注維摩詰經 3.121

3.121

[Seng]zhao says: The Tathāgata's speech was never with mind, and therefore the Dharma he expounded was never with marks. Kātyāyana did not understand the profound meaning, and so after entering the room he explained them all in terms of marks. How so? The Tathāgata spoke of impermanence to remove permanence, not meaning that there is this impermanence; he spoke of suffering to remove pleasure, not meaning that there is this suffering; he spoke of emptiness to remove reality, not meaning that there is this emptiness; he spoke of non-self to remove self, not meaning that there is this non-self; he spoke of quiescent extinction to remove marks, not meaning that there is this quiescent extinction. These five may be called teaching without words and discourse without marks. Yet Kātyāyana's attainment of the ultimate was not the same, and hearing differs according to one's mind: hearing of impermanence, he grasped its flux; coming to hear of quiescent extinction, he also grasped its mark of extinction. The words were the same but the intention different; this is why Kātyāyana fell into error. [Dao]sheng says: Kātyāyana is foremost in discriminating the Buddha's words. The Buddha having first expounded briefly, Kātyāyana subsequently expounded and recounted it. He preserved the intention and did not dwell on the words, hence it is said that he 'elaborated upon their meaning.'