維摩經略疏 5.34

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.