維摩經義疏 5.7.4

5.7.4

三行實性即是空，空則無福行、無罪行、無不動行。 於此三行而不起者，是為入不二法門」。 《大品經》云「行十不善，得三塗報，為罪行。 行十善道，生欲界人天，稱為福行。 修四禪等，生色無色界，名不動行。 」《成論》文云「從欲界至三禪，名為福行。 四禪竟無色，稱無動行。 以第四禪已去，不為三災四受所動，故名無動。 」不起三行則入實相門，名為不二。 「華嚴菩薩曰：從我起二為二。 見我實相者不起二法，若不住二法則無有識、無所識者，是為入不二法門」。 因我故有彼，二名所以生。 見我實相，則彼我已識無由而起。 「德藏菩薩曰：有所得相為二。 若無所得則無取捨，無取捨者是為入不二法門」。 內得於我、外取於相，故名為二耳。 內外俱空，名為不二也。 「月上菩薩曰：闇與明為二。 無闇無明則無有二。 所以者何。 如入滅受想定無闇無明，一切法相亦復如是。 於其中平等入者，是為入不二法門」。 二乘入滅盡定，視聽外忘、識知內滅，雖經晝夜不覺晦明，以喻菩薩無心於明闇。 問：入滅盡定，諸心並無，何故偏云滅受想邪？ 答：受修諸禪想生無色，入滅盡定正滅上二界心，故偏言想受。 又受多生愛、想多生見，既是過根本，故偏說之。 「寶印手菩薩曰：樂涅槃、不樂世間為二； 若不樂涅槃、不厭世間則無有二。 所以者何？ 若有縛則有解； 若本無縛，其誰求解？ 無縛無解則無樂厭，是為入不二法門」。 《華嚴經》云「生死非雜亂，云何而厭？ 涅槃非寂靜，云何而樂？ 」「珠頂王菩薩曰：正道、邪道為二。 住正道者則不分別是邪是正，離此二者是為入不二法門」。 八邪為邪道，八正為正道。 又小乘見為邪道，大乘真觀為正道。 經正見者，不見邪亦不見正，非邪非正始名為正。 住正道者，見邪外有正、正外有邪，若邪若正悉名為邪。 「樂實菩薩曰：實、不實為二。 實見者尚不見實，何況非實。 所以者何？ 非肉眼所見，慧眼乃能見，而此慧眼無見無不見，是為入不二法門」。 實相為實、虛妄為不實，悟實相者不見於實，何況非實。 所見既非實非不實，能見亦非見非不見。 非實非不實，寄言以為實； 非見非不見，亦強詺以為見。 斯則緣觀宛然，而境智俱寂也。 「如是諸菩薩各各說已，問文殊師利：何等是菩薩入不二法門？ 文殊師利曰：如我意者，於一切法無言無說、無示無識，離諸問答，是為入不二法門」。 此第二諸菩薩請文殊說不二。 前請、次說。 經有三句：一者二諦俱說； 二者二諦俱不說； 三者世諦說、真諦不說。 今就後二門也。 上來三十一人俱有六事：以口有音聲為言，以言顯不二法。 為說，顯不二法曲受前人為示，令聽眾悟解為識，淨名命說為問，菩薩酬不二為答。 是皆以言破法，未息破法之言。 文殊欲息泯法之言，故辨無此六事也。 「於是文殊師利問維摩詰：我等各自說已，仁者當說何等是菩薩入不二法門。 時維摩詰默然無言」。 此第三文殊請淨名說不二。 前請、次詶、三稱嘆。 諸菩薩以言遣法，文殊借言遣於言，淨名默然遣文殊之借言。 不二之理乃同，而得有深淺之異。 「文殊師利嘆言：善哉善哉！ 乃至無有文字語言，是真入不二法門」。 此第三文殊稱嘆。 淨名既其默示，文殊亦應默領，但為時眾生悟，故就言嘆善。 又顯無言不傷於言，故以言嘆於無言。 「說是入不二法門時，於此眾中五千菩薩皆入不二法門得無生忍」。 此第二五千菩薩得入不二法門。

The real nature of the three activities is emptiness, and in emptiness there are no meritorious activities, no demeritorious activities, and no immovable activities. Not giving rise to anything in regard to these three activities is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.’ The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: ‘Practicing the ten unwholesome actions brings retribution in the three destinies; this is demeritorious activity. Practicing the path of the ten wholesome actions leads to rebirth as humans or devas in the desire realm; this is called meritorious activity. Cultivating the four dhyānas and so forth leads to rebirth in the form and formless realms; this is called immovable activity.’ The text of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra states: ‘From the desire realm up to the third dhyāna is called meritorious activity. From the fourth dhyāna up through the formless realm is called immovable activity. Because from the fourth dhyāna onward one is no longer moved by the three disasters or the four feelings, it is called immovable.’ Not giving rise to the three activities is entering the gate of the real mark; this is called non-duality. ‘Bodhisattva Padmavyūha said: “Duality arises from the self. One who sees the real mark of the self does not give rise to dual dharmas; if one does not abide in dual dharmas, there is no consciousness and nothing to be cognized; this is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ It is because of the self that there is an ‘other,’ which is how dual designations arise. When one sees the real mark of the self, then the consciousness of ‘other’ and ‘self’ has no way to arise. ‘Bodhisattva Guṇagarbha said: “Notions of attainment constitute duality. If there is no attainment, then there is neither grasping nor rejecting; absence of grasping and rejecting is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ Attaining a self within and grasping marks without is why it is called duality. When interior and exterior are both empty, it is called non-duality. ‘Bodhisattva Candrottara said: “Darkness and light constitute duality. Where there is neither darkness nor light, there is no duality. Why is this? Just as upon entering the absorption of the cessation of sensation and perception there is neither darkness nor light, so too is the characteristic of all dharmas. Entering this with equanimity is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ When the followers of the two vehicles enter the absorption of cessation, seeing and hearing are forgotten externally, and consciousness and cognition are extinguished internally; though days and nights elapse, they are unaware of darkness or light. This is used as an analogy for the bodhisattva having no mind toward light and darkness. Question: When one enters the absorption of cessation, all mind is absent; why does it specifically say ‘cessation of sensation and perception’? Answer: Sensation cultivates the various dhyānas, and perception generates the formless [attainments]; entering the absorption of cessation specifically extinguishes the minds of the upper two realms, which is why it specifically speaks of perception and sensation. Furthermore, sensation mostly gives rise to attachment, and perception mostly gives rise to views; since they are the root of faults, they are specifically spoken of. ‘Bodhisattva Ratnamudrāhasta said: “Delighting in nirvāṇa and not delighting in the worldly constitute duality. If one does not delight in nirvāṇa and does not abhor the worldly, then there is no duality. Why is this? If there is bondage, then there is liberation; if there is fundamentally no bondage, who would seek liberation? Where there is neither bondage nor liberation, there is neither delight nor abhorrence; this is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ The Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: ‘Saṃsāra is not disordered, so why abhor it? Nirvāṇa is not quiescent, so why delight in it?’ ‘Bodhisattva Cūḍāmaṇirāja said: “The correct path and the erroneous path constitute duality. One who abides in the correct path does not discriminate between what is erroneous and what is correct; being free from these two is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ The eightfold wrong path is the erroneous path, and the eightfold noble path is the correct path. Furthermore, the views of the Hinayāna are the erroneous path, and the true contemplation of the Mahāyāna is the correct path. For one with the correct view in the sūtra, one sees neither error nor correctness; being neither erroneous nor correct is only then called correct. As for one who abides in the ‘correct path’, seeing that outside the erroneous there is the correct, and outside the correct there is the erroneous—whether erroneous or correct, all of it is termed erroneous. ‘Bodhisattva Tiṣya said: “The real and the unreal constitute duality. One who truly sees does not even see the real, much less the unreal. Why is this? It is not seen by the physical eye, but by the wisdom eye; yet this wisdom eye has neither seeing nor non-seeing; this is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ The real mark is the real, and the illusory is the unreal; one who awakens to the real mark does not see the real, much less the unreal. Since what is seen is neither real nor unreal, that which sees is also neither seeing nor non-seeing. Though it is neither real nor unreal, we provisionally use words to call it real; though it is neither seeing nor non-seeing, we also forcefully designate it as seeing. Thus the object and contemplation appear distinctly, yet object and wisdom are both tranquil. ‘When the bodhisattvas had each spoken in this way, they asked Mañjuśrī: “What is the bodhisattva’s entering the Dharma door of non-duality?” Mañjuśrī said: “As I see it, to have no words and no explanations, no demonstrations and no cognitions with respect to all dharmas, leaving behind all questions and answers—this is entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ This second [section] is the bodhisattvas asking Mañjuśrī to speak of non-duality. First is the request, next is the exposition. The sūtra has three clauses: first, both two truths are spoken; second, neither of the two truths is spoken; third, the conventional truth is spoken and the ultimate truth is not spoken. Here it refers to the latter two gates. The preceding thirty-one persons all involved six things: vocal sound as speech; using speech to reveal the non-dual Dharma as exposition; revealing the non-dual Dharma and adapting to the listeners as demonstration; causing the audience to awaken and understand as cognition; Jingming’s request to speak as questioning; and the bodhisattvas’ response on non-duality as answering. These all use speech to shatter dharmas, but have not yet silenced the speech that shatters dharmas. Mañjuśrī wished to silence and eliminate the speech that eliminates dharmas, which is why he showed the absence of these six things. ‘Thereupon Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti: “We have each spoken; virtuous one, you should speak of what is the bodhisattva’s entering the Dharma door of non-duality.” Then Vimalakīrti remained silent, without a word.’ This third [section] is Mañjuśrī asking Jingming to speak of non-duality. First is the request, next is the response, and third is the praise. The bodhisattvas discarded dharmas by means of words; Mañjuśrī borrowed words to discard words; Jingming by his silence discarded Mañjuśrī’s borrowed words. The principle of non-duality is indeed identical, yet their attainments have differences of depth. ‘Mañjuśrī sighed with praise, saying: “Excellent, excellent! Even to the point of having no letters or speech—this is truly entering the Dharma door of non-duality.”’ This third [section] is Mañjuśrī’s praise. Since Jingming showed it silently, Mañjuśrī should also have received it silently; yet for the sake of awakening the assembly of that time, he resorted to words to praise its excellence. Furthermore, to reveal that silence does not impair speech, he used speech to praise silence. ‘When this Dharma door of entering non-duality was preached, five thousand bodhisattvas in this assembly all entered the Dharma door of non-duality and attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.’ This second [part shows that] five thousand bodhisattvas attained entry into the Dharma door of non-duality.