淨名經關中釋抄 2.7.3

2.7.3

This means that the practice of twofold benefit is perfected, and going and coming are constant benefits. Unhindered, wondrous eloquence truly resides in this! Regarding "Shande (Śrīgupta/Sudatta) is also called Shanshi (Good Giving)": For a great being's wondrous realization, what practice is not perfected? Yet in accord with the [different] approaches they guide beings, each has their particular excellence. Śrīgupta's trace lay in material generosity without stinginess, but he had not yet plumbed the subtle origin of generosity to penetrate the ten thousand practices; therefore Vimalakīrti opened up the Dharma for him. It was also merely a matter of mutual responsive harmony; how could it be said to be inevitable? Regarding "setting up a great sacrificial assembly": In the past, his parents practiced heterodox sacrificial rites, sometimes slaughtering cattle, sheep, humans, and the like to sacrifice to the heavens in pursuit of good fortune. Śrīgupta disguised his traces to dwell among them, turning the heterodox sacrifices into correct giving; yet he was not yet able to enter the ultimate truth through the phenomenal and practice the great Dharma giving. Therefore Vimalakīrti took this opportunity to reprimand him in order to open up his understanding. As in the Kośa: at the stage of the Hinayāna, when a bodhisattva provisionally practices the six perfections, they all take not begrudging wealth and not begrudging life and body as the perfection of the six perfections. Now the Mahāyāna takes the practice of the six perfections corresponding with the true mark, identical with the limit of reality, equal to the Dharma-nature, and abiding in the vows of great compassion—giving even a hair's tip of good equally to sentient beings so that they may together realize bodhi—this is called the perfection of the Dharma-giving. Thus the Kośakārikā says: "Because of compassion, they gave universally; / When their bodies were dismembered, they had no wrath. / Praising the Buddha Tiṣya, / For the sake of unsurpassed bodhi..." These are all due to not begrudging body and life as their perfection. The Diamond [Sūtra] says: "Do not abide in form when giving," up to "when my body was cut and severed, there was no notion of self and no notion of a person." The Great Prajñā says: "The purity of the dānapāramitā is the purity of sarvajñā (all-knowledge); they are non-dual and without distinction," and so on up to "the purity of prajñā is also like this." This is to tally with the true mark through principle, its efficacy saving sentient beings, performing generosity in accordance with principle and giving rise to vows in accordance with capacities; therefore it is called perfection. Now Vimalakīrti reprimands the former phenomenal six perfections to lead one into the latter true-mark six perfections. Regarding "upholding the correct Dharma gives rise to the mind of rejoicing": This rejoicing of "rejoicing" is also the joy of Dharma joy, because it causes both oneself and others who uphold the Dharma to practice the mind of rejoicing. It is also because together they uphold the correct Dharma that they equally obtain Dharma joy. Regarding "great equanimity relinquishes the myriad existences": An expedient great being relinquishes enmity and friendship, and also relinquishes the immeasurable minds. A perfect and sudden great being relinquishes the myriad existences; only then is it called the immeasurable of equanimity. It is also called relinquishment because practice has plumbed the true mark. Regarding "leaving behind the marks of body and mind gives rise to vigor": There are two explanations of this. One says: with single-mindedness, where there is no path, one does not awaken; losing body and receiving life is called vigor; harmonizing with the principle of the true mark, constantly abiding in the true mark where the marks of body and mind are empty, is called true vigor. If a mind with marks arises, that is called indolence; therefore it says that it arises by leaving behind the marks of body and mind. Question: The treatises all say that the substance of the perfection of vigor takes the mental factor of vigor among the eleven wholesome mental factors, as well as taking the three activities that accompany it, as its substance; up to generosity taking the mental factor of non-greed and the three activities of body, speech, and so forth that accompany it as the fundamental substance of the six perfections. These general substances of the six perfections have not left the body and mind of the five aggregates. Why does it say here that the mark of vigor is taken by leaving body and mind? Answer: In principle it is not so. Why? Deep sūtras of the Mahāyāna must plumb the true mark, not the nominal enumerations of the five aggregates. Because non-Buddhists initially clung to heterodox origins, the Buddha revealed the dharmas of correct causes and conditions through the nominal enumerations of the aggregates and realms, guiding the two vehicles to eliminate the view of self. Why, in explaining what is profound and wondrous, would one still harbor a biased and lesser view? Moreover, the Buddha taught the aggregates, realms, and bases for the two vehicles, intending to make them realize the wisdom that dharmas are without self and that the conditioned is impermanent; he also did not intend for them to cling to the quantity of enumerated dharmas as real. If they cling to them as real, they depart farther from the Path. Furthermore, when the Mahāyāna speaks of the dharmas of the aggregates, realms, and bases, it also intends not to preserve dharmas. Why? If dharmas were definitely five aggregates, he should not have taught the twelve bases. If definitely twelve bases, he should not have taught the eighteen realms. Five and eight are not fixed numbers; you should know that number is non-number. The aggregates and realms have no fixed marks; you should know that mark is non-mark. The aggregates and realms have no fixed names; you should know that name is non-name. Therefore the text above says: "Dharma has no shape or mark, like empty space; Dharma has no name or word, because speech is severed." These are all regarding marks as markless, and names as nameless. Thus, according to the sūtra, seeking neither form, sensation, perception, volition, nor consciousness, and seeking neither realms nor bases, is the true seeking of Dharma. Inferring from this, how could one discern the real substance of the six perfections from within the nominal enumerations of the aggregates and realms? If one truly seeks, one should leave the marks of body and mind and seek within the true mark itself. I hope scholars will examine this implication thoroughly! Regarding "transforming sentient beings gives rise to emptiness, etc.": If one relies on the Hinayāna and the treatises, they explain the three samādhis as taking the sixteen aspects of the four truths as their objects. The Mahāyāna sūtras explain that the cause and condition of the three samādhis is the true mark of all dharmas; this accords very well with the sūtra text. Why? The four truths of the Mahāyāna are the non-arising four truths; they both take the non-arising of suffering, accumulation, and so forth as the truths, not taking suffering and accumulation [themselves] as the truths. If one takes the non-arising of suffering, accumulation, and so forth as the truth, the truth is the true mark. Giving rise to the three samādhis taking this true mark as an object is forever different from the Hinayāna. Yet the sūtra text says "transforming sentient beings gives rise to emptiness, etc." because the illumination of the true mark perfects both provisional and ultimate wisdom. Thus, transforming is itself emptiness, and those who abide in emptiness constantly transform; emptiness and existence are non-dual, and provisional and ultimate are doubly illuminated, hence it is said thus. Regarding "not relinquishing the conditioned gives rise to the markless": The Hinayāna's truth of cessation extinguishes marks to make the markless. The Mahāyāna takes marks themselves to be markless. This very marklessness is called the true mark. Therefore, without relinquishing existence, it is spontaneously non-existent. Regarding "manifesting rebirth while giving rise to the wishless": The Hinayāna takes resting all seeking and doing as the wishless. The Mahāyāna takes the essence of doing to be non-doing; therefore, throughout the whole day it acts without seeking non-doing. This is the wishless of the inconceivable true mark. Down to the "Inconceivable Non-Dual Dharma Gate Chapter", in one gate of liberation the three liberations are identical. This path tallies with the principle and has no duality. Regarding "correctly practicing wholesome dharmas gives rise to pure livelihood": Wrong livelihood refers to living on improper gain. If a practitioner clings to the aggregates to seek the good, attaches to views to give rise to cultivation, or with a wrong mind seeks the good wishing to sustain the life of wisdom, these are all wrong livelihood. If one correctly contemplates the middle way, that is the fundamentally real of the dharmas; the myriad goods are spontaneously perfected, and merit is constantly pure. Since one does not grasp at marks to seek gain to nourish the spirit, it is called pure livelihood. Regarding "untying the bonds of sentient beings gives rise to the stages of cultivation": The Dharma-nature is constantly tranquil, neither shallow nor deep; yet the sūtras differ. When stages of practice are laid out as shallow or deep, they are all expedient means to guide beings in the sequence of generating practice. Although this is an external matter regarding the Dharma-nature, it is the sequence and stages of generating practice. It is also said: because the true principle is neither shallow nor deep, there are no stages of cultivation; it is because delusions are conditioned entanglements