維摩經義疏 3.5.1

3.5.1

「佛告須菩提：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。 此第四命須菩提。 就文為二：初命、次辭不堪。 須菩提者，此云空生，亦名善吉。 以其生時，舍內寶藏眾物悉空，故名空生。 父母謂是不祥，召相師問之。 相師云：「唯善唯吉。 」稱為善吉。 相傳有經云須菩提是東方世界青龍陀佛，影嚮釋迦身為弟子。 然五百之流，德非遍備，各有偏能，但稱第一。 善吉等，有供養者，能與現報。 既有異德，故名四大聲聞。 「須菩提白佛言：世尊！ 我不堪任詣彼問疾」。 此第二辭不堪。 就文亦三，謂標、釋、結。 此初標也。 「所以者何？ 憶念我昔入其舍從乞食」。 此第二釋不堪。 就文為五：第一辨不應來而來，為被呵之由； 第二明能呵之旨； 第三明不應去而去，重辨被呵之由； 第四重明能呵之旨； 第五時眾得道。 此初文也。 善吉所以入淨名舍者，凡有二義：一者迦葉捨富從貧、善吉捨貧從富，悉乖平等之道，故俱被呵。 所以捨貧從富乞者，富貴嬌恣，不慮無常，今雖快意，後必貧苦； 愍其迷惑，仍就乞食。 以不得越家故，次入其舍，因被呵也。 二者居士德重淵遠、言不漏機，五百應真莫敢窺其庭者。 善吉自謂深入空理、觸言無滯，故徑造其舍，從彼乞食。 然當其入觀，則心順法相； 及其出俗，即情隨事轉。 致失招屈，良由此也。 「時維摩詰取我鉢盛滿飯」。 此第二明能呵之旨。 就文為四：一就食平等門，呵其於食不等。 從「不斷婬怒癡」下，第二就解惑平等門，呵其解惑不等。 「不見佛」下，第三就內外平等門，呵其內外不等。 從「若須菩提入諸邪見」，第四就邪正平等門，呵其邪正不等。 所以知有四門者，以後結句云「乃可取食」也。 四門次第者，初正乞食，故就食平等門呵之。 其斷惑得解，堪為福田，則解惑不等，故就解惑平等門呵之。 惑滅解生，猶見佛聞法。 不殖外道，便謂內外為二，故就內外平等門呵之。 猶殖佛世，離彼邪緣、具諸功德，則謂邪正相乖，故就邪正平等門呵之。 此初門也。 取鉢滿飯而呵者，若空鉢，則居士有悋惜之嫌； 若與鉢，恐持而去，不盡言論之勢。 又空鉢故不得生論，與便不得論。 又不空鉢，明菩薩為施主； 不與鉢，明二乘非福田。 「謂我言：唯須菩提！ 若能於食等者諸法亦等，諸法等者於食亦等，如是行乞乃可取食」。 於食等者，唯富人之妙食，等貧捨之穢弊。 若能於此麁妙食等，則於諸法亦等。 若能達萬法皆等，則能於食亦等。 得此等心，則是福田，乃可取食。 若爾，不應捨貧而從富也。 若捨貧從富，則於食不等，便無等，非是福田，不應取食。 故進退無答也。 「若須菩提不斷婬怒癡亦不與俱」。 此第二就解惑平等門呵。 善吉所謂理唯二轍：一者斷於三毒； 二者與俱，謂凡夫也。 斷三毒，即二乘也。 今聞不斷不俱，理出意外，故茫然不解。 大士體三毒本自不有，故不與俱； 今亦不無，稱為不斷。 又若有三毒，可斷可俱。 不性無二，何所俱斷？ 又三毒屬人，可論俱斷； 竟自無人，誰俱斷耶？ 又三毒屬心，可論俱斷； 求屬無從，則斷俱義宗。 具如《正觀論》說。 「不壞於身而隨一相」，上就有餘涅槃，今約無餘涅槃也。 小乘人謂壞五陰身，然後隨涅槃一相。 今明身即一相，不待壞而隨也。 又上據煩惱，今約報障，呵意同前。 「不滅癡愛，起於明脫」。 身本從癡愛而生，故次言也。 如《涅槃》云「生死本際，凡有二種：一者無明、二者有愛。 」小乘人謂以癡障智，故滅癡而得明； 以愛縛心，故愛解而心脫。 故《涅槃》云「明與無明，愚者謂二」也。 大士觀癡愛其即是明脫，不待滅癡愛而起明脫。 是故智者了達其性無二，無二之性即是實性。 問：是何等明脫？ 答：三明內漏盡明也。 斷非想惑，九解脫中第九解脫也。

"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.