---
title: "Diamond Prajñā: The \"Jífēi\" Tripartite Formula as Trisvabhāva Mapping"
author: "釋慧鏡 (Shi Huijing)"
series_short: "S5"
paper_id: "S5-P01"
paper_number: 1
date: "2026-03"
version: "1.0"
license: "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0"
---
# Diamond Prajñā: The "Jífēi" Tripartite Formula as Trisvabhāva Mapping

**The Diamond Sūtra's "Is Not X, Is Called X" as a Compressed Expression of the Three Natures**

*金剛般若——即非三段式映射唯識三性*

## Abstract

The Diamond Sūtra's pervasive formula — "The Buddha speaks of X; it is not X; it is called X" — has long been read as a rhetorical device expressing prajñā emptiness. This paper proposes that its tripartite structure can be illuminated through the Yogācāra framework of trisvabhāva (three natures). Kuiji (窺基, 632–682), in his *Commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (T1700), already offered an explicit mapping: "speaks of" reveals parikalpita (the imagined), "is not" reveals paratantra (the dependent), and "is called" reveals pariniṣpanna (the consummated). Building on this rediscovery, the present study proposes a complementary alternative mapping — "X" as paratantra (dependently arisen designation), "is not X" as negation of parikalpita (reified existence), and "is called X" as re-establishment within pariniṣpanna (the consummated). The two mappings illuminate the same structure from the listener's perspective and the object's perspective respectively, like two sides of a single mirror. Through textual analysis of Asaṅga's *Treatise on the Ability to Sever the Diamond Prajñā* (T1510b) and Vasubandhu's *Treatise on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (T1511/T1512), this paper traces the interpretive lineage from the Buddha's structural design to its systematic Yogācāra elaboration. The cross-disciplinary section draws on Wittgenstein's ladder metaphor, Austin's speech act theory, and Derrida's *sous rature* as heuristic parallels. The Middle Way Correction section specifically notes: the trisvabhāva mapping is an interpretive tool, not — and must never become — a cage that domesticates the Diamond Sūtra.

**摘要**

金剛經貫穿全經的「佛說 X，即非 X，是名 X」公式，長期被視為般若空性的修辭表達。本文提出：此三段結構可以透過唯識三性（trisvabhāva）框架加以照見。窺基大師於《金剛般若波羅蜜經讚述》（T1700）中已做出明確映射：「說」顯遍計所執性，「即非」顯依他起性，「是名」顯圓成實性。本文在重新發現窺基映射的基礎上，提出一個替代性的互補映射——「X」指依他起性的緣起施設，「即非 X」否定遍計所執性的實有化，「是名 X」在圓成實性中重新安立名言——並論證兩種映射分別從聽者角度與對象角度照見同一結構，如鏡子的正反兩面。透過無著《能斷金剛般若論》（T1510b）與世親《金剛般若波羅蜜經論》（T1511/T1512）的文本分析，本文進一步追溯從佛陀的結構設計到唯識論師系統化詮釋的進程鏈。中道校正部分特別標記：三性映射是詮釋工具，不是也不應成為馴化金剛經的牢籠。

**Keywords:** Diamond Sūtra, jífēi tripartite formula, trisvabhāva, parikalpita, paratantra, pariniṣpanna, Kuiji, Asaṅga, Vasubandhu, prajñā emptiness | 金剛經、即非三段式、唯識三性、遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性、窺基、無著、世親、般若空性

---

## I. Introduction

### 1.0 Opening: Three Layers of "Vajra" — The Title as Teaching

Vajra (金剛) is traditionally rendered as "diamond" — the hardest substance in the world. The standard reading follows naturally: prajñā is like vajra, indestructible, capable of cutting through all afflictions and attachments.

This reading carries an implicit assumption: vajra is a weapon. Prajñā is a blade; afflictions are what gets cut.

But if prajñā is the wisdom of emptiness, and emptiness means the absence of intrinsic nature — then prajñā itself cannot be a "hard substance." How can a blade made of emptiness be "the hardest thing in the world"?

This paper proposes that "vajra" contains at least three layers of meaning, each progressively deeper, and each foreshadowing the Diamond Sūtra's core teaching.

#### Layer One: Nowhere to Strike (Emptiness)

The point of vajra is not "nothing can withstand it" — not that it is harder than everything else and can destroy all things. The point is: there is nothing there for you to destroy.

Indestructible — not because it can withstand your attack, but because there is no target. Whatever weapon you bring is useless — not because vajra is stronger than your weapon, but because it is not there to be struck. Vajra can be the hardest thing and the softest thing simultaneously — it is not fixed by any characteristic (lakṣaṇa).

Prajñā is not a sharp blade. Prajñā is: nowhere to cut.

This foreshadows the core mechanism of the jífēi formula: "is not X" does not destroy X with a greater force. It illuminates that X was never the solid entity you took it to be. Nothing gets destroyed — because there was never a solid entity there in the first place.

#### Layer Two: Clear as Crystal (Illumination)

Vajra is not merely empty — it is transparent.

Like a crystal sphere: its substance is forever neutral and clear, yet it faithfully presents whatever lies behind it. Red behind it, it shows red; blue behind it, it shows blue. The crystal itself never changes, yet wholesome and unwholesome karma, all causes and conditions, are truthfully manifested through it.

The Buddha uses precisely this image in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra. The most complete expression appears in the section on the Three Gradual Stages in fascicle eight:

> "Like lapis lazuli with a bright moon suspended within — body and mind at ease, wondrously complete and equal, attaining great peace. All the Tathāgatas' secret, complete, pure, and wondrous [dharmas] are all manifested within. This person then attains the patience of the unborn (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti)."[^1]

[^1]: *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* (大佛頂首楞嚴經), fascicle 8, trans. Pramiti (般剌蜜帝), T19, No. 945.

The transparent substance is emptiness; the bright moon illuminating is insight; all the Tathāgatas' wondrous dharmas manifested within is indestructibility — in a single metaphor, all three layers of vajra are simultaneously present. Across the entire sūtra, thirteen lapis lazuli metaphors span the stages of practice: from Sundarananda's "body and mind inwardly bright, penetrating the world, entirely becoming empty purity, like lapis lazuli" in fascicle five, to the exhaustion of the consciousness-aggregate in fascicle ten — "the ten directions of the world together with body and mind like vaiḍūrya, luminously transparent inside and out" — to the consummation of bodhi: "like pure lapis lazuli containing a jewel moon."[^2] The lapis lazuli never changes; what changes is the depth to which the practitioner can see.

[^2]: The three passages above appear in fascicles 5, 10, and 10 respectively of the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra*, T19, No. 945.

The second layer of diamond prajñā lies precisely here: prajñā is not merely "empty" — prajñā simultaneously illuminates. It neither adds nor subtracts, neither judges good nor evil, neither selects nor filters; it simply manifests things as they are. This is why the Diamond Sūtra functions as a mirror (see S5-P02): the mirror's substance is transparent and neutral, but when you stand before it, everything about you is truthfully revealed.

This layer directly bridges to the S6 Śūraṅgama series — the "illumination" (照) of the Śūraṅgama is the crystal sphere function of diamond prajñā deployed as a diagnostic tool for practice.

#### Layer Three: Neither Born nor Destroyed (Vajra Indestructibility)

Vajra appears as soft and transparent as crystal — yet it is the hardest substance.

But this "hardness" is not hardness in the material sense. Vajra is indestructible because it is neither born nor destroyed — it was never brought into existence, so it cannot possibly be annihilated. You cannot destroy something that was never born.

The Avataṃsaka Sūtra already articulates this: the essence of vajra is not "can cut everything" but rather "its nature suffers no diminishment."[^3] Not sharpness, but thusness.

[^3]: *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* (大方廣佛華嚴經), fascicle 78, trans. Śikṣānanda, T10, No. 279.

This circles back to the dharmakāya thesis of S1-P02: the dharma body transcends the three times, neither arising nor ceasing within time. Diamond prajñā is the functional aspect of the dharmakāya — it is not cultivated, not obtained; it simply is as it has always been. It is indestructible not because it is strong, but because its mode of existence is entirely outside the category of "destructible/indestructible."

#### The Three Layers in Progression

```
Layer 1: Emptiness — Nowhere to strike (no target)         → Jífēi formula
Layer 2: Illumination — Clear as crystal (faithful mirroring) → Kōan mirror
Layer 3: Indestructibility — Neither born nor destroyed       → Dharmakāya
```

The three layers are not parallel but progressive: you first see "emptiness" (Layer 1), then discover that emptiness is not nothingness — it is illuminating (Layer 2), and finally you realize that the illuminating substance itself is neither born nor destroyed — and you must release even the judgment "it is empty" (Layer 3).

The title of the Diamond Sūtra has already foretold the entire teaching of the sūtra. This is consistent with the analytical method applied to the Heart Sūtra's title in S2-P01: the form of a Buddhist sūtra is itself the teaching.[^4]

[^4]: Shi Huijing, "The Heart Sūtra's Title Is Already the Teaching," Pointing at the Moon S2-P01.

### 1.1 The Problem

The Diamond Sūtra is among the most widely circulated texts in East Asian Buddhism, yet it faces a fundamental interpretive impasse:

The Mādhyamaka reading (the mainstream) treats the Diamond Sūtra as a direct expression of prajñā emptiness — the jífēi formula is understood as the linguistic articulation of dependent origination and emptiness of intrinsic nature. This reading has deep scriptural support and represents the dominant path in prajñāpāramitā studies throughout history. Yet another interpretive lineage has long been underestimated: Asaṅga's *Treatise on the Diamond Prajñā* (T1510a/b) and Vasubandhu's *Treatise on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (T1511) already provided a Yogācāra interpretive framework. Kuiji went further in his *Commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (T1700), offering an explicit trisvabhāva mapping.

This paper does not take sides. Instead, it asks a structural question: what does the internal structure of the recurring formula "is not X, is called X" map onto? If prajñā and Yogācāra are different facets of the same teaching — like the "emptiness" and "illumination" of vajra — can the trisvabhāva framework illuminate the operating mechanism of the jífēi formula?

### 1.2 Position of This Paper

This paper serves as the doctrinal foundation for the entire S5 series (The Cut: Diamond Sūtra). The nine subsequent papers — from "All Characteristics Are Illusory" (S5-P03) to "All Conditioned Phenomena Are Like Dreams" (S5-P09) — will all reference the trisvabhāva mapping framework established here.

The companion paper S5-P02 addresses the Diamond Sūtra's kōan structure and pedagogical design; this paper focuses on the doctrinal argument. The relationship between the two mirrors the first and second layers of vajra: emptiness/structure and illumination/mirror.

The scholarly lineage traced here is: the Buddha designed the jífēi formula (T235) → Asaṅga and Vasubandhu analyzed its doctrinal logic from a Yogācāra perspective (T1510b, T1511/T1512) without using trisvabhāva terminology → Kuiji explicitly proposed the trisvabhāva mapping (T1700) → this paper, having rediscovered Kuiji's mapping, proposes a complementary alternative and argues for the mutual illumination of both.

---

## II. Scriptural Foundations

### 2.1 Distribution of "Is Not…Is Called…" in the Diamond Sūtra

In Kumārajīva's translation of the Diamond Sūtra (T235), the "is not…is called…" formula recurs throughout, constituting the most distinctive linguistic feature of the entire text. By form, these instances can be divided into full tripartite formulas ("The Buddha speaks of / the Tathāgata speaks of X; it is not X; it is called X") and abbreviated forms (omitting one or two segments).[^5]

[^5]: All citations below follow the *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (金剛般若波羅蜜經), trans. Kumārajīva, T08, No. 235. Section numbers follow the standard 32-section division.

**Full tripartite instances** include at minimum:

- §10: "The adornment of buddha-lands — it is not adornment; it is called adornment."
- §13: "The Buddha speaks of prajñāpāramitā — it is not prajñāpāramitā; it is called prajñāpāramitā."
- §17: "The Tathāgata speaks of the foremost pāramitā — it is not the foremost pāramitā; it is called the foremost pāramitā."
- §17: "The patience pāramitā — the Tathāgata says it is not the patience pāramitā; it is called the patience pāramitā."
- §20: "Endowed with physical form…it is not endowed with physical form; it is called endowed with physical form."
- §21: "Speaking the dharma — there is no dharma to speak; it is called speaking the dharma."
- §25: "Sentient beings, sentient beings — the Tathāgata says they are not sentient beings; they are called sentient beings."
- §31: "A composite unity — it is not a composite unity; it is called a composite unity."

**Abbreviated forms** (two segments only) include:

- §13: "What is called buddha-dharma is not buddha-dharma." (Omitting "is called.")
- §14: "If one sees that all characteristics are not characteristics, then one sees the Tathāgata." (A variant that skips affirmation and moves directly from negation to establishment.)

In terms of distribution, the formula clusters heavily after §10, reaching peak density in §13 and §17, and draws to a close across §25–§31. Notably, the objects of the formula in the first half (§1–16) tend to be concrete designations — buddha-lands, physical form, dust-motes and worlds — while the second half (§17–32) escalates to the teachings themselves: prajñāpāramitā, the patience pāramitā, and even buddha-dharma as such. This progression is analyzed further in §3.6.

### 2.2 The Trisvabhāva Definition in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra

The canonical basis for the Yogācāra theory of trisvabhāva (three natures) finds its most direct formulation in the Fourth Chapter ("All Dharma Characteristics") of the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*:[^6]

[^6]: All citations below follow the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (解深密經), fascicle 2, trans. Xuanzang, T16, No. 676.

> "What is the parikalpita (imagined) nature? The Buddha said: 'Maitreya, it refers to the nominal designations and imputed differentiations of the intrinsic natures of all dharmas — that is called the parikalpita nature.'"

> "What is the paratantra (dependent) nature? The Buddha said: 'Maitreya, it refers to the dependently arisen intrinsic nature of all dharmas — because this exists, that exists; because this arises, that arises.'"

> "What is the pariniṣpanna (consummated) nature? The Buddha said: 'Maitreya, it refers to the equal suchness of all dharmas, of unchanging nature — the domain of noble wisdom, the sphere of noble wisdom, the object of noble wisdom — which ultimately enables the attainment of purity, enables liberation from all bondage to characteristics and from all afflictive heaviness, and also enables the generation of all meritorious qualities.'"

Each definition points in a distinct direction: parikalpita is the reification that follows upon "nominal designation" — taking names as real; paratantra is "dependently arisen nature" — the principle of conditionality (this existing, that exists); pariniṣpanna is "equal suchness" — the purified domain accessible to noble wisdom, liberating from all bondage to characteristics.

These three definitions provide the doctrinal foundation for the mapping analysis below. Of particular note: the core of parikalpita is reification after "nominal designation" — which is precisely what the Diamond Sūtra's "is not" aims to negate. And the function of pariniṣpanna includes "liberation from all bondage to characteristics" — which corresponds to the cognitive transformation whereby, after "is called," names no longer bind.

### 2.3 Asaṅga's *Treatise on the Ability to Sever the Diamond Prajñā*

Asaṅga's commentary on the Diamond Sūtra is preserved in the *Nengduan jingang bore boluomiduo jing lun* (T1510b, translated by Yijing) and the related commentary (T1513). When analyzing the "is not…is called…" formula, Asaṅga does engage with its dialectical logic, but without directly employing the terminology of parikalpita, paratantra, and pariniṣpanna.

Taking "endowed with marks" (具相) as an example, Asaṅga cites the sūtra — "The Tathāgata speaks of being endowed with marks; it is not being endowed with marks; therefore it is called being endowed with marks" — and provides the verse:

> "Regarding the true dharmakāya, there is no perfection of minor marks; it is also not endowed with marks — one should know it is not of the nature of [physical] body."[^7]

[^7]: *Commentary on the Treatise on the Ability to Sever the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā* (能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經論釋), fascicle 2, T25, No. 1513. This is the commentary on Asaṅga's verses.

The treatise further explains:

> "The nature of the dharmakāya is not like this; for the dharmakāya is not of that intrinsic nature."

Asaṅga's analytical path proceeds thus: the "endowed with marks" that the Tathāgata speaks of (the thirty-two marks of the physical body), viewed from the perspective of the dharmakāya, "is also not endowed with marks" — because the dharmakāya is without marks. Yet because the physical body is not separate from the dharmakāya, it can still be "called endowed with marks." This aligns perfectly with the logic of the jífēi formula: negating reification (not endowed with marks) while preserving conventional designation (therefore called endowed with marks).

Although Asaṅga does not use the trisvabhāva terminology by name, his analysis is substantively operating within trisvabhāva logic — "the dharmakāya is without marks" negates parikalpita; "the physical body is not separate from the dharmakāya" is the illusory existence of paratantra; "therefore called endowed with marks" is nominal re-establishment at the level of pariniṣpanna. The terminology is absent, but the logic is present — this is precisely the transitional link between the Buddha and Kuiji.

### 2.4 Vasubandhu's *Treatise on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*

Vasubandhu's commentary on the Diamond Sūtra (T1511/T1512) employs "severing doubt" (斷疑) as the structural framework for the entire text. Vasubandhu divides the sūtra into multiple segments, each corresponding to a doubt arising in practice, which the Buddha systematically eliminates:[^8]

[^8]: All citations below follow the *Jingang xian lun* (金剛仙論), by Vasubandhu, trans. Bodhiruci, T25, No. 1512.

> "'Subhūti! All the Sumeru kings in the great trichiliocosm' — this is the tenth segment of the doubt-severing section. The trichiliocosm analogy has already appeared four times. Why does it recur without being redundant? Because the phrasing is similar but the meaning differs — therefore it is not redundant. It recurs because there is doubt."

Vasubandhu here identifies a crucial textual phenomenon: the same merit comparison (filling a great trichiliocosm with the seven treasures as an offering) recurs at least four times in the Diamond Sūtra — "the phrasing is similar but the meaning differs." Each repetition is not redundancy but operates in a different context to sever a different layer of attachment — which is itself a manifestation of the jífēi formula at the level of pedagogical design.

Vasubandhu also distinguishes between the nature of dharmakāya bodhi and the sambhogakāya's skillful means:

> "This clarifies the dharmakāya bodhi, the inherently pure nirvāṇa, whose original substance is complete and not something attained through cultivation. The latter passage clarifies the reward-body's skillful nirvāṇa, attained through the cultivation of all wholesome dharmas as conditions, making the dharmakāya functional — this is something attained through cultivation."

The distinction between "original substance complete, not attained through cultivation" and "attained through cultivation of all wholesome dharmas" implicitly contains the structure of pariniṣpanna (the originally complete substance) and paratantra (conditionally cultivated), yet again without using trisvabhāva terminology. Vasubandhu's contribution lies in his precise structural analysis and pedagogical reading, laying the groundwork for Kuiji's explicit trisvabhāva mapping.

### 2.5 Kuiji's *Commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra*

Kuiji (632–682), the foremost systematizer of the Yogācāra school under Xuanzang, produced the most explicit trisvabhāva mapping to date in his *Commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (T1700):[^9]

[^9]: Kuiji, *Jingang bore boluomi jing zanshu* (金剛般若波羅蜜經讚述), T33, No. 1700.

> "The word 'speaks of' reveals parikalpita (the imagined); the phrase 'is not' reveals paratantra-svabhāva (the dependent nature); the phrase 'is called' reveals pariniṣpanna-svabhāva (the consummated nature)."

This mapping is concise and powerful. Kuiji assigns each of the formula's three segments to one of the three natures:

1. **"Speaks of" reveals parikalpita** — When the Buddha "speaks of" a name (such as "the adornment of buddha-lands"), what it points to is a concept already present in the listener's mind. This concept is itself the product of parikalpita: upon hearing "adornment of buddha-lands," the listener's mind immediately generates a reified image of an inherently existing adorned buddha-land.

2. **"Is not" reveals paratantra-svabhāva** — "It is not adornment" negates this reified image, revealing that the adornment of buddha-lands, as a dependently arisen phenomenon, has the paratantra nature: it is not the solid entity the listener took it to be, but exists through the confluence of conditions.

3. **"Is called" reveals pariniṣpanna-svabhāva** — "It is called adornment" re-establishes the name after the negation: you may still use the designation "adornment of buddha-lands," but this usage has now departed from parikalpita, seeing things as they truly are — this is the domain of pariniṣpanna.

Kuiji's mapping represents a milestone in the history of Yogācāra thought. Asaṅga analyzed the dialectical logic of the jífēi formula but did not use trisvabhāva terminology; Vasubandhu built a precise structural analysis but likewise did not produce a trisvabhāva correspondence; Kuiji completed the explicit bridge from the language of prajñā to the vocabulary of Yogācāra.

---

## III. Core Argument

### 3.1 Thesis: The Jífēi Tripartite Formula Maps onto Trisvabhāva ✅

Based on the scriptural foundations above, the core thesis of this paper is: the Diamond Sūtra's tripartite formula "X; is not X; is called X" can be illuminated in its doctrinal mechanics through the Yogācāra trisvabhāva framework.

However, the specific manner of mapping is not singular. Kuiji's mapping in T1700 (§2.5) is one reading; this paper proposes another on that foundation. The two do not contradict each other; they illuminate the same structure from different angles.

### 3.2 Kuiji's Mapping: From the Listener's Perspective

Kuiji's mapping proceeds from the listener's cognitive process:

```
"Speaks of X"   → Parikalpita: listener hears the name, generates a reified image
"Is not X"      → Paratantra:  reified image dispelled, dependent arising revealed
"Is called X"   → Pariniṣpanna: name re-established, seen as it truly is
```

The logic of this mapping is pedagogical: the Buddha first uses a name to bring the listener before a concept (parikalpita), then negates the concept's reified existence to reveal its dependently arisen nature (paratantra), and finally allows the listener to re-employ the original name within a transformed cognition (pariniṣpanna).

The elegance of Kuiji's mapping lies in this: it describes the three cognitive stages the listener traverses upon hearing the jífēi formula. This is a temporal, dynamic process — you first cling, then release, and finally use words within non-clinging. It captures the jífēi formula's function as a pedagogical device.

### 3.3 The Pointing-at-the-Moon Mapping: From the Object's Perspective

The alternative mapping proposed in this paper proceeds from the ontological status of the object (the dharma being spoken of):

```
"X"             → Paratantra:  X as a provisionally designated dependently arisen dharma
"Is not X"      → Negation of parikalpita: X is not the solid entity you took it to be
"Is called X"   → Establishment within pariniṣpanna: nominal designation unobstructed
```

Taking "The adornment of buddha-lands; it is not adornment; it is called adornment" as an example:

1. **"Adornment of buddha-lands" = paratantra** — The adornment of buddha-lands, as a dependently arisen phenomenon, exists through the confluence of conditions. It is not nothing — bodhisattvas are indeed adorning buddha-lands. But neither is it an independently self-existent entity.

2. **"Is not adornment" = negation of parikalpita** — The "adornment" you imagined — a solid, permanent, graspable object — does not exist. What "is not" severs is precisely this parikalpita.

3. **"Is called adornment" = establishment within pariniṣpanna** — After "is not," the name "adornment" does not vanish. You still use the word "adornment," but you no longer cling to it as referring to a real entity. "Is called" means: you know, as things truly are, that this is just a name — and precisely because you know it is just a name, you can truly use it, neither bound by it nor needing to discard it.

The logic of this mapping is ontological: it describes not the listener's psychological process but where the dharma being spoken of stands within the three natures. Paratantra is the starting point (how things actually exist), parikalpita is what must be negated (the mistaken cognition of things), and pariniṣpanna is the result after illumination (seeing things as they are).

### 3.4 The Complementary Relationship Between the Two Mappings

The key difference between Kuiji's mapping and the Pointing-at-the-Moon mapping lies in which of the three natures corresponds to "X" (or "speaks of"):

| Jífēi Formula | Kuiji's Mapping (Listener) | Pointing-at-the-Moon Mapping (Object) |
|----------------|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| "Speaks of X" / X | Parikalpita | Paratantra |
| "Is not X" | Paratantra | Negation of parikalpita |
| "Is called X" | Pariniṣpanna | Pariniṣpanna |

The two mappings agree entirely on the third segment ("is called X" = pariniṣpanna). The divergence appears in the first two segments. But this divergence is not a contradiction — it arises from a difference in the angle of observation.

Kuiji proceeds from the listener's perspective. When the listener hears the Buddha "speak of" X, what is the listener's first cognitive response? It is parikalpita — the listener immediately reifies X. So "speaks of" revealing parikalpita is an accurate description of the listener's cognitive reaction.

The Pointing-at-the-Moon mapping proceeds from the object's perspective. What is the X that the Buddha speaks of, in itself? It is paratantra — a provisionally designated dependently arisen phenomenon. As a dharma being spoken of, its ontological status is paratantra.

The same X, seen from the listener's side, is parikalpita (because the listener immediately clings); seen from the object's side, it is paratantra (because it is a dependently arisen dharma). This precisely confirms a core tenet of trisvabhāva theory: parikalpita is not an independent "thing" — it is a mistaken cognition superimposed upon paratantra. Without paratantra, parikalpita has no locus of occurrence. The same paratantra dharma: the ordinary person sees parikalpita; the sage illuminates pariniṣpanna.

The two mappings are like two sides of a mirror: Kuiji illuminates the listener's cognitive process (pedagogy); Pointing at the Moon illuminates the ontological structure of the dharma spoken of (doctrine). They are not two different theories but the same jífēi formula presenting itself under different angles of observation.

### 3.5 Variant Classification of the Jífēi Formula

The jífēi formula in the Diamond Sūtra is not uniform. By form, instances can be classified into four types:

**Full form**: All three segments present. E.g., "The adornment of buddha-lands; it is not adornment; it is called adornment" (§10); "The Buddha speaks of prajñāpāramitā; it is not prajñāpāramitā; it is called prajñāpāramitā" (§13). The trisvabhāva mapping is clearest in this type.

**Abbreviated Type I**: The "is called" segment is omitted. E.g., "What is called buddha-dharma is not buddha-dharma" (§13). Only negation, no re-establishment. From the trisvabhāva perspective, this leaves the listener suspended in the oscillation of "is not" — you now know it is not what you thought, but the Buddha is in no hurry to tell you what it "is." The pedagogical effect is to compel the listener to see for themselves.

**Abbreviated Type II**: The subject shifts to the Buddha. E.g., "The Tathāgata speaks of the foremost pāramitā; it is not the foremost pāramitā" (§17). This emphasizes the self-referentiality of the teaching — the Buddha is not merely negating the listener's attachment but negating the reified existence of his own teaching. This is the distinctive depth of the Diamond Sūtra's second half: the teaching negates itself.

**Inverted form**: Skipping the affirmation, moving directly from negation to establishment. E.g., "If one sees that all characteristics are not characteristics, then one sees the Tathāgata" (§14). Here the initial affirmation of "X" is omitted, entering directly into the latter two segments: "not X → is [called] X." From a pedagogical design perspective, the inverted form presupposes that the listener has already passed through multiple iterations of the jífēi formula — no need to start from affirmation; one can leap directly from negation to illumination.

The choice of variant is not arbitrary but reflects precise pedagogical design. Full forms introduce concepts; abbreviated forms accelerate training; inverted forms serve as verification — the Diamond Sūtra's sophistication in pedagogy matches its doctrinal depth perfectly.

### 3.6 Functional Differences Between the First and Second Halves

The Diamond Sūtra pivots at §17, where Subhūti re-asks: "If good men and good women give rise to the mind of anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, how should they abide? How should they subdue their minds?" — nearly identical to the question in §2. The Buddha gives a deeper answer, folding the entire sūtra into a double-layered structure.

The objects of the jífēi formula in the first half (§1–16) center on "self"-related attachments: the four marks (self, person, sentient being, life-span), merit, the Buddha's physical body. This corresponds to the kleśāvaraṇa (afflictive obstruction) in the Yogācāra two-obstruction theory — obstructions born from self-grasping. The function of the jífēi formula in the first half is to dismantle the practitioner's various projections of "I": I am adorning buddha-lands, I am making offerings, I can see the Buddha.

The objects in the second half (§17–32) escalate: prajñāpāramitā itself, the patience pāramitā, buddha-dharma itself, the act of teaching dharma, composite unity. This corresponds to the jñeyāvaraṇa (cognitive obstruction) — attachment to dharmas themselves. The jífēi formula in the second half no longer merely severs "my attachment to dharmas" but severs "the reified existence of dharmas themselves." This is a fundamental dimensional upgrade — in the first half you learn not to cling to buddha-lands; in the second half you must learn not to cling to "non-clinging."

Viewed through the trisvabhāva mapping: the first half's jífēi formula works primarily between parikalpita and paratantra — helping listeners see through concrete designations (buddha-lands, physical form) to their paratantra nature, ceasing to superimpose parikalpita upon them. The second half enters the subtler territory between paratantra and pariniṣpanna — even the name "prajñā" cannot be grasped, because if prajñā could be grasped, it would not be prajñā.

This precisely corresponds to the deep structure of the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra*'s trisvabhāva definitions: parikalpita is "nominal designations and imputed differentiations" — the first half severs attachment to "differentiations"; pariniṣpanna is "the domain of noble wisdom" — the second half demands seeing-as-it-is at the level of noble wisdom. The first half is enrollment; the second half is graduation — and "graduation" means: you must release even the concept of "graduation."

---

## IV. Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue

### 4.1 Philosophy of Language: Speech Act Theory and the Ladder Metaphor ⚠️ Heuristic Analogy

Wittgenstein, at the close of the *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*, writes his famous ladder metaphor: the propositions themselves must be transcended — the reader must climb the ladder and then throw it away in order to see the world rightly.[^10] This is strikingly similar to the raft analogy in §6 of the Diamond Sūtra: "You should know that my teaching of the dharma is like the analogy of a raft — even the dharma should be abandoned, how much more so what is not dharma."[^11] Ladder and raft are both tools — use them, then let them go.

[^10]: Wittgenstein, Ludwig. *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*, 6.54. 1921.
[^11]: *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* §6, T08, No. 235.

J. L. Austin's speech act theory provides another angle.[^12] Austin distinguishes constative utterances (describing states of affairs) from performative utterances (enacting what they describe): "I promise" is not describing a promise; it is performing one.

[^12]: Austin, J. L. *How to Do Things with Words*. Oxford University Press, 1962.

"Is not X, is called X" is not describing emptiness — it is performing emptiness. The very utterance of this formula does what it says: it gives you a concept, immediately negates it, then re-establishes it within the negation. After hearing this sentence, the listener's cognitive state has already changed — not because new knowledge was acquired, but because the listener underwent a deconstruction and reconstruction of cognition. The jífēi formula is performative: it does not report emptiness; it enacts it.

### 4.2 Derrida's Différance and *Sous Rature* ⚠️ Heuristic Analogy

Jacques Derrida's concept of *sous rature* (under erasure) shares a structural resemblance with the jífēi formula.[^13] Derrida's method: write a word, then cross it out — but the crossed-out word remains legible. This signals that the word is both inadequate and indispensable: you cannot not use it, but you also cannot not cross it out.

[^13]: Derrida, Jacques. *Of Grammatology*. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

"The Buddha speaks of prajñāpāramitā; it is not prajñāpāramitā; it is called prajñāpāramitā" — the "is not" is erasure at the level of language. The word "prajñāpāramitā" is written and then crossed out, then continues to be used in its crossed-out state. It is simultaneously negated and retained — it does not mean what you thought it meant, yet the word cannot be dispensed with.

However, the resemblance ends here. Derrida's *différance* is a process without terminus — meaning is endlessly deferred, never arriving. The Diamond Sūtra's jífēi formula is different: "is called X" is not endlessly deferred meaning but a faithful re-establishment after illumination. Pariniṣpanna is attainable — "the domain of noble wisdom, the sphere of noble wisdom." This is the fundamental divergence between Buddhism and post-structuralism: Buddhism has realization (pratyātma-adhigama); post-structuralism has only writing.

### 4.3 Negation of Negation ≠ Hegelian Dialectic ⚠️ Heuristic Analogy

On the surface, "X → is not X → is called X" resembles Hegel's thesis–antithesis–synthesis. But the boundaries of this analogy must be strictly marked.

Hegel's synthesis (Aufhebung) is a higher-order integration — the antithesis is sublated, absorbed into a new, richer unity. The process is ascending, cumulative, teleological.

The Diamond Sūtra's "is called X" is not synthesis. It does not produce a higher-order concept. "Is called adornment" is not more complex, richer, or higher than "adornment" — it simply is adornment, except that you no longer superimpose parikalpita upon it. What changes is not the object but your mode of cognition.

In trisvabhāva terms: pariniṣpanna is not a synthesis of parikalpita and paratantra — pariniṣpanna is the faithful seeing that remains when parikalpita is removed from paratantra. It does not produce anything new; it illuminates what was always the case. Hegel's dialectic is an elevator perpetually ascending; the Diamond Sūtra's jífēi formula is a mirror — a mirror does not ascend; it simply reflects.

---

## V. Middle Way Correction

### 5.1 ❌ The Trisvabhāva Mapping Is Not Strict Equivalence

The "jífēi = trisvabhāva" mapping proposed in this paper is a hermeneutical framework, not a claim that the Diamond Sūtra's author (or the Buddha) was employing Yogācāra terminology.

The Diamond Sūtra's composition (ca. 2nd–3rd century) predates the systematization of trisvabhāva theory (4th–5th century). Historical sequence does not invalidate doctrinal analysis — but one must distinguish between "original meaning" (what the text originally meant) and "subsequent interpretation" (what the text can be read as meaning). Kuiji's mapping in T1700 and the mapping in this paper both belong to the latter.

This paper's position: the trisvabhāva framework is an effective tool for illuminating the jífēi formula. "Effective tool" means it can explain the operating mechanism of the formula, not merely label it. But "tool" also means it is not the only tool — the Mādhyamaka two-truth framework can also effectively read the jífēi formula; it simply illuminates from a different angle.

### 5.2 ❌ Do Not Use the Trisvabhāva Framework to Domesticate the Diamond Sūtra

The greatest danger of the trisvabhāva mapping is: taming the Diamond Sūtra's wildness into a neat system.

If, after reading this paper, the reader thinks "Ah, so the jífēi formula is just trisvabhāva — I get it now" — then this paper has failed. Because the thought "I get it" is itself a fresh product of parikalpita: you have turned a living pedagogical structure into a dead specimen of knowledge.

The Diamond Sūtra refuses to be fully captured by any framework — including the Yogācāra framework. The jífēi formula recurs throughout the sūtra, constantly shifting, escalating layer by layer, precisely to prevent you from settling into any single understanding. You think you have understood §10's "it is not adornment"; then §13 gives you "it is not prajñāpāramitā" — even prajñā itself has been "is-not"-ed; your interpretive tool was just severed.

The trisvabhāva mapping offered in this paper is a finger pointing at the moon — it points to the moon, but it is not the moon. If the reader clings to this finger, that violates the very principle of Pointing at the Moon, and violates the Diamond Sūtra's fundamental teaching. The deeper pedagogical effect — the jífēi formula's function as a kōan mirror — is detailed in the companion paper S5-P02.

### 5.3 ❌ Strict Limits on Cross-Disciplinary Analogies

The three Western philosophical concepts introduced in §IV — Wittgenstein's ladder, Austin's speech acts, Derrida's *sous rature* — are all heuristic analogies, not doctrinal equivalences.

Specific limits:

Wittgenstein's ladder metaphor is structurally similar to the raft analogy, but the "transcendence" in the *Tractatus* is silence ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"), while the Diamond Sūtra's "transcendence" is continued speech — "is called X" does not fall silent; it speaks on after the negation.

Austin's performative concept aptly describes the functional dimension of the jífēi formula — it is "doing," not merely "saying" — but speech act theory presupposes the analytical framework of pragmatics, which differs fundamentally from Buddhist theories of consciousness at the epistemological level.

Derrida's *sous rature* is formally closest to the jífēi formula, but as noted in §4.2, *différance* is deferral without end, while pariniṣpanna is an attainable terminus. Reading the Diamond Sūtra as Derrida would erase its soteriology.

The Hegelian analogy is the most strictly limited: thesis–antithesis–synthesis and the jífēi formula share only a surface-level tripartite form. Their philosophical presuppositions — teleological, ascending, synthetic — are incompatible with both Mādhyamaka and Yogācāra teaching. This analogy appears in the paper only as a negative reference point for what the jífēi formula is not, never as a positive explanatory tool.

---

## VI. Conclusion

### 6.1 Core Findings

The central argument of this paper can be summarized in four points.

First, the Diamond Sūtra's "is not X, is called X" is a tripartite formula with a precise doctrinal structure that can be illuminated through the Yogācāra trisvabhāva framework. Kuiji in T1700 already produced an explicit mapping ("speaks of" reveals parikalpita, "is not" reveals paratantra, "is called" reveals pariniṣpanna). This paper proposes a complementary alternative (X = paratantra, "is not" = negation of parikalpita, "is called" = pariniṣpanna). The two illuminate the same structure from the listener's perspective and the object's perspective respectively.

Second, from the Buddha's structural design (T235), through Asaṅga's (T1510b) and Vasubandhu's (T1511/T1512) Yogācāra analyses (operating trisvabhāva logic without using trisvabhāva terminology), to Kuiji's explicit trisvabhāva mapping (T1700), a clear interpretive lineage emerges. This paper does not propose a novelty ex nihilo but adds a link to this existing chain.

Third, the distribution, variant forms, and functional differences of the jífēi formula across the Diamond Sūtra correspond to the Yogācāra two-obstruction theory — the first half (§1–16) dismantles self-grasping (kleśāvaraṇa), the second half (§17–32) dismantles dharma-grasping (jñeyāvaraṇa). The jífēi formula is not a static template but a dynamic pedagogical device whose complexity upgrades in lockstep with the depth of practice.

Fourth, the word "vajra" itself contains three progressive layers of meaning — nowhere to strike (emptiness), clear as crystal (illumination), neither born nor destroyed (indestructibility) — the title is already the teaching, foreshadowing the sūtra's entire structure.

### 6.2 Open Questions

The trisvabhāva mapping framework established in this paper provides the doctrinal foundation for subsequent S5 papers, but the following questions remain to be developed:

The specific unfolding of the jífēi formula across different sūtra objects — from "All characteristics are illusory" (S5-P03) to "All conditioned phenomena are like dreams" (S5-P09): what is distinctive about the trisvabhāva mapping for each object?

A complete analysis of the kōan structure and mirror effect — the jífēi formula is not merely an analyzable doctrinal formula; it is a mirror: the way you read it exposes your depth of understanding of emptiness. This pedagogical dimension is detailed in S5-P02.

The reward paradox of the merit comparisons — the Diamond Sūtra's recurring merit comparisons (seven treasures vs. four-line verse) and their interaction with the jífēi formula: is the reward mechanism itself a large-scale jífēi structure? This will be addressed in S5-P05.

Construction and dimensional upgrade — S3's *Treatise on the Doors of the Hundred Dharmas* establishes a precise classification of one hundred dharmas; S5's Diamond Sūtra tells you they are all paratantra. This is not demolition but dimensional upgrade — the toolkit remains, but you no longer mistake the tools for real entities. The bridge from the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond Sūtra will be completed in S5-P10.

---

## References

### I. Primary Buddhist Sources

- *Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* (金剛般若波羅蜜經), trans. Kumārajīva, T08, No. 235.
- *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* (大方廣佛華嚴經), trans. Śikṣānanda, T10, No. 279.
- *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (解深密經), trans. Xuanzang, T16, No. 676.
- *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* (大佛頂首楞嚴經), trans. Pramiti (般剌蜜帝), T19, No. 945.
- *Nengduan jingang bore boluomiduo jing lun* (能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經論), Asaṅga, trans. Yìjìng, T25, No. 1510b.
- *Jingang bore boluomi jing lun* (金剛般若波羅蜜經論), Vasubandhu, trans. Bodhiruci, T25, No. 1511.
- *Jingang xian lun* (金剛仙論), Vasubandhu, trans. Bodhiruci, T25, No. 1512.
- *Commentary on the Treatise on the Ability to Sever the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā* (能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經論釋), Asaṅga (verses), T25, No. 1513.
- Kuiji, *Jingang bore boluomi jing zanshu* (金剛般若波羅蜜經讚述), T33, No. 1700.

### II. Modern Scholarship

- Austin, J. L. *How to Do Things with Words*. Oxford University Press, 1962.
- Derrida, Jacques. *Of Grammatology*. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig. *Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus*. 1921.

### III. Sūtra & Śāstra Index

| Abbreviation | Full Title | Taishō |
|------|------|--------|
| Diamond Sūtra | Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra | T08, No. 235 |
| Avataṃsaka Sūtra | Buddhāvataṃsaka Mahāvaipulya Sūtra | T10, No. 279 |
| Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra | Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra | T16, No. 676 |
| Śūraṅgama Sūtra | Śūraṅgama Sūtra | T19, No. 945 |
| Asaṅga's Treatise | Nengduan jingang bore boluomiduo jing lun | T25, No. 1510b |
| Vasubandhu's Treatise | Jingang bore boluomi jing lun | T25, No. 1511 |
| Jingang xian lun | Jingang xian lun (Vasubandhu) | T25, No. 1512 |
| Asaṅga's Commentary | Nengduan jingang bore boluomiduo jing lun shi | T25, No. 1513 |
| Kuiji's Commentary | Jingang bore boluomi jing zanshu | T33, No. 1700 |

---

## Cross-Reference Index for the Paper Series

| Paper | Relationship to This Paper |
|-------|---------------------------|
| S2-P01 The Heart Sūtra's Title as Teaching | The "title as teaching" analytical method: S5-P01 §1.0 inherits this approach to decode the three layers of "vajra" |
| S5-P02 The Kōan Mirror — The Pedagogical Dimension of the Jífēi Formula (preview) | The jífēi formula is not merely an analyzable doctrinal formula; it is a mirror: how you read it exposes your depth of understanding of emptiness |
| S5-P03 All Characteristics Are Illusory (preview) | Specific unfolding of the trisvabhāva mapping for the object "characteristics" |
| S5-P05 The Reward Paradox of Merit Comparisons (preview) | The Diamond Sūtra's merit comparisons (seven treasures vs. four-line verse) and their interaction with the jífēi structure |
| S5-P09 All Conditioned Phenomena Are Like Dreams (preview) | Specific unfolding of the trisvabhāva mapping for the object "conditioned phenomena" |
| S5-P10 From the Hundred Dharmas to the Diamond Sūtra (preview) | S3 establishes a precise classification of one hundred dharmas; S5 tells you they are all paratantra — the toolkit undergoes dimensional upgrade |
| S3 Hundred Dharmas Series | The hundred-dharma classification system provides the foundation for this paper's paratantra (conventional designation) analysis |

---

*Pointing at the Moon · S5-P01 · Diamond Prajñā: The Jífēi Tripartite Formula as Trisvabhāva Mapping · Version 1.0 · 2026*
*The true nature of all dharmas — as it has always been.*

---

*All sūtra and śāstra citations in this research have been verified against the CBETA Chinese Electronic Tripiṭaka Collection.*

*This research paper is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.*

*Source repository: https://github.com/pointing-at-the-moon/dharma-research*