[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 18.105 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 18.105 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 18.105 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [18.105](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.18.105) 疏「上約十身」下，第二以三身收束也。於中五：一正以三身四身收之、二出收所以、三揀權實、四融國土等身、五結歎難思。今初。然則十身望三有通有局，菩提為總，亦是化身；餘九身中，願化力持，此唯化身。意生威勢，通他受用及與變化。福智相好，通於二報及變化身。法局法性，今且取順次，故為此配。所以前菩提身復明真身，向來法身復明色身，欲順今次第配故耳。二中，疏「以諸教中三身」等者，二出收所以。謂有問言：何用更以三身收束十身？故今釋云：以諸教三四迢然不同；今明圓融，一身具三，則權實有別。言三身成異者，法身無成，但出障為成；報身四智創圓為成；化身八相菩提樹下為成。三身說異者，法身無說；報身佛佛相見，亦無有說；化身有說。若攝末歸本，應化非真佛，亦非說法者，即報身說。報同所證，是法身說。言四身成說異者，於報身中開自他受用，自受用遍法界成，則無所說；他受用為十地成，為十地說。若依《楞伽》，四佛皆說，而說不同。言四佛者，一化佛、二報生佛、三如如佛、四智慧佛。初化次報後二皆法，如如及如如智為法身佛。亦可智亦是報，自受用故。言說異者，化身說施戒等因緣法；報佛說三性法，謂為地上菩薩說，令成佛故；法佛唯說離心自性，則以無念會於法界，是故法佛唯說法性。智佛說者，依淨法界了相智覺，如說而解，故名為說。 > Regarding the commentary from "Above, in terms of the ten bodies" downward: the second part subsumes them under the three bodies. Within this there are five parts: 1. directly subsuming them under the three bodies and four bodies; 2. bringing out the reason for subsuming them; 3. distinguishing the provisional and the real; 4. harmonizing the bodies of lands and so forth; 5. concluding with praise for their inconceivability. Now for the first. Thus, the ten bodies, when viewed with respect to the three \[bodies\], have both general and specific aspects: the bodhi \[body\] is the general, and is also the transformation body; among the remaining nine bodies, vow, transformation, and sustenance are solely the transformation body. The mind-made and majesty \[bodies\] pertain both to the other-enjoyment \[body\] and to the transformation \[body\]. Merit, wisdom, and marks and signs pertain both to the two retribution \[bodies\] and to the transformation body. The Dharma \[body\] is restricted to the nature of phenomena. For now, following their proper order, this correlation is made. Therefore, the earlier bodhi body was again explained as the true body, and the preceding dharmakāya was again explained as the form body, simply desiring to accord with the current sequential correlation. Regarding the second part, the commentary's phrase "Because in various teachings, the three bodies" and so forth: this brings out the reason for subsuming them. That is to say, someone might ask: "Why must the ten bodies be further subsumed under the three bodies?" Therefore, it now explains: because in various teachings the three and four \[bodies\] are sharply distinct; here, clarifying perfect interfusion, one body possesses the three, so that there is a distinction between the provisional and the real. As for the statement that the attainments of the three bodies differ: the dharmakāya has no attainment, but attainment is simply leaving hindrances behind; the saṃbhogakāya's attainment is the initial perfection of the four cognitions; the nirmāṇakāya's attainment is under the bodhi tree through the eight aspects. As for the statement that the teachings of the three bodies differ: the dharmakāya has no teaching; in the saṃbhogakāya, Buddhas see Buddhas, and there is also no teaching; the nirmāṇakāya has teaching. If one integrates the branches back to the root, responsive and transformative \[bodies\] are not the true Buddha, nor are they the speaker of Dharma, so it is the saṃbhogakāya that speaks. As the saṃbhogakāya is identical to what is realized, it is the dharmakāya that speaks. As for the statement that the attainment and teaching of the four bodies differ: within the saṃbhogakāya, self-enjoyment and other-enjoyment are opened; the self-enjoyment \[body\] is attained pervading the dharmadhātu, and thus has nothing to preach; the other-enjoyment \[body\] is attained for the sake of the ten stages, and preaches for the sake of the ten stages. If one relies on the Laṅkāvatāra, all four Buddhas speak, but their speakings differ. As for the four Buddhas: 1. the transformation Buddha; 2. the retribution-born Buddha; 3. the tathatā Buddha; 4. the wisdom Buddha. The first is transformation, the second is retribution, and the latter two are both Dharma—tathatā and the cognition of tathatā constitute the dharmakāya Buddha. It is also permissible that wisdom is also retribution, because it is self-enjoyment. As for the differences in teaching: the nirmāṇakāya expounds conditioned dharmas such as generosity and precepts; the saṃbhogakāya expounds the doctrine of the three natures, namely speaking for bodhisattvas on the stages to cause them to attain Buddhahood; the dharmakāya expounds solely the self-nature detached from mind, thus harmonizing with the dharmadhātu through non-thought, and therefore the dharmakāya expounds solely the nature of phenomena. As for what the wisdom Buddha expounds: relying on the pure dharmadhātu, the cognition that comprehends characteristics awakens; understanding as it is spoken, it is therefore called 'speaking.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 18.104](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.18.104) - [Next: 18.106](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.18.106) - [Up: 18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.18) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.18.105) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.18.105](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.18.105) · Pramāṇa