English (machine translation)
Translation of 維摩經義疏
- Language
- English
- Extent
- 140 passages, 154,827 words
- Text
- complete digital text
- Source
- pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.1781 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…
Contents
Text
1.1
Composed by the Śramaṇa Jizang of Hongfa Monastery in Chang'an.
1.2
The profound meaning is opened into four sections: first, determining depth and shallowness; second, explaining the title; third, discerning the central tenets; fourth, discussing the assemblies and locations.
1.3
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.
1.4
Part Two: Explaining the Title
1.5
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.
1.6
Combining the three into two is the second section. There are again three pairs. First, subsuming the three gates under the two: speech and silence. The Buddha instructed his disciples to constantly practice two things: first, noble speech; second, noble silence. Expounding the Dharma of the true mark is called noble speech; contemplating the principle of the true mark is called noble silence. From the contemplation of the true mark one expounds the Dharma of the true mark, and having expounded the Dharma of the true mark one returns to the contemplation of the true mark; therefore movement and stillness in the four deportments all accord with the true mark, and responding in speech or in silence both correspond to prajñā. Now, these three gates likewise rely on the noble intention. The multitude obliterating phenomena with words and Mañjuśrī borrowing words to put an end to words both clarify non-duality in terms of words; this is called noble speech. Jingming clarifying non-duality through wordlessness is called noble silence. If so, it is strictly through the speech of the multitude that Jingming's silence is revealed, and because of Jingming's silence the speech of the multitude is revealed. The intention behind commanding the assembly to discuss it together lies here. Next, subsuming the three gates under the two: cutting off name and substance. Comprehensively gathering the myriad phenomena, there are altogether two kinds: first, the substance of things; second, the name of things. These two are the origin of entanglements and the root of afflictions. Therefore Subhūti asked: "Wherein do sentient beings practice?" The Tathāgata replied: "All sentient beings practice within names and marks." "Names" refers to names and words; "marks" refers to the substance of dharmas. The multitude used words to successively obliterate the various dualities, making clear that there is no substance to things. Mañjuśrī borrowed words to put an end to words. Jingming relied on silence to put an end to borrowed words. Together they made clear that there is neither name nor mark. When there are neither names nor marks, then the flurry of entanglements becomes still. Therefore, although the gates are three, they only subsume these two. Next, subsuming the three gates under the two: conventional names and marks. The sūtra states: "Phenomena devoid of name and mark are forcefully spoken of through names and marks." To cause [beings] to awaken to the absence of names and marks through these names and marks is indeed the great purpose of providing teachings and the original intention of all sages. If so, the multitude and Mañjuśrī relied on names to distinguish non-duality, while Vimalakīrti's silence borrowed marks to illuminate the single path. Thus, although there are three gates, they are merely the two traces of name and mark. Because one relies on the traces of names and marks, the basis devoid of names and marks is revealed.
1.7
Next, bringing the two back to one is the third [section]. Question: First you established three gates, and later explained two paths; looking at the commentary, it seems exhaustive and fine, but examining its main purport, non-duality is not yet established. Why? If you clarify that the principle of non-duality is wordless, while the teaching that responds to beings has words, then the wordless principle cannot have words, and the teaching that has words cannot be wordless. Then principle and teaching are as far apart as heaven [and earth]—how can it be called non-dual? Answer: This is because you understand that non-duality is wordless, but have not awakened to the fact that words are precisely non-duality. Therefore, the teaching fills the great trichiliocosm yet is wordless; physical forms fill the eight limits yet are formless. Thus, speaking without words, though speaking there is no speech; taking form without forms, though taking form there is no form. This is precisely unity; how could they be as far apart as heaven [and earth]? Objection: If words are precisely non-duality, then Mañjuśrī's speech is ever silent; if non-duality is precisely words, then Jingming's silence is ever speaking. The discourse on three stages would become indistinct, and the principle of the two paths would be lost. Answer: The explanation of the three stages manifests traces of depth and shallowness; the discourse on the two paths guides those of later awakening. If one fathoms their realization, then non-duality is ever speaking, and speech is ever non-dual; it has never not been non-dual, and has never not spoken. Thus the path without duality is first accomplished, and the principle of attaining the One is established.
1.8
Fourth is the gate of obliterating the single phrase and returning to transcendence. A treatise says: "Existence and nonexistence give birth to each other; the high and the low incline toward each other. Because there is existence, there is nonexistence; if there were no existence, there would be no nonexistence." Because of duality, there is non-duality; if there were no duality, there would be no non-duality. Therefore the sūtra says: "Do not cling to the dharma of non-duality, because there is neither one nor two." This is neither speech nor silence, neither conventional nor ultimate, transcending contemplation and transcending objects; what duality or non-duality could there be? Question: If it is neither ultimate nor conventional, neither duality nor non-duality, by what cause can non-duality now be expounded? Answer: A dharma without name and characteristics is conventionally spoken of by means of names and characteristics. Not knowing what to call it, one arbitrarily calls it "non-duality." Objection: Since it is neither duality nor non-duality, why not arbitrarily call it "duality"? Answer: Those who lose the Way mostly stagnate in dualistic views. In order to obliterate this duality, it is arbitrarily called "non-duality," not arbitrarily called "duality." Question: Rebuking what two views causes it to be arbitrarily called non-duality? Answer: Dual afflictions are manifold; briefly expounded, there are three kinds: first, the craving and views of ordinary beings; second, the defilements of the Hinayāna; third, the burdens of bodhisattvas. This sūtra lays out the great Way of equality and opens the vast gate of non-duality; there is no burden it does not level, no person it does not transform. Therefore the "Chapter on Upāya" refutes those ordinary beings, the "Chapter on the Disciples" rebukes the lesser path, and the "Chapter on the Bodhisattvas" scolds great views. Afterward, gathering these three inquiries and returning them to the single Way, it causes them to awaken to being neither ordinary nor holy, neither great nor small, equal to Śākyamuni's closing his room and identical to Jingming's silence, adapting and transforming without fixed bounds, according with conditions as small or great. To trace the source of that which is able to be small or great: how could it be the ability of the small or the great? It is precisely because it is neither small nor great that it can be great and can be small.
1.9
Fifth is the gate of distinguishing the small and the great. Question: What difference is there between Jingming's Dharma gate of non-duality and Nāgārjuna's correct contemplation? Answer: Non-duality gets its name in relation to duality; correct contemplation receives its designation in contrast to the wrong. Drawing distinctions according to meaning, they differ, but the substance of their meaning is not different. Question: If non-duality is precisely correct contemplation, and this sūtra scolds the ordinary, rebukes the holy, thrusts aside the great, and refutes the small, abundantly discussing non-duality so that its meaning is already complete, what more was there for Nāgārjuna's Three Treatises to elucidate? Answer: In the Buddha's time, faculties were sharp; inquiring into the sūtras, people naturally penetrated them. In later times, the vulgar are shallow and mediocre; they wait for treatises and only then awaken. Thus one knows that Jingming refuted them before and Nāgārjuna elucidated it afterward; one should not hear the sūtra and give rise to faith, yet listen to the treatises and produce doubt. Question: Do the Tattvasiddhi and Abhidharma have the meaning of non-duality or not? Answer: They do not. How is this known to be so? The *Da zhidu lun* says: "Within the teachings of the śrāvakas, it is not said that saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa." This sūtra expounds saṃsāra as being itself nirvāṇa, calling it non-duality. Yet the text of the sixteen fascicles of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* does not say that saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa. Inferring from this, one knows it lacks non-duality. Question: Examining the *Tattvasiddhi*, it abundantly expounds the emptiness of dharmas; the principle of emptiness forgetting words is precisely non-duality. How can you say it lacks it? Answer: Nāgārjuna's treatise says: "Emptiness is of two kinds: first, the Hinayāna emptiness through analytical deconstruction of dharmas; second, the Mahāyāna explanation of the intrinsic emptiness of dharmas." And this sūtra says: "It is not that form is destroyed to make emptiness; the nature of form is of itself empty—this is called non-duality." Examining the two hundred and two chapters of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, it only explains using the real to deconstruct the provisional, and using emptiness to pass beyond the real; it does not say that it is not that form is destroyed to make emptiness, or that the nature of form is of itself empty. Inferring from this, one knows it lacks non-duality. Question: Why does the Hinayāna not explain mutual identity? Answer: If there were mutual identity, then there would be simultaneous contemplation, and then one would not be a śrāvaka. Therefore the Hinayāna does not explain mutual identity. Question: Why do the śrāvakas lack simultaneous contemplation? Answer: The mahāsattvas are of sharp faculties: illuminating emptiness, they instantly wander in existence; observing existence, they instantly know emptiness. Therefore their Way penetrates both currents, and the two wisdoms can function simultaneously. The intelligence of the Hinayāna is inferior: entering emptiness, they immediately lose existence; emerging into existence, they immediately abandon emptiness. Since their practicing minds grasp and reject, they lack the simultaneous contemplation of the ultimate and conventional. Question: The Abhidharma preserves the small and consequently deconstructs the great; the Three Treatises maintain the great and refute the small. This means the great and small are cut off from each other, and disputations arise mutually. The *Tattvasiddhi* probes the great to explain the small and fuses the two teachings, enabling the small to have the merit of entering the great, and the great to have the significance of receiving the small; then small and great are both illuminated, and disputations cease. One should not one-sidedly say that it only propagates the Hinayāna and lacks non-duality. Answer: Now, a preface written for a treatise is that which marks the overarching purpose of the entire work. The preface to the *Twelve Gate Treatise* says, "Now I shall briefly explain the meaning of the Mahāyāna"; this marks the ultimate aim of the Mahāyāna. The preface to the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says, "Therefore I correctly discourse on the real meaning of the Tripiṭaka"; this marks the central aim of the Hinayāna. Harivarman himself said that he was correctly propagating the small teaching and never proclaimed that he was simultaneously expounding the Mahāyāna. Therefore, one must rely on the treatise's aim, and personal interpretations ought to be discarded. Question: How is it known that the Tripiṭaka is solely the Hinayāna? Answer: The *Lotus Sūtra* says, "Neither do they draw close to scholars of the Hinayāna Tripiṭaka." The *Da zhidu lun* says, "The Buddha-Dharma is twofold: first, the Hinayāna Tripiṭaka, like the water in a cow's footprint; second, the Mahāyāna Piṭaka, likened to that great lake." Therefore one knows that the Tripiṭaka is definitively the small. Question: Examining Harivarman's preface, it directly marks the Tripiṭaka, but probes and takes the signlessness of prajñā to explain the Hinayāna; thus small and great are both illuminated, which can be clearly comprehended. Answer: Although there is this interpretation, it has already fallen under the previous critique. Examining within the Tripiṭaka, it of itself expounds the emptiness of dharmas, and the tradition of the Hinayāna itself contains signlessness; why would it need to probe the great to explain the small? If you insist on maintaining this, please investigate it again: is it a great treatise that simultaneously explains the small, or is it a small treatise that simultaneously explains the great? If it were a great treatise that simultaneously explains the small, it should have marked at the beginning, "Therefore I correctly discourse on the real meaning of the Mahāyāna," and could not have explained the Tripiṭaka at the outset. If it were a small treatise that simultaneously explains the great, this is impossible. Why is this so? The *Da zhidu lun* says: "The great can encompass the small, so the great simultaneously explains the small; the small does not contain the great, so the small does not explain the great." Examining it from both sides, one knows that it is exclusively Hinayāna and does not include the great. Furthermore, Kumārajīva personally translated the *Tattvasiddhi* not to illuminate the Mahāyāna. Examining it through this, it can be known. Question: If the *Tattvasiddhi* is small, why was it so widely propagated in the world? Answer: Shallow teachings accord with human sentiments, so people easily accept them; correct words seem paradoxical, so who is willing to believe them? Question: If the *Tattvasiddhi* is small, why did Emperor Wu of Liang, who venerated the great, still study it? Answer: Although Emperor Wu of Liang studied it initially, he subsequently criticized it, writing in his "Preface to the Pañcaviṃśati Sūtra" to rebuke the Tattvasiddhi masters: "If one clings to the doctrine of the five periods and claims that the Prajñāpāramitā and Jingming are not complete and ultimate, it is no different from the impoverished son running back inside his house, or the lonely crone covering her own face on the road. This is why the water of the Dharma brings forth great compassion, and the mountain of the body weeps with grief." Emperor Wu of Liang initially studied the *Tattvasiddhi* and *Abhidharma*; when he heard that Master Lang of Goryeo from Qixia Monastery on Mount She had come from the northern mountains, expertly understood the Three Treatises, and wondrously penetrated the Mahāyāna, he dispatched Zhiji and ten others to study under him on the mountain, and they transmitted it to Emperor Wu of Liang, who consequently abandoned the small to follow the great. Moreover, Prince Wenxuan of Jingling, Minister of Education of the Qi, extensively traversed internal and external learning and penetrated both sūtras and vinaya; constantly worrying that the sun of wisdom would sink in radiance, he always wished to maintain the orthodox Dharma. Because the scholars of the time exclusively propagated the *Tattvasiddhi* and thereby obscured the Mahāyāna, he edited and revised the *Tattvasiddhi*, making nine fascicles in all, in order to assist in understanding the text of the sūtras. Deducing from various matters, it is definitively not a teaching of simultaneous propagation. Question: If the *Tattvasiddhi* is small and the Three Treatises are great, then the two teachings flow in different streams; why wait to refute each other? Answer: Originally, the Buddha's appearance in the world was fundamentally for the Mahāyāna; but because their faculties were not yet capable, he temporarily indicated the lesser teaching. Although he spoke of the small, his intention lay in explicating the great. Yet those who cling to the real consequently grasp the finger and forget the moon, preserving the small and rejecting the great. Like the five hundred sects who, hearing of ultimate emptiness, felt as if a knife had wounded their hearts. Therefore Nāgārjuna refuted their minor delusions to make them proceed toward the great Way. If he had not rebuked them, he would have violated his original vow. For example, a young child who knows nothing takes a dry bone or a wooden stick and puts it in his mouth; when the parents see this, fearing it will cause harm, they hold his head with the left hand and pick it out with the right, and even if blood flows, they will not let it be. The four reliances refuting sickness are of a similar meaning. Moreover, the various vaipulya teachings abundantly disparage the śrāvakas, because those who cling to the Hinayāna mostly like to slander the great; if they slander the great, they will sink forever into Avīci. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "From the first arousal of the mind, a bodhisattva gives rise to a great vow: 'May I dread the paths and fruits of the two vehicles just as a person borrowing life dreads giving up the body.'" The *Lotus Sūtra* explains that the noble and wealthy elder is likened to a follower of the Mahāyāna, and the impoverished son who clears dung is likened to one who studies the lesser teaching. The *Pañcaviṃśati Sūtra* says: "It is like a foolish adult who does not seek food from the master of the house, but instead asks the laborers for it." Nāgārjuna explained: "The master of the house is the Mahāyāna teaching. The foolish adult is the person who studies the Hinayāna. The laborers, namely the hired servants, are an analogy for the Hinayāna teaching. Not seeking from the master of the house means not studying the Mahāyāna to seek the Buddha Way; instead seeking food from the hired servants is an analogy for studying Hinayāna Buddha-Dharma wanting to realize the dharmakāya." Teachings such as these personally and vigorously rebuke them. When the four reliances appear in the world and compose Mahāyāna treatises to elucidate the Buddha's intention, they likewise thrust them aside. What doubt could there be?
1.10
Sixth, the section on sameness and difference. Question: The doctrinal traditions have already extensively expounded non-duality, but it is not yet clear what kind of dharma non-duality actually is. Answer: Someone said: "The Dharma gate of non-duality is the principle of ultimate truth" (this is what the masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra maintain). Someone said: "The Dharma gate of non-duality refers to real-mark prajñā" (the real mark is the principle of ultimate truth; because it can produce prajñā, it is named prajñā. This is what the masters of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa establish). Someone said: "The Dharma gate of non-duality is the ālayavijñāna" (here translated as the "indestructible consciousness." This is what the older masters of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra maintained). Someone said: "The Dharma gate of non-duality is the amalavijñāna" (here translated as the "immaculate consciousness." This is what the masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha, maintained). Within these four tenets, the first two pertain to the object, and the latter two are based on the mind. Although the meanings of consciousness and object are different, they equally transcend the four propositions; therefore, "Śākyamuni shut himself in his room in Magadha, and Jingming closed his mouth in Vaiśālī. In these cases, it was because principle spiritually guided them that their mouths remained silent because of it. How could one say they had no eloquence? It was that eloquence could not express it!"
Now, I shall first question the four tenets in general, and next separately unfold ten propositions. Since the various masters say that the principle is inexpressible, does this inexpressible principle exist, or does this principle not exist? If this principle exists, that is just the proposition of existence—how could it be called the transcendence of the four? If this principle does not exist, then wisdom has nothing to unite with; the ordinary cannot be distinguished, and how could the noble be accomplished? The theory of the ultimate heart would collapse. Within these two propositions, they maintain that there is a principle. Furthermore, they ultimately hold that this principle exists, yet they do not state whether it exists or does not exist. The Vātsīputrīyas posited that an underlying self-principle existed—in the end, what difference is there? (Note: The Vātsīputrīyas posited a self, positing it in the fifth inexpressible of the five treasuries: the three times make three, the unconditioned is the fourth, and the fifth is neither conditioned nor unconditioned.) Furthermore, if the ultimate is inexpressible while the conventional truth has words, the conventional with words cannot lack words, and the ultimate without expression cannot be made expressible. This results in two attachments—how could it be called non-dual?
They defend it, saying: "It is only because you do not yet understand our doctrinal tenet that you raise this objection. Now we clarify that although the conventional can be spoken of, it is identical to the ultimate which is inexpressible; although the ultimate is inexpressible, it is identical to the conventional which can be spoken of. Therefore, the meaning of mutual identity is established, and non-duality is thereby set up" (the various masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra all make this explanation).
Objection: May I ask whether this mutual identity means they are of one substance, or of two substances? If they are of one substance, then the ultimate and the conventional are mutually identical. Taking the conventional as identical to the ultimate, when the ultimate is transcended, the conventional is also transcended; taking the ultimate as identical to the conventional, when the conventional is spoken, the ultimate is also spoken. If the ultimate is transcended but the conventional is not transcended, then the conventional is not identical to the ultimate; if the conventional is spoken but the ultimate is not spoken, then the ultimate is not identical to the conventional. Challenging them mutually with these two objections, they are defeated whether advancing or retreating; thus the doctrine of a single substance collapses. If the ultimate and the conventional are of different substances, then they are not mutually identical; if they are mutually identical, then different substances are not established. Thus both paths are exhausted, and both words and principle are lost. Examining it with this, the ultimate and the conventional cannot be established. If the ultimate and the conventional are not established, then all doctrines collapse. (Jizang respectfully relies on the challenges of the two great beings Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva. Later students who claim these are not profound refutations are slandering the persons of the four refuges.)
Next, ten gates are opened separately to distinguish gains and losses. The master craftsmen of doctrine all say: "The Way transcends the four propositions; therefore the Supreme Sage acted with profound silence." Now we should examine their correctness and error based on the transcendence of the four.
First, the ninety-six non-Buddhist teachers of India, to put it briefly, do not go beyond four kinds: first, Kapila clings to existence; second, Pūraṇa posits non-existence; third, Kakuda clarifies both existence and non-existence; fourth, the Long-nailed Wanderer establishes neither existence nor non-existence. (Kapila translates as the "Golden-Headed Immortal." Pūraṇa is the first of the six teachers. Kakuda is the fifth of the six teachers. The Long-nailed Wanderer is Śāriputra's maternal uncle; because he was so diligent in study he had no leisure to trim his nails, people of the time named him thus.) If that is so, they all fall into the four propositions, lacking the meaning of transcending the four; thus they lack the Way of non-duality.
Second, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the diverse tenets of the five hundred treatise masters and various sects also did not go beyond the four propositions. For instance, the Vātsīputrīyas posited that there is a self and there are dharmas, which is called the view of existence. The Fangguang clung to the non-existence of self and the non-existence of dharmas, which is called the view of non-existence. The Sarvāstivādins maintained that there is no self but there are dharmas, which is both existence and non-existence. Harivarman said that in conventional truth there is a self and there are dharmas, hence it is not non-existent; in ultimate truth there is no self and there are no dharmas, hence it is not existent. Such various sects all fall into the four propositions, lacking the meaning of transcending the four, and thus lack the Way of non-duality. Since they lack the Way of non-duality, neither do they have duality; both principle and teaching are lost. (The foreign name is Vātsīputra, here translated as "Calf-son"; he appeared three hundred years after the Buddha's nirvāṇa, clinging to the doctrine of a person and dharmas. Sarvāstivāda translates as "all exists"; clinging to the three times as existing is the reason for the name. Also, Fangguang is the name of a Mahāyāna sūtra; because they studied Mahāyāna, they took their name from the teaching.)
Furthermore, the Sarvāstivāda school did not attain the emptiness of dharmas, positing that there are dusts [sense objects] and there is consciousness. Second, the Fangguang monks clung to the meaning of perverse non-existence, clarifying that there is neither consciousness nor dusts. Third, the doctrine of mental non-existence posited that there are dusts but no consciousness. (Master Sengzhao, distinguishing it in his Treatise on Emptiness of the Non-Absolute, said: "As for 'mental non-existence,' they have no mind toward the ten thousand things, but the ten thousand things are not non-existent." Master Sengzhao examined it, saying: "This achieves calmness of spirit, but errs regarding the vacuity of things.") Fourth, the doctrine of consciousness-only clings to there being no dusts but having consciousness. Such assertions as these also fall into the four propositions; therefore, they do not have non-duality.
Question: Having dusts and having consciousness is the Sarvāstivādin view of clinging to existence. Lacking dusts and lacking consciousness is the perverse non-existence theory of the Fangguang. Lacking consciousness and having dusts is the human teachers' own minds, not issuing from the mouths of sages. However, these three may indeed be censured. But the doctrine of consciousness-only is the grand tenet of the vaipulya and the profound import of definitive analysis—how could one reject it?
Answer: Examining the intention of Vasubandhu's Consciousness-Only, it is borrowing the mind to forget the object, and once the object is forgotten, the mind is not retained; utterly detached with nothing to depend upon, the principle is spontaneously and mysteriously unified with. It does not mean that the dusts are an arbitrary imputation while the mind is truly existent. Later students do not comprehend this intent and must be refuted. Therefore, the fault lies with the disciples, not with Vasubandhu.
Next, we discuss the four propositions again. First, existence of existence and existence of non-existence is named existence. Second, non-existence of existence and non-existence of non-existence is called non-existence. Third, both existence of existence and existence of non-existence and non-existence of existence and non-existence of non-existence is both existence and non-existence. Fourth, neither existence of existence and existence of non-existence nor non-existence of existence and non-existence of non-existence is named neither existence nor non-existence.
Next, we clarify the duplicated four propositions. Summing up the above re-clarified four propositions, they are all named existence. Why is this so? Because these four propositions exist, they are all called existence. Next, the non-existence of these four propositions is named non-existence. Both having the four propositions and lacking the four propositions is both existence and non-existence. Neither having the four propositions nor lacking the four propositions is neither existence nor non-existence.
Next, we clarify the vertically deepened four propositions. The initial stage transcends the single four propositions; the next stage transcends the compound four propositions; the third transcends the duplicated four propositions. Although the stages gradually deepen, the deluded still ultimately maintain that within the profound and obscure a subtle principle exists, which is named existence. If this subtle principle does not exist, it is named non-existence. Both having this principle and lacking this principle is named both existence and non-existence. Neither having this principle nor lacking this principle is neither existence nor non-existence. If that is so, they still fall within the four propositions—how could there be the tenet of transcending the four? Therefore, know that the arising of a mind or the stirring of a thought is immediately Māra; only when [conceptualization] is broken with nothing to rely upon does it become truly so. Therefore the sūtra says: "This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the characteristics of words are extinguished." Jingming's silence and Śākyamuni's shutting himself in his room lie precisely in this one gate.
Next, we clarify the proposition that transcends the four propositions. As for the proposition that transcends the four propositions, it is not that the principle transcending the four propositions is called transcending the four propositions; rather, it clarifies that although it is thoroughly transcended, the four propositions are still fully present; thus it is named the proposition that transcends the four propositions. Question: Why clarify this meaning? Answer: When practitioners who receive the teaching hear that the principle above transcends the four propositions, they immediately think of it as profound, obscure, and thoroughly severed, identical to the mute-sheep non-Buddhists. For this reason, we now clarify that although the ultimate Way is subtly transcendent, the four propositions remain fully present. Therefore the sūtra says: "Without stirring from the true limit, one establishes all dharmas." How could subtle transcendence mean one cannot speak?
Next, we clarify the transcendence of the four propositions. The previous clarified that although the principle is thoroughly transcendent, the four propositions are fully present; now we clarify that although one speaks the four propositions, words are constantly transcended. Just as the Devī interrogated Śāriputra: You only know that liberation has no words, but have not realized that words are themselves liberation. Therefore, although the teachings fill the ten directions, words are constantly transcended.
Next, we clarify the fourfold transcendence in a single proposition, just as a single provisional existence transcends the four propositions. Why is this so? Provisional existence cannot be determinately existent, provisional existence cannot be determinately non-existent, provisional existence cannot be determinately both existent and non-existent, and provisional existence cannot be determinately neither existent nor non-existent. Therefore, this provisional existence transcends the four propositions. Question: Why clarify this meaning? Answer: Deluded persons hear that the true and constant lacks words and can transcend the four, but do not know that a single provisional existence already possesses the four transcendences; therefore, we clarify it next. Tenth, transcending a single provisional existence can be understood according to the Profound Treatise.
First 10 of 159 passages. Read on