[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) › 7.8 # 維摩經略疏 7.8 維摩經略疏 7.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.8) 「居士」下，二、文殊自述己情。問疾奉旨事難，意在於此。文為二：一問果中權疾、二問因中實疾。由問權故，淨名答，出〈不思議品〉。由問實故，淨名答，出〈觀眾生〉等四品，至文可見。就問果中權疾，文為三：一從「居士此疾何所因起」下，是問果疾因起。大士果地法身清淨永無患累，而今現疾，何所因起？二、從「此室何以空無侍者」下，是問大士法身依報眷屬今何所在，而但見空室。三、從「是疾為何等相」下，即問應身同疾以何為相？為同法身、為同凡夫？故問相貌。初文為二：一文殊問、二淨名答。初問為三：一問疾生因起、二問疾生久近、三問滅疾之法。初問疾因起者，若果地法身何疾何惱？今忽言有疾，因何而起？次問「其生久如」者，法身無疾，既有權疾，有來幾時？次問「當云何滅」者，若為眾生，今十方國土眾生無盡，權則不可滅，此疾當何得滅？文殊三問，大意在此。 > From "Householder" onwards is the second \[part\], where Mañjuśrī states his own sentiment. The difficulty of inquiring after the illness under the \[Buddha's\] command: the intent lies here. The text has two parts: first, inquiring about the provisional illness within the fruit; second, inquiring about the real illness within the cause. Because of inquiring about the provisional, Vimalakīrti replies, which gives rise to the "Inconceivable Chapter." Because of inquiring about the real, Vimalakīrti replies, which gives rise to the four chapters including "Contemplating Sentient Beings," as can be seen when arriving at the text. Concerning inquiring about the provisional illness within the fruit, the text has three parts: First, from "Householder, from what cause did this illness arise?" onwards is inquiring into the arising of the illness of fruit. The Great Being's dharmakāya at the stage of fruition is pure and forever free from troubles and encumbrances, yet now he manifests illness—from what cause did it arise? Second, from "Why is this room empty, without attendants?" onwards is inquiring where the Great Being's dharmakāya, dependent retribution, and retinue are now located, such that one sees only an empty room. Third, from "What are the marks of this illness?" onwards is inquiring: regarding the response body's identical illness, what are its marks? Is it identical to the dharmakāya, or identical to an ordinary person? Therefore he inquires into the marks. The first passage has two parts: first, Mañjuśrī's inquiry; second, Vimalakīrti's reply. The initial inquiry has three parts: first, inquiring into the causal arising of the illness's birth; second, inquiring into how long the illness has arisen; third, inquiring into the method of eliminating the illness. First, inquiring into the causal arising of the illness: if it is the dharmakāya at the stage of fruition, what illness or distress could there be? Now suddenly it is said to have an illness—due to what did it arise? Next, inquiring "How long has it arisen?": the dharmakāya has no illness; since there is a provisional illness, for how long has it been present? Next, inquiring "How should it be eliminated?": if it is for the sake of sentient beings, now sentient beings in the lands of the ten directions are endless, so provisionally it cannot be eliminated; how can this illness be eliminated? Mañjuśrī's three inquiries: the general meaning lies here. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.7) - [Next: 7.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.9) - [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.7.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.7.8) · Pramāṇa