金剛般若疏 4.7

4.7

From "Subhūti, what do you think? Can the Buddha [be seen] by means of the complete form body?" onward is the sixth section of the sūtra. Coming from the above up to here, the form body is explained in three places; what is the difference? Answer: The first was to explain that the body of marks and signs is different from the dharmakāya—the body of marks and signs has the three characteristics, whereas the dharmakāya has no three characteristics. The next text was to establish the meaning of the superiority and inferiority of the two causes: since the two results of the two bodies are superior and inferior, the two causes of the two bodies should likewise be superior and inferior; it was introduced to establish the meaning of the comparative evaluation in the sūtra. The present text is introduced to refute views of the identity or difference of the two bodies. The previous two places explained that the two bodies are different; those who pursue words then say that there is a body of marks and signs that is different from the dharmakāya, like the traditional doctrines of the difference between origin and trace, or the difference among the three Buddhas. Therefore, this section of the sūtra refutes views of identity and difference. In the commentary there are two verses; the first half [of the first] says: "The dharmakāya is the ultimate substance; it is not that body of marks and signs." This refutes their view of the identity of the two bodies, clarifying that the body of marks and signs has marks and signs while the dharmakāya has no marks and signs—the two bodies being different, how could they be identical? The first half of the next verse says: "Not separate from the dharmakāya, these two are not non-Buddha." This refutes the view of difference: where apart from marks and signs is there a separate dharmakāya? Thus it says that these two are not non-Buddha. Question: Are the two bodies definitely identical, definitely different, or neither identical nor different? Answer: Dharmas have no fixed characteristics, yet they possess all three propositions. In the past it was explained that the body of marks and signs is subject to arising and ceasing, and the five-part dharmakāya is also subject to arising and ceasing; thus, the two bodies sharing arising and ceasing is the sense of identity. Next, in the preceding two places, this sūtra opened up the difference between the two bodies: the body of marks and signs has arising and ceasing, while the dharmakāya is unconditioned, without arising and ceasing—this is the sense of difference. Now, this one section refutes both identity and difference simultaneously; therefore the Buddha possesses three kinds of skillful means. Question: Why in the past was the skillful means of identity taught, up to now teaching neither identity nor difference? Answer: In the past, in order to refute the eternalist view, it was explained that both of the Buddha's bodies are impermanent, arising and ceasing; hence the two bodies are identical, and people of the Hīnayāna then formed an understanding of identity. Therefore, at the beginning of the sūtra, the difference between the arising and non-arising of the two bodies was opened up, and the assembly then said that in the Hīnayāna the two bodies are identical, while in the Mahāyāna the two bodies are different. Thus now both identity and difference are completely refuted. For those who grasp the meaning, all three accord with the Way and benefit beings; for those who do not comprehend, all are inverted prapañca. Just as it is with refuting views of identity and difference regarding the two bodies, so it is with refuting the dharmakāya having form or lacking form. The commentary says: "This is also neither non-existent nor existent: the dharmakāya transcends marks, so one cannot say it has marks and signs; yet apart from marks and signs there is no separate dharmakāya, so one cannot say the dharmakāya lacks marks and signs." What is meant by "complete form body": only the Buddha alone exhausts the beauty of physical form, and is therefore called "complete"; other persons, up to wheel-turning kings, do not have distinct marks, and are therefore not complete. "The Tathāgata speaks of completion as not completion": this refutes the view of identity, clarifying that the form body is not the dharmakāya—how could they be identical? "Is called completion": this refutes the view of difference—where apart from marks and signs is there a separate dharmakāya? From "Can [the Tathāgata] be seen by means of all the marks?" onward, the meaning is the same as the preceding, differing only in general marks versus specific marks of the body.