維摩經義疏 3.5.3

3.5.3

Some consider wrong views and right views to be two, and the other shore and this shore to be contradictory. Therefore, it is now explained that entering into all wrong views means wrong and right are not two, and there is no distinction between this and that. If one realizes non-dual equality, wrong views are precisely right views, and not reaching the other shore is precisely reaching it. "Dwelling in the eight difficulties, you do not attain freedom from difficulties." Having entered into wrong views, one is immediately born into the eight difficulties and does not attain a state free from difficulty. The reason for rebuking him in this way is that Subhūti considered himself to have departed from the eight difficulties: by obtaining a human body, he was free from the three evil destinies and the long-lived devas; by being born in Jambudvīpa, he was free from Northern Uttarakuru; by meeting the Buddha's era, he was free from [the times] before or after a Buddha; by attaining the right path, he was free from worldly wisdom and eloquence; and by having his six sense-faculties complete, he was free from blindness and deafness from birth. This regarded difficulties and freedom from difficulties as two. Now it is explained that thoroughly understanding the eight difficulties is precisely freedom from difficulties. Hence, currently dwelling in the eight difficulties, one neither sees difficulties nor sees freedom from difficulties; thus it says "does not attain freedom from difficulties." For one who is identical with defilements, departed from pure dharmas, entering wrong views, and residing in the eight difficulties, there is no fetter that does not arise. Since there is no fetter that does not arise, one is departed from pure dharmas. The reason for rebuking him in this way is that Subhūti considered himself different from defilements and not departed from pure dharmas. Therefore, it is now explained that the essential nature of defilements is itself the true mark. If one is identical with defilements, one is identical with the true mark; departing from pure dharmas is precisely not departing. "You attain the samādhi of non-contention, and all sentient beings also attain this samādhi." Subhūti considered that he himself attained the samādhi of non-contention while the multitudes of beings did not, wishing to use this samādhi to be a field of merit for beings. This saw self and other as two, and attaining versus not attaining as distinct. Therefore it is explained that the nature of Subhūti and that of the multitudes of beings is constantly one in itself; why would Subhūti alone attain it while the multitudes of beings do not? Hence now, not attaining is identical with attaining, attaining is identical with not attaining; attaining and not attaining are non-dual, and self and other are equal. The samādhi of non-contention generally has two aspects: first, internally according with the true mark; second, externally not going against the minds of beings. This is called non-contention. "Those who give to you are not called fields of merit; those who make offerings to you fall into the three evil destinies." This explains that the field and the non-field are non-dual, and the essential natures of the evil destinies and the good destinies have no distinction. "Joining hands with all Māras to be companions in toil, you and all Māras as well as all defilements are equal without distinction." Just as in worldly creation, when what is done is not distinct, it is called "one hand." Being of one hand, they together become companions in worldly toil; hence he is not distinct from Māra. Yet Māra is not distinct from the true mark; since one is not distinct from Māra, one is not distinct from the true mark. "Having thoughts of resentment toward all sentient beings, slandering the Buddhas, disparaging the Dharma, not entering the assembly of the Saṅgha, and ultimately never attaining extinction—if you can be like this, only then may you take the food." This explains that enemy and kin are equal, disparagement and praise are consistent, entering and leaving are without distinction, and attaining and not attaining are equalized. If one can be like this, only then may one take the food. The fourth section is finished, which is why it concludes thus. "At that time, World-Honoured One, hearing this I was bewildered, not understanding what words these were, and not knowing what to reply; I then set down my bowl and wished to leave his house." This third part explains that he left when he should not have left, which repeatedly brought about the reason for being rebuked. As for not understanding what words these were and not knowing what to reply, this may be explained provisionally on the basis of one section. For instance, Subhūti considered himself to see the Buddha and hear the Dharma, whereas Vimalakīrti said not seeing the Buddha and not hearing the Dharma. Examining his words, they seem contradictory; scrutinizing their intention, it is in great accord. The reason for this is that not seeing the Buddha is truly seeing the Buddha, while if there is a Buddha to be seen, one does not see the Buddha. Yet when Subhūti heard his words, they seemed contrary, and when he reflected on their principle, it did not seem inverted; hence he did not understand what words these were and did not know what to reply. "And as the mealtime had arrived, he then abandoned the bowl and wished to leave." Master Daosheng said: "Having suffered defeat, he was obliged to yield his bowl; hence he set it down and wished to leave." However, between Subhūti and the assembly, there were generally two differences and one commonality: the others understood his words, while Subhūti did not—this was the first difference. The others gave rise to joy when cross-examined, while Subhūti became terrified upon hearing the rebuke—this was the second difference. That none of the five hundred śrāvakas could reply was the one commonality. Question: Why did Subhūti alone incur these two faults? Answer: The five hundred arhats dared not go to Vimalakīrti's room. Subhūti considered himself to have penetrated deeply into the principle of emptiness, unobstructed in any word he encountered, and went straight to his house to beg food from him. Therefore, because the words of this passage were incisive and their purport profound, he incurred these faults. "Vimalakīrti said: 'Come now, Subhūti! Take your bowl and do not fear.'" This is the fourth part, being rebuked once again. Fearing having no reply and setting down the bowl was once again clinging to the mark of words. Now wishing to untie this obstruction of his and have him take the bowl, he first said: "Take your bowl and do not fear." "'What do you think? If an illusory person created by the Tathāgata were cross-examined with these matters, would he have any fear?' I said: 'No.' Vimalakīrti said: 'All dharmas are like phantom creations; now you should have no fear. Why is this? All spoken words do not depart from this mark.'" Vimalakīrti questioned Subhūti using phantoms, which generally involves three things: first, the listener is like an illusion; second, all dharmas are like illusions; third, spoken words are like illusions. Since you are foremost in understanding emptiness, you should know they are like illusions; when an illusion listens to an illusion, could there be any fear? "Not departing from this mark" means spoken words do not depart from the mark of illusion. "'As for the wise, they do not cling to letters, and thus have no fear. Why is this? The nature of letters is detached; there are no letters—this is liberation. The mark of liberation is all dharmas.'" The above explained that letters are like illusions; this clarifies that letters are precisely liberation, and neither should be clung to. "When Vimalakīrti spoke this Dharma, two hundred devaputras attained the purity of the Dharma-eye." This fifth part explains that the assembly present at the time attained the Way. Speaking in terms of principle, Subhūti's coming and going both propagated the Way and benefited beings. Because of his coming, the equal and unobstructed Way could be spoken, shattering the obstructive minds of the two vehicles; because of his going, the Dharma gate of phantom creation was subsequently spoken, refuting the ordinary persons' tenacious grasping at existing dharmas, causing two hundred devaputras to attain the purity of the Dharma-eye. In the initial section, the words ran counter while the principle was in accord, so the assembly at the time did not understand; in the later section, both words and principle were in accord, so upon hearing it they immediately awakened. "'Therefore, I am not competent to go there to inquire after his illness.'" This third part concludes his lack of competence.