[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) › 3.4 # 維摩義記 3.4 維摩義記 3.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.4) 次答第三。於中初言「眾生病滅則我病滅」，對問總解。眾生斷苦得涅槃時名為病滅，維摩於彼憂惱心息名我病滅。下別釋之。「所以」徵問，我有何以說生病滅則我病滅？下對釋之。於中初法、次喻、後合。法中初言「菩薩為生生死」等，舉生顯滅。願隨諸有，名「入生死」。為物受身名有生死，有生死故諸苦隨逐，名有病矣。若生得離，即菩薩無，當相正解。眾生離，菩薩悲息，不須為受，故無復病。次喻顯。「譬如長者唯有一子，其子得病父母亦病」，喻前為生入生死等。「若子病愈父母亦愈」，喻生得離則菩薩無。下合顯法。「菩薩如是」，合前長者。「於諸眾生愛之若子」，合前一子。言「眾生病則菩薩病」，合子得病父母亦病。「眾生病愈菩薩亦愈」，合子病愈父母亦愈。下答初問。「又言是疾何所因起」，牒前問辭。「菩薩病者以大悲起」，對問正解。上來三問為彰維摩大悲方便，自下文殊次為兩問顯悲所依。悲依空成，故問空室；悲隨有生，故問無侍。維摩具答。問中「居士室何以空」，是一問也。言「無侍者」，是二問也。答中維摩先辨室空，後顯無侍。明室空中，具有七番言相自起。維摩初言「諸佛國土亦復皆空」，類答前問。佛土皆空，室是土例，何得不空？答意如是。土空似室，是以言亦。第二番中，文殊就土更重審問。又謂更也，亦是重也。「又問佛土以何為空」，為當去事無物名空、為當即事理無為空？維摩下答。「以空空」者，謂以理空為土空也。第三、文殊以土理空責室事空。「又問空」者，牒前所答佛土理空。「何用空」者，責室事空。既說理空為佛土空，何用空去室中所有而為空乎？「維摩」下答，明須空意。良以理空無分別故，今須空室而顯彼空。理空難明，無物顯示令人識知，名「無分別」。空室顯之令人悟解，名為「故空」。第四、文殊約理窮詮，故「又問空可分別耶」。此問空理可以室空而分別也。「維摩」下答。「分別亦空」，此言拂詮而顯理也。前番之中立詮顯理，故以室空分別理空；今此轉除破詮顯理，是以答言分別亦空。是義云何？為不解者須以空室分別理空，得理返望空室本無，知復時何分別理空？是故說言分別亦空。分別空故，理已詮示不可分別。第五、文殊推問空處，故「又問空當於何求」。維摩為答。「當於六十二見中求」，六十二見，後當具論。此見是其凡夫妄情無實，即是空義，故於六十二見中求。又此妄情迷空而起，推其所迷即是空義，故於六十二見中求。第六、文殊轉問見處，故又問言「六十二見當於何求」。維摩為答「當於諸佛解脫中求」。佛證空理而得解脫，凡於脫處迷而起見，故於諸佛解脫中求。第七、文殊推問脫處，故又問言「諸佛解脫當於何求」。「維摩」下答。「當於眾生心行中求」，眾生心行有迷有悟，迷則繫縛、悟則解脫。諸佛解脫皆從心起，故於眾生心行中求。亦可眾生所有心行依真而起，體即是真，故經宣說生死二法是如來藏，陰即佛性、十二因緣即佛性等，窮悟此性即真解脫，故於眾生心行中求。前答室空，下答無侍。「又仁所問何無侍者」，牒其問辭。下為辨釋。「一切諸魔及諸外道皆吾侍也」，對問正辨。凡是侍者，資養為義，菩薩悲行由此資成，故說為侍。「所以」下釋，於中先徵。我有何以說魔外道而為侍者？下對釋之。「魔樂生死」，菩薩於彼生死諸魔隨而不捨，不捨魔行由彼資成，故說諸魔以為侍者。「外道樂見」，菩薩於彼諸見外道常隨不捨，名為不動。此不動行由彼資成，故說外道以為侍者。前言不捨，此云不動，言左右耳，非是守正邪見不動。自下文殊更為三問，為彰維摩病應非實。初、問病相。「居士是病為何等相」，「維摩」下答。「我病無形不可見」者，以病實無，故無形相而可見也。第二、文殊問病所在，故言「此病身合心合」。「維摩」下答。云「非身合身相離」者，應身無身，病無所在，故非身合。言「非心合心如幻」者，化心不真，事等如幻；幻無定實，病亦無在，故非心合。第三、文殊問其病體，亦得名為問病因緣，「四大之中何大之病」。「維摩」下答。言「非地大不離地」者，彰病實無。以病無故，不可宣說即地有病，故非地大；亦不可說離地之外別有病體，故言不離。餘大亦爾。「而眾生」下，舉病應有，成前實無。「而眾生病從四大起」，以其有病，維摩現病。病隨物現，故非實有。非實有故，不可宣說即四大有、離四大有。亦可向前非地大等彰病實無，亦不離等顯病應有，而眾生下顯前不離地等所以。以眾生病從四大起，菩薩隨之，故不離大。上來八問，廣顯維摩現化方便。自下兩問，就所化人明治病法，此則菩薩五行之中治病行也。於中初就種性已前實病之人明慰喻儀，彼未知法須他慰故。「云何菩薩調伏心」下，就種性上實病之人明調伏法，彼自知法不須他慰，能自調故。前中先問「云何慰喻有病菩薩」。 > Next is the answer to the third \[question\]. Therein, it first says, "When the illness of sentient beings is extinguished, my illness will be extinguished," which is a general explanation in response to the question. When sentient beings sever suffering and attain nirvāṇa, this is called "the extinguishing of illness"; and when Vimalakīrti's mind of distress and worry regarding them ceases, this is called "the extinguishing of my illness." Below, it explains this separately. "Why is this?" raises the inquiry: on what basis do I say that when the illness of sentient beings is extinguished, my illness will be extinguished? Below, he explains in reply. Therein, there is first the doctrine, next the simile, and finally the application. In the doctrine, it first says, "The bodhisattva enters saṃsāra for the sake of sentient beings," and so forth, bringing up their arising to make manifest their extinguishing. Wishing to follow all realms of existence is called "entering saṃsāra." Taking on a body for the sake of beings is called "having saṃsāra," and because there is saṃsāra, all sufferings pursue \[one\], which is called "having illness." If sentient beings attain release, then the bodhisattva is without \[illness\]—this directly explains \[it\] in terms of its characteristics. Sentient beings being released, the bodhisattva's compassion ceases and there is no need to take \[a body\] on for their sake, so there is no longer any illness. Next, the simile illustrates this: "It is like an elder who has only one son: if that son falls ill, the parents also fall ill," which illustrates the earlier \[statement about\] entering saṃsāra for the sake of sentient beings, and so forth. "If the son's illness is cured, the parents are also cured," which illustrates that when sentient beings attain release, the bodhisattva is without \[illness\]. Below, the application reveals the doctrine: "The bodhisattva is also like this," which applies to the previous elder. "Loving all sentient beings as an only son," which applies to the single son above. Saying "When sentient beings are ill, the bodhisattva is ill," applies to the son falling ill and the parents also falling ill. "When the illness of sentient beings is cured, the bodhisattva is also cured," applies to the son's illness being cured and the parents also being cured. Below, he answers the initial question: "You also said: 'From what cause does this illness arise?'" repeats the wording of the earlier question. "The bodhisattva's illness arises from great compassion," directly explains in response to the question. The three questions above served to make manifest Vimalakīrti's great compassion and upāya; from here on, Mañjuśrī next asks two questions to make manifest what compassion relies upon. Compassion is fulfilled by relying on emptiness, so he asks about the empty room; compassion arises in following existence, so he asks about having no attendants. Vimalakīrti fully answers both. In the questioning, "Why is the householder's room empty?" is the first question. Saying "and why are there no attendants?" is the second question. In the answers, Vimalakīrti first distinguishes the room's emptiness and afterwards reveals the lack of attendants. In clarifying the room's emptiness, there are fully seven rounds \[of exchange\] arising naturally from the words and expressions. Vimalakīrti first says, "The buddha lands of all buddhas are also all empty," which answers the earlier question by way of analogy. The buddha lands are all empty, and the room follows the precedent of the lands; how could it not be empty? The intention of the answer is like this. The emptiness of the lands resembles that of the room, which is why he says "also." In the second round, Mañjuśrī inquires again more closely regarding the lands: "again" (you) means anew, and also means repeatedly. "He also asked: 'By what are the buddha lands empty?'"—is it that leaving behind phenomena so that no things exist is called emptiness, or is it that being identical to phenomena, \[their\] principle is non-existent, which is emptiness? Vimalakīrti answers below: "They are empty by means of emptiness," meaning that he takes the principle's emptiness to be the emptiness of the lands. In the third \[round\], Mañjuśrī reproaches the room's phenomenal emptiness by means of the lands' emptiness of principle: "He also asked: 'Emptiness...'" repeats the previously answered emptiness of principle of the buddha lands; "'...what use is emptiness?'" reproaches the phenomenal emptiness of the room: since you have said that the emptiness of principle is the emptiness of the buddha lands, what use is emptying out all that is in the room to make it empty? Vimalakīrti answers below, explaining the intention of needing emptiness: precisely because the emptiness of principle is free from conceptual distinctions, one must now empty the room to reveal that emptiness. The emptiness of principle is difficult to understand, and without things to display it so as to make people recognise it, it is termed "free from conceptual distinctions." Emptying the room to display it so that people awaken and understand is called "therefore \[made\] empty." In the fourth \[round\], Mañjuśrī pursues the expression according to the principle; hence, "He also asked: 'Can emptiness be conceptually distinguished?'" This asks whether the principle of emptiness can be conceptually distinguished by means of the empty room. Vimalakīrti answers below: "Conceptual distinction is also empty"—these words brush aside the expression to reveal the principle. In the previous round, he established the expression to reveal the principle, and therefore used the room's emptiness to conceptually distinguish the principle's emptiness; now here, turning around to remove and demolish the expression so as to reveal the principle, he therefore answers that conceptual distinction is also empty. What does this mean? For those who do not understand, one must use the empty room to conceptually distinguish the principle's emptiness; but once the principle is attained, looking back, the empty room is fundamentally non-existent—how could one still conceptually distinguish the principle's emptiness? Therefore, he says conceptual distinction is also empty. Because conceptual distinction is empty, the principle, having been expressed and indicated, cannot be conceptually distinguished. In the fifth \[round\], Mañjuśrī inquires into the locus of emptiness; hence, "He also asked: 'Where should emptiness be sought?'" Vimalakīrti answers: "It should be sought within the sixty-two views." The sixty-two views will be discussed fully later. These views are the ordinary person's deluded sentiments without reality, which is precisely the meaning of emptiness; hence, it should be sought within the sixty-two views. Moreover, these deluded sentiments arise by being confused about emptiness; tracing what they are confused about is precisely the meaning of emptiness, so it should be sought within the sixty-two views. In the sixth \[round\], Mañjuśrī turns to ask about the locus of the views; hence, he also asks: "Where should the sixty-two views be sought?" Vimalakīrti answers: "They should be sought within the liberation of all buddhas." The buddhas realize the principle of emptiness and attain liberation; ordinary people, in the locus of liberation, become confused and give rise to views; hence, they should be sought within the liberation of all buddhas. In the seventh \[round\], Mañjuśrī inquires into the locus of liberation; hence, he also asks: "Where should the liberation of all buddhas be sought?" Vimalakīrti answers below: "It should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings." The mental activities of sentient beings include both confusion and awakening: with confusion there is bondage, and with awakening there is liberation. The liberation of all buddhas all arises from the mind; therefore, it should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings. It can also be said that all mental activities of sentient beings arise in reliance upon the real, and their essence is precisely the real; therefore, the sūtras proclaim that the two dharmas of birth and death are the tathāgatagarbha, the skandhas are precisely the buddha-nature, the twelve links of dependent origination are precisely the buddha-nature, and so forth. Comprehensively awakening to this nature is true liberation; therefore, it should be sought within the mental activities of sentient beings. Having previously answered regarding the room's emptiness, below he answers regarding having no attendants. "Also, what the Benevolent One asked: 'Why are there no attendants?'" repeats the wording of his question. Below, he explains it: "All Māras and all non-Buddhists are all my attendants," directly explaining in response to the question. All that serves as an attendant has the meaning of providing support and nourishment; the bodhisattva's compassionate practice is nurtured and accomplished by means of them, which is why they are spoken of as attendants. "Why is this?" below explains, in which he first inquires: on what basis do I say that Māras and non-Buddhists are attendants? Below, he explains in reply. "Māras take pleasure in saṃsāra"—the bodhisattva complies with those Māras of saṃsāra without forsaking them, and not forsaking the deeds of Māra is nurtured and accomplished by them, which is why all Māras are spoken of as attendants. "Non-Buddhists take pleasure in views"—the bodhisattva constantly complies with those non-Buddhists of diverse views without forsaking them, which is termed "unmoving." This practice of being unmoving is nurtured and accomplished by them, which is why non-Buddhists are spoken of as attendants. Earlier he said "not forsaking," and here he says "unmoving"; these are just complementary phrasing, not meaning being unmoving by holding fast to orthodox or heterodox views. From here on, Mañjuśrī asks three more questions to make manifest that Vimalakīrti's illness is a response and not real. First, he asks about the characteristics of the illness: "Householder, what kind of characteristics does this illness have?" Vimalakīrti answers below. "My illness is formless and cannot be seen"—because the illness is genuinely non-existent, it has no shape or characteristic that could be seen. Second, Mañjuśrī asks about the location of the illness; hence, he says, "Does this illness unite with the body or unite with the mind?" Vimalakīrti answers below. Saying "It does not unite with the body, for the body's characteristics are separate" means that the response body has no body and the illness has no locus, so it does not unite with the body. Saying "It does not unite with the mind, for the mind is like an illusion" means that the manifested mind is not real, and phenomena are equal to an illusion; an illusion has no fixed reality, and the illness also has no locus, so it does not unite with the mind. Third, Mañjuśrī asks about the essence of the illness, which may also be termed asking about the causes and conditions of the illness: "Among the four great elements, which element's illness is it?" Vimalakīrti answers below. Saying "It is not the earth element, yet it is not separate from earth" makes manifest that the illness is genuinely non-existent. Because the illness is non-existent, it cannot be proclaimed that the illness exists directly as earth, hence it is not the earth element; nor can it be said that there is a separate essence of illness apart from earth, hence he says it is not separate. The remaining elements are also like this. "Yet sentient beings..." below brings up that the illness must exist as a response, establishing the earlier \[point that\] it is genuinely non-existent. "Yet the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements"—because they have illnesses, Vimalakīrti manifests illness. The illness is manifested in accord with beings, so it is not real existence. Because it is not real existence, it cannot be proclaimed to exist directly as the four great elements or to exist apart from the four great elements. Alternatively, it can be said that the earlier "not the earth element" and so on makes manifest that the illness is genuinely non-existent, while "not separate" and so on reveals that the illness must exist as a response; and "Yet sentient beings..." below reveals the reason for the earlier "not separate from earth" and so on. Because the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements and the bodhisattva complies with them, \[the illness\] is not separate from the elements. The eight questions above extensively make manifest Vimalakīrti's upāya of manifested transformation. From here on, two questions explain the method of curing illness with respect to the persons to be transformed; this is the practice of curing illness among the bodhisattva's five practices. Therein, he first explains the etiquette of consoling and comforting with respect to those persons before the lineage stage who have real illnesses, because they do not yet know the Dharma and require others to console them. "How does a bodhisattva subdue the mind?" below explains the method of subduing with respect to those persons upon the lineage stage who have real illnesses, because they themselves know the Dharma and do not require others to console them, being able to subdue themselves. In the former part, he first asks, "How should one console a sick bodhisattva?" > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.3) - [Next: 3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.5) - [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.3.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [注維摩詰經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1775.5.63) — Classical Chinese - [淨名經集解關中疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2777.2.23) — Classical Chinese - [維摩詰所說經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.vimalakirtinirdesa*zh-kumarajiva.2.30) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1776.3.4) · Pramāṇa