法華文句記 9.137

9.137

初睿師敘意者，舉分身以釋壽量，而以理況事，並舉不足以釋足意，明壽而非壽方名為壽，身而不身乃可為身，並由得理能現身壽，故云「然則」等也。所以初句壽得理故方非長而長，次句身得理故乃異而無異，壽既數而非數，身亦分無所分，以理性非量故不可以數求，法身非形故無得以身取，分身既以法身為身，壽量亦以常壽作壽，故便引普賢多寶而為興類。普賢居菩薩極位，尚名為賢，可表伽耶成亦非成，多寶滅度甚久而出證經，預表雙林滅亦非滅，今謂以非壽釋壽，理實如然。但似不答所問，彌勒問踊出菩薩從誰發心等，意疑伽耶成來未久，如何所化身相難思，本既不疑長壽，何須以非長而長為答？但先以長為答顯所化多，長壽之由其唯法報，是故今以三身釋之。《法華論》意亦復如是。

First, as for Master Rui's explanation of the intent: he brought forward the divided bodies to interpret the life span, using principle to illustrate phenomena; he simultaneously brought forward insufficiency to explain the idea of sufficiency, explaining that life span that is not life span is truly named life span, and that a body that is not a body can truly be a body. It is entirely because of attaining principle that one is able to manifest body and life span; hence he says 'Thus then,' and so forth. Therefore, because in the first line life span attains principle, it is then 'not long yet long'; because in the second line the body attains principle, it is 'different yet without difference.' Since life span is numbered yet not numbered, and the body is divided yet has nothing divided, because the nature of principle is immeasurable, it cannot be sought through numbers; because the dharmakāya is without form, it cannot be grasped through a body. Since the divided bodies take the dharmakāya as their body, the life span also takes the eternal life span as its life span; hence he proceeds to cite Samantabhadra and Prabhūtaratna as analogous parallels. Samantabhadra occupies the ultimate stage of a bodhisattva, yet is still named 'bhadra' (worthy), which can represent that attaining [enlightenment] at Gayā is also not attaining it; Prabhūtaratna has long entered extinction, yet appears to verify the sūtra, presaging that extinction in the Twin Trees is also not extinction. Now I say: interpreting life span in terms of non-life span—in principle it is indeed so. However, it seems not to answer what was asked. Maitreya asked from whom the bodhisattvas welling forth from the earth first brought forth their resolve, his underlying doubt being that since enlightenment was attained at Gayā not long ago, how could the bodily forms of those converted be so difficult to conceive? Since fundamentally he was not doubting a long life span, why was it necessary to answer with 'not long yet long'? It was only necessary first to answer with longevity to reveal the vastness of those converted; the source of this long life span is solely the dharma[kāya] and the reward [body], which is why it is now interpreted through the three bodies. The intent of the Upadeśa on the Lotus Sūtra is also likewise.