維摩經玄疏 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

6.1

Composed by the Śramaṇa Zhiyi of Xiuchan Monastery on Mount Tiantai

Previously, the major section on the profound meaning of this sūtra was divided into five layers; the first major section, 'Explaining the Title', is briefly concluded. Now next is the second major section, discerning the main purport of this sūtra, just as a state must have a king and a teaching must have a lord. In this regard, seven points are briefly used for explanation:

6.3

First, properly discerning the substance; second, eliminating the false and revealing the true; third, entering the gate of the true mark; fourth, different gates for a single dharma; fifth, serving as the substance of all sūtras; sixth, in terms of contemplating the mind; seventh, comprehensively explaining this sūtra.

6.4

First, properly discerning the substance of the sūtra: This sūtra takes the inconceivable liberation of true nature as its substance. The meaning of 'liberation of true nature' was extensively discerned above. In this regard, there are briefly two points: first, properly discerning the substance of this sūtra; second, clarifying the necessity of knowing the sūtra's substance.

6.5

First, properly clarifying the inconceivable true nature as the substance of this sūtra: When others explain this sūtra, they mostly take the provisional and ultimate as the substance, substance being the central theme. Now we take only the inconceivable liberation of true nature as the substance, just as heaven has no two suns and a state has no two lords. If the provisional and ultimate were the substance, since provisional and ultimate are two dharmas, a single teaching would then have two substances. Now using only the inconceivable liberation of true nature as substance: true nature is precisely the principle of the one real. If one uses the principle of the one real as substance, there is no fault of two substances. As for what is called the liberation of true nature, this sūtra states, 'The natures of lust, anger, and delusion are themselves liberation.' Now we say, 'The natures of lust, anger, and delusion are themselves true nature.' True nature is precisely the true mark, another name for the one real truth. The Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains: 'The one real truth is the true Dharma; if a dharma is not true, it is not called the real truth.'

6.6

Question: Above it was said that the truth of the real is precisely the principle of conceivable liberation. Why do you now say that the real nature is precisely the principle of inconceivable liberation?

6.7

Answer: Above referred to the truth of biased reality; here, we rely on the Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra to clarify the real truth. The real truth is precisely the inconceivable perfect reality; the dharma-nature of perfect reality is precisely the liberation of true nature. The liberation of true nature is free of the eight inversions; being free of the eight inversions is precisely the liberation of true nature. The liberation of true nature is without falsehood; being without falsehood is precisely the liberation of true nature. The liberation of true nature is precisely the Great Vehicle; the Great Vehicle is precisely the liberation of true nature. The liberation of true nature is not the eight Māras; not being the eight Māras is precisely the liberation of true nature. The liberation of true nature is the purity of the single path; the purity of the single path is precisely the liberation of true nature. The liberation of true nature is permanence, bliss, self, and purity; permanence, bliss, self, and purity are precisely the inconceivable liberation of true nature. The inconceivable liberation of true nature is precisely the proper substance of this sūtra. How could such a true nature be identical to biased reality?!

6.8

Second, clarifying the necessity of knowing the sūtra's substance: If one examines a sūtra and misses its purport, one's case is like that of Devadatta, who, though reciting sixty thousand treasuries of Dharma, could not avoid falling into the great hells in his present body; while Panthaka merely chanted a single gāthā and accomplished the path of an arhat. As the Dazhidulun states: 'Śrāvaka sūtras have three dharma seals: the seal of impermanence, of non-self, and of tranquil extinguishing nirvāṇa.' When Hīnayāna sūtras possess these seals, they are Hīnayāna definitive sūtras; practitioners who receive the teaching can attain the path. If they lack the three dharma seals, they are non-definitive sūtras, and those who hear them will not necessarily escape birth and death. All Mahāyāna sūtras have only a single dharma seal, namely the true mark of all dharmas. If a Mahāyāna sūtra possesses the seal of the true mark, it is a Mahāyāna definitive sūtra, and those who hear it can indeed attain the bodhisattva path. If it lacks the seal of the true mark of all dharmas, it is a non-definitive sūtra; those who hear it will mostly fall into the two extremes and will be unable to attain anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti. Furthermore, if it lacks the seal of the true mark, even though it expounds various vows and practices, it is still confounded with what Māra teaches. Why is this? The Māra king can also speak of various vows and practices, but he cannot speak of the true mark of all dharmas. Therefore, the Dazhidulun says: 'Except for the true mark of all dharmas, all the rest is the work of Māra.' The true mark of all dharmas is precisely another name for the liberation of true nature.

6.9

Question: Why do śrāvaka sūtras use only the three dharma seals, while the Mahāyāna teaching uses only the single seal of the true mark?

6.10

Answer: Śrāvakas have dull faculties and heavy attachments; therefore it is necessary to teach the three dharma seals to make them weary of the suffering of birth and death and rejoice in the bliss of nirvāṇa. Bodhisattvas have great compassion and sharp faculties, and easily awaken to the characteristic that birth and death is itself nirvāṇa; being able neither to abandon birth and death nor grasp nirvāṇa, they enter the dharma-door of non-duality. Therefore, the Buddha expounded only the seal of the true mark of all dharmas.

6.11

Question: If it is said that a state has no two lords, and Mahāyāna sūtras use only a single dharma substance, yet śrāvaka sūtras end up using three as substance, would this not have the fault of three lords?

6.12

Answer: It is like when a ruler is strong, he does not need ministers of state; when a ruler is weak, ministers of state govern the country together with him. In śrāvaka sūtras, the principle of dharmas is weak, so the regulation of the three seals is needed: to destroy craving, one contemplates impermanence; to destroy views, one contemplates non-self. If one enters the true illumination of forbearance toward suffering, both attain tranquil extinguishing.

6.13

Second, clarifying the elimination of the false and the revelation of the true: This comprises three points: first, properly clarifying the elimination of the false and the revelation of the true; second, distinguishing similarities and differences in terms of shared and non-shared teachings; third, clarifying what to abandon and what to adopt in terms of the truths.

6.14

First, clarifying the elimination of the false and the revelation of the true: The real principle is subtle and profound, and the true and false are difficult to distinguish; yet whatever ordinary persons practice, whether teachings or actions, they each invariably consider their own to be true. Therefore, students who investigate this must rely on their own intellectual power to scrutinize the true and the false. In this regard, there are two points: first, eliminating what is not the true mark; second, revealing the correct true mark.

6.15

First, eliminating what is not the true mark comprises three: first, what is clarified by mundane texts is not the true mark; second, what is clarified by texts of outsiders is not the true mark; third, what is clarified by śrāvaka scriptural teachings is not the true mark.

6.16

First, what is clarified by mundane texts is not the true mark: What mundane texts clarify is solely for pacifying the state and ordering the family, rewarding good and punishing evil; benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom; sincerity, filial piety, and reverence; and the ways of nourishing life and nourishing nature. All of these are discourses of craving. Even Śakra Devānām Indra's various good discourses, the discourses on departing from desire spoken by the Brahmā kings, and the discourses on immortals by those of the five supernormal knowledges are all likewise frivolous discourses belonging to craving. Frivolous discourse destroys the wisdom eye and prevents seeing reality; therefore none of these are the true mark.

6.17

Second, clarifying that what is explained in the texts of outsiders is not the true mark: Non-Buddhists mostly give rise to views of personality, extreme views, and wrong views, either positing that the soul and the world are permanent, that this alone is true and everything else is false... up to positing that the soul and the world are neither permanent nor impermanent, that this alone is true and everything else is false. Falling in this way into the fourteen unanswerable questions and generating the sixty-two views, although each claims to be right, they are not the true mark in reality. Because they each give rise to various afflictions due to views, creating various karma and revolving in birth and death, all their verbal teachings are frivolous discourses belonging to 'views'. Frivolous discourse destroys the wisdom eye and prevents seeing reality; therefore they are not the true mark of all dharmas.

6.18

Third, regarding how the scriptural teachings of the śrāvakas do not clarify the true mark: the sūtras of the śrāvakas mostly clarify impermanence and non-self, breaking down all phenomena and teaching the nirvāṇa in which suffering is exhausted. Furthermore, people of the śrāvaka [vehicle] dread and fear birth and death; contemplating impermanence to sever the fetters, they wish to enter nirvāṇa in this very body and cannot deeply seek the true mark of all phenomena. Therefore, they do not clarify the true mark.

6.19

Second, revealing the real true mark: what is clarified in the Mahāyāna teaching is spoken in accordance with the true mark of phenomena for the sake of sharp-rooted bodhisattvas, mostly clarifying the paramārtha-siddhānta. Out of great compassion, for the sake of sentient beings, bodhisattvas seek the unsurpassed path, not reckoning the number of kalpas, and deeply contemplate all phenomena; not stagnating in the two extremes, their single mind is constantly tranquil. Just as when water is clear and pure the form of the gem naturally appears, so they attain the true mark of all phenomena. Therefore, what is clarified in the Mahāyāna scriptural teachings contains the real true mark of all phenomena. The real true mark of all phenomena is precisely the inconceivable liberation of the true nature, the substance of this sūtra.

6.20

Second, distinguishing similarities and differences in terms of shared and unshared teachings: under this there are two [aspects]: first, in terms of expounding prajñā shared with the two vehicles, clarifying that the true mark of dharma-nature has similarities and differences; second, in terms of expounding prajñā unshared with the two vehicles, clarifying that the true mark of dharma-nature is exclusively different and not similar.

6.21

First, in terms of the shared prajñā, clarifying that the true mark of dharma-nature as the substance of Mahāyāna sūtras has similarities and differences, there are three points: first, in terms of the shared teaching; second, in terms of the distinctive teaching; third, in terms of the perfect teaching.

6.22

First, clarifying similarities and differences in terms of the shared teaching: what is called 'similarity' is that they all alike enter the one-sided true dharma-nature. What is called 'difference' is that although the three vehicles alike enter the dharma-nature, there is nevertheless a distinction of depth and shallowness, [namely] merely severing the actual defilements, encroaching upon the residual habituations, or exhausting the residual habituations, as distinguished before under the shared teaching: the śrāvaka enters shallowly, merely severing the actual defilements; the pratyekabuddha [enters] somewhat more deeply, encroaching upon and removing the residual habituations; the bodhisattva can exhaust the bottom of dharma-nature, completely exhausting the residual habituations. It is like three beasts crossing a river: although the water is one, the legs of the hare, horse, and elephant are short or long, so their entry into the water is not without the distinction of shallowness and depth. Although the water is one, shallowness and depth differ.

6.23

Second, discerning the similarity and difference of dharma-nature in terms of the expounding of prajñā shared [with the two vehicles] under the distinctive teaching by clarifying the empty and the non-empty: the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Supreme emptiness is called wisdom. The wise see the empty as well as the non-empty; the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas see only the empty and do not see the non-empty.' Śrāvakas and bodhisattvas alike see emptiness; thus the principle of dharma-nature is one, which is called 'similarity.' The bodhisattva can see the non-empty, and the non-empty is precisely the nature of wisdom, called seeing buddha-nature; this is the 'difference.' It is like three beasts crossing a river: two beasts cross by floating and know only that the water is yielding; if an elephant crosses by floating, dipping down to the bottom, floating it knows the water is yielding, and reaching the bottom it touches the ground and knows it is not yielding.

6.24

Question: Is it called 'seeing the non-empty' because it is existent, or is it called 'non-empty' because of the absence of emptiness?

6.25

Answer: It fully possesses both meanings. As for being non-empty because it is existent: because it is the nature of wisdom, it is not empty. As for being called non-empty because of non-existence: the principle of the dharma-nature of ultimate truth is precisely empty, and because this emptiness is ultimately ungraspable, it is called non-empty. Saying 'non-empty' means that it is not the emptiness of the dharma-nature of the ultimate truth. Therefore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Emptiness has two kinds: first, mere emptiness; second, ungraspable emptiness.' The śrāvaka attains only mere emptiness, whose wisdom is like the light of a firefly; the bodhisattva attains mere emptiness and attains ungraspable emptiness, whose wisdom is like the light of the sun. The two vehicles alike attain mere emptiness, hence it is called 'similarity'; the bodhisattva attains ungraspable emptiness, which is called 'difference.' It is like digging earth: removing the earth, one reaches mud; if removing the mud is complete, one reaches water.

6.26

Third, clarifying that the inconceivable true mark of dharma-nature has similarities and differences in terms of the teaching of shared prajñā: when the śrāvaka enters dharma-nature, he sees only dharma-nature, like empty space with nothing existing; when bodhisattvas and buddhas enter the true mark of dharma-nature, they also see dharma-nature like empty space, but within this dharma-nature that is like empty space, they are able to open the Buddha's knowledge and vision and completely illuminate all phenomena of the dharma realm. Alike entering the dharma-nature that is like empty space where nothing exists is therefore called 'similarity'; that buddhas and bodhisattvas are able within this dharma-nature that is like empty space to completely illuminate the entire dharma realm is precisely the inconceivable dharma-nature, and is therefore called 'difference.' Thus Śāriputra, expressing his understanding, said: 'Together within the single Dharma, yet I did not obtain this matter. Alas! I deeply reproach myself—how could I have deceived myself?' Thus is briefly clarified that the shared prajñā is expounded in common with the two vehicles, yet the superior, middling, and inferior capacities, the sharp and dull, differ; therefore with respect to the one dharma-nature, there are the three differences of the shared, distinctive, and perfect [teachings]. It is like stone having the nature of gold: someone breaks the stone and obtains the gold, but cannot make various hairpins, earrings, rings, and bracelets; someone obtains the gold and can use it to make various hairpins, earrings, rings, and bracelets, but cannot transmute the gold into an elixir; someone can transmute the gold into an elixir and, ingesting it, becomes an immortal with unobstructed five supernormal knowledges. The nature of gold is one, yet those who obtain it are threefold and not the same.

6.27

Second, clarifying that the true mark of dharma-nature as the substance of Mahāyāna sūtras is entirely different in terms of the expounding of unshared prajñā: what is seen by the two vehicles is the one-sided true, and one cannot speak of similarity. Under this there are two points: first, the distinctive teaching; second, the perfect teaching.

6.28

First, clarifying the true mark of dharma-nature in terms of unshared prajñā under the distinctive teaching: severing the two obstructions, leaving behind the two extremes of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa, it distinctively takes the principle of the non-empty, the intrinsically pure mind, and the principle of the tathāgatagarbha as the true mark of dharma-nature; thus the śrāvakas in the assembly were as if deaf and mute. It is like breaking ore to obtain genuine gold, which differs from crystal: genuine gold cannot be destroyed and can be made into various vessels at will; crystal is easily broken and cannot be refashioned into various vessels.

6.29

Second, clarifying the true mark of dharma-nature as the substance of Mahāyāna sūtras in terms of unshared prajñā under the perfect teaching: all phenomena are precisely buddha-nature, nirvāṇa, and tathāgatagarbha; thus the two vehicles in the assembly were as if deaf and mute. It is like a wish-fulfilling jewel, not a crystal bead; how could one speak of similarity!

6.30

Third, distinguishing in terms of truths: clarifying that the principle of the true mark of dharma-nature does not go beyond the truths; therefore one must distinguish it in terms of truths. But truths are of three kinds: first, the three truths; second, the two truths; third, the one truth.

6.31

First, distinguishing the true mark of dharma-nature as the substance of this sūtra in terms of the three truths has two points: first, briefly clarifying the three truths; second, clarifying what is rejected and what is accepted.

6.32

First, briefly clarifying the three truths: first, the conventional truth; second, the ultimate truth; third, the supreme truth of the Middle Way. The meaning of the three truths is brief, as distinguished earlier according to what is explained in the four teachings.

6.33

Second, regarding what is rejected and what is accepted: the conventional truth is merely the principle seen by ordinary people, hence it is not the substance of this sūtra; the ultimate truth is precisely the principle seen by the two vehicles, and is also not the substance of this sūtra; the supreme truth of the Middle Way is precisely the true mark of dharma-nature, which is the proper substance of this sūtra.

6.34

Second, clarifying the true mark of dharma-nature as the substance of this sūtra by distinguishing in terms of the two truths also has two points: first, briefly clarifying the characteristics of the two truths; second, what is rejected and what is accepted.

6.35

First, briefly clarifying the characteristics of the two truths: there are two kinds of the two truths: first, the two truths external to principle; second, the two truths internal to principle.

6.36

First, as for the two truths external to principle: they do not clarify the two truths in terms of buddha-nature, which is like still staying outside the gate, stopping to lodge in a thatched hut. Now, clarifying these two truths external to principle, there are three kinds: first, the two truths conforming to sentiment; second, the two truths of sentiment and wisdom; third, the two truths conforming to wisdom.

6.37

First, clarifying the two truths conforming to sentiment: as when treatise masters compose expositions on the meaning of the two truths, collecting ancient and modern views there are dozens of masters whose explanations of the meaning of the two truths differ; furthermore, examining how the sūtras and treatises clarify the characteristics of the two truths, there are also various differences. But since the two truths are verified, real principles, how could there be differing and disparate explanations? If one school is right and all the others are wrong, who can judge which is right? Now, by establishing three kinds of two truths to comprehensively explain the two truths clarified by the various schools, if there is textual evidence, then all can be applied, and the differing explanations in the sūtras and treatises will all be free of obstruction. Therefore it is said: 'The buddhas constantly preach the Dharma relying on the two truths.' The principle of the two truths should not differ, yet the differing and disparate explanations of the masters and various sūtras and treatises all constitute two truths conforming to sentiment, discerning capacities and sentiments according to the four siddhāntas of worldly, individual, therapeutic, and paramārtha. Sentient beings' capacities and sentiments are varied and different; how could the two truths clarified in the Buddha's teaching be limited to the differences of dozens of masters? Rather, there are limitless variations. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Distinguishing the two truths has limitless aspects. In that sūtra I did not expound them after all.' What does this mean? Yet people of latter ages each explain one kind of two truths and do not accept the differing explanations of other masters—is this not a great error!

6.38

Second, clarifying the two truths of sentiment and wisdom: regarding the various two truths clarified above, when heard and not yet awakened to by those conforming to the sentiments of the worldly, individual, and therapeutic [siddhāntas], all are subsumed under the conventional truth; if the variously explained two truths are heard by people oriented toward the path and they awaken upon hearing them, giving rise to the eye of true wisdom and seeing the paramārtha, this is precisely the ultimate truth conforming to wisdom. Thus when sentiment and wisdom are discerned together, there is the distinction of the two truths. Therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'What is seen by the minds of worldly people is called the conventional truth; what is seen by the minds of transworldly people is called the supreme truth.'

6.39

Third, the two truths conforming to wisdom: the principle of the two truths seen by the sages of the two vehicles through the eye of Dharma and eye of wisdom upon generating true non-outflow. If spoken to ordinary beings, it is like showing the appearance of white to the blind. Therefore the Miaoshengding jing clarifies that Mañjuśrī and Śākyamuni on the causal ground disputed the meaning of the two truths and fell into the three evil destinies, and upon seeing Kāśyapa Buddha, he expounded the two truths—this reveals that the two truths conforming to wisdom cannot be sought through sentiment. If sought through sentiment with grasping and disputation, one commits the same error as Śākyamuni and Mañjuśrī grasping at the two truths conforming to sentiment on the causal ground.

6.40

Question: Are the two truths definitively principle, or are they definitively teaching?

6.41

Answer: Some masters say, 'Both are principle.' Some masters say, 'Both two truths are teaching.' Some masters say, 'The conventional truth is teaching, and the ultimate truth is principle.' Therefore a sūtra says: 'All are spoken by means of conventional names and words; they are not the paramārtha.' Now, examining the positions clarified by these three masters, they each have strengths and weaknesses. One should distinguish them using the four propositions: in terms of the two truths conforming to sentiment, both truths are teaching; thus both truths can be spoken, and therefore there are various two truths, used differently by masters and clarified distinctly in sūtras and treatises. In terms of the two truths of sentiment and wisdom, the conventional truth is teaching and the ultimate truth is principle; thus the conventional can be spoken, while the ultimate cannot be spoken. In terms of the two truths conforming to wisdom, both truths are principle; thus both truths cannot be spoken. In terms of the conventional truth conforming to wisdom and the ultimate truth conforming to sentiment, the conventional is unspeakable. Therefore, what was verified and seen by Kāśyapa Tathāgata could not be known by the sentiment of Śākyamuni and Mañjuśrī on the causal ground, how much less could ordinary beings of latter ages understand it! Now, briefly clarifying these three kinds of two truths, although the words are few, the meaning is all-encompassing. If doctrinal scholars and meditators in the Buddha-Dharma do not believe this, how could their doubts and disputes ever cease?

6.42

Second, next is clarifying the two truths internal to principle, which clarifies the two truths with reference to the middle way buddha-nature. Under this, there can be three kinds: first, the two truths by combining the middle way with the ultimate; second, the two truths by combining the ultimate truth with the conventional; third, the inconceivable two truths. These three kinds of two truths also each have three kinds: according to feeling, according to feeling and wisdom, and according to wisdom.

6.43

First, the two truths in which the middle way buddha-nature is combined with the ultimate truth are still the two truths of the shared teaching. They are not shared only with the two vehicles, but are also shared with the distinctive and shared with the perfect. As for what is called combining the middle way with the ultimate to constitute paramārtha-satya, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "What is called buddha-nature is precisely the emptiness of the supreme meaning. The emptiness of the supreme meaning is called wisdom. The wise see emptiness and also non-emptiness." Non-emptiness is precisely the middle way, and emptiness is precisely the ultimate truth. Hence we know that the middle way buddha-nature combined with the ultimate truth constitutes paramārtha-satya. There are also three kinds of two truths here, which can be known by analogy with the preceding.

6.44

Second, clarifying the combination of the ultimate truth with the conventional truth, where only the middle way is taken as the ultimate truth—clarifying this ultimate truth is precisely the two truths of the distinctive teaching. As for what is called combining the ultimate truth with the conventional truth to constitute conventional truth, the Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra states: "When I, together with Maitreya, spoke conventional truth, five hundred śrāvakas all thought that we were speaking paramārtha-satya." These are the two truths of the distinctive teaching. There can also be three kinds of two truths, which can be known by analogy with the preceding.

6.45

Third, clarifying the inconceivable two truths internal to principle: the previously explained two kinds of two truths internal to principle are non-dual yet dual; these are the inconceivable two truths of the perfect teaching. There are also three kinds of two truths, which can be known by analogy with the preceding.

6.46

Second, clarifying rejection and adoption: if it is the two truths external to principle, not only is the conventional truth not the substance of this sūtra, the ultimate truth is not either. If it is the two truths internal to principle, the three kinds of conventional truths likewise cannot any of them serve as the substance of this sūtra; the three kinds of ultimate truths internal to principle are precisely the true mark of dharma-nature, the primary substance of this sūtra.

6.47

Question: One should only take the inconceivable ultimate truth of the perfect teaching as the substance; how can one take the shared and distinctive ultimate truths internal to principle as the substance?

6.48

Answer: If it were the Lotus Sūtra's "honestly discarding expedient means," it would be possible to use only the one ultimate truth of the perfect teaching as the substance. This sūtra still carries the two kinds of expedient means, the shared and the distinctive; hence all three kinds of ultimate truths internal to principle can serve as the substance of this sūtra. But there are secondary and primary: the inconceivable ultimate truth is the primary.

6.49

Third, clarifying the substance of this sūtra with reference to the one real truth: the meaning of the one real truth is differentiated as before. The one real truth is just the principle of the inconceivable true nature, liberation, and the true mark, which is the primary substance of this sūtra. The matter is as explained previously by quoting the Nirvāṇa Sūtra.

6.50

Third, clarifying the four gates entering the substance: seeking the substance of the true nature and true mark, it is profoundly subtle and uniquely transcendent; none in all the worldly realm can tally with it. But because the Great Sage clearly surveyed the gates leading to the principle, he thereupon, regarding the ineffable principle, initiated teaching to meet conditions, taking the teaching as the gate. Therefore, those who receive the teaching tally with the principle by way of the gate. Hence the Lotus Sūtra states: "By the Buddha's gate of teaching, they escape the suffering of the three realms," and it also says: "Its gate of wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter." This sūtra's clarifying the various bodhisattvas each speaking of entering the dharma-door of non-duality is precisely this intent. Now I will briefly explain this through three points: first, briefly discerning the characteristics of the four gates; second, directly clarifying the four gates entering the substance; third, clarifying the siddhāntas giving rise to the teaching of the four gates.

6.51

First, briefly discerning the characteristics of the four gates: "gate" takes leading through as its meaning; the correct fourfold proposition expounded by the Buddhist teaching can lead practitioners through to the substance of the true nature and true mark, and is therefore called a gate. If outsiders speak of the four propositions based on heterodox causes and conditions or no causes and conditions, they each see the principle of four kinds of heterodox dharmas through these four propositions, generating from them the fourteen unanswerable questions and sixty-two views, giving rise to all defilements and karmas, and sinking into the cycle of birth and death. These are the four gates of the heterodox path, which will not be described here. The four gates of the Buddhadharma are the four propositions of correct causes and conditions, which can lead practitioners through so that they enter the nirvāṇa of the supreme meaning together. Hence the Dazhidulun states: "Four gates enter the cool pool," and also compares: "Prajñā is like a great mass of fire, impossible to grasp on four sides," and also states: "Prajñāpāramitā has four kinds of characteristics, which are the meaning of the four gates." Looking respectfully into the Buddhadharma, since there is the difference of four teachings, now in clarifying the gates with reference to the teachings, there are four distinctions each: first, the four gates of the Tripiṭaka; second, the four gates of the shared teaching; third, the four gates of the distinctive teaching; fourth, the four gates of the perfect teaching.

6.52

First, clarifying the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching, which constitute four: first, the gate of existence; second, the gate of emptiness; third, the gate of both existence and emptiness; fourth, the gate of neither existence nor emptiness.

6.53

First, the gate of existence: this is the Tripiṭaka teaching clarifying the existence of the arising and perishing of correct causes and conditions. If one receives this teaching, one can destroy the sixteen views on knowing and see that all conditioned dharmas of aggregates, realms, and sense bases are all impermanent, suffering, empty, and without self, attain the supreme worldly dharma, and generate true taintlessness. Because of existence one sees the truth; existence is the gate to paramārtha-satya. Hence the Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra states: "The profound principle cannot be spoken; the foremost real meaning is devoid of sounds and letters. The bhikṣu Kaundinya, regarding all dharmas, obtained true knowing and seeing." This is what is set forth in the various abhidharma treatises.

6.54

Second, clarifying the gate of emptiness: this is the Tripiṭaka teaching clarifying the reduction of provisional and real dharmas of correct causes and conditions, their arising and perishing, entering into emptiness. If one receives this teaching, one can destroy the delusions of provisionality and reality, see the emptiness of provisionality and reality, and generate true taintlessness. Because of emptiness one sees the truth; emptiness is the gate to the supreme meaning. Hence Subhūti, in his stone chamber, contemplated arising, perishing, and impermanence, entering emptiness, and attained the path by means of emptiness, which is called seeing the Buddha's dharmakāya. It is feared that this is what is set forth in the Tattvasiddhi Śāstra.

6.55

Third, clarifying the gate of existence and emptiness: this is the Tripiṭaka teaching clarifying the existence and emptiness of the arising and perishing of correct causes and conditions. If one receives this teaching, one can destroy the delusions of biasedly grasping existence or non-existence, see the existence and emptiness of causes and conditions, and generate true taintlessness. Because of existence and emptiness one sees the truth; existence and emptiness is the gate to the supreme meaning. This is what Kātyāyana, because he entered the path thereby, composed the Peṭakopadesa to further set forth as this gate.

6.56

Fourth, the gate of neither existence nor non-existence: this is the Tripiṭaka teaching clarifying the principle of neither existence nor emptiness in the arising and perishing of correct causes and conditions. If one receives this teaching, one can destroy the extreme heterodox attachments to existence and non-existence, see that causes and conditions are neither existent nor non-existent, and generate true taintlessness. Because of neither existence nor non-existence one sees the truth; neither existence nor non-existence is the gate to the supreme meaning. Channa of foul speech entered the path through this, but no treatise's explanation has yet been seen. Some say: "The Vātsīputrīya Abhidharma sets forth this intent. That treatise clarifies that 'self' is in the fifth ineffable basket; the 'self' is not of the three times, which is a dharma of neither existence nor non-existence, and hence is not empty." This, it is feared, cannot yet be definitively adopted.

6.57

Second, clarifying the four gates of the shared teaching: this is the Dazhidulun clarifying: "All is real, all is unreal, all is both real and unreal, all is neither real nor unreal"; regarding these four propositions, the Buddha extensively explained the supreme-meaning siddhānta. The Madhyamakaśāstra clarifies that these four propositions are all called the true mark of all dharmas; these are the four propositions of embodying dharmas as immediately empty in the shared teaching's clarification of dharmas of correct causes and conditions as dreams, illusions, echoes, transformations, the moon in the water, and images in a mirror. If the three vehicles together receive this teaching, but their faculties and conditions are different, each enters the supreme meaning at one proposition; hence all four propositions are called gates. This is detailed as in Piṅgala's commentary. The commentary also says: "The true mark of all dharmas has three kinds." Thus we know that these four gates are the four gates through which the three vehicles together enter, seeing the supreme meaning.

6.58

Third, clarifying the four gates of the distinctive teaching: if one uses the Madhyamakaśāstra's "also called designation" to discern the four gates, they are the four gates of the distinctive teaching; the four propositions of the Dazhidulun are also acceptable. The intent of these four gates of the distinctive teaching directly comes from the Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra, but is mostly spoken dispersedly. The fourfold-proposition analogy explained with reference to milk is precisely the four gates of the distinctive teaching. If one clarifies that buddha-nature is like milk having the nature of curd, stone having the nature of gold, or the strongman's forehead jewel, that is the gate of existence. If one clarifies that stone has no nature of gold, milk has no nature of curd, and sentient beings and buddha-nature are like empty space, the emptiness of great nirvāṇa, and the emptiness of the city of Kapilavastu, that is the gate of emptiness. The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also says: "Regarding buddha-nature being both existent and non-existent: why is it existent? Because all sentient beings possess it. Why is it non-existent? Because it is seen through skillful expedients." And it also compares: "It is like milk both having the nature of curd and not having the nature of curd"—this is the gate of both existence and non-existence. If one clarifies that buddha-nature is precisely the middle way, with the hundred negations both discarded, hence the sūtra compares: "Milk neither has the nature of curd nor lacks the nature of curd"—this is the gate of neither emptiness nor existence. Bodhisattvas of the distinctive teaching distinctively receive the teaching of these four gates, and through it see buddha-nature and abide in great nirvāṇa; therefore the exposition of these four propositions is precisely the four gates of the distinctive teaching. Now I tentatively differentiate the characteristics of the four gates of the distinctive teaching with reference to the text of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. However, this sūtra text might also be the four gates of the perfect teaching; when we come below to the four gates of the perfect teaching, their similarities and differences will naturally be evaluated.

6.59

Question: If the four gates of the distinctive teaching only come from the Nirvāṇa, why is it that the preceding Mahāyāna sūtras lack the four gates of the distinctive teaching?

6.60

Answer: The Mahānirvāṇa Sūtra is the sūtra that explains the teachings of the previous sūtras; how could the preceding Mahāyāna [sūtras] lack the four gates of the distinctive teaching? Setting out the sūtra texts in full would result in excessive complexity.

6.61

Fourth, clarifying the four gates of the perfect teaching: the four gates clarify entering the supreme meaning of buddha-nature; provisionally, its names and meanings are the same as the distinctive teaching's four gates entering paramārtha-satya, seeing buddha-nature, and attaining eternally abiding nirvāṇa, but when examining the purport closely, there is a difference.

6.62

Question: By what characteristics is the difference known?

6.63

Answer: In differentiating the differences, the purports are multiple. Now I will briefly differentiate them according to seven meanings of the perfect teaching, and thereby one will know that the four gates of the distinctive teaching and the four gates of the perfect teaching are distinct. The seven meanings are: first, if one discerns the four gates by clarifying that "all dharmas are precisely the true nature and true mark, buddha-nature and nirvāṇa, and cannot be further extinguished," these are the four gates of the perfect teaching; second, discerning the four gates by clarifying that at the initial mind one immediately opens the Buddha's knowledge and vision and has perfect illumination, these are the four gates of the perfect teaching; third, if one discerns the four gates by clarifying the inconceivable, entering nirvāṇa without severing afflictions, these are the four gates of the perfect teaching; fourth, if one discerns the four gates by clarifying perfect practice, these are the four gates of the perfect teaching; fifth, if one discerns the four gates by clarifying perfect stages, these are the four gates of the perfect teaching; sixth, if one clarifies the four gates by clarifying the perfect substance, these are the four gates clarified in the perfect teaching; seventh, if one clarifies the four gates by clarifying the perfect function, these are the four gates clarified in the perfect teaching.

6.64

Second, directly clarifying the four gates entering the substance: regarding the four gates of outsiders, their mental activities are external to principle, their various inverted conceptions correspond with inversion, and they cannot enter the substance of the true nature. Why is this? Because following different gates, what they see of principle is also different; therefore each speaks [differently], claiming to have attained the one ultimate path, giving rise to disputes. Now clarifying the four gates of the Buddhadharma, all can enter the one substance, but there are two kinds of differences: first, the two kinds of four gates of the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings together enter the principle of biased truth; second, the four gates of both the distinctive and perfect teachings together enter the principle of perfect truth.

6.65

First, explaining that the four doors of the Tripiṭaka teaching and the four doors of the shared teaching together enter the principle of partial truth: through their respective four doors, [practitioners of both teachings] equally perceive the primary truth and attain the two kinds of nirvāṇa; in this they are identical. Although the principle is one, the doors are distinct: since there is the difference between the skillful and crude crossings, there is the distinction between the two kinds of four doors that can provide access. Because the true principle is non-dual, the substance to which access is gained is one. For example, a prefectural city opens four gates, but the governor is only one; although those who enter from the four gates take distinct gates, the governor they see is merely one. The four doors of the Tripiṭaka teaching are like entering from the four side gates of the prefectural city; the four doors of the shared teaching are like entering from the four main gates. Although the side and main [gates] differ, entering to perceive the partial truth of paramārtha-satya and attaining the two kinds of nirvāṇa are identical.

6.66

Second, explaining that the four doors of the distinctive teaching and the four doors of the perfect teaching enter the substance of the true nature of the true mark: entering through their respective four doors, they perceive the true mark of buddha-nature and attain eternal nirvāṇa; in this they are identical. Although the principle is identical, the doors differ: since the doctrinal doors have the distinction between the partial and the perfect, there is the difference between the two kinds of four doors that can provide access. Because the true principle of buddha-nature is non-dual, the substance of the true nature to which access is gained is one. For example, the palace citadel has four gates; although the gates are not the same, the Son of Heaven who is seen is one. The four doors of the distinctive teaching are like entering from the four side gates of the palace citadel; the four doors of the perfect teaching are like entering from the four main gates. Although the side and main [gates] differ, entering to perceive the liberation of the true nature and the substance of the true mark is identical.

6.67

Third, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to generate the teachings of the four doors: the four doors of the non-Buddhists do not perceive faculties and conditions, but adhere to mental grasping and fixated assertions of characteristics, like an old physician who always uses milk medicine to treat all illnesses; these do not generate the four doors by relying on the four siddhāntas. Now, the four doors of the Buddha-Dharma are all generated due to the four siddhāntas: first, explaining the siddhāntas generating the four doors of the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, explaining the siddhāntas generating the four doors of the shared teaching; third, explaining the siddhāntas generating the four doors of the distinctive teaching; fourth, explaining the siddhāntas generating the four doors of the perfect teaching.

6.68

First, explaining the four siddhāntas generating the four doors of the Tripiṭaka teaching: that is, the arising of arising cannot be spoken of, yet through the conditions of the four siddhāntas, it may also be spoken of.

6.69

First, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to generate the door of existence: if the minds of sentient beings take pleasure in existent dharmas, one uses the worldly siddhānta to speak of the Abhidharma's door of existence; if it is suitable for them to hear [it] so as to generate goodness, one uses the individual siddhānta to speak of the door of existence; if they grasp at causelessness or perverse causes, or grasp at emptiness and form attachments, generating defilements and karma, one uses the therapeutic siddhānta to speak of the door of existence for them; if they awaken upon hearing it and perceive the primary truth, one uses the primary-truth siddhānta to speak of the door of existence for them. As with Kauṇḍinya and the others of the five persons, who upon hearing the preaching of the four truths immediately perceived paramārtha-satya and attained the fruit of stream-enterer. If one cannot use the four siddhāntas to generate conditions and preach, then one preaches the Dharma incongruously with the faculties, being an enemy of sentient beings, a heavenly Māra or non-Buddhist, joining in league with them. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Preaching the Dharma is the realm of the buddhas, not what can be known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.'

6.70

Second, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to generate the door of emptiness: analogous to the door of existence above, when one uses the four siddhāntas to generate the door of emptiness, the meaning is thereby established. Yet the masters of the Tattvasiddhi say: 'The Abhidharma's door of existence merely regulates the mind and cannot attain the Way; the Tattvasiddhi's perception of emptiness is what attains the Way.' The Abhidharma masters say: 'We use the Hīnayāna to explain the meaning, and perceive existence to attain the Way; you illicitly draw upon the Mahāyāna to explain the meaning, and thus speak of perceiving emptiness to attain the Way.' We say now that neither of these grasps the meaning of the Tripiṭaka teaching. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra says: 'Those of eternalist views speak of severance through distinct thoughts; those of annihilationist views speak of severance through a single thought. Although the two views differ, their attainment of the Way is not different.' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'In the śrāvaka sūtras, the meaning of the emptiness of dharmas is explained everywhere.' How could one say that perceiving emptiness to attain the Way is an illicit borrowing of the Mahāyāna! Now, relying on the intention of these four siddhāntas, we construct the meanings of establishment and refutation: the four meanings of the Abhidharma masters are established, while the four meanings of the Tattvasiddhi are refuted; the four meanings of the Tattvasiddhi are established, while the four meanings of the Abhidharma masters are refuted. Thus establishment and refutation are evenly matched. Which is the establishment of the Tattvasiddhi? Which is the refutation of the Abhidharma masters? If one understands the skillful and crude crossings of the Tripiṭaka teaching, then the Tattvasiddhi's meaning of the door of emptiness is established, and the Abhidharma masters' meaning of the door of existence is refuted.

6.71

Third, explaining the use of the siddhāntas to generate the door of both existence and emptiness: analogous to the door of existence above, by using the intention of the four siddhāntas, the door of both existence and emptiness can arise; hence it is accessed by the Peṭaka treatise.

6.72

Fourth, explaining the use of the siddhāntas to generate the door of neither existence nor emptiness: using the four siddhāntas is also analogous to the above use of the four siddhāntas for the door of existence; the meaning can be seen.

6.73

Second, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to generate the four doors of the shared teaching: this can be understood by analogy with the Tripiṭaka teaching.

6.74

Third, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to generate the four doors of the distinctive teaching: this can be known by analogy with the Tripiṭaka teaching.

6.75

Fourth, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to generate the four doors of the perfect teaching: this can be known by analogy with the Tripiṭaka teaching; the detailed explanation is fully found in the primary text on the four teachings.

6.76

Fourth, 'different names for the one dharma': various sūtras speak of the true nature of the true mark under different names, sometimes calling it the one real truth, sometimes the intrinsically pure mind, sometimes the tathāgatagarbha, sometimes suchness, sometimes the limit of reality, sometimes the prajñā of the true mark, sometimes the one vehicle, sometimes Śūraṅgama, sometimes dharma-nature, sometimes the Dharma-body, sometimes the middle way, sometimes ultimate emptiness, sometimes the direct-cause buddha-nature or the intrinsically pure nirvāṇa... Various different names such as these are all alternative designations for the true mark. Thus the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Prajñā is a single dharma; the Buddha speaks of it with various names, establishing different designations for it in accordance with the classes of sentient beings.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Just as Śakra, lord of the gods, has a thousand names, liberation is likewise, possessing many names.' It also says: 'Speaking of buddha-nature, it has five kinds of names.' Hence, these are all different names established to respond to capacities and benefit beings. Yet the substance of the Dharma is one, never having had any difference, just as Śakra's thousand names, although not the same, ultimately designate the lord of the gods. How could anyone, upon hearing different names, say that it is not the principle of the true mark? It is like a person who makes offerings to Śakra while reviling Kauśika, or makes offerings to Kauśika while reviling Śakra; such an offering will not necessarily yield merit. The propagators of the Dharma in the final era are also like this: some believe in the ālayavijñāna's intrinsically pure mind while reviling ultimate emptiness; some say that 'ultimate emptiness has nothing at all' and revile the ālayavijñāna's intrinsically pure mind; some say that 'the Prajñā sūtras explain the true mark, and the Lotus Sūtra explains the one vehicle, yet neither is buddha-nature.' How does this pursuit of merit compare to considering the calamity? If one knows that the names differ while the substance is one, then the goodness of rejoicing in accord will pervade the dharma-realm; what would there be to dispute?

First 76 of 137 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

維摩經玄疏 — Classical Chinese