金光明經文句 2.6

2.6

佛本無身無壽亦無於量，隨順世間而論三身，亦隨順世間而論三壽量。法身者，師軌法性，還以法性為身。此身非色質亦非心智，非陰界入之所攝持，彊指法性為法身爾。法性壽者，非報得命根亦無連持，彊指不遷不變名之為壽。此壽非長量亦非短量，無延無促，彊指法界同虛空量。此即非身之身、無壽之壽、不量之量也。報身者，修行之所感也。《法華》云「久修業所得」，《涅槃》云「大般涅槃修道得故，如如智照如如境，菩提智慧與法性相應相冥。」相應者，如函蓋相應也。相冥者，如水乳相冥也。法身非身非不身，智既應冥亦非身非不身，彊名此智為報身也。法壽非常非無常，智既應冥亦非常非無常，彊名常為壽也。法既非量非無量，智既應冥亦非量非無量，彊名無量為量也。應身者，應同物身為身也，應同連持為壽也，應同長短為量也。智與體冥能起大用，如水銀和真金能塗諸色像。功德和法身處處應現往，能為身為非身、能為常壽為無常壽、能為無量能為有量。有量有二義：一為無量之量、二為有量之量。如七百阿僧祇及八十等，是有量之量。如山斤海滴，實有齊限，凡夫所不知；阿彌陀實有期限，人天莫數，此是有量之無量。應佛皆為兩量，逐物隨緣，參差長短。然此三身、三壽、三量不可並別一異，則乖法體；即一而三、即三而一乃會玄文。故下文云「如深法性，即於此典金光明中而得見我釋迦牟尼」，即其義也。但信相偏疑應身之有量，四佛偏舉應佛之無量斷其有量，迹疑既除，深達報法。若從信相所疑，應言壽有量；若從四佛釋疑，應言壽無量。而今不道壽有量、不道壽無量，直言壽量者，意欲圓論三佛之壽量，故不偏題取意為釋。若從義便，正是報身之壽量。何故取此？報身上冥下應，上冥法性即非量非無量，下應機緣能量能無量。量疑牽無量之答，即達於圓。經家從其生圓解而題品，舉一而蔽諸。從此義故，題為壽量品。又一時重解，〈壽量品〉亦作三重：一玄義、二引證、三還源。

The Buddha originally has no body, no lifespan, and no measure; yet in accordance with the world, the three bodies are discussed, and likewise in accordance with the world, three spans of life are discussed. As for the dharma-body (dharmakāya), it takes the dharmatā as its model and guideline, and returns to taking the dharmatā as its body. This body is neither physical form nor mental cognition, nor is it grasped or maintained by the aggregates, realms, or entrances; one merely forces the designation of dharmatā as the dharma-body. As for the lifespan of dharmatā, it is not a life-faculty obtained as karmic retribution, nor does it have continuous maintenance; one merely forces the designation of unshifting and unchanging as 'lifespan'. This lifespan is neither a long measure nor a short measure, without extension and without abbreviation; one merely forces the designation that it is coterminous with the dharmadhātu and equal to space. This, then, is the body that is no-body, the lifespan that is no-lifespan, and the measure that is no-measure. As for the retribution-body (saṃbhogakāya), it is what is induced through cultivation. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Obtained through long-cultivated karma.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Because the Great Parinirvāṇa is obtained through cultivating the path, the suchness-wisdom illuminates the suchness-object, and bodhi-wisdom corresponds and merges with the dharmatā.' 'Corresponding' is like a box and its lid matching together. 'Merging' is like water and milk blending together. The dharma-body is neither body nor non-body; since the wisdom corresponds and merges, it is also neither body nor non-body, and one merely forces the name of this wisdom to be the retribution-body. The dharma-lifespan is neither permanent nor impermanent; since the wisdom corresponds and merges, it is also neither permanent nor impermanent, and one merely forces the name 'permanence' to be lifespan. Since the dharma is neither measured nor unmeasured, and the wisdom corresponds and merges, it is also neither measured nor unmeasured, and one merely forces the name 'immeasurable' to be the measure. As for the response-body (nirmāṇakāya), it responds by identifying with the bodies of beings as its body, responds by identifying with continuous maintenance as its lifespan, and responds by identifying with length and shortness as its measure. When wisdom merges with substance, it can give rise to great function, just as mercury mixed with true gold can coat all kinds of forms and images. With merit blended with the dharma-body, it responds and manifests everywhere: it can act as body and as non-body, it can act as permanent lifespan and as impermanent lifespan, and it can act as immeasurable and as measurable. The measurable has two senses: first, the measure of the immeasurable; second, the measure of the measurable. Like seven hundred asaṃkhyeyas, eighty [years], and so forth—these are the measure of the measurable. Like the catties of mountains and the drops of the ocean, which in reality have limits that ordinary beings cannot know; or Amitābha having an actual limit that humans and devas cannot calculate—this is the immeasurable of the measurable. The response-buddha acts as both measures, following beings and complying with conditions, uneven in length and shortness. Yet these three bodies, three lifespans, and three measures cannot be placed side by side as separate, nor as one, nor as distinct, for that would contradict the substance of dharmas; being three while being one, and being one while being three, is what accords with the profound text. Therefore the text below says: 'Like the profound dharmatā, precisely in this scripture, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, one is able to see me, Śākyamuni'—such is its meaning. However, Ruciraketu doubted only the response-body's measurability, and the four Buddhas cited only the response-buddha's immeasurability to sever his [notion of] measurability; once the doubt regarding traces was eliminated, he profoundly penetrated the retribution-dharma and the dharma-body. If one followed what Ruciraketu doubted, one should say 'the lifespan has a measure'; if one followed the four Buddhas' resolution of the doubt, one should say 'the lifespan is immeasurable'. But now it does not say 'the lifespan has a measure', nor does it say 'the lifespan is immeasurable', but simply says 'the span of life' (āyuḥpramāṇa), because the intent is to discuss the lifespans and measures of the three Buddhas in a perfect manner; hence the title is not biased, taking the overarching intent for the explanation. In terms of doctrinal convenience, it precisely refers to the span of life of the retribution-body. Why take this? The retribution-body merges above and responds below: merging above with the dharmatā, it is neither measured nor immeasurable; responding below to capacities and conditions, it can be measured and can be immeasurable. The doubt about measure drew forth the answer of immeasurability, which then penetrated the perfect. The compilers of the sūtra titled the chapter based on the arising of this perfect understanding, raising one to cover all. For this reason, it is titled the Chapter on the Span of Life. Moreover, in a further explanation given at another time, the Chapter on the Span of Life is also treated in three tiers: first, the profound meaning; second, citing proof; third, returning to the source.