維摩義記 2.15

2.15

自下第二維摩教呵。何故須然？為益須菩并淨二百天子法眼，故須教呵。於此之中，維摩初先取鉢盛飯，後正呵詰。何不直呵，乃先取鉢盛滿飯乎？此有三義：一、取其鉢為盡言論。若不取鉢彼得切難喜畏捨去，故須取鉢。雖取其鉢，下須菩提猶欲捨去，說令不取。二、若不盛飯，望直設難，相涉慳過；為拂此迹，故先盛飯。三、欲寄食以興言端，故先取鉢盛滿飲矣。下正呵之。「謂我」總舉，「唯」下是別。呵意如何？釋者不同。若如生公、肇公所釋，要須菩提證空平等，上齊佛、下等凡，乃可取食。若依什公釋顯難意，要須菩提證空起用，上等諸佛、下同凡夫，乃可取食。又人復言：徵須菩提令入法界緣起淨門上同諸佛，亦入法界緣起染門下同凡夫，乃可取食。若當準彼《樂瓔珞經》，難意全別，今應同彼。彼經如何？其須菩提夜夢，如來以金色手而摩其頂。曉問如來。佛時答曰：「汝於今日當得聞於未曾聞法。」其須菩提聞是語已，入城中乞食。城中一女，身佩瓔珞伎樂自娛，因以呼之為樂瓔珞。其須菩提過至其家，是女遂取須菩提鉢，盛滿飯已執鉢未還。問須菩提：「汝何故乞？為有我想命想人想而乞耶？」須菩提答：「我無我想命想人想。」是女復問：「若無此想，為何乞食？」須菩提答：「諸佛世尊亦行乞食。何獨見責？」是女對曰：「佛目無我想，須乞但為物。云何為乎？彼中具辨為二十事故行乞食。汝同彼耶？」須菩提言：「我未同佛。」是女復徵：「自無我想，便非自為；未同如來，復非為他。為何乞食？」其須菩提默然無對。維摩今此責相似彼。凡難聲聞乞食所為，必用此法，離道更無，故今維摩還用此理徵須菩提。其乞食者，無過自為、無過為他。自為凡夫，其為他者謂佛菩薩；若同此二，乃可取食。其須菩提自忖無此兩種所為，取食莫由，故下置鉢而欲捨去。難意如是。文中有二：一、約佛設難，若同諸佛乃可取食。二、「若須菩提不見佛」下，約凡設難，若同凡夫乃可取食。前中合十一句文。初之一句徵令同佛證空平等乃可取食。後十徵令同佛成就解脫之德乃可取食。就初句中，「於食等者諸法亦等」，將食類法，觀食體空，名為食等。以此類餘，名法亦等。言「諸法等食亦等」者，以法類食，觀諸法如，名為法等。以此類食，名食亦等。「如是行乞乃可取」者，結聽取食。就後十句徵令同佛解脫德中，前九是別，後一總結。就前別中，初之七句約行以徵，後之兩句約人以徵。復前七中，初五斷德，後二行德。復前五中，初之三句是煩惱斷，次一業斷，後一苦斷。煩惱斷中，初二見惑，後一修惑。見惑之中，初鈍、後利。鈍中「不斷婬怒癡」者，是佛不住無為行也。婬者是貪，怒者是嗔，癡是無明，隨化常起故曰不斷。此即是不行違通道，亦即是下八萬四千諸煩惱門，而諸眾生為之疲勞，諸佛以此而作佛事。又亦即是《地經》之中發起勝行，《涅槃經》中佛非無偏常行遍事。

From here begins the second part: Vimalakīrti's instruction and rebuke. Why was this necessary? It was to benefit Subhūti and purify the Dharma-eye of the two hundred devaputras; therefore, the instruction and rebuke were necessary. Herein, Vimalakīrti first takes the bowl and fills it with food, and afterwards formally rebukes and interrogates him. Why did he not simply rebuke him directly, but rather first took the bowl and filled it with food? There are three meanings in this: First, taking his bowl was in order to bring the discussion to completion. If he had not taken the bowl, upon facing sharp challenges [Subhūti] might easily become frightened and leave; hence he had to take the bowl. Even though he took his bowl, below Subhūti still wished to leave, and [Vimalakīrti] spoke to stop him from taking it. Second, if he had not filled it with food and simply posed difficulties directly, this would look like the fault of stinginess; to dispel this trace, he filled it with food first. Third, wishing to use the food to introduce the topic, he first took the bowl and filled it with food and drink. Below, he formally rebukes him. "Said to me" is the general statement, while from "only if" onward is the specific. What was the intention behind the rebuke? Commentators differ. If one follows the explanation of Master Sengzhao and Master Daosheng, it requires Subhūti to realize the equality of emptiness—equaling the Buddhas above and leveling with ordinary people below—before he may take the food. If one relies on Master Kumārajīva's explanation to reveal the meaning of the challenge, it requires Subhūti to realize emptiness and activate its function—equaling the Buddhas above and being identical to ordinary people below—before he may take the food. Still others say: it cross-examines Subhūti to make him enter the pure gate of dependent origination of the dharmadhātu to be identical above with the Buddhas, and also enter the defiled gate of dependent origination of the dharmadhātu to be identical below with ordinary people, before he may take the food. If one were to base it on the *Yueluoluo jing*, the meaning of the challenge is completely different, yet now one should agree with it. How is it in that sūtra? Subhūti dreamed at night that the Tathāgata rubbed his head with a golden-coloured hand. At dawn he asked the Tathāgata about it. The Buddha then answered: "Today you shall hear a Dharma never heard before." Having heard these words, Subhūti entered the city to beg for food. In the city was a woman whose body was adorned with necklaces (keyūra) and who amused herself with instrumental music; for this reason she was called Yueluoluo ("Lover of Necklaces"). When Subhūti passed by and arrived at her house, this woman took Subhūti's bowl, filled it with food, and held the bowl without returning it. She asked Subhūti: "Why do you beg? Do you beg because you have the conception of a self, the conception of a life-principle, or the conception of a person?" Subhūti replied: "I have no conception of a self, conception of a life-principle, or conception of a person." The woman asked again: "If you lack these conceptions, why do you beg for food?" Subhūti replied: "The Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, also practice begging for food. Why do you single me out for reproach?" The woman answered: "The Buddhas have no conception of a self, and their begging is solely for the sake of beings. Why do they do so? That [sūtra] fully explains that they practice begging for food on account of twenty matters. Are you the same as them?" Subhūti said: "I am not yet equal to the Buddhas." The woman cross-examined him again: "Since you yourself have no conception of a self, it is not for your own sake; and since you are not yet equal to the Tathāgatas, it is also not for the sake of others. Why do you beg for food?" Subhūti was silent and had no reply. Vimalakīrti's reproach here is similar to that. Whenever challenging what a śrāvaka begs food for, one must employ this method—outside the path there is no other—so here Vimalakīrti likewise uses this principle to cross-examine Subhūti. Begging for food is nothing more than for oneself or for others. Acting for oneself is an ordinary person; acting for others refers to Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Only if one is equal to these two may one take the food. Subhūti reflected that he lacked both of these purposes and had no justification to take the food; hence below he put down the bowl and wished to leave. Such is the intention of the challenge. Within the text there are two parts: first, formulating the challenge in terms of the Buddha—only if one is equal to the Buddhas may one take the food; second, from "if Subhūti does not see the Buddha" onward, formulating the challenge in terms of ordinary beings—only if one is equal to ordinary beings may one take the food. In the former part, there are eleven phrases in total. The first phrase cross-examines him, bidding him to equal the Buddha in realizing the equality of emptiness before he may take the food. The remaining ten cross-examine him, bidding him to equal the Buddha in accomplishing the virtues of liberation before he may take the food. In the first phrase, "if one is equal toward food, all dharmas are likewise equal": drawing an analogy from food to dharmas, contemplating the essential nature of food as empty is called "equal toward food." Analysing the rest by this is called "dharmas are likewise equal." Regarding "all dharmas are equal, food is likewise equal": drawing an analogy from dharmas to food, contemplating all dharmas as suchness is called "dharmas are equal." Applying this analogy to food is called "food is likewise equal." "Begging in this manner, you may then take [it]" concludes by permitting him to take the food. Within the subsequent ten phrases that cross-examine him, bidding him to equal the Buddha's virtues of liberation, the first nine are specific and the last one summarizes. Within the former specific ones, the first seven phrases cross-examine in terms of practice, and the latter two phrases cross-examine in terms of persons. Again, within the former seven, the first five concern the virtue of severance, and the latter two concern the virtue of practice. Again, within the former five, the first three concern the severance of afflictions, the next one concerns the severance of karma, and the last concerns the severance of suffering. Within the severance of afflictions, the first two concern the delusions of view, and the last one concerns the delusions of cultivation. Within the delusions of view, the first are dull and the latter sharp. Among the dull ones, "not severing lust, anger, and delusion" means that the Buddha does not abide in unconditioned practice. Lust is greed, anger is wrath, and delusion is ignorance; because they constantly arise in accordance with transformation, they are said to be "not severed." This is precisely not practicing what obstructs the path of penetration; it also refers to the eighty-four thousand gates of affliction below, over which all sentient beings grow weary, yet by means of which all Buddhas perform Buddha-work. It is also the initiation of superior practices in the *Daśabhūmika Sūtra*, and the Buddha's not lacking impartial, constant practice of all-pervasive activities in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*.