維摩經義疏 3.3.3

3.3.3

As the later text states, 'The liberation of the Buddhas is to be sought in the sixty-two [false] views'—this serves as its proof. 'Entering nirvāṇa without extinguishing afflictions is quiet sitting.' This is the sixth, clarifying that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are non-dual. Realising that the nature of afflictions is itself nirvāṇa, one does not extinguish them before entering it. 'If one can sit like this, it is endorsed by the Buddhas.' This is the third, a general conclusion. This practice of sitting in equality does not contravene the true mark, accords with the Buddha's mind, and matches the capacity of the Great Vehicle. Possessing these three factors, it is endorsed by the Buddhas. The two vehicles do the opposite, and so are rebuked. 'At that time, World-Honoured One, having heard these words, I remained silent and was unable to make any reply.' This is the third part, explicitly showing that he was bested. The principle was beyond what he had conceived, so he did not know how to respond. 'Therefore I am not capable of going there to inquire after his illness.' There were three reasons for his incapacity; the stating and explaining having been finished, this is now the general conclusion. 'The Buddha said to Mahāmaudgalyāyana: "Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire after his illness."' Why he addressed Maudgalyāyana next: people differ in their strengths and weaknesses; Śāriputra may have momentarily failed to grasp the situation and was bested by Jingming. Though he himself could not, why should others necessarily be the same? Therefore, without dismissing him, [the Buddha] also addressed [Maudgalyāyana]. Furthermore, it fully demonstrates the height of Jingming's path and preaches the past teaching to benefit the present assembly, fully as explained before; hence he instructed him next. This section also has two parts: first, commanding him to inquire after the illness; second, declining as incapable. Maudgalyāyana is his family name; here translated as 'eating beans'. In ancient times there was an immortal who ate no other food, but fed solely on beans; this was adopted as his family name, and Maudgalyāyana was of his clan. His personal name was Kolita, which is the name of a tree deity. His family had no son, and having prayed to this deity they obtained him; hence they took it as his personal name. He was the son of the chief minister of the kingdom of Magadha in Rājagṛha. Together with Śāriputra he grew weary of the worldly life and went forth to seek the Path. Śāriputra was on the right, foremost in wisdom; Maudgalyāyana was on the left, unmatched in spiritual powers. 'Maudgalyāyana said to the Buddha: "World-Honoured One, I am not capable of going there to inquire after his illness."' This is the second part, declining as incapable. This section also has three parts: first, stating his incapacity, as in the text. '"Why is this? I remember that in the past I entered the great city of Vaiśālī and preached the Dharma to the householders in the lanes and alleys."' This is the second part, explaining his incapacity. In the text there are four points: first, setting forth the cause of his being rebuked; second, clarifying the import of the rebuke; third, the assembly at that time attaining the Path; fourth, Maudgalyāyana being bested. The householders had sharp faculties and ought to have heard that both persons and phenomena are empty in the true mark; Maudgalyāyana did not observe their faculties and preached giving and morality to them. When the householders heard it, they formed conceptions of sentient beings and clung rigidly to phenomena, resulting in two faults: first, contravening the true mark; second, failing to match their faculties. This is the cause of his being rebuked. '"Then Vimalakīrti came and said to me: 'O Mahāmaudgalyāyana! When preaching the Dharma to white-robed householders, one should not preach as you do.'"' This is the second point, recounting the import of the rebuke. In the text there are two parts: first, rebuking the preaching of the Small Vehicle; second, explaining the Mahāsattva's exposition of the teaching. 'Should not preach as you do'—'should not' means it does not appropriately correspond. There are four meanings: first, the faculties were great while the teaching was small, so it was not appropriate to the faculties. Second, the true mark has neither person nor phenomena, yet he now preached that there are persons and phenomena, so it was not appropriate to the true mark. Third, the Buddhas see both faculties and principle, yet he now contravened the principle and was blind to the faculties, so it was not appropriate to the Buddha's intent. Fourth, 'not appropriate' means not suiting their disposition and faculties. '"One who preaches the Dharma should preach it in accordance with the Dharma."' Below this is the second part, clarifying the bodhisattva's exposition of the teaching to contrast with the faults of the Small Vehicle. In the text there are five points: first, clarifying the Dharma that is expounded; second, distinguishing the method of listening and preaching; third, skillfully discerning the capacities of beings; fourth, being adept in knowledge and vision; fifth, clarifying the great purpose of preaching the teaching. A bodhisattva must possess these five gates before being capable of bestowing teachings upon beings. It is precisely with these five that he instructed that śrāvaka. The first gate has two points: first, distinguishing the emptiness of sentient beings; second, clarifying the emptiness of phenomena. However, the correct Dharma of the true mark has never been empty or existent; it is only to eliminate the sickness of existence that emptiness is preached. The principle of emptiness does not differ, yet in the minds of the deluded there is ease and difficulty. Because the mind of a sentient being is a composite taken as an entity, the fact that it is not real is easy to understand, and therefore it is explained first. [Phenomena] seem not to depend on a confluence of conditions, and this is difficult to dismantle; therefore it is explained later. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Sentient beings are produced from sentiments, and cannot be grasped. Ordinary beings falsely consider them to be existent, so they are easily dispelled. Phenomena are seen and heard by eye and ear, and these are difficult to dismantle.' Therefore, the emptiness of sentient beings is explained first, and the emptiness of phenomena is distinguished later. '"The Dharma is devoid of sentient beings, because it is free from the defilement of sentient beings."' 'Sentient beings' refers to that which is produced from the confluence of things such as the aggregates, realms, and sense-bases, which the mind takes to be a single ruling master. 'The Dharma' is the Dharma of the true mark. The Dharma of the true mark is fundamentally devoid of sentient beings; if one sees sentient beings as existing, this contravenes the true mark, and is therefore called a 'defilement'. If one awakens to the true mark, that defilement naturally departs. '"The Dharma is devoid of a self, because it is free from the defilement of a self."' 'Self' has the meaning of autonomy; the Dharma of the true mark is devoid of this self. '"The Dharma is devoid of a life span, because it is free from birth-and-death."' The continuity of matter and mind is called 'life'; their continuity for a hundred years, experienced for a long time, is called 'span'. Non-Buddhists postulate that this life span exists apart from phenomena, and so name it 'one with a life span' (āyusmat) or 'living being' (jīva). Birth is the beginning of a life span, and death is the end of a life span; since there is no birth-and-death, how could there be a life span? The reason it does not say 'devoid of a life span' but says 'free from birth-and-death' is that birth-and-death are the beginning and end of life; once the beginning and end are parted from, the life span is absent. Furthermore, a life span is what people cherish; if they hear of being parted from it, they will surely not delight in birth; death is what people hate; if they hear of being parted from it, they will surely rejoice and practice it. '"The Dharma is devoid of a person, because the prior and posterior limits are cut off."' The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Because one practices the human way, one is called a person. Thus one has a spirit, distinct from grass and trees.' Practicing causes and receiving effects, cycling through birth-and-death without ever decaying or perishing, non-Buddhists therefore deem it eternal. Since the prior limit is cut off, there is no person who creates causes; since the posterior limit is also cut off, there is no person who receives effects; hence it is said, 'The Dharma is devoid of a person, because the prior and posterior limits are cut off.' '"The Dharma is ever-quiescent, because it extinguishes all marks."' The preceding four phrases clarified the emptiness of sentient beings. The twenty-six phrases below clarify the emptiness of phenomena. Because the emptiness of sentient beings is easy, it is briefly stated; because the emptiness of phenomena is difficult, it is broadly clarified. If one transcends the provisional by means of the real, and transcends the real by means of the empty, as stated in the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, that is not 'ever-quiescent'; because its original nature is pure, it is called 'ever-quiescent'.