淨名玄論 2.25

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?