法華文句記 9.169

9.169

三明應身，又四：先正釋，次引證，三明應相，四引論同。初文者，先明應由，由智稱境示能說身，說即應也。自報無說故言「以如如境智合」，但云「以如」不云「法如」者，法既屬於境智，用此境智能起應故，以解屬智別對報身，應非無智且以稱機用擬於說，故他受用亦得名報亦得名應，若勝若劣俱名應故。故知大師善用《論》文，妙至於此。次翻名中具三身也。近代翻譯法報不分、三二莫辯，自古經論許有三身，若言毘盧與舍那不別，則法身即是報身；若即是者，一切眾生無不圓滿，若法身有說眾生亦然。若果滿方說，滿從報立。若言不離，三身俱然，何獨法報？生佛無二，豈唯三身？故存三身，法定不說，報通二義應化定說，若其相即俱說俱不說，若但從理非說非不說，事理相對無說即說、即說無說，情通妙契、諍計咸失。「沃焦」者，舊《華嚴經．名號品》中，及《十住婆沙》中所列，大海有石其名曰焦，萬流沃之至石皆竭，所以大海水不增長，眾生流轉猶如焦石，五欲沃之而無厭足，唯佛能度是故云也。前二身名一切常定，故應身名十方各有不可說佛剎微塵名號，故彼品中新經云「釋迦如來亦名毘盧遮那」，舊經云「亦名盧舍那」，舊經意明應身異名，故總彼二經三名具足其體本一。但新經意以毘盧為舍那，舊經直舉他受用報，義復何失？三融通中四：先略示意，次引教，三修性，四引論。初如文，引教中三：先引經，次總結，三問答釋妨。引經中二：先引《大經》者，意明三德秖是三身，三身具如諸文所釋。引《梵網》等三結經者，以義大旨與三經同，而義意撮要，若《華嚴》中十方臺葉互為主伴，此《梵網經》唯一臺葉，故天台戒疏判云，華臺華葉本迹之殊。所以華臺華葉本迹定者，被緣雖別道理恒同，所結既同能結豈別？《像法決疑》意亦同於所結故也。「普賢觀云」，準上可知。結與釋妨，文相可知。

Third, explaining the nirmāṇakāya also has four parts: first, directly explaining; second, citing proof; third, clarifying the characteristics of the response; fourth, citing the treatise as identical. As for the first text, it first explains the reason for the response: because wisdom matches the object, it manifests the body capable of expounding, and expounding is precisely the response. Since the saṃbhogakāya itself has no expounding, it says, "Through the union of the object and wisdom of suchness." As for merely saying "through suchness" and not saying "dharma-suchness," since dharma already belongs to object and wisdom, it is through the function of this object and wisdom that the response can be arisen; attributing understanding to wisdom specifically pairs it with the saṃbhogakāya. The response is not devoid of wisdom, yet because it matches the capacities of beings, its function is designated for expounding. Thus the other-enjoyment body may be termed saṃbhoga and may also be termed response, because whether superior or inferior, both are termed response. Hence we know the Great Master was skilled at using the treatise text, being wondrous to such an extent. Next, within translating the names, the three bodies are fully present. In modern translations, dharma and saṃbhoga are not differentiated, and three or two cannot be distinguished. Ancient sūtras and treatises have long admitted the three bodies. If one says that Vairocana and Rocana are not different, then the dharmakāya is simply the saṃbhogakāya; if they are identical, then all sentient beings are without exception fully perfected, and if the dharmakāya expounds [the Dharma], sentient beings would do so likewise. If it is only expounded when the fruition is perfected, then perfection is established from the saṃbhogakāya. If one says they are not separate, then this is true of all three bodies—why only dharma and saṃbhoga? Sentient beings and buddhas are non-dual—how could it be only the three bodies? Therefore, maintaining the three bodies, the dharma definitively does not expound, the saṃbhoga admits of two senses, and the response and transformation definitively expound. If they are mutually identical, then both expound and both do not expound; if viewed solely from principle, it is neither expounding nor non-expounding; when phenomena and principle are contrasted, non-expounding is precisely expounding, and expounding is precisely non-expounding. Sentiments are penetrated and wondrously matched, while contentious reckonings are entirely lost. As for "Wòjiāo" (Scorched by Waters), it is listed in the "Chapter on Names" of the old Avataṃsaka Sūtra and in the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā: in the great ocean there is a rock named Scorched; myriad streams pour onto it, and reaching the rock they all dry up, so the water of the great ocean does not increase. Sentient beings transmigrating are like the scorched rock: the five desires pour onto them without satiety, and only a buddha can deliver them; hence it is said. The names of the previous two bodies are always fixed in all respects; therefore, for the names of the nirmāṇakāya, each of the ten directions has names as numerous as the ineffable dust motes of buddha lands. Hence in that chapter, the new sūtra says: "Śākyamuni Tathāgata is also named Vairocana," while the old sūtra says: "He is also named Rocana." The intent of the old sūtra was to clarify the different names of the nirmāṇakāya; thus, taking those two sūtras together, the three names are fully present and their essence is fundamentally one. It is just that the intent of the new sūtra takes Vairocana as Rocana, whereas the old sūtra directly adduces the other-enjoyment saṃbhoga—what flaw is there in this meaning? Third, within the mutual integration, there are four parts: first, briefly indicating the intent; second, citing the teachings; third, cultivation and nature; fourth, citing the treatise. The first is as in the text. Within citing the teachings, there are three parts: first, citing sūtras; second, a general conclusion; third, resolving difficulties through questions and answers. Within citing sūtras, there are two parts: first, citing the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra intends to clarify that the three virtues are simply the three bodies, the three bodies being fully present as explained in the various texts. Citing the three concluding sūtras, such as the Brahmajāla Sūtra, is because in fundamental purport their meaning is identical with the three sūtras, yet the essential meaning is epitomized: in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra the platforms and petals of the ten directions are mutually host and companion, whereas in this Brahmajāla Sūtra there is only a single platform and petal. Therefore, the Tiantai Precept Commentary judges that the flower platform and flower petal are the distinction between origin and traces. The reason the flower platform and flower petal are definitively origin and traces is that although the conditions addressed differ, the principle is ever the same; since that which is concluded is identical, how could that which concludes differ? The intent of the Sūtra on Resolving Doubts Concerning the Semblance Dharma is also identical to that which is concluded, and that is why. As for "The Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra says," it may be known by analogy with the above. The conclusion and the resolution of difficulties are obvious from the text.