維摩義記 3.46

3.46

From here below is the second [section], which clarifies expounding liberation by being identical to words. Within it are four pairs: First, Śāriputra asks: 'Devī, how long have you dwelt in this room?' How long or brief is the time, hence 'how long'. The devī fully answers: 'As long as the elder's liberation.' Advanced in age is called an elder. Because of Śāriputra's seniority and long standing, the devī addresses him as 'elder': 'Ever since the elder was liberated, I have dwelt in this room.' Second, Śāriputra misunderstands: 'Have you dwelt here that long?' The devī immediately investigates: 'And how long has the elder's liberation been?' The devī's intent takes Śāriputra's fundamental nature of equality, which is without bondage, to be liberation; ever since this liberation, there has been no period of time. Taking that to analogize the real nature of her own body, its abiding in Vimalakīrti's realm of true suchness likewise has neither length nor brevity, for that upon which ordinary beings and noble ones rely is truly non-dual. Śāriputra now thinks that the time since he attained the path is called liberation; taking this to compare with that, he therefore replies, 'That long?' Knowing his error, the devī immediately interrogates and reproves him: 'And how long has the elder's liberation been?' Third, Śāriputra realizes his lapse and remains silent without answering. The devī immediately reproves him: 'Why does an elder of great wisdom remain silent?' Saying he is an elder indicates his long practice; saying he is of great wisdom shows his ability to answer: 'Since the benevolent one is an elder with great wisdom, why do you remain silent?' Fourth, Śāriputra answers back: 'That liberation has nothing that can be spoken, so I do not know what to say about this.' Following his answer, the devī reprimands him with the principle and teaching. Within this there are four phrases: First, directly instructing with the principle: 'Words and speech are all characteristics of liberation'—why is there any need to abandon words? Second, from 'Why?' downward is the explanation, first questioning and then explaining. Saying 'Liberation is neither internal, nor external, nor in between the two' clarifies that liberation is identical to words. Words are also neither internal, nor external, nor in between the two, clarifying that words are identical to liberation. What does this mean? Among the twelve āyatanas, the six sense faculties are called internal, and the six dusts are called external; in contrast to these two, [what is between them] is spoken of as 'in between the two'. The real substance of both words and liberation is completely non-existent; since their substance is non-existent, what can be called internal, what can be called external, or what can be said to be in between the two? This meaning is not different; therefore, it is said that words are all characteristics of liberation, which means they are identical to the real characteristic of liberation. Third, concluding the reprimand with the principle: 'Therefore, Śāriputra, do not expound liberation by departing from words.' Fourth, from 'Why?' downward is the explanation, first questioning and then explaining. 'All dharmas are characteristics of liberation'—this reveals it by universal comparison. The nature of all dharmas is quiescent, without determination and without bondage, which is itself liberation. Words are also like this; therefore, one should not depart from words to expound liberation separately.