維摩經疏 1.16

1.16

Next below is the second, explaining the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas. This is the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas studied within the preparatory wisdom of the bodhisattva from the second thought-moment of the ten understandings onward, who studies subduing the mind that has apprehension beyond the triple realm. The text has two distinct parts: first, adducing the hindrance to reveal the fault; and from "I should abandon it" onward, next overturning the hindrance to reveal its eradication. In the preceding adducing of the hindrance, first it directly adduces the hindrance; next, it clearly reveals the fault. "That bodhisattva with illness, in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas, should reflect: 'This conception of dharmas is also an inversion'": this explains the hindrance. "That bodhisattva with illness" takes the bodhisattva from the second thought of the ten understandings onward. "In order to extinguish the conception of dharmas": the previous contemplation of the emptiness of persons takes dharmas as its object to dispel persons, but does not dismantle the entity of dharmas; now, in the emptiness of dharmas, the entity of dharmas is dismantled and likewise cannot be apprehended. The mind taking dharmas as its object is called the "conception of dharmas." The bodhisattva wishes to eliminate it, hence it says "in order to extinguish." Dharmas of the objective sphere arise from the mind; if one only causes the mind to be eradicated, dharmas will naturally not arise, hence it says "in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas." "Should reflect: 'This conception of dharmas is also an inversion'": the preceding grasp of a self of persons was already an inversion of views; now this grasp of a self of dharmas is furthermore an inversion of mind. The meaning of inversion is the same as before, hence it says "is also." Grasping the dharmas of the five aggregates as having a fixed nature overturns the principle of the unapprehendability of the emptiness of dharmas, and is therefore called an "inversion." Below it clearly reveals the fault: "This inversion is a great affliction": because this inversion of mind is the source of faults, it is called a "great affliction." There are multiple meanings in the interpretation: because it is a great hindrance, it is therefore called a "great affliction"; because it brings about great saṃsāra, it is therefore called a "great affliction"; because it hinders great wisdom, hinders the great principle, hinders the great stages, hinders the great fruit, and is severed by great persons. Possessing such great faults and afflictions as these, it is therefore called a "great affliction." Above concludes the adducing of the hindrance. Next below is overturning the hindrance to reveal its eradication. Within the text, the first sentence directly clarifies overturning the hindrance to reveal eradication. The second is a question-and-answer on the method of subduing and eradicating. "I should abandon it" is the first sentence. "What is abandonment?": since you wish to instruct me to subdue and abandon the conception of dharmas, by what method may one abandon it? This is the question. "To abandon self and what belongs to self" explains the answer. The marks of grasping at dharmas do not exceed two kinds: the first is self; the second is what belongs to self. Conceptualizing that dharmas possess an entity is called "self"; conceptualizing that dharmas possess a function is called "what belongs to self." Instructing him to subdue and eradicate them, it therefore says "abandon." "How does one abandon self and what belongs to self?": this proceeds further to ask: self and what belongs to self have been grasped from beginningless time—how can they be abandoned? The answer states: "It means abandoning the two dharmas." Self and what belongs to self arise upon these two dharmas; if one only abandons the two dharmas, self will naturally not arise. "How does one abandon the two dharmas?": this proceeds to ask about the characteristics of the two dharmas. "It means not thinking of internal and external dharmas, practicing impartiality": this explains the answer. The first is internal dharmas; the second is external dharmas. The external is saṃsāra; the internal is nirvāṇa. Hence the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "If it accords with this dharma, because its intrinsic nature is good, it becomes internal; if it is outside this dharma, even if it is associated, it becomes extraneous." Furthermore, the internal refers to the faculties, and the external refers to the sense objects. Grasping that these internal and external [dharmas] have a fixed nature as well as function, one therefore gives rise to that self and what belongs to it. Contemplating that these internal and external [dharmas] are quiescent and nondual, one does not give rise to entity and function, hence it says "impartiality." "How does one practice impartiality?": it asks further: where does one practice this contemplation of impartiality? "It means that self is equal and nirvāṇa is equal" is the answer. "Self" refers to saṃsāra, which is the aforementioned external; "nirvāṇa" is the aforementioned internal. Contemplating them as nondual with respect to this saṃsāra and nirvāṇa is called "practicing impartiality." "Why is this?": this is a query. Saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, ordinary beings and noble ones, are separated by paths—in accordance with what principle is it called "equal"? Below it explains: "Self and nirvāṇa—these two are both empty": "self" refers to saṃsāra; because saṃsāra is empty, it equals nirvāṇa above; because nirvāṇa is empty, it is matched with saṃsāra below. In terms of this principle of emptiness, it is therefore called "equal." "By what are they empty?": it further asks about the entity of emptiness. When the bodhisattva here attains its emptiness, is it the emptiness of true suchness of actual nature, or is it the emptiness of nominal designation and the harmony of conditions? The answer states: "They are empty merely by virtue of nominal designations": he attains that emptiness of the harmony of conditions. Bodhisattvas prior to the stages, over an asaṃkhyeya kalpa, hear the Buddha's verbal teaching declaring that all dharmas are empty. The ear-consciousness, hearing the sound, induces the mental consciousness to arise and adduce many principles, constantly deliberating and repeatedly habituating them, until it is able to perfume the fundamental consciousness to become seeds of emptiness. When the uncontaminated mental consciousness is about to become active, these seeds of emptiness flow into the mental consciousness, and within the mental consciousness there is the objective sphere of emptiness. When the consciousness-mind arises, it knows that all dharmas, because of the harmony of conditions, exist, and because they lack intrinsic nature, they are empty. Because this emptiness is formed by taking those nominal designations as its object, it is therefore said: "They are empty merely by virtue of nominal designations." Yet when this objective sphere of emptiness is encompassed by the three natures, its meaning extends across all three natures: transformation from the mind is the discriminated nature; belonging to seeds, it is the dependent nature; being signless and true, it is the perfected nature. "Such two dharmas have no determinate nature": such two dharmas of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa exist because of the harmony of conditions, and are empty because they lack existence; they have no fixed nature. Above concludes the explanation of the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas. Taken together, it is called the conclusion of the first, cultivating lesser wisdom.