勝鬘寶窟 1.37.2

1.37.2

Because there is no thing to compare to [him], he is said to be "incomparable." Because he transcends the reach of affective consciousness, he is said to be "inconceivable." Because he surpasses the realm of speech, he is called "inexpressible." These are five praises proceeding from the near to the far. That they proceed "from the near to the far" means that while "subtle" and "fine" express his surpassing the mundane, there is also the phrase "unequalled" which can express his surpassing the supramundane. Although he surpasses the mundane, within the supramundane there are the two vehicles and bodhisattvas with whom he might still be compared; therefore it is now clarified that even within the supramundane he has no comparison. It might still be said that he can be conceived or expressed; therefore it is now clarified that the mind cannot conceive him and the mouth cannot express him. Having this wondrous body, we therefore now pay homage. Furthermore, the upper three lines explain the praise, and the lower single line explains the veneration. There can be veneration without praise, or praise without veneration; here both are fully present. Moreover, three lines explain the karma of speech, and the lower line clarifies the karma of body, with the mind running through both places. As for "the Tathāgata’s form is inexhaustible": although there were five praises above, one might fear that material forms have an exhaustion and a limit, and might not necessarily respond constantly in all places and at all times; therefore it is now clarified that his capacity to respond to things is inexhaustible. Why is it inexhaustible? Because the fundamental is inexhaustible, the response is constantly inexhaustible; because sentient beings are inexhaustible, the manifestation of his form is endless. Hence there is the praise of "inexhaustible." As for "wisdom is also likewise": having praised his physical form above, [the text] now extols his wisdom. Praising his form has six aspects: first, subtly fine; second, unequalled; third, incomparable; fourth, inconceivable; fifth, inexpressible; sixth, inexhaustible. Now in praising his wisdom, the meaning should also be likewise; it merely indicates in brief that wisdom is the same as form. Since form is inexhaustible, wisdom is also inexhaustible. "Inexhaustible" means wisdom that is immeasurable and boundless. Why are form and wisdom praised in particular? Because his form has no peer and his wisdom is inexhaustible; being what beings delight in and seek as essential, they are spoken of in particular. Question: Above, having beheld the golden countenance, it was permissible to praise his wondrous form; but since wisdom was not yet apparent, why is wisdom praised? Answer: Taking form as an analogy for wisdom, since he possesses an incomparable body, he must possess pre-eminent wisdom. Furthermore, in the earlier section on responding to capacities, both form and wisdom were fully explained: knowing capacities and immediately responding is wisdom pervading everything; universally emitting pure light is physical form being incomparable. Since both were seen above, both are now praised together. As for "all dharmas are permanently abiding": although form and wisdom were praised above, one might fear that he does not necessarily possess the remaining virtues; therefore it is now clarified that he possesses all virtues. Hence a later passage states: "Accomplishing all buddha-dharmas is called the Tathāgata’s dharmakāya." Question: If so, and the dharmakāya subsumes all virtues, why is there also prajñā? Answer: If spoken of under the name of the dharmakāya, there is nothing that is not the dharmakāya; the other two are also likewise. Hence a later passage states, "The wisdom-body is sovereign"; thus within prajñā there is the dharmakāya. Now within the dharmakāya there is also prajñā, and so it says: "Wisdom is also likewise." Liberation also has the dharmakāya, and so it says: "Therefore I pay homage to the Dharmarāja." If we take up their differentiated meanings, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "The dharmakāya is the locus of all virtues, just as the body sense-faculty is the locus of the various faculties; therefore the dharmakāya possesses all virtues." Although possessing all virtues, they might not necessarily be permanent; hence it says "permanently abiding." Why are they permanent? Because the buddha-dharmas surpassing the sands of the Ganges within the tathāgatagarbha are revealed to constitute his present virtues; therefore they are permanent. If they were impermanent, they would not be worthy of taking refuge in; because they are permanently abiding, they can be taken refuge in. The present Buddha differs from the former Buddha; hence it clarifies the permanently abiding Buddha. Taking refuge now differs from taking refuge formerly; hence one takes refuge in the permanently abiding. As for the interpretations of older authorities in distinguishing between the true and the responsive [bodies]: a verse and a half praises the responsive body; from "permanently abiding" onward praises the dharmakāya. We now adopt this view. Third, the section on similarities and differences. Regarding the first gāthā and the lower half of the second gāthā, people have no differing interpretations. Some say: "The Tathāgata’s form is inexhaustible" praises the reward body; the reward body has permanent form, and being permanent, it is inexhaustible. "Wisdom is also likewise" praises wisdom; within the reward body, it does not go beyond merit and wisdom, and because wisdom is the same as form in permanently abiding, it says "is also likewise." Fourth, the section evaluating strengths and weaknesses. First, to question the latter position: if one says that "inexhaustible" means "permanently abiding," then the lower line again saying "all dharmas are permanently abiding" would render the text redundant. Furthermore, below in the chapter on taking refuge, it clarifies the inexhaustible refuge and the permanently abiding refuge; if "inexhaustible" were identical with "permanently abiding," the text should not present both, and furthermore the wording would not be skillful. In worldly parlance they say: "peerless countenance, inexhaustible talent." If one explains "inexhaustible" by means of "permanent," then it is unskillful as praise; therefore one should adopt the explanation of the first master. Next, concerning whether the dharmakāya has form or is formless, there has been debate from past to present. Some say: the dharmakāya has form. The Niḥsarana Sūtra says: "Wondrous form is tranquil and constantly peaceful, not shifting with seasons, periods, and kalpas." The Nirvāṇa says: "Relinquishing impermanent form, one attains permanent form." The Daśabhūmivyākhyāna says: "The marks and signs adorning the Tathāgata are the real reward body." Furthermore, a bodhisattva cultivates the causes for the marks and signs over vast kalpas, so how could there be no fruit? Deducing from the textual meanings, one should know that the dharmakāya has form. Those who refute formlessness say: if one says that form means obstruction and therefore the buddha-fruit has no form, then mind means having an object, and one should say that the buddha-fruit has no mind. But the Buddha after all has an objectless mind; so he should have unobstructed form. Question: Being unobstructed, how can it be called form? Answer: If so, when the Buddha is without objects, how can he have knowing? Next, south of the Yangtze River, [masters] Yun, Min, Zang, and others all said: the buddha-fruit has no form. Therefore the Nirvāṇa says: "May I attain the Tathāgata’s formless, sovereign body." The Sūtra of Mañjuśrī's Ten Homages says: "Without form and without shape or marks, without faculties and without a dwelling place, because it is neither produced nor destroyed, I pay homage to that which cannot be observed." Those who refute the possession of form say: if one says that the buddha-fruit has form, he should erect a vaulted house and wear the garments of Chu. The intent of the objection is: since the dharmakāya has unobstructed form, it should dwell in an unobstructed residence and wear unobstructed clothing. Master Sengzhao’s commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "The Perfect Person is empty and vast, without images; how could his land be constant?" Zhu Daosheng composed the Treatise on the Dharmakāya Having No Pure Land, clarifying that the dharmakāya has no pure land; these all employ the meaning of formlessness. Resolving the objection of the first position, they say: form and mind—these two are not of the same category; a coarse mind can be trained and practiced into a wondrous mind, but coarse form cannot be trained and practiced into wondrous form; therefore the buddha-fruit has no form but has mind. Question: If so, why does the sūtra speak of relinquishing impermanent form? Answer: It is merely that wondrous existence is brilliantly clear, and hence it is called form. The two schools each cling to their own view, engaging in mutual debate. Now, relying on Nāgārjuna, we resolve it with a single statement. The "Chapter on Dharmas" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self, and sometimes spoken of no-self."