維摩義記 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

In the sixteenth [section], first, "Diantian (Vidyuddeva) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is made clear. "Luminosity and ignorance are two" contrarily brings up two characteristics. There are two distinctions: First, speaking according to characteristics: a mind of dark delusion that conditions without understanding is called ignorance; cognitive wisdom that is clearly manifest is called luminosity. Second, speaking in terms of mind: the nature of the deluded mind is dark; even if it has conditioned understanding, it is still ignorance. Just as when a person dreams, although there is discrimination, its nature is torpor, and just as pleasant feeling in its nature is the suffering of conditioning. The nature of the true mind is illumination, which is called luminosity; even the inherently pure mind during the stage of an ordinary person is also spoken of as luminosity. Here, we rely on the latter approach. Below, these two are reversed to clarify non-duality. In this approach, the true and the deluded sharing the same essence constitutes non-duality. First it explains, and then concludes. The statement "Ignorance is itself luminosity" integrates the deluded into the true. The essence of the deluded mind in reality is itself the true mind; therefore the nature of ignorance is itself luminosity, just as the essence of torpor is itself the retribution-mind. This sentence precisely displays the meaning of non-duality, bringing it to completion. The statement "Luminosity is also not to be grasped" distinguishes the true from the deluded. Why is it necessary to distinguish them? When people hear of this luminosity, they grasp it as identical to conditioned antidotes. To ward off this view, it is therefore said that this luminosity cannot be grasped as identical to conditioned antidotes. "Luminosity is also not to be grasped, transcending all reckonings" explains why the preceding cannot be grasped as a conditioned antidote. The luminosity of conditioned antidotes belongs to the side of the deluded mind and is subsumed under mental factors of wisdom. The luminosity spoken of here is the essence of the true mind; the true mind is equal in nature like empty space, transcending all reckonings, and therefore cannot be grasped as identical to conditioned antidotes. Alternatively, within this, both characteristics being eliminated constitutes non-duality: the statement that the nature of ignorance is itself luminosity eliminates the characteristic of ignorance; because the true nature of ignorance is itself luminosity, it cannot be grasped exclusively. Transcending all reckonings eliminates the characteristic of luminosity. With both characteristics completely extinguished, it is called non-duality. This explains non-duality. The statement "Being equal and without duality within them" explains the meaning of entry. "This is..." below concludes.

4.3

In the seventeenth [section], first, "Xijian (Priradarśana) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is clarified; first it explains, and then concludes. In the explanation, it first discusses it with respect to the form skandha, and afterwards with respect to the remaining skandhas. In the previous [discussion of] the form skandha, "Form and emptiness are two" contrarily brings up two characteristics. Next, there are three explanations: First, form is not "mine" and is called empty, as the Abhidharma explains. Second, within provisionally named form there is no determinate nature, which is called empty, as the *Tattvasiddhi* explains. Third, the characteristics of provisionally named form are also non-existent, which is called empty; this is found only in the Great [Vehicle]. What is discussed here corresponds in meaning to the third. Below, these two are reversed to clarify non-duality. In this approach, the two truths sharing the same essence is called non-duality, not a complete refutation and elimination. "Form is itself emptiness" clarifies that existence is itself non-existence. When form is said to be form, form is immediately devoid of form; therefore form is itself emptiness. "It is not that the destruction of form is emptiness" distinguishes this from the emptiness of phenomenal cessation through antidotes. "The nature of form is inherently empty" distinguishes this from the emptiness of dividing the effect from the cause, just as the water of a mirage is by its own nature not water, without waiting for particles and elements to be divided to become non-water. Form is also like this: its own nature is empty and non-existent, without waiting for particles and elements to be divided for it to be empty; this is called inherently empty. In the remaining skandhas below, it also first brings up two and afterwards clarifies non-duality, the text being identical to the preceding. This explains non-duality. The statement "Penetrating thoroughly within them" explains the meaning of entry. "This is..." below concludes.

4.4

In the eighteenth [section], first, "Mingxiang (Prabhāvyūha) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is clarified. The statement "The four elements are distinct and the space element is distinct" contrarily brings up two characteristics. Speaking of the four elements being distinct clarifies that existence is distinct from emptiness. Earth, water, fire, and wind are the four elements; these being distinct from emptiness is called distinct. Alternatively, the four great elements being individually distinct is called distinct. The space element being distinct clarifies that emptiness is distinct from existence; emptiness and existence being mutually distinct, they are therefore called "two." Below, these two are reversed to clarify non-duality. In this approach, the two phenomena sharing the same essence is called non-duality. First it explains, and then concludes. The statement "The nature of the four elements is itself the nature of space" directly explains non-duality. The four great elements have no nature, and the four great elements have no characteristics; therefore they are immediately empty. The statement "Just as the prior limit and the posterior limit are empty, so the middle limit is also empty" illustrates non-duality by analogy. The prior limit is saṃsāra, the posterior limit is nirvāṇa, and the middle is called the noble path; because the prior and posterior are empty, the middle limit is also empty; the four great elements are likewise. This explains non-duality. "If one can know the nature of the elements in this way" explains the meaning of entry. "This is..." below concludes.

4.5

In the nineteenth [section], first, "Miaoyi (Subuddhi) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is clarified; first it explains, and then concludes. In the explanation, non-duality is clarified with reference to the twelve āyatanas; first it is discussed with reference to eye and form. "Eye and form are two" contrarily brings up two characteristics. Below, these two are reversed to clarify non-duality; the two characteristics are both eliminated to constitute non-duality. "If one knows the nature of the eye to be without greed, anger, or delusion regarding forms, this is called quiescence" refutes and eliminates the characteristic of the eye. Emptiness of nature is the essential nature of the eye; in this nature of the eye there is no eye. Since the eye does not exist, who could give rise to greed, anger, and delusion toward forms? Because greed and the like do not arise, it is called quiescent. This exclusively refutes the eye to refute form, without discussing the remaining meanings. If the text were given in full, it should also say: if one knows the nature of form, the eye is without greed, without anger, and without delusion, and this is called quiescence. Mentioning one side for now, the other side may be known. In the remaining āyatanas below, it also first brings up two and afterwards clarifies non-duality. In clarifying non-duality, it speaks exclusively with reference to the mind; the rest can be understood by analogy. "Firmly abiding within them" is entering non-duality; it takes it up to conclude it.

4.6

In the twentieth [section], "Wujini (Akṣayamati) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is revealed; first it explains, and then concludes. In the explanation, it first explains the meaning of non-duality, and afterwards explains the meaning of entry. In explaining non-duality, non-duality is distinguished with reference to the six pāramitās and the mind of dedication; first it speaks with reference to giving and dedication. "Giving and dedicating toward all-knowledge are two" contrarily brings up two characteristics. The fruit-virtues of all buddhas are called all-knowledge; using one's own practice of giving to dedicate and seek those virtues is called dedicating toward all-knowledge. Below, these two are reversed to constitute non-duality. In this approach, the two characteristics sharing the same essence is called non-duality, not causing them to be refuted and eliminated. The statement "The nature of giving is itself the nature of dedication to knowledge" has two meanings in its explanation: first, speaking in terms of emptiness, they share the identical nature of emptiness; second, speaking in terms of existence, these two together use the true mind as their nature, and because their essence is without distinction, it is therefore called non-duality. In the remaining pāramitās below, it also first brings up two and afterwards clarifies non-duality, the text being identical to the preceding explanation. This explains non-duality. The statement "Entering the single characteristic within them" explains the meaning of entry. "This is..." below concludes.

4.7

In the twenty-first [section], first, "Shenhui (Gambhīramati) said" indicates the person to set up the individual statement. Below, what was said is clarified. "Emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness are two" contrarily brings up two characteristics. These three are broadly explained as in the chapter on the three liberations. These are actually three kinds; why are they called two? Because they are distinct, they are called two. Furthermore, within them, pairing any two against each other is also called two. Below, these two are integrated to constitute non-duality. In this approach, the two dharmas sharing the same essence constitutes non-duality. "Emptiness is itself signlessness, and signlessness is itself wishlessness" eliminates their distinct characteristics. Within the single principle of emptiness, three are distinguished according to meaning; therefore they can be identical to one another. Thus Nāgārjuna said: "In the Mahāyāna, the essence of the three liberations is one. If a person enters into emptiness, he immediately knows signlessness and also knows wishlessness; up to entering into wishlessness, he also knows emptiness and signlessness." "If it is emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness, then there is no mind, thought, or consciousness" eliminates their distinct subjective sentiments. Because one grasps with distinct, biased sentiments, they must be eliminated. Mind, thought, and consciousness are generally explained as one, but distinctly differentiated within that: the seventh consciousness is called mind (citta), because it is the basis of accumulation and arising; the sixth consciousness is called thought (manas), because it identically speaks of sense-objects; the five consciousnesses are called consciousness (vijñāna), because they cognize present objects. The distinctions among these three are as explained in the *Laṅkāvatāra*. Investigating them in terms of principle, the essence of these three is empty, their characteristics also do not exist, and their function is unobtainable; therefore all of them are non-existent. The preceding refutes the distinct to return to the one. "Within the single liberation, there are immediately three liberations" contemplates the one to open up the distinct, establishing the preceding meaning of oneness. Below, it summarizes: knowing in this way is called entering non-duality. "This is..." below concludes.

4.8

In the twenty-second [statement], first, "Śāntendriya said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'The Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha are two'" points back to the signs of duality. Because the signs of the Three Jewels are different, they are called "two"; also, within the three, pairing them two by two is likewise called "two." The meaning of the Three Jewels is extensively treated in a separate chapter, but should be fully discussed here. Below, he synthesizes these two into nonduality. In this approach, distinct dharmas sharing an identical substance is called nonduality; it does not involve refuting and eliminating them. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, he first explains the meaning of nonduality. "The Buddha is just the Dharma, and the Dharma is just the Saṃgha": this shows nonduality by having each distinct aspect be identical [to the others]. This refers to the single-substance Three Jewels in the sūtras, also called the identical substance. What does this mean? Broadly explained, there are four [perspectives]: First, discerning oneness in terms of phenomena. On the single fruit of buddhahood, three are distinguished according to sense: the meaning of awakening is called the Buddha, that which can serve as a model is called the Dharma, and the exhaustion of faults that contravene purity is called the Saṃgha. This single meaning extends universally to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and is found even in the Abhidharma. Second, discerning oneness in terms of the principle of emptiness of intrinsic nature. Although the Three Jewels are distinct, none have a fixed nature; because they are equal in the principle of having no nature, they are said to be of identical substance. This applies to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, and is found even in the Tattvasiddhi, not being unique to the Mahāyāna. Third, discerning oneness in terms of the principle of emptiness of characteristics. Although the Three Jewels are distinct, all are empty and signless; not only are they without nature, their characteristics also do not exist. Because the principle of signlessness is one, they are said to be of identical substance. This is unique to the Mahāyāna. Fourth, discerning oneness within the gate of true dependent origination. The Three Jewels all take the tathāgatagarbha of true suchness and Buddha-nature as their substance; because the mind of true consciousness dependently originates and integrally forms the meaning of the Three Jewels, within this gate the explanation of oneness is not fixed. If one distinguishes the Three Jewels in terms of nirvāṇa, the Three Jewels all take nirvāṇa as their substance, and therefore are called a single substance. Hence, in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], the bodhisattva contemplates: "How are the three matters of a single substance with me?" The Buddha himself explains: "I say that the three matters are just great nirvāṇa, and therefore are called a single substance." If one distinguishes the Three Jewels in terms of Buddha-nature, the Three Jewels all take Buddha-nature as their substance, and therefore are called a single substance; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "Such a threefold refuge is just my nature." If one distinguishes the Three Jewels in terms of ultimate truth, the Three Jewels all take ultimate truth as their substance; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "If one can contemplate the Three Jewels as eternally abiding, they are identical to ultimate truth." If one discusses the Three Jewels in terms of the meaning of permanence, the Three Jewels all take the meaning of permanence as their substance and are called a single substance; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, "I also do not say that the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha lack differentiated characteristics; I only say that in being permanent, eternal, and without change, there is no differentiation." If one divides the Three Jewels in terms of the gate of emptiness, the Three Jewels all take the principle of emptiness as their substance. If one distinguishes the Three Jewels in terms of the gate of nonduality, they equally take nonduality as their substance; and so on for all things. All these instances of oneness are not of a single kind of oneness. What is discussed here is spoken in terms of the gate of true dependent origination. The single dharma of true suchness dependently originates as the three, and the three are all suchness; hence the Buddha is just the Dharma, and the Dharma is just the Saṃgha. This is the mutual identity of the distinct aspects previously mentioned. As for the statement "these Three Jewels are all unconditioned," this generally reveals nonduality. Because the Three Jewels are all the permanent dharma of true suchness, they are all unconditioned. "Equal to empty space" reveals this by analogy. Just like empty space, which is unobstructed and unmoving, it is divided according to meaning yet its substance is one. The Three Jewels are likewise; therefore their substance is one. As for the statement "all dharmas are also like this," this uses the identical substance and nonduality of these Three Jewels to analogize that all dharmas are likewise of identical substance; hence it says "also like this." This explains nonduality. "Being able to accord with this practice" explains the meaning of entering. "This is..." and what follows concludes.

4.9

In the twenty-third [statement], "Apratihata said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'The body and the cessation of the body are two'" points back to the signs of duality. The retribution of saṃsāra is called the "body"; the cessation of the body that is nirvāṇa is called the "cessation of the body"; and their two divisions into existence and non-existence are called "two." Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, "the body is just the cessation of the body" briefly clarifies nonduality. The non-abiding of the body and the non-abiding of that cessation of the body are of one principle; therefore he says "is just." "Therefore..." and what follows explains it, first asking and then explaining. "One who sees the true mark of the body does not give rise to seeing the body or the cessation of the body": this contemplates the one to refute the distinct. Emptiness of the supreme meaning is the true mark of the body; within this true mark, originally there is no body, so what could there be to cease? Therefore, seeing the truth of the body, one does not give rise to seeing the body or the cessation of the body. "The body and the cessation of the body are without duality and without distinction": this refutes the distinct to return to the one. Body and cessation are both nonexistent; therefore he says "without duality"; this eliminates the distinct marks. Once the two marks do not exist, the grasping disposition also ceases, which is called "without differentiation"; this eliminates the distinct dispositions. The differentiation above is finished. As for the statement "within this, being without alarm and without fear is entering nonduality," it takes this up to conclude. When sentient beings of the Hīnayāna hear that there is no body and also no cessation, they mostly produce terror; hence it is immediately proclaimed that being without alarm and without fear means not giving rise to shock or bewilderment at the locus where cessation is nonexistent, and not giving rise to fright or fear at the locus where the body is nonexistent. Or again, one is not alarmed at the locus where the body is nonexistent, and not afraid at the locus where that cessation of the body is nonexistent. Comprehensively, their meanings are equivalent. "This is..." and what follows concludes.

4.10

In the twenty-fourth [statement], first, "Śubhakanika said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'Goodness of body, speech, and mind'" points back to the signs of duality. Because they are distinct, they are called "two"; also, within them, pairing them two by two is likewise called "two." Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, he first explains the meaning of nonduality. As for the statement "these three actions are all uncreated," this generally clarifies nonduality. When investigated to their end, all are empty and there is no dharma that can arise; this is called "all uncreated." "The sign of non-creation of the body is just the non-creation of speech, and the sign of non-creation of speech is just the non-creation of mind": this individually reveals nonduality. Because the meaning of nonexistence is not different, they can be mutually identical. As for the statement "these three non-creations are just the sign of non-creation of all dharmas," this takes this up to analogize the rest, clarifying that all dharmas are entirely nondual. "Being able to accord with the wisdom of non-creation in this way" explains the meaning of entering. "This is..." and what follows concludes.

4.11

In the twenty-fifth [statement], first, "Puṇyakṣetra said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'Meritorious action, sinful action, and immovable action are two'" points back to the signs of duality. Evil karma of the three destinies and karmas of suffering as distinct retributions among humans and devas are called "sinful action"; all wholesome karma among humans and devas of the desire realm and karmas of pleasure as distinct retributions among ghosts and animals are called "meritorious action"; and the quiet karma conforming to concentration in the upper two realms is called "immovable action." Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, he first says "the real nature of the three actions is just emptiness," which refutes the distinct to return to the one. Being empty, there is no sin, merit, or immovability; this eliminates the distinct by means of the one. This explains nonduality. "Not giving rise [to anything] regarding these three actions" explains the meaning of entering. "This is..." and what follows concludes.

4.12

In the twenty-sixth [statement], first, "Padmavyūha said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'Arising from the self is two'" points back to the signs of duality. The five skandhas together with the composite provisional person are called the "self"; all dharmas created by the self are called that which is "arisen from the self"; this distinction is called "two." Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. "Seeing the real nature of the self and not giving rise to duality": this refutes and eliminates the two signs. The principle of selflessness is the true mark of the self; within this true mark, originally there is no self, so how could there be anything arisen? Therefore, one does not give rise to duality. "Not abiding in two dharmas, there is no consciousness": this refutes and eliminates the two dispositions. "Being without that which is cognized is entering nonduality": this takes this up to conclude.

4.13

In the twenty-seventh [statement], first, "Guṇagarbha said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'Having acquisition is two'" points back to the signs of duality. Creating wholesome and unwholesome deeds and obtaining retributions of suffering and pleasure is called "acquisition"; within what is acquired, differences such as suffering and pleasure are called "two." Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. As for "if there is no acquisition, there is no grasping or abandoning," in the supreme meaning, acquisition is originally nonexistent; because there is no acquisition, there is no pleasure to grasp and no suffering to abandon. "One without grasping or abandoning" takes this up to conclude.

4.14

In the twenty-eighth [statement], first, "Candrottara said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'Darkness and brightness are two'" points back to the signs of duality. The darkness and delusion of afflictions is called "darkness"; wisdom is "brightness." Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, he first clarifies the meaning of nonduality. "Without darkness and without brightness, there is no duality" briefly differentiates it. "Therefore..." and what follows explains it, first investigating and then explaining. "Like entering the concentration of cessation, there is neither darkness nor brightness": this establishes an analogy to reveal it. "The signs of all dharmas are also like this": this matches the analogy to reveal the dharmas. This explains nonduality. As for the statement "one who enters equally into them," this explains the meaning of entering. "This is..." and what follows concludes.

4.15

In the twenty-ninth [statement], "Ratnamudrāhasta said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. "'Delighting in nirvāṇa and not delighting in the mundane world are two'" points back to the signs of duality. Below, he overturns these two to clarify nonduality, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, he first says "not delighting in nirvāṇa and not reviling the mundane world, there is no duality," briefly differentiating its signs. "Therefore..." and what follows explains it, first investigating and then explaining. As for "if there is bondage, then there is liberation," this explains nonduality in reverse. "If there is originally no bondage, who seeks liberation?": this directly explains nonduality; this eliminates the two dharmas. "Without bondage and without liberation, there is no delight or revulsion": this refutes and eliminates the two dispositions; there is no liberation to delight in and no bondage to revile. "This is..." and what follows concludes.

4.16

In the thirtieth [statement], "Cūḍāmaṇirāja said" indicates the person who speaks separately. Below, what he said is clarified. First, "the correct path and the wrong path are two" points back to the signs of duality. Broadly explained, there are two: first, discussing it in terms of practice; second, speaking of it in terms of dharmas. In terms of practice, there are three: First, ordinary beings versus nobles. The eight wrong paths of ordinary beings are called the "wrong path"; the eightfold correct path cultivated by all noble ones is entirely called the "correct path." Second, Mahāyāna versus Hīnayāna. What is clarified by the Hīnayāna is the view of a divergent vehicle, which is called "wrong"; the Mahāyāna is called "correct." Third, characteristics versus reality. Conditioned characteristics are "wrong"; real realization is called "correct." Thus it is in terms of practice. Speaking of it in terms of dharmas also has three kinds: First, external dharmas are called "wrong," and the Buddhadharma is "correct." Second, lesser dharmas are "wrong," and great dharmas are "correct." Third, deluded dharmas are called "wrong," and true dharmas are "correct." Here it is discussed in terms of dharmas. Among the equivalent treatments in terms of dharmas, it is based on the third explanation: the two divisions into wrong and correct are therefore called "two." Below, he dissolves these two to make them nondual, where the double elimination of the two signs constitutes nonduality. First he differentiates, and then he concludes. In differentiating, "abiding in the correct, one does not differentiate wrong and correct": deluded disposition grasping at dharmas is called abiding in the wrong path; extinguishing delusion and realizing truth is called abiding in the correct path. If spoken according to one who abides in the wrong through deluded disposition, outside of the wrong there is the correct, which forms a duality in contrast to the wrong. If spoken in terms of one who extinguishes delusion and abides in the correct, outside of the correct there is no wrong; because there is no wrong, the correct is also a deluded contrast and cannot be called correct. Because there is no wrong, one does not give rise to the differentiation that that is a wrong path; and because the correct is a deluded contrast, one also does not differentiate that this is a correct path. The double elimination of the two signs is called abiding in nonduality. "Free from these two..." and what follows takes this up to conclude.

4.17

In the thirty-first [section], first, "Joy in the Real said" identifies the person to present an individual exposition. Below, his statement is revealed. "The real and the unreal are two" brings up the two characteristics in reverse. The conventional truth, being empty and false, is called unreal; the ultimate truth is called real. Below, he dissolves these two to explain non-duality; first he distinguishes it, and then concludes. In the distinction, he first says: "One who sees the real does not even see the real, much less the non-real," which briefly clarifies non-duality. Viewing the real from the standpoint of the false, outside the false there is the real, forming a pair in contrast to the false. Discussing the real from the standpoint of the real, outside the real there is no false, so the real also loses its counterpart. Because the real loses its counterpart, one who has the vision of the real does not grasp the characteristic of the real. When even the real is not seen, how much less the non-real? The vanishing of both is called non-duality. The explanation begins below "Why so?"; it first inquires and questions. What is the intent of the question? Because one sees the real, it is called "vision of the real." Having already spoken of "vision of the real," for what reason does one say that neither the real nor the non-real is seen? Below, he answers and explains it. "It is not seen by the fleshly eye, but can be seen by the wisdom eye" explains the previous "vision of the real." There are five kinds of eyes, and what they see differs: first, the fleshly eye sees coarse, near forms within obstructions; second, the divine eye sees subtle, distant forms beyond obstructions; third, the Dharma eye sees the numerical lists of phenomena subject to arising and ceasing—such as all suffering and impermanence—as well as the faculties, desires, and natures of sentient beings; fourth, the wisdom eye sees the emptiness of all dharmas; fifth, the Buddha eye sees the real nature of dharmas. Here, emptiness is spoken of as the real; therefore, this real cannot be seen by the fleshly eye. It is seen only by the wisdom eye; the divine eye and Dharma eye also do not see emptiness, but discussing it in contrast to the first, he specifically says it is not seen by the fleshly eye. "Yet this wisdom eye has neither seeing nor non-seeing" explains the previous summary: "does not even see the real, much less the non-real." What is the meaning of this? When a bodhisattva's wisdom eye sees emptiness, exhaustively probing emptiness to the ultimate, it does not see an eye capable of seeing outside of emptiness. Since there is no eye capable of seeing outside of emptiness, could there be an emptiness outside the eye that serves as the object seen? Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "When the bodhisattva-mahāsattva clarifies the Great Nirvāṇa, he does not see empty space; this very not seeing is truly called seeing emptiness, and is called 'having no non-seeing.'" And the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "Only the wisdom eye can see it. One who sees like this takes non-seeing as seeing, and therefore it is called seeing." This is similar to that. This refers specifically to explaining that one "does not even see the real"; that one "does not see the non-real" is easily understood and is not discussed. One who sees the unreal cannot see emptiness, which is called "not seeing." The bodhisattva severs and leaves behind this mind of non-seeing, which is called "having no non-seeing." Below "This is," he concludes. Above is the first [part], where Vimalakīrti raised the question, and the bodhisattvas and others used words to eliminate characteristics and [clarify] non-duality.

4.18

From here below is the second [part], where the bodhisattvas ask, and Mañjuśrī responds by using words to eliminate words, thereby revealing non-duality. Therein, first is the question. "These bodhisattvas" identifies the questioners. "Having each spoken" concludes what precedes and introduces what follows. From "asked Mañjuśrī" down, the words of the question are formally stated. From "What is a bodhisattva's entrance into the gate of non-duality?" down, Mañjuśrī answers. "As for what is in my mind" shows that Mañjuśrī is speaking according to his own thought, not following others. "In all dharmas, there is no speech..." and so forth formally distinguishes its characteristics. Dharmas are of two kinds: first, conventional truth; second, the truth of the ultimate meaning. Taken broadly, both have senses of being expressible and inexpressible. Subsuming dharmas under names, dharmas turn along with names, and all can be expressed. Because they can be expressed, when the buddhas preach the Dharma, they always rely on the two truths. Inquiring into them according to the real, dharmas are all free from names. Because they are without names, all are inexpressible. Therefore the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* states: "All dharmas are free from speech and free from the nature of provisional designations." Distinguishing them individually within this, the conventional truth can be expressed, while the ultimate truth cannot be expressed. Therefore Nāgārjuna said: "For the ultimate meaning, the path of words is cut off, and the sphere of mental activity is extinguished." Now it is based on the latter. In the gate of distinguishing characteristics, it clarifies that the ultimate meaning is wondrous, quiescent, and free from words; therefore, it says that there being no speech down to being free from answers is true non-duality.

4.19

Question: What is the difference between speech (言), exposition (說), indication (示), and cognition (識), that they are individually stated to be absent? Answer: Stating characters with the mouth is called speech (言); elucidating the Dharma through speech is only then called exposition (說). Alternatively, utterable words that accord with the Dharma are speech (言); elucidating the Dharma through speech is called exposition (說); revealing the Dharma with reference to a person is called indication (示); and causing a person to understand the Dharma is spoken of as cognition (識). These exist in accordance with the conventional, but in the ultimate all are absent, so it says "there is no speech" down to "no cognition."

4.20

Since speech is absent, the meanings of asking and responding are terminated; thus it is "free from questions and answers." Below "This is," he concludes. Although the preceding bodhisattvas eliminated characteristics, retaining words to counter dharmas is still duality; only when words are extinguished and counterparts eliminated is there non-duality. Therefore, it now concludes that having no speech and so forth is entering non-duality.

4.21

From here below is the third [part], where Mañjuśrī asks and Vimalakīrti reveals [it] through silence. Therein, Mañjuśrī first initiates the question, Vimalakīrti next is silent, and below "Mañjuśrī," there is another praise to reveal it. In the first part, "Mañjuśrī" identifies the questioner. "Asked Vimalakīrti" addresses the one asked. "We have each spoken" concludes what precedes and introduces what follows. From "Humane Sir, you should state what is..." down, the question is formally presented. Next, Vimalakīrti reveals it through silence. Vimalakīrti has exhaustively realized the reality of non-duality; at the locus of the real, feelings vanish and speech is completely absent, so he reveals it through silence. Moreover, previously Mañjuśrī aimed at the Way by countering words, which was not as profound as Vimalakīrti's profound silence that discards seeking. Extinguishing words is itself the Way, so he is silent and does not speak. The wordless Way cannot be fathomed through words; wishing to make those who speak cease their words and unite in harmony, below Mañjuśrī praises it to reveal it. "Mañjuśrī praised him, saying" identifies it in general. "Excellent, excellent!" is precisely the words of praise. Extinguishing words and entering reality reveals the principle most supremely, hence it is called "excellent." "Zai" is a particle of exclamation. As the pinnacle of goodness, he repeats the word to praise its excellence. From "Down to there being no written characters or words" down, he brings out its excellent quality. Transcending words to arrive at silence, it therefore says "down to." Wordlessness is itself the Way, and the Way cuts off verbal counterparts; therefore it is called "truly entering non-duality." Above is the first [part], explaining the entrance into non-duality; below explains the benefit of the preaching: five thousand bodhisattvas all entered non-duality and attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.

4.22

As for the "Fragrance Accumulation Chapter," this chapter relies upon the Tathāgata Fragrance Accumulation to reveal the result of the buddhas' pure lands; taking the title of the chapter from the person relied upon, it is called the "Fragrance Accumulation Chapter." Within this chapter, there is an analysis in three gates: first, determining what is explained; second, explaining the reason for its occurrence; third, interpreting according to the text. What is explained is twofold: first, distinction in terms of Vimalakīrti's revelation of virtues. This chapter is also to display Vimalakīrti's inconceivable virtues; obtaining food from Fragrance Accumulation and having the small room broadly accommodate [everyone] are the inconceivable virtues that are revealed. Second, distinction in terms of the Dharma. "Dharma" refers to the causes and results of the dharmakāya and the pure land. Now this formally reveals the causes and results of the pure land, explaining that the wondrous adornments of the realm of All Fragrances are the results of the pure land, and what is explained in the text below about cultivating the ten and cultivating the eight are the causes of the pure land. Such is what is explained. Next, the reason for its occurrence is explained. It is again explained according to the two previous meanings. First, explaining the reason for its occurrence in terms of Vimalakīrti: within Vimalakīrti's virtues, the meaning is distinguished into four pairs, as explained above. From "Entering Non-duality" down is the fourth pair. Within this pair, what was practiced in the previous chapter was cultivating practice and actualizing realization; what is achieved in this chapter is accomplishing the virtues of inconceivable liberation. Because the causal practice has its achievement, it must be explained. Furthermore, the previous chapter's entrance into the gate of non-duality explained the essence of liberation, while this chapter explains the function of liberation. Because function relies on essence, it is explained next. Second, explaining the reason for its occurrence in terms of the Dharma: from above, starting with the kings and great ministers all coming to inquire about his illness, it broadly explained the causes and results of the Tathāgata's dharmakāya; this chapter explains the causes and results of the Buddha's pure land. The body must rely on a land, so it must be explained. Such is the reason for its occurrence, and the text must be interpreted. This chapter has two parts: first, formally explaining the Dharma; second, from "Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī among the great assembly" down, explaining the benefit of the preaching. In the former, there are again two: first, occasioned by Śāriputra thinking of food, he obtains food from Fragrance Accumulation, explaining the results of the pure land; second, from "Those bodhisattvas, having heard this, all said: 'Never before..."' down, occasioned by the praise and request of those newly arrived bodhisattvas, it explains the causes of the pure land. Among the results of the pure land, Fragrance Accumulation is the most evident, so it is revealed by relying on it. As for the causes of the pure land, the Sahā world is clearly superior, so it is explained in terms of this. However, these causes and results of the pure land explained here complete the previous initial assembly. How do they complete it? In the previous initial assembly, it was proclaimed that when a bodhisattva attains buddhahood, he is endowed with a land of all meritorious virtues, but the characteristics were not yet evident; now this is revealed by relying on Fragrance Accumulation. Therefore, the text below explains that in All Fragrances, all things are made of fragrance, and the pavilions, walking paths, fragrant ground, and gardens are all fragrant, and so on. Furthermore, in the initial assembly, it was proclaimed that when a bodhisattva attains buddhahood, Mahāyāna sentient beings come to be born in his land, but the characteristics were also not yet evident; therefore, now it is also revealed in terms of Fragrance Accumulation. Thus, the text below explains that in the land of Fragrance Accumulation, there are no names of śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas, but only pure great bodhisattvas. Furthermore, in the initial assembly, it was proclaimed that when a bodhisattva attains buddhahood, sentient beings endowed with all meritorious virtues come to be born in his land, but the characteristics were also not yet evident. Now this is also revealed by relying on Fragrance Accumulation. Thus, the text below explains that when the bodhisattvas in the land of Fragrance Accumulation are born beneath fragrant trees, they immediately attain the samādhi of the treasury of all virtues; having attained this samādhi, they are endowed with all the virtues that bodhisattvas possess. Such is completing the result. Furthermore, in the previous assembly, practices such as the six perfections and four means of embrace were proclaimed as the causes of the land, but the place of manifestation was not brought out; now this is distinguished. Thus, the text below explains that the Sahā world uniquely has ten matters that the other pure lands do not have. Furthermore, in the previous assembly, various practices were proclaimed as the causes of the pure land, but the clear teachings were not brought out; now this is distinguished. Thus, the text below explains that these bodhisattvas accomplish eight dharmas, practicing without wounds or blemishes, and are born in the pure land. These eight are purely teachings of comprehensive clarity; relying on these, all practices are comprehensively aroused as causes of the pure land. Such is completing the cause.

4.23

Regarding the first part, distinguishing and explaining the results of the pure land: first, Śāriputra thinking of food serves as the occasion; later, Vimalakīrti fetches food for them, displaying his own inconceivable power and simultaneously revealing the affairs of the Fragrance Accumulation pure land. In Śāriputra's thinking, "Thereupon Śāriputra" identifies the person who gave rise to the thought. Because his wisdom is superior, he can stimulate many things, and so he specifically gives rise to the thought. Below, what he thought is brought out: "The time is approaching noon; where shall these bodhisattvas eat?" Because the room was still empty, he gave rise to this thought. Indeed, because food and drink are necessary for the time, he therefore thought of it. Moreover, because thinking of food gives rise to many developments, he now thinks of it.

4.24

Question: Why did he previously think of seats universally for the disciples, but now thinks of food specifically for the bodhisattvas? Explanation: Seats are needed alike by both the great and the small, and therefore he did so universally for them. Regarding food, the śrāvakas have the rule of begging for food, so he did not do so for them. Furthermore, previously he thought of seats universally for the disciples and was rebuked, so now he does not bring them up.

4.25

Regarding the subsequent passage where Vimalakīrti procures the food, there are three sections in the text: First, he rebukes what was thought so as to make him abandon impure food. Second, from "If you wish" onward, he promises to procure food so as to make them seek pure food. Third, from "At that time Vimalakīrti entered samādhi" onward, he directly procures the food, fulfilling the desire of their minds. In the first section, "Vimalakīrti" indicates the person who can rebuke. "Knew his thought" explains the reason for the rebuke. "And said" and below directly sets forth the words of the rebuke. "The Buddha taught the eight liberations, which you, benevolent one, have received and practiced" adduces what he understands. The eight liberations are the dharmas for departing from desire; therefore they are specially cited. The meaning is as in the separate chapter; here it should be discussed extensively, but now their names are briefly listed: possessing internal form and externally observing forms; having no internal form and externally observing forms; the liberation of the sign of the pure as the third; the station of space as the fourth; the station of consciousness as the fifth; nothingness as the sixth; neither-perception[-nor-non-perception] as the seventh; and cessation as the eighth. These eight depart from fetters, and are thus named "liberations." They turn away from lower faults; therefore in the sūtra they are called "turning away and abandoning." Moreover, Nāgārjuna says: "Turning away from the pure five desires and abandoning the clinging mind is also called 'turning away and abandoning.'" "You, benevolent one, have received and practiced" clarifies that he ought to be free from desire. "How could it be mixed with desire..." and so forth relies on this understanding to rebuke him. "How" means "how could it be permissible?" Having received and practiced the eight liberations, could it be permissible to mix the mind of greedily desiring food while listening to the Dharma? Because taking and using this impure food has many faults, he rebukes him to make him abandon it.

4.26

Question: Śāriputra previously thought of food for the sake of the bodhisattvas; why does Vimalakīrti rebuke his personal desire? Explanation: Śāriputra's previous thought of food originally arose from his own mind's need for food. Having his own desire, he supposed that others also needed it, and therefore thought: "Where shall these bodhisattvas eat?" Vimalakīrti now deeply discerns its root, and therefore rebukes him accordingly.

4.27

From here below is the second [section], promising to procure the food. "If you wish to eat" adduces what is needed. "I will cause you to obtain food such as you have never had before" promises to procure it for them. Taking and using the food of a pure land brings many benefits; wanting to make them seek it, he must promise it.

4.28

From here below is the third [section], directly procuring the food, manifesting his own inconceivable power to cause people to practice and learn, and revealing the fruition of the Sarvagandhasugandhā Pure Land to cause people to aspire and seek. In this text, the main principle is to make manifest the pure, revealing it in contrast to the impure. The text has six passages, subsumed under three pairs. As for the six passages: First, Vimalakīrti, by supernatural power, displays the buddha realm of Gandharādharṣa above, sending another to procure the food and causing this assembly to see it. Second, from "Those great beings, seeing the emanation..." onward, it clarifies that the bodhisattvas of the land of Sarvagandha, because of the emanation going there, learn of this Sahā world and come to listen to the Dharma. These two are a pair, displaying different lands to make them mutually known. Third, from "Vimalakīrti then created by transformation nine million..." onward, it clarifies that the small room in this Sahā world broadly accommodates. Fourth, from "Vimalakīrti said to Śāriputra and the others, 'You may eat'" onward, it clarifies that the small amount of rice from the Sarvagandha realm broadly suffices. These two are a pair, displaying different phenomena to make them mutually respect one another. Fifth, from "Vimalakīrti asked the Tathāgata Gandharādharṣa: 'With what [teaching] do you speak...'" onward, it makes manifest that Tathāgata's manner of gathering others. Sixth, from "Those bodhisattvas asked Śākyamuni: 'With what [teaching] do you speak...'" onward, it clarifies this World-Honoured One's method of opening the path. These two are a pair, displaying different dharmas to make them mutually learn from one another. Among the six, the former four are to make manifest the benefit of the food, and the latter two are to reveal the benefit of the Dharma. Within making manifest the benefit of the food: first, Vimalakīrti fetches it; second, that buddha gives it; third, Vimalakīrti receives the food from the other; fourth, Vimalakīrti gives it to the assembly and causes them to eat. Within the first there are three: 1. Vimalakīrti manifests the Sarvagandha realm, causing this assembly to see it; 2. from "Asked the bodhisattvas..." onward, he orders the assembly to procure the food; 3. from "Thereupon Vimalakīrti, without rising from his seat..." onward, the assembly being unable, he sends an emanation to go and fetch it. In the first passage, Vimalakīrti first manifests it, and afterwards the assembly together sees it.

First 28 of 98 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

維摩義記 — Classical Chinese