維摩經義疏 3.5.1

3.5.1

"The Buddha told Subhūti: 'Go to Vimalakīrti to inquire after his illness.'" This is the fourth [instruction], commanding Subhūti. In the text there are two parts: first the command, next declining as unfit. "Subhūti" is translated here as "Born of Emptiness" (Kongsheng); he was also named "Auspicious Goodness" (Shanji). Because at the time of his birth all the treasures and various items in his house became completely empty, he was named "Born of Emptiness." His parents, considering this an ill omen, summoned a diviner to question him. The diviner said, "It is solely good, solely auspicious," hence he was called "Auspicious Goodness." By tradition, a sūtra states that Subhūti was originally Buddha Qinglongtuo (Candraprabha/Nīlarāja?) of the eastern world, who manifested an echo[-body] in Śākyamuni's presence as a disciple. However, among the five hundred [arhats], their virtues were not all-encompassing; each had a partial capability, yet was acclaimed as foremost. Shanji and the others, when offerings were made to them, could bring about immediate karmic retribution in the present life. Having such distinct virtues, they were known as the four great śrāvakas. "Subhūti said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! I am not fit to go there to inquire after his illness.'" This is the second part, declining as unfit. In the text there are also three parts: stating, explaining, and concluding. This is the first, stating it. "'Why is this? I recall that in the past I entered his house to beg for food from him.'" This is the second, explaining his unfitness. In the text there are five parts: first, explaining how he came when he should not have come, which was the reason for being rebuked; second, elucidating the intent of the rebuker; third, explaining how he left when he should not have left, again explaining the reason for being rebuked; fourth, again elucidating the intent of the rebuker; fifth, the assembly at that time attaining the Way. This is the first text. The reasons Shanji entered Jingming's house are two: First, Kāśyapa abandoned the rich and went to the poor, while Shanji abandoned the poor and went to the rich; both went against the path of equality, so both were rebuked. The reason he abandoned the poor to beg from the rich was that the wealthy and noble are arrogant and indulgent, giving no thought to impermanence; though they are pleased now, they will surely suffer poverty in the future. Pitying their confusion, he proceeded to beg food from them. Because he was not permitted to skip households, he entered his house in regular order, and was therefore rebuked. Second, the layman's virtue was profound and far-reaching, his speech never missing the opportune moment; among the five hundred arhats, none dared peek into his courtyard. Shanji considered himself to have deeply penetrated the principle of emptiness, being unimpeded whenever words were encountered, so he went directly to his house to beg food from him. However, when he entered contemplation, his mind conformed to the marks of phenomena; but when he emerged into the worldly, his feelings turned with circumstances. His incurring fault and suffering humiliation truly stemmed from this. "'At that time Vimalakīrti took my bowl and filled it with rice.'" This is the second part, elucidating the intent of the rebuker. In the text there are four parts: First, with respect to the approach of equality regarding food, rebuking his inequality regarding food. From "without cutting off lust, anger, and delusion" onward, second, with respect to the approach of equality between understanding and delusion, rebuking his inequality between understanding and delusion. From "not seeing the Buddha" onward, third, with respect to the approach of equality between internal and external, rebuking his inequality between internal and external. From "if Subhūti enters all false views" onward, fourth, with respect to the approach of equality between false and right, rebuking his inequality between false and right. How do we know there are four approaches? Because the concluding line later says, "then you may take this food." As for the sequence of the four approaches: at first he was just begging food, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality regarding food. If one severs delusion and attains understanding, one is worthy of being a field of merit; yet understanding and delusion would then be unequal, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality between understanding and delusion. When delusion is extinguished and understanding arises, one still sees the Buddha and hears the Dharma. Not planting [roots of virtue] with outsiders, one then regards internal and external as two, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality between internal and external. Still being planted in a Buddha's age, parting from those false conditions and possessing all merits, one then regards false and right as conflicting, so he rebuked him with respect to the approach of equality between false and right. This is the first approach. As for taking the bowl, filling it with rice, and then rebuking him: if he left the bowl empty, the layman would be suspected of stinginess; if he handed over the bowl, he feared [Subhūti] would carry it away, not exhausting the momentum of the discourse. Moreover, with an empty bowl a discourse could not be generated; handing it over would preclude discourse. Furthermore, not leaving the bowl empty clarifies that the bodhisattva is the donor; not giving the bowl clarifies that the two vehicles are not fields of merit. "'He said to me: "Ah, Subhūti! If you can be equal with respect to food, all phenomena are also equal; if all phenomena are equal, you are also equal with respect to food. Begging in this manner, then you may take this food."'" Being equal with respect to food means making the exquisite food of the rich equal to the filthy scraps of poor households. If one can be equal regarding this coarse and fine food, then one is also equal regarding all phenomena. If one can realize that the myriad phenomena are all equal, then one can also be equal regarding food. Attaining this mind of equality, one is then a field of merit and may take the food. If so, one should not abandon the poor and go to the rich. If one abandons the poor and goes to the rich, then one is not equal regarding food; then there is no equality, one is not a field of merit, and one should not take the food. Thus, whether advancing or retreating, he had no reply. "'If Subhūti does not cut off lust, anger, and delusion, nor dwell together with them.'" This is the second, rebuking him with respect to the approach of equality between understanding and delusion. What Shanji spoke of had only two tracks: first, cutting off the three poisons; second, dwelling together with them, meaning the ordinary person. Cutting off the three poisons is the two vehicles. Now, hearing "neither cutting off nor dwelling together with," the principle was beyond his expectation, so he was bewildered and did not understand. The Mahāsattva realizes that the three poisons originally do not exist, and therefore does not dwell together with them; now they are also not non-existent, which is called "not cutting off." Moreover, if the three poisons existed, they could be cut off or dwelt together with. If the non-nature is not two, what is there to dwell together with or cut off? Again, if the three poisons belonged to a person, one could discuss dwelling together or cutting off; since in the end there is no person, who dwells together with or cuts them off? Again, if the three poisons belonged to the mind, one could discuss dwelling together or cutting off; but seeking their belonging has no basis, so the meaning of cutting off and dwelling together is dissolved. This is fully explained as in the *Madhyamaka-śāstra* (*Zhengguan lun*). "'Not destroying the body, yet conforming to the single characteristic'—the preceding related to nirvāṇa with remainder, while this pertains to nirvāṇa without remainder. Adherents of the Hīnayāna say that one destroys the body of the five aggregates, and only then conforms to the single characteristic of nirvāṇa. Here it is explained that the body is itself the single characteristic, not waiting to be destroyed before conforming. Moreover, the preceding was based on afflictions, while this pertains to the karmic retribution obstacle; the intention of the rebuke is the same as before. "'Not extinguishing ignorance and craving, yet generating clarity and liberation.'" The body originally arises from ignorance and craving, hence this is stated next. As the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "The fundamental origins of saṃsāra are of two kinds: first, ignorance; second, craving for existence." Adherents of the Hīnayāna say that because ignorance obstructs wisdom, one extinguishes ignorance to attain clarity; because craving binds the mind, when craving is dissolved the mind is liberated. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "Clarity and ignorance—the foolish consider them two." The Mahāsattva contemplates that ignorance and craving are themselves clarity and liberation; he does not wait to extinguish ignorance and craving to generate clarity and liberation. Therefore the wise realize that their nature is not two; the non-dual nature is indeed the true nature. Question: What kind of clarity and liberation are these? Answer: The clarity of the destruction of outflows among the three clarities. It is the severing of delusions of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, the ninth liberation among the nine liberations.