[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經疏卷第三．第六](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772) › 6.72 # 維摩經疏卷第三．第六 6.72 維摩經疏卷第三．第六 6.72 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.72](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.6.72) 自下第二約對前法以明供養之中有二。一依教詮義。信解受持為下供養。二又於下依其義言如說修行。解窮真性為上供養。前中初明自利。以方便下化他。行滿是名下結。就其第二如說修行上品供養中。初辯後結。辯中有四。一略依四依之行為法供養。二隨順下略依十二因緣觀法明法供養。三依義下廣明四依以申供養。四隨順法下廣明十二因緣以申供養。初中又於諸法如說行者。順四依之法而修行也。第二略明十二因緣中。言隨順觀十二緣者。因緣生法體自空無。依此而觀名為隨順。此句是總。離邪見下別。別中有二。一明生空。二而於因緣下明得法空。前中雜見得無生忍者。謂得初地無生忍也。正證忍時不見我人及眾生等名為生空。而於因緣無違諍者。次明法空。於中光明因果非無因能感果名曰無違。果遂往因故稱無諍。或可。觀其因緣體性空寂。空不礙有。名曰無違。有不礙空。故云無諍也。於法無違於人無諍離我所者。法我空故即觀向前。因之與果體性空寂。以空寂故則無有我。我尚空無　何有我所之可得也。第三重廣前四依中。三門分別。一辯名。二出體。三明次第。初辯名者。依義不依語者。所詮之理名之為義。憑之起行故說為依。能詮之教名之為語。雖依語得義。然語非是義。如因指見月得月亡指。得理捨詮。所以依義不依語也。依識者。智能入理決斷解了。所以須依識。但分別起於染著。棄捨不從故不依也。依了義經不依不了義經者。顯實分明名了義經。憑之取解故說為依。覆障之言名不了經。棄而不從故曰不依。了不了義略有四種。一法印非印門。二詮常非常門。三顯了隱密門。四言略語廣門。法印非印門者。法印有三。一諸行無常。二涅槃寂淨。三諸法無我。若一切教有此三種理印所印等名為了義。違三法印等非了義經。由此道理。三藏二乘十二部教無非了義。捨煩惱業及苦故。諸外道教非了義經。不能永離惑業苦故。常非常者。如涅槃云。又聲聞乘名不了義。無上大乘乃名了義。若言如來無常變易名不了義。若言如來常住不變名為了義。此經意言。若經中說佛是法身常住不變。是名了義。與此相違名不了義。則顯小乘詮非常佛名非了義也。顯了隱密門者。解深密云。世尊在昔第二時中唯為發趣修大乘者依一切法皆無自性以隱密相轉正法輪。雖更希奇而亦有上。猶未了義。即說一切性皆是空。三無性教名非了義。唯識云。故佛密意說。一切法皆無自性。非性全無。名了義也。言略語廣門者。雖是大乘明顯之教。初但略說。談理未周。所明未盡。名為不了。此依說義言為廣略名了不了。非約所詮理是究竟非是究竟名了不了。此中第一為令眾生捨邪歸正名了不了。一切佛經皆名了義。外道所說名不了義。第二為令捨小歸大名了不了。一切大乘名為了義。諸小乘教名不了。第三為令捨隱歸顯名了不了。一切大乘顯了言教皆名為了。雖是大乘說法。隱密名為不了。第四為令如法廣略名了不了。諸重頌經言略不盡皆名不了。非重頌經言廣盡故說名為了。以此四門攝義稍盡。隨其所應當廣思擇。今此經中四義俱有。方便品中淨名說五非常法。是法印門如弟子品中淨名教阿難。佛身無為不墮諸數。是常門也。佛國品中寶積讚佛說法不有亦不無以因緣故諸法生即空常有是顯了門。此經之中長行多偈頌少。為是語廣門四義既圓故是了教可依受也。依法不依人者。託法起行名為依法。得法捨人名為不依人。問。依法不依人者。未知一切人不可依亦有可依耶。答。可依。人法相對以為四句。一法可依。謂大乘法人不可依謂小乘人也。二人可依。謂大乘人即四依菩薩也。法不依。謂小乘法。三人法俱可依。謂大乘人法。四人法俱不可依。謂二乘人法也。語義相對亦作四句。准前可知。二辯體。義即是理。以真如為體。智是證智。以正體後得二智為體。教以音聲名句文以為體。性法以六度為體也。三明次第。義即是理。是智所證故先明也。智是證智。依理起智故次明也。了義經教由智而說故次辯也。法是所詮即是行法故後明也。第四廣前十二緣中。文中先辯。作如是下結以顯益。辯中有二。初總後別。總中隨順法相無入無歸者。法即因緣法也。上順因緣知法無生。今順因緣知法無盡。法從緣而有。從緣而無其有不從未來來。其無不從過去去。故曰無入無歸也。下別明中。無明畢竟滅等者。汎觀因緣有逆有順。逆順不同有其三種。一就事分別。從前向後尋因趣果名順。從後向前尋果推因為逆。二約因緣生滅分別。觀十二支生名順。散滅為逆。三就理分別。觀十二緣假有為順。順法有故無性空寂為逆。逆於有故。三中前二大小同知。後一唯大。今此所明義當後門。即是逆觀也。無明過去已滅未來不生現在不住。三世空故即是不滅。所以無盡也。又云。無明從緣生。生即不生。從緣滅。滅即不滅。不生不滅。無明即是畢竟滅。無明既滅。乃至老亦當無盡也。上來別觀訖。下結顯益。作如是觀。十二因緣修前順觀。法本不生無所滅名無盡相。無法可盡。乃是畢竟滅也。不復起見。正明觀益。一切斷常有無等不復起也。上來別明修行供養。是名最上法之供養。總以結嘆。上來合是第一月蓋請問如來為說。 > From here below, the second part clarifies the offering in relation to the preceding Dharma; within this there are two: First, relying on the teaching that explains the principle, faithful understanding, acceptance, and upholding constitute the inferior offering. Second, from "Furthermore, in ..." onward, relying on the meaning of those words and practicing in accordance with what is taught, fully plumbing the true nature constitutes the superior offering. In the former, it first clarifies self-benefit; from "With upāya ..." onward, transforming others; "When practice is perfected, this is named ..." below concludes. Regarding the second, practicing in accordance with what is taught as the supreme offering, there is first an explanation and then a conclusion. Within the explanation there are four: 1. briefly relying on the practice of the four reliances as the Dharma-offering; 2. from "In accordance with ..." onward, briefly relying on the contemplation of the twelve links of dependent origination to clarify the Dharma-offering; 3. from "Relying on the meaning ..." onward, extensively clarifying the four reliances to present the offering; 4. from "In accordance with the Dharma ..." onward, extensively clarifying the twelve links of dependent origination to present the offering. In the first, "Furthermore, in all dharmas, practicing in accordance with what is taught" means practicing in accord with the Dharma of the four reliances. In the second, briefly clarifying the twelve links of dependent origination: the words "in accordance \[with the Dharma\], contemplating the twelve links of dependent origination" mean that dharmas born of causes and conditions are inherently empty in substance; contemplating in reliance on this is called "in accordance." This phrase is general; from "leaving behind wrong views" onward is specific. Within the specific there are two: first, clarifying pudgala-nairātmya; second, from "and regarding causes and conditions ..." onward, clarifying the attainment of dharma-nairātmya. In the former, "abandoning various views and attaining the forbearance of non-arising" refers to attaining the forbearance of non-arising of the first bhūmi. At the time of directly realizing this forbearance, not seeing a self, a person, or sentient beings is called pudgala-nairātmya. "And having no conflict or contention regarding causes and conditions" next clarifies dharma-nairātmya. Within this, Bright Face \[states\]: Cause and effect are not non-existent; because a cause can induce an effect, it is called "no conflict"; because the effect conforms to the past cause, it is termed "no contention." Or it may be said: contemplating the essential nature of causes and conditions as empty and quiescent—emptiness does not obstruct existence, which is called "no conflict"; existence does not obstruct emptiness, and so it says "no contention." Having no conflict with dharmas, having no contention with people, and being free of "mine": because dharmas and self are empty, one contemplates what was just mentioned; cause and effect are empty and quiescent in their essential nature. Being empty and quiescent, there is no self; when even the self is empty and non-existent, how could there be a "mine" that can be apprehended? Third, in re-expanding on the former four reliances, there are three sections of analysis: 1. explaining the names; 2. bringing forth the essences; 3. clarifying the sequence. First, explaining the names: "Rely on the meaning and do not rely on the phrasing": the principle that is explained is named "meaning" (artha); because one depends on it to initiate practice, it is spoken of as "relying." The teaching that explains is named "phrasing" (vyañjana); although one grasps the meaning through phrasing, nevertheless the phrasing is not the meaning. Just as by pointing a finger one sees the moon, yet upon catching sight of the moon one forgets the finger; attaining the principle, one discards the explanation; therefore, rely on the meaning and do not rely on the phrasing. "Rely on wisdom \[and do not rely on consciousness\]": wisdom can penetrate the principle, making decisive understanding; therefore, one must rely on it. Consciousness merely discriminates and gives rise to defiled attachment; casting it aside and not following it, therefore one does not rely on it. "Rely on the sūtras of definitive meaning and do not rely on the sūtras of non-definitive meaning": revealing the real clearly is called a sūtra of definitive meaning; depending on it to take hold of understanding, it is spoken of as "relying." Words that veil and obstruct are called sūtras of non-definitive meaning; casting them aside and not following them, it is said that one does not rely on them. Definitive and non-definitive meanings briefly have four approaches: 1. the approach of Dharma-seal versus non-seal; 2. the approach of explaining the permanent versus the impermanent; 3. the approach of the explicit versus the esoteric; 4. the approach of concise phrasing versus expansive discourse. As for the approach of Dharma-seal versus non-seal: the Dharma-seals are three: (1) all conditioned things are impermanent; (2) nirvāṇa is quiescent; (3) all dharmas are without self. If any teaching is sealed by the seal of these three principles, it is called definitive; that which contradicts the three Dharma-seals is not a definitive sūtra. By this reasoning, none of the three baskets, the two vehicles, and the twelvefold scriptures are not definitive, because they abandon afflictions, karma, and suffering. The teachings of the non-Buddhists are not definitive sūtras, because they cannot forever leave behind delusions, karma, and suffering. As for the permanent versus the impermanent: as the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says: "Furthermore, the śrāvaka vehicle is called non-definitive; the unexcelled Mahāyāna is called definitive. If it is said that the Tathāgata is impermanent and mutable, it is called non-definitive; if it is said that the Tathāgata is eternally abiding and immutable, it is called definitive." The intent of this sūtra is: if in a sūtra it is said that the Buddha is the eternally abiding and immutable dharmakāya, this is called definitive; that which is contrary to this is called non-definitive; this shows that the Hīnayāna explanation of the Buddha as non-eternal is non-definitive. As for the approach of the explicit versus the esoteric: the Saṃdhinirmocana states: "In the past, during the second period, the World-Honoured One, solely for those who set out to practice the Mahāyāna, relying on the fact that all dharmas lack intrinsic nature, turned the wheel of the True Dharma with an esoteric aspect. Although it was even more wondrous, it was also surpassable and not yet definitive." That is, teaching that all natures are empty—the teaching of the three non-natures—is called non-definitive. The Vijñaptimātratā states: "Therefore, the Buddha with esoteric intent stated that all dharmas lack intrinsic nature, not that there is a complete absence of nature; this is called definitive." As for the approach of concise phrasing versus expansive discourse: although it is a clear teaching of the Mahāyāna, when it is at first only briefly stated, discussing the principle incompletely and not fully exhausting what is clarified, it is called non-definitive. This treats definitive and non-definitive based on whether the spoken meaning is expansive or concise, not on whether the principle explained is ultimate or not ultimate. Herein, the first approach makes sentient beings abandon the heterodox and return to the orthodox, which is called definitive and non-definitive: all Buddhist sūtras are called definitive, while what non-Buddhists teach is called non-definitive. The second approach makes them abandon the small and return to the great: all Mahāyāna is called definitive, while all Hīnayāna teachings are called non-definitive. The third approach makes them abandon the concealed and return to the explicit: all clear verbal teachings of the Mahāyāna are called definitive; even though it is Mahāyāna preaching, if it is esoteric, it is called non-definitive. The fourth approach makes it concise or expansive in accordance with the Dharma: all sūtras of verse summaries whose words are concise and non-exhaustive are called non-definitive; sūtras that are not verse summaries, whose words are expansive and exhaustive, are spoken of as definitive. With these four approaches the meaning is largely encompassed; one should reflect extensively according to what is appropriate. Now in this sūtra all four meanings are present: in the Chapter on Upāya, Vimalakīrti speaks of the five impermanent dharmas—this is the approach of the Dharma-seal; as in the Chapter on the Disciples, Vimalakīrti instructs Ānanda: "The Buddha's body is asaṃskṛta and does not fall within enumerations"—this is the approach of permanence; in the Chapter on the Buddha Land, Ratnakūṭa praises the Buddha's preaching that dharmas are neither existent nor non-existent, arising through causes and conditions, being empty yet eternally existent—this is the explicit approach; in this sūtra, prose is extensive while verses are few—this is the approach of expansive discourse. Since the four meanings are complete, it is a definitive teaching that can be relied upon and accepted. "Rely on the Dharma and do not rely on the person": undertaking practice by taking recourse in the Dharma is called relying on the Dharma; obtaining the Dharma and relinquishing the person is called not relying on the person. Question: As for relying on the Dharma and not relying on the person, does it mean no person whatsoever can be relied upon, or are there also those who can be relied upon? Answer: They can be relied upon. Setting person against Dharma makes four propositions: 1. The Dharma may be relied upon, referring to the Mahāyāna Dharma, while the person may not be relied upon, referring to a Hīnayāna person. 2. The person may be relied upon, referring to a Mahāyāna person, namely a bodhisattva of the four reliances, while the Dharma is not relied upon, referring to the Hīnayāna Dharma. 3. Both person and Dharma may be relied upon, referring to Mahāyāna persons and Dharma. 4. Neither person nor Dharma may be relied upon, referring to the persons and Dharma of the two vehicles. Setting phrasing against meaning also forms four propositions, which can be understood following the preceding. 2. Explaining the essence: "Meaning" is precisely the principle, having tathatā as its essence. "Wisdom" is the realizing wisdom, having the two wisdoms of mūla-jñāna and pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna as its essence. The teaching has sound, names, sentences, and phonemes as its essence. The essence of the Dharma has the six pāramitās as its essence. 3. Clarifying the sequence: "Meaning" is precisely the principle, which is realized by wisdom, and therefore is clarified first. "Wisdom" is realizing wisdom; because wisdom arises relying on the principle, it is clarified next. The teaching of sūtras of definitive meaning is expounded on the basis of wisdom, and therefore is discussed next. "Dharma" is what is explained, which is the practice-dharma, and therefore is clarified last. Fourth, in expanding on the twelve links of dependent origination above: in the text, it first explains, and from "Making such ..." onward concludes to show the benefit. Within the explanation there are two: first general, then specific. In the general, "in accordance with the characteristics of dharmas, having no entry and no return": dharmas are the dharmas of causes and conditions; above, conforming to causes and conditions, one knew that dharmas do not arise; now, conforming to causes and conditions, one knows that dharmas are inexhaustible. Dharmas exist through conditions and cease through conditions: their existence does not come from the future; their cessation does not go into the past; hence it says "having no entry and no return." In the specific explanation below: "ignorance is ultimately extinguished," etc.: broadly contemplating causes and conditions has both reverse and direct \[modes\]. The difference between reverse and direct has three types: 1. Distinction in terms of phenomena: from the beginning moving to the end, tracing causes and proceeding toward effects, is called direct; from the end moving to the beginning, tracing effects and seeking causes, is called reverse. 2. Distinction in terms of the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions: contemplating the arising of the twelve links is called direct; their dissipation and cessation is reverse. 3. Distinction in terms of principle: contemplating the twelve links as nominal existence is direct, conforming to the existence of dharmas; lacking intrinsic nature and being empty and quiescent is reverse, running contrary to existence. Among the three, the first two are known in common by Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; the last one belongs solely to Mahāyāna. What is clarified here corresponds in meaning to the latter approach; that is, the reverse contemplation. Ignorance has ceased in the past, does not arise in the future, and does not abide in the present; because the three times are empty, it is non-ceasing; therefore it is inexhaustible. Furthermore, it says: ignorance arises from conditions—arising, it is non-arising; it ceases from conditions—ceasing, it is non-ceasing. Neither arising nor ceasing, ignorance is ultimately extinguished. Ignorance having ceased, even old age \[and death\] will likewise be inexhaustible. The specific contemplation above having finished, below concludes to reveal the benefit: "Making such a contemplation": of the twelve links of dependent origination, practicing the aforementioned direct contemplation, dharmas fundamentally do not arise and have nothing to cease; this is called the mark of inexhaustibility. When there is no dharma that can be exhausted, that is indeed ultimate extinction. "No longer giving rise to views" directly clarifies the benefit of contemplation: all \[views of\] annihilation, permanence, existence, non-existence, and so forth no longer arise. The above specifically clarifies the offering of practice; "this is named the supreme Dharma-offering" concludes by praising it in general. All of the above together constitutes the first part, Candracattra inquiring of the Tathāgata, and his preaching for him. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.71](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.6.71) - [Next: 6.73](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.6.73) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772~en-mt.6.72) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (4) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.10.134) — Classical Chinese - [成唯識論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.trimsika!vijnaptimatratasiddhi*zh-xuanzang.9.8) — Classical Chinese - [淨名經集解關中疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2777.2.527) — Classical Chinese - [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.4.89) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.6.72](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2772.6.72) · Pramāṇa