御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 2.171

2.171

Sūtra: “Subhūti, if you should have this thought […] do not have this thought.”
Exposition: The above has completed the explanation that contemplating marks cannot recognize the ultimate [truth], but had not yet explained that the cause of marks cannot attain the true essence. This resolves the doubt about merit and marks constituting the cause. The treatise summarizes what precedes, stating: “Within this dwelling-place, it is shown in brief that one should view the Tathāgata by means of the dharmakāya, not by means of the completeness of marks.” It also introduces this text, saying: “If so, although the Tathāgata should not be seen by means of the completeness of marks, he should attain anuttarā [samyaksaṃ]bodhi with the completeness of marks as the cause. In order to abandon this attachment, the sūtra says…” Although the passage cited by that treatise comes after, its meaning belongs to what precedes. However, according to other recensions: “Subhūti, what do you think? Can one attain anuttarā [samyaksaṃ]bodhi through the perfection of marks? Subhūti, do not have this thought: [the Tathāgata] does not attain anuttarā [samyaksaṃ]bodhi through the perfection of marks, and so forth.” Although the sūtra texts of the various recensions differ slightly, their general purport is uniformly to preclude attaining that bodhi through the perfection of marks. Only this sūtra text adds the word “not” (不) so as to preclude it, [reading] “does not attain through the perfection of marks,” which fails to accord with the intended meaning of the two treatises. Therefore, in the initial phrasing, the superfluous character “not” is simply an error of the translators. Or perhaps the intention of saying “does not […] by” here means: “Is it not by means of complete marks that he attains bodhi? That is, he attains bodhi by means of marks. Do not have this thought!” Thus there is also no need to delete the character “not”. Within the text there are three parts: first the question, next the prohibition, and finally the concluding demonstration of the correct doctrine. These are the first two. In the first fascicle of the treatise, in explaining the subsumption of the dharmakāya, it points to this passage, saying: “This meaning clarifies that the essence of the completeness of marks is not bodhi, nor does it take the completeness of marks as its cause, because marks are by nature material form.” Exposition: Marks, being by nature material form, inherently incur the retribution of the physical body's marks and characteristics. The essential nature of the dharmakāya’s bodhi is not material form; how, then, could it take marks as its cause? The verse of that treatise states: