維摩義記 2.32

2.32

次告優波令往問疾。上明修善，此對優波明其對治滅惡之法。優波離者，是天竺語，此云上首，持律中上。本在家時是諸釋子剃髮之人，後諸釋子出家之時優波送去，諸釋子等欲至佛所，脫所著衣冠瓔珞并所乘象與優波離。釋去子後，優波思念：「諸釋子等果報如此尚捨出家，我住何為？若彼有得，我亦應然。」以所得物安著樹上、象繫樹下，作如是言：「諸有取者，吾即施之。」後往佛所，諸釋子見，問其來意。優波具答。釋子大喜，即便請佛：「此人先來為我驅使，若後出家我喜輕慢，願佛先度，我當敬事。」佛先度之，諸釋子等同為設禮，是時大地為之振動，空聲讚言：「諸釋子等憍慢山崩。」出家之後持律第一。今命問疾，先告、後辭。辭中初總、次釋、後結。釋中「所以」，徵前起後，下正辨釋。文別有五：一舉昔日被呵由緣；二、「時維摩」下，出被呵辭。三、「於是二比丘言上智我」下，彰二比丘稱讚維摩。四、「我答言」下，明己述嘆。五、「時二比丘疑悔除」下，明二比丘聞法獲益。第一段中，初明比丘犯律為恥，不敢問佛，請優波離。以優波離持律第一，故偏請問。後優波離為其解說。言「如法」者，如戒律法。明犯不犯、輕之與重，名為說解。自下第二明呵辭。何故須然？為教犯罪二比丘等破相滅罪，故教以呵。文中「維摩來謂」，總舉；下別顯之，有呵有教。「無重增此二比丘罪」，是呵辭也。云何重增比丘造罪？原由著有取相故生，令復為其說有罪相增其情取，故曰重增。「當直」下教。「當直除滅勿擾其心」，是總教也。云何曲滅而復云直？說有罪相方教纖治名為曲滅，說罪體空破離罪相名直除滅，義如後辨。「勿擾其心」，以理遮抑。擾謂擾亂。云何擾心而言勿擾？說罪怖之增其怯懼，名擾其心；說罪無罪令心正住除疑歡喜，名為不擾。下別教之。「所以者何」，徵前起後。所以教汝直滅者何？「彼罪性」等，明罪體空，成應直滅。初先正教。「其知此」下，結嘆令學。前中有三：一、就罪正破。二、「如佛說」下，約心以破。此亦名為約因以破，心為罪因。三、「一切法生滅」已下，約法以破。此亦名為約緣以破，一切諸法是罪緣故。初中「罪性不在內外不在中」者，明罪體空，所以不在。內謂六根，外謂六塵。又內自身，外謂一切眾生等緣。罪從因緣假合而生，本無自性。以無性故，內外中間一切不在。不在內外，既法無罪；不在中間，離法亦無。就第二段約心破中，文別有四：一、明眾生垢淨依心。第二「心亦不在內」下，約心破罪。三、「如優波離以心相」下，重復約心破遣罪相，成向後段。四、「唯優波離妄想垢」下，重明垢淨皆依於心，成向初段。初中為欲約心破罪，故引佛說明垢與淨皆依於心。良以心是眾生本體，是故心垢即眾生垢、心淨生淨。第二約破罪之中，先明心空，次約明罪，後類諸法。宗為明罪，舉餘類顯。「心亦不在內外中間」，明心空也。內謂六根，外謂六塵，內外和合而生心識。別求無性，以無性故不在內外，中間亦無。故《涅槃》云「眼、色、明、欲四事和合而生眼識。是眼識性，決定不在眼中、色中、明中、欲中。餘亦如是。」不在內外，類同前罪，是故亦言「如其心然罪垢亦然」。將心類罪，明罪同心；如心既然不在內外不在中間，罪垢亦然不在內外及不在中。「諸法亦然」，類顯諸法。法同心罪，不在內外及不在中，故曰亦然。諸法既然，罪是一切諸法之例，何獨不爾？「不出於如」，顯亦然相。前說心性不在內外及不在中，即是如義。諸法同心不在內外及不在中，亦即是如。如外無法，故云「不出」。自下第三重復約心破遣罪相成前第二。於中為明一切眾生心無垢，寄優波離悟解以顯。「如優波離以心相得解脫時寧有垢不」，維摩反問。就人指法，是以言如。彼優波離具二解脫：一心解脫，斷除愛結；二慧解脫，斷絕無明。今舉心脫，故言心相得解脫耳。又就心中有性有相，真諦心性，世諦假有是其心相。心性常寂無脫無縛，世諦心相有縛有脫，面相異性故說心相。得解脫時，以其心相觀空離染，名得解脫。此解脫時，寧有垢染可斷除不？「我言不也」，優波正答。得解脫時垢染不有，故曰不也。是義云何？若見垢染可除可斷，不得解脫。不見垢染可除可離，達本無垢方得解脫，故答不也。「維摩詰言一切眾生心相無垢亦如是」，將聖類凡。凡類未解，無垢理同，故曰如是。自下第四重明垢淨皆依於心成上初段。於中三句：一、「妄想心垢，無妄想心淨」，見等三倒之心是其妄想。若依《地持》，八種妄想名為妄想。有則迷真所以是垢，無即真顯所以是淨。二、「顛倒是垢無倒是淨」，八倒名倒，有則迷於生死涅槃故名為垢，無則解達所以是淨。三、「取我是垢不取是淨」，取我亦是八倒所收，以此患本故復別舉。上來第二約心以破。自下第三約法以破。於中初明一切諸法生滅無性，類罪無性。「諸法皆」下，明法心起，心外無相，類罪無相。前中初法如幻等喻。如幻喻，明自性無常。言如電者，喻念無常。「諸法」下合。後中「諸法皆妄見」者，法說明空。如夢等喻，喻別有四：一、「以妄想」下合上來別教。「其知此」下結嘆令學。「其知此者」，知前所辨。「是名奉律」，行順律法。其知此者知前所辨，是名善解心解律法。調伏名律。觀空破罪，是真調伏，故名善解。此第二竟。自下第三明二比丘聞法稱讚。「二比丘言上智哉」者，嘆勝過劣。解出優波，故曰上智。哉是助辭。「是優波離所不及」等，明下劣上。是優波離所不及者，明智不及。「持律之上而不能說」，明說不及。優波離時持律最勝，故名為上。而不能說罪性空寂除滅我罪，名不能說。「我答言」下，是第四段明己述嘆。「自捨如來未有聲聞及菩薩能制其樂說之辨」，嘆其說勝。「智慧明達為若此也」，嘆其智勝。「時二比丘疑悔除」下，是第五段彰二比丘聞說獲益。益中有三：一除疑悔、二發大心、三興廣願。願一切眾生得維摩辨。前辭、次釋、「故我」下結。

Next, [the Buddha] addressed Upāli, ordering him to go and inquire after [Vimalakīrti's] illness. Previously, the cultivation of goodness was explained; here, with Upāli, the method of antidotes that eradicate evil is explained. Upāli is an Indian name; in Chinese, it means "supreme head," [denoting him as] supreme among those who uphold the Vinaya. Originally, while still a householder, he was the barber for the Śākya youths. Later, when the Śākya youths went forth from household life, Upāli accompanied them. When the Śākya youths were about to arrive at the Buddha's place, they took off their clothing, caps, necklaces, and gave the elephants they were riding to Upāli. After the Śākyas left, Upāli reflected: "The Śākya youths have karmic retributions such as this, yet they still abandon them to go forth. Why should I remain? If they can attain something, I must be able to as well." Placing the acquired goods upon a tree and tying the elephant beneath the tree, he made this declaration: "Whoever takes them, I hereby give them away." Later, he went to the Buddha's place. Seeing him, the Śākya youths asked his intention in coming. Upāli answered in full. The Śākyas rejoiced greatly and at once requested of the Buddha: "This man formerly served as our attendant. If he goes forth after us, we might become prone to slighting him. We pray the Buddha will ordain him first, so that we must venerate and serve him." The Buddha ordained him first, and the Śākya youths bowed in homage to him together. At that moment, the great earth shook on account of this, and a voice in the sky praised them, saying: "The mountain of arrogance of the Śākya youths has collapsed!" After going forth, he was foremost in upholding the Vinaya. Now he is ordered to inquire after the illness; first comes the address, and then the declining. In the declining, first is the general [refusal], next the explanation, and then the conclusion. In the explanation, "For what reason" inquires into the preceding and introduces what follows, below directly differentiating and explaining it. The text has five distinct sections: first, presenting the circumstances of having been rebuked in the past; second, from "Then Vimalakīrti..." onward, presenting the words of the rebuke; third, from "Thereupon the two monks said: 'Supreme wisdom...'" onward, showing the two monks' praise of Vimalakīrti; fourth, from "I replied..." onward, explaining his own statement of praise; fifth, from "At that time, the two monks had their doubts and regrets removed..." onward, explaining the benefit the two monks obtained from hearing the Dharma. In the first section, it initially explains that the monks felt ashamed of violating the Vinaya and did not dare to ask the Buddha, instead approaching Upāli. Because Upāli was foremost in upholding the Vinaya, they specifically approached him to ask. Subsequently, Upāli expounded for them. Saying "in accordance with the Dharma" means in accordance with the rules of the Vinaya. Clarifying whether an offense occurred or not, and whether it was light or heavy, is called explaining. Below, the second section clarifies the words of rebuke. Why was this necessary? In order to instruct the two offending monks and others to refute characteristics and eradicate offenses, he instructed by means of rebuke. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said" is the general statement; below, it is manifested individually, having both rebuke and instruction. "Do not further aggravate the offenses of these two monks" is the rebuke. How could it further aggravate them? The monks committed offenses originally because attachment to existence and grasping at characteristics arose; now, explaining to them the characteristics of offenses further increases their emotional grasping, hence it is called "further aggravating." From "You should directly..." onward is the instruction. "You should directly eradicate them without agitating their minds" is the general instruction. What is crooked eradication such that he says "directly"? Explaining the characteristics of offenses and only then teaching piecemeal remedies is called crooked eradication; explaining the emptiness of the essence of offenses to refute and abandon offense characteristics is called directly eradicating, the meaning of which will be explained later. "Without agitating their minds" refutes and checks through the ultimate principle. Agitating means disturbing. Why does it mean disturbing the mind such that he says "without agitating"? Explaining offenses to terrify them, thereby increasing their trepidation, is called agitating their minds; explaining offenses as being without offense, causing their minds to abide correctly, removing doubts, and bringing joy, is called not agitating. Below is the specific instruction. "Why is this?" inquires into the preceding and introduces what follows. Why do I instruct you to directly eradicate them? "The nature of those offenses..." and so forth explains that the essence of offenses is empty, establishing that one ought to directly eradicate them. First is the primary instruction. From "One who understands this..." onward, it concludes with praise to inspire learning. The former contains three parts: first, refuting directly with respect to offenses; second, from "As the Buddha stated..." onward, refuting with reference to the mind—this is also called refuting with reference to the cause, as the mind is the cause of offenses; third, from "All dharmas arise and cease..." onward, refuting with reference to dharmas—this is also called refuting with reference to conditions, because all dharmas are conditions for offenses. In the first part, "The nature of offenses is neither within, nor without, nor in between" explains that the essence of offenses is empty, which is why it is not present [in those locations]. "Within" refers to the six faculties; "without" refers to the six dusts. Furthermore, "within" is one's own body; "without" refers to all conditions such as sentient beings. Offenses arise through the temporary combination of causes and conditions and fundamentally lack self-nature. Because they lack self-nature, they are not present within, without, or in between. Not being within or without, dharmas are without offense; not being in between, they do not exist apart from dharmas either. In the second section, refuting with reference to the mind, the text has four distinct parts: first, explaining that sentient beings' defilement and purity depend on the mind; second, from "The mind also is not within..." onward, refuting offenses with reference to the mind; third, from "Just as, Upāli, when by the characteristics of mind..." onward, again refuting and eliminating offense characteristics with reference to the mind, establishing the later section; fourth, from "Upāli, delusional thinking is defilement..." onward, again explaining that defilement and purity both depend on the mind, establishing the first section. In the first part, wishing to refute offenses with reference to the mind, he cites the Buddha's words to explain that defilement and purity both depend on the mind. Because the mind is the fundamental essence of sentient beings, the mind's defilement is sentient beings' defilement, and the mind's purity is sentient beings' purity. In the second part, refuting offenses, he first explains the emptiness of mind, next clarifies offenses with reference to it, and then assimilates all dharmas to it. The main purpose is to clarify offenses; mentioning other things serves to demonstrate by analogy. "The mind also is not within, without, or in between" clarifies the emptiness of the mind. "Within" refers to the six faculties, and "without" refers to the six dusts; through the combination of internal and external, mental consciousness arises. Seeking separately, it has no self-nature; because it lacks self-nature, it is not within or without, nor is it in between. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "The four factors of eye, form, light, and desire combine to produce eye-consciousness. The nature of this eye-consciousness definitely does not reside in the eye, in form, in light, or in desire. The others are also like this." Not being within or without is analogous to offenses previously, which is why it also says: "As with the mind, so it is with the defilement of offenses." Assimilating offenses to the mind shows that offenses are identical to the mind; just as the mind is not within, without, or in between, the defilement of offenses is likewise not within, without, or in between. "All dharmas are also thus" assimilates and demonstrates all dharmas. Dharmas are identical to the mind and offenses in not being within, without, or in between; hence it says "also thus." Since all dharmas are thus, and offenses are an instance among all dharmas, why alone would they not be so? "Not departing from suchness" manifests the characteristic of "also thus." Earlier it was said that the nature of mind is not within, without, or in between, which is precisely the meaning of suchness. All dharmas, like the mind, are not within, without, or in between, which is also suchness. Outside of suchness there are no dharmas; hence it says "not departing." Below, the third part again refutes and eliminates offense characteristics with reference to the mind, establishing the second part above. Within this, to clarify that the minds of all sentient beings are without defilement, he draws upon Upāli's awakening and understanding to manifest it. "Just as, Upāli, when by the characteristics of mind one attains liberation, could there be any defilement?" Vimalakīrti asks in retort. Directing the Dharma by pointing to the person is why he says "just as." Upāli possesses two liberations: first, liberation of mind, severing the fetters of craving; second, liberation through wisdom, cutting off ignorance. Here, citing liberation of mind, it says "by the characteristics of mind one attains liberation." Moreover, within the mind there are nature and characteristics: the true mind is its nature, and conventional provisional existence is its mental characteristics. The nature of the mind is ever quiescent, without liberation or bondage; conventional mental characteristics have bondage and liberation; because the characteristics differ from the nature, they are called mental characteristics. At the time of attaining liberation, by means of these mental characteristics one contemplates emptiness and separates from defilement, which is called attaining liberation. At the time of this liberation, could there be any defilement that can be severed and eliminated? "I said, 'No,'" is Upāli's direct answer. At the time of attaining liberation, defilement does not exist; hence he says "No." What does this mean? If one sees defilement as something that can be eliminated or severed, one does not attain liberation. Only when one does not see defilement as something that can be eliminated or separated from, understanding that it is fundamentally without defilement, does one attain liberation; hence he answers "No." "Vimalakīrti said: 'The mental characteristics of all sentient beings are without defilement, also like this,'" assimilating ordinary beings to the noble. Although ordinary beings have not yet awakened, the principle of being without defilement is the same; hence it says "also like this." Below, the fourth part again clarifies that defilement and purity both depend on the mind, establishing the first part above. Within it are three phrases: first, "Delusional thinking is defilement of the mind, and absence of delusional thinking is purity of the mind." The minds of the three inversions such as views are delusional thinking. If according to the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the eight kinds of delusional thinking are called delusional thinking. When present, they delude regarding truth, so they are defilement; when absent, truth is revealed, so it is purity. Second, "Inversion is defilement, and lack of inversion is purity." The eight inversions are called inversions; when present, they delude regarding saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, hence they are called defilement; when absent, there is understanding and realization, so it is purity. Third, "Grasping at a self is defilement, and not grasping is purity." Grasping at a self is also subsumed under the eight inversions; because it is the root of affliction, it is specifically mentioned again. The above is the second section, refuting with reference to the mind. Below is the third section, refuting with reference to dharmas. Within it, he first explains that the arising and ceasing of all dharmas has no self-nature, which is analogous to offenses having no self-nature. From "All dharmas are..." onward, it explains that dharmas arise from the mind and that outside the mind there are no characteristics, which is analogous to offenses having no characteristics. In the former, first are metaphors such as dharmas being like an illusion. The illusion metaphor explains that self-nature is impermanent. Saying "like lightning" illustrates moment-to-moment impermanence. From "all dharmas..." onward, he synthesizes them. In the latter, "all dharmas are falsely seen" is the doctrinal explanation clarifying emptiness. As for metaphors such as dreams, there are four metaphors: first, from "Through delusional thinking..." onward synthesizes the above specific instruction. From "One who understands this..." onward concludes with praise to inspire learning. "One who understands this" means understanding what was previously distinguished. "Is named upholding the Vinaya" means acting in accordance with the rules of the Vinaya. One who understands this understands what was previously distinguished; this is called well understanding the rules of the Vinaya with the mind. Taming is called vinaya. Contemplating emptiness to eradicate offenses is true taming, hence called well understanding. This concludes the second part. Below, the third section explains that the two monks heard the Dharma and praised it. "The two monks said: 'Supreme wisdom indeed!'" praises the superior surpassing the inferior. Since his understanding exceeds Upāli's, it is called supreme wisdom. "Indeed" is an exclamatory particle. "This is beyond Upāli's reach..." and so forth clarifies that the inferior does not reach the superior. "Beyond Upāli's reach" explains that his wisdom does not reach. "Though supreme in upholding the Vinaya, he cannot explain it" clarifies that his exposition does not reach. Upāli was supreme at that time in upholding the Vinaya, so he was called supreme. Yet he could not explain that the nature of offenses is empty and quiescent, eradicating my offenses; hence he is called unable to explain. From "I replied..." onward is the fourth section, explaining his own statement of praise. "Except for the Tathāgata, no śrāvaka or bodhisattva can suppress his eloquence of delight in speech" praises the excellence of his preaching. "His wisdom and insight are clear and penetrating to this extent" praises the excellence of his wisdom. From "At that time, the two monks had their doubts and regrets removed..." onward is the fifth section, showing that the two monks obtained benefits from hearing the explanation. Among the benefits are three: first, removing doubts and regrets; second, generating the great resolve; third, giving rise to vast vows, vowing that all sentient beings will attain Vimalakīrti's eloquence. First is the declining, next the explanation, and from "Therefore I..." onward is the conclusion.