注維摩詰經 8.120

8.120

什曰：如佛泥洹後六百年，有一人年六十出家，未幾時頌三藏都盡，次作三藏論議。作論已思惟言：佛法中復有何事？唯有禪法我當行之。於是受禪法，自作要誓：若不得道、不具一切禪定功德，終不寢息、脇不著地。因名脇比丘。少時得成阿羅漢，具三明六通，有大辯才，善能論議。有外道師名曰馬鳴，利根智慧，一切經書皆悉明練，亦有大辯才，能破一切論議。聞脇比丘名，將諸弟子往到其所，唱言：一切論議悉皆可破。若我不能破汝言論，當斬首謝屈。脇比丘聞是論，默然不言。馬鳴即生憍慢：此人徒有空名，實無所知。與其弟子捨之而去。中路思惟已，語弟子言：此人有甚深智慧，我墮負處。弟子怪而問曰：云何爾？答曰：我言一切語言可破，即是自破；彼不言則無所破。即還到其所，語脇比丘言：我墮負處，則是愚癡。愚癡之頭，非我所須，汝便斬之；若不斬我，我當自斬。脇比丘言：不斬汝頭，當斬汝結髮。比於世間，與死無異。即下髮為脇比丘作弟子，智慧辯才世無及者，廣造經論，大弘佛法。時人謂之為第二佛。夫默語雖殊，明宗一也。所會雖一，而迹有精麁。有言於無言，未若無言於無言，故默然之論，論之妙也。肇曰：有言於無言，未若無言於無言，所以默然也。上諸菩薩措言於法相，文殊有言於無言，淨名無言於無言。此三明宗雖同，而迹有深淺，所以言後於無言、知後於無知，信矣哉。生曰：文殊雖明無可說，而未明說為無說也。是以維摩默然無言以表言之不實。言若果實，豈可默哉？

[Kumāra]jīva says: Six hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, there was a man who went forth at the age of sixty. Before long, he chanted the Tripiṭaka completely, and next composed treatises on the Tripiṭaka. Having composed the treatises, he reflected: "What else remains in the Buddha's Dharma? There is only the method of dhyāna, which I must practice." Thereupon he received the dhyāna method and made a solemn vow: "If I do not attain the Way and fully accomplish all the merits of dhyāna concentrations, I will never sleep, nor will my ribs touch the ground." Thus he was called the Elder Pārśva ('Ribs'). In a short time he succeeded in becoming an arhat, endowed with the three knowledges and six supernormal knowledges, possessing great eloquence, and skilled in debate. There was a non-Buddhist teacher named Aśvaghoṣa, of sharp faculties and wisdom, thoroughly practiced in all scriptures, who also had great eloquence and could refute any debate. Hearing the name of the Elder Pārśva, he took his disciples and went to his dwelling, declaring aloud: "All debates can be refuted! If I cannot refute your words, I will cut off my head to apologize for my defeat." Hearing this assertion, the Elder Pārśva remained silent and said nothing. Aśvaghoṣa then became arrogant: "This man has only an empty reputation and truly knows nothing." He and his disciples abandoned him and left. Midway, upon reflection, he said to his disciples: "This man has profound wisdom; I have fallen into defeat." His disciples questioned him in astonishment, asking: "How so?" He replied: "My stating that all speech can be refuted is itself self-refuting; he said nothing, so there was nothing to refute." He immediately returned to the place and said to the Elder Pārśva: "I have fallen into defeat, which is folly. A head of folly is of no use to me; you should cut it off. If you do not cut it off, I will cut it off myself." The Elder Pārśva said: "I will not cut off your head; I will cut off your topknot. Compared to the world, this is no different from death." He immediately shaved his hair and became the Elder Pārśva's disciple. His wisdom and eloquence were unmatched in the world; he extensively composed sūtras and treatises, greatly propagating the Buddha's Dharma. The people of the time called him the Second Buddha. Now, silence and speech may differ, but their illumination of the ultimate is one. Though that which they meet is one, their traces have refinement and coarseness. Having words about wordlessness is not as good as being wordless about wordlessness; therefore, the thesis of silence is the marvel of theses. [Seng]zhao says: Having words about wordlessness is not as good as being wordless about wordlessness, which is why he was silent. The bodhisattvas above applied words to the marks of dharmas; Mañjuśrī had words about wordlessness; the Pure Name was wordless about wordlessness. Although these three illuminate the same ultimate, their traces have depths and shallows. Thus, that words come after wordlessness and knowing comes after unknowing—how true this is! [Dao]sheng says: Although Mañjuśrī clarified that there is nothing to be spoken of, he had not yet clarified that speaking is non-speaking. Therefore, Vimalakīrti remained silent without a word to show that words are not real. If words were truly real, how could he remain silent?