English (machine translation)
Translation of 淨名玄論
- Language
- English
- Extent
- 323 passages, 100,938 words
- Text
- complete digital text
- Source
- pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1780 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…
Contents
Text
1.1
Composed by Dharma Master Jizang
1.2
Śramaṇa Shi Jizang of Jinling accompanied the Grand Commandant, the Prince of Jin, to Chang'an, residing at the Riyan Monastery by the lotus winding waters. Lacking the proper regimen for nourishing my constitution, I contracted a leg ailment; fearing that my return to the south was still far off while [the time of life as brief as] morning dew is not lavish, I constantly reflected upon words of consolation and gave my mind over to the purport of self-mastery. Since the years of my youthful robes, I have borne this sūtra upon my crown, and in the years of my white head, I have savoured it ever more deeply, wishing that the matrix of this sūtra may not be lost, but shine brighter across the kalpas. I have therefore compiled what I have heard and composed this treatise on the profound meaning. Formerly, Sengrui and Sengzhao had an awakening arising from innate natural genius, and Daorong and Daosheng had spiritual capacities of outstanding preeminence; they all applied subtle reflection and fully analysed what is obscure and minute, yet their intentions reached the utmost clear profundity and their diction exhausted splendid embellishment. However, this sūtra has concise phrasing and rich meaning; its intent is far-reaching and its sense is profound. A brief exposition does not make it apparent, while an extensive elaboration makes it seem manifest. Therefore, broadly gathering from north and south, gleaning from past and present, further checking sūtras and treatises, and slightly applying deep reflection, there is indeed more than half the achievement gained, in the hope of avoiding the fault of wasted labour.
1.3
In relating the meaning of this treatise, there are briefly three divisions: first, the title; second, the central theme; third, relating the assembly place.
1.4
First, explaining the title has three [parts]: 1. explaining the title generally; 2. similarities and differences among various sūtras; 3. specifically discussing this sūtra.
1.5
1. Explaining the title generally has three [parts]: first, generally introducing the title; next, explaining the root gate of establishing the title; and last, explaining the gate of the root title.
1.6
First, generally explaining the title.
1.7
It is said: Now, the dharmakāya originally has no image, yet responding to the affection of beings, forms appear; the ultimate purport is ineffable, yet profound scriptures are widely spread. Thus we know that being formless, there is nothing it does not form, and being ineffable, there is nothing it does not speak. Because being formless there is nothing it does not form, it abides in illusion-like cognition and roams playfully through the five destinies; because being ineffable there is nothing it does not speak, it spreads the great net of teaching and stretches across the stream of saṃsāra. Hence we know that this sūtra puts forward both person and Dharma. As for the person, it refers to Vimalakīrti. Because pure virtue fills him within and good fame abounds without, making him renowned throughout the world, he is called Vimalakīrti. How could it merely be that he subdues Māra's hordes and curbs the non-Buddhists? The five hundred śrāvakas declared themselves incompetent, and the eight thousand bodhisattvas were at a loss for words at that time. As for what is called Dharma, it refers to inconceivable liberation. Comprehending its general import, there are three kinds altogether: 1. inconceivable object; 2. inconceivable cognition; 3. inconceivable teaching. From the inconceivable object, inconceivable cognition arises; by means of inconceivable cognition, the inconceivable teaching is promulgated. Desiring to cause the followers who receive conversion to penetrate the principle by relying on the teaching, and to generate cognition by virtue of the principle, there is therefore nothing of the principle that these three gates do not subsume. Yet although there are three gates, their meaning encompasses root and trace. The object and the arising of cognition are called the inconceivable root; the teaching is called the inconceivable trace. It is necessary that from the object cognition arises, and only then in response to beings is the teaching dispensed, which is called putting forth the trace on the basis of the root; penetrating the principle by relying on the teaching is called revealing the root through the trace. That which is called 'inconceivable' means that internally there is no effortful activity and no resort to deliberation, while externally the transformation is subtle and beings cannot measure it; hence it is called 'inconceivable'. Liberation briefly has two [kinds]: first, ascending to the stage of the dharmakāya and discarding the form of afflictive karma, which is called the liberation of the fruit; second, the Path runs through both streams, the two wisdoms are ever conjoined, freely unconstrained and unbound by defilements, which is called the liberation of the cause.
1.8
Next, explaining the root of establishing the title.
1.9
It is briefly opened into ten gates: 1. the gate of the teaching expanded into three; 2. the gate of combining the three into two to discuss nonduality; 3. the gate of converging the two into one; 4. the gate of obliterating the one to return to absolute transcendence; 5. the gate of similarity and difference; 6. the gate of delusion and awakening; 7. the gate of explaining entry; 8. the gate of subsuming dharmas; 9. the gate of essence and function; 10. the gate of joint expounding.
1.10
1. The gate of the teaching expanded into three.
1.11
There are ten statements in all.
1.12
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.
1.13
2. Explaining the three gates in terms of persons.
1.14
Question: Adapting to converting [beings] has no fixed direction, and cultivating and guiding them is manifold. If one only clarifies three teachings, would that not restrict the mind of the holy sage? Answer: Persons who aspire to the profound have only three capacities; the gates for penetrating the principle need not be extensively spoken. Question: The threefold teaching has already been clarified, but the meaning of the capacities has not yet been given; please explain its characteristics. Answer: Since Vimalakīrti is the master of the entire sūtra, and nonduality is the ancestor of all teachings, the fact that he did not speak of it himself, but commanded the assembly to explain it together, must have a profound reason; it is simply to use the superior and inferior qualities of persons to manifest that the teachings have shallowness and profundity. The multitude were merely retinue who delighted in the Path, and their faculties were still inferior; they were only able to obliterate dharmas with words, but could not cease the words that obliterate dharmas. Since Mañjuśrī had accepted the lofty command and engaged in direct exchange, his spiritual capacity was secondary; he was able both to borrow words to obliterate dharmas and to use words to stop words. Vimalakīrti, as the present master of the teaching, had the deepest awakening and penetration; hence he lodged in silence to manifest that the principle is utterly transcendent. Question: Does this pertain only to the masters of the teaching, or also to the conditions for awakening? Answer: The reason for attributing traces to the three capacities is fundamentally to guide beings. Lower capacities awaken shallowly, only reaching the first gate; intermediate persons go slightly deeper, gradually climbing to the second; superior capacities penetrate the principle, directly ascending into the profound chamber. Furthermore, superior capacities comprehend upon hearing the first; intermediate persons wait for the second before awakening; lower capacities only understand upon reaching the third.
1.15
3. Explaining the three gates in terms of the three wisdoms.
1.16
Although in the first [gate] one awakens to nonduality, one has not yet departed from name and words; it is like when first learning to swim, one must rely on the bank: this is called the wisdom arisen from hearing. Next, once awakening has gradually deepened, there is no need for written words, yet because one has not yet fully coalesced with principle, one again borrows names and words; it is like when one has practiced swimming for some time, one gradually becomes able to go deep, yet because one's skill is not yet perfected, at times one relies on the bank: this is the wisdom arisen from thinking. Having become able to accord with principle, one does not borrow names and words; it is like when one is marvelous at swimming, one does not need to rely on the bank: this is called the wisdom arisen from cultivation. Question: Are the three wisdoms explained with respect to one person, or are the three wisdoms distinguished with reference to three persons? Answer: With respect to those three persons, the three wisdoms are explained. Referring to the conditions of their awakening, this is not fixed. Naturally, there are instances where the three capacities of those being transformed correspond to the teachings of the transformers: at the first gate they attain the wisdom of hearing, and only with the latter two do they become complete in thinking and cultivation. There are also superior capacities who, upon hearing once, immediately possess all three wisdoms; middling persons wait for the second before reaching fulfillment; inferior capacities only have the wisdom gates complete upon reaching the third.
1.17
Fourth: Explaining the Three Gates with Reference to the Three Stages
1.18
These three gates can be analogized to three stages: First, from the ten faiths on up to the dedication [of merit], although they practice the unarisen, they are not yet free of names and characteristics; it is like although they understand nonduality, they have not yet silenced words. Next, from the first bhūmi on up to the seventh bhūmi, although they awaken to the unarisen, there is still effort; it is like although they declare that principle is transcendent, there are still words that transcend principle. Third, beginning from the eighth bhūmi and culminating in buddhahood, having awakened to the unarisen, there is furthermore no effort; it is like having no words regarding nonduality, and furthermore being able to have no words concerning that nonduality.
1.19
Fifth: Explaining the Three Gates with Reference to the Three Forbearances
1.20
These three gates can be matched to the three forbearances. The forbearance of faith is still shallow, like not having yet departed from names and words. The forbearance of the unarisen is already deep, with names and characteristics completely tranquil. The forbearance of compliance is superior when compared to the preceding, and hence it is said to have no words; yet looking toward what follows, it is still inferior, and therefore it has words. These all open the three forbearances within the stages of the true noble ones, from ascending the bhūmis on up to buddhahood. Question: The text has no such words; why assign them arbitrarily? Answer: At the very beginning of this chapter, it states that attaining the forbearance of unarisen phenomena is called entering the gate of nonduality. Viewing it from this, they can indeed be analogized to one another.
1.21
Sixth: Distinguishing the Three Gates with Reference to Curing Illnesses
1.22
Question: In examining the intention of the sage, putting an end to suffering is primary; in summarizing the import of the teaching, opening up the path is fundamental. As for the emergence of nonduality, what illness does it cure? Answer: Speaking generally, it is to obliterate the arising of mind and the stirring of thought, causing one to awaken to non-attainment and non-reliance; therefore, saṃsāra takes grasping characteristics as its source, while nirvāṇa takes non-attachment as its foundation. In terms of different persons, there are generally three classes: first, the delusions of ordinary beings; second, the toils of the Lesser Vehicle; third, the afflictions of bodhisattvas. The delusions of ordinary beings are what are called craving and views: the ninety-six heterodox systems have their various views swirling about, while householders celebrate birth and harbor greed and craving. Therefore, this gate states that self and what belongs to the self are dual; knowing these two are nondual is called entering the gate of nonduality: this refers to breaking down views. Eye and form are dual; knowing that the eye is fundamentally empty, greed and defilement do not arise: this is breaking down craving. Gates such as these are called breaking down the delusions of ordinary beings. For those of the Lesser Vehicle, when the outflow-free understanding arises, it eradicates this craving and these views; this contemplation of arising and ceasing is called the affliction of the two vehicles. Therefore, this gate now states that arising and ceasing are dual; when delusions fundamentally do not arise, now they also do not cease: this is called entering the Dharma gate of nonduality. Third, as for the people who are bodhisattvas, they consider the śrāvakas to have small minds, while the bodhisattvas practice the great path; the Lesser Vehicle breaks only the two turnings, while the great beings completely overturn the five entrenchments. To abandon the small and grasp the great is called the affliction of the bodhisattva. Therefore, this gate now states that the śrāvaka mind and the bodhisattva mind are dual; penetrating these two as having no duality is called entering the gate of nonduality. Question: These gates all universally obliterate all dualities; why then do they separately break down these three persons? Answer: This sūtra builds the great path of equality and throws open the grand gate of nonduality; there is no entanglement it does not level, no person it does not transform. Therefore, the 'Upāya Chapter' breaks down those ordinary beings, the 'Disciples Chapter' addresses the small path, and the 'Bodhisattvas Chapter' reproaches great views. Afterwards, it gathers these three persons to return together to the single path. Now, one awakens to being neither ordinary nor noble, neither great nor small, and only then, in accordance with conditions, acts as great or small, adapting to transform the noble and the ordinary. In tracing back the origin of ordinary and noble, how could ordinary and noble be capable of it? Truly it is because one is neither ordinary nor noble that one can be ordinary and can be noble. Question: Which gate subsumes the breaking down of these three persons? Answer: Although the three illnesses are different, they are all equally dualities; therefore, they all belong to the first gate. For this reason, the first gate successively obliterates all phenomena; thereafter, from the first gate one turns and enters the second, and from the second one turns and enters the third, thus equaling the silence of Vimalakīrti and matching Śākyamuni's closing of his chamber—how could the great resolve of the armor not be fulfilled!
1.23
Seventh: Explaining the Three Gates with Reference to the Three Phenomena
1.24
Question: Does this gate break down inverted duality to illuminate nonduality, or does it break down non-inverted duality to illuminate nonduality? Answer: Surveying the various gates, there are briefly three paradigms: First, in terms of inverted duality, it illuminates nonduality; for instance, it says self and what belongs to self are dual, and penetrating these two as nondual is called entering the gate of nonduality. Next, with reference to non-inverted duality, it illuminates nonduality; for instance, it says the three jewels are dual, and knowing these two are nondual is called entering the gate of nonduality. Third, it combinedly illuminates that inverted and non-inverted dualities are nondual; for instance, it says saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are dual, and knowing these two are nondual is called entering the gate of nonduality. Question: Does it break down the three kinds of duality to illuminate nonduality, or does it eliminate the three kinds of duality to illuminate nonduality? Answer: If they are the three kinds of duality seen by the inverted mind, all must be broken down. If the duality of causes and conditions is itself nondual, then without destroying conventional designations one expounds dharmatā, and there is nothing to break down. Moreover, it is inverted sentiment that deems them dual, when in reality there is no duality that can be broken down; hence one only removes their illness without removing their phenomena. Furthermore, the illness is fundamentally empty of inherent nature and also has nothing that can be removed; it is only with reference to conceptual sentiment that one speaks of removing it. Therefore, the way of nonduality illuminated in this gate is different from the Lesser Vehicle's analyzing phenomena to distinguish emptiness. Breaking down the three kinds of duality belongs to the first gate; next, eliminating the designations of the three phenomena belongs to the latter two.
1.25
Eighth: Illuminating the Three Gates with Reference to Three Propositions
1.26
The first gate relies on words to illuminate nonduality; the latter gate borrows wordlessness to illuminate nonduality; the middle relies on both words and wordlessness to illuminate nonduality. Question: Within the sūtras and treatises, the four gates are usually fully provided: first, the gate of wordlessness; second, the gate of having words; third, the gate of both words and wordlessness; fourth, the gate of neither words nor wordlessness. Why now are there only three gates and no fourth gate? Answer: The four propositions in other sūtras each have their specific reasons. Now, these three gates encompass all meanings without remainder, as explained previously.
1.27
Ninth: Explaining the Three Gates with Reference to the Three Transcendences
1.28
Question: Above, it was said that the Path transcends the four propositions, and the supreme sage therefore observed silence. Now these three gates only illuminate nonduality, merely transcending the two propositions of existence and nonexistence, and are not the transcendence of the four; if so, their illumination of principle is not yet complete, so how can it be called the full teaching? Answer: This is simply failing to understand the words on nonduality, and thus raising the objection of incompleteness. How so? Now we distinguish that the three gates all equally transcend the four; hence there is no principle that is not roundly complete, and no teaching that is not fully realized. Question: Since they equally transcend the four, how can there be three gradations? Answer: Although they equally transcend the four, their transcendence of the four is not the same. The first gate relies on words to illuminate the transcendence of principle, not yet distinguishing that with principle transcended, words are also transcended. The next gate illuminates that principle is transcended and words are also transcended, yet still borrows words to illuminate the transcendence of both. The latter gate distinguishes that principle is transcended and words are also transcended, and the borrowing of words is furthermore transcended. Therefore, the assembly attains one transcendence, Mañjuśrī attains two transcendences, and Vimalakīrti attains three transcendences; thus there is the difference of the three gates. This is the marvelous technique for according with the profound, the essential gate for tranquilizing entanglements; although it is a single section of the sūtra, it truly encompasses all the teachings.
1.29
Tenth: Explaining the Three Gates with Reference to Subsuming Phenomena
1.30
Question: Although the three gates explain the cessation of the four phrases (catuṣkoṭi), they all explain nonduality; this is merely to cease duality, but has not yet eliminated 'both dual and nondual', 'neither dual nor nondual', and 'neither non-dual nor non-nondual'. How then can it be said that the teaching is entirely comprehensive and the principle is fully complete? Answer: You also have not grasped its purport, and therefore still give rise to the previous doubt. Now, if I set it forth again, it will be brilliantly clear and comprehensible. Taking all forms of duality collectively, there are five tiers in all: First, taking two dharmas as dual, such as emptiness and existence, and so forth. Second, taking emptiness and existence as dual and non-emptiness-and-existence as nondual; this duality and nonduality stand in opposition and once again constitute a duality. Third, both duality and nonduality are called dual, and only neither-dual-nor-nondual is called nondual; this duality and nonduality stand in opposition and once again constitute a duality. Fourth, the preceding six phrases are all called dual, and neither non-dual nor non-nondual is called nondual; this duality and nonduality stand in opposition and once again constitute a duality. Fifth, not eliminating the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity is called dual, while if one eliminates the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity, it is only then called nondual; this very eliminating and not eliminating once again constitutes a duality. Therefore, outside of duality there is no other dharma; merely proclaiming nonduality means that the teaching is entirely comprehensive, the principle is fully complete, conditions are completely exhausted, and contemplation is completely purified. Question: Which gate subsumes the cessation of these five tiers? Answer: The cessation of these five tiers universally explains the meaning of nonduality. If one wishes to distinguish the differences in what the three gates put to rest: putting to rest the dharma-essences of the five tiers belongs to the first gate; putting to rest the words of the five tiers belongs to the second; and putting to rest the borrowed words of the five tiers is the third gate. This, then, explains that the preceding three gates equally put to rest the four phrases (catuṣkoṭi), yet their putting to rest the four phrases is not the same. Question: How does the preceding explanation of the three gates through the threefold cessation differ from explaining the three gates through subsuming all dharmas? Answer: The gate of the threefold cessation only explains the cessation of the four phrases of existence and nonexistence, so its meaning of cessation is still shallow. The present gate of subsuming all dharmas explains the cessation of all phrases whatsoever, and thus this gate is profound. Question: Although there are four phrases, since they were already put to rest above, how can one further say that the latter is profound and the former is shallow? Answer: Although they are equally four phrases, the four phrases are not the same. The preceding gate of the threefold cessation only puts to rest the simple four phrases of existence and nonexistence, whereas now explaining the four phrases of duality and nonduality is the compound four phrases. Question: What is simple, and what is compound? Answer: 1. existence; 2. nonexistence; 3. both existence and nonexistence; 4. neither existence nor nonexistence—these are the simple four phrases. The four phrases of duality and nonduality are the compound discourse of four phrases. These two phrases of duality and nonduality in mutual opposition already subsume the preceding four phrases. Third, taking this duality and nonduality in opposition to the preceding three phrases as dual, and neither non-dual nor non-nondual as nondual—this duality and nonduality in mutual opposition once again constitutes a duality. The latter two phrases transcend the four phrases above. Therefore, the four phrases of the first gate are taken as simple, and the four phrases of the latter gate are taken as compound. Putting to rest the former four phrases is shallow, while putting to rest the compound four phrases is profound. Question: Merely putting to rest the four phrases already completes the meaning; what need is there for the fifth, further eliminating the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity? Answer: The four phrases put conditions to rest, while the fifth exhausts contemplation; therefore it is explained again. Question: In the sūtras, when it explains putting to rest the hundred negations and transcending the four phrases, to which gate does this belong? Answer: It is also complete in the three gates. If it negates the dharma-essence of the negations, it belongs to the first gate. If it negates the words of the negations, it belongs to the second. If it puts to rest the borrowed words, it is the latter gate. Question: If eliminating each duality belongs to the first gate, then the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā's explanation of the eight negations, which eliminates eight dharmas, would only belong to the first gate; then the gate of nonduality would be profound, and the purport of the Madhyamaka contemplation would be shallow. Answer: The gate of nonduality is precisely the principle of the middle and the real; because the single path is pure, it is called nondual. Being far removed from the two extremes is termed the middle. The middle receives its designation in opposition to the one-sided; nonduality acquires its name in dependence on duality. While their senses differ, their essence has no distinction. Since the gate of nonduality has three tiers, the principle of the middle and the real also has three realities. Eliminating the eight dharmas through words belongs to the first gate. Next, ceasing words as insufficient to speak of it enters the second. If one puts to rest borrowed words, one returns to the third. Question: Since nonduality vertically exhausts the five phrases, can non-arising also be like this? Answer: This is likewise of the same category of meaning. Just as arising is arising, non-arising is also arising; both arising and non-arising, neither arising nor non-arising, and neither non-arising nor non-non-arising, up to the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity, are all arising. Now, when we proclaim non-arising, all five arisings are put to rest. Therefore the Dazhidulun says: 'Neither arising nor ceasing, not not-arising and not not-ceasing, not both and not neither, is called the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.' Question: The five all discern arising and are all subsumed under duality. Can the five kinds of duality all be considered arising? Answer: This too is of the same category of meaning. If there are the five kinds of duality, they are all the arising of thoughts and stirring of mental activity, and all are arising. The single non-arising that is proclaimed leaves no teaching not comprehensive, no principle not complete, no condition unexhausted, and no contemplation that is not put to rest. Therefore the eight negations are the ultimate resort of the Vaipulya and the wondrous art at the centre of the circle. Question: The great and small sūtras and treatises subsume dharmas through many gates, sometimes subsuming dharmas with one gate, two, three, four gates, up to a great number. On what basis does one now explain only duality? Answer: Duality is the beginning of differentiated dharmas, the inception of diverging from the Way; losing the single path, it then becomes dual. Now, by eliminating duality to make it return to the single path, we merely speak of nonduality. Furthermore, duality is heterodox meanings; the ninety-six paths, the five destinies, and the three vehicles are all called dual. Now, by eliminating these differences, we speak of nonduality. Furthermore, these divergent paths, in opposition to the single path, once again constitute a duality; in order to cease this duality, we speak of nonduality. It is for this reason that we explain the subsuming of dharmas merely with reference to the two gates.
1.31
2. The Gate of Discussing Nonduality by Unifying Duality as Two
1.32
There are further three pairs: First, explaining speech and silence as two subsuming the three gates. The Buddha enjoined his disciples to practice two things constantly: first, noble speech; second, noble silence. Preaching the dharma of dharmatā is called noble speech; contemplating the principle of dharmatā is called noble silence. From the contemplation of dharmatā one returns to preach the dharma of dharmatā; preaching the dharma of dharmatā, one returns to enter the contemplation of dharmatā. Thus, activity and stillness throughout the four deportments all accord with dharmatā; whether speaking or silent, both correspond to prajñā. Now these three gates also accord with the noble intention: The assembly uses words to eliminate dharmas, and Mañjuśrī borrows words to halt words; both clarify nonduality with respect to words, which is called noble speech. Vimalakīrti clarifies nonduality without words, which is called noble silence. If so, it is necessary that through the speech of the assembly, Vimalakīrti's silence is revealed; and relying on Vimalakīrti's silence, the speech of the assembly is revealed. Commanding the assembly to discuss it together had this as its intention. Question: Why is the theoretical explanation expansive while the noble silence is brief? Answer: Through speech one easily awakens, so it must be explained expansively; silence is difficult to comprehend, so it is shown briefly. Moreover, preaching the Dharma explains the teaching, and the teaching has many gates; silence contemplates the principle, and the principle is nondual. Furthermore, the land of Śākyamuni uses sounds extensively, whereas formless, wordless worlds expound vast tranquility.
1.33
Next, subsuming the three gates with respect to putting to rest the duality of name and essence. In collectively gathering all myriad transformations, there are two kinds: first, the essence of things; second, the name of things. These two are the origin from which defilements arise, the root from which afflictions spring. Therefore Subhūti asked, 'In what do sentient beings fare?' The Tathāgata answered, 'All sentient beings fare in name and characteristic.' Name refers to names and words; characteristic refers to the dharma-essence. The assembly uses words to eliminate each duality, clarifying that there is no essence of things. Mañjuśrī borrows words to halt words; […] Vimalakīrti remains silent to put to rest borrowed words; together they discern that there is neither name nor characteristic, and when there is neither name nor characteristic, then troublesome defilements are stilled. Therefore, although there are three gates, they are subsumed only under these two. Question: Why is eliminating dharmas expansive, while ceasing words is brief? Answer: Being expansive and brief are not simultaneous; they can be revealed alternately in two gates. Furthermore, the dharma-essence is the root, and the root is difficult to overturn; name is its branch, and the branch is easy to eliminate. Because the root is difficult to overturn, it requires extensive refutation; the branch is easy to remove, so the two persons briefly dispel it.
1.34
Finally, subsuming the three gates with respect to the duality of conventional names and characteristics. A sūtra says: 'In the midst of no names and characteristics, one provisionally uses names and characteristics to speak.' Wishing to cause them to awaken to the absence of names and characteristics through these names and characteristics is the great principle of bequeathing the teachings, the original intent of the multitude of sages. If so, the assembly and Mañjuśrī rely on names to discern nonduality; Vimalakīrti remains silent, using characteristics provisionally to clarify the Way. Therefore, although there are the differences of the three gates, there are only the traces of names and characteristics. Relying on the traces of names and characteristics reveals the root that has neither name nor characteristic. Question: The first two are names, and their meaning is easy to understand. The latter gate is characteristic, yet the matter is still not manifest. Answer: Since the assembly relies on the names of spoken words, and Vimalakīrti shuts his mouth relying on the characteristic of silence, therefore through the two gates of name and characteristic they together reveal the Way of repeated mystery. Commanding the assembly to speak together had this as its intention. Question: Why is borrowing names expansive, while using characteristics provisionally is brief? Answer: The alternate presentation of expansive and brief has already been resolved above. The discourse on difficult and easy is also as explained above: with spoken words one easily awakens, and the assembly all understands; with stillness it is difficult to be clear, and only Mañjuśrī can grasp it alone. Moreover, name is sound, which is widely used in giving rise to conditions; characteristic is material form (rūpa-dharma), which is rarely explained in the gates of teaching.
1.35
3. The Gate of Next Unifying the Two to Return to One
1.36
Question: At first you established three gates, and later you explained two tracks. Observing Mañjuśrī's words, they seem graceful and refined; but examining their great purport, nonduality is not yet accomplished. Why? The principle of nonduality is explained as ineffable, whereas the teaching that responds to beings has words. The principle that is ineffable cannot have words; the teaching that has words cannot be ineffable. Thus, principle and teaching are utterly contrary—how can it be called nondual? Answer: You understand that nonduality is ineffable, but you have not yet awakened to words being themselves nondual. Therefore, the teaching fills the great chiliocosm without speaking, and its form exhausts the eight extremes without having form. Thus, being ineffable it speaks, yet though speaking it does not speak; being formless it manifests forms, yet though manifesting forms it is formless. This is indeed a single consistency; how could they be utterly contrary? Objection: If words are themselves nondual, then Mañjuśrī's words are constantly silent; if nonduality is itself words, then Vimalakīrti's silence is constantly speaking. The discourse of the three tiers would be confounded, and the talk of the two tracks would be lost. Answer: The discourse and explanation of the three tiers relies on traces to distinguish shallow and deep; the words of the two tracks guide and lead those who have not yet awakened. If one penetrates to the ultimate, then nonduality is constantly speaking, and speech is constantly nondual; there has never not been nonduality, and there has never not been speech. Therefore the Way without duality is first accomplished, and the doctrine of attaining the One is then established.
1.37
4. The Gate of Next Eliminating the One to Return to Cessation
1.38
The treatise says: Existence and nonexistence give birth to each other; the high and the low overturn each other. Because there is existence, there is nonexistence; because there is no existence, there is no nonexistence. Dependent on duality, there is nonduality; if there is no duality, then there is also no nonduality. Therefore a sūtra says: 'Do not cling to the dharma of nonduality, because there is neither one nor two.' This, then, is neither speech nor silence, neither conventional nor ultimate, putting an end to contemplation and conditions—what duality or nonduality could there be?
1.39
5. The Gate of Sameness and Difference
1.40
Question: The doctrines broadly expound nonduality, but it is not yet clear what specific Dharma nonduality definitively is. Answer: Some say that the Dharma gate of nonduality is the principle of paramārtha-satya. Some say that the Dharma gate of nonduality refers to dharmatā-prajñā. Some say that the Dharma gate of nonduality is naturally pure nirvāṇa, the ālayavijñāna. Some say that the Dharma gate of nonduality refers to the amalavijñāna, the intrinsically pure mind. Among these four traditions, the first two are based on the object, while the latter two are based on the mind. Although the meanings of consciousness and object differ, they identically transcend the catuṣkoṭi. Therefore, Śākyamuni closed his chamber in Magadha, and Vimalakīrti stopped his mouth in Vaiśālī; in these cases, the principle guided their spirit, so their mouths were thereby silent. How could one say they had no eloquence? They were eloquent regarding that which cannot be spoken. Now I shall examine the various masters in general and first clarify what is correct. Next, I shall open ten gates of the catuṣkoṭi and examine their merits and faults in detail. Since the various masters say that the principle cannot be spoken, does such an ineffable principle exist, or does this principle not exist? If one answers that this ineffable principle exists, that is termed the 'is' proposition (koṭi); how could it be termed transcending the four? If this ineffable principle does not exist, then there is nothing to converge with at all; the ordinary cannot be transformed, so how could the sage be accomplished? If one searches one's heart and examines the matter, between the two barriers [of speech and silence], although speech is indeed severed, in the end there is a principle that severs speech. Since in the end there is this principle, in the end there is a view of existence. How could one attain the Way through this? Furthermore, if in the end there is this principle, yet its existence or nonexistence cannot be stated, how does this differ from the self of the Vātsīputrīyas? The Vātsīputrīyas cling to the self as being in the fifth, ineffable treasury (piṭaka). Now, you postulate that the Dharma of the principle of paramārtha-satya is ineffable and in the fifth treasury. Their clinging to an ineffable self is called the view of a self; now, your postulating an ineffable principle of paramārtha-satya is called the view of dharmas. If that is so, you possess both the view of persons and the view of dharmas and do not attain the two emptinesses; what Way could there be? Moreover, if in the end there is this principle taken as the ultimate tenet, then this sūtra takes existence as its ultimate tenet. May discerning gentlemen examine and scrutinize this! Furthermore, the real principle (paramārtha) is ineffable, whereas the conventional principle is effable. Again, the real principle is ineffable and has no effable sense; saṃvṛti-satya is effable and has no ineffable sense. If saṃvṛti-satya were ineffable, it would enter paramārtha-satya; if paramārtha-satya were effable, it would enter saṃvṛti-satya. Examining it in this way, it reverts to becoming two views; how could it be called the Dharma gate of nonduality? The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: 'Wherever there is duality, there is neither Way nor fruit.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: 'Regarding clarity and ignorance, fools consider them to be two, while the wise understand that their nature is not two.' As it is with clarity and ignorance, so it is with the real and conventional: fools consider them two, while the wise understand that their nature is nondual. Question: Perhaps it is because you have not fully understood our doctrinal tenet that you raise this question. Now we explain that although the conventional is effable, the real is ineffable; although the real is ineffable, the conventional is effable. Because the two truths are of one essence, they are called nondual; this is precisely the Dharma gate of nonduality, understood by wise persons. How could it be that fools consider them two? Answer: You also have not grasped the intent of my objection, which is why you give this explanation. Since you say that the real is identical to the conventional, given that the conventional is effable, is the real effable or not? If the conventional is effable and the real is also effable, then two faults result: first, the fault of contradicting your own tenet; second, the fault of losing the truths. The fault of contradicting your tenet is: originally, you established that saṃvṛti-satya possesses three designations, and the three designations can be spoken; the principle of the real is the fourfold oblivion, and the fourfold oblivion cannot be spoken; hence Vimalakīrti stopped his speech and Śākyamuni closed his chamber. Now, if the real is identical to the conventional, and the conventional is effable, then the real is also effable. Since there are three designations, the real also has three designations; how could there be a tenet of fourfold oblivion? Therefore, this is called the fault of losing one's tenet. Second, the fault of losing the truths is: since the real is identical to the conventional, and the conventional is effable while the real is also effable, then all is conventional; how could there be paramārtha-satya? Originally, because there was paramārtha-satya, there could be saṃvṛti-satya; since there is no paramārtha-satya, how could there be the conventional? Therefore, both truths are lost. Just as the real being identical to the conventional has two faults, so too the conventional being identical to the real incurs two errors. If the conventional is identical to the real, and the real is ineffable, then the conventional is also ineffable. Since the real is the fourfold oblivion, the conventional would not be the three designations, which is called the fault of losing one's tenet. Second, if the conventional is identical to the real, and the real is ineffable while the conventional is also ineffable, then all is paramārtha-satya; what conventional could there be? Since saṃvṛti-satya is lost, there is also no paramārtha-satya; therefore, both truths are lost together. If the real is identical to the conventional, but the conventional of itself is effable while the real is ineffable, there are also two faults: first, the fault of contradicting the teaching; second, the fault of contradicting principle. The fault of contradicting the teaching is: the sūtra states, 'Form is emptiness, emptiness is form'; if the conventional of itself were effable while the real were ineffable, how could they be called 'identical'? The fault of contradicting principle is: if the conventional is identical to the real, yet the conventional is effable and the real is ineffable, let me ask: are the effable dharma and the ineffable one, or are they different? If you say they are one, then they must be analogous to each other: if effable is analogous to ineffable, together both are effable; if ineffable is analogous to effable, together both are ineffable. If you say the effable is different from the ineffable, then form should be different from emptiness, and emptiness different from form. Therefore, whether advancing or retreating, both alternatives are untenable. Question: The real and conventional are one in essence, so the conventional is constantly identical to the real, and the real is constantly identical to the conventional; yet the sense of the real is constantly not the sense of the conventional, and the sense of the conventional is constantly not the sense of the real; therefore, the real is ineffable, whereas the conventional is effable. Answer: Since the essence of the conventional is identical to the essence of the real, is the sense of the conventional identical to the essence of the real, or is it not identical to the essence of the real? If the sense of the conventional is identical to the essence of the real, and the essence of the real is ineffable, then the sense of the conventional must also be ineffable. If the sense of the conventional is not identical to the essence of the real, then the sense of the conventional should not be the three designations. Since the sense of the conventional is precisely the three designations, how could it not be identical to the real? Furthermore, the sūtra states that since not a single dharma exceeds dharmatā, how can you say that the sense of the conventional is not identical to the real? Deducing from this, there is no mutual identity. Because there is no mutual identity, there is no nonduality. If there were nonduality, there could be duality; since in the end there is no nonduality, how could there be duality? Therefore, tenets that involve grasping (prāpti) are all conceptual proliferation (prapañca). Now I shall further open ten gates of the catuṣkoṭi to examine their merits and faults in detail. Why clarify merits and faults in terms of the catuṣkoṭi? All masters say that the Way transcends the catuṣkoṭi, and for this reason the Supreme Sage was profoundly silent. Therefore, one should examine right and wrong according to the catuṣkoṭi.
First 40 of 331 passages. Read on