維摩經義疏 1.8

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.