法華玄義釋籤 19.22

19.22

三以八十年佛難，中二：先牒所計，次難。難中又三：初以八十年佛亦說常難，次引《大論》秖是一身而分生法難，三以小況並難。初言「云云」者，涅槃八十既說常，般若八十豈不說？般若八十若不說，涅槃八十安得說？廣並（云云）。次引《大論》又二：先分二身，次二身合。初文者，般若之中既為諸菩薩，當知化主必非生死，若非生死即是常住，若是常住明常灼然。所言「佛有生法二身」者，如《大品》中華積世界普明菩薩欲來此土，彼佛命其問訊釋迦少病少惱等。論問云：何故諸佛問訊而言病惱？論答云：佛有生法二身故，生身有寒熱乃至九惱，法身無病，故問生身不問法身。次「釋論」下明二身合者，教分二身為機劣故，豈以為劣機故暫現無常，即以無常加誣法性令無常耶？三舉小為況者，「均提沙彌」緣出《大論》，如《止觀》第四記。彼小乘言「不滅」者，以無作之業至未來世名為不滅，非常住不滅，且引不滅破彼無常。

Third, within refuting with the eighty-year-old Buddha, there are two [parts]: first, he cites the assertion; next, he refutes it. Within the refutation, there are again three [parts]: first, refuting that the eighty-year-old Buddha also spoke of permanence; second, citing the Da zhidu lun that it is merely one body differentiated into the physical and dharma [bodies] to refute; third, refuting by drawing a parallel to the Hīnayāna. In the first, saying "and so forth": since the eighty-year-old [Buddha] of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] already spoke of permanence, how could the eighty-year-old [Buddha] of the Prajñā not have spoken of it? If the eighty-year-old [Buddha] of the Prajñā did not speak of it, how could the eighty-year-old [Buddha] of the Nirvāṇa have spoken of it? Broadly drawing the parallel (and so forth). Next, citing the Da zhidu lun again has two [parts]: first, distinguishing the two bodies; next, uniting the two bodies. Regarding the first text: since within the Prajñā it was for the sake of the bodhisattvas, one should know that the teaching host definitely was not in saṃsāra; if not in saṃsāra, he is eternally abiding; if he is eternally abiding, the clarification of permanence is crystal clear. As for what is said, "The Buddha has two bodies, physical and dharma": for example, in the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, when Bodhisattva Prabhāvyūha from the Kusumatala world wished to come to this land, that Buddha ordered him to inquire after Śākyamuni regarding having few illnesses, few troubles, and so forth. The treatise asks: why do Buddhas make inquiries by speaking of illness and troubles? The treatise answers: because Buddhas have two bodies, physical and dharma; the physical body has cold, heat, up to the nine troubles, while the dharma body is without illness; therefore, he inquires after the physical body, not the dharma body. Next, from "The treatise of explanation..." downward, clarifying the union of the two bodies: the teaching divides into two bodies for the sake of inferior capacities; could one, merely because of inferior capacities and temporarily manifesting impermanence, impute impermanence to the dharma-nature, making it impermanent? Third, adducing the Hīnayāna as a parallel: the conditions of the novice Cunda arise from the Da zhidu lun, as recorded in the fourth fascicle of the Zhiguan. When that Hīnayāna speaks of "undying/unextinguished," it is because unmanifest karma extends to future lifetimes and is called unextinguished; it is not the eternally abiding unextinguished; he provisionally cites "unextinguished" to refute their impermanence.