金剛般若疏 3.2.4

3.2.4

疑者云：若言三相非是佛者，應亦釋迦不得菩提、不為物說法； 而今釋迦樹王下實證得菩提，趣於鹿苑，為物說法。 若爾，則應王宮實生、雙樹實滅，不應言三相非佛。 今正破此疑。 就文為二：一者、佛騰眾疑，以問善吉； 二者、善吉奉對，以破眾疑。 今即是初、佛問意。 云「於意云何」下，汝言佛於樹王下實得菩提耶？ 五十年住世實為說法耶？ 善吉答中大開二別：第一、正破實證實說之疑； 第二、更破異疑。 此即是初。 善吉云：無有實得菩提、無有實說法。 論偈云「應化非真佛，亦非說法者。 」明佛有三種：一者、法身佛，即以正法為身； 二者、報身佛，即是脩因已滿，果起酬因，名為報佛； 三者、化身佛，今言無有實證、無有實說者，釋迦即是化身佛，非是真佛，即是化證化說，非是實證實說。 以此例前，釋迦即是化生化滅，非實生實滅，是故如來身是無為，故云「無有定法名菩提，亦無有定法如來可說」也。 「何以故？ 如來所說法」者，此下第二破無說之疑。 惑者聞上釋迦是化佛，無有實證、無有實說，便謂無有化說、無有化證。 是故今明雖無實證而有化證，雖無實說而有化說，故云「如來所說法」即是化說。 前即破實說之疑，今則破無化說之疑也。 「不可取不可說」者，此句更復破疑。 惑者既聞有於化說，便謂有法可說，佛若有說，聽者便應有取。 以有說故，則言語不斷； 聽者有取故，則心行不滅。 今以言語滅故不可說，以心行滅故不可取。 《大智論》云「波若波羅蜜，實法不顛倒，念相觀已除，言語法亦滅。 」即是此意也。 「非法非非法」者，此句成上不可取、不可說意，諸法實相非有非無，非有故非法、非無故非非法。 既離有離無，云何可說？ 既離有離無，云何可取？ 即此如《淨名》、《仁王》所辨，其說法者無說無示，其聽者無聞無得。 「一切賢聖皆以無為法而有差別」者，所以有此文來者，成上非法非非法、非有非無義也。 以一切賢聖皆體悟無為，無為無有無無，是故當知諸法實相非有非無，豈可取說？ 論文云「佛所以能說實相無為法者，由體悟無為法故耳。 」故無為是說因也。 又一切聖人所證尚不可說，聽者豈可取也？ 此中不獨舉佛，乃至廣引眾聖者，此意欲證一切賢聖同悟此法，當知此法必可信受。 問：何故言一切賢聖無為而有差別？ 答：復為釋疑。 既言同悟無為，則眾聖無異，便無十地階級、四果淺深。 是故今明雖同悟無為，所悟不同，故有三聖為異。 三鳥出網、三獸度河，而昇空有近遠、涉水有淺深，即是其事。 問：三佛乃是地論師說，汝今何故乃用斯義？ 答：作此問者，非是通方之論。 今一師辨無一豪可得，一切皆是義，如《思益》云「一切法正，一切法邪」。 若有所得心，非唯三佛不可得，一佛、二佛悉是戲論。 若以無所得了悟之心，隨緣所說一佛、二佛、三佛、十佛至無量佛，並皆無礙，云何苟存二身，疑於三佛？ 問：何故須立三佛？ 答：義要有三：由有法佛，故有報佛； 由有報佛，故有化佛。 法佛是佛性，要由佛性故，修因滿，成報身。 此二即是自德； 然後化眾生，即是化他德，故有化佛也。

The doubter says: "If one says that the three lakṣaṇas are not the Buddha, then Śākyamuni would also not have attained bodhi and would not expound the Dharma for beings; yet now, beneath the king of trees, Śākyamuni truly realized bodhi, went to Mṛgadāva, and expounded the Dharma for beings. If that is so, then his birth in the royal palace would be real, and his extinction between the twin trees would be real, and one should not say that the three lakṣaṇas are not the Buddha." Now, this doubt is refuted directly. In the text there are two parts: first, the Buddha raises the doubts of the assembly to question Subhūti; second, Subhūti respectfully replies to refute the assembly's doubts. Now this is the first: the Buddha's question. "What do you think?" and so forth: Do you say that the Buddha truly attained bodhi beneath the king of trees? That he dwelt in the world for fifty years and truly expounded the Dharma for [beings]? In Subhūti's reply there are broadly two distinctions: first, he directly refutes the doubt concerning real realization and real exposition; second, he further refutes another doubt. This is the first. Subhūti says: There is no real attainment of bodhi, and there is no real exposition of the Dharma. The verse of the treatise says: "The nirmāṇa is not the true Buddha, nor is it the expounder of the Dharma." This explains that there are three kinds of Buddhas: first, the dharmakāya Buddha, which takes the correct Dharma as its body; second, the saṃbhogakāya Buddha, which is the arising of the fruit in recompense for the cause when the cultivation of causes is complete, hence called the recompense Buddha; third, the nirmāṇakāya Buddha. Now, in saying that there is no real realization and no real exposition, Śākyamuni is precisely the nirmāṇakāya Buddha, not the true Buddha; that is, his realization was a manifested realization and his exposition was a manifested exposition, not a real realization and not a real exposition. By analogy with what preceded, Śākyamuni's birth was an apparition birth and his extinction was an apparition extinction, not a real birth and real extinction. Therefore, the Tathāgata's body is unconditioned. Thus it says: "There is no fixed dharma called bodhi, nor is there any fixed dharma that the Tathāgata can expound." "Why? The Dharma expounded by the Tathāgata..." and so forth: below this is the second, refuting the doubt concerning no exposition. When deluded people hear above that Śākyamuni is a nirmāṇakāya Buddha without real realization and without real exposition, they then claim that there is no manifested exposition and no manifested realization. Therefore it is now clarified that although there is no real realization, there is manifested realization; although there is no real exposition, there is manifested exposition. Thus "the Dharma expounded by the Tathāgata" means the manifested exposition. The preceding refuted the doubt concerning real exposition; this now refutes the doubt concerning the absence of manifested exposition. "Cannot be grasped and cannot be expounded": this phrase further refutes a doubt. When deluded people hear that there is a manifested exposition, they then claim that there is a dharma that can be expounded; if the Buddha has an exposition, then the listener must have a grasping. Because there is an exposition, language is uninterrupted; because the listener has a grasping, mental activities are not extinguished. Now, because language is extinguished, it cannot be expounded; because mental activities are extinguished, it cannot be grasped. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "The prajñāpāramitā is the true dharma, non-perverted; when the contemplation of conceptual marks is eliminated, the dharma of language is also extinguished." This is precisely the meaning. "Is neither dharma nor non-dharma": this phrase establishes the meaning above of being ungraspable and unexpoundable. The dharmatā of all dharmas is neither existent nor non-existent: because it is not existent, it is not a dharma; because it is not non-existent, it is not a non-dharma. Since it is apart from both existence and non-existence, how could it be expounded? Since it is apart from both existence and non-existence, how could it be grasped? This is just as explained in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and the Kāruṇikarājā: the one who expounds the Dharma neither speaks nor demonstrates; the listener neither hears nor attains. "All noble ones and sages are distinguished by the unconditioned dharma": the reason this statement appears is to establish the preceding meaning of neither dharma nor non-dharma, neither existence nor non-existence. Because all noble ones and sages personally realize the unconditioned, and the unconditioned has neither existence nor non-existence, one must therefore know that the dharmatā of all dharmas is neither existent nor non-existent—how could it be grasped or expounded? The treatise says: "The reason why the Buddha can expound the unconditioned dharma of dharmatā is solely because he has personally realized the unconditioned dharma." Therefore, the unconditioned is the cause of exposition. Furthermore, what all the sages have realized cannot even be expounded—how could the listener grasp it? Here, not only is the Buddha mentioned, but the many sages are also broadly cited, because the intent is to verify that all noble ones and sages equally realize this Dharma, so one must know that this Dharma can definitely be accepted in faith. Question: Why does it say that all noble ones and sages are distinguished by the unconditioned? Answer: This is again to resolve a doubt. Since it is said that they equally realize the unconditioned, then the sages would have no difference, and there would be no stages of the ten bhūmis or degrees of depth among the four fruits. Therefore it is now clarified that although they equally realize the unconditioned, what they realize is not the same; thus there are differences among the three classes of sages. The three birds escaping the net and the three beasts crossing the river—where soaring into the sky has near and far, and wading the water has shallow and deep—are precisely instances of this. Question: The three Buddhas are an explanation of the Dilun masters; why do you now use this doctrine? Answer: One who asks this does not have a comprehensive perspective. Now, as one master explains, not a single hair can be apprehended, and all are meanings, just as the Viśeṣacintābrahmaparipṛcchā says: "All dharmas are correct, all dharmas are erroneous." If one has a mind of apprehension, not only are three Buddhas unattainable, but even one Buddha or two Buddhas are entirely prapañca. If, with a mind of realization free from apprehension, one speaks in accordance with conditions of one Buddha, two Buddhas, three Buddhas, ten Buddhas, up to immeasurable Buddhas, all are completely unimpeded. Why rigidly hold to two bodies and doubt three Buddhas? Question: Why must three Buddhas be posited? Answer: Essentially, the meaning has three aspects: because there is the dharma Buddha, there is the recompense Buddha; because there is the recompense Buddha, there is the manifested Buddha. The dharma Buddha is the Buddha-nature; relying necessarily on the Buddha-nature, the cultivation of causes is fulfilled, bringing about the recompense body. These two are personal virtues; then, transforming sentient beings is the virtue of transforming others, so there is the manifested Buddha.