維摩義記 2.7

English (machine translation) 2.7

Language: English

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'.

2.7.4

In ultimate principle, these too are absent, which is called 'neither hearing nor obtaining'. Next, this is illustrated with a simile. 'Just like a phantom person' illustrates that there is no speaker. 'Speaking to a phantom person' illustrates that there is no listener. From 'One should establish' onward is an exhortation. In the second line, instructing one to know the faculties and dharmas before giving rise to speech is called leaving behind the mind of folly. 'One should understand that the faculties of sentient beings are sharp or dull' exhorts to know the faculties. Because previously Maudgalyāyana did not preach according with capacity, he is exhorted to understand the faculties. 'Skilled in knowledge and vision without obstruction' exhorts to know dharmas. Because previously Maudgalyāyana's words were not in accord with principle, he is exhorted to know dharmas. In the third line, instructing one to cultivate a vast mind and instructing one to give rise to great intention is called relinquishing the small mind. 'With great compassion' instructs one to cultivate a vast mind. Comprehensively being mindful of sentient beings is called great compassion. 'Praising the Mahāyāna' instructs one to give rise to a great mind. Because the mind is great, one praises the Mahāyāna. In the fourth line, instructing one to stay free from the deeds of Māra and the heterodox teachings of non-Buddhists is called keeping distant from the ordinary mind. 'Mindful of repaying the Buddha's kindness' instructs one to stay free from the deeds of Māra. Relying on the Buddha's Dharma to gain benefit and conversely wishing to cause harm is called betraying the Buddha's kindness. When a bodhisattva turns this around and is mindful of wishing to protect the Dharma, this is called repaying the Buddha's kindness. 'Not severing the Three Jewels' instructs one to stay free from non-Buddhists. When non-Buddhists practice heterodoxy and run counter to the correct Dharma, this is called severing the Three Jewels. When a bodhisattva turns this around, seeking the correct Dharma for himself and transforming others by teaching, he can make the Three Jewels continue without interruption; therefore, this is called not severing the Three Jewels. The above was the specific instruction. 'Then speak the Dharma' summarises as an exhortation. The above was the second part, explaining the words of instruction and rebuke. The third is the benefit of the instruction, and the fourth is Maudgalyāyana's expressing his own inferiority and deficiency; the text is clear and can be understood. First is the decline, and then the explanation. 'Therefore, I am not capable' summarises his inability.

Linked texts (1)

維摩義記 — Classical Chinese