維摩經略疏 10.47

10.47

第二、別答。觀三世中，「前際不來」者，如見有未來之法入於現在，可得是生是來，可得是有邊無邊。本不見有未來之來，何況更有來入現在？是故前際不來。「後際不去」者，若有法滅入過去，可得言滅言去，可得云如去不如去。今不見有法入過去者，是故後際不去。「今則不住」者，若有法在於現在，可得言在言住，可得言常與無常。今不見可得法在現在者，何得言住？故三世求不可得。他解：金剛已前無常樂我淨，金剛已後常樂我淨。今解不然，金剛已前常樂我淨。何以故？佛性之法本自有之，非適今也。金剛已後無常樂我淨。何以故？經言「十地菩薩更無量劫倒修凡夫事。」若法身起應六道，同凡夫生滅，即是亦應有無常樂我淨，是故同他而不同也。他釋：應祇是化，化祇是應。今解不爾，應能為化，化不能為應。如凡夫外道五通之仙諸天神鬼皆能有化，此不能為應。所化亦是暫時權有，不能卒其始終。今辨應是應同，同其始終一期之法名之為應。如來以無分別心任運之智隨機有感，應而用之無所為礙，不勞運念，猶如明鏡有像即現，而影像相似更無差異也。如天仙所化，作念經營方能有化。如畫，運念動手圖寫人形，未必全不動念。妙不妙約此兩譬可知。「不觀色」者，心如幻師作種種色。若知幻師是誑，則不得所幻之色。今色從心幻師幻出，尚不得此心，何處見有此色？故不觀色。「不觀色如」者，若見色與如異，是則泯色入如。今不見色如之別，故不觀色如。「色性」者，或言如祇是性、性祇是如。或有此義。今聖人不容重說一法、兩唱所表，今將此性為佛性，不觀色是空俗，不觀色如是空真，不觀佛性是空中道，以其計中道有佛性而起順道愛生是為頂墮。故上文云「我及涅槃是二皆空，唯有空病，空病亦空。」今不觀性是無順道愛，故不觀性。「非四大起」者，雖觀是身，不於四大起惑如凡夫，不於四大起解如二乘。無惑無解，故言不起，同於虛空，是名實相。「六入」者，能積聚六塵構造生死。不同凡夫六入積聚，故眼耳已過，過於凡夫六根境界。「不在三界」者，出真俗故。「三垢已離」者，無三種國之垢。「順三脫」者，緣一實相，順三脫故。「三明與無明等」者，無明之源即是實相法性，此之法性無與等者，無有智能等，此名無等等。三明者，天眼能徹照未來，漏盡達於現在，宿命窮觀過去達無明之始。雖復十住不見其始，唯佛能知始終。既云觀身實相觀佛亦然，佛窮無明之始，今知其始等於無明。漏盡者，能知五住之漏，無明惑盡故言等。「一相」是真諦之相。「異相」是俗諦之差別。今實相非真非俗，故非一非異。「不自」者，遊行詣他國名他相，遇到父舍名為自相。此應用真修緣修、自生他生廣破。絕離此等自他，入於實相也。「非無相」者，非涅槃。「非取相」者，非生死。非生死非凡夫，非涅槃非二乘。不此岸非俗諦，不彼岸非真諦，不中流非諸煩惱。離此離彼之此岸，達非此非彼之彼岸。「而化眾生」者，此總明法身應用。不此不彼，即是不生死不涅槃。不以此不以彼，即是觀二諦之智境智雙明。「不可以智知」者，散諸法故，即是真諦。「不可以識識」者，聚諸法故，名之為識。即是生死俗諦。「無晦無明」，即是解惑，解惑即是生死涅槃。名即世間，相即出世，故真諦名為實相。「無強無弱」者，生死是剛穬之法名強，智慧是扶理易悟名弱。非強非弱故是實相。「不在方」者，法性不在生死封疆，豈有於界域？故言不在。「不離」者，祇常寂光土，亦是於方遍一切處，故言不離。「非有為非無為」，如無盡門也。「無示無說」，如維摩杜口也。「不施」，非是檀度之彼岸。「不慳」，不同凡夫祕悋之此岸。六度例爾。涅槃審諦為誠，生死虛假為欺。「不來」，乘如實道來成正覺。「不去」是乘從三界中出到薩婆若。離此去來，不出非二乘，不入非凡夫。「言語道斷」，如淨名杜口。「非福田」，如訶須菩提。「非不福田」，如慰喻須菩提。「非應供養」，如訶須菩提。「非不應供養」，如來正覺是名應供。「同真際等法性」，冥契真實也。「不可稱量」，即是不思議解脫之法。乃至動亦如是，同眾生一切眾生亦如是。無分別者入一實相，不見高下，無失、無三種漏落三土也。「無喜無厭」等，皆約三土煩惱以明。「無已有、當有」等，應約涅槃釋三世偈以釋此意。

Second, the specific answer. In contemplating the three times, as for "not coming from the past": if one were to see a future dharma entering the present, it could be said to be born or to come, and it could be said to be finite or infinite. Originally, no coming from the future is seen, so how could there further be a coming to enter the present? Therefore, it does not come from the past. As for "not going into the future": if there were a dharma that perished and entered the past, one could speak of perishing and going, and one could say it is suchness-gone or not suchness-gone. Now, no dharma is seen entering the past; therefore, it does not go into the future. As for "not abiding now": if there were a dharma present in the now, one could speak of being present and abiding, and one could speak of permanence and impermanence. Now, no apprehensible dharma is seen present in the now; how could one speak of abiding? Therefore, seeking across the three times, it cannot be found. Another commentary explains: before the vajra [stage], there is no permanence, bliss, self, and purity; after the vajra [stage], there are permanence, bliss, self, and purity. The present explanation is not so: before the vajra [stage], there are permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Why is this? The dharma of Buddha-nature is originally inherently present, not something that just now arises. After the vajra [stage], there is no permanence, bliss, self, and purity. Why is this? The sūtra says: "The bodhisattva of the tenth stage, for further immeasurable kalpas, in reverse order cultivates the matters of ordinary persons." If the dharmakāya gives rise to responses in the six destinies, sharing in the birth and death of ordinary persons, then it too should have no permanence, bliss, self, and purity; therefore, it is the same as the other [interpretation], yet not the same. Another interpretation explains: the responsive is merely the transformation, and the transformation is merely the responsive. The present explanation is not so: the responsive can manifest transformations, but a transformation cannot be the responsive. For instance, ordinary persons, non-Buddhists, seers of the five superknowledges, heavenly beings, spirits, and ghosts can all produce transformations, but these cannot be the responsive. What is transformed is also temporarily and provisionally existent, unable to carry through from beginning to end. Now, explaining the responsive: "responsive" means responding in sameness; being the same throughout a single period from beginning to end is called "responsive." The Tathāgata, with a mind free of conceptualization and spontaneous wisdom, according to the stimulus of the capacities, responds and applies them without obstruction, without the labor of exerting thought—just as a clear mirror immediately reflects forms when they appear, and the reflected image is similar without any difference. As for the transformations made by heavenly seers, they must formulate thoughts and exert effort before they can produce a transformation. Like painting: one exerts thought and moves the hand to depict the human form; it is not necessarily entirely without movement of thought. The subtle and the non-subtle can be understood through these two analogies. As for "not contemplating form": the mind is like a conjurer creating various forms. If one knows that the conjurer is a fraud, one cannot apprehend the conjured forms. Now, form is conjured forth from the conjurer of the mind; if even this mind cannot be apprehended, where could one see this form existing? Therefore, one does not contemplate form. As for "not contemplating the suchness of form": if one sees form as different from suchness, then one eliminates form to enter suchness. Now, one does not see a distinction between form and suchness; therefore, one does not contemplate the suchness of form. As for "the nature of form": some say suchness is simply nature, and nature is simply suchness. There may be this meaning. But now, the sage does not permit redundantly stating a single dharma or twice proclaiming what is signified. Now, we take this nature to be Buddha-nature: not contemplating form is the empty conventional; not contemplating the suchness of form is the empty ultimate; not contemplating Buddha-nature is the empty Middle Way. Because positing that the Middle Way has Buddha-nature and giving rise to attachment compliant with the Way is falling from the summit. Therefore, the preceding text says: "'I' and 'nirvāṇa'—these two are both empty; there is only the illness of emptiness, and the illness of emptiness is also empty." Now, not contemplating the nature means having no attachment compliant with the Way; therefore, one does not contemplate the nature. As for "not arising from the four great elements": although one contemplates this body, one does not give rise to delusion regarding the four great elements like ordinary persons, nor does one give rise to understanding regarding the four great elements like the two vehicles. Having neither delusion nor understanding, it is said not to arise; being identical to empty space, this is called true reality. As for the "six sense-entrances": they can amass the six dusts and construct birth-and-death. Unlike the amassing of the six sense-entrances by ordinary persons, the eye and ear are surpassed, transcending the realm of the six sense faculties of ordinary persons. As for "not being in the three realms": because of transcending both the ultimate and the conventional. As for "having left behind the three taints": having no taints of the three kinds of lands. As for "conforming to the three liberations": because of taking the single true reality as condition and conforming to the three liberations. As for "the three clarities being equal to ignorance": the source of ignorance is simply the dharma-nature of true reality. To this dharma-nature there is none equal; no wisdom can equal it; this is called the unequalled. As for the three clarities: the heavenly eye can thoroughly illuminate the future; the destruction of outflows penetrates into the present; past-lives knowledge exhaustively contemplates the past, penetrating to the beginning of ignorance. Although the tenth dwelling still does not see its beginning, only the Buddha can know its beginning and end. Since it says, "Contemplating the body's true reality, contemplating the Buddha is also thus," the Buddha has exhausted the beginning of ignorance, and now knows that its beginning is equal to ignorance. As for the destruction of outflows: being able to know the outflows of the five entrenchments; the afflictions of ignorance are exhausted, hence it is said to be equal. "A single characteristic" is the characteristic of the ultimate truth. "Different characteristics" are the distinctions of the conventional truth. Now, true reality is neither ultimate nor conventional; therefore, it is neither one nor different. As for "not self": wandering and going to another country is called the characteristic of other; arriving at the father's house is called the characteristic of self. Here one should extensively refute using true cultivation and conditioned cultivation, self-arising and other-arising. Utterly transcending these self and other, one enters into true reality. As for "not having no characteristics": it is not nirvāṇa. As for "not apprehending characteristics": it is not birth-and-death. Not birth-and-death is not ordinary persons; not nirvāṇa is not the two vehicles. Not this shore is not the conventional truth; not that shore is not the ultimate truth; not the midstream is not the various afflictions. Leaving behind this shore of "this" and "that," one arrives at that shore of "neither this nor that." As for "yet transforming sentient beings": this generally clarifies the functioning in response of the dharmakāya. Neither this nor that is precisely neither birth-and-death nor nirvāṇa. Not using this and not using that is precisely the wisdom that contemplates the two truths, where object and wisdom are both illuminated. As for "cannot be known by wisdom": because of dispersing all dharmas, it is the ultimate truth. As for "cannot be cognized by consciousness": because of gathering all dharmas, it is called consciousness; it is the conventional truth of birth-and-death. "Without darkness and without brightness": this is understanding and delusion; understanding and delusion are birth-and-death and nirvāṇa. The name is worldly; the characteristic is world-transcending; therefore, the ultimate truth is named true reality. As for "neither strong nor weak": birth-and-death is a coarse and obstinate dharma, called strong; wisdom accords with principle and is easily awakened, called weak. Being neither strong nor weak, it is true reality. As for "not in a direction": dharma-nature is not within the boundaries of birth-and-death; how could it have territorial limits? Therefore, it is said not to be in [a direction]. As for "not departing": precisely the Land of Constant Silent Light is also in directions and pervades all places; therefore, it is said not to depart. "Neither conditioned nor unconditioned," like the inexhaustible gate. "Without indication and without explanation," like Vimalakīrti holding his tongue. "Not giving" is not the other shore of the dāna-pāramitā. "Not stingy" is unlike the ordinary person's this shore of secret stinginess. The six pāramitās are all like this. Nirvāṇa's exactitude is truth; birth-and-death's falsity is deceit. "Not coming": riding the path of suchness to come and realize right awakening. "Not going": riding it to emerge from the three realms and reach sarvajña. Transcending this coming and going: not emerging is not the two vehicles; not entering is not ordinary persons. "The path of speech is cut off," like Vimalakīrti holding his tongue. "Not a field of merit," like rebuking Subhūti. "Not not a field of merit," like consoling Subhūti. "Not worthy of offerings," like rebuking Subhūti. "Not unworthy of offerings": the Tathāgata, the Rightly Awakened One, is named Worthy of Offerings. "Identical to the apex of reality and equal to dharma-nature": secretly tallying with the real. "Inestimable": that is the dharma of inconceivable liberation. And so forth, down to movement being also thus, being the same as sentient beings, all sentient beings also being thus. Being without conceptual differentiation, one enters the single true reality, not seeing high or low, without loss, without three kinds of outflows falling into the three lands. "Without joy and without aversion," and so forth, are all clarified in terms of the afflictions of the three lands. "Without having already existed, without being about to exist," and so forth, should be explained in accordance with this meaning by using the verse on the three times in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra].