大乘法苑義林章 7.5

7.5

第二出體者，略有六文。一者有義。《唯識》、《佛地》皆說「如來功德身土甚深微妙，非有非無，離諸分別、絕諸戲論，非界處等法門所攝。故勝義諦，非身非不身，詎有三種？依世俗諦隨機所現，說有三身，法身空理、報身空智、利物所現名變化身。」清辨等師皆有此義。二者有義：法身但以真如為性，十八界中唯有後三通無漏攝，由此佛身大定、智、悲三法增上，六七八識及相應品為自受用身，平等性智隨十地宜，現他受用身淨土相，成所作智隨三乘宜，能起變化身淨土相。此二身土妙定生故，法界色攝。非佛五識雖依此變，然麁細異，非五境攝。成所作智或是第六第七相應。六相應者，觀自共相等名妙觀察智，起化用者名成事智，前後別起於理無違。同體用分，俱亦無失。第七俱者，變他受用名平等智，起變化者名成事智。佛恒在定，五識性散，前十五界在佛非有。雖轉五識得成事智，然成事智體非五識。如轉生死言得涅槃，然彼涅槃非五蘊攝。三者有義：如來功德身土，如應攝在蘊、處、界中，彼三皆通有漏無漏，乃至廣說。於此說中略有四義：一者有義《唯識》、《佛地》皆作是說，清淨法界是自性身。《佛地經》說清淨真如是自性身。《攝大乘論》智殊勝說，轉去阿賴耶識得自性身。《莊嚴論》說轉第八識得圓鏡智，故合二法為自性身，平等性智、妙觀察智為受用身。《莊嚴》等說平等性智於純淨土為諸菩薩現佛身故，說觀察智大集會中說法斷疑現自在故，此顯二智為他受用。《莊嚴》又說轉諸轉識得受用身，此顯二智為自受用，成所作智為變化身。《佛地經》說成所作智於十方土現無量種難思化故，又智殊勝具攝三身，故知三身皆有實智。此義不然，《佛地經》說清淨法界為自性身，諸佛共有，是自性常，於十地中分皆證得。若圓鏡智是自性身，便無是義。《金光明》說如如如如智皆名法身。若有為德本說圓鏡智是法身者，應同彼經四實智品皆是法身。又說轉諸轉識得受用身，若成事智非受用者，應非轉識；若成事智為變化者，《解深密經》問變化身為有心為無心，經應定答言化身有心，說佛五識為此身故。如何經說「不得言有心，無自依心故；不得言無心，有依他心故。」由此化身體非實智。然觀佛身，理事有殊、麁細德別、體一用異，別說為三，寧分四智各別成身？二者有義：《成唯識》說清淨法界為自性身。《莊嚴論》等說自性身本性常故。《讚佛論》說佛自性身無生滅故。無著《金剛般若論》說受持演說彼經功德，於佛法身為證得因，於餘二身為生起因。故彼經云「一切諸佛法皆從此經出，一切如來從此經生。」諸經論說究竟轉依以為法身，轉依即是清淨真如，故知法身法界為性。然說轉去藏識得者，謂由轉滅第八識中二障麁重，證得真如顯法身故。智殊勝中說法身者，是彼依止，彼實性故，實非智攝。受用身有二：一自受用、二他受用。四智品中真實功德，鏡智所起常遍色身，為自受用。《莊嚴論》中說大圓鏡智是受用佛。《攝大乘》說轉諸轉識得受用故。雖轉藏識實得受用，《攝大乘》中由說轉彼顯法身故，於得受用略不說之。既說法身無生無滅，唯證因得，非色心等。圓鏡智品與此相違，若非受用，屬何身攝？此受用身攝佛不共有為實德，故四智品實有色心皆自受用。平等智品所現佛身是他受用。成事智品所現隨類種種身相為變化身。雖說化身智殊勝攝，而似智現，或智所起，彼說智名體實非智，但說平等智能現受用。成所作智現三業化身，不說二身即是二智，故二實智自受用攝，二所現相說為二身。雖此二身皆四智相、四智所現，為十地聖、地前三乘所現身相麁細有殊，別為二身。然平等智現身相似無我平等，顯法樂增令他受用，但說平等所現佛身為他受用。成所作智現三業化增，但說成事智所現身相為變化身，故不違理。三者有義：《金光明經》第一卷說「云何菩薩了別化身？善男子！如來昔在修行地中，為諸眾生修種種法至修行滿，乃至廣說，隨眾生意及隨行、界不待過時，乃至能現種種身相，是名化身。善男子！是諸如來為諸菩薩得通達故說於真諦，乃至廣說，為無邊佛法而作本故，如來相應如如、如如智願力故是身得現，具足三十二相、八十種好、項背圓光，是名應身。善男子！為欲滅除一切諸煩惱等障，為欲具足一切諸善法故，唯有如如、如如智，是名法身。前二種身是假名有，是第三身名為真有，為前二身作於本故。由離法如如、離無分別智，一切諸佛無有別法。何以故？一切諸佛智慧具足，一切煩惱究竟滅盡故、得清淨佛地故。是故法如如、如如智攝一切佛法。」彼經意說：清淨法界及四智品常遍色身、真實有為無為功德，名為法身，有為無為功德本故。如來相應如如、如如智願力故，所現相好、項背圓光，為地前、三乘及十地菩薩所現之身，名為應身。為化三乘所現佛身，及化十地他受用身，竝名應身，應他機宜現佛身故。修願行滿，不待時處，隨眾生類現五趣身，是名化身，不現佛形而顯化故。《佛地經》中五趣化身亦化身攝，多現神通變化事故。他受用身亦名應身。自受用身自受法樂，非應機宜而顯現故。他受用身能令菩薩受法樂故。自他雖殊，受樂無別，合名受用。自受用身雖是有為功德法本，非佛共有，是各別體，非法真性、非自性身、非是無為界功德本，不名法身。與《金光明》各據一義，亦不相違。四者有義：《佛地論》說「清淨法界為自性身，四智自性相應共有，常遍色身真實功德，為自受用身，三無數劫所修成故。」天親般若上卷論說「亦名報佛，此為十地菩薩所現。一分細相為他受用，為諸菩薩受法樂故。若為三乘有情所現，一分麁相為變化身，地前三乘所應見麁，非是修成真實功德，但化用故。然此二身皆四智相，所化有情宜見麁細，分成二類。地前三乘但依化用，發心修行而未能證廣大法樂，故此化身不名受用。」此六義中，其初三說義理相違，如論自顯。其第四義與第六說，文雖小異，兩理無違。第四說中，隨二智增說二身攝，非說二身唯二智現。乍觀文別，義實無異。第五經文，義理無爽。由是褒貶雖成六說，三理無謬。

Second, concerning the identification of the essential nature [of the bodies], there are six textual accounts in brief. First, one interpretation holds: Both the *Cheng weishi [lun]* and the *Buddhabhūmi[-sūtra-śāstra]* state that 'the Tathāgata’s bodies and lands of virtue are profoundly deep and subtle, neither existent nor non-existent, separated from all conceptual construction, cutting off all discursive proliferation, and not subsumed under the Dharma-teachings of dhātus, āyatanas, and so forth. Therefore, in the paramārtha-satya, being neither body nor non-body, how could there be three kinds? In reliance on saṃvṛti-satya, manifested in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings, three bodies are taught: the dharmakāya is the emptiness principle; the recompense body is the emptiness wisdom; and what is manifested to benefit creatures is called the transformation body.' Masters such as Bhāviveka all held this view. Second, one interpretation holds: The dharmakāya takes solely tathatā as its nature. Among the eighteen dhātus, only the last three are admitted as subsumed under the anāsrava. Therefore, through the predominance of the Buddha’s three dharmas—great samādhi, wisdom, and compassion—the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses together with their associated factors constitute the self-enjoyment body. In accordance with the needs of the ten stages, the wisdom of equality manifests the marks of the other-enjoyment body and pure lands. In accordance with the needs of the three vehicles, the wisdom of accomplishing activity can generate the marks of the transformation body and lands. Because these two bodies and lands are produced from subtle samādhi, they are subsumed under the rūpa of the dharmadhātu. Although the five consciousnesses of non-buddhas transform in dependence on these, because they differ in coarseness and subtlety, they are not subsumed under the five sense fields. The wisdom of accomplishing activity is associated either with the sixth or the seventh [consciousness]. If it is associated with the sixth, contemplating the specific and universal characteristics is called the wisdom of marvelous observation, while generating transformative functions is called the wisdom of accomplishing activity; their arising distinctly before and after does not contradict principle. Dividing them as functions of the same essence also incurs no fault. If it accompanies the seventh [consciousness], transforming the other-enjoyment is called the wisdom of equality, while generating transformations is called the wisdom of accomplishing activity. The Buddha is constantly in samādhi, whereas the nature of the five consciousnesses is scattered, so the first fifteen dhātus do not exist in the Buddha. Although one transforms the five consciousnesses to attain the wisdom of accomplishing activity, the essence of the wisdom of accomplishing activity is not the five consciousnesses. Just as by transforming saṃsāra one is said to attain nirvāṇa, yet that nirvāṇa is not subsumed under the five aggregates. Third, one interpretation holds: The Tathāgata's bodies and lands of virtue are subsumed as appropriate under the aggregates, āyatanas, and dhātus, all three of which admit of being sāsrava and anāsrava, up to the extensive explanation. Within this explanation there are four interpretations in brief: First, one interpretation holds: Both the *Cheng weishi [lun]* and the *Buddhabhūmi[-sūtra-śāstra]* say that the pure dharmadhātu is the svabhāvakāya. The *Buddhabhūmi-sūtra* states that pure tathatā is the svabhāvakāya. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, in its treatment of the superiority of wisdom, says that by transforming and discarding the ālayavijñāna one attains the svabhāvakāya. The *[Mahāyānasūtra-]alaṃkāra* states that by transforming the eighth consciousness one attains the mirror wisdom. Therefore, combining these two dharmas makes the svabhāvakāya, while the wisdom of equality and the wisdom of marvelous observation constitute the saṃbhogakāya. The *Alaṃkāra* and other texts state that the wisdom of equality manifests the buddha-body for bodhisattvas in purely purified lands, and states that the wisdom of observation manifests mastery by teaching the Dharma and severing doubts in great assemblies; this demonstrates that these two wisdoms are for other-enjoyment. The *Alaṃkāra* further states that by transforming the active consciousnesses (pravṛttivijñāna) one attains the saṃbhogakāya; this demonstrates that these two wisdoms are for self-enjoyment, while the wisdom of accomplishing activity is the transformation body. The *Buddhabhūmi-sūtra* states that the wisdom of accomplishing activity manifests immeasurable kinds of inconceivable transformations in the lands of the ten directions. Moreover, because the superiority of wisdom comprehensively subsumes the three bodies, we know that all three bodies have real wisdom. This interpretation is incorrect. The *Buddhabhūmi-sūtra* states that the pure dharmadhātu is the svabhāvakāya, shared in common by all buddhas; it is eternally of self-nature, and is realized in part throughout the ten stages. If the mirror wisdom were the svabhāvakāya, this principle would not hold. The *Suvarṇaprabhāsa* states that both tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā are called dharmakāya. If the conditioned virtues were originally explained as the mirror wisdom being the dharmakāya, it should follow that text in holding that the factors of all four real wisdoms are the dharmakāya. Furthermore, it is said that by transforming the active consciousnesses one attains the saṃbhogakāya; if the wisdom of accomplishing activity were not saṃbhoga, it ought not to be an active consciousness. If the wisdom of accomplishing activity were the transformation [body], when the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra* asks whether the transformation body is conscious or non-conscious, the sūtra should have definitively replied that the transformation body is conscious, because the Buddha's five consciousnesses are said to be this body. Why then does the sūtra state: 'One cannot say it is conscious, because it lacks a consciousness reliant on itself; nor can one say it is non-conscious, because it has a consciousness reliant on another'? From this we know that the essence of the transformation body is not real wisdom. Yet when examining the Buddha's body: principle and phenomena differ; coarse and subtle virtues are distinct; essence is one while functions differ. They are distinctly spoken of as three; how could one divide the four wisdoms to each separately constitute a body? Second, one interpretation holds: The *Cheng weishi [lun]* states that the pure dharmadhātu is the svabhāvakāya. The *Alaṃkāra* and other treatises state that the svabhāvakāya is intrinsically eternal. The *Buddhastotra-śāstra* states that the Buddha's svabhāvakāya is without origination or cessation. Asanga's *Vajracchedikā-śāstra* states that the merit of upholding and expounding that sūtra is the cause of realization for the Buddha's dharmakāya, and the cause of generation for the other two bodies; hence that sūtra says: 'All dharmas of all buddhas emerge from this sūtra; all Tathāgatas are born from this sūtra.' Various sūtras and treatises state that the ultimate transformation of the basis (āśrayaparāvṛtti) constitutes the dharmakāya, and the transformation of the basis is precisely pure tathatā; therefore we know that the dharmakāya has the dharmadhātu as its nature. However, regarding the statement that it is attained by transforming and discarding the storehouse consciousness, this means that by transforming and eliminating the coarse heaviness of the two hindrances in the eighth consciousness, one realizes tathatā and reveals the dharmakāya. The mention of the dharmakāya within the superiority of wisdom means that it is the support of that [wisdom] and its real nature; it is not truly subsumed under wisdom. The saṃbhogakāya has two: first, self-enjoyment; second, other-enjoyment. The real virtues within the four wisdom factors, and the eternal and pervasive form-body generated by the mirror wisdom, constitute the self-enjoyment [body]. The *Alaṃkāra* states that the great mirror wisdom is the enjoyment buddha. The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states that by transforming the active consciousnesses one attains saṃbhoga. Although transforming the storehouse consciousness actually attains saṃbhoga, because the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* explains that transforming it reveals the dharmakāya, it briefly omits mentioning the attainment of saṃbhoga. Since the dharmakāya is said to be without origination or cessation, attained solely through the cause of realization, and is not matter, mind, and so forth, the factors of the mirror wisdom contradict this; if it were not saṃbhoga, under which body would it be subsumed? This saṃbhogakāya subsumes the Buddha's uncommon real conditioned virtues; therefore the real form and mind of the four wisdom factors are all self-enjoyment. The buddha-body manifested by the factors of the wisdom of equality is the other-enjoyment. The various physical marks manifested by the factors of the wisdom of accomplishing activity in accordance with various classes are the transformation body. Although the transformation body is said to be subsumed under the superiority of wisdom, it appears like wisdom or is produced by wisdom; its being called wisdom means its essence is not actually wisdom, but only that the wisdom of equality can manifest enjoyment, and the wisdom of accomplishing activity manifests the transformation body of the three karmas. It does not say that the two bodies are themselves the two wisdoms. Therefore, the two real wisdoms are subsumed under self-enjoyment, and the two manifested marks are called the two bodies. Although these two bodies are both the marks of the four wisdoms and manifested by the four wisdoms, because the physical marks manifested for the noble ones of the ten stages and the three vehicles prior to the stages differ in coarseness and subtlety, they are distinguished as two bodies. However, because the body manifested by the wisdom of equality resembles selflessness and equality, manifesting an increase in Dharma bliss to cause others to enjoy it, only the buddha-body manifested by equality is said to be other-enjoyment. Because the wisdom of accomplishing activity manifests an increase in the transformations of the three karmas, only the physical marks manifested by the wisdom of accomplishing activity are called the transformation body; thus it does not contradict principle. Third, one interpretation holds: The first fascicle of the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra* states: 'How does a bodhisattva comprehend the transformation body? Good son! When the Tathāgata was formerly on the stage of cultivation, he cultivated various practices for sentient beings until his cultivation was fulfilled, up to the extensive explanation. In accordance with the intentions of sentient beings and according to their practice and realms without waiting for time to pass, he is able to manifest various bodily forms; this is called the transformation body. Good son! For the sake of bodhisattvas attaining penetration, these Tathāgatas speak of the true truth, up to the extensive explanation. Because it serves as the root for boundless buddha-dharmas, through the Tathāgata's associated tathatā and the aspirational power of the wisdom of tathatā, this body comes to be manifested, replete with the thirty-two marks, eighty minor signs, and a round nimbus of light behind the neck; this is called the response body (pratibimbakāya). Good son! In order to extinguish and eliminate all hindrances such as the kleśas, and in order to become replete with all wholesome dharmas, there is only tathatā and the wisdom of tathatā; this is called the dharmakāya. The first two bodies exist as conventional designations, while this third body is called truly existent, serving as the basis for the first two bodies. Because apart from the tathatā of dharmas and apart from non-conceptual wisdom, all buddhas have no other dharma. Why? Because all buddhas are fully endowed with wisdom, because all kleśas are ultimately eliminated, and because they have attained the pure buddha-ground. Therefore, the tathatā of dharmas and the wisdom of tathatā encompass all buddha-dharmas.' The intention of that sūtra is to state: The pure dharmadhātu, together with the eternal and pervasive form-body and the real conditioned and unconditioned virtues of the four wisdom factors, are called the dharmakāya, because they are the root of conditioned and unconditioned virtues. Due to the aspirational power of the Tathāgata's associated tathatā and wisdom of tathatā, the manifested marks, signs, and round nimbus—the body manifested for those prior to the stages, the three vehicles, and the bodhisattvas of the ten stages—are called the response body. The buddha-body manifested to transform the three vehicles and the other-enjoyment body manifested to transform the ten stages are both called response bodies, because they manifest buddha-bodies in response to the capacities and needs of others. When cultivation of aspirational practice is fulfilled, without waiting for time or place, manifesting bodies in the five destinies in accordance with the classes of sentient beings is called the transformation body, because it manifests transformations without manifesting a buddha-form. In the *Buddhabhūmi-sūtra*, the transformation bodies in the five destinies are also subsumed under the transformation body, because they mostly manifest supernatural transformations. The other-enjoyment body is also called the response body. The self-enjoyment body itself enjoys Dharma bliss, and is not manifested in response to capacities and needs; the other-enjoyment body can cause bodhisattvas to enjoy Dharma bliss. Though self and other differ, in experiencing bliss there is no distinction, so together they are called enjoyment. Although the self-enjoyment body is the root of conditioned virtuous dharmas, it is not shared in common by buddhas, being an individual entity; it is not the true nature of dharmas, not the svabhāvakāya, and not the root of virtues of the unconditioned realm, so it is not called the dharmakāya. Together with the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa*, each is based on a single rationale and they also do not contradict each other. Fourth, one interpretation holds: The *Buddhabhūmi[-sūtra-śāstra]* states: 'The pure dharmadhātu is the svabhāvakāya; the four wisdoms, associated and coexistent with their own nature, together with the eternal and pervasive form-body of real virtues, constitute the self-enjoyment body, because it is accomplished through cultivation over three incalculable eons.' The first fascicle of Vasubhandu's *Prajñāpāramitā[-sūtra-śāstra]* states: 'It is also called the recompense buddha; this is manifested for bodhisattvas of the ten stages. A portion of subtle marks serves as the other-enjoyment, in order to let bodhisattvas experience Dharma bliss. That which is manifested for sentient beings of the three vehicles, a portion of coarse marks, constitutes the transformation body; what the three vehicles prior to the stages should see is coarse, not real virtues accomplished through cultivation, but merely transformative function. Yet these two bodies are both marks of the four wisdoms; divided into two classes according to whether the sentient beings to be transformed should see coarseness or subtlety. The three vehicles prior to the stages rely only on transformative function to produce the aspiration and practice, but have not yet been able to realize broad and vast Dharma bliss; hence this transformation body is not called enjoyment.' Among these six interpretations, the first three accounts contradict principle, as is clearly evident from the treatises themselves. The fourth interpretation and the sixth account, though slightly different in wording, do not contradict each other in principle. In the fourth account, the two bodies are said to be subsumed according to the predominance of the two wisdoms, not that the two bodies are manifested solely by the two wisdoms. At first glance the texts differ, but in meaning there is truly no difference. In the fifth text of the sūtra, the meaning and principle are without fault. Thus, although praises and critiques form six accounts, three principles are free from error.