金剛般若波羅蜜經 分三十一 知見不生分
全經一路遣相：我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，遣的是把身心當成實在的「我」。到這一分，所遣的又深了一層——不再是那被看的「相」，而是那能看、能執的「見」。有人說「佛是說過我見的」，便以為真有一個我見可說、可斷、可得；佛卻說，這人不解。所謂我見，看似看見了一個「我」，其實緣不到一個真實的我，當體只是虛妄分別——說它是「見」，恰恰因為它「即不見」。連這最後一層能執的見也遣了，於是佛只囑一句：發心的人，於一切法如是知、如是見、如是信解，而「不生法相」。不生法相，不是叫人不思不想，是說當真如智現前的那一刻，那層被當成心外實有的「法相」，自然就不再生起。要緊的是：能執的見與所執的法，這兩重最細的執，正是隔著成佛的那一道微細的障；它不是壓出來的空，是止觀修到真如現前時，自然遠離的。
All through the sūtra the marks have been negated one by one: the mark of self, of person, of being, of a life-span (我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相) — what is negated there is the taking of body-and-mind as a real "self." By this division what is negated has gone one layer deeper: no longer the "mark" that is seen, but the "view" (見) that does the seeing and the grasping. Someone says, "But the Buddha did speak of a view of self (我見)," and so supposes there really is a view of self that can be spoken of, cut off, and attained; the Buddha says, this person has not understood. What is called a view of self seems to have seen a "self," yet it cannot reach any real self at all — in its very substance it is only false discrimination (虛妄分別, abhūta-parikalpa). It is called a "view" precisely because 「即不見」(it is, after all, no-seeing). With even this last layer — the grasping view — negated, the Buddha leaves only one injunction: the one who gives rise to the aspiration should, with respect to all dharmas, 「如是知，如是見，如是信解」(thus know, thus see, thus believe and understand), and 「不生法相」(give rise to no dharma-mark). To give rise to no dharma-mark is not to tell anyone to stop thinking; it means that in the very moment the wisdom of suchness stands present, that overlay of "dharma-mark" — taken to be real and external to the mind — naturally no longer arises. What matters is this: the grasping view and the grasped dharma, these two subtlest layers of clinging, are precisely the subtle hindrance that stands between oneself and Buddhahood. It is not an emptiness pressed out by force; it is what is naturally left behind when calming-and-insight (止觀, śamatha-vipaśyanā) is cultivated to the point where suchness stands present.
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 31 · Knowing and Seeing Do Not Arise · essence · Spring 2026
〔一〕問端：若有人說「佛說四見」，這人解佛義不
經曰：
「須菩提！若人言『佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見』，須菩提！於意云何？是人解我所說義不？」
「須菩提！如果有人說『佛是說過我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見的』——須菩提，你怎麼想？這個人懂得我所說的義理嗎？」
〔二〕四見即非是名：這人不解，四見即非四見
經曰：
「世尊！是人不解如來所說義。何以故？世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」
「世尊！這個人並不懂得如來所說的義理。為什麼這樣說呢？世尊所說的我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，並不是真有那實在的我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，只是假借這些名字叫作我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見罷了。」
〔三〕不生法相：發心者如是知見信解，法相即非法相
經曰：
「須菩提！發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是信解，不生法相。須菩提！所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。
「須菩提！發起求無上正等正覺之心的人，對於一切法，就應當這樣去知、這樣去見、這樣去信解，而不在心裡生起『實有一個法相』的執取。須菩提！所說的「法相」，如來說它並不是真有一個實在的法相，只是假借這個名字叫作法相罷了。」
[1] The question: if someone says "the Buddha taught the four views," does that person understand the Buddha's meaning?
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！若人言『佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見』，須菩提！於意云何？是人解我所說義不？」
"Subhūti! If someone says, 'The Buddha taught a view of self, a view of person, a view of living beings, a view of a life-span' — Subhūti, what do you think? Does that person understand the meaning of what I teach?"
[2] The four views are not, and are merely named: this person does not understand; the four views are not the four views
The sūtra says:
「世尊！是人不解如來所說義。何以故？世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」
"World-Honored One! That person does not understand the meaning of what the Tathāgata teaches. Why? The view of self, view of person, view of living beings, and view of a life-span that the World-Honored One speaks of are not a real, existing view of self, view of person, view of living beings, and view of a life-span; they are merely given the names view of self, view of person, view of living beings, and view of a life-span."
[3] No dharma-marks arise: one who arouses the mind should know, see, and trust in this way, and the dharma-mark is not a dharma-mark
The sūtra says:
「須菩提！發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是信解，不生法相。須菩提！所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。
"Subhūti! One who has aroused the mind set on the unsurpassed, perfect, complete awakening should, regarding all dharmas, know in this way, see in this way, and trust and understand in this way, without giving rise in the mind to any clinging to a 'really existing dharma-mark.' Subhūti! What is called a 'dharma-mark' the Tathāgata declares to be no real dharma-mark; it is merely given the name 'dharma-mark.'"
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 31 · Knowing and Seeing Do Not Arise · vernacular · Spring 2026
拿三性（遍計所執·依他起·圓成實）、我法二執、所知障、轉依，來照金剛經的「我見即非我見、不生法相」。
從「相」到「見」：所破又深了一層
讀到這一分，要先看清它接的是哪裡。金剛經前半（分一至十六）反覆遣的是「我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相」——那是把五蘊和合的身心，當成一個實在的「我」之相；遣它，是遣人我執、淨煩惱障。樞紐分十七以後轉入法空，到這一分，所遣的不再是「相」，而是「見」：我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。
「相」與「見」差在哪裡？用唯識的話說，「相」是所緣的境之相，「見」是能執的那個分別見自身。前半破的是所對的境相，這一分連那能執取、能起分別的「見」本身也要遣。所以這一分所對治的，是更細的一層——法我執、所知障。世親論偈逕把「我見、法見」這兩重見判作「微細障」（義淨譯作「細障」），這「細障」正是所知障所攝；古德三家（吉藏、智顗、窺基）也都判這一段是「破諸見、明我法無實」之文。教法在這裡又轉深了一步：由破「相」（境），轉入破「見」（能執）；由淨煩惱障，轉向斷所知障。
問端的惑：「佛說過我見」，便以為真有我見可說
這一分從一個惑開始。若有人說「佛是說過我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見的」，須菩提便答：這人不解佛義。何以不解？
唯識看這層惑很清楚：凡夫總以為「凡有言說，必有所指的實體」——佛既說了「我見」一詞，便執定真有一個叫「我見」的實在東西在那裡，可說、可斷、可得。窺基正點出這惑：「言必有體，心不緣無……所執之義必成其有」——以為說了一個名，那名所指的就成了實有。其實佛說「我見」，恰恰是為了顯「我見本來無實」，不是說真有個我見可說。吉藏一句點透：「佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也。」這「執言詮即有實體」，本身就是一層遍計所執——把心所變現的名言之影，當成名言之外的實法。
我見即非我見：三性讀能執之見
於是本分第一個即非出來了：「世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」順三性看：
- 「我見等四見」＝依他起：眾生緣著五蘊、依妄情而起的這能執之見，是緣生的——窺基說「於諸法本無我、法，眾生妄情執為實有」，佛便「隨其情、說其解」而說有「我、法」。所以隨世俗情可說，故「是名」。
- 「即非我見等」＝遣遍計所執：所遣的，是「實有一個體的我見」這層妄計。窺基說「非謂言詮即有實體……非如其執即實有體，故云即非我見」——不是說沒有那能執的見，是遣「這見是心外實有、可執可斷」的執。為什麼這見即非見？世親答得最直：「如來說彼我見即是不見，以其無實」——我見本來緣不到一個真實的「我」，它無所緣的實境（義淨「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故……所有我境元來是無」），所以「見我即不見」：你以為看見了一個我，其實什麼也沒看見，那只是虛妄分別。
- 「是名我見等」＝立圓成、存假名：遣盡了實執，這能執之見作為一個虛妄分別的緣生事相，仍可隨情假說——窺基「是名我見等者，謂如來假說也」。而正因見它無實、見它虛妄，無我的真如（圓成實）便由此顯出來了。
所以這個即非的妙處，不在外境，而在能執的見自身：連那個正在執「有我」的見，也是無實境的虛妄分別，當體即遣。
不生法相：證真如時，不見所執的法相
破了「見」，佛轉到「法相」上來：發菩提心的人，於一切法應「如是知、如是見、如是信解」，而「不生法相」。
「不生法相」不是叫人連法都不要、什麼都不想。窺基讀得很準：「謂若發心者，證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智也」——「不生法相」是說，當你以無分別智證見真如的時候，那層「遍計所執的、被當成心外實有的法相」便不再現起。不是沒有法，是不起那層實執之相。所以「不生」遣的，仍是遍計所執那一層。
那「如是知、如是見、如是信解」是什麼工夫？這正是唯識所說的止觀。古德把它對到具體的修：知、是修「止」（奢摩他）所發的智；見、是修「觀」（毘鉢舍那）所生的智；信解、是這二智所依的「定」（三摩提）。吉藏引論偈也是這樣分：「知是世諦智，見是第一義諦智，信解是二智所依三昧。」所以「不生法相」不是一句空話，是要靠世智、第一義智、依止三昧這一套有位次、有依定的止觀修證，才真正不起遍計之法相。無著把這一段安在佛地的「入相應三昧不分別」裡，正是此意：在那無所分別的三昧中，人無我、法無我一時安立。
法相即非法相：第二個即非，遣法執
末後一句又是即非：「所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。」與前一個即非同式，只是所施之處由「見」轉到「法相」——這是破法我這一邊。順三性：
- 「法相」＝依他起：假說的法相（窺基「所言法相者，謂假說法相也」）。
- 「即非法相」＝遣遍計：不是那實執的法相（窺基「即非法相者，非是實執之法相也」）；世親「以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」——看法相而即不見有實相，正同看我見而即不見有實我。
- 「是名法相」＝立圓成、存假名：遣去實執，假說的法相照樣可立，這正是「不生法相」之所顯。
於是這一分兩個即非並列：「我見即非我見」破能執之見（人我這一邊），「法相即非法相」破所執之法（法我這一邊）——古德所謂「舉我列法」，由我見一例帶出法相一例，兩重一齊遣。世親一偈把這兩重貫在一處：「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離。」我見、法見即不見（無實、無境，故即非），這兩重見就是「微細障」（細障、所知障），而「見真如」之時，這障自然遠離。義淨同詮：「斷我法二種……是故見無見，無境虛妄執……由此是細障，如是知故斷。」
究竟：二見即所知障，二智三昧而轉依
把這一分收成一句唯識的話：「我見、法見」這兩重能執的見，就是所知障所攝的「微細障」；遣它，靠的是「世智、第一義智、依止三昧」這一套止觀。而所謂遣盡這微細障、不再起遍計法相、真如智現前——這在唯識正叫轉依：轉捨那把心二分為能取所取的染污習氣，轉得真如圓成。所以「不生法相」不是壓住念頭，是識在止觀中轉依、無分別智現起、所執的法相自然不生。這正回扣樞紐分十七的「通達無我、法」：那裡通達二無我、斷二障；這一分，是其中「斷所知障」一邊，落在「能執的見」這一最細處的收束。
唯識為鏡：同一實相，經語與論語
以唯識為鏡讀這一分，不是說唯識的二障、轉依之學從金剛經流出——二障、二空、轉依之說，自有其經源（解深密、瑜伽）與論本，般若另是一系；而是同一「遣執而存假名」的實相，金剛經以經語（我見即非·不生法相）說，唯識以論語（我法二執·所知障·二智·轉依）說，兩相對照，其義益顯。三十頌說二空遣二執、捨二麁重而歸於轉依，與本分「我法二見、二智三昧而遠離」相印；辯中邊論辨真實、明所知障淨，與本分「我法二見即微細障（所知障）」相通；成唯識論說所知障、見道二智、依定斷障，與本分「微細障、二智三昧」相應；般若一系的心經「無智亦無得」「遠離顛倒夢想」，亦同此遠離虛妄、不執實法相之門。一句收束：金剛經以經語說的「我見即非、不生法相」，成唯識論以「遣我法二執、斷所知障、無分別智證真如」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 two clingings of self and dharmas, the cognitive hindrance (所知障), and the transformation of the basis (轉依), to reflect the sūtra’s “the view of self is-not the view of self · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.
From “Mark” to “View”: What Is Broken Has Deepened a Further Layer
Reading to this division, one must first see clearly what it continues. The earlier half of the Diamond Sūtra (Divisions 1 to 16) repeatedly dispels the “mark of self, mark of person, mark of being, mark of life-span” — that is, taking the body-and-mind conjoined of the five aggregates as the mark of a real “self”; dispelling it dispels the clinging to a self in persons (人我執) and purifies the afflictive hindrance (煩惱障). After the pivotal Division 17 it turns into the emptiness of dharmas, and by this division what is dispelled is no longer the “mark” but the “view”: the view of self, the view of person, the view of being, the view of life-span.
How do “mark” and “view” differ? In Yogācāra terms, “mark” is the mark of the object grasped, and “view” is that discriminating view itself which grasps. The earlier half breaks the object-mark opposite to it; this division would dispel even that grasping, discriminating “view” itself. So what this division counteracts is a finer layer — the clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執), the cognitive hindrance (所知障). Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse directly judges these two views, “the view of self, the view of dharmas,” as the subtle hindrance (微細障; Yijing translates it “the fine hindrance,” 細障), and this “fine hindrance” is just what the cognitive hindrance subsumes; the three lineages of ancient masters (Jizang, Zhiyi, Kuiji) all judge this passage as a text “breaking the views, making clear that self and dharmas are unreal.” The teaching here turns a step deeper again: from breaking “mark” (object) to breaking “view” (the grasping); from purifying the afflictive hindrance to severing the cognitive hindrance.
The Confusion in the Question: “The Buddha Spoke of a View of Self,” and So One Supposes There Really Is a View of Self to Speak Of
This division begins from a confusion. If someone says “the Buddha did speak of a view of self, view of person, view of being, view of life-span,” Subhūti answers: this person does not understand the Buddha’s meaning. Why does he not understand?
Yogācāra sees this layer of confusion clearly: the ordinary always suppose that “wherever there is speech, there must be a real entity it points to” — since the Buddha spoke the term “view of self,” one fixes on there really being a real thing called “view of self” there, sayable, severable, attainable. Kuiji points out this confusion: 「言必有體，心不緣無……所執之義必成其有」— speech must have a substance, the mind does not take nothing as its object… the grasped meaning must become existent — supposing that, a name being spoken, what the name points to becomes really existent. In fact the Buddha spoke “view of self” precisely to disclose that “the view of self is inherently unreal,” not to say there really is a view of self to speak of. Jizang points it through in a line: 「佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也」— the Buddha wished to make clear that the view of self is nothing, and so spoke “view of self”; it is not that speaking “view of self” means there is a view of self to speak of. This “grasping that verbal designation entails a real entity” is itself a layer of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) — taking the reflection of names and words manifested by mind and treating it as a real dharma outside names and words.
The View of Self Is-not the View of Self: Reading the Grasping View Through the Three Natures
So this division’s first “is-not” comes out: 「世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見」— the World-Honored One speaks of a view of self, view of person, view of being, view of life-span, which is-not the view of self, person, being, life-span, and is called the view of self, person, being, life-span. Read through the three natures:
- “The four views of self and the rest” = the other-dependent (依他起): this grasping view that beings rouse in dependence on the five aggregates and on deluded feeling is dependently-arisen — Kuiji says 「於諸法本無我、法，眾生妄情執為實有」— upon dharmas there is inherently no self and no dharmas; beings, by deluded feeling, grasp them as really existent, and so the Buddha 「隨其情、說其解」— following their feeling, speaks to their understanding and speaks of “self, dharmas.” So it is sayable following conventional feeling, hence “is called.”
- “Is-not the view of self and the rest” = dispelling the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): what is dispelled is the layer of wrong reckoning that “there really is a substantial view of self.” Kuiji says 「非謂言詮即有實體……非如其執即實有體，故云即非我見」— it is not that verbal designation entails a real substance… not that it is really existent in substance as grasped; hence it is said to be-not the view of self — it is not that there is no grasping view, but that the clinging that “this view is really existent outside the mind, graspable and severable” is dispelled. Why is this view is-not a view? Vasubandhu answers most directly: 「如來說彼我見即是不見，以其無實」— the Tathāgata says that view of self is just no-seeing, because it is unreal — the view of self inherently cannot reach a real “self”; it has no real object (Yijing: 「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故……所有我境元來是無」— whatever views of self there are, the Tathāgata calls them non-views, because they are objectless… whatever object of self there is, is from the outset nothing), so “seeing a self is just not-seeing”: you suppose you have seen a self, but in fact you have seen nothing; that is only false discrimination (虛妄分別).
- “Is called the view of self and the rest” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (圓成實): with real clinging exhausted, this grasping view, as a dependently-arisen event of false discrimination, may still be provisionally spoken following feeling — Kuiji says 「是名我見等者，謂如來假說也」— “is called the view of self and the rest” means the Tathāgata’s provisional speaking. And precisely because one sees it as unreal, sees it as false, the suchness of no-self (the perfectly-accomplished, 圓成實) is thereby disclosed.
So the marvel of this “is-not” lies not in outer objects but in the grasping view itself: even that view in the very act of grasping “there is a self” is an objectless false discrimination, dispelled in its very being.
Not Giving Rise to a Mark of Dharmas: When Suchness Is Realized, the Grasped Mark of Dharmas Is Not Seen
Having broken the “view,” the Buddha turns to the “mark of dharmas”: one who gives rise to the bodhi-mind should, toward all dharmas, “thus know, thus see, thus believe-and-understand,” and “not give rise to a mark of dharmas” (不生法相).
“Not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” is not telling people to want no dharmas, to think nothing at all. Kuiji reads it exactly: 「謂若發心者，證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智也」— that is, if one who has roused the mind, at the time of realizing suchness, does not see the grasped mark of dharmas, this is called right wisdom — “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” means that when you realize suchness by non-discriminating wisdom, that layer of “wholly-imagined mark of dharmas, taken as really existent outside the mind” no longer arises. It is not that there are no dharmas; it is that that layer of real-clinging mark does not rise. So what “not arising” dispels is still the layer of the wholly-imagined.
And what work is this “thus know, thus see, thus believe-and-understand”? It is precisely the calm-and-insight (止觀) of which Yogācāra speaks. The ancient masters match it to concrete cultivation: knowing is the wisdom roused by cultivating “calm” (止, śamatha, 奢摩他); seeing is the wisdom born of cultivating “insight” (觀, vipaśyanā, 毘鉢舍那); believing-and-understanding is the “concentration” (定, samādhi, 三摩提) on which these two wisdoms rest. Jizang, citing a treatise-verse, divides it the same way: 「知是世諦智，見是第一義諦智，信解是二智所依三昧」— knowing is conventional-truth wisdom, seeing is ultimate-truth wisdom, believing-and-understanding is the samādhi on which the two wisdoms rest. So “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” is no empty phrase; it must rely on this whole set of staged, concentration-grounded calm-and-insight realization — conventional wisdom, ultimate wisdom, and the supporting samādhi — before it truly does not rouse the wholly-imagined mark of dharmas. Asaṅga places this passage within the Buddha-ground’s “entering the corresponding samādhi without discrimination,” which is just this sense: within that samādhi of no discrimination, the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of dharmas are at once established.
The Mark of Dharmas Is-not the Mark of Dharmas: The Second “Is-not,” Dispelling the Clinging to Dharmas
The last sentence is again an “is-not”: 「所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相」— what is called the mark of dharmas, the Tathāgata says is-not the mark of dharmas, and is called the mark of dharmas. Of the same pattern as the previous “is-not,” only that its point of application turns from “view” to “mark of dharmas” — this breaks the self-in-dharmas (法我) side. Through the three natures:
- “The mark of dharmas” = the other-dependent (依他起): the provisionally-spoken mark of dharmas (Kuiji: 「所言法相者，謂假說法相也」— what is called the mark of dharmas is the provisionally-spoken mark of dharmas).
- “Is-not the mark of dharmas” = dispelling the wholly-imagined: not the real-clinging mark of dharmas (Kuiji: 「即非法相者，非是實執之法相也」— “is-not the mark of dharmas” means not the real-clinging mark of dharmas); Vasubandhu: 「以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」— because seeing the mark of dharmas is just not seeing a [real] mark, just as that view of self is-not a [real] view — to see the mark of dharmas is just not to see a real mark, exactly as to see the view of self is just not to see a real self.
- “Is called the mark of dharmas” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (圓成實): with real clinging dispelled, the provisionally-spoken mark of dharmas still stands — this is precisely what “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” discloses.
So this division sets two “is-nots” side by side: “the view of self is-not the view of self” breaks the grasping view (the self-in-persons side), and “the mark of dharmas is-not the mark of dharmas” breaks the grasped dharma (the self-in-dharmas side) — what the ancient masters call “raising the self to list the dharmas,” bringing out the instance of the mark of dharmas from the single instance of the view of self, the two layers dispelled together. Vasubandhu’s verse threads both layers in one place: 「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」— seeing a self is just not-seeing, an unreal, false view; this is the subtle hindrance, removed when suchness is seen. The view of self and the view of dharmas are just not-seeing (unreal, objectless, hence is-not), and these two views are the “subtle hindrance” (the fine hindrance, the cognitive hindrance), which, at the time of “seeing suchness,” is naturally removed. Yijing glosses likewise: 「斷我法二種……是故見無見，無境虛妄執……由此是細障，如是知故斷」— severing the two kinds, self and dharmas… therefore seeing is no-seeing, an objectless false clinging… because this is the fine hindrance, knowing it thus, one severs it.
Ultimately: The Two Views Are the Cognitive Hindrance; the Two Wisdoms and Samādhi, and the Transformation of the Basis
To gather this division into a single Yogācāra phrase: “the view of self, the view of dharmas,” these two grasping views, are the subtle hindrance subsumed under the cognitive hindrance (所知障); to dispel them relies on this set of calm-and-insight — “conventional wisdom, ultimate wisdom, the supporting samādhi.” And the dispelling of this subtle hindrance, the not rousing of the wholly-imagined mark of dharmas, and the manifesting of suchness-wisdom — this in Yogācāra is precisely the transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti): casting off the defiled habit-energy that splits the mind into the grasper and the grasped, and attaining the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished. So “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” is not suppressing thoughts; it is consciousness transforming the basis within calm-and-insight, non-discriminating wisdom rising, and the grasped mark of dharmas naturally not arising. This circles back exactly to the pivotal Division 17’s “penetrating the no-self of persons and of dharmas”: there, penetrating the two selflessnesses and severing the two hindrances; this division is, of those, the “severing the cognitive hindrance” side, coming to rest at the very finest place of “the grasping view.”
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 study of the two hindrances and the transformation of the basis flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the two hindrances, the two emptinesses, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises; the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same reality — “dispelling clinging while preserving the provisional name” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (the view of self is-not · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the two clingings of self and dharmas · the cognitive hindrance · the two wisdoms · the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses speak of dispelling the two clingings by the two emptinesses, casting off the two coarse burdens, and coming to rest in the transformation of the basis, sealing with this division’s “the two views of self and dharmas, removed through the two wisdoms and samādhi.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the real and clarifies the purifying of the cognitive hindrance, communing with this division’s “the two views of self and dharmas are the subtle hindrance (the cognitive hindrance).” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the cognitive hindrance, the two wisdoms of the path of seeing, and severing the hindrance in reliance on concentration, corresponding to this division’s “the subtle hindrance, the two wisdoms and samādhi.” And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「無智亦無得」「遠離顛倒夢想」— no wisdom and no attainment · far removed from inverted, dream-like thoughts — is the same gate of removing the false and not grasping a real mark of dharmas. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「我見即非、不生法相」— the view of self is-not · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “dispelling the two clingings of self and dharmas · severing the cognitive hindrance · realizing suchness by non-discriminating wisdom” 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 31 · Knowing and Seeing Do Not Arise · exposition · Spring 2026
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位（破四見·不生法相 · §17 後半 · 二障所本 · 加重）
| 科判系統 | 此分之位 |
|---|---|
| 昭明 32分 | 分三十一 知見不生分 |
| 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「破四見·不生法相」，所破者乃我見·法見二見，即所執之能執見，非前半之四「相」） |
| 道安 三分 | 正宗分 · 第二周 · 證道之佛地具足 |
| 無著十八住 T1510 | 第十八住 上求佛地（淨心住處後·究竟住處 [0758c04]）佛地六具足之心具足·第六「行住淨」中第二「破名色身自在行住」之「入相應三昧不分別」——「於彼心具足中……無所見中，入相應三昧時不分別……經言『須菩提！若有人如是言：「如來說我見」』等，此等顯示如所不分別……安置人無我……安置法無我」[0765c22–766a01]；「經言『須菩提！菩薩乘發行』者，此顯示何人無分別。經言『於一切法』者，此顯示於何法不分別……經言『如是知解已，而不住法想』者，此正顯示無分別」[0766a02–10] |
| 世親 二十七疑 T1511/T1513 | 「我法二見·微細障」之斷——偈「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」（T1511 [0796b20–21]）；義淨頌「由此是細障，如是知故斷」（T1513 [0884a22]）。釋「明法、我無實」「此之我、法二見是其見取，此謂細障」（窺基引世親 T1700 [0153c18]／義淨 T1513 [0884a23–24]） |
| 吉藏（三論）T1699 | 屬「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章」[0122c28]；「『若人言佛說我見』者，此文近接前生……上破昔有所得正見不可得，今破其邪見亦無得，顯正般若未曾邪正」[0123b06–21] |
| 智顗（天台）T1698 | 第二周「破諸見用」之第四——「四、『佛說我見』下，明破諸見用」[0083b25–26]；「不生法相，但是虛假非實法也」[0083c05]（次接第三流通分） |
| 窺基（唯識）T1700 | 依世親「第三明法、我無實，於中有二，初、明無我，次、『發阿耨多羅』下，明無法」[0153c18–19]；依無著「此下第二明入相應三昧不分別」[0153c24]；屬「第六行淨住中第三為不染行住」之前段（破名色身自在行住）[0154b11] |
破四見·不生法相義：此分承樞紐（分十七 究竟無我·法空）後，以「我見等即非我見等」「不生法相·法相即非法相」二即非，收束§17 後半之破四「見」——前半（分一–十六）所破為四「相」（我·人·眾生·壽者相，所緣境之相，煩惱障所攝），此分所破為四「見」（我·人·眾生·壽者見，能執之見，所知障所攝）。古德三家俱判此分為「破諸見·明我法無實」之文（吉藏「破其邪見亦無得」[0123b20]、智顗「明破諸見用……諸見非實」[0083b26–27]、窺基「第三明法、我無實」[0153c18]），而世親二譯論偈逕標「我、法二見」為「微細障（細障）」——「見我即不見……此是微細障，見真如遠離」T1511 [0796b20–21]、「由此是細障，如是知故斷」T1513 [0884a22]。「細障」者所知障之屬（義淨論前文「煩惱、所知二障無故名圓具身」T1513 [0881a24]），唯「二智及三昧」T1511 [0796c06]（世智·第一義智·依止三昧）方除——此即釋慧鏡 §17 二分「後半破四見·斷所知障」之古德所本（與樞紐分十七窺基「第二周為斷障，障即所知也」一脈）。本分「即非」之施，於「見·法相」而非「相·眾生」（見目三）。
二、異譯對勘（六漢譯 · 四見即非·不生法相一段）
要句：佛說我見等（是人不解）/ 即非我見等·是名我見等 / 於一切法如是知見信解·不生法相 / 法相即非法相·是名法相
| 版本 | 四見即非·不生法相一段（逐字節錄） | [出處] |
|---|---|---|
| 羅什 T235（原典） | 「須菩提！若人言『佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見』，須菩提！於意云何？是人解我所說義不？」「世尊！是人不解如來所說義。何以故？世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」「須菩提！發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是信解，不生法相。須菩提！所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。」 | 0752b15–b23 |
| 菩提流支 T236a | 「須菩提！若人如是言：『佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。』須菩提！於意云何？是人所說，為正語不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！何以故？世尊！如來說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」「須菩提！菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是信，如是不住法相。何以故？須菩提！所言法相、法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。」 | 0756c21–757a01 |
| 真諦 T237 | 「須菩提！若有人言：『如來說我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見。』須菩提！汝意云何？是人言說，為正語不？」須菩提言：「不正，世尊！不正，修伽陀！何以故？如來所說我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見，即是非見，是故說我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見。」「須菩提！若人行菩薩乘，如是應知應見應信，一切諸法；如是應修，為令法想不得生起。何以故？須菩提！是法想、法想者，如來說即非想，故說法想。」 | 0766b08–b16 |
| 達摩笈多 T238 | 「若此有，善實！如是說：『我見，如來說，眾生見、壽見、人見，如來說。』雖然，彼，善實！正說語？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！不如此，善逝！彼何所因？若彼，世尊！我見，如來說；非見，彼，如來說；彼故，說名我見者。」世尊言：「如是，此，善實！菩薩乘發行，一切法知應，見應，信解應。如信解，如無法想亦住。彼何所因？法想、法想者，善實！非想，此，如來說；彼故，說名法想者。」 | 0771b27–c06 |
| 玄奘 T220⑨ | 「若作是言：『如來宣說我見、有情見、命者見、士夫見、補特伽羅見、意生見、摩納婆見、作者見、受者見。』於汝意云何？如是所說為正語不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不也！善逝！如是所說非為正語。所以者何？如來所說我見、有情見、命者見、士夫見、補特伽羅見、意生見、摩納婆見、作者見、受者見即為非見，故名我見乃至受者見。」佛告善現：「諸有發趣菩薩乘者，於一切法應如是知、應如是見、應如是信解，如是不住法想。何以故？善現！法想法想者，如來說為非想，是故如來說名法想法想。」 | 0985b29–c10 |
| 義淨 T239 | 「妙生！如有說云：『佛說我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見。』者，是為正說為不正耶？」妙生言：「不爾，世尊！何以故？若有我見如來說者，即是非見，故名我見。」「妙生！諸有發趣菩薩乘者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是解。如是解者，乃至法想亦無所住。何以故？妙生！法想、法想者，如來說為非想，故名法想、法想。」 | 0775b09–b15 |
異文所繫：
- 四「見」之名數：羅什、流支作「我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見」（四見，與羅什前半之四「相」名同而由「相」轉「見」）；真諦作「我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見」（第四作「受者見」）；笈多作「我見、眾生見、壽見、人見」（次第異）；義淨作「我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見」（第四作「更求趣見」）；玄奘獨作九見「我見、有情見、命者見、士夫見、補特伽羅見、意生見、摩納婆見、作者見、受者見」（同 ātma-dṛṣṭi, sattva-dṛṣṭi, jīva-dṛṣṭi, pudgala-dṛṣṭi… 之逐項譯，下文以「我見乃至受者見」總攝）。要在所破是「見 dṛṣṭi」（能執之見），非前半之「相 saṃjñā／lakṣaṇa」——世親「明法、我無實」
[0153c18]、義淨「斷我法二種」T1513 [0884a10]俱判此為「我·法二見」之破。 - 「即非」之句式：羅什、流支具足三句式「我見等／即非我見等／是名我見等」；真諦作「即是非見，是故說……」（即非·是名各舉一句，四見全列）；笈多作「我見，如來說；非見，彼，如來說；彼故，說名我見者」（能斷式·X·非X·說名X）；玄奘作「即為非見，故名我見乃至受者見」（即非·是名各一句，以「乃至」總攝九見）；義淨即非句獨縮舉「我見」一見「若有我見如來說者，即是非見，故名我見」（四見列於問端，即非句止舉我見以例餘）。羅什、流支之三句式完整，餘本詳略互見。
- 「不生法相／不住法相／不得生起／亦無所住」：羅什作「不生法相」
[0752b22]（最直）；流支、笈多、玄奘作「(如是)不住法相／不住法想」[0756c28·0771c04·0985c08]；真諦作「為令法想不得生起」[0766b14]；義淨作「法想亦無所住」[0775b14]。「不生」與「不住」之異，繫於 na ... dharma-saṃjñā pravarteta／notpādayitavyā 一語——窺基「證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智」[0154a12–13]釋「不生」為「不見所執法相」（非謂全無法相，乃不起遍計實執之法相）。 - 「法相／法想」之譯與重詞：羅什、真諦（前作法想後文）、吉藏、窺基系作「法相」；流支、笈多、玄奘、義淨作「法想」（同 dharma-saṃjñā，「相」與「想」之譯異——saṃjñā 兼「相·想」二義）。能斷系重詞：流支「所言法相、法相者，如來說即非法相」
[0756c29–757a01]、笈多「法想、法想者……說名法想者」[0771c04–06]、玄奘「法想法想者……說名法想法想」[0985c09–10]、義淨「法想、法想者……故名法想、法想」[0775b14–15]、真諦「法想、法想者，如來說即非想」[0766b15–16]——能斷四系（流支·真諦·笈多·玄奘·義淨）「法相／法想」句俱具重詞（同名二舉），即非式作「X·X者，非X，是名 X」；羅什獨作單舉「所言法相者，即非法相，是名法相」[0752b22–23]（不重「法相」）。重詞乃法相系傳本之文相，逐字錄之，不縮。 - 問端「解我所說義／正語」：羅什作「是人解我所說義不」（問是否解佛義）；流支、真諦、笈多、玄奘、義淨作「為正語（正說）不」（問所說是否為正語）。所繫者一——「若人言佛說我見，便執佛實說有我見可說」之惑，窺基「言必有體，心不緣無……所執之義必成其有」
[0153c21–23]（小乘執言詮即有實體）為此惑之的解。
三、即非・三性（眼 · 本分二即非 · §17 後半 法空·破四見·所知障 · 加重）
本分「即非」二現：「我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見 — 即非我見等 — 是名我見等」[0752b18–20] 與「法相 — 即非法相 — 是名法相」[0752b22–23]——二即非並施於「四見」與「法相」（能執之見·所執之法）。
★ 後半繫定（眼·後半法空）：本分居 §17 樞紐之後（後半 分十七–卅二）。前半（分一–十六）之即非多施於「相·法·福德」之外境、所對治者煩惱障（破四相·我空·我見等為「相 saṃjñā」）；至此分（後半·法空），即非施於「四見（dṛṣṭi）」與「法相」——破「我見·法見」二見之法執（法我），所對治者所知障（破四見·細障）。所破之轉，繫於樞紐分十七「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「能執之見」一處之收束——「我見」非但所緣相之執，乃能取之見自身亦遣（即非），破「實有我見可斷可得」之細執。回扣十七樞紐：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），本分三十一進破「實有我見·法見可說可斷」之二見細障——古德「第二周斷所知障」（窺基依世親，分十七 [0127c01–03]）之收束一施。世親逕標此二見為「微細障」T1511 [0796b21]、義淨「細障」T1513 [0884a22]——細障即所知障所攝。
其一「我見等 — 即非我見等 — 是名我見等」映三性（破四見位）：
- 我見等四見（X）即依他起——眾生妄情緣五蘊而起之能執見（窺基「於諸法本無我、法，眾生妄情執為實有」
[0154a02–03]；佛「隨其情，說其解，而說為我、法」[0154a03–04]）。世諦隨情可說，故「是名」。 - 即非我見等即遣遍計所執——非言詮所執之「實有體之我見」（窺基「非謂言詮即有實體……非如其執即實有體，故云即非我見」
[0154a04–07]；世親「如來說彼我見即是不見，以其無實……說我見即是虛妄見」T1511 [0796b22–25]）。「即非」者，遣「實有我見可執可斷」之執——我見本無實境（義淨「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故……所有我境元來是無」T1513 [0884a15–16]），故「見我即不見」T1511 [0796b20]。 - 是名我見等即立圓成（亦兼世諦假說）——窺基「是名我見等者，謂如來假說也」
[0154a08]。無實境而隨情假說，正圓成所顯（我見之為虛妄分別，正顯無我真如）。
其二「法相 — 即非法相 — 是名法相」映三性：
- 法相（X）即依他起——假說之法相（窺基「所言法相者，謂假說法相也」
[0154a24]）。 - 即非法相即遣遍計——非實執之法相（窺基「即非法相者，非是實執之法相也」
[0154a25]；世親「以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」T1511 [0796b28–29]）。 - 是名法相即立圓成——假說而非實執，正「不生法相」（窺基「證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智」
[0154a12–13]）之所顯。
本分之眼：二即非俱以「見即不見·無實虛妄·細障遠離」為樞——遣「我見·法見實有可說可斷」之遍計（即非），而存「隨情假說」之世諦（是名）。世親一偈貫之：「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」T1511 [0796b20–21]——我見法見即不見（無實境故·即非），此二見即「微細障（細障·所知障）」，「見真如」時自然遠離。義淨「斷我法二種，非證覺無故」「是故見無見，無境虛妄執」「由此是細障，如是知故斷」T1513 [0884a10·a14·a22] 同詮。其遠離之道，唯「二智及三昧」T1511 [0796c06]（世智·第一義智·依止三昧；吉藏「二智及三昧，知是世諦智，見是第一義諦智，信解者是二智所依三昧」T1699 [0123b28–c01]；窺基「知見勝解＝奢摩他·毘鉢舍那·三摩提」[0154a16–22]）。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「我見·法相（破四見·細障）」位之二施，亦即 §17 後半法空·破四見於「能執之見」一處之收束。「不生法相」（不起遍計實執而真如智現）即「應無所住而生其心」之轉依義〔摘自 S5-P06〕（見目七）。
四、諸家異釋（古德 · 我法二見·微細障·二智三昧 · 加重）
核心 加重 ——世親《金剛般若論》三偈（但隨於音聲·見我即不見·二智及三昧），二漢譯並存： 世親以「我見·法見」二見為「微細障（細障）」，逐項錨於經文「即非我見……即非法相」；其偈「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」直判二見為細障（所知障所攝），須「二智及三昧」方除。二譯名異義一。窺基依世親、無著，逕讀本分「明法、我無實」「證真如不見所執法相名為正智」。
世親 T1511（菩提流支譯） 釋「凡夫取顛倒·遠離我法」偈 [0796b11–12]：
「但隨於音聲，凡夫取顛倒；非無二得道，遠離於我法。」
「此義云何？非無我無法，離此二事而得菩提。云何得菩提？遠離彼二見故得於菩提」[0796b16–18]。次釋「見我即不見」偈 [0796b20–21]：
「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離。」
- 釋「我見即不見」：「是故見即不見，無其實義，以虛妄分別、以是無我，是故如來說彼我見即是不見，以其無實。無實者，即是無物。以是義故，說我見即是虛妄見」
[0796b22–25]。 - 釋「法見亦不見」：「如是示現我見不見故，見法者亦是不見……此復何義？以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」
[0796b25–29]。 - 釋「微細障」：「何故此二見說名不見？偈言『此是微細障，見真如遠離』故。此復云何？彼見我見法，此是微細障。以不見彼二故，是以見法而得遠離」
[0796b29–c03]。 - 釋「二智三昧」
[0796c06]：「二智及三昧，如是得遠離……示現世智第一義智，及依止三昧得遠離彼障」[0796c06–09]。
世親 T1513（義淨譯） 釋「斷我法二種」頌 [0884a10]：
「斷我法二種，非證覺無故。」
「言我法二種體是無故。此兩雖言得斷，而亦不證菩提。是誰之斷而能獲耶？答：由二見之斷，彼二之見是所除故」[0884a11–13]。頌「是故見無見，無境虛妄執」[0884a14]：「由此故知我體是無。諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故。意道所有我境元來是無，文云『故名我見』者，明虛妄分別有也。如是於無我理顯見無見性已，亦是顯其於法見無見性……然其法想亦是非相性故，猶如我見」[0884a15–20]。頌「由此是細障，如是知故斷」[0884a22]：「此之我、法二見是其見取，此謂細障。由於二事如是正知非見性故，方能除斷」[0884a23–24]。頌「由得二種智，及定彼方除」[0884a27]：「謂以覆俗、勝義智，及以此二所依之定，方除彼障」[0884a28–29]。
〔二譯對位：見我即不見／是故見無見（無實虛妄見／無境虛妄執）· 此是微細障／由此是細障（見真如遠離／如是知故斷）· 二智及三昧／由得二種智及定——同一世親論之二漢譯，名異義一。二譯俱以「我見·法見」二見為「微細障（細障·所知障）」，須二智三昧（世智·勝義智·依止定）方除。〕
無著 T1510（達摩笈多譯）：此分屬十八住之第十八上求佛地（究竟住處 [0758c04]），於佛地六具足心具足·行住淨之「破名色身自在行住」中「入相應三昧不分別」——「無所見中，入相應三昧時不分別，謂：如所不分別，及何人、何法、何方便、云何不分別？此後具說。經言『須菩提！若有人如是言：「如來說我見」』等，此等顯示如所不分別。云何得顯？如外道說我，如來說為我見故，安置人無我；又為說有此我見故，安置法無我。若有彼我見，是見所攝」[0765c22–766a01]；「經言『須菩提！菩薩乘發行』者，此顯示何人無分別。經言『於一切法』者，此顯示於何法不分別。經言『應如是知，應如是見，應如是勝解』者，此顯示增上心、增上智故，於無分別中知、見、勝解……經言『如是知解已，而不住法想』者，此正顯示無分別。經言『法想、法想者，即非法想，是名法想』者，此顯示法想中不共義及相應義」[0766a02–11]。〔無著此段安立經文之住處對位（我見＝安置人無我·此我見＝安置法無我；知見勝解＝奢摩他·毘鉢舍那·三摩提之不分別）；其「微細障·二智三昧」之展開，世親論偈足之，見上世親條 T1511 [0796b20–c09]。〕
吉藏（三論）T1699：科屬「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章」[0122c28]。釋來意：「『若人言佛說我見』者，此文近接前生，明凡夫貪著其事生也。凡夫貪著由於我見，我見既無，貪著何由有耶？」[0123b06–08]。破二疑——「時會便疑：佛說凡夫起我見，故知有我見可起……此是一疑也。又二乘人云：先有我見故斷我見，故得無我智，是名得道。此是二疑」[0123b10–13]；「破初疑云……佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也」[0123b14–16]；「即是答二乘人，亦不得言先有我見，斷我見故得無我智。今乃明我本來畢竟不可得，何所斷故言無我耶？」[0123b21–23]。釋「不生法相」：「『應如是知』者，上明我見本來不可得，今明法見亦本來不可得，故舉我列法，故云應如是知、見、信解，不生法相也。『所言法相者，則非法相』者，亦如我義。佛說我既非我，說法相亦非法相也」[0123b23–28]。釋知見信解：「論偈云『二智及三昧，知是世諦智』，見是第一義諦智。信解者，是二智所依三昧，依三昧故發生二智也……菩薩了人法空，具足二智也」[0123b28–c02]。
智顗（天台）T1698：科為第二周「破諸見用」之第四——「四、『佛說我見』下，明破諸見用。凡夫謂諸見決定是見，今佛說非見，以本來無所有，諸見非實，可改為正」[0083b25–27]。釋不生法相：「當如上所說理而生知見也。『如是信解』者，理深未明，推信為解耳。不生法相，但是虛假非實法也，如來說非法相是名法相，相窮理盡明，其唯如來說，言非實故，應從信矣」[0083c02–07]。〔智顗判此段為第二周正說之竟、第三流通分之始 [0083b28–c01]。〕
窺基（唯識）T1700：依世親「第三明法、我無實，於中有二，初、明無我，次、『發阿耨多羅』下，明無法」[0153c18–19]；依無著「此下第二明入相應三昧不分別，於中初、明如所不分別為入之方便，次、發菩提心下，明何人、何法不分別」[0153c24–27]。釋「即非我見」（無我）：「謂於諸法本無我、法，眾生妄情執為實有，佛為破彼執故，隨其情，說其解，而說為我、法，非謂言詮即有實體，縱令心取，何廢無真……謂世尊隨情逐解，假說我、人，非如其執即實有體，故云『即非我見、人見』等也。『是名我見』等者，謂如來假說也」[0154a02–08]。釋「不生法相」（無法）：「此第二明無法也……謂若發心者，證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智也」[0154a11–13]；引無著「知見勝解＝奢摩他·毘鉢舍那·三摩提……謂前欲修止故，發智名之為知；欲修觀故，生智名之為見也」[0154a13–22]。總結「法相即非法相」：「『所言法相者』者，謂假說法相也。『即非法相』者，非是實執之法相也」[0154a24–25]。
古德三家異流（三論·天台·唯識）於本分同歸「破我法二見·不生法相」：我見法見即不見（無實境·虛妄分別，故即非），所執非實而隨情假說（是名）。吉藏「我見本來不可得·法見亦本來不可得·二智及三昧」、智顗「諸見非實·本來無所有·不生法相但是虛假非實」、窺基（依世親無著）「明法、我無實·眾生妄情執為實有·證真如時不見所執法相名為正智·知見勝解＝止觀三昧」——逐項錨於「我見即非·法相即非·不生法相」。其判二見為「微細障（細障）」、須「二智三昧」方除者，世親二譯論偈所獨揭（
T1511 [0796b20–c09]／T1513 [0884a10–29]）——此即本分「破四見·斷所知障」之古德定讀，亦§17 後半之經文所本（世親逕判我法二見為細障·所知障所攝）。
五、術語
我見／人見／眾生見／壽者見 ātma-dṛṣṭi ／ pudgala-dṛṣṭi ／ sattva-dṛṣṭi ／ jīva-dṛṣṭi（四「見」——能執之見，異於前半之四「相」 saṃjñā；真諦第四作「受者見」·義淨作「更求趣見」·玄奘開為九見「乃至受者見」見目二）·
不生法相 na dharma-saṃjñā pravarteta（不起遍計實執之法相；流支·玄奘作「不住法相／法想」·真諦「法想不得生起」·義淨「法想亦無所住」；窺基「證真如時不見所執法相，名為正智」[0154a12–13]）·
法相／法想 dharma-saṃjñā（「相」「想」二譯——saṃjñā 兼二義；窺基系作「法相」·能斷系作「法想」見目二）·
微細障／細障 sūkṣma-āvaraṇa（我見·法見二見之障，所知障所攝；世親「此是微細障，見真如遠離」T1511 [0796b21]、義淨「此之我、法二見是其見取，此謂細障」T1513 [0884a23–24]）·
我法二見（人我見·法我見 pudgala-dṛṣṭi ／ dharma-dṛṣṭi；世親「遠離彼二見故得於菩提」T1511 [0796b17–18]、義淨「斷我法二種」T1513 [0884a10]）·
見取 dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa（義淨「此之我、法二見是其見取」T1513 [0884a23]）·
二智及三昧（世智／第一義智·依止三昧；世親「示現世智第一義智，及依止三昧得遠離彼障」T1511 [0796c08–09]、義淨「覆俗、勝義智，及以此二所依之定」T1513 [0884a28–29]；吉藏「知是世諦智·見是第一義諦智·信解是二智所依三昧」T1699 [0123b28–c01]；窺基「知＝奢摩他·見＝毘鉢舍那·勝解＝三摩提」[0154a16–18]）·
無境（虛妄分別）（義淨「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故……所有我境元來是無」T1513 [0884a15–16]）。〔梵文發音輔助；「四見」「法相／法想」之譯異見目二。〕
六、譬喻・修辭（破見之翻轉 · 我法並遣之複沓）
本分無經文自具之具象譬喻（虛空喻在分四·須彌喻在分十·十一·十七·忍辱仙人喻在分十四·色見聲求六喻在分二十六·卅二）。其修辭之要在「說我見而即非我見」之翻轉，與「我見·法相」並遣之複沓：
- 「說而即非」之翻轉：正設「若人言『佛說我見』」（似許佛實說有我見），陡以「是人不解……即非我見」翻轉（佛說我見正為明我見之無實），復收「是名我見」（隨情假說）。此「說即非說」之筆與分二十一「說法者無法可說是名說法」、分二十五「凡夫者即非凡夫」同構——皆「遣實執（即非）而存假說（是名）」。世親「佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也」〔吉藏語
T1699 [0123b15–16]〕點此翻轉之的。 - 「我見·法相」並遣之複沓：本分二即非同式並列——「我見等即非我見等」（破我見·人我）與「法相即非法相」（破法相·法我），由「我」舉「法」（吉藏「舉我列法」
T1699 [0123b25]），複沓二遣，所顯惟一（我法二見皆無實·細障）。世親「如是示現我見不見故，見法者亦是不見……以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」T1511 [0796b25–29]——以我見之即非例法見之即非，並遣之複沓正顯「二見一障（微細障）」。 - 能斷系「重詞」之文相：能斷四系於「法相／法想」句並作重詞（流支「法相、法相者」·玄奘「法想法想者」·義淨「法想、法想者」），同名二舉而後「即非·是名」——複沓之文相強化「假說（重舉）而非實（即非）」之雙義。此目於本分（破見之翻轉與我法並遣之複沓）見其修辭，具象譬喻則於分四·十四·廿六·卅二加重。
七、互讀
- 二十論（T1590）：唯識無境·遣所執實法——本分「我見如來說為非見，以無境故」〔義淨語見目四〕即二十論「破心外實境·我法二執所緣非實」之經語對應（我境元無·虛妄分別，與二十論破實境一脈）。
- 三十頌（T1586）：二空·二執·轉依（v.29 圓成實）——本分「我法二見·不生法相·二智三昧得遠離」即三十頌「遠離二取·捨二麁重·轉依證真如」之經語對應（二見即二執，二智三昧即無分別智·後得智）。
- 辯中邊論（T1600）：辯真實品·二空·所知障淨——本分「我法二見＝微細障（細障·所知障）」即辯中邊「所知障淨·無上乘真實」之論本對應（後半法空·所知障所攝）。
- 成唯識論（T1585）：二障·二執（所知障所執之法我·見取）·四智（無分別智·後得智）——本分世親「微細障」「二智及三昧」〔見目四〕即成唯識「所知障·見道二智·依定斷障」之經語對應；「不生法相·證真如不見所執法相名為正智」〔窺基語見目四〕即「無分別智證真如·遣遍計法相」之論本技術語。
- 心經（T251）：「無智亦無得」「遠離顛倒夢想」——本分「我見即不見·見真如遠離·不生法相」即心經「遠離顛倒（虛妄分別）·無得（不執實法相）」之同一法位。
本分「我見即非我見·法相即非法相·不生法相·我法二見即微細障」，即二十論·三十頌·成唯識論「二執·二障·二智·轉依」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「即非我見·不生法相」一語，成唯識論以「遣我法二執·斷所知障（細障）·無分別智證真如」之技術語說同一事。本分破「我見·法見」二見之法執，正 §17 後半「破四見·斷所知障」之收束〔摘自《金剛經的自我重演》S5-P07，前後半摺疊·四相轉四見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。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。古德二見·微細障·二智三昧 引文見目四，不重出。〕
八、東西對觀（西方視角 · 對觀，非裁奪）
- 「說我見而即非我見·無境虛妄」之破見 ↔ 西方哲學之「實體自我之解構」（休謨「自我為知覺之束，無實體我」；維特根斯坦論「我」非指稱一對象）：西方亦解構實體自我·破「我」之指稱；然唯識讀「即非我見」非僅否定實體我之有——「即非」之後有「是名」（隨情假說·世諦不廢），且所遣者乃「能執之見（我見·法見）」自身（世親「彼見我見法，此是微細障」
T1511 [0796c02]），是斷二障·轉依所顯，非純認識論之破我。西方多止於「無實體我」之命題，唯識更進至「我見·法見二見即所知障·二智三昧方除」之修證。 - 「見我即不見·見真如遠離」之二見即障 ↔ 西方知識論之「觀者悖論／能見之不可見」（如維特根斯坦「眼不在視野中」；現象學論「能見之我」之隱蔽）：可對觀於「能執之見自身為障」一義；然唯識「見即不見」非邏輯之悖論——乃「我見法見無實境（無境）故即不見，此二見即微細障，見真如時自然遠離」（義淨「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故」
T1513 [0884a15]），是所知障之斷與真如之證，有所斷·有所證之行果，非靜態之認識悖論。 - 「不生法相·二智三昧」之轉依 ↔ 西方之「破除概念執取·非概念之知」（柏格森「直觀」越乎概念；現象學「懸擱／還原」之去執）：可對觀；然唯識「不生法相」非籠統之去概念化——乃「證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智」（窺基
[0154a12–13]），須「世智·第一義智·依止三昧」（世親T1511 [0796c08]）之具體止觀修證（知＝奢摩他·見＝毘鉢舍那·勝解＝三摩提），是有位次·有依定之斷障，非籠統之直觀或懸擱。 - 對觀之要：西方傾向以「無實體我·能見不可見·破概念執」為認識論·語言哲學之命題（自我何以非實體·能見何以隱蔽·概念何以遮蔽）；古德以「我見法見即非·見真如遠離·不生法相」為斷我法二見（微細障·所知障）·二智三昧·轉依證真如之修證（所遣者乃二見之法執，二智三昧為其斷障之具體行）。命題之解構與修證之斷障，正是東西之一可注。
- （本目為西方視角之對觀；經與唯識讀法始終為主，西方為旁參，非裁奪義理。具體文獻屬研究者考索之事。）
九、校本定位
羅什 T0235 [0752b15–b23]（原典 · 知見不生分）。六譯本四見即非·不生法相一段 [出處] 見目二：流支 T0236a [0756c21–757a01] · 真諦 T0237 [0766b08–b16] · 笈多 T0238 [0771b27–c06] · 玄奘 T220⑨ [0985b29–c10] · 義淨 T0239 [0775b09–b15]。 科判／論本：無著 T1510a [0765c22–0766a13·0758c04] · 世親 T1511 [0796a01–0796c09]（偈 [0796b11–12·b20–21·c06]）· 世親 T1513 [0884a08–b06]（頌 [0884a10·a14·a22·a27]）。 古德：吉藏 T1699 [0122c28·0123b06–c05] · 智顗 T1698 [0083b25–c07] · 窺基 T1700 [0153b09·0153c16–0154a25·0154b11]。
1 · Placement in the Sectioning Schemes (breaking the four views · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas · §17 second half · the ground of the two hindrances · emphasized)
| Sectioning scheme | Placement of this division |
|---|---|
| Zhaoming 32 divisions | Division 31, Knowing and Seeing Do Not Arise (知見不生分) |
| 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 four views · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas,” what is broken being the self-view · the dharma-view, the two views, the grasping-view of the clung-to, not the first half’s four “marks”) |
| 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 eighteenth abode, seeking-the-Buddha-stage-above (after the abode of the purified mind · the ultimate abode [0758c04]), the Buddha-stage six attainments’ mind-attainment · sixth, “the purity of conduct-and-dwelling,” within it the second, “breaking self-mastery conduct-and-dwelling in name-and-form,” the “entering the corresponding samādhi without discrimination” — 「於彼心具足中……無所見中，入相應三昧時不分別……經言『須菩提！若有人如是言：「如來說我見」』等，此等顯示如所不分別……安置人無我……安置法無我」[0765c22–766a01]; 「經言『須菩提！菩薩乘發行』者，此顯示何人無分別。經言『於一切法』者，此顯示於何法不分別……經言『如是知解已，而不住法想』者，此正顯示無分別」[0766a02–10] |
| Vasubandhu’s twenty-seven doubts, T1511/T1513 | The cutting of “the two views of self and dharma · the subtle hindrance” — the verse 「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」(T1511 [0796b20–21]); the Yijing verse 「由此是細障，如是知故斷」(T1513 [0884a22]). Glossing “clarifying that dharma and self are unreal” 「此之我、法二見是其見取，此謂細障」 (Kuiji citing Vasubandhu T1700 [0153c18] / Yijing T1513 [0884a23–24]) |
| Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699 | Belonging to 「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章」[0122c28]; 「『若人言佛說我見』者，此文近接前生……上破昔有所得正見不可得，今破其邪見亦無得，顯正般若未曾邪正」[0123b06–21] |
| Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698 | The fourth of the second round’s “function of grinding-the-views” — 「四、『佛說我見』下，明破諸見用」[0083b25–26]; 「不生法相，但是虛假非實法也」[0083c05] (then leading to the third, the propagation division) |
| Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700 | After Vasubandhu 「第三明法、我無實，於中有二，初、明無我，次、『發阿耨多羅』下，明無法」[0153c18–19]; after Asaṅga 「此下第二明入相應三昧不分別」[0153c24]; belonging to the foregoing part of 「第六行淨住中第三為不染行住」 (breaking self-mastery conduct-and-dwelling in name-and-form) [0154b11] |
Sense of “breaking the four views · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas”: this division follows the pivot (division 17, Ultimate No-Self · emptiness-of-dharmas) and, with the two “is-nots” of 「我見等即非我見等」 and 「不生法相·法相即非法相」, closes out §17’s second half breaking the four “views” — the first half (divisions 1–16) breaks the four “marks” (the marks of self · person · sentient being · life-span, the marks of the cognized object, subsumed under the affliction-hindrance); this division breaks the four “views” (the views of self · person · sentient being · life-span, the grasping view, subsumed under the cognitive hindrance). The three ancient masters all judge this division to be the text of “breaking the views · clarifying that self and dharma are unreal” (Jizang 「破其邪見亦無得」[0123b20], Zhiyi 「明破諸見用……諸見非實」[0083b26–27], Kuiji 「第三明法、我無實」[0153c18]), and the two renderings of Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse expressly mark “the two views of self and dharma” as the “subtle hindrance (the fine hindrance)” — 「見我即不見……此是微細障，見真如遠離」T1511 [0796b20–21], 「由此是細障，如是知故斷」T1513 [0884a22]. The “fine hindrance” belongs to the cognitive hindrance (the Yijing treatise’s earlier text 「煩惱、所知二障無故名圓具身」T1513 [0881a24]), removed only by 「二智及三昧」T1511 [0796c06] (the conventional wisdom · the first-meaning wisdom · the underlying samādhi) — this is the ancient-master ground of Shi Huijing’s §17 two-part “second half breaking the four views · cutting the cognitive hindrance” (of one lineage with the pivot-division 17’s Kuiji 「第二周為斷障，障即所知也」). This division’s “is-not” is applied to “views · the mark of dharmas,” not to “marks · sentient beings” (see register 3).
2 · Collation of the Variant Translations (six Chinese versions · the passage of the four views’ “is-not” · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas)
Key passage: the Buddha teaches the views of self and the rest (that person does not understand) / is-not the views of self and the rest · is-called the views of self and the rest / toward all dharmas thus know-see-believe-and-understand · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas / the mark of dharmas is-not the mark of dharmas · is-called the mark of dharmas
| Version | The passage of the four views’ “is-not” · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas (verbatim excerpt) | [loc] |
|---|---|---|
| Kumārajīva T235 (root) | 「須菩提！若人言『佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見』，須菩提！於意云何？是人解我所說義不？」「世尊！是人不解如來所說義。何以故？世尊說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」「須菩提！發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是信解，不生法相。須菩提！所言法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。」 | 0752b15–b23 |
| Bodhiruci T236a | 「須菩提！若人如是言：『佛說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。』須菩提！於意云何？是人所說，為正語不？」須菩提言：「不也，世尊！何以故？世尊！如來說我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，即非我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，是名我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見。」「須菩提！菩薩發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是信，如是不住法相。何以故？須菩提！所言法相、法相者，如來說即非法相，是名法相。」 | 0756c21–757a01 |
| Paramārtha T237 | 「須菩提！若有人言：『如來說我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見。』須菩提！汝意云何？是人言說，為正語不？」須菩提言：「不正，世尊！不正，修伽陀！何以故？如來所說我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見，即是非見，是故說我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見。」「須菩提！若人行菩薩乘，如是應知應見應信，一切諸法；如是應修，為令法想不得生起。何以故？須菩提！是法想、法想者，如來說即非想，故說法想。」 | 0766b08–b16 |
| Dharmagupta T238 | 「若此有，善實！如是說：『我見，如來說，眾生見、壽見、人見，如來說。』雖然，彼，善實！正說語？」善實言：「不如此，世尊！不如此，善逝！彼何所因？若彼，世尊！我見，如來說；非見，彼，如來說；彼故，說名我見者。」世尊言：「如是，此，善實！菩薩乘發行，一切法知應，見應，信解應。如信解，如無法想亦住。彼何所因？法想、法想者，善實！非想，此，如來說；彼故，說名法想者。」 | 0771b27–c06 |
| Xuanzang T220⑨ | 「若作是言：『如來宣說我見、有情見、命者見、士夫見、補特伽羅見、意生見、摩納婆見、作者見、受者見。』於汝意云何？如是所說為正語不？」善現答言：「不也！世尊！不也！善逝！如是所說非為正語。所以者何？如來所說我見、有情見、命者見、士夫見、補特伽羅見、意生見、摩納婆見、作者見、受者見即為非見，故名我見乃至受者見。」佛告善現：「諸有發趣菩薩乘者，於一切法應如是知、應如是見、應如是信解，如是不住法想。何以故？善現！法想法想者，如來說為非想，是故如來說名法想法想。」 | 0985b29–c10 |
| Yijing T239 | 「妙生！如有說云：『佛說我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見。』者，是為正說為不正耶？」妙生言：「不爾，世尊！何以故？若有我見如來說者，即是非見，故名我見。」「妙生！諸有發趣菩薩乘者，於一切法，應如是知，如是見，如是解。如是解者，乃至法想亦無所住。何以故？妙生！法想、法想者，如來說為非想，故名法想、法想。」 | 0775b09–b15 |
What the variants turn on:
- The name and number of the four “views”: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci have 「我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見」 (four views, with the same names as Kumārajīva’s first-half four “marks” but turned from “mark” to “view”); Paramārtha has 「我見、眾生見、壽者見、受者見」 (the fourth being “the view of receiver”); Dharmagupta has 「我見、眾生見、壽見、人見」 (a different order); Yijing has 「我見、眾生見、壽者見、更求趣見」 (the fourth being “the view of further-seeking-destiny”); Xuanzang alone has nine views 「我見、有情見、命者見、士夫見、補特伽羅見、意生見、摩納婆見、作者見、受者見」 (the item-by-item rendering of ātma-dṛṣṭi, sattva-dṛṣṭi, jīva-dṛṣṭi, pudgala-dṛṣṭi…, gathered below as “the view of self up to the view of receiver”). The point is that what is broken is the “view dṛṣṭi” (the grasping view), not the first half’s “mark saṃjñā／lakṣaṇa” — Vasubandhu 「明法、我無實」
[0153c18], Yijing 「斷我法二種」T1513 [0884a10]both judge this as the breaking of “the two views of self · dharma.” - The sentence-form of the “is-not”: Kumārajīva, Bodhiruci have the complete three-clause form 「我見等／即非我見等／是名我見等」; Paramārtha has 「即是非見，是故說……」 (one clause each for the is-not · the is-called, the four views fully listed); Dharmagupta has 「我見，如來說；非見，彼，如來說；彼故，說名我見者」 (the Able-to-Cut form · X · is-not X · is-called X); Xuanzang has 「即為非見，故名我見乃至受者見」 (one clause each for the is-not · the is-called, gathering the nine views by “up to”); Yijing’s is-not clause alone abbreviates to a single view “the view of self” 「若有我見如來說者，即是非見，故名我見」 (the four views listed in the question-opening, the is-not clause raising only the view of self to exemplify the rest). Kumārajīva’s and Bodhiruci’s three-clause form is complete, the other versions detailed-or-concise.
- “Not giving rise to a mark of dharmas / not abiding in a mark of dharmas / not coming to arise / nor abiding anywhere”: Kumārajīva has 「不生法相」
[0752b22](the most direct); Bodhiruci, Dharmagupta, Xuanzang have 「(如是)不住法相／不住法想」[0756c28·0771c04·0985c08]; Paramārtha has 「為令法想不得生起」[0766b14]; Yijing has 「法想亦無所住」[0775b14]. The difference of “not arising” and “not abiding” binds to the one phrase na ... dharma-saṃjñā pravarteta／notpādayitavyā — Kuiji 「證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智」[0154a12–13]glosses “not arising” as “not seeing the clung-to mark of dharmas” (not that there is no mark of dharmas at all, but that one does not give rise to the mark of dharmas wholly-imagined as real). - The rendering and repeated term of “the mark of dharmas / the conception of dharmas”: Kumārajīva, Paramārtha (later text after “法想”), Jizang, the Kuiji lineage have 「法相」; Bodhiruci, Dharmagupta, Xuanzang, Yijing have 「法想」 (the same dharma-saṃjñā, the rendering-difference of “mark” and “conception” — saṃjñā bears both the senses of “mark · conception”). The Able-to-Cut repeated terms: Bodhiruci 「所言法相、法相者，如來說即非法相」
[0756c29–757a01], Dharmagupta 「法想、法想者……說名法想者」[0771c04–06], Xuanzang 「法想法想者……說名法想法想」[0985c09–10], Yijing 「法想、法想者……故名法想、法想」[0775b14–15], Paramārtha 「法想、法想者，如來說即非想」[0766b15–16]— the Able-to-Cut four lineages (Bodhiruci · Paramārtha · Dharmagupta · Xuanzang · Yijing) all carry the repeated term in the “法相／法想” clause (the same name raised twice), the “is-not” form running “X · X-, is-not X, is-called X”; Kumārajīva alone gives the single 「所言法相者，即非法相，是名法相」[0752b22–23](not repeating “法相”). The repeated term is the textual feature of the Dharmalakṣaṇa-lineage transmission; recorded verbatim, not abridged. - The question-opening “understand the meaning of what I teach / right speech”: Kumārajīva has 「是人解我所說義不」 (asking whether he understands the Buddha’s meaning); Bodhiruci, Paramārtha, Dharmagupta, Xuanzang, Yijing have 「為正語(正說)不」 (asking whether what is spoken is right speech). What binds them is one — the delusion of “if someone says the Buddha teaches the view of self, he then clings that the Buddha really speaks of a sayable view of self,” of which Kuiji 「言必有體，心不緣無……所執之義必成其有」
[0153c21–23](the Hīnayāna clinging that verbal designation entails a real substance) is the precise resolution.
3 · “Is-Not” and the Three Natures (the eye · this division’s two “is-nots” · §17 second half · emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance · emphasized)
This division’s “is-not” appears twice: 「我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見 — 即非我見等 — 是名我見等」[0752b18–20] and 「法相 — 即非法相 — 是名法相」[0752b22–23] — the two “is-nots” jointly applied to “the four views” and “the mark of dharmas” (the grasping view · the clung-to dharma).
★ Anchoring to the second half (the eye · the second half’s emptiness-of-dharmas): this division stands after §17’s pivot (the second half, divisions 17–32). 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 · the views of self and the rest being “marks saṃjñā”); at this division (second half · emptiness-of-dharmas) the “is-not” is applied to “the four views (dṛṣṭi)” and “the mark of dharmas” — breaking the dharma-clinging (the dharma-self) of “the self-view · the dharma-view,” the two views, what is countered being the cognitive hindrance (breaking the four views · the fine hindrance). What is broken turns, binding to 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]) which has already opened the gate of emptiness-of-dharmas; this division is its closing-out at the one place of “the grasping view” — “the view of self” is not only the clinging to the mark of the cognized object, but the grasping view itself is also removed (the is-not), breaking the subtle clinging of “there really is a view of self that can be cut and attained.” Looping back to the pivot-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 31 advances to break the two-view fine hindrance of “there really is a view of self · a view of dharma, sayable and cuttable” — a closing-out application of the ancient masters’ “the second round cutting the cognitive hindrance” (Kuiji after Vasubandhu, division 17 [0127c01–03]). Vasubandhu expressly marks these two views as the “subtle hindrance” T1511 [0796b21], Yijing “the fine hindrance” T1513 [0884a22] — the fine hindrance is subsumed under the cognitive hindrance.
First, 「我見等 — 即非我見等 — 是名我見等」 mapped onto the three natures (the station of breaking the four views):
- The four views of self and the rest (X) is the other-dependent (依他起) — the grasping view that beings’ deluded feeling raises conditioned on the five aggregates (Kuiji 「於諸法本無我、法，眾生妄情執為實有」
[0154a02–03]; the Buddha 「隨其情，說其解，而說為我、法」[0154a03–04]). Conventionally, in accord with feeling, sayable, hence “is-called.” - Is-not the views of self and the rest is the removal of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) — not the verbally-designated “view of self having a real substance” (Kuiji 「非謂言詮即有實體……非如其執即實有體，故云即非我見」
[0154a04–07]; Vasubandhu 「如來說彼我見即是不見，以其無實……說我見即是虛妄見」T1511 [0796b22–25]). “Is-not” removes the clinging of “there really is a view of self that can be grasped and cut” — the view of self is originally without a real object (Yijing 「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故……所有我境元來是無」T1513 [0884a15–16]), hence “seeing self is just not-seeing”T1511 [0796b20]. - Is-called the views of self and the rest is the setting up of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成, and also the conventional provisional naming) — Kuiji 「是名我見等者，謂如來假說也」
[0154a08]. Without a real object yet provisionally spoken in accord with feeling, the perfectly-accomplished made manifest (the view of self as false discrimination precisely manifests no-self suchness).
Second, 「法相 — 即非法相 — 是名法相」 mapped onto the three natures:
- The mark of dharmas (X) is the other-dependent (依他起) — the provisionally-spoken mark of dharmas (Kuiji 「所言法相者，謂假說法相也」
[0154a24]). - Is-not the mark of dharmas is the removal of the wholly-imagined (遍計) — not the really-clung mark of dharmas (Kuiji 「即非法相者，非是實執之法相也」
[0154a25]; Vasubandhu 「以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」T1511 [0796b28–29]). - Is-called the mark of dharmas is the setting up of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成) — provisionally spoken yet not really clung, the very making-manifest of “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” (Kuiji 「證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智」
[0154a12–13]).
The eye of this division: the two “is-nots” both pivot on “seeing is just not-seeing · without reality, falsely · the fine hindrance removed” — removing the wholly-imagined of “the view of self · the view of dharma really exist, sayable and cuttable” (the is-not), while preserving the conventional of “provisionally spoken in accord with feeling” (the is-called). Vasubandhu’s one verse threads it: 「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」T1511 [0796b20–21] — the view of self and the view of dharma are just not-seeing (without a real object · the is-not), these two views being the “subtle hindrance (the fine hindrance · the cognitive hindrance),” and at “seeing suchness” they are naturally removed. Yijing 「斷我法二種，非證覺無故」「是故見無見，無境虛妄執」「由此是細障，如是知故斷」T1513 [0884a10·a14·a22] glosses the same. Its path of removal is only by 「二智及三昧」T1511 [0796c06] (the conventional wisdom · the first-meaning wisdom · the underlying samādhi; Jizang 「二智及三昧，知是世諦智，見是第一義諦智，信解者是二智所依三昧」T1699 [0123b28–c01]; Kuiji 「知見勝解＝奢摩他·毘鉢舍那·三摩提」[0154a16–22]). 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 twofold application of it at the station of “the view of self · the mark of dharmas (breaking the four views · the fine hindrance),” and the closing-out of §17’s second half emptiness-of-dharmas · breaking the four views at the one place of “the grasping view.” “Not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” (the wholly-imagined real clinging not arising while the suchness-wisdom appears) is the transformation-of-the-basis sense of “let the mind arise abiding nowhere” 〔from S5-P06〕 (see register 7).
4 · Variant Readings of the Ancient Masters (by school · the two views of self and dharma · the subtle hindrance · the two wisdoms and samādhi · emphasized)
Core emphasis — Vasubandhu’s Vajracchedikā-śāstra three verses (only following the sound · seeing self is just not-seeing · the two wisdoms and samādhi), preserved in two Chinese renderings: Vasubandhu takes the two views of “the self-view · the dharma-view” as the “subtle hindrance (the fine hindrance),” anchored item-by-item to the scripture 「即非我見……即非法相」; his verse 「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離」 directly judges the two views as the fine hindrance (subsumed under the cognitive hindrance), removed only by “the two wisdoms and samādhi.” The two renderings differ in name, are one in sense. Kuiji, after Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, reads this division directly as “clarifying that dharma and self are unreal · when witnessing suchness, not seeing the clung-to mark of dharmas is called right wisdom.”
Vasubandhu T1511 (Bodhiruci rendering) glossing the verse “the ordinary grasp upside-down · far removed from self and dharma” [0796b11–12]:
「但隨於音聲，凡夫取顛倒；非無二得道，遠離於我法。」
「此義云何？非無我無法，離此二事而得菩提。云何得菩提？遠離彼二見故得於菩提」[0796b16–18]. Then glossing the verse “seeing self is just not-seeing” [0796b20–21]:
「見我即不見，無實虛妄見；此是微細障，見真如遠離。」
- Glossing “the view of self is just not-seeing”: 「是故見即不見，無其實義，以虛妄分別、以是無我，是故如來說彼我見即是不見，以其無實。無實者，即是無物。以是義故，說我見即是虛妄見」
[0796b22–25]. - Glossing “the view of dharma too is not-seeing”: 「如是示現我見不見故，見法者亦是不見……此復何義？以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」
[0796b25–29]. - Glossing “the subtle hindrance”: 「何故此二見說名不見？偈言『此是微細障，見真如遠離』故。此復云何？彼見我見法，此是微細障。以不見彼二故，是以見法而得遠離」
[0796b29–c03]. - Glossing “the two wisdoms and samādhi”
[0796c06]: 「二智及三昧，如是得遠離……示現世智第一義智，及依止三昧得遠離彼障」[0796c06–09].
Vasubandhu T1513 (Yijing rendering) glossing the verse “cutting the two of self and dharma” [0884a10]:
「斷我法二種，非證覺無故。」
「言我法二種體是無故。此兩雖言得斷，而亦不證菩提。是誰之斷而能獲耶？答：由二見之斷，彼二之見是所除故」[0884a11–13]. The verse 「是故見無見，無境虛妄執」[0884a14]: 「由此故知我體是無。諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故。意道所有我境元來是無，文云『故名我見』者，明虛妄分別有也。如是於無我理顯見無見性已，亦是顯其於法見無見性……然其法想亦是非相性故，猶如我見」[0884a15–20]. The verse 「由此是細障，如是知故斷」[0884a22]: 「此之我、法二見是其見取，此謂細障。由於二事如是正知非見性故，方能除斷」[0884a23–24]. The verse 「由得二種智，及定彼方除」[0884a27]: 「謂以覆俗、勝義智，及以此二所依之定，方除彼障」[0884a28–29].
〔Correspondence of the two renderings: 見我即不見／是故見無見 (無實虛妄見／無境虛妄執) · 此是微細障／由此是細障 (見真如遠離／如是知故斷) · 二智及三昧／由得二種智及定 — two Chinese renderings of one Vasubandhu treatise, differing in name, one in sense. Both take the two views of “the self-view · the dharma-view” as the “subtle hindrance (the fine hindrance · the cognitive hindrance),” removed only by the two wisdoms and samādhi (the conventional wisdom · the supreme-meaning wisdom · the underlying definite-concentration).〕
Asaṅga T1510 (Dharmagupta rendering): this division belongs to the eighteen abodes’ eighteenth, seeking-the-Buddha-stage-above (the ultimate abode [0758c04]), in the Buddha-stage six attainments’ mind-attainment · purity of conduct-and-dwelling’s “breaking self-mastery conduct-and-dwelling in name-and-form,” the “entering the corresponding samādhi without discrimination” — 「無所見中，入相應三昧時不分別，謂：如所不分別，及何人、何法、何方便、云何不分別？此後具說。經言『須菩提！若有人如是言：「如來說我見」』等，此等顯示如所不分別。云何得顯？如外道說我，如來說為我見故，安置人無我；又為說有此我見故，安置法無我。若有彼我見，是見所攝」[0765c22–766a01]; 「經言『須菩提！菩薩乘發行』者，此顯示何人無分別。經言『於一切法』者，此顯示於何法不分別。經言『應如是知，應如是見，應如是勝解』者，此顯示增上心、增上智故，於無分別中知、見、勝解……經言『如是知解已，而不住法想』者，此正顯示無分別。經言『法想、法想者，即非法想，是名法想』者，此顯示法想中不共義及相應義」[0766a02–11]. 〔Asaṅga’s passage here sets the scriptural-text’s placement among the abodes (the view of self = setting down the no-self-of-person · this view of self = setting down the no-self-of-dharma; knowing-seeing-and-resolving = the non-discrimination of śamatha · vipaśyanā · samādhi); the opening-out of its “subtle hindrance · two wisdoms and samādhi” is supplied by Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse, see the Vasubandhu entry above T1511 [0796b20–c09].〕
Jizang (Three-Treatise) T1699: schematized under 「『以三千世界碎為微塵』下，第十四章」[0122c28]. Glossing the come-from: 「『若人言佛說我見』者，此文近接前生，明凡夫貪著其事生也。凡夫貪著由於我見，我見既無，貪著何由有耶？」[0123b06–08]. Breaking two doubts — 「時會便疑：佛說凡夫起我見，故知有我見可起……此是一疑也。又二乘人云：先有我見故斷我見，故得無我智，是名得道。此是二疑」[0123b10–13]; 「破初疑云……佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也」[0123b14–16]; 「即是答二乘人，亦不得言先有我見，斷我見故得無我智。今乃明我本來畢竟不可得，何所斷故言無我耶？」[0123b21–23]. Glossing “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas”: 「『應如是知』者，上明我見本來不可得，今明法見亦本來不可得，故舉我列法，故云應如是知、見、信解，不生法相也。『所言法相者，則非法相』者，亦如我義。佛說我既非我，說法相亦非法相也」[0123b23–28]. Glossing knowing-seeing-and-believing-and-understanding: 「論偈云『二智及三昧，知是世諦智』，見是第一義諦智。信解者，是二智所依三昧，依三昧故發生二智也……菩薩了人法空，具足二智也」[0123b28–c02].
Zhiyi (Tiantai) T1698: schematized as the fourth of the second round’s “function of grinding-the-views” — 「四、『佛說我見』下，明破諸見用。凡夫謂諸見決定是見，今佛說非見，以本來無所有，諸見非實，可改為正」[0083b25–27]. Glossing not giving rise to a mark of dharmas: 「當如上所說理而生知見也。『如是信解』者，理深未明，推信為解耳。不生法相，但是虛假非實法也，如來說非法相是名法相，相窮理盡明，其唯如來說，言非實故，應從信矣」[0083c02–07]. 〔Zhiyi judges this passage as the end of the second round’s main teaching and the beginning of the third, the propagation division [0083b28–c01].〕
Kuiji (Yogācāra) T1700: after Vasubandhu 「第三明法、我無實，於中有二，初、明無我，次、『發阿耨多羅』下，明無法」[0153c18–19]; after Asaṅga 「此下第二明入相應三昧不分別，於中初、明如所不分別為入之方便，次、發菩提心下，明何人、何法不分別」[0153c24–27]. Glossing “is-not the view of self” (no-self): 「謂於諸法本無我、法，眾生妄情執為實有，佛為破彼執故，隨其情，說其解，而說為我、法，非謂言詮即有實體，縱令心取，何廢無真……謂世尊隨情逐解，假說我、人，非如其執即實有體，故云『即非我見、人見』等也。『是名我見』等者，謂如來假說也」[0154a02–08]. Glossing “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” (no-dharma): 「此第二明無法也……謂若發心者，證真如時，不見所執法相，名為正智也」[0154a11–13]; citing Asaṅga 「知見勝解＝奢摩他·毘鉢舍那·三摩提……謂前欲修止故，發智名之為知；欲修觀故，生智名之為見也」[0154a13–22]. Summarizing “the mark of dharmas is-not the mark of dharmas”: 「『所言法相者』者，謂假說法相也。『即非法相』者，非是實執之法相也」[0154a24–25].
The three ancient-master streams (Three-Treatise · Tiantai · Yogācāra) at this division converge upon “breaking the two views of self and dharma · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas”: the view of self and the view of dharma are just not-seeing (without a real object · false discrimination, hence the is-not), the clung-to being unreal yet provisionally spoken in accord with feeling (the is-called). Jizang “the view of self is originally unattainable · the view of dharma too is originally unattainable · the two wisdoms and samādhi,” Zhiyi “the views are unreal · originally nothing · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas is but provisional and unreal,” Kuiji (after Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) “clarifying that dharma and self are unreal · beings’ deluded feeling clings them as really existent · when witnessing suchness not seeing the clung-to mark of dharmas is called right wisdom · knowing-seeing-and-resolving = the calming-observing samādhi” — each anchored item-by-item to 「我見即非·法相即非·不生法相」. The judgment of the two views as the “subtle hindrance (the fine hindrance),” removed only by the “two wisdoms and samādhi,” is uniquely disclosed by Vasubandhu’s two renderings of the treatise-verse (
T1511 [0796b20–c09]/T1513 [0884a10–29]) — this is the ancient masters’ settled reading of this division’s “breaking the four views · cutting the cognitive hindrance,” and the scriptural ground of §17’s second half (Vasubandhu directly judging the two views of self and dharma as the fine hindrance · subsumed under the cognitive hindrance).
5 · Terminology
我見／人見／眾生見／壽者見 ātma-dṛṣṭi ／ pudgala-dṛṣṭi ／ sattva-dṛṣṭi ／ jīva-dṛṣṭi (the four “views” — the grasping view, distinct from the first half’s four “marks” saṃjñā; Paramārtha’s fourth 「受者見」 · Yijing 「更求趣見」 · Xuanzang opens to nine views 「乃至受者見」 see register 2) ·
不生法相 na dharma-saṃjñā pravarteta (not giving rise to the mark of dharmas wholly-imagined as real; Bodhiruci · Xuanzang 「不住法相／法想」 · Paramārtha 「法想不得生起」 · Yijing 「法想亦無所住」; Kuiji 「證真如時不見所執法相，名為正智」[0154a12–13]) ·
法相／法想 dharma-saṃjñā (the two renderings “mark” “conception” — saṃjñā bears both senses; the Kuiji lineage 「法相」 · the Able-to-Cut lineage 「法想」 see register 2) ·
微細障／細障 sūkṣma-āvaraṇa (the hindrance of the two views of self · dharma, subsumed under the cognitive hindrance; Vasubandhu 「此是微細障，見真如遠離」T1511 [0796b21], Yijing 「此之我、法二見是其見取，此謂細障」T1513 [0884a23–24]) ·
我法二見 (the view-of-person-self · the view-of-dharma-self pudgala-dṛṣṭi ／ dharma-dṛṣṭi; Vasubandhu 「遠離彼二見故得於菩提」T1511 [0796b17–18], Yijing 「斷我法二種」T1513 [0884a10]) ·
見取 dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa (Yijing 「此之我、法二見是其見取」T1513 [0884a23]) ·
二智及三昧 (the conventional wisdom／the first-meaning wisdom · the underlying samādhi; Vasubandhu 「示現世智第一義智，及依止三昧得遠離彼障」T1511 [0796c08–09], Yijing 「覆俗、勝義智，及以此二所依之定」T1513 [0884a28–29]; Jizang 「知是世諦智·見是第一義諦智·信解是二智所依三昧」T1699 [0123b28–c01]; Kuiji 「知＝奢摩他·見＝毘鉢舍那·勝解＝三摩提」[0154a16–18]) ·
無境（虛妄分別） (Yijing 「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故……所有我境元來是無」T1513 [0884a15–16]). 〔Sanskrit as a pronunciation aid; for the rendering-differences of “the four views” “the mark / conception of dharmas” see register 2.〕
6 · Simile and Rhetoric (the reversal of breaking-the-views · the parallel-removal complex of self and dharma)
This division has no concrete simile of the scripture’s own (the empty-space simile at division 4 · the Sumeru simile at divisions 10 · 11 · 17 · the patience-sage simile at division 14 · the see-by-form-seek-by-sound six similes at divisions 26 · 32). The point of its rhetoric lies in the reversal of “speaking of the view of self yet is-not the view of self,” and the parallel-removal complex of “the view of self · the mark of dharmas”:
- The reversal of “speaking-yet-is-not”: the positive setting of “if someone says ‘the Buddha teaches the view of self’” (seemingly granting the Buddha really speaks of a view of self), then abruptly reversed by “that person does not understand … is-not the view of self” (the Buddha’s speaking of the view of self is precisely to clarify the view of self’s unreality), and again gathered to “is-called the view of self” (provisionally spoken in accord with feeling). This brushstroke of “speaking that is just non-speaking” shares the structure of division 21’s “the teacher of Dharma has no dharma to teach, is-called teaching Dharma” and division 25’s “the ordinary are-not the ordinary” — all “removing the real clinging (the is-not) while preserving the provisional speaking (the is-called).” Vasubandhu 「佛欲明我見是無故說我見耳，非說我見便有我見可說也」 〔Jizang’s words
T1699 [0123b15–16]〕 points to the crux of this reversal. - The parallel-removal complex of “the view of self · the mark of dharmas”: this division’s two “is-nots” are juxtaposed in the same form — 「我見等即非我見等」 (breaking the view of self · the person-self) and 「法相即非法相」 (breaking the mark of dharmas · the dharma-self), raising dharma by self (Jizang 「舉我列法」
T1699 [0123b25]), the complex doubling of two removals, what is shown being one (the two views of self and dharma both unreal · the fine hindrance). Vasubandhu 「如是示現我見不見故，見法者亦是不見……以見法相即不見相，如彼我見即非見故」T1511 [0796b25–29]— by the view of self’s is-not exemplifying the view of dharma’s is-not, the complex doubling of two removals precisely shows “two views, one hindrance (the subtle hindrance).” - The textual feature of the Able-to-Cut “repeated term”: the Able-to-Cut four lineages all make the repeated term in the “法相／法想” clause (Bodhiruci 「法相、法相者」 · Xuanzang 「法想法想者」 · Yijing 「法想、法想者」), the same name raised twice and then the “is-not · is-called” — the textual feature of the complex strengthens the double sense of “provisionally spoken (raised again) yet unreal (the is-not).” This register shows its rhetoric in this division (the reversal of breaking-the-views and the parallel-removal complex of self and dharma), while the concrete similes are emphasized at divisions 4 · 14 · 26 · 32.
7 · Cross-Reading
- Twenty Verses (T1590): consciousness-only without object · removing the clung-to real dharma — this division’s 「我見如來說為非見，以無境故」 〔Yijing’s words, register 4〕 is the scriptural counterpart of the Twenty Verses’ “refuting the mind-external real object · the object of the two clingings of self and dharma is unreal” (the self-object is originally non-existent · false discrimination, of one lineage with the Twenty Verses’ refutation of the real object).
- Thirty Verses (T1586): the two emptinesses · the two clingings · transformation-of-the-basis (v.29 the perfectly-accomplished) — this division’s 「我法二見·不生法相·二智三昧得遠離」 is the scriptural counterpart of the Thirty Verses’ “far removing the two graspings · casting off the two coarse-heavinesses · the transformation-of-the-basis witnessing suchness” (the two views being the two clingings, the two wisdoms and samādhi being the non-discriminating wisdom · the subsequently-attained wisdom).
- Madhyānta-vibhāga (T1600): the chapter discerning the real · the two emptinesses · the cognitive hindrance purified — this division’s “the two views of self and dharma = the subtle hindrance (the fine hindrance · the cognitive hindrance)” is the treatise-counterpart of the Madhyānta’s “the cognitive hindrance purified · the real of the unsurpassed vehicle” (the second half’s emptiness-of-dharmas · subsumed under the cognitive hindrance).
- Cheng weishi lun (T1585): the two hindrances · the two clingings (the dharma-self clung-to by the cognitive hindrance · the view-grasping) · the four wisdoms (the non-discriminating wisdom · the subsequently-attained wisdom) — this division’s Vasubandhu “subtle hindrance” “the two wisdoms and samādhi” 〔see register 4〕 is the scriptural counterpart of Cheng weishi lun’s “the cognitive hindrance · the two wisdoms of the path-of-seeing · cutting the hindrance by samādhi”; 「不生法相·證真如不見所執法相名為正智」 〔Kuiji’s words, register 4〕 is the treatise’s technical language of “the non-discriminating wisdom witnessing suchness · removing the wholly-imagined mark of dharmas.”
- Heart Sūtra (T251): 「無智亦無得」「遠離顛倒夢想」 — this division’s 「我見即不見·見真如遠離·不生法相」 is the same dharma-station as the Heart Sūtra’s “far removing the upside-down (false discrimination) · no-attainment (not clinging to a real mark of dharmas).”
This division’s 「我見即非我見·法相即非法相·不生法相·我法二見即微細障」 is the scriptural counterpart of the Twenty Verses’ · Thirty Verses’ · Cheng weishi lun’s “the two clingings · the two hindrances · the two wisdoms · transformation-of-the-basis.” 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 「即非我見·不生法相」, Cheng weishi lun says the same matter in the technical language of “removing the two clingings of self and dharma · cutting the cognitive hindrance (the fine hindrance) · the non-discriminating wisdom witnessing suchness.” This division’s breaking the dharma-clinging of the two views of “the view of self · the view of dharma” is the closing-out of §17’s second half “breaking the four views · cutting the cognitive hindrance” 〔from The Diamond Sūtra’s Self-Reenactment S5-P07; the folding of the two halves · the structure of the four marks turning to the four views, see division 17, registers 3 · 4〕. 〔Convention: list only what is genuinely pertinent; no forced pegging — linkage, not padding. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha has no frontal correspondence here, omitted. Cheng weishi lun is in progress — a stable name-citation, to add a link once complete. The ancient masters’ two-view · subtle-hindrance · two-wisdoms-and-samādhi citations are at register 4, not repeated.〕
8 · East–West Observation (Western perspective · observation, not adjudication)
- The breaking-the-view of “speaking of the view of self yet is-not the view of self · no-object falsely” ↔ Western philosophy’s “deconstruction of the substantial self” (Hume’s “the self is a bundle of perceptions, no substantial I”; Wittgenstein on “I” not designating an object): the West too deconstructs the substantial self · breaks the reference of “I”; yet the Yogācāra reading of “is-not the view of self” is not merely a denial of the substantial self’s existence — after “is-not” there is “is-called” (provisionally spoken in accord with feeling · the conventional not abolished), and what is removed is the “grasping view (the view of self · the view of dharma)” itself (Vasubandhu 「彼見我見法，此是微細障」
T1511 [0796c02]), what is made manifest by cutting the two hindrances · the transformation-of-the-basis, not a purely epistemological breaking of self. The West mostly stops at the proposition “no substantial self,” while Yogācāra advances to the cultivation-and-witnessing of “the view of self · the view of dharma, the two views, being the cognitive hindrance · removed only by the two wisdoms and samādhi.” - The two-views-as-hindrance of “seeing self is just not-seeing · seeing suchness it is removed” ↔ Western epistemology’s “the observer paradox / the unseeability of the seeing” (e.g. Wittgenstein’s “the eye is not in the visual field”; phenomenology on the concealment of “the seeing I”): comparable on the one sense of “the grasping view itself being a hindrance”; yet Yogācāra’s “seeing is just not-seeing” is not a logical paradox — it is that “the view of self and the view of dharma have no real object (no-object), hence are just not-seeing, these two views being the subtle hindrance, naturally removed when seeing suchness” (Yijing 「諸有我見，如來說為非見，以無境故」
T1513 [0884a15]), a cutting of the cognitive hindrance and witnessing of suchness, a fruit of practice with something cut and something witnessed, not a static epistemic paradox. - The transformation-of-the-basis of “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas · the two wisdoms and samādhi” ↔ the West’s “breaking conceptual grasping · non-conceptual knowing” (Bergson’s “intuition” beyond the conceptual; phenomenology’s “epoché / reduction” removing clinging): comparable; yet Yogācāra’s “not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” is not a vague de-conceptualization — it is that “when witnessing suchness, not seeing the clung-to mark of dharmas, is called right wisdom” (Kuiji
[0154a12–13]), requiring the specific calming-observing cultivation-and-witnessing of “the conventional wisdom · the first-meaning wisdom · the underlying samādhi” (VasubandhuT1511 [0796c08]) (knowing = śamatha · seeing = vipaśyanā · resolving = samādhi), a cutting of the hindrance with stages and an underlying samādhi, not a vague intuition or epoché. - The point of the observation: the West tends to take “no substantial self · the seeing unseeable · breaking conceptual clinging” as the propositions of epistemology · the philosophy of language (why the self is not a substance · why the seeing is concealed · how concepts obscure); the ancient masters take “the view of self and the view of dharma is-not · seeing suchness it is removed · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas” as the cultivation-and-witnessing of cutting the two views of self and dharma (the subtle hindrance · the cognitive hindrance) · the two wisdoms and samādhi · the transformation-of-the-basis witnessing suchness (what is removed being the dharma-clinging of the two views, the two wisdoms and samādhi being the specific practice of its cutting the hindrance). The deconstruction of a proposition 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 [0752b15–b23] (root · Knowing and Seeing Do Not Arise). The six versions’ passage of the four views’ “is-not” · not giving rise to a mark of dharmas [loc]: see register 2 — Bodhiruci T0236a [0756c21–757a01] · Paramārtha T0237 [0766b08–b16] · Dharmagupta T0238 [0771b27–c06] · Xuanzang T220⑨ [0985b29–c10] · Yijing T0239 [0775b09–b15]. Sectioning / treatise sources: Asaṅga T1510a [0765c22–0766a13·0758c04] · Vasubandhu T1511 [0796a01–0796c09] (verses [0796b11–12·b20–21·c06]) · Vasubandhu T1513 [0884a08–b06] (verses [0884a10·a14·a22·a27]). Ancient masters: Jizang T1699 [0122c28·0123b06–c05] · Zhiyi T1698 [0083b25–c07] · Kuiji T1700 [0153b09·0153c16–0154a25·0154b11].
Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 31 · Knowing and Seeing Do Not Arise · apparatus · Spring 2026