御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.101

2.101

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: