大般涅槃經疏 4.6

4.6

四、佛答。為兩：初正答五難、次普受大會。初答第三四身三身之難者，身有離合故有四三，常是此教之首，故超而答之。但純陀先舉三藏佛初以作難，三藏之佛六年苦行，精氣殆絕乳麋資益身力充滿，則是食身。如是食身，從業緣現故是煩惱身。三十四心斷子縛盡，唯果縛在，是後邊身，終必入滅是無常身，故舉為難。佛今以三破四，正言後邊與無常同，故合為一無常身也。汝舉四身乃小緣所見，大緣所覩則無此四。何者？光明者即是智慧，智慧者即是常住，常住之身則非食身。又光明者即是智慧，智慧之光破煩惱闇非煩惱身。若始斷煩惱猶有果縛是後邊身，今非始斷故非後邊。四大果縛可是無常，常住智慧猶如金剛故非無常。大緣所覩唯三無四，何況如來已於無量阿僧祇劫無此四身，大小雙非、四三俱遣，即是非食非不食、非常非無常、非煩惱非不煩惱、非法非非法、非邊非非邊、非金剛非不金剛，能赴兩緣作四作三，而於如來非四非三玄而復玄，是故二施果報無差明矣。

Fourth, the Buddha's reply. There are two parts: first, he directly answers the five objections; next, he universally receives the great assembly. As for first answering the third objection regarding the four bodies and three bodies: because bodies may be separated or combined, there are four and three; since permanence is the foremost theme of this teaching, he bypasses the others to answer it first. However, Cunda had first raised the beginning of the Tripiṭaka Buddha to make his objection: for six years the Tripiṭaka Buddha practiced austerities, his vital energy nearly exhausted, and the milk-rice nourished and benefited him so that his physical strength became full; thus, it was a body of food. Such a body of food, manifested from karmic conditions, was therefore an afflicted body. With the thirty-four minds he completely severed the bonds of defilements, but the binding of retribution alone remained; this was a final body, and because it would ultimately enter extinction, it was an impermanent body. Thus he raised these as objections. Now the Buddha uses three to refute four, precisely saying that the final [body] is the same as the impermanent [body], and so combines them into one impermanent body. The four bodies you raised are what is seen by those of lesser capacity; what is viewed by those of greater capacity is without these four. Why? Radiant light is wisdom, and wisdom is permanent abiding; a body of permanent abiding is not a body of food. Furthermore, radiant light is wisdom; the light of wisdom destroys the darkness of afflictions, so it is not an afflicted body. If one has just severed afflictions and still has the binding of retribution, it is a final body; now, it was not just severed, so it is not a final body. The binding of retribution consisting of the four great elements may well be impermanent, but permanently abiding wisdom is like vajra, so it is not impermanent. What is viewed by those of greater capacity has only three and not four; how much more so for the Tathāgata, who for immeasurable asaṃkhyeya kalpas has been without these four bodies! Both the small and the great are denied; both four and three are dismissed. That is: neither eating nor non-eating, neither permanent nor impermanent, neither afflicted nor non-afflicted, neither dharma nor non-dharma, neither final nor non-final, neither vajra nor non-vajra. Being able to respond to both capacities, he makes four or makes three, yet for the Tathāgata they are neither four nor three, profound and yet more profound. Therefore, that the retributions of the two givings are without disparity is clear.