金剛般若經旨贊 1.46

1.46

Sūtra: Subhūti […] up to: “will give rise to true faith or not?”
Commentary: Below, the text explains the Dharmakāya. This is the fourth of the eighteen [topics]: the abode of desiring to attain the Dharmakāya. Within this, three kinds of Dharmakāya are revealed: namely, the verbal [teaching], the aspect of wisdom, and the aspect of merit. Desiring the three Dharmakāyas is accordingly divided into three parts. First, desiring to attain the verbal Dharmakāya: one should sever the second doubt, which is doubting that [the teaching] is spoken in vain due to lack of faith, so that one is caused to cultivate the practice of upholding and explaining in accord with reality. Since the previous text already stated, “One who desires to attain the fruit of the Tathāgata’s form-body should contemplate the Dharmakāya,” it now causes them to desire to attain the Dharmakāya.

Now, the Dharmakāya has two kinds: namely, the merit and the wisdom of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. These merits and wisdoms are dharmas of virtue and are the locus of reliance; hence both are called Dharmakāya. Because they arise by relying on the teaching dharma of verbal explanation, this verbal explanation is also called Dharmakāya. Because it is capable of generating and expressing the bodies of merit and wisdom, it is just like the two kinds—true-mark [prajñā] and contemplative [prajñā]—being properly called prajñā, while the expressing words, because they can generate and express [them], are also called prajñā; thus these words are also called Dharmakāya.

Since this verbal explanation is the cause of the Dharmakāya, one who seeks the body of merit and wisdom should first desire to attain the verbal Dharmakāya, so that it circulates in the world in both the present and the future. If one desires it to circulate, one should not apprehend the marks of dharma or non-dharma while upholding and explaining it. Since [the Buddha] causes them to aspire for its circulation in the present and the future, doubts arise regarding this: “Earlier, it was said that practicing giving without the marks of dharmas is a profound cause; furthermore, it was said that the Tathāgata is not a conditioned mark, which is a profound fruit. The cause is profound and the fruit is far-reaching, and the deep purport is difficult to know. Even while the Buddha was in the world, it was difficult to have faith-and-understanding; how much more so after the Buddha's extinction, when the times are evil and capacities are inferior—how could they depart from marks and generate faith-and-understanding? Why cause me to circulate it now and in the future? Since there will be no one with faith, would this not be spoken in vain?”

Thus, because of previously desiring to attain it, this doubt arises. Once the thought of doubt has arisen, one no longer aspires. Now, wishing to sever that thought of doubt and cause them to seek to uphold and explain it in the present and future, it is said that in evil times there will still be those who uphold it with faith. Since this sūtra text was spoken for these two intents, the two treatises each clarify one meaning: Asaṅga, focusing on causing aspiration, terms it “desiring to attain the verbal Dharmakāya”; Vasubandhu, focusing on severing the doubtful mind, terms it “severing [the doubt that] it is spoken in vain due to lack of faith.”

Within the text there are two parts: first, Subhūti raises the question, and afterward, the Tathāgata explains it for him. This is the first. Subhūti's intention is that, wishing to sever that doubtful mind and cause them to seek it, he raises the question, saying: “In the future age, will there be any sentient beings who, upon hearing the phrases of this verbal Dharmakāya, give rise to true faith-and-understanding or not?”