維摩經略疏 5.98

5.98

「如來至何惱」，二、顯如來金剛身者，阿難不測重止之意，所以淨名顯金剛身，對破小教明生身也。「如來身者金剛之體」即法身常身。所以喻金剛者，體堅用利，徹至本際。堅譬法身不為妄惑生死所侵，常住不變。利喻法身智德般若照用之功無所不備，徹至本際。譬法身斷德解脫終窮惑障斯斷，是則三德如世伊字，故借金剛以譬法身。「諸惡已斷眾善普會」者，諸惡已斷，即五住皆除。眾善普會，即是摩訶般若能導萬善冥於中道究竟圓極。是則法身三德其義宛然。「當有何疾當有何惱」者，諸惡已盡則無苦果，當有何疾？眾善普會究竟常樂，當有何惱？此破三藏報身智斷，故言疾也。衍教法身智斷無苦，故言無疾。說有疾者，即二謗也。但舊約四時五時，云說般若猶是八十年佛。此方等教同《首楞嚴》，明壽七百阿僧祇劫，而不受釋十弟子為顯枯榮，豈得以無常消此經文？

From "The Tathāgata" down to "what distress": second, revealing the Tathāgata's vajra body. Since Ānanda did not fathom the intent of the repeated stopping, Vimalakīrti therefore revealed the vajra body, directly refuting the lesser teaching that clarifies the birth body. "The Tathāgata's body is of vajra essence": this is the dharmakāya, the eternal body. The reason it is compared to vajra is that its essence is hard, its function is sharp, and it penetrates through to the fundamental limit. "Hard" illustrates that the dharmakāya cannot be assailed by delusion or by birth and death, eternally abiding and immutable. "Sharp" illustrates that the dharmakāya's virtue of wisdom—the illuminating function of prajñā—lacks nothing. "Penetrating through to the fundamental limit" illustrates that the dharmakāya's virtue of severance—liberation—ultimately cuts off all obstacles of delusion. Thus the three virtues are like the mundane character 'I'; hence vajra is borrowed as an analogy for the dharmakāya. As for "all evils have been cut off, all goods are universally gathered": "all evils have been cut off" means the five entrenchments are entirely eliminated; "all goods are universally gathered" means Mahāprajñā can guide the myriad good deeds to merge in the Middle Way, consummate and ultimate. Thus the three virtues of the dharmakāya are distinctly clear in their meaning. As for "what illness could it have, what distress could it have?": when all evils are exhausted, there is no fruit of suffering—what illness could it have? When all goods are universally gathered, there is ultimate eternal bliss—what distress could it have? This refutes the Tripiṭaka's retribution body with its wisdom and severance, hence speaking of illness. The Mahāyāna teaching's dharmakāya has wisdom and severance without suffering, hence speaking of no illness. To say there is illness is precisely the two slanders. But older [traditions] relied on the four periods or five periods, saying that expounding prajñā still pertained to the eighty-year Buddha. This vaipulya teaching is identical with the Śūraṅgama, clarifying a lifespan of seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas, not accepting the explanation that the ten disciples manifest fading and flourishing; how then could one explain away this sūtra text with impermanence?