維摩經義疏 1.5

1.5

凡有二門：一明名本、二解本名。名本為六：一攝總為三、二會三為二、三會二歸一、四泯一歸無、五分大小、六考同異。維摩詰不思議解脫本者，謂不二門也。由體不二之道故有無二之智，由無二之智故能適化無方。是以經云「文殊法常爾，法王唯一法。一切無礙人，一道出生死。」故以不二為眾聖之源。夫欲敘其末，要先尋其本，是以建篇論乎不二法。問：不二法門既為理本，請聞其要。答：一道清淨故名不二，真極可軌所以云法，至妙虛通故稱為門。蓋是總眾教之旨歸、統群聖之靈府，淨名現病之本意、文殊問疾之所由。既欲聞之，今當略說。大明不二凡有三階：一眾人言於不二，未明不二無言，所謂下也。文殊雖明不二無言，而猶言於無言，所謂次也。淨名鑒不二無言，而能無言於不二，所謂上也。良以道超四句，故至聖以之沖默。不二為極，意在於斯。問：夫法身無像、物感則形，至趣無言而玄藉彌布，則是像於無像、是言於無言，乃見文殊之言深、淨名之默淺。三階之論，意所未詳。答：三階之說，為明理深淺，未辨應物垂教。以末難本，豈諸玄宗？今當為爾重舒其意。夫不二理者，謂不思議本也；應物垂教，謂不思議迹也。非本無以垂迹，故因理以設教；非迹無以顯本，故藉教以通理。若然者，要須體理無言，然後乃得應物有言耳。眾人雖言於理，未明至理無言，則未詣於理也。文殊即唱理無言，而猶言於至理，亦未稱理。淨名鑒理無言，而能無言於理，始詣理也。以如理無言，故能無言而言；稱理無像，故能無像而像。眾人未能如理無言，安能無言而言？未能如理無像，安能無像而像？故文殊之言淺，淨名之默深。三階之論，意彰於此。難曰：三階之說若成，不二之言即壞。何者？既稱不二，寧有三耶？如其有三，何名不二？即事相違，義如鉾楯。答：蓋是以教惑理，故謂相違。若識理一教三，則有如符契。何者？眾人以言遣法，未息遣法之言；文殊欲息遣法之言，故借言以止言。斯二雖殊，同未免於言，故以言為教。淨名欲息文殊之借言，故默顯於無言，則用無言表理。是以教有三階而理無二轍。問：至理無言，而文殊言於無言，可得以言為教。淨名鑒理無言，而能無言於理，云何亦稱為教？答：蓋未妙尋其旨，故有斯疑。若審察之，則前通已顯。何者？淨名寄默然之相，以顯無言之理。所詮無言，則為是理；能表之相，稱之為教。是以教有三門而理無二矣。問：至理無言，而文殊言於無言，猶未極者。亦至理無相，而淨名相於無相，豈詣至理耶？答：文殊既言於無言，亦相於無相。淨名既體理無言，故能無言於無言；亦體理無相，則無相於無相。故名相並遣，乃妙窮不二。問：淨名既體理無相，何故相於無相？答：若不相於無相，何由得止於言？為欲止於言，故相無相耳。問：若爾者，在言雖止而相復在，其猶逃峯趣壑俱不免患。答曰：言猶名也，故名則為妙；相猶形也，在形則麁。既悟理無名言，即領道非形相，故峯壑俱逃、患難都免。問：若爾者，則眾人之言未極、淨名之默始詣，何不直顯無言而迂迴三轍？答：仲尼之遇伯雪，可目擊而道存。妙德之對淨名，亦爾默而相領。但玄悟之賓既冥，汲引之教須明，故開此三門以通入不二。問：玄悟之賓既冥，級引之教塵沙，何故唯敞三門而不曠開階位？答：初門以言泯法，次則借言止言，後門假默除借言，斯乃理無不備、教無不周，故但明三矣。問：淨名既為一經之主，不二復是眾經之宗，何不自談而命眾共談？答：蓋欲寄人優劣以彰教有淺深。眾人止為翼從，示道根尚劣，但能以言泯法，未能息泯法之言。文殊既銜高命而親對擊揚，則神機為次，既能借言泯法，復能假言止言。淨名當今教主，則悟入最深，故寄默然，顯理都絕。問：唯就教主，亦約悟緣？答：所以託迹三人，本為引物。下根悟淺，但詣初門。次機小深，漸階第二。上人徹理，欝登玄堂。

There are altogether two sections: the first explains the basis of the title; the second interprets the title of the basis. The basis of the title consists of six [points]: 1. subsuming the general into three; 2. combining the three into two; 3. bringing the two back to one; 4. obliterating the one into non-being; 5. distinguishing the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; 6. examining similarities and differences. The basis of Vimalakīrti's inconceivable liberation is the Dharma-gate of Non-duality. Because of the realization of the non-dual path, there is non-dual wisdom; because of non-dual wisdom, one can adapt and transform without fixed direction. Therefore the sūtra states: "Mañjuśrī's Dharma is ever thus; the Dharma King has only one single Dharma. All unobstructed persons emerge from saṃsāra by a single path." Thus, non-duality is the source of all sages. Indeed, if one wishes to explain the branches, one must first investigate their root; therefore, this chapter is established to discuss the non-dual Dharma. Question: Since the Dharma-gate of Non-duality is the fundamental principle, we wish to hear its essentials. Answer: A single path being pure is called "non-dual"; the ultimate truth serving as a norm is why it is called "Dharma"; being supremely wondrous, empty, and unobstructed is why it is called "gate." It is the convergence of all teachings and the spiritual mansion that unites all sages, the original intention of Jingming manifesting illness, and the reason for Mañjuśrī's inquiring after his health. Since you wish to hear of it, I shall now briefly explain it. To broadly explain non-duality, there are three stages: First, the multitude spoke on non-duality, but had not yet made clear that non-duality is wordless; this is termed the lower. Mañjuśrī, although making clear that non-duality is wordless, still spoke about wordlessness; this is termed the intermediate. Jingming perceived that non-duality is wordless and was able to be wordless regarding non-duality; this is termed the superior. Truly, because the Path transcends the four propositions, the ultimate sage meets it with profound silence. Non-duality being the ultimate—the meaning resides here. Question: The dharmakāya is formless, yet takes shape when responding to beings; the ultimate point is wordless, yet the profound texts spread extensively. This is taking form in formlessness and speaking in wordlessness. Thus one sees that Mañjuśrī's speech is deep, while Jingming's silence is shallow. The meaning of the discourse on three stages is not yet clear. Answer: The explanation of the three stages is to clarify the depth and shallowness of the principle; it has not yet distinguished responding to beings and providing teachings. To challenge the root with the branches—how could that accord with the profound purport? Now I shall unfold its meaning for you again. The non-dual principle is the basis of the inconceivable; responding to beings and providing teachings are the traces of the inconceivable. Without the root there is nothing to manifest the traces, so teachings are established on the basis of principle; without the traces there is nothing to reveal the root, so one relies on teachings to communicate the principle. If so, one must first realize the principle as wordless, and only then can one have speech in response to beings. Although the multitude spoke of the principle, they had not yet made clear that the ultimate principle is wordless; thus they had not yet arrived at the principle. Mañjuśrī immediately proclaimed that the principle is wordless, yet still spoke about the ultimate principle; this too did not yet accord with the principle. Jingming perceived that the principle is wordless and was able to be wordless regarding the principle; only then was the principle attained. Because he was wordless in accordance with the principle, he was able to speak without words; because he was formless in accordance with the principle, he was able to take form without forms. The multitude could not yet be wordless in accordance with the principle, so how could they speak without words? They could not yet be formless in accordance with the principle, so how could they take form without forms? Therefore Mañjuśrī's speech is shallow, and Jingming's silence is deep. The intention of the discourse on the three stages is manifested here. Objection: If the explanation of the three stages is established, the statement of non-duality is negated. Why? Since it is called non-dual, how can there be three? If there are three, how can it be called non-dual? The matters contradict each other, their senses like spear and shield. Answer: This is because you confuse principle with teaching, and so you think they contradict each other. If one recognizes that principle is one while teaching is three, they match like the two halves of a tally. Why? The multitude used words to dismiss phenomena, but did not silence the words that dismiss phenomena. Mañjuśrī wished to silence the words that dismiss phenomena, so he borrowed words to put an end to words. Although these two differ, both alike do not escape words, and so they take words as teaching. Jingming wished to silence Mañjuśrī's borrowed words, and so silently revealed wordlessness, thereby using wordlessness to express principle. Therefore the teaching has three stages, while the principle does not have two paths. Question: The ultimate principle is wordless, and Mañjuśrī spoke about wordlessness, so his can be considered teaching by words. Jingming perceived that the principle is wordless and was able to be wordless regarding the principle; why is his also called a teaching? Answer: It is because you have not subtly sought the purport that you have this doubt. If you examine it closely, the earlier explanation has already made it evident. Why? Jingming relied on the characteristic of silence to reveal the wordless principle. That which is expressed being wordless is the principle; the characteristic that can express it is called the teaching. Therefore the teaching has three gates, while the principle is non-dual. Question: If the ultimate principle is wordless, and Mañjuśrī spoke about wordlessness and so was not yet ultimate, then the ultimate principle is also formless, and Jingming manifested the characteristic of formlessness; how could he have arrived at the ultimate principle? Answer: Just as Mañjuśrī spoke about wordlessness, he also manifested the characteristic of formlessness. Jingming, having realized that the principle is wordless, was able to be wordless regarding wordlessness; he also realized that the principle is formless, and thus was formless regarding formlessness. Therefore, when both name and characteristic are dismissed, non-duality is subtly fathomed. Question: Since Jingming already realized that the principle is formless, why did he manifest the characteristic of formlessness? Answer: If he had not manifested the characteristic of formlessness, by what means could he have put an end to words? It was in order to put an end to words that he took on the characteristic of formlessness. Question: If so, although words were put to an end, the characteristic still remained. That is like fleeing a mountain peak only to head into a ravine: neither escapes distress. Answer: Words are like names, so names are subtle; characteristics are like physical forms, and when in physical form, they are coarse. Once one awakens to the fact that the principle is free of names and words, one grasps that the Path is not physical forms or characteristics; thus peak and ravine are both fled, and all distress is completely avoided. Question: If so, then the words of the multitude were not ultimate, and Jingming's silence was the first to arrive; why did he not directly reveal wordlessness instead of taking the roundabout way of three paths? Answer: When Zhongni encountered Boxue, the Path was present at a single glance. When the Wondrously Virtuous One faced Jingming, they likewise silently understood each other. However, since those who achieve profound awakening are obscure, the teaching that draws beings forward must be clarified; therefore these three gates were opened to provide access to non-duality. Question: Since those who achieve profound awakening are obscure, and the teachings that draw beings forward are as numerous as dust and sand, why open only three gates and not broadly establish stages and ranks? Answer: The first gate uses words to obliterate phenomena; the next borrows words to put an end to words; the final gate relies on silence to eliminate the borrowed words. In this, no principle is lacking and no teaching is incomplete; therefore only three are explained. Question: Since Jingming is the master of this entire sūtra, and non-duality is furthermore the central purport of all sūtras, why did he not speak of it himself instead of commanding the assembly to speak together? Answer: It was to rely on people's superiority and inferiority to demonstrate that teachings have depth and shallowness. The multitude were merely retinue, showing that their roots in the Path were still inferior: they could only use words to obliterate phenomena, but could not silence the words that obliterate phenomena. Mañjuśrī, having accepted the lofty decree and directly met and stimulated [the debate], had an intermediate spiritual capacity: he could both borrow words to obliterate phenomena and employ words to put an end to words. Jingming, as the present master of the teaching, had the deepest awakening and realization; therefore, relying on silence, he manifested that the principle completely cuts off [all words]. Question: Is this solely in reference to the master of the teaching, or also regarding the conditions for awakening? Answer: The reason for manifesting traces through three persons was fundamentally to guide beings. Those of low faculties have shallow awakening and only arrive at the first gate. Those of intermediate capacity are slightly deeper and gradually ascend to the second. Superior persons penetrate the principle and loftily ascend to the profound hall.