維摩經疏 1.15

1.15

Within the contemplation of the emptiness of persons above, first, with respect to the four great elements, it refutes the self of persons to reveal the emptiness of persons. Second, from “Furthermore, this illness arises entirely from attachment to a self” onward, with respect to the five aggregates, it refutes the self of persons to reveal the emptiness of persons. Question: Why is it explained in terms of these two loci? Answer: It is truly because what sentient beings grasp at differs. There are sentient beings who generate this self of persons upon the four great elements; there are sentient beings who generate this self of persons upon the five aggregates; and so forth up to the twelve sense bases and eighteen realms, which are also likewise. Therefore, now we temporarily take these two loci to refute their particular graspings. When one attains that contemplation of nonself, if upon the four great elements one comes to know nonself, one does not need to contemplate the aggregates; if upon the five aggregates one comes to know nonself, one does not need to contemplate the four great elements. Furthermore, the former four great elements refute the mark of self, while the latter five aggregates refute the view of self. In performing the contemplation of nonself upon the former four great elements, first one performs the contemplation of the signless nature, and next, from “Why is this?” onward, it explains performing the contemplation of the dependent nature. In the contemplation of the signless nature above, it first explains tracing the cause and afterward directly refutes the self. When Vimalakīrti says, “The ill bodhisattva should think: ‘Now this illness of mine has all arisen from the deluded thoughts, inversions, and all the afflictions of past lives,’” this clarifies tracing the cause. “The ill bodhisattva” refers to those at the final thought of the ten faiths who are just about to enter the initial thought of the ten understandings; the bodhisattvas among them “should think”—the mind that traces the cause is not called the mark of thought. “Now this illness of mine has all arisen from the deluded thoughts, inversions, and all the afflictions of past lives”: “Now this illness of mine” refers to the result of my illness as well as the matter of illness. “From past lives”: the afflictions abandoned by the path of cultivation within the realms are called the inversion of thought. “Inversions”: the afflictions abandoned by the path of seeing within the realms are called the inversion of view. Due to these two wheels of affliction in the past motivating karma and moistening rebirth, they bring about my present result of illness and matter of illness. This concludes tracing the cause. Question: Originally one wishes to refute the self; why not refute it directly, instead of needing to trace the cause? Answer: As for eliminating the result of illness, one must eliminate the cause. Once that cause is absent, the result naturally does not arise. The present result-dharmas cannot be said to be eliminated; therefore, the text below says: “Only remove its illness, but do not remove the dharmas.” Now, those who grasp at a self grasp that there is a self upon those resultant retributions of the four great elements. Since the dharmas of resultant retribution cannot be eliminated, one must trace the cause. As for the second meaning: now it clarifies that when a bodhisattva wishes to perform the contemplation of emptiness, it follows from the cause; therefore, one should know that it is empty. Thus a treatise states: “Whatever dharma is produced by causes and conditions, that I explain as emptiness.” Therefore, one must trace the cause. Next, it directly clarifies performing the contemplation of the signless nature to refute the mark of self: “There is no real dharma; who experiences the illness?” A “real dharma”: ordinary people grasp at a self, saying that intrinsically real is the essence of my self, and sovereign is the function of my self. Now it explains refuting the essence of the self. The body of resultant retribution is produced from those past causes of afflictions; how could there be an intrinsically real self? Hence it says: “There is no real dharma.” Since a real self is absent, who could experience the illness? Hence it says: “Who experiences the illness?” Next, it clarifies performing the contemplation of the dependent nature, first interrogating and then explaining. “Why is this?” is the interrogation. The ordinary person says: “We presently see that there is a self: blue, yellow, red, white, hemp, barley, or the size of a thumb. Why do you say it is absent?” Next comes the explanation. Within the explanation, it adduces those four great elements and shows them so as to cause one to know nonself; that is, adducing the dependent nature to dispel the discriminated nature. Question: When dispelling the discriminated nature, it must be an outflow-free contemplation conditioned on emptiness that can refute the self. The dependent nature is conditioned on existence, which is with outflows; how does it refute the self? Answer: Now saying that one refutes the self by means of the dependent nature is an expedient prior to contemplation. Prior to entering contemplation, one conditions upon these four great elements and comes to know nonself; when directly entering contemplation, one only conditions upon emptiness and does not condition upon the four great elements. One may know this by analogy with the rope and the snake. “Because the four great elements combine, it is provisionally designated a body”: contemplating the particulars to form the whole clarifies that the body is provisionally existent. “The four great elements have no master, and the body also [lacks a self]”: contemplating the particulars to refute the whole reveals that the self is truly nonexistent. Gathering those four great elements together forms this body. Since within the four great elements there is no master or ruler, how could the body have a self? The above, performing the contemplation of the emptiness of persons in terms of the four great elements to refute the mark of the self of persons, is concluded. Next, in terms of the five aggregates, it performs the contemplation of the emptiness of persons to refute the view of self. In the text, it first clarifies adducing the obstacle, and afterward clarifies overturning the obstacle to reveal abandonment. “Furthermore, this illness arises entirely from attachment to a self” adduces the obstacle; it is also tracing the cause. Previously, in terms of the four great elements, it has already contemplated nonself; now, with respect to the five aggregates, it again contemplates nonself. Therefore, it says: “Furthermore, this illness arises”: the result of illness of the five aggregates. “Entirely from attachment to a self” clarifies tracing the cause. Due to the view of self, one motivates karma and招brings about rebirth, evoking this result of illness, the body of the five aggregates. Thus the Daśabhūmika Sūtra says: “Because of attachment to a self, one receives a body and takes birth in a place in the world. If one is free from attachment to a self, one does not receive a body and take birth in a place in the world.” “Therefore, toward a self, one should not generate attachment”: adducing the contemplation to urge revulsion. Since the preceding illness arose due to attachment to a self, one should not generate clinging attachment toward a self. The above adducing of the obstacle is concluded. Next, it overturns the obstacle to reveal abandonment. In the text there are two parts: first, it clarifies the contemplation of the signless nature; second, from “One should generate the conception of dharmas” onward, it clarifies the contemplation of the dependent nature. “Having known the root of illness, one immediately eliminates the conception of a self and the conception of sentient beings” clarifies the contemplation of the signless nature. “Having known the root of illness”: knowing that the preceding attachment to a self is the root from which illness arises. “One immediately eliminates the conception of a self and the conception of sentient beings”: contemplating the error and eliminating it. The self and sentient beings are able to incur the result of illness, hence they are called the root. Instructing them to cut it away, it therefore says “immediately eliminates.” Particularly grasping at a spiritual master upon the five aggregates is named a self; grasping at a self in combination upon the five aggregates is called a sentient being. Although general and particular differ, they are identically the view of self, hence they are equally named “conception.” Next, it clarifies performing the contemplation of the dependent nature. “One should generate the conception of dharmas”: this phrase is general. The preceding contemplation of the signless nature directly refuted the grasping at self upon the aggregates without showing the substance of the aggregates. This contemplation of the dependent nature adduces the aggregates and shows them so as to cause one to abandon the grasping at self: these are merely the dharmas of resultant retribution of the five aggregates; how could there be that inherently abiding spiritual self? It urges abandoning the mind of the view of self, and instructs generating the conception of the aggregate-dharmas; therefore, it says: “One should generate the conception of dharmas.” Below it clarifies the particulars. Within the particulars, first it contemplates the five aggregates to eliminate the general self and refute the conception of sentient beings. Next, from “Furthermore, these dharmas” onward, it contemplates the five aggregates to eliminate the particular self and refute the conception of a self. In the preceding text, “One should think: ‘Only by a multitude of dharmas combining is this body formed’” contemplates the particulars to form the whole, clarifying that the body is provisionally existent. “Arising is merely the arising of dharmas; ceasing is merely the ceasing of dharmas” contemplates the particulars to refute the whole, clarifying that the self is truly nonexistent. “One should think”: instructing one to generate the contemplative mind in reliance on the dharmas, hence it says “one should think.” “Only” (但) means solely; “by” (以) means using. Because the substance of the aggregates is not one, they are called a multitude of dharmas. The multitude of dharmas of the five aggregates combine to form a body. Tracing their essential nature, it does not depart from the five aggregates. Therefore, arising and ceasing are solely aggregate-dharmas. Above the aggregate-dharmas, how could there be a further combined sentient being about whom arising and ceasing are spoken? Next, it contemplates the five aggregates to eliminate the particular self and refute the mark of self. “Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another” contemplates the five aggregates. Previously it has refuted the general; here it further refutes the particular. Therefore, it says: “Furthermore, these dharmas”: the dharmas of the five aggregates. “Do not know one another”: the schools that grasp at a self claim that the substance of that spiritual self is a spiritual knowing, which is called the knower. The dharmas of the five aggregates, from form to consciousness, are contemplated in sequence, […] therefore it says they do not know one another. Below, it directly clarifies eliminating the particular self. “When arising, it does not say ‘I arise’; when ceasing, it does not say ‘I cease’”: persons who grasp at a self grasp particularly at a self among the five aggregates. When the five aggregates arise, they also say “I arise”; when the five aggregates cease, they also say “I cease.” Now, contemplating that the aggregate-dharmas fundamentally have no self, they are also not a knower. Since the self and the knower are fundamentally nonexistent, who discriminates, saying “I arise” and “I cease”? The above, performing the contemplation of the emptiness of persons in terms of the five aggregates to refute and dispel the self of persons, together is named the first, performing the contemplation of the emptiness of persons, concluded. This is the stage of the ground of dwelling in views alone among the four grounds of dwelling, for the bodhisattva coming directly from the initial thought of the ten understandings.