觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 5.2.4

5.2.4

三十二則通，大見無邊、小見分齊。 若藏塵八萬，唯大非小。 若也不就理觀等分，此義全失。 故《金光明》龍尊歎佛，經文但列三十二相圓光一尋，疏乃判云「正歎尊特」，故知不定以相數多方為尊特，只就不空妙觀見耳。 問：行人覩於劣應，談圓佛相，只可即是法身及自受用，不即尊特。 以尊特身現起方有、不現則無。 豈見不空，不待佛現便自能見尊特相邪？ 答：既以尊特對於生身，分身非身常無常等，今云劣應但即法身及自受用不即尊特，則成壽量屬於尊特，身相自屬生身。 如此分張，進退皆失。 須知行者無有一見非如來力，如來鑒機未始差忒，有須現者即為現之。 如《梵網》、《華嚴》及此經等相多身大也。 不須現者，即以力加，令於劣身不取分齊，見三十二相即無有邊，以知丈六是法界故，應持不見其頂、目連莫究其聲。 丈六身聲既因二聖窮不得際，後之圓人豈不即劣見於無邊，不必一一待現方見。 若不爾者，用圓解為？ 用業識為？ 若但即法身及自受用不即尊特，此說全乖頓足之義。 何者？ 如《釋籤》解色無邊故般若無邊云「五陰是理，故即陰是實相般若，故皆無邊」。 以由理故令法無邊，自受用身既證理極，豈不即劣而無邊邪？ 行者應知，今之妙觀觀佛法身見八萬相，不同《金光》但於劣身見無分齊。 今是彼佛全法界身，應圓似觀現奇特身，非是彼土常身常相。 若彼常身，即般舟中三十二相也。 今乃特現八萬四千相好光明，經文自云「身量無邊，非是凡夫心力所及」，正類《淨名》「如須彌山顯于大海，安處眾寶師子之座」，《藥師》中「巍巍堂堂如星中月」，《大論》中「色像無邊尊特之身」。 此等經論所明尊特，與今所現無少差殊。 彼色像無邊既稱尊特，此云身量無邊，那謂生身？ 問：所言龍尊歎尊特相，非現起者，是義不然。 以彼疏釋尊特身云巍巍堂堂，若不現者，何謂堂堂？ 答：華藏塵相，《華嚴經》列九十七名，與龍尊歎全不相應，又無身相高大之說，以驗非是特現之相。 只由龍尊言中妙示即劣含勝難思之文，大師見彼得意之處，是故疏云巍巍堂堂。 得意處者，即總歎云「諸佛清淨微妙寂滅」也。 清淨乃是四德中淨，必不闕於常樂我也。 寂滅豈非涅槃之義？ 即稱微妙是大滅度祕密藏也。 以總冠別，故三十二相遍嚴三身。 生身則百福所成，見無厭足。 尊特身則色無分齊，劣即堂堂。 法性身則色性即智，法門為相。 疏云「此三不縱不橫。 若縱橫一異則不清淨，非微妙寂滅。 」豈非圓人了乎三身是祕密藏？ 密藏乃是法界總體，一攝一切、事事相收，應用無邊、不離毫末，相好至劣星等虛空。 故《法華》中龍女讚佛「微妙淨法身，具相三十二」。 顯是劣應，以法身具，故相相尊特。 是故荊谿類同《華嚴》「一一相好與虛空等」。 又《文句》云「一一相皆法界海」，又《妙玄》云「垢衣內身實是長者」，《釋籤》云「即是瓔珞長者」。 瓔珞長者豈非尊特？ 何待現邪？ 又《妙樂》云「若隱前三相從勝而說，非謂太虛名為圓佛。 」法華已前三佛離明隔偏小故。 來至此經從劣辯勝即三而一。 若也《法華》但即法身不具尊特，正以太虛而為圓佛又不具尊特，如何得名從劣辯勝即三而一？ 問：《法華文句》云「地師說多寶是法身，舉南嶽破云『法身無來無出，報身巍巍堂堂，應身普現一切。 若即此謂是三佛者，未盡其體，只是表示而已。 多寶表法佛，釋尊表報佛，分身表應佛。 』」《記》釋云「無來者，不合東來。 無出者，不應踊出。 巍巍，不應塔內。 應身，不應唯此。 尚非應身，豈具三身？ 既云巍巍不應塔內，信知報佛須現大身。 若其即劣便得名報，塔內何妨？ 」何得破他？ 答：此破地師不知表示，真將舍利便為法身。 故《記》破云「尚非應身豈具三身」。

The thirty-two [marks] apply to both: the Great [Vehicle] sees them as boundless, while the Small [Vehicle] sees their delimited boundaries. If they are [as numerous as] the dust motes of the treasury or eighty thousand, this pertains only to the Great, not to the Small. If this is not distinguished equally by means of noumenal contemplation, this meaning is lost entirely. Therefore, when the Dragon-King Nāgarāja praises the Buddha in the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, the sūtra text only lists the thirty-two marks and a circular halo of one fathom; yet the commentary judges it, saying: 'It directly praises the exalted and distinctive [body].' Thus we know it is not necessarily by the vast number of marks that it is considered the exalted and distinctive [body]; it is seen simply through the wondrous contemplation of the non-empty. Question: When a practitioner views the inferior manifest [body] and speaks of the round Buddha marks, these can only be identical to the dharmakāya and the self-enjoyment [body], not identical to the exalted and distinctive [body]. For the exalted and distinctive body exists only when it is manifested; when not manifested, it does not exist. How could seeing the non-empty allow one to see the marks of the exalted and distinctive [body] of oneself without waiting for the Buddha to manifest it? Answer: Since the exalted and distinctive body is paired with the physical body of birth, distinguishing between body and non-body, permanent and impermanent, and so forth, to say now that the inferior manifest [body] is identical only to the dharmakāya and self-enjoyment [body] but not identical to the exalted and distinctive [body] would mean that the life-span belongs to the exalted and distinctive, while the physical marks belong by themselves to the physical body of birth. Dividing them like this loses [the correct meaning] whether moving forward or backward. One must realize that for a practitioner, there is no seeing that is not the power of the Tathāgata. The Tathāgata observes capacities without ever making an error; when someone requires a manifestation, he manifests it for them—as with the numerous marks and vast bodies in the Brahmajāla, the Avataṃsaka, and this sūtra. For those who do not require a manifestation, he adds his power, causing them not to grasp delimited boundaries regarding the inferior body, and to see the thirty-two marks as boundless. Knowing that the sixteen-foot [body] is the dharmadhātu itself, [the bodhisattva] Upaśānta could not see the crown of his head, and Maudgalyāyana could not reach the end of his voice. Since the sixteen-foot body and voice could not be exhausted at their limits even by these two sages, how could the person of the Perfect [Teaching] later on not see the boundless immediately in the inferior, without having to wait for each and every manifestation before seeing it? Were it not so, what would be the use of perfect understanding? What would be the use of karmic consciousness? If it were only identical to the dharmakāya and self-enjoyment [body] and not identical to the exalted and distinctive [body], this claim would completely contradict the meaning of sudden perfection. Why? As the Shiqian explains: 'Because form is boundless, prajñā is boundless,' saying, 'The five aggregates are noumenon; therefore the aggregates themselves are the prajñā of true reality, and thus all are boundless.' Because it is due to noumenon that phenomena are boundless, since the self-enjoyment body realizes the perfection of noumenon, how could it not be boundless immediately in the inferior? Practitioners should understand: this current wondrous contemplation contemplates the dharmakāya of the Buddha and sees eighty-four thousand marks, which is not like the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, which only sees the absence of delimited boundaries within the inferior body. Here, it is the Buddha's full dharmadhātu-body responding to the contemplation of perfect resemblance and manifesting an extraordinary body, not the ordinary body and ordinary marks of that land. If it were that [land's] ordinary body, it would be the thirty-two marks in the Pratyutpanna[-samādhi]. Here he specially manifests eighty-four thousand excellent marks and radiant lights. The sūtra text itself says: 'The measure of the body is boundless, beyond the reach of the mental power of ordinary persons.' This directly parallels the Vimalakīrti's 'Like Mount Sumeru appearing in the great ocean, peacefully seated upon a lion throne of manifold jewels,' the Bhaiṣajyaguru's 'Towering and majestic, like the moon among stars,' and the Da zhidu lun's 'The exalted and distinctive body of boundless forms and features.' The exalted and distinctive [bodies] explained in these sūtras and treatises do not differ in the slightest from what is manifested now. Since those boundless forms and features are called the exalted and distinctive [body], when this [sūtra] says the measure of the body is boundless, how could one call it a physical body of birth? Question: To say that the Dragon-King Nāgarāja's praise of the exalted and distinctive marks was not an active manifestation is incorrect. For that commentary explains the exalted and distinctive body as 'towering and majestic.' If it were not manifested, why would it be called 'majestic'? Answer: Regarding the dust-mote marks of the Flower Treasury, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra lists ninety-seven names, which do not correspond at all to the praise of the Dragon-King Nāgarāja; moreover, there is no talk of the physical marks being high and vast, which proves that it is not a specially manifested mark. It is simply because in the Dragon-King Nāgarāja's words there is a wondrous expression incomprehensibly showing that the inferior contains the superior, and the Great Master saw the place where he grasped the intention; therefore the commentary says 'towering and majestic.' The place where the intention was grasped is the general praise: 'The Buddhas are pure, subtle and wondrous, tranquil and extinguished.' 'Pure' is purity among the four virtues, which certainly does not lack permanence, bliss, or self. Is 'tranquil and extinguished' not the meaning of nirvāṇa? Being called 'subtle and wondrous' is the secret treasury of the great cessation and crossing over. Since the general crowns the particular, the thirty-two marks universally adorn the three bodies. As the physical body of birth, they are produced from the hundred blessings, and seeing them brings no satiation. As the exalted and distinctive body, form has no delimited boundary, and the inferior is immediately majestic. As the nature-of-dharmas body, the nature of form is itself wisdom, and dharma-gates serve as marks. The commentary says: 'These three are neither longitudinal nor horizontal. If they were longitudinal, horizontal, identical, or different, they would not be pure, nor subtle and wondrous, tranquil and extinguished.' Does this not mean that the person of the Perfect [Teaching] understands that the three bodies are the secret treasury? The secret treasury is the total entity of the dharmadhātu: one subsumes all, phenomenon and phenomenon contain each other; its responsive functions are boundless, not apart from the tip of a fine hair; its marks and features are the most inferior, yet equal to empty space. Therefore, in the Lotus Sūtra, the dragon girl praises the Buddha: 'The subtle, wondrous, pure dharmakāya / Is endowed with the thirty-two marks.' This clearly is the inferior manifest [body]; because the dharmakāya possesses them, every mark is exalted and distinctive. For this reason, Jingxi equates it with the Avataṃsaka: 'Every mark and feature is equal to empty space.' Furthermore, the Wenju says, 'Each and every mark is an ocean of the dharmadhātu,' and the Miaoxuan says, 'The body within the soiled garments is truly the Elder,' which the Shiqian explains as: 'that is, the adorned Elder.' Is the adorned Elder not the exalted and distinctive [body]? Why wait for it to be manifested? Moreover, Miaole says: 'If one conceals the first three bodies and speaks from the perspective of the superior, this does not mean that empty space itself is called the round Buddha.' Before the Lotus Sūtra, the three Buddhas were explained separately due to their being divided by biased and small [teachings]. When arriving at this sūtra, discerning the superior from the inferior, the three are immediately one. If the Lotus Sūtra were only identical to the dharmakāya and did not possess the exalted and distinctive [body], taking empty space itself as the round Buddha while not possessing the exalted and distinctive, how could it be called 'discerning the superior from the inferior, the three being immediately one'? Question: The Fahua wenju says: 'The Dilun masters say Prabhūtaratna is the dharmakāya. Citing Nanyue to refute them, it says: "The dharmakāya has no coming and no going; the reward body is towering and majestic; the manifest body universally appears everywhere. If one takes these here as the three Buddhas, they do not exhaust their entities; they are merely symbolic representations. Prabhūtaratna symbolizes the dharma-Buddha; Śākyamuni symbolizes the reward-Buddha; the emanations symbolize the manifest-Buddhas."' The commentary explains: '"No coming" means he should not come from the east. "No going" means he should not leap out. "Towering" means he should not be within the stupa. "Manifest body" means he should not be only this. If it is not even the manifest body, how could it possess the three bodies? Since it says towering should not be within the stupa, we certainly know the reward-Buddha must manifest a vast body. If being immediately inferior could be called the reward [body], what would be the harm in being within the stupa?' How could he refute the other? Answer: This refutes the Dilun masters who did not understand symbolic representation, genuinely taking the relic itself to be the dharmakāya. Therefore the commentary refutes them, saying: 'If it is not even the manifest body, how could it possess the three bodies?'