金剛般若論會釋 3.34

3.34

自下大文第四，論名攝取法身，明佛如來攝取法身以為身故。經如來地攝三身者，無上見智、念處、正覺，及不住生死涅槃，雖通化身，大位判之，顯報身也，攝取法身顯法身也，行住淨中具顯法、報、化三，如次即是三行住故。或彼但顯如來三業，餘皆通顯報、化二種。《成唯識》說，清淨法界攝自性身，說自性身本性常故，無生滅故，證因得故，乃至雖有真實無邊功德，而無為故，不可說為色心等物。四智品中，真實功德鏡智所起常遍色身攝自受用，平等智品所現佛身攝他受用，成事智品所現隨類種種身相攝變化身，廣如彼說。今此法身即彼初二，若有、無為諸功德法皆法身故。《金光明》說，如如及智皆法身故。世親大段第五破疑，然亦有三，初云雖相成就，不可得見如來，以非彼體，以如來法身為體，而如來法身以見相成就比知，則知如來法身福相成就。由此文生，此中明佛攝取二種法身為身。初、長行及偈明佛攝取真如法身為身，不應以色、聲相見；後偈明攝取五分法身，真如法身相應故得菩提，不以色相為菩提。其五分法身者，即四智心品。前中先、長行，後、偈頌。長行有六，一、問，二、答，三、印可，四、反釋，五、順結，六、生後，其文可解。什本文別并略也。偈既頌前長行中意，即四種偈中，結義偈亦應頌經也。論文有二，初、標名屬經，次、正解經。正解經中，不解頌前長行。世親論云，「非是色身相，可比知如來，諸佛唯法身，轉輪王非佛」，此頌正答前疑也。次釋轉輪聖王非佛，此頌正前答無前疑也。次釋轉輪聖王應是如來，謂有人言：「福德能成是相，果報以成是相故，則知福德力得大菩提。若如是，如來則以相成就得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。」為遮此故，遂有反釋、順結等文，故彼偈言，「非相好果報，依福德成就，而得真法身，方便異相故」，此顯福德果報是差異相不同法身，以智內證無差異相故，此方便各別也。

From here below is the fourth major section, named in the treatise 'Embracing the Dharmakāya', which clarifies that the Buddha Tathāgata embraces the dharmakāya as his body. As for how the Tathāgata-grounds in the sūtra subsume the three bodies: the supreme vision and knowledge, the stations of mindfulness, full awakening, and non-abiding in saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, although applicable to the nirmāṇakāya, when judged by their broad status, reveal the saṃbhogakāya; 'Embracing the Dharmakāya' reveals the dharmakāya; and within the purity of practices and abodes, the three of dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya, and nirmāṇakāya are fully revealed, corresponding in order to the three practices and abodes. Alternatively, those simply reveal the Tathāgata's three karmas, while the remainder all comprehensively reveal the two kinds, saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya. The Cheng weishi lun states that the purified dharmadhātu subsumes the svābhāvikakāya, stating that because the svābhāvikakāya is fundamentally eternal, without arising or ceasing, and obtained through realizing the cause, and so forth, although it possesses real, boundless merits, yet because it is unconditioned, it cannot be described as matter, mind, or the like. Among the categories of the four wisdoms, the real merits and the constantly pervasive form-body arising from the mirror-like wisdom subsume the body for self-enjoyment; the Buddha-body manifested by the category of equality wisdom subsumes the body for others' enjoyment; the various bodily marks manifested according to species by the category of duty-fulfilling wisdom subsume the nirmāṇakāya, as explained in detail there. Now, this dharmakāya comprises the former two [of those], for all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas of merit are the dharmakāya. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa states that both suchness and wisdom are the dharmakāya. Vasubandhu's fifth major section breaks doubts, yet it also has three parts. The first says: although the physical marks are accomplished, the Tathāgata cannot be seen, because they are not his essence; for the Tathāgata's essence is the dharmakāya, and if one infers knowledge of the Tathāgata's dharmakāya by seeing the accomplishment of marks, then one would know the Tathāgata's dharmakāya to be the accomplishment of meritorious marks. It is because of this that the text arises. Here it clarifies that the Buddha embraces two kinds of dharmakāya as his body: first, the prose and verse clarify that the Buddha embraces the tathatā-dharmakāya as his body and should not be seen by marks of form or sound; the later verse clarifies that he embraces the fivefold dharmakāya, and because it is associated with the tathatā-dharmakāya, he attains bodhi, and does not take marks of form to be bodhi. As for that 'fivefold dharmakāya', it is the mental categories of the four wisdoms. In the former part, first comes the prose, and afterwards the verse. The prose has six parts: 1. the question, 2. the answer, 3. the endorsement, 4. the indirect explanation, 5. the direct conclusion, and 6. giving rise to what follows; its text is readily understandable. Kumārajīva's version differs and is abridged. Since the verse versifies the intention of the preceding prose, then among the four kinds of verses, this concluding verse should also versify the sūtra. The treatise text has two parts: first, marking the names and correlating them to the sūtra; next, directly explaining the sūtra. In directly explaining the sūtra, it does not explain the versification of the preceding prose. Vasubandhu's treatise states: 'It is not the marks of the form body / that can allow inferential knowledge of the Tathāgata; / the Buddhas are solely the dharmakāya; / a wheel-turning king is not a Buddha.' This verse directly answers the preceding doubt. Next, explaining why a wheel-turning sage king is not a Buddha, this verse directly answers the preceding doubt so that none remains. Next, explaining why a wheel-turning sage king would have to be a Tathāgata: someone might say, 'Merit can accomplish these marks, and retribution accomplishes these marks; therefore one knows that by the power of merit one attains great bodhi. If so, then the Tathāgata attains anuttarasamyaksaṃbodhi through the accomplishment of marks.' To refute this, there are the texts of the indirect explanation, direct conclusion, and so forth. Therefore that verse says: 'It is not that the retribution of marks and secondary signs, / accomplished in reliance on merit, / attains the true dharmakāya, / because the expedient means are of different marks.' This reveals that the retribution of merit has differentiating marks and is not like the dharmakāya, which has no differentiating marks through internal realization by wisdom; thus these expedient means are distinct.