御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.118

2.118

經。須菩提至具足身見不　演曰。第三隨形好身具足。前來既說有淨見智及無相福必有所變所生圓滿相好之身故此明之。又前嚴土學佛見智求福身已此須嚴佛所有形相。然雖上求不能稱實除彼局執。但謂佛有八十隨好三十二相即為圓滿。然法身體具恒沙德。報佛相好如所證性無量無邊不可形相。求不可執心取故。有經云。文殊師利菩薩云。如來相好無窮無邊說不可盡。順世間法。是以略說三十二相八十種好。是故今者欲令真嚴及以真觀須無分別稱實相嚴意如嚴土故有此文。彼論謂斷第十六相好非佛疑。若諸佛以無為法得名。云何諸佛成就八十種好三十二相而名為佛。是故說非成就色身非成就諸相得見如來。此論觀無相以上求。彼論中即法身。而是佛二論俱明法報二身義不相違。文分為四問答徵釋。此問也。可以色身即究竟圓實觀如來不准上諸文。皆說真如以為如來。以相求真失真而不得。故舉為問欲令斷執稱實求也。問。若爾云何名好身具足。答。由內真圓外好自滿故也。又欲令其即色觀空若也唯見色身執形相而不融真理。唯觀空理住寂滅而闕利眾生。除其執情獲彼常色。此如欲得色身住處中解。問。地前化身相好可樂為化地上何唯爾所。答。正為地上兼為地前隨麁且爾。又解經論總言相好不顯別說　隨其位地應見不同。然依彼論說八十等隨淺識疑故無有失。

Sūtra: Subhūti, [...] can he be viewed by the complete physical body? The Exposition says: The third [topic] is the complete endowment of the body of minor characteristics. Having previously explained the pure knowledge and vision and signless merit, there must be a body perfected with marks and characteristics that is transformed and produced; hence this is explained. Furthermore, previously, having adorned the land, learned the Buddha's knowledge and vision, and sought the body of merit, one must now adorn all bodily forms of the Buddha. However, although one seeks higher, if one cannot conform to reality, then in order to eliminate that narrow attachment—merely thinking that the Buddha having the eighty minor characteristics and thirty-two marks is complete perfection—nevertheless the dharmakāya's essence possesses virtues like the sands of the Ganges, and the marks and characteristics of the saṃbhogakāya Buddha are immeasurable and boundless like the nature realised, beyond physical form. When seeking it, one must not grasp it with an attached mind. As a sūtra says, Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī said: "The marks and characteristics of the Tathāgata are infinite and boundless, beyond exhausting in explanation. In conformity with worldly conventions, thirty-two marks and eighty minor characteristics are spoken in brief." Therefore, now, wishing to bring about true adornment and true contemplation, one must be free from discrimination and adorn in accordance with true reality, with an intent like that of adorning the land; hence this text appears. That treatise considers this to sever the sixteenth doubt: that marks and characteristics are not the Buddha. If the Buddhas obtain their name through unconditioned dharmas, how is it that the Buddhas are named "Buddhas" by perfecting eighty minor characteristics and thirty-two marks? Therefore it says that one cannot see the Tathāgata by perfecting the physical body or by perfecting the marks. This treatise contemplates the signless to seek higher; in that treatise, it is the dharmakāya that is the Buddha. Both treatises clarify the two bodies—dharma and saṃbhoga—and their meanings do not conflict. The text is divided into four: question, answer, challenge, and explanation. This is the question: can one view the Tathāgata by taking the physical body to be the ultimate, complete reality? In accordance with the preceding texts, all speak of tathatā as the Tathāgata; seeking the real through marks loses the real and fails to attain it. Hence he raises the question, wishing to make them sever attachment and seek according to reality. Question: If so, why is it called "complete endowment of the body of minor characteristics"? Answer: Because inner truth is complete, the outer characteristics are naturally full. Furthermore, it is to make them contemplate emptiness based on form: if one only sees the physical body, grasping at physical appearance without fusing with true reality, or only contemplates the principle of emptiness, abiding in quiescent extinction while neglecting to benefit sentient beings. Abandoning such attachment, one obtains that eternal form. This is like the explanation in "wishing to attain the abiding place of the physical body." Question: The marks and characteristics of the nirmāṇakāya before the bhūmis are delightful; why are they only this much for transforming those on the bhūmis? Answer: Primarily for those on the bhūmis and secondarily for those before the bhūmis, it is temporarily like this in accordance with the coarse. Another explanation: The sūtras and treatises speak generally of marks and characteristics without distinct explanations; according to their stages, what they should see differs. However, speaking of eighty and so forth according to that treatise conforms to the doubts of shallow understanding, so there is no error.