維摩經義疏 3.5.2

3.5.2

"Attaining liberation through the characteristics of the five heinous deeds, yet neither liberated nor bound." Above, [the text] clarified defilements and retribution; now it next speaks of the equality of karma. The Hīnayāna explains that the karma of the five heinous deeds definitely incurs retribution, so that on principle there is no liberation. Here it explains that the ultimate and gravest bondage is equal to the utmost liberation. Why is this? Because the true nature of the five heinous deeds is itself liberation; how could there be any distinction between bondage and liberation? "Not seeing the four truths, yet not failing to see the truths." Attaining illumination and liberation necessarily depends on seeing the truths; hence [the text] next dissolves this. Object and cognition are originally empty; therefore one does not see the four truths. The four inversions are tranquil and extinguished; therefore one does not fail to see the truths. Furthermore, seeking the four yields nothing; therefore one does not see the truths. Yet there is also no non-four; therefore one does not fail to see them. Moreover, those who see the four truths are persons of the two vehicles; those who do not see the four truths are ordinary persons. Now the mahāsattva differs from them; therefore both are dismissed: "not attaining the fruit." A śrāvaka attains the fruit by virtue of seeing the four truths; since he does not see the truths, he does not attain the fruit. Furthermore, because he sees neither the person capable of attaining nor the dharma attained, he does not attain the fruit. "Not of the dharmas of an ordinary person, yet not apart from the dharmas of an ordinary person; not a noble person, yet not a non-noble person." The śrāvaka believes that by attaining the fruit he relinquishes the ordinary and becomes a noble one; hence [the text] next negates this. Furthermore, whereas up to this point views were dissolved with respect to phenomena, here equality is addressed with respect to persons. Since he does not attain the fruit, he should be an ordinary person; but [when] sought, [an ordinary person cannot be found], hence he is not an ordinary person. Yet the ordinary person does not attain the true nature of an ordinary person, which is itself the noble Dharma; hence he is not apart from the ordinary person. Because he is not apart from the dharmas of an ordinary person, he is not a noble person; but because his path surpasses the three realms, he is not a non-noble person. "Though accomplishing all dharmas, yet free from the characteristics of dharmas." This sentence summarizes the various points above. As for "though accomplishing all dharmas": since Subhūti is a person, a person must accomplish dharmas. This means that without relinquishing all the bad dharmas explained above, he also completely possesses good dharmas; thus it is said that he "accomplishes all dharmas." Yet in reality there has never been good or evil; thus it is said that he is "free from the characteristics of dharmas." "Only then may you take the food." If one can be fully equipped as stated above, one attains the contemplation of equality and is truly a field of merit; therefore one ought to take the food. This concludes the present section, and thus serves as the conclusion. "If Subhūti does not see the Buddha and does not hear the Dharma." This is the third [gate], the gate of the equality of the internal and the external. The two vehicles hold that abandoning the ordinary to attain the noble necessarily depends on seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma; hence [the text] next dissolves this. Subhūti considers himself to see the Buddha and hear the Dharma; that it speaks of not seeing and not hearing seems contrary in words, but is truly accordant in principle. If there were a Buddha that could be seen, that would be a view [rooted in] existence; hence one does not see the Buddha. If there were a Dharma that could be heard, that would be a hearing [rooted in] existence; hence one does not hear the Dharma. Here it explains that having no Buddha to see is truly called seeing the Buddha, and having no Dharma to hear is genuinely hearing the Dharma. This merely refutes the "existence" held by the two vehicles, and for that reason speaks of "non-existence." Once one knows the Buddha is not existent, one immediately recognizes the Buddha is not non-existent. These five phrases, free from acceptance and attachment, are genuinely the dharmakāya. Such five awakenings are called seeing the Buddha. The *Śūnyatāsaptati* says: "For those with deep and thick wrong views, it is said that the Tathāgata does not exist. The Tathāgata's characteristics are quiescent and extinguished; conceptualizing existence is likewise incorrect." Those six non-Buddhist teachers and the śrāvakas believe that by seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, one serves the Buddha as teacher and oneself as disciple, differing from the non-Buddhists. Hence [the text] next dissolves this. When Śākyamuni appeared in the world, he encountered precisely the six teachers. However, the six teachers were diverse, comprising three groups, totaling eighteen persons, and adding Śākyamuni makes nineteen. The first group claimed to be omniscient, practicing naked asceticism. The second group attained the five supernormal powers. The third group chanted the four Vedas. It is also said that these three correspond to the three wisdoms of cultivation, reflection, and hearing, and from these three wisdoms the eighteen persons arose. What the present text clarifies is the first group. "Pūraṇa": Kāśyapa was his mother's clan name, and Pūraṇa was his personal name; he was a non-Buddhist of wrong views who denied the existence of all phenomena. "Makkhali Gosāla": Makkhali was his personal name, and Gosāla was his mother's name; this man posited that the suffering and pleasure of sentient beings are not obtained through causes, but exist spontaneously. "Sañjaya Vairāṭīputra": Sañjaya was his personal name, and Vairāṭī was his mother's name; this man maintained that the Path need not be sought, for after traversing the kalpas of saṃsāra and exhausting suffering, one naturally attains it, just as when a ball of thread rolls down a high mountain, when the thread runs out it naturally stops, so why bother seeking it? "Ajita Kesakambalin": Ajita was his personal name, and *kesakambalin* is the name of a coarse, worn-out garment; this man wore ragged clothes, plucked out his hair, scorched his body with the five fires, and took asceticism as the Path, believing that enduring suffering in the present body yields eternal bliss in a future body. "Pakudha Kaccāyana": his clan name was Kaccāyana, and his personal name was Pakudha; this man gave rise to views according to circumstances: when asked if [something] exists, he replied that it exists; when asked if it does not exist, he replied that it does not exist; hence he adhered to all phenomena being both existent and non-existent. "Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta and the rest": *Nigaṇṭha* is the general designation for their renunciation, just as in the Buddha's teaching renunciation is called *śramaṇa*. Nātaputta was his mother's name. This man maintained that transgressions and blessings, suffering and pleasure, have predetermined causes that must inevitably be experienced, and cannot be severed by practicing the Path. "Are your teachers, and you go forth under them. Where those teachers fall, you also fall with them." This causes Subhūti to serve the non-Buddhists as his teachers and go forth under them, receiving their false teachings in the present life and thus falling into wrong views, and sharing their retribution in future lives and thus falling into the evil realms. "Only then may you take the food." If one is not the same as the six teachers, one sees a distinction between the heterodox and the orthodox and therefore lacks the contemplation of equality, hence being unfit to receive the food. If one knows that the six teachers are themselves the dharmakāya, then by being the same as the six teachers one is the same as the dharmakāya, whereupon one attains the contemplation of equality and only then may receive the food. Question: How are the six teachers themselves the dharmakāya? Answer: When sought through the four tetralemmas, the six teachers cannot be found; the six teachers are themselves the true nature [of reality], and attaining this is itself the dharmakāya. Therefore it is said: "Contemplating the true nature of one's own body, one contemplates the Buddha likewise." Furthermore, only by being the same as the six teachers is one not the same as the six teachers; if one is not the same as the six teachers, one is indeed the same as the six teachers. Why is this? If one is the same as the six teachers, one realizes that the heterodox is itself the orthodox, and hence is a person of right view. If one is not the same as the six teachers, one takes the heterodox and the orthodox to be two, and is termed a person of wrong view. Therefore one is the same as the six teachers. "If Subhūti enters into all wrong views and does not reach the other shore." This is the fourth [gate], the gate of the equality of the heterodox and the orthodox. Since one is the same as the six teachers, one enters into all wrong views. Wrong views clarify the absence of causes for the Path; not reaching the other shore explains the absence of the fruit of cessation. Since one enters wrong views, one does not reach the other shore; this is why this rebuke was delivered.