金剛般若論會釋 3.51

3.51

世親論兩行頌釋，前頌釋界破為微塵以喻法、化一、多，及喻煩惱盡而法界淨，後頌顯界空非實，喻三身一異。初云，「世界作微塵，此喻示彼義，微塵破為末，示現煩惱盡」，此頌上半正顯一、多，以成前頌云「於彼法界處，非一亦非異」，故云「此喻示彼義」；下半頌明煩惱盡而證法身，謂麁界、塵而為末，虛空得淨二障體，而即錯法身得。顯一、多中經有四重，一、世界，二、破界為塵，三、算塵為界，四、彼界皆塵。今為四喻，初、一界者聚塵成，喻滅煩惱以成法身，復喻法身唯一無二，法佛證故。次、破為塵者，喻化、受用依法身起而有多故。算塵為界者，喻一一土有一大化身，決擇位中菩薩見故。彼界皆塵者，喻一一塵土，百億喻化身，凡夫、二乘共所見故。其他受用及變化身隨他機見之有異，只如初地菩薩所見報佛，坐百葉華，一葉是一三千界量，有百億化釋迦牟尼。初心凡夫及二乘見，四善根位應隣初地，所見殊故，一葉上有一大總主化佛王三千界，由此經說一三千界是一佛土不？爾如何名一佛土？應撿《法華》六根中疏以成立之。若至二地所見佛身坐千葉上，即有十箇初地菩薩所見之佛，百箇四善根菩薩所見之佛，千箇百億國土釋迦牟尼，此隨大小，二地菩薩皆悉得見，上得見下，下不得見上。然彼菩薩自身身量，與彼所見千葉總主大小相稱，地地皆爾，具應准知，故經中說，「我今盧舍那（此云受用），方坐蓮華座，周匝千華上，復現千釋迦。一華百億國，一國一釋迦，各座菩提樹，一時成正覺」。千華上有千釋迦，即知千葉各各一大化主，四善根菩薩之所見佛，此好證也。什本界、塵唯有一重，便闕上義。次又頌云，「非聚集故集，非唯是一喻，聚集處非彼，非是差別喻」，此第二顯界、塵非實，喻三身非一異。於中上半釋微塵即非微塵，以喻化身、法身非一異處。次且破界為塵，塵、界而非一異，法身流化，化、法亦無即離，寄塵以喻化身多，豈即有實塵體？故復非之。後半頌釋世界非界，界破一合執，義准可知。彼論長行初、解上二句，次、如是三千世界一合相喻下，解後二句，但凡夫之人下，解次頌云，「但隨於音聲，凡夫取顛倒」也。世親解此一段，配釋稍隱難知，委尋古德所陳釋處，皆甚無指的，大師既往，痛絕追訽，慈顧未成，悲無發悟，且隨鄙見。若以裁規，庶有鑒通，伏希改決。

Vasubandhu's treatise explains this with two verses of gāthās. The first verse explains breaking down worlds into dust particles as an analogy for the oneness and multiplicity of the dharma- and nirmāṇa-kāyas, and as an analogy for the exhaustion of afflictions and the purity of the dharmadhātu. The second verse reveals that worlds are empty and non-real, an analogy for the identity and difference of the three bodies. The first states: "A world made into dust particles: / This analogy reveals that meaning. / Dust particles ground into powder / Reveals the exhaustion of afflictions." The first half of this verse directly reveals oneness and multiplicity, completing the earlier verse that said: "In that locus of the dharmadhātu, / They are neither one nor different"; hence it says, "This analogy reveals that meaning." The second half of the verse explains the exhaustion of afflictions and realization of the dharmakāya: coarse worlds and dust become fine powder, space is cleared, and the substance of the two obscurations is eliminated, immediately attaining the dharmakāya. In revealing oneness and multiplicity, the sūtra has four tiers: 1. world; 2. breaking down the world into dust; 3. counting the dust into worlds; 4. those worlds all becoming dust. Now there are four analogies: first, a single world formed by gathering dust is an analogy for extinguishing afflictions to form the dharmakāya, and also an analogy for the dharmakāya being sole and non-dual, realized by the dharma-Buddha. Next, breaking it down into dust is an analogy for the nirmāṇakāya and saṃbhogakāya arising relying on the dharmakāya and being multiple. Counting dust into worlds is an analogy for each land having a great nirmāṇakāya, seen by bodhisattvas in the stage of decisive resolution. Those worlds all becoming dust is an analogy for each land of dust having a billion transformation bodies, seen commonly by ordinary persons and the two vehicles. Other bodies of enjoyment and transformation differ according to the capacities and visions of others. Just as the saṃbhogakāya Buddha seen by a bodhisattva of the first bhūmi sits on a hundred-petaled flower, where a single petal is the measure of a single trichiliocosm, possessing a billion transformation Śākyamunis. Seen by ordinary persons of initial mind and the two vehicles, the stage of the four roots of goodness should border on the first bhūmi; because what is seen differs, upon a single petal there is a great overall lord, a transformation Buddha ruling a trichiliocosm. From this, the sūtra speaks of whether a single trichiliocosm is a single Buddha field or not. If so, how is it called a single Buddha field? One should consult the commentary on the six sense faculties in the *Lotus Sūtra* to establish this. When reaching the second bhūmi, the Buddha body seen sits upon a thousand petals; that is, there are ten Buddhas seen by bodhisattvas of the first bhūmi, a hundred Buddhas seen by bodhisattvas of the four roots of goodness, and a thousand Śākyamunis of a billion realms. Following these sizes, a bodhisattva of the second bhūmi sees them all: the higher can see the lower, but the lower cannot see the higher. Yet that bodhisattva's own bodily measure corresponds to the size of that overall lord of a thousand petals seen by him; it is so for every stage, and one should know this analogously. Therefore, the sūtra says: "Now I, Rocana (translated here as 'enjoyment'), / Just sit upon the lotus throne. / Surrounding it upon a thousand flowers, / There appear another thousand Śākyamunis. / Each flower holds a billion realms, / Each realm a single Śākyamuni; / Each sitting beneath a bodhi tree, / At the same time attaining correct awakening." Upon the thousand flowers are a thousand Śākyamunis; thus one knows that on each of the thousand petals there is a respective great transformation lord, which is the Buddha seen by bodhisattvas of the four roots of goodness—this is good proof. Kumārajīva's translation has only a single tier of worlds and dust, thus lacking the above meaning. Next, another verse states: "Not gathered, hence gathered; / It is not merely a single analogy. / The gathered locus is not that; / It is not an analogy of distinction." This second [verse] reveals that worlds and dust are non-real, an analogy for the three bodies being neither identical nor different. Therein, the first half explains that dust particles are precisely not dust particles, as an analogy for the locus where the nirmāṇakāya and dharmakāya are neither identical nor different. Next, temporarily breaking down a world into dust, dust and world are neither identical nor different; the dharmakāya emanates transformations, and transformation and dharma are also neither identical nor separate. Borrowing dust to serve as an analogy for the multiplicity of the nirmāṇakāya, how could there be a real entity of dust? Therefore it is negated again. The second half of the verse explains that worlds are not worlds: the world breaks down the attachment to a composite whole; its meaning can be understood by analogy. In that treatise's prose, first it explains the upper two lines; next, from "analogous to the single composite characteristic of such a trichiliocosm" onward, it explains the latter two lines; from "only ordinary persons" onward, it explains the next verse stating: "Merely following words, / Ordinary persons grasp inverted views." Vasubandhu's explanation of this section aligns and explains in a manner rather hidden and difficult to understand. Looking thoroughly into the explanations set forth by past worthies, none are very definite. Since the Great Master has passed away, seeking guidance is acutely severed; his compassionate care not yet completed, I grieve over having no awakening, and for now follow my humble view. If measured against standard rules, I hope there may be discerning comprehension, and humbly hope for corrections and determinations.