注維摩詰經 3.123

3.123

[Kumāra]jīva says: If there is no production and cessation, then there is no place of mental activity; having no place of mental activity leads to the real mark. Because he took production and cessation to be real, [Vimalakīrti] reproved him, saying, 'Do not use a mind of production and cessation to preach the Dharma of the real mark.' This applies generally to refute the five statements below.

[Seng]zhao says: What is the mind? It is generated by delusive characteristics. What is mental activity? It is the designation for constructed functioning. Where there is a form, there must be a shadow; where there are characteristics, there must be a mind. Because there is no form, there is no shadow; because there are no characteristics, there is no mind. That being so, the mind transforms along with affairs, and activity arises because of functioning. Seeing dharmas produce and cease, the mind therefore has production and cessation; awakening to dharmas as unproduced, the mind therefore has no production and cessation. When Kātyāyana heard the meaning of impermanence, he thought dharmas possess characteristics of production and cessation. Because dharmas possess characteristics of production and cessation, his mind was affected as a shadow or echo to share in production and cessation. The real mark is profound, wondrous, and entirely beyond ordinary realms; it is not what can be known by a mind that conceives existence, nor is it what the eloquent can speak of. How could one wish to preach it with a mind and mental activity of production and cessation?

[Dao]sheng says: Since the Buddha praised Kātyāyana as foremost in skillfully distinguishing meanings, how could he have made an error? It is spoken with respect to those who cling to his words, and therefore there is a shortcoming. What the Buddha and Kātyāyana illuminated was the same, yet when it came to those who did not penetrate it and grasped at it, it inevitably became different. And while the Buddha had no reason to incur reproof, Kātyāyana had the occasion of receiving interrogation—what was the reason for this? The Buddha took the exhaustion of principle as primary, and his words were bound to penetrate comprehensively. Kātyāyana had not yet reached the ultimate, and there could be divergence from the purport; thus one could take occasion through him to disparage their shortcomings. Impermanence means change leading to cessation. Suffering means losing what one loves. Emptiness means it is not one's own possession. Non-self means there is no master over it. Quiescent extinction means the absence of these four. That being so, the four are repulsive dharmas, and their absence is the delightful principle. When we trace their origin, the five were originally words used to express the reality of the principle; yet to think that it is exhausted in the realm of production and cessation is merely what the mind practices. Because the monks practiced what the mind practices, they were not liberated; only when one transcends and awakens to its purport is one right.