注維摩詰經 5
English (machine translation) 5
- Language
- English
5.1
Compiled by the monk Sengzhao of the Later Qin
5.2
Chapter 5: Mañjuśrī's Inquiry after the Illness
5.3
At that time, the Buddha addressed Mañjuśrī:
5.4
[Seng]zhao says: Mañjuśrī is rendered in Qin as 'Wondrous Virtue'. The sūtras say: 'He had already attained buddhahood in the past, named the Dragon-Species Honored One.'
5.5
'Go to Vimalakīrti and inquire after his illness.' Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, saying: 'World-Honoured One, it is difficult to engage in conversation with that superior man.
5.6
[Kumāra]jīva says: To say that he surpasses me—how could it be only the other worthy ones? This is merely an expression of profound admiration; how could it be the actual reality? [Seng]zhao says: Why must the thirty-two thousand necessarily be incompetent, and why must Mañjuśrī alone be supreme? My thought is that the ultimate man's transformations and strategies are boundless, his hidden and revealed traces differing; thus they alternately show greater or lesser capacity to respond to the sentiments of sentient beings. Who would dare fix their superiority and inferiority, or assess their gains and losses? Mañjuśrī, about to suit the minds of the multitude and accept the mission, therefore first praised the virtues of the Pure Name so as to give rise in the assembly to the realization that he is difficult to encounter. That man's Way is exalted and he is difficult to engage in conversation with; I should merely receive the Buddha's holy command and go inquire after his illness.'
5.7
'He deeply penetrates the true mark [of phenomena],
5.8
[Seng]zhao says: The true mark is difficult to fathom, yet he can deeply penetrate it.
5.9
and skillfully explains the essentials of the Dharma.
5.10
[Kumāra]jīva says: This phrasing is awkward; according to the sūtra text, it should say 'he explains the Dharma with concise words,' meaning he can use succinct speech to unravel complex principles. [Seng]zhao says: He skillfully uses concise words to present manifold meanings, praising his skillful grasp of the essential purport in explaining the Dharma.
5.11
His eloquence is unimpeded, and his wisdom is unobstructed.
5.12
[Seng]zhao says: His phrasing and eloquence respond fully without hindrance; his wisdom is all-pervading without obstruction.
5.13
He fully knows all the rules and forms of the bodhisattvas,
5.14
[Kumāra]jīva says: This refers to spiritual powers, transformations, and all the deportments.
5.15
and there is no secret treasury of the buddhas that he has not entered.
5.16
[Kumāra]jīva says: This is as explained in the Guhyakādhipati-nirdeśa concerning body, speech, and mind. [Seng]zhao says: Near at hand, he knows the forms and rules of bodhisattvas; far off, he enters the secret treasuries of all buddhas. 'Secret treasuries' refers to the secret treasuries of the Buddha's body, speech, and mind.
5.17
He subdues all māras,
5.18
[Seng]zhao says: 'All māras' refers to the four māras.
5.19
and disports in spiritual powers.
5.20
[Kumāra]jīva says: Spiritual powers and transformations are 'roaming'; leading beings to oneself, not being an ultimate reality, is named 'play'. Furthermore, although spiritual powers are great, they are easy for an adept; for me there is no difficulty, just like play. It is also said that within spiritual powers he is skilled in entering, abiding, and emerging with sovereign freedom without hindrance. [Seng]zhao says: Roaming through spiritual powers to transform people, he takes amusement in it.
5.21
His wisdom and upāya have both attained liberation.
5.22
[Seng]zhao says: Exhausting the application of wisdom and carrying the path of expedients to the limit, it is therefore called 'liberation.'
5.23
Even so, I will receive the Buddha's holy command and go there to inquire after his illness.'
5.24
[Seng]zhao says: His virtue being like this, he is not someone I am able to converse with. I must receive the Buddha's holy command, and only then proceed.
5.25
Thereupon, the bodhisattvas, great disciples, Śakra, Brahmā, the Four Heavenly Kings, and others in the assembly all had this thought: 'Now these two mahāsattvas, Mañjuśrī and Vimalakīrti, will converse together and will surely preach the marvelous Dharma.' Immediately, eight thousand bodhisattvas, five hundred śrāvakas,
5.26
[Kumāra]jīva says: The other śrāvakas focused their minds solely on escaping suffering and did not seek the profound Dharma, so they did not set out together. The five hundred disciples possessed deep wisdom and took pleasure in hearing the profound Dharma; that is why they went together.
5.27
and hundreds of thousands of devas and humans all wished to follow along.
5.28
[Seng]zhao says: The gathering of superior mahāsattvas must involve marvelous teachings; therefore all wished to set out together.
5.29
Then Mañjuśrī, respectfully surrounded by the assemblies of bodhisattvas, great disciples, and devas and humans, entered the great city of Vaiśālī.
5.30
[Seng]zhao says: The Āmrapālī Grove is outside the city; the Pure Name's room is inside the city.
5.31
At that time, the elder Vimalakīrti thought: 'Now Mañjuśrī is coming together with the great assembly.' He immediately used his spiritual powers to empty his room, removing all possessions
5.32
[Kumāra]jīva says: Intending to make clear the fundamental principle, he manifested the mark of emptiness to give rise to it. To extend full respect and present offerings, one must suit what makes another comfortable; because Mañjuśrī delights in emptiness and stillness, he responded to him with emptiness. [Dao]sheng says: Giving rise to this thought was to use an empty room to demonstrate an attitude of open receptivity. Emptiness occurs because things are removed, secretly serving to signify the fundamental purport. Manifesting spiritual powers was the bidding of this thought.
5.33
as well as his attendants,
5.34
[Dao]sheng says: To serve as an impediment, an attendant would have to be brought along separately. Furthermore, to clarify the substance: the fundamental purport has no attitude of abandoning sentient beings; if one does not discard them, there are none who are not attendants.
5.35
leaving only a single couch, lying upon it due to illness.
5.36
[Seng]zhao says: The inception of manifesting illness occurs now. Emptying the room and removing the attendants gave rise to the opening for dialogue, the proof of which appears later. Leaving only a single couch was the occasion for borrowing seats. [Dao]sheng says: The assembly being large and the room small, even couches would be an impediment. Moreover, sitting, lying, walking, and standing originally accord with what suits the person's body; when needed they are provided, why must they be prepared in advance? Discarding them in this way—how could it be said not to invite guests? It was precisely because there were guests that he did so. Yet in reality, preparing them to await the need was to manifest spiritual power so as to demonstrate the efficacy of explaining the principle. Once that efficacy cannot be fathomed, it verifies that what is spoken is real.
5.37
When Mañjuśrī entered his residence, he saw that his room was empty, devoid of all possessions, and that he lay alone upon a single couch.
5.38
[Dao]sheng says: He who sees it grasps its significance.
5.39
Then Vimalakīrti said: "Welcome, Mañjuśrī!
5.40
[Kumāra]jīva says: If he had remained silent without speaking, host and guest would not be in harmony. Praising him with the words 'Welcome' is intended to show that the guest's coming achieves an accord, and the host also receives him with openness.
5.41
Coming without the characteristics of coming, seeing without the characteristics of seeing."
5.42
[Seng]zhao says: This is about to clarify that every movement and stillness of a dharmakāya mahāsattva does not contravene the true mark. Because the true mark does not come, by it he comes; because the true mark is without seeing, by it they see each other. To be able to come without coming, to be able to see without seeing—with the dharmakāya being like this, what excellence could compare to it? [Dao]sheng says: Since he takes the realization of principle as his inner state, his coming is marked as coming with the characteristic of not coming. To have coming with the characteristic of not coming is the perfection of goodness.
5.43
Mañjuśrī said: "So it is, householder! If one has already come, one does not come again; if one has already gone, one does not go again.
5.44
[Dao]sheng says: 'So it is' refers to the preceding principle being just so. 'If' introduces a supposition: coming cannot manifest itself as not coming. Once one has come, one does not come again; thus that coming is the characteristic of not coming becomes naturally evident. Experiencing this carries no contrivance, so what goodness do I possess?
5.45
Why is this? That which comes comes from nowhere, and that which goes goes nowhere.
5.46
[Dao]sheng says: Coming originally arises from not coming. If that which comes does not even come from anywhere, how much less could that which comes come again? This is illuminated by contrasting going with the characteristic of coming.
5.47
That which can be seen can no longer be seen."
5.48
[Seng]zhao says: Clarifying the absence of the characteristics of coming and going fulfills what Spotless Fame praised. Going, coming, and seeing each other are all provisional designations of causes and conditions. What has not yet come does not come; what has already come does not come again. Leaving aside what has already come and what has not yet come, where else could there be coming and going? Seeing is also like this. The subtle dialectic within this should be sought in the treatises. [Dao]sheng says: This has already been fully treated in the preceding passage, so it is not elaborated further here.
5.49
"Let us set this matter aside for now.
5.50
[Seng]zhao says: Although he appreciated the profound discourse, his commission had not yet been delivered; therefore he temporarily suspended that discussion and inquired after the illness.
5.51
Householder! Is this illness bearable?
5.52
[Kumāra]jīva says: If the illness were severe and difficult to bear, it would obstruct his practice of the Path. He inquires about the severity of the illness, whether it is bearable or not.
5.53
Has treatment brought abatement without increasing? The World-Honoured One solicits after you with boundless care. Householder! What caused this illness to arise?
5.54
[Kumāra]jīva says: The scriptures of non-Buddhists know only three great illnesses and do not know the earth element. In the Buddha-Dharma, illnesses of the four great elements are explained: illnesses arise from the increase or decrease of the four great elements. The increase or decrease of the four great elements must naturally have its own cause, which is why he asks what caused it to arise.
5.55
How long has it been present? How is it to be extinguished?"
5.56
[Seng]zhao says: His commission having been delivered, he therefore inquires further into the origin of the illness. From what cause did this illness arise? How long has it been since it arose? How can it be extinguished? [Dao]sheng says: He poses the question based on the manifest trace of actual illness in order to seek out the intention behind the provisional illness.
5.57
Vimalakīrti said: "From delusion there is attachment; therefore my illness arose.
5.58
Daorong says: Sentient beings undergo delusion, and therefore have attachment; having attachment, they take on a body; taking on a body, they fall ill; and because they are ill, my illness arises. That my illness arises when sentient beings are ill shows that Vimalakīrti arose for the sake of living beings. Since he has come for beings for a long time, we know it is not recent. Below it says that when their illnesses are extinguished, my illness will be extinguished, which clarifies that his undertaking of illness is not confined to a limited group of sentient beings. Newly trained bodhisattvas are not yet able to dwell in saṃsāra for a long time and take on illness for all beings; hence he clarifies the mahāsattva's vast mind in abiding in illness. Traced back to its prior limit, it began with the initial aspiration; traced to its subsequent limit, it is extinguished together with sentient beings. When new trainees hear this, their narrow minds naturally broaden. Though the two clauses on the arising and extinguishing of the illness speak of illness, their intent is to illuminate compassion; thus he only speaks of the duration of the arising and extinguishing of the illness. Once the duration is made clear, great compassion naturally reveals itself; therefore he first answers regarding arising and extinguishing, and afterward answers regarding the arising of great compassion. This compilation takes clarifying the essential principle as fundamental, yet he speaks of great compassion first because there are two gateways into the Buddha-Dharma: first, great compassion, and second, wisdom. Proceeding from the shallow to the deep, propagation has its stages; therefore he speaks first of great compassion and afterward of the true mark. Master [Kumāra]jīva explains it in terms of emptiness, saying: 'Delusion has no prior limit; having no prior limit, it also has no middle or end. Illness is also like this, having no long or short duration.' In this passage there does not seem to be the meaning of emptiness, so I note my personal understanding separately as above. [Seng]zhao says: This answers the question about duration. What illness could a bodhisattva have? It is only out of compassion for them that he contracts an illness. For the illness of living beings, delusion and attachment are the root; for the illness of a bodhisattva, great compassion is the source. The high arises from the low; illness arises because of compassion. Thus, the arising of the illness of compassion stems from delusion and attachment; and since delusion and attachment are beginningless and their source cannot be discerned, the duration of my illness shares the same root with them. This clarifies the beginning of the illness of compassion, and does not necessarily speak solely of himself. [Dao]sheng says: The intention of manifesting illness is to uproot the beginningless delusion and attachment of sentient beings and exhaust their inexhaustible source. Although it arises in me now, in reality there is no arising in me now; the intent resides in their past, so it is essentially their past illness. Thus the illness arose at the time when there was delusion and attachment, not just recently. He does not speak of 'all' because in answering the duration of the illness now, the meaning is not universal; yet by speaking generally of delusion and attachment, the universal is already contained within it. Nor does he speak of 'sentient beings' because the bodhisattva no longer has delusion and attachment, so it naturally belongs to them.
5.59
Because all sentient beings are ill, therefore I am ill; if the illness of all sentient beings is extinguished, then my illness will be extinguished.
5.60
[Seng]zhao says: This answers how it is extinguished. The mahāsattva's illness arises merely because of them; once their illness is extinguished, what further trouble could I have? Yet because living beings are boundless, and delusion and attachment are limitless, the reach of great compassion is commensurate with them. Therefore, his prior compassion is inexhaustible, having delusion and attachment as its boundary; his subsequent compassion is boundless, being extinguished together with living beings. This draws on the reach of compassion to show that the extinction of compassion is not near at hand. [Dao]sheng says: Delusion and attachment are the source of sentient beings' affliction of illness; when the source is exhausted, their illness is also eliminated. The bodhisattva's illness originally resides in this, so once their illness is cured, how could his not be extinguished? Furthermore, the bodhisattva's illness takes universal deliverance as its primary aim; if there are sentient beings who do not receive it, it is simply that they themselves are not yet ready to follow transformation, not that he is partial. That being so, although it is said that when one person's illness is cured the bodhisattva is cured, it is actually only when all sentient beings are freed from illness that the bodhisattva's illness will then be extinguished. He speaks of 'sentient beings' because a bodhisattva's companions may also have illness, so he must make the distinction.
5.61
Why is this? A bodhisattva enters saṃsāra for the sake of sentient beings; where there is saṃsāra, there is illness. If sentient beings can be freed from illness, then the bodhisattva will no longer be ill.
5.62
[Seng]zhao says: The dharmakāya is free from birth, let alone physical form! Having no physical form, how could illness arise? Yet taking birth for their sake, he cannot be without physical form. Having physical form, he cannot be without affliction; therefore, corresponding to its long or short duration, he shares the same illness with them. If they are freed from illness, the bodhisattva will no longer be ill.
5.63
Just as an elder has only one child, and if that child falls ill, the parents also fall ill; if the child's illness is cured, the parents are also cured. The bodhisattva is also like this: he loves all sentient beings like children. If sentient beings are ill, the bodhisattva is ill; if sentient beings' illness is cured, the bodhisattva is also cured." He also said: "What caused this illness to arise?
5.64
[Dao]sheng says: The question originally came first, but now the answer is placed behind, which is why it is repeated here. He did not answer it first because the cause of the illness is revealed through its arising and extinguishing.
5.65
A bodhisattva's illness arises from great compassion."
5.66
[Seng]zhao says: A bodhisattva's illness takes great compassion as its root, and arises due to it. This answers the initial question. [Dao]sheng says: Were it not for great compassion, the illness would not arise without reason.
5.67
Mañjuśrī said: "Householder! Why is this room empty, without attendants?"
5.68
[Seng]zhao says: The reason for emptying the room lies here. He asks why the room is empty and also without attendants; the lack of attendants will be answered separately later. [Dao]sheng says: Having completed the inquiry into the illness, he next inquires into the intent behind the empty room. Where a person dwells, there should naturally be requisites for living. Yet now it is wide open and bare—what is the reason? Moreover, anyone who is ill in principle requires attendants. Yet their whereabouts are unknown; where else could they be? He asks about both matters together because attendants belong to the category of emptiness yet are distinct.
5.69
Vimalakīrti said: "All buddha-lands are likewise all empty."
5.70
[Seng]zhao says: The principle of equality admits of no divergent traces; of the lands in the ten directions, there are none that are not empty—why ask solely about the emptiness of one room? [Dao]sheng says: Things that can be acquired now and later discarded are naturally unreal; this shows that although the lands of all buddhas appear serene and stable, they too are empty. 'Buddha-lands' are lands where there are buddhas. He raises this as an example precisely because even when a buddha attains mastery, he still cannot make his own land existent, let alone other things! Moreover, because this is what human sentiment values, he marks it as the starting point for awakening.
5.71
He asked again: "By what are they empty?"
5.72
[Kumāra]jīva says: The room is empty because of the absence of things; by what principle, then, are the lands empty? [Seng]zhao says: The room is empty because of the absence of things; by what are the buddha-lands empty? He is about to discuss the meaning of ultimate emptiness. [Dao]sheng says: He still supposes that the peace of a land exists, not realizing it is identical to this absence. Since the householder speaks of their identity, on what grounds does he arrive at this alone?
5.73
He replied: "They are empty through emptiness."
5.74
[Kumāra]jīva says: It is not that they are empty because of the absence of things; because the nature of the lands is empty, which is ultimate emptiness, they are therefore empty. [Seng]zhao says: Being arises from the mind, and the mind is produced by being. The fortress of right and wrong is where false discrimination resides, which is why disparate theories of being and non-being contend in confusion. If one can empty one's heart, merge the mind with the true realm, wondrously abide at the pivot of the ring, and view being and non-being as one—then although wisdom encompasses the ten thousand things, it never takes them as being; though profound reflection lacks illumination, it never takes them as non-being. Thus one can equate Heaven and Earth into a single purport without contravening their reality, and mirror all existing things through dark penetration so that object and self are both one. Because object and self are both one, wisdom has no function of illumination; because it does not contravene their reality, things are naturally identical with one another. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Noble wisdom is non-knowing, taking empty space as its characteristic; all dharmas are unconditioned, being commensurate with it.' Thus, when one empties being through the wisdom of emptiness, being is spontaneously empty of itself; how could it depend on clearing things away before becoming empty? The former 'empty' refers to the emptiness of wisdom, while the latter 'empty' refers to the emptiness of dharmas. Merely clarifying the emptiness of dharmas provides no basis for certainty; hence he inwardly cites true wisdom and outwardly confirms the emptiness of dharmas. [Dao]sheng says: The former 'empty' is the emptiness of empty wisdom; the latter 'empty' is the emptiness of the preceding principle. This means it must be through empty wisdom that things are then empty; if not through empty wisdom, they will never be empty. How could one assert that they are not empty based on self-conception?
5.75
He asked again: "How does emptiness use emptiness?"
5.76
[Kumāra]jīva says: If the nature of dharmas is inherently empty, then they should be inherently empty as they are. Why would the worthy and noble ones still use empty wisdom to empty dharmas? [Seng]zhao says: The former 'empty' refers to the emptiness of dharmas, while the latter 'empty' refers to the emptiness of wisdom. If the inherent nature of all dharmas is inherently empty, why rely on the emptiness of wisdom before they are empty? [Dao]sheng says: If principle is indeed empty, why use empty wisdom before it is empty? There is an empty wisdom that attains understanding, and this emptiness is what is brought about by wisdom. It is not that principle is inherently so; how can one say that principle is empty just because it is empty only after empty wisdom?
5.77
He replied: "They are empty because of non-discriminating emptiness."
5.78
[Kumāra]jīva says: The former "emptiness" refers to empty wisdom, and the latter "emptiness" refers to the emptiness of dharmas. Although the nature of dharmas is inherently empty and does not depend on empty wisdom, if there were no empty wisdom, then with respect to oneself they would exist. Because one employs this non-discriminative empty wisdom, one attains their emptiness; thus, with respect to oneself they are empty.
[Seng]zhao says: The arising of wisdom originates in discrimination; but because all dharmas are devoid of characteristics, wisdom is devoid of discrimination. That wisdom is devoid of discrimination is precisely the emptiness of wisdom; that all dharmas are devoid of characteristics is precisely the emptiness of dharmas. Because wisdom does not discriminate dharmas, it simply knows the emptiness of dharmas. How could there be a separate emptiness of wisdom borrowed to empty dharmas? Thus, when wisdom does not discriminate dharmas, at that moment wisdom and dharmas share one and the same emptiness, with no further separate emptiness. Therefore it is said: Because non-discrimination is the emptiness of wisdom, wisdom knows the emptiness of dharmas; there is no separate emptiness of wisdom to empty dharmas.
[Dao]sheng says: When speaking earlier of empty wisdom, it did not mean the wisdom that discriminatively constructs emptiness; it refers merely to one who accords with the principle and attains awakening. If one takes according with the principle as awakening and attains this, and only then they are empty, how could the principle be otherwise?
5.79
He also asked: Can emptiness be discriminated?
5.80
[Kumāra]jīva says: He is inquiring about the wisdom that understands emptiness. Although earlier it was explained that empty wisdom sees neither emptiness nor existence with discrimination, it had not yet clarified that the substance of wisdom is empty and devoid of discrimination. Therefore he asks: Can this empty wisdom be discriminated?
[Seng]zhao says: Above, taking non-discrimination as the emptiness of wisdom, it was known that the emptiness of dharmas has no further separate emptiness. Although it is said there is no difference, the characteristic of difference has already taken shape; and once the characteristic of difference has taken shape, discrimination arises. If one knows that dharmas have no separate emptiness, why say: "Because non-discrimination is the emptiness of wisdom, one knows the emptiness of dharmas"? Therefore he asks: Can the emptiness of wisdom and the emptiness of dharmas be discriminated? Since wisdom and dharmas are both empty, speaking simply of a single emptiness is entirely sufficient.
[Dao]sheng says: Following the word "emptiness", emptiness seems to have characteristics; if it has characteristics, it is discriminated from other things. If emptiness were indeed discriminated while wisdom were not, then emptiness and wisdom would be different. Once emptiness is different from wisdom, moreover, it would not derive from wisdom.
5.81
He replied: Discrimination is also empty.
5.82
[Kumāra]jīva says: If wisdom is different from emptiness, that is discrimination; although there is discrimination, its nature is also empty.
[Seng]zhao says: What was spoken of earlier merely had discrimination within non-discrimination. If one can non-intentionally discriminate yet discriminate within non-discrimination, though one discriminates all day long, one has never discriminated. Therefore it is said: Discrimination is also empty.
[Dao]sheng says: In speaking of emptiness, the characteristic of emptiness is also empty. If the characteristic of emptiness were not empty, emptiness would be existence. Once emptiness were existence, how could existence be non-existence? Thus, all would exist and not be empty; therefore, discrimination is also empty, and only then is it empty.
5.83
He also asked: Where should emptiness be sought?
5.84
[Seng]zhao says: Above, relying on correct wisdom to elucidate emptiness, fearing that the deluded might suppose that the meaning of emptiness lies in the correct and not in the erroneous, he therefore asks where the meaning of emptiness resides, in order to make clear that the erroneous and the correct are not different.
[Dao]sheng says: The explanation has truly already been exhaustive, yet those who are deluded still cannot have complete faith; hence he again requests to test these words so as to awaken them. Earlier, inferring the reality of the principle culminated in emptiness, and discrimination is also empty, so emptiness is devoid of characteristics. If one indeed takes emptiness devoid of characteristics as reality, where does one seek it to find it to be so?
5.85
He replied: It should be sought within the sixty-two views.
5.86
[Kumāra]jīva says: Above it made clear that in ultimate emptiness there is no dharma that is not empty. Yet when generating the aspiration to seek understanding, there must be a ford; and in the essential ford of seeking, there is bound to be delusion. The arising of delusion stems from seeing difference, and nothing is more extreme in difference than the erroneous and the correct. The culmination of the erroneous and the correct is none other than this; therefore he asks where it should be sought, and [Vimalakīrti] replies with these two dharmas.
[Seng]zhao says: The erroneous arises due to the correct, and the correct arises due to the erroneous; investigating their nature, the nature is without duality. Therefore, if one wishes to seek the emptiness of correct wisdom, it should be sought within wrong views.
[Dao]sheng says: For those who harbor characteristics, the extremes do not go beyond the sixty-two views. If they are views, they are erroneous; yet within this there is nothing—how could emptiness of emptiness not be so?
5.87
He also asked: Where should the sixty-two views be sought?
5.88
[Dao]sheng says: If the sixty-two views are erroneous because they retain characteristics, where should one further seek to find them to be so?
5.89
He replied: They should be sought within the liberation of the buddhas.
5.90
[Seng]zhao says: Abandoning wrong views is called liberation; turning away from liberation is called wrong views. Thus, the erroneous and liberation mutually contend, but what is their source? That which is their source is one and only one. Therefore, in seeking the wrong views, one must base them on liberation.
[Dao]sheng says: Liberation means being liberated from fetters and bonds. If retaining characteristics were not erroneous, it could not be discarded. Yet because it does not exist in liberation, we therefore know that for all views the principle is necessarily so. Mentioning "the buddhas" clarifies that the wondrous is necessarily identical.
5.91
He also asked: Where should the liberation of the buddhas be sought?
5.92
[Dao]sheng says: If the liberation of the buddhas liberates from fetters and bonds, where should one further seek to find it to be so?
5.93
He replied: It should be sought within the mental activities of all sentient beings.
5.94
[Seng]zhao says: The mental activities of sentient beings are precisely the activities of bondage, and the activities of bondage are precisely that from which liberation arises. Moreover, the erroneous and the correct share the same root; liberation is a single gate; investigating their true nature, there has never been any difference. Therefore, in seeking the buddhas' liberation, one must look within the mental activities of sentient beings.
[Dao]sheng says: Mental activities are not harboring accord with principle. Harboring that which does not accord with principle is being bound in saṃsāra without mutually escaping. If among the mental activities of all sentient beings there were no liberation whatsoever, we therefore know that liberation liberates them. Mental activities are also just the sixty-two views; it is merely that their meanings are different, so one grasps this or that. If there were no means to clarify that the liberation of the buddhas is liberation from fetters and bonds, it would not yet suffice to verify that the sixty-two views are erroneous; if there were no means to clarify that the sixty-two views are erroneous, it would also not suffice to verify that emptiness is real. Therefore, inquiring in sequence makes it clear.
Another recension reads: "The sixty-two views, the liberation of the buddhas, and the intentions and mental activities of sentient beings." [Kumāra]jīva says: The two views are the root of existence and the culmination of the erroneous. Liberation is the end of existence and the wonder of the correct. The intentions and mental activities of sentient beings are between the two views. These three groups of dharmas are what ordinary feelings are obstructed by, definitively seeing them as different. Grasping characteristics and raising delusion arise from this; reversing delusion to seek the fundamental principle will also necessarily arrive at this. Because the three natures share the same consummation, they cyclically encompass one another.
5.95
Furthermore, as to what you asked, why I have no attendants: all the māras and various non-Buddhists are my attendants.
5.96
[Seng]zhao says: An attendant in the worldly sense means merely one who respects oneself, obeys orders, and serves what is needed. For a bodhisattva, an attendant means taking those who disdain oneself, disobey orders, and disobey the Way, identifying with their great contrariness, harmonizing with them in hidden accord, and attending to and nurturing the dharmakāya; this is what is called an attendant. This is why the host of māras and adherents of heterodox teachings are the foremost attendants.
5.97
Why is that? The māras take delight in saṃsāra, but the bodhisattva does not abandon saṃsāra.
5.98
[Dao]sheng says: If the māras take delight in saṃsāra, they abide in its midst. If one does not approach to transform them, one will be eternally contrary to them; how then could one cause them to awaken to the fundamental principle of existence?
5.99
The non-Buddhists take delight in all views, but the bodhisattva is unmoved amidst all views.
5.100
[Kumāra]jīva says: This means that he does not see them as having distinct characteristics.
[Seng]zhao says: Māras delight in and cling to the five desires and do not seek to transcend the world; hence they are bound to saṃsāra. Adherents of heterodox teachings, although seeking to transcend the world, cling to their own paths; hence they are bound to wrong views. The mahāsattva contemplates saṃsāra as identical to nirvāṇa, and therefore can refrain from abandoning it; he contemplates wrong views as identical to right views, and therefore can remain unmoved. Being unmoved and not abandoning, he can therefore take them directly as attendants.
[Dao]sheng says: He also does not abandon the various views. Māras and non-Buddhists represent the culmination of turning against the principle; yet since he has grasped their fundamental principle, beyond this what more is there to say?
5.101
Mañjuśrī said: Householder, what are the characteristics of your illness?
5.102
[Kumāra]jīva says: Contemplating it in terms of actual fact, it is as if there were no illness, yet he says there is; moreover, its characteristics have not yet been seen, so he seeks its characteristics.
[Seng]zhao says: Having known that from which the illness arises, he further inquires into the characteristics of the illness arising from it. The four hundred and four illnesses each have distinct characteristics; what characteristic does the illness of great compassion have? Intending to clarify that the illness arising in response to beings out of signless great compassion, though displaying illness all day long, is all day long devoid of characteristics.
[Dao]sheng says: Inquiring into the state of the illness should have preceded [the discussion on] emptiness; earlier, because replying based on reality would hinder the intent of asking about emptiness, and also because once the meaning of emptiness was clarified, its state would then become manifest, it is placed here.
5.103
Vimalakīrti said: My illness is formless and cannot be seen.
5.104
[Seng]zhao says: Great compassion is unconditioned by objects, yet there is nowhere it does not take as an object; because there is nowhere it does not take as an object, it can generate illness in response to beings. Generating illness in response to beings, then with respect to myself there has never been an illness. Having never been ill, it can therefore share the characteristics of all illnesses without contravening the signless Way. Why so? Great compassion is unconditioned; being unconditioned, it is signless. The illness generated through this is also signless; therefore he says: "My illness is formless and cannot be seen."
[Dao]sheng says: Illness has form, and in principle must be visible; yet it lacks reality, which is why he speaks thus.
5.105
He also asked: Is this illness conjoined with the body, or conjoined with the mind?
5.106
[Kumāra]jīva says: The previous reply that it is formless and cannot be seen is precisely expounding ultimate emptiness. According to words, it also seems as though an illness exists but is not seen; hence this question arises.
[Seng]zhao says: Some, hearing that the illness cannot be seen, might suppose that mental illness is formless and therefore cannot be seen; or some might suppose that physical illness is subtle and therefore cannot be seen; hence he raises the question on their behalf. With what matter is illness conjoined, in body or mind, that it is said to be invisible?
[Dao]sheng says: The body is the basis that receives illness, and the mind is the master that perceives pain; illness might conjoin with them so as to be formless. Therefore, borrowing this to inquire, he causes it to become clear that illness has nowhere to dwell, and only then is formlessness complete.
5.107
He replied: It is not conjoined with the body, because the body is separated from characteristics.
5.108
[Kumāra]jīva says: Because there is no body, there is no illness.
5.109
Nor is it conjoined with the mind, because the mind is like an illusion.
5.110
[Kumāra]jīva says: Because the mind lacks real substance, there is no illness.
[Seng]zhao says: If the body is separated from characteristics, then it is not a body; if the mind is like an illusion, then it is not a mind. Since body and mind are both non-existent, with what could illness conjoin? Because there is no conjunction, there is no illness; because there is no illness, it cannot be seen.
[Dao]sheng says: The body is fundamentally of disparate manifestation, so it is said to be separated from characteristics. The movements of the mind have no fixed direction, so it is said to be like an illusion. Since body and mind are non-existent, with what could it conjoin?
5.111
He also asked: Among the four great elements—the earth element, water element, fire element, and wind element—the illness of which element is it?
5.112
[Kumāra]jīva says: This is about to clarify that from which illness arises. That from which illness arises is not due to a single thing; it necessarily arises from the provisional conjunction of the four great elements. Arising from provisional conjunction, the illness has no self-nature; having no self-nature, it is, as above, invisible. Although this clarifies that on which illness depends to arise, it actually clarifies why there is no illness.
[Seng]zhao says: The arising of the body is formed by the four great elements. Above, he examined the body in general; now he examines the four great elements separately, minutely tracing their origin.
[Dao]sheng says: Body and mind are originally formed by the conjunction of the four great elements. Even if body and mind may be non-existent, the four great elements might exist. And since the four great elements each give rise to a hundred and one illnesses, it might just be this, and hence formless. He is again able to borrow this as a question to clarify that illness dependent on the four great elements has no real form.
5.113
He replied: This illness is not the earth element, nor is it separated from the earth element; the water, fire, and wind elements are also like this.
5.114
[Seng]zhao says: The original nature of the four great elements is itself free from affliction. When various conditions assemble, mutually increasing, decreasing, and overcoming one another, affliction arises because of this. If one wishes to say there is illness, in its original nature there is inherently none; if one wishes to say there is no illness, it exists provisionally. Therefore, the illness is not earth nor is it separated from earth; the other elements are analogous to this.
5.115
Yet the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements.
5.116
[Dao]sheng says: They truly depend on them.
5.117
Because they have illness, therefore I am ill.
5.118
[Seng]zhao says: The four great elements are fundamentally non-existent, and illness likewise does not exist; yet the empty and provisional illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements, and therefore I respond to their illnesses with an empty and provisional illness. Tracing back to their fundamental basis, both other and self lack reality; so why wish to inspect their outward form? [Dao]sheng says: It is also due to this and is not a real illness.
5.119
At that time, Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti: "How should a bodhisattva console a sick bodhisattva?"
5.120
[Seng]zhao says: Consoling the sick ought to have come from Mañjuśrī himself; that he instead asked the Pure Name is because the gathered assembly had focused their minds upon him. Furthermore, to draw verification from the one who is sick is the very means to scrutinize the propriety of consolation. As this is about to clarify the Mahāyāna path of non-realization in order to console bodhisattvas who are beginners and manifest illness, this question is raised. [Dao]sheng says: Consoling the sick is fundamentally the role of one who is free from illness. Since Vimalakīrti is able to be free from it, he is next asked about it. Although one is a bodhisattva, if one has not yet escaped illness, one cannot help but suffer from illness, thereby clinging to life and fearing death. If one harbors feelings of clinging to life and fearing death, this will surely increase saṃsāra. Therefore, fellow travelers on the path should console one another, and the method of consolation is to remove such feelings. If these feelings are removed, saṃsāra is virtually brought to an end.
5.121
Vimalakīrti said: "Speak of the body as impermanent, but do not speak of revulsion toward and renunciation of the body.
5.122
[Kumāra]jīva says: Generally speaking, there are three kinds of dharmas: worldly dharmas and supramundane dharmas. Contemplating impermanence and feeling revulsion toward the body is the dharma of śrāvakas; clinging to the body without contemplating impermanence is the dharma of pṛthagjanas; contemplating impermanence without revulsion toward the body is the dharma of bodhisattvas. Now, expounding the bodhisattva dharma for the sick, if one abides in illness through this, the mind will not be disordered. [Seng]zhao says: As for the method of consolation, one should speak to the sick of the body's impermanence to eliminate their greedy attachment, but one should not speak of revulsion and renunciation so as to cause them to realize [the fruit]. Those who do not contemplate impermanence and do not feel revulsion and renunciation are pṛthagjanas; those who contemplate impermanence and feel revulsion and renunciation belong to the two vehicles; those who contemplate impermanence without revulsion and renunciation are bodhisattvas. Therefore, one should console beginners, causing them to settle their minds in enduring illness so as to save all beings, neither weary of saṃsāra nor delighting in nirvāṇa. This is the mahāsattva's method of consolation. [Dao]sheng says: Clinging to life is the affection for the body; when one's feelings cherish it, there is no satiety. If it is said to be impermanent, how could one cherish and cling to it? If one can follow awakening, one does not anticipate banishing delusion and yet delusion naturally perishes. For the one whose delusion has perished, there is no longer a body; although delusion has perished and there is no body, one never abandons principle. Never abandoning principle, one will surely fathom it; fathoming principle and exhausting nature, the momentum inevitably leads to universal salvation. As for the time when one is within delusion, one naturally frets over delusion and seeks passage through it; the intention to seek passage through it inevitably relies on impermanence to feel revulsion toward the body. Thus, revulsion toward the body arises from being within delusion; it is not an attitude rooted in principle.
5.123
"Speak of the body as having suffering, but do not speak of delighting in nirvāṇa.
5.124
[Dao]sheng says: If the principle is impermanence, then losing what one loves brings distress. Discriminating it minutely, the accumulation of the eight sufferings is especially not to be clung to. Previously, being within delusion, one used impermanence to feel revulsion and renunciation; now too one takes suffering and delights in the bliss of nirvāṇa. Speaking in terms of principle, how could this be so?
5.125
"Speak of the body as non-self, yet speak of teaching and guiding sentient beings.
5.126
[Dao]sheng says: In general, affection for the body arises from clinging to a self. If it is impermanent and suffering, how could there be a controller? If there is no controller within, on what basis would clinging arise? This too relies on those afflicted with delusion using it merely for personal self-cultivation. Once resting in the awakened mind, it is called teaching and guiding.
5.127
"Speak of the body as empty and quiescent.
5.128
[Kumāra]jīva says: According to their sharp or dull faculties, the teachings are given in broad or abridged forms. For example, a great tree is not felled by a single axe; when the accumulated roots are deep, they cannot be eliminated by a single dharma. Some, though hearing of impermanence, say it is not suffering, so suffering is taught to them. Having heard of suffering, they then think there is a master of suffering and bliss, so non-self and emptiness are taught to them.
5.129
"Do not speak of ultimate quiescent extinction.
5.130
[Seng]zhao says: Although seeing the body's suffering, one does not delight in the bliss of nirvāṇa; although knowing non-self, one does not neglect teaching and guiding on account of the emptiness of sentient beings; although understanding the body's emptiness, one does not seize the ultimate path of nirvāṇa; thus one can abide peacefully in saṃsāra and share the same illness with sentient beings. Therefore, those who console should speak of what ought to be practiced, and what ought not to be practiced should not be spoken. [Dao]sheng says: Since nothing can act as a controller, how could my body exist? If the body does not exist, whence could clinging arise? What is called empty and quiescent clarifies that there is no substantiality; it does not mean non-existence. These four phrases are arranged in sequence according to their meanings, yet their principles thoroughly encompass one another.
5.131
"Speak of repenting past transgressions, but do not speak of [them] entering the past.
5.132
[Kumāra]jīva says: Those of sharp faculties, upon hearing the four phrases above, can dwell in illness without confusion. From this point downward is for those of dull faculties, speaking words close and urgent to instruct their minds. Today's illness must be due to past transgressions, so they are taught to repent past transgressions. Having said there are past transgressions, it would seem that transgressions have a permanent nature that enters into the past; therefore it is said they do not enter the past, so as to remove the notion of permanence. [Seng]zhao says: This teaches the sick bodhisattva to repent transgressions of the past. Although past transgressions bind a person, one does not say that transgressions have a permanent nature that comes from the future into the present and from the present enters the past. [Dao]sheng says: Clinging to life and fearing death is because one fears having transgressions. If one can reform and repent them, one transcends their domain; what then is there to fear? Therefore, repenting past transgressions is taught to remove their fear. This is merely based on conditions; it does not say that they have reality.
5.133
"Take one's own illness to have pity on their illnesses.
5.134
[Kumāra]jīva says: Cause them to infer from themselves and have compassion for other beings. One should think: 'Even with my slight illness now, the pain is still like this; how much more so for sentient beings in the evil destinies who undergo immeasurable suffering!' [Seng]zhao says: This encourages the sick to infer from their own illness to have pity on the illnesses of others. [Dao]sheng says: 'Even I, who have wisdom, still have the suffering of illness; how much more so those who do not understand!' Inferring from oneself to pity others is the attitude of universal salvation; how could one fear death for oneself?
5.135
"One should recognize the suffering of countless kalpas in past lives.
5.136
[Dao]sheng says: Having undergone immeasurable suffering through countless kalpas, how could one suddenly forget it in a single day?
5.137
"One should be mindful of benefiting all sentient beings.
5.138
[Kumāra]jīva says: Having endured immeasurable suffering through countless kalpas, one never did so for the sake of the path. Enduring suffering for the sake of the path will surely bring great benefit. Having thus consoled oneself, one should also be mindful of benefiting sentient beings so that they obtain this benefit. [Seng]zhao says: One should reflect that in past lives one endured immeasurable suffering; present suffering is momentary, so how is it worth grieving over? One must only exert oneself to rescue them from suffering. [Dao]sheng says: Being mindful of wishing to benefit all sentient beings, one then enters saṃsāra and cannot harbor fear.
5.139
"Recall the merit one has cultivated.
5.140
[Kumāra]jīva says: According to the custom of foreign countries, the meritorious karmas performed from birth to death are recorded one by one. When life ends, those nearby recount them to the person, causing them to rely on merit so that the mind has no grief or fear. [Seng]zhao says: Fearing that beginning bodhisattvas may be perturbed by illness, he encourages them to recall the merit they have cultivated to gladden their feelings. [Dao]sheng says: If one has merit, one's future rebirth will certainly be superior; what is there to fear?
5.141
"Be mindful of pure livelihood.
5.142
[Kumāra]jīva says: Pure livelihood is right livelihood. Thinking to oneself: 'From birth until now I have constantly practiced right livelihood, so I will surely go to a good destiny. What shall I fear?' [Seng]zhao says: Do not give rise to wrong livelihood to save the body from illness. Wrong livelihood means flattering and posturing for the sake of survival, seeking profit to sustain life. [Dao]sheng says: When practicing good, one originally did so to attain the path and cross over the world, never seeking profit in clothing and food. If one does not even fear being dragged along by saṃsāra, how much less the suffering of transgressions?
First 142 of 361 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 注維摩詰經 — Classical Chinese