金剛般若波羅蜜經分三十一合理相分

心要Essence

把整個世界碾碎，碎成數不清的微塵——你以為總算碰到了實在的東西：這一粒粒微塵，是真的吧？佛卻說，若微塵真是實有，就不必叫它微塵了；微塵即非微塵，世界即非世界。碎到不能再碎處，沒有一個實在的最小者；合成一個世界、一個整體，那「合而為一」的相，也不過是凡夫貪著出來的執——這就是「一合相」。而最切身的一合相，是把這五蘊和合的身心，執成一個實在的「我」。要緊的是看見：所碎的不是實微塵，所合的不是實一體，連那執「合為一」的心也無處可立。世界像碎成微塵的細末，說它同住一處不對（各各散了），說它分住異處也不對（本無實物可分）——諸佛的法身，就在這「非一非異」處，煩惱盡而安住法界。不是世界之外另有真實，是這碎不盡、合不成的當下，本來如此。

Grind the whole world to powder, crush it into motes of dust beyond counting — and you suppose you have at last struck something real: these grains, each tiny mote, surely they are true? But the Buddha says, if the motes of dust were truly existent, there would be no need to call them motes of dust at all; 微塵即非微塵，世界即非世界 (motes of dust are, yet are not, motes of dust; a world is, yet is not, a world). Crushed to the point past which nothing can be crushed further, there is no real smallest thing; and the "joined-into-one" mark of composing them into a single world, a single whole, is likewise nothing but a grasping that the ordinary person craves into being — this is what is called the mark of a single composite whole (一合相). And the most intimate composite mark of all is to grasp this body-and-mind, a compound of the five aggregates, as one real "self." What matters is to see: what is crushed is no real mote, what is joined is no real whole, and even the mind that grasps "joined into one" has nowhere to take its stand. The world is like fine powder crushed into motes — to say they dwell together in one place is wrong (each has scattered apart), and to say they dwell separately in different places is wrong too (there was never any real thing to be divided). The Dharma-body of all Buddhas is precisely at this place of "neither one nor many" (非一非異): afflictions exhausted, it abides at peace in the dharma-realm. It is not that beyond the world there is some other reality; it is this very present moment, uncrushable to an end and uncombinable into a whole, that is just so of itself.

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 30 · The Mark of a Single Composite Whole · essence · Spring 2026

白話Plain reading

〔一〕碎世界為微塵，問微塵眾寧為多不

經曰：

「須菩提！若善男子、善女人以三千大千世界碎為微塵，於意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不？」

「須菩提！假如有善男子、善女人，把整個三千大千世界都碾碎成一粒粒微塵，你怎麼想？這些碎成的微塵聚在一起，數目算不算多呢？」

〔二〕微塵眾即非微塵眾，世界即非世界

經曰：

「甚多，世尊！何以故？若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾。所以者何？佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是名微塵眾。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是名世界。

「非常多，世尊！可是為什麼這樣問呢？因為這些微塵若真是實實在在有的東西，佛就不會說它是『微塵眾』了。又為什麼這樣說？佛所說的微塵眾，並不是真有一個實在的『微塵眾』，只是假借這個名字叫作微塵眾罷了。世尊！同樣地，如來所說的三千大千世界，也不是真有一個實在的『世界』，只是假借這個名字叫作世界罷了。」

〔三〕若世界實有則是一合相，一合相即非一合相

經曰：

何以故？若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是名一合相。」

「為什麼這樣說呢？因為世界若真是實有的，那就成了一個『合眾多微塵為一整體』的相。可是如來所說的這一合相，並不是真有一個實在的『一合相』，只是假借這個名字叫作一合相罷了。」

〔四〕一合相不可說，凡夫貪著其事

經曰：

「須菩提！一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人貪著其事。

「須菩提！這所謂的一合相，其實是說不出、講不得的（因為它本來無實），只是凡夫之人才會貪戀、執著於這件事，當它是真有罷了。」

[1] Grinding the world-systems to dust, and asking whether the mass of dust-motes is many

The sūtra says:

「須菩提！若善男子、善女人以三千大千世界碎為微塵，於意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不？」

"Subhūti! Suppose a good man or good woman were to grind the whole great-thousandfold world-system into fine dust. What do you think? Would this mass of dust-motes, taken together, be many in number?"

[2] The mass of dust-motes is not a mass of dust-motes; the world-system is not a world-system

The sūtra says:

「甚多，世尊！何以故？若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾。所以者何？佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是名微塵眾。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是名世界。

"Very many, World-Honored One! But why ask in this way? Because if this mass of dust-motes were truly an existing thing, the Buddha would not have called it a 'mass of dust-motes.' And why is that? What the Buddha calls a mass of dust-motes is not a real, existing mass of dust-motes; it is merely given the name 'mass of dust-motes.' World-Honored One! In the same way, the great-thousandfold world-system that the Tathāgata speaks of is not a real, existing world-system; it is merely given the name 'world-system.'"

[3] If the world-system were real it would be a single composite whole; the single composite whole is not a single composite whole

The sūtra says:

何以故？若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是名一合相。」

"Why is this? If the world-system were truly existent, it would be a single composite whole — many dust-motes joined into one. But the single composite whole that the Tathāgata speaks of is not a real, existing single composite whole; it is merely given the name 'single composite whole.'"

[4] The single composite whole cannot be put into words; only ordinary people grasp at it

The sūtra says:

「須菩提！一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人貪著其事。

"Subhūti! This so-called single composite whole cannot be spoken of or put into words — for in itself it has no reality. It is only ordinary people who covet and cling to it, taking it to be really there."

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 30 · The Mark of a Single Composite Whole · vernacular · Spring 2026

義疏Exposition

拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、破極微、二取、轉依，來照金剛經這一段「微塵即非·世界即非·一合相即非」。

承前一分而來：從「法身無來去」轉到「法身非一非異」

上一分剛說過「如來者，無所從來，亦無所去，故名如來」——法身沒有來、沒有去。可是話一落地，疑就跟著起：法身既然不來不去，那麼十方諸佛的法身，到底是混成一個法身、同住一處（一），還是各各有各的法身、分住異處（異）呢？古德都看到這個接縫：吉藏正說「今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑」，世親兩譯的論偈也逕標「於是法界處，非一亦不異」。為解這「法身一異」之疑，佛才舉出「把世界碎成微塵」這個喻。所以這一分表面在說微塵、世界，骨子裡是在顯：諸佛法身於法界中，非一非異。

用唯識的眼看，這一分仍在樞紐分十七之後的「後半」裡走。前半（分一至十六）破的是「我相」，遣的是人我執、煩惱障；從分十七起轉入法空，破「法相」，遣法我執、所知障。這一分即非的對象，不再是「相、眾生」這些對外境的人我執，而是「世界、微塵、一合相」這析合的事相本身——破的是「把世界微塵當成實有、還可以摶聚成一個整體」的法執。

微塵即非微塵：破實有極微，存緣生假名

佛先問：把三千大千世界碾碎成微塵，這微塵眾算不算多？須菩提答「甚多」，卻立刻翻轉：「若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾……佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是名微塵眾。」順三性看：

「微塵眾」＝依他起：把世界一層層析下去、析到極小所成的微塵聚，是緣生的事相，可說、可數，宛然有它的假相。無著說這是「以世界漸次析至於極微」。
「則非微塵眾」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是外道（衛世師）所執的那種「實有不可再分的極微」。窺基說得明白：「則非微塵者，非如外道等所執實微塵也」——不是真有一個個實在的極微擺在那裡。遍計所執就是這樣一層妄計：把心所變現的影，當成心外實在的東西。無著一句點到底：「但破一合執故，觀解分析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有也。」
「是名微塵眾」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡了那層實執，緣生的假名照樣可說——窺基說「但寄微塵為喻，非如言而有實」。無實自性，而為世俗諦上可說的假名。

這裡「破實有極微」，唯識另有一部論專講：把物質一路析到「不可再分的實在極微」，這個極微根本立不住——若它有方分（有上下左右之別）就還可以再分、便不成其為極微；若它無方分，又無法積聚成色法。本分一句「諸微塵即非微塵」，所破的正是這同一個「實有極微」之執。

世界即非世界：聚微塵為一整體，也無實自性

接著佛把同一把刀落在「世界」上：「如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是名世界。」仍是三性式：

「世界」＝依他起：合眾多微塵而成的世界，是緣起所現的假相，可名、可說。
「則非世界」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是外道執「眾多實極微積聚而成一個實在世界」之見。窺基說「非如外道等執以眾多實極微成實世界也」——既然微塵本無實（前一句已破），由它聚成的世界自然也無實。無著讀這一句為「破名身」：世界只是依名而立、得個名字而已。
「是名世界」＝立圓成、存假名：遣執之處，緣生的世界假名宛然可說。

碎（微塵）與合（世界）兩面一照，意思就出來了：所碎的微塵不是實有的極微，所合的世界也不是實有的整體。窺基還補了一對好喻——聚微塵成世界，如「攝指成拳」；散世界作微塵，如「開拳作指」。攝指成拳，喻斷盡許多煩惱、成就一個法身；開拳作指，喻依著一個法身、起現無量化身。拳與指、聚與散，本是同一隻手；這正顯「非一（各散無聚）、非異（無別實物）」的雙重意思。

一合相即非一合相：破薩迦耶見——執五蘊聚為「我」

到本分的眼了：「若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是名一合相。」「一合相」，就是「把眾多微塵合聚成一個整體」的那個相、那個執。順三性看，這一施最深：

「一合相」＝依他起：佛只是在「假蘊因緣和合」的緣起之上，假說有個「一合」。窺基說「謂佛但於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合」——是緣生上的假名。
「則非一合相」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，正是那層「執眾微聚為實一」之執。而窺基把這「一合相」讀得最透：「一合相者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我，故名一合相也。」——原來「把眾多和合的東西執為一個實在整體」，最切身的一例，就是把這色受想行識五蘊和合的身心，執成一個實在的「我」。這在唯識叫薩迦耶見（身見：於五蘊上妄執實我）。無著則分作兩重「摶取」（摶聚而取）：執眾生、眾生世界為一整體，是「一摶取」；執微塵聚集為實，是「差別摶取」——對人說是人我執，對法說是法我執，合起來正是「我執、法執」這二取（把心二分為能取的我、所取的法）。
「是名一合相」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡實執，「一合」只是世諦上的假說。無著說「世諦言說故，有彼摶取；第一義故，彼法不可說」——名言上不妨說有，第一義裡無實可得。

所以「一合相即非一合相」這一句，是這一分最重的一施：般若用「即非」遣它，唯識用「薩迦耶見、二取」指明它遣的到底是什麼——遣掉那把心二分、把和合執為實一的根本妄執。

一合相不可說，凡夫貪著：虛妄分別所妄取

佛收一句：「一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人貪著其事。」何以「不可說」？因為它本無實——和合處並沒有一個實在的「一」可取。世親釋得直接：「以彼聚集無物可取，虛妄分別，是故凡夫妄取。」聚集之中本無一物可得，凡夫卻在這虛妄分別上，硬執它為實有一個整體、一個「我」，於是貪戀執著。智顗一語點破：「凡夫貪著其事，不知事即理，理無所有，即是事無所有」——不知這和合之事當體即是無所有之理。「不可說」不是叫人閉口，是說：在第一義裡，本來就沒有一個「一合」之實可指可說；凡夫的「貪著」，正是把一個本無的東西當成了實有。

碎微塵作墨喻：法身於法界非一非異·煩惱障盡

回到這一分的本懷——它整段是個喻：世界碎為微塵（諸譯多作「碎為墨塵」，世親逕稱「碎微塵作墨喻」）。喻什麼？喻諸佛法身於真如法界中「非一非異」。世親的論偈說：「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡。」——像微塵碎成細末，不能說它「同住一處」（因為各各散開了），也不能說它「分住異處」（因為根本沒有聚成實物可分）；如是諸佛遠離煩惱障、安住法界之中，非住一處、亦非住異處。

這一層，唯識看得很親切：它正是轉依所證的果。轉依，是轉捨阿賴耶識裡遍計所執的染污種子習氣（煩惱障、所知障），轉得圓成實的真如法界。「煩惱盡」而住法界、非一非異，說的就是斷障證真、法身顯現的境界。窺基依著這個讀「世界·微塵」之喻：聚微塵成一世界，喻斷盡多煩惱、成就一法身（自性身一）；散世界作多微塵，喻依著一法身、起現無量化身（化身多）。所以這碎合之喻，落到唯識上，正是「轉依證真如·法身一而化身多」之事。

唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語

以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識從金剛經流出——破極微、薩迦耶見、二取、轉依、法身一化身多之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本（二十論、攝論、成唯識），般若另是一系；而是同一「析合無實、非一非異」的實相，金剛經以經語（微塵即非·世界即非·一合相即非）說，唯識以論語（破極微·三性三無性·薩迦耶見·二取·轉依·法身一化身多）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。二十論破實有極微，與本分「諸微塵即非微塵、非外道所執實微塵」同一所破，是這一分最切的論本；攝論說三身、法身一而報化身多，與窺基「聚塵成界喻斷多煩惱成一法身、散界作塵喻依一法身起無量化身」相應；成唯識論說遍計所執、薩迦耶見（執五蘊總聚為我）、斷二障、轉依，正與本分「一合相謂我執、煩惱障盡、法身非一非異」相印；辯中邊論辨法界真實、無二，與「法身於法界非一非異」相通；般若一系的心經「是諸法空相」「無眼界乃至無意識界」，亦與本分「界即非界、析合無實」同一無自性而假名之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「一合相即非一合相」，成唯識論以「遣遍計所執實法·破極微·一合相即薩迦耶見·法界非一非異」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 three natures (遍計所執 the wholly-imagined · 依他起 the other-dependent · 圓成實 the perfectly-accomplished), the breaking of the atom, the two graspings (二取), and the transformation of the basis, to reflect this division’s “the atom is-not · the world is-not · the single composite mark is-not.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

Coming Down from the Preceding Division: From “The Dharma-Body Has No Coming or Going” to “The Dharma-Body Is Neither One nor Many”

The preceding division has just said 「如來者，無所從來，亦無所去，故名如來」— the Tathāgata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere, therefore it is called the Tathāgata — the Dharma-body has no coming, no going. But no sooner does this land than a doubt follows: if the Dharma-body neither comes nor goes, then are the Dharma-bodies of the buddhas of the ten directions blended into a single Dharma-body, dwelling together in one place (one), or does each have its own Dharma-body, dwelling apart in different places (many)? The ancient masters all see this seam: Jizang says directly 「今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑」— now the simile of atoms is raised to break the doubt of whether the Dharma-bodies of the buddhas of the ten directions are one or many; both of Vasubandhu’s translations’ treatise-verses mark it out: 「於是法界處，非一亦不異」— in this place of the dharma-realm, neither one nor different. It is to resolve this doubt of “the Dharma-body, one or many” that the Buddha raises the simile of “crushing the world into atoms.” So this division, which on the surface speaks of atoms and the world, is at bottom disclosing: the Dharma-bodies of the buddhas, within the dharma-realm, are neither one nor many.

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this division still walks within the “latter half” that follows the pivotal Division 17. The earlier half (Divisions 1 to 16) breaks the “mark of self,” dispelling the clinging to a self in persons and the afflictive hindrance; from Division 17 it turns into the emptiness of dharmas, breaking the “mark of dharmas,” dispelling the clinging to a self in dharmas and the cognitive hindrance. The object of this division’s “is-not” is no longer the clinging to a self in persons upon outer objects like “marks, beings,” but the very analyzed-and-composed events of “world, atom, single composite mark” — breaking the clinging-to-dharmas that “takes the world and atoms as real existents that can moreover be gathered into a single whole.”

The Atom Is-not the Atom: Breaking the Real Atom, Preserving the Dependently-Arisen Provisional Name

The Buddha first asks: crush the great trichiliocosm into atoms — is this multitude of atoms many? Subhūti answers “very many,” but at once reverses: 「若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾……佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是名微塵眾」— if this multitude of atoms really existed, the Buddha would not call it a multitude of atoms… the Buddha teaches the multitude of atoms, which is-not the multitude of atoms, and is called the multitude of atoms. Read through the three natures:

“Multitude of atoms” = the other-dependent (依他起): the aggregate of atoms reached by analyzing the world layer by layer down to the smallest is a dependently-arisen event, sayable and countable, vividly possessing its provisional mark. Asaṅga says this is 「以世界漸次析至於極微」— analyzing the world by stages down to the atom.
“Is-not the multitude of atoms” = dispelling the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): what is dispelled is the kind of “really existent, indivisible atom” that the non-Buddhists (the Vaiśeṣikas) grasp. Kuiji says it plainly: 「則非微塵者，非如外道等所執實微塵也」— “is-not the atom” means not the real atom that the non-Buddhists and others grasp — it is not that there really are real atoms laid out there one by one. The wholly-imagined is just such a layer of wrong reckoning: taking the reflection manifested by mind and treating it as a thing really existent outside the mind. Asaṅga drives it home: 「但破一合執故，觀解分析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有也」— only to break the clinging to a single composite, contemplatively analyzing to the point past dividing, one provisionally calls it the atom; it is not really existent.
“Is called the multitude of atoms” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (圓成實): with that layer of real clinging exhausted, the dependently-arisen provisional name remains sayable — Kuiji says 「但寄微塵為喻，非如言而有實」— only lodging in “atom” as a simile, not that there is something real as the word says. Without real intrinsic nature, yet a provisional name sayable on the conventional level.

Here, “breaking the real atom” — Yogācāra has another treatise that speaks of it expressly: analyze matter all the way down to “a really existent, indivisible atom,” and this atom simply cannot stand — if it has directional parts (a distinction of above, below, left, right) it can still be further divided and is no atom; if it has no directional parts, it cannot aggregate into material form at all. This division’s phrase “the atoms are-not atoms” breaks precisely this same clinging to a “really existent atom.”

The World Is-not the World: Gathering Atoms into a Single Whole Has No Real Intrinsic Nature Either

The Buddha next lets the same blade fall upon “the world”: 「如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是名世界」— the great trichiliocosm of which the Tathāgata speaks is-not the world, and is called the world. Still the three-natures pattern:

“The world” = the other-dependent (依他起): the world composed by gathering many atoms is a provisional mark manifested by dependent arising, nameable and sayable.
“Is-not the world” = dispelling the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): what is dispelled is the non-Buddhists’ view that “many real atoms aggregate into a real world.” Kuiji says 「非如外道等執以眾多實極微成實世界也」— not as the non-Buddhists and others grasp, that many real atoms compose a real world — since the atom is inherently unreal (already broken in the preceding phrase), the world it composes is naturally unreal too. Asaṅga reads this phrase as “breaking the name-body”: the world is merely established upon a name, just getting a name.
“Is called the world” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (圓成實): where clinging is dispelled, the dependently-arisen provisional name of the world remains vividly sayable.

Reflect both sides at once — the crushing (atoms) and the composing (world) — and the meaning emerges: the atoms crushed are not real atoms, and the world composed is not a real whole. Kuiji supplies a fine pair of similes — gathering atoms into a world is like “gathering the fingers into a fist” (攝指成拳); scattering the world into atoms is like “opening the fist into fingers” (開拳作指). Gathering the fingers into a fist figures severing the host of afflictions to accomplish one Dharma-body; opening the fist into fingers figures, in reliance on one Dharma-body, manifesting innumerable transformation-bodies. Fist and fingers, gathering and scattering, are inherently the one same hand; this discloses just the double meaning of “neither one (each scattered without aggregate) nor many (no separate real thing).”

The Single Composite Mark Is-not the Single Composite Mark: Breaking the View of the Perishable Composite — Grasping the Five-Aggregate Composite as “Self”

Now to the eye of this division: 「若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是名一合相」— if the world really existed, it would be a single composite mark. The Tathāgata teaches a single composite mark, which is-not a single composite mark, and is called a single composite mark. The “single composite mark” (一合相) is just that mark, that clinging, of “gathering many atoms into a single whole.” Read through the three natures, this application is the deepest:

“Single composite mark” = the other-dependent (依他起): the Buddha only provisionally speaks of a “single composite” upon the dependent arising of “the provisional aggregates conjoined by causes and conditions.” Kuiji says 「謂佛但於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合」— the Buddha only provisionally speaks of a single composite upon the provisional aggregates conjoined by causes and conditions — it is a provisional name upon the dependently-arisen.
“Is-not a single composite mark” = dispelling the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): what is dispelled is exactly the layer of clinging that “grasps the aggregate of many atoms as a real one.” And Kuiji reads this “single composite mark” most penetratingly: 「一合相者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我，故名一合相也」— the single composite mark is self-clinging; that is, grasping the one body’s total aggregation of the five aggregates as a self — hence called the single composite mark. So “grasping many conjoined things as one real whole” has, as its most intimate instance, the grasping of this body-and-mind of the five aggregates — form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness — as a real “self.” In Yogācāra this is the view of the perishable composite (薩迦耶見, satkāya-dṛṣṭi; the view of self: wrongly grasping a real self upon the five aggregates). Asaṅga divides it into two layers of “seizing-by-aggregating” (摶取): grasping beings and the world of beings as one whole is the “one seizing” (一摶取); grasping the aggregation of atoms as real is the “differentiated seizing” (差別摶取) — toward persons it is the clinging to a self in persons, toward dharmas the clinging to a self in dharmas, together precisely these two graspings (二取, splitting the mind into the grasping self and the grasped dharmas).
“Is called a single composite mark” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (圓成實): with real clinging exhausted, “single composite” is only a provisional saying on the conventional level. Asaṅga says 「世諦言說故，有彼摶取；第一義故，彼法不可說」— because of conventional-truth speech there is that seizing; in the ultimate sense, that dharma cannot be spoken. In names and words there is no harm in saying it exists; in the ultimate truth there is nothing real to be attained.

So the phrase “the single composite mark is-not the single composite mark” is this division’s weightiest application: Prajñā dispels it with “is-not,” and Yogācāra makes clear, with “the view of the perishable composite, the two graspings,” what exactly it dispels — dispelling the root wrong-clinging that splits the mind in two and grasps the conjoined as a real one.

The Single Composite Mark Cannot Be Spoken, the Ordinary Cling to It: What False Discrimination Wrongly Grasps

The Buddha draws in a line: 「一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人貪著其事」— the single composite mark cannot be spoken; only ordinary people covet and cling to the matter. Why “cannot be spoken”? Because it is inherently unreal — within the conjoining there is no real “one” to be grasped. Vasubandhu glosses directly: 「以彼聚集無物可取，虛妄分別，是故凡夫妄取」— because in that aggregation there is no thing to be grasped, by false discrimination the ordinary wrongly grasp. Within the aggregation there is inherently no single thing to be attained, yet the ordinary, upon this false discrimination, forcibly grasp it as a really existent whole, a “self,” and so cling with craving. Zhiyi points it out in a phrase: 「凡夫貪著其事，不知事即理，理無所有，即是事無所有」— the ordinary covet and cling to the matter, not knowing that the matter just is the principle, that the principle has nothing, which is that the matter has nothing. Not knowing that this matter of conjoining, in its very being, is the principle of nothing-at-all. “Cannot be spoken” is not telling people to shut their mouths; it says: in the ultimate truth there is inherently no real “single composite” to be pointed at or spoken; the ordinary one’s “craving and clinging” is precisely taking a thing inherently absent and making it really existent.

The Simile of Crushed Atoms into Motes of Ink: The Dharma-Body Neither One nor Many in the Dharma-Realm · The Afflictive Hindrance Exhausted

Return to this division’s original intent — the whole passage is a simile: the world crushed into atoms (most translations make it “crushed into motes of ink,” and Vasubandhu calls it directly “the simile of crushing atoms into ink”). A simile of what? Of the buddhas’ Dharma-bodies being “neither one nor many” within the suchness dharma-realm. Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse says: 「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」— atoms crushed into powder manifest the exhaustion of afflictions. Just as atoms are crushed into fine powder, one cannot say they “dwell together in one place” (since each is scattered apart), nor say they “dwell apart in different places” (since they were never aggregated into a real thing to be divided); just so, the buddhas, far removed from the afflictive hindrance, abide within the dharma-realm — neither abiding in one place nor abiding in different places.

This layer Yogācāra sees most intimately: it is precisely the fruit realized by the transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti). The transformation of the basis is casting off the defiled seeds and habit-energies of the wholly-imagined within the storehouse-consciousness (賴耶, ālaya-vijñāna) — the afflictive hindrance and the cognitive hindrance — and attaining the suchness dharma-realm of the perfectly-accomplished. “Afflictions exhausted” while abiding in the dharma-realm, neither one nor many, states exactly the realm of severing the hindrances, realizing the real, and the Dharma-body’s manifesting. Following this, Kuiji reads the simile of “world · atom”: gathering atoms into one world figures severing the host of afflictions and accomplishing one Dharma-body (the body of intrinsic nature, one); scattering the world into many atoms figures, in reliance on one Dharma-body, manifesting innumerable transformation-bodies (the transformation-bodies, many). So this simile of crushing and composing, landing upon Yogācāra, is precisely the matter of “transforming the basis to realize suchness · the Dharma-body one and the transformation-bodies many.”

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 flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of breaking the atom, the view of the perishable composite, the two graspings, the transformation of the basis, and the Dharma-body one with transformation-bodies many have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Twenty Verses, the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun); the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same reality — “the analyzed and composed are unreal, neither one nor many” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (the atom is-not · the world is-not · the single composite mark is-not) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (breaking the atom · the three natures and three non-natures · the view of the perishable composite · the two graspings · the transformation of the basis · the Dharma-body one with transformation-bodies many); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Twenty Verses break the really existent atom — the very same object broken by this division’s “the atoms are-not atoms, not the real atom the non-Buddhists grasp,” and the most fitting treatise-source for this division. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha speaks of the three bodies, the Dharma-body one while reward- and transformation-bodies are many, corresponding to Kuiji’s “gathering atoms into a world figures severing many afflictions and accomplishing one Dharma-body; scattering the world into atoms figures, in reliance on one Dharma-body, manifesting innumerable transformation-bodies.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the wholly-imagined, the view of the perishable composite (grasping the total aggregation of the five aggregates as a self), severing the two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis, sealing with this division’s “the single composite mark is self-clinging · the afflictive hindrance exhausted · the Dharma-body neither one nor many.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the reality and non-duality of the dharma-realm, communing with “the Dharma-body neither one nor many in the dharma-realm.” And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「是諸法空相」「無眼界乃至無意識界」— all dharmas are marked with emptiness · no realm of the eye, up to no realm of mind-consciousness — is the same gate of “the realm is-not the realm · the analyzed and composed are unreal,” without intrinsic nature yet a provisional name. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「一合相即非一合相」— the single composite mark is-not the single composite mark — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “dispelling the wholly-imagined real dharmas · breaking the atom · the single composite mark is the view of the perishable composite · the dharma-realm neither one nor many” 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 30 · The Mark of a Single Composite Whole · exposition · Spring 2026

考據Apparatus

一、科判定位（一合相即非 · §17 後半）

科判系統	此分之位
昭明 32分	分三十一合理相分
釋慧鏡 §17 二分	後半（法空·破四見·所知障；樞紐分十七後·法空位之破「世界·微塵實有而可摶取為一」之法執，所無得者乃法我）
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]`），於佛地心具足攝轉依之行住淨·名色觀破自在行住——安立位「為名色觀破自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若復善家子，善家女，以所有三千大千世界中地塵』如是等」`[0758b01–03]`；證道詳釋「為破名色身自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界所有微塵』等……有二種摶取，謂一摶取及差別摶取」`[0765c01–16]`（心具足六事：念處·正覺·施設大利法·攝取法身·不住生死涅槃·行住淨 `[0757c29–0758a02]`）
世親二十七疑 T1511/T1513	「法身於法界一異」之疑——承分二十九「不去不來」，偈「去來化身佛，如來常不動；於是法界處，非一亦不異」（`T1511 [0795c13–14]`），以碎微塵作墨喻顯諸佛法身「非一處住亦非異處住」（`T1511 [0796a18–20]`；義淨「彼於法界處，非一異應知」`T1513 [0883c14]`）
吉藏（三論）T1699	「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章經」`[0122c28]`；判為破十方佛法身一異之疑——「今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑」`[0123a04]`
智顗（天台）T1698	第三明體道行忍之用之碎合相用·碎諸見用——「若三千碎塵下，第三明體道行忍之用有四，初、明碎塵用，二、碎界用，三、碎合相用，四、碎諸見用」`[0083b07–09]`，本分為碎塵·碎界·碎合相三用
窺基（唯識）T1700	依世親「此第二明法身一、化身多也」`[0153b01]`（聚塵成界喻斷多煩惱成一法身·散界作塵喻依一法身起無量化身）；依無著「此為第二破名色身自在行住」`[0153b09]`；一合相「謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我」`[0153c05–07]`

一合相即非義：此分承分二十九「如來者，無所從來，亦無所去，故名如來」[0752b05]（法身不去不來）之後，時會生疑——法身既無來去，則十方諸佛法身為混成一法身（一處住）、為各各有法身（異處住）耶（吉藏「十方佛法身同為無來去，為成一法身同處住？為各各有法身異處住耶」[0123a16–18]；世親「若如來有去來差別，即不得言常如是住」T1511 [0795c16–17]）？故以「碎世界為微塵·合微塵為世界·世界即一合相」一段顯之：如世界碎末為塵則不可言一處住（各散故）、亦非異處（無聚故），如是諸佛法身遠離煩惱障、住法界中非一處住亦非異處住（世親偈「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」T1511 [0796a17]；吉藏「如微塵散滅故不可說一異處，如是十方佛煩惱盡故不可說法身一異處住」[0123a12–14]）。古德三家俱判此分為「法身非一非異」之顯（吉藏「破十方佛法身一異之疑」、智顗「碎合相用」、窺基「法身一、化身多」），且世親二譯論偈逕標「於是法界處，非一亦不異」（T1511 [0795c14]／T1513 [0883c14]）。本分「即非」三現於「微塵眾即非微塵眾」「世界即非世界」「一合相即非一合相」——施於依報之析（微塵）·合（世界·一合相），是 §17 後半法空·破法見之一施；其所破者乃「世界·微塵實有而可摶取為一」之法執（一合相＝摶取·我執），非前半之相·眾生（人我）。

二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 微塵眾·世界·一合相三即非一段）

要句：碎為微塵·微塵眾即非微塵眾 / 世界即非世界 / 若世界實有者則是一合相·一合相即非一合相 / 一合相者則是不可說·凡夫貪著其事

版本	微塵眾·世界·一合相三即非一段（逐字節錄）	[出處]
羅什 T235（原典）	「須菩提！若善男子、善女人以三千大千世界碎為微塵，於意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不？」「甚多，世尊！何以故？若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾。所以者何？佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是名微塵眾。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是名世界。何以故？若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是名一合相。」「須菩提！一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人貪著其事。」	0752b06–b14
菩提流支 T236a	「須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界微塵。復以爾許微塵世界，碎為微塵阿僧祇。須菩提！於意云何？是微塵眾，寧為多不？」須菩提言：「彼微塵眾甚多。世尊！何以故？若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾。何以故？佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是故佛說微塵眾。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是故佛說三千大千世界。何以故？若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是故佛說一合相。」佛言：「須菩提！一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人，貪著其事。」	0756c11–c21
真諦 T237	「須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界地大微塵，燒成灰末，合為墨丸，如微塵聚。須菩提！汝意云何？是隣虛聚，寧為多不？」須菩提言：「彼隣虛聚甚多。世尊！何以故？世尊！若隣虛聚是實有者，世尊則不應說名隣虛聚。何以故？世尊！所說此隣虛聚，如來說非隣虛聚，是故說名為隣虛聚。如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，故說三千大千世界。何以故？世尊！若執世界為實有者，是聚一執。此聚一執，如來說非執，故說聚一執。」佛世尊言：「須菩提！此聚一執，但世言說。」	0766a25–b06
達摩笈多 T238	「若善家子，若善家女，若所有三千大千世界地塵，彼如是色類墨作已，乃至如是不可數，譬如最小聚。彼何意念？善實！雖然，彼多最小聚有？」善實言：「如是，如是！世尊！多彼最小聚有。彼何所因？彼，世尊！聚有，不世尊說最小聚者。彼何所因？若彼，世尊！最小聚說；非聚，彼，如來說；彼故，說名最小聚者。若及如來說三千大千世界者；非界，如來說；彼故，說名三千大千世界者。彼何所因？彼，世尊！界有，彼如是摶取有。若如是，如來摶取說；非取，彼，如來說；彼故，說名摶取者。」世尊言：「摶取，如是，善實！不世俗語，不可說，非法，非非法，彼小兒凡夫生取。」	0771b15–b26
玄奘 T220⑨	「復次，善現！若善男子或善女人，乃至三千大千世界大地極微塵量等世界，即以如是無數世界色像為墨〔墨【大】，量【宋】【元】【明】〕如極微聚。善現！於汝意云何？是極微聚寧為多不？」善現答言：「是極微聚甚多！世尊！甚多！善逝！何以故？世尊！若極微聚是實有者，佛不應說為極微聚。所以者何？如來說極微聚即為非聚，故名極微聚。如來說三千大千世界即非世界，故名三千大千世界。何以故？世尊！若世界是實有者，即為一合執，如來說一合執即為非執，故名一合執。」佛言：「善現！此一合執不可言說、不可戲論，然彼一切愚夫異生強執是法。」	0985b17–b28
義淨 T239	「妙生！若有男子、女人，以三千大千世界土地碎為墨塵。妙生！於汝意云何？是極微聚，寧為多不？」妙生言：「甚多，世尊！何以故？若聚性是實者，如來不說為極微聚極微聚。何以故？極微聚者，世尊說為非極微聚，故名極微聚。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，說為非世界，故名三千大千世界。何以故？若世界實有，如來則有聚執。佛說聚執者，說為非聚執，是故說為聚執。」「妙生！此聚執者，是世言論，然其體性，實無可說，但是愚夫異生之所妄執。」	0775a28–b08

異文所繫：

「碎為微塵／碎為墨／作墨／合為墨丸」之「墨」字：羅什作「以三千大千世界碎為微塵」（止碎塵，無「墨」）；流支作「微塵世界碎為微塵阿僧祇」（益「阿僧祇」之多）；真諦獨作「地大微塵，燒成灰末，合為墨丸，如微塵聚」[0766a26]；笈多作「地塵，彼如是色類墨作已」[0771b16]；玄奘作「無數世界色像為墨如極微聚」[0985b18–19]（「墨」大正本，宋元明三本作「量」[校]）；義淨作「土地碎為墨塵」[0775a29]。真諦·笈多·玄奘·義淨四本皆有「墨」（灰末為墨丸／色類墨作／為墨／墨塵），正世親論「碎微塵作墨喻」（T1511「碎微塵譬喻」[0796a15]、T1513「微塵作墨喻」「微塵將作墨，喻顯於法界」[0883c12·c17]）之文證——羅什傳本獨無「墨」字，止「碎為微塵」，而論本所釋之喻體實含「作墨」（碎世界微塵·更碎為墨塵阿僧祇），故羅什簡而論詳。
「微塵眾／微塵聚／隣虛聚／最小聚／極微聚」：羅什、流支作「微塵眾」；真諦作「微塵聚／隣虛聚」（隣虛＝極微 paramāṇu）；笈多作「最小聚」；玄奘、義淨作「極微聚」。同一梵語 paramāṇu-saṃcaya／-rajas 之「眾·聚·隣虛·最小·極微」異譯。世親論本作「微塵聚」（無著 T1510a「彼微塵聚甚多」[0765c05]），與真諦近。
「一合相／聚一執／摶取／一合執／聚執」：羅什、流支作「一合相」；真諦作「聚一執」[0766b04]；笈多作「摶取」[0771b24]；玄奘作「一合執」[0985b25]；義淨作「聚執」[0775b06]。同一梵語 piṇḍa-grāha（摶取·聚執）之異譯——羅什「一合相」偏「相」（合眾微為一之相），真諦·笈多·玄奘·義淨偏「執」（執眾微聚為一之心，grāha）。「執／取」一義（聚一執·摶取·一合執·聚執）正顯此分破「執世界微塵聚為實一」之法執（窺基「一合相者，謂我執」[0153c05–06]；無著「摶取」[0765c14]），羅什「相」字則收於假名之相。此「相／執」之異，正繫於本分「破一合執」之眼（見目三、目四）。
能斷系重詞：義淨「如來不說為極微聚極微聚」[0775b02]（同名二舉，即非式作「X·X者，非X，是名 X」）；笈多「聚有，不世尊說最小聚者」[0771b19]、玄奘「極微聚」單舉（不重）。羅什、流支、真諦則單舉（羅什「微塵眾／則非微塵眾／是名微塵眾」三句不重詞）。重詞乃法相系傳本之文相，逐字錄之，不縮。
問端之鋪陳：羅什止「以三千大千世界碎為微塵」一碎；流支、玄奘益以「復以爾許微塵世界碎為微塵阿僧祇」（流支 [0756c11–12]）「乃至三千大千世界大地極微塵量等世界，即以如是無數世界色像為墨」（玄奘 [0985b17–19]）——再碎再墨，顯「微塵之微塵·阿僧祇」之析至無盡（無著「以世界漸次析至於極微」窺基引 [0153b14]）。
「凡夫貪著其事／愚夫異生強執／小兒凡夫生取」：羅什、流支作「但凡夫之人貪著其事」；真諦作「但世言說」[0766b06]（接後）；笈多作「彼小兒凡夫生取」[0771b26]；玄奘作「然彼一切愚夫異生強執是法」[0985b27–28]；義淨作「但是愚夫異生之所妄執」[0775b08]。皆顯「一合相·聚執本不可說（無實），唯凡夫·愚夫·異生妄執為實」之義（見目四）。

三、即非・三性（眼 · 本分三即非 · §17 後半法空·破四見）

本分「即非」三現：「微塵眾 — 即非微塵眾 — 是名微塵眾」[0752b09–10]、「（三千大千）世界 — 即非世界 — 是名世界」[0752b10–12]、「一合相 — 即非一合相 — 是名一合相」[0752b12–13]——三即非並施於依報之析（微塵）·合（世界）·聚執（一合相）。

★ 後半繫定：本分居 §17 樞紐之後（後半分十七–卅二），其即非當以法空·破四見·所知障讀——即非施於「法／法我」（微塵·世界·一合相之析合實有），非前半之「眾生·相／人我」。前半（分一–十六）之即非多施於「相·法·福德」之外境、所對治者煩惱障（破四相·我空）；至此分（後半·法空），即非施於依報世界自身之析合（微塵·世界·一合相）——破「世界·微塵實有而可摶取為一」之法執（法我），所對治者所知障（破四見）。樞紐分十七「通達無我、法」[0751b12]（人我·法我二空·窺基「達我、法空，證無我理」[0147b09–10]）已開法空之門；本分即其於「依報·一合相」一處之施——世界微塵之聚合亦無實自性（即非），破「執眾微聚為實一」之一合執。此後半「我空→法空·煩惱障→所知障·第二周斷所知障」之轉，繫於十七樞紐——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]；其結構之回扣十七，見分十七目三·目四。

其一「微塵眾 — 即非微塵眾 — 是名微塵眾」映三性：

微塵眾（X）即依他起——世界漸次析至於極微之微塵聚（無著「以世界漸次析至於極微」窺基引 [0153b14]；寄微塵以喻化身多，窺基「『佛說微塵眾』者，謂寄微塵以喻化身也」[0153b20–21]）。
即非微塵眾即遣遍計所執——非外道所執之實有極微（窺基「『則非微塵』者，非如外道等所執實微塵也」[0153b21–22]，謂如衛世師等所執微塵 [0153b18–19]；無著「但破一合執故，觀解分析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有也」[0153b22–23]）。
是名微塵眾即立圓成（亦兼世諦假說）——窺基「但寄微塵為喻，非如言而有實」[0153b19]；無著「以此聚體不成就故」[0765c09–10]，無實而假名可說。

其二「世界 — 即非世界 — 是名世界」映三性：

世界（X）即依他起——寄世界以喻法身一（窺基「此第二以世界喻法身也……『如來說世界』者，謂寄世界為喻也」[0153b25–26]）。
即非世界即遣遍計——非外道執眾多實極微所成之實世界（窺基「『則非世界』者，非如外道等執以眾多實極微成實世界也。彼執兩兩極微生第三」[0153b27–29]；無著「此破名身」[0765c11–12]，世界唯名身得名 [0765c12–13]）。
是名世界即立圓成——窺基「世界者，謂眾生世間也，彼唯名身得名也」[0153c01]，無實而假名。

其三「一合相 — 即非一合相 — 是名一合相」映三性（本分之眼）：

一合相（X）即依他起——佛於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合（窺基「謂佛但於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合」[0153c09–10]）。
即非一合相即遣遍計所執——非如其所執之實一合相（窺基「『則非一合相』者，非是所執一合相也」[0153c11]；無著「『如來說摶取，即非摶取』者，此上座須菩提安立第一義故」[0765c18–19]）。所遣者，正是「執一身總聚五蘊以為我（一摶取）·執眾微聚集為實一（差別摶取）」之執（窺基「一合相者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我，故名一合相也」[0153c05–07]；無著「一摶取及差別摶取」[0765c15]）。
是名一合相即立圓成——但假說一合（窺基「但假說一合既非，即明世界亦非有實也」[0153c11–12]）；摶取唯世諦言說有，第一義不可說（無著「世諦言說故，有彼摶取；第一義故，彼法不可說」[0765c20–21]）。

本分之眼（★後半·法空·破法見）：三即非俱以「析合無實·非一非異」為樞——遣「微塵·世界·一合相實有可摶取為一」之遍計（即非），而存「假蘊和合上假說一合」之圓成（是名）。其唯識義在「諸佛法身於法界非一非異」（世親偈「於是法界處，非一亦不異」T1511 [0795c14]；義淨「彼於法界處，非一異應知」T1513 [0883c14]）——如世界碎末為塵則非一處住（各散）·亦非異處（無聚），如是諸佛遠離煩惱障、住法界中非一處亦非異處（世親「如是諸佛如來，遠離煩惱障，住彼法界中，非一處住亦非異處住」T1511 [0796a28–b01]）。即非一式，至此分施於「一合相·聚執」自身——非前半（分一至十六）施於「相·眾生·福德」之外境（人我·破四相·煩惱障），乃後半（分十七至卅二）施於「世界微塵聚合為實一」之細執（法我·破四見·所知障）。此正樞紐分十七「我空轉法空·煩惱障轉所知障」之續行（回扣十七）：分十七判「實無有法發菩提者·無有法名為菩薩」（破「我為菩薩」之執），本分三十進破「一合相·聚執」（執析合為實一）之法執——古德「第二周斷所知障」（窺基依世親，分十七 [0127c01–03]）之具體一施。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「依報析合·一合相·法空」位之三施。「碎微塵作墨喻」顯法身非一非異，即三十頌「唯識所現·轉依」之經語對應〔摘自 S5-P10〕（見目七）。

四、諸家異釋（古德 · 碎微塵作墨喻·法身非一非異·一合相我執 · 加重）

核心加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》二偈（世界作微塵·微塵碎為末示現煩惱盡／非聚集故集·非唯是一喻），二漢譯並存： 世親以「碎微塵作墨喻」釋此段，顯諸佛法身於真如法界中「非一處住亦非異處住」（破法身一異之疑），逐項錨於經文；二譯名異義一。

世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 承分二十九「不去不來」偈「去來化身佛，如來常不動；於是法界處，非一亦不異」[0795c13–14] 後，論「碎微塵譬喻」[0796a15]，偈 [0796a16–17]：

「世界作微塵，此喻示彼義；微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡。」

釋法身非一異：「偈言『於是法界處，非一亦非異』故。彼諸佛如來於真如法界中，非一處住亦非異處住，為示此義故說世界碎微塵喻」[0796a18–21]。
釋「碎為末示現煩惱盡」：「此喻非聚集微塵眾，示現非一喻」[0796a22]；偈 [0796a24–25]：

「非聚集故集，非唯是一喻；聚集處非彼，非是差別喻。」

合釋（非一非異）：「如微塵碎為末非一處住，以無有聚集物故。亦非異處差別，以聚集微塵差別不可得故、以差別不住故。如是諸佛如來，遠離煩惱障，住彼法界中，非一處住亦非異處住。如是三千世界一合相喻，非聚集故」[0796a26–b01]；引經「『如來說一合相則非一合相，是故如來說一合相』故。若實有一物聚集，如來則不說微塵聚集。如是若實有一世界，如來則不說三千大千世界」[0796b02–05]。
釋「凡夫貪著」：「『若世界實有者，則是一合相故，但凡夫之人貪著其事』者，以彼聚集無物可取，虛妄分別，是故凡夫妄取」[0796b05–07]。

世親 T1513（義淨譯） 承分二十九頌「去來等是化，正覺常不動，彼於法界處，非一異應知」[0883c05–06] 後，論「微塵作墨喻者，是誰之喻？顯何事耶？」[0883c12]，頌 [0883c14·c17·c19–21]：

「彼於法界處，非一異應知。」「微塵將作墨，喻顯於法界。」「此論造墨事，為彰煩惱盡。非聚非集性，顯是非一性；於彼總集性，明其非異性。」

「言彼如來於法界處非一非異性，意顯斯事，故彰其喻」[0883c14–15]；「譬如造墨，所有塵埃眾多極微性非一處，其聚集物非一事故亦非異性，由總集故」[0883c22–23]；「如是應知，諸佛世尊於法界中煩惱障盡，非一處性亦非異性」[0883c24–25]。
釋一合相·聚執：「『如來說為非是聚性，是故說為極微聚』者……若其聚物是其一者，不應名此為極微聚。又復若是一界者，亦不應言三千大千世界。由此故云此即是其有聚執也。此即如來說為非執，不為聚執故。由其妄執，是故說為聚執」[0883c27–0884a02]；釋凡夫妄執：「為除斯難，而云其聚執者但俗論說有如是等」[0884a04–05]；頌「不了但俗言，諸凡愚妄執」[0884a07]。

〔二譯對位：世界作微塵·微塵碎為末（示現煩惱盡）／微塵將作墨（為彰煩惱盡）· 於是法界處非一亦不異／彼於法界處非一異應知 · 非聚集故集·非唯是一喻／非聚非集性顯是非一性·於彼總集性明其非異性——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。〕

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]），於證道後佛地心具足攝轉依之行住淨·名色觀破自在行住——安立位作「為名色觀破自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若復善家子，善家女，以所有三千大千世界中地塵』如是等」[0758b01–03]；證道詳釋作「於行住心具足中……為破名色身自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界所有微塵』等。於中，細末方便及無所見方便等」[0765b28–c04]。釋微塵·世界二方便：「經言『彼微塵聚甚多』者，是細末方便」[0765c05]；「『世尊說微塵聚，非聚，是名微塵聚』者，以此聚體不成就故」[0765c08–09]；「『如來說即非世界』者，此是無所見方便，此破名身……世界者，為明眾生世故，彼唯名身得名」[0765c11–13]。釋一合相·摶取（二摶取）：「『世尊！若世界是有者，即為有摶取』者。於中，為並說若世界、若微塵界故，有二種摶取，謂一摶取及差別摶取。眾生類、眾生世界有者，此為一摶取。微塵有者，此為差別摶取，以取微塵聚集故」[0765c13–17]；「『如來說摶取，即非摶取』者，此上座須菩提安立第一義故……說『摶取者，即是不可以言說說』等……世諦言說故，有彼摶取；第一義故，彼法不可說。彼小兒凡夫如言說取，非第一義」[0765c18–22]。

吉藏（三論）T1699：科為「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章經」[0122c28]。判此分為破十方佛法身一異之疑——「今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑，如世界碎末為塵，不可言一處住，以其各散故；亦非異處，既無聚云何散耶？十方佛法身不可一處住、不可異處住，以不可一處住，非是混成一法身；不可異處住，故不可各各有法身。故論偈云『於是法界處，非一亦不異。』」[0123a04–09]；「如微塵散滅故不可說一異處，如是十方佛煩惱盡故不可說法身一異處住，故論偈云『微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡』也」[0123a12–14]。釋微塵·世界喻：「微塵喻十方法身不一，世界喻十方法身不異。但論意用微塵通喻不一異，世界偏喻不一也」[0123a26–28]。釋一合相：「一合相者，合眾塵成世界也。一合相不可說者，聖人了合無所合，如〈破合品〉『是法不自合，異法亦不合……』故無有合。但凡夫見有世界，故起貪著心」[0123b02–05]。

智顗（天台）T1698：科為第三明體道行忍之用之四用——「若三千碎塵下，第三明體道行忍之用有四，初、明碎塵用，二、碎界用，三、碎合相用，四、碎諸見用」[0083b07–09]；「以微塵成世界有合，世界有合故起見，見者即失……此四並是般若用」[0083b09–12]。釋碎塵·碎界：「『佛說非微塵為微塵』。次、『三千』下，明成世界用。微塵非實故可碎而為多，世界非有則可假借而成也」[0083b13–16]。釋碎合相：「『一合相』下，破一合相，以非合為合故是不可說……今經中說合，順俗假說耳，凡夫貪著其事，不知事即理，理無所有，即是事無所有」[0083b16–22]；「若是實有，即應一性，合不可分，假眾生名，一無合可得，假名無體，不可實說」[0083b23–25]。

窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親「此第二明法身一、化身多也」[0153b01]，釋喻含二意——「一者、聚塵為界喻，如攝指成拳；二者、散界為塵喻，如開拳作指。初、名聚喻，次、名開喻。若聚喻者，塵喻煩惱多；聚塵成一世界，喻斷多煩惱，成一法身也。若開喻者，世界喻法身；散界作多塵，如依一法身，起無量化身也」[0153b03–08]。依無著「此為第二破名色身自在行住……初、明破色身方便，次、明破名身方便。前中初、明細末方便，次、明無所見方便」[0153b09–13]。釋微塵即非：「但寄微塵為喻，非如言而有實，如衛世師等所執微塵也。『佛說微塵眾』者，謂寄微塵以喻化身也，『則非微塵』者，非如外道等所執實微塵也。無著云，但破一合執故，觀解分析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有也」[0153b18–23]。釋世界即非：「此第二以世界喻法身也……『則非世界』者，非如外道等執以眾多實極微成實世界也。彼執兩兩極微生第三……無著云，此破名身方便也。世界者，謂眾生世間也，彼唯名身得名也」[0153b25–c01]。釋一合相（我執）：「謂若如其所執有世界者，即非是執，是正見故，非虛妄也。以無實執實故，一合相也。『一合相』者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我，故名一合相也」[0153c03–07]；「謂佛但於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合，非則如其所執一合相也。『則非一合相』者，非是所執一合相也，但假說一合既非，即明世界亦非有實也」[0153c09–12]；釋凡夫執實：「謂如來假說一合相，凡夫於中起執為實也」[0153c14–15]。

古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸世親二偈：碎微塵作墨喻顯諸佛法身於法界非一非異（微塵碎為末·非一處住·無聚集物故非異·示現煩惱盡）。吉藏「微塵喻十方法身不一·世界喻不異·了合無所合」、智顗「碎塵·碎界·碎合相三用·以非合為合·順俗假說」、窺基（依世親無著）「聚塵成界喻斷多煩惱成一法身·散界作塵喻依一法身起無量化身·一合相謂我執（執五蘊總聚為我）·破名色身自在行住」——逐項錨於「微塵眾即非·世界即非·一合相即非·貪著其事」。此即本分「一合相即非·法身非一非異」之古德定讀，亦 §17 後半「破法見·斷所知障」之經文所本。

五、術語

微塵眾／微塵聚／隣虛聚／最小聚／極微聚 paramāṇu-saṃcaya ／ paramāṇu-rajas（極微之聚；無著「以世界漸次析至於極微」窺基引 [0153b14]；真諦「隣虛聚」·笈多「最小聚」·玄奘義淨「極微聚」之譯異見目二）· 一合相／聚一執／摶取／一合執／聚執 piṇḍa-grāha（執眾微聚為一之相·執；窺基「一合相者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我」[0153c05–07]；無著「一摶取及差別摶取」[0765c15]；真諦「聚一執」·笈多「摶取」·玄奘「一合執」·義淨「聚執」之譯異見目二）· 一摶取／差別摶取（無著「眾生類、眾生世界有者，此為一摶取。微塵有者，此為差別摶取，以取微塵聚集故」T1510a [0765c15–17]）· 法界非一非異 dharmadhātu（世親偈「於是法界處，非一亦不異」T1511 [0795c14]；義淨「彼於法界處，非一異應知」T1513 [0883c14]；諸佛法身於法界中非一處住亦非異處住）· 煩惱障盡（世親「諸佛如來，遠離煩惱障，住彼法界中」T1511 [0796a28–b01]；義淨「諸佛世尊於法界中煩惱障盡」T1513 [0883c24–25]；偈「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」T1511 [0796a17]）· 細末方便／無所見方便（破色身·名身影像相之二方便；無著「初、明細末方便，次、明無所見方便」窺基引 [0153b12–13]、無著 [0765c03–04]）· 法身一·化身多（聚塵成界喻斷多煩惱成一法身·散界作塵喻依一法身起無量化身；窺基「此第二明法身一、化身多也」[0153b01]）。〔梵文發音輔助；「微塵聚／一合相」之譯異見目二。〕

六、譬喻・修辭（碎微塵作墨喻 · 析合之翻轉）

本分為譬喻分之一（虛空喻在分四·須彌喻在分十·十七·忍辱仙人喻在分十四·身喻在分十七·色見聲求偈在分二十六·六喻在分三十二）。其譬喻之要在「碎微塵作墨喻」與「析（碎）·合（聚）之翻轉」：

碎微塵作墨喻（論本所釋之喻體）：經文以「三千大千世界碎為微塵（更碎為墨塵阿僧祇）」為喻——世親逕標為「碎微塵作墨喻」（T1511「碎微塵譬喻」[0796a15]；T1513「微塵將作墨，喻顯於法界」[0883c17]）。喻體＝世界碎為微塵·微塵碎為末（作墨）；喻依＝諸佛法身於法界非一非異（「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」T1511 [0796a17]；「此論造墨事，為彰煩惱盡」T1513 [0883c19]）。羅什傳本止「碎為微塵」（無「墨」），而真諦「合為墨丸」[0766a26]、笈多「色類墨作」[0771b16]、玄奘「為墨」[0985b19]、義淨「碎為墨塵」[0775a29] 四本俱存「墨」，正合論本之喻（見目二「墨」字所繫）。
析·合二喻之雙設（窺基補喻）：經文一碎一合（碎世界為微塵·合微塵為世界·世界即一合相），古德以「攝指成拳·開拳作指」之喻顯之——窺基「一者、聚塵為界喻，如攝指成拳；二者、散界為塵喻，如開拳作指」[0153b04–05]（聚塵成界喻斷多煩惱成一法身·散界作塵喻依一法身起無量化身 [0153b06–08]）。攝指（聚）·開拳（散）之喻，正顯「非一（各散無聚）·非異（無聚集物·依一法身）」之雙義。
析合而即非之翻轉：正問「微塵眾寧為多」（似許微塵實有可數），陡答「若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說……即非微塵眾」（微塵非實），復收「是名微塵眾」（假名可說）；世界·一合相同式翻轉。所「碎」之微塵與所「合」之世界（一合相）相形，「即非」者正破「執微塵·世界·一合相為實有可摶取為一」之執。此「析合而即非」之筆，與分十三「微塵·世界即非」（前半依報之即非）同一翻轉之構——惟前半（分十三）之微塵世界即非偏破外境實有（煩惱障·我空所攝之依報），本分（後半）之微塵世界一合相即非偏破「法身一異·聚執為實一」之法執（所知障·法空），同文而異旨（吉藏「前已明微塵，今復明，何異？……有同有異……前舉有微塵譬有所得布施……今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑」[0122c29–0123a04]）。此目於本分（碎微塵作墨喻·析合之翻轉）加重，與分四·十四·廿六·卅二之譬喻並列。

七、互讀

三十頌（T1586）：唯識所現·圓成實（v.29 圓成實·轉依）·無分別智緣法界——本分「微塵·世界即非·法身於法界非一非異」之論本對應（依報世界唯識所現·非離識實有可摶取為一；法身＝轉依所證真如·於法界非一非異）。
二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·破極微（破鄰虛·極微和合）——本分「微塵眾即非微塵眾·非外道所執實微塵（衛世師所執）」〔窺基語見目四〕即二十論破「極微和合為實境」之經語對應（微塵非實·析至不可析·假說微塵，即破極微實有之論本）。
辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·法界·無二——本分「法身於法界非一非異·遠離煩惱障住法界中」之論本旁繫（法界真實·非一非異義相通）。
攝大乘論（T1594）：彼果智分·三身（法身一·受用變化身多）——本分窺基「聚塵成界喻斷多煩惱成一法身·散界作塵喻依一法身起無量化身」〔見目四〕即攝論「法身（自性身）一·報化身多」之經語對應。
成唯識論（T1585）：二障（煩惱障盡·所知障）·遍計所執（執極微·世界為實）·轉依——本分「微塵·世界即非·一合相（我執）即非·法身非一非異·煩惱障盡」即成唯識「遣遍計所執實法（極微·一合相）·斷煩惱障證法身·法界非一非異」之經語對應；「一合相謂我執」〔窺基語見目四〕即成唯識薩迦耶見（執五蘊總聚為我）之經語對應。
心經（T251）：「是諸法空相·不生不滅」「無眼界乃至無意識界」——本分「微塵·世界即非（依報無實）·一合相即非」與心經「諸法空相·界即非界」同一無自性而假名之理。

本分「微塵眾即非·世界即非·一合相即非·法身非一非異」，即二十論「破極微·唯識無境」、攝論成唯識論「三身·法身一化身多·斷煩惱障·法界非一非異」之經語對應；「一合相謂我執（執五蘊總聚為我）」即成唯識薩迦耶見之經語對應。釋慧鏡命題「金剛經以經語說成唯識論以技術語說者」〔摘自《從百法到金剛》S5-P10〕：金剛經「一合相即非一合相」一語，成唯識論以「遣遍計所執實法·破極微·一合相即薩迦耶見·法界非一非異」之技術語說同一事。本分破「世界微塵聚為實一」之法執，正 §17 後半「法空·破四見·所知障」之一施〔摘自《金剛經的自我重演》S5-P07，前後半摺疊之結構見分十七目三·目四〕。〔約定：只列實相關者，不强挂——系聯，非湊數。二十論破極微為本分微塵即非之最切論本，餘旁繫從闕。成唯識論起草中，穩定名引，俟成增鏈。〕

八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）

「微塵眾即非微塵眾·非外道所執實微塵」之破極微 ↔ 西方原子論之解構與其反題（德謨克利特原子論之「不可分之最小實體」，及現代物理「基本粒子無自性·場論」之消解）：西方原子論立「不可分之實體微粒」為萬物之基，古德／唯識讀「微塵即非」非僅「微粒更可分」之物理消解——「析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有」（無著·窺基 [0153b22–23]），所破者乃「極微為心外實有」之法執（破衛世師 Vaiśeṣika 極微實有，二十論之事），是遣遍計·顯唯識所現，非純析至更小之物理還原。
「一合相即非·聚執」之破「整體實一」 ↔ 西方部分與整體之論（mereology；整體是否實在於部分之外·格式塔「整體大於部分之和」）：西方多就整體之存有地位立論（聚為一整體是否實有）；古德以「一合相謂我執·執一身總聚五蘊以為我」（窺基 [0153c05–07]）讀「聚執」非僅整體論之命題——「聚執」乃薩迦耶見（執五蘊和合聚為實我·法）之我法執，是所知障·煩惱障所攝之妄執（無著「摶取……世諦言說有·第一義不可說」[0765c20–21]），破之為斷障·證法身，非靜態之整體實在論辯。
「法身於法界非一非異」之非一非異 ↔ 西方一與多之辯證（柏拉圖「一與多」、新柏拉圖主義之「太一」流溢、黑格爾「具體共相」）：西方多以「一多如何統一」為形上學之命題（諸實體如何分有一·一如何顯為多）；古德以「諸佛法身遠離煩惱障·住法界中非一處住亦非異處住」（世親 T1511 [0796a28–b01]）讀「非一非異」非「一多統一」之思辨——乃轉依·斷煩惱障所證之法界相（「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」[0796a17]），是可修可證之果（諸佛煩惱盡而住法界），非存有論之一多階序。
對觀之要：西方傾向以「微塵·一合相·一多」為原子論·整體論·一多形上學之命題（最小實體為何·整體是否實在·一如何為多）；古德以「微塵即非·一合相即非·法身非一非異」為破極微法執·破薩迦耶我執·轉依斷障證法身之修證（所破者乃法我·我法執，非一之證乃煩惱盡所顯）。形上學之命題與斷障之修證，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 [0752b06–b14]（原典 · 一合理相分）。六譯本微塵眾·世界·一合相三即非一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0756c11–c21] · 真諦 T0237 [0766a25–b06] · 笈多 T0238 [0771b15–b26] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0985b17–b28]（「墨／量」校：墨【大】，量【宋】【元】【明】）· 義淨 T0239 [0775a28–b08]。科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0758b01–03·0758c03–04·0765b28–0766a01] · 世親 T1511 [0795c13–0796b09]（二偈 [0796a16–17·0796a24–25]）· 世親 T1513 [0883c05–0884a07]（頌 [0883c14·c17·c19–21]）。古德：吉藏 T1699 [0122c28–0123b10] · 智顗 T1698 [0083b07–b25] · 窺基 T1700 [0153a28–0153c15]。

1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (the “is-not” of the single composite mark · §17 second half)

Sectioning scheme	Placement of this division
Zhaoming 32 divisions	Division 30, The Mark of a Single Composite Whole (一合理相分)
Shi Huijing §17 two-part	Second half (emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance; after the pivot, division 17, at the station of emptiness-of-dharmas: breaking the dharma-clinging of “the world · the dust-motes are real and can be mass-grasped into one,” what is non-attained being the dharma-self)
Dao’an’s three-part schema	Main-teaching division · second round · the Buddha-stage attainment of the path-of-witness
Asaṅga’s eighteen abodes, T1510	The seventeenth abode, the path-of-witness (the abode of the purified mind `[0758c03–04]`), in the Buddha-stage mind-attainment that subsumes the transformation-of-the-basis, the purity of conduct-and-dwelling · the conduct-and-dwelling of breaking self-mastery in observing name-and-form — the placement-form 「為名色觀破自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若復善家子，善家女，以所有三千大千世界中地塵』如是等」`[0758b01–03]`; the detailed witness-gloss 「為破名色身自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界所有微塵』等……有二種摶取，謂一摶取及差別摶取」`[0765c01–16]` (the six items of the mind-attainment: mindfulness · right awakening · setting forth the great-benefit Dharma · taking up the Dharma-body · not abiding in birth-death or nirvāṇa · the purity of conduct-and-dwelling `[0757c29–0758a02]`)
Vasubandhu’s twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513	The doubt “whether the Dharma-body is one or different at the dharma-realm” — following division 29’s “neither going nor coming,” the verse 「去來化身佛，如來常不動；於是法界處，非一亦不異」(`T1511 [0795c13–14]`), showing by the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile that the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas are “neither abiding at one place nor at a different place” (`T1511 [0796a18–20]`; Yijing 「彼於法界處，非一異應知」`T1513 [0883c14]`)
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699	「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章經」`[0122c28]`; judged as breaking the doubt of the one-ness or difference of the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas of the ten directions — 「今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑」`[0123a04]`
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698	The third — clarifying the function of patience-in-the-fully-experienced-path — its functions of grinding-the-composite-mark · grinding-the-views — 「若三千碎塵下，第三明體道行忍之用有四，初、明碎塵用，二、碎界用，三、碎合相用，四、碎諸見用」`[0083b07–09]`, this division being the three functions of grinding-the-motes · grinding-the-world · grinding-the-composite-mark
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700	After Vasubandhu 「此第二明法身一、化身多也」`[0153b01]` (gathering motes to make a world likens cutting the many afflictions to make one Dharma-body · scattering a world into motes likens raising boundless manifestation-bodies upon the one Dharma-body); after Asaṅga 「此為第二破名色身自在行住」`[0153b09]`; the single composite mark 「謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我」`[0153c05–07]`

Sense of “the ‘is-not’ of the single composite mark”: this division follows division 29’s 「如來者，無所從來，亦無所去，故名如來」[0752b05] (the Dharma-body neither going nor coming); a doubt then arises at the assembly — since the Dharma-body has no coming-and-going, are the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas of the ten directions fused into one Dharma-body (abiding at one place), or does each separately have a Dharma-body (abiding at a different place) (Jizang 「十方佛法身同為無來去，為成一法身同處住？為各各有法身異處住耶」[0123a16–18]; Vasubandhu 「若如來有去來差別，即不得言常如是住」T1511 [0795c16–17])? So with the passage “grinding the world into dust-motes · composing dust-motes into a world · the world being a single composite mark” it is shown: as a world ground into motes cannot be said to abide at one place (each scattered) nor at a different place (no gathering), so the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas, far removed from the affliction-hindrance, abide in the dharma-realm neither at one place nor at a different place (Vasubandhu’s verse 「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」T1511 [0796a17]; Jizang 「如微塵散滅故不可說一異處，如是十方佛煩惱盡故不可說法身一異處住」[0123a12–14]). The three ancient masters all judge this division to be the display of “the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different” (Jizang “breaking the doubt of the one-ness or difference of the Dharma-bodies of the ten directions,” Zhiyi “the function of grinding-the-composite-mark,” Kuiji “the Dharma-body one · the manifestation-bodies many”), and the two renderings of Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse expressly mark 「於是法界處，非一亦不異」 (T1511 [0795c14] / T1513 [0883c14]). This division’s “is-not” appears thrice — 「微塵眾即非微塵眾」「世界即非世界」「一合相即非一合相」 — applied to the analysis (dust-motes) · composition (world · single composite mark) of the dependent-recompense, one application of §17’s second half emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the view of dharmas; what it breaks is the dharma-clinging of “the world · the dust-motes are real and can be mass-grasped into one” (the single composite mark = mass-grasping · self-clinging), not the first half’s marks · sentient beings (the person-self).

2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the passage of the three “is-nots”: the multitude of dust-motes · the world · the single composite mark)

Key passage: ground to dust-motes · the multitude of dust-motes is-not the multitude of dust-motes / the world is-not the world / were the world real it would be a single composite mark · the single composite mark is-not the single composite mark / the single composite mark is unsayable · the ordinary cling to the matter

Version	The passage of the three “is-nots”: dust-motes · world · single composite mark (verbatim excerpt)	[loc]
Kumārajīva T235 (root)	「須菩提！若善男子、善女人以三千大千世界碎為微塵，於意云何？是微塵眾寧為多不？」「甚多，世尊！何以故？若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾。所以者何？佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是名微塵眾。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是名世界。何以故？若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是名一合相。」「須菩提！一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人貪著其事。」	0752b06–b14
Bodhiruci T236a	「須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界微塵。復以爾許微塵世界，碎為微塵阿僧祇。須菩提！於意云何？是微塵眾，寧為多不？」須菩提言：「彼微塵眾甚多。世尊！何以故？若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說是微塵眾。何以故？佛說微塵眾，則非微塵眾，是故佛說微塵眾。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，是故佛說三千大千世界。何以故？若世界實有者，則是一合相。如來說一合相，則非一合相，是故佛說一合相。」佛言：「須菩提！一合相者，則是不可說，但凡夫之人，貪著其事。」	0756c11–c21
Paramārtha T237	「須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界地大微塵，燒成灰末，合為墨丸，如微塵聚。須菩提！汝意云何？是隣虛聚，寧為多不？」須菩提言：「彼隣虛聚甚多。世尊！何以故？世尊！若隣虛聚是實有者，世尊則不應說名隣虛聚。何以故？世尊！所說此隣虛聚，如來說非隣虛聚，是故說名為隣虛聚。如來所說三千大千世界，則非世界，故說三千大千世界。何以故？世尊！若執世界為實有者，是聚一執。此聚一執，如來說非執，故說聚一執。」佛世尊言：「須菩提！此聚一執，但世言說。」	0766a25–b06
Dharmagupta T238	「若善家子，若善家女，若所有三千大千世界地塵，彼如是色類墨作已，乃至如是不可數，譬如最小聚。彼何意念？善實！雖然，彼多最小聚有？」善實言：「如是，如是！世尊！多彼最小聚有。彼何所因？彼，世尊！聚有，不世尊說最小聚者。彼何所因？若彼，世尊！最小聚說；非聚，彼，如來說；彼故，說名最小聚者。若及如來說三千大千世界者；非界，如來說；彼故，說名三千大千世界者。彼何所因？彼，世尊！界有，彼如是摶取有。若如是，如來摶取說；非取，彼，如來說；彼故，說名摶取者。」世尊言：「摶取，如是，善實！不世俗語，不可說，非法，非非法，彼小兒凡夫生取。」	0771b15–b26
Xuanzang T220⑨	「復次，善現！若善男子或善女人，乃至三千大千世界大地極微塵量等世界，即以如是無數世界色像為墨〔墨【大】，量【宋】【元】【明】〕如極微聚。善現！於汝意云何？是極微聚寧為多不？」善現答言：「是極微聚甚多！世尊！甚多！善逝！何以故？世尊！若極微聚是實有者，佛不應說為極微聚。所以者何？如來說極微聚即為非聚，故名極微聚。如來說三千大千世界即非世界，故名三千大千世界。何以故？世尊！若世界是實有者，即為一合執，如來說一合執即為非執，故名一合執。」佛言：「善現！此一合執不可言說、不可戲論，然彼一切愚夫異生強執是法。」	0985b17–b28
Yijing T239	「妙生！若有男子、女人，以三千大千世界土地碎為墨塵。妙生！於汝意云何？是極微聚，寧為多不？」妙生言：「甚多，世尊！何以故？若聚性是實者，如來不說為極微聚極微聚。何以故？極微聚者，世尊說為非極微聚，故名極微聚。世尊！如來所說三千大千世界，說為非世界，故名三千大千世界。何以故？若世界實有，如來則有聚執。佛說聚執者，說為非聚執，是故說為聚執。」「妙生！此聚執者，是世言論，然其體性，實無可說，但是愚夫異生之所妄執。」	0775a28–b08

What the variants turn on:

The word “ink” in “ground to dust-motes / ground to ink / made into ink / composed into ink-pellets”: Kumārajīva has 「以三千大千世界碎為微塵」 (only grinding to motes, no “ink”); Bodhiruci has 「微塵世界碎為微塵阿僧祇」 (adding the multitude “asaṃkhya”); Paramārtha alone has 「地大微塵，燒成灰末，合為墨丸，如微塵聚」[0766a26]; Dharmagupta 「地塵，彼如是色類墨作已」[0771b16]; Xuanzang 「無數世界色像為墨如極微聚」[0985b18–19] (「墨」 in the Taishō, the Song-Yuan-Ming three editions reading 「量」 [var.]); Yijing 「土地碎為墨塵」[0775a29]. The four versions Paramārtha · Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing all have “ink” (ash-powder into ink-pellets / color-kind made into ink / made into ink / ink-motes) — precisely the textual witness of Vasubandhu’s treatise’s “grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile” (T1511 「碎微塵譬喻」[0796a15], T1513 「微塵作墨喻」「微塵將作墨，喻顯於法界」[0883c12·c17]). The Kumārajīva transmission alone has no “ink,” stopping at 「碎為微塵」, while the simile-body expounded in the treatise actually contains “making ink” (grinding the world’s dust-motes · further grinding them into ink-motes asaṃkhya), so Kumārajīva is concise, the treatise detailed.
“The multitude of dust-motes / the mass of dust-motes / the mass of fine-particles / the smallest mass / the mass of subtlest-motes”: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci have 「微塵眾」; Paramārtha has 「微塵聚／隣虛聚」 (隣虛 = the subtlest-mote paramāṇu); Dharmagupta has 「最小聚」; Xuanzang, Yijing have 「極微聚」. The same Sanskrit paramāṇu-saṃcaya／-rajas rendered “multitude · mass · subtlest · smallest · subtlest-mote.” Vasubandhu’s treatise has 「微塵聚」 (Asaṅga T1510a 「彼微塵聚甚多」[0765c05]), close to Paramārtha.
“The single composite mark / the mass-of-one-clinging / the mass-grasping / the single-composite-clinging / the mass-clinging”: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci have 「一合相」; Paramārtha 「聚一執」[0766b04]; Dharmagupta 「摶取」[0771b24]; Xuanzang 「一合執」[0985b25]; Yijing 「聚執」[0775b06]. The same Sanskrit piṇḍa-grāha (mass-grasping · mass-clinging) variously rendered — Kumārajīva’s 「一合相」 leans toward “mark” (the mark of gathering many fine-particles into one), Paramārtha · Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing lean toward “clinging” (the mind that clings to many fine-particles gathered as one, grāha). The single sense of “clinging / grasping” (mass-of-one-clinging · mass-grasping · single-composite-clinging · mass-clinging) precisely shows that this division breaks the dharma-clinging of “clinging to the world’s dust-mote-mass as really one” (Kuiji 「一合相者，謂我執」[0153c05–06]; Asaṅga 「摶取」[0765c14]), while Kumārajīva’s “mark” settles on the mark of a provisional name. This difference of “mark / clinging” binds precisely to this division’s eye of “breaking the single-composite-clinging” (see registers 3, 4).
The Able-to-Cut repeated terms: Yijing 「如來不說為極微聚極微聚」[0775b02] (the same name raised twice, the “is-not” form running “X · X-, is-not X, is-called X”); Dharmagupta 「聚有，不世尊說最小聚者」[0771b19], Xuanzang 「極微聚」 single (not repeated). Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci, Paramārtha give single (Kumārajīva 「微塵眾／則非微塵眾／是名微塵眾」 three clauses without repeated term). The repeated term is the textual feature of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage transmission; recorded verbatim, not abridged.
The elaboration of the question-opening: Kumārajīva stops at 「以三千大千世界碎為微塵」, a single grinding; Bodhiruci and Xuanzang add 「復以爾許微塵世界碎為微塵阿僧祇」 (Bodhiruci [0756c11–12]) and 「乃至三千大千世界大地極微塵量等世界，即以如是無數世界色像為墨」 (Xuanzang [0985b17–19]) — grinding again and making ink again, showing the “mote of motes · asaṃkhya,” the analysis to the limitless (Asaṅga 「以世界漸次析至於極微」 cited by Kuiji [0153b14]).
“The ordinary cling to the matter / the foolish common folk strongly cling / the childish ordinary grasp”: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci have 「但凡夫之人貪著其事」; Paramārtha 「但世言說」[0766b06] (joining what follows); Dharmagupta 「彼小兒凡夫生取」[0771b26]; Xuanzang 「然彼一切愚夫異生強執是法」[0985b27–28]; Yijing 「但是愚夫異生之所妄執」[0775b08]. All show the sense that “the single composite mark · the mass-clinging is originally unsayable (no reality), only the ordinary · the foolish · the common-folk falsely cling to it as real” (see register 4).

3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · this division’s three “is-nots” · §17 second half · emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views)

This division’s “is-not” appears thrice: 「微塵眾 — 即非微塵眾 — 是名微塵眾」[0752b09–10], 「(三千大千)世界 — 即非世界 — 是名世界」[0752b10–12], 「一合相 — 即非一合相 — 是名一合相」[0752b12–13] — three “is-nots” jointly applied to the analysis (dust-motes) · composition (world) · mass-clinging (single composite mark) of the dependent-recompense.

★ Anchoring to the second half: this division stands after §17’s pivot (the second half, divisions 17–32), and its “is-not” must be read through emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance — the “is-not” applied to “dharmas / the dharma-self” (the real existence of the analysis-and-composition of dust-motes · world · single composite mark), not the first half’s “sentient beings · marks / the person-self.” The first half’s (divisions 1–16) “is-not” is mostly applied to the outer objects of “marks · dharmas · merit,” what is countered being the affliction-hindrance (breaking the four marks · emptiness-of-self); at this division (second half · emptiness-of-dharmas) the “is-not” is applied to the analysis-and-composition of the dependent-recompense world itself (dust-motes · world · single composite mark) — breaking the dharma-clinging of “the world · the dust-motes are real and can be mass-grasped into one” (the dharma-self), what is countered being the cognitive hindrance (breaking the four views). The pivot-division 17’s 「通達無我、法」[0751b12] (the two emptinesses of person-self and dharma-self · Kuiji 「達我、法空，證無我理」[0147b09–10]) has already opened the gate of emptiness-of-dharmas; this division is its application at the one place of “the dependent-recompense · the single composite mark” — the gathering-composition of the world’s dust-motes too is without real own-nature (the is-not), breaking the single-composite-clinging of “clinging to many fine-particles gathered as really one.” This turn of the second half’s “emptiness-of-self → emptiness-of-dharmas · affliction-hindrance → cognitive hindrance · the second round cutting the cognitive hindrance” binds to the pivot-17 — its ancient-master ground at division 17 in Kuiji (after Vasubandhu) 「第二周為斷障，障即所知也」[0127c01–03] and Kuiji (after Asaṅga) 「為二種無我故……二種正覺」[0147b26–27]; its structural looping-back to division 17, see division 17, registers 3 · 4.

First, 「微塵眾 — 即非微塵眾 — 是名微塵眾」 mapped onto the three natures:

The multitude of dust-motes (X) is the other-dependent (依他起) — the mote-mass of a world analyzed step by step down to the subtlest-mote (Asaṅga 「以世界漸次析至於極微」 cited by Kuiji [0153b14]; the dust-motes are borrowed as a simile for the manifestation-bodies’ multiplicity, Kuiji 「『佛說微塵眾』者，謂寄微塵以喻化身也」[0153b20–21]).
Is-not the multitude of dust-motes is the removal of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) — not the non-Buddhist-clung-to really-existent subtlest-mote (Kuiji 「『則非微塵』者，非如外道等所執實微塵也」[0153b21–22], namely the subtlest-motes clung-to by the likes of the Vaiśeṣika [0153b18–19]; Asaṅga 「但破一合執故，觀解分析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有也」[0153b22–23]).
Is-called the multitude of dust-motes is the setting up of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成, and also the conventional provisional naming) — Kuiji 「但寄微塵為喻，非如言而有實」[0153b19]; Asaṅga 「以此聚體不成就故」[0765c09–10], without reality yet provisionally nameable.

Second, 「世界 — 即非世界 — 是名世界」 mapped onto the three natures:

The world (X) is the other-dependent (依他起) — the world borrowed as a simile for the Dharma-body’s one-ness (Kuiji 「此第二以世界喻法身也……『如來說世界』者，謂寄世界為喻也」[0153b25–26]).
Is-not the world is the removal of the wholly-imagined (遍計) — not the real world composed of the many really-existent subtlest-motes clung-to by non-Buddhists (Kuiji 「『則非世界』者，非如外道等執以眾多實極微成實世界也。彼執兩兩極微生第三」[0153b27–29]; Asaṅga 「此破名身」[0765c11–12], the world gaining its name only as a name-body [0765c12–13]).
Is-called the world is the setting up of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成) — Kuiji 「世界者，謂眾生世間也，彼唯名身得名也」[0153c01], without reality yet provisionally named.

Third, 「一合相 — 即非一合相 — 是名一合相」 mapped onto the three natures (the eye of this division):

The single composite mark (X) is the other-dependent (依他起) — the Buddha provisionally speaks of a single-composite upon the conjunction-by-conditions of the provisional aggregates (Kuiji 「謂佛但於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合」[0153c09–10]).
Is-not the single composite mark is the removal of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) — not the really-clung-to single composite mark (Kuiji 「『則非一合相』者，非是所執一合相也」[0153c11]; Asaṅga 「『如來說摶取，即非摶取』者，此上座須菩提安立第一義故」[0765c18–19]). What is removed is precisely the clinging of “clinging to the total mass of the five aggregates of one body as a self (one mass-grasping) · clinging to the many fine-particles gathered as really one (differentiated mass-grasping)” (Kuiji 「一合相者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我，故名一合相也」[0153c05–07]; Asaṅga 「一摶取及差別摶取」[0765c15]).
Is-called the single composite mark is the setting up of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成) — only provisionally speaking of a single-composite (Kuiji 「但假說一合既非，即明世界亦非有實也」[0153c11–12]); the mass-grasping has being only in conventional speech, in the first sense it is unsayable (Asaṅga 「世諦言說故，有彼摶取；第一義故，彼法不可說」[0765c20–21]).

The eye of this division (★ second half · emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the view of dharmas): the three “is-nots” all pivot on “analysis-and-composition without reality · neither-one-nor-different” — removing the wholly-imagined of “dust-motes · world · single composite mark are real and can be mass-grasped into one” (the is-not), while preserving the perfectly-accomplished of “provisionally speaking of a single-composite upon the conjunction of provisional aggregates” (the is-called). Their Yogācāra sense lies in “the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm” (Vasubandhu’s verse 「於是法界處，非一亦不異」T1511 [0795c14]; Yijing 「彼於法界處，非一異應知」T1513 [0883c14]) — as a world ground into motes is neither at one place (each scattered) nor at a different place (no gathering), so the Buddhas, far removed from the affliction-hindrance, abide in the dharma-realm neither at one place nor at a different place (Vasubandhu 「如是諸佛如來，遠離煩惱障，住彼法界中，非一處住亦非異處住」T1511 [0796a28–b01]). The single “is-not” form, at this division, is applied to “the single composite mark · the mass-clinging” itself — not the first half’s (divisions 1–16) application to the outer objects of “marks · sentient beings · merit” (the person-self · breaking the four marks · the affliction-hindrance), but the second half’s (divisions 17–32) application to the subtle clinging of “the world’s dust-motes composed as really one” (the dharma-self · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance). This is precisely the continued practice of the pivot-division 17’s “emptiness-of-self turning to emptiness-of-dharmas · affliction-hindrance turning to cognitive hindrance” (looping back to division 17): division 17 judges “in reality there is no dharma that arouses the mind of awakening · there is no dharma named bodhisattva” (breaking the clinging of “I as bodhisattva”); this division 30 advances to break the dharma-clinging of “the single composite mark · the mass-clinging” (clinging to analysis-and-composition as really one) — a specific application of the ancient masters’ “the second round cutting the cognitive hindrance” (Kuiji after Vasubandhu, division 17 [0127c01–03]). This reading of the “is-not” mapped onto the three natures: see Shi Huijing’s The Threefold “Is-Not” Mapped onto the Yogācāra Three Natures 〔from S5-P01〕; this division is a threefold application of it at the station of “the dependent-recompense analysis-and-composition · the single composite mark · emptiness-of-dharmas.” The “grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile” showing the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different is the scriptural counterpart of the Thirty Verses’ “consciousness-only manifested · transformation-of-the-basis” 〔from S5-P10〕 (see register 7).

4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile · the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different · the single composite mark as self-clinging · emphasized)

Core emphasis — Vasubandhu’s Vajracchedikā-śāstra two verses (the world made into dust-motes · the dust-motes ground into powder showing afflictions exhausted / not gathered yet gathered · not merely a one simile), preserved in two Chinese renderings: Vasubandhu glosses this passage by the “grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile,” showing that the Buddhas in the suchness dharma-realm “neither abide at one place nor at a different place” (breaking the doubt of the Dharma-body’s one-ness or difference), anchored item-by-item to the scripture; the two renderings differ in name, are one in sense.

Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci rendering) following division 29’s “neither going nor coming” verse 「去來化身佛，如來常不動；於是法界處，非一亦不異」[0795c13–14], discourses on the “grinding-dust-motes simile” [0796a15], the verse [0796a16–17]:

「世界作微塵，此喻示彼義；微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡。」

Glossing the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different: 「偈言『於是法界處，非一亦非異』故。彼諸佛如來於真如法界中，非一處住亦非異處住，為示此義故說世界碎微塵喻」[0796a18–21].
Glossing “ground into powder showing afflictions exhausted”: 「此喻非聚集微塵眾，示現非一喻」[0796a22]; the verse [0796a24–25]:

「非聚集故集，非唯是一喻；聚集處非彼，非是差別喻。」

Combined gloss (neither-one-nor-different): 「如微塵碎為末非一處住，以無有聚集物故。亦非異處差別，以聚集微塵差別不可得故、以差別不住故。如是諸佛如來，遠離煩惱障，住彼法界中，非一處住亦非異處住。如是三千世界一合相喻，非聚集故」[0796a26–b01]; citing the scripture 「『如來說一合相則非一合相，是故如來說一合相』故。若實有一物聚集，如來則不說微塵聚集。如是若實有一世界，如來則不說三千大千世界」[0796b02–05].
Glossing “the ordinary cling”: 「『若世界實有者，則是一合相故，但凡夫之人貪著其事』者，以彼聚集無物可取，虛妄分別，是故凡夫妄取」[0796b05–07].

Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing rendering) following division 29’s verse 「去來等是化，正覺常不動，彼於法界處，非一異應知」[0883c05–06], discourses 「微塵作墨喻者，是誰之喻？顯何事耶？」[0883c12], the verse [0883c14·c17·c19–21]:

「彼於法界處，非一異應知。」「微塵將作墨，喻顯於法界。」「此論造墨事，為彰煩惱盡。非聚非集性，顯是非一性；於彼總集性，明其非異性。」

「言彼如來於法界處非一非異性，意顯斯事，故彰其喻」[0883c14–15]; 「譬如造墨，所有塵埃眾多極微性非一處，其聚集物非一事故亦非異性，由總集故」[0883c22–23]; 「如是應知，諸佛世尊於法界中煩惱障盡，非一處性亦非異性」[0883c24–25].
Glossing the single composite mark · the mass-clinging: 「『如來說為非是聚性，是故說為極微聚』者……若其聚物是其一者，不應名此為極微聚。又復若是一界者，亦不應言三千大千世界。由此故云此即是其有聚執也。此即如來說為非執，不為聚執故。由其妄執，是故說為聚執」[0883c27–0884a02]; glossing the ordinary’s false clinging: 「為除斯難，而云其聚執者但俗論說有如是等」[0884a04–05]; the verse 「不了但俗言，諸凡愚妄執」[0884a07].

〔Correspondence of the two renderings: 世界作微塵·微塵碎為末 (showing afflictions exhausted) / 微塵將作墨 (to manifest afflictions exhausted) · 於是法界處非一亦不異 / 彼於法界處非一異應知 · 非聚集故集·非唯是一喻 / 非聚非集性顯是非一性·於彼總集性明其非異性 — two Chinese renderings of one Vasubandhu treatise, differing in name, one in sense.〕

Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta rendering): this division belongs to the eighteen abodes’ seventeenth, the path-of-witness (the abode of the purified mind [0758c03–04]), in the Buddha-stage mind-attainment that subsumes the transformation-of-the-basis, the purity of conduct-and-dwelling · the conduct-and-dwelling of breaking self-mastery in observing name-and-form — the placement-form 「為名色觀破自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若復善家子，善家女，以所有三千大千世界中地塵』如是等」[0758b01–03]; the detailed witness-gloss 「於行住心具足中……為破名色身自在行住故，經言『須菩提！若善男子、善女人，以三千大千世界所有微塵』等。於中，細末方便及無所見方便等」[0765b28–c04]. Glossing the two expedients of dust-motes · world: 「經言『彼微塵聚甚多』者，是細末方便」[0765c05]; 「『世尊說微塵聚，非聚，是名微塵聚』者，以此聚體不成就故」[0765c08–09]; 「『如來說即非世界』者，此是無所見方便，此破名身……世界者，為明眾生世故，彼唯名身得名」[0765c11–13]. Glossing the single composite mark · the mass-grasping (the two mass-graspings): 「『世尊！若世界是有者，即為有摶取』者。於中，為並說若世界、若微塵界故，有二種摶取，謂一摶取及差別摶取。眾生類、眾生世界有者，此為一摶取。微塵有者，此為差別摶取，以取微塵聚集故」[0765c13–17]; 「『如來說摶取，即非摶取』者，此上座須菩提安立第一義故……說『摶取者，即是不可以言說說』等……世諦言說故，有彼摶取；第一義故，彼法不可說。彼小兒凡夫如言說取，非第一義」[0765c18–22].

Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: schematized as 「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章經」[0122c28]. Judging this division as breaking the doubt of the one-ness or difference of the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas of the ten directions — 「今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑，如世界碎末為塵，不可言一處住，以其各散故；亦非異處，既無聚云何散耶？十方佛法身不可一處住、不可異處住，以不可一處住，非是混成一法身；不可異處住，故不可各各有法身。故論偈云『於是法界處，非一亦不異。』」[0123a04–09]; 「如微塵散滅故不可說一異處，如是十方佛煩惱盡故不可說法身一異處住，故論偈云『微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡』也」[0123a12–14]. Glossing the dust-mote · world simile: 「微塵喻十方法身不一，世界喻十方法身不異。但論意用微塵通喻不一異，世界偏喻不一也」[0123a26–28]. Glossing the single composite mark: 「一合相者，合眾塵成世界也。一合相不可說者，聖人了合無所合，如〈破合品〉『是法不自合，異法亦不合……』故無有合。但凡夫見有世界，故起貪著心」[0123b02–05].

Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: schematized as the third — clarifying the function of patience-in-the-fully-experienced-path, with four functions — 「若三千碎塵下，第三明體道行忍之用有四，初、明碎塵用，二、碎界用，三、碎合相用，四、碎諸見用」[0083b07–09]; 「以微塵成世界有合，世界有合故起見，見者即失……此四並是般若用」[0083b09–12]. Glossing grinding-the-motes · grinding-the-world: 「『佛說非微塵為微塵』。次、『三千』下，明成世界用。微塵非實故可碎而為多，世界非有則可假借而成也」[0083b13–16]. Glossing grinding-the-composite-mark: 「『一合相』下，破一合相，以非合為合故是不可說……今經中說合，順俗假說耳，凡夫貪著其事，不知事即理，理無所有，即是事無所有」[0083b16–22]; 「若是實有，即應一性，合不可分，假眾生名，一無合可得，假名無體，不可實說」[0083b23–25].

Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: after Vasubandhu 「此第二明法身一、化身多也」[0153b01], glossing the simile as containing two senses — 「一者、聚塵為界喻，如攝指成拳；二者、散界為塵喻，如開拳作指。初、名聚喻，次、名開喻。若聚喻者，塵喻煩惱多；聚塵成一世界，喻斷多煩惱，成一法身也。若開喻者，世界喻法身；散界作多塵，如依一法身，起無量化身也」[0153b03–08]. After Asaṅga 「此為第二破名色身自在行住……初、明破色身方便，次、明破名身方便。前中初、明細末方便，次、明無所見方便」[0153b09–13]. Glossing the “is-not” of dust-motes: 「但寄微塵為喻，非如言而有實，如衛世師等所執微塵也。『佛說微塵眾』者，謂寄微塵以喻化身也，『則非微塵』者，非如外道等所執實微塵也。無著云，但破一合執故，觀解分析至不可析，假說微塵，非實有也」[0153b18–23]. Glossing the “is-not” of the world: 「此第二以世界喻法身也……『則非世界』者，非如外道等執以眾多實極微成實世界也。彼執兩兩極微生第三……無著云，此破名身方便也。世界者，謂眾生世間也，彼唯名身得名也」[0153b25–c01]. Glossing the single composite mark (self-clinging): 「謂若如其所執有世界者，即非是執，是正見故，非虛妄也。以無實執實故，一合相也。『一合相』者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我，故名一合相也」[0153c03–07]; 「謂佛但於假蘊因緣和合之上假說一合，非則如其所執一合相也。『則非一合相』者，非是所執一合相也，但假說一合既非，即明世界亦非有實也」[0153c09–12]; glossing the ordinary’s clinging-as-real: 「謂如來假說一合相，凡夫於中起執為實也」[0153c14–15].

The three ancient-master streams (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) at this division converge upon Vasubandhu’s two verses: the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile shows the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm (dust-motes ground into powder · not abiding at one place · neither at a different place since there is no gathered thing · showing afflictions exhausted). Jizang “the dust-motes liken the ten-direction Dharma-bodies as not-one · the world likens them as not-different · understanding the composite, there is nothing composited,” Zhiyi “the three functions of grinding-the-motes · grinding-the-world · grinding-the-composite-mark · taking non-composition as composition · provisionally speaking in accord with the conventional,” Kuiji (after Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) “gathering motes to make a world likens cutting the many afflictions to make one Dharma-body · scattering a world into motes likens raising boundless manifestation-bodies upon the one Dharma-body · the single composite mark is self-clinging (clinging to the total mass of the five aggregates as a self) · breaking the self-mastery conduct-and-dwelling in name-and-form” — each anchored item-by-item to 「微塵眾即非·世界即非·一合相即非·貪著其事」. This is the ancient masters’ settled reading of this division’s “the ‘is-not’ of the single composite mark · the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different,” and the scriptural ground of §17’s second half “breaking the view of dharmas · cutting the cognitive hindrance.”

5 · Terminology

微塵眾／微塵聚／隣虛聚／最小聚／極微聚 paramāṇu-saṃcaya ／ paramāṇu-rajas (the mass of subtlest-motes; Asaṅga 「以世界漸次析至於極微」 cited by Kuiji [0153b14]; for the rendering-differences Paramārtha 「隣虛聚」 · Dharmagupta 「最小聚」 · Xuanzang and Yijing 「極微聚」 see register 2) · 一合相／聚一執／摶取／一合執／聚執 piṇḍa-grāha (the mark · clinging of grasping many fine-particles as one; Kuiji 「一合相者，謂我執，謂執一身總聚五蘊以為我」[0153c05–07]; Asaṅga 「一摶取及差別摶取」[0765c15]; for the rendering-differences Paramārtha 「聚一執」 · Dharmagupta 「摶取」 · Xuanzang 「一合執」 · Yijing 「聚執」 see register 2) · 一摶取／差別摶取 (Asaṅga 「眾生類、眾生世界有者，此為一摶取。微塵有者，此為差別摶取，以取微塵聚集故」T1510a [0765c15–17]) · 法界非一非異 dharmadhātu (Vasubandhu’s verse 「於是法界處，非一亦不異」T1511 [0795c14]; Yijing 「彼於法界處，非一異應知」T1513 [0883c14]; the Dharma-bodies of the Buddhas neither abiding at one place nor at a different place in the dharma-realm) · 煩惱障盡 (Vasubandhu 「諸佛如來，遠離煩惱障，住彼法界中」T1511 [0796a28–b01]; Yijing 「諸佛世尊於法界中煩惱障盡」T1513 [0883c24–25]; the verse 「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」T1511 [0796a17]) · 細末方便／無所見方便 (the two expedients of breaking the form-body · the reflective marks of the name-body; Asaṅga 「初、明細末方便，次、明無所見方便」 cited by Kuiji [0153b12–13], Asaṅga [0765c03–04]) · 法身一·化身多 (gathering motes to make a world likens cutting the many afflictions to make one Dharma-body · scattering a world into motes likens raising boundless manifestation-bodies upon the one Dharma-body; Kuiji 「此第二明法身一、化身多也」[0153b01]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; for the rendering-differences of “微塵聚／一合相” see register 2.〕

6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile · the reversal of analysis-and-composition)

This division is one of the simile-divisions (the empty-space simile at division 4 · the Sumeru simile at divisions 10 · 17 · the patience-sage simile at division 14 · the body-simile at division 17 · the see-by-form-seek-by-sound verse at division 26 · the six similes at division 32). Its simile-point lies in the “grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile” and the “reversal of analysis (grinding) · composition (gathering)”:

The grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile (the simile-body expounded in the treatise): the scriptural text takes “the three-thousandfold great-thousand world ground to dust-motes (further ground to ink-motes asaṃkhya)” as simile — Vasubandhu directly marks it as the “grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile” (T1511 「碎微塵譬喻」[0796a15]; T1513 「微塵將作墨，喻顯於法界」[0883c17]). The simile-vehicle = the world ground into dust-motes · the dust-motes ground into powder (making ink); the simile-tenor = the Buddhas’ Dharma-bodies neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm (「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」T1511 [0796a17]; 「此論造墨事，為彰煩惱盡」T1513 [0883c19]). The Kumārajīva transmission stops at 「碎為微塵」 (no “ink”), while Paramārtha 「合為墨丸」[0766a26], Dharmagupta 「色類墨作」[0771b16], Xuanzang 「為墨」[0985b19], Yijing 「碎為墨塵」[0775a29] four versions all preserve “ink,” precisely matching the treatise’s simile (see register 2, the word “ink”).
The double setting of the analysis · composition similes (Kuiji’s supplied similes): the scriptural text grinds-and-gathers in one (grinding the world into dust-motes · gathering dust-motes into a world · the world being a single composite mark), and the ancient masters show it by the simile of “closing the fingers to make a fist · opening the fist to make fingers” — Kuiji 「一者、聚塵為界喻，如攝指成拳；二者、散界為塵喻，如開拳作指」[0153b04–05] (gathering motes to make a world likens cutting the many afflictions to make one Dharma-body · scattering a world into motes likens raising boundless manifestation-bodies upon the one Dharma-body [0153b06–08]). The simile of closing-the-fingers (gathering) · opening-the-fist (scattering) precisely shows the double sense of “not-one (each scattered, no gathering) · not-different (no gathered thing · resting on one Dharma-body).”
The reversal of analysis-and-composition into the “is-not”: the positive question “whether the multitude of dust-motes is many” (seemingly granting the dust-motes really exist and are countable), then abruptly answered 「若是微塵眾實有者，佛則不說……即非微塵眾」 (the dust-motes not real), and again gathered to 「是名微塵眾」 (provisionally named, sayable); the world · the single composite mark reverse in the same form. The dust-motes “ground” and the world (single composite mark) “gathered” set against each other, the “is-not” precisely breaks the clinging of “clinging to dust-motes · world · single composite mark as really existent and mass-graspable into one.” This brushstroke of “analysis-and-composition into the is-not” shares the reversal-structure of division 13’s 「微塵·世界即非」 (the first half’s “is-not” of the dependent-recompense) — only that the first half’s (division 13) dust-mote · world “is-not” leans toward breaking the real existence of outer objects (the affliction-hindrance · the dependent-recompense subsumed under emptiness-of-self), while this division’s (second half) dust-mote · world · single composite mark “is-not” leans toward breaking the dharma-clinging of “the Dharma-body’s one-ness or difference · the mass-clinging as really one” (the cognitive hindrance · emptiness-of-dharmas), the same text with a different purport (Jizang 「前已明微塵，今復明，何異？……有同有異……前舉有微塵譬有所得布施……今舉微塵喻，破十方佛法身一異之疑」[0122c29–0123a04]). This register is emphasized in this division (the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile · the reversal of analysis-and-composition), placed alongside the similes of divisions 4 · 14 · 26 · 32.

7 · Cross-Reading

Thirty Verses (T1586): consciousness-only manifested · the perfectly-accomplished (v.29 the perfectly-accomplished · transformation-of-the-basis) · the non-discriminating wisdom’s object the dharma-realm — the treatise-counterpart of this division’s “dust-motes · world is-not · the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm” (the dependent-recompense world is consciousness-only manifested · not really existent apart from consciousness and mass-graspable into one; the Dharma-body = the suchness witnessed by the transformation-of-the-basis · neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm).
Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · refuting the subtlest-mote (refuting the fine-particle · the aggregation of subtlest-motes) — this division’s “the multitude of dust-motes is-not the multitude of dust-motes · not the non-Buddhist-clung-to really-existent subtlest-mote (the Vaiśeṣika-clung-to)” 〔Kuiji’s words, register 4〕 is the scriptural counterpart of the Twenty Verses’ refutation of “the subtlest-mote aggregated as a real object” (the dust-mote not real · analyzed to the unanalyzable · provisionally speaking of dust-motes, the very treatise refuting the real existence of the subtlest-mote).
Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter discerning the real · the dharma-realm · non-duality — the treatise-side-linkage of this division’s “the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm · far removed from the affliction-hindrance, abiding in the dharma-realm” (the real of the dharma-realm · the neither-one-nor-different sense in common).
Mahāyāna-saṃgraha (T1594): the chapter on the wisdom of the resultant fruit · the three bodies (the Dharma-body one · the enjoyment-and-transformation bodies many) — this division’s Kuiji “gathering motes to make a world likens cutting the many afflictions to make one Dharma-body · scattering a world into motes likens raising boundless manifestation-bodies upon the one Dharma-body” 〔see register 4〕 is the scriptural counterpart of the saṃgraha’s “the Dharma-body (self-nature body) one · the reward-and-transformation bodies many.”
Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the two hindrances (the affliction-hindrance exhausted · the cognitive hindrance) · the wholly-imagined (clinging to the subtlest-mote · world as real) · transformation-of-the-basis — this division’s “dust-motes · world is-not · the single composite mark (self-clinging) is-not · the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different · the affliction-hindrance exhausted” is the scriptural counterpart of Cheng weishi lun’s “removing the wholly-imagined real dharma (subtlest-mote · single composite mark) · cutting the affliction-hindrance witnessing the Dharma-body · the dharma-realm neither-one-nor-different”; 「一合相謂我執」〔Kuiji’s words, register 4〕 is the scriptural counterpart of Cheng weishi lun’s view-of-self-in-the-aggregates (satkāya-dṛṣṭi, clinging to the total mass of the five aggregates as a self).
Heart Sūtra (T251): 「是諸法空相·不生不滅」「無眼界乃至無意識界」 — this division’s “dust-motes · world is-not (the dependent-recompense without reality) · the single composite mark is-not” and the Heart Sūtra’s “the empty mark of all dharmas · the realms are-not the realms” are one and the same principle of no own-nature yet provisional naming.

This division’s 「微塵眾即非·世界即非·一合相即非·法身非一非異」 is the scriptural counterpart of the Twenty Verses’ “refuting the subtlest-mote · consciousness-only without object,” the saṃgraha’s and Cheng weishi lun’s “the three bodies · the Dharma-body one the manifestation-bodies many · cutting the affliction-hindrance · the dharma-realm neither-one-nor-different”; 「一合相謂我執(執五蘊總聚為我)」 is the scriptural counterpart of Cheng weishi lun’s view-of-self-in-the-aggregates. Shi Huijing’s thesis “the Diamond Sūtra says in scriptural language what Cheng weishi lun says in technical language” 〔from From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond S5-P10〕: the Diamond Sūtra’s single phrase 「一合相即非一合相」, Cheng weishi lun says the same matter in the technical language of “removing the wholly-imagined real dharma · refuting the subtlest-mote · the single composite mark = the view-of-self-in-the-aggregates · the dharma-realm neither-one-nor-different.” This division’s breaking the dharma-clinging of “the world’s dust-motes as really one” is one application of §17’s second half “emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance” 〔from The Diamond Sūtra’s Self-Reenactment S5-P07; the folding structure of the two halves, see division 17, registers 3 · 4〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The Twenty Verses’ refutation of the subtlest-mote is the most apt treatise-source for this division’s dust-mote “is-not,” the side-linkages omitted. Cheng weishi lun is in progress — a stable name-citation, to add a link once complete.〕

8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)

The refuting of the subtlest-mote in “the multitude of dust-motes is-not the multitude of dust-motes · not the non-Buddhist-clung-to really-existent subtlest-mote” ↔ the deconstruction of Western atomism and its antithesis (Democritean atomism’s “indivisible smallest substance,” and modern physics’ dissolution of “fundamental particles without own-nature · field theory”): Western atomism posits an “indivisible substantial particle” as the basis of all things; the ancient-master / Yogācāra reading of “the dust-mote is-not” is not merely a “the particle is further divisible” physical dissolution — “analyzed to the unanalyzable, provisionally speaking of dust-motes, not really existent” (Asaṅga · Kuiji [0153b22–23]), what is broken being the dharma-clinging of “the subtlest-mote as mind-external real existent” (refuting the Vaiśeṣika Vaiśeṣika real-existence of subtlest-motes, the matter of the Twenty Verses), removing the wholly-imagined · showing consciousness-only manifested, not a pure physical reduction to ever-smaller.
The breaking of “the whole as really one” in “the single composite mark is-not · the mass-clinging” ↔ the West’s part-and-whole discourse (mereology; whether the whole really exists beyond its parts · the Gestalt “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”): the West mostly argues from the existential status of the whole (whether the mass as one whole really exists); the ancient masters read “the mass-clinging” through “the single composite mark is self-clinging · clinging to the total mass of the five aggregates of one body as a self” (Kuiji [0153c05–07]), not merely a holist proposition — the “mass-clinging” is the view-of-self-in-the-aggregates (satkāya-dṛṣṭi, clinging to the aggregated mass of the five aggregates as a real self · dharma), a self-and-dharma clinging subsumed under the cognitive · affliction hindrances (Asaṅga 「摶取……世諦言說有·第一義不可說」[0765c20–21]), and breaking it is cutting the hindrance · witnessing the Dharma-body, not a static debate over the reality of the whole.
The neither-one-nor-different of “the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different at the dharma-realm” ↔ the West’s dialectic of the one and the many (Plato’s “the one and the many,” Neoplatonism’s emanation of “the One,” Hegel’s “concrete universal”): the West mostly takes “how the one and the many are unified” as a metaphysical proposition (how the substances partake of the one · how the one manifests as the many); the ancient masters read “neither-one-nor-different” through “the Buddhas far removed from the affliction-hindrance · abiding in the dharma-realm neither at one place nor at a different place” (Vasubandhu T1511 [0796a28–b01]), not a speculation of “the unification of the one and the many” — it is the dharma-realm mark witnessed by the transformation-of-the-basis · cutting the affliction-hindrance (「微塵碎為末，示現煩惱盡」[0796a17]), a cultivable and witnessable fruit (the Buddhas abide in the dharma-realm with afflictions exhausted), not an ontological hierarchy of the one and the many.
The point of the observation: the West tends to take “dust-motes · the single composite mark · the one and the many” as the propositions of atomism · holism · the metaphysics of the one and the many (what is the smallest substance · whether the whole is real · how the one becomes the many); the ancient masters take “the dust-mote is-not · the single composite mark is-not · the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different” as the cultivation-and-witnessing of breaking the subtlest-mote dharma-clinging · breaking the view-of-self-in-the-aggregates · the transformation-of-the-basis cutting the hindrance witnessing the Dharma-body (what is broken being the dharma-self · the self-and-dharma clinging, the witnessing of not-one being made manifest by afflictions exhausted). The metaphysical propositions and the cutting-the-hindrance of cultivation-and-witnessing — this is one note worth marking between East and West.
(This register is a Western-perspective observation; the scriptural and Yogācāra reading remains throughout the principal one, the West a secondary reference, not an adjudication. The specific literature is a matter for the researcher’s inquiry.)

9 · Manuscript Placement

Kumārajīva T0235 [0752b06–b14] (root · The Mark of a Single Composite Whole). The six versions’ passage of the three “is-nots”: dust-motes · world · single composite mark [loc]: see register 2 — Bodhiruci T0236a [0756c11–c21] · Paramārtha T0237 [0766a25–b06] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0771b15–b26] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0985b17–b28] (the “墨／量” variant: 墨【大】, 量【宋】【元】【明】) · Yijing T0239 [0775a28–b08]. Sectioning / treatise sources: Asaṅga T1510a [0758b01–03·0758c03–04·0765b28–0766a01] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0795c13–0796b09] (two verses [0796a16–17·0796a24–25]) · Vasubandhu T1513 [0883c05–0884a07] (verse [0883c14·c17·c19–21]). Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0122c28–0123b10] · Zhiyi T1698 [0083b07–b25] · Kuiji T1700 [0153a28–0153c15].

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 30 · The Mark of a Single Composite Whole · apparatus · Spring 2026

金剛般若波羅蜜經 分三十 一合理相分

〔一〕碎世界為微塵，問微塵眾寧為多不

〔二〕微塵眾即非微塵眾，世界即非世界

〔三〕若世界實有則是一合相，一合相即非一合相

〔四〕一合相不可說，凡夫貪著其事

[1] Grinding the world-systems to dust, and asking whether the mass of dust-motes is many

[2] The mass of dust-motes is not a mass of dust-motes; the world-system is not a world-system

[3] If the world-system were real it would be a single composite whole; the single composite whole is not a single composite whole

[4] The single composite whole cannot be put into words; only ordinary people grasp at it

承前一分而來：從「法身無來去」轉到「法身非一非異」

微塵即非微塵：破實有極微，存緣生假名

世界即非世界：聚微塵為一整體，也無實自性

一合相即非一合相：破薩迦耶見——執五蘊聚為「我」

一合相不可說，凡夫貪著：虛妄分別所妄取

碎微塵作墨喻：法身於法界非一非異·煩惱障盡

唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語

Coming Down from the Preceding Division: From “The Dharma-Body Has No Coming or Going” to “The Dharma-Body Is Neither One nor Many”

The Atom Is-not the Atom: Breaking the Real Atom, Preserving the Dependently-Arisen Provisional Name

The World Is-not the World: Gathering Atoms into a Single Whole Has No Real Intrinsic Nature Either

The Single Composite Mark Is-not the Single Composite Mark: Breaking the View of the Perishable Composite — Grasping the Five-Aggregate Composite as “Self”

The Single Composite Mark Cannot Be Spoken, the Ordinary Cling to It: What False Discrimination Wrongly Grasps

The Simile of Crushed Atoms into Motes of Ink: The Dharma-Body Neither One nor Many in the Dharma-Realm · The Afflictive Hindrance Exhausted

Yogācāra as Mirror: One Reality, Said in the Sūtra’s Words and in the Treatise’s Words

一、科判定位（一合相即非 · §17 後半）

二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 微塵眾·世界·一合相三即非一段）

三、即非・三性（眼 · 本分三即非 · §17 後半 法空·破四見）

四、諸家異釋（古德 · 碎微塵作墨喻·法身非一非異·一合相我執 · 加重）

五、術語

六、譬喻・修辭（碎微塵作墨喻 · 析合之翻轉）

七、互讀

八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）

九、校本定位

1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (the “is-not” of the single composite mark · §17 second half)

2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the passage of the three “is-nots”: the multitude of dust-motes · the world · the single composite mark)

3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · this division’s three “is-nots” · §17 second half · emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views)

4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile · the Dharma-body neither-one-nor-different · the single composite mark as self-clinging · emphasized)

5 · Terminology

6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the grinding-dust-motes-into-ink simile · the reversal of analysis-and-composition)

7 · Cross-Reading

8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)

9 · Manuscript Placement

金剛般若波羅蜜經分三十一合理相分

三、即非・三性（眼 · 本分三即非 · §17 後半法空·破四見）