維摩經義疏 6.7.2

6.7.2

Third, not contemplating the nature of form dispels "neither existence nor non-existence." Because the dharmakāya transcends the four propositions (catuṣkoṭi), it is also not contemplated as neither existence nor non-existence. Below, from "Not arising from the four great elements, equal to empty space": the five aggregates are the effect, and the four great elements are the cause; since the effect is not the Buddha, the cause is likewise not. Being neither cause nor effect, it is therefore equal to empty space. Below, from "With no accumulation of the six sense entrances": since the dharmakāya is neither cause nor effect, it also transcends internal and external; being neither internal nor external, it cannot be that an accumulation of the six sense entrances constitutes the Buddha. Below, from "Transcending eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind": the preceding explained that it is not the external entrances, and this explains that it transcends the internal nature. Below, from "Not existing in the three realms": as the six entrances were said above to be transcended, one might presume that it does not exist where there are six entrances, or one might presume that it must exist where there are no six entrances; therefore it is further said that it is not in the three realms. Below, from "Having abandoned the three defilements": the above explained that there are no effects of the three realms, and this explains that there are no causes of the three realms. Because there are no three defilements, it is not in the three realms. These preceding six gates explain that the Tathāgata is free from all marks of delusion. Below, from "In accordance with the three gates of liberation": this explains that the dharmakāya is endowed with all virtues. Because it accords with the three gates of liberation, it abandons the three defilements. Below, from "The three clarities, equal to ignorance": there are two kinds of three clarities (vidyā): first, the three of the divine eye, recollection of past lives, and extinction of taints; second, according to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, (1) the bodhisattva's clarity, which is prajñā; (2) the Buddha-eye of the Buddhas, which is the Buddha-eye; and (3) the clarity of non-clarity (avidyā), which is ultimate emptiness. As for ultimate emptiness, its essence is not of the nature of wisdom, so it is not clarity; yet it can give rise to real wisdom, so it is called clarity. Just as the five sensory dusts give rise to the five desires and are also termed desire, because of according with the three gates of liberation, one can equalize clarity and ignorance, and so forth. Furthermore, some might take the three gates of liberation to be clarity, and thus it is subsequently obliterated; hence it says "clarity is equal to ignorance," and so on. Below, from "Neither of single mark nor of different marks": Lord Sengzhao says: "There is no image that is not an image, so it cannot be considered single; it images yet is not an image, so it cannot be considered different." Connecting to the preceding: if one equalizes clarity and ignorance, one might consider them single; if they are not single, one follows marks of difference; therefore it is now explained as neither single nor different. Below, from "Neither of self-mark nor of other-mark": the response body arises through the resonance of sentient beings, hence not self; the essence of the dharmakāya is quiescent, hence not other. Sengzhao says: "Not being self yet according with self, it is self yet not self; not being other yet according with other, it is other yet not other. How could the markless body have its essence contemplated in terms of self and other?" Below, from "Neither without marks nor grasping marks": adapting to others in its actions, it is therefore not without marks; yet the essence of virtue is ever quiescent and without discrimination, therefore not grasping marks. This is explained in terms of combining the two bodies. Sengzhao says: "It is not the mark of having no things, nor is it a mark that can be grasped"; he explains it solely in terms of the dharmakāya. Below, from "Neither on this shore, nor on the other shore, nor in the midstream": saṃsāra is originally non-existent, hence not this shore; nirvāṇa does not exist at present, hence not the other shore. Since there is neither this nor that, how could there be the midstream of the Eightfold Noble Path? Furthermore, being constantly in saṃsāra, it is not the other; not abandoning nirvāṇa, it is not this; practicing both practices without one-sided attachment, it is therefore not in the midstream. Below, from "Yet transforming sentient beings": as it was just said to be not the three, it would seem to cease transforming; therefore it is now said that although it is not the three, it constantly teaches and transforms, causing them to awaken to the non-three. Below, from "Contemplating quiescent extinction yet not eternally extinguished": since it says transforming sentient beings, it would seem that sentient beings are seen to exist, which would not be quiescent extinction. Therefore it is now explained that although transforming, it is ever quiescent, which is why it says "contemplating quiescent extinction"; although quiescently extinguished, it constantly teaches and transforms, hence not eternally extinguished. Below, from "Neither here nor there": since it transforms sentient beings, it would be in this or that [place]. The dharmakāya is markless, hence not here or there. Furthermore, the buddha-lands are all suchness: there is no "this" that can be inhabited, which is termed not here; there is no "there" that can be inhabited, hence it says not there. Below, from "Neither through this nor through that": not being this yet according with this, it is this yet not this; not being that yet according with that, it is that yet not that—how could it again be according with this through this, or according with that through that? This illuminates that the sage's mind has no mind, using "through" to accord with minds. Below, from "Cannot be known by wisdom, cannot be cognized by consciousness": the ten knowledges of the sage do not know it; the six consciousnesses of the ordinary person do not cognize it. In general, the arising of wisdom and consciousness arises within marks; the dharmakāya is markless, so wisdom and consciousness cannot reach it. Below, from "Neither darkness nor illumination": the dharmakāya is without cognition, hence not illumination; there is nothing it does not know, hence not darkness. Below, from "Without name and without mark": it cannot be named with a name, and cannot be marked with a mark; therefore square and circle cannot depict it, and titles cannot transmit it. Below, from "Neither strong nor weak": being supremely pliant with no resistance, it is not rigid; being rigid with nothing unvanquished, it is not weak. Furthermore, moving heaven and earth it is not rigid; responsive to the end of impermanence, it is not weak. Below, from "Neither pure nor defiled": with no taint that is not extinguished, it is not defiled; with no fruit into which it does not enter, it is not pure. Furthermore, the major and minor marks adorning the body are not its purity; the iron lance and the horse barley are likewise not its defilement. Below, from "Neither in a direction nor apart from directions": being wondrous and beyond the three realms, it is not in a direction; with no delusion to which it does not respond, it is not apart from directions. Below, from "Neither conditioned nor unconditioned": marks cannot alter it, hence not conditioned; its wondrous functioning is inexhaustible, hence not unconditioned. Below, from "Without showing and without preaching": being beyond the reach of the six sense faculties, how could it be spoken of to show people? Using words to address people is "showing"; relying on words because of the Dharma is "preaching." Furthermore, showing is for those who should see, and preaching is for those who should hear. But the Buddha cannot be seen or heard, hence there is no preaching and no showing. Below, from "Neither giving nor stingy, neither keeping precepts nor transgressing, neither patient nor angry, neither diligent nor indolent, neither concentrated nor distracted, neither wise nor foolish": taking the six pāramitās as its essence, it can thus respond like an echo. Yet as for the so-called beings to be saved, none are saved; only by neither saving nor not saving does it subsequently save. Below, from "Neither sincere nor deceptive": "sincere" means true; "deceptive" means misleading. Because it cannot be considered good through goodness, it is not sincere; because it cannot be considered evil through evil, it is not deceptive. Furthermore, it empties and abandons the three things, hence not sincere; yet ultimately attains the One, hence not deceptive. Below, from "Neither coming nor going, neither emerging nor entering": riding the path of real suchness is "coming"; the Sugata entering extinction is "going"; hastening into the burning house is "entering"; standing outside the gate is "emerging"; yet the dharmakāya is in reality devoid of them. Below, from "The path of all words is cut off": this summarizes the preceding phrases, explaining that it cannot be expressed in words.