[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776) › 1.56 # 維摩義記 1.56 維摩義記 1.56 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1.56) 下對顯淨。顯之云何？明土實淨，眾生不見，土隨不見應為不淨。文中有三：一、佛正顯淨；二、螺髻助顯；三、如來重顯。此三相成。佛是化主兼是所疑，故佛先顯。佛雖說淨，無人證見，語成難信，故須螺髻彰己所見助成佛語。螺髻雖復言己見淨，舍利不覩猶謂叵信，故須如來重復顯淨助成螺髻。以此三番展轉顯淨，穢相始盡。又復初番如來顯淨，令使聞知；第二螺髻明己見淨，生其信解。第三如來隱穢顯淨，含其證見。此則教入之次第也。就初段中，「佛知其念」，顯淨所由。由知所念，故為顯示。「即告已」下，正為顯淨。約喻顯之，句別有四：一、如來就喻反問舍利。為約舍利所知之事，類所不知，故須反問。「於意云何」，就心總問，問其意解，於汝意中所解云何。「日月豈」下，就事別問。初言「日月豈不淨」者，是其一問。為約此事明土非穢，所以問之。耶者，是其不定之辭。「而盲不見」，復為一問。約此事明舍利等不見所由，故復問之。二、舍利正答。「不也」，總答。彰彼日月盲雖不見，而非不淨，故曰不也。下別答之。「是盲者過」，答其後問，推過在盲。「非日月咎」，答其初問，免過日月，明其日月無不淨咎。三、佛取所答，類之顯土。「眾生罪故，不見如來佛國嚴淨」，取前所答，推過屬凡。「非如來咎」，取其後答，免過於佛。此言稍隱，準喻應言言非佛土咎。但前舍利就佛疑責，故今還須就佛免過，是故說言非非如來咎。此言含通，別則有二：一、非如來因中有其不淨心咎，二、非如來果中有其不淨土咎。四、就所顯結己土淨，推彼不見。「我此土淨」，結己土淨。「而汝不見」，推其不見。汝自不見，何得疑我心土不淨？ > Below, \[the Buddha\] reveals purity in response. How is it revealed? It clarifies that the land is truly pure, but sentient beings do not see it; in accordance with its not being seen, the land appears to be impure. In the text there are three parts: first, the Buddha directly reveals the purity; second, Śikhin (Brahma) assists in revealing it; third, the Tathāgata reveals it again. These three complement each other. The Buddha is the lord of transformation and also the one doubted, so the Buddha reveals it first. Although the Buddha says it is pure, no one has witnessed it, so his words are difficult to believe; therefore Śikhin must manifest what he himself has seen to assist and establish the Buddha's words. Although Śikhin says he has seen the purity, Śāriputra does not see it and still finds it hard to believe; therefore the Tathāgata must reveal the purity again to assist and establish Śikhin's \[words\]. Through these three successive turns of revealing purity, the aspects of impurity are completely exhausted. Moreover, in the first turn, the Tathāgata reveals the purity to cause them to hear and know it; in the second, Śikhin clarifies that he himself has seen the purity, generating their faithful understanding; in the third, the Tathāgata conceals impurity and reveals purity, including their witnessing it. This, then, is the sequence of entry into the teaching. In the first section, "The Buddha knew his thoughts" is the cause of the revelation of purity. Because he knew what was thought, he revealed it for him. From "and immediately addressed \[him\]" down, he directly reveals the purity for him. Revealing it by means of an analogy, there are four distinct phrases: First, the Tathāgata poses a counter-question to Śāriputra using the analogy. In order to use a matter known to Śāriputra to analogize what is unknown, he must pose a counter-question. "What do you think?" asks comprehensively regarding his mind, asking about his understanding: what is your understanding in your mind? From "Could the sun and moon..." down, he asks specifically regarding the matter. The initial statement, "Could the sun and moon not be pure?" is the first question. To use this matter to clarify that the land is not impure, he asks this. The particle ye indicates an indeterminate phrasing. "Yet the blind do not see them" is another question. To clarify through this matter the reason why Śāriputra and others do not see it, he asks it again. Second, Śāriputra directly answers. "No" is a general answer. It makes clear that although the blind do not see the sun and moon, it is not that \[the sun and moon\] are impure, hence he says "no." Below he answers specifically. "It is the fault of the blind person" answers the latter question, imputing the fault to the blind person. "Not the fault of the sun and moon" answers the first question, exonerating the sun and moon, clarifying that the sun and moon have no fault of impurity. Third, the Buddha takes the answer and analogizes it to reveal the land. "Because of the sins of sentient beings, they do not see the majestic purity of the Tathāgata's Buddha-land" takes the former answer and imputes the fault to worldlings. "It is not the Tathāgata's fault" takes the latter answer and exonerates the Buddha. This phrasing is somewhat implicit; by analogy, it should say that it is not the fault of the Buddha-land. But because Śāriputra earlier directed his doubt and reproach at the Buddha, now \[the text\] must exonerate the Buddha, which is why it says "it is not the Tathāgata's fault." This phrase is broad and inclusive, and specifically has two aspects: first, it is not that the Tathāgata in the causal stage had the fault of an impure mind; second, it is not that the Tathāgata in the fruition stage has the fault of an impure land. Fourth, based on what has been revealed, he concludes with the purity of his own land and refers back to the other's failure to see it. "My land is pure" concludes with the purity of his own land. "Yet you do not see it" refers back to his failure to see it: you yourself do not see it, so how can you doubt that my mind and land are impure? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1.55) - [Next: 1.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1.57) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776~en-mt.1.56) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.1.455) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.1.56) · Pramāṇa