[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776) › 3.55 # 維摩義記 3.55 維摩義記 3.55 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.55) 三、舍利弗乘言作難。「現今諸佛證得菩提，過去已得未來當得如恒河沙。皆謂何乎？」「天女」下釋。於中初先解釋三世非三世義。「汝得阿羅漢道」已下，解釋諸佛得無得義。前中初言「世俗文字說三世」，簡相異實。「非謂菩提有去來今」，明實異相。是義云何？汎解有四：一、就真應相對分別。應化在時故有三世，真則常住猶如虛空無去來今。二、就真中性淨方便相對分別。依如《涅槃》，性淨之果悉名涅槃，方便之果說為菩提。是則菩提藉緣修生，雖三世攝，涅槃之體性出自古，不從緣生非去來今。若依《金剛般若論》等，菩提門中自有性淨、方便之別。方便修生說有三世，性淨體常非三世攝，無去來今。第三、直就性淨之中約就修證而為分別。性淨菩提藉緣修顯，修別前後，淨非一時，故有三世。約證反望，從來常淨。以常淨故，無隱無顯、非因非果，以是義故無去來今。此之一義，與《涅槃》中「捨世諦慈得第一義慈，第一義慈不從因緣」其言相似。第四、直就性淨之中約緣就實而為分別。據緣望實，緣外有實，緣外之實息緣方會，會之前後，故有三世。就實論實，實外無緣，緣既不有誰來覆我？故本無隱。本既無隱，豈有今顯？實性常寂不隨緣變，以是義故無去來今。汎解如是。今時所辨，義當第三；又據第四理亦無傷。上來對難解釋三世義，下復對難明得無得。於中天女先問「舍利得羅漢耶」。舍利次答「無得而得」。解有三義：一、得羅漢時滅離情取名無所得，得此無得名為而得。二、滅離情取名為無得，證無我理名為而得。三、見法無性無可貪取名為無得，得此無得故復無得。「天女」下，即約其所答，明佛菩薩得菩提義無得而得。解亦有三：一、息情取名為無得，得此無得名為而得。二、息情取名為無得，故《涅槃》中說十無得；實證相應名為得，故《涅槃》中宣說菩薩得第一義、得道菩提及以涅槃，故非無得。三、真性常寂無修無證名無所得。此無得法本為妄隱，藉緣修顯名為而得。是則無得從緣修得，反至得時得於無得。上來第二寄化顯德。 > Third, Śāriputra, taking advantage of her words, raised an objection: "The present Buddhas realize and attain bodhi, and those of the past who have already attained it and those of the future who will attain it are as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. What does this all refer to?" The text from "The heavenly maiden \[replied\]" downward explains this. Within this, it first explains the meaning of the three times and the non-three times. From "Have you attained the arhat path?" downward, it explains the Buddhas' attainment and non-attainment. In the former part, the initial statement that "conventional words speak of the three times" distinguishes characteristics from reality. "It does not mean that bodhi has past, future, or present" clarifies that reality differs from characteristics. What is the meaning of this? In general explanation, there are four points: First, it is distinguished in terms of the correlation between the real \[body\] and the response \[body\]. The response and manifestation belong to time and therefore have three times, whereas the real is eternally abiding like empty space, without past, future, or present. Second, it is distinguished in terms of the correlation between the inherently pure and upāya within the real. According to the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\], the fruits of inherent purity are all called nirvāṇa, while the fruits of upāya are spoken of as bodhi. Thus, bodhi arises through cultivation reliant on conditions, and although it is subsumed under the three times, the essential nature of nirvāṇa has fundamentally emerged since antiquity; it does not arise from conditions and is not past, future, or present. If one relies on the Commentary on the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and the like, within the gate of bodhi there are inherently the distinctions of the inherently pure and upāya. Upāya, arising through cultivation, is said to have three times; the substance of inherent purity is eternal, not subsumed under the three times, and without past, future, or present. Third, it is distinguished directly within the inherently pure in reference to cultivation and realization. Inherently pure bodhi relies on conditions and cultivation to be revealed; since cultivation differs in before and after, and purification is not instantaneous, there are the three times. Looking back in reference to realization, it has always been eternally pure. Because it is eternally pure, there is no concealment and no revelation, neither cause nor fruit; for this reason, there is no past, future, or present. This one meaning is similar to the statement in the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\]: "Relinquishing conventional-truth compassion, one attains ultimate-truth compassion; ultimate-truth compassion does not arise from causes and conditions." Fourth, it is distinguished directly within the inherently pure in reference to conditions and reality. Considering reality from the perspective of conditions, there is reality outside conditions; the reality outside conditions can only be converged with when conditions are brought to rest, and since there is an earlier and a later to this convergence, there are the three times. Discussing reality from the perspective of reality, there are no conditions outside reality; since conditions do not exist, who could come to conceal me? Thus, there is fundamentally no concealment. Since fundamentally there is no concealment, how could there be a present revelation? The real nature is eternally quiescent and does not change along with conditions; for this reason, there is no past, future, or present. The general explanation is like this. What is distinguished at present corresponds in meaning to the third; furthermore, relying on the fourth is also free of fault. The above explained the meaning of the three times in response to the objection; below, it further clarifies attainment and non-attainment in response to the objection. Within this, the heavenly maiden first asks: "Śāriputra, have you attained arhatship?" Śāriputra then answers: "Attained through non-attainment." There are three meanings to this explanation: First, when arhatship is attained, extinguishing and departing from emotional grasping is called having nothing attained; attaining this non-attainment is called "yet attained." Second, extinguishing and departing from emotional grasping is called non-attainment; realizing the principle of non-self is called "yet attained." Third, seeing that dharmas have no inherent nature and nothing that can be craved or grasped is called non-attainment; since one attains this non-attainment, there is again non-attainment. From "The heavenly maiden \[replied\]" downward, relying on what he answered, she clarifies the meaning of Buddhas and bodhisattvas attaining bodhi through non-attainment. The explanation also has three points: First, putting an end to emotional grasping is called non-attainment; attaining this non-attainment is called "yet attained." Second, putting an end to emotional grasping is called non-attainment, which is why the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] speaks of ten kinds of non-attainment; true realization being in accord is called attainment, which is why the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] proclaims that bodhisattvas attain the ultimate truth, attain the path of bodhi, and attain nirvāṇa; therefore it is not non-attainment. Third, the true nature is eternally quiescent, without cultivation and without realization, which is called having nothing attained. This dharma of non-attainment was originally concealed by delusion, and being revealed through conditions and cultivation is called "yet attained." Thus, non-attainment is attained through cultivation reliant on conditions, yet when attainment is reached, one attains non-attainment. The above was the second \[section\], which relied on manifestation to reveal virtues. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.54) - [Next: 3.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.56) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776~en-mt.3.55) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.55) · Pramāṇa