維摩義記 3.7

3.7

下調伏中，文殊先問「有疾菩薩云何調心」。「維摩」下答。文別有二：一明修相、二不住。其中「亦復不住不調伏」下，明其成相。在病修治，名為修相。病愈德立，名為成相。就前修中，初先別教，後總結勸。前別教中要唯智悲，修智自利、修悲利他。智依空成、悲隨有生，是二相須。何故而然？若唯修智，於空滯沒；若唯修悲，於有染著。於有染著是凡夫法，於空滯沒是聲聞法，菩薩異彼故須雙修。以雙修故，悲與智俱於有不染，智與悲俱於空不著。於有不染非凡夫行，於空不著非賢聖行，故下文言「非凡非聖是菩薩行」。又不著有則非垢行，不偏樂空則非淨行，故下文言「非垢非淨是菩薩行」。菩薩巧行，妙在於此。文中三對修智修悲。初至「文殊有疾菩薩應如是觀諸法」來，是第一對。「又復觀身無常苦」下，是第二對。「又復觀身不離病」下，是第三對。三對何異？異有四種：一約事分別，事唯身病，初對約病修智修悲；第二約身，修智修悲；第三雙約身病兩種修智修悲。二、約法分別，法有階降。初對約就甚深空理修智修悲；第二約就苦無常等修智修悲；第三約就身病之事修智修悲。三、約人分別。初對菩薩不共法中修智修悲，甚深空理唯菩薩知餘不解故；第二聲聞共行法中修智修悲，苦無常等聲聞緣覺亦能觀故；第三凡夫共行法中修智修悲，身病之事乃至凡夫亦能知故。四、次第分別。次第有二：第一、據深尋淺次第。空是菩薩正行所依，故先依之修智修悲；空依詮入，故次第二依苦無常修智修悲；苦無常等依事而辨，故次第三依身病事修智修悲。第二、從寂起化次第。空是菩薩治病所依，故先依之修智修悲，此即自德；依此起化，為化二乘，故次第二依苦無常修智修悲；化行漸廣，欲益凡夫，故次第三依身病事修智修悲。次第如是。就初對中，文別有四：第一、正明修智修悲；二、「文殊師利是為有病調伏心」下結歎顯勝；三、「有疾菩薩復作是念如我此病非真有」下，以智淨悲；四、「有疾菩薩應如是觀諸法」下，總以結勸。就初段中，先明修智。「以無受」下，明其修悲。前修智中，初觀見空，破離有病。「得是平等無餘病」下，觀空亦空，破遣空病。前破有病滅煩惱障，後破空病滅除智障，二障雙遣名曰調心。又復前段滅煩惱障遣分段因，後除智障離變易因，二因雙除、兩果不起故為治病。前破有中，觀二無我破二著我。是中應先解無我義，然後釋文，義如別章。文中初明眾生空觀，「有疾菩薩為滅法」下，明法空觀。前生空觀破離我想，後法空觀滅除法想，二想俱息名為調心。又生空觀斷滅四住去分段因，法空之觀除捨無明離變易因，二因雙除、兩果不起名為治病。生空觀中，初約四大為生空觀。「又此病起皆由著」下，約就五陰為生空觀。前中初先推其患本。「今我此病皆從前世妄想顛倒諸煩惱生」，眾生著我名妄顛倒，所取不真名為妄想，無我計我稱曰顛倒，貪瞋等結名諸煩惱，由彼生於現在病也。「無有真」下，觀行斷除。「無有實法誰受病者」，略觀無我。「所以」下釋，先徵、後解。「四大合故假名為身」，觀身假有。「四大無生身亦無我」，觀身實無。四大無主，別求無神，身亦無我，將別顯總，成總無我。下就五陰明觀無我。於中有二：一、觀五陰破離總我；二、「又此法者各不知」下，觀察五陰破離別我。前中初先破離我想，「當起法」下明修法想。前離我中，「又此病起皆由著我」，推其患本。「是故於我不應生著」，於過去厭。既知病本，即除我想及眾生想。知過斷除，不取人性，名除我想。不取和合假名人想，是故名離眾生之想。觀別破總，故悉除之。下修法想。「當起法想」，總勸修習。「應作念」下，別教修習。「應作是念但以眾法合成此身」，觀別成總。除前我相，無人唯法，是以言但，謂但五陰眾法成身。「起唯法起、滅唯法滅」，破總歸別。遣眾生相，無生但法，是以言唯。此破總我，下破別我。「又此法者各不相知」，別觀五陰體非知者。「起時不言我起，滅時不言我滅」，別觀五陰體非五陰體非神我。上觀生空，下觀法空。「有疾菩薩為滅法想」，明修所為。下教正修。修有九句：第一、教觀法相之過。「當作是念，此法想者亦是顛倒」，法著我心名為法想。倒有三倒、八倒之別，心想見等是其三倒，常樂我淨、無常無樂無我不淨是其八倒。心相見等是迷理倒，迷空立有常樂淨等迷法想倒。翻染為淨及淨為染，廣如別章，此應具論。前眾生我是八倒收，此法著我是三倒攝，倒義同前故得言亦。二、教生厭心。「倒是大患我應離之」，三倒是其一切惑本故言大患，患故須離。三、教離法。「云何為離」，問前起後。「離我我所」，對問正辨。法著我中，六根名我、六塵曰所。四、重顯前離我我所，先徵、後辨，「謂離二法」。五、重明前離二法義，先徵、後辨，所謂「不念內外諸法行於平等」。十二入中，六根名內、六塵稱外，內外皆空所以不念，以不念故純行平等。諸法皆等，且說斯耳，諸經多爾。故經言謂十二入自性平等，共此相似。六、釋顯前等，先徵、後辨，所謂「我等及涅槃等」。此說生死以之為我，是凡體故；生死法空名為我等，涅槃亦如名涅槃等。七、重釋前我及涅槃二種等義，先徵、後辨，「此二皆空」，故曰平等。八、釋顯前空，先徵、後解，我及涅槃但名無實，是故言空。經說三但，但名、但用、但假施設。今舉初但，餘略不論；破相畢竟，用及施設亦皆無故。九、出所空。如此二法無決定性，故名為空。前破有病，下破空患。何故須然？如人有病，服藥破遣；其病既除，藥亦須捨。若藥不捨，藥復成患。行者如是，為破有病，觀空為治；有病既除，空亦須捨。若空不遣，彼復成患，為是須破。良以說空原為破有，不欲使人於空計著，是以破之。文中初言「得是平等，無有餘病唯有空病」，簡前起後。

In the section below on subduing [the mind], Mañjuśrī first asks, "How does a sick bodhisattva subdue their mind?" The answer follows from "Vimalakīrti" downward. The text has two distinct parts: first, explaining the marks of practice; second, [explaining] non-abiding. Within this, from "nor abiding in non-subjugation" downward, the marks of accomplishment are explained. Cultivating and remedying while sick is called the marks of practice. When the illness is healed and virtue established, this is called the marks of accomplishment. Within the preceding practice, first there are individual teachings, and then an overall concluding exhortation. In the preceding individual teachings, the essential points are solely wisdom and compassion: cultivating wisdom is for one's own benefit; cultivating compassion is for benefiting others. Wisdom is accomplished in reliance on emptiness; compassion arises following existence; these two are mutually required. Why is this so? If one cultivates wisdom alone, one stagnates and sinks in emptiness; if one cultivates compassion alone, one becomes attached to existence. Being attached to existence is the dharma of ordinary persons; stagnating and sinking in emptiness is the dharma of śrāvakas. The bodhisattva is distinct from them and therefore must cultivate both. Because both are cultivated, compassion accompanies wisdom and one is not defiled by existence; wisdom accompanies compassion and one is not attached to emptiness. Not being defiled by existence is not the practice of ordinary persons; not being attached to emptiness is not the practice of the worthy and sage; therefore the text below says: "Neither ordinary nor sage is the bodhisattva practice." Furthermore, not clinging to existence is not an impure practice; not being partial to delight in emptiness is not a pure practice; therefore the text below says: "Neither defilement nor purity is the bodhisattva practice." The skillful practice of the bodhisattva is wondrous precisely in this. In the text there are three pairs of cultivating wisdom and cultivating compassion. From the beginning up to "Mañjuśrī, a sick bodhisattva should view all dharmas in this way" is the first pair. From "Furthermore, viewing the body as impermanent and suffering" downward is the second pair. From "Furthermore, viewing the body as not separate from illness" downward is the third pair. How do these three pairs differ? The differences are of four kinds: First, differentiation according to concrete matters: the matter is only the body's illness; the first pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to illness; the second pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to the body; the third pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to both body and illness together. Second, differentiation according to dharmas: dharmas have gradations. The first pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to the profound principle of emptiness; the second pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to suffering, impermanence, and so forth; the third pair cultivates wisdom and compassion with respect to the matters of body and illness. Third, differentiation according to persons. The first pair cultivates wisdom and compassion within the unshared dharmas of the bodhisattva, because only bodhisattvas understand the profound principle of emptiness and the rest do not understand it; the second pair cultivates wisdom and compassion within the shared practices of the śrāvaka, because śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas can also contemplate suffering, impermanence, and so forth; the third pair cultivates wisdom and compassion within the shared practices of ordinary persons, because even ordinary persons can know the matter of bodily illness. Fourth, differentiation of sequential order. There are two kinds of sequence: First, the sequence of proceeding from the profound to the shallow. Emptiness is what the bodhisattva's correct practice relies upon, so one first cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on it; emptiness is entered by means of explanation, so secondly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on suffering and impermanence; suffering, impermanence, and so forth are identified based on matters, so thirdly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on the matter of bodily illness. Second, the sequence of initiating transformation from quiescence. Emptiness is what the bodhisattva relies upon to cure illness, so one first cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on it, which is one's own virtue; relying on this one initiates transformation, transforming the two vehicles, so secondly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on suffering and impermanence; the transformative practice gradually broadens, wishing to benefit ordinary persons, so thirdly one cultivates wisdom and compassion relying on the matter of bodily illness. The sequence is like this. Within the first pair, the text has four distinct parts: first, directly explaining the cultivation of wisdom and the cultivation of compassion; second, from "Mañjuśrī, this is how one with illness subdues the mind" downward, concluding with praise to reveal supremacy; third, from "The sick bodhisattva further thinks: 'Just as this illness of mine is not truly existent'" downward, purifying compassion with wisdom; fourth, from "A sick bodhisattva should view all dharmas in this way" downward, an overall concluding exhortation. Within the first section, first the cultivation of wisdom is explained. From "Through non-reception" downward, the cultivation of compassion is explained. Within the preceding cultivation of wisdom, first one contemplates and sees emptiness, breaking and departing from the illness of existence. From "Having attained this equality, there is no other illness" downward, one contemplates emptiness as also empty, refuting and expelling the illness of emptiness. The former breaks the illness of existence and extinguishes the hindrance of afflictions; the latter breaks the illness of emptiness and eliminates the hindrance to knowledge; expelling both hindrances together is called subduing the mind. Furthermore, the former section extinguishes the hindrance of afflictions and expels the cause of segmented [samsāra]; the latter removes the hindrance to knowledge and departs from the cause of transformation [samsāra]; both causes being eliminated, neither effect arises, and therefore it is curing illness. Within the former section on breaking existence, one contemplates the two kinds of selflessness to break the two attachments to self. Here, one should first understand the meaning of selflessness and then explain the text; the meaning is as in the separate chapter. In the text, first the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is explained; from "A sick bodhisattva, in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas" downward, the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas is explained. The former contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings breaks and departs from the conception of a self; the latter contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas extinguishes and eliminates the conception of dharmas; both conceptions subsiding together is called subduing the mind. Furthermore, the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings severs and extinguishes the four dwelling-places, removing the cause of segmented [samsāra]; the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas eliminates and relinquishes ignorance, departing from the cause of transformation [samsāra]; both causes being eliminated, neither effect arises, which is called curing illness. Within the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings, first the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is undertaken with respect to the four great elements. From "Furthermore, the arising of this illness is entirely due to attachment" downward, the contemplation of the emptiness of sentient beings is undertaken with respect to the five skandhas. Within the former, first the root of the trouble is traced. In "Now this illness of mine arises entirely from the deluded conceptions, inversions, and afflictions of previous lifetimes," sentient beings' attachment to a self is called deluded inversion; grasping at what is not real is called deluded conception; conceiving a self where there is no self is called inversion; fetters such as greed and anger are called afflictions; it is due to these that the present illness arises. From "There is no true" downward, contemplative practice severs it. "There is no real dharma; who is it that receives illness?" is a brief contemplation of selflessness. The explanation follows "Why is this?", first raising the question and then explaining. In "Because of the combination of the four great elements it is provisionally called a body," one contemplates the body as provisionally existent. In "The four great elements are non-arising and the body is also without self," one contemplates the body as truly non-existent. The four great elements have no master; seeking separately there is no soul; the body is also without a self—employing the particulars to reveal the universal, establishing the universal absence of self. Below, the contemplation of selflessness is explained with respect to the five skandhas. Within this there are two parts: first, contemplating the five skandhas to break and depart from the universal self; second, from "Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another" downward, contemplating the five skandhas to break and depart from the particular self. Within the former, first the conception of a self is broken and departed from; from "One should give rise to the conception of dharmas" downward, cultivating the conception of dharmas is explained. Within the former departure from self, "Furthermore, the arising of this illness is entirely due to attachment to self" traces the root of the trouble. "Therefore, toward the self one should not give rise to attachment" is revulsion toward the past. Having known the root of the illness, one immediately removes the conception of a self and the conception of a sentient being. Knowing the fault and severing it, not grasping at a human nature, is called removing the conception of a self. Not grasping at the provisionally named conception of a person composed of combinations is therefore called departing from the conception of a sentient being. Contemplating the particulars breaks the universal, and therefore both are eliminated. Next is the cultivation of the conception of dharmas. "One should give rise to the conception of dharmas" is an overall encouragement to practice. From "One should think" downward, individual instruction on practice is given. In "One should think: 'It is merely by means of multiple dharmas that this body is formed,'" one contemplates the particulars forming the universal. Removing the previous mark of a self, there is no person, only dharmas; therefore it says "merely," meaning merely the multiple dharmas of the five skandhas forming the body. In "Arising is merely the arising of dharmas, cessation is merely the cessation of dharmas," one breaks the universal and returns to the particulars. Expelling the mark of a sentient being, there is no arising [of beings], merely dharmas; therefore it says "merely." This breaks the universal self; below, the particular self is broken. In "Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another," one contemplates separately that the nature of the five skandhas is not a knower. In "When arising they do not say 'I arise,' and when ceasing they do not say 'I cease,'" one contemplates separately that the nature of the five skandhas is not an ātman. Above, the emptiness of sentient beings was contemplated; below, the emptiness of dharmas is contemplated. In "A sick bodhisattva, in order to extinguish the conception of dharmas," the purpose of cultivation is explained. Below, correct cultivation is taught. Cultivation has nine phrases: First, teaching contemplation of the fault in the marks of dharmas. In "One should think: 'This conception of dharmas is also an inversion,'" the mind that attaches to dharmas as a self is called the conception of dharmas. As for inversions, there is the distinction between the three inversions and the eight inversions: [inversions of] mind, conception, and view are the three inversions; [the inversions of] permanence, pleasure, self, and purity, and impermanence, non-pleasure, non-self, and non-purity are the eight inversions. [Inversions of] mind, mark, and view are inversions that are confused about principle; being confused about emptiness and establishing existence, permanence, pleasure, purity, and so forth are inversions confused about the conception of dharmas. Turning defilement into purity and purity into defilement are as broadly discussed in a separate chapter, which should be consulted in full here. The former self of sentient beings is subsumed under the eight inversions; this self attached to dharmas is subsumed under the three inversions; the sense of inversion being the same as before, it is therefore able to say "also." Second, teaching the generation of a mind of revulsion. In "This inversion is a great trouble; I should depart from it," the three inversions are the root of all delusions, so it is called a great trouble; being a trouble, one must depart from it. Third, teaching departure from dharmas. "How does one depart?" asks about the preceding to introduce what follows. "Departing from self and what belongs to a self" directly distinguishes [the answer] in response to the question. Within attachment to dharmas as self, the six sense organs are called self, and the six sense objects are called what belongs to it. Fourth, re-elucidating the preceding departure from self and what belongs to a self; first questioning, then distinguishing: "namely, departing from the two dharmas." Fifth, re-clarifying the meaning of the preceding departure from the two dharmas; first questioning, then distinguishing: namely, "not thinking of internal or external dharmas, practicing equality." Among the twelve āyatanas, the six sense organs are called internal, and the six sense objects are called external; because internal and external are both empty, one does not think of them; because one does not think of them, one purely practices equality. All dharmas are equal; for the moment this is what is said, and most sūtras are like this. Hence the sūtra text says that the intrinsic nature of the twelve āyatanas is equal, which is similar to this. Sixth, explaining and clarifying the preceding equality; first questioning, then distinguishing: namely, "equality of self and equality of nirvāṇa." This refers to saṃsāra as self because it is the ordinary [person's] substance; the emptiness of the dharmas of saṃsāra is called equality of self, and nirvāṇa being likewise is called equality of nirvāṇa. Seventh, re-explaining the preceding two kinds of equality, self and nirvāṇa; first questioning, then distinguishing: "These two are both empty," hence called equality. Eighth, explaining and clarifying the preceding emptiness; first questioning, then explaining: self and nirvāṇa are merely names without reality, and therefore are said to be empty. Sūtras speak of three kinds of "mere": mere name, mere function, and mere provisional designation. Here the first "mere" is raised, and the rest are omitted without discussion; because the refutation of characteristics is ultimate, function and provisional designation are also completely absent. Ninth, identifying what is emptied. Dharmas such as these two have no determinate nature, and are therefore called empty. Above, the illness of existence was broken; below, the affliction of emptiness is broken. Why must this be so? Just as when a person is ill, they take medicine to expel it; once the illness is removed, the medicine must also be discarded. If the medicine is not discarded, the medicine in turn becomes an affliction. For a practitioner it is likewise: in order to break the illness of existence, one contemplates emptiness as a cure; once the illness of existence is removed, emptiness must also be discarded. If emptiness is not expelled, it in turn becomes an affliction; for this reason it must be broken. It is truly because emptiness was originally taught to break existence, without intending to cause people to cling to emptiness, that it is broken. In the text it first says, "Having attained this equality, there is no other illness, there is only the illness of emptiness," distinguishing the preceding to introduce what follows.