維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.35

3.35

"Without abandoning lust, anger, and delusion, yet not being accompanied by them": secondly, he rebukes Subhūti for his inequality regarding bondage and liberation. There are ten items here. If you had attained equal, empty wisdom, why would you cut off the three poisons yet harbor the view of self, extinguish delusion and craving, perceive bad karma, retain [distinctions of] bondage and liberation, see the four truths, grasp at the attainment of fruits, depart from ordinary persons, adopt [the status of] a noble one, and cling to all dharmas? Because of these ten items, one knows that you are not equal toward all dharmas. Among these ten, the first nine are specific and the last one is general. Among the first nine, the first seven investigate through practice, while the latter two rebuke through persons. Among the former [seven], the first five concern the virtue of abandoning [defilements], while the latter two concern the virtue of wisdom. Alternatively: the first five concern leaving defilement, while the latter two concern cultivating purity. Among the first five, the first three concern the abandonment of afflictions, the next one concerns the abandonment of karma, and the latter one concerns the abandonment of suffering. Among the afflictions, the first two are afflictions of view, and the latter one is affliction of cultivation. Among the afflictions of view, the first are dull and the latter are sharp. "Without abandoning lust, anger, and delusion, yet not being accompanied by them": the Buddha has no three poisons, yet in accordance with transformation he constantly manifests them; hence it is said, "without abandoning." "Yet not being accompanied by them": looking back from the realization of reality, they have never existed from the very beginning, and thus there is nothing to be accompanied by; it is not that he sees an existent dharma and leaves it behind so as not to be accompanied by it. Because he is not accompanied by them, he is not like ordinary persons; because he does not abandon them, he is not like the two vehicles. The rest are classified accordingly. If explained according to the three natures: afflictions that are conceptually imagined are originally empty in nature, and there is no delusion to cut off; hence it is said, "without abandoning." Since there is nothing to cut off, with what could he be accompanied? Second, afflictions that are dependently originated are not abandoned at the very time they are abandoned, which is called "without abandoning"; abandoned without abandoning, he is therefore said "not to be accompanied [by them]." Third, the thoroughly established true nature is fundamentally pure with no delusion to cut off, hence it is said, "without abandoning"; outside of truth there is no delusion, so with what could he be accompanied? Hence it is said, "not accompanied." If explained according to the bodhisattva: from the first ground upward, he manifests the arising of conceptualized three poisons to transform sentient beings; hence it is said, "without abandoning." Based on ultimate reality, they are truly non-existent, which is called "not accompanied." "Without destroying the body, yet conforming to the single characteristic": Master Huiyuan says that manifesting the view of self to teach and transform sentient beings without discarding it is called "without destroying the body, yet conforming to the single characteristic." Reality is like the single characteristic, and practicing and realizing it is called "conforming." The body is originally empty of itself, which is precisely the single characteristic; why would one need to destroy the view of self to conform to the single characteristic? Master Kuiji says that tathatā in its equality is called the single characteristic; the bodily aggregates are empty in substance and there is no dharma that can be destroyed. Undestroyed, it is precisely truth; hence it is called the single characteristic. Why would one need to destroy the five aggregates to conform to the single characteristic? This interpretation is not correct: "body" refers precisely to the view of self, not the five aggregates. Furthermore, it is said: śrāvakas extinguish the body and attain the signless; the great being knows that the nature of the view of self is empty, which is precisely the single characteristic—why would one need to destroy the view of self before conforming to the single characteristic? Hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, "without destroying the view of the satkāya, yet conforming to the single characteristic." "Without extinguishing delusion and craving, generating clarity and liberation": Master Huiyuan says that the affliction of cultivation refers to the latent disposition of ignorance. When it arises, failure to comprehend is called "delusion." Craving in the realm of desire, craving in the realm of form, and craving in the realm of formlessness—the state of existence—are called "craving." Manifesting their operation in accordance with transformation is therefore called "without extinguishing." Generating clarity and liberation: "clarity" is the clarity of wisdom; "liberation" is the liberation of mind. Ordinary persons have heavy delusion, which can obstruct wisdom. The two vehicles eliminate it partially: delusion cut off, wisdom becomes clear; craving extinguished, the mind is liberated. The bodhisattva is not like this: comprehending that delusion and craving have never existed from the beginning is itself clarity and liberation. Sengzhao says: śrāvakas take delusion to obstruct wisdom, and only when delusion is extinguished do they have clarity; they take craving to bind the mind, and only when craving is removed are they liberated. The great being penetrates the emptiness of the nature of delusion and craving, which is itself clarity and liberation; who binds the mind such that one must extinguish it? Alternatively: delusion and craving are precisely the innate confusion, arising in relation to particular matters with shallow and proximate characteristics; the Tathāgata's manifesting their operation is called "without extinguishing," and generating non-obstructing wisdom is called "clarity and liberation." "Manifesting the characteristics of the five heinous deeds, yet attaining liberation": next, this is explained in terms of karma. Killing one's father, harming one's mother, killing an arhat, causing a schism in the Saṅgha, and shedding the blood of the Buddha's body are the five heinous deeds. These turn against benevolence and rebel against fields of merit, hence they are called "heinous." Killing parents turns against benevolence, hence it is heinous; the latter three turn against fields of merit, hence they are heinous. Manifesting their arising in accordance with transformation is called "the characteristics of the five heinous deeds." Yet attaining liberation: permanently severing the shackles of karma is called "attaining liberation." Furthermore, it is said: persons of the Hīnayāna take the perception of bad karma as an obstacle, and must cut it off before attaining liberation; practitioners of the Mahāyāna know that karma arises from conditions, and the nature of conditions is of itself empty—how could karma exist? Emptiness does not constitute an obstacle, hence it is called "liberation." This is liberation because bad karma is empty. Furthermore, explaining the five heinous deeds in terms of good: killing the father of ignorance, cutting off the mother of greedy attachment, stopping and eliminating the Buddha of deluded consciousness that perceives objects, killing the arhat of afflictions, and destroying the harmonious Saṅgha of the aggregate-collection—one who is able to perform these five heinous deeds has true liberation. "Neither bound nor liberated": this concerns the retribution of suffering. Master Huiyuan says that the Tathāgata is not entrapped by the suffering retribution of saṃsāra, which is called "not bound"; manifesting its operation in accordance with transformation is called "not liberated." Furthermore, Master Shenman says: persons of the two vehicles take the obstacle of karma as bondage, and removing it they attain liberation; the bodhisattva knows the emptiness of dharmatā, which is fundamentally without bondage. Since there is no bondage, how could one speak of liberation? A suddenly awakening bodhisattva prior to the seventh ground has not yet discarded the [birth and death of] segmented limits, which is called "not liberated"; comprehending the emptiness of dharmatā is called "not bound." Hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: it is not that the bodhisattva does not have suffering; understanding suffering as being without suffering is called the noble truth of suffering. Also, the sūtra below says: if there is fundamentally no bondage, who seeks liberation? The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā says: because of emptiness, because of detachment, because of cessation, and because of non-arising, there is neither bondage nor liberation. Alternatively: a gradually awakening bodhisattva manifests the arising of segmented limits to transform sentient beings, hence it is called "not liberated"; having already discarded segmented limits, it is called "not bound." Alternatively: not having yet discarded inconceivable transformation is called "not liberated"; comprehending the emptiness of dharmatā is called "not bound." The above has explained the virtue of abandoning [defilements] in terms of defilement to rebuke his inequality. Next, the following two phrases explain the virtue of wisdom in terms of purity to rebuke his inequality. The first phrase concerns the cause, and the second concerns the fruit. "Neither seeing the truths nor not seeing the truths": this concerns the cause. The Tathāgata manifests the arising of views and doubts without contemplating the principle of the truths, which is called "not seeing"; internally and truly comprehending, it is called "not not seeing." This is generally termed the practice-aspect on the grounds of not seeing the truths. If explained in terms of a gradually awakening bodhisattva: from the first ground upward and within the tenth ground, he manifests the arising of views and doubts to transform sentient beings, hence it is called "not seeing the truths"; internally and truly comprehending, it is called "not not seeing." Alternatively: a direct-progressing bodhisattva up to the seventh ground retains latent afflictions and does not contemplate the principle of the truths, which is called "not seeing"; internally and truly comprehending, it is called "not not seeing." If explained in terms of wisdom: the fundamental wisdom is free from the conceptual distinction of subject and object, which is called "not seeing"; illuminating the two kinds of emptiness, it is called "not not seeing." Alternatively: fundamental wisdom arises from conditions, and because conditions lack self-nature, seeing is without anything seen, which is called "not seeing"; taking non-seeing as seeing is called "not not seeing." If it is the subsequently attained wisdom, it is free from grasping conceptualization, which is called "not seeing"; illuminating the four truths, it is called "not not seeing." Master Sengzhuang says: the two vehicles see the truths, while ordinary persons do not see them; the bodhisattva knows the emptiness of the nature of the four truths and enters the principle of dharmatā, and therefore transcends both seeing and not seeing. Sengzhao says: it is not like the seeing with a mind, nor is it like the non-seeing without a mind. "Not attaining the fruit": this is spoken in terms of the fruit. Master Huiyuan says: this phrasing is somewhat abbreviated; based on the preceding it should say, "neither attaining the fruit nor not attaining the fruit," but it merely raises one side. Bodhi and nirvāṇa are called the fruit; the Buddha realizes bodhi yet retraces the causal practices, not abandoning all practices of bodhisattvas; hence it is said, "not attaining the fruit." Because he truly realizes bodhi, he is not without attainment; now this is omitted and not distinguished. Master Kuiji says: dharmas transcend subject and object, hence it is said, "not attaining the fruit"; persons and dharmas are not the same, hence he is "not without attaining the fruit." Master Shenman says: ordinary persons do not attain the fruit; śrāvakas attain the fruit; the bodhisattva skillfully penetrates that the substance of the fruit is of itself empty and has never existed from the beginning—how could one say "not attaining" or "attaining"? Alternatively: a bodhisattva from the first ground upward realizes non-abiding nirvāṇa, which is called attaining the fruit; realizing wisdom arises from conditions, and the nature of conditions is of itself empty, so realizing is without anything realized, hence it is said, "not attaining the fruit." Alternatively: at the time of attainment he is free from emotional attachments and does not generate conceptual distinctions, which is called "not attaining the fruit"; it is not that he does not attain it. The commentaries of the ancients all say that the translator of the sūtra omitted the latter phrase, and in principle there should truly be two phrases. Checking the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, there is only the single phrase "not attaining the fruit"; even if there were an omission, it naturally occurred at the time of compilation. Alternatively, the Sanskrit text lacked the latter phrase. "Neither an ordinary person nor departing from the dharmas of an ordinary person": the next two phrases rebuke through persons. The Tathāgata internally possesses noble virtues, hence he is "not an ordinary person"; manifesting ordinary activities to transform sentient beings, he is "not departing from [the dharmas of] an ordinary person." Furthermore, it is said: a suddenly awakening bodhisattva from the first ground upward through the seventh ground has already obtained the noble nature, hence he is "not an ordinary person"; by the power of intentional resolve he gives rise to afflictions to assist his compassionate vows in taking rebirth, hence he is "not departing from the dharmas of an ordinary person." Arriving at the eighth ground and above, he retains the seeds of greed and so forth, hence he is "not departing from the dharmas of an ordinary person." If explained in terms of a gradually awakening bodhisattva: from the first ground upward he has already realized the noble nature, hence he is "not an ordinary person"; manifesting the arising of afflictions to transform sentient beings, he is "not departing from the dharmas of an ordinary person." "Neither a noble one nor not a noble one": the Tathāgata manifests as an ordinary fool to transform sentient beings, hence he is called "not a noble one"; conventionally said to exist, he is "not not a noble one." Furthermore, śrāvakas have not yet been able to forget clinging and grasp at the characteristic of a noble one; practitioners of the Mahāyāna comprehend the emptiness of the nature of a noble one—how could they grasp at the characteristic of a noble one while not grasping at the characteristic of a non-noble one? The above specific investigations are finished. "Though accomplishing all dharmas, yet free from the characteristics of dharmas, then you may take food": this single sentence concludes and exhorts generally. It clarifies that at the very time all dharmas are accomplished they are destroyed, hence it is called "free from." Only if, as described above, you have attainment without fault, may you then take food.