金剛般若波羅蜜經 分二十 離色離相分
人總想憑一個看得見的相去認佛——三十二相莊嚴、八十隨形好圓滿，似乎見到這一身相好，就見到了佛。這一分把這念頭輕輕撥開：可以憑具足的色身見佛嗎？不可以。可以憑具足的諸相見如來嗎？不可以。佛兩問並列，各收一句「即非」——具足色身即非具足色身，諸相具足即非具足。要緊的是，這「即非」不是說佛沒有相好，而是說相好身不是法身：那可見的隨好與三十二相，是報身、化身緣起所現的相，不是那無形無相的法性之體。可它又不離法身——法身如虛空，本無形相，卻能在大圓鏡智裡現出報身、化身的種種相好；有相之相，正從那無相之相而現。所以世親一句「亦無二及有」：法身中沒有相好，故說「即非」；相好不離法身，故說「是名」。非一、非異，相好身與法身就這樣落定。見如來，不在停於那一身可見的相好，而在於相好之處不執其為實、又不撥其為無——於色相之上，識得那離色離相的法身。
People always want to recognize the Buddha by some visible mark — the thirty-two marks in their splendor, the eighty secondary excellences in their fullness — as though to see this body of marks and excellences were to see the Buddha. This division gently brushes the notion aside: can the Buddha be seen by the perfected form-body? No. Can the Tathāgata be seen by the perfected marks? No. The Buddha sets the two questions side by side, and each closes with an "is-not" (即非) — the perfected form-body is not the perfected form-body, the perfected marks are not the perfected marks. What matters is that this "is-not" does not say the Buddha lacks marks and excellences; it says that the body of marks and excellences is not the Dharma-body (法身): those visible secondary excellences and the thirty-two marks are the marks displayed by the reward-body (報身) and transformation-body (化身) as they arise from conditions — they are not the formless, markless substance of the Dharma-nature. Yet neither are they apart from the Dharma-body — the Dharma-body, like empty space, is from the first without form or mark, and yet within the wisdom of the great perfect mirror (大圓鏡智) it can display the manifold marks and excellences of the reward-body and transformation-body; the marks that have form are displayed precisely from that mark which is without form. And so Vasubandhu says in one phrase 「亦無二及有」(neither two, nor [merely] existent): within the Dharma-body there are no marks and excellences, and so we say "is-not"; the marks and excellences are not apart from the Dharma-body, and so we say "is named." Not one, not different — and just so the body of marks and the Dharma-body come to rest. To see the Tathāgata lies not in halting at that one visible body of marks and excellences, but, right at the marks and excellences, in neither grasping them as real nor dismissing them as nothing — recognizing, upon form and mark, the Dharma-body that is apart from form and apart from marks.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 20 · Apart from Form, Apart from Marks · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕不可以具足色身見如來
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足色身見。何以故？如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身。」
「須菩提！你怎麼想？可以憑著圓滿具足的色身，就見到佛嗎？」「不可以的，世尊！不應當憑著圓滿具足的色身去見如來。為什麼呢？因為如來所說的具足色身，並不是真有一個實在的「具足色身」，只是假借這個名字叫作具足色身罷了。」
〔二〕不可以具足諸相見如來
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以具足諸相見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足諸相見。何以故？如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足。」
「須菩提！你怎麼想？可以憑著圓滿具足的種種相，就見到如來嗎？」「不可以的，世尊！不應當憑著圓滿具足的種種相去見如來。為什麼呢？因為如來所說的諸相具足，並不是真有一個實在的「具足」，只是假借這個名字叫作諸相具足罷了。」
[1] The Tathāgata Cannot Be Seen by the Perfected Physical Body
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足色身見。何以故？如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身。」
"Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be seen by the fully perfected physical body?" "No, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata should not be seen by the fully perfected physical body. Why? Because what the Tathāgata calls the perfected physical body is not a real, substantial 'perfected physical body' — 'perfected physical body' is only the name borrowed for it."
[2] The Tathāgata Cannot Be Seen by the Perfected Marks
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以具足諸相見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足諸相見。何以故？如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足。」
"Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Tathāgata be seen by the full perfection of the marks?" "No, World-Honored One. The Tathāgata should not be seen by the full perfection of the marks. Why? Because what the Tathāgata calls the perfection of the marks is not a real, substantial 'perfection' — 'perfection of the marks' is only the name borrowed for it."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 20 · Apart from Form, Apart from Marks · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、三身（法身·報身·化身）、大圓鏡智現報化身，來照金剛經這兩問兩即非。
承上而來：法空之刀，落在佛身上
上面分十七把教法轉入法空，顯「實無有法可得」；分十八又轉到「心」上，說諸心皆為非心。到這一分，這把「即非」之刀，落在了一個最容易被執實的地方——佛自己的相好身。
由前面「如來者，即諸法如義」一句，會生出一個很自然的疑問：佛既然是以無為的真如得名，那他成就的八十種隨形好、三十二相，又算什麼？難道見到這一身相好，就見到佛了嗎？世親正是先設這一疑——「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好、三十二相而名為佛」；為斷這個疑，佛才說「不可以具足色身見、不可以具足諸相見」。所以這一分的眼目是：相好身不是法身，可是相好身又不離法身。
用唯識的眼看，這正是 §17 後半法空的一施。前半（分一至十六）破的多是「相、法、福德」這些身外之境，遣的是煩惱障；到這一分，即非施於佛身自身——破「相好即法身」這層更細的執，遣的是所知障（法我執）。連佛的相好身都要說一句「即非」，可見法空之徹底。
兩問並列：色身與諸相，分舉而義一
佛這一分問了兩遍，兩問同一個式樣：「可以具足色身見不」「可以具足諸相見不」。須菩提兩遍都答「不也」，並各收一個即非。
這兩問為什麼要分開問？古德分得清楚：「色身」說的是三十二相之外的八十隨形好之身（義淨的論本逕標「色身就是隨好的意思」，窺基說它是「報身、化身的隨好之身」）；「諸相」說的是三十二相（窺基「就是那差別的三十二相」）。隨好與相好，一是色身、一是諸相，分作兩問；可是所顯的道理只有一個——相好身非法身而不離法身。吉藏一句點破：問諸相這一段「意思和前面問色身一樣，只是身的總相與相的別相之分罷了」。複沓兩問，所指惟一。
即非色身：報化隨好之身，不是法性色身
第一個即非：「如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身。」順三性看：
- 「具足色身」＝依他起：這是報身、化身的隨好之身（窺基「如來所說的具足色身，是報身、化身的隨好之身」）。隨機現形而有的色身，緣起而現，宛然可見，所以說「具足」。
- 「即非具足色身」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是把這報化的相好身，妄當成「法性的具足色身（法身）」這一層執。窺基說「即非具足色身，就是說它不是法性的具足色身」。所謂遍計所執，就是把心所變現的影，當成心外實在的東西；在這裡，就是把可見的相好身，執成那不可見的法身之實。「即非」遣的是這層執，不是說沒有相好。
- 「是名具足色身」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡了那層妄執，報化的相好身仍是無自性而宛然可說——窺基「是名具足色身，就是說它是報身、化身」。相好身並非離了法身別有，而是法身所現：窺基打了個喻，法身好比虛空，本身沒有形相，卻能在鏡中現出種種影像；法身也是這樣，本身無形無相，卻能在大圓鏡智中現出報身、化身。這正是唯識說的——大圓鏡智現自受用身與變化身。
即非諸相：有相之相，不是無相之相
第二個即非：「如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足。」同是三性式：
- 「諸相具足」＝依他起：這是那差別的三十二相（窺基「如來所說的諸相具足，是說那差別的三十二相」）。
- 「即非具足」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是把三十二相當成「法身無差別之相」這層執。窺基「即非具足，是說它不是法身那無差別相的具足」；無著一句說得最透——「有相的相，並不就是無相的相」。三十二相是有相之相（外在可見的形相），法身的相是無相之相（內證真理之理上的相），把前者執成後者，就是遍計。
- 「是名諸相具足」＝立圓成、存假名：遣執之處，外在的形相仍可說——窺基「是名諸相具足，是說那外在的形相」；無著「內證真理是無相之相，而外面具有有相之相」。內證的無相之相不離外現的有相之相，所以說「是名」。
一以貫之：法身非相好而不離——亦無亦有
把兩個即非並看，它們共用同一把鑰匙：相好身不是法身（即非），可是相好身又不離法身（是名）。世親一句總攝——「亦無二及有」：法身之中沒有相好（所以可以說「無」，這是「即非」）；相好又不離法身（所以也可以說「有」，這是「是名」）。世親的論偈把這道理逐句錨在經文上：「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身」——這是破「相好就是法身」的一見；「不離於法身，彼二非不佛」——這是破「相好與法身全然兩異、離了相好別有一個法身」的異見。一見、異見兩遣，相好身與法身的關係才落定：非一、非異。
古德三家（三論的吉藏、天台的智顗、唯識的窺基）對這一分的讀法，雖出三系，卻同歸世親這兩偈。吉藏說「色身不是法身，怎能說它們是一個？離了相好哪裡另有法身，所以說『此二非不佛』」；智顗以「法身如空中之月，色身如水中之像，世間的色相沒有實體可看，尋它的本源就是法身」收之；窺基依世親、無著，以「報化隨好之身不是法性色身、法身如虛空而鏡智現報化、有相之相即非無相之相」逐項照住經文。三家異流而同歸，這就是本分「法身離色相」的古德定讀。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識的三身、四智之學從金剛經流出——三身、大圓鏡智之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本（攝論、成唯識），般若另是一系；而是同一「相好非法身而不離」的實相，金剛經以經語（即非具足色身·即非具足諸相）說，唯識以論語（三性·三身·四智·遍計所執）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌說圓成實、說轉依，與本分「法身（圓成）·報化（依他現相）」相應；攝大乘論彼果智分立三身（自性身·受用身·變化身），正是本分「法身·報身·化身、不離法身而現相好」的論本；成唯識論說大圓鏡智現自受用身及變化身，即本分「法身如虛空、鏡智現報化身」的技術語；辯中邊論辨「無相之相·法身有法性之相」，與本分「有相之相即非無相之相」相通；二十論明唯識所現相非離識實有，與「相好身如鏡中之像、識變所現」相印。般若一系的心經「色即是空，空即是色」，亦同此「相好非實（即非）而不離法身宛然（是名）」之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「具足色身即非具足色身」，成唯識論以「大圓鏡智現報化身·三身·相好非遍計實法身」的技術語說的，是同一件事〔此一會通，釋慧鏡《從百法到金剛》（S5-P10）已明其旨〕。
Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the three bodies (Dharma-body 法身, reward-body 報身, transformation-body 化身), and the great mirror-wisdom (大圓鏡智) manifesting the reward- and transformation-bodies, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s two questions and two “is-nots.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.
Coming Off the Pivot: the Blade of Dharma-Emptiness Falls upon the Buddha’s Own Body
Above, Division 17 turned the teaching into the emptiness of dharmas and disclosed that “there is in truth no dharma to be attained”; Division 18 turned again to “mind,” saying all minds are no-mind. By this division, the blade of this “is-not” falls upon a place most easily grasped as real — the Buddha’s own marks-and-excellences body.
From the earlier line “the Tathāgata is just the suchness of all dharmas” a very natural doubt arises: if the Buddha is named from the unconditioned suchness, then what of the eighty secondary excellences and thirty-two marks he has achieved? Does seeing this body of marks-and-excellences mean one has seen the Buddha? Vasubandhu first poses this doubt — 「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好、三十二相而名為佛」, “if the Buddhas are named from the unconditioned dharma, how is it that the Buddhas achieve the eighty excellences and thirty-two marks and are named Buddha?” To cut off this doubt, the Buddha says “he cannot be seen by the perfect form-body, cannot be seen by the perfect marks.” So the eye of this division is just this: the marks-and-excellences body is not the Dharma-body, yet the marks-and-excellences body is not apart from the Dharma-body.
Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this is one application of the dharma-emptiness of §17’s second half. The first half (Divisions 1–16) broke mostly the objects outside the body — marks, dharmas, merit — removing the affliction-hindrance; by this division the “is-not” is applied to the Buddha’s body itself, breaking the finer clinging of “the marks-and-excellences just are the Dharma-body,” removing the cognitive hindrance (dharma-self-clinging). That even the Buddha’s marks-and-excellences body must be told an “is-not” shows how thorough the emptiness of dharmas is.
The Two Questions Side by Side: Form-Body and Marks, Raised Apart but One in Meaning
This division asks twice, the two questions of one pattern: “can he be seen by the perfect form-body?” and “can he be seen by the perfect marks?” Subhūti answers “no” both times, and each answer gathers an “is-not.”
Why ask these two apart? The ancient masters distinguish them clearly: “form-body” (色身) speaks of the body of the eighty secondary excellences beyond the thirty-two marks (Yijing’s treatise-text says outright that “the form-body just means the secondary excellences,” and Kuiji says it is 「報身、化身的隨好之身」, “the body of secondary excellences of the reward-body and transformation-body”); “marks” (諸相) speaks of the thirty-two marks (Kuiji: 「就是那差別的三十二相」, “precisely those differentiated thirty-two marks”). The secondary excellences and the major marks — one the form-body, the other the marks — are made into two questions; yet the principle disclosed is only one: the marks-and-excellences body is not the Dharma-body, and not apart from it. Jizang catches it: the question about the marks 「意思和前面問色身一樣，只是身的總相與相的別相之分罷了」, “means the same as the earlier question about the form-body; it is only the distinction between the total mark of the body and the particular marks.” The two repeated questions point to one and the same thing.
Is-Not the Form-Body: the Reward- and Transformation-Body of Secondary Excellences Is Not the Dharma-Nature Form-Body
The first “is-not”: 「如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身」— “the Tathāgata says: the perfect form-body is-not the perfect form-body; it is named the perfect form-body.” Read through the three natures:
- “The perfect form-body” = dependent-arising (依他起): this is the body of secondary excellences of the reward-body and transformation-body (Kuiji: 「如來所說的具足色身，是報身、化身的隨好之身」). A form-body that appears in response to the occasion, arising in conditions, vividly visible — hence “perfect.”
- “Is-not the perfect form-body” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of falsely taking this reward-and-transformation marks-body to be “the perfect form-body of the Dharma-nature (the Dharma-body).” Kuiji: 「即非具足色身，就是說它不是法性的具足色身」— “‘is-not the perfect form-body’ means it is not the perfect form-body of the Dharma-nature.” The so-called wholly-imagined (遍計所執) is just the taking of an image transformed-and-manifested by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind; here, the taking of the visible marks-body for the reality of that invisible Dharma-body. The “is-not” removes this layer of clinging; it does not say there are no marks-and-excellences.
- “It is named the perfect form-body” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): once that false clinging is removed, the reward-and-transformation marks-body is still, without own-nature, vividly speakable — Kuiji: 「是名具足色身，就是說它是報身、化身」, “‘it is named the perfect form-body’ means it is the reward-body and transformation-body.” The marks-body is not something apart from the Dharma-body; it is what the Dharma-body manifests. Kuiji draws a simile: the Dharma-body is like empty space, which has no form of its own yet can manifest all manner of images in a mirror; so too the Dharma-body, formless and markless in itself, can manifest the reward-body and transformation-body in the great mirror-wisdom (大圓鏡智). This is exactly what Yogācāra says — the great mirror-wisdom manifests the self-enjoyment body and the transformation body.
Is-Not the Perfect Marks: the Mark That Has a Mark Is Not the Mark That Has No Mark
The second “is-not”: 「如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足」— “the Tathāgata says: the marks are perfect; is-not perfect; it is named the marks being perfect.” The same three-nature pattern:
- “The marks are perfect” = dependent-arising (依他起): these are those differentiated thirty-two marks (Kuiji: 「如來所說的諸相具足，是說那差別的三十二相」).
- “Is-not perfect” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of taking the thirty-two marks to be “the undifferentiated mark of the Dharma-body.” Kuiji: 「即非具足，是說它不是法身那無差別相的具足」, “‘is-not perfect’ means it is not the perfection of that undifferentiated mark of the Dharma-body”; and Asaṅga says it most penetratingly — 「有相的相，並不就是無相的相」, “the mark that has a mark is not the mark that has no mark.” The thirty-two marks are marks that have marks (outwardly visible forms), while the Dharma-body’s mark is a markless mark (a mark upon the principle inwardly realized); to grasp the former as the latter is the wholly-imagined.
- “It is named the marks being perfect” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the clinging is removed, the outward forms may still be spoken of — Kuiji: 「是名諸相具足，是說那外在的形相」, “‘it is named the marks being perfect’ means those outward forms”; Asaṅga: 「內證真理是無相之相，而外面具有有相之相」, “the inwardly realized principle is a markless mark, while outwardly it possesses marks that have marks.” The markless mark inwardly realized is not apart from the marks that have marks outwardly manifested, hence “it is named.”
All of a Piece: the Dharma-Body Is Not the Marks-and-Excellences, Yet Not Apart from Them — Both Absent and Present
Taken together, the two “is-nots” share one key: the marks-and-excellences body is not the Dharma-body (is-not), yet the marks-and-excellences body is not apart from the Dharma-body (it is named). Vasubandhu gathers it in a phrase — 「亦無二及有」, “both the absence of the two and the presence”: within the Dharma-body there are no marks-and-excellences (so one may say “absent,” the “is-not”); the marks-and-excellences are not apart from the Dharma-body (so one may also say “present,” the “it is named”). Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse anchors this principle clause by clause to the text: 「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身」— “the Dharma-body, the ultimate substance, is not that marks-and-excellences body” — this breaks the view of identity, that “the marks-and-excellences just are the Dharma-body”; 「不離於法身，彼二非不佛」— “not apart from the Dharma-body, those two are not non-Buddha” — this breaks the view of difference, that “the marks-and-excellences and the Dharma-body are utterly two, and apart from the marks-and-excellences there is some separate Dharma-body.” With both the view of identity and the view of difference removed, the relation of marks-and-excellences and Dharma-body is settled: not one, not different.
The three houses of ancient masters (the Three-Treatise Jizang, the Tiantai Zhiyi, the Yogācāra Kuiji), though from three lineages, come home alike to these two verses of Vasubandhu. Jizang: 「色身不是法身，怎能說它們是一個？離了相好哪裡另有法身，所以說『此二非不佛』」— “the form-body is not the Dharma-body, so how can they be called one? And apart from the marks-and-excellences where is there a separate Dharma-body? — hence ‘those two are not non-Buddha.’” Zhiyi gathers it with 「法身如空中之月，色身如水中之像，世間的色相沒有實體可看，尋它的本源就是法身」— “the Dharma-body is like the moon in the sky, the form-body like its image in water; the worldly form-marks have no substance to be seen, and tracing them to their source is just the Dharma-body.” Kuiji, following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, anchors the text item by item with “the reward-and-transformation body of secondary excellences is not the Dharma-nature form-body; the Dharma-body is like empty space while the mirror-wisdom manifests the reward- and transformation-bodies; the mark that has a mark is-not the markless mark.” Three houses, different streams converging on one — this is the ancient masters’ settled reading of this division’s “the Dharma-body apart from form and mark.”
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 the Yogācāra science of the three bodies and four wisdoms flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three bodies and the great mirror-wisdom have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun), the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same reality — “the marks-and-excellences are not the Dharma-body, yet not apart from it” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (is-not the perfect form-body · is-not the perfect marks) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (the three natures, the three bodies, the four wisdoms, the wholly-imagined); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses speak of the perfectly-accomplished and of the transformation of the basis, answering to this division’s “Dharma-body (the perfectly-accomplished) · reward-and-transformation (the other-dependent manifesting marks).” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the fruit-wisdom, establishes the three bodies (the self-nature body, the enjoyment body, the transformation body), which is exactly the treatise-source for this division’s “Dharma-body · reward-body · transformation-body, manifesting marks-and-excellences not apart from the Dharma-body.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the great mirror-wisdom manifesting the self-enjoyment body and the transformation body — the technical language of this division’s “the Dharma-body is like empty space, the mirror-wisdom manifests the reward- and transformation-bodies.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes “the markless mark · the Dharma-body possessing the mark of Dharma-nature,” which accords with this division’s “the mark that has a mark is-not the markless mark.” The Twenty Verses clarify that the marks manifested by consciousness are not real apart from consciousness, which seals with “the marks-and-excellences body is like an image in a mirror, manifested by the transformation of consciousness.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “form is just emptiness, emptiness is just form” is likewise this gate of “the marks-and-excellences are unreal (is-not) yet vividly not apart from the Dharma-body (it is named).” To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “the perfect form-body is-not the perfect form-body,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the great mirror-wisdom manifests the reward- and transformation-bodies · the three bodies · the marks-and-excellences are not the wholly-imagined real Dharma-body,” 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 20 · Apart from Form, Apart from Marks · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（法身離色相 · §17 後半）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分二十 離色離相分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 後半（法空·破四見·所知障；樞紐分十七後·法空位之破「相好即法身」之法執） |
| 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（佛地具足攝轉依）之佛地六具足中第三「隨形好身具足」——「為隨形好身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以色身成就見如來不』如是等」[0758a09–11]；第四「相身具足」——「為相身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0758a11–13]（佛地六具足：國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好身·相身·語·心 [0757c28–0758a01]） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「諸佛以無為法得名，云何成就相好而名佛」之疑——「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛？為斷此疑，是故說非成就色身、非成就諸相得見如來」（T1511 [0792c25–28]）；義淨譯「若言如來是非集造所顯，如何如來說有諸好及眾相耶？為除此難，故云『不應色身圓滿及相具足觀於如來』」（T1513 [0881c27–0882a01]） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「『佛可以具足色身』下，第六章經」[0120b30]；破二身（相好身·法身）一異見——「今文為破二身一異見故來」[0120c04] |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 第二周「辨名」之名假——「次、『佛可以色身見』去至前偈辨名」[0081b11–12]；名中有三「初、身相，次、說法，後、福多」[0082b20–21]，本分為身相 |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 證道佛地六具足之第三「隨形好身具足」「如經『佛可以具足色身見不？』」[0147b17–18]·第四「相身具足」「如經『如來可以具足諸相見不？』」[0147b18–19]；依世親「第二有四疑展轉釋疑」之第一「以相好身為佛疑」「此為大段第三破疑……一者、以相好身為佛疑」[0149a04–07] |
法身離色相義：此分承樞紐（分十七 究竟無我·法空）、分十八（三心不可得）、分十九（福德即非）之後，由前說「如來者，即諸法真如（如義）」[0751a26] 生疑——既以無為真如得名，云何復成就八十種好、三十二相而名為佛（窺基「此於前說云如來者，即諸法真如以生疑也」[0149a10–11]；世親「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛」T1511 [0792c25–26]）？故說「非成就色身、非成就諸相得見如來」以斷之。古德三家俱依世親二偈讀此段：法身畢竟體非相好身（即非·破「相好即法身」之一見），然相好不離法身而彼二非不佛（是名·破「相好異法身」之異見），故「亦無二及有」（見目三、目四）。無著判此分屬證道住處（第十七住）佛地六具足之第三「隨形好身具足」、第四「相身具足」（[0758a09–13]），即菩薩證道後佛地之色身·相身圓滿。本分「即非」二現於「具足色身即非具足色身」與「諸相具足即非具足」（見目三）——施於佛身（法我），是 §17 後半法空·破法見之一施。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 色身·諸相二即非一段）
要句：可以具足色身見不（不也）/ 具足色身即非具足色身是名具足色身 / 可以具足諸相見不（不也）/ 諸相具足即非具足是名諸相具足
| 版本 | 色身·諸相二即非一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足色身見。何以故？如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身。」「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以具足諸相見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足諸相見。何以故？如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足。」 | 0751c05–c11 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | 「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身見不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！如來不應以色身見。何以故？如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是故如來說名具足色身。」佛言：「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以具足諸相見不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足諸相見。何以故？如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是故如來說名諸相具足。」 | 0756a03–a11 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？可以具足色身觀如來不？」須菩提言：「不可，世尊！不可以具足色身觀於如來。何以故？此具足色身，如來說非具足色身，是故如來說名具足色身。」佛言：「須菩提！汝意云何？可以具足諸相觀如來不？」須菩提言：「不可，世尊！不可以具足諸相觀於如來。何以故？此具足相，如來說非具足相，是故如來說具足相。」 | 0765b15–b22 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！色身成就如來見應？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！非色身成就如來見應。彼何所因？色身成就、色身成就者，世尊！非成就，此，如來說；彼故，說名色身成就者。」世尊言：「彼何意念？善實！相具足如來見應？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！非相具足如來見應。彼何所因？此，世尊！相具足，如來說；非相具足，如來說；彼故，說名相具足者。」 | 0770c02–c10 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？可以色身圓實觀如來不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不可以色身圓實觀於如來。何以故？世尊！色身圓實色身圓實者，如來說非圓實，是故如來說名色身圓實色身圓實。」佛告善現：「於汝意云何？可以諸相具足觀如來不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不可以諸相具足觀於如來。何以故？世尊！諸相具足諸相具足者，如來說為非相具足，是故如來說名諸相具足諸相具足。」 | 0984b26–c05 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？可以色身圓滿觀如來不？」「不爾，世尊！不應以色身圓滿觀於如來。何以故？色身圓滿、色身圓滿者，如來說非圓滿，是故名為色身圓滿。」「妙生！可以具相觀如來不？」「不爾，世尊！不應以具相觀於如來。何以故？諸具相者，如來說非具相，是故如來說名具相。」 | 0774c05–c10 |
異文所繫：
- 「色身／色身成就／色身圓實／色身圓滿」：羅什、流支、真諦作「具足色身」；笈多作「色身成就」、玄奘作「色身圓實」、義淨作「色身圓滿」（同一梵語 rūpa-kāya-pariniṣpatti／-sampad 之「具足·成就·圓實·圓滿」異譯）。義淨論本（T1513）逕標「言『色身』者，是隨好義故」
[0882a02]——「色身」即三十二相外之八十隨形好之身（世親「色身攝得八十種好三十二相」T1511 [0792c28–29]；窺基「報、化隨好之身」[0149a24–25]）。 - 「見／觀如來」：羅什、流支、笈多、玄奘作「見」（色身見·色身成就如來見）；真諦、義淨作「觀如來」（具足色身觀如來）。見／觀之異，繫於 dṛś 一語；古德判此段為「以色相見／觀法身」之遮（吉藏「破二身一異見」
[0120c04]，窺基「以報身形好而見……法身佛不」[0149a14–15]）。 - 能斷系重詞：玄奘「色身圓實色身圓實者，如來說非圓實，是故如來說名色身圓實色身圓實」
[0984b28–29]、「諸相具足諸相具足者……說名諸相具足諸相具足」[0984c03–05]、笈多「色身成就、色身成就者……說名色身成就者」[0770c04–06]、義淨「色身圓滿、色身圓滿者……是故名為色身圓滿」[0774c07–08]——能斷三系（玄奘·笈多·義淨）色身句俱具重詞（同名二舉），即非式作「X·X者，非X，是名 X·X」；羅什、流支、真諦則單舉（羅什「具足色身／即非具足色身／是名具足色身」三句不重詞）。義淨諸相句獨作單舉「諸具相者，如來說非具相，是故如來說名具相」[0774c09–10]（色身重·諸相不重）。重詞乃法相系傳本之文相，逐字錄之，不縮。 - 句二「諸相」之主名：羅什、流支、笈多、玄奘作「諸相具足／相具足」；真諦作「具足相」
[0765b21]；義淨作「具相」[0774c08–09]。羅什、流支於即非句作「諸相具足，即非具足」（即非處止「具足」二字，不重「諸相」）；玄奘作「諸相具足諸相具足者，如來說為非相具足」（即非處作「非相具足」）。三十二相之「相」與隨好之「色身」分舉（無著「為相身具足故」[0758a11]·窺基「謂差別三十二相」[0149b16]），正繫於佛之相好身二分（色身＝隨好·相＝三十二相，見目四、目五）。 - 流支答句省「具足」：流支問作「佛可以具足色身見不」，而善現答獨作「如來不應以色身見」
[0756a05]（省「具足」），餘本（羅什·真諦）答句皆具「具足」二字；即非句流支仍作「具足色身」。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 本分二即非 · §17 後半 法空·破四見）
本分「即非」二現：「具足色身 — 即非具足色身 — 是名具足色身」[0751c07–08] 與「諸相具足 — 即非具足 — 是名諸相具足」[0751c10–11]——二即非並施於佛之相好身（色身·諸相）。
★ 後半框定：本分居 §17 樞紐之後（後半 分十七–卅二）。前半（分一–十六）之即非多施於「相·法·福德」之外境、所對治者煩惱障（破四相·我空）；至此分（後半·法空），即非施於佛身自身（色身·諸相）——破「相好即法身」之法執（法我），所對治者所知障（破四見）。樞紐分十七「通達無我、法」[0751b12]（人我·法我二空·窺基「達我、法空，證無我理」[0147b09–10]）已開法空之門；本分即其於「佛身」一處之施——佛之相好身亦無實自性（即非），破「以相好見如來（法身）」之見。〔此後半「我空→法空·煩惱障→所知障·第二周斷所知障」之轉，古德所本即在分十七窺基（依世親）「第二周為斷障，障即所知也」[0127c01–03]、窺基（依無著）「為二種無我故……二種正覺」[0147b26–27]；見分十七目四。〕
其一「具足色身 — 即非具足色身 — 是名具足色身」映三性：
- 具足色身（X）即依他起——報、化隨好之身（緣生·機感而現之色身；窺基「『如來說具足色身』者，謂報、化隨好之身」
[0149a24–25]）。隨好之身宛然可見，故說「具足」。 - 即非具足色身即遣遍計所執——非分別所執之「法性具足色身（法身）」（窺基「『即非具足色身』者，非是法性具足色身」
[0149a25–26]；世親「彼法身畢竟體，非色身成就……以非彼身故」T1511 [0793a08–09]）。「即非」者，遣「相好身即法身」之執，非謂無相好。 - 是名具足色身即立圓成（亦兼世諦可說）——窺基「『是名具足色身』者，是名報、化身也」
[0149a26–27]；相好身不離法身（無著·世親「以此二法不離於法身……亦得說有」T1511 [0793a12–14]），無自性而宛然可說。法身如虛空無形，而於鏡智現報化身（窺基「法身亦爾，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身也」[0149b02–03]）。
其二「諸相具足 — 即非具足 — 是名諸相具足」映三性：
- 諸相具足（X）即依他起——差別三十二相（窺基「『如來說諸相具足』者，謂差別三十二相也」
[0149b15–16]）。 - 即非具足即遣遍計——非法身無差別之相（窺基「『即非具足』者，非法身無差別相具足也」
[0149b16–17]；無著「有相之相即非無相之相」[0149b21–22]）。 - 是名諸相具足即立圓成——窺基「『是名諸相具足』者，是外形相也」
[0149b17–18]；無著「內證真理無相之相故，而外具有相之相也」[0149b20–21]。
本分之眼：二即非俱以「相好身非法身而不離法身」為樞——遣「相好即法身」之遍計（即非），而不墮「相好異法身、離相好別有法身」之損減（是名）。世親一語貫之：「亦無二及有」T1511 [0793a07]——法身中無相好（故得言無·即非），相好不離法身（故亦得言有·是名）。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「佛身（色身·諸相）」位之二施，亦即 §17 後半法空·破法見於佛身一處之落實。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 法身非相好而不離·二身一異·六具足 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》二偈（法身畢竟體非彼相好身·不離法身彼二非不佛），二漢譯並存： 世親以「法身畢竟體非相好身」斷一見、以「不離法身彼二非不佛」斷異見、以「亦無二及有」收於非無非有，逐項錨於經文；二譯名異義一。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 先設疑——「復有疑，若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛？為斷此疑，是故說非成就色身、非成就諸相得見如來。又色身攝得八十種好三十二相」[0792c25–29]。論偈 [0793a04–a07]：
「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身，以非相成就，非彼法身故。 不離於法身，彼二非不佛，故重說成就，亦無二及有。」
- 釋上半偈（斷一見）：「彼法身畢竟體，非色身成就，亦非諸相成就，以非彼身故。非彼身者，以非彼法身相故」
[0793a08–10]。 - 釋下半偈（斷異見·亦無亦有）：「此二非不佛，即彼如來身有故。何者是二？一者色身成就；二者諸相成就。以此二法不離於法身，是故彼如來身成就相好，亦得說有……是故偈言『彼二非不佛』故。是故此二亦得言無，故說非身成就、非相成就。亦得言有，故說色身成就、諸相成就故，偈言『亦無二及有』」
[0793a10–17]；「以彼法身中無，即於是義說如來色身成就、諸相成就，以不離彼身故。而法身不如是說，以法身非彼體故」[0793a17–19]。
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 先設疑——「若言如來是非集造所顯，如何如來說有諸好及眾相耶？為除此難，故云『不應色身圓滿及相具足觀於如來』。言『色身』者，是隨好義故」[0881c27–0882a02]。頌 [0882a13–a16]：
「謂於真法身，無隨好圓滿，亦非是具相，非身性應知。 於法身無別，非如來無二，重言其具相，由二體皆無。」
- 「言法身實不圓滿隨好色身，應知亦不具足眾相，彼無身性故，是謂法身無具相義」
[0882a17–18]；「亦非如來無斯二種，所謂色身圓滿及以具相，由斯二種不離法身，是故如來有其相好。為此重言色身圓滿及以具相，由二皆無故，是故此二亦說為無。言此非圓滿此亦非具相，亦說為有，以說色身圓滿及具相言故」[0882a18–23]；「由其法身無此相好，是故名此為如來，色身圓滿及以具相，由與彼身不相離故；法身之性即不如是，然法身非彼自性故」[0882a23–26]。
〔二譯對位：法身畢竟體／真法身（非相好身·非身性）· 彼二非不佛／非如來無二（不離法身）· 亦無二及有／二體皆無亦說為有——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。義淨譯獨標「色身＝隨好義」[0882a02]。〕
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此分屬十八住之第十七證道（佛地具足攝轉依），於佛地六種具足（國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好身·相身·語·心 [0757c28–0758a01]）中之第三「隨形好身具足」——「為隨形好身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以色身成就見如來不』如是等」[0758a09–11]；第四「相身具足」——「為相身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0758a11–13]。於證道第二周復出對位：「『以色身成就見如來不』如是等……『非成就』等。為相身具足故，經言『可以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0764c11–14]。〔無著此段止安立經文之住處對位（色身＝隨形好身具足·相＝相身具足）；其法身無相之相·外具有相之相之展開，窺基引無著釋足之，見下窺基條 [0149a27–b03·b18–22]。〕
吉藏（三論）T1699：科為「『佛可以具足色身』下，第六章經」[0120b30]。判此分為破二身一異見——「今文為破二身一異見故來，上兩處明二身異……如從來本迹異、三佛異義，故此章經破一異見」[0120c04–07]。引世親二偈：「論有二偈，上半云『法身畢竟體，非彼相好身』，此即破其二身一見，明相好身有相好、法身無相好，二身有異，何得一耶？次偈上半云『不離於法身，此二非不佛』，此破異見，何處離相好有別法身耶？故云此二非不佛也」[0120c07–12]。釋即非：「所言『具足色身』者，唯佛一人盡形相之美，故言具足……『如來說具足即非具足』者，破一見，明色身非法身，何得為一？『是名具足』，此破異見，何處離相好別有法身也？『可以諸相見不』下，意與前同，但身總相別相為異耳」[0120c26–0121a02]。
智顗（天台）T1698：科為第二周「辨名」之名假——「次、『佛可以色身見』去至前偈辨名」[0081b11–12]；「『佛可以色身見』下，第二明經名……名中有三，初、身相，次、說法，後、福多」[0082b20–21]。釋身相：「色身者，法身如空月，色身若水像，世間之色無實可覩，尋其本實即法身也。慧為萬善之主，施為眾行之首，總為丈六金容，別則眾相，云娑婆隨現則為相，豈可一方盡極」[0082b21–25]。
窺基（唯識）T1700：判此分屬證道佛地六具足之第三「隨形好身具足」「如經『佛可以具足色身見不？』」、第四「相身具足」「如經『如來可以具足諸相見不？』」[0147b17–19]。依世親「第二有四疑展轉釋疑」之第一「以相好身為佛疑」——「世親云，上來破於本處生疑竟，自下第二有四疑，展轉釋疑故生也……一者、以相好身為佛疑」[0149a04–07]；「謂疑曰：『若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好、三十二相而名為佛耶？』……此於前說云如來者，即諸法真如以生疑也」[0149a08–11]。釋即非色身：「『如來說具足色身』者，謂報、化隨好之身；『即非具足色身』者，非是法性具足色身；『是名具足色身』者，是名報、化身也」[0149a24–27]；引無著「隨機現形有報、化之形好，內證無相而有法身之好色性……然形好之身即非法性之具足色身也。謂法身猶如虛空，雖無形相而於鏡中現虛渙影像；法身亦爾，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身也」[0149a27–b03]。釋即非諸相：「世親云，『如來〔非／說〕諸相具足』者，謂差別三十二相也。『即非具足』者，非法身無差別相具足也。『是名諸相具足』者，是外形相也」[0149b15–18]〔「非」大正本·「說」甲本，CBETA 校〕；引無著「法身雖無形相，而有法性之相，謂理媚曰相也……謂內證真理無相之相故，而外具有相之相也。然有相之相即非無相之相，是名諸相具足也」[0149b18–22]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸世親二偈：法身畢竟體非相好身（即非·斷一見·破「相好即法身」）；不離法身彼二非不佛（是名·斷異見·破「離相好別有法身」）；亦無二及有（法身中無相好故得言無·相好不離法身故亦得言有）。吉藏「色身非法身何得為一·離相好無別法身故云非不佛」、智顗「色身若水像·尋其本實即法身·別則眾相」、窺基（依世親無著）「報化隨好身非法性色身·法身如虛空鏡智現報化·有相之相即非無相之相」——逐項錨於「色身即非·諸相即非·是名」。此即本分「法身離色相」之古德定讀。
五、術語
具足色身／色身成就／色身圓實／色身圓滿 rūpa-kāya-sampad（色身＝隨好之身；義淨論本「言『色身』者，是隨好義故」T1513 [0882a02]；窺基「報、化隨好之身」[0149a24–25]；笈多「色身成就」·玄奘「色身圓實」·義淨「色身圓滿」之譯異見目二）·
諸相具足／具足相／具相 lakṣaṇa-sampad（三十二相之具足；窺基「謂差別三十二相」[0149b16]；真諦「具足相」·義淨「具相」之譯異見目二）·
相好（三十二相·八十隨形好 dvātriṃśal-lakṣaṇa ／ aśīty-anuvyañjana；世親「色身攝得八十種好三十二相」T1511 [0792c28–29]）·
法身 dharma-kāya（畢竟體·無為；世親「彼法身畢竟體……以非彼法身相故」T1511 [0793a08–10]；窺基「法身猶如虛空，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身」[0149b01–03]）·
報身／化身 saṃbhoga-kāya ／ nirmāṇa-kāya（窺基「是名報、化身也」[0149a26–27]）·
隨形好身具足／相身具足（佛地六具足之第三·第四；無著「為隨形好身具足故……為相身具足故」T1510a [0758a09–13]）。〔梵文發音輔助；「色身／諸相」之譯異見目二。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（鏡智現像喻 · 二即非之並施）
本分無經文自具之具象譬喻（虛空喻在分四·須彌喻在分十·十七·忍辱仙人喻在分十四·六喻在分三十二）。其修辭之要在二即非之並列複沓與一翻轉：
- 二即非之並施：本分以「色身」「諸相」二問同式並列（「佛可以具足色身見不」「如來可以具足諸相見不」），各施一即非（即非具足色身·即非具足）——色身（隨好）·諸相（三十二相）分舉而義一，皆「相好身非法身而不離」（吉藏「『可以諸相見不』下，意與前同，但身總相別相為異耳」
[0121a01–02]）。複沓二問，所顯惟一（相好即非法身）。 - 鏡智現像之喻（古德補喻）：經文止「即非·是名」，古德以喻顯之——窺基「法身猶如虛空，雖無形相而於鏡中現虛渙影像；法身亦爾，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身也」
[0149b01–03]（虛空無相而鏡現影像，喻法身無相而現報化相好）；智顗「色身者，法身如空月，色身若水像，世間之色無實可覩，尋其本實即法身也」[0082b21–23]（空月／水像之喻，喻法身體實·色身像虛）。此「空月水像·鏡智現像」之喻，正顯「即非（像虛·無實）而是名（尋本即法身·鏡現宛然）」之雙義。 - 見而即非之翻轉：正問「可以具足色身見如來不」（似許以相好見），陡答「不也……即非具足色身」（相好身非法身），復收「是名具足色身」（而不離法身·宛然可說）。所見之「有」（具足色身）與其體之「非」（非法性色身）相形，「不應以色身見」者正為破「相好即法身」之執。此「見而即非」之筆，與分十「莊嚴而即非莊嚴」、分十三「般若波羅蜜即非般若波羅蜜」同一翻轉之構。此目於本分（色身·諸相之並施與鏡像喻）見其修辭，具象譬喻則於分四·十四·廿六·卅二加重。
七、互讀
- 三十頌（T1586）：三身·圓成實（v.29 圓成實·轉依）——本分「法身（畢竟體）·報身·化身」「即非具足色身＝非法性色身」之論本對應（法身無相·報化現相，即三身之分位）。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·無相之相·法身——「法身雖無形相而有法性之相（理媚曰相）」〔無著語見目四〕與辯中邊真實·無相義相通。
- 攝大乘論（T1594）：彼果智分·三身（自性身／受用身／變化身）——本分「法身（自性身）·報化身（受用·變化身）·不離法身而現相好」之三身論本（世親「色身成就·諸相成就不離法身」見目四）。
- 二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·識所現相——「法身如虛空·鏡智現報化身」〔窺基喻見目四〕即心識所現相非離識實有之論本對應（相好身如鏡像，識變所現）。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：四智（大圓鏡智現受用·變化身）·三身·遍計所執——本分「鏡智現報、化身」〔窺基語見目四〕即成唯識「大圓鏡智現自受用身及變化身」之經語對應；「即非具足色身＝非法性色身」即「相好非遍計所執之實法身」之論本技術語。
- 心經（T251）：「色即是空，空即是色」「是諸法空相」——「即非具足色身（色相非實·非法身）而是名（不離法身宛然）」與心經「色空不二」同一無自性而宛然之理。
本分「即非具足色身·即非具足（諸相）·法身非相好而不離」，即三十頌·攝論·成唯識論「三身·四智·鏡智現報化」之經語對應；「法身如虛空鏡智現像」即二十論「唯識所現相非離識實有」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〕：金剛經「具足色身即非具足色身」一語，成唯識論以「大圓鏡智現報化身·三身·相好非遍計實法身」之技術語說同一事。本分破「相好即法身」之法執，正 §17 後半「法空·破四見·所知障」之一施〔摘自《金剛經的自我重演》S5-P07，前後半摺疊之結構見分十七目三·目四〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。辯中邊論於本分止無相義之旁繫，餘從闕。成唯識論 起草中，穩定名引，俟成增鏈。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「即非具足色身·不應以色身見如來」之相好身非法身 ↔ 西方宗教哲學之「不可形象化的神／否定神學」（via negativa；神不可以形象表象，凡形象皆偶像）與康德「現象／物自身」之分（相好屬可感現象，法身近不可感之自體）：西方多就表象之不可及立論（神聖／自體超乎形象之外，形象皆有限）；古德／唯識讀「即非色身」非僅「法身超乎形象」之否定——「即非」之後有「是名」（相好不離法身·鏡智現報化身·亦得言有），是三身之分位與轉依所現（世親「彼二非不佛·亦無二及有」
T1511 [0793a07]），非純否定之超越神，亦非物自身之不可知（法身為轉依所證·可證可現）。 - 「亦無二及有」之非無非有 ↔ 西方辯證法之「正反合」、真矛盾論（dialetheism；普里斯特、加菲爾德論佛教即非容真矛盾）：西方多讀「亦無亦有」為靜態之邏輯弔詭或矛盾之兼容；古德以「法身中無（故即非·得言無）·相好不離法身（故是名·亦得言有）」為體用·三身之動轉（世親「以彼法身中無，即於是義說如來色身成就、諸相成就，以不離彼身故」
T1511 [0793a17–19]）——無與有非同位之矛盾，乃法身（無相好）與報化（現相好）之分位差，是轉依所顯，非邏輯之謎。此東西之別，正一可注之義。 - 「法身如虛空·鏡智現報化身」之喻 ↔ 西方柏拉圖之「理型／摹本」（相好身如摹本·法身近理型）、現象學之「顯現／本質」：可對觀；然唯識之「鏡智現像」非「摹本分有理型」之存有階序——報化身為大圓鏡智所現（識變·轉依果），法身與報化非「原型／複本」之二層存有，乃一轉依之體用（窺基「雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身」
[0149b02–03]）。 - 對觀之要：西方傾向以「相好非法身·無亦有」為表象哲學·否定神學·邏輯弔詭之命題（形象如何不及自體·神如何不可表象·矛盾如何兼容）；古德以「即非色身·彼二非不佛·鏡智現報化」為三身·轉依·斷法執之修證——相好非法身者破「相好即法身」之法執（所知障），不離法身者顯轉依所現之報化身，皆可修可證之行果，非靜態之斷言或存有之階序。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 [0751c05–c11]（原典 · 離色離相分）。六譯本色身·諸相二即非一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0756a03–a11] · 真諦 T0237 [0765b15–b22] · 笈多 T0238 [0770c02–c10] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0984b26–c05] · 義淨 T0239 [0774c05–c10]。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0757c27–0758a13·0764c11–c14] · 世親 T1511 [0792c17–0793a19]（二偈 [0793a04–a07]）· 世親 T1513 [0881c27–0882a26]（頌 [0882a13–a16]）。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0120b29–0121a02] · 智顗 T1698 [0081b11–b12·0082b20–b25] · 窺基 T1700 [0147b13–b21·0149a03–b22]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (the dharma-body apart from form and marks · §17 second half)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 20, Apart from Form, Apart from Marks (離色離相分) |
| 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, breaking the dharma-clinging “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body”) |
| 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 | The seventeenth abode, the Path-of-vision (the buddha-ground perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis), the third of the six buddha-ground perfections, “the minor-marks-body perfection” — 「為隨形好身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以色身成就見如來不』如是等」[0758a09–11]; the fourth, “the marks-body perfection” — 「為相身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0758a11–13] (the six buddha-ground perfections: purity of the land · purity of supreme vision-and-cognition · minor-marks-body · marks-body · speech · mind 國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好身·相身·語·心 [0757c28–0758a01]) |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt “the Buddhas are named by the unconditioned dharma, how do they achieve the marks-and-minor-marks and be named Buddha” — 「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛？為斷此疑，是故說非成就色身、非成就諸相得見如來」 (T1511 [0792c25–28]); Yijing's version 「若言如來是非集造所顯，如何如來說有諸好及眾相耶？為除此難，故云『不應色身圓滿及相具足觀於如來』」 (T1513 [0881c27–0882a01]) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise), T1699 | 「『佛可以具足色身』下，第六章經」[0120b30]; breaking the same-or-different view of the two bodies (marks-and-minor-marks body · dharma-body) — 「今文為破二身一異見故來」[0120c04] |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai), T1698 | The second cycle's “distinguishing the name,” the name-as-designation — 「次、『佛可以色身見』去至前偈辨名」[0081b11–12]; in the name there are three 「初、身相，次、說法，後、福多」[0082b20–21], this division being the bodily marks |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra), T1700 | The third of the six buddha-ground perfections of the Path-of-vision, “the minor-marks-body perfection” 「如經『佛可以具足色身見不？』」[0147b17–18] · the fourth, “the marks-body perfection” 「如經『如來可以具足諸相見不？』」[0147b18–19]; following Vasubandhu's “the second, four doubts resolving one another in turn,” the first, “the doubt of taking the marks-and-minor-marks body for the Buddha” 「此為大段第三破疑……一者、以相好身為佛疑」[0149a04–07] |
Sense of the dharma-body apart from form and marks: following the pivot (division 17, ultimately no-self · dharma-emptiness), division 18 (the three minds ungraspable), and division 19 (merit is-not), this division arises from the doubt born of the earlier saying 「如來者，即諸法真如（如義）」[0751a26] — being named by the unconditioned suchness, how does He further achieve the eighty kinds [of minor marks] and the thirty-two marks and be named Buddha (Kuiji 「此於前說云如來者，即諸法真如以生疑也」[0149a10–11]; Vasubandhu 「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛」T1511 [0792c25–26])? Hence it teaches “not by achieving the form-body, not by achieving the marks, is the Tathāgata seen,” to cut it. The three ancient masters all read this passage according to Vasubandhu's two verses: the dharma-body's ultimate substance is not the marks-and-minor-marks body (is-not · breaking the one view “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body”), yet the marks-and-minor-marks are not apart from the dharma-body, and those two are not non-Buddha (is-called · breaking the different view “the marks-and-minor-marks are other than the dharma-body”), hence “both not-two and existent” (see registers 3, 4). Asaṅga assigns this division to the abode of the Path-of-vision (the seventeenth abode), the third “minor-marks-body perfection” and fourth “marks-body perfection” of the six buddha-ground perfections ([0758a09–13]) — the fullness of form-body and marks-body at the buddha-ground after the bodhisattva realizes the Path. The division's “is-not” appears twice, at 「具足色身即非具足色身」 and 「諸相具足即非具足」 (see register 3) — applied to the Buddha-body (the self-of-dharmas), an application of §17 second-half dharma-emptiness · breaking the dharma-view to the Buddha-body.
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the two is-nots of form-body · marks)
Key passage: can He be seen by the perfect form-body (no) / the perfect form-body is-not the perfect form-body, is called the perfect form-body / can He be seen by the perfect marks (no) / the perfection of marks is-not the perfection, is called the perfection of marks
| Version | The two-is-nots passage of form-body · marks (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足色身見。何以故？如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身。」「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以具足諸相見不？」「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足諸相見。何以故？如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足。」 | 0751c05–c11 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | 「須菩提！於意云何？佛可以具足色身見不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！如來不應以色身見。何以故？如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是故如來說名具足色身。」佛言：「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以具足諸相見不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！如來不應以具足諸相見。何以故？如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是故如來說名諸相具足。」 | 0756a03–a11 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？可以具足色身觀如來不？」須菩提言：「不可，世尊！不可以具足色身觀於如來。何以故？此具足色身，如來說非具足色身，是故如來說名具足色身。」佛言：「須菩提！汝意云何？可以具足諸相觀如來不？」須菩提言：「不可，世尊！不可以具足諸相觀於如來。何以故？此具足相，如來說非具足相，是故如來說具足相。」 | 0765b15–b22 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！色身成就如來見應？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！非色身成就如來見應。彼何所因？色身成就、色身成就者，世尊！非成就，此，如來說；彼故，說名色身成就者。」世尊言：「彼何意念？善實！相具足如來見應？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！非相具足如來見應。彼何所因？此，世尊！相具足，如來說；非相具足，如來說；彼故，說名相具足者。」 | 0770c02–c10 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？可以色身圓實觀如來不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不可以色身圓實觀於如來。何以故？世尊！色身圓實色身圓實者，如來說非圓實，是故如來說名色身圓實色身圓實。」佛告善現：「於汝意云何？可以諸相具足觀如來不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不可以諸相具足觀於如來。何以故？世尊！諸相具足諸相具足者，如來說為非相具足，是故如來說名諸相具足諸相具足。」 | 0984b26–c05 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？可以色身圓滿觀如來不？」「不爾，世尊！不應以色身圓滿觀於如來。何以故？色身圓滿、色身圓滿者，如來說非圓滿，是故名為色身圓滿。」「妙生！可以具相觀如來不？」「不爾，世尊！不應以具相觀於如來。何以故？諸具相者，如來說非具相，是故如來說名具相。」 | 0774c05–c10 |
What the variants turn on:
- 「色身／色身成就／色身圓實／色身圓滿」: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha have 「具足色身」; Dharmagupta 「色身成就」, Xuanzang 「色身圓實」, Yijing 「色身圓滿」 (variant renderings — “fully possessed · achieved · perfectly real · perfectly full” — of the one Sanskrit rūpa-kāya-pariniṣpatti／-sampad). Yijing's treatise (T1513) marks outright 「言『色身』者，是隨好義故」
[0882a02]— the “form-body” is the body of the eighty minor marks beyond the thirty-two marks (Vasubandhu 「色身攝得八十種好三十二相」T1511 [0792c28–29]; Kuiji 「報、化隨好之身」[0149a24–25]). - 「見／觀如來」: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Dharmagupta, Xuanzang have 「見」 (seen by the form-body · seen by the achievement of the form-body); Paramārtha, Yijing have 「觀如來」 (contemplate the Tathāgata by the perfect form-body). The variant of seeing / contemplating turns on the one word dṛś; the ancient masters judge this passage as the negation of “seeing / contemplating the dharma-body by the form-and-marks” (Jizang 「破二身一異見」
[0120c04], Kuiji 「以報身形好而見……法身佛不」[0149a14–15]). - The Able-to-Cut lineage's doubled term: Xuanzang 「色身圓實色身圓實者，如來說非圓實，是故如來說名色身圓實色身圓實」
[0984b28–29], 「諸相具足諸相具足者……說名諸相具足諸相具足」[0984c03–05], Dharmagupta 「色身成就、色身成就者……說名色身成就者」[0770c04–06], Yijing 「色身圓滿、色身圓滿者……是故名為色身圓滿」[0774c07–08]— the three Able-to-Cut lineages (Xuanzang · Dharmagupta · Yijing) all carry the doubled term in the form-body clause (the same name raised twice), the is-not form running “X · X-as-such, is-not X, is-called X · X”; Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha raise it singly (Kumārajīva 「具足色身／即非具足色身／是名具足色身」, three clauses without the doubled term). Yijing's marks clause is raised singly alone 「諸具相者，如來說非具相，是故如來說名具相」[0774c09–10](the form-body doubled · the marks not doubled). The doubled term is the textual physiognomy of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage recensions; recorded verbatim, not abridged. - The subject-name of the second clause, “marks”: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Dharmagupta, Xuanzang have 「諸相具足／相具足」; Paramārtha 「具足相」
[0765b21]; Yijing 「具相」[0774c08–09]. Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci cast the is-not clause as 「諸相具足，即非具足」 (at the is-not only the two words 「具足」, not redoubling 「諸相」); Xuanzang casts 「諸相具足諸相具足者，如來說為非相具足」 (at the is-not 「非相具足」). The “mark” of the thirty-two marks and the “form-body” of the minor marks are raised separately (Asaṅga 「為相身具足故」[0758a11]· Kuiji 「謂差別三十二相」[0149b16]), turning precisely on the two parts of the Buddha's marks-and-minor-marks body (form-body = the minor marks · marks = the thirty-two marks, see registers 4, 5). - Bodhiruci's answer omits 「具足」: Bodhiruci's question is 「佛可以具足色身見不」, yet Subhūti's answer alone has 「如來不應以色身見」
[0756a05](omitting 「具足」), while the other versions' (Kumārajīva · Paramārtha) answers all carry the two words 「具足」; in the is-not clause Bodhiruci still has 「具足色身」.
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · this division's two is-nots · §17 second half dharma-emptiness · breaking the four views)
This division's “is-not” appears twice: 「具足色身 — 即非具足色身 — 是名具足色身」[0751c07–08] and 「諸相具足 — 即非具足 — 是名諸相具足」[0751c10–11] — two is-nots applied together to the Buddha's marks-and-minor-marks body (form-body · marks).
★ Framing of the second half: this division stands after the §17 pivot (the second half, divisions 17–32). In the first half (divisions 1–16) the “is-not” was mostly applied to the outer objects of 「相·法·福德」 (marks · dharmas · merit), and what it counters is the afflictive hindrance (breaking the four marks · self-emptiness); at this division (second half · dharma-emptiness), the “is-not” is applied to the Buddha-body itself (form-body · marks) — breaking the dharma-clinging of “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body” (the self-of-dharmas), what it counters being the cognitive hindrance (breaking the four views). The pivot division 17's 「通達無我、法」[0751b12] (the self-of-persons · the self-of-dharmas both empty · Kuiji 「達我、法空，證無我理」[0147b09–10]) already opened the door of dharma-emptiness; this division is its application at the single place of “the Buddha-body” — the Buddha's marks-and-minor-marks body too has no real self-nature (is-not), breaking the view “to see the Tathāgata (the dharma-body) by the marks-and-minor-marks.” 〔This second-half turn “self-emptiness → dharma-emptiness · the afflictive hindrance → the cognitive hindrance · the second cycle cuts the cognitive hindrance,” what the ancient masters source it to lies in division 17's Kuiji (following Vasubandhu) 「第二周為斷障，障即所知也」[0127c01–03], Kuiji (following Asaṅga) 「為二種無我故……二種正覺」[0147b26–27]; see division 17 register 4.〕
The first, 「具足色身 — 即非具足色身 — 是名具足色身」 mirrors the three natures:
- 具足色身 (X) is the other-dependent — the reward-and-transformation minor-marks body (the form-body arising from conditions · manifesting in response to faculties; Kuiji 「『如來說具足色身』者，謂報、化隨好之身」
[0149a24–25]). The minor-marks body is plainly seen, hence it is said to be “perfect.” - 即非具足色身 removes the wholly-imagined — not the “dharma-nature perfect form-body (the dharma-body)” grasped by discrimination (Kuiji 「『即非具足色身』者，非是法性具足色身」
[0149a25–26]; Vasubandhu 「彼法身畢竟體，非色身成就……以非彼身故」T1511 [0793a08–09]). “Is-not” removes the clinging “the marks-and-minor-marks body is the dharma-body,” not that there are no marks-and-minor-marks. - 是名具足色身 establishes the perfectly-accomplished (and also bears the conventional-truth saying) — Kuiji 「『是名具足色身』者，是名報、化身也」
[0149a26–27]; the marks-and-minor-marks body is not apart from the dharma-body (Asaṅga · Vasubandhu 「以此二法不離於法身……亦得說有」T1511 [0793a12–14]), no self-nature yet plainly sayable. The dharma-body is like empty space without form, yet manifests the reward-and-transformation body in the mirror-cognition (Kuiji 「法身亦爾，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身也」[0149b02–03]).
The second, 「諸相具足 — 即非具足 — 是名諸相具足」 mirrors the three natures:
- 諸相具足 (X) is the other-dependent — the differentiated thirty-two marks (Kuiji 「『如來說諸相具足』者，謂差別三十二相也」
[0149b15–16]). - 即非具足 removes the wholly-imagined — not the markless marks of the dharma-body (Kuiji 「『即非具足』者，非法身無差別相具足也」
[0149b16–17]; Asaṅga 「有相之相即非無相之相」[0149b21–22]). - 是名諸相具足 establishes the perfectly-accomplished — Kuiji 「『是名諸相具足』者，是外形相也」
[0149b17–18]; Asaṅga 「內證真理無相之相故，而外具有相之相也」[0149b20–21].
The division's eye: both is-nots take as their pivot “the marks-and-minor-marks body is not the dharma-body yet is not apart from the dharma-body” — removing the wholly-imagined of “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body” (is-not), without falling into the under-affirmation of “the marks-and-minor-marks are other than the dharma-body, that apart from the marks-and-minor-marks there is a separate dharma-body” (is-called). Vasubandhu's single phrase runs through it: 「亦無二及有」T1511 [0793a07] — in the dharma-body there are no marks-and-minor-marks (hence one may say not-existent · is-not), the marks-and-minor-marks are not apart from the dharma-body (hence one may also say existent · is-called). 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 its two applications in the position of “the Buddha-body (form-body · marks),” that is, the realization of §17 second-half dharma-emptiness · breaking the dharma-view at the single place of the Buddha-body.
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · the dharma-body is not the marks-and-minor-marks yet not apart · the two bodies same-or-different · the six perfections · weighted)
Core · weighted — Vasubandhu's two verses in the Vajracchedikā-śāstra (the dharma-body's ultimate substance is not that marks-and-minor-marks body · not apart from the dharma-body, those two are not non-Buddha), preserved in two Chinese versions: Vasubandhu cuts the one view through “the dharma-body's ultimate substance is not the marks-and-minor-marks body,” cuts the different view through “not apart from the dharma-body, those two are not non-Buddha,” and gathers it back into neither-not-existent-nor-existent through “both not-two and existent,” pegging each item to the sūtra-text; the two versions differ in name, one in sense.
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's rendering) first sets the doubt — 「復有疑，若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛？為斷此疑，是故說非成就色身、非成就諸相得見如來。又色身攝得八十種好三十二相」[0792c25–29]. The verses [0793a04–a07]:
「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身，以非相成就，非彼法身故。 不離於法身，彼二非不佛，故重說成就，亦無二及有。」
- Glossing the upper half-verse (cutting the one view): 「彼法身畢竟體，非色身成就，亦非諸相成就，以非彼身故。非彼身者，以非彼法身相故」
[0793a08–10]. - Glossing the lower half-verse (cutting the different view · both not-existent and existent): 「此二非不佛，即彼如來身有故。何者是二？一者色身成就；二者諸相成就。以此二法不離於法身，是故彼如來身成就相好，亦得說有……是故偈言『彼二非不佛』故。是故此二亦得言無，故說非身成就、非相成就。亦得言有，故說色身成就、諸相成就故，偈言『亦無二及有』」
[0793a10–17]; 「以彼法身中無，即於是義說如來色身成就、諸相成就，以不離彼身故。而法身不如是說，以法身非彼體故」[0793a17–19].
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's rendering) first sets the doubt — 「若言如來是非集造所顯，如何如來說有諸好及眾相耶？為除此難，故云『不應色身圓滿及相具足觀於如來』。言『色身』者，是隨好義故」[0881c27–0882a02]. The stanzas [0882a13–a16]:
「謂於真法身，無隨好圓滿，亦非是具相，非身性應知。 於法身無別，非如來無二，重言其具相，由二體皆無。」
- 「言法身實不圓滿隨好色身，應知亦不具足眾相，彼無身性故，是謂法身無具相義」
[0882a17–18]; 「亦非如來無斯二種，所謂色身圓滿及以具相，由斯二種不離法身，是故如來有其相好。為此重言色身圓滿及以具相，由二皆無故，是故此二亦說為無。言此非圓滿此亦非具相，亦說為有，以說色身圓滿及具相言故」[0882a18–23]; 「由其法身無此相好，是故名此為如來，色身圓滿及以具相，由與彼身不相離故；法身之性即不如是，然法身非彼自性故」[0882a23–26].
〔Correspondence of the two versions: 法身畢竟體／真法身 (not the marks-and-minor-marks body · not the body-nature) · 彼二非不佛／非如來無二 (not apart from the dharma-body) · 亦無二及有／二體皆無亦說為有 — two Chinese renderings of the one Vasubandhu treatise, differing in name, one in sense. Yijing's version alone marks 「色身＝隨好義」[0882a02].〕
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta's rendering): this division belongs to the seventeenth abode, the Path-of-vision (the buddha-ground perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis), among the six buddha-ground perfections (purity of the land · purity of supreme vision-and-cognition · minor-marks-body · marks-body · speech · mind 國土淨·無上見智淨·隨形好身·相身·語·心 [0757c28–0758a01]) — the third, “the minor-marks-body perfection”: 「為隨形好身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以色身成就見如來不』如是等」[0758a09–11]; the fourth, “the marks-body perfection”: 「為相身具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？應以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0758a11–13]. In the second cycle of the Path-of-vision the correspondence is produced again: 「『以色身成就見如來不』如是等……『非成就』等。為相身具足故，經言『可以相具足見如來不』如是等」[0764c11–14]. 〔Asaṅga's gloss here does no more than establish the abode-correspondence of the sūtra-text (form-body = the minor-marks-body perfection · marks = the marks-body perfection); its unfolding into “the dharma-body's markless mark · the outer marks that have form” is supplied by Kuiji's citation of Asaṅga, see the Kuiji entry below [0149a27–b03·b18–22].〕
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: sectioned as 「『佛可以具足色身』下，第六章經」[0120b30]. He judges this division as the breaking of the same-or-different view of the two bodies — 「今文為破二身一異見故來，上兩處明二身異……如從來本迹異、三佛異義，故此章經破一異見」[0120c04–07]. Citing Vasubandhu's two verses: 「論有二偈，上半云『法身畢竟體，非彼相好身』，此即破其二身一見，明相好身有相好、法身無相好，二身有異，何得一耶？次偈上半云『不離於法身，此二非不佛』，此破異見，何處離相好有別法身耶？故云此二非不佛也」[0120c07–12]. On the is-not: 「所言『具足色身』者，唯佛一人盡形相之美，故言具足……『如來說具足即非具足』者，破一見，明色身非法身，何得為一？『是名具足』，此破異見，何處離相好別有法身也？『可以諸相見不』下，意與前同，但身總相別相為異耳」[0120c26–0121a02].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: sectioned as the second cycle's “distinguishing the name,” the name-as-designation — 「次、『佛可以色身見』去至前偈辨名」[0081b11–12]; 「『佛可以色身見』下，第二明經名……名中有三，初、身相，次、說法，後、福多」[0082b20–21]. On the bodily marks: 「色身者，法身如空月，色身若水像，世間之色無實可覩，尋其本實即法身也。慧為萬善之主，施為眾行之首，總為丈六金容，別則眾相，云娑婆隨現則為相，豈可一方盡極」[0082b21–25].
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: judges this division as the third “minor-marks-body perfection” 「如經『佛可以具足色身見不？』」 and fourth “marks-body perfection” 「如經『如來可以具足諸相見不？』」[0147b17–19] of the six buddha-ground perfections of the Path-of-vision. Following Vasubandhu's “the second, four doubts resolving one another in turn,” the first, “the doubt of taking the marks-and-minor-marks body for the Buddha” — 「世親云，上來破於本處生疑竟，自下第二有四疑，展轉釋疑故生也……一者、以相好身為佛疑」[0149a04–07]; 「謂疑曰：『若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好、三十二相而名為佛耶？』……此於前說云如來者，即諸法真如以生疑也」[0149a08–11]. On the is-not of the form-body: 「『如來說具足色身』者，謂報、化隨好之身；『即非具足色身』者，非是法性具足色身；『是名具足色身』者，是名報、化身也」[0149a24–27]; citing Asaṅga 「隨機現形有報、化之形好，內證無相而有法身之好色性……然形好之身即非法性之具足色身也。謂法身猶如虛空，雖無形相而於鏡中現虛渙影像；法身亦爾，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身也」[0149a27–b03]. On the is-not of the marks: 「世親云，『如來〔非／說〕諸相具足』者，謂差別三十二相也。『即非具足』者，非法身無差別相具足也。『是名諸相具足』者，是外形相也」[0149b15–18]〔「非」 in the Taishō base text · 「說」 in the “甲” witness, CBETA collation〕; citing Asaṅga 「法身雖無形相，而有法性之相，謂理媚曰相也……謂內證真理無相之相故，而外具有相之相也。然有相之相即非無相之相，是名諸相具足也」[0149b18–22].
The three schools of the ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all converge on Vasubandhu's two verses at this division: the dharma-body's ultimate substance is not the marks-and-minor-marks body (is-not · cutting the one view · breaking “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body”); not apart from the dharma-body, those two are not non-Buddha (is-called · cutting the different view · breaking “apart from the marks-and-minor-marks there is a separate dharma-body”); both not-two and existent (in the dharma-body there are no marks-and-minor-marks hence one may say not-existent · the marks-and-minor-marks are not apart from the dharma-body hence one may also say existent). Jizang's 「色身非法身何得為一·離相好無別法身故云非不佛」, Zhiyi's 「色身若水像·尋其本實即法身·別則眾相」, and Kuiji's (following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) 「報化隨好身非法性色身·法身如虛空鏡智現報化·有相之相即非無相之相」 — each pegs item by item to 「色身即非·諸相即非·是名」. This is the ancient masters' settled reading of this division's “the dharma-body apart from form and marks.”
5 · Terminology
具足色身／色身成就／色身圓實／色身圓滿 rūpa-kāya-sampad (form-body = the minor-marks body; Yijing's treatise 「言『色身』者，是隨好義故」T1513 [0882a02]; Kuiji 「報、化隨好之身」[0149a24–25]; the rendering-variants Dharmagupta 「色身成就」· Xuanzang 「色身圓實」· Yijing 「色身圓滿」 see register 2) ·
諸相具足／具足相／具相 lakṣaṇa-sampad (the perfection of the thirty-two marks; Kuiji 「謂差別三十二相」[0149b16]; the rendering-variants Paramārtha 「具足相」· Yijing 「具相」 see register 2) ·
相好 (the thirty-two marks · the eighty minor marks dvātriṃśal-lakṣaṇa ／ aśīty-anuvyañjana; Vasubandhu 「色身攝得八十種好三十二相」T1511 [0792c28–29]) ·
法身 dharma-kāya (the ultimate substance · unconditioned; Vasubandhu 「彼法身畢竟體……以非彼法身相故」T1511 [0793a08–10]; Kuiji 「法身猶如虛空，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身」[0149b01–03]) ·
報身／化身 saṃbhoga-kāya ／ nirmāṇa-kāya (Kuiji 「是名報、化身也」[0149a26–27]) ·
隨形好身具足／相身具足 (the third and fourth of the six buddha-ground perfections; Asaṅga 「為隨形好身具足故……為相身具足故」T1510a [0758a09–13]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; the rendering-variants of 「色身／諸相」 see register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the mirror-cognition manifesting image simile · the two is-nots applied together)
This division has no concrete simile self-supplied by the sūtra-text (the empty-space simile is at division 4 · the Sumeru simile at divisions 10 and 17 · the patience-ascetic simile at division 14 · the six similes at division 32). The point of its rhetoric lies in the parallel reduplication of the two is-nots and a single reversal:
- The two is-nots applied together: this division sets the two questions of “form-body” and “marks” in the same parallel form (「佛可以具足色身見不」「如來可以具足諸相見不」), each applying one is-not (is-not the perfect form-body · is-not the perfection) — form-body (the minor marks) · marks (the thirty-two marks) raised separately yet one in sense, both “the marks-and-minor-marks body is not the dharma-body yet not apart” (Jizang 「『可以諸相見不』下，意與前同，但身總相別相為異耳」
[0121a01–02]). The two questions in reduplication, what they display is one (the marks-and-minor-marks are just is-not the dharma-body). - The simile of the mirror-cognition manifesting image (a simile supplied by the ancient masters): the sūtra-text stops at “is-not · is-called,” and the ancient masters display it by simile — Kuiji 「法身猶如虛空，雖無形相而於鏡中現虛渙影像；法身亦爾，雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身也」
[0149b01–03](empty space is markless yet the mirror manifests an image, figuring the dharma-body markless yet manifesting the reward-and-transformation marks-and-minor-marks); Zhiyi 「色身者，法身如空月，色身若水像，世間之色無實可覩，尋其本實即法身也」[0082b21–23](the simile of the sky-moon / the water-image, figuring the dharma-body's substance as real · the form-body's image as empty). This simile of “the sky-moon water-image · the mirror-cognition manifesting image” displays precisely the double sense of “is-not (the image is empty · without reality) yet is-called (seeking the root it is just the dharma-body · the mirror manifests it plainly).” - The reversal of seeing-yet-is-not: it asks plainly 「可以具足色身見如來不」 (as if granting the seeing of the dharma-body by the marks-and-minor-marks), then answers abruptly 「不也……即非具足色身」 (the marks-and-minor-marks body is not the dharma-body), and gathers it back with 「是名具足色身」 (yet not apart from the dharma-body · plainly sayable). The “being” of what is seen (the perfect form-body) set against the “is-not” of its substance (not the dharma-nature form-body), and “should not be seen by the form-body” is precisely to break the clinging “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body.” This stroke of “seeing-yet-is-not” shares one structure of reversal with division 10's “adornment yet is-not adornment” and division 13's “the prajñāpāramitā is-not the prajñāpāramitā.” This register shows its rhetoric in this division through the joint application of form-body · marks and the mirror-image simile; the concrete simile is weighted in divisions 4, 14, 26, 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the three bodies · the perfectly-accomplished (v.29 the perfectly-accomplished · the transformation of the basis) — the treatise-correspondence of this division's “the dharma-body (the ultimate substance) · the reward-body · the transformation-body” and “is-not the perfect form-body = not the dharma-nature form-body” (the dharma-body markless · the reward-and-transformation manifesting marks, that is, the divisions of the three bodies).
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on suchness · the markless mark · the dharma-body — “the dharma-body though markless yet has the mark of dharma-nature (the principle's allure called the mark)” 〔Asaṅga's words, see register 4〕 accordant with the Madhyānta's suchness · markless sense.
- Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (T1594): the chapter on the cognition of the fruit · the three bodies (self-nature body / enjoyment body / transformation body) — the three-body treatise-source of this division's “the dharma-body (the self-nature body) · the reward-and-transformation body (the enjoyment · transformation bodies) · not apart from the dharma-body yet manifesting the marks-and-minor-marks” (Vasubandhu 「色身成就·諸相成就不離法身」 see register 4).
- Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · the marks manifested by consciousness — “the dharma-body like empty space · the mirror-cognition manifests the reward-and-transformation body” 〔Kuiji's simile, see register 4〕 is just the treatise-correspondence of the marks manifested by mind-consciousness not really existing apart from consciousness (the marks-and-minor-marks body like a mirror-image, manifested by the transformation of consciousness).
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the four cognitions (the great-mirror cognition manifests the enjoyment · transformation bodies) · the three bodies · the wholly-imagined nature — this division's 「鏡智現報、化身」 〔Kuiji's words, see register 4〕 is just the sūtra-language correspondence of Cheng weishi lun's “the great-mirror cognition manifests the self-enjoyment body and the transformation body”; 「即非具足色身＝非法性色身」 is just the treatise's technical term “the marks-and-minor-marks are not the wholly-imagined nature's real dharma-body.”
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「色即是空，空即是色」「是諸法空相」 — “is-not the perfect form-body (the form-mark has no reality · is not the dharma-body) yet is-called (not apart from the dharma-body, plainly)” is the same principle of no-self-nature yet plainly so as the Heart Sūtra's “form and emptiness are not two.”
This division's 「即非具足色身·即非具足（諸相）·法身非相好而不離」 is just the sūtra-language correspondence of the Thirty Verses' · Mahāyāna-saṃgraha's · Cheng weishi lun's “the three bodies · the four cognitions · the mirror-cognition manifests the reward-and-transformation”; 「法身如虛空鏡智現像」 is just the Twenty Verses' sūtra-language correspondence of “what consciousness-only manifests does not really exist apart from consciousness.” 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 「具足色身即非具足色身」 says the same thing that Cheng weishi lun says in the technical language of “the great-mirror cognition manifests the reward-and-transformation body · the three bodies · the marks-and-minor-marks are not the wholly-imagined real dharma-body.” This division breaks the dharma-clinging “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body,” precisely one application of §17 second-half “dharma-emptiness · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance” 〔摘自《金剛經的自我重演》S5-P07, for the structure of the folding of the first and second halves see division 17 registers 3, 4〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The Madhyānta-vibhāga at this division has only a marginal link of the markless sense, the rest 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 marks-and-minor-marks-body-is-not-the-dharma-body of 「即非具足色身·不應以色身見如來」 ↔ Western philosophy of religion's “the un-imageable God / negative theology” (via negativa; God cannot be represented by an image, every image is an idol) and Kant's division of “phenomenon / thing-in-itself” (the marks-and-minor-marks belong to the perceptible phenomenon, the dharma-body near the imperceptible in-itself): the West largely argues from the inaccessibility of representation (the sacred / the in-itself surpasses image, all image being finite); the ancient-master / Yogācāra reading of “is-not the form-body” is not merely a negation of “the dharma-body surpasses image” — after the “is-not” there is the “is-called” (the marks-and-minor-marks not apart from the dharma-body · the mirror-cognition manifests the reward-and-transformation body · may also be said to be existent), which is the divisions of the three bodies and what the transformation of the basis manifests (Vasubandhu 「彼二非不佛·亦無二及有」
T1511 [0793a07]), neither a purely negative transcendent God nor an unknowable thing-in-itself (the dharma-body is what the transformation of the basis realizes · realizable and manifestable). - The neither-not-existent-nor-existent of 「亦無二及有」 ↔ Western dialectic's “thesis-antithesis-synthesis,” dialetheism (Priest, Garfield arguing the Buddhist “is-not” admits true contradiction): the West largely reads “both not-existent and existent” as a static logical paradox or the toleration of contradiction; the ancient masters take “in the dharma-body there are none (hence is-not · one may say not-existent) · the marks-and-minor-marks are not apart from the dharma-body (hence is-called · one may also say existent)” as the dynamic of substance-and-function · the three bodies (Vasubandhu 「以彼法身中無，即於是義說如來色身成就、諸相成就，以不離彼身故」
T1511 [0793a17–19]) — not-existent and existent are not a same-position contradiction but the positional difference of the dharma-body (no marks-and-minor-marks) and the reward-and-transformation (manifesting marks-and-minor-marks), what the transformation of the basis displays, not a logical riddle. This difference between East and West is itself one note worth marking. - The simile of “the dharma-body like empty space · the mirror-cognition manifests the reward-and-transformation body” ↔ Western Plato's “Form / copy” (the marks-and-minor-marks body like a copy · the dharma-body near the Form), phenomenology's “appearance / essence”: an observation can be drawn; yet Yogācāra's “the mirror-cognition manifests image” is not the ontic hierarchy of “the copy partaking of the Form” — the reward-and-transformation body is manifested by the great-mirror cognition (the transformation of consciousness · the fruit of the transformation of the basis), and the dharma-body and the reward-and-transformation are not the two-tier being of “archetype / replica” but the substance-and-function of a single transformation of the basis (Kuiji 「雖無形相而於鏡智現報、化身」
[0149b02–03]). - The point of the observation: the West tends to take “the marks-and-minor-marks are not the dharma-body · both not-existent and existent” as theses of the philosophy of representation · negative theology · logical paradox (how image falls short of the in-itself · how God cannot be represented · how contradiction is tolerated); the ancient masters take “is-not the form-body · those two are not non-Buddha · the mirror-cognition manifests the reward-and-transformation” as the cultivation-and-realization of the three bodies · the transformation of the basis · cutting the dharma-clinging — that the marks-and-minor-marks are not the dharma-body breaks the dharma-clinging “the marks-and-minor-marks are the dharma-body” (the cognitive hindrance), that they are not apart from the dharma-body displays the reward-and-transformation body manifested by the transformation of the basis, both cultivable and realizable fruits of practice, not static assertions or ontic hierarchies. 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 [0751c05–c11] (root · Apart from Form, Apart from Marks). For the [loc] of the two-is-nots passage of form-body · marks in the six versions see register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0756a03–a11] · Paramārtha T0237 [0765b15–b22] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0770c02–c10] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0984b26–c05] · Yijing T0239 [0774c05–c10]. Sectioning / treatise sources: Asaṅga T1510a [0757c27–0758a13·0764c11–c14] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0792c17–0793a19] (the two verses [0793a04–a07]) · Vasubandhu T1513 [0881c27–0882a26] (the stanzas [0882a13–a16]). Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0120b29–0121a02] · Zhiyi T1698 [0081b11–b12·0082b20–b25] · Kuiji T1700 [0147b13–b21·0149a03–b22].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 20 · Apart from Form, Apart from Marks · apparatus · Spring 2026