金光明最勝王經疏 4.157

4.157

贊曰：下別讚佛。初二頌讚報身智德、次二頌讚法身斷德、餘五頌讚化身恩德。初中，初讚因德、次讚果德。讚因中，初半頌讚慧眼、次一頌歎法眼。慧眼照空第一義諦，《掌珍論》引經云「曼殊室利！慧眼無所觀，不觀有為無為。所以者何？非慧眼境故。法眼照有，遍於真俗，非不見真如而能了諸法無著。」《般若論》釋意亦爾。故先讚慧眼。無分別故，不見一法相，非無諸法。緣於教法及眾根性，名為法眼。無不解了，名為普照。非餘所測，名不思議。稱境而知，不妄見增生一法，亦不妄見減滅一法，處中而知依他生滅。遍計真如竝無生滅，今不見彼後二生滅，非無生滅之依他性。

Commentary: Below, specifically praising the Buddha. The first two verses praise the virtue of wisdom of the reward body (saṃbhogakāya); the next two verses praise the virtue of abandonment of the Dharma body (dharmakāya); the remaining five verses praise the virtue of grace of the emanation body (nirmāṇakāya). In the first [section], he first praises the virtue of the cause and next praises the virtue of the fruit. In praising the cause, the first half-verse praises the wisdom eye, and the next one verse praises the Dharma eye. The wisdom eye illuminates the ultimate truth of emptiness. The Karatalaratna cites a sūtra stating: 'Mañjuśrī! The wisdom eye contemplates nothing; it does not contemplate the conditioned or the unconditioned. Why is that? Because they are not the sphere of the wisdom eye. The Dharma eye illuminates existence, pervading the conventional and the ultimate; it is not that without seeing tathatā one can understand all dharmas without attachment.' The explanation in the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa is also like this. Therefore, he first praises the wisdom eye. Because it is non-conceptual, it does not see the mark of a single dharma, not that dharmas do not exist. Taking the teachings and the capacities of beings as objects is called the Dharma eye. There is nothing it does not comprehend, so it is called 'universally illuminates'. It cannot be fathomed by others, so it is called 'inconceivable'. Knowing in accord with the object, it does not falsely see an increase by the arising of a single dharma, nor does it falsely see a decrease by the ceasing of a single dharma; knowing moderately the arising and ceasing of the other-dependent nature (paratantra). The fully conceptualized nature (parikalpita) and tathatā both lack arising and ceasing; now it is not seeing the arising and ceasing of those latter two, not that there is no arising and ceasing of the other-dependent nature.