淨名玄論 1.12

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.