維摩經略疏垂裕記 9.79

9.79

Second, from "As a scorched grain's sprout" onward, the remaining fourteen similes are explained, divided into two: first, directly explaining the similes. Regarding "As a scorched grain's sprout," Jingxi says: "If one cites the Lotus Sūtra, it is not solely the present intent, but only states it in terms of the general scope of bodhisattvas. At that time, in the Hīnayāna, this view did not yet exist; next citing the Great Sūtra [Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra] has a similar intent. It secretly reproaches them, intending to cause the subsequent three [minds] to arise. The main purport of the simile of fruits is likewise so. In the Hinayāna there is also no saṃsāra beyond the realm [of the three realms]; although they hear of it within the Mahāyāna assembly, they are still unable to have clear and lucid faith. Bodhisattvas of the Tripitaka and Common Teachings do not yet fully know it either, because the intent of their teachings is to enter the remainderless [nirvāṇa]. 'A bodhisattva who has attained forbearance' refers here to one who enters the unproduced in the Common Teaching." Regarding "As the traces of afflictions in a Buddha," this refers to the response-transformation Buddha demonstrating the presence of afflictions, as is also clearly shown in the Hīnayāna teachings. Regarding "rebuking Devadatta and reproaching Śāriputra": rebuking Devadatta is as mentioned before. The Dàzhìdù lùn states: "Rāhula followed the Buddha in walking meditation. The Buddha asked Rāhula, 'Why are you so emaciated?' Rāhula answered the Buddha in verse: 'If a person eats oil, he gains strength; if he eats ghee, he gains a fine complexion; eating hemp dregs and greens leaves one without complexion or strength. The Greatly Virtuous World-Honoured One himself should know.' The Buddha asked, 'Who is the senior monk?' He replied, 'The preceptor Śāriputra.' The Buddha said, 'Śāriputra eats impure food.' When Śāriputra heard these words, he immediately vomited out the food and made a vow, saying: 'From this day forward I shall never again accept an invitation.'" Here, the Buddha's censuring is the characteristic of the trace of anger. Jingxi says: "From a blind person seeing forms onward, the phenomenon used as a simile can apply generally to the Hīnayāna. A deceased person receiving a body is still an idea alien to the Hīnayāna." Regarding "Therefore their appearances and disappearances are not the same": because these similes mostly pertain to bodhisattvas while also encompassing the Hīnayāna. Regarding "Gazing indistinctly, wishing to see": 'indistinct' (wangxiang) also written as [the homophonous] wangxiang, is an unclear appearance. Regarding "From the cessation absorption to entering and exiting": because the mind races and stirs within, breath goes out and comes in on the outside. Since mental conceptions have ceased, breath has no exiting or entering. Regarding "As Śāriputra became a woman," etc.: that is, being transformed by the heavenly goddess. Regarding "As a deceased person receiving a body," Jingxi says: "Since this is both the Mahāyāna gate and pertains to bodhisattvas, while still encompassing a reproach of the Hīnayāna, such an explanation may be made." Regarding "fire without a cause": because being produced from causes and conditions cannot be found, it is called 'without cause'; yet it is still produced from causes, hence called 'the fire of [that]'. Now the text of the commented sūtra reads 'fire without smoke' (wuyan huo); this is probably a transmission error: because 'fire from a cause' (huo cong yin) was mistaken for the character 'yan' [smoke], which was then changed in script to this 'smoke' (yan). Hence Master Zhao's commentary says, 'Fire must depend on substance,' from which we know that the character 'smoke' was a later person's erroneous alteration. Jingxi says: "The similes above are either based on the Mahāyāna gate or depend on the Hīnayāna teaching." Regarding "Because the Great and Small are combined together": because the faculties in the Vaipulya [period] are mixed. However, all these similes at first glance in the sūtra text seem to illustrate non-existence—such as form in the formless realm, the sprout of a scorched grain, down to fire without a cause. Because the formless absorption definitely lacks form, a scorched grain definitely lacks a sprout, down to being without a cause definitely lacking fire. The commentary, grasping the intent, shows in all cases that they also exist: as citing the Great Sūtra to clarify that the formless realm has form, and that scorched grain moistened with ghee has the capacity to sprout, down to encountering conditions such as wood-friction, grass, rope, and a drill, fire can then be produced—only then showing that all these similes are both existent and non-existent. Scrutinizing the commentary closely, each one is like this; illustrating the middle truth among sentient beings is as clear as pointing to one's palm.