淨名玄論 1.12

1.12

一、維摩詰不思議解脫本者，謂不二法門。所以然者，由體不二之道，故有無二之智；由無二之智，故能適化無方。是以經云「文殊法常爾，法王唯一法，一切無礙人，一道出生死。」故知不二為眾聖之原。夫欲敘其末，要先尋其本，是以建篇論乎不二。問曰：不二法門既為其本，請聞其要。答曰：一道清淨，故名不二。真極可軌，所以云法。至妙虛通，故稱為門。蓋是總眾教之旨歸、統群聖之靈府，淨名現病之本意、文殊問疾之所由。子欲聞之，今當略說。大論不二，凡有三品：一眾人言於不二，未明不二無言，所謂下也。二文殊雖明不二無言，而猶言於無言，所謂中也。三淨名𭇃默鑒不二無言，而能無言於無言，所謂上也。良以道超四句，故至聖以之沖默。不二為極，意在於斯。問：三階之說，實妙會誠文。但以後觀前，似如相害。既云至趣無言、玄藉彌布，即是言於無言，乃見文殊之言深、淨名之默淺。三階之論，意所未詳。答：三階之說為明理淺深，未辨應物垂教。以末難本，豈詣玄宗？今當為子當陳其意。夫不二理者，謂不思議本也；應物垂教，謂不思議跡也。非本無以垂跡，故因理以說教；非跡無以顯本，故藉教以通理。若然者，要須體理無言，然後乃得應物有言耳。眾人雖言於理，未明至理之無言，即未詣理也。文殊雖唱理無言，而猶言於至理，亦未稱理。淨名鑒理無言，而能無言於理，始詣理也。以如理無言，故能無言而言；稱理無像，故能無像而像。眾人未能如理無言，安能無言而言？未能如理無像，安能無像而像？故文殊之言淺，淨名之默深。三階之論，意彰於此。難曰：三階之說若成，不二之言即壞。何者？既稱不二，寧有三耶？如其有三，何名不二？即事相違，義如鉾楯。答：蓋是以教惑理，故謂相違。若識理一教三，則有如符契。何者？眾人以言泯法，未息泯法之言，則為淺也。文殊欲息泯法之言，故借言以止言。借言以止，言猶未免於言，則為次也。淨名欲息文殊之借言，故默顯於無言，乃為極也。故教有三階，而理無二轍。問：至理無言，而文殊言於無言，可得以言為教。淨名鑒理無言，而能無言於無言，此則是理，云何亦稱為教？答：子未細尋其旨：故有斯疑。若審察之：則前言已顯。何者：淨名寄默然之相以顯無言之理。所詮無言，即為是理能表之相，故稱之為教。是以教有三門，而理無二矣。問：至理無言，而文殊言於無言猶未極者，亦至理無相。而淨名相於無相，豈詣理耶？答：文殊既言於無言，亦相於無相。淨名既體理無言，故能無言於無言，亦體理無相，故能無相於無相。故名相斯寂，乃窮不二。問：淨名既體理無相，何故相於無相？答：若不相於無相，何由得止於言？為欲止於言，故相於無相耳。問：若然者，在言雖止而相復存，其猶逃峯赴壑，但不免患。答曰：言猶名也，故名則為妙；相猶形也，在形則麁。既淨名悟理無名，則領道非形相，故峯壑俱逃、患難都免。問：若然者，則眾人之言未極，淨名之默始詣。何不直顯無言，而迂迴三轍？答：仲尼之遇伯雪，可目擊而道存。妙德之對淨名亦爾，默而相領，但玄悟之賓既寘，級引之教須明，故開此三門，以通入不二。問：玄悟之賓既寘，級引之教塵沙，何故唯敞三門而不廣開階位？答：初門以言泯法，次則借言止言，後假默除借言，斯乃理無不備、教無不周，故但明三矣。

First: The root of Vimalakīrti's inconceivable liberation is the Dharma gate of nonduality. Why is this? Because by embodying the way of nonduality, there is the cognition devoid of duality; because of the cognition devoid of duality, one can adapt to converting [beings] without fixed direction. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Mañjuśrī's Dharma is ever thus; the Dharma King has only one single Dharma; all unhindered persons transcend saṃsāra through the single path.' Thus we know that nonduality is the source of all the noble ones. When one wishes to relate the branches, one must first seek out the root; for this reason, I establish this chapter to discuss nonduality. Question: Since the Dharma gate of nonduality is its root, we pray to hear its essentials. Answer: A single path is pure, hence it is called nondual. The ultimate truth can be modeled upon, therefore it is called Dharma. Most subtle and empty-penetrating, it is called a gate. It is that which sums up the purport of all teachings, and commands the spiritual store of the multitude of holy ones; it is the fundamental intention of Vimalakīrti manifesting illness, and the cause of Mañjuśrī inquiring after his health. If you wish to hear it, I shall now explain it briefly. In broadly discussing nonduality, there are three grades in all: 1. The multitude spoke of nonduality, but did not make clear that nonduality is ineffable; this is the lowest. 2. Although Mañjuśrī made clear that nonduality is ineffable, he still spoke about the ineffable; this is the middle. 3. Vimalakīrti, with silence, perceived that nonduality is ineffable, and was able to be ineffable toward the ineffable; this is the highest. Truly, because the Path transcends the catuṣkoṭi, the supreme sage was serenely silent. Taking nonduality as ultimate, this is where the intention lies. Question: The explanation of the three tiers is indeed wonderfully in accord with the true text. However, viewing the former from the latter, they seem to contradict each other. Since you say that the ultimate purport is ineffable and profound scriptures are widely spread, that is speaking about the ineffable; thus one sees that Mañjuśrī's speaking is profound, and Vimalakīrti's silence is shallow. The intention of the discourse on the three tiers is not yet clear. Answer: The explanation of the three tiers is to clarify the shallowness and profundity of the principle; it has not yet distinguished the manifestation of the teaching in response to beings. If you challenge the root by means of the branches, how can you reach the profound tenet? Now I shall set forth its intention for you. The nondual principle is called the inconceivable root; manifesting the teaching in response to beings is called the inconceivable trace. Without the root, there is nothing by which to manifest the trace; hence on the basis of the principle, the teaching is spoken. Without the trace, there is nothing by which to reveal the root; hence by relying on the teaching, the principle is penetrated. If so, one must first embody the ineffability of the principle, and only then can one have speech in response to beings. Although the multitude spoke of the principle, they did not clarify that the ultimate principle is ineffable, which means they had not reached the principle. Although Mañjuśrī proclaimed that the principle is ineffable, he still spoke of the ultimate principle; this also did not correspond to the principle. Vimalakīrti perceived that the principle is ineffable and was able to be ineffable toward the principle; only then did he reach the principle. Because he was ineffable according with the principle, he was able to speak through ineffability; because he was formless matching the principle, he was able to take form through formlessness. The multitude could not be ineffable according with the principle, so how could they speak through ineffability? They could not be formless according with the principle, so how could they take form through formlessness? Therefore Mañjuśrī's speech is shallow and Vimalakīrti's silence is profound. The intent of the discourse on the three tiers is made manifest in this. Objection: If the explanation of the three tiers holds, the term 'nonduality' is destroyed. Why? Since it is called 'nondual', how could there be three? If there are three, how can it be called nondual? The facts contradict each other; the meaning is like spear and shield. Answer: This is confusing the principle by means of the teaching, and therefore thinking they contradict each other. If you recognise that the principle is one and the teaching is three, they match like two halves of a tally. Why? The multitude obliterated dharmas by means of words, but did not cease the words that obliterate dharmas; thus it is shallow. Mañjuśrī wished to cease the words that obliterate dharmas, so he borrowed words to stop words. Borrowing words to stop them, the words still do not escape words; thus it is secondary. Vimalakīrti wished to cease Mañjuśrī's borrowed words, so by silence he manifested the ineffable; thus it is ultimate. Therefore, the teaching has three tiers, while the principle has no two paths. Question: The ultimate principle is ineffable, and Mañjuśrī spoke of the ineffable, which may be taken as teaching through speech. Vimalakīrti perceived that the principle is ineffable, and was able to be ineffable toward the ineffable; this is the principle, so how can it also be called teaching? Answer: You have not closely sought the purport; hence you have this doubt. If you examine it closely, the preceding words have already made it clear. Why? Vimalakīrti lodged in the characteristic of silence to manifest the ineffable principle. The ineffable that is explained is this principle; the characteristic that is able to signify it is therefore called the teaching. Hence the teaching has three gates, while the principle is not two. Question: If the ultimate principle is ineffable, and Mañjuśrī's speaking of the ineffable is not yet ultimate, then the ultimate principle is also signless. But Vimalakīrti took a sign toward the signless; does this reach the principle? Answer: Since Mañjuśrī spoke of the ineffable, he also took a sign toward the signless. Since Vimalakīrti embodied the ineffability of the principle, he was able to be ineffable toward the ineffable; he also embodied the signlessness of the principle, and thus was able to be signless toward the signless. Therefore, names and signs are completely quiescent, and thus he exhausted nonduality. Question: Since Vimalakīrti embodied the signlessness of the principle, why did he take a sign toward the signless? Answer: If he did not take a sign toward the signless, by what means could he stop words? It was in order to stop words that he took a sign toward the signless. Question: If so, although speech has stopped, the sign still remains; it is like fleeing a peak only to plunge into a ravine, merely failing to escape trouble. Answer: Words are like names, hence names are subtle; signs are like forms, and being in forms, they are coarse. Since Vimalakīrti awakened to the fact that the principle has no name, he comprehended that the Path is not forms or signs; thus both peak and ravine are fled, and all troubles are avoided. Question: If so, then the multitude's words were not ultimate, and Vimalakīrti's silence first reached it. Why not directly reveal the ineffable, instead of taking this circuitous three-tracked route? Answer: When Zhongni encountered Boxue, their eyes met and the Dao was present. The same was true when the Wonderfully Virtuous [Mañjuśrī] faced Vimalakīrti: in silence they comprehended each other. But since guests of profound awakening were present, the teaching of gradual guidance had to be clarified; therefore these three gates were opened to provide access into nonduality. Question: Since guests of profound awakening were present, and the teachings of gradual guidance are as numerous as sands of dust, why only open three gates instead of broadly setting forth stages and ranks? Answer: The first gate obliterates dharmas with words; the next borrows words to stop words; the last resorts to silence to remove the borrowed words. In this, the principle lacks nothing and the teaching is completely comprehensive; hence only three are clarified.