維摩經義疏 3.3.3

3.3.3

如後文說「諸佛解脫於六十二見中求」，即其證也。 「不斷煩惱而入涅槃，是為宴坐」。 此第六明生死涅槃不二。 了煩惱其性即是涅槃，不斷而後入也。 「若能如此坐者，佛所印可」。 此第三總結。 平等坐法，不違實相、復順佛心、稱大乘機，具此三門，故佛印可也。 二乘反之，以被呵。 「時我，世尊！ 聞是語，默然而止，不能加報」。 此第三次明受屈。 理生意外，故莫知所詶。 「故我不任詣彼問疾」。 不堪有三，標釋已竟，今總結也。 「佛告大目揵連：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。 所以次告目連者，夫人才有長短，身子或可一時漏機、受淨名屈。 自可不能，餘何必爾，故不抑之而亦告也。 復得備顯淨名道高，說昔法以利今眾，具如前說，故次命之。 此章亦二：初命問疾、二辭不堪。 目連是姓也，此言為食豆。 上古有仙人，不食餘物，唯噉於豆，因為姓，目連是其族也。 字物律陀者，是樹神名。 其家無兒，禱此神而得之，故因以為字。 是王舍城摩伽陀國輔相之子。 與舍利弗俱共厭世，出家求道。 身子右面，智慧第一； 目連左面，神足無儔。 「目連白佛言：世尊！ 我不堪任詣彼問疾」。 此第二辭不堪也。 此章亦三。 初標不堪，如文。 「所以者何？ 憶念我昔入毘耶離大城，於里巷中為諸居士說法」。 此第二釋不堪也。 就文為四：初出被呵之由、二明能呵之旨、三時會得道、四目連受屈。 居士利根，應聞實相人法並空； 目連不觀其機，為說施戒，居士聞已，起眾生相、封著諸法，遂有二失：一違實相、二不稱機。 此被呵之由也。 「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯大目連！ 為白衣居士說法，不當如仁者所說」。 此第二敘能呵之旨。 就文為二：初呵小乘說法、次明大士演教。 不當如仁者所說，不當者謂不相應當也。 凡有四義：一者機大教小，故不當機。 二者實相非人法，今說有人法，故不當實相。 三者諸佛見機見理，今違理暗機，故不當佛意。 四不當者，不稱情機之義。 「夫說法者當如法說」。 此下第二明菩薩演教，以對小乘之失也。 就文為五：一明所演之法、二辨聽說之方、三巧識物機、四善於知見、五辨說教大意。 菩薩具此五門，方堪為物施教。 即用斯五，誨彼聲聞。 初門有二：一辨眾生空、二明法空。 然實相正法未曾空有，但為祛有病是故說空。 空理不殊，但於惑者情有難易。 眾生心以總會成體，不實之意易明，是故前說之。 似不假眾緣所成，此則難破，故後明之。 《智度論》云「眾生生情，取之不得。 凡夫妄謂為有，故易遣。 法為眼耳見聞，斯則難破。 」故前說生空、後辨法空。 「法無眾生，離眾生垢故」。 眾生者，陰界入等諸事會而生，心以為宰一之主。 法者，實相法也。 實相之法本無眾生，若見有眾生則乖於實相，故稱為垢。 若悟實相，則其垢自離也。 「法無有我，離我垢故」。 我是自在為義，實相之法無此我也。 「法無壽命，離生死故」。 色心連持為命，百年相續久受為壽。 外道計此壽命別有於法，故名壽者、命者。 生為壽始、死為壽終，既無生死，何有壽命耶？ 不言無壽命而言無生死者，生死是命之始終，始終既離則壽命斯無。 又壽命是人之所愛，若聞離之，必不能樂生； 死是人之所惡，若聞離之，必欣習也。 「法無有人，前後際斷故」。 《智度論》云「行人法故，名之為人。 故有靈，異於草木。 」行因受果，往來生死永無朽滅，故外道謂之為常。 前際既斷，無人造因； 後際亦斷，無人受果，故云法無有人前後際斷故。 「法常寂然，滅諸相故」。 前有四句，明眾生空。 此下二十六句，明法空也。 生空易故略說，法空難故所以廣明。 若以實過假、以空過實，如《成論》所說者，非常寂然； 以本性清淨，故名常寂然。

As the later text states, 'The liberation of the Buddhas is to be sought in the sixty-two [false] views'—this serves as its proof. 'Entering nirvāṇa without extinguishing afflictions is quiet sitting.' This is the sixth, clarifying that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-dual. Realising that the nature of afflictions is itself nirvāṇa, one does not extinguish them before entering it. 'If one can sit like this, it is endorsed by the Buddhas.' This is the third, a general conclusion. This practice of sitting in equality does not contravene the true mark, accords with the Buddha's mind, and matches the capacity of the Great Vehicle. Possessing these three factors, it is endorsed by the Buddhas. The two vehicles do the opposite, and so are rebuked. 'At that time, World-Honoured One, having heard these words, I remained silent and was unable to make any reply.' This is the third part, explicitly showing that he was bested. The principle was beyond what he had conceived, so he did not know how to respond. 'Therefore I am not capable of going there to inquire after his illness.' There were three reasons for his incapacity; the stating and explaining having been finished, this is now the general conclusion. 'The Buddha said to Mahāmaudgalyāyana: "Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire after his illness."' Why he addressed Maudgalyāyana next: people differ in their strengths and weaknesses; Śāriputra may have momentarily failed to grasp the situation and was bested by Jingming. Though he himself could not, why should others necessarily be the same? Therefore, without dismissing him, [the Buddha] also addressed [Maudgalyāyana]. Furthermore, it fully demonstrates the height of Jingming's path and preaches the past teaching to benefit the present assembly, fully as explained before; hence he instructed him next. This section also has two parts: first, commanding him to inquire after the illness; second, declining as incapable. Maudgalyāyana is his family name; here translated as 'eating beans'. In ancient times there was an immortal who ate no other food, but fed solely on beans; this was adopted as his family name, and Maudgalyāyana was of his clan. His personal name was Kolita, which is the name of a tree deity. His family had no son, and having prayed to this deity they obtained him; hence they took it as his personal name. He was the son of the chief minister of the kingdom of Magadha in Rājagṛha. Together with Śāriputra he grew weary of the worldly life and went forth to seek the Path. Śāriputra was on the right, foremost in wisdom; Maudgalyāyana was on the left, unmatched in spiritual powers. 'Maudgalyāyana said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, I am not capable of going there to inquire after his illness."' This is the second part, declining as incapable. This section also has three parts: first, stating his incapacity, as in the text. '"Why is this? I remember that in the past I entered the great city of Vaiśālī and preached the Dharma to the householders in the lanes and alleys."' This is the second part, explaining his incapacity. In the text there are four points: first, setting forth the cause of his being rebuked; second, clarifying the import of the rebuke; third, the assembly at that time attaining the Path; fourth, Maudgalyāyana being bested. The householders had sharp faculties and ought to have heard that both persons and phenomena are empty in the true mark; Maudgalyāyana did not observe their faculties and preached giving and morality to them. When the householders heard it, they formed conceptions of sentient beings and clung rigidly to phenomena, resulting in two faults: first, contravening the true mark; second, failing to match their faculties. This is the cause of his being rebuked. '"Then Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'O Mahāmaudgalyāyana! When preaching the Dharma to white-robed householders, one should not preach as you do.'"' This is the second point, recounting the import of the rebuke. In the text there are two parts: first, rebuking the preaching of the Small Vehicle; second, explaining the Mahāsattva's exposition of the teaching. 'Should not preach as you do'—'should not' means it does not appropriately correspond. There are four meanings: first, the faculties were great while the teaching was small, so it was not appropriate to the faculties. Second, the true mark has neither person nor phenomena, yet he now preached that there are persons and phenomena, so it was not appropriate to the true mark. Third, the Buddhas see both faculties and principle, yet he now contravened the principle and was blind to the faculties, so it was not appropriate to the Buddha's intent. Fourth, 'not appropriate' means not suiting their disposition and faculties. '"One who preaches the Dharma should preach it in accordance with the Dharma."' Below this is the second part, clarifying the bodhisattva's exposition of the teaching to contrast with the faults of the Small Vehicle. In the text there are five points: first, clarifying the Dharma that is expounded; second, distinguishing the method of listening and preaching; third, skillfully discerning the capacities of beings; fourth, being adept in knowledge and vision; fifth, clarifying the great purpose of preaching the teaching. A bodhisattva must possess these five gates before being capable of bestowing teachings upon beings. It is precisely with these five that he instructed that śrāvaka. The first gate has two points: first, distinguishing the emptiness of sentient beings; second, clarifying the emptiness of phenomena. However, the correct Dharma of the true mark has never been empty or existent; it is only to eliminate the sickness of existence that emptiness is preached. The principle of emptiness does not differ, yet in the minds of the deluded there is ease and difficulty. Because the mind of a sentient being is a composite taken as an entity, the fact that it is not real is easy to understand, and therefore it is explained first. [Phenomena] seem not to depend on a confluence of conditions, and this is difficult to dismantle; therefore it is explained later. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Sentient beings are produced from sentiments, and cannot be grasped. Ordinary beings falsely consider them to be existent, so they are easily dispelled. Phenomena are seen and heard by eye and ear, and these are difficult to dismantle.' Therefore, the emptiness of sentient beings is explained first, and the emptiness of phenomena is distinguished later. '"The Dharma is devoid of sentient beings, because it is free from the defilement of sentient beings."' 'Sentient beings' refers to that which is produced from the confluence of things such as the aggregates, realms, and sense-bases, which the mind takes to be a single ruling master. 'The Dharma' is the Dharma of the true mark. The Dharma of the true mark is fundamentally devoid of sentient beings; if one sees sentient beings as existing, this contravenes the true mark, and is therefore called a 'defilement'. If one awakens to the true mark, that defilement naturally departs. '"The Dharma is devoid of a self, because it is free from the defilement of a self."' 'Self' has the meaning of autonomy; the Dharma of the true mark is devoid of this self. '"The Dharma is devoid of a life span, because it is free from birth-and-death."' The continuity of matter and mind is called 'life'; their continuity for a hundred years, experienced for a long time, is called 'span'. Non-Buddhists postulate that this life span exists apart from phenomena, and so name it 'one with a life span' (āyusmat) or 'living being' (jīva). Birth is the beginning of a life span, and death is the end of a life span; since there is no birth-and-death, how could there be a life span? The reason it does not say 'devoid of a life span' but says 'free from birth-and-death' is that birth-and-death are the beginning and end of life; once the beginning and end are parted from, the life span is absent. Furthermore, a life span is what people cherish; if they hear of being parted from it, they will surely not delight in birth; death is what people hate; if they hear of being parted from it, they will surely rejoice and practice it. '"The Dharma is devoid of a person, because the prior and posterior limits are cut off."' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Because one practices the human way, one is called a person. Thus one has a spirit, distinct from grass and trees.' Practicing causes and receiving effects, cycling through birth-and-death without ever decaying or perishing, non-Buddhists therefore deem it eternal. Since the prior limit is cut off, there is no person who creates causes; since the posterior limit is also cut off, there is no person who receives effects; hence it is said, 'The Dharma is devoid of a person, because the prior and posterior limits are cut off.' '"The Dharma is ever-quiescent, because it extinguishes all marks."' The preceding four phrases clarified the emptiness of sentient beings. The twenty-six phrases below clarify the emptiness of phenomena. Because the emptiness of sentient beings is easy, it is briefly stated; because the emptiness of phenomena is difficult, it is broadly clarified. If one transcends the provisional by means of the real, and transcends the real by means of the empty, as stated in the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, that is not 'ever-quiescent'; because its original nature is pure, it is called 'ever-quiescent'.