維摩經義疏 1.9

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?