維摩經略疏 8.86

8.86

「舍利弗」下，品之大段第五，身子問沒生，此正顯不思議解脫出沒自在真應本迹。思議則無沒者。法身之本，生者應化垂迹，正欲顯成觀眾生入空至一實諦，窮源徹本名之為沒；行三十二無緣大慈，善根力熏受身利物，名之為生。又解：沒生即是應身垂迹，非沒非生即本法身。此下問答皆是研究，顯成淨名上說觀眾生義。文為四：一身子問、二天女答、三身子重問、四天女解疑。初身子問，正約三藏或用通意。何者？三藏明佛無餘灰盡，此但有沒而無生也。藏通二乘亦沒無生。三藏菩薩既不斷結，為化眾生雖沒而更有生。通教菩薩既異二乘，二乘無願不受後有，但沒無生。佛雖有願，正習俱斷，但沒無生。菩薩雖斷正使。有習有願故得有生。今正約三藏。既未斷結必應有生。當生何處。二、天答。「佛化所生吾如彼生」，答意者，佛法身理本無有生，應同則生，此如化生非結習生。天得法身，亦應化生而非結習，故言吾如彼生。三、身子重問。「佛化所生非沒生也」，身子不知天意在應化生，乃取三藏，謂佛報身能作化生，化無體質無而欻有，無有定相，捨此取彼。菩薩結業受生，那云佛化所生？故云佛化生非沒生也。上天以別教應化答，身子不曉猶執三藏，佛有報身能有所化，故言佛化所生非沒生也。四、天既知其不曉玄旨，即以通意順答。一切眾生亦非沒生，往來五道並皆如化。非沒生者，天亦是化，豈有沒生？此亦一往也。意在法身應化，至淨名述成真應本迹，其義方顯。是則佛化所生乃是應化，天得法身，隨有所生皆是應化，故非沒生也。

From "Śāriputra" downward is the fifth major section of the chapter, where Śāriputra asks about demise and rebirth; this directly reveals the sovereign ease of passing away and arising in inconceivable liberation, and the fundamental and traces of the true and response [bodies]. From the conceivable standpoint, there is no demise. Demise is the foundation of the dharmakāya, and arising is the manifested traces of responsive transformation. It directly intends to complete the contemplation of sentient beings entering emptiness up to the single real truth: exhausting the source and penetrating the foundation is called "demise"; practicing the thirty-two kinds of great compassion without conditions, perfumed by the power of wholesome roots to receive a body and benefit beings, is called "arising." Another explanation is: demise and rebirth are the manifested traces of the response body; neither demise nor rebirth is the fundamental dharmakāya. The questions and answers below are all investigations that reveal and complete the meaning of contemplating sentient beings spoken by Vimalakīrti above. The text has four parts: first, Śāriputra asks; second, the heavenly maiden answers; third, Śāriputra asks again; fourth, the heavenly maiden resolves doubts. First, Śāriputra's question directly relies on the Tripiṭaka or uses the shared intention. Why? The Tripiṭaka explains that the Buddha's remainderless [nirvāṇa] is like ashes extinguished; this has only demise and no rebirth. The two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings also have demise and no rebirth. Since a Tripiṭaka bodhisattva does not sever fetters, for the sake of transforming sentient beings, although having demise, there is further rebirth. Since a shared teaching bodhisattva is different from the two vehicles—the two vehicles having no vows and not receiving future existence, having only demise and no rebirth; and although the Buddha has vows, primary afflictions and habitual propensities are both severed, so there is only demise and no rebirth—the bodhisattva, although having severed primary defilements, still has habitual propensities and vows, and therefore can have rebirth. Here it directly relies on the Tripiṭaka: since he has not severed fetters, he must certainly have rebirth; where will she be reborn? Second, the goddess answers: "Where the Buddha's transformations are born, there I am born." The meaning of the answer is: the principle of the Buddha's dharmakāya fundamentally has no birth; when the response accords, it is born. This is like apparitional birth, not birth from fetters and habitual propensities. The goddess has attained the dharmakāya, and her birth is also a responsive transformation and not from fetters or habitual propensities; hence she says, "I am born as that is." Third, Śāriputra asks again: "What is born by the Buddha's transformation is neither demise nor rebirth." Śāriputra did not know that the goddess's intention lay in birth as responsive transformation, and so he adopted the Tripiṭaka view, thinking that the Buddha's retribution body can create apparitions, and apparitions have no physical substance, suddenly existing from non-existence with no fixed characteristics, relinquishing this to take that. Since a bodhisattva takes rebirth through fetters and karma, how could she say she is born like the Buddha's transformation? Therefore he says that what is born by the Buddha's transformation is neither demise nor rebirth. Above, the goddess answered in terms of responsive transformation according to the separate teaching; Śāriputra did not understand and still clung to the Tripiṭaka view that the Buddha has a retribution body capable of producing apparitions, and thus said that what is born by the Buddha's transformation is neither demise nor rebirth. Fourth, since the goddess knew that he did not understand the profound meaning, she complied and answered with the shared intention: all sentient beings are also neither demise nor rebirth, and their coming and going in the five destinies are all entirely like apparitions. Being neither demise nor rebirth, the goddess is also an apparition; how could there be demise and rebirth? This is also a preliminary explanation. Her intention lay in the dharmakāya and responsive transformations, and only when Vimalakīrti articulates and completes the fundamental and traces of the true and response [bodies] will this meaning be fully revealed. Thus, what is born of the Buddha's transformation is indeed responsive transformation; since the goddess has attained the dharmakāya, whatever rebirth she takes is responsive transformation, and therefore it is neither demise nor rebirth.