維摩經義疏 4.3

4.3

In complete Sanskrit pronunciation, one should say bodhisattva. Bodhi means the Way; sattva means sentient being. The Way refers to the Dharma that is sought; sentient beings are the persons capable of seeking it. Above, in the designation of disciples, respect and deference were discussed together; here, in the name bodhisattva, both person and Dharma are brought forth together. The intention behind the arrival of this chapter has five causes and conditions. First is the sequence of the commands: previously the small vehicle was commanded, and now next the mahāsattvas are commanded. Second is the sequence of shattering afflictions: previously minor delusions were shattered, and now major attachments are reproved. Third is the desire to fully display the virtues of Jingming: the small vehicle being unequal [to the task] was not yet sufficient to manifest the loftiness of his Way; now that the mahāsattvas decline and yield, his virtue is first manifested as profound and far-reaching. Fourth is the desire to manifest the virtue of Mañjuśrī: the śrāvakas were unequal [to the task] and the bodhisattvas dreaded going, yet Mañjuśrī alone was able to engage and stimulate [him]—thus one knows his stage surpasses both large and small, and he is uniquely revered among the assembly. Fifth is the desire to recount past teachings in order to benefit the present assembly. Question: Is it only the latter two chapters that manifest Jingming’s virtue, or does the 'Upāya Chapter' also manifest his virtue? Answer: Spoken in terms of persons, the 'Upāya Chapter' day by day manifests Jingming's virtue with respect to ordinary people; the 'Disciples Chapter' manifests his virtue with respect to śrāvakas; this present chapter manifests his virtue with respect to bodhisattvas. Furthermore, in the 'Upāya Chapter', Jingming manifests his own virtue; in the two chapters 'Disciples' and 'Bodhisattvas', others manifest his virtue. The chapter opens into two: first, four individuals are commanded separately; next, the various bodhisattvas collectively express their inability. The separate commanding of four individuals constitutes four sections. Regarding the passage on Maitreya, it also opens into two: first, the command; next, the declining. 'Thereupon the Buddha told Maitreya Bodhisattva: "Go visit Vimalakīrti to inquire after his illness."' This is the first, the command. The reason Maitreya was commanded first is that he is the mahāsattva of succession [to Buddhahood] and will achieve Buddhahood in this realm; proceeding from the superior to the inferior, it is like the sequence among the disciples. 'Maitreya' is translated here as 'benevolence' (ci); it is a southern Indian brāhmaṇa clan name used as his personal name. Furthermore, in the past he was a king who, seeing a monk enter the samādhi of benevolence and attain eighteen benefits, made a vow to practice benevolence life after life. Also, when his mother was pregnant with him, she naturally possessed a benevolent mind. On account of these two conditions, he was named Benevolence. His courtesy name was Ajita, which means 'Invincible'. He was the son of the prime minister of the kingdom of Vārāṇasī, and at birth he was fully endowed with the marks and signs. The king of Vārāṇasī, named Brahmadatta, arbitrarily usurped the throne of the state and wished to secretly kill him. He went to his father to demand Maitreya. The father knew the king's intention and immediately said: 'His maternal family has already taken him away.' Returning to his residence, he secretly sent someone to deliver him to the household of Bāvarī in southern India. Maitreya's maternal family was surnamed Bāvarī; [the master] had hair of a deep blue color, the mark of hands touching the knees, and was universally brilliant and broadly versed; he used what he knew to teach Maitreya. Maitreya was only seven years old when he studied under him. What he gathered in one day surpassed what others accomplished over years, and he ultimately penetrated the secret and profound. His maternal uncle wished to display his virtue and arranged a great assembly of unimpeded giving; as the wealth was insufficient, he sent two disciples to Maitreya's house to seek supplies to make up the deficit. Along the way, the two men heard the name of the Buddha. Turning their heads to look, they were eaten by a tiger; on account of this good deed, they were reborn in heaven. Bāvarī waited long without their return, and so he held a great seven-day donation with his family's wealth. At the very end, a brāhmaṇa came begging for wealth, but the wealth had been exhausted and there was nothing to be gained; he became greatly enraged and spoke to Bāvarī: 'I have the power of mantras and can smash your head into seven parts.' Bāvarī was terrified; the two former disciples who had been born in heaven spoke to him from within the sky: 'You need not worry. There is now a Buddha who has appeared; you may take refuge in and rely upon him.' He asked who the deva was, and [the deva] answered with the above matter. At that time Bāvarī had previously read prophetic texts and knew that a Buddha was due to appear, so he sent Maitreya along with sixteen men to observe the Buddha and ascertain whether he had the thirty-two marks and eighty secondary signs. Before long, he had him silently form three questions: First, who am I? Second, how many marks are on my body? The Buddha knew them all and fully answered the three questions. At that time Maitreya definitively knew he was a Buddha, and together with the sixteen men he went forth into the monastic life under the Buddha. The sixteen attained arhatship, but Maitreya did not grasp the extinction of outflows, aspiring to become a Buddha; the Buddha then bestowed a prophecy upon him. 'Maitreya addressed the Buddha, saying: "World-Honoured One, I am not equal to the task of going there to inquire after his illness."' This is the second, declining due to inability. Within the text there are three parts: the statement, the explanation, and the conclusion. This is the first, the statement. Question: Jingming and Maitreya were both at the stage of the culmination of learning; why was Jingming able to reprove, while Maitreya suffered defeat? Answer: There are two meanings. First, when mutually transforming beings, gains and losses depend on suitability, and longer or shorter [manifestations] alternately respond. Second, speaking in terms of stages, Maitreya was due to inherit the honoured position, whereas Jingming had attained Buddhahood long ago; since cause and fruit differ, there is superiority and inferiority. 'Why? I remember that in the past I preached the practice of the stage of non-retrogression to the king of the Tuṣita heaven and his retinue.' This is the second, the explanation of inability. Within the text there are three parts: first, the reason for being reproved; second, the import of the reproof; third, the assembly at that time awakening to the Way. Tuṣita is translated here as the heaven of 'Knowing Contentment'; its king was named Shan. The Tuṣita devas came to the human realm to listen to the exposition of the Dharma. Because Maitreya was soon to ascend to be a celestial teacher, these devas harbored prior reverence and thus frequently came to hear the Dharma. The practice of non-retrogression is the anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, which means escaping the three kinds of retrogression—in stage, practice, and mindfulness—hence it is called non-retrogression. 'At that time Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "Maitreya, the World-Honoured One bestowed a prophecy upon you, worthy one, that in a single lifetime you will attain anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi."' This is the second, the import of the reproof. Within the text there are two parts: first, reproving the prophecy; next, reproving the attainment of bodhi. Reproving the prophecy clarifies that there is no person who can attain it; reproving bodhi clarifies that there is no Dharma that can be attained. That is, both person and Dharma are empty. Furthermore, reproving the prophecy clarifies the absence of a cause capable of attaining; next, reproving the attainment of bodhi discerns the absence of a fruit to be attained. This means that both cause and fruit are entirely serene. As for the difference in depth between Jingming and Maitreya, Maitreya saw only the one and did not observe the other; although he spoke of desires being impermanent and praised the unretrograde Dharma, he did not realize that the devas were deeply attached to receiving the prophecy of bodhi in a single lifetime, and although gross desires were removed, subtle taints immediately arose. Therefore Jingming obliterated both cause and fruit, causing gross and subtle alike to cease completely. If interpreted as two persons benefiting beings from beginning to end, first it was necessary for Maitreya to speak of desires being impermanent and praise the unretrograde Dharma to bring an end to the gross; then Jingming discerned that cause and fruit are both empty to eliminate the subtle. The refutation of receiving prophecy has three parts: first, restating [the premise]; next, the reproof; and last, the conclusion. When it says 'a single lifetime': Maitreya is presently in the human realm, next in heaven, and later will descend to be born and attain Buddhahood. According to the Dazhidu lun, counting these makes three lifetimes. However, having already received birth in the human realm in the present, it is not counted again. Later descending to be born and attaining Buddhahood belongs to the body of the Buddha, so it is also not counted. Taking only the body born in heaven, it is therefore called 'a single lifetime'. Question: If so, assimilating it to the meaning in the small vehicle, one who is born once in heaven and comes once to the human realm to then attain the Way would have two lifetimes. When one is named a once-returner, it is definitely two lifetimes; why is it called a single lifetime? Answer: This meaning should be analogised. However, persons of the small vehicle look toward the exhaustion of the body to enter the remainderless [nirvāṇa], and so receiving two bodies is named two lifetimes. Maitreya does not grasp the exhaustion of the body; since the body of descending birth belongs to a Buddha, with respect to that celestial body it is considered a single lifetime. '"With which lifetime was the prophecy received? The past, the future, or the present? If with a past lifetime, the past lifetime has already ceased; if with a future lifetime, the future lifetime has not yet arrived; if with a present lifetime, the present lifetime has no abide, as the Buddha said: 'Bhikṣu, you right now are born, grow old, and cease.'"' This is the second, the refutation proper. Within the text there are three parts: first, refutation through the gate of the three times; second, refutation through the gate of non-arising; third, refutation through the gate of suchness. The refutation through the gate of the three times investigates within the three times and finds no single lifetime; therefore, there is no receiving a prophecy for a single lifetime. The past is ceased and has no cause or non-arising, hence there is no receiving a prophecy. The future does not yet exist, so there is not yet a lifetime, and there is also no receiving a prophecy. The present does not abide for a single thought-moment and also has no lifetime, hence there is no receiving a prophecy. Citing the Buddha's words specifically speaks of the present not abiding, because deluded people mostly claim that the present has a lifetime and therefore a prophecy is received. Hence he cites the testimony to refute it. '"If a prophecy is received by means of non-arising, non-arising is the correct state; in the correct state, there is also no receiving of prophecy, nor is there any attainment of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. How then could Maitreya receive a prophecy for a single lifetime?"' This is the second, also investigating through the gate of non-arising to find no receiving of prophecy. Now, any discussion of existence and arising must reside in the three times. Since the three times are non-existent, then arising itself is non-existent. Deluded people think that although the three times lack the receiving of prophecy, within non-arising there should be the receiving of prophecy. Hence he next reproves this. Non-arising is true reality; because true reality is the real Dharma, it is named 'correct', and because it is separated from the heterodox, it is termed 'state'. In this principle of true reality, speech and deliberate thought cease; it transcends the four propositions and cuts off the hundred negations, hence there is no receiving of prophecy. '"Was the prophecy received from the arising of suchness, or was the prophecy received from the cessation of suchness? If the prophecy was received by means of the arising of suchness, suchness has no arising; if the prophecy was received by means of the cessation of suchness, suchness has no cessation."' This is the third, refuting the receiving of prophecy through the gate of suchness. Master [Kumāra]jīva said: 'This also dismisses it on the basis of what is retained. Receiving a prophecy must depend on attaining suchness; originally not having attained it and now attaining it seems as if there is an arising. When suchness arises, encumbrances cease, which also seems like something. Since within suchness it ceases, he first questions its arising and ceasing to clarify that there is no arising or ceasing.' Now I say: the above two gates investigated through the two principles of arising and non-arising to find no receiving of prophecy; here he reproves the mind of complete awakening as also having no receiving of prophecy. Now, regarding the attainment of prophecy, because one embodies suchness, the acceptance of phenomena arises; because one embodies suchness, afflictions cease; at that time the prophecy is received. Therefore he asks whether it is from the arising of suchness or from the cessation of suchness. Question: One should only speak of the arising and ceasing of the acceptance of phenomena; why does he speak of the arising and ceasing of suchness? Answer: The acceptance of phenomena is not separate from suchness, hence he speaks of the arising and ceasing of suchness. However, the acceptance of phenomena is just suchness, and because suchness has no arising, the acceptance of phenomena does not arise; afflictions are just suchness, and because suchness has no cessation, afflictions do not cease. Therefore there is no receiving of prophecy. '"All sentient beings are suchness; all phenomena are also suchness; all sages and worthies are also suchness; and it is also thus for Maitreya."' Above he raised an objection through the gate of suchness; now he sets forth a parity through the gate of suchness. Within the text there are two parts: first, setting the boundary; next, setting forth the parity. This adduces the ordinary and the sacred, persons and phenomena, to establish the boundary. '"If Maitreya received a prophecy, all sentient beings should also receive a prophecy. Why? Because suchness is non-dual and without distinction."' This is the second, setting forth the parity. In all, three parities are set forth: first, the parity of receiving prophecy; second, the parity of bodhi; third, the parity of nirvāṇa. These three constitute a sequence: one must first receive prophecy, next attain the fruit of bodhi, and later attain the fruit of nirvāṇa. Within these three barriers, in each case he first sets forth the parity and later explains the parity. Ordinary and sacred are of a single suchness, hence non-dual; because suchness has no transformation or distinction, it is called without distinction. This explains the parity. '"If Maitreya attains anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, all sentient beings should all attain it. Why? All sentient beings are themselves the mark of bodhi."' This is the second, setting forth a parity in terms of bodhi. '"If Maitreya attains extinction, all sentient beings should also attain extinction. Why? The Buddhas know that all sentient beings are ultimately quiescent and extinguished, and are the mark of nirvāṇa, never to be extinguished again."' This is the third, setting forth a parity in terms of nirvāṇa. '"Therefore, Maitreya, do not entice these devaputras with this dharma. There is truly no one who arouses the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, nor is there anyone who retrogresses."' This is the third, concluding the reproof. In the Way of equality, there is truly no one who arouses the mind and no one who retrogresses. Yet enticing their arousing of the mind with unretrograde practice and showing them the receiving of prophecy—how is that not deception? '"Maitreya, you should cause these devaputras to abandon the view that discriminates bodhi. Why? Bodhi cannot be attained with the body, nor can it be attained with the mind."' The second part refutes bodhi. Bodhi has quiescence and extinction as its mark, whereas the various [defilements] obstruct saṃsāra. Revering bodhi, though identical to a superior quest, further generates dust-like encumbrances; one should open the correct path to cause them to abandon discrimination—why show them the prophecy of the Way and increase their views? Bodhi is indeed the true wisdom of great awakening, transcending the realm of existence and non-existence, exceeding words and conceptual conditions; not knowing how to designate it, one forcefully names it bodhi; therefore, this bodhi cannot be attained with body or mind. '"Quiescence and extinction are bodhi, because all marks are extinguished."' Previously he refuted their attachment to marks; here he demonstrates the true Way. Bodhi is the wisdom capable of union, and true reality is the realm that is tallied with; since the realm is without marks, wisdom is then quiescent and extinguished, hence it is said that quiescence and extinction are bodhi. '"Non-contemplation is bodhi, because it is separated from all conditions. Non-action is bodhi, because it is free of recollections and thoughts."' Contemplation is born from conditions; when separated from conditions, there is no contemplation. Action is born from thought; because there is no thought, there is no action. '"Severance is bodhi, because all views are abandoned. Separation is bodhi, because all false thoughts are left behind. Obstruction is bodhi, because all vows are obstructed."' The true Way is free of desire and obstructs all vows and quests. '"Non-entry is bodhi, because there is no greed or attachment."' Entry refers to receiving the six sense-dusts. '"Concordance is bodhi, because it is in accord with suchness. Abiding is bodhi, because it abides in the Dharma-nature. Attainment is bodhi, because it reaches the limit of reality. Non-duality is bodhi, because it is separated from mind and phenomena. Equality is bodhi, because it is equal to empty space. The unconditioned is bodhi, because it is free of arising, abiding, and ceasing. Knowledge is bodhi, because it understands the mental activities of sentient beings. Non-meeting is bodhi, because the sense-bases do not meet. Non-combination is bodhi, because it is separated from the habit-energies of afflictions."' The sense-bases are the internal and external six sense-bases. Both inside and outside are empty, so the sense-bases do not meet. Combination refers to the combination of afflictions and karma; afflictions are fundamentally empty, so there is nothing combined. Thus 'meeting' is based on the present fruit, and 'combination' concerns its cause. '"Non-place is bodhi, because it lacks shape and form. Conventional designation is bodhi, because names are empty."' Externally there is no place of shape and form; internally there is no reality that can be named. '"Being like an illusion is bodhi, because there is no grasping or rejection. Non-confusion is bodhi, because it is always naturally still. Perfect quiescence is bodhi, because its nature is pure. Non-grasping is bodhi, because it is free of grasping at conditions. Non-differentiation is bodhi, because all phenomena are equal. Incomparability is bodhi, because it cannot be analogized. Subtlety is bodhi, because all phenomena are difficult to know."' All phenomena are obscure, profound, and difficult to fathom, not something known by ordinary intellect. Bodhi is without knowledge, hence there is nothing it does not know. To be without knowledge yet have nothing unknown is the utmost of subtlety. '"World-Honoured One, when Vimalakīrti spoke this Dharma, two hundred devaputras attained the anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti."' This is the third, clarifying the assembly's awakening to the Way. Maitreya spoke of existence to calm dust-like desires; Jingming clarified emptiness to eliminate subtle encumbrances; therefore, the devas awakened to the Way at the opportune time. '"Therefore I am not equal to the task of going there to inquire after his illness."' Inability has three parts; the statement and explanation are already complete, and this is the third, the conclusion.