淨名玄論 3.35

3.35

Question: How does making this explanation differ from the old [interpretations]?
Answer: This meaning comes from the sūtras; when both this and that use it, the words cannot differ, but the intent cannot be the same, as explained above. Furthermore, the old [masters] only knew of arising through untainted karma outside the triple world and held various divergent explanations, failing to realize the purport of harmonizing fusion, so their understanding of the sūtras was mistaken.
Question: If severing afflictions is liberation as cause, and relinquishing saṃsāra is liberation as effect, how is it that this sūtra says, "For those of overweening pride, the Buddha spoke of severing afflictions as liberation; if one has no overweening pride, afflictions are themselves liberation," and also says, "Without destroying the body, one accords with the single mark"? How could relinquishing the body of saṃsāra be called liberation as effect?
Answer: What was explained by the old [masters] was completely rebuked by Vimalakīrti and is not the meaning of liberation.
Question: Why was it rebuked?
Answer: Making this explanation is itself the meaning of bondage; it cannot yet be called liberation, so how could it not be rebuked? Why is this so? Although there are afflictions, the path of antidote severs them, which is called being without afflictions. Conceiving views of existence and nonexistence regarding afflictions is where the meaning of bondage first begins—how could there be liberation? Furthermore, this is giving rise to further afflictions within afflictions, and generating anew fetters within bondage itself. Why is this so? Originally having former afflictions is called the old bondage. Searching the sūtras, reading the treatises, approaching companions, and following teachers, one then thinks that afflictions exist and severs them to make them nonexistent. Thus, regarding the old afflictions, one newly generates the two views of existence and nonexistence—how is this not binding further within bondage? Moreover, thinking that ordinary persons have afflictions, one gives rise to the view of existence; thinking that sages have no afflictions, one gives rise to the view of nonexistence. Thus, regarding both sages and ordinary persons, one generates the two views of existence and nonexistence; therefore, both ordinary persons and sages are bound—how could there be liberation?
Question: In saṃvṛti-satya there are delusion and awakening, and real contemplation [sees] delusion as unreal; if it is truly unreal and delusive, what bondage and liberation could there be?
Answer: Looking at your question, you have given rise to bondage once again. Why is this so? Hearing that there are bondage and liberation within saṃvṛti-satya, do you not give rise to a mind [grasping at] existence? Hearing that there are no bondage and liberation in paramārtha-satya, do you not give rise to a thought [grasping at] nonexistence? Thus, with regard to the real and the conventional, these turn back into afflictions; generating thoughts and moving the mind never departs from Māra. Let us both hold our chests and examine our minds, rather than engaging in empty verbal exchanges. Furthermore, saying that affliction is bondage and wisdom is liberation, that all ordinary persons are bound beings and true sages are liberated beings—thus relinquishing the ordinary and grasping the sage, extinguishing delusion and producing understanding—because delusion is extinguished, one is not bound by delusion, yet thereupon having understanding, one is bound by understanding. Relinquishing saṃsāra, one is not bound by saṃsāra, yet attaining nirvāṇa, one is bound by nirvāṇa. The permanent and impermanent, the real and the delusive, are likewise also like this. Furthermore, my teacher, the Upādhyāya of Xinghuang, whenever ascending the high seat, constantly spoke these words: "A person practicing the Path who wishes to abandon the non-path to seek the correct Path is bound by the Path. One who sits in dhyāna, quieting disturbance to seek stillness, is bound by dhyāna. Those who study, thinking they possess wisdom, are bound by wisdom." He also said: "Practicing the contemplation of non-arising, wishing to demolish and cleanse the mind that has attainments, one is bound by non-arising. These are all merely wishing to relinquish bondage from within bondage, yet truly not knowing that these are all fetters. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says, 'Without awareness, without knowledge, without alarm, without fright'—it precisely targets these people. For if one wishes to relinquish suffering, that is not seeking the Path."
Question: If everything spoken above is bondage, what is called liberation?
Answer: Looking at the questioner's mind, apart from the bondage above, you separately wish to seek liberation, thus considering bondage and liberation as two. The sūtra says, "Light and ignorance—fools consider them to be two, and that is called bondage"—how is that yet liberation?
Question: Now I do not speak of them as one or two; I merely ask that you expound the purport of liberation.
Answer: Examining the intention of your question, ultimately there is something sought, and so ultimately there is something bound—how is that yet liberation? This single instruction is sufficient to enlighten one to profound awakening. If you have not yet understood, I shall now briefly show the gate of the teaching. Previously it was said that having afflictions, one severs them to make them nonexistent, and therefore upon afflictions one gives rise to the new bondage of existence and nonexistence. If one can understand that afflictions originally do not exist and now are not nonexistent, then former delusions naturally dissolve and new sicknesses do not arise; exhausting the old without creating the new is called attaining liberation. Above it was said that relinquishing afflictions, one is not bound by afflictions, yet wishing to seek wisdom, one is bound by wisdom. Now, if one can abandon both foolishness and wisdom and relinquish both ordinary person and sage, this is to be tranquil and without resting place, which is called liberation. Furthermore, if hitherto one clearly wished to relinquish bondage and advance to seek liberation, now one merely contemplates afflictions: the essential nature of afflictions is itself liberation—how then could one wish to relinquish bondage to seek liberation? Therefore the sūtra says, "The three poisons are themselves the Buddha-path; afflictions are called liberation." Why is this so? The essential nature of afflictions originally neither arises nor ceases—how is this not itself liberation?
Question: If that is so, this is merely harmonizing with the object of paramārtha-satya, where afflictions are empty, taking the awakening to emptiness as liberation. Why say that afflictions are themselves liberation?
Answer: Afflictions' essential nature is directly originally empty; it is not said that afflictions exist and only after harmonizing with the object of paramārtha-satya do they become empty. Just like an eye disease seeing flowers in the sky, the flowers are themselves empty; one cannot say that these flowers first existed, and only by contemplating the object of paramārtha-satya does one know the flowers to be empty. The Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, "All dharmas are nonexistent, yet they exist in this way; existing in this way, they are nonexistent." This sūtra says, "From the root of non-abiding, delusive conceptual differentiations arise." Therefore, having a body has entirely the meaning of flowers in the sky. Because sentient beings are deluded, they take emptiness to be flowers; if they attain awakening, they know the flowers are originally empty.
Question: Being deluded, one takes emptiness to be flowers; if awakened, one knows the flowers are originally empty. How does this differ from: when not having attained bodhi, one takes bodhi to be afflictions; and when having attained bodhi, one takes afflictions to be bodhi?
Answer: It is precisely this meaning. The sūtra says, "Quiescent cessation is bodhi." When sentient beings have not awakened to quiescent cessation, then quiescent cessation becomes afflictions for sentient beings. On the day of clear awakening, one knows afflictions are originally quiescent cessation; therefore, afflictions are bodhi.
Question: Is it because being deluded about bodhi, one thinks bodhi exists, and so bodhi is called afflictions?
Answer: There is naturally this one approach, but it is an inversion at the branch. However, sentient beings are originally quiescent cessation and also originally bodhi; because of the inversion regarding emptiness, quiescent cessation becomes non-quiescent cessation for sentient beings, and bodhi becomes non-bodhi for sentient beings. As said before, "All dharmas are nonexistent," yet sentient beings take the nonexistent to be existent; this is the fundamental inversion. Since sentient beings take the nonexistent to be existent, the sage, wishing to rest their deluded claim of existence, speaks of bodhi for them. Yet sentient beings do not know its purport and immediately think bodhi exists; thus bodhi turns back into afflictions. Therefore, there are the two layers of fundamental and branch inversions. If it is the fundamental inversion, sentient beings give rise to it by themselves; discussing the inversion at the branch, it arises dependent on the teaching.
Question: As for discussing the inversion at the branch, there is no doubt about this matter. Since sentient beings are originally nonexistent, yet now take the nonexistent to be existent, they should also originally be bodhi, yet now transform into non-bodhi. If that is so, having now attained buddhahood, they should also transform back into sentient beings. Circulating like this, it would be endless.
Answer: It is not said that sentient beings were originally nonexistent and only now are existent; it is only discussed that these very sentient beings are originally nonexistent, just as the flowers are originally empty. It is not said that emptiness transforms into flowers, nor that flowers transform into emptiness. To a sick person, emptiness is constantly flowers; to a person without sickness, flowers are constantly empty. To sentient beings, bodhi becomes afflictions; to an awakened person, afflictions are constantly bodhi. Therefore it was previously said, "With respect to conditions, there was never oneness; with respect to the Path, there was never duality"—this is precisely that matter.
Question: If that is so, this is merely the meaning of the dream and the empty flowers in the sky. Formerly this was already criticized; why use it now?
Answer: Master Kumārajīva said: "The ten similes are used to awaken to emptiness, yet emptiness must rely on these similes. One borrows words to realize the meaning; when the meaning is exhausted, there is no place to be realized. Having emerged from the vast snare, one abides in this non-abiding. If one further grasps at settled emptiness, the flowers turn back into bondage."