淨名經關中釋抄 2.4.2

2.4.2

Because at the time of his birth the storehouses and rooms were all empty, his parents thought it was inauspicious and were about to consult a diviner. The diviner divined and said: "It is greatly auspicious and extremely good." Therefore he was called Shanxian (Well-Appeared / Subhūti). Or, some say: "Emptiness was born and an auspicious sign appeared, hence the name Well-Appeared." Yet this was precisely to symbolize his being foremost in understanding emptiness that emptiness appeared. It is just as Rāhula's six years of dwelling in the womb symbolized his being foremost in esoteric practice; Kāśyapa's golden color symbolized his adornment with the pure practice of dhūtas; and Kālodāyin, translated here as "Black Radiance", symbolized the condition of defiling pure practice as a basis for disciplinary rules. Furthermore, among the disciples, Subhūti was foremost in understanding emptiness and in non-contention. In the Hīnayāna, entering the fourth dhyāna and contemplating conditions of sentient beings so as not to contend with things is called "non-contention"; yet renouncing existence to realize emptiness, and abandoning saṃsāra to grasp nirvāṇa, have not yet escaped such contention. Now, in Vimalakīrti's Mahāyāna, dwelling in the contemplation of the middle way, there is neither defilement nor purity, neither arising nor ceasing; self and non-self are non-dual in their nature; saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are intrinsically equal. This is called true non-contention, which is why he was scolded. Furthermore, in the Hīnayāna, when entering contemplation, one conditions the absolute truth and is therefore empty; when emerging from contemplation, one conditions conventional truth and is therefore existent. Grasping emptiness while renouncing existence in this way is not the true understanding of emptiness. Now, in Vimalakīrti's Mahāyāna, form is not different from emptiness, and emptiness is not different from form; there is neither existence nor non-existence, neither grasping nor renouncing; penetrating the marks of all dharmas without obstruction, bowing down as to empty space without reliance—this is called being truly foremost in understanding emptiness. Thus he was scolded. Question: What is the non-contention samādhi of the Hīnayāna? Answer: A verse in the Kośa says: "Non-contention is conventional knowledge; / It is based on the final dhyāna and is unshakeable; / It concerns three continents, conditions the unarisen, / And pertains to objective afflictions of the desire realm." That is to say, among the ten knowledges it is the conventional eighth knowledge. In absorption, it abides in the fourth dhyāna. Among the six kinds of arhats, it is of the unshakeable nature. Among the four continents, it does not condition the northern continent, because [there] there is no "mine". It conditions only the future, because the past and present have already ceased. Among the three realms, it conditions only the desire realm, because there are objective afflictions. Furthermore, the Lotus [Sūtra] says that the ten disciples inwardly concealed bodhisattva practices and outwardly manifested as śrāvakas. That is, before the Tathāgata appeared in the world, Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana manifested as dwelling among non-Buddhists; Uruvilvā manifested as dwelling among fire-worshippers; Mahākāśyapa manifested as a pure-practicing brāhmaṇa; Rāhula and Aniruddha manifested in the royal palace experiencing the desires of the five senses. Or, Śāriputra manifested wisdom; Panthaka manifested dullness; Maudgalyāyana manifested nobility; Upāli manifested base birth; Pūrṇa manifested extensive learning; Kātyāyana manifested debate. When the Tathāgata attained the Way, he guided their respective kinds to attain the realization of śrāvakas. Now, in order to lead the lesser to enter the greater, when inquiring after [Vimalakīrti's] illness, each declined as inadequate; this was to cause those being converted to renounce the small and return to the great, gradually serving as an expedient means for conferring prophecy in the Lotus [Sūtra]. Regarding the filling of the bowl with food, some say that because Subhūti upheld the understanding of emptiness, Vimalakīrti went to subdue him with subtle existence, which is why it was manifested. Regarding "not destroying the body": The śrāvakas take the body to be suffering, and therefore destroy the body to return to tranquility. The single mark is the mark of tranquility and cessation. Bodhisattvas contemplate the body as arising from conditions, devoid of self-nature; that is, without waiting to destroy the body, it is naturally fundamentally tranquil. Regarding the "five heinous crimes": Killing one's father, killing one's mother, killing an arhat, shedding the blood of a Buddha's body, and causing schism in the Saṃgha of the Dharma wheel. The first two go against gratitude; the latter three go against virtue; hence they are called heinous. The severity of karmic bondage surpasses nothing more than these. If there is no bondage, there is no delusion; when delusion is exhausted, all is real; therefore, the heinous bondages are themselves the marks of liberation. Regarding "wrong views and the other shore are fundamentally not distinct in nature": These three lines are the interpretation of Guanzhong. Taking neither wrong nor correct, neither difficulty nor distress, neither pure nor defiled as equality, one may accept the food. The interpretation of Tiantai is: By scolding Subhūti, [saying] that you of the two vehicles adhere to one-sided emptiness, which is a wrong view and not the other shore of the middle way, dwelling in the difficulty of the conjured city, it is not without difficulty. The distress of being attached to nirvāṇa and distancing oneself from the purity of the Dharma-nature results in the eight difficulties of the conjured city. What are their characteristics? Answer: The Da pin states: "Better that sentient beings fall into the hells of the three destinies than to cause sentient beings to enter the path of the two vehicles." That is, the paths of seeing, cultivation, and no-learning of the Hīnayāna are taken as the difficulty of the three evil destinies. Perpetually grasping non-self is the difficulty of this continent. Emerging from contemplation to condition conventional truth, and entering contemplation to condition the real, are the difficulty of being born before or after a Buddha. Not seeing the dharmakāya and not hearing the middle way are being born deaf and blind. Debating arising and ceasing without comprehending non-arising is worldly worldly knowledge and dialectical cleverness. Sinking into emptiness and stagnating in tranquility are the difficulty of the long-lived devas. The Mahā[parinirvāṇa] Sūtra says ten thousand kalpas, and so on; this is because [the difficulties are] the obstacle to giving rise to the great [aspiration]. Taking these as difficulties that obstruct true nirvāṇa, their calamity surpasses the eight difficulties of ordinary mortals. How could one not fear them? Statements such as having no pure field of merit and falling into slander differ between the two masters, which can be seen by analogy to this. Regarding "equal without any difference": Guanzhong takes the equal single nature as being without difference. Tiantai takes ordinary mortals stagnating in existence and the two vehicles stagnating in emptiness as: although the stagnation differs, both equally obstruct the middle way, and thus they are equal without difference. Regarding "putting down the bowl and wishing to leave": Tiantai says that Subhūti was challenged and, upon suddenly hearing this, foolishly held his understanding of emptiness and lost it; therefore Vimalakīrti conversely established it through illusion and transformation. Regarding Pūrṇa: Previously Maudgalyāyana was scolded for improper etiquette in preaching the Dharma; this section scolds the fault of mistaking faculties. Some say: The phrase "contemplating the minds of people" is the worldly siddhānta; the phrase "original root" is the therapeutic siddhānta; the phrase "practicing the Great Path" is the ultimate-meaning siddhānta. Thus the faculties are of the Mahāyāna. Question about the siddhāntas: This dharma name originates in the Laṅkā[vatāra]. The [Da zhi]du lun says that the Sanskrit word is siddhānta, translated here as "established doctrine", also called "ink", like the seal of the true mark. That seal seals the principle; this ink adheres fixedly to teaching. There are four kinds: First, the worldly siddhānta, which, in order to arouse the good roots of sentient beings, relies on worldly names and marks so that they produce joyful desire and give rise to faith. Second, the individual siddhānta, which, for those who have already planted goodness, causes it to increase according to their respective faculties and conditions. Third, the therapeutic siddhānta, which, because some sentient beings, though having planted good roots, are obstructed by heavy afflictions and have not yet attained fulfillment, gives rise to remedies. Fourth, the ultimate-meaning siddhānta, which addresses long-practicing sentient beings by subsuming the principle. Thus the first three accord with faculties, while the fourth subsumes the principle. Regarding the first three, there are also two aspects: for those who have not yet believed, to cause them to generate faith, which is the worldly; for those who already believe, to cause them to give rise to practice, which establishes the individual and therapeutic. Furthermore, giving rise to practice has two aspects: giving rise to practices that produce goodness establishes the individual; giving rise to practices that sever evil establishes the therapeutic. For this reason, the Tathāgata, within the unconditioned Dharma, accords with the principle and follows faculties to generate faith, give rise to practice, produce goodness, and sever evil, unfolding eighty-four thousand dharmas. The various differences of other teaching methods equally lead toward great bodhi. Kātyāyana is translated here as "Hard and Excess"; some say "Ornamented"; the Prajñaptipāda-śāstra says "clan of shaved hair".