維摩經義疏 5.3.5

5.3.5

如是弟子畏生死故，色聲香味觸得其便。 已離畏者，一切五欲無能為也」。 畏時情弱，故非人得便； 內心無恐，外邪不入。 什公云「一羅剎變形為馬，有一士夫乘之不疑。 中道，馬問士夫：『馬好不？ 』士夫投刀示之，問言：『此刀好不？ 』馬知其心正無恐，遂不敢加害。 」若不如是，非人得其便也。 「結習未盡，華著身耳； 結習盡者，華不著也」。 問：經云「二乘、菩薩俱無正使，同有於習」，何故聲聞著華、大士不著？ 答：羅什有二解，一云菩薩器淨，習氣不起，故華不著； 二乘器不淨，習氣則起，是故華著。 二釋云：習有二種，一間結習、二愛佛功德習。 菩薩得無生忍時，結習都盡，而未斷佛法愛習，故有無名有義。 依《地持論》菩薩斷感習都盡，而智習不都盡也。 「舍利弗言：天止此室，其已久如」。 此第二次論無久近法。 前章明大小二人內心有著。 聲聞有著名有所得，菩薩無著名無所得，故即是解脫。 故上云諸佛菩薩有不思議解脫，二乘無也。 初問意者，身子前有二失：一遣華不去，謂意業無通； 次謂華不如法，謂發言墮負。 故今問止淨名室凡得幾時，而神力妙辨遂能如此。 又既以屈之，便嫌其止室為天女，而不欲相指斥，故寄久近為問。 「答曰：我止此室，如耆年解脫」。 六十曰耆。 而指將欲明無久近義，故借身子解脫為喻也。 「舍利弗言：止此久耶」。 身子云：無為解脫，無始無終、不生不滅、本性常住，故名為久。 天止室若同解脫者，亦應久也。 「天曰：耆年解脫亦何如久」。 天質云：汝所得無為解脫可得有久近耶？ 若有久近，便非無為。 「舍利弗默然不答」。 若云解脫有久，順前言而違解脫； 若云無久，乃順解脫而違前言。 進退無通，所以致默。 又既悟解脫無久近，即便以無類無，亦無言說，是故默然。 「天曰：如何耆舊大智而默」。 上明不得言，今明不得默，故語默皆墮負。 小乘之人，非聖默然、非聖說法也。 「答曰：解脫者無所言說，故吾於是不知所云」。 解脫無言，吾順解脫亦無言也。 「天曰：言說文字皆解脫相」。 故汝乃知解脫無言，而未悟言即解脫。 「所以者何？ 解脫者，不內不外不在兩間，文字亦不內不外不在兩間。 是故舍利弗！ 無離文字說解脫也。 所以者何？ 一切諸法是解脫相」也。 釋上言即解脫也。 文字之與解脫，俱不在三處，故文字解脫無有二體，不應離文字而說解脫也。 解脫不在三處者，生公云「夫解脫者，我解於縛也。 不偏在我，故不在內。 亦不偏在縛，故不在外。 會成解脫，又不在兩間。 文字不在三處者，我為內，所說為外，合之為兩間也。 」後句云一切法皆是解脫，豈獨文字異解脫乎？ 「舍利弗言：不復以離淫怒癡為解脫乎」。 身子引佛言證己義為得，反難天女也。 佛既云「離三毒為解脫」，亦應離文字為解脫。 若文字即解脫者，三毒亦應即是解脫，何故佛言離？ 「天曰：佛為增上慢人說離婬怒癡為解脫耳。 若無增上慢者，佛說婬怒癡性即是解脫」。 上明小乘語默皆屈，此章文顯聲聞不識教意也。 未得謂得，名增上慢。 為此人故，說斷三毒名為解脫也。 又密化二乘，令歸大道。 二乘未究竟謂究竟，即是增上慢也。 為此人故，更說斷無明住地及以習氣名為解脫。 若無此緣，佛說五住即是解曉。 問：前何故就文字即解脫，今明三毒為解脫耶？ 答：文字為外、三毒為內，菩薩體斯內外皆是解脫，故心無所染、華不著身。 二乘謂文字之外、三毒之內，皆非解脫，則不識解脫，為塵所染、華著於身，成前章也。 「舍利弗言：善哉善哉！ 汝何所得、以何為證，辨乃如是」。 此第三次論得證。 既善其所說，非已所及，故問得何道、證何果，辨乃如是。 有為果稱得，無為果稱證。 又觀心納法為得，與理相應為證。

"Thus, because the disciples fear saṃsāra, forms, sounds, scents, tastes, and tangibles take advantage of them. To those who are already free from fear, all five desires can do nothing." When one is fearful, one's disposition is weak, so non-humans gain the upper hand; when the mind within has no terror, external evils cannot enter. Master [Kumāra]jīva said: "A rākṣasa transformed himself into a horse, and a man rode it without suspicion. Halfway along the road, the horse asked the man, 'Is the horse good or not?' The man drew a knife and showed it to him, asking, 'Is this knife good or not?' The horse knew his mind was upright and without fear, so he dared not do him harm." If it were not like this, non-humans would gain the upper hand. "Because their habit-residues of the defilements are not yet exhausted, the flowers stick to their bodies; for those whose habit-residues of the defilements are exhausted, the flowers do not stick." Question: The sūtra says that the two vehicles and the bodhisattvas alike lack active afflictions, and equally have habit-residues; why then do flowers stick to the śrāvakas and not to the mahāsattvas? Answer: Kumārajīva has two explanations: First, he says that the vessel of the bodhisattva is pure, so habit-energy does not arise, and thus flowers do not stick; the vessel of the two vehicles is impure, so habit-energy arises, and for this reason the flowers stick. The second explanation says: Habit-residues are of two kinds: first, habit-residues of defilements; second, the habit-residue of loving the Buddha's merit. When bodhisattvas attain anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti, their habit-residues of defilements are completely exhausted, but they have not yet severed the habit of loving the Buddha-dharma; thus there is a sense in which they are said to have them. According to the Bodhisattva-bhūmi (*Dichi lun*), bodhisattvas completely sever the habit of affliction, but their habit of cognition is not completely severed. "Śāriputra said: 'Devī, how long have you been dwelling in this room?'" This is the second discussion, on the fact that dharmas have neither long nor short durations. The preceding chapter showed that within their minds, both persons—great and small—had attachments. When the śrāvakas have attachment, it is called having apprehension; when the bodhisattvas have no attachment, it is called having no apprehension, and thus it is liberation itself. Therefore, it was said above that the Buddhas and bodhisattvas have inconceivable liberation, whereas the two vehicles do not. As for the intention behind the initial question: Śāriputra previously committed two errors: first, he could not brush away the flowers, meaning his mental karma had no supernormal power; next, he claimed the flowers were not in accordance with the Dharma, meaning his spoken words fell into defeat. Therefore, he now asks how long she has been dwelling in Jingming's room to possess such supernormal powers and wondrous eloquence. Furthermore, having already been subdued by her, he disliked that she was dwelling in the room as a devī, yet did not wish to rebuke her directly, and so framed his question around duration. "She answered: 'My dwelling in this room is like the Elder's liberation.'" One who is sixty is called an elder. Since she is about to clarify the meaning of neither long nor short duration, she borrows Śāriputra's liberation as an analogy. "Śāriputra said: 'Have you then dwelt here for long?'" Śāriputra meant: Unconditioned liberation has no beginning and no end, is unborn and unceasing, and is by nature permanently abiding; therefore it is called long. If the Devī's dwelling in the room is like liberation, it should also be long. "The Devī said: 'How can the Elder's liberation also be long or short?'" The Devī challenged him: "Can the unconditioned liberation you have attained have any duration of long or short? If it has a long or short duration, it is not unconditioned." "Śāriputra remained silent and did not reply." If he said liberation has duration, it would agree with his previous words but contradict liberation; if he said it has no duration, it would agree with liberation but contradict his previous words. Advancing or retreating, there was no way through; hence his silence. Furthermore, having realized that liberation has neither long nor short duration, he equated absence with absence, and there was also nothing to say; therefore he remained silent. "The Devī said: 'Why is the venerable elder of great wisdom silent?'" Above, it was shown that he could not speak; now, it is shown that he cannot remain silent. Thus, in both speaking and remaining silent, he falls into defeat. For a practitioner of the Small Vehicle, it is neither noble silence nor noble discourse. "He answered: 'Liberation has nothing to be spoken of; therefore, regarding this, I do not know what to say.'" Liberation has no words; in according with liberation, I also have no words. "The Devī said: 'Spoken words and letters are all the marks of liberation.'" Thus, you only know that liberation has no words, but have not realized that words are themselves liberation. "'Why is this? Liberation is not inside, not outside, and not in between; letters are also not inside, not outside, and not in between. Therefore, Śāriputra, do not speak of liberation apart from letters. Why is this? All dharmas are the marks of liberation.'" This explains the preceding statement that words are themselves liberation. Both letters and liberation are not located in the three places; therefore, letters and liberation do not have two separate substances, and one should not speak of liberation apart from letters. Regarding liberation not being in the three places, Master Sengzhao said: "Now liberation means 'I am freed from bondage.' It does not reside solely in me, so it is not inside. Nor does it reside solely in the bondage, so it is not outside. Coming together to form liberation, it is also not in between. As for letters not being in the three places: 'I' am inside, what is spoken is outside, and their conjunction is in between." The concluding phrase states that all dharmas are liberation; how could letters alone be different from liberation? "Śāriputra said: 'Is it no longer being free from lust, anger, and delusion that constitutes liberation?'" Śāriputra cited the Buddha's words to substantiate his own view as correct, turning to challenge the Devī: Since the Buddha said that "freedom from the three poisons constitutes liberation," one should also be free from letters to have liberation. If letters are themselves liberation, the three poisons should also be liberation; why then did the Buddha speak of being free from them? "The Devī said: 'The Buddha said that being free from lust, anger, and delusion constitutes liberation only for those of overweening pride. If one is without overweening pride, the Buddha says that the very nature of lust, anger, and delusion is itself liberation.'" Above, it was shown that the Small Vehicle was confounded in both speech and silence; this passage reveals that the śrāvakas do not understand the intention of the teaching. Deeming oneself to have attained what one has not attained is called overweening pride. For such persons, he said that severing the three poisons is called liberation. Furthermore, he secretly transforms the two vehicles to make them return to the Great Way. The two vehicles deeming themselves to have reached the ultimate when they have not reached the ultimate is itself overweening pride. For such persons, he further spoke of severing the entrenchment of ignorance and habit-energy as liberation. If there were not these conditions, the Buddha would say that the five entrenchments are themselves liberation. Question: Why did the preceding passage treat letters as liberation, while this passage explains the three poisons as liberation? Answer: Letters are external and the three poisons are internal. Bodhisattvas realize that both this inside and outside are liberation; therefore, their minds have no defilement and the flowers do not stick to their bodies. The two vehicles consider that both the outside of letters and the inside of the three poisons are not liberation; thus they do not understand liberation, are defiled by dust, and the flowers stick to their bodies, fulfilling the previous chapter. "Śāriputra said: 'Excellent, excellent! What have you attained, what have you realized, that your eloquence is like this?'" This is the third discussion, on attainment and realization. Having praised what she said as being beyond his own reach, he asks what path she has attained and what fruit she has realized that her eloquence is like this. Conditioned fruits are called attainment; unconditioned fruits are called realization. Furthermore, the contemplative mind receiving the Dharma is attainment, and being in accord with the principle is realization.