維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.57

3.57

In the second part, which explains the manner of teaching and rebuking, it first rebukes and then instructs. In the former part, where it says, 'O Upāli, do not further augment the offenses of these two monks,' a proverb says: 'The principle of confession consists in the eradication of offenses.' Why does it now say 'augment' instead? The monks' commission of faults originated entirely from the mind grasping at marks. Realizing this, they gave rise to regret and deeply harbored distress and fear. When Upāli performed confession for them, he nevertheless spoke of phenomenal phenomena with marks. Hearing the designations of their offenses, [the monks] gave rise to even greater distress. For one who confesses in this way, although coarse offenses may be eradicated, subtle thoughts will only arise further. In thought-moment after thought-moment, they perfume into seeds of consciousness, mutually reinforcing each other with even greater intensity. How could this not be an augmentation? [Hui]yuan says: 'The monks' committing offenses originally arose from grasping at marks. When Upāli performed confession for them, he nevertheless spoke of the marks of offenses, thereby increasing their cognitive grasping; thus it is called "further augmenting."' If we explain this in terms of practice, these people gave rise to the practice of eliminating evils; because they were unable to realize marks as non-marks and contemplate the intrinsic emptiness of offenses, he instructs them to cultivate confession without marks. From 'You should directly eliminate them' downward is the second part, which is the correct instruction. In it, the first part is general, from 'Because...' downward is specific, and from 'Their wisdom is such...' downward concludes with praise and encourages study. In the general section there are two lines: the first line directly instructs in accordance with principle; the second line points out the fault to teach detachment from it. In the former part, regarding the statement 'You should directly eliminate them': what is 'crooked elimination' that it should speak of 'direct'? To speak of having marks of offenses and only then teach confession is called 'crooked elimination.' To contemplate the emptiness of the nature of offenses so that the defilement of offenses does not arise, shattering and detaching from the marks of offenses, is called 'direct elimination.' 'Do not disturb their minds' teaches detachment from faults. If one relies on the previous confession with marks based on a mind of grasping and rejecting, various views will only increase, and the substance of the offenses will not be eradicated; one merely creates agitation in vain, perturbing their minds. In the second specific instruction below, it first raises a question and then explains. In the explanation there are four parts: first, instructing by reference to the nature of offenses; second, from 'As the Buddha said' downward, instructing by reference to the mind; third, from 'O Upāli' downward, instructing by resolving doubts; fourth, from 'Upāli, all...' downward, generally instructing by reference to all dharmas. Correctly contemplating that the nature of these offenses is not within, not without, and not in between: ordinary beings, because they perceive distinctions between this and that, self and other, create various karmic offenses. Now they are taught to contemplate that in their own bodies there is no self and no person—this is internal emptiness. Contemplating the other as also being like this is external emptiness. Since there is neither self nor other, the in-between is also empty. When the three places are all empty, there is no 'mine.' Once 'mine' is abandoned, there is no offense to be committed. Since offenses are not even committed, how could they have a nature? Furthermore, it is said: 'Not within' means the nature of the six sense faculties is empty; 'not without' means the marks of the six sense objects are empty; 'not in between' means the substance of the six consciousnesses is empty. Since the three places are empty, from where could offenses arise? Furthermore, 'not within' means not in the self; if it were in my mind, it should not depend on the other. 'Not in that external matter': if it were in that matter, it should not incur an offense for me. 'Not in between': joining me and the matter constitutes the middle; since apart from the internal and the external there is no other dharma, it is not in between. Furthermore, because dependent arising has no arising, it is not within; because conceptual discrimination has no marks, it is not without; because ultimate reality has no self-nature, it is not in between. Deluded about these three places, offenses therefore exist. Since the three natures are empty, offenses are naturally non-existent; from where could they arise? In the second part, instructing by reference to the mind, there are two points: first, citing what the Buddha taught, that defilement and purity depend on the mind, and because the mind is empty, the nature of offenses is also empty; second, from 'As when Upāli...' downward, instructing by reference to the time of Upāli's realization. In the former, there are four points: first, explaining that sentient beings are empty by citing the Buddha as proof; second, explaining that the marks and substance of the mind are empty; third, adducing the mind to analogize offenses; fourth, explaining that all dharmas are also empty. In the first point, as the Buddha said, upon hearing that offenses were previously empty, they were still unable to understand: 'We visibly see sentient beings cultivating good and committing evil; how can they be empty?' Therefore, what the Buddha said is cited as proof. That defilement and purity follow the mind has been traditionally passed down from of old: the mind is the six consciousnesses; through the conceptual discrimination of the mind of consciousness, one gives rise to the two kinds of karma, defiled and pure. Following the force of karma, one experiences the two retributions of suffering and pleasure. Since retributions arise from the mind, we know there are no real sentient beings. Furthermore, it is said: 'Mind' is the eighth ālayavijñāna; because this consciousness holds defiled and pure seeds within, when seeds encounter conditions they can incur the two fruits of suffering and pleasure. Since fruits arise from the mind, we know there are no sentient beings. 'The mind is also neither within nor without' is the second point, refuting the mind as empty. Previously they suspected there were sentient beings, but now they are said to be non-existent; they again thought that those offenses were attached to the mind. Therefore, it is now explained: the mind is also not within, not without, and not in between. Since the three places do not exist, how could the mind exist? 'As the mind is, so too are...' is the third point, making an analogy. Because the mind is empty, offenses are analogized as also empty. Grasping the root one understands the branches; guarding the mother one sees the child. The Buddha said that sentient beings' defilement and purity all arise from the mind; seeking it, it is not in the three places. Since the mind has no location, where can the defilements of offenses reside? Hence, the Samantabhadra Contemplation Sūtra states: 'My mind is of itself empty; neither offense nor merit arises, just as the wind in the sky has no resting place.' 'Not departing from Suchness' is the fourth point, explaining dharma-emptiness. Why is it that the offenses, sentient beings, and even the mental nature discussed previously do not abide in the three places and are all entirely empty? Precisely because dharmas do not depart from Suchness. The substance and nature of Suchness are empty, tranquil, and unconditioned. Apart from Suchness there are no dharmas; how could they not be empty? From 'Upāli...' downward is the second part, instructing by reference to his realization, wishing to cause Upāli to awaken on his own. In the text there are three points: first, Vimalakīrti asks; second, Upāli answers; third, from 'Vimalakīrti said...' downward, he analogizes the ordinary being to the noble one. In the question, 'When the mental marks attain liberation, is there any defilement?' asks: in that ninth path of liberation, at the exact moment of entering realization, did he see whether the intrinsically pure mind had any defilement or not? Or it may mean: the mind of causes and conditions, the conditionally arisen nature of mind, is not affliction and is named intrinsically pure. Here it merely asks whether, when he attained liberation, the intrinsically pure mind had ever been defiled. He answers, 'No,' because at the time of realization the mind is merged into a single realm and cannot be said to have defilement. Although the great and the small differ, freedom from defilement is the same; thus at the time of realization one sees no defilement. That the mental marks of all sentient beings are without defilement is also like this: analogizing the ordinary to the noble. If explained according to marks, ordinary and noble are divided into two; if discussed in terms of principle, ordinary and noble are constantly one. Because they are one, their intrinsically pure minds are equally without defilement. In the third part, instruction by resolving doubts: the doubt says, 'Upāli is a noble person; that his mind is pure is understandable. Sentient beings are fully endowed with all afflictions; how can it also be said that their mental marks are without defilement?' The sūtra then explains: 'False imagination is defilement, the absence of false imagination is purity,' and so forth. This explains that the nature of the mind is fundamentally pure; falsity acts as an adventitious defilement concealing the real. Those who achieve awakening are fundamentally pure from the beginning; although delusion and awakening differ, the substance of their nature is constantly the same. Therefore, an analogy is made with the noble ones. Although they are not different, in terms of marks they are constantly distinct; this is intended to make practitioners realize this profound meaning. In it there are three phrases, which are the three inversions of thought, mind, and views. 'False imagination is defilement': this is the inversion of thought. The mind of thought conceives of dharmas as deceptive and unreal; this is called false imagination. False imaginations vary; according to the Bodhisattvabhūmi, there are eight kinds: 1. False imagination of self-nature: grasping that dharmas such as form each have their own substance. 2. False imagination of difference: grasping that form and so forth have differences such as visible and invisible, with resistance and without resistance. 3. False imagination of appropriation and aggregation: grasping at a self and sentient beings within the aggregates, and giving rise to fixed grasping at reality within an army, a forest, and so forth. In this single discrimination, the former is grasping at persons, and the latter is grasping at dharmas. 4. False imagination of the view of self: grasping at a self where there is no self. 5. False imagination of 'mine': grasping that the self has possessions. 6. False imagination of mindful regard: discriminating by focusing on attractive and pure objects. 7. False imagination of unmindful disregard: discriminating by focusing on hateful and impure objects. 8. False imagination contrary to both: discriminating by focusing on neutral, blended objects. Among these eight false imaginations, the first two and the last three are subsumed under the grasping at dharmas. The third, aggregation, applies to both kinds of grasping. The fourth and fifth are exclusively grasping at persons. These eight kinds conceal the pure mind, and are therefore called 'defilement.' They take the mental factor of thought among the omnipresent factors as their substance. 'The absence of false imagination is purity': absence means awakening to the real; therefore it is purity. 'Inversion is defilement': this is the inversion of mind. The deluded mind grasps at dharmas contrary to reality; this is called inversion. It takes the sixth mental consciousness as its substance. 'The absence of inversion is purity': absence means achieving awakening; therefore it is purity. 'Grasping at a self is defilement': this is the inversion of views. Erroneous wisdom grasps at a self, and conceiving of a self contravenes the correct principle; this is called defilement. It takes the view of self among the root afflictions as its substance. Question: The single category of the inversion of views has erroneous wisdom as its substance; its nature can firmly grasp, so it can be called an inversion. The two dharmas of mind and thought do not have erroneous wisdom as their nature; how do they constitute inversions? Answer: Following the power of the inversion of views, they are also established with the name 'inversion,' because they are associated with the inversion and their mental activity and thoughts are the same. Or it may be that when one gives rise to the view of permanence regarding the impermanent, one must grasp the marks of permanence in the object; that which can grasp marks is thought and nothing else, so it is established with the name 'inversion.' The inversion of mind is the support for the inversion of views; when the primary mind increases views, it is also called an inversion. 'Not grasping at a self is purity': understanding emptiness and detaching from defilement, therefore it is purity.