維摩經疏 1.2

1.2

Now, within the text, throughout this chapter, what is cultivated is explained; the Inconceivable Chapter explains what is accomplished. Within what is cultivated, there are again two parts: first, directly clarifying the question and answer that clear away the marks of coming and going; second, from 'Let us set this aside' downward, clarifying the question and answer discussing dharmas. Why is it necessary to clear away the marks of coming and going? There are multiple explanations: First, because coming and going veil the real, they must be cleared away. Second, in order to […] they must be cleared away. Third, to provide the reason for what is spoken below, they must be cleared away. Fourth, to reveal the Middle Way, they must be cleared away. Fifth, to reveal real wisdom and skillful means, they must be cleared away. Sixth, when great persons meet, the Dharma entails speaking great words, so they are cleared away. Such is the import of the treatise. How is it in the text? First Vimalakīrti speaks, and Mañjuśrī relates afterward. 'Vimalakīrti said, "Welcome, Mañjuśrī!"': He rejoices at the goodness of his coming, hence he says 'Welcome.' It can also mean: Mañjuśrī, traveling on the road, came; asking whether he was well and at peace, he therefore says 'Welcome.' Below, he clears away its marks: 'Coming without the mark of coming, and seeing without [the mark of seeing].' There are multiple explanations, which can be briefly framed in four gates: 1. Interpreting in terms of phenomena having no nature; 2. Explaining in terms of principle having no nature; 3. The two truths of ultimate and conventional; 4. The two bodies of true and responsive. First, in terms of phenomena having no nature: relying on the three times, the mark of coming is refuted. Now when speaking of 'coming': is it called coming when coming is already finished? Is coming spoken of when it has not yet come? Or is coming spoken of at the very time of coming? Seeking the mark of coming across these three times is impossible; therefore know that coming is itself non-coming, hence it is said 'without the mark of coming.' This refutes the mark of coming. 'And yet coming' refutes the mark of non-coming. Originally speaking of non-coming was to refute coming; since coming does not exist, non-coming also does not exist; hence it is said 'and yet coming.' Furthermore, non-coming is the non-coming belonging to coming; since it is the non-coming belonging to coming, how could there be a fixed non-coming? Therefore the mark of non-coming cannot be found. Coming is the coming belonging to non-coming; since it is the coming of non-coming, how could there be a fixed coming? Therefore the mark of coming also cannot be found. Second, in terms of principle having no nature: because conditions harmonize, it exists, and therefore 'coming' is spoken of; because it lacks intrinsic nature, it is empty, and therefore 'non-coming' is spoken of. That is, dharmas do not come from themselves, nor do they come from another, nor do they come from a combined cause, nor do they come from [no cause]. Their mutual refutation is as explained above. Third, distinguishing by the two truths of ultimate and conventional: the ultimate truth is tranquil and [immutable], hence 'non-coming' is spoken of; the conventional truth accords with transformation, and therefore 'coming' is spoken of. However, the non-coming of the ultimate truth is the non-coming belonging to the coming of the conventional truth; the coming of the conventional truth is the coming belonging to the non-coming of the ultimate truth. Therefore know that in both the ultimate and conventional truths, coming and non-coming are equally unattainable. Fourth, distinguishing by the two bodies of true and responsive: the true body is impartial and cannot be spoken of as coming or non-coming; the responsive body accords with beings, demonstrating going and coming. This concludes describing Mañjuśrī. 'Seeing without the mark of seeing': this describes Mañjuśrī entering the room and seeing emptiness. Mañjuśrī seeing the emptiness within my room is itself non-seeing. Since seeing is itself non-seeing, seeing emptiness is also non-emptiness. To explain this at length would not differ from what was said above regarding coming and non-coming. This concludes Vimalakīrti's prior statement above.