維摩經略疏垂裕記 6.11

6.11

Second, directly narrating the reproach has two [parts]: first, dividing the sections and prefacing the indication, which has two [parts]: first, dividing the sections and determining the teaching. Second, from 'therefore' downward, prefacing and narrating the doctrinal intention. As for 'content to be equal with māras and outsiders': "content" (愜) means yielding. Jingxi says: However, Subhūti and Kāśyapa both failed to match the supreme field because of begging for food. In terms of the reproached aspect, the two were distinct and each had their own emphasis. But Kāśyapa followed the poor, his mind still being humble. Subhūti relied on his understanding of emptiness as superior to others, and moreover went in person directly to his house, appearing to be defiant and not protecting people's minds; he had to be humbled in both compassion and respect according to suitability. Furthermore, although the actions of these two men were different, in principle they were largely the same. Why? If one is worthy to be a field of respect, only then may one take food; this is identical to Kāśyapa's path and cessation mind being flawed, regarding himself as a true field and generating mistaken understanding. His mind already being deviant, entering a village must have been improper; regarding food, etc., this is identical to Kāśyapa having no proper method of eating. Bringing him low to be equal with a field of compassion was also reproaching him for having only suffering and origination. Bodhisattvas constantly manifest bodies in the five destinies; hearing that he was equal to a field of compassion, his feelings were not yet content. It was like drifting with non-Buddhists and heavenly māras, while wishing to call himself a supreme bhikṣu. A bhikṣu must be a field of merit for sentient beings; unskilled in a single matter, where is the field of merit? Originally not understanding the equal principle-nature of compassion and respect, hearing this suppression, he set down his bowl in fluster, again like Kāśyapa being rebuked and belittling himself. Grasping two and abandoning two share the same flaw in meaning; both incurred the humbling by the four truths, and thus it is roughly the same in main intent as Kāśyapa. The rest were not begging for food, and varied according to the matter.