維摩經玄疏 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Zhiyi of Xiuchansi on Mount Tiantai

5.2

First, explaining the title: previously it was opened into two folds; first, explaining the specific title of this sūtra, which is completed; second, next explaining the common title.

Second, properly explaining the common title: that is, explaining the single character "jing" (sūtra). If we rely on the Indian language, the beginning of the Buddhist teachings is commonly marked as sūtra (xiuduoluo), or xiudanluo, or xiudulu, just as in this land there are regional dialects of Chu and Xia. As for "sūtra" (sūtra), since it is a foreign word, the explanations of ancient and modern masters differ: some say it is untranslatable, while others say it is translatable. Now, in explaining this meaning, there are briefly five senses: first, clarifying that it is untranslatable; second, clarifying that it is translatable; third, harmonizing and synthesizing the translatable and untranslatable; fourth, interpreting by traversing dharmas; fifth, based on contemplating the mind.

5.4

First, explaining that sūtra is untranslatable: foreign words contain multiple meanings, meaning the name sūtra contains five senses; how could one merely use the character "jing" to translate it! Therefore Dharma Master Kaishan said: "'Jing' is not a proper translation; it merely substitutes the character jing for sūtra." Just as in this land the sacred teachings of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius are called jing, for the sacred teachings of foreign lands it is appropriate for this land to substitute the character jing. What are called the five senses contained in the name sūtra are: first, root of dharmas; second, subtle unfolding; third, bubbling spring; fourth, marking-cord; fifth, garland.

5.5

First, the name sūtra containing the sense of "root of dharmas": the Great Sage knows that all is ineffable, yet through the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas there are spoken teachings. If spoken through the mundane siddhānta, it is the root of all treatises; if spoken through the for-persons and curative siddhāntas, it is the root of practice; if spoken through the paramārtha siddhānta, it is the root of principle. Therefore sūtra contains the sense of "root of dharmas".

5.6

Second, clarifying that the name sūtra contains the sense of "subtle unfolding": the Dharma King uses the four siddhāntas to raise teachings, with skillful and profound words, proceeding from the subtle to the manifest, leaving nothing unexpressed; thus the text and meaning gradually become clear, unfolding the initial aspiration, good in the beginning, middle, and end, perfect and complete. Therefore sūtra contains the sense of "subtle unfolding".

5.7

Third, clarifying that sūtra contains the sense of "bubbling spring": this illuminates the meaning by way of a metaphor, like a spring bubbling and flowing, surging without exhaustion. The Buddha uses the four siddhāntas to preach the Dharma, with inexhaustible text and meaning, the flow of Dharma never ceasing, moistening the sprouts so that the three grasses and two trees, born of the one earth, all attain growth. Therefore sūtra contains the sense of "bubbling spring".

5.8

Fourth, sūtra containing the sense of "marking-cord": this is also revealing the meaning by way of a metaphor, like the marking-cord of the world, which can cut away the crooked and make it straight. The Buddha uses the four siddhāntas to preach the Dharma, trimming away the crookedness of treatises based on craving and views, causing them to generate true views and the undefiled noble path. Therefore sūtra contains the sense of "marking-cord".

5.9

Fifth, sūtra containing the sense of "garland": this is also revealing the meaning by way of a metaphor. A garland is threads piercing through flowers without any falling away; the Great Awakened World-Honoured One uses the four siddhāntas to preach the Dharma, expressing all characteristics of phenomena, responding to conditions without anything being missed or lost. Furthermore, a garland can adorn the body and head; the Tathāgata's spoken teachings adorn the practitioner so that all revere and love them. Therefore sūtra contains the sense of "garland".

5.10

Since this land lacks words containing these five senses, the character "jing" is used in substitution.

5.11

Question: Since sūtra contains these five senses, and all are explained using the siddhāntas, what is the distinction among the five senses?

5.12

Answer: Although the general import of the siddhāntas is the same, the distinction among the five senses has never been confused or conflated.

5.13

Second, clarifying that sūtra is translatable: some masters say, "Formerly, when the Buddha's Dharma first crossed over, the languages of the Hu and the Han were not yet understood, so the various scholars west of the Yellow River regarded it as untranslatable." Since then, sūtras and treatises have crossed over to here, and through translation the languages of the Hu and the Han have become understood, so sūtra is definitely translatable. However, the various Dharma masters had differing traditions, and those who say it is "translatable" have also made more than one [translation]. Now five different translations are briefly set forth: first, some masters say "root of dharmas"; second, some masters say it translates here as "tally"; third, some masters say it translates here as "thread"; fourth, some masters translate it as "teaching of good words"; fifth, some masters say it translates here as "jing" (warp/classic).

5.14

First, some masters say sūtra translates here as "root of dharmas": root of dharmas has three aspects: first, the root of treatises; second, the root of practice; third, the root of meaning. The Buddha uses the four siddhāntas to preach the Dharma, capable of serving as these three roots, fully as explained before.

5.15

Second, some masters say sūtra translates here as "tally" (qi), taking "tallying and joining" as its meaning. The World-Honoured One understands in accordance with the mark of dharmas, and uses the four siddhāntas to preach in accordance with the mark of dharmas: preaching through the mundane siddhānta tallies with sentiments; preaching through the for-persons and curative siddhāntas tallies with practice; preaching through the paramārtha siddhānta tallies with principle.

5.16

Third, some masters translate it as "thread": this reveals the meaning through a metaphor, which is the same as the previous sense of garland. It is also said that "thread takes sewing and finishing as its capability," which means that the preaching of the siddhāntas is able to accomplish the three meanings for practitioners of the three vehicles.

5.17

Fourth, some masters translate it as "teaching of good words": out of great compassion, the Great Sage preaches the Dharma in accord with principle, and therefore it is called good words. Using the siddhāntas to respond to capacities, transforming beings in accord with their sentiments, and enabling practitioners to enter principle, it is therefore called the teaching of good words.

5.18

Fifth, some masters say that the character "jing" is precisely the proper translation. Why is this? The preaching of teachings by the supreme sages of that region is called sūtra; what is spoken by the sages of this land is called jing. Comparing and correlating them in this way, it is precisely the proper translation.

5.19

What is called jing takes "passing through" as its meaning; passing through the minds and mouths of the sages, it is therefore called jing. The siddhāntas conveying the teaching pass through the mind and mouth of the Tathāgata, and are therefore called jing. It is also said: "None of the former sages or later sages failed to pass through this teaching spoken via the siddhāntas and thereby attain the path." It is also said: "Jing is defined as model and defined as constant." A model means it can be conformed to; constant means it is difficult to alter. When the siddhāntas set up the teaching, this teaching can accomplish the three benefits and can definitely be conformed to, so it is said to be "defined as model"; when the siddhāntas convey the teaching, whether gods, Māras, Brahmās, or śramaṇas, and brāhmaṇas, or even the rest of the multitudes, none can alter it, so it is called "constant".

5.20

Question: Since the translatable interpretations are of five different kinds, how can they all analogously be explained using the three meanings?

5.21

Answer: Recounting those reveals this. Since their meanings are expressed and this intent is also clarified, what fault is there?

5.22

Third, harmonizing and synthesizing the untranslatable and the translatable:

5.23

The proponent of translatability asks the proponent of untranslatability: "Why do you say that foreign lands have words containing multiple meanings, while this land has no words containing multiple meanings, and that this is what jing is? The Lotus Sūtra clarifies the purity of the six sense faculties; how could it be that one fully knows the principle of the six dusts and the ten dharma realms?"

5.24

Answer: This is through upholding the Lotus Sūtra, whose six thousand acute virtues adorn the practitioner's six faculties with purity, revealing the function of the resemblance storehouse consciousness, and then the six dusts and all dharmas are all sūtras.

5.25

Question: How can all dharmas entirely express principle and all be sūtras?

5.26

Answer: This matter is easy to clarify. What is presently seen in the world is merely that a single dot of ink-color makes a character, which expresses all dharmas without failing to be comprehensive; how could smells, tastes, tangibles, and so forth not be so? Therefore this sūtra says: 'If one is equal toward food, all dharmas are also equal. If all dharmas are equal, one is also equal toward food,' and thus one can bestow everything with a single food. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'Because all dharmas are equal, the prajñāpāramitā is equal,' and also says: 'All dharmas converge into form, and up to mental dharmas, this convergence does not go beyond.' Form is already unobtainable; how could there be converging or non-converging? Traversing all dharmas in this manner, the rest can be known by analogy.

5.27

Fifth, clarifying sūtra based on contemplating the mind: this has four senses: first, analogizing to untranslatability, clarifying sūtra based on contemplating the mind; second, analogizing to translatability, clarifying sūtra based on contemplating the mind; third, analogizing to harmonizing and synthesizing translatability and untranslatability, clarifying sūtra based on contemplating the mind; fourth, analogizing to traversing dharmas, clarifying sūtra based on contemplating the mind.

5.28

First, analogizing to untranslatability to clarify sūtra based on contemplating the mind: how is it only that sūtra is untranslatable and its name contains five senses? The minds of sentient beings contain all dharmas, and likewise cannot be specifically named. Why is this? If one is separated from all mental factors, what would be named mind? Now, to say that contemplating the mind contains five senses:

5.29

First, the mind contains the sense of the "root of dharmas": the Tiwei jing says, "The mind is the root of myriad practices, the source of all spirits. Entering and exiting without confusion, coming and going without interruption, it governs the whole body to establish the root of the path." This is the root of speech, namely the root of teaching; the root of myriad practices is the root of practice; establishing the root of the path is the root of principle.

5.30

Second, based on contemplating the mind containing the sense of "subtle unfolding": of minute dharmas, none is smaller than a kṣaṇa; through its continuity, all dharmas are formed. If one contemplates this mind, the unfolding of various virtues and wisdom also proceeds from the subtle to the manifest.

5.31

Third, clarifying that based on contemplating the mind it contains the sense of "bubbling spring": through contemplating the mind, virtues and wisdom are generated like an inexhaustible bubbling spring; therefore the Renwang jing says: "One who can contemplate the source of the mind attains boundless reward."

5.32

Fourth, explaining the meaning of "strung garland" in terms of contemplating the mind: The mind-king threads through all the dharmas of mental concomitants, just as a thread threads flowers to form a garland without loss or leakage. Contemplating the mind threading through all dharmas is also like this. If it brings forth concentration and wisdom, they in turn adorn the mind.

5.33

Fifth, clarifying the meaning of "carpenter's ink-line" in terms of contemplating the mind: Contemplating the mind trims the crookedness of craving and views, forming the eightfold straight and correct path.

5.34

Second, clarifying contemplation of the mind by analogy with "there is translation": If one applies dharmas to the mind, it can indeed be designated. One must again correlate this with the previous five translations of sūtra:

5.35

First, clarifying that contemplating the mind is itself the root of dharmas: This has already been clarified above by quoting the Tiwei Jing.

5.36

Second, explaining that contemplating the mind is itself tallying: Contemplating the mind joining with principle is itself tallying.

5.37

Third, clarifying the meaning that contemplating the mind is thread: Contemplating the mind can accomplish all the dharmas of the path, just as thread accomplishes cloth.

5.38

Fourth, clarifying that contemplating the mind is good speech: A single character can be glossed with one definition, or two glosses, or even many glosses; this is the meaning of containing multiple [senses]. Just as with the character "jing", when one wishes to explain it as containing five meanings, the intent is clear and luminous. Therefore, we know that the position of "untranslatable" is incorrect.

5.39

Furthermore, those who hold "untranslatable" ask those who hold "translatable": "If you say, 'Formerly the languages of the two countries were not mutually intelligible, hence it was called untranslatable; now that the languages of the two countries are intelligible, there is definitely a translation,' then sūtra is only a single word from a foreign country. Why now are the translators not uniform, with five terms each differing? If one translation is right, the remaining four are wrong; which is right and which is wrong? If all five translations are right, that [source] is one while this is five; one cannot be five, and five cannot be one, which presents a major contradiction. If all five terms are wrong, then it is definitively known to be untranslatable; even if further differing translations are produced, none can be used."

5.40

Now I say: If one does not grasp the correct intention of the Buddha's teaching, both "translatable" and "untranslatable" are rigid attachments. For one who grasps the intent, both "untranslatable" and "translatable" may be followed. Why is this? If one knows that the giving rise to the teachings through the siddhāntas is one, both "untranslatable" and "translatable" possess the three meanings and contain all of the Buddha's teachings. Once disputes and attachments cease and the correct meaning is completely unobstructed, what fault is there? Therefore, a sūtra says: 'Rely on the meaning, do not rely on the phrasing.' Even so, in our present explanation, directly using the character "jing" leaves nothing unincluded. Moreover, both "untranslatable" and "translatable" fortunately attain accommodation. Why is this? Those who say it is untranslatable also use the character "jing" for the title; those who say it is translatable also use the character "jing" for the title. Neither is seen to place "root of dharmas", "tally", "thread", or "teaching of good speech" at the head of the teaching. If the character "jing" is retained, then both sentiments of "translatable" and "untranslatable" are satisfied, which reconciles the disputed meanings of the two schools. Just as ancient explanations of Nirvāṇa said either "translatable" or "untranslatable", and for Prajñā said either "translatable" or "untranslatable": if one deeply understands this intention, there is no impediment anywhere.

5.41

Fourth, clarifying the sūtra by progressing through all dharmas: A master said there are three kinds of sūtras: first, sound sūtras; second, visible form sūtras; third, mental object (dharma) sūtras.

5.42

First, clarifying sound sūtras: The voice of the Great Awakened World-Honoured One can express principle; hearing the sound, one attains the principle, so the sound is itself the sūtra. Therefore, the Dapin Jing says: 'If one hears prajñā from a good friend...'

5.43

Second, clarifying visible form sūtras: Characters of black ink are the sūtra. Black ink forming characters can express the principle; seeing the visible form, one attains the principle, so visible form is itself the sūtra. Therefore, the Dapin Jing says: 'If one hears prajñā from the sūtra scrolls...'

5.44

Third, regarding mental objects (dharmas) as sūtras: "Dharma" is the dust-object of dharmas. When mind unites with dharmas, one contemplates internally, practicing the dharmas; through dharmas one sees principle, so dharmas are themselves the sūtra. Therefore, a sūtra says: 'Those who cultivate my Dharma know by self-realization. If the mind lacks real practice, what is the use of asking?'

5.45

Question: Among the six sense-objects, why are three sense-objects sūtras, while scent, taste, and touch are not sūtras?

5.46

Answer: Because the three faculties of this land are dull, they cannot attain the principle of scent, taste, and touch; therefore, the three sense-objects are not called sūtras. If in other Buddha-lands the Buddha's work is performed by scent, or by taste, or by touch, then these three sense-objects are all sūtras. In this sūtra, it is fully stated that in other lands the Buddha's works differ; thus all dharmas can express principle and are all sūtras. As for the question, 'If it is said that because the three faculties of this land are dull, the three sense-objects cannot be teachings': a sūtra says that 'applied and sustained thought are the dharma of speech.' Since contemplating the mind is applied and sustained thought that accords with principle, it is good speech; being able to transform the defilements that are contemplated, it is called a teaching. Therefore, this sūtra says: 'The defilements of the assembly of disciples are transformed according to the mind.'

5.47

Fifth, clarifying that contemplating the mind is itself the sūtra: By passing through contemplating the mind, one succeeds in becoming a sage. Therefore, the Banzhou Jing says: 'All Buddhas attain liberation from the mind; the mind is free of defilement and called pure; the five destinies are immaculate and do not grasp form; one who understands this accomplishes the Great Path.'

5.48

Third, clarifying the harmonization of "translatable" and "untranslatable" in terms of contemplating the mind: When contemplating the mind in this way, one knows that this mind can neither be named nor not be named, and both cannot be named and can be named, similar to "translatable" and "untranslatable". If one can penetrate this without impediment, then in contemplating the mind one refutes all dharmas, without attachment, freed from all frivolous fabrications, unobstructed and at ease.

5.49

Fourth, clarifying that in terms of contemplating the mind, progressing through all dharmas, all are sūtras: All myriad dharmas arise from the mind. If the mind is itself the sūtra, then all dharmas are sūtras. Therefore, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'If you wish to know the Tathāgata's mind, merely contemplate the minds of sentient beings.' For example, inside a single particle of dust there is a sūtra scroll of a great trichiliocosm, and no one knows it; if someone breaks open this particle of dust, they see the sūtra scroll of the trichiliocosm. If one shatters a single thought of ignorance in sentient beings, all the sūtras spoken by all Buddhas are fully revealed. If a practitioner can use contemplation of the mind to read and recite the mind-sūtra, they will see the buddha-nature and abide in great nirvāṇa; regarding all the sudden, gradual, esoteric, and indeterminate sūtras, they will clearly understand them all. Why is this? Contemplating the arising and ceasing of the mind, one sees all the Tripiṭaka teaching distinctly in its horizontal and vertical aspects; contemplating the mind as non-arising and non-ceasing, one sees all the shared teaching distinctly in its horizontal and vertical aspects; contemplating the mind as nominal, one sees all the distinctive teaching distinctly in its horizontal and vertical aspects; contemplating the middle way of the mind, one sees all the perfect teaching distinctly in its horizontal and vertical aspects. The correlation of the four teachings with the various sūtras is as distinguished previously (also titled Inconceivable Liberation).

5.50

Second, next is the major section explaining the title; this is receiving the name from the dharma. Our present explanation is briefly of seven points: first, explaining the name "inconceivable liberation"; second, discerning the characteristics of inconceivable liberation; third, separately explaining inconceivable liberation; fourth, analogizing and penetrating the three dharmas; fifth, distinguishing them according to the teachings; sixth, clarifying inconceivable liberation in terms of contemplating the mind; seventh, penetrating the sūtra by means of person and dharma.

5.51

First, explaining the name "inconceivable liberation" consists of three points: first, setting forth the differing explanations of ancient and modern [masters]; second, examining the explanations of the various schools; third, directly clarifying our own school's explanation.

5.52

First, clarifying the differences among ancient and modern masters in explaining inconceivable liberation: The explanations of Dharma masters are numerous; here we briefly set forth seven differing schools:

5.53

First, Dharma Master [Kumāra]jīva says: '"Inconceivable liberation" is the name for samādhi and supernormal powers.'

5.54

Second, Dharma Master [Dao]sheng explains: '"Inconceivable liberation" is unfathomable function.'

5.55

Third, Dharma Master Sengzhao explains: '"Inconceivable liberation": being profound and difficult to fathom, going beyond the realm of the two vehicles, is called "inconceivable"; being unbound by defilements and entanglements is called "liberation".'

5.56

Fourth, the ancient explanation from within the Pass says of inconceivable liberation: 'Severing the fetters at the sixth ground equals the achievement of an arhat; eroding residual habit-energies at the seventh ground and exhausting all habit-energies at the eighth ground, where path and contemplation flow together in parallel, is called "inconceivable". The exhaustion of both primary [defilements] and habit-energies is called "liberation".' In recent times, the various Dharma masters of the southern lands in explaining inconceivable liberation ultimately follow this previous explanation; although there are minor differences, the general meaning is ultimately the same, so it is not detailed here.

5.57

Fifth, the explanations of inconceivable liberation by the masters of the Dilun: Practicing through conditions in the shared teaching, one uses the wisdom of the seventh consciousness to illuminate the true principle of buddha-nature, severing the views and thoughts within the realms and the ignorance beyond the realms. If one generates true understanding and severs fetters, then the complete wisdom of the seventh consciousness stands untroubled outside entanglements, which is called liberation. This is the explanation of liberation in the non-true tradition, not inconceivable liberation. In the true tradition, the true cultivation and manifesting of the substance of the eighth consciousness frees one from both obscurations and merges them, with nothing attained and no entanglement, which is called inconceivable liberation.

5.58

Sixth, Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha explains inconceivable liberation, saying: 'There are two kinds of liberation: first, liberation without separation; second, liberation through separation.' As for liberation without separation, it is dharma-tathatā, the originally present principle that has not yet separated from afflictions. That which is called liberation through separation is attaining dharma-tathatā, where wisdom severs mental obstacles and separates from afflictions; this liberation through separation is inconceivable liberation.

5.59

Seventh, the Sanlun masters say: 'If others clarify bondage and liberation, bondage is self-bondage and liberation is self-liberation; this is bondage and liberation of self-nature, not nominal bondage and liberation. Failing to realize the bondage and liberation of non-bondage and non-liberation, this is not inconceivable liberation.' Now we clarify: 'Bondage is not self-bondage; bondage is spoken of dependent on liberation. Liberation is not self-liberation; liberation is spoken of dependent on bondage.' Speaking of bondage dependent on liberation is nominal bondage; speaking of liberation dependent on bondage is nominal liberation. Nominal bondage is not bondage; nominal liberation is not liberation; this is non-bondage and non-liberation, fundamentally pure. Yet speaking of bondage and liberation is the inconceivable bondage and liberation of nominal designation. Inconceivable bondage is itself inconceivable liberation; therefore it is called inconceivable liberation. However, their conventional words of provisional designation shift and turn in many ways; how could they be fixedly described? This merely sets forth the initial chapter.

5.60

Second, examining the various schools:

5.61

Regarding Master [Kumāra]jīva's taking 'samādhi and supernormal powers as inconceivable liberation': this is merely the function of the practice of meditative concentration in terms of the shared teaching.

5.62

Second, Master [Dao]sheng's clarifying inconceivable liberation by 'unfathomable function' is also the unfathomable spiritual function of the practice of practice in the shared teaching.

5.63

Third, Master Sengzhao's clarification of 'being profound and difficult to fathom, going beyond the realm of the two vehicles' is merely the practice of wisdom in the shared teaching realizing principle and severing fetters, with its stage surpassing the two vehicles.

5.64

Fourth, the ancient explanation from within the Pass of inconceivable liberation as 'exhausting all habit-energies at the eighth ground, where path and contemplation flow together in parallel' is also the intent of the practice of wisdom and the practice of practice in the shared teaching.

5.65

Fifth, the Dilun masters' clarification of inconceivable liberation as 'true cultivation and manifesting of the substance of the eighth consciousness severing the two obscurations' is precisely clarifying the meaning in terms of the distinctive teaching. If one clarifies the meaning relying on the characteristics of the grounds in the Dilun, that is clarifying inconceivable liberation in terms of the distinctive teaching; if one clarifies the meaning regarding the reality of the grounds, that is clarifying inconceivable liberation in terms of the perfect teaching.

5.66

Sixth, Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha's intent is the same as the distinctive teaching of the Dilun.

5.67

Seventh, although the Sanlun masters, in explaining liberation, make statements of conventional designation and mysterious subtlety, their central theme knows not where it tends. If, as below, one examines the fixation on 'other-nature' of self and other, it is sequentially impossible to know that what is clarified in the 'Examination of Dharmas' chapter of the Madhyamaka-śāstra is from the purport of the shared teaching; what is clarified in the 'Examination of the Four Truths' chapter contains the purports of the three teachings—shared, distinctive, and perfect; and the final two chapters are the purport of the Tripiṭaka teaching. Clarifying the meaning based on this, there can be the four kinds of liberation of the four teachings. Vasubandhu mostly expounded the distinctive and perfect, while Nāgārjuna mostly expounded the shared and perfect; the points of identity and difference in the liberation expounded by the two masters can be deduced and known.

5.68

Third, correctly clarifying the explanation of the name 'inconceivable liberation' by our own school entails three points: first, generally explaining the names 'conceivable' and 'inconceivable' liberation; second, specifically explaining inconceivable liberation proper; third, appraisal and resolution.

5.69

First, as for generally explaining conceivable and inconceivable liberation: clarifying inconceivable liberation in contrast to conceivable liberation, if one understands the principle of the conceivable and thereby becomes free from the bondage of conditions, this is called conceivable liberation; if one understands the principle of the inconceivable and thereby becomes free from the bondage of conditions, this is called inconceivable liberation. Conceivable liberation is liberation apart from words; thus Śāriputra answered the goddess, saying, 'I have heard that liberation has no spoken explanation.' Inconceivable liberation is liberation not apart from words; thus the goddess said, 'Without departing from words, speak the characteristic of liberation'; the nature of words being detached is itself liberation.

5.70

Second, specifically explaining the name of inconceivable liberation proper: it is liberation not apart from words. Therefore the goddess said: 'The characteristic of liberation is not internal, external, or in between the two. The characteristic of words is likewise not internal, external, or in between the two.' Therefore, the nature of words being detached is itself liberation. Liberation is none other than all dharmas. Now, clarifying that because it does not arise from self-liberation, its name is not established in terms of self-nature; because it does not arise from other-liberation, its name is not established in terms of other-nature; because liberation does not arise from self and other, its name is not established in terms of common nature; because liberation does not arise apart from self and other without causes and conditions, its name is not established in terms of causeless nature. If establishing the name of liberation from arising through causes and conditions is already unobtainable, how much less could its name be established from causeless arising! That liberation does not arise based on the four extremes, nor is the name of liberation established based on the meaning of the four natures, is precisely that the characteristic of liberation is not internal, external, or in between the two, and the characteristic of names is likewise not internal, external, or in between the two; the detachment from the characteristics of names is itself liberation. Liberation is none other than all dharmas; hence know that bondage is also like this. Consequently, the bondage and liberation of names are non-bondage and non-liberation; yet that there are the names of bondage and liberation is the inconceivable bondage and liberation. Inconceivable bondage is itself inconceivable liberation. Therefore, this sūtra says: 'The natures of lust, anger, and delusion are themselves liberation.' Abiding in this inconceivable liberation, one can perform various manifestations. If it is liberation apart from words, it is severing afflictions and entering nirvāṇa; if it is liberation not apart from words, it is entering nirvāṇa without severing afflictions, which is called inconceivable liberation.

5.71

Third, regarding the appraisal and resolution:

5.72

Question: If one speaks of liberation without departing from words, why was Vimalakīrti silent?

5.73

Answer: He wished to certify the noble preaching of Dharma by the bodhisattvas, which is itself the meaning of noble silence.

5.74

Question: The shared teaching also does not establish names based on the four propositions; is that the name of inconceivable liberation or not?

5.75

Answer: The shared teaching only refutes the four propositions of the Tripiṭaka, but does not refute the four propositions of the distinctive teaching; therefore it is not the inconceivable. The perfect teaching refutes the four propositions of the distinctive teaching, just as explained above regarding genuine cultivation and conditioned cultivation falling into self-nature and other-nature.

5.76

Question: If so, this sūtra only refutes Śāriputra; should it not be inconceivable liberation?

5.77

Answer: It is not so. Śāriputra exhausted his supernatural powers and could not brush off the flowers; the goddess rebuked him, saying, 'Because habitual residues are not yet exhausted, the flowers cling to your body.' This precisely refutes the distinctive delusions and clarifies inconceivable liberation; therefore it is not the shared teaching.

5.78

Question: Why is entering nirvāṇa without severing afflictions alone inconceivable liberation?

5.79

Answer: Mount Sumeru enters a mustard seed; the small does not obstruct the large, and the large does not hinder the small; hence it is called inconceivable. Now, having afflictions, fetters, and delusions does not obstruct wisdom and nirvāṇa; wisdom and nirvāṇa do not hinder afflictions, fetters, and delusions—only this is called inconceivable. If entering nirvāṇa with no delusion and having wisdom were called inconceivable, we would now raise a counter-objection: should not 'having no smallness of a mustard seed, but having the largeness of Mount Sumeru' also be treated as inconceivable?!

5.80

Question: If entering without severing is the inconceivable, the shared teaching also speaks of entering nirvāṇa without severing; why is it not inconceivable liberation?

5.81

Answer: The shared teaching does not perceive the marks of delusion and calls this 'non-severance,' but in reality it is severance. It is like when it is light, there is genuinely no darkness of itself; this is not like having the smallness of a mustard seed without hindering the largeness of Mount Sumeru.

5.82

Second, discerning the characteristics of inconceivable liberation: we again discern the characteristics in terms of conceivable liberation and inconceivable liberation. Conceivable liberation is the liberation of the two kinds of nirvāṇa and reducing the body to ashes and annihilating consciousness attained by the persons of the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka teaching and the shared teaching; inconceivable liberation is the constant quiescence of great parinirvāṇa attained by the bodhisattvas and buddhas of the two teachings, distinctive and perfect, which is itself inconceivable liberation. Now, differentiating the dissimilar characteristics of these two kinds of liberation broadly comprises seven points: first, differentiating in terms of principle; second, differentiating in terms of wisdom; third, differentiating in terms of severance and non-severance; fourth, differentiating in terms of within and beyond the realms; fifth, differentiating in terms of having substance and lacking substance; sixth, differentiating in terms of having function and lacking function; seventh, differentiating in terms of shared conceivable and unshared conceivable.

5.83

First, explaining the differentiation in terms of principle: if one attains liberation by seeing the conceivable principle, this is conceivable liberation; if one attains liberation by seeing the inconceivable principle, this is inconceivable liberation.

5.84

Question: The principle is non-dual; how do you differentiate the distinction between the conceivable and the inconceivable?

5.85

Answer: If it is the principle of the conventional truth, it is the conceivable principle; if it is the principle of the Middle Way buddha-nature, it is the inconceivable principle. Therefore, this sūtra says: 'Like my illness, which is neither real nor false; the illness of sentient beings is also neither real nor false.' Hence know that the principle of the Middle Way is different from the absolute truth. That the absolute truth is called the conceivable principle is because it is not the tathāgatagarbha; that the principle of the Middle Way is called the inconceivable is because it is precisely the tathāgatagarbha. It is called a 'storehouse' precisely because nothing is accumulated; therefore it is called the inconceivable principle.

5.86

Second, regarding differentiation in terms of wisdom: if it is liberation attained by wisdom of arising and ceasing, it is conceivable liberation; if it is liberation attained by wisdom without arising and ceasing, it is inconceivable liberation.

5.87

Question: How do you differentiate between wisdom of arising and ceasing and wisdom without arising and ceasing?

5.88

Answer: If one contemplates the principle of absolute truth and gives rise to absolute wisdom, this is wisdom of arising and ceasing; therefore, in this sūtra Vimalakīrti rebukes Kātyāyana, saying: 'Do not explain the dharma of the true mark with a mind of arising and ceasing.' If one perceives the principle of the Middle Way and gives rise to wisdom, this is wisdom without arising and ceasing; therefore the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'That which the buddhas take as master is the Dharma. Because the Dharma is eternal, the buddhas are also eternal.' That the buddhas are also eternal is precisely the eternal wisdom of unarisen quiescent illumination.

5.89

Third, regarding differentiating the wisdom of conceivable and inconceivable liberation in terms of severance and non-severance: if one attains liberation by severing afflictions, it is conceivable liberation; therefore this sūtra says: 'For people of overweening pride, the Buddha severed lust, anger, and delusion, calling it liberation.' If one attains liberation without severing afflictions, it is inconceivable liberation; therefore this sūtra says: 'Without severing delusion and craving, one gives rise to clarity and liberation. Through the marks of the five heinous deeds, one attains liberation, yet it is neither bondage nor liberation.'

5.90

Question: If one does not sever the karma of afflictive fetters, how can one attain liberation?

5.91

Answer: It is like a person who has not yet attained supernatural powers: if imprisoned in a dungeon, he must break through the walls before he can escape. If it is a person who has attained supernatural powers, when placed in a dungeon, although he does not break through the walls, he goes in and out without obstruction.

5.92

Question: If attaining liberation without severing afflictions is called inconceivable liberation, then if a bodhisattva of the distinctive teaching attains liberation by severing afflictions, should that also be conceivable liberation?

5.93

Answer: This belongs to the path of teaching, not the path of realization. If a bodhisattva of the distinctive teaching realizes inconceivable liberation, he also does not sever them.

5.94

Fourth, regarding differentiation in terms of within the realm and beyond the realm: if it is conceivable liberation, it only frees one from bondage within the realm; if it is inconceivable liberation, it frees one from bondage within the realm and also frees one from bondage beyond the realm.

5.95

Question: What is meant by the characteristic of freeing one from bondage within the realm, but not freeing one from bondage beyond the realm?

5.96

Answer: This sūtra says: 'Dharma is called unstained; if one is stained by dharmas, even up to nirvāṇa, this is not seeking the Dharma.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Merely departing from delusion is called liberation, but in truth they have not yet attained all liberation.' 'Merely departing from delusion' refers to the views and thoughts within the realms, and saṃsāra of delimited portions. 'In truth they have not yet attained all liberation' refers to the views, thoughts, and delusions of ignorance beyond the realms, and saṃsāra of inconceivable transformation. This is differentiated as in the earlier discussion of the distinctive teaching.

5.97

Fifth, regarding differentiation in terms of having substance and lacking substance: if it is conceivable liberation, it has no substance of form and mind; if it is inconceivable, it has the substance of form and mind.

5.98

Question: Why does conceivable liberation lack form and mind, while the inconceivable has form and mind?

5.99

Answer: Conceivable liberation annihilates form to grasp emptiness; this is liberation with remainder. The causes of form and mind being annihilated, it is liberation without remainder; the effects of form and mind being annihilated, since liberation is clarified in terms of no form and no mind, it has no substance. If it is inconceivable liberation, contemplating form and mind is none other than the form and mind of the Dharma-nature; the form and mind of the Dharma-nature fundamentally have no causal arising, and hence are not effect-annihilation. Attaining liberation by seeing that form and mind neither arise nor cease, it possesses the substance of true, excellent, and wondrous form and wondrous mind. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Liberation has two kinds: both form and non-form. Non-form is the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; form is the liberation attained by the buddhas and tathāgatas.' It also says: 'Wondrous form is tranquil and constantly abides, not shifted by birth, aging, sickness, and death.' It also says: 'Form is the liberation of nirvāṇa; feeling, perception, karmic formations, and consciousness are the liberation of nirvāṇa.' This is what the Benevolent King Sūtra clarifies as the liberation of the Dharma-nature form, feeling, perception, karmic formations, and consciousness. If there were no form, it would be like a dead person; how could one speak of liberation?

5.100

Sixth, regarding differentiation in terms of having function and lacking function: if it is conceivable liberation, it lacks boundless great function; if it is inconceivable liberation, it possesses boundless great function.

5.101

Question: Why is this so?

5.102

Answer: If it is conceivable liberation with remainder, one realizes reality and enters the cessation of perception and feeling (saṃjñā-vedayita-nirodha), resembling the dharma of nirvāṇa; abiding within the body, one realizes the cessation of perception and feeling, just like a corpse, incapable of any function. If one enters liberation without remainder, ash-like body and extinguished consciousness, just like empty space, there is nothing one can enact. If the two bodies—the physical body and dharma-body—abide in inconceivable liberation, they can display all manner of transformations, as fully explained in this sūtra's chapter 'Inconceivable'; thus Vimalakīrti rebuked Śāriputra, saying, 'Without arising from the cessation trance, yet manifesting all deportments—this is quiet sitting.'

5.103

Seventh, explaining the distinction between the two kinds of liberation in terms of shared and unshared inconceivability: if it is the shared inconceivable, it is conceivable liberation; if it is the unshared inconceivable, it is inconceivable liberation.

5.104

Question: What is the shared inconceivable?

5.105

Answer: Various Dharma masters say, 'On the eighth ground, path and contemplation flow concurrently; the two vehicles and bodhisattvas of lower grounds cannot conceive of it, hence it is called inconceivable. Why is this? If a lower ground cannot conceive of the eighth ground, and the eighth ground cannot conceive of the ninth ground, the eighth ground then turns out to be conceivable, and only the ninth ground may be termed inconceivable. Proceeding in this manner up to the tenth ground, it cannot conceive of the Buddha ground; the Buddha ground is inconceivable, and the tenth ground is conceivable. Yet the Buddha ground can conceive of the Buddha ground, so it too turns out to be conceivable.' If so, what then is inconceivable liberation? Furthermore, as the sūtras say: 'When the Buddha enters samādhi, Śāriputra cannot know it; when Śāriputra enters concentration, Maudgalyāyana cannot know it; when Maudgalyāyana enters concentration, the arhats cannot know it; when an arhat enters concentration, the learners (śaikṣa) cannot know it; when a learner enters concentration, those of the four wholesome roots cannot know it; when those of the four wholesome roots enter concentration, all non-Buddhists cannot conceive of it; when non-Buddhists enter concentration and manifest supernormal powers, other people cannot conceive of it; up to the worldly arts and illusory transformations of ordinary persons, none of which can be conceived.' Such are all called inconceivable. If we speak of the conceivable, even up to the Buddha it is still conceivable; if we speak of the inconceivable, even wasps making honey and spiders spinning webs are all inconceivable—this is called the shared inconceivable. All of these involve the liberation of mental factors, and thus all must be conceivable liberation. How could one use this to characterize the marks of inconceivable liberation?

5.106

Question: If so, on what grounds is it inconceivable?

5.107

Answer: The inconceivable dharma-nature is like empty space: free of thoughts and free of ideation, serenely ever quiescent; penetrating all dharmas, it thoroughly reaches and manifests everywhere—this is the unshared inconceivable. It is not shared with any of the three vehicles of the shared teaching or the Tripiṭaka teaching, nor with ordinary persons. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Pure and limpid—this is true liberation.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'This Dharma cannot be understood through deliberation or discrimination.' The Pratyutpanna Samādhi Sūtra says: 'Possessing mind, one does not know mind; mind does not see mind. When the mind gives rise to notions, that is delusion; when there are no notions, that is nirvāṇa.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'If one discriminates and recollects, that is the snare of Māra; being unmoving and without discrimination, this is the seal of the Dharma.' This sūtra says: 'If one makes discriminations regarding the Buddha-Dharma, this is called not conforming to the Dharma.' The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Ultimately free from delusion, unblemished like empty space.' Thus we know that when all deliberation, discrimination, and recollection completely cease to arise, it is called inconceivable. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Waiting until the water clears, the appearance of the jewel manifests of itself'—that is, the principle of inconceivable buddha-nature becomes manifest. When inconceivable buddha-nature manifests, that is inconceivable liberation.

5.108

Question: Regarding the shared inconceivable, the deliberation of a lower ground cannot know a higher ground, so the higher ground is called inconceivable; the deliberation of a higher ground can know a lower ground, so the lower ground is called conceivable, is it not?

5.109

Answer: Although the deliberation of a lower ground does not know a higher ground, and the deliberation of a higher ground can know a lower ground, both are knowledge through deliberation and not knowledge without deliberation; thus both belong to the conceivable. Now, as for the unshared inconceivable, a lower ground does not use deliberation to deliberate upon a higher ground, nor does a higher ground use deliberation to deliberate upon a lower ground. The lower ground uses non-deliberation to deliberate upon a higher ground, yet cannot know the higher ground; the higher ground's wisdom of non-deliberation spontaneously can know the lower ground. Because the lower ground does not deliberate, it cannot even know the higher ground's conceivable wisdom, let alone know its inconceivable wisdom! The higher ground's wisdom of non-deliberation spontaneously can know the lower ground's inconceivable wisdom, let alone its conceivable wisdom! Thus we know that although higher and lower grounds have knowing and not knowing, both are alike inconceivable.

5.110

Question: In non-deliberation, how can there be discrimination in knowing?

5.111

Answer: Across the forty-two grounds, quiescence and illumination are identical, yet the degrees to which ignorance is exhausted differ by rank; hence, when a lower ground has not yet exhausted a certain rank, it cannot know a higher ground; when a higher ground has exhausted that rank, it can know the lower ground. The two vehicles and even ordinary persons all possess this inconceivable principle, but covered by the obstacles of delusion through deliberation and discrimination, having not broken through the recollection and discrimination of ignorance, they cannot know without deliberation; the buddhas and bodhisattvas have broken through the recollection and discrimination of ignorance, and therefore know without deliberation. For example, when the crescent moon ascends into the sky, it forms no thought: 'I illuminate the world and illuminate sentient beings'; yet sentient beings and the world are naturally illuminated and revealed. When it reaches the fifteenth day, the time of the full moon, it likewise does not think: 'I illuminate, and that is revealed.' The buddhas and bodhisattvas explained in the perfect teaching are also like this; how could they be like a lamp's light?

5.112

Question: If the manifestation of the inconceivable buddha-nature, serenely free of deliberation and thought, is taken as the unshared inconceivable, then how does this differ from the Dilun masters' explanation of the manifestation of the eight consciousnesses' serene substance of genuine cultivation?

5.113

Answer: The Dilun masters say, 'The six consciousnesses are discriminating consciousnesses; the seventh consciousness is wisdom, which obstructs the billowing-wave consciousness; the eighth consciousness is the truly permanent consciousness. Wisdom-consciousness is conditioning cultivation; if the eighth consciousness manifests, the seventh consciousness is extinguished; the eighth consciousness is called genuine cultivation, its substance spontaneously fused and ever quiescent.' But the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, 'The seventh consciousness is the mind of grasping at views, and the eighth consciousness is the morally indeterminate, unfailing consciousness.' How could one say it is genuine cultivation? Furthermore, what is explained here is that the six consciousnesses are themselves inconceivable liberation; how could it be that after the six and seven consciousnesses are extinguished, the eighth consciousness as genuine cultivation is inconceivable liberation? Why is this? As the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra says: 'What is called that eye organ, in the Tathāgatas, is ever complete, an unblemished cultivation, seeing distinctly and clearly… up to the mind organ, it is likewise so.' The Lotus Sūtra explains: 'The six sense organs born of father and mother are purified, and by their own serenity, illuminate the realms of the ten directions.' How could the six consciousnesses be extinguished and there be separate genuine and conditioning cultivations? Therefore the sūtra says: 'The Buddha knows that all sentient beings are ultimately quiescent and extinguished—that is the great nirvāṇa, which cannot be extinguished again; all sentient beings cannot be extinguished again'—that is, the six consciousnesses cannot be extinguished. Furthermore, this sūtra says: 'Liberation is simply all dharmas'; how could it not be the six consciousnesses, the eighteen realms, and all dharmas! If so, how could one explain inconceivable liberation solely in terms of the eighth consciousness? Moreover, if we speak of the four inexpressibles, not only is the unarisen-unarisen eighth consciousness inexpressible, but the unarisen-arisen seventh consciousness is also inexpressible, and the arisen-unarisen and arisen-arisen six consciousnesses are also inexpressible. If we speak in terms of causes and conditions, they can also be expressed; in terms of the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, they can again be expressed. But the two paths of the North and South cling to differences between genuine and conditioning [cultivation] for attaining buddhahood—does this not fall into views of self and other? If one knows that the Tathāgata ever teaches no Dharma, what dispute could there be over whether buddhahood attained through the two cultivations of genuine and conditioning can be stated? That various sūtras and treatises contain such passages is merely the Sage's teaching adapted to capacities. How could great beings of the dharma-body not adapt to conditions and receive beings through the four siddhāntas, such that Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu each had different teachings? These are all later generations propagating the Dharma who missed the intended meaning, rigidly clinging to texts and taking biased sides! If one grasps this meaning, one should not ask how it differs from others.

First 113 of 163 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

維摩經玄疏 — Classical Chinese