說無垢稱經疏 4
English (machine translation) 4
- Language
- English
4.1
Composed by the Śramaṇa Kuiji of the Dacien Monastery
4.2
Sūtra: ‘At that time, the Bhagavat… and inquire after his illness.’
4.3
The Commentary says: From here on is the ninth [section], charging Rāhula: first is the charge, and second is the decline. This is the initial charge. Rāhula: here translated as ‘sun-grasper’, which was originally the name of a sun-grasping asura, as mentioned in the Lotus Sūtra: ‘the asura king Rāhu’. He was the vanguard of the asuras: when the asuras were about to battle with Śakra, he served as the vanguard. Seeing the gods of the sun and moon emitting light that shot afar into the eyes of the asuras, this asura grasped the sun with his hand to obscure its light. Now, this son of the Buddha was given his name based on this simile, and it is likewise so: the Buddha’s Dharma is like the sun; because of having this son, the light of the sun of wisdom of our Buddha's Dharma was obstructed, like that asura, so he was named after him. An ancient name was ‘Palace-born’: when Yaśodharā was slandered, she made a solemn vow to clarify herself, saying that he was truly born in the palace and not fathered by another, hence he was named ‘Palace-born’. The causes and conditions of this son are explained at length in the sūtras: because in a past life as a king he kept a śramaṇa who sought an audience waiting for six days without seeing him, or because he blocked a mouse's hole for six days, preventing mother and young from eating, he remained in the womb for six years. Later, when the Buddha went to Kapilavastu, in seven days he magically manifested a thousand monks who all resembled the Buddha, causing him to choose the Buddha; indeed he went to where the Buddha was, thereby making clear that he was the Buddha’s son. [The Buddha] then ordered Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana to ordain him, at which time he was young. Fearing verbosity, I do not recount it in full.
4.4
Sūtra: ‘Then Rāhula… to go there and inquire after his illness.’
4.5
The Commentary says: Below, the decline consists of three parts. This is the general statement of the capitulation of his path. Formerly, he had praised leaving home as conditioned and possessing characteristics; [Vimalakīrti] stated that one who leaves home does so for the unconditioned and the characteristicless. Using the ultimate to cross-examine the conventional, his path capitulated and his words were exhausted, so he was not equal to the task.
4.6
Sūtra: ‘Why is this? … benefits and supreme advantages.’
4.7
The Commentary says: Below, revealing the exhaustion of reason: first, the interrogation, and later, the revelation. Within the revelation there are also two parts: first, stating his own affairs, and later, revealing the words of the other. His own affairs have two parts: first, revealing the other's question, and later, revealing his own answer. This is the interrogation and the revelation of the other's question. These young men were of the brahmin class, with the clan name Licchavi. The Buddha was a wheel-turning king and Rāhula was the successor to the lineage; therefore, in now praising him, they also spoke of a wheel-turning king. Wheel-turning kings are of four kinds: iron, copper, silver, and gold, each ruling respectively over the populace of one, two, three, or four continents, as usually differentiated. Having cast off the jewel of the wheel-turning emperor to leave home, what benefit is there in practicing the merits of leaving home?
4.8
Sūtra: ‘I then, according to the Dharma… benefits and supreme advantages.’
4.9
The Commentary says: This reveals his own answer. Leaving home is vast and open like empty space; staying at home is cramped and confining like a prison. Therefore a sūtra says: ‘Although a peacock's colors adorn its body, it cannot fly far like the wild goose and crane; although white-robed laymen have wealth and noble power, they are not equal to the superior merit of leaving home.’ ‘Merit’ (guṇadharma) means the arising of good; ‘supreme advantage’ means the extinction of evil. ‘Merit’ is blessing; ‘supreme advantage’ is called wisdom. ‘Supreme advantage’ is able to transcend the world; ‘merit’ is the twofold adornment of blessings and wisdom.
4.10
Sūtra: ‘Then Vimalakīrti… and spoke these words:’
4.11
The Commentary says: Below, revealing the words of the other. There are two parts: first, stating the manner of arrival, and later, directly stating the words. This is the first text.
4.12
Sūtra: ‘“O Rāhula! … benefits and supreme advantages.’
4.13
The Commentary says: Below, directly stating the words. There are five parts: first, directly stating the principle to interrogate him; second, encouraging them to leave home; third, the young men inquiring; fourth, Vimalakīrti instructing them; fifth, the young men attaining benefit. The first part has three aspects: first, general negation; next, specific interrogation; and later, concluding and rectifying. This is the first text.
4.14
Sūtra: ‘Why is this? … this is leaving home.’
4.15
The Commentary says: Below, within the specific interrogation there are two parts: first, the setting forth, and later, the revelation. This is the initial setting forth. According to the meaning of the principle of emptiness: formerly he praised leaving home as conventional and possessing characteristics; now, using the supreme truth of the characteristicless as the interrogation, he therefore says there is no supreme advantage and no merit. According to the meaning of proper reason (yukti): conventional matters are the branches, whereas the principle of the supreme truth is the root. Formerly he praised leaving home by praising the branch of conventional matters; now, taking the root of principle as correct, he therefore says that being without advantage and merit is called true leaving of home.
4.16
Sūtra: ‘“O Rāhula! … benefits and supreme advantages.’
4.17
The Commentary says: Below, the revelation has three parts: first, explaining the conditioned and characteristic-bearing leaving of home; next, explaining the unconditioned and characteristicless leaving of home; and later, explaining the merits and advantages of the Mahāyāna leaving of home. This is the first text. What was previously explained for others as possessing the substantial characteristics of merit and supreme advantage is conditioned and possesses characteristics, and is not the ultimate truth.
4.18
Sūtra: ‘“One who leaves home… benefits and supreme advantages.’
4.19
The Commentary says: This explains the unconditioned and characteristicless leaving of home. According to the meaning of the principle of emptiness: one who leaves home originally desires to extinguish conventional phenomena that have characteristics, aspiring toward the unconditioned emptiness of nature of the ultimate truth. Within the emptiness of nature, how could there be merit or advantage? According to the meaning of proper reason: all noble ones are distinguished by the unconditioned. The unconditioned is simply nirvāṇa, liberation, and the cessation through the principle of tathatā. Nirvāṇa and liberation are free from the bonds of saṃsāra; tathatā is serene and tranquil, free from false inversions; and the nature of analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is free from the two superior hindrances. Leaving home is undertaken to seek this, because it is the root of all virtues. It is not for the sake of the conditioned, which is not the root of virtue. Therefore, in the unconditioned, there is neither merit nor advantage. In the root of the unconditioned there is no differentiation; the merits of nature and characteristics likewise have no differentiation; and although the supreme advantages of function are not absent, they are the unmoving merits and supreme advantages. Furthermore, one who leaves home is free from conceptual discrimination and clinging; having merit and having advantage involve conceptual discrimination, which is not true leaving of home. Therefore, true leaving of home destroys conceptual discrimination and clinging, having neither merit nor advantage.
4.20
Sūtra: ‘“O Rāhula! … neither form nor non-form.’
4.21
Commentary: Below, the virtues and benefits of Mahāyāna renunciation are explained in twenty-four phrases. The older [translation] had twenty-two phrases, completely lacking the phrases 'neither form nor non-form' and 'free from all grasping' found in the new [translation]; furthermore, within the simultaneous cultivation of calm abiding and insight, it lacked the cultivation of insight, and within the severance of evil and cultivation of good, it lacked the cultivation of good. Regarding the three phrases here, the interpretation according to the principle of emptiness states: In ultimate truth, there is no other-that, no self-this, nor any intermediary; one is far removed from all views, and there is also no distinction between form and formlessness. The interpretation according to proper reason states: Among these three phrases, first, 'free from this, that, and the intermediary' means that one who renounces abandons both object and self; outside the body there is no other-that, for one gathers others to be identical with oneself and always practices rescue. Outside others there is no self-this, for when others obtain joy, it is as if oneself obtained it. Nor is there an intermediary outside of object and self. Second, 'far removed from all views' means that the five views are all severed. The older [commentary] says 'sixty-two views', which are subsumed only under extreme views and wrong views, their scope being extremely narrow. Third, 'neither form nor non-form': form refers to adorning one's comportment; non-form refers to cognitive understanding; grasping neither of these is termed 'neither'. Alternatively, it refers to the erroneous views of non-Buddhists who grasp the self as form, because they grasp the form aggregate as the self; or grasp the self as non-form, because they grasp the four aggregates and the life-faculty as a real self. As in the sixty-two views, where it is said that the self has form and has perception after death, or that the self is formless and has perception after death, and so forth; none of these constitute renunciation for the unconditioned. Therefore, one departs from all that is wrong and accords with all that is right; the following should all be understood by this standard.
4.22
Sūtra: It is the path to Nirvāṇa [...] embraced by the noble ones.
4.23
Commentary: Here there are three phrases. The interpretation according to the principle of emptiness states: That which is free from this, that, and the intermediary can reach Nirvāṇa, hence it is called the 'path'. Because one penetrates all views, the wise praise it. Because it is neither form nor non-form, it is embraced by the noble ones. The interpretation according to proper reason states: For one who renounces for the sake of the unconditioned, first, one reaches Nirvāṇa; second, one is praised by the noble ones; third, one is embraced by noble conduct. All the noble ones constantly embrace and receive such a one, considering it superior. The older [version] says 'abiding in Nirvāṇa'; relying on this as the path, one is able to abide in Nirvāṇa. It also says 'the sphere of practice of the noble ones', which means being praised by the noble ones, because it accords with the noble mind.
4.24
Sūtra: Subduing the hosts of Māras [...] departing from all evil dharmas.
4.25
Commentary: Here there are seven phrases. The interpretation according to the principle of emptiness states: Because of conceptual grasping at existence, there are the hosts of Māras; one then enters the five destinies, fails to attain the five eyes, and lacks the five faculties and powers, thereby harming sentient beings, and one's own evils do not cease. If one renounces in order to penetrate emptiness, the hosts of Māras are naturally subdued, up to and including what is elaborated, and one's own evils thereupon cease. The interpretation according to proper reason states: For one who renounces for the unconditioned dharma, first, one subdues the four Māras; second, one transcends the five destinies; third, one attains the five eyes; fourth, one establishes the five faculties; fifth, one obtains the five powers; sixth, one does not harm or afflict all those sentient beings; seventh, one can completely depart from all evils of one's own. As for the five eyes: first, the fleshly eye, which is not produced by the cultivation of concentration, having as its nature subtle form composed of the four great elements; second, the divine eye, produced on the basis of cultivation, which is subtle form composed of the great elements; third, the Dharma eye, which is wisdom taking the teachings as its object; fourth, the wisdom eye, which is the cognition of emptiness taking principle as its object; fifth, the Buddha eye, which is the wondrous wisdom that perceives both self and others. The remaining four Māras, five destinies, faculties, and powers are all as explained before.
4.26
Sūtra: Overcoming all non-Buddhists [...] departing from self and what belongs to self.
4.27
Commentary: Here there are six phrases. The interpretation according to the principle of emptiness states: If one renounces for the sake of the conditioned and sign-bearing, one cannot destroy non-Buddhists or transcend nominal designations, up to and including being unable to depart from self and what belongs to self. If one renounces for the sake of the unconditioned and signless, one thereupon destroys non-Buddhists and departs from self and what belongs to self. The interpretation according to proper reason states: For one who renounces for the unconditioned dharma, first, due to right view, one destroys non-Buddhists; second, because the substance of dharmas transcends words, one transcends nominal designations; third, attaining great Nirvāṇa, one emerges from the mire of sensual desire; fourth, lacking attachment, one has no ties or fetters; fifth, lacking object and self, there is nothing that is grasped. The older sūtra reverses this, saying 'because there is nothing received, one departs from self and what belongs to self'.
4.28
Sūtra: Free from all grasping [...] skillfully guarding the minds of others.
4.29
Commentary: Here there are three phrases. The interpretation according to the principle of emptiness states: 'Grasping' has the meaning of conceptual clinging and grasping. 'Disturbance' means agitation. 'Distraction' means mental unrest. 'Taming' means subduing. 'Guarding' means protecting in accordance. For one who renounces for the sake of the unconditioned and emptiness, there is no clinging or grasping, one is free from affliction, one subdues one's own mind, and one puts to rest and protects the intentions of others. For one who renounces for the sake of conditioned signs, one cannot be like this. The interpretation according to proper reason states: First, 'free from all grasping'. 'Grasping' has the meaning of craving and clinging; its substance consists precisely of the four graspings: 1. desire-grasping, craving directed toward the five sensory fields; 2. view-grasping, grasping onto various views; 3. precept-grasping, grasping onto various precepts; 4. self-doctrine grasping, grasping onto a distinct, real self. There is no substance of a self, there is only a name, hence it is called 'self-doctrine grasping'. The latter three have wisdom as their substance, each taking its own view as its nature according to its name. Here, being free from all grasping is the path of subduing; severing all grasping is the path of abandoning delusions. Second, 'free from disturbance and distraction'. Regarding disturbance and distraction: 'disturbance' has the meaning of scattering; 'distraction' has the meaning of turbulence, which is the substance of distraction—the mind racing among sensory fields, turbulent and unsettled; hence it is called 'disturbance and distraction'. Or it refers to the six distractions: 1. essential nature, 2. signs, 3. coarse heaviness, 4. internal, 5. external, 6. mental application. Third, 'taming one's own mind and guarding the minds of others'. One is skillfully able to tame and subdue the afflictions of one's own mind, and one protects the minds of others so as not to let distress arise, thus bringing them to maturity.
4.30
Sūtra: According with calm abiding [...] cultivating all good.
4.31
Commentary: Here there are two phrases. First, according with concentration to cultivate wisdom: 'calm abiding' is concentration, 'superior insight' is wisdom; the two gates of calm abiding and insight embrace all virtues. Second, departing from evil and cultivating good is called true renunciation. The interpretation according to the principle of emptiness states: Contemplating and penetrating the emptiness of nature, the mind constantly abides here; hence it is called calm abiding and insight. Knowing the conventional and realizing the ultimate; hence it is called severing and cultivating.
4.32
Sūtra: If one is able to be like this, it is called true renunciation.
4.33
Commentary: This concludes by affirming correctness.
4.34
Sūtra: At that time Vimalakīrti [...] should together renounce.
4.35
Commentary: Below is the second part, exhorting the cultivation of renunciation. First, it generally sets forth the exhortation; later, it reveals the reason for the exhortation. This is the first passage. The Buddha's Dharma tallies with reality, hence it is called 'well-spoken'. 'Vinaya' is here translated as 'taming and subduing', which refers to the broad root of the vinaya. Renunciation is that which is embraced and maintained by the taming and subduing of the Buddha's Dharma; he exhorts them to renounce relying on the vinaya. This is indeed the Mahāyāna Vinaya.
4.36
Sūtra: Why is this? [...] is the foremost and most difficult.
4.37
Commentary: This reveals the reason for the exhortation, because there are four difficulties: 1. the difficulty of a Buddha appearing in the world; 2. the difficulty of avoiding the eight conditions devoid of leisure; 3. the difficulty of obtaining a human body; 4. the difficulty of possessing leisure. Now that you have obtained leisure, it may be called a virtuous merit; you should renounce. The older [version] lacked the latter three.
4.38
Sūtra: The youths said [...] cannot renounce.
4.39
Commentary: Third, the youths raise a question. Among the various obstacles and difficulties, if one's parents do not permit it, one cannot renounce; it is not that our original mind does not take delight in renunciation.
4.40
Sūtra: Vimalakīrti said [...] accomplish the nature of a bhikṣu.
4.41
Commentary: Fourth, Vimalakīrti instructs them that within renunciation there are two kinds: 1. bodily renunciation, donning the robes and shaving the hair; 2. mental renunciation, generating the resolve and cultivating practice. Generating the resolve and cultivating practice is true renunciation; one is able to uphold the prohibitive precepts and accomplish the nature of a bhikṣu. Donning the robes and shaving the hair accomplishes the appearance of a bhikṣu. Now he exhorts renunciation, relying on true renunciation.
4.42
Sūtra: At that time, thirty-two [...] vowed to cultivate correct practice.
4.43
Commentary: Fifth, the youths obtain benefit.
4.44
Sūtra: At that time I remained silent [...] go thither to inquire after his illness.
4.45
Commentary: Concluding the reasons for his response, he humbles himself and asks to withdraw.
4.46
Sūtra: At that time the World-Honoured One [...] inquire after his illness.
4.47
Commentary: From here down is the tenth, commanding Ānanda: first the command, then the declining. This is the command. 'Ānanda' is translated here as 'Rejoicing Joy'. When Śākyamuni attained awakening, humans and devas rejoiced; he was born on that very night, and was therefore given this name. Later, at the age of twenty, he finally renounced. He heard all of the Buddha's teachings. Being the Buddha's attendant, intimate and serving him, [the Buddha] now commands him.
4.48
Sūtra: At that time Ānanda [...] go thither to inquire after his illness.
4.49
Commentary: Below, the declining has three parts; this generally states his inadequacy in the Way. It means that the Buddha was genuinely ill, and I was just begging for milk. That one explained the transformation body, and that the true Buddha has no illness; being inadequate in the Way, he therefore declined.
4.50
Sūtra: Why is this? [...] should use cow's milk.
4.51
Commentary: Below reveals the exhaustion of principle: first inquiring, then revealing. Within revealing, there are two parts: first stating one's own affairs, then revealing the other's words. One's own affairs has two parts: first that due to illness milk was needed, then that I was just begging for it. This is the inquiry and that the Buddha's illness required milk. Manifesting a slight illness: the Buddha suffered from back pain, which occurred occasionally; mixing milk with long pepper could cure it.
4.52
Sūtra: In the early morning I [...] begged cow's milk from him.
4.53
Commentary: 'I was just begging for it': food must not be at improper times, so it was in the early morning; about to enter a settlement, he arranged his robes like a bird's wings. Holding robe and bowl to beg, there must be a specific place; relying on the city's rules to provide service, he begged cow's milk from him.
4.54
Sūtra: At that time Vimalakīrti [...] and spoke these words:
4.55
Commentary: Below reveals the other's words. There are two parts: first, explaining his arrival and comportment; second, revealing the other's words. This is the first passage.
4.56
Sūtra: O Ānanda [...] holding your bowl here?
4.57
Commentary: Below, revealing the other's words has five parts: 1. his question; 2. one's own answer; 3. interrogation through principle; 4. giving rise to shame; 5. announcement from space. This is the first. About to present the interrogation through principle, he first feigns not knowing, and therefore asks this question.
4.58
Sūtra: I said, 'Householder [...] have therefore come here.'
4.59
Commentary: This is one's own answer.
4.60
Sūtra: At that time Vimalakīrti [...] slandering the Tathāgata.
4.61
Commentary: Below is the interrogation through principle. There are two parts: first, reproaching his slandering the Buddha as having an illness; second, revealing that the Buddha truly has neither illness nor distress. Alternatively, first revealing that the saṃbhogakāya has no illness, and second revealing that the dharmakāya has no illness. Within the first, there are again two parts: first a general reproach, then a specific reproach. This is the first passage. Disliking that the words are inappropriate to an extreme degree, he repeats 'stop, stop'. 'Slander and revile' are different designations for blasphemy and desecration. The Buddha is truly free of illness; to say that the Buddha has an illness is called false slander.
4.62
Sūtra: Why is this? [...] what distress could there be?
4.63
Commentary: Below is the specific reproach. There are four parts: 1. evil dharmas have long perished; 2. reproaching it as coarse speech; 3. roots of goodness are already complete; 4. immediately experiencing shame and humiliation. These constitute two pairs: because evil dharmas are exhausted, saying there is an illness is coarse; because good dharmas are complete, having an illness is shameful. Hence it is divided into four; this is the first passage. The Buddha's substance is anāsrava, compounded like vajra. The causes and fruits of saṃsāra, present and seeded evil dharmas, as well as subtle latent habit energies have all been permanently severed. All goods being complete, what illness could there be? Illness arises from evil causes. Discordance of the four great elements is called illness, and from this illness suffering and distress thereupon arise. The Buddha's goods being completely fulfilled, what suffering or distress could there be? Good causes do not bring about the fruit of suffering and distress.
4.64
Sūtra: O Ānanda [...] hear these words.
4.65
Commentary: Second, reproaching it as coarse speech, ordering him to cease speaking and return to the monastery, which is termed 'silently return to your dwelling'. Saying that the Buddha has an illness is excessively painful and piercing, hence it is called 'coarse speech'. 'Do not let different people hear this coarse speech' is the general statement. Below explains it specifically. What is meant by 'different people'? Those of great majestic devas refers to the devas possessing great supernormal powers and virtue in the realms of desire and form. Bodhisattvas from other realms all see the saṃbhogakāya and have never heard of illness; hearing now of the Buddha's illness, it would be extremely astonishing and dubious. Hence it is called 'coarse speech'.
4.66
Sūtra: O Ānanda [...] there is no such possibility.
4.67
Commentary: Third, his roots of goodness are already complete. A wheel-turning holy king possesses only slight roots of goodness, which are obtained as retribution by cultivating the causes of the ten goods; this is called completing slight good, yet he still attains freedom from disease. How much less could the Buddha, who through countless kalpas has accumulated immeasurable good causes and the two adornments of merit and wisdom, ever have disease? There is definitely no such principle.
4.68
Sūtra: "Only Ānanda... suffer such contempt and shame."
4.69
Commentary: Fourth, fearing that they might suffer humiliation. There are three parts: first, a general reprimand; second, a specific reprimand; and third, expelling him. This is the first. You should secretly return in haste; do not cause us to suffer these words of contempt, humiliation, and shame.
4.70
Sūtra: "If the various non-Buddhists... have any disease?"
4.71
Commentary: This is the specific reprimand. Non-Buddhists of wrong views mostly give rise to slander. If they hear such coarse words, evil thoughts will surely arise: 'He cannot save himself from illness; how can he save others?'
4.72
Sūtra: "You should secretly and quickly depart; do not let others hear."
4.73
Commentary: This is expelling him. Forbidding him to speak, [Vimalakīrti] urgently expelled him, so as not to let outsiders hear.
4.74
Sūtra: "Furthermore, Ānanda... undefiled by worldly phenomena."
4.75
Commentary: From here down, it reveals that the Buddha truly has no illness or distress, and also reveals that the dharmakāya has no illness. In brief, there are ten phrases in five pairs: First, it is the dharmakāya, not a composite, defiled body. This is the body constituted by dharmas of merit, so it is called the dharmakāya. It is not the tathatā-body, because this is an active, phenomenal body; nor is it a composite body mixed with afflictions and manifold sufferings. Second, it is a supramundane body, not a worldly body. 'Supramundane' means it cannot be destroyed and is not what the path counteracts; it is not like the worldly [body] that is perishable, destructible, and counteracted by the path. Therefore, worldly matters such as illness and distress cannot defile it.
4.76
Sūtra: "It is an anāsrava body... what disease could there be?"
4.77
Commentary: Third, it is anāsrava (untainted). It is not reinforced by the two bondages of association and cognitive objects, because it is free from all outflows (āsravas). Fourth, it is unconditioned. There are two kinds of unconditioned: first, tathatā and the like, which are not produced by causes and conditions, and are therefore called unconditioned; second, the anāsrava aggregates, which are not created by karma and afflictions, and are therefore also called unconditioned. The Buddha's body of five aggregates is also called unconditioned, because it is not created by karma and afflictions. Fifth, it is beyond the categories [of beings]. It does not fall into the category of sentient beings, because counting is eternally stilled; it falls only into the category of dharmas. Sentient beings are necessarily subsumed under the destinies, realms, and births; their essence is the eighth, vipāka-avyākṛta consciousness. Because the Buddha's body is solely anāsrava and solely wholesome, it is not subsumed under the category of sentient beings. How could such a body have any disease? Ānanda's vision was limited: he thought the Buddha's nirmāṇakāya was the real Buddha-body, that it was a composite, defiled body, and so forth up to broadly saying that it had fallen into the body of the human destiny of the desire realm, thinking that he truly had an illness. Therefore, the correct principle is shown now: the Buddha has no real illness.
4.78
Sūtra: "At that time, my World-Honoured One... could I have misheard near [the Buddha]?"
4.79
Commentary: Fourth, feeling ashamed. 'Miu' means mistaken. 'Wu' means not. [One explanation is:] Was it not that, being close to the Buddha, I could have misheard? There is also another explanation: 'Not being close' means being far away. Although I served as his attendant, my mind and wisdom were far from the Buddha and unable to know him; could it be that, while physically near the Buddha, I misheard?
4.80
Sūtra: "Immediately I heard a voice in the sky... truly has no disease."
4.81
Commentary: Fifth, the announcement from the sky. There are three parts: first, stating that the true Buddha has no disease; second, revealing the reason why the nirmāṇa-buddha displays disease; and third, encouraging him to fetch the milk. This is the first passage. The 'true body' is the saṃbhogakāya; it is true merit produced from cultivation of causes, hence called the true body. Alternatively, both the dharma- and saṃbhoga-buddhas are called the true body, because they are not provisional traces. The older translation lacks this. As the lay practitioner said, the World-Honoured One's true body truly has no disease.
4.82
Sūtra: "It is only because the Tathāgata... manifests such a matter."
4.83
Commentary: This reveals the reason why the nirmāṇa-buddha displays disease. As for the 'five-turbidities world', 'turbid' means dregs and defilement; just as dregs and defilements are in food, it is called turbid. First, the turbidity of afflictions, because afflictions are heavy. Second, the turbidity of views, because the five views vie with one another. Third, the turbidity of lifespan, because life is extremely short. Fourth, the turbidity of sentient beings, because sentient beings are evil. Fifth, the turbidity of the kalpa, [marked by] famine, epidemic, and war, which arise in succession at the ages of thirty, twenty, and ten years. At present, the preliminary signs of these already exist; this is as explained in the third fascicle of the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra. Śākyamuni, out of compassion, was born into this evil world; in order to teach and guide sentient beings currently undergoing evil karma, poverty, and suffering, as well as sentient beings performing various evil causes and actions, he manifested being ill like them. It is not that the Buddha truly has [illness], but because the World-Honoured One transforms sentient beings according to their type. He reveals that all evil karma must yield an evil fruit, and that even the World-Honoured One currently undergoing it still does not escape it. He also wishes to make future virtuous ones restrain themselves when ill: 'Even the Buddha manifested having it; what kind of person am I?' Because sentient beings are ill, the Buddha is also ill; it is for this reason that he manifests illness, not that the Buddha is truly ill.
4.84
Question: Why did Vimalakīrti not explain himself the reason the Buddha manifested illness, but had it announced from the sky? Answer: He wished to show that a single word matched [the truth] deeply, and that both the hidden and the manifest, oneself and others, share the same standard.
4.85
Question: What was the voice in the sky? Answer: It was either produced by Vimalakīrti's supernatural power, or an act secretly manifested by a great bodhisattva; neither principle is faulty.
4.86
Sūtra: "Go, Ānanda! Fetch the milk and do not be ashamed."
4.87
Commentary: This encourages him to fetch the milk to make an offering to the Buddha, and not to increase his shame.
4.88
Question: Why did Vimalakīrti reprimand him and tell him to leave secretly, while the sky told him to fetch the milk? Answer: Saying that the Buddha has a real illness and needs milk is inappropriate, hence [Vimalakīrti] told him to leave. Saying that the Buddha manifests an illness and therefore needs milk is logically acceptable, hence [the voice] told him to fetch it. Reprimanding the dharma, he first reprimanded him to make him leave; revealing the dharma, he later showed him that he should fetch it; thus there is no contradiction.
4.89
Sūtra: "At that time, my World-Honoured One... to go there to inquire after his illness."
4.90
Commentary: Concluding the answer with an apology, humbly requesting to withdraw. At that time, I did not understand what he was saying, so I remained silent without reply.
4.91
Sūtra: "In this way, World-Honoured One... to inquire after his illness."
4.92
Commentary: The third part of the lower chapter: concluding that the category of śrāvakas all declined and did not dare to go. There are two parts: first, the categorized inquiry; second, the categorized response. This is the categorized inquiry.
4.93
Sūtra: "All these śrāvakas... to go there to inquire after his illness."
4.94
Commentary: This is the categorized response.
4.95
Chapter Four: Bodhisattvas
4.96
Separately recounting the past provisional [teachings]. The past provisional [teachings] are of two kinds: first, transforming the śrāvakas, which has already been analyzed above; second, transforming the bodhisattvas, which will be expounded below. The Buddha knew that their class could not respond, [yet] revealed their lofty virtues coming together to assist and reflect him. Now, clarifying the matter of commanding the bodhisattvas to inquire after the illness, it is therefore named the Chapter on Bodhisattvas. In this chapter there are two parts: first, clarifying that the four virtuous ones were silenced in argument and would not go; later, clarifying that the remaining kinds all stated they were not competent. However, among the four virtuous ones they are divided into two pairs: making one aspire to non-retrogression while oneself revering bodhi; failing to perceive Māra's enmity, how could one know worldly merit? Vimalakīrti refuted them according to circumstances, and each remained silent. Thus, although the four virtuous ones are different, they are distinguished as two pairs. Within each one, the text has two parts: first, the command; second, the declining words.
4.97
Sūtra: "At that time, the World-Honoured One... to inquire after his illness."
4.98
Commentary: This is the command. In Sanskrit, Maitreya, translated as Ci Shi (the Benevolent One). In antiquity it was called Midili or Mile, which are both erroneous abbreviations. The recount of his original causes is as in the first fascicle of the Commentary on Maitreya's Ascent.
4.99
Sūtra: "Bodhisattva Maitreya... to go there to inquire after his illness."
4.100
Commentary: The declining words below also have three parts; this generally presents that his path was humbled. The Sūtra on the Released Bowl says: 'Maitreya said to Mañjuśrī: "Even hundreds of thousands of kotis of those like you could not know the lifting and lowering of my foot."' How could someone bound to one more birth have his path humbled by an ordinary stream? It is truly because those advanced in virtue and possessing prior knowledge defer prestige to the superior person, and hence fictively put forward words of being humbled previously. Now that he was commanded to respond, it is not that Maitreya was truly humbled. In the past, he spoke of non-retrogression to make them seek it, and [Vimalakīrti] spoke of the signless as the entrance. Now, having made a statement on conditions, his path was humbled at the time, hence he declined as incompetent.
4.101
Sūtra: "Why is that?... all the essentials of the Dharma."
4.102
Commentary: Below, specifically revealing the exhaustion of reasoning. First, asking; then, revealing. In revealing, there are two parts: first, presenting his own affair; second, revealing the other's words. This asks and presents his own affair. Tuṣita is the fourth heaven among the six heavens of the desire realm. It is named 'contentment', because while enjoying various desire pleasures, they are deeply content. Due to this disposition, the bodhisattva dwells in it before being born below. The Buddha prophesied of Maitreya that after twelve years, he would sit cross-legged in his original place, enter parinirvāṇa as if entering the cessation attainment, ascend to be born in Tuṣita, and succeed to the position [of Buddhahood]. Therefore, many from that heaven come to gaze upon and pay homage to him. Maitreya had already transcended the stage of retrogression; thus, according to what was appropriate, he preached to that heaven the practices of the four non-retrogressive wheels of Dharma, or solely preached the dharma of the fourth stage of the non-retrogressive wheel of Dharma for the eighth bhūmi and above.
4.103
Sūtra: "At that time, Vimalakīrti... and spoke these words."
4.104
Commentary: Below, revealing the other's words. There are two parts: first, clarifying the deportment upon arrival; second, properly presenting the words. This is the first. Maitreya had shaved his hair and donned black robes, as the one next in line to succeed to the position [of Buddhahood]. Vimalakīrti's appearance followed the worldly, so it was appropriate that he pay reverent respects.
4.105
Sūtra: "Venerable Maitreya... unexcelled, correct, and equal bodhi."
4.106
Commentary: Below, properly presenting the words. There are two parts: first, taking up the sūtra to express the principle; second, clarifying that the assembly gained benefit at that time. In the first there are again three parts: first, generally taking up the text of the sūtra; second, specifically expressing the principle in questioning; third, concluding with encouragement to reveal the truth, from 'Therefore, Maitreya, do not use this teaching to entice the devaputras' onward. This is the first text. 'Bestowing' (shou) means giving. 'Vyākaraṇa' (ji) means distinguishing, recognizing, or verifying. Personally receiving the prophecy is called 'receiving vyākaraṇa', because receiving means accepting. The Buddha gives him the prophecy, hence it is called 'bestowing vyākaraṇa'. The Buddha bestowed the prophecy upon him in various vinayas and the Ascent Sūtra. Saying 'in one birth' means: setting aside the present body, there is one birth in heaven, hence it says 'in one birth'. The intermediate state (antarābhava) is an expedient means subsumed under heaven, and is not counted among humans. Some say: [the lives] in heaven and the coming [life] among humans are jointly called 'one birth', just as speaking of seven births refers to the two births of humans and gods as great births. 'The Buddha said that Maitreya would be born in Tuṣita, and having exhausted that one life, would attain Buddhahood.' Dwelling in the Tuṣita heaven, he is also called a bodhisattva bound to one birth; it does not mean residing among humans is called one birth. This principle is correct. There are three kinds of bodhisattvas: those bound to one birth, and those in their final body who sit in the bodhimaṇḍa. This asks about the one bound to one birth, not the other two.
4.107
Sūtra: "By means of which birth... or the present?"
4.108
Commentary: Below, specifically expressing the principle in questioning. The major text has three parts: first, posing a challenge based on the difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned; second, posing a challenge based on the identity of the conditioned and the unconditioned, from 'Is it based on the birth of thusness' downward; third, posing a challenge on the grounds that the principle of bodhi and nirvāṇa is equal, from 'If the Venerable Maitreya is to realize bodhi, all sentient beings should also realize it' downward. The first two challenge the cause, and the latter one challenges the fruit. The first also has two parts: first, challenging the conditioned; second, challenging the unconditioned. The first of these has two parts: first, general; second, specific. This is the general questioning. Birth is the characteristic of birth among conditioned dharmas, so the challenge is made based on this. Previously it was said that in one birth he would attain bodhi, so first it uses birth to interrogate. It shows that conditioned dharmas do not abide from moment to moment and lack a real entity of birth; based on what could vyākaraṇa be received?
4.109
Sūtra: "If it is a past birth... the future birth has not arrived."
4.110
The commentary says: The following is the detailed interrogation. In the Mahāyāna, the three times originally have no real substance: based on a single existing entity, having once existed is called 'the past', about to exist is called 'the future', and existing at present is called 'the present'; the three times are all conventionally established designations. The present phenomena may be real, but their time is conventionally posited; past and future phenomena are both conventional designations—on what reality could they be based? Now the challenge states: the past is already extinguished, and the future has not yet arisen. If one relies on the Hīnayāna, the function of the past has already ceased and the function of the future has not yet arisen, but they are not without substantial entities of arising; if one does not challenge their function, the challenge would not hold. Now, relying on the Mahāyāna, formulating the substance of this challenge in this way is entirely without fault.
4.111
The sūtra [states]: "If it is in present arising, present arising has no abiding."
4.112
The commentary says: The following challenges the present. First it poses the challenge, and later it provides proof for this challenge. Among present phenomena, that which originally did not exist now exists, and this state of existence is called 'arising'; a momentary pause in the state of arising is conventionally called 'abiding'; the difference between before and after abiding is conventionally posited with the name 'decay'; and when it ceases to exist after this, it is conventionally called 'cessation'. Present phenomena do not possess even a momentary real abiding, nor do they abide continuously over time; therefore it is said that the present has no abiding, though not that it lacks conventional abiding. If there were real abiding, it could serve as a cause and could attain what is to come, and one could receive a prophecy based on it. Since the present has no real abiding that could serve as a cause, based on what could a prophecy be given?
4.113
The sūtra [states]: "As the Bhagavat has said, […] dying and arising at once."
4.114
The commentary says: Having challenged the absence of abiding, fearing that the principle might lack grounds, [Vimalakīrti] therefore cites the sūtra. The shortest extreme of time is called a kṣaṇa. Not just in a single kṣaṇa, but thought-moment after thought-moment it is like this; hence the sūtra repeats: 'In every single kṣaṇa, birth, aging, and death are complete.' 'Aging' is ripening and transformation, which is the characteristic of decay. It only speaks of three, and does not say there is abiding. Present phenomena disappear into the past across two moments: at the beginning and end, there is just a momentary arising, and at the time of arising there is also aging, with no separate time; it speaks only of the two moments of beginning and end, arising and disappearing. This is just as the sūtra says: 'There are three conditioned characteristics of conditioned phenomena, namely arising, decay, and cessation,' without separately mentioning abiding. The Mahāyāna explains: Because all conditioned formations are manifested in the three times—from the future time they arise from having originally been nonexistent, and having arisen they fall away into the past—present phenomena are manifested by two characteristics, namely abiding and decay. Only in present phenomena is abiding obtainable, and transformation between before and after is also only in the present; abiding and decay are spoken of collectively as a single characteristic. Abiding is that to which sentient beings cling with attachment; it is mentioned to cause disgust to arise. Furthermore, being of the same time, they are spoken of together. Now, this sūtra states that there is no real abiding, nor is there real abiding that lingers for even a short while; hence it only speaks of the three characteristics of birth, aging, and death. Or it means that in the present body, thought-moment after thought-moment, there are the links of birth, aging, and death among the twelve links, and thus there is no abiding.
4.115
The sūtra [states]: "If by non-arising […] the entered samyaktvaniyata."
4.116
The commentary says: The following challenges the unconditioned. First it cites its substance, and later it formally presents the challenge. Here it cites its substance. In terms of the principle of emptiness, 'entering' means realizing. Samyaktvaniyata is the true nature of phenomena, which is ultimate śūnyatā. In terms of the Yuktivāda principle: the substance of non-arising is precisely the realized samyaktvaniyata of tathatā, for tathatā is the truly real nature of phenomena. The older translation called it the 'correct station' (zhengwei); 'station' means the position of substance, which is samyaktvaniyata.
4.117
The sūtra [states]: "In this non-arising, […] did you obtain the prophecy?"
4.118
The commentary says: This formally presents the challenge. In terms of the principle of emptiness: In the ultimate truth of emptiness, what prophecy could be given? What awakening could be realized? Only if there were an awakening to be realized could there be a prophecy to be given; when there is no awakening to be realized, how could there be a prophecy? In terms of the Yuktivāda principle: The previous text challenged the dharmaparyāya of causes and conditions; this challenges the dharmaparyāya of tathatā. Within the gate of tathatā, since there is ultimately no awakening to be realized, how could there be a prediction so as to receive a prophecy? The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā states: 'In truth there is no phenomenon by which the Buddha attained anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi, up to Dīpaṃkara Buddha giving me the prophecy,' and so forth.
4.119
The sūtra [states]: "Is it based on the arising of tathatā […] that you obtained the prophecy?"
4.120
The commentary says: The following challenges based on the identity of the conditioned and unconditioned. The earlier challenge treated the two as different, which would incur the previous fault; now, taking the conditioned and unconditioned as identical so that there could be a prediction, it poses this challenge. In this there are three parts: first, a detailed challenge regarding reliance on tathatā; second, a general demonstration of reliance on tathatā; third, a concluding challenge regarding reliance on tathatā. Within the first there are again three parts: first, a dual interrogation; second, a detailed challenge; third, a dual conclusion. This is the first passage. In terms of the principle of emptiness: If conventional existence and ultimate emptiness are identical such that one receives a prophecy, is it based on the arising of emptiness or based on the cessation of emptiness that one receives a prophecy? In terms of the Yuktivāda principle: If conditioned phenomena and tathatā are identical such that one receives a prophecy, is it based on arising or based on cessation that one receives a prophecy?
4.121
The sūtra [states]: "If it is based on the arising of tathatā, […] tathatā has no cessation."
4.122
The commentary says: This is the detailed challenge. The principle of emptiness relies on emptiness, which has neither arising nor cessation; the Yuktivāda relies on tathatā, which likewise has neither arising nor cessation—how could a prophecy be given? The older text was difficult to understand.
4.123
The sūtra [states]: "That which has neither arising nor cessation […] has no prophecy."
4.124
The commentary says: This is the dual conclusion. A prophecy takes a cause to attain a fruit; the cause ceases and the fruit arises. Since arising and cessation do not exist, how could a prophecy be given?
4.125
The sūtra [states]: "All sentient beings […] are also tathatā."
4.126
The commentary says: This generally demonstrates reliance on tathatā. It generally demonstrates that all things rely on tathatā because it wishes to clarify that within tathatā there is no prophecy. 'All sentient beings and all phenomena' generally rely on tathatā; within this, all noble and wise ones rely on tathatā; and within that, Maitreya in particular also relies on tathatā. This is intended to show that whether ordinary or noble, persons or phenomena, general or particular, all rely on tathatā. In terms of the principle of emptiness: All rely on tathatā because all are empty in nature. In terms of the Yuktivāda principle: Because function relies on nature, and substance relies on nature.
4.127
The sūtra [states]: "If the Venerable […] and obtained the prophecy."
4.128
The commentary says: The following is the concluding challenge regarding reliance on tathatā. There are two parts: first, a general presentation of the challenge; second, an explanation of its reason. This is the first passage. Since the Venerable relies on tathatā and obtained a prophecy, sentient beings rely on tathatā and should likewise receive a prophecy.
4.129
The sūtra [states]: "Why is this? […] manifested by a different nature."
4.130
The commentary says: This explains the reason for the challenge. The true reality forms an undifferentiated whole, which is called 'not manifested by duality', because it is manifested through the gate of non-duality; nor is it manifested by various distinctions. Its substance does not become manifold; or it means it is not manifested by the two kinds of self, nor is it manifested by various arbitrary, conceptually constructed distinctions. How could there be a prophecy? A prophecy is a distinction. It verifies the cause and clarifies the fruit, and so has various differences. True reality has no variety; hence there is neither one who receives a prophecy nor one who does not receive a prophecy.
4.131
The sūtra [states]: "If the Venerable […] will have something to realize."
First 131 of 610 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 說無垢稱經疏 — Classical Chinese