維摩經義疏 4.10.4

4.10.4

雖知無我，不以眾生空故，廢於教導。 雖解身空，而不取涅槃畢竟之空。 故能安住生死，與群生同疾。 故慰喻之者，令其識所應行及所不應行也。 「說悔先罪而不說入於過去」。 上為利根人說菩薩行，今為鈍根未悟更說法。 又上破八倒，就離煩惱門以明慰喻； 今就離業門以明慰喻。 今日之病必由前罪，故令其懺悔，故云說悔前罪。 既言有前罪，則似業有性罪，從未來至現在、從現在入過去，是故今明不入過去。 不入過去者，罪本性空，故無罪可謝入也。 「以己之疾愍於彼疾」。 上就煩惱業門以門慰喻； 今就苦報門明慰喻也，令其推己而悲物也。 我今微病，苦痛尚爾，況惡趣群生受無量苦耶？ 又我有智慧，猶弊疾苦，況不達者乎？ 推己愍彼，是大士兼濟之懷，故聞此法則不戀生畏死，宜自行化他人。 「當識宿世無數劫苦，當念饒益一切眾生」。 無數劫來受苦無量，今苦須臾，何足致憂，但當力疾救彼苦耳。 「憶所修福」。 外國法，從生至終所作福業一一書記，將終之時令傍人為說，令其恃福心不憂畏。 「念於淨命」。 自念從生至終常行正命，必至善趣，何所憂耶？ 又勿為救於身疾，作諸邪業以救命也。 「勿生憂惱」。 疾者多憂，多憂故生惱，故明徒憂無益，橫致惱耳。 「常起精進」。 病好懈怠，故勸令精進，假使身逝命終，而意不捨也。 「當作醫王療治眾病」。 上就行門明慰喻； 今就願門明慰喻，令其因疾發弘誓願，當作醫王療治一切身心疾也。 「菩薩應如是慰諭有疾菩薩，令其歡喜」。 總結之也。 「文殊師利言：居士！ 有病菩薩云何調伏其心」。 此第二明調伏。 外有巧喻、內有善調，則能彌歷生死與群生同疾，辛酸備經而不以苦。 此即淨名現疾之意也。 前問、次答。 調伏者，心猶奔逸之馬難可禁制，故以善巧方便先調而後伏也。 今將明調伏之法，故前問之。 「維摩詰言：有疾菩薩應作是念：今我此病皆從前世妄想顛倒諸煩惱生，無有實法，誰受病者」。 此第二答。 就文為三：一明自行化他調伏、二明自行化他調伏有其得失、三明非調不調乃名調伏。 初文又三：一自行調伏，即是實慧； 二化他調伏，謂為方便慧； 三合明自行化他調伏，即合明二慧。 初文有三：一眾生空、二諸法空、三空病亦空。 用此三門調心令伏也。 初文四句：一將來況本。 今既有苦即推苦，苦由於病，病由於身，身由妄想。 妄想既不實，身亦不實。 身既不實，苦豈實耶？ 「所以者何？ 四大合故假名為身，四大無主，身亦無我」。 此第二句以本況末。 前就隔世推無我，今就即世推無我。 又前就身因，今四大是身緣，故並無我。 唯見四大，不見一主，如其有主則應有我，而實不爾，故知無主。 四大是身本，本既無主，身為其末豈有我耶？ 「又此病起皆由著我，是故於我不應生著」。 此第三句顯出其過。 汎論病起有二：一由過去世著我，備生結業，結業果報則現受苦； 二由現在著我故心惱，心惱則病增也。 「既知病本，即除我想及眾生想」。 第四句結除我也。 什公云「其病本者，所謂我也。 」僧肇公云「我本者，即上妄想也。 因有妄想故，見我及眾生； 若悟妄想是顛倒，則無我無眾生。 」「當起法相」。 自上以來重推無我，自此文去假法破我。 雖於空為病、於我為藥，故借法除我。 「應作是念：但以眾法合成此身，起唯法起、滅唯法滅」。 釋法想也。 五陰諸法假會成身，起唯諸法共起、滅唯諸法共滅，無別有真宰主其起滅者。 既除我想，唯見緣起諸法，故名法想。 「又此法者各不相知，起時不言我起、滅時不言我滅」。 前句明唯法，此句辨非人起。 以諸法緣合則有、緣散則離，聚散無先期，故法法不相知也。 「彼有疾菩薩為滅法想，當作是念：此法想者亦是顛倒。 顛倒者是則大患，我應離之」。

Although they know selflessness, they do not discard teaching and guiding because sentient beings are empty. Although they understand the body to be empty, they do not seize upon the ultimate emptiness of nirvāṇa. Thus they can abide peacefully in saṃsāra and share the same illness as all living beings. Therefore, consoling them causes them to recognize what should be practiced and what should not be practiced. [The sūtra says:] "Speak of repenting past transgressions, but do not speak of entering the past." Above, bodhisattva practice was explained for those of sharp faculties; now Dharma is expounded further for those of dull faculties who have not yet awakened. Furthermore, above the eight inversions were refuted, explaining consolation with respect to the gate of abandoning afflictions; now consolation is explained with respect to the gate of abandoning karma. Present illness necessarily stems from past transgressions, and thus one causes them to repent; hence it says "speak of repenting past transgressions." Since it says there are past transgressions, it seems as though karma possesses an inherent fault that comes from the future into the present and from the present enters the past; therefore, it is now explained that it does not enter the past. 'Not entering the past' means that transgressions are inherently empty in their fundamental nature, so there is no transgression that can pass away and enter [the past]. [The sūtra says:] "Use one's own illness to empathize with their illness." Above, consolation was explained with respect to the gate of afflictions and karma; now consolation is explained with respect to the gate of suffering retribution, causing them to extend from themselves to feel compassion for other beings: If my present slight illness brings such pain and suffering, how much more so for the living beings in the evil destinies who undergo immeasurable suffering? Furthermore, even though I possess wisdom, I am still beset by the suffering of illness, so how much more so for those who have not attained it? Extending from oneself to empathize with others is the great being's mind of universal rescue; therefore, hearing this teaching, one does not cling to life nor fear death, but should cultivate oneself and transform others. [The sūtra says:] "One should recognize the suffering of countless kalpas in past lives, and should resolve to benefit all sentient beings." For countless kalpas one has undergone immeasurable suffering; now suffering for but a moment, how is it worthy of causing sorrow? One should only strive against illness to save them from their suffering. [The sūtra says:] "Recall the merits cultivated." According to the custom in foreign countries, the meritorious karmas performed from birth to death are recorded one by one, and when one is about to die, another person is made to recount them so that, relying on merit, one's mind feels neither worry nor fear. [The sūtra says:] "Mindful of pure livelihood." One reflects for oneself that from birth to death one has constantly practiced right livelihood and will surely reach a good destiny, so what is there to worry about? Furthermore, one must not engage in various wrongful deeds to preserve life merely to cure the body's illness. [The sūtra says:] "Do not give rise to worry or distress." The ill often worry, and worrying often produces distress; hence it explains that useless sorrow is of no benefit and merely brings about distress unnecessarily. [The sūtra says:] "Constantly arouse vigor." Illness tends toward indolence, so one is encouraged to be vigorous; even if the body perishes and life ends, the intention will not abandon it. [The sūtra says:] "One should act as a physician king to treat all diseases." Above, consolation was explained with respect to the gate of practice; now consolation is explained with respect to the gate of vows, causing them, on account of illness, to make vast vows to act as a physician king to treat all physical and mental diseases. [The sūtra says:] "A bodhisattva should console an ill bodhisattva in this way, causing them to rejoice." This concludes the summary. [The sūtra says:] "Mañjuśrī said: 'Householder, how should an ill bodhisattva subdue their mind?'" This is the second [section], explaining subduing [the mind]. Having skillful consolation on the outside and good subduing on the inside, one can traverse saṃsāra and share the same illness as all living beings, experiencing all bitter hardships without considering them suffering. This is precisely Jingming's intention in manifesting illness. First comes the question, next the reply. Regarding 'subduing': the mind is like a galloping horse that is difficult to restrain, so one uses skillful means to first tame and then subdue it. Now, about to explain the method of subduing, he therefore asks about it first. [The sūtra says:] "Vimalakīrti said: 'An ill bodhisattva should think: Now this illness of mine is entirely produced from the false conceptualizations, inversions, and afflictions of previous lives; there is no real dharma, so who is it that experiences the illness?'" This is the second, the reply. In the text there are three parts: first, explaining subduing through one's own practice and transforming others; second, explaining the gains and losses in subduing through one's own practice and transforming others; third, explaining that neither subduing nor non-subduing is truly called subduing. The first text again has three parts: first, subduing in one's own practice, which is real wisdom; second, subduing in transforming others, which is called skillful wisdom; third, jointly explaining subduing through one's own practice and transforming others, which is jointly explaining the two wisdoms. The first text has three parts: first, emptiness of sentient beings; second, emptiness of all dharmas; third, that the illness of emptiness is also empty. One uses these three gates to tame the mind and subdue it. In the first text there are four phrases: first, using the future to illustrate the origin. Since there is suffering now, one traces the suffering: suffering is due to illness, illness is due to the body, and the body is due to false conceptualization. Since false conceptualization is unreal, the body is also unreal. Since the body is unreal, how could the suffering be real? [The sūtra says:] "Why is this? Because the four great elements combine, it is provisionally called a 'body'; the four great elements have no master, and the body also has no self." This is the second phrase, using the root to illustrate the branch. Previously, selflessness was deduced with respect to separate lifetimes; now, selflessness is deduced with respect to the present lifetime. Furthermore, previously it was with respect to the cause of the body; now the four great elements are the conditions of the body, so both are without self. One only sees the four great elements and does not see a single master; if there were a master, there ought to be a self, but in reality it is not so, and thus we know there is no master. The four great elements are the root of the body; since the root has no master, how could the body, being its branch, have a self? [The sūtra says:] "Furthermore, the arising of this illness is entirely due to grasping at a self; therefore, one should not give rise to grasping at a self." This is the third phrase, revealing its fault. In general terms, the arising of illness has two [causes]: first, due to grasping at a self in past lives, one fully produced fettering karma, and the karmic retribution of that fettering karma is presently experienced as suffering; second, due to grasping at a self in the present, the mind is distressed, and when the mind is distressed, the illness increases. [The sūtra says:] "Having known the root of illness, one immediately removes the notion of a self and the notion of sentient beings." The fourth phrase concludes by eliminating the self. Master Kumārajīva says: "That root of illness is what is called the self." Master Sengzhao says: "The root of the self is the aforementioned false conceptualization. Because of false conceptualization, one sees a self and sentient beings; if one awakens to false conceptualization being an inversion, then there is neither self nor sentient beings." [The sūtra says:] "One should give rise to the notion of dharmas." From above onward, selflessness was deduced repeatedly; from this passage onward, provisional dharmas are used to refute the self. Although it is an illness with respect to emptiness, it is medicine with respect to the self, so dharmas are borrowed to remove the self. [The sūtra says:] "One should think: 'It is merely that various dharmas combine to form this body; when arising, it is only dharmas arising; when perishing, it is only dharmas perishing.'" This explains the notion of dharmas. The various dharmas of the five aggregates provisionally assemble to form the body; when arising, it is only the various dharmas arising together; when perishing, it is only the various dharmas perishing together; there is no separate true ruler that governs their arising and perishing. Having eliminated the notion of a self, one only sees the various dharmas of dependent origination; hence it is called the 'notion of dharmas.' [The sūtra says:] "Furthermore, these dharmas do not know one another; when arising, they do not say 'I arise,' and when perishing, they do not say 'I perish.'" The previous phrase explained that there are only dharmas; this phrase clarifies that they are not produced by a person. Because various dharmas exist when conditions combine and separate when conditions disperse, and their gathering and dispersion have no prior agreement, dharmas do not know one another. [The sūtra says:] "In order to eliminate the notion of dharmas, that ill bodhisattva should think: 'This notion of dharmas is also an inversion. An inversion is a great calamity; I should abandon it.'"