維摩義記 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

Next is the explanation of the text. This chapter consists of two parts: first, Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī's questions and answers discriminating dharmas; second, from 'The eight thousand great [bodhisattvas] led by Mañjuśrī' onwards, clarifying the benefit of the exposition. In the former part, [the text] first dispels the characteristics of coming and going; from 'let us leave this aside' onwards, they question and answer to discriminate dharmas. Because coming and going obscure the truth, they must be brushed away and dispelled. Vimalakīrti speaks first, and Mañjuśrī elaborates thereafter. In Vimalakīrti's words, 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī' is a phrase of consolation. Saying 'welcome' rejoices at his coming, hence 'welcome'. Furthermore, praising the excellence of his coming is also called 'welcome'. 'Coming without the characteristic of coming, seeing without the characteristic of seeing' brushes away characteristics to reveal reality; it may also be called discriminating characteristics based on reality. Regarding Mañjuśrī's coming previously together with the assembly, brushing this away reveals reality, which is why it is said, 'coming without coming'. Regarding Mañjuśrī's entering the room previously and seeing it empty and devoid of any existent things, brushing this away reveals reality, which is why it is said, 'seeing without seeing'. 'Coming without coming' generally has three explanations: First, explaining it in terms of the conventional truth of impermanence: in real dharmas there is no coming, but in continuity there is coming; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, 'All conditioned phenomena are impermanent, nor do they have coming.' Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: in the ultimate truth there is no coming, whereas in the conventional truth there is coming; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, 'If all dharmas were permanent, they would also have no coming.' Third, explaining it in terms of the two bodies, the true and the responsive: the true body has no coming, whereas the responsive body has coming. 'Seeing without seeing' also has three explanations: First, in terms of conventional truth: when eye, form, light, and so forth are taken separately, there is no seeing, but in their combination there is seeing. Furthermore, when distinguishing the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, there is no seeing, but in their provisional combination there is seeing. Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: the ultimate truth is eternally quiescent, without eyes and without seeing, whereas the conventional truth has seeing. Third, contrasting the true and the responsive: the true body is equal and free from characteristics and conditions, which is called 'not seeing'; the responsive manifestation accords with beings and displays illumination, which is called 'seeing'. From 'Mañjuśrī' onwards is the elaboration. Mañjuśrī first says, 'Even so, householder', summarizing the previous words. From 'If one comes' onwards, he elaborates individually on the previous meaning. First, he establishes the previous meaning regarding coming and going. Viewed from Vimalakīrti's room toward Mañjuśrī, it is called 'coming'; viewed from the gathering at the Āmrapālī [grove] toward Mañjuśrī, it is called 'going'. 'If one comes, there is no coming; if one goes, there is no going' is an accurate elaboration in terms of principle. A general explanation also has three [aspects]: First, explaining it in terms of the conventional truth of impermanence: discussed in terms of continuity there is coming and going, but analysed into subtle reality, coming is without coming and going is without going. Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: within conventional truth there is coming and going, but in the equality of ultimate truth, coming is without coming and going is also without going. Third, explaining it in terms of the contrast between the true and responsive: the responsive has coming and going, but the true body does not. Although there are three meanings, the second is precisely the appropriate one. From 'Why is this so?' onwards is the explanation. First, he poses the inquiry: why do I say coming is without coming, and going is furthermore without going? Below, he answers and explains it. 'Coming has nowhere it comes from, and going has nowhere it arrives' means that by coming there is no coming, and by going there is furthermore no going. Because the assembly at the Āmrapālī [grove] is empty, coming has no origin; because Vimalakīrti's room is empty, going has no destination. 'That which can be seen can no longer be seen' establishes the previous meaning in terms of seeing. The explanation also has three [aspects], which can be understood following the above. Although it possesses three meanings, the second is precisely the appropriate one. The preceding has dispelled the characteristics of coming and going; from this point forward, they question and answer to discriminate dharmas. Herein, Mañjuśrī first puts aside the previous words, next conveys the Buddha's intent, and afterwards makes his own inquiry, which Vimalakīrti answers fully. 'Let us leave this matter aside' is the putting aside of the previous [words]. Because matters such as the absence of coming and going cannot be exhaustively explained, they must for now be set aside. 'Householder, is this illness bearable?', and so on, conveys the Buddha's intent in inquiring. 'Householder, is this illness bearable or not?' inquires into the severity of the illness. 'Has treatment brought relief, without it worsening?' inquires whether the illness is improving or critical. These convey the words of inquiry; below, the inquirer is revealed. Saying 'the World-Honoured One' directly introduces the inquirer. Saying 'solicitous' indicates the gravity of the mind that inquires. 'Extends boundless inquiries' indicates the depth of the intent behind the inquiry. 'Extend' means to convey. Because the mind that inquires after illness is primordial and inexhaustible, it is called 'boundless'. Vimalakīrti never answers this inquiry at all: because this [inquiry] had not departed, he does not answer it here; and when going below, Vimalakīrti went together [with them], so he also does not answer. From 'Householder, from what did this illness arise?' onwards, Mañjuśrī inquires on his own, and Vimalakīrti fully answers. However, the inquiries below all arise based on the two matters of Vimalakīrti's displaying illness and the empty room. Based on the previous display of illness, there are eight inquiries: first, inquiring into the cause of the illness; second, inquiring into the duration of the illness; third, inquiring into the method of extinguishing it; fourth, inquiring into the characteristics of the illness; fifth, inquiring into the location of the illness; sixth, inquiring into the substance of the illness—among the four great elements, the illness of which element is it? Alternatively, this inquires into the conditions giving rise to the illness; seventh, inquiring into consolation; eighth, inquiring into subjugation. Conjoined with the Buddha's two inquiries, there are ten inquiries in total. Based on the previous empty room, there are two inquiries: first, inquiring into the empty room; second, inquiring into having no attendants. Discussed comprehensively with respect to what follows, seven [topics] are generated: the first two are as just mentioned; third, generating below Śāriputra's thought that there are no seats; fourth, generating below the heavenly maiden; fifth, generating below the eight unprecedented events in the room; sixth, generating below the matters regarding parents, wives, children, relatives, and so forth asked by Samantadarśana; seventh, generating below the thought of food, explained fully in this way. Now, however, Mañjuśrī only asks the first two. Conjoined with the previous inquiry into illness, he makes ten inquiries on his own. These ten fall together into three [groups]: the first eight inquire particularly into the characteristics of transformation with respect to the person capable of converting; the ninth, 'How should one console those who are ill?', inquires into the etiquette of consolation with respect to the person capable of converting toward those to be converted; the tenth, 'How should one subjugate one's mind?', inquires particularly into the method of cultivation and regulation with respect to those to be converted. In essential summary there are only two: the previous eight inquire into Vimalakīrti's expedient means of manifesting transformation, and the latter two inquire into the method of curing illness for the people he converts. Furthermore, among the former eight, they fall together into three: the first three inquire into illness to manifest Vimalakīrti's expedient means of great compassion. The next two inquire into his empty room and lack of attendants to reveal that upon which Vimalakīrti's compassionate practice relies. Because compassion is accomplished by relying on emptiness, he inquires into the empty room; because compassion arises in accordance with beings' existence, he inquires into the lack of attendants. The final three rounds inquire again into the illness to reveal that Vimalakīrti's illness is a response, not real. Within the first section, Mañjuśrī first combines three inquiries: 'Householder, from what cause did this illness arise?' inquires into the cause of the illness. 'How long has it been since it arose?' inquires into the duration of the illness. 'How should it be extinguished?' inquires into the method of extinguishing the illness. Below, Vimalakīrti first answers the second, then answers the third, and afterwards answers the first. When the latter two are completed, the initial meaning is manifested, which is why he answers it last. In answering the second, 'From ignorance there is craving, and my illness arose' means that ever since sentient beings gave rise to the cause of illness, Vimalakīrti has constantly been ill. 'Because all sentient beings are ill, therefore I am ill' means that ever since sentient beings underwent the fruit of illness, Vimalakīrti has constantly been ill. Because in truth Vimalakīrti is himself free of illness, his illness entirely accords with beings; hence he speaks of its duration in accordance with sentient beings.

3.3

Question: Sentient beings' illness has had no beginning, whereas Vimalakīrti's illness of compassion only began when he became a noble one. How can he speak of its duration in accordance with the illness of sentient beings? Explanation: This is spoken of portion by portion in accordance with all the causes and fruits possessed by sentient beings; it does not say that he has constantly generated the illness of compassion from beginninglessness onwards. For example, conditions concerning one person suffering the pains of hell give rise to a compassionate mind, and ever since that person created the cause, Vimalakīrti has constantly sorrowed, up to the point of that person receiving the fruit; the rest are also like this.

3.4

Next is the answer to the third [question]. Therein, it first says, "When the illness of sentient beings is extinguished, my illness will be extinguished," which is a general explanation in response to the question. When sentient beings sever suffering and attain nirvāṇa, this is called "the extinguishing of illness"; and when Vimalakīrti's mind of distress and worry regarding them ceases, this is called "the extinguishing of my illness." Below, it explains this separately. "Why is this?" raises the inquiry: on what basis do I say that when the illness of sentient beings is extinguished, my illness will be extinguished? Below, he explains in reply. Therein, there is first the doctrine, next the simile, and finally the application. In the doctrine, it first says, "The bodhisattva enters saṃsāra for the sake of sentient beings," and so forth, bringing up their arising to make manifest their extinguishing. Wishing to follow all realms of existence is called "entering saṃsāra." Taking on a body for the sake of beings is called "having saṃsāra," and because there is saṃsāra, all sufferings pursue [one], which is called "having illness." If sentient beings attain release, then the bodhisattva is without [illness]—this directly explains [it] in terms of its characteristics. Sentient beings being released, the bodhisattva's compassion ceases and there is no need to take [a body] on for their sake, so there is no longer any illness. Next, the simile illustrates this: "It is like an elder who has only one son: if that son falls ill, the parents also fall ill," which illustrates the earlier [statement about] entering saṃsāra for the sake of sentient beings, and so forth. "If the son's illness is cured, the parents are also cured," which illustrates that when sentient beings attain release, the bodhisattva is without [illness]. Below, the application reveals the doctrine: "The bodhisattva is also like this," which applies to the previous elder. "Loving all sentient beings as an only son," which applies to the single son above. Saying "When sentient beings are ill, the bodhisattva is ill," applies to the son falling ill and the parents also falling ill. "When the illness of sentient beings is cured, the bodhisattva is also cured," applies to the son's illness being cured and the parents also being cured. Below, he answers the initial question: "You also said: 'From what cause does this illness arise?'" repeats the wording of the earlier question. "The bodhisattva's illness arises from great compassion," directly explains in response to the question. The three questions above served to make manifest Vimalakīrti's great compassion and upāya; from here on, Mañjuśrī next asks two questions to make manifest what compassion relies upon. Compassion is fulfilled by relying on emptiness, so he asks about the empty room; compassion arises in following existence, so he asks about having no attendants. Vimalakīrti fully answers both. In the questioning, "Why is the householder's room empty?" is the first question. Saying "and why are there no attendants?" is the second question. In the answers, Vimalakīrti first distinguishes the room's emptiness and afterwards reveals the lack of attendants. In clarifying the room's emptiness, there are fully seven rounds [of exchange] arising naturally from the words and expressions. Vimalakīrti first says, "The buddha lands of all buddhas are also all empty," which answers the earlier question by way of analogy. The buddha lands are all empty, and the room follows the precedent of the lands; how could it not be empty? The intention of the answer is like this. The emptiness of the lands resembles that of the room, which is why he says "also." In the second round, Mañjuśrī inquires again more closely regarding the lands: "again" (you) means anew, and also means repeatedly. "He also asked: 'By what are the buddha lands empty?'"—is it that leaving behind phenomena so that no things exist is called emptiness, or is it that being identical to phenomena, [their] principle is non-existent, which is emptiness? Vimalakīrti answers below: "They are empty by means of emptiness," meaning that he takes the principle's emptiness to be the emptiness of the lands. In the third [round], Mañjuśrī reproaches the room's phenomenal emptiness by means of the lands' emptiness of principle: "He also asked: 'Emptiness...'" repeats the previously answered emptiness of principle of the buddha lands; "'...what use is emptiness?'" reproaches the phenomenal emptiness of the room: since you have said that the emptiness of principle is the emptiness of the buddha lands, what use is emptying out all that is in the room to make it empty? Vimalakīrti answers below, explaining the intention of needing emptiness: precisely because the emptiness of principle is free from conceptual distinctions, one must now empty the room to reveal that emptiness. The emptiness of principle is difficult to understand, and without things to display it so as to make people recognise it, it is termed "free from conceptual distinctions." Emptying the room to display it so that people awaken and understand is called "therefore [made] empty." In the fourth [round], Mañjuśrī pursues the expression according to the principle; hence, "He also asked: 'Can emptiness be conceptually distinguished?'" This asks whether the principle of emptiness can be conceptually distinguished by means of the empty room. Vimalakīrti answers below: "Conceptual distinction is also empty"—these words brush aside the expression to reveal the principle. In the previous round, he established the expression to reveal the principle, and therefore used the room's emptiness to conceptually distinguish the principle's emptiness; now here, turning around to remove and demolish the expression so as to reveal the principle, he therefore answers that conceptual distinction is also empty. What does this mean? For those who do not understand, one must use the empty room to conceptually distinguish the principle's emptiness; but once the principle is attained, looking back, the empty room is fundamentally non-existent—how could one still conceptually distinguish the principle's emptiness? Therefore, he says conceptual distinction is also empty. Because conceptual distinction is empty, the principle, having been expressed and indicated, cannot be conceptually distinguished. In the fifth [round], Mañjuśrī inquires into the locus of emptiness; hence, "He also asked: 'Where should emptiness be sought?'" Vimalakīrti answers: "It should be sought within the sixty-two views." The sixty-two views will be discussed fully later. These views are the ordinary person's deluded sentiments without reality, which is precisely the meaning of emptiness; hence, it should be sought within the sixty-two views. Moreover, these deluded sentiments arise by being confused about emptiness; tracing what they are confused about is precisely the meaning of emptiness, so it should be sought within the sixty-two views. In the sixth [round], Mañjuśrī turns to ask about the locus of the views; hence, he also asks: "Where should the sixty-two views be sought?" Vimalakīrti answers: "They should be sought within the liberation of all buddhas." The buddhas realize the principle of emptiness and attain liberation; ordinary people, in the locus of liberation, become confused and give rise to views; hence, they should be sought within the liberation of all buddhas. In the seventh [round], Mañjuśrī inquires into the locus of liberation; hence, he also asks: "Where should the liberation of all buddhas be sought?" Vimalakīrti answers below: "It should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings." The mental activities of sentient beings include both confusion and awakening: with confusion there is bondage, and with awakening there is liberation. The liberation of all buddhas all arises from the mind; therefore, it should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings. It can also be said that all mental activities of sentient beings arise in reliance upon the real, and their essence is precisely the real; therefore, the sūtras proclaim that the two dharmas of birth and death are the tathāgatagarbha, the skandhas are precisely the buddha-nature, the twelve links of dependent origination are precisely the buddha-nature, and so forth. Comprehensively awakening to this nature is true liberation; therefore, it should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings. Having previously answered regarding the room's emptiness, below he answers regarding having no attendants. "Also, what the Benevolent One asked: 'Why are there no attendants?'" repeats the wording of his question. Below, he explains it: "All Māras and all non-Buddhists are all my attendants," directly explaining in response to the question. All that serves as an attendant has the meaning of providing support and nourishment; the bodhisattva's compassionate practice is nurtured and accomplished by means of them, which is why they are spoken of as attendants. "Why is this?" below explains, in which he first inquires: on what basis do I say that Māras and non-Buddhists are attendants? Below, he explains in reply. "Māras take pleasure in saṃsāra"—the bodhisattva complies with those Māras of saṃsāra without forsaking them, and not forsaking the deeds of Māra is nurtured and accomplished by them, which is why all Māras are spoken of as attendants. "Non-Buddhists take pleasure in views"—the bodhisattva constantly complies with those non-Buddhists of diverse views without forsaking them, which is termed "unmoving." This practice of being unmoving is nurtured and accomplished by them, which is why non-Buddhists are spoken of as attendants. Earlier he said "not forsaking," and here he says "unmoving"; these are just complementary phrasing, not meaning being unmoving by holding fast to orthodox or heterodox views. From here on, Mañjuśrī asks three more questions to make manifest that Vimalakīrti's illness is a response and not real. First, he asks about the characteristics of the illness: "Householder, what kind of characteristics does this illness have?" Vimalakīrti answers below. "My illness is formless and cannot be seen"—because the illness is genuinely non-existent, it has no shape or characteristic that could be seen. Second, Mañjuśrī asks about the location of the illness; hence, he says, "Does this illness unite with the body or unite with the mind?" Vimalakīrti answers below. Saying "It does not unite with the body, for the body's characteristics are separate" means that the response body has no body and the illness has no locus, so it does not unite with the body. Saying "It does not unite with the mind, for the mind is like an illusion" means that the manifested mind is not real, and phenomena are equal to an illusion; an illusion has no fixed reality, and the illness also has no locus, so it does not unite with the mind. Third, Mañjuśrī asks about the essence of the illness, which may also be termed asking about the causes and conditions of the illness: "Among the four great elements, which element's illness is it?" Vimalakīrti answers below. Saying "It is not the earth element, yet it is not separate from earth" makes manifest that the illness is genuinely non-existent. Because the illness is non-existent, it cannot be proclaimed that the illness exists directly as earth, hence it is not the earth element; nor can it be said that there is a separate essence of illness apart from earth, hence he says it is not separate. The remaining elements are also like this. "Yet sentient beings..." below brings up that the illness must exist as a response, establishing the earlier [point that] it is genuinely non-existent. "Yet the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements"—because they have illnesses, Vimalakīrti manifests illness. The illness is manifested in accord with beings, so it is not real existence. Because it is not real existence, it cannot be proclaimed to exist directly as the four great elements or to exist apart from the four great elements. Alternatively, it can be said that the earlier "not the earth element" and so on makes manifest that the illness is genuinely non-existent, while "not separate" and so on reveals that the illness must exist as a response; and "Yet sentient beings..." below reveals the reason for the earlier "not separate from earth" and so on. Because the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements and the bodhisattva complies with them, [the illness] is not separate from the elements. The eight questions above extensively make manifest Vimalakīrti's upāya of manifested transformation. From here on, two questions explain the method of curing illness with respect to the persons to be transformed; this is the practice of curing illness among the bodhisattva's five practices. Therein, he first explains the etiquette of consoling and comforting with respect to those persons before the lineage stage who have real illnesses, because they do not yet know the Dharma and require others to console them. "How does a bodhisattva subdue the mind?" below explains the method of subduing with respect to those persons upon the lineage stage who have real illnesses, because they themselves know the Dharma and do not require others to console them, being able to subdue themselves. In the former part, he first asks, "How should one console a sick bodhisattva?"

3.5

Question: Mañjuśrī has now come to inquire after the illness; the etiquette of consoling and comforting should naturally issue from himself. Why does he inquire of Vimalakīrti about the method of consoling? Explanation: Mañjuśrī's coming to inquire now was to inquire after Vimalakīrti's illness, which was already fully asked about earlier. He was not inquiring after the sickness of those whom Vimalakīrti transforms. The method of consoling those transformed by Vimalakīrti lies solely with Vimalakīrti; therefore, he now asks about his method of consoling, so that people may learn to console the sick.

3.6

From "Vimalakīrti" onward is the answer, which first treats the points separately and later concludes. Within the separate treatment, there are eleven phrases of text, subsumed under three pairs of benefit for oneself and benefit for others: the first pair of six teaches the cultivation of contemplative understanding; the next pair of two teaches the generation of a wholesome mind; the last pair of three teaches the arousal of active practice. Within the first pair, the first five are benefit for oneself and the last one is benefit for others. Within the benefit for oneself, distinguishing in terms of persons, the first four differ from the Hīnayāna, while the last one differs from ordinary people. Distinguishing in terms of faults, the first four are right contemplation to eliminate afflictive practice, while the last one is the practice of repenting faults to eliminate sins. Among the first four, "speaks of impermanence" means contemplating the arising and cessation of the body, free from the inversion of permanence; "does not speak of revulsion" means constantly following all realms of existence, not becoming disgusted with one's own body to attain extinction. "Speaks of the body being suffering" means contemplating that the body has much distress, free from the inversion of pleasure; "and yet does not proclaim delight in nirvāṇa" means remaining in suffering to rescue beings, and therefore not being disgusted with suffering or delighting in nirvāṇa. "Speaks of the body being devoid of self" means contemplating that sentient beings are empty, free from the inversion of a self; "and yet speaks of guiding beings" means that although one knows the spiritual self is empty, one follows conventional names to transform sentient beings. "Speaks of the body being empty" means contemplating that the essential nature of dharmas is empty, free from clinging to phenomena as self; "does not speak of ultimate extinction" means that although one knows dharmas are empty, one constantly follows existence and does not extinguish eternally. The preceding four phrases explain destroying afflictions while constantly following existence, and thus differ from the two vehicles. "Speaks of repenting past sins" refers to practicing the elimination of sins: transgressions committed in the past are called "past sins," and regretting and reforming is called "repentance"; "and yet does not speak of entering the past" means that although one repents past transgressions, one always knows that sin is empty, not grasping at an intrinsic nature of sin entering the past. This eliminates sinful karma without positing an intrinsic nature, and thus differs from ordinary people. The preceding are benefit for oneself; "using one's own illness to pity their illness" is benefit for others. This completes the first pair. In the second pair, "one should recognize the suffering of innumerable kalpas in past lives" contemplates faults to generate revulsion; this phrase is benefit for oneself. "One should be mindful of benefiting all sentient beings" arouses the mind to broadly save them; this phrase is benefit for others. In the third pair, the first two are benefit for oneself. "Recall the merit one has cultivated and be mindful of pure livelihood" refers to rightly aspiring to transcend through the wholesome actions one has cultivated, not seeking otherwise. "Do not give rise to grief and distress, but constantly arouse diligence" refers to enduring suffering and practicing with regard to wholesomeness not yet cultivated. The preceding are benefit for oneself. "One should act as a king of medicine to treat all illnesses" is benefit for others: seeking to be a Buddha-physician to save sentient beings. This completes the separate treatment above. "A bodhisattva should comfort the sick in this manner, causing them to rejoice" concludes with a comprehensive exhortation.

3.7

In the section below on subduing [the mind], Mañjuśrī first asks, "How does a sick bodhisattva subdue their mind?" The answer follows from "Vimalakīrti" downward. The text has two distinct parts: first, explaining the marks of practice; second, [explaining] non-abiding. Within this, from "nor abiding in non-subjugation" downward, the marks of accomplishment are explained. Cultivating and remedying while sick is called the marks of practice. When the illness is healed and virtue established, this is called the marks of accomplishment. Within the preceding practice, first there are individual teachings, and then an overall concluding exhortation. In the preceding individual teachings, the essential points are solely wisdom and compassion: cultivating wisdom is for one's own benefit; cultivating compassion is for benefiting others. Wisdom is accomplished in reliance on emptiness; compassion arises following existence; these two are mutually required. Why is this so? If one cultivates wisdom alone, one stagnates and sinks in emptiness; if one cultivates compassion alone, one becomes attached to existence. Being attached to existence is the dharma of ordinary persons; stagnating and sinking in emptiness is the dharma of śrāvakas. The bodhisattva is distinct from them and therefore must cultivate both. Because both are cultivated, compassion accompanies wisdom and one is not defiled by existence; wisdom accompanies compassion and one is not attached to emptiness. Not being defiled by existence is not the practice of ordinary persons; not being attached to emptiness is not the practice of the worthy and sage; therefore the text below says: "Neither ordinary nor sage is the bodhisattva practice." Furthermore, not clinging to existence is not an impure practice; not being partial to delight in emptiness is not a pure practice; therefore the text below says: "Neither defilement nor purity is the bodhisattva practice." The skillful practice of the bodhisattva is wondrous precisely in this. In the text there are three pairs of cultivating wisdom and cultivating compassion. From the beginning up to "Mañjuśrī, a sick bodhisattva should view all dharmas in this way" is the first pair. From "Furthermore, viewing the body as impermanent and suffering" downward is the second pair. From "Furthermore, viewing the body as not separate from illness" downward is the third pair. How do these three pairs differ? The differences are of four kinds: First, differentiation according to concrete matters: the matter is only the body's illness; the first pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to illness; the second pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to the body; the third pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to both body and illness together. Second, differentiation according to dharmas: dharmas have gradations. The first pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to the profound principle of emptiness; the second pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to suffering, impermanence, and so forth; the third pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to the matters of body and illness. Third, differentiation according to persons. The first pair cultivates wisdom and compassion within the unshared dharmas of the bodhisattva, because only bodhisattvas understand the profound principle of emptiness and the rest do not understand it; the second pair cultivates wisdom and compassion within the shared practices of the śrāvaka, because śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas can also contemplate suffering, impermanence, and so forth; the third pair cultivates wisdom and compassion within the shared practices of ordinary persons, because even ordinary persons can know the matter of bodily illness. Fourth, differentiation of sequential order. There are two kinds of sequence: First, the sequence of proceeding from the profound to the shallow. Emptiness is what the bodhisattva's correct practice relies upon, so one first cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on it; emptiness is entered by means of explanation, so secondly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on suffering and impermanence; suffering, impermanence, and so forth are identified based on matters, so thirdly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on the matter of bodily illness. Second, the sequence of initiating transformation from quiescence. Emptiness is what the bodhisattva relies upon to cure illness, so one first cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on it, which is one's own virtue; relying on this one initiates transformation, transforming the two vehicles, so secondly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on suffering and impermanence; the transformative practice gradually broadens, wishing to benefit ordinary persons, so thirdly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on the matter of bodily illness. The sequence is like this. Within the first pair, the text has four distinct parts: first, directly explaining the cultivation of wisdom and the cultivation of compassion; second, from "Mañjuśrī, this is how one with illness subdues the mind" downward, concluding with praise to reveal supremacy; third, from "The sick bodhisattva further thinks: 'Just as this illness of mine is not truly existent'" downward, purifying compassion with wisdom; fourth, from "A sick bodhisattva should view all dharmas in this way" downward, an overall concluding exhortation. Within the first section, first the cultivation of wisdom is explained. From "Through non-reception" downward, the cultivation of compassion is explained. Within the preceding cultivation of wisdom, first one contemplates and sees emptiness, breaking and departing from the illness of existence. From "Having attained this equality, there is no other illness" downward, one contemplates emptiness as also empty, refuting and expelling the illness of emptiness. The former breaks the illness of existence and extinguishes the hindrance of afflictions; the latter breaks the illness of emptiness and eliminates the hindrance to knowledge; expelling both hindrances together is called subduing the mind. Furthermore, the former section extinguishes the hindrance of afflictions and expels the cause of segmented [samsāra]; the latter removes the hindrance to knowledge and departs from the cause of transformation [samsāra]; both causes being eliminated, neither effect arises, and therefore it is curing illness. Within the former section on breaking existence, one contemplates the two kinds of selflessness to break the two attachments to self. Here, one should first understand the meaning of selflessness and then explain the text; the meaning is as in the separate chapter. In the text, first the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is explained; from "A sick bodhisattva, in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas" downward, the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas is explained. The former contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings breaks and departs from the conception of a self; the latter contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas extinguishes and eliminates the conception of dharmas; both conceptions subsiding together is called subduing the mind. Furthermore, the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings severs and extinguishes the four dwelling-places, removing the cause of segmented [samsāra]; the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas eliminates and relinquishes ignorance, departing from the cause of transformation [samsāra]; both causes being eliminated, neither effect arises, which is called curing illness. Within the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings, first the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is undertaken with respect to the four great elements. From "Furthermore, the arising of this illness is entirely due to attachment" downward, the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is undertaken with respect to the five skandhas. Within the former, first the root of the trouble is traced. In "Now this illness of mine arises entirely from the deluded conceptions, inversions, and afflictions of previous lifetimes," sentient beings' attachment to a self is called deluded inversion; grasping at what is not real is called deluded conception; conceiving a self where there is no self is called inversion; fetters such as greed and anger are called afflictions; it is due to these that the present illness arises. From "There is no true" downward, contemplative practice severs it. "There is no real dharma; who is it that receives illness?" is a brief contemplation of selflessness. The explanation follows "Why is this?", first raising the question and then explaining. In "Because of the combination of the four great elements it is provisionally called a body," one contemplates the body as provisionally existent. In "The four great elements are non-arising and the body is also without self," one contemplates the body as truly non-existent. The four great elements have no master; seeking separately there is no soul; the body is also without a self—employing the particulars to reveal the universal, establishing the universal absence of self. Below, the contemplation of selflessness is explained with respect to the five skandhas. Within this there are two parts: first, contemplating the five skandhas to break and depart from the universal self; second, from "Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another" downward, contemplating the five skandhas to break and depart from the particular self. Within the former, first the conception of a self is broken and departed from; from "One should give rise to the conception of dharmas" downward, cultivating the conception of dharmas is explained. Within the former departure from self, "Furthermore, the arising of this illness is entirely due to attachment to self" traces the root of the trouble. "Therefore, toward the self one should not give rise to attachment" is revulsion toward the past. Having known the root of the illness, one immediately removes the conception of a self and the conception of a sentient being. Knowing the fault and severing it, not grasping at a human nature, is called removing the conception of a self. Not grasping at the provisionally named conception of a person composed of combinations is therefore called departing from the conception of a sentient being. Contemplating the particulars breaks the universal, and therefore both are eliminated. Next is the cultivation of the conception of dharmas. "One should give rise to the conception of dharmas" is an overall encouragement to practice. From "One should think" downward, individual instruction on practice is given. In "One should think: 'It is merely by means of multiple dharmas that this body is formed,'" one contemplates the particulars forming the universal. Removing the previous mark of a self, there is no person, only dharmas; therefore it says "merely," meaning merely the multiple dharmas of the five skandhas forming the body. In "Arising is merely the arising of dharmas, cessation is merely the cessation of dharmas," one breaks the universal and returns to the particulars. Expelling the mark of a sentient being, there is no arising [of beings], merely dharmas; therefore it says "merely." This breaks the universal self; below, the particular self is broken. In "Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another," one contemplates separately that the nature of the five skandhas is not a knower. In "When arising they do not say 'I arise,' and when ceasing they do not say 'I cease,'" one contemplates separately that the nature of the five skandhas is not an ātman. Above, the emptiness of sentient beings was contemplated; below, the emptiness of dharmas is contemplated. In "A sick bodhisattva, in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas," the purpose of cultivation is explained. Below, correct cultivation is taught. Cultivation has nine phrases: First, teaching contemplation of the fault in the marks of dharmas. In "One should think: 'This conception of dharmas is also an inversion,'" the mind that attaches to dharmas as a self is called the conception of dharmas. As for inversions, there is the distinction between the three inversions and the eight inversions: [inversions of] mind, conception, and view are the three inversions; [the inversions of] permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, and impermanence, non-pleasure, non-self, and non-purity are the eight inversions. [Inversions of] mind, mark, and view are inversions that are confused about principle; being confused about emptiness and establishing existence, permanence, pleasure, purity, and so forth are inversions confused about the conception of dharmas. Turning defilement into purity and purity into defilement are as broadly discussed in a separate chapter, which should be consulted in full here. The former self of sentient beings is subsumed under the eight inversions; this self attached to dharmas is subsumed under the three inversions; the sense of inversion being the same as before, it is therefore able to say "also." Second, teaching the generation of a mind of revulsion. In "This inversion is a great trouble; I should depart from it," the three inversions are the root of all delusions, so it is called a great trouble; being a trouble, one must depart from it. Third, teaching departure from dharmas. "How does one depart?" asks about the preceding to introduce what follows. "Departing from self and what belongs to a self" directly distinguishes [the answer] in response to the question. Within attachment to dharmas as self, the six sense organs are called self, and the six sense objects are called what belongs to it. Fourth, re-elucidating the preceding departure from self and what belongs to a self; first questioning, then distinguishing: "namely, departing from the two dharmas." Fifth, re-clarifying the meaning of the preceding departure from the two dharmas; first questioning, then distinguishing: namely, "not thinking of internal or external dharmas, practicing equality." Among the twelve āyatanas, the six sense organs are called internal, and the six sense objects are called external; because internal and external are both empty, one does not think of them; because one does not think of them, one purely practices equality. All dharmas are equal; for the moment this is what is said, and most sūtras are like this. Hence the sūtra text says that the intrinsic nature of the twelve āyatanas is equal, which is similar to this. Sixth, explaining and clarifying the preceding equality; first questioning, then distinguishing: namely, "equality of self and equality of nirvāṇa." This refers to saṃsāra as self because it is the ordinary [person's] substance; the emptiness of the dharmas of saṃsāra is called equality of self, and nirvāṇa being likewise is called equality of nirvāṇa. Seventh, re-explaining the preceding two kinds of equality, self and nirvāṇa; first questioning, then distinguishing: "These two are both empty," hence called equality. Eighth, explaining and clarifying the preceding emptiness; first questioning, then explaining: self and nirvāṇa are merely names without reality, and therefore are said to be empty. Sūtras speak of three kinds of "mere": mere name, mere function, and mere provisional designation. Here the first "mere" is raised, and the rest are omitted without discussion; because the refutation of characteristics is ultimate, function and provisional designation are also completely absent. Ninth, identifying what is emptied. Dharmas such as these two have no determinate nature, and are therefore called empty. Above, the illness of existence was broken; below, the affliction of emptiness is broken. Why must this be so? Just as when a person is ill, they take medicine to expel it; once the illness is removed, the medicine must also be discarded. If the medicine is not discarded, the medicine in turn becomes an affliction. For a practitioner it is likewise: in order to break the illness of existence, one contemplates emptiness as a cure; once the illness of existence is removed, emptiness must also be discarded. If emptiness is not expelled, it in turn becomes an affliction; for this reason it must be broken. It is truly because emptiness was originally taught to break existence, without intending to cause people to cling to emptiness, that it is broken. In the text it first says, "Having attained this equality, there is no other illness, there is only the illness of emptiness," distinguishing the preceding to introduce what follows.

3.8

Question: How is the mark of emptiness an illness? [Answer:] Because one takes pleasure in and clings to emptiness, being unable to initiate practices in accord with existence. Furthermore, because deluded conceptualization obstructs equal, real wisdom. What does this mean? As the text above states: "Quiescence is bodhi, because it extinguishes all marks." This wisdom is a mark, so it is a fault. "Non-contemplation is bodhi, because it is separated from all conditions." This wisdom is a condition, so it is a fault. "Non-practice is bodhi, because it is free of recollective thought." This wisdom is recollective thought, so it is a fault. "Severance is bodhi, because it severs all views." This wisdom is a view, so it is a fault. "Separation is bodhi, because it is separated from deluded conceptualization." This wisdom is deluded conceptualization, so it is a fault. Everything being like this, the illness of emptiness is also empty; breaking it afterward is the same as before.

3.9

The mind that clings to emptiness is called the illness of emptiness; the essence of this delusive discrimination is not real, and because it is not real, it exists in sentiment but is absent in principle. Contemplating this absence in principle eliminates and dispels the illness of emptiness; therefore it is said that the illness of emptiness is also empty. The meaning of emptiness is the same as before; hence it says 'also'. The preceding refutation of the illness of existence generally refuted existing dharmas; this refutation of the illness of emptiness likewise abandons empty dharmas. What does this mean? The sūtras say that all dharmas are completely like an illusion. Illusory dharmas share the same essence with respect to existence and non-existence; because they share the same essence, non-existent dharmas are taken as existent, and existent dharmas are taken as non-existent. Because non-existence is taken as existence, existence is then non-existence, which dispels the illness of existence; because existence is taken as non-existence, non-existence is then not non-existence, which dispels the illness of non-existence. If discussed comprehensively, one explains that this existence and non-existence are neither existence nor non-existence, and apart from existence and non-existence, there is no non-existence that could be grasped as neither existent nor non-existent. Dispelling the illness of neither existence nor non-existence, one in turn directly explains this neither existence nor non-existence as existence and non-existence, and outside of neither existence nor non-existence, there are no separate self-characteristics of existence and non-existence to be grasped; therefore one also dispels the illness of existence and non-existence. Completely departing from these is called transcending the four propositions. Refuting the latter two illnesses is abbreviated in the text and not stated.

3.10

The above explains the cultivation of wisdom; next is the cultivation of compassion. In this there are two parts: first, not extinguishing various feelings for the sake of transforming sentient beings; second, from 'even if the body has [suffering]' onward, generating compassion based on feelings. In the first part, it initially says 'because of non-reception', referring back to the preceding and introducing what follows, clarifying one's own absence of reception. Previously, by cultivating wisdom, one saw the equality of dharmas; that there are no dharmas to be received is called 'non-reception'. Yet 'receiving various feelings' clarifies that receiving is for the sake of other beings; experiencing all kinds of suffering to transform sentient beings is called 'receiving various feelings'. 'Not yet possessing the Buddha-dharmas, neither does one extinguish feelings' clarifies that feelings do not cease, because one does not yet possess the Buddha-dharmas of merit for transforming others. Therefore, 'not extinguishing feelings to attain realization' means not realizing the nirvāṇa of the cessation of feelings. The above explains not extinguishing feelings for the sake of transformation; below explains generating compassion. 'Mindful of beings in evil destinies, generating great compassion' directly refers to giving rise to the mind of compassion. From 'Having subdued myself' onward, it concerns transforming and benefiting [beings] based on compassion. In [this section on] benefit, it first says, 'Having subdued myself, I should also subdue all sentient beings', which clarifies the intent to initiate transformation. 'Only removing their illnesses, but not removing dharmas' clarifies understanding the method of transformation. One understands that in transforming sentient beings, one need only teach them to sever mental illness, without needing to remove dharmas. Why is this so? Dharmas have the true and the deluded; the Buddha-nature is true. The existence and non-existence grasped by deluded sentiments are said to be deluded. If one considers true dharmas, their essence is fundamentally without fault, so there is no need to remedy or sever them. Deluded dharmas exist only in sentiment; when sentiment is removed, they are absent. One need not labor to separately sever them, hence dharmas are not removed; and because dharmas are not removed, beings are easily transformed and saved. From 'In order to sever the root of illness' onward directly explains the benefit of transformation. 'Teaching and guiding them in order to sever the root of illness' generally clarifies the benefit of transformation. Below it is individually revealed, and within this there are two parts: first, identifying the root of illness; second, from 'how to sever' onward, instructing them to sever it. In the first part, it initially says 'What is the root of illness?', questioning the preceding and introducing what follows. 'It is said to be having cognitive grasping' directly explains in response to the question. This is still the mind that attaches to dharmas and the self. The origin of all faults is called the root of illness. Clinging is the hand; grasping is the foot. The mind's grasping of objects is like a hand clinging to things or feet climbing a tree; the dharma is named after the metaphor, hence called cognitive grasping. Below it is revealed again. 'Arising from having cognitive grasping is the root of illness' demonstrates its fundamental meaning. Relying on this deluded mind, it can produce all defilements, initiate karma, and incur suffering; hence it is called the root of illness. 'What is cognitively grasped? It is said to be the three realms' reveals the meaning of cognitive grasping. Cognitively grasping all dharmas of the three realms is why it is called cognitive grasping. Below, in the instruction on severing, 'How to sever cognitive grasping' raises the question to provoke [the answer]. 'Through non-apprehension' briefly explains in response to the question. Contemplating the true and abandoning the deluded is called non-apprehension; if there is non-apprehension, then there is no cognitive grasping. It is revealed again: departing from the aforementioned cognitive grasping is called non-apprehension, so if there is non-apprehension, there is no cognitive grasping. Although it says that with non-apprehension there is no cognitive grasping, one still does not know what grasping is spoken of as non-apprehension. Below it is revealed again: 'What is called non-apprehension?', questioning the preceding and revealing what follows. 'It refers to the two views' identifies what is absent. The two views are precisely the essence of cognitive grasping. Although called the two views, they are still difficult to recognize and require further explanation. 'What are the two views?', questioning the preceding and introducing what follows. 'Internal views and external views' directly explains in response to the question. 'Internal' means positing the six sense faculties as existent and not empty, which is called internal views. 'External' means positing the six sense objects as existent and not empty, which is called external views. These internal and external views are what was previously referred to as non-apprehension. The above is the first part, clarifying the cultivation of wisdom and compassion.

First 10 of 101 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

維摩義記 — Classical Chinese