Śākyamuni and Vairocana in the Doctrine of Three Bodies
in Indian Buddhism
As is well known, the Yogācāra school of Mahāyāna Buddhism classifies the Buddha’s
bodies into the following three groups:22
20 P 3333: Zi 44a3–7.
21 P 3333: Zi 51b4.
22 See, for example, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha X.1.
ŚĀKYAMUNI AND VAIROCANA 47
(1) svabhāva-kāya (/ svābhāvikaḥ kāyaḥ) or “the body of self-nature”. The body
of self-nature is the self-nature of the other two bodies, and is also called dharmakāya
or “the body of Dharma”. This body is identical with emptiness.
(2) saṃbhoga-kāya (/ sāṃbhogikaḥ kāyaḥ) or “the body of enjoyment”. The body
of enjoyment is a material body that a Buddha enjoys for himself; he also allows
bodhisattvas in the ten stages to enjoy the same body on the occasions when he
preaches.
(3) nirmāṇa-kāya (/ nairmāṇikaḥ kāyaḥ) or “the body of transformation”. The
body of transformation is also called nirmita or “[something] transformed”, because
this body is created by the supernatural power of the body of enjoyment,
and transformed into various forms for the purpose of teaching sentient beings
who have not yet entered the ten stages.
The Yogācāra school regards Śākyamuni as a body of transformation.23 Although
I have not yet suceeded in finding any Yogācāra text that expounds Vairocana in
terms of the doctrine of three bodies, I have located a text of the Mādhyamika school
of Mahāyāna Buddhism that refers to Vairocana in the context of this doctrine.
In Chapter 4 of his Tarkajvālā (The Flame of Reason),24 entitled “Entering into Reality
according to the Śrāvakas” (Nyan thos kyi de kho na la ’jug pa), Bhavya (circa
6th century) supposes that Śrāvakayānists have twelve reasons for asserting that the
Mahāyāna is not the Buddha’s true teaching, and argues against them one by one.
The seventh of the twelve reasons is as follows:
For the reason that since [in the Mahāyāna] Śākyamuni is said to be a nirmita, all his teachings
are false.
shā kya thub pa sprul pa yin par smra bas bstan pa thams cad kyang log pa yin pa’i phyir |25
Bhavya argues against this point as follows:
Although Śākyamuni is a mere nirmita, [he] is true, because [he] is produced by the body
of enjoyment that has Akaniṣṭha for its [Buddha-]realm, and that [body in turn] depends on
the body of Dharma.
shā kya thub pa yang sprul pa kho na yin par rigs te | ’og min gyi spyod yul can chos kyi
sku la brten pa’i longs spyod rdzogs pa’i sku las rab tu byung ba yin pa’i phyir ro ||26