維摩義記 2.30

2.30

次告迦旃令往問疾。迦旃是姓，字名扇繩。其父早喪，母戀不嫁，如繩連扇風吹不去，因與立字名曰扇繩。從佛出家，佛弟子中論義第一。今命問疾，先告、後辭。「我不堪任」，是總辭也。「所以」下釋。「故我」下結。釋中「所以」，徵前起後，下對辨之。文別有三：一、舉己昔日被呵由緣；二、「時維摩」下出被呵辭；三、「說是法時彼比丘」下教呵利益。初中「憶昔」，舉被呵時。「佛為比丘略說法要我即於後敷演義」等，出被呵事。說淺覆深，不當物機，所以被呵。「我即於後敷演其義」，總以標舉。「謂無常」等，隨別列之。法門開合，備如上辨。今據一門且列斯五：前四生死，後一涅槃。自下第三明教呵辭。何故須然？為益迦旃并令比丘解法心勝，所以教呵。文中「維摩來謂」，總舉，下別顯之。別中「無以生滅心行說實相法」，是呵辭也。彼迦旃延相法未已見法生滅，是故名為生滅心行。用此心行說己所知，不稱法實，故呵無以生滅心行說實相法。法之實相備如後辨。下復教之。「諸法畢竟不生不滅是無常」者，約就無常法門以教。無常義中有二種門：一世諦門、二第一義門。世諦門中有三無常：一分段無常，六道果報，三世分異。二念無常，有為之法念念還流，一剎那頃初生、次住、終異、後滅。此前兩門明法生滅，破去常相。三者自性不成實無常，明法虛集破遣常性。是義云何？即前二種以理推求，四相同體相夫似立，無有一法別守自性，名性不成。性既不成，知復說何以之為常？故名曰性不成無常。於此門中有生有滅，即名為常，以守性故。無生無滅乃名為常，以無性故。故《地持》云「不知無言自性無常有生有滅，若知無言自性之事一切無常。」何者是其同體四相？有為之法義同幻化，相有體無，相有名生、虛無稱滅。相有名生，生非滅前；虛無稱滅，滅非生後。故生與滅同時無別。又此宣說無法為生，生非滅外，還即說彼相有為滅，滅非生外，故生與滅同體無別。即此生滅幻炎像立，名之為住。又復幻法各守自相，亦名為住。故《地持》云「以自性故名之為住」，此住亦非生滅之外。即此虛法異於真諦性實之法，故名為異。又異妄情，所立情實，亦名為異。此異亦非生住滅外，良以同時義分四故，說之以為同時四相。故下文言「比丘汝今即時亦生亦老亦滅」。又以同體義分四故，說之以為同體四相。以同體故，就餘三相義說為生，離餘三外無別生性。生無性故，生性不成。以此生性不成實故，生則無生，故生無常。還就餘三，義說為住。離餘三外無別住性，住無性故住性不成。以此住性不成實故，住則無住，故住無常。餘亦如是。此三廣釋，如優檀那章，此應具論。世諦如是。第一義者，前無常法窮其體實，畢竟空寂由來不有。此空是其無常之實，名無常義。與經中說「觀苦無生為苦諦義」，其言相似。無常之義具辨如是。聲聞但能世諦分中解知分段及念無常，餘悉不知，是須教。就可教中，若據世諦宣說自性，不成無常以為畢竟不生不滅。無常中極故云畢竟。生無生性、滅無滅性，名不生滅。此不生滅，是其究竟無常義矣。亦無住異，且言生滅。若就真諦，離相窮極名為畢竟，理寂無為名不生滅。此不生滅，是其無常之實性故，名無常義。亦無住異，且說生滅。汎論如是。準下流類，此應偏教真諦之義。「五陰洞達空無所起是苦義」者，就苦以教。苦義亦二：一世諦門、二真諦門。世諦門中苦別有三：所謂苦苦、壞苦、行苦。此三廣釋，如四諦章。今略辨之，有三種門：一、約緣分別。緣別內外，內心涉求名之為內，刀杖等緣目之為外。外有違順，刀杖等緣名之為違、己身命財親戚之類說以為順。外中違緣能生內惱，名之為苦。從彼苦緣生於苦心，從苦生苦，故名苦苦。外中順緣在能生樂，壞則生苦，故名壞苦。內心涉求名之為行，文行疲惱厭之生苦，名為行苦。第二、約緣就體分別。心性是苦。於此苦上加以事惱，苦上加苦，故名苦苦。加何等苦？加前三苦，悉名苦苦。有為之法念念滅壞，名為壞苦。前後遷流目之為行，遷流不安名為行苦。第三、約就三種無常以別三苦。約就向前分段無常以說苦苦。有為之法體性是苦，於上加以分段麁苦，苦上加苦，故云苦苦。又以三世分段麁苦顯有為法本性是苦，用苦顯苦，亦名苦苦。約念無常宣說壞苦。有為無常念念滅壞，故名壞苦。約就自性不成無常宣說行苦。同體四相因緣虛集目之為行，虛集之行體無自性，自性無安故名行苦。世諦如是。言真諦者，窮苦體性畢竟寂滅，無相無為，於中淺深更有多義，如彼四諦章中具辨。今且總舉。此之真諦是苦實性，亦名苦義。如是世諦分中，前二三苦聲聞能解，今不須教。第三門中，前之二苦聲聞亦解，今不須教。虛集行苦及苦真諦，二乘不知，理須具教，但今偏教苦之真諦。五陰之果從因納得，名五受陰。於陰窮解，名為洞達。達陰實性本來常寂無陰可生，名空無起。此空是其苦家體實，名為苦義。如陽炎水，無水為實。此與經中「觀苦無生名知苦諦」其言一也。「諸法究竟無所有是空義」者，就空以教。法空名空。空義不同，汎有五階：一、陰非我所名之為空，如《毘曇》說，雖名為空，體是有法，陰為體故。二，假名法中無有定性名之為空，如《成實》說。三、妄想法虛寂無相說之為空。如陽炎水，水即無水，不但無性，近而求之相亦不有。四、妄想法虛無說空，如夢所見，心外無法。五、真如法體寂名空，體雖真有，離相離性故說空矣。五中前二聲聞能解，今不須教。後三不知，為是須教。所教之空，離相中極，故云究竟無所有矣。如是究竟無所有者是真空義，陰上無人、陰中無性不名真空。「於我無我而不二是無我」者，教無我義。此說人空以為無我。分別有五：一、陰非神主名為無我，如《毘曇》說。二、於和合假名人中無有人性名為無我。三、於妄想畢竟空中無有和合假名人相名為無我。四、於妄想畢竟空中無有我人眾生之相名為無我。五、於平等真如體中無有真法集用人相名為無我。五中前二聲聞能解，餘三不知，為是須教。言「我無我而不二」者，依如《毘曇》。凡夫橫計我眾生等名之為我，五陰法類非神非主名為無我。此我無我相對為二，若於平等第一義中，非直無我亦無五陰，無我之法是二齊無，故云不二。如此不二，方是究竟無我之義。若依《成實》，凡夫橫計我人之性名之為我，假名眾生無有定性名為無我，此我無我相對亦二。若於平等第一義中，非直無彼定性之我，亦無對情遣性無我，是二䨥絕名為無二，如此無二方是究竟無我義矣。故下文云「我尚不可得，非我何可得？見我實性者，不復起二。是為入不二法門。」與此義同。「法本不生今亦不滅是寂滅」者，教涅槃義。涅槃有三：一、事盡無處數滅無為名為涅槃。如是涅槃，本無今有。二、約緣顯實破相證寂名為涅槃。法性常寂，而妄相煩惱所覆。修八聖道以為了因，滅除闇惑證本法性，一證永寂故曰涅槃。此前二種，經說為果。三、就實論實真體常寂名曰涅槃。此一涅槃非因非果，就實論實，實外無緣，知復約何以之為因？實外無緣，知復約何以之為果？是故涅槃無因無果。故《涅槃》云「涅槃之體，非生非出、非虛非實、非一非異、非因非果。」於此分中無惑可生、無染可滅。三中初一聲聞亦解，後之兩門二乘不知，為是須教。於後二中，偏舉後門而以教示。是以說言「法本不然，今亦無滅，是寂滅義。」上來第二教呵辭竟。「說是法時彼諸比丘心得解脫」，是第三段教呵利益。前辭、次釋、「故我」下結。

Next, [the Buddha] told Kātyāyana to go and inquire about the illness. "Kātyāyana" is the family name, and his personal name was Fan-sheng [Fan-cord]. His father passed away early, and his mother pined for him and did not remarry, just as a cord tied to a fan cannot be blown away by the wind; hence he was given the personal name Fan-sheng. He went forth from home under the Buddha and was foremost in debate among the Buddha's disciples. Now [the Buddha] commanded him to inquire about the illness: first comes the command, and next the refusal. "I am not competent to undertake [this task]" is the general refusal. From "Why?" onward is the explanation. From "Therefore I..." onward is the conclusion. In the explanation, "Why?" questions what precedes and introduces what follows, which is then distinguished below. The text has three distinct parts: first, he adduces the reasons and circumstances of his having been rebuked in the past; second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti..." onward, he brings out the words of rebuke; third, from "When this Dharma was spoken, those monks..." onward, the benefit of the instructive rebuke. In the first part, "Recalling the past" adduces the time of being rebuked. "The Buddha briefly expounded the essentials of the Dharma for the monks, and I then subsequently elaborated upon the meaning..." and so forth sets out the matter for which he was rebuked. To explain the shallow so as to obscure the deep does not suit the capacities of beings; hence he was rebuked. "I then subsequently elaborated upon its meaning" is a general introduction. "Namely, impermanence..." and so forth lists them individually. The division and combination of dharma gates has been fully distinguished above. Now relying on one formulation, he provisionally lists these five: the first four pertain to birth-and-death, and the last one to nirvāṇa. From here below, the third part clarifies the words of instructive rebuke. Why was this necessary? It was to benefit Kātyāyana and to cause the monks to have a superior mind of understanding the Dharma; hence the instructive rebuke. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said" is a general introduction, and below it is shown in detail. In the detail, "Do not use a mind and mental activity of arising and ceasing to preach the Dharma of the real mark" is the word of rebuke. That Kātyāyana had not yet ended [perceiving] characteristics in dharmas and saw the arising and ceasing of dharmas; therefore it is called "a mind and mental activity of arising and ceasing." To use this mind and mental activity to preach what one knows does not accord with the reality of dharmas; hence the rebuke: "Do not use a mind and mental activity of arising and ceasing to preach the Dharma of the real mark." The real mark of dharmas is fully distinguished below. Below, he instructs him again. "Dharmas ultimately do not arise and do not cease: this is the meaning of impermanence" is an instruction given in reference to the dharma gate of impermanence. Within the meaning of impermanence there are two kinds of approaches: first, the approach of conventional truth; second, the approach of ultimate truth. Within the approach of conventional truth, there are three kinds of impermanence: first, impermanence of sectional [lifespans], where the karmic retributions of the six destinies differ across the three times. Second, momentary impermanence, where conditioned dharmas continuously flow from moment to moment, in a single kṣaṇa first arising, next abiding, then altering, and finally ceasing. These prior two approaches clarify the arising and ceasing of dharmas, refuting the characteristic of permanence. Third, the impermanence of the unreality of self-nature, which clarifies that dharmas are empty aggregates, refuting and dispelling a permanent nature. What is the meaning of this? If one investigates the previous two by principle, the four marks share the same substance and mutually establish an appearance [of stability]; there is no single dharma that separately maintains its own nature, which is called "nature not established." Since the nature is not established, what else could be spoken of to consider it permanent? Therefore it is called the impermanence of nature not established. In this approach, if there are arising and ceasing, that is called permanence, because they would maintain their nature. Only where there is no arising and no ceasing is it called impermanence, because there is no nature. Therefore the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: "Not knowing that the ineffable self-nature is impermanent, one holds that there are arising and ceasing; if one knows the matter of the ineffable self-nature, all is impermanent." What are these four marks of the same substance? The meaning of conditioned dharmas is like an illusion or transformation: their marks exist, but their substance is absent. When marks exist, it is called arising; their emptiness and absence is called ceasing. Since marks existing is called arising, arising is not prior to ceasing; since emptiness and absence is called ceasing, ceasing is not subsequent to arising. Therefore arising and ceasing are simultaneous and without difference. Furthermore, this asserts that non-existence of dharmas is arising, and arising is not outside of ceasing; and it conversely asserts that the presence of marks is ceasing, and ceasing is not outside of arising; therefore arising and ceasing share the same substance and are without difference. That this arising and ceasing stands like the image of a phantom flame is called abiding. Moreover, that illusory dharmas each maintain their own marks is also called abiding. Hence the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: "By reason of self-nature it is called abiding." This abiding is also not outside of arising and ceasing. That this empty dharma is different from the nature-real dharma of ultimate truth is called alteration. Moreover, it is different from deluded sentiments and what is established by sentiment as real, which is also called alteration. This alteration is also not outside of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Precisely because the meaning is divided into four at the same time, they are spoken of as the four simultaneous marks. Hence the text below says: "Monk, you right now also arise, also grow old, and also cease." Furthermore, because the meaning is divided into four within the same substance, they are spoken of as the four marks of the same substance. Because they share the same substance, in reference to the other three marks it is conceptually spoken of as arising; apart from the other three, there is no separate nature of arising. Because arising has no nature, the nature of arising is not established. Because this nature of arising is unreal, arising is non-arising; hence arising is impermanent. Turning again to the other three, it is conceptually spoken of as abiding. Apart from the other three, there is no separate nature of abiding; because abiding has no nature, the nature of abiding is not established. Because this nature of abiding is unreal, abiding is non-abiding; hence abiding is impermanent. The rest are also like this. The extensive explanation of these three is as in the chapter on the *udāna*, which should be discussed in full here. Such is conventional truth. As for the ultimate truth: if one exhausts the substance and reality of the aforementioned impermanent dharmas, they are ultimately empty and quiescent, never having existed from the beginning. This emptiness is the reality of that impermanence, and is called the meaning of impermanence. This is similar in wording to the statement in the sūtra: "Contemplating suffering as non-arising is the meaning of the truth of suffering." The meaning of impermanence is fully distinguished in this way. A śrāvaka can only, within the division of conventional truth, understand sectional and momentary impermanence, and knows none of the rest; therefore he must be instructed. Among what can be taught: if based on conventional truth one expounds the impermanence of nature not being established as being ultimately non-arising and non-ceasing: because it is the culmination of impermanence, it is called "ultimately." Arising having no nature of arising, and ceasing having no nature of ceasing, is called "non-arising and non-ceasing." This non-arising and non-ceasing is the definitive meaning of impermanence. There are also no abiding and alteration, but he provisionally speaks of arising and ceasing. If in reference to ultimate truth: the culmination of parting from marks is called "ultimately"; the quiescence and unconditioned nature of principle is called "non-arising and non-ceasing." Because this non-arising and non-ceasing is the real nature of that impermanence, it is called the meaning of impermanence. There are also no abiding and alteration, but he provisionally speaks of arising and ceasing. Such is the general discussion. According to the pattern below, here he should specifically be teaching the meaning of ultimate truth. "Thoroughly penetrating the five skandhas as empty and without arising is the meaning of suffering" is an instruction given in reference to suffering. The meaning of suffering is also twofold: first, the approach of conventional truth; second, the approach of ultimate truth. Within the approach of conventional truth, suffering is divided into three: namely, the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned existence. The extensive explanation of these three is as in the chapter on the four truths. Now distinguishing them briefly, there are three kinds of approaches: First, distinction according to conditions. Conditions are distinguished into internal and external: the internal mind's pursuing is called internal, while conditions such as knives and staves are designated external. External [conditions] have adverse and agreeable: conditions such as knives and staves are called adverse, while things like one's own body, life, wealth, and relatives are spoken of as agreeable. Among external [conditions], adverse conditions can generate internal affliction, which is called suffering. From those suffering conditions, a mind of suffering is generated; suffering arises from suffering, hence it is called the suffering of suffering. Among external [conditions], agreeable conditions can generate pleasure when present, but generate suffering when destroyed; hence it is called the suffering of change. The internal mind's pursuing is called conditioned activity (*saṃskāra*); becoming weary and afflicted by continuous activity, disgust with it generates suffering; this is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Second, distinction according to conditions in reference to the substance. The nature of the mind is suffering. When phenomenal afflictions are added upon this suffering, suffering is added upon suffering, hence it is called the suffering of suffering. What kind of suffering is added? Adding the previous three sufferings are all called the suffering of suffering. That conditioned dharmas perish and disintegrate from moment to moment is called the suffering of change. Shifting and flowing before and after is designated conditioned activity; shifting and flowing without rest is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Third, distinguishing the three sufferings in reference to the three kinds of impermanence. In reference to the aforementioned sectional impermanence, the suffering of suffering is spoken of. The essential nature of conditioned dharmas is suffering; when the coarse suffering of sectional [existence] is added upon it, suffering is added upon suffering, hence it is said to be the suffering of suffering. Moreover, using the coarse suffering of sectional [existence] across the three times to manifest that conditioned dharmas are inherently suffering in their nature—using suffering to manifest suffering—is also called the suffering of suffering. In reference to momentary impermanence, the suffering of change is expounded. Conditioned impermanence perishes and disintegrates from moment to moment, hence it is called the suffering of change. In reference to the impermanence of the unreality of self-nature, the suffering of conditioned existence is expounded. The empty aggregation of causes and conditions in the four marks of the same substance is designated conditioned activity; this activity of empty aggregation is inherently devoid of self-nature, and because self-nature has no rest, it is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Such is conventional truth. As for the ultimate truth: exhausting the essential nature of suffering as ultimately quiescent, signless, and unconditioned—within this there are further many shallow and deep meanings, as fully distinguished in that chapter on the four truths. Now they are just generally adduced. This ultimate truth is the real nature of suffering, and is also called the meaning of suffering. Thus, within the division of conventional truth, the śrāvaka can understand the previous two [approaches to the] three sufferings, so now there is no need to teach them. In the third approach, the śrāvaka can also understand the first two sufferings, so now there is no need to teach them. The suffering of conditioned existence as empty aggregation and the ultimate truth of suffering are unknown to the two vehicles; by principle they should be taught in full, but now he specifically teaches only the ultimate truth of suffering. The fruit of the five skandhas accepted and grasped from causes is called the five skandhas of clinging. Exhaustive understanding of the skandhas is called "thoroughly penetrating." Penetrating the real nature of the skandhas as fundamentally and constantly quiescent, with no skandha that can arise, is called "empty and without arising." This emptiness is the substance and reality of suffering, and is called the meaning of suffering. Just as with the water of a mirage, the absence of water is the reality. This is one in wording with the sūtra's statement: "Contemplating suffering as non-arising is called knowing the truth of suffering." "That dharmas are ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness" is an instruction given in reference to emptiness. Emptiness of dharmas is called emptiness. The meaning of emptiness differs, generally having five levels: 1. That the skandhas are not what belongs to a self is called emptiness, as expounded in the *Abhidharma*; although it is called empty, its substance is an existent dharma, because the skandhas serve as its substance. 2. That within nominal dharmas there is no determinate nature is called emptiness, as expounded in the *Satyasiddhi*. 3. That dharmas of deluded conception are empty, quiescent, and signless is spoken of as empty. Like the water of a mirage, the water is precisely non-water; not only is there no nature, but when sought closely its marks do not exist either. 4. Dharmas of deluded conception are spoken of as empty because of their unreality and non-existence, like what is seen in a dream, where there is no dharma outside the mind. 5. The quiescence of the true-thusness dharma-substance is called emptiness; although the substance is truly existent, because it is free from marks and free from nature, it is spoken of as empty. Among the five, the śrāvaka can understand the first two, so now there is no need to teach them. He does not know the latter three, which is why they must be taught. The emptiness taught here is the culmination of parting from marks; hence it says "ultimately non-existent." Such ultimate non-existence is the meaning of true emptiness; the absence of a person on the skandhas and the absence of nature within the skandhas are not called true emptiness. "To be non-dual regarding self and no-self is the meaning of no-self" instructs in the meaning of no-self. This speaks of the emptiness of persons as no-self. There are five distinctions: 1. That the skandhas are not a spiritual master is called no-self, as expounded in the *Abhidharma*. 2. That within the assembled, nominal person there is no human nature is called no-self. 3. That within the ultimate emptiness of deluded conception there are no marks of an assembled, nominal person is called no-self. 4. That within the ultimate emptiness of deluded conception there are no marks of a self, person, or sentient being is called no-self. 5. That within the substance of equal true-thusness there are no marks of a person assembled or functioning as true dharmas is called no-self. Among the five, the śrāvaka can understand the first two, but does not know the remaining three, which is why they must be taught. As for "non-dual regarding self and no-self": according to the *Abhidharma*, ordinary persons arbitrarily conceptualize a self, sentient being, and so forth, calling it "self," while the categories of dharmas of the five skandhas are neither spirit nor master, calling them "no-self." This self and no-self are mutually dual. If within the equal ultimate truth, not only is there no self, but there are also no five skandhas; the dharmas of no-self and [self] are both equally absent, hence it is said to be "non-dual." Only such non-duality is the definitive meaning of no-self. If according to the *Satyasiddhi*, ordinary persons arbitrarily conceptualize a nature of a self or person, calling it "self," while nominal sentient beings have no determinate nature, calling it "no-self"; this self and no-self are also mutually dual. If within the equal ultimate truth, not only is there no self of determinate nature, but there is also no no-self that dispels nature in opposition to sentiment; these two are utterly cut off, which is called non-dual. Only such non-duality is the definitive meaning of no-self. Hence the text below says: "Even a self cannot be attained; how could a non-self be attained? One who sees the real nature of the self no longer gives rise to duality. This is entering the dharma gate of non-duality." This has the same meaning as here. "Dharmas fundamentally do not arise and now also do not cease: this is the meaning of quiescence" instructs in the meaning of nirvāṇa. There are three kinds of nirvāṇa: 1. When phenomena are exhausted and nowhere to be found, cessation through deliberation (*pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha*) which is unconditioned is called nirvāṇa. Such a nirvāṇa was fundamentally non-existent and now exists. 2. Manifesting reality in reference to conditions, refuting characteristics and realizing quiescence, is called nirvāṇa. The dharma-nature is constantly quiescent, yet covered by deluded marks and afflictions. Cultivating the eightfold noble path serves as the revealing cause (*vyañjaka-hetu*), extinguishing darkness and delusion to realize the fundamental dharma-nature; once realized, it is eternally quiescent, hence called nirvāṇa. These prior two kinds are spoken of in the sūtras as fruits. 3. Discussing reality in reference to reality, the true substance is constantly quiescent, which is called nirvāṇa. This single nirvāṇa is neither cause nor fruit. Discussing reality in reference to reality, outside of reality there are no conditions; what else could be referred to as a cause? Outside of reality there are no conditions; what else could be referred to as a fruit? Therefore nirvāṇa has neither cause nor fruit. Hence the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "The substance of nirvāṇa is neither arising nor emerging, neither false nor real, neither one nor different, neither cause nor fruit." In this division, there is no delusion that can arise and no defilement that can cease. Among the three, the śrāvaka also understands the first one, but the two vehicles do not know the latter two approaches, which is why they must be taught. Between the latter two, he specifically adduces the latter approach to instruct him. Therefore it is said: "Dharmas fundamentally do not arise and now also do not cease: this is the meaning of quiescence." The preceding second part, the words of instructive rebuke, is finished. "When this Dharma was spoken, those monks attained liberation of mind" is the third section, the benefit of the instructive rebuke. First comes the refusal, next the explanation, and from "Therefore I..." onward is the conclusion.