[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) › 4.17 # 維摩義記 4.17 維摩義記 4.17 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.17) 三十一中，初「樂實曰」，標人別說。下彰所說。「實不實二」，反舉二相。世諦虛假名為不實，真諦名實。下泯此二以為不二，先辨、後結。辨中初言「實見者尚不見實何況非實」，略明不二。就虛望實，虛外有實，對虛為二。就實論實，實外無虛，故實亦亡對。實亡對故，有實見者不取實相。尚不見實，何況非實？是二俱泯名為不二。「所以」下釋，初先徵問。問意如何？以見實故名為實見。已言實見，有何所以言不見實及與非實？下對釋之。「非肉眼見慧眼能見」，釋前實見。眼有五種，所見各異：一、肉眼，見於障內麁近之色。二是天眼，見於障外細遠之色。三者法眼，見於一切苦無常等生滅法數，及見眾生根欲性等。四者慧眼，見諸法空。五者佛眼，見法實性。今說空以之為實，是故此實非肉眼見。唯慧眼見，天眼法眼亦不見空，對初以論，是故偏言非肉眼見。「而此慧眼無見無不見」，釋前略中尚不見實何況非實。是義云何？菩薩慧眼見空之時，窮空畢竟，不見空外有眼能見。既無空外有眼能見，為有眼外空為所見？故《涅槃》云「菩薩摩訶薩明大涅槃不見虛空，如此不見真名見空，名無不見。」故《涅槃》云「唯有慧眼乃能見之。如是見者無見為見，故名為見。」共此相似。此言正解尚不見實，不見非實易解不論。見不實者不能見空，名為不見。菩薩斷離此不見心，名無不見。「是為」下結。上來第一維摩為問，菩薩等以言遣相其不二。 > In the thirty-first \[section\], first, "Joy in the Real said" identifies the person to present an individual exposition. Below, his statement is revealed. "The real and the unreal are two" brings up the two characteristics in reverse. The conventional truth, being empty and false, is called unreal; the ultimate truth is called real. Below, he dissolves these two to explain non-duality; first he distinguishes it, and then concludes. In the distinction, he first says: "One who sees the real does not even see the real, much less the non-real," which briefly clarifies non-duality. Viewing the real from the standpoint of the false, outside the false there is the real, forming a pair in contrast to the false. Discussing the real from the standpoint of the real, outside the real there is no false, so the real also loses its counterpart. Because the real loses its counterpart, one who has the vision of the real does not grasp the characteristic of the real. When even the real is not seen, how much less the non-real? The vanishing of both is called non-duality. The explanation begins below "Why so?"; it first inquires and questions. What is the intent of the question? Because one sees the real, it is called "vision of the real." Having already spoken of "vision of the real," for what reason does one say that neither the real nor the non-real is seen? Below, he answers and explains it. "It is not seen by the fleshly eye, but can be seen by the wisdom eye" explains the previous "vision of the real." There are five kinds of eyes, and what they see differs: first, the fleshly eye sees coarse, near forms within obstructions; second, the divine eye sees subtle, distant forms beyond obstructions; third, the Dharma eye sees the numerical lists of phenomena subject to arising and ceasing—such as all suffering and impermanence—as well as the faculties, desires, and natures of sentient beings; fourth, the wisdom eye sees the emptiness of all dharmas; fifth, the Buddha eye sees the real nature of dharmas. Here, emptiness is spoken of as the real; therefore, this real cannot be seen by the fleshly eye. It is seen only by the wisdom eye; the divine eye and Dharma eye also do not see emptiness, but discussing it in contrast to the first, he specifically says it is not seen by the fleshly eye. "Yet this wisdom eye has neither seeing nor non-seeing" explains the previous summary: "does not even see the real, much less the non-real." What is the meaning of this? When a bodhisattva's wisdom eye sees emptiness, exhaustively probing emptiness to the ultimate, it does not see an eye capable of seeing outside of emptiness. Since there is no eye capable of seeing outside of emptiness, could there be an emptiness outside the eye that serves as the object seen? Therefore the \*Nirvāṇa Sūtra\* says: "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva clarifies the Great Nirvāṇa, he does not see empty space; this very not seeing is truly called seeing emptiness, and is called 'having no non-seeing.'" And the \*Nirvāṇa Sūtra\* says: "Only the wisdom eye can see it. One who sees like this takes non-seeing as seeing, and therefore it is called seeing." This is similar to that. This refers specifically to explaining that one "does not even see the real"; that one "does not see the non-real" is easily understood and is not discussed. One who sees the unreal cannot see emptiness, which is called "not seeing." The bodhisattva severs and leaves behind this mind of non-seeing, which is called "having no non-seeing." Below "This is," he concludes. Above is the first \[part\], where Vimalakīrti raised the question, and the bodhisattvas and others used words to eliminate characteristics and \[clarify\] non-duality. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.16) - [Next: 4.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.18) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776~en-mt.4.17) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.17](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.17) · Pramāṇa