維摩義記 3.85

3.85

下諸菩薩隨得別說。義門無量，隨義具說，說亦叵盡，今此略列三十一人以彰所說。就初人中，言「有菩薩名法自在」，標人別說。下明所說。言「諸仁者生滅二」，反立二相。生滅之義汎解有二：一有為法自相生滅、二染淨法對治生滅。自相生滅義別有三：一、分段無常，報起名生、報盡稱滅。二、念無常，初起名生、後謝稱滅。三、自性無常，相有名生、虛無說滅。自相生滅，要略唯此。對治生滅，義則有四：一、就染說，凡起名生、聖斷稱滅。二、就淨說，修起名生、緣治終息說以為滅。又復淨法為惡所敗亦名為滅。三、雙就染淨約迷說之。染起名生、淨壞稱滅。又復真淨為惑隱覆亦名為滅。四、雙就染淨約悟說之。淨起名生，又復本隱性淨之法為緣顯了始現名生，染息稱滅。汎辨如是。今此所論，通則皆是。即文以求，偏就染淨對治門說，對治門中偏就染說，染起名生、終斷稱滅。生滅兩分故名為二。下翻此二以明不二。於此門中，二相雙遣為不二矣，先辨、後結。辨中初言「法本不生，今則不滅」，解不二義。不生不滅，汎解有四：一、生死染法虛集無性，以無性故，生無所生、滅無所滅。二、生死染法妄相而有，妄體空相則無相，以無相故，生無所生、滅無所滅。三、生死染法妄想而有，如夢所見心外無法，妄想情有道理實無，以實無故，生無所生、滅無所滅。四、生死染法如來藏起，窮之即實，實性平等，生則無生、滅則無滅。以是義故，本無所生、今無所滅，不生不滅故曰不二。「得此不生」，解釋入義。於前無生無滅法中，慧心安住名無生忍，從緣亦應名無滅忍，初約彰名偏言無生。上來正辨。「是為」下結。

Below, the various bodhisattvas each give individual explanations according to what they have attained. The doctrinal approaches are immeasurable; if fully explained according to their points, the explanation could never be exhausted. Here, thirty-one bodhisattvas are briefly listed to make manifest what they explain. Among them, concerning the first person, the text says: “There was a bodhisattva named Master of Dharmas,” which identifies the person who explains individually. Below, it clarifies what he says. His words, “Good sirs, arising and ceasing are two,” present the two marks by way of antithesis. The meaning of ‘arising and ceasing’ has two general explanations: first, the arising and ceasing of the self-characteristic of conditioned phenomena; second, the arising and ceasing of the defiled and the pure in the context of counteractive remedies. In the arising and ceasing of self-characteristics, there are three distinct meanings: 1. the impermanence of segmented existence: when retribution arises it is called ‘arising’, and when retribution is exhausted it is termed ‘ceasing’; 2. momentary impermanence: the initial emergence is called ‘arising’, and the subsequent perishing is termed ‘ceasing’; 3. the impermanence of intrinsic nature: the existence of characteristics is called ‘arising’, and illusory non-existence is described as ‘ceasing’. The arising and ceasing of self-characteristics is succinctly just this. In the arising and ceasing of counteractive remedies, there are four meanings: 1. explained in terms of defilement: the emergence of ordinary [defilements] is called ‘arising’, and the eradication by noble ones is termed ‘ceasing’; 2. explained in terms of purity: the arising of practice is called ‘arising’, and when the conditioning counteragent finally subsides it is explained as ‘ceasing’; furthermore, when pure dharmas are ruined by evil, this is also called ‘ceasing’; 3. explained jointly in terms of defilement and purity from the standpoint of delusion: the emergence of defilement is called ‘arising’, and the destruction of purity is termed ‘ceasing’; furthermore, when true purity is obscured and covered by afflictions, this is also called ‘ceasing’; 4. explained jointly in terms of defilement and purity from the standpoint of awakening: the emergence of purity is called ‘arising’—furthermore, when the originally concealed dharmas of intrinsically pure nature are made evident through conditions and newly manifest, this is called ‘arising’—and the cessation of defilement is termed ‘ceasing’. This is the general discrimination. What is discussed here, comprehensively speaking, includes all of them. Yet pursuing it according to the text, it is specifically spoken in terms of the approach of counteracting defilement and purity; and within the approach of counteraction, it is specifically spoken in terms of defilement: the emergence of defilement is called ‘arising’, and its ultimate eradication is termed ‘ceasing’. Because arising and ceasing are two separate divisions, they are called ‘two’. Below, these two are overturned to illuminate non-duality. In this approach, dispatching both characteristics simultaneously constitutes non-duality; first he distinguishes it, and then he concludes. In the distinguishing part, it first says, “Dharmas originally do not arise, and now do not cease,” explaining the meaning of non-duality. In general explanations of ‘neither arising nor ceasing’, there are four: 1. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra are empty aggregations without intrinsic nature; because they lack intrinsic nature, arising has nothing that arises, and ceasing has nothing that ceases; 2. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra exist through false marks; since the substance of falsehood is empty, characteristics are signless; because of signlessness, arising has nothing that arises, and ceasing has nothing that ceases; 3. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra exist through false conceptualization; like what is seen in a dream, there is no dharma outside the mind; false conceptualization exists in emotional belief but is truly non-existent in principle; because it is truly non-existent, arising has nothing that arises, and ceasing has nothing that ceases; 4. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra arise from the tathāgatagarbha; if investigated to the end, it is reality itself; the real nature is equal; in arising there is no arising, and in ceasing there is no ceasing. For this reason, originally there is nothing that arises, and now there is nothing that ceases; being neither arising nor ceasing, it is therefore called non-dual. “Attaining this unarisen” explains the meaning of ‘entering’. When the mind of wisdom abides steadily within the aforementioned dharma of no-arising and no-ceasing, this is called the patient acceptance of the unarisen [dharmas]. Following the conditioning factor, it should also be called the patient acceptance of the nonceasing; [here] it is solely termed ‘unarisen’ in order to express its name at the outset. The above directly distinguishes it. From “This is” onward, he concludes.