T2186 Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

Chapter 2: Skillful Means

Chapter Two

Skillful Means

Because this chapter explains the many and various skillful means that Vimalakīrti uses to transform beings, it has this title. This is the second part of the specific introduction; that is, the introduction that describes [Vimalakīrti's] virtues. Why wasn't this introduction [given by the Buddha] at the time this scripture was taught? Because afterward Ānanda had a deep understanding of the Buddha's intention; desiring to enable sentient beings of later ages hear of these lofty virtues and deeply respect the teachings, he gave this one chapter that entirely praises Vimalakīrti's virtuous conduct—hence, this is called the introduction that describes [Vimalakīrti's] virtues. In fact, however, Vimalakīrti was already Golden Grain Tathāgata in the past. However, he obscured his radiance in order to transform beings and therefore became a disciple. Advancing but not perfectly awakened, holding back but not ranked with the lowest. Thus we here take his manifestation to be of the eighth level or above.

This is unpacked in two parts. The first is the wish to relate his virtues as a householder, and so he is initially described as a virtuous person. The second, from "in the past he made offerings,

" is the actual account of his

householder virtues. The first can be understood. The second, the actual explanation, is divided into two parts. The first is from the beginning up to "respected by the Lords of the world" and relates the profound essence; the second is the rest of the chapter from "desiring to save people [he] therefore [used his skillful means],

" and relates the manifestation of his skillful means.

The point of these two praises [of Vimalakīrti's] virtues is that without the essence, the traces will not be left behind; without the traces, there will be no revelation of the essence. Therefore both the essence and the traces are related, the true and the response are both praised. Describing the essence leads beings to arouse a mind of deep respect; praising the traces leads beings to dispel confusion about things.

55

30a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra With regard to the first aspect, describing the essence is further divided into three parts. The first begins with the essential practice. The six lines together make three couplets that comprise the actual praise, ending with the conventional and the real. The second aspect, from "accomplished his great vow,

" begins with his primary vow. The four lines together make two couplets that are the actual praise, ending with the virtues of both body and mind. The third is from "The many buddhas sighed,

" and gives the concluding, shared

praise by others.

"In the past he made offerings to innumerable buddhas. " This gives the

essence of the practice, and shows that the resulting actions are wondrous because the essence of the practice was lofty. "Deeply planted virtuous roots.

" The mind that aspires to bodhiis the

root of the myriad virtues. Therefore it says "virtuous roots. " Because these

have been cultivated for eons it says "deeply planted. " We could also say

that the practices of the seventh level are the cause for the eighth level. and thus they are called "virtuous roots.

" These two lines are called the beginning of the root practice.

The six lines from "Obtained the serene acceptance of non-arising" together make three couplets that are the actual praise. "Obtained the serene

acceptance of non-arising" shows that the knowing of the eighth level and above is consistent with the underlying principle of non-arising. This line praises [Vimalakīrti's] understanding of emptiness. "His eloquence unobstructed" means that in traversing existence and transforming beings, his use of the four perfect manners of speech is unhindered. This line praises his understanding of existence. These two lines make a pair of emptiness and the existence of perceptual attribute in relation to each other.

"He sported freely in the supernatural powers" shows that outside he sported about freely in accordance with his wishes. This line praises his external virtues. "Attained total retention [of the Buddha's teachings, i.e., dhāraṇīs]. "

One [aspect of "total retention"] is to have complete retention of the texts, and the other is to have complete retention of the meanings; neither is ever forgotten. This line praises his internal virtue. These two lines make a pair of the inner and outer [virtues] in relation to each other. 56

Chapter Two: Skillful Means

"Obtained fearlessness" refers to the four kinds of fearlessness. "Overcame the annoyance and resentment of Māras" refers to the four demons that harass beings. These two lines praise his strong role. "Entered the profound Dharma gates" means that [Vimalakīrti] completely illuminated and penetrated the myriad Buddhist teachings. This line praises his gentle role. These three lines make a pair of gentleness and strength in relation to each other.

"Well versed in the perfection of knowing (prajñāpāramitā)" praises his knowing reality.

"Mastered skillful means" praises his knowledge of the conventional. These two lines bring together the two knowledges of the conventional and the real. From "Accomplished his great vow" clarifies the second [aspect of Vimalakīrti's essence], beginning with the primal vow. Four lines constitute two couplets that are the actual praise, ending with the two virtues of body and mind.

"Accomplished his great vow" refers to his vow: "Above, broaden the path of the Buddha; below, transform and nurture living beings. " This

vow is called "great" because it is essential among his vows. This line is said to begin the primal vow.

"He clearly knew the mental inclinations of sentient beings" shows that [Vimalakīrti] was able to illuminate the mental aspirations of sentient beings. "Further, he was able to discriminate whether their faculties were sharp or dull" means that he was able to illumine and penetrate the nature of the faculties of sentient beings. This line praises his [ability] to illumine confused things.

"Long within the Buddha's way, his mind was pure and clear. " The word

"clear" means "virtuous.

" This shows that he was pure and virtuous within the Buddha-Dharma and directed toward the Buddha without confusion. This line praises his accomplished purity. These two lines pair purity and confusion in relation to each other.

"Certain in the Mahayana" shows that he had skillfully penetrated the underlying principle of the conveyance and his seeking mind was certain. This line praises his self-cultivation.

"All of his actions are well and skillfully conceived. " [Vimalakīrti] graciously responds to the six paths and teaches the Dharma for the sake of sentient beings without any error in regard to their spiritual capacity. This verse 57

30b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

praises his transformation of others. These two lines pair self-cultivation and transformation of others in relation to each other.

"He dwelled within the Buddha's majesty" shows that he was no different than the Buddha with respect to the four majestic postures. This line praises his bodily actions.

"His mind was like the vast ocean" shows that he penetrated the ten thousand spiritual capacities and there were none to which his illumination did not extend. This line praises his mental functions. These two lines conclude [the praise of] both of [Vimalakīrti's] virtues of body and mind. From "The many buddhas sighed in approval" is the third [aspect clarifying Vimalakīrti's essence], and gives the concluding, shared [praise] by others.

"The many buddhas sighed in approval and the disciples, Indra, Brahmā, and the Lords of the world respected him" shows that because he was possessed of these meritorious practices, the many buddhas above sighed their approval and the many deities below honored him. From "Wishing to save people" is the second aspect of the actual explanation of [Vimalakīrti's] virtues as a householder, the relating of his manifestation [of skillful means]. This unfolds in two items: the first begins from here and goes to "[Vimalakīrti] used innumerable skillful means in order to richly benefit sentient beings,

" and praises the manifestation of his skillful

means before his illness. The second is from "And with his skillful means he made his body appear as though ill" to the end of the chapter, and relates the manifestation of his skillful means after he appeared ill. The first aspect is further divided into three. The first briefly explains that [Vimalakīrti] appeared to dwell in Vaiśālī because he wished to save people, but it was not a real birth. The second, from "Immeasurable wealth, "

is the individual telling of his many and varied manifestations. The third is from "The elder Vimalakīrti" and finishes telling how his skillful means benefited beings. The first aspect can be understood. The second, the individual descriptions [of Vimalakīrti's various skillful means], has two parts. The first is from "immeasurable wealth" up to "his mind was steadfast when he went into saloons, " and

praises the manifestation of his teaching beings just in the city of Vaiśālī. The second is from "If he was among the elders,

" and praises the manifestation of

his transformation of beings everywhere throughout the three worlds. 58

Chapter Two: Skillful Means

The first, the appearance of his manifestations within Vaiśālī, is further divided into two. The first,

"But he [preferred] the taste of meditation,

" praises

the serenity of his conduct when at home; the second, from "if he went to a gambling place,

" praises his manifestations when he left his house and roamed about.

The first, [the praise of his conduct while at home,] is divided into two parts. The first gives the six perfections and praises the way in which his virtuous conduct benefited beings, and explains eliminating the evils of the six impediments for the sake of sentient beings. The second is the six lines from "Although wearing the white robes [of a layman],

" and praises how [Vimalakīrti] was able to dwell in evil situations without harming himself; all of this can be understood.

The second part, the praise of his conduct when roaming about away from home, also has two aspects. The first praises his going about near town, preaching the Dharma and saving people. The second, from "Walked the crossroads,

" is praise of his many acts of transforming beings when he traveled far from his hometown; these can be understood.

A question: It has already been said that the profound essence is without shape but appears with a shape in response to beings. Here, however, in praising the essence there is praise of [Vimalakīrti's] body and mind. Further, in praising the manifestation there is [praise of Vimalakīrti's] perfection of prajñā.Isn't this the "existence" of the profound essence? In other words, aren't the essence and its manifestation beyond distinction? How is that you now praise them individually?

Answer: The profound essence is truly without shape or form. In the above praise of [Vimalakīrti's] body and mind, the body means the Dharma body and the mind means discerning awareness. But it is not that the essence has a physical body and mind. We can also say that because the true body is the essence of the form that appears in response [to the needs of sentient beings], a body and mind is given even for the essence. Still, the essence does not truly have a body and mind. Moreover, each and every item in the above praise is real, and thereby we can know that the essence is praised separately. The profound form exists above the eighth level and so the text is appropriate. Within the praise of the manifestation it says,

"Desiring to save people,

he therefore used his skillful means and lived in Vaiśālī. " This means that

59

30c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

although [Vimalakīrti] was not actually born [in Vaiśālī] he appeared to be born there; although he did not actually dwell [in Vaiśālī] he appeared to dwell there. How could this not be his manifestation? Thus we can know that the essence and the manifestation can be separated. Further, although the sixth perfection [of prajñā] is the function of the profound essence, it does not [function] for itself but for saving beings. How could the goal of saving beings not be the manifestation? So too, none of the things like "gambling, " "fond

of alcohol and sex,

" and such are real—it is clear that they are just the workings of the manifestation in response [to the needs of sentient beings]. From "If he was among the elders" is the second of the individual descriptions [of Vimalakīrti's skillful means], praise of the manifestation of his transforming beings everywhere throughout the three worlds. An "elder" is a virtuous person in a town. Many teach the ways of the world through conventional laws, and so for them [Vimalakīrti] taught the superior transcendental law.

"Laypeople" accumulate wealth and possess

virtue, and so he enabled them to eliminate greed and attachment, to disperse their wealth and seek happiness.

"Kṣatriya

"are those of royal lineage; they

are self-dependent and they are often angry. Thus he made them patient. "Brahmans" cultivate purity, are smart and quite arrogant, [but through the example of his own honor he taught them humility].

"Ministers" aid the

realm, and so he taught and established them in the true Dharma. "Princes"

covet the realm and are rebellious, and so he taught them loyalty and filial piety. The well-thought-of women of the "inner chambers" engage in much devious conduct, and so he taught them and made them upright. The "common people" are lowly and of shallow happiness; he taught them to cultivate happiness. Those of the "Brahmā heavens" are greatly attached to their pleasures, and so he taught them a superior [discerning] awareness. "Indra" is indulgent

with the five objects of desire, and so he taught him insight into impermanence. The "world-protectors" are the four heavenly kings. They rule the demons and spirits and keep them from harming people; therefore he took birth among the four heavenly kings and taught many demons and spirits and protected the people.

From "The elder Vimalakīrti" is the third aspect, the concluding description of his path of benefiting beings through skillful means [before manifesting his illness].

60

Chapter Two: Skillful Means

From "With these skillful means he made it appear that he was physically ill" is the second [part of relating the manifestation of Vimalakīrti's skillful means], describing the manifestation of skillful means after he appeared to be ill. This is further revealed in three sections. The first shows [Vimalakīrti] manifesting as ill and describing the arrival of the visitors. The second is from "these guests" and shows [Vimalakīrti] using the occasion of his illness to preach the Dharma for his guests. The third is from "Like this, the elder Vimalakīrti, " and

shows the many guests arousing their minds and attaining benefits. The first can be understood. The second, using the occasion of his illness to preach the Dharma for his guests, is further divided into three. The first is the admonishment to abandon evil. The second, from "Good people, you should abhor this [body],

" is [Vimalakīrti's] exhorting them to cultivate

virtue. The third, from "good people, if you wish to attain the buddha body, "

concludes the previous exhortation and admonishment.

The first, the admonishment to abandon evil, lists the five teachings (literally, "five gates") as the admonishment. The first, up to "cannot be trusted, "

gives the teaching on impermanence. From "it is suffering, it is afflicted" gives the teaching on suffering. Internally it is called "suffering" because our minds are unreliable. Externally [the body] is oppressed, and so it is called "afflicted.

" Because nothing goes the way that one wants either internally or externally, it is called "a coming together of a mass of ills. "

From "This body is like a mass of foam" is a teaching on emptiness in ten similes. This is further divided in two: the first five similes illustrate the internal emptiness of self, and the five similes from "This body is like a dream" illustrate the external emptiness of self. It is also said that the first five similes separately illustrate the internal emptiness of the five skandhas and the latter five similes collectively illustrate the internal emptiness of the five skandhas. The scripture says,

"Form is like a mass of foam, feeling is

like bubbles, perception is like a flame, impulse is [insubstantial] like a banana tree, and consciousness is like an illusion.

" This clarifies that the reality of

this body cannot be grasped even by the hand of knowing. From "This body is without a master" gives the teaching on no-self in two parts. The first lists each of the four elements in a simile to illustrate noself. The second, from "This body is without reality, " uses all four elements

together with other things to illustrate no-self.

61

31a

31b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

In "Like earth,

" "earth" is provisionally formed by the four minute atoms and is without a self (literally,

"without a master"). Now this body is likewise

provisionally formed by the five skandhas and is without a self, and so it is "like earth.

" "Like fire" is provisional. Fire arises from burning wood but there is no self. This body is provisionally designated "easterner" or "westerner" but, "like

fire,

" it is without self. The wind, in "like the wind,

" is continuously moving,

without self, showing that our many thoughts are continuous and without self, and so it is "like the wind.

" "Like water" means that just as water will fill a square or a round form and is without a real [shape of its own], the body bows and kowtows according to the rituals and is without self, "like water.

"

"This body is without reality but takes the four elements as its dwelling" is to say that the body is but a composite of the four elements—how could it be real? "This body is empty, separate from self and properties of the self" means that internally the body is without self, and so how then could the external properties of the self not be empty? "This body is without knowledge, like the grasses and trees" is to say that it is without a soul. "This body is

without volitional action, moved about by the power of the wind. " Movement

is what is called volitional action, but that which is moved by the power of the wind in fact does not act [on its own].

From "This body is impure" clarifies the teaching of [the body's] impurity in two parts. The first explains the thirty-six kinds of impurity. The second is from "unreal and false"; both clarify that in principle all is impure. Knowledgeable ones know that all unreal and false things are impure, and so we say that in principle they are impure. Some say that this is out of order and that the above has already explained the four teachings, and from this point further clarifies impurity, impermanence, suffering, and no-self. Another [interpretation] says that from "unreal and false" concludes the above five verses.

"Unreal and false" concludes the teaching on emptiness; "although we temporarily bathe [the body]" concludes the teaching on impurity; "certainly will be destroyed and disappear in the end" concludes the teaching on impermanence; from "as a disaster" concludes the teaching on suffering; "[a coming together of] the five skandhas and eighteen realms" concludes the teaching on no-self. This can all be understood and taken as you wish. From "Good people" is the second aspect of [Vimalakīrti's] using his illness to preach the Dharma to his guests, the exhortation to cultivate virtue. 62

Chapter Two: Skillful Means

This is divided into three. The first is the immediate exhortation to seek the Dharma body. The second is from "Why?" and explains [Vimalakīrti's] exhortation. The third is from "immeasurable merits" and explains the cause of the Dharma body.

"Good people, you should abhor this [body].

" Because [Vimalakīrti]

wished to exhort [people to cultivate] the buddha body, he first encouraged them to detest [their physical bodies] through the above five teachings. The second aspect explains this counsel. Because the "buddha body" is the Dharma body, it should be sought. The third aspect, explaining the cause of the Dharma body, also has three parts. The first is the summary that the ten thousand virtues are the cause of the Dharma body. The second, from "[it is born] from morality (śīla), concentration (samādhi), and [discerning] awareness (prajñā), "

individually clarifies the essential nature of the practice. The third, from "like this,

" is the summary conclusion that the ten thousand virtues are the cause of the Dharma body.

From "Good people" is the third aspect of [Vimalakīrti's] using the occasion of his illness to explain the Dharma for his guests, the summary conclusion of his exhortation and admonishment. This can all be understood. However, what kind of body is this Dharma body? There are two understandings. The first is that it is the seven hundred incalculable [number of] bodies [produced by the Buddha in order to save sentient beings]. The second is that it is the eternally abiding body. The reason is that, although this scripture comes before [those scriptures that] explain "eternally abiding, " the central

part of this scripture comes after Mañjuśrī raises the main point and asks about [Vimalakīrti's] illness. Now, this chapter is from when Ānanda gave the scripture at the later assembly because he profoundly understood the Buddha's intention to enable sentient beings of later times to hear of these great virtues and revere the teachings. Thus this one chapter entirely praises the virtues of Vimalakīrti's boundless transformation of beings. Therefore it is known that there is no reason that it might not be explaining the eternally [abiding body, even though that is not explicitly discussed in this scripture]. If it refers to the seven hundred incalculable [number] of bodies [produced by the Buddha in order to save sentient beings], then there would be an admonition by another teaching within the admonition by means of the five teachings [given above]; the admonition could not be just within the teaching of 63

31c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

impermanence. This is because if it does refer to the seven hundred incalculable bodies, it would not avoid impermanence (i.e., it would be impermanent). The question is this: how could we say that they should aspire to the body of the Tathāgata? If this problem comes up only in regard to Ānanda, it makes sense. But this chapter also contains Vimalakīrti's teachings. If Ānanda simply followed the Buddha's intention and preserved it (i.e., this teaching), then what is Vimalakīrti's intention? Moreover, does this chapter necessarily only preserve the things from the question about the illness? If so, then we could say that [interpreting the Dharma body as] the eternally abiding body would likewise not be correct. Interpretation: it is not only one thing that is clarified by this manifestation of [Vimalakīrti's] illness. Those receiving [these teachings] are also innumerable—why must it be like this? Moreover, Vimalakīrti's intention is also like this. If Mañjuśrī was not in the multitude when inquiring about the illness, then there would likewise be no problem with teaching the eternal [buddha body].

The schools that say that this scripture has already clarified "eternally abiding" naturally give up.

From "Like this elder" is the third aspect within the manifestation of [Vimalakīrti's] skillful means after appearing as though ill, describing the guests who have inquired about his illness and, on hearing the Dharma, arouse the mind [for perfect enlightenment] and obtain benefits. 64

Chapter 3: The Disciples

Chapter Three

The Disciples

[This chapter] describes how the Tathāgata heard of Vimalakīrti's illness and asked five hundred disciples to go and inquire about his illness; this is the reason for the title of the chapter. This chapter and the chapter "The Bodhisattvas" comprise the third part of the specific introduction, the introduction that reveals Vimalakīrti's virtues. Because the Tathāgata's three penetrating insights naturally illuminate the ten thousand spiritual capacities [of sentient beings] equally, why didn't he know that he should only send Mañjuśrī to inquire about [Vimalakīrti's] illness? The five hundred śrāvakas were not up to the task, nor were the eight thousand bodhisattvas able to do it. He asked all of them to go because he wished each to relate how they had been shamed in the past [by Vimalakīrti] and thereby reveal that there is no equal to Vimalakīrti's eloquent arguments and virtuous practices. Hence this [part of the introduction] is called "the introduction that reveals his virtues. "

This is unpacked in two parts. The first shows the narrator describing Vimalakīrti's thought that [the Buddha should] send [somebody to visit him]; the second is from "the Buddha knew his thoughts,

" and is the actual requesting [the disciples and bodhisattvas] to go [and inquire about Vimala kīrti's illness]. The first can be understood. The second, actually requesting [the disciples and bodhisattvas] to go, has two sections. The first is initially sending the śrāvakas, and the second is sending the bodhisattvas. As for sending the śrāvakas first and afterward asking the bodhisattvas [to go]—if the bodhisattvas [were asked first and they] declined because they were not capable, there wouldn't be any point in [considering] sending the śrāvakas. In principle, however, there is no reason that the bodhisattvas would decline if they were asked after the śrāvakas had declined because they were not up to the task— they should accept [the Buddha's request] and go. Therefore the śrāvakas were first [asked to] go, and the bodhisattvas were asked afterward. The first section, dispatching the śrāvakas, also has two parts. The first is the individual directives to the five hundred disciples; the second is the 65

32a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

general summary [of all five hundred disciples declining] as not suitable to the task.

The first [disciple] directed [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Śāriputra, foremost among the ten [chief] disciples in discerning awareness, and so [he was the] first to be asked. There are two aspects to this: the first is the Buddha's request and the second is [Śāriputra's] refusal as not being up to the task. This also has three aspects: the first is just the declining; the second is the explanation for declining; and the third concludes by [stating that he] is not up to the task. The first, the simple refusal, can be understood. The second aspect, the explanation for declining, has two parts. The first gives the situation leading to [Vimalakīrti's] criticism of [Śāriputra]; the second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti,

" is the actual criticism. The first, the background situation, can be understood. The second part, the actual criticism, is unpacked in three items. The first gives the general criticism that what Śāriputra takes to be tranquil [sitting] (śamatha) is not, in actuality, adequate. The second item, from "Tranquil sitting is. . . ,

" gives specific criticisms about different aspects

of [tranquil sitting]; the third, from "If you are able to do this [kind of sitting], "

is the summary conclusion of the criticism.

"Śāriputra, this sitting is not necessarily [true] tranquil sitting. " If we

speak of tranquil [sitting] from the point of view of the underlying principle, it is not necessarily like Śāriputra's [sitting]. Śāriputra was trained in the Hinayana and so, vexed by the distractions and disturbances of the world, he wanted to retreat to the mountains and forests in order to control his body and mind. However, Vimalakīrti criticized this because if you understand that the ten thousand realms are empty and do not believe in [the duality of] here and there, how then can there be a body and mind and the arising of distraction and disturbance? If you think that the ten thousand things [actually] exist and are not able to let go of them, then how will you be able to abandon [things like] distractions and disturbances even if you retreat to mountains and forests? The second item is the specific criticisms.

"Tranquil sitting is not manifesting the body or mind within the three worlds—this is tranquil sitting. "

This says that if you let go of [the duality of] both here and there, there is no mountain to run to, no world to flee. This is not manifesting body or mind within the three worlds, and is called "tranquil.

" Śāriputra believes in the

[real existence of] here and there, and so rejects the ordinary world and runs 66

Chapter Three: The Disciples

off to the mountains—this manifests body and mind within the three worlds. How can this be called superb tranquility? This line criticizes his inability to control his body and mind.

"Not arising from your samādhiof cessation, yet manifesting authority and decorum [in the world]—this is tranquil sitting.

" "Arising" means to

"come out of.

" Although one's knowing is one with emptiness, within the world of existence one still manifests all manner of authority and decorum and transforms beings everywhere—this is called "tranquil [sitting]. " Śāri putra only thinks to save himself and that benefiting beings is bothersome— how can he obtain superb tranquility? This line criticizes his inability to be equanimous with regard to the two realms of emptiness and existence. "Not abandoning the qualities of the Way, yet manifesting the concerns of ordinary people—this is tranquil sitting.

" The "qualities of the Way" are

the saintly qualities. This is to say that while one is proficient in the saintly qualities, one nonetheless manifests the concerns of ordinary people within the qualities of the ordinary world and transforms beings in accordance with their spiritual capacity—this is called truly tranquil. It is discriminatory for Śāriputra to think that ordinary people should be abandoned in favor of obtaining the saintly Way—how can he obtain superb tranquility? This line criticizes his inability to be equanimous with regard to the two realms of the ordinary and the sage.

"The mind dwelling neither internally nor existing externally—this is tranquil sitting.

" The underlying principle of the two truths is "internal" and the six sense objects are "external.

" This says that one should neither be

attached to the two truths nor attached to the six sense objects. When the internal and the external are both abandoned, it is called superbly tranquil. It is a dualism of positive and negative for Śāriputra to believe that the six sense objects should be abandoned and the two truths should be cultivated— how can he obtain superb tranquility? This line criticizes his inability to eliminate the duality of positive and negative. Dharma Master Sengzhao says,

"The body is an illusory dwelling—

why would you dwell in the internal? The ten thousand things are unreal— why would you live in the external? The [followers of the] Hinayana guard their thoughts and thus their minds are attached to the internal. Because of their numerous desires, ordinary people chase after the external in their 67

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

32b

thoughts. Because of their even-minded contemplation, the great ones are dependent upon neither internal nor external.

"

"Unmoved by sundry views yet practicing the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment—this is tranquil sitting.

" "Moved" means "aroused.

" If one

is able to understand that the many views are empty and do not need to be abandoned, and if one also practices the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment, then this is called truly tranquil. If Śāriputra believes that the many views should be rejected and the factors of the Way should be practiced, then he is grasping at phenomenal attributes—how can this be called superb tranquility? This line criticizes his inability to be impartial with regard to the true and the conventional.

"Not eradicating mental afflictions yet entering nirvana—this is tranquil sitting.

" If you can understand that mental afflictions are empty and do not need to be eradicated, there is the natural realization of nirvana. If Śāri putra believes that only after one's mental afflictions have been eradicated can one enter nirvana, then this is discriminatory—how can it be called tranquil? This line criticizes his inability to realize the skillful method of [entering] nirvana. Dharma Master Sengzhao says,

"The true nature of mental afflictions is

nirvana. Those whose power of [discerning] awareness is strong see that the mental afflictions are empty and they enter nirvana—they do not wait until they have eradicated [the afflictions] in order to then enter [nirvana]. "

The general meaning of all of these is the same, though the text varies according to the item—a positive is raised and a negative is clarified. From "If you are able to do this [kind of sitting]" is the third item [of the actual criticism], the summary conclusion of the criticism. From "At that time, World-honored One, I [listened to his teaching in silence and could not reply]. . .

" is the third aspect of the [disciple's] declining [Śākyamuni's request], the conclusion that he is not up to the task. The second [disciple] asked [to go and visit Vimalakīrti] was Maudgal yāyana. He was foremost among the ten [chief] disciples in supernatural powers. Within this there is both the request and the refusal. As with [Śāri putra's refusal], [Maudgalyāyana's] refusal has three aspects. The second aspect, the explanation of his declining [to visit Vimalakīrti], also unfolds in three parts. The first describes the situation leading to Vimalakīrti's criticism; the second, from "At that time, Vimalakīrti . . . ,

" gives the actual criticism;

68

Chapter Three: The Disciples

the third, from "When Vimalakīrti explained this Dharma, " describes how

the bystanders benefited from his critique.

There are two mistakes for which Maudgalyāyana was criticized. The first is erroneously expounding the existence of perceptual attribute to those with the spiritual capacity for [understanding] the absence of perceptual attribute; the second is erroneously expounding the Hinayana to those with the capacity for the Mahayana. It is for these two mistakes that Vimalakīrti criticized him.

The second part, the actual criticism, also has two items. The first is the general criticism and the second, from "the Dharma is without sentient beings,

" gives specific criticism of [different] things. "Mahāmaudgalyāyana,

in teaching the Dharma for the white-robed laity you should not teach as you do.

" This means that one should not be mistaken about [people's] spiritual capacity when teaching.

"The Dharma should be taught in accordance with

the Dharma" means that the Dharma must only be taught after ascertaining the spiritual capacity of the audience.

The second part, the specific criticisms, is divided into two sections. The first is from here up to "It is with this understanding that you should teach the Dharma,

" and criticizes the mistaken teaching of the existence of perceptual attribute to those with the spiritual capacity for [understanding] the absence of perceptual attribute. The second is from "[You] should know the sharp and dull abilities of sentient beings,

" and criticizes mistakenly

teaching the Hinayana to those with the spiritual capacity for the Mahayana. The first, the criticism of the mistaken [teaching of existence of perceptual attribute to those with the capacity for understanding the] absence of perceptual attribute, has two aspects. The first aspect is straightaway giving the absence of perceptual attribute and critiquing the existence of perceptual attribute. The second is from "Mahāmaudgalyāyana,

" and through the conclusion of

his criticism instructs Maudgalyāyana in how to give a Dharma talk devoid of perceptual attribute.

The thirty lines of the first part (sic), the actual criticism, are divided into two aspects. The first is the initial ten lines that make the critique through the emptiness of provisional designation. The second, the twenty lines from "the Dharma is without the properties of the self,

" make the criticism by giving

the emptiness of real dharmas. The first aspect, the critique via the emptiness 69

32c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

of provisional designation, has two parts. The first is the initial four lines that explain the emptiness of sentient beings. The second, the latter six lines, gives the proof by explaining the emptiness of the underlying principle. "The Dharma is without sentient beings" indicates that within the ultimate meaning there are no sentient beings to be found. "Because it is removed

from the defiled [notion] of sentient beings.

" How can you know that [the

Dharma] is without sentient beings? When you contemplate the nonexistence of sentient beings, tally this with the underlying principle of things and then you are able to eliminate the defilement of that which reckons sentient beings; therefore you can know that the [the Dharma] is without sentient beings. The following three examples are explained in the same way. Further, one interpretation takes this to mean that this refers to one who [falsely] reckons and refutes that which is reckoned. That which is reckoned is sentient beings; that which reckons is the deluded mind. "The Dharma is

without sentient beings" means that the Dharma that is devoid of perceptual attribute is without sentient beings that are reckoned to possess a soul. "Because it is removed from the defiled [notion] of sentient beings. "

"Removed" means "empty of.

" This means that the deluded mind that

[falsely] reckons is empty, let alone [the soul that is falsely] reckoned; hence it says that "[the Dharma] is without sentient beings. " "The Dharma is without

self because it is removed from the defiled [notion of] self" is also like this. One interpretation says that because the defilement that [falsely] reckons the self is empty, the one who does that [reckoning] is also empty. "The Dharma is without life span because it is removed from birth and death.

" Consciousness is continuous, without break—this is what is meant by "life span.

" The explanation is also as above. One interpretation says that "birth" is the beginning,

"death" is the end, and the "life span" is what happens in between. This shows that because both the beginning and end are empty, how could the life span in between not be empty? "The Dharma is without personhood because it is cut off from boundaries of front and back.

" "Front and back" refer to the two boundaries of birth and death; the explanation is as above. One interpretation says that the front boundary refers to the past and the back boundary refers to the future. Personhood is in the present; because the two boundaries of past and future are empty, how could the present personhood not be empty? 70

Chapter Three: The Disciples

From "The Dharma is forever quiescent" is the second aspect, giving the proof by explaining the emptiness of the underlying principle. This clarifies that the underlying principle is itself empty and thereby shows that sentient beings are empty.

"The Dharma is forever quiescent because it has extinguished all perceptual attributes" shows that the ultimate truth is just as it is. "The Dharma

is removed from perceptual attribute because it is without objective factor. "

Within the worldly truth, the mind is taken as the subjective factor and perceptual objects are taken as the objective factor. In ultimate truth, however, the subjective factor—the mind—is removed from perceptual attribute. This is because the objective factor—perceptual objects—are empty; therefore how could a subjective factor [arise]? One interpretation says that it should read,

"The Dharma is without objective factor because it is removed from perceptual attribute.

" Either way is fine. These two lines explain that mental functions are completely extinguished.

"The Dharma is without name or words because it eradicates language. "

Names are born from language. Because language is already eradicated, [the Dharma] is without name or words.

"The Dharma is without explanation because it is removed from supposition and analysis. " Explanations arise because of supposition and analysis; within the underlying principle there is no supposition or analysis, and so there are no explanations. These two lines clarify that the path of language is eradicated.

"The Dharma is without perceptual attributes of shape because it is like the empty sky.

" This concludes [the aforementioned] "mental functions are completely extinguished.

" This means that phenomenal attributes are born

of existence; because the underlying principle is one with the void there is no perceptual attribute of shape. It is one with emptiness and so what could be the perceptual object even if you wanted it? Therefore, we say that it concludes the above [statement] "mental functions are completely extinguished. "

"The Dharma is without frivolous arguments because it is ultimately empty.

" This concludes the [earlier statement that the] "path of language is eradicated.

" This means that frivolous arguments arise because of existence; because the underlying principle is ultimately empty, how could there be frivolous arguments? The underlying principle is ultimately empty, so even 71

33a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

if you wanted to speak, what could be said? Hence we say that this concludes the [earlier statement, the] "path of language is eradicated. "

From "the Dharma is without the properties of the self" is the second aspect of the actual criticism of [Maudgalyāyana] by giving [a teaching on] the absence of perceptual attribute. The critique by way of the emptiness of real dharmas has twenty lines that are divided into four parts. The first line generally clarifies the emptiness of real dharmas. The six lines from "The Dharma is without discrimination" clarify the emptiness of the six sense objects. The five lines from "The Dharma is immovable" show that the six sense consciousnesses are empty. The eight lines from "The Dharma is without beauty or ugliness" clarify the emptiness of the six sense organs. "The Dharma is without the properties of the self.

" The sense organs,

sense consciousnesses, and sense objects are all the "properties of the self, "

and therefore we say that none of them are to be attained within the ultimate meaning.

"Because it is removed from the properties of the self" is as explained above. One interpretation says that "removed" means empty. In the underlying principle, the sense organs, sense consciousnesses, and sense objects are entirely empty, therefore we know that they are "without the properties of the self. "

The second part, the six lines that separately teach the emptiness of the six sense objects, is divided into two parts. The first is the initial three lines that actually clarify the emptiness of the six sense objects; the second is the three lines from "The Dharma is the same as the Dharma-nature, " which

concludes that [the six sense objects] are devoid of perceptual attribute. "The Dharma is without discrimination because it is removed from any of the consciousnesses.

" Within the worldly truth the six sense objects are

discriminated, but within the ultimate meaning they are entirely empty. Because they are removed from the sense consciousnesses, there is no discrimination. One interpretation says that discrimination of the six sense objects is only the function of consciousness. Since the six sense consciousnesses that are the subjective factors are already shown to be empty, how could the six sense objects that are the objective factors not be empty? "The Dharma is without compare because it is without anything to which it can be related.

" "Comparison" arises because of relationship. Because the underlying principle is originally without relationship, it is "without compare. "

72

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"The Dharma is not within the causal realm because it is without condition. "

The causal realm arises due to conditions. Because conditions themselves are empty, [the Dharma] is not within the causal realm. From "The Dharma is the same as the Dharma-nature" is the second part, concluding that [the six sense objects] are devoid of perceptual attribute. "The

Dharma is the same as the Dharma-nature because it permeates all things" shows that the phenomena (dharmas) of the six sense objects are devoid of perceptual attribute in their essential nature; thus it says that the Dharma is the same as the Dharma-nature.

"Permeates all things" means that the ultimate truth permeates all things. If ultimate truth was different from all phenomena, then how could the things of the six sense objects be the same as ultimate truth? Ultimate truth pervades all things, and thus the phenomena of the six sense objects are also the same as the Dharma-nature. "The Dharma follows suchness because there is nothing to follow. " This

means that the phenomena of the six sense objects follow suchness. "Therefore, there is nothing to follow.

" Beings think that the essential nature of

suchness and phenomena are different, one following after the other; hence they say "follow.

" This shows that suchness and phenomena have the same one attribute that is devoid of attribute—there is neither following nor nonfollowing. Thus the phenomena of the six sense objects are able to follow suchness. If the essential nature of [suchness and phenomena] were different, how could we say that [the six sense objects] follow suchness? "The Dharma dwells at the apex of true reality because it is unmoved by peripheral extremes.

" "Dharma" means the six sense objects.

"Apex of

true reality" means the ultimate truth. This shows that the six sense objects are entirely empty, [and so the Dharma] is unable to be moved by the two extremes of existence and nonexistence. Thus it says, "dwells at the apex

of true reality.

" We could also say that, as above,

"Dharma" means ultimate

truth. Whereas above "things" were used to clarify ultimate truth, here ultimate truth is used to explain ultimate truth—the ultimacy of the underlying principle is just this. But if we look at the text this interpretation will naturally be discarded.

From "The Dharma is immovable" is the third aspect, clarifying the emptiness of the six sense consciousnesses. There are five lines divided into two parts; the first two lines explicitly describe the emptiness of the six sense 73

33b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

consciousnesses, and the three lines from "The Dharma conforms with emptiness" conclude that [sense consciousness] is devoid of perceptual attribute. "The Dharma is immovable because it is not dependent upon the six sense objects.

" This means that in the worldly truth the six sense consciousnesses chase around after the six sense organs, discriminating the six sense objects. In ultimate truth, however, the essential nature of consciousness is empty and not dependent upon the six sense objects; hence it is immovable. One interpretation says that the six sense objects are entirely empty; having already shown that the six sense objects that are the objective factors are empty, how could the six sense consciousnesses that are the subjective factors not be empty?

"The Dharma has no going or coming because it is non-abiding. " This

too means that in the worldly truth also the six sense consciousnesses come and go with the six sense organs, but within ultimate truth the six sense consciousnesses do not abide for even a single moment, and so it has "no coming or going.

"

"The Dharma conforms with emptiness, accords with the absence of perceptual attribute, and responds to the wishless. " These three lines, the

second aspect [of the emptiness of the six sense consciousnesses], conclude that they are devoid of perceptual attribute. This means that the six sense consciousnesses are no different than the three emptinesses. From "The Dharma is removed from beauty and ugliness" is the fourth aspect, illustrating the emptiness of the six sense organs. There are eight lines that are divided into two parts: the first is the initial four lines that actually describe the emptiness of the six sense organs, and the second is the following four lines that give the emptiness of the underlying principle as proof. "The Dharma is removed from beauty and ugliness. " Although in the

worldly truth the six sense organs distinguish between what is beautiful and what is ugly, in ultimate truth there can be no such distinction. "The Dharma

is without increase or decrease.

" In the worldly truth the six sense organs have growth and decline, but in the ultimate truth there is neither growth nor decline. "The Dharma is without birth or extinction.

" In the worldly truth the six sense

organs have birth in the beginning and extinction afterward, but ultimate truth is primordially without birth or extinction.

"The Dharma returns nowhere"

74

Chapter Three: The Disciples

means that in the worldly truth the six sense organs produce good and evil that necessarily will return [in the form of karmic retribution], but in the ultimate truth there is no producing goodness that will return to one [as birth among] humans or deities, nor is there the producing of evil that will return to one [as birth] in the three evil destinies. Therefore it says that "[the Dharma] returns nowhere.

" One interpretation might be that non-Buddhists reckon that the five elements give rise to the five sense organs and at death the five sense organs return to the five elements—but ultimate truth is utterly unlike this. The four lines from "The Dharma transcends eyes and ears" is the second part that gives the proof by [explaining] the emptiness of the underlying principle. This shows that the underlying principle is, in and of itself, already empty. How, then, could the six sense organs not be empty? "The Dharma transcends eyes, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.

" This means that the six

sense organs do not extend to the underlying principle. Some say that because emptiness transcends the various sense organs, it does not see them. "The

Dharma is without highs and lows, forever abiding, immovable. " "High"

means the Sage,

"low" refers to the worthy ones. This means that the ultimate underlying principle cannot be swayed by different kinds of knowledge. Some say that "high" refers to deities and "low" refers to human beings; in other words, the underlying principle is without highs and lows. "The Dharma

is removed from all contemplative practices.

" This also means that the various

contemplations do not reach to the ultimate underlying principle. Some say that from "The Dharma is without the properties of the self" up to "unmoved by peripheral extremes" gives the overall explanation of the three emptinessess (of sense objects, organs, and consciousnesses); from "The Dharma is immovable" up to "responds to the wishless" shows the emptiness of the six sense consciousnesses; from "The Dharma is removed from beauty and ugliness" up to "The Dharma returns nowhere" illustrates the emptiness of the six sense objects; and from "The Dharma transcends eyes and ears" up to "removed from all contemplative practices" clarifies the emptiness of the six sense organs. In any case, for the most part the meaning is the same and you may take it as you wish. From "Mahāmaudgalyāyana" is the second aspect within the criticism of his mistaken understanding of the absence of perceptual attribute that, 33c

75

34a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra through the conclusion of the criticism, instructs him in how to give a Dharma talk devoid of perceptual attribute.

"If the attributes of the Dharma are like this, how can it be taught?" This is the conclusion of the criticism. Because the underlying principle has already been shown to be [devoid of perceptual attribute] like this, why was it taught— thoughtlessly and in disregard for the spiritual capacity [of the audience]— as though the perceptual attributes exist?

From "To teach the Dharma" is the instruction in how to teach a Dharma talk that is devoid of perceptual attribute. This has two parts. The first gives the teaching of the Dharma and shows that neither the teacher nor the disciples exist. The second gives an example to show that neither the teacher nor the disciples exist. These can be understood.

From "You should know [the sharp and dull abilities of] sentient beings" is the second section within the specific criticism, the critique of [Maudgal yā yana's] mistaken teaching of the Hinayana to those with the spiritual capacity for the Mahayana. "You should know the sharp and dull abilities of sentient beings. " This

criticizes not knowing the nature of sentient beings' disease. "With unhindered

skillful insight.

" This criticizes his not knowing what medicine will remove [the disease]. These two lines show that [Maudgalyāyana] was not skilled in implementing "below, transform and nurture living beings. "

"With a mind of great compassion praise the Mahayana. " If the spiritual

capacity is great then you should teach the Mahayana. "You should remember

to repay the Buddha's kindness and never let the Three Jewels become extinct.

" This means that if you are able to teach in accordance with the capacity, then it is called the source of "remembering to repay the Buddha's kindness and never letting the Three Jewels become extinct. " If, however,

at odds with the capacity of the audience Maudgalyāyana teaches the Hinayana, then this is contrary to the Buddha's intention, and so how could it be called "remembering to repay the Buddha's kindness"? How can it cause the seed of the Three Jewels to live long? These two lines show that [Maudgalyāyana] was not skilled in "above, broaden the path of the Buddha. " "After

this you should preach the Dharma.

" This means that the Dharma should be

taught [as described by Vimalakīrti] above.

76

Chapter Three: The Disciples

From "[When] Vimalakīrti [gave this teaching]" is the third part of the explanation of [Maudgalyāyana's] refusal, illustrating the benefits obtained by the bystanders because of the criticism. From [Maudgalyāyana's] declining as unworthy,

"I am [not] eloquent like this,

" concludes the third part with

[Maudgalyāyana's] unworthiness.

The third disciple asked [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Kāśyapa. He was the foremost among the ten disciples in austerities (dhūtas). This also has both the [Buddha's] request [that Kāśyapa visit Vimalakīrti] and [Kāśyapa's] declining. As above, [Kāśyapa's] declining also has three aspects. The second aspect, the explanation of his declining, is further divided into three parts. The first gives the situation that led to his being criticized; the second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti,

" gives the actual criticism; the third, from "World-honored One, when I [heard him speak these words],

" describes how because of [Vimalakīrti's]

criticism Kāśyapa obtained that which he had never had before. The second part, actually giving the criticism, also has two items. The first is the actual criticism. The second, from "Kāśyapa, if you are able to eat like this,

" concludes the criticism. There are four mistakes for which Kāśyapa is criticized. The first is Kāśyapa's calculating in his mind that rich people, in the past, were afraid of committing offenses and cultivated virtue and that is why they had now attained wealth and pleasure. Poor people in the past did not cultivate virtue and so they now experience poverty and difficulty. [He further thought that] if in the present they did not cultivate goodness, then in the future they would again be poor. Therefore [he thought to help the impoverished, saying to himself that] he would now only beg food from the homes of poor people. Vimalakīrti criticized [Kāśyapa's] kindness and compassion as not even-minded, saying that poverty and wealth are not permanent conditions, which is all the more reason that he should instruct all impartially, with no distinctions.

The second error is [Kāśyapa's] reckoning only the inferior karmic rewards of [rebirth among] humans and deities as benefiting the donors and not considering the fruits of buddhahood. Therefore, Vimalakīrti further criticizes the shortsightedness of his concern. The third error [for which Kāśyapa is criticized] is his fearful calculation that the dust and allure of prosperous towns will give rise to mental attachment; 77

34b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

[thus, he thinks that] he should abandon wealthy villages and [beg alms] only from impoverished villages. Vimalakīrti's criticism says that if you understand that the objects of the six senses are empty and beauty and ugliness do not exist, why would you run away from the objects of the six senses? If you believe that the objects of the six senses should be avoided, then one will never be apart from them all day long. However, Kāśyapa isn't the only one who thought like this. The non-Buddhist Laozi also wrote, "The five

colors make people blind; the five sounds make people deaf; the five tastes confuse people's palate; hard-to-get goods hobble people's behavior. "

[Kāśyapa's] fourth mistake [was to think that] "I possess the merits of both knowing and eradication [of entanglements], and thus have the merit of the field of excellence. Those who make offerings to me truly will receive great benefit and so I truly should seek alms from them. " But Vimalakīrti

scolded him, saying that if he is able to do away with true and false and not believe in noble and inferior, then that truly can be called the merit of the field of excellence. But [Kāśyapa] believes in noble and inferior. It is discrimination to elevate yourself and dislike people—how can that be called a field of excellence? If a field of excellence is established by means of discrimination, because everybody has a mind of discrimination all would possess the merit of a field of excellence, not just Kāśyapa. [Kāśyapa] was criticized for these four mistakes. Naturally, there are four parts to the actual criticism. The first is from the beginning up to "[and in this way] go about begging food in an orderly fashion, " and criticizes the

error of partiality in kindness and compassion. The second is from "Because there is no eating,

" and criticizes the error of [Kāśyapa's] shortsighted concern. The third is from "By considering the village to be empty, " and criticizes the

error of [Kāśyapa's] inability to eliminate [his reified understanding of] the objects of the six senses. The fourth is from "Kāśyapa, if without discarding the eight fallacies,

" and criticizes the error of [Kāśyapa's] calculations about the merit of a field of excellence.

"Mahākāśyapa, you have the mind of kindness and compassion but you are not impartial—you avoid the rich and powerful and beg alms from the poor.

" These two lines are the actual criticism of his mistake of not being impartial in his kindness and compassion.

78

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"Kāśyapa, you should dwell in the equality of the Dharma and beg alms in an orderly fashion.

" This is [Vimalakīrti's] instruction.

From "Because there is no eating" is the second, the criticism of the error of [Kāśyapa's] shortsighted concern.

"Because there is no eating you should

go about begging food in an orderly fashion.

" This is to say that [Kāśyapa]

should go about seeking alms in order to lead the almsgiver to attain the reward of nirvana, a state in which there is no eating. But Kāśyapa reckons only to wish for the almsgivers to attain the fruits of the [realms of] humans and deities that experience eating—this is not [the proper attitude]. This line illustrates the intention that should be established when first starting out to seek alms. "You should take the morsels of food in order to destroy the perceptual attributes of the compounded.

" One should take the morsels of food in order

to lead the almsgivers to destroy the samsaric body that is compounded of the five skandhas and attain the Dharma body that is devoid of perceptual attribute. But [Kāśyapa] plans to have them attain the body of humans and deities that is made up of the five skandhas—this is not [the proper goal]. This line shows the attitude to have when actually receiving food. "Because there is no receiving you should receive that food. " This means

that [Kāśyapa] should receive the food because he wishes the almsgiver to attain the Dharma body that receives nothing. But Kāśyapa thinks to enable them to receive the pleasures of the five desires of humans and deities—this is not [the proper goal]. This shows the attitude to have when eating. From "By considering the village to be empty" is the third criticism, the criticism of [Kāśyapa's] inability to eliminate the objects of the six senses. This also has three parts. The first is the general criticism. The second, from "the forms that you see,

" is the specific criticism of each of the six sense objects. The third, from "without self-nature,

" explains the emptiness of the

underlying principle and corroborates the above two lines that give the general and specific criticisms.

"By considering the village to be empty you should enter the village. "

This is to say that if you are able to see the village as empty, then how could a beautiful object give rise to delusion? One interpretation says that if you see that the objects of the six senses are empty, just like an empty village with no people, then how could delusions arise?

79

34c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

From "The forms that you see" is the second part, the specific criticism of each of the six sense objects.

"The forms that you see should be as seen

by a blind person.

" This means that the "forms that you see" are empty, the same as [those seen by] a blind person—how, then, could "forms" give rise to attachment? "The sounds that you hear should be heard as an echo. "

Although the sound of an echo can be either pleasing or distasteful, the person who knows that the sound is not real neither likes nor dislikes it. If you see that auditory objects are empty and the same as echoes, then how could auditory objects give rise to delusion? One interpretation says that this is making an analogy because echoes arise from sounds but there is no delusion within the sound.

"The aromas that you smell should be as the wind.

" Although we smell

aromas in the air, the air does not differentiate likes and dislikes. If we can see that the odors are empty and the same as the wind, then how can they give rise to delusion? One interpretation says that although [we say that] odorless air makes contact with the nose, no sense consciousness is aroused. The lack of a cause that would give rise to delusion is also like this. "Not discriminating the flavors that you taste.

" If you see that flavors

are empty and do not discriminate them, how could flavors give rise to attachment? "Experience touch as the realization of knowing. " If you see that [the

objects of] touch are empty in the way that the knowledge of non-arising realizes the many dharmas, then, again, how could they possibly give rise to attachment? "Know that dharmas are like an illusion. " This refers to the

objects of the mind, which is to say that if you see that the myriad dharmas are empty, how then could they give rise to attachment? From "Without self-nature" is the third part of the criticism of [Kāśyapa's] inability to destroy the objects of the six senses. This explains the realization of the emptiness of the underlying principle, and brings together the general and specific criticisms given above.

"Without self-nature" means without the five skandhas of one's own; "without other-nature" means without the five skandhas of the other. One interpretation says that "without self-nature" means that the six sense objects belonging to oneself are entirely empty, and "without other-nature" means that the six sense objects of others are also nonexistent. 80

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"Originally never burning and so now without extinguishing. " If the

Dharma was originally born, then in the end it would be extinguished. But because it is originally without birth, so too it is without extinguishing. This clarifies that beginnings and endings are both empty.

One interpretation says that "Originally never burning and so now without extinguishing" explains how the six sense objects of self and other are empty— if the Dharma has no beginning or end and all things are empty, how could the six sense objects of self or other be real?

From "Kāśyapa, without discarding the eight wrongs" is the fourth of the specific [errors for which Kāśyapa] was criticized, the criticism of [his thinking] that he had the virtues of a field of excellence. This has two parts: the first is criticizing him for thinking that he has the essential nature of a field of merit; the second, from "this almsgiver,

" criticizes him for thinking that he functions

as a field of merit. There are two aspects to the first critique of his thinking that he has the essential nature of a field of merit: the first criticizes his thinking that he is a field of knowing; the second, from "One who eats like this, " criticizes

his thinking that he is a field of eradication [of entanglements]. "Without discarding the eight wrongs enter into the eight liberations. "

This says that to see the eight wrongs as empty and that there is nothing to be discarded within emptiness, whereby enter the eight liberations—this is called correct practice. But Kāśyapa believes that one must discard the eight wrongs and strive to cultivate the eight correct [practices]—this is discrimination, and so how can he attain correct practice? This line criticizes [Kāśyapa's] achievement of correct practice. One interpretation says that if you are able to be one with the eight wrongs while yet not being other than the eight liberations, this is not the same as the one-sided approach of śrāvakas and ordinary people, and so can be called correct practice. The eight wrongs are: (1) wrong view, (2) wrong thought, (3) wrong speech, (4) wrong action, (5) wrong livelihood, (6) wrong mindfulness, (7) wrong effort, and 8) wrong concentration. There are three schemas of the eight liberations: (1) the eight meditative concentrations, (2) the [eight emancipations] described in the various texts related to such [emancipations] as [that achieved] when there is no subjective desire, etc., and (3) the eightfold correct path. Here I take the eightfold correct path as the eight liberations.

81

35a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

"Enter the true Dharma by means of false attributes.

" Being able to see

that false objects are empty and that nothing needs to be abandoned and thereby entering the true Dharma—this can truly be called seeing the true object. But if Kāśyapa believes that he can discriminate false and true [objects], how can he see the true object? This line criticizes his [inability to] see the true object.

"If you are able to give to all with one meal, making offerings to the many buddhas and myriad holy sages, then after that you may eat. " If you

are able to see the ordinary and the sage as equally extinguished in the one emptiness, then when you give a single meal it is an offering to all, since emptiness is nondual. One who is able to put an end [to discrimination] in this way is justly called a person [whose understanding] is correct. But Kāśyapa denigrates the ordinary and elevates the holy and thinks himself to be a field of merit—this is attachment to phenomenal attributes, and so how can he be a person [whose understanding] is correct? One interpretation says that somebody like Vimalakīrti, who is able to distribute a single meal to all without end, should be called a person [whose understanding] is correct. Kāśyapa is not able to do this, and so how can he be called a person [whose understanding] is correct? This line criticizes his thinking that he is a person [whose understanding] is correct.

From "Eat like this" is the criticism of the second aspect of Kāśyapa's thinking that he possesses the essential nature of a field of merit, the criticism of [his thinking that he] is a field of eradication [of entanglements]. "Eating

in this way, with neither mental affliction nor removed from mental affliction. "

This means that within the underlying principle you cannot distinguish eradicating [affliction] and not eradicating [affliction]. One who is able to put an end to both eradicating and not eradicating can be said to possess the essential nature of a field of eradication. But Kāśyapa thinks that he can distinguish eradicating and not eradicating—how can he be said to possess the essential nature of a field of eradication? One interpretation says if you are able to give like this to all with a single meal, then it is the meal of a great being of the middle path. It is neither the offering of an ordinary person with mental afflictions, nor is it the meal offering of [disciples] of the two vehicles [who seek to] abandon mental affliction.

82

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"Neither entering into a state of concentration nor arising from a state of concentration.

" "Entering a state of concentration" refers to knowing, and "arising from a state of concentration" refers to stupidity. Within the underlying principle there are no distinctions. One interpretation says that "not entering a state of concentration" means that the great being is continually in a state of concentration and yet at the same time is able to be one with mental distractions. "Not arising from a state of concentration" means that [great beings] are able to appear the same as [a person] with mental distractions, without contradicting their serenity.

"Neither dwelling in the world nor dwelling in nirvana. " This means

that the ultimate truth is just so. One who is able to put an end to thinking in terms of "worthy" and "unworthy" in this way can be said to possess the essential nature of a field of eradication—but not Kāśyapa. How can he be said to possess the essential nature of a field of eradication? This line criticizes him for his reckoning that he possessed the essential nature of a field of eradication. One interpretation says that ordinary people desire to live in the world but [disciples] of the two vehicles wish to leave the world. Great beings, however, hold the salvation of living beings in their minds, and so it is not the same as the śrāvakas who seek to leave the world. At the same time, [great beings] do not forget buddhahood, and so they are not the same as ordinary people who wish to live in the world.

From "This almsgiver" is the second aspect, the critique of [Kāśyapa's thinking] that he possessed the function of a field of merit. "This almsgiver

has neither great merit nor small merit.

" This means that within ultimate truth

there is no obtaining great merit for giving to a sage or small merit for giving to an ordinary person. The one who in this way can put an end to [discrimination] can be said to possess the function of a field of merit. But Kāśyapa cannot do this, so how can he possess the function of a field of merit? This line explains [Kāśyapa's] lack of functioning as [a field of merit] based on [his misunderstanding] about the first step [of the practice of giving (dāna)]. "Neither for profit nor loss.

" This means that it is not the case that in

ultimate truth you give to a sage and later attain merit, or you give to an ordinary person and later suffer loss. One who in this way is able to put an end [to discrimination] can truly be said to possess the function of a field of merit. 83

35b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

But Kāśyapa discriminates and thinks about profit and loss—how can he possess the function of a field of merit? This line explains [Kāśyapa's] lack of functioning [as a field of merit] based [on his misunderstanding] of the final outcome [of the process of giving].

"This is the correct way to enter the

buddha way, not relying on the [way of] the śrāvaka.

" This is to say that, as

above, one should not think [in a discriminating fashion as does the śrāvaka]. "Kāśyapa, if you can eat like this, then the food given to you by others will not be eaten in vain.

" This is the second item of the actual criticism, the conclusion of the criticism. From "World-honored One, when I [heard him speak these words]" is the third part within the explanation of why [Kāśyapa] declined [the Buddha's request to visit Vimalakīrti], and describes how, because of [Vimalakīrti's] criticism, Kāśyapa obtained an unprecedented [teaching]. Within this there are five levels. The first is the praise of the unprecedented Dharma obtained [by Kāśyapa]; the second, from "[I aroused a deep respect] for all bodhisattvas,

" praises the people [now revered by

Kāśyapa] whom previously he had not [held in high esteem]; the third, from "Again, I had the thought that. . . ,

" praises the unprecedented virtue [of

Vimalakīrti]; the fourth, from "Who [could listen] to this and not arouse [the aspiration to seek highest awakening],

" is the arousal of the unprecedented

aspiration; the fifth, starting with "from that point onward I [will never exhort anybody to take up the practices of the śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha"], is [Kāśyapa's] establishment of an unprecedented resolve. These can all be understood. From "Because of this" is the third level of [Kāśyapa's] declining, the conclusion that he is unworthy.

The fourth [disciple asked to visit Vimalakīrti] was Subhūti, foremost among the [Buddha's] ten disciples in his understanding of emptiness. Within this section there is again the request and the declining. As above, there are three aspects to the declining. The second, the explanation of the declining, also has three parts. The first describes the situation that led to Vimalakīrti's criticism of Subhūti; the second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti [took my almsbowl],

" is the actual clarification [of Subhūti] incurring the criticism; the third, from "When [Vimalakīrti] expounded this Dharma, " describes the

benefits attained by the audience at that time because of [Vimalakīrti's] criticism [of Subhūti]. 84

Chapter Three: The Disciples

The second part, the actual clarification [of Subhūti] incurring the criticism, also has four items. The first states the situation that led to his being criticized; the second, from "Ah, Subhūti,

" is the actual criticism; the third,

from "At that time, World-honored One, when I [heard these words], " explains

how [Subhūti] felt because of [Vimalakīrti's] criticism; the fourth, from "Vimalakīrti said, ['Ah, Subhūti'],

" is Vimalakīrti's encouragement in response

[to Subhūti's doubts].

"[Vimalakīrti] took my almsbowl and filled it entirely with food. " This

shows that he was not stingy. [Vimalakīrti] was concerned that if he did not give [Subhūti enough food] he would leave and not hear the entire lecture. Again, there are four mistakes for which Subhūti was criticized. The first is for reckoning that poor people disliked their poverty and regretted their lack of giving in the past, and that if he approached them and acted as an example they would not be stingy. Thus, although they are poor in this world, in the future they would surely be wealthy.

Wealthy people trust their wealth and happiness and are not afraid of not giving alms. Because they themselves are free of difficulties, they are unaware of others' needs. For this reason, although they are wealthy in this world, in the future world they will surely be poor. And it is for this reason [that Subhūti thought that] he should only beg alms from the wealthy. Vimalakīrti criticized him, telling him that regardless of whether one is rich or poor, one benefits because of the teachings. Because Subhūti abandons the poor, his kindness and compassion is not impartial.

The second [mistake for which Subhūti was criticized] was for reckoning that his understanding of emptiness was the best. Even though he went into prosperous villages he was not afraid that he would become attached to material objects, and he therefore thought that he should only preach in such villages. Vimalakīrti's criticism was that within the ultimate meaning there is neither understanding nor non-understanding [of emptiness], but Subhūti thinks that he understands—how, then, can his understanding of emptiness be foremost? The third [mistake for which Subhūti was criticized] was for reckoning that because he had avoided non-Buddhist paths and followed the Buddha's teachings, he should be considered one of true learning. Vimalakīrti criticized him, saying that within the ultimate meaning there is no difference between 85

35c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

true and false, and that only one who has this understanding can be said to have true learning. But Subhūti believed in true and false, constituting [the duality] of right and wrong—how could he be said to be one of "true learning"? The fourth [mistake for which Subhūti was criticized] was for reckoning that because he had perfected both the virtues of knowing and the eradication [of entanglements], he surely possessed the virtue of a field of excellence. For this reason, he thought that it was up to him to beg alms and thereby bring benefit to the almsgiver. Vimalakīrti's criticism was that the ultimate meaning is primordially free of knowing and the eradication of entanglements, and only a person with that kind of understanding can be said to possess the virtues of a field of excellence. But Subhūti believed in the accomplishment and non-accomplishment of knowing and the eradication [of entanglements]— how could he be said to possess the essential nature of a field of excellence? It was for these four errors that Subhūti was criticized. As for the second aspect, the actual criticism, it too has four parts. The first is the criticism of his biased mind. The second, from "If, Subhūti, you do not put an end to desire, anger, and ignorance,

" criticizes him for thinking

that his understanding of emptiness is the greatest. The third, from "If, Subhūti, you do not see the Buddha,

" criticizes his running away from the false and

clinging to the true. The fourth, from "If, Subhūti, you can adhere to false views,

" criticizes him for thinking that he possesses the virtue of a field of excellence.

The first part, the criticism of his biased mind, has two aspects. The first is the actual criticism and the second is the conclusion of the criticism. "Ah,

Subhūti, if you are able to be equal about [all] food, then the myriad dharmas will also be equal.

" This means that for the person who is able [to understand that] within existence [all] the food that one receives from almsbegging is equal, then [one will be able to see that] the myriad dharmas are empty and likewise equal and without differentiation. This line gives the branch in order to reveal the root.

"If [one understands that] the myriad dharmas are equal, then [all] food will also be equal.

" This means that if one can understand

that the myriad dharmas are empty, equal, and without differentiation, then the many conditioned things within existence will also be seen as equal. This line gives the root in order to reveal the branch.

86

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"If you can go about and beg [alms] in this way, then you can take the food.

" This is the second aspect, the conclusion [of the criticism of Subhūti's biased mind]. It means that one who is able to see the root and the branch as equal is able to take almsfood.

The second part, the criticism of [Subhūti's thinking] that he is foremost in understanding emptiness, is further divided into three parts. The first criticizes [Subhūti] for being unable to put an end to [the dualism of] right and wrong. The second, from "neither free nor bound,

" criticizes him for not being able

to put an end to [the dualism of] knowledge and stupidity. The third, from "If you can master all dharmas,

" is the conclusion of the prior two parts.

The first part, the criticism of his inability to put an end to [the dualism of] right and wrong, is made up of four lines.

"If, Subhūti, you do not eradicate

desire, anger, and ignorance, do not associate with them either. " In the ultimate

meaning, the three poisons are entirely empty; because there is nothing that can be ended, it says "do not put an end to.

" This is "wrong.

" But if the three

poisons are entirely empty, what could the practitioner "associate with"? Hence it says "not associate with them either.

" This is "right.

" The next three

lines are the same.

But Subhūti believes that he has eradicated the three poisons and is no longer associated with them—how can he be called foremost in his understanding of emptiness? One interpretation says that [this means] that the śrāvakaputs an end [to the three poisons] and so is not associated with them. Ordinary people do not put an end [to the three poisons] and therefore are associated with them. The great beings thoroughly penetrate the impartiality of emptiness, and so they are not the same as the śrāvakawho puts an end [to the three poisons] and is not associated with them. They are also not the same as ordinary people who do not put an end [to the three poisons] and so are associated with them. One who is able to be like this can be called foremost in their understanding of emptiness. The following lines are the same. One interpretation takes this to mean that if you are able to see that the three poisons are empty and lacking anything that can be cut off, then this understanding is one with the underlying principle and the three poisons are ended of themselves—with what, then, could the practitioner associate? "Without destroying this body, nonetheless accord with the one attribute. "

If you argue that the underlying principle is empty then there is no need to 87

36a

36b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

wait until the body is destroyed to pursue emptiness—this body right now is itself empty. The person who understands this can be called foremost in the understanding of emptiness. But Subhūti reckons that after the body is destroyed one will be in accord with the one attribute—how can he be called foremost in the understanding of emptiness?

"Without extinguishing ignorance and attachment, giving rise to illumination and liberation. " Understanding that ignorance and attachment are

themselves empty and there is nothing that can be destroyed—this is itself illumination and liberation. But Subhūti believes that he has already destroyed ignorance and attachment and obtained liberation—how can he be called foremost in the understanding of emptiness? This line shows that he is not able to do away with entanglements.

"Using the attributes of the five heinous

offenses to obtain liberation" is interpreted in the same way. From "neither liberated nor bound" is the second part [of the criticism of Subhūti's thinking that he is foremost in understanding emptiness] and criticizes him for not being able to put an end to [the dualism of] knowledge and stupidity. This has five lines. In "Neither liberated nor bound, " "liberated"

refers to knowing; "bound" refers to stupidity. In ultimate truth, however, no distinctions are possible.

"Neither seeing the four truths nor not seeing those truths. " Seeing the

[four] truths is to know; not seeing them is stupidity. In the ultimate meaning, however, there are no distinctions. If there is "no attaining the fruits" there of course must also be "no non-attaining the fruits, " but this is simply missing

in the text. This shows that in the ultimate meaning there is neither the attaining of the fruits by [followers of] the two vehicles because of their seeing the four truths, nor is there the non-obtaining of the fruits by ordinary people who do not see [the four truths].

"Lacking the nature of ordinary people.

" The nature of ordinary people

is defiled—it is not the nature of ordinary people to be undefiled. Of course, it should also say "not removed from the nature of ordinary people, " but

this too is missing in the text. In the ultimate truth, however, there are no distinctions.

"Neither a sage nor not a sage.

" This is to say that ultimate truth is

literally just as it is, and the one who, as taught above, can put an end to the opposition of knowledge and stupidity is the one who can be called foremost 88

Chapter Three: The Disciples

in the understanding of emptiness. Subhūti, however, is not able to let things be as they are, and so how can he be called foremost in the understanding of emptiness? "If you can master all dharmas yet be removed from the perceptual attributes of all dharmas, then you can take the food" is the third part, the conclusion of the prior two levels. This means that if you can master all of the virtuous dharmas and yet put an end to the opposition of right and wrong as well as of knowledge and stupidity, then you can take the food [offered to you while almsbegging].

From "If, Subhūti, [you do not see the Buddha]" is the third criticism, [the criticism of Subhūti's belief that because] he has avoided the false and followed the true [he should be considered one who has followed the true path]. This has two parts: the first criticizes his belief that he has followed the true [path]; the second, from "the non-Buddhist path, " criticizes his avoiding the false [paths].

"If, Subhūti, you do not see the Buddha and do not hear the Dharma" means that within the ultimate meaning there is no buddha to be seen and there is no Dharma that can be heard. To [see and hear] like this is to really follow the true [path]. But Subhūti believed in seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma—how can this be the true [path]? One interpretation says that this means that it is precisely because Subhūti is not able to be like this and put an end [to duality] that he also does not see the Buddha or hear the Dharma. From "The six teachers of the non-Buddhist paths" is the second criticism of [Subhūti's] avoiding the false.

"Pūraṇa Kāśyapa" has the first name of

Pūraṇa and the family name of Kāśyapa. His non-Buddhist path was the belief in false views.

"Maskarin Gośālīputra" has the first name of Maskarin and his mother's name of Gośālī. His non-Buddhist path was to believe in fatalism.

"Sañjaya Vairaṭīputra" has the first name of Sañjaya and his mother's name of Vairaṭī. His non-Buddhist path was extreme skepticism. "Ajita

Keśakambala" has the first name of Ajita and the name "Keśakambala" because of the coarse [hair-fiber clothing that he wore]. His non-Buddhist path was to burn the body with the five fires.

"Kakuda Katyāyana" has the

first name of Kakuda and the family name of Katyāyana. His non-Buddhist practice was to hold the two views of annihilation and eternalism. In [the name] "Nirgrantha Jñātiputra" "Nirgrantha" is the common name for renunciants on non-Buddhist paths and has a meaning similar to that of the Buddhist 89

36c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

śramaṇa.

"Jñāti" is his mother's name. His non-Buddhist practice was the same as those [ascetics] who believed in plucking out one's hair. "Take these as your teachers and under them leave home" means that in the ultimate meaning there is no difference between false and true. Subhūti believes that his teacher is the Buddha, but if [the teachings of the] Buddha and those of the non-Buddhist paths are equally empty, then there is but one nature, not two. Therefore, those on non-Buddhist paths should also be his teachers. Because emptiness is nondual, if those on non-Buddhist paths are not his teachers, then neither is the Buddha his teacher. One interpretation says that in the ultimate meaning there is essentially no difference between the Tathāgata and those on non-Buddhist paths, and one who can understand this can truly be said to be the Buddha's disciple. Because Subhūti has left home under the Buddha, he believes that the Buddha is different from those on non-Buddhist paths—this is the false view of grasping at perceptual attributes. Therefore it says to take the six non-Buddhist paths "as your teachers and under them leave home.

" This is a criticism based on the beginning [of Subhūti's spiritual path].

"Follow those [non-Buddhist] teachers and fall

[into the same mistakes] as they have fallen into, " because emptiness is nondual. One interpretation says that it is precisely because Subhūti believes in falling and not falling [into error] that he has false views. Hence if non-Buddhists fall [into error], he too falls. This is a criticism based on the end [of Subhūti's spiritual path].

"Then you may take the food.

" If [Subhūti] is

able to follow what he has been taught above then he may take the almsfood [that is offered to him].

From "If, Subhūti [you can enter into the erroneous views]" is the fourth of the actual critiques, the criticism of Subhūti's belief that he has the virtue of a field of excellence; this has four parts. The first criticizes Subhūti's belief that he possesses the essential nature of a field of excellence. The second, from "If those who give you alms,

" criticizes Subhūti's belief that he possesses

the function of a field of merit. The third, from "If you join hands with the legions of Māra,

" concludes the first [criticism that Subhūti] is lacking the essential nature of a field of merit. The fourth, from "[If you can have a hostile mind] to all sentient beings,

" concludes [the second criticism that

Subhūti] is lacking the function of a field a merit. 90

Chapter Three: The Disciples

The first, the criticism of Subhūti's belief that he possesses the essential nature of a field of merit, has four lines divided into two parts. The first two lines show that he is not a field of eradication [of entanglements]; the latter two lines show that he is not a field of knowing.

"[If,] Subhūti, you can enter into the many false views and not reach the other shore [of enlightenment].

" "Enter into" means to understand. If he can

understand that the false views are empty and without anything to be abandoned, and that the other shore is empty and without any place to be reached, he can truly be said to possess the essential nature of a field of eradication. But Subhūti believes that false views should be abandoned and that nirvana within this world should be reached. This is the discriminating [mind] that grasps at perceptual attributes, still carrying the seeds of bondage. How can he have attained the essential nature of a field of eradication? One interpretation says that within the ultimate meaning there is no difference between false views and the other shore [of enlightenment], but Subhūti reckons that he has already abandoned false views and arrived at the other shore. [He also believes that] ordinary people enter into false views and so do not reach the other shore. In other words, this is a discriminating [mind] attached to perceptual attributes, all the more entering into false views and not reaching the other shore. My interpretation is that within emptiness there is no discrimination; if you wish to reach the other shore you should not abandon the many views. Thus it says "enter into false views. " If you

wish to abandon the many views, you will certainly not reach the other shore. Hence it says,

"not reach the other shore.

" Because emptiness is nondual, if

you are going to enter [into views] you should enter into all [views], and if you are going to abandon [views] you should abandon all [views]. The following lines are all the same as this. "If you can dwell within the eight difficult conditions [of birth] and not attain freedom from difficulty.

" To "dwell" means not to abandon.

"Freedom

from difficulty" refers to the fruits [of nirvana] without remainder. The two schools are all in agreement with this interpretation. If you understand that the eight difficult conditions are empty and lack that which can be abandoned, and that freedom from difficulty is not something to be attained, then this is truly a field of eradication. But Subhūti believes that the eight difficult 91

37a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

conditions can be abandoned and freedom from difficulty can be realized— this is attachment to perceptual attributes, still carrying the fruits of bondage. How can he be a field of eradication [of entanglements]? One interpretation says that Subhūti believes that ordinary people dwell within the eight difficult conditions [of birth] but that he himself has realized freedom from difficulty—a serious false view. Hence this is all the more reason that he dwells within the eight difficult conditions and cannot attain freedom from difficulty. These two lines show that he does not possess the function of a field of eradication. "If you are one with the mental afflictions and abandon the truth of purity.

" "One with" means "to not be in opposition.

" "Abandon" is "not to

be attached.

" The text is interpreted as above. One school of thought agrees with this interpretation.

"If you attain the samādhiof no-strife and all sentient beings also attain it.

" This also is because emptiness is non dual. These two lines show that he is not a field of knowing.

From "those who give you alms" is the second aspect, criticizing Su bhūti's belief that he possesses the function of a field of merit. "If you are

not called a field of merit by those who give you alms. " This is also because

emptiness is nondual. One interpretation says that if you describe the ultimate underlying principle, it has a single attribute that is without distinction; it is precisely because Subhūti believes that some are fields of merit and some are not fields of merit that he has false views. Therefore, those who give him alms are not said to be giving alms to a field of merit. This line is criticism based on the function [of a field of merit] at the outset [of the practice of giving]. "If those who make offerings to you thereby fall into the three evil pathways" is again because emptiness has no differentiation. One interpretation says that it is precisely because Subhūti believes in discrimination that he himself has false views, and therefore those who make offerings to him will surely fall into the three evil destinies. This line is criticism based on the function [of a field of merit] as the outcome [of the practice of giving]. From "[If you join hands] with the legions of Māra" is the third part, concluding [the first part of the fourth actual criticism, that Subhūti] lacks the essential nature of a field of merit.

"If you join hands with the legions of

Māra and make the various defilements your companions. " Subhūti reckons

that Māra is endowed with both entanglements and karma, and therefore is 92

Chapter Three: The Disciples

not a field of eradication. However, he thinks that he himself has successfully eradicated [entanglements and karma], and so he is possessed of the essential nature of a field of eradication. Within the underlying principle, however, emptiness is nondual and thus there is also no distinction between Subhūti and Māra. This line concludes the above [critique that Subhūti] does not possess the essential nature of a field of eradication. One school agrees with this. "If you can be equal to and no different from the legions of Māra, the many troubles and afflictions of the world, [. . . then you can accept the food]. "

Subhūti believes that he possesses pure knowing but again, because emptiness is nondual, they are equal and without distinction. One school also agrees with this. This line concludes the above [critique that Subhūti] does not possess the essential nature of a field of knowing. From "[If you can have a hostile mind] toward all sentient beings" is the fourth part, concluding the above second [criticism that Subhūti] lacks the function of a field a merit, [which is itself the fourth aspect of the actual criticism of Subhūti].

"If you can have a hostile mind toward all sentient beings, [. . . then you can accept the food].

" Subhūti reckons that those on

non-Buddhist paths are of no benefit to almsgivers and therefore they have a hostile mind toward all sentient beings. Because emptiness is also nondual, however, he is the same as those on non-Buddhist paths. One school is also in agreement with this.

"Slandering the buddhas, defaming the Dharma, not numbered among those in the assembly, and in the end not attaining ultimate nirvana. " This

again means that it is because emptiness is nondual. However, "in the end

not attaining ultimate nirvana" says simply that in the end he does not enable the almsgiver to attain ultimate nirvana. One interpretation says that it is Subhūti who in the end does not attain ultimate nirvana. The interpretation of the text is as above.

"If you are able to do this, then you can accept the [alms]food.

" This is as was explained above.

From "At that time, World-honored One, I [heard these words]" is the third aspect of the actual clarification of the criticism, showing how [Su bhūti] felt when he heard Vimalakīrti's criticism. From "Vimalakīrti said to me" is the fourth aspect, Vimalakīrti's encouragement in response [to Subhūti's doubts]. This also has four parts. The first is the actual encouragement, "Subhūti, take your [alsm]bowl without being afraid. " The second, from

93

37b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra "What is the meaning of this?"

, uses a metaphor to question Subhūti. The third part is Subhūti's response,

"'No,

' I said.

" The fourth is from "Vimalakīrti

[said,

'All phenomena'],

" and is Vimalakīrti's further encouragement, bringing together [the previous metaphor and an explanation of all phenomena]. This has three aspects. The first is the direct encouragement to not be afraid. The second explains this encouragement, and the third, from "Why is this?"

, is further explanation. What is the reason for saying that you should not be afraid of something like a magical apparition? "Not different from these perceptual attributes" means "apparitional attributes. " Knowledgable

ones are not attached to words and letters, thus there is nothing to which to be attached; therefore it says that Subhūti should not be afraid. The third aspect is further explanation of why one should not be attached to words and letters.

"The nature of words and letters is separate [from their perceptual attributes]—words and letters do not exist. " This means that the nature of

words and letters is empty and so there is no attachment; they do not exist and so there is no attachment.

"This is liberation" means that it is liberation because both linguistic designations and essential natures are empty and unfettered. One interpretation says that emptiness is the condition of liberation, and so emptiness is what is called liberation. From "[When] Vimalakīrti [gave this teaching]" is the third part of the explanation of [Subhūti's] declining [to visit Vimalakīrti], describing the benefits obtained by the multitudes [of heavenly beings] when Subhūti was criticized.

"Therefore, I am not worthy of visiting him and inquiring after his illness" is the third part of [Subhūti's] declining as unworthy, the conclusion that he is not worthy.

The fifth [disciple] asked [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Pūrṇa [Maitrāyani putra]. Maitrāyani was his mother's name. He was foremost among the ten disciples in expounding the Dharma. This also has [the two main parts of] the Buddha's request and [Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra] declining. The three parts of the declining are also as above. The second part, the explanation of why Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra declined [to visit Vimalakīrti], also has four aspects. The first gives the situation leading to the criticism; the second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti,

" is the actual criticism. The third, from "At that time Vimalakīrti entered into samādhi,

" describes Vimalakīrti entering into a state 94

Chapter Three: The Disciples

of concentration and enabling the bhikṣus to know their former lives. The fourth, from "I thought that a śrāvaka[who cannot see people's capacity], "

describes how Vimalakīrti's criticism caused Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra to arouse an unprecedented resolve. The reason that Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra was criticized was for not ascertaining the ability and nature of those he was teaching—he expounded the Hinayana to them even though they possessed the spiritual capacity of the Mahayana. Therefore, he was criticized by Vimalakīrti. The second aspect, the actual criticism, has two items: the first is Vimalakīrti's instruction regarding what to do before teaching; the second, from "Do not put rotten food [into precious vessels],

" is the actual criticism.

"First

you should enter into concentration and contemplate the minds of the people, and only after that should you expound the Dharma.

" This means that in

order to expound the Dharma for people, you must [enter a state of concentration and contemplation] just like this. The second item, the actual criticism, has four sections. The first criticizes Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra for not knowing the abilities and natures [of beings] of the three worlds. The second, from "If you wish to travel the Great Way,

" criticizes the difference between his

teaching and the spiritual capacity [of the audience]. The third, from "Pūrṇa, these bhikṣus [aroused the mind of the Maha yana long ago], " concludes the

second section, the difference between his teaching and the spiritual capacity [of the audience]. The fourth, from "I discern the discerning awareness of the Hinayana [to be insignificant and shallow],

" concludes the first section,

not knowing the abilities and natures [of beings] of the three worlds. "Do not put rotten food into precious vessels" means that you should not give the Hinayana to those with the spiritual capacity for the Mahayana. "You should know the thoughts in the minds of those bhikṣus" means that he should ascertain the thoughts in the minds of those bhikṣus and then teach them. This line criticizes Pūrṇa's not knowing the present spiritual capacity [of the bhikṣus].

"Do not take lapis lazuli to be the same as crystal. " This

also means that he should not regard the Hinayana to be the same as the spiritual capacity for the Mahayana. One interpretation says that "lapis lazuli" is a metaphor for the spiritual capacity for the Mahayana and that "crystal" is a metaphor for the teachings of the Hinayana, and that this means that we cannot compare them.

95

37c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

"You are not able to know the abilities and foundations of sentient beings.

" This is to say that Pūrṇa did not know people's abilities. This line criticizes him for not knowing their prior abilities and natures. "Do not

arouse them with the teachings of the Hinayana.

" This means that he should

not expound the Hinayana to them and cause them to arouse a lesser aspiration. "They are without injury—do not hurt them.

" This is to say that those

bhikṣus are originally without the disease of the Hinayana and so Pūrṇa should not now expound the Hinayana and thereby cause them to give rise to the wound of the Hinayana. This line criticizes him for not knowing future benefits.

From "If you wish to travel the Great Way" is the second section, criticizing Pūrṇa for the difference between his teaching and the spiritual capacity [of the audience]. This has three lines, all of which illustrate the point by means of an external metaphor; these can be understood. From "[Pūrṇa,] these bhikṣus [aroused the mind of the Mahayana long ago]" is the third section, concluding the second section above, critiquing the difference between Pūrṇa's teaching and the spiritual capacity of the audience. From "I see [the discerning awareness] of the Hinayana [to be insignificant and shallow]" is the fourth section, concluding the first section, criticizing Pūrṇa for not ascertaining the abilities and natures of those to whom he was teaching. One interpretation says that from "Pūrṇa, [these bhikṣus aroused the mind of the Mahayana long ago]" up to "[Why do you] teach and lead them [with the teachings of the Hinayana]?" goes with the two preceding metaphors of the small path and the ox's footprint, and that from "I see [the discerning awareness] of the Hinayana [to be insignificant and shallow]" separately goes with the metaphor of the firefly. This doesn't go against the overall meaning and so you can interpret it as you wish.

From "At that time Vimalakīrti [entered into samādhi]" is the third aspect of the explanation of why Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra declined [to visit Vimalakīrti], describing how Vimalakīrti entered into a state of concentration and enabled the bhikṣus to know their former lives. This has three parts. The first is the actual description of [Vimalakīrti's] entrance into a state of concentration and making it possible for the bhikṣus to know past events. The second is from "At that, [all of the bhikṣus bowed their heads,]" and shows all the bhikṣus revering Vimalakīrti in response. The third is from "At that time 96

Chapter Three: The Disciples

Vimala kīrti [expounded the Dharma for them],

" and describes how Vimalakīrti

expounded the Dharma for them and thereby strengthened their resolve for the Mahayana.

From "I thought that a śrāvaka[who cannot see people's capacity]" is the fourth aspect of the explanation of Pūrṇa's declining, showing how Vimalakīrti's criticism caused Pūrṇa Maitrāyaniputra to arouse an unprecedented resolve. From "Therefore [I am not worthy to visit Vimalakīrti]" is the third part of Pūrṇa's refusal, the conclusion that he is not worthy. The sixth [disciple] told to visit [Vimalakīrti] and inquire after his illness was Katyāyana, foremost among the ten disciples in elucidating doctrinal points. This also has both the request [to visit Vimalakīrti] and [Katyāyana's] declining. As with the [disciples] already described, the declining has three aspects; the second aspect, the explanation of why he declined, also has three parts. The first part gives the situation leading to his criticism; the second part, from "At that time Vimalakīrti,

" is the actual criticism incurred [by

Katyāyana]; the third, from "When Vimalakīrti had expounded this Dharma, "

describes how the bystanders benefited as a result of this criticism. The first part, the description of the situation leading to his criticism, is further divided into three. The first item describes that "the Buddha summarized the essentials of the Dharma for the bhikṣu. " The five subjects that

the Tathāgata explained are the essential explanations for entering the path, and so they are called the "essentials of the Dharma. " The second item is

"Afterward I developed and amplified these subjects" and describes Katyāyana's elaboration [of the Buddha's teaching]. The third item gives the teachings that he explained. The three marks [of all phenomena] are non-abiding and perishable; this is the "meaning of impermanence. " The

eight features [of life] are like the cutting of a sword; this is the "meaning of suffering.

" There is no inner self; this is the "meaning of emptiness. " The

five skandhas are not self-abiding; this is the "meaning of no-self. " Annihilation of the body and the extinction of knowing—this is the "meaning of quiescent extinction.

"

Katyāyana, however, merely passed on what the Buddha had taught. In short, he was criticized for two things. The first is with regard to the underlying principle: the numerous bhikṣus should certainly attain the same salvation as those three sages, and so Katyāyana was criticized even though he made 97

38a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

no mistakes. The second is with regard to [the perceptual attributes of] things: when the Buddha spoke the audience had the spiritual capacity for understanding the existence of perceptual attributes, and so the Buddha also taught the existence of perceptual attributes. But when Katyāyana transmitted that teaching, the spiritual capacity of the audience had changed [and they were able to comprehend] the absence of perceptual attribute. Katyāyana, however, was unaware of this and so he expounded the existence of perceptual attributes—and for this reason he was criticized by Vimalakīrti. The second aspect, the actual criticism incurred [by Katyāyana], has two parts. The first is the summary criticism. The second, from "Katyāyana, dharmas ultimately [are neither born nor extinguished], " gives the criticism

of each subject separately.

"Do not expound the true attributes of dharmas

with a mind involved with birth and extinction.

" There are four ways to

understand this. The first says that when the five subjects were taught, Katyāyana's mind experienced birth and extinction with regard to the five subjects; therefore Vimalakīrti told him "Do not expound the true attributes of dharmas with a mind involved with birth and extinction. " The second

says that a mind [involved with] perceptual attributes conditions the impermanent object, and names arise from those objects; therefore it is called a "mind involved with birth and extinction.

" Moreover, [when teaching],

Katyāyana should not have a mind involved with "suffering" [or any of the other five subjects] on up to "quiescent extinction.

" The third says that you

should not have a mind that is involved with birth and extinction taken to be the true perceptual attributes of dharmas. Certainly, you must teach that the true perceptual attributes of dharmas are that the functions of the mind are none other than emptiness. The fourth says that you should not speak of the absence of perceptual attributes while your mind is nonetheless involved with the birth and extinction of dharmas that possess perceptual attributes. Truly you should teach this with a mind conditioned by the absence of perceptual attributes. As for the "true attributes of dharmas" expounded during the twelve years of teaching [the Āgamas], the five subjects were taken as the highest teaching about the true attributes of [conditioned] things like birth and extinction up to the unconditioned, such as the extinction of the body; and [the teaching that] provisional designations are not at all the true attributes [of 98

Chapter Three: The Disciples

phenomena]. Vimalakīrti's criticism here is to say that both the provisional and the true are empty and that this is the true attribute of dharmas. Dharma Master Sengzhao says,

"The true attribute is mysterious and profound, exhausting the ordinary realm. It is not something that is known by the discriminating minds of sentient beings, it is not something that can be spoken of by those who discuss things.

" When Katyāyana heard the Buddha speak of the five subjects, he thought that dharmas had the attributes of birth and extinction; therefore Vimalakīrti criticized him, saying,

"Do not expound [the true attributes of dharmas] with a mind involved with birth and extinction. "

From "Katyāyāna" is the second part, the specific criticisms. "Dharmas

ultimately are neither born nor extinguished—this is the meaning of impermanence. " This means that the essential nature of the three kinds of dharmas is empty on its own and without birth and extinction, and that this is the meaning of impermanence. But Katyāyana only sees the birth and extinction of things and takes that to be the meaning of impermanence. In other words, he doesn't know the reason that things are impermanent. "The five appropriating skandhas are in the end empty, without arising—this is the meaning of suffering.

" As above, this means that the root of suffering is empty. But Katyāyana takes a mind burdened by objects to be the meaning of suffering. He does not know the root of the meaning of suffering. "The many dharmas

are ultimately nonexistent—this is the meaning of emptiness. " This means

that the many dharmas are ultimately empty and without existence, and this is the meaning of emptiness.

But Katyāyana only knows that within [dharmas] there is no self and therefore they are empty—he does not know the meaning of emptiness. "There is no duality of self and no-self—this is the meaning of no-self. "

This means that the five skandhas are not self-abiding in the soul, in which those on non-Buddhist paths believe, and that therefore there is no self. That all is empty and nondual—this is the meaning of no-self. One interpretation says that "no-self" means a "no-self" other than the soul [believed in by non-Buddhists, e.g., the no-self of the Hinayana]. Another says that "duality" refers to the provisional self and the emptiness of self. Katyāyana knows only that the five skandhas are not self-abiding and are therefore "no-self. "

In other words, he does not know the reason for no-self. "Dharmas have

never been on fire from the beginning and so are without extinguishing— 38b

99

38c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

this is the meaning of quiescent extinction.

" The essential nature of birth is

unattained, and so it says that there is no birth. How could there be a later extinction if there is originally no birth? Therefore it says "no extinguishing. "

The underlying principle is originally without birth or extinction—this is the meaning of quiescent extinction. Katyāyana only knows the extinction of the body and the end of the mind and takes this to be the meaning of quiescent extinction. In other words, he does not know the reason for quiescent extinction. From "When Vimalakīrti expounded this teaching" is the third part of the explanation of Katyāyana's declining, describing the merit attained by the bystanders because of the criticism.

"Therefore I am not fit to inquire of

his illness" is the third aspect of his declining, the conclusion that he is not up to the task.

The seventh [disciple] told [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Aniruddha, foremost among the ten disciples in divine sight. This also has [the two parts of] the request and the declining. The three parts of the declining are also as above. The second part, the explanation of Aniruddha's declining, is further divided into four items. The first is the description of the situation leading to the criticism; the second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti, " is the actual criticism.

The third item explains the nature of incurring the criticism; the fourth, from "those myriads of Brahmās,

" describes the Brahmā kings' inquiring about

the ultimate divine sight.

The first item, describing the situation leading to the criticism, also has three parts. The first clarifies where he was "taking a walk. " Because Aniruddha was taking a walking break along the road, it says "taking a walk. "

The second part describes the Brahmā kings coming to ask the extent of Aniruddha's divine sight. The third part gives Aniruddha's reply. These can be understood.

The reason that Aniruddha was criticized is because the Buddha always praised his attainment of divine sight as the best. The Brahmā king calculated that he too had obtained divine sight; however, if Aniruddha's divine sight was superior to the Brahmā king's, then he would study with him. But if it was not superior, then why did the Buddha praise him? Aniruddha, unaware of the Brahmā king's intention, simply told him what he saw. Vimalakīrti criticized Anirudhha because he should have told the Brahmā king about the Buddha's true divine sight, devoid of perceptual attributes; instead, he simply 100

Chapter Three: The Disciples

answered him with a description of what he saw, which possessed perceptual attributes. Therefore, Vimalakīrti came to criticize him. The actual description of his criticism has two aspects: the first gives two propositions in order to initially determine their nature [as conditioned or unconditioned]; the second, from "If it is that of a constructed attribute, "

explains both propositions, objecting to each in the end. "Ah, Aniruddha, is

the divine sight that of a constructed attribute?" This asks whether he sees things as having the perceptual attributes of constructed worldly truth. "Or

is it that of an unconstructed attribute?" This asks whether he sees things as the unconstructed ultimate truth, devoid of perceptual attributes. From "If it is that of a constructed attribute" is the second aspect, the explanations that end with objections.

"If it is that of a constructed attribute, then it is the same as the five supernatural powers of the non-Buddhist paths. " This explains

the first proposition: if you believe in the five sense objects and see things like that, then it is the same as those on non-Buddhist paths. What would be so wonderful about such [a path] that he would teach it to the Brahmā kings? "If it is that of an unconstructed attribute, then it is unconditioned and nothing should be seen.

" This means that if you do not believe in the five sense objects then the divine sight is unconditioned and nothing should be seen. What [then] could he teach to the Brahmā kings?

From "World-honored One, at that time I was silent" is the third item, explaining the nature of [Aniruddha] incurring the criticism. Aniruddha feared that if he said he saw things to be of a constructed attribute he would be the same as the those on non-Buddhist paths; but if he said that he saw things to be of an unconstructed attribute, then it would be as Vimalakīrti had already replied, [and there would be nothing that he could see]. Therefore he remained silent—this shows that he did not know the gist of things. From "Those Brahmā kings" is the fourth item, the Brahmā kings' inquiry about the ultimate divine sight. This has four parts. The first is the Brahmā kings' inquiry about the ultimate divine sight. The second is Vimalakīrti's answer regarding the Buddha's true divine sight. The third is the benefit attained by the Brahmā kings. The fourth is the Brahmā kings paying their respects and leaving. These can be understood.

"Therefore I am not fit to

inquire of his illness" is the third aspect of his declining, the conclusion that he is not up to the task.

101

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

39a

The eighth [disciple] directed [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Upāli, foremost of the ten disciples of the Buddha in observing the precepts. This [part of the scripture] also has both the [Buddha's] request [that Upāli visit Vimalakīrti and his] declining [to go]. As with the previous [disciples, Upāli's] declining has three aspects; the second, the explanation of his refusal to go, further unfolds in five parts. The first gives the situation leading to the criticism; the second, from "At that time Vimalakīrti,

" gives the actual criticisms; the third,

from "Thereupon, the two bhikṣus,

" is the praise of Vimalakīrti by the two

bhikṣus; the fourth, from "I answered, saying . . . ,

" is Upāli's praise [of

Vimalakīrti]; and the fifth, from "Those bhikṣus. . . , " describes the benefits

obtained by the two bhikṣus.

The first part, the situation leading to [Vimalakīrti's] criticism [of Upāli], also has three aspects. The first describes the nature of the bhikṣus' remorse for having broken their precepts: "There were two bhikṣus whose conduct violated the precepts; they were truly ashamed but did not dare ask the Buddha about it.

" The second is the actual inquiry. The third is Upāli's answer, based on the precepts.

If the transgression of the two bhikṣus was of the first category [of Vinaya offenses,] the bhikṣus would not be able to obtain absolution, and so we can know that it belonged to the second category of offense. Violating the precepts is an extreme among evil things; there is no higher or lower [offense], you should be completely ashamed for violating any of them. There are two reasons the bhikṣus were embarrassed [to ask] the Tathāgata but were not embarrassed [to ask] Upāli. The first is that the Buddha was the founding teacher as well as the master from whom they had received the precepts—therefore their shame was exceedingly deep. Upāli was neither the founding teacher nor the master who gave them the precepts, and so their sense of shame [before him] was bearable. The second meaning is that the Tathāgata had already extinguished the three poisons and had long since eliminated any remaining karmic forces; he was completely free of violations and infractions. Because of this, too, their shame was deep. Upāli, however, still had karmic residue and had also committed infractions. Because he seemed more like them, their shame was more tolerable. For these two reasons they could ask Upāli, although they were embarrassed to ask the Tathāgata. 102

Chapter Three: The Disciples

From "They came to ask me, saying . . .

" is the second aspect, the actual

question. Their question had, in brief, three points. The first is asking the question—they wanted to ask about the gravity of their transgression because they didn't know to which category it belonged. The second point is that they wanted to be taught about the proper way of performing repentance. In general there are four kinds of remorse: (1) remorse that one has abandoned one's original purpose, (2) remorse that one has gone against the Buddha's wishes and teachings, (3) remorse that one is in a disturbed state of mind, and (4) remorse for the future fruits of suffering that one will reap. The third point was their asking how they can repent their mistakes and thereby be forgiven for their offense.

"I then taught them according to the Dharma" is the third part, Upāli's answer based upon the precepts. This shows that the bhikṣus' infraction belonged to the second category of violations of the precepts. One can be pardoned for [this type of] offense if one confesses and repents the transgression to a group of twenty people. This answered the three points that the bhikṣus had inquired about. The reason, then, that Upāli was criticized by Vimalakīrti is that he based his answer to the bhikṣus on the existence of perceptual attributes, when he should have replied to them based on the absence of perceptual attribute—hence [Vimalakīrti's] criticism. The second part, the actual criticism, has three items. The first is the actual criticism; the second is from "What is the reason?" and explains the criticism; the third is from "The one who knows this" and concludes the criticism. "Do not increase the offenses of these two bhikṣus" means that the two bhikṣus had violated the precepts and were attached to the reality of their offense, and that is why they came to question Upāli. But Upāli too was thinking about perceptual attributes when he taught them about the retribution for their offense. Thus the attachment in their minds would grow more firm and they would commit new offenses. Therefore, it says, "Do not increase

[the offenses of these two bhikṣus].

" "You should immediately extinguish

[their offenses] and not confuse their minds" means that Upāli shouldn't teach them the existence of perceptual attributes and thereby confuse them, but rather he must teach them the absence of perceptual attributes and thereby eliminate the old offenses to which they were attached. 103

39b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

39c

The second part, the explanation [of the criticism], also has two items. The first initially clarifies that the essential nature of the offense is empty. The second, from "Upāli, wrongheaded thinking is defilement, " shows that

the many dharmas are empty and thereby demonstrates the emptiness of the offenses. The first item, the emptiness of the essential nature of the offense, has three points. The first directly states the emptiness of the essential nature of the offense. The second, from "As the Buddha has taught, " shows that the

source of the offense—the mind—is empty. The third, from "Just so, Upāli, "

gives a question and answer in order to show that the mind—the source of the offense—is empty.

In "The nature of that offense is not within,

" "within" refers to the body

and the six sense organs, as these are the causes of the offense. In "Nor without, " "without" refers to objects and the six sense fields; these are the conditions for the offense. This shows that within ultimate truth, the essential nature of offenses is empty and cannot be found. Therefore it says that it is not within the cause or condition, neither within nor without. In "Nor is it in between,

" "in between" means the various factors and six sense consciousnesses that produce offenses; the interpretation of the text is as above. From "As the Buddha has taught" is the second point, showing that the mind—the source of the offense—is empty. This shows that the mind is certainly the source of the arising of virtue and sin. That is to say, if the mind that gives birth [to things] is already known to be empty, then of course the essential nature of the offense born thereof is likewise surely empty. There are three parts to this. The first wants to show that the mind is empty, and so it begins by explaining that the mind is the source of sentient beings, purity, and defilement: "As the Buddha has taught, sentient beings are defiled because of a defiled mind; sentient beings are pure because of a pure mind. "

The second part is the actual illustration of the emptiness of the mind. "The mind is not within" means that it is not within the six sense organs; "not without" means that it is not within the six sense fields; "not in between" means that it is not in the six sense consciousnesses. From "As is the mind just like this" is the third part, the general conclusion that as with the emptiness of the mind, so too the ten thousand dharmas are empty. "As the mind is just

like this, so too are offenses and defilement" means that if the root—the mind—is empty, then the branch—the offense—will naturally be empty. 104

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"The myriad dharmas are likewise just like this, not apart from suchness" means that not only are the mind and offenses empty, but all dharmas are entirely empty, not apart from suchness.

From "Just so, Upāli" is the third point, corroborating the above two aspects with a question and answer; this has three parts. The first is the question "Just so, Upāli, when one gains liberation through [the purification] of the attributes of mind, does any defilement remain or not?" There are two parts to the interpretation of "liberation [through the purification] of the attributes of mind"; the first is simply asking if when one contemplates the mind and attains liberation, the mind that is contemplated retains any defilement or not. The second part is the answer,

"I replied,

'No.

'" The essential nature

of the mind is empty—how could there be defilement in emptiness? Therefore [Upāli] replied,

"No.

" The second [interpretation] is from Dharma Master Sengzhao: "'When one gains liberation' means when one first becomes an arhat one gains the first liberation. At that time ignorance of the mind is dispelled, which means that there will be no more attributes of mind. " Hence

the answer,

"No.

" The third part,

"The mental attributes of all sentient beings

are likewise without defilement,

" enables [Upāli] to understand that, similarly,

the minds of all sentient beings are empty.

From "Ah, Upāli, wrong-headed thinking is defilement" is the second item of the explanation of the criticism, showing that the many dharmas are empty and thereby demonstrating the emptiness of offenses. This unfolds in two parts. The first is the initial clarification of purity and impurity. Although the above clarified that the mind is the source of purity and impurity, the "attributes" [of the mind] have not yet been discussed. Beings wonder, "What

is it that is called purity? What is it that is called impurity?" Hence this clarifies that the three delusions are impurity and that the absence of the three delusions is purity. The second part is from "Upāli, all dharmas [are born and pass away into extinction]" and is the actual explanation of the emptiness of the many dharmas, thereby demonstrating the emptiness of offenses. The first part, the distinction of purity and impurity, is comprised of three lines.

"Deluded thoughts are impurity, the absence of deluded thoughts is purity" clarifies wrong thoughts.

"Wrong-headed thinking is impurity,

the lack of wrong-headed thinking is purity" clarifies wrong mind. "Clinging

to self is impurity, not clinging to self is purity" clarifies wrong views. In 105

40a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

general, the [three] wrongs are what is meant by impurity and the absence of these three wrongs is what is meant by purity. If, however, we are talking about the underlying principle, we cannot distinguish between "wrong" and "not wrong.

" Therefore, we say that the offenses are empty.

From "Upāli, [all dharmas are born and pass away into extinction]" is the second part, the actual explanation of the emptiness of the many dharmas, thereby demonstrating the emptiness of offenses. This explains that because the many dharmas are all like this (i.e., empty), the offenses are also empty. This critique has two meanings.

"The one who knows this is called 'upholder

of the precepts'" is to say that one who can understand that the offenses and the mind are entirely empty can be called foremost in observing the precepts and one whose practice is complete.

"The one who knows this is said to

'understand well'" means that if you can eliminate the offense of others in this manner then you are said to well understand the meaning of the Dharma and your practice of transforming others is complete.

From "Thereupon, the two bhikṣus" is the third part, showing the two praises of Vimalakīrti by the bhikṣus. From "I answered, saying. . . " is the

fourth part, Upāli's praise of Vimalakīrti. From "At that time those two bhikṣus" is the fifth part, describing the benefits that the two bhikṣus obtained as a result of Vimalakīrti's critique. This is divided into two; the first straightaway describes the benefits that were obtained: "Their doubts and remorse were eliminated and they aroused the resolve [to achieve] the unsurpassed mind.

" The second illuminates their arousing the vow: "May all sentient beings obtain such eloquence!" "Therefore I am not worthy to visit him and inquire about his illness" is the third aspect of Upāli's declining [the Buddha's request], the conclusion that he is not suitable.

The ninth [disciple] directed [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Rāhula. He was foremost of the ten disciples in observing morality. As above, this has both the directive [to visit Vimalakīrti] and [Rāhula's] declining [to go]. Within the description [of Rāhula's] declining, there are the three aspects, also as before. The second level, the explanation of his declining, further unfolds in three parts: the first gives the situation leading to [Vimalakīrti's] criticism; the second, from "Vimalakīrti [approached me and said], " presents the actual

criticism; the third, from "Thereupon Vimalakīrti [said to the sons of the 106

Chapter Three: The Disciples

elders],

" is Vimalakīrti's exhortation to the elders' [sons] to leave home and become bhikṣus.

The first part, the situation leading to the criticism, has two divisions. The first clarifies the [sons of] the elders asking Rāhula about the benefits of leaving home to become a bhikṣu. The second is Rāhula's answer, "I explained

for them the benefits of the merits obtained by leaving home to become a bhikṣu.

"This refers to obtaining the merit of the four fruits of the renunciant path, nirvana, the benefit of the factors of the path, and the like. One interpretation is that the factors of the path are the merit, and the fruits [of nirvana] without remainder constitute the benefit. This means cultivating the merit of the factors of the path at the beginning, and in the end obtaining the benefit of the fruits of [nirvana] without remainder. Another interpretation is that merit means the essential nature of the two kinds of nirvana, [that is, nirvana with remainder and nirvana without remainder,] and benefit refers to the cause. What led Vimalakīrti to criticize [Rāhula], however, was that contrary to the elder's [son's] spiritual capacity for hearing of the Mahayana renunciation devoid of perceptual attributes, Rāhula taught them the merit and benefits of the Hinayana renunciation of the householder's life replete with perceptual attributes. Hence Vimalakīrti was led to criticize him. The second part, the actual criticism, itself has three divisions. The first is the general statement of the two types of Mahayana renunciation of the householder's life devoid of perceptual attributes; straightaway Rāhula is criticized for [teaching] the Hinayana renunciation of the householder's life replete with perceptual attributes. The second, from "Why, " is the explanation

of his criticism. The third, from "If you can do this,

" is the summary conclusion of the criticism.

"You should not preach of the benefits of the merit of leaving home to become a bhikṣu" means that you should not preach the benefits of the merit of the Hinayana renunciation of the householder's life replete with perceptual attributes in mistaken understanding of the spiritual capacity of the audience. The second division, the explanation of the criticism, itself has two parts: the first gives the renunciation of the householder's life devoid of perceptual attributes, and criticizes Rāhula for [teaching] the renunciation of the householder's life replete with perceptual attributes. The second, from "Rāhula, 107

40b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

renunciation of the householder's life,

" gives the Mahayana renunciation of

the householder's life, and criticizes the Hinayana renunciation of the householder's life. A question: Why shouldn't the benefits of the merit of the renunciation of the householder's life be taught? "No benefit and no merit—this is renunciation of the householder's life" explains that the renunciation of the householder's life devoid of perceptual attributes is just like this—therefore this is not the teaching given [by Rāhula that dealt with] the renunciation of the householder's life replete with perceptual attributes. This gives an affirmation and illumines a negation. "Conditioned dharmas can be taught as having benefit and having merit" refers precisely to the renunciation of the householder life replete with perceptual attributes. This gives a negation and illumines an affirmation. "Renunciation of the householder's life is an unconditioned dharma, and there is neither benefit nor merit within the unconditioned dharmas" refers to arousing the resolve to renounce the householder's life within the absence of perceptual attributes.

From "Rāhula, renouncing the householder's life" is the second, giving the Mahayana renunciation of the householder's life, and criticizing the Hinayana renunciation of the householder's life. This has two points: the first explains the meaning of the Mahayana renunciation according to one's own practice; the second, from "subduing hosts of Māras, " explains the

meaning of the Mahayana renunciation according to the transformation of others.

"Rāhula, renunciation of the householder's life is not there, not here, and not in between.

" "There" means nirvana.

"Here" means samsara. If

"there" and "here" exist, it would mean that of course "in between" also exists; therefore it says "in between.

" This explains the Mahayana renunciation

of the householder's life. Regarding one's own practice, the Mahayana renunciation devoid of perceptual attributes is called "true renunciation. " Now,

the spiritual capacity [of the elders' sons] who stood before Rāhula was such that they should have been taught the Mahayana renunciation devoid of perceptual attributes, but he taught them the Hinayana renunciation replete with perceptual attributes—this was wrong.

"Abandoning the sixty-two wrong views and dwelling in nirvana" also illustrates the meaning of the Mahayana renunciation. "It is accepted by the

108

Chapter Three: The Disciples

knowledgeable and practiced by the sages" means that the above two lines are accepted and practiced by the myriad sages.

From "Defeating hosts of Māras" is the second point, explaining the meaning of the Mahayana renunciation according to the transformation of others. This has two elements: the first is the explanation of subduing Māras, and the second, from "subjugating all those on non-Buddhist paths, " illustrates

the restraining of those on non-Buddhist paths.

The first element, subduing Māras, is further divided into two aspects. The first immediately clarifies [the meaning] of subduing Māras. The line about defeating Māra illustrates that the purpose of establishing the Mahayana renunciation of the householder's life is certainly in order to subdue [the Māras] and have them enter the buddha path. Dharma Master Sengzhao says, "When the true path has been made smooth, the false ways are blocked off of their own accord. The scripture says,

'When one person renounces the

householder's life, all of Māra's palaces tremble.

'" This is what it is saying.

The six verses from "Crossed over the five paths of existence" explain a question and thereby illuminate the Māras' benefit. That is, when beings hear of overcoming Māras, they wonder if this is so because of an intentional wish to harass them. Therefore it is interpreted to mean that it is not from a wish to harass them but rather a wish to make them virtuous. The two lines "Crossing over the five paths of existence and purifying the five eyes" give the results, and the two lines "Gaining the five powers and establishing the five roots of goodness" describe the cause; these four lines truly illustrate the benefit obtained by the Māras.

"Not bothering others, separated from

mistakes and evils" is the concrete explanation of the question, showing that there is no intention to overcome [others] but rather the wish to eliminate evil. We can also say that all six lines clarify the benefit [obtained by the Māras] and explain the question [about whether there was an intention to harass the Māras by vanquishing them].

One interpretation is that the six lines from "Crossed over the five paths of existence" mean that the reason the hosts of Māras are skillfully subdued is just because of the full completion of knowing and the eradication [of entanglements]. [According to this interpretation,] the six lines are divided into two: the first four lines clarify knowing and the latter two lines clarify the eradication [of entanglements].

"Crossed over the five paths of existence"

109

40c

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

means "below, transform and nurture living beings"; "purifying the five eyes" means "above, seeking the path of the Buddha.

" "Establishing the five roots

of goodness" is the cause—this means that from the initial step of [establishing] faith there is never retrogression. "Obtained the five powers" is the

result—this means that the five roots of goodness grow with a graceful abundance of strength and hence are called "powers. " The last two lines clarify

eradication [of entanglements].

"Not bothering others" means not arousing

anger in others.

"Separated from mistakes and evils" means eliminating one's own entanglements.

From "Subjugating those on non-Buddhist paths" is the second element; that is, subjugating those on non-Buddhist paths. This has two aspects. The first is the immediate subjugation of those on non-Buddhist paths. This means that the purpose of establishing the Mahayana renunciation of the householder's life is to prevail over the non-Buddhist paths, to overturn the false and return to the true. Dharma Master Sengzhao says, "The sun and moon

do not anticipate making the darkness go away, yet the darkness is naturally eliminated; those who renounce the life of a householder do not [do so] in anticipation of subjugating those on non-Buddhist paths, yet the non-Buddhist paths are naturally eliminated.

"

From "Transcending provisional designations" also clarifies a doubt and thereby illumines what is obtained by those on non-Buddhist paths. This shows that they subjugate them because of a simple desire to have them abandon evil and acquire virtue, and not from a particular desire to harass [anyone]. "Transcending provisional designations" shows that the desire is to make them understand the emptiness of both the provisional and the real and not believe in [the true existence of] perceptual attributes. "Leaves the mud and muck" means wishing to free them of the mud and muck of the five skandhas.

"Without bonds or attachments" likewise

means wishing to free them of their belief in and attachment to the five skandhas.

"Without the properties of the self" also means that they want to make them not believe in anything pertaining to the properties of the self. "Without possessions" too refers to the desire to free them of the six sense objects. These five lines actually describe what will be obtained by those on non-Buddhist paths.

110

Chapter Three: The Disciples

"Without confusion or disorder" means to have no desire to bother others; "joyous of heart" means to have no internal jealousy or envy. "Guarding the

minds of others" simply means the desire to reverse false ideas and enter into the truth.

"Following meditative concentration and avoiding myriad mistakes and evils" again shows the desire to have them obtain virtue and abandon evil. These five lines clarify the issue and show that they subjugate [non-Buddhists] because they simply want them to obtain virtue and abandon evil, not because they wish to harass them.

It is also possible that these ten lines together illustrate and explain the question [about whether those on non-Buddhist paths are being harassed] and the benefits they receive. One interpretation is that the seven lines from "transcend provisional names" shows that those on non-Buddhist paths are able to be well subjugated because of the full accomplishment of both knowing and the eradication [of entanglements]—hence they are able to subjugate [them]. The seven lines can be divided into two parts: the first six lines illustrate the eradication [of entanglements], and the seventh line, "joyous of

heart,

" illustrates knowing.

"Guarding the minds of others, following meditative concentration, and avoiding myriad mistakes and evils" together conclude the above [full accomplishment of] both the virtues of knowing and the eradication [of entanglements].

"If you can do it like this, it is truly renouncing the householder's life. "

This refers to the third division [of the actual criticism of Rāhula], the summary conclusion that in the Mahayana way of renouncing the householder's life, both one's own practices and the practice of transforming others, are fully accomplished; therefore it is called "truly renouncing the householder's life. "

From "Thereupon Vimalakīrti [addressed the sons of the elders]" is the third part of the explanation of [Rāhula's] declining [to visit Vimalakīrti], that is, Vimalakīrti's encouragement to the [sons] of the elders to renounce the householder's life. This has four further aspects: the first is immediately encouraging them to physically renounce the life of a householder; the second is their declining because they [first] need their parent's [permission]; the third is Vimalakīrti's exhorting them to renounce the householder's life in their hearts and minds; and the fourth is [the sons] of the elders giving rise to the determination to leave the householder's life in accord with this teaching. This can be understood.

111

41a

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

"Therefore I am not worthy to visit him and inquire of his illness" is the third level [of Rāhula's] declining [the Buddha's request], the conclusion that he is not suitable.

The tenth [disciple] directed [to visit Vimalakīrti] was Ānanda, foremost among the ten disciples of the Buddha in his total retention [of the Buddha's teachings]. This too has both the directive [to visit Vimalakīrti] and [Ānanda's] declining [to go]. Within [Ānanda's] declining there are, as above, three levels; the second level, the explanation of why he declined, is further divided into four parts. Part one gives the situation leading to [Vimalakīrti's] criticism; the second part, from "Vimalakīrti [approached me],

" gives the actual criticism; the third, from "At that time, World-honored One, " describes his inner

feelings [of confusion] after being criticized; the fourth, from "Then I heard [a voice] in the sky,

" describes the voice that was heard in the sky and reconciles Ānanda's confusion. The first part, the situation leading to [Vimalakīrti's] criticism, also has three divisions: the first describes [Ānanda's] begging for milk, the second is Vimalakīrti's question, and the third is Ānanda's reply—these can be understood.

As other scriptures say, the Buddha knew that the brahmans would fall into endless hell and he thus wished to save them. Therefore he appeared as though he was ill and had Ānanda go begging for milk; he also wished to show bhikṣus of later ages the way to beg for medicine. As for the reason he was criticized by Vimalakīrti, the Ruguanjingsays that seven sages together saved one person: (1) the Buddha, [whose request for milk resulted in the others being saved]; (2) Ānanda, who begged for milk; (3) Vimalakīrti, who criticized [Ānanda]; (4) the mother cow, who explained the verse; (5) the calf, who explained the verse; (6) the voice in the sky; (7) the deity who manifested as a human and drew the milk.

If we discuss this, there are four points to Vimalakīrti's criticism: the first is that the Dharma body does not need milk; the second is that although the trace manifestation receives [things] it is not the real [Buddha]; the third point is that [Ānanda's begging for milk] will cause non-Buddhists to slander [the Buddha]; the fourth point is that it will cause the disciples to be embarrassed.

112

Chapter Three: The Disciples

The second part, the actual critique, has three further points. The first straightaway clarifies that the Dharma body does not get ill; the second, from "Ānanda, a wheel-turning sage-king (cakravartin). . . , " explains the reason

for not getting ill; the third, from "Ānanda, you should know, " exhorts

[Ānanda] to understand the meaning of the Dharma body. One interpretation understands the three points as: (1) the actual critique from the point of the underlying principle, (2) using the lack of illness of [the kings of the] world as an example, and (3) concluding Vimalakīrti's critique by returning to [a discussion of] the underlying principle. Another interpretation is that because Ānanda is called upon five times in the text [to do this or that], there are five levels [to the interpretation] itself. In general, all of these interpretations are the same and you can use any of them as you wish. "Stop, stop, Ānanda.

" With one sentence [Ānanda] has already committed [the above] four errors. To be mistaken about the underlying principle is very serious and that is why Vimalakīrti says several times, "Stop, stop.

"

"The Tathāgata's body is the essence of diamond" means that the Dharma body cannot be destroyed.

"All evil has already been eradicated" means that the virtue of eradication [of entanglements] has been fully accomplished. "Myriad good qualities accumulated" means that the virtue of knowing has been fully accomplished.

"How could there be illness?" means that internally there is no trouble.

"How could there be vexation?" means that externally it is without annoyance.

One interpretation has it that "All evil has already been eradicated" means the absence of the cause of suffering and that "Myriad good qualities accumulated" means the presence of the cause of joy; "How could there be illness?" means the absence of the fruit of suffering and "How could there be vexation?" means the presence of the fruit of bliss. "Go, Ānanda, in silence, and do not slander the Tathāgata" means that Ānanda should go in silence and get the milk [for the Buddha]—he should not say that the Tathāgata is ill. One interpretation is that "Go" means "to leave, "

and that Ānanda should leave silently.

"Do not let other people hear these crude words" means that he shouldn't let those on non-Buddhist paths hear him. From "Ānanda, a wheel-turning sage-king. . . " is the second point of

the actual criticism [of Ānanda], explaining the reason the Dharma body 113

41b

Expository Commentary on the Vimalakīrti Sutra

does not become ill. Another interpretation has it this is using the lack of illness of the [kings of the] world as an example [to illustrate why the Dharma body does not become ill]. This can be understood.

From "Ānanda, you should know" is the third point of the actual criticism [of Ānanda], exhorting him to understand the meaning of the Dharma body. We could also say that this concludes Vimalakīrti's critique by coming back to [a discussion of] the underlying principle. [In "The body of the Tathāgata is not a body of thoughts or desire,

"] "thought" means "karma" and "desire"

means "affliction.

" These two lines straightaway show that the Dharma body does not have karma or mental afflictions.

"The Buddha is the World-honored One, beyond the three worlds" means that the Buddha is removed from the cause and effect of the three worlds. One interpretation takes this to mean beyond the cause and effect of secondary [afflictions] of the three worlds.

"The Buddha's body is without outflows;

all of the outflows have already been exhausted" means that the Buddha has completely exhausted all causes. We could also say that the attributes of the root [afflictions] have been extinguished.

"The Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into any of the myriad analytic calculations" means that it is removed from the fruits and rewards of conditioned existence. These two lines are the actual explanation of the Dharma body. "How could a body like this become ill?" This concludes [the teaching] that the Dharma body is without illness. The main point of the text in all of this is that the myriad evils have already been eradicated and that it is diamondlike and cannot be destroyed. If the myriad evils have already been eradicated and it is diamondlike and cannot be destroyed, does this not mean that it is the explanation of eternally abiding? In the previous commentary in the chapter "Skillful Means,

" we have noted that even if it is within the

teaching of the preface or the dissemination parts of this scripture—those parts of the teaching that did not actually take place in Vimalakīrti's room— there still is no problem [with understanding this as] describing the eternally abiding [nature of the Tathāgata]. So it is!

From "At that time, World-honored One. . .

" is the third part of the explanation of why [Ānanda] declined [the Buddha's request], describing his inner feelings after he had been criticized.

114

Chapter Three: The Disciples

From "Thereupon I heard [a voice] in the sky" is the fourth part of the explanation, describing the voice heard in the sky that reconciled Ānanda's confusion.

"It is as the layman said" refers to Vimalakīrti saying that the profound essence is without illness.

"However, it is in order to teach and

liberate sentient beings that the Buddha has appeared in this evil world of the five impurities and is now practicing this Dharma. " This means that

within the [Buddha's] manifestation for Ānanda, it is not the case that there is no manifestation of illness or begging for milk.

"Go now, Ānanda, and

fetch the milk without feeling ashamed" means that there is no error in his response [to the Buddha's request] and so he should not feel ashamed. One interpretation says that from "Go now" shows that in the manifestation [of the Buddha's illness] for Ānanda's response it is not the case that there was no illness and that everything before this is about Vimalakīrti's describing the profound essence as free of illness. From "World-honored One" is the third level of [Ānanda's] declining [to visit Vimalakīrti], his conclusion that he is not worthy.

From "In this way, five hundred [great disciples declined]" is the second part of the chapter "The Disciples,

" the conclusion that none [of the five hundred disciples] are worthy [to visit Vimalakīrti and inquire about his illness]. 41c

115