維摩經略疏 6.5

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.