金剛般若論會釋 2.11

2.11

解答文中分三，初、解佛說非身言，次、解彼身非身言，後、明所顯之法。初文如來說為非體者，顯示法無我，故天親云，「此說受樂報佛體，同彼須彌山王，鏡像義故」，此說報佛如須彌山王，勢力高遠，故名為大。如鏡中之像，智識影故，而不取彼山王自體我是山王，無分別故；報佛亦爾，以得無上法王體故名大，而不取彼法王自體我是法王，以無分別故。有分別者，是煩惱等橫，心是有漏，法王離漏法，證無我故，無分別故。彼論言，「若如是無有物」，無有物者，無分別故，意言佛說法王所現大身，非是有漏分別之身，是名大身，彼身不利眾生故；法王所現大身由證無為法無我理，無分別故，而不捨棄利眾生事，彼體非體，顯示法體無生無作故。天親云，「若如是即名有物，以唯有清淨身故，以遠離有為法故，以是義故，實有我體，以不依他緣住故」者，彼論意說，彼受樂報佛體唯清淨身，由如是故名為有物。所言「非身」，二種身，一、非依他有漏之身，名為非身報身；二、非惡業所為之身，故名非身。前非身者，非是煩惱所縛；後非身者，非是惡業所為之身，故論說言遠離有為。遠離有為者，顯佛報身非是遠離因緣之身，因緣起故，此身無為，如《對法》說，非是惡業之所為故。又即由此非惡業為故，所遠離遍計所執實有我體，不依他緣自然住故。法王報身猶如鏡像，非彼身，故為大身。體既非實，何更有生及實作者？然今此論及《能斷》中說身為體，體依聚義，總說為身，體同名異。然《能斷》中云，「如有士夫具身、大身」；真諦本云，「譬如有人體相勝大」；二本無別。具身者，即是勝義，具足丈夫相故；大者，形量大故。餘本皆闕，有大無勝義。又真諦本云，「如來說非有，名為有身，此非是有，身初非有，故說有身」，初非有者，非有漏分別；後非有者，非有為分別，名異義同。明所顯法中，此顯示自性身者，所證法無我理法身也。與相者，報身鏡像也。差別者，謂唯有漏有為之身，遍計所執實有我，身唯在所，非但依他、所執二我差別，三身異故，有此三種。由內所證法無我理，所現報身而無分別，非是有漏有為之身，亦非所執實我身，故名大身。

In explaining the text of the answer, there are three parts: first, explaining the Buddha's statement 'not a body'; second, explaining the statement 'that body is not a body'; third, clarifying the dharma that is revealed. In the first text, when the Tathāgata states that it is not an entity, this reveals the selflessness of phenomena. Therefore, Vasubandhu says: 'This speaks of the substance of the Buddha of experiential reward, which is like the king of Sumeru mountains, because it has the sense of a mirror image.' This means the saṃbhogakāya Buddha is like the king of Sumeru mountains, towering and remote in power, and hence is called 'great'. Just as an image in a mirror is a reflection of cognitive consciousness, it does not grasp at the mountain king's own entity [thinking] 'I am the mountain king,' because it is non-conceptual. The saṃbhogakāya Buddha is also like this: because he attains the entity of the unsurpassed Dharma King, he is called 'great', yet he does not grasp at the Dharma King's own entity [thinking] 'I am the Dharma King,' because of non-conceptuality. Those who have conceptual thought are perverse with afflictions and the like, and their minds are tainted. The Dharma King is free from tainted dharmas; because he has realized selflessness, he is free from conceptual thought. That treatise says, 'If it is thus without anything'—'without anything' means because of non-conceptuality. The intention is that the Buddha states the great body manifested by the Dharma King is not a tainted, conceptual body; this is called the 'great body', for that [conceptual] body does not benefit sentient beings. The great body manifested by the Dharma King, through realizing the unconditioned principle of the selflessness of phenomena, is non-conceptual, and therefore does not abandon the task of benefiting sentient beings. That entity is not an entity, revealing that the dharma-entity is unarisen and uncreated. Vasubandhu says: 'If it is thus, it is named "having an entity", because it is solely a pure body, because it is far removed from conditioned phenomena; by this meaning, there truly exists a substance of self, because it does not abide dependent on other conditions.' The meaning of that treatise is: the entity of that Buddha of experiential reward is solely a pure body; being thus, it is called 'having an entity'. As for what is called 'not a body', there are two kinds of body: first, it is not a dependent, tainted body, hence called 'not a body', [which refers to] the saṃbhogakāya; second, it is not a body created by bad karma, hence called 'not a body'. The former 'not a body' means it is not bound by afflictions; the latter 'not a body' means it is not a body created by bad karma. Therefore, the treatise says it is 'far removed from the conditioned'. 'Far removed from the conditioned' shows that the Buddha's saṃbhogakāya is not a body far removed from causes and conditions, for it arises from causes and conditions; this body is 'unconditioned' in the sense that, as the Abhidharma says, it is not created by bad karma. Moreover, precisely because it is not created by bad karma, it is far removed from the truly existing substance of a self that is conceptually constructed by attachment, which would spontaneously abide without depending on other conditions. The Dharma King's saṃbhogakāya is like a mirror image: it is not that [tainted] body, and is therefore the 'great body'. Since its substance is not real, how could there be any further arising or a real creator? However, now in this treatise and in the Vajracchedikā, 'body' is explained as 'substance' (entity). 'Entity' relies on the meaning of an aggregation; speaking generally, it is called 'body'. The entity is the same though the names differ. In the Vajracchedikā it says, 'Suppose a man has an endowed body, a great body'; Paramārtha's version says, 'Suppose there is a man whose substance and marks are supreme and great'; the two versions do not differ. 'Endowed body' means supreme, because he is fully endowed with the marks of a puruṣa; 'great' means the physical magnitude is great. The other versions all lack this, having 'great' but not the meaning of 'supreme'. Again, Paramārtha's version says, 'The Tathāgata states that it does not exist, and it is called having a body; this is not existing, and the body originally does not exist, therefore it is called having a body.' 'Originally does not exist' means free from tainted conceptualisation; 'later does not exist' means free from conditioned conceptualisation: the names differ but the meaning is the same. In clarifying the dharma revealed: this reveals the nature-body (svabhāvakāya), which is the dharmakāya of the principle of the selflessness of phenomena that has been realized; 'together with marks' refers to the mirror image of the saṃbhogakāya; 'distinctions' refers to the body that is solely tainted and conditioned, and the truly existent self conceptually constructed by attachment. The body is solely in the locus—not only the distinction between the two selves, the dependent and the constructed, but because the three bodies are distinct, there are these three kinds. By the inwardly realized principle of the selflessness of phenomena, the saṃbhogakāya that is manifested is free from conceptual thought; it is not a tainted, conditioned body, nor is it a body of a conceptually constructed real self, and is therefore called the 'great body'.