金剛般若波羅蜜經 分二十一 非說所說分
一路即非，遣的多是身相、福德、莊嚴；到這一分，即非掉轉刀鋒，落到「說法」本身上來。佛先誡須菩提別以為如來心裡會起「我應當有法要說」的念頭——若有人說如來有所說法，那是謗佛；隨即收一句：「說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」說而即非說，無說卻說滿天下——智顗一語點破：不是閉口不語，是不存實法而說，所以說遍天下而無過。要緊的是，這即非已從「我相」轉到「法」上：前半破的是執身為我的煩惱障，這裡破的是連「佛說法」「能信的眾生」都執為實有的所知障。所以須菩提一問「未來世還有眾生聽了生信嗎」，佛答得也雙遮：「彼非眾生，非不眾生」——能信此法的人，已不是執實有的凡夫，卻也未圓滿了悟，正處在凡聖之間。末後再收一句「眾生即非眾生，是名眾生」：連「眾生」這個名分，也是無實而假立。無一法可說，而說宛然；無一眾生可得，而度宛然——這就是無說之說、非眾生之眾生。
All along, the "is-not" (即非) has been clearing away mostly the body and its marks, merit, adornment; in this division the blade of the "is-not" turns and falls upon the teaching of Dharma itself. The Buddha first warns Subhūti not to suppose that within the Tathāgata's mind there could arise the thought "I ought to have a Dharma to teach" — if anyone says the Tathāgata has a Dharma that He teaches, that is to slander the Buddha; and then He closes with a line: 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」(as for one who teaches the Dharma, there is no Dharma that can be taught — this is named teaching the Dharma). Speaking, yet "is-not" speaking; not teaching, and yet teaching fills the whole world — Zhiyi pierces it in a phrase: it is not closing the mouth and saying nothing, but teaching without holding to any real dharma, and so He teaches throughout the world without fault. What matters is that this "is-not" has now turned from the "mark of self" onto "dharmas": the first half broke the afflictive obstruction (煩惱障) of grasping the body as a self; here it breaks the obstruction to the knowable (所知障), which grasps even "the Buddha teaches Dharma" and "the beings who can have faith" as really existent. So when Subhūti asks whether in a future age there will yet be beings who, hearing this, give rise to faith, the Buddha answers with a double negation as well: 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」(they are not beings, nor are they not beings) — those who can have faith in this Dharma are no longer ordinary folk who grasp at real existence, yet neither have they perfectly awakened; they stand right between the ordinary and the sage. And at the last He closes with one more line, 「眾生即非眾生，是名眾生」(beings are not beings — this is named beings): even the very designation "beings" is without substance, conventionally set up. There is no single dharma that can be taught, and yet teaching is vivid; there is no single being that can be grasped, and yet liberation is vivid — and this is the teaching that is no teaching, the beings who are no beings.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 21 · The Speaking That Is No Speaking · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕勿謂如來作念說法，說法者無法可說
經曰：
「須菩提！汝勿謂如來作是念，『我當有所說法』。莫作是念，何以故？若人言『如來有所說法』，即為謗佛，不能解我所說故。須菩提！說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」
「須菩提！你不要以為如來心裡會起這樣的念頭：『我應當有一套法要說。』別起這樣的念頭。為什麼呢？如果有人說『如來有一套法可說』，那就是在毀謗佛，因為他沒能懂得我所說的義理。須菩提！所謂的說法，其實並沒有一個實在的法可說，只是假借這個名字叫作說法罷了。」
〔二〕彼非眾生非不眾生，眾生即非眾生是名眾生
經曰：
爾時，慧命須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生於未來世，聞說是法生信心不？」佛言：「須菩提！彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」
這時，慧命須菩提對佛說：「世尊！會不會有眾生在未來世，聽到有人講說這樣的法，而生起信心呢？」佛說：「須菩提！那些人既不是眾生，也不是不是眾生。為什麼這樣說呢？須菩提！所謂的眾生，如來說他並不是真有一個實在的眾生，只是假借這個名字叫作眾生罷了。」
[1] Do Not Suppose the Tathāgata Thinks He Teaches a Dharma; the One Who Teaches Has No Dharma to Teach
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！汝勿謂如來作是念，『我當有所說法』。莫作是念，何以故？若人言『如來有所說法』，即為謗佛，不能解我所說故。須菩提！說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」
"Subhūti, do not suppose that the Tathāgata thinks to himself, 'I have a Dharma to teach.' Do not entertain such a thought. Why? If anyone says, 'The Tathāgata has a Dharma to teach,' he slanders the Buddha, for he has failed to understand what I teach. Subhūti, in what we call teaching the Dharma, there is in fact no real Dharma to teach — 'teaching the Dharma' is only the name borrowed for it."
[2] They Are Neither Beings nor Not-Beings; Beings Are Not Beings — 'Beings' Is Only the Name
The sūtra says:
爾時，慧命須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生於未來世，聞說是法生信心不？」佛言：「須菩提！彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」
At that time the venerable Subhūti said to the Buddha: "World-Honored One, will there be beings in a future age who, hearing this Dharma taught, give rise to faith?" The Buddha said: "Subhūti, they are neither beings nor not-beings. Why? Subhūti, as for 'beings, beings' — the Tathāgata says they are not real, substantial beings; 'beings' is only the name borrowed for them."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 21 · The Speaking That Is No Speaking · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、三無性、二障二取，來照金剛經這兩句即非：「說法者無法可說」、「眾生即非眾生」。
即非轉向自己：連「佛說法」也即非
前面一路即非，遣的多是身相、福德、莊嚴這些「所說的對象」。到這一分，即非掉轉刀鋒，落到「說法」這件事本身上來：佛先誡須菩提，別以為如來心裡會起一個「我應當有一套法要說」的念頭——若有人說「如來有所說法」，那是謗佛；接著收一句即非：「說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」
用唯識的眼看，這一轉很要緊。前半（分一至十六）破的是「我相」，遣的是把五蘊身心執為實我的人我執，治的是障解脫的煩惱障；從樞紐分十七後半起，破的是「法相」，遣的是把諸法執為實有的法我執，治的是障遍知、障成佛的所知障。眾生不但執身為我，還在「佛的說法」「能信此法的眾生」這類更細的法上妄執實有——這層細執，正是所知障位的法執。本分這兩句即非，遣的就是這兩處法執。古德所本即在此：吉藏判此分破的是「法身有說法疑」，是法執之疑，不是我執之疑；窺基讀「無法可說」為「達遍計所執空無而說」，逕點出這是遍計法執當遣之處。即非一式不變，所破由前半的人我，轉成後半的法我。
「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」：三性讀說法
這三句，正是唯識三性三無性的明文。順著看：
- 「說法（者）」＝依他起：如來隨眾生根機、緣起而有的言說。它不是沒有——化身、報身應機而現，宛然有說（窺基：化身、報身隨機而有言說）。依緣而起的假法，所以可名「說法」。
- 「無法可說」＝遣遍計所執、顯無自性：所遣的，是凡夫在這言說上妄加的一層「實有一個可說之法」的執——遍計所執就是這樣一層妄計：把心所變現的影，當成心外實在的東西。窺基說得明白：「真理中無有少法可說……要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也」；世親兩譯則點出它「不離於法界，說法無自相」——所說的法離開真法界，並沒有一個獨立的自相可得。般若用「空」一字總說這一遣，唯識用三無性點明這「空」空的是什麼：遍計所執是「相無性」（它的相本來就無）、依他起是「生無性」（它沒有自然而生的自性，只依他緣起）、圓成實是「勝義無性」（它是離一切遍計的勝義）。所以「無法可說」空的是那層遍計實法，不是把緣起的言說也一併抹掉。
- 「是名說法」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡了「實法可說」之執，緣起的言說照樣可說。要緊的是別矯枉過正——窺基特別簡別：「若執真如為實無說，即非說法也」，把真如執成「實在沒有說」，又落到另一層損減的遍計去了。遣自性而不墮斷滅，方是圓成。智顗一語道破其中分寸：「向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」——說無法可說，不是叫人閉口不語，是不存實法而說，所以說遍天下而無過。
世親還點出一層文相：能斷諸譯多作「說法、說法者」的重舉（羅什本作單舉「說法者」），這重舉不是贅語，是顯「所說的法（文）／所有的義（義）」之二——一層是言說，一層是言說所指的義；兩層都離法界無自相可得。
「謗佛」：把法身執成有說，正是遍計
佛何以說「言如來有所說法即為謗佛」？唯識看這一句很直接。法身寂寞無言——它是離一切遍計之相所顯的真如，本來無說；有說的是隨機應現的化身、報身。若把「法身有所說法」執為實，等於在無相的法身上，又妄加一個「能說之相、所說之法」，這正是把化身的緣起之說，誤認作法身的實有之說——一層遍計。所以吉藏說「謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說」，窺基說「即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」。不是不許說法，是不許把那緣起的假說，執成法身上的實法。
「彼非眾生，非不眾生」：能信此法者的行位
說法既即非，須菩提隨即起一問：這樣甚深、連「說法」都即非的法，未來世還會有眾生聽了生信嗎？佛答得也即非：「彼非眾生，非不眾生。」
這一句雙遮兩端，不落有無。世親兩譯把它讀得最透：「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」——能信此經的人，「非眾生」是說他非凡夫眾生（就第一義說，他已不是純然的凡夫）；「非不眾生」是說他並非沒有聖體（就世諦說，他畢竟還是個有情，且已含聖性）。窺基順此：「非是闡提無佛性等眾生」（不是斷了善根、沒有佛性的眾生），「是聽聞般若、發心成佛眾生」。所以這雙遮顯的，是能信此法者的一個行位：他習無所得之觀，已不同於執實有的凡夫，卻又未圓滿了悟（吉藏：「習無所得觀眾生則能信……望有所得人故非眾生，未具足了悟故非不眾生」），正處在凡聖之間。這不是邏輯的中項，是修證上的一個地位。
「眾生即非眾生，是名眾生」：三性讀眾生
佛末後再收一句即非：「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」這回即非施於「眾生」這個施設本身。順三性看：
- 「眾生（眾生者）」＝依他起：名字施設、發心修行的緣生眾生。窺基讀這重舉為兩層：一是凡夫眾生，一是發菩提心修行的眾生——都是依緣而立的假眾生。
- 「即非眾生」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是「實有一個眾生／是個斷種無性的眾生」這層妄執。窺基說「如來說非眾生者，謂非是闡提無佛性眾生」；無著一句「第一義故」——就第一義說，並無一個遍計所執的實眾生。
- 「是名眾生」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡實執之處，那發心成佛的假名眾生照樣可說。窺基說「眾生是名眾生者，是發心眾生也」；無著一句「世諦故」——就世諦說，緣起的假名眾生宛然可度可成。
同一個即非式，前半多施於我相、四相；到這後半，施於「能信之眾生」這個施設——連「眾生」這個名分本身，也是無實而假立。
通貫：兩句即非，同遣法執
把這兩句即非並看，它們共用同一把鑰匙，也共指同一處病根：所知障位的法執。前半即非治的是把身心執為我的煩惱障；本分這兩句，治的是把「佛的說法」「能信的眾生」執為實法的所知障。說法即非，遣的是「實有可說之法」（達遍計空而說，化報有說、法身無說）；眾生即非，遣的是「實有可度之眾生」（非闡提無性，發心成佛之假名）。名相不取、實法不執，而緣起的假說、假名宛然——這正是「無說之說、非眾生之眾生」。
至於佛地說法、能信眾生這層細法執之得遣，唯識歸於轉依：轉捨阿賴耶識裡那遍計所執的染污種子習氣，轉得圓成實的真如。無著正把本分這兩句判在第十七「證道」住處、佛地六種具足之內——說法句屬「語具足」，眾生句屬「心具足」中的「念處」，都是菩薩證道之後、攝在轉依所顯佛地功德裡的一分。即非至此，已不只是遣一句名相，而是顯轉依後佛地的說法用與遍知用：雖說法而無實法可說，雖遍知眾生而無實眾生可得。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識從金剛經流出——三性、三無性、二障、轉依之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本（攝論、成唯識），般若另是一系；而是同一「無說而說、非眾生而眾生」的實相，金剛經以經語（即非·無法可說）說，唯識以論語（三性三無性·所知障·法執·轉依）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌以遍計所執說「即非」所遣的實法、以圓成實說「是名」的世諦可說、以三無性遣二取而歸於轉依；攝大乘論辨三性與所知障所遣的法執；成唯識論說所知障、遍計所執與法身無說報化有說；辯中邊論辨能詮（言說）所詮（義）與二諦，正與「說法二差別、不離法界說無自相」相印；般若一系的心經「無智亦無得」「諸法空相」，亦同此無說無得之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「說法者無法可說」「眾生即非眾生」，成唯識論以「遍計所執·所知障·三身（法身無說）·轉依」的技術語說的，是同一件事〔此一會通，釋慧鏡《從百法到金剛》（S5-P10）已明其旨〕。
Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the three non-natures (三無性), and the two graspings and two hindrances, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s two “is-nots”: “the one who teaches the Dharma has no Dharma to teach,” and “beings are-not beings.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.
The “Is-Not” Turns upon Itself: Even “the Buddha Teaches the Dharma” Is “Is-Not”
The “is-not” has all along removed mostly the body-marks, merit, and adornment — the “objects spoken of.” By this division it turns its blade upon the act of teaching the Dharma itself. The Buddha first warns Subhūti not to suppose the Tathāgata harbors a thought that “I ought to have a body of Dharma to teach”: if someone says “the Tathāgata has a Dharma he teaches,” that slanders the Buddha. He then gathers an “is-not”: 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」— “the one who teaches the Dharma has no Dharma to teach; it is named teaching the Dharma.”
Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this turn matters greatly. The first half (Divisions 1–16) broke the “mark of self,” removing the person-self-clinging (人我執) that grasps the five-aggregate body-mind as a real self, curing the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障) that obstructs liberation. From the second half of the pivotal Division 17 onward, what is broken is the “mark of dharmas,” removing the dharma-self-clinging (法我執) that grasps dharmas as really existent, curing the cognitive hindrance (所知障) that obstructs omniscience and Buddhahood. Beings not only grasp the body as a self; they also falsely cling to reality upon finer dharmas like “the Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma” and “the beings who can have faith in this Dharma” — and this fine clinging is precisely the dharma-clinging at the level of the cognitive hindrance. The two “is-nots” of this division remove just these two sites of dharma-clinging. The ancient masters’ grounding lies here: Jizang judges that what this division breaks is “the doubt that the Dharma-body has teaching” (法身有說法疑) — a doubt of dharma-clinging, not of self-clinging; Kuiji reads “no Dharma to teach” as 「達遍計所執空無而說」, “teaching by penetrating the emptiness-and-nonbeing of the wholly-imagined,” pointing out directly that this is the place where the wholly-imagined dharma-clinging is to be removed. The “is-not” pattern is unchanged; what it breaks turns from the person-self of the first half to the dharma-self of the second.
“The One Who Teaches the Dharma Has No Dharma to Teach; It Is Named Teaching the Dharma”: Reading Teaching Through the Three Natures
These three clauses are precisely the express text of Yogācāra’s three natures and three non-natures. Read in order:
- “Teaching the Dharma (the one who teaches)” = dependent-arising (依他起): the speech the Tathāgata has in accord with beings’ capacities and as conditions allow. It is not nothing — the transformation-body and reward-body appear in response to the occasion, and vividly there is speaking (Kuiji: the transformation-body and reward-body have speech as the occasion allows). A provisional dharma arising in reliance on conditions, hence it can be named “teaching the Dharma.”
- “No Dharma to teach” = removing the wholly-imagined, disclosing the absence of own-nature (遣遍計所執、顯無自性): what is removed is the layer that the ordinary person falsely adds onto this speech — clinging to “a really existent Dharma that can be taught.” The wholly-imagined (遍計所執) is just such a layer of false reckoning: taking an image transformed-and-manifested by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind. Kuiji says it plainly: 「真理中無有少法可說……要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也」— “within the true principle there is not the least dharma to be spoken… one must teach by penetrating the emptiness-and-nonbeing of the wholly-imagined, and this is named teaching the Dharma.” Vasubandhu’s two translations point out that it 「不離於法界，說法無自相」— “is not apart from the Dharma-realm; the teaching of the Dharma has no own-mark”: the Dharma spoken, apart from the true Dharma-realm, has no independent own-mark to be had. Prajñā states this removal summarily with the single word “empty”; Yogācāra points out, with the three non-natures (三無性), what this “empty” empties: the wholly-imagined is “non-nature of mark” (相無性, its mark is from the first non-existent), the other-dependent is “non-nature of arising” (生無性, it has no self-so arising own-nature, arising only in reliance on conditions), and the perfectly-accomplished is “non-nature in the ultimate sense” (勝義無性, it is the ultimate apart from all the wholly-imagined). So “no Dharma to teach” empties that layer of wholly-imagined real dharma; it does not erase the conditionally-arisen speech along with it.
- “It is named teaching the Dharma” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): once the clinging to “a real dharma to be taught” is removed, the conditionally-arisen speech may still be spoken. What matters is not to overcorrect — Kuiji distinguishes specially: 「若執真如為實無說，即非說法也」, “if one grasps suchness as really having no speaking, that too is not teaching the Dharma,” for to grasp suchness as “really there being no speaking” falls into yet another, diminishing wholly-imagined layer. To remove own-nature without sliding into annihilation is the perfectly-accomplished. Zhiyi catches the proportion exactly: 「向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」— “to say ‘no teaching’ is not to be mutely silent; it is to teach without holding to a real dharma, so one may teach the whole world over with no fault against the principle of Dharma.”
Vasubandhu further points out a textual layer: the Neng-duan translations mostly state “teaching the Dharma, the one who teaches the Dharma” in a doubled raising (Kumārajīva’s text raises it singly, “the one who teaches the Dharma”), and this doubling is no redundancy: it discloses the duality of “the Dharma spoken (the words) / the meaning intended (the sense)” — one layer the speech, one layer the meaning the speech points to; both, apart from the Dharma-realm, have no own-mark to be had.
“Slandering the Buddha”: To Grasp the Dharma-Body as Having Speech Is Precisely the Wholly-Imagined
Why does the Buddha say “to say the Tathāgata has a Dharma he teaches is to slander the Buddha”? Yogācāra sees this line directly. The Dharma-body is silent and wordless — it is the suchness disclosed by departing from all wholly-imagined marks, originally without speaking; what has speaking is the transformation-body and reward-body that appear in response to the occasion. If one grasps “the Dharma-body has a Dharma it teaches” as real, that is to add falsely, onto the markless Dharma-body, a “speaking subject and a Dharma spoken” — mistaking the conditionally-arisen speech of the transformation-body for a really-existent speaking of the Dharma-body — one layer of the wholly-imagined. So Jizang says 「謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說」, “it slanders the Dharma-body, for the Dharma-body is not form, and the Dharma-body does not speak,” and Kuiji says 「即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」, “it slanders the Dharma-Buddha, for it is silent and wordless.” It is not that teaching the Dharma is forbidden; it is that grasping the conditionally-arisen provisional speech as a real dharma upon the Dharma-body is forbidden.
“Those Are Not Beings, Not Non-Beings”: the Rank-on-the-Path of Those Who Can Have Faith in This Dharma
Teaching the Dharma being “is-not,” Subhūti at once raises a question: such a profound Dharma — where even “teaching the Dharma” is “is-not” — will there be beings in a future age who, hearing it, give rise to faith? The Buddha answers, also in “is-not”: 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」— “those are not beings, not non-beings.”
This double negation refuses both extremes, falling into neither being nor nonbeing. Vasubandhu’s two translations read it most penetratingly: 「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」— “not beings-as-beings, not noble, not non-noble”: of one who can have faith in this sūtra, “not beings” means he is not an ordinary-person being (in the first sense, he is no longer purely an ordinary person), and “not non-beings” means he is not without the noble substance (in the conventional sense, he is after all still a sentient being, and already contains the noble nature). Kuiji follows this: 「非是闡提無佛性等眾生」, “not the kind of being who is an icchantika without Buddha-nature,” and 「是聽聞般若、發心成佛眾生」, “a being who has heard prajñā and aroused the mind for Buddhahood.” So what this double negation discloses is a certain rank-on-the-path (行位) of one who can have faith in this Dharma: he practices the contemplation of non-attaining and so already differs from the ordinary person who grasps reality, yet he is not perfectly awakened (Jizang: 「習無所得觀眾生則能信……望有所得人故非眾生，未具足了悟故非不眾生」, “a being who practices the contemplation of non-attaining can have faith… as against the person of attaining he is ‘not beings,’ and not yet perfectly awakened he is ‘not non-beings’”), standing just between ordinary and noble. This is not a logical middle term; it is a station on the path of practice and realization.
“Beings Are-Not Beings, They Are Named Beings”: Reading Beings Through the Three Natures
The Buddha finally gathers another “is-not”: 「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生」— “beings, beings — the Tathāgata says they are-not beings; they are named beings.” This time the “is-not” is applied to the very designation “beings.” Read through the three natures:
- “Beings (beings)” = dependent-arising (依他起): the conditionally-arisen beings of nominal designation, those who arouse the mind and practice. Kuiji reads this doubling as two layers: one the ordinary-person being, one the being who arouses the bodhicitta and practices — both provisional beings established in reliance on conditions.
- “Are-not beings” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of false clinging to “a really existent being / a being of cut-off seed and no nature.” Kuiji: 「如來說非眾生者，謂非是闡提無佛性眾生」, “‘the Tathāgata says they are-not beings’ means not an icchantika being without Buddha-nature”; Asaṅga in a phrase, 「第一義故」, “because of the ultimate sense” — in the ultimate sense there is no wholly-imagined real being.
- “They are named beings” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the real clinging is removed, the provisionally-named being who arouses the mind for Buddhahood may still be spoken of. Kuiji: 「眾生是名眾生者，是發心眾生也」, “‘beings, named beings’ is the being who arouses the mind”; Asaṅga in a phrase, 「世諦故」, “because of the conventional truth” — in the conventional sense the conditionally-arisen provisionally-named being vividly may be saved and brought to Buddhahood.
The single “is-not” pattern, in the first half, was applied mostly to the mark of self and the four marks; by this second half it is applied to “the being who can have faith” — even the very title “being” is provisionally established, without reality.
Running Through: Two “Is-Nots,” One Removal of Dharma-Clinging
Taken together, these two “is-nots” share one key, and point to one root of illness: the dharma-clinging at the level of the cognitive hindrance (所知障位的法執). The “is-not” of the first half cures the affliction-hindrance that grasps body-mind as a self; the two of this division cure the cognitive hindrance that grasps “the Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma” and “the beings who can have faith” as real dharmas. The “is-not” of teaching removes “a really existent Dharma that can be taught” (teaching by penetrating the imagined-as-empty; the transformation-and-reward bodies have speech, the Dharma-body none); the “is-not” of beings removes “really existent beings that can be saved” (not an icchantika without nature; the provisionally-named being who arouses the mind for Buddhahood). Names-and-marks not grasped, real dharmas not clung to, while the conditionally-arisen provisional speech and provisional name vividly remain — this is just “the speaking that is no speaking, the being that is not a being.”
As for the removal of this fine dharma-clinging upon the Buddha-ground’s teaching of the Dharma and upon the beings who can have faith, Yogācāra brings it home to the transformation of the basis (轉依): 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. Asaṅga places these two clauses of the division within the seventeenth “Realizing the Path” abode (證道住處), within the Buddha-ground’s six perfections — the teaching clause belonging to the “perfection of speech” (語具足), the beings clause to the “foundation of mindfulness” (念處) within the “perfection of mind” (心具足) — both one portion of the Buddha-ground merit disclosed by the transformation of the basis after the bodhisattva has realized the path. The “is-not” here is no longer merely the removal of a name-and-mark; it discloses the teaching-function and the all-knowing-function of the Buddha-ground after the transformation of the basis: teaching the Dharma while there is no real Dharma to teach, knowing beings pervasively while there is no real being to be had.
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 three non-natures, the two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis 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 — “teaching that is no teaching, the being that is no being” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (the “is-not” · no Dharma to teach) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (the three natures and three non-natures, the cognitive hindrance, dharma-clinging, the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses use the wholly-imagined for the real dharma removed by the “is-not,” the perfectly-accomplished for the conventionally-speakable of “it is named,” and the three non-natures to remove the two graspings and come home to the transformation of the basis. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha distinguishes the three natures and the dharma-clinging removed by the cognitive hindrance. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the cognitive hindrance, the wholly-imagined, and the Dharma-body without speaking while the transformation-and-reward bodies have speaking. The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes the expressing (speech) and the expressed (meaning) and the two truths, which seals exactly with “the duality of teaching the Dharma, not apart from the Dharma-realm, teaching without own-mark.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “no wisdom and also no attainment” and “the empty mark of all dharmas” are likewise this gate of no-speaking and no-attaining. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “the one who teaches the Dharma has no Dharma to teach” and “beings are-not beings,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined · the cognitive hindrance · the three bodies (the Dharma-body without speaking) · the transformation of the basis,” 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 21 · The Speaking That Is No Speaking · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（無說·眾生即非 · §17 後半）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分二十一 非說所說分 |
| 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「無說」與「眾生即非」二法執） |
| 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（淨心住處 [0758c03–04]）中，佛地六種具足攝轉依之語具足（說法句）與心具足·念處（非眾生句）——「為語具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？如來作是念「我說法」耶』如是等。於心具足中為念處故，經言『須菩提！非眾生，非不眾生』如是等」[0758a13–15] |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「佛無說法」之疑——色身·諸相不可得見，云何言如來說法（T1511 [0793a25–27]／T1513 [0882a26–b08]）→ 接「誰能信此甚深法界」之疑，答以「非眾生非不眾生」（T1511 [0793b12–14]／T1513 [0882b08–11]） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「『如來有所說法不』下，此第七章」[0121a03]；破「法身有說法疑」（法身非色故非說） |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『我當有所說法』下，第二明說法」[0082b25–26]（明經名中身相·說法·福多之說法） |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 語具足（世親「第三段疑第二文」[0149b24]·無著「第五為語具足」[0149c01]）；非眾生句屬心具足六種之第一念處（無著「第六心具足中復有六種，一者念處」[0150a03–05]） |
無說·眾生即非義：此分承樞紐（分十七 究竟無我·法空）之後，於佛地說法用中顯「佛雖說法而無法可說」、於能信眾生中顯「眾生即非眾生」。古德三家俱依世親二譯之疑次讀此段——前分（分二十 離色離相）說色身·諸相不可得見，由是起疑「佛無能見之相，云何說法」（T1511 [0793a25–27]），今說「無法可說是名說法」斷之；復起疑「所說既不離法身亦無，誰能信此甚深法界」（T1511 [0793b12–14]），今說「非眾生非不眾生」斷之。世親二譯論偈逕標：說法即非者「不離於法界，說法無自相」（T1511 [0793b02]／義淨「由不離法界，說亦無自性」T1513 [0882b05]），眾生即非者「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」（T1511 [0793b16]／義淨「由非眾生非非生，非聖聖性相應故」T1513 [0882b13]）。無著判二句屬第十七證道住佛地六具足之語具足（說法）、心具足念處（眾生）[0758a13–15]。本分「即非」二現：「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」與「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生」（見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 說法·眾生二句）
要句：勿謂如來作念我當有所說法 / 言如來有所說法即為謗佛 / 說法者無法可說是名說法 / 慧命須菩提問聞法生信不 / 彼非眾生非不眾生 / 眾生眾生者如來說非眾生是名眾生
| 版本 | 說法·眾生二句（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！汝勿謂如來作是念，『我當有所說法』。莫作是念，何以故？若人言『如來有所說法』，即為謗佛，不能解我所說故。須菩提！說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」爾時，慧命須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生於未來世，聞說是法生信心不？」佛言：「須菩提！彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」 | 0751c11–c19 |
| 菩提流支 T236 | ……「汝謂如來作是念：『我當有所說法。』耶？須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？若人言：『如來有所說法。』即為謗佛，不能解我所說故。何以故？須菩提！如來說法、說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」爾時，慧命須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，於未來世，聞說是法，生信心不？」佛言：「須菩提！彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」 | 0756a11–a19 |
| 真諦 T237 | ……「如來有如是意：『我今實說法。』耶？須菩提！若有人言：『如來實能說法。』汝應當知，是人由非實有，及以邪執，起誹謗我。何以故？須菩提！說法、說法，實無有法名為說法。」爾時須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，於未來世，聽聞正說如是等相，此經章句，生實信不？」佛告須菩提：「彼非眾生，非非眾生。何以故？須菩提！彼眾生者，如來說非眾生，非非眾生，故說眾生。」 | 0765b22–c01 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | ……「雖然，如來如是念：『我法說。』？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！不如來如是念：『我法說。』」世尊言：「若我，善實！如是語：『如來法說。』誹謗我。彼，善實！不實取。彼何所因？法說、法說者，善實！無有法，若法說名可得。」……「不彼，善實！眾生，非不眾生。彼何所因？眾生、眾生者，善實！一切彼非眾生，彼，如來說；彼故，說名眾生者。」 | 0770c10–c20 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | ……「如來頗作是念：我當有所說法耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故？善現！若言如來有所說法，即為謗我，為非善取。何以故？善現！說法說法者，無法可得故名說法。」爾時，具壽善現白佛言：「世尊！……頗有有情聞說如是色類法已能深信不？」佛言：「善現！彼非有情、非不有情。何以故？善現！一切有情者，如來說非有情，故名一切有情。」 | 0984c06–c15 |
| 義淨 T239 | ……「如來作是念：『我說法。』耶？汝勿作是見。若言：『如來有所說法。』者，則為謗我。何以故？言說法、說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」妙生白佛言：「世尊！於當來世，頗有眾生，聞說是經，生信心不？」佛告妙生：「有生信者，彼非眾生，非非眾生。何以故？眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」 | 0774c11–c17 |
異文所繫：
- 能斷系重詞（說法句）：流支「如來說法、說法者，無法可說」
[0756a14–15]、笈多「法說、法說者……無有法，若法說名可得」[0770c14]、玄奘「說法說法者，無法可得故名說法」[0984c09–10]、義淨「言說法、說法者，無法可說」[0774c13]、真諦「說法、說法，實無有法名為說法」[0765b25–26]——五本俱具重詞（同名二舉），羅什獨作單舉「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」[0751c14–15]。此重詞乃法相系傳本之文相，世親二譯逕釋其義：「何故重言說法說法者？偈言『所說二差別』故。何者是二？一者所說法；二者所有義。」（T1511 [0793b03–04]）／「何意重言『說法說法』者？頌云『說二是所執』……一乃是文，二便是義」（T1513 [0882b02–03]）——重詞所繫，正在「文（所說法）／義（所有義）」之二（見目四、目五）。 - 眾生句重詞：眾生即非句中，流支「眾生、眾生者」
[0756a18]、笈多「眾生、眾生者」[0770c19]、義淨「眾生、眾生者」[0774c16]俱重詞；玄奘獨無重詞，逕作「一切有情者，如來說非有情，故名一切有情」[0984c14–15]（且全段以「有情」代「眾生」）；真諦作「彼眾生者，如來說非眾生，非非眾生，故說眾生」[0765b29–c01]（不重詞，且即非式三句作「非眾生·非非眾生·故說眾生」之雙遮形）。 - 「彼非眾生非不眾生」之雙遮：六本全具此雙遮句——羅什「彼非眾生，非不眾生」、流支同
[0756a17–18]、玄奘「彼非有情、非不有情」[0984c13]、義淨「彼非眾生，非非眾生」[0774c15–16]、笈多「不彼，善實！眾生，非不眾生」[0770c18–19]、真諦「彼非眾生，非非眾生」[0765b29]。世親二譯釋此雙遮為「非凡夫眾生（第一義·非聖）·非無聖體（世諦·非不聖）」（T1511 [0793b18–21]／T1513 [0882b14–17]，見目四），即能信此經者非凡夫亦非全聖之地位。 - 「慧命須菩提」與此段之傳本：羅什、流支俱標「慧命須菩提」
[0751c16]／[0756a16]；窺基逕注「舍衛漏此文」[0149c28]——此「慧命須菩提」一段（聞法生信·非眾生）為魏譯（流支）所有而羅什本舊缺、後依魏本補入之文，窺基依世親科（第三疑第三文）讀之。真諦「如是等相，此經章句」[0765b27–28]、玄奘「後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時」[0984c10–12]、義淨「於當來世」[0774c14]，皆有未來世聞法之時設，繁簡互異。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 說法即非·眾生即非 · 法空後半 · 加重）
本分「即非」二現：「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」[0751c14–15] 與「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生」[0751c19]。二即非俱施於「法」（說法之法·眾生施設之法），是 §17 後半 法空·破四見·所知障位之即非——非前半我空位破「眾生相」之煩惱障。
其一「說法 — 無法可說 — 是名說法」映三性（法空位）：
- 說法（X）即依他起——如來隨機緣起之言說（窺基：「化、報隨機而有言說」
[0149c01–02]；報化有說之假法）。 - 無法可說即遣遍計所執——非分別所執之「實有可說之法」（窺基：「『無法可說』者，謂真理中無有少法可說也。謂要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也」
[0149c21–23]；世親：「所說法離於真法界不可得自相見故」T1511 [0793b06–07]）。 - 是名說法即立圓成（亦兼世諦可說）——遣其實法之執而存緣起之說（窺基：「達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也；若執真如為實無說，即非說法也」
[0149c23–24]，即遣自性而不墮「實無說」之損減）。
其二「眾生 — 即非眾生 — 是名眾生」映三性（眾生施設之法空）：
- 眾生（眾生者）（X）即依他起——名字施設、發心修行之假眾生（窺基：「初言『眾生』，謂凡夫眾生；又『眾生者』者，謂發菩提心修行眾生也」
[0150a19–20]）。 - 即非眾生即遣遍計——非分別所執之「實眾生／闡提無性眾生」（窺基：「『如來說非眾生』者，謂非是闡提無佛性眾生」
[0150a21]；無著「第一義故」[0150a16]）。 - 是名眾生即立圓成（世諦可說）——遣實眾生之執而存發心成佛之假名眾生（窺基：「『眾生是名眾生』者，是發心眾生也」
[0150a21–22]；無著「世諦故」[0150a16–17]）。
本分之眼（後半·法空·破四見·所知障）：即非於此施於「說法」與「眾生」二法本身——前半（分一至十六）即非多施於「我相·四相·福德」（我空·破四相·治煩惱障），至此後半（分十七後·法空位）施於「佛之說法」與「能信之眾生」此二細法執（破四見·治所知障）。古德所本即在此：吉藏判此分破「法身有說法疑」（法執之疑，非我執）[0121a03–04]；窺基讀「無法可說」為「達遍計所執空無而說」[0149c22–23]（逕標所知障位之遍計法執）。此「說法即非·眾生即非」二施，正 §17 後半「我空轉法空·煩惱障轉所知障」之文本指紋——即非一式不變而所破由人我（前半破四相）轉法我（後半破四見）。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「法空·無說·眾生即非」位之二施。〔後半二障之轉，承樞紐分十七「通達無我、法」之古德二空讀，見分十七目四。〕
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 不離法界·二差別·非聖非不聖 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》二偈（說法二差別·所說說者深），二漢譯並存： 世親以「不離於法界，說法無自相」釋「無法可說」、以「所說二差別（文·義）」釋重詞、以「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」釋能信之眾生，逐項錨於經文；二譯名異義一。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯）：先設疑——「若如來具足色身成就不可得見，若相成就不可得見，云何言如來說法？自下經文為斷此疑」[0793a25–27]。釋說法，論偈 [0793b01–02]：
「如佛法亦然，所說二差別；不離於法界，說法無自相。」
「何故重言說法說法者？偈言『所說二差別』故。何者是二？一者所說法；二者所有義」[0793b03–04]；「何故言無法可說是名說法者？偈言『不離於法界，說法無自相』故。此以何義？所說法離於真法界不可得自相見故」[0793b04–07]。次設疑——「若言諸佛說者，是無所說法不離於法身，亦是其無；有何等人能信如是甚深法界？自下經文為斷此疑」[0793b12–14]。釋能信眾生，論偈 [0793b15–16]：
「所說說者深，非無能信者；非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖。」
「若有信此經，彼人非眾生。非眾生者，非無聖體。非無聖體者，非凡夫體故。非不眾生者，以有聖體故。彼人非凡夫眾生，非不是聖體眾生」[0793b18–21]；「如來說非眾生者，非凡夫眾生，是故說眾生眾生。以聖人眾生，是故說非眾生」[0793b23–25]。
世親 T1513（義淨譯）：釋說法之疑——「若言不應以色身圓滿及具相身觀如來者，如何如來有所說法耶？為答斯難，此即以其惡取而謗於我，由不能解我所說義故」[0882a26–b08] 間。頌 [0882b01]：
「如來說亦無，說二是所執。」
「何意重言『說法說法』者？頌云『說二是所執』。云何為二？一乃是文，二便是義」[0882b02–03]；「文云『無法可說』。是名說法耶？」頌 [0882b05]：
「由不離法界，說亦無自性。」
「由不離法界外有說法自性可得。若言無有世尊是能說者，所說之法亦復不離法身，故成非有」[0882b06–08]。釋能信眾生，頌 [0882b10]：
「能說所說雖甚深，然亦非無敬信者。」
頌 [0882b13]：
「由非眾生非非生，非聖聖性相應故。」
「彼非眾生。由餘眾生不與聖性相應，即與凡夫性相應故。『非非眾生』者，由與聖性相應故……由彼望其凡夫性故不是眾生，由望聖人性故非非眾生」[0882b14–17]；「『眾生眾生者，如來說彼為非眾生』。此據愚小異生性；『由此說為眾生』者，此據聖人性」[0882b18–20]。
〔二譯對位：說法二差別／說二是所執（文·義二）· 不離法界說法無自相／由不離法界說亦無自性 · 非眾生眾生非聖非不聖／由非眾生非非生非聖聖性相應——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。〕
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此分二句屬十八住之第十七證道（淨心住處 [0758c03–04]），於證道後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]）中之語具足（說法句）與心具足之念處（眾生句）——「為語具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？如來作是念「我說法」耶』如是等。於心具足中為念處故，經言『須菩提！非眾生，非不眾生』如是等」[0758a13–15]。〔無著此段釋極簡，止安立經文之住處對位；語具足·心具足念處之展開，窺基引無著釋足之，見下窺基條 [0149c01·0150a03–17]。〕
吉藏（三論）T1699：科為「第七章」[0121a03]，破「法身有說法疑」。釋說法即非：「此破法身有說法疑。疑云：若具足色身非法身者，云何言如來有所說法耶？故佛破云：『須菩提！汝勿言如來法身有所說。若言如來法身有所說，則謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說也。』」[0121a03–08]；引論證「論偈云『如佛法亦然』，故舉佛例法也」[0121a12]；「『無法可說是名說法』者，此更破疑人聞法身有說，便言有法可說。故今釋云：雖復說法，無法可說，假名說法耳」[0121a13–15]。釋能信眾生：「論偈云『非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖。』此人非凡夫眾生，故言非眾生；而是聖體眾生，故言眾生也。非眾生故非聖，是聖體眾生故非不聖也」[0121a18–21]；「習無所得觀眾生則能信。此眾生望有所得人，故非眾生；未具足了悟，故非不眾生也」[0121a24–26]。
智顗（天台）T1698：科為「『我當有所說法』下，第二明說法」[0082b25–26]（明經名中身相·說法·福多三段之說法段）。「初、正對上名，道成應出說法化人，謬傳毀聖名為謗佛，無法可說是名說法，故傳說法之意。向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」[0082b26–29]。〔智顗依羅什本（舊缺「慧命須菩提」一段），故止釋「說法」而無「非眾生」之別釋，逕轉「『佛得菩提』下，第二明習應」[0082c01]（分二十二無法可得）。其全經科判中亦標「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」[0078b09]，與世親二譯化身偈同（見目七系聯）。〕
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親「第三段疑第二文」[0149b24]——「謂有疑曰：『若如來具足色身成就不可得見，若相成就不可得見，云何如來說法耶？』為破此疑故也」[0149b24–27]。釋說法：「佛告善現云：『汝勿謂法身如來作是念言，我當有所說，法身佛本無有念，亦無有所說故。』無著云，此第五為語具足故，謂化、報隨機而有言說，法身幽寂無說、無形」[0149b28–c02]；「謂若有法身有所說法者，即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」[0149c06–08]。釋「無法可說」：「『無法可說』者，謂真理中無有少法可說也。謂要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也；若執真如為實無說，即非說法也。無著云，報、化有說，法身無說；若言法身有說如報、化者，即為謗法佛也」[0149c21–26]。釋能信眾生（無著心具足念處）：「無著云，第六心具足中復有六種，一者、念處……此為初也」[0150a03–06]；「『彼非眾生』者，謂非是闡提無佛性等眾生；『非不眾生』者，是聽聞般若，發心成佛眾生也。無著云，彼非眾生者，第一義故；非不眾生者，世諦故」[0150a13–17]；「初言『眾生』，謂凡夫眾生；又『眾生者』者，謂發菩提心修行眾生也」[0150a19–20]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸世親二偈：說法即非＝不離法界·說法無自相（文·義二差別之重詞；遣實法可說，達遍計空而說，化報有說法身無說）；眾生即非＝非眾生眾生·非聖非不聖（非凡夫眾生〔第一義〕·非無聖體〔世諦〕，發心成佛之假名眾生）。吉藏「破法身有說法疑·假名說法·非凡夫故非眾生而聖體故非不聖」、智顗「無存而說即說滿天下無乖法理」、窺基（依世親無著）「語具足·達遍計空而說·心具足念處·非闡提無性眾生」——逐項錨於「無法可說·非眾生非不眾生·眾生即非」。此即本分「無說·眾生即非」之古德定讀，全屬法空·所知障位之法執破遣。
五、術語
說法（無法可說·是名說法）dharma-deśanā（窺基「達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法」[0149c22–23]；世親「不離於法界，說法無自相」T1511 [0793b02]）·
所說二差別（文·義）（世親「一者所說法；二者所有義」T1511 [0793b04]；義淨「一乃是文，二便是義」T1513 [0882b03]，釋重詞「說法說法者」之所由）·
法界 dharma-dhātu（世親「所說法離於真法界不可得自相見故」T1511 [0793b06–07]；義淨「由不離法界外有說法自性可得」T1513 [0882b06]）·
遍計所執 parikalpita-svabhāva（窺基「真理中無有少法可說……達遍計所執空無而說」[0149c21–23]；後半法空·所知障位之法執）·
謗佛／謗法（吉藏「則謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說」[0121a07–08]；窺基「即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」[0149c07–08]）·
非眾生非不眾生（非聖非不聖）（世親「非凡夫眾生〔第一義·非聖〕·非無聖體〔世諦·非不聖〕」T1511 [0793b18–21]；窺基「非闡提無佛性眾生·發心成佛眾生」[0150a13–15]）·
語具足／心具足念處（佛地六具足之二，無著 T1510 [0758a13–15]；證道後攝轉依之具足）。〔梵文發音輔助；「說法說法者／眾生眾生者」之重詞與單舉之譯異見目二。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（無說之說 · 雙遮句法）
本分無具象譬喻（虛空喻在分四·須彌喻在分十·十七，忍辱仙人喻在分十四，恒沙喻在分十一·十八）。修辭之要在「無說之說」之翻轉與雙遮句法：
- 「無說之說」之翻轉：正立「說法者」（如來宛然說法），陡然翻為「無法可說」（無實法可說），復以「是名說法」收於假名（緣起可說之說）。說而即非說、非說而非默——智顗一語道破其修辭之的：「向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」
[0082b28–29]（無說非緘默，乃無存實法而說，故說遍天下而無過）。吉藏亦云「雖復說法，無法可說，假名說法耳」[0121a14–15]。正言「說法」與其體之「無法可說」相形，「是名說法」者正是無實法之假名說——此即非式之「遣自性而存可說」於言詮之施。 - 雙遮句法（非眾生·非不眾生）：「彼非眾生，非不眾生」一句，雙遮兩端（非凡夫眾生·非無聖體），不落有無——世親「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」
T1511 [0793b16]，吉藏「非眾生故非聖，是聖體眾生故非不聖也」[0121a20–21]。此雙遮之筆，於「能信之眾生」位顯其非凡非全聖之中道地位，與分十七「無實無虛」[0751b01]同一不落兩邊之句構。 - 重詞之修辭（說法說法者·眾生眾生者）：能斷五系於即非句作同名二舉（「說法、說法者」「眾生、眾生者」），世親判其「文·義」二差別
T1511 [0793b04]——重舉非贅，乃顯「所說法（文）／所有義（義）」之二（見目二、目四）。
此「無說而說滿天下·雙遮而不落兩邊」之筆，與分七「無有定法·不可取不可說」、分十八「諸心皆為非心」同一即非之翻轉。此目於本分（無說之說·雙遮句法）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）：三無自性·圓成實（v.23–25 三性三無性）·遍計所執（v.20「由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物」）——本分「無法可說＝達遍計所執空無而說」「眾生即非眾生＝非闡提無性」之論本對應（說法·眾生之法執，即遍計所執之遣、圓成之顯）。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·二諦·能詮所詮——「說法二差別（文·義）」「不離法界·說無自相」即能詮（言說）所詮（義）之辨、世諦說與第一義無說之相通。
- 二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·言詮所遣——「無法可說·說亦無自性」即言說無實所詮之論本對應（說法不離法界·無自相可得）。
- 攝大乘論（T1594）：所知相分·三性·所知障——本分「達遍計所執空無而說」「眾生即非（第一義/世諦）」即攝論三性·所知障所遣法執之經語對應；後半法空·破四見正當「所知障」之斷。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：所知障·遍計所執·二諦（世俗·勝義）·三身（法身無說）——本分「無法可說（遍計空）·法身無說報化有說」即成唯識「所知障·遍計所執自性·三身」之經語對應。
- 心經（T251）：「無智亦無得」「諸法空相·不生不滅」——「無法可說·眾生即非」與心經「諸法空相·無得」同一法空無自性之門。
本分「說法即非·眾生即非」，即三十頌·成唯識論「遍計所執·所知障·三身（法身無說）」之經語對應；「無法可說·說亦無自性」即二十論·辯中邊論「言詮無實所詮·能詮所詮二諦」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「說法者無法可說」「眾生即非眾生」一語，成唯識論以「遍計所執·所知障·三身」之技術語說同一事；本分「無說之說」之即非，亦釋慧鏡《應無所住而生其心》所論無住之言詮一面〔摘自 S5-P06〕、《金剛經的自我重演》所論二周·後半法空之結構一環〔摘自 S5-P07〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。古德引據見目四，本目不重出 [出處]；古德詳引俟成增鏈。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）
- 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」之無說之說 ↔ 西方語言哲學之「不可說／顯示之別」（維特根斯坦《邏輯哲學論》「不可說者當沉默」與「顯示對言說」之別；否定神學 via negativa 之「神不可言詮」）：西方多就語言之界限立論（可說與不可說之劃界，或聖境離言之純否定）；古德／唯識讀「無法可說」非僅語言界限或緘默——乃「達遍計所執空無而說」（窺基
[0149c22–23]）、「不離法界·說無自相」（世親T1511 [0793b06–07]），是遣實法之執而緣起假說（化報有說·法身無說），說遍天下而無乖（智顗[0082b28–29]），非杜默亦非實說，乃轉依所顯之假名說。 - 「即非」之說法弔詭 ↔ 西方真矛盾論（dialetheism；普里斯特、加菲爾德論佛教「即非」「說法非說法」為真矛盾）與解構主義之「文本性／言說之自我消解」：西方多讀「說法者無法可說」為靜態之邏輯弔詭或語言自指之消解；唯識讀為三性之動轉（遣遍計實法·顯圓成緣說）兼後半破所知障之修證——是法執之轉依，非邏輯之謎。此東西之別，正一可注之義。
- 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」之雙遮 ↔ 西方之「既非A亦非非A」（黑格爾辯證之揚棄；四句否定之西方詮釋）：西方或讀雙遮為辯證之中項或邏輯之第三值；古德讀為「非凡夫眾生（第一義）·非無聖體（世諦）」（世親
T1511 [0793b18–21]）——是能信此經者於凡聖之間之修證地位（習無所得而未具足了悟，吉藏[0121a24–26]），非邏輯之中項，乃二諦所顯之行位。 - 對觀之要：西方傾向以「無說·即非·雙遮」為語言哲學·邏輯弔詭·辯證之命題（言說如何可能·矛盾如何為真·中項如何成立）；古德以「無法可說·說法即非·非眾生非不眾生」為轉依·斷所知障之修證——無說而說者顯遍計法執之當遣（達空而說），眾生即非者顯能信行位之非凡非全聖，皆可修可證之法空行果，非靜態之語言或邏輯斷言。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 [0751c11–c19]（原典 · 非說所說分）。六譯本說法·眾生二句 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0756a11–a19] · 真諦 T0237 [0765b22–c01] · 笈多 T0238 [0770c10–c20] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0984c06–c15] · 義淨 T0239 [0774c11–c17]。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0757c28–0758a01·0758a13–15·0758c03–04] · 世親 T1511 [0793a20–0793b25] · 世親 T1513 [0882a26–0882b20]。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0121a03–0121a26] · 智顗 T1698 [0082b25–0082b29] · 窺基 T1700 [0149b23–0150a24]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (no-speaking · beings-is-not · §17 second half)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 21, The Speaking That Is No Speaking (非說所說分) |
| 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, the two dharma-clingings of “no-speaking” and “beings is-not”) |
| 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 abode of the purified mind [0758c03–04]), among the six buddha-ground perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis, the speech perfection (the speaking-the-dharma clause) and the mind perfection · the mindfulness-foundation (the no-beings clause) — 「為語具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？如來作是念「我說法」耶』如是等。於心具足中為念處故，經言『須菩提！非眾生，非不眾生』如是等」[0758a13–15] |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt “the Buddha has no dharma-speaking” — the form-body · marks cannot be seen-attained, how then is it said the Tathāgata speaks the dharma (T1511 [0793a25–27]／T1513 [0882a26–b08]) → joining to the doubt “who can have faith in this profound dharma-realm,” answered by “neither beings nor non-beings” (T1511 [0793b12–14]／T1513 [0882b08–11]) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise), T1699 | 「『如來有所說法不』下，此第七章」[0121a03]; breaking the “doubt that the dharma-body has dharma-speaking” (the dharma-body, not being form, is not speaking) |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai), T1698 | 「『我當有所說法』下，第二明說法」[0082b25–26] (clarifying the speaking-the-dharma among the bodily-marks · speaking · merit of the sūtra's name) |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra), T1700 | The speech perfection (Vasubandhu 「第三段疑第二文」[0149b24]· Asaṅga 「第五為語具足」[0149c01]); the no-beings clause belongs to the first of the six mind-perfections, the mindfulness-foundation (Asaṅga 「第六心具足中復有六種，一者念處」[0150a03–05]) |
Sense of no-speaking · beings-is-not: following the pivot (division 17, ultimately no-self · dharma-emptiness), this division, in the buddha-ground's function of speaking the dharma, shows that “the Buddha though speaking the dharma has no dharma to speak,” and in the beings able to have faith shows that “beings are just is-not beings.” The three ancient masters all read this passage according to the doubt-sequence of Vasubandhu's two recensions — the preceding division (division 20, Apart from Form, Apart from Marks) said the form-body · marks cannot be seen-attained, whereby arises the doubt “the Buddha has no mark to be seen, how does He speak the dharma” (T1511 [0793a25–27]), and now “no dharma to speak is called speaking the dharma” cuts it; further arises the doubt “the dharma spoken being not apart from the dharma-body is also non-existent, who can have faith in this profound dharma-realm” (T1511 [0793b12–14]), and now “neither beings nor non-beings” cuts it. The verses of Vasubandhu's two recensions mark it outright: the speaking-the-dharma is-not is “not apart from the dharma-realm, speaking the dharma without self-mark” (T1511 [0793b02]／ Yijing 「由不離法界，說亦無自性」T1513 [0882b05]), and the beings is-not is “neither beings nor beings, neither noble nor not-noble” (T1511 [0793b16]／ Yijing 「由非眾生非非生，非聖聖性相應故」T1513 [0882b13]). Asaṅga assigns the two clauses to the seventeenth Path-of-vision abode's six buddha-ground perfections, the speech perfection (speaking the dharma) and the mind-perfection mindfulness-foundation (beings) [0758a13–15]. The division's “is-not” appears twice: 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」 and 「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生」 (see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the speaking-the-dharma · beings two clauses)
Key passage: do not say the Tathāgata thinks I shall have a dharma to speak / to say the Tathāgata has a dharma to speak is to slander the Buddha / the one who speaks the dharma has no dharma to speak, is called speaking the dharma / the life-wisdom Subhūti asks whether hearing the dharma gives rise to faith / they are neither beings, nor non-beings / beings, beings-as-such, the Tathāgata says are no-beings, are called beings
| Version | The speaking-the-dharma · beings two clauses (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！汝勿謂如來作是念，『我當有所說法』。莫作是念，何以故？若人言『如來有所說法』，即為謗佛，不能解我所說故。須菩提！說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」爾時，慧命須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生於未來世，聞說是法生信心不？」佛言：「須菩提！彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」 | 0751c11–c19 |
| Bodhiruci T236 | ……「汝謂如來作是念：『我當有所說法。』耶？須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？若人言：『如來有所說法。』即為謗佛，不能解我所說故。何以故？須菩提！如來說法、說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」爾時，慧命須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，於未來世，聞說是法，生信心不？」佛言：「須菩提！彼非眾生，非不眾生。何以故？須菩提！眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」 | 0756a11–a19 |
| Paramārtha T237 | ……「如來有如是意：『我今實說法。』耶？須菩提！若有人言：『如來實能說法。』汝應當知，是人由非實有，及以邪執，起誹謗我。何以故？須菩提！說法、說法，實無有法名為說法。」爾時須菩提白佛言：「世尊！頗有眾生，於未來世，聽聞正說如是等相，此經章句，生實信不？」佛告須菩提：「彼非眾生，非非眾生。何以故？須菩提！彼眾生者，如來說非眾生，非非眾生，故說眾生。」 | 0765b22–c01 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | ……「雖然，如來如是念：『我法說。』？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！不如來如是念：『我法說。』」世尊言：「若我，善實！如是語：『如來法說。』誹謗我。彼，善實！不實取。彼何所因？法說、法說者，善實！無有法，若法說名可得。」……「不彼，善實！眾生，非不眾生。彼何所因？眾生、眾生者，善實！一切彼非眾生，彼，如來說；彼故，說名眾生者。」 | 0770c10–c20 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | ……「如來頗作是念：我當有所說法耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故？善現！若言如來有所說法，即為謗我，為非善取。何以故？善現！說法說法者，無法可得故名說法。」爾時，具壽善現白佛言：「世尊！……頗有有情聞說如是色類法已能深信不？」佛言：「善現！彼非有情、非不有情。何以故？善現！一切有情者，如來說非有情，故名一切有情。」 | 0984c06–c15 |
| Yijing T239 | ……「如來作是念：『我說法。』耶？汝勿作是見。若言：『如來有所說法。』者，則為謗我。何以故？言說法、說法者，無法可說，是名說法。」妙生白佛言：「世尊！於當來世，頗有眾生，聞說是經，生信心不？」佛告妙生：「有生信者，彼非眾生，非非眾生。何以故？眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生。」 | 0774c11–c17 |
What the variants turn on:
- The Able-to-Cut lineage's doubled term (the speaking-the-dharma clause): Bodhiruci 「如來說法、說法者，無法可說」
[0756a14–15], Dharmagupta 「法說、法說者……無有法，若法說名可得」[0770c14], Xuanzang 「說法說法者，無法可得故名說法」[0984c09–10], Yijing 「言說法、說法者，無法可說」[0774c13], Paramārtha 「說法、說法，實無有法名為說法」[0765b25–26]— five versions all carry the doubled term (the same name raised twice), Kumārajīva alone raising it singly 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」[0751c14–15]. This doubled term is the textual physiognomy of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage recensions, and Vasubandhu's two recensions gloss its sense outright: 「何故重言說法說法者？偈言『所說二差別』故。何者是二？一者所說法；二者所有義。」 (T1511 [0793b03–04])／「何意重言『說法說法』者？頌云『說二是所執』……一乃是文，二便是義」 (T1513 [0882b02–03]) — what the doubled term turns on lies precisely in the two of “the words (the dharma spoken) / the sense (the meaning held)” (see registers 4, 5). - The doubled term of the beings clause: in the beings is-not clause, Bodhiruci 「眾生、眾生者」
[0756a18], Dharmagupta 「眾生、眾生者」[0770c19], Yijing 「眾生、眾生者」[0774c16]all carry the doubled term; Xuanzang alone has no doubled term, casting outright 「一切有情者，如來說非有情，故名一切有情」[0984c14–15](and through the whole passage substituting 「有情」 for 「眾生」); Paramārtha has 「彼眾生者，如來說非眾生，非非眾生，故說眾生」[0765b29–c01](no doubled term, and casting the is-not form in three clauses as the double-negation form “no-beings · non-non-beings · therefore says beings”). - The double-negation of 「彼非眾生非不眾生」: all six versions carry this double-negation clause — Kumārajīva 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」, Bodhiruci the same
[0756a17–18], Xuanzang 「彼非有情、非不有情」[0984c13], Yijing 「彼非眾生，非非眾生」[0774c15–16], Dharmagupta 「不彼，善實！眾生，非不眾生」[0770c18–19], Paramārtha 「彼非眾生，非非眾生」[0765b29]. Vasubandhu's two recensions gloss this double-negation as “not ordinary-being (the first meaning · not-noble) · not without noble substance (the conventional truth · not not-noble)” (T1511 [0793b18–21]／T1513 [0882b14–17], see register 4) — that is, the standing of those able to have faith in this sūtra, neither ordinary nor wholly noble. - 「慧命須菩提」 and the textual transmission of this passage: Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci both mark 「慧命須菩提」
[0751c16]／[0756a16]; Kuiji notes outright 「舍衛漏此文」[0149c28]— this 「慧命須菩提」 passage (hearing the dharma giving rise to faith · no-beings) is found in the Wei rendering (Bodhiruci) but was anciently lacking in the Kumārajīva text and later supplemented from the Wei text, and Kuiji reads it according to Vasubandhu's sectioning (the third doubt's third text). Paramārtha 「如是等相，此經章句」[0765b27–28], Xuanzang 「後時、後分、後五百歲，正法將滅時分轉時」[0984c10–12], Yijing 「於當來世」[0774c14]all have the time-setting of hearing the dharma in a future age, differing in fullness and brevity.
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · speaking-the-dharma is-not · beings is-not · second-half dharma-emptiness · weighted)
This division's “is-not” appears twice: 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」[0751c14–15] and 「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生」[0751c19]. Both is-nots are applied to “dharmas” (the dharma of speaking the dharma · the dharma of the designation of beings), an is-not of the §17 second-half dharma-emptiness · breaking the four views · cognitive-hindrance position — not the first-half self-emptiness position's breaking of the “beings-mark,” the afflictive hindrance.
The first, 「說法 — 無法可說 — 是名說法」 mirrors the three natures (the dharma-emptiness position):
- 說法 (X) is the other-dependent — the speech of the Tathāgata arising conditionally in response to faculties (Kuiji: 「化、報隨機而有言說」
[0149c01–02]; the provisional dharma of speaking by the transformation-and-reward). - 無法可說 removes the wholly-imagined — not the “really existent sayable dharma” grasped by discrimination (Kuiji: 「『無法可說』者，謂真理中無有少法可說也。謂要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也」
[0149c21–23]; Vasubandhu: 「所說法離於真法界不可得自相見故」T1511 [0793b06–07]). - 是名說法 establishes the perfectly-accomplished (and also bears the conventional-truth saying) — removing the clinging at a real dharma yet keeping the conditional speaking (Kuiji: 「達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也；若執真如為實無說，即非說法也」
[0149c23–24], that is, removing the self-nature without falling into the under-affirmation of “really no speaking”).
The second, 「眾生 — 即非眾生 — 是名眾生」 mirrors the three natures (the dharma-emptiness of the designation of beings):
- 眾生（眾生者） (X) is the other-dependent — the provisional beings of name-designation, arousing the mind and cultivating practice (Kuiji: 「初言『眾生』，謂凡夫眾生；又『眾生者』者，謂發菩提心修行眾生也」
[0150a19–20]). - 即非眾生 removes the wholly-imagined — not the “real beings / icchantika beings without [buddha-]nature” grasped by discrimination (Kuiji: 「『如來說非眾生』者，謂非是闡提無佛性眾生」
[0150a21]; Asaṅga 「第一義故」[0150a16]). - 是名眾生 establishes the perfectly-accomplished (the conventional truth, sayable) — removing the clinging at real beings yet keeping the provisionally-named beings who arouse the mind and become Buddha (Kuiji: 「『眾生是名眾生』者，是發心眾生也」
[0150a21–22]; Asaṅga 「世諦故」[0150a16–17]).
The division's eye (second half · dharma-emptiness · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance): here the is-not is applied to the two dharmas of “speaking the dharma” and “beings” themselves — in the first half (divisions 1–16) the is-not was mostly applied to 「我相·四相·福德」 (the self-mark · the four marks · merit) (self-emptiness · breaking the four marks · countering the afflictive hindrance), and at this second half (after division 17 · the dharma-emptiness position) it is applied to “the Buddha's speaking the dharma” and “the beings able to have faith,” these two subtle dharma-clingings (breaking the four views · countering the cognitive hindrance). What the ancient masters source it to lies precisely here: Jizang judges this division as breaking the “doubt that the dharma-body has dharma-speaking” (a doubt of dharma-clinging, not self-clinging) [0121a03–04]; Kuiji reads 「無法可說」 as “speaking by penetrating the wholly-imagined as empty and non-existent” [0149c22–23] (marking outright the wholly-imagined dharma-clinging of the cognitive-hindrance position). These two applications of “speaking-the-dharma is-not · beings is-not” are precisely the textual fingerprint of §17 second-half “self-emptiness turning to dharma-emptiness · the afflictive hindrance turning to the cognitive hindrance” — the is-not form unchanged while what it breaks turns from the self-of-persons (the first half breaking the four marks) to the self-of-dharmas (the second half breaking the four views). 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 “dharma-emptiness · no-speaking · beings is-not.” 〔The second half's turn of the two hindrances carries on the ancient masters' two-emptiness reading of the pivot division 17's 「通達無我、法」, see division 17 register 4.〕
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · not apart from the dharma-realm · the two distinctions · neither noble nor not-noble · weighted)
Core · weighted — Vasubandhu's two verses in the Vajracchedikā-śāstra (the two distinctions of speaking the dharma · the spoken and the speaker are profound), preserved in two Chinese versions: Vasubandhu glosses “no dharma to speak” through “not apart from the dharma-realm, speaking the dharma without self-mark,” glosses the doubled term through “the two distinctions of what is spoken (words · sense),” and glosses the beings able to have faith through “neither beings nor beings, neither noble nor not-noble,” 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 — 「若如來具足色身成就不可得見，若相成就不可得見，云何言如來說法？自下經文為斷此疑」[0793a25–27]. Glossing speaking the dharma, the verse [0793b01–02]:
「如佛法亦然，所說二差別；不離於法界，說法無自相。」
「何故重言說法說法者？偈言『所說二差別』故。何者是二？一者所說法；二者所有義」[0793b03–04]; 「何故言無法可說是名說法者？偈言『不離於法界，說法無自相』故。此以何義？所說法離於真法界不可得自相見故」[0793b04–07]. Next sets the doubt — 「若言諸佛說者，是無所說法不離於法身，亦是其無；有何等人能信如是甚深法界？自下經文為斷此疑」[0793b12–14]. Glossing the beings able to have faith, the verse [0793b15–16]:
「所說說者深，非無能信者；非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖。」
「若有信此經，彼人非眾生。非眾生者，非無聖體。非無聖體者，非凡夫體故。非不眾生者，以有聖體故。彼人非凡夫眾生，非不是聖體眾生」[0793b18–21]; 「如來說非眾生者，非凡夫眾生，是故說眾生眾生。以聖人眾生，是故說非眾生」[0793b23–25].
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's rendering): glossing the doubt of speaking the dharma — 「若言不應以色身圓滿及具相身觀如來者，如何如來有所說法耶？為答斯難，此即以其惡取而謗於我，由不能解我所說義故」[0882a26–b08] (within). The stanza [0882b01]:
「如來說亦無，說二是所執。」
「何意重言『說法說法』者？頌云『說二是所執』。云何為二？一乃是文，二便是義」[0882b02–03]; 「文云『無法可說』。是名說法耶？」 the stanza [0882b05]:
「由不離法界，說亦無自性。」
「由不離法界外有說法自性可得。若言無有世尊是能說者，所說之法亦復不離法身，故成非有」[0882b06–08]. Glossing the beings able to have faith, the stanza [0882b10]:
「能說所說雖甚深，然亦非無敬信者。」
The stanza [0882b13]:
「由非眾生非非生，非聖聖性相應故。」
「彼非眾生。由餘眾生不與聖性相應，即與凡夫性相應故。『非非眾生』者，由與聖性相應故……由彼望其凡夫性故不是眾生，由望聖人性故非非眾生」[0882b14–17]; 「『眾生眾生者，如來說彼為非眾生』。此據愚小異生性；『由此說為眾生』者，此據聖人性」[0882b18–20].
〔Correspondence of the two versions: 說法二差別／說二是所執 (the two of words · sense) · 不離法界說法無自相／由不離法界說亦無自性 · 非眾生眾生非聖非不聖／由非眾生非非生非聖聖性相應 — two Chinese renderings of the one Vasubandhu treatise, differing in name, one in sense.〕
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta's rendering): these two clauses of this division belong to the seventeenth abode, the Path-of-vision (the abode of the purified mind [0758c03–04]), among the six buddha-ground perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis after the Path-of-vision (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 speech perfection (the speaking-the-dharma clause) and the mindfulness-foundation of the mind perfection (the beings clause): 「為語具足故，經言『須菩提！於意云何？如來作是念「我說法」耶』如是等。於心具足中為念處故，經言『須菩提！非眾生，非不眾生』如是等」[0758a13–15]. 〔Asaṅga's gloss here is extremely terse, doing no more than establishing the abode-correspondence of the sūtra-text; the unfolding of the speech perfection · the mind-perfection mindfulness-foundation is supplied by Kuiji's citation of Asaṅga, see the Kuiji entry below [0149c01·0150a03–17].〕
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: sectioned as 「第七章」[0121a03], breaking the “doubt that the dharma-body has dharma-speaking.” On the speaking-the-dharma is-not: 「此破法身有說法疑。疑云：若具足色身非法身者，云何言如來有所說法耶？故佛破云：『須菩提！汝勿言如來法身有所說。若言如來法身有所說，則謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說也。』」[0121a03–08]; citing the treatise's proof 「論偈云『如佛法亦然』，故舉佛例法也」[0121a12]; 「『無法可說是名說法』者，此更破疑人聞法身有說，便言有法可說。故今釋云：雖復說法，無法可說，假名說法耳」[0121a13–15]. On the beings able to have faith: 「論偈云『非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖。』此人非凡夫眾生，故言非眾生；而是聖體眾生，故言眾生也。非眾生故非聖，是聖體眾生故非不聖也」[0121a18–21]; 「習無所得觀眾生則能信。此眾生望有所得人，故非眾生；未具足了悟，故非不眾生也」[0121a24–26].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: sectioned as 「『我當有所說法』下，第二明說法」[0082b25–26] (clarifying the speaking-the-dharma section among the three sections of bodily-marks · speaking · merit of the sūtra's name). 「初、正對上名，道成應出說法化人，謬傳毀聖名為謗佛，無法可說是名說法，故傳說法之意。向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」[0082b26–29]. 〔Zhiyi follows the Kumārajīva text (anciently lacking the 「慧命須菩提」 passage), hence glosses only “speaking the dharma” without a separate gloss of “no-beings,” turning straight to 「『佛得菩提』下，第二明習應」[0082c01] (division 22, no dharma can be attained). In his whole-sūtra sectioning he also marks 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」[0078b09], the same as the transformation-body verse of Vasubandhu's two recensions (see register 7's linkage).〕
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu's “the second text of the third-section doubt” [0149b24] — 「謂有疑曰：『若如來具足色身成就不可得見，若相成就不可得見，云何如來說法耶？』為破此疑故也」[0149b24–27]. On speaking the dharma: 「佛告善現云：『汝勿謂法身如來作是念言，我當有所說，法身佛本無有念，亦無有所說故。』無著云，此第五為語具足故，謂化、報隨機而有言說，法身幽寂無說、無形」[0149b28–c02]; 「謂若有法身有所說法者，即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」[0149c06–08]. On “no dharma to speak”: 「『無法可說』者，謂真理中無有少法可說也。謂要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也；若執真如為實無說，即非說法也。無著云，報、化有說，法身無說；若言法身有說如報、化者，即為謗法佛也」[0149c21–26]. On the beings able to have faith (Asaṅga's mind-perfection mindfulness-foundation): 「無著云，第六心具足中復有六種，一者、念處……此為初也」[0150a03–06]; 「『彼非眾生』者，謂非是闡提無佛性等眾生；『非不眾生』者，是聽聞般若，發心成佛眾生也。無著云，彼非眾生者，第一義故；非不眾生者，世諦故」[0150a13–17]; 「初言『眾生』，謂凡夫眾生；又『眾生者』者，謂發菩提心修行眾生也」[0150a19–20].
The three schools of the ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all converge on Vasubandhu's two verses at this division: speaking-the-dharma is-not = not apart from the dharma-realm · speaking the dharma without self-mark (the doubled term of the two distinctions of words · sense; removing the sayable real dharma, speaking by penetrating the wholly-imagined as empty, the transformation-and-reward having speaking · the dharma-body without speaking); beings is-not = neither beings nor beings · neither noble nor not-noble (not ordinary-being 〔the first meaning〕· not without noble substance 〔the conventional truth〕, the provisionally-named beings who arouse the mind and become Buddha). Jizang's 「破法身有說法疑·假名說法·非凡夫故非眾生而聖體故非不聖」, Zhiyi's 「無存而說即說滿天下無乖法理」, and Kuiji's (following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) 「語具足·達遍計空而說·心具足念處·非闡提無性眾生」 — each pegs item by item to 「無法可說·非眾生非不眾生·眾生即非」. This is the ancient masters' settled reading of this division's “no-speaking · beings is-not,” wholly belonging to the breaking-away of dharma-clinging in the dharma-emptiness · cognitive-hindrance position.
5 · Terminology
說法（無法可說·是名說法）dharma-deśanā (Kuiji 「達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法」[0149c22–23]; Vasubandhu 「不離於法界，說法無自相」T1511 [0793b02]) ·
所說二差別（文·義）(Vasubandhu 「一者所說法；二者所有義」T1511 [0793b04]; Yijing 「一乃是文，二便是義」T1513 [0882b03], glossing the source of the doubled term 「說法說法者」) ·
法界 dharma-dhātu (Vasubandhu 「所說法離於真法界不可得自相見故」T1511 [0793b06–07]; Yijing 「由不離法界外有說法自性可得」T1513 [0882b06]) ·
遍計所執 parikalpita-svabhāva (Kuiji 「真理中無有少法可說……達遍計所執空無而說」[0149c21–23]; the dharma-clinging of the second-half dharma-emptiness · cognitive-hindrance position) ·
謗佛／謗法 (Jizang 「則謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說」[0121a07–08]; Kuiji 「即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」[0149c07–08]) ·
非眾生非不眾生（非聖非不聖）(Vasubandhu 「非凡夫眾生〔第一義·非聖〕·非無聖體〔世諦·非不聖〕」T1511 [0793b18–21]; Kuiji 「非闡提無佛性眾生·發心成佛眾生」[0150a13–15]) ·
語具足／心具足念處 (two of the six buddha-ground perfections, Asaṅga T1510 [0758a13–15]; the perfections subsuming the transformation of the basis after the Path-of-vision). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; the rendering-variants of the doubled term and the single raising of 「說法說法者／眾生眾生者」 see register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the speaking of no-speaking · the double-negation syntax)
This division has no concrete simile (the empty-space simile is at division 4 · the Sumeru simile at divisions 10 and 17 · the patience-ascetic simile at division 14 · the Ganges-sand simile at divisions 11 and 18). The point of the rhetoric lies in the reversal of “the speaking of no-speaking” and the double-negation syntax:
- The reversal of “the speaking of no-speaking”: it sets up plainly 「說法者」 (the Tathāgata plainly speaking the dharma), then turns abruptly to 「無法可說」 (no real dharma to speak), and gathers it back into provisional naming with 「是名說法」 (the conditionally-sayable speaking). Speaking-yet-is-not-speaking, non-speaking-yet-not-silence — Zhiyi names the point of its rhetoric in a single phrase: 「向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」
[0082b28–29](no-speaking is not silence but speaking without a real dharma stored up, hence speaking fills the world without fault). Jizang too says 「雖復說法，無法可說，假名說法耳」[0121a14–15]. Plainly stating “speaking the dharma” set against the “no dharma to speak” of its substance, “is-called speaking the dharma” is precisely the provisional speaking with no real dharma — this is the is-not form's “remove the self-nature yet keep the sayable” applied to verbal expression. - The double-negation syntax (not beings · not non-beings): the single clause 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」 doubly negates both extremes (not ordinary-being · not without noble substance), falling into neither existence nor non-existence — Vasubandhu 「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」
T1511 [0793b16], Jizang 「非眾生故非聖，是聖體眾生故非不聖也」[0121a20–21]. This stroke of double-negation, at the position of “the beings able to have faith,” displays their middle-way standing of neither-ordinary-nor-wholly-noble, sharing one syntax of falling into neither extreme with division 17's 「無實無虛」[0751b01]. - The rhetoric of the doubled term (speaking-the-dharma speaking-the-dharma · beings beings-as-such): the five Able-to-Cut lineages cast the is-not clause as a same-name double raising (「說法、說法者」「眾生、眾生者」), and Vasubandhu judges it as the two distinctions of “words · sense”
T1511 [0793b04]— the double raising is not redundancy but displays the two of “the dharma spoken (words) / the meaning held (sense)” (see registers 2, 4).
This stroke of “no-speaking yet speaking fills the world · double-negation yet falling into neither extreme” shares one is-not reversal with division 7's 「無有定法·不可取不可說」 and division 18's 「諸心皆為非心」. This register shows its rhetoric in this division through the speaking of no-speaking and the double-negation syntax; the concrete simile is weighted in divisions 4, 14, 26, 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the three non-self-natures · the perfectly-accomplished (vv.23–25 the three natures and three non-natures) · the wholly-imagined nature (v.20 「由彼彼遍計，遍計種種物」) — the treatise-correspondence of this division's “no dharma to speak = speaking by penetrating the wholly-imagined as empty” and “beings is-not beings = not the icchantika without [buddha-]nature” (the dharma-clinging of speaking the dharma · beings is just the removal of the wholly-imagined, the display of the perfectly-accomplished).
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on suchness · the two truths · the expresser and the expressed — “the two distinctions of speaking the dharma (words · sense)” and “not apart from the dharma-realm · speaking without self-mark” are just the distinguishing of the expresser (speech) and the expressed (sense), and the accordance of conventional-truth speaking with the first-meaning no-speaking.
- Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · what verbal expression removes — “no dharma to speak · speaking without self-nature” is just the treatise-correspondence of verbal expression having no real referent (speaking the dharma not apart from the dharma-realm · without self-mark to be attained).
- Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (T1594): the chapter on the marks of the knowable · the three natures · the cognitive hindrance — this division's “speaking by penetrating the wholly-imagined as empty” and “beings is-not (the first meaning / the conventional truth)” are just the sūtra-language correspondence of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha's three natures · the dharma-clinging removed by the cognitive hindrance; the second-half dharma-emptiness · breaking the four views answers precisely to the cutting of the “cognitive hindrance.”
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the cognitive hindrance · the wholly-imagined nature · the two truths (conventional · ultimate) · the three bodies (the dharma-body without speaking) — this division's “no dharma to speak (the wholly-imagined empty) · the dharma-body without speaking, the reward-and-transformation having speaking” is just the sūtra-language correspondence of Cheng weishi lun's “the cognitive hindrance · the wholly-imagined self-nature · the three bodies.”
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無智亦無得」「諸法空相·不生不滅」 — “no dharma to speak · beings is-not” is the same gate of dharma-emptiness no-self-nature as the Heart Sūtra's 「諸法空相·無得」.
This division's 「說法即非·眾生即非」 is just the sūtra-language correspondence of the Thirty Verses' · Cheng weishi lun's “the wholly-imagined nature · the cognitive hindrance · the three bodies (the dharma-body without speaking)”; 「無法可說·說亦無自性」 is just the Twenty Verses' · Madhyānta-vibhāga's sūtra-language correspondence of “verbal expression has no real referent · the expresser and the expressed, the two truths.” 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 phrases 「說法者無法可說」「眾生即非眾生」 say the same thing that Cheng weishi lun says in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined nature · the cognitive hindrance · the three bodies”; this division's is-not of “the speaking of no-speaking” is also one face of verbal expression in the non-abiding discussed in Shi Huijing's Abide Nowhere and Give Rise to the Mind 〔摘自 S5-P06〕 and one link of the structure of the two cycles · the second-half dharma-emptiness discussed in The Diamond Sūtra's Self-Repetition 〔摘自 S5-P07〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The ancient-master citations are at register 4, the [loc] not repeated in this register; the detailed ancient-master citations to be linked additively when complete. 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 speaking-of-no-speaking of 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」 ↔ Western philosophy of language's “the distinction of the un-sayable / showing” (Wittgenstein's Tractatus “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” and the distinction of “showing versus saying”; negative theology's via negativa of “God is beyond verbal expression”): the West largely argues from the limit of language (the demarcation of the sayable and the unsayable, or the pure negation of the holy as beyond words); the ancient-master / Yogācāra reading of “no dharma to speak” is not merely a limit of language or silence — it is “speaking by penetrating the wholly-imagined as empty and non-existent” (Kuiji
[0149c22–23]), “not apart from the dharma-realm · speaking without self-mark” (VasubandhuT1511 [0793b06–07]), removing the clinging at a real dharma and speaking conditionally and provisionally (the transformation-and-reward having speaking · the dharma-body without speaking), speaking filling the world without fault (Zhiyi[0082b28–29]), neither silence nor real speaking, a provisional speaking displayed by the transformation of the basis. - The speaking-the-dharma paradox of “is-not” ↔ Western dialetheism (Priest, Garfield arguing the Buddhist “is-not” and “speaking the dharma is no speaking the dharma” are true contradictions) and deconstruction's “textuality / the self-dissolution of speech”: the West largely reads “the one who speaks the dharma has no dharma to speak” as a static logical paradox or the self-referential dissolution of language; the Yogācāra reading takes it as the dynamic of the three natures (removing the wholly-imagined real dharma · displaying the perfectly-accomplished conditional speaking) together with the cultivation-and-realization of cutting the cognitive hindrance in the second half — a transformation-of-the-basis of dharma-clinging, not a logical riddle. This difference between East and West is itself one note worth marking.
- The double-negation of 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」 ↔ the Western “neither A nor not-A” (the sublation of Hegelian dialectic; the Western interpretation of the tetralemma's negation): the West might read the double-negation as a dialectical middle term or a third logical value; the ancient masters read it as “not ordinary-being (the first meaning) · not without noble substance (the conventional truth)” (Vasubandhu
T1511 [0793b18–21]) — the cultivation-and-realization standing of those able to have faith in this sūtra, between ordinary and noble (cultivating no-attaining yet not fully awakened, Jizang[0121a24–26]), not a logical middle term but a stage of practice displayed by the two truths. - The point of the observation: the West tends to take “no-speaking · is-not · double-negation” as theses of the philosophy of language · logical paradox · dialectic (how speech is possible · how contradiction is true · how the middle term stands); the ancient masters take “no dharma to speak · speaking the dharma is-not · neither beings nor non-beings” as the cultivation-and-realization of the transformation of the basis · cutting the cognitive hindrance — that there is no-speaking yet speaking displays the wholly-imagined dharma-clinging to be removed (speaking by penetrating emptiness), that beings are is-not displays the stage of practice of those able to have faith as neither ordinary nor wholly noble, both cultivable and realizable dharma-emptiness fruits of practice, not static linguistic or logical 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 [0751c11–c19] (root · The Speaking That Is No Speaking). For the [loc] of the speaking-the-dharma · beings two clauses in the six versions see register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0756a11–a19] · Paramārtha T0237 [0765b22–c01] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0770c10–c20] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0984c06–c15] · Yijing T0239 [0774c11–c17]. Sectioning / treatise sources: Asaṅga T1510a [0757c28–0758a01·0758a13–15·0758c03–04] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0793a20–0793b25] · Vasubandhu T1513 [0882a26–0882b20]. Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0121a03–0121a26] · Zhiyi T1698 [0082b25–0082b29] · Kuiji T1700 [0149b23–0150a24].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 21 · The Speaking That Is No Speaking · apparatus · Spring 2026