維摩經義疏 3.8

3.8

「佛告阿那律：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第七次命那律。然三藏明之，應次命波離；但前二已明說法，今次辨神通，相間出也。就文為二：前命、次辭。阿那律者，此云如意，亦稱無貪，又名不滅，猶一義耳。八萬劫前曾供養辟支佛，所得善根于今不滅，故名不滅。果報稱心，為如意。師子頰王有四子，各有二兒，長子名淨飯，有二子，大名悉達、小名難陀。斛飯王有二子，大名調達、小名阿難。白飯王有二子，長名那律、小名摩訶男。甘露飯王有二子，長名跋提、次名提沙。師子頰王有女，名甘露味，唯有一子，名尸陀羅，那律即佛之從弟，天眼第一。所以得天眼者，曾一時佛邊聽法睡眠，佛呵之：「咄哉！云何如螺蜯子？」那律慚愧，不眠多日，遂便失眼。問耆婆治之，耆婆云：「眠是眼食，久時不眠便餓死，不可復治。」那律因修得天眼。「阿那律白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。此第二辭不堪。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念我昔於一處經行，時有梵王名曰嚴淨，與萬梵俱放淨光明來詣我所，稽首作禮問我言：幾何阿那律天眼所見？我即答言：仁者！吾見此釋迦牟尼佛三千大千世界如觀掌中菴摩勒果」。此第二次釋不堪。文開四別：一明被呵之由、二述能呵之旨、三那律受屈、四梵王發心。此初文也。問曰：《智度論》云「大羅漢但見二千世界」，今云何言三千？答：任常力即見二千，加功用見三千也。又天眼力但見二千，願智之力則見三千。菴摩勒果者，形似檳榔，食之除風，冷時手執此果，故即以為喻。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯阿那律！天眼為作相耶、無作相耶？假使作相，則與外道五通等；若無作相，即是無為，不應有見」。此第二述能呵之旨。前定兩開，次雙結二難。作相、無作相，即雙定也。作色方圓相而見，名為作相；不作色方圓相，名無作相也。又釋三界果報身，大請諸根從結業起，名有為有作相。法身異之，謂無為無作相。結兩難者，若作方圓相而見則用外道，以外道亦作方圓而見故也。若不作方圓而見則無方圓，便是無法，不應有見。「世尊！我時默然」。此第三那律受屈。欲言作相，同外道；欲言無作，復是無為。以不達會通，故失對於當時、受屈於二難。「彼諸梵聞其言，得未曾有，即為作禮而問曰：世孰復有真天眼者」。此第四時眾得益。又有三句：初問、次答、三發心。此初問也。那律天眼第一，既屈淨名，自斯已外孰有真天眼者？「維摩詰言：有佛世尊真天眼，常在三昧，悉見諸佛國，不以二相」。此第二淨名答。初總答云有也、次出有真天眼之人即佛世尊也。下以三門釋真天眼：一常在定內見，異小乘定外見，此顯靜散無二也。次悉見諸佛國，此明小乘所見近、諸佛所見遠，此二異也。不以二相者，能所宛然而無眼色，謂有不礙無；雖無眼色而不失能所，所謂無不礙有。有不礙無，故不同外道；無不礙有，故不同無為。正答上二難也。又就眼見明不二見。宛然而無見，雖無見而無所不見，名為不二。什公云「不作精麁二相，名為不二。」「於是嚴淨梵王及其眷屬五百梵天，皆發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，禮維摩詰足已，忽然不現」。此第三發心。梵王既聞外道二乘非真，天眼者唯佛世尊，故捨彼聖凡發佛心也。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。此第三結不堪也。

"The Buddha told Aniruddha: 'Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness.'" This is the seventh time, commanding Aniruddha. According to the Tripiṭaka, the next should have been Upāli; but the previous two already elucidated the exposition of Dharma, and now divine penetrations are distinguished, appearing alternately. As for the text, there are two parts: first the command, next the declining. "Aniruddha" is translated here as "According with One's Wishes," also called "Absence of Greed," and also named "Indestructible"—these are just one meaning. Eighty thousand kalpas ago, he once made offerings to a pratyekabuddha, and the good roots he attained have not been destroyed down to the present; hence he is named "Indestructible." His karmic reward accords with his heart's desire, so he is "According with One's Wishes." King Siṃhahanu had four sons, each having two children. The eldest son was named Śuddhodana and had two sons: the elder named Siddhārtha and the younger named Nanda. King Śuklodana had two sons: the elder named Devadatta and the younger named Ānanda. King Droṇodana had two sons: the elder named Aniruddha and the younger named Mahānāma. King Amṛtodana had two sons: the elder named Bhadrika and the next named Tiṣya. King Siṃhahanu had a daughter named Amṛtā who had only one son, named Śiśudhara. Thus Aniruddha was the Buddha's paternal cousin, foremost in the divine eye. The reason he obtained the divine eye was that on one occasion, while listening to the Dharma beside the Buddha, he fell asleep. The Buddha rebuked him: "Fie! How can you be like a snail or mussel?" Aniruddha felt ashamed and did not sleep for many days, whereupon he lost his eyesight. Asking Jīvaka to treat it, Jīvaka said: "Sleep is food for the eyes. Going long without sleep, they starve to death and can no longer be healed." Because of this, Aniruddha cultivated and attained the divine eye. "Aniruddha addressed the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One, I am not competent to go there to inquire about his illness.'" This is the second part, declining as not competent. In the text there are three parts: the statement, the explanation, and the conclusion. This is the first, the statement. "'Why is this? I recall that in the past I was walking in a certain place. At that time a Brahmā king named Śubhavyūha, together with ten thousand Brahmās, emitting pure radiance, came to where I was, bowed his head in homage, and asked me: "How far does Aniruddha's divine eye see?" I then answered: "Virtuous one, I see this trisāhasramahāsāhasra world system of Śākyamuni Buddha just like looking at an āmalaka fruit in my palm."'" This is the second part, explaining the incompetence. The text opens into four distinct points: first, clarifying the reason for being rebuked; second, recounting the purpose of the ability to rebuke; third, Aniruddha being bested; fourth, the Brahmā king generating the aspiration. This is the first text. Question: The *Mahāprajñāpāramitōpadeśa* says, "A great arhat sees only two thousand worlds." Why does he now say three thousand? Answer: Relying on ordinary power, he sees two thousand; by applying effort, he sees three thousand. Furthermore, the power of the divine eye sees only two thousand, while the power of wisdom based on vows sees three thousand. As for the āmalaka fruit, its shape resembles an areca nut; eating it expels wind, and in cold times one holds this fruit in the hand, so it is used as an analogy. "'At that time Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "Well now, Aniruddha! Is the divine eye of conditioned marks, or is it devoid of conditioned marks? If it is of conditioned marks, then it is equal to the five superknowledges of the non-Buddhists; if it is devoid of conditioned marks, then it is unconditioned and there should be no seeing."'" This is the second part, recounting the purpose of the ability to rebuke. First he sets forth both possibilities, and next he brings together the two dilemmas. "Of conditioned marks" and "devoid of conditioned marks" are the twofold determination. Seeing by constructing the marks of square and round shapes of form is called "of conditioned marks"; not constructing the marks of square and round shapes of form is called "devoid of conditioned marks." Another explanation is: the karmic-reward body of the three realms, where the sensory faculties broadly arise from defilements and karma, is called conditioned and having conditioned marks. The dharmakāya is distinct from this, termed unconditioned and devoid of conditioned marks. Bringing together the two dilemmas: if seeing is by constructing square and round marks, then it is shared with non-Buddhists, because non-Buddhists also see by constructing square and round marks. If seeing is without constructing square and round marks, then lacking square and round, it is a non-existent phenomenon and there should be no seeing. "'World-Honoured One, I was silent at that time.'" This is the third part, Aniruddha being bested. If he wanted to say it had marks, it was identical with non-Buddhists; if he wanted to say it was devoid of marks, it was then unconditioned. Because he did not understand how to synthesize them, he failed to reply at that time and was bested by the two dilemmas. "'Hearing his words, those Brahmās attained what they had never had before, and they made homage to him and asked: "Who in the world has the true divine eye?"'" This is the fourth part, the audience obtaining benefit. There are also three phrases: first the question, next the answer, and third the generation of the aspiration. This is the first, the question. Aniruddha was foremost in the divine eye, and since he had been bested by Jingming, who else outside of this possessed the true divine eye? "'Vimalakīrti said: "There is the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, who has the true divine eye, constantly in samādhi, seeing all Buddha lands completely, not by means of dual marks."'" This is the second, Jingming's answer. First he answers generally, saying there is; next he identifies the person who has the true divine eye, who is the Buddha, the World-Honoured One. Below, he explains the true divine eye through three gates: first, seeing while constantly in concentration, distinct from the Hīnayāna seeing outside of concentration—this reveals that stillness and distraction are non-dual. Next, "seeing all Buddha lands completely" clarifies that what the Hīnayāna sees is near, while what the Buddhas see is far—these two are distinct. "Not by means of dual marks": the subject and object are distinct yet there is no eye or form, meaning existence does not obstruct non-existence; although devoid of eye and form, subject and object are not lost, meaning non-existence does not obstruct existence. Because existence does not obstruct non-existence, it is not the same as non-Buddhists; because non-existence does not obstruct existence, it is not the same as the unconditioned. This directly answers the two dilemmas above. Furthermore, regarding the seeing of the eye, he clarifies non-dual seeing. Distinct yet without seeing, and although devoid of seeing, there is nothing it does not see; this is called non-dual. Master Jīva said, "Not constructing the two marks of subtle and coarse is called non-dual." "'Thereupon Brahmā King Śubhavyūha and his retinue of five hundred Brahmā gods all generated the aspiration for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, and having bowed to Vimalakīrti's feet, suddenly vanished.'" This is the third, generating the aspiration. The Brahmā king, having heard that non-Buddhists and the two vehicles are not genuine, and that the one with the true divine eye is only the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, therefore abandoned both the noble and the mundane to generate the Buddha-mind. "'Therefore, I am not competent to go there to inquire about his illness.'" This is the third, concluding the incompetence.