維摩義記 2.30

2.30

Next, [the Buddha] told Kātyāyana to go and inquire about the illness. "Kātyāyana" is the family name, and his personal name was Fan-sheng [Fan-cord]. His father passed away early, and his mother pined for him and did not remarry, just as a cord tied to a fan cannot be blown away by the wind; hence he was given the personal name Fan-sheng. He went forth from home under the Buddha and was foremost in debate among the Buddha's disciples. Now [the Buddha] commanded him to inquire about the illness: first comes the command, and next the refusal. "I am not competent to undertake [this task]" is the general refusal. From "Why?" onward is the explanation. From "Therefore I..." onward is the conclusion. In the explanation, "Why?" questions what precedes and introduces what follows, which is then distinguished below. The text has three distinct parts: first, he adduces the reasons and circumstances of his having been rebuked in the past; second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti..." onward, he brings out the words of rebuke; third, from "When this Dharma was spoken, those monks..." onward, the benefit of the instructive rebuke. In the first part, "Recalling the past" adduces the time of being rebuked. "The Buddha briefly expounded the essentials of the Dharma for the monks, and I then subsequently elaborated upon the meaning..." and so forth sets out the matter for which he was rebuked. To explain the shallow so as to obscure the deep does not suit the capacities of beings; hence he was rebuked. "I then subsequently elaborated upon its meaning" is a general introduction. "Namely, impermanence..." and so forth lists them individually. The division and combination of dharma gates has been fully distinguished above. Now relying on one formulation, he provisionally lists these five: the first four pertain to birth-and-death, and the last one to nirvāṇa. From here below, the third part clarifies the words of instructive rebuke. Why was this necessary? It was to benefit Kātyāyana and to cause the monks to have a superior mind of understanding the Dharma; hence the instructive rebuke. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said" is a general introduction, and below it is shown in detail. In the detail, "Do not use a mind and mental activity of arising and ceasing to preach the Dharma of the real mark" is the word of rebuke. That Kātyāyana had not yet ended [perceiving] characteristics in dharmas and saw the arising and ceasing of dharmas; therefore it is called "a mind and mental activity of arising and ceasing." To use this mind and mental activity to preach what one knows does not accord with the reality of dharmas; hence the rebuke: "Do not use a mind and mental activity of arising and ceasing to preach the Dharma of the real mark." The real mark of dharmas is fully distinguished below. Below, he instructs him again. "Dharmas ultimately do not arise and do not cease: this is the meaning of impermanence" is an instruction given in reference to the dharma gate of impermanence. Within the meaning of impermanence there are two kinds of approaches: first, the approach of conventional truth; second, the approach of ultimate truth. Within the approach of conventional truth, there are three kinds of impermanence: first, impermanence of sectional [lifespans], where the karmic retributions of the six destinies differ across the three times. Second, momentary impermanence, where conditioned dharmas continuously flow from moment to moment, in a single kṣaṇa first arising, next abiding, then altering, and finally ceasing. These prior two approaches clarify the arising and ceasing of dharmas, refuting the characteristic of permanence. Third, the impermanence of the unreality of self-nature, which clarifies that dharmas are empty aggregates, refuting and dispelling a permanent nature. What is the meaning of this? If one investigates the previous two by principle, the four marks share the same substance and mutually establish an appearance [of stability]; there is no single dharma that separately maintains its own nature, which is called "nature not established." Since the nature is not established, what else could be spoken of to consider it permanent? Therefore it is called the impermanence of nature not established. In this approach, if there are arising and ceasing, that is called permanence, because they would maintain their nature. Only where there is no arising and no ceasing is it called impermanence, because there is no nature. Therefore the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: "Not knowing that the ineffable self-nature is impermanent, one holds that there are arising and ceasing; if one knows the matter of the ineffable self-nature, all is impermanent." What are these four marks of the same substance? The meaning of conditioned dharmas is like an illusion or transformation: their marks exist, but their substance is absent. When marks exist, it is called arising; their emptiness and absence is called ceasing. Since marks existing is called arising, arising is not prior to ceasing; since emptiness and absence is called ceasing, ceasing is not subsequent to arising. Therefore arising and ceasing are simultaneous and without difference. Furthermore, this asserts that non-existence of dharmas is arising, and arising is not outside of ceasing; and it conversely asserts that the presence of marks is ceasing, and ceasing is not outside of arising; therefore arising and ceasing share the same substance and are without difference. That this arising and ceasing stands like the image of a phantom flame is called abiding. Moreover, that illusory dharmas each maintain their own marks is also called abiding. Hence the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* says: "By reason of self-nature it is called abiding." This abiding is also not outside of arising and ceasing. That this empty dharma is different from the nature-real dharma of ultimate truth is called alteration. Moreover, it is different from deluded sentiments and what is established by sentiment as real, which is also called alteration. This alteration is also not outside of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Precisely because the meaning is divided into four at the same time, they are spoken of as the four simultaneous marks. Hence the text below says: "Monk, you right now also arise, also grow old, and also cease." Furthermore, because the meaning is divided into four within the same substance, they are spoken of as the four marks of the same substance. Because they share the same substance, in reference to the other three marks it is conceptually spoken of as arising; apart from the other three, there is no separate nature of arising. Because arising has no nature, the nature of arising is not established. Because this nature of arising is unreal, arising is non-arising; hence arising is impermanent. Turning again to the other three, it is conceptually spoken of as abiding. Apart from the other three, there is no separate nature of abiding; because abiding has no nature, the nature of abiding is not established. Because this nature of abiding is unreal, abiding is non-abiding; hence abiding is impermanent. The rest are also like this. The extensive explanation of these three is as in the chapter on the *udāna*, which should be discussed in full here. Such is conventional truth. As for the ultimate truth: if one exhausts the substance and reality of the aforementioned impermanent dharmas, they are ultimately empty and quiescent, never having existed from the beginning. This emptiness is the reality of that impermanence, and is called the meaning of impermanence. This is similar in wording to the statement in the sūtra: "Contemplating suffering as non-arising is the meaning of the truth of suffering." The meaning of impermanence is fully distinguished in this way. A śrāvaka can only, within the division of conventional truth, understand sectional and momentary impermanence, and knows none of the rest; therefore he must be instructed. Among what can be taught: if based on conventional truth one expounds the impermanence of nature not being established as being ultimately non-arising and non-ceasing: because it is the culmination of impermanence, it is called "ultimately." Arising having no nature of arising, and ceasing having no nature of ceasing, is called "non-arising and non-ceasing." This non-arising and non-ceasing is the definitive meaning of impermanence. There are also no abiding and alteration, but he provisionally speaks of arising and ceasing. If in reference to ultimate truth: the culmination of parting from marks is called "ultimately"; the quiescence and unconditioned nature of principle is called "non-arising and non-ceasing." Because this non-arising and non-ceasing is the real nature of that impermanence, it is called the meaning of impermanence. There are also no abiding and alteration, but he provisionally speaks of arising and ceasing. Such is the general discussion. According to the pattern below, here he should specifically be teaching the meaning of ultimate truth. "Thoroughly penetrating the five skandhas as empty and without arising is the meaning of suffering" is an instruction given in reference to suffering. The meaning of suffering is also twofold: first, the approach of conventional truth; second, the approach of ultimate truth. Within the approach of conventional truth, suffering is divided into three: namely, the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned existence. The extensive explanation of these three is as in the chapter on the four truths. Now distinguishing them briefly, there are three kinds of approaches: First, distinction according to conditions. Conditions are distinguished into internal and external: the internal mind's pursuing is called internal, while conditions such as knives and staves are designated external. External [conditions] have adverse and agreeable: conditions such as knives and staves are called adverse, while things like one's own body, life, wealth, and relatives are spoken of as agreeable. Among external [conditions], adverse conditions can generate internal affliction, which is called suffering. From those suffering conditions, a mind of suffering is generated; suffering arises from suffering, hence it is called the suffering of suffering. Among external [conditions], agreeable conditions can generate pleasure when present, but generate suffering when destroyed; hence it is called the suffering of change. The internal mind's pursuing is called conditioned activity (*saṃskāra*); becoming weary and afflicted by continuous activity, disgust with it generates suffering; this is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Second, distinction according to conditions in reference to the substance. The nature of the mind is suffering. When phenomenal afflictions are added upon this suffering, suffering is added upon suffering, hence it is called the suffering of suffering. What kind of suffering is added? Adding the previous three sufferings are all called the suffering of suffering. That conditioned dharmas perish and disintegrate from moment to moment is called the suffering of change. Shifting and flowing before and after is designated conditioned activity; shifting and flowing without rest is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Third, distinguishing the three sufferings in reference to the three kinds of impermanence. In reference to the aforementioned sectional impermanence, the suffering of suffering is spoken of. The essential nature of conditioned dharmas is suffering; when the coarse suffering of sectional [existence] is added upon it, suffering is added upon suffering, hence it is said to be the suffering of suffering. Moreover, using the coarse suffering of sectional [existence] across the three times to manifest that conditioned dharmas are inherently suffering in their nature—using suffering to manifest suffering—is also called the suffering of suffering. In reference to momentary impermanence, the suffering of change is expounded. Conditioned impermanence perishes and disintegrates from moment to moment, hence it is called the suffering of change. In reference to the impermanence of the unreality of self-nature, the suffering of conditioned existence is expounded. The empty aggregation of causes and conditions in the four marks of the same substance is designated conditioned activity; this activity of empty aggregation is inherently devoid of self-nature, and because self-nature has no rest, it is called the suffering of conditioned existence. Such is conventional truth. As for the ultimate truth: exhausting the essential nature of suffering as ultimately quiescent, signless, and unconditioned—within this there are further many shallow and deep meanings, as fully distinguished in that chapter on the four truths. Now they are just generally adduced. This ultimate truth is the real nature of suffering, and is also called the meaning of suffering. Thus, within the division of conventional truth, the śrāvaka can understand the previous two [approaches to the] three sufferings, so now there is no need to teach them. In the third approach, the śrāvaka can also understand the first two sufferings, so now there is no need to teach them. The suffering of conditioned existence as empty aggregation and the ultimate truth of suffering are unknown to the two vehicles; by principle they should be taught in full, but now he specifically teaches only the ultimate truth of suffering. The fruit of the five skandhas accepted and grasped from causes is called the five skandhas of clinging. Exhaustive understanding of the skandhas is called "thoroughly penetrating." Penetrating the real nature of the skandhas as fundamentally and constantly quiescent, with no skandha that can arise, is called "empty and without arising." This emptiness is the substance and reality of suffering, and is called the meaning of suffering. Just as with the water of a mirage, the absence of water is the reality. This is one in wording with the sūtra's statement: "Contemplating suffering as non-arising is called knowing the truth of suffering." "That dharmas are ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness" is an instruction given in reference to emptiness. Emptiness of dharmas is called emptiness. The meaning of emptiness differs, generally having five levels: 1. That the skandhas are not what belongs to a self is called emptiness, as expounded in the *Abhidharma*; although it is called empty, its substance is an existent dharma, because the skandhas serve as its substance. 2. That within nominal dharmas there is no determinate nature is called emptiness, as expounded in the *Satyasiddhi*. 3. That dharmas of deluded conception are empty, quiescent, and signless is spoken of as empty. Like the water of a mirage, the water is precisely non-water; not only is there no nature, but when sought closely its marks do not exist either. 4. Dharmas of deluded conception are spoken of as empty because of their unreality and non-existence, like what is seen in a dream, where there is no dharma outside the mind. 5. The quiescence of the true-thusness dharma-substance is called emptiness; although the substance is truly existent, because it is free from marks and free from nature, it is spoken of as empty. Among the five, the śrāvaka can understand the first two, so now there is no need to teach them. He does not know the latter three, which is why they must be taught. The emptiness taught here is the culmination of parting from marks; hence it says "ultimately non-existent." Such ultimate non-existence is the meaning of true emptiness; the absence of a person on the skandhas and the absence of nature within the skandhas are not called true emptiness. "To be non-dual regarding self and no-self is the meaning of no-self" instructs in the meaning of no-self. This speaks of the emptiness of persons as no-self. There are five distinctions: 1. That the skandhas are not a spiritual master is called no-self, as expounded in the *Abhidharma*. 2. That within the assembled, nominal person there is no human nature is called no-self. 3. That within the ultimate emptiness of deluded conception there are no marks of an assembled, nominal person is called no-self. 4. That within the ultimate emptiness of deluded conception there are no marks of a self, person, or sentient being is called no-self. 5. That within the substance of equal true-thusness there are no marks of a person assembled or functioning as true dharmas is called no-self. Among the five, the śrāvaka can understand the first two, but does not know the remaining three, which is why they must be taught. As for "non-dual regarding self and no-self": according to the *Abhidharma*, ordinary persons arbitrarily conceptualize a self, sentient being, and so forth, calling it "self," while the categories of dharmas of the five skandhas are neither spirit nor master, calling them "no-self." This self and no-self are mutually dual. If within the equal ultimate truth, not only is there no self, but there are also no five skandhas; the dharmas of no-self and [self] are both equally absent, hence it is said to be "non-dual." Only such non-duality is the definitive meaning of no-self. If according to the *Satyasiddhi*, ordinary persons arbitrarily conceptualize a nature of a self or person, calling it "self," while nominal sentient beings have no determinate nature, calling it "no-self"; this self and no-self are also mutually dual. If within the equal ultimate truth, not only is there no self of determinate nature, but there is also no no-self that dispels nature in opposition to sentiment; these two are utterly cut off, which is called non-dual. Only such non-duality is the definitive meaning of no-self. Hence the text below says: "Even a self cannot be attained; how could a non-self be attained? One who sees the real nature of the self no longer gives rise to duality. This is entering the dharma gate of non-duality." This has the same meaning as here. "Dharmas fundamentally do not arise and now also do not cease: this is the meaning of quiescence" instructs in the meaning of nirvāṇa. There are three kinds of nirvāṇa: 1. When phenomena are exhausted and nowhere to be found, cessation through deliberation (*pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha*) which is unconditioned is called nirvāṇa. Such a nirvāṇa was fundamentally non-existent and now exists. 2. Manifesting reality in reference to conditions, refuting characteristics and realizing quiescence, is called nirvāṇa. The dharma-nature is constantly quiescent, yet covered by deluded marks and afflictions. Cultivating the eightfold noble path serves as the revealing cause (*vyañjaka-hetu*), extinguishing darkness and delusion to realize the fundamental dharma-nature; once realized, it is eternally quiescent, hence called nirvāṇa. These prior two kinds are spoken of in the sūtras as fruits. 3. Discussing reality in reference to reality, the true substance is constantly quiescent, which is called nirvāṇa. This single nirvāṇa is neither cause nor fruit. Discussing reality in reference to reality, outside of reality there are no conditions; what else could be referred to as a cause? Outside of reality there are no conditions; what else could be referred to as a fruit? Therefore nirvāṇa has neither cause nor fruit. Hence the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "The substance of nirvāṇa is neither arising nor emerging, neither false nor real, neither one nor different, neither cause nor fruit." In this division, there is no delusion that can arise and no defilement that can cease. Among the three, the śrāvaka also understands the first one, but the two vehicles do not know the latter two approaches, which is why they must be taught. Between the latter two, he specifically adduces the latter approach to instruct him. Therefore it is said: "Dharmas fundamentally do not arise and now also do not cease: this is the meaning of quiescence." The preceding second part, the words of instructive rebuke, is finished. "When this Dharma was spoken, those monks attained liberation of mind" is the third section, the benefit of the instructive rebuke. First comes the refusal, next the explanation, and from "Therefore I..." onward is the conclusion.