[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [能顯中邊慧日論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863) › 2.9 # 能顯中邊慧日論 2.9 能顯中邊慧日論 2.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.2.9) 三妄引聖教失，云：若無常，何故《密嚴經》說同空常耶？《涅槃經》云捨無常色獲得常等，復言如來有常樂我淨等耶？如前廣引。此不誠證。何以故？梁論本云「復自受用身及變化身無常故，云何諸佛以常住法為身？」釋論云「若如來不永般涅槃，則如來以常住法為身，受用身及變化身不應是無常。若是無常，云何復言以常住法為身。」論本答云「由應身及化身恒但依止法身故。」釋云「法身為三身本。云既常住，末依於本，願相續恒在故，末亦常住。」論云「由應身無捨離故、由化身數現起故，如恒受樂、如恒施食，二身常住應如此知。」《大莊嚴論》、《金光明經》、《無上依經》、《佛性論》等釋皆相似故。不同如凝湛常住，亦不得言此說應身是他受用。釋云「如來自圓德及利益諸菩薩，此二事不恒相離故。」又前云「若自性身即是受用身，轉二識依復得何身？」乃至云「若受用身即是自性身，則無大智等眾德故。」此言應身即受用身。又《涅槃》第十九云「又善男子！以性故，生住異滅皆悉是常。然念念滅，不可說常。」此說四相為常。又第三十三「善男子！常法無住處，若有住處即是無常。十二因緣無定住處。若有住處，十二因緣不得名常。」此等皆同約所依如性故名常。即是《攝論》云「由應身化身恒依止法身故，名之為常。」非自性常。《密嚴》等文准此應知。此乃無上調御、諸大論師，智解咸周、教理顯具。自無法眼，刻舫守株、狂藥入心，出此兇勃，言獲法等同違經文，抑令生滅說會中道，聖智可生。非常見常，隨邪定聚。 > Third is the fault of falsely citing the sacred teachings, saying: 'If it is impermanent, why does the Ghanavyūhasūtra say it is permanent like space? And why does the Nirvāṇa Sūtra say that abandoning impermanent form one obtains the permanent, etc., and further state that the Tathāgata has permanence, bliss, self, and purity?'—as widely cited above. These are not genuine proofs. Why is this? The root text of the Liang treatise says: 'Furthermore, because the self-enjoyment body and the transformation body are impermanent, how can all Buddhas take a permanently abiding dharma as their body?' The commentary on the treatise states: 'If the Tathāgata does not eternally enter parinirvāṇa, then the Tathāgata takes a permanently abiding dharma as his body, and the enjoyment body and transformation body should not be impermanent. If they are impermanent, how can it further be said that he takes a permanently abiding dharma as his body?' The root treatise answers: 'Because the responsive body and the transformation body always merely rely on the dharmakāya.' The commentary explains: 'The dharmakāya is the root of the three bodies. Since \[the root\] is permanently abiding, and the branch relies upon the root, because vows continue uninterruptedly, the branch is also permanently abiding.' The treatise says: 'Because the responsive body is never abandoned, and because the transformation body repeatedly manifests—like constantly enjoying bliss, or like constantly providing food—the permanent abiding of the two bodies should be understood in this way.' The explanations in the Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra, Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra, Anuttarāśraya-sūtra, Buddhagotraśāstra, and so on are all similar. It is not like tathatā, which is frozen, lucid, and permanently abiding; nor can one say that this refers to the responsive body as other-enjoyment. The commentary explains: 'The Tathāgata's own perfected merits and his benefiting of the bodhisattvas—these two matters are not eternally separated from one another.' Furthermore, earlier it was said: 'If the nature-body were itself the enjoyment body, after transforming the basis of the two consciousnesses, what further body would be obtained?' and so forth, down to: 'If the enjoyment body were itself the nature-body, it would lack the multitude of merits such as great wisdom.' This statement that the responsive body is the enjoyment body proves it. Furthermore, the nineteenth \[fascicle\] of the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: 'Moreover, good son! In terms of their nature, arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing are all permanent. Yet, because they perish moment to moment, they cannot be spoken of as permanent.' This speaks of the four characteristics as permanent. Also, the thirty-third \[fascicle\] says: 'Good son! A permanent dharma has no abiding place; if it had an abiding place, it would be impermanent. The twelve links of dependent origination have no fixed abiding place; if they had an abiding place, the twelve links of dependent origination could not be called permanent.' All of these are similarly designated 'permanent' with respect to their support, the nature of tathatā. This is just what the Mahāyānasaṃgraha means by: 'Because the responsive and transformation bodies always rely on the dharmakāya, they are called permanent.' They are not permanent in their own nature. Passages in the Ghanavyūha and elsewhere should be understood by analogy with this. These are the teachings of the Unsurpassed Tamer and the great treatise-masters, whose wisdom and understanding were wholly comprehensive, and whose doctrines and reasoning were clearly complete. Lacking the Dharma-eye himself, carving the boat and watching the tree stump, with mad medicine having entered his heart, he uttered these violent and reckless words, claiming to have grasped the Dharma, etc., while directly contradicting the sutra texts, forcibly asserting that arising and ceasing accord with the Middle Way, \[imagining that\] noble wisdom could thereby arise. Seeing permanence where there is no permanence, he falls into the gathering of the wrongly determined. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.2.8) - [Next: 2.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.2.10) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863~en-mt.2.9) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [攝大乘論釋](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.mahayanasamgraha!bhasya*zh-paramartha.15.183) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.2.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1863.2.9) · Pramāṇa