維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.36

3.36

From "If Subhūti does not see the Buddha" onward is the third [part], rebuking Subhūti (Shanjiji) for not being equal regarding masters and teachings—it is also called not being equal regarding heterodoxy and orthodoxy. Within the text there are four [sections]: first, a general challenge; second, the different views raised by the six [heterodox] teachers; third, a repeated challenge and reproof; fourth, the concluding permission to take the food. First, "does not see the Buddha and does not hear the Dharma" is the general challenge. It turns back to reprove Subhūti: "If you have truly attained the samādhi of emptiness, why are you not like the six teachers of outer paths in not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma? Seeing that you now abandon those outer paths, see the Buddha as your teacher, and listen to the Buddha's true Dharma, your grasping and rejecting have not yet ceased—how could this be called the samādhi of emptiness?" Master Zhuang says: People of the two vehicles think that abandoning the ordinary and attaining the noble necessarily depends upon seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, hence this [passage] obliterates that. Subhūti considers himself to see the Buddha and hear the Dharma; yet [the text] says he does not see or hear them—these words seem contrary, but their principle is indeed dharmatā. If there were a Buddha that could be seen, that would be a view of existence, therefore one does not see the Buddha; if there were a Dharma that could be heard, that would be a hearing of existence, therefore it is not hearing the Dharma. Now it is explained that having no Buddha to be seen is precisely called seeing the Buddha, and having no Dharma to be heard is called hearing the Dharma. This is simply to criticize the two vehicles' attachment to existence, and for this reason non-existence is taught. Once one knows that the Buddha is not existent, one then realizes that the Buddha is not non-existent. Without clinging to anything across these five propositions—this alone is the dharmakāya; to awaken in this manner is called seeing the Buddha. Therefore the Madhyamaka-śāstra says: "For those whose heterodox views are deep and thick, it is taught that there is no Tathāgata; the Tathāgata is of quiescent nature—conceptualizing him as existent is also false." Turning to the particular points below, first the text presents the different views raised by the six teachers of the outer paths: "Pūraṇa" is his personal name, and "Kāśyapa" is his clan name. This person gives rise to the view of annihilationism, saying that all dharmas are empty and that there are no ways of ruler and minister, father and son, loyalty and filial piety. "Makkhali" is his personal name, and "Gosāla-putra" is named after his mother. This person gives rise to the view of eternalism, saying that all suffering and pleasure do not derive from actions and karma, but exist by intrinsic nature. "Sañjaya" is his personal name, and "Vairāṭī-putra" is named after his mother. This person gives rise to the view of naturalism (svabhāvavāda), clinging to the idea that the Path does not require cultivation: when the suffering of eighty thousand kalpas is exhausted, one will naturally be liberated, just as when a ball of thread is rolled down a high mountain, it naturally stops when the thread runs out. Taking what is not the cause of liberation to be the cause—positing a cause where there is no cause—is the view of attachment to precepts and vows (śīlavrata-parāmarśa); denying the Path and holding that one need not cultivate the Path is a heterodox view. "Ajita" is his personal name; "Kesakambala" is the name of a coarse, foul garment. He is an ascetic of an outer path who pulls out his own hair and scorches his body with the five fires, [believing] that he will thereby attain liberation. Positing what is not the Path to be the Path is also attachment to precepts and vows. "Kakuda" is his personal name, and "Kātyāyana" is his clan name. This person gives rise to the view of extremes, clinging to the view that all dharmas are both existent and non-existent. This is not like the Buddha-Dharma: [in the Buddha-Dharma] there is existence due to causes and conditions, and non-existence due to the lack of intrinsic nature; this is right view, not a view of extremes. Because he clings to existence as an existence of fixed nature, it is the view of eternalism; saying that there is non-existence is a non-existence of fixed nature, which is the view of annihilationism. Annihilation and permanence depart from the middle [way], combining to form the view of extremes. "Nirgrantha" is his personal name, and "Jñātī-putra" is named after his mother. This person says that all fruits and retributions of suffering and pleasure are entirely due to past karma and do not depend on present conditions; when past karma is exhausted, suffering is exhausted; even if one cultivates the Path in the present, one cannot sever it. This person believes that past karma exists as a cause, which is not heterodox; but denying present conditions is a partial heterodox view. Holding that the Path can exhaust suffering while he denies it and says it cannot—positing that the Path is not the Path—is also a heterodox view. These six teachers are fully explained in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Third, from "are your teachers" onward, based on this, it repeatedly challenges him, overturning the heterodox into the orthodox: when Subhūti understands that emptiness is equal, there is no heterodoxy and orthodoxy. Since the two marks are absent, one is then identical to the outer paths: not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma is precisely receiving the Path from teachers of heterodox views and leaving the household because of their heterodoxy. Since those teachers fall into the three evil destinies, one cannot but follow them in falling. If one can be like this, only then does it correspond to equality. Seeing that you now turn your back on the six teachers and abandon heterodox dharmas, we know that you have not yet abandoned discrimination and cannot attain equality; how could this be called understanding emptiness? If you can refrain from turning your back and abandoning, being equal with respect to dharmas, only then is it understanding emptiness. "Only then may take food" is the fourth [section], the concluding permission to take the food. When one's practice conforms to equality, one is a true field of merit; only then may one take the food.