[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [維摩經義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781) › 4.10.3 # 維摩經義疏 4.10.3 維摩經義疏 4.10.3 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.10.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.4.10.3) 觀諸見同正見，故能不動。 不動不捨，故能得之為侍。 問：不動不捨，云何為侍？ 答：不動不捨是得正觀，得於正觀則資養法身，為其侍也。 「文殊師利言：居士所病為何等相」。 此第三次論疾相。 論疾相應在問空室之前，但今欲空有互相成顯。 前明疾有、次辨空室，今欲將空室類疾亦空，故問疾相在空室後也。 即事而觀似若無病，而云有病，未見其相，是故問之。 又四百四病各有其相，大悲之疾以何為相？ 是故問之。 「維摩詰言：我病無形不可見」。 大悲無緣、無所不緣，以無所不緣故，應物有病。 亦應物有相，以其無緣則明我無病，無病故得有相耶？ 又解：應物有病，故託病方丈。 而無有實，故稱無形。 「又問：此病身合耶、心合耶」。 惑者聞病不可見，將謂心病無形，與心合故不可見。 或謂身病微細，尚身合故不可見，故問身心合耶？ 「答曰：非身合，身相離故； 亦非心合，心如幻故」。 身相離者，明身空也，離是空之異名。 心如幻者，明心空也。 身是外形，所以云離。 心動無方，故言幻也。 身心尚無，病與誰合？ 以其無合，故不可見。 「又問：地大水大火大風大，於此四大何大之病」。 身心本是四大之所合成，身心可無而四大或有，四百四病因四大起，今是何大之病？ 羅什云「外道但說三大病，不說地大。 佛法具明四大起病，故一大不調，百一病，總四大合論則有四百四病。 」「答曰：是病非地大亦不離地大，水大火大風大亦復如是」。 若即四大有病者，四大各處則應有病。 而四大各處則無有病，故知不即。 若離四大有病者，四大合時應無有病。 而四大會，遂其有病，故知非離。 非即非離、因緣假合，則知病空。 「而眾生病，從四大起； 以其有病，是故我病」。 菩薩與眾生病俱非即離，但眾生病從四大起，菩薩病從眾生起，非實四大違反而生。 「爾時文殊師利問維摩詰言：菩薩應云何慰喻有病菩薩」。 此第二明眾生病，即是始行菩薩也。 就文為二：一明慰喻、二辨調伏。 慰喻就前無病之人，安慰曉喻有疾之者； 調伏據抱病之人，自調伏其心。 以始行之人既受此身、復縈病苦，則戀生畏死，便增長生死，不得習於正觀，故曉喻安慰，令身處疾自行化他。 又調伏明抱病之人有其心病，故須自調也。 又慰喻令其集善，調伏令其離惡。 又慰喻令習有行，調伏使悟空解。 約位分者，慰喻是外凡夫三十心前人，調伏就內凡夫三十心已上也。 上辨淨名病，初地已上至佛也，故此品具明一切賢聖。 初奉前問、次答。 然慰喻有疾應自文殊，而問淨名者，凡有三義：一白時眾注心有在； 二者取證於病人，乃所心審慰喻之實； 三者本是無病人，能慰喻耳。 淨名雖復現疾，實自無疾，故能慰喻也。 「維摩詰言：說身無常，不說厭離於身」。 就答內為二：初正答、次總結。 正答為二：前就行門明慰喻耳、次就願門明慰喻。 行門明慰喻行，初就所離行、次明所得行。 但慰喻多門，若為貪生畏死具縛凡夫，則不能為說無常，正可將護其意，云不久疾愈。 若慰聲聞之人者，為說無常，令疾斷煩惱早入涅槃。 今此文慰喻菩薩，令捨遠凡聖，自行化他也。 說身無常者，此破常倒，異凡夫也。 凡夫之人貪著此身，戀生畏死、不觀無常，故不為說無常。 今始行之人，知身必磨滅，豈可貪哉？ 不說厭離於身者，破無常倒，異二乘人也。 二乘觀身無常而便厭離，欲入涅槃，故今安身處疾、自行化人，不應求證二乘也。 「說身有苦，不說樂於涅槃。 說身無我，而說教導眾生。 說身空寂，不說畢竟寂滅」。 或有雖聞無常，猶謂不苦，故為說苦。 或有雖聞於苦，猶謂苦樂有主，為說空無我。 譬如大樹，非一斧所傾。 累根既深，非一法能滅，故具說四非常也。 雖見身苦，不樂涅槃之樂。 > Regarding all views as identical with right view, one is therefore able to be unmoving. Being unmoving and not abandoning, one is therefore able to have them as attendants. Question: If one is unmoving and does not abandon, how does that constitute being an attendant? Answer: Being unmoving and not abandoning is the attainment of correct contemplation; when one attains correct contemplation, it nourishes the dharmakāya, serving as its attendant. 'Mañjuśrī said: What are the characteristics of the householder’s illness?' This third section discusses the characteristics of the illness. Discussing the characteristics of the illness should properly have preceded inquiring about the empty room, but here the intention is for emptiness and existence to mutually complete and illuminate each other. Previously the existence of the illness was clarified, and next the empty room was examined; now, wishing to use the empty room to show that the illness is likewise empty, the inquiry into the characteristics of the illness is placed after \[that of\] the empty room. Looking at it according to the circumstances, it seems as if there were no illness, yet it was said that there is illness; since its characteristics have not yet been seen, he therefore inquires about it. Moreover, the four hundred and four illnesses each have their own characteristics; by what characteristic is the illness of great compassion characterized? Therefore he asks. 'Vimalakīrti said: My illness has no form and cannot be seen.' Great compassion has no conditions \[as its object\], yet there is nothing it does not take as a condition; because there is nothing it does not take as a condition, in response to beings there is illness. In response to beings there are also characteristics; yet because it has no conditions, this clarifies that I have no illness—having no illness, how could it have characteristics? Another explanation: Responding to beings there is illness, hence he feigns illness in his square-furlong chamber. But there is no real entity, so it is said to have no form. 'He asked further: Is this illness associated with the body, or is it associated with the mind?' Confused people, hearing that the illness cannot be seen, might think that a mental illness has no form, and because it is associated with the mind it cannot be seen. Or they might think that a bodily illness is subtle, and because it is still associated with the body it cannot be seen; therefore he asks whether it is associated with the body or the mind. 'He replied: It is not associated with the body, because the body’s characteristics are detached; nor is it associated with the mind, because the mind is like a phantom.' That the body’s characteristics are detached clarifies that the body is empty; 'detached' is an alternative name for emptiness. That the mind is like an illusion clarifies that the mind is empty. The body is an external form, which is why it is called detached. The movements of the mind have no fixed direction, which is why it is called a phantom. When body and mind do not even exist, with what could the illness be associated? Because there is no association, it cannot be seen. 'He asked further: Of the four great elements—earth element, water element, fire element, and wind element—the illness of which great element is this?' The body and mind were originally compounded of the four great elements; while body and mind may be absent, the four great elements might exist. The four hundred and four illnesses arise due to the four great elements; now, which great element's illness is this? Kumārajīva said: 'Non-Buddhists only speak of illnesses from three great elements, not mentioning the earth element. The Buddhadharma fully clarifies that illnesses arise from all four great elements: if one great element is disordered, there are one hundred and one illnesses; taking the four great elements together, there are four hundred and four illnesses.' 'He replied: This illness is neither the earth element nor detached from the earth element; the water element, fire element, and wind element are likewise.' If the illness were identical with the four great elements, then whenever the four great elements exist separately there should be illness. Yet when the four great elements are in their respective places there is no illness, so we know it is not identical. If the illness were detached from the four great elements, then when the four great elements combine there should be no illness. Yet when the four great elements meet, illness consequently occurs, so we know it is not detached. Being neither identical nor detached, but a provisional combination of causes and conditions, one knows that illness is empty. 'Yet the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements; because they have illness, I therefore have illness.' The illnesses of both the bodhisattva and sentient beings are neither identical nor detached; but the illnesses of sentient beings arise from the four great elements, whereas the bodhisattva's illness arises from sentient beings, not arising from an actual disharmony of the four great elements. 'At that time Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti: How should a bodhisattva console a sick bodhisattva?' This second part clarifies the illness of sentient beings, that is, bodhisattvas of initial practice. Within the text there are two parts: first, clarifying consolation; second, distinguishing subduing. Consolation refers to the un sick person in front soothing and instructing the sick person; subduing is based on the person enduring illness subduing their own mind. Because those of initial practice, having received this body, are furthermore entangled in the suffering of illness, they then cling to life and fear death, thereby increasing saṃsāra and failing to practice correct contemplation; therefore they are instructed and consoled, so that while their bodies abide in illness they personally practice and convert others. Furthermore, subduing clarifies that the person enduring illness has their own mental illness, so they must subdue it themselves. Moreover, consolation causes them to gather goodness, while subduing causes them to depart from evil. Furthermore, consolation causes them to practice phenomenal deeds, while subduing enables them to awaken to the understanding of emptiness. In terms of stages: consolation applies to outer worldlings before the thirty minds, while subduing applies to inner worldlings from the thirty minds onward. The above examination of Jingming’s illness applied to the first bhūmi and above up to the Buddha; hence this chapter fully clarifies all the worthy and noble ones. First the previous question is presented, followed by the reply. Now, consoling the sick should properly have come from Mañjuśrī, but his asking Jingming has three meanings: first, to signal to the assembly where their focus should be directed; second, to seek verification from the sick person, so as to carefully examine the reality of consolation from that perspective; third, only one who was originally without illness can offer consolation. Although Jingming manifested illness, in reality he was himself without illness, and was therefore able to console. 'Vimalakīrti said: One should speak of the body’s impermanence, but not speak of weariness and detachment from the body.' Within the reply there are two parts: first, the direct reply; second, the general conclusion. The direct reply has two parts: first, clarifying consolation in terms of the approach of practice; next, clarifying consolation in terms of the approach of vows. The approach of practice clarifies consoling practices: first, regarding the practices to be abandoned; next, clarifying the practices to be attained. But consolation has many gates: if it is for ordinary worldlings fully bound who cling to life and fear death, one cannot speak to them of impermanence; one can only accommodate their intentions and say that before long their illness will heal. If consoling śrāvakas, one speaks to them of impermanence to cause them to swiftly sever afflictions and enter nirvāṇa early. Here, this text consoles bodhisattvas, causing them to leave far behind both ordinary worldlings and \[two-vehicle\] sages, personally practicing and converting others. Speaking of the body’s impermanence shatters the delusion of permanence, distinguishing them from ordinary worldlings. Ordinary worldlings cling greedily to this body, yearning for life and fearing death, without contemplating impermanence; hence one does not speak to them of impermanence. Now, persons of initial practice know that the body will surely perish—how could they crave it? Not speaking of weariness and detachment from the body shatters the delusion of impermanence, distinguishing them from persons of the two vehicles. Those of the two vehicles contemplate the body's impermanence and immediately feel weariness and detachment, wishing to enter nirvāṇa; therefore now, abiding peacefully in the body while enduring illness, personally practicing and transforming people, one should not seek to realize \[the goal of\] the two vehicles. 'One should speak of the body having suffering, but not speak of delighting in nirvāṇa. One should speak of the body having no self, yet speak of teaching and guiding sentient beings. One should speak of the body being empty and quiescent, but not speak of ultimate extinction.' Some, although hearing of impermanence, still deem it not suffering, so suffering is spoken of for them. Some, although hearing of suffering, still deem that suffering and pleasure have a master, so emptiness and non-self are spoken of for them. Just as a great tree is not felled by a single axe, and accumulated roots being deep cannot be eradicated by a single dharma, the four non-permanences are fully spoken of. Although seeing the suffering of the body, one does not delight in the bliss of nirvāṇa. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.10.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.4.10.2) - [Next: 4.10.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.4.10.4) - [Up: 4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.4.10) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781~en-mt.4.10.3) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [維摩詰所說經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.vimalakirtinirdesa*zh-kumarajiva.2.29) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.4.10.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1781.4.10.3) · Pramāṇa