維摩經義疏 3.5

"The Buddha told Subhūti: 'Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire after his illness.'" This is the fourth [instruction], commanding Subhūti. In the text there are two parts: first the command, next declining as unfit. "Subhūti" is translated here as "Born of Emptiness" (Kongsheng); he was also named "Auspicious Goodness" (Shanji). Because at the time of his birth all the treasures and various items in his house became completely empty, he was named "Born of Emptiness." His parents, considering this an ill omen, summoned a diviner to question him. The diviner said, "It is solely good, solely auspicious," hence he was called "Auspicious Goodness." By tradition, a sūtra states that Subhūti was originally Buddha Qinglongtuo (Candraprabha/Nīlarāja?) of the eastern world, who manifested an echo[-body] in Śākyamuni's presence as a disciple. However, among the five hundred [arhats], their virtues were not all-encompassing; each had a partial capability, yet was acclaimed as foremost. Shanji and the others, when offerings were made to them, could bring about immediate karmic retribution in the present life. Having such distinct virtues, they were known as the four great śrāvakas. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! I am not fit to go there to inquire after his illness.'" This is the second part, declining as unfit. In the text there are also three parts: stating, explaining, and concluding. This is the first, stating it. "'Why is this? I recall that in the past I entered his house to beg for food from him.'" This is the second, explaining his unfitness. In the text there are five parts: first, explaining how he came when he should not have come, which was the reason for being rebuked; second, elucidating the intent of the rebuker; third, explaining how he left when he should not have left, again explaining the reason for being rebuked; fourth, again elucidating the intent of the rebuker; fifth, the assembly at that time attaining the Way. This is the first text. The reasons Shanji entered Jingming's house are two: First, Kāśyapa abandoned the rich and went to the poor, while Shanji abandoned the poor and went to the rich; both went against the path of equality, so both were rebuked. The reason he abandoned the poor to beg from the rich was that the wealthy and noble are arrogant and indulgent, giving no thought to impermanence; though they are pleased now, they will surely suffer poverty in the future. Pitying their confusion, he proceeded to beg food from them. Because he was not permitted to skip households, he entered his house in regular order, and was therefore rebuked. Second, the layman's virtue was profound and far-reaching, his speech never missing the opportune moment; among the five hundred arhats, none dared peek into his courtyard. Shanji considered himself to have deeply penetrated the principle of emptiness, being unimpeded whenever words were encountered, so he went directly to his house to beg food from him. However, when he entered contemplation, his mind conformed to the marks of phenomena; but when he emerged into the worldly, his feelings turned with circumstances. His incurring fault and suffering humiliation truly stemmed from this. "'At that time Vimalakīrti took my bowl and filled it with rice.'" This is the second part, elucidating the intent of the rebuker. In the text there are four parts: First, with respect to the approach of equality regarding food, rebuking his inequality regarding food. From "without cutting off lust, anger, and delusion" onward, second, with respect to the approach of equality between understanding and delusion, rebuking his inequality between understanding and delusion. From "not seeing the Buddha" onward, third, with respect to the approach of equality between internal and external, rebuking his inequality between internal and external. From "if Subhūti enters all false views" onward, fourth, with respect to the approach of equality between false and right, rebuking his inequality between false and right. How do we know there are four approaches? Because the concluding line later says, "then you may take this food." As for the sequence of the four approaches: at first he was just begging food, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality regarding food. If one severs delusion and attains understanding, one is worthy of being a field of merit; yet understanding and delusion would then be unequal, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality between understanding and delusion. When delusion is extinguished and understanding arises, one still sees the Buddha and hears the Dharma. Not planting [roots of virtue] with outsiders, one then regards internal and external as two, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality between internal and external. Still being planted in a Buddha's age, parting from those false conditions and possessing all merits, one then regards false and right as conflicting, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality between false and right. This is the first approach. As for taking the bowl, filling it with rice, and then rebuking him: if he left the bowl empty, the layman would be suspected of stinginess; if he handed over the bowl, he feared [Subhūti] would carry it away, not exhausting the momentum of the discourse. Moreover, with an empty bowl a discourse could not be generated; handing it over would preclude discourse. Furthermore, not leaving the bowl empty clarifies that the bodhisattva is the donor; not giving the bowl clarifies that the two vehicles are not fields of merit. "'He said to me: "Ah, Subhūti! If you can be equal with respect to food, all phenomena are also equal; if all phenomena are equal, you are also equal with respect to food. Begging in this manner, then you may take this food."'" Being equal with respect to food means making the exquisite food of the rich equal to the filthy scraps of poor households. If one can be equal regarding this coarse and fine food, then one is also equal regarding all phenomena. If one can realize that the myriad phenomena are all equal, then one can also be equal regarding food. Attaining this mind of equality, one is then a field of merit and may take the food. If so, one should not abandon the poor and go to the rich. If one abandons the poor and goes to the rich, then one is not equal regarding food; then there is no equality, one is not a field of merit, and one should not take the food. Thus, whether advancing or retreating, he had no reply. "'If Subhūti does not cut off lust, anger, and delusion, nor dwell together with them.'" This is the second, rebuking him with respect to the approach of equality between understanding and delusion. What Shanji spoke of had only two tracks: first, cutting off the three poisons; second, dwelling together with them, meaning the ordinary person. Cutting off the three poisons is the two vehicles. Now, hearing "neither cutting off nor dwelling together with," the principle was beyond his expectation, so he was bewildered and did not understand. The Mahāsattva realizes that the three poisons originally do not exist, and therefore does not dwell together with them; now they are also not non-existent, which is called "not cutting off." Moreover, if the three poisons existed, they could be cut off or dwelt together with. If the non-nature is not two, what is there to dwell together with or cut off? Again, if the three poisons belonged to a person, one could discuss dwelling together or cutting off; since in the end there is no person, who dwells together with or cuts them off? Again, if the three poisons belonged to the mind, one could discuss dwelling together or cutting off; but seeking their belonging has no basis, so the meaning of cutting off and dwelling together is dissolved. This is fully explained as in the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* (*Zhengguan lun*). "'Not destroying the body, yet conforming to the single characteristic'—the preceding related to nirvāṇa with remainder, while this pertains to nirvāṇa without remainder. Adherents of the Hīnayāna say that one destroys the body of the five aggregates, and only then conforms to the single characteristic of nirvāṇa. Here it is explained that the body is itself the single characteristic, not waiting to be destroyed before conforming. Moreover, the preceding was based on afflictions, while this pertains to the karmic retribution obstacle; the intention of the rebuke is the same as before. "'Not extinguishing ignorance and craving, yet generating clarity and liberation.'" The body originally arises from ignorance and craving, hence this is stated next. As the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "The fundamental origins of saṃsāra are of two kinds: first, ignorance; second, craving for existence." Adherents of the Hīnayāna say that because ignorance obstructs wisdom, one extinguishes ignorance to attain clarity; because craving binds the mind, when craving is dissolved the mind is liberated. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "Clarity and ignorance—the foolish consider them two." The Mahāsattva contemplates that ignorance and craving are themselves clarity and liberation; he does not wait to extinguish ignorance and craving to generate clarity and liberation. Therefore the wise realize that their nature is not two; the non-dual nature is indeed the true nature. Question: What kind of clarity and liberation are these? Answer: The clarity of the destruction of outflows among the three clarities. It is the severing of delusions of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the ninth liberation among the nine liberations.

"Attaining liberation through the characteristics of the five heinous deeds, yet neither liberated nor bound." Above, [the text] clarified defilements and retribution; now it next speaks of the equality of karma. The Hīnayāna explains that the karma of the five heinous deeds definitely incurs retribution, so that on principle there is no liberation. Here it explains that the ultimate and gravest bondage is equal to the utmost liberation. Why is this? Because the true nature of the five heinous deeds is itself liberation; how could there be any distinction between bondage and liberation? "Not seeing the four truths, yet not failing to see the truths." Attaining illumination and liberation necessarily depends on seeing the truths; hence [the text] next dissolves this. Object and cognition are originally empty; therefore one does not see the four truths. The four inversions are tranquil and extinguished; therefore one does not fail to see the truths. Furthermore, seeking the four yields nothing; therefore one does not see the truths. Yet there is also no non-four; therefore one does not fail to see them. Moreover, those who see the four truths are persons of the two vehicles; those who do not see the four truths are ordinary persons. Now the mahāsattva differs from them; therefore both are dismissed: "not attaining the fruit." A śrāvaka attains the fruit by virtue of seeing the four truths; since he does not see the truths, he does not attain the fruit. Furthermore, because he sees neither the person capable of attaining nor the dharma attained, he does not attain the fruit. "Not of the dharmas of an ordinary person, yet not apart from the dharmas of an ordinary person; not a noble person, yet not a non-noble person." The śrāvaka believes that by attaining the fruit he relinquishes the ordinary and becomes a noble one; hence [the text] next negates this. Furthermore, whereas up to this point views were dissolved with respect to phenomena, here equality is addressed with respect to persons. Since he does not attain the fruit, he should be an ordinary person; but [when] sought, [an ordinary person cannot be found], hence he is not an ordinary person. Yet the ordinary person does not attain the true nature of an ordinary person, which is itself the noble Dharma; hence he is not apart from the ordinary person. Because he is not apart from the dharmas of an ordinary person, he is not a noble person; but because his path surpasses the three realms, he is not a non-noble person. "Though accomplishing all dharmas, yet free from the characteristics of dharmas." This sentence summarizes the various points above. As for "though accomplishing all dharmas": since Subhūti is a person, a person must accomplish dharmas. This means that without relinquishing all the bad dharmas explained above, he also completely possesses good dharmas; thus it is said that he "accomplishes all dharmas." Yet in reality there has never been good or evil; thus it is said that he is "free from the characteristics of dharmas." "Only then may you take the food." If one can be fully equipped as stated above, one attains the contemplation of equality and is truly a field of merit; therefore one ought to take the food. This concludes the present section, and thus serves as the conclusion. "If Subhūti does not see the Buddha and does not hear the Dharma." This is the third [gate], the gate of the equality of the internal and the external. The two vehicles hold that abandoning the ordinary to attain the noble necessarily depends on seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma; hence [the text] next dissolves this. Subhūti considers himself to see the Buddha and hear the Dharma; that it speaks of not seeing and not hearing seems contrary in words, but is truly accordant in principle. If there were a Buddha that could be seen, that would be a view [rooted in] existence; hence one does not see the Buddha. If there were a Dharma that could be heard, that would be a hearing [rooted in] existence; hence one does not hear the Dharma. Here it explains that having no Buddha to see is truly called seeing the Buddha, and having no Dharma to hear is genuinely hearing the Dharma. This merely refutes the "existence" held by the two vehicles, and for that reason speaks of "non-existence." Once one knows the Buddha is not existent, one immediately recognizes the Buddha is not non-existent. These five phrases, free from acceptance and attachment, are genuinely the dharmakāya. Such five awakenings are called seeing the Buddha. The *Śūnyatāsaptati* says: "For those with deep and thick wrong views, it is said that the Tathāgata does not exist. The Tathāgata's characteristics are quiescent and extinguished; conceptualizing existence is likewise incorrect." Those six non-Buddhist teachers and the śrāvakas believe that by seeing the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, one serves the Buddha as teacher and oneself as disciple, differing from the non-Buddhists. Hence [the text] next dissolves this. When Śākyamuni appeared in the world, he encountered precisely the six teachers. However, the six teachers were diverse, comprising three groups, totaling eighteen persons, and adding Śākyamuni makes nineteen. The first group claimed to be omniscient, practicing naked asceticism. The second group attained the five supernormal powers. The third group chanted the four Vedas. It is also said that these three correspond to the three wisdoms of cultivation, reflection, and hearing, and from these three wisdoms the eighteen persons arose. What the present text clarifies is the first group. "Pūraṇa": Kāśyapa was his mother's clan name, and Pūraṇa was his personal name; he was a non-Buddhist of wrong views who denied the existence of all phenomena. "Makkhali Gosāla": Makkhali was his personal name, and Gosāla was his mother's name; this man posited that the suffering and pleasure of sentient beings are not obtained through causes, but exist spontaneously. "Sañjaya Vairāṭīputra": Sañjaya was his personal name, and Vairāṭī was his mother's name; this man maintained that the Path need not be sought, for after traversing the kalpas of saṃsāra and exhausting suffering, one naturally attains it, just as when a ball of thread rolls down a high mountain, when the thread runs out it naturally stops, so why bother seeking it? "Ajita Kesakambalin": Ajita was his personal name, and *kesakambalin* is the name of a coarse, worn-out garment; this man wore ragged clothes, plucked out his hair, scorched his body with the five fires, and took asceticism as the Path, believing that enduring suffering in the present body yields eternal bliss in a future body. "Pakudha Kaccāyana": his clan name was Kaccāyana, and his personal name was Pakudha; this man gave rise to views according to circumstances: when asked if [something] exists, he replied that it exists; when asked if it does not exist, he replied that it does not exist; hence he adhered to all phenomena being both existent and non-existent. "Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta and the rest": *Nigaṇṭha* is the general designation for their renunciation, just as in the Buddha's teaching renunciation is called *śramaṇa*. Nātaputta was his mother's name. This man maintained that transgressions and blessings, suffering and pleasure, have predetermined causes that must inevitably be experienced, and cannot be severed by practicing the Path. "Are your teachers, and you go forth under them. Where those teachers fall, you also fall with them." This causes Subhūti to serve the non-Buddhists as his teachers and go forth under them, receiving their false teachings in the present life and thus falling into wrong views, and sharing their retribution in future lives and thus falling into the evil realms. "Only then may you take the food." If one is not the same as the six teachers, one sees a distinction between the heterodox and the orthodox and therefore lacks the contemplation of equality, hence being unfit to receive the food. If one knows that the six teachers are themselves the dharmakāya, then by being the same as the six teachers one is the same as the dharmakāya, whereupon one attains the contemplation of equality and only then may receive the food. Question: How are the six teachers themselves the dharmakāya? Answer: When sought through the four tetralemmas, the six teachers cannot be found; the six teachers are themselves the true nature [of reality], and attaining this is itself the dharmakāya. Therefore it is said: "Contemplating the true nature of one's own body, one contemplates the Buddha likewise." Furthermore, only by being the same as the six teachers is one not the same as the six teachers; if one is not the same as the six teachers, one is indeed the same as the six teachers. Why is this? If one is the same as the six teachers, one realizes that the heterodox is itself the orthodox, and hence is a person of right view. If one is not the same as the six teachers, one takes the heterodox and the orthodox to be two, and is termed a person of wrong view. Therefore one is the same as the six teachers. "If Subhūti enters into all wrong views and does not reach the other shore." This is the fourth [gate], the gate of the equality of the heterodox and the orthodox. Since one is the same as the six teachers, one enters into all wrong views. Wrong views clarify the absence of causes for the Path; not reaching the other shore explains the absence of the fruit of cessation. Since one enters wrong views, one does not reach the other shore; this is why this rebuke was delivered.

Some consider wrong views and right views to be two, and the other shore and this shore to be contradictory. Therefore, it is now explained that entering into all wrong views means wrong and right are not two, and there is no distinction between this and that. If one realizes non-dual equality, wrong views are precisely right views, and not reaching the other shore is precisely reaching it. "Dwelling in the eight difficulties, you do not attain freedom from difficulties." Having entered into wrong views, one is immediately born into the eight difficulties and does not attain a state free from difficulty. The reason for rebuking him in this way is that Subhūti considered himself to have departed from the eight difficulties: by obtaining a human body, he was free from the three evil destinies and the long-lived devas; by being born in Jambudvīpa, he was free from Northern Uttarakuru; by meeting the Buddha's era, he was free from [the times] before or after a Buddha; by attaining the right path, he was free from worldly wisdom and eloquence; and by having his six sense-faculties complete, he was free from blindness and deafness from birth. This regarded difficulties and freedom from difficulties as two. Now it is explained that thoroughly understanding the eight difficulties is precisely freedom from difficulties. Hence, currently dwelling in the eight difficulties, one neither sees difficulties nor sees freedom from difficulties; thus it says "does not attain freedom from difficulties." For one who is identical with defilements, departed from pure dharmas, entering wrong views, and residing in the eight difficulties, there is no fetter that does not arise. Since there is no fetter that does not arise, one is departed from pure dharmas. The reason for rebuking him in this way is that Subhūti considered himself different from defilements and not departed from pure dharmas. Therefore, it is now explained that the essential nature of defilements is itself the true mark. If one is identical with defilements, one is identical with the true mark; departing from pure dharmas is precisely not departing. "You attain the samādhi of non-contention, and all sentient beings also attain this samādhi." Subhūti considered that he himself attained the samādhi of non-contention while the multitudes of beings did not, wishing to use this samādhi to be a field of merit for beings. This saw self and other as two, and attaining versus not attaining as distinct. Therefore it is explained that the nature of Subhūti and that of the multitudes of beings is constantly one in itself; why would Subhūti alone attain it while the multitudes of beings do not? Hence now, not attaining is identical with attaining, attaining is identical with not attaining; attaining and not attaining are non-dual, and self and other are equal. The samādhi of non-contention generally has two aspects: first, internally according with the true mark; second, externally not going against the minds of beings. This is called non-contention. "Those who give to you are not called fields of merit; those who make offerings to you fall into the three evil destinies." This explains that the field and the non-field are non-dual, and the essential natures of the evil destinies and the good destinies have no distinction. "Joining hands with all Māras to be companions in toil, you and all Māras as well as all defilements are equal without distinction." Just as in worldly creation, when what is done is not distinct, it is called "one hand." Being of one hand, they together become companions in worldly toil; hence he is not distinct from Māra. Yet Māra is not distinct from the true mark; since one is not distinct from Māra, one is not distinct from the true mark. "Having thoughts of resentment toward all sentient beings, slandering the Buddhas, disparaging the Dharma, not entering the assembly of the Saṅgha, and ultimately never attaining extinction—if you can be like this, only then may you take the food." This explains that enemy and kin are equal, disparagement and praise are consistent, entering and leaving are without distinction, and attaining and not attaining are equalized. If one can be like this, only then may one take the food. The fourth section is finished, which is why it concludes thus. "At that time, World-Honoured One, hearing this I was bewildered, not understanding what words these were, and not knowing what to reply; I then set down my bowl and wished to leave his house." This third part explains that he left when he should not have left, which repeatedly brought about the reason for being rebuked. As for not understanding what words these were and not knowing what to reply, this may be explained provisionally on the basis of one section. For instance, Subhūti considered himself to see the Buddha and hear the Dharma, whereas Vimalakīrti said not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma. Examining his words, they seem contradictory; scrutinizing their intention, it is in great accord. The reason for this is that not seeing the Buddha is truly seeing the Buddha, while if there is a Buddha to be seen, one does not see the Buddha. Yet when Subhūti heard his words, they seemed contrary, and when he reflected on their principle, it did not seem inverted; hence he did not understand what words these were and did not know what to reply. "And as the mealtime had arrived, he then abandoned the bowl and wished to leave." Master Daosheng said: "Having suffered defeat, he was obliged to yield his bowl; hence he set it down and wished to leave." However, between Subhūti and the assembly, there were generally two differences and one commonality: the others understood his words, while Subhūti did not—this was the first difference. The others gave rise to joy when cross-examined, while Subhūti became terrified upon hearing the rebuke—this was the second difference. That none of the five hundred śrāvakas could reply was the one commonality. Question: Why did Subhūti alone incur these two faults? Answer: The five hundred arhats dared not go to Vimalakīrti's room. Subhūti considered himself to have penetrated deeply into the principle of emptiness, unobstructed in any word he encountered, and went straight to his house to beg food from him. Therefore, because the words of this passage were incisive and their purport profound, he incurred these faults. "Vimalakīrti said: 'Come now, Subhūti! Take your bowl and do not fear.'" This is the fourth part, being rebuked once again. Fearing having no reply and setting down the bowl was once again clinging to the mark of words. Now wishing to untie this obstruction of his and have him take the bowl, he first said: "Take your bowl and do not fear." "'What do you think? If an illusory person created by the Tathāgata were cross-examined with these matters, would he have any fear?' I said: 'No.' Vimalakīrti said: 'All dharmas are like phantom creations; now you should have no fear. Why is this? All spoken words do not depart from this mark.'" Vimalakīrti questioned Subhūti using phantoms, which generally involves three things: first, the listener is like an illusion; second, all dharmas are like illusions; third, spoken words are like illusions. Since you are foremost in understanding emptiness, you should know they are like illusions; when an illusion listens to an illusion, could there be any fear? "Not departing from this mark" means spoken words do not depart from the mark of illusion. "'As for the wise, they do not cling to letters, and thus have no fear. Why is this? The nature of letters is detached; there are no letters—this is liberation. The mark of liberation is all dharmas.'" The above explained that letters are like illusions; this clarifies that letters are precisely liberation, and neither should be clung to. "When Vimalakīrti spoke this Dharma, two hundred devaputras attained the purity of the Dharma-eye." This fifth part explains that the assembly present at the time attained the Way. Speaking in terms of principle, Subhūti's coming and going both propagated the Way and benefited beings. Because of his coming, the equal and unobstructed Way could be spoken, shattering the obstructive minds of the two vehicles; because of his going, the Dharma gate of phantom creation was subsequently spoken, refuting the ordinary persons' tenacious grasping at existing dharmas, causing two hundred devaputras to attain the purity of the Dharma-eye. In the initial section, the words ran counter while the principle was in accord, so the assembly at the time did not understand; in the later section, both words and principle were in accord, so upon hearing it they immediately awakened. "'Therefore, I am not competent to go there to inquire after his illness.'" This third part concludes his lack of competence.