Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

維摩義記 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language
English

Contents

2.1

Compiled by the Śramaṇa Huiyuan

2.2

"Chapter on the Disciples": In this chapter, the śrāvaka disciples are commanded to inquire after his illness. Truly, because śrāvakas learn behind the Buddha, they are called "younger brothers" (di); because they are born through the Buddha's transformation, they are also called "sons" (zi). From those who were addressed, the chapter title is established, called the "Chapter on the Disciples."

2.3

Next is the commentary following the text. In this, I will briefly distinguish three headings: 1. Explaining the purpose of its appearance in relation to what came before; 2. Outlining the division in relation to what follows; 3. Directly interpreting according to the text. / What is the purpose of its appearance? It is explained through two meanings: first, explaining the purpose in terms of the preface; second, explaining the purpose with respect to the main doctrinal section. / Regarding the explanation in terms of the preface, this further subdivides into two: / 1. Explaining it with respect to the Buddha. In the previous chapter, Vimalakīrti manifested illness to initiate [the dialogue]. Vimalakīrti manifested illness originally to initiate the teaching, which required the Buddha's resonant response. Therefore, from here on, the Tathāgata commands inquiries to bring forth what he expounds. As for those addressed, he first addresses the śrāvakas; hence this chapter appears. / 2. Explaining it with respect to Vimalakīrti revealing his virtues. At the beginning of the previous chapter, his virtues were revealed through direct praise; at the end of the previous chapter, his virtues were revealed through teaching, which can also be called revealing virtues through transformative teaching. From here on, his virtues are revealed through confrontations: first confronting the śrāvakas to reveal the heights of his virtue; hence this chapter appears. Such is the explanation in terms of the preface. / As for explaining the purpose of its appearance with respect to the main doctrinal section: in the previous chapter, occasioned by ordinary people inquiring after his illness, the teaching for ordinary people was clarified, proceeding from the ordinary to the noble. From here on, occasioned by noble beings inquiring after his illness, the teaching for noble beings is clarified. Within the teaching for noble beings, it first teaches the śrāvakas; hence this chapter appears. Such is the purpose of its appearance.

2.4

Next is outlining the text. In this there are two parts: / 1. Outlining the division in terms of the preface. From here down to "lying sick alone on a single bed," the text has three distinct parts: (1) Vimalakīrti's thought of being inquired after as the occasion; (2) The Tathāgata, because of that thought, commanding inquiries after his illness; (3) Vimalakīrti thinking of Mañjuśrī coming with the assembly, and emptying the room to await the inquiries. / 2. Outlining the division of the text with respect to the main doctrinal section. From here through the end of the "Chapter on the Fragrant Accumulation" (Xiangji), the text has two distinct parts: (1) Vimalakīrti thinking of awaiting the inquiries of the noble ones; (2) From "The Buddha knew" onwards, the Tathāgata commands inquiries, revealing what is expounded. / Such are the structural divisions.

2.5

Next, explaining the text. First, the initial section explaining Vimalakīrti's thought is interpreted. 'At that time' refers to the moment when the thought arose. 'The elder Vimalakīrti' indicates the person who generated the thought. 'Reflected to himself on his illness' and so forth constitutes the actual arousal of the thought in his mind. Yet, in this phrase, he is thinking of awaiting inquiry from the sages, not dwelling on his illness; for truly, Vimalakīrti's compassion for sentient beings was profound, and his longing to convert them was like thirst, which is why he generated this thought. Vimalakīrti manifested illness solely for the sake of beings; though his intention was for beings, only by obtaining the Buddha's responsiveness would the work of conversion succeed. Therefore, he thought to himself, 'I am lying sick in bed; would the World-Honoured One of great mercy not deign to take pity on me?' Because illness serves as the object of mercy, he thought of himself lying sick in bed. Because only the Buddha pities suffering, he thought of the World-Honoured One. Because the Buddha possesses deep mercy and has abundant compassion for suffering, he thought of great compassion. Adducing the Buddha's great mercy, he wished to lead the Tathāgata to pity his own painful illness and also have compassion for those to be converted, so that [the Buddha] would certainly send someone to inquire on his behalf. Since one possessing great mercy, seeing this, ought to take pity, he further expressed wonder and remonstrance: 'How could he not deign to take pity?' 'Ning' (寧) means 'how could' (an 安). 'When I am now suffering from illness, how could he bear this and not deign to take pity?' A higher mind having pity on an inferior is called 'deigning' (chui 垂). 'Pity' (min 愍) means compassionate pity. Below, the Buddha, knowing his thought, sends someone to go inquire. 'The Buddha knew his thought' explains the reason for making the announcement. Below is the actual announcement. First addressing those who are not capable, and afterwards addressing those who are capable, is sufficient; for what reason did the Buddha address those who were not capable across the board? The explanation has three meanings: First, to manifest the Tathāgata's impartial and unprejudiced mind, he therefore addressed them all. This is similar to [the passage in] the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where he universally addressed the great assembly, bidding them to ask questions. Second, in order to extensively rely on the words of the assembly to reveal Vimalakīrti's virtue, it was necessary to address them all. Announcing to those who were not capable reveals how high his virtue was; announcing to those who were capable reveals how wondrous his virtue was. Third, in order to extensively rely on the words of the assembly to reveal the Dharma taught by Vimalakīrti, it was necessary to address them all. Therefore, in the text below, first addressing those who were not capable reveals what had been taught previously, and afterwards addressing those who were capable explains what was taught at present. Since he addressed them all equally, for what reason did he first address those who were not capable, and afterwards address those who were capable? The explanation has two meanings: First, he wished to address them in an equal, orderly sequence to bid them inquire, thus fulfilling the three meanings above; for this reason, he first addressed those who were not capable. If he had first addressed those who were capable, afterwards there would have been no occasion to address those who were not capable. Second, he wished, by contrast with those who were not capable, to reveal the one who would subsequently be able to inquire; when the person inquiring is exalted, what is taught must be profound, causing people to thirst and yearn for it; for this reason, he first addressed those who were not capable. Among those not capable, he first addressed the śrāvakas, and afterwards addressed the bodhisattvas. Since the Tathāgata well knew that the śrāvakas were not capable, why did he trouble himself to address them all? The explanation also has three points: First, to reveal the equality of the Buddha's mind, which is similar to [the passage in] the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where he first addressed the monks, bidding them ask questions. Second, wishing to extensively contrast with the multitude of persons to reveal Vimalakīrti's virtue, it was necessary to address them all. Therefore, in the text below, first addressing the śrāvakas reveals, by contrast with them, that Vimalakīrti's high virtue surpasses the two vehicles; afterwards addressing the bodhisattvas reveals, by contrast with them, that Vimalakīrti's high virtue exceeds that of all the bodhisattvas. Third, wishing to extensively rely on the words of the assembly to reveal the Dharma taught by Vimalakīrti, it was necessary to address them all. Therefore, in the text below, first addressing the śrāvakas clarifies that what he taught was the teaching for śrāvakas; afterwards addressing the bodhisattvas clarifies that what he taught was the teaching for bodhisattvas. Since he addressed them all equally, for what reason did he first address the śrāvakas and afterwards address the bodhisattvas? The explanation has three meanings: First, the śrāvakas were near to the Buddha, and following proximity he addressed them first; the bodhisattvas were not so, and for this reason were addressed afterwards. Second, wishing to address both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas equally to bid them inquire, fulfilling the three earlier meanings; for this reason, he first addressed the śrāvakas. If the Tathāgata had first addressed the bodhisattvas, afterwards there would have been no occasion to further address the śrāvakas, because the latter were inferior. The third meaning concerns the sequence of dharmas: in the preceding chapter, he clarified the teaching for ordinary people, proceeding from the ordinary to the noble; therefore, in this chapter, he next addressed the śrāvakas, using this to reveal that the teaching for śrāvakas proceeds from the small to the great; hence, only when reaching the subsequent chapter does he address the bodhisattvas, using this to reveal the teaching for bodhisattvas; the method of conversion should be like this. In this chapter, the śrāvakas addressed total five hundred; the first ten are listed individually, and the remainder are all brought up collectively. Among the first ten, in relation to the first nine people, the cause of the dharmakāya is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the fruit of the dharmakāya is clarified. Among the first nine, in relation to the first eight people, the dharma of cultivation is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the dharma of leaving household life is clarified. Among the first eight, in relation to the first seven people, the dharma of cultivating wholesome dharmas is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the dharma of extinguishing evil dharmas is revealed. Among the first seven, in relation to the first six people, the practice of cultivating the path is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the practice of giving rise to supernormal powers is clarified. Cultivating the path practices the essence, while giving rise to supernormal powers practices the function. Among the first six, first, regarding Śāriputra, non-abiding practice is clarified; next, regarding Maudgalyāyana, the practice of entering realization is clarified; regarding the latter four people, the practice of aids to the path is clarified. These are the three paths of identical characteristics in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra. Regarding the first person, [the Buddha] first makes the announcement, and afterwards [the disciple] declines. 'He then said to Śāriputra: You go and inquire after his illness,' is the announcement. The name Śāriputra has already been analyzed above; he was the son of a Brahmin of Rājagṛha. His father was originally from South India. His maternal grandfather was formerly a great master of disputation in Rājagṛha, upon whom the king had bestowed a fief. When Śāriputra's father arrived, he engaged in disputation with him; the maternal grandfather suffered defeat, and the king stripped him of his fief and gave it to Śāriputra's father. Thereupon, the maternal grandfather gave his daughter in marriage to him, and she gave birth to Śāriputra. Śāriputra's mother had formerly engaged in discussions with her brother Mahākauṣṭhila and had always been inferior to her brother; but when she conceived Śāriputra, she consistently triumphed in debate, on account of which Kauṣṭhila went abroad to study further. Later, when Śāriputra was born, at only seven years of age, he was foremost in debate among the sixteen great kingdoms. Later, when the Buddha appeared in the world, he renounced the household life under the Buddha, becoming foremost in wisdom among the Buddha's disciples. Therefore, in other treatises, Śāriputra is praised, saying that, leaving aside only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, if the wisdom and extensive erudition of all sentient beings were compared to Śāriputra, it could not equal even a sixteenth part of his. Now [the Buddha] addresses him first. Why does he address him first? Because his wisdom is supreme and he stands out among the disciples; for this reason, he is addressed first.

2.6

Question: It was stated previously that because the virtues of the śrāvakas are inferior, the Buddha addressed them first. Since Śāriputra is the preeminent among the disciples, why was he addressed first? Explanation: Although Śāriputra's practice of wisdom is superior, his other practices are inferior to others'; thus he could be addressed first, because each person among the śrāvakas is foremost in some distinctively superior respect. "I am not competent..." and so forth is the statement of refusal. Therein, it first refuses, next explains, and finally concludes. "I am not competent to go thither to inquire about his illness" is the initial refusal. "For what reason?" and below is the explanation. "Therefore, I..." and below is the conclusion. In the explanation, "for what reason" is a self-inquiry, prompting what follows: for what reason do I say I am not competent? Below, it directly analyzes and explains: having in the past been reproved by him, for this reason he is not competent. Therein, he first presents the cause and condition of being reproved. From "Then Vimalakīrti..." onward, it sets forth the words of the reproof. From "At that time, O World-Honoured One, when I heard these words..." onward, from his own lowly deficiency, he manifests his own inadequacy. In the first part, "recalling the past" presents the time when he was reproved. "Once in the forest" identifies the place where he was reproved. "Quietly sitting beneath a tree" reveals the matter for which he was reproved. "Yan" (宴) is like "silent" (默). Silently sitting beneath a tree is called "quiet sitting" (宴坐). Yan (宴) and yan (晏) are mutually similar. "Yan" (晏) carries the meaning of "peaceful", while "yan" (宴) carries the meaning of "silent"; they are completely distinct, and here it signifies "yan" (宴). Below, it sets forth the words of reproof. The reason a reproof was needed was to cause Śāriputra to abandon the small and elevate the great, as well as to benefit other people. Therein, it first says, "Vimalakīrti came and said to me", which is an overarching presentation. Addressing and speaking are designated "said", without distinguishing them separately. First it reproves, and next it instructs. "O Śāriputra, one does not necessarily take this sitting to be quiet sitting": this is the statement of reproof. "O" (唯) is an expression of respect. Śāriputra had left the household life, while Vimalakīrti remained in the secular world; the secular must respect the Way, and for this reason he says "O". The following are all the same. Since the superior sitting had not yet been revealed, it could not be completely negated; therefore he says "not necessarily". Below, it sets forth the words of instruction, wherein it first presents, next instructs, and finally praises. "Now, quiet sitting..." is a general presentation. "Now" (夫) is an introductory particle. This presents the bodhisattva's method of superior sitting. Below, it separately teaches and indicates it; therein are six clauses, which taken together form four [pairs/sections]: the first clause forms one, teaching the departure from mundane practice, abandoning characteristics to realize quiescence; the next two form one, teaching the departure from the practice of the Lesser [Vehicle], manifesting function while in quiescence, and being constantly defiled while in purity; the next one forms one, again teaching the departure from the mundane, abandoning [signs] to realize quiescence; the final two form one, again teaching the departure from [śrāvaka] practice, being constantly pure while in defilement. Within the first clause, regarding "not manifesting body or mind in the three realms": the desire, form, and formless [realms] are the three realms. When ordinary beings are in the two realms of desire and form, they receive the fruit of material forms, which is called "manifesting the body"; when in the formless realm, they receive the fruit of mental dharmas, which is explained as "manifesting the mind". A bodhisattva fully knows that the three realms are false and delusive, merely created by the mind; realizing the real, he eliminates and abandons them, having no place wherein to abide; for this reason, he does not manifest body or mind in the domains of the three realms—this concludes it. In the next two clauses, the first clause relies on samādhi to manifest function while in quiescence, and the latter clause relies on wisdom to be constantly defiled while in purity. In the first clause, regarding "not arising from the concentration of cessation yet manifesting deportment": the concentration of cessation is the concentration of total cessation among the nine successive [attainments]. The total cessation of mind and thought is called the concentration of cessation; its meaning is as in the separate chapter and should be fully discussed there. "Deportment" refers to the four deportments: walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are the four deportments. In the śrāvaka's concentration of cessation, he abandons the four deportments; the bodhisattva constantly manifests them. Why is this so? The śrāvaka's deportment arises from the mind of phenomenal consciousness; when he enters the concentration of cessation, the mind of phenomenal consciousness ceases, and therefore he abandons deportment. The places where a bodhisattva's deportment arises are three: first, it arises relying on the mind of phenomenal consciousness; next, it arises relying on the mind of deluded consciousness; finally, it arises relying on the mind of true consciousness, naturally manifesting through the power of the dharma gate of the samādhi of suchness, just as a cintāmaṇi can rain down precious objects without mental discrimination. Among the three kinds of minds, the first two are impermanent, and the concentration of cessation can extinguish them; the latter one is the permanent mind, which the concentration of cessation does not extinguish. That which is extinguished does not raise deportment while in the concentration of cessation; that which is not extinguished constantly manifests deportment even while in the concentration of cessation. Now, relying on the latter meaning to instruct Śāriputra, it is therefore said: "not arising from the concentration of cessation yet manifesting deportment". Regarding "not abandoning the qualities of the Way yet manifesting mundane activities": noble wisdom is the Way; afflictions, karma, and so forth are mundane activities. When the śrāvaka is in the Way, he abandons mundane activities. The bodhisattva constantly manifests them. Why is this so? Persons of the śrāvaka [vehicle] have not yet attained the emptiness of dharmas; seeing that afflictions and so forth exist and are fearful, having severed them, they enter the noble state; thus having attained the noble state, they cannot manifest them. The bodhisattva thoroughly fathoms emptiness, knowing that existence is like an illusion, and remains in it without fear; therefore, he constantly practices gathering in and transforming sentient beings, and so does not abandon them. Thus, later in the text it says: "practicing the non-Way is penetrating the Buddha-Way". Furthermore, the bodhisattva realizes and enters the dharma gate of the samādhi of dependent origination; through the power of this dharma gate, he naturally and universally manifests activities shared with ordinary beings. Just as the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "The Great Parinirvāṇa can establish great meaning"—that is precisely this matter. Persons of the śrāvaka [vehicle] have not attained this dharma, and therefore are unable. In the next clause, regarding "the mind neither abiding within nor existing without is quiet sitting": the six sense faculties are internal; the six sense objects are called external. The ordinary person's mind and consciousness arise relying on the six sense faculties as the predominant condition, which is called "abiding within"; they arise relying on the six sense objects as the objective condition, which is explained as "existing without". The bodhisattva is not like this: he knows that faculties and objects arise from the mind of false discrimination, like faculties in a dream and objects in a dream; outside the mind there is no dharma. Because he knows they do not exist, he departs and does not give rise [to them], no longer relying on them to aggregate and give rise to mind and consciousness; therefore he neither abides within nor exists without. Thus, later in the text it says: "not being mindful of the internal or external, he practices in equality". Furthermore, the deluded mind is an impermanent dharma; when the six consciousnesses arise simultaneously, the mind that initially arises must have something upon which it relies; among that upon which it relies, the stronger is called the faculty, and the weaker is called the object. The true mind is permanently abiding and has nothing upon which it relies; having no reliance, one cannot speak of a strong faculty or weak object. Now instructing Śāriputra to abandon the deluded and grasp the true, therefore neither abiding within nor existing without is indeed quiet sitting. In the latter two clauses, the first clause clarifies that he actively manifests the delusions of view while practicing the noble path, and the latter clause clarifies that he actively manifests the delusions of cultivation while realizing nirvāṇa. In the first clause, regarding "without wavering from the various views, one cultivates the thirty-seven factors [of awakening]—this is quiet sitting": the minds of the five views are called the "various views"; identity view, extreme view, wrong view, attachment to rites and rituals, and attachment to views are the five. The bodhisattva, in accordance with transforming [beings], constantly actively manifests them, which is called "not wavering", because he does not depart from them. Thus, later in the text it says: "With the eighty-four thousand gates of affliction, sentient beings are wearied by them; the Buddhas use these to perform Buddha-work." Although he actively manifests them, his inner mind is constantly stilled; therefore he constantly cultivates the thirty-seven factors [of awakening]. Regarding "without severing afflictions, entering nirvāṇa": in accordance with transforming [beings], actively manifesting greed, anger, delusion, and so forth is called "not severing". His inner mind being constantly quiescent is called "entering nirvāṇa". This concludes it. Only when these various practices are difficult to speak of are they accomplished; therefore it is called "quiet" (宴). That wherein the noble ones peacefully dwell is spoken of as "sitting" (坐). The above is the specific instruction. "If one can be like this..." is what is endorsed, praising its superiority to cause him to emulate it. The above presents the words of reproof. "At that time, O World-Honoured One, when I heard this, I remained silent and could not retort": this expresses his own lowly deficiency and manifests his own inadequacy. These words follow foreign grammar; following the grammar here, one should say: "World-Honoured One! At that time when I heard this, I remained silent and could not retort." First was the refusal, next the explanation. "Therefore I am not competent" concludes his own lack of competence.

2.7.1

Next, [the Buddha] told Maudgalyāyana to go and inquire after [Vimalakīrti's] illness. Maudgalyāyana's family name was Kolita. His father had originally been childless and, praying to a kolita tree-spirit, obtained him; hence he was given the name Kolita. He was the son of a chief minister in Rājagṛha. Formerly, together with Śāriputra, he was a student of Sañjaya. With their minds exclusively set on seeking the Way, they attained nothing, and supposed there was no Way. Sañjaya was approaching the end of his life and, while ill, sighed softly. The two disciples inquired, "Master, what are you sighing for?" Sañjaya answered, "I am thinking of how worldly people are bound by love and affection. The king of the country of Suvarṇabhūmi in South India has passed away, and during his cremation by fire, the queen, pining for him, threw herself into the flames and died. That is what I was sighing about." The two men made a private mental note of it. After Sañjaya died, merchants arrived from Suvarṇabhūmi; the two men made inquiries, and it was just as Sañjaya had spoken. The two men then remarked that their master had certainly attained the Way, but they themselves were not the right sort of people. They then made a pact together: "If either attains anything, he must inform the other." After making this pact, the Buddha had only just appeared in the world. The monk Aśvajit entered the city to beg for alms; Śāriputra saw his deportment was extraordinary and knew he had an exceptional master. Waiting until he was returning from begging, Śāriputra asked him, "Who is your master?" Aśvajit answered, "He is a great śramaṇa." Śāriputra asked again, "What does your great śramaṇa proclaim?" Aśvajit answered: "Of all dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, the great śramaṇa has spoken their cause; of all dharmas that cease from causes and conditions, the great śramaṇa has spoken their cessation." Hearing this, Śāriputra was opened up in awakening and understanding, directly realizing the first fruit [of the path] upon those words. Returning to their dwelling, Maudgalyāyana saw him from afar and immediately knew he had attained something, promptly inquiring about it. Śāriputra replied with all that he had heard, and upon hearing it, Maudgalyāyana also awakened to the first fruit. The two men consequently went to the Buddha to renounce the household life, and their disciples followed them to the Buddha's presence; all attained arhatship. Maudgalyāyana was foremost in supernatural powers among the Buddha's disciples; now he was commanded to inquire after the illness. Within this [passage], [the Buddha] first commands him, and afterwards he declines, saying he is not equal to it. In his declining, it begins with an overarching statement; below "For what reason" is an explanation; below "Therefore" is a conclusion. The initial overarching statement is readily understood; in the explanation, "for what reason" raises a rhetorical question to prompt what follows, beneath which it provides a proper analysis and explanation. Therein are four parts: first, adducing the circumstances under which he was formerly rebuked; second, below "At that time Vimalakīrti", showing the words of rebuke; third, below "When this Dharma was spoken, eight hundred laymen gave rise to the aspiration for bodhi", the benefit of the instructional rebuke; fourth, [in] "I lack such eloquence", expressing his own unworthiness and shortcomings, showing how difficult that person is to equal. In the first part, "Remembering the past" adduces the time when he was rebuked. "Entering Vaiśālī, in the lanes and alleys" indicates the place where he was rebuked. "Expounding for the householders" sets forth the matter over which he was rebuked. What kind of Dharma was he expounding? The text does not specify; it must have been that he was expounding morality, giving, the teachings on rebirth in heaven, and so on for those white-robed householders, which is why he was subsequently rebuked. From here follows the second [part], clarifying the words of instructional rebuke. Why was this necessary? It was to benefit Maudgalyāyana and the householders that he gave this instructional rebuke. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said" is an overarching introduction. Below "O…" is the specific [rebuke]. Within the specific part, "You should not speak as the benevolent one does" is the word of rebuke. His teaching did not accord with the Dharma, hence "you should not"; moreover, it did not accord with their capacities, which is also "you should not". Beneath "For one who expounds the Dharma", he instructs him on how to expound it correctly. Herein are two points: first, instructing him with respect to the essential nature of the Dharma to be expounded; second, below "For one who expounds the Dharma, there is nothing to expound and nothing to demonstrate", instructing him with respect to the deportment of one who is capable of expounding. In the former, he extensively reveals the characteristics of the Dharma Jewel to cause people to realize and enter it. Herein it begins with a general statement; below "The Dharma has no…" is the detailed breakdown. Below "If the characteristics of the Dharma are like this, how could it be expounded?", he drives home the rebuke by means of the underlying principle. Regarding the initial general statement, "For one who expounds the Dharma" broadly introduces the act of expounding. "Ought to expound it according to the Dharma" is a general instruction and exhortation: one should expound in accordance with the essential nature of the Dharma Jewel. Below "The Dharma has no arising", he gives specific instructions following the Dharma. Therein he extensively reveals the essential characteristics of the Dharma Jewel, causing him to proclaim [the teaching] in reliance upon them. The essential characteristics of the Dharma Jewel are as spoken in the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* regarding mindfulness of the Dharma: wondrously quiescent and free of characteristics, fully possessing all meanings, the sphere traversed by all buddhas and bodhisattvas, constant, eternal, and unchanging. This is precisely the true Dharma of buddha-nature, the tathāgatagarbha, in the sūtra. The garbha is the true nature of all dharmas, and within this true nature there are no characteristics of dharmas; hence in this passage he reveals it by refuting characteristics, proclaiming that there is no arising and no dharmas. Though he speaks of emptiness, it is analyzed in terms of the real; therefore, in the text below, he speaks of no sentient being, no lifespan, and so forth, entirely in reference to the essential nature of dharmas. However, the Dharma is empty and interfused, and there is nowhere its principle does not extend; now, he expounds it provisionally in terms of the gates of the five skandhas and the eighteen dhātus; the rest may be inferred accordingly. First, he clarifies that the Dharma is free from characteristics and the Dharma has no "mine" in terms of the five skandhas. Below "Free from 'mine'", he clarifies that the Dharma is free from characteristics in terms of the eighteen dhātus. It is mostly regarding these that sentient beings generate conceptual reckonings, so he discusses them accordingly. In the preceding [discussion of] the five skandhas, there are ten distinct phrases, which discern only two principles: the first four phrases clarify the selflessness of persons, and the latter six phrases clarify the selflessness of dharmas. The meaning of the two kinds of selflessness is extensive as in the separate chapter, and should be fully discussed here. Among [the phrases on] the selflessness of persons, how do the four phrases differ? The first phrase clarifies that within the essence of the true Dharma there is no sentient being; the second, no self; the third, no lifespan; the fourth, no person. These are precisely the four meanings found in that *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra*: the tathāgatagarbha is not a self, not a sentient being, not a life, and not a person. How do these four—self, sentient being, and so forth—differ such that they must be eliminated separately? Broadly interpreted, they are a single entity, like eyes and vision, yet within it, distinct divisions are not without differences. What are their different characteristics? Declaring the substance of the skandhas to be a spiritual master is called "self". Reckoning a determinate reality within their aggregate is spoken of as "sentient being". Reckoning within their continuity that a spiritual nature sustains it uninterruptedly is called "lifespan". Positing within their activities a controller is spoken of as "person". Countering these, it is said that there is no self, person, sentient being, or lifespan. Thus that *Sūtra on the Transformation of the Female Body* says: "Contemplating internally there is no self, externally there are no sentient beings, and the internal-external combination has no lifespan; they are ultimately pure." As for why there is no person: contemplating internally there is no self means the substance of the skandhas is not a spirit. That externally there are no sentient beings: the collected activities of the five skandhas, viewed against the substance of those skandhas, are called "external"; within them there is no reality, which is called "no sentient beings". That the internal-external combination has no lifespan: the skandhas arise together provisionally, and their continuity is called "life"; there is no separate life-substance, and it is ultimately pure. Being called "no person": the active controller is called "person"; because there is no self-substance, human agency is also non-existent, and it is ultimately pure. In the text, it first says "The Dharma has no sentient being", directly clarifying its non-existence in principle, meaning that within the real essence of the Dharma Jewel there are no sentient beings.

2.7.2

That which is absent comprises three aspects: first, there is no arbitrarily imagined soul-self as a sentient being; second, within conventionally designated sentient beings there is no determinate nature; third, there are no characteristics of conventionally designated sentient beings. These are all the existence of emotional mental marks, and therefore are entirely absent; the rest are to be analogized accordingly. "Apart from the defilement of being": this refutes feelings to reveal the principle. The mind that grasps at a self is called the defilement of sentient beings; within the true Dharma there is no such mind of self, which is called being apart from the defilement of being. Because there is no defiled mind, there are no sentient beings. In the second phrase, "the Dharma is without a self": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. Likewise, within the true Dharma there are no three kinds of self, which can be understood according to the above. "Apart from the defilement of self": this refutes feelings to reveal the principle, its meaning being the same as the previous explanation. In these two phrases, feelings are refuted to reveal the principle; in the subsequent two phrases, characteristics are refuted to reveal the principle, which should be remembered and understood. In the third phrase, "the Dharma is without a life span": this directly clarifies the absence in principle; likewise, within the true Dharma there are no three kinds of life span, which can be understood according to the above. "Apart from birth and death": this refutes characteristics to reveal the principle. If within the true Dharma there were birth and death, one could accordingly speak of having a life span; since there is no birth and death, based on what could one speak of a life span? In the fourth phrase, "the Dharma is without a person": this directly clarifies the absence in principle; likewise, within the true Dharma there are no three kinds of person, which can be understood according to the above. "The previous and subsequent limits are severed": this refutes characteristics to reveal the principle. Conditioned dharmas arise sequentially before and after; the prior is the anterior limit, and the subsequent is the posterior limit. If within the true Dharma these two limits existed, one could accordingly speak of a person; since in the true these do not exist, based on what could one speak of a person? Existing for emotional feelings, but originally nonexistent in principle, inverting feelings to reveal the principle is therefore spoken of as being severed; it is not that there is something eliminated. Regarding the subsequent six phrases that clarify the emptiness of dharmas: the first two are apart from characteristics, the next two are apart from names, the next single phrase concludes the preceding being apart from characteristics, and the final phrase concludes the above being apart from names. In the first two phrases, the preceding single phrase directly clarifies being apart from characteristics. The subsequent single phrase refutes mental objects to establish the preceding being apart from characteristics. In the first phrase, "the Dharma is constantly quiescent": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. Because the true Dharma is unmoving, it is said to be quiescent. "Extinguishing all characteristics": this refutes characteristics to reveal quiescence. The five skandhas are characteristics, which are originally nonexistent in the true; this is called extinguishing all characteristics. That which possesses characteristics is not quiescent; because they are absent, it is quiescent. In the subsequent phrase, "the Dharma is apart from characteristics": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. That within the true Dharma there are no characteristics of the five skandhas is called the Dharma being apart from characteristics. "Without cognitive objects": this refutes characteristics to reveal the principle. If within the true Dharma there were characteristics that could be taken as objects, it could not be called being apart from characteristics; within the true Dharma there are no characteristics that could be taken as objects, and therefore the Dharma is apart from characteristics. Because there are no cognitive objects, that which cognizes is also absent. In the next two phrases, the preceding phrase refutes names and refutes discourse; the subsequent phrase refutes mental initial and sustained thought to establish the preceding being apart from discourse. In the first phrase, "the Dharma has no names": this directly clarifies the absence in principle, meaning that within the true Dharma there are no names established by that false discrimination. "Words and speech are severed": this refutes words and speech to reveal and establish the absence of names. Names are the basis of speech; because there are no names, words and speech do not arise, which is called words and speech being severed. Bringing up the severance of words and speech establishes the absence of names. In the subsequent phrase, "the Dharma is without discourse, because it is apart from initial and sustained thought": this refutes feelings to reveal the principle. Initial and sustained thought are the causes of speech; because within the true Dharma there is no initial and sustained thought, words and speech do not arise, and therefore there is no discourse. Coarse thinking is called initial thought, and subtle thinking is called sustained thought; these are all paths of emotional feelings. The true Dharma transcends feelings, and therefore has no initial or sustained thought. The next phrase concludes the preceding being apart from characteristics. "The Dharma has no form or characteristics": this directly explains the absence in principle, meaning that within the true Dharma there are no forms or characteristics of the skandhas. Using this to conclude the preceding meaning of being apart from characteristics, it is therefore said to be signless. "Because it is like empty space": this illustrates it by comparison to reveal it. The true Dharma is apart from characteristics, resembling the great space of the world, and so it is said to be like empty space. The next phrase concludes the preceding being apart from names. "The Dharma is without prapañca": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. Names and words outside of principle constitute prapañca; within the true, being apart from these is called being without prapañca. Using this to conclude the preceding meaning of being apart from names, it is therefore said to be without prapañca. "Because it is ultimate emptiness": this explains it to reveal nonexistence. Permanently cutting off words and discourse is called ultimate emptiness. The above has clarified the Dharma being apart from characteristics in terms of the skandhas. From here on, the second section clarifies the Dharma being apart from characteristics in terms of the eighteen dhātus. The six sense faculties, six sense dusts, and six consciousnesses are the eighteen dhātus. In the text, the distinct phrases number nineteen: the first single phrase clarifies the selflessness of persons, and the subsequent eighteen phrases clarify the selflessness of dharmas. In the first phrase, "the Dharma is without what belongs to a self": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. It clarifies that within the true Dharma there is neither self nor what belongs to it, its meaning being as explained above. "Because it is apart from what belongs to a self": this explains it to reveal nonexistence. Although the phrases in the emptiness of dharmas number eighteen, they group together into three: first there are six phrases clarifying the emptiness of the six sense faculties; from "the Dharma has no movement" downward, the five phrases clarify the emptiness of the six consciousnesses; from "the Dharma is apart from the favorable" downward, the seven phrases clarify the emptiness of the six sense dusts. In the first six phrases, the first three refute characteristics, and the last three conform to reality. In the first three, the first phrase clarifies the emptiness of faculties in relation to consciousness, the second clarifies the emptiness of faculties in relation to sense dusts, and the third reveals the emptiness of faculties in relation to themselves. In the first phrase, "the Dharma has no discrimination": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. That within the true Dharma there are no six sense faculties generating consciousness to apprehend sense dusts is called having no discrimination. "Because it is apart from the consciousnesses": this explains it to reveal nonexistence. In the division of phenomenal affairs, the six faculties generate consciousness; within the true these do not exist, which is called being apart from the consciousnesses. Because it is apart from the consciousnesses, it is without discrimination. In the second phrase, "the Dharma is without comparison": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. The mutual pairing of faculties and dusts is termed comparison; within the true this does not exist, which is called the Dharma being without comparison. "That which is mutually dependent does not exist": this explains it to reveal nonexistence. Because there is no mutual dependence between faculties and dusts, it is spoken of as being without comparison. In the third phrase, "the Dharma does not belong to causes": this directly clarifies the absence in principle. In the division of phenomenal affairs, faculties arise from causes and act as effects to causes, which is called belonging to causes; within the true this does not exist, which is called not belonging to causes. "Because it does not reside in conditions": this explains it to reveal nonexistence. That which directly produces is called a cause, and that which distantly assists is called a condition. If there were conditions that could be present, then relative to them one could speak of belonging to causes; if there are no conditions that can be present, relative to what could one again speak of belonging to causes? Alternatively, conditions may be another name for causes; when saying it does not reside in conditions, one should know that it still means not residing in causes, not repeating words to demonstrate not residing in conditions. Arising is not separate from conditions, and is said to reside in them as causes; the true does not depend on conditions, and therefore is said not to reside in them. Because it does not reside in conditions, it simply does not belong to causes.

2.7.3

In the latter three lines, it relies on the three treasuries (garbha) of thusness, dharma-nature, and the reality-limit to reveal that they are identical with true reality. How do these three differ? In the true Dharma, emptiness is called 'thusness', existence is called 'dharma-nature', and neither existence nor non-existence is called the 'reality-limit'. How is the true empty? It is free from characteristics and free from essential nature. How is it not empty? It is endowed with all Buddha-dharmas. How is it further called neither existence nor non-existence? Existence and non-existence share the same substance. The meanings of this thusness, dharma-nature, and reality-limit are extensively [treated] in a separate chapter, which should be discussed fully. The true Dharma revealed shares the same substance with these three gates while differing in aspect; therefore, the Dharma is identical with thusness, dharma-nature, the reality-limit, and so on. In the first line, 'the Dharma is identical with dharma-nature' directly explains it in terms of its characteristics. All Buddha-dharmas within the tathāgatagarbha are called dharma-nature; the true Dharma explained is of one substance with that, being one and not different, hence it is said to be identical. Why is it said to be identical with dharma-nature? Dharma-nature is pure, constant, and changeless, and what is explained here is also like that; hence it is said to be identical. 'Because it enters all dharmas' is an explanation to reveal identity. 'Entering' is like according with: according with the nature of all dharmas, it is therefore called identical. With respect to this Dharma of one substance, how is it called according with? How is it called entering? Although its substantial nature is one, the aspects of meaning are ever distinct. With distinct meanings and one substance, one can therefore speak of 'entering'. The following are all like this. In the second line, 'the Dharma conforms to thusness' directly explains its non-differentiation from the meaning of thusness in terms of its characteristics. Although the dharmadhātu has distinctions, the principle of emptiness is not different, hence it is called thusness. The Dharma explained accords with that principle of thusness, hence it is said to 'conform'. Since this is one with thusness, how can one speak of conforming? The meaning is as explained above: with distinct gates and one meaning, one can speak of conforming. 'Identical with' previously and 'conforming to' here are merely variations in phrasing. 'Because there is nothing it conforms to' explains and establishes the meaning of conforming. Because it does not conform to existent dharmas, it conforms to thusness. In the third line, 'the Dharma abides in the reality-limit' directly explains it in terms of its characteristics. 'Limit' means boundary, which is another name for a place. The place where true reality is exhausted is called the 'reality-limit'. The true Dharma explained is identical with the reality-limit, which is called 'abiding'. 'Conforming' previously and 'abiding' here are merely variations in phrasing. 'Unmoving at all extremes' explains and establishes the meaning of abiding. Because it is not shaken by the two extremes of existence and non-existence, it abides in the reality-limit. Next, the five lines clarify that consciousness is empty: the first two refute characteristics, and the latter three identify with true reality. In the first two lines, the former first clarifies the emptiness of consciousness in relation to dust-objects, and the latter line directly clarifies emptiness in terms of the substance of consciousness. In the first line, 'the Dharma has no agitation' directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of it]. The mind of the six consciousnesses goes back and forth grasping at dust-objects, which is called 'agitation'; the true Dharma is permanently abiding and unlike that, so it is called 'without agitation'. 'Not relying on the six dust-objects' explains to reveal this absence. Because it does not, like the six consciousnesses, arise from the six dust-objects, it is without agitation. In the latter line, 'the Dharma has no coming or going' directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of it]. The mind of the six consciousnesses transmigrates through the three times, which is called 'coming and going', where 'going' is the past and 'coming' is the future; the true Dharma is not like that, hence it has no coming or going. 'Because it is permanently non-abiding' explains to establish this. The present is called 'abiding'; if the true Dharma had once abided in the present, one could speak of going and coming in relation to it. If the Dharma has no present abiding, in reference to what could one speak of going and coming? These two dispel characteristics; the three below identify with true reality, namely the three gates of liberation. The meaning of the three gates of liberation will be explained later. 'The Dharma accords with emptiness' means according with the gate of emptiness. 'Conforms to signlessness' means conforming to the gate of signlessness. 'Responds to aimlessness' means responding to the gate of aimlessness. Speaking of 'accords with' first, 'conforms to' next, and 'responds to' later is also varied phrasing. Furthermore, because the true Dharma differs in aspect but is identical in substance with these three gates, one can speak of according with, conforming to, and responding to. In the latter seven lines clarifying that dust-objects are empty, the first four lines directly address the substance of dust-objects to explain their emptiness; the next line explains emptiness in relation to the sense-faculties; the next line again addresses the substance of dust-objects to clarify their emptiness; and the final line discusses emptiness in relation to consciousness. In the first four, 'the Dharma is free from good and bad' clarifies freedom from the characteristics of dust-objects. In the domain of phenomena, dust-objects have the fine and the foul, where the fine is called 'good' and the foul is called 'bad'; the true Dharma has neither, hence it is said to be free from them. 'The Dharma has no increase or decrease' clarifies freedom from the functions of dust-objects. Complying and benefiting is called 'increase', while obstructing and diminishing is called 'decrease'; the true Dharma is free from these, hence it is called 'without increase or decrease'. 'The Dharma has no arising or ceasing; the Dharma has no place to return' clarifies freedom from the substance of dust-objects. The substance of the six dust-objects has arising and termination, which is called arising and ceasing, and belonging to a person is called returning; the true Dharma has neither, hence it has no arising or ceasing, nor any place to return. This concludes one section. 'The Dharma surpasses the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind' clarifies the emptiness of dust-objects in contrast to the six sense-faculties. In the domain of phenomena, the six dust-objects are the realms of action of the six sense-faculties, which is not called surpassing; within the true, there are no dust-objects, and the sense-faculties and the like cannot reach it, hence it is called 'surpassing'. This concludes two sections. 'The Dharma has no high or low' returns to the substance of dust-objects to explain their emptiness. In the domain of phenomena, dust-objects have superior and inferior [qualities]: dust-objects of the higher stages are superior and called 'high', while those of the lower stages are inferior and called 'low'; the true Dharma is free from this, hence it has no high or low. 'Permanently abiding and unmoving' explains the lack of high and low. This concludes three sections. 'The Dharma is free from contemplative practice' explains emptiness in relation to consciousness. In the domain of phenomena, dust-objects are the conditions for consciousness, not being free from contemplative practice; in the true Dharma, there are no dust-objects to be conditioned, therefore it is called free from all contemplative practice. The above was the specific instruction. 'When the characteristics of dharmas are like this, how can they be spoken of?' rebukes with the principle. Citing what was explained above is called 'the Dharma is like this'. Since names and characteristics are entirely severed, and the activities of the mind are also absent, how could they be proclaimed? The above was instruction regarding what is spoken. Next is instruction regarding the speaker. Herein, it first instructs on abandoning four kinds of minds, and from 'then speak' onward concludes with an exhortation to proclaim. What are the four minds? First, instructing on eliminating the mind of views; second, from 'one should understand' onward, instructing on leaving behind the mind of folly; third, from 'with great compassion' onward, instructing on relinquishing the small mind; fourth, from 'mindful of repaying kindness' onward, instructing on keeping distant from the ordinary mind. In the first line, instructing them to distance themselves from the retribution of self and person is called eliminating the mind of views. Therein, it first instructs with an exposition of the Dharma. 'One who speaks the Dharma has neither speaking nor showing' clarifies that there is no speaker. Applying words to dharmas is called 'speaking'; applying words to persons is termed 'showing'. In ultimate principle, neither truly exists, which is called 'neither speaking nor showing'. 'One who listens to the Dharma has neither hearing nor obtaining' clarifies that there is no listener. Applying listening to words is termed 'hearing'; applying listening to dharmas is said to be 'obtaining'.

First 9 of 88 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)