維摩經義疏 5.3.5

5.3.5

"Thus, because the disciples fear saṃsāra, forms, sounds, scents, tastes, and tangibles take advantage of them. To those who are already free from fear, all five desires can do nothing." When one is fearful, one's disposition is weak, so non-humans gain the upper hand; when the mind within has no terror, external evils cannot enter. Master [Kumāra]jīva said: "A rākṣasa transformed himself into a horse, and a man rode it without suspicion. Halfway along the road, the horse asked the man, 'Is the horse good or not?' The man drew a knife and showed it to him, asking, 'Is this knife good or not?' The horse knew his mind was upright and without fear, so he dared not do him harm." If it were not like this, non-humans would gain the upper hand. "Because their habit-residues of the defilements are not yet exhausted, the flowers stick to their bodies; for those whose habit-residues of the defilements are exhausted, the flowers do not stick." Question: The sūtra says that the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas alike lack active afflictions, and equally have habit-residues; why then do flowers stick to the śrāvakas and not to the mahāsattvas? Answer: Kumārajīva has two explanations: First, he says that the vessel of the bodhisattva is pure, so habit-energy does not arise, and thus flowers do not stick; the vessel of the two vehicles is impure, so habit-energy arises, and for this reason the flowers stick. The second explanation says: Habit-residues are of two kinds: first, habit-residues of defilements; second, the habit-residue of loving the Buddha's merit. When bodhisattvas attain anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, their habit-residues of defilements are completely exhausted, but they have not yet severed the habit of loving the Buddha-dharma; thus there is a sense in which they are said to have them. According to the Bodhisattva-bhūmi (*Dichi lun*), bodhisattvas completely sever the habit of affliction, but their habit of cognition is not completely severed. "Śāriputra said: 'Devī, how long have you been dwelling in this room?'" This is the second discussion, on the fact that dharmas have neither long nor short durations. The preceding chapter showed that within their minds, both persons—great and small—had attachments. When the śrāvakas have attachment, it is called having apprehension; when the bodhisattvas have no attachment, it is called having no apprehension, and thus it is liberation itself. Therefore, it was said above that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have inconceivable liberation, whereas the two vehicles do not. As for the intention behind the initial question: Śāriputra previously committed two errors: first, he could not brush away the flowers, meaning his mental karma had no supernormal power; next, he claimed the flowers were not in accordance with the Dharma, meaning his spoken words fell into defeat. Therefore, he now asks how long she has been dwelling in Jingming's room to possess such supernormal powers and wondrous eloquence. Furthermore, having already been subdued by her, he disliked that she was dwelling in the room as a devī, yet did not wish to rebuke her directly, and so framed his question around duration. "She answered: 'My dwelling in this room is like the Elder's liberation.'" One who is sixty is called an elder. Since she is about to clarify the meaning of neither long nor short duration, she borrows Śāriputra's liberation as an analogy. "Śāriputra said: 'Have you then dwelt here for long?'" Śāriputra meant: Unconditioned liberation has no beginning and no end, is unborn and unceasing, and is by nature permanently abiding; therefore it is called long. If the Devī's dwelling in the room is like liberation, it should also be long. "The Devī said: 'How can the Elder's liberation also be long or short?'" The Devī challenged him: "Can the unconditioned liberation you have attained have any duration of long or short? If it has a long or short duration, it is not unconditioned." "Śāriputra remained silent and did not reply." If he said liberation has duration, it would agree with his previous words but contradict liberation; if he said it has no duration, it would agree with liberation but contradict his previous words. Advancing or retreating, there was no way through; hence his silence. Furthermore, having realized that liberation has neither long nor short duration, he equated absence with absence, and there was also nothing to say; therefore he remained silent. "The Devī said: 'Why is the venerable elder of great wisdom silent?'" Above, it was shown that he could not speak; now, it is shown that he cannot remain silent. Thus, in both speaking and remaining silent, he falls into defeat. For a practitioner of the Small Vehicle, it is neither noble silence nor noble discourse. "He answered: 'Liberation has nothing to be spoken of; therefore, regarding this, I do not know what to say.'" Liberation has no words; in according with liberation, I also have no words. "The Devī said: 'Spoken words and letters are all the marks of liberation.'" Thus, you only know that liberation has no words, but have not realized that words are themselves liberation. "'Why is this? Liberation is not inside, not outside, and not in between; letters are also not inside, not outside, and not in between. Therefore, Śāriputra, do not speak of liberation apart from letters. Why is this? All dharmas are the marks of liberation.'" This explains the preceding statement that words are themselves liberation. Both letters and liberation are not located in the three places; therefore, letters and liberation do not have two separate substances, and one should not speak of liberation apart from letters. Regarding liberation not being in the three places, Master Sengzhao said: "Now liberation means 'I am freed from bondage.' It does not reside solely in me, so it is not inside. Nor does it reside solely in the bondage, so it is not outside. Coming together to form liberation, it is also not in between. As for letters not being in the three places: 'I' am inside, what is spoken is outside, and their conjunction is in between." The concluding phrase states that all dharmas are liberation; how could letters alone be different from liberation? "Śāriputra said: 'Is it no longer being free from lust, anger, and delusion that constitutes liberation?'" Śāriputra cited the Buddha's words to substantiate his own view as correct, turning to challenge the Devī: Since the Buddha said that "freedom from the three poisons constitutes liberation," one should also be free from letters to have liberation. If letters are themselves liberation, the three poisons should also be liberation; why then did the Buddha speak of being free from them? "The Devī said: 'The Buddha said that being free from lust, anger, and delusion constitutes liberation only for those of overweening pride. If one is without overweening pride, the Buddha says that the very nature of lust, anger, and delusion is itself liberation.'" Above, it was shown that the Small Vehicle was confounded in both speech and silence; this passage reveals that the śrāvakas do not understand the intention of the teaching. Deeming oneself to have attained what one has not attained is called overweening pride. For such persons, he said that severing the three poisons is called liberation. Furthermore, he secretly transforms the two vehicles to make them return to the Great Way. The two vehicles deeming themselves to have reached the ultimate when they have not reached the ultimate is itself overweening pride. For such persons, he further spoke of severing the entrenchment of ignorance and habit-energy as liberation. If there were not these conditions, the Buddha would say that the five entrenchments are themselves liberation. Question: Why did the preceding passage treat letters as liberation, while this passage explains the three poisons as liberation? Answer: Letters are external and the three poisons are internal. Bodhisattvas realize that both this inside and outside are liberation; therefore, their minds have no defilement and the flowers do not stick to their bodies. The two vehicles consider that both the outside of letters and the inside of the three poisons are not liberation; thus they do not understand liberation, are defiled by dust, and the flowers stick to their bodies, fulfilling the previous chapter. "Śāriputra said: 'Excellent, excellent! What have you attained, what have you realized, that your eloquence is like this?'" This is the third discussion, on attainment and realization. Having praised what she said as being beyond his own reach, he asks what path she has attained and what fruit she has realized that her eloquence is like this. Conditioned fruits are called attainment; unconditioned fruits are called realization. Furthermore, the contemplative mind receiving the Dharma is attainment, and being in accord with the principle is realization.