金剛般若疏 4.8

4.8

「於意云何？如來有所說法不」下，此第七章來者，此破法身有說法疑。疑云：若具足色身非法身者，云何言如來有所說法耶？故佛破云：「須菩提！汝勿言如來法身有所說。若言如來法身有所說，則謗法身，法身非色故，法身非說也。」何以故說此一句破法身無說疑？若言法身不說、相好身說，此亦不然。上明不可離相好身別有法身，便謂法身無相好，亦不可離相好身說別有法身說，而謂法身無說。問：何以知經文如此？答：論偈云「如佛法亦然」，故舉佛例法也。「無法可說是名說法」者，此更破疑人聞法身有說，便言有法可說。故今釋云：雖復說法，無法可說，假名說法耳。論次此章後長有信受一章經。問：上信、今信何異？答：上明信，信因果深義；今明信，信上如來雖說無所說也。問：何等人能信此法耶？答：論偈云「非眾生眾生，非聖非不聖。」此人非凡夫眾生，故言非眾生；而是聖體眾生，故言眾生也。非眾生故非聖，是聖體眾生故非不聖也。問：若言凡夫不信不可為凡，聖人能信不須為聖，今說此經竟為何人耶？答：觀此論意，具足顛倒有所得凡夫不能了，此是習無所得觀眾生則能信。此眾生望有所得人，故非眾生；未具足了悟，故非不眾生也。

From "What do you think? Does the Tathāgata have any Dharma taught?" onward, this seventh section comes to refute the doubt that the dharmakāya preaches the Dharma. The doubt runs: If the complete form body is not the dharmakāya, why is it said that the Tathāgata has taught a Dharma? Therefore the Buddha refutes it, saying: "Subhūti, you must not say that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya has something taught. If one says that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya has something taught, one slanders the dharmakāya; because the dharmakāya is not form, the dharmakāya is not preaching." Why is this single line spoken to refute the doubt that the dharmakāya has no preaching? If one says that the dharmakāya does not preach and the body of marks and signs preaches, this is also not so. Above, it was clarified that one cannot say that apart from the body of marks and signs there is a separate dharmakāya, and thereby claim the dharmakāya lacks marks and signs; likewise, one cannot say that apart from the preaching of the body of marks and signs there is a separate dharmakāya preaching, and thereby claim the dharmakāya lacks preaching. Question: How is it known that the sūtra text is like this? Answer: The verse in the commentary says, "As with the Buddha, so it is with the Dharma"; thus the Buddha is cited as an analogy for the Dharma. "There being no Dharma that can be taught is called preaching the Dharma": this further refutes the doubt of people who, hearing that the dharmakāya has preaching, then say there is a Dharma that can be taught. Therefore it is now explained: although preaching the Dharma, there is no Dharma that can be taught; it is merely conventionally called preaching the Dharma. Following this section, the commentary has a long section of the sūtra on faithful acceptance. Question: What is the difference between the previous faith and the present faith? Answer: The previous explanation of faith was faith in the profound meaning of cause and effect; the present explanation of faith is faith that above, although the Tathāgata preaches, nothing is preached. Question: What kind of person is able to have faith in this Dharma? Answer: The verse in the commentary says: "Neither sentient beings nor non-sentient beings, neither noble nor non-noble." This person is not an ordinary sentient being, and is therefore said to be "not a sentient being"; yet they are a sentient being of the noble substance, and are therefore called a "sentient being." Because they are not an [ordinary] sentient being, they are not [yet fully] noble; because they are a sentient being of the noble substance, they are not non-noble. Question: If ordinary beings do not believe, they cannot be spoken to as ordinary beings; if noble beings can believe, they need not be spoken to as noble beings. For whom ultimately is this sūtra now taught? Answer: Looking at the meaning of this commentary, ordinary beings who are fully inverted and possess apprehension cannot comprehend it; it is sentient beings who practice the contemplation of non-apprehension who can have faith. These sentient beings, compared to persons with apprehension, are therefore not [ordinary] sentient beings; yet not having fully and completely awakened, they are therefore not non-sentient beings.