維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.43

3.43

Second, within the explanation of the reprimand, there are two parts: first, reprimanding what he expounded; second, teaching the dharma of the real mark (dharmatā). Regarding 'Do not use a mind-activity of arising and ceasing to expound the dharma of the real mark,' this directly states the words of reprimand. Because people of the Hīnayāna, hearing impermanence expounded, do not comprehend the Tathāgata's purpose of curing illnesses, they claim that all dharmas such as form and mind are solely impermanent. Taking these dharmas of impermanent arising and ceasing to be the dharma of the real mark, they contemplate them, awaken to the path, and are able to seek the noble fruits. Not knowing that the principle of the real mark is neither form nor mind, neither arising nor ceasing, he is now therefore reprimanded: 'Do not take the contemplation of arising, ceasing, and impermanence to be the real mark.' Below this, the text contains five phrases teaching the real mark to people. First, teaching impermanence: 'That all dharmas ultimately do not arise and do not cease is the meaning of impermanence.' [Seng]zhao says: '"Ultimately" is an expression of certainty. In the Hīnayāna contemplation of dharmas, arising and ceasing constitute the meaning of impermanence; persons of the Mahāyāna take non-arising and non-ceasing to be the meaning of impermanence. The name "impermanence" is identical, but the profound import is vastly different. Its path is subtle and marvelous, so it cannot be fathomed by ordinary sentiments. Is it not Vimalakīrti alone who wonderfully grasps its purport? To dispel the sentiment of permanence, one speaks of impermanence; this does not mean there is an impermanence. Since the permanent is impermanent, ultimately not arising and not ceasing is the true meaning of impermanence.' [Hui]yuan says: 'Exhausting the principle of the real mark is called "ultimate"; an essence that is tranquil and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) is called "neither arising nor ceasing." This non-arising and non-ceasing is the real nature of that impermanence, and is called the meaning of impermanence.' [Kuai]ji says: 'The Hīnayāna takes arising and ceasing to be impermanence, and asserts that non-arising and non-ceasing is permanent. Refuting your mind that perceives existent [dharmas] above, if one takes non-arising and non-ceasing to be permanent, this permanence is still impermanence; hence it is said that non-arising and non-ceasing is impermanence.' Furthermore, relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, three kinds of impermanence are explained: 1. Impermanence of non-entity, meaning that because the imagined nature (parikalpita-svabhāva) is originally non-existent, there is no entity that can be permanent. 2. Impermanence of arising and ceasing, which is the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva); because it exists through causes and conditions, its nature is not permanent. 3. Impermanence with defilement and without defilement, which is the consummate nature (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva); defilement and purity are not constant, so it is also not permanent. What is discussed here universally subsumes the three natures under a single reality, which is the meaning of impermanence. Regarding 'That the five clinging aggregates are empty is the meaning of suffering,' [Seng]zhao says: 'The defiled saṃsāra of the five contaminated aggregates is called the clinging aggregates. Or, relying on the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra*, the causal factors of defilements and karma are able to summon the retribution of the aggregates, hence they are called clinging aggregates. "Clinging" (upādāna) means grasping, like grass and chaff to fire. Or the aggregates belong to clinging, like ministers to a sovereign. Or the aggregates generate clinging, like a tree to flowers and fruits. The Hīnayāna takes the arising of the clinging aggregates producing manifold sufferings to be the meaning of suffering. Persons of the Mahāyāna thoroughly comprehend that the clinging aggregates are internally and externally always empty and originally do not arise; who then produces suffering? To dispel the sentiment of pleasure, it is called suffering; it does not mean there is an entity of suffering.' [Hui]yuan says: 'Exhausting the true nature of suffering is ultimate tranquility, signlessness, and the unconditioned. This true principle is the real nature of suffering and is called the meaning of suffering.' [Kuai]ji says: 'People of the Hīnayāna assert that the five aggregates are the meaning of suffering, and that extinguishing the five aggregates to attain nirvāṇa is the meaning of bliss. Now refuting their definitive view: if one takes the five aggregates having nothing as bliss, this is still suffering; hence the emptiness of the five aggregates is the meaning of suffering.' Relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of suffering: 1. Suffering of what is grasped, which is the imagined nature, being grasped by the grasping mind. 2. Suffering of characteristics, which is the dependent nature, because the three sufferings and eight sufferings are characteristics of suffering. 3. Suffering of conjunction, which is the consummate nature, because it is conjoined with the characteristics of suffering. Now deducing that the three sufferings return together to one reality, it is therefore called the meaning of suffering. Regarding 'That all dharmas are ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness,' [Seng]zhao says: 'In the Hīnayāna contemplation of dharmas, the absence of a real master within conditioned arising is the meaning of emptiness. Although they contemplate emptiness, they have not yet completely eradicated [attachment to] emptiness, so it is not ultimate. Persons of the Mahāyāna are not existent in the midst of existence, nor empty in the midst of emptiness. Why? To dispel existence one speaks of emptiness; it does not mean that existence is empty. If existence were existent, how could it be emptied? If existence were non-existent, what emptiness would empty it? Therefore, neither empty nor not empty is ultimately the true meaning of emptiness.' [Kumāra]jīva says: 'Originally speaking of emptiness was intended to dispel existence; it does not mean that existence departs while emptiness remains. If existence departs and emptiness remains, it cannot be called emptiness. The exhaustion of both dharmas is truly the meaning of emptiness. Hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says: "The Great Sage taught the dharma of emptiness / In order to abandon all views; / If one still clings to emptiness, / Such a one is not transformed by the Buddhas." It also says: "Within all dharmas, ultimate tathatā lacks that which is grasped; that which is revealed through emptiness is called the nature of emptiness, not mere emptiness." Relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of emptiness: 1. Emptiness of original non-existence, which is the imagined nature, because it is originally non-existent. 2. Non-emptiness, which is the dependent nature, because it exists yet is not real, unlike the imagined nature which is completely non-existent. 3. Emptiness of self-nature, which is the consummate nature, because that which is revealed by the two emptinesses serves as its self-nature. Bringing together the above three emptinesses into one identical reality is its meaning of emptiness. The *Awakening of Faith* says: "Emptiness has two kinds: first, truly empty, because it can ultimately reveal reality; second, truly not empty, because its own nature is endowed with uncontaminated virtues of nature."' Regarding 'That self and non-self are non-dual is the meaning of non-self,' [Seng]zhao says: 'The Hīnayāna contrasts the self as a burden and therefore esteems non-self. Once non-self is esteemed, self and non-self become two. For the Mahāyāna, right and wrong are aligned in purport, and the two are not distinct; only this is the meaning of non-self.' It also says: 'Tathatā is originally free from characteristics of verbal expression and discrimination. Self and non-self have never been dual. In order to ward off self, it is revealed by means of non-self; hence one says "non-self."' It also says: 'People of the two vehicles know that the aggregates lack a spirit and call this non-self; thus self and non-self are different. Bodhisattvas comprehend that the nature of self is empty, which is itself non-self, not seeing non-self as distinct from having a self. Why is this? Because dispelling the self is called non-self; it does not mean that non-self exists. That both self and non-self are completely non-existent is the meaning of non-self. Hence the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* says: "Sometimes a self is taught, / And sometimes non-self is taught; / In the dharmatā of all dharmas, / There is neither self nor non-self."' Furthermore, relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of non-self: 1. Signless non-self, which is the imagined nature, because the characteristics of self do not exist. 2. Different-sign non-self, which is the dependent nature, because it differs from the characteristic of self falsely grasped. 3. Self-characteristic non-self, which is the consummate nature, because that which is revealed by non-self serves as its own characteristic. Bringing together the above three kinds into one reality is the meaning of non-self. Regarding 'Dharmas originally do not blaze up, and now have no extinction, is tranquility,' [Seng]zhao says: 'Because the three realms are ablaze, the Hīnayāna extinguishes them to seek the unconditioned. When blazing is manifested, extinction is called non-arising. The Mahāyāna contemplates dharmas as originally not blazing; what is there now to extinguish? Because aggregates and realms are empty, it is called tranquility; it does not mean there is something extinguished. Neither arising nor ceasing is the true meaning of tranquility.' It also says: 'Breaking that arising and ceasing, one speaks of non-arising and non-ceasing; it does not mean that dharma-nature is non-arising and non-ceasing. Because it is free from both arising-and-ceasing and non-arising-and-non-ceasing, only then can it be called great tranquility.' It also says: 'When people of the two vehicles see afflictions arise, they produce uncontaminated contemplation of the truths, sever afflictions, and reveal analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) as tranquility. This is nirvāṇa with remainder, not the real [nirvāṇa]. Persons of the Mahāyāna awaken to the fact that the dharma-nature of tathatā is originally pure; since no delusion can arise, it says "do not blaze up"; since no delusion can be extinguished, it says "no extinction." Neither arising nor ceasing is tranquil nirvāṇa; this is natural nirvāṇa, not the fruit with remainder.' Relying on the *Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra*, there are three kinds of cessation: 1. Cessation of non-substance, which is the imagined nature, because its own substance does not exist. 2. Cessation of non-duality, which is the dependent nature, because the two graspers do not arise. 3. Cessation of self-nature, which is the consummate nature. Bringing together the above three cessations into one identical real essence is the meaning of tranquility. Identifying the essence: among these five [or] six unconditioned dharmas, they all take tathatā unconditioned as their essence. In terms of the five dharmas, relying on the *Buddhabhūmi-śāstra*, they take the pure dharma-realm (dharmadhātu) as their essential nature. In discerning separation and combination: expanded, they become five. As this sūtra says, to counter the three inversions of permanence, pleasure, and self, it establishes the seals of impermanence and so forth; to counter the inversion of 'belonging to self', it establishes the seal of emptiness; to counter false views of arising and ceasing and so forth, it establishes the seal of tranquility. According to the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*, they are combined into four seals. As in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi-śāstra*, although self and belonging to self are divided into two false conceptualizations, in terms of the ten latencies they are combined into one latency of self-view. Because the afflicting obstacle countered is one, emptiness and non-self are combined into a single seal of non-self. If discussed in brief, three seals are established, as the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states that all conditioned things are impermanent, non-self, and nirvāṇa is tranquility. That sūtra subsumes the suffering of conditioned things under the gate of impermanence, because both share the meaning of flowing and not abiding; emptiness is subsumed under non-self, the meaning being as discerned before. In the third section, on the benefits of the reprimand, 'the minds of those monks attained liberation': having heard Vimalakīrti overturn the preceding five wrong, partial attachments of the Hīnayāna and expound the extremely profound dharma of the Mahāyāna, their obstructing minds of permanence, impermanence, and so forth, and their defilements and fetters were all extinguished without remainder; therefore it is said that their minds attained liberation. These monks were at the stage of the ten dedications; hearing the five dharmas expounded, they entered the first bhūmi. Or, these monks were Hīnayāna practitioners; hearing the real mark of the five meanings expounded, they were unable to enter deeply, but subsequently realized the fruit of arhatship. The *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra* says: 'When this dharma was expounded, those bhikṣus' contaminants were permanently exhausted, and they surely attained liberation.' 'Therefore I...' below concludes his inadequacy.