金剛般若波羅蜜經 分二十七 無斷無滅分
「空」字聽得久了，會悄悄翻成另一種執——以為相好、福德、果報、諸法，乾脆都歸於一無所有。佛在這一分連下兩道「莫作是念」，正是攔住這一翻：別把相好撥成空無，也別把「發菩提」聽成「說諸法斷滅」。隨即一句立定：「於法不說斷滅相。」要緊的是，這不說斷滅，並不是退回去執諸法實有——緣起的福德、果報該有的功能宛然不失，可遣的只是那層「執它為實」的妄計。一遮兩邊：不執實，也不撥無；非常，亦非斷。古德三家異流，到這裡同歸一個中道。菩薩證了無生法忍而福德不斷，空到底卻不躲進寂滅——不住生死，也不住涅槃。原來空從來不是把一切減成零，是離了兩頭的偏，讓真實如其本然地現前。
Listen to the word "emptiness" (空) long enough and it quietly turns into another kind of clinging — the assumption that marks and features, merit, fruition, and all dharmas may as well be reduced, once and for all, to sheer nothingness. In this division the Buddha twice lays down the warning 「莫作是念」(Do not give rise to this thought), precisely to block that turn: do not strike the marks and features away into a blank void, and do not hear "giving rise to bodhi" as "preaching that all dharmas are cut off and annihilated." He then fixes the point in a single line: 「於法不說斷滅相」(Regarding dharmas, one does not preach a mark of being cut off and annihilated). What matters is that this "not preaching annihilation" is not a retreat into clinging to dharmas as truly existent — the dependently-arisen functions of merit and fruition remain perfectly intact, just as they should; all that is to be dispelled is that overlay of "grasping them as real." A single negation cuts both edges: neither cling to them as real, nor strike them away as nothing; not eternalist, and not annihilationist either. The three differing streams among the ancient masters all converge here on one Middle Way. The bodhisattva realizes the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas (無生法忍, anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti) and yet his merit is not cut off; he is empty all the way through and yet does not hide away in quiescent extinction — abiding neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa. It turns out that emptiness was never the reducing of everything to zero; it is the leaving-behind of both lopsided extremes, so that the real may stand present just as it is.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 27 · Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕一誡：莫念「如來不以具足相得菩提」
經曰：
「須菩提！汝若作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』須菩提！莫作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』
「須菩提！你倘若起這樣一個念頭：『如來不是憑著圓滿的相好，才證得無上正等正覺的。』須菩提，你別起這樣的念頭——別以為『如來不是憑著圓滿的相好，才證得無上正等正覺』。」
〔二〕二誡：莫念「發菩提者說諸法斷滅」，於法不說斷滅
經曰：
「須菩提！汝若作是念：『發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，說諸法斷滅相。』莫作是念。何以故？發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。
「須菩提！你倘若起這樣一個念頭：『發起求無上正等正覺之心的人，是在說一切法都斷絕、都滅盡的。』你別起這樣的念頭。為什麼呢？因為發起求無上正等正覺之心的人，對於一切法，並不說它斷絕、滅盡。」
[1] First caution: do not think "the Tathāgata did not attain bodhi by the perfected marks"
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！汝若作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』須菩提！莫作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』
"Subhūti! Suppose you were to think this: 'It was not by the perfected marks that the Tathāgata attained the unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening.' Subhūti, do not think that — do not suppose that 'it was not by the perfected marks that the Tathāgata attained the unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening.'"
[2] Second caution: do not think "one who sets out for bodhi teaches the annihilation of all dharmas"; of dharmas, no annihilation is taught
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！汝若作是念：『發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，說諸法斷滅相。』莫作是念。何以故？發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。
"Subhūti! Suppose you were to think this: 'One who has set out for the unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening teaches that all dharmas are cut off and brought to nothing.' Do not think that. Why? Because one who has aroused the mind set on the unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening does not, regarding any dharma, teach that it is cut off or annihilated."
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 27 · Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿增益與損減二邊、法空、所知障、無住涅槃、圓成非斷，來照金剛經這一段「莫作是念」的雙誡。
本分的位：法空講到這裡，防一個翻轉
前面一路講下來：相好不是法身，菩提無所得，諸法即非——「空」字幾乎要把一切都遣盡了。到這一分，恰恰要防一個細微的翻轉：聽得多了，會不會反過來把「空」聽成了「斷滅」？以為相好、福德、果報、諸法，乾脆都歸於一無所有？古德把眾生的迷執分成兩邊：在緣起的法上妄加一個實在的自性，這是增益邊（多添了本來沒有的實有）；反過來，把本有的緣起、本有的法性撥成純然的無，這是損減邊（減去了本來有的）。前半的「即非」破的多是增益（執相、執福為實有），到本分，要防的正是另一邊——把法空當成斷滅的損減見。
所以這一分屬於樞紐分十七的後半（法空、破法見、所知障）那一路。把諸法執為心外實有的「法我執」，障礙成佛的遍知，叫所知障；而「以法空為斷滅」，正是這所知障所攝法執的又一翻——不是執法為實有，而是執法空為斷無。兩頭都偏，本分要立的是不偏的中道：非斷、非常。
一誡：莫把相好撥成空無
佛先設一個念頭叫須菩提別起：「如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」——你別這樣想。表面看像是在說「相好不是成佛的因」，可佛偏要遮這個念。為什麼？古德讀得很細：前一分剛說「相好不是法身、不可憑相見如來」，聽的人若一徑推下去，會把佛圓滿的相好身也一筆撥掉，以為「只剩一個空蕩蕩的法身空理」——窺基把這層疑情點得明白：「福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」。
用唯識的眼看：相好身是佛的報身、化身所現的相，是緣起圓滿的果，宛然有它。窺基依世親一句：「以報身、化身具足相得故」——不可把它撥成純粹的無。所以這一誡，遮的不是「執相好為法身」（那是上一分遮的增益），而是反過來那一邊：把相好撥成斷滅空無的損減。相好非法身（不執相），而相好身亦不可斷滅（不撥相）——一遮兩邊。
二誡：莫把法空聽成斷滅
接著是本分的正眼，第二個「莫作是念」：別以為「發菩提心的人，是在說諸法都斷絕滅盡」。佛隨即收一句，正面立義：「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。」
這「於法不說斷滅」，就是本分「即非」的落點——只是它不像別分那樣以「即非、是名」三句連發，而是直就「空非斷滅」一義立。順唯識看，它一手遮兩邊：
- 不墮增益（不執法為實有）：諸菩薩知因知果，並不在緣起的福德、果報上妄執一個實在的因果自性。窺基的話最準：「但無所執實福德因及果」——遣的是那層遍計所執的實有。
- 不墮損減（不撥法為斷無）：可是遣掉實執，並不等於把緣起的法也一併抹掉。窺基緊接一句：「非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」——意思是，所遮的只是「執實的那種作用」，而緣起假法該有的功能，照樣宛然不失。換句話說：依他起的法非無，圓成實的真如非斷。
這就是「於法不說斷滅」的中道：遮增益（執實）於一邊，遮損減（撥無）於另一邊，雙離二邊而顯真如。古德三家異流，到這一分卻同歸一處——吉藏判「因非斷非常，因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」；智顗判「相盡寂滅故不有（不墮常），感至隨現故不斷（不墮斷），體合中道」；窺基依世親、無著，判「去離斷常」。經語「不說斷滅」，論語叫「離增益損減二邊而顯中道」，照的是同一件事。
福不失，果報不斷：得無生忍而功德相續
本分還含著一層論本的疑，世親把它讀得最直截。有人疑：既然不是憑福德才得大菩提，那菩薩豈不是白修了福德、失了果報？尤其菩薩證得「無生法忍」、得了出世間的無分別智，福德是不是就此斷絕了？世親兩譯都以一偈作答：「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」、「其福不失亡，果報不斷絕，得忍亦不斷，以獲無垢故」。
用唯識看：菩薩證無生法忍，是於緣起的法上見其無自性、不再起遍計的實執；可是這「無所得」的智一起，福德不但不斷，反而轉成清淨殊勝的功德——世親說，這是因為「成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴」。福德並沒有歸於斷滅，而是轉成了成佛的資糧；這在唯識正叫轉依——轉捨染污，轉得清淨，是一段內在的相續，不是斷掉重來。所以「於法不說斷滅」，從這一面讀，就是「得無生忍而福德、果報不斷絕」——斷滅見正反過來，福德相續不失。
不住生死涅槃：空到底，不墮二乘的斷滅
無著還把這一分判在更高的一格：證道之後、佛地心圓滿的功德裡，第五是「不住生死涅槃」。「於法不說斷滅」，在無著讀來，就是不墮一向的寂滅——「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」。生死如影像，菩薩不被它縛（不住生死），卻也不把它斷盡了躲進涅槃裡去（不住涅槃）。
窺基把這層的關鍵點透：「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」。倘若把「空」修成了把生死一斷、獨入寂滅，那就落回二乘，住在偏空的涅槃裡了——那才是真的「斷滅」。菩薩的空不是這樣：空到底，反而是悲智雙運，不住生死（智不被縛）、不住涅槃（悲不捨眾生）。這正是唯識說的無住涅槃——斷盡所知障所顯的、不住兩邊的證境。「於法不說斷滅」，到這一層，就是不墮二乘斷滅的無住大涅槃。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識的中道、二邊、無住涅槃從金剛經流出——離二邊、辨真實、無住涅槃之說，自有其經源與論本（解深密、瑜伽，辯中邊、成唯識），般若另是一系；而是同一「空非斷滅」之旨，金剛經以經語（不說斷滅·非斷非常）說，唯識以論語（離增益損減二邊·圓成非斷·無住涅槃）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。辯中邊論正面立「離二邊、處中道」，遮增益、遮損減而顯中，與本分「非斷非常、離二邊」對得最直；三十頌說「依他起非全無、圓成實非斷滅」，與本分「不說斷滅、非無因緣假因果」相印；成唯識論說無住涅槃、說所知障所執的法我，與本分「不住生死涅槃、不墮二乘斷滅」「遣以法空為斷滅之法執」相應；二十論遣心外實境而不撥內識，與窺基「但遮作用緣、非無功能緣」遮實存假同一脈。般若一系的心經「不生不滅、不增不減」，與本分「不說斷滅、非斷非常」同是離二邊的一個法位——空相不是斷滅的無。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「於法不說斷滅相」，成唯識論以「遣所知障法執·依他非無·圓成非斷·無住涅槃」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〕。
Bringing the two extremes of superimposition (增益) and denial (損減), the emptiness of dharmas, the cognitive hindrance (所知障), the non-abiding nirvāṇa (無住涅槃), and the perfectly-accomplished that is not cut off, to reflect this division’s twofold caution of “do not give rise to this thought.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.
The Place of This Division: Now That the Emptiness of Dharmas Has Been Taught This Far, Guard Against a Reversal
All along the way it has been taught: the fine marks are not the Dharma-body, bodhi has nothing attained, dharmas are “is-not” — until the word “emptiness” has nearly dispelled everything. Just here, this division must guard against a subtle reversal: having heard so much, might one not turn around and hear “emptiness” as “annihilation,” supposing that the fine marks, merit, reward, and all dharmas simply come down to a sheer nothing-at-all? The ancient masters divide the deluded clinging of beings into two extremes: upon the dependently-arisen dharma to add a real intrinsic nature is the extreme of superimposition (增益邊, adding a real existence that was never there); conversely, to negate the inherently dependent arising, the inherently present nature of dharmas, into a pure nothing, is the extreme of denial (損減邊, subtracting what was inherently there). The “is-not” of the earlier half breaks mostly superimposition (clinging to marks, clinging to merit as real existents); by this division what must be guarded against is the other extreme — taking the emptiness of dharmas as the annihilationist view of denial.
So this division belongs to that course of the latter half of the pivotal Division 17 (the emptiness of dharmas, breaking the view of dharmas, the cognitive hindrance). The “clinging to a self in dharmas” (法我執) that grasps dharmas as real existents outside the mind, obstructing the omniscience of buddhahood, is called the cognitive hindrance (所知障); and “taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation” is precisely a further turn of the clinging-to-dharmas subsumed under that cognitive hindrance — not grasping dharmas as real, but grasping the emptiness of dharmas as annihilated nothingness. Both ends are slanted; what this division would establish is the unslanted middle way: neither cut off, nor permanent (非斷、非常).
The First Caution: Do Not Negate the Fine Marks into Empty Nothing
The Buddha first sets up a thought for Subhūti not to raise: 「如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」— do not think the Tathāgata attained supreme perfect enlightenment by reason of the perfect marks. On the surface this looks like saying “the fine marks are not the cause of attaining buddhahood,” yet the Buddha pointedly screens off this very thought. Why? The ancient masters read it finely: the preceding division has just said “the fine marks are not the Dharma-body; one cannot see the Tathāgata by the marks”; if the hearer pushes straight on, he will sweep away the Buddha’s perfect body of marks too with a single stroke, supposing that “there is left only an empty, hollow principle of the Dharma-body’s emptiness.” Kuiji points this doubt out plainly: 「福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」— if merit is empty and the reward too is empty, then dharmas are cut off and annihilated, and so the Buddha’s body of fine marks is also nothing, leaving only the empty principle of the Dharma-body.
Seen with the Yogācāra eye: the body of fine marks is the mark manifested by the Buddha’s reward-body and transformation-body (報身、化身), the fully realized fruit of dependent arising, vividly possessing its own being. Kuiji, following one line of Vasubandhu, says 「以報身、化身具足相得故」— because it is attained through the reward-body and transformation-body being complete with marks — one must not negate it into pure nothing. So what this caution screens off is not “clinging to the fine marks as the Dharma-body” (that is the superimposition the preceding division screened), but the opposite extreme: negating the fine marks into annihilated nothingness, the extreme of denial. The fine marks are not the Dharma-body (do not cling to the marks), and yet the body of fine marks cannot be annihilated either (do not negate the marks) — a single screening that screens both extremes.
The Second Caution: Do Not Hear the Emptiness of Dharmas as Annihilation
There follows the very eye of this division, the second “do not give rise to this thought”: do not suppose that “one who gives rise to the bodhi-mind is teaching that all dharmas are cut off and utterly extinguished.” The Buddha at once draws it in with a positive establishing of the meaning: 「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相」— one who gives rise to the mind of supreme perfect enlightenment does not, of dharmas, teach a mark of annihilation.
This “of dharmas one does not teach annihilation” is the landing-point of this division’s “is-not” — only it does not, as in other divisions, fire off the three phrases “is-not, is called” in series, but establishes directly upon the single meaning “emptiness is not annihilation.” Read through Yogācāra, it screens both extremes with one hand:
- Not falling into superimposition (not grasping dharmas as real existents): the bodhisattvas know cause and know fruit, and do not, upon the merit and reward of dependent arising, wrongly grasp a real intrinsic nature of cause and effect. Kuiji’s words are the most exact: 「但無所執實福德因及果」— only there is no grasped real cause of merit and its fruit — what is dispelled is that layer of wholly-imagined (遍計所執) real existence.
- Not falling into denial (not negating dharmas into annihilated nothingness): yet to dispel the real clinging is not to wipe away the dependently-arisen dharmas along with it. Kuiji adds at once: 「非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」— it is not that there is no provisional cause-and-effect of conditioned arising; only the activity grasped as real is screened off, not that the conditions’ functioning is absent. That is: what is screened is only “the kind of activity grasped as real,” while the proper functioning of the provisional, dependently-arisen dharma remains vividly intact. In other words: the dependently-arisen (依他起) dharma is not nothing; the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實) is not cut off.
This is the middle way of “of dharmas one does not teach annihilation”: screening superimposition (grasping as real) on the one side, screening denial (negating into nothing) on the other, departing both extremes and disclosing suchness. The three lineages of ancient masters differ in stream but converge here at one place — Jizang judges 「因非斷非常，因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」— cause is neither cut off nor permanent; cause and effect are both right contemplation, both departing from cut-off and permanence; Zhiyi judges 「相盡寂滅故不有（不墮常），感至隨現故不斷（不墮斷），體合中道」— as marks are exhausted into cessation, it is not existent (not falling into permanence); as resonance arrives it manifests accordingly, so it is not cut off (not falling into annihilation) — in essence according with the middle way; and Kuiji, following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, judges 「去離斷常」— departing from cut-off and permanence. The sūtra’s phrase “does not teach annihilation,” and the treatise’s phrase “departing the two extremes of superimposition and denial to disclose the middle way,” reflect one and the same thing.
Merit Is Not Lost, the Reward Is Not Cut Off: Attaining the Forbearance of Non-arising While Merit Continues
This division also holds a treatise-doubt, which Vasubandhu reads most bluntly. Someone doubts: if it is not by merit that great bodhi is attained, then has the bodhisattva not cultivated merit in vain and lost the reward? In particular, once the bodhisattva realizes the “forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas” (無生法忍) and attains the supramundane non-discriminating wisdom, is merit then cut off? Both of Vasubandhu’s translations answer in a verse: 「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」「其福不失亡，果報不斷絕，得忍亦不斷，以獲無垢故」— the cause of merit is not lost, nor its excellent reward; attaining the excellent forbearance, it is not lost, for the unstained fruit is attained.
Seen through Yogācāra: when the bodhisattva realizes the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas, he sees that the dependently-arisen dharmas have no intrinsic nature and no longer rouses the wholly-imagined real-clinging; yet once this wisdom of “nothing attained” arises, merit is not only not cut off but turns into pure and excellent virtue — Vasubandhu says this is because one 「成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴」— accomplishes the adornment of wisdom and the adornment of merit. Merit does not come down to annihilation but turns into the provision for buddhahood; in Yogācāra this is precisely transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti) — casting off the defiled, attaining the pure, an inward continuity, not a cutting off and starting over. So “of dharmas one does not teach annihilation,” read from this side, is “attaining the forbearance of non-arising while merit and reward are not cut off” — the annihilationist view is exactly reversed: merit continues unbroken.
Not Abiding in Birth-and-Death or in Nirvāṇa: Empty to the End, Not Falling into the Two Vehicles’ Annihilation
Asaṅga assigns this division to a still higher grade: among the perfected virtues of the mind at the Buddha-ground after the realization of the path, the fifth is “not abiding in birth-and-death or in nirvāṇa” (不住生死涅槃). “Of dharmas one does not teach annihilation,” as Asaṅga reads it, is just this: not falling into a one-sided cessation — 「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」— not cutting off all the image-like dharmas of birth-and-death, freely benefiting sentient beings within nirvāṇa. Birth-and-death is like an image; the bodhisattva is not bound by it (not abiding in birth-and-death), yet does not annihilate it altogether and hide away in nirvāṇa (not abiding in nirvāṇa).
Kuiji makes the crux of this layer plain: 「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」— to cut off and annihilate birth-and-death is to be the same as the two vehicles, abiding in nirvāṇa. If one cultivates “emptiness” into a cutting-off of birth-and-death and a solitary entry into cessation, one falls back into the two vehicles, abiding in a one-sidedly empty nirvāṇa — and that is what is truly “annihilation.” The bodhisattva’s emptiness is not like this: empty to the very end, it is rather the joint working of compassion and wisdom, not abiding in birth-and-death (wisdom not bound) and not abiding in nirvāṇa (compassion not forsaking beings). This is precisely what Yogācāra calls the non-abiding nirvāṇa (無住涅槃) — the realized state disclosed by exhausting the cognitive hindrance, not abiding in either extreme. “Of dharmas one does not teach annihilation,” at this layer, is the non-abiding great nirvāṇa that does not fall into the two vehicles’ annihilation.
Yogācāra as Mirror: One Reality, Said in the Sūtra’s Words and in the Treatise’s Words
To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra’s middle way, two extremes, and non-abiding nirvāṇa flow out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of departing the two extremes, discerning the real, and the non-abiding nirvāṇa have their own scriptural sources and treatises (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi; the Madhyānta-vibhāga, the Cheng weishi lun); the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same purport — “emptiness is not annihilation” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (does not teach annihilation · neither cut off nor permanent) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (departing the two extremes of superimposition and denial · the perfectly-accomplished is not cut off · the non-abiding nirvāṇa); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Madhyānta-vibhāga (辯中邊論) directly establishes “departing the two extremes, dwelling in the middle way,” screening superimposition and screening denial to disclose the middle — matching most directly this division’s “neither cut off nor permanent, departing the two extremes.” The Thirty Verses say “the other-dependent (依他起) is not wholly nothing; the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實) is not annihilated,” sealing with this division’s “does not teach annihilation; it is not that there is no provisional cause-and-effect of conditions.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the non-abiding nirvāṇa and of the self-in-dharmas grasped by the cognitive hindrance, corresponding to this division’s “not abiding in birth-and-death or nirvāṇa, not falling into the two vehicles’ annihilation” and its “dispelling the clinging-to-dharmas of taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation.” The Twenty Verses dispel the real object outside the mind without negating the inner consciousness, of one vein with Kuiji’s “only the activity grasped as real is screened, not that the functioning is absent” — dispelling the real while preserving the provisional. And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「不生不滅、不增不減」— neither arising nor ceasing, neither increasing nor decreasing — is the same dharma-position of departing the two extremes as this division’s “does not teach annihilation, neither cut off nor permanent”: the mark of emptiness is not an annihilated nothing. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「於法不說斷滅相」— of dharmas one does not teach a mark of annihilation — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “dispelling the cognitive hindrance’s clinging-to-dharmas · the other-dependent is not nothing · the perfectly-accomplished is not cut off · the non-abiding nirvāṇa” are one and the same matter 〔this convergence is set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 27 · Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（非斷非常·中道 · §17 後半）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分二十七 無斷無滅分 |
| 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「空非斷滅」——遮「以法空為斷滅」之損減法執，立非斷非常之中道） |
| 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心具足·第五「不住生死涅槃故」——「為不住涅槃故，經言『須菩提！如是念：『發行菩薩乘者，有法說斷滅』耶』如是等」[0758a24–26]；對治層復出：「於彼心具足中，為不住生死、涅槃故……於中，經言『於法不說斷滅』者，謂如所住法而通達，不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」[0765b10–14]（前句「不以相具足正覺」屬攝取法身住處 [0758a20–24]，繫於分二十六） |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「失福德及果報」之疑——「有人起如是心：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩摩訶薩則失福德及失果報。』自下經文為斷此疑」（T1511 [0795b08–10]）；義淨譯「若言福不證菩提者，此即菩薩福業其果應斷。為釋此疑，故有下文」（T1513 [0883b13–15]） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 「論生起云『若言不以色相好見法身者，則修相好業不得菩提……為破此疑故，明汝勿言無福因及福果』」[0122b18–21]；判因非斷非常——「前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常，可謂因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」[0122c03–04] |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 第二周「辨名」末之因果二門——「此下去『不說諸法斷滅』就文有二，初、果，次、因」[0083a13–14]；判體合中道——「莫起斷滅，相盡寂滅故不有，道王十方非謂無，應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷，體合中道」[0083a18–21] |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依世親「展轉疑中曲文第二疑」「謂有疑曰：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩則失福德及果報也』」[0152a20–23]；釋「不說斷滅」為「去離斷常……但無所執實福德因及果，非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」[0152b26–29]；依無著判「心具足中第五為不住生死涅槃」[0152b29–c01] |
無斷無滅義：此分承樞紐（分十七 究竟無我·法空）、分二十（離色離相）、分二十二（無得之得）、分二十六（法身非相·色見聲求偈）之後，於「法空」位防一細執之翻——既說「相好非法身」「菩提無得」「諸法即非」，恐墮「法空即斷滅」之損減見（無著「於法無我事中而執為無，是損減邊」[0758c25–26]）。故佛二誡：一誡「莫作念：如來不以具足相故得菩提」（承分二十六之餘，遮「撥相好身以為純法身空理」——窺基述彼疑「福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」[0152a25–27]）；二誡「莫作念：發菩提者說諸法斷滅相」，結以「於法不說斷滅相」。古德三家（三論·天台·唯識）俱判此為非斷非常之中道（見目四）。無著判此分屬證道後佛地心具足之第五「不住生死涅槃」（[0758a24–26]·[0765b10–14]），「於法不說斷滅」即菩薩得無生忍而不墮二乘一向寂靜之斷滅（窺基「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」[0152c07–08]）。本分「即非」之翻，於「法（法空）」而立中道，非前半之「相·眾生」（見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 二誡一段）
要句：莫作念「如來不以具足相故得菩提」/ 莫作念「發菩提者說諸法斷滅相」/ 於法不說斷滅相
| 版本 | 二誡·不說斷滅一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！汝若作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』須菩提！莫作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』」「須菩提！汝若作是念：『發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，說諸法斷滅相。』莫作是念。何以故？發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。」 | 0752a19–a25 |
| 菩提流支 T236a | 「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以相成就得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？須菩提！莫作是念：『如來以相成就得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』須菩提！汝若作是念：『菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，說諸法斷滅相。』須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，不說諸法斷滅相。」 | 0756b24–c01 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？如來可以具足相得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？須菩提！汝今不應作如是見：『如來以具足相得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』何以故？須菩提！如來不由具足相得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！若汝作是念：『如來有是說：「行菩薩乘人，有法可滅。」』須菩提！汝莫作此見。何以故？如來不說行菩薩乘人有法可滅，及以永斷。」 | 0766a08–a15 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！相具足，如來無上正遍知證覺？不，復彼，善實！如是見應。彼何所因？不，善實！相具足，如來無上正遍知證覺。復時，彼，善實！有如是語：『菩薩乘發行，有法破滅，施設斷。』不，復，善實！如是見應。彼何所因？不菩薩乘發行有法破滅，施設不斷。」 | 0771a29–b05 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？如來、應、正等覺以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故？善現！如來、應、正等覺不以諸相具足現證無上正等菩提。」「復次，善現！如是發趣菩薩乘者，頗施設少法若壞若斷耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。諸有發趣菩薩乘者，終不施設少法若壞若斷。」 | 0985a27–b04 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！『諸有發趣菩薩乘者，其所有法是斷滅不？』汝莫作是見。何以故？趣菩薩乘者，其法不失。」 | 0775a18–a20 |
異文所繫：
- 句一「不以具足相得菩提」之有無與「不」字：羅什、真諦作有「不」字之誡（羅什「汝若作是念：『如來不以具足相故得菩提』……莫作是念」；真諦「不應作是見：『如來以具足相得菩提』……如來不由具足相得菩提」）；流支、玄奘作無「不」字之問（流支「如來可以相成就得菩提？莫作是念：『如來以相成就得菩提』」、玄奘「如來……以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶？……不以諸相具足現證」）；義淨此句從闕（其「具相·轉輪王」之遮已盡於前段
[0775a09–13]，分二十七唯存斷滅一誡）。窺基逕作勘文之語：「應除『不』字，撿《能斷》及婆伽婆文，竝無『不』字也」[0152b08–09]——即窺基勘玄奘《能斷》本與流支（婆伽婆）本，二本俱無「不」字（見目四、目九）。此「不」字之有無，正繫於本誡之向背：有「不」字者誡「莫謂佛不以相得菩提」（遮撥相好之損減），無「不」字者誡「莫謂佛以相得菩提」（遮執相好之增益）——二讀並存，所遮一邊一邊。 - 句二「斷滅／破滅·施設斷／法可滅·永斷／其法不失」：羅什、流支作「說諸法斷滅相」（羅什「說諸法斷滅相」、流支「說諸法斷滅相」「不說諸法斷滅相」）；真諦作「有法可滅，及以永斷」
[0766a13–15]；笈多作「有法破滅，施設斷」「施設不斷」[0771b03–05]；玄奘作「頗施設少法若壞若斷」「終不施設少法若壞若斷」[0985b02–04]；義淨作「其所有法是斷滅不」「其法不失」[0775a18–20]。「斷滅／破滅／可滅·永斷／壞·斷／斷滅」者，皆顯「發菩提者撥諸法為斷滅」之邪見（梵 uccheda 義之「斷·滅·壞」），所遮即斷見（損減邊）。義淨獨以「其法不失」[0775a20]結之（不作「不說斷滅」），逕標世親論「福不失·果報不斷絕」之讀（見目四）——「法不失」即「不說斷滅」之異詮，繫於本分「得無生忍而福德不失」之論本疑（世親T1511 [0795b20–21]、T1513 [0883b16]）。 - 能斷系重詞與「施設」：玄奘「頗施設少法若壞若斷……終不施設少法若壞若斷」
[0985b02–04]、笈多「有法破滅，施設斷……施設不斷」[0771b03–05]——能斷系（玄奘·笈多）作「施設（若壞若斷）」之語（梵 prajñapyate 義，「施設·安立」），顯所斷者乃「施設之少法」（假立之法相）；羅什、流支則作「說諸法斷滅相」（直就「諸法」言斷滅）。「施設斷」與「說諸法斷滅」之異，正繫於「所斷者乃假立法相（依他·非實）非真有法」之義（窺基「但無所執實福德因及果，非無因緣假因果也」[0152b27–28]，見目三、目四）。 - 句一之歸屬與分二十六之接縫：羅什、真諦於分二十七首仍出「相好得菩提」一誡（承分二十六轉輪王·色見偈之餘）；流支、玄奘亦然（流支「如來可以相成就得菩提」
[0756b24]、玄奘「以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶」[0985a27–28]）；唯義淨將此誡併入分二十六（[0775a09–13]轉輪王段），分二十七逕起斷滅一誡。古德判此「相好得菩提」一誡屬「攝取法身」之疑（無著[0758a20–24]、窺基[0152b02–09]），斷滅一誡屬「不住生死涅槃」之第五（無著[0765b10–14]、窺基[0152b29–c01]），二誡同繫於「相好身與法身·空與不斷」之中道（見目四）。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 法空 · 中道 · §17 後半）
本分無「X／即非X／是名X」之顯式三句，其即非之翻在「空（法空）非斷滅」一義：「於法不說斷滅相」[0752a25]——遣「以法空為斷滅」之損減法執，立非斷非常之中道。所遮者乃法我（執法空為一向之斷無），非前半之相·眾生（人我）。此即§17 後半「法空·破四見·所知障」之施於「法」自身。
「諸法 — 即非（不執實有，亦不撥為斷滅）— 中道（假因果宛然·不說斷滅）」映三性（法空位）：
- 諸法（相好·福德·果報·生死法）（X）即依他起——緣生宛然之法相（窺基「非無因緣假因果也……非無功能緣故」
[0152b28–29]）。諸法非無（依他可說），故「不說斷滅」。 - 遣執實（不以相好為法身因·不執福德實有因果）即遣遍計所執——非分別所執之「實有自性之相好·福德·法」（窺基「但無所執實福德因及果……但遮作用緣」
[0152b27–28]；無著「於如言辭法中，分別執有自性，是增益邊」[0758c24–25]）。遣增益（執實）之一邊。 - 不墮斷滅（不撥諸法·不失福德果報·不住涅槃）即立圓成實·中道——非「於法無我事中而執為無」之損減（無著
[0758c25–26]）。法空所顯之真如非斷滅之無，乃離二邊之中道（吉藏「因非斷非常·皆離斷常」[0122c03–04]；智顗「應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷，體合中道」[0083a19–21]）。遣損減（撥無）之一邊。
本分之眼（★後半·法空·中道）：即非一式，至此分翻為「空非斷滅」之中道——前半（分一至十六）即非多遣「相·眾生·福德」之有執（人我·增益），至本分（後半·法空），既遣「相好·福德·法」之執實（增益），復遮「法空即斷滅」之撥無（損減），雙離二邊而立中道。此正樞紐分十七「我空轉法空·煩惱障轉所知障」之續行於中道一面：分二十二「無得之得」破「菩提為實法可得」之執（遮增益），本分二十七進防「法空·無得即斷滅」之翻（遮損減）——古德「第二周斷所知障」（窺基依世親，分十七 [0127c01–03]）於「中道·非斷非常」一面之落實。所斷之「法斷滅見」乃所知障所攝之法執一翻（執法空為斷無），非前半之我執（人我）。窺基「諸菩薩知因知果，去離斷常」[0152b26–27]、無著「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」[0765b13–14]——皆顯「法空（破四見·遣法執）非斷滅」之圓成中道。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·中道（非斷非常）」位之一翻。「不說斷滅」之中道，即三十頌「依他非無·圓成非斷」之經語對應〔摘自 S5-P10〕（見目七）。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 非斷非常·中道·福不失·不住涅槃 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》二譯讀本分為「福不失·果報不斷絕·得忍亦不斷」（斷「失福德果報」之疑），偈各標其義： 世親以「若不依福德得大菩提，則失福德及果報」立本分之疑，偈「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」釋「不說斷滅相」——得無生法忍而福德不失、果報不斷，正「於法不說斷滅」之論本義。古德三家（三論·天台·唯識）則於此偈之上更標「非斷非常·體合中道·去離斷常」，二譯名異義一。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯）：先設疑——「論曰：有人起如是心：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩摩訶薩則失福德及失果報。』自下經文為斷此疑」[0795b08–10]。論偈 [0795b11–14]：
「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果。 示勝福德相，是故說譬喻；是福德無報，如是受不取。」
「此義云何？雖不依福德得真菩提，而不失福德及彼果報。何以故？以能成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴故」[0795b15–17]；「有人起如是心：『諸菩薩摩訶薩得無生法忍，以得出世間智，失彼福德及以果報。』為遮此故，示現福德不失，而更得清淨殊勝功德，是故不失。如經『何以故？菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相』故」[0795b18–23]。〔前「相成就得菩提」之偈「非是色身相，可比知如來；諸佛唯法身，轉輪王非佛」[0794c26–27]·「非相好果報，依福德成就；而得真法身，方便異相故」[0795a05–06] 繫於分二十六轉輪王段；本分之偈在「福不失」一偈。〕
世親 T1513（義淨譯）：先設疑——「若言福不證菩提者，此即菩薩福業其果應斷。為釋此疑，故有下文，言此福性雖復不能親招覺處」[0883b13–15]。頌 [0883b16–19]：
「其福不失亡，果報不斷絕，得忍亦不斷，以獲無垢故。 更論於福因，為此陳其喻，彼福無報故，正取非越取。」
「又有疑云：『既得無生法忍智乃不生，菩薩諸福皆應斷絕。』為顯福不斷絕至極清淨，獲福既多果報亦勝，於不生法得無性者有二種無性，由其二性體不生故」[0883b22–26]；釋「正取非越取」：「凡所有福招果報者，是可厭故，當知彼取即是越取，如越正路而行嶮道。而彼福不招報，是故彼是正取非為越取」[0883b27–c01]。
〔二譯對位：不失功德因·及彼勝果報／其福不失亡·果報不斷絕（得勝忍不失·以得無垢果／得忍亦不斷·以獲無垢故）——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。二譯俱以一偈／頌讀「不說斷滅」為「得無生忍而福德·果報不斷絕」（斷見之反），復申「福無報而正取非越取」（不墮福報之味著）。〕
無著 T1510（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·第五「不住生死涅槃故」——「為不住涅槃故，經言『須菩提！如是念：『發行菩薩乘者，有法說斷滅』耶』如是等」[0758a24–26]。對治層展開：「於彼心具足中，為不住生死、涅槃故……於中，經言『於法不說斷滅』者，謂如所住法而通達，不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事。此中，為遮一向寂靜故，顯示不住涅槃」[0765b10–15]。〔前句「如來可以相具足正覺菩提？莫作是念」者，無著釋「此義明相具足體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色自性故」[0758a22–24]，屬攝取法身住處，繫於分二十六之餘；其與本分「不住涅槃」二誡相接，正「相好非法身（不執相）·法空非斷滅（不撥法）」之雙遮。〕
吉藏（三論）T1699：科依世親論生起——「論生起云：『若言不以色相好見法身者，則修相好業不得菩提。若爾，應無福德之因、福德之果。為破此疑故，明汝勿言無福因及福果。』」[0122b18–21]。釋二疑：「汝若作是念，發菩提心，說諸法斷滅。又疑：菩薩得無生忍、出世間智慧，爾時捨肉身、受法身，則應無復福德因福德果。為破此疑故，明菩薩得無生忍，得妙智慧妙福德，豈失福德因果墮斷滅中耶？」[0122b23–28]。判因果皆離斷常之中道：「此中明從初發心不習斷滅觀，亦不起常觀，後心皆爾，故初後不二，如云『發心、畢竟二不別』也。前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常，可謂因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」[0122c01–04]。
智顗（天台）T1698：科為第二周「辨名」末之因果二門——「此下去『不說諸法斷滅』就文有二，初、果，次、因」[0083a13–14]。釋果（相好得菩提一誡）：「汝莫作念，誡也，勿言諸法一向無所有，故謂不以具足相得菩提，不偏在色、聲故向言非，非不身相故復言是也」[0083a15–17]。釋因（斷滅一誡）·判體合中道：「『發阿耨』下，第二明因亦二，前、誡，後、明有。莫起斷滅，相盡寂滅故不有，道王十方非謂無，應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷，體合中道，軌物之式，限之一方豈不謬哉」[0083a17–21]。
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親判「展轉疑中曲文第二疑」——「述曰，世親云，此第三段釋展轉疑中，曲文第二疑也。謂有疑曰：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩則失福德及果報也。』」[0152a20–23]，疑情「准此，即福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」[0152a25–27]。釋「相好得菩提」一誡（依無著、世親）：「無著云……為離此著故，明相具足，體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色性故」[0152b02–06]；「世親云，汝『莫作是念，如來不以具足相得菩提』，以報身、化身具足相得故」[0152b11–13]；并出勘文之語：「應除『不』字，撿《能斷》及婆伽婆文，竝無『不』字也」[0152b08–09]。釋「不說斷滅」（依世親）·去離斷常·遮執實非遮假：「述曰，此第三釋所以也。謂諸菩薩知因知果，去離斷常，但無所執實福德因及果，非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」[0152b26–29]。釋（依無著）·不住生死涅槃：「無著云，自下明心具足中第五為不住生死涅槃故……謂發心菩薩知因說果，去離斷常，故不說斷滅也。謂雖得涅槃，還住生死，然不令斷生死，若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故，以此故名不說斷滅相也」[0152b29–c08]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸非斷非常之中道：「不說斷滅」者，非謂法空即斷無——吉藏「因非斷非常·因果皆是正觀·皆離斷常」
[0122c03–04]、智顗「相盡寂滅故不有（不常），感至隨現故不斷·體合中道」[0083a19–21]、窺基（依世親無著）「去離斷常·但遮執實作用緣非無功能緣（假因果存）·不住生死涅槃（不墮二乘斷滅）」[0152b26–c08]——逐項錨於「不以相好得菩提（非執相）·不說斷滅相（非撥法）」二誡。世親二譯則就「福不失·果報不斷絕·得忍亦不斷」一面讀之（斷「得無生忍則失福德果報」之疑）。此即本分「無斷無滅」之古德定讀，亦§17 後半「破法見·遮斷滅損減」之經文所本。
五、術語
斷滅相 uccheda（斷見·撥諸法為無；損減邊；流支·羅什「諸法斷滅相」、真諦「有法可滅及以永斷」、玄奘「若壞若斷」、笈多「破滅·施設斷」、義淨「其法不失」之異見目二）·
非斷非常／離斷常（中道；吉藏「因非斷非常·皆離斷常」[0122c03–04]、智顗「不有不常·體合中道」[0083a20–21]、窺基「去離斷常」[0152b27]）·
增益邊／損減邊 samāropa ／ apavāda（無著「於如言辭法中分別執有自性，是增益邊；於法無我事中而執為無，是損減邊」[0758c24–26]；斷滅見＝損減邊）·
不住生死涅槃（無住涅槃 apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa；無著「為不住生死、涅槃故……不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」[0765b10–14]；窺基「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」[0152c07–08]）·
無生法忍 anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti（世親「菩薩得無生法忍，以得出世間智」T1511 [0795b18–19]；本分「知一切法無我，得成於忍」之忍）·
具足相得菩提（相好為因；世親「報身、化身具足相得故」[0152b12–13]·無著「相具足體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色自性故」T1510a [0758a23–24]）·
功能緣／作用緣（窺基「但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」[0152b28–29]，謂遮「執實之作用」而存「假法之功能」）。〔梵文發音輔助；「斷滅／破滅／可滅·永斷／壞·斷」之譯異見目二。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（無斷無滅 · 二誡之雙遮 · 中道之翻）
本分無具象譬喻（虛空喻在分四、忍辱仙人喻在分十四、色見聲求偈在分二十六、六喻在分三十二）。其修辭之要在「莫作是念」之雙誡與「非斷非常」之中道翻轉：
- 二「莫作是念」之雙誡並施：本分以「汝若作是念……莫作是念」之句式兩出——一誡「莫念：如來不以具足相得菩提」（承分二十六），二誡「莫念：發菩提者說諸法斷滅相」。前誡遮「撥相好以為純法身空理」（損減於佛身），後誡遮「以法空為諸法斷滅」（損減於諸法）。二誡同式並列，所遮一在佛身一在諸法，而義一歸中道（不撥·不執）。智顗「就文有二，初、果（相好得菩提），次、因（不說斷滅）」
[0083a13–14]、吉藏「前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常」[0122c03–04]——果（佛身）·因（諸法）二門，皆離斷常。 - 「非斷非常」之中道翻轉：正防「斷」（謂法空·無得即斷滅），陡以「於法不說斷滅相」翻轉（法空非斷無）；而其「不說斷滅」復非墮「常」（非執諸法實有），乃「相盡寂滅故不有（不常）·感至隨現故不斷」（智顗
[0083a19–21]）之雙離。「斷」之防（莫念斷滅）與「常」之遮（非執實有）相形，「不說斷滅」者正為立非斷非常之中道。此「遮二邊而顯中道」之筆，與分十「莊嚴而即非莊嚴」、分二十二「無得而是名菩提」之「遣自性而存可說」同一翻轉之構，而本分獨以「雙遮（不執·不撥）」顯中道之全。 - 古德之喻（補喻）：經文止「不說斷滅」，古德以喻顯「不斷不常」——智顗「道王十方非謂無，應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷」
[0083a19–20]（應感隨現之喻，喻法身應化之不斷不常）；無著「不斷一切生死影像法」[0765b13]（生死如影像而不斷之，喻不住涅槃之中道）。此「應感隨現·生死影像」之喻，正顯「即非（影像非實·不執常）而不說斷滅（隨現宛然·不墮斷）」之雙義。此目於本分（二誡雙遮與中道翻轉）見其修辭，具象譬喻則於分四·十四·廿六·卅二加重。
七、互讀
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯中邊（離二邊·中道）·辯真實品——本分「非斷非常·離增益損減二邊」即辯中邊論「離二邊·處中道」之經語對應（〔無著「增益邊·損減邊」見目四〕即辯中邊之二邊；遮增益·遮損減而顯中）。
- 三十頌（T1586）：依他起（非無·假因果）·圓成實（非斷·轉依）——本分「不說斷滅·非無因緣假因果·但遮作用緣非無功能緣」〔窺基語見目四〕即三十頌「依他起自性非全無·圓成實非斷滅之無」之經語對應（法空非斷無，乃二空所顯之圓成）。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：二空·二障（所知障所執法我）·無住涅槃——本分「不住生死涅槃·若斷滅生死即同二乘住涅槃」〔窺基依無著見目四〕即成唯識「無住涅槃·不住生死不住涅槃」之經語對應；「於法不說斷滅」即遣「以法空為斷滅」之所知障法執。
- 二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·遣所執實而非撥識——「但遮執實作用緣·非無功能緣」〔窺基語見目四〕即二十論「遣心外實境而非撥內識變現」一脈（遮增益實境·不墮損減撥無）。
- 心經（T251）：「無智亦無得」「不生不滅·不垢不淨·不增不減」——本分「不說斷滅·非斷非常」即心經「不生不滅（非斷）·不增不減（中道）」之同一離二邊法位（空相非斷滅之無）。
本分「於法不說斷滅相·非斷非常·去離斷常」，即辯中邊論·三十頌·成唯識論「中道·二邊·無住涅槃·依他非無圓成非斷」之經語對應；「不說斷滅」即心經「不生不滅·不增不減」之同一離二邊法位。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「於法不說斷滅相」一語，成唯識論以「遣所知障法執·依他非無·圓成非斷·無住涅槃」之技術語說同一事。本分遮「以法空為斷滅」之法執，正 §17 後半「破四見·所知障」於中道一面之落實〔摘自《金剛經的自我重演》S5-P07，前後半摺疊之結構見分十七目三·目四〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。辯中邊論於本分（中道·二邊）正面對位，列首；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）
- 「於法不說斷滅相·非斷非常」之中道 ↔ 西方哲學之「離二極端／中道」（亞里士多德 mesotēs 之中庸、康德二律背反之消解）：西方亦有「離二極端」之思（避實體論與虛無論之兩偏）；然唯識／古德之「非斷非常」非倫理之中庸或邏輯之調停，乃遣增益（執實）·遮損減（撥無）二執而顯之真如中道（無著「增益邊·損減邊」
[0758c24–26]），是修證所離之二障邊見（斷常二見屬惡見），非概念之折中。 - 「以法空為斷滅」之防 ↔ 西方對佛教空義之「虛無主義（nihilism）」誤讀（叔本華以涅槃近虛無·近代學界「佛教是否虛無論」之爭）：西方論者每疑「空·無得·無相」終歸虛無；本分正是經自設之防——「於法不說斷滅相」逕遮「空即斷滅」之誤，古德三家同判「非斷」（智顗「感至隨現故不斷」
[0083a20]、窺基「非無因緣假因果」[0152b28]）。經自破虛無誤讀，此東西之一可注：空非斷滅之無，乃離二邊所顯之圓成，故唯識讀「空」決非虛無論。 - 「不住生死涅槃」之無住涅槃 ↔ 西方宗教哲學之「入世／出世」張力、辯證之「揚棄（Aufhebung）」：可對觀；然唯識「無住涅槃」非辯證之綜合，乃斷所知障所顯·悲智雙運·不住生死（智）不住涅槃（悲）之證境（無著「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」
[0765b13–14]），是有所斷·有所證之修果，非概念之揚棄。 - 「不失功德因·果報不斷絕」之福不失 ↔ 西方倫理學之「德福一致」課題（康德至善論之德福配稱）：西方多於「德與福如何相稱」立論；世親讀「不說斷滅」為「得無生忍而福德不失·果報不斷」（
T1511 [0795b20–21]），非德福之外在配稱，乃福德為智資糧·二莊嚴相成（世親「以能成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴故」[0795b16–17]）——福不墮斷滅而轉成菩提之資，是轉依之內在相續，非賞罰之配稱。 - 對觀之要：西方傾向以「中道·空非虛無」為形上立場之釐定（避兩偏·空非nihilism）；古德以「不說斷滅·非斷非常」為遮斷常二惡見·斷所知障·顯無住涅槃之修證（所遮乃法執損減之邊見，中道乃二障所離之圓成）。立場之釐定與二障之斷遣，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 [0752a19–a25]（原典 · 無斷無滅分）。六譯本二誡·不說斷滅一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0756b24–c01] · 真諦 T0237 [0766a08–a15] · 笈多 T0238 [0771a29–b05] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0985a27–b04] · 義淨 T0239 [0775a18–a20]。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0757c27–0758a02·0758a20–a26·0758c23–c26·0765b10–b15] · 世親 T1511 [0795a24–0795b23]（福不失偈 [0795b11–14]）· 世親 T1513 [0883b13–c01]（福不失頌 [0883b16–19]）。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0122b18–0122c04] · 智顗 T1698 [0083a13–a21] · 窺基 T1700 [0152a19–0152c08]（「不」字校 [0152b08–09]）。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (neither annihilation nor permanence · the Middle Way · §17 second half)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 27, Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated (無斷無滅分) |
| Shi Huijing §17 two-part | Second half (emptiness of dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance; after the pivot of division 17, the dharma-emptiness station's "emptiness is not annihilation" — removing the negation-clinging-to-dharmas of "taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation," establishing the Middle Way of neither annihilation nor permanence) |
| 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, T1510 | 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 fifth "for the sake of not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa" — 「為不住涅槃故，經言『須菩提！如是念：『發行菩薩乘者，有法說斷滅』耶』如是等」 [0758a24–26]; the counteracting layer recurs: 「於彼心具足中，為不住生死、涅槃故……於中，經言『於法不說斷滅』者，謂如所住法而通達，不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」 [0765b10–14] (the prior clause "not awakening through the perfection of marks" belongs to the taking-up-the-dharma-body abode [0758a20–24], attaching to division 26) |
| Vasubandhu's twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The doubt "losing merit and the report-fruit" — 「有人起如是心：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩摩訶薩則失福德及失果報。』自下經文為斷此疑」 (T1511 [0795b08–10]); Yijing's rendering 「若言福不證菩提者，此即菩薩福業其果應斷。為釋此疑，故有下文」 (T1513 [0883b13–15]) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699 | 「論生起云『若言不以色相好見法身者，則修相好業不得菩提……為破此疑故，明汝勿言無福因及福果』」 [0122b18–21]; judges cause being neither annihilation nor permanence — 「前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常，可謂因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」 [0122c03–04] |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698 | The cause-and-fruit two gates at the end of the second cycle's "distinguishing the name" — 「此下去『不說諸法斷滅』就文有二，初、果，次、因」 [0083a13–14]; judges the substance merging with the Middle Way — 「莫起斷滅，相盡寂滅故不有，道王十方非謂無，應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷，體合中道」 [0083a18–21] |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700 | Following Vasubandhu 「展轉疑中曲文第二疑」「謂有疑曰：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩則失福德及果報也』」 [0152a20–23]; glosses "no mark of annihilation taught" as 「去離斷常……但無所執實福德因及果，非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」 [0152b26–29]; following Asaṅga judges 「心具足中第五為不住生死涅槃」 [0152b29–c01] |
Sense of neither cut off nor annihilated: this division, coming after the pivot (division 17, Ultimately, No Self · emptiness of dharmas), division 20 (Apart from Form, Apart from Marks), division 22 (the attainment of nothing attained), and division 26 (the dharma-body is not a form · the seeing-by-form-seeking-by-sound verse), guards at the dharma-emptiness station against one turn of subtle clinging — having said "the marks-and-features are not the dharma-body" "awakening is no-attainment" "all dharmas are is-not," it might fall into the negation-view of "the emptiness of dharmas is annihilation" (Asaṅga 「於法無我事中而執為無，是損減邊」 [0758c25–26]). So the Buddha admonishes twice: first 「莫作念：如來不以具足相故得菩提」 (the remainder of division 26, removing "negating the marks-and-features body as a pure dharma-body empty-principle" — Kuiji restates that doubt 「福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」 [0152a25–27]); second 「莫作念：發菩提者說諸法斷滅相」, concluding with 「於法不說斷滅相」. The three lineages of ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all judge this to be the Middle Way of neither annihilation nor permanence (see register 4). Asaṅga judges this division to belong to the fifth "not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa" of the buddha-stage's mind-fulfillment after the witnessing of the way ([0758a24–26] · [0765b10–14]), "as for dharmas, no mark of annihilation is taught" being the bodhisattva attaining the patience-of-non-arising yet not falling into the two-vehicle annihilation of one-sided quiescence (Kuiji 「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」 [0152c07–08]). This division's "is-not" turn falls on "dharma (the emptiness of dharmas)" to establish the Middle Way, not the first half's "mark · being" (see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the two admonitions passage)
Key lines: 莫作念「如來不以具足相故得菩提」/ 莫作念「發菩提者說諸法斷滅相」/ 於法不說斷滅相
| Version | The two admonitions · no mark of annihilation passage (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！汝若作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』須菩提！莫作是念：『如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』」「須菩提！汝若作是念：『發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者，說諸法斷滅相。』莫作是念。何以故？發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相。」 | 0752a19–a25 |
| Bodhiruci T236a | 「須菩提！於意云何？如來可以相成就得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提？須菩提！莫作是念：『如來以相成就得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』須菩提！汝若作是念：『菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，說諸法斷滅相。』須菩提！莫作是念。何以故？菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，不說諸法斷滅相。」 | 0756b24–c01 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！汝意云何？如來可以具足相得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提不？須菩提！汝今不應作如是見：『如來以具足相得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。』何以故？須菩提！如來不由具足相得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。須菩提！若汝作是念：『如來有是說：「行菩薩乘人，有法可滅。」』須菩提！汝莫作此見。何以故？如來不說行菩薩乘人有法可滅，及以永斷。」 | 0766a08–a15 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「彼何意念？善實！相具足，如來無上正遍知證覺？不，復彼，善實！如是見應。彼何所因？不，善實！相具足，如來無上正遍知證覺。復時，彼，善實！有如是語：『菩薩乘發行，有法破滅，施設斷。』不，復，善實！如是見應。彼何所因？不菩薩乘發行有法破滅，施設不斷。」 | 0771a29–b05 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 佛告善現：「於汝意云何？如來、應、正等覺以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。何以故？善現！如來、應、正等覺不以諸相具足現證無上正等菩提。」「復次，善現！如是發趣菩薩乘者，頗施設少法若壞若斷耶？善現！汝今勿當作如是觀。諸有發趣菩薩乘者，終不施設少法若壞若斷。」 | 0985a27–b04 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！『諸有發趣菩薩乘者，其所有法是斷滅不？』汝莫作是見。何以故？趣菩薩乘者，其法不失。」 | 0775a18–a20 |
What the variants turn on:
- The presence/absence of clause one "not awakening through the perfection of marks" and the word 「不」: Kumārajīva and Paramārtha have an admonition with the word 「不」 (Kumārajīva 「汝若作是念：『如來不以具足相故得菩提』……莫作是念」; Paramārtha 「不應作是見：『如來以具足相得菩提』……如來不由具足相得菩提」); Bodhiruci and Xuanzang have a question without the word 「不」 (Bodhiruci 「如來可以相成就得菩提？莫作是念：『如來以相成就得菩提』」, Xuanzang 「如來……以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶？……不以諸相具足現證」); Yijing omits this clause (his removing of "possessing-marks · the wheel-king" already exhausted in the prior passage
[0775a09–13], division 27 retaining only the annihilation admonition). Kuiji directly records a collation note: 「應除『不』字，撿《能斷》及婆伽婆文，竝無『不』字也」[0152b08–09]— that is, Kuiji collates Xuanzang's Able-to-Cut recension and Bodhiruci's (Bhagavān) recension, both lacking the word 「不」 (see registers 4 and 9). This presence/absence of the word 「不」 attaches precisely to the direction of this admonition: with the word 「不」 it admonishes "do not suppose the Buddha attains awakening not through marks" (removing the negation of marks-and-features), without the word 「不」 it admonishes "do not suppose the Buddha attains awakening through marks" (removing the augmentation of clinging-to-marks-and-features) — the two readings coexist, each removing one side. - Clause two "斷滅／破滅·施設斷／法可滅·永斷／其法不失": Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci have 「說諸法斷滅相」 (Kumārajīva 「說諸法斷滅相」, Bodhiruci 「說諸法斷滅相」「不說諸法斷滅相」); Paramārtha has 「有法可滅，及以永斷」
[0766a13–15]; Dharmagupta has 「有法破滅，施設斷」「施設不斷」[0771b03–05]; Xuanzang has 「頗施設少法若壞若斷」「終不施設少法若壞若斷」[0985b02–04]; Yijing has 「其所有法是斷滅不」「其法不失」[0775a18–20]. "Annihilation / destruction / extinguishable · forever-cut · ruined · cut / annihilation" all display the deviant view of "one who arouses the awakening-mind negates dharmas as annihilation" (the "cutting · extinguishing · ruining" of the Sanskrit uccheda sense), what is removed being the annihilation-view (the negation side). Yijing alone concludes with 「其法不失」[0775a20](rather than "no mark of annihilation taught"), marking directly Vasubandhu's treatise reading of "merit not lost · the report-fruit not cut off" (see register 4) — "the dharma is not lost" is a variant gloss of "no mark of annihilation taught," attaching to this division's treatise-doubt "attaining patience-of-non-arising yet merit not lost" (VasubandhuT1511 [0795b20–21],T1513 [0883b16]). - The Able-to-Cut doubling and 「施設」 (designating): Xuanzang 「頗施設少法若壞若斷……終不施設少法若壞若斷」
[0985b02–04], Dharmagupta 「有法破滅，施設斷……施設不斷」[0771b03–05]— the Able-to-Cut versions (Xuanzang · Dharmagupta) have the phrasing 「施設（若壞若斷）」 (the prajñapyate sense, "designating · establishing"), displaying that what is cut off is "a slight dharma that is designated" (a provisionally-established dharma-mark); Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci have 「說諸法斷滅相」 (speaking of annihilation directly of "dharmas"). The difference between "designating the cut" and "speaking of dharmas' annihilation" attaches precisely to the sense that "what is cut off is the provisionally-established dharma-mark (the other-dependent · not real) not a really-existing dharma" (Kuiji 「但無所執實福德因及果，非無因緣假因果也」[0152b27–28], see registers 3 and 4). - The belonging of clause one and the seam with division 26: Kumārajīva and Paramārtha, at the head of division 27, still set forth an admonition of "attaining awakening through marks-and-features" (the remainder of division 26's wheel-king · seeing-by-form verse); Bodhiruci and Xuanzang likewise (Bodhiruci 「如來可以相成就得菩提」
[0756b24], Xuanzang 「以諸相具足現證無上正等覺耶」[0985a27–28]); only Yijing folds this admonition into division 26 ([0775a09–13]the wheel-king passage), division 27 rising directly with the annihilation admonition. The ancient masters judge this "attaining awakening through marks-and-features" admonition to belong to the doubt of "taking up the dharma-body" (Asaṅga[0758a20–24], Kuiji[0152b02–09]), and the annihilation admonition to belong to the fifth "not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa" (Asaṅga[0765b10–14], Kuiji[0152b29–c01]), the two admonitions both attaching to the Middle Way of "the marks-and-features body and the dharma-body · emptiness and non-annihilation" (see register 4).
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · emptiness of dharmas · the Middle Way · §17 second half)
This division has no overt 「X／即非X／是名X」 three-clause form; its "is-not" turn lies in the single sense of "emptiness (the emptiness of dharmas) is not annihilation": 「於法不說斷滅相」 [0752a25] — removing the negation-clinging-to-dharmas of "taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation," establishing the Middle Way of neither annihilation nor permanence. What is removed is the dharmic self (clinging to the emptiness of dharmas as a one-sided annihilation-nothing), not the first half's mark · being (the personal self). This is the §17 second half's "emptiness of dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance" applied to "dharma" itself.
「諸法 — 即非（不執實有，亦不撥為斷滅）— 中道（假因果宛然·不說斷滅）」 maps to the three natures (the dharma-emptiness station):
- 諸法（相好·福德·果報·生死法） (X) is the other-dependent — conditionally-arisen dharma-marks standing forth (Kuiji 「非無因緣假因果也……非無功能緣故」
[0152b28–29]). Dharmas are not nothing (the other-dependent is speakable), hence "no annihilation is taught." - 遣執實（不以相好為法身因·不執福德實有因果） removes the wholly-imagined — not "really self-existent marks-and-features · merit · dharma" grasped through discrimination (Kuiji 「但無所執實福德因及果……但遮作用緣」
[0152b27–28]; Asaṅga 「於如言辭法中，分別執有自性，是增益邊」[0758c24–25]). Removing the one side of augmentation (clinging to reality). - 不墮斷滅（不撥諸法·不失福德果報·不住涅槃） establishes the perfectly-accomplished · the Middle Way — not "clinging to the matter of dharmic selflessness as nothing," the negation (Asaṅga
[0758c25–26]). The thusness revealed by the emptiness of dharmas is not an annihilation-nothing, but the Middle Way apart from the two extremes (Jizang 「因非斷非常·皆離斷常」[0122c03–04]; Zhiyi 「應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷，體合中道」[0083a19–21]). Removing the one side of negation (negating to nothing).
The eye of this division (★ second half · emptiness of dharmas · the Middle Way): the "is-not" formula, at this division, turns into the Middle Way of "emptiness is not annihilation" — the first half's (divisions 1 to 16) "is-not" mostly removes the clinging-to-being of "mark · being · merit" (the personal self · augmentation), and at this division (second half · emptiness of dharmas), having removed the clinging-to-reality of "marks-and-features · merit · dharma" (augmentation), it further removes the negating-to-nothing of "the emptiness of dharmas is annihilation" (negation), doubly departing from the two extremes to establish the Middle Way. This is precisely the continued practice of division 17's pivot "the turn from emptiness-of-self to emptiness-of-dharmas · the turn from the afflictive to the cognitive hindrance" on the Middle-Way face: division 22's "the attainment of nothing attained" breaks the clinging of "awakening is a really-attainable dharma" (removing augmentation), and this division 27 advances to guard against the turn of "the emptiness of dharmas · no-attainment is annihilation" (removing negation) — the landing of the ancient masters' "the second cycle severs the cognitive hindrance" (Kuiji following Vasubandhu, division 17 [0127c01–03]) on the face of "the Middle Way · neither annihilation nor permanence." The "view of dharma-annihilation" severed is one turn of the clinging-to-dharmas subsumed under the cognitive hindrance (clinging to the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation-nothing), not the first half's clinging-to-self (the personal self). Kuiji 「諸菩薩知因知果，去離斷常」 [0152b26–27], Asaṅga 「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」 [0765b13–14] — all displaying the perfectly-accomplished Middle Way of "the emptiness of dharmas (breaking the four views · removing the clinging-to-dharmas) is not annihilation." 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 one turn of it at the station of "the emptiness of dharmas · the Middle Way (neither annihilation nor permanence)." The Middle Way of "no annihilation taught" is just the scriptural correspondence of the Thirty Verses' "the other-dependent is not nothing · the perfectly-accomplished is not annihilation" 〔from S5-P10〕 (see register 7).
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · neither annihilation nor permanence · the Middle Way · merit not lost · not abiding in nirvāṇa · weighted)
Core, weighted — Vasubandhu's Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, the two renderings reading this division as "merit not lost · the report-fruit not cut off · attaining patience also not cut off" (severing the doubt "losing the merit-report-fruit"), each verse marking its sense: Vasubandhu sets up this division's doubt with "if one attains great awakening not depending on merit, then one loses merit and the report-fruit," and the verse 「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」 glosses "no mark of annihilation taught" — attaining the patience-of-non-arising yet merit not lost, the report-fruit not cut off, precisely the treatise-sense of "as for dharmas, no mark of annihilation is taught." The three lineages of ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) then mark, above this verse, "neither annihilation nor permanence · the substance merging with the Middle Way · departing from annihilation and permanence"; the two renderings differ in name but are one in sense.
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci's rendering): first sets the doubt — 「論曰：有人起如是心：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩摩訶薩則失福德及失果報。』自下經文為斷此疑」 [0795b08–10]. The verse [0795b11–14]:
「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果。 示勝福德相，是故說譬喻；是福德無報，如是受不取。」
「此義云何？雖不依福德得真菩提，而不失福德及彼果報。何以故？以能成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴故」 [0795b15–17]; 「有人起如是心：『諸菩薩摩訶薩得無生法忍，以得出世間智，失彼福德及以果報。』為遮此故，示現福德不失，而更得清淨殊勝功德，是故不失。如經『何以故？菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相』故」 [0795b18–23]. 〔The prior "attaining awakening through the perfection of marks" verses 「非是色身相，可比知如來；諸佛唯法身，轉輪王非佛」 [0794c26–27] · 「非相好果報，依福德成就；而得真法身，方便異相故」 [0795a05–06] attach to division 26's wheel-king passage; this division's verse is the single "merit not lost" verse.〕
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing's rendering): first sets the doubt — 「若言福不證菩提者，此即菩薩福業其果應斷。為釋此疑，故有下文，言此福性雖復不能親招覺處」 [0883b13–15]. The verse [0883b16–19]:
「其福不失亡，果報不斷絕，得忍亦不斷，以獲無垢故。 更論於福因，為此陳其喻，彼福無報故，正取非越取。」
「又有疑云：『既得無生法忍智乃不生，菩薩諸福皆應斷絕。』為顯福不斷絕至極清淨，獲福既多果報亦勝，於不生法得無性者有二種無性，由其二性體不生故」 [0883b22–26]; glossing 「正取非越取」: 「凡所有福招果報者，是可厭故，當知彼取即是越取，如越正路而行嶮道。而彼福不招報，是故彼是正取非為越取」 [0883b27–c01].
〔Correspondence of the two renderings: 不失功德因·及彼勝果報 / 其福不失亡·果報不斷絕 (得勝忍不失·以得無垢果 / 得忍亦不斷·以獲無垢故) — one and the same Vasubandhu treatise in two Chinese renderings, differing in name but one in sense. Both renderings read "no annihilation taught" in a single verse as "attaining the patience-of-non-arising yet merit · the report-fruit not cut off" (the reverse of the annihilation-view), and further state "merit without report yet right grasping, not surpassing-grasping" (not falling into relishing the merit-report).〕
Asaṅga T1510 (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 fifth "for the sake of not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa" — 「為不住涅槃故，經言『須菩提！如是念：『發行菩薩乘者，有法說斷滅』耶』如是等」 [0758a24–26]. The counteracting layer elaborates: 「於彼心具足中，為不住生死、涅槃故……於中，經言『於法不說斷滅』者，謂如所住法而通達，不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事。此中，為遮一向寂靜故，顯示不住涅槃」 [0765b10–15]. 〔The prior clause "may the Tathāgata awaken through the perfection of marks? Do not so suppose," Asaṅga glosses 「此義明相具足體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色自性故」 [0758a22–24], belonging to the taking-up-the-dharma-body abode, attaching to the remainder of division 26; its joining with this division's "not abiding in nirvāṇa" two admonitions is precisely the dual removing of "the marks-and-features are not the dharma-body (not clinging to marks) · the emptiness of dharmas is not annihilation (not negating dharmas)."〕
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: classifies it following the treatise's import — 「論生起云：『若言不以色相好見法身者，則修相好業不得菩提。若爾，應無福德之因、福德之果。為破此疑故，明汝勿言無福因及福果。』」 [0122b18–21]. Glossing the two doubts: 「汝若作是念，發菩提心，說諸法斷滅。又疑：菩薩得無生忍、出世間智慧，爾時捨肉身、受法身，則應無復福德因福德果。為破此疑故，明菩薩得無生忍，得妙智慧妙福德，豈失福德因果墮斷滅中耶？」 [0122b23–28]. Judges cause-and-fruit both departing from annihilation and permanence, the Middle Way: 「此中明從初發心不習斷滅觀，亦不起常觀，後心皆爾，故初後不二，如云『發心、畢竟二不別』也。前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常，可謂因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」 [0122c01–04].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: classifies it as the cause-and-fruit two gates at the end of the second cycle's "distinguishing the name" — 「此下去『不說諸法斷滅』就文有二，初、果，次、因」 [0083a13–14]. Glossing the fruit (the marks-and-features-awakening admonition): 「汝莫作念，誡也，勿言諸法一向無所有，故謂不以具足相得菩提，不偏在色、聲故向言非，非不身相故復言是也」 [0083a15–17]. Glossing the cause (the annihilation admonition) · judging the substance merging with the Middle Way: 「『發阿耨』下，第二明因亦二，前、誡，後、明有。莫起斷滅，相盡寂滅故不有，道王十方非謂無，應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷，體合中道，軌物之式，限之一方豈不謬哉」 [0083a17–21].
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: following Vasubandhu judges 「展轉疑中曲文第二疑」 — 「述曰，世親云，此第三段釋展轉疑中，曲文第二疑也。謂有疑曰：『若不依福德得大菩提，如是諸菩薩則失福德及果報也。』」 [0152a20–23], the doubt 「准此，即福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」 [0152a25–27]. Glossing the "attaining awakening through marks-and-features" admonition (following Asaṅga, Vasubandhu): 「無著云……為離此著故，明相具足，體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色性故」 [0152b02–06]; 「世親云，汝『莫作是念，如來不以具足相得菩提』，以報身、化身具足相得故」 [0152b11–13]; and records the collation note: 「應除『不』字，撿《能斷》及婆伽婆文，竝無『不』字也」 [0152b08–09]. Glossing "no annihilation taught" (following Vasubandhu) · departing from annihilation and permanence · removing the clinging-to-reality not removing the provisional: 「述曰，此第三釋所以也。謂諸菩薩知因知果，去離斷常，但無所執實福德因及果，非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」 [0152b26–29]. Glossing (following Asaṅga) · not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa: 「無著云，自下明心具足中第五為不住生死涅槃故……謂發心菩薩知因說果，去離斷常，故不說斷滅也。謂雖得涅槃，還住生死，然不令斷生死，若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故，以此故名不說斷滅相也」 [0152b29–c08].
The three lineages of ancient masters (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) all converge on the Middle Way of neither annihilation nor permanence at this division: "no annihilation taught" does not mean the emptiness of dharmas is annihilation-nothing — Jizang 「因非斷非常·因果皆是正觀·皆離斷常」
[0122c03–04], Zhiyi 「相盡寂滅故不有（不常），感至隨現故不斷·體合中道」[0083a19–21], Kuiji (following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) 「去離斷常·但遮執實作用緣非無功能緣（假因果存）·不住生死涅槃（不墮二乘斷滅）」[0152b26–c08]— each anchored to "not attaining awakening through marks-and-features (not clinging to marks) · no mark of annihilation taught (not negating dharmas)," the two admonitions. Vasubandhu's two renderings then read it on the face of "merit not lost · the report-fruit not cut off · attaining patience also not cut off" (severing the doubt "to attain the patience-of-non-arising is to lose the merit-report-fruit"). This is the ancient masters' settled reading of "Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated" in this division, and also the scriptural basis of the §17 second half's "breaking the view of dharmas · removing the negation of annihilation."
5 · Terminology
斷滅相 uccheda (the annihilation-view · negating dharmas as nothing; the negation side; the variant renderings of Bodhiruci · Kumārajīva 「諸法斷滅相」, Paramārtha 「有法可滅及以永斷」, Xuanzang 「若壞若斷」, Dharmagupta 「破滅·施設斷」, Yijing 「其法不失」 see register 2) ·
非斷非常／離斷常 (neither annihilation nor permanence / departing from annihilation and permanence; the Middle Way; Jizang 「因非斷非常·皆離斷常」 [0122c03–04], Zhiyi 「不有不常·體合中道」 [0083a20–21], Kuiji 「去離斷常」 [0152b27]) ·
增益邊／損減邊 samāropa ／ apavāda (the augmentation side / the negation side; Asaṅga 「於如言辭法中分別執有自性，是增益邊；於法無我事中而執為無，是損減邊」 [0758c24–26]; the annihilation-view = the negation side) ·
不住生死涅槃 (the non-abiding nirvāṇa apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa; Asaṅga 「為不住生死、涅槃故……不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」 [0765b10–14]; Kuiji 「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」 [0152c07–08]) ·
無生法忍 anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti (Vasubandhu 「菩薩得無生法忍，以得出世間智」 T1511 [0795b18–19]; this division's patience of "knowing all dharmas to be selfless, attaining patience") ·
具足相得菩提 (the marks-and-features as cause; Vasubandhu 「報身、化身具足相得故」 [0152b12–13] · Asaṅga 「相具足體非菩提，亦不以相具足為因也，以相是色自性故」 T1510a [0758a23–24]) ·
功能緣／作用緣 (the capacity-condition / the operation-condition; Kuiji 「但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」 [0152b28–29], meaning removing "the operation of the clung-to-real" while preserving "the capacity of the provisional dharma"). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; the variant renderings of "annihilation / destruction / extinguishable · forever-cut · ruined · cut" see register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (neither cut off nor annihilated · the dual removing of the two admonitions · the turn of the Middle Way)
This division has no concrete simile (the empty-space simile is at division 4, the patience-ascetic simile at division 14, the seeing-by-form-seeking-by-sound verse at division 26, the six similes at division 32). The point of its rhetoric lies in the double admonition of "do not so suppose" and the Middle-Way reversal of "neither annihilation nor permanence":
- The dual admonition of two "莫作是念" applied together: this division issues twice the formula 「汝若作是念……莫作是念」 — first admonishing 「莫念：如來不以具足相得菩提」 (the remainder of division 26), second admonishing 「莫念：發菩提者說諸法斷滅相」. The former admonition removes "negating the marks-and-features as a pure dharma-body empty-principle" (negation toward the Buddha's body), the latter removes "taking the emptiness of dharmas as the annihilation of dharmas" (negation toward dharmas). The two admonitions are listed in parallel in the same form, what is removed lying one in the Buddha's body and one in dharmas, yet their sense converges on the Middle Way (not negating · not clinging). Zhiyi 「就文有二，初、果（相好得菩提），次、因（不說斷滅）」
[0083a13–14], Jizang 「前明佛果非有相非無相，今明因非斷非常」[0122c03–04]— the fruit (the Buddha's body) and cause (dharmas) two gates, both departing from annihilation and permanence. - The Middle-Way reversal of "neither annihilation nor permanence": guarding directly against "annihilation" (that the emptiness of dharmas · no-attainment is annihilation), it abruptly reverses with 「於法不說斷滅相」 (the emptiness of dharmas is not annihilation-nothing); yet its "no annihilation taught" further does not fall into "permanence" (not clinging to dharmas as really-existing), but is the dual departing of 「相盡寂滅故不有（不常）·感至隨現故不斷」 (Zhiyi
[0083a19–21]). The guarding of "annihilation" (do not suppose annihilation) set against the removing of "permanence" (not clinging to reality), "no annihilation taught" being precisely to establish the Middle Way of neither annihilation nor permanence. This stroke of "removing the two extremes to display the Middle Way" shares one and the same structure of reversal with division 10's "adorning yet is-not adorning" and division 22's "no-attainment yet is called awakening" "removing self-nature while preserving the speakable," while this division alone displays the wholeness of the Middle Way through "dual removing (not clinging · not negating)." - The ancient masters' similes (supplementing the simile): the scripture stops at "no annihilation taught," and the ancient masters display "neither cut off nor permanent" with similes — Zhiyi 「道王十方非謂無，應畢而謝即不常，感至隨現故不斷」
[0083a19–20](the simile of response manifesting along with feeling, similizing the dharma-body's response-transformation being neither cut off nor permanent); Asaṅga 「不斷一切生死影像法」[0765b13](birth-death as reflected images yet not cutting them off, similizing the Middle Way of not abiding in nirvāṇa). This simile of "response manifesting along with feeling · the reflected images of birth-death" precisely displays the dual sense of "is-not (the image is not real · not clinging to permanence) yet no annihilation taught (manifesting along with, standing forth · not falling into annihilation)." This register shows its rhetoric in this division (the dual removing of the two admonitions and the Middle-Way reversal); concrete simile is weighted at divisions 4 · 14 · 26 · 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): distinguishing the middle from the extremes (apart from the two extremes · the Middle Way) · the chapter on the real — this division's "neither annihilation nor permanence · apart from the two extremes of augmentation and negation" is just the scriptural correspondence of the Madhyānta-vibhāga's "apart from the two extremes · dwelling in the Middle Way" (〔Asaṅga's "the augmentation side · the negation side" see register 4〕 are just the Madhyānta's two extremes; removing augmentation · removing negation to display the middle).
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the other-dependent (not nothing · provisional cause-and-fruit) · the perfectly-accomplished (not annihilation · the transformation of the basis) — this division's "no annihilation taught · not without conditioned provisional cause-and-fruit · only removing the operation-condition, not without the capacity-condition" 〔Kuiji's words, see register 4〕 is just the scriptural correspondence of the Thirty Verses' "the other-dependent self-nature is not wholly nothing · the perfectly-accomplished is not an annihilation-nothing" (the emptiness of dharmas is not annihilation-nothing, but the perfectly-accomplished revealed by the two emptinesses).
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the two emptinesses · the two hindrances (the dharmic self clung-to by the cognitive hindrance) · the non-abiding nirvāṇa — this division's "not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa · if one annihilates birth-death one is the same as the two vehicles abiding in nirvāṇa" 〔Kuiji following Asaṅga, see register 4〕 is just the scriptural correspondence of Cheng weishi lun's "the non-abiding nirvāṇa · abiding neither in birth-death nor in nirvāṇa"; "as for dharmas, no mark of annihilation is taught" is just the removing of the cognitive hindrance's clinging-to-dharmas of "taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation."
- Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · removing the clung-to real, not negating cognition — "only removing the clung-to-real operation-condition · not without the capacity-condition" 〔Kuiji's words, see register 4〕 is of one strand with the Twenty Verses' "removing the real object outside the mind, not negating the manifestation of the inner cognition" (removing the augmented real object · not falling into negating-to-nothing).
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無智亦無得」 「不生不滅·不垢不淨·不增不減」 — this division's "no annihilation taught · neither annihilation nor permanence" is just the same dharma-station of departing from the two extremes as the Heart Sūtra's "neither arising nor ceasing (not annihilation) · neither increasing nor decreasing (the Middle Way)" (the empty mark is not an annihilation-nothing).
This division's "as for dharmas, no mark of annihilation is taught · neither annihilation nor permanence · departing from annihilation and permanence" is just the scriptural correspondence of the Madhyānta-vibhāga's, the Thirty Verses', and Cheng weishi lun's "the Middle Way · the two extremes · the non-abiding nirvāṇa · the other-dependent not nothing, the perfectly-accomplished not annihilation"; "no annihilation taught" is just the same dharma-station of departing from the two extremes as the Heart Sūtra's "neither arising nor ceasing · neither increasing nor decreasing." 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 "於法不說斷滅相," Cheng weishi lun says with the technical terms "removing the cognitive-hindrance clinging-to-dharmas · the other-dependent not nothing · the perfectly-accomplished not annihilation · the non-abiding nirvāṇa." This division removes the clinging-to-dharmas of "taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation," precisely the landing of the §17 second half's "breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance" on the Middle-Way face 〔from The Self-Reenactment of the Diamond Sūtra S5-P07, the folding structure of the two halves see division 17's registers 3 and 4〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The Madhyānta-vibhāga at this division has a direct correspondence (the Middle Way · the two extremes), listed first; the 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)
- The Middle Way of 「於法不說斷滅相·非斷非常」 ↔ Western philosophy's "apart from the two extremes / the mean" (Aristotle's mesotēs of the mean, the dissolution of Kant's antinomies): the West too has the thought of "departing from the two extremes" (avoiding both the bias of substantialism and of nihilism); yet the Yogācāra / ancient masters' "neither annihilation nor permanence" is not the ethical mean or the logical mediation, but the thusness Middle Way displayed by removing augmentation (clinging to reality) · removing negation (negating to nothing), the two clingings (Asaṅga 「增益邊·損減邊」
[0758c24–26]), the two-hindrance extreme-views (the two views of annihilation and permanence belonging to the evil views) departed-from through cultivation-and-witness, not a conceptual compromise. - The guarding against 「以法空為斷滅」 ↔ the Western misreading of the Buddhist emptiness-sense as "nihilism" (Schopenhauer taking nirvāṇa as near to the void · the modern academic debate "is Buddhism nihilism"): Western commentators often doubt that "emptiness · no-attainment · marklessness" ends in the void; this division is precisely a guard the sūtra sets up for itself — 「於法不說斷滅相」 directly removes the misreading "emptiness is annihilation," the three lineages of ancient masters all judging "not annihilation" (Zhiyi 「感至隨現故不斷」
[0083a20], Kuiji 「非無因緣假因果」[0152b28]). The sūtra breaks the nihilism misreading of itself, this is one East–West note worth marking: emptiness is not an annihilation-nothing but the perfectly-accomplished displayed by departing from the two extremes, hence the Yogācāra reading of "emptiness" is decidedly not nihilism. - The non-abiding nirvāṇa of 「不住生死涅槃」 ↔ the "this-worldly / other-worldly" tension of Western philosophy of religion, the dialectical "sublation (Aufhebung)": observable; yet the Yogācāra "non-abiding nirvāṇa" is not a dialectical synthesis, but the witness-realm of dual compassion-and-wisdom · not abiding in birth-death (wisdom) not abiding in nirvāṇa (compassion) displayed by severing the cognitive hindrance (Asaṅga 「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」
[0765b13–14]), a fruit of cultivation with something severed · something witnessed, not a conceptual sublation. - The merit-not-lost of 「不失功德因·果報不斷絕」 ↔ Western ethics' problem of "the unity of virtue and happiness" (the proportioning of virtue and happiness in Kant's highest good): the West mostly argues from "how virtue and happiness correspond"; Vasubandhu reads "no annihilation taught" as "attaining the patience-of-non-arising yet merit not lost · the report-fruit not cut off" (
T1511 [0795b20–21]), not an external proportioning of virtue and happiness, but merit as the wisdom-provision · the two adornments mutually accomplishing (Vasubandhu 「以能成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴故」[0795b16–17]) — merit not falling into annihilation but turning into the provision of awakening, an internal continuity of the transformation of the basis, not a reward-and-punishment proportioning. - The point of the observation: the West tends to take "the Middle Way · emptiness is not the void" as the settling of a metaphysical stance (avoiding the two biases · emptiness is not nihilism); the ancient masters take "no annihilation taught · neither annihilation nor permanence" as the cultivation-and-witness of removing the two evil views of annihilation and permanence · severing the cognitive hindrance · displaying the non-abiding nirvāṇa (what is removed is the negation-extreme-view of the clinging-to-dharmas, the Middle Way being the perfectly-accomplished departed-from by the two hindrances). The settling of a stance and the severing of the two hindrances 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 [0752a19–a25] (root text · Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated). The six versions' passage on the two admonitions · no annihilation taught, [loc] at register 2: Bodhiruci T0236a [0756b24–c01] · Paramārtha T0237 [0766a08–a15] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0771a29–b05] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0985a27–b04] · Yijing T0239 [0775a18–a20]. Sectioning / treatises: Asaṅga T1510a [0757c27–0758a02·0758a20–a26·0758c23–c26·0765b10–b15] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0795a24–0795b23] (the merit-not-lost verse [0795b11–14]) · Vasubandhu T1513 [0883b13–c01] (the merit-not-lost verse [0883b16–19]). Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0122b18–0122c04] · Zhiyi T1698 [0083a13–a21] · Kuiji T1700 [0152a19–0152c08] (the 「不」-word collation [0152b08–09]).
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 27 · Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated · apparatus · Spring 2026