維摩義記 3.85

3.85

Below, the various bodhisattvas each give individual explanations according to what they have attained. The doctrinal approaches are immeasurable; if fully explained according to their points, the explanation could never be exhausted. Here, thirty-one bodhisattvas are briefly listed to make manifest what they explain. Among them, concerning the first person, the text says: “There was a bodhisattva named Master of Dharmas,” which identifies the person who explains individually. Below, it clarifies what he says. His words, “Good sirs, arising and ceasing are two,” present the two marks by way of antithesis. The meaning of ‘arising and ceasing’ has two general explanations: first, the arising and ceasing of the self-characteristic of conditioned phenomena; second, the arising and ceasing of the defiled and the pure in the context of counteractive remedies. In the arising and ceasing of self-characteristics, there are three distinct meanings: 1. the impermanence of segmented existence: when retribution arises it is called ‘arising’, and when retribution is exhausted it is termed ‘ceasing’; 2. momentary impermanence: the initial emergence is called ‘arising’, and the subsequent perishing is termed ‘ceasing’; 3. the impermanence of intrinsic nature: the existence of characteristics is called ‘arising’, and illusory non-existence is described as ‘ceasing’. The arising and ceasing of self-characteristics is succinctly just this. In the arising and ceasing of counteractive remedies, there are four meanings: 1. explained in terms of defilement: the emergence of ordinary [defilements] is called ‘arising’, and the eradication by noble ones is termed ‘ceasing’; 2. explained in terms of purity: the arising of practice is called ‘arising’, and when the conditioning counteragent finally subsides it is explained as ‘ceasing’; furthermore, when pure dharmas are ruined by evil, this is also called ‘ceasing’; 3. explained jointly in terms of defilement and purity from the standpoint of delusion: the emergence of defilement is called ‘arising’, and the destruction of purity is termed ‘ceasing’; furthermore, when true purity is obscured and covered by afflictions, this is also called ‘ceasing’; 4. explained jointly in terms of defilement and purity from the standpoint of awakening: the emergence of purity is called ‘arising’—furthermore, when the originally concealed dharmas of intrinsically pure nature are made evident through conditions and newly manifest, this is called ‘arising’—and the cessation of defilement is termed ‘ceasing’. This is the general discrimination. What is discussed here, comprehensively speaking, includes all of them. Yet pursuing it according to the text, it is specifically spoken in terms of the approach of counteracting defilement and purity; and within the approach of counteraction, it is specifically spoken in terms of defilement: the emergence of defilement is called ‘arising’, and its ultimate eradication is termed ‘ceasing’. Because arising and ceasing are two separate divisions, they are called ‘two’. Below, these two are overturned to illuminate non-duality. In this approach, dispatching both characteristics simultaneously constitutes non-duality; first he distinguishes it, and then he concludes. In the distinguishing part, it first says, “Dharmas originally do not arise, and now do not cease,” explaining the meaning of non-duality. In general explanations of ‘neither arising nor ceasing’, there are four: 1. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra are empty aggregations without intrinsic nature; because they lack intrinsic nature, arising has nothing that arises, and ceasing has nothing that ceases; 2. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra exist through false marks; since the substance of falsehood is empty, characteristics are signless; because of signlessness, arising has nothing that arises, and ceasing has nothing that ceases; 3. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra exist through false conceptualization; like what is seen in a dream, there is no dharma outside the mind; false conceptualization exists in emotional belief but is truly non-existent in principle; because it is truly non-existent, arising has nothing that arises, and ceasing has nothing that ceases; 4. defiled dharmas of saṃsāra arise from the tathāgatagarbha; if investigated to the end, it is reality itself; the real nature is equal; in arising there is no arising, and in ceasing there is no ceasing. For this reason, originally there is nothing that arises, and now there is nothing that ceases; being neither arising nor ceasing, it is therefore called non-dual. “Attaining this unarisen” explains the meaning of ‘entering’. When the mind of wisdom abides steadily within the aforementioned dharma of no-arising and no-ceasing, this is called the patient acceptance of the unarisen [dharmas]. Following the conditioning factor, it should also be called the patient acceptance of the nonceasing; [here] it is solely termed ‘unarisen’ in order to express its name at the outset. The above directly distinguishes it. From “This is” onward, he concludes.