English (machine translation)

Language: English
Extent: 157 passages, 89,796 words
Text: complete digital text
Source: pramana-mt · Machine translation by Gemini 3.8 Flash (2026-10-21) of in.bauddha.taisho.2772 · Machine output without human authorship: no copyright is claimed (CC0 1.0). The original text keeps its own…

3 — 74 parts
6 — 83 parts

Text

Within this chapter, there is a brief analysis into three sections: first, explaining the reason for its occurrence; second, interpreting the chapter title; third, explaining the meaning of the text. Regarding explaining the reason for its occurrence: The holy man secretly accords with the way of upāya, without duality; the layman manifests illness for the sake of sentient beings, and the Tathāgata also harbors compassion and sends inquiries. Because of their mutual interaction, the work of teaching, guiding, and benefiting becomes extensive. Therefore this chapter comes next. Furthermore, that which was previously explained—prajñā and great compassion conjoined in practice with the multitude of virtues—is called upāya. This chapter precisely reveals that it is beyond what those of the two vehicles and the various minor bodhisattvas can understand. Now, desiring to confront them to reveal his superior virtues and cause them to renounce the inferior and cultivate the superior, this chapter comes next. Alternatively, in the previous chapter, because ordinary beings inquired about the illness, the method of transforming ordinary beings was explained; within this chapter, because the holy inquiry about the illness is made, the method of transforming the holy is explained. Among teaching the holy, the śrāvakas are taught first. Hence this chapter.

3.3

Second, regarding the explanation of the title: The Buddha is endowed with superior virtues and is called the Teacher of Gods and Humans. The śrāvakas and others, personally receiving liberation from the Buddha, are called "disciples." This is a reciprocal naming between master and disciple. It is also said: learning after the Buddha, they are called "younger brothers" (di); born transformed from the Dharma, they are called "sons" (zi). Those who were commanded are his disciples. With respect to this theme, it is titled the "Chapter on the Disciples." According to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, it is called the "Chapter on the Śrāvakas." If it were called the "Chapter on the Disciples," it might be feared to include the bodhisattvas.

3.4

Third, regarding the explanation of the text and its meaning: Within this text, there is an analysis into three sections: first, an analysis distinguishing errors according to their marks; second, an analysis according to the beginning and end of the forms of practice; third, explaining the meaning following the text. First, regarding the analysis distinguishing errors: here there are five hundred śrāvaka practices, which are the five hundred Dharma-doors. The text is abbreviated, so it explains only ten. These ten are precisely the dharmas attained by śrāvaka persons. Now, when contrasted with the Mahāyāna, they are all errors. What are their marks? First, Śāriputra is foremost in wisdom among the śrāvaka persons; because he did not realize the ever-quiescent samādhi, he incurred admonishment. Second, Maudgalyāyana is foremost in supernormal powers; because his supernormal powers were not actualized in the present and his preaching of the Dharma was inappropriate, he was also admonished. Third, Mahākāśyapa is foremost in the dhūtas; because he lacked impartial great compassion, he was admonished. Fourth, Subhūti is foremost in understanding emptiness; because he did not attain impartial great emptiness, he was also admonished. Fifth, Pūrṇa is foremost in eloquence; because he did not realize the profound and far-reaching spiritual faculties, he was also admonished. Sixth, Kātyāyana is foremost in analyzing meaning; because he did not realize the profound meaning of dharmatā, he was also admonished. Seventh, Aniruddha is foremost in the divine eye; because it was not practiced in conjunction with signless wisdom, he was also admonished. Eighth, Upāli is foremost in upholding the vinaya; because he could not contemplate emptiness to extinguish transgressions, he was also admonished. Ninth, Rāhula is foremost in upholding the precepts; because he did not realize that renunciation is devoid of benefit, he was also admonished. Tenth, Ānanda is foremost in erudition; because he did not understand the virtues of the Tathāgata's dharmakāya, he was also admonished. These ten all reveal the errors of the disciples. Second, regarding the analysis according to the beginning and end of the forms of practice: First, Śāriputra cultivates non-abiding practice. Because this person abandoned the secular world to retreat to the forest, getting rid of distraction to seize quiescence, he is now taught non-abiding practice that renounces grasping and rejecting to accord with the middle way; this is called non-abiding practice. Second, Maudgalyāyana cultivates the practice of entering realization. Because Maudgalyāyana's supernormal powers were not actualized in the present and his preaching of the Dharma was inappropriate, he is taught to cultivate the two kinds of emptiness to realize the true principle; this is called the practice of entering realization. Third, Mahākāśyapa cultivates the practice of aiding the path. Because this person abandoned the rich to follow the poor and had not yet attained impartiality, he is taught to cultivate impartial contemplation to assist in becoming a bodhisattva; this is called the practice of aiding the path. Fourth, Subhūti cultivates the practice of great emptiness. Because Subhūti saw the existence of heterodoxy and orthodoxy and did not understand true emptiness, he is taught to cultivate impartial contemplation without grasping the marks of heterodoxy and orthodoxy; this is called the practice of great emptiness. Fifth, Pūrṇa cultivates the practice of preaching the Dharma. Because this person did not contemplate faculties and desires and his preaching was discordant with the capacities, he is taught to know the faculties and nature to accord with what is suitable so that the benefit is universal; this is called the practice of preaching the Dharma. Sixth, Kātyāyana cultivates the practice of generating understanding. Because this person frequently expounded the five dharmas, deviating from their dharmatā, he is taught to abandon the discriminating mind and accord with signless practice; this is called the practice of generating understanding. Seventh, Aniruddha cultivates the practice of giving rise to supernormal vision. Because Aniruddha's divine eye with marks did not see objects clearly, he is taught to cultivate the signless divine eye to realize non-duality; this is called the practice of giving rise to supernormal vision. Eighth, Upāli cultivates the practice of eradicating evil. Because this person could not contemplate emptiness to extinguish transgressions, he is taught to cultivate signless repentance so that sinful defilements do not arise; this is called the practice of eradicating evil. Ninth, Rāhula cultivates the practice of renunciation. Because his obstructions prevented him from realizing that identity with marks is signless and true renunciation, he is taught to cultivate true renunciation that is free from marks and impartial; this is called the practice of renunciation. Tenth, Ānanda cultivates the practice of the dharmakāya. Because Ānanda did not understand the permanent abiding of the Tathāgata's dharmakāya, he is taught to cultivate supramundane, asaṃskṛta virtues and forever abandon the mind of arising and ceasing; this is called the practice of the dharmakāya.

3.5

Third, regarding the explanation of the text and its meaning: The text has three divisions: first, explaining Vimalakīrti's intention in lying ill to serve as the cause for initiating the inquiry; second, from "The Buddha knew" onward, directly commanding the inquiry about the illness; third, from "In this way, the five hundred" onward, the general conclusion and classification revealing what preceded. In the first part: "At that time, Vimalakīrti thought to himself as he lay ill in bed": "At that time" is the time when the thought arose. "Elder Vimalakīrti" is the person who gave rise to the thought. "Thought to himself as he lay ill in bed" is precisely the mind generating the thought. However, the intention of this thought was expecting the holy inquiry, not thinking about the sickness. Because Vimalakīrti's compassion for beings was deep, he awaited the inquiry as if thirsty; therefore, he gave rise to this thought. Vimalakīrti manifested illness purely for the sake of beings. Although his mind was for beings, only by receiving the Buddha's response could the work of transformation be accomplished; hence, he thought of himself lying ill in bed. "Yu" (于) means "in" (於). "The Bhagavat is of great compassion; how could he not extend his pity?": The Buddha is endowed with all virtues and revered by the world; hence he is called the "Bhagavat." His compassion is the utmost of all compassion, with nothing able to surpass it; accomplished in accordance with reality, how could it not be great? "Ning" (寧) means "could" (能). "Min" (愍) means "pity" (憐). Vimalakīrti said to himself: "I, a minor person whose compassionate mind is still inferior, am nevertheless entangled in illness for the sake of beings; how much less could the Buddha, a exalted person, not extend his pity and send inquiries?" From "The Buddha knew his intention and then told" onward is the second part, directly commanding the inquiry about the illness. Because the proper timing was precisely now, he ordered them to go and inquire, which could not be stopped. However, in the text below, regarding the primary emissary, the principle rightfully belongs to Mañjuśrī; yet there are three brief intentions in commanding the others: First, to demonstrate that the Tathāgata's mind is impartial and unbiased, he makes an announcement to all; this is similar to the announcement made to the entire assembly in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] ordering them to inquire. Second, wishing to broadly rely on the words of the assembly to reveal the exalted virtue of Vimalakīrti, an announcement to all is necessary: commanding those incapable demonstrates the exaltedness of his virtue, and commanding those capable demonstrates the wondrousness of his virtue. Third, wishing to broadly rely on the words of the assembly to reveal the Dharma spoken by Vimalakīrti, an announcement to all is necessary. Therefore, in the text below, he first announces to those incapable to reveal what was spoken in the past, and afterward announces to those capable to clarify what is spoken now. Hence the announcement to all. Among the disciples, there are ten distinct persons. He commands Śāriputra first because being an emissary is not easy, and without a person of comprehensive ability, it is impossible; Śāriputra's spiritual wisdom was supreme, so he was commanded first. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: In Rājagṛha, there was a great master of debate named King Māṭhara. Because of his intelligence, he was enfeoffed with a town. He fathered a daughter whose eyes were like those of a śāri bird; she was named accordingly. She was also named Śāriputra (Śāri's son); the name was manifested after the śāri bird. At that time, in South India, there was a great master of debate named Upatiṣya. He wore a brazier on his head, regarding beings as ignorant and dark, and bound copper plates to his belly, fearing that scriptures and treatises would burst forth. He struck the debate drum, and the people of the country all gathered, wishing to determine who was superior. On the road, Māṭhara saw fighting bulls and knew the other would defeat him. Thereupon, entering the assembly to debate, he fell into defeat. The ministers deliberated together to strip him of his fief to reward Tiṣya. Māṭhara said to Tiṣya: "The king enfeoffed you with a town because of your intelligence; I give you my daughter as your wife." Afterward, the daughter became pregnant and suddenly had a dream at night. She dreamt of a person clad in armor, holding a vajra-pestle in hand, breaking down all mountains, and then standing beside a mountain. After awakening, she immediately spoke to her husband. Her husband interpreted: "You are pregnant, and you will certainly bear a son. Being clad in armor means this child will certainly have profound virtue. Holding a vajra-pestle in hand means this child is intelligent and possesses great wisdom. Breaking down all mountains means he will become a great master of debate and refute all debate masters. Standing beside a mountain afterward means he will submit to one person and become his disciple." From the time his mother became pregnant, her spiritual intelligence was extraordinary. Formerly, when debating with her brother, the brother always won; after his sister became pregnant, the brother was defeated in debate. He knew that the child's wisdom assisted his mother's intellect. When only seven years old, he was foremost in debate among the sixteen great kingdoms. He went forth under the Buddha and became foremost in wisdom among the disciples. Therefore, in other sūtras and treatises, Śāriputra is praised: "Except for the Buddha, the Tathāgata, if one wished to compare the wisdom and erudition of all sentient beings to Śāriputra, they could not equal one sixteenth part." Thus he was addressed first. Why was he addressed first? Because his wisdom was superior, he was addressed first. Question: Earlier it was said that because the śrāvakas' virtues are inferior, the Buddha addresses them first. Since Śāriputra is superior among the disciples, why address him first? Answer: Although Śāriputra's practice of wisdom was superior, his other practices were inferior to others'; thus he could be addressed first. If so, the other nine persons also had superior and inferior virtues, so they too should have been addressed first. Such reasoning does not hold. It is simply that the Great Sage guides in manifold ways: whenever one should be addressed, he is addressed; how could there be a rigid order? Within the text, there are four points: first, commanding the inquiry about the illness; second, declining as incapable; third, explaining the reason; fourth, concluding the incapacity. The following texts follow this pattern. The first, the command, is self-evident. Second, declining as incapable: all cite past humiliations to demonstrate their own incapacity, not that they experienced such shame only in this thought. However, the Buddha is a great man whose words are like an indelible seal and cannot be disobeyed. Why then did they decline? Simply because to be the Buddha's emissary, one must be a thoroughly realized person. Remembering being admonished in the past and rendered silent and unable to respond, now fearing this failure, they feared the disgrace of dishonoring the Venerable One. Therefore, all the persons below decline.

3.6

In the third section, explaining the textual meaning, there are two parts: first, setting forth the event of having been rebuked in the past; second, from 'At that time, Vimalakīrti' onward, explaining the aspects of gain and loss, instructional teaching, and rebuke—rebuking to remove his shortcomings and instructing him to cultivate his virtues. In the former part, the single phrase 'Why is this so?' is a general self-investigation and questioning. 'The Buddha told me to inquire about his illness—why?' If construed as the Bhagavat's intended question: 'You are a disciple; I dispatch you to inquire about the illness, so why do you not go?'—this is a self-directed inquiry. In the following examples there are always these two senses. From 'I recall' onward, the incident of the rebuke is properly set forth. 'Formerly in the forest, sitting in quiet contemplation beneath a tree': When a śrāvaka cultivates samādhi, he must rely on quiet conditions, unaware that serene samādhi is free from all conditions. Hence, although Śāriputra had attained arhatship, his grasping at dharmas had not yet been extinguished; seeing that there were body and mind, and suffering from the weariness and trouble of the body, he wished to conceal his form in the forest; seeing that the mind was turbulent and disordered, he further wished to hide his mind in samādhi. Because he took body and mind as existent and his taking and discarding were not yet integrated, he was rebuked. This was truly because he had not yet awakened to the dharma-nairātmya; he viewed the external six dusts as that which could disturb, and grasped the internal six sense faculties as that which was disturbed. Thus he relied on the forest to grasp quietude and avoid external dusts. 'Quiet' (yan) means silent. Silently sitting under a tree, settling the mind to sit in meditation, is therefore called 'sitting in quiet contemplation'. In the second part, on the meaning of instructional rebuke, the text is divided into three clauses: first, rebuke; second, instruction; third, interrogation. 'It is not necessarily this sitting that constitutes sitting in quiet contemplation': this rebukes his shortcoming. The shortcomings are of six kinds, which in the instructional text below are turned around to become six virtues. Because Śāriputra sat in meditation beneath a tree, grasping the characteristics of body and mind, he concealed his body in the forest and hid his mind in samādhi. Although he wished to conceal them, on the contrary this made them manifest. This was not completely wrong, so it says 'it is not necessarily'. [Daosheng] said: 'He did not say it is not so; he only said it is not necessarily so.' That he did not say it is not so: the two vehicles' method of sitting may indeed be an embodiment [of meditation]; yet that it is 'not necessarily so' means it is not yet the true, ultimate method of sitting of the Mahāyāna. Zhuang said: 'Necessarily so' refers to sitting with attachment to having attained something. Śāriputra saw that there was distraction that could be shunned and quietude that could be delighted in; hence he is now reproached: 'It is not necessarily this sitting that constitutes sitting in quiet contemplation.' If distinguished in terms of practice, Śāriputra gives rise to non-abiding practice: because this man abandoned worldly life and retired to the forest, taking it to be serene samādhi, he is now instructed not to abide in taking and discarding; only this constitutes great samādhi.

3.7

From 'Not manifesting body and mind in the three realms' onward is the second part, which turns shortcomings into attainments and properly clarifies the instruction. The aspects of instruction are six: first, equalizing body and mind to break through the grasping of characteristics of body and mind; second, congealing quietude and disturbance to break through the grasping of characteristics of quietude and disturbance; third, fusing the real and the conventional to break through the grasping of characteristics of ordinary and holy; fourth, obliterating internal and external to break through the grasping of characteristics of internal and external; fifth, extinguishing heterodoxy and orthodoxy to break through the grasping of characteristics of heterodoxy and orthodoxy; sixth, equalizing bondage and liberation to break through the grasping of characteristics of bondage and liberation. In the first of these, 'Not manifesting body and mind in the three realms' is the first: equalizing body and mind. [Hui]yuan said: The desire, form, and formless realms are the three realms. Ordinary beings receiving physical forms and bodies in the two realms of desire and form is called 'manifesting the body'; in the formless realm, receiving the karmic fruit of mental dharmas is called 'manifesting the mind'. Bodhisattvas comprehend that the three realms are false and illusory, merely produced by the mind; realizing the real and abandoning [delusions], there is no place to abide. Therefore they do not manifest body and mind in the grounds of the three realms: this is sitting in quiet contemplation. [Seng]man said: Śrāvakas grasp the characteristics of body and mind; therefore they conceal the body among trees and hide the mind in samādhi. Although they wish to conceal them, on the contrary this makes them manifest. The Mahāsattva awakens to the fact that the nature of body and mind in the three realms is fundamentally empty; neither taking nor discarding, neither manifesting body nor mind, this is called sitting in quiet contemplation. He also said: Because the five faculties are empty, the mind does not manifest. The nature of body and mind being empty is true sitting in meditation. [Seng]zhao said: In the quiet sitting of the dharmakāya, form and spirit are both extinguished; the Way transcends ordinary realms, beyond the reach of seeing and hearing. How could one again manifest the body in the three realms or cultivate the mind to practice samādhi? Śāriputra, because he still possessed a physical body born of worldly retribution, grasped its bodily characteristics; taking the human world to be turbulent and troublesome, he concealed his body in the forest and hid his mind in samādhi. Although he wished to conceal them, he thereby made himself manifest; he was unable to make form and spirit traceless, with taking and discarding both obliterated. How is this different from running down a long boulevard to flee one's shadow, or boiling flowing water to seek ice? The reason for his being rebuked was truly due to this. 'Not rising from the nirodha-samāpatti yet manifesting the deportments' is the second: congealing quietude and disturbance. Persons of the two vehicles suffer from mental labor and worry; temporarily halting mental thoughts is called nirodha-samāpatti. Because the fundamental consciousness sustains the physical body so it does not decay, and the six consciousnesses are extinguished, they are unable to move or act. Why is this so? A śrāvaka's deportments are initiated by the mental consciousness. When entering nirodha-samāpatti, the mental consciousness is extinguished; hence among the four deportments, he casts them aside and enters samādhi. Bodhisattvas are not like this: serene yet constantly functioning, quietude and disturbance are not different. Why? Because being without mind, they do not rise from nirodha-samāpatti; yet with this mindless mind they manifest deportments. Just as the wish-fulfilling jewel has no mind of discrimination yet naturally rains down all treasures, this can only be spiritually apprehended, but is difficult to seek through concrete affairs. Coming out and entering are non-dual: this is sitting in quiet contemplation. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: Samantapuṣpa said: 'Do you believe and accept that all dharmas are constantly characterized by quiet extinction?' Śāriputra said: 'I believe this.' Samantapuṣpa said: 'All dharmas are constantly quiet, having no substance.' Or it may be that when a bodhisattva enters nirodha-samāpatti, although he lacks the six consciousnesses, he has the equality-wisdom, which moves the physical body and can manifest deportments; the nirodha-samāpatti of the two vehicles lacks the equality-wisdom and cannot manifest deportments. Zhao said: When the Hīnayāna enters samādhi, the form is identical to dry wood, lacking the capacity for functional activity. When the Mahāsattva enters the samādhi of dharmatā, mind and wisdom are perpetually serene, yet his form fills the eight extremities; adapting to capacities he transforms, according with conditions without fixed limits; in movement, coming, and staying, he does not abandon the deportments: this is true sitting in quiet contemplation. 'Not abandoning the dharmas of the Way yet managing ordinary affairs' is the third: fusing the real and the conventional. Yuan said: Morality, samādhi, wisdom, and so forth are the dharmas of the noble Way; greed, anger, ignorance, and so forth are ordinary affairs. The Hīnayāna has not yet realized dharma-nairātmya; seeing that there are defilements and karma, taking them to be existent and frightful, having severed them and entered the noble state, they cannot actively function to guide sentient beings. Bodhisattvas comprehend emptiness and understand existence; abiding in what is like an illusion, they are fearless; they engage in active practice to instruct and transform; defilement and purity are non-dual: this is sitting in quiet contemplation. Furthermore, because the Mahāsattva possesses the mūla-jñāna and constantly contemplates tathatā, it is called 'not abandoning the dharmas of the Way'. Within the pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna, harmonizing his light with all beings, he instructs and transforms sentient beings, manifesting as an ordinary being. It is also said: Within the pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna, the mind is constantly in samādhi, not abandoning the dharmas of the Way; within the mind of great compassion, he manifests the arising of afflictions to instruct and transform sentient beings; hence it says 'managing ordinary affairs'. Man said: Śrāvakas cannot access the impure while remaining pure; obstructed by saṃsāra, they cannot dwell in the middle to transform beings. The Mahāsattva puts an end equally to good and evil and contemplates the real and the conventional alike; therefore he can abide in the middle way and manifest ordinary affairs. Hence a later passage of the sūtra says: 'Manifesting enjoyment of the five desires' clarifies manifesting ordinary affairs; 'and also manifesting the practice of dhyāna' is called not abandoning the dharmas of the Way. This is spoken with respect to functional transformation. In actual principle, the Mahāsattva sees no dharmas of the Way distinct from ordinary affairs; they are of a single characteristic, devoid of characteristics, equal and without differentiation. 'The mind neither abiding internally nor being externally' is the fourth: [concerning] internal and external. The six sense faculties are internal; the six dusts are external. When a śrāvaka enters samādhi, the mind is inside; when he emerges, it is outside. Internal and external are not yet balanced; its essence is not [true] samādhi. Bodhisattvas awaken to internal and external being fundamentally empty; their arising of mutual characteristics is non-existent, and internal and external are equal: this is sitting in quiet contemplation. Hence a later passage of the sūtra says: 'Not thinking of internal or external, practicing in equality.' Or it may be that the ultimate truth is internal and the conventional truth is external. The two vehicles grasp ultimate and conventional as existent, and their minds wander internally and externally. Bodhisattvas comprehend that both ultimate and conventional are empty, and therefore abide neither internally nor externally. It is also said: The dependent nature is internal, and the imagined nature is external. The Hīnayāna fails to comprehend that the grasper and the grasped are empty, and their minds wander internally and externally. The Mahāsattva knows that the internal and external are empty of inherent nature; therefore he abides neither internally nor externally. 'Without being moved by the various views, cultivating the thirty-seven limbs of awakening' is the fifth: extinguishing heterodoxy and orthodoxy. Yuan said: Because the five views are not one, they are called 'various views': views of personal identity, extreme views, wrong views, attachment to views, and attachment to rules and rituals. Ordinary beings constantly give rise to them and cannot enter orthodoxy; the two vehicles cultivate orthodoxy and cannot enter heterodoxy. Bodhisattvas actively function to instruct and transform sentient beings, and thus have nothing by which they are moved; although manifesting as identical with heterodoxy, their internal mind is constantly orthodox and equal: this is sitting in quiet contemplation. Hence a later passage of the sūtra says: 'The eighty-four thousand doors of defilement by which sentient beings are worn down—the Buddhas use these very dharmas to perform Buddha-work.' Zhao said: The Hīnayāna cannot turn heterodoxy into orthodoxy; they must sever views to cultivate the Way. The Mahāsattva penetrates the various views as being no different from the limbs of the Way; thus without abandoning views, he practices the limbs of the Way. Hence a later passage of the sūtra says: 'One who abides in the right path does not discriminate between heterodoxy and orthodoxy.' It is also said: Ordinary beings are stalled in existence; the two vehicles delight in emptiness. The various views are fetters; only by casting them off do they escape. Bodhisattvas awaken to views as having no origin; like flowers in the sky or the moon in water, the substance of views is constantly empty: this is itself the limbs of the Way. 'Without severing afflictions, entering nirvāṇa' is the sixth: equalizing bondage and liberation. Zhuang said: The two vehicles must sever afflictions before entering nirvāṇa. Bodhisattvas comprehend that the nature of afflictions is empty and fundamentally unproduced: what need is there to sever them now? Since there are no afflictions to be severed, there is also no nirvāṇa to be entered. Contrasting with their severing and entering, it says 'entering without severing': this is true sitting in quiet contemplation. Yuan said: In accordance with transformation, manifesting the arising of greed, anger, ignorance, and so forth is called 'not severing'; the internal mind being constantly serene is called 'entering nirvāṇa'. Zhi[yi] said: This has four propositions: first, neither severing nor entering is the ordinary person; second, severing and entering is the person of the two vehicles; third, severing and not entering is the bodhisattva of the shared teaching; fourth, not severing and entering is the bodhisattva of the perfect teaching. Here it refers to the fourth approach. Question: Among the four kinds of nirvāṇa, which nirvāṇa is 'entering nirvāṇa without severing afflictions'? Answer: Entering apratiṣṭhita-nirvāṇa. How is this known? Vimalakīrti considered that when persons of the two vehicles sever afflictions and enter nirvāṇa, they realize the two fruits of sopadhiśeṣa and nirupadhiśeṣa. Here it is clarified that the bodhisattva is not like this: he actively manifests afflictions to benefit sentient beings, internally realizes nirvāṇa without clinging to anything. Hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Not abandoning saṃsāra yet free from afflictions; although realizing nirvāṇa, not abiding anywhere: this is sitting in quiet contemplation.' As for prakṛti-nirvāṇa, ordinary beings also possess it; fearing confusion with that, it is not mentioned. Sopadhiśeṣa and nirupadhiśeṣa are also attained by śrāvakas; fearing confusion with the two vehicles, their realization is not mentioned either. Another explanation: The superior benefit above has three meanings. First, prakṛti-nirvāṇa is fundamentally pure, not obtained through severing delusions and the like; therefore, without severing, one enters nirvāṇa. Second, apratiṣṭhita[-nirvāṇa]: a bodhisattva of sudden awakening retains dormant defilements, hence it says 'not severing'; realizing apratiṣṭhita, hence it says 'entering nirvāṇa'. Third, entering sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa: when the two vehicles enter sopadhiśeṣa, they must sever afflictions; a bodhisattva of gradual awakening comprehends that the nature of afflictions is empty, so although he severs afflictions, there is nothing severed; unlike the two vehicles who take severing as severing, because he realizes sopadhiśeṣa, it is called entering nirvāṇa. 'If one can sit in this manner, the Buddhas seal it with approval': up to here, the instruction and rebuke are concluded.

3.8

From here down is the third part, the general conclusion. Possessing the six virtues above, sitting in quiet contemplation in equality, universally followed by the noble ones, accords with and pleases the Buddha's mind; hence it says 'sealed with approval'. This clause concludes the virtues. 'At that time, World-Honoured One, I was silent and unable to respond': The realm of superior persons is not what one can know oneself; its principle transcends ordinary sentiments; hence he says 'unable to respond'. This clause concludes the shortcomings. Truly, because the instruction and rebuke up to this point explained both gains and losses together, both are now concluded together: he wishes to lead the assembly at that time to share in those gains. From 'Therefore I am not competent' onward is the fourth part, concluding his incompetence.

3.9

Regarding "The Buddha addressed Maudgalyāyana": "Maudgalyāyana" is his clan name. His father, Kolita, having no son, prayed to a kolita tree and subsequently begot this child; hence he was named after it. According to the Sūtra of Inquiring After the Illness, Maudgalyāyana translates as "greens and pulses," because his father was fond of eating such things, and so he was named after them. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra, it translates as "broad bean." He was the son of a prime minister of Rājagṛha. Previously, together with Śāriputra, he served Sañjaya. With single-minded devotion they sought the Way, but attained nothing, and suspected that there was no teaching [to be found]. When Sañjaya was near death and lying ill, he smiled faintly. The two disciples asked: "Master, why do you smile?" Sañjaya replied: "I was mindful of the fact that worldly people are bound by affections. The king of the Golden Realm in South India has died and his body has been cremated; his queen, longing for him, has cast herself into the fire and died. It is at this that I smile." The two men privately noted this. After Sañjaya's death, a merchant arrived from the Golden Realm. When the two questioned him, it was just as Sañjaya had spoken. The two men then said: "Our master indeed attained the Way; it is only that we were not vessels for the Dharma." Thereupon they made a pact together: "If either attains anything, we must certainly inform the other." Later, when the Buddha first appeared in the world, the bhikṣu Aśvajit entered the city to beg for alms. Śāriputra saw his deportment was extraordinary and knew that he had an exceptional master. Śāriputra then asked: "Who is your master?" Aśvajit answered: "He is the Great Samaṇa." Śāriputra asked again: "What does your Great Samaṇa proclaim?" Aśvajit answered: "'All dharmas arise from causes and conditions' is what the Great Samaṇa proclaims; 'All dharmas cease through causes and conditions' is what the Great Samaṇa proclaims." Hearing this, Śāriputra had an open awakening, and right upon those words he attained the first fruit of the path. Returning to their dwelling, Maudgalyāyana heard of it and likewise awakened to the first fruit. The two each led two hundred and fifty disciples to take refuge in the Buddha and go forth, and all attained arhatship. Among the disciples, he was foremost in supernatural powers. Because such an envoy could not be dispensed with, [the Buddha] commanded him.

3.10

The textual divisions are four, as before. In the second, his declining because he was not equal to the task: because Maudgalyāyana's cognitive obscurations were not yet dispelled, he could not engage directly with affairs without impediment. His supernatural powers did not manifest, and his preaching of the Dharma was not appropriate [to the capacity of the listeners]; on this account he was rebuked.

3.11

In the third section, the explanation: from "Why?" onward is the general inquiry; from "I recall..." onward is the detailed explanation. Within the detailed explanation there are three parts: first, setting forth the previous occasion of being rebuked; second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti..." onward, explaining the aspects of gain and loss in his teaching and rebuke; third, explaining the benefits of the teaching. As for "preached the Dharma for the householders": although the sūtra text has no elaboration, in terms of the underlying principle, he must have preached on giving, precepts, cultivating merit, and the like, or preached the Hīnayāna Dharma of the emptiness of the person, and so forth. The small did not correspond to the great, and on this account he was rebuked. As the saying goes: the white-robed householders had long since generated the great aspiration, yet Maudgalyāyana, failing to recognize their spiritual capacity, preached a lesser Dharma to them. Because the medicine of the Dharma was mismatched, he was rebuked. In the aspect of teaching and rebuke below, first comes the rebuke, followed by the instruction. Within the rebuke, "You should not speak as you do, Venerable Sir": the householders ought to have heard the Mahāyāna dharmatā, yet he spoke of phenomena with signs. First, what he preached did not accord with the Dharma; second, what he preached was not suited to the faculties [of the audience]. These two failures to accord encompass four faults: first, not knowing the faculties; second, not penetrating the profound meaning; third, lacking great compassion; fourth, not repaying the Buddha's kindness. If distinguished in terms of practice, Maudgalyāyana had cultivated and attained the practice of realization; but because this person preached such dharmas as giving and precepts without conforming to the true Dharma, [Vimalakīrti] now instructs him in the two emptinesses.

3.12

"Now, one who expounds the Dharma should expound it in accordance with the Dharma": this is the second part, correct instruction based on principle. Herein there are two aspects: first, instructing with regard to the nature of the Dharma expounded; second, from "Now, one who expounds the Dharma has nothing to expound and nothing to indicate" onward, instructing with regard to the deportment of the speaker capable of expounding. In the first part there are three divisions: first a general statement, next a specific explanation, and finally holding him to account based on principle. First, "Now, one who expounds the Dharma should expound it in accordance with the Dharma" means that one should expound the Dharma in accordance with the Mahāyāna dharmatā. From "Dharmas are without sentient beings" onward is the second part, specific instruction following the Dharma. Therein, he expounds it provisionally in terms of the five aggregates and eighteen dhātus; the rest can be known by analogy. First, with reference to the five aggregates, he explains that dharmas are free from signs. From "Dharmas have no 'mine'" onward, with reference to the eighteen dhātus, he explains that dharmas are free from signs. When sentient beings give rise to conceptual grasping, they mostly cling to these two domains. In the preceding [section on the] five aggregates, there are ten distinct phrases, which in terms of meaning are only two: the first four phrases explain the non-self of persons, and the latter six phrases explain the non-self of dharmas. Among the phrases concerning the non-self of persons, what is the distinction among the four phrases? Proclaiming the essence of the aggregates to be a spiritual master is called a "self." Positing something fixed and real within their aggregation, which arises through this, is called a "sentient being." Proclaiming a spiritual nature within the continuity, sustaining it without interruption, is called "life-span." Positing an agent within functioning is called a "person." Refuting signs and revealing the real, therefore there is no self, person, sentient being, or living soul. Thus the Śrīmālā Sūtra says that the tathāgatagarbha is not a self, not a sentient being, not a living soul, and not a person. "Dharmas are without sentient beings": Huiyuan says: this directly explains that it is absent in principle. It means that within the Dharma of dharmatā, there are no sentient beings. That which is absent is threefold: first, the absence of an arbitrarily posited spiritual self as a sentient being; second, within conventionally designated sentient beings, there is no fixed intrinsic nature; third, the absence of the characteristic of a conventionally designated sentient being. All of these are false conceptual discriminations: they exist as characteristics but are absent in principle; the other categories are to be understood in the same way. "Being free from the defilement of sentient beings" refutes sentiment and reveals principle. The mind that grasps at a self is called the "defilement of sentient beings." In the true Dharma there is no such self-grasping mind; this is called being free from the defilement of sentient beings. Because of the undefiled mind, there are no sentient beings. Kuiji says: "sentient beings" are born from the aggregation of the aggregates, sense bases, elements, and other things, and are taken to be the master. "Dharma" is the dharmatā. The Dharma of dharmatā is originally without sentient beings. If one sees that there are sentient beings, this contradicts the dharmatā; hence it is called "defilement." If one awakens to the dharmatā, then that defilement is naturally shed. According to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra, it first says "without a self" and later says "without sentient beings." Why is this? Heterodox non-Buddhists and ordinary beings first conceptualize that there is a self within the body, and subsequently cling to the existence of sentient beings. Deducing it by this principle, there is no need to make it cumbersome; or it is explained at length as in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra. "Dharmas are without self": Huiyuan says: this directly explains that it is absent in principle. Likewise, within the true Dharma there are no three kinds of self; this can be known by analogy with the preceding. "Being free from the defilement of self" refutes sentiment and reveals principle, its meaning being the same as the previous explanation. In these two phrases, [he] refutes sentiment and reveals principle; in the latter two phrases, [he] refutes characteristics and reveals principle. Sengzhao says: he wishes to clarify that there is no self, not that there is non-self. Furthermore, it is said: regarding "dharmas are without self," clinging to the existence of a master is called having a self. However, the self is not of one kind; there are two kinds: first, conceptually differentiated; second, innate. The conceptually differentiated view of self has two kinds: first, that which arises relying on heterodox teachings outside [the Buddhist path]; second, that which arises relying on incorrect thinking within [the Buddhist path]. These two views of self are unwholesome in intrinsic nature, and also extend to the obscured neutral; they exist only in the sixth consciousness. The innate view of self also has two kinds: first, in the mental consciousness (manovijñāna), its nature is unwholesome and also extends to the obscured neutral; second, in the manas, its nature is solely obscured neutral. When one awakens to the true Dharma, both of these two kinds of self are sought to be abandoned; hence it is said that there is no self. "Dharmas are without life-span": Huiyuan says: this directly explains that it is absent in principle. Likewise, within the true Dharma there are no three kinds of life-span; this can be known by analogy with the preceding. "Being free from birth-and-death" refutes characteristics and reveals principle. If there were birth-and-death in the true Dharma, one could speak of life-span in relation to it. Since there is no birth-and-death, in relation to what could one speak of life-span? Daoman says: birth precedes life; death follows life. The continuity in between, linked and maintained without interruption, is therefore named "life." A term of one hundred years is named "span." Since birth-and-death are empty in nature, there is no life-span. "Dharmas are without a person": Huiyuan says: this directly explains that it is absent in principle. Likewise, within the true Dharma there are no three kinds of person; this can be known by analogy with the preceding. "Cutting off the anterior and posterior limits" refutes characteristics and reveals principle. Conditioned dharmas arise sequentially before and after; the prior is the anterior limit, and the subsequent is the posterior limit. If these two limits existed in the true Dharma, then one could speak of a person in relation to them. Within truth there are no such things; in relation to what could one speak of a person? They exist for sentiment, but are truly absent in principle. Overturning sentiment to reveal principle is therefore called "cutting off"; it does not mean there is something to be eliminated. The commentary says: because it does not endure doing evil, and practices human dharmas, it is therefore named a "person." Practicing causes and obtaining fruits, coming and going in birth-and-death without ever perishing, non-Buddhists therefore deem it to be permanent. Since the anterior limit is cut off, there is no person who creates causes; since the posterior limit is also cut off, there is no person who receives fruits. The anterior and posterior limits being cut off, the middle is also empty: how could there be a person? The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: "dharmas are without pudgala." Here, this translates as "one who repeatedly takes rebirth," which is similar in meaning to "person."

3.13

From "Dharma is ever quiescent" onward, next are six clauses explaining dharma-nairātmya. The first two are free from marks; the next two are free from names; next is one clause that concludes the preceding freedom from marks; the final clause concludes the preceding freedom from names. Among the first two clauses, the former directly clarifies freedom from marks, while the latter dispels mental conditions, establishing the preceding freedom from marks. In the first clause, regarding "Dharma is ever quiescent," [Hui]yuan says: "Because the true nature is unmoving, it is called 'quiescent.' 'Extinguishing all marks' eliminates the marks that obstruct quiescence; the four marks, the five aggregates, and so forth are these marks. Originally absent in the true, it is called 'extinguished.' If there are marks, then it is not quiescent; when marks are extinguished, then it is quiescent. Because there are no phenomena that can be born and no phenomena that can be extinguished, it is called quiescently extinguished." [The scholar] Yan says: "Tathatā, buddha-nature, tathāgatagarbha, and so forth are the phenomena of dharmatā. 'Ever quiescent' means that the nature of these phenomena has emerged from antiquity, their substance being truly without beginning or contrivance, hence called 'quiescent.' Regarding 'extinguishing all marks,' they are fundamentally devoid of marks—what is there to be extinguished? It is precisely by taking non-mark as mark that it is forcibly called 'extinguished.' Alternatively, 'dharma' refers to all phenomena. If phenomena possessed marks, they would not be quiescent phenomena; why [would it be said] 'extinguishing all marks'? Therefore, phenomena are free from marks." Regarding "because of having no mental conditions," a condition is a mental condition. Marks are born from the mind. If the mind does not cognize conditions, then marks are naturally empty. Subject and object are both quiescent, hence free from marks. Regarding "Dharma is free from marks," [Hui]yuan says: "This directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of marks]. That in the true Dharma there are no marks of the five aggregates is called 'dharma is free from marks.' Regarding 'having no conditions,' this eliminates marks to reveal the principle. If in the true Dharma there were marks that could be conditioned, it would not be called free from marks. Since in the true Dharma there are no marks to be conditioned, dharma is free from marks. Because there are no conditions, the cognizer is also absent. Both subject and object are quiescent, which is why it is free from marks." It also says: "'Dharma is free from marks' means it is without the marks of craving and attachment. Since within the true Dharma there are no conditions, there are also no marks of a cognizer that craves and attaches. Therefore, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra says: 'Dharma is free from craving and attachment because it has no conditions.'" In the next two clauses, the former dispels names and speech, while the latter dispels mental vitarka and vicāra, establishing the preceding freedom from speech. In the first clause, regarding "Dharma has no names," [Hui]yuan says: "This directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of names]. That is to say, within the true Dharma there are no names established by false discrimination. 'Speech is cut off' dispels verbal expression to establish and complete the absence of names. Names are the root of speech. Because there are no names, speech does not arise; hence it is said 'speech is cut off.' Mentioning that speech is cut off establishes that names are absent." This explanation is not correct. Where are names called the root of speech? It can only be that speech is the root of names. Speech is the root of names. The true is profound and free from words—how could there be names? Regarding "Dharma has no explanation," this directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of explanation]. Within the true Dharma, speech does not arise, hence there is no verbal explanation. Regarding "free from vitarka and vicāra," this eliminates conceptual grasping to reveal the principle. Vitarka and vicāra are the causes of speech. Because in the true Dharma there are no vitarka and vicāra, speech does not arise, hence there is no verbal explanation. Coarse thought is called vitarka; subtle thought is called vicāra. These are all marks of mental grasping. The true Dharma transcends mental grasping, hence it is free from vitarka and vicāra. Question: "The first dhyāna has vitarka and vicāra; the intermediate dhyāna has no vitarka but has vicāra; from the second dhyāna upward, there is neither vitarka nor vicāra. What is the difference between these and this true Dharma being free from vitarka and vicāra?" Answer: "The true Dharma has an extinguished nature and fundamentally does not arise, which is why it is said to be absent. From the second dhyāna upward, it is an antidote that does not transcend [defilement entirely] that is called 'free from vitarka and vicāra.'" Regarding "Dharma has no shape," this directly explains that the principle is absent [of shape], meaning that within the true Dharma there are no shapes or marks of the aggregates. With this, it concludes the preceding meaning of freedom from marks, and therefore says 'having no marks.' Regarding "like empty space," it is revealed by analogy: the true Dharma is free from marks just as space in the world is, hence it says 'like space.' Regarding "Dharma has no prapañca," this directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of prapañca]. Names and words outside the principle all become prapañca. The true Dharma being free from these is called 'having no prapañca.' With this, it concludes the preceding meaning of freedom from names, and therefore says 'having no prapañca.' Regarding "ultimately empty," this explains to reveal its absence: the principle is beyond words and discussion, called 'ultimately empty.' The above has explained dharma being free from marks with respect to the aggregates.

First 13 of 159 passages. Read on