御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.158

2.158

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?