淨名玄論 2
English (machine translation) 2
- Language
- English
2.1
Latter: The Section on Explaining the Fundamental Title
2.2
The treatise states: Because one embodies the principle of nonduality, there is nondual cognition. Because of nondual cognition, one adapts and transforms [beings] without fixed direction. Adapting and transforming without fixed direction, the bestowal of teachings is not uniform. The bestowal of teachings not being uniform, the titles assigned to them differ. Hence we know that the gate of nonduality is the root of the title. Above, the root of the title has already been revealed; now, next, we relate its fundamental title. In relating its fundamental title, there are briefly two aspects: first, a general discussion of the various teachings; second, a specific account of this sūtra.
2.3
First, the general discussion of the various teachings contains five sections: 1. The Section on Differences in Establishing Titles; 2. The Section on Changing and Not Changing; 3. The Section on Explaining the Initial Title; 4. The Section on the Greater or Lesser Number of Meanings Endowed; 5. The Section on Differences Between Person and Dharma.
2.4
1. The Section on Differences in Establishing Titles
2.5
When the noble ones expound sūtras, there are two kinds: first, directly expounding without separately establishing a title, as in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā and others, where within the ninety chapters there is neither an attendant asking for the title nor the Tathāgata answering with the title. This is truly because throughout the entire work the clarification of prajñā is obvious, so one immediately knows it is a prajñā sūtra, without needing to establish a title separately. Second, expounding the sūtra and also establishing its name, as when it says, 'This sūtra is named the Mahāparinirvāṇa,' which is truly because the meaning of the title was not yet apparent and therefore needed to be separately established. This is the pair of establishing a title and not establishing a title. Within self-establishment of a title, there are again two kinds: first, the Buddha establishes it himself, as when it says, 'For the sake of the śrāvakas, expound this Mahāyāna sūtra named Saddharmapuṇḍarīka'; second, waiting for a question before establishing it, as when in the Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā he waited for Subhūti to ask for the name before the Tathāgata answered. This is called the pair of self and other. Within the Buddha establishing it himself, there are again two kinds: first, establishing it in the introductory chapter, like the Suvarṇaprabhāsa and its kind; second, establishing it only upon reaching the main discourse, as is the case with most sūtras. This is the pair of introduction and main discourse. Within establishing the title upon waiting for a question, there are again two kinds: first, before the exposition of the sūtra is finished, establishing the name following any single meaning expounded, as in the shorter Prajñāpāramitā and so forth; second, establishing the name only upon the completion of the sūtra's exposition, which is the case with this sūtra. This is called the pair of earlier and later. Regarding establishing the title at the completion of expounding the sūtra, there are again two kinds: first, establishing only a single name, as is the case with most sūtras; second, establishing multiple names, which is the case with the Vimalakīrti and others, hence it says, 'One name is the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and the second is the Dharma Gate of Inconceivable Liberation.' This is the pair of one and many. Although sūtras are numerous, the reasons for establishing their names may be briefly explained through ten meanings. Question: Why is there no establishment of a title in the text of the entire Avataṃsaka? Answer: This sūtra originally had one hundred thousand verses, but its transmission and translation are not yet complete, so the establishment of the title should be at the end. When I arrived in Chang'an, I met Dharma Master Sengtan, who had returned from Khotan and had seen the Biography of Nāgārjuna there, which stated: 'The Avataṃsaka has three recensions in all: the large recension has verses as numerous as the dust motes of a trichiliocosm and chapters as numerous as the dust motes of a four-continent world; the middle recension has 498,800 verses and 1,200 chapters; both of these recensions are in the dragon palace, and Nāgārjuna did not chant them out. He only chanted out the short recension of 100,000 verses and 36 chapters.' In this land, there are only 36,000 verses and 34 chapters; hence we know that the title and enumeration of the Avataṃsaka lie in the subsequent parts. Bodhiruci said: 'Six hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Nāgārjuna brought it forth from the ocean palace.'
2.6
2. The Section on Discussing Whether the Established Title Changes or Does Not Change
2.7
Regarding the sūtras of the buddhas of the three periods of time, the establishing of their titles has two forms: first, the name does not change; second, it varies according to the buddha's era. For instance, in the past, twenty thousand Candrasūryapradīpa Buddhas expounded the Mahāyāna sūtra named Saddharmapuṇḍarīka; in the present, Śākyamuni has the identical title; in this sūtra, the name does not change. Second, the name varies in accordance with the appearance of the buddha in the world. For instance, among the twelve divisions [of scripture], the Itivṛttaka Sūtra was called the 'Amṛta Granary' when Krakucchanda Buddha appeared in the world, the 'Dharma Mirror' under Kanakamuni Buddha, 'Distinguishing Emptiness' at the time of Kāśyapa Buddha, and when Śākyamuni arose in the world, it was called a 'Sūtra' (sūtra-piṭaka). This is merely adapting to different conditions, and hence the names vary according to the world.
2.8
3. The Section on Discussing the Intention of the Title
2.9
In India, the title of a sūtra is placed at the end, and the beginning always says 'siddham'. 'Siddham' means accomplishment, and also auspicious dharma. But shifting it from the end to the beginning was done by Dao'an when he titled them. Question: Why do all sūtras have titles at the head? Answer: It is to cause one to know the Dharma through the name, and to give rise to practice through the Dharma, thereby attaining the fruit of liberation. Furthermore, faculties and inclinations differ, and the expounded teachings are varied; if titles were not separately established, the various divisions would not be distinguished; in order to distinguish each of the various divisions, titles are separately established. Moreover, the dharmas expounded by all buddhas have the abridged and the extensive: the extensive refers to the text of the entire work, while the abridged is the title of a single sūtra. Gathering the extensive into the abridged is for the sake of upholding; unfolding the abridged into the extensive is for the sake of understanding the meaning. Furthermore, gathering the extensive into the abridged is for those of sharp faculties: if they hear the name of the sūtra, they immediately understand its meaning, just as when Nāgārjuna and others entered the ocean palace, merely looking at the sūtras' titles, they completely comprehended the text and principle. Unfolding the abridged into the extensive is for those of dull faculties: upon hearing the title they do not yet awaken, and only upon examining the text do they understand. For this reason, all sūtras have titles at their heads.
2.10
4. The Section on Discussing the Greater or Lesser Number of Meanings Endowed in the Established Title
2.11
Naturally, there is establishing a title based on a single meaning: either solely according to the person, or solely depending on the dharma, or merely with respect to a metaphor. Next, establishing a title based on two meanings: either bringing up both person and dharma, or titling both dharma and metaphor, or expounding cause and fruit together. Next, establishing a title based on three meanings: such as Śrīmālā being the person, lion being the metaphor, and the great upāya of the One Vehicle being the dharma. The Avataṃsaka is also like this: Great-Square-Broad (Dafangguang) is the dharma, Buddha is the person, and Flower-Adornment (Huayan) is the metaphor. Next, establishing a title based on four meanings: also like the Avataṃsaka, Great-Square-Broad is the common designation of various sūtras, for all Mahāyāna sūtras are called Fangdeng (vaipulya) and also called Fangguang (vaipulya); for example, the Great-Square-Broad Great-Collection Sūtra, and the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also says that Fangdeng is amṛta, which is named vaipulya among the twelve divisions [of scriptures]; hence the name Fangguang is a common designation. Since Fangguang is the common designation, Buddha-Flower-Adornment is the specific name, meaning the two meanings of common and specific. Within the specific, Buddha is its person and Flower-Adornment is the metaphor; combining the preceding common and specific makes four meanings. Next, establishing a title based on five meanings: the name Great-Square-Broad contains two meanings: first, in contrast to the specific, it is the common meaning; second, in contrast to the person, it is again the name of a dharma. Adding these to the preceding four meanings, they thus become five. Next, establishing a title based on six meanings: that is, Fangguang being the dharma, in contrast to Huayan being the metaphor, constitutes another pair of dharma and metaphor; combining this with the above makes six. Next, establishing a title based on seven meanings: adding the word "Sūtra". The six above are principle, and "sūtra" is the text, meaning a pair of text and principle. As stated in the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]* among the seven excellences, "knowing the dharma and knowing the meaning": knowing the dharma is the twelve divisions of scriptures, hence the scriptural text is contrasted with the meanings above. If taken as the Great-Square-Broad Buddha-Flower-Adornment Sūtra, these seven characters can also establish the title based on seven meanings, because they possess the above seven meanings. Just as the title of the *Huayan [Sūtra]* is explained in this way, the rest of the various treatises may follow whether the meanings are many or few. Question: All sūtras are spoken by the Buddha; why does the *Huayan [Sūtra]* alone specifically indicate the Buddha? Answer: Desiring to reveal that the Huayan teaching is consummate and its principle complete, it specifically titles the Buddha. Question: Other Mahāyāna [sūtras] are also consummate in teaching and complete in principle; why specifically praise the *Huayan [Sūtra]*? Answer: Other sūtras enter the complete from the half; the completeness of the *Huayan [Sūtra]* does not rely upon the half, hence it is specifically praised. Question: Since it does not rely on the half, by what means is it complete? Answer: Causes have many approaches, which cannot be treated as uniform. Relying upon the complete principle, there is therefore the complete teaching. Also relying upon the complete person, there is therefore the complete dharma; it does not necessarily depend on the half. Some say that the seven locations and eight assemblies are this one Buddha's Flower-Adornment Samādhi manifesting this Dharma gate, hence it must indicate the Buddha. Furthermore, as for the *Huayan [Sūtra]* specifically titling the Buddha: this was spoken by the Buddha when he first achieved awakening, hence it titles the Buddha. Before then there was no Buddhist discourse; from then on there was no need to indicate the Buddha; therefore, this sūtra alone indicates the Buddha. Furthermore, in the *Huayan [Sūtra]*'s seven locations and eight assemblies, the bodhisattvas were empowered to speak; visitors might think this is a bodhisattva sūtra and not spoken by the Buddha; therefore, it is explained that the bodhisattvas relied upon the Buddha's spiritual power to speak before the Buddha, which is indeed spoken by the Buddha, hence it titles the Buddha. Question: Since it is a Buddhist sūtra, why does it not title it "Spoken by the Buddha" (Foshuo) but only indicates "Buddha"? Answer: It was not spoken by the Buddha himself, but only empowered bodhisattvas to speak, hence it does not title it "Spoken by the Buddha". Question: The Buddha is the lord of the teaching and should be at the beginning of the title. Why does Fangguang stand at the head? Answer: Desiring to show what all Buddhas take as their teacher—namely, the Dharma—it therefore first indicates the Dharma. Furthermore, as clarified before, because of the Buddha-Flower-Adornment Samādhi it is called the Buddha-Flower-Adornment Sūtra, so "Buddha" and "Flower-Adornment" combine into one phrase. If one were to start by indicating Buddha, the meaning would be separated from Flower-Adornment, so that is impermissible. Question: Since Great-Square-Broad is the common designation of various sūtras, why does the *Huayan [Sūtra]* alone indicate it? Answer: It is explained just like titling the Buddha: truly because its teaching is consummate and its principle complete, purely transforming great persons, and moreover spoken when first achieving awakening, it is therefore indicated alone.
2.12
Section Five: Discussing the Differences between Person and Dharma
2.13
The establishment of titles of various sūtras according to persons generally has four kinds: First, establishing the title according to the person capable of speaking, such as the *Vimalakīrti* and so forth. Second, receiving the designation according to the person for whose sake it is spoken, such as the *Trapuṣa Sūtra* and so forth. Third, establishing the title according to the person capable of asking, such as the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā Sūtra* and so forth. Fourth, receiving the designation according to the person spoken of, such as the *Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra* and so forth, because it speaks of the affairs of Amitāyus Buddha, it therefore indicates the name. With respect to the person capable of speaking, there are again five kinds: first, spoken by the Buddha's own mouth; second, spoken by disciples; third, spoken by devas; fourth, spoken by ṛṣis; fifth, spoken by transformed persons. This sūtra is indeed spoken by a disciple. Question: Since what is spoken by a disciple may solely receive its name from the person, is it also thus for what the Tathāgata speaks? Answer: In their common meaning they may be equal, but in their specific distinction they are not of the same kind. What disciples speak mostly receives its designation from the person; what the Tathāgata speaks mostly obtains its name from the dharma. Why is this so? The sūtras spoken by the Buddha are immeasurable; if all were called "Buddha Sūtra", then there would be no distinction among the various divisions. Now, desiring to divide the various divisions specifically, they are named according to the dharma. If a disciple established a title according to the dharma, then master and disciple would be confused. If one merely said "Inconceivable Liberation Sūtra" without titling "Vimalakīrti", one might allow that this sūtra was indeed spoken by the Buddha. Now, to distinguish that master and disciple are different, it receives its designation from the person. Therefore, the Buddha's sūtras do not derive from the person, so as to distinguish the Master; disciples do not derive from the dharma, so as to distinguish the person. Question: In titling both person and dharma, how many meanings are there in total? Answer: Briefly, there are two kinds: first, titling both person and dharma combined into one name, such as the *Renwang bore* and so forth; second, bringing up both person and dharma, opening them into two names: that is, the person as one name, namely the *Sūtra Spoken by Vimalakīrti*, and the dharma as one name, namely the *Dharma Gate of Inconceivable Liberation*.
2.14
Part Two: Specifically Explaining This Sūtra
2.15
Again, there are three sections: first, the section on generally explaining the person and dharma; second, the section on specifically explaining the person; third, the section on specifically explaining the dharma.
2.16
Section One: Generally Explaining Person and Dharma
2.17
Question: Why does this sūtra title both person and dharma? Answer: Briefly, there are ten meanings. First, the Way does not operate in isolation; its propagation depends on the person. Titling Vimalakīrti indicates the lord who expounds the teaching; articulating the inconceivable clarifies the dharma that is propagated. Second, it desires to clarify both common and specific meanings. Titling Vimalakīrti clarifies the specificity of the person; indicating the inconceivable articulates the generality of the dharma. Why is this so? This sūtra has two transforming lords in all: first, spoken by the Buddha; second, spoken by Vimalakīrti. If one only titled the person of Vimalakīrti without titling the inconceivable dharma, one would only capture Vimalakīrti's discourse and lose the Buddha's discourse. Now, by bringing up the inconceivable, it completely contains both discourses; hence both person and dharma are titled. Third, desiring mutually to reveal and explain each other, both person and dharma are titled. The reason he is called "Pure Name" (Vimalakīrti) is that he possesses the virtue of inconceivable liberation and dwells in defilement without being tainted, hence he is called Pure Name; this is using the dharma to explain the person. Next, indicating the inconceivable brings up the great essence of the sūtra; titling Vimalakīrti articulates the origin from which the dharma arose; hence it brings up the person to explain the dharma. Fourth, titling Vimalakīrti honors his person; indicating the inconceivable values his dharma. Because pure virtue fills him within and fine reputation fills the outside, none who hear his name fail to revere and look up to him. Below it says: "Seen and revered by all, it is foremost among offerings." As for valuing his dharma: having heard the Dharma gate of inconceivable liberation, who would not value it? Fifth, clarifying that this sūtra title fully possesses the three karmas as inconceivable, both person and dharma are titled. "Vimalakīrti" brings up the person to articulate his mental karma; next, saying "spoken" clarifies his vocal karma; next, saying "inconceivable liberation" describes his bodily karma. Question: Why is bodily karma alone said to be inconceivable? Answer: The latter pervades the former. Since bodily karma is already inconceivable, vocal and mental are also like this; hence it is spoken of last. Furthermore, because bodily karma manifests spiritual penetrations, clarifying that inconceivable affairs are evident, it is specifically spoken of. These three karmas are indeed in sequence: first, clarifying that mental karma examines conditions; next, the mouth speaks the Dharma; finally, the body manifests spiritual penetrations. Sixth, titling both person and dharma is precisely the three kinds of manifestations. Revealing Vimalakīrti refers to the wheel of telepathy; indicating what is spoken clarifies the wheel of expounding the Dharma; articulating the inconceivable is the wheel of spiritual penetrations. The meaning of the three wheels is broadly clarified in the *Fahua xuan*. What is employed here is the wheel of telepathy, meaning knowing the illness and recognizing the medicine, expounding the Dharma and manifesting spiritual penetrations, providing the medicine according to the illness. Furthermore, the wheel of expounding the Dharma clarifies that what is heard is inconceivable. The wheel of spiritual penetrations means that what is seen is inconceivable. The objects of the six sense-data are all Buddha-works, but since seeing and hearing are essential, the sage specifically manifests forms and colors. Furthermore, the wheel of expounding the Dharma only clarifies sounds as the gateway of teaching; spiritual penetrations fully take the six sense-data as Buddha-works. Furthermore, the wheel of spiritual penetrations mostly manifests inconceivable traces; the wheel of expounding the Dharma mostly clarifies the inconceivable root. Such as borrowing seats and requesting food are all manifested by spiritual penetrations, hence they are traces. Such as expounding the six pāramitās, the four immeasurables, and the Dharma gate of nonduality are precisely the root. Furthermore, the wheel of telepathy knows the faculties and perceives the medicine; the wheel of spiritual penetrations then eradicates suffering and gives joy; the wheel of expounding the Dharma then eliminates delusion and generates understanding. Eliminating delusion and generating understanding is called benefiting; eradicating suffering and giving joy is precisely bringing peace and happiness; therefore, all sūtras say "benefiting, bringing peace and happiness to all sentient beings"; thus no meaning is lacking. Sixth, titling Vimalakīrti clarifies entrusting illness to the ten-foot square room; indicating what is spoken clarifies expounding the teaching because of illness. Bringing up the inconceivable clarifies manifesting spiritual penetrations. The entire scripture from beginning to end is contained within the title. Seventh, titling Vimalakīrti is to distinguish him from the Buddha, showing that master and disciple are not the same. Next, saying "spoken": although a disciple was indicated above, a visitor might think he was an interlocutor. Now clarifying "spoken", one then knows he is the lord who propagates the teaching. Although knowing he is the lord who propagates the teaching, one might fear he speaks shallow and proximate Dharma gates, hence next it clarifies inconceivable liberation. Eighth, titling Pure Name is to distinguish from heterodox masters; heterodox masters lack pure virtue within and are devoid of fine reputation outside. Indicating the inconceivable distinguishes from heterodox dharmas; heterodox dharmas are shallow, inferior, and proximate to the branches, not inconceivable; the true Dharma is extremely profound, beyond any estimation. Ninth, indicating Pure Name clarifies that he is a bodhisattva, distinguished from the two vehicles. The two vehicles do not eliminate habitual propensities, so they cannot be called pure. As a later chapter says, "Observing that flowers do not stick to the bodhisattvas because their habitual propensities are already ended", which is precisely this matter. Bringing up the inconceivable distinguishes the Small Vehicle, clarifying that the Great Teaching is extremely profound and beyond estimation. The Small Vehicle is shallow and proximate, easily conceivable. Tenth, titling Pure Name praises a Mahāsattva of exalted practice, distinct from bodhisattvas of lower stages. Bringing up the inconceivable reveals the ultimate tenet, distinguishing discourses that are not yet definitive. Those of the five-period lineages say this sūtra is Mahāyāna yet its meaning is not yet definitive. Now clarifying that since it is called inconceivable, it is a designation of exhausting subtlety, culminating transformation, and supreme wonder.
2.18
Section Two: Specifically Explaining the Person
2.19
Again, there are four sections: first, explaining the name; second, the section on cause and non-cause; third, the section on virtues and stages; fourth, the section on manifesting birth.
2.20
Section One: Explaining the Name
2.21
Foreign countries say *Vimalakīrti*. Kumārajīva and Sengzhao translated it as Pure Name (Jingming); Daosheng and Tanxun said Undefiled Renown (Wugoucheng); Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha said: "If fully preserved from the Sanskrit text, one should say *Vimalakīrti*. *Vi* means eliminating; *mala* means defilement; *kīrti* means fame. Combined together, it means 'elimination of defilement fame'." The first takes its name from what is attained; the second takes its designation from what is abandoned; "eliminating" is still what is abandoned. Because his fame was heard throughout the world, it is called fame; "fame" is just the meaning of "name". Although the words are broad or brief, their intention is not different.
2.22
Section Two: Cause and Non-Cause
2.23
In general discussions on establishing names, there are fundamentally two kinds: first, having causes and conditions; second, lacking causes and conditions. As for those having causes and conditions, since names are numerous, their causes and conditions are not singular. Here we briefly explain four kinds: First, establishing a name based on the place of birth: as with the six destinies and so forth, because one is born into the destiny of devas, one is called a deva. Second, establishing a name based on physical appearance: as when there are features such as black, white, long, or short, these are taken as appellations. Third, establishing a name based on faults: such as the category of thieves and robbers. Fourth, taking virtues as appellations: such as the worthies and nobles of the three vehicles. As for establishing names lacking causes and conditions, the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "The tailapāyika is named 'oil-drinker', yet in truth it does not drink oil." The *Dazhidulun* says: "There is an herb named marmari, translated here as 'thief herb', which does not rob or steal yet receives the name 'thief'." These are all lacking causes and conditions, where names are arbitrarily established. The establishment of the name Vimalakīrti can possess both meanings: First, arbitrarily establishing a name lacking causes and conditions. Why is this? Since it is said that the buddhas and bodhisattvas have a liberation named 'inconceivable', this is precisely beyond naming. Because mental activities have already ceased, it is called inconceivable to the mind; and because verbal speech is also extinguished, it is ineffable to the mouth. Entering the rank of the dharmakāya, the form cannot be measured by signs, and the mind cannot be known by cognition; how could there be a canon of names? It is merely that for the sake of sentient beings who emerge [into saṃsāra], a name is arbitrarily established; therefore it lacks causes and conditions. Question: Since the dharmakāya has neither form nor name, yet possesses form and name through the resonance felt by the Buddha, would that not be causes and conditions—why call it arbitrarily established? Answer: One must understand the meaning of arbitrary establishment. Because the dharmakāya cannot be named, yet a name is established for the dharmakāya, it is said to lack causes and conditions, being merely a name arbitrarily applied. If establishing the name with respect to the resonance of beings, the name being established due to resonance, then it has causes and conditions. Therefore a single name contains both meanings. Question: In establishing a name for the dharmakāya, does this name belong to the dharmakāya, or does it belong to the manifested trace? Answer: One should view it from both sides. If establishing the name for the dharmakāya, then it belongs to the dharmakāya. When this name responds to beings, then the name belongs to the trace. If one takes the nameless as the root and the use of the name as the trace, it is not simply that the dharmakāya is the root and the manifested body is the trace; thus the root and trace have many gates, and cannot be generalized uniformly. Question: Is it only that the dharmakāya is nameless and has a name provisionally established for it, or is saṃsāra also nameless and has a name provisionally established? Answer: The essence of the dharmakāya cuts off the hundred negations, and names and marks do not reach it; it can be taken as nameless, with a name provisionally established for it. Saṃsāra is a dharma of names and marks; it cannot be said that saṃsāra is nameless and has a name arbitrarily established for it. Second: not only is the dharmakāya nameless with a name arbitrarily established for it, but saṃsāra is also nameless with a name arbitrarily established for it. Therefore the sūtra says: "Saṃsāra is not chaotic, and nirvāṇa is not quiescent." Nirvāṇa not being quiescent is already arbitrarily designated 'nirvāṇa'; saṃsāra not being chaotic is also provisionally named 'saṃsāra'. Question: According to which approach are both names arbitrarily established? Answer: This is in view of the right path, which was never saṃsāra nor is it nirvāṇa; therefore saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both arbitrarily established. Question: Can it be said that saṃsāra is nameless and has a name arbitrarily established, while nirvāṇa has a name and is not arbitrarily established? Answer: There is also this meaning. Saṃsāra is false and unreal, having nothing in truth; therefore it is arbitrarily named saṃsāra. In contrast to the falsity of saṃsāra, praising the reality of nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa has real virtues and its name is established based on virtues; therefore the name of nirvāṇa is not arbitrarily established. Question: According to which approach is it explained that saṃsāra is nameless and nirvāṇa has a name? Answer: This explains that saṃsāra has no root, and so saṃsāra can be empty, which is why it is nameless. Nirvāṇa has a root, and nirvāṇa is not empty; therefore it has a name. As this sūtra says: "What is the root of the body? Craving and desire are the root. What is the root of craving and desire? Up to: taking upside-down views as the root." Since it is called the mark of upside-down views, it therefore has no root. Because it has no root, there is no saṃsāra, and thus saṃsāra can be empty. Because it is nameless, a name is arbitrarily established for it. In contrast to saṃsāra having no root, it explains that nirvāṇa has a root. That nirvāṇa has a root is precisely the buddha-nature; therefore when concealed it is named the tathāgatagarbha, and when revealed it is named the dharmakāya; thus buddha-nature is the root of the Buddha. When nirvāṇa has a fundamental root, there is then nirvāṇa; therefore nirvāṇa has a name and is not arbitrarily established. Question: Is there a case where neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa is arbitrarily established? Answer: There is also this meaning. For people in saṃsāra, saṃsāra exists; therefore this name of saṃsāra is not arbitrarily established. For those in nirvāṇa, nirvāṇa exists; therefore the name of nirvāṇa is also not arbitrarily established. These four approaches each rely on one meaning, and may be used according to the text. Although there are four propositions, when combined together, they only form the two propositions of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa being named or nameless. Combining these two propositions to return to a single proposition, it is simply the meaning of the single proposition of causes and conditions: nameless, and names of the nameless. How could a name of the nameless be a name? How could the namelessness of names be nameless? Therefore it is neither named nor nameless, neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa. Thus the sūtra says: "Both saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are unobtainable"; hence the single proposition is extinguished to enter no propositions. Being without propositions yet having propositions, it is therefore neither named nor nameless, yet capable of naming and capable of being nameless. Although capable of naming and capable of being nameless, it does not stir from neither named nor nameless; because it is spontaneous and unimpeded, unconstrained by defilements and entanglements, this is precisely the pure virtue. Possessing this pure virtue, it is therefore called 'Vimalakīrti' (Pure Name). It is precisely this pure virtue being without entanglements that is called 'liberation'. Beings cannot fathom it, so it is called 'inconceivable'. Therefore person and Dharma are not two, and yet non-two while being two; hence the one who commands is called the person, and the standard that can be modeled is called the Dharma. From the above onward, it has explained the arbitrary establishment of names lacking causes and conditions; next we distinguish the establishment of names having causes and conditions. Establishing a name lacking causes and conditions is discussed in terms of the dharmakāya; establishing a name having causes and conditions is spoken based on the trace. Since Vimalakīrti entrusted his trace to Vaiśālī and manifested as born from parents, he must have had a name. When his parents saw this child being born, he possessed this pure virtue; establishing his name based on virtue, he was therefore designated 'Vimalakīrti' (Pure Name). Next came the Tathāgata's seal of praise, along with the admiration and acclaim of worldly people. Because of these three meanings, the name Vimalakīrti was established. Question: All bodhisattvas possess pure virtues; why does Vimalakīrti alone receive this name? Answer: Just as although all bodhisattvas possess benevolence (maitrī), Maitreya takes the virtue of benevolence as his appellation, so it is here as well. Furthermore, this is a householder bodhisattva who dwells among the five dusts without being defiled and abides among various impurities yet is ever pure; hence he specifically receives this name. Question: What were the family and personal names of Vimalakīrti's parents? Answer: Broadly discussing ordinary beings and sages, there are two kinds of parents: ignorance is the father and craving-attachment is the mother; because of delusion and attachment, one receives rebirth—these are called the causal parents of ordinary beings. Although having delusion and attachment, they must rely on a man and a woman as conditions before obtaining birth, which are called the conditioning parents. Buddhas and bodhisattvas also have two kinds of parents: first, provisional and real; second, perfuming—these are called the dharmakāya parents. Real wisdom is empty and still, sharing quiescence with yin; hence it is matched to the mother. The meaning of the provisional is flowing and active, aligning with that yang; hence it is compared to the father. Due to these two wisdoms, the dharmakāya is born; therefore they are called the dharmakāya parents. As for the parents of his physical body, as stated in the *Foyu-jing*, Vimalakīrti's family name was Shuo, his personal name was Daxian, of the Wang clan. Another biography states: His surname was Lei, his father's name was Nadi, translated here as 'Zhiji' (Basis of Wisdom). His mother was of the Śākya clan, named Xi, who married at age nineteen. The father married at age twenty-three, and at age twenty-seven, in the city of *Devarapura*, she gave birth to Vimalakīrti. Vimalakīrti had a son, whose style was Shansi (Subuddhi), who greatly had the manner of his father. The Buddha bestowed a prophecy upon him that he would become a buddha in the future. There is separately a one-fascicle *Vimalakīrtiputra-sūtra*, which may be consulted.
2.24
Section 3: Discussion on Virtues and Ranks
2.25
Question: At what stage is Vimalakīrti situated, such that he can simultaneously contemplate the real and the conventional?
Answer: The "Skillful Means Chapter" states, "Vimalakīrti attained the tolerance of the non-arising of dharmas (anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti)," without determining its depth, but commentators simply explain it as simultaneously contemplating non-arising. There are altogether three explanations. Master Lingwei says: "Attaining the tolerance of non-arising on the first bhūmi, one is immediately able to simultaneously contemplate the real and the conventional." Next, an old theory from the Guanzhong region says: "Tolerance of non-arising is attained on the seventh bhūmi; only then are the real and conventional brought together simultaneously. As Master Zhao states: 'On the seventh bhūmi, giving reaches the culmination of giving and yet one has never given; morality reaches the culmination of morality and yet one has never observed morality; hence on the seventh bhūmi they are brought together.'" The old theory from the Jiangnan region says: "Although on the seventh bhūmi one is able to contemplate them simultaneously, one cannot yet do so constantly; it is only upon reaching the eighth bhūmi that one can make them constantly simultaneous. Vimalakīrti is a person on the eighth bhūmi or above." Still another explains: "Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī were both ancient Tathāgatas who manifested as bodhisattvas. As the Śūraṅgama[-samādhi Sūtra] states, 'Mañjuśrī was the Buddha King of the Nāga Race,' and the Fajijing states, 'Vimalakīrti is the Tathāgata Golden Grain (Jinshu).'"
Now, to clarify: the traces of the sage have no fixed direction and are difficult to fathom. However, regarding the simultaneous contemplation of non-arising, the scriptures contain four passages:
First, in contrast to the worldly stages prior to the bhūmis, this is only called "accordant tolerance" (anulomikī-kṣānti); hence there is not yet non-arising, nor is one able to contemplate them simultaneously. The first bhūmi is called the stage of the noble; only there does one first attain non-arising, and the two contemplations then come together simultaneously. The Benevolent Kings Sūtra, the Yingluo jing, and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha all contain this statement.
Second, from the first bhūmi upward and within the sixth bhūmi, non-arising is still shallow and the meaning of simultaneity is not yet manifest, so it is given the name of accordant tolerance. Upon reaching the seventh bhūmi, it is called the stage of equalizing samādhi and prajñā; hence this is truly the beginning of non-arising, termed "simultaneous contemplation."
Question: Why is the seventh bhūmi called "equalizing samādhi and prajñā"?
Answer: The Dazhidulun states: "In the prior three bhūmis prajñā is abundant and samādhi is minimal; in the subsequent three bhūmis samādhi is abundant and prajñā is minimal; therefore samādhi and prajñā are unequal. Now samādhi and prajñā are equal, and thus it is said to 'equalize samādhi and prajñā.'" According to another explanation, this refers to the two wisdoms as samādhi and prajñā: on the sixth bhūmi, the tranquil reflection of prajñā is samādhi, and the dynamic illumination of upāya is prajñā. The sixth bhūmi is wondrous in tranquil reflection but clumsy in dynamic engagement; thus samādhi and prajñā are not yet equal. Upon reaching the seventh bhūmi, it is called upāya; the two wisdoms are fully complete, which is called the equality of samādhi and prajñā.
Question: Since samādhi and prajñā are equal, why is it called "non-arising"?
Answer: The Dazhidulun states: "On the seventh bhūmi, fully comprehending that sentient beings and dharmas are both unarisen is called the tolerance of non-arising." One is not biased toward clinging to existence, so the mind of existence does not arise; one does not get stuck in emptiness, so the mind of emptiness does not arise. Therefore, wisdom is always upāya, and upāya is always wisdom; roaming equally in both emptiness and existence without bias or clinging, it is called non-arising.
Third, although on the seventh bhūmi one attains non-arising and is already able to contemplate simultaneously, there is still the mind of deliberate effort (sābhisaṃskāra). On the eighth bhūmi, the mind of deliberate effort never arises again; this is called non-arising, and moreover one is spontaneously and constantly simultaneous.
Fourth, although the eighth bhūmi is effortless (anabhisaṃskāra), it is not yet ultimate; the ultimate non-arising lies in the Buddha-stage. When the "Skillful Means Chapter" says, "Having long been practiced and pure in the Buddha Path, his mind was already fully seasoned," one should know that this is the non-arising of the Buddha-stage. With the Tathāgata Golden Grain, this textual evidence is already evident. Because non-arising is present in all four places, the various masters each grasped one path exclusively and thus missed the true point.
Furthermore, those who grasp at signs follow words and produce attachments: hearing of a deep stage, they think it is definitively deep-deep and cannot serve as shallow-deep; hearing of a shallow stage, they think it is definitively shallow-shallow and cannot serve as deep-shallow. If it were definitively shallow, how could one progress from the shallow to reach the deep-deep? If it were definitively deep-deep, how could it function as shallow? Now I clarify: according to conditions, depth has no fixed sign; therefore the shallow possesses the shallow-deep, the deep can become the deep-shallow, and the shallow can become the shallow-deep. Hence in the scriptures there are four propositions:
1. The shallow functions as the deep: a newly resolved bodhisattva achieves buddhahood through the eight phases.
2. The deep functions as the shallow: an ancient Tathāgata becomes a disciple of Śākyamuni.
3. The deep functions as the deep: a buddha transforms a buddha.
4. The shallow functions as the shallow: this meaning is easy to understand.
Question: The deep functioning as the shallow and the shallow functioning as the deep can be upāya. Are the deep functioning as the deep and the shallow functioning as the shallow also upāya?
Answer: The old tradition says that the deep functioning as the shallow is upāya, whereas the deep functioning as the deep is not upāya. Now I clarify: not only is the deep functioning as the shallow upāya, but the deep functioning as the deep is also upāya. Truly, because the gate of the Path has never been shallow-shallow or deep-deep, and all are for transforming beings, they are all called upāya.
Furthermore, people with attachment (prāptitā) all say that the final mind is Vimalakīrti, while the initial mind is not Vimalakīrti. Now I clarify: the initial resolve and ultimate realization are not two different things; not only is the final mind Vimalakīrti, but the initial mind is also Vimalakīrti. Why is this so? Since the final mind purifying all views is called Vimalakīrti, the [initial mind purifying] views is also Vimalakīrti.
Question: Three chapters of this sūtra destroy three kinds of views: the "Skillful Means Chapter" destroys ordinary people's views, the "Disciples Chapter" destroys the two vehicles' views, and the "Bodhisattvas Chapter" destroys the bodhisattvas' views. The final mind of Vimalakīrti can destroy the three views; since the initial mind is also Vimalakīrti, it should also destroy the three views.
Answer: If the final mind destroys the three views while the initial mind has not yet destroyed the three views, then teaching the destruction of the three views now would only be for people of the final mind; what benefit would it have for the initial mind? Furthermore, when the Buddha was in the world, there were the arhats, whom the "Disciples Chapter" could refute; there were Maitreya and others, whom the "Bodhisattvas Chapter" could refute. In the latter age there are no such great or small persons; what benefit would there be in the circulation of the sūtra during the Semblance Dharma? Hence we know that both the initial and final minds destroy the three views.
Question: If both the initial and final minds destroy the three views, what is the difference between initial and final?
Answer: Therefore the sūtra says: "The initial resolve and ultimate realization are not two different things." The initial mind is called the Buddha-mind, the seed of the Buddhas of the three periods, and thus does not differ from a buddha; hence it is initially called the initial-mind buddha, and ultimately called the final-mind buddha. The initial-mind buddha also purifies the three views, and the final-mind buddha also purifies the three views; however, the initial purification of the three views is obscure, while the final purification of the three views is luminous. Thus the distinction between initial and final is drawn.
Furthermore, people with attachment all say that ordinary people dwell within the four modes of birth, while Vimalakīrti ascends beyond the six destinies; but because ordinary people resonate with Vimalakīrti, Vimalakīrti responds by entering saṃsāra, feigning illness in Vaiśālī to generate this teaching. Now I clarify: for the time being this meaning is not absent, but I fear it creates an alienation between ordinary and noble paths and forms the two views of high and low. One must further recognize that within the one mind is both sentient beings and the tathāgatagarbha. To give rise to the three kinds of views in this mind is defilement; to purify these three views is precisely Vimalakīrti.
Question: How are the three views completely generated within the one mind?
Answer: If in this mind one generates an ordinary person's view, one is called an ordinary person; if one generates the two vehicles' view, one is called the two vehicles; if one generates a bodhisattva's view, one is called a bodhisattva. Before one corresponds with prajñā, in thought after thought one mostly falls into the three views, thereby seeing the three delusions. If the prior thought generates these three views, and the subsequent thought is able to purify these three views, then the prior thought is called defilement and the subsequent thought is Vimalakīrti. Thus the sūtra states: "Within the body of a sentient being, as there is poisonous grass, so there is the king of medicines." Delusion and awakening are not apart, just like flipping one's palm; how could one definitively say that ordinary people are confined within the four modes of birth, and the buddhas ascend beyond the six destinies? Therefore, in practicing the Path, sitting in meditation, lecturing, and repenting, one should rely on this approach; otherwise, it will be of no practical benefit.
Question: Since you encourage practicing contemplation, I now ask about investigating the mind: if the prior mind generating the three views is called defilement, and the subsequent thought destroying the three views is Vimalakīrti, then not only are the three views called views, but Vimalakīrti is also a view. Why is this so? The prior mind generating the three views is existence; the subsequent thought destroying the three views is non-existence. Since there are existence and non-existence, which are called defilement, how can it be called Vimalakīrti (Pure Name)?
Answer: We do not say that previously generating the three views is existence, and subsequently purifying the three views is non-existence; it is simply that one comprehends that the prior three views are fundamentally non-existent and presently not non-existent; hence it is called purifying the three views.
Question: If comprehending that the three views are fundamentally non-existent and presently not non-existent is called purifying the three views, this merely halts existence and non-existence, yet still becomes defiled by neither-existence-nor-non-existence; how can it be called pure? Furthermore, having existence and non-existence is called existence; lacking existence and non-existence is precisely non-existence; this still follows existence and non-existence, so how can it be called being free from defilement?
Answer: The Dazhidulun states: "Destroying the two without clinging to the one is what is called dharma-kṣānti." Now, if one can advance to forget both affirmations and withdraw to extinguish both negations, resting entirely unattached, that is called pure.
Question: If dismissing affirmations and forgetting negations is called pure: presence of affirmation and presence of negation is called existence; absence of affirmation and absence of negation is the great non-existence; how can it be called pure?
Answer: Originally, advancing to censure both affirmations and withdrawing to calm both negations was hoped to lead the adept of profound awakening to rest entirely unattached. Now you have ended up cycling through names and numbers and chasing conceptual thoughts, so there is no means to attain awakening. If internally one calms sentiments and thoughts and is mindless within, and externally one levels names and signs and has no enumerations without—when there are no enumerations without, then objects are exhausted in contemplation; when there is no mind within, contemplation is exhausted in objects. Because objects are exhausted in contemplation, there are no objects; because contemplation is exhausted in objects, there is no contemplation. When both contemplation and objects are utterly tranquil, and all tangled entanglements are stilled, that is called pure; how could there be any further defilement by non-existence?
Question: If both objects and contemplation are completely stilled, how does this differ from the extinction of cognition and the reduction of the body to ashes? Through the reduction of the body to ashes there are no objects; through the extinction of cognition there is no contemplation. Wishing to practice the Great Vehicle, why are you so like the Hīnayāna?
Answer: "Object" refers to giving rise to mind and stirring thoughts, which is precisely the questioner; "contemplation" refers to the wondrous awakening of non-arising, which is named the respondent. Since without objects you have nothing to ask, and with the extinction of contemplation I have nothing to explain, there should be no more cyclical back-and-forth.
Question: If both objects and contemplation are stilled, and both questions and answers are dismissed, then one naturally becomes mute.
Answer: Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna strongly endorsed the speech of the mute; hence it is said, "When you realize my Dharma, you yourself are at that moment mute." It is just that you have not yet penetrated their meaning; I will now explain it briefly. When discussing the mute, they speak while remaining constantly mute; when discerning their speech, they are mute while constantly speaking. Speaking without being mute is what is called an ordinary person; being mute without speaking is called the contemplation of the two vehicles. Therefore, when reaching the complete stillness of objects and contemplation, yet object and cognition remain vivid: the more the manifestation moves, the more the spirit is tranquil; the more cognition is tranquil, the more its illumination is bright. How could one label the noble mind with the dharma of the mute, or restrict the profound Path to the extinction of ash?
First 25 of 29 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 淨名玄論 — Classical Chinese