維摩義記 2.9

2.9

自下第二維摩教呵。何故須然？為使迦葉棄小學大，是以教呵。文中「維摩來謂」，總舉。下別顯之，別中先呵。「住平等法應次行」下，是教辭也。呵中初言「有慈悲心而不能普」是正呵也。捨富從貧，出不普事。又復前句有慈不普，違於菩薩等慈故呵；捨富從貧，違頭陀中次乞故呵。教中有三：一正教乞食，亦名乞心；二「以空聚」下，就乞食時教防過儀；三者「若能不捨八邪」已下，就乞食後教生道法。前中四句，準事不次。次而論之，行乞為始、次乞第二、取為第三、受為第四。但今文中為欲次乞教令利他，故在先論。行乞與後取之為受，同教自利，故迴後說。又得次乞，教捨二乘居使之過，故在先論；行乞與後取受二事同教捨凡生死之過，故迴後說。初次乞中，「住平等法」，教修等心，翻前有慈而不能普；「應次行乞」，教修等行，翻前捨富從貧里乞。後三句中斯教自為，言有隱顯。初句為離生死之緣須行乞食，第二為斷生死之因須取揣食，第三為捨生死之果須受彼食。就初句中，「為不食故應行乞」者，食是身緣，得淨法身方能捨遠。彼淨法身要修捨世資生之業，乞食資身行道方得，故為不食須行乞也。第二句中，「為壞和合應取食」者，因能聚果，名為和合，內證真道方以永離。其道必由捨世資生，從他取食資身起行方能證會，是故為壞和合之相應取揣食。自從他求，爾時名取。「為不受故應受食」者，不受生死有為之果名為不受，不受唯佛。佛果亦由捨世榮生，從他受取資身起道方能剋證，故為不受須受彼食。他與領得，方名為受。

From here below is the second [section], Vimalakīrti's teaching and rebuke. Why was this necessary? To cause Kāśyapa to abandon the Lesser [Vehicle] and learn the Greater; for this reason he taught and rebuked him. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said to me" is a general statement. Below, it is shown in detail, and within the detail he first rebukes him. From "abiding in the dharma of equality, one should beg food in succession" onward is the phrasing of the instruction. Within the rebuke, first saying "having a mind of loving-kindness and compassion yet unable to make it universal" is the rebuke proper. Leaving the rich and following the poor points out the matter of not being universal. Furthermore, the previous phrase having kindness that is not universal violates a bodhisattva's impartial kindness, hence he is rebuked; leaving the rich and following the poor violates successive begging among the dhūtas, hence he is rebuked. Within the instruction there are three parts: first, properly instructing on begging for food, which is also called begging with the mind; second, from "with the thought of an empty village" onward, instructing on the deportment of guarding against faults at the time of begging for food; third, from "if one can, without abandoning the eight heterodoxies" onward, instructing on generating the dharmas of the path after begging for food. In the first part there are four phrases, which based on the actual course of events are not in sequence. If discussed in proper sequence: going begging is first; begging in succession is second; taking is third; receiving is fourth. But now in the text, because he wishes to use successive begging to instruct on benefiting others, it is discussed first. Going begging and the subsequent taking and receiving alike instruct on self-benefit, so they are deferred to later discussion. Furthermore, through successive begging he instructs on abandoning the faults of the two vehicles' afflictive residues, so it is discussed first; the two matters of going begging and the subsequent taking and receiving alike instruct on abandoning the ordinary person's faults of saṃsāra, so they are deferred to later discussion. In the first part on successive begging, "abiding in the dharma of equality" instructs on cultivating an impartial mind, overturning the previous "having kindness yet unable to make it universal"; "one should beg in succession" instructs on cultivating impartial practice, overturning the previous leaving the rich to beg in the village of the poor. In the latter three phrases, these instructions are for oneself, and their words have implicit and explicit senses. The first phrase is that to leave the conditions of saṃsāra, one must practice begging for food; the second is that to sever the causes of saṃsāra, one must take morsel food; the third is that to relinquish the fruits of saṃsāra, one must receive that food. In the first phrase, "for the sake of not eating, one should go begging": food is a condition for the body; only by attaining the pure dharmakāya can one relinquish and distance oneself from it. That pure dharmakāya must be attained through cultivating the practice of renouncing worldly livelihood, relying on begging food to sustain the body to practice the path; therefore, for the sake of not eating, one must go begging. In the second phrase, "for the sake of destroying cohesion, one should take food": causes being able to gather fruits is called "cohesion"; only by internally realizing the true path can one forever be apart from it. That path must be attained by renouncing worldly livelihood and taking food from others to sustain the body and generate practice; therefore, for the sake of destroying the characteristic of cohesion, one should take morsel food. When one seeks it from another on one's own, at that moment it is called "taking". "For the sake of not receiving, one should receive food": not receiving the conditioned fruits of saṃsāra is called "not receiving"; non-reception belongs only to the Buddha. The Buddha-fruit is also attained by renouncing worldly flourishing and livelihood, receiving and taking from others to sustain the body and generate the path, so that one can accomplish realization; therefore, for the sake of non-reception, one must receive that food. Only when the other person gives and one accepts it is it called "receiving".