金光明最勝王經疏 2.381

2.381

贊曰：釋也。初釋二利、後釋所以。此初也。如如凝寂多自利，如智起用多利他。梁《攝論》云「若以法身為應身佛，無利益眾生義。若以應身為法佛，無現世安樂義。」問：諸說二利有三不同。一《雜集論》云「自他二利所依止」，《唯識》亦然。自性法身正唯自利亦兼利他，通於二利，自受用變化是所依止故，自受用身是自利；他受用變化是利他，為他現故。二《無上依》及《寶性論》，法身是自利，應化是利他。三者此經。何故如是？答：《雜集》、《唯識》，自性法身通二利，據盡理論。《無上依》等，據自性法身正用而說，云是自利。應化利他，據他受用名為應佛，故俱利他。此經如如，同《無上依》。如如智利他，據平等性及成事智，起他受用變化二佛身故，云是利他。《雜集》應身是自利者，據自受用名應身說。《成唯識論》據彼應身通二受用，故成二利。各據一義，俱不相違。利益他者是如如智，何不言應化耶？答：有二解。一云：舉能變體是二智故、利他體故，所起之身唯是色故、利他用故，所以不論。《唯識論》等說他用變化名利他，據用而說所變。《大品般若》云「化佛無心，云何分別破壞諸法、破壞開演之義？」或此二身是彼智果，說彼智名，實是應化。不爾，下喻小不相似。二云：此據四智亦是法身。真如內寂說是自利，智有外用說是利他。不說應化，義同前說。

Commentary: This is the explanation. First it explains the two benefits; then it explains the reason. This is the first. Tathatā is congealed and tranquil, mostly pertaining to benefit for oneself; the wisdom of tathatā gives rise to function, mostly pertaining to benefit for others. The Liang translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "If one takes the dharmakāya to be the responsive body Buddha, there is no meaning of benefiting sentient beings. If one takes the responsive body to be the Dharma Buddha, there is no meaning of present peace and bliss." Question: Various explanations of the two benefits have three differences. First, the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says: "The basis upon which both benefit for oneself and benefit for others rely," and the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi is also like this. The svabhāva-dharmakāya is primarily benefit for oneself alone and also concurrently benefits others, extending to both benefits, because the enjoyment-for-oneself [body] and manifestation [body] are what rely upon it; the body of enjoyment for oneself is benefit for oneself, while the enjoyment for others and manifestation bodies are benefit for others, because they are manifested for others. Second, the Anuttarāśrayasūtra and the Ratnagotravibhāga state that the dharmakāya is benefit for oneself, while the responsive and transformation [bodies] are benefit for others. Third is this sūtra. Why is it like this? Answer: In the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā and the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, that the svabhāva-dharmakāya extends to both benefits is according to the ultimate principle. The Anuttarāśrayasūtra and so forth speak according to the primary function of the svabhāva-dharmakāya, saying it is benefit for oneself; that the responsive and transformation [bodies] are benefit for others is based on taking enjoyment for others to be called the responsive Buddha, and hence both are benefit for others. The tathatā in this sūtra is the same as in the Anuttarāśrayasūtra. That the wisdom of tathatā is benefit for others is based on the samatājñāna and the kṛtyanuṣṭhānajñāna giving rise to the two Buddha bodies of enjoyment for others and transformation, and therefore it is called benefit for others. That the responsive body is benefit for oneself in the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā is spoken based on taking enjoyment for oneself to be called the responsive body. The Cheng weishi lun is based on that responsive body extending to both kinds of enjoyment, and thus it constitutes both benefits. Each is based on one perspective, and neither contradicts the other. [Question:] Benefit for others is the wisdom of tathatā; why does it not speak of the responsive and transformation [bodies]? Answer: There are two explanations. One says: It mentions the essence that is able to transform because it consists of the two wisdoms and is the essence of benefiting others; the bodies given rise to are merely form and are the function of benefiting others, which is why they are not discussed. When the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and others state that enjoyment for others and transformation are called benefiting others, they speak based on function regarding what is transformed. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: "Transformation Buddhas have no mind; how could they conceptually differentiate and destroy phenomena, or have the meaning of destroying and expounding?" Or, these two bodies are the fruit of that wisdom, and the name of that wisdom is used, whereas in actuality they are responsive and transformation [bodies]. If not so, the simile below would not be somewhat analogous. The second says: This is based on the four wisdoms being also the dharmakāya. Tathatā being tranquil within is said to be benefit for oneself; wisdom having outward function is said to be benefit for others. Not mentioning the responsive and transformation [bodies] has the same meaning as previously explained.