金剛般若波羅蜜經 義疏通講

The prologue is pure narrative — it is the one division in the whole sūtra with no “is-not” (即非) — so the Yogācāra here is not a matter of taking the three natures to dismantle a sentence, but of seeing how this stretch of the Buddha’s ordinary conduct is itself the Dharma.

The Twofold Prologue: the Prologue-of-Witness and the Prologue-of-Occasion

The ancient masters read the opening passage as two prologues. The first part — 「如是我聞，一時，佛在舍衛國祇樹給孤獨園，與大比丘眾千二百五十人俱」— is the prologue-of-witness (證信序): the six factors are all in place — faith, hearing, time, teacher, place, assembly (the “six attainments,” 六成就). To set out these six is to give rise to faith, so the reader knows the sūtra has provenance and is no fabrication. Kuiji gathers this under the “preamble of antecedents” (文前由致), which means the same. Then 「著衣持鉢，入城乞食，次第乞已，還至本處，飯食，洗足，敷座而坐」 is the prologue-of-occasion (發起序): Jizang says, 「塗行乞食，發起正經」—— it is precisely this stretch of ordinary alms-round that draws out Subhūti’s question in the next division, the question from which the whole sūtra’s dialogue arises.

The Everyday Is the Other-Dependent, and the Other-Dependent Is the Truly-Perfected: How Yogācāra Sees This Ordinary Stretch

The prologue does not contain a single “is-not.” Does that mean it carries no Yogācāra meaning? It does not.

Yogācāra teaches that every conditioned phenomenon is dependent-arising (依他起, paratantra — “dependent on other,” that is, arising in reliance on a manifold of conditions). The Buddha’s whole sequence of acts — robing, taking the bowl, entering the city, begging door by door in order, returning, eating, washing the feet, spreading the seat, sitting down — is just such a stream of dependent arising, thought-moment after thought-moment, utterly ordinary. And the point is this: within this ordinary stretch the Buddha has not yet spoken a single word of Dharma, and yet prajñā is already present in this walking, standing, sitting, and lying.

This brings out the most essential layer of Yogācāra: the perfectly-accomplished is not apart from the other-dependent (圓成實不離依他起). The perfectly-accomplished (圓成實, pariniṣpanna) is the reality that shows itself once phenomena have been emptied of the false clinging to “real existence outside the mind”; it is not somewhere else — it is right upon this dependently-arisen everyday. So the place of awakening is not far off and waits on nothing recondite — it is here, in the ordinary acts of begging, washing the feet, and laying out the seat. Zhiyi long ago pointed to just this sense: of the act of arranging the seat he says 「即諸法空為座」—— even to spread a single seat and sit is already to embody the emptiness of all dharmas.

Teaching by the Body: Manifestation, Not Words

The marvel of the prologue lies in the word “manifestation” (示現). The Buddha utters not a word; he merely robes, begs, and seats himself — yet this stretch of the everyday is itself the bodily teaching of the highest truth: shown by the body, not declared in speech. The vast prajñā of the whole sūtra is first held up, wordlessly, through one most ordinary passage of daily life: the Dharma is not on the lips, it is here in this plain, present dependent-arising. The reader of a sūtra is usually waiting to hear some earth-shaking pronouncement; the Diamond Sūtra first lets you watch a man quietly finish his meal, wash his feet, and arrange his seat.

Yogācāra as Mirror: in the Prologue, Mirroring Only — No Forced Doctrinal Peg

This division is pure narrative; it has no frontal exposition of the two emptinesses, the three natures, or the transformation of the basis (轉依). So the Yogācāra treatises (Baifa, the Thirty Verses, the Twenty Verses, Madhyānta-vibhāga, the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun) have no direct treatise-correspondence here. The reading above — “the everyday is the other-dependent, the other-dependent is the perfectly-accomplished” — takes Yogācāra as a mirror to reflect the passage; it does not claim that the prologue is expounding some particular treatise. It is mirroring, no more, not a peg forced in. Nor does the prologue find its cross-reading in the Heart Sūtra (which has no prologue at all, opening straight into 「觀自在菩薩，行深般若」), but in the parallel six-attainment prologues of the divisions of the Great Prajñāpāramitā. The Dharma of prajñā waits until the next division — Subhūti’s request and the World-Honored One’s answer — to unfold, phrase by phrase, in the “is-not”; and only then does the mirror of Yogācāra truly come to bear.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 1 · The Origin of the Dharma Assembly · exposition · Spring 2026

This is Subhūti’s opening question — in the whole sūtra the “is-not” (即非) appears only in the Buddha’s answering passages, and here there is not one. So the Yogācāra here is not a matter of taking the three natures to dismantle a sentence, but of seeing how the “abiding” and “subduing” these two questions ask after are, from the start, matters of the mind-consciousness: the question itself already lays in place the work of treating the mind.

The Question Precedes the Breaking: Two Acts — First Praise, Then Request

In this division Subhūti rises from his seat, first utters a word of praise — 「希有世尊」, “How rare, World-Honored One” — and then puts two questions: 「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，應云何住？云何降伏其心？」, that one who has set out for anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi — how should he abide, how should he subdue his mind? The breaking of clinging that runs through the whole sūtra waits upon the Buddha’s answer to unfold phrase by phrase; here, at the opening question, the frontal breaking has not yet begun. The three ancient masters all divide this passage into two parts — “praise” and “request”: Jizang as 「稱歎、請問」 (praising, then asking), Zhiyi as 「述讚、今問」 (lauding, then now questioning), Kuiji as 「讚嘆、發請」 (extolling, then raising the request). First the praise, then the request.

The Praise: 善護念、善付囑 — Sustaining the Bodhisattvas, So the Buddha-Lineage Is Not Cut Off

What Subhūti praises is not a vague exclamation of wonder but a judgment of two concrete acts of the Buddha’s merit: 「如來善護念諸菩薩，善付囑諸菩薩」— the Tathāgata well sustains and guards the bodhisattvas, well entrusts the bodhisattvas. This “guarding-and-mindfulness, entrusting” (護念、付囑) Asaṅga and Vasubandhu read very concretely. Asaṅga judges it as “the lineage not cut off” (種性不斷): good upholding (護念) is the sustaining of bodhisattvas already matured, and entrusting (付囑) is the committing of bodhisattvas not yet matured to those who have already received such sustaining — these two acts together precisely 「顯示種性不斷」 (display that the lineage is unbroken), keeping the Buddha’s lineage, the very root-sprout of bodhi, in unbroken succession. Vasubandhu draws the distinction further: 善護念 is spoken with respect to “bodhisattvas of mature faculties” (根熟菩薩), 善付囑 with respect to “bodhisattvas of faculties not yet mature” (根未熟菩薩).

Seen through the Yogācāra eye, this praise already lands on the matter of “lineage” (種性). Whether a being is fit to become a Buddha, and when, Yogācāra refers back to the innately possessed bodhi-lineage — the undefiled seeds (無漏種子) within the 阿賴耶識 (ālaya-vijñāna); and the Buddha’s guarding and entrusting are precisely the protecting and increasing of this lineage, so that it does not regress and is carried on. So this praise is no courtesy: it is the judgment of the Buddha’s act of compassion-and-wisdom in sustaining beings’ innately held Buddha-seed and keeping it from being cut off.

The Request: 應住、降伏 — What These Two Questions Ask After Is, in Each Case, a Matter of the Mind-Consciousness

Praise done, the request follows. Kumārajīva alone makes this “two questions” here — 「應云何住？云何降伏其心？」, how should one abide, and how subdue the mind. (The other five witnesses mostly add a 「修行」, “practice,” making three questions; that belongs to the variant-translations and is left to the apparatus layer. What matters is what these two questions themselves ask.) The ancient masters read the content of these two questions very finely, and what they read is, in every case, a matter of the mind-consciousness.

Asaṅga judges these two questions (together with the treatise’s three) as “the form of giving rise to practice” (發起行相), pointing each out in turn: 「應住者，謂欲願故」— what is meant by “abiding” is to settle the mind upon the aspiration-and-vow that seeks bodhi; 「應降伏心者，謂折伏散亂故」— what is meant by “subduing” is to break down the scattered, grasping mind. The one settles the mind, the other tames it: “abiding” asks where this mind should be settled; “subduing” asks how this mind may become unscattered and unperverted. Kuiji reads 「降伏其心」 right to the bottom: what is asked is 「煩惱、所知如何除斷」, how the defilements and the knowable are to be cut off and severed — and these two hindrances are exactly the 二障 (twofold hindrance) of which Yogācāra speaks.

So these two questions, on the surface a query about how to begin practice, ask at bottom about “how the mind-consciousness is to be settled and how it is to be purified.” The place where abiding settles and where subduing tames — not one of these is apart from the “mind.” With the question raised, the whole sūtra’s theme of “treating the mind” is set in key: all the many later “is-not”s and “non-abidings” of the Diamond Sūtra break the deluded clinging upon this very mind; and this mind is exactly the consciousness (識) of which Yogācāra speaks.

轉依, Latent in the Question

This division has not a single “is-not”; the three natures and the eight consciousnesses have not yet been frontally taught. Can we then say there is no Yogācāra meaning? We cannot say there is none — but we must be honest: the Yogācāra here is “hidden” (隱), not yet “manifest” (顯).

How is it hidden? To “abide” is to settle the defiled, perverted mind as pure; to “subdue” is to break the scattered, grasping mind into non-discrimination — and this settling-and-taming is, in its very direction, what Yogācāra calls 轉依 (āśraya-parāvṛtti, the transformation of the basis): turning away the defiled, 遍計所執 (parikalpita) seed-habits within the 阿賴耶識 (ālaya-vijñāna) and turning toward the pure 真如 (tathatā). When the question asks 「云何應住、云何降伏其心」, what it asks, in fact, is “how this defiled, scattered consciousness is to be turned into the pure and non-discriminative.” Its frontal answer waits until Division 4, 「應無所住而生其心」, “abiding nowhere, give rise to the mind” — and abiding nowhere yet giving rise to the mind is precisely 轉依 in the words of the sūtra. So though the “is-not” has not yet appeared and 轉依 has not yet been spoken, the working of “turning the defiled into the pure, the scattered into the non-discriminative” is already laid latent in these two questions.

Why Subhūti Asks: the Six Conditions

A note on one further layer from the ancient masters: Subhūti being already a great arhat, why does he still raise this question? Asaṅga sets up “six conditions” (六因緣) in answer — for the cutting off of doubt, for the arising of faith-and-understanding, for entry into the profound meaning, for non-regression, for the giving rise of joy, and for the long abiding of the true Dharma; Kuiji cites all six. Every one of these six is for the benefit, upon this very mind, of the beings who hear the Dharma: to cut off their doubt, raise their understanding, bring them into the depth, secure their non-regression, give rise to their joy, continue their true Dharma. The opening question is not for himself, but for all who will, upon this mind, practice and realize.

Yogācāra as Mirror: in the Request, Mirroring Only — the Two Questions Already Lay the Ground for Treating the Mind

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror, we must keep the measure exact: this question at the close of the prologue carries no frontal exposition of the two emptinesses, the three natures, or 轉依, and the Yogācāra treatises have here no direct treatise-correspondence — the reading above, “abiding-and-subduing is treating the mind, 轉依 is hidden in the question,” takes Yogācāra as a mirror to reflect the passage; it does not claim that this division expounds some particular treatise. It is mirroring, no more, not a peg forced in. As for cross-reading, this division finds it in the Heart Sūtra: the Heart Sūtra opens at once with 「行深般若波羅蜜多時」, “when practicing the profound prajñā-pāramitā,” marking the bodhisattva’s practice (行) straightaway; the Diamond Sūtra, by contrast, first asks of “abiding and subduing” in two questions, drawing out beforehand the very rule of practice — the one entering practice directly, the other first asking after its rule. The cross-reading of these prajñā sisters lies just in this “manifest and hidden” of practice. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra asks in the words of the sūtra — 「云何應住、云何降伏其心」 — comes home at last to what Yogācāra says in the words of the treatise, 轉依: to abide in the pure and subdue the defiled is one and the same thing 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P06, 無住生心 ↔ 轉依)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 2 · Subhūti's Request · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking 遍計所執 (parikalpita), 依他起 (paratantra), 圓成實 (pariniṣpanna), the emptiness of self (我空), and 煩惱障 to reflect the “is-not / nothing-attained” of this passage where the mind is first given rise.

The Place of This Division: the First Step of the Bodhisattva Path — Subduing the Mind

At the opening Subhūti asked two questions: one who has given rise to the mind — 「云何應住、云何降伏其心」, how should he abide, and how subdue his mind. The Buddha first answered “how to abide,” and only in this division gives the frontal answer to the second, “how to subdue the mind.” The ancient masters all judge: this is the very inception of the bodhisattva path, the root of giving rise to the mind — before any teaching of giving, before any word of prajñā, one is first taught to set the mind straight. Asaṅga’s Vajra-prajñā treatise judges this division as the first of the eighteen abodes, “giving rise to the mind” (發心), and gathers it under the “abode of holding” (攝住處); Vasubandhu gathers the whole passage under the “four givings-rise-of-mind” (四發心, the four virtues of giving rise to the mind). Hence the title “the True Doctrine of the Great Vehicle”: the true vein of the Great Vehicle begins from this one thought of giving rise to the mind.

Seen through the Yogācāra eye, the whole sūtra’s “breaking of clinging” makes here its first cut. Beings’ deluded clinging has two layers: one is to take the body-and-mind, the conjunction of the five aggregates, for a real “self” — this is the clinging to a personal self (人我執), which obstructs liberation and is called the 煩惱障 (hindrance of defilement); the other is to take the various dharmas transformed by mind for things really existing outside the mind — this is the clinging to a dharma-self (法我執), which obstructs the omniscience of Buddhahood and is called the 所知障 (hindrance to the knowable). What the first half of the Diamond Sūtra breaks is the “mark of self,” and what it removes is the clinging to a personal self, the 煩惱障 — and this passage of giving rise to the mind is precisely the threshold of this gate of “emptiness of self.” (Only from Division 17 onward does it turn to break the “mark of dharmas” and remove the 所知障; that is for later.)

Delivering All Across the Four Births and Three Realms: the “Vastness” of Giving Rise to the Mind — the Dependently-Arisen Beings Are Vividly There to Be Delivered

The Buddha teaches the bodhisattva to subdue the mind thus: all beings whatsoever — born of egg, womb, moisture, or transformation; with form or without; with perception, without perception, or neither-with-nor-without perception — 「我皆令入無餘涅槃而滅度之」, I cause them all to enter remainderless nirvāṇa and so deliver them. The four births exhaust the modes of beings’ arising; the three realms (with-and-without-form, with-and-without-perception, and so on) exhaust vertically the grounds where beings abide: spanning the four births crosswise and the three realms lengthwise, not one being lies outside the scope of deliverance. Vasubandhu judges this line as the first virtue of giving rise to the mind, “the vast mind” (廣大心, the vast deliverance of all), and the three masters Jizang, Zhiyi, and Kuiji read it alike.

Take Yogācāra as a mirror to reflect this line: the beings to be delivered are all 依他起 (paratantra) — dependently-arisen marks born in reliance on conditions (“dependent on other” means depending on a manifold of conditions to be). The dependently-arisen beings vividly exist, can be delivered, can be brought into nirvāṇa — at this level the conventional is not destroyed. The “vastness” of giving rise to the mind is built precisely upon “the dependently-arisen beings being vividly there to be delivered” — for if even the dependently-arisen beings were dismissed as nonexistent, there would be none to deliver, and so no ground on which to give rise to the mind. So this line first sets firm that “there are beings to be delivered.”

“Yet in Truth No Being Is Delivered”: Delivering Yet Delivering None — Breaking the Mark of Self, Showing the Emptiness of Self

Having set firm the “vast deliverance,” the text abruptly turns: 「如是滅度無量、無數、無邊眾生，實無眾生得滅度者」, having delivered measureless, countless, boundless beings, in truth there is no being that is delivered. After delivering measureless and boundless beings, in fact there is not any single being “delivered by me.” At the very height of amplification (measureless, countless, boundless) a “in truth, none” is turned out — the “greatness” of giving rise to the mind and the “marklessness” of prajñā are held up at once.

This turn Yogācāra reads with precision. What is turned away is not “there are beings to be delivered” (that is other-dependent, vividly existing), but the deluded reckoning that “there is a real self, really delivering a real being” — and this deluded reckoning is exactly 遍計所執 (parikalpita): taking the reflection transformed by mind for a thing really existing outside the mind, and upon it setting up a real self that delivers and a real being that is delivered. 「實無眾生得滅度」 removes precisely this layer of the wholly-imagined: delivering yet seeing no mark of “I deliver beings,” with no self that delivers, no real substance of a being delivered to be attained. Asaṅga puts it most penetratingly: 「如菩薩自得涅槃，無別眾生」— if toward beings one gives rise to the thought of “other” and does not make the thought of “one’s own body,” one is not called a bodhisattva; gathering the other as oneself, the other’s deliverance is one’s own, and outside oneself there is no separate real being to deliver. The branch of 圓成實 too lies hidden in this “delivering yet delivering none”: to deliver all and yet have not one real being to extinguish (the non-attainment of the ultimate) is just the illusory existence of the other-dependent never apart from the real of the perfectly-accomplished.

“If There Are Four Marks, It Is Not a Bodhisattva”: the Four Marks Are 遍計所執 — Remove the Clinging to Self, and One Is Called a Bodhisattva

The Buddha at once gathers it in a line that points to the whole passage’s eye: 「若菩薩有我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相，即非菩薩」, if a bodhisattva has the mark of self, of person, of being, of life-span, he is not a bodhisattva. This is the first appearance of the sūtra’s “is-not” (即非) form — though here it is not yet the full three-phrase form of the later text, “some-dharma / is-not some-dharma / is named some-dharma” (which appears only at Divisions 5 and 8, and densely at Division 13); here it is the single statement “having four marks, not a bodhisattva,” removing a single layer of clinging. What is removed? Precisely the “four marks.”

Take Yogācāra to reflect these “four marks”: the mark of self, of person, of being, of life-span are, every one, a real “self” that the discriminating mind deludedly clings to upon the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness) — and this is exactly the clinging-to-self of 遍計所執. Kuiji reads this line: 「若起我等四執，即分別之障未除，妄想以之更長，故是顛倒」— if one gives rise to the four clingings of self and the rest, then the hindrance of discrimination is not yet removed, and deluded imagination grows the more by it, so it is perversion. To harbor the four marks is to leave the 煩惱障 (the discriminated clinging to self) unremoved, so that deluded imagination grows the more — this is perversion. So what “is not a bodhisattva” removes is just this layer of the wholly-imagined that clings to a real self: apart from the clinging to the four marks, with no real self that delivers or is delivered, one then accords with non-discrimination. To give rise to the mind yet harbor the mark “I am delivering beings” is to fall into perversion and is not called a bodhisattva; to give rise to the mind with no four marks, delivering yet delivering none — only so is one called a true bodhisattva.

What matters is to see clearly the word “mark” (相). The four “marks” of this division Kumārajīva and Bodhiruci render as 「相」, taking exactly the sense of “the grasped mark” (所取之相); the variant translations (such as Paramārtha and Xuanzang) mostly render 「想」, taking the sense of “the grasping discrimination” (能取之分別). Mark or thought, what is pointed to is one and the same thing: that layer of pervasive discrimination that clings to the five aggregates as a real self. The later Division 17, “breaking the four marks,” turns onto the dharma-plane (passing from the emptiness of self to the emptiness of dharmas); here it is purely the “emptiness of self” of the stage of giving rise to the mind — what is broken is the single layer that clings to self as real.

The Four Givings-Rise-of-Mind: Giving Rise to the Mind Is No Empty Word, but an “Abode” That Can Be Dwelt In and Fulfilled

Taking this passage as a whole, the three masters (Jizang of the Three Treatises, Zhiyi of Tiantai, Kuiji of Yogācāra) flow in different streams yet come home to one place — all gathering it under Vasubandhu’s “four givings-rise-of-mind” (四發心) from the Vajra-prajñā treatise: the vast deliverance across the four births and three realms is the vast mind (廣大心); causing all to enter remainderless nirvāṇa is the foremost (supreme) mind (第一(最勝)心); delivering the measureless yet in truth no being delivered is the constant (utmost) mind (常(至極)心, gathering all beings as one’s own body, never forsaking them); having no four marks is the unperverted mind (不顛倒心, far from the view of the body, apart from discriminated clinging). Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse gathers it in a line: 「利益深心住，此乘功德滿」— these four virtues are no four hollow slogans, but the “abode” in which giving rise to the mind can settle and be fulfilled.

Yogācāra reads these four virtues and sees precisely a sequence from shallow to deep: first it sets firm “the dependently-arisen beings can be delivered” (vast — not destroying the other-dependent); next it takes “remainderless nirvāṇa” as that toward which it heads (foremost — the ultimate sought); then by “gathering the other as oneself, delivering yet delivering none” it breaks the opposition of grasper-and-grasped (constant — removing the division of self and other); and finally by “having no four marks” it cuts off the view of the body and leaves the wholly-imagined (unperverted — the frontal breaking of the clinging to self). The four virtues link layer upon layer, settling one thought of giving rise to the mind into a path that can be walked.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Giving-Rise-of-Mind, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of 遍計所執, 依他起, 圓成實, the two hindrances and two emptinesses have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same giving-rise-of-mind of “delivering yet delivering none, having no four marks” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (is-not · in truth no being is delivered), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計所執 · emptiness of self · cutting off the 煩惱障); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses open by breaking the real self and real dharmas with 「由假說我法」 (“by provisional speech of self and dharmas”), and this division’s “breaking the four marks” is just the inception of breaking the real self; what the Cheng weishi lun calls the self of “the clinging to self · 遍計所執” is the treatise’s technical term for the four marks of this division; the Heart Sūtra’s 「度一切苦厄」 and 「無智亦無得」 too are delivering beings yet with no power-of-deliverance attained — one and the same giving-rise-of-mind of non-attainment as this division’s “delivering beings yet in truth no being delivered.” To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「有四相即非菩薩」 and 「實無眾生得滅度」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “遍計所執 · clinging to self · the non-self of persons” are one and the same matter of removing the clinging to self and showing forth the giving-rise-of-mind 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 3 · The True Doctrine of the Great Vehicle · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking “abiding nowhere yet giving rise to the mind” set against 轉依 (āśraya-parāvṛtti), and the three wheels empty of substance (the other-dependent · removing the wholly-imagined · the perfectly-accomplished), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “abide nowhere and practice giving.”

The Eye of This Division: It Has No “Is-Not” — It Teaches a Gate of Practice

The previous division (3) broke the “mark of self,” removing the deluded view that clings the body-and-mind, the conjunction of the five aggregates, into a real “self.” This division turns at once to another face: no longer breaking the “self,” but teaching “how to practice” — when a bodhisattva gives, the mind should not stop anywhere. So the syntax of this division shifts with it: it has no three-phrase form of “such-and-such is-not such-and-such, is named such-and-such,” the kind that sets up and removes in one stroke (the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not” makes its first appearance only in the next division, 「如來所說身相，即非身相」, “the bodily mark the Tathāgata speaks of is not a bodily mark”). This is not that the division lacks something, but that its weight falls upon “practice,” not upon “breaking-and-establishing.” From the “emptiness of self” of Division 3 (breaking the four marks) to the “emptiness of giving” of this division (not stopping upon the act, the gift, or the giver), it moves from “seeing through” to “being able to practice.”

To read this division through the Yogācāra eye, what is to be reflected is not the dismantling of a single sentence, but a gate of practice: how the mind, by not stopping, makes giving instead into inexhaustible merit.

“Abide Nowhere and Practice Giving”: Forsaking What the Consciousness Clings To Is the Onset of 轉依

The Buddha says: when a bodhisattva gives, he 「應無所住」, should abide nowhere — not giving in reliance on form, nor on sound, scent, taste, touch, or dharma, and 「不住於相」, not abiding in marks.

Yogācāra says: the ordinary mind has an ingrained habit — it always takes the reflections transformed within its own mind for things really existing outside the mind, and clings to them. This layer of deluded reckoning is called 遍計所執 (parikalpita). “Giving while abiding in form,” “giving while abiding in marks” is, in the act of giving, the mind sticking to “there really is a form to be given, a mark to be attained” — and what it sticks to is exactly this layer of the wholly-imagined. The Buddha’s teaching of “abiding nowhere” is the loosening of this stickiness: not stopping upon the marks of 遍計所執, but practicing giving in reliance on non-discrimination.

This is precisely the onset of what Yogācāra calls 轉依 (āśraya-parāvṛtti): turning the defiled root on which the mind-consciousness relies into the pure 真如 (tathatā) — put plainly, turning the old habit of “grasping the real” into the new ground of “not grasping the real.” “Abiding nowhere,” though only a line teaching giving, is already the first step of this practice of 轉依: not abiding in the marks of 遍計所執, but practicing the giving of 依他 (paratantra) dependent arising. This thread states its full sentence only at Division 10 of the sūtra — 「應無所住而生其心」, “abiding nowhere, give rise to the mind”; this division’s “abide nowhere and practice giving” is the forerunning first giving of that sentence.

“Not Abiding in Marks”: the Three Wheels Empty of Substance — Gift, Recipient, Giver, Not Stopping at a Single One

Then “not abiding in marks” — which “marks” are not abided in? The ancient masters read finely. Vasubandhu, in explaining this line, points out three places, in the very act of giving, easily clung to as real: the gift given (施物), the recipient who receives (受者), and the giver who gives (施者) — these three together called the three wheels (三輪). Vasubandhu says “not abiding in marks” is 「不見施物、受者及施者」, not seeing the gift, the recipient, or the giver (Yijing’s version reads 「所捨之物及所施眾生并能施者，於此三處除著想心」, “toward the gift given, the beings to whom it is given, and the giver — at these three places, remove the mind of clinging-thought”). The later phrase “the three wheels empty of substance” (三輪體空) issues, in the treatises, from just this.

Reflect these three wheels through the three natures, and the layers grow clear:

• The self that gives, the person given to, the thing given — this whole event of giving vividly takes place; it is dependently arisen, it is 依他起 (paratantra). The act of giving is not nonexistent: conditions gathering, one gives; conditions dispersing, it stops.
• Yet upon these three wheels the ordinary person adds a layer of clinging — “a real giver, a real recipient, a real gift” — and this layer of clinging is 遍計所執 (parikalpita). “Not abiding in marks” removes exactly this layer: upon the three wheels, not grasping that thought of “real existence,” and the wholly-imagined is removed.
• The real clinging upon the three wheels removed, giving still gives, and the merit is inexhaustible as empty space — and this real shown forth by the non-abiding giving is 圓成實 (pariniṣpanna).

So “the three wheels empty of substance” is not making the giving empty, undoing it into nothing, but: the act of giving is not destroyed (the other-dependent giving of conditioned arising proceeds as before), the three places are not grasped as real (the wholly-imagined is removed), and so the merit of this one giving becomes, on the contrary, boundless (the inexhaustibility of the perfectly-accomplished). What is emptied is that layer of real clinging upon the three wheels — not the giving itself.

The Simile of Empty Space: Not Stopping (the Removing) — Therefore Merit Like Empty Space (the Showing)

The Buddha next raises empty space as a simile: can the empty space of the east be measured? Can the empty space of south, west, north, the four intermediate directions, above and below, be measured? None of it can be measured. The bodhisattva who gives without abiding in marks — his merit too is thus, beyond measure.

The most savorable thing in this simile lies in its reversal: having just said “do not abide” (do not stop, take away every reliance), by all reason the merit should become less and less; yet the very next breath says merit is 「如虛空、不可思量」, like empty space, unthinkable, boundless and inexhaustible. First by “not abiding” it states to the utmost its having no reliance; then by “empty space” it states to the utmost the boundlessness of its merit — the one side reduced to nothing, the other broadened past all bound; the two pressed together precisely show: only because it forsakes every stopping-place does the merit become, on the contrary, measureless. Zhiyi says it well: 「正以虛心而施，福不可量……稱理行施，其福彌廣」— it is exactly because one gives with a mind empty and unclinging that this merit grows great past all bound.

The ancient masters each take their own sense from this simile, none departing from this one reversal: Jizang takes the two meanings of empty space — empty space is markless and unconditioned (the simile of the non-abiding giving, which has no reliance and nothing attained), and empty space encompasses the vast and great (the simile of the non-abiding giving whose fruit-reward too is great); Asaṅga and Kuiji set up upon empty space three meanings — pervading everywhere, broad-vast-and-lofty, inexhaustible and ultimate without end — to figure the pervasion, the greatness, and the inexhaustibility of the merit of markless giving.

Reading this through Yogācāra, this “not abiding yet merit inexhaustible” is exactly the relation of 依他起 and 圓成實: not abiding in the marks of 遍計所執 (not stopping), yet the other-dependent practice of giving proceeds vividly as before (giving not destroyed), so that the merit of the perfectly-accomplished is, like empty space, without limit or measure. Apart from marks — this is just why the merit grows the wider.

“Let Him Only Abide As Taught”: What Is Called Abiding Is Abiding in “Abiding Nowhere”

At the close of this division, the Buddha gathers a line: 「菩薩但應如所教住」, let the bodhisattva only abide as he has been taught. This responds to Subhūti’s opening question — 「云何應住」, how should one abide. The Buddha, having circled through a whole passage of “abide nowhere and practice giving,” gives at the last as the place of “abiding”: “just abide as I have taught” — and what he taught is precisely “abide nowhere.”

This closing gathers the contradiction into one and the same thing: what is called “abiding” is not finding another place to set the mind down, but abiding in “not stopping” itself. Once the mind no longer sticks to real things-and-marks, that abiding which abides nowhere, which does not discriminate, is the pure ground toward which 轉依 heads. To ask “how should one abide” is answered by “abide nowhere, and so abide” — and this is precisely the forerunner, in the gate of giving, of Yogācāra’s one meaning of “abiding nowhere, giving rise to the mind.”

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra’s learning of 轉依 and the three natures flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of 轉依, the three natures, and the 賴耶 (the storehouse) have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises; prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same reality of “practicing without abiding” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (abide nowhere · not abiding in marks · merit like empty space), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (abiding nowhere yet giving rise to the mind · 轉依 · the three wheels empty of substance · the other-dependent removing the wholly-imagined and showing the perfectly-accomplished); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses take 轉依 as the home of practice, and “abide nowhere and practice giving” is just forsaking what the consciousness clings to and relying on non-discrimination — the first appearance of the gate of practice of 轉依; the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha speaks of the bodhisattva’s practice of the six perfections, and Asaṅga’s 「六波羅蜜初攝一切檀那」 (giving, the first of the six perfections, gathers all) accords with this division’s line “should practice giving”; the Cheng weishi lun speaks of 轉依 and of 遍計所執, and what this division’s “not abiding in marks” removes is exactly that same layer of real clinging; the Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage says 「無智亦無得」, “no wisdom and no attainment” — giving yet with no giver-or-given attained, one and the same practice of non-attainment as this division’s “markless, non-abiding giving.” To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「應無所住行於布施」 — and what Yogācāra says in the technical terms of “abiding nowhere yet giving rise to the mind · 轉依 · the three wheels empty of substance” are one and the same matter of not stopping yet being able to practice 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s Abiding Nowhere, Give Rise to the Mind (S5-P06)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 4 · Wondrous Practice Without Abiding · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the removing of the wholly-imagined and showing of the perfectly-accomplished, and false discrimination (虛妄分別), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not / seeing marks as non-marks.”

The Eye of Breaking Marks: One Cannot See the Tathāgata by a Bodily Mark

The previous division said “give without abiding in marks,” which was to speak of non-abiding with respect to the practice of giving; in this division the Buddha turns the same blade of “non-abiding” back upon the Buddha-fruit itself — 「可以身相見如來不？」, can one see the Tathāgata by a bodily mark? With this one question and answer, the whole sūtra’s eye of “seeing the Tathāgata apart from marks” opens here.

First the two words in the text must be made clear. “Bodily mark” (身相) the ancient masters all read as the Buddha’s form-body (色身) — that conditioned body of the Buddha which has arising, abiding, and ceasing (Jizang: 「不可以生、住、滅三相見如來無為法身」, “one cannot by the three marks of arising, abiding, and ceasing see the Tathāgata’s unconditioned dharma-body”; Kuiji: 「離彼三相，即是法身如來」, “apart from those three marks is precisely the dharma-body Tathāgata”). “Tathāgata” (如來), then, is the markless dharma-body (無相的法身). So “one cannot see the Tathāgata by a bodily mark” says: one cannot, by that form-body which arises, abides, and ceases, see the markless dharma-body.

When a bodhisattva, in practice, beholds the dignified glory of the Buddha’s form-body, a thought arises in him: to attain just such a Buddha-fruit possessed of marks. Kuiji states this layer of doubt very concretely — 「覩佛化身有三相，故而生疑」, “beholding the Buddha’s transformation-body as having the three marks, he therefore gives rise to doubt” — the doubt being 「所行之因既是無相，何故所得之果是有相」 (since the cause practiced is the markless giving, why is the fruit attained, on the contrary, a Buddha-body possessed of marks). The Buddha’s question is precisely to remove this layer of clinging.

“Is Not a Bodily Mark”: Removing 遍計所執

Through the Yogācāra eye, this clinging has an exact name — 遍計所執 (parikalpita): taking the reflection transformed by mind for a thing really existing outside the mind, and upon it pervasively reckoning and clinging it as real. Upon the Buddha’s dependently-arisen form-body the bodhisattva deludedly adds a layer of “this is the real Buddha, the fruit-with-marks I may attain,” and this superadded real clinging is 遍計所執, which has no substance at root.

「如來所說身相，即非身相」, “the bodily mark the Tathāgata speaks of is not a bodily mark” — this “is-not” removes exactly this layer. Kuiji reads it plainly: 「所說三相之身相者，即非是法身之無相也」, “the bodily mark of the three marks here spoken of is precisely not the marklessness of the dharma-body.” Vasubandhu sets up a verse yet more directly: 「三相異體故，離彼是如來」 (the three marks of arising, abiding, ceasing are each a substance of conditioned flowing-on, differing in substance from the Tathāgata’s dharma-body; apart from these three marks is the Tathāgata) — Yijing’s version reads 「三相遷異故，無此謂如來」, two Chinese renderings of the one Vasubandhu treatise. So “is not a bodily mark” does not erase the Buddha-body at a stroke; it removes that layer of wholly-imagined delusion which “takes the three-marked form-body for the dharma-body, for an attainable fruit.”

This is the first solitary appearance of the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not” in this division: it is a single statement of removing the wholly-imagined. Only in the later text (as at Division 13) does it gather the full three-phrase form “X / is-not X / is named X.”

“Whatever Has Marks Is All False”: the False Is 遍計所執

The Buddha then broadens the words: not only the Buddha’s bodily mark — 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」, whatever has marks is all false. These two words “false” (虛妄) are precisely the textual fingerprint that links the variant translations with Yogācāra — Bodhiruci and the Vasubandhu treatise render it directly 「妄語」 (false speech), Xuanzang 「皆是虛妄」 (all are false). Kuiji, explaining this “false,” lists three layers of sense, the third stated most penetratingly: 「依他、圓成名為真實，遍計所執名為虛妄」 — the two natures 依他起 and 圓成實 are called the real; 遍計所執 alone is called false.

This sets the word “false” onto firm ground: the “falseness” that 「凡所有相皆是虛妄」 empties is precisely that layer of 遍計所執 marks — not that the dependently-arisen and the perfectly-accomplished 真如 are emptied along with it. For this reading Kuiji further cites the Madhyānta-vibhāga (辯中邊論) as witness — 「《中邊分別論》云，三界虛妄，心、心所也」 (the Madhyānta-vibhāga says: the three realms are false discrimination, mind and mental factors). One sees that this sūtra’s one word “false” the ancient masters had long sealed together with the Madhyānta-vibhāga’s lineage of “false discrimination” (虛妄分別): the so-called falseness of marks is just the pervasive deluded clinging that the mind gives rise to upon dependently-arisen marks.

“If One Sees Marks as Non-Marks, One Sees the Tathāgata”: Showing 圓成實 · 真如

Removing to the very end, it turns out a frontal line: 「若見諸相非相，則見如來」, if one sees marks as non-marks, one sees the Tathāgata.

This line establishes 圓成實. Upon all marks, to see their “non-mark” — that they are not that real mark which the discriminating mind clings to — this one seeing is to see the unconditioned dharma-body, to see 真如 (tathatā). 圓成實 is just the real nature of dharmas shown forth once the consciousness has exhausted and removed 遍計所執; 真如 is the real nature of consciousness. So “seeing marks as non-marks” is not seeing all marks away and seeking some other “non-mark”; Zhiyi points it out in a word: 「只以相為非相，非謂遣相別有一非相」, “it is only seeing marks as non-marks; it does not mean removing marks and setting up apart some other thing called a non-mark.” It is right upon the marks that one sees their non-reality, not departing from marks to set up apart a thing called “non-mark.”

So the three-natures reading of this division comes out whole: “a bodily mark is not a bodily mark” is removing the wholly-imagined (upon the Buddha-body, not clinging a real mark); “marks as non-marks, then one sees the Tathāgata” is showing the perfectly-accomplished (upon all marks seeing their non-reality is to see the dharma-body, 真如). The previous division’s 「實無眾生得滅度」 still removed clinging hidden in the dark; in this division, the removing of the wholly-imagined and showing of the perfectly-accomplished is for the first time frontally marked out — and this is the first forming of the eye of breaking marks. Jizang judges it in two clear faces: 「凡有名相，皆是憶想而有，悉是虛妄」 (whatever has name and mark exists by recollective imagining and is all false) speaks the loss (the fault of clinging marks); 「若見一切諸相非法身相，即是見法身」 (if one sees that all marks are not the mark of the dharma-body, this is to see the dharma-body) speaks the gain (the gain of seeing marks as non-marks) — within one sentence, loss and gain, breaking and establishing, are held up at once.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra’s learning of the three natures flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the three natures, the removing of the wholly-imagined and showing of the perfectly-accomplished, have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same reality of “seeing the Tathāgata apart from marks” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (a bodily mark is not a bodily mark · marks as non-marks), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計所執 · 依他 · 圓成 · removing the false and showing the real); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, by the three natures and the three non-natures, remove the two graspings; “a bodily mark is not a bodily mark” is just the wholly-imagined being non-existent and the perfectly-accomplished dharma-body being not non-existent. The Madhyānta-vibhāga sets up “false discrimination,” and Kuiji, explaining this division’s “false,” cites it directly — this is the place of this division’s frontal correspondence with the Madhyānta-vibhāga. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the wholly-imagined mark being non-existent and the perfectly-accomplished 真如 dharma-body, according with “seeing the dharma-body apart from the three marks.” The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「是諸法空相」 and 「色不異空」 are likewise this gate of seeing non-marks upon marks, seeing emptiness right upon form. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「凡所有相皆是虛妄、見諸相非相則見如來」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “遍計所執 is called false · 圓成實 shows 真如” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s The Is-Not Three-Phrase Form Mapped onto the Yogācāra Three Natures (S5-P01)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 5 · Seeing Truly, According to Principle · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, and the two graspings and two hindrances, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark” and the simile of the raft.

The Eye of This Division: Asking “Who Can Believe,” Breaking “the Dharma Believed In”

The previous division (5) had just said 「凡所有相，皆是虛妄」, whatever has marks is all false, breaking “marks” wholesale. Subhūti then raises a very concrete doubt: the cause markless, the fruit markless — this principle being this deep, when the Tathāgata has passed into nirvāṇa and the latter five hundred years, that age of decline and evil, has come, will there yet truly be beings who, hearing it, can give rise to real faith? This question asks at the very pass of “a markless teaching — in an evil age, who believes?” The Buddha first blocks it with 「莫作是說」, “do not say so,” and at once turns to say “there are” — there are those who keep the precepts and cultivate merit, who have planted roots of good in the presence of measureless Buddhas, and so can believe.

This division has two threads. One is “the person who can believe”: what kind of person can believe a markless teaching. The other is “the dharma believed in”: the dharma here believed must itself have its “dharma-mark” broken. The ancient masters judge this division thus: Vasubandhu says it breaks the second doubt — the doubt that “a markless cause attains a markless fruit; in an evil age, who can believe?”; Asaṅga judges it the abode of “wishing to attain the dharma-body of speech” (要證無相法身，先得藉言說的教法起信, to realize the markless dharma-body, one must first, by the verbal teaching, give rise to faith). Read through the Yogācāra eye, what matters most in this division is that it for the first time pushes the “breaking of marks” onto the layer of the “dharma-mark” — what was broken before was the “mark of self”; here it begins to break the “mark of dharmas.”

The Person Who Can Believe: Upon the Dependently-Arisen Teaching, Giving Rise to a Wisdom That Accords with Marklessness

The Buddha says the one who can believe “keeps the precepts and cultivates merit,” has planted roots of good in the presence of measureless thousands and tens of thousands of Buddhas, even to a single thought of pure faith. What kind of faith is this “real faith”? The ancient masters read finely: it is not a worldly one-thought entrustment of feeling, but 「能起智，順其無相因果」 (able to give rise to wisdom, according with the markless cause and fruit — Kuiji); Zhiyi too calls it 「無所得信」, “faith of nothing attained” — a wisdom that arises in accord with the principle of marklessness, not blind belief.

Seen through Yogācāra, the reason this faith can arise lands precisely upon “依他起.” What the Buddha speaks — the verbal chapters and lines (the sūtra, the teaching) — is a teaching set up in reliance on conditions, vividly arisen from conditions: this is 依他起. The one who can believe gives rise, upon this dependently-arisen teaching, to a wisdom that accords: neither clinging it into “a dharma really existing outside the mind” (which would be the wholly-imagined), nor dismissing it as “nothing whatsoever” (which would fall into denial). Not clinging it as real, not dismissing it as void — this accords precisely with markless cause and fruit. So “faith” here is not faith in an object, but, upon the conditionally-arisen teaching, the giving rise to a measure of wisdom that falls into neither extreme. That one can have this measure of wisdom is because the roots of good are long planted — not one Buddha or two, but the provisions planted in the presence of measureless thousands and tens of thousands of Buddhas.

No Four Marks: First Breaking the Clinging to a Personal Self — What Is Removed Is the 煩惱障

The Buddha says these beings 「無復我相、人相、眾生相、壽者相」, have no further mark of self, of person, of being, of life-span. This line comes carried from the previous division’s breaking of the “mark of self.” In Yogācāra’s terms, to take the body-and-mind, the conjunction of the five aggregates, for a real “self” is the clinging to a personal self (人我執); it obstructs liberation and is called the 煩惱障. 「若心取相，則為著我、人、眾生、壽者」 (if the mind grasps marks, it then clings to self, person, being, life-span) — so soon as the mind grasps a mark, it falls back into this clinging to a personal self. So what “no four marks” removes is this layer of the clinging to a personal self, the 煩惱障. This is the prior step of breaking clinging in this division; immediately after, it must push onward to the finer “dharma-mark.”

“No Dharma-Mark, Nor Any Non-Dharma-Mark”: Within One Line, the Wholly-Imagined and the Truly-Perfected Each to Its Place

The eye of this division falls upon this line: 「無法相，亦無非法相」, no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark. This is a variant of the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not” — not the full three-phrase form “X / is-not X / is named X,” but the twofold removal (雙遣) of “no… nor….” Kuiji explains it phrase by phrase through the three natures, each side removing one clinging, removing the wholly-imagined clean and showing forth the perfectly-accomplished.

Following along:

• “No dharma-mark” = removing 遍計所執: the ordinary person clings “dharmas” into things really existing outside the mind — Kuiji says this is 「執法我為有」, clinging the dharma-self as existing. 遍計所執 is just such a layer of deluded reckoning: taking the reflection transformed by mind for dharmas really existing outside the mind. Since one penetrates that it is at root empty, the dharma-substance not really existing, this deluded clinging cannot stand — so it says “no dharma-mark”: what is “no” is that dharma-mark clung as really existing. This is the removing of superimposition (不把無的執成有, not clinging what is non-existent into existent).
• “Nor any non-dharma-mark” = showing 圓成實: there is another sort who, over-correcting, dismiss the very reality of 圓成實 wholesale as “nonexistent” — Kuiji says this is 「撥圓成而是無」, dismissing the perfectly-accomplished as nothing, falling to the side of denial. But the wise one knows: 圓成實 exists; the principle of the two non-selves is really existent (Kuiji: 「二無我理是實有」, the principle of the two non-selves is really existent). So also “no non-dharma-mark”: what is “no” is that layer of “dismissing the perfectly-accomplished as void.” This is the removing of denial (不把有的撥成無, not dismissing what is existent into non-existent).

With both sides removed, the wonder comes out: “no dharma-mark” removes the wholly-imagined’s “really existent,” “nor any non-dharma-mark” removes the denier’s “void”; the two clingings both removed, it precisely accords with the Middle Way. Kuiji states this layer most penetratingly: 「執法我為有，即亦著我、人；執圓成為無，亦著人、我……雙無二執故即契中道，故云『無法相，亦無非法相』者，離二執也」 (to cling the dharma-self as existing is also to cling self and person; to cling the perfectly-accomplished as nonexistent is also to cling person and self… both the two clingings absent, it accords with the Middle Way; thus to say “no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark” is to leave the two clingings). Prajñā states this twofold removal with the single word “empty” (空); Yogācāra, by the three non-natures, points out what this “empty” empties: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (the non-nature of marks — its mark is from the first non-existent), 依他起 is 生無性 (the non-nature of arising — it has no self-nature of arising of itself, only dependent co-arising), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (the non-nature of ultimate meaning — it is the ultimate apart from all imputation). So “no dharma-mark” empties that layer of the wholly-imagined, not erasing the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished along with it; “nor any non-dharma-mark” is precisely the warning not to empty the perfectly-accomplished too.

Vasubandhu’s one verse gathers these four dharma-marks clean: 「一切空無物，實有不可說，依言辭而說，是法相四種」 — “all empty, no thing” (the two selves of person and dharma both absent — the wholly-imagined empty); “really existent” (the substance of the principle of the two non-selves is not nonexistent — the perfectly-accomplished existent); “unsayable” (this really-existent principle cannot be clung in speech as existent or nonexistent); “spoken in reliance on words” (though unsayable, it is yet proclaimed in reliance on verbal marks). Kumārajīva’s text here shows only two phrases (“no dharma-mark, nor any non-dharma-mark”), the other two — “no mark, nor non-mark” — lying hidden in the later 「不取法、不取非法」 (grasping neither dharma nor non-dharma); Kuiji directly fills them out, saying “no mark” is the principle of the two non-selves being unutterable, “nor non-mark” being, in the place of no-words, still proclaiming in reliance on words — and this is “relying on words yet apart from words” (依言離言).

From Breaking the Mark of Self to Breaking the Dharma-Mark: Where the Dharma-Clinging Arises, the 所知障 Appears with It

Set this division back into the whole sūtra, and it is a transitional pass. Before, it broke the “four marks,” removing the clinging to a personal self, the 煩惱障; here it breaks the “dharma-mark,” removing the clinging to a dharma-self. To take the various dharmas transformed by mind for things really existing outside the mind is the clinging to a dharma-self (法我執); it obstructs the omniscience of Buddhahood and is called the 所知障. Kuiji points out the linkage of the two: 「由有法執現行故，煩惱障隨起也」 (because there is the active manifestation of the dharma-clinging, the 煩惱障 arises following upon it) — grasping the dharma-mark (dharma-clinging) coming first, the clinging to self and person (defilement) arises following upon it. So breaking the dharma-mark is precisely the beginning of cutting off the 所知障.

This too links up with the hidden vein of the latter half of the sūtra: at Division 13 the “is-not”s fire densely in succession, and at Division 17 “penetrating the non-self of person and of dharmas, cutting off the two hindrances, 轉依” is plainly stated — what the “is-not” removes pushes, from “personal self,” all the way onward to “dharma-self,” becoming the complete twofold non-self. This division’s one line of twofold removal is the starting point of that thread.

The Simile of the Raft: the Teaching Is a Raft for Crossing the River — by Words One Realizes; Realizing, One Forsakes the Words

The Buddha closes by citing an old simile: 「知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法」, know that my teaching of the Dharma is like the simile of the raft — the Dharma is still to be forsaken, how much more what is not Dharma. Since one should grasp neither dharma nor non-dharma, how then is this “Dharma” the Tathāgata speaks to be settled? The answer is in the simile of the raft.

A raft is a tool for crossing the river; reaching the shore, one should set it down. The Dharma the Buddha speaks (the verbal teaching, the sūtra) is just such a raft for crossing. In Yogācāra’s terms, this forsaking-and-relying is precisely the sequence of “relying on words, apart from words” (依言離言) — Kuiji says it plainly: 「將欲證真，必因言說；及其正證，即不假言，如筏至岸，即無所用也」 (about to realize the real, one must rely on speech; come to the right realization, one borrows no words — as the raft reaching the shore is then of no use). To realize that markless 真如 (the perfectly-accomplished), one must first, by the verbal teaching (the other-dependent), give rise to faith and to practice; but at the moment of true direct realization, speech is of no use, as one reaching the shore forsakes the raft.

What matters is: what is forsaken? What is forsaken is the layer of 遍計所執 that “clings the teaching as really existent and graspable,” not the forsaking of the teaching’s own dependently-arisen wondrous use — the raft is forsaken once the river is crossed; before crossing, it is just what one needs. So “the Dharma is still to be forsaken, how much more what is not Dharma”: even the true Dharma the Buddha speaks must, in the end, have that layer of clinging forsaken — how much more those false views and views-of-emptiness which are at root not Dharma (still more the wholly-imagined, still more to be forsaken). Vasubandhu sets this forsaking under “the wisdom of realization forsakes the dharma” (得證智捨法), exactly this turn from relying on the teaching to realizing the real — and in Yogācāra this is the direction of 轉依: forsaking the grasping-clinging of the wholly-imagined, turning toward the real of the perfectly-accomplished 真如.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, the three non-natures, the two hindrances and two graspings have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Madhyānta-vibhāga, the Cheng weishi lun); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same purport of “removing the clinging yet keeping the real mark” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (no dharma-mark · nor any non-dharma-mark · the simile of the raft), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計 / 圓成 · the three non-natures · the two hindrances); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, by 「遍計種種物」 (the wholly-imagined reckoning various things), speak the wholly-imagined of the dharma-mark to be removed, and by 「圓成實於彼，常遠離前性」 (the perfectly-accomplished, with respect to it, is ever apart from the prior nature), speak that perfectly-accomplished which is not to be dismissed as void — exactly the treatise-correspondence of this division’s “no dharma-mark · removing the wholly-imagined, nor any non-dharma-mark · showing the perfectly-accomplished.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the falseness and reality of the three natures, discerns the two emptinesses, sealing with this line of twofold removal. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of 遍計所執 and 圓成實, and of 「法執現行則煩惱障隨起」 (the dharma-clinging being active, the 煩惱障 arises following) — precisely the technical terms of Kuiji’s reading of the two hindrances arising in succession in this division. The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「是諸法空相，不生不滅……無智亦無得」 — dharmas empty yet not dismissed as void — is, with this division’s “no dharma-mark (empty the wholly-imagined) · nor any non-dharma-mark (do not dismiss the perfectly-accomplished),” one and the same gate falling into neither emptiness nor existence. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「無法相，亦無非法相」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “removing 遍計所執 · showing 圓成實 · leaving the two clingings” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 6 · Right Faith Is Rare · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), 真如 the unconditioned, the three bodies of dharma-, reward-, and transformation-body, and grasper-and-grasped, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “no fixed dharma is attained, no fixed dharma is taught.”

The Eye of This Division: a Pair of Counter-Questions Presses Out “Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught”

The foregoing divisions broke the bodily mark, broke the dharma-mark and non-dharma-mark; in this division the Buddha turns back with a pair of counter-questions: 「如來得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提耶？如來有所說法耶？」, has the Tathāgata attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi? Has the Tathāgata anything taught? — do you suppose the Buddha really and truly attained a “bodhi,” really and truly taught a set of “Dharma”? What is broken is exactly this layer of clinging that “the Buddha really realized bodhi, really has a teaching of Dharma.” Subhūti answers along: there is no fixed dharma to be called bodhi, nor any fixed dharma the Tathāgata may teach — 「無有定法」 attained, 「無有定法」 taught.

The ancient masters judge alike: this is not to say there is no bodhi, no teaching of Dharma, but is spoken with respect to 真如 the dharma-body (the first meaning). The dharma-body is quiescent-and-pure, apart from words and cut off from marks; from the first it has no “fixed dharma” to be grasped or taught; as for the transformation-realization and transformation-teaching of the reward-body and transformation-body on the plane of conventional truth, these are not within what is removed (Kuiji). Vasubandhu judges this as breaking the doubt that “the transformation-Buddha is not the real Buddha,” gathering it with one verse: 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者，說法不二取，無說離言相」 (the responsive-transformation is not the real Buddha, nor the teacher of Dharma; the teaching of Dharma is no twofold grasping; the teaching-less is apart from the mark of words).

Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught = Leaving Grasper-and-Grasped: Upon the Dharma-Body There Is No Opposition of “Attainer—Attained”

How does Yogācāra see “nothing attained, nothing taught”? The key lies in this pair, grasper and grasped (能取、所取). The ordinary person’s deluded clinging always divides the mind in two — “a self that attains” and “a dharma attained,” “a person who teaches” and “a dharma taught” — and this layer that splits one into two is exactly the root of 遍計所執. If there really were a “fixed dharma” to be attained, one would fall into the twofold grasping of “there is a Tathāgata who attains, there is a bodhi that is attained,” and that would not be the real bodhi.

So 「無有定法得菩提」, no fixed dharma attains bodhi, is not the annihilation of bodhi, but the removing of that layer of deluded reckoning of “a real self that attains, a real dharma attained”; 「無有定法可說」, no fixed dharma can be taught, is likewise not that the Buddha never opened his mouth, but the removing of that layer of clinging of “a real person who teaches, a real dharma taught” — what Vasubandhu’s verse calls 「說法不二取，無說離言相」 (the teaching of Dharma is no twofold grasping; the teaching-less is apart from the mark of words). Nothing attained is the attaining apart from the opposition of grasper-and-grasped; nothing taught is the teaching apart from the verbal grasping of marks. Upon the dharma-body this pair is from the first absent — therefore it is said “nothing attained, nothing taught.”

“Not Dharma, Not Non-Dharma”: the Twofold Removal of the Three Natures — Removing the Wholly-Imagined, Establishing the Truly-Perfected

Subhūti then says the Dharma the Tathāgata teaches is 「皆不可取、不可說、非法、非非法」, all ungraspable, unsayable, not dharma, not non-dharma. This phrase “not dharma, not non-dharma” is the eye of this division. It is not the full three-phrase form “X / is-not X / is named X” (that appears only in the next division, 「佛法者即非佛法」, “the Buddha-dharma is not the Buddha-dharma”), but a twofold negation that, with respect to 真如, removes both existence and non-existence. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, sets these two negations one by one upon the three natures:

• “Not dharma” = removing 遍計所執: the foolish deludedly cling existence upon person and dharmas, taking the reflection transformed by mind for a thing really existing outside the mind — this is called “dharma” (clinging it as really existent); the noble one penetrates that person and dharmas are at root without this reality, and so it is said “not dharma” — there is no real layer-of-dharma clung. Kuiji says 「愚夫執人、法為有，名之為法；聖者達人、法為無，名為非法」 (the foolish cling person and dharmas as existent, calling it “dharma”; the noble penetrate person and dharmas as non-existent, calling it “not dharma”) — what is removed is this 遍計所執.
• “Not non-dharma” = establishing 圓成實: yet one must not on that account dismiss 真如 as void. To call the perfectly-accomplished 真如 too a sheer nothing (Kuiji judges this 「撥圓成是無」, dismissing the perfectly-accomplished as nonexistent, also named a kind of one-sided clinging), and so it is said “not non-dharma” — the perfectly-accomplished exists. Kuiji says 「了圓成為有，名非非法」 (to realize the perfectly-accomplished as existent is called “not non-dharma”) — what is established is this 圓成實.
• The dharma-body quiescent-and-pure, doubly leaving the two extremes: removing the wholly-imagined clean (not dharma), setting the perfectly-accomplished firm (not non-dharma), and 真如 apart from words, these two negations come in the end both to vanish — 「法身寂淨，不可說非法，亦不可說非非法」 (the dharma-body quiescent-and-pure cannot be called “not dharma,” nor called “not non-dharma”). The utmost of the twofold negation is precisely the ultimate of the perfectly-accomplished.

Vasubandhu reads it the same: 「非法者，一切法無體相故」 (“not dharma” — because all dharmas are without substance-mark) — this is removing the wholly-imagined; 「非非法者，彼真如無我相實有故」 (“not non-dharma” — because that 真如, the markless of non-self, is really existent) — this is establishing the perfectly-accomplished; and he marks it 「依真如義說」, spoken in the sense of 真如. So “not dharma, not non-dharma” is no vague either-way, but a removing-and-establishing clear in the three natures: what is removed is 遍計所執 alone, what is shown forth is the perfectly-accomplished 真如. Prajñā states this leaving-of-words wholesale with “ungraspable, unsayable”; Yogācāra, by the wholly-imagined and the perfectly-accomplished, states this “not dharma, not non-dharma” perfectly clear.

The Transformation-Buddha Is Not the Real Buddha: Reading “Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught” Through the Three Bodies

Then has Śākyamuni, here before us teaching the Dharma and delivering beings, not attained bodhi, not taught Dharma? This is exactly the doubt Vasubandhu would break. Yogācāra says the Buddha has three bodies: the dharma-body (the substance shown forth by 真如), the reward-body, and the transformation-body (the responsive-transformation body manifested to suit beings). Vasubandhu points it out plainly: 「釋迦牟尼名為佛者，此是化佛，此佛不證阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，亦不說法」 (the one called Buddha by the name Śākyamuni — this is the transformation-Buddha; this Buddha does not realize anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, nor teach Dharma) — the responsive-transformation here manifested is the transformation-body; the transformation-body is a reflection the dharma-body shows forth according to conditions, and it is not itself the subject that “really realizes bodhi, really teaches Dharma.” What really realizes is the dharma-body, and the dharma-body is apart from words and cut off from marks, nothing attained and nothing taught.

So 「應化非真佛，亦非說法者」 (the responsive-transformation is not the real Buddha, nor the teacher of Dharma): to mistake the responsive-transformation body for the real dharma-body, supposing there really is a Buddha who really realizes and really teaches, is a layer of the wholly-imagined; to know it as the transformation-body’s provisional manifestation, while the real lies in the dharma-body apart from words, is the removing of clinging. This reading through the three bodies is one key with the above “not dharma, not non-dharma” — removing the clinging of “a real Buddha able to attain and able to teach” (the wholly-imagined), showing forth the leaving-of-words of the dharma-body 真如 (the perfectly-accomplished).

The Worthies and Sages Differ by the Unconditioned: Established in Reliance on 真如, with Shallow and Deep in What Is Realized

The closing line takes an abrupt turn, the deepest turn of this division: 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」, all the worthies and sages differ by the unconditioned dharma. The foregoing was all negation — nothing attained, nothing taught, ungraspable, unsayable, not dharma, not non-dharma; here it turns out “difference”: the gradations of worthies and sages, high and low, are not nonexistent.

Yogācāra reads this layer smoothly. The “unconditioned dharma” (無為法) is just 真如, just the real nature of dharmas shown forth by the perfectly-accomplished. That the worthies and sages are worthies and sages is not in their having attained some outer dharma, but in their 「以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑」 (by the non-discriminating wisdom realizing the true principle, can they then cut off delusion — Kuiji) — by that non-discriminating wisdom (無分別智) which falls into no opposition of grasper-and-grasped, directly realizing 真如, cutting off the two hindrances of defilement and the knowable. To realize 真如 and cut off delusion is what worthies and sages share (sharing reliance on the unconditioned); while the depth or shallowness of realization, the more or less of delusion cut off, each differs — and so the gradations of difference are set up (the difference in cutting-off-and-realization, not in the 真如 realized itself). What Kuiji calls 「皆以無分別智契證真理，方能斷惑，而立差別」 (all, by the non-discriminating wisdom realizing the true principle, can then cut off delusion, and so difference is established) is precisely this sense.

So this “difference” is not attained from outside; it is, upon the one same 真如, divided according to the shallow and deep of realization by the non-discriminating wisdom. Within nothing-attained there is yet the difference of worthies and sages; within nothing-taught there is yet the institution of teachings — the utmost of negation that does not fall into annihilation, precisely the “attaining of nothing-attained, the teaching of nothing-taught.” This turn is already the forerunner of the prajñā “is-not” form in a passage lacking the full form.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, 真如, and the three bodies have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same reality of “nothing attained, nothing taught, yet not annihilation” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (no fixed dharma · not dharma, not non-dharma · the worthies and sages differ by the unconditioned), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (遍計 · 圓成 · 真如 · the three bodies · cutting off the two hindrances); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses speak 真如 by the perfectly-accomplished, and the leaving-of-words of the fruit of 轉依 by 「無得不思議」 (nothing attained, inconceivable), sealing with this division’s “not dharma, not non-dharma according with 真如” and “no fixed dharma attained.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga sets up “真如 as the unconditioned · the perfectly-accomplished,” precisely the treatise for the unconditioned on which the worthies and sages of this division rely. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the self-nature body (the dharma-body), the enjoyment body (the reward-body), and the transformation body (the transformation-body) — exactly the technical terms of Kuiji’s reading of the three bodies in this division. The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「無智亦無得，以無所得故」 (no wisdom and no attainment, because of nothing attained) is, with this division’s 「無有定法得菩提」, one and the same gate of nothing attained. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「無得無說 · 非法非非法」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “遍計 · 圓成 · 真如 · the three bodies” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

Note: this division has no full “is-not” form of “X / is-not X / is named X”; the Yogācāra meaning is tied to the twofold removal of “not dharma, not non-dharma” and to the 真如 of the “unconditioned.” The Hundred Dharmas and the Twenty Verses have here no frontal correspondence, and so no peg is forced — it rests at mirroring.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 7 · Nothing Attained, Nothing Taught · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, and the cause-of-manifesting and cause-of-producing, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “is not the nature of merit · is not the Buddha-dharma” and “all come forth from this sūtra.”

The Eye of This Division: by the Abundance of Merit, Conversely Showing the Dharma Has No Attainment

In this division the Buddha first amplifies a kind of merit to the utmost: to take a whole great-thousandfold world full of the seven treasures and give it in charity — is this merit much? Subhūti answers “very much.” Just when the merit is at its height, the Buddha abruptly turns: there is another person who only, within this sūtra, upholds a four-line verse and expounds it to others, and his merit on the contrary excels. The four ancient masters all judge this passage as text of “weighing / measuring” (校量／格量) (Jizang: 「舉外施格量」, raising outer giving for measure; Zhiyi: 「校量」, weighing; Kuiji: 「四重校量之第一校量」, the first of the four-fold weighing).

The intent of the weighing is not to weigh which of two goods is the greater, but by the measurable merit (the seven treasures) conversely to show the immeasurable Dharma (upholding the sūtra) — the more abundant the merit, the more it sets off that prajñā’s “nothing attained” is the true excelling. So this division has two “is-not”s: one applied to “merit,” one to “the Buddha-dharma”; and between them is set the line “all come forth from this sūtra,” drawing the eye from “the weighing of merit” onto “that from which all Buddhas come forth.” Below, we reflect line by line following the text.

The First Is-Not: Merit — Is Not the Nature of Merit — Therefore It Is Said the Merit Is Much

The merit of giving the seven treasures Subhūti says 「即非福德性」, is not the nature of merit. Kumārajīva here has no closing “is named,” a single statement of the “is-not.” Following the three natures:

• Merit = 依他起: the giving of the seven treasures is a dependently-arisen event, garnering worldly outflowing merit, vividly having its fruit-reward, sayable and measurable. Kuiji says 「財施福能感世間福德多」 (the merit of material giving can garner much worldly merit) — the dependently-arisen merit is not nonexistent.
• Is not the nature of merit = removing 遍計所執: what is removed is the layer of clinging the ordinary person deludedly adds upon this dependently-arisen merit — supposing there really is a “self-nature of supramundane merit” to be attained. This layer of wholly-imagined clinging has no substance. Kuiji says it plainly: 「即非福德性者，謂非是感出世之福德性也」 (“is not the nature of merit” means it is not that nature-of-merit which garners the supramundane fruit); Asaṅga too says 「以無彼福聚分別自性故」 (because that aggregate of merit has no discriminated self-nature) — this is exactly the removing of that layer of discriminated, clung self-nature. 遍計所執 is just such a layer of deluded reckoning: taking the “really existent” mark discriminated by mind for something inherent in the object.
• The branch of the perfectly-accomplished lies hidden here: the merit is not annihilation (the other-dependent illusory merit can still be spoken), so 「如來說福德多」 (the Tathāgata says the merit is much) — to say “much” is spoken with respect to the matter sayable on the conventional plane. Asaṅga puts it through in a word: 「雖不如言辭有自性，而有可說事，以如來說福聚故」 (though it has no self-nature as the words say, yet there is a sayable matter, since the Tathāgata speaks of the aggregate of merit). The layer of real clinging removed clean, the dependently-arisen merit can still be spoken of as much.

So “is not the nature of merit” does not erase the merit at a stroke; it removes the layer of wholly-imagined clinging to “a really existent self-nature of supramundane merit,” showing it without self-nature — this is prajñā’s single word “empty,” and Yogācāra by 相無性 (the non-nature of marks — the mark of 遍計所執 is from the first non-existent) points out what this “empty” ultimately empties.

Why the Merit “Does Not Excel”: It Has Accumulation but Cannot Advance

But since the merit can be spoken of as much, why does it on the contrary not match the merit of upholding the sūtra? This layer Vasubandhu lays bare in a word. Explaining the treatise-verse on “is not merit,” he says: 「福不趣菩提，二能趣菩提」 — giving’s merit has the function of accumulation, yet cannot advance toward great bodhi; only the two things, upholding and expounding, can advance toward bodhi, and so the merit of these two excels.

Seen through the Yogācāra eye, this judgment is most exact: outflowing merit is a dependently-arisen, accumulable thing of fruit-reward; it accumulates within the three realms, yet is not the cause that gives rise to the non-discriminating wisdom and realizes 真如. Kuiji says accordingly: one must 「聽聞發生無分別智，方得出世無相果」 (hear, and give rise to the non-discriminating wisdom, then attain the supramundane markless fruit) — what can draw out the non-discriminating wisdom, can turn consciousness into wisdom, is the cause that advances toward bodhi. Jizang too, following Vasubandhu, distinguishes: 「即非福德者，非無漏無所得福德也」 (“is not merit” means it is not the outflow-free, nothing-attained merit) — what is removed is the clinging to outflowing merit, what is shown forth is the outflow-free, nothing-attained merit. The weighing of merit, come here, shows its difference of quality: not a difference of more and less, but a difference between “able to accumulate” and “able to advance.”

All Come Forth from This Sūtra: the Cause-of-Manifesting Shows the Dharma-Body, the Cause-of-Producing Forms the Transformation-Body

The middle line is the joint of this division: 「一切諸佛及諸佛阿耨多羅三藐三菩提法，皆從此經出」, all Buddhas, and the anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi dharma of all Buddhas, come forth from this sūtra. Kumārajīva has only the one phrase “come forth from this sūtra”; the variant translations divide it into two — the bodhi-dharma comes forth from this sūtra, the Buddhas are born from this sūtra. Why are “come forth” and “born” spoken separately? Vasubandhu judges it most finely: this is the difference between the cause-of-manifesting (了因) and the cause-of-producing (生因).

Yogācāra says “cause” is of two kinds: one is the “cause-of-producing,” able to produce a fruit not there before (as a seed produces a sprout); one is the “cause-of-manifesting,” which is there from the first, only veiled, and which the meeting of conditions manifests forth (as a lamp lights a thing — the thing not produced by the lamp, only shown by it). Vasubandhu reads “come forth / born” with just this distinction:

• “Come forth” pairs with the dharma-body (shown by the cause-of-manifesting): the dharma of bodhi is just the dharma-body, and the dharma-body is the unconditioned substance of 真如; it is not produced — this sūtra (hearing which draws out the non-discriminating wisdom and realizes 真如) is the cause-of-manifesting, manifesting forth the inherent dharma-body, and so the dharma-body is said to “come forth from this sūtra.” Vasubandhu’s 「菩提者名為法身，彼體實無為……此二能作了因、不能作生因」 (bodhi is called the dharma-body, its substance truly unconditioned… these two can act as cause-of-manifesting, not as cause-of-producing), and Kuiji’s 「於無為實相了因所得也」 (with respect to the unconditioned real-mark, attained through the cause-of-manifesting), both say this.
• “Born” pairs with the transformation-body (formed by the cause-of-producing): the Buddhas’ enjoyment- and manifestation-bodies (the dignified glory of marks) are conditioned and can be formed; toward these this sūtra is the cause-of-producing, and so the Buddhas are said to be “born from this sūtra.” Vasubandhu’s 「餘者，受報相好莊嚴……佛於此為生因」 (the rest — the received-reward, the dignified glory of marks… the Buddha is here the cause-of-producing), and Kuiji’s 「報、化二佛從此經生」 (the two Buddhas of reward and transformation are born from this sūtra).

So “all come forth and are born from this sūtra” is no vague phrase of praising the sūtra. Reflected once by Yogācāra’s cause-of-manifesting and cause-of-producing, it divides perfectly clear: the unconditioned dharma-body can only be manifested (shown), not produced; the conditioned transformation-body can be produced — exactly answering Yogācāra’s 「真如非生因所生，唯了因所顯」 (真如 is not produced by the cause-of-producing, only shown by the cause-of-manifesting). The weight of the four words “born of the Dharma” falls upon just this strict distinction of cause-of-manifesting versus cause-of-producing.

The Second Is-Not: the So-Called Buddha-Dharma — Is Not the Buddha-Dharma — Is Named the Buddha-Dharma

The closing line applies the “is-not” to “the Buddha-dharma”: 「所謂佛法者，即非佛法」, the so-called Buddha-dharma is not the Buddha-dharma. Kumārajīva here too omits the closing “is named” (Paramārtha and Yijing fill it out as 「是名佛法」, is named the Buddha-dharma). Following the three natures:

• The Buddha-dharma = 依他起: the Buddha-dharma is a teaching sayable, upholdable, and able to come forth from the sūtra, set up in reliance on conditions, vividly having its provisional mark. Kuiji says 「理智圓明，名為佛法」 (principle-and-wisdom perfectly clear is called the Buddha-dharma) — by the non-discriminating wisdom realizing the true principle, principle and wisdom perfectly clear, this is the sayable Buddha-dharma.
• Is not the Buddha-dharma = removing 遍計所執: what is removed is the layer of clinging that takes the Buddha-dharma for “a real dharma discriminatedly clung, shared in common by the two vehicles and others.” Kuiji says 「此唯十方諸佛同得……餘人不得，故即非佛法」 (this is realized in common only by the Buddhas of the ten directions… others do not attain it, so it is not the Buddha-dharma) — the Buddha-dharma is the uncommon realization of Buddhas alone, not that real “dharma” which the ordinary person’s discriminating mind grasps; Jizang too says 「自佛以外，二乘菩薩無有此法，故云即非佛法」 (apart from the Buddha, the two vehicles and bodhisattvas have not this dharma, so it is said to be not the Buddha-dharma). What is removed is exactly that layer of wholly-imagined clinging that takes the Buddha-dharma as a graspable real dharma.
• Is named the Buddha-dharma = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, keeping the provisional name (filled out by Paramārtha and Yijing): the deluded clinging removed clean, the self-natureless Buddha-dharma is still sayable on the conventional plane. Asaṅga removes both sides: 「『如來說非佛法』者，此遮增益邊；『是名佛法』者，此遮損減邊」 (“the Tathāgata says it is not the Buddha-dharma” blocks the side of superimposition; “is named the Buddha-dharma” blocks the side of denial) — “is-not” blocks the superimposing clinging of “a really existent Buddha-dharma,” “is named” blocks the denying view of “no Buddha-dharma at all.” Removing the self-nature yet keeping the sayable — this is the perfectly-accomplished.

All of One Thread: Two Is-Nots, One Pivot

Set the two “is-not”s of this division side by side, and they share one key: removing that layer of “self-nature / existent-as-said” reality, and what is removed does not fall into non-existence. The weighed merit (is not the nature of merit) and the born Buddha-dharma (is not the Buddha-dharma) are both “without real self-nature yet having a sayable matter” — removing the wholly-imagined (is-not) without falling into denial (is named). Prajñā states it wholesale with one word “empty”; Yogācāra by the three non-natures points out what this “empty” empties: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (the non-nature of marks — the mark is from the first non-existent), 依他起 is 生無性 (the non-nature of arising — no self-nature of arising of itself, only dependent co-arising), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (the non-nature of ultimate meaning — the ultimate apart from all imputation). So the “is-not” empties that layer of the wholly-imagined, not erasing the other-dependent merit and the other-dependent Buddha-dharma along with it.

That at the very moment of “born of the Dharma” the merit and the Buddha-dharma are both made “is-not” is precisely to show the true meaning of this division: the Buddhas are born of this sūtra, and the dharma born and the merit weighed have no real self-nature to be clung — the place of nothing-attained is precisely the place of coming-forth.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, the three non-natures, the cause-of-manifesting and cause-of-producing, the dharma-body and transformation-body have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Thirty Verses, the Cheng weishi lun); the Diamond Sūtra is prajñā, and Yogācāra is only one mirror for reading it — this sūtra has no Yogācāra downstream. Rather, it is that the same reality of “is-not yet sayable, nothing attained yet able to be born forth” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (is not the nature of merit · is not the Buddha-dharma · all come forth from this sūtra), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the three natures and three non-natures · 遍計所執 · the cause-of-manifesting and cause-of-producing · the dharma-body and transformation-body); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, by the perfectly-accomplished, speak the conventional sayable of “is named,” and by 轉依 the outflow-free that is shown forth, according with this division’s “is not the nature of merit · come forth from this sūtra.” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha’s teaching of the three bodies (self-nature · enjoyment · transformation body) is exactly Vasubandhu’s treatise for “the cause-of-manifesting shows the dharma-body〔come forth〕 · the cause-of-producing forms the transformation-body〔born〕.” The Cheng weishi lun’s teaching that 真如 is only shown by the cause-of-manifesting, not produced by the cause-of-producing, seals with this division’s “the dharma-body comes forth from this sūtra (manifested) · the transformation-body is born from this sūtra (produced).” The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「無智亦無得」 is, with this division’s “is not the Buddha-dharma,” one and the same dharma-plane of nothing attained — the Buddha-dharma being without real self-nature to attain is just what makes it the Buddha-dharma. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — 「即非佛法 · 皆從此經出生」 — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “the cause-of-manifesting and cause-of-producing · the dharma-body and transformation-body · the outflow-free shown forth” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 8 · Born of the Dharma · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the “provisional name” of 依他起 (paratantra), the “clinging to ‘I have attained’” of 遍計所執 (parikalpita), and the realization that leaves the hindrances, to reflect this division’s question-and-answer of “named X yet without Y, is named X.”

The Eye of This Division: None of the Four Fruits Makes the Thought “I Have Attained the Fruit”

This division comes carried from the previous one. Before, it said 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」, all the worthies and sages differ by the unconditioned dharma — the sages are established in name by realizing the unconditioned (the unarising, unceasing truth). The words no sooner fall than a doubt arises: if dharmas are ungraspable, unsayable, without reliance and without attainment, how do the sages of the four fruits still grasp and realize their own fruit, still say “I have attained the fruit”? The three masters all judge this division as “bringing the weighing to completion” (釋成格量) — turning back to round out the foregoing weighing (Jizang: 「釋成格量之義」, completing the meaning of the weighing; Kuiji: 「約二乘以生疑，前說一切聖人以無為法得名，何故預流等云我能取自果」, raising the doubt through the two vehicles — the foregoing said all sages are named by the unconditioned, why then do the stream-enterer and the rest say “I can grasp my own fruit”; Vasubandhu: 「若須陀洹等聖人取自果，云何言彼法不可取」, if the sages such as the stream-enterer grasp their own fruit, how is it said that dharma is ungraspable).

The way this division answers is to ask down through the four fruits, from stream-enterer to arhat, each with the same one question: can he give rise to the thought “I have attained such-and-such a fruit”? And the answer is each time the same “No.” The Buddha uses the four fruits’ not making the thought of attainment to answer that foregoing doubt: the fruit-realization is real, but upon the fruit there is no real matter of “I have attained” to be clung.

It must first be stated that this division has no full three-phrase “is-not” form of “X — is-not X — is named X,” but takes on another shape — “named X, yet without Y, is named X” (the stream-enterer 「名為入流，而無所入」, named “entering the stream” yet entering nowhere; the once-returner 「名一往來，而實無往來」, named “once coming and going” yet in truth no coming and going; the non-returner 「名為不來，而實無來」, named “not coming” yet in truth no coming). What it states is not “is-not” but “nothing attained” (無得). Seen through the Yogācāra eye, this “nothing attained” divides perfectly clear.

The Fruit-Name Is a Provisional Name: the Establishing of 依他起

First, the “name” of the fruit. How are the fruit-names stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, and arhat set up? Yogācāra says: whatever name is set up following the conventional, in reliance on conditions, is 依他起 — a provisional mark arising in reliance on a manifold of conditions, not that outside the name there is some other real thing called by this name. The fruit-name is the same: it is a designation set up for him following his realization-entry into the unconditioned, following conventional truth (Kuiji: 「但為其立名稱曰預流」, only setting up the name for him, called stream-enterer). So “stream-enterer” is a name vividly sayable, but the “name” is just a name.

Both Jizang and Kuiji point out that this name “entering the stream” (入流) holds a double sense. “Stream” (流) is of two kinds: one is the stream of birth-and-death (that is, the defilements), the other the stream of the path, the supramundane stream (that is, right contemplation, the right path). So “entering the stream” in fact states both faces at once: what is entered is the supramundane stream of the path, what is gone against is the stream of the defilements of birth-and-death (Jizang: 「名為入流，即是入於道流；不入色、聲、香、味觸法即是逆生死流」, named “entering the stream” is entering the stream of the path; not entering form, sound, scent, taste, touch, dharma is going against the stream of birth-and-death; Kuiji: 「若望生死即是逆流，若望出世便是預流」, regarded toward birth-and-death it is going against the stream, regarded toward the supramundane it is entering the stream). One fruit-name, both senses provisionally set within it.

“Entering Nowhere · In Truth No Coming and Going” Is Removing Clinging: 遍計所執 Has No Substance

Now the stretch “yet entering nowhere · yet in truth no coming and going · yet in truth no coming” — this is precisely the place of removing clinging.

The stream-enterer is named “entering the stream,” yet 「不入色聲香味觸法」, does not enter form, sound, scent, taste, touch, dharma, 「無所入」, enters nowhere. Yogācāra says the ordinary person always must add a layer upon these names-and-marks: supposing there really is a real “self,” really a real “fruit” or “realm” to be entered, reached, or attained — and this layer of deluded reckoning is 遍計所執 (taking the reflection transformed by mind for a thing really existing outside the mind). This division’s string of “yet without…” removes exactly this layer: at the time of realizing the true principle, one only silently accords with that principle, and does not head toward, or enter into, any real realm of form, sound, scent, and the like (Kuiji: 「正證真理之時但冥契理，而不入色聲等法」, at the time of rightly realizing the true principle one only silently accords with the principle and does not enter the dharmas of form, sound, and so on). The fruit-realization is vivid, yet the deluded clinging of “there really is a dharma to be entered and attained” has from the first no substance — exactly the thing that the prajñā phrase “entering nowhere” empties.

Zhiyi reads this stretch, landing on the two words “in contemplation” (在觀): the stream-enterer’s “not entering the form-dust” is going against the stream of birth-and-death, but truly come to the time of realizing the real, it is 「無逆無入」, without going-against and without entering — even the opposing marks of “going-against” and “entering” are stilled (Zhiyi: 「至論在觀，無逆無入」, come to discuss it in contemplation, there is no going-against and no entering). The once-returner’s “in truth no coming and going” is because he has already attained the two emptinesses of person and dharmas (Zhiyi: 「已得生、法二空故」, because he has already attained the two emptinesses of being and dharmas); the non-returner’s “in truth no coming,” Zhiyi says, is abbreviated text — “not coming” already contains “no coming,” the senses seen across each other (Zhiyi: 「略以無兼不，互文現耳」, abbreviating, “no” covers “not,” the cross-text showing it). All the way down, the name is the provisionally-set other-dependent, and the “no” is the removed-clean wholly-imagined.

“In Truth No Dharma Named Arhat” and Not Making the Thought “I Have Attained”: Breaking the Clinging to Self · Breaking the Conceit of “I Have Attained”

Come to the arhat, it is removed most thoroughly, stating directly 「實無有法名阿羅漢」, in truth there is no dharma named arhat — even the nameable dharma has no reality. At once it points out the pivot: 「若阿羅漢作是念『我得阿羅漢道』，即為著我、人、眾生、壽者」, if an arhat makes the thought “I have attained the arhat-path,” he then clings to self, person, being, life-span. Once the thought “I have attained” arises, one falls back into the clinging to self of the four marks.

Yogācāra sees this single thought very finely. Vasubandhu says: if the sage gives rise to such a mind as “I can attain the fruit,” this is clinging to self and the rest; and this is possible because there are still latent dispositions not yet exhausted — not the active coarse defilements, but the latent defilement-seeds (the latent dispositions, 隨眠) (Vasubandhu: 「以有使煩惱、非行煩惱」, because there are latent-disposition defilements, not active defilements; Yijing’s version marks directly 「意說有隨眠惑，非是現行」, the sense is that there are latent-disposition delusions, not the active). So the clinging of “I have attained the fruit” is an extremely subtle conceit of “I have attained” (我得慢) — Kuiji points it out in a word: 「我是預流等，故名之為慢」 (“I am a stream-enterer” and so on, therefore it is called conceit): harboring within “I am a person who has realized the fruit” — this is conceit. This division belongs to the first half of the whole sūtra (breaking the mark of self, purifying the clinging to a personal self), and what it would break is precisely this subtlest layer of “I have attained” clinging-to-self hidden behind the fruit-realization. Asaṅga too judges this passage as “no conceit in the excellence attained on the path of cultivation” (於修道得勝中無慢) among the eighteen abodes, and the first of the twelve leavings-of-hindrance, “leaving conceit” (離慢) — what it counters is just this conceit of “I have attained the fruit” (Asaṅga: 「為離慢故……顯示對治我得慢」, for the sake of leaving conceit… displaying the counter to the conceit of “I have attained”; 「若有我想，則為有慢」, if there is the thought of self, there is conceit).

Kuiji further, by Yogācāra, finely distinguishes the four fruits: the first three fruits, coming out of meditative contemplation, may still give rise to this “I have attained” conceit; the fourth fruit, the arhat alone, having cut the defilements clean, will no more give rise to this conceit — yet the layer of the 所知障 is still allowed to arise (Kuiji: 「前三果出觀容起，第四果者煩惱定無，所知容起也」, the first three fruits coming out of contemplation may give rise to it, the fourth fruit certainly without defilement, the knowable may yet arise). This line leaves a hidden thread: the śrāvaka has cut the 煩惱障 clean, yet the 所知障 still remains — and this leads straight on to the latter half (from the division “Ultimately, No Self” onward) of “breaking the dharma-clinging, cutting off the 所知障.”

Foremost in Non-Contention · In Truth Nothing Practiced: the Realized State That Leaves the Two Hindrances

Subhūti then takes himself as witness. The Buddha says he attains the “samādhi of non-contention” (無諍三昧), is foremost among men, is the foremost arhat free of desire; yet he precisely does not give rise to the thought “I am an arhat free of desire.” Had he given rise to the thought “I have attained the arhat-path,” the Buddha would not have said he is one who 「樂阿蘭那行」, delights in the practice of araṇā (the practice of quiet, free of affairs). It is exactly because he 「實無所行」, in truth practices nothing — has no clinging of “I am practicing something” — that he merits being called one who delights in the practice of quiet.

The word “non-contention” (無諍) Yogācāra and the ancient masters read not as that attitude of “not disputing with others,” but as the realized state that leaves the two hindrances. Vasubandhu says non-contention is the leaving of two hindrances: one the 煩惱障, the other the samādhi-hindrance (定障) (Vasubandhu: 「二種障者：一者煩惱障；二者三昧障。離彼二障，故言無所行」, of the two kinds of hindrance, one the defilement-hindrance, two the samādhi-hindrance; leaving those two hindrances, therefore it is said “nothing practiced”; Yijing renders it 「煩惱障·定障」, the defilement-hindrance and the concentration-hindrance, the names differing, the meaning one). Jizang and Kuiji read it the same: Jizang 「斷煩惱故得羅漢，斷三昧鄣得無諍定」 (cutting off the defilements one attains arhatship, cutting off the samādhi-hindrance one attains the non-contention concentration); Kuiji says Subhūti is called “foremost free of desire” because he has left both the 煩惱障 and the samādhi-hindrance, being “liberated-both-ways” (俱解脫), unlike the “wisdom-liberated” (慧解脫) who cuts only the 煩惱障 (Kuiji: 「能離煩惱障及定障故……以是俱解脫，故不同慧解脫但離煩惱障也」, able to leave the defilement-hindrance and the concentration-hindrance… being liberated-both-ways, hence unlike the wisdom-liberated who only leaves the defilement-hindrance).

So “in truth nothing practiced” is not doing nothing at all; it is that, the two hindrances left and the two graspings exhausted clean, the mind has not a single clingable “practicer, practiced” — and this is exactly what nothing-attained looks like in realization: the fruit-realization reached to the utmost, the thought of “I have attained” and the clinging of “I practice” are, on the contrary, ever the more wholly unattainable.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, the Words of the Sūtra and the Words of the Treatise

Reading this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — Yogācāra’s teachings of the two emptinesses, the two hindrances, and nothing-attained have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Thirty Verses, the Twenty Verses, the Cheng weishi lun); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is that the same reality of “realizing yet nothing attained” the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (not making the thought of attainment · in truth nothing practiced), and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the other-dependent provisional name · removing the wholly-imagined · cutting off the two hindrances · nothing attained); set side by side, the meaning shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, by “nothing attained” (無所得), abide in the nature of consciousness-only, according with this division’s four fruits’ “in truth no dharma can be attained.” The Twenty Verses make clear consciousness-only and no object, and the four fruits’ “not entering form, sound, scent, taste, touch, dharma” is exactly the teaching that the six dusts are without reality, the realm empty. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the separate cutting-off of the 煩惱障 and the 所知障 (Kuiji’s 「第四果煩惱定無、所知容起」, the fourth fruit certainly without defilement, the knowable may yet arise, is precisely the forerunner of this separate cutting of the two hindrances), sealing with the discriminated clinging-to-self of “I have attained the fruit” and the leaving of the two hindrances of non-contention. The Heart Sūtra of the prajñā lineage’s 「無智亦無得」 and 「以無所得故」 (no wisdom and no attainment · because of nothing attained) are, with this division’s “in truth nothing practiced,” one and the same gate of nothing attained. To close in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra says in the words of the sūtra — “the four fruits make no thought of attainment · in truth nothing practiced” — and what the Cheng weishi lun says in the technical terms of “the separate cutting of the two hindrances · clinging to self · nothing attained” are one and the same matter 〔this rapprochement is already set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 9 · One Mark, No Mark · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, the transformation of the basis (轉依 āśraya-parāvṛtti), the two graspings, and the body-of-enjoyment, to throw light on the Diamond Sūtra’s “to adorn the Buddha-land is not to adorn,” “one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere,” and “a body like Sumeru — the Buddha calls it no body.”

The Eye of the Division: Two “Is-Nots” with a Line of Transformation Set Between Them

This division follows on from the preceding point — “at Dīpaṃkara’s, there was nothing attained.” The Buddha first asks: when the Tathāgata was with Dīpaṃkara Buddha long ago, did he attain any Dharma at all? The answer: in truth nothing was attained. The ancient masters all take this “nothing attained” as the opening of the division — precisely because not a single dharma can be grasped, three things are drawn out below: to adorn the Buddha-land is not to adorn; one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere; a great body like Sumeru, of which the Buddha says it is no body. Within this one passage there are two “is-nots,” front and back, with a single line of practice — the transformation of the basis — set between them: “one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere.” This single line is the whole sūtra’s most complete definitive statement of the sense of “non-abiding.”

Vasubandhu’s two Chinese commentarial witnesses read this place with unusual clarity: he does not merely read “is-not” as the dispelling of clinging, he straightforwardly marks out “consciousness-only” (唯識) — 「智習唯識通，如是取淨土」 (“when wisdom is practiced and consciousness-only is penetrated, the pure land is thus taken up”), 「智流唯識性，國土非所執」 (“wisdom flows out the nature of consciousness-only; the land is not something to be grasped”). The sense is: what is called the pure land is what flows out from the pure wisdom of all Buddhas, manifested by consciousness-only — there is no land of solid form to be grasped, standing outside. The three ancient streams (Jizang of the Three-Treatise school, Zhiyi of Tiantai, Kuiji of Yogācāra) all read this division following Vasubandhu’s sequence. Held up to the Yogācāra eye, these two “is-nots” and the one line of non-abiding are nothing other than the express text of the three natures and the transformation of the basis.

Is-Not One: Adorning the Buddha-Land — the Adorning of Seven Jewels Is Not a Real Adorning

The Buddha asks whether the bodhisattva has adorned the Buddha-land; Subhūti answers “no,” and gathers it in an “is-not”: 「莊嚴佛土者，則非莊嚴，是名莊嚴」 (“to adorn the Buddha-land is not to adorn; that is what is called adorning”). Reading along the three natures:

• “Adorning the Buddha-land” = 依他起 paratantra: the seven-jewel ornamentation, the manifold phenomena of the pure land, are conditionally-arisen appearances, manifestly there and sayable as provisional marks. Kuiji says the bodhisattva 「於外事形相之中，即得七寶莊嚴」 (“within outward phenomenal forms, attains the adorning of seven jewels”) — this conditionally-arisen ornamentation is not nothing.
• “Is not adorning” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the layer that grasps this ornamentation as “an adorning really existing outside the mind.” 遍計所執 is just such a layer of false reckoning: it takes the image conjured by the mind to be a thing really existing outside the mind. Kuiji puts it plainly — 「『即非莊嚴』者，非外形相莊嚴也」 (“‘is not adorning’ means: it is not the adorning of outward phenomenal forms”), not that outward-form adorning taken to be real; Jizang too says 「如來莊嚴佛土則非莊嚴」, and what is dispelled is precisely the beginner’s clinging that takes “phenomenal form to be the pure land.”
• “That is what is called adorning” = establishing 圓成實 pariniṣpanna, preserving the provisional name: where false clinging has been dispelled, the true adorning — markless, ungraspable — stands manifest. Kuiji says 「『是名莊嚴』者，是無相無取真莊嚴也」 (“‘that is what is called adorning’ — it is the true adorning that is markless and ungrasped”); Jizang calls it 「第一義真實莊嚴」 (“the true adorning in the highest sense”) — the real character of all dharmas, with not one virtue lacking and not one defilement unpurified: this is what is called adorning.

The crucial layer is the one Vasubandhu marks out: the pure land is not merely the emptiness left over after clinging is dispelled — it is flowed out from pure wisdom, manifested by consciousness-only. Kuiji renders Vasubandhu’s 「智習唯識」 very directly: the bodhisattva, by non-discriminating wisdom, inwardly realizes the adorning that is the true principle, and the adorning of this true principle corresponds to the “pure consciousness” — 「『唯識』，謂智相應淨識」 (“‘consciousness-only’ means the pure consciousness that corresponds to wisdom”); and he cites the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha’s eighteen perfections of the pure land — 「廣大自在淨識為相」 (“vast and sovereign pure consciousness as its mark”), 「心淨即佛土淨」 (“when the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure”) — in proof. So “to adorn the Buddha-land is not to adorn,” read in Yogācāra, is not the smearing-away of the pure land into nothing at all; it says: the true pure land is in the pure wisdom and pure consciousness, not on outward form — when the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure. The ordinary person supposes the adorning to lie in jeweled bricks and tiles, which is why the five alternate translations all say 「執取莊嚴即是妄語」 (“to grasp at adorning is itself false speech”) — to grasp at the adorning of form as real is precisely 遍計; the bodhisattva, knowing it to be manifested by consciousness-only, with no mark to grasp, is the one who truly adorns the land.

The Line Set Between: Giving Rise to That Mind Without Abiding Anywhere — the Practice-Gate of the Transformation of the Basis

Having established “adorning is not adorning,” the Buddha then teaches the bodhisattva: 「應如是生清淨心，不應住色生心，不應住聲、香、味、觸、法生心，應無所住而生其心」 (“thus should one give rise to a pure mind: one should not give rise to mind abiding in form; one should not give rise to mind abiding in sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas; one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere”). This line is the division’s complete statement of the transformation of the basis.

Yogācāra says: the ordinary person’s mind always “abides” on objects — clinging to form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas as it gives rise to thought, taking the object conditioned as something really existing outside the mind, and so falling into the duality of grasper and grasped (二取) (splitting a consciousness that has no grasper-and-grasped of its own into a grasping mind and a grasped object — this is the root of 遍計). “To give rise to that mind without abiding in form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or dharmas” is to cast off that layer of clinging arisen in reliance on the false discriminating consciousness (casting off what is grasped in reliance on consciousness), and to give rise to mind in reliance on non-discrimination (relying on 圓成實). This casting-off and attaining is, in Yogācāra, called 轉依 āśraya-parāvṛtti — the transformation of the basis.

Kuiji’s reading falls exactly here: 「『應如是生清淨心』者，謂應修習淨智、淨識清淨心」 (“‘thus should one give rise to a pure mind’ means: one should cultivate the pure mind that is pure wisdom and pure consciousness”) — the pure mind is just pure wisdom and pure consciousness; 「『應無所住而生其心』者，謂要以智證於無住」 (“‘one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere’ means: one must, with wisdom, realize the non-abiding”) — it is realizing that “non-abiding” with wisdom, not emptying the mind out so that nothing is given rise to at all. So “giving rise to mind without abiding” is not the dead stillness of pinning thoughts down; it is a realized practice with a turning in it: from relying on what consciousness grasps, turned into relying on the non-discriminating pure consciousness. The pure mind is precisely that mind disclosed by the transformation of the basis.

Is-Not Two: The Great Body Like Sumeru — the Body-of-Enjoyment Is Vast and Non-Discriminating, Not Self-Grasping

Last, the Buddha gives a simile: suppose someone had a body like Sumeru, the king of mountains — is that body great? Subhūti answers in the “is-not” form: 「佛說非身，是名大身」 (“the Buddha says it is no body; that is what is called a great body”). This simile, in Yogācāra, is read as a simile for the body-of-enjoyment (受用身, the recompense-body). Reading along the three natures, it is structurally one with the great-body simile of Division 17:

• “A body like Sumeru, the king of mountains (the great body)” = 依他起 paratantra: the bodily mark of the body-of-enjoyment, vast and measureless, manifestly sayable.
• “The Buddha says it is no body” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is grasping this body as “a real body that has discrimination.” Kuiji says 「『佛說非身』者，謂非有分別身」 (“‘the Buddha says it is no body’ means: it is not a body that has discrimination”) — not that discriminated body taken to be really existent.
• “That is what is called a great body” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where clinging is dispelled, the non-discriminating body stands manifestly nameable. Kuiji says 「『是名大身』者，是無分別身也」 (“‘that is what is called a great body’ — it is the non-discriminating body”).

Vasubandhu’s verse points the eye of this simile most transparently: 「如山王無取，受報亦復然」 (“as the king of mountains does no grasping, so too the recompense-body”). The king of mountains, Sumeru, towers in might and reach, and so is called “great”; yet the mountain-king does not raise a single thought saying “I am the mountain-king” — because it is mindless, without discrimination. The Buddha of the body-of-enjoyment is just so: having attained the supreme essence of the Dharma-king, he is called “great,” yet the Buddha does not grasp at himself a thought “I am the Dharma-king” — because he is non-discriminating. Yijing’s translation of Vasubandhu’s commentary likewise says 「於受用無取」 (“in the enjoyment, no grasping”). So the “greatness” of this “great body” lies not in there being some great mark to grasp, but in the virtue-mark of being non-discriminating and not self-grasping. The “mindlessness” of the mountain figures precisely the Buddha’s “non-discrimination.”

Threaded Through As One: Adorning the Land, Giving Rise to Mind, the Great Body — All One Non-Abiding

Set these three side by side and they share a single key: to have without grasping, to be manifest without abiding. The pure land is manifestly there (依他起) yet not graspable as form (the dispelling of 遍計) — this is the non-abiding of adorning the land; the mind is given rise manifestly yet does not abide in the six dusts (轉依) — this is the non-abiding of the practice-gate; the body-of-enjoyment is vast (依他起) yet does not grasp at itself as Dharma-king (the dispelling of 遍計) — this is the non-abiding of the body. Prajñā speaks all the way down with “non-abiding · is-not”; Yogācāra, with the three natures and three non-natures, points out exactly what this “non-abiding” is the not-having of: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (mark-non-nature: its mark is from the start not there), 依他起 is 生無性 (arising-non-nature: arisen by conditions, with no nature self-arising), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (ultimate-non-nature: the ultimate that is apart from all 遍計). So “is not adorning” and “the Buddha says it is no body” empty out the layer of 遍計, not the pure land and the body-of-enjoyment along with it — the pure land within the pure consciousness is still the pure land, and the body-of-enjoyment in its non-discrimination is still the great body.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra’s teaching of the pure land and the transformation of the basis flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the three natures, the transformation of the basis, and the pure land as manifested by consciousness-only have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatise-witnesses (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha’s eighteen perfections of the pure land in its chapter on the fruit, the Thirty Verses’ transformation of the basis); prajñā is another lineage, and this sūtra has no downstream dependence on Yogācāra. Rather, it is one and the same reality — “manifest yet non-abiding, is-not yet preserved” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (adorning is not adorning · giving rise to mind without abiding · the great body that is no body), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (the three natures and three non-natures · the transformation of the basis · the pure consciousness as the pure land · the body-of-enjoyment); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha says of the eighteen perfections of the pure land 「淨識為相、心淨即佛土淨」 (“pure consciousness as its mark; when the mind is pure, the Buddha-land is pure”) — this is precisely the treatise-witness for the division’s “to adorn the Buddha-land is not to adorn; the pure land is manifested by consciousness-only.” The Thirty Verses speak of the transformation of the basis through 圓成實, and of the “adorning of form” grasped through 遍計所執 — both mutually sealing with “giving rise to mind without abiding” and “is not adorning.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the transformation of the basis, of 遍計所執, and of the pure consciousness — the same purport. And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「無智亦無得」 (“no wisdom and no attainment”) — adorning the land yet with no attainment of an adorner or an adorned — is one and the same practice of nothing-attained as this division’s “adorning is not adorning.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere” and “to adorn the Buddha-land is not to adorn,” the Cheng weishi lun and the Thirty Verses state in the technical words “the transformation of the basis · not abiding in 遍計所執 · the pure consciousness as the pure land” — and it is one and the same matter 〔on the reading of “giving rise to mind without abiding ↔ the transformation of the basis,” see Shi Huijing, “One Should Give Rise to That Mind Without Abiding Anywhere” (S5-P06)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 10 · Adorning the Pure Land · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), “merit has no real nature,” and “the merit-mark and the Dharma-body” to throw light on this passage of the Diamond Sūtra that “weighs the merit of upholding the sūtra against a giving of immeasurable wealth.”

The Eye of the Division: Raising an Even Greater Giving, Which Conversely Discloses the Superiority of Upholding the Sūtra

Division 8 already made one such comparison: that giving the seven jewels of the three-thousand great-thousandfold world does not equal receiving and keeping a four-line verse and expounding it for others. By this division, the Buddha raises that comparison once more, and now enlarges the thing given to the utmost — first laying out an astronomical figure with the simile of the Ganges sands: the sands in a single Ganges are already past counting; now take each grain of sand to be itself a Ganges, and the sands in all those Ganges each to be a three-thousand great-thousandfold world, and fill all these measureless, boundless worlds with the seven jewels to give away. Given on such a scale, the merit is of course “very much.” Yet the Buddha still judges: the merit of upholding a four-line verse of the sūtra and expounding it for others surpasses the merit of this giving of wealth. The ancient masters all point out the intent of this “raising it once more” — Zhiyi’s line 「積寶多而功薄，四句約而福厚」 (“the more jewels are heaped up, the thinner the merit; the four lines are spare, yet the blessing is rich”): the more the thing given is piled up, the more measured it becomes, and conversely the more it discloses the spareness-yet-endlessness of upholding a single four-line verse. This division has no three-part “is-not” formula that dispels within a single phrase; it walks another road: using a measured merit counted to the utmost to throw into relief, by contrast, the nothing-attained superiority of the unconditioned Dharma-giving.

The “Unconditioned” of “the Unconditioned Surpasses in Merit”: the Merit of Dharma-Giving Has Unconditioned Prajñā as Its Substance

This division is named “the unconditioned surpasses in merit,” and the two words “unconditioned” (無為) do not come from nowhere — they follow on from the previous division’s “all the sages and saints differ by reference to the unconditioned Dharma.” The merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the giving of wealth not because it is “much,” but because its substance is different: what the giving of wealth accomplishes is conditioned merit — measurable, heap-able, and in the end exhaustible; what upholding the sūtra accomplishes is merit whose substance is unconditioned prajñā — having no real own-nature of conditioned merit, and so “beyond reckoning.” To the Yogācāra eye this falls just upon the three natures: the giving of seven jewels, the merit manifestly there — this is a phenomenon arisen in reliance on conditions, 依他起 (“dependent on other” — arisen in reliance on a manifold of conditions); yet the ordinary person, upon this merit, adds a layer of clinging — “there really is a merit, there really is something attained” — taking the conditionally-arisen provisional merit to be a thing really existing outside the mind and graspable, and this layer is 遍計所執, from the root without substance. What “the unconditioned surpasses in merit” must dispel is precisely this layer of reckoning that grasps merit as real.

“Because Merit Has Nothing, He Says the Merit Is Much”: the Less the Merit-Mark Is Grasped, the More Boundless the Merit

The most penetrating key to reading this division in Yogācāra lies in a line the Buddha himself breaks open later, in Division 19: 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」 (“if merit were real, the Tathāgata would not say one attains much merit; because merit has nothing, the Tathāgata says one attains much merit”) — the “muchness” of merit is established precisely upon its “having no real nature.” Heard at first this sounds paradoxical: how does “having nothing” turn into “much”? Along the three natures it becomes clear: the phenomenon of merit (the giving of seven jewels, manifestly there) is 依他起, conditionally-arisen and present; not grasping this merit as a real thing (merit is not merit-nature) dispels that layer of 遍計所執; and precisely because the merit-mark is not grasped and one does not fall into an attainer or an attained, this merit is not boxed in by “a measured real merit,” and so becomes boundless — this is the establishing of 圓成實: where nothing is attained, the merit is endless. So this division’s “the unconditioned surpasses in merit” and the later division’s “because merit has nothing” are one line: conditioned merit, by “having a real attainment,” limits its own measure; unconditioned merit, by “not grasping the merit-mark,” is boundless in its merit. The thing given, counted to so extreme a “much” as the sands of as many Ganges as the sands of the Ganges, still does not match upholding the sūtra — precisely because the former falls within “measured reality,” while the latter issues from “the nothing-attained that has no reality.”

“The Merit-Mark and the Dharma-Body,” “Merit Cannot Carry Awakening”: the Merit of Upholding the Sūtra Is the Cause of the Buddha’s Awakening

The merit of giving wealth is so very much — why does it still not match a single four-line verse of upholding the sūtra? The ancient masters’ answer is wholly consistent, and falls on “whether or not this merit can bear up awakening.” Vasubandhu, in both of his commentaries on this division, reads it through the merit-mark and the Dharma-body (福相法身): the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses because it is a cause for the Buddha’s awakening and Dharma-body. Vasubandhu’s verse states it most directly: 「福不持菩提，彼二能持故」 (“merit does not carry awakening; those two can carry it”) — the merit of giving wealth cannot bear up supreme awakening; only the two things, “oneself receiving and keeping” and “expounding for others,” can bear up awakening. So “merit” here is divided into two substances: the merit of giving wealth is a cause of defiled affliction (Vasubandhu: 「彼因習煩惱」, “its cause practices affliction”), benefiting the form-body and subduing stinginess; the merit of Dharma-giving is a cause of pure awakening, benefiting the Dharma-body and able to cut delusion and emerge from the conditioned. Jizang sets out eight points of difference between giving wealth and giving Dharma, and the essential meaning is the same — Dharma-giving benefits the Dharma-body, can cut delusion, and emerges from conditioned dharmas, while giving wealth only benefits the body of flesh and merely subdues stinginess. Said in Yogācāra, this is just the sense of “the merit-mark and the Dharma-body”: the merit of upholding the sūtra is not the outflow-blessing of the worldly defiled, but the provision that perfumes into the Buddha’s awakening, a cause for the Dharma-body and 真如 (tathatā) — and so however much the giving of wealth is raised again, it cannot get past it.

Merit Conversely Discloses Nothing-Attained: the Ancient Masters’ Settled Reading of “Raising the Superior Simile Again”

Why, then, after one comparison has already been made, raise an even greater giving to compare a second time? This is precisely the structural method of the division. Vasubandhu sets up a doubt as the pivot: “the simile of merit has already been stated before — why state it again here?” The answer: 「重說勝喻」 (“re-stating the superior simile”) — the earlier simile only disclosed “merit is much,” and had not yet disclosed the more essential cause that “upholding the sūtra can accomplish great awakening,” and so a simile with a greater thing given and a more superior field of merit is raised again (many of the alternate translations make it “giving to the Buddhas and Tathāgatas”), precisely to disclose: the unconditioned Dharma-giving can carry awakening, surpassing conditioned wealth-merit. Jizang too says: the thing given is doubled, the field of merit rises from giving to sentient beings to making offerings to the Buddhas — seeming both more and superior — “but being a giving with attainment, it still does not match upholding the sūtra.” On one side wealth-giving is spread out to the measureless asaṃkhyeya; on the other the utter spareness of four lines is set against it — and at the very apex of giving, the superiority of upholding the sūtra suddenly turns out. This brushwork of “disclosing the spare by the much, disclosing nothing-attained by the measured” is one and the same turn as Division 4’s “disclosing the merit of non-abiding giving by the immeasurability of space”: neither one is the breaking-and-establishing of a single phrase, but rather the taking of a “having” counted to the utmost and turning it over to throw light on that uncountable “nothing-attained.”

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the three natures, the transformation of the basis, and the provisions of awakening have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatise-witnesses; prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same purport — “merit yet nothing-attained, nothing-attained yet merit surpasses” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (the unconditioned surpasses in merit · because merit has nothing · this merit surpasses that), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (merit has no real nature · the merit-mark and the Dharma-body · the three natures · nothing-attained); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, through 遍計所執, speak of the false clinging of “merit being real” that ought to be dispelled, and through 圓成實 of the nothing-attained merit disclosed by non-discriminating wisdom; the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, speaking of the six pāramitās, gathers Dharma-giving under prajñā, and “the merit-mark and the Dharma-body” interlaces with the fruit’s severance and the three bodies; the Cheng weishi lun speaks of “nothing-attained” and of the perfuming of pure dharmas as the provision of awakening — sealing exactly with this division’s “because merit has nothing, the merit is much” and “upholding the sūtra can carry awakening.” And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「無智亦無得」 (“no wisdom and no attainment”) and 「以無所得故」 (“because of nothing attained”) — the merit of giving with no reality of an attainer or an attained — is one and the same nothing-attained merit as this division’s “the unconditioned surpasses in merit · because merit has nothing.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “the unconditioned surpasses in merit, because merit has nothing he says the merit is much,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “nothing-attained · the provision of awakening · the perfuming of pure dharmas” — and it is one and the same matter 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 11 · The Unconditioned Surpasses in Merit · exposition · Spring 2026

What this division praises is the reverence of “the place where the sūtra is · the person who keeps the sūtra,” and the whole passage has not a single “is-not.” So the Yogācāra here is not a matter of taking the three natures to dismantle a sentence, but of seeing: why, the moment the sūtra is present, the Buddha is present; why, the moment a person keeps it, that person is as a disciple of the Buddha.

The Eye of the Division: Praising the Place, Praising the Person — Two Reverences Within One Passage

Following on from the previous division (the weighing of merit: that giving the seven jewels of measureless three-thousand great-thousandfold worlds, as many as the Ganges sands, does not match receiving and keeping a four-line verse), this division no longer compares the much-or-little of merit, but praises two things directly: the reverence of the “place” where the sūtra is, and the reverence of the “person” who receives and keeps the sūtra. Wherever this sūtra is expounded, even down to a four-line verse, that place should be venerated as a Buddha-stūpa or shrine — this is praising the place; how much more so where someone can fully receive, keep, read, and recite it, accomplishing the supreme and rarest Dharma: that place is then as if a Buddha were present, and that person is as if a disciple of the Buddha — this is praising the person. The three ancient streams (Jizang of the Three-Treatise school, Zhiyi of Tiantai, Kuiji of Yogācāra) read this entirely alike: Jizang, 「歎經之處、美受持之人」 (“praising the place of the sūtra, extolling the person who receives and keeps it”); Zhiyi, 「明處重、明人尊」 (“showing the place to be weighty, the person to be venerable”); Kuiji, 「在處處勝、在人人尊」 (“where it is, the place is superior; in whom it is, the person is venerable”). A single “how much more” turns from the reverence of the place up into the reverence of the person.

“As a Buddha-Stūpa or Shrine”: What Is Revered Is Not the Paper and Ink of the Scroll, but the Dharma-Body It Bears

First a distinction must be kept clear, lest the words be read awry. To say that the place where the sūtra is, is “as a Buddha-stūpa or shrine” is not to take this one scroll of sūtra as a Buddha of form-body to be worshipped — it is not a thing. Kuiji reads this most penetratingly: 「如佛塔廟者，此是十方諸佛真法身故，謂碎身舍利但一化佛之體，此《般若經》一切諸佛真法身故也」 (“‘as a Buddha-stūpa or shrine’ — this is because it is the true Dharma-body of all the Buddhas of the ten directions; the relics of the fragmented body are but the substance of one transformation-Buddha, whereas this Prajñā sūtra is the true Dharma-body of all the Buddhas”). The sense is: after the Buddha enters nirvāṇa, the relics of his fragmented body bear only the body of “one transformation-body Buddha”; whereas what this Prajñā sūtra bears is “the true Dharma-body of all the Buddhas of the ten directions.” And so the reverence of the place of the sūtra is higher still than the stūpa and shrine.

To read this layer with the Yogācāra eye, two terms must be borrowed. The first is 法身 (the Dharma-body): the true body of all Buddhas, not some visible, touchable body of form, but the true nature of all dharmas, disclosed as unconditioned 真如 (tathatā) — which from the start is not the materiality of paper and ink. The second is 了因 (the disclosing-cause): that condition of “disclosing-and-revealing” which makes the Dharma-body manifest (not a “producing-cause” that gives birth to a thing, but a “revealing-cause” that brings into light a principle already there). The Dharma-body, 真如, is from the start not something produced; it must rely on this sūtra, prajñā, to be “disclosed and revealed.” So the moment the sūtra is present, the Dharma-body it discloses is present; and where the Dharma-body is, “there is the Buddha.” This is not the scroll becoming a Buddha; it is the sūtra, as disclosing-cause, bearing and revealing precisely the true Dharma-body of all the Buddhas.

This vein was already laid down back in Division 8: there it said 「一切諸佛及諸佛的無上菩提之法，皆從此經出」 (“all Buddhas, and the supreme awakening-Dharma of all Buddhas, come forth from this sūtra”). The ancient masters read “come forth from this sūtra” as “attained by the disclosing-cause” (prajñā discloses and reveals, and the Buddhas are accomplished by it — not that prajñā gives birth to the Buddhas). This division’s “where the sūtra is, there is the Buddha” is precisely that same reading of the disclosing-cause, fallen now upon the “place”: the sūtra being the disclosing-cause that attests the Dharma, where the sūtra is, there the Dharma-body is, and so “there is the Buddha.”

“The Twofold Reverence”: the Place That Is Spoken In, the Person Who Can Speak — Both Rooted in “the Excellence of the Homogeneous Outflow”

Vasubandhu, in commenting on this division, enters not by way of “is-not” but straightaway marks out a heading: reverence in two places (尊重於二處) — first the “place spoken in” (the place where the sūtra is expounded), second the “person who can speak” (the person who receives, keeps, and expounds it). Yijing’s translation makes it 「兩成尊重」 (“two ways the reverence is accomplished”) — different in name, one in sense: the place that bears it becomes a stūpa or shrine (caitya), and the body that holds it becomes as venerable as a great teacher. Place and person, both are to be revered.

On what ground, then, are they to be revered? Vasubandhu gives the basis: because this sūtra is 「諸佛親所證會等流之性」 (“the nature of the homogeneous outflow of what all Buddhas personally realize”), and 「此法門與一切諸佛如來證法作勝因」 (“this Dharma-gate serves as the excellent cause for the realized Dharma of all Buddha-Tathāgatas”). Here another Yogācāra term must be borrowed: 等流 (the homogeneous outflow). 等流 means “flowing out, of one kind in continuous succession” — the teaching that flows out, of one same savor, from the non-discriminating wisdom of all Buddhas and the 真如 they have realized, is called the teaching of the homogeneous outflow. Since the sūtra is the homogeneous outflow of the Buddhas’ realized Dharma, the place and the person that keep and expound it share in that “reverence of the realized Dharma.” So the reverence of the two places is not some external status the world confers upon them; it is that they themselves are rooted in “the homogeneous outflow of the Buddhas’ realized Dharma, disclosed by the disclosing-cause.”

This reading of “flowed out from pure wisdom” has the same savor as Division 10: there it said the merit of receiving and keeping the sūtra surpasses giving seven jewels, and the ancient masters read it as: this sūtra is flowed out from the pure wisdom of all Buddhas, gathered under the unsullied nature. Whether homogeneous outflow or disclosing-cause, both say one and the same thing: that the sūtra is revered because it shares one root with the realized Dharma of all Buddhas.

Borrowing Worldly Reverence to Liken Out the Reverence Beyond the World: “As a Stūpa or Shrine” Is a Borrowed Simile, Not a Reifying

There is one more layer the ancient masters specially point out, lest “as a stūpa or shrine” be read as “the sūtra-scroll worshipped as a sacred object.” Jizang says: prajñā, by its reality, ought to be 「過於塔」 (“beyond the stūpa”) — it is more venerable than a relic-stūpa; only, the supreme and visible object that worldly people most revere is the Buddha-stūpa, and so 「借以喻耳」 (“it is borrowed merely for the simile”), borrowing the world’s utmost reverence for the stūpa to liken out the preciousness of the place of the sūtra. Zhiyi too says 「但世人敬塔故，令說處如塔」 (“only because worldly people revere stūpas, the place of expounding is made to be as a stūpa”). And Zhiyi turns out a fine line to describe this borrowed likening: 「非果而果即為有佛，非因而因即以尊重」 (“not a fruit yet ‘fruit’ — hence ‘there is the Buddha’; not a cause yet ‘cause’ — hence revered”) — the sūtra is not the Buddha-fruit, yet it is said “there is the Buddha”; keeping the sūtra is not the cause of becoming a Buddha, yet it is said to be venerable — this is precisely a stroke of likening the deep by the shallow.

Once this layer is kept clear, the Yogācāra reading of “there is the Buddha” stands firm: it is not the scroll reified into a Buddha (that would fall into “taking a visible thing to be the very substance of the Buddha”), but the sūtra, as disclosing-cause, disclosing the Dharma-body that is unconditioned 真如. The reified sacred object, and the Dharma-body disclosed by the disclosing-cause — just this is an essential distinction.

No Forcing: This Division Has No “Is-Not,” Nor a Phrase-by-Phrase Marking of the Three Natures

What this division praises is “the place revered · the person revered,” and the whole passage has no “X · is not X · that is called X” form of the “is-not” (the “is-not” is dense in the following Division 13). So this is not like Divisions 13 and 17, where the three natures and three non-natures can be marked out phrase by phrase; the Yogācāra sense of this division falls only on this vein of reading — “the Dharma-body · the disclosing-cause · the homogeneous outflow” — and goes no further, no longer forcing the three natures, the eight consciousnesses, or consciousness-only-without-object on top of it. The mirror reflects only where it truly can.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the Dharma-body, the disclosing-cause, and the homogeneous outflow have their own scriptural sources and treatise-witnesses; prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same purport — “the sūtra’s reverence is rooted in the realized Dharma” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (where the sūtra is, there is the Buddha · the twofold reverence), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (the Dharma-body · the disclosing-cause · the homogeneous outflow); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses speak of 圓成實, of the transformation of the basis, and of how unconditioned 真如 is not produced by a producing-cause but disclosed only by a disclosing-cause — answering to this division’s “where the sūtra is, is the place borne by and disclosed of the Dharma-body.” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, distinguishing the three bodies, sets the true Dharma-body of all Buddhas apart from the transformation-body and the relics — fitting just with Kuiji’s reading 「真法身非一化佛之體」 (“the true Dharma-body is not the substance of one transformation-Buddha”). The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the Dharma-body, the disclosing-cause, and the homogeneous outflow — the technical text for this division’s “the homogeneous outflow of the Buddhas’ realized Dharma, disclosed by the disclosing-cause.” And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra says 「三世諸佛依般若波羅蜜多故得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 (“the Buddhas of the three times, relying on prajñāpāramitā, attain supreme perfect awakening”) — the Buddhas accomplish right awakening in reliance on prajñā, which is one and the same purport as this division’s “where the sūtra is, there is the Buddha; this Dharma-gate is the excellent cause for the Buddhas’ realized Dharma”: namely “prajñā is the mother of the Buddhas, the excellent cause for the realized Dharma” — and Jizang’s reading of this division, 「此經諸佛之母」 (“this sūtra is the mother of the Buddhas”), is precisely the same intent. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “where the sūtra is, there is the Buddha,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “the Dharma-body · the disclosing-cause · the excellence of the homogeneous outflow” — and it is one and the same matter 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 12 · Revering the True Teaching · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna) and the three non-natures to throw light on this densely-fired run of “is-nots” in the Diamond Sūtra.

The Eye of the Division: Within One Passage, the “Is-Not” Appears Four Times

By this division, Subhūti asks a very practical thing: what should this sūtra be called? How are we to receive and keep it? The Buddha sets up a name — 「金剛般若波羅蜜」 (“Vajra-prajñāpāramitā”) — telling them to receive and keep it by just this name. Yet no sooner is the name set firm than the Buddha sweeps it aside with one hand: 「佛說般若波羅蜜，則非般若波羅蜜」 (“the Buddha says prajñāpāramitā is not prajñāpāramitā”). To set up a name is to dispel the name. Then three times in a row: a mote of dust is not a mote of dust, a world is not a world, the thirty-two marks are no marks — to raise a mark is to dispel the mark. Within one passage the “is-not” is fired densely four times — the thickest concentration of the “is-not” form in the whole first half of the sūtra.

The ancient masters judge this passage as still following on from the preceding weighing — “the merit of upholding the sūtra surpasses the merit of giving wealth” (Jizang judges it to “still belong to the section of measuring,” and the discerning of the sūtra’s name to be one chapter, “discerning the sūtra’s name,” within that measuring). So the four words “receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is” carry their weight just upon this density of “is-nots”: to receive and keep this sūtra, one must receive and keep it according to its “is-not” Dharma — not grasping the name, not grasping the mark, not grasping the reality of “what is, as soon as it is said.” Held up to the Yogācāra eye, each of these four “is-nots” is the express text of the three natures.

Is-Not One: Prajñāpāramitā — to Set Up a Name Is to Dispel the Name

The Buddha sets up the name 「金剛般若波羅蜜」 and at once dispels it — this is the most pivotal stroke among the four “is-nots.” Reading along the three natures:

• “Prajñāpāramitā” = 依他起 paratantra: prajñā is not nothing — it is a teaching that can be named, spoken, received, and kept, established in reliance on conditions, manifestly having its provisional mark. Jizang indeed says it is 「佛波若、佛金剛」 (“the Buddha’s prajñā, the Buddha’s vajra”), the Buddha’s prajñā, the Buddha’s vajra — a teaching really present and worthy of reverence and of keeping.
• “Is not prajñāpāramitā” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the layer the ordinary person adds onto this teaching — the clinging that “there really is a prajñā to grasp,” taking the name to be the very mind-external real dharma the name points to. 遍計所執 is just such a layer of false reckoning: it takes the image conjured by the mind to be a thing really existing outside the mind. Jizang says this “is-not” dispels 「非二乘智慧、非二乘金剛」 (“not the wisdom of the two vehicles, not the vajra of the two vehicles”), and Zhiyi’s line 「此慧所照，法無不空，即非般若，即慧空也」 (“what this wisdom illumines — no dharma is not empty — is ‘is-not prajñā,’ that is, the emptiness illumined by wisdom”): the “is-not” is precisely the emptiness illumined by prajñā-wisdom.
• The 圓成實 strand is here implicit: prajñā is not annihilation (依他is sayable and keepable); what is dispelled is only the layer of reality on its name-and-mark — to set up a name and at once dispel it is just then to accord with non-discrimination.

In reading this line, Kuiji points out a further depth: 「佛說般若波羅蜜」 is said in common by all the Buddhas of the ten directions, while 「則非般若波羅蜜」 is no statement of one Buddha alone — because prajñā is the very mother of the Buddhas, able to give birth to all Buddhas, and so all Buddhas praise it in common, none stating it alone. The line below, where Subhūti answers 「如來無所說」 (“the Tathāgata has nothing to say”), carries just this sense: there is no single dharma stated by the Tathāgata alone (all Buddhas proclaim it in common) — and this too dispels the clinging that “there really is a dharma, stated by some one Buddha alone.”

Is-Not Two and Three: Motes of Dust, the World — Breaking the Reality of the Atom, Preserving the Conditionally-Arisen Provisional Name

The Buddha raises the motes of dust of the three-thousand great-thousandfold world and asks whether they are many; Subhūti answers “very many,” and the Buddha at once says: 「諸微塵，如來說非微塵，是名微塵。如來說世界，非世界，是名世界」 (“the motes of dust, the Tathāgata says, are not motes of dust; that is what is called motes of dust. The Tathāgata says the world is not a world; that is what is called a world”). Both “is-nots” are alike of the three-nature form:

• “Motes of dust,” “world” = 依他起 paratantra: to shatter a world into motes of dust, and motes of dust gathered into a world — this conditionally-arisen phenomenon is manifestly there, sayable and countable, a provisional mark manifested in reliance on a manifold of conditions.
• “Not motes of dust,” “not a world” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the kind of “really existent, indivisible atom” grasped by the outer-path Vaiśeṣika. Kuiji says it plainly: 「說非微塵者，非如衛世等所執有實微塵也」 (“to say ‘not motes of dust’ is: not like the real motes of dust grasped by the Vaiśeṣika and others”) — it is not that there are real atoms standing one by one; the motes of dust are merely 「寄微塵以喻貪等」 (“lodged in the motes of dust to figure greed and the rest”), borrowed to liken greed and the other afflictions, and not that the motes of dust are themselves the real substance of greed. To grasp the atom as really existent is precisely 遍計所執.
• “That is what is called motes of dust,” “that is what is called a world” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where that layer of real clinging is wholly dispelled, the conditionally-arisen provisional name is still sayable as before — Kuiji calls it 「寄喻之微塵」 (“the motes of dust lodged as a simile”), Jizang 「結是成地微塵」 (“gathered into the motes of dust that form the ground”). Without real own-nature, yet sayable on the level of conventional truth as a lodged simile.

This “breaking the real atom” has its own treatise that expounds it in Yogācāra: pressing matter all the way down to “an indivisible, really existent atom,” this atom from the root cannot stand (if the atom had spatial parts, it could be further divided and would not be an atom; if it had no spatial parts, it could not accumulate into form). This division’s single line 「諸微塵即非微塵」 (“the motes of dust are not motes of dust”) breaks precisely this same clinging to a “really existent atom.”

Is-Not Four: the Thirty-Two Marks — the Marks of the Transformation-Body, Not the Marks of the Dharma-Body

Last the Buddha asks: can one see the Tathāgata by the thirty-two marks? Subhūti answers no, and gathers it in an “is-not”: 「如來說三十二相，即是非相，是名三十二相」 (“the Tathāgata says the thirty-two marks are no marks; that is what is called the thirty-two marks”). Along the three natures:

• “The thirty-two marks” = 依他起 paratantra: these are the marks of the transformation-body (Kuiji, 「謂化身相」, “these are the marks of the transformation-body”), manifested by conditions, manifestly visible.
• “Are no marks” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the clinging that “takes these thirty-two marks to be the Dharma-body, supposing that to see the marks is to see the Tathāgata.” Kuiji says 「即是非相者，非法身相」 (“‘are no marks’ — they are not the marks of the Dharma-body”) — the thirty-two marks are not the marks of the Dharma-body; the karma of the marks and excellences is not itself the very substance of right awakening (Vasubandhu, 「以彼非法身故」, “because they are not the Dharma-body”). To see the Tathāgata, one must see the Dharma-body in the highest sense (Asaṅga, 「應見第一義法身」, “one should see the Dharma-body in the highest sense”), not stop at the visible marks.
• “That is what is called the thirty-two marks” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where clinging is dispelled, the transformation-body’s thirty-two marks are without reality yet still sayable (Kuiji, 「是化身三十二相」, “these are the transformation-body’s thirty-two marks”).

Yogācāra speaks of the three bodies (the Dharma-body · the transformation-body), and this line — “not the marks of the Dharma-body, but the marks of the transformation-body” — fits just here: to mistake the marks of the transformation-body for the reality of the Dharma-body is 遍計; to know them as the transformation-body’s provisional name and not grasp them as the Dharma-body is the dispelling of clinging while preserving the name.

The Closing Weighing: Giving Away Ganges-Sands of Body and Life Does Not Equal Keeping and Telling Four Lines

After the four "is-nots" the Buddha closes with a weighing: "Suppose a good man or good woman were to give away their body and life in giving, as many times as there are sands in the Ganges; and suppose another person, from within this sūtra, were to receive and keep even so little as a four-line verse and tell it to others — this person's merit would be very great." Earlier (division 11) the weighing was against the giving of seven-jewel wealth; here it goes a step further: giving one's own body and life — the heaviest giving there is. Yet even giving away body and life as many times as the Ganges has sands does not equal receiving and keeping four lines from within this sūtra and telling them to others.

Why does the heaviest of gifts fall short of four lines kept? Seen with this division's eye it is plain: the giving of body and life is still merit within marks — the body given away, the self that gives, the merit gained, all three still stand upon marks; while to receive and keep four lines and tell them to others is to keep precisely this Dharma of the "is-not" — the prajñā that dispels the name, the mark, and the taken-as-real. The height of the merit lies not in the weight of what is given up, but in whether that layer of clinging has been left behind. This one weighing draws tight the four words "receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is": to receive and keep as the Dharma is outweighs even the heaviest bodily giving. At division 15 this weighing is amplified — morning watch, midday watch, and evening watch, day after day giving Ganges-sands of bodies and lives through measureless eons, still not equal to hearing this sūtra with a faith that does not go against it (see division 15) — this division's sentence is the herald of that great weighing.

Threaded Through As One: the Four “Is-Nots” Share One Pivot — Dispelling the Real, Preserving the Sayable

Set the four “is-nots” side by side and they share a single key: to dispel that layer of “own-nature / what-is-as-soon-as-said” reality, while what is dispelled does not fall into nothing. What is dispelled is a name (prajñāpāramitā), a real dharma (the atom), a provisional name (the world), and a mark (the thirty-two marks) — name, dharma, provisional name, and mark; at all four it is at once dispelled, yet a “that is what is called” reins it in, dispelling without falling into annihilation. Prajñā states all four dispellings with a single word, “empty”; Yogācāra, with the three non-natures, points out exactly what this “empty” is the emptiness of: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (mark-non-nature: its mark is from the start not there), 依他起 is 生無性 (arising-non-nature: it has no self-naturally-arising own-nature, only conditioned arising in reliance on other), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (ultimate-non-nature: it is the ultimate apart from all 遍計). So the “is-not” empties out the layer of 遍計, not 依他 and 圓成 along with it.

The reason the “is-not” is arranged so densely at the moment of “discerning the sūtra’s name” is precisely to disclose, in concentration, the true sense of “receiving and keeping the Dharma as it is”: to receive and keep this sūtra, one must do so according to its “is-not” Dharma — not grasping the name, not grasping the mark, not grasping the reality of “what is, as soon as it is said.” The name is just set up and at once dispelled — this is precisely teaching people not to take this name “Vajra-prajñāpāramitā” itself, again, as a graspable reality.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the three natures, the three non-natures, and the breaking of the atom have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatise-witnesses (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Twenty Verses); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same reality — “is-not, yet preserving the provisional name” — which the Diamond Sūtra states densely in the sūtra’s words (is-not · that is what is called), and which Yogācāra parses in purport in the treatise’s words (the three natures · the three non-natures · 遍計所執); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, through 遍計所執, speak of the real dharma dispelled by “the motes of dust are not motes of dust,” and through 圓成實 of the conventional-truth sayability of “that is what is called”; the Twenty Verses break the really-existent atom — the same thing broken as this division’s “the motes of dust are not motes of dust”; the Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the three natures, and the Cheng weishi lun speaks of 遍計所執 and of the Dharma-body and transformation-body — all sealing with these four “is-nots.” And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「諸法空相」 (“all dharmas are empty of mark”), where names and marks are all dispelled yet the provisional name preserved, is one and the same gate of “dispelling clinging while preserving the name” as this division’s “the motes of dust are not motes of dust · that is what is called motes of dust.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states densely in the sūtra’s words as these four “is-nots,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “遍計所執 · the three natures and three non-natures,” and the Twenty Verses state in the demonstration of “breaking the atom” — and it is one and the same matter of dispelling the real and preserving the name 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 13 · Receiving and Keeping the Dharma As It Is · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, the two graspings and the two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis (轉依 āśraya-parāvṛtti), to throw light on the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not · apart from marks · without abiding.”

The Eye of the Division: Apart from Marks, Forbearance Is Accomplished — Bringing “the Emptiness of Self” Down Onto an Actual Event

By this division, Subhūti, hearing the sūtra to its depths, deeply understands its purport and weeps with sorrow. Through the preceding divisions, prajñā has all along broken marks with the “is-not”; here it turns out a question that comes down to the concrete: if marks are indeed to be left behind, how is one to leave them? The Buddha answers by raising his own past life — long ago, cut limb from limb by King Kaliṅga, he had no four marks and no anger or resentment; for five hundred lifetimes he was the ṛṣi of forbearance, and in all of them was without the four marks. And so the definitive line 「離一切諸相則名諸佛」 (“to be apart from all marks is just what is called the Buddhas”) is no longer only a breaking on the level of principle, but a phenomenon visible on the level of realized practice: forbearance.

This is just where this division is precious. What the first half of the Diamond Sūtra (Divisions 1–16) breaks is the “mark of self,” and what it dispels is the clinging to a self in the person; the ancient masters judge this passage on forbearance as “resolving a doubt” — the previous division said the merit of giving up body and life does not match the merit of upholding the sūtra, and one then doubts: since giving up the body is a suffering-fruit and its blessing is even inferior, when the bodhisattva practices austerities for the Dharma, does he not also fall into a suffering-fruit? The Buddha’s answer: the bodhisattva can endure without suffering, because he is apart from the mark of self. To the Yogācāra eye, this passage carries “the emptiness of the self in the person” from realization-in-principle into realization-in-practice: with no mark of self, he is cut to pieces yet does not anger — this is the phenomenon of the affliction-hindrance already subdued. This division’s “is-not” appears densely five times (the true mark · the first pāramitā · the pāramitā of forbearance · all marks · all sentient beings), and each can be lit up by the three natures.

Is-Not One: the True Mark Is No Mark — the Express Text That Dispels 遍計 and Discloses 圓成

Subhūti first says something most essential: that to hear the sūtra and have a 「信心清淨，則生實相」 (“mind of faith that is pure, then gives rise to the true mark”); and at once he sweeps this “true mark” aside with one hand — 「是實相者，則是非相，是故如來說名實相」 (“this true mark is no mark; therefore the Tathāgata calls it the true mark”). These three folds are the express text of the three natures and three non-natures. Read along:

• “The true mark” (giving rise to the true mark) = 依他起 paratantra: this is the mark of faith, the true conception, that arises upon hearing the sūtra and being conditioned by the teaching — a mind-mark arisen in reliance on a manifold of conditions, manifestly having its provisional mark. Kuiji reads this line: the one who hears the sūtra and gives rise to a mind of faith will surely later attain non-discriminating wisdom, remove false discrimination, and realize the two emptinesses — this is called “giving rise to the true mark.”
• “Is no mark” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the layer the ordinary person adds onto this mark of faith — the clinging that “there really is a mark to grasp.” 遍計所執 is just such a layer of false reckoning: it takes the image conjured by the mind to be a thing really existing outside the mind. Kuiji says 「即是非相者，謂則非是虛妄分別所執差別之相」 (“‘is no mark’ means: it is not the differentiated mark grasped by false discrimination”) — it is not that differentiated real mark grasped by the discriminating mind.
• “Therefore the Tathāgata calls it the true mark” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where that layer of false clinging is wholly dispelled, what takes no-mark as its mark, the mark without falsity, is just then called the true mark. Kuiji says 「『是實相』者，謂無相為相也」 (“‘this true mark’ means: taking no-mark as mark”); Zhiyi too says 「以無相為實相」 (“taking no-mark as the true mark”) — this “mark of no-mark” is precisely the 圓成實性 disclosed after 遍計 is dispelled.

Vasubandhu and Yijing read it yet more directly: they read “the true conception is no conception” straightaway as 「我、法二無性智」 (“the wisdom of the twofold non-nature of self and dharma”) — using the dispelling of one “conception” (discrimination) to point out the twofold wisdom of no-self-in-person and no-self-in-dharma. So in this fold, “the true mark is no mark,” prajñā breaks it all with a single “is-not,” while Yogācāra parses it with the three natures: the true conception of 依他 is sayable, the real clinging of 遍計 is to be dispelled, and the true nature of 圓成 is then disclosed.

To Be Apart from All Marks Is Just What Is Called the Buddhas: to Dispel 遍計 to the Utmost Is the Transformation of the Basis

Then comes the eye-phrase of the division: 「離一切諸相，則名諸佛」 (“to be apart from all marks is just what is called the Buddhas”). Read in Yogācāra, this line carries extreme weight.

The ordinary being turns in birth-and-death, and the root is in “discrimination” — splitting the mind into a grasping self and a grasped object, and upon the conditionally-arisen 依他 dharmas adding everywhere the mark of 遍計所執. Kuiji says plainly: 「謂若有分別，即有業生死起；既除分別之相，妄想生死都無，則名諸佛也」 (“if there is discrimination, then karma and birth-and-death arise; once the mark of discrimination is removed, the false-conception birth-and-death is entirely gone, and that is what is called the Buddhas”). To be apart from marks is to be apart from precisely this mark of 遍計所執; when the mark is wholly left behind, that false-conception birth-and-death which splits the mind in two is wholly exhausted, and what is disclosed is just the Buddhas.

In Yogācāra this has a proper name: 轉依 āśraya-parāvṛtti (the transformation of the basis) — turning away the defiled seed-habits of 遍計所執 within the 阿賴耶識 (ālaya-vijñāna) and turning toward the 真如 (tathatā) of 圓成實. The line “to be apart from all marks is just what is called the Buddhas” — what the sūtra’s words state as “apart from marks, becoming Buddha” — is precisely what the treatise’s words state as “dispelling 遍計, disclosing 圓成, accomplishing the transformation of the basis.” The crucial point: after being apart from marks, it is not a blank nothing. The ancient masters judge it distinctly — Jizang says 「無一切相則是無所得，無所得名為涅槃，名為諸佛」 (“to be without all marks is nothing-attained; nothing-attained is called nirvāṇa, is called the Buddhas”), and Zhiyi says 「相盡解極即是為佛，能離有無畢竟常住」 (“when marks are exhausted and understanding is at its utmost, that is being a Buddha — able to be apart from being and non-being, ultimately ever-abiding”). To be apart from marks is to dispel 遍計, and what is disclosed is 圓成, the Dharma-body, the ultimately ever-abiding 真如 — not annihilation. Where nothing is attained, there is precisely the Dharma-body.

Not Startled, Not Frightened, Not Afraid: a Single Confirmation by the Three Non-Natures

The Buddha confirms Subhūti, saying: the one who hears this sūtra and is 「不驚、不怖、不畏」 (“not startled, not frightened, not afraid”) is most rare. Why, hearing “apart from marks · is-not,” can one be unstartled and unafraid? Kuiji, following Asaṅga, fits these three “nots” word by word onto the three non-natures — 「為三種無自性故應知，謂相、生、第一義等無自性故」 (“they are to be known by the three kinds of non-own-nature, namely the non-own-nature of mark, of arising, and of the ultimate”):

• in 遍計所執 there is “no substance-mark,” so hearing “is-not” one is not startled (there was from the start no mark to break — what is there to be startled at);
• in 依他起 there is “no self-naturally-arising nature,” so one is not frightened (conditioned-arising without own-nature — it was just so from the start);
• in 圓成實 there is “none of those grasped persons and dharmas,” so one is not afraid (圓成 is apart from all 遍計 — what is there to fear).

The three non-natures are the fine telling of prajñā’s single word “empty”: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (mark-non-nature: its mark is from the start not there), 依他起 is 生無性 (arising-non-nature: it has no self-naturally-arising own-nature, only conditioned arising in reliance on other), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (ultimate-non-nature: it is the ultimate apart from all 遍計). The one who penetrates the three non-natures hears “all marks are no marks” as he hears the commonplace, and so is not startled, not frightened, not afraid.

Is-Not Two and Three: the First Pāramitā, the Pāramitā of Forbearance — the Nothing-Attained Forbearance Attained by the Buddha Alone

The Buddha then raises two “is-nots” in a row: 「第一波羅蜜，非第一波羅蜜，是名第一波羅蜜」 (“the first pāramitā is not the first pāramitā; that is what is called the first pāramitā”), 「忍辱波羅蜜，如來說非忍辱波羅蜜」 (“the pāramitā of forbearance, the Tathāgata says, is not the pāramitā of forbearance”). Both are of the three-nature form:

• “The first pāramitā / the pāramitā of forbearance” = 依他起 paratantra: the pāramitā-event that can be named, spoken, and practiced, established in reliance on conditions.
• “Is-not” = the dispelling of 遍計所執 parikalpita: what is dispelled is the layer of clinging that is “forbearance with attainment.” Jizang says 「『非忍辱』者，非是有得捨身忍辱也；又非忍辱者，此無所得忍不可稱量也」 (“‘not forbearance’ means: not the forbearance of giving up the body with attainment; again, ‘not forbearance’ — this nothing-attained forbearance is beyond all measure”); Kuiji says 「『如來說非』者，非是餘人所得故」 (“‘the Tathāgata says “not”’ — because it is not what others attain”) — what is dispelled is the false reckoning that “there really is a self forbearing, there really is a forbearance to attain.”
• “That is what is called” = establishing 圓成實: the first pāramitā attained by the Buddha alone, the forbearance with nothing attained. Kuiji says 「『是名第一波羅蜜』者，唯佛所得也」 (“‘that is what is called the first pāramitā’ — it is attained by the Buddha alone”); Vasubandhu says 「彼岸功德不可量」 (“the merit of the far shore is beyond measure”).

Vasubandhu’s two verses state this doubt-resolution most transparently: the bodhisattva practices austerities yet does not fall into a suffering-fruit, because 「離我及恚相，實無於苦惱」 (“apart from the marks of self and of anger, there is in truth no suffering or affliction”) — apart from the mark of self and the mark of anger, within the austerities there is in truth no suffering, but rather 「共樂有慈悲」 (“sharing joy, there is loving-kindness and compassion”). So the “is-not” of the pāramitā of forbearance is not no-forbearance, but no “forbearance that has a self”; it is the nothing-attained forbearance apart from the 遍計 clinging to self.

Because There Was No Mark of Self, No Anger or Resentment Arose: Forbearance Is Just the Phenomenon of the Affliction-Hindrance Already Subdued

Why can the nothing-attained forbearance not fall into a suffering-fruit? The Buddha raises his own past life as proof: cut limb from limb, joint from joint, by King Kaliṅga, yet 「無我相、無人相、無眾生相、無壽者相」 (“no mark of self, no mark of person, no mark of sentient being, no mark of life-span”); had the four marks still remained then, 「應生瞋恨」 (“anger and resentment should have arisen”) — yet they did not.

This line brings the whole first half’s “emptiness of self” down onto one most concrete event. Anger (瞋) is, among the Hundred Dharmas, a root affliction (the 瞋 mental factor), one branch of the affliction-hindrance; what forbearance is to counter and to turn over is precisely this anger. Zhiyi says it in a phrase: 「既無我、人，誰加、誰忍？」 (“since there is no self and no person, who inflicts and who forbears?”); 「若有人、我，必生忿恚，而能恬然，無我明矣」 (“if there were person and self, indignation must arise; that he could remain serene makes plain that there is no self”). Where does anger arise from? From “there being a self that is cut.” If the mark of self is empty — 「令誰瞋耶」 (“at whom would anger be?” — Jizang) — anger has no place to settle. So forbearance is not “a self gritting its teeth and forcing endurance,” which is still forbearance with a self; true forbearance is having realized the no-mark-of-self, with suffering from the root having nothing to fasten upon — Asaṅga says this is the forbearance of “penetrating no-self-in-dharma.” To be cut to pieces yet not anger is precisely the realized-practice phenomenon of the self-in-person clinging already dispelled, the affliction-hindrance already subdued. This is the look of this division’s four words “beyond marks, the peace of cessation,” fallen onto practice: not pressing anger down, but having no anger that could arise.

Is-Not Four and Five: All Marks Are No Marks, All Sentient Beings Are Not Sentient Beings — Returning to the Twofold Emptiness of Person and Dharma

The Buddha exhorts the bodhisattva 「應離一切相，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」 (“one should be apart from all marks and give rise to the mind of supreme perfect awakening”) and 「應生無所住心」 (“one should give rise to a mind that abides nowhere”), and at once gathers two “is-nots”: 「一切諸相，即是非相」 (“all marks are no marks”), 「一切眾生，則非眾生」 (“all sentient beings are not sentient beings”). Along the three natures:

• “All marks,” “all sentient beings” = 依他起 paratantra: the false mark, and the sentient being that is the provisional aggregation of the five skandhas — conditionally-arisen, manifestly there. Kuiji says 「說『一切諸相』者，謂虛妄相」 (“to say ‘all marks’ means: the false mark”), 「說一切眾生者，謂所執實眾生」 (“to say ‘all sentient beings’ means: the real sentient being that is grasped”).
• “Are no marks,” “are not sentient beings” = the dispelling of 遍計 together with the disclosing of 圓成: no real mark, no really existent sentient being. Kuiji says 「『即是非相』者，謂無實相，虛妄本空故」 (“‘are no marks’ means: there is no real mark, because the false is from the root empty”); Vasubandhu says 「五陰無眾生體，以無實故。如是明法無我、人無我」 (“the five skandhas have no substance of a sentient being, because they have no reality; thus is shown no-self-in-dharma and no-self-in-person”).

By these two lines, the division pushes the earlier “forbearance apart from the mark of self” further open: not only is there no real self, but even the “all marks” and “all sentient beings” conditioned as object are without reality — this is a stroke carrying from no-self-in-person toward no-self-in-dharma. To give rise to the mind of awakening yet “abide nowhere,” to benefit sentient beings yet “sentient beings are not sentient beings,” is precisely to practice the great vow within the twofold emptiness: no single mark to abide in, no single sentient being really to be saved, yet the vow apart from marks manifestly there. 「應生無所住心，若心有住，則為非住」 (“one should give rise to a mind that abides nowhere; if the mind has an abiding, that is not abiding”) — this “mind that abides nowhere,” Vasubandhu judges to be the mind of one who 「已入初地、得羼提波羅蜜」 (“has entered the first ground and attained the pāramitā of forbearance, kṣānti”), the non-abiding mind that has realized the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas and in which the two graspings are gradually subdued — and this too is one stroke of the transformation of the basis on the causal ground.

This Dharma Is Without Reality and Without Falsity · the Two Similes of Entering the Dark and of Having Eyes: Abiding in Marks Veils, Apart from Marks Illumines

Last the Buddha says 「如來所得法，此法無實無虛」 (“the Dharma the Tathāgata has attained, this Dharma is without reality and without falsity”), and sets two similes: the bodhisattva whose mind abides in dharmas and gives in giving is 「如人入闇，則無所見」 (“like a person entering the dark, who sees nothing”); the one whose mind does not abide in dharmas and gives in giving is 「如人有目，日光明照，見種種色」 (“like a person with eyes, in the bright shining of the sun, who sees manifold forms”).

“Without reality and without falsity,” Vasubandhu judges as 「不得彼故非實、隨順彼故非妄」 (“because that is not attained, it is not real; because it accords with that, it is not false”) — within speech, having no real substance, hence not real; by according with 真如, hence not false; this is precisely the 圓成 middle way of “falling neither into reality nor into falsity.” The two similes then point the gain-and-loss of “abiding in marks / apart from marks” most strikingly: abiding-in-dharma giving = abiding in marks = with attainment = entering the dark, no seeing (once the mind abides in marks, it falls into the duality of grasper and grasped, and prajñā does not illumine); non-abiding-in-dharma giving = apart from marks = nothing-attained = having eyes, seeing forms (when the mind does not abide in marks, the two graspings do not arise, and prajñā brightly illumines). Zhiyi’s line 「住相即心動，故非住也」 (“to abide in marks is for the mind to stir, hence it is not abiding”) — the mind that abides in marks is stirring, is 遍計 at work, not true abiding; only non-abiding is true abiding. The pairing of dark and light throws into relief just the difference between what 遍計 veils and what 圓成 discloses: once apart from that layer of 遍計 abiding, the light of wisdom of itself illumines all dharmas.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra’s three natures and transformation of the basis flow out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the three natures, the three non-natures, the two hindrances and two graspings, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatise-witnesses; prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same purport — “apart from marks, realizing the true mark” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (apart from all marks · is-not · without abiding · because there is no mark of self, no anger), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (the three natures and three non-natures · the two emptinesses · the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis · non-anger); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses, through 遍計所執, speak of the real that “is-not” dispels, and through 圓成實 of the true that “apart from marks, called Buddha” discloses, returning to “the transformation of the basis”; the Madhyānta-vibhāga, discerning the three natures and the two emptinesses, seals with “the true mark is no mark · all marks are no marks”; the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, speaking of the six pāramitās, takes the pāramitā of forbearance as one branch of the bodhisattva path, answering to “the pāramitā of forbearance is not · be apart from all marks and give rise to the mind”; the Cheng weishi lun speaks of 遍計所執, non-discriminating wisdom, the two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis, sealing with “giving rise to the true mark · apart from the mark of discrimination is just what is called the Buddhas”; the Hundred Dharmas speak of 瞋 (anger) and 無瞋 (non-anger), which are just the dharma-marks of what “because there is no mark of self, no anger or resentment arises” cuts off and accomplishes. And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「遠離顛倒夢想」 (“far apart from inverted, dream-like thought”) and 「無智亦無得」 (“no wisdom and no attainment”) are one and the same gate apart-from-marks as this division’s “apart from all marks · the mind that abides nowhere.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “to be apart from all marks is just what is called the Buddhas” and “because there is no mark of self, no anger or resentment arises,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “dispelling 遍計 · attaining non-discriminating wisdom · cutting off the affliction-hindrance · the transformation of the basis,” and the Hundred Dharmas state in the dharma-marks “anger · non-anger” — and it is one and the same matter 〔on the reading of “the non-abiding mind ↔ the transformation of the basis,” see Shi Huijing, “One Should Give Rise to That Mind Without Abiding Anywhere” (S5-P06)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 14 · Beyond Marks, the Peace of Cessation · exposition · Spring 2026

This division has not a single “is-not” throughout, so the Yogācāra here is not a matter of taking the three natures to dismantle a sentence, but of seeing: in the Buddha’s weighing of “giving up the body” against “upholding the sūtra,” which two kinds of merit are actually being weighed; and how the single phrase “shouldering awakening” falls just upon the Yogācāra trigger of “turning toward the transformation of the basis.”

The Eye of the Division: Not in the “Is-Not,” but in “the Comparison That Conversely Discloses”

The preceding divisions fired the “is-not” densely; by this division the manner of statement suddenly changes. The Buddha no longer dispels a name-and-mark with “is-not, that is what is called,” but lays out a weighing: a person, in the morning, midday, and evening watches of a single day, gives up bodies and lives as many as the Ganges sands in each watch, and so, through measureless hundreds of thousands of millions of kalpas, gives up the body — given up so hard, so much, and so long that all three reach the utmost; yet another person merely hears this sūtra and, in faith, does not contradict it, and his blessing surpasses the former’s. Four ancient masters all judge this passage as a text of “weighing,” “measuring,” “much merit” (Jizang, 「三時捨身格量功德」, “measuring the merit of giving up the body in the three watches”; Zhiyi, “much merit”; Kuiji, 「正校量」, “proper weighing”). So the eye of this division lies not in dispelling a name-and-mark, but in using the much-ness of the body-giving blessing to conversely disclose the superiority of the upholding-the-sūtra blessing. Read on with the Yogācāra eye, this weighing weighs precisely two blessings of wholly different substance.

The Body-Giving Blessing: With-Outflow 依他, Great in Event and Great in Time, yet Not Joining Awakening

First look at the side that is outweighed. Is giving up the body in giving a blessing? It is a great blessing. Zhiyi says 「施重又多，功德彌曠」 (“the giving is weighty and much, the merit vaster still”); Vasubandhu’s treatise too grants that this body-giving blessing is 「以事大、時大」 (“great in event and great in time”) — within a single day to give up so many bodies, and through so long a span of kalpas: in both event and time it is utterly great.

Yet however great, Yogācāra sees it as still a kind of with-outflow 依他起 blessing. What is called 依他起 is the conditionally-arisen phenomenon that arises in reliance on a manifold of conditions; the event of giving up the body in giving is manifestly there, its phenomenon distinct. But it falls upon “having attainment” — within the mind there still abides a grasping-at-marks, “I am giving, there is a blessing to attain,” and this layer of grasping-at-marks is precisely 遍計所執, the layer of real clinging that the ordinary person adds onto a conditionally-arisen good act. Vasubandhu states its limit in a phrase: this blessing 「不趣菩提」 (“does not advance toward awakening”) (Jizang cites the treatise, 「福不趣菩提」, “the blessing does not advance toward awakening”). Kuiji puts it more concretely: even should one give up body and life within birth-and-death, 「終無能契菩提法身」 (“one can in the end never join the awakening Dharma-body”) — it cannot enter into the Dharma-body. Why can it not join? Because it is with-outflow, a blessing not yet passed through the transformation of the basis; its seed-habits still turn within the consciousness-field along the current of birth-and-death, and it does not head toward the unsullied fruit-ground. Great in event, great in time, is greatness in “quantity”; not joining awakening is a gap in “substance.” The first sense of the weighing lies just here: to maximize “quantity” is precisely to conversely disclose that, however great the quantity, it does not equal the turning of “substance.”

The Upholding-the-Sūtra Blessing: the Perfuming of Hearing Draws Unsullied Wisdom, Turning Toward the Basis as the Very Cause of Awakening

Now look at the side that prevails. A person merely 「聞此經典，信心不逆」 (“hears this sūtra, and in faith does not contradict it”), and his blessing surpasses giving up the body through whole kalpas — this is not to say that listening once is more economical than giving up one’s life, but that the substance of this one “hearing” is different. Yogācāra says: to hear the true Dharma, to receive, keep, read, and recite it, perfumes into the 阿賴耶識 (ālaya-vijñāna) a class of unsullied seeds (this is called 「聞熏習」, the perfuming of hearing — the habit-energy perfumed in by hearing the true Dharma, able to draw forth world-transcending wisdom). Kuiji reads it just so: though one only gives rise to pure faith and has not yet come to receiving, keeping, reading, and reciting, still 「由信故，因即聽聞，生長智慧，定當成佛」 (“by faith, the cause is just hearing, which grows wisdom, and one is bound to become a Buddha”). On one side is a with-outflow blessing that does not join awakening; on the other is the cause of unsullied wisdom, drawn by the perfuming of hearing, bound to become a Buddha. What is weighed is not much-or-little, but “advancing or not advancing toward awakening” — Jizang cites the treatise most neatly: receiving, keeping, and expounding for others are “the two that can advance toward awakening,” while the giving-blessing “has attainment and cannot advance toward awakening.”

So although “in faith does not contradict” is only the pure faith of the entry-gate, it already stands on the upward road: by hearing, perfuming; by perfuming, the arising of wisdom; by wisdom, the transformation of the basis; by the transformation of the basis, becoming a Buddha. The body-giving blessing halts and circles within birth-and-death; the upholding-the-sūtra blessing is the first step heading toward the transformation of the basis. What the weighing aims at is, by “the measured-ness of the body-giving blessing,” conversely to disclose “the measurelessness of the unsullied wisdom drawn forth by upholding the sūtra.”

Shouldering the Tathāgata’s Awakening: to Receive and Keep the Wondrous Dharma Is the Very Cause of Awakening, the Bearing That Turns Toward the Basis

After the weighing, the Buddha speaks this division’s weightiest line: the one who can receive, keep, read, recite, and widely expound it for others 「則為荷擔如來阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」 (“is then shouldering the Tathāgata’s supreme perfect awakening”). 「荷擔」 is to take up a heavy load on the shoulder — not a concrete object-simile, but the figure of “bearing weight with the shoulder”: the one who receives and keeps the wondrous Dharma is as one who, with the shoulder, has taken up the heavy load of “becoming a Buddha.” Vasubandhu reads straightaway 「受持法者，即是荷擔大菩提」 (“the one who receives and keeps the Dharma is just shouldering great awakening”), 「由彼持法即是持菩提」 (“because his keeping the Dharma is just keeping awakening”); Asaṅga says this is 「肩負菩提重擔」 (“bearing the heavy load of awakening on the shoulder”); Kuiji says the one who receives and keeps 「當能證獲菩提，雖現未得，後必得故，故言荷擔」 (“will be able to realize and gain awakening; though not now attained, it must be attained later, and so it is called ‘shouldering’”).

To the Yogācāra eye, this “shouldering” follows on just from the perfuming of hearing above. To receive and keep the wondrous Dharma is not merely to accumulate a single matter of blessing; it is the very cause of awakening — Kuiji calls it 「是正報菩提之因，真法供養」 (“the cause of the right-recompense awakening, the true Dharma-offering”). Giving up the body in giving is a giving of wealth, body, and life external to oneself (even giving up the body still falls upon “the thing given up”), and is one layer removed from awakening; whereas receiving and keeping the true Dharma directly perfumes into the unsullied seeds heading toward the Buddha-fruit, and so is said to “shoulder awakening.” The reason this “load” can be borne, and borne without falling (Zhiyi, 「千載不墜，由於人弘，任持、運行」, “for a thousand years it does not fall, because people propagate it — bearing it up, carrying it on”), is precisely that it is the bearing that turns toward the transformation of the basis: what the one who receives and keeps perfumes within the consciousness-field is the cause that can turn away the defiled and turn toward awakening. The “keeping” of shouldering is just that measure of bearing-up by which the perfuming of hearing turns toward the basis.

Inconceivable · Beyond Measure: the Realm of the Buddha-Wisdom’s Self-Awareness, Not for the Ordinary Mind to Reckon

The Buddha further says this sūtra has 「不可思議、不可稱量、無邊功德」 (“inconceivable, beyond-measure, boundless merit”), and is 「為發大乘者說，為發最上乘者說」 (“spoken for those who give rise to the Great Vehicle, spoken for those who give rise to the supreme Vehicle”). Why “inconceivable · beyond measure”? Asaṅga interprets it cleanly: 「不可思者，唯自覺故；不可稱者，無有等及勝故」 (“inconceivable, because it is self-awareness alone; beyond measure, because there is none equal to or surpassing it”) — inconceivable because this is the realm of the Buddha-wisdom’s self-awareness, awakened by the Buddha alone, beyond the reach of the ordinary person’s reckoning; beyond measure because it is without compare, with none able to equal or to surpass it. This is not merely to say it is so great that “we cannot calculate it,” but that it is from the start not within the range of the ordinary mind’s reckoning — it is the fruit-realm disclosed by the transformation of the basis.

And the distinction of “Great Vehicle” and “supreme Vehicle,” Kuiji reads as 「定性大乘」 (“the determinate-nature Great Vehicle”) and 「不定性大乘」 (“the indeterminate-nature Great Vehicle”); Asaṅga, however, points out here a deeper layer of meaning: the other vehicles do not match it, hence “supreme”; and its being “most superior” is because the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive-hindrance are purified (煩惱障、智障淨故). This line is most worthy of note — Asaṅga straightaway judges the “most superior” of the capacity this sūtra addresses by 「二障俱淨」 (“both hindrances alike purified”). The affliction-hindrance (煩惱障) hinders liberation; the cognitive-hindrance (所知障, the wisdom-hindrance) hinders the all-knowing of becoming a Buddha; only when both hindrances are alike dispelled is it the ultimate of the supreme Vehicle. This accords just with Shi Huijing’s reading of §17, that “the first half dispels the affliction-hindrance, the second half dispels the cognitive-hindrance” — the unsullied wisdom drawn forth by upholding the sūtra must in the end fall upon this transformation of the basis in which both hindrances are alike purified.

Those Who Delight in the Small Dharma Cannot Receive It: with the Two Hindrances Undispelled, One Cannot Receive and Keep This Sūtra

Then the Buddha says: 「若樂小法者，著我見、人見、眾生見、壽者見，則於此經，不能聽受、讀誦、為人解說」 (“if one delights in the small Dharma and clings to the view of self, person, sentient being, and life-span, then with this sūtra one cannot listen and receive, read and recite, or expound it for others”). Jizang distinguishes it clearly: “those who delight in the small Dharma” are the Lesser Vehicle, and “those who cling to the view of self” extends to the outer paths — because this sūtra clarifies both the emptiness of person and the emptiness of dharma, those who indulge in the small Dharma and cling to the view of self do not believe it and cannot take it in.

Said in Yogācāra, this is just the reverse of the “most superior = both hindrances purified” above: if a person still clings to a really existent “self” (this is the self-in-person clinging, the root of the affliction-hindrance), and moreover delights only in the Lesser Vehicle’s self-liberating Dharma (lacking, with respect to dharmas, the aspiration toward the all-knowing of the Buddha-fruit, the cognitive-hindrance unmoved), then within his mind-ground the unsullied seeds heading toward the transformation of the basis cannot be perfumed in, and so naturally he “cannot listen and receive” this sūtra spoken for the supreme Vehicle. The dividing-line between the one who can receive and keep and the one who cannot lies not in dull or sharp endowment, but in whether the two hindrances are dispelled or not, whether the mind turns toward the transformation of the basis.

Where the Sūtra Is, There Is a Stūpa: Where the Dharma Is, Is the Place to Be Revered

Last the Buddha says: wherever this sūtra is, all worldly devas, humans, and asuras should make offerings, 「當知此處則為是塔」 (“know that this place is then a stūpa”). A stūpa is originally where relics are enshrined and the Buddha’s body is reverently beheld; why is the place of the sūtra also worthy of offering as a stūpa? The ancient masters judge: precisely because to receive and keep this sūtra is the true Dharma-offering, the very cause of awakening (Kuiji, 「真法供養，所有世間財寶供養如來所不能及」, “the true Dharma-offering, which all the world’s offering of wealth and jewels to the Tathāgata cannot match”), where the Dharma is, is as where the Buddha’s body is, the place the world should revere and pay homage to. The weighing closes here: since the body-giving blessing does not match upholding the sūtra, the place of the sūtra is naturally to be reverently surrounded by devas and humans — and this offering, too, follows from the weight of the foregoing “upholding the sūtra is the very cause of awakening.”

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra’s teaching of the perfuming of hearing and the transformation of the basis flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the perfuming of hearing, the unsullied seeds, the transformation of the basis, and the two hindrances have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatise-witnesses; prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same purport — “casting off the blessing of attainment, turning toward the nothing-attained awakening” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (giving up the body does not match upholding the sūtra · shouldering awakening), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (the with-outflow blessing does not advance toward awakening · the perfuming of hearing draws unsullied wisdom · turning toward the basis · both hindrances alike purified); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses speak of the perfuming of hearing, the unsullied seeds, and the transformation of the basis, sealing with this division’s “giving up the body does not join awakening, upholding the sūtra is bound to become a Buddha”; the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the training in higher wisdom, speaks of the perfuming of hearing and of turning toward the Dharma-body, answering to “upholding the sūtra is just shouldering the Tathāgata’s awakening (the Dharma-body)”; the Madhyānta-vibhāga speaks of the ten Dharma-practices (copying, receiving and keeping, reading, reciting, expounding for others…) whose merit surpasses giving, connecting just with this division’s “the blessing of receiving, keeping, reading, reciting, and expounding for others surpasses giving up the body”; and in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra says 「無智亦無得」 (“no wisdom and no attainment”), which is one and the same gate of “nothing-attained” as this division’s “giving up the body has attainment yet does not advance toward awakening, upholding the sūtra has nothing-attained yet shoulders awakening.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “not equal to hearing this sūtra · is then shouldering the Tathāgata’s awakening,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “the perfuming of hearing · the unsullied seeds · the transformation of the basis · cutting off the two hindrances” — and it is one and the same matter 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 15 · The Merit of Upholding the Sūtra · exposition · Spring 2026

This division has no full “is-not” form, so the Yogācāra here is not a matter of taking the three natures to dismantle a sentence, but of seeing: how upholding the sūtra can wash clean the grave sins of former lives, and how Yogācāra reads this “purifying of karmic hindrances.”

The Eye of the Division: Upholding the Sūtra Conversely Meets with Contempt, yet the Grave Sins Are Thereupon Wiped Away

By this division the Buddha says a thing that seems strange at first: there are good men and good women who receive, keep, read, and recite this sūtra, who by the previous divisions ought to attain boundless merit, and yet are now 「為人輕賤」 (“despised by others”) — looked down upon, slandered, and insulted. The ancient masters all raise this layer of doubt on the reader’s behalf: if upholding the sūtra has, plainly, boundless merit, why does it conversely call down illness, mishap, beating, and abuse — these untoward things? It is precisely to resolve this doubt that Jizang points out the eye of the division: this person was originally 「先世罪業應墮惡道」 (“by former-life sinful karma due to fall into the evil destinies”), and it is by the power of upholding the sūtra that the grave karma that should have made him fall into the evil destinies is turned into the light recompense of “being despised by others” in this present life — and so the grave sins are thereupon wiped away. Zhiyi’s line 「先世重罪現在輕受……過去重罪即得消滅」 (“the grave sins of former lives are lightly received in the present… the grave sins of the past are thereby wiped away”), and Kuiji’s line 「轉先重業現世為人輕毀，故應墮惡道之業竝即消滅」 (“the former grave karma is turned into being lightly slandered in this present life, and so the karma that should have fallen into the evil destinies is thereupon all wiped away”) — the three streams of the Three-Treatise, Tiantai, and Yogācāra schools converge here on one sense: turning the grave to make it light, lightly received in this present life. This is where the four words “the power to purify karmic hindrances” come down.

What the Karmic Hindrance Is: That Force, Sown in Former Lives, Due to Call Down the Evil Destinies

The ancient masters all gather this passage under “the karmic function of upholding the sūtra.” Vasubandhu’s two Chinese translations each sum up, in a verse, the manifold benefits of upholding the sūtra in the latter age, and this division falls just within the line 「遠離諸障」「蠲除諸業障」 (“far removed from all hindrances,” “the karmic hindrances all swept away”) (one witness reads 「及遠離諸障，復能速證法」, “and far removed from all hindrances, able too to swiftly realize the Dharma,” the other reads 「蠲除諸業障，速獲智通性」, “the karmic hindrances all swept away, swiftly gaining the nature of penetrating wisdom” — two translations of the same treatise, different in name but one in sense). Asaṅga judges it the fifth superior merit of upholding the sūtra — 「滅罪」 (“the extinguishing of sin”).

What, then, is the “karmic hindrance”? It is the force of karma this person sowed in former lives, which was originally to call down the suffering-fruit of the evil destinies (the alternate translations make it “sinful karma,” or “unwholesome karma,” or “impure karma” — the referent is one). Yogācāra, in viewing karma, never takes it as some ledger outside the body; karma is the seed perfumed by the deeds of mind and mental factors, stored within the eighth consciousness (the 阿賴耶識 ālaya-vijñāna — the root consciousness that gathers and stores all karmic seeds and continues thought-moment to thought-moment), awaiting a condition to become present and call down its fruit. So “purifying the karmic hindrance,” read in Yogācāra, is not going outside to cross off sin after sin, but this force of karma stored within consciousness being, under the realized practice of upholding the sūtra, turned and dispelled.

Indeterminate Karma Can Be Turned: Why the Grave Karma “Due to Fall into the Evil Destinies” Can Be Turned into “Being Despised”

Someone may ask: is karmic recompense not a fixed amount? If one is due to fall into the evil destinies, how can it be changed into merely being despised by others? Kuiji reads most finely here. He cites the Yogācāra treatise-teaching, dividing karma into the determinate and the indeterminate: some karma is such that both the “fruit” it calls down and the “time-period” of its recompense are still indeterminate, and this kind, upon upholding the sūtra, can be wiped out entire; some karma is such that the “fruit” is determinate but the “time-period” indeterminate, and this kind, by the power of upholding the sūtra, has what should have been gravely received in a later life turned into a light receiving in this present life. So “turning the grave to make it light” is not the law of karmic recompense breaking its rule, nor sin being pardoned by appeal to mercy, but karma having from the start the divisions of determinate and indeterminate, and the power of upholding the sūtra acting just upon that “indeterminate” joint, turning the grave into the light. The reason the sūtra’s “being despised by others” is precisely the scene of “purifying the karmic hindrance” is just here: that one round of contempt is the look of the grave karma due to fall into the evil destinies being, by the power of upholding the sūtra, wrung small, brought forward, and lightly concluded. Jizang’s 「金剛能摧諸患難」 (“the vajra can crush all calamities”) — what crushes the calamities of grave sin is the power of prajñā, not the suffering itself.

True Extinguishing of Sin: Relying on Non-Discriminating Wisdom to Realize the Two Emptinesses, with Both Hindrances Gone

Beyond the phenomenal “turning the grave to make it light,” Kuiji goes one layer deeper, giving the deepest Yogācāra reading of this division — he calls it 「真滅罪」 (“the true extinguishing of sin”). Kuiji’s own words are: by hearing, keeping, and reciting this sūtra, 「依學無分別智證二空理，二障都亡盡，名真滅罪也」 (“relying on the study of non-discriminating wisdom to realize the principle of the two emptinesses, with both hindrances utterly perished — this is called the true extinguishing of sin”). This must be read word by word.

無分別智 (non-discriminating wisdom) is the wisdom that no longer splits the mind into that duality of “a grasping self and a grasped object,” and illumines all dharmas as they truly are. 二空 (the two emptinesses) is the twofold no-self of no-self-in-person and no-self-in-dharma (the very two emptinesses that the next division’s “penetrating no-self and no-dharma” speaks of). 二障 (the two hindrances) is the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障 — arising from grasping a “self,” hindering liberation) and the cognitive-hindrance (所知障 — arising from grasping “dharmas,” hindering all-knowing). What Kuiji calls the “true extinguishing of sin” is this: to uphold the sūtra, cultivate wisdom, and with non-discriminating wisdom realize the two emptinesses — and these two hindrances are perished together. This is the cutting of the very root of sin.

Why is this “the root of sin”? Kuiji follows it at once with a line: 「由愚癡故，分別惡業罪生；若聽聞經，得智慧故，斷除分別，即是罪從心生，還從心滅也」 (“through delusion, the discriminated evil-karma sin arises; if one hears the sūtra and gains wisdom, cutting off discrimination — this is sin arising from the mind and returning to be extinguished by the mind”). Sin is not there for no reason — it is because of delusion, because of that discrimination which falsely splits the mind into grasper and grasped, that evil karma is committed and sin comes to be. Since sin “arises from the mind,” then once wisdom arises and discrimination is cut, sin too “returns to be extinguished by the mind.” This is precisely the appearance, in this division, of the Yogācāra purport “all dharmas are consciousness-only, karma is made by the mind”: sinful karma arises from the false discrimination of consciousness, and is also extinguished by the transformation of the basis of consciousness. It is not that there really is a solid sin set there waiting to be wiped off, but that once the false clinging which can commit sin is wholly dispelled, the karmic hindrance is of itself purified.

“Purifying the karmic hindrance” thus has two layers: the shallower, the light receiving in this present life of “turning the grave to make it light” upon indeterminate karma; the deeper, the transformation of the basis that, relying on non-discriminating wisdom, cuts off the two hindrances — “sin arising from the mind and returning to be extinguished by the mind.” This deeper layer — turning away the defiled seeds perfumed by the false discrimination within consciousness, and turning toward the reality disclosed by the two emptinesses — is precisely what Yogācāra calls 轉依 (the transformation of the basis). The earlier “one should give rise to that mind without abiding anywhere” is the transformation of the basis applied at “giving rise to mind”; the later “penetrating no-self and no-dharma” is the transformation of the basis applied at “the two emptinesses”; this division is the transformation of the basis applied at “the purifying of the karmic hindrance.” One and the same blade, falling on different places.

Blessing So Much It Maddens: an Inconceivable Recompense, Unreachable by the Ordinary Mind’s Reckoning

In the latter half of the division, the Buddha changes his manner of statement to disclose the blessing of upholding the sūtra. He raises his own past offering, before Dīpaṃkara Buddha, to eight hundred four thousand million nayutas of Buddhas — speaking of offering to Buddhas to the utmost — and yet so great a blessing, 「於我所供養諸佛功德，百分不及一」 (“of my merit in offering to those Buddhas, does not reach a hundredth part”): it still does not reach a hundredth part of the merit attained by a single sūtra-upholder of the latter age. To what degree is the blessing much? So much that 「我若具說者，或有人聞，心則狂亂，狐疑不信」 (“were I to state it in full, some who heard might have their minds maddened, doubting and not believing”).

The ancient masters interpret this “maddening” not as a term of disparagement. Vasubandhu judges it 「狂心因」 (“the cause of a maddened mind”) — it is because the blessing-recompense of upholding the sūtra is so much and so superior that the ordinary person, hearing it, cannot bear it and so is maddened; Asaṅga too says it discloses “much blessing.” Why can the ordinary mind not bear it? Because the “much” and the “superior” of this blessing are simply not a realm the ordinary person’s mind can reach by reckoning and calculation. Vasubandhu says it in a phrase: this is 「非思量智境界」 (“not the realm of reckoning wisdom”) — not what the reckoning, calculating mind can reach.

To the Yogācāra eye, this fits exactly. The ordinary person’s mind is a measured mind, a reckoning mind that falls within the duality of grasper and grasped and compares this against that; the recompense that upholding the sūtra calls forth belongs to the “inconceivable,” precisely what this reckoning mind cannot lay hold of. So the “maddening” is not that this blessing has anything dreadful about it, but that the small measuring-stick of the ordinary mind goes to measure a measureless fruit, and the stick is thrown into disorder first. The sūtra’s close, 「是經義不可思議，果報亦不可思議」 (“the meaning of this sūtra is inconceivable, and the recompense too is inconceivable”), is set just for this — what can purify the karmic hindrance and call forth this blessing is the power of prajñā and the fruit of realized practice that Yogācāra speaks of, which is from the start beyond the ordinary mind’s gauging.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the doctrines of the 賴耶, the two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); prajñā is another lineage; Yogācāra is only one mirror for reading it. Rather, it is one and the same purport — “upholding the sūtra purifies sin” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (the sins of former lives are then wiped away), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (karma is transformed by consciousness · the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis · the turning of indeterminate karma); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Thirty Verses speak of the transformation of the basis, of the two emptinesses dispelling the two hindrances, and of 「諸識轉變，分別所分別」 (“the consciousnesses transform, the discriminator and the discriminated”) — the very treatise-text for this division’s “sin arises from the mind and returns to be extinguished by the mind”; the Twenty Verses clarify “all dharmas are consciousness-only, karma too is transformed by consciousness-only”; the Cheng weishi lun speaks of the two hindrances, karmic seeds, and the turning of indeterminate karma — the technical words on which Kuiji’s reading of this division relies. And in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra says 「能除一切苦」 (“able to remove all suffering”) and 「無罣礙故無有恐怖」 (“because there is no obstruction, there is no fear”) — upholding the sūtra to purify the karmic hindrance and leave the suffering of the evil destinies is one and the same hindrance-removing function as the Heart Sūtra’s “removing suffering, no obstruction.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “the sins of former lives are then wiped away,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “relying on non-discriminating wisdom to realize the two emptinesses, with both hindrances gone, sin arising from the mind and returning to be extinguished by the mind” — and it is one and the same matter 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 16 · The Power to Purify Karmic Hindrances · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (遍計所執 parikalpita · 依他起 paratantra · 圓成實 pariniṣpanna), the three non-natures, the two graspings and two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis (轉依 āśraya-parāvṛtti), to throw light on the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not.”

The Pivot: the Two Clingings of Consciousness — the Clinging to Self and the Clinging to Dharma

Reading to this division, Subhūti asks again, word for word, the two questions he asked at the sūtra’s opening: 「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，云何應住？云何降伏其心？」 (“one who gives rise to the mind of supreme perfect awakening — how should he abide? how should he subdue his mind?”). The same question, answered already above — why does it return? The ancient masters all judge: this is the seam of the whole sūtra’s “two-round telling” (Jizang, 「開為二周」, “opened into two rounds”; Zhiyi, 「第二周重說般若」, “the second round re-stating prajñā”; Kuiji, 「此第二周說也」, “this is the second-round telling”).

To the Yogācāra eye, this seam divides very clearly. The deluded clinging of sentient beings has two layers: first, taking the body-mind aggregated of the five skandhas to be a really existent “self” — this is the clinging to a self in the person (人我執), hindering liberation, called the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障); second, taking the manifold dharmas manifested by the mind to be “dharmas” really existing outside the mind — this is the clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執), hindering the all-knowing of becoming a Buddha, called the cognitive-hindrance (所知障). The first half of the Diamond Sūtra (Divisions 1–16) breaks the “mark of self” and dispels the clinging to a self in the person, the affliction-hindrance; from this division on, it breaks the “mark of dharma” and dispels the clinging to a self in dharmas, the cognitive-hindrance. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, judges the second round precisely as 「斷障，障即所知」 (“cutting off the hindrance — the hindrance being the cognitive”) — the former round purifies the affliction-hindrance, this round turns to cut off the cognitive-hindrance.

So the same question of “giving rise to the mind,” asked the first time, purifies the clinging of “I am saving sentient beings”; what it must purify the second time is the subtler clinging of “I am a bodhisattva practicing the bodhisattva path.” Vasubandhu even sets up a doubt beforehand: if even “a bodhisattva” has no real substance, is it not that no one becomes a Buddha and there are no sentient beings to be saved? This doubt is not loosened until “penetrating the twofold no-self.” The teaching turns a corner here: from the emptiness of self in the person into the emptiness of self in dharmas; from cutting off the affliction-hindrance toward cutting off the cognitive-hindrance.

“In Truth There Is No Dharma That Gives Rise to Awakening”: the Mind That Gives Rise Is Also 依他, Without Own-Nature

The Buddha answers this question still saying 「我應滅度一切眾生，滅度一切眾生已，而無有一眾生實滅度者」 (“I should liberate all sentient beings; and having liberated all sentient beings, in truth not one sentient being has been liberated”), still saying 「有四相則非菩薩」 (“with the four marks, one is no bodhisattva”); what differs is the last line — 「實無有法發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提者」 (“in truth there is no dharma that gives rise to supreme perfect awakening”).

The earlier half says “no sentient being can be saved,” speaking emptiness with respect to the sentient beings saved; here it goes a step further, saying even that “mind that can give rise to awakening” has no real dharma to attain. Why? Yogācāra says: all minds and mental factors are 依他起 — arisen in reliance on a manifold of conditions, momentary in arising and ceasing, with no independently self-subsisting substance of a “giving rise to the mind.” If, upon this conditionally-arisen giving rise to the mind, one falsely adds “there really is a self that gives rise, there really is a dharma to give rise to,” that layer is 遍計所執. “In truth there is no dharma that gives rise to awakening” is not telling you not to give rise to the mind, but dispelling that layer of false reckoning that “there really is a self that can give rise, and a dharma that is given rise to” — emptiness has been driven back, from the sentient beings conditioned as object, onto the mind that can give rise.

Dīpaṃkara’s Prophecy and “the Tathāgata Is the Suchness of All Dharmas”: 圓成實 · 真如

The Buddha raises his own former affair as proof: long ago, before Dīpaṃkara Buddha, the Tathāgata did not attain any “dharma” by which to become awakened; precisely because 「實無有法得菩提」 (“in truth there was no dharma by which awakening was attained”), Dīpaṃkara Buddha gave him the prophecy. Had there really been a dharma to attain, he would, on the contrary, not have given the prophecy. Yogācāra sees the principle of this layer very directly: to have attainment is to fall into the duality of grasper and grasped (二取) (splitting the mind into a self that attains and a dharma attained — this is the very root of 遍計), and that is not true awakening; only where nothing is attained and the two graspings do not arise is the reality of awakening.

What, then, is “the Tathāgata”? The sūtra gives the eye of the division: 「如來者，即諸法如義」 (“the Tathāgata is the suchness of all dharmas”). The Tathāgata is not some someone constituted by having attained a thing; the Tathāgata is just the “suchness” of all dharmas — that is, 真如 (tathatā), the nature of 圓成實. 圓成實 is the real nature of dharmas disclosed after consciousness has wholly dispelled 遍計所執; 真如 is the very reality of consciousness-only. Kuiji reads this line as 「除謗無佛疑」 (“removing the doubt that slanders, ‘there is no Buddha’”) and 「明有法身」 (“clarifying that there is a Dharma-body”): do not, because of “there is no dharma to attain,” doubt that there is no Buddha and nothing realized — where nothing is attained, there is precisely the Dharma-body, 真如. Nothing-attained is not annihilation; it is 圓成.

“All Dharmas Are Not All Dharmas”: the Proper Reading of the Three Natures and the Three Non-Natures

The awakening the Tathāgata attains is 「於是中無實無虛」 (“within it without reality and without falsity”) — not to be grasped as a really existent thing, nor to be dismissed as a blank nothing. Right at this place of falling neither into reality nor into falsity, the Tathāgata says 「一切法皆是佛法」 (“all dharmas are Buddha-dharma”), and at once gathers a line: 「所言一切法者，即非一切法，是故名一切法」 (“what is called all dharmas is not all dharmas; therefore it is called all dharmas”).

These three sentences are the express text of the Yogācāra three natures and three non-natures. Read along:

• “All dharmas” = 依他起 paratantra: the conditionally-arisen dharmas are all manifested by consciousness, having their conditioned provisional mark, and so “all dharmas” can be said.
• “Are not all dharmas” = the dispelling of 遍計所執, disclosing non-own-nature: upon the 依他 dharmas, the ordinary person adds a layer of clinging that “there is a real existence outside the mind,” and this layer of 遍計所執 is from the root without substance — Kuiji says it is 「非分別之相法」 (“not the dharma of discriminated marks”), which means just: it is not that real dharma grasped by the discriminating mind. Prajñā states it all with the single word “empty”; Yogācāra, with the three non-natures, points out exactly what this “empty” is the emptiness of: 遍計所執 is 相無性 (mark-non-nature: its mark is from the start not there), 依他起 is 生無性 (arising-non-nature: it has no self-naturally-arising own-nature, only conditioned arising in reliance on other), 圓成實 is 勝義無性 (ultimate-non-nature: it is the ultimate apart from all 遍計). So “is-not” is not the smearing-away of all dharmas, but the dispelling of that layer of 遍計 real-existence — what is emptied is 遍計, not 依他 or 圓成.
• “Therefore it is called all dharmas” = establishing 圓成實, preserving the provisional name: where false clinging is wholly dispelled, all dharmas as they truly are (圓成實) stand manifest, and the 依他 provisional name is still sayable as before — Kuiji says this is 「佛所證法」 (“the dharma the Buddha has realized”).

This is the Yogācāra decoding of the Diamond Sūtra’s “is-not”: what “is-not” dispels is that layer of 遍計所執 (相無性) — what is emptied is 遍計 alone, not 依他, not 圓成; and “that is what is called” then establishes 圓成 and preserves the 依他 provisional name (the three natures manifestly there). One and the same line, “all dharmas are Buddha-dharma, is not all dharmas,” prajñā states all with the single word “empty,” and Yogācāra parses in purport with the three natures and three non-natures.

The Great-Body Simile: the Dharma-Body Is Not a Mark, yet a Name Is Established

The Buddha raises a simile to close: 「譬如人身長、大」 (“like a person’s body, tall and great”), and Subhūti answers at once in the “is-not” form: 「則為非大身，是名大身」 (“is then not a great body; that is what is called a great body”). It is alike of the three-nature form: the “great body” is not a really existent great body of 遍計所執, but the 圓成 Dharma-body established upon a provisional name. The body is so, and the Dharma-body all the more so — the “greatness” of the Dharma-body lies not in there being a great mark to attain, but in being apart from all marks of 遍計.

“Penetrating No-Self and No-Dharma” = the Twofold No-Self = the Transformation of the Basis: Consciousness Wholly Purified of the Two Graspings

Last, the Buddha turns this blade of “nothing-attained” back round upon “the bodhisattva” himself: if a bodhisattva says “I will liberate measureless sentient beings,” he is no bodhisattva, because 「實無有法名為菩薩」 (“in truth there is no dharma named ‘bodhisattva’”); if he harbors the thought “I will adorn the Buddha-land,” he is also no bodhisattva. Asaṅga points it out most clearly: to say “I accomplish” is the grasping of a self in the person (人我取); to say “adorning the land” is the grasping of a self in dharmas (法我取) — to harbor these two graspings is to be no bodhisattva.

How, then, is one a true bodhisattva? The sūtra concludes: 「若菩薩通達無我、法者，如來說名真是菩薩」 (“if a bodhisattva penetrates no-self and no-dharma, the Tathāgata calls him a true bodhisattva”). Kumārajīva breaks it as “no-self, no-dharma”; the alternate translations make it “no-self, no-self-dharma,” or “all dharmas without nature” — pointing to one and the same thing: no-self-in-person together with no-self-in-dharma, these twofold no-selves (the two emptinesses). To penetrate the twofold no-self is to cut off entirely the two hindrances, affliction and cognitive, and to dispel wholly that 遍計 which splits the mind in two as grasper and grasped — this, in Yogācāra, is called 轉依 (the transformation of the basis): turning away the defiled seed-habits of 遍計所執 within the 阿賴耶識 (ālaya-vijñāna) and turning toward the 真如 of 圓成實. Kuiji says 「達我、法空，證無我理，是真菩薩」 (“penetrating the emptiness of self and of dharma, realizing the principle of no-self, is the true bodhisattva”); Asaṅga sets up “two kinds of right awakening” for the two kinds of no-self; Jizang too distinguishes the two vehicles by the twofold no-self — 「聲聞但悟人無我，故不名菩薩」 (“the śrāvaka realizes only no-self-in-person, and so is not called a bodhisattva”), and only the one who penetrates both no-self-in-person and no-self-in-dharma is called a true bodhisattva. The name “Ultimately, No Self” falls just at this ultimate place of the consciousness’s transformation of the basis: the two graspings wholly purified, consciousness become 真如.

This also answers Vasubandhu’s earlier doubt: it is not that “there is no bodhisattva,” but that there is no really existent bodhisattva of 遍計所執; in the right awakening within the twofold no-self, the 依他 bodhisattva and the 圓成 Dharma-body are manifestly there — that no real bodhisattva can be attained is precisely why the true bodhisattva is true.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say Yogācāra flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — Yogācāra’s 賴耶, three natures, and three non-natures have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); prajñā is another lineage. Rather, it is one and the same reality — “non-abiding, not a mark” — which the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words (is-not · nothing-attained), and which Yogācāra states in the treatise’s words (the three natures and three non-natures · the two emptinesses · the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the sense of each shows the clearer. The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the two emptinesses and the real; the Cheng weishi lun speaks of the two hindrances and two clingings; the Thirty Verses, dispelling the two clingings with the two emptinesses and returning to the transformation of the basis; and in the prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s 「無智亦無得」 (“no wisdom and no attainment”) — all seal with this division. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as “penetrating no-self and no-dharma” and “in truth there is no dharma to attain,” the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words “the twofold no-self · the two emptinesses · cutting off the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis” — and it is one and the same matter 〔this reconciliation Shi Huijing has already clarified in purport in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 17 · Ultimately, No Self · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the eight consciousnesses (the six consciousnesses cognizing objects, the ālaya continuing on), false imagination (虛妄分別), the three natures, the wholly-imagined nature (遍計所執), and consciousness-only-with-no-object (唯識無境) to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “all these minds are no-mind; the three times of mind are unattainable.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

Coming Off the Pivot: the Buddha Knows the Minds of Beings, and That Mind Is Transformed by Consciousness, Unreal in Its Very Substance

The previous division (Ultimately, No Self) turned the teaching into the emptiness of dharmas and disclosed that “there is in truth no dharma to be attained.” This division presses straight on to mind: if neither bodhisattva nor any dharma is real, has the Tathāgata then come to see nothing at all? He has not. The Buddha possesses the five eyes and knows fully the manifold minds of all beings throughout world-systems numerous as the Ganges’ sands; only, the minds he so knows are “all no-mind” (皆為非心). So the eye of this division is just this: the Buddha’s wisdom knows pervasively the minds of beings, while that mind of beings is by its very nature transformed-and-manifested by consciousness, inverted in its very substance, without own-nature. Asaṅga places this passage within the seventeenth “Realizing the Path” abode (證道住處), under the second of the Buddha-ground’s six perfections, the “perfection of the unsurpassed seeing-wisdom’s purity” (無上見智淨具足) — one portion of the fully realized seeing-wisdom of the Buddha-ground after the bodhisattva has realized the path.

The Five Eyes: What the Buddha Sees Is Precisely the Inverted Falsity of Beings’ Minds

The Buddha asks five times in a row: does the Tathāgata have the fleshly eye, the divine eye, the wisdom-eye, the Dharma-eye, the Buddha-eye? Subhūti answers each time, “He does.” Vasubandhu points out the occasion for this questioning: since the foregoing has repeatedly said “does not see,” someone might doubt that “the Buddhas and Tathāgatas do not see dharmas at all”; to cut off this doubt, the five eyes are declared. Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse, in both its translations, says it most plainly: 「雖不見諸法，非無了境眼；諸佛五種實，以見彼顛倒」— “though they do not see dharmas, it is not that they lack the eye that discerns objects; the five eyes of the Buddhas are real, for they see that inversion” — and 「雖不見諸法，此非無有眼；佛能具五種，由境虛妄故」— “though they do not see dharmas, this is not the absence of an eye; the Buddha can possess the five kinds, because the object is false.”

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this is exact: the Buddha’s “not seeing” is not the lack of an eye nor a failure to see, but “seeing that inversion” (見彼顛倒) — the mind of beings that the Buddha knows is itself false imagination (虛妄分別, the inverted consciousness that wrongly divides a consciousness which has neither grasper nor grasped into “a grasping mind and a grasped object”). Just because the object seen is itself false, the Buddha’s total seeing is precisely the seeing of the inverted falsity of beings’ minds. Jizang catches it in a double-edged line: 「五眼見宛然而無所見」— “the five eyes see, vividly, yet there is nothing seen”: because there are eyes, the seeing is vivid; because the mind seen has no reality, there is nothing seen. The illumining eye being thus complete sets the stage for the “mind illumined” below.

The Ganges-Sands Simile: the Objects Known Are Measureless, the Wisdom That Knows Them Grasps All in a Single Glance

The Buddha then uses the Ganges’ sands to lay out an enormous number: first the sands in the Ganges as a figure for how many the sands are; then, taking “each single grain of sand as one Ganges River” and “the sands of so many Ganges Rivers each as one Buddha-world,” he piles them up layer upon layer — until the Buddha-worlds are “very many indeed.” This expansion of the measurelessness of the objects known serves, by contrast, to set off the economy of the wisdom that knows: the objects are this vast, yet the Buddha’s wisdom knows them all in a single glance. This is Jizang’s 「明眼雖少而能遍知一切境」— “though the clear eye is small, it can know pervasively all objects” — and 「舉其難知尚知」— “he raises up what is hardest to know, and even that is known.” Mind is the hardest of all to know; if even the hardest is known fully, the rest is plainly easy. The wider the spread laid out, the more forceful the turn.

The Sundry Kinds of Mind: the Six Consciousnesses Cognizing Objects, Minds Differing Moment by Moment

The Tathāgata knows fully the “sundry kinds of mind” (若干種心) of all the beings in those many lands. These “sundry kinds of mind” Kuiji reads as 「六識差別顛倒心」— “the inverted minds differing in the six consciousnesses”: the manifold discriminating minds that arise in beings’ first six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) as they cognize form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas — minds that differ moment by moment, each one inverted. In Yogācāra terms, all these minds are dependent-arising (依他起, paratantra): they arise in reliance on conditions such as faculty, object, and attention, arising and ceasing in an instant, with no independent “mind” standing there at all.

What matters is this: the Buddha’s knowing of these minds does not imply that there really are individual, substantial beings and substantial minds lying there to be known. Kuiji says it plainly — 「雖無遍計所執實眾生，而可度可見，非無因緣假眾生而可見」— “though there is no really existent being of the kind that is wholly-imagined (遍計所執), there are beings to be saved and seen; it is not that there is no conditionally-arisen provisional being to be seen.” The provisional mind, conditionally arisen, can vividly be known (this is the “so it is named”), yet it has no own-nature and there is no real object outside the mind for it to cognize — which is exactly what Yogācāra means by consciousness-only-with-no-object (唯識無境).

All Minds Are No-Mind: Reading “Mind” Through the Three Natures — Dependently Arisen, the Wholly-Imagined Without Reality, the Truly-Perfected as Provisional Name

So the “is-not” pattern of this division emerges: 「如來說諸心，皆為非心，是名為心」— “the Tathāgata says: all these minds are no-mind; they are merely named mind.” Read through the three natures:

• “All minds (the sundry kinds of mind)” = dependent-arising (依他起): the conditionally-arisen minds that appear as the six consciousnesses differ in cognizing objects.
• “Are all no-mind” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): upon this conditionally-arisen mind, beings falsely cling to a real, permanent, object-pursuing “mind” — and this wholly-imagined layer is without substance. Kuiji calls it 「非真住心」— “not a truly-abiding mind” (only a mind abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness, abiding in the principle of suchness, is a truly-abiding mind; the beings’ inverted, object-pursuing mind is not). Hence “no-mind.” This “no-mind” does not say there is no mind; it removes that layer of clinging to “a really existent mind” and discloses its want of own-nature.
• “They are merely named mind” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the clinging is removed, the provisional name of the other-dependent may still be spoken — Kuiji reads it as 「是虛妄顛倒心」, “this false, inverted mind,” that is, the speakable provisional mind.

Zhiyi sums it in a phrase: 「以非心為心」— “taking no-mind as mind”: precisely because it is known to be unreal, mind is provisionally spoken of upon dependent-arising. The single “is-not” pattern, in the first half, was applied mostly to outer objects — marks, merit, adornment; by this division it is applied to “mind” itself: even that mind which is busy pursuing objects and fancies itself real is an image transformed by consciousness.

The Three Times of Mind Are Unattainable: Instant-to-Instant Continuity, the Wholly-Imagined Forming “Permanence”

The Buddha closes with the three times: 「過去心不可得，現在心不可得，未來心不可得」— “past mind is unattainable, present mind is unattainable, future mind is unattainable.” Why are all three times unattainable? Vasubandhu explains: past and future, being already perished and not yet arisen, are unattainable; the present mind, being false imagination, is unattainable — and Yijing’s translation states it even more directly: 「現在者即是遍計所執，自性非有」— “the present is precisely the wholly-imagined, and its own-nature does not exist.”

Yogācāra sees this layer most transparently: mind is not a permanent thing lying there, but the ālaya together with the prior seven consciousnesses arising and ceasing instant by instant, succeeding one another front to back (念念生滅、前後相續), so that there seems to be a “mind” flowing — when in fact the prior instant has already perished, the latter instant has not yet arisen, and the present instant is again false imagination. You think you can seize a “present, real mind”; that mind grasped as really existent and permanent is precisely the wholly-imagined, whose own-nature does not exist (遍計所執，自性非有). So, sought through the three times, it is utterly unattainable; yet beings insist on “seeing that there is a mind” — Jizang’s 「無而謂有，故名顛倒」, “to call the non-existent existent: this is what is named inversion.” Zhiyi turns this very point into a living spring: 「三世心無性可得故，可從緣而生心」— “precisely because the mind of the three times has no attainable own-nature, mind can arise from conditions.” To know that mind is “unattainable” is not annihilation; it is to see that its continuous inversion is to be relinquished and that the true mark of conditioned arising is the absence of own-nature. What the Buddha’s five eyes “fully know” is exactly this false mind whose “three times are unattainable.”

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that the Yogācāra science of mind-and-consciousness flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the eight consciousnesses, the ālaya, and false imagination have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi), not in the Prajñā corpus. Rather, the same import — “knowing the mind while the mind has no reality” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (all minds are no-mind; the three times unattainable) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (eight consciousnesses, false imagination, the wholly-imagined, consciousness-only-with-no-object); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses speak of the eight consciousnesses, of 「依止根本識，五識隨緣現」— “relying on the root consciousness, the five consciousnesses appear as conditions allow” — and of 「諸識轉變，分別所分別」— “the consciousnesses transform; what discriminates and what is discriminated” — answering to this division’s “the inverted minds differing in the six consciousnesses” and “fully known, yet no-mind.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga establishes “false imagination” (虛妄分別), which accords with Vasubandhu’s commentary here on “the consciousnesses being false.” The Twenty Verses clarify consciousness-only-with-no-object, the mind being like a dream with no real object cognized, which seals with “fully known yet just no-mind, the three times unattainable.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the wholly-imagined, of false imagination, and of the three times (past and future without substance, the present an instant), answering to this division’s “the present is precisely the wholly-imagined, whose own-nature does not exist.” Within the Prajñā lineage itself, the Heart Sūtra’s “the empty mark of all dharmas” and “no wisdom and also no attainment” are likewise this gate of knowing that mind has no reality. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “all minds are no-mind, the three times of mind are unattainable,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined · false imagination · mind without own-nature,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 18 · Seeing All as One Body · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), clinging-to-dharmas and the cognitive hindrance (所知障), and giving-with-an-unattaining-mind together with the transformation of the basis (轉依) to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s one “hidden is-not” here. The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

Rising from the Previous Division: If the Mind Is Inverted, Is the Merit Inverted Too?

The previous division (Seeing All as One Body) said that the Buddha knows fully the manifold minds of beings, and that those minds are “all no-mind” — inverted and false in their very substance, without own-nature. Following on this, a doubt at once arises: if the very mind that produces merit is fundamentally inverted and false, then must not the merit produced by that inverted mind be inverted and false as well? And if so, what kind of good dharma is such merit, and how could it be a cause for Buddhahood? The ancient masters read this division precisely as answering this doubt. Vasubandhu puts it most bluntly: 「向說心住顛倒，若如是，福德亦是顛倒。若是顛倒，何名善法？」— “it was just said that the mind abides in inversion; if so, then merit too is inverted; and if inverted, how is it named a good dharma?” Jizang likewise says: if the giving and so forth performed by an inverted mind were all inverted, then there ought to be no cause and no fruit of Buddhahood. To cut off this doubt, the Buddha here raises again the merit of giving the seven jewels — so this division is not a fresh contest of merit but a turning back to settle the doubt that “if the mind is inverted, the merit is inverted too.”

Giving the Seven Jewels Wins Very Much Merit: the Conditionally-Arisen Merit of the Other-Dependent — Merit Is Not Nothing

The Buddha first sets up one side: if someone gives the seven jewels filling a great-thousandfold world-system, he “wins very much merit.” This line first makes solid the side of merit’s “being” — merit is not nothing. Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this conditionally-arisen contaminated merit is exactly dependent-arising (依他起, paratantra): merit arising in reliance on a manifold of conditions — the giver, the wealth given, the field given to — its phenomenal mark vividly present, hence “wins very much merit.” Kuiji, reading this act of giving, brings out its weight: if it is performed for the sake of seeking prajñā and of attaining Buddhahood in the future, “its merit is very much,” and the merit-dharma is thereby perfected (this is precisely the third of the Buddha-ground’s six perfections, the “perfection of mastery over merit,” 福自在具足). First the being of merit is established (the other-dependent may be spoken of); only then can the text below remove the reality of merit (the wholly-imagined is to be emptied).

The Hidden “Is-Not”: “If It Were Real, He Would Not Say It Is Much; Because It Is Not, He Says It Is Much”

The Buddha then turns out the eye of this division — but turns it in a peculiar way: 「若福德有實，如來不說得福德多；以福德無故，如來說得福德多」— “if merit had reality, the Tathāgata would not say one wins much merit; because merit is not, the Tathāgata says one wins much merit.”

Other divisions state the “is-not” by ranging three clauses side by side — “merit, is-not merit, is named merit.” This division does not set out those three; instead, by this one negation-and-one-establishment — “if real, then not called much / because not, then called much” — it conceals the same “is-not” within. So this is a place of hidden “is-not.” Unfolded through the three natures, all three members are there:

• “Merit (wins very much merit)” = dependent-arising (依他起): conditionally-arisen contaminated merit, vividly speakable, attainable in great measure.
• “If merit had reality (the Tathāgata would not say one wins much merit)” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of clinging — falsely added onto this conditionally-arisen merit — to “a really existent merit possessing own-nature.” Kuiji says it plainly: if, like one acting for the sake of his own reward, one took merit to be really existent with own-nature in performing the giving, 「佛則不說為得福多」— “the Buddha would not say it counts as winning much merit.” This clause “would not say one wins much merit” is precisely the blocking-out of merit’s real own-nature — this layer of merit grasped as real is wholly without substance; it is the wholly-imagined (taking an image transformed by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind).
• “Because merit is not, the Tathāgata says one wins much merit” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the speakable (立圓成、存可說): merit has no real own-nature (this “is-not” is exactly the reality disclosed by departing from the wholly-imagined), and just because it has no own-nature, one can give with the unattaining mind in which “the three factors are empty in substance” (三事體空) — Kuiji: 「以三事體空行施，不同著果報等行施故，如來說福多也」— “because one gives with the three factors empty in substance, unlike giving that is attached to reward and so forth, the Tathāgata says the merit is much” (the three factors empty in substance: giver, gift, and recipient — all three not grasped as really existent). Jizang too: 「以福德無故，此明無得福德，故是佛因也」— “‘because merit is not’ clarifies the unattaining merit, and so it is a cause for Buddhahood.” So “because it is not, he says it is much” does not erase merit; it removes the clinging to merit’s reality, and thereby accomplishes truly vast merit — this is the hidden “is-not” of “removing own-nature while preserving the speakable.”

Prajñā states this “merit is not” summarily with the single word “empty”; Yogācāra points out which layer this “empty” empties: it empties “merit possessing real own-nature,” that layer of the wholly-imagined — not the conditionally-arisen merit itself (the other-dependent), nor the reality disclosed by departing from clinging (the perfectly-accomplished).

Clinging to Merit Is Also Clinging to Dharmas: This Act of Giving Falls upon the Cognitive Hindrance

What matters is to see clearly which clinging this “is-not” removes. This division is set after the pivotal Division 17 (the turn from the emptiness of self to the emptiness of dharmas, from the affliction-hindrance to the cognitive hindrance) and under Division 18 (all minds are no-mind, the three times unattainable). The “is-not” of the first half was mostly applied to marks, to beings — breaking the self-clinging (我執) of “I can give, I win merit” (belonging to the affliction-hindrance, 煩惱障). Here, what is removed is the layer of clinging to “merit having a real own-nature” — that is, clinging-to-dharmas (法執): to grasp a conditionally-arisen merit as one really-existent dharma outside the mind is precisely the dharma-self-clinging that takes a dharma to be real, and this belongs to the cognitive hindrance (所知障).

So the blade of this division does not again cut at the self-clinging of “I am making merit,” but at the dharma-clinging of “merit is a real dharma.” And just by this it answers the doubt that “if the mind is inverted, the merit is inverted too”: the mind that is known is indeed inverted and false (Division 18), but the merit performed is not inverted along with it — Vasubandhu: 「心住雖顛倒，福德非顛倒」, “though the mind abides in inversion, the merit is not inverted,” and 「流轉之心可是其妄，所言福聚體不是虛」, “the mind in transmigration may be false, but the merit-mass spoken of is not, in substance, empty-of-being.” Why is the mind inverted yet the merit not? Vasubandhu gives the reason: because this merit “is upheld by the wisdom of right awakening” (由是正覺智之持) — the merit is sustained by the wisdom of right awakening, and is the root of the Buddha’s wisdom (Vasubandhu’s two translations differ in wording but are one in sense: 「佛智慧根本，非顛倒功德」, “the root of the Buddha’s wisdom, an un-inverted merit,” and 「應知是智持，福乃非虛妄」, “know that it is upheld by wisdom, and so the merit is not false”). Merit is un-inverted not because the giver’s mind is psychologically clean, but because it has no real own-nature and is upheld by the non-discriminating wisdom of right awakening.

From “Attaining” to “Not Attaining”: This Is Precisely the Transformation of the Basis

Gathered onto the trunk of Yogācāra, this act of giving is the transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti). To give while attached to marks and to cling to merit as real is the giving “with attainment,” fallen into the duality of grasper (self) and grasped (merit) — which is just the root of the wholly-imagined. To give with the three factors empty in substance, not clinging to merit as real, is the giving “without attainment,” in which the two graspings do not arise and which accords with non-discriminating wisdom. The transformation of the basis that Yogācāra speaks of is precisely the turning-away of the defiled seed-habits of the wholly-imagined within the ālaya-vijñāna and the turning-toward the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished; and falling upon merit, it is just this here — “transforming the giving-with-attainment into the giving-without-attainment.” Remove the clinging to merit’s reality, and merit instead becomes a cause for Buddhahood and a mastery over merit. So Zhiyi turns it deftly in a phrase: 「以無福為福，故多也……福德無實則可曠施而多」— “taking no-merit as merit, hence it is much… merit being without reality, it can be given limitlessly and so be much.” Precisely because one does not cling to merit as really having a fixed measure, merit can be given inexhaustibly and so attain its “muchness.” Cling to it as real and it is “measured”; only when without reality is it “measureless.”

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, the transformation of the basis, and the cognitive hindrance have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises, the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same import — “merit being without reality, yet becoming a cause for Buddhahood” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (with an “is-not” hidden inside: if real, not said to be much; because not, said to be much) and parsed by Yogācāra in treatise-language (the wholly-imagined, dharma-clinging as the cognitive hindrance, giving-with-an-unattaining-mind, the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses come home to the transformation of the basis and call the uncontaminated realm 「不思議善常」, “inconceivable, good, permanent,” which seals with this division’s “giving with an unattaining mind, merit becoming a cause for Buddhahood.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the wholly-imagined as without own-nature, of dharma-clinging as belonging to the cognitive hindrance, and of the uncontaminated cause of merit, answering to this division’s “if merit had reality he would not say it is much; because merit is not, he says it is much.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “no wisdom and also no attainment” is precisely the position of this division’s “because merit is not” — the merit of non-attaining: merit has no real own-nature to attain, and only thus is merit called much. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “because merit is not, the Tathāgata says one wins much merit,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined is without being · giving-with-an-unattaining-mind accords with non-discriminating wisdom,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 19 · The Dharma-Realm Pervasively Transformed · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the three bodies (Dharma-body 法身, reward-body 報身, transformation-body 化身), and the great mirror-wisdom (大圓鏡智) manifesting the reward- and transformation-bodies, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s two questions and two “is-nots.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

Coming Off the Pivot: the Blade of Dharma-Emptiness Falls upon the Buddha’s Own Body

Above, Division 17 turned the teaching into the emptiness of dharmas and disclosed that “there is in truth no dharma to be attained”; Division 18 turned again to “mind,” saying all minds are no-mind. By this division, the blade of this “is-not” falls upon a place most easily grasped as real — the Buddha’s own marks-and-excellences body.

From the earlier line “the Tathāgata is just the suchness of all dharmas” a very natural doubt arises: if the Buddha is named from the unconditioned suchness, then what of the eighty secondary excellences and thirty-two marks he has achieved? Does seeing this body of marks-and-excellences mean one has seen the Buddha? Vasubandhu first poses this doubt — 「若諸佛以無為法得名，云何諸佛成就八十種好、三十二相而名為佛」, “if the Buddhas are named from the unconditioned dharma, how is it that the Buddhas achieve the eighty excellences and thirty-two marks and are named Buddha?” To cut off this doubt, the Buddha says “he cannot be seen by the perfect form-body, cannot be seen by the perfect marks.” So the eye of this division is just this: the marks-and-excellences body is not the Dharma-body, yet the marks-and-excellences body is not apart from the Dharma-body.

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this is one application of the dharma-emptiness of §17’s second half. The first half (Divisions 1–16) broke mostly the objects outside the body — marks, dharmas, merit — removing the affliction-hindrance; by this division the “is-not” is applied to the Buddha’s body itself, breaking the finer clinging of “the marks-and-excellences just are the Dharma-body,” removing the cognitive hindrance (dharma-self-clinging). That even the Buddha’s marks-and-excellences body must be told an “is-not” shows how thorough the emptiness of dharmas is.

The Two Questions Side by Side: Form-Body and Marks, Raised Apart but One in Meaning

This division asks twice, the two questions of one pattern: “can he be seen by the perfect form-body?” and “can he be seen by the perfect marks?” Subhūti answers “no” both times, and each answer gathers an “is-not.”

Why ask these two apart? The ancient masters distinguish them clearly: “form-body” (色身) speaks of the body of the eighty secondary excellences beyond the thirty-two marks (Yijing’s treatise-text says outright that “the form-body just means the secondary excellences,” and Kuiji says it is 「報身、化身的隨好之身」, “the body of secondary excellences of the reward-body and transformation-body”); “marks” (諸相) speaks of the thirty-two marks (Kuiji: 「就是那差別的三十二相」, “precisely those differentiated thirty-two marks”). The secondary excellences and the major marks — one the form-body, the other the marks — are made into two questions; yet the principle disclosed is only one: the marks-and-excellences body is not the Dharma-body, and not apart from it. Jizang catches it: the question about the marks 「意思和前面問色身一樣，只是身的總相與相的別相之分罷了」, “means the same as the earlier question about the form-body; it is only the distinction between the total mark of the body and the particular marks.” The two repeated questions point to one and the same thing.

Is-Not the Form-Body: the Reward- and Transformation-Body of Secondary Excellences Is Not the Dharma-Nature Form-Body

The first “is-not”: 「如來說具足色身，即非具足色身，是名具足色身」— “the Tathāgata says: the perfect form-body is-not the perfect form-body; it is named the perfect form-body.” Read through the three natures:

• “The perfect form-body” = dependent-arising (依他起): this is the body of secondary excellences of the reward-body and transformation-body (Kuiji: 「如來所說的具足色身，是報身、化身的隨好之身」). A form-body that appears in response to the occasion, arising in conditions, vividly visible — hence “perfect.”
• “Is-not the perfect form-body” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of falsely taking this reward-and-transformation marks-body to be “the perfect form-body of the Dharma-nature (the Dharma-body).” Kuiji: 「即非具足色身，就是說它不是法性的具足色身」— “‘is-not the perfect form-body’ means it is not the perfect form-body of the Dharma-nature.” The so-called wholly-imagined (遍計所執) is just the taking of an image transformed-and-manifested by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind; here, the taking of the visible marks-body for the reality of that invisible Dharma-body. The “is-not” removes this layer of clinging; it does not say there are no marks-and-excellences.
• “It is named the perfect form-body” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): once that false clinging is removed, the reward-and-transformation marks-body is still, without own-nature, vividly speakable — Kuiji: 「是名具足色身，就是說它是報身、化身」, “‘it is named the perfect form-body’ means it is the reward-body and transformation-body.” The marks-body is not something apart from the Dharma-body; it is what the Dharma-body manifests. Kuiji draws a simile: the Dharma-body is like empty space, which has no form of its own yet can manifest all manner of images in a mirror; so too the Dharma-body, formless and markless in itself, can manifest the reward-body and transformation-body in the great mirror-wisdom (大圓鏡智). This is exactly what Yogācāra says — the great mirror-wisdom manifests the self-enjoyment body and the transformation body.

Is-Not the Perfect Marks: the Mark That Has a Mark Is Not the Mark That Has No Mark

The second “is-not”: 「如來說諸相具足，即非具足，是名諸相具足」— “the Tathāgata says: the marks are perfect; is-not perfect; it is named the marks being perfect.” The same three-nature pattern:

• “The marks are perfect” = dependent-arising (依他起): these are those differentiated thirty-two marks (Kuiji: 「如來所說的諸相具足，是說那差別的三十二相」).
• “Is-not perfect” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of taking the thirty-two marks to be “the undifferentiated mark of the Dharma-body.” Kuiji: 「即非具足，是說它不是法身那無差別相的具足」, “‘is-not perfect’ means it is not the perfection of that undifferentiated mark of the Dharma-body”; and Asaṅga says it most penetratingly — 「有相的相，並不就是無相的相」, “the mark that has a mark is not the mark that has no mark.” The thirty-two marks are marks that have marks (outwardly visible forms), while the Dharma-body’s mark is a markless mark (a mark upon the principle inwardly realized); to grasp the former as the latter is the wholly-imagined.
• “It is named the marks being perfect” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the clinging is removed, the outward forms may still be spoken of — Kuiji: 「是名諸相具足，是說那外在的形相」, “‘it is named the marks being perfect’ means those outward forms”; Asaṅga: 「內證真理是無相之相，而外面具有有相之相」, “the inwardly realized principle is a markless mark, while outwardly it possesses marks that have marks.” The markless mark inwardly realized is not apart from the marks that have marks outwardly manifested, hence “it is named.”

All of a Piece: the Dharma-Body Is Not the Marks-and-Excellences, Yet Not Apart from Them — Both Absent and Present

Taken together, the two “is-nots” share one key: the marks-and-excellences body is not the Dharma-body (is-not), yet the marks-and-excellences body is not apart from the Dharma-body (it is named). Vasubandhu gathers it in a phrase — 「亦無二及有」, “both the absence of the two and the presence”: within the Dharma-body there are no marks-and-excellences (so one may say “absent,” the “is-not”); the marks-and-excellences are not apart from the Dharma-body (so one may also say “present,” the “it is named”). Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse anchors this principle clause by clause to the text: 「法身畢竟體，非彼相好身」— “the Dharma-body, the ultimate substance, is not that marks-and-excellences body” — this breaks the view of identity, that “the marks-and-excellences just are the Dharma-body”; 「不離於法身，彼二非不佛」— “not apart from the Dharma-body, those two are not non-Buddha” — this breaks the view of difference, that “the marks-and-excellences and the Dharma-body are utterly two, and apart from the marks-and-excellences there is some separate Dharma-body.” With both the view of identity and the view of difference removed, the relation of marks-and-excellences and Dharma-body is settled: not one, not different.

The three houses of ancient masters (the Three-Treatise Jizang, the Tiantai Zhiyi, the Yogācāra Kuiji), though from three lineages, come home alike to these two verses of Vasubandhu. Jizang: 「色身不是法身，怎能說它們是一個？離了相好哪裡另有法身，所以說『此二非不佛』」— “the form-body is not the Dharma-body, so how can they be called one? And apart from the marks-and-excellences where is there a separate Dharma-body? — hence ‘those two are not non-Buddha.’” Zhiyi gathers it with 「法身如空中之月，色身如水中之像，世間的色相沒有實體可看，尋它的本源就是法身」— “the Dharma-body is like the moon in the sky, the form-body like its image in water; the worldly form-marks have no substance to be seen, and tracing them to their source is just the Dharma-body.” Kuiji, following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, anchors the text item by item with “the reward-and-transformation body of secondary excellences is not the Dharma-nature form-body; the Dharma-body is like empty space while the mirror-wisdom manifests the reward- and transformation-bodies; the mark that has a mark is-not the markless mark.” Three houses, different streams converging on one — this is the ancient masters’ settled reading of this division’s “the Dharma-body apart from form and mark.”

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that the Yogācāra science of the three bodies and four wisdoms flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three bodies and the great mirror-wisdom have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun), the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same reality — “the marks-and-excellences are not the Dharma-body, yet not apart from it” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (is-not the perfect form-body · is-not the perfect marks) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (the three natures, the three bodies, the four wisdoms, the wholly-imagined); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses speak of the perfectly-accomplished and of the transformation of the basis, answering to this division’s “Dharma-body (the perfectly-accomplished) · reward-and-transformation (the other-dependent manifesting marks).” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the fruit-wisdom, establishes the three bodies (the self-nature body, the enjoyment body, the transformation body), which is exactly the treatise-source for this division’s “Dharma-body · reward-body · transformation-body, manifesting marks-and-excellences not apart from the Dharma-body.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the great mirror-wisdom manifesting the self-enjoyment body and the transformation body — the technical language of this division’s “the Dharma-body is like empty space, the mirror-wisdom manifests the reward- and transformation-bodies.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes “the markless mark · the Dharma-body possessing the mark of Dharma-nature,” which accords with this division’s “the mark that has a mark is-not the markless mark.” The Twenty Verses clarify that the marks manifested by consciousness are not real apart from consciousness, which seals with “the marks-and-excellences body is like an image in a mirror, manifested by the transformation of consciousness.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “form is just emptiness, emptiness is just form” is likewise this gate of “the marks-and-excellences are unreal (is-not) yet vividly not apart from the Dharma-body (it is named).” To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “the perfect form-body is-not the perfect form-body,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the great mirror-wisdom manifests the reward- and transformation-bodies · the three bodies · the marks-and-excellences are not the wholly-imagined real Dharma-body,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 20 · Apart from Form, Apart from Marks · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the three non-natures (三無性), and the two graspings and two hindrances, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s two “is-nots”: “the one who teaches the Dharma has no Dharma to teach,” and “beings are-not beings.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The “Is-Not” Turns upon Itself: Even “the Buddha Teaches the Dharma” Is “Is-Not”

The “is-not” has all along removed mostly the body-marks, merit, and adornment — the “objects spoken of.” By this division it turns its blade upon the act of teaching the Dharma itself. The Buddha first warns Subhūti not to suppose the Tathāgata harbors a thought that “I ought to have a body of Dharma to teach”: if someone says “the Tathāgata has a Dharma he teaches,” that slanders the Buddha. He then gathers an “is-not”: 「說法者，無法可說，是名說法」— “the one who teaches the Dharma has no Dharma to teach; it is named teaching the Dharma.”

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this turn matters greatly. The first half (Divisions 1–16) broke the “mark of self,” removing the person-self-clinging (人我執) that grasps the five-aggregate body-mind as a real self, curing the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障) that obstructs liberation. From the second half of the pivotal Division 17 onward, what is broken is the “mark of dharmas,” removing the dharma-self-clinging (法我執) that grasps dharmas as really existent, curing the cognitive hindrance (所知障) that obstructs omniscience and Buddhahood. Beings not only grasp the body as a self; they also falsely cling to reality upon finer dharmas like “the Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma” and “the beings who can have faith in this Dharma” — and this fine clinging is precisely the dharma-clinging at the level of the cognitive hindrance. The two “is-nots” of this division remove just these two sites of dharma-clinging. The ancient masters’ grounding lies here: Jizang judges that what this division breaks is “the doubt that the Dharma-body has teaching” (法身有說法疑) — a doubt of dharma-clinging, not of self-clinging; Kuiji reads “no Dharma to teach” as 「達遍計所執空無而說」, “teaching by penetrating the emptiness-and-nonbeing of the wholly-imagined,” pointing out directly that this is the place where the wholly-imagined dharma-clinging is to be removed. The “is-not” pattern is unchanged; what it breaks turns from the person-self of the first half to the dharma-self of the second.

“The One Who Teaches the Dharma Has No Dharma to Teach; It Is Named Teaching the Dharma”: Reading Teaching Through the Three Natures

These three clauses are precisely the express text of Yogācāra’s three natures and three non-natures. Read in order:

• “Teaching the Dharma (the one who teaches)” = dependent-arising (依他起): the speech the Tathāgata has in accord with beings’ capacities and as conditions allow. It is not nothing — the transformation-body and reward-body appear in response to the occasion, and vividly there is speaking (Kuiji: the transformation-body and reward-body have speech as the occasion allows). A provisional dharma arising in reliance on conditions, hence it can be named “teaching the Dharma.”
• “No Dharma to teach” = removing the wholly-imagined, disclosing the absence of own-nature (遣遍計所執、顯無自性): what is removed is the layer that the ordinary person falsely adds onto this speech — clinging to “a really existent Dharma that can be taught.” The wholly-imagined (遍計所執) is just such a layer of false reckoning: taking an image transformed-and-manifested by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind. Kuiji says it plainly: 「真理中無有少法可說……要達遍計所執空無而說，是名說法也」— “within the true principle there is not the least dharma to be spoken… one must teach by penetrating the emptiness-and-nonbeing of the wholly-imagined, and this is named teaching the Dharma.” Vasubandhu’s two translations point out that it 「不離於法界，說法無自相」— “is not apart from the Dharma-realm; the teaching of the Dharma has no own-mark”: the Dharma spoken, apart from the true Dharma-realm, has no independent own-mark to be had. Prajñā states this removal summarily with the single word “empty”; Yogācāra points out, with the three non-natures (三無性), what this “empty” empties: the wholly-imagined is “non-nature of mark” (相無性, its mark is from the first non-existent), the other-dependent is “non-nature of arising” (生無性, it has no self-so arising own-nature, arising only in reliance on conditions), and the perfectly-accomplished is “non-nature in the ultimate sense” (勝義無性, it is the ultimate apart from all the wholly-imagined). So “no Dharma to teach” empties that layer of wholly-imagined real dharma; it does not erase the conditionally-arisen speech along with it.
• “It is named teaching the Dharma” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): once the clinging to “a real dharma to be taught” is removed, the conditionally-arisen speech may still be spoken. What matters is not to overcorrect — Kuiji distinguishes specially: 「若執真如為實無說，即非說法也」, “if one grasps suchness as really having no speaking, that too is not teaching the Dharma,” for to grasp suchness as “really there being no speaking” falls into yet another, diminishing wholly-imagined layer. To remove own-nature without sliding into annihilation is the perfectly-accomplished. Zhiyi catches the proportion exactly: 「向言無說，非杜默不語，但無存而說，即說滿天下，無乖法理之過也」— “to say ‘no teaching’ is not to be mutely silent; it is to teach without holding to a real dharma, so one may teach the whole world over with no fault against the principle of Dharma.”

Vasubandhu further points out a textual layer: the Neng-duan translations mostly state “teaching the Dharma, the one who teaches the Dharma” in a doubled raising (Kumārajīva’s text raises it singly, “the one who teaches the Dharma”), and this doubling is no redundancy: it discloses the duality of “the Dharma spoken (the words) / the meaning intended (the sense)” — one layer the speech, one layer the meaning the speech points to; both, apart from the Dharma-realm, have no own-mark to be had.

“Slandering the Buddha”: To Grasp the Dharma-Body as Having Speech Is Precisely the Wholly-Imagined

Why does the Buddha say “to say the Tathāgata has a Dharma he teaches is to slander the Buddha”? Yogācāra sees this line directly. The Dharma-body is silent and wordless — it is the suchness disclosed by departing from all wholly-imagined marks, originally without speaking; what has speaking is the transformation-body and reward-body that appear in response to the occasion. If one grasps “the Dharma-body has a Dharma it teaches” as real, that is to add falsely, onto the markless Dharma-body, a “speaking subject and a Dharma spoken” — mistaking the conditionally-arisen speech of the transformation-body for a really-existent speaking of the Dharma-body — one layer of the wholly-imagined. So Jizang says 「謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說」, “it slanders the Dharma-body, for the Dharma-body is not form, and the Dharma-body does not speak,” and Kuiji says 「即謗法佛也，寂寞無言故」, “it slanders the Dharma-Buddha, for it is silent and wordless.” It is not that teaching the Dharma is forbidden; it is that grasping the conditionally-arisen provisional speech as a real dharma upon the Dharma-body is forbidden.

“Those Are Not Beings, Not Non-Beings”: the Rank-on-the-Path of Those Who Can Have Faith in This Dharma

Teaching the Dharma being “is-not,” Subhūti at once raises a question: such a profound Dharma — where even “teaching the Dharma” is “is-not” — will there be beings in a future age who, hearing it, give rise to faith? The Buddha answers, also in “is-not”: 「彼非眾生，非不眾生」— “those are not beings, not non-beings.”

This double negation refuses both extremes, falling into neither being nor nonbeing. Vasubandhu’s two translations read it most penetratingly: 「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖」— “not beings-as-beings, not noble, not non-noble”: of one who can have faith in this sūtra, “not beings” means he is not an ordinary-person being (in the first sense, he is no longer purely an ordinary person), and “not non-beings” means he is not without the noble substance (in the conventional sense, he is after all still a sentient being, and already contains the noble nature). Kuiji follows this: 「非是闡提無佛性等眾生」, “not the kind of being who is an icchantika without Buddha-nature,” and 「是聽聞般若、發心成佛眾生」, “a being who has heard prajñā and aroused the mind for Buddhahood.” So what this double negation discloses is a certain rank-on-the-path (行位) of one who can have faith in this Dharma: he practices the contemplation of non-attaining and so already differs from the ordinary person who grasps reality, yet he is not perfectly awakened (Jizang: 「習無所得觀眾生則能信……望有所得人故非眾生，未具足了悟故非不眾生」, “a being who practices the contemplation of non-attaining can have faith… as against the person of attaining he is ‘not beings,’ and not yet perfectly awakened he is ‘not non-beings’”), standing just between ordinary and noble. This is not a logical middle term; it is a station on the path of practice and realization.

“Beings Are-Not Beings, They Are Named Beings”: Reading Beings Through the Three Natures

The Buddha finally gathers another “is-not”: 「眾生、眾生者，如來說非眾生，是名眾生」— “beings, beings — the Tathāgata says they are-not beings; they are named beings.” This time the “is-not” is applied to the very designation “beings.” Read through the three natures:

• “Beings (beings)” = dependent-arising (依他起): the conditionally-arisen beings of nominal designation, those who arouse the mind and practice. Kuiji reads this doubling as two layers: one the ordinary-person being, one the being who arouses the bodhicitta and practices — both provisional beings established in reliance on conditions.
• “Are-not beings” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of false clinging to “a really existent being / a being of cut-off seed and no nature.” Kuiji: 「如來說非眾生者，謂非是闡提無佛性眾生」, “‘the Tathāgata says they are-not beings’ means not an icchantika being without Buddha-nature”; Asaṅga in a phrase, 「第一義故」, “because of the ultimate sense” — in the ultimate sense there is no wholly-imagined real being.
• “They are named beings” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the real clinging is removed, the provisionally-named being who arouses the mind for Buddhahood may still be spoken of. Kuiji: 「眾生是名眾生者，是發心眾生也」, “‘beings, named beings’ is the being who arouses the mind”; Asaṅga in a phrase, 「世諦故」, “because of the conventional truth” — in the conventional sense the conditionally-arisen provisionally-named being vividly may be saved and brought to Buddhahood.

The single “is-not” pattern, in the first half, was applied mostly to the mark of self and the four marks; by this second half it is applied to “the being who can have faith” — even the very title “being” is provisionally established, without reality.

Running Through: Two “Is-Nots,” One Removal of Dharma-Clinging

Taken together, these two “is-nots” share one key, and point to one root of illness: the dharma-clinging at the level of the cognitive hindrance (所知障位的法執). The “is-not” of the first half cures the affliction-hindrance that grasps body-mind as a self; the two of this division cure the cognitive hindrance that grasps “the Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma” and “the beings who can have faith” as real dharmas. The “is-not” of teaching removes “a really existent Dharma that can be taught” (teaching by penetrating the imagined-as-empty; the transformation-and-reward bodies have speech, the Dharma-body none); the “is-not” of beings removes “really existent beings that can be saved” (not an icchantika without nature; the provisionally-named being who arouses the mind for Buddhahood). Names-and-marks not grasped, real dharmas not clung to, while the conditionally-arisen provisional speech and provisional name vividly remain — this is just “the speaking that is no speaking, the being that is not a being.”

As for the removal of this fine dharma-clinging upon the Buddha-ground’s teaching of the Dharma and upon the beings who can have faith, Yogācāra brings it home to the transformation of the basis (轉依): the turning-away of the defiled seed-habits of the wholly-imagined within the ālaya-vijñāna and the turning-toward the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished. Asaṅga places these two clauses of the division within the seventeenth “Realizing the Path” abode (證道住處), within the Buddha-ground’s six perfections — the teaching clause belonging to the “perfection of speech” (語具足), the beings clause to the “foundation of mindfulness” (念處) within the “perfection of mind” (心具足) — both one portion of the Buddha-ground merit disclosed by the transformation of the basis after the bodhisattva has realized the path. The “is-not” here is no longer merely the removal of a name-and-mark; it discloses the teaching-function and the all-knowing-function of the Buddha-ground after the transformation of the basis: teaching the Dharma while there is no real Dharma to teach, knowing beings pervasively while there is no real being to be had.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three natures, the three non-natures, the two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun), the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same reality — “teaching that is no teaching, the being that is no being” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (the “is-not” · no Dharma to teach) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (the three natures and three non-natures, the cognitive hindrance, dharma-clinging, the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses use the wholly-imagined for the real dharma removed by the “is-not,” the perfectly-accomplished for the conventionally-speakable of “it is named,” and the three non-natures to remove the two graspings and come home to the transformation of the basis. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha distinguishes the three natures and the dharma-clinging removed by the cognitive hindrance. The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the cognitive hindrance, the wholly-imagined, and the Dharma-body without speaking while the transformation-and-reward bodies have speaking. The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes the expressing (speech) and the expressed (meaning) and the two truths, which seals exactly with “the duality of teaching the Dharma, not apart from the Dharma-realm, teaching without own-mark.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “no wisdom and also no attainment” and “the empty mark of all dharmas” are likewise this gate of no-speaking and no-attaining. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “the one who teaches the Dharma has no Dharma to teach” and “beings are-not beings,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “the wholly-imagined · the cognitive hindrance · the three bodies (the Dharma-body without speaking) · the transformation of the basis,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 21 · The Speaking That Is No Speaking · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the three non-natures (三無性), the two graspings and two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis (轉依), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s single question and single seal of “non-attainment.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The Eye of This Division: What Is Non-Attained Is “Bodhi as a Real Dharma”

This division is extremely short, only one question and one seal. Subhūti asks: 「世尊！佛得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提，為無所得耶？」— “World-Honored One, the Buddha’s attaining of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi — is it in fact no attaining at all?” The Buddha at once confirms it: 「如是，如是！我於阿耨多羅三藐三菩提乃至無有少法可得，是名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」— “So it is, so it is! In anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi there is not even the least dharma to attain; and this is named anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.” The question put with decision, the seal set with finality, and between them not a trace of elaboration — disclosing directly a single “non-attainment.”

To see the eye of this division, first distinguish what it is that is non-attained. In Divisions 1–16, the “is-not” was applied to “marks, beings, merit” — breaking the self-clinging (person-self) that takes outer objects as really existent, purifying the affliction-hindrance. From the pivotal Division 17 the turn into dharma-emptiness begins, breaking the dharma-clinging (dharma-self) that takes dharmas as really existent, purifying the cognitive hindrance. This division falls squarely in the second half: what is “non-attained” is none other than bodhi itself — the taking of unsurpassed right awakening to be a really existent dharma that can be realized, can be got into one’s hand. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, judges it to “break the fourth doubt” (the doubt that bodhi has no attainment), and reads the “right awakening” of this division directly as 「為令眾生斷除二障，得二菩提」— “to cause beings to cut off the two hindrances and attain the two bodhis.” So this “non-attainment” removes the dharma-self, that layer — clung to by the cognitive hindrance — of “bodhi as a real dharma,” not the person-self of the first half.

“Is It No Attaining at All?”: This Is a Question of Decision

Subhūti’s question, in the various translations, mostly reads “the Buddha questions Subhūti” (the Buddha asks back, “does the Tathāgata attain bodhi?” and Subhūti answers, “no attaining”); the Kumārajīva-transmitted text alone has “Subhūti addressed the Buddha,” with Subhūti asking directly and the Buddha confirming. How to read this line “is it no attaining at all?” Kuiji points out a vital thing: 「耶是問詞，不是不定詞」— “‘耶’ is an interrogative particle, not a particle of indecision” — not a wavering question of “is there or is there not attaining,” but a question of decision, 「真如理中佛得無上菩提不」, “in the principle of suchness, does the Buddha attain unsurpassed bodhi or not” — asking straight whether the Buddha is without attainment, so that the Buddha confirms it straight, “so it is, so it is.” The question cut clean, the seal decisive — just to disclose that this “non-attainment” is categorical, admitting no wavering.

Reading “the Attainment of Non-Attainment” Through the Three Natures: Bodhi Is Not Nothing; What Is Non-Attained Is Only the Wholly-Imagined

The Buddha’s confirmation — “(the Buddha attains) anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi; there is not even the least dharma to attain; it is named anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi” — is precisely the express text of the three natures. Read in order:

• “Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi” = dependent-arising (依他起): bodhi is not nothing. It is the fruit disclosed by realizing-and-corroborating the true principle after drawing near good friends, hearing the right Dharma, practicing as the Dharma directs, and fulfilling the roots of good (Kuiji: 「如法修習，法隨法行，善根滿足故，契證真理，名為成就阿耨菩提」, “practicing as the Dharma directs, dharma following upon dharma, the roots of good fulfilled, one realizes-and-corroborates the true principle, named achieving anuttara-bodhi”) — a fruit accomplished in reliance on conditions, nameable and speakable. Bodhi is not nothing, so at the end it is still “named” bodhi.
• “There is not the least dharma to attain” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of clinging that the ordinary person falsely adds onto bodhi — “a really existent dharma that can be realized, can be attained.” The wholly-imagined (遍計所執) is just such a layer of false reckoning: taking what has no own-nature for a thing really existent outside the mind, a thing that can be got into one’s hand. Kuiji says it plainly: 「真理之中，無如所執少有所得，名為菩提也」— “within the true principle there is no ‘the least to be attained’ such as you grasp; this is named bodhi.” Vasubandhu too says 「彼菩提處無有一法可證」, “in that place of bodhi there is not one dharma to be corroborated.” What matters: this clinging removed — “bodhi as a real dharma that can be attained” — belongs to the dharma-self, to what the cognitive hindrance grasps, not to the person-self of the first half.
• “It is named anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the false clinging to “real attainment” is removed, the suchness-bodhi in which there is no real dharma to attain is vividly there — this is precisely the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實). The perfectly-accomplished is the real nature of dharmas, that is, suchness, disclosed once consciousness has removed the wholly-imagined. Vasubandhu’s verse gathers it: 「法界不增減，淨平等自相」— “the Dharma-realm neither increases nor decreases, its pure, equal own-mark”; Kuiji reads the text below, “this Dharma is equal,” as 「真如理無增減」, “the principle of suchness neither increases nor decreases.” To remove “real attainment” while preserving “what suchness discloses” is just the establishing of the perfectly-accomplished.

Prajñā states this matter summarily as “non-attainment”; Yogācāra uses the three non-natures (三無性) to point out what this “non” empties: the wholly-imagined is “non-nature of mark” (相無性, the real dharma grasped is from the first without mark), the other-dependent is “non-nature of arising” (生無性, bodhi has no self-so arising own-nature, arising only in reliance on conditioned practice), and the perfectly-accomplished is “non-nature in the ultimate sense” (勝義無性, suchness-bodhi, apart from all the wholly-imagined, is the ultimate). So “there is not the least dharma to attain” empties that layer of wholly-imagined real dharma; it does not sweep the other-dependent bodhi-fruit and the perfectly-accomplished suchness into annihilation — after “non-attainment” there is still “it is named,” and suchness-bodhi is plainly still there.

Non-Attainment Is Precisely for Cutting Off the Cognitive Hindrance: the Two Hindrances and the Two Bodhis

So how does “non-attainment” instead become “attainment”? Yogācāra sees this layer directly. To grasp “bodhi as one attainable real dharma” is to fall into the duality of grasper and grasped (能取、所取) — to split the mind into the self that attains and the bodhi attained, which is just the root of the wholly-imagined and just the cognitive hindrance. Only when this layer of dharma-clinging is removed and the two graspings do not arise is the cognitive hindrance cut off; and only when the cognitive hindrance is cut off does suchness-bodhi appear. So “there is not the least dharma to attain” is no falling into emptiness; it is the cutting-off of the hindrance — right where there is no real dharma to attain is the very moment suchness-bodhi appears before one.

Kuiji, following Asaṅga, reads this passage’s “right awakening” as “the corroborating, the corroborated, the contemplative illumination, and the real mark,” and states its import outright: 「為令眾生斷除二障，得二菩提」— “to cause beings to cut off the two hindrances and attain the two bodhis” — cutting off the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive hindrance, and attaining the Dharma-body bodhi (disclosed by cutting off the cognitive hindrance) and the reward-body bodhi (disclosed by cutting off the affliction-hindrance), these two bodhis. In Yogācāra this is exactly named the transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti): the turning-away of the defiled seed-habits of the wholly-imagined within the ālaya-vijñāna and the turning-toward the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished and great bodhi. So this division’s “attainment of non-attainment,” read on Yogācāra, is plain: no one real dharma to attain (removing the wholly-imagined, cutting off the cognitive hindrance), while suchness-bodhi is vividly there (disclosing the perfectly-accomplished, attaining the two bodhis) — this “attainment” is the attainment disclosed by the transformation of the basis, not the attainment of getting some thing.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that the Yogācāra science of the two hindrances and the transformation of the basis flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the two hindrances, the two emptinesses, the three natures, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises, the Prajñā corpus being another lineage, and this sūtra has no Yogācāra downstream. Rather, the same import — “non-attainment, while suchness is vividly there” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (there is not the least dharma to attain · it is named bodhi) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (removing the wholly-imagined · cutting off the cognitive hindrance · the transformation of the basis disclosing the perfectly-accomplished); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses use the two emptinesses to remove the two graspings and come home to the transformation of the basis as 「無得不思議，是出世間智」, “the inconceivable of non-attainment, the supramundane wisdom,” which seals exactly with this division’s “there is not the least dharma to attain · it is named bodhi.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of cutting off the two hindrances and corroborating the two fruits (great bodhi · great nirvāṇa) — the treatise-language of this division’s “attainment of non-attainment.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes, within the truth of the unsurpassed vehicle, the “non-attainment · the purity of the cognitive hindrance,” which accords with this second-half dharma-emptiness. Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “no wisdom and also no attainment, because of non-attaining” shares the same position of non-attainment as this division — bodhi has no real dharma to attain, and only thus is it bodhi. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “there is not the least dharma to attain,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “cutting off the cognitive hindrance · removing dharma-clinging · the transformation of the basis attaining great bodhi,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 22 · No Dharma Can Be Attained · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking suchness’s equality (the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the two emptinesses (the selflessness of persons 人無我, the selflessness of dharmas 法無我), the “is-not” as mirroring the three natures, and the middle way of the twin contemplation of being-and-emptiness, to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “this Dharma is equal · practicing good without self · is-not good dharmas.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The Position of This Division: “Practicing Good Without Self” at the Station of Dharma-Emptiness

This division follows directly upon the previous one, “there is not the least dharma to attain.” Having just exhausted “bodhi has no one dharma to attain,” it at once adds: 「是法平等，無有高下，是名阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」— “this Dharma is equal, with no high and low; it is named anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi.” Non-attainment is no falling into nihility; right where there is no attaining stands an equal Dharma-station with no high and low.

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this division falls in the second half of the whole sūtra. The first half (breaking the “marks” of self-mark and person-mark) removes the person-self-clinging that takes body-mind as a real self, belonging to the affliction-hindrance; from the pivotal division of “ultimately no self” onward, the second half removes the dharma-self-clinging that takes dharmas as really existent, belonging to the cognitive hindrance. The ancient masters judge this whole round as “for cutting off the hindrance, and the hindrance is the cognitive” (為斷障，障即所知, Kuiji following Vasubandhu). So this division’s “practicing good without self” — that “without self” is no longer merely the selflessness of persons, but the twofold selflessness carried over from the pivotal division’s “penetrating selflessness, and dharmas”; and its “is-not” too is applied no longer to the outer object “marks,” but to “good dharmas” themselves — a finer layer of dharma-clinging that only the second half reaches to remove.

“This Dharma Is Equal, with No High and Low”: the Principle of Suchness Neither Increases nor Decreases — That Is the Truly-Perfected

First, “this Dharma is equal.” What Dharma is equal? The ancient masters read it consistently: suchness, the Dharma-body, the bodhi-wisdom corroborated alike by all Buddhas. Kuiji catches it in a phrase: 「『是法平等』者，謂真如理無增減故」— “‘this Dharma is equal’ means the principle of suchness neither increases nor decreases.” Suchness — that is, the real nature disclosed once dharmas have had the false clinging to “real existence outside the mind” removed, which Yogācāra calls the perfectly-accomplished nature (圓成實性) — neither increases nor decreases in itself, hence “equal.”

And “no high and low”? Kuiji continues: only conditioned dharmas have grasping-and-rejecting, high-and-low; the bodhisattva, in cultivating through the ten grounds, attains the excellent uncontaminated and discards the inferior — this is to have high and low; but the unconditioned suchness has no superior or inferior to grasp or reject, hence “no high and low.” Vasubandhu reads it more directly, taking “this Dharma is equal” as 「法界不增減、淨平等自相」, “the Dharma-realm neither increasing nor decreasing, its pure, equal own-mark” — the Dharma-realm without increase or decrease, this being its pure and equal own-mark. Xuanzang’s translation reads 「於其中間無不平等」, “within it there is nothing not equal,” saying the same thing: upon the Dharma-station of bodhi, there is no place not equal.

So “equality” is not the blurring of all distinctions into one mush; it is the removal of just this layer — “the principle of suchness neither increases nor decreases” — wiping away the superior-and-inferior, high-and-low that the discriminating mind adds, and disclosing the perfectly-accomplished’s native increaselessness and decreaselessness.

“With No Self… Practice All Good Dharmas”: the Two Emptinesses, and the Paradox of Emptiness and Being Standing Together

Next comes a turn, the most vital eye of this division. The Buddha first exhausts four “withouts” — 「無我、無人、無眾生、無壽者」, “without self, without person, without being, without life-span” — removing the subject layer by layer; the words barely fall when, abruptly, he joins on 「修一切善法，則得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」, “practice all good dharmas, and one attains anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi” — there is, after all, still practicing, and there can still be attaining.

Emptiness here stands face to face with being. “Without self” is emptiness; “practicing good” is being; right where the subject is exhausted, the practice of the cause stands up. How to reconcile them? This is precisely Yogācāra’s middle way of the twin contemplation of being-and-emptiness (有空雙觀). Kuiji, citing Asaṅga, distinguishes this layer most clearly: the foregoing “without self and so forth” removes the clinging to the side of “being” (grasping a really existent self); the present “practicing good” breaks the clinging to the side of “emptiness” (denying good practice) — 「我、人空故，須遣自妄心；依、圓有故，須存其善法」, “because self and person are empty, one must remove the deluded mind that grasps reality; because the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished are existent, one must preserve these good dharmas.” Self and person are empty, so one must remove the deluded reality-grasping mind; but the other-dependent good-practice and the perfectly-accomplished suchness are existent, so one must preserve these good dharmas. He gathers it in a phrase: 「滅妄想於空門，起真心於有府，有空雙觀，方成中道也」— “extinguishing deluded imagining in the gate of emptiness, raising the true mind in the storehouse of being, contemplating emptiness and being both — only this completes the middle way.”

The “without self” here, see clearly, is twofold selflessness. Carrying over the pivotal division’s “penetrating selflessness, and dharmas,” it has reached the selflessness of persons plus the selflessness of dharmas — these two selflessnesses being just what Yogācāra calls the two emptinesses. Zhiyi’s line says the same: 「忘我、人而修因，必尅無相之菩提」, “forgetting self and person yet cultivating the cause, one will surely accomplish the markless bodhi.” To remove self-clinging without abolishing good practice is just this “practicing good without marks.”

“The Good Dharmas Spoken Of Are-Not Good Dharmas; They Are Named Good Dharmas”: the “Is-Not” Mirroring the Three Natures, Applied to Dharma-Clinging

The final “is-not” is the only one in this division, and the place it falls is vital — applied to “good dharmas” themselves. The “is-not” of the first half was mostly applied to marks, body, merit, these outer objects; here it is applied to “good dharmas,” a finer layer within dharma-clinging. Read through the three natures, these three clauses:

• “Good dharmas” is dependent-arising (依他起): good dharmas arising through conditioned practice, cultivable and corroborable. Kuiji reads “the good dharmas spoken of” as 「求菩提善法，或無漏法、順無漏法」, “the good dharmas sought for bodhi, or uncontaminated dharmas, or dharmas conducive to the uncontaminated.” The conditionally-arisen good is not nothing, hence “practice all good dharmas and attain bodhi” — this is the cultivable provisional good.
• “Is-not good dharmas” is removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of falsely reckoning good dharmas as “contaminated good possessing real own-nature.” The wholly-imagined is just such a layer: taking an image transformed-and-manifested by the mind for a thing really existent outside the mind. Kuiji says it plainly: 「『說非善法』者，非是有漏生滅惡善法也」— “‘saying are-not good dharmas’ means not that contaminated, arising-and-ceasing kind of good.” Yijing’s translation has a line, 「由漏性非法」, “because the contaminated nature is not the Dharma,” meaning the contaminated nature cannot uphold bodhi. So “are-not good dharmas” removes the layer of its contaminated discrimination, and does not say there is no good.
• “They are named good dharmas” is establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the false clinging is removed, good dharmas as the true good — without own-nature and supramundane — are vividly speakable. Kuiji: 「『是名善法』者，是出世善也」, “‘they are named good dharmas’ is the supramundane good”; Jizang says this is 「還結取無所得善法」, “returning to gather up the good dharmas of non-attainment.” Non-attaining, and yet good is just as vividly cultivable and speakable.

This is the Yogācāra decoding of this division’s “is-not”: the “is-not” removes the wholly-imagined layer of “contaminated good possessing real own-nature,” and what is emptied is only the wholly-imagined; “they are named” then raises up the uncontaminated, supramundane true good (the perfectly-accomplished), and the provisional name of the other-dependent good-practice is just as cultivable. The same line, “good dharmas are-not good dharmas,” Prajñā states summarily with the single word “empty,” and Yogācāra points out with the three natures: what is emptied is that contaminated-discrimination layer of dharma-clinging, not the sweeping-away of good practice and suchness together.

Taking the three clauses together is just Kuiji’s line — “because self and person are empty one must remove the deluded mind; because the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished are existent one must preserve the good dharmas; the twin contemplation of being-and-emptiness only then completes the middle way” — removing the wholly-imagined (the “is-not,” the gate of emptiness) while preserving the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished (the “it is named,” the storehouse of being); this is at once the turning of the three natures and just the middle way. This is the most manifest turning of the three natures at this division’s station of dharma-emptiness, and the ancient masters’ settled reading of “a pure mind practicing good.”

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — suchness, the three natures, the two emptinesses, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi), the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same reality — “equal and non-abiding, yet practicing good” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (this Dharma is equal · practicing good without self · is-not good dharmas) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (suchness the perfectly-accomplished · the two emptinesses · the three natures · the middle way of being-and-emptiness); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses use the perfectly-accomplished and suchness for the increaselessness of “this Dharma is equal,” and the uncontaminated good practice disclosed by the two emptinesses for “practicing good without self.” The Cheng weishi lun states “is-not good dharmas, are named good dharmas” with the three-nature middle way of removing the wholly-imagined and preserving the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished. The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes the two emptinesses and the middle way of right practice, which seals with this division’s “practicing good without self · the twin contemplation of being-and-emptiness.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “neither increasing nor decreasing” and “no wisdom and also no attainment” are precisely the same equality-without-own-nature as this division’s “this Dharma is equal · no high and low · the good dharmas of non-attainment.” To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “this Dharma is equal · practicing good without self · is-not good dharmas,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “disclosed by suchness and the two emptinesses · the uncontaminated good · removing the wholly-imagined and preserving the other-dependent and perfectly-accomplished · the middle way of being-and-emptiness,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 23 · A Pure Mind Practicing Good · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking dharma-clinging, the cognitive hindrance (所知障), the three natures of merit, and the name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body (名身、句身、文身), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s weighing of “giving the seven jewels does not match upholding the four lines of the sūtra.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The Eye of This Division: Not in the “Is-Not,” but in the Setting-Off of Merit

Read the foregoing divisions, and the “is-not” pattern appears almost in every line; by this division, there is not a single “is-not.” The previous division (good dharmas are-not good dharmas) has one, the following division (a self is-not really a self) has one, and this division alone has none. So in reading this division one cannot force an “is-not” to dismantle a line — the eye of this division lies elsewhere: by means of measurable merit, to set off, by contrast, the incomparability of the merit of upholding the sūtra.

The Buddha raises an enormous act of giving: taking all the Sumeru kings of mountains within a great-thousandfold world-system, and heaping up seven jewels equal in measure to that many mountain-kings, to give. Sumeru is the greatest among the ten jeweled mountains; by the vastness of mountain-kings he states to the utmost the abundance of merit. Yet the wording turns abruptly: if another person merely upholds and teaches for others the four-line verse of this sūtra, that mountain-vast merit, compared with the merit of upholding the sūtra, is 「百分不及一，乃至算數、譬喻所不能及」, “not a hundredth part, nor what number or simile can reach.” The greater the mountain, the more it serves as foil; the more abundant the merit, the more it sets off the incomparability of upholding the sūtra. The ancient masters all judge this passage to be a text of “collation” and “weighing” (Jizang: 「功德門·重舉格量」, “the gate of merit · raising again the weighing”; Zhiyi: 「校量顯勝分」, “the division of weighing to disclose superiority”; Kuiji: 「四種校量勝」, “the four kinds of superiority by weighing”; Asaṅga: 「施設大利法」, “setting forth the dharma of great benefit”).

At the Second-Half Station of Dharma-Emptiness: What Is Broken Is a Fine Layer of Dharma-Clinging

This division falls within the second half of §17 as Shi Huijing judges it. The first half (Divisions 1–16) breaks the “mark of self,” removing the person-self-clinging and the affliction-hindrance; the second half breaks the “mark of dharmas,” removing the dharma-self-clinging and the cognitive hindrance. Why must this division raise a weighing of merit again here? The ancient masters point out the doubt it cuts off — and this doubt is precisely a fine layer of dharma-clinging.

The previous division has just said “practice all good dharmas and one attains bodhi,” when someone at once doubts: but the “name and phrase” of upholding this sūtra — is that not an indeterminate (無記) dharma? How could it attain bodhi? The Sarvāstivāda judges that “name and phrase are indeterminate dharmas” (Jizang: 「薩婆多等諸部人云名字句是無記法故也」, “the Sarvāstivāda and other schools say name and phrase are indeterminate dharmas”), and Vasubandhu too first poses this doubt: 「以所說法無記法故」, “because the Dharma spoken of is an indeterminate dharma.” Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this doubt is itself a kind of dharma-clinging — clinging to the very substance of the teaching (as indeterminate) and doubting whether it can accomplish bodhi; this is the fine clinging of “discriminating upon dharmas,” belonging just to the cognitive hindrance.

Speaking of “name and phrase,” Yogācāra has its own set of terms: language is analyzed into name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body (名身、句身、文身; the single syllable is the syllable, syllables forming a name, names forming a phrase), all listed among the dharmas-not-concomitant-with-mind (心不相應行法), provisionally established upon positions of form and mind, in themselves neither good nor evil, hence the Sarvāstivāda judges them “indeterminate.” The “name and phrase as indeterminate” doubted and broken in this division falls precisely upon these three provisional not-concomitant dharmas.

Breaking the Indeterminacy Doubt: Though Name and Phrase Are Indeterminate, They Can Be a Cause for Bodhi

How do the ancient masters break this doubt? Two paths come home to one place. Jizang says: 「名字句雖是無記，能表實相，故受持四句功德無邊」— “though name and phrase are indeterminate, they can express the real mark, and so the merit of upholding the four lines is boundless.” Name and phrase, though indeterminate marks in themselves, can express and disclose the real mark, so the merit of upholding the sūtra is boundless. Vasubandhu says it more penetratingly: 「雖言無記法，而說是彼因」「此法能為菩提因」— “though called an indeterminate dharma, it is said to be the cause of that”; “this dharma can be a cause for bodhi.” Name and phrase, though judged indeterminate, are precisely the cause of bodhi. Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, adds a further layer: 「汝法是無記，我法是善」— “your dharma is indeterminate, my dharma is good”: the indeterminacy you (the Sarvāstivāda) speak of is by your school’s mode of judgment; in prajñā, in the Buddha here, the name and phrase that can express the real mark are precisely good dharmas, precisely able to be a cause for bodhi.

To gather this layer in Yogācāra’s words: though the name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body are provisional not-concomitant dharmas, hearing, reflecting, and cultivating perfume uncontaminated seeds and corroborate bodhi by means of them — they are the disclosing-cause (了因, the cause that discloses bodhi, not the productive-cause that directly begets bodhi), and so they “can be a cause for bodhi.” The former merit (the seven jewels) is conditionally-arisen contaminated merit, its phenomenal mark vividly measurable (Zhiyi: 「積寶多而功薄」, “the jewels heaped up are many, but the merit is thin”); the merit of upholding the sūtra (name and phrase as disclosing-cause) can bear and sustain bodhi, hence beyond compare. The one is measurable merit, the other a wisdom-giving able to sustain bodhi — and what this weighing weighs is just this difference in the very substance of these two merits.

The Hidden Three-Nature Reading of Merit: Removing Merit’s Reality, Establishing a Single Dharma-Jewel

Though this division has no express “is-not,” the turning of merit conceals the substance of the three natures. Read the weighing through the three natures:

• The merit of giving the seven jewels (dependent-arising) (依他起): seven jewels equal in measure to the Sumeru kings of mountains are conditionally-arisen contaminated merit, its phenomenal mark vivid and truly measurable (Zhiyi: 「明福有實，此即有量」, “clarifying that the merit has reality — and this is the measurable”). Giving has merit; this layer is not denied.
• Not a hundredth part (removing the wholly-imagined) (遣遍計所執): what is removed is the layer of false clinging to “merit having a real own-nature, to be relied on as a sufficiency for bodhi.” Merit, though most abundant, cannot bear and sustain bodhi — to grasp measurable merit as a warrant for Buddhahood is just a layer of the wholly-imagined. So it is said to be, against the merit of upholding the sūtra, “not a hundredth part” — not that it has no merit, but the removal of the real clinging that “merit can be relied on” (this too is the side of the cognitive hindrance to be relinquished in the second half: clinging that dharmas can be relied on).
• The single Dharma-jewel surpasses measureless precious jewels (establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the conventional) (立圓成、存世諦): this Dharma-jewel of prajñā has no real own-nature (it is not a measurable merit), yet it can sustain bodhi and be a cause for bodhi, and so its merit is beyond compare. Vasubandhu catches it in a phrase: 「是故一法寶，勝無量珍寶」, “therefore the single Dharma-jewel surpasses measureless precious jewels.” The perfectly-accomplished is nowhere else — right where the clinging that “merit can be relied on” is removed, the Dharma-giving able to sustain bodhi is vividly there.

So the four words “merit and wisdom beyond compare” are the very eye of this weighing: merit-giving is measurable, while wisdom-giving (upholding the sūtra) is beyond compare. Weighed to the end, what is weighed out is not “which side has more merit,” but why the single Dharma-jewel of prajñā — without own-nature yet able to sustain bodhi — is beyond compare.

The Four Superiorities: Exhausting Every Weighing, It Cannot Be Likened

Vasubandhu analyzes this “beyond compare” into four superiorities: superiority of number, superiority of power, superiority of dissimilarity, and superiority of cause (Kuiji, ranking them person by person, sets up the four names “number, reckoning, simile, time”). The text 「百分不及一，乃至算數、譬喻所不能及」, “not a hundredth part, nor what number or simile can reach,” anchors these four superiorities one by one. To gloss briefly in Yogācāra’s words: the superior fruit attained by upholding the sūtra cannot be weighed by worldly number (superiority of number), cannot be reckoned by worldly calculation (superiority of power, Kuiji’s “superiority of reckoning”), cannot be likened by anything worldly (superiority of dissimilarity, Kuiji’s “superiority of simile”), and cannot be compared by any time-bound worldly merit-fruit to its fruit that is “to the end of future time, without bound of time-division” (superiority of cause, Kuiji’s “superiority of time”). It exhausts every weighing-number of the world and cannot be likened — 「一切世間法，不可得為喻」 (Vasubandhu), “all worldly dharmas cannot serve as a simile for it” — and this is the seat of the two words “beyond compare”: not that it is more merit than other merit, but that it simply does not stand within the order of “the measurable” at all.

Yogācāra as Mirror: the Same Reality, Sūtra-Language and Treatise-Language

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the name-body, phrase-body, and syllable-body, the disclosing-cause, the uncontaminated seed, and the transformation of the basis have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises, the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same import — “merit cannot be relied on, wisdom-giving is beyond compare” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (not a hundredth part · the single Dharma-jewel surpasses measureless precious jewels) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (name-body, phrase-body, syllable-body · the disclosing-cause · dharma-clinging the cognitive hindrance · merit without real own-nature); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Hundred Dharmas establish the three not-concomitant dharmas “name-body, phrase-body, syllable-body” — precisely the seat of this division’s broken doubt of “name and phrase as indeterminate.” The Thirty Verses and the Cheng weishi lun speak of the uncontaminated seed, the disclosing-cause, and the transformation of the basis, answering to “upholding the sūtra can be a cause for bodhi.” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha speaks of “the giving of Dharma · the disclosing-cause discloses the Dharma-body,” which seals with “the single Dharma-jewel can sustain bodhi.” The Twenty Verses speak of the object being unreal and manifested by mind, according with the setting-off of merit in “the former merit cannot be relied on.” Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “no wisdom and also no attainment” shares the same position of merit as this division — merit has no real own-nature to be relied on, and only the single Dharma-jewel of prajñā is beyond compare. To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “not a hundredth part” and “the single Dharma-jewel surpasses measureless precious jewels,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “name-body, phrase-body, syllable-body · the disclosing-cause · the uncontaminated seed,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 24 · Merit and Wisdom Beyond Compare · exposition · Spring 2026

Taking the three natures (the wholly-imagined 遍計所執, the other-dependent 依他起, the perfectly-accomplished 圓成實), the two graspings and two hindrances, dharma-clinging and the self-view, and the transformation of the basis (轉依), to reflect the Diamond Sūtra’s “there is in truth no being to be saved · a self is-not really a self.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The Eye of This Division: Saving Beings, with No Saver and No Saved

This division follows directly upon the earlier “this Dharma is equal, with no high and low” (Division 23). Since bodhi is equal, with no high and low, someone will doubt: if all is equal and there is no high and low, how then does the Tathāgata say he himself saves beings? The ancient masters read this division precisely as answering this doubt — Vasubandhu first poses it: 「若是法平等相無有高下者，云何如來名為度眾生？」, “if this Dharma’s mark is equal, with no high and low, how is the Tathāgata named as saving beings?” Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, also judges this to be 「展轉中第三段疑」, “the third segment of doubt in the sequence.” The Buddha’s answer is decisive: 「汝等勿謂如來作是念『我當度眾生』」「莫作是念」, “do not, you all, suppose the Tathāgata thinks ‘I shall save beings’ — do not so think.” Do not suppose that the Tathāgata’s mind ever truly raised a thought, “I shall save beings.” Why? 「實無有眾生如來度者」, “there is in truth no being whom the Tathāgata saves.”

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this line carries great weight. The first half of the sūtra (Divisions 1–16) breaks mostly the “mark of self,” removing the person-self-clinging (人我執) that grasps the five-aggregate body-mind as a real self — this being the affliction-hindrance (煩惱障) that obstructs liberation. By this second half (the path of dharma-emptiness), what is broken goes one layer deeper: what is removed is the clinging of “the Tathāgata can save, and there are really existent beings to be saved” — taking beings to be really existent outside the mind, an object that can be delivered, which is the dharma-self-clinging (法我執), the cognitive hindrance (所知障) that obstructs omniscience. So this division does not tell the Tathāgata to stop saving beings; it removes the clinging of “there being really existent beings to save and a really existent saver-self.” Kuiji reads it directly: 「真理之中都無所得，亦無眾生當可度也」, “within the true principle there is nothing attained, and no being to be saved either”; and again, if the Tathāgata truly supposed there were real beings to save, that would be 「我執未亡，不名為佛」, “the self-clinging not yet gone — and one is not named Buddha.”

The Thought “I Shall Save Beings”: the Reward-and-Transformation Bodies Have Thought, the Dharma-Body Has None

Why must the Buddha block even a single thought of “I shall save beings”? Kuiji distinguishes it finely: the Tathāgata’s reward-body and transformation-body save beings as the occasion allows, with high and low, and may be said to have the thought “I shall save beings” — that is the conditioned manifestation of the compassionate original vow; but the Tathāgata’s Dharma-body (法身), the true principle, is profoundly still and originally without thought — where could a thought of “I shall save beings” be lodged in it? So he says “do not so think” — not that the Dharma-body raises a thought and withdraws it, but that the Dharma-body is from the first without thought, and only, in accord with the beings to be transformed, manifests in response the matter of saving. Kuiji’s line 「諸佛分別永亡，當度之思不有，但隨所化，應機示念」, “the Buddhas’ discrimination is forever gone, the thought ‘I shall save’ is not there; only, in accord with what is to be transformed, they manifest in response the appearance of thought,” points out just this layer: the saving of beings is vivid (the other-dependent · speakable conventionally), while the thought of one able to save is in its very substance unattainable (removing the wholly-imagined real clinging). Zhiyi too says this is 「以忘言而說」, “speaking by forgetting words” — forgetting the self that can speak and can save, only then can one speak of saving beings.

“If There Were a Being the Tathāgata Saves,” He Would Fall into Self, Person, Being, Life-Span: the Fault of Grasping a Mark Is Grasping a Self

The Buddha then sets off the point by contrast: 「若有眾生如來度者，如來則有我、人、眾生、壽者」, “if there were a being the Tathāgata saves, then the Tathāgata would have self, person, being, and life-span.” Were the Tathāgata to harbor the view that “there is a real being saved by me,” he would fall back into the four marks and four views. Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse points out this layer most penetratingly: 「取我度為過，以取彼法是；取度眾生故，不取取應知」— “to grasp ‘I save’ is the fault, for it grasps that dharma; because of grasping the saving of beings, know that one should not grasp the grasping.” The meaning: if the Tathāgata harbored “within the five aggregates there is a real being to save,” this is the fault of grasping a mark, the clinging to “that dharma (the being within the five aggregates)” — and to cling to really existent beings to save is the very same fault as to cling to a really existent self. Yijing’s translation of this line is more direct still: 「若起於法執，與我執過同；定執脫有情，是無執妄執」— “if one gives rise to dharma-clinging, the fault is the same as self-clinging; to fix on grasping ‘sentient beings to be delivered’ is, where there should be no grasping, a false grasping.” “To fix on grasping sentient beings to be delivered” (定執脫有情, insisting there really are beings delivered) is just dharma-clinging, and it commits the same fault as self-clinging.

This is just the principle Yogācāra calls the two graspings (二取): when beings are deluded, they always wrongly divide a consciousness which has neither grasper nor grasped into “a grasping self” and “a grasped object.” To grasp “I am saving” is the grasper; to grasp “there are beings being saved” is the grasped — and the two graspings together are the root of the wholly-imagined. Jizang turns this layer out with a mutual-saving rejoinder: you and I are both beings, both named beings, and neither can save himself — by what right is it said the Buddha can save beings? If the Tathāgata truly saw real beings to save, then those beings ought to see the Buddha and, conversely, save the Buddha — which is plainly a great absurdity. So the Tathāgata should not see real beings to save. The saver, the saved, and the very matter of saving — all three are not to be grasped as real, and this is precisely the keen blade that breaks dharma-clinging.

“The Equal True Dharma-Realm; the Buddha Saves No Beings”: the Dharma-Realm Equal, the Provisional Name Joined to the Aggregates

Then, is “there is in truth no being to save” a wholesale crossing-out of beings, a fall into annihilation? It is not. Vasubandhu’s treatise-verse gives the complete answer: 「平等真法界，佛不度眾生；以名共彼陰，不離於法界」(Yijing’s translation: 「法界平等故，佛不度眾生；於諸名共聚，不在法界外」) — “the equal true Dharma-realm; the Buddha saves no beings; for the name is joined to those aggregates, not apart from the Dharma-realm.” These two lines must be read together: on one side, “the Buddha saves no beings” — because the Dharma-realm is equal and without distinction, no opposed, high-and-low pair of “a saving Buddha and saved beings” can be set up; on the other, “the name is joined to those aggregates” — beings are only a provisional name, and this provisional name is conjoined with the five aggregates, and is not outside the Dharma-realm.

Read through the three natures it is clear: the “provisional name” of beings (conjoined with the five aggregates, established in reliance on conditions) is dependent-arising (依他起), so conventionally one may still say “save beings,” and there is still the provisional name’s saving; while to grasp that beneath this provisional name “there is a really existent being” to save — that layer is the wholly-imagined (遍計所執), wholly without substance, hence “the Buddha saves no beings” (no real being to save); and the equal, undifferentiated nature of the Dharma-realm is just the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實), from which the provisional name of beings is not apart. Saving and yet no saving — what is saved is the dependently-arisen provisional being, what is absent is the wholly-imagined real-clung being — this is “transforming with nothing transformed” (化無所化): the transforming-and-guiding is vivid, while the saver and the saved are in their very substance unattainable.

“A Self Is-Not Really a Self”: Reading “Self” Through the Three Natures — Provisionally Spoken, Not Really Grasped, the Wholly-Imagined False Reckoning

So the first “is-not” of this division emerges: 「如來說有我者，則非有我，而凡夫之人以為有我」, “the ‘self’ the Tathāgata speaks of is-not really a self, yet the ordinary person takes it for a self.” Read through the three natures:

• “The ‘self’ the Tathāgata speaks of” = dependent-arising (依他起): the Tathāgata too says “self,” and this “self” is provisionally spoken through the conjunction of causes and conditions (Kuiji: 「因緣和合而假說之」, “provisionally spoken through the conjunction of causes and conditions”; Jizang: 「如來隨俗說有我耳」, “the Tathāgata merely says ‘self’ in accord with convention”). Conventionally speakable, hence “a self.” Kuiji adds a further intent: the Tathāgata speaks of “self” to remove beings’ dread of “no-self” — the beginner first cultivates relying on a “self,” and as cultivation eventually merges with the true principle the mark of self naturally falls away; were “no-self” alone taught from the very start, none would be willing to cultivate.
• “Is-not really a self” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): what is removed is that layer of “a really-grasped self” (Kuiji: 「非實執之我也」, “not a really-grasped self”). The one blade of “is-not” removes precisely the self-view (我見) that this division means to break — the grasping of a provisionally-spoken self as a self really existent outside the mind.
• “Yet the ordinary person takes it for a self” = the false reckoning of the wholly-imagined (遍計之妄計): the ordinary person, where there is fundamentally no real self, forcibly reckons out a real self (Jizang: 「凡夫人於無我中橫計有我耳」, “the ordinary person merely reckons crosswise a self within no-self”; Kuiji: 「所執取故」, “because it is grasped-and-clung-to”). This “reckoning crosswise” is precisely the mark of the wholly-imagined.

Kumārajīva’s line stops at “the ordinary person takes it for a self,” without gathering a further “it is named”; the Neng-duan-lineage translations (Paramārtha, Xuanzang, Yijing) make, at the “self-clinging,” a complete three-member “self-clinging → not clinging → therefore named self-clinging,” filling out the “is-not” pattern. What is removed is the same one layer: the clinging to a really existent self.

“Ordinary Persons Are-Not Ordinary Persons”: the Provisionally-Named Ordinary Person Is Not a Real Ordinary Person

The second “is-not” of this division: 「凡夫者，如來說則非凡夫」, “ordinary persons — the Tathāgata says they are-not ordinary persons.” Also the three-nature pattern:

• “Ordinary persons” = dependent-arising (依他起): the kind whose greed and hatred are not yet removed are provisionally named ordinary persons (Kuiji: 「於貪、嗔未亡之類，假名凡夫」, “of the kind whose greed and hatred are not yet gone, provisionally named ordinary persons”).
• “Are-not ordinary persons” = removing the wholly-imagined (遣遍計所執): it is not that there really is a fixed, unchanging, substantial ordinary person (Kuiji: 「非如其言即實凡夫也」, “not, as the word would have it, a real ordinary person”). The other translations mostly read “non-arising” — because they do not give rise to noble dharmas, they are said to be “non-arising” (Jizang: 「以不生聖觀故名非生」, “because they do not give rise to noble contemplation, they are named non-arising”). Precisely because the ordinary person is not a real fixed thing, Zhiyi says 「凡夫不實故，可化而成佛也」, “because the ordinary person is unreal, he can be transformed and become Buddha” — were the ordinary person a substance, he would forever be an ordinary person and could never become Buddha; just because he is a provisional name without reality can he be turned around.
• 〔They are named ordinary persons〕= establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name (立圓成、存假名): right where the real clinging is removed, the provisionally-named ordinary person may still be spoken of (the other translations: 「是名凡夫」, “they are named ordinary persons”). Kumārajīva here omits the “it is named” gathering.

Yogācāra as Mirror: Transforming with Nothing Transformed Is the Transformation of the Basis — Saving Beings with No Thought of Saving

Taking the two “is-nots” of this division together, they share one key: removing that layer of clinging to “really existent beings to save, a really existent self” (the “is-not”), without falling into the diminishing denial of “no beings to save, annihilation with no saving” (conventionally there is still the provisional name’s saving, the provisional name’s self). To save all beings and yet not one being is really saved — this “transforming with nothing transformed” is precisely what Yogācāra calls the transformation of the basis (轉依): turning away cleanly the defiled habits of the wholly-imagined within the ālaya-vijñāna that grasp a self and grasp real beings, and what is disclosed is just “the equal true Dharma-realm” — saving beings with no thought of saving, the practice-and-vow vivid while saver and saved are both stilled. The dharma-clinging of “really existent beings to save” and the self-view of “a really existent self” that this division breaks belong just to the two hindrances, affliction and cognitive; removing these two hindrances is the grounding of the second-half dharma-emptiness, the cutting-off of the cognitive hindrance — one and the same road as the pivotal Division 17’s “there is in truth no dharma named bodhisattva; only one who penetrates the two selflessnesses is a true bodhisattva.” There, what is broken is the clinging to “a real bodhisattva”; here, what is broken is the clinging to “really existent beings to save”; what is removed is alike the two graspings, what is corroborated is alike the two selflessnesses.

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra flowed out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the two emptinesses, the transformation of the basis, and the two hindrances have their own scriptural sources (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises, the Prajñā corpus being another lineage. Rather, the same reality — “saving, with no saving” — is stated by the Diamond Sūtra in sūtra-language (there is in truth no being to save · a self is-not really a self) and by Yogācāra in treatise-language (dharma-clinging and the self-view · the two graspings · the two hindrances · the transformation of the basis); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses use the two selflessnesses to remove the two graspings and come home to the transformation of the basis, sealing with this division’s “saving with none saved · a self is-not really a self.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of dharma-clinging, self-clinging, and the cognitive hindrance — precisely the treatise-language of this division’s “to fix on grasping sentient beings to be delivered is the same fault as self-clinging.” The Twenty Verses clarify consciousness-only-with-no-object and the removal of really-existent-outside-the-mind, sharing the same thing-broken as “there is in truth no being to save” removing beings as a real dharma outside the mind. The Madhyānta-vibhāga distinguishes the twofold selflessness of persons and dharmas, which also accords with this division. Within the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s “because of non-attaining” shares the same position of non-attainment as “transforming with nothing transformed, no real being to save.” To seal it in one line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in sūtra-language as “there is in truth no being whom the Tathāgata saves,” and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical language of “removing dharma-clinging · cutting off the cognitive hindrance · the equal Dharma-realm · the provisional setting-forth of beings,” are one and the same thing 〔this convergence is already set out by Shi Huijing in From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 25 · Transforming with Nothing Transformed · exposition · Spring 2026

Bringing the three bodies (自性身 the body of intrinsic nature · 受用身 the enjoyment-body · 變化身 the transformation-body), the three natures, the cognitive hindrance (所知障), and the Yogācāra teaching that there is no object outside consciousness (唯識無境), to reflect the sūtra’s “contemplating the Tathāgata by the thirty-two marks” and its “seeking by form, seeking by sound is to walk a deviant path.” 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 Pivot: Here the “Is-not” Falls upon the Buddha’s Own Bodily Mark

From the pivotal Division 17 onward, what the Diamond Sūtra breaks is the mark of dharmas (法相); what it dispels is the clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執); what it severs by transformation is the cognitive hindrance (所知障). Earlier, Division 20 dispelled “a perfect body of form, perfect with all marks”; Division 22 dispelled “bodhi as a real dharma”; Division 25 dispelled “there really being sentient beings to liberate.” In this division, the blade of “is-not” falls upon the last and hardest place of all to let go — the Buddha’s own bodily mark. The thought most easily roused in a sentient being is this: the Buddha cultivated the meritorious deeds of the thirty-two marks, and so came to possess the adorned body of the thirty-two marks of a great being; since there is this body of marks, surely the Dharma-body must reside within it, and following the marks inward one ought, at last, to be able to glimpse the Dharma-body. This is precisely the clinging to dharmas this division means to dispel. Kuiji, relaying Vasubandhu, sets out the doubt: 「以外比知內，法身亦應有其相好也。如覩人面，即知心事故」— inferring the inner from the outer, one supposes the Dharma-body too must have its marks; just as, seeing a man’s face, one knows the matters of his mind. Because one imagines that seeing a face reads off the heart, one imagines that following the marks lets one infer the Dharma-body.

The Thirty-two Marks Are a Form-Body of the Other-Dependent, Not the Dharma-Body: The Distinction of the Three Bodies

Yogācāra teaches that the Buddha does not have a single body but three bodies (三身): the body of intrinsic nature (自性身, the Dharma-body, the very nature of suchness realized by all buddhas), the enjoyment-body (受用身), and the transformation-body (變化身). The latter two have form and marks, visible and perceptible; only the Dharma-body is the principle-essence (理體), disclosed by wisdom alone. To which body do the thirty-two marks belong? Asaṅga settles it in one stroke: 「以相是色自性故」— because the marks are of the nature of form. The thirty-two marks are the intrinsic nature of “form” (色), they are material dharmas, the body of marks called forth by the merit-deeds of conditioned cultivation, gathered into the reward-body and the transformation-body. Vasubandhu likewise says 「色身攝得八十種好三十二相」— the form-body subsumes the eighty subsidiary marks and the thirty-two marks.

Seen through the three natures it becomes clear. The thirty-two marks, as a body of marks, are dependent-arising (依他起, paratantra) — a conditioned, dependently-arisen form called forth by conditions (the deeds of merit, the resonance with beings), vividly visible; hence Division 5 already said 「是名三十二相」— it is called the thirty-two marks. The trouble arises when ordinary beings, upon this dependently-arisen body of marks, add a further layer of clinging: “the marks just are the Dharma-body, and by following the marks one can infer the Dharma-body.” This layer is the wholly-imagined (遍計所執, parikalpita) — taking the marks projected by mind and grasping at them as the very substance of the Dharma-body. What the Buddha would dispel is precisely this layer of wholly-imagined construction, not the form-body of marks itself.

Breaking It Together with the Wheel-Turning King: The Marks Are a Common Property, Not the Buddha’s Essence

The Buddha does not flatly say “the thirty-two marks are not the Buddha.” Instead he raises a thing known to all the world and asks back: 「若以三十二相觀如來者，轉輪聖王則是如來」— if the Tathāgata were to be contemplated by the thirty-two marks, then a wheel-turning sacred king would be a Tathāgata. A wheel-turning king too is complete with the thirty-two marks; if the marks alone could fix who the Buddha is, then the king who shares those very marks ought to be a Buddha as well — which plainly will not hold. Hearing this, Subhūti at once awakens: 「不應以三十二相觀如來」— one should not contemplate the Tathāgata by the thirty-two marks.

Yogācāra reads this refutation as a matter of difference in essential nature, not merely a logical counterexample. Vasubandhu’s verse says it bluntly: 「非是色身相，可比知如來；諸佛唯法身，轉輪王非佛」— the marks of the form-body cannot serve to infer the Tathāgata; the buddhas are the Dharma-body alone, and the wheel-turning king is not a Buddha. The marks are marks of the form-body and cannot be used to infer the Dharma-body; the very essence of the buddhas is the Dharma-body alone, while the wheel-turning king, though complete with the marks, is not a Buddha. What divides Buddha from king is not the presence or absence of the marks (both possess them), but the difference in essential nature between the Dharma-body (圓成 the perfectly-accomplished · 智證 realized by wisdom) and the body of marks (色性 the nature of form · 依他 the other-dependent). Vasubandhu draws the distinction between the two bodies further: 「法身者是智相身，福德者是異相身」— the Dharma-body is the body whose mark is wisdom; the meritorious one is the body of differing marks. The Dharma-body is a body formed of wisdom; the marks are a body of differing marks called forth by merit. The true Dharma-body is attained by means of the skillful differing marks, and is not of one essence with the merit-marks and their reward 「非相好果報，依福德成就；而得真法身，方便異相故」— not the karmic reward of the fine marks, accomplished by merit; rather the true Dharma-body is attained through skillful differing marks. So inferring inward by following the marks, what one infers is still the body of differing marks born of merit — one cannot infer through to that Dharma-body whose mark is wisdom.

Seeing by Form, Seeking by Sound Is to Walk a Deviant Path: The Dharma-Body Is Realized by Wisdom Alone, Not an Object of Consciousness

So the World-Honored One speaks a verse of reproach: 「若以色見我，以音聲求我，是人行邪道，不能見如來」— if one sees me by form, or seeks me by sound, that person walks a deviant path and cannot see the Tathāgata. With the two — “form” (the fine marks) and “sound” (the voice) — he gathers up every clinging that “seeks the Buddha by shape and sound,” and cuts it off as “walking a deviant path, not seeing the Tathāgata.”

The Yogācāra eye of this verse lies in the two words “form, sound.” Form and sound are precisely the objects of the six consciousnesses (六識); to see by form and seek by sound is to take the Dharma-body as an object to be grasped by the discriminating consciousness (前六識的攀緣分別, the grasping discrimination of the first six consciousnesses). But the Dharma-body is precisely not an object of consciousness. Vasubandhu glosses this verse: 「唯見色聞聲，是人不知佛；以真如法身，非是識境故」— one who only sees form and hears sound does not know the Buddha, because the suchness-Dharma-body is not an object of consciousness. The three words “not an object of consciousness” (非識境) are the very landing, upon the contemplation of the Buddha’s body, of the Yogācāra principle that there is no object outside consciousness (唯識無境): there is fundamentally no real object outside the mind to be grasped, and the Dharma-body all the more is not an object of the sort — form and sound — that the discriminating consciousness could grasp. Kuiji reads this passage in two verses: 「初偈顯不應以色、聲以觀法身如來，若取色、聲，不契真理，是行邪道，不見法佛故；次偈明法身妙體超尋思故，凡夫不可見，亦非分別之識所能知故」— the first verse shows that one should not contemplate the Dharma-body Tathāgata by form and sound; to grasp form and sound is not to accord with true principle, this is to walk a deviant path and not see the Dharma-Buddha. The second verse makes clear that the marvelous essence of the Dharma-body transcends discursive thought, and so cannot be seen by the ordinary being nor known by the discriminating consciousness. The Dharma-body transcends discursive discrimination and is not what the ordinary being’s grasping, discriminating consciousness can know.

What matters is this: to say “not an object of consciousness,” “that consciousness cannot know it,” is not to say the Dharma-body is remote and unrealizable. Kuiji says it plainly: 「以彼法真如相故，非言說而知，唯自證故」— because its mark is the suchness of dharmas, it is not known by speech, but realized only by oneself. The ordinary being’s discriminating consciousness (遍計) cannot reach it as an object, but non-discriminating wisdom (無分別智, the self-realizing wisdom that follows the turning of consciousness into wisdom, 轉識成智) can realize it. So this “cannot be seen” is the not-seeing of the ordinary being’s inverted consciousness; turn and attain non-discriminating wisdom, and one rightly sees the Dharma-body. To screen off the discrimination of form and sound is precisely to disclose this Dharma-body realized by wisdom — a screening and a disclosing, the double turn of this verse. Kumārajīva’s transmitted text stops at the screening side, “seeing by form and seeking by sound is to walk a deviant path, not to see the Tathāgata”; the other five versions and Vasubandhu’s treatise-text both carry a second verse (of the kind 「應觀佛法性，即導師法身；法性非所識」— one should contemplate the Buddha’s dharma-nature, which is the Guide’s Dharma-body; dharma-nature is not an object of cognition), supplying the disclosing side as well — where it screens, it discloses: not seeing the Buddha of the fine marks is precisely how one sees the Buddha of the Dharma-body.

Taking Hold of the Dharma-Body: Teaching Beings to Contemplate the Pure Dharma-Body Within, Not by Shape

Asaṅga assigns this division, after the realization of the path and amid the full mind of the Buddha-ground, to the fourth point, “taking hold of the Dharma-body” (攝取法身): 「為攝取法身故」「謂欲令諸眾生內觀真理清淨法身，外自具其形相，不可以其形相而觀法身如來」— for the sake of taking hold of the Dharma-body; that is, wishing to make all sentient beings contemplate inwardly the pure Dharma-body of true principle. Outwardly [the Buddha] is himself complete with shape and form, yet one must not contemplate the Dharma-body Tathāgata by that shape and form. Though the Buddha-ground outwardly manifests the fine marks (outwardly complete with shape and form), its intent is to turn beings back to contemplate inwardly the pure Dharma-body of true principle, and not to chase the Dharma-body by following the outer marks. This sentence lays out the positive landing of “seeing by form, seeking by sound is to walk a deviant path”: it is not that one is to do without the fine marks, but that one must not take the marks as a gate by which to contemplate the Dharma-body — the gate to the Dharma-body is the wisdom of inward contemplation, not the consciousness that grasps outer conditions.

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 teaching of the three bodies and of transforming consciousness into wisdom flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three bodies, the four wisdoms, and “no object outside consciousness” have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi); the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same purport — “the fine marks are not the Dharma-body; the Dharma-body is realized by wisdom alone” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (seeing by form and seeking by sound is to walk a deviant path · contemplating the Tathāgata by marks that are no-marks) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the three bodies · the Dharma-body whose mark is wisdom · not an object of consciousness · transforming consciousness into wisdom); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses come to rest in the Dharma-body, the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實), and the transformation of the basis (轉依), corresponding to this division’s “the buddhas are the Dharma-body alone; the true Dharma-body is the very nature of wisdom.” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha establishes the three bodies — body of intrinsic nature, enjoyment-body, transformation-body — and is precisely the treatise-source of this division’s “the body of marks (reward and transformation) is not the Dharma-body; the true Dharma-body is the very nature of wisdom.” The Twenty Verses make clear that there is no object outside consciousness, that there is no real object outside the mind, sealing with this division’s “the suchness-Dharma-body is not an object of consciousness; that consciousness cannot know it.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of transforming consciousness into wisdom and of the Dharma-body realized by non-discriminating wisdom alone, corresponding to this division’s “the Dharma-body is the body whose mark is wisdom; not an object of discrimination.” 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 “form and sound are not real; the Dharma-body departs the realm of consciousness.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「若以色見我，以音聲求我，是人行邪道」— if one sees me by form or seeks me by sound, that person walks a deviant path — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “the Dharma-body realized by non-discriminating wisdom alone · the fine marks are not the wholly-imagined real Dharma-body · not an object of the discriminating consciousness” 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 26 · The Dharma-Body Is Not a Form · exposition · Spring 2026

Bringing the two extremes of superimposition (增益) and denial (損減), the emptiness of dharmas, the cognitive hindrance (所知障), the non-abiding nirvāṇa (無住涅槃), and the perfectly-accomplished that is not cut off, to reflect this division’s twofold caution of “do not give rise to this thought.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The Place of This Division: Now That the Emptiness of Dharmas Has Been Taught This Far, Guard Against a Reversal

All along the way it has been taught: the fine marks are not the Dharma-body, bodhi has nothing attained, dharmas are “is-not” — until the word “emptiness” has nearly dispelled everything. Just here, this division must guard against a subtle reversal: having heard so much, might one not turn around and hear “emptiness” as “annihilation,” supposing that the fine marks, merit, reward, and all dharmas simply come down to a sheer nothing-at-all? The ancient masters divide the deluded clinging of beings into two extremes: upon the dependently-arisen dharma to add a real intrinsic nature is the extreme of superimposition (增益邊, adding a real existence that was never there); conversely, to negate the inherently dependent arising, the inherently present nature of dharmas, into a pure nothing, is the extreme of denial (損減邊, subtracting what was inherently there). The “is-not” of the earlier half breaks mostly superimposition (clinging to marks, clinging to merit as real existents); by this division what must be guarded against is the other extreme — taking the emptiness of dharmas as the annihilationist view of denial.

So this division belongs to that course of the latter half of the pivotal Division 17 (the emptiness of dharmas, breaking the view of dharmas, the cognitive hindrance). The “clinging to a self in dharmas” (法我執) that grasps dharmas as real existents outside the mind, obstructing the omniscience of buddhahood, is called the cognitive hindrance (所知障); and “taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation” is precisely a further turn of the clinging-to-dharmas subsumed under that cognitive hindrance — not grasping dharmas as real, but grasping the emptiness of dharmas as annihilated nothingness. Both ends are slanted; what this division would establish is the unslanted middle way: neither cut off, nor permanent (非斷、非常).

The First Caution: Do Not Negate the Fine Marks into Empty Nothing

The Buddha first sets up a thought for Subhūti not to raise: 「如來不以具足相故，得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提」— do not think the Tathāgata attained supreme perfect enlightenment by reason of the perfect marks. On the surface this looks like saying “the fine marks are not the cause of attaining buddhahood,” yet the Buddha pointedly screens off this very thought. Why? The ancient masters read it finely: the preceding division has just said “the fine marks are not the Dharma-body; one cannot see the Tathāgata by the marks”; if the hearer pushes straight on, he will sweep away the Buddha’s perfect body of marks too with a single stroke, supposing that “there is left only an empty, hollow principle of the Dharma-body’s emptiness.” Kuiji points this doubt out plainly: 「福德空，果報亦空，則法斷滅，是則佛相好身亦無，唯有法身空理也」— if merit is empty and the reward too is empty, then dharmas are cut off and annihilated, and so the Buddha’s body of fine marks is also nothing, leaving only the empty principle of the Dharma-body.

Seen with the Yogācāra eye: the body of fine marks is the mark manifested by the Buddha’s reward-body and transformation-body (報身、化身), the fully realized fruit of dependent arising, vividly possessing its own being. Kuiji, following one line of Vasubandhu, says 「以報身、化身具足相得故」— because it is attained through the reward-body and transformation-body being complete with marks — one must not negate it into pure nothing. So what this caution screens off is not “clinging to the fine marks as the Dharma-body” (that is the superimposition the preceding division screened), but the opposite extreme: negating the fine marks into annihilated nothingness, the extreme of denial. The fine marks are not the Dharma-body (do not cling to the marks), and yet the body of fine marks cannot be annihilated either (do not negate the marks) — a single screening that screens both extremes.

The Second Caution: Do Not Hear the Emptiness of Dharmas as Annihilation

There follows the very eye of this division, the second “do not give rise to this thought”: do not suppose that “one who gives rise to the bodhi-mind is teaching that all dharmas are cut off and utterly extinguished.” The Buddha at once draws it in with a positive establishing of the meaning: 「發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心者，於法不說斷滅相」— one who gives rise to the mind of supreme perfect enlightenment does not, of dharmas, teach a mark of annihilation.

This “of dharmas one does not teach annihilation” is the landing-point of this division’s “is-not” — only it does not, as in other divisions, fire off the three phrases “is-not, is called” in series, but establishes directly upon the single meaning “emptiness is not annihilation.” Read through Yogācāra, it screens both extremes with one hand:

• Not falling into superimposition (not grasping dharmas as real existents): the bodhisattvas know cause and know fruit, and do not, upon the merit and reward of dependent arising, wrongly grasp a real intrinsic nature of cause and effect. Kuiji’s words are the most exact: 「但無所執實福德因及果」— only there is no grasped real cause of merit and its fruit — what is dispelled is that layer of wholly-imagined (遍計所執) real existence.
• Not falling into denial (not negating dharmas into annihilated nothingness): yet to dispel the real clinging is not to wipe away the dependently-arisen dharmas along with it. Kuiji adds at once: 「非無因緣假因果也，但遮作用緣，非無功能緣故」— it is not that there is no provisional cause-and-effect of conditioned arising; only the activity grasped as real is screened off, not that the conditions’ functioning is absent. That is: what is screened is only “the kind of activity grasped as real,” while the proper functioning of the provisional, dependently-arisen dharma remains vividly intact. In other words: the dependently-arisen (依他起) dharma is not nothing; the suchness of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實) is not cut off.

This is the middle way of “of dharmas one does not teach annihilation”: screening superimposition (grasping as real) on the one side, screening denial (negating into nothing) on the other, departing both extremes and disclosing suchness. The three lineages of ancient masters differ in stream but converge here at one place — Jizang judges 「因非斷非常，因果皆是正觀、皆離斷常」— cause is neither cut off nor permanent; cause and effect are both right contemplation, both departing from cut-off and permanence; Zhiyi judges 「相盡寂滅故不有（不墮常），感至隨現故不斷（不墮斷），體合中道」— as marks are exhausted into cessation, it is not existent (not falling into permanence); as resonance arrives it manifests accordingly, so it is not cut off (not falling into annihilation) — in essence according with the middle way; and Kuiji, following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, judges 「去離斷常」— departing from cut-off and permanence. The sūtra’s phrase “does not teach annihilation,” and the treatise’s phrase “departing the two extremes of superimposition and denial to disclose the middle way,” reflect one and the same thing.

Merit Is Not Lost, the Reward Is Not Cut Off: Attaining the Forbearance of Non-arising While Merit Continues

This division also holds a treatise-doubt, which Vasubandhu reads most bluntly. Someone doubts: if it is not by merit that great bodhi is attained, then has the bodhisattva not cultivated merit in vain and lost the reward? In particular, once the bodhisattva realizes the “forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas” (無生法忍) and attains the supramundane non-discriminating wisdom, is merit then cut off? Both of Vasubandhu’s translations answer in a verse: 「不失功德因，及彼勝果報；得勝忍不失，以得無垢果」「其福不失亡，果報不斷絕，得忍亦不斷，以獲無垢故」— the cause of merit is not lost, nor its excellent reward; attaining the excellent forbearance, it is not lost, for the unstained fruit is attained.

Seen through Yogācāra: when the bodhisattva realizes the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas, he sees that the dependently-arisen dharmas have no intrinsic nature and no longer rouses the wholly-imagined real-clinging; yet once this wisdom of “nothing attained” arises, merit is not only not cut off but turns into pure and excellent virtue — Vasubandhu says this is because one 「成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴」— accomplishes the adornment of wisdom and the adornment of merit. Merit does not come down to annihilation but turns into the provision for buddhahood; in Yogācāra this is precisely transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti) — casting off the defiled, attaining the pure, an inward continuity, not a cutting off and starting over. So “of dharmas one does not teach annihilation,” read from this side, is “attaining the forbearance of non-arising while merit and reward are not cut off” — the annihilationist view is exactly reversed: merit continues unbroken.

Not Abiding in Birth-and-Death or in Nirvāṇa: Empty to the End, Not Falling into the Two Vehicles’ Annihilation

Asaṅga assigns this division to a still higher grade: among the perfected virtues of the mind at the Buddha-ground after the realization of the path, the fifth is “not abiding in birth-and-death or in nirvāṇa” (不住生死涅槃). “Of dharmas one does not teach annihilation,” as Asaṅga reads it, is just this: not falling into a one-sided cessation — 「不斷一切生死影像法，於涅槃自在行利益眾生事」— not cutting off all the image-like dharmas of birth-and-death, freely benefiting sentient beings within nirvāṇa. Birth-and-death is like an image; the bodhisattva is not bound by it (not abiding in birth-and-death), yet does not annihilate it altogether and hide away in nirvāṇa (not abiding in nirvāṇa).

Kuiji makes the crux of this layer plain: 「若斷滅生死者，即同二乘，住涅槃故」— to cut off and annihilate birth-and-death is to be the same as the two vehicles, abiding in nirvāṇa. If one cultivates “emptiness” into a cutting-off of birth-and-death and a solitary entry into cessation, one falls back into the two vehicles, abiding in a one-sidedly empty nirvāṇa — and that is what is truly “annihilation.” The bodhisattva’s emptiness is not like this: empty to the very end, it is rather the joint working of compassion and wisdom, not abiding in birth-and-death (wisdom not bound) and not abiding in nirvāṇa (compassion not forsaking beings). This is precisely what Yogācāra calls the non-abiding nirvāṇa (無住涅槃) — the realized state disclosed by exhausting the cognitive hindrance, not abiding in either extreme. “Of dharmas one does not teach annihilation,” at this layer, is the non-abiding great nirvāṇa that does not fall into the two vehicles’ annihilation.

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

To read this division with Yogācāra as a mirror is not to say that Yogācāra’s middle way, two extremes, and non-abiding nirvāṇa flow out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of departing the two extremes, discerning the real, and the non-abiding nirvāṇa have their own scriptural sources and treatises (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi; the Madhyānta-vibhāga, the Cheng weishi lun); the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same purport — “emptiness is not annihilation” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (does not teach annihilation · neither cut off nor permanent) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (departing the two extremes of superimposition and denial · the perfectly-accomplished is not cut off · the non-abiding nirvāṇa); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Madhyānta-vibhāga (辯中邊論) directly establishes “departing the two extremes, dwelling in the middle way,” screening superimposition and screening denial to disclose the middle — matching most directly this division’s “neither cut off nor permanent, departing the two extremes.” The Thirty Verses say “the other-dependent (依他起) is not wholly nothing; the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實) is not annihilated,” sealing with this division’s “does not teach annihilation; it is not that there is no provisional cause-and-effect of conditions.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the non-abiding nirvāṇa and of the self-in-dharmas grasped by the cognitive hindrance, corresponding to this division’s “not abiding in birth-and-death or nirvāṇa, not falling into the two vehicles’ annihilation” and its “dispelling the clinging-to-dharmas of taking the emptiness of dharmas as annihilation.” The Twenty Verses dispel the real object outside the mind without negating the inner consciousness, of one vein with Kuiji’s “only the activity grasped as real is screened, not that the functioning is absent” — dispelling the real while preserving the provisional. And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「不生不滅、不增不減」— neither arising nor ceasing, neither increasing nor decreasing — is the same dharma-position of departing the two extremes as this division’s “does not teach annihilation, neither cut off nor permanent”: the mark of emptiness is not an annihilated nothing. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「於法不說斷滅相」— of dharmas one does not teach a mark of annihilation — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “dispelling the cognitive hindrance’s clinging-to-dharmas · the other-dependent is not nothing · the perfectly-accomplished is not cut off · the non-abiding nirvāṇa” are one and the same matter 〔this convergence is set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 27 · Neither Cut Off nor Annihilated · exposition · Spring 2026

Bringing the two selflessnesses (人無我 the selflessness of persons · 法無我 the selflessness of dharmas), the three natures (遍計所執 the wholly-imagined · 依他起 the other-dependent · 圓成實 the perfectly-accomplished), the three forbearances, the two graspings and two hindrances, and the transformation of the basis, to reflect the sūtra’s “no-self attaining forbearance · not receiving merit.” 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 Pivot: This Division Reflects the Layer of “Clinging to a Self in Dharmas”

The preceding division (Ultimately, No Self) turned the teaching into the emptiness of dharmas, disclosing “in reality there is no dharma that can be attained”; that is the seam of the whole sūtra’s “two-round teaching” — the first round breaks the mark of self and purifies the afflictive hindrance, the latter round breaks the mark of dharmas and severs-by-transformation the cognitive hindrance. This division follows directly, letting that blade of “nothing attained” fall upon two places where clinging most easily rises again: one is the merit of “accomplishment,” the other is the dharma reached by “forbearance.”

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this division reflects precisely that fine clinging of the latter half. Sentient beings — and even those who walk the path — upon “the merit I have done” will wrongly rouse a clinging that “there really is merit to be attained, a tainted reward to be coveted”; upon “the dharma I have penetrated” they will wrongly rouse a clinging that “there really is a mark of dharmas to be grasped.” What both grasp is not the coarse self-in-persons but the finer clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執), obstructing the omniscience of buddhahood — the cognitive hindrance (所知障). So this division stands not on the earlier half’s side of “marks · beings · much-or-little merit,” but on the latter half’s side of “dharmas-as-real, merit-as-real-attainment.” The ancient masters judge it steadily: Jizang says 「今為格量菩薩無我忍也，此是人法無我，故名無我忍」— now is the measuring of the bodhisattva’s forbearance of no-self; this is the selflessness of persons and dharmas, hence called the forbearance of no-self; Zhiyi assigns it as “concluding prajñā into forbearance”; Kuiji (following Vasubandhu and Asaṅga) reads it directly as 「了達二我空故而得於忍」— penetrating the emptiness of the two selves, one thus attains forbearance. All three place this division upon the position of the emptiness of dharmas that continues after the pivot.

“Knowing All Dharmas to Be Without Self, One Accomplishes Forbearance”: Two Layers of No-Self Make the Forbearance of No-Self

The Buddha first sets up a comparison: to give in charity the seven treasures enough to fill worlds as many as the sands of the Ganges — that merit can hardly be called small; yet another person who 「知一切法無我，得成於忍」— knows all dharmas to be without self and accomplishes forbearance — his virtue surpasses the former. What matters is to read this “no-self” precisely.

Yogācāra teaches that the deluded clinging of beings has two layers: to grasp the five aggregates of body-and-mind as a real “self” is the clinging to a self in persons (人我執); to grasp the dharmas manifested by mind as “dharmas” really existent outside the mind is the clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執). This division’s “knowing all dharmas to be without self” empties not merely the one “self,” but says that even “all dharmas” are without self — and so the ancient masters with one voice read it as the selflessness of both persons and dharmas (人法二無我, the two emptinesses): Vasubandhu says 「有二種無我，不生二種無我相」— there are two kinds of no-self; one does not give rise to the two marks of no-self; Jizang says 「此是人法無我，故名無我忍」— this is the selflessness of persons and dharmas, hence called the forbearance of no-self; Kuiji says 「了達二我空故而得於忍」— penetrating the emptiness of the two selves, one thus attains forbearance. Only by penetrating both layers of no-self is the forbearance accomplished worthy of the name “forbearance of no-self”; to empty only the self-in-persons and not the self-in-dharmas is not enough. This is the continued course of Division 17’s “penetrating the no-self of persons and of dharmas” (人法二空): there the gate of the emptiness of dharmas was opened; here it is made good upon “forbearance.”

And what forbearance is this? Kumārajīva says only, undivided, “accomplishes forbearance,” while the variant translations make plain that it is the “forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas” (無生法忍, Bodhiruci and Paramārtha both adding the two words “non-arising”). Kuiji reads this forbearance, following the three natures, as threefold —

• The forbearance of intrinsic non-arising (本性無生忍): contemplating that the two marks of self and dharmas in the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) are inherently without essence (the grasped real self and real dharmas are, in their very being, empty).
• The forbearance of natural non-arising (自然無生忍): contemplating that the dharmas of the other-dependent (依他起) arise in dependence on a manifold of conditions and have no “self-so, condition-free” intrinsic nature (依他 = arising in reliance on a manifold of conditions).
• The forbearance of the non-arising of affliction and suffering (惑苦無生忍): contemplating that upon suchness (真如, the perfectly-accomplished, 圓成實) affliction and suffering are inherently non-arising.

The three forbearances match exactly the three natures: dispelling the wholly-imagined, penetrating the other-dependent, disclosing the perfectly-accomplished. So “accomplishing forbearance” is not gritting one’s teeth to endure; it is, within the two selflessnesses, seeing in accord with the three natures that all dharmas are inherently non-arising — forbearance accomplished through emptiness, not forced through by effort.

“Not Receiving Merit”: Receiving but Not Grasping — Dispelling the Clinging That “Merit Is a Real Attainment”

The Buddha next speaks a sentence that seems to overturn merit wholesale: 「以諸菩薩不受福德故」— because the bodhisattvas do not receive merit. Subhūti, not understanding, asks: how is it said that bodhisattvas do not receive merit? The Buddha answers: 「菩薩所作福德，不應貪著，是故說不受福德」— the merit a bodhisattva does should not be coveted with attachment; therefore it is said they do not receive merit. So “not receiving” is not doing no merit, not having no merit; it is receiving its good without coveting its reward.

This structure of “receiving but not grasping” is seen most clearly in the Yogācāra mirror, and is precisely one application of the “is-not” pattern upon merit. The Nengduan lineage (the three translations of Bodhiruci, Dharmagupta, and Xuanzang) puts it as three phrases: 「菩薩受福德，不取福德，是故菩薩取福德」— the bodhisattva receives merit, does not grasp merit, therefore the bodhisattva grasps merit. Three turns in one sentence, which are just the three natures —

• Receiving merit (受福德) = the other-dependent: merit is not nothing; it is dependently-arisen merit produced by the cultivation of good deeds, sayable and receivable on the conventional level (Kuiji says it is 「菩薩所行福德」— the merit a bodhisattva practices; Paramārtha renders it 「可得攝持」— capable of being held and maintained). So it can be “received,” and so at the end it still says “therefore grasps.”
• Not grasping merit (不取福德) = dispelling the wholly-imagined: what is dispelled is the layer of wrong clinging that “there really is merit to be attained, and the tainted reward is coveted.” Vasubandhu says it directly: 「取者，彼福德得有漏果報……此福德無報」— to grasp is for that merit to win a tainted reward… this merit is without reward. Kuiji says 「不著自體等故，但希出世，故云不受」— because of not being attached to its very being, only aspiring to the supramundane, it is called not receiving; Paramārtha says 「不可執取」— it cannot be grasped and clung to. “Not grasping” dispels the clinging that “merit is a real attainment”; it does not say there is no merit.
• Therefore grasps merit / therefore it is said not received (是故取福德／是故說不受) = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name: having dispelled that layer of clinging to a coveted tainted reward, the untainted merit (無漏之福) that is without real attainment and subsumed by suchness is vividly there to be received. Vasubandhu says 「是福德無報，如是受不取」— this merit is without reward; thus it is received but not grasped; Yijing’s treatise says 「彼福無報故，正取非越取」— because that merit is without reward, it is rightly grasped, not over-grasped — receiving its untainted good (rightly grasping), not coveting its tainted reward (not over-grasping). Kumārajīva’s phrase 「不應貪著，是故說不受福德」— should not covet with attachment; therefore it is said not received — states exactly this: only by not coveting is it called not received.

So “not receiving, not grasping” is not sweeping merit into emptiness; it is dispelling, upon merit, that layer of wholly-imagined real-attainment, while the perfectly-accomplished’s untainted provision stands intact — dispelling without falling into nothing, which is the same pivot as the whole sūtra’s “is-not, is called.”

Merit Is Without Reward: What Is Dispelled Is the “Tainted” Layer

Why on the one hand “not receive,” and on the other “therefore grasp”? The crux is the “merit is without reward” that Vasubandhu points out. When beings do merit, most secretly hope for a reward — and that very hope binds the merit within the tainted round of birth-and-death (Vasubandhu: 「取者，彼福德得有漏果報……如取非道故」— to grasp is for that merit to win a tainted reward… as one who grasps takes a wrong path, like leaving the right road to walk a perilous one). The bodhisattva’s “not grasping” is precisely the cutting of this hidden thread of “coveting reward”: merit does not summon a tainted reward, and so it is received without being bound to reward. Asaṅga assigns this layer to the “not abiding in the round of transmigration” within the Buddha-ground’s “not abiding in birth-and-death or nirvāṇa” — the accumulation of merit 「不應受、不應取」— should not be received, should not be grasped — not because merit is loathsome, but because the moment one receives or grasps a tainted reward, one falls back into transmigration. To receive its untainted, not coveting its tainted, is precisely the position of merit disclosed by the transformation of the basis (轉依, āśraya-parāvṛtti): casting off the defiled mind that covets the tainted, merit becomes the wisdom-provision oriented toward the supramundane (Vasubandhu: 「以能成就智慧莊嚴、功德莊嚴故」— because it can accomplish the adornment of wisdom and the adornment of merit).

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 the two selflessnesses, the three natures, the three forbearances, 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 — “no-self attaining forbearance · receiving but not grasping” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (knowing all dharmas to be without self · not receiving merit) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the two selflessnesses · the three natures and three non-natures · severing the cognitive hindrance · the transformation of the basis with nothing attained); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses dispel the two graspings by the two emptinesses and come to rest in the transformation of the basis, speaking of “nothing attained,” sealing with this division’s “knowing all dharmas to be without self · attaining forbearance” and “not receiving merit · receiving but not grasping.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of severing the two hindrances, realizing the suchness of the two emptinesses, and dispelling the cognitive hindrance’s clinging-to-dharmas of “merit as a real attainment,” corresponding to Kuiji’s “penetrating the emptiness of the two selves, one thus attains forbearance.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns the real, discerns the two emptinesses, and clarifies the latter half’s purifying of the cognitive hindrance through the emptiness of dharmas — the treatise-counterpart to this division’s “two selflessnesses · forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.” The Twenty Verses break real dharmas outside the mind, of one vein with this division’s “knowing all dharmas to be without self” dispelling the clinging-to-dharmas. And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「以無所得故」「無智亦無得」— because of nothing attained · no wisdom and no attainment — is precisely the same no-attainment dharma-position as this division’s “not receiving merit · receiving but not grasping · no real attainment.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「知一切法無我，得成於忍」「不受福德」— knowing all dharmas to be without self, accomplishing forbearance · not receiving merit — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “the suchness of the two emptinesses · the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas · severing the cognitive hindrance · the untainted provision · the transformation of the basis with nothing attained” are one and the same matter 〔“not receiving, not grasping” is the transformation-of-the-basis, no-attainment meaning of “one should give rise to a mind that abides nowhere” (S5-P06)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 28 · Not Receiving, Not Grasping · exposition · Spring 2026

Bringing the three bodies (法身 the Dharma-body · 化身 the transformation-body), the three natures, suchness and the perfectly-accomplished (真如圓成), the cognitive hindrance (所知障), and the teaching of no object outside consciousness (唯識無境), to reflect the sūtra’s “the Tathāgata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

Following a Doubt from Before: If the Bodhisattva Does Not Receive Merit, How Does the Buddha Still Come and Go Through the Six Destinies to Liberate Beings

This division follows directly upon the preceding one (the bodhisattva does not receive merit), and is meant to cut off a doubt. It was said before that the bodhisattva “does not receive merit,” does not receive worldly reward — whereupon someone asks: if the bodhisattva does not receive the reward, then he does not receive the body of a human king or a heavenly king; how then does he come and go through the six destinies to benefit beings? And the buddhas’ merit — how can it be received and enjoyed by beings? The ancient masters all raise this division from this very doubt: Jizang says 「菩薩既不受福德，則不受世間人王、天王，云何往來六道利益眾生」— since the bodhisattva does not receive merit, he does not receive worldly human-king or heavenly-king [bodies]; how does he come and go through the six destinies to benefit beings?; Vasubandhu sets the doubt still more directly — 「若諸菩薩不受彼果報，云何諸菩薩福德眾生受用」— if the bodhisattvas do not receive that reward, how is the bodhisattvas’ merit enjoyed by beings? So when the Buddha says 「如來若來若去、若坐若臥，是人不解我所說義」— whoever [thinks] the Tathāgata comes or goes, sits or lies down, does not understand the meaning of what I teach — it is precisely to make clear to what this matter of “coming and going” belongs.

Coming, Going, Sitting, Lying Are the Transformation-Body; the Dharma-Body Has No Deportment at All

The Buddha’s answer is read by the three lineages of ancient masters (Sanlun’s Jizang, Tiantai’s Zhiyi, Yogācāra’s Kuiji) — different in stream, converging in sense — all following one verse of Vasubandhu: 「去來化身佛，如來常不動」— the going-and-coming is the transformation-body Buddha; the Tathāgata is ever unmoving. This divides into two clauses: what comes, goes, sits, and lies down is the transformation-body (化身); what abides ever unmoving, neither coming nor going, is the Dharma-body (法身).

Seen with the Yogācāra eye, this divides very clearly. The Buddha has three bodies: the Dharma-body (法身) is the true nature of dharmas (suchness, 真如), limpid and ever-still, without shape and without mark; the transformation-body (化身) is the bodily form the Dharma-body manifests in response to the capacities of beings, coming and going through the six destinies, benefiting beings. Kuiji matches the four deportments one by one to the events of the transformation-body: 「『若來』，是成道而來；『若去』，是入滅而去；『若坐』，是說法利益之時；『若臥』，是示現滅相」— “coming” is coming to accomplish the path; “going” is going by entering cessation; “sitting” is the time of teaching the Dharma and benefiting; “lying down” is manifesting the mark of extinction. These various movements and stillnesses — accomplishing the path, entering cessation, teaching the Dharma, proclaiming extinction — are all the affairs of the transformation-body, vividly visible, and so it looks as though “the Tathāgata has coming and going.” But this is only the responsive manifestation of the transformation-body; the Dharma-body itself has none of these deportments. Asaṅga assigns this division to “deportment in motion and rest” within the Buddha-ground’s “purity of conduct and dwelling,” and says it plainly: the transformation-body has the deportment of motion and rest, the Dharma-body has none — motion is coming and going, rest is sitting and lying; the Dharma-body has no deportment, and so it is said to have no coming and no going. The very title of this division, “deportment serene and still,” means just this — the transformation-body has deportment, the Dharma-body is silently without deportment.

Reading This Sentence Through the Three Natures: The Other-Dependent Manifests Coming and Going, the Wholly-Imagined Grasps It as Real Motion, the Truly-Perfected Is Suchness Itself

The eye of this division is an “is-not”-style reversal: 「（言）如來來去坐臥——無所從來、亦無所去——故名如來」— [one speaks of] the Tathāgata coming, going, sitting, lying down — yet there is no coming from anywhere and no going anywhere — therefore it is called the Tathāgata. Read through the three natures, this reflects exactly that layer of the emptiness of dharmas (法我, the self-in-dharmas):

• The Tathāgata’s marks of coming, going, sitting, lying = the other-dependent (依他起): the transformation-body’s deportment, manifested in response to capacities, is a dependently-arisen mark of motion arising in dependence on conditions (the resonance with beings’ capacities), coming and going through the six destinies, benefiting beings, vividly visible, and so seeming to have going and coming.
• No coming from anywhere, no going anywhere = dispelling the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): upon this responsive manifestation of the transformation-body, beings add a layer of clinging — supposing the Dharma-body really has a real “coming and going” of motion. This layer of clinging is inherently without essence. Kuiji says 「法身無有威儀，故云無去來」— the Dharma-body has no deportment, hence it is said to have no going or coming; Vasubandhu says 「彼法身諸佛不去不來」— that Dharma-body of the buddhas neither goes nor comes. So “no coming from anywhere, no going anywhere” dispels the wrong clinging that “the Dharma-body really has coming and going,” not that there is no responsive manifestation of the transformation-body. To mistake the transformation-body’s coming and going for the Dharma-body’s real motion is precisely the wholly-imagined — taking the reflection manifested by mind’s grasping as a thing really existent outside the mind.
• Therefore it is called the Tathāgata = establishing the perfectly-accomplished, preserving the provisional name: with that layer of wrong clinging exhausted, what is disclosed is the true nature of dharmas. What is the “Tathāgata”? Xuanzang’s translation breaks it open directly: the Tathāgata is another name for the true and real, for suchness (真如). This is the same statement as the pivotal Division 17’s 「如來者，即諸法如義」— the Tathāgata is the suchness-meaning of all dharmas — the Tathāgata is suchness, is the nature of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實性). Suchness abides ever thus, unchanging and undeviating (Vasubandhu: 「常如是住者，不變不異故」— abiding ever thus, because unchanging and undeviating); being unchanging and undeviating, how could it have a real motion of one going and one coming? So it is said to have no coming and no going; and yet, without intrinsic nature, it can vividly be named “Tathāgata.”

This Is the Fine Clinging of §17’s Latter Half: What Is Emptied Is the “Tathāgata · Dharma-Body” Itself

To see this division’s weight within the whole sūtra, one must return to the pivotal Division 17. From that division, the Diamond Sūtra’s blade of “is-not” turns from breaking the “mark of self” to breaking the “mark of dharmas,” from dispelling the clinging to a self in persons and the afflictive hindrance to dispelling the clinging to a self in dharmas and the cognitive hindrance — the ancient masters judge it “the second round, severing the cognitive hindrance.” This division is one concrete place to take hold of that turn. The earlier half’s (Divisions 1 to 16) “is-not” is applied mostly upon outer objects like “marks, beings, merit,” dispelling the clinging to a self in persons; but this division’s “no coming from anywhere, no going anywhere” is applied upon the “Tathāgata · Dharma-body” itself — this is the finer layer of clinging to a self in dharmas (法執): grasping that “the Tathāgata really has the deportment of coming and going.” Division 17’s “the Tathāgata is the suchness-meaning of all dharmas” already opened the gate of “the Tathāgata is suchness”; this Division 29 goes a step further to break the clinging that “the Tathāgata (suchness) really has coming and going”: since the Tathāgata just is suchness, and suchness abides ever unmoving, without location and without change, how could it have a real motion of one going and one coming? Both of Vasubandhu’s Chinese-translated verses state this layer through: 「去來化身佛，如來常不動」「去來等是化，正覺常不動」— the going-and-coming is the transformation-body Buddha; the Tathāgata is ever unmoving · going and coming and the rest are transformation; the Fully Awakened One is ever unmoving. Going and coming are tied to the transformation-body (the other-dependent, responsive manifestation); ever-unmoving is tied to the Dharma-body, the Fully Awakened One (the perfectly-accomplished, suchness). This division’s breaking of “the Tathāgata really has going and coming” is precisely one landing of §17’s latter half — “the emptiness of dharmas · breaking the four views · the cognitive hindrance.”

The Reflection in the Moon: A Mirror of No Object Outside Consciousness

The text says only “no coming from anywhere, no going anywhere,” and Kuiji supplies a most apt simile: just as the moon in the sky, its reflection appearing in water — when the water is clear, the reflection appears; when the water is muddy, the reflection hides — yet the moon itself has neither come nor gone; it is the water that makes the reflection arise and cease. The Dharma-body is inherently limpid and unmoving; it is the minds of beings that make it appear to come and go. The moon-substance’s having no coming or going figures the Dharma-body limpid and unmoving; the water’s clearness or muddiness figures beings’ minds turning toward or away; the reflection’s appearing or hiding figures the transformation-body’s being seen to come and go.

Read with the Yogācāra eye, this simile goes a layer deeper: the reflection in the water is not the moon really come into the water; that “coming” is only the reflection manifested on the water’s side. Likewise, the Tathāgata’s “coming and going” is not the Dharma-body really having a mark of motion arriving from outside, but the transformation-body mark manifested by the water of beings’ minds. This is precisely the Yogācāra teaching of no object outside consciousness (唯識無境), the mark manifested by consciousness — the object grasped (the mark of coming and going) is not really existent apart from mind, but is manifested by the transforming of consciousness. So Kuiji turns out two further paradoxical phrases: the Dharma-body inherently has no coming, but because beings turn toward the Buddha they see it as coming — this is called “the coming that is no-coming” (不來來); the Dharma-body inherently has no going, but because beings tire of the Buddha they see, within the no-going, a going — this is called “the going that is no-going” (不去去). No real coming yet manifested as coming, no real going yet manifested as going — coming and going are alike tied to the summoning of beings’ minds, not the real motion of the Dharma-body.

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 three bodies and suchness flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the three bodies, suchness, and no object outside consciousness have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises (the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, the Cheng weishi lun); the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same purport — “the Tathāgata has no coming or going yet manifests going and coming” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (no coming from anywhere, no going anywhere · therefore called the Tathāgata) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the three bodies · the Dharma-body ever-abiding · the transformation-body responsively manifesting · suchness unchanging · no object outside consciousness); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly. The Thirty Verses speak of the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實) and of the transformation of the basis (轉依); this division’s “the Dharma-body ever-unmoving · the transformation-body manifesting going and coming” is the correspondence to the positions of the three bodies (the body of intrinsic nature has no going and coming, the transformation-body responsively manifests going and coming). The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha speaks of the three bodies and of “not abiding in birth-and-death or nirvāṇa”; this division’s “the transformation-body comes and goes through the six destinies benefiting beings · the Dharma-body ever-abiding without coming and going” is its correspondence. The Twenty Verses make clear that there is no object outside consciousness, mind being like the moon manifested in water; “the moon-substance inherently has no coming or going; it is the water that makes it arise and cease” is the correspondence to “the marks of coming and going are not really existent apart from mind, but manifested by the water of mind.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga discerns suchness as unchanging; this division’s “the Tathāgata is suchness · abiding ever thus · unchanging and undeviating” seals with it. And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「不生不滅、不垢不淨、不增不減」— neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure, neither increasing nor decreasing — is the same principle of suchness’s constant mark, without change, as “no coming from anywhere, no going anywhere · abiding ever thus, unchanging and undeviating.” To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「如來無所從來、亦無所去」— the Tathāgata comes from nowhere and goes nowhere — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “the body of intrinsic nature ever-abiding · the transformation-body manifesting going and coming · suchness unchanging · the non-abiding nirvāṇa” are one and the same matter 〔this convergence is set out in Shi Huijing’s From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond (S5-P10)〕.

---

Shi Huijing · Zhiyue · jingang · Division 29 · Deportment Serene and Still · exposition · Spring 2026

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

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

Bringing the three natures (遍計所執 the wholly-imagined · 依他起 the other-dependent · 圓成實 the perfectly-accomplished), the conditioned as illusion, the eight consciousnesses and the seeds of the storehouse-consciousness (賴耶, ālaya-vijñāna), transformation-body and Dharma-body, and the non-abiding nirvāṇa, to reflect the sūtra’s closing “not grasping at marks, suchly unmoving” and “all conditioned dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow.” The mirror is not the sūtra: Yogācāra is not the source of the Diamond Sūtra but one mirror for reading it.

The Sūtra’s Close: The Contemplation of the Emptiness of Dharmas Reaches All the Conditioned

This is the last division of the Diamond Sūtra. The Buddha first makes a measuring of merit: to give in charity the seven treasures enough to fill measureless worlds does not match the merit of upholding this sūtra and expounding for others even its four-line verse. The earlier half’s (Divisions 1 to 16) measuring spoke emptiness mostly upon those outer objects, “marks, beings, merit,” dispelling the one clinging to “self” — in Yogācāra called the clinging to a self in persons (人我執), obstructed by the afflictive hindrance (煩惱障). By the latter half (Divisions 17 to 32) the blade turns deeper: Division 17 discloses “penetrating the no-self of persons and of dharmas,” pushing emptiness onto “dharmas”; Division 22 says “there is no slight dharma that can be attained”; and by this division, with the six similes, it comes to rest in “all conditioned dharmas are like an illusion” — the object of emptiness has now reached all dharmas of conditioned fabrication. What this latter half breaks is the clinging that takes the dharmas manifested by mind as really existent outside the mind — in Yogācāra called the clinging to a self in dharmas (法我執), obstructed by the cognitive hindrance (所知障). Kuiji, following Vasubandhu, judges the latter half precisely as “the second round, for severing the hindrance — the hindrance being the cognitive” — the first round purifies the afflictive hindrance, this round severs-by-transformation the cognitive hindrance. This division’s closing with “the conditioned is like an illusion” is the terminus of this road of breaking the clinging-to-dharmas.

Not Grasping at Marks, Suchly Unmoving: The Transformation-Body Teaches, Manifesting Dependently, Not Grasping a Sayable Substance

The Buddha asks: how does one count as “expounding for others”? The answer: 「不取於相，如如不動」— not grasping at marks, suchly unmoving. This statement reflects exactly the three natures.

First, the transformation-body. The Buddha has Dharma-body, reward-body, transformation-body; the one that expounds the Dharma in the world in response to capacities is the transformation-body (化身) — the Buddha-body manifested in dependence on the capacities of beings (arising in dependence on conditions, not an independently self-existent entity). This matter of the transformation-body teaching is dependent-arising (依他起): manifesting in dependence on conditions, vividly possessing its mark of teaching, so that one may say “expounding for others.” Vasubandhu points it through: when the transformation-body buddhas teach the Dharma, 「不言我是化身」— they do not say “I am the transformation-body” — they do not proclaim “I am the manifested Buddha,” and precisely because they do not so proclaim, what they teach is right teaching (Vasubandhu: 「以不如是說，是故彼說正」— because they do not speak thus, therefore their speaking is right). Asaṅga too says: the transformation-body expounds, 「不演說彼法有可說體」— not expounding that those dharmas have a sayable substance — not speaking the Dharma as a thing with a real sayable substance, and only thus is it not the inverted, defiled teaching.

So the phrase “not grasping at marks” dispels that layer of the wholly-imagined (遍計所執) — grasping the teaching as “there being a real sayable dharma-substance, a real self that teaches.” This layer of wrong reckoning is inherently without essence. And “suchly unmoving” — the ancient masters parse the two characters “如如” each with its own reference: the first “如” is a simile, the second “如” is suchness (Kuiji: 「下一『如』字是真如，上一『如』字是比喻」— the lower “如” is suchness, the upper “如” is a simile; Jizang: 「下『如』字則是如法性之如」— the lower “如” is the “suchness” of dharma-nature) — meaning: when the transformation-body teaches, the mind is, like suchness, limpid and unmoving, not grasping the marks of the conditioned. Zhiyi reads it from calm-and-insight: 「上如是智，下如是境，心境符合故得不動」— the upper “如” is wisdom, the lower “如” is object; mind and object according, hence unmoving — the illuminating wisdom and the illuminated object accord, hence unmoving.

Taken together: the transformation-body manifests dependently and teaches (the other-dependent, “is called expounding”), grasps no real sayable substance and does not proclaim itself a transformation (dispelling the wholly-imagined), the mind like suchness not grasping marks (the perfectly-accomplished’s unmoving). Kumārajīva’s “not grasping at marks, suchly unmoving” is, in the variant translations, “how does one expound for others yet not be called expounding — this is called expounding,” teaching yet not grasping a real sayable substance, which is just another way of saying this phrase (Vasubandhu’s treatise glosses it directly as the “is-not” phrase). The Nengduan versions’ three-phrase “is-not” pattern and Kumārajīva’s “not grasping at marks” point to one and the same matter.

All Conditioned Dharmas Are Like a Dream, an Illusion, a Bubble, a Shadow: The Conditioned Is Like an Illusion, the Other-Dependent Without Intrinsic Nature

There follows the whole sūtra’s most famous six-simile verse: 「一切有為法，如夢、幻、泡、影，如露亦如電，應作如是觀」— all conditioned dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow, like dew and also like lightning; one should contemplate them thus. This verse too is a complete three-natures pattern.

• “All conditioned dharmas” = the other-dependent (依他起): “conditioned dharmas” (有為法) are all dharmas fabricated by the conjoining of causes and conditions (Xuanzang renders it 「諸和合所為」— all that is fabricated by conjoining, pointing out exactly this sense of “fabricated by the conjoining of a manifold of conditions”). The dependently-arisen dharmas arise vividly, and so it says “all conditioned dharmas.”
• “Like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow” = dispelling the wholly-imagined (遍計所執): conditioned dharmas have no real intrinsic nature, like a dream, like an illusion, like a water-bubble, like a shadow — they are not the kind of “really existent dharma” the ordinary grasp. What is dispelled is the layer of wrong reckoning that “conditioned dharmas are really existent”; and this layer belongs to the self-in-dharmas (法我) grasped by the cognitive hindrance (所知障), not the “self-in-persons” broken by the earlier half. Vasubandhu says 「觀有為法亦復如是，以顛倒見故」— contemplating conditioned dharmas is likewise [an illusion], because of inverted seeing — to see the conditioned as real is inverted seeing; to contemplate it as illusion is to dispel this inversion.
• “One should contemplate them thus” = establishing the perfectly-accomplished (圓成實): “contemplating thus” is not contemplating into a sheer nothing, but contemplating as it really is with right wisdom. Vasubandhu says that by contemplating the nine kinds of conditioned objects with these nine kinds of right wisdom, one can 「於有為法中，得無垢自在」— within conditioned dharmas, attain stainless mastery — where wrong clinging is exhausted and the defiled is turned into the pure, the perfectly-accomplished (the transformation of the basis, stainless mastery) stands up.

So the “like an illusion” of the six similes is not teaching one to look at the world as void nothingness; Prajñā states the unreality of the conditioned wholesale with the one word “emptiness,” while Yogācāra makes plain, with the three non-natures (三無性), what exactly this “emptiness” empties: the wholly-imagined is “the no-nature of marks” (相無性, its mark is inherently nothing), the other-dependent is “the no-nature of arising” (生無性, it has no self-arisen intrinsic nature, arising only in dependence on others), the perfectly-accomplished is “the no-nature of ultimate meaning” (勝義無性, it is the ultimate apart from all the wholly-imagined). What “like a dream, an illusion” empties is that layer of wholly-imagined real-clinging, not a wiping-away of the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished as well.

The Nine Similes Matched to the Storehouse-Consciousness: The Conditioned Is Like an Illusion, Yet Has the Eight Consciousnesses and the Storehouse-Consciousness as Its Basis

Kumārajīva’s transmitted text gives six similes (dream · illusion · bubble · shadow · dew · lightning), while the treatise-text relied on by Vasubandhu and Asaṅga, and the variant translations of Xuanzang and Paramārtha, all give nine similes (star · cataract-film · lamp · illusion · dew · bubble · dream · lightning · cloud) — so Zhiyi judges directly that “here six are raised, the treatise-text clarifies nine.” Though the number of similes differs, six or nine, what they disclose is the same one meaning, “the conditioned is like an illusion.”

The nine-simile system can especially show the Yogācāra reading of this “like an illusion.” Vasubandhu does not take the nine similes as a casually-arranged set of metaphors, but matches each simile to a kind of conditioned object: star (dimmed by sunlight, present yet not appearing — figuring the perceiving mind-dharmas), cataract-film (the diseased eye seeing false marks like hair-rings — figuring the object-marks taken as objects), lamp (abiding in dependence on craving — figuring consciousness), illusion (the container-world’s various distinctions, no one of them a real entity — figuring the dwelling-place), dew (momentary and soon gone — figuring the body), bubble (born of the conjoining of conditions — figuring the experienced), dream (only recollection — figuring past dharmas), lightning (not abiding for an instant — figuring present dharmas), cloud (figuring future dharmas). And the crucial last simile — “cloud” figuring future dharmas — Vasubandhu refers directly to the storehouse-consciousness (阿賴耶識, ālaya-vijñāna): 「阿賴耶識在種子位，體能攝藏諸種子」— the storehouse-consciousness, at the position of seeds, is in essence able to gather and store all seeds (Bodhiruci translates it 「子時阿黎耶識與一切法為種子根本」— at the seed-time, the storehouse-consciousness is the root of seeds for all dharmas).

This reads the phrase “the conditioned is like an illusion” to its very depth: the conditioned dharmas are like an illusion yet not nothing, because they have a basis — the eight consciousnesses, and especially the storehouse-consciousness (賴耶, ālaya-vijñāna) that holds and maintains all seeds (the root-consciousness from which all dharmas arise, storing their seeds, hence named the “storehouse-consciousness,” 藏識). Being like an illusion, they have no real intrinsic nature (dispelled by the wholly-imagined); and the reason they vividly arise and continue unbroken is precisely that they have the storehouse-consciousness holding the seeds as their basis (formed of the other-dependent). This is exactly the Yogācāra reading of “the other-dependent · manifested by consciousness alone · without intrinsic nature.”

Not Abiding in Nirvāṇa: Not Conditioned, Not Apart from the Conditioned

The nine-simile verse, in Vasubandhu’s treatise, also answers a doubt: if the buddhas ever teach the Dharma for beings, why is it again said that the Tathāgata enters nirvāṇa? Vasubandhu answers 「非有為非離，諸如來涅槃」— neither conditioned nor apart [from the conditioned] is the nirvāṇa of the Tathāgatas. The buddhas’ nirvāṇa is not a conditioned dharma, nor apart from conditioned dharmas. Why? Because after the Buddha attains nirvāṇa, he still teaches the Dharma by the transformation-body, manifesting worldly conduct, for the sake of benefiting beings (Vasubandhu: 「諸佛以不住涅槃、以不住世間」— the buddhas, by not abiding in nirvāṇa, by not abiding in the world).

In Yogācāra terms, this is precisely the non-abiding nirvāṇa (無住涅槃) upon the fruit-position of buddhahood: after the affliction-hindrance and the cognitive hindrance are exhausted and the transformation of the basis is accomplished, one abides neither in birth-and-death nor in nirvāṇa — not abiding in birth-and-death, for the hindrances are severed and one is liberated; not abiding in nirvāṇa, for one still enters the world by the transformation-body, benefiting beings without cease. So “suchly unmoving” (the Dharma-body unmoving) and “expounding for others” (the transformation-body ever teaching) do not obstruct each other: unmoving yet ever teaching, ever teaching yet contemplating the conditioned as illusion, is the two sides of one same matter. Paramārtha’s translation even folds “suchly unmoving, ever rightly teaching” directly into the verse, disclosing exactly this consistency of “unmoving yet ever teaching.”

Circulation: Rejoicing and Faithfully Receiving, Going Forth in Practice

The whole sūtra closes with circulation: when the Buddha had finished teaching the sūtra, the four assemblies of disciples and all the world’s devas, humans, and asuras, hearing what the Buddha taught, all greatly rejoiced and faithfully received and practiced it. The three lineages of ancient masters (Sanlun’s Jizang, Tiantai’s Zhiyi, Yogācāra’s Kuiji) all judge the closing passage as the circulation section (流通分); Kuiji calls it the “section of rejoicing, awakening, and practice” (喜悟修行分) — hearing and rejoicing (rejoicing), believing and receiving (awakening), relying and practicing (practice). A sūtra that has exhausted “non-abiding, is-not, the conditioned like an illusion” does not, at the last, stop in abstruse talk; it comes to rest on the two words “practice it”: upholding it as its “not grasping at marks” teaches, and cultivating it as its “the conditioned is like an illusion” contemplates. Contemplation and practice continuing forth — this is the destination of “contemplate them thus.”

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 storehouse-consciousness, the three natures, and the nine similes matched to objects flows out of the Diamond Sūtra — the teachings of the eight consciousnesses, the storehouse-consciousness, the seeds, and the three natures have their own scriptural source (the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Yogācārabhūmi) and treatises; the Prajñā corpus is another lineage. Rather, it is the very same reality — “the conditioned is like an illusion, not grasping at marks” — that the Diamond Sūtra states in the words of the sūtra (all conditioned dharmas are like a dream, an illusion, a bubble, a shadow · not grasping at marks, suchly unmoving) and Yogācāra states in the words of the treatise (the other-dependent · the nine similes matched to objects · the storehouse-consciousness holding the seeds · the non-abiding nirvāṇa); set side by side, the meaning shows the more clearly.

The Thirty Verses speak of the eight consciousnesses, of the storehouse-consciousness as 「一切種」 (the totality of seeds) and 「異熟」 (ripening), and of 「諸識轉變，分別所分別」 (the consciousnesses transform, the discriminating and the discriminated), corresponding to this division’s “the nine similes matched to objects · the cloud-simile referred to the seed-position of the storehouse-consciousness” — the conditioned is like an illusion yet has the storehouse-consciousness as its basis, that is, the other-dependent, manifested by consciousness alone. The Twenty Verses make clear that objects are like things seen in a dream, with no real outer object, sealing with this division’s “conditioned dharmas are like a dream, like an illusion.” The Madhyānta-vibhāga establishes “false discrimination exists” and clarifies the other-dependent as an illusion-like event, communing with “the conditioned like an illusion, without intrinsic nature.” The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha reads the mark of the other-dependent through similes of illusion and dream, and clarifies the transformation-body (化身) teaching the Dharma, corresponding to this division’s “all conditioned dharmas are like the nine similes” and “the transformation-body expounds yet is undefiled.” The Cheng weishi lun speaks of the other-dependent, the storehouse-consciousness gathering and storing the seeds of all dharmas, and the conditioned dharmas of the four positions all being without intrinsic nature, corresponding to this division’s “the nine similes matched to the storehouse-consciousness at the seed-position gathering and storing all seeds.” And in the Prajñā lineage, the Heart Sūtra’s 「色即是空」「諸法空相，不生不滅」— form is just emptiness · all dharmas are marked with emptiness, neither arising nor ceasing — is the same gate of contemplating the conditioned as without intrinsic nature — the Heart Sūtra speaks in terms of the five aggregates, this division in terms of all the conditioned. To close in a line: what the Diamond Sūtra states in the sūtra’s words as 「一切有為法如幻」— all conditioned dharmas are like an illusion — and what the Cheng weishi lun states in the technical words of “the other-dependent · the storehouse-consciousness gathering and storing the seeds · the conditioned without intrinsic nature” 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 32 · Manifestation Is Not the Real · exposition · Spring 2026