維摩經略疏垂裕記 2.195

2.195

二、答，三：初、明土是經宗。既首談佛國現身，豈不表耶。二、「法身」下，顯身土不二。由依正不二故，便現身即表國土。「離身無土」者，荊溪云：此是法身身土不二之明文也。諸部文中雖有此意，文相不顯。不得此文，將何以消諸部碩異。請觀疏文及荊溪意，無情成佛何所疑耶？且離身無土、離土無身，故身成時即土成也。心外無境，深可思量。故《金錍》云「一佛成道，法界無非此佛之依正。一佛既爾，諸佛咸然。眾生自於佛依正中而生殊見。」彼又問云：佛成道時土亦成耶？成廣狹耶？不成有過。「真如」下，覆釋上義也。真如實相即心性之異名，境智誰分？身土寧別？心性無外，攝無不周。既唯一心，豈有能所？故使境智身土四並非之。然而終日雙非未乖雙是，智境身土宛然自殊，故說境智及以身土。雖云自殊，體元不二，故今表身即是表土，故云既表於身等。學佛乘者苟迷此旨，徒費光陰。欲逮無生，吾不信也。北轅適越，豈不迷乎？「故金」下，引證不二。「唯識」者，唯遮外境、識表內心，唯秖是心，更無外塵，故云唯識。諸佛修習無分別智，通達唯識真實之性，故云智習唯識通。以正智契真如無有形相，則名莊嚴，故云非莊嚴莊嚴，謂非事嚴而是理嚴也。

Second, the answer, in three parts: first, clarifying that the land is the main theme of the sūtra. Since at the beginning it speaks of the Buddha land and manifests the body, how could it not express it? Second, from "the dharmakāya" onward, revealing the non-duality of body and land. Because circumstantial and direct [rewards] are non-dual, manifesting the body immediately expresses the land. Regarding "apart from the body there is no land": Jingxi says: "This is a clear passage showing that the dharmakāya's body and land are non-dual. Although this meaning is present in the texts of various sections, the phrasing is not explicit. Without this passage, how would one resolve the great differences among the various sections? Please examine the commentary's text and Jingxi's intent; what doubt could there be that insentient things attain Buddhahood? Furthermore, apart from the body there is no land, and apart from the land there is no body; therefore when the body is accomplished, the land is accomplished. There are no objects outside the mind, which is deeply worth pondering. Therefore the *Jinbi* (*Golden Harpoon*) says: 'When one Buddha attains the Way, throughout the dharmadhātu there is nothing that is not this Buddha's circumstantial and direct [rewards]. One Buddha being thus, all Buddhas are completely so. Sentient beings themselves produce divergent views regarding the Buddha's circumstantial and direct [rewards].' It also asks: 'When the Buddha attains the Way, is the land also accomplished? Is it accomplished as broad or narrow? If it is not accomplished, there is an error.' From 'suchness' onward, it re-explains the above meaning. Suchness and true reality are different names for mind-nature; who can divide object and wisdom? How could body and land be different? Mind-nature has no outside; its encompassing is nowhere incomplete. Since there is only the one mind, how could there be expressing and expressed? Therefore object, wisdom, body, and land—all four are negated. However, constantly negating both does not violate affirming both; wisdom and object, body and land, are distinct as they are, which is why we speak of object and wisdom as well as body and land. Although said to be distinct, their essence is fundamentally non-dual. Therefore now expressing the body is precisely expressing the land; hence it says 'having already expressed the body,' and so forth. If those who study the Buddha vehicle are confused about this principle, they waste their time in vain. As for wishing to attain the unarisen, I do not believe it [possible]. Heading north in one's carriage to reach Yue—is that not delusion? From 'therefore the *Golden*' onward, citing evidence for non-duality. Regarding 'consciousness-only': 'only' excludes external objects, and 'consciousness' expresses the internal mind; 'only' is just the mind, there being no external dust, hence it is called 'consciousness-only.' All Buddhas cultivate non-conceptual wisdom and penetrate the true nature of consciousness-only; hence it is said that 'wisdom practices consciousness-only and penetrates it.' With correct wisdom tallying with suchness, which has no form or characteristics, this is called adornment; hence it says 'adornment of non-adornment,' meaning it is not phenomenal adornment but adornment of principle.