金光明最勝王經疏 2.313

2.313

三、彰妨難者，一問：此之三身為俱本有？為俱新起？答：據因俱本有，談果竝新成。以自性身非生滅故，總云新成。自性法身體即真如，在纏名藏未名法身，恒沙萬德相未現故，非功德法之所依；出纏之位即名法身，恒沙萬德相已現顯，說功德依名為法身。故《勝鬘經》云「在纏名如來藏，出纏名法身。」《成唯識論》云「在大牟尼名法身故」。既云在大牟尼名為法身，明非本稱，故是新得。應化二身因雖本有，果即新生。其理極成，不煩引證。二問：此之三身為同一體義用分三？為因體別？答：因體各別。自性法身即應得因得，應得因體即真如是。應化二身即加行因、圓滿因得，發心名加行、修足名圓滿，即六度是。三問：若三因別體亦有別，云何下文云「雖有三數而無三體」。答：約性相說，真如是性，餘者是相。非有一法出真如界別有體性，云無三體。非不離如體性不別。又約攝相歸性，如體即一；若相用別論，三體不同。如《成唯識》、《大莊嚴論》、《攝大乘》等皆具明之。問曰：若三體別，下說金礦譬喻不成。答：不相違。以真如理與本無漏種合喻金礦，得淨金者合喻果德。隨意迴轉作諸嚴具，喻性相功德皆依如理，根力覺支依四智起故。下別更金水空三，喻於法身體是先有。夢渡水喻，方始別喻四智心品。故下經云「非謂無心，忘想既滅是覺清淨，非謂無覺。」金水及空本有無變，故喻自性。夢非真覺，夢覺知虛真覺方起，故知體別。古今諸德說三身體差別不同，義至下當辨。

Third, regarding resolving objections: First question: Are these three bodies all originally existent? Or are they all newly arisen? Answer: In terms of the cause, they are all originally existent; speaking of the fruit, they are all newly achieved. Because the svābhāvikakāya is without arising or ceasing, it is collectively said to be newly achieved. The essence of the svābhāvikadharmakāya is tathatā. When bound [by defilements], it is called the garbha and is not yet called the dharmakāya, because the marks of the myriad virtues as numerous as the sands of the Ganges have not yet appeared, and it is not yet the basis of the dharmas of merit; at the stage of emergence from bondage, it is called the dharmakāya, for the marks of the myriad virtues as numerous as the sands of the Ganges are already manifested, and being spoken of as the basis of merits it is called the dharmakāya. Thus the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: 'Bound [by defilements], it is called the tathāgatagarbha; emerged from bondage, it is called the dharmakāya.' The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Because in the Great Muni it is called the dharmakāya.' Since it says that in the Great Muni it is called the dharmakāya, it is clear that this is not its original designation; therefore it is newly attained. As for the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya, although their cause is originally existent, their fruit is newly born. This principle is thoroughly established, so there is no need to cite further proof. Second question: Do these three bodies share a single identical essence with functions divided into three? Or are their causal bases and essences distinct? Answer: Their causal bases and essences are distinct. The svābhāvikadharmakāya is attained by the cause of realization, and the essence of the cause of realization is tathatā. The saṃbhoga and nirmāṇa bodies are attained by the cause of preparation and the cause of fulfillment; the initial resolve is called preparation, and completing the practice is called fulfillment—namely, the six pāramitās. Third question: If the three causes are distinct and their essences are also distinct, why does the text below say, 'Although there is the number three, there are not three essences'? Answer: This is spoken in terms of nature and characteristics: tathatā is the nature, and the others are characteristics. It is not that there is any dharma outside the dharmadhātu of tathatā that has a separate essence, which is why it says there are not three essences; it does not mean that, not being separate from tathatā, their essences are not distinct. Furthermore, in terms of subsuming characteristics into the nature, the essence of tathatā is one; but if characteristics and functions are discussed distinctly, the three essences are not the same. This is fully explained in texts such as the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Question: If the three essences are distinct, the simile of the gold ore spoken below would not be established. Answer: There is no contradiction. For the principle of tathatā together with the original untainted seeds are compared to the gold ore, and obtaining the pure gold is compared to the fruits and virtues. Being turned at will into various ornaments illustrates that the merits of nature and characteristics all rely on the principle of tathatā, because the faculties, powers, and factors of awakening arise based on the four knowledges. Below, gold, water, and space are additionally used as three similes to illustrate that the essence of the dharmakāya is priorly existent. Only with the simile of crossing water in a dream are the mental states of the four knowledges specifically illustrated. Thus the sūtra below says: 'It does not mean there is no mind; when false thoughts are eliminated, that is the purity of awakening; it does not mean there is no awakening.' Gold, water, and space are originally existent and without change, so they illustrate the svabhāva. A dream is not true awakening; only when one awakens from the dream and knows it to be empty does true awakening arise, so we know their essences are distinct. The ancient and modern masters differ in their explanations of the distinctions among the three bodies; this meaning will be distinguished below when we reach that passage.