維摩經略疏 6.5

6.5

「若以至有滅」，二、雙難。既默然受定，即約行雙難。亦玄約三教智斷一生受菩提記，即約偏圓二真以雙難也。一約通教者，通教偏真即是真如理，理非智斷。若觀真如即智生惑滅，如雖無生而能發智，智從如生生不離如，即是如生之智德。如雖非滅，見如惑滅，滅不離如，即是如滅之斷德。今淨名難言：若以如生如滅得受記者，從如有生，如無有生；從如有滅，如無有滅。難意正言如體非生非滅，約如說生說滅有智斷之德。如若生滅則不名如，即是世諦。若非生滅非世諦者，即真無生滅，是則如非生滅，不得說從如有生滅之智斷。故淨名言「從如有生，如無有生；從如有滅，如無有滅。」若如無生滅不成智斷者，豈得離如別有生滅智斷？是則無有約無生行可以受一生智斷之記。復次由能緣無生之心成智斷者，即是自生；若由所緣理，即是他生；若能所合，即是共生；若離能所，即是無因生之智斷。故龍樹偈云「諸法不自生」，豈得能緣真如之心生智斷而得受記？乃至不無因生，並如初句，皆引《中論》偈成四句之中正破他生。何者？彌勒謂因如發智成智斷行者得受記，故二雙難別圓兩教，一一類通教難覈勿失一句。但通別二教，通緣偏真、別教緣修。又別教緣修為自、圓教真修為自。慎勿濫也。

From "If by..." to "there is perishing" is the second part: dual objection. Having silently accepted the positing, [Vimalakīrti] immediately raises a dual objection on the basis of practice. This also profoundly addresses receiving the prophecy of bodhi in one lifetime through wisdom and severance across the three teachings; that is, raising a dual objection on the basis of the two genuine [truths], biased and perfect. First, concerning the Shared Teaching: the biased truth of the Shared Teaching is precisely the principle of tathatā, and principle is not wisdom and severance. If one contemplates tathatā, wisdom arises and delusion perishes. Although tathatā is unproduced, it can generate wisdom; wisdom arises from tathatā, and its arising is not separate from tathatā, which is precisely the virtue of wisdom arising from tathatā. Although tathatā is not perishing, upon seeing tathatā delusion perishes, and perishing is not separate from tathatā, which is precisely the virtue of severance perishing from tathatā. Now Vimalakīrti raises the objection, saying: If prophecy is received by means of arising from tathatā or perishing from tathatā, if there is arising from tathatā, tathatā has no arising; if there is perishing from tathatā, tathatā has no perishing. The thrust of the objection strictly says that the substance of tathatā is neither arising nor perishing; in relation to tathatā one speaks of arising and perishing as having the virtues of wisdom and severance. If tathatā were arising and perishing, it would not be called tathatā, but would be conventional truth. If it is neither arising nor perishing and not conventional truth, then it is genuine non-arising and non-perishing; thus tathatā is neither arising nor perishing, and one cannot speak of wisdom and severance arising and perishing from tathatā. Therefore Vimalakīrti says: 'If there is arising from tathatā, tathatā has no arising; if there is perishing from tathatā, tathatā has no perishing.' If tathatā without arising and perishing does not constitute wisdom and severance, how could there be wisdom and severance of arising and perishing separate from tathatā? Thus, there is no practice of unproducedness on the basis of which one can receive the prophecy of wisdom and severance in one lifetime. Furthermore, if wisdom and severance are formed through the mind capable of contemplating unproducedness, that is self-arising; if through the principle that is contemplated, that is other-arising; if through the conjunction of the capable and the objective, that is joint-arising; if apart from the capable and the objective, that is wisdom and severance arising without a cause. Therefore Nāgārjuna's verse says: 'Dharmas do not arise from themselves.' How could the mind capable of contemplating tathatā generate wisdom and severance so as to receive prophecy? And so forth up to not arising without cause, all being like the first line, all citing the verses of the Madhyamakaśāstra to establish the four propositions, strictly refuting other-arising. Why? Maitreya thought that by relying on tathatā to generate wisdom, one accomplishes the practice of wisdom and severance and thereby receives prophecy; therefore, the two dual objections across both the Distinct and Perfect Teachings must each be scrutinized in analogy to the Shared Teaching, without missing a single phrase. However, between the Shared and Distinct Teachings, the Shared contemplates biased truth, while the Distinct Teaching contemplates conditioned cultivation. Furthermore, the Distinct Teaching takes conditioned cultivation as 'self', while the Perfect Teaching takes genuine cultivation as 'self'. One must be careful not to confound them.