觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 2.4.4

2.4.4

三、「能為」下，明應遍三土，二：初、雙明報應。 二、「有量」下，單示應身。 初義者，上所說報但論冥法，即自受用也。 今明垂應，以他受用常住之應，對於生身無常之應，示二迹用，是故雙明身等。 身即生身，有分齊相，故名為身。 非身是報，無分齊相，故曰非身。 《小般若》云「佛說非身，是名大身」，大身者乃他受用身也。 無分齊身，其壽則常，故無量也。 有分齊身，壽則無常，故有量也。 此二應用，乃依真中二理而住，機依事業二識而見。 住理，廣如《金光疏》說。 二識，委在《起信論》。 明論意要在事識見，則取色分齊，故名應佛。 業識見則離分齊相，故是報身。 此義至後釋觀佛觀鈔中辯之。 行者須知，常身無量，通應三土； 無常有量，但應同居。 所以者何？ 蓋實報機分證論見他受用身，方便土人唯稟別圓。 所見佛相雖小優降，然匪生身，悉是報佛。 若同居土，具四教機稟別圓者，能覩報佛。 故《法華》明常在靈山，《華嚴》說法盡未來際，及諸大乘即於應相見是法性尊特之身，故知常身遍應三土。 若無常身，唯應同居，逗藏通機，生凡夫善也。 次義，分二：初、明有量二義。 上之所說，自受用外垂三土身，皆名為應。 其他受用，雖就對機名之為應，而是實因之所感剋，復名為報，非是差別逗機之用。 若論逐物隨緣、參差長短、身壽量者，須就同居無常用說。 故今別示應身之相，但於有量開出兩量。 而此兩量，依於事識但空見故，唯屬無常。 若依業識不空見者，即此無常全體是常，則常無常二用相即、二鳥雙遊也。 若上二土機息應轉，亦是無常，以非八相，故且言常。 言「七百」等者，《首楞嚴三昧經》云「堅首菩薩問：佛壽幾何？ 佛令往東方過三萬二千佛土，於莊嚴國問照明莊嚴自在王佛。 彼佛答云：如釋迦壽，我亦如是。 汝欲知者，我壽七百阿僧祇劫。 堅首迴此白佛。 阿難云：彼佛乃是釋迦異名。 」雖機勝見長，而七百猶可數故，亦是有量之量。 若阿彌陀，人天莫數，故是有量之無量也。 二、「應佛」下，結應佛皆然。 佛佛既皆三身圓證，應身被物、物壽長短，豈不隨順各示兩量？ 故彌陀現長亦能現短，釋迦現短亦能現長。 故《大論》第三十六云「當知釋迦文佛更有清淨國土，如阿彌陀佛國。 阿彌陀佛亦有不嚴淨國，如釋迦文佛國。 」又第三十八云「此間閻浮惡故，釋迦壽應短。 餘處好故，佛壽應長。 」故《涅槃》二十二云「西方去此三十二河沙有無勝國，所有莊嚴如安樂世界，我於彼土出現於世。 」斯皆隨逐物機也。 二、「然」下，據理融即。 上辯三身，法是本有、報約修成、應論現往。 其言似縱，須知報應二種之修，性德本具。 雖是性德，修相宛然，全性起修、全修在性，三一冥泯，思說莫窮。 「不可」等者，如上豎論，顯非並一。 若言性具三身壽量，顯非別異。 若作並別一異之解，即乖所詮圓常法體，即一而三故不橫，即三而一故不縱，非縱非橫不可思議。 如此解者，乃會能詮玄妙之文也。

Third, from 'Able to act as' downwards clarifies that the response-body pervades the three lands, which has two parts: first, it explains both reward and response together; second, from 'Having a measure' downwards solely indicates the response-body. In the first meaning: what was explained above regarding the reward-body only discussed the tacit convergence with reality, which is the self-enjoyment [body]. Now, in clarifying the manifestation of responses, it contrasts the response of other-enjoyment that is eternally abiding with the response of the born body that is impermanent, demonstrating the functions of two traces; therefore, it explains both 'body' and so forth together. 'Body' is the born body, which possesses delimited marks, and so it is called 'body'. 'Non-body' is the reward[-body], which has no delimited marks, and so it is called 'non-body'. The *Shorter Prajñā* states, 'The Buddha said that non-body is called the great body'; the 'great body' is indeed the other-enjoyment body. For a body without delimitation, its lifespan is eternal, hence it is 'immeasurable'. For a body with delimitation, its lifespan is impermanent, hence it 'has a measure'. These two response-functions abide by relying on the two principles of the true and the middle, and their capacities are seen by relying on the two consciousnesses: the phenomenal and the karmic. Abiding in principle is extensively explained as in the *Commentary on the Suvarṇaprabhāsa*. The two consciousnesses are elaborated in the *Awakening of Faith*. Clarifying the treatise's intent: essentially, when seen by the phenomenal consciousness, one grasps the delimitation of form, and so it is called the response-buddha; when seen by the karmic consciousness, one transcends delimited marks, and so it is the reward-body. This meaning will be distinguished later in the subcommentary on the contemplation of the Buddha. Practitioners must know: the eternal body is immeasurable, universally responding to the three lands; the impermanent body has a measure, responding only to [the land of] common residence. Why is this? Because the capacities of the [land of] real reward, by virtue of partial realization, see the other-enjoyment body, while the people of the land of expedients exclusively receive the Separate and Perfect [teachings]. Although the buddha-marks they see have slight degrees of superiority and inferiority, they are not the born body; all are the reward-buddha. If in the land of common residence, those possessing the capacities of the four teachings who receive the Separate and the Perfect can behold the reward-buddha. Therefore, the *Lotus Sūtra* clarifies that [the Buddha] is ever on Vulture Peak, the *Avataṃsaka* states that his preaching extends to the end of the future, and various Mahāyāna texts state that within the responsive marks one sees this noble, superior body of the Dharma-nature; hence we know that the eternal body universally responds to the three lands. As for the impermanent body, it only responds to common residence, accommodating the capacities of the Tripiṭaka and Shared [teachings] and giving rise to the good of ordinary beings. In the next meaning, there are two parts: first, clarifying the two meanings of having a measure. In what was discussed above, the bodies manifested in the three lands outside of self-enjoyment are all termed 'response'. As for other-enjoyment, although it is termed 'response' in relation to facing [specific] capacities, yet because it is what is realized through authentic causes, it is again termed 'reward'; it is not the differentiated function of accommodating capacities. If one speaks of following beings and according with conditions, with variations of long and short in the measures of body and lifespan, one must speak in terms of the impermanent function of common residence. Therefore, now separately indicating the marks of the response-body, it merely opens out two measures within 'having a measure'. And these two measures, because they rely on the phenomenal consciousness's seeing of mere emptiness, belong solely to impermanence. If one relies on the karmic consciousness's seeing of non-emptiness, then this very impermanence is in its entirety the eternal; then the two functions of the eternal and the impermanent are mutually identical, like two birds flying together. If the capacities in the upper two lands cease and the responses transform, that too is impermanence; but because it is not the eight marks, it is tentatively called eternal. Regarding the words 'seven hundred' and so on, the *Śūraṅgama-samādhi Sūtra* says: 'Bodhisattva Dṛḍhamati asked: How long is the Buddha's lifespan? The Buddha instructed him to go eastward past thirty-two thousand buddha-lands to the country of Adornment, to ask the Buddha King of Luminous Adornment and Sovereign Ease. That Buddha replied: Like the lifespan of Śākya[muni], mine is also like this. If you wish to know, my lifespan is seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas. Dṛḍhamati returned here and reported this to the Buddha. Ānanda said: That Buddha is indeed another name for Śākyamuni.' Although due to superior capacities [that Buddha] is seen as long[-lived], yet seven hundred can still be counted, so it is the measurable of what has a measure. As for Amitāyus, humans and devas cannot count it, so it is the immeasurable of what has a measure. Second, from 'The response-buddhas' downwards concludes that it is thus for all response-buddhas. Since each and every buddha has fully realized the three bodies, when their response-bodies receive beings and beings' lifespans are long or short, how could they not accord with them and each display the two measures? Therefore, Amida manifests the long and can also manifest the short, while Śākyamuni manifests the short and can also manifest the long. Thus the thirty-sixth fascicle of the *Great Commentary* states, 'One should know that Śākyamuni Buddha also has pure realms, like the realm of Amitābha Buddha. Amitābha Buddha also has unadorned and impure realms, like the realm of Śākyamuni Buddha.' Again, the thirty-eighth fascicle says, 'Because this Jambudvīpa is evil, Śākyamuni's lifespan should respond by being short. Because other places are good, the Buddha's lifespan should respond by being long.' Thus the twenty-second fascicle of the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]* says, 'Westward from here, past sands of thirty-two Gaṅgā rivers, there is an Invincible Land, whose adornments are like the World of Peace and Joy; I appear in the world in that land.' These all accord with and follow beings' capacities. Second, from 'However' downwards integrates and identifies [them] based on principle. The preceding distinguished the three bodies: the Dharma[-body] is fundamentally inherent, the reward[-body] is in terms of cultivated accomplishment, and the response[-body] is discussed as manifesting and departing. Those words seem vertical, but one must know that the two kinds of cultivation—reward and response—are fundamentally possessed in inherent virtue. Although they are inherent virtue, the marks of cultivation are clearly present; fully activating cultivation from within nature, cultivation resides entirely in nature; the three and the one are tacitly extinguished, beyond the reach of thought or speech. Regarding 'cannot' and so forth: discussing them vertically as above demonstrates that they are not horizontally aligned as one. If one says that inherent nature possesses the three bodies and their spans of life, it demonstrates that they are not differentiated and distinct. If one forms an understanding of horizontal alignment, distinction, oneness, or difference, one goes against the round and eternal reality of what is expressed: being identical to one yet three, it is not horizontal; being identical to three yet one, it is not vertical; being neither vertical nor horizontal, it is inconceivable. Only one who understands in this way can comprehend the profound and wondrous text of what expresses it.