淨名玄論 7.32

7.32

問：三會明土果不同，辨因何異？答：初廣明因、次略辨八法、後總勸修無動佛行，從廣至略。又初會明能化之因，故云菩薩成佛時而得淨土。後二明所化之因，欲生淨土當修八法也。淨土因不出廣略及能化所化。問：三會明法身因果，有何異耶？答：化主不同、三根之眾，並如上釋。但約義，凡有三略：一者方丈初會，對生死過患因果，以歎法身因果。方丈重會，多破大小二迷，辨菩薩妙行。即法身之因，成上果德也。而亦有明果之義，如經云「佛身無漏，諸漏已盡。佛身無為，不墮諸數。」無漏則五住因傾，無為已免二死，此本身之果。現處五濁，謂跡身之果。菴園重會，明法身體絕百非、形備萬德。欲識法身，必具三義：一者因果、二者本跡、三者本身體絕百非眾德圓備。是故三會，明此三門。二者三會所為不同、明義各異。初對凡夫，辨於法身。何以知之？如〈方便品〉辨國王長者無數千人皆來問疾，故說生死過患，歎法身眾德。次〈弟子品〉對二乘。二乘謂佛雖復外具相好、內有種智，而生滅之道與聲聞無異，故辨佛身無漏無為非二乘所測。前明異凡，次辨超聖，此皆是為凡夫二乘故開此二也。時眾聞上所明，皆生異執，故命淨名令泯斯兩見。觀身實相、觀佛亦然，故心佛及眾生、是三無差別。道遠乎哉？觸事而真。聖遠乎哉？體之即神。是故不應生二見也。三者初之二會正辨法身，後集則明佛性。何以知之？觀身實相，觀佛亦然。法身既即是身中實相，故知實相佛性也。問：實相乃是法性，云何是佛性耶？答：若實相即是法性，則應云觀法亦然，云何言觀佛亦然？又應明法性絕百非、真諦含萬德，何得辨法身耶？故知前之二會辨於法身，後之一集乃明佛性。具此三門，義乃圓足，是以一經之內隱顯說之。問：三會但明二身，亦得具於三佛？答：亦有三佛。初會明佛身相好，寶積歎八相成道，謂化佛也；次會明從無量功德生，即是報佛；後辨百非皆絕、萬德斯圓，即法佛也。問：從無量功德生，云何是報佛耶？答：《金剛般若經》云「如來從此經生、從此經出」，論云「法身本有為出，報佛修習所得為生」。問：三佛是北方所辨，何得由之？蓋是管見之疑，非通方論也。一佛二佛、三身十身，經論盛說，豈得聞二信受、聽三驚疑？問：生、肇、融、叡並注《淨名》，何故不作此釋？答：其人非無斯意，但于時經論未備，故義不分明。問：云何未備？答：《涅槃》、《華嚴》、《勝鬘》、《大集》等經，《地論》、《金剛般若》、《攝大乘》、《法華》、《唯識》實性之流，皆晚傳此土。如叡公《喻疑論》云「什師不見六卷《泥洹》，其人若見此經，當如白日朗其胸襟、甘露流其四體也。」

Question: The three assemblies explain the result of the land differently; how do their explanations of its causes differ? Answer: The first broadly explains the causes; the second briefly explains the eight dharmas; the last generally encourages cultivating the practices of the Akṣobhya Buddha, proceeding from the broad to the brief. Furthermore, the first assembly explains the cause for the one who can transform [others]; hence it says that when a bodhisattva attains buddhahood, they obtain a pure land. The latter two explain the causes for those who are transformed, [showing that] if one wishes to be born in a pure land, one should cultivate the eight dharmas. The causes of the pure land do not exceed the broad and the brief, or the transforming [agent] and the transformed [beings]. Question: How do the explanations of the causes and results of the dharmakāya differ across the three assemblies? Answer: The differences in transforming masters and the assemblies of the three faculties are all as explained above. But regarding the doctrine, there are in general three summaries: First, the first assembly in the ten-foot-square room praises the causes and results of the dharmakāya in contrast to the faults, causes, and results of saṃsāra. The second assembly in the ten-foot-square room mostly refutes the two delusions of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna and clarifies the marvelous practices of the bodhisattva, which are the causes of the dharmakāya that bring about the aforementioned virtues of the result. Yet it also has the meaning of explaining the result, as the sūtra says: “The Buddha's body is without outflows; all outflows are already exhausted. The Buddha's body is unconditioned, not falling into any categories.” Being without outflows, the causes of the five dwellings are overturned; being unconditioned, he has already escaped the two kinds of death. This is the result of the root body. Manifestly dwelling in the five turbidities is called the result of the trace body. The second assembly in Āmrapālī's grove explains that the essence of the dharmakāya transcends the hundred negations and its form possesses the myriad virtues. If one wishes to recognise the dharmakāya, it must possess three meanings: first, cause and result; second, root and trace; third, the essence of the root body transcending the hundred negations and fully possessing all virtues. Therefore, the three assemblies explain these three gates. Second, what the three assemblies are directed toward differs, and their doctrinal explanations are distinct. The first explains the dharmakāya for ordinary people. How do we know this? As the “Chapter on Expedient Means” explains, countless thousands of kings and elders all came to inquire after his illness; therefore he spoke of the faults of saṃsāra and praised the myriad virtues of the dharmakāya. Next, the “Chapter on the Disciples” is directed toward the two vehicles. The two vehicles think that although the Buddha outwardly possesses the major and minor marks and inwardly possesses the knowledge of all aspects, his way of arising and ceasing is no different from that of a śrāvaka; therefore it explains that the Buddha's body is without outflows and unconditioned, beyond the fathoming of the two vehicles. The former explains how it differs from ordinary people; the next clarifies how it transcends the holy ones. These two [teachings] were set forth precisely for ordinary people and the two vehicles. When the assembly at that time heard what was explained above, they all gave rise to divergent clingings; therefore [the Buddha] commanded Vimalakīrti to eliminate these two views. When one contemplates the dharmatā of the body, one contemplates the Buddha likewise; thus the mind, the Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference. Is the Way far off? Touch anything and it is real. Are the sages far off? Embody them and there is spiritual efficacy. Therefore, one should not give rise to two views. Third, the first two assemblies properly explain the dharmakāya, while the latter assembly clarifies Buddha-nature. How do we know this? “Contemplate the dharmatā of the body; contemplate the Buddha likewise.” Since the dharmakāya is just the dharmatā within the body, we know that the dharmatā is Buddha-nature. Question: Dharmatā is the nature of phenomena (dharmatā); how can it be Buddha-nature? Answer: If dharmatā were just the nature of phenomena, it should say “contemplate phenomena likewise”; why say “contemplate the Buddha likewise”? Furthermore, it should explain that the nature of phenomena transcends the hundred negations and that the ultimate truth contains the myriad virtues; why would it explain the dharmakāya? Therefore, we know that the preceding two assemblies explain the dharmakāya, while the latter assembly clarifies Buddha-nature. Only with these three gates is the meaning fully complete; therefore, within a single sūtra, it is spoken of both implicitly and explicitly. Question: The three assemblies explain only the two bodies; can they also possess the three buddhas? Answer: There are also three buddhas. The first assembly explains the marks and signs of the Buddha's body, where Ratnakūṭa praises the attainment of the Way through the eight phases, which refers to the nirmāṇabuddha; the next assembly explains that it is born from immeasurable merits, which is the saṃbhogabuddha; the last clarifies that the hundred negations are all cut off and the myriad virtues are all complete, which is the dharmabuddha. Question: Being born from immeasurable merits—how is this the saṃbhogabuddha? Answer: The Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, “The Tathāgata is born from this sūtra and emerges from this sūtra.” The treatise says, “The dharmakāya being fundamentally possessed is called ‘emerging’; the saṃbhogabuddha obtained through practice is called ‘being born’.” Question: The three buddhas are explained by the northern masters; how can this be followed? That is merely the doubt of narrow vision, not a discourse of universal applicability. One buddha, two buddhas, three bodies, ten bodies are extensively spoken of in the sūtras and treatises; how could one hear of two and have faith, yet hear of three and be startled with doubt? Question: Daosheng, Sengzhao, Daorong, and Sengrui all annotated the Vimalakīrti; why did they not make this interpretation? Answer: Those masters were not without this intention, but at that time the sūtras and treatises were not yet fully present, so the doctrine was not distinct. Question: In what way were they not fully present? Answer: Sūtras such as the Nirvāṇa, Avataṃsaka, Śrīmālādevī, and Mahāsaṃnipāta, and treatises on the real nature such as the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, Vajracchedikā, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, and Vijñaptimātratā, were all transmitted late to this land. As master Sengrui's Yu yi lun (Treatise on Resolving Doubts) says: “Master Kumārajīva did not see the six-fascicle Nirvāṇa Sūtra; had that master seen this sūtra, it would have been like the clear sun brightening his heart, and sweet dew flowing through his four limbs.”