維摩經略疏 5.64

5.64

From "Why is this so?" up to "in between," third is the explanation. "The nature of that offense is neither internal, external, nor in between": the nature of offenses is originally empty; if one can contemplate emptiness, that is precisely the absence of offense. Why is this so? If an offense existed, it would possess a determinate nature. If it possessed a determinate nature, it would not go beyond three places: first, the internal mind; second, the external object; third, in between, which is the co-arising of mind and object. Now examining: if it were in the internal, it would be self-nature. If self-nature were an offense, then before confronting an object, an offense should constantly exist; therefore, it is not self-nature. If one says it is in the external object, the object is other-nature; if the other has an offense, the offense naturally belongs to the other, so what does it have to do with oneself? If one says that the combination of internal and external produces an offense, that would be co-arisen offense. Co-arising has two faults, namely self and other, meaning two offenses would arise simultaneously. For example, when felling grass or trees, if the person has an offense, the grass and trees should also have it; if one says it is in between, the knife should have an offense. Therefore, it is not in the middle of the two. Another explanation: it is not the internal sense faculties, the external sense objects, nor the six consciousnesses in between. If the eighteen realms are empty and without a nature of offense, how could an offense exist? Furthermore, offenses arise from the mind; when contemplating that the mind does not arise from self, other, or co-arising, then the mind is not internal, external, or in between. As with the mind, so too with the defilement of offenses, and so too with all phenomena. Therefore, the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra states: 'Contemplating the mind, there is no mind; dharmas do not abide in dharmas. My mind is of itself empty; offenses and blessings have no master. All dharmas are thus: without abiding and without destruction. Performing this repentance is called the Great Repentance, called the Repentance of Adornment, called the Repentance of Non-Offense, called the Repentance of Destroying the Mind and Consciousness. Practicing this repentance, the mind is like flowing water, not abiding thought after thought, seeing Samantabhadra Bodhisattva and the buddhas of the ten directions.' The former two explanations are slightly lax in contemplative practice and do not accord with the sūtra; the latter explanation directly supports the Buddha's words cited by Vimalakīrti. If one can contemplate the non-arising of offenses in this way, this is directly eradicating without agitating their minds. Vimalakīrti took this to explain his previous rebuke; its meaning can thus be seen.