維摩經略疏 4.93

4.93

「所以至乞食」，二、述不堪之由。由詣乞食，致被彈呵。所以詣淨名家乞食者，有二義：一為捨貧從富、二為自恃解空。初有二意：一化他、二自行。一、化他者，貧人困乏常憂不足，慈心無諍將護彼意，故不從乞。富家幸豐，乞不為損，則無惱他之失。又解：貧者弊於貧乏，易可開化，遇緣即發，不足苦憂。富有益貪憍逸難化，自非因乞無由開曉。此與迦葉互有所失。迦葉從貧慈悲不普，善吉從富無諍亦偏。二、為自行者，善吉行空三昧，不以門閣重深難求為妨。若置上供，空無分別未足動習，故捨貧從富，以於觀行心無妨也。二、自恃解空者，淨名無方之辨，見者無不被譏，故聲聞菩薩莫敢闚其門也。善吉思惟，其存有者則可呵折，空無所有何可彈呵，自恃解空心無畏難，故詣其門從乞食也。遂被彈呵、苦加折挫，乃茫然置鉢失儀欲去，不堪之由事在於此。

"Wherefore, going to beg for food": second, recounting the cause of his unworthiness. Due to going to beg for food, he brought about rebuke. There are two meanings to his going to Vimalakīrti's home to beg for food: first, abandoning the poor to go to the rich; second, relying on his own understanding of emptiness. The first has two intentions: first, transforming others; second, his own practice. First, transforming others: poor people are destitute and constantly worry about insufficiency; with a compassionate mind of non-dispute, he protected their intentions, and therefore did not beg from them. Rich families are fortunately abundant, and begging does not harm them, so there is no fault of distressing others. Another explanation: the poor are oppressed by poverty and want, and are easy to guide and transform; meeting the right conditions, they are immediately aroused, and do not need to be burdened with further distress. The rich have increased greed, arrogance, and indolence, and are difficult to transform; unless by begging, there would be no way to instruct and enlighten them. In this, both he and Mahākāśyapa had their respective faults: Mahākāśyapa went to the poor, so his compassion was not universal; Subhūti went to the rich, so his non-dispute was also one-sided. Second, for his own practice: Subhūti practiced the samādhi of emptiness; he did not consider the heavy gates and deep courtyards that make seeking difficult to be an obstacle. If superior offerings were set before him, emptiness being free of discrimination would not suffice to stir his latent tendencies; therefore, he abandoned the poor and went to the rich, as it posed no hindrance to his mind in practicing contemplation. Second, relying on his own understanding of emptiness: Vimalakīrti's unconstrained eloquence was such that none who saw him failed to be ridiculed; hence neither voice-hearers nor bodhisattvas dared to peer past his gate. Subhūti reflected: those who grasp at existence can be rebuked and broken down, but what is empty and non-existent—how could it be rebuked? Relying on his understanding of emptiness, his mind had no fear or hesitation, so he went to his gate to beg for food. Thereupon he was rebuked and severely humbled, so that bewildered, he put down his bowl, lost his decorum, and wished to depart. The cause of his unworthiness lies in this matter.