維摩義記 3.59

3.59

Question: Simply cultivating purity would be sufficient; why would they practice defilement? There are four points to this explanation: First, it is distinguished in terms of practice. Practice has the distinction of benefiting oneself and benefiting others: in one's own practice one cultivates purity, while to transform others one manifests defilement; manifesting defilement counters and refutes the śrāvaka's one-sided purity, and cultivating purity counters and refutes the ordinary person's one-sided defilement. Therefore the text above says, "Neither defilement nor purity is the bodhisattva's practice." Second, it is distinguished in terms of the persons being transformed. Persons are divided into ordinary people and noble ones: to transform ordinary people one manifests defilement, and to transform noble ones one cultivates purity. Furthermore, persons are divided into Great and Small: to teach the Great one gives rise to defilement, and to transform the Small one solely uses purity. Third, it is distinguished according to dharmas. Dharmas have the distinction of the mundane and nirvāṇa: wishing to adapt to the mundane one must manifest defilement, and desiring to seek nirvāṇa one must cultivate purity. Fourth, it is distinguished by revealing the real. In the tathāgatagarbha there are two gates: first is the gate of quiescent suchness; second is the gate of dependently arisen function. Wishing to realize these two, one must have revealing causes: wishing to enter the gate of quiescence, one must cultivate purity to serve as the revealing cause; wishing to follow the gate of function, one must practice defilement to serve as the revealing cause. Because there are these many meanings, here one manifests the practice of defiled dharmas to penetrate the Buddha path. However, regarding this practice of defilement, people say it is solely an adaptive response, and that while others see me do it, in actual meaning I do not do it; this is just one aspect and does not mean everything. If it were solely an adaptive response, how could what is cultivated here be an adaptive penetration of the Buddha path? How could the arousal of superior practices spoken of in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra be an adaptive extraordinary practice and not real? There is real cultivation; how could it be solely an adaptive response? Distinguishing within this, there is cultivation and there is accomplishment. Cultivation must be undertaken with vigorous effort; it is not that I do not do it. Accomplishment has three meanings: First, it is distinguished in terms of emotion. Others see me do it, but I actually do not do it, because the emotion of performing defilement has already been severed by the sage. Second, it is distinguished in terms of cause. The defiled functions manifested are all caused and aroused by the power of great compassion and vows, not merely seen by others. Third, it is distinguished in terms of dharmas. The defiled functions manifested are all manifestations of the dharma gates of dependently arisen samādhis, like a cintāmaṇi raining down various precious items. Therefore the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "Great parinirvāṇa can establish great purposes; the vajrasamādhi manifests in various ways." As in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, the gates of the dharmadhātu sought by Sudhana each have their functions. It is like this and so on. Since they arise from the power of compassionate vows and dharma gates, how could one definitively say that I actually do not do it and it is merely seen by others?