廣弘明集 21.41

21.41

宣武寺法寵諮曰。未審法身之稱為正在妙本。金姿丈六亦是法身。令旨答曰。通而為論本迹皆是。別而為語止在常住。又諮。若止在常住不應有身。若通取丈六。丈六何謂法身。令旨答。常住既有妙體。何得無身。丈六亦能軌物。故可通稱法身。又諮。若常住無累方稱法身。丈六有累何謂法身。令旨答。眾生注仰妄見丈六。丈六非有有何實累。又諮。若丈六非有指何為身。令旨答。隨物見有謂有應身。又諮。既曰應身何謂法身。令旨答。通相為辨故兼本迹。覈求實義不在金姿。

Fachong of Xuanwu Temple inquired, saying: "I do not know whether the designation of Dharma-body properly applies to the subtle origin, or whether the golden-hued sixteen-foot form is also the Dharma-body?" The directive responded, saying: "Discussing it broadly, both the origin and the trace are it. Speaking of them distinctly, it resides only in the permanently abiding." He also inquired: "If it resides only in the permanently abiding, there should be no body. If one takes the sixteen-foot form broadly, how can the sixteen-foot form be called the Dharma-body?" The directive answered: "Since the permanently abiding has a subtle substance, how could it lack a body? The sixteen-foot form can also serve as a model for beings; therefore, it may broadly be called the Dharma-body." He also inquired: "If only that which is permanently abiding and free from encumbrances is called the Dharma-body, while the sixteen-foot form has encumbrances, how can it be called the Dharma-body?" The directive answered: "Sentient beings fix their gaze and falsely see the sixteen-foot form. The sixteen-foot form is not real existence; what real encumbrance could it have?" He also inquired: "If the sixteen-foot form is not existent, to what does one point as the body?" The directive answered: "In accordance with what beings see as existent, it is said that there is a response body." He also inquired: "Since it is called a response body, how is it called the Dharma-body?" The directive answered: "It is distinguished in terms of its general aspects, and therefore encompasses both origin and trace. When investigating the real meaning, it does not reside in the golden form."