維摩經略疏 8.78

8.78

From "The goddess said" downward is the second [part], which explains the goddess's answer. The text has three parts: first, explaining non-transformation; second, explaining transformation; third, explaining neither transformation nor non-transformation. This directly fulfills this chapter's contemplation of sentient beings entering the three truths of emptiness, non-emptiness, and neither emptiness nor non-emptiness. First, non-transformation means contemplating sentient beings entering the ultimate truth from the conventional truth of being like an illusion, etc.; just as in the analogies of the nineteenth realm and so forth there is no characteristic of transformation, and also just as Śāriputra answered the goddess above that liberation has no verbal explanation, this is what was explained above: the ultimate truth is completely untransformable. Second, transformation means that while the ultimate never transforms, returning and entering conventional designations to guide sentient beings allows for the meaning of transformation. Just as illusions and apparitions, though having nothing fixed or real, do not hinder conventional designations, one can also speak of transformation—just as in the contemplation above of sentient beings in the conventional truth of conventional designations being like illusions and apparitions. Third, neither transformation nor non-transformation means that both transformation and non-transformation are unattainable. Because there is transformation, it is not like the ultimate truth such as the nineteenth realm; because there is non-transformation, it is not like the transformation of illusory names. Free from these two extremes, it is neither transformation nor non-transformation, which is the correct contemplation of the Middle Way—just as in the contemplation above of sentient beings being like the form of the formless realm, and so forth. It is merely slightly out of sequence with the previous text; the previous was uniformly about entering, whereas here it explains transformations, corresponding to the threefold contemplation. The first part, explaining non-transformation, has three sections: first, the heavenly maiden questions; second, Śāriputra answers; third, the rebuke. First, the goddess uses correct contemplation and analogies to make it clear, turning the question back to Śāriputra, saying: "For twelve years I have sought the characteristic of a woman and could not find it at all." This means contemplating the Dharma-nature of dependent origination: seeking the characteristics of male and female, they cannot be found at all; what then should be transformed? Now speaking of male and female is not restricted only to humans; their characteristics are immeasurable, and none can be found, all being like illusions. Tracing from the principle of dependent origination, ignorance, karmic formations, and so on are fundamentally neither male nor female; if through inverted false views there are male and female, these are dual characteristics. Contemplating the true principle of dependent origination, there are no dual characteristics, completely unattainable. As this is true of primary fruition, it is likewise for environmental fruition: just as heaven is yang and earth is yin, the sun is yang and the moon is yin, and the four seasons and five elements are all characteristics of male and female. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: "If taking craving as mother and ignorance as father," these are male and female. Even worldly and supramundane concentration and wisdom, merit and wisdom, the perfection of wisdom and expedient means, kindness and compassion, and wholesome minds all carry the meaning of male and female. If one contemplates dependent origination, it is Buddha-nature; Buddha-nature is Dharma-nature. In the true principle of Dharma-nature, one does not even see oneness, so how could there be duality? When one does not even see the characteristics of male and female in worldly and supramundane dharmas, how could there be the dual characteristics of a human body? Therefore the heavenly maiden says: "Contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination, I sought the characteristic of a woman and could not find it at all"—how could you urge transformation? Moreover, in terms of conventional truth, there are three reasons why womanhood cannot be transformed: First, karma cannot be transformed. When one creates male or female karma through ignorance and karmic formations, if the karma does not transform, the fruition also does not transform. For example, Śāriputra was formed by male karma, and the nun Utpalavarṇā was formed by female karma. Although they attained arhatship and completely severed the bond of offspring, this is transforming the cause while not transforming the present fruit; if the karma has not dissipated, it definitely cannot be transformed. Second, supernatural power cannot be transformed. For example, when the heavenly maiden uses supernatural power to transform Śāriputra into a woman, if she has not retracted her supernatural power, māras, non-Buddhists, and the two vehicles can exhaust their supernatural powers yet can do nothing about it. Third, vows cannot be transformed. For example, the Buddha and dharmakāya bodhisattvas, in accord with various lands, manifest a female form if someone should be saved by a female form; if sentient beings are not yet saved, the manifested form will never transform, and only when the capacities of sentient beings cease will the manifested female form transform. Taking these three meanings, she turns the question back to Śāriputra: why does he ask about not transforming the female form? This is seeking the characteristic of woman for twelve years and not finding it at all: what then should be transformed? It is like an illusionist conjuring a man or a woman; if someone asks, "Why do you not transform the female body?", this is not a proper question. Now Śāriputra making this inquiry is not a proper question; therefore, she uses this very inquiry to ask Śāriputra whether it is a proper question or not.