勝鬘寶窟 1.37

Second, the section explaining the names: embodying Thusness (tathatā) and coming (āgata), he is therefore called Tathāgata. Furthermore, he is just as (tathā) all the buddhas are, hence called Tathāgata. Question: Embodying Thusness and coming, he is therefore called Tathāgata. This applies to the responsive body (nirmāṇakāya), which can possess the meaning of 'coming'. How can the dharmakāya of true Thusness have any 'coming'? Answer: When what was originally hidden now becomes manifest, it may also be termed 'coming'. Virtues are not falsely proclaimed, hence called 'real'. An ancient commentary says: 'The holy response eliminates delusion; this is the reality of merit.' The ultimate principle that cannot be surpassed is called 'foremost'. That which possesses profound reason is termed 'significance' (artha). What is obtained through cultivating merit is therefore called 'virtuous merit' (guṇa). Furthermore, merit itself is virtue: just as a lamp has the meritorious function of destroying darkness and revealing objects, and this very function is the virtue of the lamp, it is therefore called 'virtuous merit'. Praising his actual virtues is called 'praise'. Next, the section on the structural divisions: this chapter is broadly divided into two parts: first, praising the Buddha's virtues; second, requesting protection. Why are there these two? Because the Buddha possesses supreme virtues, he is extolled; because she wishes to generate the aspiration and vow to seek [them], she requests protection. Under the first, praising the Buddha, there are again two parts: first, specific praises; second, general praises. The Tathāgata's vast virtues cannot be made manifest without being specific, hence specific praises come first; yet they cannot be exhausted by specific [praises], hence general praises are necessary. Moreover, the former directly clarifies the praise, while the latter explains that which praise cannot praise, thereby exhausting the beauty of praise. Within the specific praises, there are four meanings, three meanings, two meanings, one meaning, and no meaning. The so-called four meanings are: 1. praising the responsive body; 2. praising the dharmakāya; 3. praising liberation; 4. praising prajñā. Seeing the golden countenance face to face, she therefore first praises the responsive body. Because it is the root, next she praises the dharmakāya. The dharmakāya is pure and free of all unwholesome phenomena, hence next she praises liberation. Liberation being accomplished is due to the efficacy of prajñā, hence next she praises prajñā. The so-called three meanings are: the responsive body and the true body both belong to the dharmakāya; next she praises liberation, and afterwards she praises prajñā. As for the sequence of these three: saṃsāra has three aspects, namely retribution, karma, and afflictions, which form a sequence; dharmakāya corresponds to retribution, liberation corresponds to karma, and prajñā corresponds to afflictions, which likewise forms a sequence. The so-called two meanings are: although there are three virtues, they do not exceed two meanings: the single virtue of liberation completely exhausts all encumbrances; dharmakāya and prajñā lack nothing in the perfection of virtue. The so-called one meaning is: completely exhausting all encumbrances cannot be called existence; lacking nothing in the perfection of virtue cannot be called non-existence; this is called the Middle Way. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Buddhadhātu is called the seed of the Middle Way; the Dharma of the Middle Way is called the Buddha; preaching the Middle Way is called a great Dharma master.' These three kinds of Middle Way must have a sequence: because buddhadhātu is fundamentally the Middle Way, when the Middle Way is not yet manifest it is called the seed; when the Middle Way becomes manifest it is termed the Buddha; and when in turn preaching the Dharma of the Middle Way for the sake of living beings, he is called a great Dharma master. Next, the statement of no meaning: the sūtra says, 'Apart from the two extremes, one does not cling to the Middle Way.' As the text later says, 'I pay homage to the Inconceivable'; because the activities of the mind are extinguished, it cannot be thought, and because language is cut off, it cannot be discussed. Therefore the virtues of the Tathāgata, when expanded, pervade the dharmadhātu; when contracted, thought is extinguished and words perish. Only when one embodies this intention can one recognise the text here. Now, explaining it in terms of the three virtues for the moment: the first two verses praise the dharmakāya; the next single verse praises liberation; the last single verse praises prajñā. The three dharmas in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra take liberation as the first, dharmakāya as the second, and prajñā as the last. Here taking dharmakāya as the beginning is precisely because, looking up directly at the golden countenance, one traces back to the source from the traces. But interpretations of the three virtues differ; south of the Yangzi there are three explanations. The first, Master Yun, says: dharmakāya is adduced to correspond to the form of saṃsāra; prajñā is adduced to correspond to the mind within saṃsāra. The form and mind of saṃsāra are bound; the dharmakāya and prajñā of the buddha-ground have no encumbrances; hence liberation is adduced to correspond to that bondage. The second, Master Zang, says: dharmakāya is the essence itself; liberation is adduced to correspond to the former nirvāṇa with remainder; prajñā is adduced to correspond to the former nirvāṇa without remainder. The third, Master Min, says: dharmakāya as the essence itself does not differ from the second; however, the myriad virtues do not exceed wisdom and eradication; liberation is adduced to explain eradication, and prajñā is adduced to explain wisdom. The various masters of the northern land say: nirvāṇa corresponds to saṃsāra. Saṃsāra has three aspects: 1. the body of retribution; 2. karma; 3. afflictions. In correspondence to the body of retribution of saṃsāra, dharmakāya is taught; in correspondence to saṃsāra, liberation is taught; in correspondence to the afflictions of saṃsāra, prajñā is taught. Now we clarify that it can contain all these meanings. The first two verses praising the dharmakāya are explained through four gates: 1. the gate of contracting and expanding; 2. the gate of providing the correct explanation; 3. the gate of similarities and differences; 4. the gate of examining strengths and weaknesses. As for the gate of contracting and expanding, there are four meanings, three meanings, two meanings, one meaning, no meaning, and having meaning. The so-called four meanings are: the first verse praises the responsive body; the single line 'The Tathāgata's form is inexhaustible' praises the form body of retribution (saṃbhogakāya); 'Wisdom is likewise so' praises the wisdom body; 'All dharmas are eternally abiding' praises the tathatā body. These four bodies are present in the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. As for the three meanings: the first five lines praise the Buddha's form body; 'Wisdom is likewise so' praises the Buddha's wisdom; 'All dharmas are eternally abiding' praises the remaining dharmas of virtuous merit such as morality and concentration. As for the two meanings: the former specifically praises form and wisdom, and the latter generally extols the myriad virtues, which is a single pair of general and specific. As for the one meaning: although there is the distinction of general and specific, in looking toward the subsequent liberation and prajñā, they all belong to praising the dharmakāya, hence it is one meaning. Another 'one meaning': as Lord Zhao said, 'Though source and traces differ, they are inconceivably one'; hence it is one meaning. Still another 'one meaning': stillness itself is movement, so the true is precisely the responsive; movement itself is stillness, so the responsive is precisely the true. Therefore Master Zhao said: 'How could one discard the sixteen-foot [manifestation] near at hand to seek the dharmakāya afar?' As for 'no meaning': stillness itself is movement—though true, it is responsive; movement itself is stillness—though responsive, it is true. Because though true it is responsive, the true is not definitively true; because though responsive it is true, the responsive is not definitively responsive. Neither true nor responsive, thought is extinguished and words perish; this is termed 'no meaning'. Although neither true nor responsive, true and responsive are distinctly manifest; hence it is having meaning within no meaning, and is thus called 'having meaning'. Second, the gate of the correct explanation: the ancient explanations follow a sequential generation. 'The Tathāgata's wonderful physical body': since she sees the golden countenance face to face, she therefore first praises the wonderful physical form. First, it is born from wonderful causes; second, it is manifested from the wonderful source; hence it is called 'wonderful'. 'Unrivalled in the world': nothing is equal to it, hence called 'unrivalled'.

Because there is no thing to compare to [him], he is said to be "incomparable." Because he transcends the reach of affective consciousness, he is said to be "inconceivable." Because he surpasses the realm of speech, he is called "inexpressible." These are five praises proceeding from the near to the far. That they proceed "from the near to the far" means that while "subtle" and "fine" express his surpassing the mundane, there is also the phrase "unequalled" which can express his surpassing the supramundane. Although he surpasses the mundane, within the supramundane there are the two vehicles and bodhisattvas with whom he might still be compared; therefore it is now clarified that even within the supramundane he has no comparison. It might still be said that he can be conceived or expressed; therefore it is now clarified that the mind cannot conceive him and the mouth cannot express him. Having this wondrous body, we therefore now pay homage. Furthermore, the upper three lines explain the praise, and the lower single line explains the veneration. There can be veneration without praise, or praise without veneration; here both are fully present. Moreover, three lines explain the karma of speech, and the lower line clarifies the karma of body, with the mind running through both places. As for "the Tathāgata’s form is inexhaustible": although there were five praises above, one might fear that material forms have an exhaustion and a limit, and might not necessarily respond constantly in all places and at all times; therefore it is now clarified that his capacity to respond to things is inexhaustible. Why is it inexhaustible? Because the fundamental is inexhaustible, the response is constantly inexhaustible; because sentient beings are inexhaustible, the manifestation of his form is endless. Hence there is the praise of "inexhaustible." As for "wisdom is also likewise": having praised his physical form above, [the text] now extols his wisdom. Praising his form has six aspects: first, subtly fine; second, unequalled; third, incomparable; fourth, inconceivable; fifth, inexpressible; sixth, inexhaustible. Now in praising his wisdom, the meaning should also be likewise; it merely indicates in brief that wisdom is the same as form. Since form is inexhaustible, wisdom is also inexhaustible. "Inexhaustible" means wisdom that is immeasurable and boundless. Why are form and wisdom praised in particular? Because his form has no peer and his wisdom is inexhaustible; being what beings delight in and seek as essential, they are spoken of in particular. Question: Above, having beheld the golden countenance, it was permissible to praise his wondrous form; but since wisdom was not yet apparent, why is wisdom praised? Answer: Taking form as an analogy for wisdom, since he possesses an incomparable body, he must possess pre-eminent wisdom. Furthermore, in the earlier section on responding to capacities, both form and wisdom were fully explained: knowing capacities and immediately responding is wisdom pervading everything; universally emitting pure light is physical form being incomparable. Since both were seen above, both are now praised together. As for "all dharmas are permanently abiding": although form and wisdom were praised above, one might fear that he does not necessarily possess the remaining virtues; therefore it is now clarified that he possesses all virtues. Hence a later passage states: "Accomplishing all buddha-dharmas is called the Tathāgata’s dharmakāya." Question: If so, and the dharmakāya subsumes all virtues, why is there also prajñā? Answer: If spoken of under the name of the dharmakāya, there is nothing that is not the dharmakāya; the other two are also likewise. Hence a later passage states, "The wisdom-body is sovereign"; thus within prajñā there is the dharmakāya. Now within the dharmakāya there is also prajñā, and so it says: "Wisdom is also likewise." Liberation also has the dharmakāya, and so it says: "Therefore I pay homage to the Dharmarāja." If we take up their differentiated meanings, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "The dharmakāya is the locus of all virtues, just as the body sense-faculty is the locus of the various faculties; therefore the dharmakāya possesses all virtues." Although possessing all virtues, they might not necessarily be permanent; hence it says "permanently abiding." Why are they permanent? Because the buddha-dharmas surpassing the sands of the Ganges within the tathāgatagarbha are revealed to constitute his present virtues; therefore they are permanent. If they were impermanent, they would not be worthy of taking refuge in; because they are permanently abiding, they can be taken refuge in. The present Buddha differs from the former Buddha; hence it clarifies the permanently abiding Buddha. Taking refuge now differs from taking refuge formerly; hence one takes refuge in the permanently abiding. As for the interpretations of older authorities in distinguishing between the true and the responsive [bodies]: a verse and a half praises the responsive body; from "permanently abiding" onward praises the dharmakāya. We now adopt this view. Third, the section on similarities and differences. Regarding the first gāthā and the lower half of the second gāthā, people have no differing interpretations. Some say: "The Tathāgata’s form is inexhaustible" praises the reward body; the reward body has permanent form, and being permanent, it is inexhaustible. "Wisdom is also likewise" praises wisdom; within the reward body, it does not go beyond merit and wisdom, and because wisdom is the same as form in permanently abiding, it says "is also likewise." Fourth, the section evaluating strengths and weaknesses. First, to question the latter position: if one says that "inexhaustible" means "permanently abiding," then the lower line again saying "all dharmas are permanently abiding" would render the text redundant. Furthermore, below in the chapter on taking refuge, it clarifies the inexhaustible refuge and the permanently abiding refuge; if "inexhaustible" were identical with "permanently abiding," the text should not present both, and furthermore the wording would not be skillful. In worldly parlance they say: "peerless countenance, inexhaustible talent." If one explains "inexhaustible" by means of "permanent," then it is unskillful as praise; therefore one should adopt the explanation of the first master. Next, concerning whether the dharmakāya has form or is formless, there has been debate from past to present. Some say: the dharmakāya has form. The Niḥsarana Sūtra says: "Wondrous form is tranquil and constantly peaceful, not shifting with seasons, periods, and kalpas." The Nirvāṇa says: "Relinquishing impermanent form, one attains permanent form." The Daśabhūmivyākhyāna says: "The marks and signs adorning the Tathāgata are the real reward body." Furthermore, a bodhisattva cultivates the causes for the marks and signs over vast kalpas, so how could there be no fruit? Deducing from the textual meanings, one should know that the dharmakāya has form. Those who refute formlessness say: if one says that form means obstruction and therefore the buddha-fruit has no form, then mind means having an object, and one should say that the buddha-fruit has no mind. But the Buddha after all has an objectless mind; so he should have unobstructed form. Question: Being unobstructed, how can it be called form? Answer: If so, when the Buddha is without objects, how can he have knowing? Next, south of the Yangtze River, [masters] Yun, Min, Zang, and others all said: the buddha-fruit has no form. Therefore the Nirvāṇa says: "May I attain the Tathāgata’s formless, sovereign body." The Sūtra of Mañjuśrī's Ten Homages says: "Without form and without shape or marks, without faculties and without a dwelling place, because it is neither produced nor destroyed, I pay homage to that which cannot be observed." Those who refute the possession of form say: if one says that the buddha-fruit has form, he should erect a vaulted house and wear the garments of Chu. The intent of the objection is: since the dharmakāya has unobstructed form, it should dwell in an unobstructed residence and wear unobstructed clothing. Master Sengzhao’s commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "The Perfect Person is empty and vast, without images; how could his land be constant?" Zhu Daosheng composed the Treatise on the Dharmakāya Having No Pure Land, clarifying that the dharmakāya has no pure land; these all employ the meaning of formlessness. Resolving the objection of the first position, they say: form and mind—these two are not of the same category; a coarse mind can be trained and practiced into a wondrous mind, but coarse form cannot be trained and practiced into wondrous form; therefore the buddha-fruit has no form but has mind. Question: If so, why does the sūtra speak of relinquishing impermanent form? Answer: It is merely that wondrous existence is brilliantly clear, and hence it is called form. The two schools each cling to their own view, engaging in mutual debate. Now, relying on Nāgārjuna, we resolve it with a single statement. The "Chapter on Dharmas" in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "The Buddhas have sometimes spoken of a self, and sometimes spoken of no-self."

In the true nature of all phenomena, there is neither self nor non-self.' One should also say: The Buddhas sometimes speak of form, and sometimes speak of non-form. In the true nature of all phenomena, there is neither form nor non-form. Moreover, it is neither form nor not-form; not knowing what to name it, one praises it as form. It is also neither mind nor not-mind; not knowing what to name it, one praises it as mind. Therefore, form and the formless do not contradict each other in meaning. Furthermore, if one says that there is form distinct from mind, or mind distinct from form, this becomes two views. The sūtra says: 'Those who hold to duality have neither the path nor the fruit.' Again, if one says that there is form and there is mind, it is called having apprehension. Those who have apprehension lack the four unobstructed knowledges. Although this is only a single phrase of the sūtra—'having form and being formless'—it is indeed a great matter of the Buddha-Dharma; it must entirely be resolved using Nāgārjuna's intent, and then there will be no stagnation or attachment.

'Having subdued the faults and evils of the mind' is the second praise, praising liberation. Having previously explained the dharmakāya, wherein there is no un-Dharma, liberation is explained next. Moreover, having previously explained the dharmakāya in opposition to the retributive results of birth and death, liberation is now explained in opposition to the karma of birth and death. 'Having subdued the faults and evils of the mind' refers to severing the afflictions of the mental ground and eliminating their causal afflictions; this is called mental liberation.

'As well as the four kinds of the body' praises freedom from the afflictions of fruition. The body has four kinds of bondage: birth, old age, sickness, and death. The Buddha has completely severed them all; therefore it says 'the four kinds of the body.' When bodily tribulations are exhausted and mental entanglements are also ended, one reaches the ground of difficult subdual of the Buddha-fruit. Because for the Tathāgata, birth cannot bring about birth, old age cannot age [him], sickness cannot sicken [him], and death cannot kill [him], it is called the 'ground of difficult subdual.' The Buddha can subdue all burdens and is not subdued by all burdens. Because he can subdue all burdens and is not subdued by all burdens, he is the sovereign Dharmarāja; for this reason, homage is paid.

Some say: 'The four kinds of the body' refers to the body of mortal transmigration composed of the four great elements, taking these as the four kinds. Just as six elements form a person, this is the meaning of karmic fruition. When it speaks of the 'ground of difficult subdual,' it refers to the vajra-mind; the vajra can destroy all delusions and is not infringed upon by all delusions; thus it says 'having reached.' Master Fu took the ground of the entrenchment of ignorance as the ground of difficult subdual: beginningless ignorance is the most powerful, and only the Buddha can eliminate it. The two vehicles do not sever it; 'reaching' means crossing over, meaning that he has already transcended this burden. This is truly severance, but it is spoken of as subdual, just like subduing the four Māras. Having subdued what is difficult to subdue, he rises high above burdens and is sovereign in phenomena; thus he is called the Dharmarāja.

Some say: Subduing the faults and evils of the mind means departing from the three wrong actions of the mind. 'As well as the body' refers to the three bodily actions of killing, stealing, and sexual misconduct. 'And the four kinds' refers to departing from the four faults of speech. Merely raising the body subsumes speech; mentioning the four subsumes the three of the mind. This is indeed the skill of verse condensation.

'Knowing all jñeya' is the third praise, praising prajñā. That hindrances and burdens are eliminated is due to the efficacy of prajñā; therefore it is praised next. Moreover, praising the dharmakāya means that there is no stimulus to which it does not respond; praising liberation means that there is no burden it does not eliminate; and extolling prajñā means that there is no object it does not illuminate.

Question: Above, 'wisdom is likewise thus' had already finished praising wisdom; why praise it again here?

Answer: Above was a brief praise; here is an extensive praise. Furthermore, the praise above was to complete the dharmakāya; here, prajñā is praised separately.

Explanations of this differ. Some say: 'Knowing' relates the wisdom that can illuminate. 'Jñeya' refers to all objective spheres, which are the objects illuminated by it. Gathering wisdom to form the body and freely giving rein to thorough insight, it therefore says 'the wisdom-body is sovereign.' All the myriad spheres are held within the Buddha's mind, and there is none he does not thoroughly know; thus it says 'comprehending and holding all phenomena.' His wondrous virtue surpasses others, making him worthy of paying homage; it says 'therefore I now pay homage.' This is an explanation that does not divide wisdom.

The first line is the pair of object and wisdom; the next line is the pair of substance and function; the lower line is the pair of that which holds and that which is held.

Some say: The first line praises wisdom being able to illuminate completely existence and non-existence, thus saying 'knowing all jñeya.' 'All' means the objective spheres of the two truths of existence and non-existence. The next line praises the function of wisdom according with the mind, thus saying 'sovereign.' The third line means taking the principle into the mind, retaining and not forgetting it, just as a mirror upon a high terrace reflects all myriad images; thus it says 'holding all phenomena.' The first line explains the substance of wisdom; the next line explains the function of wisdom. These two lines explain all-knowingness. Now it clarifies constant knowing. An ancient commentary says: Illuminating and encountering their union, the principle is proclaimed in understanding; this is 'comprehending and holding.'

Some say: The first two lines praise empty wisdom; 'comprehending and holding all phenomena' praises existent wisdom. That is, the two wisdoms of upāya and reality; they are also the all-knowledge and the knowledge of all modes.

Some say: 'Knowing all jñeya' praises the all-knowledge. Jñeya means the mother of wisdom, because it can give birth to wisdom. It is also called the object of wisdom: phenomena such as the five sciences can give birth to wisdom-understanding, so it is the mother of wisdom; being illuminated by wisdom, it is called the object of wisdom. 'The wisdom-body is sovereign' praises unobstructed wisdom. Among all phenomena, knowing spontaneously without relying on upāya, it is thus called 'sovereign.' 'Comprehending and holding all phenomena' praises pure wisdom. The true nature of phenomena is what is meant by 'all phenomena.' Clearly realizing it in the mind, it is called 'comprehending and holding.' These three wisdoms come from the text of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*. The 'Entrustment' chapter of the *Lotus Sūtra* also explains three wisdoms: Tathāgata-wisdom, Buddha-wisdom, and spontaneous wisdom, which are the three of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*. All-knowledge refers to knowing all phenomena of conventional truth. With unobstructed wisdom, one knows phenomena of conventional truth with sovereignty. Third, pure wisdom realizes the primary truth. These are also the three wisdoms of the *Lotus Sūtra*: Buddha-wisdom, spontaneous wisdom, and Tathāgata-wisdom.

From 'Homage to that which exceeds measurement' downward, some say: The above was a distinct praise; this is a concluding praise, also called a comprehensive praise. The direct praise praises the four virtues of the response body, dharmakāya, prajñā, and liberation. Now it clarifies the concluding praise of the previous four, which forms four distinct [praises]. 'Homage to that which exceeds measurement' is the concluding praise of the previous response body exceeding the sphere of measurement. 'Homage to that which has no comparison' is the concluding praise of the previous true body being beyond the reach of comparison. 'Homage to the boundless Dharma' concludes the previous praise of liberation being sovereign, free from fetters, and without boundary or limit. 'Homage to the difficult to conceive' concludes the previous praise of prajñā, whose internal wisdom is deep and far-reaching, unfathomable by lower stages. Now it is explained that this is not so: having already made four praises above, to conclude them again here would be redundant and burdensome, and it also would not exhaustively gather the virtues.

Now it is explained that the reason this text appears is that above, the three virtues were only briefly praised, and human sentiment might assume that the Tathāgata's principle culminates here. Therefore, it is now explained that the Tathāgata's essence is equal in measure to empty space and cannot be exhausted; what was praised above was merely a brief praise of a small fraction. Furthermore, the above praised the Tathāgata's virtues, and people assumed that the Buddha's virtues could be praised; now it is explained that praising what cannot be praised exhausts the excellence of praise; hence this text appears. Moreover, the four virtues were praised above, and each one of these virtues is endowed with the four meanings of exceeding measurement and the like. Worldly things can be weighed for their lightness and heaviness, or measured for their length and shortness; because the Buddha's virtues exceed weighing, it says 'exceeds measurement.' Worldly things can be illustrated by metaphor or categorized by likeness; the Buddha's virtues are not like this, so it says 'has no comparison.' Worldly things have boundaries, edges, and limits; the Buddha's virtues are not like this, so it is called 'the boundless Dharma.' Worldly phenomena can be thought of with the mind and discussed with speech; the Buddha's virtues are not like this, so it says 'homage to the difficult to conceive.'

Question: Why is it called 'difficult to conceive'?

Answer: One who wishes to pay homage to the Buddha must accurately recognize the Buddha. Nāgārjuna's *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: 'When the Tathāgata was in the world, he did not say existent or non-existent, both existent and non-existent, or neither existent nor non-existent.' It is likewise after his extinction. Since the Buddha is completely beyond the four propositions, one cannot pay homage by framing him within the four propositions. If one pays homage treating him as existent, the Buddha is not existent, and this is slandering the Buddha. Moreover, this is paying homage to existence, and is not called paying homage to the Buddha. The lower three propositions are also like this.

Question: If one pays homage while transcending the four propositions, is that paying homage to the Buddha?

Answer: It is also not paying homage to the Buddha. Why is this so? The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā* says: 'Practice is also not accepted; both practice and non-practice are also not accepted; neither practice nor non-practice is also not accepted; non-acceptance is also not accepted.' Thus we know that all five propositions are relinquished. And prajñā is none other than the Buddha. Nāgārjuna says: 'If one contemplates the Buddha in accordance with the Dharma, prajñā, and nirvāṇa, these three are of one characteristic, and in reality there is no difference.' Therefore, we know that prajñā is beyond five [propositions], and the Buddha is likewise.

Question: Since the Buddha who is the object of homage is beyond the five propositions, what is the meaning of the person who pays homage?

Answer: One must recognize the meaning of duality in non-duality, and the meaning of non-duality in duality. If there is duality in non-duality, master and disciple are distinctly evident; if there is non-duality in duality, then high and low are quiescent and extinguished. Therefore, the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* says: 'Everywhere in all lands, make offerings to the Tathāgatas; regarding the Buddhas and oneself, there is no conceptual thought of distinction.' The intent here clarifies that the first half is the meaning of duality in non-duality, and the second half is the meaning of non-duality in duality. Paying homage to the Buddha being like this, the meanings of mindfulness and taking refuge are also like this. Although this is only a single phrase of the sūtra, it is indeed a great matter of the Buddha-Dharma, and one must not fail to pay close attention to it.