維摩經略疏 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

From "Is it from tathatā..." onward is the second part: refuting the reception of prophecy in one lifetime on the basis of the practice of unproducedness. The reason for refuting it on the basis of practice is due to Maitreya having an implicit objection. The objection says: That there is no reception of prophecy in principle may be granted. But what prevents one from relying on the practice of unproducedness, so that when practice completes wisdom and severance, one attains the prophecy of bodhi? The text has four parts: first, dual positing; second, dual refutation; third, dual confrontation; fourth, dual conclusion. First, as for the dual positing: Is it arising from tathatā, or perishing from tathatā? Why so? Maitreya's mind was not yet satisfied: If the principle of unproducedness is principle, then principle is tathatā, without prophecy or non-prophecy. But sentient beings have been deluded about principle from beginningless time, so there is birth-and-death. When buddhas and bodhisattvas contemplate unproducedness, as their genuine wisdom and light arise, the darkness of delusion gradually perishes; when wisdom arises and illuminates to the utmost, false delusions are entirely exhausted, and the fulfillment of wisdom and severance is called the fruit of bodhi. How could one use the principle of tathatā to rebuke the existence of receiving prophecy? Therefore, he first posits dually: Is it through the arising of tathatā or the perishing of tathatā that wisdom and severance are fulfilled and one receives prophecy? Regarding this dual positing, it profoundly addresses the reception of prophecy of wisdom and severance through the arising of tathatā and perishing of tathatā across the bodhisattvas of the three teachings. In the Shared and Distinct Teachings, they are superficially the same in phenomenon but differ in principle; between the Shared and Perfect Teachings, they differ in both phenomenon and principle; between [the Perfect] and the Distinct Teaching, they are the same in principle but differ in phenomenon.

6.4

Question: Why are the Distinct and Perfect Teachings the same in principle but different in phenomenon? Answer: Because both are the Middle Way, they are the same; because of the distinction between their two cultivations, they are different.

6.5

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.

6.6

Question: Why is it that the Common and Distinct [teachings] take conditioned cultivation as self, while the Perfect Teaching takes true cultivation as self? Answer: In the Common and Distinct [teachings], one becomes a buddha by using wisdom, and suchness is merely the cognitive object; therefore, the conditioned is self. The Perfect [Teaching] accomplishes buddhahood by using truth, and conditioned cultivation is merely the adornment of merit and wisdom; therefore, true suchness is self.

6.7

Question: Since the Common Teaching is the truth of extinction into nothingness, it merely generates wisdom; wisdom belongs to the practitioner and is spoken of as self, while the principle is merely the cognitive object and may be regarded as other. The Distinct [Teaching] clarifies the middle principle; why does it not agree with the Perfect, but agrees with the Common Teaching? Answer: Although its principle agrees with the Perfect, the capacities and teaching are not equivalent. The Distinct [Teaching] clarifies conditioned [cultivation directed toward] the true; although the true is eternal, the principle is not wisdom. Using wisdom to contemplate the principle has not yet brought forth true wisdom, and the wisdom of conditioned cultivation is not called eternal; therefore, it does not agree with the Perfect.

6.8

Question: The Distinct agrees with the Common Teaching in taking the conditioned as self; provisionally drawing an analogy to the Common [Teaching], the four propositions are understandable. The Perfect takes the true as self; what are its four propositions? Answer: Wisdom and severance are not self-produced—not accomplished by true cultivation; nor are they other-produced—not accomplished by conditioned cultivation; nor are they produced by both—not accomplished by the combination of the true and the conditioned; nor are they produced without cause—not accomplished apart from the true and the conditioned; and yet the wisdom and severance of the Perfect Teaching exist. If in examining wisdom and severance through the four propositions they cannot be found, then there is no receiving the prophecy of one life [to buddhahood] of the Perfect Teaching. However, Vimalakīrti's intent in refuting is to refute the self-produced true cultivation of wisdom and severance of the Perfect [Teaching]; an exhaustive examination within this cannot be accomplished even in twenty exchanges. If one does not deeply discern this meaning, the doctrine of true cultivation of the Perfect Teaching can hardly stand. If even the true [cultivation] of the Perfect is like this, how could the conditioned cultivation of the Common and Distinct easily stand? Because of Vimalakīrti's single refutation, the meanings of three refutations are established, distinctly and without confusion.

6.9

Question: How could using merely a single round cause those clinging to the three teachings each to hear differently and each to relinquish what they grasp? Answer: Formerly, upon returning to Shaan county, I saw that at Daoyin Monastery, Master Zhang had painted an icon of Rocana on the north wall of the main hall for Emperor Xuan of the Liang, and also painted a tortoise. As people moved or stood still, both eyes of the image entirely followed and looked at them, and the tortoise's eyes did likewise. If mundane physical phenomena can be wonderful to such an extent, how much more so with Vimalakīrti abiding in the wonderful wisdom of the inconceivable! A refutation in a single round causes the three each to shatter the fault of their grasping mind and voluntarily relinquish it.

6.10

From "All sentient beings" down is the third [section], double juxtaposition. The text has two parts: first, taking the four suchnesses as the starting point of juxtaposition; second, properly concluding the juxtaposition. As for the first passage: first, in terms of the suchness of all sentient beings; second, in terms of the suchness of all dharmas; third, in terms of the suchness of all sages and worthies; fourth, in terms of the suchness of Maitreya. Deeply seeking the meaning regarding these four juxtapositions, it also implicitly concerns the three teachings. First, explaining the four juxtapositions in terms of the Common [Teaching]: three are progressive juxtapositions from first to last, and one is a reverse juxtaposition from last to first. First, in terms of the suchness of sentient beings: as for the progressive juxtaposition, sentient beings are nominal persons; the suchness of nominal persons and the suchness of Maitreya are one suchness without two suchnesses. If the suchness of sentient beings is neither arising nor ceasing and does not receive prophecy, the suchness of Maitreya is also like this; how could he alone receive prophecy? If the suchness of Maitreya is neither arising nor ceasing and receives prophecy, then the two suchnesses are different; if they are different, they are not suchness. If suchness is not different, the prophecy should also be the same, and not receiving prophecy should also be the same. Whether in terms of penetration or juxtaposition, it is not merely a few rounds. Second, progressive juxtaposition in terms of the suchness of all dharmas: the suchness of all dharmas encompasses both the sentient and the insentient; the sentient refers to the real dharmas of the five aggregates, and the insentient refers to external lands and so forth; all are suchness, and are one suchness without two with the suchness of Maitreya. This merely replaces sentient beings with the insentient; every clause is completely identical, and must be explained by analogy. Why? The Buddha does not confer prophecy upon insentient dharmas; hence the Great Scripture says: "If a nyagrodha tree could cultivate precepts, concentration, and wisdom, I would also confer the prophecy of sambodhi. Because it lacks a mind, I do not confer prophecy upon it." Therefore, it is taken as a juxtaposition to contrast with the sentient. Third, progressive juxtaposition in terms of the suchness of all sages and worthies: that is, the sages and worthies of the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and Common [teachings] are all suchness, and are one suchness without two with the suchness of Maitreya; this also follows the preceding. From "If sentient beings" down, every clause is completely identical, and must be explained accordingly. Prior to the Lotus Sūtra, none of the sages and worthies of the two vehicles received prophecy; therefore, they are taken as a juxtaposition. Fourth, again in terms of the suchness of Maitreya, juxtaposing conversely with the previous three; hence it is called reverse. This has three tiers, meaning juxtaposition with the previous three rounds. Each states that one suchness is without two, receiving or not receiving prophecy is equal, and so forth. Its meaning is clear. Second in terms of the Distinct Teaching and third in terms of the Perfect Teaching, each makes four juxtapositions, which may be known by analogy with the Common.

6.11

From "If Maitreya" to "neither two nor different" is the second [section], concluding the juxtaposition. It also has four meanings: first, in terms of sentient beings; second, in terms of all dharmas; third, in terms of all sages and worthies; fourth, in terms of Maitreya. Regarding these four rounds, it also implicitly concerns the three teachings. First, the juxtaposition in terms of the Common Teaching also has three progressive and one reverse. First, progressively concluding the juxtaposition in terms of sentient beings, it says: "If Maitreya receives prophecy, all sentient beings should also receive prophecy." Since the two suchnesses are one, both should receive prophecy. Vimalakīrti then personally explains: "For suchness is neither two nor different." If there were two or different, one might allow one to receive prophecy and one not; since there are neither two nor different, both should receive prophecy.

6.12

Question: What is the distinction between "two" and "different"? Answer: "Two" merely discusses distinction of substance; "different" distinguishes non-identity of characteristics.

6.13

Concluding the juxtaposition secondly in terms of all dharmas, and thirdly in terms of all sages and worthies—the text is abbreviated and does not present them; they can be known by analogy with the juxtaposition of sentient beings. Fourth, as for the reverse juxtaposition in terms of Maitreya—the text is abbreviated and does not present it; one must follow the previous reverse juxtaposition: If all sages and worthies do not receive prophecy, Maitreya also does not receive prophecy. Why? For suchness is neither two nor different. If all sentient beings do not receive prophecy, all dharmas are also juxtaposed in this way. Second, in terms of the Distinct and Perfect, four rounds of concluding the juxtaposition are also implicitly made, which can be known by analogy with the Common. If Maitreya cannot resolve them, then the doctrine of receiving prophecy in the three teachings is destroyed, demonstrating his submission to rebuke.

6.14

From "If Maitreya" down is the fourth [section], double concluding explanation. The text has two parts: first, explanation in terms of refuting the virtue of wisdom; second, explanation in terms of refuting the virtue of severance. As for the first passage, it also implicitly explains in terms of the virtue of wisdom of the three teachings. First, explaining in terms of the Common Teaching: bodhi is paired with the afflictions of sentient beings; the suchness of sentient beings' afflictions and the suchness of bodhi are neither two nor different. If Maitreya attains sambodhi, all sentient beings should also attain it. Herein Vimalakīrti personally explains: "All sentient beings are the characteristic of bodhi." Since sentient beings are already the characteristic of bodhi, and suchness is devoid of self-production, there cannot further be the prophecy of the fruition of wisdom perfected as bodhi. Second, explaining in terms of the Distinct: provisionally it is the same as the Common, differing in seeing the middle. Third, explaining in terms of the Perfect: the afflictions of sentient beings have the characteristic of wisdom, like a person's face having the characteristic of merit; this characteristic of bodhi is the characteristic of suchness, the characteristic of wisdom. Both sentient beings and Maitreya have this characteristic; when the Buddha contemplates the two suchnesses, both should receive prophecy. Although incorporating the previous two teachings, the intent of the sūtra rests on the Perfect.

6.15

Question: Why is it that the three teachings are only refuted, while the explanation only employs the Perfect? Answer: Refutation is to shatter attachment; explanation is to establish the true meaning. In the former teachings there is no person and no practice; when the teachings are refuted, all are absent. In the Perfect Teaching, once attachment is shattered, the teaching, person, and practice are fully manifest; therefore, it is properly in terms of the Perfect. This concluding explanation states that when the suchness of true cultivation does not arise, there is no virtue of wisdom; therefore, prophecy is not received.

6.16

From "If Maitreya" to "not further extinguished" is the second [section], concluding the explanation in terms of refuting the virtue of severance. It also implicitly concerns the three teachings. First, refuting the Common: since the suchness of nirvāṇa and that of sentient beings are not different, both are extinguished and delivered. Hence Vimalakīrti personally explains: "All buddhas know that all sentient beings are the characteristic of nirvāṇa, which cannot be extinguished again." Sentient beings are fundamentally endowed with the characteristic of nirvāṇa; since suchness is devoid of extinction, there is no extinction of the fruition's virtue of severance that could be prophesied. Second, in terms of refuting the Distinct Teaching: if the suchness of sentient beings is the characteristic of nirvāṇa and cannot be extinguished, then there is no extinction of the ultimate virtue of severance of nirvāṇa in the final thought of the tenth bhūmi where ignorance [is severed]. As for refuting attachment, the Perfect Teaching can also be known by analogy with the Common. The refutation of the teaching, person, and practice of the former teachings can be seen by analogy with the above. This explains that if true suchness is not extinguished, there is no virtue of severance; therefore, one cannot receive the prophecy of great nirvāṇa.

6.17

From "Therefore, Maitreya" down is the third [section], properly concluding the fault and rebuking. It also has three parts: first, properly concluding the fault; second, exhorting to relinquish views; third, explaining. First, concluding the fault: if without the fruition of bodhi of the expedient teachings, one speaks of this bodhi to entice the minds of others to give rise to the view of bodhi, then there is the fault of deceiving others. Hence Vimalakīrti personally says: "In reality, there is no generating the mind of sambodhi, nor is there an irreversible stage." If even the bodhicitta of the Perfect [Teaching] cannot be apprehended, and there is no one who regresses, how could there be the generation of the mind and irreversible stage of the expedient teachings? Since the cause cannot be apprehended, there is no fruition to be apprehended. Having no fruition and causing them to seek the prophecy of fruition—this falsely entices their minds.

6.18

Question: Fruition is spoken of by the Buddha, and prophesying Maitreya was the Buddha's enticing deception; what does this have to do with Maitreya? Answer: The Dàzhìdù lùn says: "When the Buddha sat at the place of enlightenment, he did not apprehend a single dharma as real. With an empty fist he deceived young children, enticing and crossing over all." Although the Buddha initially enticed and led [them] forward, when arriving at the real, [the expedient] must be discarded; therefore, this fault is concluded in order to rebuke Maitreya.

6.19

From "Maitreya" to "such view" is the second [section], exhorting to relinquish views. The expedient bodhi has no person and has teaching; if one clings and does not relinquish it, it obstructs entry into the One Reality. Hence the Great Scripture says: "Prior to this, all are called wrong views"; therefore, it must be relinquished.

6.20

Question: Why cause Maitreya to exhort the devaputra to relinquish views? Answer: Maitreya taught him to generate the mind and cultivate the irreversible stage; [the devaputra] would not believe the words of others, so Maitreya is instead caused to exhort him to relinquish [them].

6.21

From "Why" to "attained by mind" is the third [section], explaining the meaning of exhorting to relinquish. Refuting attainment by body or mind differs across the four teachings. First, refuting the Tripiṭaka: in the śrāvaka sūtras, it is like a poor man seeking the daughter of a rich family, and the daughter's family says, "If you wish to obtain my daughter, you should clean your house." Sambodhi is spoken of to the bodhisattva of the final thought: "If you wish to obtain bodhi, you should cultivate the marks and signs; when the seeds of the marks are complete, only then do you obtain bodhi." This is attainment by body. Subduing entrenchments to full ripeness, subduing Māra at the place of enlightenment, and attaining the extinction of nectar beneath the bodhi tree—this is attainment by mind. The Dàzhìdù lùn refutes this in detail: that is, it cannot be attained by body or mind. Second, refuting the Common: if with an empty mind one cultivates the marks and signs, purifies the buddha-land, and adorns the primary and secondary retributions, this is called attainment by body. When sitting at the place of enlightenment, when in a single thought corresponding wisdom exhausts fundamental and habitual defilements, this is attainment by mind. Refuting this is as the Diamond Prajñā says: "If one sees me by form, or seeks me by sound, this person walks a wrong path and cannot see the Tathāgata." This is [showing that] it cannot be attained by body or mind. Third, refuting the Distinct: if one says that through the extinction of this form one obtains eternal form, this is attainment by body; sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness are also like this, which is attainment by mind. Now examining these words: is it that through the extinction of impermanent form one obtains eternal form, or that without the extinction of impermanent form one obtains eternal form? Examining through the four propositions in this way, it cannot be found; that is, it cannot be attained by body or mind. Fourth, refuting the Perfect: through true cultivation, wonderful form and mind are revealed; they do not need the merit and wisdom of conditioned cultivation to be revealed; that is, it cannot be attained by body or mind. Furthermore, if the essence of form and mind in true cultivation being revealed to completeness is the attainment of bodhi, this is also the meaning of attainment by body and mind. Therefore, the earlier refutation of "arising from suchness, suchness is without arising"—that is the form of dharmatā; the sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness of dharmatā do not arise, and non-arising is the completeness of the taintless; therefore, it cannot be attained by body or mind.

6.22

From “quiescent extinction” downward is fourth: extensively explaining true bodhi. Why is it extensively explained? Above, [Vimalakīrti] having refuted [their understanding] with difficulties and exhorted them to abandon their views, those who believed in the partial teachings had nowhere for their minds to turn, and those who received the Perfect [Teaching] but had not entered it did not know the correct meaning either. Therefore, he had to demonstrate extensively the twenty-five instances of the correct meaning of bodhi. The text has three [parts]: first, one instance briefly states the topic as the bodhi of true reality; next, twenty-two instances clarify bodhi according to true wisdom and severance; third, two instances conclude the bodhi of true wisdom and severance by returning to the marvelous principle of true reality. The reason for this is that above, it was refuted that without wisdom and severance one cannot receive prediction; since the clinging afflictions of those who received the four teachings have been removed, he now conversely explains for them that the meaning of true wisdom and severance is entirely bodhi. Thus, the three virtues of bodhi are like the worldly letter 'I' [𑖄]: that is the true bodhi of the Perfect [Teaching]. In explaining these twenty-five statements, the Perfect [Teaching] is applied exclusively. As for “quiescent extinction is bodhi”: all dharmas converge in the mind, and the mind is the Middle Way. The principle of true suchness is fundamentally unarisen, and therefore now without extinction. Unarisen, it is not wisdom; unextinguished, it is not severance. This is the meaning of true quiescent extinction, and also the unarising of great nirvāṇa. That this unarising, unarising [nature] cannot be spoken of as bodhi is the bodhi of true reality in the Perfect Teaching. As for “extinguishing all marks”: if one does not know the bodhi of true reality, and cannot speak of it, clinging to the marks of the four teachings gives rise to the afflictions of birth-and-death. These four marks have sixteen marks from which all marks emerge; hence there is the turbulence of all afflictions and birth-and-death. If the bodhi of true reality is the unarising, and the unarising cannot be spoken of, then the four gates are all extinguished. How much more so would the three kinds of marks of the four gates—such as arising and unarising—and all marks and delusions not be extinguished? Vimalakīrti's intent is that true reality is markless and able to extinguish all marks; hence he says “extinguishing”.

6.23

From “not contemplating” downward is second: directly defining true wisdom and severance as bodhi. This further has two parts: first, brief; second, extensive. The first, brief part has two: first, two instances directly clarify that the true virtue of wisdom is true bodhi, which is Mahāprajñā; next, four instances clarify the true virtue of severance. As for “not contemplating is bodhi”: putting to rest expedient contemplation is ‘not contemplating’. As for “separating from all conditions”: it is because one is separated from all conditional practice and all conditions. As for “non-practice is bodhi”: if one knows true emptiness, there is nothing to practice, and all the myriad practices are themselves bodhi. Therefore, the Dàpǐn says: “If the mind and mental factors do not function, that is the practice of prajñā.” As for “free from recollection”: not thinking of the four kinds of receiving the prediction of bodhi or of any dharma—this true contemplative practice is itself the bodhi of the true virtue of wisdom.

6.24

From “severance is bodhi” up to “because there is no covetous attachment” is second: four instances clarifying that the true virtue of severance is bodhi, which is the virtue of liberation. As for “severance is bodhi”: when true suchness becomes manifest and the delusions of view and thought are severed, this is the bodhi of the virtue of severance. Relinquishing the view of bodhi and all views arisen from clinging to the four teachings is “relinquishing all views”. As for “separation is bodhi”: separating from the contemplative practices and all dharmas explained by the four teachings is the bodhi of the true virtue of severance. As for “separating from all false thoughts”: separating from the conditional cultivation of the four gates and all false thoughts. As for “hindering is bodhi”: if one knows that in the impartial, true dharma-realm the Buddha does not deliver sentient beings, this is beyond the practice of all buddhas, and thus hinders the vows of all expedient teaching gates; this is the true virtue of severance. As for “not entering is bodhi”: if one knows that true suchness is ultimately markless, one does not enter the nirvāṇa of the provisional teachings or any dharma; because one does not enter, there is no covetous attachment, which is the bodhi of the true virtue of severance.

6.25

From “conforming is bodhi” downward is second: extensively clarifying that true wisdom and severance are bodhi. Here, the virtue of wisdom is mostly explained extensively, while the virtue of severance is explained briefly. Why? Bodhi is wisdom, whereas severance pertains to nirvāṇa; therefore, it is secondary. This has two parts: first, nine instances directly address the virtue of wisdom; next, seven instances address how it cannot be attained by body or mind. As for “conforming is bodhi”: if through contemplation one does not see the bodhi of the four teachings, one conforms to the true suchness of the Middle Way in the Perfect Teaching. As for “abiding is bodhi”: if wisdom does not abide in the four teachings or any dharma, that is abiding in the dharma-nature of the Perfect Teaching. In “reaching is bodhi”: if one contemplates all dharmas and the bodhi of the four teachings as ultimately unobtainable, one can reach the ultimate reality of true suchness. In “non-duality is bodhi”: if there is the bodhi of the expedient, partial teachings and all [such] dharmas, these are mental objects facing the internal sense organ of thought, which constitutes duality. Contemplating both of these dharmas as unobtainable, entering the gate of non-duality and seeing the Middle Way, one leaves behind the two deaths. This one instance pertains to the virtue of severance. In “equality is bodhi”: if one contemplates nirvāṇa and birth-and-death as equal, this equals the buddha-nature of empty space, which is the bodhi of the true virtue of wisdom. In “unconditioned is bodhi”: if one contemplates the dharma-nature as serenely, eternally quiescent, it is truly unconditioned and not shifted by birth, old age, sickness, and death. In “wisdom is bodhi”: the various expedient teachings enter reality through conditional cultivation, without perceiving the mental activities of sentient beings; the true wisdom of the Perfect Teaching is quiescent yet constantly luminous, and the mental activities of sentient beings spontaneously appear within this wisdom, clear and distinct. In “non-convergence is bodhi”: the various expedient teachings explain that the wisdom of conditional cultivation enters into convergence with the principle before it is named true wisdom; the essence of the true cultivated wisdom of the Perfect [Teaching] is itself the principle of quiescent extinction, not wisdom coming to converge. In “non-conjoining is bodhi”: the true wisdom of expedients, in terms of principle, conjoins with ignorance and is not yet able to leave behind latencies; the essence of true cultivated wisdom does not conjoin with it, and thus is able to leave behind fundamental latencies. This one instance pertains to the virtue of severance. Distinguishing these options is exceedingly difficult; one must contemplate it thoroughly.

6.26

From “bodhi has no place” downward, the next seven instances concern the meaning of how it cannot be attained by body or mind. This one is that it cannot be attained by the body. The bodhi of the partial teachings is wisdom relying on the physical body, taking the physical body as its place; this would mean it can be attained by the body. In the bodhi of the Perfect Teaching, form and mind are non-dual; since there is neither subject nor object, there is no place, which means it cannot be attained by the body.

6.27

From “nominal designation” up to “because they are equal”: these six instances clarify the meaning of how the bodhi of true wisdom cannot be attained by the mind. In “nominal designation is bodhi”: the mind is a nominal designation, and the four kinds of bodhi have names only; if one contemplates them as empty and sees the buddha-nature, this is the bodhi of true wisdom that cannot be attained by the mind. In “like an illusion is bodhi”: all dharmas are like illusions, and the four kinds of bodhi are all like illusions. If one knows that what is like an illusion is entirely unobtainable, one does not seize the marks of bodhi nor abandon afflictions; this is the bodhi of true wisdom. In “absence of confusion is bodhi”: the confused thoughts of afflictions and the stirred thoughts of conditional cultivation are all confused thoughts; knowing that these confused thoughts are all unobtainable, one puts the mind to rest and reaches the fundamental source, the inner mind constantly serene and still, without the confusion of object and wisdom. In “wholesome quiescence is bodhi”: the conditional cultivation of expedients cannot yet conform to the principle, so it is not called truly wholesome. Having conditions and having thoughts is confused thought, so it is not called quiescence. At the initial stage of the Perfect Teaching, wisdom is true suchness, which is called wholesome. Luminosity without stirred thoughts is called quiescence. Wisdom is dharma-nature, and dharma-nature without defilement is original purity. In “non-grasping is bodhi”: if one knows that the bodhi of the four teachings and all dharmas are non-existent and the mind does not grasp or cling to them, that is perfect bodhi, leaving behind the mind that clings to bodhi and all dharmas. In “non-difference is bodhi”: the bodhi explained by the various expedient teachings is different from afflictions; if one knows that bodhi is not different from afflictions, that is the bodhi of the virtue of impartial wisdom in the Perfect Teaching.

6.28

From “incomparable” up to “because it is difficult to know” is third: clarifying the concluding synthesis of the inconceivable bodhi of the three virtues. In “incomparable is bodhi”: the inconceivable wisdom and severance of true suchness are all dharmas; one cannot compare dharma to dharma again, so it cannot be illustrated by analogy. In “subtle and marvelous is bodhi”: provisional principle is not marvelous; in the Perfect Teaching, all dharmas are true suchness, and true suchness is wisdom and severance. All dharmas are the inconceivable bodhi of the three virtues—only this is ultimate subtlety, which cannot be known by ordinary people, followers of the small vehicle, or those of expedient bodhi.

6.29

From “World-Honoured One” up to “forbearance of dharmas” is fifth: the devas receiving benefit. Their desires having ceased, the water cleared and the jewel appeared, and they attained the forbearance of the unarising of dharmas of the initial aboding of the Perfect [Teaching]. Alternatively, hearing one sound with different understandings, they attained the unarising of the Shared or Separate [Teachings]. Since it is not yet on par with the Lotus Sūtra, how could one determine it definitively?

6.30

“Therefore, I am not competent to go there and inquire after the illness” is fourth: concluding with a statement of inadequacy. Maitreya reflected on how in the past his explaining non-retrogression for the Tuṣita devas brought them no benefit, and being rebuked by [Vimalakīrti] he did not know how to respond; how could he be fit to convey the [Buddha's] command and go to inquire after the illness? Therefore, he declined as incompetent.

6.31

“The Buddha told the youth Prabhāvyūha: ‘Go to Vimalakīrti and inquire after his illness’ ” is second: commanding the youth Prabhāvyūha. The text has two parts: first, commanding him to inquire after the illness; second, his declining as incompetent. Why is he commanded next? Prabhāvyūha is a lay bodhisattva, a Dharma friend of Vimalakīrti and Ratnakūṭa, and also a great being of the dharmakāya occupying the rank of succession to buddhahood. Why is he named the youth Prabhāvyūha [‘Light-Adorned’]? Light is of three kinds: first, of form; second, of mind; third, of neither-form-nor-mind. Light of form: as in the contemplation of the skeleton in the liberations emitting eight kinds of light, which transform into the stations of mastery, emitting various kinds of light everywhere. Light of mind: that is the light of wisdom, able to illuminate darkness and delusion. Light of neither-form-nor-mind: that is the light of the supreme truth, as in the emission of the light of the supreme truth in the Brahmajāla Sūtra. The light emitted by the Bodhisattva Vaiḍūryaprabha in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra is just such a case; that sūtra says: “Light is the supreme truth.” Neither-form-nor-mind manifests as form and mind. Why? The sūtra says: “Not blue, yet seeing blue light, and so forth,” which is the form of non-form. Light is wisdom, which is speaking of mind through non-mind. The Tripiṭaka, Shared, and Separate teachings only have the two lights of form and mind; only the Perfect Teaching explains the light of the supreme truth, which is inconceivable light. ‘Adornment’ means the two adornments of merit and wisdom, fully detailed as in the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. It is also the adornment of the power of samādhi and prajñā, fully detailed as in the Lotus Sūtra. Light of form is the adornment of merit; light of mind is the adornment of wisdom; the light of the supreme truth is the dharmakāya. The two lights of adornment reveal and manifest the dharmakāya; hence he is named Prabhāvyūha.

6.32

Question: If the supreme truth is light, why are the lights of form and mind needed? Answer: Just as the sun and a mirror reveal the eyes, and when the eyes receive [light from] the sun they see, so the sun of wisdom and the mirror of merit reveal the eye of the supreme truth, whereby one is able to open the vision and knowledge of the buddhas and see oneself and others. 'Youth' (kumāra): A bodhisattva dwelling in the stage of kumārabhūta is called 'youthful and pure' (kumārabhūta), like a worldly youth whose mind is free of defiled attachment, meaning that he does not defiledly attach to his own or another's wife. Not attaching to one's own wife is like Golden Kāśyapa; not attaching to another's wife means not attaching to any woman or another's wife. The bodhisattva is also like this: although he contemplates the three truths and realizes the joy of phenomena, if he is unattached to the joy of phenomena of the two truths, this is not attaching to any woman or another's wife; and not attaching to the joy of phenomena of the Middle Way is not attaching to his own wife. Possessing these two meanings, he is like a worldly youth; hence he is named Youth Prabhāvyūha. Previously, [the Lord] commanded Maitreya in order to reveal perfect bodhi and open the vision and knowledge of the buddhas, which is not solely situated in the final birth. Now he commands Prabhāvyūha, wishing to clarify the bodhimaṇḍa of the Perfect Teaching to demonstrate the vision and knowledge of the buddhas, which likewise is not solely under the future bodhi tree. 'Opening' the vision is the general characteristic, like first seeing a wish-fulfilling jewel as merely a single circular image. 'Demonstrating' is the particular characteristic, like seeing the wish-fulfilling jewel rain down all kinds of treasures; it still pertains to the initial mind and must not be sought afar. Therefore the Dàpǐn explains that every single Dharma-door is the Mahāyāna, and this sūtra explains that it is the bodhimaṇḍa. When Vimalakīrti refuted Prabhāvyūha in the past, he used it to refute the bodhi of the three teachings as not being the true bodhimaṇḍa. That Prabhāvyūha appeared to submit to being broken was precisely to reveal the true bodhimaṇḍa of the Perfect Teaching. Now that the Buddha next commands him, if he recounts his having been rebuked in the past, then the great assembly will together hear the meaning of the perfect and true bodhimaṇḍa, accomplishing the five kinds of benefit mentioned earlier.

6.33

From 'Prabhāvyūha' down is, second, his respectfully declining as unworthy. The text has four parts: first, respectfully declining as unworthy; second, recounting the reasons for being unworthy; third, directly setting forth his being rebuked; and fourth, concluding on his unworthiness. As for the first passage, it is precisely because in the past when asked about the meaning of the bodhimaṇḍa he did not know how to reply, and is therefore unworthy to convey the command and go inquire after the illness.

6.34

From 'The reason' down is, second, recounting the reason for the nonduality [inability to reply]. It is precisely because he did not recognize the meaning of the true bodhimaṇḍa. The text has five parts: first, meeting when exiting and entering; second, Prabhāvyūha paying respect; third, asking where he came from; fourth, replying that he came from the bodhimaṇḍa; and fifth, Prabhāvyūha asking again. As for the first passage, meeting while exiting and entering brought about the rebuke and questioning, which was the reason for being unworthy. Or it has a symbolic meaning: the city is original quiescence; exiting is called turning away from principle, and entering is called conforming to the truth. Prabhāvyūha manifested receiving the original quiescence of expedient means; not yet having clarified the mind of delusion that is distant from principle, this was called 'exiting.' Relying on the perfect, Vimalakīrti had long awakened to the one reality; entering the flowing water of phenomena, this was called 'entering.' Because Prabhāvyūha turned away from principle, he was deluded about the bodhimaṇḍa; when capacity and response met, it resulted in his being rebuked and questioned.

6.35

Question: The disciples and bodhisattvas above were all rebuked and scolded; now Prabhāvyūha was simply spoken to about the meaning of the bodhimaṇḍa and was not seen to be broken or bent—why does he decline as unworthy? Answer: Hearing of the perfect bodhimaṇḍa, he was completely at a loss and did not understand; this itself was being bent. Since his mind was already subdued and he requested to be asked about the bodhimaṇḍa, it was then necessary to explain it to him without waiting to rebuke him further; therefore he is unworthy to inquire after the illness.

6.36

'I then paid homage to him' is, second, explaining Prabhāvyūha's paying respect. The reason he paid homage was that Prabhāvyūha manifested dwelling in a lower trace, deeply recognized the Great Being's lofty virtue benefiting living beings without bounds, and therefore paid homage to him. 'And asked, "Where has the layman come from?"' is, third, asking where he came from. Not having fathomed the place from which he came, he therefore posed the question. 'He answered me, "I come from the bodhimaṇḍa,"' is, fourth, the reply. The Great Being did not actually come from the place where the Buddha attained awakening; wishing to explain the meaning of the true bodhimaṇḍa of the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching and break through the bodhimaṇḍas explained by the various partial teachings and by the perfect's phenomenal traces, he replied that he came from the bodhimaṇḍa. 'I asked, "What is the bodhimaṇḍa?"' is, fifth, asking the reason again. Prabhāvyūha was bewildered by this answer. The bodhimaṇḍa was originally the place where the Buddha attained awakening, just as a worldly threshing floor is where grain is threshed and the husk is removed to reveal the rice. The bodhisattva is also like this: having eradicated mental delusions to reveal true reality, the place where he attains awakening is called the bodhimaṇḍa. Categorized according to teachings: in the Tripiṭaka Teaching, beneath the bodhi tree grass serves as the seat, where delusions and habits are both exhausted; the place of attaining buddhahood is called the bodhimaṇḍa. In the Shared Teaching, beneath the bodhi tree heavenly robes serve as the seat, where delusions and habits are both exhausted; the place of attaining buddhahood is called the bodhimaṇḍa. In the Distinct Teaching, beneath the bodhi tree the seven jewels serve as the seat; where Rocana Buddha exhausts delusions beyond the realm, the place where he first attains correct awakening is the bodhimaṇḍa of quiescent extinction. In the Perfect Teaching, empty space and a lotus flower serve as the seat; where ignorance throughout the dharma-realm is eternally exhausted, the place where buddhahood is first attained is likewise the bodhimaṇḍa of quiescent extinction. Sitting on grass to attain buddhahood appears in the Śrāvaka sūtras. Heavenly robes, the seven jewels, and empty space with a lotus flower appear in the Suvikrāntavikrāmi-paripṛcchā. According to their capacities and responses, beings perceive these four bodhimaṇḍas: lesser capacities perceive the small; because bodhisattvas of the three Mahāyāna teachings perceive them, the appearances of the three bodhimaṇḍas of attaining buddhahood differ. Prabhāvyūha did not see the Great Being coming from such places—how could he suddenly answer that he came from the bodhimaṇḍa? Therefore he asked again.

6.37

From 'He answered' down is, third, directly recounting the matter of being rebuked. Prabhāvyūha only knew the meaning of the bodhimaṇḍa at the fruition stage of the expedient teachings, and did not yet know that in the Perfect Teaching the initial arousal of the mind is itself [the bodhimaṇḍa]. This is similar to Maitreya's preaching of the Dharma, which in all cases looked toward the provisional fruition to guide them to accomplish the practice of non-retrogression. Now Vimalakīrti expounds the perfect, refuting Prabhāvyūha's clinging calculation regarding a bodhimaṇḍa on the fruition stage of expedients. This is similar to the burning wick in the Dàpǐn: it is neither the first nor the last, yet not separate from the first and the last. If it is not separate from the first and the last, and one considers the last to be the bodhimaṇḍa, why not consider the first to be the bodhimaṇḍa? If the first cannot do it, the last cannot either. Therefore Vimalakīrti, with respect to the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching, broadly explains the meaning of the true bodhimaṇḍa.

6.38

Question: Since the three teachings have a bodhimaṇḍa at the final mind, can their initial mind also be the bodhimaṇḍa or not? Answer: If the various expedient teachings are taken provisionally in terms of contemplation, why could it not be so? But when examining the underlying principle, the meaning does not stand. Why? In the expedients, it is only complete at the final mind, and the initial mind of the buddhadharma cannot [do it]; how could it serve as a precedent? However, Vimalakīrti gave only a general reply and had not yet recounted its particulars; therefore Prabhāvyūha inquired again.

6.39

Now, those who cling to the provisional know that within the inconceivable one there are immeasurable things, but like a treasure in a bag that is not reached into and shown to others, nobody sees it. Therefore Vimalakīrti traverses all practices to clarify the meaning of the bodhimaṇḍa; this is demonstrating the vision and knowledge of the buddhas, and the intention lies here. However, 'demonstrating' has two kinds: first, vertical; second, horizontal. Horizontal and vertical are precisely that this cart is lofty and broad: 'lofty' penetrates to the final limit, and 'broad' is the boundless dharma-realm. The characteristics of lofty and broad must be fully like the previous horizontal and vertical explanation of the pure land, scattered among the various practices. If one merely follows the text through distinct particulars, it will only amount to the Shared and Distinct [Teachings] and lose its correct intention. Now, all are explained in terms of the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching to clarify the bodhimaṇḍa; hence the text below says: 'If a bodhisattva accords with the perfections, raising a foot or lowering a foot is in every case the bodhimaṇḍa,' being replete with all the buddhadharmas. The text has four parts: first, four passages provisionally clarifying vertically; next, twenty-five passages provisionally clarifying horizontally; third, one passage concluding the explanation; and fourth, clarifying the benefit gained by the assembly at that time. As for the first, regarding the four minds: if relying on the Distinct interpretation, they correspond to the forty minds: the straight mind is the ten abodes, the initiated practice is the ten practices, the profound mind is the ten dedications, and the bodhicitta is the ten grounds. Yet it is not entirely so. Why? When Vimalakīrti speaks of the bodhimaṇḍa of the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching, how could it vertically correspond to the ranks of the forty minds? Now it is clarified that from the first abode there are already the four minds up to the buddha fruition: the straight mind is entering the one true reality; the initiated practice is the myriad practices of the true reality; the profound mind is advancing deeply, flowing into it thought-moment after thought-moment. Bodhicitta possesses these three minds, like a lodestone attracting iron. The lines below, if clarifying initial cultivation, all pertain to the five grades; entering the stage of resemblance up to the abode of initial arousal of the mind, all practices are possessed—this is the true bodhimaṇḍa. As for 'The straight mind is the bodhimaṇḍa, because it is free of falsity': the Avataṃsaka explains that at the very time of first arousing the mind, one immediately accomplishes correct awakening and thoroughly penetrates the true nature of all phenomena. It also says: 'Ultimately free from delusion and falsity, undefiled like empty space. The pure, wondrous dharmakāya serenely responds to all.' This is the meaning of the bodhimaṇḍa. Attaining the eight unconditioned straight [paths], there is no falsity of suffering and origin within or outside the realm; if converting beings, one also completely employs the four kinds, as explained in the pure land section. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra praises the five grades, saying: 'One should know that this person has already proceeded to the bodhimaṇḍa, is near to sambodhi, and sits beneath the bodhi tree.' The Avataṃsaka explains that in the abode of initial arousal of the mind, one is able to sit in the bodhimaṇḍa and first attain correct awakening. It is also like the Dàpǐn explaining that there are bodhisattvas who from their initial arousal of the mind immediately sit in the bodhimaṇḍa and turn the wheel of the Dharma. As for 'Initiated practice is the bodhimaṇḍa': in the Distinct Teaching, through the ten practices one attains the ten perfections; now in the first abode of the Perfect Teaching, seeing the one true reality, one fully initiates myriad practices, destroying all evil karmas and revealing the Dharma-doors—this is the bodhimaṇḍa. Benefiting oneself and benefiting others is called 'being able to manage affairs.' As for 'The profound mind is the bodhimaṇḍa': in the Distinct Teaching, through the ten dedications understanding and practice become profoundly deep; now the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching sees the supreme truth, able to see both emptiness and non-emptiness. Because it is non-empty, it is profoundly deep; it is not the two vehicles, the Shared bodhisattvas, or the thirty minds of the Distinct Teaching. Furthermore, in the first abode one attains entrance into the Middle Way and doubly illuminates the two truths, spontaneously flowing into the ocean of sarvajñā, which is becoming gradually deeper. Because of the profound mind, the husks of ignorance fall away and the true Dharma is revealed—this is the meaning of the bodhimaṇḍa. Vertically advancing profoundly deep, horizontally all merits likewise increase accordingly. As for 'Bodhicitta is the bodhimaṇḍa': in the Distinct Teaching the first ground is called the true arousal of the mind; now the initial mind of the Perfect Teaching sees truth, which is called true; initiated practice is broad, and flowing into it is deep; being both broad and deep, it is called the deep and broad mind. Because the bodhisattva attains this mind, unconditioned compassion and uncreated great vows are like a lodestone attracting iron—this is the true bodhicitta. Being able of itself to eliminate the afflictions of the dharma-realm and reveal the dharmakāya, it is the bodhimaṇḍa. Seeing that the one true reality is neither cause nor fruition, it discerns the uncreated four truths of the dharma-realm. Cause and fruition are not confused; this is being free of error. Furthermore, combining the previous three minds, this is the bodhi of the three virtues; hence it is said that bodhicitta is the bodhimaṇḍa.

First 39 of 151 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

維摩經略疏 — Classical Chinese