維摩經義疏 3.9

3.9

「佛告優波離：汝行詣維摩詰問疾」。此第八次命波離。就文為二：初命、次辭不堪。優波離，是王舍城賤人，翻為上首，是諸釋子剃毛師。後諸釋種詣佛出家，而波離隨遂。將列佛所，諸釋脫寶衣服翫及所乘象，悉以與之。波離心念：「諸釋豪貴如此尚捨出家。我何為住？」以所得物安置樹下、繫象著樹，作如是言：「諸有取者，吾悉施之。」遂往佛所。諸釋問其來意，波離具答所由。諸釋大喜，即便請佛，屈前度之。「此人本我近事。若後出家，我喜輕蔑。屈佛前度，我當敬事。」佛即前度，諸釋子等同為作禮。是時大地震動，空內聲嘆言：「諸釋子嬌慢山崩。」波離出家已後，善解毘尼，以其世世誓願持律，是故於今持律第一。「優波離白佛言：世尊！我不堪任詣彼問疾」。第二辭不堪。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。「所以者何？憶念昔者有二比丘，犯律行以為恥，不敢問佛，來問我言：唯優波離！我等犯律，誠以為恥，不敢問佛。願解疑悔，得免斯咎。我即為其如法解說」。此第二釋不堪。就文為三：一明被呵之由、二述呵之旨、三明時眾得益。就文有二：一明比丘犯罪、二辨波離依法解說。犯律行者，一比丘似犯婬戒，次比丘似犯殺人戒，事別出經。有二比丘林間修道。一比丘疲勞，仰臥眠熟。忽有女人，以女形置一比丘上，而比丘不淨流出。眠覺始覺，而向同伴述之。彼比丘云：「可伺求此女人來也。」而彼女忽來，比丘便往逐之。女人怖走，遂墮坑死。此似犯殺，故云犯律行也。誠以為恥者，夫有罪之人，一懼後世受苦、一懼現在所作。不敢問佛者，佛既尊重，而慚愧復深，故不敢問。又佛明見法相，決斷罪則永出清眾，故不敢問佛。波離既是持律之上，仍從質所疑也。我即為其如法解說者，此第二波離依律篇聚定罪輕重，未得為其詳說過之法也。「時維摩詰來謂我言：唯優波離！無重增此二比丘罪」。此第二明能呵之旨。就文為二：一明波離錯教、二辨淨名善治。比丘見有身心，一封著也；復言有罪可起、心生疑悔而欲滅之，二封著也；而波離定其罪相則封著彌厚，封著彌厚則罪垢轉增，三封著也。今前誡之，故云無重增此二比丘罪。「當直除滅，勿擾其心」。此第二明淨名善治。就文為三，謂標、釋、結。此初標也。波離有二失：一者不說實相，於理成迂；二不應大機，於緣為曲。今對斯二事，還明兩法：一說實相，稱乎理實，名直除滅。二應大機，故不機其心。「所以者何？彼罪性不在內、不在外、不在中間」。此第二釋善治。有四門：初明罪空、次辨心空、三舉況、四廣釋。夫罪之生由因緣有，求其實性不在三處，不在三處則見罪空便悟理實，悟理實則發生正觀，正觀既生則煩惱斯滅。煩惱尚滅，罪豈在哉？不在內者，不在我心也。若在我心，不應待外也。不在外者，不在他身也。若在於他，不應由我起也。不在中間者，合自他求罪不得也。又識為內、塵為外、根為中間，而罪不在此三處。又罪因為內、罪緣為外、合內外為中間也。「如佛所說，心垢故眾生垢、心淨故眾生淨」。此第二次辨心空。夫罪由心起，則心是罪根；然心本尚空，罪未寧有？故逆尋其本也。凡有四句：初引佛誠言心垢故眾生垢者，夫心有垢染則眾生受累，眾生受累便是垢累眾生。垢義既爾，淨義亦然。「心亦不在內、不在外、不在中間」。第二句明心空也。心若在內，心應不由外境。心若在外，內應無心。既非二處，豈在中間？「如其心然，罪垢亦然」。第三句以本顯末也。諸法亦然者，心之與罪二事既空，萬法紛紛皆由心起。在心既空，故諸法亦爾。「不出於如」。心之與罪謂內法空，諸法亦爾謂外法空也。內之與外所以空者，良由不出於如，以如是空之異名，故內外亦爾。又非破拆內外故便空，良由內外本來是如，所以空也。「如優波離心相得解脫時，寧有垢不」。此第三舉況。凡有三句：一問、二答、三況。聲聞初成羅漢，證第九解脫道，爾時唯有淨心、無有垢染。今欲以其類眾生心，故前定其言也。「我言：不也」。此第二波離正答。明證果之時唯淨無垢也。「維摩詰言：一切眾生心相無垢，亦復如是」。第三舉況類也。小乘謂羅漢在觀之時心則無垢，眾生未能斷惑心則有垢，故今持二乘之無類凡夫之有也。「唯優波離！妄想是垢，無妄想是淨；顛倒是垢，無顛倒是淨；取我是垢，不取我是淨」。此第四廣釋。上雖明罪空，而惑者生疑：若罪非有，何得大小經律說眾生起罪？故今釋云：妄想故見有罪，是故餘經明有。今據理實，所以云無。妄想、顛倒、取我三科異者，橫謂分別，名為妄想；無而謂有，翻背理實，稱為顛倒；所以顛倒，由根本取我。又妄想是八妄，如《地持》說；顛倒是三倒；取我是眾見根本。「優波離！一切法生滅不住、如幻如電，諸法不相待，乃至一念不住」。上明罪由妄有，今辨妄有非有，亦是釋妄有義。不相待者，此不明無長短等相待，但辨諸法無常。前心不待後心生竟然後方滅，以諸法不住，亦生即滅也。無住則如幻，不實所以空。「諸法唯妄見，如夢如炎、如水中月、如鏡中像，以妄想生」。上明外法不住，此辨內心妄見，俱明空義。夫以見妄故，則所見不實，是故為空。上二喻取其速滅，此四喻喻其妄想。「其知此者是名奉律」。淨名善治有三，標、釋已竟，今總結歎也。行順律法，故名奉律，此歎行也。「其知此者是名善解」。知罪實相，名為善解，此嘆解也。自有解律而不行、自有行律而不解，故雙嘆也。問：今明罪空，云何是奉律？答：律名毘尼，此言善治，謂自能治三毒，亦能治於眾生。令知罪空，真善治也。「於是二比丘言：上智哉！是優波離所不及，持律之上不能說。我答言：自捨如來，未有聲聞及菩薩制其樂說之辨。其智慧明達為若此也。時二比丘疑悔即除，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心，作是願言：令一切眾生皆得是辨」。此第三明時眾得益。文有三句：第一比丘雙嘆、二波離雙答、三比丘雙益。初雙嘆者，上智哉，嘆淨名內智；持律之上而不能說，嘆淨名外辨。二波離雙答，初答外辨；其智慧明達，次答內智。比丘雙益者，疑悔即除，謂惡滅也；發心，明善生也。「故我不任詣彼問疾」。第三總結不堪。

"The Buddha said to Upāli: 'Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire about his illness.'" This is the eighth [commission], commanding Upāli. The text consists of two parts: first, the command; next, the refusal as incompetent. Upāli was a man of low caste in Rājagṛha, translated as "Superior Head" (Śreṣṭha), and was the barber of the Śākya princes. Later, when the Śākya clan went to the Buddha to renounce the household life, Upāli followed them. As they approached the Buddha's place, the Śākyas took off their precious clothes and ornaments and gave away the elephants they were riding, handing them all to him. Upāli reflected: "Even these noble and wealthy Śākyas abandon such things to leave home. Why should I remain?" He placed the goods he had received beneath a tree, tied the elephant to the tree, and said: "Whoever would take them, I give them all away!" He then proceeded to the Buddha's place. The Śākyas asked him why he had come, and Upāli fully explained his reasons. The Śākyas rejoiced greatly and immediately requested the Buddha to condescend to deliver him first: "This man was formerly our attendant. If he leaves home later, we might easily look down upon him. If the Buddha condescends to deliver him first, we shall pay him respectful service." The Buddha thereupon delivered him first, and the Śākya sons all bowed to him together. At that moment the great earth shook, and a voice in the sky praised him, saying: "The mountain of the Śākya youths' arrogance has collapsed." After Upāli left home, he had a superior understanding of the Vinaya, and because he had made vows to uphold the precepts lifetime after lifetime, he is now foremost among those who uphold the Vinaya.

"Upāli 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 incompetent. The text has three sections: the statement, the explanation, and the conclusion. This is the first, the statement.

"'Why is this? I remember that in the past, two monks violated the precepts and felt ashamed of their conduct, not daring to ask the Buddha. They came and asked me, saying: "O Upāli! We have violated the precepts and are truly ashamed; we dare not ask the Buddha. We pray you will resolve our doubts and remorse so that we may be freed from this fault." I then explained [the matter] to them in accordance with the Dharma.'" This is the second part, explaining his incompetence. In the text there are three sections: first, explaining the reason for being reproved; second, recounting the purpose of the reproof; third, explaining the benefit gained by the assembly at that time. Within the text there are two parts: first, explaining the monks' transgression of the precepts; second, clarifying Upāli's explanation according to the Dharma. As for violating the precepts: one monk appeared to violate the precept against unchastity, and the next monk appeared to violate the precept against taking life, the details of which appear in other sūtras. Two monks were cultivating the Path in a forest. One monk was exhausted, lay on his back, and fell fast asleep. Suddenly a woman placed her female organ upon this monk, and the monk discharged impure fluid. Only when he awoke did he realize this, and he recounted it to his companion. That [other] monk said: "We can watch for this woman's return." When the woman suddenly returned, the monk pursued her; terrified, the woman ran, fell into a pit, and died. This appeared to be the transgression of killing; hence it is said that they violated the precepts. "Truly ashamed": a transgressor fears suffering in future lives on the one hand, and fears the deeds committed in the present on the other. "Not daring to ask the Buddha": because the Buddha is deeply revered and their shame was profound, they did not dare to ask him. Furthermore, the Buddha clearly discerns the marks of dharmas; if he were to decisively judge their offenses, they would be forever expelled from the pure community; therefore they did not dare to ask the Buddha. Since Upāli was foremost in upholding the Vinaya, they accordingly inquired into their doubts with him. "I then explained to them in accordance with the Dharma": this is the second part, where Upāli determined the severity of the offenses according to the categories of the Vinaya (skandha/nikāya), yet was not able to explain in detail the method of transcending them.

"'At that time, Vimalakīrti came and said to me: "O Upāli! Do not further aggravate the offenses of these two monks!"'" This is the second part, clarifying the purpose of the reproof. The text has two parts: first, clarifying Upāli's mistaken teaching; second, discerning Jingming's skillful remedying. The monks saw a mind and a body, which is the first attachment; they further claimed that there were offenses that could arise, giving rise to doubts and remorse while wishing to extinguish them, which is the second attachment; and Upāli, by fixing the characteristics of their offenses, caused their attachment to become all the deeper, which in turn increased their defilement of transgression, which is the third attachment. Here [Vimalakīrti] first admonishes him, saying: "Do not further aggravate the offenses of these two monks."

"'You should directly eliminate them and not disturb their minds.'" This is the second part, clarifying Jingming's skillful remedy. The text has three sections: statement, explanation, and conclusion. This is the first, the statement. Upāli had two faults: first, not explaining the true characteristic, which was circuitous with respect to the principle; second, not responding to their Mahāyāna capacity, which was crooked with respect to conditions. Now, addressing these two matters, two dharmas are conversely clarified: first, explaining the true characteristic accords with the principle and the real, which is called "directly eliminating"; second, responding to their Mahāyāna capacity, and therefore not perturbing their minds.

"'Why is this? The nature of their offenses is not within, not without, nor in between.'" This is the second part, explaining the skillful remedy. There are four sections: first, clarifying the emptiness of offenses; next, discerning the emptiness of the mind; third, presenting analogies; fourth, extensive explanation. The arising of offenses exists due to causes and conditions; if one seeks their true nature, it is not in these three places. If it is not in these three places, one perceives that offenses are empty and thus awakens to the principle and the real; awakening to the principle and the real generates correct contemplation; once correct contemplation is generated, afflictions are extinguished. When even afflictions are extinguished, how could offenses remain? "Not within" means not in one's own mind; if it were in one's mind, it would not depend on the external. "Not without" means not in another's body; if it were in another, it would not arise on account of oneself. "Nor in between" means that seeking offenses in the conjunction of self and other cannot be achieved. Furthermore, consciousness is internal, sense-objects are external, and the sense-faculties are in between, yet offenses are not in these three places. Furthermore, the cause of an offense is internal, the condition for an offense is external, and the conjunction of internal and external is in between.

"'Just as the Buddha has said: "Because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled; because the mind is pure, sentient beings are pure."'" This is the second section, discerning the emptiness of the mind. Offenses arise from the mind, so the mind is the root of offenses; yet if the mind itself is fundamentally empty, how could offenses ever exist? Therefore he traces back to seek its root. There are four clauses altogether: first, quoting the Buddha's truthful words, "because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled." When the mind has defilement, sentient beings suffer encumbrance; when sentient beings suffer encumbrance, they are defiled, encumbered sentient beings. Just as it is with defilement, so it is with purity.

"'The mind is also not within, not without, nor in between.'" The second clause clarifies the emptiness of the mind. If the mind were within, it should not depend on external objects; if the mind were without, there should be no mind within. Since it is not in these two places, how could it be in between?

"'Just as it is with the mind, so it is with the defilement of offenses.'" The third clause reveals the branches by means of the root. "All dharmas are also thus": since the two phenomena of mind and offenses are empty, the myriad dharmas that swirl forth all arise from the mind. Since they are empty within the mind, all dharmas are likewise so.

"'They do not depart from Suchness.'" The emptiness of mind and offenses refers to the emptiness of internal dharmas; "all dharmas are also thus" refers to the emptiness of external dharmas. The reason why the internal and external are empty is that they do not depart from Suchness; because Suchness is another name for emptiness, the internal and external are also thus. Furthermore, it is not because the internal and external are broken apart and dissected that they become empty; rather, because the internal and external are fundamentally Suchness, they are empty.

"'Just as when the characteristic of Upāli's mind attained liberation, was there any defilement?'" This is the third section, presenting an analogy. There are three clauses: first, the question; second, the answer; third, the analogy. When a śrāvaka first becomes an arhat, he witnesses the ninth path of liberation; at that time there is only a pure mind and no defilement. Wishing to liken it to the minds of sentient beings, he first fixes his words.

"'I said: "No."'" This is the second clause, Upāli's direct reply. It clarifies that at the time of witnessing the fruit, there is only purity and no defilement.

"'Vimalakīrti said: "The characteristic of the minds of all sentient beings is undefiled, just like this."'" The third clause presents the analogy to liken them. The Hīnayāna claims that when an arhat is in contemplation, his mind is undefiled, but because sentient beings have not yet severed delusions, their minds are defiled. Thus he now takes the non-existence [of defilement] in the two vehicles to liken it to the existence [of defilement] in ordinary persons.

"'O Upāli! False discrimination is defilement, non-discrimination is purity; inverted views are defilement, non-inversion is purity; grasping at a self is defilement, not grasping at a self is purity.'" This is the fourth section, the extensive explanation. Although the emptiness of offenses was explained above, the confused might give rise to doubt: if offenses do not exist, why do the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras and vinayas state that sentient beings produce offenses? Therefore he now explains: because of false discrimination, they see offenses as existing; thus other sūtras explain them as existing. Here, relying on the principle and the real, he says they are non-existent. As for the difference between the three categories of false discrimination, inverted views, and grasping at a self: arbitrary discrimination is called "false discrimination"; considering what is non-existent to be existent and turning one's back on the principle and the real is called "inverted views"; the reason for inverted views is fundamentally grasping at a self. Furthermore, false discrimination refers to the eight false discriminations, as explained in the Bodhisattvabhūmi; inverted views refer to the three inversions; grasping at a self is the root of all false views.

"'Upāli! All dharmas arise and cease without abiding, like an illusion, like lightning. Dharmas do not depend on one another, not abiding for even a single thought-moment.'" Above, it was explained that offenses exist falsely through delusion; now it is discerned that what exists falsely is non-existent, which also explains the meaning of false existence. "Not depending on one another": this does not mean the absence of mutual dependence such as long and short; it merely discerns the impermanence of all dharmas. The preceding thought does not wait for the subsequent thought to arise before it ceases; because all dharmas do not abide, they cease as soon as they arise. What is non-abiding is like an illusion; because it is unreal, it is empty.

"'All dharmas are only false views, like a dream, like a mirage, like the moon in the water, like an image in a mirror, arising from false discrimination.'" Above, it was explained that external dharmas do not abide; here it is discerned that the internal mind holds false views, both clarifying the meaning of emptiness. Because the views are false, what is seen is unreal, and therefore it is empty. The two earlier analogies take their rapid cessation, while these four analogies illustrate false discrimination.

"'He who knows this is called one who upholds the Vinaya.'" Jingming's skillful remedy has three parts: the statement and explanation are already completed, and this is the general concluding praise. To practice in accord with the Vinaya Dharma is called "upholding the Vinaya"; this praises practice. "He who knows this is called one of good understanding." To know the true characteristic of offenses is called "good understanding"; this praises understanding. Some understand the Vinaya but do not practice it; some practice the Vinaya but do not understand it; hence both are praised together. Question: Now that the emptiness of offenses has been clarified, how is this upholding the Vinaya? Answer: The Vinaya is called vinaya, which here means "skillful remedy / regulation" (subduing), meaning that one can subdue the three poisons oneself and can also regulate sentient beings. Causing them to know the emptiness of offenses is the true skillful remedy.

"'Thereupon the two monks said: "Supreme wisdom! This is beyond Upāli's reach; even the foremost in upholding the Vinaya cannot expound it!" I replied: "Except for the Tathāgata, there is no śrāvaka or bodhisattva who can restrain his eloquence of delightful speech. His wisdom and discernment are like this!" At that time, the doubts and remorse of the two monks were immediately eliminated, and they gave rise to the aspiration for anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi, making this vow: "May all sentient beings attain such eloquence!"'" This is the third part, clarifying the benefit gained by the assembly at that time. The text contains three clauses: first, the monks' double praise; second, Upāli's double reply; third, the monks' double benefit. In the first, the double praise: "Supreme wisdom!" praises Jingming's internal wisdom; "even the foremost in upholding the Vinaya cannot expound it" praises Jingming's external eloquence. In the second, Upāli's double reply: he first replies concerning the external eloquence; "his wisdom and discernment" then replies concerning the internal wisdom. In the monks' double benefit: "their doubts and remorse were immediately eliminated" means evil was extinguished; "gave rise to the aspiration" explains the arising of good.

"'Therefore I am not competent to go there to inquire about his illness.'" This is the third part, the general conclusion declining as incompetent.