金剛般若疏 3.2.4

3.2.4

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.