維摩義記 1.10

1.10

即以神力空其室內者。空去父母妻子一切床坐侍者悉除。生下諸品之論端也。除去所有及諸侍者。遍論除床坐弟子也。唯置一床以疾而臥者。生下借坐燈王之論也。即入舍見其室空者。上侍者以列空其室。除侍者等。所以復明。文殊見室內空者。明下夷去其患。正除文殊共來之者。是以別列見也。文言善來者。必有其益故言善來。不來以下正夷去去來之心。不來相而來者。來者當運。自滅言不來。假名相續至於毘耶言其來。不見而見義同之也。若來已更不來者。述維摩來去義同兩望為異。文殊增其去述前二種。毘耶望菴羅為來。菴羅發向毘耶言去。若來已者。已者滅也。更不來者。第二運言更當運自滅言不來去見亦同之。所以者何釋時情疑。時情謂。雖實中無於去來之者。何防定有所從來處定有所至之處。是以今釋所以釋無決定來去之處者。無所從來者。破定菴羅去。無所至者。破定毘耶所。可見者隨來也。且置是事者。遣來去之病。其義粗同故言且置是事也。是疾寧可忍不以下凡有三門。文殊但受其使不受言有所勅。文殊玄騰聖意而問訊也。寧可忍不者。眾生煩惱之病寧可忍不。第二問療治有損者。明煩惱之病可療治不也。第三問不至增乎者。明煩惱之病不大熾盛不也。下淨名所以不答者。非佛之辭故不答也。慇懃致問無量者。毘有三問。廣便應多故言致問無量也。是疾何所因起以下。明文殊傳佛語而問。從癡有愛則我病生者。答第二問。其生久如者。今明從眾生有癡愛病根感我來。莫問遠近。隨感則病生也。一切眾生得不病以下。明感盡則病滅。答第三問。當云何滅以大悲起者。答第一問。何所因起。明由大悲故能現其病。故言因大悲起也。此室何以空以下。非是論病之次第。應取下文所疾為何等相接此文也。所以中起此文者。由上佛國品中現於淨土。其土之中唯有大菩薩為侍者。時坐而復著此二事。其心介然則受法不濃。是以欲去此二患故起此文也。空何以空者。明淨土空無。待者。問待者諸菩薩何以空無也。諸佛國土亦復皆空者。正明國土空以遣封情也。又以何為空者。國土為當本來無性故空。為當強用智觀作空也。答曰以空空者。明本來空故空也。又問空何用空者。但說一空。何用空空之名也。答曰以無分別空故空者。以眾生著空故我說空。復空故有二空之名也。又問空可分別耶。空體無殊。何得分別。後空異前空耶。答曰分別亦空者。明後空遣前空故言空此空亦無故言分別亦空也。又問空當於何求者。上來明色陰空。自下明四陰空。空有其三。初明諸見空。次明佛解脫皆空。後明中間一切心行空也。當於何求者。問求空之處在何。答曰以六十二見中也。又問諸見體空何處中求。答以解脫體上本來無請見故言解脫中求也。何無侍以下。遣著菩薩之空。一切眾魔皆吾侍者。明眾魔體空能達其空。便能因緣之中化魔從教為弟子。即其侍者何獨菩薩貴也。得遣著心。外道亦然也。此病為何等相以下。除其封著已竟。今還論其病空也。我病無形者。明病體空。身心合者。上雖言病無其形。可不與身心合也。答非身心合者。明身心空其病安在也。又問地大水火以下。上明五陰無病故空。身下偏就四大色陰以明。即離無病故空也。非地大者。明地大緣假無性故空。空故非即地大也。聞言非即便謂離大調然更有病體。亦不離者。破其計異也。而眾生病從四大起是故我病者。明眾生從四大有煩惱病根感於我。是故我病也。云何慰喻有疾菩薩者。明文殊是問疾之人。所以返問維摩者。而上維摩言從眾生有癡愛根感於我故則病生。是為無病而現病。善達於病原。故返問也。說身無常以下教菩薩慰喻之方。觀望此中教慰喻唯性地以上。何以知然下。經文言當識宿世無數劫苦果。當識苦有限者。明知不退菩薩知其有限也。若論習種性者。猶是其退。其苦無邊。何能識苦有邊也。說身無常以下四句。皆教彼菩薩作中道之觀。不同凡夫聲聞也。說悔先罪而不說入於過者。明先作其罪感於當果。果未現故。言悔先罪。而不說入過去者。明過去已滅非今猶在而悔滅也。當識無數劫苦愍於彼病者。明教實病菩薩愍一切眾生煩惱之病也。當識無數劫苦者。識苦有限以化眾生也。文言云何調伏其心以下。明教習種菩薩作調伏之觀。猶是慰喻之人。但始者為慰喻轉明為調伏也。就此中大略有二。從初盡不取證也。明自行調伏。第二從設身有苦以下。明外化調伏就初段中有三。從初盡不言我滅當起法相。第一明眾生空。第二從為滅法相應作是念以下盡得是平等。明法空。第三從無餘病以下。明去相善亦除空智也。就前眾生空中有二義。一從過去煩惱得身。初至身亦無我是。第二從又此病起以下。明現在起我之惑復得未來之身應當斷也。又一家解。就調伏有二。從初盡不言我滅。亦明眾生空。現在過去二義感果亦同。但此中破即離我異。從初至當起法相。破離陰我。應作是念以下。明去即陰我。何以知之。起唯五陰滅唯五陰。是生滅法。有何我也。各不相知以下。猶是破即陰我。但以各不相知為異。為滅法相以下。破法空中患人常解得眾生空去我不盡。復觀法遣之。名為法空。此亦可爾。又時人解計五陰法為決定神我。亦是顛倒。今觀此法作空去法上或心故言法空。非謂去眾生我。不盡復觀法遣之名為法空。離我所者。正應明我所空。所以言我空者。要得法空我患。斯盡是故明也。謂離二法者。非我之與所二法。橫計神我及出世涅槃此為二法。如此二法無決定性。所以空也。不念內外者。三界身為內。出世涅槃為外。但以名字者。但有計實之名字。推體無真實。故言空。有此言也。無有餘病者。計法空患是眾生之餘。今此二患俱亡故故言無餘也。唯有空病空病亦空者。空能生病。名空為病。此病亦空故言空病亦空。又解。計空之心為空病。所緣之空亦是空。病此空亦空也。以無所愛者。依前科判此猶在自行中。依於後解自此以下盡菩薩之謂。明調伏菩薩教彼外化調伏於後也。以無所受者。明得三種空故言無所受。而受諸受者。明有中施化。所以爾者。明此菩薩未具佛法。必索空解乃能成就萬行。不如聲聞宜取滅度證。設身有苦者。教實菩薩化前眾生。設身有苦亦悲愍眾生。我自除病亦除眾生也。但除其病者。除眾生惑心。而不除法者。本來我無其惑心。下實法可除。我心為病本。有我心故能為攀緣。謂之三界者。明攀緣之心亦在三界外。但三界喜心起故謂之三界也。三界內起為內見。計神我如來出三界者為外見。此二體空故言無所得也。為斷老病者。為教眾生令斷老病。自亦能斷。是菩提者。亦可。是前所化菩薩菩提。亦可。由教化眾生功來歸亡。是化主菩提。若不能化物。但自為己修治功德。為無惠利於眾生。亦無功來鍾已。勝怨者。自患能除復除他患。乃名為勇。菩薩亦爾。自除老死亦為眾生也。復作是念以下。上來總明生法二空。此中明相善亦除。猶是外化調伏中事。如我此病非實非有者。明調伏菩薩病體空非真非有。眾生病亦非真非有者。所化眾生病體亦空。即應捨離者。明著之善應捨離也。所以者何者。所以捨愛見悲者何。斷客塵煩惱者。有二義。一明愛見悲從客塵而生。二明愛見能生煩惱。有此二義。愛見悲即是客塵煩惱。是以應捨愛見悲也。亦可。所以應捨愛見悲者何。菩薩斷客煩惱時。欲起無相大悲故言而起大悲也。下釋愛見有疲厭也。無相厭無相厭故則處處無帶。故言不為覆也。文言何謂縛何謂解者。含有多義。一意正是愛見不解。於空有中生著。更有生著者。何謂是以下出禪中生著淨土中生著空中生著。悲下有四句大判。住前菩薩以為縛。初住以上名為解。所以住前為縛者。明此菩薩具煩惱性。未得無始能伏斷。未能永斷。名世間道。是故於空有觀行不能不著。著故名縛。所以名初住以上為解者。十住經云。是人能永斷煩惱已得無漏。捨世間道入出世間道。生在佛家。名空理為佛家種性。無可幾嫌。是故於空有不著得名為解。無方便者。無初住無相方便。有方便者。據初住語。無惠方便縛者。無初住觀空惠。言有者。亦據初住語正。以有中不亡相。於空亦有著。若存著空緣。有亦不亡於有。若亡於空緣有亦不存。所以爾者。空有相資故也。若爾以住二縛據性種解行。二解在於初住以上也。又一家解。無方便有方便有惠無惠。皆是性種性有資不資。若菩薩於有中生著不能亡相。後入於空依然生著。何以而然。別無有中方便資也。若能於有中不存其著。後入於空亦不生著。何以而然。由前有中方便資故得其爾。無惠方便縛者。明彼菩薩雖住於空而於空惠不成就也。不斷貪欲故言住貪欲。後至有中無此空惠資。有中而生於著縛於行者。故言無惠方便縛。有惠方便解者。能於空中不存於著斷貪欲。後至有中而不生著不縛行者。故言有惠方便解。此中言無方便惠者。皆無亡相者言無亦有不亡相者觀身無常以下必也。正其名上雖言惠。以方便未有旨。當今明觀空者為惠觀有者為方便。身不離病者。身外實無病。病不離身。病外更無身。是病是身非新非故者。明其身病皆空也。文言有疾菩薩如是調伏其心者。在空調伏心。不住其中者。還遣聞言在調伏。謂常在於空同於聲聞。是故言不在其中也。亦復不住不調伏心。不同凡夫。自下廣明夷此二家行於中道也。

"Instantly using spiritual power to empty the interior of his room" means emptying away parents, wife, children, and all couch-seats, and removing all attendants, thereby giving rise to the discussion in the following chapters. "Removing everything that was there as well as the attendants" refers generally to removing couch-seats and disciples. "Leaving only a single bed and lying down due to illness" gives rise to the discussion below on borrowing seats from the King of Lamps. "Entering the house and seeing his room empty": above it was listed that the room was emptied of attendants, removing attendants and the like; why is it explained again that Mañjuśrī saw the interior of the room to be empty? It explains that below his affliction was eliminated, directly removing those who had come together with Mañjuśrī; hence it is listed separately as "seeing." As for the text saying "Welcome," there must certainly be a benefit, hence he says "Welcome." From "Not coming" onward, he directly eliminates the mind of coming and going. "Coming with the sign of not coming": the coming is a momentary transition, and since it ceases of itself it is called "not coming"; in the continuity of conventional designations, reaching Vaiśālī is called "coming." "Seeing without seeing" has the same meaning. "If one has come, one does not come again": this expresses that Vimalakīrti's meaning of coming and going is identical, while looking from the two perspectives differs. Mañjuśrī adds to his "going," expressing the previous two kinds. Looking from Vaiśālī toward Āmrapālī's [grove] is "coming"; departing Āmrapālī toward Vaiśālī is called "going." "If one has come": "has" means ceased. "Does not come again": the second momentary transition is called "again"; the momentary transition ceasing of itself is called "not coming"; "going" and "seeing" are also like this. Why is this? It resolves the doubt in the minds of the people of the time. The people of the time thought: "Although in ultimate reality there is no one who comes or goes, what is to prevent there being a fixed place from which one comes and a fixed place to which one arrives?" Therefore it is now resolved; the reason it resolves that there are no fixed places of coming or going is: "having nowhere from which one comes" refutes a fixed departure from Āmrapālī; "having nowhere to which one arrives" refutes a fixed arrival at Vaiśālī; what can be seen accords with coming. "Put this matter aside": this dismisses the ailment of coming and going; its meaning is roughly identical, hence he says "put this matter aside." From "Is this illness bearable?" onward, there are altogether three gates. Mañjuśrī merely received the commission; he did not receive words that had any command. Mañjuśrī deeply conveyed the sage's intent in asking after his health. "Is it bearable?": is the sentient beings' illness of affliction bearable? The second asks "Is it abating under treatment?": this explains whether the illness of affliction can be treated or not. The third asks "Is it not increasing?": this explains whether the illness of affliction is not flaring up greatly or not. The reason Vimalakīrti below does not answer is that these were not the Buddha's words, and therefore he does not answer. "Earnestly making immeasurable inquiries": there are three inquiries, and if expanded there would be many, hence he says "making immeasurable inquiries." From "What is the cause from which this illness arose?" onward, it explains that Mañjuśrī conveys the Buddha's words in asking. "From ignorance there is craving, and thus my illness arises": this answers the second question. "How long has it been arisen?": it is now explained that from the illness-root of ignorance and craving in sentient beings, they stimulate me to come; do not ask whether it is distant or near: following the stimulation, the illness arises. From "If all sentient beings are not ill" onward, it explains that when the stimulation is exhausted, the illness ceases, answering the third question. "How should it cease? Arising from great compassion": this answers the first question, "What is the cause from which it arose?" It explains that because of great compassion he is able to manifest his illness, hence he says "it arises from great compassion." From "Why is this room empty?" onward, it is not the sequence of discussing illness; one should take the subsequent text "what is the illness like?" to join with this text. The reason this text arises in the middle is that above in the 'Buddha-Land Chapter' a pure land was manifested, and in that land there were only great bodhisattvas as attendants. The assembly at the time was attached to these two matters; their minds were obstructed, and thus they did not deeply receive the Dharma. Therefore, wishing to remove these two afflictions, this text arises. "Why empty?": this explains that the pure land is empty of attendants; it asks why the attendants, all the bodhisattvas, are empty. "All Buddha-lands are also empty": this directly explains that Buddha-lands are empty in order to dismiss attached feelings. "Again, by what is it empty?": is the land empty because originally it lacks intrinsic nature, or is it made empty by forcibly applying wisdom and contemplation? He answers: "Empty by emptiness": this explains that it is empty because it is originally empty. He also asks: "What is the use of emptiness in being empty?": merely teach one emptiness; what is the use of the term "emptiness of emptiness"? He answers: "It is empty by non-discriminating emptiness": because sentient beings cling to emptiness, I speak of emptiness; and by emptying it again, there is the term "two emptinesses." He also asks: "Can emptiness be discriminated?": the substance of emptiness has no distinction; how can it be discriminated such that the latter emptiness differs from the former emptiness? He answers: "Discrimination is also empty": this explains that the latter emptiness dismisses the former emptiness, hence it is called empty; this emptiness is also nonexistent, hence he says "discrimination is also empty." He also asks: "Where should emptiness be sought?": above, the form skandha was explained to be empty; from here onward, the four skandhas are explained to be empty. Emptiness has three aspects: first, it explains that all views are empty; next, it explains that the Buddha's liberation is empty; finally, it explains that all intermediate mental activities are empty. "Where should it be sought?": it asks where the place of seeking emptiness is. He answers: "Within the sixty-two views." He also asks: "The substance of all views is empty; in what place should it be sought?" He answers: Because on the substance of liberation there are originally no views, he says "it should be sought within liberation." From "Why are there no attendants?" onward, it dismisses the emptiness of attachment to bodhisattvas. "All Māras are my attendants": this explains that the substance of all Māras is empty; being able to penetrate their emptiness, one is then able, within conditions, to transform Māras to follow the teaching as disciples; they are then his attendants, so why should bodhisattvas alone be noble? Gaining the dismissal of the clinging mind, outer paths are also like this. From "What is the sign of this illness?" onward, having finished eliminating attachments, now he returns to discussing the emptiness of the illness. "My illness has no form": this explains that the substance of the illness is empty. "Joined with body and mind": although it was said above that the illness has no form, might it not be joined with body and mind? He answers: "It is not joined with body and mind": this explains that body and mind are empty, so where could its illness reside? He also asks: From "The earth element, water, fire" onward, above it was explained that the five skandhas are without illness and therefore empty; below, it focuses specifically on the four great elements of the form skandha to explain that, being neither identical nor separate, there is no illness and therefore they are empty. "It is not the earth element": this explains that the earth element, being conditioned and conventional, lacks intrinsic nature and is therefore empty; because it is empty, it is not identical to the earth element. Hearing the word "not," one might then think that, distinct and separate from the great elements, there is another substance of illness. "Nor is it separate": this refutes the conception of difference. "Yet sentient beings' illnesses arise from the four elements, and therefore I am ill": this explains that sentient beings have illness-roots of affliction arising from the four elements that stimulate me, and therefore I am ill. "How should one comfort a sick bodhisattva?": this explains that Mañjuśrī is the one inquiring after the illness; why does he turn to question Vimalakīrti? Above, Vimalakīrti said that because the roots of ignorance and craving in sentient beings stimulate him, the illness arises; this is manifesting illness without being ill, and thoroughly penetrating the origin of illness, hence he turns to question him. From "Speaking of the impermanence of the body" onward, he teaches the bodhisattva the method of comforting. Looking at this, teaching comforting is only for those of the nature-stage and above. How is this known? Below, the sūtra text says: "One should recognize the bitter fruits of countless kalpas in past lives; one should recognize that suffering has an end." This shows that the non-retrogression bodhisattva knows that it has an end. If one speaks of the practice-nature stage, they are still retrogressing and their suffering is boundless; how could they recognize that suffering has an end? From "Speaking of the impermanence of the body" onward, the four lines all teach that bodhisattva to practice the contemplation of the Middle Way, not like ordinary beings or śrāvakas. "Speaking of repenting past offenses without speaking of entering into the past": this explains that formerly committing offenses stimulates future fruits; because the fruits have not yet manifested, it speaks of "repenting past offenses"; "without speaking of entering the past" explains that the past has already ceased and does not still exist in the present to be repented and eliminated. "One should recognize the suffering of countless kalpas and feel pity for their illness": this explains teaching the genuinely ill bodhisattva to pity all sentient beings' illness of affliction. "One should recognize the suffering of countless kalpas": recognizing that suffering has an end so as to transform sentient beings. As for the text saying "How to subdue one's mind?" onward, it explains teaching the bodhisattva of the practice-nature stage to practice the contemplation of subduing. They are still the person who comforts, but what began as comforting turns to explaining subduing. Within this there are roughly two parts: from the beginning up to "not taking realization" explains subduing in one's own practice; the second, from "even if the body has suffering" onward, explains subduing in outward transformation. Within the first section there are three parts: from the beginning up to "not saying: 'I am extinguished, phenomena should arise'" is the first, explaining the emptiness of sentient beings; the second, from "In order to extinguish the signs of phenomena, one should form this thought" up to "attaining this equality," explains the emptiness of phenomena; the third, from "without remaining illness" onward, explains removing the sign of goodness and also eliminating the wisdom of emptiness. Within the previous section on the emptiness of sentient beings, there are two meanings: first, from past afflictions one obtains a body, from the beginning up to "the body is also without self"; second, from "Moreover, when this illness arises" onward, it explains that in the present, giving rise to the delusion of a self again obtains a future body, which should be severed. Another master explains: regarding subduing, there are two parts: from the beginning up to "not saying: 'I am extinguished'" also explains the emptiness of sentient beings; the two meanings of present and past stimulating fruits are also the same; but here, refuting identity and separation from the self differs: from the beginning up to "phenomena should arise" refutes a self separate from the skandhas; from "one should form this thought" onward explains removing a self identical to the skandhas. How is this known? "Only the five skandhas arise, only the five skandhas cease": these are phenomena of arising and ceasing; what self could there be? From "Not knowing each other" onward, it is still refuting a self identical to the skandhas, differing only in "not knowing each other." From "In order to extinguish the signs of phenomena" onward, in refuting phenomena within emptiness, people afflicted by it usually understand that having attained the emptiness of sentient beings, the removal of self is not exhausted, and they further contemplate phenomena to dismiss it, calling it the emptiness of phenomena; this may also be so. Again, people of the time understand grasping the phenomena of the five skandhas as a determinately existing ātman to be an inversion; now, contemplating these phenomena as empty removes the deluded mind regarding phenomena, hence it is called the emptiness of phenomena; it does not mean that, having removed the self of sentient beings without exhausting it, one further contemplates phenomena to dismiss it and calls that the emptiness of phenomena. "Departing from what belongs to me": strictly speaking, this should explain the emptiness of what belongs to me; the reason it speaks of the emptiness of self is that only by attaining the emptiness of phenomena is the affliction of self completely ended, and therefore it is explained. "Saying departing from the two phenomena": these are not the two phenomena of self and what belongs to it; arbitrarily conceiving of an ātman and supramundane nirvāṇa—these are the two phenomena; such two phenomena have no determinate nature, and are therefore empty. "Not thinking of the internal or external": the bodies of the three realms are the internal; supramundane nirvāṇa is the external. "Merely by designations": there are only designations conceived as real; investigating their substance reveals no reality, hence it is called empty; there are these words. "Without remaining illness": the affliction of grasping at the emptiness of phenomena is a remnant of sentient beings; now that both of these afflictions are gone, it says "without remaining." "Only the illness of emptiness, and the illness of emptiness is also empty": emptiness can give rise to illness, so emptiness is named illness; this illness is also empty, hence he says "the illness of emptiness is also empty." Another explanation: the mind that grasps at emptiness is the illness of emptiness; the emptiness that is its object is also the illness of emptiness, and this emptiness is also empty. "Through having no attachments": according to the previous structural division, this is still within one's own practice; according to the latter explanation, from here onward down to "called a bodhisattva" explains that the subdued bodhisattva teaches others in outward transformation to subdue thereafter. "Through having no reception": this explains that having attained the three kinds of emptiness, it says "having no reception"; "yet receiving all feelings" explains bestowing transformation within existence. Why is this so? It explains that this bodhisattva has not yet fully equipped the Buddha-Dharma; they must seek the understanding of emptiness in order to accomplish the myriad practices, unlike śrāvakas who should take realization of extinction. "Even if the body has suffering": this teaches the genuine bodhisattva to transform the sentient beings mentioned before; even if the body has suffering, they also have compassion for sentient beings: "I myself remove my illness, and also remove that of sentient beings." "Only removing their illness": removing sentient beings' deluded minds; "without removing phenomena": originally, I have no deluded mind; below, real phenomena can be removed; the mind of self is the root of illness; because there is a mind of self, it can form grasping conditions. "Calling it the three realms": this explains that the grasping mind is also outside the three realms, but because the mind of joy in the three realms arises, it is called the three realms. Arising within the three realms is internal view; conceiving an ātman or a Tathāgata as having transcended the three realms is external view; the substance of both is empty, hence he says "unobtainable." "In order to cut off old age and sickness": in order to teach sentient beings to cut off old age and sickness; one can also cut them off oneself. "This is bodhi": this may be the bodhi of the bodhisattva transformed previously; it may also be that through the merit of teaching and transforming sentient beings returning to emptiness, this is the transforming master's bodhi. If one cannot transform beings, but merely cultivates merit for oneself, there is no benefit to sentient beings, nor does any merit come to accrue to oneself. "Conquering enemies": if one can remove one's own affliction and also remove another's affliction, only then is one called brave; the bodhisattva is also like this, removing old age and death for oneself and also for sentient beings. From "Again forming this thought" onward: above, the two emptinesses of sentient beings and phenomena were explained in general; here, it explains that the signs of goodness are also eliminated, still belonging to the matter of subduing in outward transformation. "Just as this illness of mine is not real and not existent": this explains that the substance of the subdued bodhisattva's illness is empty, neither true nor existent. "Sentient beings' illnesses are also neither true nor existent": the substance of the transformed sentient beings' illnesses is also empty. "One should immediately abandon it": this explains that goodness with attachment should be abandoned. Why is this? Why abandon compassion of craving and views? "Severing adventitious defilements": there are two meanings: first, explaining that compassion of craving and views arises from adventitious defilements; second, explaining that craving and views can give rise to afflictions; having these two meanings, compassion of craving and views is itself adventitious defilement; therefore, one should abandon compassion of craving and views. It can also be: why should one abandon compassion of craving and views? When the bodhisattva severs adventitious defilements, wishing to give rise to signless great compassion, it says "and gives rise to great compassion." Below, it explains that craving and views have weariness. The signless does not tire, and because the signless does not tire, it is everywhere without entanglements, hence it says "not covered by it." As for the text saying "What is bondage? What is liberation?": this contains multiple meanings. One sense is precisely that craving and views are not liberation; within emptiness and existence they give rise to attachment; furthermore, there are those who give rise to attachment. From "What is this?" onward, it brings out giving rise to attachment in dhyāna, giving rise to attachment in the pure land, and giving rise to attachment in emptiness. Under compassion there are four phrases of major categorization: bodhisattvas before the stages are considered bound; those from the first stage onward are named liberated. Why are those before the stages bound? This explains that this bodhisattva is possessed of the nature of affliction; not yet having attained the beginningless ability to subdue and sever, unable to sever permanently, it is called the worldly path; therefore, in their practice of contemplating emptiness and existence, they cannot help but be attached; because of attachment, it is named bondage. Why are those from the first stage onward named liberated? The *Daśabhūmika-sūtra* says: "This person can permanently sever afflictions, has already attained the undefiled, abandons the worldly path and enters the supramundane path, and is born into the Buddha's family"; the principle of emptiness is called the gotra of the Buddha's family, beyond criticism; therefore, not being attached to emptiness or existence, they gain the name "liberation." "Without upāya": lacking the signless upāya of the first stage. "With upāya": spoken with reference to the first stage. "Bondage of upāya without wisdom": lacking the wisdom of contemplating emptiness of the first stage. Saying "with": this is also spoken directly with reference to the first stage; because within existence one does not obliterate signs, toward emptiness there is also attachment. If there is clinging to conditions of emptiness, existence is also not obliterated in existence; if it is obliterated in conditions of emptiness, existence is also not retained. Why is this so? Emptiness and existence assist each other. If so, the two bondages of the stages are based on the understanding-and-practice of the nature-gotra; the two liberations reside in the first stage and above. Another master explains: without upāya, with upāya, with wisdom, and without wisdom are all whether the nature-gotra has assistance or lacks assistance. If a bodhisattva gives rise to attachment within existence and cannot obliterate signs, when subsequently entering emptiness they will still give rise to attachment. Why is this so? There is no other assistance of upāya within existence. If one can avoid retaining attachment within existence, when subsequently entering emptiness one will also not give rise to attachment. Why is this so? Because of the assistance of upāya within existence beforehand, they are able to be thus. "Bondage of upāya without wisdom": this explains that although that bodhisattva dwells in emptiness, their wisdom of emptiness is not accomplished. Because they do not sever greed and desire, it says "dwelling in greed and desire." When subsequently reaching existence, lacking this assistance of the wisdom of emptiness, they give rise to attachment within existence and bind the practitioner; hence it says "bondage of upāya without wisdom." "Liberation of upāya with wisdom": being able to avoid retaining attachment within emptiness and severing greed and desire, when subsequently reaching existence they do not give rise to attachment and do not bind the practitioner; hence it says "liberation of upāya with wisdom." The statement here of "lacking upāya and wisdom" both refers to lacking the obliteration of signs; saying "without" also has those who do not obliterate signs; from "Contemplating the body as impermanent" onward, it must be so. To rectify their names: although wisdom was spoken of above, upāya did not yet have its purport; it should now be explained that contemplating emptiness is wisdom, and contemplating existence is upāya. "The body is not separate from illness": outside the body there is truly no illness. "The illness is not separate from the body": outside the illness there is no other body. "This illness and this body are neither new nor old": this explains that both body and illness are empty. As for the text saying "The sick bodhisattva subdues their mind in this way": subduing the mind in emptiness. "Not abiding therein": this in turn dismisses: hearing it said that they are in subduing, one might think they are always in emptiness, identical to a śrāvaka; therefore it says "not in its midst." "Nor abiding in an unsubdued mind": not identical to an ordinary being. From here onward, it broadly explains eliminating these two schools to practice the Middle Way.