注維摩詰經 9.274

9.274

肇曰：法身超絕三界，非陰界入所攝，故不可以生住去來而覩，不可以五陰如性而觀也。生曰：向云不見佛者，或是已不能見，非無佛也。故復推無佛可見，以盡之焉。人佛者，五陰合成耳。若有，便應色即是佛。若色不即是佛，便應色外有佛也。色外有佛又有三種，佛在色中、色在佛中、色屬佛也。若色即是佛，不應待四也。若色外有佛，不應待色也。若色中有佛，佛無常矣。若佛中有色，佛有分矣。若色屬佛，色不可變矣。色者，色之事也。如者，色不異也。性者，無本為色也。既言其事，事或可改，故言如也。雖曰不改，本或不然，故言性也。然則要備三義，然後成色義也。是以如性五事，亦不得而殊也，至識皆同之焉。既無所見，乃為見實也。以實見為佛，見實所以見佛也。

[Seng]zhao says: The dharmakāya transcends the three realms and is not subsumed under the aggregates, realms, or sense bases; therefore it cannot be seen in terms of arising, abiding, going, or coming, nor can it be contemplated in terms of the suchness and nature of the five aggregates. [Dao]sheng says: Previously stating that one does not see the Buddha might mean that one is simply unable to see, not that there is no Buddha. Therefore, he further investigates that there is no Buddha to be seen, in order to exhaust it. The human Buddha is merely a composite of the five aggregates. If he exists, form should be identical to the Buddha. If form is not identical to the Buddha, then there should be a Buddha outside of form. There being a Buddha outside of form also has three possibilities: the Buddha is within form, form is within the Buddha, or form belongs to the Buddha. If form is identical to the Buddha, he should not depend on the other four [aggregates]. If there is a Buddha outside of form, he should not depend on form. If the Buddha is within form, the Buddha would be impermanent. If form is within the Buddha, the Buddha would have parts. If form belongs to the Buddha, form could not change. "Form" refers to the phenomenon of form. "Suchness" refers to the non-difference of form. "Nature" refers to the absence of a fundamental basis serving as form. Having mentioned its phenomenon, the phenomenon might change, hence he speaks of "suchness". Although said to be unchanging, its fundamental basis might not be so, hence he speaks of "nature". Thus, one must possess these three meanings, and only then is the meaning of form established. Therefore, the five matters of suchness and nature cannot be differentiated either, and it is the same through to consciousness. Since there is nothing seen, this is seeing reality. Taking the seeing of reality as the Buddha, seeing reality is the reason one sees the Buddha.