維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.43

3.43

第二教呵相中有二。初呵其所說。二教實相之法。無以生滅心行說實相法者。正明呵辭。其小乘人聞說無常不達如來治病義故。便謂一切色心等法唯是無常。以此無常生滅之法為實相法。觀之悟道能求聖果。不知實相之理非色非心不生不滅。故今呵云勿以生滅無常之觀為實相也。自下文有五句。教人實相。先教無常諸法畢竟不生不滅是無常者。肇云。畢竟者決定辭也。小乘觀法以生滅為無常義。大乘之士以不生不滅為無常義。無常名同而幽致殊絕其道靈微故非常情之所惻。妙得其旨者其惟淨名乎。遣常情故言無常。非謂有無常。常無常故畢竟不生不滅。是無常實義也。遠云。實相理窮名為畢竟。體寂無為名不生滅。此不生滅是彼無常真實性。名無常義也。基云。小乘以生滅為無常。謂不生不滅為常。上折汝心見有。不生不滅為常者。此常還是無常。故云不生滅是無常也。又依中邊論。釋三種無常。一無物無常。謂分別性本來無故無物可為常。二生滅無常。即依他性因緣有故非是性常。三有垢無垢無常。即真實性染淨不恒亦非是常。今所論者總約三性同一真實是無常義也。五受陰空是苦義者。肇云。有漏五陰受染生死名為受陰。或可。依俱舍論。煩惱業因能招陰報。故云受陰。受者取也。如草康火。或陰屬受。如帝王臣。或陰生受。如花果樹。小乘以受陰起則眾苦生為苦義。大乘之士通達受陰內外常空本自無起。誰生苦者。遣樂情故名苦。非謂有苦義也。遠云。窮苦實性畢竟寂滅無相無為。此之真理。是苦實性名苦義也。基云。小乘人謂。五陰是苦義。滅五陰得涅槃。是樂義。今折彼汝定見。五陰無所有為樂者。此還是苦。故五陰空。是苦義也。依中邊論。苦有三種。一所取苦。即分別性。為執心所取。二相苦。即依他性。三苦八苦為苦相故。三相應苦。即真實性。苦相合故。今推三苦同歸一實故稱苦義也。諸法究竟無所有是空義者。肇云。小乘觀法緣起內無真主為空義。雖復觀空而於空未能都泯。故不畢竟。大乘之士在有不有在空不空。何以故。遣有故言空。非謂有是空。有若是有。何由可空。有若非有。空何所空。故無空無不空。即畢竟是空實義。什云。本言空者。欲以遣有非有去而存空。若有去而存空。非謂之空也。二法俱盡乃是空義。故中論云。大聖說空法為離諸見故。若復著於空諸佛所不化　又云。諸法之中畢竟真如無其所執。因空所顯說為空性非空也。依中邊論。空有三種。一本無空。即分別性。本來無故。二不空。即依他性。有而非實不同分別。一向無故。三自性空。即真實性。二空所顯為自性故。會上三空同一真實。是其空義。起信論云。空有二種。一者如實空。以能究竟顯真實故。二者如實不空。以有自體具足無漏性功德故也。於我無我而不二是無我義者。肇云。小乘對我為累故尊於無我。無我既尊則我無我為二。大乘是非齊旨二者不殊乃為無我義。又云。真如本離言說分別之相。我與無我由來不二。為遮我故因無我顯故云無我。又云。二乘之人知陰無神名為無我。即我無我異。菩薩了我性空即是無我。不見無我異於有我。所以爾者。遣於我故名為無我。非謂有無我。我與無我俱無所有。是無我義。故中論云。或說於有我或說於無我。諸法實相中無我無非我。又依中邊論有三無我。一無相無我。即分別性。我相無故。二異相無我。即依他性。與妄所執我相異故。三自相無我。即真實性。無我所顯為自相故。會上三種同一真是無我義也。法本不然今則無滅是寂滅者。肇云。小乘以三界熾然故滅之以求無為。夫熾然既形滅故名不生。大乘觀法本自不然。今何所滅。陰界空故名為寂滅。非謂有所滅。無生無滅即是寂滅實義也。又云。破彼生滅說不生滅。非謂法性是無生滅。以其生滅及不生滅悉皆離故。方得名為大寂滅也。又云。二乘之人見煩惱生起無漏諦觀段除煩惱顯得擇滅無為以為寂滅。此即有餘涅槃非是真實。大乘之士悟真如法性本來清淨。無惑可生故云不然。無惑可滅故云不滅。不生不滅即寂滅涅槃。此即自性涅槃非有餘果也。依中邊論。滅有三種。一無體滅。即分別性。自體無故。二無二滅。即依他性。二取不生故。三自性滅。即真實性。會上三滅同一體實。是寂滅義也。出體者此五六無為中並以真如無為為體。若約五法依佛地論以清淨法界為體性。若辯離合。開即為五。如此經說以對常樂我三倒故立無常等印。對我所倒故立空印。對妄見生滅等故立寂滅印。若據中論。合為四印。如地持論。雖我與我所分二妄想。約十史論之合為一。我見史。由所對患一故合空無我為一無我印。若略而論即立三印。如涅槃謂一切行無常無我涅槃寂滅。彼經以行苦入無常門攝。同是遷流不住義故。空攝入無我中。義如前辯。第三教可益中彼諸比丘心得解脫者。聞前維摩翻前五非小乘偏執。為說大乘甚深法。故常無常等礙心障累悉滅無餘。是故名為心得解脫。此諸比丘位在十迴向。聞說五法進入初地。或可。此諸比丘是小乘學人。聞說五義實相未能入深遂證羅漢果也。無垢稱經云。說是法時彼諸苾芻諸漏永盡必得解脫。故我下結不堪也。

Second, within the explanation of the reprimand, there are two parts: first, reprimanding what he expounded; second, teaching the dharma of the real mark (dharmatā). Regarding 'Do not use a mind-activity of arising and ceasing to expound the dharma of the real mark,' this directly states the words of reprimand. Because people of the Hīnayāna, hearing impermanence expounded, do not comprehend the Tathāgata's purpose of curing illnesses, they claim that all dharmas such as form and mind are solely impermanent. Taking these dharmas of impermanent arising and ceasing to be the dharma of the real mark, they contemplate them, awaken to the path, and are able to seek the noble fruits. Not knowing that the principle of the real mark is neither form nor mind, neither arising nor ceasing, he is now therefore reprimanded: 'Do not take the contemplation of arising, ceasing, and impermanence to be the real mark.' Below this, the text contains five phrases teaching the real mark to people. First, teaching impermanence: 'That all dharmas ultimately do not arise and do not cease is the meaning of impermanence.' [Seng]zhao says: '"Ultimately" is an expression of certainty. In the Hīnayāna contemplation of dharmas, arising and ceasing constitute the meaning of impermanence; persons of the Mahāyāna take non-arising and non-ceasing to be the meaning of impermanence. The name "impermanence" is identical, but the profound import is vastly different. Its path is subtle and marvelous, so it cannot be fathomed by ordinary sentiments. Is it not Vimalakīrti alone who wonderfully grasps its purport? To dispel the sentiment of permanence, one speaks of impermanence; this does not mean there is an impermanence. Since the permanent is impermanent, ultimately not arising and not ceasing is the true meaning of impermanence.' [Hui]yuan says: 'Exhausting the principle of the real mark is called "ultimate"; an essence that is tranquil and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) is called "neither arising nor ceasing." This non-arising and non-ceasing is the real nature of that impermanence, and is called the meaning of impermanence.' [Kuai]ji says: 'The Hīnayāna takes arising and ceasing to be impermanence, and asserts that non-arising and non-ceasing is permanent. Refuting your mind that perceives existent [dharmas] above, if one takes non-arising and non-ceasing to be permanent, this permanence is still impermanence; hence it is said that non-arising and non-ceasing is impermanence.' Furthermore, relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, three kinds of impermanence are explained: 1. Impermanence of non-entity, meaning that because the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) is originally non-existent, there is no entity that can be permanent. 2. Impermanence of arising and ceasing, which is the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva); because it exists through causes and conditions, its nature is not permanent. 3. Impermanence with defilement and without defilement, which is the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva); defilement and purity are not constant, so it is also not permanent. What is discussed here universally subsumes the three natures under a single reality, which is the meaning of impermanence. Regarding 'That the five clinging aggregates are empty is the meaning of suffering,' [Seng]zhao says: 'The defiled saṃsāra of the five contaminated aggregates is called the clinging aggregates. Or, relying on the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra*, the causal factors of defilements and karma are able to summon the retribution of the aggregates, hence they are called clinging aggregates. "Clinging" (upādāna) means grasping, like grass and chaff to fire. Or the aggregates belong to clinging, like ministers to a sovereign. Or the aggregates generate clinging, like a tree to flowers and fruits. The Hīnayāna takes the arising of the clinging aggregates producing manifold sufferings to be the meaning of suffering. Persons of the Mahāyāna thoroughly comprehend that the clinging aggregates are internally and externally always empty and originally do not arise; who then produces suffering? To dispel the sentiment of pleasure, it is called suffering; it does not mean there is an entity of suffering.' [Hui]yuan says: 'Exhausting the true nature of suffering is ultimate tranquility, signlessness, and the unconditioned. This true principle is the real nature of suffering and is called the meaning of suffering.' [Kuai]ji says: 'People of the Hīnayāna assert that the five aggregates are the meaning of suffering, and that extinguishing the five aggregates to attain nirvāṇa is the meaning of bliss. Now refuting their definitive view: if one takes the five aggregates having nothing as bliss, this is still suffering; hence the emptiness of the five aggregates is the meaning of suffering.' Relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of suffering: 1. Suffering of what is grasped, which is the imagined nature, being grasped by the grasping mind. 2. Suffering of characteristics, which is the dependent nature, because the three sufferings and eight sufferings are characteristics of suffering. 3. Suffering of conjunction, which is the consummate nature, because it is conjoined with the characteristics of suffering. Now deducing that the three sufferings return together to one reality, it is therefore called the meaning of suffering. Regarding 'That all dharmas are ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness,' [Seng]zhao says: 'In the Hīnayāna contemplation of dharmas, the absence of a real master within conditioned arising is the meaning of emptiness. Although they contemplate emptiness, they have not yet completely eradicated [attachment to] emptiness, so it is not ultimate. Persons of the Mahāyāna are not existent in the midst of existence, nor empty in the midst of emptiness. Why? To dispel existence one speaks of emptiness; it does not mean that existence is empty. If existence were existent, how could it be emptied? If existence were non-existent, what emptiness would empty it? Therefore, neither empty nor not empty is ultimately the true meaning of emptiness.' [Kumāra]jīva says: 'Originally speaking of emptiness was intended to dispel existence; it does not mean that existence departs while emptiness remains. If existence departs and emptiness remains, it cannot be called emptiness. The exhaustion of both dharmas is truly the meaning of emptiness. Hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says: "The Great Sage taught the dharma of emptiness / In order to abandon all views; / If one still clings to emptiness, / Such a one is not transformed by the Buddhas." It also says: "Within all dharmas, ultimate tathatā lacks that which is grasped; that which is revealed through emptiness is called the nature of emptiness, not mere emptiness." Relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of emptiness: 1. Emptiness of original non-existence, which is the imagined nature, because it is originally non-existent. 2. Non-emptiness, which is the dependent nature, because it exists yet is not real, unlike the imagined nature which is completely non-existent. 3. Emptiness of self-nature, which is the consummate nature, because that which is revealed by the two emptinesses serves as its self-nature. Bringing together the above three emptinesses into one identical reality is its meaning of emptiness. The *Awakening of Faith* says: "Emptiness has two kinds: first, truly empty, because it can ultimately reveal reality; second, truly not empty, because its own nature is endowed with uncontaminated virtues of nature."' Regarding 'That self and non-self are non-dual is the meaning of non-self,' [Seng]zhao says: 'The Hīnayāna contrasts the self as a burden and therefore esteems non-self. Once non-self is esteemed, self and non-self become two. For the Mahāyāna, right and wrong are aligned in purport, and the two are not distinct; only this is the meaning of non-self.' It also says: 'Tathatā is originally free from characteristics of verbal expression and discrimination. Self and non-self have never been dual. In order to ward off self, it is revealed by means of non-self; hence one says "non-self."' It also says: 'People of the two vehicles know that the aggregates lack a spirit and call this non-self; thus self and non-self are different. Bodhisattvas comprehend that the nature of self is empty, which is itself non-self, not seeing non-self as distinct from having a self. Why is this? Because dispelling the self is called non-self; it does not mean that non-self exists. That both self and non-self are completely non-existent is the meaning of non-self. Hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says: "Sometimes a self is taught, / And sometimes non-self is taught; / In the dharmatā of all dharmas, / There is neither self nor non-self."' Furthermore, relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of non-self: 1. Signless non-self, which is the imagined nature, because the characteristics of self do not exist. 2. Different-sign non-self, which is the dependent nature, because it differs from the characteristic of self falsely grasped. 3. Self-characteristic non-self, which is the consummate nature, because that which is revealed by non-self serves as its own characteristic. Bringing together the above three kinds into one reality is the meaning of non-self. Regarding 'Dharmas originally do not blaze up, and now have no extinction, is tranquility,' [Seng]zhao says: 'Because the three realms are ablaze, the Hīnayāna extinguishes them to seek the unconditioned. When blazing is manifested, extinction is called non-arising. The Mahāyāna contemplates dharmas as originally not blazing; what is there now to extinguish? Because aggregates and realms are empty, it is called tranquility; it does not mean there is something extinguished. Neither arising nor ceasing is the true meaning of tranquility.' It also says: 'Breaking that arising and ceasing, one speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing; it does not mean that dharma-nature is non-arising and non-ceasing. Because it is free from both arising-and-ceasing and non-arising-and-non-ceasing, only then can it be called great tranquility.' It also says: 'When people of the two vehicles see afflictions arise, they produce uncontaminated contemplation of the truths, sever afflictions, and reveal analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as tranquility. This is nirvāṇa with remainder, not the real [nirvāṇa]. Persons of the Mahāyāna awaken to the fact that the dharma-nature of tathatā is originally pure; since no delusion can arise, it says "do not blaze up"; since no delusion can be extinguished, it says "no extinction." Neither arising nor ceasing is tranquil nirvāṇa; this is natural nirvāṇa, not the fruit with remainder.' Relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of cessation: 1. Cessation of non-substance, which is the imagined nature, because its own substance does not exist. 2. Cessation of non-duality, which is the dependent nature, because the two graspers do not arise. 3. Cessation of self-nature, which is the consummate nature. Bringing together the above three cessations into one identical real essence is the meaning of tranquility. Identifying the essence: among these five [or] six unconditioned dharmas, they all take tathatā unconditioned as their essence. In terms of the five dharmas, relying on the *Buddhabhūmi-śāstra*, they take the pure dharma-realm (dharmadhātu) as their essential nature. In discerning separation and combination: expanded, they become five. As this sūtra says, to counter the three inversions of permanence, pleasure, and self, it establishes the seals of impermanence and so forth; to counter the inversion of 'belonging to self', it establishes the seal of emptiness; to counter false views of arising and ceasing and so forth, it establishes the seal of tranquility. According to the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, they are combined into four seals. As in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra*, although self and belonging to self are divided into two false conceptualizations, in terms of the ten latencies they are combined into one latency of self-view. Because the afflicting obstacle countered is one, emptiness and non-self are combined into a single seal of non-self. If discussed in brief, three seals are established, as the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states that all conditioned things are impermanent, non-self, and nirvāṇa is tranquility. That sūtra subsumes the suffering of conditioned things under the gate of impermanence, because both share the meaning of flowing and not abiding; emptiness is subsumed under non-self, the meaning being as discerned before. In the third section, on the benefits of the reprimand, 'the minds of those monks attained liberation': having heard Vimalakīrti overturn the preceding five wrong, partial attachments of the Hīnayāna and expound the extremely profound dharma of the Mahāyāna, their obstructing minds of permanence, impermanence, and so forth, and their defilements and fetters were all extinguished without remainder; therefore it is said that their minds attained liberation. These monks were at the stage of the ten dedications; hearing the five dharmas expounded, they entered the first bhūmi. Or, these monks were Hīnayāna practitioners; hearing the real mark of the five meanings expounded, they were unable to enter deeply, but subsequently realized the fruit of arhatship. The *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra* says: 'When this dharma was expounded, those bhikṣus' contaminants were permanently exhausted, and they surely attained liberation.' 'Therefore I...' below concludes his inadequacy.