[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) › 3.2 # 維摩義記 3.2 維摩義記 3.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.2) 次釋其文。此品有二：一、維摩文殊問答辨法；二、「文殊所將八千大」下明說利益。前中先遣來去之相，「且置」已下問答辨法。來去覆真，故須拂遣。維摩先言，文殊後述。維摩言中，「善來文殊」，慰問之辭。問言善來，慶其得來，故曰善來。又嘆來好，亦曰善來。「不來相來，不見相見」，拂相顯實，亦得名為約實辨相。就前文殊與眾俱來，拂之顯實，是故說言不來而來。就前文殊入室見空無諸有等，拂之顯實，是故說言不見而見。不來而來，汎解有三：一、就世諦無常以釋。實法無來，相續有來，故《涅槃》云「諸行無常，亦無有來。」二、就二諦相望以釋。真諦無來，世諦有來，故《涅槃》云「諸法若常，亦無有來。」三、就真應二身以釋。真身無來，應身有來。不見而見，解亦有三：一、就世諦。眼色明等別分無見，和合有見。又生住異滅四相，分別則無有見，假合有見。二、就二諦相望以釋。真諦常寂無眼無見，世諦有見。三、真應相對。真身平等離相離緣，名為不見；應化隨物示有照矚，名之為見。「文殊」下述。文殊初言「如是居士」，總述前言。「若來」已下，別述前義。先就來去述成前義。據維摩室望彼文殊，說之為來；就菴羅會望彼文殊，說之為去。「若來不來，若去不去」，以理正述。汎解亦三：一、就世諦無常以釋。相續論之有來有去，細實分之來則無來去則無去。二、就二諦相望以釋。世諦之中有來有去，於真平等，來則無來、去亦無去。三、就真應相對以釋。應有來去，真身則無。雖有三義，第二正當。「所以」下釋。初先徵問，我有何以言來不來去更不去？下對釋之。「來無所從，去無所至」，以來無來，去更不去。菴羅會空，故來無從；維摩室空，故去無至。「所可見者更不可見」，約就其見述成前義。解亦有三，準上可知。雖具三義，正當第二。上來拂遣來去之相，從此已下問答辨法。於中文殊先止前言，次通佛意，後自為問、維摩具答。「且置是事」，是止前也。無來去等，具說叵盡，故須且置。「居士是疾寧可忍」等，通佛問意。居士是疾寧可忍不？問疾輕重。「療治有損不至增乎」，問疾差劇。此通問辭，下顯問人。言「世尊」者，正舉問人。言「慇懃」者，問心重也。「致問無量」，問意深也。致謂通致。問病之心元元難盡，故曰無量。此問維摩至竟不答，以此未去，故此不答。及下去時維摩共往，故亦不答。「居士是疾何所因」下，文殊自問、維摩具答。然下為問，悉因維摩現病、空室二重事起。因前現病，為問有八：一問病所因；二問病久近；三問滅法；四問病相；五問病所在；六問病體，四大之中何大之病？亦可此問起病之緣；七問慰喻；八問調伏。通佛兩問，問合有十。因前空室，為問有二：一問空室；二問無侍。通下論之，所起有七：前二如向；三、起下舍利念無床坐；四、起下天女；五、起下室中八未有事；六、起下文中普現所問父母妻子親戚等事；七、起下念食具說如是。然今文殊但問前二。通前問病，自為十問。此十相從以之為三：初八偏就能化之人問其化相；第九「云何慰喻有疾」，就能化人對所化者問慰喻儀；第十「云何調伏其心」，偏就所化問修治法。要攝唯二：前之八番問維摩詰現化方便，後二問其所化之人治病之法。復前八中相從為三：初三問病，為彰維摩大悲方便。次二問其空室無侍，為顯維摩悲行所依。悲依空成故問空室，悲隨有生故問無侍。後之三番重復問疾，為彰維摩病應非實。就初段中，文殊初先并為三問：「居士是疾何所因起」，問病所因。「其生久如」，問病遠近。「當云何滅」，問病滅法。下維摩詰先答第二，後答第三，後答第一。後二竟初義即顯，故後答之。答第二中，「從癡有愛我病生」者，謂從眾生起病因來，維摩恒病。「以一切生病故我病」者，謂從眾生受病果來，維摩常病。良以維摩自實無病，病皆隨物，故隨眾生而說久近。 > Next is the explanation of the text. This chapter consists of two parts: first, Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī's questions and answers discriminating dharmas; second, from 'The eight thousand great \[bodhisattvas\] led by Mañjuśrī' onwards, clarifying the benefit of the exposition. In the former part, \[the text\] first dispels the characteristics of coming and going; from 'let us leave this aside' onwards, they question and answer to discriminate dharmas. Because coming and going obscure the truth, they must be brushed away and dispelled. Vimalakīrti speaks first, and Mañjuśrī elaborates thereafter. In Vimalakīrti's words, 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī' is a phrase of consolation. Saying 'welcome' rejoices at his coming, hence 'welcome'. Furthermore, praising the excellence of his coming is also called 'welcome'. 'Coming without the characteristic of coming, seeing without the characteristic of seeing' brushes away characteristics to reveal reality; it may also be called discriminating characteristics based on reality. Regarding Mañjuśrī's coming previously together with the assembly, brushing this away reveals reality, which is why it is said, 'coming without coming'. Regarding Mañjuśrī's entering the room previously and seeing it empty and devoid of any existent things, brushing this away reveals reality, which is why it is said, 'seeing without seeing'. 'Coming without coming' generally has three explanations: First, explaining it in terms of the conventional truth of impermanence: in real dharmas there is no coming, but in continuity there is coming; hence the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says, 'All conditioned phenomena are impermanent, nor do they have coming.' Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: in the ultimate truth there is no coming, whereas in the conventional truth there is coming; hence the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says, 'If all dharmas were permanent, they would also have no coming.' Third, explaining it in terms of the two bodies, the true and the responsive: the true body has no coming, whereas the responsive body has coming. 'Seeing without seeing' also has three explanations: First, in terms of conventional truth: when eye, form, light, and so forth are taken separately, there is no seeing, but in their combination there is seeing. Furthermore, when distinguishing the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, there is no seeing, but in their provisional combination there is seeing. Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: the ultimate truth is eternally quiescent, without eyes and without seeing, whereas the conventional truth has seeing. Third, contrasting the true and the responsive: the true body is equal and free from characteristics and conditions, which is called 'not seeing'; the responsive manifestation accords with beings and displays illumination, which is called 'seeing'. From 'Mañjuśrī' onwards is the elaboration. Mañjuśrī first says, 'Even so, householder', summarizing the previous words. From 'If one comes' onwards, he elaborates individually on the previous meaning. First, he establishes the previous meaning regarding coming and going. Viewed from Vimalakīrti's room toward Mañjuśrī, it is called 'coming'; viewed from the gathering at the Āmrapālī \[grove\] toward Mañjuśrī, it is called 'going'. 'If one comes, there is no coming; if one goes, there is no going' is an accurate elaboration in terms of principle. A general explanation also has three \[aspects\]: First, explaining it in terms of the conventional truth of impermanence: discussed in terms of continuity there is coming and going, but analysed into subtle reality, coming is without coming and going is without going. Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: within conventional truth there is coming and going, but in the equality of ultimate truth, coming is without coming and going is also without going. Third, explaining it in terms of the contrast between the true and responsive: the responsive has coming and going, but the true body does not. Although there are three meanings, the second is precisely the appropriate one. From 'Why is this so?' onwards is the explanation. First, he poses the inquiry: why do I say coming is without coming, and going is furthermore without going? Below, he answers and explains it. 'Coming has nowhere it comes from, and going has nowhere it arrives' means that by coming there is no coming, and by going there is furthermore no going. Because the assembly at the Āmrapālī \[grove\] is empty, coming has no origin; because Vimalakīrti's room is empty, going has no destination. 'That which can be seen can no longer be seen' establishes the previous meaning in terms of seeing. The explanation also has three \[aspects\], which can be understood following the above. Although it possesses three meanings, the second is precisely the appropriate one. The preceding has dispelled the characteristics of coming and going; from this point forward, they question and answer to discriminate dharmas. Herein, Mañjuśrī first puts aside the previous words, next conveys the Buddha's intent, and afterwards makes his own inquiry, which Vimalakīrti answers fully. 'Let us leave this matter aside' is the putting aside of the previous \[words\]. Because matters such as the absence of coming and going cannot be exhaustively explained, they must for now be set aside. 'Householder, is this illness bearable?', and so on, conveys the Buddha's intent in inquiring. 'Householder, is this illness bearable or not?' inquires into the severity of the illness. 'Has treatment brought relief, without it worsening?' inquires whether the illness is improving or critical. These convey the words of inquiry; below, the inquirer is revealed. Saying 'the World-Honoured One' directly introduces the inquirer. Saying 'solicitous' indicates the gravity of the mind that inquires. 'Extends boundless inquiries' indicates the depth of the intent behind the inquiry. 'Extend' means to convey. Because the mind that inquires after illness is primordial and inexhaustible, it is called 'boundless'. Vimalakīrti never answers this inquiry at all: because this \[inquiry\] had not departed, he does not answer it here; and when going below, Vimalakīrti went together \[with them\], so he also does not answer. From 'Householder, from what did this illness arise?' onwards, Mañjuśrī inquires on his own, and Vimalakīrti fully answers. However, the inquiries below all arise based on the two matters of Vimalakīrti's displaying illness and the empty room. Based on the previous display of illness, there are eight inquiries: first, inquiring into the cause of the illness; second, inquiring into the duration of the illness; third, inquiring into the method of extinguishing it; fourth, inquiring into the characteristics of the illness; fifth, inquiring into the location of the illness; sixth, inquiring into the substance of the illness—among the four great elements, the illness of which element is it? Alternatively, this inquires into the conditions giving rise to the illness; seventh, inquiring into consolation; eighth, inquiring into subjugation. Conjoined with the Buddha's two inquiries, there are ten inquiries in total. Based on the previous empty room, there are two inquiries: first, inquiring into the empty room; second, inquiring into having no attendants. Discussed comprehensively with respect to what follows, seven \[topics\] are generated: the first two are as just mentioned; third, generating below Śāriputra's thought that there are no seats; fourth, generating below the heavenly maiden; fifth, generating below the eight unprecedented events in the room; sixth, generating below the matters regarding parents, wives, children, relatives, and so forth asked by Samantadarśana; seventh, generating below the thought of food, explained fully in this way. Now, however, Mañjuśrī only asks the first two. Conjoined with the previous inquiry into illness, he makes ten inquiries on his own. These ten fall together into three \[groups\]: the first eight inquire particularly into the characteristics of transformation with respect to the person capable of converting; the ninth, 'How should one console those who are ill?', inquires into the etiquette of consolation with respect to the person capable of converting toward those to be converted; the tenth, 'How should one subjugate one's mind?', inquires particularly into the method of cultivation and regulation with respect to those to be converted. In essential summary there are only two: the previous eight inquire into Vimalakīrti's expedient means of manifesting transformation, and the latter two inquire into the method of curing illness for the people he converts. Furthermore, among the former eight, they fall together into three: the first three inquire into illness to manifest Vimalakīrti's expedient means of great compassion. The next two inquire into his empty room and lack of attendants to reveal that upon which Vimalakīrti's compassionate practice relies. Because compassion is accomplished by relying on emptiness, he inquires into the empty room; because compassion arises in accordance with beings' existence, he inquires into the lack of attendants. The final three rounds inquire again into the illness to reveal that Vimalakīrti's illness is a response, not real. Within the first section, Mañjuśrī first combines three inquiries: 'Householder, from what cause did this illness arise?' inquires into the cause of the illness. 'How long has it been since it arose?' inquires into the duration of the illness. 'How should it be extinguished?' inquires into the method of extinguishing the illness. Below, Vimalakīrti first answers the second, then answers the third, and afterwards answers the first. When the latter two are completed, the initial meaning is manifested, which is why he answers it last. In answering the second, 'From ignorance there is craving, and my illness arose' means that ever since sentient beings gave rise to the cause of illness, Vimalakīrti has constantly been ill. 'Because all sentient beings are ill, therefore I am ill' means that ever since sentient beings underwent the fruit of illness, Vimalakīrti has constantly been ill. Because in truth Vimalakīrti is himself free of illness, his illness entirely accords with beings; hence he speaks of its duration in accordance with sentient beings. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.1) - [Next: 3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.3) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776~en-mt.3.2) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.2) · Pramāṇa