[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781) › 1.3 # 維摩經義疏 1.3 維摩經義疏 1.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.1.3) 夫至趣無言、玄藉彌布，法身無像、物感則形，故知無言而無不言、無像而無不像。以無言而無不言，故張大教網、亘生死流；以無像而無不像，則住如幻智、遊戲六道。是故斯經人法雙舉。言其人者，所謂淨名，以淨德內充、嘉聲外滿，天下藉甚，故曰淨名。豈止降魔勞怨、制諸外道，亦五百聲聞自稱不敏、八千菩薩失對當時。所言法者，謂不思議解脫也。內無功用、不假思量，外化幽微、物莫能測，謂不思議也。縱任自在、塵累不拘，道貫雙流、二慧常並，謂解脫也。余以夫開皇之末，因於身疾，自著玄章；仁壽之終，奉命撰於文疏。辭有闊略，致二本不同。但斯經是眾聖之靈府、方等之中心，究竟之玄宗、無餘之極說，故諸佛之所諮嗟、弟子之所曉者也。但至趣沖邃、妙契其門，遂使妄執五時謂理猶未滿、或虛談四教稱之為半字，致令無擇起于胸衿、不救出自脣吻。般若信毀之文、法華譬喻之說，盛陳報應，實可寒心。吉藏案：成實論師開善智藏執於五時，謂此經為第三時抑揚教也。招提慧琰用四時教，謂此經是第二時三乘通教攝也。雖執三二階差別，同謂此經明果猶是無常，無常辨因未得盡理，故義非極滿教，為半字耳也。吉藏謹案誠文，考其得失，宜癈五四之穿鑿、立一極之玄宗也。此經〈方便品〉云「諸仁者！是身無常甚可患厭，當樂佛身。佛身者即法身也。」蓋毀生死無常、讚法身常住，令厭茲生死、欣彼法身，則逼引之教成、欣厭之觀立。若生死無常法身復起滅者，則同可厭棄，何所欣哉？又說生死無常以破常見、明法身常住斥於斷滅，令遠離二邊、顯于中道。若生死與法身同無常者，則但斥於常、未破無常，則洗病不周、顯理由未足。又說生死無常破凡夫保常之迷、明法身常住斥二乘計斷之執，故非凡夫行、非賢聖行，是菩薩行。若生死與法身同起滅者，則但超凡，猶未越聖。以此詳之，故知常矣。二者〈弟子品〉云「佛身無漏，諸漏已盡。佛身無為，不墮諸數。」無漏則五住因傾、無為則二死果盡，蓋辨法身常也。出五濁世，現行斯法度脫眾生，云病須乳，此明應迹無常。所以開本迹者，以淺識之流取信耳目，於如來身起輕劣想，故彰阿難不達、同彼愚迷。淨名高呵，以開法身之喝，使悟妙本無為、迹有生滅。若謂法身猶是無常，則同淺識之昏矇，受淨名之詰責矣。又若未被呵，謂佛無常則迷同淺識，既已聞高責猶執封起滅，則過甚遇矇。三者〈阿閦佛品〉明法身非有為非無為，即是非常非無常，體絕百非、形備萬德，乃為究竟法身。常與無常皆是對治之用。若謂無常，則未達其遍用，何由鑒其圓本？以三處計之，則人常義顯。四者〈觀眾生品〉天女章云「但以文字故曰三世，非謂菩提有去來今。」菩提既超三世，則無相無為，所以常住。尋如來為能證之人、菩提為所證之法，人法既常則理為究竟，便驗半是虛談、滿為實說。尋味之徒宜改舊轍也。救曰：尋夫立義宗者，取淨名室內之說以為正也。前三之文乃為由序，次之一句復是流通，未足證常，不應輒引。故舊轍須依、新宗宜棄（開善招提同作此救）。答：上所引文則斯經四會，〈方便品〉謂毘耶初集，〈弟子章〉即菴薗始會，天女說謂方丈重集，〈阿閦佛品〉即菴薗再會。二在室內所談、兩居方丈外說，何得謂前為序分、後是流通也？又設序明常住、正說起滅，則正淺序深，義成顛倒。又法身常住不可思議，如其起滅，何名莫測？又若是常住，即教圓理滿。宜持之者，則重法尊人；若是無常，便非了義。稟教之流起輕劣想，進無弘法之功、退有誤物之累。以文義往推，故知圓極。問：既斥五時之教、復呵四宗之說，云何判於佛教？答：夫四生擾擾，為失虛懷；六趣紛紛，寔由封滯。則知迴流苦海，用取相為源；超然彼岸，以無著為本。但累根匪一，故蕩惑多門，統其要歸凡有二轍：一隨小志稱曰小乘、二順大機名為大教。但一化終始開為四門：一者顯教菩薩、不密化聲聞，即華嚴教也。大機已熟，故顯教之；小志未堪，不宜密化。故羅列珍玩，正為宗親；窮子躄地，未堪授寶。二者顯教聲聞、不密化菩薩，即三藏教也。故誘引將順，正為二乘；更遣餘人，不化菩薩。三者顯教菩薩、密化聲聞，即般若等教。嚴土化人，正教大士；付財命說，密化小志。四者顯教菩薩、顯教二乘，即法華教也。以大士疑除，故正教菩薩；羅漢作佛，即顯化聲聞。此之四門，始自寂滅道場、終乎吉祥福地，明一化始終次第之說，理無不統、教無不攝。但四門之內，三屬菩薩藏收，顯教聲聞不密化菩薩為聲聞藏攝。問：若佛初成道但顯教菩薩不密化聲聞者，何故華嚴教門亦有明小乘法？如〈賢首品〉云「或說聲聞小乘門、或示緣覺中乘門、或說無上大乘門」耶？答：一化之教復有傍正四門。一者正顯真實、傍開方便，即華嚴教。正為菩薩說於大因、令趣大果，謂正顯真實，亦傍令大士識二乘是權，誨餘小行，故傍開方便。二者正隱真實、正開方便，即鹿苑教門。說三乘究竟，正隱一乘真實；不明小是權說，故正開方便門。三者正顯真實、傍閉方便，即般若等教。以歎大乘究竟，故正顯真實；未明三是權化，故傍閉方便。問：以何文證般若等教已顯真實？答：《法華．信解品》云「一切諸佛所有祕藏，但為菩薩演其實事，而不為我說斯真要。」此指般若時事，故知《大品》已明真實。問：《般若》、《淨名》既未開三乘是方便，云何已顯一乘為真實？答：顯佛乘真實凡有二門，若是《法華》，對三乘方便、顯一乘真實；若是《般若》、《淨名》，毀小乘為劣、讚大乘為勝。故大乘真實也。四者正顯一乘真實、正開三乘方便，即法華教。故〈法師品〉云「此經開方便門、示真實相」，即其事也。四門之義，三屬菩薩藏收；正隱真實正開方便，聲聞藏攝。若照此二種四門，具識三世諸佛教意也。 > Now, the ultimate principle is without words, yet the profound scriptures spread far and wide; the dharmakāya has no image, yet responding to beings it manifests form. Hence we know that being without words, there is nothing it does not say; having no image, there is nothing it does not manifest. Because it is without words yet leaves nothing unsaid, the vast net of teaching is cast, spanning the stream of saṃsāra; because it has no image yet leaves nothing unmanifested, it abides in illusion-like wisdom, sporting in the six destinies. Therefore, this sūtra sets forth both person and dharma together. As for the person: he is the so-called Jingming (Pure Renown). Because pure virtue fills him within and fine reputation is replete without, his fame is renowned throughout the world; hence he is called Jingming. How could it be only that he subdues Māra's afflictions and grievances and curbs the various non-Buddhists? Even the five hundred śrāvakas proclaimed themselves inept, and eight thousand bodhisattvas were at a loss for words at that time. As for the dharma: it is what is called the inconceivable liberation. Internally effortless and without relying on deliberation, its external transformation of beings is so subtle and profound that beings cannot fathom it; this is called 'inconceivable'. Unconstrained and free, unbound by defilements, the Path pervades both streams and the two wisdoms are ever conjoined; this is called 'liberation'. In the late Kaihuang reign era, due to physical illness, I personally authored the profound chapters; at the end of Renshou, I received the command to compose this commentary. The phrasing having some omissions and variations led to differences between the two editions. Yet this sūtra is the spiritual treasury of all sages, the core of the vaipulya, the ultimate profound tenet, and the definitive supreme exposition; therefore it is what all Buddhas praise and what disciples comprehend. However, its ultimate principle is deep and tranquil, subtly harmonizing with its gate. Consequently, people errantly clung to the five periods, claiming its principle was not yet full; or they emptily spoke of the four teachings, calling it a half-letter teaching. This caused uncritical confusion to arise in their minds and reckless talk to issue from their lips. The passages on faith and slander in the Prajñāpāramitā and the parables in the Lotus Sūtra extensively present the retributions, which truly make one's heart turn cold. Jizang considers: Kaishan Zhizang, the master of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, clung to the five periods and claimed that this sūtra was the teaching of depreciation and praise belonging to the third period. Zhaoti Huiyan used the four-period teaching and asserted that this sūtra was subsumed under the common teaching of the three vehicles belonging to the second period. Although they clung to differences of three and two tiers, they concurred in claiming that this sūtra explains the fruit as still impermanent, and in explaining the cause by impermanence it fails to exhaust the principle; therefore its meaning is not an ultimately full teaching, but merely a half-letter teaching. Jizang respectfully investigates the authoritative texts and examines their merits and defects: one ought to discard the far-fetched fabrications of the five and four \[periods\], and establish the profound tenet of the single ultimate. In the "Upāya Chapter" of this sūtra it says: "Virtuous ones! This body is impermanent and greatly to be loathed; you should delight in the Buddha's body. The Buddha's body is the dharmakāya." This is to deprecate the impermanence of saṃsāra and praise the permanence of the dharmakāya, causing people to loathe this saṃsāra and delight in that dharmakāya; thus the teaching of pressing and leading is accomplished, and the contemplation of revulsion and delight is established. If saṃsāra is impermanent and the dharmakāya also arises and ceases, then it would be equally loathsome and to be abandoned; what would there be to delight in? Furthermore, it explains that saṃsāra is impermanent in order to destroy the view of permanence, and clarifies that the dharmakāya is permanent to refute annihilationism, causing people to leave the two extremes far behind and revealing the Middle Way. If saṃsāra and the dharmakāya were both impermanent, then it would only refute permanence without yet destroying impermanence; the washing away of disease would be incomplete, and the revelation of the principle would still be deficient. Furthermore, it explains the impermanence of saṃsāra to break ordinary people's delusion of clinging to permanence, and clarifies the permanence of the dharmakāya to refute the two vehicles' attachment to annihilation; therefore it is neither the practice of ordinary people nor the practice of the worthy and holy, but the practice of bodhisattvas. If saṃsāra and the dharmakāya both arose and ceased, it would only transcend the ordinary without yet surpassing the holy. Examining it through this, we know it is permanent. Second, the "Disciples Chapter" says: "The Buddha's body is untainted, for all taints are exhausted. The Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into any categories." Untainted means that the causes of the five entrenchments have collapsed; unconditioned means that the fruits of the two kinds of death are exhausted. This clarifies that the dharmakāya is permanent. Manifesting in this world of the five turbidities, he visibly practices these dharmas to deliver sentient beings, saying that his illness requires milk; this clarifies that the responsive traces are impermanent. The reason the origin and traces are opened is that people of shallow understanding place faith in their ears and eyes, conceiving a notion of slightness and inferiority regarding the Tathāgata's body; therefore it displays Ānanda's lack of comprehension, sharing that foolish delusion. Jingming rebukes him loudly, using a shout to reveal the dharmakāya, causing them to awaken to the wonderful origin being unconditioned while the traces have arising and ceasing. If one says that the dharmakāya is still impermanent, then one shares the darkness of those of shallow understanding and receives Jingming's interrogation and reproach. Moreover, if before being rebuked one says the Buddha is impermanent, one's delusion is the same as that of the shallow-minded; but if after already hearing the loud reproach one still clings to arising and ceasing, one's fault is even worse than ignorance. Third, the "Akṣobhya Buddha Chapter" clarifies that the dharmakāya is neither conditioned nor unconditioned; that is, neither permanent nor impermanent. Its essence cuts off the hundred negations, and its form is equipped with the myriad virtues; this is the ultimate dharmakāya. Permanence and impermanence are both remedial functions. If one says it is impermanent, one has not understood its pervasive function; how could one perceive its perfect origin? Assessing it from these three places, the meaning that the person is permanent becomes evident. Fourth, in the "Viewing Sentient Beings Chapter," the section on the Devī says: "It is only through words that one speaks of the three times; it does not mean that bodhi has past, future, and present." Since bodhi transcends the three times, it is signless and unconditioned, and therefore permanent. Investigating this: the Tathāgata is the person who is able to realize, and bodhi is the dharma that is realized. Since both person and dharma are permanent, the principle is ultimate; this proves that the 'half' is empty talk and the 'full' is the true exposition. Those who savor this meaning should change their former ruts. An objection rescues \[their view\], saying: In examining the establishment of the doctrinal tenets, one takes what is spoken inside Jingming's room as the main teaching. The preceding three passages are merely the preface, and the following single phrase is again the dissemination; they are not sufficient to prove permanence and should not be cited arbitrarily. Therefore, the old rut must be followed and the new tenet should be abandoned. (Kaishan and Zhaoti both made this rescue.) I answer: The passages cited above represent the four assemblies of this sūtra. The "Upāya Chapter" refers to the initial gathering in Vaiśālī; the "Disciples Chapter" is the first assembly in the Āmrapālī Grove; the Devī's exposition refers to the reconvening in the ten-foot room; the "Akṣobhya Buddha Chapter" is the second assembly in the Āmrapālī Grove. Two were delivered inside the room, and two were spoken outside the ten-foot room; how can one say that the former is the introductory section and the latter is the dissemination? Furthermore, even if the introduction clarified permanence and the main teaching explained arising and ceasing, the main teaching would be shallow while the introduction was profound, and the meaning would be inverted. Moreover, the dharmakāya is permanent and inconceivable; if it arose and ceased, how could it be called unfathomable? Furthermore, if it is permanent, then the teaching is complete and the principle is full. Those who uphold it should honor the Dharma and revere the person; if it were impermanent, it would not be the definitive meaning. Those who receive the teaching would conceive a notion of slightness and inferiority, advancing with no merit of propagating the Dharma and retreating with the burden of misleading beings. Deducing it from the text and principle, we know it is perfectly ultimate. Question: Having refuted the teaching of the five periods and rebuked the doctrine of the four tenets, how do you classify the Buddha's teachings? Answer: The turmoil of the four modes of birth is due to losing a tranquil mind; the confusion of the six destinies truly stems from clingings and hindrances. Thus we know that wandering in the sea of suffering has grasping at signs as its source, while transcending to the other shore has non-attachment as its foundation. But because the roots of defilement are not uniform, the gates for clearing away delusion are numerous. To summarize their essential归, there are broadly two ruts: first, following small aspirations, it is called the Small Vehicle (Hīnayāna); second, conforming to great capacity, it is called the Great Teaching (Mahāyāna). But the beginning and end of a single lifetime's teaching are opened into four gates: First, explicitly teaching bodhisattvas while not secretly transforming śrāvakas; that is the Avataṃsaka teaching. The great capacity having already ripened, he explicitly taught them; small aspirations being incapable, it was not suitable to secretly transform them. Thus, arraying rare treasures was precisely for his kin; the impoverished son fell prostrate on the ground, not yet able to receive the jewels. Second, explicitly teaching śrāvakas while not secretly transforming bodhisattvas; that is the Tripiṭaka teaching. Therefore, enticing, guiding, and accommodating were precisely for the two vehicles; sending away others, he did not transform bodhisattvas. Third, explicitly teaching bodhisattvas while secretly transforming śrāvakas; that is the Prajñāpāramitā and other teachings. Adorning the lands and transforming people explicitly teaches mahāsattvas; entrusting wealth and commanding them to expound secretly transforms those of small aspirations. Fourth, explicitly teaching bodhisattvas and explicitly teaching the two vehicles; that is the Lotus Sūtra teaching. Because the mahāsattvas' doubts were removed, he explicitly taught bodhisattvas; because arhats attain Buddhahood, he explicitly transformed śrāvakas. These four gates begin at the bodhimaṇḍa of serene extinction and end at the auspicious land of bliss, clarifying the sequential exposition of the beginning and end of a single lifetime's teaching; there is no principle they do not unify, no teaching they do not subsume. Yet within these four gates, three belong to the Bodhisattva Piṭaka; explicitly teaching śrāvakas while not secretly transforming bodhisattvas is subsumed under the Śrāvaka Piṭaka. Question: If when the Buddha first attained enlightenment he only explicitly taught bodhisattvas without secretly transforming śrāvakas, why does the doctrinal gate of the Avataṃsaka also explain the Small Vehicle dharmas? As the "Bhadraśrī Chapter" says: "Sometimes expounding the śrāvaka small vehicle gate, sometimes showing the pratyekabuddha middle vehicle gate, sometimes expounding the unsurpassable great vehicle gate"? Answer: The teaching of a single lifetime also has four gates of primary and secondary: First, primarily revealing the real while secondarily opening upāya; that is the Avataṃsaka teaching. Primarily expounding the great cause for bodhisattvas to make them advance toward the great fruit is called primarily revealing the real; also secondarily causing mahāsattvas to recognize that the two vehicles are provisional and instructing them on other minor practices is secondarily opening upāya. Second, primarily concealing the real while primarily opening upāya; that is the Deer Park doctrinal gate. Explaining the three vehicles as ultimate primarily conceals the reality of the One Vehicle; not clarifying that the small is a provisional teaching, it primarily opens the gate of upāya. Third, primarily revealing the real while secondarily closing upāya; that is the Prajñāpāramitā and other teachings. Praising the Great Vehicle as ultimate primarily reveals the real; not yet clarifying that the three are provisional transformations secondarily closes upāya. Question: What textual evidence proves that the Prajñāpāramitā and other teachings have already revealed the real? Answer: The "Faith and Understanding Chapter" of the Lotus Sūtra says: "All the secret treasures of the Buddhas were expounded in their true reality only for the bodhisattvas, and this true essence was not spoken for us." This points to the events of the Prajñāpāramitā period; hence we know that the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā has already clarified the real. Question: Since the Prajñāpāramitā and Jingming have not yet opened the three vehicles as upāya, how can they have already revealed the One Vehicle as real? Answer: Revealing the Buddha Vehicle as real generally has two gates. In the case of the Lotus Sūtra, it confronts the upāya of the three vehicles to reveal the reality of the One Vehicle; in the case of the Prajñāpāramitā and Jingming, they deprecate the Small Vehicle as inferior and praise the Great Vehicle as superior. Therefore, the Great Vehicle is real. Fourth, primarily revealing the reality of the One Vehicle while primarily opening the upāya of the three vehicles; that is the Lotus Sūtra teaching. Thus the "Dharma Master Chapter" says: "This sūtra opens the gate of upāya and shows the character of reality"; that is precisely this matter. Of the meanings of these four gates, three belong to the Bodhisattva Piṭaka; primarily concealing the real and primarily opening upāya is subsumed under the Śrāvaka Piṭaka. If one illumines these two sets of four gates, one will fully understand the teaching intention of all Buddhas of the three times. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.1.2) - [Next: 1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.1.4) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781~en-mt.1.3) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [淨名玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1780.1.7) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.1.3) · Pramāṇa