淨名玄論 3.37

3.37

Question: If not severing afflictions is like not removing flowers in the sky, the sūtras have four positions: First, severing afflictions, as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says, "Wisdom corresponding in a single thought severs afflictions and their residual habits." Second, not severing afflictions, as this sūtra says, "Entering nirvāṇa without severing afflictions." Third, both severing and not severing, as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "All sentient beings neither destroy afflictions nor are accompanied by them." Since there are four passages, why use only one? Moreover, the four positions contradict each other; please harmonize and resolve them.
Answer: They differ on account of conditions, yet their great meaning remains identical. For those of overweening pride who have not severed afflictions yet claim to have attained sagehood, the Buddha spoke of severing afflictions. For people of the two vehicles who say there are afflictions that can be severed, he said they are not severed. Wishing to clarify the meaning of the middle way, he spoke of both severing and not severing. Just as the Buddha told the Brahmā King: "Now I speak of the middle way: all sentient beings cannot destroy the fetters"—clarifying departure from the extreme of existence; "yet it is not that they cannot destroy them"—discerning departure from the extreme of nonexistence. Wishing to repudiate both the views of the ordinary person and the sage, he clarified neither severing nor accompanying: because of not accompanying, they are not identical to ordinary persons; because of not severing, they are not identical to sages. Thus the reasons for their delivery differ. As for saying that the great meaning is identical: although there are four positions, they are only one position. Knowing that afflictions originally do not arise and now do not cease, there is nothing to sever. Because one can awaken like this, afflictions no longer appear before one, and this is called severing. Thus, non-severing is itself severing; truly there is nothing severed, so how could one destroy them? Yet delusion does not appear before one, so how is it not destroyed? Because there is nothing to destroy, it is non-severing, yet with no delusion appearing before one, how could one be accompanied by them? Therefore, the four positions are still one position. Furthermore, the reason this sūtra arose to clarify liberation is precisely to clarify that during Śākyamuni's single lifetime in the world, he caused all those of the great and small, ordinary and holy, who have attainments, to attain liberation from all bondages. Originally, the Tathāgata appeared in the world to accord with conditions and confer teachings, fundamentally intending to cause them to awaken to the Dharma gate of nonduality that is neither ordinary nor holy, neither great nor small. That there are ordinary and holy, great and small, is entirely because being neither ordinary nor holy, neither great nor small, he can therefore be ordinary, be holy, be great, and be small. Although there are ordinary and holy, the absence of ordinary and holy remains unmoved; the great and small are also like this. But those who receive the teachings, hearing of the ordinary, form ordinary understandings; hearing of the holy, form holy understandings; great and small are also like this. Thus they all come to have attainments, completely belong to Māra, and are not disciples of the Buddha. Therefore we know that the Tathāgata commanded Mañjuśrī from a different region and summoned Vimalakīrti from another land, gathering in Vaiśālī to jointly propagate this teaching. First, by means of three chapters, he demolished the three sicknesses of ordinary persons, the two vehicles, and bodhisattvas, causing them to awaken to being neither ordinary nor holy, neither great nor small, in order to liberate them from these three sicknesses; hence it is called liberation. Next, in discussing the liberation of the transformer [Vimalakīrti]: above, one meaning has already been discerned; now another gate is further explained. Vimalakīrti, regarding defilement, is not defiled, and is not bound by defilement; dwelling in purity, it is not purity, and he is not bound by purity; traversing both defilement and purity, he is not bound by non-defilement and non-purity. Truly having no practice, he is not bound by defilement or purity; therefore this is called liberation. Defilement and purity being thus, the myriad meanings are all of this kind.