維摩義記 4.73

4.73

The following six [gates] reveal the Buddha's body by reference to common gates of phenomena. Because oneness, difference, and the like are common to all phenomena, among these [the text] first clarifies "neither identical nor different." There are two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: identity and difference are both eliminated; hence it is called "neither identical nor different." Second, distinction by revealing virtues: the essence possesses all virtues, which is called the "sign of non-identity"; the perfect essence of all virtues is like worldly space, unhindered and motionless, not an entirely distinct essence, which is called the "sign of non-difference." Second, it clarifies "neither self nor other." There are two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: self and other are both nonexistent; this is called "neither self nor other." Second, distinction by revealing virtues: manifesting forms in accord with teaching is called the "sign of non-self"; the dharmakāya's essence is quiescent and does not change in accord with conditions, which is called the "sign of non-other." Third, it clarifies "neither nonexistent nor grasped." There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: both nonexistence and existence are eliminated; hence it is called "neither nonexistent nor grasped." Saying "not the sign of nonexistence" means not clinging to nonexistence; saying "not the sign of grasping" means not grasping at existence. Second, distinction by revealing virtues: manifesting forms in accord with teaching, it is therefore not the sign of nonexistence; its inherent virtue is eternally quiescent and free of conceptual discrimination, which is called not the sign of grasping. Fourth, it clarifies "neither on this shore nor the other shore," and so forth. There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: this shore, the other shore, and the middle are all nonexistent; this is called "neither on this shore, nor on the other shore, nor in the midst of the stream," and so forth. Samsāra is this shore, nirvāṇa is the other shore, and the noble path is the middle; these are spoken of within the approach of antidotes. If sought in terms of reality, there is fundamentally no saṃsāra, and thus there is no this shore. Since there is no saṃsāra, in contrast to what could it be called the other shore? Therefore the earlier text states: "There is bondage and there is liberation." If fundamentally there is no bondage, who would seek liberation? Since both sides are nonexistent, in reference to what could one speak of the middle? Therefore there is no midstream. Second, distinction by revealing virtues: renouncing signs and realizing quiescence, hence not on this shore; attaining great nirvāṇa without abandoning the worldly realm, hence not on the other shore; practicing defilement and purity together without leaning to the middle, hence not in the midst of the stream. Fifth, it clarifies "yet transforming sentient beings": "contemplating quiescence, yet not perpetually extinguished." There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: though transforming sentient beings, he contemplates quiescence and does not grasp at the sign of existence. In order to transform sentient beings, he guides them to enter quiescence; therefore, transforming sentient beings, he contemplates quiescence. Extinguished without grasping combines both meanings; hence the text says "though." "Yet not perpetually extinguished" means not clinging to the sign of nonexistence. Second, distinction by revealing virtues: though transforming he contemplates quiescence, which is the practice of entering quiescence; yet not perpetually extinguished, which is the practice of conforming to existence. Sixth, it clarifies "neither here nor there." There are also two interpretations: First, distinction by dispelling signs: "neither here nor there" is discussed in terms of the body; the dharmakāya is free from signs, so it is neither here nor there. Moreover, the Buddha lands are all suchness; there is no "here" to reside in, which is called "not here"; there is no "there" to reside in, which is called "not there." Saying "not for the sake of this and not for the sake of that" is explained in terms of the mind. "For the sake of" means acting for. The true mind is eternally quiescent; not acting for this is called "not for the sake of this"; not acting for that is called "not for the sake of that." Furthermore, sentient beings are all nonexistent; there is no "this" to act for, which is called "not for the sake of this"; there is no "that" to act for, which is called "not for the sake of that." Second, distinction by revealing virtues: the dharmakāya pervades the entire dharmadhātu, not biased toward being here and not biased toward being there; hence it is called "neither here nor there." Great compassion covers all universally, not biased toward acting for that; this is called "not for the sake of this and not for the sake of that." The preceding discussion of being free from signs clarifies that there is no object to be grasped. "Cannot be known by knowledge and cannot be cognized by consciousness" clarifies freedom from deluded conceptualization, showing that there is no grasping subject. Sages cannot comprehend it; therefore it is called "cannot be known by knowledge." Worldlings cannot take it as an object; therefore it is called "cannot be cognized by consciousness." The above is the first part, clarifying freedom from deluded conceptualization.