俱舍論記 8.130

8.130

「若人信佛至此不成釋」者，論主難。意佛有持願通，謂發勝願願留身界，起通持願令久留身，不假胎生，故不成釋。通能持願，名持願通，此即神境智證通。或即以願持身令住，願能持故。持願即通，名持願通。《正理》二十二救曰「今謂此釋其理必成。通所留身，非佛功德力、無畏等所依熏故，不能廣大饒益世間。所以然者？是可留法，通願能留。一切化生如剎那法，必無留義。謂諸有為剎那定滅，諸佛神力亦不能留，設欲久留即須別化。此所別化非佛功德力、無畏等之所依熏，故於世間無大饒益。若作俱舍師破：佛後身界非力等依，如何益物？若言後身接前力等所依身起能益物者，此留化身亦接力等所依身起，何不獲益？若謂留化非情攝者，供養非益。汝留身界言，是豈是情耶？

"If someone has faith in the Buddha [...] this does not constitute an explanation": the author of the treatise objects. His meaning is that the Buddha possesses the supernormal power sustained by resolution (*adhiṣṭhānābhijñā*): having made a supreme vow resolving to leave behind bodily relics, he generates a supernormal power sustained by this resolution causing the body to remain long, without needing birth from a womb; hence this does not constitute an explanation. The supernormal power being able to sustain the vow is called "supernormal power sustained by resolution"; this is none other than the supernormal cognition of psychic powers (*ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna-sākṣātkriyābhijñā*). Alternatively, it means sustaining the body so that it remains through the vow, because the vow is capable of sustaining it; the vow that sustains is itself the supernormal power, hence it is called "supernormal power sustained by resolution". Saṃghabhadra's *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 22, defends [the Sarvāstivāda], saying: "We hold that this explanation certainly holds true in principle. A body left behind through supernormal power is not the basis for, nor perfumed by, the Buddha's powers, fearlessnesses, and so forth; hence it cannot extensively benefit the world. Why is this? A thing that is capable of remaining can be made to remain by supernormal resolution. All apparitional births, like momentary phenomena, have no capacity to remain at all. That is, conditioned phenomena necessarily perish in each moment; even the supernatural power of the buddhas cannot make them remain. If one wished to make them remain long, one would have to make a separate apparition. This separate apparition is not the basis for, nor perfumed by, the Buddha's qualities, powers, fearlessnesses, and so forth; hence it brings no great benefit to the world." If one responds from the standpoint of the Kośakāra's refutation: the relics of the Buddha's final body are not the basis of the powers and so forth; how then do they benefit living beings? If you say that the final body arises succeeding the previous body that was the basis of the powers and so forth, and thus can benefit living beings, then this remaining apparitional body also arises succeeding the body that was the basis of the powers and so forth; why would it not confer benefit? If you say that the remaining apparition is not included among sentient beings, so that making offerings to it brings no benefit, then what of the bodily relics you speak of leaving behind—are they sentient beings?