維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.42

3.42

The four structural divisions of the text are the same as before. In the third, the explanation, there is first a general interrogation, followed by specific explanations. In the explanation there are three parts: first, bringing forth the past incident of being rebuked; second, from "Vimalakīrti" onwards, clarifying the manner of instruction and rebuke; third, from "When this Dharma was taught" onwards, the benefit of the instruction and rebuke. In the first part there are two phrases: first, clarifying that the Buddha once briefly taught the essentials of the Dharma—suffering and emptiness—to the monks; second, clarifying that Kātyāyana elaborated upon their meaning for the monks. Regarding "briefly taught the essentials of the Dharma": the five phrases are not numerous, hence called "brief." The first four are conventional truth, and the last one is ultimate truth. Fully subsuming the Dharma, it is called "essential." Moreover, generally subsuming conditioned and unconditioned dharmas exhaustively, it is called "essential." Elaborating conditioned dharmas makes four impermanences; elaborating unconditioned dharmas makes one quiescence; hence it is called "essential." Furthermore, "brief and essential" has four propositions: 1. brief in name, broad in meaning, meaning few names and many meanings explained; 2. broad in name, brief in meaning, meaning many names and teachings explained, but few meanings; 3. both name and meaning broad, meaning many names and teachings explained, and the meanings also many; 4. both name and meaning brief, meaning the names, teachings, and meanings explained are all few. For example, speaking generally of the truth of suffering without much explanation is "brief in name"; if fully distinguishing it, this is called "meaning becoming broad." Once one phrase is understood, the lower three can be analogized. Now the Buddha's brief teaching of the essentials of the Dharma mostly belongs to "both name and meaning brief." "I then subsequently elaborated upon their meaning... up to the meaning of quiescence": next, clarifies Kātyāyana's elaborating upon the marvelous meanings for the monks. The Tathāgata understands that dharmas are neither eternal nor impermanent; sentient beings do not understand and arbitrarily grasp them as eternal, even falsely grasping them as arising and ceasing. The Buddha saw that this grasping did not accord with principle, and therefore refuted and dispatched it, teaching that the dharmas of the nature of the five aggregates are all impermanent, curing those sentient beings of the inverted views of permanence and the like. Although he taught impermanence, he did not mean that the true Dharma is impermanent. What is the meaning of this? To dispel the sentiment of permanence, he spoke of impermanence, not meaning that it is impermanent. To dispel the sentiment of pleasure, he spoke of suffering, not meaning that it is suffering. To dispel the sentiment of existence, he spoke of emptiness, not meaning that it is emptiness. To dispel the sentiment of self, he spoke of non-self, not meaning that it is non-self. To dispel the sentiment of characteristics, he spoke of quiescence, not meaning that it is quiescence. Kātyāyana did not comprehend the purport of the teaching; after the Buddha preached the Dharma, he explained them all in terms of characteristics, holding that arising and ceasing is impermanence, destruction is suffering, dispelling existence to obtain non-existence is emptiness, extinguishing the self is non-self, and extinguishing the aggregates is quiescence. Since the Buddha briefly spoke before, and Kātyāyana elaborated behind, grasping characteristics and making distinctions contrarily opposed the Buddha's purport; therefore it says, "subsequently elaborated upon their meaning."