金剛般若論會釋 1.74

1.74

The following text will simply explain the phrasing of the text, and further below reconcile and explain the treatises' passages, following the threefold explanation of the sūtra text. In the initial explanation of the question's text, there are two parts: first, matching the sūtra to explain the underlying meaning; second, the treatise text explaining the stated marks. Here, "fully endowed" is Bodhiruci's "accomplishment"; the meaning is the same while the words differ. Paramārtha's sūtra says, "the superior virtues of the marks," accomplishing the conditioned marks of the Buddha's body of awakening; therefore "fully endowed and accomplished" is the exact translation. "Superior virtues" takes the conditioned marks as the essence of the Buddha's superior virtues, which is a paraphrase based on meaning. Below, "observing the marks" refers to the primary and secondary marks; Vasubandhu's treatise explains this as the marks of the four characteristics, meaning the three kinds of conditioned characteristics, without mentioning the characteristic of abiding, just as explained in the *Triṃśikā* (*Vijñaptimātratā*). Subhūti intuitively comprehended the Buddha's intention, and so said "No": one cannot see the Buddha's true body through the accomplishment of the three conditioned marks, because what is spoken of as conditioned is not the mark of the dharmakāya. As for the mark of the dharmakāya, it takes signlessness as its mark; since the three conditioned marks are conditioned marks, cultivating signless causes yields in return the unconditioned, signless, real result of the dharmakāya, not that cultivating signless causes yields a conditioned, signed, provisional nirmāṇakāya retribution. Afterwards, in order to fulfill the meaning of the preceding interrogation and subsequent answer, the Buddha repeated his declaration to him, divided into three: First, "Whatever possesses marks is entirely deceptive and false" is the embracing of desire and aspiration, showing that conditioned marks are deceptive and false, and conversely clarifying that, distinct from this falsity, the mark of signlessness is not deceptive and false, causing them to embrace it and afterwards generate desire and aspiration. It is not that desire and aspiration embrace conditioned, deceptive and false dharmas, for the conditioned and deceptive is not non-conceptual concentration. Cultivating and embracing are two: the meaning is that desire and aspiration are the initial practitioner's evil desire and aspiration that falsely practice with marks, not the signless desire and aspiration of prajñā. The signless desire and aspiration of prajñā seek signlessness, and therefore what the treatise calls "desire and aspiration embracing" is the signless concentration, the fundamental desire and aspiration that gathers in the scattered mind. Hence this desire and aspiration is the correct practitioner's signless desire and aspiration in sequence. Second, "If one sees that all marks are non-marks, then they are not deceptive and false" establishes the ultimate truth: "marks" refers to the deceptive and false nirmāṇakāya, while "non-marks" refers to the true dharmakāya. Seeing that the various conditioned marks of the nirmāṇakāya are not the signlessness of the dharmakāya, they are then not deceptive and false; because they took the marks of the nirmāṇakāya as the marks of the true body, it was deceptive and false. Third and finally, the conclusion: when the various provisional marks of transformation are seen as not the true signlessness, one then sees the Tathāgata of the dharmakāya. This is manifestation: precisely at the time of the spoken non-conceptual concentration and gathering in the scattered [mind], in what has marks, it is not seen as the mark of the true dharmakāya, and therefore one sees the Tathāgata. Regarding this contemplation of seeing the Tathāgata, one should consult what is said in the "Contemplating the Tathāgata" chapter of the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa*.