[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) › 4.73 # 維摩義記 4.73 維摩義記 4.73 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.73) 下六約對諸法通門而顯佛身。彼一異等通諸法故，於中初明不一不異。解有兩義：一、遣相分別。一異并絕，是故名為不一不異。二、顯德分別。體備萬德名「不一相」，萬德圓體如世虛空無礙不動，非全別體名「非異相」。第二明其不自不他。解有兩義：一、遣相分別。自他並無，名不自他。二、顯德分別。隨化現形名「不自相」，法身體寂不隨緣變，名「不他相」。第三明其非無非取。亦有二解：一、遣相分別。有無俱絕，是故名為非無非取。言「非無相」，不著無也。言「非取相」，不取有也。二、顯德分別。隨化現形故非無相，自德常寂而無分別名非取相。第四明其不此彼岸等。解亦有二：一、遣相分別。此彼中間一切皆無，名「不此岸及不彼岸不中流」等。生死此岸、涅槃彼岸、聖道為中，對治門中說有此等。就實以求，本無生死故無此岸。既無生死，知復對何說為彼岸？故上文言「有縛有解」。若本無縛，其誰求解？兩邊既無，約何說中？故無中流。二、顯德分別。捨相證寂，故不此岸。得大涅槃不捨世間，名不彼岸。染淨俱行不偏在中，名不中流。第五明其而化眾生。「觀於寂滅亦不永滅」，解亦有二：一、遣相分別。雖化眾生，觀於寂滅，不取有相。為化眾生，導以入寂，故化眾生而觀寂滅。滅而不取，義有兩兼，是以言雖。亦不永滅，不著無相。二、顯德分別。雖化觀寂，是入寂行。而不永滅，是隨有行。第六明其「不此不彼」。解亦有二：一、遣相分別。不此不彼就身以論，法身離相，故不在此亦不在彼。又佛國土一切皆如，無此可在名為不此，無彼可在名為不彼。言「不以此不以彼」者，就心而辨。以是為也。真心常寂，不為於此，名不以此；不為於彼，名不以彼。又復眾生一切皆無，無此可為，名不以此；無彼可為，名不以彼。二、顯德分別。法身充滿一切法界，不偏在此、不偏在彼，是故名為不此不彼。大悲普覆，不偏為彼，名不以此及不以彼。上來離相明無所取。「不可智知不可識識」，明離妄想彰無能取。聖不能解，是故名為不可智知。凡不能緣，是故名為不可識識。上來第一明離妄想。 > The following six \[gates\] reveal the Buddha's body by reference to common gates of phenomena. Because oneness, difference, and the like are common to all phenomena, among these \[the text\] first clarifies "neither identical nor different." There are two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: identity and difference are both eliminated; hence it is called "neither identical nor different." Second, distinction by revealing virtues: the essence possesses all virtues, which is called the "sign of non-identity"; the perfect essence of all virtues is like worldly space, unhindered and motionless, not an entirely distinct essence, which is called the "sign of non-difference." Second, it clarifies "neither self nor other." There are two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: self and other are both nonexistent; this is called "neither self nor other." Second, distinction by revealing virtues: manifesting forms in accord with teaching is called the "sign of non-self"; the dharmakāya's essence is quiescent and does not change in accord with conditions, which is called the "sign of non-other." Third, it clarifies "neither nonexistent nor grasped." There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: both nonexistence and existence are eliminated; hence it is called "neither nonexistent nor grasped." Saying "not the sign of nonexistence" means not clinging to nonexistence; saying "not the sign of grasping" means not grasping at existence. Second, distinction by revealing virtues: manifesting forms in accord with teaching, it is therefore not the sign of nonexistence; its inherent virtue is eternally quiescent and free of conceptual discrimination, which is called not the sign of grasping. Fourth, it clarifies "neither on this shore nor the other shore," and so forth. There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: this shore, the other shore, and the middle are all nonexistent; this is called "neither on this shore, nor on the other shore, nor in the midst of the stream," and so forth. Samsāra is this shore, nirvāṇa is the other shore, and the noble path is the middle; these are spoken of within the approach of antidotes. If sought in terms of reality, there is fundamentally no saṃsāra, and thus there is no this shore. Since there is no saṃsāra, in contrast to what could it be called the other shore? Therefore the earlier text states: "There is bondage and there is liberation." If fundamentally there is no bondage, who would seek liberation? Since both sides are nonexistent, in reference to what could one speak of the middle? Therefore there is no midstream. Second, distinction by revealing virtues: renouncing signs and realizing quiescence, hence not on this shore; attaining great nirvāṇa without abandoning the worldly realm, hence not on the other shore; practicing defilement and purity together without leaning to the middle, hence not in the midst of the stream. Fifth, it clarifies "yet transforming sentient beings": "contemplating quiescence, yet not perpetually extinguished." There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: though transforming sentient beings, he contemplates quiescence and does not grasp at the sign of existence. In order to transform sentient beings, he guides them to enter quiescence; therefore, transforming sentient beings, he contemplates quiescence. Extinguished without grasping combines both meanings; hence the text says "though." "Yet not perpetually extinguished" means not clinging to the sign of nonexistence. Second, distinction by revealing virtues: though transforming he contemplates quiescence, which is the practice of entering quiescence; yet not perpetually extinguished, which is the practice of conforming to existence. Sixth, it clarifies "neither here nor there." There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: "neither here nor there" is discussed in terms of the body; the dharmakāya is free from signs, so it is neither here nor there. Moreover, the Buddha lands are all suchness; there is no "here" to reside in, which is called "not here"; there is no "there" to reside in, which is called "not there." Saying "not for the sake of this and not for the sake of that" is explained in terms of the mind. "For the sake of" means acting for. The true mind is eternally quiescent; not acting for this is called "not for the sake of this"; not acting for that is called "not for the sake of that." Furthermore, sentient beings are all nonexistent; there is no "this" to act for, which is called "not for the sake of this"; there is no "that" to act for, which is called "not for the sake of that." Second, distinction by revealing virtues: the dharmakāya pervades the entire dharmadhātu, not biased toward being here and not biased toward being there; hence it is called "neither here nor there." Great compassion covers all universally, not biased toward acting for that; this is called "not for the sake of this and not for the sake of that." The preceding discussion of being free from signs clarifies that there is no object to be grasped. "Cannot be known by knowledge and cannot be cognized by consciousness" clarifies freedom from deluded conceptualization, showing that there is no grasping subject. Sages cannot comprehend it; therefore it is called "cannot be known by knowledge." Worldlings cannot take it as an object; therefore it is called "cannot be cognized by consciousness." The above is the first part, clarifying freedom from deluded conceptualization. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.72](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.72) - [Next: 4.74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.74) - [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.4.73) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.73) · Pramāṇa