維摩義記 2.32

2.32

Next, [the Buddha] addressed Upāli, ordering him to go and inquire after [Vimalakīrti's] illness. Previously, the cultivation of goodness was explained; here, with Upāli, the method of antidotes that eradicate evil is explained. Upāli is an Indian name; in Chinese, it means "supreme head," [denoting him as] supreme among those who uphold the Vinaya. Originally, while still a householder, he was the barber for the Śākya youths. Later, when the Śākya youths went forth from household life, Upāli accompanied them. When the Śākya youths were about to arrive at the Buddha's place, they took off their clothing, caps, necklaces, and gave the elephants they were riding to Upāli. After the Śākyas left, Upāli reflected: "The Śākya youths have karmic retributions such as this, yet they still abandon them to go forth. Why should I remain? If they can attain something, I must be able to as well." Placing the acquired goods upon a tree and tying the elephant beneath the tree, he made this declaration: "Whoever takes them, I hereby give them away." Later, he went to the Buddha's place. Seeing him, the Śākya youths asked his intention in coming. Upāli answered in full. The Śākyas rejoiced greatly and at once requested of the Buddha: "This man formerly served as our attendant. If he goes forth after us, we might become prone to slighting him. We pray the Buddha will ordain him first, so that we must venerate and serve him." The Buddha ordained him first, and the Śākya youths bowed in homage to him together. At that moment, the great earth shook on account of this, and a voice in the sky praised them, saying: "The mountain of arrogance of the Śākya youths has collapsed!" After going forth, he was foremost in upholding the Vinaya. Now he is ordered to inquire after the illness; first comes the address, and then the declining. In the declining, first is the general [refusal], next the explanation, and then the conclusion. In the explanation, "For what reason" inquires into the preceding and introduces what follows, below directly differentiating and explaining it. The text has five distinct sections: first, presenting the circumstances of having been rebuked in the past; second, from "Then Vimalakīrti..." onward, presenting the words of the rebuke; third, from "Thereupon the two monks said: 'Supreme wisdom...'" onward, showing the two monks' praise of Vimalakīrti; fourth, from "I replied..." onward, explaining his own statement of praise; fifth, from "At that time, the two monks had their doubts and regrets removed..." onward, explaining the benefit the two monks obtained from hearing the Dharma. In the first section, it initially explains that the monks felt ashamed of violating the Vinaya and did not dare to ask the Buddha, instead approaching Upāli. Because Upāli was foremost in upholding the Vinaya, they specifically approached him to ask. Subsequently, Upāli expounded for them. Saying "in accordance with the Dharma" means in accordance with the rules of the Vinaya. Clarifying whether an offense occurred or not, and whether it was light or heavy, is called explaining. Below, the second section clarifies the words of rebuke. Why was this necessary? In order to instruct the two offending monks and others to refute characteristics and eradicate offenses, he instructed by means of rebuke. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said" is the general statement; below, it is manifested individually, having both rebuke and instruction. "Do not further aggravate the offenses of these two monks" is the rebuke. How could it further aggravate them? The monks committed offenses originally because attachment to existence and grasping at characteristics arose; now, explaining to them the characteristics of offenses further increases their emotional grasping, hence it is called "further aggravating." From "You should directly..." onward is the instruction. "You should directly eradicate them without agitating their minds" is the general instruction. What is crooked eradication such that he says "directly"? Explaining the characteristics of offenses and only then teaching piecemeal remedies is called crooked eradication; explaining the emptiness of the essence of offenses to refute and abandon offense characteristics is called directly eradicating, the meaning of which will be explained later. "Without agitating their minds" refutes and checks through the ultimate principle. Agitating means disturbing. Why does it mean disturbing the mind such that he says "without agitating"? Explaining offenses to terrify them, thereby increasing their trepidation, is called agitating their minds; explaining offenses as being without offense, causing their minds to abide correctly, removing doubts, and bringing joy, is called not agitating. Below is the specific instruction. "Why is this?" inquires into the preceding and introduces what follows. Why do I instruct you to directly eradicate them? "The nature of those offenses..." and so forth explains that the essence of offenses is empty, establishing that one ought to directly eradicate them. First is the primary instruction. From "One who understands this..." onward, it concludes with praise to inspire learning. The former contains three parts: first, refuting directly with respect to offenses; second, from "As the Buddha stated..." onward, refuting with reference to the mind—this is also called refuting with reference to the cause, as the mind is the cause of offenses; third, from "All dharmas arise and cease..." onward, refuting with reference to dharmas—this is also called refuting with reference to conditions, because all dharmas are conditions for offenses. In the first part, "The nature of offenses is neither within, nor without, nor in between" explains that the essence of offenses is empty, which is why it is not present [in those locations]. "Within" refers to the six faculties; "without" refers to the six dusts. Furthermore, "within" is one's own body; "without" refers to all conditions such as sentient beings. Offenses arise through the temporary combination of causes and conditions and fundamentally lack self-nature. Because they lack self-nature, they are not present within, without, or in between. Not being within or without, dharmas are without offense; not being in between, they do not exist apart from dharmas either. In the second section, refuting with reference to the mind, the text has four distinct parts: first, explaining that sentient beings' defilement and purity depend on the mind; second, from "The mind also is not within..." onward, refuting offenses with reference to the mind; third, from "Just as, Upāli, when by the characteristics of mind..." onward, again refuting and eliminating offense characteristics with reference to the mind, establishing the later section; fourth, from "Upāli, delusional thinking is defilement..." onward, again explaining that defilement and purity both depend on the mind, establishing the first section. In the first part, wishing to refute offenses with reference to the mind, he cites the Buddha's words to explain that defilement and purity both depend on the mind. Because the mind is the fundamental essence of sentient beings, the mind's defilement is sentient beings' defilement, and the mind's purity is sentient beings' purity. In the second part, refuting offenses, he first explains the emptiness of mind, next clarifies offenses with reference to it, and then assimilates all dharmas to it. The main purpose is to clarify offenses; mentioning other things serves to demonstrate by analogy. "The mind also is not within, without, or in between" clarifies the emptiness of the mind. "Within" refers to the six faculties, and "without" refers to the six dusts; through the combination of internal and external, mental consciousness arises. Seeking separately, it has no self-nature; because it lacks self-nature, it is not within or without, nor is it in between. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "The four factors of eye, form, light, and desire combine to produce eye-consciousness. The nature of this eye-consciousness definitely does not reside in the eye, in form, in light, or in desire. The others are also like this." Not being within or without is analogous to offenses previously, which is why it also says: "As with the mind, so it is with the defilement of offenses." Assimilating offenses to the mind shows that offenses are identical to the mind; just as the mind is not within, without, or in between, the defilement of offenses is likewise not within, without, or in between. "All dharmas are also thus" assimilates and demonstrates all dharmas. Dharmas are identical to the mind and offenses in not being within, without, or in between; hence it says "also thus." Since all dharmas are thus, and offenses are an instance among all dharmas, why alone would they not be so? "Not departing from suchness" manifests the characteristic of "also thus." Earlier it was said that the nature of mind is not within, without, or in between, which is precisely the meaning of suchness. All dharmas, like the mind, are not within, without, or in between, which is also suchness. Outside of suchness there are no dharmas; hence it says "not departing." Below, the third part again refutes and eliminates offense characteristics with reference to the mind, establishing the second part above. Within this, to clarify that the minds of all sentient beings are without defilement, he draws upon Upāli's awakening and understanding to manifest it. "Just as, Upāli, when by the characteristics of mind one attains liberation, could there be any defilement?" Vimalakīrti asks in retort. Directing the Dharma by pointing to the person is why he says "just as." Upāli possesses two liberations: first, liberation of mind, severing the fetters of craving; second, liberation through wisdom, cutting off ignorance. Here, citing liberation of mind, it says "by the characteristics of mind one attains liberation." Moreover, within the mind there are nature and characteristics: the true mind is its nature, and conventional provisional existence is its mental characteristics. The nature of the mind is ever quiescent, without liberation or bondage; conventional mental characteristics have bondage and liberation; because the characteristics differ from the nature, they are called mental characteristics. At the time of attaining liberation, by means of these mental characteristics one contemplates emptiness and separates from defilement, which is called attaining liberation. At the time of this liberation, could there be any defilement that can be severed and eliminated? "I said, 'No,'" is Upāli's direct answer. At the time of attaining liberation, defilement does not exist; hence he says "No." What does this mean? If one sees defilement as something that can be eliminated or severed, one does not attain liberation. Only when one does not see defilement as something that can be eliminated or separated from, understanding that it is fundamentally without defilement, does one attain liberation; hence he answers "No." "Vimalakīrti said: 'The mental characteristics of all sentient beings are without defilement, also like this,'" assimilating ordinary beings to the noble. Although ordinary beings have not yet awakened, the principle of being without defilement is the same; hence it says "also like this." Below, the fourth part again clarifies that defilement and purity both depend on the mind, establishing the first part above. Within it are three phrases: first, "Delusional thinking is defilement of the mind, and absence of delusional thinking is purity of the mind." The minds of the three inversions such as views are delusional thinking. If according to the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the eight kinds of delusional thinking are called delusional thinking. When present, they delude regarding truth, so they are defilement; when absent, truth is revealed, so it is purity. Second, "Inversion is defilement, and lack of inversion is purity." The eight inversions are called inversions; when present, they delude regarding saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, hence they are called defilement; when absent, there is understanding and realization, so it is purity. Third, "Grasping at a self is defilement, and not grasping is purity." Grasping at a self is also subsumed under the eight inversions; because it is the root of affliction, it is specifically mentioned again. The above is the second section, refuting with reference to the mind. Below is the third section, refuting with reference to dharmas. Within it, he first explains that the arising and ceasing of all dharmas has no self-nature, which is analogous to offenses having no self-nature. From "All dharmas are..." onward, it explains that dharmas arise from the mind and that outside the mind there are no characteristics, which is analogous to offenses having no characteristics. In the former, first are metaphors such as dharmas being like an illusion. The illusion metaphor explains that self-nature is impermanent. Saying "like lightning" illustrates moment-to-moment impermanence. From "all dharmas..." onward, he synthesizes them. In the latter, "all dharmas are falsely seen" is the doctrinal explanation clarifying emptiness. As for metaphors such as dreams, there are four metaphors: first, from "Through delusional thinking..." onward synthesizes the above specific instruction. From "One who understands this..." onward concludes with praise to inspire learning. "One who understands this" means understanding what was previously distinguished. "Is named upholding the Vinaya" means acting in accordance with the rules of the Vinaya. One who understands this understands what was previously distinguished; this is called well understanding the rules of the Vinaya with the mind. Taming is called vinaya. Contemplating emptiness to eradicate offenses is true taming, hence called well understanding. This concludes the second part. Below, the third section explains that the two monks heard the Dharma and praised it. "The two monks said: 'Supreme wisdom indeed!'" praises the superior surpassing the inferior. Since his understanding exceeds Upāli's, it is called supreme wisdom. "Indeed" is an exclamatory particle. "This is beyond Upāli's reach..." and so forth clarifies that the inferior does not reach the superior. "Beyond Upāli's reach" explains that his wisdom does not reach. "Though supreme in upholding the Vinaya, he cannot explain it" clarifies that his exposition does not reach. Upāli was supreme at that time in upholding the Vinaya, so he was called supreme. Yet he could not explain that the nature of offenses is empty and quiescent, eradicating my offenses; hence he is called unable to explain. From "I replied..." onward is the fourth section, explaining his own statement of praise. "Except for the Tathāgata, no śrāvaka or bodhisattva can suppress his eloquence of delight in speech" praises the excellence of his preaching. "His wisdom and insight are clear and penetrating to this extent" praises the excellence of his wisdom. From "At that time, the two monks had their doubts and regrets removed..." onward is the fifth section, showing that the two monks obtained benefits from hearing the explanation. Among the benefits are three: first, removing doubts and regrets; second, generating the great resolve; third, giving rise to vast vows, vowing that all sentient beings will attain Vimalakīrti's eloquence. First is the declining, next the explanation, and from "Therefore I..." onward is the conclusion.