金光明最勝王經疏 3.53

3.53

贊曰：釋第四句。初直解、後釋難。此初也。即自受用及自性法身合名法身。然佛三身，諸說不定。如《佛地論》及《成唯識》說佛四身區分無雜。餘即通說，如《攝大乘論》自受自性合名自性法身，他受用身名為應身，說有人天菩薩聲聞間雜見故。若自受用，等覺菩薩尚不能知，況有餘眾生？設他受用為地上現，亦無聲聞等。說有之者，如《佛地論》。有其三釋，第三釋正。謂二乘人迴心向大，以彼名說。《楞伽》亦爾。又《攝大乘》四善根位所見佛身亦他受用攝。問：何以得知自受用身亦自性法身攝？答：彼論第九云「應知法身幾德相應，謂最清淨四無量、解脫、勝處」等。彼論第十又云「諸佛法界即是法身，應知恒時能作五業」等。又彼論「若受用身，菩薩聲聞及諸天等，種種眾會間雜可見故。」明非自受。問：若爾，彼論復云「受用非自性身，以色身可見故。」豈自受用無色身耶？答：他受用身但唯有色，名為有色。不爾，應云以五蘊故非自性身，何但言色？唯彼三身，義同此經。又解：彼論自他受用合名受用，自性法身唯真如理，云諸佛法界即是法身。說具功德者，彼自釋云「謂佛法身成實勝義真如所顯。」此即意說法身自性功德相應，說身差別相應無失。準此意，同《勝鬘》所說出纏名法身，與恒沙性功德相應，非相功德。六因明受用非自性身，且約他受用，非謂自受非受用攝。準此，即與《大莊嚴論》、《法華經論》、《般若經論》說三身同，與此經別，故各相從。且《法華經論》說化身者，即此亦應亦化，同應身。亦可自他受用俱名應身，說壽量無邊是應身故。法身唯如，彼經云「非實非虛」等。然上諸文竝約多分，於中或有於他受用身處說自受用、自受用處說他受用，或法身處說應化身、或於應化身處說法身。由是性相同處而說，文有相雜，準此應知。

The commentary says: This explains the fourth alternative. First it directly explains, and afterwards resolves objections. This is the first. That is, the body of self-enjoyment and the essential Dharma-body are together called the Dharma-body. However, regarding the three bodies of a buddha, various explanations are not uniform. For instance, the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra and the Cheng weishi [lun] speak of four bodies of a buddha, distinct and unmixed. Others speak of them generally; for example, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha combines the self-enjoyment [body] and essential [body] under the name essential Dharma-body, and calls the enjoyment-body for others the response body, saying that it is seen intermingled by humans, gods, bodhisattvas, and śrāvakas. If it were the self-enjoyment [body], even bodhisattvas of equal awakening cannot know it, let alone other sentient beings. Even if the enjoyment [body] for others is manifested for those on the stages, there are still no śrāvakas and so forth. That it is said to exist is explained in the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra. It gives three explanations, the third being correct: it refers to persons of the two vehicles who turn their minds toward the Mahāyāna, being designated by their [former] names. The Laṅkāvatāra is also like this. Furthermore, in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the buddha-body seen by those in the position of the four roots of goodness is also subsumed under the enjoyment [body] for others. Question: How is it known that the self-enjoyment body is also subsumed under the essential Dharma-body? Answer: Fascicle nine of that treatise says: "It should be known how many virtues the Dharma-body corresponds to, namely the purest four immeasurables, liberations, bases of mastery," and so forth. Fascicle ten of that treatise also says: "The dharmadhātu of the buddhas is precisely the Dharma-body; it should be known that it constantly can perform the five activities," and so forth. Furthermore, that treatise says: "If it is the enjoyment-body, it is because it can be seen intermingled among various assemblies of bodhisattvas, śrāvakas, gods, and so forth"—making it clear that it is not self-enjoyment. Question: If so, that treatise also says, "The enjoyment [body] is not the essential body, because a physical body can be seen." Can it be that the self-enjoyment [body] has no physical body? Answer: The enjoyment-body for others is solely physical, which is why it is called "having form." If not, it should say that it is not the essential body because of having the five skandhas; why only mention form? Only these three bodies have a meaning identical to this sūtra. Another explanation: In that treatise, self-enjoyment and enjoyment for others are together called enjoyment[-body], while the essential Dharma-body is solely the principle of tathatā, saying that the dharmadhātu of the buddhas is precisely the Dharma-body. As for saying it possesses virtues, it explains itself: "It means that the Dharma-body of the buddhas is manifested by the true, supreme, ultimate tathatā." This means that the Dharma-body corresponds essentially to virtues; to say that the bodily distinctions correspond is without error. According to this meaning, it is the same as what the Śrīmālā says: free from bondage, it is called the Dharma-body, corresponding to virtues of nature as numerous as the sands of the Ganges, not virtues of marks. The six reasons explaining that the enjoyment [body] is not the essential body provisionally refer to the enjoyment [body] for others, not meaning that self-enjoyment is not subsumed under enjoyment. By this principle, it is identical to the three bodies explained in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-śāstra, and the Prajñāpāramitā-śāstra, and differs from this sūtra; thus each follows its own system. For instance, what the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-śāstra calls the emanation body is here both response and emanation, identical to the response body. It is also possible that self-enjoyment and enjoyment for others are both called response bodies, since it says that immeasurable lifespan belongs to the response body. The Dharma-body is solely tathatā, which that sūtra describes as "neither real nor unreal" and so forth. However, all the above texts speak for the most part; among them, there are cases where self-enjoyment is spoken of in the place of enjoyment for others, or enjoyment for others in the place of self-enjoyment; or the response-emanation body is spoken of in the place of the Dharma-body, or the Dharma-body is spoken of in the place of the response-emanation body. Because the nature and characteristics are spoken of in the same place, the texts are intermixed; this should be understood accordingly.