維摩經略疏 4.102

4.102

「若須菩提」下，二問。若愜同悲田乃可取食。所以作此問者，若知聖法，即是聖人，可是敬田。既不知無作四諦聖法，即非真聖人。唯知凡鄙之法，即是悲田，當依取食。此文難見，舊解無當。有云：若分別佛法是正、外法是邪，是則心有分別，非解空第一。邪正一相，始是會空，乃可取食。一往似通教意，恐經旨不爾。有師云：善吉是聲聞人，不能反出同彼外道，淨名呵折令同六師，始是菩薩，乃可取食。意亦不爾。今明淨名問善吉，愜是魔外即是悲田，乃可取食。此有二問：一問愜同邪人乃可取食、二問愜有邪法乃可取食。何者？既非聖人，即須愜同邪人，成就凡鄙之法。既有見愛，豈非魔外？何意不愜同於悲田而取食耶？經意若此，豈同諸師？初問為三：一約不見佛不聞法問、二約同六師問、三結令取食。初問者，夫眾生不定，邪正在緣。善吉既不見法身之佛、不聞無作諦法，即是不見佛不聞法，是則昔所見聞豈非見於外道聞其法也。如三藏教明，若不見王宮丈六之佛，不聞生滅四諦之法，別有師受者，雖有禪定神通智慧，皆是外道。今善吉既不見大乘三身三德之佛，不聞衍教三種四諦之法，即是不見佛不聞法。但昔見老比丘佛、聞生滅諦法，則不見真佛、不聞真法。故《金剛般若論》云「應化非真佛，亦非說法者。」如華嚴寂場，初成正覺說圓滿頓教，聲聞在座如聾如啞，即是不見佛不聞法。又如《法華》窮子止宿草庵，但見執除糞器，不見尊特之身。其既不遇正緣、不見正道，墮在二乘類同外道不見真理，俱非聖人，悉悲田也。

From "If, Subhūti..." downward is the second inquiry: only if he corresponds to and is identical with a field of compassion may he take food. The reason for posing this question is that if one knows the noble Dharma, one is a sage and may be a field of respect. Since he does not know the noble Dharma of the uncreated four truths, he is not a true sage. Knowing only mundane, base dharmas, he is simply a field of compassion, and should take food in accordance with that. This passage is difficult to understand, and older interpretations were inadequate. Some say: if one discriminates the Buddha's Dharma as correct and external dharmas as deviant, then the mind possesses discrimination and is not foremost in understanding emptiness; only when deviant and correct share a single characteristic does one truly unite with emptiness and may take food. At first glance, this seems to fit the intention of the Common Teaching, but I fear it is not the sūtra's meaning. Another master says: Subhūti is a person of the śrāvaka vehicle who cannot invert himself to become identical with those heterodox outsiders; Vimalakīrti rebukes him, directing him to be identical with the six teachers, and only then is he a bodhisattva and may take food. The intention is not this either. Here we clarify that Vimalakīrti asks Subhūti: only if he agrees to be a māra or an outsider—that is, a field of compassion—may he take food. This consists of two inquiries: first, asking whether he agrees to be identical with deviant persons before taking food; second, asking whether he agrees to possess deviant dharmas before taking food. Why is this? Since he is not a sage, he must agree to be identical with deviant persons and accomplish mundane, base dharmas. Since he still has views and craving, is he not a māra or an outsider? Why would he not agree to be identical with a field of compassion and take food? Such is the meaning of the sūtra; how could it be the same as [the views of] those masters? The first inquiry has three parts: first, inquiring in terms of not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma; second, inquiring in terms of being identical with the six teachers; third, concluding by telling him to take food. Regarding the first inquiry: sentient beings are indeterminate; whether they are deviant or correct depends on conditions. Since Subhūti neither sees the Buddha of the dharmakāya nor hears the uncreated truth of the Dharma, this is "not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma"; in that case, what he saw and heard in the past—was it not seeing an outsider and hearing their dharma? Just as the Tripiṭaka Teaching explains: if one does not see the sixteen-foot Buddha of the royal palace, does not hear the Dharma of the four truths of arising and perishing, but receives teachings from another master, then even if one has dhyāna-concentration, supernormal powers, and wisdom, one is still an outsider. Now, since Subhūti neither sees the Buddha of the three bodies and three virtues of the Mahāyāna, nor hears the Dharma of the three kinds of four truths of the Mahāyāna teaching, this is "not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma." Merely seeing the old monk Buddha and hearing the truths of arising and perishing in the past means he has neither seen the true Buddha nor heard the true Dharma. Therefore, the *Vajracchedikā-śāstra* says: "The responsive and transformative [bodies] are not the true Buddha, nor are they the speaker of the Dharma." Just as in the Avataṃsaka assembly at the site of enlightenment, when [the Buddha] first attained right awakening and taught the complete and sudden teaching, the śrāvakas in the assembly were as if deaf and mute; this is precisely "not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma." Again, it is like the poor son in the *Lotus Sūtra* dwelling in a thatched hut, seeing only [the father] holding the dung-clearing utensil, but not seeing his body of eminent distinction. Since he has not encountered the correct conditions and has not seen the correct path, falling into the two vehicles he is grouped together with outsiders who do not see true reality; neither are sages, and all are fields of compassion.