法身為真如所顯 -- 論《能斷金剛般若波羅蜜多經釋》對於法身的界定=The Dharma-body as the Disclosure of Thusness: On the Characterization of the Dharma-body in the Nengduan jingang banruo boluomi jing shi
This paper begins with a brief review of the different characterizations of the dharma-body dharma-kāya) given by Asaṅga and by Vasubandhu. In his Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Asaṅga tends to treat the dharma-body as conditioned, but in the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya, Vasubandhu redefi nes the dharma-body as unconditioned. In particular, Vasubandhu deliberately adopts the rare Sanskrit term prabhāvita to depict the change from the undisclosed state of the dharma-body to the disclosed state, at the moment when one becomes a Buddha. This paper then shows that the Nengduan jingang banruo boluomi jing shi (Taishō No. 1513) follows the defi nition of the dharma-body and the employment of prabhāvita of the ahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya. Both texts treat the dharma-body as identical with Thusness (tathatā), and to this extent, both texts agree with the Ratnagotravibhāga, which is often regarded as the pinnacle of Indian Tathāgatagarbha thought. Given this identity, the Nengduan jingang banruo boluomi jing shiclaims that saints of various stages correspond to various degrees of the disclosure of Thusness, with the Buddha being the complete disclosure. Compared with the silence of the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya regarding the relation between the dharma-body and the Buddha’s wisdom (buddha-jñāna), the Nengduan jingang banruo boluomi jing shi goes further, to claim that the nature of the dharma-body is identical with that wisdom. Moreover, given that the dharma-body is permanent (nitya), the Buddha’s wisdom must also be permanent. Such wisdom is devoid of any conceptualization, and hence without any "marks." The reason why this wisdom is not disclosed in ordinary sentient beings is because it is concealed by conceptualized thinking. Finally, based on the striking similarities between the Mahāyānasaṃgrahabhāṣya and the Nengduan jingang banruo boluomi jing shi, this paper argues that both texts were composed by Vasubandhu. The latter text is a better-developed form of the former, in the sense that it reveals Vasubandhu's efforts to incorporate Tathāgatagarbha thought into his Yogâcāra system.
