觀無量壽佛經疏妙宗鈔 5.2.4

5.2.4

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?'