金剛般若論會釋 2.11

2.11

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'.