大乘玄論 4.8

4.8

Chapter 5: The Gate of Sameness and Difference.

Question: In general, there are five periods and two gnoses: (1) illuminating phenomena within empirical events is the provisional, while examining the principle of the four truths is the real—this refers to the two gnoses of the Tripiṭaka teaching; (2) illuminating true emptiness is the real, while examining conventional existence is the provisional—this is the two gnoses of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā teaching; (3) knowing the disease and discerning the medicine is the provisional, while dispensing the medicine in response to the disease is the real—this is the two gnoses of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa; (4) illuminating the One Vehicle is the real, while examining the Two Vehicles is the provisional—this is the two gnoses of the Lotus Sūtra; (5) illuminating eternal abiding is the real, while examining impermanence is the provisional—this is the two gnoses of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. What has been explained above merely interprets the intent of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā teaching; how can it express the central theme of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa?

Answer: As for the theory of the five periods and the thesis of the four tenets, which run counter to the scriptures and do violence to their meaning, ancient masters have already examined them in detail; we shall now speak of them briefly. When examining within a single scripture, it completely possesses the five texts; one does not need to wait for beginning and end to fully possess all gnoses. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā says: 'Extensively preaching the teachings of the Three Vehicles, the bodhisattva universally studies all paths.' This specifically recognizes that illuminating the principle of the four truths is the real, and examining phenomena within empirical events is the provisional; therefore, within the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā teaching, there are the two gnoses of the Tripiṭaka. Prajñā examines emptiness, and upāya engages existence; the ninety chapters of the scripture extensively discuss this dharma, which constitutes the two gnoses of emptiness and existence. The commentary [the Dazhidulun], in explaining the 'Chapter on Certainty' (Biding pin), cites the Lotus Sūtra, which refers to the two gnoses of the Three [Vehicles] and the One [Vehicle]. The 'Chapter on Dharmodgata' (Fashang pin) says: 'The form bodies of all buddhas have coming and going; the dharmakāya has no coming and going'—these are the two gnoses of the permanent and impermanent. Knowing the disease and discerning the medicine is possessed by all scriptures; it does not need to be mentioned. Therefore, the single scripture of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā fully possesses the five pairs of two gnoses.

As for the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa possessing all gnoses: the 'Chapter on Inquiring about Illness' explains that self-regulation through the three emptinesses is real wisdom, while adorning lands and transforming people is expedient means (upāya)—these are the two gnoses of emptiness and existence. The 'Chapter on the Disciples' says: 'The Buddha's body is unconditioned, not falling into any categories, yet it also appears in the five turbidities of birth and death'—these are the two gnoses of the permanent and impermanent. The 'Chapter on the Gate of Non-Duality' explains that the mind of the śrāvaka and the mind of the bodhisattva are non-dual, which refers to the real gnosis of the One Vehicle; illuminating the distinction between great and small is termed the provisional gnosis of the Three Vehicles.

Question: How is the gate of non-duality the One Vehicle?

Answer: The principle of non-duality is the root of the vehicle; hence it is named 'vehicle'. Because one embodies the principle of non-duality, non-dual contemplation arises. Because of non-dual contemplation, one can guide all practices to sarvajñā. Therefore, the Dvādaśamukhaśāstra explains that the greatly profound meaning is emptiness. By thoroughly comprehending this meaning, one thoroughly comprehends the Mahāyāna, fully possesses the six pāramitās, and is without obstacle.

Question: The principle of non-duality serves universally as the root of the Three Vehicles; how could it only be the root of the One Vehicle?

Answer: Since the principle is non-dual, how could the vehicles be three? Merely by voicing this phrase, one knows that all return to the One. Furthermore, the principle of non-duality is simply another name for the One Vehicle. Moreover, since it also clarifies eternal abiding, how could it not reveal the One Vehicle? Hence we know that the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa also fully possesses the five pairs of two gnoses.

As for the Lotus Sūtra possessing all gnoses: the 'Chapter on Expedient Means' says: 'Although I speak of nirvāṇa, this is not true extinction. All dharmas from the very beginning are constantly and naturally of the mark of quiescent extinction.' Former nirvāṇa was not true extinction; current nirvāṇa is true extinction. Thus, former nirvāṇa was not truly permanent; current nirvāṇa is truly permanent. Furthermore, Vasubandhu's commentary on the 'Chapter on the Life Span' fully distinguishes the three bodies: the nirmāṇakāya has a beginning and an end, the saṃbhogakāya has a beginning but no end, and the dharmakāya has neither beginning nor end; hence we know it fully possesses the meaning of permanent and impermanent. Moreover, if the fruit of the One Vehicle were still impermanent, then the cause would differ from that of the śrāvakas while the fruit would be the same as [their] ash-like extinction—this cannot be so; the fruit of the śrāvaka is in fact the cause of the One Vehicle. The 'Chapter on Peaceful and Happy Practice' clarifies that knowing that all dharmas are empty like the true mark is real gnosis, while knowing arising through causes and conditions is expedient gnosis; it also fully possesses the two gnoses of emptiness and existence. The 'Introductory Chapter' lists the assembly, still following the Hīnayāna in praising the virtues of the śrāvakas; hence we know it also fully possesses the two gnoses of the Tripiṭaka. That the Nirvāṇa Sūtra fully possesses the five needs no further comment.

Question: If within a single scripture all gnoses are possessed, what is the distinction between scriptures?

Answer: All Mahāyāna scriptures universally serve to reveal the Way. Since the Way is non-dual, how could the teachings differ? It is only that there are many gateways of entry; hence the differences among the various texts. Although a single scripture completely contains the five kinds, their elucidation of meaning has primary and secondary differences. The single teaching of the Tripiṭaka only clarifies the provisional and real of phenomena and principle, and does not yet distinguish the two gnoses of the other gates. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā takes emptiness and existence as primary, and the other meanings as secondary. The Lotus Sūtra takes the Three and the One as primary, and discusses the others only cursorily. The Nirvāṇa takes the permanent and impermanent as primary, and concurrently illuminates all the others.

Question: Why do the various scriptures have this primary and secondary [emphasis]?

Answer: There are two kinds of bodhisattvas: first, those who advance straight to the Buddha path; second, those who turn from the small to enter the great. For the straight-advancing bodhisattva, the Prajñāpāramitā speaks of expedient and real wisdom so that they do not fall into the three realms and do not abide in the Two Vehicles—like two strong men supporting one by each armpit, proceeding straight to the Buddha path. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: 'There are sons of the Buddha whose minds are pure, pliant, and of sharp faculties; I predict that such people will become buddhas in a future age.' This points to the events of the Prajñāpāramitā period; there was no need to clarify the Three Vehicles as provisional and the One Vehicle as real. Furthermore, for those who turn from the small to enter the great, during the Prajñāpāramitā period their root of comprehension was not yet matured; hence it did not primarily clarify the meaning of the Three and the One. That the 'Chapter on Certainty' cites the Lotus Sūtra to clarify retrogressing and non-retrogressing was merely touched upon secondarily in the latter part of the Prajñāpāramitā. The three-cultivations bhikṣus' clinging to impermanence had not yet been toppled by the time of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā; therefore it did not extensively clarify eternal abiding. Since prajñā and upāya are causal practices, one must also recognize the virtues of the fruit; for this reason, the latter part of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā briefly clarifies that the dharmakāya is permanent and traces have coming and going. Furthermore, Sadāprarudita originally sought prajñā, so the two wisdoms are taken as primary; mid-way he doubted whether the Buddha had coming and going, so root and trace were clarified secondarily.

Question: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā clarifies conditioned prajñā and unconditioned prajñā; does it not primarily distinguish the permanent and impermanent?

Answer: Unconditioned prajñā is of two kinds: first, the cognitive object of the true mark is named unconditioned prajñā, and the contemplative gnosis generated thereby is named conditioned prajñā; second, the dharmakāya of the Buddha fruit is named unconditioned prajñā, and the causal wisdom of the bodhisattva is named conditioned prajñā. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā primarily clarifies cognitive object and gnosis in terms of the unconditioned and conditioned, and secondarily clarifies cause and fruit as the unconditioned. Thus the treatise says: 'If one wishes to obtain conditioned prajñā, one should learn unconditioned prajñā.' This explains that if one wishes to obtain contemplative gnosis, one should learn the cognitive object of the true mark. If one were to say that wishing to obtain the cause one should learn the fruit, the meaning would not be suitable. It also says: 'The true mark can produce prajñā'—this is precisely producing gnosis through the cognitive object. If one were to say producing the cause through the fruit, the meaning would also not be suitable. If one takes the true mark to be the dharmakāya and suchness to be the Buddha, then this cognitive object and gnosis are simply cause and fruit; this meaning has already been examined in the five propositions above.

Question: Why is it that the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā takes cognitive object and gnosis as unconditioned to be primary, while the Nirvāṇa takes cause and fruit as unconditioned to be primary?

Answer: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā explicitly speaks of bodhisattva practice: the true mark can produce prajñā, and due to prajñā there is upāya; hence it takes cognitive object and gnosis as primary. The Nirvāṇa extensively clarifies the virtues of the fruit: from the causal stages onward, all are impermanent, and only the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is eternally abiding; hence it takes cause and fruit as unconditioned as its primary theme.

Question: As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā clarifies cognitive object and gnosis as unconditioned, how are they primary and secondary?

Answer: Although the cognitive object of the true mark is the root of prajñā, the Expository Treatise (Dazhidulun) opens prajñā into two wisdoms; the two wisdoms are what is produced, which is conditioned prajñā, and therefore the conditioned is primary; the unconditioned cognitive object is secondary, so one cannot take the cognitive object as the central theme.

Question: When the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā speaks of 'not abiding in phenomena, abiding in prajñā, completely fulfilling the ten thousand practices such as the six pāramitās'—is this conditioned or unconditioned?

Answer: 'Not abiding in phenomena' means not abiding in any dharma of attainment. Because of not abiding in all dharmas, one abides in prajñā; this is the unconditioned prajñā of the true mark. Directly below, within completely fulfilling the six pāramitās, the sixth pāramitā, prajñā, is conditioned prajñā. Here, in general, a sequence of three dharmas is clarified: first, that which can produce, namely the unconditioned prajñā of the true mark; second, that which is produced, contemplative gnosis, conditioned prajñā; third, guiding and perfecting the practices of cause and fruit.

Question: How does one know that 'not abiding in phenomena, abiding in prajñā' is the prajñā of the true mark?

Answer: Since the sixth pāramitā is conditioned, one knows that the initial one is unconditioned. Furthermore, the treatise distinguishes the six schools interpreting prajñā, and the sixth is the true mark, quoting 'not abiding in phenomena, abiding in prajñā'; hence we know the sixth is the true mark.

The Lotus Sūtra was taught primarily for people who turn from the small to enter the great; hence it clarifies the Three Vehicles as provisional to cause them to abandon the small, and reveals the One Vehicle as real to encourage them to adopt the great; thus it primarily clarifies the two wisdoms of the Three and the One. Having abandoned the small and sought the great, they give rise to the bodhi-mind; in cultivating bodhisattva practice, they must learn the provisional and real of emptiness and existence, not clinging to the three realms and not falling into the Two Vehicles, proceeding straight to the Buddha path. However, since the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā had already extensively explained this, the Lotus Sūtra explains it only briefly. The śrāvakas of the three faculties, at the assembly of the Lotus, did not cling to impermanence, so it did not yet explain permanence and bliss. Yet having explained the cause of the One Vehicle, it had to distinguish the fruit of the One Vehicle; therefore, the latter part briefly clarifies permanence. Furthermore, speaking of eternal abiding completes the preceding One Vehicle; if it were impermanent, it would revert to being the same as ash-like extinction. Since it is different from the former Three, one knows it is eternally abiding; therefore it briefly distinguishes permanent and impermanent. The teaching of the Nirvāṇa arose primarily because of the clinging to impermanence, so it discloses eternal abiding; the Three and One, and emptiness and existence, were already explained in previous teachings, so it explains them only briefly.

Question: If the Prajñāpāramitā was for straight-advancing bodhisattvas, and the Lotus Sūtra was for people who turn from the small to enter the great, then the gathering of conditions was already complete; what was the purpose of the arising of the Nirvāṇa teaching?

Answer: In establishing teachings there are many purposes; it cannot be reduced to a single track. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā was for nineteen causes and conditions; what the Nirvāṇa was for is not merely one. Explaining this meaning based on the Lotus Sūtra: the children are of two kinds: first, those who have lost their minds, namely people of dull faculties; second, those who have not lost their minds, namely people of sharp faculties. Although there are the straight-advancing and those who turn from the small, hearing the Prajñāpāramitā and Lotus Sūtra they both smoothly attained awakening—these are called the children who have not lost their minds, people of sharp faculties. The remaining dull-facultied who lost their minds had not yet taken the medicine; only when [the Buddha] proclaimed extinction in the Twin Trees and spoke the Nirvāṇa for them did they then accept it with faith. If so, from the beginning at the Padmagarbha to the end at the Bhadrakā River, there are only the two conditions of sharp and dull: prior to that was for people of sharp faculties, and the teaching of the Nirvāṇa was for people of dull faculties. Furthermore, those at the assemblies of the Prajñāpāramitā and Lotus had already attained the Way, but now upon hearing the Nirvāṇa they advanced in awakening even further. Therefore it is said: 'This scripture was spoken for the king of elephants among men, the Bodhisattva Kāśyapa.' Furthermore, there are two kinds of conditions: first, those who attained awakening through traversing the teachings; second, those who only needed to hear the Nirvāṇa to immediately accept it with faith. Therefore, although the Prajñāpāramitā and Lotus were for two kinds of people, the two gnoses of the Nirvāṇa were spoken further.

To discuss the two scriptures separately: Question: What is the difference between the two gnoses of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa?

Answer: There are three theories in all. The five-period theorists say: the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā divides the two gnoses by illuminating emptiness and existence, while the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa knows the disease, discerns the medicine, and dispenses teachings according to conditions—as explained above. The four-period theory says: the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa are both subsumed under the second period, illuminating emptiness as the real and examining existence as the provisional, but the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā universally speaks of shallow and deep, while the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa exclusively clarifies the dharma of the eighth stage. People of the northern regions say: the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is the perfect and sudden teaching; neither defiled nor pure, it roams equally in defilement and purity.

We now consider that none of these is correct. 'The perfection of wisdom is the bodhisattva's mother, expedient means is the father; all guides of the assembly are born without exception from them.' These are the two wisdoms of emptiness and existence, which universally run through the Vaipulya; how could they be confined to the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā? Furthermore, prajñā examines emptiness and upāya engages existence; this generally encompasses all gnoses. Knowing the disease and discerning the medicine, and dispensing medicine according to the disease, are contained within them; how could those two gnoses of prajñā fail to encompass the provisional and real of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa? Therefore that interpretation is incorrect. Nāgārjuna enumerated the ten great scriptures, referring to the Lotus and others, and the Prajñāpāramitā is supreme; how can one say that the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā universally speaks of shallow and deep, while the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa alone clarifies the marvelous Way? If one says that because Vimalakīrti was a person on the eighth stage or above his teaching is marvelous, then the Tathāgata spoke the Prajñāpāramitā for the ultimate fruit-virtue, so it should be the most profound. Furthermore, if Śāriputra and Subhūti were lesser persons and speaking it made it not a great dharma—[that is absurd]. If one says that because the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa distinguishes the inconceivable accommodation of the vast and the minuscule it is profound, does not the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā also clearly state that a finger can block the power of wind and a tip of hair can lift the great chiliocosm? Furthermore, prajñā and upāya are the root of the inconceivable; borrowing seats and asking for food are traces of the inconceivable. As the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā extensively clarifies the two wisdoms, it distinguishes the root of the inconceivable; as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa manifests supernormal powers, it displays the traces of the inconceivable. How could the root universally encompass shallow and deep while the trace alone is marvelous? If one says that because the Three Vehicles universally study prajñā it encompasses shallow and deep, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa also distinguishes that persons of the Two Vehicles all take non-attainment as attainment; how does it not also universally encompass them? If one says that this scripture is the perfect and sudden teaching, this is also not so: the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and others distinguish the bodhisattva's provisional path and expedient means in adapting to transform others differently; why take this scripture alone as perfect and sudden?

What we now clarify is that the two gnoses clarified in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and Vimalakīrtinirdeśa have sameness and difference. 'The perfection of wisdom is the mother, expedient means is the father'—both scriptures equally distinguish this dharma. However, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā first clarifies real wisdom and later distinguishes expedient means; hence the ninety chapters of the scripture are divided into two paths: sixty-six chapters clarify the path of prajñā, and the latter twenty-four chapters clarify the path of expedient means. Why it first clarifies real wisdom and later distinguishes expedient means is that the true mark is the root and all dharmas are the branches. Prajñā illuminates the true mark, so prajñā is the root; expedient means illuminates all dharmas, so expedient means is the branches. This shows the two roots and two branches: from root to branch, from substance arising function; hence it first clarifies real wisdom and later distinguishes expedient means. Second, all views are of two kinds: first, the view of existence; second, the view of non-existence. Prajñā rebukes the view of existence, and expedient means destroys the view of non-existence, thereby revealing the Middle Way and leaving behind the two extremes; hence first clarifying real wisdom and later distinguishing expedient means refers to the sequence of destroying views. Third, as for a bodhisattva's retrogression, there are two matters: first, coveting the three realms; second, adopting the Hīnayāna. Through expedient real wisdom one does not cling to the three realms; through real expedient wisdom one does not fall into the Two Vehicles; thus one enters the bodhisattva stage and can reach the Buddha path. One must first leave the three realms and later leave the Two Vehicles; hence it first distinguishes real wisdom and later clarifies expedient means. This is like the dangerous, evil path of five hundred yojanas in the Lotus Sūtra: the three realms are three hundred, and the Two Vehicles are two hundred; first leaving the three hundred and later leaving the two hundred, hence first clarifying real wisdom and later distinguishing provisional wisdom. Thus in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, combining the Two Vehicles into one hundred, it speaks only of four hundred. Although their division and combination differ, it is broadly identical with the Lotus Sūtra, as extensively explained there. Furthermore, Master Sengrui's 'Preface to the Commentary' says: 'The Truly Awakened One knew that perverted thoughts arise of themselves, and therefore the Āgamas were made for them; examining the confusion born of clinging to existence, the Prajñāpāramitā illuminated it.' If so, prajñā destroys the existence of the Hīnayāna, so it first clarifies real wisdom. Although it destroys clinging to existence, fearing that one might realize emptiness, expedient means destroys emptiness. This is the sequence according to earlier and later in the teachings. Fifth, clarifying sequence in terms of stages: first clarifying the path of prajñā refers to the sixth stage and below; next, the path of expedient means refers to the seventh stage and above with the patience of the unborn dharma. These are all broad demarcations. Nāgārjuna says: 'Within prajñā there is no absence of expedient means, and within expedient means there is no absence of prajñā.' It is only that earlier it mostly clarifies prajñā, and later it mostly clarifies expedient means.

Next, as for the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa distinguishing the two wisdoms, it first clarifies expedient means and later clarifies the real. Why this is so is that the arising of this teaching specifically began with illness; hence it says: 'Through expedient means he manifested his body as having illness.' Because he had an illness, there were the two assemblies in the ten-foot room and the two gatherings in Āmrapālī's garden; hence it first clarifies expedient means and later clarifies the real. Furthermore, maturing sentient beings and purifying the buddha-land are the bodhisattva's expedient functions. The single chapter 'Buddha-land' clarifies purifying the buddha-land, and from 'Expedient Means' onward it distinguishes maturing sentient beings; for this reason, this scripture mostly clarifies expedient means. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā mostly clarifies the true mark and rarely manifests supernormal powers, while the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa mostly manifests supernormal powers and rarely clarifies the true mark. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā mostly clarifies real wisdom and expedient means, while the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa mostly distinguishes the two wisdoms of the provisional and real.

Question: What is the difference between the provisional (quan) and expedient means (fangbian)?

Answer: Generally speaking there is no difference; both bear the meaning of skillfulness. Speaking specifically, 'expedient means' is broader, while the term 'provisional' is narrower. Now we broadly clarify three propositions: (1) illuminating the true mark is real wisdom, while examining the ten thousand dharmas is the provisional; (2) quiescently examining the ten thousand dharmas is the real, while externally manifesting reverse activity is the provisional; (3) regarding dynamic function, taking the un-diseased body as the real, while relying on illness in the ten-foot room is the provisional. The first, illuminating the true mark, is named real wisdom, and the other three gates all belong to expedient means. Therefore, the meaning of 'provisional' is narrower, taking only the outward display of reverse activity as provisional; hence the provisional is a specific function within expedient means, which is why it is called narrower.

Question: Since 'provisional' and 'expedient means' have narrow and broad [meanings], can the two 'reals' also be like this?

Answer: The real of expedient means is broader, while the provisional's real is narrower. Why this is so: since expedient means leaves nothing undone, real wisdom illuminates leaving nothing undone while in reality doing nothing; therefore it is broad. Provisional gnosis is merely reverse activity within existence, while real gnosis is quiescent examination within existence; hence the provisional's real is narrow.

Question: Outwardly displaying reverse activity is the provisional, while illuminating that in movement there is no movement is the real. If one establishes only these two, does it complete the provisional and real?

Answer: Outwardly displaying reverse activity is the provisional—this is dispensing medicine according to the disease. One must inwardly and quiescently examine faculties and medicine as the real, only then completing the two wisdoms. Wisdom of emptiness does not know faculties and medicine, and therefore cannot complete the two wisdoms.