Shōyōroku / Congrong lu · CASE 48
Vimalakirti's Nonduality
The Book of Serenity
Banshō's pointer
Wondrous function has no fixed method; there are places where one cannot lay a hand. Eloquence is unobstructed; there are times one cannot open the mouth. Ryūge resembles a handless person practicing boxing. Kassan teaches a tongueless person to speak. Who is the person who withdraws midway?
Case
Vimalakirti asked Manjushri, “What is a bodhisattva's entry into the Dharma gate of nonduality?” Manjushri said, “As I understand it, “with regard to all dharmas— “there are no words and no speech, “no showing and no cognition, “and one is apart from all questions and answers. “This is entry into the Dharma gate of nonduality.” Manjushri then asked Vimalakirti, “Each of us has finished speaking. “Worthy sir, you should speak. What is a bodhisattva's entry into the Dharma gate of nonduality?” Vimalakirti remained silent.
Hongzhi's verse
Manjushri visits the sick old man of Vaiśālī. The gate of nonduality opens—look at the adept. Common stone outside, pure within—who can appreciate and discern it? Forget what precedes and lose what follows; do not lament. Painstakingly offering uncut jade—a mutilated man in the Chu court. Brilliantly repaying with a pearl—the severed snake at Sui's city. Do not point and break it open; it is utterly without flaw. Wholly without worldly air—that is somewhat better.
Footnotes 6
- Banshō's sources distinguish eloquence's limit from mere muteness. Silence can enact a response, but Banshō repeatedly shows that it too can become a conventional pose or an object of praise. ↩
- Bian He's story centers state mutilation for a misjudged offering; the Sui story centers care for an injured animal and imagined recompense. Their shared recognition theme does not erase their sharply different violence and ethics. ↩
- Vimalakirti's named spouse, children, and prior identity as Golden Grain Tathagata belong to later religious biography. They are not supplied by the old-case dialogue itself. ↩
- The “long while / Liang the Eighth” exchange is a lexical joke about reading a narrative-duration formula as a personal name; it satirizes formulaic record interpretation. ↩
- The sword verse's targets are “non-Buddhists and heavenly demons,” reflecting sectarian polemic. It should not be normalized into acceptable physical violence against religious others. ↩
- Banshō acts here as a textual critic, correcting a passage attributed to Bensong by locating it in the Yongjia Collection. The claim still requires comparison of extant editions. ↩
About this version and its sources
- Full source citation
- Source title: 摩經不二. Base: CBETA T2004, T48n2004_p0257b01–p0258a10. Angle brackets represent inline notes.
- Method
- Direct critical-edition translation from the cited received base text. Source claims, hagiography, uncertainty, and unresolved readings remain identified in the notes and project record.
- Editorial uncertainty
- Independent philological and reader review remain pending.
- Rights
- Project translation © Tulsa Zen Center Critical Edition contributors. Source text is cited by edition; redistribution policy requires final organizational approval.
- Revision identifier
- 00deae8ff28d
Banshō's commentary on the case
The Sanskrit Vimalakirti is translated “Stainless Renown” and also “Pure Name.” Banshō's tradition names his wife Jinzhi, son Shansi, and daughter Moon-Apex; these are later biographical claims, not independently established household history.3 A monk asked Reverend Jian of Yunju, “Vimalakirti is the Tathagata Golden Grain. Why did he instead join Shakyamuni's assembly and listen to Dharma?” Yunju said, “He does not contend over self and other.” The expanded Vimalakirti Sutra says thirty-two thousand bodhisattvas each spoke a gate of nonduality; the present version gives only thirty-two. At the end, Manjushri has no ground on which to plant an awl, while Vimalakirti has not even an awl.3 Hofuku Zhan said, “Manjushri resembles one who covers his ears while stealing a bell, his strength exhausted at the Wu River. Vimalakirti's one silence has not left the gate of transformation.” Banshō says: it is difficult for a person to get out of right and wrong. Hofuku also said, “Great and small Vimalakirti was sat upon once by Manjushri and to this day cannot rise.” Banshō says: What is difficult about rising? Simply slap him. Rōya Jue said, “Manjushri's praise in this way is itself like divining with a ladle and listening to empty sounds. Vimalakirti remained silent. All of you must not drill tortoise shells and strike tiles.” Banshō says: no shortage of fabrication. Only Setchō, after Manjushri finished asking, did not say Vimalakirti was silent for a long while or occupied his seat. He directly asked, “What did Vimalakirti say?” Then he said, “Seen through.” Banshō says: Unable to play a ghost, he shows his body in broad daylight. Tianyi Huai versified: Vimalakirti was not silent and did not pause for long; occupying the seat and deliberating would create a fault. To this day, when communities present this matter, they still say, “After a long pause, he said...” A monk once asked a teacher, “Records often say ‘a long while.’ Who is this person Long While?” The teacher answered, “Long While is Liang the Eighth's younger brother.” Transmitters treated this as a joke.4 Tianyi's last two lines are extraordinarily steep: From the hair-splitting sword's case, cold light arises; non-Buddhists and heavenly demons are all beheaded. Banshō says: the numinous blade passes secretly; one does not feel pain or itch. This is polemical violence in verse, not a warrant for harming religious opponents.5 Baiyun Duan versified: One, two, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand— bending fingers, searching the text, one cannot finish counting. Leave it for now before the dark window; tomorrow I will calculate it again with you. Banshō says: What idle time is there for that? Tendō versified Baso's “Zang's head is white, Hai's head is black” and ended: Grandly he sits, cutting off the road of tongues; he should laugh at the old awl of Vaiśālī. Today Vimalakirti has come. Tendō does not care about praise to his face. Manjushri and Manjushri in another transliteration reflect regional Sanskrit pronunciation. The name is translated “Wondrous Auspicious.” Vaiśālī is the city named Broad Adornment. Master Sengzhao's Treatise on Nirvana Without Name says: Shakyamuni closed his room in Magadha; Pure Name shut his mouth in Vaiśālī. Subhuti proclaimed no-speaking to reveal the Way. Shakra and Brahma ceased listening, and flowers rained down. In all these, principle governs spirit, and therefore the mouth is silent. How could this mean there is no eloquence? It is what eloquence cannot speak.1 Yan stone resembles jade but is inferior; today it is a waterside stone from Zhuo commandery, also called jade-stealing stone. Though Vimalakirti outwardly resembles one inarticulate, the eloquence of his not-speaking is pure within. This is stone concealing jade. “Forget what precedes and lose what follows” comes from the fourth shamatha verse in the Yongjia Collection: When we now speak of knowing, there is no need to know knowing; simply know. What precedes is not connected and is extinguished; what follows is not drawn forward to arise. With before and after cut and discontinuous, the middle stands solitary. At the end of the Inexhaustible Lamp, among unclear Dharma-successor entries, appears Zen Master Bensong, Guangzhi of Yimen Mountain in Kaifeng. No separate sayings survive; the text reproduces this entire passage. Lord Wen did not know it came from the Yongjia Collection and attributed its creation to Bensong. Banshō corrects the attribution here so students will know.6 This “forget before and lose after” is precisely the Trust in Mind Inscription's “the road of language is cut off.” It is not about past, present, and future as three entities. Han Feizi tells that Bian He found an uncut stone in a valley of Mount Jing and offered it to King Li of Chu. The king called it an ordinary stone and had one of Bian He's feet amputated. When King Wu succeeded, Bian He offered it again and lost his other foot. Under King Wen, Bian He held the stone and wept beneath Mount Jing. Summoned, he said, “I do not resent the amputations. I resent that true jade was taken for common stone and loyal service for contempt.” The king ordered the stone split, and it was true jade. He lamented, “Alas! My two predecessors found it easy to amputate a person's feet and difficult to cut open a stone.” It became a national treasure.2 The Records of the Historian story of the Marquis of Sui says that while traveling toward Qi, Zhu Yuanchang saw a severed snake near death. He washed and rubbed it with water, applied numinous medicine, and left. One night light appeared in his courtyard. Thinking there was a thief, he gripped his sword and looked. He saw a snake leave a pearl on the ground and depart; he understood it as recompense.2 Vimalakirti put his body crosswise for the assembly and could not avoid disaster emerging from his own gate. How much more when Manjushri pointed it out and made a numinous flaw in what was flawless. Even though Tendō says Vimalakirti “lived amid worldly dust yet had no worldly air,” this too is covering the nose while stealing incense.