維摩義記 2.7.2

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.