維摩經略疏 4.72

4.72

「時維摩」下，三、正述被彈之事。文為三：一總呵、二別呵、三揖敬。初總呵云「有慈悲心而不能普」者，聲聞之中最有慈悲，如來所歎命共同坐，但小乘慈悲而不圓普，利他不等捨富從貧。大士呵者，佛制頭陀令次第乞，今捨富從貧乖於佛旨。若以拔貧現苦令未來樂者，富復耽欲而不知修將墮深坑，何不往化令後相續？若置而不化，何謂等慈？若言為解脫因者，應貧富等度。度既不等，豈成圓普？若謂貧人厭苦易度，易度本關福慧，何必貧苦？若自行為易，何得惜小時之化而令富者失利？縱留神化，富亦何妨於自行？若捨道法，往貧亦應往富。若捨道法，往富妨行、往貧亦妨。既二俱有妨，何得捨一往一？且復於法等者於食亦等，若美不美皆悉平等。若法食不等。所有諸行悉皆不等。是故呵言有慈悲心而不能普。今時觀行分衛之人，當依淨名之說。

From "At that time Vimalakīrti" below, third, directly narrating the events of being rebuked. The text has three parts: first, a general rebuke; second, specific rebukes; third, salutation and respect. In the first general rebuke, stating "having a mind of compassion yet unable to make it universal": among the śrāvakas, he had the greatest compassion, praised by the Tathāgata and invited to share his seat; yet the compassion of the Hinayana is neither complete nor universal, benefiting others unequally by abandoning the wealthy to approach the poor. The Great Being rebukes him because the Buddha instituted the dhūta rule requiring begging in succession, whereas now abandoning the wealthy to approach the poor goes against the Buddha's intent. If it were to pull the poor out of present suffering and bring them future happiness, the wealthy are also indulging in desires without knowing how to cultivate, and will fall into the deep pit; why not go to convert them so that their good fortune may continue? If he sets them aside and does not convert them, how can this be called equal compassion? If one says it is a cause for liberation, the poor and wealthy should be saved equally. Since his saving them was unequal, how could it be complete and universal? If one claims poor people loathe suffering and are easy to save, being easy to save fundamentally depends on merit and wisdom; why must it depend on poverty and suffering? If it were for the ease of his own practice, how could he begrudge a short time of conversion, causing the wealthy to lose benefit? Even if he paused his mind to convert them, how would the wealthy hinder his own practice? If he relied on the Dharma of the Way, going to the poor should also mean going to the wealthy. If he departed from the Dharma of the Way, going to the wealthy would hinder practice, and going to the poor would also hinder it. Since both would pose a hindrance, how could he abandon one and approach the other? Moreover, one who is equal with respect to the Dharma is also equal with respect to food; whether delicious or not delicious, all are completely equal. If Dharma and food are not equal, all other practices will also not be equal. Therefore he rebukes him, saying, "having a mind of compassion yet unable to make it universal." Practitioners of contemplation and alms-gathering of the present day should rely on Vimalakīrti's teaching.