維摩義記 2.15

2.15

From here begins the second part: Vimalakīrti's instruction and rebuke. Why was this necessary? It was to benefit Subhūti and purify the Dharma-eye of the two hundred devaputras; therefore, the instruction and rebuke were necessary. Herein, Vimalakīrti first takes the bowl and fills it with food, and afterwards formally rebukes and interrogates him. Why did he not simply rebuke him directly, but rather first took the bowl and filled it with food? There are three meanings in this: First, taking his bowl was in order to bring the discussion to completion. If he had not taken the bowl, upon facing sharp challenges [Subhūti] might easily become frightened and leave; hence he had to take the bowl. Even though he took his bowl, below Subhūti still wished to leave, and [Vimalakīrti] spoke to stop him from taking it. Second, if he had not filled it with food and simply posed difficulties directly, this would look like the fault of stinginess; to dispel this trace, he filled it with food first. Third, wishing to use the food to introduce the topic, he first took the bowl and filled it with food and drink. Below, he formally rebukes him. "Said to me" is the general statement, while from "only if" onward is the specific. What was the intention behind the rebuke? Commentators differ. If one follows the explanation of Master Sengzhao and Master Daosheng, it requires Subhūti to realize the equality of emptiness—equaling the Buddhas above and leveling with ordinary people below—before he may take the food. If one relies on Master Kumārajīva's explanation to reveal the meaning of the challenge, it requires Subhūti to realize emptiness and activate its function—equaling the Buddhas above and being identical to ordinary people below—before he may take the food. Still others say: it cross-examines Subhūti to make him enter the pure gate of dependent origination of the dharmadhātu to be identical above with the Buddhas, and also enter the defiled gate of dependent origination of the dharmadhātu to be identical below with ordinary people, before he may take the food. If one were to base it on the *Yueluoluo jing*, the meaning of the challenge is completely different, yet now one should agree with it. How is it in that sūtra? Subhūti dreamed at night that the Tathāgata rubbed his head with a golden-coloured hand. At dawn he asked the Tathāgata about it. The Buddha then answered: "Today you shall hear a Dharma never heard before." Having heard these words, Subhūti entered the city to beg for food. In the city was a woman whose body was adorned with necklaces (keyūra) and who amused herself with instrumental music; for this reason she was called Yueluoluo ("Lover of Necklaces"). When Subhūti passed by and arrived at her house, this woman took Subhūti's bowl, filled it with food, and held the bowl without returning it. She asked Subhūti: "Why do you beg? Do you beg because you have the conception of a self, the conception of a life-principle, or the conception of a person?" Subhūti replied: "I have no conception of a self, conception of a life-principle, or conception of a person." The woman asked again: "If you lack these conceptions, why do you beg for food?" Subhūti replied: "The Buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones, also practice begging for food. Why do you single me out for reproach?" The woman answered: "The Buddhas have no conception of a self, and their begging is solely for the sake of beings. Why do they do so? That [sūtra] fully explains that they practice begging for food on account of twenty matters. Are you the same as them?" Subhūti said: "I am not yet equal to the Buddhas." The woman cross-examined him again: "Since you yourself have no conception of a self, it is not for your own sake; and since you are not yet equal to the Tathāgatas, it is also not for the sake of others. Why do you beg for food?" Subhūti was silent and had no reply. Vimalakīrti's reproach here is similar to that. Whenever challenging what a śrāvaka begs food for, one must employ this method—outside the path there is no other—so here Vimalakīrti likewise uses this principle to cross-examine Subhūti. Begging for food is nothing more than for oneself or for others. Acting for oneself is an ordinary person; acting for others refers to Buddhas and bodhisattvas. Only if one is equal to these two may one take the food. Subhūti reflected that he lacked both of these purposes and had no justification to take the food; hence below he put down the bowl and wished to leave. Such is the intention of the challenge. Within the text there are two parts: first, formulating the challenge in terms of the Buddha—only if one is equal to the Buddhas may one take the food; second, from "if Subhūti does not see the Buddha" onward, formulating the challenge in terms of ordinary beings—only if one is equal to ordinary beings may one take the food. In the former part, there are eleven phrases in total. The first phrase cross-examines him, bidding him to equal the Buddha in realizing the equality of emptiness before he may take the food. The remaining ten cross-examine him, bidding him to equal the Buddha in accomplishing the virtues of liberation before he may take the food. In the first phrase, "if one is equal toward food, all dharmas are likewise equal": drawing an analogy from food to dharmas, contemplating the essential nature of food as empty is called "equal toward food." Analysing the rest by this is called "dharmas are likewise equal." Regarding "all dharmas are equal, food is likewise equal": drawing an analogy from dharmas to food, contemplating all dharmas as suchness is called "dharmas are equal." Applying this analogy to food is called "food is likewise equal." "Begging in this manner, you may then take [it]" concludes by permitting him to take the food. Within the subsequent ten phrases that cross-examine him, bidding him to equal the Buddha's virtues of liberation, the first nine are specific and the last one summarizes. Within the former specific ones, the first seven phrases cross-examine in terms of practice, and the latter two phrases cross-examine in terms of persons. Again, within the former seven, the first five concern the virtue of severance, and the latter two concern the virtue of practice. Again, within the former five, the first three concern the severance of afflictions, the next one concerns the severance of karma, and the last concerns the severance of suffering. Within the severance of afflictions, the first two concern the delusions of view, and the last one concerns the delusions of cultivation. Within the delusions of view, the first are dull and the latter sharp. Among the dull ones, "not severing lust, anger, and delusion" means that the Buddha does not abide in unconditioned practice. Lust is greed, anger is wrath, and delusion is ignorance; because they constantly arise in accordance with transformation, they are said to be "not severed." This is precisely not practicing what obstructs the path of penetration; it also refers to the eighty-four thousand gates of affliction below, over which all sentient beings grow weary, yet by means of which all Buddhas perform Buddha-work. It is also the initiation of superior practices in the *Daśabhūmika Sūtra*, and the Buddha's not lacking impartial, constant practice of all-pervasive activities in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*.