淨名玄論 3.13

3.13

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.