維摩義記 2.5

2.5

次釋其文。先解初段維摩所念。言「爾時」者，生念時也。「長者維摩」，起念人也。「自念疾」等，正興念心。然此句中念待聖問，非念為病，良以維摩悲物情深、待化如渴，故興此念。維摩現病專情為物，心雖為物，得佛影響化事方成，故念自己「寢疾于床，世尊大慈寧不垂愍」。病為慈境，故念自己寢疾于床。愍苦唯佛，故念世尊。佛有深慈，於苦多憐，故念大悲。舉佛大慈，欲使如來愍己病苦，并憐所化，為己必問。有大慈者見應憐，故復怪嘖寧不垂愍。寧謂安也。我今病苦，安能忍此而不垂愍。上心憐下名之為垂。愍謂悲愍。下佛知心遣人往問。「佛知其意」，興告所由。下正告之。先告不堪、後告所堪，便足佛以何義通告不堪。解有三義：一、為彰如來心等不偏，所以通告。與《涅槃》中普告大眾令問相似。第二為欲廣寄眾言顯維摩德，故須通告。告命不堪，彰其德高；告命堪者，顯其德妙。第三為欲廣寄眾言以顯維摩所說之法，故須通告。故下文中先告不堪彰昔所說，後告所堪明今所說。等是通告，以何義故先告不堪、後告堪者？解有兩義：一者欲次第等告令問，成上三義，以是義故先告不堪；若先告堪，後則無宜告不堪者。第二為欲約對不堪顯後能問，所問人高、所說必深，令人渴仰，以是義故先告不堪。告不堪中，先告聲聞、後告菩薩。如來熟知聲聞不堪，何勞通告？解亦有三：第一為顯佛心平等，與《涅槃》中先告比丘令問相似。第二為欲廣對眾人顯維摩德，故須通告。故下文中先告聲聞，對之以顯維摩德高超出二乘；後告菩薩，對之以顯維摩德高過諸菩薩。第三為欲廣寄眾言以顯維摩所說之法，故須通告。故下文中先告聲聞，明其所說教聲聞法；後告菩薩，明其所說教菩薩法。等是通告，以何義故先告聲聞、後告菩薩？解有三義：一聲聞近佛，隨近先告；菩薩不爾，為是後告。第二為欲聲聞菩薩等告令問，成前三義，以是義故先告聲聞；若使如來先告菩薩，後則無宜更告聲聞，以彼劣故。第三義者約法次第，前品之中明教凡法從凡至聖，故此品中次告聲聞，對之以顯教聲聞法從小至大，故至後品方告菩薩，對之以顯教菩薩法化法應爾。就此品中，所告聲聞凡有五百，前十別列，餘悉總舉。就前十中，對初九人明法身因，對後一人明法身果。就前九中，對初八人明修行法，對後一人明出家法。就前八中，對前七人明修善法，對後一人彰滅惡法。就前七中，對前六人明修道行，對後一人明起通行。修道行體，起通行用。就前六中，初舍利弗明不住行，次對目連明入證行，對後四人明助道行。此即《地經》同相三道。就初人中，先告後辭。「即告舍利汝行問疾」，是告言也。舍利名字已如上辨，是王舍城波羅門子，其父本是南天竺人，外祖先是王舍城中大論義師，王與封邑。舍利父至，與其論義，外祖受闕，王奪其封與舍利父。外祖因即嫁女與之，生舍利弗。其舍利母，先與其兄摩呵𤘽絺羅共為言論，恒不及兄；至懷舍利，論常得勝，𤘽絺因是入出更學。後生舍利，年始七歲，十六國中論義第一。後佛出世，從佛出家，佛弟子中智慧第一。故餘論中讚嘆舍利，唯餘佛世尊，一切眾類智慧及多聞欲比舍利，於十六分中不能及其一。今先告之。何故先告？以其慧勝弟子中標，為是先告。

Next, explaining the text. First, the initial section explaining Vimalakīrti's thought is interpreted. 'At that time' refers to the moment when the thought arose. 'The elder Vimalakīrti' indicates the person who generated the thought. 'Reflected to himself on his illness' and so forth constitutes the actual arousal of the thought in his mind. Yet, in this phrase, he is thinking of awaiting inquiry from the sages, not dwelling on his illness; for truly, Vimalakīrti's compassion for sentient beings was profound, and his longing to convert them was like thirst, which is why he generated this thought. Vimalakīrti manifested illness solely for the sake of beings; though his intention was for beings, only by obtaining the Buddha's responsiveness would the work of conversion succeed. Therefore, he thought to himself, 'I am lying sick in bed; would the World-Honoured One of great mercy not deign to take pity on me?' Because illness serves as the object of mercy, he thought of himself lying sick in bed. Because only the Buddha pities suffering, he thought of the World-Honoured One. Because the Buddha possesses deep mercy and has abundant compassion for suffering, he thought of great compassion. Adducing the Buddha's great mercy, he wished to lead the Tathāgata to pity his own painful illness and also have compassion for those to be converted, so that [the Buddha] would certainly send someone to inquire on his behalf. Since one possessing great mercy, seeing this, ought to take pity, he further expressed wonder and remonstrance: 'How could he not deign to take pity?' 'Ning' (寧) means 'how could' (an 安). 'When I am now suffering from illness, how could he bear this and not deign to take pity?' A higher mind having pity on an inferior is called 'deigning' (chui 垂). 'Pity' (min 愍) means compassionate pity. Below, the Buddha, knowing his thought, sends someone to go inquire. 'The Buddha knew his thought' explains the reason for making the announcement. Below is the actual announcement. First addressing those who are not capable, and afterwards addressing those who are capable, is sufficient; for what reason did the Buddha address those who were not capable across the board? The explanation has three meanings: First, to manifest the Tathāgata's impartial and unprejudiced mind, he therefore addressed them all. This is similar to [the passage in] the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where he universally addressed the great assembly, bidding them to ask questions. Second, in order to extensively rely on the words of the assembly to reveal Vimalakīrti's virtue, it was necessary to address them all. Announcing to those who were not capable reveals how high his virtue was; announcing to those who were capable reveals how wondrous his virtue was. Third, in order to extensively rely on the words of the assembly to reveal the Dharma taught by Vimalakīrti, it was necessary to address them all. Therefore, in the text below, first addressing those who were not capable reveals what had been taught previously, and afterwards addressing those who were capable explains what was taught at present. Since he addressed them all equally, for what reason did he first address those who were not capable, and afterwards address those who were capable? The explanation has two meanings: First, he wished to address them in an equal, orderly sequence to bid them inquire, thus fulfilling the three meanings above; for this reason, he first addressed those who were not capable. If he had first addressed those who were capable, afterwards there would have been no occasion to address those who were not capable. Second, he wished, by contrast with those who were not capable, to reveal the one who would subsequently be able to inquire; when the person inquiring is exalted, what is taught must be profound, causing people to thirst and yearn for it; for this reason, he first addressed those who were not capable. Among those not capable, he first addressed the śrāvakas, and afterwards addressed the bodhisattvas. Since the Tathāgata well knew that the śrāvakas were not capable, why did he trouble himself to address them all? The explanation also has three points: First, to reveal the equality of the Buddha's mind, which is similar to [the passage in] the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] where he first addressed the monks, bidding them ask questions. Second, wishing to extensively contrast with the multitude of persons to reveal Vimalakīrti's virtue, it was necessary to address them all. Therefore, in the text below, first addressing the śrāvakas reveals, by contrast with them, that Vimalakīrti's high virtue surpasses the two vehicles; afterwards addressing the bodhisattvas reveals, by contrast with them, that Vimalakīrti's high virtue exceeds that of all the bodhisattvas. Third, wishing to extensively rely on the words of the assembly to reveal the Dharma taught by Vimalakīrti, it was necessary to address them all. Therefore, in the text below, first addressing the śrāvakas clarifies that what he taught was the teaching for śrāvakas; afterwards addressing the bodhisattvas clarifies that what he taught was the teaching for bodhisattvas. Since he addressed them all equally, for what reason did he first address the śrāvakas and afterwards address the bodhisattvas? The explanation has three meanings: First, the śrāvakas were near to the Buddha, and following proximity he addressed them first; the bodhisattvas were not so, and for this reason were addressed afterwards. Second, wishing to address both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas equally to bid them inquire, fulfilling the three earlier meanings; for this reason, he first addressed the śrāvakas. If the Tathāgata had first addressed the bodhisattvas, afterwards there would have been no occasion to further address the śrāvakas, because the latter were inferior. The third meaning concerns the sequence of dharmas: in the preceding chapter, he clarified the teaching for ordinary people, proceeding from the ordinary to the noble; therefore, in this chapter, he next addressed the śrāvakas, using this to reveal that the teaching for śrāvakas proceeds from the small to the great; hence, only when reaching the subsequent chapter does he address the bodhisattvas, using this to reveal the teaching for bodhisattvas; the method of conversion should be like this. In this chapter, the śrāvakas addressed total five hundred; the first ten are listed individually, and the remainder are all brought up collectively. Among the first ten, in relation to the first nine people, the cause of the dharmakāya is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the fruit of the dharmakāya is clarified. Among the first nine, in relation to the first eight people, the dharma of cultivation is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the dharma of leaving household life is clarified. Among the first eight, in relation to the first seven people, the dharma of cultivating wholesome dharmas is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the dharma of extinguishing evil dharmas is revealed. Among the first seven, in relation to the first six people, the practice of cultivating the path is clarified; in relation to the last one person, the practice of giving rise to supernormal powers is clarified. Cultivating the path practices the essence, while giving rise to supernormal powers practices the function. Among the first six, first, regarding Śāriputra, non-abiding practice is clarified; next, regarding Maudgalyāyana, the practice of entering realization is clarified; regarding the latter four people, the practice of aids to the path is clarified. These are the three paths of identical characteristics in the Daśabhūmika Sūtra. Regarding the first person, [the Buddha] first makes the announcement, and afterwards [the disciple] declines. 'He then said to Śāriputra: You go and inquire after his illness,' is the announcement. The name Śāriputra has already been analyzed above; he was the son of a Brahmin of Rājagṛha. His father was originally from South India. His maternal grandfather was formerly a great master of disputation in Rājagṛha, upon whom the king had bestowed a fief. When Śāriputra's father arrived, he engaged in disputation with him; the maternal grandfather suffered defeat, and the king stripped him of his fief and gave it to Śāriputra's father. Thereupon, the maternal grandfather gave his daughter in marriage to him, and she gave birth to Śāriputra. Śāriputra's mother had formerly engaged in discussions with her brother Mahākauṣṭhila and had always been inferior to her brother; but when she conceived Śāriputra, she consistently triumphed in debate, on account of which Kauṣṭhila went abroad to study further. Later, when Śāriputra was born, at only seven years of age, he was foremost in debate among the sixteen great kingdoms. Later, when the Buddha appeared in the world, he renounced the household life under the Buddha, becoming foremost in wisdom among the Buddha's disciples. Therefore, in other treatises, Śāriputra is praised, saying that, leaving aside only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, if the wisdom and extensive erudition of all sentient beings were compared to Śāriputra, it could not equal even a sixteenth part of his. Now [the Buddha] addresses him first. Why does he address him first? Because his wisdom is supreme and he stands out among the disciples; for this reason, he is addressed first.