維摩義記 4.17

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.