維摩經略疏 8.86

8.86

From "Śāriputra" downward is the fifth major section of the chapter, where Śāriputra asks about demise and rebirth; this directly reveals the sovereign ease of passing away and arising in inconceivable liberation, and the fundamental and traces of the true and response [bodies]. From the conceivable standpoint, there is no demise. Demise is the foundation of the dharmakāya, and arising is the manifested traces of responsive transformation. It directly intends to complete the contemplation of sentient beings entering emptiness up to the single real truth: exhausting the source and penetrating the foundation is called "demise"; practicing the thirty-two kinds of great compassion without conditions, perfumed by the power of wholesome roots to receive a body and benefit beings, is called "arising." Another explanation is: demise and rebirth are the manifested traces of the response body; neither demise nor rebirth is the fundamental dharmakāya. The questions and answers below are all investigations that reveal and complete the meaning of contemplating sentient beings spoken by Vimalakīrti above. The text has four parts: first, Śāriputra asks; second, the heavenly maiden answers; third, Śāriputra asks again; fourth, the heavenly maiden resolves doubts. First, Śāriputra's question directly relies on the Tripiṭaka or uses the shared intention. Why? The Tripiṭaka explains that the Buddha's remainderless [nirvāṇa] is like ashes extinguished; this has only demise and no rebirth. The two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings also have demise and no rebirth. Since a Tripiṭaka bodhisattva does not sever fetters, for the sake of transforming sentient beings, although having demise, there is further rebirth. Since a shared teaching bodhisattva is different from the two vehicles—the two vehicles having no vows and not receiving future existence, having only demise and no rebirth; and although the Buddha has vows, primary afflictions and habitual propensities are both severed, so there is only demise and no rebirth—the bodhisattva, although having severed primary defilements, still has habitual propensities and vows, and therefore can have rebirth. Here it directly relies on the Tripiṭaka: since he has not severed fetters, he must certainly have rebirth; where will she be reborn? Second, the goddess answers: "Where the Buddha's transformations are born, there I am born." The meaning of the answer is: the principle of the Buddha's dharmakāya fundamentally has no birth; when the response accords, it is born. This is like apparitional birth, not birth from fetters and habitual propensities. The goddess has attained the dharmakāya, and her birth is also a responsive transformation and not from fetters or habitual propensities; hence she says, "I am born as that is." Third, Śāriputra asks again: "What is born by the Buddha's transformation is neither demise nor rebirth." Śāriputra did not know that the goddess's intention lay in birth as responsive transformation, and so he adopted the Tripiṭaka view, thinking that the Buddha's retribution body can create apparitions, and apparitions have no physical substance, suddenly existing from non-existence with no fixed characteristics, relinquishing this to take that. Since a bodhisattva takes rebirth through fetters and karma, how could she say she is born like the Buddha's transformation? Therefore he says that what is born by the Buddha's transformation is neither demise nor rebirth. Above, the goddess answered in terms of responsive transformation according to the separate teaching; Śāriputra did not understand and still clung to the Tripiṭaka view that the Buddha has a retribution body capable of producing apparitions, and thus said that what is born by the Buddha's transformation is neither demise nor rebirth. Fourth, since the goddess knew that he did not understand the profound meaning, she complied and answered with the shared intention: all sentient beings are also neither demise nor rebirth, and their coming and going in the five destinies are all entirely like apparitions. Being neither demise nor rebirth, the goddess is also an apparition; how could there be demise and rebirth? This is also a preliminary explanation. Her intention lay in the dharmakāya and responsive transformations, and only when Vimalakīrti articulates and completes the fundamental and traces of the true and response [bodies] will this meaning be fully revealed. Thus, what is born of the Buddha's transformation is indeed responsive transformation; since the goddess has attained the dharmakāya, whatever rebirth she takes is responsive transformation, and therefore it is neither demise nor rebirth.