[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768) › 1.25 # 維摩義記 1.25 維摩義記 1.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.25) 就胡本故言見阿閦品。向二大士與眾俱到佛所見於如來。存見有實如來可見。是以遣之。問。汝作何等觀。不敢直指。大聖。先觀己身以類佛身。乃至萬法前際不來者。外道計有神我。道場成大覺之我。今明眾生中無神我成佛。故言前際不來。計成佛已未來壽命逕無量劫。今明無實如來壽命逕無量劫。故言後際不去。現在無實如來住。現在世不觀色有實不觀色如性。不觀有定性類於心餘句可知。次明法身妙有非緣假故無。非四大起者。法身妙出不為四大所成。無四大義。同虛空亦不積。六入成妙過諸根。亦非三界垢因所成。故不在三界。向明如來法身不為色所成。次明如來妙解順於三空解。明無明等空。不一不異以下明法身妙有。百非之表。像不可尋。無相可說。故寄妙應以辨之。有本則垂迹。萬差無定一也。迹不殊本。言不異。無心於感物見利生。言非自。法身物無不濟。故非他。妙有不同太虛。非無相。法身絕於有心。故不取相。法身不在此生死中不在彼無為涅槃中也。不中流者。不同眾聖賢。雖絕於三非。如妙應不絕。向是妙有湛然常靜。而影現萬方。今明觀於寂滅而垂迹於邦。此語妙應之體。又明妙身心不在此方不在彼方。小異上也。而未始不此彼。若作此彼定心而緣。永乖其旨。智所不能知。豈是識之所及也。妙智幽鑒故無晦。現為不達故無明。名所不加體相亦夷齊。現嬰弱故無強。生老不組故非弱。現有恚礙非淨。永拂塵累曰非穢。高栖環中不在方。像無不則不離方。真體淡泊故非有為。飛馳六道故非無為。從天示以下明絕眾相盡言語道斷也。冥於名相豈言所能名。定求則乖其妙體。非福田契福。非不福田既無定。作福田之者何有實。應供生敬則福生。焉得言應供。無應供者可取。不應供可捨。相無兩冥。所以同真際等法性。非曰空同不為金剛以還心所稱量。過稱量境。細入故非大。彌淪故非小。體絕諸塵之數。所以有而不同塵者。永斷結縛故能然也。等三乘法現同一切眾生人間也。法無分別者。現同萬法。雖等三乘同眾生均萬法。而不實同。一切無失以下至顯示。復明絕於眾相。如來應身妙絕。即法身之相應作如是觀。若異此觀即是邪觀也。 > Based on the Indian text, it is called the Chapter on Seeing Akṣobhya. Previously, the two Great Beings arrived at the Buddha's place together with the assembly to see the Tathāgata. Harboring the view that there is a real Tathāgata to be seen, this is therefore dispelled. Question: "What kind of contemplation do you make?" Not daring to point directly at the Great Sage, one first contemplates one's own body to analogize the Buddha's body, up to the myriad dharmas. "Not coming from the prior limit": non-Buddhists posit that there is an ātman, an ātman that accomplishes the Great Awakening at the site of enlightenment. Now it is explained that among living beings there is no ātman that becomes a Buddha, so it says "not coming from the prior limit." They posit that after becoming a Buddha, the future lifespan traverses immeasurable eons. Now it is explained that there is no real Tathāgata whose lifespan traverses immeasurable eons, so it says "not going to the posterior limit." In the present there is no real Tathāgata abiding in the present world. One does not contemplate form as having reality, nor does one contemplate form as having a suchness nature; one does not contemplate it as having a fixed nature. Analogous to the mind, the remaining clauses may be understood. Next, it clarifies that the marvelous existence of the dharmakāya is not non-existent because of conditioned provisionality. "Not arising from the four great elements": The marvelous emergence of the dharmakāya is not produced by the four great elements; it has no nature of the four great elements. Like empty space, it also does not accumulate. The six sense-entrances constitute the marvelous, surpassing all sense faculties. Nor is it produced by defiled causes of the three realms, so it is not in the three realms. Previously it explained that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya is not formed of form. Next it explains that the Tathāgata's marvelous understanding accords with the understanding of the three emptinesses, clarifying that ignorance and so on are empty. From "neither one nor different" downward, it explains the marvelous existence of the dharmakāya. Outside the hundred negations, its image cannot be sought; there are no characteristics that can be spoken of. Therefore, it draws on the marvelous response to distinguish it. Where there is a root, traces are manifested; the myriad differences have no fixed single \[form\]. The trace is not separate from the root, so it says "not different." Having no mind to respond to beings or see benefits arise, it says "not self." The dharmakāya leaves no being unrescued, so it is "not other." Marvelous existence is not like the great void; it is not without characteristics. The dharmakāya is cut off from having a mind, so it does not grasp characteristics. The dharmakāya is not in this saṃsāra, nor is it in that unconditioned nirvāṇa. "Not in midstream": It is not like the multitude of sages and worthies. Although cut off from the three negations, its marvelous response is unbroken. Previously, it was the marvelous existence, pure and constantly quiet, while its shadow appears in the myriad directions. Now it explains that contemplating tranquil cessation, it manifests traces in the lands. These words speak of the substance of the marvelous response. It also explains that the marvelous body and mind are not in this direction and not in that direction, which differs slightly from the above. Yet it has never not been this and that. If one forms a fixed mind of "this" and "that" and grasps it as an object, it forever departs from its meaning. What wisdom cannot know, how could it be reached by consciousness? Marvelous wisdom profoundly reflects, so there is no darkness. Manifesting as not reaching, so there is no brightness. Names cannot be applied to it, and its essence and characteristics are also even and uniform. Manifesting as infant-weak, so there is no strength; birth and aging do not bind it, so it is not weak. Manifesting with anger and obstruction, it is not pure; forever brushing away dust and encumbrances, it is said to be not defiled. Perching high in the center of the ring, it is not in a direction; no image does not model it, so it is not apart from directions. The true substance is tranquil, so it is not conditioned; galloping through the six destinies, so it is not unconditioned. From "shown from heaven" downward, it clarifies the severing of all characteristics, the complete exhaustion where the path of words is cut off. Hidden beyond names and characteristics, how could words name it? Seeking it with certainty departs from its marvelous substance. "Not a field of merit" tallies with merit; "not not a field of merit": since it is not fixed, how could one who acts as a field of merit be real? Responding to offerings gives rise to reverence, and merit then arises; how can one say "responding to offerings"? There is no receiver of offerings to grasp, and no non-receiver of offerings to abandon. Characteristics have no two; both are obscured. Therefore, it is identical with the real limit and equal to the nature of dharmas. It is not called empty identity. It is not measured by the mind below the diamond-\[stage\]; it transcends the realm of measurement. Finely entering, so it is not large; permeating, so it is not small. Its substance is cut off from the number of all dusts. The reason it exists yet is not identical with dust is that it can be so because it has permanently severed bonds and fetters. Equaling the Dharma of the three vehicles, it manifests identically with all living beings in the human realm. "Dharmas are without distinction": it manifests identically with the myriad dharmas. Although equaling the three vehicles, identical with living beings, and uniform with the myriad dharmas, it is not really identical. From "Without any loss" down to "showing," it again clarifies the severing of all characteristics. The marvelous transcendence of the Tathāgata's response body is just the characteristic of the dharmakāya. One should make such a contemplation; if different from this contemplation, it is wrong contemplation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.24) - [Next: 1.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.26) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768~en-mt.1.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2768.1.25) · Pramāṇa