維摩經略疏 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

"The Buddha told Pūrṇa": Fifth, commanding Pūrṇa. The text also has two parts: first, commanding him to inquire after the illness; second, refusing out of incompetence. The reason he was commanded next is that among the disciples he was foremost in preaching the Dharma. Pūrṇa is the clan name, taking his name from the clan, translated here as "wholesome friend". Maitrāyaṇī is the mother's name, translated here as "full wish". Being born of Full Wish, he is called "Maitrāyaṇīputra" (Son of Maitrāyaṇī). The reason for adding the mother's name is the concern to distinguish him from others of the same name. However, in the Lotus Sūtra he only receives prophecy when it reaches those of lower faculties, yet here he is commanded first; this was perhaps because he was close at hand, or because the occasion was opportune, and so he was commanded first. Why? Since he possessed the adornment of eloquence and the sharp facility of rhetoric, and whatever he said delighted the minds of beings, if sent to convey the instruction the assembly's reverence would be all the greater; thus he was commanded first. As when the Buddha preached the Dàpǐn, he commanded only Śāriputra, Subhūti, and Pūrṇa to expound prajñā. The Dàzhìdù lùn fully discusses and profoundly explores its rationale, up to accomplishing the five kinds of benefits mentioned before, which can be understood.

5.4

From "Pūrṇa" below: Second, respectfully refusing out of incompetence. The text has four parts: first, refusing out of incompetence; second, recounting the reason for incompetence; third, directly recounting the matter of incompetence; fourth, concluding his incompetence. First, respectfully refusing: truly because in the past his preaching of the Dharma went against the capacities [of his listeners], causing him to be rebuked and refuted, he was incompetent to convey the instruction of the Utmost Sage.

5.5

Regarding "for what reason… preaching the Dharma": Second, clarifying the reason for incompetence. Because in the past he preached the Dharma beneath a tree for newly initiated monks. "Beneath a tree" designates the place where he preached the Dharma. Perhaps it has a symbolic meaning, which can be understood by analogy with Śāriputra. "Newly initiated" refers to beginners of the three vehicles. However, the capacities of these monks were oriented toward the Great [Vehicle], yet without carefully examining them, he mistakenly preached the Small [Vehicle] to them. Although the words he preached are not stated, they can be known by examining the sūtra. The text says, "If you wish to travel the great highway, do not show a narrow lane"; the narrow lane is precisely the place traveled by the Hīnayāna. This went against their Mahāyāna capacity, causing him to be rebuked. The reason for incompetence was due to going against their capacity.

5.6

From "At that time Vimalakīrti" downward is the third [part], directly recounting the event of being rebuked. The text has seven parts: first, rebuking his preaching of the Dharma as failing the capacity [of his listeners]; second, concluding his fault; third, Vimalakīrti entering samādhi to empower the monks; fourth, the minds and aspirations of the monks opening and developing; fifth, Vimalakīrti preaching the Dharma for them; sixth, the monks attaining non-retrogression; and seventh, Pūrṇa bowing respectfully. The first text has four parts: first, rebuking him for not contemplating the original mind; second, rebuking him for not knowing their thoughts; third, rebuking him for not contemplating the root source; and fourth, rebuking him for not contemplating their desires. Inferring their meaning, these four rebukes apply the four Mahāyāna siddhāntas. First, not knowing their original mind refers to the inherently pure mind, which is the ultimate truth. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The direct cause of buddha-nature is the mind of sentient beings." Second, not knowing their thoughts refers to the for-persons [siddhānta]. People are varied, and their thoughts and practices differ; thus the Lotus Sūtra says: "What matters do they ponder, what matters do they practice?" Third, not knowing the root source refers to the therapeutic [siddhānta]. If their faculties are sharp yet obstructed, they presently do not open and develop; if the obstruction is broken through therapeutics, their sharp capacity will immediately manifest. Fourth, not knowing their desires refers to the mundane [siddhānta]. If they delight in hearing the Great [Vehicle], one should immediately expound all dharmas for them, distinguishing them by worldly names. However, in the standard order of the four siddhāntas, the ultimate truth comes last, yet here it comes first instead, because it searches out the origin. Pūrṇa did not use the four siddhāntas, and therefore incurred the fault of missing their capacity. As for the first rebuke of not knowing the original mind: one who wishes to preach the Dharma must be careful and discerning; if one does not enter samādhi, one will not perceive their capacities and conditions, leading to the error of missing their capacity. Hence he is rebuked for not first entering samādhi to contemplate the minds of the monks, and thus failing to see that they had long ago brought forth the aspiration for the Great [Vehicle], falsely expounding the Hīnayāna to them. This is the ultimate truth.

5.7

Question: Entering what kind of samādhi enables one to know capacities and conditions? Answer: There are eight kinds of samādhi. The first six cannot know them; the latter two can. The first is the fundamental dark realization of the non-Buddhists, which originally does not illuminate capacity; if one enters this samādhi, one cannot know it. The second is that of ordinary people and non-Buddhists who, through severed obstructions, attain superknowledges without [true] knowledge: although they obtain [the knowledge of] others' minds, upon entering samādhi they can only know the thoughts of others' minds, yet cannot know their faculties. The third is that of the wisdom-liberated persons of the Tripiṭaka teaching, who obtain the eight kinds of samādhi within the active four noble truths; these fundamentally focus on principle, and also cannot illuminate capacity. The fourth is that of the doubly liberated persons of this [Tripiṭaka] teaching, who obtain the fundamental dhyānas through contemplation, refinement, steaming, and cultivation, giving rise to the knowledge of others' minds; this also only knows others' minds yet cannot illuminate capacity. The fifth is that of the wisdom-liberated persons of the shared teaching, who cultivate the eight samādhis within the unarisen four noble truths; these also focus on principle, and cannot illuminate capacity. The sixth is that of the doubly liberated persons of this [shared] teaching, who obtain the fundamental dhyānas through contemplation, refinement, steaming, and cultivation, giving rise to the knowledge of others' minds; they also only know others' minds, without perceiving capacities and conditions. The same is true of bodhisattvas [of this level]. The seventh is the bodhisattvas of the distinct teaching, who cultivate the eight samādhis within the immeasurable four noble truths; if they enter this samādhi, they know others' minds and perceive the capacities of beings. The eighth is the bodhisattvas of the perfect teaching, who cultivate the unconditioned eight samādhis, tranquil yet ever illuminating, knowing what is pondered in their minds and all their capacities and conditions. Here, based on the latter two, which both know thoughts and know faculties, he rebukes him for not entering these two samādhis.

5.8

Question: What is the difference between mind and faculties? Answer: Knowing the mind is merely the knowledge of others' minds, shared by ordinary beings and the small [vehicle]. Knowing the capacities and conditions of others is the knowledge of the aspects of the path, which only begins with the distinct teaching; even the shared teaching does not possess it, let alone ordinary beings and the small [vehicle].

5.9

Question: If so, how can Vimalakīrti rebuke him for not knowing the mind? Answer: The knowledge of aspects [of the path] that knows faculties must rely on [the knowledge of] others' minds; therefore, below he is rebuked successively in terms of not knowing their desires.

5.10

Question: What is the difference between knowing faculties in the immeasurable [samādhi] and the unconditioned [samādhi]? Answer: The immeasurable eight samādhis enter into the provisional from emptiness, giving rise to the knowledge of the aspects of the path and being able to know the faculties of beings. This is cultivating conditions to reveal true cultivation; it is not a samādhi that spontaneously and universally illuminates. The unconditioned true cultivation is tranquil yet ever illuminating; it universally sees all lands without dual characteristics. Right within non-dual characteristics, it illuminates all capacities and conditions. If so, how can he urge Pūrṇa to enter samādhi? Answer: These words seem to use the eight samādhis of the distinct teaching to refute the two vehicles' failure to contemplate people's faculties; hence it says that one should first enter samādhi. The perfect teaching has no characteristics of entering or exiting; or perhaps it provisionally speaks of entering in order to refute or to assist. Furthermore, when thought after thought naturally flows into it, only then is it true entering.

5.11

As for "Do not put foul food into a precious vessel": these monks had long ago brought forth the great aspiration; the great aspiration is the true mind of the Dharma-nature, and outside of the Dharma-nature there is no other true mind. As for "precious vessel": the bodhicitta is like a treasure, and containing the Buddha's Dharma is like a vessel; this is the vessel world of the Mahāyāna. As for putting in foul food: the Dharma-joy and dhyāna-delight of the Hīnayāna carry the defilement of the dust-and-sand [delusions] and ignorance. Pūrṇa, because he did not enter samādhi to contemplate the precious vessel of the monks' great minds, preached for them the food of Hīnayāna Dharma-joy and dhyāna-delight; this is unacceptable.

5.12

From "You should know" to "crystal" is the second [part], rebuking him for not entering samādhi and not knowing their thoughts. Thoughts are mental factors. These monks had previously brought forth the great mind and practiced the six pāramitās; although in this life they had forgotten it, they still retained the causal habituation. One ought to have used the Mahāyāna for-persons [approach] to stimulate their past practices. Why did he use the Hīnayāna for-persons [approach] to preach his small dharma to them? It was like the error of Śāriputra in instructing his two disciples. The Mahāyāna is genuine, so it is compared to lapis lazuli; the Hīnayāna is not genuine, so it takes the metaphor of crystal, which is not a true jewel.

5.13

From "You do not" to "it" is the third [part], rebuking him for not first entering samādhi to contemplate their root source. That these monks had long planted the wholesome dharmas of the Mahāyāna is called the "root"; the buddhas they originally encountered and their initial arising of the aspiration as a cause is the "source." Since Pūrṇa lacked the immeasurable and unconditioned eight samādhis, he therefore did not perceive the monks' root source. When there are obstructions, one should expound the Mahāyāna therapeutics; why did he mistakenly preach the small [vehicle] to treat them, causing them to loathe suffering and seek cessation? "Where there is no wound, do not injure it" is an illustration using a metaphor. Since these monks brought forth the great mind, of all their wholesome roots, none had any wound of attachment to the Hīnayāna Dharma; suddenly preaching the small [vehicle] to them caused them to generate clinging thoughts, which injured the roots of the wholesome dharmas of the Mahāyāna.

5.14

From "Wishing to walk" to "firefly" is the fourth [part], rebuking him for not knowing their desires. Since these monks desired and aspired to the Great [Vehicle], one should have preached the Mahāyāna world to fulfill their joyful desires; why then use the Hīnayāna world to arouse their small desires and ruin their great desires? These faculties, desires, and nature open up three powers among the ten powers. Faculties belong to the past, desires belong to the present, and nature belongs to the future. Here, only faculties and desires are explained and nature is not distinguished, because their wholesome roots were not yet completed, and their desires still admitted of change, not yet having become their nature. Therefore, the Dàzhìdù lùn says: "Desire is named after arising in accord with conditions; nature is named after taking profound mind as its business." If past wholesome roots are firmly established, they will arise upon encountering conditions in this life; this is desire formed from nature. If past wholesome roots are not yet firm, upon encountering conditions in this life they give rise to desire, and repeated habituation forms their nature; hence it is said that nature takes unchangeability as its meaning. Desires and nature are interrelated, so rebuking him for not knowing desires also encompasses nature. Here there are three metaphors, which are the three kinds of mind of joyful desire in the Mahāyāna. First, "Wishing to walk the great road, do not show a narrow path": this is a metaphor for wishing to contemplate the unsurpassed great road of the true reality of the dharmakāya; this is the great road of the perfection of wisdom and the Buddha's "Welcome." Why? These monks already possessed the mind desiring to seek true reality, yet Pūrṇa preached the half-word dharma to them; this was showing them a narrow path. Second, "Do not put the great ocean into a cow's footprint": this is a metaphor for wishing to cultivate the merits of the myriad practices of the Mahāyāna. Why? These monks wished to cultivate the myriad practices of great compassion; the great mind is the great ocean. Pūrṇa preached the Hīnayāna factors of the path to them, which is the cow's footprint. Causing their original great mind to cultivate small practices is putting the great ocean into a cow's footprint. Third, "Do not equate sunlight with that firefly": this is a metaphor for comparing the all-knowledge of the active [four noble truths] of the Hīnayāna to the all-aspect knowledge of the unconditioned four noble truths of the Mahāyāna. Why? These monks wished to seek the all-aspect knowledge of the Mahāyāna, yet Pūrṇa preached the all-knowledge of the Hīnayāna to them. If it is said that seeing truth is identical, their principles should be compared. However, that sunlight cannot be compared to a firefly has five brief meanings: first, it is the light of an insect, not the light of a jewel; second, it flickers without stopping; third, it destroys little darkness; fourth, it only illuminates itself at night; and fifth, it has no benefit—how could it equal that sunlight? As for sunlight: first, it is the light of a jewel; second, it shines constantly and remains steady; third, it destroys darkness everywhere; fourth, it illuminates itself and illuminates others; and fifth, all beings receive the favor and coverage of sunlight. Combining these five metaphors for the firefly's light, one can understand by examining them. These monks possessed these three desires, and would surely accomplish the secret treasury of the three virtues. Why? The great road is the dharmakāya, the sunlight is prajñā, and the myriad practices are liberation; how could they be compared with the three desires of the Hīnayāna? Furthermore, because Pūrṇa did not know these four minds, he could not deeply know that since encountering buddhas in the past they had had these mental factors, faculties, and desires; having forgotten them in the interim, although the four minds remained, they were not yet determined. If they heard the Mahāyāna, the great mind would immediately arise, relying on previous mutual support to reach non-retrogression. Since they were indeterminate, if they heard the small [vehicle] expounded, they would follow the two stages; therefore it was unacceptable.

5.15

From "Pūrṇa" downward is the second [part], concluding the fault. The text has two parts: first, directly concluding the fault and rebuking him; second, clarifying through metaphor. In the first text: in the past they encountered buddhas and brought forth the previous four minds, yet forgot this intention midway; since then, passing through births and undergoing deaths, although obstructed by retribution obstacles, it could still be brought forth. Why should he instruct them with the four siddhāntas of the Hīnayāna, causing them to contradict their past aspiration?

5.16

Question: Are the past wholesome roots definitively lost or not lost? Answer: Although forgotten, they are not lost. Thus the Lotus Sūtra says: "Without being aware that inside his inner garment was a priceless jewel." Furthermore, a sūtra says: "A single phrase that tinges the spirit does not decay through countless kalpas."

5.17

From "I contemplate" to "sharp and dull" is the second [part], clarifying through metaphor to conclude the fault. Small wisdom is minute and shallow: contemplating arising and ceasing to see truth is called all-knowledge. This wisdom does not sever the dust-and-sand [delusions] or ignorance, nor can it know the capacities and conditions of beings, and cannot universally illuminate the Dharma realm; hence it is called minute. Like a rabbit crossing a river, failing to fathom the bottom of true reality, it is called shallow. As for "Just as a blind person cannot distinguish": the two vehicles only possess three [eyes]—the flesh, heavenly, and wisdom [eyes]; lacking the Dharma eye, they do not perceive capacities and conditions; lacking the Buddha eye, they do not perceive buddha-nature. Lacking the faculties of a bodhisattva, facing the dusts of the three truths they do not give rise to the three wisdoms, and with minds that comprehend nothing, they are like the blind. Moreover, like one born blind: although the two vehicles have the flesh eye, it is not like the purification of the six faculties explained in the Lotus Sūtra that simultaneously sees the colors of the three-thousandfold realm and the ten Dharma realms; hence they are like the blind. Although the two vehicles have the heavenly eye, by making a conscious effort they can see a thousand worlds up to a great chiliocosm, whereas buddhas and bodhisattvas have the true heavenly eye that sees all buddha-lands without dual characteristics; the small vehicle lacks this, and hence is like the blind. As for the wisdom eye of a bodhisattva, it slightly sees buddha-nature though not clearly, whereas the wisdom eye of the two vehicles cannot see it at all, seeing only emptiness; this is being blind. The wisdom eye of the buddhas is as praised by the sixteen princes: "We pray to attain the foremost pure wisdom eye like the World-Honoured One's." One should know that the two vehicles are completely devoid of the five eyes, and therefore are said to be like the blind. If one lacks the five eyes, one cannot distinguish whether the faculties of sentient beings regarding the principle of the three truths are sharp or dull.

5.18

From "At that time Vimalakīrti" to "sambodhi" is the third [part], Vimalakīrti entering samādhi to empower the monks. The reason he empowered them was to cause them to recognize past lives and recall on their own that they had once brought forth the aspiration, practiced, and dedicated [merit] toward the great path in the presence of five hundred buddhas.

5.19

From "Immediately" onwards is the fourth [part], the monks regaining their original aspiration. The text has two [parts]: first, explaining their regaining their original aspiration; second, paying homage. As for the first passage: through the power of samādhi [Vimalakīrti] empowered the monks, causing them to awaken to the four minds they had cultivated in the past; hence it says "regained their original aspiration." Second, as for the monks paying homage: Pūrṇa had mismatched their capacities, and their hesitation had been of no benefit; now, receiving this empowerment, they immediately knew their past lives, their roots of goodness opened and blossomed, and their debt of gratitude was no small matter, so out of deep gratitude and shame they bowed their heads in homage.

5.20

Question: Why would renunciants bow to a householder? Answer: The debt of gratitude for entry into the Way is profound; even crushing one's body could not repay it. These monks were just now setting forth on the Great Way; how could they hold to petty decorum?

5.21

"Then Vimalakīrti expounded the Dharma for their sake" is the fifth [part], Vimalakīrti expounding the Dharma for their sake. He directly employed the Mahāyāna four siddhāntas to correspond to their four minds and preached for them.

5.22

"In anuttara... non-retrogression" is the sixth [part], the monks attaining non-retrogression. In the perfect teaching, non-retrogression of semblance understanding is the iron-wheel rank; true non-retrogression is the first dwelling of the bronze wheel. Their past resolve was likely just the unfixed rank of the five grades, or perhaps the non-retrogression of the shared or distinct [teachings]; it cannot be definitively determined.

5.23

"I reflect that... preaching the Dharma" is the seventh [part], Pūrṇa's self-reproach. Lacking the Dharma-eye of the knowledge of all modes, he did not see the roots and conditions, which led to the error of mismatching their capacities; how could he be called foremost in preaching the Dharma? Preaching mistakenly and bringing no benefit to living beings is truly a matter for shame and fear.

5.24

"Therefore I am not competent to go there to inquire after his illness" is the fourth [part], concluding by declining as incompetent. He reflected on his past preaching that mismatched capacities and led to rebuke and refutation; how could he now be competent to convey the Buddha's command and go inquire after his illness?

5.25

"The Buddha told Mahākātyāyana" is the sixth [section], charging Mahākātyāyana. The text has two [parts]: first, charging him to inquire after the illness; second, declining as incompetent. Why he was charged next is because among the disciples he was foremost in debate. "Mahā" means great. "Kātyāyana" is a clan name, named after the clan. Furthermore, its translation is unfixed: some say "shoulder-hump," some say "literary ornament"; it is unknown which is correct. As with the śrāmaṇera Sudatta, who through debate at the age of eight was able to receive ordination; and as with the ten ṛṣi brahmacārins, who all resolved to enter the Way through debate. Therefore the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says, "Those who delight in debate are born in the five pure abodes and attain parinirvāṇa in those very heavens." Seeking deeply into its purport, it even accomplishes the aforementioned five kinds of benefit, fully as with Śāriputra.

5.26

From "Kātyāyana" onwards is the second [part], declining as incompetent. The text has four [parts]: first, properly offering his refusal as incompetent; second, recounting the reason for his incompetence; third, properly recounting his incompetence; fourth, concluding his incompetence. As for the first passage: truly, because in the past his explanation of the five meanings was rebuked and he had no reply, he is not competent to convey the Tathāgata's command.

5.27

From "Because" onwards is the second [part], recounting the reason for his incompetence. Because "the Buddha briefly expounded the essentials of the Dharma for the monks, and I immediately afterwards elaborated on its meanings," he incurred rebuke. The text has two [parts]: first, the Buddha briefly expounded the essentials of the Dharma; second, Kātyāyana broadly expounded them afterwards. As for the first passage: this has four propositions: first, concise in name and extensive in meaning—the verbal teaching is brief while the explained meaning is extensive; second, extensive in name and concise in meaning—the verbal teaching is extensive while the explained meaning is brief; third, extensive in both name and meaning—the verbal teaching is extensive and the explained meaning is also extensive; fourth, concise in both name and meaning—the verbal teaching is brief and the explained meaning is also brief. For instance, explaining the truth of suffering in its general characteristic without much commentary is concise in both name and meaning. If one analyzes suffering according to its four practices specifically, explaining with various similes, that is extensive in both name and meaning. If one only speaks generally of the five practices and explains them in various ways, that is concise in name and extensive in meaning. If one explains the sixteen practices in full without distinguishing and interpreting them, that is extensive in name and concise in meaning. The Buddha, for the monks' sake, perhaps spoke briefly of the truth of suffering in its general characteristic without specific explanation, or perhaps briefly taught the five practices in the general characteristic of the sixteen practices without distinguishing and explaining them in broad specific characteristics; this is concise in both name and meaning, hence it is called "briefly expounded."

5.28

Question: Kātyāyana broadly explained the Buddha's five meanings; how can they be explained in terms of the five practices? Answer: In terms of principle, they are called the five meanings; in terms of wisdom, they are called the five practices; in terms of samādhi, they are called the five dhyānas. Turning and alternating, they are interrelated, and their meanings are without discrepancy.

5.29

Regarding "essentials of the Dharma": because the five practices summarize the essential destination of the myriad practices and are supreme for entering the Way, they are called the essentials of the Dharma. Why? These sixteen practices subsume all practices. Now taking these four: the four practices under suffering, when comprehensively observing the applications of mindfulness, can generate the dharma of heat, which is the semblance path. Reaching supreme patience and the foremost worldly dharma, according to whichever single practice one employs, one can enter the patience of suffering, which is the true path. The undertaking of entering the Way is complete; hence they are called the essentials of the Dharma. Furthermore, these five practices are the three Dharma seals that seal the śrāvaka sūtras. Why? Suffering combined with impermanence, emptiness combined with non-self, together with quiescence, are the three Dharma seals; hence they are called the essentials of the Dharma. Furthermore, these five practices are the three gates of liberation: emptiness and non-self are emptiness; quiescence and nirvāṇa are signlessness; impermanence and suffering are wishlessness. These three gates of liberation subsume all dharmas; hence they are called the essentials of the Dharma.

5.30

"I immediately afterwards elaborated on its meanings" is the second [part], Kātyāyana's broad exposition, referring to impermanence and the other five. "Afterwards elaborated": the Buddha explained suffering in its general characteristic for the monks, or explained the five in their general characteristic, precisely in order that they grasp the meaning and advance on the Way, so he did not explain them broadly in specific characteristics, fearing that going against their capacities would cause them to lose the intention of the correct path. Kātyāyana thought the monks did not understand, so after the preaching he broadly elaborated on them. "Elaborated" (fū) means to open; "expanded" (yǎn) means to broaden; he repeatedly opened and broadened the explanation of the five meanings. Furthermore, broad exposition has two kinds: first, horizontal breadth; second, vertical breadth. First, explaining horizontally means traversing the three realms to explain each of the five meanings of the truth of suffering separately. Second, explaining vertically means explaining the five practices individually with respect to the two views of body and extremes, the four views, and the sixty-two views. While ordinary masters of Abhidharma make fine distinctions in explaining the five meanings, this is merely horizontal breadth and cannot attain entry into the Way; our lineage sets aside the horizontal and uses the vertical to effect entry into the Way. But Kātyāyana entered the Way through seeing existence and non-existence, and composed the *Kǒnlè lùn*. As for the meaning clarified in that treatise: if one speaks of the applications of mindfulness, one thereby knows the four inversions; if one speaks of the three poisons, one thereby knows the three noble practices; if one speaks of existence, one thereby knows non-existence. Now, in speaking to the monks, he must have relied on his treatise, following the gates of existence and non-existence to accommodate both extremes and broadly explain the five meanings. However, when the Buddha was in the world, what he preached was without dispute; though the entry gates differed, the attainment of the Way was one. When composing treatises, each recounted his own gate without speaking of other teachings; thus the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra* explains that five hundred monks each spoke of the cause of the body, which is just this matter. When Kātyāyana composed his treatise, had he not skillfully penetrated the four gates of the Tripiṭaka and made distinctions without obstruction, how could his treatise have been transmitted to South India? The Abhidharma's gate of existence down to the gate of neither emptiness nor existence each clarify the five meanings; the four gates' clarification of the meanings is fully set forth in the *Xuánwén*. If one closely examines the sūtra, the four kinds of five meanings are clearly evident; setting them forth in full would be too cumbersome.

5.31

Question: What are the characteristics of accommodating existence and non-existence in the five meanings? Answer: For instance, regarding the two gates of existence and emptiness, two masters each judged them, diverging sharply at first sight. Now the *Kǒnlè lùn* accommodates existence and non-existence, relying on this to enter the Way, and in turn used this to broadly explain the five meanings to the monks. Piṅgala's commentary on the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says, "Those who enter the Way through a little existence and a little non-existence are people of dull faculties." Fearing that this accommodation lacked resolution, he classified them as belonging to dull faculties. Or perhaps Kātyāyana, because of this accommodation, broadly explained the five meanings but could not make a decisive judgment to cause them to enter the Way, thus incurring rebuke. This, then, is the reason for his incompetence.

5.32

Question: The Buddha's preaching was brief, and the monks had not understood; Kātyāyana expounded it broadly—what fault is there in this? If the Buddha employed the Tripiṭaka teaching and it did not suit their capacities, this fault lies with the Buddha and has nothing to do with Kātyāyana. Answer: The Buddha's intention is hard to fathom, appearing and disappearing in many ways. Although he initially used the Tripiṭaka to guide them, their entry into the Way necessarily depended on the shared teaching of the Mahāyāna gate; therefore the Tathāgata provisionally employed the five meanings of the Tripiṭaka. Kātyāyana did not understand and went further to expound them broadly, and since he could not cause the monks to advance on the Way, he incurred rebuke; hence it is called the "reason."

5.33

From "Then Vimalakīrti" onwards is the third [part], properly recounting the matter of his incompetence. The text has three [parts]: first, rebuking the fault in the mind of the speaker; second, rebuking the fault in the Dharma taught; third, the monks attaining liberation of mind. As for the first passage: in the Hīnayāna, entering the true is wordless and speechless; emerging from the true into the conventional, there is mind and speech; this is using a mind of arising and ceasing to preach the Dharma of true reality. Since it is arising and ceasing, it does not accord with true reality; how could one use this mind to preach true reality? Furthermore, the four meanings are arising, and quiescence is ceasing; making such distinctions is not preaching true reality. Furthermore, emerging from contemplation with mind arising is arising; entering contemplation with mind forgotten is ceasing; true reality is not like this, so how could one use this mind to preach the Dharma of true reality? Furthermore, Kātyāyana entered the Way by way of existence and non-existence, and again relied on existence and non-existence to preach the five meanings: arising is existence, and ceasing is non-existence. Since what was preached was arising, ceasing, existence, and non-existence, the one who preached must have been likewise; hence it says "Do not preach the Dharma of true reality with a mental activity of arising and ceasing." Furthermore, the śrāvaka's four gates and five meanings are all contemplations of analytical arising and ceasing; hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says, "For śrāvakas of dull faculties, [the Buddha] taught the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions." Thus, although the four gates differ, all are preaching the Dharma of true reality with a mental activity of arising and ceasing. Why? Generally speaking, from the eighth ground upward in the shared teaching, both truths are illuminated simultaneously, preaching in immediate accord with the true; at the first ground of the distinct teaching, path and contemplation flow together, preaching in immediate accord with quiescence—both of these, one fears, are teachings without the persons [present]. Only the initial mind of the perfect [teaching] preaches in immediate accord with quiescence, like the asura's lute; this is called preaching the Dharma of true reality without arising and ceasing. Furthermore, not only was Kātyāyana's mind in preaching the Dharma faulty, he also did not know their faculties. These monks would necessarily attain the Way through the skillful crossing of the shared teaching, without relying on the Tripiṭaka; therefore the Great Being rebuked him for his arising and ceasing, lacking the power of samādhi and wisdom, not seeing others' capacities, and mistakenly preaching the roundabout and clumsy five meanings.

5.34

From "Kātyāyana" down to "the meaning of quiescent extinction," the second [section] is rebuking what was taught as incorrect. The reason for the rebuke is that what Kātyāyana taught was an inferior method of salvation, and therefore the minds of the monks were not awakened. Now Vimalakīrti explains for them the five meanings in terms of realizing phenomena [directly], which not only accesses the ultimate truth via the common teaching, but also connects through to the Middle Way. As for "all phenomena being ultimately unborn and unceasing is the meaning of impermanence": the Tripiṭaka explains gross and subtle arising and ceasing as impermanence; this is merely impermanence, not the real meaning of impermanence. If one understands that all phenomena are neither arising nor ceasing, and that [people] falsely impute arising and ceasing—so that when one examines arising via the four propositions and finds it ungraspable, there is no cessation either—then this unarising and unceasing is the true meaning of impermanence. As for "the five appropriation-aggregates thoroughly penetrated as empty and nothing arising is the meaning of suffering": the Tripiṭaka explains gross and subtle five aggregates; this is merely suffering, not the meaning of suffering. The Mahāyāna teaching clarifies that when one directly realizes they are fundamentally devoid of gross or subtle [aspects] and exist only due to delusional imputation, then realizing existence [itself] is emptiness. Not seeing any characteristic of suffering is called 'nothing arising', which is precisely the meaning of suffering. As for "all phenomena being ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness": the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas clarified in the Tripiṭaka are merely emptiness, not the meaning of emptiness. The Mahāyāna teaching clarifies that realizing these phenomena are themselves true reality fundamentally empty and quiescent, [and seeing that] persons and dharmas are falsely imputed, since they are said to be ultimately non-existent, there is no need to analyze and dismantle them. If there is no existence to be dismantled, how could there be an emptiness to be retained? That being ultimately non-existent is the meaning of true emptiness. As for "being non-dual with respect to self and non-self is the meaning of non-self": the Tripiṭaka clarifies the non-existence of a personal self; this is merely non-self, not the meaning of non-self. The Mahāyāna teaching clarifies that in true reality and true emptiness there is fundamentally neither self nor non-self; because of false imputations of existence, 'non-self' is taught. If no self is found, neither is there a non-self; self and non-self are fundamentally non-dual. Being non-dual means being devoid of intrinsic nature, and the nature of having no intrinsic nature is precisely the meaning of true non-self. As for "phenomena being fundamentally unignited and now without extinction is the meaning of quiescent extinction": what the Tripiṭaka clarifies as returning existence back to non-existence is termed quiescent extinction of nirvāṇa; this is merely quiescent extinction, not the meaning of quiescent extinction. The Mahāyāna teaching clarifies that all phenomena from the very beginning are always themselves the characteristic of quiescent extinction, which is the great nirvāṇa that cannot be extinguished again; this is the true meaning of quiescent extinction. Whereas ordinary beings falsely see flux, and the two vehicles extinguish it through antidotes, the bodhisattva directly realizes that phenomena are fundamentally unignited, which is precisely the principle of quiescent extinction of the ultimate truth. Fundamentally there are no afflictions or birth-and-death; now there is no nirvāṇa of the truth of cessation wherein causes and results are extinguished. If one perceives the principle of non-duality between arising-and-ceasing and true emptiness, that is the true meaning of extinction. The Tripiṭaka clarifies the five dharmas as differing in both name and meaning. The Mahāyāna teaching clarifies that although their conventional names differ, the names are themselves empty and their meaning is one. This is the general explanation of the five meanings in the Mahāyāna teaching, and it can also be taken as the five meanings of the Perfect [Teaching]. If one were to refute Kātyāyana's wavering between existence and non-existence to clarify the five meanings, one should say: 'all phenomena being ultimately unborn and unceasing is the meaning of impermanence; how could wavering between existence and non-existence be the meaning of impermanence?' The refutation of the remaining four meanings can be understood by analogy.

5.35

Question: Earlier it was said that Kātyāyana, in order to reveal the four flourishing [states], showed himself accepting the rebuke. Now the Mahāyāna clarifies the five meanings, and the first four conclude with the withering [states]; how can this be revealing the flourishing? Answer: If one breaks through the ultimate truth to enter the Middle, concluding that the ultimate truth constitutes the withering, the Middle naturally becomes the flourishing. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra clarifies two birds flying together, permanence and impermanence coexisting, the true meaning of impermanence cannot be separated from permanence. Therefore, this sūtra clarifies that being non-dual with respect to self and non-self is the true meaning of non-self. When the Great Sūtra clarifies that self and non-self are non-dual in their nature, and this non-dual nature is the true meaning of self, this means that within the dharma of non-self there is the true self. Vimalakīrti's concluding the ultimate truth to clarify the four withering states is intended to reveal the flourishing, which is precisely the intention of the raw-curd teaching of the vaipulya [period]. Its emergence is not yet fully manifest; how could it be instantaneously identical to the Lotus Sūtra and the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra?

5.36

"When this was spoken" down to "attained liberation": third, explaining the monks' awakening to the Way. These monks inevitably had to regulate their minds through arising and ceasing before they could enter the correct path of non-arising. Therefore, the Buddha initially gave an abridged teaching on arising and ceasing to regulate their minds. Later, through the Great Being's rebuke of Kātyāyana, arising and ceasing were set aside, and by using the five meanings of non-arising taught in accordance with their capacities, they immediately entered the Way. As for "their minds attained liberation": having heard the realization of phenomena and entered emptiness, they attained the fruit of arhatship. Thus the Dàpǐn, praising the virtues of arhats, says: "Their minds attained good liberation; their wisdom attained good liberation," which means liberation from the cognitive delusions of the three realms, attaining mental autonomy, and possessing the eight liberations.

5.37

"Therefore, I am not competent to go there and inquire after his illness": fourth, concluding his lack of competence. Kātyāyana reflected on how in the past he had broadly explained the five meanings to the monks, was rebuked by Vimalakīrti, and remained silent without an answer. How could he be competent to convey the [Buddha's] command? Thus he declined as incompetent.

5.38

"The Buddha told Aniruddha": seventh, commanding Aniruddha. The text has two parts: first, commanding him to inquire after the illness; second, declining as incompetent. The reason he was commanded next is that he was foremost in the divine eye among the disciples. He belonged to the kṣatriya caste and was the son of Prince Śuklodana. He is also called Āniludou or Anulouduo, just as the dialects of Chu and Xia differ. Here it is translated as 'According with Intent' (Rúyì) or 'Free from Poverty' (Wúpín). In a past life, he offered a single meal to a pratyekabuddha, and for ninety-one kalpas he enjoyed bliss according with his intent among devas and humans; hence he was called 'According with Intent'. From then on he lacked nothing; hence he was called 'Free from Poverty'. He was the Buddha's paternal cousin. When he first entered the Way, he slept excessively and was rebuked; because of this he did not sleep, and eventually lost his sight. He reported this fully to the Buddha. The Buddha said: "Sleep is food for the eyes. Just as a person loses their life if they do not eat for seven days, if one does not sleep for seven days, the life of the eyes is severed and difficult to cure. You should cultivate the divine eye to view the affairs of the world." Thereupon he cultivated meditation, attained the pure matter of the four great elements, saw with half his head, and viewed the trichiliocosm just like a fruit in the palm of his hand. As for the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka, he sees thoroughly and unobstructedly with his entire head with the divine eye. Although [Aniruddha] did not equal the Buddha, he was foremost among the śrāvakas. This is entering the Way through the mental-reckoning number [method], fully as explained above. Seeking its ultimate import deeply, it even accomplishes the aforementioned five kinds of benefits, fully as in the beginning of the chapter on Śāriputra.

5.39

From "Aniruddha" down: second, respectfully declining as incompetent. The text has four parts: first, respectfully declining as incompetent; second, explaining the reason for his incompetence; third, directly narrating the event of being rebuked; fourth, concluding his incompetence. As for the first part: it was truly because in the past, when a Brahmā king asked about the divine eye, he answered according to what he had attained, which led to his being rebuked so that he did not know how to respond. How could he be competent to convey the command and go inquire after his illness?

5.40

From "Why?" down: second, explaining the reason for his incompetence. The text has two parts: first, the Brahmā king's coming to ask; second, Aniruddha's answer. As for the first part: the lord of the world governs the trichiliocosm, and having attained the divine eye as a karmic retribution, he also sees the trichiliocosm. In terms of retributive divine eye, none equals the Brahmā king. The king and his retinue, hearing that Aniruddha was foremost in the divine eye among the śrāvakas, wished to know their relative superiority and inferiority, and so came to ask. From "I then [answered]" down to "an āmalaka fruit": second, Aniruddha's answer. Among the divine eyes attained by the other śrāvakas, none can see the trichiliocosm. Therefore the Dàzhìdù lùn says: "The divine eye of a great arhat sees only a small chiliocosm; a great pratyekabuddha sees a hundred buddha-worlds; and the buddhas, the Tathāgatas, see all buddha-lands." Aniruddha alone saw the trichiliocosm because he specifically cultivated the mental-reckoning number [method], making him foremost in the divine eye among the śrāvakas. At first glance, what he saw seemed the same as the Brahmā king's; since he had no function surpassing him, he did not evoke [the king's] reverence and admiration. How could he cause them to arouse the aspiration [for awakening]? Consequently he was rebuked by the Great Being. This is the reason for his incompetence.

5.41

Question: If so, what is the difference? Answer: The Brahmā king's is obtained through retribution; he sees the trichiliocosm only from his own dwelling place and cannot see from other regions. Aniruddha, by cultivating the five kinds of four dhyānas such as the fundamental ones, with the eight pure kinds of subtle form, triggered the true divine eye; wherever he went, he saw the trichiliocosm just like viewing a fruit in his palm. Although the other arhats did not see the trichiliocosm, wherever they saw, it followed them like a shadow following a form. Furthermore, the Brahmā king sees the general characteristics and does not see clearly; Aniruddha sees specific characteristics and sees clearly. Even the various arhats who attain it through pure meditation all see specific characteristics and see clearly. Furthermore, the Brahmā king's divine eye is a supernatural power (abhijñā) but not a clear knowledge (vidyā); the arhat's divine eye is both a supernatural power and a clear knowledge. There are such differences.

5.42

Question: What is the difference between the Brahmā king's divine eye seeing the trichiliocosm and the physical eye in the Lotus Sūtra? Answer: The Dàzhìdù lùn clarifies that the retributively born divine eye sits upon the physical eye; when the divine eye opens up, the physical eye sees matter, and thus sees the trichiliocosm. The Dàpǐn clarifies that a bodhisattva's physical eye sees from a hundred yojanas up to the trichiliocosm; beyond this, he uses the divine eye. Because the physical eye is obstructed by wind, it is not said to see other lands. If, through the power of the Lotus Sūtra, the physical eye can see all dharmas in the trichiliocosm, even what is seen in terms of facts and principles by the divine eye and wisdom eye of the Tripiṭaka's two vehicles cannot match it—how much less could a Brahmā king compare? Therefore, the Great Sūtra says: "Although one who studies the Mahāyāna has a physical eye, it is called the buddha eye. Although people of the two vehicles have a wisdom eye, it is called a physical eye." Because their wisdom eye sees the truth and cuts off delusions, it has areas of equality and inferiority compared with the physical eye of the Perfect Teaching. The physical eye of the Perfect Teaching is called the buddha eye because although it possesses the nature of afflictions, it can know the secret treasury of the Tathāgata.

5.43

From "At that time Vimalakīrti" down: third, directly narrating the event of being rebuked. The text has five parts: first, cross-examining interrogation; second, Aniruddha yielding in defeat; third, the Brahmā king's question; fourth, Vimalakīrti's answer; fifth, the Brahmā king and his retinue arousing the aspiration [for awakening]. The first part has two: first, double cross-examination; second, double interrogation. As for the first: an arhat's virtues are twofold: conditioned and unconditioned. Conditioned refers to the ten knowledges, three samādhis, three clear knowledges, and six supernatural powers; unconditioned refers to the unarising and unceasing where the delusions of view and thought of the three realms are severed. If the divine eye belongs to the conditioned, it is seeing 'with characteristics of activity'; if it belongs to the unconditioned, it is seeing 'without characteristics'. Precisely upon which does it rely to see the trichiliocosm?

5.44

From "If [seeing is with characteristics]" down to "there is seeing": second, concluding the double interrogation. The divine eye of pure meditation is entirely conditioned with characteristics of arising and ceasing; although its power and function differ from the fundamental [meditation], they are both conditioned and initially non-distinct, hence the statement that it is 'equal to the five supernatural powers of non-Buddhists'. As for "if it is without characteristics of activity, it is unconditioned and should not have seeing": this concludes the interrogation in terms of unconditioned virtue. The unconditioned is precisely the realization of cessation through analytical knowledge, where there is no objective support or seeing; how could it see the trichiliocosm? If the unconditioned had seeing, how would it differ from non-Buddhists? Since it cannot have seeing, one should not say that it sees the trichiliocosm. If one then takes the conditioned to see the trichiliocosm, this would be weakly identical to the Brahmā king; what difference would there be between ordinary beings and sages? Lacking superior power, how could it inspire the Brahmā king's mind? Aniruddha's error lay precisely here. Why? The Tripiṭaka analyzes emptiness without seeing the Middle Way; entering contemplation it is identical to unconditioned non-seeing, and emerging from contemplation it is again identical to conditioned seeing. Having such an error, he was interrogated and forced to yield.

First 44 of 154 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

維摩經略疏 — Classical Chinese