大般涅槃經疏 8.13

8.13

就文為二：初明法身果、次明法身因。上問中含兩，今答為兩章。初明身果又兩：一明法身；二論義，略舉五身明法身義。舊解：法身常身是當體得名，不可壞身非雜食身從離過得名，金剛身從譬得名。又言四身更互相成，常身故不壞，不壞故常身；非雜食故成法身，法身故不雜食，故金剛譬之。今明四句皆當體、皆離過、皆法、皆譬，亦得相成。何者？金剛有四能，成顯法身；法身有四德，成於譬意。金剛立世喻法身體，堅喻常身，勁利喻不壞身，不定喻非雜食身。正用此意標品，豈可作餘釋耶？從「迦葉白佛」去，第二論義。文為三：謂問、答、領解。初問中二：先問、次釋。初問者，舉所見難所不見。既應入滅，是無常身。病苦所侵，是破壞身。碎為舍利，是塵土身。受純陀供，是雜食身。既不見四身，亦不見能譬金剛之身。次「何以故」去，是釋初無常身，餘例可解。次從「佛告」去，答，又為三：初非其所問、次正答、三結勸。初如文。次正答中，具百非者，然此百非若單數則一百六十句，若複數則一百句；既言百非，理應複數。然百非之中，或有雙非兩捨、或一存一亡，雖不常住，非念念滅即雙非之意，非身是身即一存一亡。然古舊相承不解百非，唯釋非身是身一句，今出七家。一云：非身者非是食身，是身者是法身。又云：非身者非生身，是身是法身。又云：非身非金剛前身，是身是金剛後身。此三家悉用俗為非、以真為是。又非身者法身冥如，是身者應現十方。又云：非身者真諦，是身者俗諦。此二家以真為非、以俗為是。又云：非身者非真身，是身者是好身。此一家漫漫，不知何者為非、何者為是？雖復漫漫，終有是非。興皇云：法身不為是之與非，是所不能是、非所不能非，絕百非、非百是，無是無非、能是能非，故言是身非身。觀師云：是身非身因緣相成，法身非身不妨是身，終日是身而復非身，終日非身而復是身。文云：是空離空，雖不常住非念念滅。此兩家是一意。今未能精識眾家旨趣，且為書之。天台大師明三種四句：一單、二複、三具足。單四句者，謂是、非、亦是亦非、非是非非。複四句者，是是是非、非是非非、亦是是非亦非是非、非是是非非非是非。是是、不是是、亦是亦不是是、非是非不是是，前句約非，次句約是，亦應前單後複。具足者，是是是是、是是不是是是是、亦是是亦不是是、是是非是是非不是是，是名具足有句。非是、非不是、非亦是亦不是、非非是非不是。非是是非不是是、非亦是是亦不是是、非非是是非非不是是，是名具足無句。餘兩具足句，類之可解，不復能作。但依天台大師止觀文中三四句相，則易可見。私云：既云但依止觀文則易見，今比望彼文，是非各作三種四句。先約是者，是、不是、亦是亦不是、非是非不是，單也。是是、是不是、不是是不是不是、亦是亦不是是、亦是亦不是不是、非是非不是是、非是非不是不是，複也。是是、是不是、是亦是亦不是、是非是非不是。不是是、不是不是、不是亦是亦不是、不是非是非不是。亦是亦不是是、亦是亦不是不是、亦是亦不是亦是亦不是、亦是亦不是非是非不是。非是非不是是、非是非不是不是、非是非不是亦是亦不是、非是非不是非是非不是。次約非中亦三四者，非、不非、亦非亦不非、非非非不非，單也。非非、非不非、不非非不非不非、亦非亦不非非、亦非亦不非不非、非非非不非非、非非非不非不非，複也。非非、非不非、非亦非亦不非、非非非非不非。不非非、不非不非、不非亦非亦不非、不非非非非不非。亦非亦不非非、亦非亦不非不非、亦非亦不非亦非亦不非、亦非亦不非非非非不非、非非非不非非非非非不非不非非、非非不非亦非亦不非、非非非不非非非非不非。仍存章安先釋，不敢擅易。然雖是非各別成句，不非即是、不是即非，為成三四故須互對。將此三種四句，望前諸師，所非為非。何四句未非、何四句非？此等諸四句，彼但出四句之見，未出絕言之見，那即結為法身耶？今言非身者，非如此等諸見所得雜食之身、無常塵土之身，故言非身。即非而是，是於法身、常身、金剛之身。然佛身非是非非，能為物現非身是身。又解：除一法相者，不二也。如來身者實是雙非，而言法身者，蓋為緣耳，故云除一法相。《大品》云「除為薩婆若心。」古來非唯不釋百非，亦不出其意，何故唱百為非？何所屬當？今試言之。夫如來身離於百非，佛身既權實不同，百非亦淺深有異。百非者，下文云「具足百福成於一相，如是展轉具足成就三十二相。」言百福者，持不殺戒有五種心，謂下、中、上、上上、上中上，乃至正見亦復如是。是五十心名初發意決定成就，是五十心名百福德，如是百福成於一相。又云「一善具十，是為百福。」《釋論》云「大千人應失眼失命，有能救得其眼命者是為一福。如是百度，名百福德。」對百福論百惡，百惡為非，從百惡感得四趣雜食、無常、塵土之身，名為非身。從百福感得如來相好之身，法身、常身、金剛之身。五分清淨名法身，得三無為名曰常身，八十億魔不能壞名金剛身，故名是身。此乃三藏佛身離百非也。又百福所感三十二相清淨之身，悉是有有。有有果報賢聖所訶，《釋論》云「毒器不任貯食，食則殺人。」有心行行不任得道，故知迦葉正難於此。我今唯見雜食無常塵土之身，當知百福為非、福性空故為是。故曰凡有相者悉是虛妄，若見諸相非相即見如來。此以空法為法身，空無生空為常身，空不得空便是金剛身。是為通教佛身離百非。又空中無法無是無非亦復無身，豈可以空為是？若不是者，即為非也。二乘得空，何故不是？佛身如空不可窮盡，無相無閡普能顯現，乃可稱是。二乘不能現者，但是偏空。非時取證，名雜食身；此空可破，即無常身；此空須棄，是塵土身，故空為非身。諸佛得空，能現身者是中道空，中道即是法身、常身、金剛之身。是名別教佛身離百非也。又非百惡入百福、非百福入百空、非百空入百中，次第淺深縱橫並別，皆為非也。次第取證即雜食身，前後勝劣是無常身，差別隔閡是塵土身，故別非也。佛身圓妙無復若干，一中無量、無量中一，非一非無量、不一不異，具足無缺名大涅槃。惡即中道，無二無別，一切諸法悉安樂性。百惡尚中，況百福空而不即中？即中之法，法身、常身、金剛之身，乃可稱是。是名圓佛離百非也。離前三非名佛身者，他經中意第四即非名佛身者，今經正意古來諸師全不料簡，雖唱百非不知何非，徒言法身未知是何。此釋大意可見。此既諸佛境界，玄妙難測鑽仰彌難。更又一解：初人天身一句即具九十九句功德，後涅槃句亦具九十九句功德，中間亦然。何者？一句既是法身，故備諸功德。依經又三番：前三句為一番，明非人天身，似如非俗入真。入真之意，即俗即真，雙非兩捨，如放金剛到金剛際乃止。次八十句為一番，明非身是身，似如非真出俗。出俗之意，即空即中，一出一切出，隨應度者皆得見聞。後十七句為一番，明無有知者、無不知者，似如雙非二邊，即邊入中，一色一香無非中道。雖此分別亦不一向，若一向者不成微妙。微妙者即入即出即中，又即出即入即中，又即中即出即入，不一二三而一二三。

Approaching the text, there are two parts: first, explaining the result that is the dharmakāya; next, explaining the cause of the dharmakāya. The question above contained two [points], and now the answer forms two sections. The first, explaining the result that is the body, also has two parts: 1. explaining the dharmakāya; 2. discussing its meaning, briefly citing five bodies to explain the meaning of the dharmakāya. An older interpretation says: The dharmakāya and the permanent body receive their names from their actual essence; the indestructible body and the body not [sustained by] miscellaneous food receive their names from departing from faults; and the vajra body receives its name from a metaphor. It also says that the four bodies mutually establish one another: because it is a permanent body it is indestructible, and because it is indestructible it is a permanent body; because it is not [sustained by] miscellaneous food it constitutes the dharmakāya, and because it is the dharmakāya it is not [sustained by] miscellaneous food; hence the vajra serves as a metaphor for it. Now, it is explained that all four phrases pertain to the actual essence, all depart from faults, all are dharmas, all are metaphors, and they also mutually establish one another. Why is this? The vajra has four capacities that establish and reveal the dharmakāya; the dharmakāya has four virtues that establish the import of the metaphor. The vajra founding the world illustrates the essence of the dharmakāya; its firmness illustrates the permanent body; its sharpness illustrates the indestructible body; its indeterminate [colour] illustrates the body not [sustained by] miscellaneous food. It is precisely through this meaning that the chapter is titled—how could one give any other explanation? From "Kāśyapa addressed the Buddha" onwards is the second part, discussing the meaning. The text has three parts: the question, the answer, and the understanding. In the initial question there are two parts: first the question, then the explanation. The initial question raises what is seen to challenge what is not seen. Since [the Tathāgata] is to enter extinction, this is an impermanent body. Being afflicted by pain and illness, it is a destructible body. Being broken into relics, it is a body of dust and earth. Receiving Cunda's offering, it is a body of miscellaneous food. Since the four bodies are not seen, neither is the vajra body that serves as the metaphor seen. Next, from "Why is this?" onwards, is the explanation of the first, the impermanent body; the rest can be understood by analogy. Next, from "The Buddha told…" onwards is the answer, which also has three parts: first, negating what he questioned; next, directly answering; third, concluding with an exhortation. The first is as in the text. Next, in the direct answer, regarding possessing the hundred negations: if these hundred negations are counted as single [propositions], there are one hundred and sixty phrases; if as compound [propositions], there are one hundred phrases. Since it says "a hundred negations," by principle it should be compound. However, within the hundred negations, some are double negations that abandon both sides, while others preserve one and abolish the other. "Although not permanently abiding, it is not destroyed moment by moment" is the sense of double negation; "it is not a body, it is a body" is preserving one and abolishing the other. Yet ancient traditions failed to understand the hundred negations and merely explained the single phrase "is not a body, is a body." Seven schools are now presented here. One says: "Not a body" means it is not a body of food; "is a body" means it is the dharmakāya. Another says: "Not a body" means it is not a physical body; "is a body" means it is the dharmakāya. Another says: "Not a body" means it is not the body prior to the vajra[-like concentration]; "is a body" means it is the body subsequent to the vajra[-like concentration]. These three schools all take the conventional as the negation and the real as the affirmation. Another says: "Not a body" means the dharmakāya obscurely conforms to suchness; "is a body" means manifesting responsively in the ten directions. Another says: "Not a body" is the ultimate truth; "is a body" is the conventional truth. These two schools take the real as the negation and the conventional as the affirmation. Another says: "Not a body" means it is not the true body; "is a body" means it is an excellent body. This one school is vague and diffuse, not knowing which is the negation and which the affirmation. Although vague and diffuse, it ultimately contains affirmation and negation. [Master] Xīnghuáng says: The dharmakāya is neither affirmation nor negation; it cannot be affirmed by affirmation, nor negated by negation; it cuts off the hundred negations and negates the hundred affirmations; it is without affirmation or negation, yet capable of affirmation and negation; hence it is said to be "a body, not a body." Master [Fa]guan says: "Is a body, is not a body" are mutually established through causes and conditions; that the dharmakāya is not a body does not prevent it from being a body; all day long it is a body and yet not a body; all day long it is not a body and yet is a body. The text says: "It is empty, yet free from emptiness; although not permanently abiding, it is not destroyed moment by moment." These two schools share one single intention. Now, unable to thoroughly discern the purports of all these schools, I merely record them here. The Great Master Tiāntái explained three kinds of tetralemmas: first, simple; second, compound; third, complete. The simple tetralemma refers to: is; is not; both is and is not; neither is nor is not. The compound tetralemma is: is is; is not; both is and is not; neither is nor is not. Is is; is not is; both is and is not is; neither is nor is not is. The former phrase is according to negation, the next phrase is according to affirmation; it should also proceed from simple first to compound later. The complete [tetralemma] is: is is is is; is is not is is is; both is is and is not is; is is neither is is nor is not is—this is called the complete affirmative lemma. Neither is; nor is not; neither both is nor is not; neither neither is nor is not. Neither is is nor is not is; neither both is is nor is not is; neither neither is is nor is not is—this is called the complete negative lemma. The remaining two complete lemmas can be understood by analogy and need not be elaborated further. Simply relying on the characteristics of the three tetralemmas in the Great Master Tiāntái's Zhǐguān, it can be easily understood. Privately, I note: Since it says that simply relying on the text of the Zhǐguān makes it easily understood, comparing it now with that text, affirmation and negation each form three kinds of tetralemmas. First, according to affirmation: is; is not; both is and is not; neither is nor is not—this is simple. Is is; is not; not is is is not; both is and is not is; both is and is not not; neither is nor is not is; neither is nor is not not—this is compound. Is is; is not; is both is and is not; is neither is nor is not. Not is is; not is not; not both is and is not; not neither is nor is not. Both is and is not is; both is and is not not; both is and is not both is and is not; both is and is not neither is nor is not. Neither is nor is not is; neither is nor is not not; neither is nor is not both is and is not; neither is nor is not neither is nor is not. Next, according to negation, there are also three tetralemmas: not; not not; both not and not not; neither not nor not not—this is simple. Not not; not not not; not not not not not not; both not and not not not; both not and not not not not; neither not nor not not not; neither not nor not not not not—this is compound. Not not; not not not; not both not and not not; not neither not nor not not. Not not not; not not not not; not both not and not not; not neither not nor not not. Both not and not not not; both not and not not not not; both not and not not both not and not not; both not and not not neither not nor not not. Neither not nor not not not; neither not nor not not not not; neither not nor not not both not and not not; neither not nor not not neither not nor not not. I still preserve Zhāng'ān's earlier explanation, not daring to alter it arbitrarily. However, although affirmation and negation each form separate lemmas, not-negation is affirmation and not-affirmation is negation; to complete the three tetralemmas, they must be set against one another. Taking these three kinds of tetralemmas and looking at the earlier masters, what they negated constitutes negation. Which tetralemma was not yet negated, and which tetralemma was negated? All these various tetralemmas of theirs merely produce views of the tetralemma, and have not transcended the view of ineffability—how then could they conclude that it is the dharmakāya? Now, saying "not a body" means that it is not the body of miscellaneous food, the impermanent body of dust and earth obtained through such views; hence it says "not a body." Being identical to affirmation through negation, it is the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body. Yet the Buddha's body is neither affirmation nor negation, and is able to manifest as "not a body, is a body" for the sake of beings. Another explanation: "Except for the one characteristic of dharma" means non-duality. The Tathāgata's body is truly a double negation, and speaking of the dharmakāya is merely for the sake of conditions; hence it says "except for the one characteristic of dharma." The Larger Prajñāpāramitā says: "Except for the mind of sarvajñatā." From ancient times, not only did they fail to explain the hundred negations, but they also did not bring forth their meaning: why proclaim a hundred as negations, and to what do they correspond? Let me now attempt to speak of it: The Tathāgata's body is free from the hundred negations; since the Buddha's body differs in provisional and real, the hundred negations also have differences of shallow and deep. Regarding the hundred negations: the text below says, "Possessing the hundred merits, one characteristic is accomplished; in this way, progressively, the thirty-two marks are fully accomplished." Regarding the "hundred merits": upholding the precept against killing has five kinds of minds—inferior, middling, superior, superior-superior, and superior-middling-superior—and this is likewise true up to right view. These fifty minds are called the resolute accomplishment of the initial aspiration, and these fifty minds are called the hundred merit-virtues; such a hundred merits accomplish one mark. It is also said: "One good possesses ten, which makes the hundred merits." The Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā] says: "If the people of the great trichiliocosm were to lose their eyes and their lives, one who could save and preserve their eyes and lives would achieve one merit. Doing so a hundred times is called the hundred merit-virtues." Opposing the hundred merits, one discusses the hundred evils. The hundred evils are the negations; from the hundred evils, one receives the karmic retribution of the body of miscellaneous food, impermanence, and dust and earth in the four [unfortunate] destinies—this is called "not a body." From the hundred merits, one receives the Tathāgata's body of marks and signs, the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body. The fivefold pure [dharmadhātu] is called the dharmakāya; attaining the three unconditioned states is called the permanent body; not being destructible by eighty kotis of māras is called the vajra body; hence it is called "is a body." This is the Tripiṭaka Buddha's body being free from the hundred negations. Furthermore, the pure body of the thirty-two marks brought about by the hundred merits is entirely within the realm of existence. The karmic retributions of existence are rebuked by the noble and wise. The Treatise says: "A poisoned vessel is unfit for storing food; if eaten, it kills a person." Practising practices with an intentional mind is unfit for attaining the Way. Thus we know that Kāśyapa was precisely challenging this: "I now see only a body of miscellaneous food, impermanence, and dust and earth." One should know that the hundred merits are the negations, and because the nature of merit is empty, it is the affirmation. Therefore it is said: "All that has marks is illusory; if one sees all marks as non-marks, one sees the Tathāgata." Here, empty dharma is taken as the dharmakāya, emptiness free from arising is the permanent body, and emptiness in which emptiness cannot be attained is the vajra body. This is the Shared Teaching Buddha's body being free from the hundred negations. Furthermore, in emptiness there are no dharmas, neither affirmation nor negation, nor any body; how could emptiness be taken as the affirmation? If it is not an affirmation, then it is a negation. When the two vehicles attain emptiness, why is it not an affirmation? The Buddha's body is like space, inexhaustible, signless and unobstructed, capable of universally manifesting—only then can it be called an affirmation. That the two vehicles cannot manifest it is because it is merely biased emptiness. Realizing the fruit out of season is called the body of miscellaneous food; that this emptiness can be broken is the impermanent body; that this emptiness must be discarded is the body of dust and earth; hence emptiness is "not a body." When the buddhas attain emptiness, their ability to manifest bodies is the emptiness of the middle way; the middle way is precisely the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body. This is called the Distinct Teaching Buddha's body being free from the hundred negations. Furthermore, negating the hundred evils to enter the hundred merits, negating the hundred merits to enter the hundred emptinesses, negating the hundred emptinesses to enter the hundred middles—sequential shallow and deep, horizontal and vertical, being entirely separate—are all negations. Sequentially realizing the fruit is the body of miscellaneous food; prior and subsequent, superior and inferior, is the impermanent body; distinctions and obstructions are the body of dust and earth; therefore the Distinct [Teaching] is a negation. The Buddha's body is perfect and wondrous, without any multiplicity: within one there is the immeasurable, within the immeasurable there is the one; neither one nor immeasurable, neither identical nor different; complete and without lack, it is called the great nirvāṇa. Evil is immediately the middle way, without duality and without distinction; all dharmas are of the nature of peace and joy. If even the hundred evils are the middle way, how much more so the hundred merits and emptinesses—how could they not immediately be the middle way? The dharma that is immediately the middle way—the dharmakāya, the permanent body, the vajra body—can only then be called the affirmation. This is called the Perfect Buddha being free from the hundred negations. Being free from the former three negations and being named the Buddha's body is the intention of other sūtras; being identical to negation and named the Buddha's body is the correct intention of the present sūtra. Ancient masters completely failed to examine and distinguish this; although they proclaimed the hundred negations, they did not know which negations they were, and vainly spoke of the dharmakāya without knowing what it was. The general meaning of this explanation can now be seen. Since this is the realm of the buddhas, profound, wondrous, and hard to fathom, boring into and gazing up at it becomes all the more difficult. There is yet another explanation: The first phrase, regarding the human and heavenly body, already possesses the virtues of the ninety-nine phrases; the final phrase on nirvāṇa also possesses the virtues of the ninety-nine phrases; and the intermediate ones are likewise. Why? Because a single phrase is itself the dharmakāya, it is endowed with all virtues. According to the sūtra, there are three rounds: The first three phrases form one round, explaining that it is not a human or heavenly body, which seems like negating the conventional to enter the real. The intention of entering the real is that the conventional is immediately the real, double negating and abandoning both sides, like casting a vajra, which stops only when reaching the vajra-limit. The next eighty phrases form one round, explaining that "is not a body, is a body," which seems like negating the real to emerge into the conventional. The intention of emerging into the conventional is that emptiness is immediately the middle, wherein once one emerges, all emerge, so that all who are ready to be saved are able to see and hear. The final seventeen phrases form one round, explaining that there is none who knows and none who does not know, which seems like double negating the two extremes, entering the middle directly from the extremes, where not a single colour or fragrance fails to be the middle way. Although this distinction is made, it is not one-sided; if it were one-sided, it would not constitute the subtle and wondrous. What is subtle and wondrous is: immediately entering, immediately emerging, immediately the middle; also, immediately emerging, immediately entering, immediately the middle; also, immediately the middle, immediately emerging, immediately entering—neither one, two, nor three, and yet one, two, and three.