維摩義記 1.72

Or they may be divided into five, as in the five dharmas of the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra. Name, appearance, deluded discrimination, correct knowledge, and suchness are those five dharmas. Name, appearance, and deluded discrimination are the dharmas of saṃsāra. Name and appearance are the objective sphere of saṃsāra: the substantial essence of the objective sphere lacks reality, being only nominal existence, and is thus called 'name'; the distinct differences in phenomenal aspects are called 'appearance'; deluded discrimination is the affective consciousness of saṃsāra. Correct knowledge and suchness are the dharmas of nirvāṇa: correct knowledge can realize, and suchness is that which is realized. Furthermore, as in the five dharmas explained below in the context of Kātyāyana, they are also five. There, within saṃsāra, impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self are expounded, and nirvāṇa is expounded as one; hence together they make five. What is the difference between emptiness and non-self that requires them to be divided into two? According to the Abhidharma, the essence of the skandhas not being the self is called non-self, and the skandhas not being what belongs to a self is explained as emptiness. If according to the Chengshi lun, the emptiness of sentient beings is called emptiness, while the emptiness of the essential nature of dharmas is explained as non-self. Therefore in that treatise, contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is called 'emptiness,' because it comprehensively dispels the sixteen souls (puruṣa); contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas is called the practice of non-self. If according to this sūtra, the emptiness of sentient beings is called non-self, as the text below states: 'Sentient beings are the site of awakening, because one knows non-self.' The emptiness of dharmas is called emptiness, as the text below states: 'All dharmas are the site of awakening, because one knows that all dharmas are empty.' Because there is this distinction, they are separately divided into two. Thus, as explained here, saṃsāra is expounded as impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and impurity, and combined with nirvāṇa as one, there are therefore six kinds. Or they may be divided into eight, as explained in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: within the dharmas of saṃsāra, impermanence, suffering, non-self, and impurity are expounded; in nirvāṇa, permanence, bliss, self, and purity are expounded; these are the eight. Or they may be explained as ten: saṃsāra is expounded as impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, and impurity; nirvāṇa is expounded as permanence, bliss, self, purity, and the meaning of existence; hence together there are ten. Or they may be explained as sixteen, as explained in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: nirvāṇa has eight—permanence, bliss, self, purity, reality, goodness, and existence; contrasting with nirvāṇa, saṃsāra also has eight; hence there are sixteen. If expanded, they are immeasurable; here, based on one approach, six are temporarily explained. Among the preceding five dharmas of saṃsāra, [the text] first teaches impermanence, next teaches contemplation of suffering, next teaches contemplation of emptiness, next teaches contemplation of non-self, and finally teaches contemplation of impurity. In clarifying impermanence: 'This body is impermanent' refers to the impermanence of arising. The allotment of birth has just arisen, and hence it is called 'impermanent.' 'Without strength' refers to old age; because in old age vigor is lost, it is called 'without strength.' 'Without power' refers to illness; because illness strips away strength and power, it is said to be 'without power.' 'Without firmness' refers to death; its nature is not firm and solid, and it is easily destroyed. This is coarse impermanence. 'A dharma that quickly rots' refers to momentary impermanence. Passing away and being extinguished moment by moment is called 'a dharma that quickly rots.' 'Unreliable' summarizes and reveals its fault. The characteristics of the body being like this, worldly people consider it permanent, but it is unreliable. In clarifying suffering, it first directly discriminates it. From 'Such a body' onward, it reveals its fault with reference to wisdom. In the preceding direct discrimination: 'is suffering' refers to suffering of the mind; 'is affliction' refers to the gathering of diseases, which is suffering of the body. Affliction is external suffering, being pressed and distressed by adverse conditions; the gathering of diseases is internal suffering. In the subsequent revealing of its fault with reference to wisdom: 'Such a body' reiterates the aforementioned suffering body. Stating that it is 'what the wise do not rely upon' means that the buddhas, worthy ones, and noble ones, who are people of clear wisdom, ultimately do not depend on or rely upon such a suffering body. In clarifying emptiness, there are ten distinct phrases. The first five treat the five skandhas individually, as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: form is like a mass of foam, feeling is like a water bubble, perception is like a mirage, karmic formations are like a plantain tree, and consciousness is viewed as like an illusion. In the text, the initial statement, 'The body is like a mass of foam, which cannot be grasped or rubbed,' is that skandha of form. 'This body is like a bubble, unable to stand long,' is that skandha of feeling. 'This body is like a mirage, born of thirst and craving,' is that skandha of perception. 'Mirage' refers to a sun-mirage, floating and fluctuating similarly to shimmering vapor, and hence the Avataṃsaka-sūtra speaks of it as shimmering vapor. 'The body is like a plantain tree, with no firmness inside,' is that skandha of karmic formations. Like a plantain tree, whose many leaves wrap around one another with no solid core inside, karmic formations are also like this: various mental factors gather together to form karmic formations, with no substantial reality inside. 'This body is like an illusion, arising from inverted views,' is that skandha of consciousness. Just as the worldly phenomenon of illusion arises falsely dependent upon objects, consciousness is also like this, arising falsely dependent upon dharmas. The latter five clarify emptiness comprehensively with regard to the five skandhas. Among them, the first three discern emptiness with reference to the supporting conditions, while the latter two phrases reveal emptiness with reference to the impermanence of the body's essential nature. Among the first three, 'This body is like a dream, falsely perceived' clarifies the unreality of the body with reference to what it relies upon. This body arises reliant upon the deluded conscious mind, just as a body in a dream arises reliant upon the sleeping mind, meaning that it arises reliant upon the deluded mind of the seventh consciousness. 'This body is like a shadow, manifested from karma' clarifies the unreality and falsity of the body with reference to its cause. The body is born from past good and bad karma; karma is like the physical form and the body is like the shadow, and hence it is taken as a metaphor. 'This body is like an echo, belonging to causes and conditions' clarifies the deceptive falsity of the body with reference to its conditioning factors. The body is born from past defilements as conditions, and it also depends on present conditions of parents' essence and blood and food and drink to be formed; conditions are like the sound, and the form is like the echo. In the latter two phrases, emptiness is revealed through the impermanence of nature. 'The body is like a floating cloud, destroyed in an instant'—this phrase raises the impermanence of distinct lifespans to reveal emptiness. 'This body is like lightning, not staying for a moment' reveals true emptiness through momentary impermanence. In non-self, there are eight distinct phrases: the first five phrases reveal non-self with reference to the four great elements, and the latter three phrases discern non-existence in accordance with their characteristics. Among the first five, the initial four reveal non-self specifically through metaphors of the four great elements, and the last one reveals non-self generally through the dharmas of the four great elements. Among the initial four, 'This body has no master, being like the earth' means that many dust particles combine to provisionally form earth; although earth bears and sustains, it lacks a master. The body is also like this: provisionally formed from many dharmas, although it has function, it lacks a master. 'This body has no self, being like fire' means that self is substantial essence, and self is autonomous function. When fire obtains grass and wood, it burns and consumes them autonomously, seeming to have the function of a self, yet lacking the reality of a self. Sentient beings are like this: although they have function, they lack the reality of a self. 'This body has no lifespan, being like wind' means that continuity is called lifespan; although wind continuously overturns mountains and moves peaks, it has no one who lives. The body is also like this: although it continues from here to there, it has no one who lives.

"This body is without a person, like water": governing function is called "person"; though water inundates and moistens, it has no personal entity. The body is also like this: although it has functions, it lacks a personal entity. In the general summary below, "this body is unreal, taking the four great elements as its dwelling": it brings together the great elements to form a body, hence it is unreal. The great elements are the lodging of consciousness, and so are called a "dwelling." Above, based on the great elements, it explained that the body is without self; from here down, three sentences distinguish non-existence directly with respect to characteristics. "This body is empty, free from self and what belongs to self" clarifies the absence of the entity of a self. There are three explanations: First, distinguishing internal and external. Based on karmic retribution, it is called "self." External objects are possessions of my house, called "what belongs to self." Second, distinguishing according to the internal totality. The five skandhas unite and assemble to form a provisional person, called "self." The five skandhas are possessions of my house, called "what belongs to self." Third, distinguishing by comparing the five skandhas with one another. Form is spoken of as self, and the remaining skandhas as what belongs to self. Sensation is spoken of as self, and the remaining skandhas as what belongs to self. And so on for all of them. How are there no self and no what belongs to self? There are three distinctions: First, the absence of the arbitrarily conceptualised sixteen divine selves is called "no-self"; because there is no self, dharmas are not the possessions of my house, which is called "no what belongs to self," as explained in the Abhidharma. Second, the absence of an essential nature of a self within provisional sentient beings is called "no-self"; the absence of a fixed nature within provisional dharmas is called "no what belongs to self," as explained in the *Tattvasiddhi*. Third, causing the marks of a provisional person to become non-existent is called "no-self"; the utter non-existence of provisional marks is called "no what belongs to self." This meaning is as explained below in the "Chapter on Contemplating Sentient Beings." Now, saying that it is like space, free from self and what belongs to self, contains these many meanings; this is the absence of the entity of a self. The two sentences below clarify the absence of the functioning of a self. "This body is without sentience, like grass and trees, etc.," clarifies the absence of the functioning of a self with reference to mental dharmas. Manifestly seeing that there is sentience, how can one say there is none? Dharmas have four levels: first, phenomena; second, dharmas; third, principle; fourth, reality. The distinguishing of phenomenal marks such as the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas is called "phenomena." Categories of dharmas such as suffering and impermanence are spoken of as "dharmas." The emptiness that refutes characteristics is called "principle." The nature of the tathāgatagarbha, neither existent nor non-existent, is spoken of as "reality." Among these four levels, with respect to the initial approach of phenomena, there is actually sentience; investigating in terms of dharmas, sentience is without sentience. What is the meaning of this? The mind of a single thought-moment is fully endowed with four characteristics: first arising, next persisting, then changing, and finally ceasing. Among these four characteristics, which one is sentience? If arising is sentience, the other three should not be; if the others are not sentience, arising should also not be. And so forth down to the characteristic of ceasing, which is likewise the same. If the four characteristics were each separately sentience, there would be four thought-moments separately knowing four dharmas—how would this pertain to a single thought-moment being fully endowed with four characteristics? If the four characteristics are each separately not sentience, and only when the four characteristics unite is there sentience, how could a gathering together of what is non-sentient be able to know? Just as a single blind person cannot see, even if accompanying a crowd of blind people, how could there be any principle of seeing? Furthermore, the four characteristics have no principle of union: when the characteristic of arising appears, the remaining characteristics have not yet arrived—with what does it unite? When the characteristic of persisting appears, the characteristic of arising has already passed away and the other two have not yet appeared—with what does it unite? And so forth until the characteristic of ceasing appears, the other characteristics have already passed away—with what again does it unite? Therefore, whether advancing or retreating, there is no principle of union at all; whence could sentience arise? In terms of dharmas, it is like this. Investigating in terms of principle, the characteristics of dharmas do not even exist, so where could sentience find a footing? Seeking in terms of reality, the principle that refutes characteristics is also ungraspable, let alone dharmas and sentience. How is it ungraspable? If dharmas had once existed, one could speak of non-existence in contrast [to them]. Since they have never existed, against what would one speak of non-existence? Therefore, there is also no characteristic of non-existence that can be maintained. Among these four levels, relying now on the latter three, it is therefore said to be without sentience. Manifestly seeing that this body has movement and rest, how can it be without sentience? Therefore, it again adduces the examples of grass and trees to show the absence of movement. Being without sentience, its activities are like grass and trees in not moving, and its lack of sentience is like tiles and stones. "This body is without action, turned by the force of wind" clarifies the absence of the functioning of a self with reference to physical dharmas. Advancing, stopping, and performing actions are merely turned by the wind, not made by a self. No-self is like this. Next is discussed impurity; there are eight distinct phrases: the first phrase directly shows impurity, and the latter seven further use other meanings to assist in showing it. Within the first phrase, "this body is impure" directly raises it according to its characteristic. "Filled with foulness and evil" explains it to show it. There are five impurities: First, impurity of seed: this body takes past binding karma as its seed, and the present semen and blood of the parents as its seed. Second, impurity of dwelling: inside the mother's womb, resting beneath the stomach and above the intestines, one's body is placed. Third, impurity of self-nature: the thirty-six substances assemble to form one's body. Fourth, impurity of self-characteristics: the nine apertures constantly flow. Fifth, ultimate impurity: after this body dies, eaten by worms it becomes dung, burnt by fire it becomes ashes, buried it becomes earth; thoroughly investigating it, there is not a single characteristic of purity. Now, saying that it is impure and filled with foulness and evil refers to the impurity of self-nature among the five; the others are omitted and not raised. Below, other meanings are used to assist in showing impurity, meaning that impermanence, suffering, no-self, and so forth assist in showing it. Moreover, suffering, impermanence, emptiness, no-self, and so forth, because they are impure dharmas, are also called impure. Among them, the first phrase shows impurity by means of the meaning of impermanence; the next five phrases show impurity by means of the meaning of suffering; the final phrase shows impurity by means of emptiness and no-self. Within the first phrase, "this body is false and deceptive" is impermanence of nature. It is falsely assembled from causes and conditions without real nature, hence called "false and deceptive." Being false, deceptive, and without nature, what could be spoken of as permanent? This is called impermanence of nature. This refutes a permanent nature. "Though dependent on clothing and food, it must inevitably return to destruction" is impermanence of characteristics. Changing and altering before and after is the characteristic of impermanence; refuting the characteristic of permanence, impermanence is its entity—how could the body be pure? In the next five [phrases] showing impurity by suffering: the first three show impurity through the sufferings of old age, sickness, and death; the next one shows impurity through the suffering of discord among the four great elements; the last one shows impurity through the suffering of the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas. Among the first three, "this body is a calamity, afflicted by a hundred and one diseases" is the suffering of sickness. When one great element is out of harmony, a hundred and one diseases arise; when the four great elements are out of harmony, four hundred and four diseases all arise simultaneously; now, taking one great element, it mentions only a hundred and one. "This body is like a mound or a well, pressed by old age" is the suffering of old age. A high mound must collapse, a deep well must become filled, and having a body one must grow old, so these are taken as metaphors. "Pressed by old age" clarifies the dharma by the metaphor, and can also be called distinguishing the dharma as identical to the metaphor. "This body is impermanent, bound certainly to die" is the suffering of death. These first three are finished; the suffering of birth should also be mentioned, but because it is subtle, it is not discussed.

"Like venomous serpents" refers to the suffering caused by the mutual conflict and harm of the four great elements. It is just like four serpents placed together in one basket, which harm and conflict with one another. The four great elements are likewise placed in the single basket of the body; because their natures and characteristics conflict with one another, this is taken as a metaphor. How do they conflict? In terms of earth, it is hard and heavy; wind is mobile and light; water is wet and cold; fire is hot and blazing. Therefore, they are said to be mutually opposed. / "Like murderous bandits" refers to the suffering of the arising and ceasing of the five skandhas. Why are the five skandhas called murderous bandits, when people all delight in dwelling [in them]? Because these five skandhas mutually destroy each other, going against human desires, they are called murderous bandits. Because they are able to harm one another, they are also referred to in the sūtras as caṇḍālas. What does this mean? Among the five skandhas, when the consciousness-skandha begins to arise, the perception-skandha comes to destroy it. When the perception-skandha begins to manifest, the sensation-skandha comes to destroy it. When the sensation-skandha begins to arise, the volition-skandha comes to destroy it. When the volition-skandha begins to arise, the consciousness-skandha again destroys it. Within the form-skandha, the functions of the sense-faculties alternate with one another, their arisings and ceasings attacking one another; therefore they are called murderous bandits. / Such is the contemplation of suffering; with suffering as the body, how could the body be pure? / The phrase "Like an empty village, an assembly composed of the skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas" demonstrates impurity through emptiness and selflessness. / The above constitutes the specific instructions. / The words "Virtuous sirs, this is to be loathed and renounced" conclude with an exhortation to cultivate revulsion. The preceding teachings generate revulsion, guarding against afflicted conduct. The subsequent teachings generate delight, guarding against Hīnayāna conduct. / In this there are two parts: First, with respect to one's own practice, it teaches seeking the Buddha-body, guarding against the small-mindedness [of the Hīnayāna]. Second, from "Those who wish to attain the Buddha-body and sever the illnesses of sentient beings" onwards, with respect to benefiting others, it teaches seeking bodhi, guarding against a narrow mind. / In the former part there are again two sections: 1. Exhorting them to seek the Buddha-fruit; 2. From "born from immeasurable merits" onwards, explaining that the fruit comes from causes and exhorting them to cultivate the causes of buddhahood. / In the first section, the opening words "constantly delight in the Buddha-body" directly exhort the causes by citing the fruit. Śrāvakas, detesting existence, seek to attain extinction; bodhisattvas are different from them, and thus must delight in the Buddha. / Below, it explains the intention behind the exhortation. / "Why is this?" interrogates what preceded to introduce what follows: why do I exhort you to seek the Buddha? Below, it responds and explains it: "Because the Buddha is the dharmakāya," therefore one must delight in it. Some people see the Buddha manifesting as conditioned, and doubt that he can be sought. To ward off this idea, it is explained that the Buddha-body is the dharmakāya; for this reason it must be sought. / The Buddha possesses three meanings, explained in detail in a separate chapter. Here, "dharmakāya" refers to the Buddha's reward-body (saṃbhogakāya), because it is said to be born from immeasurable merits. Because it is formed by all the qualities and dharmas of the Buddha, it is called the dharmakāya. / In the following section explaining that the fruit is born from causes, first, "born from immeasurable merits" presents the general heading; from "from morality" onwards is specific; and below, "born as the Tathāgata's body from such immeasurable pure dharmas" concludes generally. / In the first general heading, "born from immeasurable merits" means that the reward-body originally does not exist [as a conditioned thing], but is produced through practice via upāya; hence it is "born from merits." Because the merits are diverse and manifold, they are called "immeasurable." / In the specific section there are two parts: 1. Born from the practice of the teachings; 2. From "born from the real" onwards, born from the practice of realization. / In the practice of the teachings, it first discusses them specifically, and from "born from severing all unwholesome dharmas" onwards, concludes them generally. / In the specific part there are four divisions: 1. Explaining the causes of practice; 2. From "born from the six superknowledges" onwards, explaining the fruits of practice; 3. From "born from the thirty-seven factors" onwards, explaining the causes of the path; 4. From "born from the ten powers and four fearlessnesses" onwards, explaining the fruits of the path. / In the first division, the text has four parts: First, "from morality" and so forth is practice for one's own benefit. Morality, concentration, wisdom, liberation, and the knowledge and vision [of liberation] are elsewhere called the fivefold dharmakāya, the meaning of which is as in a separate chapter. Now I will briefly explain their names. Guarding against prohibitions is called morality; dwelling upon an object is called concentration; observing broadly is called wisdom—these three are mutually causal, and the fruit is obtained from them. When the fruit is severed from bonds, it is called liberation, namely the liberation of mind, liberation by wisdom, and so forth. When one is already liberated, radiant and clear knowing is called the knowledge and vision of liberation. These five are still subsumed under the three trainings of morality, concentration, and wisdom: the first is morality, the next is concentration, and the latter three are collectively subsumed under wisdom. / Second, "loving-kindness and compassion" and so forth is practice for benefiting others. This forms a pair with the preceding. / Third, "giving" and so forth again explains practice for one's own benefit; the four kinds of giving, morality, patience, and vigor can be understood [readily]. Within the perfections of meditation: "dhyāna" refers to the four dhyānas, "concentration" refers to the four formless concentrations, "liberations" refers to the eight liberations, and "samādhis" refers to the three samādhis. Within prajñā: much hearing is the wisdom of teaching, while wisdom is the wisdom of principle, also called realized knowing. The above was a specific discussion; "all the pāramitās" concludes them generally. / Fourth, "born from upāya" again explains benefiting others, referring to the wisdom of upāya. This again forms a pair. / The above are the causes of practice; the six superknowledges and three clarities are the fruits of practice. The "six superknowledges" are psychic power, divine eye, divine ear, mind of others, past lives, and extinction of outflows—these are the six. The "three clarities" are past lives, divine eye, and extinction of outflows, also as explained in a separate chapter. / "Born from the thirty-seven factors of awakening, born from calming and insight" is the path. / "The ten powers, fearlessnesses, and eighteen distinct qualities" are the fruits of the path. The meaning of the four fearlessnesses should be explained fully here. These three are all attained in the ten bhūmis, and therefore the Buddha-body is born from them. / The specific discussion above is finished. / "Born from severing all unwholesome dharmas, born from gathering all wholesome dharmas" concludes generally. / The above was the practice of the teachings; below explains the practice of realization. / "Born from the real" is the principle realized. The tathāgatagarbha nature is that reality; this is the true cause of buddhahood, and therefore the Buddha is born from it. / "From non-negligence" is that which realizes. When deluded sentiments drift and wander, that is called negligence; when one realizes the real and abandons [delusion], that is called non-negligence—this is precisely the root of non-negligence in prajñā. / First the general, then the specific; / "from such dharmas is the Tathāgata's body born" concludes generally. / Above, concerning one's own practice, it taught seeking the Buddha-body; below, concerning benefiting others, it teaches seeking bodhi. Therefore it says, "Those who wish to attain the Buddha-body and sever the illnesses of sentient beings should generate the thought of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi." / Above, it was explained that all the people went to inquire about his illness; next, he expounded the Dharma for them; below, it explains the benefits of the teaching: / "The elder Vimalakīrti expounded the Dharma for those inquiring about his illness, causing countless people to generate the thought of bodhi."