御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.158

2.158

經。須菩提至觀如來不　演曰。第四攝取法身。前正覺處雖相法身而非正明具顯報佛。是無上覺因顯無上故明法身。又前雙明法報二身。以法身是本。今令攝取正觀正證故此明之。其欲得色身。住中雖明法身。因求色身令欣真理而不取相說。是欲得色身住處非欲法身。其欲得法身中所明三種言說及福。與此懸殊。智相法身為明智相。兼辨無為非正明理。其供養給侍如來住處。雖明無相。彼約所供佛身而說非明自得。今明自得亦明上求佛地法身令自攝取。及明法身非以相比知非相福因得故有此文。彼論意同為斷第二十二比知法體疑。及斷第二十三相福成因疑。論云。復有疑。雖相成就不可得見如來。以非彼體。以如來法身為體。而如來法身以見相成就。比知則知如來法身為福相成就。自下經文為斷此疑。演曰。此敘二疑。一者如來法身雖不可以相成就。現證應言可以相成就比知。二者如來法身應由福相成就所得。此下論文有三行偈。初後兩偈答第一疑。中間一偈答第二疑。然中一偈及諸長行。應在後明以此偈文釋經頌。後可以相成就得阿耨菩提文故。而作論者以此二疑義相連帶故。前敘疑合一處問。逐便釋之後引經文遂更不釋前已釋故。又轉輪王為例相似故一處明古今諸德謂翻譯錯。理未必然。以前後譯次第皆示菩提流支譯文。依論論主意然。何謂翻譯錯。如下文中真化一異疑。長行及頌隔越而解。至下當知。此亦如是。文中有二。初明觀相不可識真後明相因非得真體。即是如次答前二疑。初文又二。長行及頌。故長行文四問答質領。此即佛問。可以三十二相比知如來法性身不。

Sūtra: [The Buddha asked,] "Subhūti, [...] can one observe the Tathāgata [by the thirty-two marks]?" / Commentary: The fourth section is "Apprehending the Dharmakāya." Previously, at the stage of right awakening, although it was the mark of the dharmakāya, it did not directly clarify it, but fully displayed the saṃbhogakāya Buddha. Because it was the unexcelled awakening, in order to reveal the unexcelled, it clarified the dharmakāya. Furthermore, previously it jointly clarified the two bodies, the dharma[kāya] and the saṃbhoga[kāya]; because the dharmakāya is the root, now, in order to have one apprehend, correctly observe, and correctly realize it, it is clarified here. As for the abode of desiring to attain the rūpakāya: although the dharmakāya was clarified therein, it was spoken because seeking the rūpakāya causes one to aspire to the true principle without grasping at marks; that is the abode of desiring to attain the rūpakāya, not the desire for the dharmakāya. What was clarified in the desire to attain the dharmakāya regarding the three kinds of verbal expression and merit is vastly different from this. The mark of wisdom of the dharmakāya was to clarify the mark of wisdom, while concurrently distinguishing the unconditioned, not directly clarifying the principle. As for the abode of making offerings and attending upon the Tathāgata: although marklessness was clarified, that was spoken regarding the Buddha-body that is offered to, not clarifying one's own attainment. Now it clarifies one's own attainment, and also clarifies seeking the dharmakāya of the Buddha-stage above, causing one to apprehend it for oneself; and it clarifies that the dharmakāya cannot be known by inference through marks, nor is it attained through the cause of the merit of marks; hence there is this text. The intention of that treatise is the same, being to cut off the twenty-second doubt concerning knowing the dharma-body by inference, and to cut off the twenty-third doubt concerning the merit of marks constituting the cause. The treatise says: "There is further doubt: 'Although the accomplishment of marks cannot lead to seeing the Tathāgata, because it is not his essence—since the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is his essence—yet the Tathāgata's dharmakāya, by seeing the accomplishment of marks, can be known by inference; thus one knows that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is the accomplishment of the marks of merit.' The sūtra text below is to cut off this doubt." Commentary: This sets forth two doubts. First: although the Tathāgata's dharmakāya cannot be directly realized through the accomplishment of marks, should one say it can be known by inference through the accomplishment of marks? Second: should the Tathāgata's dharmakāya be attained through the accomplishment of the marks of merit? Below in the treatise text there are three verses. The first and last verses answer the first doubt; the middle verse answers the second doubt. However, the middle verse and its prose commentary ought to be clarified later, because this verse text explains the sūtra's verse following the passage 'can anuttarā bodhi be attained by the accomplishment of marks?' Yet the treatise author, because the meanings of these two doubts are interconnected, previously set forth the doubts together in one question, explained them in sequence as convenient, and subsequently cited the sūtra text without explaining them again, since they had already been explained before. Furthermore, because the wheel-turning king serves as a similar example, they were clarified in one place. Past and present masters said this was a translation error, but this is not necessarily so. Since the sequence of the translations before and after both show Bodhiruci's translated text, and according with the treatise, this was indeed the intention of the treatise author; how could it be said to be a translation error? Just as in the text below where the doubt on the oneness or difference of the true and transformation [bodies] is explained with the prose and verses separated; you should know it when we come to it below. This is also like that. Within the text there are two parts: first, clarifying that observing marks cannot recognize the true [body]; later, clarifying that the cause of marks does not attain the true essence. That is, they sequentially answer the preceding two doubts. The first text also has two parts: the prose and the verse. Therefore the prose text has four questions and answers of interrogation and understanding. This is the Buddha's question: can one infer and know the Tathāgata's dharmatā-kāya by the thirty-two marks or not?