維摩經義疏 3.5.3

3.5.3

或人以邪見正見為二、彼岸與此岸相乖，故今明入諸邪見，邪正不二、彼此無別。 若達不二平等，邪見即是正見、不到彼岸即是到也。 「住於八難不得無難」。 既入邪見，便生八難，不得無難處也。 所以作是呵者，善吉自謂離於八難，以得人身，離三惡道及長壽天； 生閻浮提，離北欝單越； 值於佛世，離佛前佛後； 得於正道，離世智辨聰； 六根具足，離生盲聾。 此則謂難與無難為二。 今明達乎八難即是無難，故今住於八難，既不見難亦不見於無難，故云不得無難也。 同於煩惱，離清淨法、入邪見、在八難者，便無結不起。 既無結不起，而離清淨法。 所以作是呵者，善吉自謂異於煩惱、不離清淨法。 故今明煩惱體性即是實相。 若同煩惱，即是同於實相，離清淨法即是不離。 「汝得無諍三昧，一切眾生亦得是定」。 善吉自謂得無諍定、群生不得，欲以斯定為物福田。 此則見自他為二、得不得殊。 是故明善吉之與群生性常自一，曷為善吉獨得而群生不得乎？ 故今不得同得、得同不得，得不得不二、自他平等也。 無諍三昧凡有二種：一者內順實相、二外不違物心，名無諍也。 「其施汝者不名福田，供養汝者墮三惡道」。 此明田非田不二、惡道善道體性無別。 「為與眾魔共一手作諸勞侶，汝與眾魔及諸塵勞等無有異」。 如世造物，所作不異，名為一手。 是一手則共為塵勞伴侶，故與魔不異。 然魔與實相不異，既與魔一不異則與實相不異。 「於一切眾生而有怨心、謗諸佛、毀於法、不入眾數，終不得滅度。 汝若如是，乃可取食」。 此明怨親平等、毀譽一貫，出入無別、得不得均，若能如是乃可取食。 第四章竟，故復結也。 「時我，世尊！ 聞此茫然，不識是何言，不知以何答，便置鉢欲出其舍」。 此第三明不應去而去，重致被呵之由。 不識是何言、不知是何答者，且據一章釋之。 如善吉自謂見佛聞法，淨名云不見佛不聞法，觀其言則似逆、詳其意則大順。 所以然者，若不見佛乃是見佛，若有佛可見則不見佛。 而善吉聽其言則逆、思其理則不反，故不識是何言、不知以何答。 「而日時既至，便捨鉢而欲去」。 生公云「既其有屈，便應輸鉢，故置之欲出。 」然善吉與眾人，凡有兩意一同：諸人識其言，而善吉不識，此一異也。 眾人被詰生喜，而善吉聞呵便懼，此二異也。 五百聲聞悉不能答，斯一同也。 問：何故善吉獨招二失？ 答：五百應真不敢詣淨名之室，善吉自謂深入空理、觸言無滯，徑造其舍從彼乞食。 是以此章言切而旨深，故招斯咎也。 「維摩詰言：唯須菩提！ 取鉢勿懼」。 此第四重被呵也。 懼無答而置鉢，即復著於言相。 今欲解其此滯，令得取鉢，故先言取鉢勿懼。 「於意云何？ 如來所作化人，若以是事詰，寧有懼不？ 我言：不也。 維摩詰言：一切諸法如幻化相，汝今不應有所懼也。 所以者何？ 一切言說不離是相」。 淨名以幻化質於善吉，凡有三事：一者聽人如化、二者謂諸法如化、三者言說如化。 汝既解空第一，應知如化，以化聽化寧有懼哉？ 不離是相者，言說不離幻相也。 「至於智者不著文字，故無所懼。 所以者何？ 文字性離，無有文字，是則解脫； 解脫相者，則諸法也」。 上明文字如化，此辨文字則是解脫，並不應著也。 「維摩詰說是法時，二百天子得法眼淨」。 此第五明時眾得道。 就理而言，善吉來去皆弘道益物。 以其來故，得說平等無礙之道，破二乘有礙之心； 以其去故，因說幻化法門，斥凡夫保執有法，令二百天子得法眼淨。 初章則言違理順，故時眾未解； 後章則言理並順，故聞而即悟。 「故我不任詣彼問疾」。 此第三結不堪也。

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.