維摩經略疏 5.98

5.98

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?