維摩經義記卷第四 4.20

4.20

The reason this chapter follows is: the preceding Chapter on the Buddha Path explained skillful means within [phenomenal] manifestation. Now, [it shows that] unless one illuminates the sphere of the ultimate truth and thoroughly realizes the principle of non-arising, there is no way one can engage in manifestation and bestow teaching. Therefore, succeeding the Chapter on the Buddha Path, the Chapter on the Dharma Door of Non-duality is set forth. This chapter forms the fourth major section, elaborating upon the meaning of the mother mentioned above. Because the principle of emptiness is of a single mark, it is called 'non-dual'. What provides a standard is called 'dharma', and penetrating wisdom serves as the 'door'. Well according with this principle is why it is called 'entering'. From the beginning onward, only two individuals [Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī] engaged with one another while the rest remained silent; now, wishing to have each reveal their virtue, the assembly is questioned. Another explanation: the ultimate principle is profound and subtle, hidden and difficult to fathom; unless the various sages articulate and analyze it, there is no way it can be plumbed. Furthermore, the people of the time relied on different avenues to awakening, and had to witness the various bodhisattvas speak before attaining realization. Within this chapter, it is divided into three sections: From the beginning down to 'speak according to what pleases you', it explains Vimalakīrti bidding the various bodhisattvas to speak. Second, from Fazizai down to Vimalakīrti remaining silent, it directly clarifies the meaning of the dharma door of non-duality. Third, from 'When these words were spoken, five thousand bodhisattvas...' down to the end of the chapter, it explains the benefit of expounding the Dharma and the people of the time awakening to the Path. Within the second section, it is further divided into three sections: First, the bodhisattvas use speech to dispel dharmas. Second, Mañjuśrī uses speech to dispel the words of all the others. Third, Vimalakīrti uses non-speech to dispel Mañjuśrī's words. Regarding each of the bodhisattvas' names, each contains three clauses: First, taking phenomenal characteristics as dual. Second, clarifying that in reliance on principle there is nothing that is not non-dual. Third, clarifying that wisdom accords with the principle of non-duality. Below, each bodhisattva is like this; by analogy it may be known. Bodhisattva Fazizai says: 'Production and cessation are dual.' Production means arising and completion; cessation means departing of conditions. In the principle of the real mark of dharmas, one does not see an initial arising as production, nor does one see a present dispersal as cessation. Attaining this anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti is precisely according with the principle of non-duality. Deshenshou says: '"Self" and "what belongs to self" are dual.' This is calculating the body to possess a spiritual self, and everything external to one's own body to be what belongs to self. Since there is no spiritual self, there is also no 'what belongs to self' external to the body. Buxun says: 'Receiving and not receiving are dual.' Receiving and not receiving are mutually opposed as dual. Receiving has the sense of grasping marks; not receiving means the mind harbors no clinging. 'If dharmas are not received, then they are unobtainable': in the principle of the real mark of dharmas, one does not see that grasping marks constitutes receiving, nor does one see that the mind harboring no clinging constitutes not receiving. Precisely because receiving and not receiving are unobtainable, there is no receptive mind; this is taking a mind of non-receiving as relinquishment, and there are also no marks of initiating, receiving, directing, and the like. Deting says: 'Defilement and purity are dual.' Tainting by kleśa is defilement; the freshness and cleanliness of wisdom is purity. 'If one sees the true nature of defilement, then there is no mark of purity': if one sees that the true nature of kleśa is inherently empty, then there is no pure mark of wisdom. 'According with the mark of cessation': according with the mark of cessation of emptiness and thusness. Shanxiu says: 'This is agitation, this is ideation.' Confusion is agitation; serenity is ideation. Calm and confusion are mutually opposed as dual. Another explanation: slight arising is agitation; grasping marks and clinging with defilement is ideation. Beginning and end are dual. It can also be that the six consciousnesses are agitation, and samjñā, vedanā, and saṃskāra are ideation. 'When there is no agitation, there is no ideation': in the principle of the real mark of dharmas, there is no agitation of the six consciousnesses, nor is there ideation such as samjñā. 'When there is no ideation, there is no discrimination': since there is no ideation such as samjñā, there is no mind of the six consciousnesses. This is discrimination; penetrating this is wisdom according with principle. Shanyan says: 'The single mark and the markless.' Pursuing duality as a single mark, removing existence as the markless—clarifying emptiness by following phenomena, people imagine that there is an obvious difference; hence, the single mark and the markless are mutually opposed as dual. 'If one knows that the single mark is precisely the markless': if one knows that the single mark is inherently empty, it is precisely markless emptiness. 'Nor does one grasp the markless, entering into equality': nor does one see a markless that can be grasped; one understands equal emptiness. Miaobi says: 'The bodhisattva mind and the śrāvaka mind are dual.' The two vehicles' mind of self-deliverance has narrow wisdom, whereas the bodhisattva's mind of universal rescue is broad and vast. Calculating the great and small minds is dual. If one contemplates that the characteristics of the mind are inherently empty like thusness, then there is no distinction between great and small. Fusha says: 'Wholesome and unwholesome are dual.' According with principle and benefiting beings is wholesome; violating principle and harming beings is unwholesome. If one arouses a mind that accords with principle as wholesome and violates principle as unwholesome, [yet] enters the realm of markless emptiness, then there is no duality. Shizi says: 'Fault and merit are dual.' Above it spoke of wholesome and unwholesome, speaking in terms of cause. Here it speaks of cause in terms of fruition. The painful fruitions of the three evil destinies are fault; the pleasurable retributions of humans and devas are merit. Another explanation: these are names within the cause; a cause incurring painful fruitions is fault, and moving toward pleasure is called merit. If one penetrates that the essence and nature of fault is empty, then it is no different from merit. With diamond wisdom, one clearly resolves this mark of emptiness, so that no fault is bondage and no merit is liberation. Shizi'yi says: 'Defiled and undefiled are dual.' Suffering and origination are defiled; cessation and the path are undefiled. 'If one attains the equality of dharmas, then one does not arouse the marks of defiled and undefiled': if one attains the inherent emptiness and equality of dharmas, there is no suffering and origination as defiled, or cessation and the path as undefiled. 'Not clinging to marks, nor abiding in marklessness': not clinging to marks of the defiled, nor abiding in the marklessness of the markless and undefiled. Jingjie says: 'Conditioned and unconditioned are dual.' The myriad phenomena in all their array are conditioned; the calm emptiness of space is unconditioned. This emptiness and existence are mutually opposed as dual. 'If one is free from all categories, then the mind is like empty space': if one knows that the categories of the conditioned are empty, then the mind is like empty space, and seeking empty space is also unobtainable. Naluoyan says: 'Worldly and supramundane.' From the external ordinary person up to the highest worldly dharmas is called the worldly mind; from the markless upward, attaining the true undefiled is called the supramundane mind. 'The nature of the worldly being empty is precisely the supramundane': if one understands the true nature of the worldly and realizes emptiness, it is precisely the supramundane markless. 'Within it, not entering, exiting, overflowing, or dispersing': within the principle of emptiness, one does not see the worldly mind entering into saṃsāra and the supramundane mind exiting from saṃsāra, nor does one see the worldly mind overflowing into saṃsāra and the supramundane mind dispersing and extinguishing saṃsāra. Shan'yi says: 'Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa.' Bondage and liberation are dual: saṃsāra is bondage, nirvāṇa is liberation. 'If one sees the nature of saṃsāra, then there is no saṃsāra': if one understands that the essence of saṃsāra is empty, it is precisely nirvāṇa without saṃsāra. 'Neither bound nor liberated, neither burning nor extinguished': there is neither saṃsāra as bondage nor nirvāṇa as liberation; nor is there the blazing burning of the kleśas of saṃsāra, nor the tranquil extinction of nirvāṇa. Xianjian says: 'Exhaustible and inexhaustible.' Kleśa is exhaustible; the unconditioned extinction of fetters is called inexhaustible. 'Whether utterly exhaustible or inexhaustible, both are the mark of the inexhaustible': in the principle of the real mark of dharmas, contemplating both the exhaustible and the inexhaustible as empty and unobtainable, it therefore says exhaustible and inexhaustible [are the same]. Pushou says: 'Self and non-self.' Calculating a spiritual self to exist is self; calculating that there is definitely and truly no self is non-self. 'If even self is unobtainable, how could non-self be obtained?': in the principle of the real mark of dharmas, even a spiritual self does not exist; how could there be a definitely real non-self to be obtained? One who sees that the true nature is inherently empty no longer gives rise to self and non-self. Diantian says: 'Clarity and ignorance are dual.' Wisdom is clarity; kleśa is ignorance. 'The true nature of ignorance is precisely clarity': because the true nature of ignorance is inherently empty, it is precisely clarity. 'Clarity is also not to be grasped, being free from all categories': the essence and nature of clarity being empty and free from all mental factors, it is also unobtainable to be grasped. Xijian says: 'Form and emptiness are dual.' Calculating the five aggregates to definitely exist is form, and to definitely not exist is emptiness. 'Form is precisely emptiness': because the essence and nature of form do not exist, form is emptiness. 'It is not that the extinction of form is emptiness; the nature of form is of itself empty': it is not that emptiness occurs only when form is extinguished; the essence of form is from the beginning inherently empty. Feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are also all like this. Mingxiang says: 'The distinction of the four elements and the distinction of the space element are dual.' The four great elements are opposed to the space element. 'The nature of the four elements is precisely the nature of the space element': the nature of the four great elements being empty is precisely the space element; these five great elements combine to form the body, hence they are called 'elements'. 'As the past and future extremes are empty, so the middle extreme is also empty': because people calculate that the present five great elements form the body, past and future are cited to refute the present. Miaoyi says: 'Eye and form.' Faculties and dust objects are mutually opposed as dual. 'If one knows that the nature of the eye is without greed, anger, and delusion with respect to forms': if one understands that the nature of the eye is inherently empty, then with respect to forms one does not give rise to greed, anger, or delusion; this is called tranquil extinction, which is inherent emptiness. The ear and so forth are also like this. 'Abiding peacefully' means not seeing that faculties and dust objects are obtainable. Wujin'yi says: 'Giving and dedicating toward sarvajñatā.' The six perfections are the substance of one's own practice; dedication means dedicating one's practice toward sarvajñatā. 'The nature of giving is precisely the nature of dedicating toward sarvajñatā': this clarifies that the emptiness of giving is precisely the nature of sarvajñatā. Upholding precepts is also like this. 'Entering the single mark therein': according with the non-duality of emptiness. Shenhui says: 'Emptiness, the markless, and the wishless.' Emptiness is the root; the markless and the wishless are the branches. Another explanation: it is not necessarily that all must be dual; it can also be three or four, but two is merely the beginning of the increase of numbers, hence it says dual. 'Emptiness is precisely the markless, and the markless is precisely the wishless': contemplating that provisional and real lack intrinsic nature is emptiness; precisely because of emptiness, there are no various marks, nor is there purposive activity. 'If there is emptiness, the markless, and the wishless, then there is no citta, manas, or vijñāna': all are completely empty. Jigen says: 'Buddha, Dharma, and Saṃgha.' Buddha and Saṃgha are persons; Dharma is the body of the Dharma. These persons and Dharma are mutually opposed. 'Buddha is precisely Dharma, and Dharma is precisely Saṃgha': their inherent emptiness is not different, hence they are mutually identical. 'These three are all the mark of the unconditioned, equal to empty space': using phenomenal non-existence to illustrate inherent emptiness. 'All dharmas are also like this': by analogy, the myriad dharmas are entirely empty. Xinwu'ai says: 'Body and the cessation of the body.' The conditioned aggregation of the five aggregates is the body; the dispersal of conditions is cessation. This calculates existence and demise as dual. 'The body is precisely the cessation of the body': one who sees that the true mark is inherently empty does not see the existence of the body and the cessation of the body. Existence and demise are inherently empty, hence they are not dual. Shangshan says: 'The wholesomeness of body, speech, and mind.' Body and speech are external; mind is internal. This internal and external are mutually opposed as dual. 'These three karmas are of the mark of non-action': the essences of body, speech, and mind are empty, all lacking purposive action. Futian says: 'Meritorious action, non-meritorious action, and immovable action.' Being able to obtain the painful fruitions of the three evil destinies is non-meritorious action; from the humans and devas of the desire realm up to the third dhyāna is called meritorious action; from the fourth dhyāna upward to neither-perception-nor-non-perception is immovable action. Non-merit and merit are based on the realms of pain and pleasure; being causes, they are coarse realms. Above the fourth dhyāna, neither-pain-nor-pleasure is called immovable; this is their subtle realm. This coarseness and subtlety are mutually opposed. The true nature of the three actions is precisely inherent emptiness; being empty, there is no distinction between non-merit and merit. Huayan says: 'Arising from self is dual.' This is dual based on the calculating mind. The 'self and what belongs to self' above directly concerned the objective sphere; here it clarifies the mind calculating self and the mind calculating what belongs to self. 'Seeing the true mark of self, one does not give rise to two dharmas': if one understands that the self is inherently empty, then one does not calculate the mind of self and what belongs to self, hence there are no two dharmas. 'If one does not abide in two dharmas, then there is no consciousness': if there are no two dharmas to abide in, then there is no self that can be known, nor is there what belongs to self that can be known. Dezang says: 'The mark of having something attained.' When sentiment persists in existence, there is attainment; when it does not persist, there is no attainment. Grasping and relinquishing are dual. Another explanation: opposing that which attains to that which is attained. 'If there is nothing attained, then there is neither grasping nor relinquishing': if one understands inherent emptiness, then when it is empty, sentiment harbors nothing; there is no distinction of grasping and relinquishing. Yueshang says: 'Darkness and light.' The dark moon is darkness; the light of the moon is called light. 'Without darkness and without light, there is no duality': if one contemplates that darkness and light are inherently empty, there is no duality. 'Like entering the absorption of cessation of perception and feeling': citing realization as a metaphor, neither darkness nor light can be obtained. Baoyinshou says: 'Delighting in nirvāṇa and not delighting in the world.' Delighting and revulsion are mutually opposed. 'Not delighting in nirvāṇa and not being repulsed by the world, then there is no duality': if one does not see that nirvāṇa is to be delighted in and the world is to be reviled, then there is no mind of delight or revulsion. Why is there no delight or revulsion? If there is the bondage of saṃsāra, then there is the liberation of nirvāṇa. Within the principle of emptiness, originally there is no bondage of saṃsāra; who would seek the liberation of nirvāṇa? Being neither bound nor liberated accords with non-duality. Zhudingwang says: 'Correct path and wrong path.' Relying on principle is correct; opposing principle is wrong. 'One who abides in the correct path does not discriminate between wrong and correct': if one conforms to the correct path of true emptiness, then there is no distinction between wrong and correct. Leshi says: 'Real and unreal.' The ultimate truth transcends the provisional and false; it is called real. Conventional truth consists only of names and designations, functioning conditionally without being genuine; it is called not entirely real. This false and real are mutually opposed. 'One who sees truly does not even see the real, much less the unreal': in the principle of the real mark of dharmas, there is not even a real of the ultimate truth that can be seen, much less an unreal of conventional truth that could be obtained and seen. 'Why is this?' Below explains the above meaning. First, it explains the meaning of true seeing: why is it called true seeing? Now it says it is not what is seen by the fleshy eye; only the wisdom eye can see, hence it is called true. 'Yet this wisdom eye has neither seeing nor non-seeing': why is it that there is not even a real that can be seen, much less an unreal? The explanation says: without seeing, there is no real to be seen, nor is there an unreal that is not seen; hence it says 'neither seeing nor non-seeing'. Another explanation: 'Yet this wisdom eye has neither seeing nor non-seeing'—though it is said not to see, there is nothing it does not see; this is the essence of the wisdom eye.