維摩經略疏 4.71

4.71

「所以至行乞」，二、述不堪之由，由乞食也。乞食者，即十二頭陀之一。釋十二頭陀義，有三意：一約半字事理、二約滿字事理、三約觀心，具出文繁，略之不述。有師云：小乘見理名之為貧。今難之。若言貧里是小乘者，善吉從富應是大乘；既非大乘，此義便壞。今依觀解，約有空兩門。迦葉有門入道，有門局狹名之為貧；善吉空門入道，空門寬廣名之為富。雖有空之殊，同是三藏，非關大乘。故《成論》往往斥於《毘曇》，意在此也。恐人謬作觀行消經，故須比斥。此非經正義，故不須執也。今言於貧里行乞，有二意：一為利他、二為自行。一、利他者，其有慈悲之心，見貧窮者持鉢往福，使現轉報、來生免苦。又眾生不苦不求涅槃，既遭貧苦必易化度，故須往也。富者著樂會不從化，徒往喚擾於理無益。二、為自行者，富家門閣重深求苦難及，必稽時廢業；從貧則易，不致所妨。又貧者報劣，飲食必麁不生心著；富者豐足，食必甘美，或起習染乖頭陀行，非為物軌。是則情有偏存，致被彈斥，不堪之由良有以也。

"The reason is that […] went begging for food": second, explaining the reason for his inadequacy, which arose from begging for food. Begging for food is one of the twelve dhūtas. Explaining the meaning of the twelve dhūtas has three points: first, in terms of the phenomena and principles of the half-word teachings; second, in terms of the phenomena and principles of the full-word teachings; third, in terms of contemplation of mind. Presenting them fully would be cumbersome, so they are omitted and not discussed here. A certain master says: "The Hinayana's seeing of principle is named 'poverty'." I now challenge this. If one says that the poor neighbourhood represents the Hinayana, then Subhūti's approaching the wealthy ought to represent the Mahāyāna; since that is not the Mahāyāna, this interpretation collapses. Now, relying on an interpretive understanding based on contemplation, it is explained in terms of the two gateways of existence and emptiness. Kāśyapa entered the Way through the gateway of existence, and the gateway of existence is narrow and constrained, hence it is called "poor"; Subhūti entered the Way through the gateway of emptiness, and the gateway of emptiness is vast and open, hence it is called "wealthy." Although there is a difference between existence and emptiness, both are equally of the Tripiṭaka [teachings] and do not pertain to the Mahāyāna. Thus the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra frequently criticises the Abhidharma; the intention lies right here. Fearing that people might erroneously formulate practices of contemplation in interpreting the sūtra, it is necessary to make this comparison and critique. This is not the primary meaning of the sūtra, so one should not cling to it. Now, stating that he begged in poor neighbourhoods has two meanings: first, for the benefit of others; second, for one's own practice. First, for the benefit of others: he possessed a compassionate mind, and seeing the impoverished, he took his bowl and went to bring them merit, so that they might transform their retribution in the present and avoid suffering in future lives. Furthermore, if sentient beings do not suffer, they do not seek nirvāṇa; having met with the suffering of poverty, they must be easy to convert and save, hence he had to go to them. The wealthy cling to pleasure and will never follow conversion; going to them in vain merely creates disturbance and yields no benefit to the principle. Second, for his own practice: the gates and compounds of wealthy households are manifold and deep, and seeking food with difficulty would be hard to accomplish, inevitably causing delays and wasting his spiritual work; approaching the poor is easy and causes no such hindrance. Furthermore, the retribution of the poor is inferior, and their food and drink are bound to be coarse, giving rise to no craving in the mind; the wealthy have abundance, and their food is bound to be sweet and delicious, which might arouse habitual defilements contrary to dhūta practice, failing to be a model for beings. Thus, his thoughts held a one-sided preference, which led to his being rebuked; the reason for his inadequacy was indeed well-founded.