注維摩詰經 6.59

6.59

什曰：眾生若有真實定相者，則不思議大士不應徒行逼試令其受苦。以非真實、易可成就，故行惱逼也。復次佛法有二種：一者有、二者空。若常在有則累於想著，若常觀空則捨於善本。若空有迭用則不設二過，猶日月代用萬物以成。上已說有，故今明空門也。觀眾生為若此。眾生、神主、我，是一義耳。如一癡人行路，遇見遺匣，匣中有大鏡。開匣視鏡，自見其影，謂是匣主，稽首歸謝捨之而走。眾生入佛法藏珍寶鏡中取相計我，棄之而去，亦復如是。亦如一盲人行道中，遇值國王子，堅抱不捨。須臾王官屬至，加極楚痛強逼奪之，然後放捨。如邪見眾生於非我見我，無常苦至，隨緣散壞乃知非我，亦復如是。如空中雲，近之則無也。真實慈觀諸法空則是真實慧，真實慧中生無緣慈名為真慈。亦以慈為本，為人說真實法名真慈。亦慈為本，然後行布施等眾行為名，或以自性為名、或以所因為名。自此已下，例可尋也。肇曰：悲疾大士自調之觀，微言幽旨亦備之前文矣。然法相虛玄，非有心之所覩；真觀冥默，非言者之所辯。而云何不證涅槃與群生同疾，又現不思議其迹無端，或為魔王逼迫初學，斯皆自調大士之所為也。自調之觀彼我一空，然其事為喻乃更彌甚，至令希宗者惑亡言之致、存己者增眾生之見，所以無言之道難為言也。將近取諸喻、遠況真觀、以去時人封言之累、故生斯問也。生曰：上不思議，是應化眾生之迹。無方應之，似有眾生之情矣。有眾生情者，不能為化，故須問焉。

[Kumāra]jīva says: If sentient beings had real, fixed characteristics, then inconceivable mahāsattvas should not uselessly press and test them to make them suffer. Because they are not real and can easily be brought to fruition, [the mahāsattvas] afflict and press them. Furthermore, the Buddha-Dharma has two types: first, existence; second, emptiness. If one consistently remains in existence, one is burdened by ideational attachments; if one consistently contemplates emptiness, one abandons the roots of goodness. If emptiness and existence are used alternately, these two faults are not incurred, just as the alternation of the sun and the moon brings the myriad things to completion. Above, existence has already been explained; therefore, the gate of emptiness is now clarified. Contemplating sentient beings is like this. 'Sentient being', 'spiritual ruler', and 'self' are simply one meaning. It is like a foolish person walking on a road who comes upon an abandoned box containing a large mirror. Opening the box and looking into the mirror, he sees his own reflection, thinks it is the owner of the box, bows in gratitude, abandons it, and runs away. Sentient beings entering the treasure-mirror of the treasury of the Buddha-Dharma, grasping characteristics and imputing a self, discarding it and going away, are also like this. It is also like a blind person walking along a path who happens to meet a prince of the realm, embracing him tightly without letting go. Shortly after, the king's officials and retinue arrive, inflict extreme pain, and forcefully wrench [the prince] away, after which he lets go. Just so it is with sentient beings of wrong view seeing a self in what is non-self: when impermanence and suffering arrive, and they disperse and disintegrate according to conditions, only then do they know there is no self. It is like clouds in the sky: when approached, they are not there. The true benevolence that contemplates all dharmas as empty is true wisdom; the objectless benevolence born from within true wisdom is called true benevolence. Also, with benevolence as the fundamental basis, explaining the true Dharma for others is called true benevolence. Also, taking benevolence as the fundamental basis and thereafter practicing the myriad deeds such as giving is named accordingly; [these types of benevolence] are named either according to their self-nature or according to their cause. From this point onward, the analogies may be traced in like manner. [Seng]zhao says: The contemplation of self-regulation by the mahāsattva of compassionate illness, with its subtle words and profound import, has already been fully set forth in the preceding text. Yet the characteristics of dharmas are vacant and obscure, not to be seen by the conceptual mind; true contemplation is dark and silent, not to be debated by those who speak. Why then does he not realize nirvāṇa but share illness with the multitude of beings, and display inconceivable manifest traces without fixed origin, even acting as a Māra-king pressing and oppressing beginners? These are all the doings of the mahāsattva of self-regulation. In the contemplation of self-regulation, other and self are completely empty, yet when taken as similes for events, [the difficulty] becomes even greater, causing those aspiring to the principle to be bewildered by the import of abandoning speech, and those clinging to self to increase their view of sentient beings. This is why the path of wordlessness is difficult to express in words. In order to take similes close at hand to illustrate from afar true contemplation, thereby removing the burden of the people of the age being bound to words, this question was raised. [Dao]sheng says: The preceding inconceivability was the manifest trace of responding to and transforming sentient beings. Responding without fixed directions resembles having the sentiment toward sentient beings. One who has the sentiment toward sentient beings cannot transform them; hence it was necessary to ask about this.