維摩義記 3.2

3.2

Next is the explanation of the text. This chapter consists of two parts: first, Vimalakīrti and Mañjuśrī's questions and answers discriminating dharmas; second, from 'The eight thousand great [bodhisattvas] led by Mañjuśrī' onwards, clarifying the benefit of the exposition. In the former part, [the text] first dispels the characteristics of coming and going; from 'let us leave this aside' onwards, they question and answer to discriminate dharmas. Because coming and going obscure the truth, they must be brushed away and dispelled. Vimalakīrti speaks first, and Mañjuśrī elaborates thereafter. In Vimalakīrti's words, 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī' is a phrase of consolation. Saying 'welcome' rejoices at his coming, hence 'welcome'. Furthermore, praising the excellence of his coming is also called 'welcome'. 'Coming without the characteristic of coming, seeing without the characteristic of seeing' brushes away characteristics to reveal reality; it may also be called discriminating characteristics based on reality. Regarding Mañjuśrī's coming previously together with the assembly, brushing this away reveals reality, which is why it is said, 'coming without coming'. Regarding Mañjuśrī's entering the room previously and seeing it empty and devoid of any existent things, brushing this away reveals reality, which is why it is said, 'seeing without seeing'. 'Coming without coming' generally has three explanations: First, explaining it in terms of the conventional truth of impermanence: in real dharmas there is no coming, but in continuity there is coming; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, 'All conditioned phenomena are impermanent, nor do they have coming.' Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: in the ultimate truth there is no coming, whereas in the conventional truth there is coming; hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says, 'If all dharmas were permanent, they would also have no coming.' Third, explaining it in terms of the two bodies, the true and the responsive: the true body has no coming, whereas the responsive body has coming. 'Seeing without seeing' also has three explanations: First, in terms of conventional truth: when eye, form, light, and so forth are taken separately, there is no seeing, but in their combination there is seeing. Furthermore, when distinguishing the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing, there is no seeing, but in their provisional combination there is seeing. Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: the ultimate truth is eternally quiescent, without eyes and without seeing, whereas the conventional truth has seeing. Third, contrasting the true and the responsive: the true body is equal and free from characteristics and conditions, which is called 'not seeing'; the responsive manifestation accords with beings and displays illumination, which is called 'seeing'. From 'Mañjuśrī' onwards is the elaboration. Mañjuśrī first says, 'Even so, householder', summarizing the previous words. From 'If one comes' onwards, he elaborates individually on the previous meaning. First, he establishes the previous meaning regarding coming and going. Viewed from Vimalakīrti's room toward Mañjuśrī, it is called 'coming'; viewed from the gathering at the Āmrapālī [grove] toward Mañjuśrī, it is called 'going'. 'If one comes, there is no coming; if one goes, there is no going' is an accurate elaboration in terms of principle. A general explanation also has three [aspects]: First, explaining it in terms of the conventional truth of impermanence: discussed in terms of continuity there is coming and going, but analysed into subtle reality, coming is without coming and going is without going. Second, explaining it in terms of the mutual contrast between the two truths: within conventional truth there is coming and going, but in the equality of ultimate truth, coming is without coming and going is also without going. Third, explaining it in terms of the contrast between the true and responsive: the responsive has coming and going, but the true body does not. Although there are three meanings, the second is precisely the appropriate one. From 'Why is this so?' onwards is the explanation. First, he poses the inquiry: why do I say coming is without coming, and going is furthermore without going? Below, he answers and explains it. 'Coming has nowhere it comes from, and going has nowhere it arrives' means that by coming there is no coming, and by going there is furthermore no going. Because the assembly at the Āmrapālī [grove] is empty, coming has no origin; because Vimalakīrti's room is empty, going has no destination. 'That which can be seen can no longer be seen' establishes the previous meaning in terms of seeing. The explanation also has three [aspects], which can be understood following the above. Although it possesses three meanings, the second is precisely the appropriate one. The preceding has dispelled the characteristics of coming and going; from this point forward, they question and answer to discriminate dharmas. Herein, Mañjuśrī first puts aside the previous words, next conveys the Buddha's intent, and afterwards makes his own inquiry, which Vimalakīrti answers fully. 'Let us leave this matter aside' is the putting aside of the previous [words]. Because matters such as the absence of coming and going cannot be exhaustively explained, they must for now be set aside. 'Householder, is this illness bearable?', and so on, conveys the Buddha's intent in inquiring. 'Householder, is this illness bearable or not?' inquires into the severity of the illness. 'Has treatment brought relief, without it worsening?' inquires whether the illness is improving or critical. These convey the words of inquiry; below, the inquirer is revealed. Saying 'the World-Honoured One' directly introduces the inquirer. Saying 'solicitous' indicates the gravity of the mind that inquires. 'Extends boundless inquiries' indicates the depth of the intent behind the inquiry. 'Extend' means to convey. Because the mind that inquires after illness is primordial and inexhaustible, it is called 'boundless'. Vimalakīrti never answers this inquiry at all: because this [inquiry] had not departed, he does not answer it here; and when going below, Vimalakīrti went together [with them], so he also does not answer. From 'Householder, from what did this illness arise?' onwards, Mañjuśrī inquires on his own, and Vimalakīrti fully answers. However, the inquiries below all arise based on the two matters of Vimalakīrti's displaying illness and the empty room. Based on the previous display of illness, there are eight inquiries: first, inquiring into the cause of the illness; second, inquiring into the duration of the illness; third, inquiring into the method of extinguishing it; fourth, inquiring into the characteristics of the illness; fifth, inquiring into the location of the illness; sixth, inquiring into the substance of the illness—among the four great elements, the illness of which element is it? Alternatively, this inquires into the conditions giving rise to the illness; seventh, inquiring into consolation; eighth, inquiring into subjugation. Conjoined with the Buddha's two inquiries, there are ten inquiries in total. Based on the previous empty room, there are two inquiries: first, inquiring into the empty room; second, inquiring into having no attendants. Discussed comprehensively with respect to what follows, seven [topics] are generated: the first two are as just mentioned; third, generating below Śāriputra's thought that there are no seats; fourth, generating below the heavenly maiden; fifth, generating below the eight unprecedented events in the room; sixth, generating below the matters regarding parents, wives, children, relatives, and so forth asked by Samantadarśana; seventh, generating below the thought of food, explained fully in this way. Now, however, Mañjuśrī only asks the first two. Conjoined with the previous inquiry into illness, he makes ten inquiries on his own. These ten fall together into three [groups]: the first eight inquire particularly into the characteristics of transformation with respect to the person capable of converting; the ninth, 'How should one console those who are ill?', inquires into the etiquette of consolation with respect to the person capable of converting toward those to be converted; the tenth, 'How should one subjugate one's mind?', inquires particularly into the method of cultivation and regulation with respect to those to be converted. In essential summary there are only two: the previous eight inquire into Vimalakīrti's expedient means of manifesting transformation, and the latter two inquire into the method of curing illness for the people he converts. Furthermore, among the former eight, they fall together into three: the first three inquire into illness to manifest Vimalakīrti's expedient means of great compassion. The next two inquire into his empty room and lack of attendants to reveal that upon which Vimalakīrti's compassionate practice relies. Because compassion is accomplished by relying on emptiness, he inquires into the empty room; because compassion arises in accordance with beings' existence, he inquires into the lack of attendants. The final three rounds inquire again into the illness to reveal that Vimalakīrti's illness is a response, not real. Within the first section, Mañjuśrī first combines three inquiries: 'Householder, from what cause did this illness arise?' inquires into the cause of the illness. 'How long has it been since it arose?' inquires into the duration of the illness. 'How should it be extinguished?' inquires into the method of extinguishing the illness. Below, Vimalakīrti first answers the second, then answers the third, and afterwards answers the first. When the latter two are completed, the initial meaning is manifested, which is why he answers it last. In answering the second, 'From ignorance there is craving, and my illness arose' means that ever since sentient beings gave rise to the cause of illness, Vimalakīrti has constantly been ill. 'Because all sentient beings are ill, therefore I am ill' means that ever since sentient beings underwent the fruit of illness, Vimalakīrti has constantly been ill. Because in truth Vimalakīrti is himself free of illness, his illness entirely accords with beings; hence he speaks of its duration in accordance with sentient beings.