御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.101

2.101

經。須菩提乃至如來有佛眼　演曰。下第二無上見智淨具足。前求佛土。佛土體通情與非情。如說眾生之類是菩薩。淨土七珍八寶是所受用。其中眾生是所化度。若無智見誰能受用及能化度。故淨智見為能受。化由達一切色與非色。理事等法亦能了知淨非淨土。所有眾生八萬四千心行差別。而為濟利故有此文見即五眼智即六通。論云。如來不唯有惠眼為令智見淨勝故。顯示有五種眼。若異此則唯求惠眼見淨故。演曰。令其求佛見及智淨。即是四智一切妙用略舉照境。及他心智利他中勝所以。偏舉其福自在具足。雖非是智因智所成。與智為依。明智必有所依之福故。合福惠名智見淨。又佛三身具攝福智故。前令種福智資糧。今說果圓令欣求趣。彼論為斷第十四佛非能見疑。論云。前說菩薩不見彼是眾生。我為菩薩淨佛國土以不見諸法名為諸佛。若如是者或謂諸佛如來不見諸法。自下經文為斷此疑故說五種眼。此論意說淨土之中有能受化令起欣求。彼論有此能知見故。勿謂諸佛都無所見。以遣疑意疑除智有。即是上求二論無違。文分為三。初明見淨具足。次明智淨具足。三明福身具足。鑒照名見。決斷名智。可受名福。離障圓明名淨具足。見淨五眼即分為五。一段中先問後答。初中問云。頗同凡下見障內故有肉眼不。答。言有者雖以肉眼通見一切。且順淺知故答言有。又即諸佛利他德中亦有化身。父母所生清淨四大報得肉眼。其天眼中准例可知。二並色質涅槃經云。捨無常色獲得常色者。是問肉天二體為同為別。答在因有別處果無差。皆唯無漏非實業感及修生別。不可佛身有麁細。眼照理名惠。觀教名法。緣真緣俗一智義分。或時別起佛眼。即前四眼為體遍緣一切總名佛眼。然唯論中束五為四。謂色攝第一義諦攝世諦攝一切種一切應知攝。色攝復有二種。謂法果修果此為五眼。麁境界故。是初色攝。演曰。此四皆從所緣得名。以有難言。如來五眼得一切境如何。此中但言色攝故。論釋言。此五眼中具依麁顯同類境說言初色攝。理實亦能取非色境。由是業感故名法果。由彼業體是法塵故。法名雖通此肉別稱如言色處。別得總名天眼。依定起故名修果。因修得故如言修惠。若爾如何得有報得天眼。答。阿那律等名為修得。設生彼王報所得眼。因中亦由修定而得總名修得。論又釋惠法二眼次第云。第一義中智力故。世智不顛倒轉。是故第一義諦攝在法先非不見。如了諸行故。論又釋法佛二眼行相。如文可解。准論下釋智淨中云。於此智淨中說心住即非心住。如是見淨中。何故不說眼即非眼。以一住處故。見智淨後安立第一義故。初亦得成就。演曰。以後例前應言。如來說肉眼即非肉眼。是名肉眼。由安立第一義故。彼法無實體故。無如其名有自體故。名之為非隨順世間。為令修證強立其名。是名肉眼。餘四准此而不說者。同一住處最後說故。例前亦爾。彼論頌云。

Sūtra: “Subhūti, [...] the Tathāgata possesses the Buddha-eye?”
Exposition: Below is the second [section], the perfection of supreme purity of vision and knowledge. Previously, one sought the Buddha-land. The essence of the Buddha-land encompasses both sentient and non-sentient: as it says, the categories of sentient beings are the bodhisattva’s [pure land]; the seven gems and eight jewels are what is experienced and utilized, and the sentient beings therein are what are converted and delivered. If one lacked vision and knowledge, who could experience and utilize [them] and who could convert and deliver [them]? Therefore, purified vision and knowledge serve as the agent of experiencing and converting. By thoroughly penetrating all material and non-material phenomena, principles, and phenomena, one is also able to comprehend pure and impure lands, as well as all the eighty-four thousand distinctions in the mental activities of sentient beings, in order to benefit and rescue them; hence this passage appears. "Vision" refers to the five eyes, and "knowledge" refers to the six superknowledges. The commentary says: "The Tathāgata does not possess only the wisdom-eye; to cause vision and knowledge to be purely superior, it is shown that he possesses five kinds of eyes. If it were otherwise, then he would seek only the purity of vision of the wisdom-eye." Exposition: It causes them to seek the Buddha's purity of vision and knowledge, which refers to the four knowledges and all wondrous functions, briefly mentioning the illumination of objects, and the knowledge of others' minds is superior in benefiting others; this is why it is singled out. His mastery and perfection of merit, although not knowledge itself, is accomplished because of knowledge and serves as the support for knowledge; to make clear that knowledge must have merit as its support, merit and wisdom are combined and called the purity of vision and knowledge. Moreover, the three bodies of the Buddha fully subsume merit and wisdom; therefore, previously he caused them to plant the provisions of merit and wisdom, and now he explains the fruition's fullness to induce them to aspire and advance toward it. That commentary is meant to sever the fourteenth doubt, that the Buddha is not able to see. The commentary says: "Previously it was said that the bodhisattva does not see that they are sentient beings, and 'I, as a bodhisattva, purify the Buddha-land'; by not seeing phenomena, one is called the Buddhas. If so, some might say that the Buddhas, the Tathāgatas, do not see any phenomena. The sūtra text below is spoken to sever this doubt, and therefore speaks of the five kinds of eyes." The meaning of this commentary is that within the pure land there is that which can experience and convert, giving rise to aspiration; that commentary has this capacity of knowing and seeing, so that one does not say that the Buddhas have no vision at all. By dispelling the doubt, the doubt is removed and knowledge exists; this is the upward seeking, and the two commentaries do not conflict. The text is divided into three: first, explaining the perfection of purity of vision; second, explaining the perfection of purity of knowledge; third, explaining the perfection of the body of merit. Clear illumination is called vision; decisive judgment is called knowledge; that which can be experienced is called merit; being free of hindrances and completely luminous is called the perfection of purity. The five eyes of purity of vision are divided into five. Within each section, there is first a question and then an answer. In the first, the question asks: "Might he, like the ordinary and inferior, possess the fleshy eye because he sees within obstructed boundaries?" The answer says he possesses it: although with the fleshy eye he comprehensively sees everything, in temporary accordance with shallow understanding, it answers that he possesses it. Furthermore, within the Buddhas' virtues of benefiting others, there is also the transformation body, the fleshy eye obtained as a retribution produced by parents from the pure four great elements. For the divine eye, it can be understood by analogy. Both are physical matter; the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Renouncing impermanent form, one obtains permanent form"—this is it. Question: Are the essences of the fleshy and divine [eyes] identical or distinct? Answer: In the cause they are distinct, but at the fruition there is no difference; both are solely undefiled, and are not distinctions of actual karmic retribution versus cultivation. It cannot be that the Buddha's body has coarse and subtle [eyes]. Illuminating principle is called wisdom; observing teaching is called Dharma. Objectifying the ultimate and objectifying the conventional are conceptual distinctions of a single knowledge; or at times they arise separately. The Buddha-eye takes the previous four eyes as its substance and comprehensively objectifies everything, being collectively called the Buddha-eye. However, the commentary on Vijñaptimātra binds the five into four: namely, subsumed under form, subsumed under the paramārtha truth, subsumed under conventional truth, and subsumed under all modes and all that should be known. That subsumed under form has two kinds: namely, the fruit of Dharma and the fruit of cultivation; these constitute the five eyes. Because its realm is coarse, it is the initial "subsumed under form." Exposition: These four all derive their names from their objective supports. Because an objection says: "How is it that the Tathāgata's five eyes apprehend all objects, yet here it only says 'subsumed under form'?" Therefore the commentary explains: "Among these five eyes, fully relying on coarse, manifest, and homogeneous objects, it speaks of the initial 'subsumed under form.' In reality, they are also able to grasp non-material objects." Being karmically recompensed, it is called the fruit of Dharma, because that karmic substance is the mental datum of phenomena; although the term "Dharma" is general, this is a specific name for the fleshy eye, just like speaking of the sense-field of form, where the specific receives the general name. Because the divine eye arises relying on meditative absorption, it is called the fruit of cultivation; because it is obtained due to cultivation, it is like speaking of cultivation-wisdom. If so, how can there be a divine eye obtained by retribution? Answer: Aniruddha and others are called "obtained by cultivation." Even if born into that king's state with an eye obtained by retribution, in the causal stage it was also obtained by cultivating absorption; thus it is collectively called "obtained by cultivation." The commentary also explains the sequence of the wisdom and Dharma eyes, saying: "Because of the power of wisdom in the paramārtha, worldly wisdom operates without error. Therefore, subsumed under the paramārtha truth precedes the Dharma[-eye], not that it does not see, just as it comprehends all conditioned formations." The commentary also explains the functional aspects of the Dharma- and Buddha-eyes, which can be understood from the text. According to the commentary's subsequent explanation of the purity of knowledge, it says: "In this purity of knowledge, it says mental abiding is non-abiding; so in this purity of vision, why does it not say the eye is non-eye? Because they belong to one dwelling-place. Because the paramārtha is established after the purity of vision and knowledge, the initial is also accomplished." Exposition: Analysing the former by the latter, it should say: "The Tathāgata speaks of the fleshy eye as not being the fleshy eye; this is named the fleshy eye." Because the paramārtha is established, that phenomenon lacks real substance; because it does not possess self-nature as its name implies, it is termed "non-"; in accordance with the conventional world, to cause cultivation and realization, a name is forcibly established: this is named the fleshy eye. The other four follow this. As to why it is not said, because they share the same dwelling-place and it is stated at the end; by analogy with the preceding, it is also thus. The verse of that commentary says: