維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.12

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."