金剛般若論會釋 3.34

3.34

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.