維摩經義疏 1.17

1.17

論德位門三。問：是淨名是何位人？能真俗並觀。答：〈方便品〉云「淨名得無生忍」，不判淺深。但釋無生竝觀，凡有三說。有人言：初地得無生忍，即能真俗竝觀。此江南靈味寺少亮法師之所說也。有人言：七地無生，真俗始竝。此關內什肇等之所說也。有人言：七地雖復竝觀，未能常竝；至於八地，始得全竝，淨名即是八地已上人也。此江左河右諸師之所同釋也。有人言：文殊師利本是龍種上尊佛，淨名即是金栗如來。相傳云「金栗如來出《思惟三昧經》」，今未見本。吉藏謂從初發心即學無生、習於竝現，故《涅槃經》云「發心、畢竟二不別」。如是二心，先心難。但寄位淺深，開四重階級：一者對地前凡位，但名順忍，未有無生，亦未能竝觀。初地稱聖，始得無生，二觀方竝也。《仁王》、《瓔珞》、《攝大乘論》並有斯文。二者初地以上、六地已還，無生猶淺，竝義未彰，與順忍之名。至於七地，稱等定慧地，始是無生，名為竝觀。《智度論》云「前三地慧多定少，後三地定多慧少，故定慧不等。至於七地，慧定均平，云等定慧地。」此說般若靜鑒為定、方便動照為慧。六地妙於靜現、拙於涉動，故定慧未均平。至乎七地，二用俱巧，名等定慧地。問：定慧既等，何故名無生耶？答：諸法實相，本性無生。至於七地得實相慧，從境受名，故云無生。如《大論》云「七地菩薩了人法皆悉無生，名無生忍。」又不偏著有，有心不生；不偏著空，空心不起。故慧常方便、方便常慧，空有雙遊。無所偏著，故云無生。三者七地雖得無生己能竝觀，但猶有功用。八地於功用心永不復生，名曰無生。四者八地雖無功用，猶未究竟；究竟無生在於法位。〈方便品〉云「久於佛道心已純熟」，當知是佛地無生、金栗如來。即斯文已顯無生，具在四處；眾師偏執一位，故失其旨也。問：何故從發心乃至佛地皆嘆無生？答：夫心若有生即有所著，若有所著即有所縛，便不得離生老病死憂悲苦惱。心既無生即壞無所寄，眾累以之而傾、法身由斯而建。是以龍樹命宗標於八不、建首即論無生，意在於此也。問：舊說亦云淨名得無生忍，與今何異？答：有所得人俱云後身是淨名、初心非淨名。經云「發心、畢竟二不別」，後心淨諸見既稱淨名，初心淨諸見亦是淨名。故此經〈方便品〉破凡夫、〈弟子品〉斥小道、〈菩薩章〉呵大見。今從初發心淨此三見，即是淨名。問：初心後心皆淨三見，初後何別？答：初心淨見則明，是故為異。問：若前心起三見為有、後念破三見為無，既是有無，還為垢染。何名為淨？答：不言前起三見為有、後淨三見為無、但了前三見本自不有、今亦不無，故名為淨。難曰：夫有有有無，名之為有；無有無無，斯即是無。還墮有無；何不名染？答：《智度論》云「破二不著一，乃名為法忍」，今若能退忘兩是、進泯二非，蕭然無寄，乃名為淨。難曰，若遣是忘非乃名淨者，夫有是有非，斯義即非；無是無非，乃名為是。猶滯是非，何名為淨？答：本以退忘兩是、進息二非，冀玄悟之賓懷無所寄。今遂循環名數，遂墮相心，即取悟無由。若內息情想、無心於內；外夷名相，無數於外。無數於外即緣盡於現，無心於內即現盡於緣。緣盡於觀即無緣，觀盡於緣即無觀。無觀無緣，紛累都寂，乃曰為淨，寧滯是非？問：若緣觀俱寂，豈非滅智灰身？問答並遣，便同癋法外道。答：天親、龍樹盛許噁言，故云「汝證我法時，汝爾時自噁」。但恐猶未達，今陳之。夫論噁者，言而常噁。辨其言者，噁而常言。言而不噁，所謂凡夫；噁而不言，名二乘觀。故云至人緣觀俱寂而境智宛然，故應踰動、神踰靜，智踰寂、照踰明。寧以噁法目聖心、灰斷謗玄道？

Third, the section on discussing the stages of virtue. Question: At what stage is this Jingming, such that he can simultaneously contemplate the real and the conventional? Answer: The "Chapter on Upāya" states: "Jingming attained the forbearance of non-arising (anutpattikadharmakṣānti)," without determining its depth or shallowness. But in explaining the simultaneous contemplation of non-arising, there are broadly three positions. Some say: on the first bhūmi one attains the forbearance of non-arising and is thereupon able to simultaneously contemplate the real and the conventional. This is what Dharma Master Shaoliang of Lingwei Temple in Jiangnan said. Some say: on the seventh bhūmi non-arising is reached, and only then do the real and conventional become simultaneous. This is what Kumārajīva, Sengzhao, and others of Guanzhong said. Some say: although on the seventh bhūmi one again contemplates simultaneously, one cannot yet do so constantly; upon reaching the eighth bhūmi, one only then achieves fully simultaneous [contemplation], and Jingming is a person of the eighth bhūmi or above. This is the shared explanation of the various masters of Jiangzuo and Heye. Some say: Mañjuśrī was originally the Buddha Uttaraśrī of the Dragon Race, and Jingming is the Tathāgata Jinli. A tradition says: "Tathāgata Jinli appears in the Siwei sanmei jing (Sūtra on the Samādhi of Contemplation)," but I have not yet seen the original text. Jizang holds that from the initial aspiration of the mind one studies non-arising and practices simultaneous manifestation; therefore the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "The initial aspiration and the ultimate are not two different things; of these two minds, the first mind is the difficult one." Yet, provisionally lodging in the depth or shallowness of the stages, four levels are opened: First, compared to the ordinary stages prior to the bhūmis, it is merely called conforming forbearance (anulomikī-kṣānti); there is not yet non-arising, nor can one contemplate simultaneously. On the first bhūmi one is called a sage, first attains non-arising, and the two contemplations only then become simultaneous. The Renwang, Yingluo, and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha all contain this passage. Second, from the first bhūmi upwards to the sixth bhūmi, non-arising is still shallow and the meaning of simultaneity is not yet manifest; they are given the name of conforming forbearance. Reaching the seventh bhūmi, it is called the stage of equalizing samādhi and prajñā; only then is it non-arising, termed simultaneous contemplation. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "In the first three bhūmis prajñā is abundant and samādhi is deficient; in the latter three bhūmis samādhi is abundant and prajñā is deficient; therefore samādhi and prajñā are not equal. Reaching the seventh bhūmi, prajñā and samādhi are balanced and equal, called the stage of equalizing samādhi and prajñā." This explains that the quiet reflection of prajñā is samādhi, and the active illumination of upāya is prajñā. On the sixth bhūmi one is skillful in quiet manifestation but clumsy in engaging activity, so samādhi and prajñā are not yet equal. Reaching the seventh bhūmi, both applications are skillful; it is called the stage of equalizing samādhi and prajñā. Question: Since samādhi and prajñā are equal, why is it named non-arising? Answer: The true reality of all dharmas is fundamentally of an unarisen nature. Reaching the seventh bhūmi, one attains the prajñā of true reality; receiving its name from the cognitive object, it is therefore called non-arising. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "A bodhisattva on the seventh bhūmi understands that persons and dharmas are all non-arisen; this is called the forbearance of non-arising." Moreover, one does not lean toward existence, so the mind of existence does not arise; one does not lean toward emptiness, so the mind of emptiness does not stir. Hence prajñā is constantly upāya, and upāya is constantly prajñā, roaming freely across both emptiness and existence. Leaning toward neither, it is therefore called non-arising. Third, although on the seventh bhūmi one attains non-arising and can already contemplate simultaneously, there is still effort. On the eighth bhūmi, the mind of effort never arises again; this is called non-arising. Fourth, although the eighth bhūmi is effortless, it is not yet ultimate; ultimate non-arising resides in the Dharma-stage. The "Chapter on Upāya" says: "Having long ripened his mind in the Buddha path," one should know this is the non-arising of the Buddha stage, the Tathāgata Jinli. Thus this text already reveals that non-arising is present across all four places; the various masters cling exclusively to a single stage, and thus lose its core meaning. Question: Why is non-arising praised all the way from the initial aspiration up to the Buddha stage? Answer: If the mind has arising, it has attachment; if it has attachment, it has bondage, and then cannot be free from birth, aging, sickness, death, worry, sorrow, suffering, and distress. When the mind is free of arising, destruction has nowhere to lodge; all entanglements collapse through this, and the dharmakāya is established thereby. For this reason Nāgārjuna defined his doctrine by highlighting the eight negations, beginning by discussing non-arising right at the outset; his intention lay here. Question: The old explanations also said that Jingming attained the forbearance of non-arising; how does this differ from the present view? Answer: Those who hold to attainment all say that the final-body [bodhisattva] is Jingming, while the initial mind is not Jingming. The sūtra says: "The initial aspiration and the ultimate are not two different things." If the latter mind's purification of all views is called Jingming, the initial mind's purification of all views is also Jingming. Therefore, in this sūtra, the "Chapter on Upāya" refutes ordinary worldlings, the "Chapter on the Disciples" reprimands the lesser path, and the "Chapter on the Bodhisattvas" scolds great views. Purifying these three views right from the initial aspiration of the mind is precisely Jingming. Question: If both the initial mind and the final mind purify the three views, what is the difference between the beginning and the end? Answer: For the initial mind, purifying views is bright; hence there is a difference. Question: If the preceding mind's arising of the three views is existence, and the subsequent thought's destruction of the three views is non-existence, since there are existence and non-existence, it reverts to defilement. How can it be called pure? Answer: We do not say that the preceding arising of the three views is existence and the subsequent purifying of the three views is non-existence; we merely understand that the preceding three views fundamentally do not exist and now are also not non-existent; hence it is called pure. Objection: Now, the existence of existence and the existence of non-existence are named existence; the non-existence of existence and the non-existence of non-existence are precisely non-existence. This still falls into existence and non-existence; why is it not called defilement? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Destroying the two without clinging to the one is only then called the forbearance of dharmas." Now, if one can withdraw and forget both affirmations, and advance to extinguish both negations, resting detached with nowhere to lodge, this is only then called pure. Objection: If banishing affirmation and forgetting negation is only then called pure, then having affirmation and having negation is an understanding that is negated; lacking affirmation and lacking negation is then named affirmation. Still stagnating in affirmation and negation, how can it be called pure? Answer: Originally, by withdrawing and forgetting both affirmations and advancing to quell both negations, one hopes the traveler of profound awakening will harbor nowhere to lodge. Now you end up revolving in names and categories, consequently falling into a marked mind, and thus there is no way to apprehend awakening. If internally one calms sentiments and concepts, being mindless internally; and externally one levels names and marks, having no categories externally: having no categories externally means conditions are exhausted in contemplation; being mindless internally means contemplation is exhausted in conditions. When conditions are exhausted in contemplation there are no conditions; when contemplation is exhausted in conditions there is no contemplation. With no contemplation and no conditions, troublesome entanglements are completely stilled; only this is called pure—how could it stagnate in affirmation and negation? Question: If both conditions and contemplation are stilled, is this not annihilating wisdom and reducing the body to ashes? If both question and answer are discarded, this would be identical to the non-Buddhists of the mute Dharma. Answer: Vasubandhu and Nāgārjuna strongly permitted silence (o-yan), saying: "When you realize my Dharma, you at that time will naturally fall silent." But I fear you have not yet comprehended; let me now explain it. When discussing silence, one speaks while always silent. Explaining speech, one is silent while always speaking. Speaking without being silent is what is meant by an ordinary person; being silent without speaking is named the contemplation of the two vehicles. Therefore it is said: for the ultimate person, conditions and contemplation are both stilled, yet object and wisdom are vividly present; hence the more he responds the more he moves, yet his spirit is all the more tranquil; his wisdom is all the more stilled, yet its illumination is all the more bright. How could one designate the holy mind by a mute teaching, or slander the profound Way with ash-like severance?