執。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「福德即非·法空」位之一施。隱即非（以遮立顯而非三句並陳）與分八之顯即非（「即非福德性」），同顯「無實自性而有可說事」之三性動轉，見目四古德三家之定讀。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 福德非顛倒·智持·成佛因 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》偈（福德非顛倒·佛智慧根本／智持），二漢譯並存： 世親以「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德」（流支）／「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄」（義淨）釋此分福德——心住雖顛倒（分十八），福德非顛倒，由是正覺智之根本（持）；二譯名異義一。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯）：先設疑——「復有疑，向說心住顛倒；若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法？為斷此疑，示現心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」[0792c07–09]。釋福德重說，論偈 [0792c05–06]：
「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德，以是福德相，故重說譬喻。」
「何以故？偈言『佛智慧根本』故。云何示現根本？如經『須菩提！若福德有實，如來則不說福德聚福德聚』故。此義云何？明有漏福德聚是其顛倒，以此福德聚是有漏故，所以如來不說福德聚。又福德聚者，即福德聚。何以故？若非福德聚者，如來則不說為智慧根本，是故福德聚者即福德聚」[0792c10–16]。
世親 T1513（義淨譯）：先設深疑——「心既流轉，是誑妄性故，所有福聚亦並成虛。此既是妄，何成於善？既有深疑，理須明決」[0881c20–22]。釋福聚喻，論頌 [0881c18–19]：
「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄；顯此福因故，重陳其喻說。」
「答：流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛，由是正覺智之持故。如何顯此是其持性？如云『妙生！若此福聚者，如來即不說為福聚』。此何意趣？由五取蘊體是虛妄，若此福聚是取蘊者，如來即不說此福聚為福聚性，是不說為智之持處義」[0881c22–27]。
〔二譯對位：佛智慧根本／智持（正覺智之持）· 非顛倒功德／福乃非虛妄 · 重說譬喻／重陳喻說——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。義淨譯獨標「智持·智之持處」（福為正覺智所持，故非虛）、申「五取蘊體虛妄·福聚非取蘊」之分。〕
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此分屬十八住之第十七證道，於佛地六種具足攝轉依（國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好·相身·語·心具足 [0757c28–0758a01]）中之第三「福自在具足」——「為福自在具足故，經言『此三千大千世界』等。於中，亦安立第一義故，經言『須菩提！若福聚有實』等」[0764c08–c10]。福聚句之即非（第一義安立），同分八「『世尊！若福聚，非聚』者，此遮增益邊，以無彼福聚分別自性故；『是故如來說福聚』，此遮損減邊，以彼雖不如言辭有自性，而有可說事」[0758c26–29] 之二邊讀。〔無著此段釋極簡，止安立經文之住處對位[福自在具足]及第一義[即非]之安立；其見淨·智淨·福自在三分之展開，窺基引無著釋足之，見下窺基條 [0148c16–18]。〕
吉藏（三論）T1699：釋此分為分十八之釋疑——「『須菩提！滿三千世界七寶』者，文來為釋疑。上言佛知眾生心皆顛倒，則顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒。若爾，應無佛因；既無佛因，應無佛果。故釋此疑，明無所得心布施等則是佛因，既有佛因則有佛果」[0120b14–18]。設「不顛倒從何生」之問，引《大品·三慧品》「不從有得生無得，不從無得生無得，得無得平等故是無所得」答之 [0120b18–24]。明判前後七寶之異：「問：前已明三千世界七寶，與今何異？答：前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因也」[0120b24–26]。釋即非：「『若福德有實』，此便釋疑……故釋云：若福德有實，此明有得福德；『以福德無故』，此明無得福德，故是佛因也」[0120b26–29]。
智顗（天台）T1698：科為法假三分之第三「明功德無所有」——「『若人滿三千七寶布施』下，明功德無所有」[0082b16]。釋即非：「明福有實，此即有量，豈得多耶？以無福為福，故多也。金玉無性故可積滿三千，福德無實則可曠施而多。心之無性，惑滅解生也」[0082b16–19]；「法假竟」[0082b19–20]（分十八明智慧[五眼]·明心[知心]·分十九明功德[福]，三者俱「法假無所有」）。
窺基（唯識）T1700：依無著「無上見、智淨中第三為福自在具足」——「謂若將七寶等施，為求般若，聽聞修學，當成佛故，其福甚多也。無著云，此即無上見、智淨中第三為福自在具足故也，謂若為般若行施等故，福法成滿也」[0148c14–18]。釋即非：「『若福德有實』者，謂說若為般若故行施，如為自體故行施實有者，佛則不說為得福多也。以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」[0148c23–26]。承前較量：「以此准知，前以財、命等施校量不及受、持此經者，謂不能亡相故，不求菩提故也……若持般若者，當得成佛，濟利甚多，故功德勝也」[0148c26–149a01]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸世親偈：福德非顛倒（心顛倒而福非顛倒，由是佛智慧根本／正覺智之持）；即非福德＝福德無實自性（有實則不說多·無故則說多）；其讀皆扣分十八三世心·顛倒識之疑而起（吉藏「顛倒心所作布施皆顛倒·故釋此疑明無得心施是佛因」、世親「心住顛倒·福德非顛倒·智慧根本」、窺基[依無著]「福自在具足·三事體空行施故福多」）。智顗「以無福為福·福德無實則可曠施而多」、吉藏「前七寶格四句偈·今七寶成佛因」、窺基「以三事體空行施·准知前較量不及持經」——逐項錨於「七寶布施·若福德有實·以福德無故」。此即本分「福德即非·法界通化」之古德定讀：福無自性（即非）而以無得心施則為佛因·智持·福自在，是後半法空之施於福德。
五、術語
福德／福德聚／福聚 puṇya-skandha（聚＝ skandha；義淨論校梵聚積·肩荷二義（不能持荷菩提故說為非聚）〔逐字詳分八目四〕；羅什作「福德」不出「聚」字）·
七寶 sapta-ratna ·
有實／無實（福德有實＝有自性，福德無故＝無實自性；窺基「如為自體故行施實有者，佛則不說為得福多」[0148c23–25]）·
智持／正覺智之持（智之持處；世親 T1513「由是正覺智之持故……是不說為智之持處義」[0881c23–27]，福為正覺智所持故非虛妄）·
福自在具足（佛地六具足之第三；無著 [0764c08]·窺基「為般若行施等故，福法成滿」[0148c17–18]）·
有漏／無漏福德（世親「有漏福德聚是其顛倒，以此福德聚是有漏故」T1511 [0792c12–13]；吉藏「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因」[0120b28–29]）。〔梵文發音輔助；「聚」之 skandha 多義見分八目五之義淨校梵。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（福德重說 · 心倒福不倒之翻轉）
本分無具象譬喻（虛空喻在分四·須彌山喻在分十一·廿四）。修辭之要在重說譬喻與「心倒福不倒」之翻轉：
- 重說譬喻：世親二譯逕標此分七寶為「重說（重陳）譬喻」（流支「故重說譬喻」
[0792c06]；義淨「重陳其喻說」[0881c19]）——七寶福德之喻，分八已說（格四句偈），此分重說之，所為異：前為福德 較量（格持經），今為斷「福亦顛倒」之疑（吉藏「前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因」[0120b25–26]）。同一七寶之喻，二處異用，是全經「重而有異」之自我重演（同分十七二問再現·二周重說之構）。 - 「心倒福不倒」之翻轉：正承分十八「諸心皆為非心·三世不可得」（心顛倒虛妄），陡設疑「顛倒心所作之福亦顛倒虛妄」，復翻為「福德非顛倒」（世親「心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」
T1511 [0792c08–09]；「流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛」T1513 [0881c22–23]）。心之「倒」與福之「不倒」相形，正以心顛倒反顯福（智持）之不顛倒。 - 「有實則不多·無故則多」之翻轉：正言「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多」（有實反不多），陡翻為「以福德無故，如來說得福德多」（無實反成多）——智顗「明福有實，此即有量，豈得多耶？以無福為福，故多也……福德無實則可曠施而多」
[0082b16–19]。有實之「有量」與無實之「無量」相翻，無得反成福多。
此「重說而異用·心倒而福不倒·有實反不多」之筆，與分八「福多而即非福德性」、分十「莊嚴而即非莊嚴」同一翻轉之構。此目於本分（福德重說·心倒福不倒之翻轉）見其修辭，具象譬喻則於分四·十一·廿四·廿六·卅二加重。
七、互讀
- 百法（T1614）：善十一·施（無貪所攝）·有漏無漏——本分「七寶布施福德／三事體空行施」之心所對應（緣生之福為有為善法，無得心施則通無漏）。
- 三十頌（T1586）：轉依（v.29 圓成實）·無漏（v.29「此即無漏界·不思議善常」）——本分「福德無實而為智持·成佛因」之論本對應（無得心施契無分別智，福成佛因）。
- 二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·心境如幻——本分繫分十八「心顛倒虛妄」而疑「福亦顛倒」，與二十論「唯識所現·境無實」之論本相通（顛倒識所緣無實，而福體不隨識妄）。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：所知障·遍計所執（福德實有自性之執）·無漏種——本分「福德有實〔即非〕·福德無故」即成唯識「遍計所執自性非有·無漏福因」之經語對應；福執（法執）屬所知障攝。
- 心經（T251）：「無智亦無得」——本分「福德無故，如來說得福德多」即「無得」之福位（福無實自性可得，方說福多）。
本分「福德即非·以福德無故說福德多」，即三十頌·成唯識論「無漏福·無得心施·法執[福執]屬所知障」之經語對應；「福德無故」即心經「無得」之法位。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「若福德有實則不說多·以福德無故說福德多」一語，成唯識論以「遍計所執自性非有·無得心施契無分別智」之技術語說同一事；「金剛經以經語說應無所住而生其心」〔摘自《應無所住而生其心》S5-P06〕之無住，於本分即「無得心布施則是佛因」〔古德讀見目四〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。古德引據見目四，此處不重出。辯中邊論·攝大乘論於本分無正面對位，從闕。成唯識論 起草中，穩定名引，俟成增鏈（不重連）。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「以福德無故，如來說得福德多」之無實反多 ↔ 西方價值論之「無條件之善／非工具善」（康德「善意志」之自身為善，不待結果；無所求之施與其道德純度）：西方或讀為「無所為而為之施其價值愈純」之動機論；古德／唯識讀為三性動轉——福非無（依他可說），唯無實自性（遣遍計），「以福德無故說多」非僅動機之純，乃「三事體空行施·無得心施則為佛因」（窺基
[0148c25–26]·吉藏[0120b28–29]）之體性轉依，是轉依所成之福，非道德動機之高下。 - 「心顛倒而福不顛倒」之疑 ↔ 西方道德心理學之「不純動機之善行是否仍為善」（休謨論激情與道德、行為之善惡是否繫於心理動機之純雜）：西方多就動機與行為之關係立論（顛倒之心能否生善行）；古德／唯識讀「心倒福不倒」非僅動機論之難，乃「福聚體不是虛，由是正覺智之持」（世親
T1513 [0881c22–23]）——福之不顛倒繫於其為佛智之根本（智持），非繫於施者心理動機之清淨，是智持之福、轉依之果。 - 「重說譬喻」之同喻異用 ↔ 西方詮釋學之「重複中之差異」（克爾凱郭爾「重複」、德希達「延異」論重述非單純複現而生新義）：可對觀；然七寶之重說，其異用有定向——前為持經較量（破福執之襯），今為斷「福亦顛倒」之疑（成佛因之顯）（吉藏
[0120b24–26]），是教法之次第展開，非文本意義之無盡延異。 - 對觀之要：西方傾向以「無實反多·心倒福不倒·重說」為價值論·道德心理學·詮釋學之命題（動機之純·善之繫屬·重複之差異）；古德以之為轉依·智持·斷所知障之修證——福無實而成佛因者顯三事體空之無得施，心倒福不倒者顯福為正覺智持之非妄，皆可修可證之行果，非靜態之倫理斷言。命題與修證之別，正是東西之一可注。
- （本目為西方視角之對觀；經與唯識讀法始終為主，西方為旁參，非裁奪義理。具體文獻屬研究者考索之事。）
九、校本定位
羅什 T0235 [0751b29–c04]（原典 · 法界通化分）。六譯本福德即非一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0755c27–0756a03] · 真諦 T0237 [0765b09–b14] · 笈多 T0238 [0770b23–c02] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0984b19–b25] · 義淨 T0239 [0774c01–c04]。 論本（世親偈·無著福自在具足）：世親 T1511 [0792c04–c16] · 世親 T1513 [0881c17–c28] · 無著 T1510a [0758a07–09·0758c24–29·0764c08–c10]。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0120b14–b29] · 智顗 T1698 [0082b16–b20] · 窺基 T1700 [0148c14–0149a02]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (the perfection of merit-mastery · §17 second half · the doubt of the re-stated simile)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 19, The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed (法界通化分) |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | Second half (dharma-emptiness · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance; after the pivot division 17, in the dharma-emptiness position, “merit is-not” — the is-not applied to merit [a dharma], not to marks or beings [a person]) |
| Dao'an's three-part schema | Main-teaching division · second cycle · the buddha-ground perfections of the Path-of-vision |
| Asaṅga's eighteen abodes, T1510 | Within the seventeenth abode, the Path-of-vision, the third of the six buddha-ground perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis, “the perfection of merit-mastery” — 「為福自在具足故，經言『此三千大千世界』等。於中，亦安立第一義故，經言『須菩提！若福聚有實』等」[0764c08–c10] (subsuming the six buddha-ground perfections: purity of the land · purity of supreme vision-and-cognition · the minor marks · the marks-body · speech · mind 國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好·相身·語·心具足 [0757c28–0758a01]; the first cycle's single clause 「為無上見智淨具足故……乃至『若此三千大千世界』」 generally subsumes vision-purity · cognition-purity · merit-mastery [0758a07–09]) |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt “merit too is distorted” — since the abiding of minds was earlier said to be distorted (division 18), one doubts that merit too is distorted and does not deserve the name of a wholesome dharma; to cut this doubt the simile of merit is re-stated (T1511 [0792c07–08]／T1513 [0881c20–21]), answering that merit is not distorted, being held by the cognition of right awakening (cognition's holding) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise), T1699 | Resolving the doubt — 「上言佛知眾生心皆顛倒，則顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒……故釋此疑，明無所得心布施等則是佛因」[0120b14–18]; 「前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因也」[0120b25–26] |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai), T1698 | The third part of the dharma-as-designation, “clarifying that merit has no real existence” — 「『若人滿三千七寶布施』下，明功德無所有」[0082b16] (following division 18's clarifying of wisdom [the five eyes] and clarifying of mind [knowing minds], 「法假竟」[0082b19–20]) |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra), T1700 | Following Asaṅga, 「無上見、智淨中第三為福自在具足故也」[0148c16–18]; this third is 「如來成」 [0148c22–23] |
Sense of the perfection of merit-mastery: following the pivot (division 17, dharma-emptiness) and division 18 (the five eyes · knowing minds · the three minds ungraspable), this division clarifies the third of the six buddha-ground perfections, “the perfection of merit-mastery” (vision-purity · cognition-purity · merit-mastery). The division's doubt arises right out of division 18: division 18 said the Buddha knows that beings' minds are all distorted and unreal (minds are no-mind · the three times ungraspable), so one doubts that “the merit made by a distorted mind is also distorted” (Vasubandhu 「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法」T1511 [0792c07–08]; Jizang 「顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒，若爾應無佛因」[0120b15–16]), hence the seven-treasure merit is re-stated to cut this doubt — merit is not distorted, being held by the cognition of right awakening (Vasubandhu T1513 [0881c22–23]), a buddha-cause made by a mind of no-attaining (Jizang [0120b17–18]). Vasubandhu's two recensions judge this division outright to be a “re-statement of the simile” after the three minds (T1511 [0792c04]／T1513 [0881c19]). This division's seven treasures differ from the merit-comparison seven treasures of divisions 8, 11, 15: the ancient masters judge it plainly — 「前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因」 (Jizang [0120b24–26]; Kuiji 「以此准知，前以財、命等施校量不及受持此經者」[0148c26–27]) — the first-half seven treasures are a foil for the comparison of upholding the sūtra, this division's seven treasures display merit-is-not · the buddha-cause. The division's “is-not” appears once in the negation-and-affirmation of 「若福德有實……以福德無故」 (see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the merit-is-not passage)
Key passage: giving the seven treasures filling a great-thousand world wins much / very much merit / if merit had reality it would not be said much · because merit is non-existent it is said much (the Able-to-Cut lineages cast it in the is-not form “if the heap of merit had reality, the heap-of-merit, heap-of-merit would not be spoken”)
| Version | The merit-is-not passage (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！於意云何？若有人滿三千大千世界七寶以用布施，是人以是因緣得福多不？」「如是，世尊！此人以是因緣得福甚多。」「須菩提！若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多。」 | 0751b29–c04 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 「須菩提！於意云何？若有人以滿三千大千世界七寶持用布施，是善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福多不？」須菩提言：「如是，世尊！此人以是因緣，得福甚多。」佛言：「如是，如是！須菩提！彼善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福德聚多。須菩提！若福德聚有實，如來則不說福德聚、福德聚。」 | 0755c27–0756a03 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！於意云何？若有人以滿三千大千世界七寶，而用布施，是善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福多不？」須菩提言：「甚多，世尊！甚多，修伽陀！」佛言：「如是，須菩提！如是。彼善男子、善女人，以是因緣，得福聚多。」佛言：「須菩提！若福德聚，但名為聚，如來則不應說是福德聚、是福德聚。」 | 0765b09–b14 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！若有善家子，若善家女，若三千大千世界七寶滿作已施與，雖然，彼善家子，若善家女，若彼緣，多福聚生？」善實言：「多，世尊！多，善逝！」世尊言：「如是，如是，善實！如是，如是！多。彼善家子，若善家女，若彼緣，多福聚生，無量、不可數。福聚、福聚者，善實！非聚，彼，如來說；彼故，說名福聚者。若復，善實！福聚有，不如來說福聚、福聚者。」 | 0770b23–c02 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？若善男子或善女人，以此三千大千世界盛滿七寶奉施如來、應、正等覺，是善男子或善女人，由是因緣所生福聚寧為多不？」善現答言：「甚多！世尊！甚多！善逝！」佛言：「善現！如是！如是！彼善男子或善女人，由此因緣所生福聚其量甚多。何以故？善現！若有福聚，如來不說福聚福聚。」 | 0984b19–b25 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？若人以滿三千大千世界七寶布施，是人得福多不？」妙生言：「甚多，世尊！」「妙生！若此福聚是福聚者，如來則不說為福聚、福聚。」 | 0774c01–c04 |
What the variants turn on:
- 「福德／福德聚／福聚」: Kumārajīva has 「福德」, Bodhiruci 「福德聚」, Paramārtha · Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing 「福聚」. The sense of 「聚」, Yijing's treatise collates the Sanskrit 「聚」 (skandha) as bearing the two senses of accumulating and shoulder-bearing (because it cannot bear the burden of bodhi it is said to be no-heap) 〔fully glossed at division 8 register 4〕; Kumārajīva's 「福德」 does not produce the word 「聚」, marking only whether merit has reality or no reality. This division's 「聚」 is the same term as division 8's 「福德聚／福聚」 (the six versions of the merit-comparison divisions share this single word's rendering-variants).
- Kumārajīva alone has the double condition · the Able-to-Cut lineages cast the is-not form: Kumārajīva has 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」 — stating both the negative (if it had reality it would not be said much) and the affirmative (because non-existent it is said much), two conditions; Bodhiruci 「若福德聚有實，如來則不說福德聚、福德聚」, Paramārtha 「若福德聚，但名為聚，如來則不應說是福德聚、是福德聚」, Xuanzang 「若有福聚，如來不說福聚福聚」, Yijing 「若此福聚是福聚者，如來則不說為福聚、福聚」 — the four Able-to-Cut lineages (Bodhiruci · Paramārtha · Xuanzang · Yijing) carry only the is-not form of the negative clause (“if the heap of merit is real / has reality, then the heap-of-merit, heap-of-merit is not spoken”), subsuming it in the “is-not” form (not-speaking-of-the-heap-of-merit = is-not the heap of merit), and do not separately produce Kumārajīva's affirmative clause 「以福德無故說福德多」. Dharmagupta alone has the full three clauses: 「福聚、福聚者，善實！非聚，彼，如來說；彼故，說名福聚者」 (carrying the X · is-not X · is-called X triad), then adds the negative clause 「若福聚有，不如來說福聚、福聚者」
[0770c01–02]— Dharmagupta carries both the complete is-not triad and the negative clause, its physiognomy the most complete. Kumārajīva's “affirmative clause” (because merit is non-existent it is said much) and the Able-to-Cut lineages' “is-not form” (not-speaking-of-the-heap-of-merit) both display the single sense “merit has no real self-nature yet may be said to be much,” Kumārajīva displaying it by affirmation, the Able-to-Cut by negation. - The Able-to-Cut lineage's doubled term: Xuanzang 「若有福聚，如來不說福聚福聚」
[0984b24–25], Bodhiruci 「不說福德聚、福德聚」[0756a03], Paramārtha 「不應說是福德聚、是福德聚」[0765b14], Dharmagupta 「福聚、福聚者……說名福聚者……不如來說福聚、福聚者」[0770b29–c02], Yijing 「不說為福聚、福聚」[0774c03–04]— the three Able-to-Cut lineages (Xuanzang · Yijing · Dharmagupta) together with Bodhiruci and Paramārtha all carry the doubled term (the same name raised twice, 「福聚福聚」); Kumārajīva has 「福德多」 raised singly, without the doubled term. The doubled term is the textual physiognomy of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage recensions; recorded verbatim, not abridged. - The variants of the question-opening and questioner: Kumārajīva · Bodhiruci · Paramārtha · Yijing have the direct question 「於意云何」; Dharmagupta has 「彼何意念」, Xuanzang 「於汝意云何」 (rendering-variants of the one tat kiṃ manyase). The object of giving: Kumārajīva · Bodhiruci · Paramārtha · Yijing say only 「布施」; Xuanzang alone marks 「奉施如來、應、正等覺」
[0984b20](the field of giving being the Buddha), Dharmagupta saying broadly 「施與」. As for the amount of merit, Kumārajīva · Yijing have only 「得福多不／甚多」, while Bodhiruci · Paramārtha · Dharmagupta · Xuanzang add the causes-and-conditions language 「以是因緣／彼緣」, and Dharmagupta · Xuanzang further add the superlative 「無量、不可數／其量甚多」.
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · hidden is-not · second-half dharma-emptiness · weighted)
In this division the “is-not” is a hidden is-not: Kumārajīva has no “X / is-not X / is-called X” triad, but displays it by 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」[0751c03–04], the negation-and-affirmation; the four Able-to-Cut lineages cast the is-not form 「若福聚有實，則不說福聚福聚」 (not-speaking-of-the-heap-of-merit = is-not the heap of merit); Dharmagupta alone has the full triad 「福聚、福聚者，非聚，說名福聚者」[0770b29–c01]. The is-not is applied to “merit” (a dharma), an application in the second-half dharma-emptiness position.
「福德 — （以福德無故）即非福德〔有實〕— （如來說得）福德多」 mirrors the three natures (a hidden three-phase):
- 福德 (merit) (X) is the other-dependent — the conditioned defiled merit arising from the giving of seven treasures, its events plainly so, winning very much merit (Kuiji 「謂若將七寶等施……其福甚多也」
[0148c15–16]; the conditionally-arisen merit is not non-existent, hence 「如來說得福德多」). - 若福德有實〔即非〕 removes the wholly-imagined — not the “merit with real self-nature” grasped by discrimination (Kuiji 「『若福德有實』者，謂說若為般若故行施，如為自體故行施實有者，佛則不說為得福多也」
[0148c23–25]; Asaṅga 「若福聚，非聚者，此遮增益邊，以無彼福聚分別自性故」[0758c26–27]). “Would not say one wins much merit” removes the grasping at a real self-nature. - 以福德無故，如來說得福德多 establishes the perfectly-accomplished (and bears the conventional-truth saying) — merit has no real self-nature (the perfectly-accomplished · the self-nature of no-discrimination), and only by giving with a mind of no-attaining, the three components empty of substance, does it conversely become much merit (Kuiji 「以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」
[0148c25–26]; Jizang 「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因也」[0120b28–29]). That is, “remove the self-nature (is-not · if it had reality it would not be said) yet keep the sayable (is-called · because non-existent it is said much).”
The pivot's eye (second half · dharma-emptiness · the cognitive hindrance): this division follows the pivot division 17 (the self-emptiness turning to dharma-emptiness · the afflictive hindrance turning to the cognitive hindrance) and division 18 (minds are no-mind · the three times ungraspable) — in the first half (divisions 1–16) the “is-not” was mostly applied to marks · beings · the nature of merit (the self-of-persons · breaking the four marks · cutting the afflictive hindrance), and at the second half (from division 17) it is applied to dharmas (the self-of-dharmas · breaking the four views · cutting the cognitive hindrance). This division's “merit is-not,” what its is-not removes is the dharma-clinging of “merit having real self-nature” (subsumed under the cognitive hindrance), not the first half's self-clinging of “I give · I win merit” (subsumed under the afflictive hindrance): since the known mind is already distorted and unreal (division 18 · dharma-emptiness), one doubts the merit made by a distorted mind is also unreal (Vasubandhu 「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒」T1511 [0792c07]), hence it removes the clinging at “merit being really existent in self-nature” and displays “merit having no reality yet being cognition's holding · a buddha-cause” — an application of dharma-emptiness to merit, a breaking of the cognitive hindrance with respect to merit-clinging. This reading of the “is-not” mirroring the three natures: see Shi Huijing, The Three-Phase “Is-Not” Formula Mapped onto the Yogācāra Three Natures 〔摘自 S5-P01〕; this division is one application of it in the position of “merit is-not · dharma-emptiness.” The hidden is-not (displayed by negation-and-affirmation rather than three clauses laid out together) and division 8's manifest is-not (「即非福德性」) both display the three-natures dynamic of “no real self-nature yet a sayable event,” see the three schools' settled reading at register 4.
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · merit not distorted · cognition's holding · forming the buddha-cause · weighted)
Core · weighted — Vasubandhu's verse in the Vajracchedikā-śāstra (merit not distorted · the root of buddha-wisdom / cognition's holding), preserved in two Chinese versions: Vasubandhu glosses this division's merit through 「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德」 (Bodhiruci) / 「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄」 (Yijing) — though the abiding of minds is distorted (division 18), merit is not distorted, being the root (holding) of the cognition of right awakening; the two versions differ in wording, one in sense.
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's rendering): first sets the doubt — 「復有疑，向說心住顛倒；若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法？為斷此疑，示現心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」[0792c07–09]. Glossing the re-stated merit, the verse [0792c05–06]:
「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德，以是福德相，故重說譬喻。」
「何以故？偈言『佛智慧根本』故。云何示現根本？如經『須菩提！若福德有實，如來則不說福德聚福德聚』故。此義云何？明有漏福德聚是其顛倒，以此福德聚是有漏故，所以如來不說福德聚。又福德聚者，即福德聚。何以故？若非福德聚者，如來則不說為智慧根本，是故福德聚者即福德聚」[0792c10–16].
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's rendering): first sets the deep doubt — 「心既流轉，是誑妄性故，所有福聚亦並成虛。此既是妄，何成於善？既有深疑，理須明決」[0881c20–22]. Glossing the merit simile, the stanza [0881c18–19]:
「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄；顯此福因故，重陳其喻說。」
「答：流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛，由是正覺智之持故。如何顯此是其持性？如云『妙生！若此福聚者，如來即不說為福聚』。此何意趣？由五取蘊體是虛妄，若此福聚是取蘊者，如來即不說此福聚為福聚性，是不說為智之持處義」[0881c22–27].
〔Correspondence of the two versions: 佛智慧根本／智持 (the holding of the cognition of right awakening) · 非顛倒功德／福乃非虛妄 · 重說譬喻／重陳喻說 — two Chinese renderings of the one Vasubandhu treatise, differing in name, one in sense. Yijing's version alone marks 「智持·智之持處」 (merit is held by the cognition of right awakening, hence not unreal) and states the distinction 「五取蘊體虛妄·福聚非取蘊」.〕
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta's rendering): this division belongs to the seventeenth abode, the Path-of-vision, among the six buddha-ground perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis (purity of the land · purity of supreme vision-and-cognition · the minor marks · the marks-body · speech · mind 國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好·相身·語·心具足 [0757c28–0758a01]) — the third, “the perfection of merit-mastery”: 「為福自在具足故，經言『此三千大千世界』等。於中，亦安立第一義故，經言『須菩提！若福聚有實』等」[0764c08–c10]. The heap-of-merit clause's is-not (the establishing of the first meaning) is the same as division 8's two-edge reading 「『世尊！若福聚，非聚』者，此遮增益邊，以無彼福聚分別自性故；『是故如來說福聚』，此遮損減邊，以彼雖不如言辭有自性，而有可說事」[0758c26–29]. 〔Asaṅga's gloss here is extremely terse, doing no more than establishing the abode-correspondence of the sūtra-text [merit-mastery] and the establishing of the first meaning [the is-not]; its unfolding into the three parts of vision-purity · cognition-purity · merit-mastery is supplied by Kuiji's citation of Asaṅga, see the Kuiji entry below [0148c16–18].〕
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: reads this division as the resolution of division 18's doubt — 「『須菩提！滿三千世界七寶』者，文來為釋疑。上言佛知眾生心皆顛倒，則顛倒心所作布施等眾行皆是顛倒。若爾，應無佛因；既無佛因，應無佛果。故釋此疑，明無所得心布施等則是佛因，既有佛因則有佛果」[0120b14–18]. Setting the question “whence does the not-distorted arise,” he cites the Mahāprajñāpāramitā · Three-Wisdoms chapter 「不從有得生無得，不從無得生無得，得無得平等故是無所得」 in answer [0120b18–24]. Judging plainly the difference of the first and later seven treasures: 「問：前已明三千世界七寶，與今何異？答：前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因也」[0120b24–26]. On the is-not: 「『若福德有實』，此便釋疑……故釋云：若福德有實，此明有得福德；『以福德無故』，此明無得福德，故是佛因也」[0120b26–29].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: sectioned as the third part of the dharma-as-designation, “clarifying that merit has no real existence” — 「『若人滿三千七寶布施』下，明功德無所有」[0082b16]. On the is-not: 「明福有實，此即有量，豈得多耶？以無福為福，故多也。金玉無性故可積滿三千，福德無實則可曠施而多。心之無性，惑滅解生也」[0082b16–19]; 「法假竟」[0082b19–20] (division 18 clarifying wisdom [the five eyes] · clarifying mind [knowing minds] · division 19 clarifying merit [the blessings], all three “the dharma-as-designation has no real existence”).
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Asaṅga's “the third of the supreme vision-and-cognition-purity is the perfection of merit-mastery” — 「謂若將七寶等施，為求般若，聽聞修學，當成佛故，其福甚多也。無著云，此即無上見、智淨中第三為福自在具足故也，謂若為般若行施等故，福法成滿也」[0148c14–18]. On the is-not: 「『若福德有實』者，謂說若為般若故行施，如為自體故行施實有者，佛則不說為得福多也。以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」[0148c23–26]. Carrying on the comparison: 「以此准知，前以財、命等施校量不及受、持此經者，謂不能亡相故，不求菩提故也……若持般若者，當得成佛，濟利甚多，故功德勝也」[0148c26–149a01].
The three schools of the ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all converge on Vasubandhu's verse at this division: merit is not distorted (the mind distorted yet merit not distorted, being the root of buddha-wisdom / the holding of the cognition of right awakening); is-not merit = merit has no real self-nature (if it had reality it would not be said much · because non-existent it is said much); their readings all hinge on the doubt of division 18's three minds · distorted cognition (Jizang 「顛倒心所作布施皆顛倒·故釋此疑明無得心施是佛因」, Vasubandhu 「心住顛倒·福德非顛倒·智慧根本」, Kuiji [following Asaṅga] 「福自在具足·三事體空行施故福多」). Zhiyi's 「以無福為福·福德無實則可曠施而多」, Jizang's 「前七寶格四句偈·今七寶成佛因」, and Kuiji's 「以三事體空行施·准知前較量不及持經」 — each pegs item by item to 「七寶布施·若福德有實·以福德無故」. This is the ancient masters' settled reading of this division's “merit is-not · the dharma-realm pervasively transformed”: merit has no self-nature (is-not) yet to give with a mind of no-attaining is then a buddha-cause · cognition's holding · merit-mastery — an application of dharma-emptiness to merit in the second half.
5 · Terminology
福德／福德聚／福聚 puṇya-skandha (聚 = skandha; Yijing's treatise collates the Sanskrit's two senses of accumulating and shoulder-bearing (because it cannot bear the burden of bodhi it is said to be no-heap) 〔fully glossed at division 8 register 4〕; Kumārajīva has 「福德」 without producing the word 「聚」) ·
七寶 sapta-ratna ·
有實／無實 (merit has reality = has self-nature, merit is non-existent = has no real self-nature; Kuiji 「如為自體故行施實有者，佛則不說為得福多」[0148c23–25]) ·
智持／正覺智之持 (the holding-place of cognition; Vasubandhu T1513 「由是正覺智之持故……是不說為智之持處義」[0881c23–27], merit being held by the cognition of right awakening, hence not unreal) ·
福自在具足 (the third of the six buddha-ground perfections; Asaṅga [0764c08]· Kuiji 「為般若行施等故，福法成滿」[0148c17–18]) ·
有漏／無漏福德 (Vasubandhu 「有漏福德聚是其顛倒，以此福德聚是有漏故」T1511 [0792c12–13]; Jizang 「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因」[0120b28–29]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; the multiple senses of 「聚」 as skandha see Yijing's Sanskrit-collation at division 8 register 5.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the re-stated merit · the reversal of “mind distorted, merit not distorted”)
This division has no concrete simile (the empty-space simile is at division 4 · the Sumeru-mountain simile at divisions 11 and 24). The point of the rhetoric lies in the re-stated simile and the reversal of “mind distorted, merit not distorted”:
- The re-stated simile: Vasubandhu's two recensions mark this division's seven treasures outright as a “re-statement of the simile” (Bodhiruci 「故重說譬喻」
[0792c06]; Yijing 「重陳其喻說」[0881c19]) — the simile of the seven-treasure merit was already spoken at division 8 (as a foil for the four-line verse), and this division re-states it for a different purpose: there for the comparison of merit (against upholding the sūtra), here for cutting the doubt “merit too is distorted” (Jizang 「前七寶為格四句偈，今七寶為成佛因」[0120b25–26]). The same seven-treasure simile, used differently in the two places, is the whole sūtra's self-repetition “repeating yet with difference” (the same structure as division 17's recurrence of the two questions · the re-statement across the two cycles). - The reversal of “mind distorted, merit not distorted”: carrying right on from division 18's 「諸心皆為非心·三世不可得」 (the mind distorted and unreal), it abruptly sets the doubt “the merit made by a distorted mind too is distorted and unreal,” then turns it to 「福德非顛倒」 (Vasubandhu 「心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」
T1511 [0792c08–09]; 「流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛」T1513 [0881c22–23]). The mind's “distortion” set against merit's “not-distortion,” the mind's distortion setting off in reverse merit's (cognition's holding's) not-distortion. - The reversal of “if it had reality it would not be much · because non-existent it is much”: it states plainly 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多」 (having reality it is conversely not much), then turns abruptly to 「以福德無故，如來說得福德多」 (having no reality it conversely becomes much) — Zhiyi 「明福有實，此即有量，豈得多耶？以無福為福，故多也……福德無實則可曠施而多」
[0082b16–19]. The “having measure” of reality and the “measureless” of no-reality reversed, no-attaining conversely becoming much merit.
This stroke of “re-stated yet differently used · mind distorted yet merit not distorted · having reality conversely not much” shares one structure of reversal with division 8's “merit is much yet is-not the nature of merit” and division 10's “adornment yet is-not adornment.” This register shows its rhetoric in this division through the re-stated merit and the reversal of “mind distorted, merit not distorted”; the concrete simile is weighted in divisions 4, 11, 24, 26, 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Baifa (T1614): the eleven wholesome [mental factors] · giving (subsumed under no-greed) · with-outflow and without-outflow — the mental-factor correspondence of this division's 「七寶布施福德／三事體空行施」 (the conditionally-arisen merit is a conditioned wholesome dharma, and giving with a mind of no-attaining pervades the without-outflow).
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the transformation of the basis (v.29 the perfectly-accomplished) · without-outflow (v.29 「此即無漏界·不思議善常」) — the treatise-correspondence of this division's “merit having no reality yet being cognition's holding · forming the buddha-cause” (giving with a mind of no-attaining accords with the cognition of no-discrimination, merit forms the buddha-cause).
- Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · mind-and-object as illusion — this division follows division 18's “mind distorted and unreal” and doubts “merit too is distorted,” accordant with the Twenty Verses' treatise-doctrine of “displayed by consciousness-only · object without reality” (what the distorted cognition takes as object has no reality, yet the substance of merit does not follow the mind's unreality).
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the cognitive hindrance · the wholly-imagined nature (the clinging at merit's real self-nature) · without-outflow seeds — this division's 「福德有實〔即非〕·福德無故」 is just the sūtra-language correspondence of Cheng weishi lun's “the wholly-imagined nature is non-existent in self-nature · the cause of without-outflow merit”; merit-clinging (dharma-clinging) is subsumed under the cognitive hindrance.
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無智亦無得」 — this division's 「福德無故，如來說得福德多」 is just the merit-position of “no-attaining” (merit having no real self-nature to be attained, only then is it said to be much merit).
This division's 「福德即非·以福德無故說福德多」 is just the sūtra-language correspondence of the Thirty Verses' and Cheng weishi lun's “without-outflow merit · giving with a mind of no-attaining · dharma-clinging [merit-clinging] subsumed under the cognitive hindrance”; 「福德無故」 is just the Heart Sūtra's dharma-position of “no-attaining.” Shi Huijing's thesis “what the Diamond Sūtra says in sūtra-language, Cheng weishi lun says in technical language” 〔摘自《從百法到金剛》S5-P10〕: the Diamond Sūtra's phrase 「若福德有實則不說多·以福德無故說福德多」 says the same thing that Cheng weishi lun says in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined nature is non-existent in self-nature · giving with a mind of no-attaining accords with the cognition of no-discrimination”; and “the Diamond Sūtra says in sūtra-language what is meant by ‘abide nowhere and give rise to the mind’” 〔摘自《應無所住而生其心》S5-P06〕 — that non-abiding is, in this division, 「無得心布施則是佛因」 〔the ancient masters' reading, see register 4〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The ancient-master citations are at register 4 and are not repeated here. The Madhyānta-vibhāga and Mahāyāna-saṃgraha have no frontal correspondence at this division and are omitted. Cheng weishi lun is in progress, cited by stable name, to be linked additively when complete.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- The “no-reality conversely much” of 「以福德無故，如來說得福德多」 ↔ Western axiology's “unconditioned good / non-instrumental good” (Kant's “good will” good in itself, not awaiting a result; the moral purity of unmotivated giving): the West might read it as a motive-theory of “the purer the value of giving the more it is done for-nothing”; the ancient-master / Yogācāra reading is the three-natures dynamic — merit is not non-existent (sayably other-dependent), only without real self-nature (the wholly-imagined removed), and “because merit is non-existent it is said much” is not merely a purity of motive but the transformation-of-the-basis of substance, “giving with the three components empty of substance · giving with a mind of no-attaining is then a buddha-cause” (Kuiji
[0148c25–26]· Jizang[0120b28–29]) — merit produced by the transformation of the basis, not a gradation of moral motive. - The doubt of “mind distorted yet merit not distorted” ↔ Western moral psychology's “does a wholesome act of impure motive remain wholesome” (Hume on passion and morality, whether an act's good or evil hangs on the purity of psychological motive): the West largely argues from the relation of motive and act (can a distorted mind produce a wholesome act); the ancient-master / Yogācāra reading of “mind distorted, merit not distorted” is not merely a difficulty of motive-theory but “the substance of the heap of merit is not unreal, being the holding of the cognition of right awakening” (Vasubandhu
T1513 [0881c22–23]) — merit's not-distortion hangs on its being the root (holding) of buddha-wisdom, not on the purity of the giver's psychological motive, a merit of cognition's holding, a fruit of the transformation of the basis. - The same-simile-differently-used of “the re-stated simile” ↔ Western hermeneutics' “difference within repetition” (Kierkegaard's “repetition,” Derrida's différance arguing that re-statement is not mere reproduction but generates new sense): an observation can be drawn; yet the seven treasures' re-statement has a definite direction in its different use — there for the comparison of upholding the sūtra (a foil for breaking merit-clinging), here for cutting the doubt “merit too is distorted” (a display of forming the buddha-cause) (Jizang
[0120b24–26]), a sequential unfolding of the teaching, not an endless deferral of textual meaning. - The point of the observation: the West tends to take “no-reality conversely much · mind distorted yet merit not distorted · the re-statement” as theses of axiology · moral psychology · hermeneutics (the purity of motive · the dependence of the good · the difference of repetition); the ancient masters take them as the cultivation-and-realization of the transformation of the basis · cognition's holding · cutting the cognitive hindrance — that merit has no reality yet forms the buddha-cause displays the giving of no-attaining with the three components empty of substance, that the mind is distorted yet merit not distorted displays merit as the not-unreal held by the cognition of right awakening, both cultivable and realizable fruits of practice, not static ethical assertions. The difference between thesis and cultivation-realization is itself one note worth marking between East and West.
- (This register is a Western-perspective observation; the scriptural and Yogācāra reading remains throughout the principal one, the West a secondary reference, not an adjudication. The specific literature is a matter for the researcher's inquiry.)
9 · Manuscript Placement
Kumārajīva T0235 [0751b29–c04] (root · The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed). For the [loc] of the merit-is-not passage in the six versions see register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0755c27–0756a03] · Paramārtha T0237 [0765b09–b14] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0770b23–c02] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0984b19–b25] · Yijing T0239 [0774c01–c04]. Treatise sources (Vasubandhu's verse · Asaṅga's merit-mastery): Vasubandhu T1511 [0792c04–c16] · Vasubandhu T1513 [0881c17–c28] · Asaṅga T1510a [0758a07–09·0758c24–29·0764c08–c10]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0120b14–b29] · Zhiyi T1698 [0082b16–b20] · Kuiji T1700 [0148c14–0149a02].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 19 · The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed · apparatus · Spring 2026