金剛般若論會釋 3.38

3.38

次解偈後經文，明佛攝取五分法身與前真如法身相應故得菩提，不以諸相為菩提，亦不以諸相為因得菩提。經文有三，初、問，次、遮，後、徵釋。什、魏二本，皆闕徵釋之文。論文有二，初、牒外難，為離此著故，下、屬經成來意。此中初問，依上義破外疑也。依前卷論，為破二疑，一、破疑佛諸相即是菩提故，上論釋此問，明相具足體非菩提；二、破疑佛為太子時，先具諸相為因始得菩提，故上論云，亦不以諸相為因得菩提。前意可解，故此不舉。上論釋不以相為因云，以相是色性故，菩提正覺智即五分法身為慧身，是由修得，此正覺智故，證真如法身，始得菩提。諸相是色性，不能正覺諸法，故知諸相非菩提，亦不以諸相為因得菩提。

Next, explaining the sūtra text following the verse: it clarifies that the Buddha embraces the fivefold dharmakāya, which, being associated with the aforementioned tathatā-dharmakāya, attains bodhi; he does not take the marks to be bodhi, nor does he attain bodhi by taking the marks as a cause. The sūtra text has three parts: first, the question; next, the refutation; and last, the inquiry and explanation. Both Kumārajīva's and the Wei versions lack the text of the inquiry and explanation. The treatise text has two parts: first, citing the external objection to abandon this clinging; below, correlating it with the sūtra to establish the intention behind its arising. Here, the initial question breaks the external doubt based on the above meaning. According to the treatise in the previous fascicle, it refutes two doubts: first, refuting the doubt that the Buddha's marks are themselves bodhi; hence the previous treatise explains this question, clarifying that the accomplishment of marks is in essence not bodhi. Second, refuting the doubt that when the Buddha was a prince, he previously was endowed with the marks as a cause and only then attained bodhi; hence the previous treatise says that he also does not attain bodhi by taking the marks as a cause. The former intention can be understood, so it is not adduced here. The previous treatise explains not taking marks as a cause by stating that because marks are material by nature, the wisdom of right awakening of bodhi—that is, the fivefold dharmakāya—is a wisdom-body, which is attained through cultivation; and because of this wisdom of right awakening, realizing the tathatā-dharmakāya, one only then attains bodhi. The marks are material by nature and cannot rightly awaken to dharmas; therefore one knows that the marks are not bodhi, nor does one attain bodhi by taking the marks as a cause.