[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) › 3.42 # 維摩義記 3.42 維摩義記 3.42 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.42) 下次明其悲喜捨行。皆初文殊問以起發，維摩後答。「何謂為悲」，問悲無量。「所作功德皆與一切眾生共之」，對問辨釋。餘處多說與樂名慈、拔苦稱悲。依如《涅槃》，除無利益拔苦名慈，與其利樂說以為悲。今此所論悉不同彼，利他行體說以為慈，所得共他目之為悲。隨己所得盡欲與他，名共一切。「何謂為喜」，問喜無量。「有所饒益歡喜無悔」，對問辨釋。餘處多說，見他得利慶悅名喜。今此益他不悔名喜，義之左右。「何謂為捨」，問捨無量。「所作福祐無所悕望」，對問辨釋。福利眾生蔭祐一切，不悕名利、不望及報，捨此貪求故名為捨。經中說捨汎有七種：一、心性平等，亡懷稱捨。情無存著，故曰亡懷。二、於眾生捨離一切怨親等礙，目之為捨。三、捨一切貪瞋等過，名之為捨。四、見生得脫不復憂念，放捨名捨。五、證空平等，離相名捨。六、自捨己樂施與他人，說之為捨，如《涅槃》說。七、益眾生無所希望，名之為捨。今此所論，義當後門。上來利他，下明自行。於中合有十二問答，相從為三：初一明求一切智心；次一明其念眾生心；後十明其離有為心。此三巧觀，互以相成。就初番中，文殊先問。「生死有畏當何所依」，問以起發。「維摩」下答。「當依如來功德力」者，依求佛智度生死也。依義不同，汎釋有三：一、異相歸依，依憑他佛而度生死；二、自德歸依，自求當來菩提功德；三、自實歸依，三歸真性是己自體，息妄趣求名曰歸依。如《涅槃》說。今此所說，義當第二。自依當來所成佛歸而治生死。第二、深念眾生心中，文殊先問，「欲依如來當於何住」。「維摩」下答，「當住度脫一切眾生」。無上菩提獨善不階，故求佛德須度眾生。此舉化他，自成佛法。第三、厭離有為心中，有十問答。初四問答尋其行原，後六問答推其患本。就前四中，初二問答明離煩惱，後二離業。離煩惱中，「欲度眾生當何所除」，問先起後。「除其煩惱」，對問辨釋。自有煩惱不能解人，故欲度生須斷煩惱。「欲除煩惱當何所行」，問前起後。「當行正念」，對問辨釋。一切煩惱由邪念生，故斷煩惱須行正念。就離業中，「云何行正」，問前起後。「答曰當行不生不滅」，略明離業。「何法不生何法不滅」，問前起後。「不善不生、善法不滅」，廣明離業。不善不生，教其離障；善法不滅，教其修治。上來四番尋其行原，下六問答推其患本。初「善不善孰為本」者，問前起後。孰謂誰也，前善不善用誰為本？「身為本」言，對問辨釋。五陰報身而為本也。「身孰為本」，轉問身本。「欲貪本」者，明其陰身四住煩惱而為本也。四住惑中貪欲增強，受身所依，故偏舉之。「又問欲貪孰為本」者，轉問貪本。「答曰虛妄分別本」者，明前四住用七識中虛妄分別而為本也。於彼妄心所起法中，分別違順好惡等異，名妄分別。猶《地持》中念不念等三種妄想，依此三妄起貪恚癡，故為貪本。「又問虛妄孰為本」者，轉問妄本。「答曰顛倒想為本」者，明妄分別七識心體而為本也。七識妄心是想見三倒所收，名顛倒想。非四顛倒，四倒乃是四位所攝，非虛妄本，故宜別之。此顛倒想，猶《地持》中自性差別攝受積聚三妄所攝。「又問倒想孰為本」者，轉問倒本。「無住本」者，明前倒想八識真心而為本也。如人眠夢報心為本，真心無緣無所依託，故曰無住。「又問無住孰為本」者，轉問真本。「答曰無住則無本」者，明真體常，更無依託，所以無本。如色依空，空更無本。「文殊師利從無住本立一切法」者，明從真心建立一切虛妄法也。故經宣說「三界虛妄，唯真心作。」若知此本，虛妄之法自然息滅，故須推之。品初至此明其所行。 > Next, \[the text\] clarifies the practices of compassion, joy, and equanimity. In each case, Mañjuśrī first asks in order to initiate \[the dialogue\], and Vimalakīrti then answers. "What is compassion?" asks about the immeasurable compassion. "Whatever merit one performs is shared with all sentient beings" explains in response to the question. In other places it is mostly said that giving joy is called benevolence (maitrī) and pulling out suffering is called compassion (karuṇā). According to the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\], eliminating what is unbeneficial and pulling out suffering is called benevolence, whereas giving benefit and joy is spoken of as compassion. What is discussed here is completely different from that: the very practice of benefiting others is spoken of as benevolence, while sharing what one has attained with others is designated as compassion. Desiring entirely to bestow whatever one has attained upon others is termed "sharing with all." "What is joy?" asks about the immeasurable joy. "Rejoicing without regret in whatever brings benefit" explains in response to the question. In other places it is mostly said that celebrating with delight upon seeing others gain benefit is joy. Here, benefiting others without regret is joy; these are \[two\] sides of the same meaning. "What is equanimity?" asks about the immeasurable equanimity. "Having no expectations regarding the merit and protection one produces" explains in response to the question. Bringing benefit and blessings to sentient beings and sheltering all, yet desiring neither fame nor profit, nor expecting any retribution—abandoning this craving and seeking is therefore called equanimity. In the sūtras, equanimity generally has seven kinds: first, the nature of the mind being equal and relinquishing deliberation is called equanimity. Since feelings harbor no clinging, it is called relinquishing deliberation. Second, toward sentient beings, abandoning all obstacles such as enmity or favoritism is designated as equanimity. Third, abandoning all faults such as greed and anger is called equanimity. Fourth, seeing sentient beings attain liberation and no longer fretting over them, letting go is called equanimity. Fifth, realizing the equality of emptiness and being free of signs is called equanimity. Sixth, abandoning one's own pleasure to bestow it on others is spoken of as equanimity, as the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] explains. Seventh, benefiting sentient beings without any expectation is called equanimity. What is discussed here falls under this latter category in its meaning. The above explains benefiting others; below, \[the text\] clarifies one's own practice. Within this there are twelve question-and-answer pairs in all, which follow one another in three \[groups\]: the first one clarifies the mind seeking all-knowledge; the next one clarifies the mind being mindful of sentient beings; the final ten clarify the mind renouncing the conditioned. These three skillful contemplations mutually complete one another. In the first round, Mañjuśrī asks first. "Saṃsāra is terrifying; what should one rely upon?" asks in order to initiate \[the dialogue\]. Vimalakīrti below answers. "One should rely on the power of the Tathāgata's merit" means relying on the quest for the Buddha's wisdom to cross over saṃsāra. The meaning of reliance differs; generally explained, there are three kinds: first, taking refuge in different characteristics, which means relying on another Buddha to cross over saṃsāra; second, taking refuge in one's own virtues, which means personally seeking the merit of future bodhi; third, taking refuge in one's own reality, where the true nature of the three refuges is one's own essence, and putting an end to delusion and tending toward seeking is called taking refuge, as the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] explains. What is spoken of here falls under the second meaning: personally relying on the refuge of the Buddha to be attained in the future to remedy saṃsāra. Second, regarding the mind deeply mindful of sentient beings, Mañjuśrī asks first: "If one wishes to rely on the Tathāgata, wherein should one dwell?" Vimalakīrti below answers: "One should dwell in liberating all sentient beings." Unexcelled bodhi cannot be achieved by solitary self-cultivation; therefore, to seek the Buddha's virtues one must liberate sentient beings. This adduces transforming others to accomplish the Buddha-dharmas for oneself. Third, regarding the mind weary of the conditioned, there are ten questions and answers. The first four questions and answers trace the origins of practice; the latter six questions and answers investigate the root of afflictions. Among the former four, the first two questions and answers clarify being free of defilements, and the latter two clarify being free of karma. Regarding freedom from defilements, "If one wishes to liberate sentient beings, what should be eliminated?" uses the question to initiate what follows. "Eliminate their defilements" explains in response to the question. If one possesses defilements oneself, one cannot liberate others; therefore, wishing to liberate sentient beings, one must sever defilements. "If one wishes to eliminate defilements, what should be practiced?" uses the question to initiate what follows. "One should practice right mindfulness" explains in response to the question. All defilements arise from wrong mindfulness; therefore, to sever defilements one must practice right mindfulness. Regarding freedom from karma, "How does one practice rightly?" uses the question to initiate what follows. "The answer states: one should practice non-arising and non-ceasing" briefly clarifies freedom from karma. "What dharmas do not arise and what dharmas do not cease?" uses the question to initiate what follows. "Unwholesome \[dharmas\] do not arise, and wholesome dharmas do not cease" extensively clarifies freedom from karma. Unwholesome dharmas not arising teaches one to be free of obstacles; wholesome dharmas not ceasing teaches one cultivation and discipline. The above four rounds trace the origins of practice; the following six questions and answers investigate the root of afflictions. First, "What is the root of the wholesome and unwholesome?" uses the question to initiate what follows. "What" means who or what; of the preceding wholesome and unwholesome, what is taken as their root? The statement, "The body is the root," explains in response to the question. The recompense-body of the five skandhas is the root. "What is the root of the body?" turns to ask the root of the body. "Desire and greed are the root" clarifies that the four-abode defilements of the skandha-body are the root. Among the four-abode delusions, greed and desire are predominant and are what receiving a body relies upon, so they are singled out. "It is further asked: what is the root of desire and greed?" turns to ask the root of greed. "The answer states: false discrimination is the root" clarifies that the preceding four abodes take false discrimination within the seven consciousnesses as their root. Discriminating differences such as opposition and compliance, or good and bad, among the dharmas produced by that deluded mind is called false discrimination. It is like the three kinds of false imagination, such as pleasing and unpleasing, in the Bodhisattvabhūmi; relying on these three false \[imaginations\], greed, anger, and delusion arise, so it is the root of greed. "It is further asked: what is the root of falsehood?" turns to ask the root of falsehood. "The answer states: inverted conception is the root" clarifies that false discrimination takes the mental substance of the seven consciousnesses as its root. The deluded mind of the seven consciousnesses is subsumed under the three inversions of conception and view, and is called inverted conception. It is not the four inversions; the four inversions are subsumed under four stages and are not the root of falsehood, so they should be distinguished. This inverted conception is like being subsumed under the three falsehoods of intrinsic nature, distinction, and appropriation-accumulation in the Bodhisattvabhūmi. "It is further asked: what is the root of inverted conception?" turns to ask the root of inversion. "Non-abiding is the root" clarifies that the preceding inverted conception takes the true mind of the eighth consciousness as its root. Just as when a person sleeps and dreams, the recompense-mind is the root; the true mind has no object-conditions and nothing to rely upon, hence it is called non-abiding. "It is further asked: what is the root of non-abiding?" turns to ask the root of the true. "The answer states: non-abiding has no root" clarifies that the true substance is eternal and has no further reliance, which is why it has no root. Just as form relies on space, and space has no further root. "Mañjuśrī, from the root of non-abiding all dharmas are established" clarifies that from the true mind all false dharmas are established. Therefore, the sūtra declares: "The three realms are false; they are made solely by the true mind." If one knows this root, false dharmas naturally cease and are extinguished; therefore, one must investigate it. From the beginning of the chapter up to this point clarifies what they practice. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.41) - [Next: 3.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.43) - [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.3.42) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.6.146) — Classical Chinese - [淨名經集解關中疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2777.2.87) — Classical Chinese - [維摩詰所說經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.vimalakirtinirdesa*zh-kumarajiva.2.89) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.42) · Pramāṇa