維摩義記 4.49

4.49

Question: How do the causes and effects explained here differ from those above, such that they need to be discussed again? The differences are as explained above, but we will now make them even clearer. We will first explain in terms of the causes, and afterwards speak in terms of the [effects]. As for the differences in causes, there are two. First, differentiation according to persons: The preceding two assemblies were for transforming the sentient beings of the defiled Sahā world, teaching them exclusively to seek purity, showing that their practice was devoted to seeking the pure land. This assembly is for transforming the bodhisattvas of the pure land of the Sarvagandhasugandhā world, teaching them to accord with the profound, [namely] neither exhausting the conditioned nor abiding in the unconditioned. Second, differentiation according to regular Dharma: In the previous first assembly, the essential nature of dharmas was directly presented, but the marks of practice were not yet explained; the latter two assemblies explain the marks of completing the practice. Therein, the preceding assembly taught practice toward quiescence, refuting and abandoning existence and non-existence to enter non-duality: from [Chapter 5] "Inquiring about Illness" to the end of [Chapter 7] "Contemplating Sentient Beings", it refutes and abandons the ordinary person's attachment to existence in order to proceed toward quiescence; the single chapter [Chapter 8] "The Buddha Way" refutes and abandons the two vehicles' attachment to non-existence in order to proceed toward quiescence; [Chapter 9] "The Dharma Gate of Non-duality" refutes and abandons the bodhisattvas' differentiated dualistic views in order to proceed toward the single quiescence. This assembly explains giving rise to function from quiescence: not exhausting the conditioned is its function. This is so in a coarse distinction, though a fine distinction actually encompasses both. Such are the differences in causes. How do the effects differ? We first discuss them in terms of the body, and afterwards speak in terms of the land. Regarding the body, the first assembly explained the effect of the response-body (nirmāṇakāya), previously manifested through Ratnakūṭa's praise, all the way from first being at the tree of awakening, subduing the māras by power, and so forth, all explaining the response[-body]. The second assembly explained the effect of the reward-body (saṃbhogakāya), speaking of its being born from a single immeasurable merit and so forth. This assembly explains the effect of the dharmakāya, as the text below says: "Contemplating the true mark of the body, one contemplates the Buddha likewise. I contemplate the Tathāgata: he does not come from the past, nor go to the future," and so forth. A detailed investigation also encompasses both, while a coarse distinction is also like this. How about the effects of the lands? In the previous first assembly, the pure land was revealed with reference to Śākyamuni; in the second assembly, the pure land was explained with reference to Sugandhakūṭa; in this assembly, the pure land is manifested with reference to Akṣobhya Tathāgata. The former, with reference to Śākyamuni, manifested the pure right within the defiled, explaining the essence of the pure land. The second, with reference to Sugandhakūṭa Tathāgata, manifested the pure outside the defiled, explaining the characteristics of the pure land. This assembly, with reference to Akṣobhya Tathāgata, explains the pure land by taking it and placing it here, manifesting the pure according with the defiled, explaining the function of the pure land. Generally speaking, bringing the food in the previous assembly and consuming it here are also functions. Such is the explanation of the Dharma.