維摩義記 2.7.1

2.7.1

Next, [the Buddha] told Maudgalyāyana to go and inquire after [Vimalakīrti's] illness. Maudgalyāyana's family name was Kolita. His father had originally been childless and, praying to a kolita tree-spirit, obtained him; hence he was given the name Kolita. He was the son of a chief minister in Rājagṛha. Formerly, together with Śāriputra, he was a student of Sañjaya. With their minds exclusively set on seeking the Way, they attained nothing, and supposed there was no Way. Sañjaya was approaching the end of his life and, while ill, sighed softly. The two disciples inquired, "Master, what are you sighing for?" Sañjaya answered, "I am thinking of how worldly people are bound by love and affection. The king of the country of Suvarṇabhūmi in South India has passed away, and during his cremation by fire, the queen, pining for him, threw herself into the flames and died. That is what I was sighing about." The two men made a private mental note of it. After Sañjaya died, merchants arrived from Suvarṇabhūmi; the two men made inquiries, and it was just as Sañjaya had spoken. The two men then remarked that their master had certainly attained the Way, but they themselves were not the right sort of people. They then made a pact together: "If either attains anything, he must inform the other." After making this pact, the Buddha had only just appeared in the world. The monk Aśvajit entered the city to beg for alms; Śāriputra saw his deportment was extraordinary and knew he had an exceptional master. Waiting until he was returning from begging, Śāriputra asked him, "Who is your master?" Aśvajit answered, "He is a great śramaṇa." Śāriputra asked again, "What does your great śramaṇa proclaim?" Aśvajit answered: "Of all dharmas that arise from causes and conditions, the great śramaṇa has spoken their cause; of all dharmas that cease from causes and conditions, the great śramaṇa has spoken their cessation." Hearing this, Śāriputra was opened up in awakening and understanding, directly realizing the first fruit [of the path] upon those words. Returning to their dwelling, Maudgalyāyana saw him from afar and immediately knew he had attained something, promptly inquiring about it. Śāriputra replied with all that he had heard, and upon hearing it, Maudgalyāyana also awakened to the first fruit. The two men consequently went to the Buddha to renounce the household life, and their disciples followed them to the Buddha's presence; all attained arhatship. Maudgalyāyana was foremost in supernatural powers among the Buddha's disciples; now he was commanded to inquire after the illness. Within this [passage], [the Buddha] first commands him, and afterwards he declines, saying he is not equal to it. In his declining, it begins with an overarching statement; below "For what reason" is an explanation; below "Therefore" is a conclusion. The initial overarching statement is readily understood; in the explanation, "for what reason" raises a rhetorical question to prompt what follows, beneath which it provides a proper analysis and explanation. Therein are four parts: first, adducing the circumstances under which he was formerly rebuked; second, below "At that time Vimalakīrti", showing the words of rebuke; third, below "When this Dharma was spoken, eight hundred laymen gave rise to the aspiration for bodhi", the benefit of the instructional rebuke; fourth, [in] "I lack such eloquence", expressing his own unworthiness and shortcomings, showing how difficult that person is to equal. In the first part, "Remembering the past" adduces the time when he was rebuked. "Entering Vaiśālī, in the lanes and alleys" indicates the place where he was rebuked. "Expounding for the householders" sets forth the matter over which he was rebuked. What kind of Dharma was he expounding? The text does not specify; it must have been that he was expounding morality, giving, the teachings on rebirth in heaven, and so on for those white-robed householders, which is why he was subsequently rebuked. From here follows the second [part], clarifying the words of instructional rebuke. Why was this necessary? It was to benefit Maudgalyāyana and the householders that he gave this instructional rebuke. In the text, "Vimalakīrti came and said" is an overarching introduction. Below "O…" is the specific [rebuke]. Within the specific part, "You should not speak as the benevolent one does" is the word of rebuke. His teaching did not accord with the Dharma, hence "you should not"; moreover, it did not accord with their capacities, which is also "you should not". Beneath "For one who expounds the Dharma", he instructs him on how to expound it correctly. Herein are two points: first, instructing him with respect to the essential nature of the Dharma to be expounded; second, below "For one who expounds the Dharma, there is nothing to expound and nothing to demonstrate", instructing him with respect to the deportment of one who is capable of expounding. In the former, he extensively reveals the characteristics of the Dharma Jewel to cause people to realize and enter it. Herein it begins with a general statement; below "The Dharma has no…" is the detailed breakdown. Below "If the characteristics of the Dharma are like this, how could it be expounded?", he drives home the rebuke by means of the underlying principle. Regarding the initial general statement, "For one who expounds the Dharma" broadly introduces the act of expounding. "Ought to expound it according to the Dharma" is a general instruction and exhortation: one should expound in accordance with the essential nature of the Dharma Jewel. Below "The Dharma has no arising", he gives specific instructions following the Dharma. Therein he extensively reveals the essential characteristics of the Dharma Jewel, causing him to proclaim [the teaching] in reliance upon them. The essential characteristics of the Dharma Jewel are as spoken in the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* regarding mindfulness of the Dharma: wondrously quiescent and free of characteristics, fully possessing all meanings, the sphere traversed by all buddhas and bodhisattvas, constant, eternal, and unchanging. This is precisely the true Dharma of buddha-nature, the tathāgatagarbha, in the sūtra. The garbha is the true nature of all dharmas, and within this true nature there are no characteristics of dharmas; hence in this passage he reveals it by refuting characteristics, proclaiming that there is no arising and no dharmas. Though he speaks of emptiness, it is analyzed in terms of the real; therefore, in the text below, he speaks of no sentient being, no lifespan, and so forth, entirely in reference to the essential nature of dharmas. However, the Dharma is empty and interfused, and there is nowhere its principle does not extend; now, he expounds it provisionally in terms of the gates of the five skandhas and the eighteen dhātus; the rest may be inferred accordingly. First, he clarifies that the Dharma is free from characteristics and the Dharma has no "mine" in terms of the five skandhas. Below "Free from 'mine'", he clarifies that the Dharma is free from characteristics in terms of the eighteen dhātus. It is mostly regarding these that sentient beings generate conceptual reckonings, so he discusses them accordingly. In the preceding [discussion of] the five skandhas, there are ten distinct phrases, which discern only two principles: the first four phrases clarify the selflessness of persons, and the latter six phrases clarify the selflessness of dharmas. The meaning of the two kinds of selflessness is extensive as in the separate chapter, and should be fully discussed here. Among [the phrases on] the selflessness of persons, how do the four phrases differ? The first phrase clarifies that within the essence of the true Dharma there is no sentient being; the second, no self; the third, no lifespan; the fourth, no person. These are precisely the four meanings found in that *Śrīmālādevī Sūtra*: the tathāgatagarbha is not a self, not a sentient being, not a life, and not a person. How do these four—self, sentient being, and so forth—differ such that they must be eliminated separately? Broadly interpreted, they are a single entity, like eyes and vision, yet within it, distinct divisions are not without differences. What are their different characteristics? Declaring the substance of the skandhas to be a spiritual master is called "self". Reckoning a determinate reality within their aggregate is spoken of as "sentient being". Reckoning within their continuity that a spiritual nature sustains it uninterruptedly is called "lifespan". Positing within their activities a controller is spoken of as "person". Countering these, it is said that there is no self, person, sentient being, or lifespan. Thus that *Sūtra on the Transformation of the Female Body* says: "Contemplating internally there is no self, externally there are no sentient beings, and the internal-external combination has no lifespan; they are ultimately pure." As for why there is no person: contemplating internally there is no self means the substance of the skandhas is not a spirit. That externally there are no sentient beings: the collected activities of the five skandhas, viewed against the substance of those skandhas, are called "external"; within them there is no reality, which is called "no sentient beings". That the internal-external combination has no lifespan: the skandhas arise together provisionally, and their continuity is called "life"; there is no separate life-substance, and it is ultimately pure. Being called "no person": the active controller is called "person"; because there is no self-substance, human agency is also non-existent, and it is ultimately pure. In the text, it first says "The Dharma has no sentient being", directly clarifying its non-existence in principle, meaning that within the real essence of the Dharma Jewel there are no sentient beings.