金剛般若波羅蜜經 分二十五 化無所化分
佛在這一分說了一句叫人吃驚的話：你們別以為如來心裡起過「我要度眾生」的念頭——實際上，沒有哪一個眾生是被如來度脫的。可如來分明度了無量眾生，怎麼說「無一眾生可度」？要緊的是這個轉折：倘若如來真存著「有實眾生被我度」的見，便落回「我、人、眾生、壽者」裡去了，與凡夫執實有我同一個過。度，是隨俗假名的度；無度，是法界平等、本無一個高下對立的「能度之佛、所度之生」。所以如來說「有我」也只是隨俗假說，並非真有一個我；說「凡夫」也只是假名，並非真有一個固定的凡夫——正因凡夫不是實體，才轉得過來、化得成佛。化無所化，化導宛然而能所雙寂；度盡眾生而無一眾生實滅度——這無度之度，正是把那層執我、執實眾生的習氣轉捨乾淨之後，所顯的平等真法界。
In this division the Buddha says something startling: do not suppose that within the Tathāgata's mind there has ever arisen the thought "I will liberate beings" — in truth, there is not one being who is liberated by the Tathāgata. Yet the Tathāgata has plainly liberated beings beyond measure; how can it be said that "not one being can be liberated"? What matters is this turn: were the Tathāgata truly to hold the view that "there are real beings liberated by Me," He would fall right back into "self, person, being, life-span" (我、人、眾生、壽者), the very same fault as the ordinary person's grasping at a real self. Liberating is a liberating that follows convention, a borrowed name; no-liberating is the level equality of the Dharma-realm, in which there was never a "Buddha who liberates and beings who are liberated" set against each other as high and low. And so the Tathāgata's saying that "there is a self" is likewise only a conventional, provisional saying, not that there truly is a self; saying "ordinary person" is likewise only a borrowed name, not that there truly is a fixed ordinary person — and it is precisely because the ordinary person is not a real entity that he can be turned about and transformed into a Buddha. Transforming with nothing transformed: the guiding and transforming is vivid, yet grasper and grasped are both at rest; beings are liberated to the very last, yet not one being is really liberated into cessation — and this liberating that is no liberating is the level, true Dharma-realm laid bare once the latent habit of grasping a self and grasping real beings has been turned away and cast off clean.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 25 · Transforming with Nothing Transformed · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕誡勿謂如來作度生之念，實無眾生如來度者
經曰：
「須菩提！於意云何？汝等勿謂如來作是念：『我當度眾生。』須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？實無有眾生如來度者，
「須菩提！你怎麼想？你們可別以為如來心裡會起這樣一個念頭：『我要去度脫眾生。』須菩提，千萬別起這樣的念頭。為什麼呢？因為實際上並沒有哪一個眾生是被如來度脫的。
〔二〕若有眾生如來度，則墮我人眾生壽者
經曰：
若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者。
假如真有一個眾生是如來度脫的，那如來心裡就還存著『我』、『人』、『眾生』、『壽者』這四種相了。
〔三〕有我即非有我，凡夫即非凡夫
經曰：
須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我。須菩提！凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫。
須菩提！如來說到的『有我』，其實並不是真有一個實在的我，只是凡夫之人把它當成真有一個我。須菩提！所謂的『凡夫』，如來說它也不是真有一個實在的凡夫。
[1] Do Not Suppose the Tathāgata Thinks He Liberates Beings; in Truth There Is No Being the Tathāgata Liberates
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！於意云何？汝等勿謂如來作是念：『我當度眾生。』須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？實無有眾生如來度者，
"Subhūti, what do you think? You must not suppose that the Tathāgata thinks to himself, 'I shall liberate beings.' Subhūti, never entertain such a thought. Why? Because in truth there is not a single being that the Tathāgata liberates.
[2] If There Were a Being the Tathāgata Liberated, He Would Fall into Self, Person, Being, and Life-Span
The sūtra says:
若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者。
If there really were a being the Tathāgata liberated, then the Tathāgata would still be holding to the four notions of 'self,' 'person,' 'being,' and 'life-span.'
[3] A 'Self' Is Not a Real Self; an Ordinary Person Is Not an Ordinary Person
The sūtra says:
須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我。須菩提！凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫。
Subhūti, when the Tathāgata speaks of 'having a self,' it is not a real, substantial self — it is only the ordinary person who takes it to be a real self. Subhūti, as for what is called an 'ordinary person' — the Tathāgata says this too is not a real, substantial ordinary person.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 25 · Transforming with Nothing Transformed · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、二取二障、法執我見、轉依，來照金剛經的「實無眾生可度·有我即非有我」。
本分的眼：度生而無能度所度
這一分緊接著前面「是法平等，無有高下」（分二十三）而來。既然菩提平等、無高無下，那就有人要疑：若一切平等、無有高下，如來又怎麼說自己在度眾生呢？古德正是就著這個疑來讀本分——世親先設此疑：「若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？」窺基依世親，也判這是全經「展轉中第三段疑」。佛的答覆斬截：「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」「莫作是念」——別以為如來心裡真起過一個「我要度眾生」的念頭。為什麼？「實無有眾生如來度者。」
用唯識的眼看，這一句話分量很重。前半部經（分一至十六）破的多是「我相」，遣的是把五蘊身心執為實我的那層人我執——這是障礙解脫的煩惱障。到了這後半（法空一路），破的就更深一層：所破的是「如來能度、實有眾生可度」這層執——把眾生當成心外實有、可被度脫的一個對象，這是法我執，障礙遍知的所知障。所以本分不是叫如來別去度生，是遣掉那層「實有眾生可度、實有能度之我」的執。窺基讀得很直接：「真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」；又說，如來若真以為有實眾生可度，那便是「我執未亡，不名為佛」。
「我當度眾生」之念：報化有思，法身無念
佛何以連一個「我當度眾生」的念頭都要遮掉？窺基分得很細：如來的報身、化身隨機度眾，有高有下，可以說有「當度眾生」的念，那是慈悲本願的緣起所現；可是如來的法身真理，湛然寂靜、本來無念，哪裡有一個「我要度生」的念頭安放在那裡？所以說「莫作是念」——不是法身起了念又收回，是法身本就無念，只是隨所化的眾生、應機示現有度生之事罷了。窺基一句「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念」，正點出這層：度生宛然（依他·隨俗可說），而能度之念當體不可得（遣遍計之實執）。智顗也說這是「以忘言而說」——忘掉那能說能度的我，才說得上度生。
「若有眾生如來度」則墮我人眾生壽者：取相即取我之過
佛接著反顯：「若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者。」——倘若如來真存著「有實眾生被我度」的見，那就落回四相、四見裡去了。世親的論偈把這一層點得最透：「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知。」意思是：若如來心裡存「五陰之中有個實眾生可度」，這就是取相之過、是執著了「彼法（五陰中的眾生）」——而執實有眾生可度，正與執實有我同一個過。義淨譯這句更直截：「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執。」「定執脫有情」（咬定真有眾生被度脫）就是法執，它和我執犯的是同一個過。
這正是唯識所說二取的道理：眾生迷時，總把一個本無能所的識，妄分成「能取的我」和「所取的境」。執「我在度」是能取，執「有眾生被度」是所取——二取一起，便是遍計所執的根。吉藏用一個互度的反詰把這層翻出來：你我都是眾生、都名眾生、都不能自度，憑什麼說佛能度眾生？如來若真見有實眾生可度，那眾生也該見得佛、反過來度佛了——這顯然是大過。所以如來不應見有實眾生可度。能度、所度、度這件事，三者俱不可執為實，這正是破法執的利刃。
「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」：法界平等，假名共陰
那麼，「實無眾生可度」是不是把眾生一筆勾銷、墮入斷滅？不是。世親的論偈給了完整的答覆：「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界。」（義淨譯：「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外。」）這兩句要合看：一面說「佛不度眾生」——因為法界平等、無差別，沒有一個高下對立的「能度之佛、所度之生」可立；一面說「以名共彼陰」——眾生只是一個假名，這假名和五蘊和合在一起，並不在法界之外。
用三性讀就清楚了：眾生的「假名」（與五陰共、依緣而立）是依他起，所以隨俗仍可說「度眾生」、仍有假名之度；而執這假名之下「實有一個眾生」可度，那層是遍計所執，根本無體，所以「佛不度眾生」（無實眾生可度）；法界平等、無差別之性，就是圓成實，眾生假名不離於它。度而無度——度的是依他假名之生，無的是遍計實執之眾生——這就是「化無所化」：化導宛然，而能度所度當體不可得。
「有我即非有我」：三性讀「我」——假說、非實執、遍計妄計
於是本分的第一個即非出來了：「如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我。」順三性看：
- 「如來說有我」＝依他起：如來也說「我」，這「我」是因緣和合而假說的（窺基「因緣和合而假說之」、吉藏「如來隨俗說有我耳」）。隨俗可說，所以說「有我」。窺基還補一層用意：如來說「我」，是為了除眾生對「無我」的怖畏——初學者先依著「我」修，修到後來契入真理，我相自然脫落；若一上來就只說「無我」，反倒無人肯修了。
- 「則非有我」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是那層「實執之我」（窺基「非實執之我也」）。「即非」一刀，遣的正是本分所要破的我見——把假說之我執成心外實有之我。
- 「而凡夫以為有我」＝遍計之妄計：凡夫在本無實我之處，硬生生計出一個實我來（吉藏「凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」、窺基「所執取故」）。這「橫計」，正是遍計所執之相。
羅什這一句止於「凡夫以為有我」，沒有再收一個「是名」；能斷系的異譯（真諦、玄奘、義淨）在「我執」處作完整的三段「我執→非執→故名我執」，把即非式補足。所遣同是一層：執實有我之執。
「凡夫即非凡夫」：假名之凡夫，非實凡夫
本分的第二個即非：「凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫。」也是三性式：
- 「凡夫」＝依他起：貪、嗔未除之類，假名叫作凡夫（窺基「於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」）。
- 「則非凡夫」＝遣遍計所執：並不是真有一個固定不變的實在凡夫（窺基「非如其言即實凡夫也」）。異譯多作「非生」——不生聖法故說非生（吉藏「以不生聖觀故名非生」）；正因凡夫不是一個實定的東西，所以智顗說「凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」——若凡夫是個實體，就永遠是凡夫、不能成佛了；正因它是假名無實，才轉得過來。
- 〔是名凡夫〕＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡實執之處，假名的凡夫照樣可說（異譯「是名凡夫」）。羅什此處省了「是名」一收。
唯識為鏡：化無所化即轉依——度生而無度想
把本分兩個即非並看，它們共用同一把鑰匙：遣掉那層「實有眾生可度、實有我」的執（即非），而不墮入「無眾生可度、斷滅無度」的損減（隨俗仍有假名之度、假名之我）。度盡眾生而無一眾生實被度——這「化無所化」，正是唯識所說的轉依：把賴耶識裡那層執我、執實眾生的遍計染污習氣轉捨乾淨，所顯的就是「平等真法界」——度生而無度想、行願宛然而能所雙寂。本分所破的「實有眾生可度」之法執、「實有我」之我見，正是煩惱、所知二障所攝；遣此二障，即是後半法空、斷所知障的落實，與樞紐分十七「實無有法名為菩薩、通達二無我乃真菩薩」同一條路——那裡破的是「實有菩薩」之執，這裡破的是「實有眾生可度」之執，遣的同是二取、證的同是二無我。
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識從金剛經流出——二空、轉依、二障之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本，般若另是一系；而是同一「度而無度」的實相，金剛經以經語（實無眾生可度·有我即非有我）說，唯識以論語（法執我見·二取·二障·轉依）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌以二無我遣二執而歸於轉依，與本分「度無所度·有我即非有我」相印；成唯識論說法執、我執、所知障，正是本分「定執脫有情與我執過同」的論語；二十論明唯識無境、遣心外實有，與「實無眾生可度」遣眾生為心外實法同一所破；辯中邊論辨人法二無我，亦與本分相通；般若一系的心經「以無所得故」，與「化無所化、無實眾生可度」同一無得法位。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「實無有眾生如來度者」，成唯識論以「遣法執·斷所知障·平等法界·假施設眾生」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 two graspings and two hindrances, dharma-clinging and the self-view, and the transformation of the basis (轉依), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “there is in truth no being to be saved · a self is-not really a self.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.
The Eye of This Division: Saving Beings, with No Saver and No Saved
This division follows directly upon the earlier “this Dharma is equal, with no high and low” (Division 23). Since bodhi is equal, with no high and low, someone will doubt: if all is equal and there is no high and low, how then does the Tathāgata say he himself saves beings? The ancient masters read this division precisely as answering this doubt — Vasubandhu first poses it: 「若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？」, “if this Dharma’s mark is equal, with no high and low, how is the Tathāgata named as saving beings?” Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, also judges this to be 「展轉中第三段疑」, “the third segment of doubt in the sequence.” The Buddha’s answer is decisive: 「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」「莫作是念」, “do not, you all, suppose the Tathāgata thinks ‘I shall save beings’ — do not so think.” Do not suppose that the Tathāgata’s mind ever truly raised a thought, “I shall save beings.” Why? 「實無有眾生如來度者」, “there is in truth no being whom the Tathāgata saves.”
Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this line carries great weight. The first half of the sūtra (Divisions 1–16) breaks mostly the “mark of self,” removing the person-self-clinging (人我執) that grasps the five-aggregate body-mind as a real self — this being the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障) that obstructs liberation. By this second half (the path of dharma-emptiness), what is broken goes one layer deeper: what is removed is the clinging of “the Tathāgata can save, and there are really existent beings to be saved” — taking beings to be really existent outside the mind, an object that can be delivered, which is the dharma-self-clinging (法我執), the cognitive hindrance (所知障) that obstructs omniscience. So this division does not tell the Tathāgata to stop saving beings; it removes the clinging of “there being really existent beings to save and a really existent saver-self.” Kuiji reads it directly: 「真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」, “within the true principle there is nothing attained, and no being to be saved either”; and again, if the Tathāgata truly supposed there were real beings to save, that would be 「我執未亡，不名為佛」, “the self-clinging not yet gone — and one is not named Buddha.”
The Thought “I Shall Save Beings”: the Reward-and-Transformation Bodies Have Thought, the Dharma-Body Has None
Why must the Buddha block even a single thought of “I shall save beings”? Kuiji distinguishes it finely: the Tathāgata’s reward-body and transformation-body save beings as the occasion allows, with high and low, and may be said to have the thought “I shall save beings” — that is the conditioned manifestation of the compassionate original vow; but the Tathāgata’s Dharma-body (法身), the true principle, is profoundly still and originally without thought — where could a thought of “I shall save beings” be lodged in it? So he says “do not so think” — not that the Dharma-body raises a thought and withdraws it, but that the Dharma-body is from the first without thought, and only, in accord with the beings to be transformed, manifests in response the matter of saving. Kuiji’s line 「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念」, “the Buddhas’ discrimination is forever gone, the thought ‘I shall save’ is not there; only, in accord with what is to be transformed, they manifest in response the appearance of thought,” points out just this layer: the saving of beings is vivid (the other-dependent · speakable conventionally), while the thought of one able to save is in its very substance unattainable (removing the wholly-imagined real clinging). Zhiyi too says this is 「以忘言而說」, “speaking by forgetting words” — forgetting the self that can speak and can save, only then can one speak of saving beings.
“If There Were a Being the Tathāgata Saves,” He Would Fall into Self, Person, Being, Life-Span: the Fault of Grasping a Mark Is Grasping a Self
The Buddha then sets off the point by contrast: 「若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者」, “if there were a being the Tathāgata saves, then the Tathāgata would have self, person, being, and life-span.” Were the Tathāgata to harbor the view that “there is a real being saved by me,” he would fall back into the four marks and four views. Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse points out this layer most penetratingly: 「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知」— “to grasp ‘I save’ is the fault, for it grasps that dharma; because of grasping the saving of beings, know that one should not grasp the grasping.” The meaning: if the Tathāgata harbored “within the five aggregates there is a real being to save,” this is the fault of grasping a mark, the clinging to “that dharma (the being within the five aggregates)” — and to cling to really existent beings to save is the very same fault as to cling to a really existent self. Yijing’s translation of this line is more direct still: 「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執」— “if one gives rise to dharma-clinging, the fault is the same as self-clinging; to fix on grasping ‘sentient beings to be delivered’ is, where there should be no grasping, a false grasping.” “To fix on grasping sentient beings to be delivered” (定執脫有情, insisting there really are beings delivered) is just dharma-clinging, and it commits the same fault as self-clinging.
This is just the principle Yogācāra calls the two graspings (二取): when beings are deluded, they always wrongly divide a consciousness which has neither grasper nor grasped into “a grasping self” and “a grasped object.” To grasp “I am saving” is the grasper; to grasp “there are beings being saved” is the grasped — and the two graspings together are the root of the wholly-imagined. Jizang turns this layer out with a mutual-saving rejoinder: you and I are both beings, both named beings, and neither can save himself — by what right is it said the Buddha can save beings? If the Tathāgata truly saw real beings to save, then those beings ought to see the Buddha and, conversely, save the Buddha — which is plainly a great absurdity. So the Tathāgata should not see real beings to save. The saver, the saved, and the very matter of saving — all three are not to be grasped as real, and this is precisely the keen blade that breaks dharma-clinging.
“The Equal True Dharma-Realm; the Buddha Saves No Beings”: the Dharma-Realm Equal, the Provisional Name Joined to the Aggregates
Then, is “there is in truth no being to save” a wholesale crossing-out of beings, a fall into annihilation? It is not. Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse gives the complete answer: 「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界」(Yijing’s translation: 「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外」) — “the equal true Dharma-realm; the Buddha saves no beings; for the name is joined to those aggregates, not apart from the Dharma-realm.” These two lines must be read together: on one side, “the Buddha saves no beings” — because the Dharma-realm is equal and without distinction, no opposed, high-and-low pair of “a saving Buddha and saved beings” can be set up; on the other, “the name is joined to those aggregates” — beings are only a provisional name, and this provisional name is conjoined with the five aggregates, and is not outside the Dharma-realm.
Read through the three natures it is clear: the “provisional name” of beings (conjoined with the five aggregates, established in reliance on conditions) is dependent-arising (依他起), so conventionally one may still say “save beings,” and there is still the provisional name’s saving; while to grasp that beneath this provisional name “there is a really existent being” to save — that layer is the wholly-imagined (遍計所執), wholly without substance, hence “the Buddha saves no beings” (no real being to save); and the equal, undifferentiated nature of the Dharma-realm is just the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實), from which the provisional name of beings is not apart. Saving and yet no saving — what is saved is the dependently-arisen provisional being, what is absent is the wholly-imagined real-clung being — this is “transforming with nothing transformed” (化無所化): the transforming-and-guiding is vivid, while the saver and the saved are in their very substance unattainable.
“A Self Is-Not Really a Self”: Reading “Self” Through the Three Natures — Provisionally Spoken, Not Really Grasped, the Wholly-Imagined False Reckoning
So the first “is-not” of this division emerges: 「如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我」, “the ‘self’ the Tathāgata speaks of is-not really a self, yet the ordinary person takes it for a self.” Read through the three natures:
- “The ‘self’ the Tathāgata speaks of” = dependent-arising (依他起): the Tathāgata too says “self,” and this “self” is provisionally spoken through the conjunction of causes and conditions (Kuiji: 「因緣和合而假說之」, “provisionally spoken through the conjunction of causes and conditions”; Jizang: 「如來隨俗說有我耳」, “the Tathāgata merely says ‘self’ in accord with convention”). Conventionally speakable, hence “a self.” Kuiji adds a further intent: the Tathāgata speaks of “self” to remove beings’ dread of “no-self” — the beginner first cultivates relying on a “self,” and as cultivation eventually merges with the true principle the mark of self naturally falls away; were “no-self” alone taught from the very start, none would be willing to cultivate.
- “Is-not really a self” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is that layer of “a really-grasped self” (Kuiji: 「非實執之我也」, “not a really-grasped self”). The one blade of “is-not” removes precisely the self-view (我見) that this division means to break — the grasping of a provisionally-spoken self as a self really existent outside the mind.
- “Yet the ordinary person takes it for a self” = the false reckoning of the wholly-imagined (遍計之妄計): the ordinary person, where there is fundamentally no real self, forcibly reckons out a real self (Jizang: 「凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」, “the ordinary person merely reckons crosswise a self within no-self”; Kuiji: 「所執取故」, “because it is grasped-and-clung-to”). This “reckoning crosswise” is precisely the mark of the wholly-imagined.
Kumārajīva’s line stops at “the ordinary person takes it for a self,” without gathering a further “it is named”; the Neng-duan-lineage translations (Paramārtha, Xuanzang, Yijing) make, at the “self-clinging,” a complete three-member “self-clinging → not clinging → therefore named self-clinging,” filling out the “is-not” pattern. What is removed is the same one layer: the clinging to a really existent self.
“Ordinary Persons Are-Not Ordinary Persons”: the Provisionally-Named Ordinary Person Is Not a Real Ordinary Person
The second “is-not” of this division: 「凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫」, “ordinary persons — the Tathāgata says they are-not ordinary persons.” Also the three-nature pattern:
- “Ordinary persons” = dependent-arising (依他起): the kind whose greed and hatred are not yet removed are provisionally named ordinary persons (Kuiji: 「於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」, “of the kind whose greed and hatred are not yet gone, provisionally named ordinary persons”).
- “Are-not ordinary persons” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): it is not that there really is a fixed, unchanging, substantial ordinary person (Kuiji: 「非如其言即實凡夫也」, “not, as the word would have it, a real ordinary person”). The other translations mostly read “non-arising” — because they do not give rise to noble dharmas, they are said to be “non-arising” (Jizang: 「以不生聖觀故名非生」, “because they do not give rise to noble contemplation, they are named non-arising”). Precisely because the ordinary person is not a real fixed thing, Zhiyi says 「凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」, “because the ordinary person is unreal, he can be transformed and become Buddha” — were the ordinary person a substance, he would forever be an ordinary person and could never become Buddha; just because he is a provisional name without reality can he be turned around.
- 〔They are named ordinary persons〕= establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the real clinging is removed, the provisionally-named ordinary person may still be spoken of (the other translations: 「是名凡夫」, “they are named ordinary persons”). Kumārajīva here omits the “it is named” gathering.
Yogācāra as Mirror: Transforming with Nothing Transformed Is the Transformation of the Basis — Saving Beings with No Thought of Saving
Taking the two “is-nots” of this division together, they share one key: removing that layer of clinging to “really existent beings to save, a really existent self” (the “is-not”), without falling into the diminishing denial of “no beings to save, annihilation with no saving” (conventionally there is still the provisional name’s saving, the provisional name’s self). To save all beings and yet not one being is really saved — this “transforming with nothing transformed” is precisely what Yogācāra calls the transformation of the basis (轉依): turning away cleanly the defiled habits of the wholly-imagined within the ālaya-vijñāna that grasp a self and grasp real beings, and what is disclosed is just “the equal true Dharma-realm” — saving beings with no thought of saving, the practice-and-vow vivid while saver and saved are both stilled. The dharma-clinging of “really existent beings to save” and the self-view of “a really existent self” that this division breaks belong just to the two hindrances, affliction and cognitive; removing these two hindrances is the grounding of the second-half dharma-emptiness, the cutting-off of the cognitive hindrance — one and the same road as the pivotal Division 17’s “there is in truth no dharma named bodhisattva; only one who penetrates the two selflessnesses is a true bodhisattva.” There, what is broken is the clinging to “a real bodhisattva”; here, what is broken is the clinging to “really existent beings to save”; what is removed is alike the two graspings, what is corroborated is alike the two selflessnesses.
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 two emptinesses, the transformation of the basis, and the two hindrances have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises, the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same reality — “saving, with no saving” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (there is in truth no being to save · a self is-not really a self) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (dharma-clinging and the self-view · the two graspings · the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses use the two selflessnesses to remove the two graspings and come home to the transformation of the basis, sealing with this division’s “saving with none saved · a self is-not really a self.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of dharma-clinging, self-clinging, and the cognitive hindrance — precisely the treatise-language of this division’s “to fix on grasping sentient beings to be delivered is the same fault as self-clinging.” The Twenty Verses clarify consciousness-only-with-no-object and the removal of really-existent-outside-the-mind, sharing the same thing-broken as “there is in truth no being to save” removing beings as a real dharma outside the mind. The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes the twofold selflessness of persons and dharmas, which also accords with this division. Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “because of non-attaining” shares the same position of non-attainment as “transforming with nothing transformed, no real being to save.” To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “there is in truth no being whom the Tathāgata saves,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “removing dharma-clinging · cutting off the cognitive hindrance · the equal Dharma-realm · the provisional setting-forth of beings,” 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 25 · Transforming with Nothing Transformed · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（度無所度·破我見 · §17 後半 · 二障所本）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分二十五 化無所化分 |
| 釋慧鏡 §17 二分 | 後半（法空·破四見·所知障；樞紐分十七後·法空位之「度無所度·破我見」，所破者乃「如來能度·實有眾生可度」之法執與「實有我」之我見） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 第二周 · 證道之佛地具足 |
| 無著十八住 T1510a | 第十七住 證道（淨心住處 [0758c03–04]）中，佛地六種具足攝轉依之心具足·第三「為施設大利法故」——「於彼心具足中，為施設大利法故，經言『三千大千世界中，所有須彌』如是等。於中，為安立第一義教授故，經言『如來頗作是念「我度眾生」耶』如是等」[0765a10–13]；心具足攝念處·正覺·施設大利法·攝法身·不住生死涅槃·行住淨 [0757c29–0758a02] |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「平等云何度生」之疑——「復有疑，若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？自下經文為斷此疑」（T1511 [0794b20–22]）；義淨譯「若言彼法性相平等故無不平者，即無能度所度，云何如來說脫有情耶？為除此難，故起後文」（T1513 [0883a04–06]）；窺基判為「曲文中第三段疑·展轉中第三段疑」T1700 [0151b07–08] |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「『須菩提！於意云何』下，第十章經」[0121c24–25]；承分二十三「菩提無高下生」——「無高則諸佛不高，佛非能度……不應無高下也」[0121c25–29]，破「有眾生可度」之念 |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 「『我當度眾生』下」[0082c12]——次分二十三「明福多」後，「菩提無得為果，故以忘言而說，勿謂如來見眾生可度」[0082c12–14] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依世親「曲文中第三段疑，即是展轉中第三段疑」[0151b07–08]；引無著「此為第二明所度眾生，科釋其文，大意無別」[0151b20–21] |
度無所度義：此分承前分（分二十三「是法平等，無有高下，是名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」[0751c24–25]）之後，世親二譯論逕設疑——「若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生」（T1511 [0794b20–22]；義淨「若言彼法性相平等故無不平者，即無能度所度，云何如來說脫有情耶」T1513 [0883a04–06]）。故說「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」以斷之。古德三家俱判此分破「有眾生可度」之念（吉藏「明實無眾生可度，汝不應念佛度眾生也」[0122a03]、智顗「勿謂如來見眾生可度，若見有眾生則為我見」[0082c13–14]、窺基「真理中無有眾生如來可度，隨於外化可度假生也」[0151b25–26]），且世親二譯論偈逕標「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」（T1511 [0794b23]／T1513 [0883a07]「法界平等故，佛不度眾生」）。本分所破者乃「如來能度·實有眾生可度」之法執（度者·所度·度事三輪之實有，屬所知障）與「實有我」之我見，非前半（分一至十六）之但破我相（人我·煩惱障）——窺基逕讀此「我當度」之念為「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有」[0151b17–18]、「真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」[0151b19–20]，即§17後半「破法見·斷所知障」之經文所本（與樞紐分十七窺基「第二周為斷障，障即所知也」一脈）。本分「即非」二施，於「有我」「凡夫」（見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 度無所度·即非我一段）
要句：勿謂如來作念「我當度眾生」（誡）/ 實無有眾生如來度者 / 有我者即非有我·凡夫以為有我 / 凡夫即非凡夫
| 版本 | 度無所度·即非我一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！於意云何？汝等勿謂如來作是念：『我當度眾生。』須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？實無有眾生如來度者，若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者。須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我。須菩提！凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫。」 | 0752a05–a10 |
| 菩提流支 T236a | 「須菩提！於意云何？汝謂如來作是念：『我度眾生。』耶？須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？實無有眾生如來度者。」佛言：「須菩提！若有實眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者相。須菩提！如來說：『有我者，則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者以為有我。』須菩提！毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生，是故言毛道凡夫生。」 | 0756b07–b13 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？如來作是念：『我度眾生。』耶？須菩提！汝今不應作如是念。何以故？實無眾生如來所度。須菩提！若有眾生如來所度，即是我執、眾生執、壽者執、受者執。須菩提！此我等執，如來說非執，嬰兒凡夫眾生之所執故。須菩提！嬰兒凡夫眾生者，如來說非眾生，故說嬰兒凡夫眾生。」 | 0765c21–c27 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！雖然，如來如是念：『我眾生度脫。』不？復彼，善實！如是見應。彼何所因？有無，善實！無有一眾生若如來度脫。若復，善實！有，如是眾生有，若彼如來度脫。彼如是，如來我取有，眾生取、壽取、人取有。我取、我取者，善實！非取，此，如來說；彼小兒凡夫生取。小兒凡夫生、小兒凡夫生者，善實！非生，彼，如來說；彼故，說名小兒凡夫生者。」 | 0771a07–a15 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？如來頗作是念：我當度脫諸有情耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故？善現！無少有情如來度者。善現！若有有情如來度者，如來即應有其我執、有有情執、有命者執、有士夫執、有補特伽羅等執。善現！我等執者，如來說為非執，故名我等執，而諸愚夫異生強有此執。善現！愚夫異生者，如來說為非生，故名愚夫異生。」 | 0985a07–a14 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？如來度眾生不？汝莫作是見：『如來度眾生。』何以故？曾無有一眾生是如來度者。若有眾生是如來度者，如來則有我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見。妙生！我等執者，如來說為非執，而諸愚夫妄為此執。妙生！愚夫眾生，如來說為非生，故名愚夫眾生。」 | 0775a03–a08 |
異文所繫：
- 誡語之問端：羅什作「汝等勿謂如來作是念」（誡語在前、莫作是念在後）；流支、真諦作「如來作是念『我度眾生』耶？……汝今不應作如是念」（反詰問）；笈多作「如來如是念……不？……如是見應」；玄奘作「如來頗作是念……汝今勿當作如是觀」；義淨作「如來度眾生不？汝莫作是見」。皆誡「如來實作度生之念」之執。
- 「即非」之施處（有我／我執／我等執）：羅什、流支於「有我」處作即非（「如來說有我者，則非有我」）——即非施於「我」；真諦作「此我等執，如來說非執」、玄奘「我等執者，如來說為非執」、義淨「我等執者，如來說為非執」——能斷三系（真諦·玄奘·義淨）即非施於「我執」（執而非我）；笈多作「我取、我取者……非取」（即非施於「我取」）。羅什·流支之「有我／非有我」與能斷系「我執／非執」，正繫於世親論「取我度為過」（流支
T1511 [0794c03]）·「若起於法執，與我執過同……是無執妄執」（義淨T1513 [0883a14–15]）——羅什顯「我」之假（非實我），能斷系顯「執」之妄（非實執），同詮「即非有我」（見目四）。 - 「凡夫」之異名：羅什作「凡夫」（凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫）；流支作「毛道凡夫生」（毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生）；真諦作「嬰兒凡夫眾生」（如來說非眾生）；笈多作「小兒凡夫生」（非生）；玄奘、義淨作「愚夫異生／愚夫眾生」（如來說為非生）。「毛道（bāla·愚）·嬰兒·小兒·愚夫」者，皆 bāla-pṛthagjana（愚異生）之異譯（吉藏「論經何故云毛道凡夫耶？答：愚癡不解一毛端聖法故也」
[0122a22–23]）。羅什獨作「即非凡夫」（凡夫→非凡夫→〔是名凡夫，省〕），餘本作「凡夫生→非生」（即非施於「生」，謂不生聖法故非生）——羅什止「凡夫」一名之即非，能斷諸系兼顯「非生（不生聖法）」之義（見目五）。 - 能斷系重詞：笈多「我取、我取者，善實！非取」
[0771a12–13]、「小兒凡夫生、小兒凡夫生者，善實！非生」[0771a13–14]、玄奘「我等執者，如來說為非執，故名我等執」[0985a12]——能斷系（笈多·玄奘）「我取／我等執」「凡夫生」俱具重詞（同名二舉），即非式作「X·X者，非X，是名 X」；羅什「有我／則非有我」、「凡夫者／則非凡夫」單舉不重詞。重詞乃法相系傳本之文相，逐字錄之，不縮。 - 真諦四執·玄奘五執：羅什、流支於「若有眾生如來度者」下作「如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者」（四相）；真諦作「我執、眾生執、壽者執、受者執」（四執，益「受者執」）；玄奘作「我執、有情執、命者執、士夫執、補特伽羅等執」（五執，益「士夫·補特伽羅」）；義淨於度生句作「我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見」（四見），而於即非句作「我等執」。四相／四執／五執／四見之異，繫於 ātma-grāha／-saṃjñā／-dṛṣṭi 一族之譯（羅什作「相」、能斷系作「執／見」），正顯本分「破我見·破我執」之 §17 後半法執義（見目三、目四）。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 本分二即非 · §17 後半 法空·破我見·破四見）
本分「即非」二現：「如來說有我者 — 則非有我 — 〔而凡夫之人以為有我〕」[0752a08–10] 與「凡夫者 — 如來說則非凡夫」[0752a10]——二即非並施於「我」與「凡夫」。
★ 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）之即非與「我相」，多就破「我相」（我相·人相·眾生相·壽者相）而說（我空·破四相·煩惱障）；至此分（後半·法空），即非施於「如來度生之念·有我·凡夫」——所破者乃「如來能度·實有眾生可度」之法執（度者·所度·度事三輪之實有，屬所知障，破四見）與「實有我」之我見。樞紐分十七「實無有法名為菩薩」[0751b07]、「若菩薩通達無我、法者」[0751b11–12]（人我·法我二空）已開法空之門；本分即其於「度生」一處之施——如來度生而無能度所度（法空），破「如來實作度想·實有我」之執。〔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]；繫於樞紐分十七，見分十七目三·目四。〕
其一「有我 — 即非有我 — 〔凡夫以為有我〕」映三性：
- 如來說有我（X）即依他起——因緣和合而假說之我（窺基「如來說有我者，謂因緣和合而假說之」
[0151c05–06]；吉藏「如來隨俗說有我耳」[0122a12]）。隨俗可說，故「說有我」。 - 則非有我即遣遍計所執——非實執之我（窺基「則非有我者，非實執之我也」
[0151c06]；吉藏「實無有我可說」[0122a12–13]）。「即非」者，遣「實有我」之執——此正所破之我見。 - 〔凡夫以為有我〕顯遍計之妄計——凡夫於無我中橫計實我（吉藏「凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」
[0122a15–16]；窺基「凡夫以為有我者，所執取故」[0151c06–07]）。〔羅什此句止「凡夫以為有我」，無「是名」一收；能斷系（真諦·玄奘·義淨）於「我執」處作「即非執」之三段（我等執→非執→故名我等執），即非式完具。〕
其二「凡夫 — 即非凡夫 — 〔是名凡夫，省〕」映三性：
- 凡夫（X）即依他起——貪嗔未亡而假名之凡夫（窺基「於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」
[0151c11–12]）。 - 即非凡夫即遣遍計——非如其言即實凡夫（窺基「非如其言即實凡夫也」
[0151c12]；智顗「凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」[0082c16–0083a01]）。能斷系作「非生」——不生聖法故非生（流支「不生聖人法故言非生」T1511 [0794c14–15]；吉藏「以不生聖觀故名非生」[0122a21]）。 - 〔是名凡夫〕即立圓成（亦兼世諦可說）——假名可說之凡夫（笈多「彼故，說名小兒凡夫生者」
[0771a15]；玄奘「故名愚夫異生」[0985a13–14]）。〔羅什止「則非凡夫」，省「是名」；能斷系完具三段。〕
本分之眼（★後半·度無所度·破我見）：二即非俱以「度生而無能度所度·有我而非實我」為樞——遣「如來實度眾生·實有我」之執（即非），而不墮「無眾生可度·斷滅無度」之損減（隨俗仍有假名之度·假名之我）。世親二譯偈一語貫之：「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界」（流支 T1511 [0794b23–24]）／「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外」（義淨 T1513 [0883a07–08]）——眾生假名與五陰共、不離法界（故說有度·假名度），法界平等無差別（故佛不度·無實眾生可度）。次偈判「取度眾生」為取我之過：「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知」（流支 T1511 [0794c03–04]）／「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執」（義淨 T1513 [0883a14–15]）——「定執脫有情」（執實有眾生可度）即法執，與「我執」過同。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「度生·我·凡夫」位之二施，亦即 §17 後半法空·破我見（破「如來實度·實有我」之執）於度生一處之落實。本分「化無所化」即「應無所住而生其心」之轉依義（度生而無度想·無住而度）〔摘自 S5-P06〕（見目七）。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 平等云何度生·度無所度·取我度為過·假我假凡 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》二偈（平等真法界佛不度眾生·取我度為過），二漢譯並存： 世親以「平等云何度生」之疑立本分，偈一「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界」釋「實無有眾生如來度者」、偈二「取我度為過……不取取應知」釋「如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者」，逐項錨於經文；二譯名異義一。窺基依世親、無著，逐句述曰；吉藏、智顗各以本宗讀「度無所度·假我假凡」。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 先設疑——「論曰：復有疑，若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？自下經文為斷此疑」[0794b20–22]。論偈一 [0794b23–24]：
「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界。」
「此義云何？眾生假名與五陰共故。彼名共陰，不離於法界，偈言『不離於法界』故。彼法界無差別故，偈言『平等真法界』故。是故如來不度一眾生，偈言『佛不度眾生』故」[0794b25–28]。論偈二 [0794c03–04]：
「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知。」
「此義云何？若如來有如是心『五陰中有眾生可度』者，此是取相過，以著彼法故。偈言『取我度為過』故。『以取彼法是』者，以取五陰中是眾生故」[0794c05–08]；「經復言『須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者，以為有我』者，此義云何？偈言『不取取應知』故。此以何義？以彼不實義，是故彼不取。以不取者，即是毛道凡夫取，而即是不取故，言不取取故」[0794c09–13]；「『毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生』者，不生聖人法故言非生」[0794c13–15]。
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 先設難——「若言彼法性相平等故無不平者，即無能度所度；云何如來說脫有情耶？為除此難，故起後文」[0883a04–06]。頌一 [0883a07–08]：
「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外。」
「凡名有情者，於彼蘊處由名共蘊，不在法界之外，即此法界其性平等，是故曾無有一眾生可是如來之所度脫，此即如何當有我執者」[0883a09–11]。頌二 [0883a14–15]：
「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執。」
「此有何意？若言但唯脫其五蘊而已，此即是有所許眾生」[0883a11–13]；「如云『妙生言：我執者如來說為非執』。妄執如來說為非生者，是不能生聖法之義」[0883a16–17]。
〔二譯對位：平等真法界／法界平等故（佛不度眾生）· 以名共彼陰不離於法界／於諸名共聚不在法界外 · 取我度為過／若起於法執與我執過同 · 不取取應知／是無執妄執——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。義淨頌二獨標「定執脫有情」即「法執」，與「我執」過同，逕點本分所破之法執。〕
無著 T1510a（達摩笈多譯）：此分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]）中之心具足·第三「為施設大利法故」——「於彼心具足中，為施設大利法故，經言『三千大千世界中，所有須彌』如是等。於中，為安立第一義教授故，經言『如來頗作是念「我度眾生」耶』如是等」[0765a10–13]。釋「我等取」：「如來則有我等取者，此有何義？如來如爾焰而知，是故，若有眾生想，如來則為有我取。若實無我，而言有我取，為離此著故，經言『須菩提！我取者，即為非取』如是等」[0765a13–17]；「是故，但小兒凡夫有如是取故，經言『須菩提！凡夫、凡夫者，如來說非凡夫，是名凡夫』故」[0765a17–19]。〔無著此段止安立經文之住處對位（化無所化＝心具足之施設大利法·安立第一義教授）及「我取即非取·凡夫即非凡夫」之三段；其展開窺基引足之，見下窺基條。〕
吉藏（三論）T1699：科為「『須菩提！於意云何』下，第十章經」[0121c24–25]。承前分（分二十三 菩提無高下）釋來意：「論云『從上菩提無高下生，無高則諸佛不高，佛非能度。若無有下，則眾生非下，不下度眾生……不應無高下也』」[0121c25–29]；「又從上為他說四句生者……便謂有眾生可為，故今破之也」[0121c29–0122a01]。釋「實無眾生可度」：「明實無眾生可度，汝不應念佛度眾生也。『若有眾生如來度者』，此是反釋，若見有眾生可度，佛則有取我之過也」[0122a03–05]；以互度之反詰顯無能度所度——「以眾生見眾生、眾生名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？佛亦見眾生，佛亦名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？佛若見眾生，佛能度眾生，眾生亦見眾生，眾生應能度佛。有如是大過故，佛不應見有眾生也」[0122a05–09]。釋「即非有我」：「如來隨俗說有我耳，實無有我可說。而凡夫之人以為有我者……此是凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」[0122a12–16]。釋「即非凡夫」：「論經具足云『須菩提！凡夫生者，如來說非生，是名毛道凡夫生』……以不生聖觀故名非生，生凡夫顛倒心故是名凡夫生也。問：論經何故云毛道凡夫耶？答：愚癡不解一毛端聖法故也」[0122a17–23]。
智顗（天台）T1698：科為「『我當度眾生』下」[0082c12]（次分二十三「明福多」之後）。釋文：「菩提無得為果，故以忘言而說，勿謂如來見眾生可度，若見有眾生則為我見，何謂如來？但說假名我耳，非實我，而凡夫者聞說假名，不達言旨，以為實我。如來說非凡夫者，凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」[0082c12–0083a01]。
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親「此即曲文中第三段疑也，即是展轉中第三段疑」[0151b07–08]，疑情「若是法平等無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生耶」[0151b09–10]。釋「勿謂作念度生」：「謂報、化二身隨機利物，有高有下，可有思念當度眾生，謂慈悲本願緣故；法身真理，湛寂無思，如何有念當度生耶？但起智作證，即名為度故……又凡夫執由遣而念我當度，諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念也……又真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」[0151b11–20]；引無著「此為第二明所度眾生，科釋其文，大意無別也」[0151b20–21]。釋「實無眾生可度」：「謂真理中無有眾生如來可度，隨於外化可度假生也」[0151b25–26]；「謂如來若說實有眾生實可度者，是則我執未亡，不名為佛也」[0151b29–0151c01]。釋「即非有我」：「『如來說有我』者，謂因緣和合而假說之；『則非有我』者，非實執之我也。『凡夫以為有我』者，所執取故。此意云，如來說有我者，為除無我怖故，所以初修習必依於我，後漸契真，我相自遣；若言無我，唯欲造修，我即空故」[0151c05–09]。釋「即非凡夫」：「謂於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫，非如其言即實凡夫也」[0151c11–12]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸世親二偈：平等真法界·佛不度眾生（法界平等無差別，眾生假名共陰不離法界，故無實眾生可度）；取我度為過（執「五陰中有眾生可度」即取相·取我之過）；即非有我·即非凡夫（假說之我非實執我·假名之凡夫非實凡夫）。吉藏「實無眾生可度·隨俗說有我·互度之反詰」、智顗「忘言而說·見眾生則為我見·但說假名我」、窺基（依世親無著）「法身湛寂無思·假說非實執·假名非實凡」——逐項錨於「勿謂度生·實無眾生可度·有我即非有我·凡夫即非凡夫」。此即本分「化無所化」之古德定讀，亦§17 後半「破我見·斷所知障」之經文所本（世親「定執脫有情」即法執·與我執過同；窺基「真理中無眾生可度·我執未亡不名為佛」）。
五、術語
度眾生／度脫有情（化導·度脫；流支「我度眾生」·玄奘「度脫諸有情」·義淨「度眾生」之譯異見目二；世親「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」T1511 [0794b23]）·
有我／我執／我等執 ātma-grāha（羅什「有我／則非有我」·真諦「我等執／非執」·玄奘「我等執／非執」·義淨「我等執／非執」·笈多「我取／非取」；世親「取我度為過」T1511 [0794c03]、義淨論「若起於法執，與我執過同」T1513 [0883a14]）·
毛道凡夫生／嬰兒凡夫／小兒凡夫生／愚夫異生 bāla-pṛthagjana（愚異生；流支「毛道凡夫生」·真諦「嬰兒凡夫眾生」·笈多「小兒凡夫生」·玄奘/義淨「愚夫異生／愚夫眾生」；吉藏「愚癡不解一毛端聖法故」[0122a22–23]；窺基「貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」[0151c11–12]）·
非生 na ... jāyate ／ ajāti（不生聖法故非生；流支「不生聖人法故言非生」T1511 [0794c14–15]、吉藏「以不生聖觀故名非生」[0122a21]、義淨論「妄執如來說為非生者，是不能生聖法之義」T1513 [0883a16–17]）·
法界平等／真法界 dharmadhātu-samatā（法界無差別·平等無高下；世親「彼法界無差別故……平等真法界」T1511 [0794b26–27]）·
名共陰／名共聚（名共蘊）（眾生假名與五陰共·不離法界；世親「眾生假名與五陰共故……不離於法界」T1511 [0794b25–26]、義淨「於彼蘊處由名共蘊，不在法界之外」T1513 [0883a09–10]）·
法執（破我見之深·所知障所攝）（義淨論「定執脫有情……若起於法執，與我執過同」T1513 [0883a14–15]；本分屬後半·所執者為「實有眾生可度」之法我·障攝所知）。〔梵文發音輔助；「有我／我執／我取」「凡夫／毛道／小兒／愚夫」之譯異見目二。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（化無所化 · 度生而非度之翻轉 · 互度之反詰）
本分無經文自具之具象譬喻（虛空喻在分四·須彌喻在分十·十一·十七·二十四·忍辱仙人喻在分十四·六喻在分三十二）。其修辭之要在「度／無度」之翻轉、誡念之直筆與古德互度之反詰：
- 「度／無度」之翻轉：正言「如來度眾生」（極言化導之事），陡以「實無有眾生如來度者」翻轉（無實眾生可度），復以反顯「若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者」（若執實度則墮我見）。「度生」之事（依他·隨俗可說）與其體之「無度」（法界平等·無實眾生可度）相形——「化無所化」者，化導宛然而無能度所度，正「遣自性（即非·無度）而存可說（隨俗·假名度）」之翻轉。此與分十「莊嚴而即非莊嚴」、分二十二「無得之得」、分二十一「眾生即非眾生」同一翻轉之構。
- 誡念之直筆：以「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」「莫作是念」之雙誡直起，斬截遮「如來實作度想」之執——羅什誡語在前（勿謂作念）、能斷系作反詰（如來作念耶……汝今不應作如是念），同顯「度而無度想」之斷。窺基「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念」
[0151b17–18]、智顗「以忘言而說」[0082c12–13]，正釋此「無念而度」之筆。 - 互度之反詰（古德補顯）：經文止「實無眾生可度·若有則有我」，吉藏以互度之反詰顯其無能度所度——「以眾生見眾生、眾生名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？……佛若見眾生，佛能度眾生，眾生亦見眾生，眾生應能度佛。有如是大過故，佛不應見有眾生也」
[0122a05–09]（若如來見實有眾生可度，則眾生亦可見佛而度佛，成大過）。此「互度反詰」之筆，顯「能度·所度·度事」三輪俱不可執——破法執之利筆。此目於本分（度生翻轉·誡念直筆·互度反詰）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）：二空·轉依（v.29 圓成實·轉依）·人法二無我——本分「實無眾生如來度·有我即非有我」即三十頌「二無我·轉依」之經語對應（度生而無能度所度·我假非實，乃轉依所顯之平等真法界）。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：二障·二執（所知障所執之法我「實有眾生可度」）·我執（俱生·分別我執）——本分世親「定執脫有情，與我執過同」（義淨
〔見目四〕）即成唯識「法執·我執·所知障」之經語對應；「實無有眾生如來度者」即遣所知障所執「實有眾生可度」之法執。 - 二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·遣所執實有眾生——「實無有眾生如來度者」即遣「眾生」為心外實有之執，與二十論破實境一脈（法空·遣遍計實法；「眾生假名與五陰共·不離法界」即唯識假施設義）。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·人法二無我·無上乘真實——本分「破我見·法界平等·度無所度」之論本對應（後半法空·所知障所攝）。
- 心經（T251）：「無無明亦無無明盡……無苦集滅道」「以無所得故」——本分「實無眾生可度·化無所化」即心經「無得·無度而度」之法位（度生而無實眾生可度·無所得故）。
本分「實無有眾生如來度者·有我即非有我·凡夫即非凡夫」，即三十頌·成唯識論「二無我·轉依·法執我執」之經語對應；「實無眾生可度·化無所化」即心經「以無所得故」之同一無得法位。釋慧鏡命題「金剛經以經語說成唯識論以技術語說者」〔摘自《從百法到金剛》S5-P10〕：金剛經「實無有眾生如來度者」一語，成唯識論以「遣法執·斷所知障·平等法界·假施設眾生」之技術語說同一事。「化無所化」即「應無所住而生其心」之轉依義（度生而無度想）〔摘自 S5-P06；古德見目四〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。攝大乘論於本分無正面對位，從闕。成唯識論 起草中，穩定名引，俟成增鏈，不重出引文。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「實無有眾生如來度者·化無所化」之度無所度 ↔ 西方倫理學之「無私利他／無作者之行動」（康德「義務出於法則而非愛好」、近世「無我之施與」之倫理理想）：西方多就動機之純粹（無自我之利他）立論（行善而不執行善之我）；古德／唯識讀「化無所化」非僅動機之無私——「實無眾生可度」乃遣「實有眾生可度」之法執（窺基「真理中無有眾生如來可度」
[0151b25]、世親「定執脫有情，與我執過同」T1513 [0883a14–15]），是斷所知障·法界平等所顯（「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」），非單就行動者之心態立論——「無度」之外仍有「隨俗假名之度」（眾生假名共陰不離法界），故度而無度、非純否定之無作為。 - 「有我者即非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我」之假我·遍計 ↔ 西方之「自我為虛構／敘事性自我」（休謨「自我但是知覺之束」、近世「自我乃語言敘事之建構」）與「假名唯名論」（nominalism）：西方多讀「我」為經驗中無對應之虛構或語言之名；古德以「因緣和合而假說之我·非實執之我」（窺基
[0151c05–06]）言「我」為依他假立而遍計實執——「即非有我」非僅「我為虛構」之否定，乃遣「實執之我」（遍計）而存「假說之我」（依他·世諦可說，窺基「為除無我怖故，所以初修習必依於我」[0151c07–08]）。假我之立破，非純否定之虛構論。 - 「平等真法界·法界平等」之佛不度生 ↔ 西方之「絕對／一元之平等界」（斯賓諾莎之實體一元、近世「無差別之絕對」）：可對觀；然唯識之「平等真法界」非靜態之一元實體——眾生假名與五陰共、不離法界（世親「以名共彼陰，不離於法界」
T1511 [0794b24]），法界平等而不廢假名之度生（隨俗有度·第一義無度），是體用·二諦之動轉，非吞沒差別之絕對一。 - 對觀之要：西方傾向以「化無所化·假我」為無私倫理·自我虛構·絕對平等之命題（利他何以無私·我何以為建構·平等何以為一）；古德以「實無眾生可度·有我即非有我」為遣法執·破我見·斷所知障·法界平等所顯之度生（所破者乃「實有眾生可度」之法執與「實有我」之我見，度而無度乃轉依所顯）。命題之分析與修證之斷障，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 [0752a05–a10]（原典 · 化無所化分）。六譯本度無所度·即非我一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0756b07–b13] · 真諦 T0237 [0765c21–c27] · 笈多 T0238 [0771a07–a15] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0985a07–a14] · 義淨 T0239 [0775a03–a08]。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0757c28–0758a02·0765a10–a19·0758c03–04] · 世親 T1511 [0794b13–c15]（二偈 [0794b23–24]·[0794c03–04]）· 世親 T1513 [0883a04–a17]（二頌 [0883a07–08]·[0883a14–15]）。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0121c24–0122a27] · 智顗 T1698 [0082c12–0083a01] · 窺基 T1700 [0151b06–0151c12]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (transforming none · breaking the view of self · §17 second half · the basis of the two hindrances)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 25, Transforming with Nothing Transformed (化無所化分) |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | Second half (emptiness of dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance; after the pivot of division 17, the "transforming none · breaking the view of self" at the dharma-emptiness station, where what is broken is the clinging-to-dharmas of "the Tathāgata can transform · there is a real being to be transformed" and the view-of-self of "there is a real self") |
| Dao'an's three-part schema | Main-teaching division · second cycle · the fulfillment at the buddha-stage in the witnessing of the way |
| Asaṅga's eighteen abodes, T1510a | Seventeenth abode, the witnessing of the way (the abode of the pure mind [0758c03–04]), within the buddha-stage's six fulfillments that subsume the transformation of the basis, the mind-fulfillment · the third "for the sake of setting forth the dharma of great benefit" — 「於彼心具足中，為施設大利法故，經言『三千大千世界中，所有須彌』如是等。於中，為安立第一義教授故，經言『如來頗作是念「我度眾生」耶』如是等」 [0765a10–13]; the mind-fulfillment subsumes mindfulness-stations · perfect awakening · setting forth the dharma of great benefit · taking up the dharma-body · not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa · the purity of practice-and-abiding [0757c29–0758a02] |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt "equality, then how transforming beings" — 「復有疑，若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？自下經文為斷此疑」 (T1511 [0794b20–22]); Yijing's rendering 「若言彼法性相平等故無不平者，即無能度所度，云何如來說脫有情耶？為除此難，故起後文」 (T1513 [0883a04–06]); Kuiji judges it "the third segment doubt within the indirect text · the third segment doubt within the successive" T1700 [0151b07–08] |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699 | 「『須菩提！於意云何』下，第十章經」 [0121c24–25]; following division 23's "awakening with no high and low arises" — 「無高則諸佛不高，佛非能度……不應無高下也」 [0121c25–29], breaking the thought of "there are beings to be transformed" |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698 | 「『我當度眾生』下」 [0082c12] — following division 23's "the abundance of merit," 「菩提無得為果，故以忘言而說，勿謂如來見眾生可度」 [0082c12–14] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700 | Following Vasubandhu 「曲文中第三段疑，即是展轉中第三段疑」 [0151b07–08]; cites Asaṅga 「此為第二明所度眾生，科釋其文，大意無別」 [0151b20–21] |
Sense of transforming none: this division, coming after the prior division (23, 「是法平等，無有高下，是名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 [0751c24–25]), Vasubandhu's two renderings of the treatise set the doubt directly — "if the dharma is level with no high and low, how is the Tathāgata named one who transforms beings" (T1511 [0794b20–22]; Yijing 「若言彼法性相平等故無不平者，即無能度所度，云何如來說脫有情耶」 T1513 [0883a04–06]). So it is said 「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」 to sever it. The three lineages of ancient masters all judge this division to break the thought of "there are beings to be transformed" (Jizang 「明實無眾生可度，汝不應念佛度眾生也」 [0122a03], Zhiyi 「勿謂如來見眾生可度，若見有眾生則為我見」 [0082c13–14], Kuiji 「真理中無有眾生如來可度，隨於外化可度假生也」 [0151b25–26]), and Vasubandhu's two renderings of the verse mark directly 「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」 (T1511 [0794b23] / T1513 [0883a07] 「法界平等故，佛不度眾生」). What this division breaks is the clinging-to-dharmas of "the Tathāgata can transform · there is a real being to be transformed" (the real existence of the threefold transformer · transformed · transforming, belonging to the cognitive hindrance) and the view-of-self of "there is a real self," not the first half's (divisions 1–16) merely breaking the self-mark (personal self · the afflictive hindrance) — Kuiji reads this thought of "I shall transform" directly as 「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有」 [0151b17–18], 「真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」 [0151b19–20], that is, the very scriptural basis of the §17 second half's "breaking the view of dharmas · severing the cognitive hindrance" (of one strand with division 17's Kuiji "the second cycle severs the hindrance, the hindrance being the cognitive"). This division's "is-not" is applied twice, to "self" and "ordinary being" (see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the passage on transforming none · the self that is-not)
Key lines: 勿謂如來作念「我當度眾生」(admonition) / 實無有眾生如來度者 / 有我者即非有我·凡夫以為有我 / 凡夫即非凡夫
| Version | The passage on transforming none · the self that is-not (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！於意云何？汝等勿謂如來作是念：『我當度眾生。』須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？實無有眾生如來度者，若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者。須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我。須菩提！凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫。」 | 0752a05–a10 |
| Bodhiruci T236a | 「須菩提！於意云何？汝謂如來作是念：『我度眾生。』耶？須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？實無有眾生如來度者。」佛言：「須菩提！若有實眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者相。須菩提！如來說：『有我者，則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者以為有我。』須菩提！毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生，是故言毛道凡夫生。」 | 0756b07–b13 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？如來作是念：『我度眾生。』耶？須菩提！汝今不應作如是念。何以故？實無眾生如來所度。須菩提！若有眾生如來所度，即是我執、眾生執、壽者執、受者執。須菩提！此我等執，如來說非執，嬰兒凡夫眾生之所執故。須菩提！嬰兒凡夫眾生者，如來說非眾生，故說嬰兒凡夫眾生。」 | 0765c21–c27 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！雖然，如來如是念：『我眾生度脫。』不？復彼，善實！如是見應。彼何所因？有無，善實！無有一眾生若如來度脫。若復，善實！有，如是眾生有，若彼如來度脫。彼如是，如來我取有，眾生取、壽取、人取有。我取、我取者，善實！非取，此，如來說；彼小兒凡夫生取。小兒凡夫生、小兒凡夫生者，善實！非生，彼，如來說；彼故，說名小兒凡夫生者。」 | 0771a07–a15 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？如來頗作是念：我當度脫諸有情耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故？善現！無少有情如來度者。善現！若有有情如來度者，如來即應有其我執、有有情執、有命者執、有士夫執、有補特伽羅等執。善現！我等執者，如來說為非執，故名我等執，而諸愚夫異生強有此執。善現！愚夫異生者，如來說為非生，故名愚夫異生。」 | 0985a07–a14 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！於汝意云何？如來度眾生不？汝莫作是見：『如來度眾生。』何以故？曾無有一眾生是如來度者。若有眾生是如來度者，如來則有我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見。妙生！我等執者，如來說為非執，而諸愚夫妄為此執。妙生！愚夫眾生，如來說為非生，故名愚夫眾生。」 | 0775a03–a08 |
What the variants turn on:
- The opening of the admonition: Kumārajīva has 「汝等勿謂如來作是念」 (the admonition first, "do not so suppose" after); Bodhiruci, Paramārtha have 「如來作是念『我度眾生』耶？……汝今不應作如是念」 (a rhetorical question); Dharmagupta has 「如來如是念……不？……如是見應」; Xuanzang has 「如來頗作是念……汝今勿當作如是觀」; Yijing has 「如來度眾生不？汝莫作是見」. All admonish the clinging of "the Tathāgata really thinks the thought of transforming beings."
- Where the "is-not" falls (self / clinging-to-self / clinging-to-self-etc.): Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci apply the "is-not" at "有我" (「如來說有我者，則非有我」) — the "is-not" falls on "self"; Paramārtha 「此我等執，如來說非執」, Xuanzang 「我等執者，如來說為非執」, Yijing 「我等執者，如來說為非執」 — the three Able-to-Cut lineages (Paramārtha · Xuanzang · Yijing) apply the "is-not" at "clinging-to-self" (a clinging, not a self); Dharmagupta 「我取、我取者……非取」 (the "is-not" falls on "grasping-of-self"). Kumārajīva's and Bodhiruci's "self / is-not-self" and the Able-to-Cut versions' "clinging-to-self / is-not-clinging" attach precisely to Vasubandhu's treatise "grasping self in transforming is a fault" (Bodhiruci
T1511 [0794c03]) · "if one raises a clinging-to-dharmas, the fault is the same as the clinging-to-self……it is a deluded clinging without clinging" (YijingT1513 [0883a14–15]) — Kumārajīva displays the provisionality of "self" (not a real self), the Able-to-Cut versions display the delusion of "clinging" (not a real clinging), both glossing "is-not-a-self" (see register 4). - The variant names of "ordinary being": Kumārajīva has 「凡夫」 (an ordinary being the Tathāgata declares to be no ordinary being); Bodhiruci has 「毛道凡夫生」 (the hair-path ordinary being the Tathāgata declares to be no birth); Paramārtha has 「嬰兒凡夫眾生」 (the Tathāgata declares to be no being); Dharmagupta has 「小兒凡夫生」 (no birth); Xuanzang and Yijing have 「愚夫異生／愚夫眾生」 (the Tathāgata declares to be no birth). "Hair-path (bāla · foolish) · infant · child · the foolish" are all variant renderings of bāla-pṛthagjana (the foolish ordinary being) (Jizang 「論經何故云毛道凡夫耶？答：愚癡不解一毛端聖法故也」
[0122a22–23]). Kumārajīva alone has "is-not an ordinary being" (ordinary being → no ordinary being → 〔is called ordinary being, dropped〕), the other versions having "ordinary being-birth → no birth" (the "is-not" falling on "birth," meaning it does not give rise to the holy dharma hence no birth) — Kumārajīva stops at the "is-not" of the single name "ordinary being," the Able-to-Cut lineages also displaying the sense of "no birth (not giving rise to the holy dharma)" (see register 5). - The "Able-to-Cut" doubling: Dharmagupta 「我取、我取者，善實！非取」
[0771a12–13], 「小兒凡夫生、小兒凡夫生者，善實！非生」[0771a13–14], Xuanzang 「我等執者，如來說為非執，故名我等執」[0985a12]— the Able-to-Cut versions (Dharmagupta · Xuanzang) "grasping-of-self / clinging-to-self-etc." "ordinary being-birth" both carry the doubling (the same name uttered twice), the "is-not" form reading "X·X — is-not-X — is called X"; Kumārajīva's 「有我／則非有我」, 「凡夫者／則非凡夫」 utter it once without doubling. The doubling is a textual feature of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage recensions; it is recorded verbatim, not abridged. - Paramārtha's four clingings · Xuanzang's five clingings: Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci, under "were there a being the Tathāgata transforms," have 「如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者」 (the four marks); Paramārtha has 「我執、眾生執、壽者執、受者執」 (four clingings, adding "clinging-to-receiver"); Xuanzang has 「我執、有情執、命者執、士夫執、補特伽羅等執」 (five clingings, adding "champion · pudgala"); Yijing in the transforming-beings clause has 「我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見」 (four views), and in the is-not clause has "clinging-to-self-etc." The difference among four marks / four clingings / five clingings / four views attaches to the rendering of the ātma-grāha／-saṃjñā／-dṛṣṭi family (Kumārajīva using "mark," the Able-to-Cut versions using "clinging / view"), precisely displaying this division's §17-second-half clinging-to-dharmas sense of "breaking the view of self · breaking the clinging-to-self" (see registers 3 and 4).
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · this division's two "is-nots" · §17 second half · emptiness of dharmas · breaking the view of self · breaking the four views)
The "is-not" appears twice in this division: 「如來說有我者 — 則非有我 — 〔而凡夫之人以為有我〕」 [0752a08–10] and 「凡夫者 — 如來說則非凡夫」 [0752a10] — the two "is-nots" are applied together to "self" and "ordinary being."
★ The second-half frame: this division sits after the §17 pivot (second half · divisions 17–32). The first half's (divisions 1–16) "is-not" and "self-mark" mostly speak from breaking the "self-mark" (the mark of self · person · being · life-span) (emptiness of self · breaking the four marks · the afflictive hindrance); here at this division (second half · emptiness of dharmas) the "is-not" falls on "the Tathāgata's thought of transforming beings · self · ordinary being" — what is broken is the clinging-to-dharmas of "the Tathāgata can transform · there is a real being to be transformed" (the real existence of the threefold transformer · transformed · transforming, belonging to the cognitive hindrance, breaking the four views) and the view-of-self of "there is a real self." The pivot of division 17's 「實無有法名為菩薩」 [0751b07], 「若菩薩通達無我、法者」 [0751b11–12] (personal self · dharmic self, the two emptinesses) already opens the gate of dharma-emptiness; this division is its application at the single point of "transforming beings" — the Tathāgata transforms beings yet there is no transformer and no transformed (emptiness of dharmas), breaking the clinging of "the Tathāgata really makes the thought of transforming · there is a real self." 〔This second-half turn of "emptiness-of-self → emptiness-of-dharmas · the afflictive → the cognitive hindrance · the second cycle severing the cognitive hindrance," what the ancient masters base it on is just 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]; attaching to the pivot of division 17, see division 17's registers 3 and 4.〕
The first, 「有我 — 即非有我 — 〔凡夫以為有我〕」 maps to the three natures:
- 如來說有我 (X) is the other-dependent — a self provisionally spoken through the convergence of causes and conditions (Kuiji 「如來說有我者，謂因緣和合而假說之」
[0151c05–06]; Jizang 「如來隨俗說有我耳」[0122a12]). Speakable along with convention, hence "says there is a self." - 則非有我 removes the wholly-imagined — not a really-clung-to self (Kuiji 「則非有我者，非實執之我也」
[0151c06]; Jizang 「實無有我可說」[0122a12–13]). The "is-not" removes the clinging to "a really-existing self" — this is precisely the view-of-self that is broken. - 〔凡夫以為有我〕 displays the wholly-imagined's delusion — the ordinary falsely reckon a real self within no-self (Jizang 「凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」
[0122a15–16]; Kuiji 「凡夫以為有我者，所執取故」[0151c06–07]). 〔Kumārajīva's clause here stops at "the ordinary take it as a self," with no "is called" closing; the Able-to-Cut versions (Paramārtha · Xuanzang · Yijing) at "clinging-to-self" have the three clauses of "is-not-a-clinging" (clinging-to-self-etc. → is-not-a-clinging → is called clinging-to-self-etc.), the "is-not" form fully complete.〕
The second, 「凡夫 — 即非凡夫 — 〔是名凡夫，dropped〕」 maps to the three natures:
- 凡夫 (X) is the other-dependent — an ordinary being provisionally named while greed and hatred are not yet extinguished (Kuiji 「於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」
[0151c11–12]). - 即非凡夫 removes the wholly-imagined — not a real ordinary being as the words say (Kuiji 「非如其言即實凡夫也」
[0151c12]; Zhiyi 「凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」[0082c16–0083a01]). The Able-to-Cut versions have "no birth" — not giving rise to the holy dharma, hence no birth (Bodhiruci 「不生聖人法故言非生」T1511 [0794c14–15]; Jizang 「以不生聖觀故名非生」[0122a21]). - 〔是名凡夫〕 establishes the perfectly-accomplished (also speakable on the conventional level) — a provisionally-named, speakable ordinary being (Dharmagupta 「彼故，說名小兒凡夫生者」
[0771a15]; Xuanzang 「故名愚夫異生」[0985a13–14]). 〔Kumārajīva stops at "is-not an ordinary being," dropping "is called"; the Able-to-Cut versions have the full three clauses.〕
The eye of this division (★ second half · transforming none · breaking the view of self): the two "is-nots" both pivot on "transforming beings yet without transformer or transformed · there is a self yet not a real self" — removing the clinging of "the Tathāgata really transforms beings · there is a real self" (the "is-not"), without falling into the negation of "there is no being to be transformed · annihilation, no transforming" (along with convention there is still the provisional-name transforming · the provisional-name self). Vasubandhu's two renderings of the verse run through it in a phrase: 「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界」 (Bodhiruci T1511 [0794b23–24]) / 「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外」 (Yijing T1513 [0883a07–08]) — the provisional name of beings is shared with the five aggregates, not apart from the dharma-realm (hence transforming is spoken · provisional-name transforming), the dharma-realm is level without difference (hence the Buddha transforms none · there is no real being to be transformed). The second verse judges "grasping the transforming of beings" as the fault of grasping self: 「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知」 (Bodhiruci T1511 [0794c03–04]) / 「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執」 (Yijing T1513 [0883a14–15]) — "fixedly clinging to liberating sentient beings" (clinging that there is a real being to be transformed) is just the clinging-to-dharmas, with the same fault as "clinging-to-self." This reading of "is-not" mapped to the three natures is set out in Shi Huijing's The "Is-Not" Three-Clause Formula Mapped to the Yogācāra Three Natures 〔from S5-P01〕; this division is its two applications at the stations of "transforming beings · self · ordinary being," that is, the landing of the §17 second half's emptiness of dharmas · breaking the view of self (breaking the clinging of "the Tathāgata really transforms · there is a real self") at the single point of transforming beings. This division's "transforming with nothing transformed" is the transformation-of-the-basis sense of "abiding in nothing, give rise to the mind" (transforming beings yet without the thought of transforming · without abiding, transforming) 〔from S5-P06〕 (see register 7).
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · equality, then how transforming beings · transforming none · grasping self in transforming is a fault · the provisional self, the provisional ordinary being · weighted)
Core, weighted — Vasubandhu's two verses in the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra (the level true dharma-realm, the Buddha transforms no being · grasping self in transforming is a fault), preserved in two Chinese renderings: Vasubandhu sets up this division with the doubt "equality, then how transforming beings," verse one 「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界」 glossing "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms," verse two 「取我度為過……不取取應知」 glossing "the Tathāgata would have self, person, being, life-span," each anchored to the scriptural phrasing; the two renderings differ in name but are one in sense. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, glosses clause by clause; Jizang and Zhiyi each read "transforming none · the provisional self and provisional ordinary being" from their own lineage.
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's rendering) first sets the doubt — 「論曰：復有疑，若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？自下經文為斷此疑」 [0794b20–22]. Verse one [0794b23–24]:
「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界。」
「此義云何？眾生假名與五陰共故。彼名共陰，不離於法界，偈言『不離於法界』故。彼法界無差別故，偈言『平等真法界』故。是故如來不度一眾生，偈言『佛不度眾生』故」 [0794b25–28]. Verse two [0794c03–04]:
「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知。」
「此義云何？若如來有如是心『五陰中有眾生可度』者，此是取相過，以著彼法故。偈言『取我度為過』故。『以取彼法是』者，以取五陰中是眾生故」 [0794c05–08]; 「經復言『須菩提！如來說有我者，則非有我，而毛道凡夫生者，以為有我』者，此義云何？偈言『不取取應知』故。此以何義？以彼不實義，是故彼不取。以不取者，即是毛道凡夫取，而即是不取故，言不取取故」 [0794c09–13]; 「『毛道凡夫生者，如來說名非生』者，不生聖人法故言非生」 [0794c13–15].
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's rendering) first sets the difficulty — 「若言彼法性相平等故無不平者，即無能度所度；云何如來說脫有情耶？為除此難，故起後文」 [0883a04–06]. Verse one [0883a07–08]:
「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外。」
「凡名有情者，於彼蘊處由名共蘊，不在法界之外，即此法界其性平等，是故曾無有一眾生可是如來之所度脫，此即如何當有我執者」 [0883a09–11]. Verse two [0883a14–15]:
「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執。」
「此有何意？若言但唯脫其五蘊而已，此即是有所許眾生」 [0883a11–13]; 「如云『妙生言：我執者如來說為非執』。妄執如來說為非生者，是不能生聖法之義」 [0883a16–17].
〔Correspondence of the two renderings: 平等真法界 / 法界平等故 (佛不度眾生) · 以名共彼陰不離於法界 / 於諸名共聚不在法界外 · 取我度為過 / 若起於法執與我執過同 · 不取取應知 / 是無執妄執 — one and the same Vasubandhu treatise in two Chinese renderings, differing in name but one in sense. Yijing's verse two alone marks 「定執脫有情」 as the "clinging-to-dharmas," with the same fault as "clinging-to-self," pointing directly to the clinging-to-dharmas this division breaks.〕
Asaṅga T1510a (Dharmagupta's rendering): this division belongs to the seventeenth abode, the witnessing of the way of the eighteen abodes (the abode of the pure mind [0758c03–04]), within the buddha-stage's six fulfillments that subsume the transformation of the basis after the witnessing of the way (the purity of the land · the purity of the unsurpassed view-wisdom · the secondary marks · the marked body · speech · mind-fulfillment [0757c28–0758a01]) the mind-fulfillment · the third "for the sake of setting forth the dharma of great benefit" — 「於彼心具足中，為施設大利法故，經言『三千大千世界中，所有須彌』如是等。於中，為安立第一義教授故，經言『如來頗作是念「我度眾生」耶』如是等」 [0765a10–13]. Glossing "the grasping of self etc.": 「如來則有我等取者，此有何義？如來如爾焰而知，是故，若有眾生想，如來則為有我取。若實無我，而言有我取，為離此著故，經言『須菩提！我取者，即為非取』如是等」 [0765a13–17]; 「是故，但小兒凡夫有如是取故，經言『須菩提！凡夫、凡夫者，如來說非凡夫，是名凡夫』故」 [0765a17–19]. 〔Asaṅga's passage here stops at placing the scriptural text in its abode (transforming with nothing transformed = the mind-fulfillment's setting forth the dharma of great benefit · the establishing of the ultimate teaching) and the three clauses of "the grasping of self is-not-a-grasping · ordinary being is-not an ordinary being"; its elaboration is drawn out by Kuiji, see the Kuiji entry below.〕
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: classifies it as 「『須菩提！於意云何』下，第十章經」 [0121c24–25]. Glossing the reason it comes after the prior division (23, awakening with no high and low): 「論云『從上菩提無高下生，無高則諸佛不高，佛非能度。若無有下，則眾生非下，不下度眾生……不應無高下也』」 [0121c25–29]; 「又從上為他說四句生者……便謂有眾生可為，故今破之也」 [0121c29–0122a01]. Glossing "in truth there is no being to be transformed": 「明實無眾生可度，汝不應念佛度眾生也。『若有眾生如來度者』，此是反釋，若見有眾生可度，佛則有取我之過也」 [0122a03–05]; displaying the absence of transformer and transformed by the rhetorical question of mutual transforming — 「以眾生見眾生、眾生名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？佛亦見眾生，佛亦名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？佛若見眾生，佛能度眾生，眾生亦見眾生，眾生應能度佛。有如是大過故，佛不應見有眾生也」 [0122a05–09]. Glossing "is-not-a-self": 「如來隨俗說有我耳，實無有我可說。而凡夫之人以為有我者……此是凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」 [0122a12–16]. Glossing "is-not an ordinary being": 「論經具足云『須菩提！凡夫生者，如來說非生，是名毛道凡夫生』……以不生聖觀故名非生，生凡夫顛倒心故是名凡夫生也。問：論經何故云毛道凡夫耶？答：愚癡不解一毛端聖法故也」 [0122a17–23].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: classifies it as 「『我當度眾生』下」 [0082c12] (after division 23's "the abundance of merit"). Glossing the text: 「菩提無得為果，故以忘言而說，勿謂如來見眾生可度，若見有眾生則為我見，何謂如來？但說假名我耳，非實我，而凡夫者聞說假名，不達言旨，以為實我。如來說非凡夫者，凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」 [0082c12–0083a01].
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu 「此即曲文中第三段疑也，即是展轉中第三段疑」 [0151b07–08], the doubt 「若是法平等無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生耶」 [0151b09–10]. Glossing "do not suppose the thought of transforming beings": 「謂報、化二身隨機利物，有高有下，可有思念當度眾生，謂慈悲本願緣故；法身真理，湛寂無思，如何有念當度生耶？但起智作證，即名為度故……又凡夫執由遣而念我當度，諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念也……又真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」 [0151b11–20]; cites Asaṅga 「此為第二明所度眾生，科釋其文，大意無別也」 [0151b20–21]. Glossing "in truth there is no being to be transformed": 「謂真理中無有眾生如來可度，隨於外化可度假生也」 [0151b25–26]; 「謂如來若說實有眾生實可度者，是則我執未亡，不名為佛也」 [0151b29–0151c01]. Glossing "is-not-a-self": 「『如來說有我』者，謂因緣和合而假說之；『則非有我』者，非實執之我也。『凡夫以為有我』者，所執取故。此意云，如來說有我者，為除無我怖故，所以初修習必依於我，後漸契真，我相自遣；若言無我，唯欲造修，我即空故」 [0151c05–09]. Glossing "is-not an ordinary being": 「謂於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫，非如其言即實凡夫也」 [0151c11–12].
The three lineages of ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all converge on Vasubandhu's two verses at this division: the level true dharma-realm · the Buddha transforms no being (the dharma-realm level without difference, the provisional name of beings shared with the aggregates not apart from the dharma-realm, hence no real being to be transformed); grasping self in transforming is a fault (clinging that "within the five aggregates there is a being to be transformed" is just the fault of grasping the mark · grasping self); is-not-a-self · is-not an ordinary being (the provisionally-spoken self is not a real-clung-to self · the provisionally-named ordinary being is not a real ordinary being). Jizang's "in truth there is no being to be transformed · saying there is a self along with convention · the rhetorical question of mutual transforming," Zhiyi's "speaking through forgetting words · seeing beings is just the view of self · only saying the provisional-name self," Kuiji's (following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) "the dharma-body, true principle, deeply still without thought · the provisional speech not a real clinging · the provisional name not a real ordinary being" — each anchored to "do not suppose transforming beings · in truth there is no being to be transformed · there is a self that is-not a self · ordinary being that is-not an ordinary being." This is the ancient masters' settled reading of "Transforming with Nothing Transformed" in this division, and also the scriptural basis of the §17 second half's "breaking the view of self · severing the cognitive hindrance" (Vasubandhu's 「定執脫有情」 is just the clinging-to-dharmas · with the same fault as the clinging-to-self; Kuiji's "within true principle there is no being to be transformed · while the clinging-to-self is not extinguished one is not named a buddha").
5 · Terminology
度眾生／度脫有情 (transforming-and-guiding · liberating beings; Bodhiruci 「我度眾生」 · Xuanzang 「度脫諸有情」 · Yijing 「度眾生」, variant renderings see register 2; Vasubandhu 「平等真法界，佛不度眾生」 T1511 [0794b23]) ·
有我／我執／我等執 ātma-grāha (Kumārajīva 「有我／則非有我」 · Paramārtha 「我等執／非執」 · Xuanzang 「我等執／非執」 · Yijing 「我等執／非執」 · Dharmagupta 「我取／非取」; Vasubandhu 「取我度為過」 T1511 [0794c03], Yijing's treatise 「若起於法執，與我執過同」 T1513 [0883a14]) ·
毛道凡夫生／嬰兒凡夫／小兒凡夫生／愚夫異生 bāla-pṛthagjana (the foolish ordinary being; Bodhiruci 「毛道凡夫生」 · Paramārtha 「嬰兒凡夫眾生」 · Dharmagupta 「小兒凡夫生」 · Xuanzang/Yijing 「愚夫異生／愚夫眾生」; Jizang 「愚癡不解一毛端聖法故」 [0122a22–23]; Kuiji 「貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」 [0151c11–12]) ·
非生 na ... jāyate ／ ajāti (not giving rise to the holy dharma hence no birth; Bodhiruci 「不生聖人法故言非生」 T1511 [0794c14–15], Jizang 「以不生聖觀故名非生」 [0122a21], Yijing's treatise 「妄執如來說為非生者，是不能生聖法之義」 T1513 [0883a16–17]) ·
法界平等／真法界 dharmadhātu-samatā (the dharma-realm without difference · level with no high and low; Vasubandhu 「彼法界無差別故……平等真法界」 T1511 [0794b26–27]) ·
名共陰／名共聚 (name shared with the aggregates) (the provisional name of beings shared with the five aggregates · not apart from the dharma-realm; Vasubandhu 「眾生假名與五陰共故……不離於法界」 T1511 [0794b25–26], Yijing 「於彼蘊處由名共蘊，不在法界之外」 T1513 [0883a09–10]) ·
法執 (the clinging to dharmas) (the depth of breaking the view of self · subsumed under the cognitive hindrance) (Yijing's treatise 「定執脫有情……若起於法執，與我執過同」 T1513 [0883a14–15]; this division belongs to the second half · what is clung-to is the dharmic self of "there is a real being to be transformed" · the hindrance subsumed is the cognitive). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; the variant renderings of "self / clinging-to-self / grasping-of-self," "ordinary being / hair-path / child / the foolish" are at register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (transforming with nothing transformed · the reversal of transforming yet not transforming · the rhetorical question of mutual transforming)
This division has no concrete simile of its own (the empty-space simile is at division 4, the Sumeru simile at divisions 10 · 11 · 17 · 24, the patience-ascetic simile at division 14, the six similes at division 32). The point of its rhetoric lies in the reversal of "transforming / not-transforming," the direct stroke of the admonished thought, and the ancient masters' rhetorical question of mutual transforming:
- The reversal of "transforming / not-transforming": directly affirming "the Tathāgata transforms beings" (speaking to the utmost of the act of transforming-and-guiding), it abruptly reverses with "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms" (no real being to be transformed), then reflects back with "were there a being the Tathāgata transforms, the Tathāgata would have self, person, being, life-span" (to cling to a real transforming is to fall into the view of self). The act of "transforming beings" (the other-dependent · speakable along with convention) set against its substance's "non-transforming" (the dharma-realm level · no real being to be transformed) — "transforming with nothing transformed" means the transforming-and-guiding stands forth yet without transformer or transformed, precisely the reversal of "removing self-nature (the is-not · non-transforming) while preserving the speakable (the conventional · provisional-name transforming)." This shares one and the same structure of reversal with division 10's "adorning yet is-not adorning," division 22's "the attainment of nothing attained," and division 21's "beings that is-not beings."
- The direct stroke of the admonished thought: rising directly with the double admonition 「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」 「莫作是念」, decisively barring the clinging of "the Tathāgata really makes the thought of transforming" — Kumārajīva places the admonition first (do not suppose the thought), the Able-to-Cut versions make it a rhetorical question (does the Tathāgata make the thought……you now should not so think), both displaying the severing of "transforming yet without the thought of transforming." Kuiji 「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念」
[0151b17–18], Zhiyi 「以忘言而說」[0082c12–13], glosses precisely this stroke of "transforming without thought." - The rhetorical question of mutual transforming (the ancient masters supplementing the display): the scripture stops at "in truth there is no being to be transformed · were there, there would be self," and Jizang displays its absence of transformer and transformed with the rhetorical question of mutual transforming — 「以眾生見眾生、眾生名眾生，不能自度，何能度眾生？……佛若見眾生，佛能度眾生，眾生亦見眾生，眾生應能度佛。有如是大過故，佛不應見有眾生也」
[0122a05–09](if the Tathāgata sees a real being to be transformed, then beings too could see the Buddha and transform the Buddha, a great fault). This stroke of "the rhetorical question of mutual transforming" displays that "transformer · transformed · transforming," the three, are all not to be clung-to — a sharp stroke breaking the clinging-to-dharmas. This register shows its rhetoric in this division (the reversal of transforming · the direct stroke of the admonished thought · the rhetorical question of mutual transforming); concrete simile is weighted at divisions 4 · 14 · 26 · 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the two emptinesses · the transformation of the basis (v.29 the perfectly-accomplished · the transformation of the basis) · the twofold selflessness of person and dharma — this division's "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms · there is a self that is-not a self" is just the scriptural correspondence of the Thirty Verses' "the twofold selflessness · the transformation of the basis" (transforming beings yet without transformer or transformed · the self provisional, not real, being the level true dharma-realm revealed by the transformation of the basis).
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the two hindrances · the two clingings (the dharmic self "there is a real being to be transformed" clung-to by the cognitive hindrance) · the clinging-to-self (innate · discriminated clinging-to-self) — this division's Vasubandhu 「定執脫有情，與我執過同」 (Yijing
〔see register 4〕) is just the scriptural correspondence of Cheng weishi lun's "clinging-to-dharmas · clinging-to-self · the cognitive hindrance"; "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms" is just the removal of the cognitive hindrance's clung-to dharmic clinging of "there is a real being to be transformed." - Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · removing the clung-to real existence of beings — "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms" is just the removal of the clinging of "beings" as a real existence outside the mind, of one strand with the Twenty Verses' breaking of real objects (emptiness of dharmas · removing the wholly-imagined real dharma; "the provisional name of beings shared with the five aggregates · not apart from the dharma-realm" is just the consciousness-only sense of provisional designation).
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter on the real · the twofold selflessness of person and dharma · the reality of the unsurpassed vehicle — the treatise-correspondence of this division's "breaking the view of self · the dharma-realm level · transforming none" (the second half's emptiness of dharmas · subsumed under the cognitive hindrance).
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無無明亦無無明盡……無苦集滅道」 「以無所得故」 — this division's "in truth there is no being to be transformed · transforming with nothing transformed" is just the dharma-station of the Heart Sūtra's "nothing attained · transforming yet without transforming" (transforming beings yet without a real being to be transformed · because nothing is attained).
This division's "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms · there is a self that is-not a self · ordinary being that is-not an ordinary being" is just the scriptural correspondence of the Thirty Verses' and Cheng weishi lun's "the twofold selflessness · the transformation of the basis · the clinging-to-dharmas and clinging-to-self"; "in truth there is no being to be transformed · transforming with nothing transformed" is just the same no-attainment dharma-station as the Heart Sūtra's "because nothing is attained." Shi Huijing's thesis "what the Diamond Sūtra says in scriptural language, Cheng weishi lun says in technical language" 〔from From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond Sūtra S5-P10〕: the Diamond Sūtra's single phrase "in truth there is no being the Tathāgata transforms," Cheng weishi lun says with the technical terms "removing the clinging-to-dharmas · severing the cognitive hindrance · the level dharma-realm · provisionally-designated beings." "Transforming with nothing transformed" is the transformation-of-the-basis sense of "abiding in nothing, give rise to the mind" (transforming beings yet without the thought of transforming) 〔from S5-P06; the ancient masters, see register 4〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. Mahāyāna-saṃgraha has no direct correspondence at this division, omitted. Cheng weishi lun is in progress; cited by stable name, an additive link to follow on completion, not repeating the citation.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- Transforming none in 「實無有眾生如來度者·化無所化」 ↔ Western ethics' "selfless altruism / action without an agent" (Kant's "duty out of the law rather than inclination," the modern ethical ideal of "selfless giving"): the West mostly argues from the purity of motive (selfless altruism) (doing good without clinging to a self that does good); the ancient masters' / Yogācāra reading of "transforming with nothing transformed" is not merely the selflessness of motive — "in truth there is no being to be transformed" is the removal of the clinging-to-dharmas of "there is a real being to be transformed" (Kuiji 「真理中無有眾生如來可度」
[0151b25], Vasubandhu 「定執脫有情，與我執過同」T1513 [0883a14–15]), revealed by the severing of the cognitive hindrance · the level dharma-realm ("the level true dharma-realm, the Buddha transforms no being"), not argued merely from the mental state of the agent — beyond "non-transforming" there is still "the provisional-name transforming along with convention" (the provisional name of beings shared with the aggregates not apart from the dharma-realm), hence transforming yet without transforming, not the pure negation of inaction. - The provisional self · the wholly-imagined in 「有我者即非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我」 ↔ the West's "the self as fiction / the narrative self" (Hume's "the self is but a bundle of perceptions," the modern "the self is a construction of linguistic narrative") and "provisional-name nominalism" (nominalism): the West mostly reads "self" as a fiction or a linguistic name with no correlate in experience; the ancient masters with "a self provisionally spoken through the convergence of causes and conditions · not a really-clung-to self" (Kuiji
[0151c05–06]) speak of "self" as dependently provisionally-established yet wholly-imagined — "is-not-a-self" is not merely the negation of "the self is a fiction" but removing "the really-clung-to self" (the wholly-imagined) while preserving "the provisionally-spoken self" (the other-dependent · speakable on the conventional level, Kuiji 「為除無我怖故，所以初修習必依於我」[0151c07–08]). The establishing-and-breaking of the provisional self is not the pure negation of fictionalism. - The Buddha transforming no being in 「平等真法界·法界平等」 ↔ the West's "the absolute / monistic realm of equality" (Spinoza's substance-monism, the modern "absolute without difference"): observable; yet the Yogācāra "level true dharma-realm" is not a static monistic substance — the provisional name of beings is shared with the five aggregates, not apart from the dharma-realm (Vasubandhu 「以名共彼陰，不離於法界」
T1511 [0794b24]), the dharma-realm level yet not abolishing the provisional-name transforming of beings (along with convention there is transforming · on the ultimate level no transforming), the turning of substance-and-function · the two truths, not an absolute one that swallows difference. - The point of the observation: the West tends to take "transforming with nothing transformed · the provisional self" as theses of selfless ethics · the fiction of the self · absolute equality (how altruism is selfless · how the self is a construction · how equality is one); the ancient masters take "in truth there is no being to be transformed · there is a self that is-not a self" as the transforming of beings revealed by removing the clinging-to-dharmas · breaking the view of self · severing the cognitive hindrance · the level dharma-realm (what is broken is the clinging-to-dharmas of "there is a real being to be transformed" and the view-of-self of "there is a real self," transforming yet not transforming being what the transformation of the basis reveals). The analysis of theses and the severing of hindrances through cultivation-and-witness is just one East–West note worth marking.
- (This register is a Western-perspective observation; the scriptural and Yogācāra reading remains throughout the principal one, the West a secondary reference, not an adjudication. The specific literature is a matter for the researcher's inquiry.)
9 · Manuscript Placement
Kumārajīva T0235 [0752a05–a10] (root text · Transforming with Nothing Transformed). The six versions' passage on transforming none · the self that is-not, [loc] at register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0756b07–b13] · Paramārtha T0237 [0765c21–c27] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0771a07–a15] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0985a07–a14] · Yijing T0239 [0775a03–a08]. Sectioning / treatises: Asaṅga T1510a [0757c28–0758a02·0765a10–a19·0758c03–04] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0794b13–c15] (the two verses [0794b23–24]·[0794c03–04]) · Vasubandhu T1513 [0883a04–a17] (the two verses [0883a07–08]·[0883a14–15]). Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0121c24–0122a27] · Zhiyi T1698 [0082c12–0083a01] · Kuiji T1700 [0151b06–0151c12].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 25 · Transforming with Nothing Transformed · apparatus · Spring 2026