維摩義記 4.5

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.