淨名玄論 3.13

3.13

第三釋云具有二義：一者實不容入，能令見其容入；二實能容入，復令見容入。今明第三釋宜可用之。但此經正明容入，非不容入也，故高廣之座來入方丈小室、方丈小室容高廣之座，大小無有增減而容入宛然，故是不思議也。問：若無增減名不思不議，寧得文云「其室廣博」？答：講誦之人多不細觀，故不見此文意。若以下徵之，未見好釋。若於此一條昧者，則不思議事皆不成矣。今明〈不思議品〉凡有二文：一云「其室廣博」，二云「本相如故」。即此二文，自相違背。既云其室廣博，寧得本相如故？若云本相如故，何名廣博？今明室有內外，自內而觀故其室廣博，自外而觀則本相如故，是以二文不相違也。問：若爾者，何名不思議耶？答：唯是一室，內觀則廣、外觀如故，即是不思議。問：外觀如故，可無增減，名不思議。內觀既廣，即是增減，云何名不思議？答：內廣遂令外增，可非不思議。而內廣不令外增，故內廣是不思議。問：不令外廣，可外無增，名外不思議。遂令內廣，便是增內，即內非不思議。答：淨名既能令外不增，亦能令內不廣。何以知之？世小術遂能令尺鏡入於寸瓶，瓶不增、鏡不減，而容入究然，況諸佛菩薩。今遂令室內廣者，凡有二義：一者此經始終敘淨名待賓，凡具四事：一有廣博之室、二設端嚴之座、三有甘露味飯、四有微妙法。言室若不廣，則四中𨷂一。今欲待賓事圓，故令室廣博也。在室雖廣，遂令外增，則非奇特。而外本相如故所，此復是不思議。是以內大外小，各有深致也。二者若內外皆不廣，而令大座入小室者，但得將室對座辨大小不思議耳。今欲示二種不思議：一大入小不思議、二內外不思議。大小不思議者，大座入小室內，室內雖廣而外不大，故是大小不思議。二內外不思議者，唯是一室，內觀則廣、外看不大。欲言室大，外相宛然；欲言室小，能容大座。是故此室不可思議。問：有人言：觀至容座，故言室廣。若置座觀室，則本相如故。此釋自能，何勞分內外？今問：室唯方丈、座高八萬，為見室大於座、為室見小於座耶？若見室大於座，云何復言本相如故？若本相如故，即見室猶方丈，云何復見容於大座？此則事相不成，於巧義不足。今詳經文意者，三萬諸座並來入室，舉眾皆見其室廣博，非復猶見方丈；但觀外形，本相如故。可用前通，廢於後釋。

The third explanation says that it possesses two meanings: first, in reality it does not accommodate and enter, but [the bodhisattva] can make them see its accommodating and entering; second, in reality it can accommodate and enter, and furthermore makes them see the accommodating and entering. Now we clarify that the third explanation is fitting to be adopted. However, this sūtra properly clarifies accommodating and entering, not non-accommodating and non-entering; thus the high and broad thrones come to enter the small room of ten cubits, and the small room of ten cubits accommodates the high and broad thrones, with no increase or decrease in large or small while accommodating and entering are clearly evident; hence it is inconceivable. Question: If the absence of increase and decrease is called inconceivable, how can the text say 'its room was vast and broad'? Answer: Lecturers and reciters mostly do not examine it closely, hence they fail to see the meaning of this text. If examined below, a good explanation has not yet been seen. If one is ignorant of this single point, then the inconceivable events all fail to hold. Now we clarify that the 'Chapter on the Inconceivable' has two passages: one says 'its room was vast and broad', and the other says 'the original appearance remained as before.' These two passages directly contradict each other. Since it says its room was vast and broad, how could the original appearance remain as before? If it says the original appearance remained as before, why call it vast and broad? Now we clarify that the room has an inside and an outside: viewed from the inside, its room is vast and broad; viewed from the outside, the original appearance remains as before; therefore the two passages do not contradict each other. Question: If so, why is it called inconceivable? Answer: It is only a single room; viewed from inside it is broad, viewed from outside it is as before: this is precisely the inconceivable. Question: Viewed from outside as before may have no increase or decrease and be called inconceivable; but viewed from inside being broad is an increase and decrease, so how is it called inconceivable? Answer: If being broad inside caused the outside to increase, it could be non-inconceivable. But being broad inside does not cause the outside to increase, so being broad inside is inconceivable. Question: Not causing the outside to be broad may have no increase outside, being called outside-inconceivable. Causing the inside to be broad is increasing the inside, so the inside is not inconceivable. Answer: Since Vimalakīrti can cause the outside not to increase, he can also cause the inside not to be broad. How is this known? Small worldly arts can cause a one-foot mirror to enter a one-inch bottle, where the bottle does not increase and the mirror does not decrease, yet accommodating and entering are fully realized; how much more so with the buddhas and bodhisattvas! That it now causes the interior of the room to be broad has two meanings: First, this sūtra from beginning to end recounts Vimalakīrti receiving guests, having fully four things: first, having a vast and broad room; second, setting up dignified and magnificent thrones; third, having food of the taste of amṛta; fourth, having the subtle and wondrous Dharma. If the room were not broad, one of the four would be lacking. Now, wishing the reception of guests to be complete, he causes the room to be vast and broad. Although the room is broad, if it caused the outside to increase, it would not be extraordinary. But outside, the original appearance remains as before; this again is inconceivable. Therefore, the inner large and the outer small each have a profound import. Second, if both inside and outside were not broad, and the large thrones entered the small room, one could only contrast the room with the thrones to distinguish the inconceivable of large and small. Now he wishes to demonstrate two kinds of inconceivable: first, the inconceivable of the large entering the small; second, the inconceivable of inside and outside. The inconceivable of large and small is that the large thrones enter inside the small room, and although the room is broad inside, outside it is not large; hence it is the inconceivable of large and small. Second, the inconceivable of inside and outside is that it is only a single room: viewed from inside it is broad, viewed from outside it is not large. If one wishes to say the room is large, the outer appearance is clearly evident; if one wishes to say the room is small, it can accommodate the large thrones. Therefore, this room is inconceivable. Question: Someone says: Looking at it accommodating the thrones, the room is said to be broad. If one sets aside the thrones and looks at the room, the original appearance remains as before. This explanation works on its own, so why bother distinguishing inside and outside? Now we ask: The room is only ten cubits, and the thrones are eighty thousand [yojanas] high; does one see the room as larger than the thrones, or see the room as smaller than the thrones? If one sees the room as larger than the thrones, how can it also be said that the original appearance remains as before? If the original appearance remains as before, then one sees the room as still ten cubits; how then could one see it accommodate the large thrones? Then the phenomena would not hold, and it would be inadequate in skillful meaning. Now examining the meaning of the sūtra text: the thirty-two thousand thrones all came and entered the room, and the entire assembly saw that its room was vast and broad, no longer seeing it as merely ten cubits; yet looking at the outer shape, the original appearance remained as before. The former resolution should be adopted, and the latter explanation discarded.