English (machine translation)

Language: English
Extent: 32 passages, 19,873 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.2768 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

1 — 32 parts

Text

1.1

If the Vinaya is not understood, then one produces […] rejoiced. Aniruddha was foremost in divine vision […] form divine vision. We wish to hear it; therefore, [he] looked upon it with joy. 'Sees all Buddha-lands': previously [he] saw three thousand [worlds], but now he beheld our Buddha-land […]; [if] in [emptiness], one cannot condition existence, and while in existence, one cannot contemplate emptiness. This shows that only when the Tathāgata eradicates both characteristics of existence and non-existence does he truly see all dharmas. As for Upāli: it refers to the keeper of the Vinaya, who was deemed competent to inquire about illness, and hence was ordered [to do so]. This person's shortcoming lay in not being skilled in the method of eliminating offenses, which is why he was reproved. 'Dared not ask the Buddha': during the Tathāgata's presence in the world, filled with shame and apprehension, they dared not ask the Buddha, but came to ask Upāli. 'Explained according to the Dharma': that which I understood in my mind, explaining the origins of offenses, future retributions, and the methods for their elimination; thus did he speak to them for their cane and wolf [-like crimes]. 'You should directly eliminate [them] and not disturb their minds': explaining the characteristics of offenses and eliminating them is an indirect elimination that increases their confusion; if one directly explains their emptiness, their offenses can be eliminated. Therefore, it is said: 'You should directly eliminate [them] and not disturb their minds.' 'Why is this?': Why does directly contemplating their emptiness immediately eliminate offenses? Below, it explains that because offenses are empty, they can be eliminated. 'Not inside': offenses are not in one's own body. 'Not outside': [not in] the sentient being in front. 'Not in between': [not in] the knives, staves, and the like. Because they do not exist in these three places, know that there are no offenses. Below, it lists the emptiness of the four skandhas to verify this emptiness. 'Defilement of the mind': mind is an actual dharma, and sentient beings acquire the name of 'defiled'; thus know that defiled dharmas are indeterminate. It shows that the mind is also like this. 'The mind is also not inside': this explains the emptiness of the consciousness-skandha. Being in the sense-faculties is 'inside'; not being in the objects before one is 'outside'; not being in emptiness and existence is 'in between'. 'As is the mind, so is the defilement of offenses': this explains that because the mind does not exist in the three places, it is empty. Offenses are not separate from the mind; since the substance of the mind is already empty, how could there be offenses? The substance of offenses is itself empty; therefore, it is said: 'so is the defilement of offenses.' 'All dharmas are also like this': by analogy, all dharmas are empty. 'Is there any defilement or not?': questioning Upāli in return. All characteristics of mind are entirely empty, and its defilement cannot be seen. 'The characteristics of mind of all sentient beings are without defilement, and are also like this': this concludes the emptiness of the consciousness-skandha. 'False conceptualization is defilement': because false conceptualization largely gives rise to views, it is called defilement; this explains the emptiness of the saṃjñā-skandha. 'Inversion is defilement': because this feeling can produce afflictions, it is called defilement; this explains the emptiness of the vedanā-skandha. 'Grasping at a self is defilement': this explains the emptiness of the saṃskāra-skandha. This is precisely the substance of defilement; the preceding three can generate defilement, so they are named defilement. From 'All dharmas arise and cease' onward, it broadly explains the emptiness of offenses and the four skandhas. Why is it known to be empty? Because arising and ceasing do not abide, being like illusions and transformations, they are known to be empty. 'This is called upholding the Vinaya': if one can understand as explained above, one is truly upholding the Vinaya; being skilled in understanding is also like this.

1.2

As for ordering Rāhula: it was thought that the foremost in keeping the precepts was competent to inquire about illness, and hence he was ordered [to do so]. Rāhula's shortcoming lay in the fact that regarding the spiritual faculties of the people before him, they should have heard of renunciation that is signless, yet he immediately spoke to them of the advantages and merits of renunciation; this was speaking of the advantages that have signs. 'One should not speak of the advantages and merits of renunciation': one should not speak of advantages that have signs. 'Why is this?': Why should one not speak of advantages that have signs? 'This is renunciation': this explains that the people before him should have heard of signless renunciation; within the signless, there are no advantages with signs, and there is no merit, hence it is said 'there is no merit'. For renunciation: the minds of these ordinary persons should have heard of renunciation without advantage and without merit. The text says 'without this, that, or in between': why did this text arise? It wishes to explain that emptiness is the origin of all existences; if one can penetrate the purport of emptiness, all existences can be accomplished. The Madhyamaka-śāstra states: 'Because there is the principle of emptiness, all dharmas can be accomplished.' The Dvādaśamukha-śāstra states: 'Due to the profound meaning of the great part, the six pāramitās can be accomplished.' Therefore, emptiness is the root of all existences. 'Without that' means without nirvāṇa. 'Without this' means without saṃsāra. 'In between' means without the noble eightfold path. Since these three do not exist, all phenomena are thus empty; emptiness is the origin of all phenomena. From 'Free from the sixty-two views' onward: this explains that emptiness broadly accomplishes things. 'Free' explains that because there is 'no this', one can be free from all grounds of views. 'Nirvāṇa' explains that because there is 'no that', one attains nirvāṇa. 'Accepted by the wise' explains that because there is 'no in between', one is accepted by the wise. 'Subduing the hosts of Māra': leading Māra to renounce [the world], Māra attains the five eyes and so on; Māra was originally afflicted by mixed evils, but now he is free from afflictions and evils. 'Crushing and subduing the non-Buddhists': leading non-Buddhists to renounce [the world]. 'Transcending nominal designation': transforming them so that they attain the emptiness of sentient beings; sentient beings being already empty, they are not defiled by nominal designations, hence it is said 'emerging from the mire'. Having emerged from the mire, they are not bound by nominal designations; hence it is said 'without attachment'. From 'Without self or what belongs to self' onward: this explains the emptiness of dharmas. Not preserving the five skandhas is called 'without self'; not receiving anything from the objective realm is called 'having nothing received'. 'In accordance with dhyāna-concentration, free from all evils': above, being free from evils explained all evils; here, being free from evils explains the evils that obstruct emptiness.

1.3

As for ordering Ānanda: at that time, common opinion held that the one of extensive learning could inquire about illness, and hence he was ordered [to do so]. That person's shortcoming lay in not penetrating the way of responsive manifestation, supposing that the ultimate truth could have illness. In this section, there are three parts in all that explain that the dharmakāya has no illness. From 'Stop, stop' down to 'could hear these words': cutting off all evils completely and possessing all the myriad goods fully, how could it have illness? Before this 'Stop', there are two intentions: previously it was said that the body was slightly ill and should use cow's milk; now, he again stops it with two 'stops'. 'Ashamed of the past': ashamed of the past words that the Tathāgata had an illness. From 'wheel-turning [king]' downward: the second part uses the lower to illustrate the higher, explaining that the Tathāgata's dharmakāya has no illness. 'Go, Ānanda': quickly go and depart. From 'You should know' downward: above, it explained cutting off evil and perfecting goodness, explaining that the dharmakāya has no illness; from here down, it explains that the Tathāgata does not fall into numerical categories of dharmas, explaining the absence of illness. 'Go, Ānanda': go and fetch the milk.

1.4

Bodhisattva-parivarta

1.5

Maitreya was a master who would succeed [to the Buddha's place]; how could there be any humiliation or acceptance [of fault] on his part? It was merely insufficient to manifest the lofty virtue of Vimalakīrti. In explaining the non-retrogressing practice to the king of the Tuṣita heaven: this explains that when that deva heard that Maitreya was to be born there, a joyful attachment arose within him; therefore, he asked about the non-retrogressing practice of the ten abodes. Vimalakīrti reproved him to eliminate the clingings and attachments of the devas. Why did he expound the non-retrogressing practice to them? This explains that those devas rejoiced in this practice to attain bodhi and nirvāṇa, and because of this prediction they would attain this fruit; attaining the fruit is due to the practice and the generation of the mind [of awakening]. Therefore, Vimalakīrti negated his five matters one by one. 'By which birth?': this clarifies that minds are very numerous; grasping a single mind is difficult, so one cannot receive a prediction. 'Past, future, or present?': this clarifies that taking the mind of a single thought-moment, three assessments are made regarding the three times; hence he asks determinately, 'past, future, or present?' 'The past birth has already ceased': if the past mind has already ceased, how can it receive a prediction? 'The future birth has not yet arrived': not yet arrived is a non-existent dharma of the future, so it cannot receive a prediction. 'The present does not abide': a thought-moment is composed of three characteristics, moment-by-moment not abiding, so it cannot receive a prediction. If the mind does not exist in the three places, where does its prediction reside? 'At that very moment, it also arises, ages, and ceases': citing the Buddha's words as proof that a single thought-moment has three characteristics, and their characteristics are distributed across the three times; one cannot […] 'Arising' is the characteristic of arising; 'aging' is the characteristic of abiding; 'ceasing' is the characteristic of cessation. The text says: 'If with non-arising […] to sambodhi […]' Above, […] also cannot receive a prediction within emptiness; this does not refute bodhi, but only refutes the prediction. The prediction is regarding bodhi, so it joins […] 'receiving a prediction as suchness is born': above it explained that within the position of emptiness one cannot receive its prediction; this concedes that one receives a prediction within emptiness. Emptiness should be […] receiving a prediction. Now it explains that because within the emptiness of suchness there is no arising or ceasing, how could there be a prediction? 'Why is this?': Why is it that if Maitreya receives a prediction, then sentient beings also attain it together? 'For suchness is non-dual and not different': sentient beings and Maitreya are identical in suchness, non-dual, nor is there any difference such that Maitreya receives a prediction while sentient beings do not. Since emptiness has no difference, they should attain it together. The second part, from 'If Maitreya attains bodhi' down to 'is itself the characteristic of bodhi', refutes the characteristic of bodhi. The third part, from 'If Maitreya enters extinction' down to 'enticing the devaputras', refutes nirvāṇa. The fourth part, 'There is truly no generating of the mind', refutes the generation of the mind; 'nor is there any regression' refutes the non-retrogressing practice. From 'Abandoning the view of distinguishing bodhi' downward: this refutes bodhi again. Why is this so? It explains that those devaputras rejoiced in bodhi with many minds attached to characteristics, so it refutes it again. From here down, it explains that bodhi is empty. It does not argue that bodhi is empty because of lacking inherent nature; it only explains that bodhi is wondrously cut off from the objective sensory realm, its substance lacking all characteristics, hence it is said to be empty; it does not mean non-existence. From here down, it explains the refutation of bodhi, having three [aspects] in all. From down to 'having no arising, abiding, or cessation', the substance of bodhi is empty. 'Abandoning the view of distinguishing bodhi' explains that bodhi is wondrously transcendent and cannot be seen. 'Why is this?': Why does one abandon the view of bodhi? 'Not attained through body or mind' explains that bodhi is wondrously transcendent, cut off from the substance of body and mind; being neither body nor mind, how could it be seen? From 'Quiescent extinction' downward, there are six sections of explanation in all. First, 'Quiescent extinction is bodhi, because it extinguishes all characteristics': this generally explains that it is not attained by body or mind, being the characteristic of quiescent extinction. Second, from 'Non-contemplation is bodhi' down to 'because of having no recollection': this explains that bodhi does not contemplate the objective realm and does not recollect the objective realm. Third, from 'Severance is bodhi' down to 'because of having no greedy attachment': this explains that bodhi severs afflictions and confusion; 'abandoning views and being free from false conceptualization' explains severing views; 'blocking all vows and having no greedy attachment' severs the five dull [afflictions]; 'vows' means love and discriminative wishing. Fourth, from 'Accordance is bodhi' down to 'the limit of reality': this explains that bodhi has no characteristics, its substance being identical with the three emptinesses. Fifth, the single phrase 'Non-duality is bodhi' resolves a doubt: above, it explained that according with the three emptinesses was regarded as bodhi, and conditioning the three emptinesses was called 'according'; now it says 'because of being free from mind and mental objects': there is no bodhi as the mind, and the three emptinesses as mental objects; hence it is said 'because of being free from mind and mental objects'. The lower two phrases both explain the substance of bodhi. Second, 'Knowing is bodhi, because it knows the mental activities of sentient beings': above it explained that the substance of bodhi is empty, and at that time expectations sank; turning back, it explains that bodhi is existent, understanding the mental activities of sentient beings. Third, from 'Not meeting is bodhi' downward: above, it explained that bodhi understands mental activities; at that time, feelings formed an intention and grasped at it; from here down, it turns back to explain the signlessness of bodhi.

1.6

Why Prabhāvyūha said he was incapable: he engaged in dialogue with the Vimalakīrti, but the principle was contradicted and he was humbled by the circumstances. The Vimalakīrti said, 'I come from the bodhimanda.' Not penetrating that the myriad practices are also the bodhimaṇḍa, he merely regarded the place where the Buddha attained the Way as the bodhimaṇḍa. Coming to ask the Vimalakīrti, one proceeds to the bodhimaṇḍas to attain sambodhi; can one say that he arrived from the bodhimaṇḍa? Wondering at the reason, he said: 'What place is the bodhimaṇḍa?' When the Buddha-fruit is called the bodhimaṇḍa, it can be mounted to transform living beings, so it has the meaning of the Way (bodhi); it can remove sentient beings' falsehood and afflictions and give rise to their true understanding, compared by metaphor to a way (path). The myriad practices can be trodden to head toward the Buddha, so they have the meaning of the Way; the myriad practices can remove their evil and give rise to their wondrous understanding, so they have the meaning of the arena (maṇḍa). From 'The direct mind' down to 'truth is the bodhimaṇḍa': this speaks of the bodhimaṇḍa from the cause. Speaking of fearlessness from the four truths, it therefore speaks of the bodhimaṇḍa among the external conditions of the objective realm. From 'powers and fearlessnesses' downward: this is also spoken within practice, looking up to and learning the practices of the fruit as different. If one is aligned with the practices of the pāramitās, whatever one teaches and transforms has never failed to come along with the myriad practices heading toward the fruit; therefore it is said that all come from the bodhimaṇḍa, instantly abiding in that which the Buddha mounts. Now, explaining 'lifting a foot and lowering a foot': the good of signlessness is lifting a foot, while the joy of having signs is lowering a foot. Alternatively, one's own practice is lifting a foot, and transforming others is lowering a foot.

1.7

Dhāraṇīśvara's missing the potential lay in not recognizing the true [situation] and being unable to respond to the potential to propagate the Dharma; thus he was incapable of inquiring after the illness. Knowing he did not comprehend, Māra bestowed feminine charms upon him directly to destroy his aspiration for the Way. Dhāraṇīśvara mistook him for Śakra, and rebuked him using the three [notions of] body, life, and wealth as permanent. He supposed that Śakra took body, life, and wealth to be permanent; thus he now said, "One should contemplate impermanence to seek the root of goodness." This shows that by means of the three impermanent things one obtains the three permanent things, thus pointing to the impermanent as the root of goodness. "Deeply unsuitable for me" has two meanings of unsuitability. First, because feminine charms are permissible for the laity but not suitable for one who has left home. Second, because these women's roots for the Way were about to ripen in relation to Vimalakīrti, they were again not suitable for me. "Disturb" [嬈固]: gù [in 嬈固] is like outflow (āsrava); [Māra] wished to cause him to produce outflows and lapses. "As I should receive them": there are two meanings of "should receive." First, sensual desire is permissible for me as a householder; hence he said "should receive." Second, because that person's potential for awakening would certainly receive my Dharma, he again said he should receive them immediately. He preached the Dharma according to what was appropriate, subduing Māra and causing him to accept conversion from himself. From "There is Dharma joy" onward, it explains taking amusement in the Dharma: shifting their former desires, when the mind is liberated the spirit is delighted; hence it is called Dharma joy. Below, it explains that wisdom and roots of goodness are all the substance of Dharma joy. From "delighting in constantly having faith in the Buddha" up to "broadly practicing generosity," it explains the substance of Dharma joy prior to the [ten] abodes. From "practicing generosity" up to "broadening the bodhicitta," it sequentially explains the characteristics of the substance of Dharma joy during the six abodes. At the seventh abode, one first attains the patience of unproduced dharmas, can subdue demons, and severs the two kinds of afflictions. Cultivating the pure land is the practice of the eighth abode. Perfecting the marks and signs is the practice of the ninth abode. Delighting in adorning the place of enlightenment is the practice of the tenth abode. From "delighting in hearing the profound Dharma without fear" onward, it comprehensively explains the wisdom and roots of goodness of the three vehicles. "Not delighting in non-wealth" explains that when sentient beings ought to hear and are certain to attain awakening, wisdom is taken as non-material wealth. Another explanation: when the roots for the Way are about to ripen, one does not delight in sentient beings whose roots have not yet ripened. "Delighting in drawing near fellow practitioners": the principle of the Mahāyāna is practiced by both oneself and others; hence they are called fellow practitioners. "The mind free from anger and hindrance": among the students of the Hīnayāna, transforming them to follow the Great [Vehicle], if there is anger in the mind, one cannot do so. "Not protecting evil people": they harm one's roots for the Way; guiding and protecting evil people brings flourishing compassion beyond the Way; because what is maintained is great, one must protect them. The good friend is the Buddha; drawing near him produces good, transforming one's aspirations so that one does not delight in one's original habits; hence it says "not delighting in the pleasures of the five desires." "I have already relinquished them": the original intention was to make them generate the aspiration; now that they have generated it, causing them to cultivate and practice it, the conditions for conversion must cease; hence he said "relinquished." He wished that the person being converted would have their Dharma vows fulfilled. Alternatively, the women would in turn teach all sentient beings so that they could attain fulfillment of the Dharma. No longer mindful of what was originally practiced, grasping his subtle admonition, they again addressed their master: by what further practice should they guard themselves so that the mind of the Way remains eternally firm? "There is a Dharma called the inexhaustible": namely, the aforementioned Dharma joy can effect transformation, serving as a gateway for ordinary people. It is like passing the flame of one lamp to a thousand wicks; the benefit of the Dharma is also like this: lighting hundreds of thousands of lamps, the original illumination is never exhausted. Indeed, when a single bodhisattva transforms endlessly, causing [others] to generate the aspiration while their own aspiration for the Way is never extinguished, the merit of transformation redounds to oneself, increasing merit and virtue, which differs from the metaphor. By transforming others, it is said to guard oneself. Dwelling in the dust without being defiled also truly accords with the Buddha's intent; this is called repaying kindness. Later it is re-explained: "I have already relinquished them": receiving certainly brings benefit, and relinquishing also confers advantage; wishing to cause the heavenly maidens to turn and teach countless [others] so they may generate the aspiration, oneself is also moistened, and both self and other attain joy; hence it says "fulfilled." "What should we do?" asks Vimalakīrti in return: what practice should come first? Below he answers: one should make transforming beings primary, causing all living beings universally to perform the five refuges; this is teaching them the method of practice. The subsequent stream of generating the aspiration is its benefit. "Sisters": regarding the previous two categories receiving the Dharma, taking what was previously experienced as prior, speaking from the standpoint of the persons, taking those who arose [first] as prior. Now interpreting the heavenly maidens being addressed as "sisters": because they had not practiced and were only beginning to learn the former Dharma, they are called sisters. Next, commanding Śucikīrti to inquire after the illness shows that his virtue was lofty; this was his provisional manifestation, accepting his humbling through not comprehending the Dharma. "The assembly should not be as you have arranged" shows that the offering of material wealth does not accord with the roots for the Way. "You should make an assembly for the offering of Dharma" shows that the offering of Dharma accords with the roots. Why the offering of Dharma is superior: material offering nourishes the body, while Dharma offering nourishes the spirit; material offering has an exhaustion, while Dharma offering is inexhaustible; material offering has a before and after, while Dharma offering has no before and after; therefore the offering of Dharma surpasses the offering of material wealth. "Without before or after, all at once" shows that the profound potential of sentient beings secretly resonates, and the dharmakāya responds like an echo; root and remedy do not err, nourishing the spirit simultaneously; hence it is said to make an offering to all sentient beings all at once. From "What is meant by this?" onward, he explains the substance of the offering of Dharma. "To arouse a mind of benevolence by means of bodhi" explains the meaning of benevolence: by indicating the bliss of bodhi to explain benevolence, causing them to leave suffering and attain the unsurpassed fruit, giving rise to benevolence to attain the true Dharma. "Arousing wisdom" is arousing wisdom to attain dāna-pāramitā in order to eliminate stinginess. "By means of the non-existence of non-self": when the self-centered mind exists, anger will certainly arise; only by attaining the emptiness of non-self can one practice forbearance. "By means of separating from the characteristics of body and mind": "separating" refers to emptiness; being able to understand that the characteristics of body and mind are empty, only then can one exert diligent effort amid existence. "By means of the characteristics of bodhi": the substance of bodhi transcends all characteristics; being able to understand thus that all dharmas have no inherent nature, only then can one practice dhyāna amid existence. Another explanation: indicating bodhi, one gathers the dharmas of dhyāna-concentration to seek bodhi. Understanding emptiness, one can practice transformation amid existence. As for "signlessness": how can one not abandon conditioned dharmas? Precisely through deeply understanding signlessness. Attaining the gate of emptiness of non-action, one can manifest receiving rebirth. "Protecting and upholding the true Dharma": propagating the principle without interruption is called protecting and upholding. Therefore, transforming beings without tiring requires upāya amid existence to penetrate the true Dharma. Practicing the four means of embrace without abandoning them can cross over sentient beings. Below, it responds appropriately to their dispositions. Another explanation: "What is meant by an assembly for the offering of Dharma?" asks the meaning of Dharma offering. Why is it said that Dharma offering is superior? Below, it explains that because Dharma offering is universal and equal, it is therefore superior. Below, "What is meant by this?" asks the substance of Dharma offering. "Arousing a mind of joy": joy opposes anger, which brings an erroneous result; now eliminating anger, one obtains the correct result. "Six recollections": recollecting the Three Jewels, the devas, the precepts, and giving. If the six recollections are perfected, it must be due to thought: good reflection. "Six points of reverent harmony": the three karmas are unconflicting, precepts, views, and giving are shared, and one follows with admiration and compliance; hence called harmony. Reverently practicing these six must take the true mind as the root; reverently practicing deviousness cannot achieve verification. A flattering mind to support oneself is wrong livelihood; being straightforward to nourish the body is right livelihood; taking an upright mind as livelihood will certainly bring the fruit of correct goodness. "Great donor of gifts": preaching the Mahāyāna Dharma is great, preaching the Dharma of the three vehicles is middling, and offering material wealth is inferior. Now saying "great" means the offering of preaching the Mahāyāna Dharma. Why Śucikīrti unloosed his necklace to present it to Vimalakīrti has two intentions. Formerly, Śucikīrti arranged an offering of material wealth, desiring to promote his assembly of Dharma offering. Vimalakīrti responded to the potential to promote the Dharma offering, causing two hundred people to all generate the aspiration for bodhi. However, those present at the time did not know Śucikīrti's intent regarding the Dharma offering; therefore, he unloosed his necklace to present it to Vimalakīrti to express that his intent lay in the Dharma offering. Second, he wished to encourage the class of beggars to generate the aspiration for bodhi. Why this is so: Vimalakīrti received the necklace and presented one portion to the Tathāgata Duṣprasaha to express his mind of receiving with reverence, and gave one portion to the beggar to express the culmination of compassion in eradicating suffering. This is respecting those above and receiving those below, their merit being equal. If their minds are impartial, why should we not generate the aspiration for bodhi? "Bestowing on one lowliest beggar is just like the marks of the Tathāgata's field of merit": below equals above without distinction. "Equal to great compassion": above equals below. "Not expecting any reward": this explains Vimalakīrti's Dharma offering; conforming below to above, and making above equal below, shows that with respect to both high and low he does not expect any reward; hence he can do so. "All generated the aspiration for bodhi": this shows that not only the beggars generated the aspiration, but everyone generated it; hence it says "all generated the aspiration for bodhi."

1.8

Chapter on Mañjuśrī

1.9

Why this chapter arises: Vimalakīrti manifested traces as affliction flowed, enabling distinctive awakening to ignorance and attachment, and his virtue could draw inquiries; hence it is titled as a chapter. Because the time had arrived when the roots of sentient beings resonated, [the Buddha] commanded Mañjuśrī to inquire after the illness. The two masters conversed, setting forth the nourishment of transformation in more than one way; therefore the Tathāgata commanded Mañjuśrī to inquire after the illness. First it clarifies the signs of coming and going; next it analyzes the reason for the illness; finally it explains the three wisdoms transforming illness without fixed methods. From the beginning up to "let us put this matter aside" is the initial explanation of the three sections. It is also a comprehensive praise of Vimalakīrti's lofty virtue, clearing away ordinary minds that reckon the signs of coming and going.

1.10

"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.

First 10 of 33 passages. Read on

English (machine translation)

Contents

Text