維摩經義疏 5.3

In broad terms, to clarify the intent of the sūtra, there are generally two gates: first, the one who transforms; second, those who are transformed. The chapter "Inconceivable Liberation" discusses the teaching gate of the one who transforms; the chapter "Contemplating Sentient Beings" next clarifies those who are transformed. Furthermore, the chapter "Inconceivable Liberation" mostly clarifies provisional wisdom, and hence there is boundless wondrous function; the chapter "Contemplating Sentient Beings" mostly clarifies real wisdom, meaning that sentient beings are ultimately empty. These two wisdoms are the great cardinal principle of the sūtra, and therefore the various chapters extensively discuss these teachings. Moreover, the preceding chapter "Inquiring after Illness" states: "Because of ignorance there is craving, and thus my illness arises." This clarifies the root of the meaning of the transformer and the transformed. If one does not recognise sentient beings, one does not recognise the illness of sentient beings; if one does not recognise the illness of sentient beings, one also has not comprehended the illness of bodhisattvas. Therefore, one must properly recognise sentient beings, and then one fully understands both meanings; this explicates and develops the intent of the preceding chapter. As for what is called "contemplating sentient beings": "contemplation" is the name for discerning [the nature of] living beings. The phenomena of the five aggregates are called "multitude" (zhòng); they assemble to form a person, hence called "living/being" (shēng). Furthermore, receiving rebirth in multiple places is called "sentient being" (zhòngshēng). However, in explaining sentient beings, there is a difference between inner [Buddhist] and outer [non-Buddhist traditions]. Non-Buddhists maintain that sentient beings truly exist, and there are four views in all. The Sāṃkhyas say: "Sentient beings are identical with the aggregates." The Vaiśeṣikas say: "Sentient beings are different from the aggregates." The Nirgranthas say: "Sentient beings are both identical with and different from the aggregates." The Jñātīputras say: "Sentient beings are neither identical with nor different from the aggregates." Within Buddhist scholarship, there are three masters in all. The Vātsīputrīya school says: "Sentient beings truly exist." The Sarvāstivāda school clarifies that there are no sentient beings. Harivarman's distinction is that they exist in conventional truth, but do not exist in ultimate truth. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra masters, adopting Harivarman's meaning, next hold three views: for example, Master Tan of Zhaoti Temple and others clarify that sentient beings have substance, have function, and have name. As Kaishan Zhizang states: "Sentient beings have no substance; they only have name and function." Master Guangzhai Fayun says: "They have neither substance nor function; there is only provisional designation." Now, in this chapter's contemplation of sentient beings, both [extremes] are avoided in this meaning: it may agree with the Vātsīputrīyas on real existence, yet also differ from the Sarvāstivādins on total nonexistence, fully as spoken in the text; hence it names the chapter. The chapter opens into two sections: first, Jingming and Mañjuśrī discuss sentient beings; second, the Devī and Śāriputra next discuss sentient beings. The first text has two parts: first, clarifying practice for transforming others; next, clarifying one's own practice. Within the practice for transforming others, first he contemplates sentient beings, and next clarifies the four immeasurables. In the first text: first is the question, next the answer. "At that time Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti: 'How does a bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings?'" As for why Mañjuśrī asked: the preceding inconceivable, boundless wondrous function was merely the method for transforming sentient beings. Listeners might assume there are sentient beings who can be transformed; therefore it is now clarified that if sentient beings truly existed, the inconceivable matter would not be accomplished, and sentient beings also could not be transformed. Now, wishing to establish the transformer and the transformed, he asks about contemplating sentient beings. "Vimalakīrti said: 'Just as a magician sees the person created by magic, so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings.'" This is the second [part], Jingming's answer. There are two kinds of sentient beings: if it is the arbitrary imputation of non-Buddhists, then like a thirteenth sense base or a fire without smoke, such sentient beings are ultimately nonexistent. Second are the conventionally designated sentient beings of causes and conditions; they are not truly existent: though existing, they do not exist; not existing, yet they exist. Therefore he brings up the simile of the magician observing a magical illusion: like an illusion, it exists yet does not exist, does not exist yet exists. Question: May one also contemplate conventionally designated sentient beings as ultimately empty like the thirteenth sense base? Answer: Although conventional designations exist, they are ultimately nonexistent; in terms of the meaning of nonexistence, one may also use this as an analogy. However, although sentient beings are ultimately nonexistent, they appear vividly as existent, whereas the simile of the thirteenth sense base cannot be categorized in that way; therefore it is not a complete simile. Since in this chapter the contemplation of sentient beings is like a magical illusion, the preceding inconceivable matters down to the bodhisattva's illness are all likewise like a magical illusion. "'Like a wise person seeing the moon in water; like seeing the reflection of one's face in a mirror; like a mirage in the heat; like the echo of a shout; like clouds in the sky; like foam gathered on water; like bubbles upon water; like the firmness of a plantain tree; like a flash of lightning abiding long; like a fifth great element; like a sixth aggregate; like a seventh sense faculty; like a thirteenth sense base; like a nineteenth realm—so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings.'" Like the image in a mirror, it is neither from itself nor from another, nor does it exist without a cause: if it existed from itself, it should not depend on the mirror; if it existed from another, it would not arise relying on the face; if it were without a cause, it would not rely on mirror or face. If one says it does not exist at all, yet the image appears vividly. The marks of sentient beings are analogous to this. "'Like matter in the formless realm; like the sprout of scorched grain; like the view of self of a srotāpanna; like an anāgāmin entering the womb; like the three poisons of an arhat; like the greed, anger, and violation of precepts of a bodhisattva who has attained forbearance; like the residual defilements of a Buddha; like a blind person seeing sights; like inhalation and exhalation in the absorption of cessation; like the tracks of a bird in the sky; like the child of a barren woman; like the defilements of an emanated person; like that which was seen in a dream after having awakened; like receiving a body after having passed into extinction; like a fire without smoke—so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings.'" These various similes are all of one kind, clarifying emptiness; but because those who cling to existence are numerous, he enumerates them exhaustively. As for "like matter in the formless realm": in the Mahāyāna, the formless realm does have matter, but to speak of "formless" borrows the Hīnayāna meaning as a simile. Moreover, the Mahāyāna clarifies that in the higher realms there is no coarse matter, and borrows the absence of coarse matter as a simile; hence it merely speaks of "formless". According to the Abhidharma, as for "like an anāgāmin entering the womb": although an anāgāmin may experience a temporary regression, they definitely do not pass through rebirth [in the desire realm], and therefore do not enter a womb of the desire realm. As for "like the greed, anger, and violation of precepts of a bodhisattva who has attained forbearance": greed, anger, and violation of precepts are coarse and heavy defilements. The Da zhidu lun states: "When a bodhisattva attains the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas, their defilements are purified, and there are only residual traces." Now this borrows the absence of active defilements as a simile. As for "like inhalation and exhalation in the absorption of cessation": the mind races and stirs within, and the breath exhales and inhales without; since mental ideation is ceased, the breath has neither exhalation nor inhalation. "Mañjuśrī said: 'If the bodhisattva makes such a contemplation, how is loving-kindness to be practiced?'" This is the second [part], next clarifying the four immeasurables. Earlier, contemplating that sentient beings are empty is wisdom; now, clarifying the four immeasurables is what is called merit. Moreover, the preceding was prajñā, while now he clarifies great compassion: these are the two paths of emptiness and compassion. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā states: "When a bodhisattva abides in two dharmas, Māra cannot destroy them: first, knowing that all dharmas are empty; second, not abandoning sentient beings." With regard to clarifying the four immeasurables, there are four sections: now first he distinguishes loving-kindness, first questioning, then answering. The intent of the question says: loving-kindness originally gives joy to sentient beings; if there are no sentient beings, on what is the mind of loving-kindness conditioned? Furthermore, since there are no sentient beings, there is also no bodhisattva.

If there were no bodhisattvas, who would practice great benevolence? "Vimalakīrti said: 'After a bodhisattva makes such a contemplation, he reflects to himself: "I ought to expound such a teaching for the sake of sentient beings." This is truly real benevolence.'" This is the second response. Sentient beings do not exist at all, yet regarding sentient beings, they take what does not exist to exist. Now, wishing to explain non-existence and non-possession for the sake of sentient beings who take what does not exist to exist, he says: "I ought to expound such a teaching for the sake of sentient beings." By explaining non-existence and non-possession, he leads sentient beings to awaken to the real mark, whereupon they attain real joy; this is called true benevolence. Furthermore, the real contemplation of non-arising is called the real contemplation. Arising from real contemplation, benevolence is called truly real benevolence. Contemplation and benevolence have no two different substances: the meaning of illuminating is contemplation, and bestowing joy is benevolence; though contemplation perceives, it has no illumination, and benevolence bestows joy yet has no conditions. Furthermore, the benevolence with mental grasping of ordinary beings and the two vehicles is merely conceptualized imagination and cannot truly bestow joy on beings; it is not truly real benevolence. Great benevolence can truly bestow joy on sentient beings, so it is called truly real benevolence. "He practices quiescent benevolence, because there is nothing that arises." There are three kinds of benevolence: first, conditioned by sentient beings; second, conditioned by phenomena; and third, unconditioned. However, these three conditions are discussed in various ways in the sūtras and treatises. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Conditioned by sentient beings, desiring to give them joy, is conditioning by sentient beings. Conditioned by the phenomena of the utensils of joy of the five desires, desiring to give them to sentient beings, is called conditioning by phenomena. Conditioned by the Tathāgata, it is called unconditioned." Question: The first two can be understood. Since it is conditioned by the Tathāgata, it has conditions; why is it called unconditioned? Answer: The sūtra itself explains this. Benevolence mostly takes impoverished sentient beings as its condition; the Tathāgata, the Great Master, has eternally transcended poverty and experiences the supreme joy. If it is conditioned by sentient beings, it is not conditioned by the Buddha; therefore it is called unconditioned. This distinguishes it from conditioning by sentient beings. The sūtra says: "Phenomena are also like this"; this distinguishes it from conditioning by phenomena. In conditioning by phenomena, one desires to give joy to sentient beings, not to give it to the Buddha; therefore, not taking the Buddha as condition, it is also called unconditioned. Because it takes the Buddha and unarisen phenomena as its two conditions, it is called unconditioned. Question: If so, why must it be conditioned by the Buddha? Answer: Desiring to bestow the Buddha's joy upon all sentient beings, it is therefore conditioned by the Buddha. Question: Above, under conditioning by phenomena, bestowing joy has already been explained; why is it stated again now? Answer: Above, it was merely bestowing the worldly joy of the five desires; therefore the sūtra text takes wealth and goods as condition. Now, it bestows the supramundane joy of the Buddha. Question: Since it is conditioned by the Buddha, the Buddha is a person, so it should belong to conditioning by sentient beings. Answer: It is to distinguish it from conditioning by the sentient beings who are converted. Question: If so, since it gives the Buddha's joy, and joy is a phenomenon, it should be called conditioning by phenomena. Answer: It is to distinguish it from worldly phenomena; therefore it is not called conditioning by phenomena. Next, in the explanation of the three conditions in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra: seeing that there are sentient beings and giving rise to benevolence is called conditioning by sentient beings; not seeing sentient beings, but giving rise to benevolence while there are only the phenomena of the five aggregates, is called conditioning by phenomena; and giving rise to benevolence while seeing neither sentient beings nor phenomena is called unconditioned. The first is the benevolence of ordinary beings, the next is the benevolence of the two vehicles, and the last is that of bodhisattvas; they are also the three grades of inferior, intermediate, and superior, or shallow and deep. These three grades also succeed in bestowing three grades of joy. The first bestows the joy of human phenomena, the next bestows the joy of selflessness, and the last bestows immeasurable joy. Now, what the text calls quiescent benevolence is unconditioned benevolence. All phenomena are quiescent and fundamentally unarisen; giving rise to benevolence on this basis is called quiescent benevolence. Although giving rise to benevolence, in reality there is nothing that arises; hence it says: "because there is nothing that arises." "He practices unheated benevolence, because there are no afflictions." This passage explains that benevolence subsumes all virtues, and therefore it praises benevolence in terms of all virtues. The substance of benevolence is pure and cool, devoid of the fever of afflictions; therefore it is called unheated benevolence. "He practices equal benevolence, because it is equal toward the three periods of time." Universally saving throughout the three periods of time is called equal benevolence. In reality, there are no three periods of time to be saved; this is again being equal toward the three periods of time. "He practices uncontentious benevolence, because nothing arises." Other and self are both empty; therefore disputes and quarrels do not arise. "He practices non-dual benevolence, because inner and outer do not unite." The inner benevolence and outer conditions are both empty, with nothing to unite. "He practices indestructible benevolence, because it is definitively exhausted." Unconditioned true benevolence is the contemplation of non-arising, and therefore cannot be destroyed. Both conditions of sentient beings and phenomena are definitively and eternally exhausted; nothing can destroy it. "He practices firm benevolence, because the mind is without ruin." Above, it was explained that external conditions cannot destroy it; here, it is explained that the inner mind cannot be ruined. "He practices pure benevolence, because the nature of all phenomena is pure." True benevolence is formless, being pure in the same manner as the nature of phenomena. "He practices boundless benevolence, because it is like empty space." Having no intention to cover, yet there is nothing it does not cover. "He practices arhat benevolence, because it destroys the thieves of the fetters." "Arhat" here means destroying the thieves of the fetters. Benevolence can destroy the fetters, so benevolence is named arhat. "He practices bodhisattva benevolence, because it pacifies sentient beings." The title of "bodhisattva" derives from pacifying sentient beings; since benevolence pacifies sentient beings, it may be called bodhisattva. "He practices Tathāgata benevolence, because it attains the mark of suchness." The title of "Tathāgata" derives from attaining the mark of suchness; since benevolence conforms to the mark of suchness, it may be called Tathāgata. "He practices Buddha benevolence, because it awakens sentient beings." Awakening oneself and awakening others is what is meant by "Buddha"; since benevolence is both self-awakened and capable of awakening others, it may be called Buddha. "He practices spontaneous benevolence, because it is attained without a cause." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Relying on the benevolence of worldly truth, one attains the benevolence of the ultimate truth, without causes or conditions." Here, the inferior benevolence is taken as worldly truth, and the superior benevolence as the ultimate truth. Because one cultivates inferior benevolence and attains superior benevolence, there is a cause. When one attains the awakening of superior benevolence, one no longer depends on a cause to complete the contemplation of benevolence; rather, the mind of benevolence is spontaneously and naturally accomplished, so it is said to be attained without a cause. Some say: The two conditions of sentient beings and phenomena are both conditioned phenomena of combination. Arising benevolence based on these is called having a cause. In the ultimate truth, whether there is a Buddha or no Buddha, the marks of phenomena are permanently abiding and have no cause. Arising benevolence based on this is called having no cause. Master Jīva said: "'Without a cause' means spontaneous, and 'spontaneous' means without a teacher. True benevolence is attained without a teacher; hence it is called spontaneous benevolence." "He practices bodhi benevolence, because it is equal in one single flavor." Only the Buddha's bodhi can understand that all phenomena are equal in one single flavor; giving rise to benevolence partially with a mind free of attainment, it is therefore identical with bodhi. "He practices unequaled benevolence, because it severs all cravings." When ordinary beings give rise to benevolence with the fetter of craving, it can be equaled; one who practices benevolence with craving severed cannot be equaled by anyone. "He practices great compassionate benevolence, because it guides through the Great Vehicle."

To relieve their suffering and hardships and guide them with the Mahāyāna is the capacity of great compassion. Here benevolence wishes to bestow joy and also guide them with the Mahāyāna, and hence it is called great compassion. "Practicing untiring benevolence, because one contemplates emptiness and selflessness." The feeling of weariness and fatigue arises from clinging to a self; when benevolence arises with a mind of emptiness and selflessness, then there is no weariness or fatigue. "Practicing the benevolence of dharma-giving, because one is without stinginess." Here benevolence is praised with reference to the six perfections. One who attains true benevolence is able to bestow the Dharma, and therefore benevolence is called dharma-giving. "Practicing the benevolence of upholding the precepts, because one transforms those who break the prohibitions." One who attains true benevolence will definitely not give rise to evil, and will moreover transform those who violate the precepts; hence benevolence is called upholding the precepts. "Practicing the benevolence of forbearance, because one protects both self and others." One who attains true benevolence internally brings no trouble upon oneself and externally causes no harm to beings; therefore it says "because one protects both self and others." "Practicing the benevolence of diligence, because one shoulders [the burden of] sentient beings. Practicing the benevolence of dhyāna-meditation, because one does not relish its flavor. Practicing the benevolence of wisdom, because there is no time one does not know." Seeking the fruit before one's practice is complete is called not knowing the time. "Practicing the benevolence of skillful means, because one manifests in all ways. Practicing the benevolence of non-concealment, because the straightforward mind is pure." When one's mind is candid and straightforward, upon fault one certainly repents and does not conceal one's transgressions; this is called the benevolence of non-concealment. "Practicing the benevolence of profound mind, because there are no mixed practices." When the benevolent mind is not yet profound, there are still mixed practices; once the practice of benevolence has deepened, there are no longer mixed practices. "Practicing the benevolence of non-deception, because it is without falsehood. Practicing the benevolence of peace and happiness, because it brings about the attainment of the Buddha's joy. The benevolence of the bodhisattva is like this." From the above onward, it has clarified that the substance of true benevolence is endowed with all virtues, and therefore it has these various names. Now [the text] summarizes them to show them to the great assembly. "Mañjuśrī asked further: What is called compassion?" This is the second section, explaining the meaning of compassion. First the question, then the answer. "[Vimalakīrti] replied: The merit that a bodhisattva performs is entirely shared with all sentient beings." The single correct contemplation alone is explained as the four immeasurables, but the explanations of benevolence and compassion differ. One text says: pulling out suffering is compassion, and bestowing joy is benevolence. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Removing that which is non-beneficial and pulling out suffering is benevolence; bestowing benefits is compassion." The present text explains that the substance of the practice of benefiting others is benevolence, and the function of benefiting others is compassion. Why is this? Without wholesome dharmas one cannot relieve beings from suffering; hence the bodhisattva's merit and the karmic retribution of that merit are entirely given to suffering and afflicted sentient beings. "What is called sympathetic joy? He replied: Benefiting [others], rejoicing without regret." The explanations of sympathetic joy vary; other sūtras say, "Rejoicing in others' obtaining joy is sympathetic joy," while the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says, "Entering into wholesome contemplation, seeing that all are joyful." The present text explains that once benevolence and compassion have benefited them, there is only rejoicing without regret. "What is called equanimity? He replied: Looking for no reward in the blessings and merit one creates." The sūtras explain the meaning of equanimity differently. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "Simply giving rise to the previous three practices brings no ultimate benefit to beings, and therefore one relinquishes the previous three states of mind to give rise instead to the subsequent practices of [relieving] suffering and bestowing joy; hence it is called equanimity." It also says: Seeing sentient beings escape suffering and gain joy, one no longer worries over or holds onto them, and therefore it is called equanimity. It also says: Great compassion is an ascetic practice from which sorrow arises; benevolence and sympathetic joy are practices of pleasure from which joy arises. Once sorrow and joy arise, hatred and love then emerge. Thus the practitioner relinquishes both suffering and pleasure and practices the contemplation of equality, having no more love and hatred; hence it is called equanimity. What the present text clarifies is that since the bodhisattva has completely cultivated the three practices, there is further fear that clinging to these three practices might involve seeking karmic reward; hence it makes clear that in the present life one seeks no gratitude or fame, and in the future life one seeks no karmic retribution. Relinquishing these two things is called equanimity. "Mañjuśrī asked further: Saṃsāra is fearful; upon what should a bodhisattva rely?" The above distinguished transforming others; this second chapter clarifies one's own practice. Moreover, the above distinguished bodhisattvas of profound practice, while this now clarifies persons of shallow practice. With respect to the text there are two parts: first, clarifying the practice of gradual relinquishment; second, clarifying the practice of relinquishing both. The intent of the question is: Since the bodhisattva practices the true four immeasurables, he must enter saṃsāra. The various harms and separations in saṃsāra are extremely terrifying. When a mahāsattva has not yet departed from a body bound by defilements and karma, upon what does he rely so that he can dwell long in saṃsāra without considering it fearful? "Vimalakīrti said: Amidst the fear of saṃsāra, a bodhisattva should rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit." The intent of the reply clarifies that the Tathāgata's merit is profound and wondrous; contemplating this merit, fear is naturally removed. Furthermore, one who practices the four immeasurables certainly desires to deliver others from saṃsāra and therefore enters saṃsāra; if one gives rise to this practice, one will ultimately achieve the fruit of buddhahood. Weighing the great benefit, when seeking the great fruit, how could one fear minor suffering? "Mañjuśrī asked further: If a bodhisattva wishes to rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit, in what should he abide?" Although he knows to rely on the Buddha's merit, he has not yet understood where the mind's aim resides, so he next asks about abiding. "He replied: A bodhisattva who wishes to rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit should abide in delivering all sentient beings." One who enters saṃsāra must abide in delivering sentient beings. Having established this great aspiration, one is free from petty fears. The former clarified what one relies upon above; this now clarifies what one delivers below. "[Mañjuśrī] asked further: If one wishes to deliver all sentient beings, what should be eliminated?" Since it says "deliver and liberate," there must be something delivered and something liberated; hence he asks what is eliminated. "He replied: If one wishes to deliver sentient beings, one should eliminate their afflictions." Although there are afflictions, karma, and suffering, afflictions are the root, so the elimination of them is specifically spoken of. "[Mañjuśrī] asked further: If one wishes to eliminate afflictions, what practice should be undertaken?" Since sentient beings have afflictions, what practice should be undertaken to be able to eliminate them? "He replied: One should practice correct mindfulness." This is the method for eliminating afflictions. Attaining this method, one can eliminate the afflictions of oneself and others. Why is this? The manifold delusions arise from erroneous thoughts, while correct mindfulness develops by relying on the ultimate truth; thus correct mindfulness can eliminate afflictions. "[Mañjuśrī] asked further: How is correct mindfulness practiced? He replied: One should practice non-arising and non-ceasing. He asked further: What dharma does not arise? What dharma does not cease? He replied: Unwholesome [dharmas] do not arise, and wholesome dharmas do not cease." Non-arising and non-ceasing has three aspects: first, discussing non-arising and non-ceasing in terms of the wholesome, thoroughly realizing that the root of the wholesome is fundamentally without arising or ceasing; second, the unwholesome is also like this; third, discussing them reciprocally. Since practicing correct mindfulness is the beginning of approaching the truth, one checks evil and approaches the good, so unwholesome dharmas do not arise and wholesome dharmas do not cease. "He asked further: Between the wholesome and unwholesome, which is the root?" Below this is the second part clarifying the practice of relinquishing both. The initial question has a specific intent.

Having understood that good can be produced and evil can be extinguished, he wishes to abandon both in order to seek the fundamental source, and therefore traces back to its root. "He replied: 'The body is the root.'" Because of the body of the five aggregates, good and non-good arise; therefore, it is the root of good and non-good. "He asked again: 'What is the root of the body?' He replied: 'Desire and craving are the root.'" Because of craving and clinging in previous lives, one consequently receives a body. Although all the entanglements are fully relied upon, when asking about karma moistening rebirth, craving is the principal; therefore, he specifically names desire and craving. "He asked again: 'What is the root of desire and craving?' He replied: 'False discrimination is the root.'" Phenomena have no fixed characteristics; due to false discrimination, one considers them good or bad. Once beauty and ugliness take form, desire and craving then arise. "He asked again: 'What is the root of false discrimination?' He replied: 'Inverted thought is the root.'" Phenomena are fundamentally non-existent, but inverted thought takes them to be existent. Once taking them to be existent, one then discerns their beauty and ugliness. Thus, the deluded mind internally turns into inversion, and subsequently falsely discriminates external matters. "He asked again: 'What is the root of inverted thought?' He replied: 'Non-abiding is the root.'" Considering non-existence to be existence is called inverted; hence, non-existence is the root of considering it existent. Non-existence is precisely non-abiding. "He asked again: 'What is the root of non-abiding?' He replied: 'Non-abiding has no root.'" Considering non-existence to be existence, non-existence is therefore the root of existence. Yet non-existence is having no existence whatsoever; therefore, it has no root. Question: Existence arises from non-existence, so non-existence is the root of existence. Non-existence is able to give rise to existence, so why does it have no root? Answer: Existence and non-existence depend upon one another; through this relation they become roots. But now, pointing out existence, existence has distinctions, so it has a root; non-existence has no differing characteristics, so non-existence has no root of existence. Question: Because of neither-existence-nor-non-existence, existence and non-existence exist; this then would be an effective root for existence. Why is there no root? Answer: Since the present text speaks of "non-abiding", it cuts off the four propositions and banishes the hundred negations; words are severed and thoughts exhausted, which is precisely the true reality of all phenomena, serving as the root of all phenomena. And this true reality has no further root. Question: Since it transcends the four propositions, why call it "non-abiding"? Answer: Not knowing how to designate it, it is forcedly named "non-abiding". In contrast to existent phenomena having a root, it is also forcedly named "having no root". Speaking from the principle, one cannot say it is non-existent or not non-existent, nor can one say it has a root or has no root. "'Mañjuśrī! From the root of non-abiding, all phenomena are established.'" Because of non-abiding, thoughts are inverted; because thoughts are inverted, there is discrimination; because of discrimination, there is desire and craving; because of desire and craving, there is the body. Once there is a body, good and evil are both displayed; when good and evil are displayed, the myriad phenomena thus arise. If one thoroughly comprehends their root, then all the branches can be eliminated. "At that time, in Vimalakīrti's room, there was a devī." This is the second section, where the Devī and Śāriputra next debate regarding sentient beings. The purpose of this section's arrival has five points: First, up to this point, the text primarily clarified the various practices; now it reveals that because practice is perfected, there are unfathomable, wonderful functions, which is the Devī. Second, to substantiate the previous observation of sentient beings as empty, she therefore manifests in a divine form to discuss the phenomenon of neither male nor female. Third, from the "Chapter on Upāya" up to the previous section, the text only manifested the primary principle of Jingming's spiritual powers and wisdom; now it next manifests the circumstantial reward of the room possessing the eight unprecedented qualities. Fourth, it is intended to assist Jingming in praising the Great Path and humbling the śrāvakas, causing the assembly at that time to abandon the small and venerate the great. Fifth, previously it manifested that Jingming himself abides in the inconceivable; now it wishes to manifest that his retinue abides in the inconceivable. As for the text, it has three parts: first, she manifests her body and scatters flowers, initiating the debate; second, she directly exchanges words and debates principles with Śāriputra; third, after the debate is finished, the traces of the Devī are wiped away. Master Shí says: "The Devī is the spirit of the householder's dwelling. Wherever there is a dwelling, there is necessarily a spirit; dwellings may be refined or coarse, and spirits superior or inferior. Now, this is a room possessing the eight unprecedented qualities, so a dharmakāya bodhisattva serves as the spirit. As for being named a 'deva' (female: devī), foreign countries hold spirits in high esteem and therefore call them devas." "Seeing the great beings and hearing the Dharma preached, she then manifested her body, and immediately scattered heavenly flowers over the bodhisattvas and great disciples." Now, for the perfected person, concealment and manifestation have their reasons; previously, she remained concealed because the room was empty, while now she manifests to discuss the Path; acting or remaining hidden invariably benefits living beings. Scattering flowers has two meanings: first, out of reverence for the Dharma and respect for persons, reverently offering gifts; second, to cleverly initiate the debate, she therefore scatters heavenly flowers. Jingming takes emptiness as skill-in-means, while the Devī takes existence as wonderful function; therefore, one empties the room while the other scatters flowers, one is a man while the other is a woman. When examining the nature of gods, humans, males, and females, how could they be merely what gods and humans can be? It is truly because, being neither human nor god, she can be god and can be human. Emptiness and existence are also like this. "When the flowers reached the bodhisattvas, they immediately fell off; when they reached the great disciples, they stuck to them and would not go. All the disciples used their spiritual powers to remove the flowers, but could not make them go." Now, depending on whether the mind has defilement or is free from defilement, external flowers therefore stick or do not stick. Since the śrāvakas cannot remove their internal defilement, how could they dispel external flowers? Now, wishing to express the superiority and inferiority of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the flowers visibly fall or do not fall. "At that time, the Devī asked Śāriputra: 'Why do you remove the flowers?' He replied: 'These flowers are not in accord with the Dharma; therefore I remove them.'" This is the second part: directly exchanging words in debate. Previously, with bodily karma she rained flowers, and thus made an inquiry by means of flowers; when he used spiritual powers to dispel them but they did not fall, this served as an exchange by means of mental karma—that is one round of debate. The former was the flexing and extending of body and mind; now is the direct verbal engagement. The text has seven themes: first, taking flowers to discuss what is in accord with the Dharma and what is not in accord with the Dharma; second, discussing length of time; third, discussing realization and attainment; fourth, discussing aspiration and pursuit; fifth, discussing male and female; sixth, discussing dying and being reborn; seventh, discussing bodhi. This is the first section. For flowers and fragrance to cling to the body is not the dharma of a recluse (śramaṇa). Therefore, he removes them. Another explanation: The proper behavior of flowers scattered on the body is that they should fall, but now they do not fall; this is not the proper behavior of flowers. "The Devī said: 'Do not say that these flowers are not in accord with the Dharma. Why is that? These flowers are without discrimination; you, virtuous sir, yourself produce discriminating thoughts. If one who has gone forth into the Buddha-Dharma has discrimination, that is not in accord with the Dharma; if one is without discrimination, that is in accord with the Dharma. Look at the bodhisattvas to whom the flowers do not cling: it is because they have cut off all discriminating thoughts.'" Flowers fundamentally have no mind, and therefore have no discrimination; since they have no discrimination, they have never been in accord with the Dharma or not in accord with the Dharma. You, virtuous sir, possess a mind, and therefore produce discriminating thoughts yourself. If one ceases discriminating thoughts, one accords with the true reality of phenomena, which is called being in accord with the Dharma. "'Just as when a person is afraid, non-humans take advantage of him;'

"Thus, because the disciples fear saṃsāra, forms, sounds, scents, tastes, and tangibles take advantage of them. To those who are already free from fear, all five desires can do nothing." When one is fearful, one's disposition is weak, so non-humans gain the upper hand; when the mind within has no terror, external evils cannot enter. Master [Kumāra]jīva said: "A rākṣasa transformed himself into a horse, and a man rode it without suspicion. Halfway along the road, the horse asked the man, 'Is the horse good or not?' The man drew a knife and showed it to him, asking, 'Is this knife good or not?' The horse knew his mind was upright and without fear, so he dared not do him harm." If it were not like this, non-humans would gain the upper hand. "Because their habit-residues of the defilements are not yet exhausted, the flowers stick to their bodies; for those whose habit-residues of the defilements are exhausted, the flowers do not stick." Question: The sūtra says that the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas alike lack active afflictions, and equally have habit-residues; why then do flowers stick to the śrāvakas and not to the mahāsattvas? Answer: Kumārajīva has two explanations: First, he says that the vessel of the bodhisattva is pure, so habit-energy does not arise, and thus flowers do not stick; the vessel of the two vehicles is impure, so habit-energy arises, and for this reason the flowers stick. The second explanation says: Habit-residues are of two kinds: first, habit-residues of defilements; second, the habit-residue of loving the Buddha's merit. When bodhisattvas attain anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, their habit-residues of defilements are completely exhausted, but they have not yet severed the habit of loving the Buddha-dharma; thus there is a sense in which they are said to have them. According to the Bodhisattva-bhūmi (*Dichi lun*), bodhisattvas completely sever the habit of affliction, but their habit of cognition is not completely severed. "Śāriputra said: 'Devī, how long have you been dwelling in this room?'" This is the second discussion, on the fact that dharmas have neither long nor short durations. The preceding chapter showed that within their minds, both persons—great and small—had attachments. When the śrāvakas have attachment, it is called having apprehension; when the bodhisattvas have no attachment, it is called having no apprehension, and thus it is liberation itself. Therefore, it was said above that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have inconceivable liberation, whereas the two vehicles do not. As for the intention behind the initial question: Śāriputra previously committed two errors: first, he could not brush away the flowers, meaning his mental karma had no supernormal power; next, he claimed the flowers were not in accordance with the Dharma, meaning his spoken words fell into defeat. Therefore, he now asks how long she has been dwelling in Jingming's room to possess such supernormal powers and wondrous eloquence. Furthermore, having already been subdued by her, he disliked that she was dwelling in the room as a devī, yet did not wish to rebuke her directly, and so framed his question around duration. "She answered: 'My dwelling in this room is like the Elder's liberation.'" One who is sixty is called an elder. Since she is about to clarify the meaning of neither long nor short duration, she borrows Śāriputra's liberation as an analogy. "Śāriputra said: 'Have you then dwelt here for long?'" Śāriputra meant: Unconditioned liberation has no beginning and no end, is unborn and unceasing, and is by nature permanently abiding; therefore it is called long. If the Devī's dwelling in the room is like liberation, it should also be long. "The Devī said: 'How can the Elder's liberation also be long or short?'" The Devī challenged him: "Can the unconditioned liberation you have attained have any duration of long or short? If it has a long or short duration, it is not unconditioned." "Śāriputra remained silent and did not reply." If he said liberation has duration, it would agree with his previous words but contradict liberation; if he said it has no duration, it would agree with liberation but contradict his previous words. Advancing or retreating, there was no way through; hence his silence. Furthermore, having realized that liberation has neither long nor short duration, he equated absence with absence, and there was also nothing to say; therefore he remained silent. "The Devī said: 'Why is the venerable elder of great wisdom silent?'" Above, it was shown that he could not speak; now, it is shown that he cannot remain silent. Thus, in both speaking and remaining silent, he falls into defeat. For a practitioner of the Small Vehicle, it is neither noble silence nor noble discourse. "He answered: 'Liberation has nothing to be spoken of; therefore, regarding this, I do not know what to say.'" Liberation has no words; in according with liberation, I also have no words. "The Devī said: 'Spoken words and letters are all the marks of liberation.'" Thus, you only know that liberation has no words, but have not realized that words are themselves liberation. "'Why is this? Liberation is not inside, not outside, and not in between; letters are also not inside, not outside, and not in between. Therefore, Śāriputra, do not speak of liberation apart from letters. Why is this? All dharmas are the marks of liberation.'" This explains the preceding statement that words are themselves liberation. Both letters and liberation are not located in the three places; therefore, letters and liberation do not have two separate substances, and one should not speak of liberation apart from letters. Regarding liberation not being in the three places, Master Sengzhao said: "Now liberation means 'I am freed from bondage.' It does not reside solely in me, so it is not inside. Nor does it reside solely in the bondage, so it is not outside. Coming together to form liberation, it is also not in between. As for letters not being in the three places: 'I' am inside, what is spoken is outside, and their conjunction is in between." The concluding phrase states that all dharmas are liberation; how could letters alone be different from liberation? "Śāriputra said: 'Is it no longer being free from lust, anger, and delusion that constitutes liberation?'" Śāriputra cited the Buddha's words to substantiate his own view as correct, turning to challenge the Devī: Since the Buddha said that "freedom from the three poisons constitutes liberation," one should also be free from letters to have liberation. If letters are themselves liberation, the three poisons should also be liberation; why then did the Buddha speak of being free from them? "The Devī said: 'The Buddha said that being free from lust, anger, and delusion constitutes liberation only for those of overweening pride. If one is without overweening pride, the Buddha says that the very nature of lust, anger, and delusion is itself liberation.'" Above, it was shown that the Small Vehicle was confounded in both speech and silence; this passage reveals that the śrāvakas do not understand the intention of the teaching. Deeming oneself to have attained what one has not attained is called overweening pride. For such persons, he said that severing the three poisons is called liberation. Furthermore, he secretly transforms the two vehicles to make them return to the Great Way. The two vehicles deeming themselves to have reached the ultimate when they have not reached the ultimate is itself overweening pride. For such persons, he further spoke of severing the entrenchment of ignorance and habit-energy as liberation. If there were not these conditions, the Buddha would say that the five entrenchments are themselves liberation. Question: Why did the preceding passage treat letters as liberation, while this passage explains the three poisons as liberation? Answer: Letters are external and the three poisons are internal. Bodhisattvas realize that both this inside and outside are liberation; therefore, their minds have no defilement and the flowers do not stick to their bodies. The two vehicles consider that both the outside of letters and the inside of the three poisons are not liberation; thus they do not understand liberation, are defiled by dust, and the flowers stick to their bodies, fulfilling the previous chapter. "Śāriputra said: 'Excellent, excellent! What have you attained, what have you realized, that your eloquence is like this?'" This is the third discussion, on attainment and realization. Having praised what she said as being beyond his own reach, he asks what path she has attained and what fruit she has realized that her eloquence is like this. Conditioned fruits are called attainment; unconditioned fruits are called realization. Furthermore, the contemplative mind receiving the Dharma is attainment, and being in accord with the principle is realization.