[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經略疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778) › 7.36 # 維摩經略疏 7.36 維摩經略疏 7.36 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.36) 「爾時文殊師利」下、第二問因中實疾。所以次問者，上來權疾當何所因為同實病？以有實病，方便同事而為治之。云何為實疾眾生說法？如何慰喻實疾菩薩？文為二：一為信行人問、二為法行人問。所以然者，初問「云何慰喻」，淨名答以三教慰喻，即為信行人。從問「云何調伏」，淨名答用三觀調伏，即為法行人。信行必藉外緣，恒為說法指示分明方乃得悟，即是鈍根。法行不專藉外緣，少有所聞能觀行入道即是利根。亦未必定爾，但信法二行互有鈍利根性不同，文殊為此以興兩問。復次眾生累劫有須聞法有自進行，故問慰喻調伏，意在請出三教三觀。若將三教成上室外經者，即用通教慰喻，從假入空觀調伏，成上為國王長者說法彈呵有為緣集。若別教慰喻，從空入假觀調伏，成上彈呵十弟子無為緣集。若圓教慰喻，空假一心三觀調伏，成上彈呵菩薩自體緣集。若將成下文者，上已明問權疾，為〈不思議品〉作本。今問實疾，若通教慰喻，從假入空調伏，為〈觀眾生品〉作本。若別教慰喻，從空入假調伏，為〈佛道品〉作本。若圓教慰喻，中道正觀調伏，為〈入不二法門〉、〈香積〉二品作本。而不取三藏教者，此摩訶衍義也。未入室明四教者，為折伏彈呵凡夫著樂故也。今入室明三教三觀，正為攝受，如前分別。故知此經一部明四教三觀，其文分明，望前望後句義相當，與一家用四教三觀孱同。故前於玄義具明四教三觀，意在此也。略判竟。今初文殊問言「菩薩應云何慰喻有疾菩薩」者，即是請出慰喻教門。 > From "At that time Mañjuśrī" below is the second \[section\], which inquires about actual illness in the stage of causes. Why this is asked next is: regarding the provisional illness discussed above, what was its cause, such that it harmonised with actual illness? It was because there is actual illness that he employed expedient means and shared activities in order to treat it. How does one explain the Dharma for sentient beings with actual illness? How should one console bodhisattvas with actual illness? The text has two \[parts\]: first, inquiring on behalf of practitioners \[guided by\] faith; second, inquiring on behalf of practitioners \[guided by\] the Dharma. The reason for this is that the initial question, "How should \[one\] console...?" is answered by Vimalakīrti with the three teachings of consolation, which is for practitioners \[guided by\] faith. From the question "How should \[one\] subdue...?", Vimalakīrti answers using the threefold contemplation for subduing, which is for practitioners \[guided by\] the Dharma. Practitioners \[guided by\] faith necessarily rely on external conditions; only when the Dharma is constantly explained and clearly pointed out to them do they attain awakening, which is the dull faculty. Practitioners \[guided by\] the Dharma do not rely exclusively on external conditions; upon hearing just a little, they can engage in contemplation practice and enter the path, which is the sharp faculty. Yet it is not necessarily fixed in this way: practitioners of faith and of Dharma simply alternate between dull and sharp capacities of differing natures, and Mañjuśrī raises these two questions for this reason. Furthermore, sentient beings over accumulated kalpas either need to hear the Dharma or advance by themselves; hence he asks about consolation and subduing, the intent being to request the presentation of the three teachings and the threefold contemplation. If one correlates the three teachings with the sūtra outside the chamber above: using the connecting teaching for consolation and the contemplation of entering emptiness from provisionality for subduing completes the explanation of the Dharma above for kings and elders, rebuking conditioned causal aggregation. If using the separate teaching for consolation and the contemplation of entering provisionality from emptiness for subduing, this completes the rebuking above of the ten disciples' unconditioned causal aggregation. If using the perfect teaching for consolation and the threefold contemplation in a single mind of emptiness and provisionality for subduing, this completes the rebuking above of the bodhisattvas' intrinsic causal aggregation. If one correlates them with the subsequent text: above, having already explained the inquiry into provisional illness, it serves as the basis for the "Inconceivable Chapter". Now, inquiring into actual illness: if using the connecting teaching for consolation and entering emptiness from provisionality for subduing, it serves as the basis for the "Viewing Sentient Beings Chapter". If using the separate teaching for consolation and entering provisionality from emptiness for subduing, it serves as the basis for the "Buddha Path Chapter". If using the perfect teaching for consolation and the correct contemplation of the Middle Way for subduing, it serves as the basis for the two chapters, "Entering the Dharma-Gate of Non-duality" and "Fragrance Accumulation". Not adopting the Tripiṭaka teaching here is because this is the Mahāyāna meaning. Before entering the chamber, the four teachings were explained in order to overcome and rebuke the ordinary person's attachment to pleasure. Now, entering the chamber to explain the three teachings and threefold contemplation is precisely for gathering in and receiving, as distinguished before. Therefore, one knows that this entire single scripture clarifies the four teachings and threefold contemplation; its text is distinct, and looking before and after, the phrases and meanings correspond, fully coinciding with our school's use of the four teachings and threefold contemplation. Thus earlier in the Profound Meaning the four teachings and threefold contemplation were explained in detail; the intent lay precisely here. The brief judgment is concluded. Now, as for Mañjuśrī's first question, "How should a bodhisattva console a bodhisattva who is ill?": this is requesting the teaching-gate of consolation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.35) - [Next: 7.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.37) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778~en-mt.7.36) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.36) · Pramāṇa