維摩經義疏 3.5.2

3.5.2

「以五逆相而得解脫，亦不解不縛」。 上明煩惱與報，今次說業平等也。 小乘明五逆業必定受報，無得解脫理故。 今明窮重之縛，等於極上之解。 所以然者，五逆實相即是解脫，豈有縛解之異耶？ 「不見四諦非不見諦」。 得於明脫要由見諦，故次泯之。 境智本空，故不見四諦； 四倒寂然，故非不見諦。 又求四無從，故不見諦； 亦無不四，故非不見。 又見四諦者，二乘人也； 不見四諦，凡夫人也。 今大士異之，是故俱斥非得果。 聲聞由見四諦，是故得果； 既非見諦，故非得果。 又不見能得之人及所得法，故非得果。 「非凡夫法非離凡夫法，非聖人非不聖人」。 聲聞謂以得果故捨凡成聖，故次非之也。 又上來就法泯見，此約人平等也。 既以非得果，應是凡夫； 而求，故非凡夫。 而凡夫不得凡夫實性，即是聖法，故非離凡夫。 以不離凡法，故非聖人； 而道過三界，故非不聖也。 「雖成就一切法而離諸法相」。 此句是總結上來諸義也。 雖成就一切法者，善吉既其是人。 人必成就於法。 謂不捨上來所明一切惡法，而復具足善法，故云成就一切法也。 而實未曾善惡，故云離諸法相。 「乃可取食」。 若能備如上說，則得平等觀，便是福田，故應取食。 此一章訖，所以結也。 「若須菩提不見佛不聞法」。 此第三內外平等門也。 二乘謂捨凡得聖，要由見佛聞法，故次泯之。 善吉自謂見佛聞法，而言不見聞者，其言似反、其理實順。 若有佛可見，則是有見，故不見佛。 若有法可聞，則是有聞，故非聞法。 今明無佛可見乃名見佛，無法可聞始是聞法，蓋是斥二乘之有，是故說無。 既知佛非有，即識佛非無。 如是五句，無所受著，始是法身。 如斯五悟，名見佛也。 《正觀論》云「邪見深厚者，則說無如來。 如來寂滅相，分別有亦非。 」彼外道六師、聲聞人謂以見佛聞法，即事佛為師、己為弟子，異於外道。 故次泯之。 釋迦出世，正值六師。 但六師不同，凡有三部，合十八人，足能仁為十九也。 第一部，自稱一切智，裸形苦行。 第二部，得五神通。 第三部，誦四韋陀。 又言：此三即修、思、聞三慧，從於三慧生十八人。 今文所明，是初部也。 富蘭那，迦葉母姓也，富蘭那字也，此是邪見外道，撥無萬法。 末伽梨拘賒梨子，末伽梨字也，拘賒梨其母名也，其人計眾生苦樂不由因得，自然而有。 刪闍夜毘羅胝子，刪闍夜字也，毘羅胝其母名也，其人謂道不須求，逕生死劫數苦盡自得，如轉縷丸於高山，縷盡自止，何假求耶？ 阿耆多翅舍欽婆羅，阿耆多字也，翅舍欽婆羅麁弊衣名也，其人著弊衣拔髮、五熱炙身，以苦行為道，謂今身受苦、後身常樂也。 迦羅鳩馱迦旃延，姓迦旃延，字迦羅鳩馱，其人應物起見，人問有耶、答言有，人問無耶、答言無，故執諸法亦有亦無。 尼犍陀若提子等，尼犍陀其出家總名也，如佛法出家名沙門。 若提子母名也。 其人謂罪福苦樂本有定因，要必須受，非行道所能斷也。 「是汝之師，因其出家。 彼師所墮，汝亦隨墮」。 此令善吉事外道為師，因其出家，現世受其邪法，故墮邪見； 後世同其果報，故墮惡道。 「乃可取食」。 若不同六師，則見邪正相異，便無等觀，故不堪受食。 若知六師即是法身，以同六師即是同法身，便得等觀，乃可受食。 問：云何六師即是法身？ 答：四句求六師不得，六師即是實相，得即是法身。 故云「觀身實相，觀佛亦然」。 又同六師，方是不同六師； 若不同六師，即是同六師也。 所以然者，同六師則體邪即正，故是正見人； 若不同六師，即謂邪正為二，名邪見人。 故同六師也。 「若須菩提入諸邪見不到彼岸」。 此第四邪正平等門。 既同六師，則入諸邪見。 邪見明無道因，不到彼岸辨無滅果。 既入邪見，則不到彼岸，所以作此呵者。

"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.